Whilst absolute poverty is understood as occurring when people lack the resources to support a minimum of physical health and effi ciency, the second major typology of poverty is termed ‘relative poverty’. As the name suggests this type of poverty is determined by what is culturally defi ned as being poor, usually determined against the normal living standard of societies. This is a common approach taken by researchers to identify those in comparative poverty, typically defi ned as possessing insuffi cient resources to meet socially recognised needs and to partici-pate in wider society (Lister, 2004). Subsequently, the basis of the measurement of poverty shifts from an emphasis on ‘minimums’ to a comparison of averages (Beaudoin, 2007). Using an income line as a measure of poverty, those in relative
poverty would be determined by the measurement of a household income level below a given proportion of average national income; for example, 50 per cent of equivalent median disposable income. In terms of how comparative poverty may express itself in developed or high- income countries, Sachs (2005) suggests that it is manifested in a denial of access to cultural goods, entertainment, recreation, and quality health care and education.
The changing characteristics of relative poverty can also be linked to a nation’s economic development, as poverty becomes relative to time as well as place, as explained by MacPherson and Silburn (1998: 2):
As the threat of starvation recedes, questions concerning the appropriate distribution of income and opportunity assume greater importance. In this situation the defi nition of poverty moves away from a minimal, physical survival notion in the direction of a relative, varying defi nition which puts increasing emphasis on social survival and starts to attach value to the quality of life that even the poorest in a community should be able to enjoy.
The emphasis of poverty subsequently shifts from an inability to meet the most basic needs of the individual to incorporate the ability to play a role in society which include: ‘notions of social participation, of inclusion and exclusion, of citizenship, of empowerment’ (ibid.: 2). The ability to fi t into society and the concept of relative poverty is exemplifi ed in the case of the United Kingdom in Box 1.5 .
BOX 1.5 COMPARATIVE POVERTY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
The concept of relative poverty is exemplifi ed through research conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in the United Kingdom during 2012. Based upon extensive interviews with families, the aim of the research was to establish the level of ‘minimum income’
required to create a basket of goods, to permit a family to be able to
‘fi t into society’. To be able to achieve this ‘fi t’, families should be able to source clothing in cheaper retailers; buy food in Tesco [a multinational supermarket chain]; have a computer and access to the internet at home; take a minimum of a one week holiday in Britain; and own a car. The minimum total household income needed to meet this criteria is UK £37,000 per annum, equivalent to approxi-mately US$55,000.This example illustrates another type of poverty which is not based upon minimum requirements for survival but the minimum requirements relative to the norms of society. This type of
poverty is subsequently highly interpretative and open to debate about what are the requirements for individuals to feel a part of society, to what extent ‘social exclusion’ has become synonymous with ‘market exclusion’, and indeed what the term poverty really signifi es.
Source: after Asthama, 2012
Associated with the inability to play a role in society is the concept of
‘social exclusion’, which emphasises that as the poor are excluded from main-stream society they subsequently lose the benefi ts and privileges of citizenship, having a reduced stake in society compared to the norm. They fail to join in activi-ties and enjoy the living standards which are customary and the norm in the socie-ties to which they belong (Townsend, 1979). This inability for individuals to realise their self- potential and play a functioning part in civil society is a theme that has been developed by the infl uential and Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen (1992, 1999). He suggests that the indicators of poverty should extend to factors that relate to a higher level of human needs than purely the most basic ones. These would include playing an active part in community activities, leading a happy and stimulating life, and having respect for oneself and for others.
Thus poverty becomes something not determined solely by an income level or commodities but upon people’s quality of life and well- being relative to the rest of society.
Similarly for Kakwani and Pernia (2000), poverty reduction is about improving human well- being, the lives people live and what we can or cannot do. As the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) emphasises, poverty is more than purely restrictions imposed by a lack of income. It comments: ‘It also entails lack of basic capabilities to lead full, creative lives – as when people suffer from poor health, are excluded from participating in decisions that affect their communities or have no right to guide the course of their lives. Such deprivations distinguish human poverty from income poverty’ (UNDP, 2006:
271). Consequently, a condition of poverty can exist when people feel that they are excluded from the mainstream of society, denied opportunities to fulfi l their own potential and are subsequently marginalised. Thus as Lister (2004) suggests, poverty is not purely a condition of economic disadvantage and insecu-rity, but can incorporate non- material aspects, including: disrespect; humiliation and low self- esteem; shame and stigma; lack of voice and powerlessness;
and diminished citizenship – all factors which limit opportunities to realise one’s potential. In this sense, poverty can be understood as an interpretative condition of those who are experiencing it, as much as a state that can be measured.
For Sen (1992, 1999) the ability for individuals to realise the potential of their capabilities is determined by ‘freedoms’, including the political, educational and personal. In the absence of these freedoms, there is a likelihood of people being socially excluded from mainstream society, including employment and a subsequent lack of income. To work in tourism it is necessary to have skills and knowledge but without having the freedom to access the educational system to achieve these, there is a subsequent denial of opportunity to work in the industry.
Tourism development may also take place that totally lacks the poor’s political participation in the process, thus socially excluding them from decision- making and the consequent livelihood opportunities created from the development of tourism. Relative poverty can therefore be understood to be about equity in society, the extent to which people are materially wealthier compared to each other and also the relativity of freedoms and opportunities they have to improve their lives. Alongside the importance for individuals to be able to fulfi l their abilities to the maximum, it is also important for society and social harmony.
Societies in which citizens enjoy political, educational and personal freedoms, have equal access to opportunities, and within which income differentiation is not extreme, are likely to have fewer social tensions and strife than discriminating and unequal societies.
From the previous discussion of the concepts of absolute and relative poverty it is apparent that poverty may be understood as being multicomposite and a complex phenomenon that cannot be easily defi ned through measurement but also relates to people’s experiences, freedoms in society, cultural constructs and social norms.
To have a clearer understanding of poverty it is subsequently argued there is a need to engage with people who are marginalised from the mainstream and possess few resources. A failure to enter into participatory processes that attempt to provide rich understandings of poverty may result in the imposition of solutions to alleviate poverty based upon a Western hegemonic construct that fails to respond to the poor’s needs. Cultural constructs and interpretation are critical to identifying who is poor and at risk. For example, the rural peoples of many coun-tries defi ne their experience of poverty as the number of months without enough food, to have three months of suffi ciency is to be very poor, to have nine months is far less so (Seabrook, 2007). Attaining cultural understandings of poverty is also emphasised by Power (2004: 24), who comments that poverty is increasingly seen as a ‘phenomenon of many layers’, determined by culture and power rela-tions that range from the micro- level of the household to the macro- level of the nation. This culture and power relationship would embrace minority and oppressed groups who may be marginalised by the structures of the society they live in; for example, women, ethnic minorities, lower classes and the disabled.