In-Work Poverty: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Anthropology
Contributor:
Jose Antonio Llosa

In-work poverty is defined as a condition: “In-work at-risk-of-poverty rate refers to the percentage of persons in the total population who declared to be at work (employed or self-employed) who are at-risk-of-poverty (i.e., with an equivalised disposable income below the risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set at 60% of the national median equivalised disposable income (after social transfers)”.

  • in-work poverty
  • precarious work
  • social support
  • social exclusion
  • coping strategies

1. Complexity and limitations of the Concept

The first complexity of the phenomenon of in-work poverty is of a conceptual nature. The data shown above are extracted from official European statistics sources (EU-SILC). In the methodology of the EU-SILC it is specified that those who have been employed for at least 7 months during the previous year are excluded, and the age range contained in the main dataset is from 18 to 59. However, this definition has some significant limitations. The first of them is that it is considered a phenomenon of a familial nature [1].
The poverty rate sets the threshold at 60% of the median household income according to the AROPE indicator [2]. The gender pay gap indicates that there is a difference in remuneration between men and women, materialising in all OECD countries except Hungary [3]. Faced with these data, authors such as Crettaz and Bonoli [4] point out that the breadwinner model is still in effect, according to which the main source of income in a household headed by a heterosexual couple tends to be the male’s salary. In fact, it is observed that in-work poverty is better explained by the fact that in a household there are two sources of income, than by association with the low salaries of the breadwinners [5]. Thus, there is the risk of hiding the low salaries received by women in the statistics collected, and this can be observed in the high figures of in-work poverty among single-parent households [3][6][7].
Single-parent households record an at-risk-of-poverty rate in countries such as Spain that is close to 50%, while more than 80% of these families are headed by women [2]. Research shows high rates of employability among these women, with low salaries and precarious working conditions [7]. With this situation, Marx et al. [5] declare that an increase in the minimum salary, by itself, is not an effective measure against in-work poverty, as what is necessary is a reduction of the gender pay gap that guarantees standard working conditions for women and men.
Likewise, young people experience a widespread situation of precarious employment, becoming a factor of vulnerability regarding in-work poverty [8]. The complexity of accessing the labour market for young people, as well as the low quality of the positions achieved, conditions youth emancipation or the ageing of the European population. The countries where the employment situation of young people is more lacking is where these phenomena have the biggest impact [9].
On the other hand, the need to be employed for a period of seven months during the previous twelve in order to achieve the consideration of in-work poverty hides the situation of households with low employment intensity. These households are not only characterised by highly intermittent employment conditions, but also by the fact that the jobs they have access to tend to be precarious [8].
Following the recommendation of authors such as Halleroed et al. [9] or Marx and Nolan [10], this research paper adapts the conceptualisation of in-work poverty. The measurement of relative poverty proposed by the AROPE indicator is maintained, establishing the threshold at 60% of the national median income after social transfers. However, the seven-month employment during the last year criterion is not contemplated, considering in-work poverty affecting any person who while in employment does not receive sufficient income to bring them above the poverty threshold.

2. In-Work Poverty and Health

The condition of in-work poverty has an impact on the wellbeing of people. Thus, a deterioration of mental and physical health related with this form of precariousness has been observed [11]. A relationship has also been shown between the deterioration of perceived overall health and poverty [12][13]. This relationship is stronger in the case of women [12]. Similarly, factors related to occupational health are affected in a context of in-work poverty. Bearing in mind that in-work poverty is linked to more precarious positions, characteristic of micro-companies, the poor development of occupational health and safety in these contexts leads to a deterioration of wellbeing [11][14]. What is more, despite the fact that the condition of poverty negatively affects health, these people tend to use healthcare systems less. In countries where healthcare is not universally covered by public systems, this deficit in the use of primary care is mainly due to economic factors [14]. For example, in Canada a lesser degree of use of dental care—not fully covered in the national healthcare system—is observed. [15]. However, in countries where the healthcare system offers universal coverage there is also less use of them by people experiencing in-work poverty [11]. This is explained by the fact that these people cannot afford to abandon their employment obligations, or risk losing their jobs. This situation leads to a vicious circle between the condition of in-work poverty and deteriorating health.
The scientific literature on social exclusion shows that a situation of poverty is linked to mental health symptoms, as well as increased consumption of psychopharmaceuticals [16]. Similar results can be observed with a situation of precarious work in a broader sense [17]. When trying to limit the phenomenon studied explicitly to in-work poverty, there is not a large number of studies that specifically address this matter. Attempting to mention some of them, Moon and Sangjun [18] detect a higher prevalence of depression in situations of in-work poverty. Similarly, they link this employment situation with an increase in the consumption of alcohol, which intensifies the mental disorder experienced. As for the conditions of this relationship, they point out the inability to afford housing-related expenses, and show that it clearly affects women more than men.
A study carried out in Spain presents the same conclusion as Moon and Sangjun [18], pointing out that the general state of mental health of people experiencing in-work poverty is the same as those who are unemployed, while in both cases there is a deterioration with respect to the people who are in a normalised employment situation [19]. Likewise, chronic stress is linked to situations of in-work poverty given the uncertain living conditions that these families experience [19][20].

3. Social Support and Wellbeing in Contexts of Precariousness

In conditions of social exclusion, social support is a variable that is highly affected [21][22]. Perceived poverty is explained in a trend towards situations of isolation of the population [17]. This factor is important, not only because social support is a fundamental variable to explain overall wellbeing and mental health, but because it is an element to be considered in the chronification of situations where there is a risk of social exclusion [23][24].
In Hong Kong experiments are being carried out with active health programs among people in a situation of in-work poverty, which include accompaniment and social support as one of the elements. A positive impact on this population has been observed [25]. Likewise, Moon and Sangjun [18] point out the importance of social support to protect the health of the people in this situation of precariousness. Traditionally, the professional environment had been described as a space for strengthening social support. However, in contexts of precariousness and uncertainty, this function disappears [19][21][22].
The situation of social exclusion risk and loss of social support also has an impact on the political and ideological dimension. Studies have shown that people in a situation of in-work poverty, due to their condition of social exclusion, tend to experience disengagement with respect to the institutions, which puts at risk social cohesion and coexistence between territories [26][1][27][28].

4. Coping Strategies and Labour Activation

What has been explained up until now contrasts with the European Union’s employment policy strategy, highly focused on individual employment activation and which prioritises economic production capacity over the population’s wellbeing [29]. In fact, an incongruence can be detected in this approach, as in-work poverty figures rose in the European Union even during times of economic growth before the economic crisis [30]. Thus, and regardless of whether the welfare state regime is more or less redistributive, in general terms the labour policy in terms of in-work poverty has been characterised by two features: subsidies allocated for poverty risk and social exclusion are conditional upon the employment activation of the beneficiaries, and social protection systems are fundamentally employment activation devices [30]. On the one hand, this means that the policies developed are not being very effective, and on the other, they make the people in this situation individually responsible [31][32][33]. This approach involves risk, as authors such as Skilling and Tregidga [34] showed that discourses that focus on economic growth as a strategy to eradicate poverty legitimise situations of inequality.
Vander Elst et al. [35] explain how precarious work conditions produce chronic stress, which leads to learned helplessness. Therefore, the coping strategies developed by people in a situation of precarious employment tend to be evasive, individualistic and particularly focused on self-criticism (cognitive strategies focused on criticising oneself and blaming oneself) in order to cope with the process they are experiencing [17][36]. As pointed out by these authors, self-criticism never leads to the solution of the problem experienced by the person, but to an emotional assessment of the same that worsens the situation they experience.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/ijerph19010609

References

  1. Filandri, M.; Pasqua, S.; Struffolino, E. Being Working Poor or Feeling Working Poor? The Role of Work Intensity and Job Stability for Subjective Poverty. Soc. Indic. Res. 2020, 147, 781–803.
  2. EAPN España. El Estado de La Pobreza: Seguimiento Del Indicador de Pobreza y Exclusión Social En España 2008–2020 ; EAPN España: Madrid, Spain, 2021.
  3. Maitre, B.; Nolan, B.; Whelan, C.T. Low Pay, in-Work Poverty and Economic Vulnerability: A Comparative Analysis Using EU-SILC. Manch. Sch. 2012, 80, 99–116.
  4. Crettaz, E.; Bonoli, G. Why Are Some Workers Poor? The Mechanisms That Produce Working Poverty in a Comparative Perspective; Working Papers; RECWOWE Publication: Edinburgh, Scotland, 2010.
  5. Marx, I.; Vanhille, J.; Verbist, G. Combating In-Work Poverty in Continental Europe: An Investigation Using the Belgian Case. J. Soc. Policy 2012, 41, 19–41.
  6. Horemans, J.; Marx, I.; Nolan, B. Hanging in, but Only Just: Part-Time Employment and in-Work Poverty throughout the Crisis. IZA J. Eur. Labor Stud. 2016, 5, 5.
  7. Nieuwenhuis, R.; Maldonado, L.C. Single-Parent Families and in-Work Poverty. In Handbook of Research on In-Work Poverty; Lohmann, H., Marx, I., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2018; pp. 171–193. ISBN 9781784715632.
  8. Fritsch, N.-S.; Verwiebe, R. Labor Market Flexibilization and In-Work Poverty: A Comparative Analysis of Germany, Austria and Switzerland. In Handbook of Research on In-Work Poverty; Lohmann, H., Marx, I., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2018; pp. 297–311. ISBN 9781784715632.
  9. Halleroed, B.; Ekbrand, H.; Bengtsson, M. In-Work Poverty and Labour Market Trajectories: Poverty Risks among the Working Population in 22 European Countries. J. Eur. Soc. Policy 2015, 25, 473–488.
  10. Marx, I.; Nolan, B. In-Work Poverty. In Reconciling Work and Poverty Reduction: How Successful Are European Welfare States? Cantillon, B., Vandenbroucke, F., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 131–156.
  11. Broding, H.C.; Weber, A.; Glatz, A.; Buenger, J. Working Poor in Germany: Dimensions of the Problem and Repercussions for the Health-Care System. J. Public Health Policy 2010, 31, 298–311.
  12. Pfoertner, T.-K.; Schmidt-Catran, A.W. In-Work Poverty and Self- Rated Health in a Cohort of Working Germans: A Hybrid Approach for Decomposing Within-Person and Between-Persons Estimates of In-Work Poverty Status. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2017, 185, 274–282.
  13. Tokuda, Y.; Ohde, S.; Takahashi, O.; Hinohara, S.; Fukui, T.; Inoguchi, T.; Butler, J.P.; Ueda, S. Influence of Income on Health Status and Healthcare Utilization in Working Adults: An Illustration of Health Among the Working Poor in Japan; Inoguchi, T., Tokuda, Y., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 177–190. ISBN 9789811023057.
  14. Topete, L.; Forst, L.; Zanoni, J.; Friedman, L. Workers’ Compensation and the Working Poor: Occupational Health Experience among Low Wage Workers in Federally Qualified Health Centers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2018, 61, 189–197.
  15. Quinonez, C.; Figueiredo, R. Sorry Doctor, I Can’t Afford the Root Canal, I Have a Job: Canadian Dental Care Policy and the Working Poor. Can. J. Public Health-Rev. Can. Sante Publique 2010, 101, 481–485.
  16. Pinafi, T. Illness and psychopharmaceutical drugs: Addiction in post-modernity. Nómadas 2013, 39, 79–89.
  17. Evans-Lacko, S.; Courtin, E.; Fiorillo, A.; Knapp, M.; Luciano, M.; Park, A.-L.; Brunn, M.; Byford, S.; Chevreul, K.; Forsman, A.K.; et al. The State of the Art in European Research on Reducing Social Exclusion and Stigma Related to Mental Health: A Systematic Mapping of the Literature. Eur. Psychiatry 2014, 29, 381–389.
  18. Moon, J.Y.; Sangjun, K. Study on Factors Affecting Depression of Working Poor-Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Income, Health, Housing, Labor and Drinking Factors by Gender. Stud. Life Cult. 2020, 55, 79–107.
  19. Llosa, J.A.; Agullo-Tomas, E.; Menendez-Espina, S.; Rodriguez-Suarez, J.; Boada-Grau, J. Job Insecurity, Mental Health and Social Support in Working Poor. Athenea Digit. 2020, 20, e2178.
  20. Rimnacova, Z.; Kajanova, A. Stress and the Working Poor. Hum. Aff.-Postdisciplinary Humanit. Soc. Sci. Q. 2019, 29, 87–94.
  21. Hogan, M.J.; Solheim, C.; Wolfgram, S.; Nkosi, B.; Rodrigues, N. The Working Poor: From the Economic Margins to Asset Building. Fam. Relat. 2004, 53, 229–236.
  22. Rogalsky, J. Bartering for Basics: Using Ethnography and Travel Diaries to Understand Transportation Constraints and Social Networks among Working-Poor Women. Urban Geogr. 2010, 31, 1018–1038.
  23. Feeney, B.C.; Collins, N.L. A New Look at Social Support: A Theoretical Perspective on Thriving Through Relationships. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2015, 19, 113–147.
  24. Gangopadhyay, P.; Shankar, S.; Rahman, M.A. Working Poverty, Social Exclusion and Destitution: An Empirical Study. Econ. Model. 2014, 37, 241–250.
  25. Fung, C.S.C.; Yu, E.Y.T.; Guo, V.Y.; Wong, C.K.H.; Kung, K.; Ho, S.Y.; Lam, L.Y.; Ip, P.; Fong, D.Y.T.; Lam, D.C.L.; et al. Development of a Health Empowerment Programme to Improve the Health of Working Poor Families: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study in Hong Kong. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e010015.
  26. Levanon, A. Labor Market Insiders or Outsiders? A Cross-National Examination of Redistributive Preferences of the Working Poor. Societies 2018, 8, 72.
  27. Hwang, A.-R.; Bokyeung, S. Citizen Satisfaction of the Policy on the Working Poor. Korean Public Adm. Q. 2013, 25, 171–192.
  28. Kabeer, N. Citizenship Narratives in the Face of Bad Governance: The Voices of the Working Poor in Bangladesh. J. Peasant Stud. 2011, 38, 325–353.
  29. Pradella, L. The Working Poor in Western Europe: Labour, Poverty and Global Capitalism. Comp. Eur. Polit. 2015, 13, 596–613.
  30. Seikel, D. Activation into In-Work Poverty? Soc. Eur. 2017, 1, 81–86.
  31. Crespo, E.; Serrano, A. Paradoxes of European Employment Policies: From Fairness towards Therapy. Univ. Psychol. 2013, 12, 1113–1126.
  32. Crespo, E.; Serrano, A. La Psicologización Del Trabajo: La Desregulación Del Trabajo y El Gobierno de Las Voluntades . In Contra-Psicología: De las Luchas Antipsiquiátricas a la Psicologización de la Cultura; Rodríguez López, R., Ed.; Dado Ediciones: Madrid, Spain, 2016; pp. 273–296.
  33. Llosa, J.A.; Menéndez-Espina, S.; Agulló-Tomás, E.; Rodríguez-Suárez, J.; Lasheras-Díez, H.; Saiz-Villar, R. The work psychopatologisation: The discomfort state of the responsible subject. Aposta Rev. Cienc. Soc. 2019, 80, 82–97.
  34. Skilling, P.; Tregidga, H. Accounting for the “Working Poor”: Analysing the Living Wage Debate in Aotearoa New Zealand. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2019, 32, 2031–2061.
  35. Vander Elst, T.; Richter, A.; Sverke, M.; Näswall, K.; De Cuyper, N.; De Witte, H. Threat of Losing Valued Job Features: The Role of Perceived Control in Mediating the Effect of Qualitative Job Insecurity on Job Strain and Psychological Withdrawal. Work Stress 2014, 28, 143–164.
  36. Arnett, J.J. The Psychology of Globalization. Am. Psychol. 2002, 57, 774–783.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback