‘’I feel like I’m in poverty. I don’t do much outside of work other than survive": In-work poverty and multiple employment in the UK
Poverty dynamics research
Temporalities of poverty
Rights(c) 2021 The Authors. This is an Open Access article distributed under the Creative Commons CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Open Access statusGold
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractThis paper argues for the need to reconsider the changing nature of in-work poverty (IWP). In doing so, we present evidence not included in current debates or statistics, of people working in more than one job, yet still experiencing IWP. Using the dynamic theory of poverty and a qualitative approach, we identify various structural constraints that sustain cycles of IWP. This highlights the multi-dimensionalities of poverty, incorporating the temporalities, types and depths of IWP. Our evidence demonstrates how poverty is experienced and individualised and also how it is created and sustained through paid work, rather than being challenged by it.
CitationMcBride J and Smith A (2021) "I feel like I’m in poverty. I don’t do much outside of work other than survive": In-work poverty and multiple employment in the UK. Economic and Industrial Democracy. Accepted for publication.
Link to publisher’s versionhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X211016054
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
‘You end up with nothing’: the experience of being a statistic of ‘in-work poverty’ in the UKMcBride, Jo; Smith, Andrew J.; Mbala, M. (2018-01)Set in the context of the recent unprecedented upsurge of in-work poverty (IWP) in the UK – which currently exceeds out of work poverty – this article presents an account of the realities of experiencing poverty and being employed. Central issues of low-pay, limited working hours, underemployment and constrained employment opportunities combine to generate severe financial complexities and challenges. This testimony, taken comparatively over a year, reveals the experiences of, not only IWP, but of deep poverty, and having insufficient wages to fulfil the basic essentials of nourishing food and adequate clothing. This article contributes to current academic and social policy debates around low-paid work, IWP, the use of foodbanks and underemployment. New dimensions are offered regarding worker vulnerabilities, given the recent growth of the IWP phenomenon.
Foreign Direct Investment and Poverty Reduction in the ASEAN Region.Jalilian, Hossein; Weiss, John A. (2002)This paper represents part of an ongoing study on the topic of foreign direct investment (FDI) and poverty reduction in the ASEAN region. The overall study covers both macro- and microeconomic aspects of this issue, and this paper addresses the macro dimension. Considerable work has been done on the relation between economic growth and poverty reduction, and by now a conventional wisdom is emerging which can be stated simply that while growth is critically important for poverty reduction, the pattern and nature of the growth process in economies also matters. Following this reasoning this study explores the link between FDI and poverty reduction. The broad hypothesis to be tested is that FDI through its growth effect or other means is poverty reducing. While a great deal has been written on a variety of aspects relating to poverty, the precise FDI-poverty link has rarely been addressed directly, and we seek to remedy this gap in the literature. The paper is in four sections. The first discusses briefly the broad dimensions of poverty in the ASEAN region and recent trends in terms of FDI. Having set out these empirical dimensions, the remaining sections consider data analysis and results. The second section sets out the econometric approach and the results from the relevant literature, the third discusses data and some preliminary results. The fourth gives the main results, and finally we draw some conclusions. I. Poverty and FDI in ASEAN Naturally within ASEAN as a region the poverty picture is very varied, as one would expect given the diversity of income levels among the member states. Table 1 summarises the position in terms of income levels and past income growth rates. The inequality in the group can be seen readily with two high-income countries, Singapore and Brunei; three lower-middle income countries, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand; and the remaining members--Indonesia, Cambodia, Lao, Myanmar, Vietnam--all low income.