Annotated Bibliographies
In this portion of the Poverty Circle, we’ve created a collection of annotated bibliographies to explore the unknown of poverty.
1. Judging a Book By Its Cover
HETLING, ANDREA, and MONIKA L. McDERMOTT. “Judging a Book by Its Cover: Did
Perceptions of the 1996 US Welfare Reforms Affect Public Support for Spending on the
Poor?” Journal of Social Policy, vol. 37, no. 3, 2008, pp. 471–487.,
doi:10.1017/S0047279408002006.
A popular train of thought is that people who are against welfare spending are also against governmental spending in general, however according to the authors, this is not always the case. Many people who are against Welfare spending think the government doesn’t spend enough money on other things, like regulations, education, and the military. The article shows the nuance in public policy decision making, and how people can be for or against similar things due to personal beliefs and how the narrative has been shaped. This article is useful because it shows how people can about similar ways of spending when presented differently, and one large take way is that often people need to see the whole picture rather than just narrowly focusing on one aspect of the governments relationship with poverty.
2. Racial and Class Divergence in Public Attitudes and Perceptions About Poverty
Adeola, Francis O. “Racial and Class Divergence in Public Attitudes and Perceptions
About Poverty in USA: An Empirical Study.” Race, Gender & Class, vol. 12, no. 2, 2005, pp.
53–80.
This study attempts to show the links between race and poverty in America. The study found that many African Americans believe themselves to be less intelligent that White Americans in similar situations. This study also attempts to show that affluent groups view poverty differently, often associating poverty with personal and moral failings, rather than societal and communal failings. This study is important because it shows a different perspective on poverty than we personally see; that of African-Americans living in poverty. The big take away from this source is that personal biases need to be challenged with facts and real-life experiences, not just 3rd party anecdotes and cookie-cutter portrayals.
3. Deservingness, Discretion, and the States Politics of Welfare Spending
Barrilleaux, Charles, and Ethan Bernick. “Deservingness, Discretion, and the State
Politics of Welfare Spending, 1990-96.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 1,
2003, pp. 1–22.
This piece examines the idea that splitting impoverished people into different categories and tailoring the funding they receive can help improve their economic standing. They are broken down into two categories, ‘deserving’ which are people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and are deemed mentally or physically incapable of working for a living, and the ‘undeserving’ who receive General Assistance programs (GA), who are able to work but don’t earn enough to live above the Poverty line. Over time the so-called ‘Undeserving’ poor have been losing political representation and as a result have been losing funding for governmental assistance. This piece is important because it shows how the impoverished are looked at by some, and how many view people in poverty as lacking morally or in effort. The big take away is that every person is their own person, no single narrative or label can perfectly describe a group of people, because everyone is nuanced in their own way. So, trying to dichotomize a large group of people will lead to marginalization of people who fit one category or the other, and ignoring those who need help but don’t satisfy our personal criteria of those I need.
the Poverty Circle 