Proceedings of 10th Asian Business Research Conference
6 - 7 October 2014, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-62-7
An Analysis of the Perceptions of Causes of Poverty among
Grant Receiving and Non-Grant Receiving Households
Wynand C.J.Grobler and Steven .H. Dunga
The perceptions of the causes of poverty vary from group to group and between men
and women. The leading theories on the causes of poverty fall in two groups, namely
the liberal and the conservative theories. A scale by Feagin places the perceptions of
the causes of poverty into three main categories, namely societal, individual and fatal.
This paper considers the perceptions of the cause of poverty from grant receiving and
non-receiving households. Using data collected from Bophelong a poor township in
South Africa, the study employed a chi square test and cross-tabulations and the
results show that the perceptions differ, with grant recipients leaning more on the
liberal theories and blaming the social structures and fate while the non-recipients
agree with the conservative theories, and perceive that the poor have some
responsibility over their circumstances.
Field of Research: Economics, Social Sciences
Keywords: Poverty, Economics, Perceptions, Social Grants.
1. Introduction
The nature of poverty experienced by different societies requires tailor made solutions for
specific contexts. The fact that definitions as to what constitutes poverty vary a lack of money
to emotions around poverty, makes the analyses of poverty more complicated.. To deal with
poverty requires a clear understanding of the phenomenon and hence the need to explore
what people perceive to be the causes of poverty. People perceive poverty and also the
causes of poverty differently. Some of the well documented perceptions for example include
fatal, where people perceive their situation to be beyond their natural control or bad luck,
individualistic; where the victim is blamed for being lazy or for misuse of resources and
structural where the society is blamed for unequal opportunities or the lack thereof (Weiner et
al., 2011). The paper therefore explores the opinions or perceptions of the causes of poverty
among the households in Bophelong Township. Other similar studies have been done in a
number of countries including Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland,
Lebanon, Portugal, Turkey, and the United States. (Bullock, 1999; Ditch, 1984; Feagin, 1972;
Feather, 1974; Furnham, 1982a, 1982b; Hunt, 1996; Morcol, 1997; Nasser, Abouchedid, &
Khasham, 2002; Zucker & Weiner, 1993).
The need to understand what the poor think or perceive to be the causes of poverty may
explain the effort or lack thereof on their part in addressing their situation. The paper
considers the perceptions between grant receiving households and households who do not
receive grants. The paper is organised as follows, Section 2 provides an overview of the
literature, Section 3 presents the methodology, Section 4 provides the results and discussion
and section 5 draws a conclusion.
___________________________________________________________________
Wynand C.J.Grobler, School of Economic Sciences, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa:
wynand.grobler@nwu.ac.za
Steven .H. Dunga School of Economics Sciences, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa Email:
steve.dunga@nwu.ac.za
1
Proceedings of 10th Asian Business Research Conference
6 - 7 October 2014, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-62-7
2. Literature Review
Theories of poverty emanate centrally from the differences in the definitions, measures and
the perceptions of what the root causes of poverty are and the understanding on how to deal
with poverty. Poverty remains a major problem, and countries all over the world have over the
years put together efforts to reduce or eradicate it. The need to deal with poverty in all its
forms is therefore a part of most of the initiatives being carried out in the developing world.
Most studies conducted in countries like Malawi (Dunga, 2013), and in Ethiopia (Bogale et al.,
2005) point to the fact that poverty is prevalent among women and children in rural areas
compared to urban areas.
In most of the programs being initiated and implemented by the multilateral organisations
such as the World Bank, European Union (Commission), United Nations Development
Programme among others poverty alleviation stands out as a priority. It is also clear in the
efforts by the developed countries that they feel obliged to act in a way that is consistent with
concerns over poverty and how to reduce or eradicate it (Dunga, 2013). Of major concern are
the people that live in abject poverty that is, those that do not have access to basic needs for
survival. Both developing and least developed countries have most of their policies and
programs focused on how to deal with poverty (UNDP, 2012: 1).
There are still contentions on what the definition of poverty should be and what the measure
of poverty should be (Artkinson, 1987; Stewart, Frances. Laderchi, Ruggeri .Caterina. Ruhi,
2007). The lack of agreement or consensus on the definition is a characteristic of most
phenomena that involves social or psychological aspects as these are highly subjective
matters, and since human beings are not uniform in any sense of the word. The fact that
human beings are different in what they perceive as necessary influences the differences in
their perceptions. But whether poverty is perceived or is a reality is not a contention at all.
There is an agreement on what basic needs and hence basic welfare entails, and the
absence of the same constitute poverty. The section that follows expounds on the theory and
perceptions of poverty since studies around it became known. The theories of poverty
emanate from the different efforts that have been used to try and explain the causes of
poverty and identify areas that can be focused on in order to deal with this social ill. There are
a number of theories that exist in the literature. These theories are different depending on the
origins of the understanding of the assumed causes of poverty. Bradshaw (2005) clearly
pointed out five theories of poverty. Theories of poverty originate from individual deficiencies
or limitations, cultural belief systems that support subcultures in poverty, political-economic
distortions, geographical disparities, or cumulative and circumstantial origins.
The literature on theories of poverty acknowledges different viewpoints of poverty, although to
a greater extent divide into two points of view or understanding. These points of view are
basically the conservative view which bases the explanation of poverty on the individual or as
others like Ryan (1976) called it, blaming the victim. The other side puts the blame on the
society or social functioning and is referred to as the liberal or progressive theories of poverty.
One common feature is that all the theories attempt to identify the root cause of poverty. As
Bradshaw (2006) contended that a number of authors have made the same distinction,
pointing out that virtually all authors distinguish between theories that the root the cause of
poverty in individual deficiencies (conservative) and theories that lay the cause on broader
social phenomena (liberal or progressive). Ryan (1976) addresses this dichotomy in terms of
“blaming the victim.” Goldsmith and Blakely (2010), for example distinguish poverty as
pathology from poverty as incident or accident and poverty as structure. Schiller (1989)
2
Proceedings of 10th Asian Business Research Conference
6 - 7 October 2014, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-62-7
explains it in terms of flawed characters and restricted opportunity, Jennings (1999) reviews a
number of variants on these individual compared to society conceptions, putting emphasis to
racial and political dynamics. One identifier of the theories is the perceptions that people have
regarding poverty. The following sections deals with the perceptions of the causes of poverty
and try to link them to the two categories of theories of poverty. (Stewart, Frances. Laderchi,
Ruggeri .Caterina. Ruhi, 2007) An attempt is made to relate the theories of poverty as
discussed by the conservative approaches and the liberal approaches, to the perceptions of
poverty or causes of poverty as is mainly referred to in empirical research. There are four
main categories of perceptions on the causes of poverty namely; Individualistic Fatalistic
Structural and Psychological (DiNitto, 2000; Feagin 1972; 1975; Mullaly, 2007).
The link between Grants and perceptions of poverty
The background to grants emanate from social welfare. In an effort to deal with poverty and
provide for basic needs like food for poor households, countries have different forms of safety
nets or welfare systems. Against this background, numerous studies refer to the use of social
security schemes to improve food security by improving food access, or by providing
households with income to purchase food (Adato & Basset, 2012; Cook & Frank, 2007; Miller
et al., 2011).
The South African government Constitution, Section 27 states that “everyone has the right to
... sufficient food” and that the state must take reasonable legislative and other measures,
within its available resources, to achieve this. Against this background, the South African
government developed the Integrated Food Security Strategy (IFSS) in 2002. In 2011 the
National Planning Commission, , identified food security as a “key shaping force” for South
Africa (NPC, 2011). In a study by the African Food Security Urban Network (AFSUN) amongst
6500 households in South Africa, using the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale
(HFIAS), 77 percent of households were found to be moderately or severely food insecure
(Frayne et al., 2010). In a study by Battersby (2012), food insecurity was identified as
increasingly urban, with a lack of focused policies to address food insecurity in urban settings
Grants are therefore used as a way of transferring cash to households.
The paper therefore investigates the perceptions of poverty as categorised in a scale that has
individualistic, structural and fatalistic as causes of poverty. The fact that households or
individuals have access to this kind of income may influence their perceptions on poverty.
3.
Methodology
This section explains the research process in the data collection and methodology of the
study. The measurement grant recipients and their distribution in the sample are also
explained in detail. The questions and statements used to capture the perceptions on causes
of poverty are also explained in the cross tabulation table. The cross tabulation and the Chi
square test used to test the differences in the responses are also explained in this section.
Survey Design
This study is based on a household survey using questionnaires. A random sample of
households was interviewed in the township of Bophelong. Maps were obtained for
3
Proceedings of 10th Asian Business Research Conference
6 - 7 October 2014, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-62-7
Bophelong and sample stratification was designed on account of the geographical distribution
and concentration of people in the areas. A questionnaire was designed to collect the desired
data. The questionnaire included information on demographics, respondents’ income and
expenditure patterns and their general view about their socio-economic status. The area was
divided into the different extensions and the questionnaires were apportioned evenly among
the inhabited sites. Sites at which field workers were supposed to complete questionnaires
were identified individually from the map before the field workers went out. However, where
people could not be obtained for an interview, or where it was impossible to trace the house, a
next pre-selected household was interviewed. Information was obtained from the breadwinner
or the spouse. Information obtained from the respondents was kept in strict confidence and
the participants were not required to write their names on the questionnaire. A total of 300
households were interviewed by two fieldworkers. Almost all the households approached
were willing to participate in the survey and 295 questionnaires were completed in July 2013.
Experience in previous surveys has shown that samples of this size with a low refusal rate
provide statistically reliable data within reasonable limits.
Model specification
The paper uses cross tabulations to explore the perceptions of the causes of poverty between
the grant recipients and non-grant recipients. A Chi squares test is used to further determine if
there are significant differences in the responses of the grant recipients and non-recipients.
4.
Results and discussion
Using a set of questions that are based on Feagen’s validated scale which categorises the
responses into three categories namely, individualistic, structural and fatalistic perceptions,
the study collected information from heads of households in Bophelong township on what they
perceived to be the causes of poverty. A set of statements where read for the participants to
agree or disagree, or a scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Demographic characteristics of the respondents
Table 1 provides the demographic profile of the sample (N=295). The average household size
is 4.49, with a minimum of 1 member and a maximum of 17 members per household. The
average age of the head of the household is 49.60 years with a minimum age of 18 and
maximum age of 99 years. The average number of years schooling of the head of the
household is 10.76 years, and the average income per household R 3253.05. The average
employed persons per household are 0.807 with a maximum of 4 and minimum of 0. The
average HFIAS score per household is 12.18.
4
Proceedings of 10th Asian Business Research Conference
6 - 7 October 2014, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-62-7
Table 1 Demographic profile of the sample (N=295)
Variable
HH Size
Age Head
Education Head
Total Income
Employed persons in
household (number)
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
295
295
295
295
295
1
18
2
100
0
17
99
17
16000
4
4.49
49.60
10.76
3253.05
.807
Standard
Deviation
2.05
13.21
4.99
3033.81
.853
Of the 295 households that were involved in the survey, 43 percent were benefiting from a
grant. There were three categories of grants that were considered in the survey; child grants,
old age grant and other grants. The results from the data also show that the respondents
were mostly women. Table 2 shows that of the 295 heads of households that were involved in
the survey, 67.1 percent were females and 32.5 percent were males. This would imply that
there are more female headed households in Bophelong Township than are the male headed
households. This may also explain why close to half of the households are receiving some
sort of grants a bigger parentage of which is child grants.
Table 2: Gender and age distribution of the heads of households
Valid
male
female
missing
Total
Frequency
96
198
1
295
Percent Valid Percent
32.5
32.5
67.1
67.1
.3
.3
100.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
32.5
99.7
100.0
The results of the cross tabulation between the perceptions of the causes of poverty and the
households receiving and not receiving grants are reported in Table 3. The statements that
were used for the perceptions were further categorised into the three main categories of the
perceptions of causes of poverty namely, individualistic, structural and fatalistic. The
responses which were on the scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree were further broadly
categorised into two groups. Those that strongly disagreed and disagreed were put into one
group, and similarly, those that strongly agreed and agreed were also combined into one
group, hence there were two broad categories of responses that were cross-tabulated with
the statements. Table 2 presents the results.
The general picture from the responses in Table 3 is that grant recipients agree with the
individualistic perceptions, although not all of the statements, whereas the non-recipients
disagree with the individualistic perceptions. The reason for the agreement on the part of the
grant recipients could be that they feel it is talking about someone else and not them. Since
they already are benefiting from grants they feel the questions like, poor people lack the ability
to manage has nothing to do with them. On the other hand the non-recipient disagree with
such a perception, this could be interpreted as meaning that, they feel they deserve to be
5
Proceedings of 10th Asian Business Research Conference
6 - 7 October 2014, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-62-7
included on the list of those benefiting from grants and that the idea that they lack ability to
manage money is incorrect. This could mean that the non-recipients responded to the
statement as talking about them.
Table 3: Cross tabulations
Perception
Grant
recipient
households
Non Grant
recipient
households
They lack the ability to
manage money
They waste their money on
inappropriate items
They do not actively seek to
improve their lives
They are exploited by rich
people
The society lacks social
justice
Distribution of wealth in the
society is uneven
They lack opportunities due
to the fact that they live in
poor families
They live in places where
there are not many
opportunities
They have bad fate
They lack luck
They have encountered
misfortunes
They are not motivated
because of welfare
They are born inferior
They lack the ability to
manage money
They waste their money on
inappropriate items
They do not actively seek to
improve their lives
They are exploited by rich
people
The society lacks social
justice
Distribution of wealth in the
society is uneven
They lack opportunities due
to the fact that they live in
poor families
They live in places where
there are not many
opportunities
They have bad fate
They lack luck
They have encountered
misfortunes
They are not motivated
because of welfare
They are born inferior
Perception
Category
Individualistic
Agree
Disagree
92
90
Pearson ChiSquare
Sig.
.000
105
76
.000
84
96
.118
97
82
.001
144
35
.000
150
31
.000
143
37
.002
136
44
.001
39
44
41
144
133
140
.001
.002
.001
63
118
.000
30
151
.000
29
75
.000
32
72
0.000
32
72
0.118
33
71
0.001
46
68
.000
54
49
.000
66
37
.002
61
43
.001
16
20
19
88
84
85
.001
.002
.001
25
79
.000
11
93
.000
Structural
Fatalistic
Individualistic
Structural
Fatalistic
6
Proceedings of 10th Asian Business Research Conference
6 - 7 October 2014, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-62-7
The response on the structural or societal question is also concentrated in different responses
for the two groups. The grant recipients agree with the statement that put the blame on the
society, arguing that they deserve the grant they get because it is societies fault for them to
be found in their needy situation. The non-recipients have ever are split with more disagreeing
with the first two statements that put the blame on the society. This could be that these
households are not on grants because they are better off. These could be the households that
fall above the poverty line, are in employment and feel that the society is fair and just.
However they agree with some of the statements that blame the society and most of these is
general like the poor lack opportunities, which basically one would easily agree with.
On the fatalistic perceptions, both the grant recipients and the non-recipients disagreed with
all the statements of fate. This could mean that no one wants to leave their circumstances to
fate; at least something that can be controlled is acceptable to the households as a cause of
poverty, but not fate.
5. Conclusion
This study investigated the perceptions of households towards poverty in a low-income urban
neighbourhood. The paper considers the perceptions between grant receiving households
and non-recipients of grants to explore the differences in their perceptions. The results
showed that grant recipients agree with the individualistic perceptions. The non-grant
recipients feel that the idea that they lack ability to manage money is incorrect. The grant
recipients agree with statements that put the blame on the society, arguing that they deserve
the grant because it is societies fault for them to be found in their needy situation this could
mean that the non-recipients responded to the statement as talking about them.
On the fatalistic perceptions, both the grant recipients and the non-recipients disagreed with
all the statements of fate. This could mean that no one wants to leave their circumstances to
fate; at least something that can be controlled is acceptable to the households as a cause of
poverty, but not fate. The need to understand what the poor think or perceive to be the
courses of poverty may explain the effort or lack thereof on their part in addressing their
situation.
The results reported on in this study contribute to the growing body of knowledge on the
perceptions on poverty. It is suggested that policymakers consider the perceptions on poverty
as part of developing a policy framework towards addressing poverty in low income
neighbourhoods.
6. References
Adato, M. and Basset, L. 2012. Social protection and cash transfer to strengthen families
affected by HIV. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Artkinson, A. B. (1987). On the Measurement of Poverty Author ( s ): A . B . Atkinson
Published by : The Econometric Society, Vol.55, No. (4), pp. 749–764.
Battersby . J. 2012. Urban food security and the urban food policy gap. Towards Carnegie III,
Conference held at the University of Cape Town from 3 to 7 September 2012.
7
Proceedings of 10th Asian Business Research Conference
6 - 7 October 2014, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-62-7
Bogale, A., Hagedorn. K, and Korf, B. (2005). Determinants of poverty in rural Ethiopia.
Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 44(2005) No 2 101-120.
Bradshaw, T.K. (2006) Theories of poverty and anti -poverty programs in community
development. RPRC, Working Paper No . 06-05
Bullock, H. E. (1999). Attributions for poverty: A comparison of middle class and welfare
recipient attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2059–2082.
Cook, J.T. and Frank, D.A. 2007. Food security, poverty and human development in the
United States.
DiNitto, D. M. (2000). Social welfare: Politics and public policy (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Ditch, J. (1984). The perception of poverty in Northern Ireland. Policy & Politics, 12, 167-181.
doi:10.1332/03055738478262837
Dunga, S. H. (2014). The channels of poverty reduction in Malawi: A district analysis. North
West University..
Feagin, J. R. (1972, November). Poverty: We still believe that God helps those who help
themselves. Psychology Today, 101-129.
Feather, N. (1974). Explanations of poverty in Australian and American samples:
the person, society and fate. Australian Journal of Psychology, 26, 199-216.
Furnham, A. (1982). Why are the poor always with us? Explanations for the poverty in Britain.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 311-322 Journal of Social Psychology, 21(4),
311–322.
Furnham, A. (1982a). Explanations for unemployment in Britain. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 12, 335-352
Goldsmith, W.W. and Blakely, E.J. (2010) Seperate Societies and Poverty and Inequality in
US Cities, Second Edition.
Hunt, M. O. (1996). The individual, society, or both? A comparison of Black, Latino, and White
beliefs about the causes of poverty. Social Forces, 75(1), 293–322.
Jennings, J. (1999). Persistent Poverty in the United States: Review of Theories and
Explanations. in L. Kushnick, & J. Jennings (eds), A New Introduction to Poverty: The
Role of Race, Power, and Politics . New York: New York University Press.
Miller, C.M., Tsoka, M. and Reichert, K. 2011. The impact of the social cash transfer scheme
on food security in Malawi. Food Policy, 36:230-238.
Morcol, G. (1997).
Lay explanations for poverty in Turkey and their
determinants. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(6), 728-738
8
Proceedings of 10th Asian Business Research Conference
6 - 7 October 2014, Novotel Bangkok on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-62-7
.
Mullaly, B. (2007). The new structural social work (3rd ed.). Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford
University Press.
National Planning Commission. 2011. Diagnostic overview. Office of the Presidency. Pretoria.
Nasser, R., Abouchedid, K., and Khasham, H. (1996). Perceptions of the causes of poverty
comparing three national groups: Lebanon, Portugal and South Africa. Current Research
in Social Psychology 2:15-22 http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc
Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage.
Schiller, B. R. (1989). The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination . Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Stewart, Frances. Laderchi, Ruggeri .Caterina. Ruhi, S. (2007).
Approaches to Defining and Measuring Poverty.pdf.
-Introduction Four
Weiner, B., Osborne, D., & Rudolph, U. (2011). An attributional analysis of reactions to
poverty: the political ideology of the giver and the perceived morality of the receiver.
Personality and Social Psychology Review : An Official Journal of the Society for
Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 15(2), 199–213. doi:10.1177/1088868310387615
Zucker, G.S. and Weiner, B. 1993.Conservatism and Perseptions of Poverty: An Attributional
Analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psycholgy, Volume 23, Issue 12 p 925-943.
9