Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 93, Issue 4, pp 297–302 | Cite as

Public Support for Poverty-related Policies

  • Linda I. ReutterEmail author
  • Margaret J. Harrison
  • Anne Neufeld
Article

Abstract

Objective: This research examined how public perceptions of the relationship between poverty and health predict support for poverty-related policies.

Methods: A random sample of 1,203 Albertans were interviewed by telephone to determine their perceptions of the relationship between poverty and health (myth, drift, behavioural, structural), and their support for government spending in six poverty-related policy areas: nutrition programs, housing, child care, increased welfare allowance, wage subsidies, and recreation programs.

Results: The greatest support was for child care programs, with the least support for increased welfare allowance. The degree of support for all policies except wage subsidies and recreation programs differed by the explanation chosen of the relationship between poverty and health. Those who chose a structural explanation were more likely to support government spending than those who chose a behavioural explanation.

Interpretation: Beliefs about the relationship between poverty and health influence support for policies. Public health professionals have a role in increasing public awareness of the structural factors that influence health.

Résumé

Objectif: Étudier les perceptions publiques du lien entre la pauvreté et la santé comme prédicteurs de l’appui aux politiques de lutte contre la pauvreté.

Méthode: Entretiens téléphoniques avec un échantillon aléatoire de 1 203 Albertains pour déterminer leur perception du lien (mythique, dérivé, comportemental ou structurel) entre la pauvreté et la santé et leur appui aux dépenses publiques dans six secteurs liés à la pauvreté: les programmes alimentaires, le logement, l’aide à l’enfance, la hausse des allocations d’aide sociale, les subventions salariales et les programmes de loisirs.

Résultats: Les programmes d’aide à l’enfance ont reçu le plus d’appui, et la hausse des allocations d’aide sociale, le moins d’appui. Sauf pour les subventions salariales et les programmes de loisirs, le niveau d’appui accordé différait selon l’explication choisie du lien entre la pauvreté et la santé. Les personnes ayant privilégié l’explication structurelle avaient plus tendance à appuyer les dépenses publiques que celles ayant choisi l’explication comportementale.

Interprétation: Les convictions au sujet du lien entre la pauvreté et la santé influencent l’appui aux politiques. Les professionnels de la santé publique ont donc un rôle à jouer pour sensibiliser le public aux facteurs structurels qui influencent la santé.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Federal, Provincial, Territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health [ACPH]. Strategies for population health: Investing in the health of Canadians. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Federal, Provincial, Territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health [ACPH]. Report on the health of Canadians. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization. The Jakarta Declaration on Health Promotion into the 21st Century, 1997. Available online: http://www.dnttm.ro/arspms/jakarta.html.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evans RG, Barer ML, Marmor TR (Eds.). Why Are Some People Healthy and Others Not? The Determinants of Health of Populations. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marmot M, Wilkinson R (Eds.). Social Determinants of Health. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Council of Welfare. Poverty Profile 1998. Volume #113. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Raphael D. From increasing poverty to societal disintegration: How economic inequality affects the health of individuals and communities. In: Armstrong P, Armstrong H, Coburn D (Eds.). Unhealthy Times: Political Economy Perspectives on Health and Care in Canada. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 2000;223–46.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ross D, Roberts P. Income and Child Wellbeing: A New Perspective on the Poverty Debate. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wilkins R. Mortality by neighbourhood income in urban Canada, 1986–1991. Poster presented at the Conference of the Canadian Society for Epidemiology and Biostatistics (CSEB), St. John’s, Newfoundland, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lipps G, Frank J. The social context of school for young children. Canadian Social Trends 1997;47:22–26.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Council of Welfare. Healthy Parents, Healthy Babies. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Federal, Provincial, Territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health [ACPH]. Toward a Healthy Future. Second Report on the Health of Canadians. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Canadian Public Health Association [CPHA]. Health Impacts of Social and Economic Conditions: Implications for Public Policy. Ottawa: Author, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Forum on Health. Canada Health Action: Building on the Legacy. Synthesis Reports and Issues Papers. Volume, II. Ottawa: Author, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burstein P. Bringing the public back in: Should sociologists consider the impact of public opinion on public policy. Social Forces 1998;77(1):27–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cook F, Barrett E. Support for the American Welfare State: The Views of Congress and the Public. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Page B, Shapiro R. Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Review 1983;77:175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sharp E. The Sometime Connection: Public Opinion and Social Policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kluegel J, Mason D, Wegener B (Eds.). Social Justice and Political Change: Public Opinion in Capitalist and Post-communist States. New York: DeGruyter, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stimson J, Mackuen M, Erikson R. Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review 1995;89:543–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jordan B. A Theory of Poverty and Social Exclusion. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Department of Health and Social Security. Inequalities in Health: Report of a Research Working Group (The Black Report). London: Department of Health and Social Security, 1980.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    MacIntyre S. The Black Report and beyond: What are the issues. Soc Sci Med 1997;44(6):723–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fox J, Benzeval M. Perspectives on social variations in health. In: Benzeval M, Judge K, Whitehead M (Eds.), Tackling Inequalities in Health: An Agenda for Action. London, UK: King’s Fund, 1995;10–21.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilkinson R. Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality. London: Routledge, 1996.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kawachi I, Kennedy B, Lochner K, Prothrow-Stith D. Social capital, income inequality, and mortality. Am J Public Health 1997;87:1491–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reutter L, Neufeld A, Harrison, MJ. Public perceptions of the relationship between poverty and health. Can J Public Health 1999;90:13–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bobo L. Social responsibility, individualism, and redistributive policies. Sociological Forum 1991;6:71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Groskind F. Ideological influences on public support for assistance to poor families. Social Work 1994;39(1):81–89.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jacoby W. Public attitudes toward government spending. Am J Political Science 1994;38:336–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gilens M. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hasenfeld Y, Rafferty J. The determinants of public attitudes toward the welfare state. Social Forces 1989;67(4):1027–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dennis D. The 1999 Alberta Survey Sampling Report. Edmonton, Alberta: Population Research Laboratory, University of Alberta, 2000.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Heclo H. Values underpinning poverty programs for children. The Future of Children 1997;7(2):141–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peters S. Exploring Canadian Values: Foundations for Well-Being. CPRN Study No. F-01. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks, Inc., 1995.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sanders A. Rationality, self-interest, and public attitudes on public spending. Soc Sci Q 1988;69:311–24.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    McGrath S. Child poverty advocacy and the politics of influence. In: Pulkingham J, Ternowetsky G (Eds.), Child and Family Policies. Halifax: Fernwood, 1997;172–87.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    National Council of Welfare. Welfare Incomes 1997 and 1998. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1999–2000.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sabatier P. Policy change over a decade or more. In: Sabatier P, Jenkins-Smith H (Eds.), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1993;13–39.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda I. Reutter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Margaret J. Harrison
    • 1
  • Anne Neufeld
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Nursing 5-134A, Clinical Sciences BuildingUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations