Povertyism is a Major Obstacle to the Eradication of Poverty. It’s Time to Ban it.
"Make Poverty History!" by rogiro is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0.
Editors’ note: This post is part of a joint symposium between the IACL-AIDC Blog and African Law Matters, featuring posts on the theme ‘Constitutional Transformations’ from participants at the upcoming World Congress of Constitutional Law in Johannesburg, South Africa 5-9 December 2022. Olivier De Schutter will speak at the Plenary on ‘Poverty, Discrimination and Constitutions’.
“As soon as they know where you’re from they won’t even look at your cover letter,” Johan tells me. A middle-aged man from Belgium, Johan knows his job applications are cast aside by employers when the address on his CV reveals where he’s from.
“Journalists have visited us, and their reports on our neighborhood have given us a bad reputation. An employer will just shut the door in your face: no explanations.” Some of Johan’s friends jump into the conversation and share similar experiences; others nod along in silence.
The stories Johan and his friends share with me – of being looked down on , condescending remarks from social workers and doctors, repeated rejections from employers – are all examples of povertyism: the widespread negative attitudes and behaviors towards people in poverty that bar them from fully and freely accessing their rights – from the simple right to visit a museum to finding a job.
Povertyism is rife in the workplace. In an experiment designed by ATD Fourth World, candidates in France were less likely to be selected if their application showed they had lived in temporary housing or had worked in a social enterprise, two experiences that suggest a history of poverty. In the US, employers often refuse to consider candidates who live in homeless shelters.
Employers in low-wage labor markets are less likely to hire applicants who live further away from the workplace, which is often the case for people living in poverty. Finally, companies often hesitate to hire job-seekers who have been unemployed for long periods of time, not because they lack the right skills or experience, but because bosses wrongly assume that they lack motivation.
Nor is the challenge of povertyism limited to the sphere of employment. The uncomfortable truth, backed by studies and polls, is that negative stereotypes about people in poverty are rife – among the general population, and within the very institutions meant to support them: schools, social services, healthcare, housing.
Even judges have been found to hand down harsher sentences based on anti-poor stereotypes; which partly explains why people in poverty are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system.
This toxic discrimination perpetuates poverty. It leads to people in poverty being denied their right to work on grounds that are as intolerable as they are irrelevant. It deprives our societies of their talent, skills and knowledge. It makes workplaces less diverse and communities more segregated.
It may result in certain social goods or programmes not reaching them owing to discriminatory treatment by officials, employers or landlords, or to the fear of maltreatment. It discourages them from applying for a job, or from claiming certain benefits: it is thus a major source of non-take-up of rights.
In my latest report to the United Nations General Assembly, I call on States to ban povertyism by including socio-economic status as a suspect ground in national anti-discrimination frameworks. This would make it illegal for employers – both private and public – to discriminate against potential or existing employees on grounds of poverty. It would also raise awareness among the general public of this shameful practice that transcends time and geographic location, listing povertyism alongside the more commonly recognized “isms” such as racism, sexism, ageism or trans- and homophobia.
“Although they continue to persist, sexism, racism, ageism and trans- or homophobia are seen for what they are: unacceptably damaging biases that have no place in our work environments, or anywhere else. Povertyism must be combatted in the same way.”
There are hopeful signs. In Canada, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms of Quebec includes “social condition” as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. In France, discrimination on grounds of poverty is defined as a criminal offence and prohibited in the Labour Code.
Grassroot movements are taking place in Ireland calling for socio-economic status to be covered under Irish equality law, while the UK government has repeatedly been urged to extend its Equality Act to include economic inequality. Indeed, many countries list “social origin” or “property” among the suspect grounds of differential treatment: the problem is that neither courts, nor lawyers advising victims, actually use this tool even when doing so would be warranted.
Moreover, simply prohibiting discrimination on grounds of socio-economic condition may not be sufficient. Lawmakers can and should go further. Affirmative action policies are the obvious next step. In India, for example, while the Constitution includes various anti-discrimination provisions and bans the practice of "untouchability", it also states that special measures may be adopted "for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens". As a result, the country reserves seats in public offices and educational institutions, as well as jobs in the public sector, for certain groups.
Affirmative action (or "positive action", in the European terminology) has traditionally been based on race or gender. Class-based affirmative action, however, will support those from low-income backgrounds of all races and genders. It will provide jobs and opportunities that reduce the effects of inherited social inequalities.
It will also favor a better understanding of people living on low incomes, and reduce negative stereotypes about the poor: negative views against poor children diminished after elite schools in Delhi were forced to open more spaces to children from low-income families, and a range of studies have found that intergroup contact (i.e., increased diversity) reduced prejudice.
Affirmative action also has important symbolic value: it recognizes the specific obstacles people in poverty face owing to the persistence of povertyism, questioning the mainstream narrative about society distributing outcomes on the basis of "merit". It promotes diversity in our societies and places of work, and provides role models to adolescents and young adults from underprivileged backgrounds.
Although they continue to persist, sexism, racism, ageism and trans- or homophobia are seen for what they are: unacceptably damaging biases that have no place in our work environments, or anywhere else. Povertyism must be combatted in the same way.