I have followed the recent debates on the adequacy of benefits with
interest, and more recently concern over the vitriolic turn of the
responses.
I, like Paul, have spent most of my life living at a very low income, both
on benefits and in work, and thus may be seen as having both an academic and
insiders viewpoint.
It seem to me that at the heart of the disagreement is the old problem of
trying to determine poverty by an economic value alone. From both my
academic research and personal experiences, I am sure that this is not
wholly possible. Poverty remains a relative concept, and whilst one
person/family may find certain things acceptable; for others it is
degrading. The case of second hand clothes illustrates this perfectly.
I have interviewed people living in run-down houses with few material
resources who consider themselves to be financially OK. I have also
interviewed people who feel that one foreign holiday a year is indicative of
their financial hardship.
It is because of this problem that the question over the adequacy of
benefits needs further exploration, particularly as the rates are set
nationally without any regard to the variation of resources which are
available locally.
Whilst I welcome the debate on this list, I feel that taking sides on this
question is unhelpful. We need to set this question in context by exploring
the different coping strategies and available resources of those who manage
to live on low levels of income, and also those who don't. I suggest that
whilst some of this difference is due to different attitudes, the social
context (rural/urban for example) is also of prime importance.
However, I also believe that governments should be obliged to inform us how
benefit levels determined, proving that by their standards they are an
adequate income. If the BBC programme seeks to raise this point, then in my
view it should be supported.
|