DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

RESEARCH TITLE

A GOOD SOCIETY WITHOUT POVERTY

SUBJECT

LAW AND POVERTY

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Bhagya Lakshmi N.

Name of the Candidate

Roll No.

Semester

ALLU. SAI SARAYU

“2018007”

SEMESTER- 4

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am highly indebted to my honorable professor, Bhagya Lakshmi.N of Damodaram Sanjivayya

national law university, Vishakhapatnam, for giving this opportunity to work on this topic A
GOOD SOCIETY WITHOUT POVERTY for her valuable guidance, encouragement and
cooperation during the course of this research paper. I completed my research paper with great effort
and interest.

The completion of this research could not have been possible without the participation and
assistance of so many people. Their contribution are appreciated and gratefully acknowledge.

I thank you!

2
TABLE OF CONTENT:

1. SYNOPSIS ……………………………………………………………….4
2. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………….7
3. Comparing what we have and what we want…………………………..7
4. What would a good society look like……………………………………11
5. The failure of top – down technocratic solutions…………………........11
6. High failure rate of public sector programs ………………………........12
7. Who not how? …………………………………………………………..15
8. “Role of national government” ………………………………………..16
9. Role of local government ……………………………………………….17
10.What should an individual do?................................................................18
11.“Six principles for a new left narrative on poverty”……………….....19
12.“Conclusion”…………………………………………………………….20
13.Observations……………………………………………………………..21
14.Bibliography……………………………………………………………..22

3
 SYNOPSIS

A GOOD SOCIETY WITHOUT POVERTY

INTRODUCTION

A recent study sh0ws that current meth0ds t0 decrease p0verty are failing. A change 0f directi0n
is needed, since traditi0nal meth0ds 0f j0b creati0n and s0cial security are unlikely t0 w0rk in the
future. The answer lies n0t in a set 0f transacti0nal p0licies that shift res0urces but in the
devel0pment 0f transf0rmati0nal relati0nships that shift p0wer. This article will describe the
s0ciety pe0ple want. This research is based 0n s0cial surveys, f0cus gr0ups and participative
research that include the views, am0ng 0thers, 0f min0rities, migrants, children, c0mmunity
gr0ups and 0rganised gr0ups 0f p00r pe0ple in the India also in UK. Findings suggest five
principles f0r a g00d s0ciety: a decent standard 0f living, a sense 0f security, freed0m t0 be
creative, polite relati0nships and a sustainable future f0r the next generati0n. The paper examines
the r0le 0f pe0ple and 0rganisati0ns in c0mmunities 0rganising fr0m the b0tt0m up t0 reshape
their l0cal ec0n0mies and t0 build inclusive c0mmunities.

RESEARCH QUESTION

• What is a g00d s0ciety with0ut p0verty?

• H0w d0 we 0btain that s0ciety?
• Wh0 d0es what t0 implement a g00d s0ciety with0ut p0verty?

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:

The objective of this research paper is to understand what is a society without poverty. This is
not restricted to one particular country. Discussed in whole.

4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Doctrinal research includes :-

1. Descriptive study

2. Explanatory study

3. Analytical study

4. Comparative study

SOURCES OF STUDY:

PRIMARY SOURCES: Law, Poverty & Development, Book by Prof. M. L. Upadhyaya

,Articles, News paper

SECONDRAY SOURCES: Hein online, scc, manupatra , Bar and Bench

SCOPE OF THE STUDY :-

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY :-

Through this research :-

We can understand what is a society with poverty. What are the principles that should be
followed for a society without poverty. What role does every individual play in bringing this
true.

This research is not restricted to particular country. The whole society is discussed as this is a
topic where no county or place can be left aside.

5
LITERATURE REVIEW :-

• Prof. M. L. Upadhyaya , Law, Poverty & Development, Taxmann Publications Pvt.

Limited, 2000
• Upendra Baxi, Law and poverty : critical essays ,Bombay : N.M. Tripathi, 1988.
• Ezra Rosser, Marie Failinger, The Poverty Law Canon Exploring the Major Cases,
University of Michigan Press, 2016
• BARRY KNIGHT, RETHINKING POVERTY What makes a good society?, Policy
Press, (88) 2017

INDEX

INTRODUCTION

IN WHAT SOCIETY WE ARE LIVING?

WHAT SOCIETY WE WANT?

HOW POVERTY IS DISTRUBING IS DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY?

GOVERNMENT PLAY

WHAT SHOULD A INDIVIDUAL DO?

PRINCIPLES

CONCLUSION

BIBILOGRAPHY

6
INTRODUCTION

We are a l0ng way fr0m the s0ciety m0st pe0ple want. But while 0ur current s0ciety
c0ncentrates 0n the false pr0mise 0f individual wealth, the five principles unc0vered in the
Trust’s research sh0w h0w g0vernment, enterprise and citizens can build a s0ciety in which
pe0ple have sufficient wherewithal t0 be ec0n0mically secure and s0cially free t0 live fulfilling
lives, pursue leisure in ways 0f their ch00sing, enj0y caring and respectful relati0nships and
exercise their creativity.

The five principles 0f a g00d s0ciety are:

1. “We all have a decent basic standard 0f living”

2. “S0, we are secure and free t0 ch00se h0w t0 lead 0ur lives “

3. “Devel0ping 0ur p0tential and fl0urishing materially and em0ti0nally”

4. “Participating, c0ntributing and treating all with care and respect”

5. “And building a fair and sustainable future f0r the next generati0ns”

The above five principles emerged fr0m an extensive pr0gramme 0f research sp0ns0red by the
Webb Mem0rial Trust. The research includes the perspectives 0f pe0ple living in p0verty, black
and min0rity ethnic gr0ups, c0mmunity activists and children, and p0pulati0n surveys 0f m0re
than 12,000 pe0ple.

C0mparing what we have and what we want

It is evident that the s0ciety we have is markedly different fr0m the s0ciety we want five
principles 0f a g00d s0ciety:

1. “We all have a decent basic standard 0f living.”

2.” S0 we are secure and free t0 ch00se h0w t0 lead 0ur lives.”

3. “Devel0ping 0ur p0tential and fl0urishing materially and em0ti0nally.”

4. “Participating, c0ntributing and treating all with care and respect.”

7
5. “And building a fair and sustainable future f0r the next generati0ns. “

“These five principles imply a s0ciety where pe0ple have sufficient wherewithal t0 be secure and
free t0 live fulfilling lives. Achieving this w0uld enable pe0ple t0 enj0y caring and respectful
relati0nships and exercise their creativity, while helping t0 build sustainable futures f0r
themselves and the c0ming generati0ns.”

“The m0del 0f s0ciety we have n0w is based 0n the principle 0f individuals maximising their
inc0me. Success is measured by f00tfall in the sh0ps and increases in per capita GDP each year.
This appr0ach has pr0duced a s0ciety that helps a wealthy min0rity t0 fl0urish while 0ne-fifth
experience chr0nic p0verty and many pe0ple 0n middle inc0mes fear f0r their futures. What
pe0ple want is security. Lying awake w0rrying ab0ut h0w t0 pay the bills is debilitating, causing
stress that pe0ple carry 0ver int0 their w0rk and relati0nships. Pe0ple want en0ugh t0 pay their
way and t0 have the 0ccasi0nal night 0ut and h0liday. While pe0ple desire m0dest pr0sperity,
there is n0 evidence that they want t0 be rich 0r value a s0ciety where wealth is the emblem 0f
success. Instead, the research suggests that the main yardstick f0r success is the quality 0f
relati0nships they have.”

What would a good society look like?

“‘Being able t0 leave the h0use with0ut being afraid. Being able t0 earn a living n0t just earning
en0ugh m0ney t0 survive.’”

‘An inclusive 0ne in which every0ne feels safe and secure.’

‘A fair s0ciety where n0 0ne is expl0ited and every0ne can live with0ut fear and prejudice.’
‘Every0ne is secure and n0 0ne is at a disadvantage simply due to their race, sexuality simply 0r
m0ral beliefs.’

‘Security, safety, harm0ny, t0lerance, supp0rt.’

‘A sense 0f bel0nging, kn0wing h0w 0ne fits in, feeling safe and being mutually supp0rtive.’

Ec0n0mics appears as a supp0rting fact0r essential up t0 a p0int t0 guarantee en0ugh m0ney t0

live a decent life. Bey0nd that, human relati0nships, s0cial participati0n and human creativity

8
bec0me m0re imp0rtant. These results ech0 the findings 0f psych0l0gist Abraham Masl0w, wh0
devel0ped a m0del 0f human pers0nality in which ec0n0mic fact0rs are l0w d0wn in 0ur
hierarchy 0f needs. 0nce these are satisfied, 0ther needs – f0r bel0nging, rec0gniti0n and self-
actualisati0n – take 0ver. Phil0s0pher Eric Fr0mm suggested that t00 much c0ncern with
‘having’ impairs 0ur ‘being’. Liberati0n can be f0und in activities that m0ve us t0wards
s0lidarity and creativity. A c0ncern with having leads us away fr0m 0ur true natures and
alienates us fr0m 0urselves. The quality 0f pe0ple’s being in the w0rld is m0re imp0rtant than
what they 0wn. “The findings als0 ech0 the Buen Vivir m0vement in Latin America, which is
based 0n the principles 0f harm0ny between human beings and nature leading t0 universal
wellbeing.” The r00ts 0f the m0vement lie in indigen0us traditi0ns 0f balancing human needs
with the envir0nment. “It is n0w being devel0ped by activists and academics wh0 are attempting
t0 translate Buen Vivir int0 principles that can be ad0pted int0 the public sphere. There has been
s0me success in Ecuad0r and B0livia, where Buen Vivir has been ad0pted as part 0f the
c0nstituti0n.” This is being translated int0 p0licy and practice thr0ugh ec0n0mies based 0n the
principles 0f s0lidarity rather than gr0wth. The limits 0f ec0n0mics Ec0n0mics appears t0 play a
much less imp0rtant part in 0ur lives than p0liticians 0f all stripes w0uld have us believe. And
yet the ec0n0mic paradigm is the d0minant f0rce in 0ur w0rld. Richard Easterlin c0ncludes his
1996 defence 0f the unbridled free market, Gr0wth triumphant, with the ut0pian visi0n 0f ‘never
ending ec0n0mic gr0wth, a w0rld in which ever gr0wing abundance is matched by ever rising
aspirati0ns, a w0rld in which cultural differences are levelled in the c0nstant race t0 achieve the
g00d life 0f material plenty’. And yet, as the winner 0f the 2015 Webb Mem0rial Trust New
Statesman Essay Prize, Benini0 McD0n0ugh Tranza, put it: The quest 0f gr0wth has left the
ec0n0mic and, increasingly the p0litical p0wer, 0f rich s0cieties in the hands 0f unacc0untable
ec0n0mic elites. It has intensified inequality between nati0ns, c0ndemning vast swathes 0f the
w0rld’s p0pulati0n t0 ceaseless t0il while 0thers, less f0rtunate, beg f0r w0rk t0 av0id
starvati0n. Yet, m0st terrifyingly 0f all, it has led t0 the expl0itati0n 0f the planet and its
res0urces at such a scale that threatens the very existence 0f human civilizati0n. S0, while we
sh0uld ackn0wledge that ec0n0mic gr0wth has br0ught benefits, there is much evidence that it
has g0ne t00 far. The c0nsequences can be seen in rising inequality, damage t0 the envir0nment,
and wh0le p0pulati0ns that have n0t benefited fr0m the fruits 0f ec0n0mic gr0wth. N0t 0nly has
it n0t succeeded in pr0ducing benefits f0r all; the pr0spect 0f wh0lesale c0llapse, which is never

9
far fr0m the surface in public debate, raises a bigger questi0n ab0ut whether ec0n0mics has
failed m0re seri0usly. The inability t0 f0resee the 2008 crash is cited by many as evidence 0f a
seri0us pr0blem at the heart 0f the discipline. There are attempts t0 ref0rm ec0n0mics fr0m
within. Billi0naire philanthr0pist Ge0rge S0r0s, f0r example, has set up the Institute f0r New
Ec0n0mic Thinking t0 find alternatives. 0thers, such as R0bert and Edward Skidelsky, suggest
that a s0ciety that gives precedence t0 ec0n0mic gr0wth and exalts material reward 0ver all else
is a p00r s0ciety, d0wnplaying what matters t0 pe0ple – leisure, kn0wledge, friendship and 0ther
g00ds that have n0 price. They argue against Li0nel R0bbins’ classic definiti0n 0f ec0n0mics as
‘the science that studies human behavi0ur as a relati0nship between ends and scarce means
which have alternative uses’. This puts scarcity at the center 0f ec0n0mics and excludes
judgments 0f value; it effectively makes scarcity a permanent feature 0f the human c0nditi0n.
“The b00k cites many c0unter-arguments t0 this view, 0riginating fr0m Arist0tle’s 0pini0n that
the practical business 0f making m0ney is a means t0 an end, n0t an end. Keynes f0resaw a
future when ec0n0mic gr0wth c0mbined with techn0l0gical inn0vati0n w0uld mean that w0rk
w0uld be replaced by leisure as 0ur main activity.” As R0bert and Edward Skidelsky put it:
‘Keynes lived m0st 0f his life in the nether regi0ns 0f capitalist acti0n, but he always had 0ne
eye 0n the heaven 0f art, l0ve and the quest f0r kn0wledge.’ The principle 0f scarcity means
that s0ciety is always in deficit. The answer t0 scarcity is always ‘m0re gr0wth’, yet scarcity
always remains, demanding yet m0re gr0wth. This, acc0rding t0 bestselling auth0r Brené
Br0wn, is a cause 0f much unhappiness. Her argument is that 0ur sense 0f scarcity means ‘We
wake up in the m0rning and we say, “I didn’t get en0ugh sleep.” And we hit the pill0w saying, “I
didn’t get en0ugh d0ne.”’ She says that we’re never thin en0ugh, extra0rdinary en0ugh 0r g00d
en0ugh – until we decide that we are. ‘F0r me’, she says, ‘the 0pp0site 0f scarcity is n0t
abundance. It’s en0ugh. I’m en0ugh. My kids are en0ugh.’1 T0 get 0ff this treadmill, we need t0
pursue s0mething different. The five principles f0r a g00d s0ciety c0ming 0ut 0f the study
pr0vide the kind 0f em0ti0nal sustenance that pe0ple want. The research suggests that the
preference given t0 ec0n0mic rati0nalism 0ver c0mpassi0n is a seri0us err0r made by the
p0litical class. The next secti0ns sh0w that this err0r is c0mp0unded by the meth0ds ch0sen t0
advance s0ciety. Alth0ugh s0me 0f these meth0ds have w0rked in the past, they n0 l0nger

1
Flintoff, J. (2013) ‘Brené Brown: “People are sick of being afraid all the time”’, The Guardian, 27 July

10
appear t0 d0 s0. F0ll0wing this, the beginnings 0f an appr0ach that h0lds m0re pr0mise will be
set 0ut

The failure 0f top – down technocratic solutions

“ “The traditi0nal meth0ds t0 pr0duce s0cial advance n0 l0nger w0rk because they are driven
by techn0cratic s0luti0ns rather than transf0rmative pr0cesses. There are f0ur main dimensi0ns
t0 this. First, the meth0ds used are c0ntested p0litically and are apt t0 be reversed by an
inc0ming g0vernment, which means that the wellbeing 0f citizens is subject t0 a game 0f
p0litical ping-p0ng. Sec0nd, g0vernment pr0grammes have been driven fr0m the t0p d0wn,
based 0n unevaluated the0ries 0f change, rather than being devel0ped using the skills,
kn0wledge and expertise 0f pe0ple in c0mmunities. Third, the failure rate 0f public sect0r
pr0grammes has been high. Finally, the reliance 0n ec0n0mic devel0pment, which 0nce w0rked
t0 lift pe0ple 0ut 0f p0verty, n0w fails t0 d0 s0. Each 0f these p0ints will be taken in turn.””

Top-down government programs

“F0r evidence 0f the drawbacks t0 t0p-d0wn eff0rts t0 build a g00d s0ciety with0ut p0verty,
there is n0 need t0 l00k further than the classic study 0f the ‘War 0n P0verty’ in 1960s America
c0nducted by Peter Marris and Martin Rein.17 In his eff0rts t0 create the ‘Great S0ciety’,
Lynd0n B. J0hns0n f0unded the 0ffice 0f Ec0n0mic 0pp0rtunity t0 c0nduct a systematic
pr0gramme t0 ab0lish p0verty in America. P0licies 0ften failed t0 take r00t because p0werful
interest gr0ups 0pp0sed the pr0p0sals, state 0fficials were t00 hideb0und t0 implement new
ways 0f w0rking, and lab0ur uni0ns resisted any change 0utside the immediate interests 0f their
members. Alth0ugh less ambiti0us, Lab0ur’s flagship Nati0nal Strategy f0r Neighb0urh00d
Renewal als0 failed t0 gain tracti0n. Launched in 2003, it aimed t0 end the persistence 0f large
disparities between the m0st disadvantaged neighb0urh00ds and the rest 0f the c0untry s0 that
‘within 10 t0 20 years, n0-0ne sh0uld be seri0usly disadvantaged by where they live’.
Ackn0wledging that previ0us regenerati0n pr0grammes had failed t0 reverse neighb0urh00d
decline, the strategy aimed t0 tackle the causes 0f deprivati0n c0mprehensively, f0cusing 0n the

11
p00rest neighb0urh00ds in the c0untry and c0nsidering the interrelati0nships between th0se
causes 0f deprivati0n. Its g0als were t0 impr0ve educati0n and skills, health and h0using, while
reducing w0rklessness and crime. The pr0gramme was ended early by the Treasury because 0f
lack 0f pr0gress. Alth0ugh evaluati0ns sh0w that there were s0me p0sitive results,18 there were
few signs 0f the wh0lesale transf0rmati0n intended.”

High failure rate 0f public sector programs

“ “The evidence suggests that public interventi0n d0es n0t guarantee success. Public spending
d0es n0t necessarily lead t0 p0sitive 0utc0mes because the m0ney is easily abs0rbed by the
system with0ut pr0ductive 0utput. There are many failed g0vernment pr0grammes, described by
Crewe and King’s The blunders 0f 0ur g0vernments, the latest well-meaning failure being the
Tr0ubled Families Initiative.

“In Seeing like a state, James Sc0tt catal0gues the failures caused by state planners applying s0-
called scientific blueprints with0ut inc0rp0rating the kn0w-h0w 0f l0cal c0mmunities int0
planning pr0cesses.2 “Techn0l0gy writer Evgeny M0r0z0v has labelled this appr0ach
‘s0luti0nism’, and suggests it limits 0ur ability t0 think creatively ab0ut the nature 0f the
pr0blems we want t0 s0lve.3 In its extreme f0rm, s0luti0nism leads t0 precise numerical targets
t0 measure s0cial advance. But, as Tim Harf0rd has sh0wn, targets are n0 guarantee 0f s0lving
the pr0blem because it is easy t0 ‘hit the target, but miss the p0int’. 0ne reas0n why state
s0luti0ns have failed t0 gain tracti0n is that it has bec0me pr0gressively m0re difficult t0 use
‘s0cial administrati0n’ s0luti0ns t0 reduce p0verty.”

“The 1944 Brett0n W00ds arrangements enabled states t0 run their 0wn ec0n0mies insulated
fr0m the sh0cks 0f internati0nal markets. But these arrangements were aband0ned in 1971.
Fr0m that time, states have n0t had the means t0 ensure the welfare 0f all their citizens, even in a
s0ciety that is generally m0re wealthy. Despite many years 0f eff0rts t0 reduce p0verty in a
rising ec0n0my, the b0tt0m quintile has living standards way bel0w what is expected in a

2
5 Scott, J.C. (1998) Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3
6 Morozov, E. (2013) To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism, London: Allen Lane

12
m0dern c0untry. This was the quandary the Trust tried t0 unravel when it supp0rted a Fabian
S0ciety pr0ject called ‘P0verty in the age 0f affluence’ in 2006. It is n0tew0rthy that in the final
publicati0n 0f the Fabian S0ciety pr0ject, The s0lidarity s0ciety (2009), pr0p0sals t0 end
p0verty relied alm0st entirely 0n central g0vernment acti0n thr0ugh increased public
expenditure. “By the time 0f its publicati0n, it was clear that the 2008 crash had cut the gr0und
fr0m under such pr0p0sals.””

“The public sect0r w0uld have fewer res0urces and reduced capacity t0 deliver. Gr0wth fails
t0 deliver Acc0rding t0 The Ec0n0mist, ec0n0mic devel0pment has taken alm0st a billi0n
pe0ple 0ut 0f p0verty in the past 20 years. Michelthwait and W00ldridge, in their influential
b00k The f0urth rev0luti0n, suggest that ec0n0mic gr0wth is the 0nly sustainable way t0 reduce
p0verty in the future. The Trust research suggests that, its achievements gl0bally
n0twithstanding, ec0n0mic gr0wth fails as a s0luti0n in the UK f0r several reas0ns.

“The Trust c0mmissi0ned Neil McInr0y 0f the Centre f0r L0cal Ec0n0mic Strategies t0
examine the pr0cesses 0f ec0n0mic devel0pment. He reviewed the literature, including the w0rk
0f N0bel Laureate Sim0n Kuznets, wh0 suggests that inequality and disadvantage decrease as
an ec0n0my devel0ps.””This is the the0ry 0f ‘trickled0wn’, which suggests that 0nce private
investment capital is secured, ec0n0mic and s0cial success will f0ll0w as supply chain benefits
and l0cal j0bs are created.” McInr0y sh0ws that such an appr0ach d0es n0t w0rk, and that
ec0n0mic gr0wth fails t0 lift th0se at the b0tt0m much bey0nd subsistence level. Yet the view
that ec0n0mic gr0wth will bring pr0sperity f0r all has been a key plank 0f g0vernment p0licy
since the war. “McInr0y calls this ‘b00mg0ggling’ – the tendency t0 see ec0n0mic b00m and
s0cial benefit as inevitable.” He describes this as ‘an 0ptimism bias which g0es unrec0gnised’.
“0ne 0f the main reas0ns f0r the failure 0f trickle-d0wn is the way in which the market
distributes its rewards – a pr0cess called ‘predistributi0n’. In the US, Jac0b Hacker and Paul
“”Piers0n f0und that p0licies g0verning financial markets, the rights 0f uni0ns and the pay 0f
t0p executives have all shifted in fav0ur 0f th0se at the t0p, especially the financial and n0n-
financial executives wh0 make up ab0ut six in ten 0f the richest 0.1 per cent 0f Americans.”

” This w0rk inspired the Trust’s supp0rt f0r the Smith Institute study 0n w0rkplace dem0cracy,
Just deserts, which suggested a greater r0le f0r empl0yees in making decisi0ns at w0rk, and a

13
High Pay C0mmissi0n study 0n the business case f0r m0derating executive remunerati0n. The
rewards 0f ec0n0mic gr0wth d0 n0t benefit m0st pe0ple. In fact wage rates have n0t risen.

“Alth0ugh empl0yment rates were at an all-time high in N0vember 2016, l0ng-term ec0n0mic
trends have rem0ved well-paying j0bs fr0m the ec0n0my, s0 that the fastest gr0wing categ0ry 0f
pe0ple in p0verty has been th0se in w0rk.””

“”Tracy Shildrick and c0lleagues c0ined the expressi0n ‘l0w pay n0 pay cycle’ t0 describe the
experience 0f many pe0ple as they m0ve in and 0ut 0f badly paid w0rk. Pr0spects f0r the future
0f w0rk are dim. As techn0l0gy c0ntinues t0 replace pe0ple with machines, the likelih00d 0f
well-paying w0rk f0r the mass 0f the p0pulati0n is diminishing. Research in 2013 by tw0 0xf0rd
ec0n0mists, Frey and 0sb0rne, c0ncludes that, in the next tw0 decades, 4per cent 0f empl0yment
will be ‘in the high-risk categ0ry’, meaning that it is ‘p0tentially aut0matable’. It is mainly less
well-paid w0rkers wh0 are m0st at risk. C0nsequently, there is a m0ve t0wards what the OECD
calls ‘inclusive gr0wth’, in which the benefits 0f ec0n0mic gr0wth are shared m0re widely. The
“”R0yal S0ciety 0f Arts has set up a City Gr0wth C0mmissi0n t0 examine the challenges t0
cities p0sed by dem0graphic shifts, climate change, pressures 0n public finances and ec0n0mic
uncertainty.” It is t00 s00n t0 say whether this new appr0ach will address the deep pr0blems that
we n0w face. “Failure of the system””

“”The surest sign that the twin pillars 0f the p0stwar settlement – s0cial security and ec0n0mic
devel0pment – are n0 l0nger sufficient t0 reduce p0verty is the fact that, in s0me cases, s0cial
security n0w subsidises the private sect0r rather than p00r pe0ple.”Take, f0r example, tax
credits. Intr0duced in 1999 and devel0ped thr0ugh the Tax Credits Act 2002, their main purp0se
is t0 help families 0n l0wer pay make ends meet. They are als0 intended t0 lift families 0ut 0f
welfare dependency and pr0vide incentives f0r pe0ple t0 w0rk.” As Peter Kenway has p0inted
0ut, the c0st has been large and ‘displaces the 0lder idea, which underpinned the 0riginal design
0f the Welfare State, that the r0le 0f a s0cial security system is t0 pr0vide an adequate inc0me in
the event that a h0useh0ld lacks w0rk’.5 Rather than pr0viding sustainable s0luti0ns t0 p0verty,
critics have suggested that the s0cial security system subsidizes the private sect0r. Citizens UK

4
Bauman, Z. (1998) Work, consumerism and the new poor, Milton Keynes: Open University Press
5
Kenway, P. (2011) ‘Low income households should not be taxed until they can afford it’, in Knight, B. (ed) A
minority view: What Beatrice Webb would say now, Alliance Publishing Trust and Webb Memorial Trust, p 52.

14
calculates that the Treasury pays 0ut £11 billi0n a year in benefits and tax credits t0 the 22 per
cent 0f the UK w0rkf0rce wh0 are paid less than the living wage.” “Five firms al0ne (Tesc0,
Asda, Sainsbury’s, M0rris0n’s and Next) are subsidized t0 the tune 0f £1 billi0n a year – despite
making a pr0fit in the UK. A sec0nd example 0f s0cial security subsidizing the private sect0r is
h0using benefit, where m0ney is paid t0 private landl0rds charging high rents rather than
building and sustaining l0w-c0st h0using.6 Such a use 0f the s0cial security system is a sure sign
that it has l0st its way”:”

WHO NOT HOW

S0, the questi0n ‘h0w d0 we end p0verty?’ is the wr0ng 0ne. The questi0n sh0uld n0t be h0w
d0 we devel0p a g00d s0ciety with0ut p0verty, but wh0 sh0uld d0 it? Answers t0 this questi0n
imply resp0nsibility, agency and p0wer. 0ne 0f the chief merits 0f the ‘wh0 questi0n’ is that it
av0ids the p0larisati0n 0f the current debate, based 0n the dich0t0my 0f g0vernment versus
individual resp0nsibility. Fr0m the p0int 0f view 0f the s0cial science literature, agency and
structure are tw0 sides 0f the same c0in 0f s0cial change.

“Agency – the capacity 0f individuals t0 act independently and t0 make their 0wn ch0ices –
takes place in the c0ntext 0f structure. Structure is the amalgam 0f fact0rs 0f influence (such as
s0cial class, religi0n, gender, ethnicity and cust0ms) that determine 0r limit an agent and his 0r
her decisi0ns.” The relative influence 0f structure and agency is unclear. The evidence gives us
n0 reas0n t0 say that 0ne d0minates the 0ther. The main p0int is that b0th agency and structure
matter.” “We need t0 find c0mm0n gr0und while embracing a multiplicity 0f views ab0ut what
is g00d f0r pr0gress. We need t0 be inclusive and t0 find acc0mm0dati0ns between different
views.” As the survey resp0nses sh0w, idealists (wh0 fav0ur structural s0luti0ns) and
libertarians (wh0 fav0ur individual s0luti0ns) are b0th in a min0rity. 0n this view, p0verty is a
‘systemic’ issue, rather than merely structural 0r individual. The s0luti0n depends 0n all parts 0f
the system. “Every0ne has a r0le t0 play, as suggested in the New Statesman in N0vember 2015,
where interim results 0f the Trust’s research were published: Wh0 sh0uld s0lve the pr0blem 0f
p0verty?” This is a central questi0n p0sed by the Webb Mem0rial Trust in its latest research t0

6
Webb, K. (2012) Bricks or benefits? Rebalancing housing investment, London: Shelter.

15
define a g00d s0ciety. 0ur answer is ‘every0ne’. Arising fr0m this, if every0ne has resp0nsibility
f0r p0verty, h0w d0es each 0f the parties fulfil its resp0nsibilities? A crucial prec0nditi0n 0f
every0ne being inv0lved is 0wnership. “C0nnell and Kubisch argue that the success 0f any
initiative depends 0n the pe0ple wh0 make change happen being inv0lved at the 0utset.” Making
rec0mmendati0ns at the end 0f a pr0cess that has n0t inv0lved key agencies is unlikely t0 w0rk
because the agencies have n0 0wnership 0f the results. L00ked at in this way, s0ciety bec0mes a
self-0rganising system in which every0ne is tasked with helping t0 create the ec0n0my and
s0ciety we want. “The key is relati0nships. 0ne 0f the reas0ns why Citizens UK has been s0
successful is that its appr0ach puts citizens’ relati0nships with 0ne an0ther at the heart 0f its
w0rk. In her c0ntributi0n t0 the 2014 Webb Mem0rial Trust New Statesman P0verty
Supplement, Ruth Lister stresses the imp0rtance 0f participati0n in reaching s0cietal s0luti0ns
and cites the C0mmissi0n 0n P0verty, Participati0n and P0wer as an example 0f g00d practice,
with half 0f its members having had direct experience 0f p0verty. Participati0n plays a vital part
in devel0ping s0ciety”. “There is a line 0f hist0ry, alm0st entirely disregarded by current
thinkers, that traces c0nnecti0ns between J0hn Ruskin’s Unt0 this last, first published as essays
in 1860, its translati0n int0 Gujarat by Gandhi in 1908, and its influence 0n the campaign f0r
Indian independence, and subsequently 0n the civil rights m0vement in the US and the br0ad-
based 0rganising 0f Citizens UK. The central p0int is that transf0rmative p0wer is f0und in
relati0nships that are shared and n0t h0arded.””

“The r0le 0f national government”

“It was Beatrice Webb’s view that while the state guarantees the basics, v0luntary acti0n sh0uld
d0 the rest. “Part 0f the r0le 0f nati0nal g0vernment w0uld be t0 pr0vide structure in the f0rm 0f
an 0verarching plan ab0ut what kind 0f s0ciety we want”. Such a plan w0uld have tw0 main
g0als:”

•First, t0 guarantee ec0n0mic and s0cial security f0r all citizens.

•Sec0nd, t0 emp0wer citizens t0 devel0p the s0ciety that they want.

0f c0urse, nati0nal g0vernment w0uld als0 act directly 0n issues that can 0nly be driven
nati0nally, such as s0cial security and h0using.“Where p0ssible, h0wever, many m0re issues

16
w0uld be addressed at l0cal level, by l0cal g0vernment and by the v0luntary acti0n 0f pe0ple
wh0 have the energy and m0tivati0n t0 create change

The role of local government

“The dev0luti0n 0f p0wers and res0urces t0 regi0nal g0vernment, l0cal g0vernment and cities
c0uld facilitate greater dem0cratisati0n 0f the ec0n0my and create an imp0rtant f0rum f0r
addressing p0verty. The primary aim 0f an ec0n0my must be t0 enable pe0ple t0 live the lives
that they want. Tackling p0verty and inequality bec0mes an intrinsic and fundamental part 0f
achieving l0cal pr0sperity and ref0rming public services. The l0cal auth0rity has a key r0le
because:”

• Austerity n0twithstanding, it is the 0wner 0f land and buildings.

• It has c0nsiderable purchasing p0wer.

• It can act as c0nvener acr0ss different instituti0ns and netw0rks.

“Imp0rtant l0cal 0rganisati0ns such as h0spitals and universities and 0ther large empl0yers can
be inv0lved in sustainable ec0n0mic practices, buying g00ds and services l0cally and ensuring
l0cal pe0ple are fairly treated in hiring p0licies.” Business sh0uld be seen n0t as part 0f the
pr0blem but as a full partner in the devel0pment 0f place, as “c0rp0rate citizens”. The l0cal
auth0rity can als0 enable an atm0sphere 0f self-determinati0n and creativity am0ng l0cal pe0ple
and c0mmunity gr0ups. S0cial inn0vati0n has a key r0le t0 play”. The essence is t0 experiment,
t0 use small-scale inn0vati0ns t0 f0reshad0w the p0ssibilities 0f larger-scale transf0rmati0ns in
s0ciety. “

O o o o o o o o o oo o o oo o o o o o o o o o oo o o o o mk mkdkdk mkdm m mm m emkem

Tw0 examples are c00perative c0uncils and l0cal currency.

• C0-0perative c0uncils

“In Plym0uth the “1,000 Club” is an alliance between seni0r public sect0r leaders and businesses
t0 help y0ung pe0ple bec0me w0rk ready. S0me 580 businesses have bec0me inv0lved and
1,639 0pp0rtunities f0r y0ung pe0ple have been created.”

•L0cal currency

17
“The Brixt0n P0und is “m0ney that sticks t0 Brixt0n”; the currency is used am0ng l0cal traders
and is exchangeable f0r sterling at a rati0 0f 1:1. The idea is that m0ney spent with independent
businesses circulates within the l0cal ec0n0my up t0 three times l0nger than when it’s spent with
nati0nal chains.”

This should be followed in every country.

What can individual’s d0?

There are many examples up and d0wn the c0untry 0f l0cal v0luntary acti0n playing an
imp0rtant r0le in devel0ping a g00d l0cal s0ciety. “Rec0gnising and supp0rting such w0rk is
vital if we are t0 address pe0ple’s sense 0f disc0nnecti0n fr0m their s0cieties that f0und
expressi0n in the India result.” Citizens must be full participants in devel0ping and
implementing p0licies. C0mmunities are better able t0 understand and address their pr0blems
than g0vernment pr0fessi0nals because they are cl0ser t0 them. “While central g0vernment must
give new p0wers and resp0nsibilities t0 l0cal g0vernment, including the ability t0 fund itself,
l0cal g0vernment must give p0wer and c0ntr0l t0 l0cal pe0ple thr0ugh parish and t0wn
c0uncils, c0mmunity gr0ups and residents’ ass0ciati0ns.” Handing p0wer t0 the next generati0n

“The five principles 0f a g00d s0ciety are a starting p0int f0r discussi0n and acti0n. They are t0
be devel0ped, m0dified, built 0n and applied by pe0ple and 0rganisati0ns wh0 want t0 take the
ideas f0rward. If we are t0 pr0duce the s0ciety we want, we need t0 engage pe0ple 0f all ages in
a creative pr0cess 0f devel0ping new ideas and appr0aches.”

“Y0ung pe0ple need t0 be inv0lved in all 0f this. “They are particularly g00d at seeing new
s0luti0ns t0 0ld pr0blems.” Their ability t0 think ab0ut what they want fr0m s0ciety has been
sh0wn by w0rk with children and y0ung pe0ple that was supp0rted by the Webb Mem0rial Trust
0ver a three-year peri0d. This w0rk culminated in a d0cument called P0verty Ends N0w – a
clear and succinct manifest0 derived directly fr0m the life experiences 0f th0se y0ung pe0ple”.
“It’s time t0 listen t0 y0ung pe0ple and supp0rt them in achieving the future they want. All the
evidence suggests that they understand what needs t0 be d0ne t0 replace the failures 0f their
elders with a w0rld that 0ffers b0th security and freed0m f0r all.” What we need is n0t a set 0f

18
transacti0nal p0licies that shift res0urces, but the devel0pment 0f transf0rmati0nal relati0nships
that shift p0wer.

Six principles f0r a new left narrative 0n p0verty

“Public supp0rt f0r the welfare state has been hardening since the 1980s, with the language 0f
“shirkers” and “strivers” in the last parliament adding t0 a sense 0f divisi0n between the
“deserving” and “undeserving” p00r.” Shifting these public attitudes is key t0 ending p0verty in
the US. As Fabian S0ciety research has p0inted 0ut, there is a str0ng c0rrelati0n between public
supp0rt f0r welfare spending and the size 0f welfare spending in subsequent public budgets. T0
shift these attitudes, the left must devel0p a new narrative f0r tackling p0verty. It must reject
paternalism and unashamedly argue that tackling p0verty is in 0ur c0llective interest. These are
the six principles that must sit at the heart 0f that new narrative:”

1. “Br0aden what p0verty means P0liticians must m0ve away fr0m what has been called
“m0netary transfer s0cial justice”. If p0verty is always ab0ut l0w inc0me, then 0nly very few
will identify with the c0nversati0n. If p0verty is ab0ut a lack 0f time with family, p00rly
perf0rming sch00ls, 0r the lack 0f a v0ice at w0rk, then it speaks t0 every0ne.”

2. Re-universalise the welfare state

By describing the welfare state as a f0rm 0f s0cial insurance against the risks that all 0f us
face in 0ur lifetimes, the left can find a wider appeal and increase a sense 0f s0cial s0lidarity.
The value 0f this appr0ach can be seen in the huge public supp0rt f0r the Nati0nal Health
Service versus public supp0rt f0r g0vernment spending 0n unempl0yment benefits.

3. Make the ec0n0mic case

P0liticians sh0uld gr0w m0re c0nfident ab0ut making the ec0n0mic case f0r tackling p0verty.
Inequality 0f 0pp0rtunity d0esn’t just limit the disadvantaged, but h0lds back the wh0le c0untry.
Even the IMF n0w argues that reducing inequality can b00st gr0wth.

4. Fairness is crucial

The principle 0f fairness must sit at the heart 0f the welfare state. As Beveridge wr0te: “Benefit
in return f0r c0ntributi0ns, rather than free all0wances fr0m the state, is what the pe0ple 0f

19
Canada desire” – 0r, in 0ther w0rds, “s0mething f0r s0mething”. There is much greater public
supp0rt f0r the principle 0f c0ntributi0n than there is f0r means testing.

5. Get c0mf0rtable with aspirati0n

“The left must learn 0nce again t0 bec0me c0mf0rtable with the idea 0f aspirati0n. It has t0
s0und like it wants pe0ple t0 succeed and d0 better f0r their families, rather than f0cusing s0
intently 0n th0se w0rst 0ff. It als0 must resist attacking the well-0ff, because m0st 0f the public
like t0 believe that they might have m0ney 0ne day. Analysis 0f the last electi0n has sh0wn this
was a decisive fact0r in Lab0ur’s l0ss. J0n Cruddas’s independent review f0und that the
“pr0spect0rs” gr0up 0f v0ters, wh0 are acquisitive and aspirati0nal, swung the electi0n by
0pting f0r the C0nservatives.”

6. Language matters

“When trying t0 win supp0rt f0r tackling p0verty, language matters. Inequality is the defining
challenge 0f 0ur age. But while talking ab0ut inequality describes a pr0blem, it d0esn’t generate
enthusiasm f0r a s0luti0n. The same applies t0 the “c0st-0f-living crisis”, “the squeezed middle”
and m0st 0f the s0undbites generated by the Lab0ur leadership team g0ing int0 the last electi0n.
T0 rebuild public supp0rt f0r the welfare state, the left must devel0p a new narrative that ties
aspirati0n, s0lidarity and security t0gether. It must ensure tackling p0verty is a c0llective
endeav0ur by emphasising the c0llective benefits. And it must s0und 0ptimistic f0r individuals
and their families. Any plan t0 end p0verty will at s0me p0int require pe0ple t0 v0te f0r it. 0livia
Bailey is direct0r 0f research at the Fabian S0ciety

CONCLUSION:

From this research we can say that a society without poverty is hard to be made, but never
impossible. May be I cant be made in 2, 5 10 years but with proper principles and constant
development and continuous trying for this we can may be achieve a society which is good,
which does not have poverty in it. Poverty is a big black mark which is covering the label Good
society. "A decent society without destitution is one which manages the cost of us a nice way of
life and which permits us to thrive”………………………………..

20
This research paper which includes every country says one common thing, The people, The
government and hard work helps to get the caption A good society without poverty. Every single
individual should play their role. No one can be left behind. Every One should work hard
together to make their society free of poverty. Comparing from the years The poverty value is
not increasing but decreasing but slowly. According to me A good society without poverty is
very soon to come into existence.

MY OBSERVATION

“If you want a good society without poverty, you are one of the people responsible for making it
happen.”

“A good society without poverty is one which affords us a decent standard of living and which
allows us to flourish. It’s very easy to talk about what needs to happen to create this new world,
and what we want to see others doing. But what about the role we can play ourselves? We want
to create an alliance of people and organizations that are willing to undertake some specific
actions that will help create a good society.”

1. “Thinking and doing BIG We have ambition.”

“No matter how unrealistic it may seem at the beginning, we want to focus on achieving big
change.”
2. “Introducing a new narrative”
“The current conversation is failing to achieve cut-through. We need to foster a new
narrative about poverty that will command wide public attention and support.”
3. “Creating a bigger, broader, more connected alliance”
“Building a broader constituency will avoid waste and duplication, accelerate momentum
and help create a shared and collective voice.”
4. Connecting ideas to action
“All talk and no action makes poverty hard to resolve. We want practical, achievable,
evidence-based steps that are based on past experiences and keep an eye on the future.”
5. Using skills to maximum effect

21
 “From networks that can help grow the alliance, to research and analytical skills, to the
ability to influence government and other communities, there is a role for everyone to play.”
6. Supporting others so they too can play a role
“It is important that everyone – no matter what their background – is given the tools and the
space (both real and virtual) that they need to take action and make change happen.
7. Doing all of the above in a way that is creative and fun
“The creation of a good society has to be rooted in real lives. We need creative, fun,
accessible ways to participate that are open to everyone, not just those with money, influence
and academic knowledge”

BIBILOGRAPHY

BOOKS
• Prof. M. L. Upadhyaya , Law, Poverty & Development, Taxmann Publications Pvt.
Limited, 2000
• Upendra Baxi, Law and poverty : critical essays ,Bombay : N.M. Tripathi, 1988.
• Ezra Rosser, Marie Failinger, The Poverty Law Canon Exploring the Major Cases,
University of Michigan Press, 2016
• BARRY KNIGHT, RETHINKING POVERTY What makes a good society?, Policy
Press, (88) 2017

ARTICLES:
• newstatesman, good society without poverty
• Rethinking poverty What makes a good society?

ONLINE RESOURCES
• HEINONLINE
• SCC
• MANUPATRA

22