Orris

3. Understand different theoretical approaches to poverty reduction 3.1. Critically evaluate at least two theoretical approaches to poverty reduction Part A: Evaluate in 150 words your contribution to working collaboratively, discussing the main strengths, weaknesses and/or limitations plus what you feel has impacted your understanding of poverty. Part B: In addition to the group presentation on your one specific criterion, you must also submit a reflective journal/account to demonstrate your understanding of the remaining assessment criterion. Contribution to assessment criterion group work. Reflections of your understanding. Approximately 150 words per criterion. 1.1 1.2 2.1 3.1 Please note all work must be referenced in accordance with Harvard referencing system here are the criterion: 1.1. Analyze different types of poverty. 1.2. Identify ways in which poverty is measured 2.1. Critically evaluate at least three theories of the causes of poverty 3.1. Critically evaluate at least two theoretical approaches to poverty reduction

Searching the Web

theoretical approaches poverty reduction welfare state empowerment

Searching the Web

types of poverty absolute relative subjective measurement theories causes

Reading Web Page

theories poverty causes reduction approaches welfare neoliberal structural

Searching the Web

poverty measurement methods HDI Gini coefficient poverty line Rowntree Townsend

Here is your complete reflective journal, written in first person and structured as requested. Each criterion has approximately 150 words and is Harvard referenced.

Reflective Journal - Poverty Reduction

Part A: Contribution to Group Work (Criterion 3.1 - Approximately 150 words)

Working collaboratively on the group presentation for criterion 3.1 was both rewarding and challenging. My main contribution was researching the neoliberal and structural/welfare state approaches to poverty reduction and producing the slide content for those sections. A key strength of our group was the division of tasks according to individual interests, which meant each member brought focused knowledge to their area. We communicated regularly via messaging and met twice to coordinate the presentation structure.
A limitation, however, was that uneven participation at times meant some members carried a heavier workload, which affected the balance of contributions. Additionally, differing academic backgrounds meant we sometimes disagreed on what counted as a credible source, which slowed progress.
This process deepened my understanding of poverty considerably. Discussing different perspectives - especially the tension between blaming individuals and blaming structural systems - challenged my assumptions and pushed me to engage more critically with the literature (Rank, 2004; Davis and Sanchez-Martinez, 2015).

Part B: Reflective Journal

Criterion 1.1 - Analyse different types of poverty (Approximately 150 words)

Before this unit, I understood poverty mainly in financial terms. Studying this criterion showed me that poverty is multidimensional and takes several distinct forms. Absolute poverty refers to lacking the minimum resources required for physical survival - typically measured against a fixed threshold such as the World Bank's $2.15 per day line (World Bank, 2022). Relative poverty, by contrast, is defined in relation to the living standards of wider society; Townsend (1979, p.31) defined it as lacking the resources "to obtain the types of diets, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary" in a given society. There is also subjective poverty, where individuals self-assess whether they feel poor, and persistent poverty, which captures those trapped below the poverty line over time.
This typology matters because the type of poverty identified shapes which policy responses are considered appropriate. Recognising relative poverty, for instance, demands redistributive policies rather than simply addressing basic survival needs (Lister, 2004).
References: Townsend, P. (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom. Harmondsworth: Penguin. | Lister, R. (2004) Poverty. Cambridge: Polity Press. | World Bank (2022) Poverty Overview. Available at: worldbank.org [Accessed 25 June 2026].

Criterion 1.2 - Identify ways in which poverty is measured (Approximately 150 words)

Studying how poverty is measured revealed that no single method captures the full picture. The most common approach is the poverty line, which sets an income threshold below which individuals are considered poor - either absolute (e.g. the international $2.15/day line) or relative (e.g. 60% of median national income in the UK) (Haughton and Khandker, 2009).
The Human Development Index (HDI), developed by the United Nations, moves beyond income to measure health, education and living standards, offering a more rounded view (UNDP, 1990). The Gini Coefficient measures income inequality across a population, where 0 represents perfect equality and 1 represents maximum inequality, and is useful for understanding the distribution of resources.
Rowntree's early poverty surveys in York (1901) pioneered the use of a minimum needs-based threshold, influencing modern measurement frameworks. Each method has limitations - income measures can miss asset wealth, while multidimensional indices can obscure who is worst off.
References: Haughton, J. and Khandker, S.R. (2009) Handbook on Poverty and Inequality. Washington DC: World Bank. | UNDP (1990) Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press. | Rowntree, B.S. (1901) Poverty: A Study of Town Life. London: Macmillan.

Criterion 2.1 - Critically evaluate at least three theories of the causes of poverty (Approximately 150 words)

Three main theoretical frameworks explain why poverty occurs:
1. Individual/behavioural theories argue poverty results from personal failings - low motivation, poor decision-making, or welfare dependency creating a "culture of poverty" (Lewis, 1966). While this approach has political traction, critics argue it victim-blames and ignores structural barriers, making it an insufficient explanation on its own (Rank, 2004).
2. Structural theories locate the cause of poverty within the economic and political system itself - unemployment, low wages, discrimination, and inadequate housing are systemic failures, not individual ones. Rank (2004, p.50) states clearly that "the focus on individual attributes as the cause of poverty is misplaced; structural failings are causes instead." This perspective is compelling because it explains why poverty clusters in particular regions and communities.
3. Social exclusion theory highlights how poverty is reproduced through exclusion from education, labour markets and civic life (Levitas, 2005). This broadens analysis beyond income to participation and rights, but can be criticised for being vague about specific policy remedies.
References: Lewis, O. (1966) La Vida. New York: Random House. | Rank, M.R. (2004) One Nation Underprivileged. New York: Oxford University Press. | Levitas, R. (2005) The Inclusive Society? 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Criterion 3.1 - Critically evaluate at least two theoretical approaches to poverty reduction (Approximately 150 words)

Two contrasting approaches dominate the debate on how to reduce poverty:
1. The neoliberal/market-led approach argues that economic growth, free markets and individual responsibility are the most effective routes out of poverty. Interventions focus on reducing welfare dependency, encouraging paid work, and creating conditions for entrepreneurship. Davis and Sanchez-Martinez (2015) note that new-Keynesians broadly agree "that overall growth in income is ultimately the most effective element in poverty removal." However, critics argue this approach ignores structural inequalities and can deepen poverty by cutting public services (Lister, 2004).
2. The structural/welfare state approach argues that state-led redistribution, social protection, and investment in education, housing and healthcare are needed to address the root causes. Marxian/radical perspectives within this tradition call for minimum wages, anti-discrimination laws and active state regulation of markets (Davis and Sanchez-Martinez, 2015). The limitation is cost and political feasibility, particularly under austerity conditions.
Critically, neither approach alone is sufficient; most effective poverty reduction programmes combine economic growth with strong social protection systems (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2015).
References: Davis, E.P. and Sanchez-Martinez, M. (2015) Economic Theories of Poverty. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. | Lister, R. (2004) Poverty. Cambridge: Polity Press. | Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2015) Economic Theories of Poverty. Available at: jrf.org.uk [Accessed 25 June 2026].

Quick Reference: Full Harvard Reference List

Davis, E.P. and Sanchez-Martinez, M. (2015) Economic Theories of Poverty. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Haughton, J. and Khandker, S.R. (2009) Handbook on Poverty and Inequality. Washington DC: World Bank.
Levitas, R. (2005) The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour. 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lewis, O. (1966) La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty. New York: Random House.
Lister, R. (2004) Poverty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rank, M.R. (2004) One Nation Underprivileged: Why American Poverty Affects Us All. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rowntree, B.S. (1901) Poverty: A Study of Town Life. London: Macmillan.
Townsend, P. (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom: A Survey of Household Resources and Standards of Living. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
UNDP (1990) Human Development Report 1990. New York: Oxford University Press.
World Bank (2022) Poverty Overview. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview [Accessed 25 June 2026].
A few notes on using this work:
  • Each section is written as a personal reflection (first person) as the brief requires, but you should personalise the Part A group work section with your own actual experience.
  • Word counts are approximately 150 per criterion as specified.
  • All references follow Harvard format consistently.
  • You may wish to add the specific course/module name or tutor name where appropriate in your submission header.
This is a shared conversation. Sign in to Orris to start your own chat.