**1. Introduction**

136 Social Welfare

Honneth, A. (1995) *The struggle for recognition: the moral grammar of social conflicts.* 

Hovedkomiteen for norsk forskning (1976) Forskningsbehov og forskningspolitikk [*Quest for* 

Jacobsen, K. D. (1971) 'Ekonomi och välferd – en översikt' ['Economy and Welfare – an Overview'], in Ekonomi och välferd, Föreningen Sveriges Socialschefer. Ronneby. Kolberg, J. E. (1970) Det klientskapende system [*The Client Producing System*], in Lingås, L. G.

Labour Party (1969) 'Principles and Values'. Vi vil..! [*We Will. Norwegian Political Party Programs 1884-2001*]*.* CD, Norwegian Social Science Data Services, (NSD), 2001. Labour Party (1981) 'Principles and Values'. Vi vil..! [*We Will. Norwegian Political Party Programs 1884-2001*]*.* CD, Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD), 2001.

Leonardsen, D. (1993) *Rammer for velferdspolitikken* [Restrictions For Welfare Politics]*.* 

Leonardsen, D. (forthcoming) 'Moral Panics in a Culture of Fear'. Forthcoming in

Løchen, Y. (1970) Velferdsstatens krise [*The Welfare State Crisis*], in Lingås, L. G. (ed.) Myten

Marcuse, H. (1991) *One-Dimensional Man: Studies In the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society.*

Marklund, S. (1988) *Paradise Lost? The Nordic Welfare States and the Recession 1975-1985.* Lund:

OECD (2008) 'Are we growing unequal? New evidence on changes in poverty and incomes over the past 20 years'. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/56/41494435.pdf

Uslaner, Eric M. (2002) *The Moral Foundations of Trust.* Cambridge: Cambridge University

von Wright, G. H. (1994) Myten om fremskrittet [*The Myth About Progress*]. Oslo: Cappelen. Wahl, A. (2009) Velferdsstatens vekst og fall [*The Growth and Fall of the Welfare State*]. Oslo:

Rose, R. and Peters, B. G. (1978) *Can Government Go Bankrupt?* N.Y.: Basic Books. Sennett, R. (2003) *Respect In a World of Inequality.* N. Y.: W. W. Norton and Company.

Østerud, Ø. (1978) Det planlagte samfunn [*The Planned Society*]. Oslo: Cappelen.

Kolberg, J. E. (1983) *Farvel til velferdsstaten?* [*Welfare State – Goodbye*?]. Oslo: Cappelen.

Habermas, J. (1976) *Legitimation Crisis.* London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd. Halvorsen, K. (1977) Arbeid eller trygd? [*Work or National Insurance?*]. Oslo: Pax.

Hanisch, T. (1977) Hele folket I arbeid. [*Everybody at Work*]. Oslo: Pax

*Research and Research* Policy]. Melding no. 5. Oslo. Illich, I. (1973) *Tools For Conviviality.* Glasgow: Calder and Boyars.

Labour Party. Long term programs and election manifestos, 1975-2009

LeGrand, J. (1982) *The Strategy of Equality.* London: Allen and Unwin.

O'Connor (1973) *The Fiscal Crisis of the State.* N. Y.: St. Martin's Press.

White Paper no. 67, 1957: The Long Term Program. Oslo. White Paper no. 71, 1972-73, Special Analysis no. Oslo.

Young, J (1999) *The Exclusive Society.* London: SAGE Publications.

(ed.): Myten om velferdsstaten. Oslo: Pax.

Labour Party National Congress. Records, 1969-2009.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

Skrifter, ODH, No. 79*.* 

*Punishment and Society.*

London: Kegan Paul.

Arkiv.

Press.

Gyldendal.

om velferdsstaten. Oslo: Pax.

The purpose of this phenomenologically and hermeneutically oriented interview study is to explore the subjectivity and life-worlds of the poor. It focuses on experiences of inhibition or loss of autonomy among people living in relative poverty in an affluent welfare state1. Different psychological perspectives and theories, especially those related to social psychology, needs and emotions, aid the interpretation of the findings, which are discussed in relation to contextual factors and methodological issues.

Conventional poverty studies have tended to be dominated by economists, sociologists and other social scientists who have sought in the main to define, operationalize and measure poverty and conduct comparative macro-level studies (Øyen, Miller & Samad, 1996). Themes related to psychology are barely raised in this research tradition, and in psychological research poverty is conspicuous by its absence (Lewis, Webley & Furnham, 1995). This is surprising given that poverty is the world's most endemic and oldest social problem. Psychologists should have much to contribute to poverty studies.

In this article I attempt to bring poverty as a social problem into the realm of psychology as a science. Poverty is understood and investigated with the aid of psychological perspectives as a *human* problem. The goal is to help found a new research area, the *psychology of poverty*. It is a bold ambition, especially for a chapter in a book. We need therefore to narrow the field with regard to type of poverty, psychological issues and theoretical perspectives we are going to be dealing with.

The *type of poverty* we investigate here is the variant that occurs in contemporary Norway (and Scandinavia). Norway is one of the world's richest countries and boasts a relatively well-developed welfare system. It has during many years been singled out across a range of social welfare indicators as the best place in the world to live in (UN, 2010). Norwegian poverty differs from absolute and total poverty which was common throughout history and

<sup>1</sup> This is a part-study; social devaluation, insecurity and self-image and self-esteem are described under the same umbrella, "psychology of poverty", in separate articles (Underlid, 2004; 2005; 2007). Therefore, some of the text which focus on general aspects, e.g. method, may have similarities with these previous publications. However, this is an original contribution about poverty and autonomy.

Autonomy and Poverty – An Empirical Study of Long-Term Recipients of Social Assistance 139

follows: 'Behaviors that either are intrinsically motivated or stem from well-integrated

Although notions of autonomy and self-determination are not particularly visible in the literature, it is possible nonetheless to trace Murray and Deci's ideas in a number of psychological theories that utilise related concepts. Haworth (1986) listed more than a dozen such theories. The concept of autonomy has additionally been applied in political philosophy (Raz, 1986), the philosophy of law and moral philosophy (Dworkin, 1988;

Doyal and Gough maintain that the overriding universal objective, from a socio-political need and welfare standpoint, would have to be the avoidance of severe harm in the form of disabled social participation. They refer in this connection to Townsend's (1979) definition of

According to Doyal and Gough, two basic conditions must be met for a person to participate in social settings. The one is survival and a modicum of physical health. The second is that the person must not be impeded by other causes, i.e., internal or external barriers (autonomy). Doyal and Gough believe, therefore, that survival/physical health and autonomy constitute the only basic (universal) human needs. Doyal and Gough define autonomy as the ability to make informed choices about prospective actions and how to execute them. This presupposes an ability to set goals and devise strategies to achieve them,

Although Doyal & Gough's theoretical frame of reference and research goals do not necessarily align with those employed in this study, their points of view are worth mentioning - without going into the details in their rather comprehensive theory of human needs. Their concept of objective needs could prove important and fruitful in many research contexts, not least in poverty studies. That said, the research area 'psychology of poverty' aims at gaining access to the subjectivity and life-world of the poor, and for that purpose it is more relevant to focus on experiential autonomy/inhibition or lack of autonomy. It is important to emphasise that the experiences in question are of an objective reality, independent of the mindset of the observer, because poverty is basically a material phenomenon. It is relevant therefore to focus on the interplay between subjective and

In line with the above discussion and my own conception of the term, for the purpose of this study *personal autonomy* is defined loosely and tentatively as *self-determination, co-authorship of one's life in the short and long term, and the ability to pursue one's desires within reasonably wide and flexible limits of a biological and social/societal nature without being at the mercy of inner or external constraints*. In particular, autonomy is conceptualised and viewed in connection with activity in the social arena and with significant role responsibilities and actions within relevant role domains. Autonomy is further conceptualised as a *continuum*, not a dichotomy. As a value and ideal, autonomy gains significance in relation to values of a more collective

This is a 'mild' version of need: autonomy is not necessarily considered to be a biological/innate drive like the need for food. It is partly cultural, an 'acquired taste' shared by most societies and cultures, but where variation must be expected and allowed for.

personal values and regulatory processes…' (Deci & Ryan, 1991, p. 238).

Haworth, 1986) and the social sciences (Doyal & Gough, 1991).

and to evaluate the realism of both in the light of the evidence.

poverty as relative and objective deprivation.

objective factors.

nature.

in developing countries today (UN, 1995), and also from the destitution we find in ghettolike districts in affluent developed countries like the US.

It is this form of poverty, as it is experienced day by day by the poor, that is the intentional object of the respondents of this study – the object of their experience – and the object of this study. I bracket, however, the objective factors to concentrate instead on the experiences of poverty of the respondents. I want to discover the subjective meaning of *relative poverty of affluent welfare states* as experienced by the poor themselves. The general properties of this type of poverty have been identified as relative deprivation, social exclusion and the 'tyranny of scarcity' (Stjernø, 1985; Townsend, 1979).

The second point concerns the psychological issue. As mentioned above, I restrict the 'psychology of poverty' to the *experience* of poverty, with a more specific focus here on experiences of inhibition or loss of autonomy.

The third point relates to theoretical perspectives. Although psychology is a young science, it has a wide range of sub-disciplines and theoretical approaches. The 'psychology of poverty', as defined here, takes social psychology and perspectives on needs and emotions as its starting point. Social psychology is that area of psychology that attempts to understand and study individuals in its interpersonal, social, societal and cultural contexts.

From the point of view of the individual, poverty is also about *needs*, generally unsatisfied needs. But not so much biological needs. The relative poverty of affluent welfare states causes psychological and social distress (which is materially conditioned and constituted). It is therefore pertinent to focus on *psychological* needs in the study of the consequences of this type of poverty. Psychological needs are loosely and tentatively conceived as categories of deep-seated, general, continuous and widespread urges, desires or wants that may be more or less conscious/ unconscious. If they are not satisfied, psychological, social or somatic harm may result, in the short and/or longer term. Satisfying psychological needs will therefore also be in the interests ('objective needs') of the subject. Psychological needs of this nature differ from likes, preferences and (short lived/superficial) wants in the sense in which these terms are generally used and understood. All needs contain a cultural, situational and personal element, which dispose towards certain types of behaviour.

Numerous theories of needs have been developed over the years covering varying numbers of basic (generally understood as universal) psychological needs (Franken, 1994). In a psychological study of 'modern poverty' a natural question would be to ask about the needs most involved. There are several candidates. During the interview sessions with the long-term recipients of social assistance, some important details came to light. Many of the respondents reported feeling 'locked in', 'paralysed', 'constrained', 'incapacitated', 'powerless', 'at the mercy of' an impersonal and intractable bureaucracy, etc. These findings instigated a search for relevant need-related categories and terms to serve as allies in the attempt to achieve theoretical grasp of the situation. They were not found in Maslow's (1970/1954) famous theory of human needs. One of the 27 psychological needs Murray (1938) enumerates in his classic work on motivation theory corresponds in part to the findings: *autonomy,* and particularly interpersonal autonomy factors associated with power, influence, dominance, independence and self-determination. Murray defines autonomy as follows: 'To resist influence or coercion. To defy an authority or seek freedom in a new place. To strive for independence' (p. 82). Deci (1980) and Deci and Ryan's (1991) theory of self-determination captures other germane aspects of self-expression and self-development more generally. *Self-determination* is defined as

in developing countries today (UN, 1995), and also from the destitution we find in ghetto-

It is this form of poverty, as it is experienced day by day by the poor, that is the intentional object of the respondents of this study – the object of their experience – and the object of this study. I bracket, however, the objective factors to concentrate instead on the experiences of poverty of the respondents. I want to discover the subjective meaning of *relative poverty of affluent welfare states* as experienced by the poor themselves. The general properties of this type of poverty have been identified as relative deprivation, social exclusion and the

The second point concerns the psychological issue. As mentioned above, I restrict the 'psychology of poverty' to the *experience* of poverty, with a more specific focus here on

The third point relates to theoretical perspectives. Although psychology is a young science, it has a wide range of sub-disciplines and theoretical approaches. The 'psychology of poverty', as defined here, takes social psychology and perspectives on needs and emotions as its starting point. Social psychology is that area of psychology that attempts to understand and study individuals in its interpersonal, social, societal and cultural contexts. From the point of view of the individual, poverty is also about *needs*, generally unsatisfied needs. But not so much biological needs. The relative poverty of affluent welfare states causes psychological and social distress (which is materially conditioned and constituted). It is therefore pertinent to focus on *psychological* needs in the study of the consequences of this type of poverty. Psychological needs are loosely and tentatively conceived as categories of deep-seated, general, continuous and widespread urges, desires or wants that may be more or less conscious/ unconscious. If they are not satisfied, psychological, social or somatic harm may result, in the short and/or longer term. Satisfying psychological needs will therefore also be in the interests ('objective needs') of the subject. Psychological needs of this nature differ from likes, preferences and (short lived/superficial) wants in the sense in which these terms are generally used and understood. All needs contain a cultural,

situational and personal element, which dispose towards certain types of behaviour.

Numerous theories of needs have been developed over the years covering varying numbers of basic (generally understood as universal) psychological needs (Franken, 1994). In a psychological study of 'modern poverty' a natural question would be to ask about the needs most involved. There are several candidates. During the interview sessions with the long-term recipients of social assistance, some important details came to light. Many of the respondents reported feeling 'locked in', 'paralysed', 'constrained', 'incapacitated', 'powerless', 'at the mercy of' an impersonal and intractable bureaucracy, etc. These findings instigated a search for relevant need-related categories and terms to serve as allies in the attempt to achieve theoretical grasp of the situation. They were not found in Maslow's (1970/1954) famous theory of human needs. One of the 27 psychological needs Murray (1938) enumerates in his classic work on motivation theory corresponds in part to the findings: *autonomy,* and particularly interpersonal autonomy factors associated with power, influence, dominance, independence and self-determination. Murray defines autonomy as follows: 'To resist influence or coercion. To defy an authority or seek freedom in a new place. To strive for independence' (p. 82). Deci (1980) and Deci and Ryan's (1991) theory of self-determination captures other germane aspects of self-expression and self-development more generally. *Self-determination* is defined as

like districts in affluent developed countries like the US.

'tyranny of scarcity' (Stjernø, 1985; Townsend, 1979).

experiences of inhibition or loss of autonomy.

follows: 'Behaviors that either are intrinsically motivated or stem from well-integrated personal values and regulatory processes…' (Deci & Ryan, 1991, p. 238).

Although notions of autonomy and self-determination are not particularly visible in the literature, it is possible nonetheless to trace Murray and Deci's ideas in a number of psychological theories that utilise related concepts. Haworth (1986) listed more than a dozen such theories. The concept of autonomy has additionally been applied in political philosophy (Raz, 1986), the philosophy of law and moral philosophy (Dworkin, 1988; Haworth, 1986) and the social sciences (Doyal & Gough, 1991).

Doyal and Gough maintain that the overriding universal objective, from a socio-political need and welfare standpoint, would have to be the avoidance of severe harm in the form of disabled social participation. They refer in this connection to Townsend's (1979) definition of poverty as relative and objective deprivation.

According to Doyal and Gough, two basic conditions must be met for a person to participate in social settings. The one is survival and a modicum of physical health. The second is that the person must not be impeded by other causes, i.e., internal or external barriers (autonomy). Doyal and Gough believe, therefore, that survival/physical health and autonomy constitute the only basic (universal) human needs. Doyal and Gough define autonomy as the ability to make informed choices about prospective actions and how to execute them. This presupposes an ability to set goals and devise strategies to achieve them, and to evaluate the realism of both in the light of the evidence.

Although Doyal & Gough's theoretical frame of reference and research goals do not necessarily align with those employed in this study, their points of view are worth mentioning - without going into the details in their rather comprehensive theory of human needs. Their concept of objective needs could prove important and fruitful in many research contexts, not least in poverty studies. That said, the research area 'psychology of poverty' aims at gaining access to the subjectivity and life-world of the poor, and for that purpose it is more relevant to focus on experiential autonomy/inhibition or lack of autonomy. It is important to emphasise that the experiences in question are of an objective reality, independent of the mindset of the observer, because poverty is basically a material phenomenon. It is relevant therefore to focus on the interplay between subjective and objective factors.

In line with the above discussion and my own conception of the term, for the purpose of this study *personal autonomy* is defined loosely and tentatively as *self-determination, co-authorship of one's life in the short and long term, and the ability to pursue one's desires within reasonably wide and flexible limits of a biological and social/societal nature without being at the mercy of inner or external constraints*. In particular, autonomy is conceptualised and viewed in connection with activity in the social arena and with significant role responsibilities and actions within relevant role domains. Autonomy is further conceptualised as a *continuum*, not a dichotomy. As a value and ideal, autonomy gains significance in relation to values of a more collective nature.

This is a 'mild' version of need: autonomy is not necessarily considered to be a biological/innate drive like the need for food. It is partly cultural, an 'acquired taste' shared by most societies and cultures, but where variation must be expected and allowed for.

Autonomy and Poverty – An Empirical Study of Long-Term Recipients of Social Assistance 141

the study and inviting them to take part. The letter offered a number of incentives, among them, a promise of one thousand kroner in compensation for taking part. Forty-four individuals were invited to take part in the study. Twenty-six accepted, 2 declined and 16 did not reply. I called each of the 26 (mainly by telephone), to arrange a meeting. One

The total number of participants was 25; ages ranged between 20 and 66 years (mean age = 41, SD = 11,71). Thirteen were female, 12 male. Ten lived alone; 6 in a two-person household; 8 in a three-person household; and 1 in a household of four. Eleven had children living at home. Two lived with their mother. Seven had a partner; none were married. Two had (low level) university/college training; the educational achievements of the rest were low: 11 had only completed compulsory schooling. Two had part-time jobs and a further two were on sick leave absence from a part-time job. The rest (21) had no connection with the labour market. One was on a disablement pension and one was in training. They were all, to a greater or lesser degree, *affected* by poverty. They all fulfilled from three to seven of the following poverty criteria: client status; income poverty; wealth poverty; debt poverty; general deprivation poverty; housing deprivation poverty and subjective poverty (an average of 5.4 criteria). For a more detailed discussion of the concept of poverty in psychological studies and the operationalization of poverty, see Underlid (2001, 2003).

The interviews followed an interview guide organised around ten themes: why the respondent is in economic difficulties and requires help from the state ('ways in – individual level'); views of causes of poverty ('ways in – macro level'); income status; expenses status; wealth status; debt status; material properties; the most salient problem; future prospects as poor/social security recipient ('ways out – individual level'); views of solutions/of

The interviews were recorded on a tape recorder. About a third of the interviews took place at the author's office, the rest at the homes of the participants. The conversations lasted two to four days. All interviews were conducted by the author. The interview technique I

Coding was based on a review of the transcribed qualitative interviews. The transcriptions ran to 1808 pages in all (29–130 pages per interview). This corresponds to the first step in Giorgi's (1985) phenomenological method, Sense of the Whole. During this stage four main psychological themes emerged: insecurity, inhibition or loss of autonomy, social devaluation and a threatened self-image/self-esteem. In a discrete analysis, I separated out units of meaning based on psychological perspectives with a focus on the phenomenon under investigation, i.e. inhibition or loss of autonomy. This analysis addresses only those parts of the text that deal with inhibited or lost autonomy, and corresponds to step two of Giorgi's phenomenological method. The inclusion/exclusion criteria applied to textual excerpts are relevance, quality (i.e. clarity) and success in depicting the breadth of the respondents' experiences. The purpose was to generate a text that was oriented, strong, rich and deep (Van Manen, 1992). At a later stage of the research process the two remaining steps of Giorgi's method were undertaken: 1) the transformation of the subject's everyday expressions into psychological language with an emphasis on the phenomenon under investigation and 2) the synthesis of transformed

alleviating the situation in general ('ways out – macro level').

meaning units into a consistent statement.

applied followed the basic tenets of qualitative interviewing (Kvale, 1996).

decided to pull out after initial contact, but none left during or after the interviews.

From a psychological point of view, poverty is also about *feelings*. Needs and feelings are closely connected, of course. For the sake of simplicity, I use 'feelings' to denote emotions (short-lived affective reaction to perception of a significant change in own circumstances), sentiments (permanently focused affective state) and moods (permanently non-focused affective state) (Ben-Ze'ev, 2000). I want here to address feelings related to inhibition or loss of autonomy in situations of poverty.

The question in this study is how inhibition or loss of autonomy is experienced by the poor. What does it mean to them subjectively, and how should the meanings they ascribe to it be interpreted?
