SDG 1 aims to end poverty in all its forms everywhere. Browse books and journal articles relating to this SDG below and find out more on the UN Sustainable Development Goals website.
Goal 1: No Poverty
You are looking at 1 - 10 of 7,913 items
Dutch minimum income support provides a generous social safety net compared to most other European Union (EU) member states but has not been able to structurally reduce poverty. This inadequacy did not come about overnight but is the result of six decades of policy decisions. In this article, we aim to explain the current income shortfalls of people on minimum income support by studying the historical evolution and determinants of the Dutch minimum income scheme. We demonstrate that it has on average maintained a constant level of purchasing power over the period 1980–2023. This fits well with the notion that poverty is of an absolute nature, and that a social minimum should guarantee a stable level of purchasing power. It fits less well with relative or contextual approaches to poverty, and the view that a social minimum should adapt to changing norms when a society grows richer. To uncover the reasons for the growing gap between general prosperity and the minimum income benefit, we decompose it into smaller gaps by illustrating the evolution of prosperity, labour productivity, gross wages, collectively agreed wages, the minimum wage and the minimum income benefit. We show that each of these gaps matters and argue that this provides valuable insights into the structural, institutional and political forces that have shaped Dutch minimum income support since its introduction in 1965. Based on these results, we argue against the current ad hoc measures of the government and in favour of a more structural approach to supporting low-income households.
The household means test plays an essential role in social assistance schemes worldwide. Consequently, the legal definition of what constitutes a household importantly impacts social outcomes, while also being constantly challenged by the dynamic societal reality of living arrangements. Despite its significance, this ‘household-construct’ has received strikingly little attention among social policy analysts. Our contribution explores this issue through a longitudinal analysis of the household-construct in the Netherlands’ social assistance legislation and parliamentary history. After conceptualising the household means test in view of the literature on targeted and conditional welfare provision, we discuss the importance of demographic developments (diversifying household composition) as a continuous challenge for household means-tested income support. We then provide a longitudinal analysis of the most important legislative changes (and underlying rationales) to the household-notion in the Dutch main social assistance (minimum subsistence) scheme. The results demonstrate that the household means test has gone through considerable alterations over time, largely in response to societal shifts and in recent decades also as an outflow of the welfare conditionality paradigm. At the same time, the fundamental logic of (1) needs-based targeting and (2) needs assessment at the level of household resources (rather than the individual) have remained intact, thereby adhering to the traditional conception of the economic union of marriage and maintenance obligations between partners. The study demonstrates how a systematic examination of legislative documents can provide valuable insights into the complex interrelationships between this specific area of social security policy, the changing social context and social policy paradigms.
Chapter 4 continues the discussion and shows how institutional changes have been accompanied by media discourses constructing norms of asset accumulation, on the one hand as a mechanism to gain freedom and prosperity (agency discourse) and, on the other hand, as a necessity everyone has to adopt (non-agency discourse). After having seen how asset norms are constructed, this chapter then unpacks how these norms are transformed into everyday practices. Interviewees draw on key elements of the policy and media discourse, albeit differently interpreted. Agency and non-agency discourse are used to express a critical view of finance. The interviewees feel trapped in having to provide financial security for themselves due to rising job and money insecurity while wanting to have freedom when making financial decisions, which originates from their distrust of financial institutions.
The final chapter synthesizes the different levels of analysis, highlights their relevance to current literature and also makes policy suggestions. Taken together, the findings presented in the book point to a rethink of the theorization of everyday financialization and what constitutes financially rational behaviour. Revealing the mutually constitutive relationship between norms of conduct and counter-conduct, or, in other words, between asset norms and resistance to these norms, explains why differential subjectivities and practices emerge and continue to exist in even advanced financialized countries. The book ends by conceptualizing a lived finance rationality and its implications for policy measures. Rather than being irrational or passive victims of an unequal welfare system, everyday financial practices and discourses are logical responses to the contradictions and constraints immanent in asset-based welfare.
The chapter will first show how the composition of UK households’ balance sheets has developed through time and then consider the balance sheets of interviewees and their everyday financial practices. Here, the composition is shown in the light of income differences with a specific focus on medium- to high-income households, and a detailed description of households’ asset portfolios and their incorporated risk levels is given. The everyday practices and discourses of interviewees when discussing their asset choices reveal that they have a rather robust understanding of the inherent contradictions in the current pension system and adjust their asset-accumulation strategies to their own needs. As a consequence, they adopt a three-pronged asset-accumulation strategy guided by an elementary form of diversification and hedging.
This chapter discusses how structural and normative constraints impact asset-accumulation strategies. In the former case, emphasis lies on key assumptions built into an asset-based welfare system. Individuals who experience an interrupted working life (for example due to caring work), rely on several jobs, are self-employed or have lower income possibilities are restrained in fulfilling requirements of the existing pension system. Yet, predominantly women and people belonging to an ethnic minority group are affected by these differential employment paths. In the latter case, the chapter outlines how gender norms and cultural differences in approaching finance impact everyday financial practices. The chapter concludes by building a bridge to previous research, showcasing that rather than being passive when experiencing constraints, interviewees actively seek ways to deal with them, representing logical responses to an unequal welfare system.
Building upon the previous two chapters, this chapter moves on to show the impact of the adopted norms of asset accumulation on everyday life, revealing conflicts arising from the dichotomous relationship of trying to achieve asset ownership while rejecting its underlying assumptions. It charts self-governing measures which are adopted by individuals within an asset-based welfare system in order to achieve asset ownership. It focuses on three areas within everyday life: saving strategies, work and relationships. Evidence provided here suggests that there exists a mutually constitutive relationship between everyday practices and asset norms. In the end, the chapter returns to political economy approaches to finance by arguing that asset norms exert power over everyday life by shaping everyday practices in the three areas outlined, strengthening the existing power relationships embodied in capital–labour relationships.
