Measuring Poverty

Author(s): Peter Townsend

Source: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Jun., 1954), pp. 130-137
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/587651
Accessed: 03/12/2010 08:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org
 Measuring Poverty

PETER TOWNSEND

^ NE OF thebasicaimsof socialpolicyin the yearsimmediatelyfollowing

{ Xthe war was the eliminationof poverty. In orderto findhow far this
^ aim has been realizedthere must be adequateinquiriesfrom time to
time in the form of social surveyswhich adopt certaindefinitestandardsof
measurement. In the ten years precedingthe war at least ten surveys of
the extent and causes of poverty in particularareas tere carriedout. In
the nine years since the war only one study of this type has been published.
Thisin itself may be an indicationthat the problemof povertyis less pressing
than it was, but, on the evidenceof a single study, we cannot claim much
detailed knowledgeabout the living conditionsof poorerpeople, or about
the effects of the new social securityservices. The aim of this articleis to
consideron what basis this knowledgemay be acquiredin the future. I will
discuss briefly the standardsused in measuringpoverty in the past, and
in the courseof this will arguefor an entirelydifferentapproach.
The standardselected is important not only to the researchworker
intent on measuringthe extent of poverty or generalliving conditionsin
any locality. A standardof a similarkind has been used in framingsocial
policy. Social security beneSt payments are intended to be related to a
rough standardof subsistence,and this relationwill have to be considered
when the qutnquennialreview of the social security schemeis presentedto
Parliamentin the near future. It is thereforeappropriateto examinewhat
is meant by a subsistenceor poverty standard.
The sociologicalstudy and measurementof poverty in this country
dates from the pioneeringworkof CharlesBooth and B. SeebohmRowntree
at the end of the last century. [I, 2] In introducinghis study Rowntree
said,
The familieslivingin povertymay be dividedinto two sections:
(I) Familieswhosetotalearningsareinsufficientto obtainthe minimum necessaries
for the maintenance of merelyphysicalefficiency.*Povertyfallingunderthis
headmay be describedas " primary" poverty.
(2) Familieswhosetotalearnings wouldbe sufficientforthe maintenanceof merely
physicalefficiencywereit not that someportionof it is absorbedby other
expenditure, eitherusefulor wasteful. Povertyfallingunderthis head may
be describedas " secondary " poverty.
I30
 P E T R R T OW N S E N D I3I

The " minimumnecessariesfor the maintenanceof merelyphysicalefiiciency"

were calculatedby estimatingthe nutritionalneeds of adults and children
and by translatingsuch needs into quantitiesof differentfoods and hence
into moneyterms, and by addingon to these figurescertainminimumsums
for clothing, fuel and householdsundnes, accordingto the size of family.
The povertyline for a family of five was, food I2S. 9d., clothing2s. 3d., fuel
IS. Iod., householdsundries Iod., totalling I7S. 8d. per week. Rent was
treated as unavoidableoutlay and was added to this sum. A family was
consideredto be in poverty if its total incomefell short of the poverty line
plus rent. The studies that followedin the next forty years adopted the
sameapproachand althoughthereweresomeminoralterations,the standards
used for measuringpoverty were broadly the same, adjusted accordingto
changein prices,as that used by Rowntreein I899. [3, I3] In the I930S
a standardapplicableto I899 and convertedby meansof a priceindex based
on articlespurchasedin I904 was taken to be the best methodof measuring
poverty.[4, I4] By and large the changesin the conditionsof life brought
about in the interveningyears were ignored.
In I936 Rowntreemadea secondsurveyof York,in the courseof which
he used a more generousstandardof poverty. This differedin degree,but
not in kind, fromthe standardused at the end of the last century. The list
of necessarieswas lengthenedto includecompulsoryinsurancecontributionsJ
tradeunionsubscriptions,travellingto and fromwork,and personalsundries
such as a daily newspaper,a little stationery,and a few otherodds and ends.
A similarlist was adoptedin his and G. R. Lavers'Third Survey of York,
Povertyand the WelfareState,I95I. A discussionof these standardsand of
those used in earliersurveys will be found in " Poverty: Ten Years after
Beveridge".[I5]
In consideringall these poverty standardsin detail, one cannot help
feeling that they are too arbitrary. If clothing, money for travel to work
and newspapersare consideredto be " necessaries" in the conventional
sense, why not tea, handkerchiefs,laundry,contraceptives,cosmetics,hair-
dressingand shaving,and life insurancepayments? Are we indeedso sllre
that a list of necessariesmust exclude cigarettes,beer, toys for children,
Chnstmas gifts and cinema entertainment? The question of what were
regardedor what ought to have been regardedas necessarieswas very rarely
raised in any of the surveys.
In attemptsto reducethe arbitrariness of the standardssomeinvestigators
had tried to find QUtthe actual spendingof familieson certain items. In
I899 and I936 Rowntreebasedhis allowancesfor clothingand fuel and light
on informationand opinionspassedon to him by " a largenumberof working
people", though in I936 he admitted that in aITivingat an allowancefor
personalsundries" I was forcedto rely largelyon my own judgment", and
in both years his findingson the food consumptionand expenditureof s8
and 28 familiesrespectivelydid not affecthis formulationof the povertyline.
In the third survey of York in I950 Rowntreefound out the spendingof
 I32 MEASURING POVERTY
29 women on clothing and householdsundries,and of 32 men on clothing
and fuel and light. In the last case, for example,the amountsto be included
in the poverty standardfor women'sand children'sclothingand for house-
hold sundrieswerebased on the averageexpenditureof three womenwhose
expenditureon these items was the smallestof those fromwhominformation
wasobtained. Findingout the expenditureof the poorestfamilieson clothing,
fuel and light and householdsundriesis perhapsa less arbitrarymethodof
compilinga standard,but why shouldthese items be selectedfrom budgets
for considerationand not others as well ? And secondly,does the average
expenditureof those who spendleast on clothingor fuel providea standard
of what peopleneed to spend on such items to be out of poverty?
The most defensibleconstituentof the poverty line has alwaysbeen the
amountallocatedto food. Expertson nutritionhave workedQUtthe average
nutritiveneeds of broadclassesof the population,in terms of calories,pro-
teins, vitamins, iron, calcium and so on. These needs, as stated earlier,
can be translatediilto quantitiesof differentfoodsand fromfoodsinto money
terms. The diet, as derived,gives adequatenutritionat the lowest possible
cost, and demandsconsiderableknowledgeof the most nutritiousandcheapest
foodson the market. It may wellbe arguedthat few familieshave the know-
ledge or opportunityto attain such a standard. In a study of the diets of
28 familiesin differentincomegroupsin his I936 survey of York Rowntree
said:
It is truethat, at I936 prices,a familyof fivecouldbe adequately
fed forthis
Sllm (20s. 6d.),but . . . the housewifemustpossessan unusualamountof know-
ledgeof the nutritivevalueof differentfoodstuffs.Amongthe 28 families,some
of whichwerevery poor,not one succeededin selectinga dietaryanythinglike
as economical as that usedin our minimumstandardof living (p. I73).1
The same point appliesto the half-yearlypaperson the cost of a " human
needs" diet, which stem from the standard used by Rowntreein I936,
writtenby Miss T. Schulzof the OxfordUniversityInstitute of statistics.2
If indeed few working-classfamilies attain this standard,then it may not
be a practicableone to use in measuringpoverty.
The main fault in the standardsused has been their lack of relationto
the budgetsand customsof life of workingpeople. Manywho are considered
to be above the poverty line becausetheir income exceeds the total cost of
meetingbasic needs do, in fact, spend less on the individualitems included
in the standard food, clothing, fuel and light and householdsundries-
1 In the New Survey of LondonLife and Labour,Vol. VI, p. 32O, discussing working-class
culinary and dietetic standards, Miss F. A. Living.stone argued that full weight must be given
" to all the handicaps and difficulties, such as cramped space, absence of storage, defective
water supply or cooking apparatus, and the severe limitation of time arising from other pressing
duties ", besides working-class " habits and prejudices ".
2 In a summary of her studies Miss Schulz said: " It needed, indeed, exceptional know-
ledge of food values as well as considerable skill in cooking for the adequate nutrition of a
family to be attained at the figures of cost computed by us since I94I." Human Needs
Diets from 1935 to I949, Bulletin of the Oxford University Institute of Statistics, October,
I949 .
 PETE R TOWN SEN D I33
simply becallsethey spend money on other things. This can be illustrated
by comparingthe poverty standardsused immediatelybeforethe war (and
the subsistencestandardoutlinedin the BeveridgeReport)with the budgets
of poorerfamiliesin I938, details of which were collectedby the Ministry
of Labour.[I6] Lord Beveridge, for example, arguing for a subsistence
standardsimilarin kind to the poverty lines used in the surveysbeforethe
war, alloweda man, wife and three small children53S. 3d. a week at I938
prices,including3IS. for food (58 per cent of the total). But in I938 families
of the same size with roughlythe same total incomewerespendingless than
22S. an food (4I per cent of the total income).l How those on the borderline
of poverty (;ughtto spend their money is a very differentthing Irom how
they do spend their money. It would be unrealisticto expect them, as in
effect many social investigatorshave expectedthem, to be skilled dieticians
with markedtendenciestowardspuritanism.
In all the definitionsof povertyin the socialsurveysthereis the implica-
tion that many poor people ollght to limit their spendingto a short list of
" necessaries" laid down by those in chargeof the surveysand that if they
did not do this they were in poverty only throughtheir own fault. " Our
defiIlitionis such that a familyis deemedto be in povertyif the joint income
of the members,supposingit wereall ograxlable and wiselyspent,would not
sufficeto purchasefor them the necessariesof life . . . " (p. I48, SocialSurvey
of Merseyside[my italics]). Manycritics fastenedon to the large numbers
in what Rowntreecalled " secondary"poverty as evidenceof the need for
moralregeneration,and said that these peoplelackedmerelystrengthof will
to pull themselvesout of poverty. It was not appreciatedthat many in
this class would have neededvirtues of self-denial,skill and knowledgenot
possessedby any other class of society, if they were to spend their money
as it was thought they should spend it.
Judgmentsof one social class on anotherare notoriously1lntrustworthy
and things which are treated as necessariesby one group may not be so
regardedby another. A lew drinksin a pub on a Saturdaynightafterwatch-
ing the local footballmatch may be as necessary,in the conventionalsense,
to membershipof the pooreststratumof society as a Savile Row suit and
businessmeetings over lunch at the Savoy to membershipoI a wealthier
stratum of society. Recent experienceof the effects of unemploymentin
the cotton towns in Lancashireshowed that when incomes were reduced
from a Iull wage to an unemploymentinsuranceallowancemany families
wereapt to cut downon thingssuch as meat and fruit in ordernot to forgo
an occasionalvisit to a cinema or lootball match. [I7] In considenngthe
spendinghabits of poorerpeople, it seems that due regardmust be paid to
the conventionssanctioningmembershipof their community,to the influence
oI economicand social measurescurrentlyadopted by society as a whole,
such as rationing,we]fareIoods services,Iood subsidiesand indirecttaxes,
1 Based on data in " The Cost of a Family ", A. M. Henderson, The Review of Economic
StUdSs I949-50, Vol. XVII (2).
I34 MEASURING POVERTY
and to the standardsencouragedby advertisers,lthe press, the B.B.C. and
the Church.

A NEWSTANDARD
The pattern of spendingamong poor people is largely determinedby
the accepted modes of behaviourin the communitiesin which they live,
and these, in turn, are determinedto some extent by the practicesadopted
by the societyas a wholethroughcentraland localgovernment. A yardstick
for measuringpoverty can only be devised in the light of knowledgeabout
family budgets. How can this be done with the least arbitrariness ?
Oneimprovementwas suggestedin a study of a Birminghamcommunity,
carriedout in I939 and publishedin I942. [I3] In this study poverty was
measuredin two ways: (i) by comparingnet incotne (i.e. total incomeless
rent, compulsoryinsurances,and fares to and from work)with an assumed
minimumstandardof expenditureon food, fuel, light, clothingand cleaning
materials; and (ii) by comparingwith a minimumstandardof expenditure
on food the balanceout of housekeepxng moneytheoretically availablefor food,
after paying the assumedminimumon non-fooditems in (i) plus voluntary
insurancesand regularhire-purchaseinstalments. The first, the usual type
of measurementadoptedin social surveys, was said to take " less account
of actualities" and the secondvvas" a morerealisticmeasureof the standard
of sufficiencyof the family". But it was acknowledgedthat both these
methodscouldbe criticized,thoughthe secondto a lesserextent, for " ignor-
ing certaintypes of necessaryexpenditure,such as that on householdutensils,
medicaltreatment,and holidays, as well as expenditureon tobaccoJbeer,
newspapers,and recreation,which are, to say the least of it, customary"
(P 47)
The secondmethod,althoughopen to many of the criticismsexpressed
above, gives prominenceto expenditureon food as a criterionof poverty.
In future, it would seem reasonableto accept such a criterion,with certain
qualifications,simply because nutritional needs are more susceptible of
measurementthan clothing,fuel and other needs.
The followingproceduremight be justifiablein futuresurveys: (i) The
collectionof data relatingto the food consumptionand expenditureas well
as the incomeof working-class households; (ii) The comparisonof this data,
assembledaccordingto constitutionof householdand income group, with
a scale of nutritiveneeds, such as that in the Reportof the Committeeon
Nutritionof the BritishMedicalAssociation,I950; (iii) The isolation,from
all those securingminimumnutrition,of, say, the 25 per cent in the vanous
householdgroups who achieve it on the smallest incomes, or rather, the
¢To (the advertiser) a bnde is not a young womaxl on the edge of a great adventure; she
1S a conditioned consumer who, by buying the right cosmetics and right brassiere has captured
her manJ axld who, when she returns from her honeymoon, will go into the grocer's and auto-
matically recite those branded names which have been the most loudly dinned into her ears
for the last twenty-one years.') The ShockingHistory of Advertising,E. S. Turner, I952, p. I2.
 PETER TOWNSEND I35
smallest incomesless one or two fixed involuntaryoverheads,such as rent
and compulsoryinsurances. The averagetotal expenditureof these house-
holds, less the overheads,accordingto their differentsizes, can be taken
as the poverty line.
Sucha standardmay be justifiedon the groundthat it is, in fact, attained
by a fair proportionof working-classpeople, and is thereforerealistic. It
urouldobviate the need for subjective decisionsabout the sums of money
requiredfor clothing, fuel and light and so on. Inevitably, a subjective
elementremains,and this is involvedin the choiceof the proportionof work-
ing-classhouseholdswhosemembershave an adequatediet and whosespend-
ing is to be consideredin fixing the standard. But this element need not
be obtrusive,particularlyif the choice is made with full knowledgeof the
budgetary patterns of differentfamilies, and with full knomrledge of the
dispersion,and the reasonsfor the around
dispersion, the budgetary mean
of each income and household group.
Part of the informationessential to the applicationof this method is
already obtained in the course of the NationalsFood Survey. The latest
Report on this, fOr I95I [I8], analysesthe adequacyof diet by social class,
but the classes are ratherbroadlydefined,land the diet and expenditureof
those in the lowest incomegroupis not set out in any detail. A great deal
of informationabout familybudgetswill issue fromthe new surveyof house-
hold expenditurebeing made at present by the Ministryof Labour. It is
to be hoped that this will be tabulatedby householdsize and constitution,
for each income group.
It is true that the methodsuggestedis basicallya methodof measuring
the extent of malnutntionnot attributableto wasteflllspending,but I think
it would give the fairestondexof poverty, particularlyif the results gained
by its use were correlatedwith other findingsbased on standardsof over-
crowding,householdamenities,educationand so on.

THELEVELOF BENEFIT PAYMENTS

The differentapproachwhich has been urged has an importantbearing
on the standardsadoptedin socialpolicy for benefitpayments. LordBever-
idge, in his Reporton SocialInsuranceand AUiedServices,formulateda sub-
sistencestandardvery similarto the povertylines used in the socialsurveys
beforethe war,as a reasonableway of fixingbenefitrates. This was generally
regardedas the " centralidea " of the BeveridgePlan. [I9, 20] LordBeveridge
has himselfreaffirmedthis point in recentmonths. The NationalAssistance
scales are determinedby means of a similar standard,and although the
NationalInsurancescales fall short of ffie Beveridgestandard,they are still
1 The sample was divided into the following income groups: £20and over per week (I per
cent of the population), I3-£o ( per cent), 8-I3 (I3 per cent), £4 IOS.-f8 (64per cent),
and under £4 IOS. per week (20 per cent).
I36 MEASURING POVERTY
in principlerelated to it. Neither the Labournor the ConservativeParty
has explicitly abandonedthis principle.
Whether,in fact, the subsistencebasis for benefit paymentsshould be
acceptedby the nationin the futureis one of the fundamentalquestionsthat
will have to be facedby Parliamentnext year when the quinquennialreview
of socialsecurityis considered. The adoptionof a true subsistenceminimum
wouldadd greatlyto the CQStS of the scheme. It is true that in recentyears
an increasingnumberof people have received wages during sickness and
have enteredsuperannuationschemes,and income from the social security
servicesin times of adversitymay thereforebe less importantnow than it
was. For shortperiodsof unemploymentor sickncsspeopleseem to manage
quite well, because, apart from insurancepayments, they frequentlyget
deferredwages, trade union allowancesand P.A.Y.E. refunds,and need to
purchase few items of clothing or household materials. (Large families
shouldnot be includedin this category.) Therewould appearto be a case
for two scales,one for a short and one for a long periodof need. It may be
true, too, that paymentsto the old shouldbe lowerthan those to otherpeople
in continuingneed, but this is a matter for furtherinquiry. In any event,
the acceptanceof a standardsuchas the pre-warpovertyline or the Beveridge
subsistenceminimumimpliesthat poorworking-class peopleshouldand could
live as social scientistsand administrators
think they shouldlive. Therehas
been little attemptto discussthe distinctionbetween" luxuries" and " neces-
sities " in termsof economicand social sanctionsfor spendingbehaviour,nor
in terms of individualand class differences. And therehas been no attempt
to distinguishbetweenthe humanlyattainableandthe desirablein the pattern
of family budgets.

I have triedto set out the difficultiesof arrivingat a satisfactorystandard

for measuringpoverty, which can be used in social surveys, and the diffi-
culties of eliminatingclass judgmentsfrom that standard. The conclusion
seemsto be that the problemof whetheror not a familyis in povertyis best
decidedby Sndingwhetherits expenditure,save for one or two involuntary
overheads,such as rent and compulsoryinsurances,is less than that which
actually secures minimum nutrition for a large number of working-class
families.

REFERENCES
I. London: Life and Labosurof the People in London, Charles Booth.
2. York: Poverty: A Study of Town Life, B. S. Rowntree.
3. A Survey of Five Towns: Livelihoodand Poverty,A. L. Bowley and A. R. Burnett-
Hurst, I9I5, and Has Poverty Diminissied? A. L. Bowley and MargaretH.
Hogg, I 925.
4. London: New Survey of London Life and Labour, I930-5.
5. Merseyside: Social Survey of Merseyside,ed. D. Caradog-Jones,I934.
6. Southampton: Workand Wealthin a Modern Port, P. Ford, I934.
7. Shefiield: A Survey of the Standardof Living in ShefSeld,A. D. K. Owen, I934.
 P E T E R T OW N S E N D I37
8. Miles Platting (Manchester): Povetty and Housing Conditions in a Manchester
Ward, John Inman, I934.
9. Plymouth: A Social Survey of Plymouth, I935.
I0. York: Poverty and Progress, B. S. Rowntree, I94I.
II. Bristol: The Standard of Living in Bristol, H. Tout, I938.
I2. Six Towns: Men Without Work, A report made to the Pilgrim Trust, I938.
I 3. Kingstanding (Birmingham): Nutrition and Size of Family, M. S. Soutar, E. H.
Willdns and P. Sargant Florence, I942.
I4. " A New Calculation of the Poverty Line ", R. F. George, Jo?4rnalof the Royal
Statistical Society, I937.
I5. " Poverty: Ten Years After Beveridge", Planning, No. 344, August 4, I952.
I6. WeeklyE*penditswre of WorkingClass Householdsin the United Kingdomin I937-38,
Detailed Tables, July, I949.
I7. " Social Security and Unemployment in Lancashire", Planning, No. 349,
December I, I952.
I8. " Domestic Food Consumption and Expenditure, I95I ", Report of the National
Food Survey Comtnittee,I953.
de Schweinitz, I943.
I9. England's Road to Social Security, YDarl
20. " After the Beveridge Report ", Planning, No. 205, April 20, I943.

CurrentNotes
Arrangementshave been made wherebythe TechnicalInformationand
DocumentsUnit (T.I.D.U.) of the Departmentof Scientificand Industrial
Researchwill, on the Editor'srecommendation,accept custody of research
papers,particularlythose touchingindustry,for which, on account of their
length, there is insufficientspace in this journal. This mainly concerns
ancillarymaterialwhich, being inessentialto the general reader,need not
occupy journal space; or possibly, a complete paper of highly-specialized
interest. It is intendedthat specialistworkersinterestedshouldhave access
to depositedmaterialeither in the Reading Room of T.I.D.U. or by loan
from the Unit at CunardHouse, I5, Lower Regent Street, London,S.W.I.

A reportof the meetingsat the SecondWorldCongressof Sociology,held

in LiNge,I953, is publishedin the currentissue of the InternationalSocial
ScienceBulletin(Vol. VI, No. I). Copiesof the B?slletincan be obtainedat
the reducedpnce of 4s. 6d. from the InternationalSociologicalAssociation,
I3 EndsleighStreet, London,W.C.I.
The Transactionsof the SecondWorldCongressof Sociologyare to be
publishedin OctoberI954 (intwo volumes). Furtherdetailsof the publication
can be obtainedfrom the InternationalSociologicalAssociation.