Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/378

 POVERTY

328

POVERTY

than at present, we have no means of knowing. The proportion of medieval persons who lacked what are to-day regarded as requisites of elementary comfort was probably larger, while the proportion that had to go without adequate food and clothing for long periods of time was not improbably smaller. One of the great causes of poverty— namely, insecurity of employment, of residence, and of shelter — was cer- tainly much less frequent in the older time. If we compare the poverty of to-day with that of one cen- tury ago, we find all authorities agreeing that it has decreased both absolutely and relatively. Against this general fact, however, we must note one or two circumstances that are less gratifying. Both the intensity and the extent of the lowest grade of poverty are probably quite as great now as they were at the beginning of the nineteenth century; and there are some indications that the improvement occurring during the last twenty-five years has been less than in the preceding half-century.

Owing to lack of statistical data, it is impossible to estimate, even appro ximatelj', the proportion of the people of any country that is in poverty. On the basis of unemployment statistics, eviction statistics, cases of charity relief, and other evidences of distress, Robert Hunter declared that the number of persons in poverty in the United States in 190-t was ten millions; that is, they were "much of the time un- derfed, poorly clothed, and improperly housed" ("The New Encyclopedia of Social Reform", 940; cf. also his work on Poverty). Ten millions repre- sented at that time about one-eighth of our total population. Professor Bushnell estimated the num- ber of persons known to be in receipt of public or private relief at three millions (Modern Methods of Charity, 3S5-90). Of course the total number of persons who received charitable aid was much larger, for a large proportion of such cases do not come to the knowledge of statisticians or social students. On the other hand, not all who are charitably assisted are paupers, nor strictly speaking in poverty. Mr. Hunter's estimate is perhaps too high. After a very careful and thorough investigation of the poor in London, completed in 1902, Charles Booth found that nearly thirtiy-one per cent of the people of that city were in poverty (cf. "Life and Labor of the People in London"). This estimate was fully and remark- ably confirmed by the studies of Scebohm Rowntree in the City of York, where the proportion of the in- habitants in poverty appeared as twenty-eight per cent (cf. "Poverty: a Study of Town Life"). There are good reasons for thinking that both these esti- mates are under-statements, if poverty be understood according to the definition adopted in this article. For example, Rowntree placed above the poverty hne all persons who were in a condition of present physical efficiency, even though many of them were \mable to make any outlay for carfare, amusement, recreation, newspapers, religion, societies, or in- surance against old age. Evidently, physical ef- ficiency in such circumstances can be maintained only for a few years. At any rate, this condition is not elementary comfort nor decent existence. Since wages and their piu-chasing power are quite as high in England as in any other country of Europe, the proportion of poverty is probably as great in the latter as in the former.

The causes of poverty are very numerous and very difficult to classify satisfactorily. While the division of them into social and individual causes is useful and suggestive it is not strictly logical; for each of these is often to some extent responsible for the other. Where both causes affect the same person, it is fre- quently impossible to say which is the more important. A better classification is that of immediate and origi- nal causes; but it is not always possible to deter- mine which is the true original cause, nor how many

of the intermediate causes have operated as mere in- struments, and contributed no special influence of their own. As a rule, each case of poverty is due to more than one distinct factor, and it is not possible to measure the precise contribution of each factor to the general result. In any particular situation, the most satisfactory method is to enumerate aU the chief causes and to state which seems to be the most potent. Professor Warner applied this method to more than 110,000 cases which had been investigated in London, in five American cities, and in seventy- six German cities ("American Charities", 1st ed., 22-58). He found the principal cause to be: in 21.3 per cent of the whole number of instances, mis- conduct, such as drink, immorality, inefficiency, and a ro\'ing disposition; in 74.4 per cent, misfortune, under which head he included such factors as lack of normal support, matters of employment, and in- dividual incapacity as distinguished from indi\ddual fault. Misfortune was, therefore, the predominant cause in three and one-half times as many cases as misconduct. Among the particular chief factors drink was credited with 11 per cent, lack of employ- ment with 17.4, no male support with 8, sickness or death in family with 23.6, old age with 9.6, insuffi- ciency of employment with 6.7, poorly paid employ- ment with 4.4, and inefficiency and shiftlessness with 8.26. In a general way these figures support the contention of Dr. E. T. Devine, that poverty "is economic, the result of maladjustment, that defective personality is only a halfway explanation, which itself results directly from conditions which society may largely control" (Misery and its Causes, 11).

It must be noted, however, that Professor Warner aims to state the immediate causes only. In a large proportion of cases these are the result of some other cause or causes. Thus, disease, accident, or unem- ployment might be due to immorality or intem- perance in the more or less distant past; and what is now classified as culpable inefficiency or shiftless- ness might be ultimately traceable to prolonged un- employment. The important lesson conveyed by this and every other attempt to estimate the com- parative influence of the various causes of poverty is that we must never regard our estimates as more than very rough approximations. Certain factors are known to be very important everywhere. They are; intemperance, sexual immorality, crime, im- providence, inefficiency, heredity and associations, insufficient wages and employment, congenital de- fects, injurious occupations, sickness, accident, and old age. Every one of these is not only capable of producing poverty on its own account, but of in- ducing or supplementing one of the other causes. Intemperance leads to sickness, accident, ineificiency, immorality, and unemployment; on the other hand, it often appears as the effect of these. Almost all of the other factors may properly be regarded in the same light, as causes and as effects reciprocally.

Among the principal effects of poverty are physical suffering, through want of sufficient sustenance, through sickness, and other forms of disability; moral degeneration and immorality in many forms; intellectual defects and inefficiency; social injury through diminished productive efficiency, and un- necessary expenditures for poor relief; finally, more poverty through the vicious circle of many of the effects just enumerated. For example, intemperance, improvidence, sickness, and inefficiency are at once effects and causes. In a word, the effects of poverty are sufficiently numerous and sufficiently destruc- tive to elicit the fervent wish that this condition might be totally abolished.

The relief of poverty, especially under the direction of the Church, has been discussed at length in the article Charity and Ch.vrities. Here we merely note the fact that the poor are now assisted by the