A THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING OF POVERTY

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF DELHI IN PARTIAL

FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

IN

PSYCHOLOGY

Submitted by:

SARBOTTAM RAJ

Roll no. 21085725028

Under the supervision of

DR. SUNEET VARMA

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

DELHI- 110007

2023
 Certificate

This is to certify that the dissertation entitled “A Theoretical understanding of Poverty” is a

faithful record of the bonafide work carried out by Sarbottam Raj submitted in partial fulfilment

of the requirements of Master of Arts in Psychology program of the University of Delhi, under

the guidance of Dr. Suneet Varma.

The work in the report is original and has not been submitted in part or full, for award or any

other degree or diploma of any other university.

Dr. Suneet Varma Sarbottam Raj

Supervisor & Head of Department M.A. Psychology (II year)

Department of Psychology Department of Psychology

University of Delhi- 110007 University of Delhi- 110007

 Acknowledgment

Conducting and writing a dissertation is a tiring and taxing process. For me, it wouldn’t have

been possible without the guidance and a great deal of support and assistance I received.

First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Suneet Varma,

who guided and provided assistance and support throughout.

Furthermore, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my parents, sister and my friends

for their continuous support and love throughout the journey.

Thank you everyone for helping and supporting through this journey.
 Table of Content
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 1: Socio-Economic Construct of Poverty ..................................................................... 2

Economic Perspective of Poverty .......................................................................................... 2

Sociological perspective on Poverty ...................................................................................... 6

Chapter 2: Psychological Perspectives on Poverty .................................................................. 11

Mental Health....................................................................................................................... 11

Biological factor................................................................................................................... 12

Cognition.............................................................................................................................. 13

Social Process ...................................................................................................................... 13

Social Construction .............................................................................................................. 16

Gendered Perspective........................................................................................................... 17

Buddhist View of Poverty .................................................................................................... 18

Aurobindo’s View on Poverty .............................................................................................. 25

Chapter 3: Policy perspectives on Poverty .............................................................................. 27

Chapter 4: Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 32

References ................................................................................................................................ 33
 1

Abstract

Poverty cries out for attention, so powerfully and so insistently, that to ignore it would seem

unthinkable. And indeed, poverty alleviation figures prominently on virtually every

governmental, non-governmental, and intergovernmental agenda. But in spite of this, poverty

persists, and, depending on which measures are used, can be documented as both spreading

and deepening. The study aimed at understanding theoretical perspective of Poverty from an

interdisciplinary lens. It also tried to understand the evolution of how Poverty was seen at

difference times with the help of different theoretical paradigm. The study started with the

Economic theory of Poverty which takes into account the role of individual, economy and

market and its role in poverty and the steps that can be taken in poverty alleviation. Further,

the study talked about the social causes and the role of society and societal structure, i.e.,

Sociological understanding of poverty. Moreover, the study tried to review the psychological

construct in Poverty and its influence on the individual from different perspective: Western,

Eastern, Gendered, Social Construction. Lastly the study glanced through the policy

implications and the debate surrounding the policy approach while tackling Poverty.
 2

Chapter 1: Socio-Economic Construct of Poverty

One of the primary perspectives that helps us to understand Poverty is that of

Economic View. Whenever we think about Poverty, the economic aspect comes into our

mind. We will start with understanding the Economic theory of Poverty and then move onto

the understanding for the sociological lens, psychological lens, from the perspective of

Policy. Though one perspective and one theory are neither a sufficient condition to

understand a phenomenon nor it gives a complete understanding of the same.

Economic Perspective of Poverty

If we try to look at the economic theory of Poverty, there are Classical, neoclassical,

Keynesian/neoliberal, Marxian/radical and the interrelation between social exclusion and

Capital.

Classical theory puts individual on the focus of understanding poverty, it views

individual as a responsible factor for the same and they are to be blamed to be poor and they

are destined to be. This may be because of the lack of role model, underlying choices that

they have made and their ability. This theory views individual as taking an active part in

influencing their destiny, thus they are responsible for being poor. In this the role of the

government is to increase the productivity of the people who have been marginalized and

deprived of the basic needs. The advocate of this view opposes the welfare model and oppose

subsidies as a method of poverty alleviation rather they view the role of development and

time bound aide which will help them to move forward and incentivize them to work. The

subsidies and welfare mode are likely to lead to welfare dependencies and are likely to fall in

the welfare trap. It views that poor people have a distinct trait that is passed onto the other

generation making it a classic case of ‘poverty begets poverty’. (Davis & Sanchez-Martinez,

2014).
 3

Furthermore, though the classical theory did not focus on the market factors, skills,

adverse unexpected focus, but the neoclassical theory emphases the role of unequal

capabilities, aptitudes, and capital. Neoclassical theories are broader ranging and identify

explanations for poverty beyond individuals ‘control. These comprise lack of social as well as

private resources; market catastrophes that exclude the poor from markets and cause certain

adversative choices to be logical; difficulties to education; immigrant status; poor health and

advanced age; and hurdles to employment for single parent families (Davis & Sanchez-

Martinez, 2014).

Furthermore, the author highlights that Looking at the classical and neoclassical

approaches together, their main advantages reside in the use of (quantifiable) monetary units

to measure poverty and the readiness with which policy prescriptions can be put into practice.

They also highlight the influence of incentives on individual behavior as well as the

relationship between productivity and income. Criticism of these approaches highlights their

overemphasis on the individual (without, for instance, taking into account links with the

community) and the focus on purely material means to eradicate poverty.

Even though the neoliberal school led by the new-Keynesians also adopts a money-

centered, individual stance towards poverty, the importance assigned to the functions of the

government allows for a greater focus on public goods and inequality. For instance, a more

equal income distribution can facilitate the participation of disadvantaged groups of society in

the type of activities that are deemed essential under broader notions of poverty. On the other

hand, new-Keynesians are in line with neoclassical economists in their belief that overall

growth in income is ultimately the most effective element in poverty removal. Publicly

provided capital (including education) has an important role to play, with physical and human

capital believed to be the foundation for economic prosperity. Unlike the classical approach,

unemployment, viewed as a major cause of poverty, is largely seen as involuntary and in need
 4

of government intervention to combat it. Excessive inflation, high sovereign debt and asset

bubbles are other macroeconomic factors, besides weak aggregate demand, believed to cause

poverty.

By suggesting radical changes in the socio-economic system, Marxian economists and

other radical theorists highlight the possibility that economic growth alone may be

insufficient to lift poor people out of (relative) poverty, because those who belong to certain

classes may not reap any of the benefits of overall income growth. Similarly, by emphasizing

the concept of class, it provides a shift in perspective, focusing on group (rather than

individual) characteristics, with individuals’ status considered dependent on the socio-

economic environment in which they live. Nevertheless, adequacy of income remains a key

factor. Within a capitalist system, alleviation of poverty may require minimum wage laws,

action to eliminate dual labor markets, and anti-discrimination laws (seen as one of the most

effective anti-poverty strategies). The exploitation of the poor by the rich groups in society

may also occur via the quality of the environment; for example, the poor tend to suffer most

from air pollution (normally generated by the wealthier groups) given their residential

location. A further contribution of Marxian/radical economists is the sense that poverty is a

moral as well as a technical issue. This is often lacking in more mainstream economic

frameworks, except when they (e.g., Sen) integrate political theories of justice in their

analytical framework.

Another view highlights the interrelation between social exclusion, social capital and

the occurrence of poverty and recognizes the importance of the structural characteristics of

society and the situation of certain groups. Social exclusion and social capital theories are,

among all the reviewed approaches, arguably the ones that focus most on understanding the

intrinsic processes that allow deprivation to arise and persist. Nevertheless, the wide
 5

definition of poverty considered under these theories comes at the cost of being less precisely

defined and more challenging to quantify and address by policy.

Progress is underway in that economics has shifted from focusing on materialistic

assessments of poverty to considering other factors. Sub-disciplines such as behavioural

economics, for example, attempt to disentangle the effects of bounded rationality on poor

people’s choices. Institutional definitions of poverty highlight areas that have been neglected

in economic approaches:

• inadequate physical security, lack of political voice (World Bank);

• exclusion from social and cultural activities (European Commission);

• lack of participation in decision making and in civil, social and cultural life

(United Nations).

These point to a broader range of motivations for human behaviour than just maximising

one’s own consumption less utility of labour. People also seek autonomy, freedom, status,

political influence, fairness, justice, dignity and community, for example, which are often

excluded from the economic calculus. These elements can be part of the circumstances that

qualify people as poor in broader delineations of poverty. In this context, political,

sociological and qualitative analyses can strongly complement insights from quantitative

economic analyses. Discussions at the theoretical level can also inform applied research and

policy.

Economics by its nature leaves out important aspects of the nature and causes of

poverty. Starting with the classical and neoclassical approaches the most salient criticisms of

the treatment of poverty by these schools, however, are their potential overemphasis on the

individualistic aspect of destitution only and the focus on purely material means/instruments

to eradicate it. Even though the neo-liberal school, led by the new-Keynesians, departs from

the same premises as the classical and neoclassical and also adopts a money-centered,
 6

individual stance towards poverty, the importance assigned to the functions of the

government allows for a greater focus on public goods and inequality issues, which may

affect dimensions of poverty not explicitly acknowledged by orthodox economists. By

suggesting radical changes in the socio-economic system, Marxian theorists highlight the

possibility that economic growth alone may be insufficient to lift people out of poverty, for

those who belong to certain classes may not reap any of the benefits of overall income

growth. Marxian economists take the accountability for the status of poverty away from the

individuals to the exogenous socio-economic environment in which they live. Those who

stress the interrelation between social exclusion, social capital and the occurrence of poverty

recognize the importance of the structural characteristics of society and the situation of

certain groups, and so are also less individualistic than the mainstream in scope. In contrast

with Marxian economists, however, they emphasize characteristics of groups or classes (such

as gender or race) other than their purely economic means, in explaining poverty.

The above review help to identify the theoretical foundations of particular policy

viewpoints: the key role of capital formation in the alleviation of poverty, which will require

substantial government expenditure and which must be appropriately designed for each

locality; the role of discrimination in poverty, via society’s class stratification and the need

for legal action and deep market regulation to offset it; the importance of community

development in alleviating poverty rather than a sole focus on the individual which other

disciplines emphasize; the importance of market failures in causing and perpetuating poverty

(such as lack of access to affordable credit) and the need to focus on the incentives that may

generate poverty (such as failure to invest in appropriate skill formation).

Sociological perspective on Poverty

Much sociological theory is directed at understanding social change. Social theorists

throughout history have rarely talked about poverty per se but nonetheless their insights into
 7

the economic ordering and structure of society offer valuable ideas for how poverty might be

understood. Sociological thinking tends to focus on the structure and organisation of society

and how this relates to social problems and individual lives. In looking to explain poverty,

sociologists try to balance up the relative importance of social structures (that is, the ways in

which society is organised) and the role of individual agency (people’s independent choices

and actions). Sociologists are interested in how resources in society are distributed.

Marx and Engels, believed that it was the repeated crises inherent in capitalism itself

that would eventually lead to its demise as the ‘history of all hitherto existing societies is the

history of class struggles’ (2010). For Marx, society is structured via a set of objectively

defined interests which serve to create relations of exploitation, particularly in respect of

production poverty was an inherent feature of capitalist society. Marx and Engels believed

that the enduring drive for ever-greater profits within the capitalist system required the

inevitable and constant exploitation of the worker (wage laborer). writing in Victorian

Britain, pointed to the stark divide between the impoverished working classes who had

nothing to sell but their labour, and the capitalist classes who, by virtue of their ownership of

the means of production, were able to exploit this labour to their profit.

Auguste Comte, often considered to be the founding sociological theorist, was

interested in the ways in which radical upheaval and change took place and affected society

(e.g. the industrial revolution) and issues around social change and societal level conditions

remain at the heart of much sociological thinking

Emile Durkheim took a very different perspective from Marx. Durkheim is often

credited with developing what later became known as Functionalism. For Functionalists the

class system helps to cement cohesion and does not lead to conflict. Two influential social

theorists of the 1940s, Davis and Moore, concluded that class stratification was inevitable

because it offered a ‘use value’ or a function to society. Their view that society is a
 8

functioning mechanism led to the theoretical proposition that stratification was inevitable.

Moreover, they argued that social stratification served a function because society needed to

find ways to ensure that its members ended up in social positions that best suited them (and

their abilities and skills). Inequality is an unconsciously evolved device by which societies

ensure that the most important positions are conscientiously filled by the most qualified

persons. Hence every society, no matter how simple or complex, must differentiate persons in

terms of both prestige and esteem, and must therefore possess a certain amount of

institutionalized inequality (Davis and Moore, 1945).

Sociologist Max Weber, writing around the turn of the twentieth century, pointed to

the importance of not just economic factors in producing and sustaining inequality, but also

the influence of power, status and prestige in perpetuating dominant relations. ax Weber took

a different approach again from both Durkheim and Marx. He argued that social class was

about more than simple economics. He introduced the idea that social class was also

fragmented along other lines of inequality: those of power and status. Thus, for Weber, class

was much more complicated than it was for Marx. As Bradley points out: Weber also

introduced the notion of another form of fragmentation, when he argued that class groupings

were cross cut by two other types of social grouping deriving from the unequal distribution of

power in society: status groups and political parties (Bradley, 1996). Weber was interested in

social change, and with ownership and property. He also had keen interests in bureaucracy.

Exclusion arises from the interplay of class, status and political power and serves the interests

of the included. Social ‘closure’ is achieved when institutions and cultural distinctions not

only create boundaries that keep others out against their will, but are also used to perpetuate

inequality. Weber took a different approach again from both Durkheim and Marx. He argued

that social class was about more than simple economics. He introduced the idea that social

class was also fragmented along other lines of inequality: those of power and status. Thus, for
 9

Weber, class was much more complicated than it was for Marx. As Bradley points out: Weber

also introduced the notion of another form of fragmentation, when he argued that class

groupings were cross cut by two other types of social grouping deriving from the unequal

distribution of power in society: status groups and political parties. (Bradley, 1996)

Weber was interested in social change, and with ownership and property. He also had

keen interests in bureaucracy. Exclusion arises from the interplay of class, status and political

power and serves the interests of the included. Social ‘closure’ is achieved when institutions

and cultural distinctions not only create boundaries that keep others out against their will, but

are also used to perpetuate inequality. (Silver, 1994)

So, for Weber, class and stratification was multi-dimensional. Rather than reducing

inequality between groups in society to purely economic foundations he was also interested

in the distribution of power. Weber believed that the use of power and status could allow

some groups of individuals to get what they want, even in the face of opposition from others.

Like Marx, however, he was clear that economic class positions often provided the main

mechanism by which other social positions and power were ultimately determined. For

Weber, individuals’ life chances were related to all these issues. Thus, from Weber’s

perspective, those in poverty tend to lack property and the economic advantages this confers.

So, for Weber, class and stratification was multi-dimensional. Rather than reducing inequality

between groups in society to purely economic foundations he was also interested in the

distribution of power. Weber believed that the use of power and status could allow some

groups of individuals to get what they want, even in the face of opposition from others. Like

Marx, however, he was clear that economic class positions often provided the main

mechanism by which other social positions and power were ultimately determined. For

Weber, individuals’ life chances were related to all these issues. Thus, from Weber’s

perspective, those in poverty tend to lack property and the economic advantages this confers.
 10

Some sociologists, especially those writing in the 1970s and 1980s, have tended to

explain poverty by referring to people’s moral failings, fecklessness or dependency cultures,

while others have argued that it can be better understood as a result of the ways in which

resources and opportunities are unequally distributed across society; some have pointed to the

declining influence of social class, yet research shows that social class and processes of class

reproduction remain important, particularly in respect of the continuity of poverty over time

and across generations. Relatedly, sociologists have pointed to the importance of stigma and

shame in understanding the experience of poverty. The ways that those experiencing poverty

can be negatively stereotyped by institutions such as public or welfare delivery services has

also been shown to be important in stigmatizing and disadvantaging those experiencing

poverty; and the opportunities that are open to people are still influenced, to a large extent, by

their social class positions.

Sociology provides a powerful tool for thinking about poverty. ‘Thinking

sociologically’ can help us to better comprehend social issues and problems. It allows us to

understand personal troubles as part of the economic and political institutions of society, and

permits us to cast a critical eye over issues that may otherwise be interpreted simplistically or

misinterpreted. In looking at poverty, myths and misconceptions dominate both popular and

political discussions. Sociological thinking can be helpful in trying to disentangle poverty

from a range of related concepts and largely pejorative discussions about a variety of social

problems. Sociological theory can alert people to how a growing emphasis on individual

responsibility and behavior might make class inequality and the importance of opportunity

structures less obvious. Despite this, it remains the case that where people start out in life

continues to have a significant influence on where they are likely to end up. Starting out life

in poverty means a greater risk of poverty later on in life.

 11

Chapter 2: Psychological Perspectives on Poverty

Psychological research has shown that the experience of poverty significantly

influences the way we think, feel and act. Understanding the psychological (and

neurophysiological) effects of poverty is a crucial step in ensuring the effectiveness of

poverty-reduction initiatives.

Mental Health

Poverty is a significant risk factor in a wide range of psychological illnesses. The

prevalence of schizophrenia is significantly higher among low-SES individuals. The complex

array of causal factors and symptoms for schizophrenia (and most psychological disorders)

means that this association may result from a number of possible causal factors. One theory

with relatively consistent evidential support is the ‘social drift’ hypothesis, which notes that

the decrease in SES associated with schizophrenia often occurs shortly after the onset of

symptoms. This suggests that the disease may constitute a risk factor for falling into poverty

rather than the other way around. Anxiety and depression have also been associated with a

social drift effect. However, the causal role of stressful life events associated with poverty

appears to play a much more central role in triggering depressive symptoms. One common

remedy for mood and anxiety disorders is social support. The association between substance

and alcohol abuse and socio-economic status, though prevalent in poverty stereotypes, is

somewhat inconsistent. Problem drug and alcohol use is higher among low-SES individuals.

Poverty is strongly associated with increased incidence of problematic drug and alcohol use

and mortality Many of the psychological effects of poverty discussed thus far might very well

contribute to the development of addiction (e.g. disruption of self-efficacy and self-esteem,

prevalence of certain psychiatric disorders). Some lay theories emphasise the stress reduction

and escapist elements of alcohol and other drugs, which certainly seems consistent with

models of poverty and psychiatric dysfunction that identify stress and its consequential
 12

maladaptive coping strategies as the key explanatory factors in several cases increased levels

of poverty were associated with increased general and problematic alcohol use, as was long-

term unemployment. Short-term unemployment, however, was associated with lower alcohol

consumption. This would seem consistent with the maladaptive stress-management

hypothesis, since the category of short-term unemployment suggests that the stressful

situation is successfully resolved, relatively quickly. It is only once the stressor becomes

chronic, in the case of long-term unemployment or high levels of poverty, that maladaptive

coping strategies such as alcohol consumption emerge.

Biological factor

Genetic techniques such as studies comparing twins have shown that the heritability

of SES (the extent to which traits inherited from parents determines someone’s SES) is

relatively high. Although causal explanations for this are difficult to support owing to the

limits of twin-study methodology, one interesting finding emerged from an early genetic

study which found that IQ heritability varies with SES. Specifically, IQ is less heritable for

low-SES than for high-SES individuals. The explanation proposed was that the low-SES

environment limits cognitive development, preventing children raised in poverty from

achieving their full ‘genetic potential’. This interpretation closely matches research from

developmental psychology showing widespread disruption of cognitive development for

children with low socio-economic backgrounds.

More recent developments in genetic techniques have allowed measurement of

changes in the expression of specific genes. A number of such ‘epigenetic’ changes (changes

in gene activity that do not result from alterations to the genotype itself) suggest that those

raised in poverty may develop a genetic adaptation to the stressful day-to-day experience of

poverty. This adaptation provides a short‑term coping strategy at the expense of long-term

health, with several of these epigenetic effects linked to increased susceptibility to cardiac
 13

disease and certain cancers. These results highlight the crucial importance of early

interventions to offset the stressful environment of poverty, as the long-term consequences of

early deprivation are severe, irrevocable and potentially fatal.

Cognition

Poverty during childhood development also has immediate effects on cognitive ability

and neurological activity. Children from low-SES backgrounds show decreased levels of

cognitive function and brain activity across numerous domains. The severest effects are found

in language function and regulation of cognitive resources like attention and planning. These

deficits may represent the first step on the ‘poverty ladder’, setting back educational

attainment with potential knock-on consequences for employment prospects and

psychological factors such as self-esteem and self-efficacy.

Social Process

Research on group stereotypes suggests that perceptions of those in poverty are

extremely negative; they are regarded as being low in warmth and competence. These

stereotypes are associated with negative emotional responses, specifically feelings of

contempt towards this group, as well as active and passive harm behaviours towards this

target group. Another key component of the poverty stereotype relates to personal

responsibility, with poverty seen as resulting from personal failings rather than misfortune or

societal factors. These negative stereotypes of people in poverty can potentially severely

disrupt attempts to reduce poverty. A potential tool for reducing the negative impact of such

stereotyping is intergroup contact. Social contact with negatively regarded groups can

improve attitudes, promote positive emotions such as empathy, and disrupt negative

stereotypes. It may be advantageous to include those in poverty as a key target group in

attempts to promote social integration. The prevalence of negative stereotypes of those in

poverty may also adversely affect those suffering from economic hardship. Studies show
 14

‘self-stereotyping’ effects, where stereotypic perceptions of a particular group can influence

group members’ self-evaluation and actual psychological performance. In the context of

poverty, these self-stereotyping effects may be particularly problematic for perceptions of

personal responsibility and self-efficacy (belief in one’s competence and ability to succeed).

Research has shown significantly reduced levels of self-efficacy in people of low socio-

economic status (SES), and has been associated with poor physical and psychological health

as well as reduced educational and professional prospects. Non-financial support for those in

poverty could involve boosting appraisals of self-efficacy.

Psychological studies that analyze the perception of poverty should be analyzed not

only to environmental factors but also to include genetic, physical, familial, social, political

factors. Social psychological studies on poverty can be developed to be part of a global effort

to reduce poverty without pathologizing poverty. In another word, psychological studies that

can show the ability to progress in line with a global awareness in combating poverty should

be increased. Yet, studies that focus solely on poor people can buffer the efforts to combat

poverty and may prevent the multi-dimensional analysis of poverty. Therefore, social-

psychological findings that can help develop strategies seem important rather than initiatives

that can limit our understanding of both poverty and the poor

Within psychology as a whole, the study of poverty is a relatively small field, and

relevant research is distributed across a wide range of disciplines. Consequently, for any

given theory or hypothesis regarding the psychological processes of poverty, there are usually

only a small number of studies upon which to base any kind of policy decision. it has become

apparent that there are numerous areas in which the results of psychological research could be

utilized in policy-making. From the work on social processes, intergroup contact provides a

highly effective means of reducing prejudice and negative stereotypes towards those in

poverty, which may be impeding the progress of poverty-reduction schemes. The social
 15

psychological approach also demonstrates the importance of promoting self-efficacy amongst

those in poverty, which ties in closely to both self-stereotyping theories, and several findings

from the field of psychological disorders. The psychological disorders literature also

emphasizes the reduction of stress, and the maintenance of social support networks in

limiting the deleterious effects of poverty on mental health.

Social identity perception seems to be an argument that can make this contribution.

Social identity and its arguments have a rich literature on the issue of poverty. It is possible to

think about poverty with many arguments of Social Identity Theory (such as social

comparison, social mobility, intergroup conflict, in-group−/out-group perception). In this

sense, poverty is a social category; It would not be wrong to point out poor individuals as a

disadvantaged social identity. Departing from the process of different groups perceiving each

other; class clues can be caught on the distinction between rich and poor. In other words; with

the right questions to be asked for social comparison processes, class-level evaluation can be

made.

Rather than taking poverty as a static and stable phenomenon; the dynamic, political,

class-based, and interactive account of poverty would provide a new basis for discussion on

the poverty combating strategies. To add with the social identity perspective; the danger of

stigmatization of the poor as an outgroup is also another responsibility for social

psychologists. Intergroup contact can be established to reduce stereotypes and prejudices in

the context of in-group outgroup perceptions, and thus self-efficacy perception of poor can

develop. The purpose of providing communication/contact between groups requires focusing

on social and psychological processes. As mentioned before, individual attributions-based

studies on poverty may reinforce prejudices and stereotypes towards poor people. Starting

from the idea that poverty is built or sustained through a social structure and social relations,
 16

a researcher should be aware of the scientific methodology used in his/her poverty research

that may increase the negative effects of poverty.

Social Construction

Harper argued that a social constructionist approach would be more inclusive,

focusing on the question of “how” in poverty studies. The social constructionist approach

involves discourse analysis, discursive psychology, critical discourse analysis, and critical

psychology. And it is a multidisciplinary approach. Social constructionism emphasizes the

common construction of knowledge in the world of understanding/interpretation that

changes, transforms, and interprets according to the context and uses qualitative research

methods methodologically. In other words, people, events, and situations are all products of

social processes. In this sense, it would be appropriate to focus on how it is formed in the

mind and how it continues, rather than the subjective effect created by the perception of

poverty. The question of how poverty is built in the minds of the rich and the poor take away

from discussing poverty solely on an individual basis; referring to the representation of group

members to the class level. In other words, the problem of poverty is not only the subjective

perceptions of individuals and their state of being affected by the situation; it also includes

the power relations of being rich and poor. The emergence of power relations between

groups; will remove the individual aspects of poverty associated with being strong and weak.

In this way, the accusing, victimization, or discourses that perpetuate or legitimize the state of

poverty attributed to the poor may decrease. Also, the legitimacy of the invisibility of the

poor and therefore poverty in society, which are constantly positioned as victims, can be

questioned. The questioning is revealed through the methodological process. Social

constructionist methodology analyzes power-discourse and positioning in speech, focusing on

the action of language. Therefore, first of all, this perspective is needed to prevent the

reproduction of the accusing language of the disadvantaged groups and to overturn the belief
 17

that “poverty is an ongoing unchangeable phenomenon”. The social constructionist approach

reveals the language that sees poverty as “unchangeable” or “pathologizing”; can re-evaluate

this language in terms of power and ideology relations. Discourse reproduces within ideology

and establishes power relations through certain arguments (such as media, education,

cultural-normative codes). For example, the social, cultural, ideological context in which

poor people evaluate themselves and live, their interpretations of the state of poverty, how

they position rich people, the basis or legitimate grounds of their strategies to cope with

poverty, and how this process is in the context of ideological or power relations. In other

words, knowing the cultural background of the geography in which we were born, the

codes/norms of poverty, the daily language used for poor people or poverty, and providing

suggestions in this context will make the research more powerful. And also, the question of

how it is handled in society or through the media is important. Regarding the importance of

this problem; We can give an example that how the poor/ poverty is handled in the media

affect both society’s attitude towards poverty and policy- making. Therefore, steps to be taken

on a discursive basis to answer this question may also contribute to poverty reduction

initiatives.

Gendered Perspective

Why should psychology include gender-related arguments as a variable in its

analysis? The answer to this question aims to contribute to the production of egalitarian

policies for the sexes (especially women) who experience poverty at different levels.

Continuing learning since childhood can position women and men in different places in

society; these positions frequently direct women to domestic work and men to jobs aimed at

generating economic income. While examining the effects of poverty on the individual; The

causes of poverty and gender-based inequalities become visible; gender-centered meaning

worlds of poverty emerge. The fact that female deprivation is becoming more pronounced
 18

compared to men seems to be related to the impact of socio-political processes and gender

perspective. The relation in question regarding poverty and gender; Fertility, differences in

wages, power relations within the household, and ongoing poverty between generations.

Explaining that women experience more poverty than men, female poverty, or feminization

of deprivation is an argument that should be included in social psychological analysis.

Studies focusing particularly on the gender impact on poverty; can also involve suggestions

that lead to gender equality. These proposals are likely to contribute to political steps,

especially to reduce women’s poverty

The right to feel safe and protected by the law is paramount in all modern democratic

societies. Everyone has a right to feel safe in their community and people interacting with the

justice system have the right to be treated fairly. However, socio-economic deprivation is

linked to greater chances of interacting with the justice system, being a victim of a crime, or

not feeling safe in a community.

Buddhist View of Poverty

It is a basic teaching of Buddhism that, for the purpose of ending or resolving

suffering, all things should be seen as having no-self or essential nature. Put somewhat

differently, no thing should be seen as literally existing or “standing apart” from all other

things in self-sustained independence. On the contrary, all things should be seen as arising

interdependently (pratitya-samutpada) and as ultimately empty (sunya) of any permanently

abiding essence. Poverty, then, does not truly exist. It is not an independent existent and is

neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. Rather, poverty obtains because of a particular

confluence of conditions, a particular pattern of relationships that emerges and is sustained

over time. Given their most robust readings, the teachings of interdependence and emptiness

direct us toward seeing that this pattern of relationships is not ultimately divorced from the

patterns of relationship through which each of us has come to be both who and as we are.
 19

There is ultimately no dividing line, no ontological break, between the pattern of

relationships that are constitutive of poverty and those that are constitutive of each and every

one of us. In short, we cannot divorce ourselves completely from the conditions that give rise

to poverty. In some degree, we are intimate with the poor and their suffering. If we believe

otherwise, that can only be a function of our own ignorance of the horizonless

interdependence that obtains among all things. This ignorance is itself a primary condition for

suffering. In the Ina Sutta, the Buddha stated that, “poverty is suffering.” Indeed, poverty is

suffering of a particularly egregious sort. The first part of the sutta details the consequences

that ensue from material poverty: debt, interest payments, being hounded when falling

arrears, and bondage. Falling into poverty means losing the ability to meet one’s own needs.

If this condition persists, one is subject to a pattern of dependence on others that is associated

with shouldering burdens in excess of meeting one’s own needs and, finally, with punishing

isolation from others. Unalleviated, poverty results in being deprived of even the most basic

freedoms. In the second part of the sutta, the Buddha poses an analogy that makes it clear that

poverty is not solely or even most crucially about material deprivation. “In the same way,

monks, whoever has no conviction with regard to skillful mental qualities, no sense of

conscience with regard to skillful mental qualities, no sense of concern…persistence…[or]

discernment with regard to skillful mental qualities is…said to be poor, destitute, and without

means.” There are at least two important implications of this passage. First, it draws an

analogy between the debts, interest payments, hounding, and bondage that result from

material poverty and the full range of compounding and ultimately freedom-curtailing

experiential outcomes associated with unskillful qualities of attention. Most simply put,

ignorance begets suffering. But in addition, the passage also suggests that in the broadest, and

finally, most important terms, all poverty can be traced to unskillful (akusala) patterns of

awareness. In short, poverty is ultimately rooted in deficient and/or misdirected patterns of

 20

attention, both resulting from and resulting in ignorance and unskilled qualities of

relationship. The Ina Sutta thus depicts material deprivation as less a cause of conflicted

patterns of interdependence than as a particular result of them. The terms for poverty and the

poor most commonly used in the Pali canon—daliddata and dalidda—are very telling in this

regard. Conceptually, these terms center on vagrancy and begging. They point to such severe

breakdowns of normal patterns of social and economic interdependence that one no longer

has either a place to call one’s own or any means of meeting the most basic requirements for

food, shelter, and clothing. At the same time, the early canon endorses in the most positive

terms possible the benefits of the homeless life of the monk or nun in which one’s basic

subsistence needs are met through ritualized seeking of alms. It is not the mere fact of

material lack that determines if a person is poor or living in poverty, but rather how he or she

experiences this lack—as being left wanting or with contentment. The facts of a situation are

less crucial than its meaning. This reading of poverty is given broad support in the positive

virtues that are associated with the “homelessness” of monastic life. The early canon is

replete with passages extolling the simple life of absolutely minimal material possessions and

few wants—a life that is explicitly ordained for members of the Sangha and which is

appicchata or “content with little.” In keeping with this implicit valorization of ‘poverty’,

texts like the Rattaphala Sutta renounce material wealth and the complicated patterns of

desire associated with it, while holding in highest esteem “noble wealth” (ariya dhana) that is

centered on building up faith (saddha), moral clarity (sila), and wisdom (panna) and is

conducive to sustained Buddhist practice and the realization of freedom from suffering. The

rhetorical strategy of critically inverting the meaning and valorization of poverty and wealth

to foster appropriate practice reflects the Buddha’s commitment to making the fullest possible

use of situational resources in his teaching. For instance, when teaching members of the

brahmin caste, the Buddha similarly reframed the meanings of “brahmin” and “sacrifice” in
 21

order to turn this audience away from troubling patterns of relationship and identity. Using as

points of departure familiar elements of their own lives— elements that presently commit

them to cycling in samsara— the Buddha would skillfully guide his brahmin audience toward

moving in the direction of nirvana. Beginning with what is intimately apparent—the situation

of a particular audience, as it has come to be (yathabhutam)—the Buddha discloses how this

place, this situation, can be understood as already part of the noble Path itself. In these cases,

as in similar teachings on matters ranging from the personal to the political, the Buddha’s aim

is to enjoin others to vigilantly reorient existing relational patterns, effectively revising their

dramatic disposition or meaning to incorporate them into Buddhist practice. Such teachings

are, in other words, object lessons in how to work with karma—that is, with outcomes and

opportunities conditioned by abiding patterns of value intention-action—to achieve

enlightening ends. It would be inappropriate, then, to make too much out of the different

valence given to poverty and wealth in different canonical contexts or to insist upon

reconciling them entirely. The teachings recorded in (especially) the early canon do not

provide strict definitions, but rather injunctions and directions for practice. Their primary

function is to encourage and direct the systematic conversion of the meaning of our situation

from samsara to nirvana, from want to contentment, from bondage to liberation. This said,

however, the canon does offer sufficient resources to construct an understanding of poverty

and its alleviation that is clear, sustainable, and karmically astute. Two texts from the early

canon are of particular help in this regard: the Sakkapanha Sutta and the Cakkavatti-Sihanda

Sutta. The Sakkapanha Sutta gets to the heart of the development dilemma—the fact that

good intentions often (and quite ironically) seem to result in ill effects. The sutta centers on a

discussion between Sakka, the ruler of the gods, and the Buddha. As a ruler of the gods,

Sakka is in a particularly good position to observe that, even when people wish to live in

peace, without hate, hostility, or malignity, they are seldom able to do so for long. In spite of
 22

their good will and intentions, conflicts arise, hate and hostility come into play, and trouble

and suffering continue unabated and are even exacerbated. In response to Sakka’s question

about why this is so, the Buddha lays out a sequence of conditions upon which such

unfortunate turns of events pivot. The most readily apparent condition is the persistence of

jealousy and greed, which depends upon the persistence of fixed likes and dislikes, which are

rooted in craving desires, which are fed by dwelling upon or thinking continuously about

things. This tendency to dwell on things is itself a function of mentally proliferating

impediments (papanca). The key to living in sustained peace, “realizing final

nirvana…blazing a trail, exhausting samsara, passing by all suffering…” is nothing other than

“cutting through papanca.” (DN 14.3.33) Sakka naturally asks how it is that the tendency for

proliferating impediments can be undermined or ended. The answer provided by the Buddha

is both marvelously direct and subtle. He takes as cases in point immediate experiences of

pleasure (somanassa), displeasure (domanassa), and equanimity (upekkha). There are, he

says, two basic ways in which each of these can play out—two distinctive directions in which

pleasure, displeasure and equanimity can dispose our immediate situation and about which

we should be vigorously mindful. One way is toward increasing unwholesome eventualities

(akusala dhamma) and decreasing wholesome eventualities (kusala dhamma). The other is

toward decreasing eventualities that are unwholesome and increasing those that are

wholesome. It is in the latter case that pleasure, displeasure, and equanimity can be deemed

excellent and papanca fails to arise. That is, the proliferation of situational blockages does not

occur so long as things are headed in a wholesome direction, proceeding in a wholesome

manner, in such a way that unwholesome factors decrease. Crucially, the Buddha does not

indicate that the rise of wholesome (kusala) factors is itself enough. Rather, the decrease of

unwholesome (akusala) factors is also necessary. In terms of the present discussion, this

cautions that while economic growth and development might be “positive” in and of
 23

themselves, poverty may not be eliminated by these alone. Alleviating poverty must, at the

very least, be vigoroulsy co implicated with development. Moreover, mindfulness with

respect to what factors or eventualities arise from any given confluence of conditions or

relational dynamics must be continuous and unwavering. The relational and attentive quality

being referenced is simply and effectively indicated through the use of the adjectives kusala

and akusala. As used in Buddhist discourse, the connotations of kusala and akusala

significantly exceed that suggested by their common translation as “wholesome” and

“unwholesome.” Kusala refers to qualities of action and engagement that are skillful to an

exemplary degree. It does not mean being “good enough,” but rather good to a virtuosic or

expert degree—so profoundly appreciating a particular field of endeavor and the unique

complexion of a given situation that there obtain no impediments to enhancing the situation

through what appear to be effortless contributions. In the Sakkapanha Sutta, it is stated that to

the extent that pursuit of pleasure, displeasure and equanimity is conducive to turns of events

that are kusala and that decrease propensities that are akusala, they should be sought after; if

not, such pursuit should be abandoned. Elsewhere in the canon, similar claims are made with

respect, for example, to bodily comportment and reasoning. This, the Buddha informs Sakka,

is the practice by means of which papanca is ended and the way of buddhas firmly taken.

There is significant convergence between the claim made in the Sakkapanha Sutta that

situational blockages, trouble, and suffering derive from allowing things to turn in an akusala

fashion and the declaration in the Ina Sutta that poverty occurs with akusala patterns of

attention and relationship. This suggests seeing poverty itself in terms of situational

blockages or the proliferation of impediments to relating freely. Poverty is an erosion of the

attentive and situational resources needed, in any given situation, to orient it as a whole

toward the resolution of suffering. Poverty is thus rooted in the asravas or out-flows which

drain away attention-energy into polluting or wasteful activities, the elimination of which the
 24

early canon repeatedly identifies with the attainment of ultimate freedom as a realized arhant.

41 Such a reading of poverty is consonant with much of the imagery of Mahayana Buddhist

teachings on bodhisattvas and buddha-realms, as well as with Mahayana emphases on skillful

means (upaya), the perfection of offering (dana), and realizing the emptiness or mutual

relevance of all things. But it is also deeply embedded in the early canon’s explicitly critical

engagement of issues surrounding governance and right rule—a context that itself points to

the meaning of sustained consonance between practice and polity, between Dharma and the

institutions of daily life. In the Agganna Sutta (Digha Nikaya 27), for example, there is

recounted a narrative of human and worldly origins in which it is made quite clear that there

is no essential good to be found in currently prevailing social, political, or economic

institutions. All such structures resulted from originally akusala patterns of value-intention-

action—that is, from karma which resulted in ways of being present that were habitually and

profoundly prone to trouble or suffering. As such, they are open to critique to the precise

extent that they institutionalize rather than disestablish akusala dispositions—dispositions

that compound rather than finally and meaningfully resolve suffering. Nowhere in the early

canon, however, is the dynamic interplay among karma, institutions, and policies for

governance and development more clearly illustrated than in the core story of the Cakkavatti-

Sihanda Sutta.

The ultimate antidote to poverty—the key to its skillful alleviation and final

elimination—is the “noble wealth” that results from a clear and committed practice of

benefiting and resolving the suffering of all sentient beings. To some degree, this will almost

always entail “facing the world and going crosswise”—Chan master Linji’s way of

summarizing what his great-grandfather in the Dharma, Mazu, referred to as the practice of

“benefiting what cannot be benefited, and doing what cannot be done.” The conventional

reality of our situation, as it has come to be, is that poverty cannot be globally eliminated.
 25

Ultimately, however, that is precisely what we must do, moment by increasingly virtuosic

moment. The path of poverty alleviation may be endless, yet we must vow to travel it all.

Aurobindo’s View on Poverty

It is commonly supposed that India has always preached the gospel of poverty. This,

Sri Aurobindo says, is an incorrect notion. "This idea of poverty was never the Hindu ideal,

not even for the Brahmin. There never was any preaching of poverty. Of course, there was

Sannyasa, having the ideal of 'no-property'. But that is quite a different thing from remaining

poor. "What the Indian ideal is we read in the Ramayana where the civic life is described.

There was no man who was poor in Dasharatha's kingdom, none who had no garden. That is

the Indian ideal.... Not to be attached to property was the idea, but it is quite a different thing

from remaining poor." It can be seen that in ancient India teacher did not ask for salary, they

did their work as it was what they wanted to do. Did Buddhism preach poverty?" "There was

a division: the monks and the householders. The monks owned no property and for them

there was the communal property. For the householder’s poverty was not regarded as an

ideal. "Our people never preached poverty." In today’s time there has been challenges of

poverty and plenty. This can be seen by rising inequality as well. Some people have a lot of

resources and some do not have and some are not satisfied with what they have. If we look at

the other side, Poverty is not the root cause of suffering but rather, ignorance is. Deprivation

motivates us to do something to move beyond the condition and it led us to live a fulfilling

life. It can also be understood from the concept of tamsic and satvik poverty. In the former,

someone has the capability and they are nt utilizing their potential and in the latter person is

choosing to live a live with little needs in order to sustain them.

Poverty is not, and should not be considered to be, a primarily psychological issue. It

is an economic issue, with psychological consequences. psychological research will not

provide a ‘cure’ for systemic poverty. Any intervention or policy decision targeted solely at
 26

the psychological aspects of poverty will be treating the symptoms, not the cause. However,

the cyclical nature of the poverty trap means that once the cycle has begun, those

psychological symptoms work to maintain and exacerbate the economic and social hardships

associated with low SES. The pervasive and pernicious psychological consequences of

poverty discussed in this review suggest that solely economic interventions (at least, the kind

likely to be practical in the current financial and political climate) are unlikely to succeed

without support from psychologically focused initiatives. Such initiatives would strengthen

the effectiveness of economically focused interventions

 27

Chapter 3: Policy perspectives on Poverty

Poverty is a social condition that is characterized by the lack of resources necessary

for basic survival or necessary to meet a certain minimum level of living standards expected

for the place where one lives. Poverty is not just a lack of money; it is not having the

capability to realize one’s full potential as a human being.

In India, measurement of poverty focuses on consumption-based approach based on

not income based as India is an agrarian and the income of the household keeps on

fluctuating and the consumption is relatively uniform throughout the year. The measurement

in India focuses on Absolute Poverty rather than the focus of developed country on Relative

Poverty. After India gained Independence, various committee has tried to understand the

poverty through various methodology. Working group of Planning Commission, 1962

criteria was based on the balanced diet requirement provided by ICMR but excluded health

and education-based expenditure; whereas Alagh Task Force, 1979 based their measurement

based on monetary value provided to calorific requirement and gave different criteria for

Rural and Urban population. Lakdawala Expert group, 1993 based their calculation on the

data of 18 states of CPI-AL and CPI-IW. Tendulkar committee, 2005 focused on calculating

based on mixed reference period and accounted for health and education. Lastly, Rangrajan

Committee, 2012 provided based the measurement on Monthly expenditure of household of

five or rural and urban population using modified mixed reference period; 365 days, 30

days, and 7 days.

The recent trend has been understanding the poverty through multi-dimensional

Poverty Index which takes into account three parameter which has equal weightage: Health,

Education and Standard of living. Further, the category is further sub divided to include

components such as Nutrition, Child Mortality, Years of Schooling, Clothing fuel, Toilet,

water, Electronics.
 28

Though the committee focused on the consumption of the household but poverty is

not just economic phenomenon but is also social and psychological in nature. It is embedded

in socio-cultural, political, economic and psychological context.

There are two critical issues in the discourse on poverty in India. One relates to

poverty measurement. Second relates to effective poverty elimination. Poverty measures

compare people in a society, in order to assess the extent of unacceptable disadvantages that

exist. Yet any poverty measure is itself imperfect. Imperfections stem primarily from two

factors: data limitations and the diversity of human lives being assessed more so in a vast

country likes India. Further, perceptions of what defines basic human needs vary widely

according to income, level of development, sociopolitical beliefs and other factors. This is

why views on how the poverty line should be defined vary widely. This makes the choice of a

poverty line difficult. Poverty lines have to be recalibrated depending on changes in income,

consumption patterns and prices. In India, poverty measurement has repeatedly led to

contentious debates on poverty line. Despite these shortcomings, conceptually having a

poverty line22 and related poverty estimates help to concentrate the public policy discourse

around an agreed set of numbers as well as to track the progress in combating poverty. Over

time, priorities have shifted with development in India. Today, aspiring poor seek betterment

in education, health, housing, skills and consumption, and not merely minimum food and

shelter. Therefore, poverty is now not just about basic food to keep body and soul together

but about living standards -sanitation, housing, piped water, electricity, education, health, and

jobs. Poverty line assessment if it were to be done presently cannot be based on minimum

expenditure on subsistence basket as done in the past. Further, the current corona pandemic

has underscored the criticality of certain "essentials" - access to quality healthcare, education

and awareness, water and sanitation facilities, adequate nutrition, and the need for living

spaces where social distancing can be practiced. The World Bank has classified India as a
 29

lower middle-income country and the corresponding poverty line would be PPP $3.2 (2011

prices), which translates into roughly a consumption level of Rs 75 per person per day. Over

time, India will need to adjust to the new reality of the transition to a lower middle- income

country, in which poverty does not mean living at the edge of hunger but, rather, lack of

income to take advantage of the opportunities thrown up by a growing economy. Further,

deprivations in different areas are positively correlated with one another. It may be people

who lack resources, also lack education, access to sanitation and clean water and healthcare.

These intersections of deprivation also add critically important dimensions to understanding

poverty, and in directing public policy to tackle it. In India, there is also a growing

recognition for the need for a multidimensional approach to move towards the vision of a

poverty free India. Global MPI is already providing useful information on deprivations in

various areas and at disaggregated level. Current project to develop Multi-dimensional

Poverty Index (MPI) spearheaded by Niti Ayog may be expected to provide poverty indices at

national, states and lowers levels of granularity with focus on multidimensionality. While

multidimensional and income measures of poverty capture different and sometimes divergent

information, using them in a complementary manner may provide a more complete view of

poverty and better insights for policy action. It is also important to differentiate between

chronic poverty and sporadic poverty: the former, a result of generations of deprivation and

the latter, a consequence of a sudden crises or short-term shock like current Corona

pandemic. Studies of poverty have generally focused on the state of being poor, rather than

on the ‘dynamics of poverty’ – movement into and out of poverty, and the processes and

factors that determine this. Why are a large number of people in India persistently poor?

What enables those who are poor to escape from poverty? Why do a large number of people

who are not poor become poor? Studying poverty dynamics to answer these questions can

bring new understanding of poverty and well-being. Second aspect relates to focus on poverty
 30

elimination. Crossing a minimum income or consumption threshold does not imply that the

lack of education or health will not force households back into poverty. Evidence shows that

India is successfully addressing multidimensional poverty through diverse range of

interventions. Alongside the average level of poverty, some of the important socioeconomic

indicators such as literacy, education, and health have shown considerable improvement.

Global MPI reports indicate what has succeeded and where are the significant gaps for future

policy formulation. However, the progress in poverty reduction and improvement in the

socioeconomic indicators in India has been marked by substantial inequalities. Poverty is

concentrated both spatially and among social and economic groups, and those most

vulnerable to poverty include landless labourers, marginal farmers, socially backward classes

and people living in remote areas. Global MPI reports have also highlighted wide disparities

across states, districts and social groups. The two-fold strategy of enabling the economy

grows rapidly (with high employment intensity) on sustained basis and attacking poverty and

address disparities through social welfare programmes remains relevant. Ministry of Rural

Development’s programmes focusing both on alleviating the poverty of households through

MNREGA, NRLM, PMAY, DDUGKY, and the poverty of regions through PMGSY, SPRM,

SAGY are on right track.

The role of rural infrastructure in poverty reduction cannot be overemphasized. Better

infrastructure promotes the shift from low-productivity casual labour in agriculture to more

productive casual work in the nonfarm sector. It is also key to higher wages and assists in

improving literacy rates and school attendance. Thus, the poverty reduction payoffs to higher

investment in rural infrastructure especially in backward poor states are likely to be high.

Mission Antyodaya 2020 findings have comprehensively highlighted the gaps in socio-,

economic infrastructure at the Gram Panchayat level and may be used for interventions that

address Gram Panchayat specific gaps. Markets and value chains for products can diversify
 31

rural economies and bring down poverty on an even faster scale. Gains in health, education

and nutrition outcomes can be manifold through communitized approach to participatory

development involving both PRIs and community organizations like the Women SHGs. At

global level also, India’s success in addressing multidimensional poverty is critical for the

realization of the ambitious sustainable development goals (SDGs) that aim to leave no one

behind. As the use of evidence-based policy-making has become widely advocated, it is

important to collect and use accurate data and relevant insights, to drive the design of welfare

programmes as well as ascertain their impact. SECC 2011 has already proved its immense

potential for beneficiaries targeting in several social welfare programmes. It needs to be

updated at the earliest to avoid exclusion and inclusion errors as data tends to become

obsolete. A dynamic Social Registry would be highly useful to attainment of India’s poverty

elimination objectives. It would help policymakers make evidence-based decisions by

identifying trends and intervention hotspots, which mean public resources officials could be

directed more effectively. The more complete picture provided by the MPI would help

monitor the effectiveness of poverty reduction efforts, to understand which components of

multidimensional poverty are improving, and which are not.

 32

Chapter 4: Conclusion

The study aimed at understanding theoretical perspective of Poverty from an

interdisciplinary lens. It also tried to understand the evolution of how Poverty was seen at

difference times with the help of different theoretical paradigm. The study started with the

Economic theory of Poverty which takes into account the role of individual, economy and

market and its role in poverty and the steps that can be taken in poverty alleviation. Further,

the study talked about the social causes and the role of society and societal structure, i.e.,

Sociological understanding of poverty. Moreover, the study tried to review the psychological

construct in Poverty and its influence on the individual from different perspective: Western,

Eastern, Gendered, Social Construction. Lastly the study glanced through the policy

implications and the debate surrounding the policy approach while tackling Poverty.
 33

References

Bradley, H. (1996) Fractured identities. Cambridge: Polity

Çömez Polat, F. (2022). Poverty and Social Psychology: The Importance of Integrative

Manner. Intech Open. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95833.

Davis, E. P., & Sanchez-Martinez, M. (2014). A Review of the Economic Theories of Poverty.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/economic-theories-poverty.

Davis, K. and Moore, W. (1945) ‘Some principles of stratification’, American Sociological

Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 242–9.

Elliott, I. (June 2016) Poverty and Mental Health: A review to inform the Joseph Rowntree

Foundation’s Anti-Poverty Strategy. London: Mental Health Foundation.

Fell, B. & Hewstone, M. (2015) Psychological Perspectives on Poverty. Joseph Rowntree

Foundation. https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/psychological-perspectives-poverty.

Hershock, P. (2004). Poverty Alleviation: A Buddhist Perspective, Journal of Bhutan Studies,

11(4), https://journaldatabase.info/articles/poverty_alleviation_buddhist.html.

Silver, H. (1994) ‘Social exclusion and social solidarity: three paradigms’, International

Labour Review, Vol. 1333, Nos. 5/6, pp. 531–79

Shildrick, T., & Rucell, J. (2015). Sociological Perspectives on Poverty. Joseph Rowntree

Foundation. https://eprint.ncl.ac.uk/243164.