In the thesis three main questions are analyzed: (a) How should poverty be defined? (b) What are the empirical implications of the choice of definition? (c) Why did the number of people, receiving social assistance increase during the first half of the 1980s?
The development of social assistance in Sweden during the twentieth century and some of the more important studies of social assistance in Sweden are presented. The presentation is followed by a theoretical exposition of Swedish and international poverty research. The focus of attention is on how poverty is defined and measured and a classification of different approaches in poverty research is made. It is also emphasized that it is impossible to give an objective definition of poverty.
Thereafter an empirical analysis that compares three different poverty definitions is made. The first definition defines the poor as those whose disposal income falls under the standard norm for social assistance. In the second definition the poor are defined as those who experience 'multiple deprivation'. The final definition regards those who receive social assistance as the poor. The data-set used was the Survey of Living Conditions conducted by Statistics Sweden in 1986 and 1987. It is shown that about 21 percent of the Swedish population between the ages 18 and 84 are poor in accordance with one of these definitions. Some 3.4 percent are poor according to at least two definitions, while only half a percent of the population is poor according to all three definitions. The results demonstrate that the choice of poverty definition is crucial in determining which section of the population is going to be classified as poor. An analysis of the causes of poverty reveals that the causal explanation of poverty is also dependent upon which definition is used. Thus, the concept of poverty does not refer to a single social phenomenon. Poverty is a heterogeneous concept and the choice of definition will decide which social phenomenon that is studied.
The thesis closes with an emphasis on those who receive social assistance. First time recipients from 1980 are compared with first time recipients from 1985. There was no indication that the increase in social assistance during the first half of the 1980s is connected with any radically new patterns in the distribution of recipients. Unemployment seems to have been the primary explanation for the occurrence of social assistance for both these groups. It must, nevertheless be pointed out that a recipience of social assistance was usually connected with a complex situation in the individual case.