201084794

University of Leeds

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

Online Submission of Assessed Work

Student Name

Student ID number

Degree programme MA Childhood Studies

Module code EDUC5866M

Module title Child Poverty and well-being

What are the causes and consequences of child poverty in

Essay Title the UK?

Word count 6,597

 201084794

What are the causes and consequences of child poverty in the UK?

‘Children bear the brunt of poverty, fall foul of our cultural short-termism and are

accorded few rights. Yet, this societal abuse of our young gets little attention. The

only way it seems possible to get today’s adults to react at all is through impressing

on them the risk that today’s children may, in turn, wreck their revenge on us in our

old age’ (Witcher, 1997:viii)

Poverty is a multi-dimensional and contested concept (Spiker, 2007), with

disagreements ranging from the definition and causes of childhood poverty to the

consequences of childhood poverty. Child poverty has severe short and long-term

consequences for the children and young people who live in low-income households;

children who grow up in poverty face a range of disadvantages through childhood

and over their life course (Griggs and Walker, 2008). Despite this, until 1999 few

academics concentrated on child poverty as a concern that deserved specific

emphasis. Poverty meant adult and household poverty, with income and

consumption indicators as the main approach to measurement (Minujin & Nandy,

2012).

Poverty is a social fact, and all cultures have a concept of poverty (Gordon and

Spicker, 1999), and yet one of the many difficulties in regard to creating an accurate

and informed discussion on the causes and consequences of childhood poverty is

the complexities with the measurement, definitions and concepts around poverty.

The reported level of children who experience poverty changes dependent on which

definition is used; and the political party who hold power will attempt to influence the

reported levels of child poverty to suit their political standing. Governments, local
 201084794

authorities, third sector, academics and research groups may all have different

concepts, definitions and measures, which, therefore, makes comparative studies

very difficult, especially over time. However, because poverty has such clear and

damaging effects, it should be measured. Poverty is multi-dimensional, relative and

dynamic, which renders it difficult to scientifically measure; but it is not impossible

(Minujin & Nandy, 2012).

It is important to provide an overview of the political landscape that has led to the

current crisis of childhood poverty. The number of children living in poverty increased

drastically between 1979 and 1997, which could be correlated to the policies of

successive Conservative governments. From the late 1900’s, a significant fall in the

numbers of children in poverty was attributed to Tony Blair’s unrelenting focus on

reducing poverty within a generation. The General Election in 2010 that led to the

Conservative Liberal Democrats government, and the subsequent election of the

Conservatives as a majority government in 2015, had an exorbitant and catastrophic

effect on the numbers of children in both absolute and relative poverty. The number

of children living in poverty has increased since 2011, with an increase of 200,000

between 2015 and 2016 alone; there is now an estimated 3.9 million children now

living in poverty across the UK- 66% of whom live in families with at least one

working parent (McCall, 2016). The election of a Conservative and Democratic

Unionist Party coalition in 2017 does not inspire hope for a reduction in the numbers

of children who are living in poverty; indeed, there is a projected further increase of

50% by 2020 (McCall, 2016)

This paper will examine the causes and consequences of childhood poverty in the

UK, with a focus on the influence of political leadership and policy debates on child

poverty from 1979 onwards. It will provide an overview of the debates and
 201084794

complications with adopting a UK wide concept, definition and measure of childhood

poverty, then it will discuss the influence of different governments on the experiences

and levels of child poverty. It will provide an overview on the causes of childhood

poverty in relation to the political history of the UK from 1979, which will then inform

the discussion on the consequences of childhood poverty. This paper will focus

specifically on the consequences of childhood poverty on education, healthcare,

economic outcomes and overall wellbeing.

The definition of poverty has assumed a position of enormous importance in poverty

debates (Beresford, Green, Lister & Woodard, 1999). Indeed, it is conceivably one of

the most controversial matters within these deliberations, with definitions surrounding

poverty being highly contested and judgements regarding need proving difficult to

extract from political opinion (Lister, 2004). A debate on the causes of poverty cannot

commence without first establishing the conception, definition, and measurement of

poverty; discussions which become increasingly complex when looking at child

poverty, which involves additional intricacies regarding income measures, age

dependent needs, and inequality in the division of household resources, which refers

to the distribution of wealth and possessions within the home (Main & Bradshaw,

2016).

It is important to fully understand the competing concepts, definitions and measures

used when framing any research or academic discussion regarding child poverty, as

it is not possible to provide a valid and reliable measure of anything without a theory

and a definition, and it is not possible to debate the cause and consequences of a

topic without some grounding in the statistical extent of the topic in question; ‘validity

can only be assessed in relation to a theoretical framework and, without such a

framework, all measures of poverty remain merely the opinions of their advocates’
 201084794

(Gordon & Nandy, 2012: 58).

The preponderance of the debate around definitions has stemmed from two,

seemingly contrasting, starting points; the conception of absolute and relative

poverty. ‘Academic conceptions and measures of poverty vary in terms of the depth

of deprivation at which poverty is diagnosed… and the breadth of domains that are

considered to be part of the condition’ (Main & Bradshaw, 2016: 41), with the debate

being ‘focussed primarily on the issue of an absolute versus a relative concept’

(Walker and Walker, 1994: 43). An agreed core of meaning regarding absolute and

relative poverty has not yet been established, despite almost a hundred years of

academic debate on the topic; ‘the academic debate about poverty has been largely

about definitions’ (MacGregor, 1981: 62). The concept of absolute poverty is

positioned alongside the notion of subsistence; ‘subsistence is the minimum needed

to sustain life, and so being below subsistence level is to be experiencing absolute

poverty because one does not have enough to live on’ (Beresford, Green, Lister &

Woodard, 1999: 10). This concept is actualised in Conservative policies from 1979,

championed by New Right ideologies; this will be discussed further on. The relative

definition originated through academics and campaigners in the 1960’s, who fought

the assumption that the welfare state had ended poverty. Relative deprivation theory

conceptualises deprivation as a geographically, historically, and culturally located

continuum, with a vacillating movement between no deprivation, mild, moderate and

severe deprivation, to extreme deprivation (Gordon, 2002; Pantazis et al., 2006;

Gordon et al., 2013). Townsend’s definition of poverty, which this paper will adopt as

the definition of poverty, has had a prodigious impact on the debate of relative

deprivation:

“Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when
 201084794

they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities, and

have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely

encouraged or approved, in the societies to which they belong. Their resources are

so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they

are, in effect, excluded from ordinary patterns, customs and activities” (Townsend,

1979: 31)

Whereas absolute poverty concepts, definitions and measures ask whether incomes

are sufficient to maintain a certain level of physical efficiency, relative poverty

concepts, definitions and measures seeks to determine the extent to which the poor

are permitted to participate in the activities of the society in which they live (Walker

and Walker, 1997; Beresford, Green, Lister & Woodard, 1999). From a relative

standpoint, poverty is inherently linked to the society in which an individual is

located, and it is applicable at a range of levels (individuals, families, and groups)

and it is connected to resources which may include, but that are not limited to,

income (Main & Bradshaw, 2016). The two concepts have been shown to rest on

value judgements, with both possessing major limitations and neither commanding

consensus (Alcock, 1993).

The consensual approach to poverty measurement arose from this Townsend’s

conception, in which indicators of deprivation are selected subject to popular

consensus, and are used both alone and in combination with measures of income to

produce poverty measures (see Main & Bradshaw, 2012, 2014, 2016; Ben-Arieh,

2008; Gordon et al, 2013). The consensual approach is advantageous in regard to

child poverty, as it allows the examination of poverty at the level of the household or

the individual; historically, studies on poverty excluded children’s experiences, as

they did not account for age-appropriate deprivation indicators, or an explanation of

 201084794

intra- household sharing (Daly et al, 2012; Bennett, 2013; Becker 1991). Recent

studies on intra- household sharing have attempted to address the inequality of the

division of resources within the household (see Main and Bradshaw, 2016; Cockburn

et al., 2006; Ridge, 2002; Pahl, 2005), as research shows there is an inequity in the

division of household resources, with some parents sacrificing their needs for their

children’s needs, or sacrificing the needs of some (or all) of their children to provide

for other children or adults (Cockburn et al. 2006).

A key problem within studies of poverty is how to identify the ‘correct’ poverty line or

threshold (Gordon and Pantazis, 1997). If the line is set too high, then children who

are not poor will be mistakenly identified as poor; however, if the line is set too low,

then many children who experience poverty will not be categorised as poor (Minujin

& Nandy, 2012). Where the line is set rests on the definition adopted, which, in turn,

rests on the value judgements of the individual, or group, setting the definition. The

definition, concept, or measurement does not cause poverty, as it is a social fact;

nevertheless, the perceived scale of the problem, the academic research, and the

political direction all rests on the definition of poverty.

‘Disagreements over the definition of poverty run deep and are closely associated

with disagreements over both the causes of and the solutions to it. In practice all

these issues of definition, measurement, cause and solution are bound up

together… we must first know what poverty is before we can identify where and

when it is occurring or attempt to measure it; and before we can do anything to

alleviate it’ (Alcock, 1993:209)

Poverty in the UK is largely determined by three factors- access to the labour

market, extra costs, and the failure of policies to deal with them (Becker, 1991).
 201084794

Oppenheim and Harker provide a straightforward analysis on the causes of poverty:

‘Poverty is also caused by not having access to decently paid employment. It is also

the result of the extra costs of having a child or a disability. Poverty is particularly

acute when these two factors combine’ (Oppenheim & Harker, 1996: 63)

The factors that lead to child poverty are long disputed, encompassed by arguments

that flicker between the political spheres, with battlegrounds drawn around all

aspects of society. The conflicting arguments that surround the political left and right

paradigms have shaped the experiences, and number, of children in poverty across

the UK. The arguments of the political right generally originate in individual causes of

poverty; those on social security are crudely portrayed as ‘layabouts’ (Kincaid, 1975:

21) who choose a life of ease over adequately providing for their children; those on

the political left tend to see poverty as deriving from structural factors, caused by the

inequality of the ingrained class system and the failure of the ‘trickle-down effect’

dogma. The political right and Conservative governments generally adopt absolute

measures, with a focus on individual accountability, whilst the political left and the

Labour party tend towards relative theories of deprivation and structural explanations

for poverty.

‘The causes and solutions of poverty tend to be interpreted and presented in

ideological terms. The assumptions and values reflected in competing left and right

ideologies are of central importance in shaping both our understanding of poverty

and the policy responses that have been made to it’ (Beresford, Green, Lister &

Woodard, 1999: 18-19)

An exploration of some of the key factors that may lead to childhood poverty reveal

how family structure, employment status, ethnicity and parental health are all
 201084794

influential. ‘These are not discrete categories of risk, but rather economic, social and

cultural factors, which intersect and interact with the economic, social and political

environment of their time’ (Ridge, 2002: 33). Social characteristics, such as gender,

ethnicity, and disability, are mitigating factors in the vulnerability of a family or

children when discussing both the causes and consequences of childhood poverty.

One impact of poverty is the differential access to resources (Dermott and Main,

2017); an inequality that impacts all aspects of a child’s life. Whilst critical events,

such as changes to employment, health or relationship status, can trigger the entry

into poverty (Smith and Middleton, 2007), the biggest predicator, and cure, of poverty

is the political and policy framework; which is often, in UK politics, based on the

ideology of the current government.

To attempt to gain an understanding of the causes of child poverty, it is fundamental

that these opposing ideologies are critically discussed in relation to the influence that

policy has had on child poverty in the UK.

The marginalisation of children in political discourse is longstanding (Pilcher and

Wagg, 1996), and, as such, a debate could be held on the impact of political

ideology and policy implementation on the lives of children in poverty regressing to

the very first historical writings; however, this paper will focus on 1979 onwards.

During the 1980’s and 1990s, debates in Britain regarding social, political and

economic affairs were heavily influenced by the discourses of the New Right (Pilcher

& Wagg, 1996). The political New Right was a broad and distinct grouping which

cannot be reduced to a single party or government (Levitas, 1986); however, the

government under the control of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980’s can be seen as

heavily informed by New Right ideology (Smith, 1994). The New Right valued
 201084794

freedom from taxation and high public spending on welfare above the need for large

sections of the population to be freed from poverty and social exclusion (Walker,

1997). Whilst, as above, it is acknowledged that poverty and inequality existed prior

to the Thatcher governments’, up until 1979 it was accepted across the political

sphere that one important function of government was to try and combat poverty and

to try and reduce, rather than increase, social and economic inequalities (Walker,

1997). Rather than viewing inequality as damaging to societal construction and

improvement, the Thatcher governments viewed it as an ‘engine of enterprise’

(Walker, 1997: 5), providing incentives for those at the bottom as well as the top.

This is one of the three key elements to the Conservative approach to poverty and

inequality; the belief that the welfare state’s role is to ensure a minimum level of

subsistence but not to promote justice or equality. It is up to the market to provide

rising living standards for the poor (Hoover and Plant, 1989), characterised as the

‘trickle-down’ theory, which assumed that the growing economy would automatically

provide increased living standards for those at the bottom (Oppenheim, 1997:19). In

direct contrast to the ‘trickle-down effect’, the picture of poverty and inequality

between 1979- 1997 is a stark one, with increasing social divisions, underpinned by

a widening gap between the rich and the poor. The situation was exacerbated with

the decreasing real incomes of the poor, despite the rising tide of economic growth;

between 1979-1993, the real incomes of the bottom tenth of the income distribution

fell by 13 per cent, whilst those of the top tenth rose by 65 per cent (Walker, 1997).

The impact of this will be discussed later on, however this inequality has

exacerbated divisions in education, healthcare, economic outcomes and the

wellbeing of children who experience deprivation.

The second element is that successive Conservative governments have attempted

 201084794

to deny the existence of poverty; this can be seen in John Moore’s End of the Line

for Poverty speech in 1989, in which he argued that absolute poverty no longer

existed, and that relative poverty was a misnomer for inequality (Moore, 1989). The

final element is the emphasis on personal responsibility for poverty, a perspective

heavily dominated by the writings of Charles Murray who believed that a growing

underclass characterised by illegitimacy, crime and labour market dropout was

threatening the fabric of society (Oppenheim, 1997). These writings redefined

poverty as ‘dependency’, which was viewed as a behavioural problem, caused by

the welfare state itself. The term ‘underclass’ was coined to influence public

perception of poverty, which legitimised increasingly harsh policy provisions against

the poor (Mann, 1994). The consequence of successive Conservative governments

adopting laissez faire economic policies of privatisation, deregulation, cuts in public

expenditure, the devaluation of low incomes and public services and the misguided

reliance on the ‘trickle-down effect’ (Becker, 1991; Bradshaw, 2001) resulted in an

unprecedented and remarkable increase in societal inequality, the removal of the

safety net for vulnerable individuals and families, and a reduction in the quality of life

and opportunities for millions of people. Eighteen years of Conservative rule had

overseen a drastic increase in childhood poverty; child poverty rates based on

children living in households within an income below 60% of the national median

rose from 13% in 1979 to 27% in 1996/7 (Main and Bradshaw, 2017). The impact of

these policies, and the consequences for the increasing number of children and

young people who experience poverty as a result of policies based on this political

ideology, will be discussed later.

New Labour’s landslide victory in 1997 was followed by Tony’s Blair’s commitment to

end child poverty within a generation; ‘Our historic aim, that ours is the first
 201084794

generation to end child poverty forever… It’s a 20-year mission, but I believe that it

can be done’ (Blair, 1999, cited in Walker, 1999: 4). The Child Poverty Act was

passed, with cross-party support, in 2010. This Act committed the UK Government to

‘eradicating’ child poverty by 2020; however, prior to this, the Government had

already instilled a repertoire a range of policies focussing on increasing the incomes

of poor families through a minimum wage, increases in cash benefits, additional

spending on the public sector and education, health and childcare services, and

implementing measures designed to increase parental employment (Main &

Bradshaw, 2016). Whereas the Conservative governments had focussed on

individual causes of poverty, and implemented policy measures that aimed to reduce

the public sector and increase the private sector, stating that the generation of

wealth for business will benefit all, the Labour governments took a structural, relative

approach, that aimed to increase the role of the public sector, with a focus on

specifically reducing poverty. Unsurprisingly, once policies were implemented that

focussed on improving the lives of the poor, rather than ignoring them, poverty rates

declined, and outcomes for those who experienced poverty began to improve.

These notions of individual factors being one of the main indicators of poverty can be

seen in the Coalition and Conservative governments of the past seven years. The

popular political rhetoric has been to portray poor parents as making deficient

spending decisions and mismanaging the generous benefits that they are provided

with, and then transmitting these attitudes onto their children (Main and Bradshaw,

2016). Whereas Labour implemented policies that aimed to increase work benefits

through raising the minimum wage and improving child benefits and child tax credits,

the Conservatives implemented austerity measures to improve the economy, which

included abolishing selected benefits, freezing child benefits, and cutting the real
 201084794

level of tax credits (Main and Bradshaw, 2016). The ‘trickledown’ effect theory is one

that is still embraced by the Conservative Government, which has resulted in a move

away from the redistribution of wealth to address child poverty that was implemented

under Labour.

Whilst there is cross-party agreement on addressing child poverty in the UK, the

political rhetoric around the benefits system being too generous has led to cuts that

have increased the percentage of children in poverty. ‘Changes to welfare systems

that increase child poverty should not be tolerated’ (Taylor-Robinson, cited in McCall,

2016: 747). The Conservative Government passed the Welfare Reform and Work

Act in 2017, with the assertion of addressing poverty in the UK, however various

experts have expressed concerns that it will strip low-income families of core

income. The chief executive of Child Poverty Action Group articulated her fears: ‘It

contains a package of cuts that will set child poverty soaring by limiting child tax

credit and the universal credit equivalent to only two children and freezing benefits

for 4 years’ (Garnham, 2017: 3). Since 2010, there have been repeated, if

unsuccessful, attempts by the Government to abolish the four official Child Poverty

Act measures (Main, 2017). Government funding to the most vulnerable has been

cut, with the sharpest cuts in the poorest areas, affecting some of the poorest people

(Main, 2017). Real wages have fallen, and over 1 million people have had to use

food banks, with the most frequent reason being benefit sanctions and benefit cuts

(Lambie-Mumford and Dowler, 2014, cited in Main, 2017). Child poverty is rising as a

direct result of Coalition and Conservative policies, and, with a projected 50% further

increase by 2020 (McCall, 2016), a continuing drive on austerity measures is set to

worsen the life chances, and current experiences, of millions of UK children.

‘Children from poor homes have lower life expectancy and are more likely to die in
 201084794

infancy or childhood; they have a greater likelihood of poor health, a lower chance of

high educational attainment, a greater risk of unemployment, a higher probability of

involvement in crime and enduring homelessness’ (Holtermann, 1995: 63)

The consequences of child poverty are far reaching and multi-dimensional. Family

background remains a highly reliable predictor of life outcomes, with Britain holding

the closest link between parents’ earnings and those of their children among major

industrialised countries (Calder, 2016). Family circumstances are deeply implicated

in the transmission of unequal life prospects, and, despite the public outcry of a

divided Britain, the emphasis on equal opportunities for all, and the media focus on

an uneven playing field, the association between family background and social

immobility is stronger than ever; ‘those who rise to the top in Britain today look

remarkably similar to those who rose to the top half a century ago’ (Social Mobility

and Child Poverty Commission, 2015b). Children, who cannot be blamed for the

circumstances of their birth, that experience poverty, for even a short amount of time,

suffer from intergenerational inequality; an inequality that effects their educational

outcomes, health, longevity, economic outcomes, family relationships and sense of

self. It is an inequality that they are likely to pass onto their children, as class fate

‘plays out over entire generations’ (Clark, 2014: 159).

Main and Bradshaw (2017) discuss the associations between poverty and child-

specific indicators of social exclusion and outcomes, and, through analysis of the

2012 UK Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey, concluded:

‘Overall, child poverty was found to have significant links with missing out on a range

of services and vulnerability to certain negative outcomes. This confirms that

growing up in poverty impacts children beyond a simple lack of material resources,

 201084794

as social resources are less likely to be provided for these children and they are

more likely to be exposed to social harms’ (Main & Bradshaw, 2017: 8)

When examining the consequences of childhood poverty, it is important to compare

the rhetoric and policy with the material reality of children’s lives, and to discuss both

their current experience and their future opportunities, as public policy responses to

childhood poverty have been almost overwhelmingly preoccupied with an interest in

children as future citizens and workers, rather than as children as negotiating a

childhood marked by the experiences of poverty and deprivation (Ridge, 2002).

Within these categories, there are concrete, statistically supported effects, and

abstract, conceptual effects; consequences that are causal, and those that are

strongly correlated. Ethnographic studies on individuals who have experienced

poverty highlighted four main areas with regards to the effect of poverty:

Psychological (psychological and emotional issues, self-esteem, wellbeing), physical

(health implications), relational (relationships and social interactions) and practical

(day to day life) (Beresford, Green, Lister & Woodard, 1999). This work will discuss

the impact of child poverty with regards to education, health, economic outcomes

and wellbeing.

‘Working class children must be taught to think and act like the middle classes if they

are to get into the best universities and top professions, a Government adviser has

said’ (Graham, 2014, cited in Calder, 2016: 49)

In Britain, a comprehensive system of schooling has attempted to provide the same

educational opportunities to all children, regardless of background or educational

capacity. The relentless pursuit, however, of the examination system to test,

measure and compare children and young people at specific points throughout their
 201084794

academic journey has previously paid no heed to the starting points or relative

progress of children; they did not allow for ‘value added’ assessments (Quilgars,

2001). From a young age, children were labelled with scores that denounced their

ability; scores that did not account for the impact of poverty, the effects of which can

be seen from the earliest ages. At 22 months, children whose parents are the

highest social classes are already 14 percentage points higher up the educational

development distribution that children whose parents are in the lowest social classes

(Beyon & Glavanis, 1999). The gap in educational attainment only widens as

children progress through the school system; at Key Stage 2 (age 11), the national

attainment gap between children on Free School Meals (a key indicator of

deprivation) is 20 per cent; for Key Stage 4 (age 16), the gap widens to 32.5 per cent

(Leeds City Council, 2015). Research shows there is a consistent gap between

children from lower socio-economic backgrounds and their peers from higher socio-

economic backgrounds (Quilgars, 2001).

A considerable amount of children’s lives is spent in school, and the importance of

disadvantaged children’s academic performance for their future wellbeing and

employment prospects is considerable (Gregg, Harkness and Machin, 1999; Ridge,

2002). Whilst any link between poor educational progress and poverty may have a

less immediate debilitating effect on children compared with measures such as child

mortality and morbidity, a link between poor performance at school and future job

opportunities effectively signifies that poor academic achievement increases the

likelihood that poor children will become poor adults (Bradshaw, 2001). In addition to

this, the psychological and social impact of children from deprived backgrounds

trying to fit into an educational setting is now beginning to be understood. More

research from a child’s perspective is needed, however current studies show that
 201084794

poor children are more likely to be bullied, experience social isolation, and to be

excluded from school (Main and Bradshaw, 2017; Fimister, 2001).

‘Without broader redistribution and political change outside the realm of education,

formal systems of schools… created as they are by unequal societies, will forever to

some degree reflect those societies’ (Exley, 2016: 128)

Any education system will need to work against a backdrop of inequality that impacts

children and families; schools alone cannot cure poverty, and with poverty rising, and

widespread cuts to education, it is likely that the gap in educational attainment

between richer and poorer students will continue to increase.

‘Health is purchasable… Each country, within certain limits, decides its own death

rates’ (Sand, 1935: 162)

In addition to the impact of poverty on educational attainment, the undeniable

relationship between poverty and health has been established through both

epistemological studies and clinical experience (McCall, 2016; Quilgars, 2001;

Benzaval, 1997; Morris, 1994). Relative poverty is associated with worse health

outcomes (Conroy et al, 2010; Freemantle et al, 2009), with children born into low-

income households more likely to experience health problems from birth and

accumulate health risks as they grow older (Griggs and Walker, 2008). The wealth of

international evidence has grown to the degree that it is now indisputable that ‘social

and economic circumstances dominate the distribution and overall standards of

health in modern populations’ (Benzeval, 1997: 153). The fingerprints of poverty can

be seen across the health sphere, negatively affecting all areas of physical and

mental health; infant and child mortality, lifetime morbidity, obesity, mental health,

wellbeing, accidental injury, disease and disability.

 201084794

The links between poverty and infant and child mortality in Britain are well

established (Quilgars, 2001; Acheson, 1998; Townsend & Davidson, 1982). Infant

and child mortality rates are often cited as one of the major indicators of the level of

development and health of a nation (Botting, 1997), and the story for Britain is not an

optimistic one; the UK child mortality rate is one of the highest in Western Europe

(McCall, 2016). Research shows that those in the lowest social classes are far more

likely to die at a younger age irrespective of other social demographics, such as

gender or ethnicity (Warwick-Booth, 2013). Despite a plethora of evidence,

government action in Britain to tackle inequalities in health has been conspicuous

mainly by its absence (Benzeval, 1997). Child poverty and its health consequences

need tackling on multiple fronts—at source by alleviating the poverty, and in

provision of better health, early years' education, and social services. In countries

such as Sweden, policies tend to focus on improving the circumstances and

conditions of the poorest and most vulnerable in society; in direct contrast to the

Conservative policies that focus on decreasing social spending and the public sector,

Sweden implements policies that have established better access to high quality early

education, child care, parental leave and equitable distribution of resources, which

has improved infant and child mortality drastically; ‘If the UK had Sweden's child

survival rate, there would be about five fewer children's deaths each day, that is

1900 per year’ (Wolfe, 2016, cited in McCall, 2016: 747).

Children from low-income backgrounds have a higher likelihood of experiencing

problems with nutrition, which has a causal relationship with obesity, in addition to

having a negative influence on children’s wellbeing (Griggs and Walker, 2008). 4% of

children (0.5 million) do not have three meals a day, fresh fruit and vegetables once

a day, and or meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent every day because their families
 201084794

cannot afford them (Dermott, 2017). In studies of childhood obesity in correlation to

poverty, researchers found that children in Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham,

Manchester, and Liverpool, where child poverty is high, have the highest level of

obesity (Taylor-Robinson, 2016, cited in McCall, 2016: 747). Despite this, the

allocation of public spending is unequal; health expenditure has increased at a faster

rate for elderly populations than younger generations (Braillon, 2017), which

indicates that the young are not as high on the political agenda as the elderly; this

inequality is amplified with poor children, who, as has been discussed, are more

likely to be exposed to poor health and reduced access to services.

‘I don’t know sort of like the future what’s going to happen and that. I might not get a

good enough job and all that’ (Cally, 14 years, cited in Ridge, 2002: 106)

The intergenerational transmission of poverty is the likelihood that children of poor

parents will grow up to be poor themselves, irrespective of other factors (Calder,

2016; Griggs and Walker, 2008). One of the most significant long-term outcomes of

child poverty is the negative outcome on their future employment. Children who have

experienced low-income households are more likely than their more affluent peers to

be unemployed, work in low or unskilled jobs and be poorly paid in adult life

(Townsend, 1996); ‘the relationship between employment and childhood poverty

persists even when educational outcomes and background are controlled for’ (Griggs

and Walker, 2008). This shows that the ‘employment penalty’ (the greater likelihood

of future unemployment for poor children) has become increasingly prominent over

time (Griggs and Walker, 2008). Studies have shown that the narrowing of routes

into the labour market has had a negative impact on opportunities for low- income

young people who have fewer qualifications (Brooks-Gunn and Duncan, 1997;

Bynner et al, 2002). It is not just children and young people who suffer when they
 201084794

cannot secure employment. To have a significant percentage of the population out of

work is detrimental to a country’s economy, and results in a reduction of both

productivity and competitiveness (HM Treasury, 2008).

‘Their nations must also pay a very significant price- in reduced skills and

productivity, in lower levels of health and educational achievement, in increased

likelihood of unemployment and welfare dependence, in the higher costs of judicial

and social protection systems, and in the loss of social cohesion’ (UNICEF, 2012:1)

Research into the UK estimates that the cost of unemployment could be above £90

million a week (Princes Trust, 2007). The economic argument in anything but the

shortest term is therefore heavily on the side of protecting children from poverty, yet

the Coalition Government has pursued austerity cuts despite very high levels of

unemployment and falling real wages (Main and Bradshaw, 2016), with a rhetoric

around reducing the ‘overly-generous’ benefits that ‘trap’ poor families into

dependence. Reviews conducted on Coalition policy changes have shown that

austerity measures have hit low income families with children the hardest

(Bradshaw, 2015).

‘I just go and do what I’ve got to do but I don’t like it’ (Clark, 15 years old, cited in

Ridge, 2002)

Beyond the statistics, the measurable, hard facts of the impact of poverty on a child’s

life, there are also correlations that are harder to measure; that relate to the

individual, the fundamental sense of self and the security, or insecurity, of their place

in the world. Subjective well-being is a topic that is growing in recognition and

importance in both research and policy (Sliglitz et al, 2009), with most of the interest

relating to Easterlin’s (1974) finding that the relationship between happiness and
 201084794

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) only holds up to a fairly low level, and that within

richer societies increases in GDP are not matched by gains in happiness and

wellbeing. Despite this, it is difficult to gain an objective hard link between wellbeing

and poverty. Quantitative studies of children growing up in poverty highlight the

misery, stigma and exclusion felt by the children (Ridge, 2002); however, quantitative

studies have not found a conclusive link between household income and children’s

subjective wellbeing (Rees et al, 2011). It is unlikely that there is a lack of

association between income inequality and subjective well-being, rather, it is likely

that the effects of poverty will be useful in determining the links.

Main uses a child-derived index of material deprivation, (see Main and Bradshaw,

2012) which has been developed through working with children, both in focus groups

and questionnaires to ascertain the items that children need in contemporary UK

child society to fit in; the deprivation of said items has an impact on their cognitive

wellbeing. This measure was used to ascertain, from a child’s perspective, the

impact of poverty on subjective well-being, with findings demonstrating that poverty

is an important predicator of subjective wellbeing (Main, 2014), however, as

discussed by Main, this should be understood in the context of studies that argue

that the relationship between income and subjective wellbeing exists but is

confounded by mitigating factors. In a study of child poverty and its association with

mental health, Quilgars found that there is evidence of a link between poverty and

some measures of mental disorders, but little evidence of a link between poverty and

the broader mental well-being of children (Quilgars, 2001). Recent studies

hypothesise that material deprivation measures represent a mediating force between

income and subjective well-being; ‘Income may be important to subjective wellbeing

not in its own right but in its role as facilitating living conditions which are more or
 201084794

less conducive to higher levels of subjective wellbeing in certain areas of children’s

lives’ (Main, 2014: 469). Essentially, it is likely that it is the effects of poverty that

impact subjective wellbeing, rather than low income itself; numerous qualitative

studies of poverty clearly demonstrate that living in poverty strongly impacts on

children’s happiness (Ridge, 2002; Main, 2014).

Social exclusion through the absence of the status symbols necessary to fit into

society can have a hugely detrimental effect on children, with qualitative research

signifying that social exclusion is identified by children as one of their experiences of

poverty (Ridge, 2002). Poverty is known to affect children’s self-confidence and their

relationships with other children (Griggs and Walker, 2008). Young children living in

low income households report feeling stigmatised by their circumstances, which is

felt acutely when a lack of money results in their inability to participate in social

activities (Attree, 2006).

Rees et al identifies the association between material deprivation, family and choice

as the strongest domains in relation to overall subjective wellbeing (Rees et al,

2010). The lack of choice that poverty ensures restricts the activities that children

can participate in, the status symbols that they can acquire, and the relationships

that they have with their peers.

‘As subjects and citizens in their own right, children have remained largely absent

from poverty discourse and public policy responses, and the experiences and needs

of children in poverty have frequently been ignored or obscured’ (Ridge, 2002 :33)

Child poverty, and the short and long-term consequences of children experiencing

poverty, is something that is widely held in public outcry. Yet, the ever-changing

nature of the UK’s political landscape, characterised in the often drastic swings of
 201084794

political ideology, has resulted in a complex situation in relation to child poverty.

Debates around absolute poverty concepts, which generally revolve around the

failure to meet basic physiological needs, and relative poverty concepts, which are

concerned with the failure to have the resources necessary to participate in social

norms, reflect the ideologies of the Conservative and Labour governments

respectively. This essay has explored the hugely influential impact of which

measure, concept and definition is adopted by the political leadership of the UK, with

a critical examination of the increase of childhood poverty by successive

Conservative governments from 1979 onwards. It contrasted this increase of poverty

and economic insecurity for the most vulnerable in society to the Labour

government, which implemented policies aimed at increasing public spending,

economic security for the poor, and decreasing poverty and deprivation. It then

discussed the influence of the Coalition and Conservative governments since 2010

on the percentage and experiences of childhood poverty. The fundamental creed

underpinning the Conservative government’s strategy to reduce child poverty is the

belief in the labour market as the primary agent of social inclusion, which raises

questions about the impact of this on disadvantaged children, and whether their

needs are foremost on the policy agenda. The impact of the redistribution of wealth,

implemented by Labour governments, does not have enough time to take effect

before the punitive cuts implemented by the Conservative governments-

characterised by the failure of the trickledown effect, and the policies that support it,

increase the levels, and pejoratively impact the experiences and life outcomes of

poor children.

Child poverty leads to catastrophic long and short term impacts that can be seen

across all aspect of the child and adults life; this essay has discussed the
 201084794

consequences of child poverty in terms of education, health, economic outcomes

and wellbeing, however poverty impacts all areas of a child’s life far into adulthood.

The failure to protect children from poverty is one of the costliest mistakes a society

can make. The heaviest cost of all is borne by the children themselves.
 201084794

Bibliography

Acheson, D. (1998) Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health. London: The

Stationary Office

Alcock, P. (1993) Understanding Poverty. London: Macmillian

Atkinson, A. B. (1996) Drawing the Line. Guardian: 6th November 1996

Attree, P (2006) ‘The Social Costs of Child Poverty: A systematic review of the

qualitative evidence’, in Children and Society, Vol. 20. pp. 54–66

Becker, S. (1991) Windows of Opportunity. London, CPAG

Beresford, P., Green, D., Lister, R., and Woodard, K. (1999) Poverty first hand: Poor

people speak for themselves. London, CPAG

Ben-Arieh, A. (2008) ‘The Child Indicators Movement: Past, present and future’. In

Child Indicators Research vol.1 no.1 pp3-16.

Benzaval, M. (1997) ‘Health’ in Walker, A., and Walker, C. (1997) Britain Divided:

The growth of social exclusion in the 1980’s and 1990’s. London: CPAG

Beyon, H. and Glavanis, P. (1999) Patterns of Social Inequality. Harlow: Pearson

Blair, T. (1999) Speech in Toynbee Hall, reproduced in Walker, R. (ed) Ending Child

Poverty, popular welfare for the 21st century? The Policy Press, 1999

Botting, B. (1997) ‘Mortality in childhood’ in Drever, F. and Whitehead, M. (eds.)

Health Inequalities: Decennial Supplement, Series DS No.15. London: The

Stationary Office
 201084794

Bradshaw, J. (ed.) (2001) Poverty: The outcomes for children. London: Family Policy

Studies Centre

Bradshaw, J. and Sainsbury, R. (2002) Researching poverty. Aldershot: Ashgate

Brooks-Gunn, J. and Duncan, G. (1997) ‘The Effects of Poverty on Children’, The

Future of Children, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 55–71

Bynner, J., Elias, P., McKnight, A., Pan, H. and Pierre, G. (2002) Young People’s

Changing Routes to Independence. York: JRF

Calder, G. (2016) How Inequality Runs in Families. Bristol: Policy Press

Clark, T. (2014) Hard times: the divisive toll of the economic slump. New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press

Cockburn, J., Dauphin, A. and Razzaque, A. (2006) ‘Child Poverty and Intrahouse-

hold allocation: Analysis of a Bangladeshi Household Survey with Individual

Conroy K., Sandel M., Zuckerman B. (2010) Poverty grown up: how childhood

socioeconomic status impacts adult health. Journal of Development and Behavioural

Paediatrics 31: 154–160.

CrossRef,Web of Science® Times Cited: 46

Consumption Data’, 29th General Conference of the International Association for

Research in Income and Wealth, Joensuu, Finland.

Dermot, E. (2017) ‘Poverty and social exclusion in the UK’ in Dermott, E., and Main,

G. (eds.) (2017) Poverty and Social Exclusion in the UK: Volume 1- The nature and

extent of the problem. Bristol: Policy Press

Dermott, E., and Main, G. (eds.) (2017) Poverty and Social Exclusion in the UK:
 201084794

Volume 1- The nature and extent of the problem. Bristol: Policy Press

Easterlin, R. A. (1974) ‘Does Economic Growth improve the human lot?’ In David, P.

A., & Reder, M., W. (eds.) Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in

honour of Moses Abramovitz. New York: Academic

Exley, S. (2016) ‘Education and learning’, in Dean, H. and Platt, L. (eds) Social

advantage and disadvantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Fimister, G. (ed) (2001) Child Poverty in the UK: An end in sight? London: CPAG

Freemantle N., Wood J., Griffin C., Calvert M. M. J., Shankar A., Chamberline J.,

McArthur C. (2009) What factors predict differences in infant and perinatal mortality

in primary care trusts in England? A prognostic model. British Medical Journal 339:

2892.

Gordon, D. (2002) ‘The scientific measurement of poverty: recent theoretical

advances’, in Bradshaw, J. and Sainsbury, R. (eds.) Researching poverty. Aldershot:

Ashgate

Gordon, D., and Pantazis, C. (eds) (1997) Breadline Britain in the 1990s. Aldershot:

Ashgate

Gordon, D. and Spicker, P. (eds) (1999) The international glossary on poverty.

London: Zed Books

Gordon, D. and Nandy, S. (2012) ‘Measuring child poverty and deprivation’. In

Minujin, A. and Nandy, S. (Eds) Global child poverty and well-being: measurement,

concepts, policy and action. Bristol: Policy Press.

Gordon, D., Mack, J., Lansley, S., Main, G., Nandy, S., Patsios, D., and Pomati, M.

(2013) ‘The Impoverishment of the UK’, Poverty and Social Exclusion. Website
 201084794

[www.poverty.ac.uk]

Graham, G. (2014) ‘Working class children must learn to be middle class to get on in

life, government adviser says’, Daily Telegraph, 3 March. Cited in Calder, G. (2016)

How Inequality Runs in Families. Bristol: Policy Press

Gregg, P., Harkness, S., and Machin, S. (1999) Child development and family

income. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Griggs, J., and Walker, R. (2008) The Costs of Child Poverty for Individuals and

Society: A Literature Review. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

HM Treasury (2008) Ending Child Poverty: Everybody’s Business. London: Crown.

Available at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/F/bud08_childpoverty_1310.pdf

Hoover, K. and Plant, R. (1989) Conservative Capitalism in Britain and the United

States: A Critical Appraisal. London, Routledge

Holtermann, S. (1995) All Our Futures: the impact of public expenditure and fiscal

policies on children and young people. Barnardos

Leeds City Council (2015) The Annual Standards Report, 2014-2015. [Online]

Available from: http://www.leeds.gov.uk/docs/The%20Annual%20Standards

%20Report%202014-2015.pdf

Levitas, R. (1986) Ideology and the New Right. Cambridge: Polity Press

Lister, R. (2004) Poverty (Key Concepts). Cambridge: Polity Press

MacGregor, S. (1993) The Politics of Poverty. Michigan: Longman

Main, G. (2014) ‘Child Poverty and Children’s Subjective Well-Being’. In Child

Indicators Research. Vol 7, Issue 3, pp 451-472

 201084794

Main, G. and Bradshaw, J. (2012) ‘A child material deprivation index’. In Child

Indicators Research vol.5 no.3 pp 503-521.

Main, G. and Bradshaw, J. (2014) ‘Children’s Necessities: Trends over Time in

Perceptions and Ownership’, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice. 22 (3): 193-208

Main, G. and Bradshaw, J. (2016) Child Poverty in the UK: Measures, prevalence

and intra-household sharing. [Online] Sage (http://0-

journals.sagepub.com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1177/0261018315602627) Critical

Social Policy, vol.36(1) 38-61

Mann, K. (1994) Watching the Defectives: Observers of the underclass in the USA,

Britain and Australia. Critical Social Policy, Issue 41.

McCall, B. (2016) Child poverty continues to rise in the UK. [Online] The Lancet,

volume 388, issue 10046, 20-26 August 2016, page 747. Accessed: 10/07/17

Available from: http://0-

www.sciencedirect.com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S0140673616314167?

via%3Dihub

Minujin, A. and Nandy, S. (2012) (Eds) Global child poverty and well-being:

measurement, concepts, policy and action. Bristol: Policy Press.

Moore, J. (1989) Speech to the Greater London Area Conservative Political Centre

Conference, 11th May 1989

Morris, J.N. (1994) ‘Health’ in Smith, G. D., Dorling, D., and Shaw, M. (eds.) (2001)

Poverty, inequality and health in Britain. Bristol: The Policy Press

Ogden, J. (1996) Health Psychology: A Textbook. Buckingham: Open University

Press
 201084794

Oppenheim, C. and Harker, L. (1996) Poverty: the Facts. Revised and updated third

edition, CPAG, pvi

Pahl, J. (2005) The Gendering of Spending within Households. Radical Statistics. No

75

Pantazis, C., Gordon, D., and Levitas, R. (eds) (2006) Poverty and Social Exclusion

in Britain: The Millennium Survey. Bristol: Policy Press

Pilcher, J. and Wagg, S. (1996) Thatcher’s Children? [Online] Dawson Era:

Accessed 04/07/2017 (https://www.dawsonera.com/readonline/9780203989845)

Prince’s Trust (2007) The Cost of Exclusion: Counting the cost of youth

disadvantage in the UK. London: The Prince’s Trust

Rees, G., Goswami, H., and Bradshaw, J. (2010) Developing an index of children’s

subjective wellbeing in England. London: The Children’s Society.

Rees, G., Pople, L., and Goswami, H. (2011) Links between family economic factors

and children’s subjective well-being: Initial findings from wave 2 and wave 3

quarterly surveys. London: The Children’s Society

Ridge, T. (2002) Child Poverty and Social Exclusion. Bristol: Policy Press

Sand, R. (1935) Health and Human Progress: an essay in sociological medicine.

London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

Smith, G. D., Dorling, D., and Shaw, M. (eds.) (2001) Poverty, inequality and health

in Britain. Bristol: The Policy Press

Smith, N., and Middleton, S. (2007) A review of poverty dynamics research in the

UK. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

 201084794

Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (2015b) State of the nation 2015:

social mobility and child poverty in Great Britain. London: Social Mobility and Child

Poverty Commission

Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A. and Fitoussi, J. (2009) ‘Report by the Commission on the

Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress’. Available online from

http://www.insee.fr/fr/publications-et-services/default.asp?

page=dossiers_web/stiglitz/documents-commission.htm.

Spicker, P. (2007) ‘Definitions of poverty: Twelve clusters of meaning’. In Spicker, P.,

Alvarez, S., and Gordon, D., (Eds) The international glossary of poverty. London:

Zed Books. Available online from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?

doi=10.1.1.701.60&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Smith, A. (1994) New Right Discourses on Race and Sexuality. Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press.

Taylor- Robinson, D. (2016) ‘Changes to welfare systems’ in McCall, B. (2016) Child

poverty continues to rise in the UK. [Online] The Lancet, volume 388, issue 10046,

20-26 August 2016, page 747. Accessed: 10/07/17 Available from: http://0-

www.sciencedirect.com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S0140673616314167?

via%3Dihub

Townsend, P., and Davidson, N. (ed.) (1982) Inequalities in Health, The Black

Report. London

UNICEF (2012) Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the

world’s rich countries. [Online] https://www.unicef-

irc.org/publications/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf (Accessed 06/07/2017)

 201084794

Walker, A. and Walker. C. (1997) Britain Divided: The growth of social exclusion in

the 1980’s and 1990’s. London: CPAG

Walker, A. (1997) in Walker, A. and Walker. C. (1997) Britain Divided: The growth of

social exclusion in the 1980’s and 1990’s. London: CPAG

Warwick-Booth, L. (2013) Social Inequality. London: SAGE

Wilson, H., and Herbert, G. W. (1987)

Witcher, S. (1997) in Walker, A. and Walker, C. (1997) Britain Divided: The growth of

social exclusion in the 1980’s and 1990’s. London: CPAG

Wolfe, I. (2016) ‘Children’s Healthcare’ in McCall, B. (2016) Child poverty continues

to rise in the UK. [Online] The Lancet, volume 388, issue 10046, 20-26 August 2016,

page 747. Accessed: 10/07/17 Available from: http://0-

www.sciencedirect.com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S0140673616314167?

via%3Dihub

Quilgars, D. (2001) ‘Educational Attainment’ in Bradshaw, J. (ed.) (2001) Poverty:

The outcomes for children. London: Family Policy Studies Centre