The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Measuring Deprivation in Scotland: Developing a Long-Term Strategy: Final Report

2. Definitions and conceptual framework

People may use the term deprivation in different ways. No one definition would be agreed on by everyone. Nevertheless, it is necessary for us to provide a single definition on which to base the rest of our work. We also need to provide definitions of terms such as poverty, exclusion and injustice in order to describe the relationships between deprivation and these terms. This enables us to see the extent to which a measure of deprivation may offer a measure of these other phenomena at the same time.

We are not arguing that deprivation is a "better" term than any other or that it should be used in preference to other terms. Rather our concern is to provide a clear definition of one term, deprivation, which we consider to be useful and relevant to the analysis of some social problems in contemporary Scotland. The particular strength of deprivation as a concept is that it draws attention to basic living standards and to the impact of low income on these.

2.1 Defining deprivation

In common with most research on deprivation, including the SIMD2003 (Noble et al, 2003), our starting point is the work of Peter Townsend:

" Deprivation takes many different forms in every known society. People can be said to be deprived if they lack the types of diet, clothing, housing, household facilities and fuel and environmental, educational, working and social conditions, activities and facilities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies to which they belong." (1987: p.126)

There are four elements to this definition. First, it is multi-dimensional, as people can be deprived in different ways - by virtue of their lack of basic necessities of diet or clothing, or by virtue of the poor environment or social conditions in which they live. There is consequently a requirement to measure deprivations across these different dimensions. Each item that a person lacks may be seen as a separate deprivation and people lacking a given item may be termed "deprived" in that respect. It should be stressed, however, that the term is usually used to refer to people who have several deprivations and who are therefore suffering from "multiple deprivation". At times, the term "deprivation" is used as shorthand for "multiple deprivation" but it is the latter which is our focus.

Second, Townsend's definition is concerned with both material and social or relational dimensions. The latter refers to the ability of an individual to participate in the normal social life of their community - visiting family, having friends round, or attending social events such as birthdays, weddings or funerals, for example. Townsend and others have noted that most attempts at measurement have focused on material dimensions, as these are easiest to capture. However, he identifies social aspects as essential to our understanding of the nature and impacts of deprivation. Many of the interviewees and focus group participants involved in our initial consultation process agreed with this perspective.

Third, Townsend's definition is a relative one. It is based on socially accepted norms or standards which will differ from one society to the next, and which will change over time. There is a need to check that any measure does indeed reflect widely held views about what are minimum acceptable standards of living and that it is updated in line with changing public perceptions.

Fourth, Townsend's definition focuses on individuals - it is people who are deprived, not areas. Individuals do not become multiply deprived simply by moving into an area with a high concentration of deprivation.

There is some debate over whether area characteristics should be seen as part of the problem of deprivation. All would agree that the characteristics of an area may impact on every individual living in that area - qualities of the physical or social environment, such as the degree of physical dereliction or levels of noise or disturbance, or locational characteristics such as access to services. The question is whether these problems are seen as "deprivations" in the sense that Townsend uses the term. As discussed in Section 3.3, some measures of deprivation (particularly those concerned with small areas) tend to include these aspects while others (particularly those concerned with individuals) see them as no less important but conceptually distinct from multiple deprivation.

Townsend's approach has been refined further, notably in the work on the Breadline Britain surveys and the Poverty and Social Exclusion 1999 survey (Mack and Lansley, 1985; Gordon and Pantazis, 1997; Gordon, Adelman et al, 2000). These have provided a more systematic method for defining which "necessities of life" people in a given society should expect to have. This is done by consensus; necessities are defined as those items which at least 50 per cent of the population believe an individual needs in order to participate in everyday life. Feedback from the consultation process supported this "consensual" approach over any attempt to be more "forward looking". These surveys also attempt to distinguish between people who lack an item through choice or preference, and those who lack it due to inadequate income or resources, with only the latter being identified as deprived.

There is a sharp distinction between deprivation and social status which is defined by factors such as age, ethnicity or household type. Some status groups experience much higher levels of deprivation than others on average. In Scotland in recent years, deprivation levels have been higher among children, older people, some minority ethnic groups and lone parent households, for example. However, membership of one of these groups is not a cause of deprivation. "Even if many such people are deprived, it is their deprivation and not their status which has to be measured. And many people having that status are demonstrably not deprived" (Townsend, 1987, p. 135). This does not mean that status is irrelevant to discussions of deprivation. In this report, however, status is treated as a risk factor, not as a deprivation in itself.

2.2 Deprivation and poverty

For Townsend, the terms deprivation and poverty are two sides of the same coin. Deprivation (outcome) is the result of poverty (cause):

" People are relatively deprived if they cannot obtain, at all or sufficiently, the conditions of life - that is, the diets, amenities, standards and services - which allow them to play the roles, participate in the relationships and follow the customary behaviour which is expected of them by virtue of their membership of society. If they lack or are denied resources to obtain access to these conditions of life and so fulfil membership of society, they may be said to be in poverty." (Townsend, 1993: p.36)

Townsend argues that there is a particular threshold in the income distribution where further decreases in income bring about sharp rises in levels of deprivation: "that 'threshold' properly marks the beginning of a state of objective poverty" (Townsend, 1987: p. 130). Others have argued that the relationship between income and deprivation is more gradual and continuous (Piachaud, 1987; Ringen, 1988).

Townsend (1979) also emphasised that "financial resources" extend well beyond current cash incomes from work, benefits or pensions. Resources reflect levels of savings or debts (Nolan and Whelan, 1996). Hence, the length of time that a person has spent on low income may be important in determining resources as savings will be depleted over time. There is also a link with past employment history, as frequent periods of unemployment limit the accumulation of savings and increase the likelihood of accruing debts. Poverty in retirement is strongly linked to previous work history. Resources are also determined by state expenditures on services, facilities or amenities. These include universal services or public goods such as the health service, schools, roads or public parks, and services targeted at particular groups (welfare benefits, social services or higher education).

Some perspectives see measures of poverty and deprivation as alternatives but others, such as Nolan and Whelan (1996), have argued that identifying individuals in deprivation requires measures of both resources and living standards to ensure that the measure captures individuals with low standards of living resulting from lack of resources. The SIMD2003, like previous area deprivation indices, includes measures of both resources (incomes) and living standards (outcomes) and so adopts this approach already. The PSE1999 also uses a combination of income and outcome indicators to identify those considered to be "multiply deprived". We recommend that this approach is continued.

2.3 Deprivation and social exclusion

Social exclusion is a term which has become commonly used in Britain since 1997 when it was adopted by the new Labour government to define its approach to social problems although there is a rather longer history of use of the term in European, particularly French, policy discussions (Room, 1995). There is some debate about the extent to which the change in labels signifies a genuine shift in the focus of policy. Some commentators undoubtedly see important differences but these may also be exaggerated.

Two of the characteristics that most conceptualisations of exclusion have in common are an emphasis on the multi-dimensional and dynamic nature of exclusion (Room, 1995). In this respect, the differences between exclusion and deprivation are ones of emphasis. Both include material and social or relational dimensions, although exclusion studies have tended to give greater weight to the latter. The focus on the dynamics of exclusion draws attention to the duration of situations experienced by individuals. Being on a low income only briefly can have quite different implications for individual living standards compared with a prolonged spell in poverty. While this has been under-emphasised in earlier work on deprivation, it is certainly present in some approaches (Nolan and Whelan, 1996). We would seek to develop this in our work.

Having emphasised the similarities, it is important to note that there are a number of divergences between social exclusion and deprivation literatures (Berghman, 1995; Levitas, 1998; Hills et al, 2002). We highlight just two here. First, some people use the term social exclusion in preference to deprivation because they see poverty or material living standards as just one dimension of a wider set of problems. They argue that social exclusion may arise where people are prevented from participating in economic, social, cultural or political aspects of society, regardless of whether they are in poverty or not. To be "included" requires not just adequate income (absence of poverty) but also access to work for those who want it, social and cultural integration, and political empowerment. From this perspective, the concept of deprivation appears more narrowly focussed than exclusion. Other writers on social exclusion argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate social, cultural or political marginalisation from issues of poverty or deprivation; the most marginalised tend to be the poorest. From this point of view, the gap between deprivation and social exclusion concepts should not be overstated. In either case, deprivation measures may provide direct evidence on some aspects of social exclusion and indirect evidence of other aspects.

Second, some views of social exclusion see it as the process of becoming detached from a "moral order" that supposedly binds a society in a set of mutual rights and obligations (Room, 1995, p. 6; Etzioni, 1995). Within deprivation studies, the focus on social deprivation has been limited to the ability to maintain social relationships without concern for individual values. We would not intend changing this approach.

2.4 Deprivation and social justice

Social justice is the term which has been at the heart of the Scottish Executive's approach to social problems since 1999 although it is not always clear how it differs from social exclusion in practice. Social justice is generally accepted as being concerned with "how the good and bad things in life should be distributed" (Miller, 1999, p. 1). A few accounts (Nozick, 1975, for example) restrict their concern to processes of distribution and to ensuring "procedural justice" or fair treatment in the different distributional systems within society, including both market and state systems. For the great majority, however, the concern is with achieving fair or just outcomes, and the fairness of different processes needs to be judged in relation to these outcomes.

In parallel with the debates on social exclusion, there is a divide within the social justice literature between conceptions which emphasise material distributions and those which emphasise social status or identity (Phillips, 2000). The first group has much in common with the deprivation literature and with material conceptions of exclusion. They are concerned with individual living standards although there are many differences within the group, in particular, between those views which emphasise equality of outcomes and those which emphasise equality of opportunity. For the former, measures which demonstrated unequal outcomes would tend to be seen as evidence of injustice. For the latter, there would need to be further evidence that individuals had made equal efforts to take advantage of opportunities available to them (to seek work, for example) before unequal outcomes would be seen as unjust. Deprivation measures may therefore provide good measures of injustice if justice is seen in terms of equality of outcomes. If it is seen as equality of opportunity, then deprivation measures may provide good starting points for further investigation of the processes involved.

The second group within social justice has focussed on social groups and issues of status. For these conceptions, the key issue is equality of status, including recognition of identity, and equality of access and respect in political processes. There is an emphasis on the need for a just society to respect the different identities or cultures which groups have as well as ensuring material equality between them (Young, 1990). From this perspective, measures of material inequalities or deprivation might be seen as providing only limited measures of injustice. As we argued above in relation to social exclusion, however, there are likely to be important relationships between social or cultural marginalisation and material position. In this respect, differences in levels of deprivation between different social groups may provide important insights into the existence of social or cultural injustices. The ability to disaggregate deprivation measures by social group would therefore be highly valued from this perspective.

2.5 Deprivation and social cohesion

Social cohesion is a rather different type of term. It is usually presented as a characteristic of a good society or community which may be absent, reduced or under threat amongst deprived or excluded groups. As such, its absence can be seen as a factor causing or at least contributing to social problems so that enhancing social cohesion is seen as a means to tackle other problems, rather than an end in itself (for example, Scottish Executive, 2002a). In our initial consultations, however, there was considerable encouragement to explore the lack of cohesion as a possible dimension of deprivation.

The concept of social cohesion is used to draw attention to different types of social relationship. Buck et al (2002) provide one useful typology, recognising three distinct sets of concerns: social connectedness or social capital; social equality or status; and social order. An individual's social connectedness or social capital refers to the set of personal relationships or networks which they have by virtue of their contacts with family, friends, neighbours, colleagues or other acquaintances. Different types of social capital may be said to perform different functions or bring different benefits. One of the best known distinctions is between "bonding" and "bridging" social capital, which builds on Granovetter's (1973) distinction between "weak" and "strong" ties. Strong ties tend to exist between family and close friends and these are seen as valuable in helping a person "get by" (bonding capital). Weak ties tend to exist between looser acquaintances such as work colleagues. While these do not tend to be a source of support, they may be more valuable as sources of information or further contacts to help a person "get on" (bridging capital). People living in areas with high concentrations of deprived households are sometimes said to suffer from "network poverty" as they have high levels of strong ties but relatively few weak ties.

There is some degree of overlap between the concepts of social capital and deprivation, as the latter is concerned with an individual's ability to maintain or develop social relationships as well as with material living standards. Deprivation studies have tended to emphasise closer personal relationships rather than the wider social networks which some conceptions of social capital see as important. While deprivation theories would suggest that the ability to maintain or develop social relationships is restricted by low income, however, some empirical studies of social capital suggest that certain social relationships (strong ties) are more likely to be present for people on lower incomes. This raises important questions about the types of social connection which deprivation studies should focus on and the relationship between income and social connectedness.

The second focus of social cohesion studies, social equality, reflects a concern with status differences between individuals. One question for deprivation studies is the extent to which people on low incomes feel that have a low social status or feel marginalised or stigmatised because of their material position. Possible approaches to measuring the (lack of) social equality or status at the individual level might focus on factors such as the degree to which a sense of stigma or low status is felt, the degree to which people feel respected as equal to others and so on. The third focus within social cohesion is on problems of social order. These are strongly linked to problems of crime and social disorder often seen as characteristic of areas with high concentrations of deprivation (SEU, 1998).

2.6 Conclusions

The aim of this section was to set out our understanding of what deprivation is and how it overlaps with, or differs from, other terms used to refer to social needs. None of the terms has a single, uncontested meaning although deprivation emerges as one on which there is relatively close agreement.

• Deprivation is valuable for its focus on the lack of goods, services or social relations or inadequate physical or social environment which results from a lack of financial resources. It is a relative measure where standards are defined in relation to social norms or expectations.
• Poverty and deprivation are therefore interlinked as cause and outcome. Both financial resources and outcomes should be captured in measures of multiple deprivation.
• We see deprivation and social exclusion as closely related concepts while recognising a diversity of views within the exclusion literature in particular. Both are multi-dimensional concepts where issues of duration are relevant. Social or relational dimensions are important to both, although they have been given greater emphasis in the exclusion literature. While some commentators do not consider poverty to be an essential feature of social exclusion, deprivation measures can provide direct measures of some forms of exclusion and indirect evidence of other forms.
• There is a divide within the social justice literature between those who focus on individual material equalities and those who emphasise group identity and cultural equality. To some extent, this mirrors differences within the social exclusion literature. As with exclusion, deprivation measures may provide good measures of certain injustices and starting points for understanding others. Comparisons of levels of deprivation between different social groups may provide important evidence of the existence of cultural inequality or discriminatory processes. The ability to disaggregate deprivation measures for relevant social groups is therefore important.
• Social cohesion draws attention to a range of issues including social connectedness or social capital, social status and social order. The discussion of social capital issues raises questions about the types of social relationship which deprivation measures should focus on and about the relationship between income and social connectedness. The discussion of social status issues raises questions about the extent to which people on low incomes feel marginalised or stigmatised by others, and whether such issues should be captured in a deprivation measure. The discussion of social order draws attention to problems of crime and disorder.

« Previous | Contents | Next »