and emphasis is laid on the connection between this prob lem and the wages system as a whole.

Throughout the chapters, attention is given to the functions and activities of the State in relation to social conditions.

CHAPTER II.

Definition

of Poverty.

INVESTIGATIONS INTO POVERTY.

There is no unanimity on the definition of poverty, since it is essentially a relative term. What constitutes "poverty" varies from one person to another according to upbringing, environment and needs. An income that means poverty" to a skilled artisan might mean a large degree of comfort to an agricultural labourer. The interpretation also varies with time, for, with the advance in civilisation, what is considered sufficient for a person's requirements in one period may be found inadequate in the next.

Some writers imply by the term "poverty" the receipt of insufficient income to provide bare subsistence, or, as others phrase it, bare physical efficiency. "Bare subsistence," however, is not very determinate, for it is subject to variation between different people and at different times and places. And a great deal would depend on the manner in which this subsistence income is spent. By a scientific allocation of the income among the several necessities of life in proportions calculated to secure the maximum benefit, it would doubtless be possible to arrive at a subsistence minimum below that generally, though vaguely, understood. But as people rarely lay out their income in this manner (even if it were possible to calculate what the proportions should be) the subsistence level must necessarily be taken to be higher than the theoretical minimum. Mr. Seebohm Rowntree defines what he means by the

minimum necessary for physical efficiency in the following terms. "A family living upon the scale allowed for in this estimate must never spend a penny on railway fare or omnibus. They must never go into the country unless they walk. They must never purchase a halfpenny newspaper or spend a penny to buy a ticket for a popular concert. They must write no letters to absent children, for they cannot afford to pay the postage. They must never contribute anything to their church or chapel, or give any help to a neighbour which costs them money. They cannot save, nor can they join sick club or Trade Union, because they cannot pay the necessary subscriptions. The children must have no pocket money for dolls, marbles, or sweets. The father must smoke no tobacco, and must drink no beer. The mother must never buy any pretty clothes for herself or for her children, the character of the family wardrobe as for the family diet being governed by the regulation, 'Nothing must be bought but that which is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of physical health, and what is bought must be of the plainest and most economical description.' Should a child fall ill, it must be attended by the parish doctor; should it die, it must be buried by the parish. Finally, the wage-earner must never be absent from his work for a single day.

If any of these conditions are broken, the extra expenditure is met, and can only be met, by limiting the diet; or, in other words, by sacrificing physical efficiency."*

Some writers would go so far as to substitute "standard or living" for "bare subsistence" in the determination of the poverty line, thus widening the interpretation of poverty. Sir Leo Chiozza Money, for example, includes in his estimate for 1914, "amusements including holiday, fares, drink, tobacco, newspapers, books and pocket money." * Poverty, A Study of Town Life, 1901, Ch. V.

A family unable to afford such expenditure would, according to this view, be living in poverty.* But "standard of living" is even more difficult to define than "subsistence," for whereas the latter could be theoretically estimated as to the minimum, the former is extremely relative in its application. Necessities, comforts and luxuries are very indeterminate terms, and it is impossible to say where one merges into another. It can merely be stated that whereas a subsistence income provides for necessities of life only, a standard of living permits a certain amount of comforts and even luxuries.†

There is a third view as to the definition of poverty, viz., insufficient income to ensure maximum economic efficiency. But this definition cannot be accepted, for it would apply only to poor persons employed or capable of being employed in industry, and would exclude those in poverty for reasons of age or infirmity. Again, it is difficult to measure the degree of efficiency. Is the efficiency to be reckoned in terms of output? If so, a considerable period of time will have to be taken, for an increase or decrease in income need not react on output for several weeks or even months. Secondly, efficiency at work depends on factors other than material income and expenditure; increasing attention has been given in the last few years to the psychological influences on a man's output. Or is efficiency to be taken as meaning something broader and more humane than mere output? A worker's manner of living, his functions of citizenship, his moral standard and general outlook, might all properly be included in the term efficiency," for they are influenced to some extent by the

*The Nation's Wealth, p. 92. See below (p. 67) for his estimate of a dock labourer's standard of living in 1920.

†The standard of life in relation to wages is discussed more fully in Ch. IV.

economic factor. It is doubtful, however, whether the majority of writers who define poverty in this manner would imply by the term deficiency in all these requisites. To avoid ambiguity it is preferable to employ special terms for the different types of poverty. Thus destitution is taken to indicate such inadequacy of the necessaries of life that health and vitality are impaired. Destitution implies more than a mere physical state :

Destitution and Pauperism.

"It is indeed, a special feature of destitution in modern urban communities that it means not merely a lack of food, clothing and shelter, but also a condition of mental degradation. Destitution in the desert may have been consistent with a high level of spiritual refinement. But destitution in a densely crowded modern city means, as all experience shows, not only oncoming disease and premature death from continued privation, but also, in the great majority of cases, the degradation of the soul."*

Pauperism is not as wide a conception as destitution. It applies to those who are in receipt of public relief. Those people are destitute" whose income is insufficient to maintain life and efficiency. Those are "paupers" who have their incomes made up under the Poor Law. Estimates of "legal pauperism are of course more easily secured than those of destitution, and from this arises a danger of undue optimism. During the sixty years before the war, there was a marked decline in pauperism-from 62 per 1,000 in 1850 to 16 per 1,000 in 1911. Little is proved by such figures, however, for the drop is largely accounted for by growing stringency of administration; also by the fact that much relief had come to be afforded by local health, lunacy, unemployment, pensions and other authorities, causing a distinct reduction in the official

* S. & B. Webb, The Prevention of Destitution, pp. 1-2.