Poverty and Our Social Order: Implications and Reservations Author(S): James H

Agricultural & Applied Economics Association

Poverty and Our Social Order: Implications and Reservations Author(s): James H. Copp Source: American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 52, No. 5, Proceedings Issue (Dec., 1970), pp. 736-744 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1237692 . Accessed: 29/03/2013 12:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Agricultural & Applied Economics Association and Oxford University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 152.14.176.89 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:15:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions RURAL POVERTY-PROBLEMS AND PROGRAMS

PROGRAMORGANIZER: WILLIAM C. MOTES, ECONOMICRESEARCH SERVICE, USDA

Poverty and Our Social Order: Implications and Reservations* JAMESH. CoPP

A FTERsix years of war on poverty, the out- quality.1 The bases of stratification may vary, come remains indecisive. We know where but stratification is found in socialist societies no the enemy is (although we continue to less than in ours. Although there is much debate find new sanctuaries) and we know his numbers about the bases of social stratification in Ameri- (although these numbers are always changing). can society, and the various strata are indistinct, We have appropriated funds, mobilized the there is common agreementthat these strata may troops, and laid down a barrage of programs.We be indexed by such characteristicsas income, ed- have devised some grand strategies and we have ucation, occupation, ethnicity (including race), won a few skirmishes. We have had many fine and life styles. Because these indicators are mod- reports from the field and victory has seemed erately intercorrelated,those at a given relative within our grasp. Yet, the war on poverty has be- position on one indicator tend to be at the same come stalemated and the early optimism moder- relative position on others. For example, those ated. What went wrong? who are low in income tend to be disadvantaged I propose that we retrace our steps and look at in educational attainment, occupational status, the origins of poverty within our society. Perhaps ethnic background, and life styles (identified by there are some structural clues in our social and some as the "culture of poverty"). Thus, when economic systems that throw light on the poverty we talk about poverty in rural America, we are problem and on our human dilemma in trying to talking about those who are at the bottom of the do something about it. Among the points I would heap, the have-nots, and those who don't have like to examine are these: (1) our failure to con- much more-the lower class. ceptualize poverty in terms of social stratifica- When we talk about eliminating poverty, we tion; (2) our failure to recognize that American are talking about eliminating or moving up those society is based to an important degree on ine- who are at the bottom of the stratification sys- quality; (3) our unwillingness to face up to cer- tem, those below some cutting point.2 However, tain basic premises of our free enterprisesystem; if we miraculously succeeded in doing this, the (4) our failure to get overwhelmingcommitment strata immediately above, though better off ma- to the war on poverty from the body politic; and terially, would become the new lower class and a (5) our unwillingnessto admit the true nature of potential focus for concern. Eliminating those our national priorities. Consideration of these who are presently poor will not eliminate a lower points certainly will not solve our problem, but class and the associated phenomena of depreca- facing up to realities may be helpful if we really tion and disparagement from the stratification want to do something about rural poverty. system. But much more important, in our con- Poverty and Social Stratification 'This apt descriptive term is taken from the title of Celia S. Heller's book [6]. All societies are stratified into various levels of 'In this paper conventional operational definitions of power, wealth, and prestige. No society has been poverty (e.g., Orshansky) are taken as the point of de- able to escape a system of structured social ine- parture, although, in my opinion, they err on the con- servative side. The amount of research and administra- *This paper expresses the views of the writer on the tive energy devoted to haggling over cutting points and questions considered and does not necessarily reflect the estimating the number of the poor is appalling. This en- official position of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. terprise, although important, has received disproportion- Special acknowledgment is due William B. Back, Helen ate attention and is an excellent example of goal dis- W. Johnson, and Robert B. Glasgow, Economic Develop- placement from the ultimate objective of doing some- ment Division, ERS, for criticism and suggestions regard- thing about the poor to the particulars of estimating the ing certain sections of the paper. service load. Much of the reported progress in the war on poverty may have been accomplished through up- JAMES H. CoPP is chief of the Human Resources dating estimates utilizing cutting points rendered ob- Branch, Economic Research Service, USDA. solete by secular trends. 736

This content downloaded from 152.14.176.89 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:15:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions POVERTY AND OUR SOCIAL ORDER / 737 cern for those who are presently poor we have ologists have opportunisticallytaken the problem virtually ignored the possibilities of reducing the as defined by policy makers and granters of re- chances of the nonpoor becoming poor.3 search funds. Therefore, when we talk about poverty, we are I maintain that if we want to understand pov- talking about our stratification system; we are erty we must begin by looking at the American talking about an established system of organizing stratification system. How, in reality, is political political, economic, and social inequality. To un- power distributed?How, in reality, are control of derstand poverty we must examine the nature of property, access to jobs, and distribution of re- our stratification system-the mechanisms wards allocated? How, in reality, do we socially whereby some people are arrayed at the top, oth- evaluate the worth and desirability of people? ers at the middle, and still others at the bottom. Let us look at our institutions. Let us look at our To alter the condition of those in poverty is to notions of property, government,and welfare. Let alter the functioning of our society. Furthermore, us look at our basic notions about human nature, a genuine war on poverty involves fundamental human potentialities, individual achievement, changes in the organization of our society. I and free will. Let us look at the ways the prod- don't think we have been looking at the poverty ucts and rewards of our economy are distributed. problem in this way. We have been trying to Let us look at our notions of social worth. In change people in the lowest ranks, rather than brief, I am arguing that poverty is a logical out- change the basic mechanics of the ranking sys- come of our social order. I am arguing that our tem. Our social programs are designed to adjust social order is premised on inequality, discrimi- poor people, rather than the conditions that nation, and the preservation of privileges. I say make people poor. this not in criticism of our social order but as a Part of our deficiencies in conceptualization point of fact. I do not believe that any social or- and programdesign can be attributed to the state der can avoid the dilemmas of stratification. of our knowledge. As some critics of stratification However, I do believe we can profitably examine research by American sociologists have pointed our institutions and consider alternatives with out, the field is underdeveloped. Some sociolo- the goal of reducing the severity of conditions for gists have even denied that stratification exists. those at the bottom and opening up channels of The raw truth is that we don't understand the mobility so that those at the bottom, and their American stratification system. We have concen- children, and their children's children shall not trated on status and life styles rather than on the be doomed to an endless "cycle to nowhere" [5]. bases of social class [14]. In recent years, soci- Furthermore,we want to reduce the chances that ologists have been inclined to study poverty as a others, now above the poverty level, will fall into special problem rather than as a product of the the same abyss. underlying structure of our stratification system. We have studied as an individual poverty symp- Inequality in American Society tom rather than as a societal phenomenon.4Soci- 3 Equality is a common shibboleth in popular One of the gravest oversightsin the war on poverty, of American We tell school in terms of political implications,has been the neglect of discussions society. the lower middle class. They see programsdesigned to children and foreign visitors that our country is bring the lower classes closer to them. They see services based on equality, that all men are equal. This is providedto the lower classesand their childrenfor which not true now and never has been. I would con- working class people and their childrenare not eligible. tend that one reason we can't win the war on Consequently,the war on poverty poses a threat to the pov- status position of lower middle class people who, rightly erty is that we really don't believe in equality. or wrongly, feel they achievedtheir status through hard Neither did the Founding Fathers of our Repub- work, frugality,and observanceof conventionalmorality. lic. The attractivenessof reactionaryappeals to a threatened Thomas Jefferson, a slaveholder, asserted in lower middle class is a political factor which may prove are to be the Achilles heel of the antipoverty effort. Rela- the Declaration of Independencethat all men tively, the status of the lower middle class will be wors- created equal. The framers of our Constitution, ened to the extent that the antipovertyprogram is suc- in apportioning representation, referred to "free cessful.This matter has been recentlyrecognized in "The persons" and "those bound to Service for a Term White House Report on the Problemsof the Blue Collar of Years," excluded "Indians not taxed," and al- Worker" [18]. 4A similarcriticism has been made of economists'com- luded to "other persons." "Other persons" were parative neglect of the mechanismsof income distribu- allocated at three-fifths the rate for free and in- tion in our economy[12, 15, 16]. dentured people in Congressional apportionment

This content downloaded from 152.14.176.89 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:15:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 738 / JAMES H. CoPP

[17]. Scattered references in The Federalist Pa- and there are no consolation prizes for the losers. pers [3] suggest that the notion of equality was We judge our success in terms of how far we a delicate point. Madison seems to assert that stand above others. In sum, Americans seem to men should be free to exercise their inequality,5 need inequality. and that governments represent property as well If our society is premised on inequality, how as persons.6 John Calhoun, sixty years later, can we seriously win a "war on poverty?" Per- stated the case for inequality very well: haps, we don't want to win the war; we want It is, indeed, this inequalityof conditionbe- only more humane treatment for the losers and tween the front and rear ranks,in the marchof for those who can't run the race. progress,which gives so strong an impulse to The reference to those who are unable to run the formerto maintaintheir positionand to the is an embarrassingpoint for a system based on latter to press forward into their files. This the notion that people have a chance to compete gives to progressits greatestimpulse. To force and to strive. Yet our research demonstrates the front rankback to the rear, or to attempt again and again that many poor people cannot to push forwardthe rearinto line with the front, run. For instance, in the Coastal Plains area of by the interpositionof the government,would South Carolina 40 of the rural an end to the and arrest percent poverty put impulse effectively families are headed over 65 or under the marchof progress[2, pp. 46-47]. by people 65 and disabled [11]. In the Ozarks the corre- Today, we still hedge our assertions about sponding figure was over 70 percent [9].7 Thus equality. We speak of "equality of opportunity," it appears that half or more of our rural poverty and "equal opportunity." We speak of "equality families are in such circumstances that they before the law" in an abstract, idealistic sense, really cannot by themselves improve their sit- rather than in fact. In actuality, we are reminded uation. And though we may believe in the oppor- that our people do not have equal opportunity tunity to become unequal, it appears that over and we rediscover that we don't have equality half of our disadvantaged families do not have before the law-some people are able to secure this opportunity. more skillful legal counsel than others and the se- This is not to deny that a large portion of verity of punishment appears to be influencedby Americans are concerned with securing equality; social position. In the economic sphere the re- perhaps never before in our history has this pro- wards of our society are distributed very un- portion been as large. Neither will I deny that equally; the lowest two-fifths of our families re- much progress has been made. I am making this ceive only 18 percent of all personal income, point about inequality in American society only whereas the top fifth receives 43 percent. [13, to introduce a degree of realism to the appraisal Table I-1, p. 3]. of the obstacles to a successful war on poverty. I believe it can be demonstratedthat American Our thinking about rural poverty has tended to society is not based on equality and does not be dominated by indifferenceand fatalism on the seek to achieve equality. The best we try for is to one hand and, perhaps equally undesirable, an make the rules fair in the race for inequality. We unmitigatedidealism on the other. use competition and the fear of failure as major sources of motivation in our economic system; Some Basic Premises in Our Capitalistic Social Order "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which As a with amateur as an the rights of propertyoriginate, is not less an insuperable sociologist standing obstacle to a uniformityof interests.The protection of analyst of economic systems, I do not presume to these faculties is the first object of government.From undertake a profound discussion of the basic the protection of different and unequal faculties of premises of a capitalistic order. However, I acquiringproperty, the possessionof differentdegrees and would like to point out a few obvious kinds of propertyimmediately results; and from the in- things fluence of these on the sentimentsand views of the re- about our capitalistic system that on the one spective proprietorsensues a division of the society into hand contribute to poverty and on the other differentinterests and parties"[3, No. 15, p. 78]. make it difficult to deal with poverty. By taking "We have hitherto proceededon the idea that repre- a few basic premises of capitalistic philosophy, sentationrelated to personsonly, and not at all to property. But is it a just idea? Governmentis instituted no and taking them in a strict constructionist sense, less for protectionof the propertythan of the personsof individuals.The one as well as the other, therefore,may T McCoy's synopsis [9, p. 18] makes the point about the be consideredas representedby those who are charged inability of a large portion of the rural poor to alter with the government"[3, No. 54, p. 339]. their condition unmistakably clear. Also, see [1, 7, 10].

This content downloaded from 152.14.176.89 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:15:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions POVERTYAND OUR SOCIALORDER 739

I hope to show how they entail particular diffi- of their free will, there is no reason why society culties for dealing with poverty. should seek to remedy this outcome. In all fairness, I must admit that all societies The principle of the free agent is illustrated in based on free enterprise do, in practice, modify the labor market. Other than precluding physical these premises. In our society we have charitable violence and fraud, capitalism is silent on the organizations, social welfare programs, income parity of the relationship between the hirers and transfers, labor relations legislation, and many the hired. No equality in the bargaining relation- other practices that mitigate the severity of these ship is implied. If wages are low and working premises. Yet despite these deviations in practice, conditions are poor, that is the laborer's hard our capitalistic philosophy has not been affected luck. He is free to refuse the offer, isn't he? In to any great degree. In my discussion I shall con- this way the low wages prevalent among a large centrate attention on the philosophy rather than segment of our society and the collateral phe- on the deviations in practice of our free enter- nomenon of the working poor can be justified as prise system. It is my contention that our deal- the legitimate outcome of the bargainingbetween ings with poverty are definitely affected by these free agents. The price of labor is to be bargained basic premises. Let me illustrate.8 just as any other commodity, and employers 1. Free agency. The individual or firm, under should not be blamed for other people's bad bar- capitalism, is a free agent. As a free agent, he has gains. the right to enter into and terminate any con- 2. Individual responsibility. Under capitalism tract at any time, though exposing himself to the the individual is responsible for himself and his penalties of the contract and the legal sanctions family. We have no responsibility for the welfare imposed by society. Thus, one is free to do those of others. Morally and ethically, of course, we things that may make him rich, and one is free to have; but capitalism is silent on this issue. The do things that may cause him to become poor. corollary is that natural disaster, illness, misfor- From this premise it is easy to suppose that the tune, and failure are the reponsibility of the indi- poor have earned their disadvantaged status vidual and his family. Capitalism is silent on so- through mismanagementof their affairs. Since, as ciety's responsibility.9 free agents, they have done those things which Thus, through the vicissitudes of fate and hu- have made them poor, how can society feel any man frailty, some people will be poor. Further- responsibility for the outcome? If an individual more, the poor are not the responsibility of oth- agrees to an inequitable contract, for example, ers. Our premise makes poverty possible and, that is his hard luck. He could accept or reject, when it occurs, disclaims any responsibility for couldn't he? This premise overlooks the possibil- doing anything about it. ity that the weaker bargainer may have little al- The effects of the above premise and its corol- ternative but to agree to a one-sided contract. lary are exacerbated by a widely held belief that Our practices in consumer credit and farm la- is unrelated to capitalism but contributes might- bor hiring illustrate very well the premise of the ily to the difficulty-belief in the natural in- free agent. The premise implies that people are equality of men.10This belief goes back at least free to make bad bargains; consequently the poor have voluntarily chosen to place themselves 'This is not to imply that philosophersof capitalism at a disadvantage. And since they have done so have been deficient in concern for the misfortunesof others. The point is that a disjunction has developed between the views expressedin Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentimentsand in his Wealth Nations. Subse- 8 of Lest the following discussion of basic premises in quent thinkershave not succeededin bringingthese two capitalismbe misconstruedby my economistcolleagues as views into one system. In the long run, the preoccupa- a sociologist'sindictment of the intellectualfoundations tions of The Wealthof Nations seem to have prevailedin of their discipline,I wish to set the recordclear. Perhaps the developmentof capitalisticthought. the least temperate developmentof these premisesinto 10Contemporary behavioral scientists are rathersquea- an intellectualsystem has been effected by sociologists, mish about individual differencesand the question of not conomists.The sociologicalideas of HerbertSpencer, equality.Objective consideration of the questionhas been WilliamGraham Sumner, and the SocialDarwinist school clouded by preoccupationswith group superiority and come to mind. In other words, we are really involved inferiority. Rather than denying differencesin order to with a basic positionin Westernsocial philosophy,rather justify equality, it might be more profitableto justify than the creed of any particularintellectual discipline. equality on the basis of the social value of individual It is as elementsof a creed subscribedto by the public differences;i.e., the notion that humanbeings are equally and evoked in the political arena that these premisesde- unequaland thus all are to be valued on their uniqueness, rive their significancefor policy development. rather than their dissimilarities,as individuals.

This content downloaded from 152.14.176.89 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:15:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 740 / JAMES H. CoPP

as far as Aristotle: Some men are bom to com- important premise on the freedom of property mand and others to follow. At its extreme, it ex- that has significant implications for the problem presses itself in racism; in its vulgar sense, it of poverty. Property rights are to be exploited by provides a convenient ex post facto explanation property holders in any way they see fit. Secon- for poverty. If people are poor they must be infe- dary effects of such exploitation are irrelevant. It rior; if inferior, they deserve to be poor. is the right of the property holder to determine Let me repeat, capitalism says nothing about what actions will be to his advantage. Thus, min- natural human inequality. It is the ill-starred eral operators are free to do whatever they wish union of the premise of individual responsibility with surface and landscape, and industries are and the folk belief in inequality that creates the not responsible for pollution of air and water. mischief in our society. Poverty is seen as a mor- Nor are firms, public or private, responsible for ally deserved fate, and who are we to tamper the kind of communities that grow up around with the working of natural principles? I need their installations. Thus, if an installation indi- not remind you how widely this belief is held rectly creates a substantial pocket of poverty or within important segments of our society and the a disadvantaged population, such conditions are degree to which it informs the body politic. the burden of the affected people or the general 3. Centrality of property rights. Under capi- society, not of the firm. talism property rights are central. It is difficultto This premise melds powerfully with the prem- conceive of a working capitalistic order that did ise on the centrality of property rights. Accord- not put property rights first. Individual and firm ing to these premises, the exercise of property rights in property are therefore to be protected. rights need not take into consideration the well- Public responsibility to protect property rights being of others in the society. takes precedencein our institutions over the need 5. Priority in appropriation. Under our free to protect people. A psychologicalmechanism may enterprise system the property rights of first- also be operating here. Property is concrete and comers take precedence over the interests of visible; human rights are abstract and invisible. those who come later.11Thus mineral rights are Property rights have substance; human rights upheld over surface rights, and in western lack substance. United States water law, the principle is "first in Consequently, a capitalistic social order is ori- time, first in right." In regulating nuisances and ented to the protection and augmentation of abuses in our society the prohibitions are against property and associated rights. Capitalism has subsequent entrants rather than early despoilers. little to offer those without property rights other In actual fact, this results in windfall gains for than to encourage them to acquire property. the early exploiters. The effect of this right of ap- Thus capitalism, narrowly conceived, has nothing propriationor priority principle is that the status to offer the poor because the poor have little quo is legitimized rather than eliminated. The property. Capitalism is for those who have advantage is granted to the aggressive and incon- wealth and for those who can acquire wealth; it siderate, and the indirect costs of their self-inter- is not for the poor and those who have nothing to est are passed on to the general public. Thus the trade. The point I am making is that capitalism, resources of an area may be successfully ex- as capitalism, can do nothing for the poor. In ploited without concern for the consequencesand point of fact, all capitalistic societies do have may continue to be exploited until countervailing welfare concerns for the poor, but these concerns public pressurebuilds up. stem from humanistic,not capitalistic, roots. The priority principle has led to a good deal of Parenthetically, I should add that in American regional poverty in the United States. Natural society, particularly in agriculture, public pro- resourceexploiters and polluters have rarely been grams for redressingdisequilibriums are generally held responsible for the aftermath. Our capitalis- oriented to the property owner rather than di- tic system puts a premium on exploitation of re- rectly to the people in distress. The assumptionis sources in the present and sets no penalty for that the benefits of the aids will flow, in turn, subsequent consequences. from the property owner to his collaterals. This 6. Allocation of windfall gains. Under the cap- pattern tends to create inadvertently a politically italistic system windfall gains and other un- client structure with interests distinct powerful " from those in distress. This premise, though important for our economic order, does not derive from capitalism per se. The princi- 4. Freedom of property. Deriving from the ple can probably be traced back to notions of equity, earlier premise of the free agent, there is another the common law, or even Roman law.

This content downloaded from 152.14.176.89 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:15:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions POVERTY AND OUR SOCIAL ORDER / 741 earned increments accrue to the holders of the responsible for their housing and their food. Sim- property rights. The operation of this premise ilar illustrations may be found in other agricul- can be observed in land speculation, real estate tural enterprises throughout the country where development, and the stock market. This premise technological developments and agricultural leads to uneven sharing of the gains from eco- mechanizationhave made labor redundant. nomic growth in our society. Recipients of these Whose responsibility are the unemployed, unearned increments tend to rationalize their those who have never worked, and the unemploy- good fortune in terms of their own personal able? Capitalism is silent. There is no answer, worth and ability.12Consequently, they feel they from a strict constructionistview of capitalism. made good because they deserved to and that the 8. The servomechanismof competition. Com- less fortunate have not made it because they petition is the unseen hand controlling capital- lacked the necessary acumen and moral fiber. ism. If problems arise, competition among free The end result of this premise is an intensified, agents will set up countervailingforces leading to disproportionate distribution of wealth and an a resolution of the problems. The intervention of uncharitable attitude toward the disadvantaged. agencies outside the marketplaceis seen as an in- The gainers have no reason to feel responsiblefor terference with the natural forces of supply and the poor, even though the balance of the popula- demand, leading to numerous undesirable side tion may have contributed indirectly to their effects. wealth. Thus, in capitalistic economies the laissez-faire 7. Employers' limited responsibility. Workers philosophy constitutes a mighty inertia resisting are hired to get a job done. The employer has no outside interferencewith the workings of the free further obligation to the laborer after the work enterprisesystem. Social welfare policies and pro- has been completed, the need for labor disap- grams dealing with poverty are seen as inept med- pears, or the employer discharges the worker for dling or downrightthreats to the capitalistic foun- any reason. The employer, as a free agent, has dations of a society. Given such a climate, it is not the right to hire and fire at will. The employee hard to understand the resistance to antipoverty has no rights in the job other than those trans- programs. ferred by the employer. I have enumerated only a few of the basic This premise is powerfully implicated in the premises of capitalistic theory, narrowly con- problem of poverty. The employer contracts to strued, but I think they are enough to support an get a job done, not to adopt a dependent. As de- argumentthat the central principles of capitalism mand changes, the employer has the right to ad- lead to poverty conditions for a part of the popu- just his labor force. Governments observe the lation for whom capitalism as capitalism can do same practice. Under capitalism the ex-employee nothing. Furthermore, the basic principles of and the unemployed are no one's responsibility. capitalism lead to a state of public opinion which The social costs of seasonal unemployment, makes it difficult to mount social programs for structural unemployment, and technological un- the elimination or relief of poverty. employment are passed on to labor and the gen- By this time, I am sure some of you may be eral public. The migrant labor problem illustrates convinced that I believe capitalism should be this dilemma beautifully. Who is to sustain the eliminated. Nothing could be further from the migrant laborer between the seasons of employ- truth; I know of no system that is better adapted ment? Who is to house him? Who is to feed, to the essential nature of Western man. My posi- clothe, and educate his family? Capitalism is si- tion is that capitalism is good for our society, but lent. it is not enough. We must bring our concerns for The technological unemployment of former the well-being of all the population of our society cotton choppers and cotton pickers is another and our concerns for the full development of hu- ready illustration. If there are no longer any tak- man potentialities into the calculus of choice. ers for such labor, whose responsibility are they? Capitalism is good, but incomplete in itself-that There is no reason why the planter should be is the thrust of my argument. We shall never be able to do much about poverty if we include " A delightfuldiscussion of this genusmay be found in nothing more than the basic premises of capital- [21]. The phenomenonof the self-made man may be ism that I have enumerated.The even moreof a problemthan parthenogenesis,and it is not point of my ar- too hard to understandthe elaborationof various ratio- gument is the insufficiency, not wrongness, of nales to reduce the dissonance-psychologicaldissonance capitalism. If there is any error in capitalism, it in the sense of [41. may lie in its assumption of the freedom of the

This content downloaded from 152.14.176.89 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:15:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 742 / JAMES H. CoPP

individual to choose and strive and its disregard training programs are no threat because they for parity among bargainers. hold the promise of making the poor a part of the I would like here to make the obvious point middle class-it helps them to become like us in that our free enterprisesystem and our system of self-sufficiencyand work orientations. Manpower social stratification are mutually supportive. The training is fine for those lines of work with a levels at which people are located in our stratifi- shortage of labor. cation system make it easier or more difficult to Community Action and welfare militancy are participate successfully in our free enterprisesys- something else because they challenge our no- tem, with the odds favoring those in the upper tions of appropriatenessand our power in the so- strata. The situation is analogous to a half-fin- cial order. There has been a noticeable softening ished game of monopoly. The free enterprise sys- in Community Action's challenge to existing tem takes differences among players as given, power centers and a correspondingpublic sense and the rules of the game (some of which are of indignation over welfare militancy. outlined above) operate to intensify those differ- It is equally unclear how far the public will ac- ences, contributing (despite stochastic processes) cept income maintenanceprograms, once the cost to a relative rigidity and persistence in the strati- has been reckoned. The President's welfare pro- fication structure from one generation to the gram has languished in Congress for almost a next. Thus, an effective attack on poverty in- year, and the President's proposals are indeed volves, among other considerations,a melding of modest in terms of needs. There is a definite hesi- the sociologist's insights on stratification and the tancy in our society to guarantee the incomes of economist's concern with income distribution and people, lest they do no work [8]. the structuringrole of economic institutions. If we were to raise the family income of the the Bureau of Labor Statistics eight months ago Public Commitment to the War on Poverty poor to the "lower budget" standards outlined by Perhaps at no previous time in the nation's [19],14 the income of one-third of the nation's history has there been such a strong public com- families would have to be supplemented.Are we, mitment to do something about poverty. Person- the other two-thirds, willing to subsidize, with ally, I find the public opinion poll results as- our taxes, this poorer one-third? How will we tounding.'3 The continuation of the war on pov- strike a balance between our emotions and our erty despite a change in political party in the pocketbooks and political power? There is some National Administration is no less impressive. room for uncertainty. The depth of support for OEO in the Legislative Our and Executive Branches well documents the National Priorities depth of commitmentto do something about pov- What are our national priorities? Where do erty. antipoverty efforts rank? The answers to these Yet despite the strength of this public commit- questions would help explain the extent to which ment, not all is well. I question seriously whether the war on poverty has foundered. I am going to this country is ready to accept the costs, in terms argue that the war on poverty, although it is gen- of a redistribution of political and economic erally ranked as a good cause, does not rank at power, that a successful war on poverty would the top. bring about. Our society is ready emotionally to We have no document that lists national prior- deal with poverty; I question whether we are ities; but if such a document existed, I doubt ready, rationally, to accept the consequences.We that it could get wholehearted acceptance. The can be very humanistic until our pocketbooks closest thing we have to such an outline is the and our power positions are affected. Federal budget, as proposed by the President If we look closely at the antipoverty efforts, we and approvedby Congress.I am certainly not ar- see that there has been a concentration in those guing that it is an infallible index; it is very im- areas which least affect the position of those perfect. But at the same time, it is a product of safely above poverty. Headstart is good; better men whose occupational survival depends on learning opportunities for the children of the keeping a finger on the pulse of the nation and poor are no immediate threat to us. Fortunately, making shrewd guesses about the condition of its the Headstart children are not excelling our own heart. I would argue that it can be a far better children in school. Food distribution, nutrition, indicator than public opinion polls, because of and health programs pose no threat. Manpower 14A more extensive discussion of the methodology of 13 E.g., Gallup poll on antipoverty programs, Sept. 1969. these cost estimates may be found in [20].

This content downloaded from 152.14.176.89 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:15:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions POVERTY AND OUR SOCIAL ORDER / 743 the politician's skill at clinical interpretation of process, we shall be better off as a nation? I sus- signs. The poor diagnostician is not reelected. pect a convincing argument can be developed; An examination of the Federal Government's my point is that it hasn't been developed. Can we spending program does show a concern for the go beyond altruism, or are we restricted by our welfare of the disadvantaged. The problem is altruistic resources? that this cause has to be weighed against interna- tional affairs and finance, space research and Concluding Remarks technology, farm income stabilization, urban Poverty, then, is not a simple thing. Its roots transportation systems, urban community devel- lie at the heart of our social and economic order. opment, housing needs, education, basic scientific The war on poverty will not be brought to a con- research, veterans' benefits and services, and the clusion by treating the symptoms of those people interest on the public debt. Present outlays sug- who are now poor, even if we could effectively do gest that to combat poverty effectively we would that. Furthermore,in terms of our commitment have to give it at least double the emphasis we to antipoverty efforts and the priorities we give give many of these other worthy causes. We them, I have cast doubt on our prospects for could if we so willed. Do we will it? even alleviating symptoms. In going over these outlays I have deliberately If we are to successfully confront poverty in ignored what appears to be our overwhelming general and rural poverty in particular, we shall first priority-national defense. I think, in realis- have to undertake bold, unpopular, and profes- tically considering these priorities, we must ig- sionally precariousresearch on our social stratifi- nore defense outlays.15If defense outlays were to cation system, reanalyze the implications of our be greatly reduced, the other causes would com- free enterprise institutions, and propose revisions pete severely for the antipoverty dollar. How good and additions. a case can we make for antipoverty appropria- Furthermore,if our proposals are to be effec- tions? Seriously, I don't think the evidence or the tive for dealing with rural poverty, they must be sentiment presently exists to reweight our prior- developed at a profound level of conceptualiza- ity for antipoverty efforts. Where is the evidence tion. The rural sector, for instance, will have to that aid to the disadvantagedpays off twice as well be seen as a highly interdependent,though some- in the political calculus as space research, farm what different,part of our total economy and so- income subsidies, aid to education, veterans' ser- cial order. Our perspectives on income distribu- vices, or improving transportationsystems? tion, the organizationof the economic system, so- If we are to drastically alter our national pri- cial stratification, and welfare must be interre- orities we shall have to develop much stronger lated. The role of structure-social, economic, arguments than we now have for dealing with and institutional-will have to be fully recog- poverty. I would argue that our present case for nized. It is manifestly impossible at this time to poverty is based on humanitarian concerns, but specify what these proposals might be, but we we need more to go on. Can we show that by in- may be sure that they will be controversial, if vesting at least twice as much in antipoverty ef- they are to have any value. forts of all kinds, taxing ourselves more in the Beyond this, our proposals must get the attention of the policy makers and those in the politi- 'SW. Clark Edwards, my colleague in the Economic Development Division, argues that the tremendous re- cal arena. Although our past record of success is sources involved in the defense outlays could be utilized rather indifferent,I have faith that some will lis- more extensively than now to combat poverty through ten if they feel we have something to say. Too literacy and job training among enlisted men, family often we have talked around the problem, failing allowances, and selective procurement policies favoring to address the issues. It is time to economically disadvantaged areas. However, as the de- unspeakable fense budget is subjected to increasing scrutiny and pres- recognize the structure of our social and eco- sures for cost reduction and efficiency mount, the via- nomic system for what it is in order to actualize bility of this suggestion diminishes. what it might be.

References [1] CRECINK, JOHN C., AND ROOSEVELTSTEPTOE, Hu- York, Washington Square Press, 1963. man Resources in the Rural Mississippi Delta . . . [3] The Federalist Papers, New York, Mentor Books, With Emphasis on the Poor, USDA ERS Agr. 1961. Econ. Rep. 170, Jan. 1970. [4] FESTINGER, LEON, A Theory of Cognitive Disso- [2] CURRENT, RICHARDN., John C. Calhoun, New nance, Evanston, Row, Peterson and Company, 1957.

This content downloaded from 152.14.176.89 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:15:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 744 / WILLIAME. SAUPE

[5] GOOD,PAUL, Cycle to Nowhere, U.S. Commission United States, a 1960 Census Monograph, U.S. on Civil Rights ClearinghousePubl. 14, Washing- Bureau of the Census, 1966. ton, 1968. [14] PEASE,JOHN, WILLIAMH. FORM,AND JOAN HUBER [6] HELLER, CELIAS., ed., Structured Social Inequality: RYTINA,"Ideological Currents in American Strati- A Reader in Comparative Social Stratification, New fication Literature," Am. Sociologist 5:127-137, York, Macmillan,1969. May 1970. [7] HOOVER,HERBERT, AND BERNALL. GREEN,Human [15] PIORE, MICHAEL,"Discussion: Dynamics of In- Resources in the Ozarks Region . . . With Emphasis come Distribution: Poverty and Progress," Am. on the Poor, USDA ERS Agr. Econ. Rep. 182, May Econ. Rev. 60:298-299, May 1970. 1970. [16] SCHULTZ, T. PAUL, "Discussion: Distribution [8] MACAROV,DAVID, Incentives to Work, San Fran- Issues: Trends and Policies," Am. Econ. Rev. 60: cisco, Jossey-Bass, 1970. 281-283, May 1970. [9] McCoy, JOHNC., Rural Poverty in Three South- [17] U.S., Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 2. ern Regions: MississippiDelta, Ozarks,and South- [18] U.S. Congress, House, Remarks of Congressman east Coastal Plain, USDA ERS Agr. Econ. Rep. Pucinski on "The White House Report on the 176, Mar. 1970. Problems of the Blue Collar Worker," Congressional [10] MCELVEEN,JACKSON V., Characteristicsof Human Record 116(124) :E6927-E6930, July 22, 1970. Resourcesin the Rural SoutheastCoastal Plain ... [19] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statis- With Emphasison the Poor, USDA ERS Agr. Econ. tics, Three Budgets for an Urban Family of Four Rep. 155, Apr. 1969. Persons: PreliminarySpring 1969 Cost Estimates, [ 11] MCELVEEN,JACKSON V., ANDBUDDY L. DILLMAN, Washington, 1969. A Profile of the Rural Poor, to be published by [20] , Three Standardsof Living for an Urban USDA, Economic Research Service. Family of Four Persons: Spring 1967, Bul. 1570-5, [12] MICHELSON,STEPHAN, "Discussion: Distribution Washington, 1969. Issues: Trends and Policies," Am. Econ. Rev. 60: [21] WYLLIE, IRVING., The Self-Made Man in America: 283-285, May 1970. The Myth of Rags to Riches, New York, Free Press, [13] MILLER,HERMAN P., Income Distribution in the 1966.

Discussion: WILLIAM E. SAUPE,University of Wisconsin Social stratification refers to a system of posi- reason we can't win the war on poverty is that tions, not to the persons in the positions. One we really don't believe in equality." (2) "If our theoretical position of sociologists is that social society is premised on inequality, how can we se- stratification is necessary for the functions of so- riously win a 'war on poverty'?" These state- ciety to be performed.Certain positions are more ments seem to say that a belief in equality, or important than others and require special skill perhaps equality itself, is needed to win the war and training. Limited numbers of persons possess on poverty. But in what sense must society be- the skills and must be induced to perform the im- lieve that persons must be equal, or in fact be portant functions by basic rewards and induce- equal, for the war on poverty to be won? ments, i.e., sustenance and comfort, humor and Copp's discussion of a capitalistic social order diversion, and self-respect and ego expansion. is generally technically correct, but unnecessary The differential access to these basic rewards since both he and his readers recognize that the that go with the various strata lead to differences United States is a mixed economy, not a textbook in prestige and esteem. capitalistic system. And he could have more sim- Copp takes the conventional Orshanky defini- ply said that factors of production tend to be tion of poverty as a point of departure and indi- paid what they are worth in terms of production, cates that to eliminate poverty we must raise per- not in terms of the human needs of the factor sons above that cutting point. But they, or some owners. Thus, a person who is aged, disabled, un- other group, will still be the bottom stratum. But skilled, immobile, or for some other reason pro- to eliminate stratification, i.e., make all persons vides few or poor quality resources may receive similar in income, education, occupation, ethnic- returns lower than the minimal acceptable, the ity, and life style is not a feasible alternative. So poverty line. what is it about stratification per se that should Copp says, ". . we shall have to undertake be changed and for what reasons? Examination bold, unpopular, and professionally precarious of why there is concern about the poor should research on our social stratificationsystem, rean- precede considerationof what should be done. alyze the implications of our free enterpriseinsti- Two statements by Copp require clarification tutions, and propose revisions and additions." It or substantiation: (1) "I would contend that one is up to him to show us why.

This content downloaded from 152.14.176.89 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:15:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions