Rural financial poverty: Priorities for action

A couple carrying supermarket shopping bags past rundown housing
Posted on:
Wednesday, 16th July 2008 at 9:11am

Our new report ‘Rural Financial Poverty: Priorities for action’ shows that the proportion of rural households in relative poverty rose from 16% to 19% between 2004 and 2007 - the equivalent of 1.6 million people in 2007.


Around 20% of children and pensioners in rural areas were living in poverty in 2007, as well as one in six working-age adults. The increasing proportion of children living in poor working households and the dramatic rise in the proportion of pensioners living in poverty are particularly striking.


‘Rural Financial Poverty: Priorities for action’ provides a rural perspective to help inform policy makers and practitioners working to reduce financial poverty. It presents the latest statistical evidence of the scale and depth of rural financial poverty and recommends priorities for action to guide their work.


The companion paper ‘Rural Financial Poverty: Good practice’ describes how an increasing number of people living in rural communities are working with local and regional partners to develop innovative solutions to address poverty in rural England.


We're presenting the key findings of ‘Rural Financial Poverty: Priorities for action’ at a Houses of Parliament hosted by Philip Dunne MP, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Rural Services. Stuart Burgess, our chair and the Government's Rural Advocate, will present the report’s key findings.


Download ‘Rural Financial Poverty: Priorities for action’

Read the companion paper ‘Rural Financial Poverty: Good practice’

Comments

1
What is particularly worrying about the fact that the "proportion of

rural households in relative poverty rose from 16% to 19%

between 2004 and 2007", is the fact that this figure has not changed since Brian McLaughlin's report in the late 1970s; plus the 'Rural Lifestyles' report of the 90s......both cited 20-25% of rural households in/on the margins of poverty........

SO SOMETHING IS NOT GOING RIGHT!

James Derounian

University of Gloucestershire
Posted by  at 8:38am on Thursday, 17th July 2008
2
Thanks James, an interesting point.
Posted by Russell Tanner  at 8:58am on Thursday, 17th July 2008
3

Analysis of statics for endless period of time has never helped any nation. Its time to take action. Critical appriciation  and analysis of the actions taken alone would lead the nation towards workable and result oriented methodologies. To be proven right or wrong is not what matters. What actualy matters is  how we succeded or failed and the vision to improvise on them.

Ms. Shakti Sharma,

Chairperson :Swayam Shakti Foundation, India

Author ; Tearless Eyes Fearless Heads

 

Posted by  at 8:05pm on Tuesday, 22nd July 2008
4
Thanks for your comments, Ms. Sharma. We hope that the priorities for action identified in the report will now be taken foward by government and others.
Posted by Russell Tanner  at 8:27am on Wednesday, 23rd July 2008
5
With reference to James's point, I worry about relative poverty, both for obvious reasons (it should be falling, but never does), but also because it will only change (I think I've got this right) when one of two things happen: poor people become richer at a faster rate than the relatively rich become richer (unlikely in the current climate); rich people become poorer relative to the already poor (unlikely it seems in this, or any, climate!).  Although I understand - and support in many ways - this now standard relatavist approach, I do wonder whether more emphasis should be placed on finding and supporting those in absolute poverty.  We should be able to do this easily - from memory, Mike Noble's work (Oxford University) proved that this is possible via interrogation of readily available Government data about income, benefits etc.   My fear is that these seemingly constant figures for relative poverty can be seen as being too big to be believed, and/or too big to tackle, but always, and understandably, very useful for those keen to ensure that the needs of rural areas aren't ignored in policy terms.  This provokes the question, are 'we' really determined to tackle rural poverty, or is so much of what we do, in terms of research, analysis, report writing, conefernce-going, and lobbying, actually little more than pragmatic lip service that actually does more to help the already well-off in rural areas than the much remarked upon 20 or percent of rural people who are relatively poor?  One way or another if we want to overcome poverty, we have to make poor people richer, and give more help to those who are otherwise disadvantaged by, e.g., disability.  When, I wonder, will we, as a society, decide to reduce poverty rather than constantly research it and bemoan its existence.  I'm involved in research, and so I guess, mea culpa too!  Gordon Morris
Posted by  at 12:13pm on Thursday, 24th July 2008
6
Thanks Gordon, food for thought for all of us.
Posted by Russell Tanner  at 2:07pm on Thursday, 24th July 2008

What do you think?

You are now commenting anonymously. LOGIN to add comments attributed to you.


Please note: anonymous comments will only appear on the site after they have been moderated and approved by CRC.



Get Site Updates

Subscribe to Email

Subscribe to Site RSS

What is RSS?

Share experience