Today, poverty seems a topic of the past; While the world recovers from a global pandemic by entering into fears of international conflict, the issue of poverty is often left in the background. However, just as of 2021, in Europe 21.7% of the population was at risk of poverty or social exclusion, representing not only a threat to the full enjoyment of fundamental rights across Europe but also, more broadly speaking, a risk to social cohesion. In fact, even in the countries with the most efficient welfare systems, access to public services and benefits is much more difficult for lower socio-economic groups, as such causing a social rift between income levels. Nevertheless, the creation of a welfare system is generally an important step in the reduction of poverty rates, not simply because it grants access to essential services to all citizens, but because it is strictly tied with a positive trend in public perception towards poverty and the causes of poverty. The political aim of solidarity has surely influenced how European citizens view the more vulnerable groups of society, since law and morality have always been a reflection of one another. It is precisely for this reason that public perception of lower-socioeconomic classes is emerging as an important factor in the eradication of poverty. Incidentally, even the UN Human Rights Approach to Poverty Reduction Strategies Guideline lists the right to appear in public without shame as an important key in policies aimed at poverty reduction. The concept of public perception may appear somewhat subjective and abstract, which is why it is necessary to understand how public perception can truly affect vulnerable communities such as those living in conditions of poverty, both at a community level as well as at a legislative one. Perhaps the more obvious consequence of a negative or positive perception towards lower socio-economic groups is how most members of society will tend to treat these groups in public; Countries in which the common perception is that poverty is due to systemic failures see higher rates of volunteering for aiding the poor and less violence towards these groups, while countries that experience a majority perception of poverty being due to laziness generally see less active volunteering organizations and greater isolation of lower-class communities. In order to better understand the concrete differences between the perception of poverty as a systemic issue rather than as a personal failure, it can be helpful to compare the Czech Republic and Finland, which had, respectively, the lowest and third lowest rates of poverty in the European Union in 2021. In Finland, the majority of the population believe poverty to be a result of inadequacies of the labor market and a considerable remaining portion of the population consider poverty to be a result of bad luck or lack of available opportunities. It can be observed that Finland has adopted many effective social policies aimed at reducing poverty and counts
approximately 86,554 active charities. The Czech Republic, on the other hand, was ranked as the country with the lowest poverty rates in Europe in 2021, yet its citizens perceive the poor to be “unadaptable folk” and parasites and attribute the causes of poverty to laziness and generational poverty. In this second case, it should be noted that the low rates of poverty are largely due to the high economy and high labor demand in the country, with little evidence of social policies aimed at lowering poverty rates. Furthermore, the approximate number of active charities in the Czech Republic stands at 1,322. Through the analysis of this first point it is possible to conclude that the willingness of the population to alleviate poverty can be correlated to the attitude about the causes of poverty; The more a country perceives the causes of poverty to be an issue related to institutional inadequacies, the more people are willing to act in solidarity and approach the topic with due sensibility. The second important effect of the public perception about poverty in concrete terms reflects itself in the legislation of the State. Since the Parliament of a State is the expression of the will of the people, it is a natural consequence that the moral reflections of the general population will be enshrined in the laws passed by the legislative body. Additionally, it must be considered that also the legitimacy and the viability of determined political policies depend on whether these policies coincide with the general public ideology. Essentially, countries in which it is believed that poverty is a systemic issue will have more numerous and more effective anti-poverty policies than countries where poverty is commonly attributed to individual behavior. This legislative difference can be seen by comparing, for example, Anglo-Saxon countries, where explanations of poverty are based on individual morality, and Nordic welfare states, such as Sweden and Finland, where structural explanations of poverty prevail. In the first case, welfare programs are highly selective and less generous, while in the Nordic countries welfare is more accessible and covers more services. This legislative impact of the public ideology about poverty highlights the importance of modifying social ideas towards poverty in order to be truly capable of resolving the issue. If the population is not willing to adhere to anti-poverty policies, the legislative organs will encounter many obstacles in producing effective laws in reducing poverty rates. Given the dual importance of changing the social perception towards lower socio-economic classes, both in terms of solidarity at a local level and in terms of effectiveness of social policies, attention should be directed towards awareness campaigns. By framing poverty as a systemic problem rather than as an individual failure, there will be greater overall cooperation in the effort of overcoming poverty completely. The eradication of poverty not only would allow citizens to be less burdened by the effects of redistribution taxes, but most importantly it would ensure that all citizens can enjoy their fundamental human rights, such as the rights to adequate housing, education, and food.
Anna Karhausen
Kommentare