Moynihan, Rector, and Jennings' Views on Persistent Misery - Research Paper Example

Urban Poverty and Family Abstract Theories explaining poverty take divergent approaches and suggest varying intervention strategies to remedy persistent poverty in the society. Most theories of poverty centre on individual and family deficiencies, cultural belief systems, political-economic misrepresentations, geographical discrepancies in concentration, or collective and circumstantial origins. This paper is a review of Patrick Moynihan, Robert Rector, and James Jennings views on persistent poverty. The essay evaluates the authors take on persistent poverty while critically examining the strong points and limitations of each approach. The three authors avail insights on the correlation between poverty and race. Introduction Culture and persistent poverty have a close relationship in the sense that culture results to and from persistent poverty. Culture has established itself comfortably on the poverty research agenda. Hence, a study on effect of culture on poverty has a significant contribution in shaping policy. These approaches also find expression in community development programs as well as poverty intervention undertakings. Poverty can be defined as deprivation of basic necessities. However, needs are relative owing to social definition. Hence, what is a necessity to one may not be uniform to all. Similarly, the degree at which it can be considered a deprivation varies. In general, the fundamental nature of poverty can be attributed to inequality. Discussions on Patrick Moynihan Approach Moynihan’s approach to persistent poverty builds on ethnographic studies undertaken by Oscar Lewis. Oscar had theorized that, a culture of poverty was apparent among Puerto Ricans and Mexicans. Consequently, they felt detached and operated at the fringes of society. This reproduced a cyclic and dishonored standard of living, stemming from scanty resources available to them (Iceland, 2006). The culture of poverty represents a way of living that is intergenerational and individualized. The individuals feel marginalized, powerless, and inferior to others; hence opt to remain stuck in their deplorable conditions relative to the mainstream society. This precipitates their adoption of a mind-set of living for the present rather than the future (Iceland, 2006). Some of the characteristics of culture of poverty include low participation in community life, high divorce rates in families, and the emergence of matriarchal families. According to Lewis, the culture of poverty carry on poverty; the entrenchment of attitudes and values of the subculture within the people make them psychologically immune. As a result, they cannot take advantage of changing conditions and opportunities. Moynihan, a sociologist, sought an explanation on the persistence of poverty notwithstanding aggressive installation of anti-poverty measures by the administration. The author reconfigured the idea of culture of poverty in the report titled The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Moynihan asserted that, African Americans were locked in a cycle of poverty, because of frailties within the black family structure. His description depicted urban black family as dysfunctional and caught up in an inevitable “tangle of pathology.” The unmarried mothers were chronically welfare dependent, which expresses a trait of self-perpetuating moral deficiencies to black people (Iceland, 2006). He noted that, since the fall of slavery and onset of urbanization, the social and political circumstances had partially diluted the strength of black men and pressed the black family for matriarchy. The resultant pathological situation reproduced urban poverty and welfare dependence. This made the victims remain embroiled in persistent poverty. Strengths of the Approach Moynihan’s approach is an accurate evaluation of what transpires within the society. His notion that the behaviors of poor people explained the persistence of poverty was accurate. It is undisputable that poor people possess typical subcultures, which are almost certainly injurious to their wellbeing. Weaknesses of the Approach Concern as to what causes and comprise the subculture of poverty is not clear. Partiality of Moynihan in his evaluation of persistent poverty in American society is evident. His proposition resonates with blaming the poor for their problems, whereby the interpretation is that poverty is a just an outcome of individual’s characteristics and inadequacies (Iceland, 2006). The class subculture may not be self perpetuating as the author asserts. Persistent poverty, as explained by Moynihan, cannot be directly linked to constraints obligated by culture. The author’s explanation of culture as a response to situational constraints is faulty. This is because of the fact that a cultural lag will still manifest itself despite the disappearance of situational forces. Shifts within the family structure have occurred. Although dysfunctional families are responsible for spiraling child poverty, they cannot entirely be held accountable for American poverty rates. Discussions on Robert Rector’s Approach Robert Rector has an enviable record of research on a variety of topics such as welfare reform and America’s diverse social ills such as collapse of families. The basis of his analysis on poverty is on welfare reforms, immigration reform, and abstinence education. The author takes a conservative approach to poverty, almost an opposing view to previous approaches on poverty. Rector’s work encompasses a deep analysis of economic costs of welfare and its contribution in deflation of families (Kornbluh, 2009). He also interrogates welfare gains made by immigrants. For him, in order to reduce poverty, America should institute policies that limit the flooding of immigrants. He suggests raising the bar on education and skills of future legal immigrants. He concludes that the policy will substantially reduce the number of poor people in the future. In his paper, titled: Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon against Child Poverty, he asserts that strengthening of marriage will be vital in combating poverty. In addition, populations at risk should appreciate the benefits of marriage and the accompanying costs. Individuals should also be well versed with the repercussions and costs of non-marital child bearing. The government should carry out campaigns in public education in low income areas to accomplish this. Similarly, he proposes radical changes within the welfare system to reduce the counterproductive incentives such as food stamps, public housing, day care, and temporary assistance to needy families (Kornbluh, 2009). In his paper, titled Healthy Marriage Initiative, he interrogates means that can be instituted to maintain welfare families. The key goals of the proposal were to promote marriage and reduction of out-of –wedlock pregnancies. He argued that welfare is a “profound anti-marriage incentive.” He proposed that a bonus be given to reward at-risk women who first graduate and wait till marriage to bear a child. Rector’s contribution to social policy, particularly welfare reforms, include his proposal advocating for working of welfare recipients, which shortens entitlement episodes to benefits. The author maintains that the cause of child poverty in the United States arises from the absence of married fathers at home and low intensity of parental work. On poverty and inequality, poverty mainly results from low levels of parental work than of parent’s low hourly wage rates (Roleff, 2002). The author detests the misconception in the meaning of poverty. He notes that, for most Americans, poverty denotes material deprivation. In his article titled “Understanding poverty in the United States: Surprising facts about America’s poor”, he contends that there exists an exaggerated depiction of the poor. Rector notes that most of the deliberations on poverty are preoccupied by exaggeration and misinformation, which impede the development of concise poverty reduction programs. He notes that valuable anti-poverty policy must be based on precise assessment of actual living conditions as well as the long-term reasons of real deprivation. The author spotlights the disintegration of marriage and corrosion of the work ethic. Rector remarks that gross overstatement of the degree and cruelty of material deficiency will not in any way profit the poor, the economy, or the society (Roleff, 2002). To him, most American “poor” are not poor by conservative measure since they can afford basic necessities. Strengths of the Approach The author’s view that poverty conceptions vary over time and location is not misplaced. On average, most of the people categorized as poor in the U.S. are better placed than people in other countries. Rector’s proposal on capping immigration is also remarkably sound and contains a comprehensive analysis of America’s future poor population. Thus, he offers an exceptional preventive rather than reactive measure of reducing poverty. Weaknesses of the Approach Rector is opportunistic on American definition of poverty. This is because the definition incorporates some people who may not ideally be in absolute poverty. Capitalizing in loopholes in poverty definition does not in any way preempt the glaring deprivation in the population. His approach is also watered down since much of the gains made in poverty intervention arise from government provisions. Thus, painting of government’s intervention as a conspiracy to redistribute wealth is unfounded. His solutions to the problem of poverty may render the situation worse. Stemming the flow of illegal migrants is not reducing poverty in itself; it only ensures the poor remain as such (Roleff, 2002). The notion of monolithic and unchanging culture of poverty can no longer hold. The persistence of poverty reflects additional causes rather than just individual weaknesses. Structural factors such as societal perception on poverty and the economic system play a phenomenal part. The intrinsic features of the economic system produce inequalities, when coupled with social inequalities, and translate to the persistence of poverty. Discussions on James Jennings Approach Jennings explores how race, power, and wealth interact to perpetuate poverty. The author notes that gender and racial hierarchies are vital features that safeguard wealth and political power. He notes that the majority of poor people are not necessarily politically passive. The overriding theme in his analysis is that the persistence of poverty cannot be understood entirely if the analysis is devoid of examining those who possess political power (Jennings & Monroe, 1994). Political power in this sense is a critical component of the equation. Jennings lays a lot of emphasis on how those who possess power utilize it to preserve the distribution patterns of wealth while the majority of the families languish in poverty. Jennings criticizes some poverty researchers who overlooked political factors that yield and perpetuate persistent poverty. Jennings holds that the inflexible distribution of wealth and power is the biggest determinant of persistent poverty. He asserts that power and wealth distribution best explains why most poor people remain stuck in poverty despite efforts to escape its grip. Moreover, racializing of poverty only perpetuates prejudiced institutional arrangement and social relations. This results to the creation of a ceiling whereby large numbers of women, as well as non-whites, continue to be stuck in economically susceptible and impoverished positions (Jennings & Monroe, 1994). Jennings sets forth three factors, which mostly contribute to the perpetuation of poverty as well as high concentration of poverty levels among groups of people. They include the widening imbalance in the allocation of wealth (the rich grow from rich to richer), the unchecked mobility of funds in finance and production, and dominance of low wages amid high levels of unemployment in certain groups. These reasons are intensified by national policies that permit corporations to chase massive profits regardless of the social costs at play (Porter & Ross, 2003). The strategies implemented by corporations do not make concessions for unforeseen social costs. Poverty may also be provoked by national policies such as militarization whereby massive appropriation of resources is made. These resources could be utilized to reduce poverty instead of committing them to manufacture weapons for human annihilation. Jennings highlights three methods employed to reduce class tensions the in the United States. These mechanisms include the belief that hard-working individuals can be economically successful if they elevate God and country in their endeavors. The next proposition details that economic development, as well as progress, will only materialize from allowing the wealthy people to accumulate more wealth. This means that the reimbursement of resultant surplus into the economy is possible, thus improving living conditions for all. The last mechanism is race whereby segregation and discrimination are prevalent. This creates a division between poor and working class people who are black and their counterparts who are not black. This leads to racializing of poverty with presentation of some sections of the society as an embodiment of poverty (Jennings & Monroe, 1994). Strengths of the Approach Jennings’ approach is a radical shift from earlier theorists who took “blaming the victim” approach, whereby the individuals were apportioned the blame for remaining poor. The prominent theme in the author’s contribution is that the problem of poverty cannot be effectively analyzed or responded to, if it is perceived as merely a behavioral issue for poor people. This is precise as persistent poverty reflects the interplay of an assortment of both national as well as international factors. Blaming individuals or families for their poverty exhibits naivety (Peter & Ross, 2003). Persistence of poverty is also influenced by economic arrangements that maintain social relations, which define race and gender. Jennings argues that persistent poverty will continue to ravage sections of society as long denial of political and economic platforms persist. Without the opportunity to forge alliances, the masses will always be forced to tow the line. Politics is a significant contributor as well as a solution to persistent poverty. Jennings’ approach is exact as it incorporates the effect of politics in persistent poverty. Most of earlier theories, which concentrated on the notion of dependency, overlooked the phenomenal effect that politics has on the problem of poverty. Weaknesses of the Approach Jennings claim of a perceptual ceiling that limits the ability of minority and people of colour is not entirely true. The society presents an even platform to all players. Most people who find themselves in impoverished positions may have contributed to their woes. This is because individuals have an opportunity to steer their own cause. Approach that is Persuasive and Empirically Sound Of the three approaches, Moynihan’s approach can be regarded as the most persuasive and empirically sound. The argument that poverty stems from social and behavioral deficiencies in individuals has a lot of truth in it. Individuals may generate, uphold, and transmit cultures that perpetuate poverty. Government welfare system has perpetuated a culture of dependence among beneficiaries, which promotes poverty. Statistics indicate that poverty increased in the face of anti-poverty measures. The over reliance on welfare rather than work or self initiative has dramatically increased poverty persistence. This also contributes to the emergence of social ills such as family breakdown. Moynihan’s analysis availed an excellent explanation to relevance of cultural causes of poverty. His call for enactment of policies that improved the condition of black families could have significantly reduced poverty among the poor, black families. Conclusion Despite the realization of substantial gains in the area of poverty research, further work is needed in order to comprehend the nature of poverty. This will be critical in informing public policy. The reality of persistent poverty is more profound than ever, albeit emotive disagreements on judgments about the nature of poverty. It is vital to construct a sound and consistent plan of action to relieve the dependency occasioned by persistent poverty. Regardless of the fact that the debate is embroiled in deep-seated political disagreements, the union between social science and welfare policy should not be divorced. Designation of poverty and the policies instituted to address it is largely fashioned by political biases and values. Effective anti- poverty policies, preventive and reactive, should be enacted to curtail persistent poverty. The policies should be informed by both cultural and structural forces, which are reinforced by the prevailing social, political, and economic institutions. Anti-poverty policies are limited by the government’s role as well as public support and confidence in the communal institutions. Therefore, they have a have a moderate impact on poverty. Economic growth does not necessarily translate to reduction of poverty. Despite its positive contribution, economic growth is not the cure for persistent poverty in the society. Although, economic growth enhances the living conditions of most people, it is the people in the upper tier of economic growth who benefit the most. The benefits of increased productivity and enhanced wealth creation mostly trickle down to the rich who own the corporations or are in senior administrative positions. References Iceland, J. (2006). Poverty in America: a handbook. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Jennings, J. & Monroe, W. (1994). Understanding the nature of poverty in urban America. Westport, MO: Praeger. Kornbluh, F. (2009). Is work the only thing that pays? The guarantee income and other alternative anti-poverty policies in historical perspective. Northwestern Journal of law and Policy, 4(1), 61-84. Porter, T & Ross, D. (2003). The modern social sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Roleff, T., (2002). Inner-city poverty. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven. Read More