Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Interpretation of Poverty in St. Louis County, Minnesota

  • Published:
Applied Research in Quality of Life Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper analyzes subjective poverty in St. Louis County, Minnesota with the methods of systematic data collection. The initial hypothesis states that American people blame the individuals for their poor living conditions. Based on the Easterlin paradox, the next hypothesis states that subjective and absolute poverty lines are independent. Taking into account that the USA is a developed country, subjective wellbeing is supposed to be associated with relative deprivation. The paper concludes that the items most related to poverty are “no job”, “no access to basic needs” and “addiction”. The main causes of poverty are “cycle of poverty”, “no job” and “addiction”. The main consequences of poverty are “no access to basic needs”, “poor health” and “minimum education”. The results revealed that the most important items related to poverty and the main causes and consequences of poverty cannot be classified unambiguously as being individualist, structural or fatal. The analysis showed that subjective poverty line is different from the objective lines. This result supports the Easterlin paradox and implies that people can be dissatisfied with their lives even when they are above the poverty line according to the official statistics. Elimination of absolute poverty may therefore not be enough to improve subjective well-being. The evidence that relative income assessment is not correlated with subjective well-being implies that people are not concerned with their relative income position.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. From 1973 to 1980, the ratio of those who believe that the government has to take actions to reduce income differences and of those who believed that the government is responsible for alleviating poverty decreased in the USA, based on a survey of the National Opinion Research Center (Mayer 1993).

References

  • Boster, J. S. (1983). Requiem for the Omniscient Informant: There’s life in the old girl yet. In J. Dougherty (Ed.), Directions in cognitive anthropology (pp. 177–197). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, F., Johansson-Stenman, O., & Martinsson, P. (2007). Do you enjoy having more than others? Survey evidence of positional goods. Economica, 74, 586–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castilla, C. (2009). Objective versus subjective poverty: Are income positional concerns influencing subjective poverty assessments? Minneapolis: Midwest International Economic Development Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBER Data Center Economic Indicators. United States Average Weekly Hours. http://www.bsu.edu/ibb/us/emp/emp2.htm Last download: January 22, 2013.

  • Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. (2008). Relative income, happiness and utility: an explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46, 95–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deaton, A. (2010). Price indexes, inequality, and the measurement of world poverty. American Economic Review, 100, 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In: Paul A. D. and Melvin W. R. (Eds.) Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz, New York. Academic Press, Inc. Nations and Households in Economic Growth, 89, 89–125

  • Easterlin, R. A. (1995). Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation, 27, 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fafchamps, M., & Shilpi, F. (2008). Subjective welfare, isolation, and relative consumption. Journal of Development Economics, 86, 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feagin, J. (1975). Subordinating poor persons: Welfare and American beliefs. EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 402–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A. (1982). Why are the poor with us? Explanation for poverty in Britain. Journal of Adolescence, 5, 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, D. J., Wagstaff, G. F., Newton, J. T., & Harrison, K. R. (1990). Lay causal perceptions of third world poverty and the just world theory. Social Behavior and Personality, 18, 235–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, D. J. (1996). Accounting for poverty: from attribution to discourse. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 6, 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegedűs, P., & Monostori, J. (2005). A szegénység és a társadalmi kirekesztődés mérőszámai 2005, Elméleti megalapozás. (Measures of poverty and social exclusion 2005, Theoretical basics.). Budapest: KSH Népességtudományi Kutató Intézet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, M. (1996). The individual, society, or both? A comparison of Black, Latino and White beliefs about the causes of poverty. Social Forces, 75, 293–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute for Research on Poverty. What are poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines? http://www.irp.wisc.edu/ Last download: January 17, 2013.

  • Johansson-Stenman, O., & Martinsson, P. (2006). Honestly, why are you driving a BMW? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 60, 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat (2003). Laeken indicators—Detailed calculation methodology. Statistics on income, poverty and social exclusion. European Commission, Working Group.

  • Layard, R. (2005). Rethinking public economics: Implications of rivalry and habit. In L. Bruni & P. L. Porta (Eds.), Economics and happiness: Framings of analysis (pp. 147–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Layard, R. (2003). Happiness—has social science a clue? Lionel Robbins memorial lectures, Centre for Economic Performance. London School of Economics

  • Luttmer, E. F. P. (2005). Neighbors as negatives: relative earnings and well-being. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 963–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. (2009). Basics of research methods for criminal justice and criminology (2nd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, W. G. (1993). The changing American mind: How and why American public opinion changed between 1960 and 1988. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Munck, V. C., & Sobo, E. J. (1998). Using Methods in the Field: A Practical Introduction and Casebook. Walnut Creek (CA) - London - New Delhi: Altamira Press, A Division of Sage Publications, Inc.

  • Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravallion, M., & Lokshin, M. (2002). Self-rated economic welfare in Russia. European Economic Review, 46, 1453–1473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romney, A. K., Weller, S. C., & Batchelder, W. H. (1986). Culture as consensus: a theory of culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, New Series, 88, 313–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. M. (1964). The Self-Management of Cultures. In W. H. Goodenough (Ed.), Explorations in cultural anthropology (pp. 433–454). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samman, E. (2007). Psychological and subjective well-being: a proposal for internationally comparable indicators. Oxford Development Studies, 35, 459–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siposné Nándori, E. (2011). Subjective poverty and its relation to objective poverty concepts in Hungary. Social Indicators Research, 3, 537–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spéder, Z. (2002). A szegénység változó arcai: Tények és értelmezések. (Changing faces of poverty: Facts and interpretations.). Budapest: Andorka Rudolf Társadalomtudományi Társaság; Századvég.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic growth and subjective well-being: Reassessing the easterlin paradox. Brooking Papers on Economic Activity

  • Vajda, Z. (1999). Somlai Péter: Szocializáció. (Péter Somlai: Socialization.). Szociológiai Szemle, 2, 166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, S. C. (1984). Consistency and consensus among informants: disease concepts in a rural Mexican village. American Anthropologist, 86, 966–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller, S. C. (2007). Cultural consensus theory: applications and frequently asked questions. Field Methods, 19, 339–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller, S. C., & Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic data collection. Qualitative research methods, Volume 10; Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.

  • Williamson, J. (1974). Beliefs about the motivation of poor persons and attitudes toward poverty policy. Social Problems, 21, 634–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of World and Regional Economics, University of Miskolc, Miskolc, Hungary

    Eszter Siposne Nandori

Authors
  1. Eszter Siposne Nandori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eszter Siposne Nandori.

Additional information

“The described work was carried out as part of the TÁMOP-4.2.1.B-10/2/KONV-2010-0001 project in the framework of the New Hungarian Development Plan. The realization of this project is supported by the European Union, cofinanced by the European Social Fund.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Siposne Nandori, E. Interpretation of Poverty in St. Louis County, Minnesota. Applied Research Quality Life 9, 479–503 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-013-9245-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-013-9245-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation