Ruth Woolsey

Inequality has a long history but has increased significantly in line with neoliberalism. The consequences include an unjust difference in the quality of life to the detriment of those on the lowest incomes. Taking a critical approach, this thesis examines how it might it be possible to build more support for a fairer distribution of wealth in the UK. Under conventional understandings of representative democracy, there is scope for the public to demand policies that could address this. However, explanations of poverty that hold individuals to account for their own poverty are dominant in political and media discourse with structural explanations less visible. To explore the extent to which individual responsibility or structural explanations inform the way we understand and explain poverty, 1:1 interviews with ‘information interventions’ were carried out. Pre-existing views of 29 participants were obtained on poverty before information on structural barriers to upward social mobility and the viability of redistribution to address this was presented. New qualitative data revealed that most are generally aware of structural barriers to moving out of poverty and that views of those who mirror dominant discourse prior to information do not tend to change. This, however, can be explained through Gramsci’s concept of hegemony with scope for more support for redistribution through the building of alliances and appealing to financial interests. Further, a minority had limited knowledge on redistributive ideas and were interested that society could be organised more fairly highlighting the need for robust counter-narratives showing this as a possibility. These findings and analysis could inform poverty campaigners, academics and policymakers.

Many in the United Kingdom are experiencing poverty because of extreme inequality of wealth. However, the dominant political explanation is that poverty is at least partially due to the behaviour and personal deficits of the poorest. Although a feature of neo-liberalism, holding people responsible for their own poverty has a long history as it serves the interests of the wealthiest. Equally longstanding are arguments that refute this individualistic perspective and instead show how poverty is structural, but these are less frequent and visible. Using existing literature, this article provides an analysis of these counterarguments to show common stereotypes of people experiencing poverty are inaccurate and discriminatory. This demonstrates that poverty research is problematic if it suggests, to any extent, that disadvantaged individuals are to blame and therefore it should be viewed as prejudiced. Instead, research should focus on the behaviour, choices and personal deficits of the most privileged such as the greed and selfishness that feeds into economic and social policy. Until it is recognized by academics, policy-makers and the wider public that no person experiencing poverty is to blame, poverty will not be eradicated because policy will continue to be based on the idea that some deserve their underprivileged position.