Mindsets must change to help the poor...but whose?

What causes poverty? This is a perennial debate. Is poverty caused mostly by individual deficits such as laziness and lack of motivation? Or is it caused mostly by structural factors in society such as discrimination and lack of opportunity? Or perhaps mostly situational factors such as a disaster or illness?

In polls around the world, people seem to agree that situational factors are important. The main debate is between those who focus on individual reasons and those who focus on societal reasons.

More interesting than what causes poverty are (a) the types of people who subscribe to the different causes - individual or societal, and (b) the way government policies try to help the poor. In the United States and Britain, the rich are more likely than the poor to choose individualistic reasons for poverty. So are conservative political party affiliates compared to liberals. This has obvious implications in terms of the power dynamics between who makes the decisions on how to fix poverty, and who those decisions affect.

In reality, poverty is caused by a complex mix of factors. For example, it is currently recognised that contemporary poverty in developed countries has much to do with globalisation and skills-biased development that has increased the gap between skilled and unskilled wages. These are societal causes of poverty.

Resilient individuals can overcome harsh challenges to move out of poverty. Such individual resilience, however, requires tremendous hard work and determination if societal barriers are high. This is because the barriers are more likely to discourage than inspire individual responsibility.

Unfortunately, policy debates sometimes ignore this complexity, focusing instead on either societal factors or individual motivation, and thereby limiting the potential for transformative policies.

For example, noting that female single parenthood is highly correlated with poverty, conservatives in the US promote marriage as a way out of poverty. This recommendation ignores the fact that there are structural conditions that put single parents at high risk of poverty. These conditions include gender discrimination and inequality in the labour market, poor and inflexible conditions in low-paying jobs, and lack of childcare options.

The recommendation also discounts the likelihood of reverse causation, in which poverty strains spousal relationships and can lead to more present-oriented decisions such as having children young and before marriage. And the recommendation also has limited effects because the majority of poor families are actually headed by two parents.

This is why findings such as those by Dr Ron Haskins and Dr Isabel Sawhill, as cited by Professor Peter A. Coclanis in the Straits Times on Jan 23 (How to Help the Poor? Go Figure), must be interpreted with extreme caution. Words from the study such as "family head waited until at least the age of 21 before having children" and "adheres to….social norms" hint at blaming the poor for their poverty.

It could reinforce mindsets in society and among social service providers that the main problem is attitudinal - a refusal by low-income individuals to adhere to middle-class social norms or the conditions for external financial assistance.

My research has found that Singaporeans seem generally sympathetic towards the poor, with the views of low-income respondents not substantially different from others who were more fortunate. In March and April last year, I polled 440 Singaporeans via online and paper distribution, including distribution through voluntary welfare organisations to reach low-income respondents.

I was able to apply weights to make the sample representative of working and middle-class Singaporeans, but not the very rich. I found that 5 per cent attributed poverty to individual reasons, while 27 per cent chose structural reasons.

After adjusting for respondents' narrow definition of poverty, and the under-representation of the very rich, the results suggested Singaporeans were more likely to attribute poverty to societal factors than survey respondents in Britain and other countries.

Thus, I believe that currently in Singapore, there is congruence in attitudes towards the causes of poverty that are generally sympathetic towards the poor. The recent emergence of poverty as a social issue in Singapore, and an increasing public policy rhetoric of inclusivity, have contributed to favourable attitudes towards the poor and poverty alleviation measures.

This contrasts with Britain, where welfare cuts and growing conservatism have increased stigmatisation of the poor. In recent years, opinion polls have shown a growing proportion of the British population ascribing poverty to individual reasons such as laziness.

The above contrast between Singapore and Britain holds important lessons for Singapore, a city-state which has one of the highest rates of income inequality in the developed world. Blaming the poor for their poverty is counter-productive, and can only lead to class segregation and social tension. Yes, willingness of the poor to help themselves is important. But volition can be ignited through policies that address societal barriers, complemented with motivational micro-interventions. This is better than emphasising adherence to social norms (get and stay married, work hard and so on) to escape their poverty.

Singapore's current policy initiatives, such as wage-restructuring, universalising MediShield, equalising educational opportunities, and greater integration of social services, are to be lauded and given greater impetus.

Complementary micro-interventions can be provided through case management that facilitates access to the macro-interventions in an empathic manner. Such micro-interventions inspire hope, and together, the macro-micro synergies can offer an effective means of poverty alleviation.

Helping the poor does involve changing mindsets. It might be the poor's, but it could also be yours or mine.

stopinion@sph.com.sg

The writer is associate professor and executive editor of the Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, Department of Social Work, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore.