The Stigma of Poverty in Australia

Many complex problems persist within our society and seem impossible to tackle due to their intricate and multidimensional aspects. One such issue is poverty: Over 3.5 billion people (44% of the world) live in poverty, with poverty reduction progress having stalled in recent years, and a projected 40% of the world’s population will continue to live in poverty in 2030 (The World Bank, 2024). Poverty is not only an issue in developing nations. In Australia, one in eight adults and one in six children currently live in poverty (Davidson et al., 2022), at risk of a multitude of negative consequences.

Poverty is linked to reduced life expectancy, increased risk of physical health issues and chronic diseases like diabetes, and increased mortality (Reis, 2013; Turrell & Mathers, 2000). Despite many nations trying to tackle the issue of poverty, these efforts are often fundamentally limited to basic necessities like income and healthcare.

Beyond the Physical Consequences

And yet our minds are a critical aspect of our human experience. Our mental health is as important as our physical health. Poverty is not only related to challenges navigating social life, such as an increased risk of mental illness and drug use, as well as worse educational outcomes (e.g., Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). It is also linked to fewer relationships, lower levels of happiness, reduced trust in others (d’Hombres et al., 2012), and a reduced perception of the level of control we have over our lives (Loughnan et al., 2011). We may feel stalled in our ability to change and control our own lives and not have the support we require from those around us, on top of a reduced wellbeing.

Beyond these consequences, people living in poverty are subjected to stigma on account of their circumstances. Yet this stigma is something that is not as discussed as much as it should be. Therefore, we explore whether the stigma around poverty is one reason why poverty continues to persist, even in economically developed nations like Australia.

Hostile Stigma

One form of stigma, hostile stigma, positions people experiencing poverty as taking ‘the easy way out’ and relying on social support and government assistance because of laziness and incompetence (Durante et al., 2017; Jordan et al., 2021). We have all heard the term ‘hand-outs’ being thrown around in media and everyday life. Two implicit assumptions are embedded in this rhetoric: (1) that people in poverty choose to rely on such social support systems rather than making the choices to turn their lives around (or take advantage of such systems), and (2) that financial assistance is an extra or optional contribution, diminishing what it does for people who receive it. These payments are often imperative for helping financially disadvantaged people out of poverty (Davidson et al., 2022) – i.e., social support payments are a direct and effective method of poverty reduction. And if and when we find ourselves in such a situation, we would also want to have access to such financial assistance.

Benevolent Stigma

Alongside outright hostility, people living in poverty also face a mixture of beliefs that are a more subtle form of mistreatment – ones we often overlook – called ‘benevolent stigma’. Such beliefs are paternalistic and controlling, without being overtly hostile in tone. For example, the belief that aid organisations like charities should strictly dictate what people in poverty can or cannot spend their money on can be understood as patronising and demeaning. Another belief is that poorer people need the strict guidance of richer people to get out of poverty – this idea that poor people lack the competency to ‘save’ themselves (Jordan et al., 2021). This type of belief undermines people’s freedom and autonomy by telling them how to live their lives: you must do this, to receive that, or else risk losing our help (Davidson et al., 2022).

Ambivalent Classism

A third type of prejudice arises when a person holds both negative (hostile) and flattering but patronising (benevolent) beliefs about people who live in poverty, which is called ambivalent classism (Jordan et al., 2021). The positive yet patronising beliefs attempt to placate those who are in poverty, and position richer people as superior while maintaining that poorer people need to be controlled. The negative beliefs deny that those in poverty have the competency and/or the agency to succeed financially. Dismissive reassurance concerning poorer people’s situation combines with outright hostility through stigma which perpetuates the cycle of poverty by creating a kind of mental distance from the issue itself.

What Can We Do?

Understanding this stigma can go a long way in helping break the cycle of poverty. Researchers suggest that one of the best ways to minimise the systemic impact of poverty stigmatisation is by exposing people to the impact that this stigma has. By teaching children about stereotypes about people in poverty during early schooling, the stereotypes that contribute to stigma can be undermined (Durante & Fiske, 2017). Without active intervention by parents and educators, stereotypes about poor people are often established in educational settings like schools and negatively impact academic achievement, contributing to the cycle of poor educational outcomes for those who live in poverty.

Conclusion

Social class is a clear division between people (Durante & Fiske, 2017), and the harm following the stigma of poverty is clearly apparent from research. Stigma of poverty can include both outright hostility as well as seemingly positive but patronising beliefs. These beliefs perpetuate poverty through justifying neglect and through continuing the idea that those in poverty do not have control over their lives or need to be controlled in order to be seen as worthy of charitable aid. By understanding these beliefs and the way in which they contribute to stigma, we can work towards breaking the cycle of poverty and move towards taking action that actually helps: affirming and building the agency of people and communities in poverty who often know what they need and do not receive it.  
 
 -- Joel Whalan, UQ alum and contributor to the Social Change Lab
 
References

Davidson, P., Bradbury, B., & Wong, M. (2022). Poverty in Australia 2022: A snapshot.
Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and UNSW Sydney. https://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Poverty-in-Australia-2020_A-snapshot.pdf

d'Hombres, B., Weber, A., & Elia, L. (2012). Literature review on income inequality and the
effects on social outcomes. European Commission Joint Research Center Scientific and Policy Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC76149/lbna25574enn.pdf

Durante, F., & Fiske, S. T. (2017). How social-class stereotypes maintain inequality. Current
Opinion in Psychology, 18, 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.033

Durante, F., Tablante, C. B., & Fiske, S. T. (2017). Poor but warm, rich but cold (and
competent): Social classes in the Stereotype Content Model. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 138–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12208

Jordan, J. A., Lawler, J. R., & Bosson, J. K. (2021). Ambivalent Classism: The importance
of assessing Hostile and Benevolent ideologies about poor people. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2020.1828084

Loughnan, S., Kuppens, P., Allik, J., Balazs, K., de Lemus, S., Dumont, K., Gargurevich, R.,
Hidegkuti, I., Leidner, B., Matos, L., Park, J., Realo, A., Shi, J., Sojo, V. E., Tong, Y. Y., Vaes, J., Verduyn, P., Yeung, V. & Haslam, N. (2011). Economic inequality is linked to biased self-perception. Psychological Science, 22(10), 1254–1258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417003

Reiss, F. (2013). Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and
adolescents: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 90, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.026

The World Bank. (2024). Poverty, Prosperity, and Planet Report: Pathways Out of the
Polycrisis. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/poverty-prosperity-and-planet

Turrell, G., & Mathers, C. D. (2000). Socioeconomic status and health in Australia. Medical
Journal of Australia, 172(9), 434–438. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2000.tb124041.x

Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2009). Income inequality and social dysfunction.
Annual Review of Sociology, 35(1), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115926