Who must be responsible for the poverty of people in United Kingdom: government or people themselves - Essay Example

? Who must be responsible for the poverty of people in United Kingdom: government or people themselves? The definition of poverty is neither universal nor standardized; the definition according to the Europeans Union working is that poverty refers to limited resources of persons, families and groups of persons hence, excluding them from the minimum way of life which is acceptable in their own member state (Blakemore and Griggs, 123). The most common measurement for the child poverty in the UK is Households Below Average Income (HBAI). The measure used in HBAI is the risk of children who lives in households which their contemporary median outcome is below 60 percent (Hills 78-79). According to Spicker (88), the child poverty is divided into three areas; first, is the income poverty where children are denied several opportunities by the low income. Secondly is the participatory poverty where most children from the poor families feel left out of several activities others enjoy. This is worse among children who are disabled and those from the ethnic minority group. Thirdly is the service poverty, this is a situation in which young people and children from the poor households neither access nor benefit from various quality services such as, leisure and childcare. Most of them are from households with several challenges such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown. In 2008/09 the people who were living in families with low income were estimated to be 13.5 million which represented 22% of the total population. This figure shows an increase of 1.5million from the previous statistics of 2004/05.  In addition, the disable individuals living in poverty are estimated to be a third of the total number of individuals above 25 years up to the retirement age. The Society and the government have been involved in eradicating poverty and have established several measures. This has resulted in gradual improvement in the individuals lives. The poverty situation has become better than in the past. According to Bradshaw (38), the major cause of poverty in the UK is inadequate income, this problem mostly affects children from; lone parent families, the workless families, large families, those with disabled individuals and those from ethnic minority groups. It results from joblessness, low wages and low level benefits among individuals. The recession has resulted in the rapid increase of unemployment and expectations are that it will rise further. The risk of unemployment is considered to be higher among the following individuals; those who posses lower skills, those from certain minority ethnic groups, and even those who dwell in areas with low unemployment (Devine 67-68). In addition, there is also the caring responsibilities and discrimination which are considered to be barriers to work among individuals. The Second cause is low wages; individuals’ being in a paid work is not a guarantee of freedom from poverty (Strelitz, 66). In 2008/09, 61 percent of children who were considered to be poor belonged to households where one or more parents were working. The risk of poverty is increased by the following; low wages, individuals working on part-time basis, and condition where both adults in a household are not working (Chant, 56-57). The third cause is inadequate benefits; the benefits and the tax credits which are put in place to act as safety net are too low hence, inadequate to protect all families with children from poverty. Their value is considered to be below the poverty line. Individuals are influenced by poverty in several ways and their lives made shorter and more brutal than they ought to be. Poverty does not simply concerns individuals having low income, it also regards the denial of; power, respect, good health, education and housing, basic self esteem and involvement in different social activities. Poverty is costly to both individuals and society as well. Skills available to employers are reduced and economic growth hindered by children’s educational attainment which is limited. The influence on education is that poor children on average score less in education such as the reading tests and the GCSE results. Poverty also influences individual’s health; it is greatly associated with higher risk of illnesses and premature death. The life expectancy at birth varies significantly according to an individual’s social class. For example, the professional men expect to live up to 80 years while the unskilled manual men have a life expectancy of 72.7 years. Professional women on the other hand have a life expectancy of 85.1 years while the unskilled women expect to live up to 78.1 years. Children from poor households are faced with poor health at an early age and in most cases this persists for the rest of their lives. There is a likelihood of three year old children from households with income which is below ?10,000 to suffer from chronic illnesses as compared to those from households with income which is above ?52,000. There is also high risk of infant mortality among the poor children. Finally, poverty also influences individual’s social participation. It causes isolation among individuals thus, reducing their ability to be involved in the social and community life. The government has a great responsibility in the fight against poverty. There are several actions, policies and future plans which have been established by the government. A cross-cutting agenda is being pushed by the Welsh Assembly Government in order to improve the lives of several children and young people. It mainly based on partnership which focuses on and implements the Rights of the Child established in the UN convention. The government’s policies and programs that focuses on the children and the young people are suppose to contribute to the main objectives which clearly summarize the child rights. The core objectives clearly state that the government has to ensure that poverty do not disadvantage the young people in the country. The main target of the UK government was to reduce the child poverty by half by the year 2010 and 2011 while planning on its major focus of eradication of poverty by 2020. Progress has been witnessed however, the policy in place still remains off track and the 2010 budget was inadequate to narrow the existing gap. The government has great obligation to put in more effort in order to achieve the 2020 goal and to assist all the children to thrive in their childhood stages and the rest of their lives. Undertaking child poverty in its various forms is difficult and cross-cutting. There has to be a well established partnership in place between the public and the private sectors. The government together with its partners has a great role in ensuring that the shared child poverty objectives are attained. They also have to contribute considerably towards the improvement of the disadvantaged children life opportunities. In the recent years the government policy has been shaped by; the independent Child Poverty Task Group report of June 2004, the strategy on child poverty which focused mainly on the children fair future published on February 2005 and several other proposals which focused on the child poverty. The actions of the government mainly focus on improving life opportunities for all children who are disadvantaged. It also considers different financial inclusion initiatives. Finally, it promotes greater uptake of the tax and the benefits support of the UK government. Considering paid work do not guarantee freedom from poverty the government has focused on improvement in the individuals pay, accessibility of the childcare, and ensuring that balance exist between the responsibilities of parenting and those of employment. The government has also tried to ensure that there is no discrimination in the workplace and inequalities in education. This helps to ensure all children leave school with the appropriate qualification which will enable them to be involved in the modern economy. The state role has also been to ensure that there is fairness in taxes and more invested among children through child benefit. The tax credits and the disability benefits have to be sufficient and allocated to the right individuals who need them. The government has also come up with different ways to improve family income and even to reduce the existing inequality (Walker 44-46). It is working towards its future plans which includes; protecting individual’s jobs, eliminating existing barriers to work, to end in-work poverty, establishing a childcare strategy which considers child-first, ending the existing division in the schools, provision of adequate public services which are fair to all the individuals who require them most, bringing to an end the poverty premiums in taxes and services and ensuring all families in the UK have decent homes. People with problems also play a key role to end the issues facing them. Individuals who are faced with poverty are better placed to provide solutions they need. The poor will be innovative when granted an opportunity to do so. The poor young people can enhance their analytical skills and establish their own solutions by utilizing the available universal education. When empowered, individuals in extreme poverty, especially those marginalized because of their gender and ethnic minority group should raise the issues affecting them. The poor should fully utilize the support they get from the government in search of better conditions and a proper future for their children. The big question regarding the poverty in the UK is whether the government should be responsible for the problem of poverty and be involved in establishing programs to handle the issue or whether it should not bother about it. Harsh conditions of poverty can be reduced by use of money. However, for a lasting effect it should be utilised to make the necessary changes in an individual’s behaviour. Removal of individuals from the poverty level is not a simple task; it is not comparable to giving money. The appropriate solution to poverty eradication is to change behaviours of the people concerned. Behaviours involve education and work. In some cases, individuals uses the poverty title as a free ride since they do not want to get involved in any kind of work thus, aid should be given conditionally. The government should put in place policies which have strings attached in order to attain significant success. Government policies are considered successful if through it individual will be encouraged to take the appropriate action and offer success which is long-term. This way, opportunities are provided to all individuals in poverty to get out of it and be able to help their children to have a new beginning. The government helping households in poverty is not a proper solution. For a difference to be attained in the individual’s lives, the government should change their mindsets. This is because provision of a temporary solution without proper tools to use will result in individuals falling back into poverty (Seymour, 67-68). The government should just provide enough money and put adequate policies in place to help individuals who are poor to get a job. However, different people view the issue of responsibility differently. The argument against government taking the responsibility in poverty is that, it may not be the best way to bring poverty to an end. Even though some individual may not be willing to change their behaviours the government is not to blame. The decision should not be based between the people and the money. Therefore, the government assistance should just be provided to individuals who are willing to put in their own effort to get out of poverty. However those who do not have the will should not be given money. Individuals should take responsibility among themselves to make use of the classes and participate in different programs that are provided by the government in order to find their own help. Conclusion Both individuals and the government have been involved in the eradication of poverty in the UK. Individuals have an obligation to bring poverty to an end and to provide better lives for their children. They should utilize the money and policies that are provided by the government to look for better jobs which will reward them with better pay. The UK government has come up with several future plans. These include; to protect individual’s jobs, to eliminate the existing barriers to work, to end in-work poverty, to establish a childcare strategy which considers child-first, to end the existing division in the schools, to provide adequate public services which are fair to all the individuals who require them most, to bring to an end the poverty premiums in taxes and services and ensuring all families in the UK have decent homes. Hence, the government should put in place appropriate policies which will aid in the achievement of its plans. This is because it is its responsibility to end the current poverty among individuals of different groups in the UK. Sources Blakemore, Ken, and Edwin Griggs. Social policy: an introduction .UK: McGraw-Hill International, 2007. Bradshaw, Jonathan. Social Policy, Employment and Family Change in Comparative Perspective.UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009. Chant, Sylvia. The International Handbook of Gender and Poverty: Concepts, Research, Policy. UK:Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010. Christie, Ian, et al. From here to sustainability: politics in the real world. UK: Earthscan, 2001. Devine, Fiona. Social class in America and Britain.Edinburgh University Press, 1997. Hills,John. Inequality and the state. UK:Oxford University Press, 2004. Muscatelli, Vitantonio. Economic and political institutions in economic policy. UK: Manchester University Press ND, 1996. Seymour, Jane. Poverty in plenty: a human development report for the UK. UK: Earthscan, 2000. Spicker, Paul. Poverty and social security: concepts and principles. Taylor & Francis, 1993. Staff, Ditch. Introduction to Social Security: Policies, Benefits and Poverty.UK: Routledge, 2002. Strelitz , Jason, et al. Why Money Matters: Family Income, Poverty and Children's Lives. UK: Save the Children UK, 2008. Veit-Wilson, John. Dignity not poverty: a minimum income standard for the UK. UK:Public Policy Research, 1994. Walker, Robert, et al. Responses to poverty: lessons from Europe. UK: Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 1984. Read More