This is a repository copy of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain.
White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/73358/
Version: Published Version
Monograph:
Gordon, D, Adelman, L, Ashworth, K et al. (8 more authors) (2000) Poverty and Social
Exclusion in Britain. Research Report. Joseph Rowntree Foundation , York.

Reuse
Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unlessindicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted bynational copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of
the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record
for the item.
Takedown
If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us byemailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.

eprints@whiterose.ac.uk
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/

Poverty andsocial exclusion
in Britain

David Gordon, Ruth Levitas, Christina Pantazis, Demi Patsios, Sarah Payne, Peter Townsend
Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research, University of Bristol

Laura Adelman, Karl Ashworth, Sue Middleton
Centre for Research in Social Policy, Loughborough University

Jonathan Bradshaw, Julie Williams
Social Policy Research Unit, University of YorkJRJOSEPHROWNTREEF O U N D AT I O NThe Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported thisproject as part of its programme of research anddevelopment projects, which it hopes will be of value
to policy makers, practitioners and service users. The
facts presented and views expressed in this report,
however, are those of the authors and not necessarily
those of the Foundation.
© Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2000
All rights reserved
Published by
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
The Homestead
40 Water End
York YO30 6WP
www.jrf.org.uk
ISBN 1 85935 059 3
Price £15.95
Designed by Adkins Design
Printed by Colorworks Ltd

Printed on recycled paper

Contents

Acknowledgements

4

Foreword

4

1 Introduction

7

2 Adult poverty in Britain

13

3 Child poverty in Britain

32

4 The growth of poverty in Britain

43

5 Social exclusion in Britain

54

6 Conclusions

68

Appendix 1: Measures of poverty

72

Appendix 2: Defining the objective scientific poverty line

76

Appendix 3: Creation of the child deprivation index

80

Appendix 4: The 1999 Poverty and Social Exclusion
Survey of Britain: Technical report85

Appendix 5: List of Poverty and Social Exclusion
Survey of Britain working papers

92

Appendix 6: Contact details for the lead researchers

94

Glossary

95

Bibliography96

Acknowledgements

The Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey of Britain

Rowlands and June Bowman at the Office for(PSE) was undertaken by the Office for National

National Statistics, Richard Berthoud and Jonathan

Statistics in 1999 as a follow-up survey of a sample ofGershuny at the University of Essex, Rick Davies of

respondents to the 1998/99 General Household

Swansea University and Michael Bitman at theSurvey. The questionnaire was derived from a review

University of New South Wales for their helpfulof the best social surveys from around the world. It

advice. We would also like to thank Brian Gosschalk,builds on over one hundred years of experience inMark Speed and Sarah Birtles from MORI for their

the social sciences in Britain in the scientific study ofhelpful comments and their work on the preparatory

poverty. The authors acknowledge the contribution

stages of this research. We would like to thank Roger

made to this research from the following sources andBullock for making the facilities of the Dartington

surveys:Social Research Unit available.

Breadline Britain in the 1990s, British Crime

Helen Anderson edited, typed and formatted theSurvey, British Household Panel Survey,

original manuscript.

British Social Attitudes, Canadian GeneralSocial Survey, Disability Discrimination Act

We would like to thank Barbara Ballard and Dominic

Baseline Survey, Eurobarometer, European

Hurley from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation forCommunity Household Panel Survey,

their advice, encouragement and support throughout

EuroQol 5D, General Household Survey,

this project and Donald Hirsch for his editing work.

GHQ12, Harmonised Question Set, Health

Finally, we would like to thank the members of theSurvey of England, Living in Ireland Survey,

Advisory Committee for their helpful support.

Living in Britain Survey, Lorraine Panel
Survey, MORI Omnibus, Poor Wales, Poverty

The following authors contributed to this report:

in the United Kingdom, Small Fortunes:

Chapter 1 - Peter Townsend and David Gordon;

National Survey of the Lifestyles and Living

Chapter 2 - Jonathan Bradshaw and Julie Williams;

Standards of Children, Survey of English

Chapter 3 - Laura Adelman, Karl Ashworth and Sue

Housing and the Swedish Living Conditions

Middleton;

Survey.

Chapter 4 - David Gordon;
Chapter 5 - Ruth Levitas, Christina Pantanzis, DemiThe survey, Breadline Britain in the 1990s, wasPatsios and Peter Townsend.

funded by London Weekend Television (LWT) withadditional funding from the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation and was carried out by Marketing andOpinion Research International (MORI). It wasconceived and designed by Joanna Mack and Stewart
Lansley for Domino Films, with the help of Brian
Gosschalk of MORI.
We would like to thank Björn Halleröd of the
University of Umeå, Tony Manners, Dave Elliot,
Linda Murgatroyd, Jo Maher, Ann Bridgwood, Olwen

4

Foreword

This report presents the initial findings from thesterile arguments about whether we should be

most comprehensive survey of poverty and social

concerned with absolute or relative poverty. This is

exclusion ever undertaken in Britain. The study

an absolute measure in the sense that it is concerned

was undertaken by researchers at four universities

with the possession or otherwise of particular goods

and the fieldwork was conducted during 1999 by

and services, but it is relative in the sense that thethe Office for National Statistics. The main part ofgoods and services included reflect the population’s

the fieldwork, conducted during September/Octoberjudgement on what it is essential to have in Britain

1999, was a follow-up survey of a sub-sample oftoday.

respondents to the 1998/99 General Household
Survey.

Clearly we need to get beyond arguments about
definitions and into understandings of the nature of

It is particularly important at this time to create apoverty and deprivation that can contribute to betterbase line understanding of the nature of poverty andpolicies. This study begins this process. It showssocial exclusion. On any measure, poverty at thethat the proportion of households living in poverty

turn of the new millennium remains one of thein terms of both low income and multiple

greatest social problems challenging Britain, anddeprivation of necessities has increased from 14 per

reducing social exclusion is at the heart ofcent in 1983 to 21 per cent in 1990 to over 24 per

Government policy. The current Government hascent in 1999. Thus about a quarter of people indeclared its determination to eradicate child poverty,

Britain are deprived on this measure, despite theand the UK has an international commitmenthuge increase in affluence seen over the last two

substantially to reduce poverty over the coming

decades.

years. We very much hope that the Office for
National Statistics will be able to use the approach of

There is a great deal of data to be mined from this

this project in future surveys to measure progress insurvey, including, but going beyond that contained

these areas.

in this report. This data can inform policies aimed at
reducing the extent of poverty and social exclusion.

The method used in this survey echoes, but extends,

Further working papers and a book will be produced

the approach used in the Breadline Britain Surveys ofby the project team over the coming months and we

1983 and 1990. This survey measures poverty inhope that others will also use the rich information

terms of deprivation from goods, services andthat is available.

activities which the majority of the population
defines as being the necessities of modern life.

Sir Peter Barclay

Income and employment data are incomplete proxies

Chair, Joseph Rowntree Foundation

for measuring poverty and inclusion and policymakers will need to be cautious in theirinterpretation.
The data in this study will add immeasurably to ourunderstanding of the nature of poverty and social
exclusion in Britain. We hope that measuring
deprivation in this way will also get us beyond the51

Introduction

The present British Government is committed tosocial exclusion. The new survey is called thetackling poverty, and to abolishing child poverty in

Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey of Britain (PSE).

20 years.1 If they are to succeed in these objectives

Its results show how both the perception ofthen good and up-to-date research on poverty andnecessities and the level of poverty have evolved insocial exclusion, as well as more exact measures ofthe last 20 years. It starts to develop ways oftrends and causes, is required. Unfortunately, in themeasuring social exclusion, and also includes

last 20 years there has been very little such research.

measures that are compatible with international

The research that forms the basis of this report isstandards for measuring poverty.

intended to serve three purposes:
This introductory chapter discusses the context of•

to re-establish the long national tradition of

the PSE survey: the current levels of poverty ininvestigating and measuring the scale andBritain, the ways in which poverty is defined, andseverity of poverty;

the ways it can be measured. It then gives an
overview of the approach taken in this survey. The•

to extend this tradition to the modern

following chapters look at four principal features ofinvestigation of social exclusion so that for thethe results:

first time the relationship between poverty andsocial exclusion can be examined in depth;•

the number of adults who are living in poverty,
and some of their characteristics (Chapter 2);•

to contribute to the cross-national investigationof these phenomena, as Britain agreed to do at•

the number of children who are living in

the World Summit for Social Development inpoverty, their characteristics and those of their

1995 (UN, 1995).

households (Chapter 3);

In 1998 and 1999, a team from four universities•

joined with the Office for National Statistics totrends over time in poverty among children andadults (Chapter 4);

undertake a survey of poverty and social exclusion,using data from the government’s General•

Household Survey (GHS) and from its Omnibus

the number of people who are socially excluded
according to various measures (Chapter 5).

Survey, and interviewing in more detail a sub-sampleof the GHS. This major investigation originated as a

Chapter 6 summarises and draws conclusions fromfollow-up of two earlier surveys of Breadline Britain,these findings.

2

which measured the number of people who werepoor in terms of being unable to afford items that

The PSE survey has provided a wealth of new data

the majority of the general public considered to be

and many working papers have been written and arebasic necessities of life. The new survey used astill being prepared. This report is an initial analysis

similar method to measure poverty in terms of

to put the main headline results and conclusions

socially perceived necessities and added questions

from the work into the public domain. A full list of

relating to other measures of poverty and also to

working papers is in Appendix 5.

7

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Current poverty levels according
to published government data

In the first two years of the new Government (19978 and 1998-9), the disposable incomes of thepoorest and richest decile groups were still edging

The levels of both adult and childhood poverty inapart (CSO and ONS, 1996-7, 1997-8 and 1998-9,

relative terms in the UK grew during the 1980s andTable 8.3 and see also similar data for quintiles in

1990s, reflecting the growth of inequality of income

ONS 1998, 1999 and 2000). Neither the total

which was "exceptional compared with international

number of people nor the number of children

trends" (Hills, 1998, p5). The latest figures show thatliving in households with below half average

there were 14.3 million people in the UK living inincomes changed significantly between 1996-7 andhouseholds with less than half average household

1997-8 (Howarth et al., 1999, pp12, 26). However,income in 1998-9 (see Figure 1). This represented a

the number of children increased slightly fromthreefold increase in both the number and the

4.4 to 4.5 million between 1997-8 and 1998-9 (DSS,

proportion of people in relative poverty between

2000, p199). Evidence of the arrest or reversal of

1979 and 1998-9 (DSS, 2000). The number ofthe divergent trend, while eagerly awaited, is notchildren in households at below half average income

yet showing up in published survey data.

had grown from 1.4m to 4.4m and, by the mid-

How poverty is defined andmeasured

1990s, the UK’s child poverty rate was the third
highest of the 25 nations for whom information wasavailable (see, for example, Bradshaw, 1999; Bradbury
and Jantii, 1999; Piachaud and Sutherland, 2000;

Definitions of poverty

UNICEF, 2000).

The picture of poverty presented above is based only
on one possible definition: the number of people

The change, relative to average household income,with incomes below an arbitrary percentage of thehas been pronounced at the top as well as at the

average. The definition is convenient tobottom of the income scale. Between 1979 andgovernments and international agencies because it is1994-5, the incomes of the richest tenth of the

fairly easy to estimate in several countries. However,

population grew by 68 per cent, while those of theas explained below, it is not scientifically based: that

poorest grew only 10 per cent, before housing costs,

is, it is not based on independent criteria ofand fell 8 per cent after housing costs (Hills, 1998,

deprivation or disadvantage; it does not relate to thep5; see also Hills, 1995 and 1996).

needs of individuals, or to any agreed definition of

Figure 1: Per cent and number of individuals in households, including self-employed 1998/9,
with below half average income after housing costs (Britain 1979 to 1998/9)30

30
Percentage
25

Millions

20

20

15

15

10

10

5

5

0

1979

1981

1987

1988/91990/1

1991/2

1992/3

1993/4

1994/5

1995/6

1996/7

1997/8

1998/9Source: DSS, 1999a, p172; DSS, 2000, p205, as kindly amended by DSS statisticians, at our request, so that the data apply throughout theseries only to the population of Britain. The FRS covers a larger representative sample of the population. It will be seen that during the twooverlapping yearsof the two surveys FRS estimated numbers were slightly larger in the first year but smaller in the second year.

80Millions

Per cent

25

INTRODUCTION

what it is to be poor. As in the cases of radiation,

to identify income levels, below which there is adifferent forms of pollution and global warming,

statistically enhanced risk of incurring multiple

there is a real need to develop acceptable thresholds

forms of deprivation. The PSE survey attempts to dothat lead to significant increases in risk or harm.

this. It also asked questions relating to the

The income threshold for different types ofinternationally agreed UN definitions of poverty as

household that marks the ‘poverty line’ thus needs

shown in the box below.

International definitions ofpoverty
Many research studies of poverty throughout thetwentieth century illustrate an ongoing struggle toextricate the concept of poverty from political ideology
and to widen scientific perspectives from narrowconcern with the physical and nutritional needs ofhuman beings to include their complex social needs.
Part of that struggle has been to find measures bywhich to compare conditions in different countries, andespecially conditions in rich and poor countries, so thatpriorities might be more securely established.
At the political level, there is some movement towards
agreed definitions of poverty across countries. The
United Kingdom has no official definition, and Ministers
often define poverty in terms of "knowing it when theysee it". But the Government has signed treaties andagreements at the European level that define poverty interms of having insufficient resources to participate in a"minimum acceptable way of life" (EEC, 1981, 1985),
even though the EU has reverted on occasions to therelative income standard – that is, the number andpercentage of population with less than half, or a smalleror larger fraction of, average household income.3

After the Copenhagen summit in 1995, 117 countries
including the UK committed themselves to eradicating‘absolute’ and reducing ‘overall’ poverty and to drawing
up national poverty-alleviation plans (UN, 1995).
Absolute poverty is defined in terms of severe
deprivation of basic human needs. Overall poverty is a
wider measure, including not just lack of access tobasics but also lack of participation in decision-making
and in civil and to social and cultural life:
Absolute poverty:"a condition characterised by severe deprivation ofbasic human needs, including food, safe drinking
water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter,
education and information. It depends not only on
income but also on access to services." (UN,
1995, p57)
Overall poverty can take various forms including:"lack of income and productive resources to ensuresustainable livelihoods; hunger and malnutrition; ill
health; limited or lack of access to education andother basic services; increased morbidity andmortality from illness; homelessness andinadequate housing; unsafe environments andsocial discrimination and exclusion. It is alsocharacterised by lack of participation in decisionmaking and in civil, social and cultural life. It
occurs in all countries: as mass poverty in many
developing countries, pockets of poverty amid
wealth in developed countries, loss of livelihoods asa result of economic recession, sudden poverty asa result of disaster or conflict, the poverty of lowwage workers, and the utter destitution of people
who fall outside family support systems, social
institutions and safety nets." (ibid., p57)

An international agreement at the Copenhagen World
Summit on Social Development in 1995 was somethingof a breakthrough. By recommending a two-tiermeasure of ‘absolute’ and ‘overall’ poverty to be applied
to every country, a means was found of bringing all
governments together in common purpose. An
opportunity was created of exploring the severity ofpoverty according to standards that seemed to be
acceptable everywhere. Even countries where it was
assumed absolute poverty no longer existed found it
easier to accept an international two-tier approach that
self-evidently included their own conditions.

9POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Operationalising the definitions: measuring poverty

Britain surveys – which had been carried out in 1983

There are a variety of approaches to measuring

and 1990 (Mack and Lansley, 1985; Gordon andpoverty, outlined in Appendix 1. Simple measures ofPantazis, 1997). The 1999 PSE survey usespoverty look only at relative income, but agreed

comparable methods based on identifying the items

international definitions of poverty described in thethat a majority of the population perceive as

box on page 9 relate not just to how much money

necessary, so that the trends spanning nearly two

people have, but to whether it is enough for them todecades can be described and analysed. How themaintain a minimum acceptable way of life. Cashsurvey approached the measurement of poverty on

income is a key factor, but is not the only indicator

this basis is outlined in the box below.

of people’s access to goods and services. For
example, possession of certain kinds of assets is

The PSE survey approach tomeasuring poverty

equivalent to additional income; by adding topeople’s resources, it raises their living standards andtheir access to goods and services. Budget standards,

The survey’s main task was to produce a measure ofpoverty based on socially perceived necessities and ascientific definition of deprivation.

defining the income needed to buy a basket of basic
goods, have a closer relationship to the ability ofpeople to purchase basic items. However, they do
not encompass all elements that comprise a standard

This was achieved in three steps, which combinedsocial consensus in determining what should beconsidered as necessities with scientific methods ofusing this information to define poverty.

of living. Two ways of measuring low standards ofliving are by looking at consumption expenditure orusing deprivation indices, based on items that people
are deprived of because they cannot afford them.
The latter are more accurate, since they give aFirst, a representative sample of the public wereasked to indicate which items in a long list ofordinary household goods and activities they thought
were necessities that no household or family should
be without in British society.

broader picture than simply what is being spent on
consumer goods at a moment in time, and it is thisapproach that the PSE survey takes.
The PSE survey (described in the following section)
makes major use of income data from the GHS but

Second, a representative sample were asked which
items they already had and which they wanted but
could not afford. Items defined as necessities bymore than 50 per cent of the population but whichwere lacked because of a shortage of money werethen used to determine deprivation.

measures poverty in terms of both deprivation andincome level: whether people lack items that the
majority of the population perceive to be necessities,
and whether they have incomes too low to afford
them. As well as measuring poverty in these twoways, the survey collected data relating to the UN
definitions of poverty as described in the box on

Third, a poverty threshold was calculated. The
theoretical approach is summarised in Figure 2. Here,individuals are scattered on the chart according totheir levels of income and living standard (which canbe thought of as the converse to the level ofdeprivation). This is illustrated in Figure 2 by a clusterof individuals with high levels of both and a clusterwith low levels of both. Fewer individuals have a highstandard of living and a low income (i.e. top left of
Figure 2) and few have a high income and low
standard of living (i.e. bottom right of Figure 2). The
optimum poverty threshold is set where statistically

page 9 and data that can help assess whether
individuals are socially excluded. The report thus
brings together information using a variety ofpoverty measures, but its main data are derived fromthe investigation of socially perceived necessities.

The 1999 Poverty and Social
Exclusion Survey of Britain (PSE
survey)The research was designed initially to replicate two
previous national surveys - known as the Breadline

10INTRODUCTION

it maximises the differences between ‘poor’ and ‘notpoor’, and minimises the differences within thesegroups. This involved looking at people’s incomes aswell as their deprivation levels. Figure 2 thus illustrates
how this approach aims to identify poverty as ascientific phenomenon rather than just drawing an
arbitrary line.
The methodology thus combines a representative
popular basis for agreeing what are necessities, with ascientific basis for establishing a level of poverty.
Appendix 2 sets out precisely how information onwhether people can afford socially perceived
necessities, together with information about theirincomes, was used to calculate a poverty threshold.
This is a particularly powerful approach because:•

it incorporates the views of members of the public,
rather than judgements by social scientists, about
necessary items; and•the level of deprivation that constitutes poverty isbased on a scientific calculation, not an arbitrary
decision.

Figure 2: Setting a poverty thresholdHigh
Not poor
Poor
Poverty threshold
set too highStandard of living

Optimal position of
the poverty threshold

Poverty threshold
set too low

Low
Low income

In addition to this, the survey did two other things.

High income

literature and instruments for measuring bothpoverty and social exclusion. In addition, a series of

It used a measure of subjectively assessed poverty togroup discussions were held to:estimate how much money would be needed to
avoid absolute and overall poverty as defined at the•

Copenhagen summit (see above). This involved

explore how people defined poverty and social
exclusion;asking people what they considered to be theminimum income enabling them to rise above these•two poverty levels and whether their own incomesdevelop and test new indicators of poverty andsocial exclusion.

exceeded these levels.
As discussed in Chapter 5, social exclusion was
The survey also made an attempt to measure social

looked at in four dimensions – impoverishment,

exclusion. An extensive programme of development

labour market exclusion, service exclusion, andwork was supported by the Joseph Rowntree

exclusion from social relations. By putting

Foundation that included reviews of the available

considerable emphasis on social relations and social

11

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

participation, the survey differs from most analysis,

Data collection

which has focused on low income, lack of work andarea deprivation. This has largely been necessitated

The research was carried out jointly by a group of
researchers from four universities (York, Bristol,
Loughborough and Heriot-Watt) and the Office for
National Statistics (ONS). It used three sets of data:by a lack of data on social relations. The PSE survey
provides an unprecedented opportunity to look atsocial isolation and lack of participation, which may
correlate with or be caused by low income, nonengagement in the labour market and service
exclusion, but is not defined by these. The

1

The General Household Survey (GHS) of 1998-9
provided income and socio-demographic data
and the basis for selecting participants in (3)below.

2

The ONS Omnibus Survey of June 1999 included
questions designed as part of this survey, asking
members of the public about items they
considered to be necessities.

3

A follow-up sub-sample survey of the GHS in
September/October 1999 looked at how many
people cannot afford the items identified asnecessities and also looked at both poverty andsocial exclusion in greater depth.

preliminary analysis presented in this report looks
separately at each of the four dimensions of social
exclusion; future analysis will look at the correlation
between different dimensions.

Notes
1

See, for example, the Prime Minister’s Beveridge Lecture on
18 March 1999 (Blair, 1999). In the 1999 pre-budget report,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government’s
aim to halve child poverty "by the end of the next decade".

2

The first of these surveys was called "Poor Britain" and thesecond "Breadline Britain" but their similarity has led to them

In developing the survey, some of the new andrevised questions were also piloted in a regularomnibus survey carried out by MORI in July 1998. A
full report of the development work can be found in
Bradshaw et al., 1998.

being referred to collectively as the Breadline Britain surveys.

3

In 1975, the Council of Europe adopted a relative definition ofpoverty as: "individuals or families whose resources are so small
as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life of
the Member State in which they live” (EEC, 1981). The

Appendix 4 gives further details of the data collection
methodology. This combination of sources brought
together an unprecedented level of information on anationally representative population in a single data set.

concept of ‘resources’ was defined as: "goods, cash income, plus
services from public and private resources" (EEC, 1981). On
19 December 1984, the European Commission extended thedefinition: "the poor shall be taken to mean persons, families
and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural andsocial) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum
acceptable way of life in the Member State in which they live"(EEC, 1985). According to UNICEF, this definition “is today themost commonly used definition in the industrialised world”
though “for practical purposes” it is usually interpreted as“those whose incomes fall below half of average income”(UNICEF, 2000, p6).

122Adult poverty in Britain

How many adults in Britain are poor and what area dishwasher, a mobile phone, Internet access ortheir characteristics? This chapter answers thissatellite television as necessary. Because goods

question mainly by assessing who can be defined as

introduced into the market often start as luxuries

poor based on whether they can afford socially

and, in later years, become necessities, we wereperceived necessities. In the final section, it also

anxious to test opinion about certain items thatlooks at how many people define themselves as poor.

today are still only accessed by a minority.

The analysis starts off, in the following section, by

As in the previous Breadline Britain surveys, items

looking at how many adults cannot afford things

attracting 50 per cent or more support from thethat are considered by the majority of the general

population, a ‘democratic’ majority, were consideredpublic to be necessary items. Second, it calculates

as socially perceived necessities for the purposes of

how many can be considered poor on the basis offurther analysis. In 1999, 35 of the 54 items in the

being deprived of these items. The chapter’s third

adult list (Table 1) satisfied this criterion. This issection examines a wide range of social andimportant evidence that can help resolve public

economic characteristics of people who are classified

debate about what are and what are not theas poor in these terms. The fourth section goes on tonecessities of modern life. It also opens the way tolook at their attitudes and experiences – including

searching investigation of the circumstances of thosethe extent to which those defined by society as poor

who lack a number or many of these necessities and(or not) actually feel poor themselves. The final

particularly of those who identify them assection looks separately and in more detail at thisnecessities but do not have them and/or say they

‘subjective’ poverty, by measuring people’s incomescannot afford them.

against what they think is necessary to escapepoverty according to three alternative definitions.

The method used to define thenecessities of life and how many
people lack them

What items constitute thenecessities of modern life?

The first stage of the research was to ask membersof the general public about what items and activities
they consider to define the living standards thateveryone in Britain ought to be able to reach. The
Office for National Statistics Omnibus Survey, in June
1999, asked a representative sample of people aged
16 and over to classify various items and activities.
They had to sort cards containing 39 items and 15
activities relating to households, and 23 items andseven activities relating to children, into one of two
categories. They were asked:

What does a representative sample of the population
believe to be the basic necessities of modern life?
And how many people say they are unable to afford
them?
Table 1 (page 14) ranks the percentage of
respondents identifying different adult items as‘necessary’ in 1999. Over 90 per cent of the
population in each case perceive ‘beds and bedding
for everyone’, ‘heating to warm living areas of thehome’, a ‘damp-free home’, ‘visiting friends or family
in hospital’ and ‘medicines prescribed by doctor’ as"I would like you to indicate the living standards
you feel all adults (and children) should have initems which adults should have in Britain. By
contrast, less than 10 per cent of the population sees

13

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Britain today. Box A is for items which you think
are necessary, which all adults should be able toafford and which they should not have to dowithout. Box B is for items which may bedesirable but are not necessary."

Having established, from the Omnibus Survey, which
items more than 50 per cent of the populationconsidered necessary, the main PSE survey, carried out
later in 1999, sought to establish which sections of the
population have these necessities and which sections
cannot afford them. Respondents were asked:

This approach extended the methodology of the 1983
and 1990 Breadline Britain studies by adding items to
the list of indicators of necessities – prompted partly byintervening research into social conditions, consumer
behaviour and household interaction. The additionalquestions are to do mainly with goods and activities
that are particularly relevant to children (see the next
chapter) but also with social activities (which wererelatively few in number in the first two surveys).

"Now I’d like to show you a list of items andactivities that relate to our standard of living.
Please tell me which item you have or do not haveby placing the cards on: Pile A for the items you
have; Pile B for items you don’t have but don’t
want; and Pile C for items you do not have andcan’t afford."

Table 1: Perception of adult necessities and how many people lackthem (all figures show % of adult population)
Omnibus Survey:
items considered

Beds and bedding for everyone
Heating to warm living areas of the homeDamp-free home
Visiting friends or family in hospital
Two meals a day
Medicines prescribed by doctor
Refrigerator
Fresh fruit and vegetables daily
Warm, waterproof coat
Replace or repair broken electrical goods
Visits to friends or family
Celebrations on special occasions suchas Christmas
Money to keep home in a decent stateof decoration
Visits to school, e.g. sports day
Attending weddings, funerals
Meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent
every other day
Insurance of contents of dwelling
Hobby or leisure activity
Washing machineCollect children from school

Necessary

Not necessary(%)

Main stage survey:
items that respondents(%)

Don’t have,
don’t want(%)

Don’t have,
can’t afford
(%)

95
94
93
92
91
90
89
86
85
85
84

4
5
6
7
9
9
11
13
14
14
15

0.2
0.4
3
8
3
5
1
7
2
6
3

1
1
6
3
1
1
0.1
4
4
12
2

83

16

2

2

82
81
80

17
17
19

2
33
3

14
2
3

79
79
78
76
75

19
20
20
22
23

4
5
12
3
36

3
8
7
1
2

14

ADULT POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Table 1 Continued
Omnibus Survey:
items considered
Necessary

Not necessary(%)

Main stage survey:
items that respondents(%)

Don’t have,
don’t want(%)

Don’t have,
can’t afford
(%)

71
69
68
67

28
28
30
31

1
13
3
2

1
4
2
3

66
64
64

32
34
34

7
4
10

25
5
6

Telephone
Appropriate clothes for job interviews
Deep freezer/fridge freezer
Carpets in living rooms and bedrooms
Regular savings (of £10 per month)
for rainy days or retirement
Two pairs of all-weather shoes
Friends or family round for a meal
A small amount of money to spend
on self weekly not on family
Television
Roast joint/vegetarian equivalent once a week
Presents for friends/family once a year
Holiday away from home once a year
not with relatives
Replace worn out furniture
Dictionary
An outfit for social occasions

59
56
56
56

39
43
41
42

3
1
11
1

13
1
3
3

55
54
53
51

43
43
44
46

14
6
6
4

18
12
5
4

New, not second-hand, clothes
Attending place of worship
Car
Coach/train fares to visit friends/family quarterly
An evening out once a fortnight
Dressing gown
Having a daily newspaper
A meal in a restaurant/pub monthly
Microwave oven
Tumble dryer
Going to the pub once a fortnightVideo cassette recorder
Holidays abroad once a year
CD player
Home computer
Dishwasher
Mobile phone
Access to the Internet
Satellite television

48
42
38
38
37
34
30
26
23
20
20
19
19
12
11
7
7
6
5

49
55
59
58
56
63
66
71
73
75
76
78
77
84
85
88
88
89
90

4
65
12
49
22
12
37
20
16
33
42
7
25
19
42
57
48
54
56

5
1
10
16
15
6
4
18
3
7
10
2
27
7
15
11
7
16
7

Note: Percentage of people answering ‘Don’t know’ not shown in table.

15

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

It is clear from the results in Table 1 that the generalconfirmed that perceptions of ‘necessities’ were more

public holds ideas about the necessities of life thatbroadly based than the corresponding assessments

are more wide-ranging, or multidimensional, than ismade by many economists and by governments inordinarily represented in expert or political

their policies and legislation. However, the evidence

assessments. People of all ages and walks of life dothey had unearthed was treated with scepticism in

not restrict their interpretation of ‘necessities’ to thesome quarters. Perhaps because indicators of social

basic material needs of a subsistence diet, shelter,

deprivation were relatively few, compared with those

clothing and fuel. There are social customs,of material deprivation, the implications of theobligations and activities that substantial majorities ofconclusions may not have been fully grasped.

the population also identify as among the top
necessities of life.

Another related interpretation of these results is thatthe public’s perception of necessities reflects theAmong the customs are ‘celebrations on special

conditions and dependencies of contemporary life –occasions such as Christmas’ (83 per cent) andwhether these are created by what is available in the‘attending weddings and funerals’ (80 per cent). Theremarket or by developments in social structure andare ‘presents for friends/family once a year’ (56 perinteraction. Necessities are perceived relative tocent). There are regular events to do with food, like acontemporary conditions. The evidence for this‘roast joint or the vegetarian equivalent once a week’

conclusion comes primarily from the comparative(56 per cent), which extend our ideas of dietary needs

analysis of the successive surveys of 1983, 1990 andwell beyond the provision of the minimal calories

1999 (see Chapter 4).

required for physiological efficiency. The views on
clothing needs extend ideas about basic cover to

The ‘consensual’ approach to poverty assumes that

include ‘a warm, waterproof coat’ (85 per cent) andthere are few differences across different sections of‘two pairs of all-weather shoes’ (64 per cent).

the population over what they perceive as thenecessities of life. We examined the extent to which

Among the obligations and activities described as

this assumption held true in 1999 by examining how

necessary are not just those which seem on the facejudgements varied amongst different groups.

of it to satisfy individual physiological survival andAlthough some important differences wereindividual occupation – like a ‘hobby or leisurehighlighted, there was a remarkable homogeneity ofactivity’ (78 per cent). They also include joint

views found between people of different age andactivities with friends and within families such as

gender, and among different socio-economic groups.

‘visits to friends or family’ (84 per cent), especially

Despite the differences, we can still talk of a social

those in hospital (92 per cent). They involve‘consensus’ about necessary items for three reasons:reciprocation and care of, or service for, others.
People recognise the need to have friends or family•round for a meal (64 per cent), for example.

the differences were relatively small - there wasgreater consensus about national living standards
than there was common experience of those

What is striking is the strength of publicstandards;

acknowledgement that such social activities taketheir place among the ‘necessities’ of life. Analysis of•much of the difference between groups was due

the survey results showed that slightly more people

to a smaller percentage of one group rating eachspecified one or more social activities among theitem as necessary, rather than ranking the items

necessities of life (95 per cent) than those specifying

in a different order;

one or more items to do with housing, food, clothing
and consumer durables, for example.

•

in very few cases did these differences affectwhether or not 50 per cent of the groups

The Breadline Britain surveys of 1983 and 1990,

classified an item as ‘necessary’.

forerunners of the present survey, had already16

ADULT POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Differences in views of what
constitute the necessities of life

For those items that the majority of the population
thought were necessities, the PSE survey identified
how many people have them and how many cannot
afford them. The results are summarised in the

The main conclusion from the survey was aremarkable similarity of views between different
groups. However, some differences are worth
noting.

third and fourth columns of Table 1. It is to be
expected that those items the population are lesslikely to nominate as necessities are those that
respondents to the PSE survey were most likely to
say that they ‘don’t have, don’t want’ and ‘don’t

Poorer groups were sometimes more likely than the
better-off groups to consider certain items to benecessities: there was a marked difference, forexample, in the case of carpets in living rooms andbedrooms and a television. Such differences seem tobe partly explained by circumstances – more of therich than of the poor live in centrally heated rooms,
and fewer may consider carpets to be a necessity, forexample.

have, can’t afford’. However, four items were each
owned by at least 80 per cent of respondents eventhough they were not considered necessities by the
majority: ‘new, not second-hand clothes’, a video
cassette recorder, a dressing gown and a microwave
oven. Clearly, even though these are not considerednecessary, most people want and possess them.
Conversely, there were some items which at least
three-quarters of people consider necessary, but

Men were generally more likely than women to
specify some items and activities as essential,
particularly those relating to personal consumption.
Examples were ‘having a small amount of money tospend each week on yourself, not on your family’,‘new, not second-hand clothes’ and ‘going to the pub
once a fortnight’. This confirms previous researchshowing that women and men can have different
priorities (Nyman, 1996; Payne and Pantazis, 1997;
Goode et al., 1998).

significant numbers are unable to afford: 6 per centcannot afford a damp-free home, 12 per cent cannot
afford to replace or repair broken electrical goods,
14 per cent do not have money to keep their home
in a decent state of decoration, and 8 per centcannot afford home contents insurance. However,of all the items considered a necessity by the
majority of the population, the greatest number ofpeople, 25 per cent, cannot afford regular savings (of£10 per month) for a rainy day or retirement,
followed by 18 per cent who cannot afford a holiday

Unsurprisingly, people aged over 30 considered, on
average, more goods and activities as necessary than
younger people (16 to 30 years). They weresignificantly more likely, for example, to consider a‘roast joint or its vegetarian equivalent’ and a dressing
gown as essential. Whilst there may exist importantfactors that account for individual differences, strong
cultural shifts from one generation to the next may
explain why younger people were generally inclined
to choose fewer items as necessities of life. Chapter
4 examines in greater detail the finding that younger
people seem to be making a more restricted choiceof necessities than in the past.

away from home.

How many people are poor?
From the list of items in Table 1, we selected the 35
items considered by 50 per cent or more of
respondents to be necessary for an acceptable
standard of living in Britain at the end of thetwentieth century. For each respondent, we thencalculated the number of items that they did nothave and could not afford. It can be seen, in Table 2,that 58 per cent were lacking no items because they
could not afford them. A further 14 per cent werelacking only one of the items. The greatest numberof items lacking was 21, by one respondent.

17

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

The approach used todetermine how many people
are poor

Table 2: Number of items
respondents ‘don’t have, can’t
afford’A statistical analysis indicated that six of the items did
not add to the reliability or validity of the definitionof deprivation of necessities in terms of distinguishing
between rich and poor. These items – a television, afridge, beds and bedding for everyone, a washingmachine, medicines prescribed by a doctor, and a
deep freezer/fridge freezer – were therefore dropped
from the analysis. The statistical approach outlined in
the introduction to establish an optimal poverty
threshold then showed that an enforced lack of twonecessities and a low income best discriminatedbetween being ‘poor’ and ‘not poor’ (see Appendix 2
for details).

Items
lacking

Number(%)

Cumulative
%

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
Total

891
218
87
73
50
34
32
22
19
22
18
13
11
17
10
7
2
2
2
1
1
1534

58.1
14.2
5.7
4.8
3.2
2.2
2.1
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.7
1.1
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
100.0

58.1
72.3
78.0
82.8
86.0
88.3
90.4
91.8
93.0
94.5
95.7
96.5
97.2
98.3
99.0
99.4
99.6
99.7
99.8
99.9
100.0
100.0

On this basis, people could be considered to be‘poor’ if there were at least two socially definednecessities that they were unable to afford; otherwise
they could be classified as ‘not poor’. However, twofurther considerations are necessary, based onrelationships between deprivation of necessities andincomes:••

Some people were unable to afford twonecessities, but had relatively high incomes.
These people could be classified as having risenout of poverty recently – for example, they had
got a job but had not yet been able to buy all thebasics.

Table 3: PSE survey poverty
classifications

Some people did not lack two or morenecessities, but had relatively low incomes.
These could be classified as being vulnerable topoverty – for example, they may have recently
seen their incomes fall through losing a job, buthave not yet lost some of the items perceived tobe necessities of life.

NumberPoor
Vulnerable to poverty
Risen out of poverty
Not poor
Total

Therefore four groups can actually be defined –‘poor’, ‘those vulnerable to poverty’, ‘those whohave recently risen out of poverty’ and ‘those whoare not poor’.

18

393
158
28
955
1534

%
25.6
10.3
1.8
62.2
100.0

ADULT POVERTY IN BRITAIN

On the basis of possession of necessities only, Table 2

the basis of lacking two or more necessities, are aroundshows that just over 72 per cent of people would be

2 per cent who had high enough incomes to suggest

classified as not poor and just under 28 per cent asthey had risen out of poverty, so that deprivation ofpoor, with a poverty threshold set at being unable tothese necessities did not seem likely to persist. Thisafford two or more necessities (see box on page 18).

produces the four categories shown in Table 3.

However, 10 per cent had low enough incomes tomake them vulnerable to poverty. Included in the

The rest of this chapter concentrates on the 26 per

28 per cent who would have been classified as poor, oncent whom this analysis has identified as poor.

Table 4: Who are the poor?
Poverty rate(% in poverty)

Poverty proportion(% of all in poverty)

Number

25.6

100

1534

Gender of respondent
Male
Female

22
29

42
58

740
794

Number of adults in the household
1
2
3+

38
22
25

32
50
18

332
919
282

All

Number of children
in the household
0
1
2
3+

Significance(see key p22)

**

***

***
22
29
29
46

56
16
16
13

994
210
217
113

Age of the youngest child
0-4
5-11
12-15
16+

***
41
35
20
18

48
35
11
7

206
175
94
67

Age of respondent
16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+

34
38
20
25
20
21
21

11
27
14
16
14
10
8

126
284
262
253
262
195
154

***

19

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 4 Continued
Poverty rate(% in poverty)

Poverty proportion(% of all in poverty)

NumberAge respondent completed education
<16
30
16
33
17
27
18
24
19+
17

30
31
9
8
22

344
311
120
111
426

Region
North East
North West
Merseyside
Yorks and Humberside
East Midlands
West Midlands
Eastern
LondonSouth East
South West
Wales
Scotland

5
5
3
9
7
15
6
12
11
9
10
8

92
105
41
124
124
154
132
155
205
147
116
137

***

**
20
19
29
27
23
38
18
30
22
24
35
22

Longstanding illness/disability in the household
No
23
Yes
30
Ethnicity
White
Black
IndianBangladeshi
Other
Employment status of household
1 worker
2 workers
3 workers
No workers – retired
No workers - sick/disabled
No workers – unemployed
No workers – other

Significance(see key p22)

**
57
44

963
571
***

24
(71)
(37)
(92)
(50)

89
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)

1466
(17)
(19)
(13)
(20)
***

28
14
23
23
61
77
76

26
19
8
21
10
10
8

20

361
520
141
354
62
48
38

ADULT POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Table 4 Continued
Poverty rate(% in poverty)
Marital status of respondent
SingleMarriedCohabiting
Separated/divorced
WidowedHousehold composition
Single adult
Lone parent +1 child
Lone parent +2 children
Lone parent +3+ children
CoupleCouple +1 child
Couple +2 children
Couple +3 children
Couple +4+ children
2 or more adults no children
2 or more adults with children
Couple with one ormore adults no children
Couple with one ormore adults and 1 child
Couple with one ormore adults and 2+ children
TenureOutright owner
Owner with mortgage
Private tenant/other
Housing association tenant
Local authority tenant

Poverty proportion(% of all in poverty)

Significance(see key p22)
***

31
20
31
46
30

19
45
11
16
10

236
894
139
135
131

32
66
62
(89)
15
24
26
39
29
34
52

22
5
3
(2)
18
7
11
6
2
6
4

274
29
21
(9)
485
108
172
57
21
71
33

21

9

159

13

2

56

37

4

41

15
19
33
57
61

17
35
9
10
29

464
704
110
71
185

***

***

Receiving Income Support and Jobseeker’s Allowance
No
21
Yes
70
Household income
Below 60% PSE
equivalent income
Below 50% PSE
equivalent income
Below 40% PSE
equivalent income

Number

***
73
27

1382
152
***

53

57

373

53

44

279

59

31

180

21

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 4 Continued
Poverty rate(% in poverty)

Poverty proportion(% of all in poverty)

NumberQuintile of PSE equivalent income
5 (highest)
43
2
1 (lowest)

0.6
17
24
40
59

0.6
15
19
31
34

197
266
266
301
309

How far do you think you areabove or below the levelof income that is necessary
to keep a household such as theone you live in out of poverty?
A lot above that level
A little above that level
About the same
A little below that level
A lot below that level
Don’t know

5
17
38
52
85
24

6
17
19
17
29
12

470
412
189
126
134
196

How far above or below the levelof absolute poverty would you say
your household is?
A lot above that level
A little above that level
About the same
A little below that level
A lot below that level
Don’t know
How far above or below the levelof overall poverty would you say
your household is?
A lot above that level
A little above that level
About the same
A little below that level
A lot below that level
Don’t know

Significance(see key below)
***

***

***
8
25
43
74
79
22

15
20
12
19
23
11

702
307
108
102
115
192

***
4
16
27
54
80
25

5
14
7
19
40
14

525
339
107
138
196
221

Key to significance levels: * < 0.05; **< 0.01; ***< 0.001
Note: Figures in brackets are based on twenty cases or fewer and are not reliable. All data in table are weighted

22

ADULT POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Who is poor?

•

those with 3+ children (46 per cent);•

those with youngest child aged 0-4 (41 per cent) or
aged 5-11 (35 per cent);

Table 4 shows how the poverty rate (the percentage
who are poor) varies according to the characteristics•

households with one adult (38 per cent).

of the individual and the household they are living
in. Thus, for example, in the second column, 22 perYounger people are also more likely to be poor:

cent of male respondents were poor compared with
29 per cent of female respondents - confirming that•

16- to 24-year-olds (34 per cent);

poverty is more common for women. The third•

25- to 34-year-olds (38 per cent).

column shows the poverty proportion - what
proportion of all the poor is made up of

Slightly greater proportions of those finishing

individuals/households with a given characteristic.

education below age 16 are poor (30 per cent) andSo, for example, married people make up 45 per centthose staying on to age 19 or above are much lessof all the poor, although the chances of a married

likely to be poor (17 per cent).

person being poor is lower than average, at 20 per
cent. The fourth column gives the number of people

In many ways, the data confirm other research inin the survey who were in the group; where this was

identifying the poorer groups. The survey also

below 20, the figures are in brackets to emphasise

contained some questions on health perceptions thatthat the sample is too small to make reliableconfirm an association between poverty and poor

predictions for the whole population. For example,

health. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ 12)

the poverty rates for the non-white ethnic groups arescores are a measure of subjective well-being - thenot reliable. The final column gives the level of thehigher the score, the worse the well-being. Poor

significance of the difference between the poverty

people scored 25.7 on average, compared with 22.0

rates observed.

on average for non-poor people. This difference isstatistically significant at the 99.9 per cent level.

For all respondents the average proportion of people
who are poor is 25.6 per cent. There are some groups

Of course, these socio-economic and demographic

where the proportion is more than double thischaracteristics are not independent of each other: foraverage rate:

example, being in receipt of Income Support isassociated with being a lone parent or unemployed.

non-retired people who are not working because

The odds of living in poverty, independent of thethey are unemployed (77 per cent) orother variables, can be calculated using multivariate

sick/disabled (61 per cent);

analysis. This requires some of the categories to be•

those on income support (70 per cent);

somewhat differently defined to ensure sample sizes•

lone parents (62 per cent);

large enough to make the analysis valid. The results•

Local authority tenants (61 per cent) and housingof this analysis are listed in Table 5.

•association tenants (57 per cent).
The results show the effect of certain factors on the
Although the number of respondents in the non-odds of being poor. In the first column (‘bivariate’

white ethnic groups is very small, the results indicate

results), these relative odds are compared without

a much higher poverty rate for non-white ethnic

taking account of any of the other variables. Relative

groups especially among the Bangladeshi and Black

odds in this case compare the chance of being poor

ethnic groups.

with the odds of not being poor. So, for example,
men have a 22 per cent chance of being poor and a

Divorced or separated people are more likely to be poor

78 per cent of not, or relative odds of about 1:3.5.

(46 per cent) and there are also higher proportions of

For women it is 29 per cent to 71 per cent, or 1:2.4.

poor people in households of certain types:

So women’s relative odds of being poor are just over
40 per cent worse than those for men.

23

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

The problems of measuring low
incomeof having both a low income and suffering from multiple
deprivation of necessities. Eighty per cent of those
who felt their income level was a lot below what would
be necessary to keep households like theirs above theUN’s definition of overall poverty were actually poor.
Nearly four-fifths of those who thought their income
level was a lot or a little below what would benecessary to pass above the UN’s narrower definitionof absolute poverty were also poor in these terms.
This suggests that simple measurements of subjective
poverty may be valuable in helping to understand theprevalence of poverty.
This partially reflects the fact that on average theincome of those who are poor is below that of those
who are not poor. Using a variety of scales forequivalent income the data show that the average
income of the poor who lack necessities is about halfthat of people who are not poor in this sense:

There are some interesting results in terms of therelationship of income to poverty that show what
reservations have to be made about thecomprehensiveness of narrow income measures on theirown for identifying poor people and housholds. As
would be expected, those in the lower two-fifths of theincome distribution have a greater probability of beingpoor (59 per cent for the lowest fifth and 40 per centfor the second lowest). However, this means that over
40 per cent of the poorest fifth are not poor in terms ofnot suffering from multiple deprivation and that nearly aquarter of those in the middle fifth of the income
distribution are poor in these terms. This finding
highlights the difficulties that can arise when trying tomeasure poverty using just a single measure of income,taken at one point in time. A household’s income levels
may change rapidly from one week to the next but it is ahousehold’s command of financial resources over timethat will determine if it becomes ‘poor’ or not.

Equivalent weekly income(PSE scale)
Equivalent weekly income(HBAI scale)
Equivalent weekly income(modified OECD scale)

There was a closer relationship between subjective
assessments of the adequacy of income in relation todefinitions of poverty lines and actually being poor.
Eighty-five per cent of those who felt their income wasa lot below what was necessary to keep households
like theirs out of poverty were actually poor in terms

Poor

Not poor

£183

£382

£205

£409

£133

£267

(These differences are all statistically significant at the0.001 per cent level.)

These differences are not large enough to bequintile and Income Support. The model in thestatistically significant in all cases – i.e. to be able tosecond column therefore controls for all variables

predict from the sample that there will be such a

except Income Support and that in the third column

difference in the whole population. Where there iscontrols for all variables except for income quintile

a significant difference, asterisks show the level ofand age completed education. In the former, thesignificance. For example, households with ‘nonumber of children, number of adults, marital status,

worker – unemployed, sick or other’ are more thanhousehold structure, region, age leaving full-time

12 times more likely to be poor than households

education and ethnicity no longer make a significant

with two workers.

difference to the number in poverty. In the latter,some of these – marital status, household structure,region and ethnicity – once again have an impact.

The second and third columns in Table 5 show the‘multivariate’ results – the relative odds independentof the differences produced by interaction with other

These results suggest that many of the demographic

variables using two different models. The

characteristics that appear to be associated withmultivariate analysis requires there to be one

poverty in Table 4 have this association mainly

measure of income only. There are two proxybecause they are associated with relatively low

measures for income in the analysis – income

income. They therefore cease to have a significant

24

ADULT POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Table 5: The relative odds of being poor
Bivariate: not taking
account of othervariables

Gender of respondent
Male
Female1.00
1.42**

Number of children in the household
0
1
2
3+

1.00
1.45*
1.43*
3.02***

Number of adults in the household
123+

2.23***
1.00
1.17

Age of respondent
16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+

Multivariate: controllingfor other variables(except whether on
Income Support)

Multivariate: controllingfor other variables(except income quintile
and education)

1.00
1.38*

1.00
1.37*

2.04**
2.44***
1.00
1.35
1.02
1.08
1.00

4.81***
8.91***
2.64*
6.26***
3.31**
2.42**
1.00

4.00**
4.57***
1.51
2.47**
1.81
1.54
1.00

Employment status of household
1 worker2+ workers
No workers - retired
No workers - unemployed,
sick or other2.05***
1.00
1.58**

1.84**
1.00
1.57

2.27***
1.00
3.81**

12.92***

3.68***

6.49***

Marital status of respondent
SingleMarriedCohabiting
Separated/divorced
Widowed1.90***
1.00
1.85**
3.52***
1.73**

1.00
2.73**
3.07**
1.84
1.26

Household composition
SingleCoupleCouple with children
Lone parent with children
Other

2.67***
1.00
2.16***
11.66***
2.13***

3.17**
1.00
2.55***
5.55***
2.88***

25

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 5 Continued
Bivariate: not taking
account of othervariables

RegionNorth
Midlands
South
LondonWales
Scotland

1.14
1.71**
1.00
1.62*
1.95**
1.06

Age respondent completed education
<16
17/18
19+

2.18***
1.64*
1.00

EthnicityWhite
Not white

1.00
5.14***

TenureOwnersLA/HA tenants
Private tenants other1.00
7.15***
2.30***

Receiving Income Support
No
Yes

1.00
8.85***

Income quintile
1 (lowest)
23
4
5 (highest)

Multivariate: controllingfor other variables(except whether on
Income Support)

Multivariate: controllingfor other variables(except income quintile
and education)
1.25
2.32**
1.44
1.53
2.36*
1.00
Not in this model

1.00
4.90***
1.00
2.57***
1.37

1.00
4.06***
1.44

Not in this model
1.00
2.48**
Not in this model
222.60***100.84***49.16***
31.63***
1.00

159.87***100.25***51.35***
32.79***
1.00

Note: Asterisks show the level of statistical significanceeffect after controlling for income. This is notpoverty – suggesting that raising Income Support

surprising. Those factors that in themselves arelevels may be a well-targeted way of relieving poverty.

associated with deprivation of necessities of life even

What do people in poverty
experience?

when the effect of income is taken out include being
in a household with fewer workers, a lone parent, amember of a minority ethnic group, or living in social
rented housing – and to a lesser extent being young

So far, the analysis has been concerned with theand being female. These tend to confirm othercharacteristics of the poor - the association between

studies of poverty. What is more notable is that evenpoverty and the social and economic characteristics

when controlling for all other factors, those onof poor people. However, one of the main objectives

Income Support are much more likely to be inof the PSE survey is to explore the association

26

ADULT POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Table 6: Experiences and attitudes of people in poverty
Table 6a: Subjective personal experience and expectations ofpoverty
Proportion of thoseanswering this way
who are poor

Proportion of poor
people who answer
this way

Do you think that you can genuinely say you are poor
All the time?
86
Sometimes?
58
Never?
11

23
45
32

Number ofpeople answering
this way

Significance(see key
p29)

102
302
1120

***

Looking back over your life, how often have there been times in your life
when you think you have lived in poverty by the standards of that time?
Never
14
33
Rarely30
15
Occasionally
44
33
Often
56
15
Most of the time
59
4

906
200
291
105
29

***

Has anything happened recently (in the last two years) in your life which has
Improved your standard of living? 17
12
Reduced your standard of living? 54
21
Increased your income?
19
17
Reduced your income?
41
24
None of these?
24
48

272
152
366
235
791

Is there anything that you expect to happen in the near future (in the next two years) in your life which will
Improve your standard of living? 32
19
232
Reduce your standard of living?
39
1095
Increase your income?
28
24
338
Reduce your income?
26
9128
None of these?
23
55
920

Note: Proportions add to more than 100 because multiple responses possible
Table 6 continues overleaf

between poverty and other experiences, including

several definitions are also explored further in thesocial exclusion. Social exclusion is analysed more

next section: these questions simply asked people

fully in Chapter 5. In this section, selected data

about whether they felt poor without defining whatcollected in the PSE survey are used to explore thepoor means.) It is not surprising that most of thoserelationship between being poor and otherwho say that they are ‘poor all the time’ (86 per

experiences. They are summarised in Table 6.

cent) were found in the survey to be poor. However,
it is more surprising that, of those who say they are

The first two questions are concerned with‘never poor’, 11 per cent were found to be poor inperceptions of the experience of poverty now and interms of lacking necessities and they constitutethe past. (Subjective perceptions of poverty usingnearly a third of poor people. These results indicate

27

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 6b: Perception of poverty and its causes in Britain in general
Proportion of thoseanswering this way
who are poor

Proportion of poor
people who answer
this way

Number of peopleanswering this way

Significance(see key p29)

Over the last ten years, do you think poverty has been
Increasing?
30
Decreasing?
16
Staying about the same?
22
Don’t know
29

52
13
26
7

670
301
462
100

***

Over the next ten years, do you think poverty will
Increase?
30
Decrease?
18
Stay at the same level?
24
Don’t know
29

46
16
28
7

610
353
435
100

***

12

192

NS

23

409

35

476

24
6

362
78

Why, in your opinion, are there people who live in need?
Because they have been unlucky 24
Because of laziness andlack of willpower
21
Because there is much
injustice in our society
28
It’s an inevitable partof modern progress
25
None of these27

Table 6c: Security and satisfaction with area you live in
Proportion of thoseanswering this way
who are poor

Proportion of poor
people who answer
this way

Number of peopleanswering this way

Significance(see key p29)

How satisfied are you with this area as a place to live?
Very satisfied
19
Fairly satisfied
29
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 48
Slightly dissatisfied
41
Very dissatisfied
48

41
35
7
11
6

843
472
61
104
52

***

How safe do you feel walking alone in this area after dark?
Very safe
17
Fairly safe
26
A bit unsafe
30
Very unsafe
38

18
45
27
10

397
676
349
105

***

How safe do you feel when you are alone in your home at night?
Very safe
21
44
Fairly safe
27
39
A bit unsafe
44
14
Very unsafe
45
4

812
561
124
31

***

28

ADULT POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Table 6d: Civic involvement
Proportion of those Proportion of poor people
Number of
Significanceanswering this way
who answer this way
people answering (see key below)
who are poor
this way
Participation in civic life

Non-participative
Moderately participative
Highly participative

43
28
18

20
53
27

180
743
610

***

Table 6e: Impact of lack of money on well-being
Proportion of
those answering
this way
who are poor

Proportion of poor people
who answer this way

Have there been times in the past year when, as a result of a lack of money,
you’ve felt isolated and cut off from society or depressed?
Neither of these15
43
Yes, isolated
74
23No, not isolated
26
5
Yes, depressed
70
43
No, not depressed25
8

Number ofpeopleanswering
this way

Significance(see key p29)

1126
120
75
243
1119
Key to significance levels:* <0.05; **<0.01; ***<0.001

Note: Proportions add to more than 100 because multiple responses possiblethat some people have relatively low expectations in•Poor people are more likely than others to blamethat they do not consider themselves poor eveninjustice, and less likely to blame laziness and athough they lack necessities of life.

lack of will-power, for the fact that people live in
need. Nevertheless, most poor people do not

There is also a strong relationship between poverty inblame injustice. Nearly a quarter do blame lazinessthe present and people’s experiences of lifetimeand lack of will-power and a further quarter thinkpoverty. The more often they believe that they have

it is an inevitable result of modern progress.

been poor in the past, the more likely they are to befound to be poor at present.

•

People whose satisfaction with their local
environment is low are more likely to be poor.

Half of people who had experienced a reduction in

Those who are dissatisfied with their area, ortheir standard of living in the last two years were now

who feel unsafe walking about theirpoor. Those who expected a change in their standard

neighbourhood or being alone in their homes,of living were more likely to be poor – whether theare more likely than average to live in poverty.

change was expected to be upwards or downwards.

Note, however, that this does not mean thatmost poor people are dissatisfied in these ways:

The other questions reviewed in Table 6 show that:

although, for example, nearly half of the people

29

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 7: Income needed each week to keep a household of your typeout of absolute, overall and general poverty (Britain 1999)
Absolute poverty

Overall poverty

General poverty

£178
18%

£239
21%

£219
17%

(%)
52
24
8
8
9

(%)
34
26
8
11
15

(%)
34
31
14
10
10

Total (excluding don’t knows) 100
Number
1252

100
1213

100
1273

Mean income needed
Don’t know

Actual income a lot above
A little above
About the same
A little below
A lot below

very dissatisfied with their area are poor, thisIt can be seen in Table 7 that as many as 17 per centrepresents only 6 per cent of all poor people.

of the sample said they had less income than thelevel they identified as being enough to keep a•

Poor people are much less likely to be active inhousehold like theirs out of ‘absolute’ poverty. The

their local communities than people who are notincome, after tax, said to be needed each week topoor. This finding is based on two questions -escape ‘absolute’ poverty averaged £178 for all

membership of organisations and participation

households. Some informants gave estimates widelyin civic affairs - used to create a classification ofdifferent from this average but the great majority,

civic participation.

allowing for type of household, were within 20 per
cent of this figure.

•

Nearly three-quarters of people who feel isolated
and/or depressed as a result of lack of money

Perceptions of the ‘poverty line’ varied by type ofduring the last year are currently poor. Chapter

household, as would be expected. More lone parents

5 considers further the theme of isolation withthan any other type of household (54 per cent withrespect to social exclusion.

two children) said they had an income below thatneeded to keep out of absolute poverty (Table 8).

Subjective assessments of poverty

Next were single pensioners (24 per cent) and single
adults (20 per cent). The average for all households

Finally this chapter presents some results using three

was 14 per cent.

subjective measures of poverty.
A larger proportion (26 per cent) ranked themselves in
As outlined in Chapter 1, the World Summit for‘overall’ poverty (Table 7). Again, lone parents andSocial Development in 1995 proposed a distinction

single pensioners were more likely to claim that they

between absolute and overall poverty. In the PSE

had incomes below this level. It is interesting that thesurvey, these ideas were adapted to conditions inassessment of the mean income needed to keep a

Britain. In addition, respondents were asked tohousehold out of ‘general’ poverty (see above) fell

determine whether their income was ‘below the level

between the absolute and overall standard, whichof income you think is necessary to keep a

indicates that respondents are capable of making ahousehold such as yours out of poverty’ – in the

distinction between these various subjective thresholds.

tables below we describe this as ‘general’ poverty.

30

ADULT POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Table 8: Percentage of each type of household reporting their actual
income as lower than the amount they needed to keep out of
absolute, overall and general poverty (Britain 1999)
Absolute poverty(%)

Overall poverty(%)

General poverty(%)

Single pensioner
Couple pensioner
Single adult
CoupleCouple 1 child
Couple 2 children
Couple 3+ children
Lone parent 1 child
Lone parent 2+ children
Other

24
18
20
11
15
9
10
41
54
19

37
26
29
14
28
23
25
56
71
27

27
22
24
13
29
13
25
54
62
14

All households

17

26

20

It is striking that 1 in 6 people in a rich industrial
society perceive that their incomes are insufficient tomeet the very basic needs defined by an absolute
poverty threshold, and that over a quarter consider
themselves in overall poverty. These levels are muchhigher than is generally assumed in national andinternational discourse.

31

3Child poverty in Britain

Introduction

perceived necessities, is particularly well suited tomeasuring childhood poverty. It allows the

In March 1999, the Prime Minister declared that thedefinition of childhood poverty to be democratically

Labour Government was on a "twenty-year mission" todecided and can produce a poverty line specifically"end child poverty forever" (Blair, 1999). This

related to children, rather than to adults orcommitment was made against the backdrop of ahouseholds. The meaning of poverty in children’s

threefold increase in child poverty (measured in terms

lives can, therefore, be better understood. Theof relative income) between 1979 and the 1990s (seeapproach used is described in the box below.

Chapter 1). By 1998/9, over a third of British children
were living in households with incomes below 50 per

The method used to define thenecessities of life and how
many children lack themcent of the average – the measure of childhood
poverty most commonly used (DSS, 2000).
There are a number of limitations on using

A ‘democratic poverty measure’ specifically related tochildren was originally developed for the Small
Fortunes Survey of the lifestyles and living standardsof British children (Middleton et al., 1997). In thissurvey, a list of children’s items and activities built
upon the six items specifically relating to children in
the original Breadline Britain studies, and was drawn
up following extensive research with 200 mothersfrom a range of social groups and income levels
about the basic needs of children in Britain(Middleton et al., 1994). The list was subjected tofurther scrutiny in another series of focus groups
held as part of the development work for the
Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey (Bradshaw et al.,1998). The final list included 30 items and activities
for children.

household income to measure poverty amongchildren. First, income measures assume thatchildren share the living standards of their family – if
the household as a whole is poor, then children inthat household must also be poor. In other words, it
is assumed that household income is distributed
evenly among household members. Yet there issome evidence to suggest that spending on children
is relatively similar in all families. This therefore
means that in poorer families spending on children
is, as a proportion of income, disproportionately
higher than the average (Middleton et al., 1997).
Other evidence demonstrates that women’s share offamily income is disproportionately small (Goode etal., 1998; Middleton et al., 1997). Second, householdincome measures of childhood poverty are difficult
to explain in simple terms and tell us little orThis list was included as part of the Office for
National Statistics’ Omnibus Survey in June of 1999
(see Appendix 4) to establish what are sociallyperceived necessities for children. In this chapter,parents’ judgements of what are necessities forchildren are used, rather than those of the adult
population as a whole. The differences between thejudgements of parents and all adults were very small(see Table 14, page 49). Furthermore, since the unitof analysis throughout this chapter is the child andnothing about how poverty impacts on children’s
lives. Direct measures of children’s individual living
standards can identify not simply how many
children are poor, but how poverty affects children.
What should children in Britain have and experience
if they are to avoid poverty, and what do poor
children go without that non-poor children do not?
The approach to defining and measuring poverty
used for the present survey, based on socially32

CHILD POVERTY IN BRITAIN

since it is parents who decide what children will have,
it is more appropriate to use the judgements ofparents. This is also consistent with the method
used for the Small Fortunes study.
In the PSE survey, parents were asked to distinguishwhether their children (considered together in eachfamily rather than individually) had each item or
activity, did not have it because the parent did notwant it, or did not have it because they could notafford it. As in the analysis in Chapter 2, this chapter
focuses on children’s lack of items and/or activities
that parents could not afford, rather than chose not
to buy.
In addition to using the views of parents rather than
all adults to determine what are considerednecessities, there are two other major differences
between the analysis of adult poverty and childpoverty in this report. The first is that because theoverall sample was smaller, it was not possible to do
the statistical analysis that, in the adult work, led tothe elimination of items that did not add to thedefinition of poverty, so all items that more than
50 per cent of parents defined as necessary are usedthroughout. The second is that it was consideredinappropriate to remove children in households thatwere potentially rising out of poverty from thedefinition of poor because it was not known whether
higher levels of income would be transferred into
extra spending on children.
This chapter presents the results of the survey forchildren. As with the adult chapter, it begins byconsidering which of the various items and activities
members of the public regard as necessities forchildren and then the proportion of children thatlive in households unable to afford items that the
majority of people regard as necessary. The analysis
goes on to define a poverty threshold, and theninvestigates the characteristics of children who fall
below it. Next, the chapter identifies theindependent effect of various characteristics tosuggest some of the reasons behind childhood
poverty. A final section draws some important
conclusions for public policy.

What items are considered to benecessities for children?
Of the 30 children’s items and activities in thesurvey, all but three were thought to be necessities bymore than 50 per cent of parents. The exceptions,shown in italics in Table 9, were ‘at least 50p a week
for sweets’, ‘computer suitable for schoolwork’, and‘computer games’.
Most of the remaining items were believed to benecessities by well over 50 per cent of parents; andover half (16 out of 30) of the items were believed tobe necessities by at least 75 per cent. This contrasts
with the adult measure, for which 35 out of 54 items
crossed the 50 per cent threshold (65 per cent of
items) and just 20 items were endorsed by 75 percent or more of adults (37 per cent of items).
In general, those items that might be regarded as
essential for the physical well-being of the child –food, clothing and household items such as beds andbedding – were believed to be necessities by larger
percentages of parents than were items for the child’ssocial or educational development. However, there
are some interesting exceptions to this. Having‘meat, fish or a vegetarian equivalent at least twice aday’ was thought to be necessary by fewer
respondents than, for example, ‘educational games’, a‘hobby or leisure activity’ and attending ‘play groupat least once a week for pre-school age children’.

Which necessities do children lack?
For each of these socially perceived necessities, only asmall proportion of children have parents who
cannot afford them (the relevant percentages areshown in the second column of Table 9). They areleast likely to go without items that the largest
percentages of parents thought to be necessary food, environmental and developmental items - andmost likely to lack participation items and activities.
Nearly all parents think that ‘new, properly fitted,
shoes’, ‘a warm waterproof coat’ and ‘fresh fruit orvegetables at least once a day’ are necessities, yet
1 in 50 children do not have these because of lack ofmoney. One in 25 go without each of the following

33

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 9: Necessities and ‘necessities deprivation’
Percentage ofparents regarding
item as ‘necessary’

Percentage of children who lack item
because their parents cannot afford it
All childrenChildren wholack at least
one of the 27
necessary items

Children wholack at least
two of the 27
necessary items

93
91

1.8
(0.9)

5
(3)

9
(5)

76

3.7

11

21

ClothesNew, properly fitted, shoes
96
Warm, waterproof coat95
All required school uniform*
88
At least 7 pairs of new underpants
84
At least 4 pairs of trousers
74
At least 4 jumpers/cardigans/sweatshirts 71
Some new, not second-hand, clothes
67

2.3
1.9
2.0
1.9
3.1
2.8
3.1

7
6
6
6
9
8
9

12
11
12
11
18
16
18

3.6
3.2
1.8
7.1

10
9
5
21

20
18
(10)
34

21.8
3.1
3.7

64
9
11

68
17
21

90

(0.1)

0

(1)

89
84
85
66
60
45
38
13

(1.3)
4.2
(0.5)
3.3
3.4
1.6
35.7
13.2

(4)
12
(1)
10
10
-

(7)
21
(3)
19
18
-

Food
Fresh fruit or vegetables at least
once a day
Three meals a day
Meat, fish or vegetarianequivalent at least twice a day

Participation and activities
Celebrations on special occasions
92
Hobby or leisure activity*
88
School trip at least once a term*
73
Swimming at least once a month71
Holiday away from home at least
one week a year
63
Leisure equipment*
57
Friends round for tea/snack fortnightly* 53
Developmental
Books of own
Play group at least once a week
(pre-school age children)*
Educational games
Toys (e.g. dolls, teddies)*
Construction toys
Bike: new/second-hand*
At least 50p a week for sweets
Computer suitable for schoolwork
Computer games
Environmental
A bed and bedding for self
Bedroom for every child ofdifferent sex over 10 years*
Carpet in bedroom
Garden to play in

96

(0.6)

(2)

(3)

76
75
68

3.3
(1.4)
3.5

10
(4)
10

10
(5)
8

Base

560

792

273

139

Notes: Figures in brackets indicate less than 20 unweighted cases
Items in italics were thought to be necessities by less than 50% of parents* age-related items

34

CHILD POVERTY IN BRITAIN

highly endorsed necessities: ‘celebrations on special

Employment statusoccasions such as birthdays’, ‘educational games’,

The employment status of the household has a large‘meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent at least twice a

impact on levels of childhood necessitiesday’, and a ‘garden to play in’. The necessity thatdeprivation. The proportions of deprived children in

the largest proportion of children goes without is ahouseholds where there are no workers are double‘holiday away from home once a year’, lacked bythose for children as a whole. Nearly two-thirds ofover one-fifth of children. The second highest is

children in jobless households lack one or more item

‘swimming at least once a month’, which more thanand two-fifths are deprived of at least two.

1 in 15 children go without.

How many children fall below thechild poverty threshold?

Children with two (or more) adults in the householdin paid work are the least likely to be deprived.
However, having working parents in paid
employment does not necessarily protect children

A similar range of statistical techniques to those usedfrom deprivation, particularly when the paid work is

for adults (Appendix 3) have been used to determine

part-time. Over half of children with one or morea threshold for childhood necessities deprivation.

parents working part-time go without at least one

This statistical analysis suggests that a child should beitem and three in ten lack two or more.

considered to be deprived if lacking any one or moreof the items in the list because their parents cannot

Child poverty and low
household income

afford them. A third of children – 34 per cent – arepoor, or ‘necessity-deprived’, by this definition.
However, since a large proportion of children lacked

As was found in the adult analysis there is not acomplete correlation between income and childpoverty in terms of necessity deprivation (Figure 3).
For a poverty threshold set at lacking one or moresocially perceived necessity, almost one half ofchildren (45 per cent) who live in households thatare ‘income poor’* are not ‘necessities deprived’. At
the higher threshold of going without two or morenecessities, almost two-thirds of children (65 percent) are income poor but not necessities deprived.

one item in particular (a ‘holiday away from home
once a year’), it seems sensible also to use a more
restrictive deprivation threshold of two or more
items. Eighteen per cent of children are poor by thisdefinition.
The last two columns of Table 9 show that a childdefined as poor has a much greater than average riskof being deprived of each of the items listed. If achild lacks at least one item, their chance of lacking
any specific item is in most cases at least three times

The explanation may lie in the evidence, referred toabove, that poverty is not always shared evenly amonghousehold members. These data suggest that parents
in many income poor households are able to protect
their children from necessities deprivation, presumably
by ensuring that children take priority in the allocationof available income. An alternative explanation mightlie in the length of time for which households havebeen below the income poverty line. Households thathave only recently fallen below the income poverty
line and/or who have incomes close to it may be able
to continue to protect their children from necessities
deprivation for some time after this fall.

the average. If the deprivation threshold is set at twoitems rather than one, the chance of a deprived childlacking any specific necessity doubles once again inmost cases.

Which children are poor?
Once necessities deprivation thresholds have beenset, it is possible to explore whether particular groupsof children are more likely to be deprived thanothers (Table 10). A range of family, economic anddemographic characteristics significantly increase therisk of a child being necessities deprived.

* defined as below 60 per cent of median equivalised householdincome35

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Figure 3: Relationship of income poverty to necessities poverty
70
One or more items
60

Two or more items

Percentage

50

40

30

20

10

0
Income poor/necessities not poor

Income not poor/necessities poor

This does not necessarily mean that children living
above the income poverty threshold escape poverty interms of being deprived of necessities. But as Figure 3
shows, most do. Only one-fifth of children who are
not income poor are deprived of one or more items
and only 7 per cent of two or more items (thiscompares with 34 per cent and 18 per cent respectivelyof all children – see below). There are at least two
possible explanations for why this small group ofchildren are not income poor but are necessities poor.
First, these children may live in households whose
incomes are very close to the poverty line and/or
whose incomes might only recently have climbed above
the line following a lengthy period of income poverty.
Second, the income measure takes no account of
housing costs. It may be that these children live inhouseholds with relatively high housing costs, leaving
less for the purchase of children’s necessities.

Household typeand more than one-third are deprived using the two

Households with children have been divided intoor more item measure. However, deprivation is notlone parents (18 per cent of children), couples (69confined to those in the lowest income quintiles.

per cent) and others (13 per cent). Children whose

Thirteen per cent of children in the top two quintiles

parents are a couple (and live without other adults inare deprived of at least one item. Possible reasons forthe household) are the least likely to be necessities

this have already been described above.

deprived. Children in lone parent families are themost likely to be necessities deprived and are almost

Age of child

twice as likely as children in couple households to go

In general, deprivation of necessities decreases withwithout one item and three times more likely to be

the child’s age. However, most of this variation islacking two or more items.

not significant. The exception is for children aged
between two and four years, who are significantly

Incomemore likely to lack two or more items than the other

As would be expected, the lower the income quintile

age groups. This may be because it is particularly

the child’s household is in, the more likely the childcostly to provide pre-school children with the items

is to be necessities deprived, because their parents

and activities in the list. For example, clothing willcannot afford items.

need replacing more regularly for this age group, as
the rate of growth is at its most rapid.

Over two-thirds of children in the lowest income
quintile are deprived using the one item threshold

36

CHILD POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Table 10: Characteristics of ‘necessities deprived’ children
Percentage of children
lacking one or more item

Percentage of children
lacking two or more items

Employment status of household*2 full-time/more than 2 workers
1 full-time, 1 part-time
1 full-time
1 or more part-time
No workers

32
19
37
52
63

(15)
(6)
19
30
42

Household type*
CoupleLone parent
Other

29
52
39

11
33
13

Income quintile*
4 and 5 (highest)32
1 (lowest)

(13)
28
27
67

(4)
(7)
14
37

Age of child
0 to 1
2 to 4‡5 to 1011 to 16

36
37
37
29

(16)
23
17
15

Number of children in household*
1
2
3
4+

29
25
42
68

13
11
25
39

Child has long-standing illness
No
Yes

36
34

19
13

Respondent has long-standing illness*
No
Yes

32
41

16
24

Ethnicity*White
Non-white

30
54

14
35

Tenure*Own
Local authority rented
Other rented

24
69
57

11
41
34

37

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 10 Continued
Percentage of children
lacking one or more item

Percentage of children
lacking two or more items

Member of household in receipt of IS or JSA*
No
Yes

28
66

12
43

Total

34

18

Note: Figures in brackets indicate less than 20 unweighted cases* significant differences between all groups on both deprivation measures (p < 0.05)‡ significant difference between this age group and others on two or more item deprivation (p < 0.05)
IS - Income Support; JSA - Jobseeker’s Allowance

Number of children

Further analysis confirms the findings of other

There is no significant difference between thestudies and suggests a number of possible reasons for

proportion of children with no siblings and with one

this (HM Treasury, 1999). First, non-white children

sibling being deprived using either the one or two

are more likely to be in larger families, in terms ofitem threshold. However, the deprivation levels of

the numbers of adults and children. Second, theychildren in households with three or more children

are more likely to be in households with incomes inincrease dramatically.

the lowest quintile. Finally, non-white children are
more likely to live in jobless households. All of these

Illness and disability

characteristics have been shown above to be

The differences between the deprivation of children

associated with high levels of deprivation.

with and without a long-standing illness are notsignificant. This suggests that, despite the extra cost

Tenureof bringing up a child with a disability and theChildren living in owner-occupied housing (that is,pressures this places on parents’ ability to work, theyowned outright or with a mortgage) are far less likely

are still largely protected from going without

to be necessities deprived than children in the rented(Dobson and Middleton, 1998).

sector. Children in local authority housing are themost likely to be deprived, with over two-thirds ofHowever, parents who themselves have a long-

this group lacking one or more item and two in fivestanding illness find it more difficult to protect theirgoing without two or more. Again, there arechildren from deprivation. Children who have atconnections with other findings. Children in local

least one parent or household member with a long-authority accommodation are more likely thanstanding illness are approximately a third more likely

average to be in lone parent families, non-working

to be deprived than children as a whole, using eitherfamilies, and in the lowest income quintile (ibid.).

measure.

Benefit receipt
Ethnicity

Children in households that receive Income

Although there was widespread agreement between

Support and/or Jobseeker’s Allowance are far morewhite and non-white parents as to what arelikely to be necessities deprived than those children

necessities for children, the parents of non-white

whose household members do not. They are nearlychildren are more likely to be unable to afford them.

21/2 times more likely to be deprived of onenecessity and over 31/2 times more likely to be
deprived of two or more.

Over one-half of non-white children are deprived ofat least one item and over one-third of at least two.

38

CHILD POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Why are children poor?
•

children in households where one or more adults

The analysis so far has shown that certain subgroups

receive Income Support or Jobseeker’s Allowanceof children with particular family, economic andare over 3 times as likely to be deprived;

demographic characteristics are significantly more
likely to be necessities deprived than others. These•

children in lone parent households are notcharacteristics need to be disentangled in order tosignificantly more likely to be deprived thanseparate out those that are most likely to placethose in a couple household when otherchildren at an increased risk of necessities

characteristics are taken into account. Therefore,

deprivation when all other characteristics are taken

although a child in a lone parent family has ainto account.

significantly higher risk of being deprived ofnecessities (as shown above), this is nothing to

A similar statistical analysis was carried out as fordo with lone parenthood in itself. Rather it isadults, to establish the independent effect of eachbecause lone parents are more likely to be living

factor found to increase the risk of deprivation. Tablein local authority rented housing and in receipt

11 shows for each factor the relative odds of beingof Income Support.

1

deprived, in each instance setting a ‘base case’ of 1.00.

Necessities deprived – two items or more
Necessities deprived – one item threshold

For children deprived of two or more items, by

For children deprived of one or more items,

contrast, employment status of the household is

employment status is not significantly associatedhighly significant in predicting deprivation.

with an increased risk of necessity deprivation when

Compared with children in households where two

all other characteristics (including income) are taken

adults are in full-time work, or more than two adults

into account. However, other characteristics areare in employment, children:

significant:••in households with one full-time and one part-children in households with additional adults

time paid worker are 5 times as likely to be(i.e. other than parents) are half as likely to be

deprived;

deprived as those in couple households;••

in households with one full-time paid worker are
8 times as likely to be deprived;

children in households in the lowest income
quintile are over 41/2 times as likely to be
deprived than those in the two highest quintiles;•

in households with one or more part-time paid
workers are 11 times as likely to be deprived;•

the number of children in the family issignificantly associated with deprivation. Every•in households with no paid workers are 9 times
as likely to be deprived.

additional child in the family increases the riskthat each child will be necessities deprived by
11/2 times;

The only other significant characteristic in thismodel is tenure. Children in local authority housing•

children in local authority housing are overare three times and those in the ‘other’ rented sector

4 times, and those in the ‘other’ rented sector

over twice, as likely to be deprived than children inover 21/2 times, as likely to be deprived thanowner-occupied households.

children in owner-occupied households;
The very different results produced by the two•children in households where the respondent tothresholds reflect differences between the household

the survey has a long-standing illness are over

employment profiles of those children who are

11/2 times as likely to be deprived;

deprived of none, one, and two or more necessities.

39

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 11: Logistic regression model predicting necessities
deprivation
Odds of child lacking
one or more item

Odds of child lacking
two or more items

Employment status of household
2 full-time/more than 2 workers
1 full-time, 1 part-time
1 full-time
1 or more part-time
No workers

1.00
0.72
1.11
1.24
0.60

1.00
5.19*
8.32*
11.09**
8.87*

Household type
CoupleLone parent
Other

1.00
0.54
0.45*

1.00
0.82
0.89

Income quintile
4 and 5 (highest)32
1 (lowest)

1.00
2.58**
1.37
4.65***

1.00
1.22
1.40
2.31

Number of children in household
One
For every increase in child

1.00
1.55***

1.00
1.14

EthnicityWhite
Non-white

1.00
1.62

1.00
1.49

TenureOwn
LA rent
Other rent

1.00
4.15***
2.64***

1.00
2.94**
2.10*

Respondent had long-standing illness
No
Yes

1.00
1.58*

1.00
1.55

Member of household in receipt of IS or JSA
No
Yes

1.00
3.10*

1.00
2.15

Note: Significance * < 0.05; **< 0.01; ***< 0.001
IS – Income Support; JSA – Jobseeker’s Allowance40

CHILD POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Almost half of children who lack one or more item

reducing the number of jobless households, as

are, in fact, deprived of only one necessity. These

children in households with only one worker, full- or

children are approximately evenly distributed among

part-time, are also much more likely to be necessities

the various household employment statuses. In

deprived than children in households with two full-other words, going without just one item varies verytime workers. Work per se will not keep children out

little according to employment status of parents.

of poverty and, for those households where theOnce the deprivation threshold is raised to two oropportunity for two full-time salaries is simply not

more items, almost all of the children in two-worker

available and/or for those households where one

households are removed from deprivation, because

parent wishes to stay at home to care for children,

they lack only one item. Far higher proportions ofother policy avenues need to be explored.

children from part-time working households andthose in jobless households remain in deprivation (asOur evidence points to anomalies in somethey lack two or more items). This seems to suggest

government policies if childhood poverty is to bethat the two-item threshold is probably more

eradicated. Many benefits for children givevaluable as a deprivation measure (see above).

disproportionate emphasis to the needs of smallerfamilies. Child Benefit is paid at a higher rate for the

The finding that children in a jobless household are

only or oldest child than for subsequent children

less likely to be in deprivation than children in

and the Government continues to increase this gap.

households with one or more part-time worker is

The Childcare Tax Credit provides for up to double

probably the result of other variables impacting upon

the level of support for one child (£100) than for athis, in particular benefit receipt and tenure.

second and, indeed, all subsequent children (amaximum of £150 is allowed for two or more

As with one-item deprivation, for children in lone

children). The Family Premium on Income Support

parent families it is not their family status per se thatis paid at a flat rate to families with children,

explains their deprivation, but rather the greater

irrespective of how many children are in the family.

likelihood that they are in households with one or

All of these benefits will therefore favour

no paid workers or living in local authority rented

disproportionately families with fewer children. Yet

housing.

the risk of poverty clearly increases as the number ofchildren in the family increases.

Policy implications
Tenure is also significantly related to poverty.
This analysis has a number of important implications

Children in local authority housing are three times

for policy. According to the Government, joblessness

more likely to be deprived (using the two or moreis a major cause of childhood poverty (HM Treasury,

item threshold) than those in owner-occupied

2000, p7). A large part of their proposed solution forhomes. For those in the private rented sector, thechildhood poverty is to get parents into work. These

odds of being deprived are twice as high. This isfindings have shown that employment is indeed vitaleven though employment status and income

to ensuring that children are not deprived of(amongst other characteristics) have been controlled

necessities, using a threshold of ‘going without twofor. It is to be hoped that the Government’s Nationalor more necessities’. Children in jobless households

Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, the New Dealare nine times more likely to be deprived than those

for Communities, and other initiatives to improvewith two or more paid workers in the household.

deprived neighbourhoods, will help to tackle theparticular problem of poverty among children in

However, the Government has also recognised that

local authority housing.

"changes in the labour market have also increased
the risk of poverty for children whose parents are in

Defining and measuring childhood poverty as ‘goingwork" (ibid., p8). Their parallel commitment towithout necessities that the majority of parents‘make work pay’ appears equally important to that ofbelieve to be necessary, because parents cannot afford

41

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

to provide them’ has a number of advantages. First,
and most important, it is a direct measure of poverty
among children. This contrasts with indirect
measures such as household income, which can tell
us only whether the family is poor but reveal
nothing about children’s own direct experience ofpoverty. Second, it has shown that small but
significant percentages of children go without foodand clothing items that almost all parents believe tobe necessary and which are widely accepted as being
vital to the continued health and development ofchildren. Finally, it allows other indicators to be
identified which the Government might wish to
focus on in its programme to reduce, and eventuallyabolish, childhood poverty.

Note
1

A logistic regression analysis was undertaken in which all of
the characteristics that were found to be significantly
associated with an increased risk of deprivation in the previous
analysis were included in the model.

42

The growth of poverty
in Britain

4

The Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey was the third

Over time, if societies get richer, the relative theory

in the past two decades to measure how many peopleof poverty predicts that the number of people who

in Britain are unable to afford socially perceived

perceive common possessions and activities asnecessities. By repeating a similar exercise in 1983,

necessary will increase. This is precisely what

1990 and 1999, we can get a picture of how poverty

occurred between the 1983 and 1990 surveys: a

has changed over time. Although the surveys havehigher percentage of respondents rated as necessities

not been identical, they have enough common data

30 out of 33 items common to both surveys.

to allow several types of change to be charted:
On average, the British population has become richer•

changes in the items that the majority of thethroughout the 1980s and 1990s: between 1983 andpopulation consider to be necessities of modern

1998/9, average income rose by 51 per cent (after

life;

housing costs), from £9,932 per year (£191 per week)to £15,028 per year (£289 per week), at February•changes in how many people are deprived of2000 prices.1 This increase in incomes was noteach necessity, because they cannot afford it;

shared equally. The incomes and wealth of the‘richest’ people increased considerably over the 1980s•changes in poverty defined as not having andand 1990s while the incomes and wealth of thebeing unable to afford a range of the necessities‘poorest’ declined in real terms after allowing forof life;inflation and increases in housing costs (DSS, 2000;
Gordon, 2000). The latest evidence on the•changes in the number of people suffering from

distribution of income for the 1998/99 financial year

long-term poverty.

shows that the gap between rich and poor has
continued to widen (Drever et al., 2000).

Changes in perception ofnecessities

Nevertheless, the overall rise in prosperity would
make one expect that on average a greater
proportion of people would consider common

Chapters 2 and 3 set out how the 1999 Omnibus

possessions and activities to be necessities in 1999

Survey produced a consensual measure ofthan in 1990 or 1983.

deprivation by looking at which items wereconsidered as necessities by the majority of the

However, the results shown in Table 12 give a more

population. In 1983 and 1990, members of thecomplicated picture indicating that people’s attitudes

general public were asked whether they considered

have been affected by changes in taste andspecified items to be necessities. Since the first

technology as well as the growth in prosperity; thesurvey, in 1983, the responses have repeatedly

most substantial changes in attitudes are highlighted

confirmed the assumption on which thisin bold. This table shows those items included in‘consensual’ method has been based - that there is amore than one of the surveys, most of them relatinghigh degree of consensus across different groups into adult necessities, but five relating to children thatthe population about which items are necessities

were already used in 1990.

(Mack and Lansley, 1985).

43

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 12: Proportions deeming items a necessity in 1999, 1990 and
1983
Item

1999

1990

(bold type indicates changes of at least 10 percentage points in the 1990s)
Damp-free home
9498
Inside toilet
97
Heating to warm living areas of the home
95
97
Beds and bedding for everyone
95
97
Bath not shared
95
Money to keep home in a decent state of decoration
83
92
Refrigerator
89
92
Warm, waterproof coat87
91
Three meals a day for children
91
90
Two meals a day for adults
91
90
Insurance of contents of dwelling
80
88
Fresh fruit and vegetables daily
87
88
Toys (e.g. dolls, teddies)
84
84
Separate bedrooms for children aged 10 and over80
82
Carpets in living rooms and bedrooms
68
78
Meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent every other day
81
77
Celebrations on special occasions
83
74
Two pairs of all-weather shoes
67
74
Washing machine
77
73
Presents for friends/family yearly
58
69
Out-of-school activities
69
Regular savings (of £10 per month) for rainy daysor retirement
67
68
Hobby or leisure activity
79
67
New, not second-hand, clothes
50
65
Roast joint/vegetarian equivalent once a week
58
64
Leisure equipment
62
61
Television
58
58
Telephone72
56
Holiday away from home once a year not with relatives 56
54
An outfit for social occasions
53
54
Outing for children weekly
53
Children’s friends round for tea/snack fortnightly
59
52
Dressing gown
37
42
An evening out once a fortnight
41
42
Coach/train fares to visit friends/family quarterly
41
39
Special lessons
39
Friends or family round for a meal
65
37
Car
36
26
Pack of cigarettes
18
A meal in a restaurant/pub monthly
27
17
Holidays abroad once a year
20
17
Video cassette recorder
19
13

44

1983

96
96
97
97
94
77
87
82
64

71
77
70
63
69
78
67
63

64
64
67
57
51
43
63
48
40
37
38
36

32
22
14

THE GROWTH OF POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Table 12 Continued
Item

1999

(bold type indicates changes of at least 10 percentage points in the 1990s)
Home computer
11
Dishwasher
7
Dictionary
55
Replace or repair broken electrical goods
86
Visits to friends or family
85
Visiting friends or family in hospital
92
Deep freezer/fridge freezer
55
Microwave
24
Mobile phone8
Tumble dryer
20
Satellite TV
5
CD player
12
Appropriate clothes for job interviews
70
Medicines prescribed by doctor
91
Access to the Internet
6
A small amount of money to spend on self weekly
61
Having a daily newspaper
32
Going to the pub once a fortnight
22
Attending weddings, funerals
81
Attending place of worship44
Collect children from school76
Visits to school, e.g. sports day
81

1990

1983

5
4

Some items that nearly all respondents felt to bemachines. In particular there has been a remarkably

necessary fluctuated by insignificant amounts in

rapid increase in the proportion of respondents thatterms of the proportions considering them to beconsider a telephone to be a necessity, from 43 pernecessary between the three surveys. Three items –cent in 1983, to 56 per cent in 1990, to 72 per cent in‘carpets in living rooms and bedrooms’, ‘presents for1999. Similarly ‘friends or family round for a meal’

family/friends yearly’ and ‘new, not second-hand,increased from 37 per cent in 1990 to 64 per cent in

clothes’ – did fall substantially contrary to the1999. However, this latter change may in part result

expectation that as society got richer most items

from changes to the question wording (e.g. 1999

would be rated as necessities by more people.

‘friends or family round for a meal, snack or drink’;

However, in most cases, asked about lower ranked,

1990 ‘friends/family round for a meal once a month’).

more luxury, items such as videos, dishwashers andcars, a greater proportion of respondents considered

Figure 4 compares the percentage of respondents

these to be necessities in 1999 than in 1990 or 1983.

who considered an item to be a necessity in 1999 (onSimilarly, many social and leisure activities such as

the vertical axis) with the percentage of respondents‘celebrations on special occasions’ and being able toin 1990 (horizontal axis), showing each item as aafford a ‘hobby or leisure activity’ were thought to be

cross. If a line were to be drawn at a 45 degree angle

a necessity by more respondents in 1999 than in thefrom the bottom left to the top right of the chart,

two previous surveys. This was also true for certain

points lying on it would have had the same

consumer durables such as telephones and washingproportion of people citing them as necessities in

45

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Figure 4: Attitudinal scatter plot comparing perceptions of necessities in1990 and 1999
Linear regression with 95.00% Individual Prediction
100

1999

75

50

25
8%
0
25

50

75

100

75

100

1990
Notes: year 99 = 7.79 + 0.87* year 90
R-square = 0.91

Figure 5: Perception of necessities: comparing 1983 and 1999
100

Linear regression with 95.00% Individual Prediction Interval

1999

75

50

25
22%

0
25

50
1983

Notes: year 99 = 21.82 + 0.73 x year 83
R-square = 0.62

1990 and 1999. In fact there would be more items tofigure that therefore tells most about the change overthe left/above this line and these had higher

time is the point at which the line intercepts one ofproportions citing them as necessities in 1999 than

the axes. This line crosses the 1999 axis at 8 perin 1990. A statistical technique can be used to ‘fit’ acent, showing that overall there was an ‘average’ 8line through the points that minimises the total

per cent increase in the public’s perception of

distances between the line and individual items.

necessities between 1990 and 1999. This is asThis is the middle line on the diagram. It confirms

expected given the growth in average prosperity overthat items considered to be important necessities by

the 1990s. Only those items that fall outside or closea large number of respondents in 1990 are also

to the top and bottom solid lines show changes thatthought to be so by a large number of respondents

are likely to be significantly different from thein 1999.

general trend.

It is difficult to interpret the line’s slope, since it is

Figure 5 shows that, between 1983 and 1999, there

affected by the fact that an item close to 100 per cent

was an even larger shift in the public’s perception of

in 1990 cannot increase significantly by 1999. The

the necessities of life: a baseline increase of 22 per46

THE GROWTH OF POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Thatcher’s children?
The possessions and activities highlighted in bold in
Table 13 are those where there is a marked difference
between the perceptions of the 16 to 24 age group in
1999, and both all adults in 1999 and the 16 to 24 age
group in 1990. The table clearly shows that the 16 to
24 age group in 1999 considers that all clothing items
are less important than do all adults in 1999 or did the
16 to 24 age group in 1990. Similarly, relatively few
respondents in the 16 to 24 age group in 1999 thought‘insurance of contents of dwelling’, ‘fresh fruit andvegetables daily’, ‘presents for friends/family yearly’and ‘a roast joint/vegetarian equivalent once a week’
were necessities. The consensus between age groups
on the necessities of life, that all people in Britain
should be able to afford and should not have to dowithout, appears to have weakened particularly in
relation to basic clothing requirements. (However, as
explained in Chapter 2 above, this still does not
typically affect whether an item is considered anecessity by a majority among different groups, so the‘consensual’ method of defining poverty used in thissurvey remains valid.)

Table 13: Proportion of 16- to 24-year-olds and all adults believing
items to be necessities in 1990-99
Item

Damp-free homeHeating to warm living areas of the home
Beds and bedding for everyone
Money to keep home in a decent
state of decoration
Refrigerator
Warm, waterproof coatThree meals a day for children
Two meals a day for adults
Insurance of contents of dwelling
Fresh fruit and vegetables daily
Toys for children (e.g. dolls, teddies)
Separate bedrooms for children
aged 10 and over
Carpets in living rooms and bedrooms
Meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent
every other day
Celebrations on special occasions
Two pairs of all-weather shoes
Washing machine
Presents for friends/family yearly
Regular savings (of £10 per month)
for rainy days or retirement
Hobby or leisure activity
New, not second-hand, clothes
Roast joint/vegetarian equivalent
once a week
Leisure equipment
Television
Telephone
Holiday away from home once a year
not with relatives

16 to 241999(%)

16 to 241990(%)

All adults
1999
(%)

All adults
1990
(%)

94
94
98

95
97
95

94
95
95

98
97
97

79
92
79
94
97
71
80
83

91
92
85
93
95
87
87
90

83
89
87
91
91
80
87
84

92
92
91
90
90
88
88
84

72
68

77
82

80
68

82
78

74
86
47
68
49

70
77
63
68
72

81
83
67
77
58

77
74
74
73
69

66
80
35

68
67
59

67
79
50

68
67
65

34
56
42
59

55
62
53
45

58
62
58
72

64
61
58
56

47

46

56

54

47

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 13 Continued
Item

16 to 24
1999(%)

An outfit for social occasions
45
Children’s friends round for tea/snack
once a fortnight
61
Dressing gown
16
An evening out once a fortnight48
Coach/train fares to visit friends/family quarterly 39
Friends or family round for a meal
61
Car
27
A meal in a restaurant/pub monthly
22
Holidays abroad once a year
20
Video casstte recorder
16Home computer
13
Dishwasher
7

16 to 241990(%)

All adults
1999
(%)

All adults
1990
(%)

54

53

54

50
24
50
31
35
22
13
23
17
4
4

59
37
41
41
65
36
27
20
19
11
7

52
42
42
39
37
26
17
17
13
5
4

Note: Items in bold show marked difference between 16 to 24 age group in 1999 with the same group in1990 and with all adults in 1999
Several commentators have remarked that thechildren who grew up knowing only Conservative
governments may as adults have rather more‘conservative’ views than their parents who grew up
during the 1960s and 1970s. However, it must be
noted that there has been little other than anecdotal
evidence to support this view. An alternativeinterpretation of these data is that young people havebecome less materialistic.

now enter post-school education and training schemes
than was the case in 1990. Although education andtraining improves long-term earnings prospects, it isassociated with lower income in the short term. This
relative impoverishment of youth may be as important afactor in explaining the change in attitudes amongst the
younger cohort as any cultural effect of 18 years ofConservative rule. Young people in 1999 were almost
twice as likely to be in education and training than in1990 and students have always been more restricted intheir perceptions of necessities than their working
peers. Unfortunately, due to the differences between
the surveys and changes in the definition of employment
status (particularly for working students) it is notpossible to quantify the relative importance of culturalchanges compared with these socio-economic changes.

Many young men and women suffered from profoundsocio-economic changes during the 1990s which
resulted in fewer young people being employed in fulltime jobs in 1999 than in 1990. Relative to older adults,
the earnings and benefit rates for young people
diminished. Larger numbers of young men and womencent. This again reflects the large average increases

available and have begun to be perceived as

in wealth experienced by the majority of the British

necessities by increasing numbers of people.

population over this period.
However, the 1990s witnessed an apparent
Over the 16 years between 1983 and 1999, thepolarisation between the attitudes of the young (agedBritish population has, as a whole, become more

16 to 24) and the rest of the population. The young

generous in what it considers to be necessities of life

have always made harsher judgements on what arethat everybody should be able to afford. As thenecessities than older generations, but this became

average wealth of the population has increased andmore pronounced between 1990 and 1999. This istechnology has progressed, so goods and services that

discussed in the box on pages 47-8, and helps

were once luxuries have become more generally

explain why there was not a simple pattern of all48

THE GROWTH OF POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Table 14: Changes in the perception of children's necessities
between 1995 and 1999
Item

1999
All adults
(%)

1999
Parents(%)

1995
Small Fortunes Survey
(%)

Food
Three meals a day
Fresh fruit or vegetables daily*
Meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent at least
twice a day

91
94

91
93

93
89

77

76

68

Clothing
Warm, waterproof coat‡
New, properly fitted, shoes
All required school uniform
4 jumpers/cardigans/sweatshirts
Some new, not second-hand, clothes
At least 7 pairs of new underpants
At least 4 pairs of trousers

95
94
88
73
70
83
69

95
96
88
71
67
84
74

94
94
79
62
61
59
59

93
90
74

92
88
73

74
66
50

71
78
59
60

63
71
53
57

47
40
**
33

89

90

82

88
83
84
62
55
49
42
18

89
84
85
66
60
45
38
13

74
73
66
46
32
26
20
5

93
69

96
68

94
70

78
67

77
75

69
62

Participation and activities
Celebrations on special occasions
Hobby or leisure activity
School trip at least once a term
Holiday away from home at least one
week a year
Swimming at least once a month
Friends round for tea/snack fortnightly
Leisure equipment
Development
Books of own
Play group at least once a week
(pre-school age children)
Educational games
Toys (e.g. dolls, teddies)
Construction toys
Bike: new/second-hand
At least 50p per week for sweets
Computer suitable for schoolwork
Computer games
Environmental
A bed and bedding for self
Garden to play in
Bedroom for every child of different
sex over 10 years
Carpet in bedroom

Notes: * In Small Fortunes, the item parents were asked for their opinion on was ‘fresh fruit once a day’
‡ In Small Fortunes, this item was identified as two separate items - ‘warm coat’ and ‘waterproof coat’. The percentage given isfor warm coat. The percentage of parents endorsing waterproof coat as a necessity was 80 per cent.
** This item was inadvertently omitted from the Small Fortunes Survey

49

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

items having a higher proportion of people thinking

world of childhood – in particular, a ‘hobby orof them as necessities in 1999 than previously. If

leisure activity’, ‘leisure equipment’, a ‘school trip at

one excludes young adults, few items are considered

least once a term’, and ‘swimming at least once anecessities by a declining proportion.

month’ (all increases of over 20 per cent). Very large
increases can also be seen in the group of items that

Changes in perceptions ofnecessities for children

contribute to children’s social and educational
development, particularly: ‘toys (e.g. dolls, teddies)’;‘construction toys’; a ‘new/second-hand bike’; and a

The measures of necessities in the original Breadline‘computer suitable for schoolwork’ (although this last

Britain study included only five items that wereitem was still not regarded as necessary by the

specifically for children and which can be used for

majority of parents in 1999). It seems that awarenesscomparison with the Omnibus Survey. However, it isof the importance of items to aid children’s social

possible to compare adult judgements about what are

participation and educational development isnecessities for children in 1995 when the Small

growing among parents.

Fortunes Survey was undertaken (Middleton et al.,1997), and in 1999, using the ONS Omnibus Survey.

However, despite this general trend towards higher
percentage endorsement of necessities, parent’sMore adults in the 1999 Omnibus Survey were inclined

priorities for children remain much the same – the basic

to say that things were necessities for children thannecessities of food, clothing and health are seen as

parents in the Small Fortunes Survey (Table 14). This

more important than participation and development.

was so for all adults and for parents, and for all items

Of the five items most frequently judged to bewith the exception of ‘three meals a day’ and a ‘garden

necessities in 1995, four of these items were still in thisto play in’, where the differences were very small – one

position in 1999: ‘new, properly fitted shoes’, own bed

or two percentage points. Eight items were endorsed as

and bedding, a ‘warm, waterproof coat’ and ‘fresh fruit

necessities by less than half of parents in 1995. Thisor vegetables daily’. Of the five items that were least

was reduced to only three items by 1999.

likely to be regarded as necessities in 1995, four werestill in the bottom five in 1999: ‘leisure equipment’, ‘atWith one or two exceptions, differences between theleast 50p a week for sweets’, ‘computer suitable forjudgements of parents and adults as a whole in theschoolwork’, and ‘computer games’.

1999 survey were very small. Differences emerged

Changes in deprivation

for a ‘holiday away from home once a year’, which 8
per cent fewer parents thought was a necessity than
all adults, and for a ‘carpet in their bedroom’ andAs technology advances, items that were once‘swimming at least once a month’, which 8 and 7 per

expensive luxuries become cheaper to produce andcent more parents thought to be a necessity than all

can begin to be afforded by increasing sections of theadults respectively. In Table 14 comparisons are

population. Therefore, it would be expected thatmade between parents in the Omnibus Survey andfewer and fewer people would suffer from not being

the Small Fortunes Survey parents, since the twoable to afford individual items (whether they besamples are more directly comparable.

luxuries or necessities) as time progressed since, invirtually every case, all these items have become
relatively less expensive with time.

In general, the smallest increases in the percentage
judging children’s items and activities as necessary
occurred for those items that already had very highHowever, the results shown in Table 15 indicate thatlevels of endorsement as necessary in the earlier

this process occurred with glacial slowness for poor

survey. These are two of the three food items, ‘new,people during the 1980s and has virtually ceased

properly fitted, shoes’, and a bed and bedding ofduring the 1990s. The proportion of households that

their own. Many of the largest increases occurred for

could not afford an item did not change overall

items that encourage participation in the social

between 1990 and 1999 and changed by only 0.5 per

50

THE GROWTH OF POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Table 15: Households lacking items because they can't afford them:
1999, 1990 and 1983 compared1999
Don’t have,
can’t afford(%)
Beds and bedding for everyone
1
Heating to warm living areas of the home3
Damp-free home
6
Two meals a day
1
Refrigerator*
Fresh fruit and vegetables daily
5Warm, waterproof coat4
Celebrations on special occasions
2
Money to keep home in a decent stateof decoration
15
Meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent every other day 2
Insurance of contents of dwelling
10
Hobby or leisure activity
7
Washing machine
2
Telephone2
Carpets in living rooms and bedrooms
2
Regular savings (of £10 per month) forrainy days or retirement
27
Two pairs of all-weather shoes
7
Friends or family round for a meal
6
Television*
Roast joint/vegetarian equivalent once a week
4
Presents for friends/family yearly4
Holiday away from home once a year
not with relatives
18
An outfit for social occasions
5
New, not second-hand, clothes
6
Car
11
Coach/train fares to visit friends/family quarterly
19
An evening out once a fortnight17
Dressing gown
1
A meal in a restaurant/pub monthly
21Video cassette recorder2
Holidays abroad once a year
29
Home computer
17
Dishwasher
11
Note: * less than 0.5%
Items not considered necessities by a majority of the populationin any year shown in italics

51

1990
Don’t have,
can’t afford
(%)

1983
Don’t have,
can’t afford
(%)

1
3
2
1
1
6
4
4

1
5
7
3
2
7
4

15
3
10
6
4
7
2

8
7
6
11
2

30
5
10
1
6
5

9
11
*
7
5

20
8
4
18
19
14
2
22
11
32
16
18

21
10
6
22
17
3
-

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

cent between 1983 and 1999 (in the sense that if aThis section compares the changes in poverty andscatter diagram similar to Figures 4 and 5 was drawn,

deprivation between 1983 and 1999, using thethe ‘fitted’ line would cross the 1999 axis at 0.5).

somewhat cruder methods and definitions of poverty

The majority of this small change was accounted forand deprivation that were available in 1983, so thatby 'luxury' items (video, dishwasher, car, etc.)

the results are directly comparable. Thus in order tobecoming relatively cheaper over the past 17 years.

produce directly comparable data across time poverty

The only item considered to be a necessity by a

has been defined at the household level as lacking

majority of the population for which there was a big

three or more items considered by the population todrop was the telephone – with only 2 per centbe necessities due to insufficient income.

unable to afford one in 1999 compared with 7 percent in 1990 and 11 per cent in 1983 (when only aThis procedure slightly underestimates the ‘true’

minority considered it a necessity).

amount of poverty discussed in Chapter 2.2 Two
differences in this cruder definition are, first of all

In the case of several necessities shown in Table 15,that it does not include people who lack two rather

deprivation rose between 1990 and 1999. The

than three items, and second that it does include

number of households unable to afford a ‘damp-freepeople currently deprived of necessities, but whose

home’, ‘two pairs of all-weather shoes’ and ‘new, notrelatively high income indicates that they havesecond-hand clothes’ all increased. In each case thisrecently risen out of poverty. There is also arise followed a fall in the 1980s. The long-term

difference from the measure used in Chapter 2

health consequences of damp housing are now wellbecause of the need to look at households when

documented. Children who suffered from multiple

measuring poverty over time: the 1999 measure of

housing deprivation are 25 per cent more likely toindividual poverty was not possible from the data inbecome seriously ill by the age of 33 than the rest ofprevious surveys.

the population after allowing for other major causes
Between 1983 and 1990, the number of householdsof ill health (Marsh et al., 1999).

who lacked three or more socially perceived
Slightly, fewer households could afford a homenecessities increased by almost 50 per cent. In 1983,

computer in 1999 than in 1990 despite the huge fall

14 per cent of households were living in poverty, andin the price of computers in real terms over theby 1990 this figure was 21 per cent. Poverty

1990s. This is a disturbing finding given that thecontinued to increase during the 1990s and, by 1999,

importance of the Internet is likely to increase during

the number of households living in poverty on thisthe twenty-first century. The Government isdefinition had again increased to over 24 per cent,attempting to ensure universal access, so that British

approximately 1 in 4 households.

society does not become divided into theThus, just as poverty measured by income inequality‘information poor’ and ‘information rich’.

has risen over the past two decades (see Figure 1,

Changes in poverty

page 8), so poverty measured by the enforced
deprivation of necessities has increased - by an

There are a number of differences between the

average rate of 1 per cent of households per year

previous 1983 and 1990 Breadline Britain surveys

during the 1980s and at a slower average rate of 0.3

and the current PSE survey that make direct

per cent of households per year during the 1990s.

comparison difficult. The PSE survey is much more

This represented about half a million extra people

accurate and detailed (and more expensive), whichliving in poverty on average each year between 1983

allowed detailed information on poverty, socialand 1990, and a smaller but continuing increase

exclusion and low income to be collected at theduring the 1990s. This dramatic rise in poverty, inindividual level, whereas the Breadline Britain

terms of the enforced lack of necessities, occurred

surveys collected information at the household level

while the majority of the British population became

and only had limited information about income.

richer.

52

THE GROWTH OF POVERTY IN BRITAIN

Table 16: Long-term chronic
poverty in 1990 and 1999

itself to doing will require major structural actions
affecting benefits, taxes, public services, market
conditions and earnings. These implications will be
examined in detail in subsequent reports.

Households
in 1990(%)
Not poor
Poor (not long-term)Long-term poor

Households
in 1999
(%)

79.0
17.0
4.0

76.0
21.5
2.5

Notes
1 Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies database

2 The improvements to the measurement of poverty in the PSE
survey are evolutionary compared with the Breadline Britain
methods. There is nothing radically wrong with what was doneLong-term poverty

in the 1983 and 1990 surveys and, indeed, the directlycomparable data produced in Chapter 4 tells a very similar story.

Although poverty affects a quarter of British

The 1983 and 1990 results should not be thought of as wrong any

households, in the majority of cases the welfare state

more than the HBAI is wrong because of the inadequacies of theprovides an effective ‘safety net’ which prevents

McClements’ equivalisation scale. There is always room forpeople from sinking too deeply into poverty. For

improvement and that is what the PSE represents.

many households, the experience of poverty isextremely unpleasant but relatively brief. It is
possible to estimate from the PSE survey the numberof households that suffer from long-term chronic
poverty. The 1990 Breadline Britain survey showedthat these households invariably suffered fromextremes of multiple deprivation, misery and want.
This ‘long-term poor’ group was defined in 1990 ashouseholds who have a deprivation score of three ormore (objective poverty), who consider that they are
genuinely poor ‘all the time’ (subjective poverty) and
who have lived in poverty in the past either ‘often’or ‘most of the time’ (persistent poverty).
Just over 4 per cent of households were long-term
poor in 1990. However, this had fallen to 2.5 percent of households by 1999 (Table 16). Thus,
although more than half a million households were
suffering from long-term chronic poverty in 1999,
the numbers have fallen over the 1990s. Whilst
there were more poor households at the end of the
1990s than there were at the beginning of thedecade, there were fewer households suffering fromchronic long-term poverty in 1999, according to thecomparative measure we have used, than in 1990.
The implications for policy of this evidence ofgrowing poverty are considerable. To halt andreverse the trend as the Government has committed53

5Social exclusion in Britain

The PSE survey distinguishes between fourindividual and household exclusion from the labour

dimensions of exclusion: impoverishment, or

market.

exclusion from adequate income or resources; labour
market exclusion; service exclusion; and exclusion

Individual and household exclusion are importantfrom social relations. The first of these aspects,

for different reasons. Individual attachment to thepoverty itself, is covered in the rest of this report.

labour market is increasingly held to be important

The present chapter sets out the main findings of the

not just because it is a route to an adequate income,survey in relation to the other three dimensions,but because paid work is seen as an important arena

with particular emphasis on exclusion from socialof social contact and social interaction. Individuals

relations. Exploration of this last aspect is unique to

not in paid work may therefore be held to be

the PSE survey and is generally neglected insocially excluded, whether or not they live withapproaches that rely on proxy indicators.

other adults in paid work and whether or not theSubsequent analyses, to be published separately, willhousehold is poor.

explore the relationships between the dimensions ofHowever, not being in paid work may also lead to

exclusion.

poverty, service exclusion and exclusion from social

Exclusion from the labour market

relations, and this may be more likely to happen to
individuals in households with no adult in paid

Because General Household Survey data are available

work. These households are sometimes referred to as

for all respondents to the PSE, we can look at both

‘workless households’. However, many of them

Table 17: Labour market participation by age, gender and healthstatus (percentage)
Economic status of respondent
Working

UnPermanently Retired
employedunableto work

Domestic
and caring
activities

Student

Other
inactive

Age of respondent
16-34
35-54
55-64
65+

76
80
38
7

6
4
2

1
6
15
1

0
1
33
85

8
7
8
5

8
1
0
0

0
2
4
2

Sex
Male
Female

63
50

4
3

6
4

21
26

2
12

3
3

1
2

Has long-standing illness
No
Yes

69
35

4
3

0
13

16
37

7
7

3
2

1
3

Total

57

3

5

24

7

3

2

54

SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

include people doing large amounts of unpaid work

women out of paid employment as men. Disability

caring for children or adult dependants, so they areis a major correlate of labour market inactivity.

better described as ‘jobless households’. For similar

Those with long-standing illness are about half as

reasons, the following account uses the term ‘labour

likely to be in paid work and more than twice asmarket inactive’ for those neither in paid work nor

likely to be labour market inactive, than thoseunemployed on an ILO definition, in place of the

without.

more conventional but misleading ‘economicallyinactive’.

Overall, the data suggest that we should be cautious
about treating labour market inactivity in itself as

Table 17 shows the extent of labour market

social exclusion, since it affects a very highparticipation by age group, gender and health status.

proportion of the population. However, in so far as

The results show that 43 per cent of adults (50 per

it may be a risk factor, we should be alert to its

cent of women and 37 per cent of men) have nodistribution and to its correlation with more direct

paid work. Overall, 3 per cent (4 per cent of men

indicators of exclusion.

and 3 per cent of women) are unemployed but the
majority of those not in paid work are ‘labour market

Living in a jobless household is often taken as aninactive’. Many of these are people over working age

indicator of social exclusion. Table 18 shows that,

and, in all, more than half of them describe

overall, over 1 in 3 of the population lives either in athemselves as retired. However, non-participation in

pensioner household (21 per cent) or in a joblesspaid work is by no means confined to those over

non-pensioner household (13 per cent). Nearly two-

pensionable age. In the 55 to 64 age group, 62 per

fifths of individuals (38 per cent) living in non-cent are not in paid work. While about half of thesepensioner jobless households are aged between 55

describe themselves as retired, a substantial

and 64; one-third of all people in this age group (33proportion (15 per cent) are sick or disabled, or are

per cent) live in jobless households. Among younger

engaged in domestic and caring activities (8 perpeople, about 1 in 8 of those aged 16 to 34, andcent). These last two are the main reasons for labour

1 in 10 of those aged 35 to 54 are in households

market inactivity in younger age groups, with caring

with no paid work. Women are more likely thanresponsibilities at least six times as likely to takemen to live in pensioner or jobless non-pensioner

Table 18: Workers in household (percentage of respondents)
Workers in household
No workers(%)

Workers(%)

Retired(%)

Age of respondent
16-34
35-54
55-64
65+

13
10
33
5

87
90
56
6

11
89

Sex
Male
Female

13
14

70
62

17
24

Has long-standing illness
No
Yes

9
20

77
47

14
32

Total

13

66

21

55

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

households. Those with long-standing illness are

Table 19: Utility disconnections
and restricted use
experienced byrespondents

one and a half times as likely as others to live inhouseholds without paid work.

Service exclusion

Has
experienced
disconnection(%)

Has
restrictedconsumption(%)

Age of respondent
16-34
35-54
55-64
65+

10
7
1
1

13
12
10
6

Sex
Male
Female56813Has long-standing illness
No
Yes

6
5

7
17

Household type
SingleCoupleHousehold with children
Other

3
3
7
9

13
8
15
8

Workers in household
No worker
Workers
Retired

14
5
1

31
8
7

public services (e.g. libraries, hospitals and post

Economic status of respondent
Working
5
Unemployed
20
Labour market inactive
5

7
33
13

offices) and private services (e.g. corner shops, banks

Total

11

One aspect of social exclusion is lack of access tobasic services, whether in the home (such as power
and water supplies) or outside it (such as transport,
shopping facilities and financial services).
Utility disconnections constitute exclusion from basic
domestic services which most people take for granted.
We asked about disconnections of water, gas,
electricity and telephone and whether people had
restricted their use of these services because of cost.
The answers are presented in Table 19. Six per centhad experienced disconnection from one or more
services and 11 per cent had used less than theyneeded because they were unable to afford them(‘restricted consumption’). Both disconnection andrestricted consumption declined with age. Women
were slightly more likely than men to haveexperienced disconnection and were nearly twice as
likely to have restricted consumption. Householdswith children were at greater risk on both counts.
Those with long-standing illness were less likely thanothers to have been disconnected but much more
likely to have restricted consumption. Those in nonpensioner jobless households were nearly four times as
likely to have restricted consumption and nearly threetimes as likely as those in households with paid work
to have been disconnected (31 per cent and 14 percent, compared with 8 per cent and 5 per cent).
Respondents were asked about access to a range of6

and pubs) outside the home (Table 21). In each case,they were asked whether they used the service, used
it but considered it inadequate, did not use it and did

services because they were either unaffordable or

not want to, did not use it because it was

unavailable. Only 54 per cent of the population

unavailable, or did not use it because they could nothave access to the full range of publicly and privately

afford to. This enabled us to differentiate between

provided services.

‘collective exclusion’, where services are simply notavailable or unsuitable and ‘individual exclusion’,For both publicly and privately provided services,where they are priced out of individual reach.

lack of availability rather than lack of affordability is

Overall, 24 per cent were excluded from two or more

the main barrier to use. Lack of availability, or

56

SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 20: Respondents lacking different numbers of services because
unaffordable and/or unavailable
Number of services lacking
1(%)

2 or more
(%)

Total
(%)

Public services
Cannot afford
Unavailable
Cannot afford or unavailable

3
20
21

1
8
10

4
28
31

Private services
Cannot afford
Unavailable
Cannot afford or unavailable

4
15
16

2
11
14

6
26
30

Both public and private
Cannot afford
Unavailable
Cannot afford or unavailable

5
23
22

4
18
24

9
41
46

‘collective exclusion’, affects nearly one-third ofdifference is that 33 per cent of people in non-respondents for both public and private services.

pensioner jobless households lack access to two or

The level of collective exclusion from adequate

more services compared with 21 per cent of thoseservices is, however, higher, since substantial

with workers, and 30 per cent of unemployed or not-proportions who use individual services regard theseworking respondents lack this access compared to 20

services as inadequate. Lack of affordability, or

per cent of those in work. A similar difference in‘individual exclusion’, affected only 1 in 10. The

access is apparent in comparing those having a long-main items for which charges were cited as astanding illness with those that do not (30 per centdeterrent were evening classes and visits to the pub

to 21 per cent). There is a smaller increased risk if

or cinema/theatre (Table 21). There are small

you are a woman (27 per cent compared with 20 per

numbers of respondents who do not have access tocent for men). These groups with an increased

the basic health services of opticians because of cost.

probability of lacking services are similar whether

Access to public transport is problematic for a

one is considering private or public services.

significant minority of the population - 6 per centcited bus services as unavailable or unsuitable, andIn terms of lacking access to two or more services

11 per cent were unable to use train services because

overall (Table 22), those aged over 65 have a higher

they were either unavailable or unaffordable. A

risk (29 per cent, compared with 21 per cent for

further 15 per cent regarded bus services and 10 per

those aged 35 to 64). However, further analysis

cent, train services, as unavailable. These figures are

showed, while exclusion from two or more private

likely to be underestimates rather than overestimatesservices is more common among those aged over 65,

of both collective and individual exclusion, since

exclusion from two or more public services declines

some people prefer to say that they do not wantslightly with age, so that this group has rather better

services than to admit that they cannot afford them.

access than the rest of the population. The probableexplanation for this is that public services are

Table 22 shows the characteristics of those who

generally provided free or cheaply to those over 65,

lack at least two services because they are either

suggesting that the Welfare State does work and that

unaffordable and/or unavailable. The major

the best way of delivering services to vulnerable

57

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 21: Which public and private services respondents used
Collective exclusion

Public services
Libraries
Public sports facilities
Museums and galleries
Evening classes
A public or community village hall
A hospital with accident/
emergency unit
DoctorDentist
Optician
Post officePrivate services
Places of worshipBus services
Train or tube station
Petrol stations
ChemistCorner shop
Medium to large supermarket
Banks or building societies
Pub
Cinema or theatre

Individual exclusion

Use adequate

Use inadequate

(%)

(%)

Don’t use unavailable or
unsuitable(%)

Don’t use –Don’t use –can’t afford don’t want or
not relevant
(%)
(%)

55
39
29
17
31

6
7
4
2
3

3
5
13
5
9

0
1
1
3
0

36
48
52
73
56

75
92
83
78
93

13
6
5
3
4

2
0
1
1
0

0
0
0
1
0

10
2
11
17
2

30
38
37
75
93
73
92
87
53
45

1
15
10
2
3
7
4
7
4
6

2
6
10
2
1
8
2
1
2
10

0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
5

66
41
41
21
3
12
2
4
37
33

groups is by providing public services, free at thepossession of bank or building society accounts.

point of use.

Seven per cent of adults have no access to a bankaccount in their own right. About 1 in 4 of these

Referring to Table 21, among the services asked about

lives with a partner or spouse with an account but 1

were banks and building societies. Five per cent ofin 20 of the household population appear to be

adults said they did not use these services. In mostcurrently without access to one, either personally orcases, the reason given was that they did not wantby proxy.

to. Whilst 1 per cent said they were unavailable,
none said that they could not afford them. Lack of

It is important to note that factors other than priceaccess to a bank account is an increasingly important

may also result in effective exclusion from services

marker of financial exclusion, as fewer and fewer

and activities. Those with limiting long-standingtransactions can be effected purely in cash and as theillness or disability were asked about difficulties inprovision of post offices and sub-post offices

accessing various services. Nearly 1 in 3 reported

declines. The question about access to services was

great difficulty using services such as cinemas,

supplemented by a direct question about themuseums, shops and restaurants and 1 in 6 had had

58

SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 22: Service exclusion by selected key variables
Number of public/private services unaffordable/unavailable
1(%)

2 or more
(%)

Total
(%)

Age of respondent
16-34
35-54
55-64
65+

16
27
21
23

26
21
19
29

42
49
40
52

Sex
Male
Female

22
22

20
27

42
49

Has long-standing illness
No
Yes

22
22

21
30

43
52

Household type
SingleCoupleHousehold with children
Other

20
21
24
22

29
25
21
22

49
46
45
44

Workers in household
No worker
Workers
Retired

19
22
23

33
21
27

52
43
51

Economic status of respondent
Working
Unemployed
Labour market inactive

22
15
22

20
30
30

42
45
52

Total

22

24

46

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding

problems arranging accommodation or insurance oranalysis, the links between this and other aspects ofusing banks, building societies and public telephones

exclusion - poverty, joblessness and service exclusion(Table 23).

- can be explored. Exclusion from social relations canbe looked at in different ways: through non-Exclusion from social relations

participation in common social activities; isolation;lack of support; disengagement; and confinement.

A unique feature of the PSE survey is that it seeks
direct information about social relations and social

Non-participation in common social activities

participation. At this stage of the analysis, we canTables 24 and 25 show the extent to which people

simply describe the pattern of exclusion from social

participate in a range of common social activities

relations among the household population. In future

and the proportion excluded by lack of money. Only

59

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

63 per cent of the population can afford the full

Table 23: Activity/service
difficulty due to health problem
or disability

range of social activities (this includes some items,
shown in italics, that are not considered necessities
by the majority, as this section is about social
exclusion, not poverty). One in 10 of the population
is excluded by lack of money from participation in

Access difficult due to health problem
or disability (%)

five or more social activities, 20 per cent from threeor more, and 27 per cent from two or more.

Activity
Go to the cinema, theatre or concerts
Go to the library, art galleries or museums
Go shopping
Eat out in a restaurant or have a drink
Go to a football match or othersporting event
Other
Have had no great difficulty in doingthese things

Holidays, going out and eating out are the activities

15
9
15
11

which are most curtailed by lack of money, but 6 percent of the population said they were unable to have

Table 24: Number of commonsocial activities that cannot be
afforded

10771Service
Arrange accommodation in a hotelor boarding house
Arrange insurance
Use a bank or building society
Use a public telephone
Other
Have had no great difficulty in using
these services

12
3/4
5 or more
Total

4
6
4
4
2

(%)

Cumulative
(%)

11
7
10
10
100

73
80
90
100
100

Note: Columns may not sum due to rounding

86

Table 25: Participation in common social activities
Essential

Do activity

(%)
92
84
83
81
80
78
75
64
55
41
39
38
26
20
19

Visiting friends or family in hospital
Visits to friends or family
Celebrations on special occasions
Visits to school, e.g. sports day
Attending weddings, funerals
Hobby or leisure activity
Collect children from school
Friends or family round for a meal
Holiday away from home once a year
Attending place of worship
An evening out once a fortnight
Coach/train fares to visit friends/family quarterly
A meal in a restaurant/pub monthly
Going to the pub once a fortnight
Holidays abroad once a year(%)

Don't do/don't want(%)

Don't do/can't afford
(%)

88
95
96
52
94
81
45
84
68
31
61
30
60
47
48

9
3
2
46
3
12
52
10
14
68
23
55
21
43
25

3
2
2
3
3
7
3
6
18
1
16
18
19
10
28

Note: Items in italics were not considered to be necessities by more than 50% of the population

60

SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 26: Non-participation in common social activities because
respondents cannot afford them, by selected variables
Social activities lacking because cannot afford
1
(%)

2
(%)

3/4
(%)

5+
(%)

Total
(%)

Age of respondent
16-34
35-54
55-64
65+

13
10
9
9

9
4
4
9

11
11
9
8

16
10
7
5

49
36
29
31

Sex
Male
Female

11
10

7
6

8
11

9
12

36
39

Has long-standing illness
No
Yes

12
8

7
7

9
11

9
13

37
38

Household type
SingleCoupleHousehold with children
Other

10
9
13
11

6
5
9
6

10
6
15
9

10
5
16
12

35
25
53
38

Workers in household
No worker
Workers
Retired

10
11
8

9
6
8

14
9
9

28
8
6

60
35
32

Economic status of respondent
Working
Unemployed
Labour market inactive

12
6
9

6
6
8

8
21
12

8
32
12

34
65
40

Total

11

7

10

10

37

friends or family round for a meal, snack or drink.

pensioner households (51 per cent compared with 23

Seven per cent were unable to afford a hobby or

per cent of people in households with workers orleisure activity. Smaller numbers were excluded frompensioners). There is also lower participation bysuch basic social activities as visiting family andhouseholds with children (40 per cent compared withfriends, even when in hospital, and attending

26 per cent of single people and 16 per cent of

weddings and funerals.

couples without children). Greater proportions of theyoungest age group (aged 16 to 34) lack participation

Table 26 shows the groups participating in social

in two or more activities (36 per cent compared withactivities. Most strikingly, these are unemployed

25 per cent of those aged 35 to 54, and 20 per cent or

people (59 per cent, compared with 23 per cent of

more of those aged 55 and over). A slightly higher

working people) and those living in jobless non-proportion of women do not participate in two or

61

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

contact is higher for the 55 to 64 age group, for

Table 27: Factors preventing
participation in common social
activities

women, for those living in non-pensioner joblesshouseholds and those not in paid work. It is notablethat those in non-pensioner jobless households havemore frequent family contact than those in

Non-participation (%)
Can’t afford to
Not interested
Lack of time due to childcare responsibilities
Too old, ill, sick or disabled
Lack of time due to paid work
No one to go out with (social)
No vehicle/poor public transport
Lack of time due to other caring
responsibilities
Fear of burglary or vandalism
Fear of personal attack
Can’t go out due to other caring
responsibilities
Problems with physical accessFeel unwelcome (e.g. due to disability, ethnicity,
gender, age, etc.)
None of thesehouseholds with paid work. Most people (91 percent) have non-household family members with

47
44
18
14
14
6
5

whom they have some contact at least weekly andonly 1 per cent has no family contact at least a few
times a year.
More than 1 in 4 (28 per cent) has no friend withwhom they are in contact on a daily basis. Only 8
per cent have no friend with whom they are incontact at least weekly. A small minority (3 per cent)43
3

has no contact with friends even a few times a year.
In terms of daily contact with friends, 37 per cent of
those aged over 65 do not have this, compared with
about 30 per cent of those aged 35 to 64 and less2
1than 20 per cent of the youngest group (aged 16 to34). Forty per cent of couple households do nothave this daily contact with friends, compared with

1
8

less than 25 per cent for other household types.
Both pensioner and non-pensioner joblessNote: Multiple responses allowed

households (64 per cent and 69 per cent respectively)
are less likely to see friends on a daily basis thanmore activities (29 per cent compared with 24 perworking households (76 per cent), but those who arecent of men). Lack of money is not the only factor

unemployed are more likely to see friends daily (81preventing people from participating in the listed

per cent) than those in work (75 per cent). However,activities, although it is cited more often than any

those economically inactive fare worse than either

other, closely followed by lack of interest. Table 27(68 per cent). The pattern for those who do not havesummarises the range of other reasons given,contact with any friends at least weekly is similar.

including principally lack of time due to childcare
and other caring responsibilities, sickness andLooking at patterns of contact with either family or

disability, and lack of time due to paid work. Thisfriends, 1 in 8 (13 per cent) have neither a family

last factor suggests caution in treating labour market

member nor a friend outside their household withactivity as a simple route to social inclusion even forwhom they are in contact on a daily basis. Only 3

those of working age, and requires further

per cent had no weekly contact with a family

exploration.

member or friend and 2 per cent had no suchcontact even a few times a year. The groups most

Isolation

likely to be without daily contact are those over 65

Respondents were asked about the frequency with

(18 per cent compared with 9 per cent of those aged

which they saw or spoke to family members or

16 to 34) and those living as couples (19 per centfriends outside their immediate household, including

compared with about 10 per cent for otherboth face-to-face and telephone contact. Table 28

household types).

shows that over half the population (59 per cent)have at least one non-household family member

The data on isolation in terms of contact with either

whom they see or speak to on a daily basis. Daily

friends or family show no difference between those

62

SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 28: Level of respondents’ social contact with family and friends
Contact with family and friends
FamilyFriends

Family/friends

Daily

WeeklyDaily

WeeklyDaily

Weekly

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Age of respondent
16-34
35-54
55-64
65+

63
53
68
58

94
88
93
90

81
72
70
63

97
93
88
90

91
87
90
82

98
96
95
97

Sex
Male
Female

51
67

89
93

68
76

91
94

85
90

96
98

Has long-standing illness
No
Yes

58
61

91
92

74
69

94
90

88
87

97
97

Household type
SingleCoupleHousehold with children
Other

58
59
59
61

91
93
90
89

76
60
79
78

93
88
96
93

90
81
92
89

96
97
97
96

Workers in household
No worker
Workers
Retired

71
57
58

94
90
91

69
76
64

90
94
90

89
88
83

97
97
97

Economic status of respondent
Working
56
Unemployed
67
Labour market inactive
64

90
88
93

75
81
68

94
95
90

88
94
87

96
98
97

Total

91

72

92

87

97

59

in work and those economically inactive, while thoseoften also suggest that paid work can contribute to

who are unemployed are a little more likely to havethis. The two most frequently cited reasons weredaily contact with family and friends. Those living

distance and lack of time due to paid work.

in jobless households are slightly less likely to lacksocial contacts than those in households with paid

Lack of support

work. It appears, therefore, that joblessness for

One indicator of the existence of functioning social

individuals and households does not necessarily

relationships and networks is the amount of practicalincrease social isolation in these terms. The reasonsand emotional support potentially available togiven for people not seeing family and friends moreindividuals in times of need. Respondents were63

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 31: Levels of overall
support across all key areas byselected variables

Table 29: Number of situations
in which respondents reported‘a lot of’, or ‘some’ support
Number of situations inwhich potential
support available

(%)

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

54
9
8
6
12
2
8
1

Total

100

Level of support
Good‘None’/‘Not much’‘Some’/‘A lot’29

71

problems

2377

Help with heavy
household jobs

13

87

Advice13

87

Looking after personal
possessions

11

89

Talking to if depressed

1189Home help during personalillness

9

91

Informal caring
Help with relationshipPoor

Age of respondent
16-34
61
35-54
54
55-64
46
65+
48

20
24
25
28

19
23
29
24

Sex
Male
Female

23
24

26
20

23
25

23
23

42
53

32
21

27
26

61
54

23
23

16
23

Workers in household
No worker
47
Workers
56
Retired
49

33
21
27

20
23
25

21
31

21
24

27

25

51
56

Has long-standing illness
No
54
Yes
52

Table 30: Proportion of
respondents having potential
support in each of sevensituations
Type of support

Reasonable

Household type
SingleCoupleHouseholdwith children
Other

Economic status of respondent
Working
58
Unemployed
45
Labour market
inactive48

look after the home or possessions when away.
Three related to emotional support: needing advice

asked how much support they would expect to get in

about an important life change; someone to talk to if

seven situations, including support from members ofdepressed; and someone to talk to about problems

the household, other family and friends and any

with a spouse or partner. The results are summarised

other means of support. Four items related toin Table 29.

practical support: needing help around the homewhen in bed with flu; help with heavy household or

Only just over half (54 per cent) of the population

gardening jobs; help with caring responsibilities for

expect to be able to call on ‘some’ or ‘a lot’ ofchildren or elderly or disabled adults; someone tosupport in all seven categories. More than 1 in 5 (2364

SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

per cent) lacks adequate support in at least four outof civic organisation, this revealed that just underof seven areas. Nearly 10 per cent have some or a lot

60 per cent are involved, with sports clubs claimingof support in no situations or only one situation.

the highest number of participants, at around 18 percent (Table 33). Combining the activities andTable 30 shows that, in each situation, the majority

organisations covered in Tables 32 and 33, a total ofof the population think they could rely on support

88 per cent of individuals were engaged in some way,

but at least 1 in 10 have little or no support in eachleaving just under 12 per cent apparently disengaged.

situation and this rises to about 1 in 4 in the case of

The importance of voting in this total should be

advice about relationship problems and 1 in 3 foremphasised - excluding it would mean that 30 per

informal caring.

cent are disengaged (Table 34).

Those with ‘thin’ support (i.e. none or not much

The distribution of disengagement among different

support) are not evenly spread through thegroups is also outlined in Table 34. With some

population (Table 31). We divided the data into

exceptions, the patterns are similar for the 12 perthose with good support (some or a lot of support incent who have no engagement at all and the 30 per

all seven situations), reasonable support (lacking

cent who have no engagement beyond possibly

good support in one to three situations) and poor

voting. The differences between different groups aresupport (lacking good support in four or moregenerally quite small. The 16-34 age group havesituations). Overall, men have poorer support

relatively high levels of disengagement, comparednetworks than women. People with jobs are morewith 35- to 64-year-olds, although it rises again to

likely to expect good support than thosesimilar levels to the young for older people, apart

unemployed or outside the labour market. Those infrom voting. Not working or being in a worklessretired and non-pensioner jobless households reporthousehold tends to raise disengagement, althoughless supportive networks. However, those in non-again retired households vote more.

pensioner jobless households are less likely to reportpoor, rather than reasonable, support than those in

Confinement

either retired or working households. It should be

Participation in social activities and social contact

stressed that the questions asked were about help

beyond the household depends on being able to get

potentially available. They thus reflect how

out and about. People who are not able to movesupported people feel, rather than being a simple

about freely may be effectively excluded from fullmeasure of how supported they actually are -social participation. In addition to factors such as

although of course respondents will also have drawn

affordability, childcare responsibilities, being too old,on their experience of support or the lack of it indisabled or sick, or lack of time due to paid work

specific situations. The higher expectations of those(Table 27), other factors are involved which leavein paid work may not be wholly born out in practice.

people substantially confined to their home and, inless extreme cases, reduce their level of activity. A

Disengagement

prime example is personal safety. Table 35 shows that

Lack of civic engagement is sometimes deemed

30 per cent of the population feels unsafe walking

to be an important aspect of social exclusion.

alone after dark. Those most likely to feel unsafe are

Respondents were asked which of a list of activities

women, older people, those not in paid work andthey had done in the last three years and whether

those in pensioner and non-pensioner joblessthey were currently actively involved in any of ahouseholds (Table 35).

comprehensive range of organisations. About 17 percent have taken no such action at all in the previous
three years. The only two activities which drew
more than 1 in 3 of the population were voting in
local and in general elections (Table 32).
Looking next at current participation in various types

65

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 32: Civic activities undertaken in the last three years
Activity(%)

Voted in the last general election
Voted in the last local election
Helped on fundraising drives
Urged someone outside the family to votePresented views to local councillor
Urged someone to get in touch with a local councillor
Been an officer of an organisation or club
Made a speech before an organised group
Written a letter to an editor
Taken an active part in a political campaign
Stood for civic office
None of these

73
65
29
20
16
16
14
11
5
3
1
17

Note: Multiple responses allowed

Table 33: Current active involvement in civic organisations
Type of group(%)

Sports club
Religious group or church organisation
Any other group or organisation
Trade union
Social club or working men’s club
Tenants, Residents Association, Neighbourhood Watch
Voluntary service group
Parents’ or school association
Environmental group
Other community or civic group
Women’s group or organisation
Political party
Other pressure group
Women’s Institute or Townswomen’s Guild
None of these
Don’t know

18
12
11
10
10
9
8
6
3
3
3
2
2
1
41
3

Note: Multiple responses allowed

66

SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table 34: Respondents’ lack of
civic activity by selectedvariables
Disengaged
from activities(%)

Table 35: Respondents who feelsafe or unsafe walking alone
after dark, by selected variables

Disengaged
or only votes(%)

Walking after dark
Feel safe(%)

Feel unsafe(%)

Age of respondent
16-34
35-54
55-64
65+

18
9
6
11

34
23
29
34

Age of respondent
16-34
35-54
55-64
65+

73
74
69
62

27
26
31
38

Sex
Male
Female

13
11

30
29

Sex
Male
Female

83
58

17
42

Has long-standing illness
No
Yes

12
12

27
34

Has long-standing illness
No
Yes

73
66

27
34

Household type
Single10
Couple8
Household with children 12
Other
18

30
29
27
32

Household type
SingleCoupleHousehold with children
Other

65
69
76
69

35
31
24
31

Workers in household
No worker
Workers
Retired

17
12
9

35
27
35

Workers in household
No worker
Workers
Retired

64
75
61

36
25
39

Economic status of respondent
Working
10
Unemployed
21
Labour market inactive 14

25
39
35

Economic status of respondent
Working
Unemployed
Labour market inactive

75
72
63

25
28
37

Total

30

Total

70

30

12

Conclusion
the interaction of these dimensions of social
There have been few previous attempts to

exclusion, and their interaction with the fourth

operationalise the concept of social exclusion indimension, poverty and impoverishment, using theempirical research. In this chapter we have exploredbattery of measures collected as part of the PSE

three dimensions of social exclusion: exclusion fromsurvey. Through that analysis we hope to be able tothe labour market, service exclusion, and exclusion inestablish the extent to which these dimensions aresocial relations. In future work we will be exploring

independent or associated with each other.

67

6Conclusions

The Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey of Britain isof people in Britain today are poor, by the standards

the most comprehensive and scientifically rigorousof the time, than was the case in previous centuries.

survey of this type ever undertaken. It provides

The fact that an unprecedented absolute number of

unparalleled detail about material and social

individuals are affected has significant implications

deprivation and exclusion among the British

for the scale and design of solutions.

population at the close of the twentieth century.
The survey allows poverty to be described not just as
The UK Government and others have committed

an aggregate statistic but also in terms of the realthemselves to the aim of eliminating poverty

conditions that people face. For example, out of 58

throughout the world during the twenty-firstmillion people in Britain today:

century. The UK government has a key role to play
not only by investigating and putting policies in•Roughly 9.5 million people in Britain cannot

place to reduce poverty but by influencing scientificafford adequate housing conditions as perceived

standards of investigation, analysis of causes andby the majority of the population. That is, they

reduction of poverty in other parts of the world. The

cannot afford to keep their home adequately

PSE survey documents the scale and nature of theheated, free from damp or in a decent state ofproblem in Britain with regard to both poverty anddecoration.1

social exclusion.
•

Poverty

About 8 million people cannot afford one ormore essential household goods, such as a fridge,
a telephone or carpets for living areas, or to

By the end of 1999, approximately 14.5 million

repair electrical goods or furniture when theypeople (26 per cent) were living in poverty in Britain

break or wear out.

according to the PSE survey. The survey’s
measurement of poverty, by taking into account both•

Almost 7.5 million people are too poor to be able

low income and multiple deprivation of items

to engage in those common social activities

socially defined as necessities, confirms that poverty

considered necessary: visiting friends and family,

rates have risen sharply since the early 1980s.

attending weddings and funerals, or having

Between 1983 and 1990, the number of households

celebrations on special occasions.

living in poverty increased by almost half – from 14
per cent to 21 per cent of the population. Poverty•

A third of British children go without at least one

continued to increase during the 1990s and, by 1999,

of the things they need, like three meals a day,the number of households living in poverty had again

toys, out of school activities or adequate

increased, to over 24 per cent.

clothing. Eighteen per cent of children go
without two or more items or activities defined

How does this figure compare to historic poverty

as necessities by the majority of the population.

levels? At times in the past, bigger proportions of the
British population have been poor and their poverty•

About 6.5 million adults go without essential

has often been more severe and life-threatening.

clothing, such as a warm waterproof coat,

However, because of the growth in the size of the

because of lack of money.

population in the twentieth century, a larger number

68

CONCLUSIONS•

Around 4 million people are not properly fed byaverage needed to escape from overall poverty wastoday’s standards. They do not have enough£239. Over 40 per cent of lone parents, 19 per centmoney to afford fresh fruit and vegetables, orof single pensioners and 18 per cent of couples withtwo meals a day, for example.

one child identified themselves as being in ‘absolute’
poverty and more than 50 per cent, 26 per cent and•Over 10.5 million people suffer from financial

27 per cent, respectively, as being in ‘overall’ poverty.

insecurity. They cannot afford to save, insure
their house contents or spend even smallThis represents a first attempt to operationalise an

amounts of money on themselves.

internationally agreed definition that can compare
poverty consistently across countries. A future report

Poverty appears to have become more widespreadbased on the PSE survey will aim to go further, andbut not deepened over the 1990s. Between 1990 andoperationalise these definitions objectively as well as

1999 the number of households living in chronic

by asking people about their perceptions.

long-term poverty fell, from 4 per cent of households
to 2.5 per cent of households.

The implications of these results are substantial. For
example, they have implications for the adequacy of

Poverty rates are higher amongst:

current benefit rates and wages in allowing people toachieve a living standard that takes them out of•

women;

absolute and overall poverty, an aim that the British•

children;Government has signed up to at the United Nations.

•adults living in one-person households,
including single pensioners;

Social exclusion•large families;•

families with a child under 11;

The PSE survey distinguishes four dimensions of•young people;

exclusion: impoverishment, or exclusion from•those who left school at age 16 or under;

adequate income or resources; labour market•

households with no paid workers;

exclusion; service exclusion; and exclusion from•separated/divorced households;

social relations. In this report our analysis has•lone parent households;

concentrated on the three dimensions that are•

local authority and housing association tenants;

distinct from poverty itself, with particular emphasis•

households dependent on Income Support.

on exclusion from social relations.

The poverty rate was 66 per cent and 62 per centLabour market exclusion

respectively for lone parents with one or two children

We should be cautious about treating non-and even higher for lone parents with three or moreparticipation in paid work or living in a joblesschildren. It was 77 per cent for unemployed people,

household as constituting social exclusion because:and 61 per cent for disabled or long-term sick people,
in households where no one was in paid work.

•

43 per cent of adults have no paid work;

Absolute and overall poverty•

over 1 in 3 of the population lives in ahousehold without paid work: in which all adults

This report also uses subjective measures to estimate

are either pensioners or jobless non-pensioners.

how many people consider themselves to be in‘absolute’ and ‘overall’ poverty according to the

However, labour market exclusion remains an

United Nations definitions: the findings were 17 perimportant risk factor for both service exclusion andcent and 26 per cent respectively. The amountsome aspects of exclusion from social relations.

respondents thought was necessary to escape fromabsolute poverty was on average £178 per week. The

69

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Service exclusion•

Developing a scientificapproach to poverty

More than 1 in 20 have been disconnected fromwater, gas, electricity or telephone and over 1 in
10 have used less than they need because of cost.

•

During the twentieth century the scourge of
infectious diseases was virtually eliminated inindustrialised countries. A far more ambitious aim
for the twenty-first century, an end to world poverty,
will only be achieved if the political will and scientificexpertise becomes available to develop andimplement effective and efficient anti-poverty policies.
Poverty and social exclusion are not Acts of God,nor are they an inevitable consequence of economic
and social progress.

About 1 in 14 are excluded from four or more ofa list of essential public and private services andnearly 1 in 4 from two or more because theservices are either unaffordable or unavailable.

•

Non-availability of services (collective exclusion)
is a bigger barrier than non-affordability(individual exclusion).

•

Only about half the population has access to the

Scientific surveys like the Poverty and Social
Exclusion Survey of Britain are necessary to provide
details on the extent and nature of the problem.
Without detailed knowledge it is impossible todevelop effective policies. In 1998, the British
Government committed itself to publishing an annual
assessment of progress in reducing poverty and social
exclusion. The first of these reports was published inlate 1999 (DSS, 1999b). Three sets of indicators
covering children and young people, people ofworking age, and older people were nominated to be
used by the Government to monitor the success of
their anti-poverty strategies. But there was nosystematic measure of poverty like the ones in thissurvey. These types of data have not been included
in any of the routine government-sponsored national
surveys.2

full range of services.

Exclusion from social relations•

Of a list of common social activities, 1 in 10
people in the survey is excluded by cost fromfive or more activities and 1 in 5 from three or
more.

•

Lack of time due to caring responsibilities, paid
work and disability also excludes people fromsocially necessary activities.

•

One in 8 people has neither a family member
nor a friend outside their household with whomthey are in contact on a daily basis.

•

Economic inactivity and living in a joblesshousehold do not necessarily increase social

In past years techniques pioneered by academic
researchers have been picked up and incorporated
into the routine surveys of the Office for National
Statistics. If the Government, with independentscientific involvement of its own statisticians in thework, is going to be able to monitor its achievements
in reducing poverty and social exclusion, it is to be
hoped that the same will happen in this case.

isolation. In some cases, they reduce it.
•

Men living alone have a high risk of social
isolation.

•

Nearly 11 per cent of the population have very
poor personal support available in times of need(lack it in five or more of the seven situations
listed in Table 30) and a further 12 per cent havepoor support (lack it in four items).

•

One in 10 of the population has no civic
engagement at all.

70

CONCLUSIONS

The future

Notes

There is no doubt that lack of paid work is an

1

Also see ONS, 1997; and Scottish Homes, 1997.

2

A partial exception involves some elements included in theimportant factor in causing both poverty and social
exclusion. However, even if full employment wereachieved, poverty and exclusion would not

British Household Panel Survey. The measures of poverty

disappear. Earnings can be too low unless childsummarised in this report are a measure of deprivation, abenefit and other dependency allowances

socially supported measure of necessities, and a measure ofcomplement them. People who cannot work requirepoverty, together with objective and subjective measures ofadequate incomes to meet their needs. High quality,‘absolute’ and ‘overall’ poverty, the two-level approach to theaffordable services in every part of the country willmeasure of poverty agreed at Copenhagen in 1995. The

also be needed if poverty and social exclusion are toapproach to the measurement of social exclusion now

be eliminated.

recommended, that is labour market exclusion, service
exclusion, exclusion from social relations, together with

Britain has become an increasingly polarised nation,

impoverishment or exclusion from financial resources, willcontaining stark social and economic divisions. The

allow the effects of different institutional changes and policies

growth of poverty is the root cause of many of theaffecting trends to be monitored and assessed.

social ills that are of public concern. There isconsiderable unease in British society about theconsequences of deprivation and the lack of social
justice that this implies. If Britain is to become an
inclusive society in which everybody has a stake andis able to participate then the most important task
facing the Government is the ending of poverty andsocial exclusion.
Britain is at a crossroads of social development interms of adopting effective measures to stop and thenreverse the damaging structural trend which has
increased poverty. During the 1980s incomes
substantially diverged and in the late 1990s were
continuing to diverge. The growth in poverty is themost critical social problem that Britain now faces.
Problems of dislocation, insecurity, multiple
deprivation, conflict, divided loyalties and divided
activities all result. Major questions are being posed
for the future of social cohesion. High rates of poverty
and social exclusion have the effects of worsening
health, education, skills in the changing labour
market, relationships within the family, between
ethnic groups and in society generally. The structuralproblem has to be addressed in a concerted national
strategy. The construction of a scientific consensus to improve measurement, explain severity and cause
so that the right policies are selected, and show how
the role of public and private services can be extended
to underpin national life - is a key step in achieving
the objectives set by the Government.

71

Appendix 1: Measures of poverty

Approach

Description

Consensual/Townsend first pioneered the use of social indicatorssocial indicators in his scale of relative deprivation for his mammoth
study of Poverty in the United Kingdom (1979). The
techniques were developed further in the Breadline
Britain surveys of 1983 and 1990 (Mack and Lansley,
1985; Gordon and Pantazis, 1997) . The construction
and use of a deprivation index was also developed in a
Greater London survey in the late 1980s (Townsend
and Gordon, 1989). Mack and Lansley’s consensual
approach has had a big impact on modern poverty
research. Their original 1983 study was replicated in
Britain in 1990 (Gordon and Pantazis, 1997) and in
Wales in 1995 (Gordon, 1995). Local authorities in
London, Manchester, Liverpool and Kent haveconducted similar surveys. The Office of Population,
Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) used a similar set ofquestions to measure the standard of living of disabled
adults and families with disabled children in Britain in1985 (Martin and White, 1988; Smyth and Robus,
1989; Gordon et al., 2000). Similarly, representative
surveys were carried out by the PPRU amongst
disabled people in Northern Ireland in 1990 and 1991
(Zarb and Maher, 1997). The European Statistical
Office (Eurostat) has used a similar set of questions tomeasure standard of living in Britain and the 14 othermember states annually since 1994 as part of theEuropean Community Household Panel Survey(Ramprakash, 1994; Vogel, 1997; Eurostat, 1999). Thisapproach to measuring the standard of living has also
been adopted in Denmark (Mack and Lansley, 1985),
Sweden (Halleröd, 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1998), Ireland(Callan, Nolan and Whelan, 1993; Nolan and Whelan,
1996a), Belgium (Van den Bosch, 1998), Holland(Muffels et al., 1990; Muffels and Vries, 1991; Muffels,
Berghman and Dirven, 1992), Finland (Kangas andRitakillio, 1998), Germany (Andreß and Lipsmeir, 1995)
and Vietnam (Davies and Smith, 1998).

72

Advantages

Disadvantages

Used in the
PSE survey

Socially
perceived
necessities arechosendemocraticallyon the basis of(a) identifying
goods andactivities
common insociety, and (b)inviting the public
to identify thosethey regard asnecessary –through this‘consensual’method.

The method is as Yes, extensively.
yet not usedroutinely ingovernment
surveys. The listof items andactivities ischosen by the
researcher, albeit
based onpreliminary
research - this is
not an importantcriticism given
the high reliablityof themeasurement ofdeprivation.

APPENDIX 1

Approach

Description

Advantages

Disadvantages

Used in the
PSE survey

Social exclusion

Social exclusion is the lack or denial of access to thekinds of social relations, social customs and activities inwhich the great majority of people in British society
engage. In current usage, exclusion is often regarded asa ‘process’ rather than a ‘state’ and this helps in being
constructively precise in deciding its relationship topoverty (among the key texts consulted are Levitas,
1999; Silver, 1994, pp. 531-78; Gore and Figueiredo,
1996; Room, 1995).

It has thepotential ofestablishing a
multi-dimensional
measureconceptuallyindependent ofpovertymeasures.

This is the firstattempt tooperationalisesocial exclusion
empirically, using
primary survey
data.

In this survey wehave sought tocollect data
relevant to theconcept of social
exclusion.

Subjective
measuresThis approach to identifying poverty thresholds is also
known as the income proxy method (Veit-Wilson,
1987), consensual poverty lines (see Walker, 1987,
Halleröd, 1995a, for discussion) or Sociovital Minimum
Income Level (SMIL) (Callan et al., 1989). Subjective
poverty lines are estimations by populations (obtained
through surveys) about the minimum income level atwhich people find it is still possible to live ‘decently’. In
most cases, the subjective method produces poverty
lines at a relatively higher level of income than some
expect. Deleeck et al. (1992) have argued that, in manycases, the poverty line is at such a level that it would bevery difficult to maintain that all households below it
are poor, in the sense of being socially excluded. Theysuggest that the term ‘insecurity of subsistence’,
meaning a situation in which households encounter
some (financial) difficulty in participating in the average
or most widely shared lifestyle, would be more
appropriate.

The most
importantadvantage of thesubjective
method is thatthe level of thepoverty line is
not fixed byexperts, but
defined bysociety itself.
The subjective
method istherefore asocially realistic
method.

Empirical studies
have shown that
estimates of thesubjective
poverty line
usually risesystematicallywith the actual
income of thehousehold/individual (Citro
and Michael,1995).
Therefore,
subjective
poverty lines
tend to fluctuate
over timedepending onchanges in thesocial referencegroup (e.g. dueto an increase in
the overall living
standard ofelderly people,
they respondwith a higher
necessary
minimum
income) and on
the period ofreference (e.g. ina period of crisis
aspirations might
decline).

In this survey wehave used thistechnique inoperationalising
the UN
standards ofabsolute andoverall poverty.
Similarly,
subjectively
perceived
poverty lines
have beenmeasured in the
PSE survey byaskingrespondents if
their income is ‘a
lot below’ theincome needed
to avoid povertyand ‘a lot below’
the income
needed to avoid‘absolute’ and‘overall’ poverty.
Respondents
were also asked
if they
consideredthemselves to be‘genuinely poor
now - all thetime’.

All methods of estimating a subjective poverty line
make use of a Minimum Income Question (MIQ)
designed to measure the smallest income required to
avoid ‘poverty’, live ‘decently’ or ‘adequately’ or to ‘getalong’. However, the exact wording of the MIQ varies
considerably in different studies (Bradbury, 1989; Callanand Nolan, 1991).
The simplest and arguably most democratic method of
producing a ‘subjective’ poverty line is to use theaverage response to the Minimum Income Question
from the population (survey sample) as a whole. This is
a procedure that has been used in Britain (Townsend
and Gordon, 1991; Townsend et al., 1996, 1997) andAustralia (Saunders and Matheson, 1992). However,
several other methods have been used in European
countries (see Goedhart et al., 1977; Van Praag et al.,
1980; Deleeck et al., 1988).

73

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Approach

Description

Advantages

Disadvantages

Used in the
PSE survey

Incomethresholds

Defining poverty purely in terms of low income is themost widely used method of measuring poverty. The
poor are defined as those people/households with anincome (or, more rarely, expenditure) below a certain
threshold level irrespective of their standard of living.
There were three approaches. One was (a) the income
provided by the state in its payment of benefit. Thus in
their seminal study, The poor and the poorest, Abel-Smith
and Townsend (1965) adopted an income threshold
related to the then National Assistance scales and later
this kind of conventional or ‘state’ standard was
adopted for many years by government in the Low
Income Statistics series. This approach was abandonedby the Conservative Government in favour of a moreout and out relative income standard in the Households
Below Average Income (HBAI) series, which
represented a second approach (b) relating income to a
proportion of the average (usually 50 per cent of themean in the UK but 60 per cent of the median inEurope). The third approach is (c) to find objectively
the level of income correlating with multiple andmaterial and social deprivation.

(a) The standardof need is
implicit in thebenefit levels
decided bygovernment.
(b) The main
advantage is its
simplicity, as
detailed
information on
the living
conditions of the
population is not
required. (c) The
threshold that ischosen depends
on externallyinvestigatedlevels of materialand social
deprivation.

(a) The problem
with using benefit
levels as income
thresholds is thatwhen they are
increased in realterms so are thenumbers defined aspoor. (b) The
problem with thethresholds basedon average ormedian income isthat they are
essentially arbitrary
cut-off points on
the income
distribution – reallymeasure ofinequality. Mosteconomic poverty
indices are reallymeasures ofincome inequality
rather thanpoverty(Townsend, 1979).
Income is a poor
indicator ofcommand overresources overtime.
Economic poverty
lines define the‘poor’ as thosewith a low income
even if they have ahigh standard ofliving. (c) There
are problems inmeasuring theentire range ofmaterial and social
needs, as well as
resources thataugment income.

Incomethresholds havebeen used tomeasurepoverty in thisresearch.

74

APPENDIX 1

Approach

Description

Advantages

Disadvantages

Used in the
PSE survey

Budgetstandards

In the pre-war period poverty was studied using, as anincome threshold, a budget standard, based on a basketof goods (mainly food) representing minimum
subsistence/basic needs/absolute standards. This was
the approach adopted by Rowntree in his three studies
of poverty in York (1901, 1941, 1951) and by Beveridge(1942) in setting the original scales of social assistance.
Budget standards involve drawing up a list ofcommodities, employing normative judgements,
supported by a combination of scientific andbehavioural evidence. The budget is then priced andused as an income standard – anyone living below thatstandard is in poverty. In Britain budget standards havebeen derived to represent a minimum adequate
standard and a modest but adequate standard(Bradshaw, 1993). The US poverty standard was
originally based on a budget standard (Orshansky,1965).

The mainadvantage is thata budgetstandard istransparent.
Items can easily
be put into or
taken out of abudget standard.

Budget standards
are very labour
intensive toestablish andinvolve a host of
normative
judgements
about thecontents of thebasket. They arealso difficult tokeep up to date.
A basket ofgoods andservices does notencompass allelements thatmake a standardof living. The
pre-war budget
standards
assumed that
there were basic
or absoluteneeds regardlessof the time andplace.

Budget standards
based poverty
measures havenot been used inthis research as ameasure ofpoverty, butwere used toestablish the PSE
equivalence
scale.

75

Appendix 2: Defining the objective
scientific poverty line

Theorypoverty (i.e. people/households with a low income
but a high standard of living) and those who have

From the discussion in Chapter 2, it is clear thatescaped from poverty (i.e. people/households with apeople/households with a low income and a low

high income but a low standard of living).

standard of living are poor whereas those with a highincome and a high standard of living are not poor.

Poverty is, by definition, an extremely unpleasantHowever, two other groups of people/households

situation to live in so it is not surprising that people

that are ‘not poor’ can also be identified in a cross-go to considerable lengths to avoid it and try very

sectional (one point in time) survey, such as thehard to escape from poverty once they have sunk

Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey of Britain:

into it. Therefore, any cross-sectional poverty survey
ought to find that the group of households at risk of•People/households with a low income but a highpoverty (the vulnerable) was larger than the group

standard of living (the ‘vulnerable’). This group isescaping from poverty since, when income falls

not currently poor but, if their income remains

people will try to delay the descent into poverty but,low, they will become poor - they are currently

if the income of a poor person increases, they will

vulnerable to poverty. This situation often arises

quickly try to improve their standard of living.

when income falls rapidly (e.g. due to job loss)
Figure A1 illustrates this concept.

but people manage to maintain their lifestyle, forat least a few months, by drawing on theirsavings and using the assets accumulated when

Between Time 0 and 1, the household has both aincome was higher.

high standard of living and a high income: it is ‘notpoor’. At Time 1, there is a rapid reduction in•

People/households with a high income but a low

income (e.g. due to job loss, the end of seasonal

standard of living (the ‘risen’). This group iscontract income, divorce or separation, etc.).

currently ‘not poor’ and if their income remains

However, the household’s standard of living does nothigh their standard of living will rise – they havefall immediately. It is not until Time 2 that therisen out of poverty. This group is in thehousehold’s standard of living has also fallen below

opposite situation to the previous group. Thisthe ‘poverty’ threshold. Therefore, between Time 1

situation can arise when the income of someone

and Time 2, the household is ‘not poor’ but is

who is poor suddenly increases (e.g. due tosinking into poverty (i.e. it has a low income but agetting a job); however, it takes time before

relatively high standard of living). At Time 3,

people are able to buy the things that they needincome begins to rise rapidly, although not as fast as

to increase their standard of living. Income canit previously fell. This is because rapid income

both rise and fall faster than standard of living.

increases usually result from gaining employment
but there is often a lag between starting work andA cross-sectional ‘poverty’ survey can provide somegetting paid. Standard of living also begins to rise

limited but useful information on the dynamics ofafter a brief period as the household spends its way

poverty since it is possible not only to identify theout of poverty. However, this lag means that there is‘poor’ and the ‘not poor’ but also those vulnerable toa short period when the household has a high76

APPENDIX 2

Figure A1: Relationship of standard of living to income
High
IncomeStandard of living
Not poor
Income and standard of living

Not poor
Sinking intopoverty
Poverty threshold

Climbing
out ofpoverty
Poor
Low
0

1

2

3

4

5

Time

income but a relatively low standard of living. By

Gordon, 2000; Gordon et al., 1999; Shaw et al., 1999;

Time 5, the household again has a high income andTownsend and Davidson, 1988; Whitehead, 1988) anda high standard of living.

it would be expected at the population level that
respondents who can objectively be defined as living

Measuring deprivationin poverty would also be more likely to perceive
themselves as poor compared with their non-poor peers.

In order to measure deprivation scientifically, it isnecessary to construct a reliable, valid and additive

Table A1 summarises the reliability and validity

deprivation index (Gordon and Townsend, 1990;

results. Overall, the 35 item index had a Cronbach’s

Gordon, 1995). An initial deprivation index wasalpha of 0.8853 which is indicative of a highly

constructed by summing the number of deprivation

reliable index. Nunnally has argued that:

items that respondents said they ‘did not have because
they could not afford’. Only deprivation items werein the early stages of research...one saves time

selected for the initial index that more than 50 per

and energy by working with instruments thatcent of the adults in the June 1999 ONS Omnibus

have modest reliability, for which purpose

Survey had considered to be necessities of life which

reliabilities of 0.70 or higher will suffice...forall adults should be able to afford. The reliability ofbasic research, it can be argued that increasing

each item in the index was then tested using bothreliabilities much beyond 0.80 is often wastefulclassical reliability analysis models (Cronbach’s alpha)of time and funds, at that level correlations are

and also Logistic Test Item Analysis (Nunnally, 1981).

attenuated very little by measurement error.

The validity of each item in the index was tested by(Nunnally, 1981)

calculating the correlation (Risk Ratio) between theitem and two health variables (General Health

The items that were not included in the index, as

Question and Limiting Long-Term Illness) and four

there was little evidence that they were either valid

perceptions of poverty variables (genuinely poor now

or reliable, were:‘all the time’, income ‘a lot below’ the poverty line,
income ‘a lot below’ the absolute and overall poverty•

television;line). These variables are robust measures of validity•

refrigerator;

since there is now overwhelming evidence that•beds and bedding for everyone;

poverty causes ill health (Independent Inquiry into•

washing machine.

Inequalities in Health, 1998; Davey Smith and77

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table A1: Validity and reliability summary table
Number of non
significant validity indicators

Level of reliability(bold = unreliable)

5
4
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1

.8859
.8851
.8859
.8856
.8854
.8845
.8848
.8835
.8858
.8856
.8814
.8824
.8843

Television
Medicines prescribed by doctor
Refrigerator
Beds and bedding for everyone
Washing machine
Telephone
Deep freezer/fridge freezer
Visits to friends or family
Visits to school, e.g. sports day
Collect children from school
Appropriate clothes for job interviews
Carpets in living rooms and bedrooms
Dictionary
Notes: Deprivation index Alpha = .8853

Additivity

Finding the ‘objective’ povertyline

The components of any deprivation index should be
additive; e.g. a person or household with a

General Linear Models (both ANOVA and logistic

deprivation score of three should be poorer than aregression) were used to determine the scientificperson or household with a deprivation score of two

poverty threshold, e.g. the deprivation score that

(Gordon, 1995). It is necessary to check that all

maximises the between-group differences andcomponents of a deprivation index are additive.

minimises the within-group differences (sum ofThis was done by examining both the main effects

squares). These techniques were applied to a

and all possible second order interaction effects

succession of groups created by increasing the

between the components of the deprivation index

number of items that respondents did not haveusing equivalised income as the dependent variable.

because they could not afford them. Thus, the first

Income outliers had first been removed using

analysis was undertaken on groups defined bystandard robust Exploratory Data Analysis techniques

households lacking no items compared with(e.g. Boxplots). This resulted in all households withhouseholds lacking one or more items (a deprivation

net incomes above £895 per week, which is thescore of one or more). Similarly, the second analysis

equivalent of an annual income after tax of over

was undertaken on a group comprised of households£46,500 per year and approximately £77,500 grosslacking one or no items against two or more items,

annual income, not being included in the final

and so forth.

poverty threshold model. Examination of the second
order interactions showed that not being able to

The dependent variable in the ANOVA model wasafford ‘all medicines prescribed by a doctor’ was not

net household income and the independent

additive with 18 other deprivation items. Similarly,

variables were deprivation group (constructed as

not being able to afford ‘a deep freezer/fridge freezer’described above), number of adults in each

was not additive with seven other derivation items,

household and the number of children in eachso both these items were not included in the final

household. With the logistic regression models, thevalid, reliable and additive deprivation index.

dependent variable was the deprivation group and78

APPENDIX 2

Table A2: Brief summary table for ANOVA and logistic regression
models of optimum position for the poverty threshold
Model

F Statistic forcorrected ANOVA Model

logistic regression
model Chi-square

26
45
51
45
42
36
31

145
223
205
192
170
126

Null Model
Deprivation score of 1 or more
Deprivation score of 2 or more
Deprivation score of 3 or more
Deprivation score of 4 or more
Deprivation score of 5 or more
Deprivation score of 6 or more

the independent variables were net household

There should also be a much larger group ofincome, number of adults and number of children.

households who have relatively low incomes but are

Both the ANOVA and logistic regression models

not yet suffering from multiple deprivation (i.e. theyielded the same final result – that a score of two or

vulnerable to poverty group who have incomes

more on the deprivation index was the optimum

equivalent to the median incomes of the multiply

position for the poverty line. Summary results are

deprived – two or more group). Thus, using theseshown in Table A2.

definitions, the Poverty and Social Exclusion Surveyof Britain found that, at the end of the lastIdentifying the rising and thevulnerable groups

millennium:•

25.6 per cent of people were living in poverty;•

1.8 per cent had risen out of poverty;•

10.3 per cent were potentially vulnerable to

In a cross-sectional survey there will probably be afew people who have recently ‘risen out of poverty’,e.g. those with a high deprivation score and a highincome. Their incomes and/or ‘standard of living’should have increased in the recent past. These few

poverty;cases were identified using boxplots of income by‘multiply deprived’ group (i.e. with a deprivation•

score of 2 or more) and controlling for household

almost two-thirds (62.2 per cent) were relatively
well off.

size/type. The outliers (with high incomes) in eachhousehold type should be those risen out of poverty.

79

Appendix 3: Creation of the childdeprivation index

Introduction

number of children. Though either base islegitimate, the latter was deemed to provide
information of more direct relevance to the study.

A child deprivation index was constructed following
the general procedures set out above. Briefly, items
that over half of parents believed to be necessary

Time constraints did not allow the deprivation items

were retained for consideration in the index. Thisto be asked separately for each child in the

resulted in 27 of the 30 items being retained (seequestionnaire. Instead, the respondent was asked

Chapter 4, Table 14). Validity tests were made on

about deprivation for any child in the family. A

each item whereby the odds of a child lacking thenumber of the items are age-related, such as attending

item because their parent(s) could not afford it wereplay-group, so any positive responses on these items

checked against the four subjective measures offor children of inappropriate ages were excluded frompoverty described above. All valid items were thencounting towards the scale (see Table A3).

assessed to establish if they were measuring the same

Validating the items

single dimension of deprivation. Finally,1 an
exploration was undertaken to establish theappropriate number of items of which a child had to

Individual items with no significant association with

be deprived to classify the child as poor.

other measures of poverty were to be excluded fromfurther analysis. However, only two items were

Two population bases were possible for this analysis:

found to be independent of one of the subjective

first, households with children; second, the total

poverty measures: toys and own books (Table A4).

Table A3: Age adjusted items
Age

Toys (e.g. dolls, teddies)
Leisure equipment
Bedrooms for every child of different sex
Bike: new/second-hand
All required school uniform
Hobby or leisure activity
Play group (pre-school age children)
School trip at least once a term
Friends round for tea/snack
Note:

Babies

Pre-school

PrimaryschoolSecondaryschool

+
+
-

+
+
+
-

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+ deprivation response allowed- deprivation response excluded

80

APPENDIX 3

Table A4: The odds of being deprived of an item according tosubjective poverty status
Poor all the time

Poverty

Absolute
poverty

OverallpovertyThree meals a day
4.69
Toys (e.g. dolls, teddies)*
3.65
Leisure equipment
3.04
Bedrooms for every child of different sex*
2.39
Warm, waterproof coat
2.94
Books of own
7.26
Bike: new/second-hand*
1.65
Construction toys
3.97
Educational games
7.72
New, properly fitted, shoes
1.68
At least 7 pairs of new underpants
4.60
At least 4 jumpers/cardigans/sweatshirts
4.73
All required school uniform*
2.63
At least 4 pairs of trousers
4.90
Meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent at least twice a day 5.23
Fresh fruit or vegetables daily
9.64
Garden to play in
2.00
New, not second-hand, clothes
3.06
Carpet in bedroom
6.18
Beds and bedding for everyone
7.53
Hobby or leisure activity*
7.20
Celebrations on special occasions
39.53
Swimming at least once a month
3.51
Play group (pre-school age children)*
0.90
Annual week’s holiday
3.46
School trip at least once a term*
6.39
Friends round for tea/snack*
7.00

2.34
1.04
4.30
1.24
6.67
1.01
1.07
3.52
5.24
6.89
12.33
4.79
5.44
3.68
8.78
8.64
3.27
7.26
5.54
4.71
5.16
6.96
10.63
2.99
3.91
7.88
6.85

3.02
-4.83
0.85
7.27
-1.51
4.64
9.10
9.07
13.03
8.58
10.10
3.78
9.95
11.29
4.04
7.61
4.39
6.08
9.37
9.12
9.34
1.58
4.44
6.29
7.95

24.79
-4.86
1.64
6.30
-2.97
4.44
5.24
6.04
10.63
5.31
7.06
2.80
6.91
9.48
9.85
4.66
3.73
4.01
9.03
21.36
11.65
6.03
3.62
4.92
6.85

N
Proportion poor

729
0.21

724
0.18

715
0.34

795
0.12

Notes: -- cannot be computed: one of cells is zero in the 4 way table.
Figures in bold typeface are not significant at P<0.05 and therefore do not contribute to the overall reliability of the index.
* age-adjusted items

The overall number of significance tests used could

with three out of the four subjective measures and,easily have resulted in these two items being

hence, were accepted as valid indicators of poverty.

significant (at P<0.05) by chance. In contrast, bothof these necessities showed a positive association

The reliability of the scalewith the respondent’s perception that they were poor
all the time. All children deprived of these two

Reliability can be measured in a number of ways.

necessities were also poor on the absolute and overall

Table A5 shows the Cronbach’s alpha analysis for thepoverty measures – which is why the odds ratio

children’s deprivation index. The items highlighted

could not be formed for these items. Thus, overall,in bold do not contribute to the overall reliability ofthe two necessities showed a positive association

the index.

81

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Table A5: Children’s items reliability analysis

Three meals a day
Toys (e.g. dolls, teddies)*
Leisure equipment*
Bedrooms for every child of different sex*Warm, waterproof coat
Books of own
Bike: new/second-hand*
Construction toys
Educational games
New, properly fitted, shoes
At least 7 pairs of new underpants
At least 4 jumpers/cardigans/sweatshirts
All required school uniform*
At least 4 pairs of trousers
Meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent at least twice a day
Fresh fruit or vegetables daily
Garden to play in
New, not second-hand, clothes
Carpet in bedroom
Beds and bedding for everyone
Hobby or leisure activity*
Celebrations on special occasions
Swimming at least once a month
Play group (pre-school age children)*
Annual week’s holiday
School trip at least once a term*
Friends round for tea/snack*Corrected item
total correlation

Alpha if
item removed

0.36200.29920.45280.08650.40130.21890.26450.44950.55800.36140.51510.49730.34410.47170.5366
0.42660.13320.53930.25430.24110.4461
0.42270.45350.15710.33400.38590.46250.82970.83180.82500.83930.82760.83370.83250.82530.82030.82870.82390.82320.82920.82420.82120.82680.83730.82190.83190.83240.82540.82720.82490.83390.83960.82840.8246

Notes: Overall alpha 0.8339
Items highlighted in bold do not contribute to the overall reliability of the index* age-adjusted items

Identifying a poverty threshold

The exclusion of three items (separate bedrooms for
opposite sex siblings aged over 10, a garden to playin, a holiday away from home) would have improved

Answering the question ‘What is the appropriate

the alpha level by a small extent. However, as thenumber of items a child should be deprived of before

gain was minimal, it was decided to retain thesebeing considered poor?’ is not straightforward. The

items for the purposes of the present investigation,

essential concept underlying the scale is that

although further sensitivity tests are planned tochildren lack necessities because their parents cannot

investigate the consequences of excluding particularafford to buy them. From this perspective, it is

items.

arguable that the parent’s current income should bereflected in the child’s deprivation score. However,there are many reasons why the two may not match.
For example, a family whose income has recently82

APPENDIX 3

dropped may be protected against poverty bysame income could have very different housing costs

drawing on savings or because a number of theand thus one group would have less to spend onnecessities are linked to a life span that may outlast

themselves and their children after paying theshort periods of poverty (e.g. clothes and materialmortgage or rent. Therefore, not all people on highgoods).

income will necessarily have larger amounts ofmoney potentially available for the children and,Family income was chosen as a basis for comparing

similarly, people on lower incomes with moderate

the similarity of children classified as poor and not

housing costs may actually have relatively large

poor on the deprivation scale. A sequential approach

proportions of their gross income available.

was adopted whereby children first were classified aspoor if they lacked one or more necessities and not

The results of the analysis suggested that thepoor otherwise. This was then extended to two orappropriate distinction was between no necessities

more items as poor, and so forth. The extent toand one or more necessities: the eigenvalue waswhich poor children were more similar to each othergreatest for the two models applied to thiswhereas non-poor children were more similar to eachdistinction. Further, the additional increase in theother - subsequently maximising differences between

eigenvalue comparing the two models was also

the two groups - was undertaken using discriminanthighest for this distinction, which shows the impact

function analysis (DFA).

of income, rather than family composition, in
discriminating between the two groups.

DFA predicts group membership (poor versus nonpoor) according to a set of explanatory variables

Table A6: Eigenvalues
associated with predicting
deprivation on the basis offamily composition and income
including all items in the scaleindexing children’s characteristics. Income is themain criterion by which the two groups are
separated, however, controls are also required forfamily composition. DFA works by assessing the
between-group differences relative to within groupdifferences, which is equivalent to minimising

Number of items
making up thedeprivation groupwithin-group differences. A number of statistics areproduced including the eigenvalue (the betweengroup sum of squares relative to the within-group

One or more
Two or moreThree or moresum of squares) relating to the discriminatory
function. It is the eigenvalue that enables us toassess the extent to which within-group similarities
and between-group differences vary as the poverty

Model 1Model 2

.082
.070
.066

.182
.114
.114

Note: Model 1 includes the number of adults and thenumber of children in the family, both measured withthree levels, as one, two and three or more. Model 2
adds net household income, transformed to a natural log
scale, to Model 1.

line is changed from one or more items to two or
more items, and so forth. The results of three sets ofanalyses are reported varying the minimum numberof necessities lacking from one to three. Two models
were used for each analysis: the first focused solely
on family composition, the second included bothfamily composition and income.

Summary
Prior to considering the results, a word of caution isin order. The income variable available was gross of

A scale measuring childhood poverty using 27

any housing costs. In other words, it was notnecessities was produced. The validity of the items

possible to assess how much income was available topartly lies in the fact that they were devised by

the family after housing costs were accounted for.

parents from differing background but also because

This is problematic because two families with theeach item is significantly associated with other83

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

measures of poverty. In general, the items form aninternally consistent measure of poverty. Using the
DFA results suggests a cut-off of one or morenecessities as the classification for poverty. However,concerns with the income variable suggest caution
over accepting these initial results.

Note1

It was not possible to evaluate the additivity of the items, as
described for adults, due to the much smaller sample ofhouseholds with children.

84Appendix 4: The 1999 Poverty andSocial Exclusion Survey of Britain:
Technical report

Introduction

they should not have to do without. BOX B isfor items which may be desirable but are notnecessary."

The Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey of Britain
was carried out by the Social Survey Division of the
Office for National Statistics and was supported by

A similar question was asked with regard to

the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. This appendix

necessities for children. Full details can be found on

describes the survey design, sampling, data collection

the web at URL,

and fieldwork procedures and the processing of the

http://qb.soc.surrey.ac.uk/surveys/pses/psesintro.htm

survey. It also includes a comparison of responding
and non-responding households.

A sample of 3,000 addresses was selected from the
Postcode Address File of ‘small users’. The sample

Background and aims

from 100 postal sectors was stratified by:

The Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey of Britain•

region;•proportion of households renting from local(PSE) was designed to update the Breadline Britain
surveys which were conducted by MORI in 1983 andauthorities;

1990 (Gordon and Pantazis, 1997) and to improvethe methodology, particularly by the use ofprobability sampling. There were two parts to the•

proportion of households with heads in the

PSE survey. First, a representative sample of theprofessional, employer or manager socio-

population of Great Britain was asked for their views

economic groups (SEG 1-5 & 13).

on what constitute the necessities of life in presentday Britain.

The 100 postal sectors were selected with probability
proportionate to size, and within each sector 30

The June 1999 Omnibus Survey

addresses were selected at random. If an addresscontained more than one household, the interviewer

The ‘necessities of life’ questions were asked in theused the standard ONS procedure to randomly selectJune 1999 Office for National Statistics Omnibus

just one household. Within each household, with

Survey. Respondents were interviewed in their own

more than one adult member, just one person aged

homes and given sets of shuffled cards and asked:

16 or over was selected using random number tables.
All interviews were carried out face-to-face with the"On these cards are a number of different items

selected respondent and no proxy interviews werewhich relate to our standard of living. I would

allowed.

like you to indicate the living standards you feel
all adults should have in Britain today by

The response rate was 69 per cent as shown inplacing the cards in the appropriate box. BOX A

Table A7.

is for items which you think are necessary; which
all adults should be able to afford and which85

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

original survey allowed the characteristics of PSE

Table A7: June 1999 Omnibus
Survey response rate

non-responders to be identified, allowing analysis of
the effects of non-response bias.

Number(%)

Sample design

Selected addresses
Ineligible addresses
Eligible addresses

3,000
323
2,677

100
11
89

The sample design was influenced by three main

Refusals
Non-contact
Interviews achieved

588
234
1,855

22
9
69

considerations:•key variables by sub-groups;•

Scotland;•A random follow-up sample was drawn fromcharacteristics.

Survey, and interviewed in detail about theircircumstances and their views on a range of issues

The sample design therefore gave a greater

associated with poverty and social exclusion.

probability of selection to people in lower income
groups and Scotland. Households in the lower

The aims of the survey were:•to estimate the size of groups of households inincome groups were identified by using a measure ofequivalised income; that is, a measure of householdincome which takes account of household size andcomposition.

different circumstances;•

to explore movement in and out of poverty;•

to look at age and gender differences insufficient cases of low-income households andrespondents were required to examine their

respondents to the 1998/9 General Household

to update the Breadline Britain surveys;

sufficient cases were required for separate
analysis of households and individuals in

The follow-up to the General
Household Survey•

sufficient cases were required for the analysis of

Selecting households from lower
income groups: equivalised
income measure
An equivalised income measure was developed byexperiences of and responses to poverty.

Jonathan Bradshaw and Sue Middleton in
conjunction with the Office for National Statistics

Although the survey is primarily concerned with the(ONS). The McClements equivalence scale, which isexperience of people living in Britain, it is planned

used as the standard by ONS (Government Statisticalthat similar surveys will also be carried out in otherService, 1998), was felt not to be appropriate for thecountries, using a questionnaire based on that

PSE, as it does not assign sufficient weight todeveloped for the PSE.

children, particularly young children. The scale used
for the PSE was designed to take account of this.

The survey design

Each member of the household was assigned a value,
shown in Table A8:

The PSE survey was designed as a follow-up survey of
respondents to the 1998/9 General Household Survey(GHS). This design made it possible to select asample with known characteristics. It also meantthat one person in each selected household could besampled prior to fieldwork. Information from the86

APPENDIX 4

Table A8: Equivalised income
scale

Second, a number of households were selected fromeach of the areas; third, one individual was chosenfrom each sampled household. To allow for variation
in income within areas the list of primary sampling

Type of household member

Equivalence
value

Head of household
Partner
Each additional adult (anyone over 16)
Add for first child
Add for each additional child
If head of household is a lone parent, add

0.70
0.30
0.45
0.35
0.30
0.10

units (PSUs) was sorted on area and quintile group
before any selections were made.

Areas
The 1998/9 GHS sample was selected from 576 PSUs
based on postcode sectors. In order to ensuresufficient representation of the population in the PSE
sample, 70 per cent of GHS areas in England andWales were selected (360 areas from a total of 5181).

The values for each household member were added

All of the 54 Scottish areas were sampled to provide

together to give the total equivalence value for thatsufficient cases for separate analysis of the Scottish

household. This number was then divided into thedata.

gross income for that household. For example, theTable A10: Number of areas
sampled for the PSE

equivalence value for a lone-parent household withtwo children is 0.7 + 0.35 + 0.3 + 0.1 = 1.45. If thehousehold’s gross income is £10,000, its equivalised
income is £6,897 (= £10,000/1.45).

Area

GHS 1998 N

England and Wales
Scotland
Total

Equivalised income was grouped into quintiles, withthe bottom quintile comprising households with thelowest incomes and the top quintile those

518
54
576

PSE 1999 N
360
54
414

households with the highest incomes. The quintiles
were then sampled in the following proportions, asHouseholds

set out in Table A9:Table A9: Probability of
selection for income quintiles
Quintile group

Proportion sampled

Bottom quintile (lowest income)Fourth quintile
Third quintile
Second quintile
Top quintile (highest income)

40%
30%
10%
10%
10%

A sample of households was taken from each selectedarea.

Individuals
One adult aged 16 or over was selected at random
from each sampled household, using a Kish grid.
This was done in preference to interviewing all
eligible adults because individuals in households
tend to be similar to one another. Where households
differ markedly from one another, the resultant
clustering can lead to a substantial increase in the

Selecting areas, households andindividuals for interview

standard error around survey estimates. This isparticularly true when asking opinion questions
where household members may influence each

Identifying individuals for interview involved aother’s answers. Only those who had given a full

three-stage process. First, a number of areas wereinterview in 1998/9 were eligible for selection.

selected from all of those used for the 1998/9 GHS.

Partial interviews and proxies were excluded from87POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

the eligible sample. In keeping with the aim ofredesign of the questionnaire and the development

ensuring that sufficient interviews were carried outof new questions.

for analysis purposes, some reserves were selected, toFor example, new questions were included to

be used if necessary.

measure respondent’s assessments of absolute andIf the selected adult was no longer resident in theoverall poverty, as defined at the United Nations

household, interviewers were instructed not toWorld Summit on Social Development in

substitute another household member for the

Copenhagen in 1995. The survey also tried tosampled person, as that would adversely affect themeasure intra-household poverty.

representativeness of the sample. When the selected
adult had moved house since the GHS interview,

The main topics covered in the questionnaire were:interviewers traced them to their new address if it
was nearby and asked for an interview. Otherwise,•

housing (including the condition of

the respondent was coded as having moved. In

accommodation and satisfaction withthose households where the sampled individual

accommodation);agreed to the follow-up interview, interviewers•

updated the household composition, recording

health (including disability, isolation anddepression);

members who had moved out or died, and adding•

time (time poverty);

new members who had been born or moved into the•social networks and support;

household since the GHS interview. Table A11 shows•necessities (these questions were conducted as achanges in household composition in responding

card sorting exercise);households.

Table A11: Changes tohousehold composition of PSE
responders
Changes to householdcomposition
Still in household
Moved out (including deceased)
New to household (including
births since GHS)
Missing
Total (all household
members)

Number

3329
58

(%)

95.7
1.7

•

finance and debts;•

intra-household poverty;•

poverty over time;•

absolute and overall poverty;•

area deprivation;•

local services;•

crime;•

child’s school;•

perceptions of poverty;•

activism.

Choosing a survey design based on a follow-up of the

82
8

GHS meant that detailed information was already

2.4
0.2

available on those topics covered by the GHS
interview, and questions did not have to be included

3477

in the PSE. As the follow-up interviews took place

100.0

between six and 18 months after the original
interview, a small number of follow-up questions was

Questionnaire content

included in the PSE questionnaire to record changes
to the household composition, employment andAs one of the aims of the PSE was to update theincome.

Breadline Britain surveys, questions which had beenused in the previous surveys were repeated where

Ten PSE interviewers each wrote a short report on

possible, to maintain continuity and allow

how the questionnaire worked in the field. They

comparisons over time. The PSE survey did,reported that respondents found the subject matter

however, aim to measure a variety of concepts ofof the survey interesting. Those who agreed to takepoverty and social exclusion and this involved somepart were enthusiastic and hopeful that the results of88

APPENDIX 4

the survey would be put to good use. Some

instructed to make a maximum of two visits at an

respondents used the questionnaire as anaddress before recording a non-contact, unless they

opportunity to air their problems (such as lonelinesswere already in the area and could make an extra callor problems with their local area).

without driving out of their way.

The sections that the respondents found most

Respondents who had moved house since taking partdifficult to answer were those on absolute and overall

in the GHS were traced by interviewers if they had

poverty, social networks and support, local services

moved within the same area. Interviewers requested

and the necessities questions which involved theauthorisation from their office-based supervisor

card-sorting exercise. For some sections of the

before tracing respondents who had moved.

questionnaire, problems arose because respondents
were being asked to think about things they would

Data collection

normally take for granted, such as the goods or

Fieldwork took place between 1 September and 15

services they owned or had access to. For other

Ocober 1999. There were three types of data

sections, respondents were being asked to thinkcollection: face-to-face interviews, a self-completion

about things they would not usually consider, such

module and a card-sorting exercise.

as how much money they would need to keep theirhousehold out of poverty, and some found this very

Face-to-face interviews were conducted using

difficult to do.

Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI).
Interviewers recorded respondents’ answers on laptop

Interviewers reported that respondents found thecomputers which had been programmed using Blaisequestions on local services repetitive and became

software. Where applicable, a limited amount ofbored and irritated. The crime section made someproxy information was collected about theelderly respondents feel uneasy.

respondent’s partner and child.

Data collection and fieldwork
procedures

A Computer-Assisted Self-Interviewing (CASI) module
was used to collect answers to sensitive questions,such as those on crime and for some questions on

Advance lettersself-reported health. Where the respondent was

Advance letters were sent to sampled individuals,

reluctant or unable to complete the self-completion

reminding them of their participation in the GHS,

section on the lap-top the interviewer asked the

explaining the purpose of the PSE and asking for

respondent’s permission to ask these questions.

their co-operation with the follow-up interview. As anamed respondent had been selected before theAs mentioned in the introduction, a representativeinterview, the advance letter was addressed to thesample of the population took part in the first part of

selected respondent by name. Where a name had

the Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey of Britain in

not been provided by the respondent during the GHS

July 1999, carried out on the ONS Omnibus Survey.

interview, the advance letter was addressed to ‘theRespondents to that part of the survey were given a

resident’.

set of cards, on which were listed a number of items(one item per card), and were asked to say which ofContacting the respondent

the items they considered were necessities in present-

Where contact telephone numbers were available,

day Britain. Respondents to the GHS follow-up wereinterviewers made initial contact with theasked to carry out a similar card-sorting exercise. In

respondent by telephone. This method of contacting

this case, the respondent was asked to place each

respondents was used to reduce costs. Once ancard in a pile depending on whether they had theappointment was made with the respondent, theitem; did not have it and could not afford it; or didinterviews were conducted face-to-face. In the event

not have the item and did not want it. Whereof a broken appointment, interviewers were

problems with literacy or manual dexterity prevented

89POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

the respondent from completing this exercise, thethe relatively short field period (a month),

interviewer was permitted to read the cards and placeinterviewers also did not have sufficient time to callthem in the correct pile according to theback on many households to attempt to persuade

respondent’s answer.

them to change their decision not to take part.

Length of interview

Response

The average length of interview was 60 minutes.

Table A12 shows the response to the PSE follow-up

With older respondents or those who had literacy

interview. Of the 2,846 individuals selected, 415

problems, it took about 90 minutes. Questions(15 per cent) were ineligible because the sampled

requiring a lot of thought or those involving difficult

individual had moved or died, because theconcepts, such as assessments of absolute and overallhousehold could not be traced so it was not known

poverty, were particularly taxing for some elderly

whether the whole household had moved or because

respondents, a number of whom became quite tired

it was a reserve which was not issued to an

during the interview.

interviewer.

The length of the questionnaire affected the response

Of the 2,431 eligible individuals, 1,534 (63 per cent)rate. ONS interviewers are required to give an

were interviewed, the vast majority completing a full

assessment of how long the interview is likely to takeinterview. This response rate is disappointing andwhen making an appointment, to ensure that

may reflect some of the factors outlined above.

respondents set aside sufficient time. Some sampled

However, the availability of information about non-individuals refused to take part on hearing that the

responders means that it is possible to compensate

interview was likely to last for an hour. Because offor non-response by weighting.

Table A12: Response to the PSE follow-up survey
Response category

Number of cases

Percentage ofset sample

Percentage of
eligible sample

Set sample

2846

Ineligible
Household not traced, reserve not issued
Selected adult no longer resident
Selected adult deceased
Other ineligible
Total ineligible

210
83
19
103
415

7.4
2.9
0.7
3.6
14.6

Total eligible sample

2431

85.4

Full interview
Partial interview
Total co-operating

1530
4
1534

62.9
0.2
63.1

Non-contact

180

7.4

Refusals
Refusal to HQ
Refusal by household
Refusal by selected individual
Incapable of taking part
Total refusals

85
113
470
49
717

3.5
4.6
19.3
2.0
29.5

90

APPENDIX 4

Where a refusal to the survey was given, theby those who decline to use the laptop. Willingness

interviewer recorded the main reason given, which is

to self-complete could also have been affected by theshown in Table A13. The most common reasons for

position of the section at the end of therefusal were ‘Can’t be bothered’ (20 per cent),

questionnaire, by which time respondents may have

‘Genuinely too busy’ (14 per cent) and ‘Too old or

become fatigued. Evidence from interviewers

infirm’ (12 per cent).

suggests that this was the case, particularly for theelderly respondents.

Table A13: Reasons for refusal(first reason given)
Reason for refusal(%)

Can’t be bothered
Genuinely too busy
Too old/infirm
Other reason
No reason given
Temporarily too busy
Broken appointments
Personal problems
Bad experience with previous surveys
Invasion of privacy
Late contact, insufficient time
About to go away
Doesn’t believe in surveys
Disliked survey matter
Concerns about confidentiality
Refusal to HQ
Not capable
Base

19.6
14.2
12.3
11.9
9.8
6.2
6.0
5.5
4.2
3.4
2.1
1.7
1.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
583

Table A14: Response to theself-completion module

Respondent completed the section
Interviewer completed the section
Section refused or not completed
Base

Number

(%)

844
683
7
1534

55.0
44.5
0.5
100

Weighting procedures
As noted earlier, the PSE interviewed one person perhousehold, oversampled households in Scotland andoversampled households in the lowest quintile
groups of equivalised income. Several weights were
therefore calculated to allow for the probability of
selection and also to compensate for non-response.
Care must be taken to use the correct weight for the
chosen analysis unit. Details of each of theseelements and the weighting procedure are available
from the authors (see Appendix 6).

Response to the self-completion section is shown in

Note

Table A14. Fifty-five per cent of respondents
completed the section themselves on the laptop,

1

There were 522 GHS areas in England and Wales in 1998; 518

while an additional 45 per cent were asked thewere used to select the PSE sample, as four had been used forquestions by the interviewer. The level of self-

the pilot study.

completion is lower than is normal on surveys of thistype. The Health Education Monitoring Survey(HEMS), for example, regularly asks respondents to
key their answers in on the laptop and about 85 percent of eligible respondents do so. The low
proportion self-completing this section of the PSE
may reflect the age profile of the PSE sample. Other
surveys requiring self-completion often have an age
cut-off; the HEMS only asks those aged 16 to 54 to
self-complete. Problems with eyesight, which are
more common among older people, are often cited91Appendix 5: List of Poverty andSocial Exclusion Survey of Britain
working papers

1Pantazis, C., Townsend, P. and Gordon, D. (2000)

13 Levitas, R., Pantazis, C. and Patsios, D. (2000)

The necessities of life in Britain
2

Social exclusion as lack of social relations

Bradshaw, J., Middleton, S., Williams, J. and

14 Bramley, G. (2000) Social exclusion and lack of

Ashworth, K. (2000) The necessities of life foraccess to services

children
15 Payne, S. (2000) Poverty and mental health3

Gordon, D., Pantazis, C. and Townsend, P. (2000)
Changing necessities of life 1983-99

16 Pantazis, C. (2000) Poverty and crime

4

Gordon, D. (2000) Income and social deprivation

17 Bradshaw, J. (2000) Active citizenship, social

5

Townsend, P., Gordon, D. and Pantazis, C.

exclusion and social norms(forthcoming UNRISD) The international

18 Bramley, G. (2000) Social exclusion and local

measurement of absolute and overall poverty
6neighbourhoods

Adelman, L., Ashworth, K. and Middleton, S.

19 Bradshaw, J. and Middleton, S. (2000) Child(2000) Poverty, social exclusion and employment
7

poverty and social exclusion

Ashworth, K., Middleton, S. and Adelman, L.

20 Patsios, D. (2000) Poverty and social exclusion(2000) Social security, poverty and social exclusion
8

among the elderly

Goodwin, D., Adelman, L. and Middleton, S.

21 Levitas, R., Bradshaw, J. and Townsend, P. (2000)(2000) Debt, money management and access to

How multidimensional is social exclusion?

financial services
22 Townsend, P., Levitas, R. and Gordon, D. (2000)
9

Pantazis, C. and Middleton, S. (2000) Poverty andEstablishing an operational definition of material

genderand social deprivation, social exclusion and poverty

10 Gordon, D. and Middleton, C. (2000) Poverty and

23 Adelman, L., Ashworth, K. and Middleton, S.
(2000) Intra-household distribution of poverty andtimesocial exclusion
11 Bradshaw, J. and Levitas, R. (2000) Lone parent
families, poverty and social exclusion
12 Gordon, D. (2000) Poverty and health/disablement

92

APPENDIX 5

24 Pantazis, C., Gordon, D. and Townsend, P. (2000)‘Perceptions of the necessities of life: Scotland
and England compared’, Scottish Affairs
Committee, Poverty in Scotland, Minutes of
Evidence, House of Commons, HC59-V, London,
TSO, pp123-27
25 Townsend, P. (2000) ‘Prisoners of the global
market: Social polarisation and poverty’, in J.
Baudot (ed.), Building a world community:
Globalisation and the common good. A report of
the Copenhagen Seminars, for the special sessionof the United Nations General Assembly on thefollow-up to the Social Summit, Geneva 2000
Forum, pp230-53
26 Townsend, P., Pantazis, C. and Gordon, D. (2000)‘Perceptions of the necessities of life: Wales,
England and Scotland compared’, SelectCommittee on Welsh Affairs, Inquiry into social
exclusion, London: The Stationery Office93Appendix 6: Contact details for thelead researchers

Professor Peter Townsend

Professor Jonathan Bradshaw

Department of Social Policy

Social Policy Research Unit

London School of Economics

University of York

Houghton Street

Heslington

London WC2A 2AE

York YO10 5DD

Email p.townsend@lse.ac.uk

Email jrb1@york.ac.uk

Tel. 020 7955 6632

Tel. 01904 433480

andFax 01904 433477

Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research
University of Bristol
8 Priory Road
Bristol BS8 1TZ
Tel. 0117 954 6771
Dr David Gordon
Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research
University of Bristol
8 Priory Road
Bristol BS8 1TZ
Email dave.gordon@bristol.ac.uk
Tel. 0117 954 6761
Fax 0117 954 6756
Dr Ruth Levitas
University of Bristol
12 Woodland Road
Bristol BS8 1UQ
Email ruth.levitas@bristol.ac.uk
Tel. 0117 928 7506
Fax 0117 970 6022
Sue Middleton
Centre for Research in Social Policy
Department of Social Sciences
Loughborough University
Loughborough LE11 3TU
Email s.middleton@lboro.ac.uk
Tel. 01509 223372
Fax 01509 213409

94

Glossary

BHPS

British Household Panel Survey

UN

United Nations

CAPI

Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

CASI

Computer-Assisted Self-Interviewing

UNICEF

United Nations Children’s Fund

CPAG

Child Poverty Action GroupUNRISD

United Nations Research Institute for

CSO

Central Statistical Office

DSS

Department of Social Security (UK)EEC

European Economic Community

Social Development
WHO

Eurostat European Statistical Office
FES

Family Expenditure Survey

FRS

Family Resources Survey

GHS

General Household Survey

GHQ

General Health Questionnaire

HBAI

Households Below Average Income

HEMS

Health Education Monitoring System

ILO

International Labour Organisation

MIQ

Minimum Income Question

MORI

Market and Opinion ResearchInternational

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development

ONS

Office for National Statistics

OPCS

Office of Population, Censuses andSurveys

PPRU

Policy Planning and Research Unit
(Northern Ireland)

PSE

Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey

SDStandard Deviation

SMIL

Sociovital Minimum Income Level

95

World Health Organization

Bibliography

Bradshaw, J. (1999) ‘Child poverty in comparative

Abel-Smith, B. and Townsend, P. (1965) The poor andthe poorest: A new analysis of the Ministry of Labour’s

perspective’, European Journal of Social Security,

Family Expenditure Surveys of 1953-54 and 1960,

Volume 1, 4, 383-404

London: G. Bell & Sons
Bradshaw, J., Gordon, D., Levitas, R., Middleton, S.,
Andreß, H.J. (ed.) (1998) Empirical poverty research in a

Pantazis, C., Payne, S. and Townsend, P. (1998)

comparative perspective, Aldershot: Ashgate

Perceptions of poverty and social exclusion 1998, Reporton Preparatory Research, Bristol: Townsend Centre
for International Poverty Research

Andreß, H.J. and Lipsmeir, G. (1995) ‘Was gehört
zum notwendigen Lebensstandard und wer kann ihnsich leisten? Ein neues Konzept zur Armutsmessung’,Burns, D. (1992) Poll tax rebellion, Stirling: AK Press

Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, Beilage zur
Wochenzeitung Das Parlament, B, 31-32/95 (28 July)

Callan, T. and Nolan, B. (1991) ‘Concepts of poverty
and the poverty line’, Journal of Economic Surveys 5(3):Atkinson, A.B. (1998) Poverty in Europe, Oxford:

243-61

BlackwellCallan, T., Nolan, B. and Whelan, C.T. (1993)
Atkinson, A.B., Rainwater, L. and Smeeding, T. (1995)‘Resources, deprivation and the measurement of‘Income distribution in OECD countries’, Social Policy

poverty’, Journal of Social Policy 22(2): 141-72

Studies 18, Paris: OECD
Callan, T., Nolan, B., Whelan, B.J., Hannan, D.F. andBeveridge, W. (1942) Social insurance and allied

Creighton, S. (1989) Poverty, income and welfare inservices, London: HM Stationery Office

Ireland, Dublin: Economic and Social ResearchInstitute

Blair, T. (1999) ‘Beveridge revisited: A welfare state forthe twenty-first century’, in R. Walker (ed.) Ending

Citro, C.F. and Michael, R.T. (eds) (1995) Measuringchild poverty, Bristol: The Policy Presspoverty: A new approach, Washington DC: National
Academy Press

Bradbury, B. (1989) ‘Family size equivalence scales
and survey evaluations of income and well-being’,

Cmd 4045 (1998) Bringing Britain together: A national

Journal of Social Policy 18(3): 383-408

strategy for neighbourhood renewal, Social Exclusion
Unit, London: The Stationery Office

Bradbury, B. and Jantii, M. (1999) Child poverty acrossindustrialised nations, Innocenti Occasional Papers,

Colasanto, D., Kapteyn, A. and van der Gaag, J.

EPS 1971, Florence: UNICEF(1984) ‘Two subjective definitions of poverty: Resultsfrom the Wisconsin basic needs study’, Journal of
Human Resources 19(1): 127-38

Bradshaw, J. (ed.) (1993) Budget Standards for theUnited Kingdom, Avebury: Aldershot

96BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cornia, G.A. (1999) Liberalisation, globalisation andDrever, F., Fisher, K., Brown, J. and Clark, J. (2000)

income distribution, Working Paper No. 157, Helsinki,Social inequalities: 2000 edition, London: The

Finland: UN World Institute for Development

Stationery Office

Economic Research
DSS (Department of Social Security) (1999a)
CSO (Central Statistical Office) (1996-9) Family

Households below average income 1994/5–1997/8,

Expenditure Survey reports for 1996/7, 1997/8 andLondon: Corporate Document Services

1998/9, London: The Stationery Office
DSS (Department of Social Security) (1999b)
Danziger, S., van der Gaag J., Taussig, M.K. andOpportunities for all: Tackling poverty and social

Smolensky, E. (1984) ‘The direct measure of welfare

exclusion, Cmd 4445, London: The Stationery Officelevels: How much does it cost to make ends meet?’,
Review of Economics and Statistics 6(3): 500-05

DSS (Department of Social Security) (2000)
Households below average income 1998/9, London:

Davey Smith, G. and Gordon, D. (1999) ‘Poverty andCorporate Document Services

health inequalities’, in C. Pantazis and D. Gordon(eds) Tackling inequalities: Where are we now and what

EEC (1981) Final report from the Commission to thecan be done?, Bristol: The Policy Press

Council on the first programme of pilot schemes andstudies to combat poverty, Brussels: Commission of theDavey Smith, G. and Gordon, D. (2000) ‘Poverty

European Communities

across the life-course and health’, in Pantazis, C. and
Gordon, D. (eds) Tackling inequalities: where are weEEC (1985) On specific community action to combat

now and what can be done? Bristol: The Policy Press,

poverty (Council Decision of 19 December 1984)

pp141-158

85/8/EEC, Official Journal of the EEC, 2/24

Davies, R. and Smith, W. (1998) The basic necessities

Eurostat (1999) European Community Household Panelsurvey: The experience of Action Aid Vietnam, London:(ECHP): Selected indicators from the 1995 wave,

Action Aid

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EC

Deleeck, H., de Lathouwer, L. and van den Bosch, K.

Goedhart, T., Halberstadt, V., Kapteyn, A. and Van(1988) Social indicators of social security: A comparative

Praag, B. (1977) ‘The poverty line: concept andanalysis of five countries, Antwerp: Centre for Social

measurement’, Journal of Human Resources 12(4): 503-20

PolicyGoode, J., Callender, C. and Lister, R. (1998) Purse or
Deleeck, H., van den Bosch, K. and de Lathouwer, L.

wallet? Gender inequalities and income distribution(eds) (1992) Poverty and the adequacy of social security

within families on benefits, London: Policy Studies

in the EC, EUROPASS Research Consortium,

Institute

Aldershot: Avebury
Gordon, D. (1995) ‘Census based deprivation indices:
DETR (1998) English House Conditions Survey: 1996,

Their weighting and validation’, Journal of

London: DETR

Epidemiology and Community Health, 49 (Suppl 2),
S39-S44

Dobson, B. and Middleton, S. (1998) Paying to care:
The cost of childhood disability, York: YPS/Joseph

Gordon, D. (2000) ‘Inequalities in income, wealthRowntree Foundationand standard of living’, in C. Pantazis and D. Gordon(eds) Tackling inequalities: Where are we now and what
can be done? Bristol: The Policy Press

97

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Gordon, D., Davey Smith, G., Dorling, D. and Shaw,

Halleröd, B. (1998) ‘Poor Swedes, poor Britons: A

M. (eds) (1999) Inequalities in health: The evidencecomparative analysis of relative deprivation’, in H.J.

presented to the Independent Inquiry into Inequalities inAndreß (ed.) Empirical poverty research in a comparative

Health, Bristol: The Policy Press

perspective, Aldershot: Ashgate

Gordon, D. and Pantazis, C. (1997) Breadline Britain

Hills, J. (1995) Income and wealth, volume 2: A

in the 1990s, Ashgate: Aldershot

summary of the evidence, York: Joseph Rowntree
Foundation

Gordon, D., Parker, R and Loughran, F. with Heslop,
P. (2000) Disabled children in Britain: A reanalysis of theHills, J. (ed.) (1996) New inequalities: The changing

OPCS Disability Surveys, London: The Stationery

distribution of income and wealth in the United

OfficeKingdom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Gordon, D. and Spicker, P. (eds) (1999) The

Hills, J. (1998) Income and wealth: The latest evidence,

international glossary on poverty, Cape Town, Dhaka,

York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Bangkok, London and New York: Zed Books
HM Treasury (Nov 1999) ‘Supporting children
Gordon, D. and Townsend, P. (1990) ‘Measuring thethrough the tax and benefit system’, Thepoverty line’, Radical Statistics, 47, 5-12

modernisation of Britain’s tax and benefit system, 5,
London: The Stationery Office

Gore, C. and Figueiredo, J.B. (1996) Social exclusion
and anti-poverty strategies, Geneva: International

HM Treasury (March 2000) ‘Tackling poverty andInstitute for Labour Studies

making work pay – tax credits for the 21st Century’,The modernisation of Britain’s tax and benefit system, 6,
London: The Stationery Office

GSS (1998) Harmonised Concepts and Questions for
Government Social Surveys, London: Government
Statistical Service

Howarth, C., Kenway, P., Palmer, G. and Miorelli, R.

Hagenaars, A.J.M. (1986) The perceptions of poverty,

York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation(1999) Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 1999,
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers
Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in HealthHagenaars, A.J.M. and de Vos, K. (1988) ‘The

(1998) Report of the Independent Inquiry into Inequalities

definition and measurement of poverty’, Journal of

in Health, London: The Stationery Office

Human Resources 23(2): 211-21
Kangas, O. and Ritakallio, V. (1995) Different methods
Halleröd, B. (1994) Poverty in Sweden: A new approach- different results? Approaches to multidimensional

to direct measurement of consensual poverty, Umeåpoverty, Paper presented at the ISARC 19 Conference,

Studies in Sociology, No. 10 6, University of UmeåPavi, Italy

Halleröd, B. (1995a) ‘Perceptions of poverty in

Kangas, O. and Ritakallio, V.M. (1998) ‘Different

Sweden’, Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare 4(3):methods – different results? Approaches to174-89multidimensional poverty’, in H.J. Andreß (ed.)
Empirical poverty research in a comparative perspective,

Halleröd, B. (1995b) ‘The truly poor: indirect andAldershot: Ashgate

direct measurement of consensual poverty in
Sweden’, Journal of European Social Policy 5(2): 111-29

Levitas, R. (1999) The inclusive society, London:
Macmillan

98BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mack, J. and Lansley, S. (1985) Poor Britain, London:

Nolan, B.J. and Whelan, C.T. (1996b) ‘Measuring

Allen and Unwinpoverty using income and deprivation indicators:
alternative approaches’, Journal of European Social

Marsh, A., Gordon, D., Pantazis, C. and Heslop, P.

Policy 6(3): 225-40(1999) Home, sweet home? The impact of poor housing
on health, Bristol: The Policy Press

Nunnally, J.C. (1981) Psychometric theory, New Delhi:
Tate McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd

Martin, J. and White, A. (1988) The financial
circumstances of adults living in private households,

Nyman, C. (1996) ‘Inside the black box: Intra-

Report 2, London: HMSO

household distribution of consumption in Sweden’,in E. Bihagen, C. Nyman and M. Strand (eds) Three

Mayer, S.E. and Jencks, C. (1988) ‘Poverty and the

aspects of consensual poverty in Sweden - work

distribution of material hardship’, The Journal ofdeprivation, attitudes towards the welfare state andHuman Resources XXIV.1: 88-113

household consumptional distribution, Umeå, Sweden:Umeå University

Middleton, S., Ashworth, K. and Braithwaite, I.
(1997) Small fortunes: Spending on children, childhood

ONS (Office for National Statistics) (1998) Social

poverty and parental sacrifice, York: Joseph Rowntree

trends 28, London: The Stationery Office

Foundation
ONS (Office for National Statistics) (1999) Social
Middleton, S., Ashworth, K. and Walker, R. (1994)

trends 29, London: The Stationery Office

Family fortunes: pressures on parents and children in the
1990s, London: CPAG Ltd

ONS (Office for National Statistics) (2000) Social
trends 30, London: The Stationery Office

Muffels, R. and Vries, A. de (1989) Poverty in the
Netherlands, first report of an international comparative

Orshansky, M. (1965) ‘Counting the poor: anotherstudy, Tilburg: VUGA

look at the poverty profile’, Social Security Bulletin,
June, 3-29

Muffels, R., Kapteyn, A., Vries, A. de and Berghman,
J. (1990), Poverty in the Netherlands: Report on the

Payne, S. and Pantazis, C. (1997) ‘Poverty andDutch Contribution to an International Comparative

gender’, in D. Gordon and C. Pantazis (eds) Breadline

Study on Poverty and the Financial Efficacy of the Social

Britain in the 1990s, Aldershot: Ashgate

Security System, The Hague: VUGA
Piachaud, D. and Sutherland, H. (2000) How effective
Muffels, R. and Vreins, M. (1991) ‘The elaboration ofis the British Government's attempt to reduce childa deprivation scale and the definition of a subjective

poverty?, CASE paper 38, London: Centre for Analysis

deprivation poverty line’, paper presented at theof Social Exclusion, LSE

Annual Meeting of the European Society for Population
Economic, 6-8 June, Pisa

Ramprakash, D. (1994) ‘Poverty in the countries of
the European Union: A synthesis of Eurostat's

Muffels, R., Berghman, J. and Dirven, H. (1992) ‘A

research on poverty’, Journal of European Social Policy,

multi-method approach to monitor the evolution of

4(2): 117-28

poverty’, Journal of European Social Policy 2(3): 193213

Reynolds, M. (1992) Uncollectable: the story of the poll
tax revolt, Manchester: Greater Manchester Anti-Poll

Nolan, B.J. and Whelan, C.T. (1996a) Resources,

Tax Federation

deprivation and poverty, Oxford: Clarendon Press

99

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN BRITAIN

Room, G. (ed.) (1995) Beyond the threshold: theTownsend, P. (1962) ‘The meaning of poverty’, British

measurement and analysis of social exclusion, Bristol:

Journal of Sociology 8

The Policy Press
Townsend, P. (ed.) (1970) The concept of poverty,
Rowntree, B.S. (1901) Poverty: A study of town life,

London: Heinemann

London: Macmillan & Co.
Townsend, P. (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom,
Rowntree, B.S. (1941) Poverty and progress: A second

London: Allen Lane and Penguin Bookssocial survey of York, London: Longmans, Green & Co.
Townsend, P. (1993) The international analysis ofRowntree, B.S. and Lavers, G.R. (1951) Poverty and thepoverty, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf

welfare state: A third social survey of York dealing onlywith economic questions, London: Longmans, Green &Townsend, P. and Davidson, N. (1988) Inequalities inCo.

health: The Black Report, 2nd edition, London:
Penguin Books

Rubinstein, W.D. (1986) Wealth and inequality in
Britain, London: Faber and Faber

Townsend, P. and Gordon, D. (1989) ‘What isenough?’ in House of Commons Social Services

Saltow, L. (1968) ‘Long run changes in British

Committee, Minimum Income, House of Commonsincome inequality’, Economic History Review, 2nd579, HMSO: London

Series: 21
Townsend, P. and Gordon, D. (1991) ‘What is
Saunders, P. and Matheson, G. (1992) Perceptions ofenough? New evidence on poverty allowing thepoverty, income adequacy and living standards in

definition of a minimum benefit’, in M. Alder, C.

Australia, Social Policy Research Centre, Sydney:

Bell, J. Clasen and A. Sinfield (eds) The Sociology of

University of New South Wales (Reports andSocial Security, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Proceedings No 99)

Press, pp35-69

Scottish Homes (1997) Scottish House Conditions

Townsend, P., Gordon, D., Bradshaw, J. andSurvey, Edinburgh: Scottish Homes

Gosschalk, B. (1997) Absolute and overall poverty in
Britain in 1997: What the population themselves say,

Shaw, M., Dorling, D., Gordon, D. and Davey Smith,Report of the Second MORI Survey, University of

G. (1999) The widening gap: Health inequalities andBristol: Bristol Statistical Monitoring Unit

policy in Britain, Bristol: The Policy Press
Townsend, P., Gordon, D. and Gosschalk, B. (1996)
Silver, H. (1994) ‘Social exclusion and social‘The poverty line in Britain today: What thesolidarity: Three paradigms’, International Labour

population themselves say’, Statistical Monitoring Unit

Review, Vol. 133, No. 5-6

Report No. 7, University of Bristol

Smyth, M. and Robus, N. (1989) The financial

UN (1995) The Copenhagen declaration and programme

circumstances of families with disabled children living inof action: World summit for social development 6-12

private households, OPCS Surveys of Disability Report

March 1995, New York: United Nations Department

5, London: HMSO

of Publications

Szalai, J. (ed.) (1998) ‘Old and new poverty in post-

UNDP (1997) Human development report 1997, New1989 Central Europe’, special issue of East-Central

York and Oxford: Oxford University Press

Europe, Vol. 20-23, parts 3-4100

BIBLIOGRAPHY

UNDP (1998) Poverty in transition, Regional Bureau

Zarb, G. and Maher, L. (1997) The financial

for Europe and the CIS, New York: UNDP

circumstances of disabled people in Northern Ireland,
PPRU Surveys of Disability Report No. 6, Belfast:

UNICEF (2000) A league table of child poverty in rich

NISRA

nations, Innocenti Report Card Issue No.1, Florence:
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre
Van den Bosch, K. (1998) ‘Perceptions of theminimum standard of living in Belgium: Is there aconsensus?’, in H.J. Andreß (ed.) Empirical poverty
research in a comparative perspective, Aldershot:
AshgateVan Praag, B., Hagenaars, A. and van Weeren J.
(1980) Poverty in Europe, Report to the Commission of
the EC, University of Leyden
Veit-Wilson, J.H. (1987) ‘Consensual approaches topoverty lines and social security’, Journal of Social
Policy 16(2): 183-211
Vogel, J. (1997) Living conditions and inequality in theEuropean Union 1997, Eurostat Working Papers:
Population and Social Conditions E/1997-3,
Luxembourg: Eurostat
Walker, R. (1987) ‘Consensual approaches to thedefinition of poverty: Towards an alternative
methodology’, Journal of Social Policy 16(2): 213-26
Wedgwood, J. (1929) The economics of inheritance,
Harmondsworth: Penguin
Whitehead, M. (1988) Inequalities in health: The healthdivide, 2nd edition, London: Penguin Books
World Bank (1990) World Development Report 1990:
Poverty, Washington DC: World BankWorld Bank (1996) Poverty reduction and the World
Bank: Progress and challenges in the 1990s, Washington
DC: World Bank
WHO (1998) The World Health Report 1998: Life in the
21st century: A vision for all, Geneva: WHO101