OVERVIEW OF THE HYPOTHESES

4.4.1 First set of hypotheses

In Chapter 3 the studies that I reviewed demonstrated that perceptions of the causes of poverty can be explained in individualistic, structural, and fatalistic dimensions. The studies that attributed poverty to individualistic factors showed that people are poor because of individual failings or shortcomings of some sort. In these studies people were also considered poor because of their lack of ability, efforts or morals.

On the other hand, some studies demonstrated that poverty is perceived in structural terms where poverty is blamed on unequal conditions within society, rather than the intellectual and cultural deficits of the poor. Moreover, the causes of poverty are seen as a lack of access to opportunities, since the poor live mostly in under-resourced and impoverished circumstances. A third category of studies reviewed found that poverty is a consequence of bad luck or misfortune. These findings are often referred to as fatalistic perceptions of the causes of poverty because it is a result of some unforeseen circumstances normally beyond the individual’s control.

Lastly, some of the reviewed studies also showed that perceptions of the causes of poverty can be explained through a combination of these categories. In other words, some people perceive the causes of poverty in both individualistic and structural terms, while others may view poverty as a consequence of bad luck (fatalistic) or lack of motivation (individualistic).

In addition, it is acknowledged that numerous theories have been used to explain perceptions of the causes of poverty. These theories were discussed in Chapter 3. In brief, the individualistic explanation framework, belief in just world, and victim-blaming theories advanced arguments about individualistic perceptions of the causes of poverty, while the public arenas theory is often used to explain structural perceptions of poverty.

The actor-observer biased theory has been found to explain both individualistic and

structural perceptions of poverty. In this regard hypothesis 3 tests whether the respondents are likely to perceive the causes of poverty in structural as well as individualistic dimensions.

The first set of hypotheses is therefore based on findings from the studies and theories reviewed that emphasized that perceptions of the causes of poverty can be explained in individualistic, structural, and fatalistic perspectives. See the first set of hypotheses below:

Hypothesis 1: Respondents are likely to perceive the causes of poverty in terms of structural factors.

Hypothesis 2: Respondents are likely to perceive the causes of poverty in terms of individualistic factors.

Hypothesis 3: Respondents are likely to perceive the causes of poverty in terms of individualistic and structural factors.

Hypothesis 4: Respondents are likely to perceive the causes of poverty in terms of fatalistic factors.

4.4.2 Second set of hypotheses

In terms of the second set of hypotheses various studies supported that perceptions of the causes of poverty is influenced by socio-economic and demographic variables such as race and education. For example, in Chapter 3, the literature review showed that African Americans are more likely to support structural perceptions of the causes of poverty compared to white Americans that believe the causes of poverty is determined by individualistic factors such as hard work and motivation.

The literature review also showed that a person’s level of education influences how people perceive the causes of poverty. Some studies showed that education enhances structural perceptions, while others indicated education advances individualistic perceptions of poverty. Furthermore, previous research is divided on whether education can produce positive attitudes towards poverty or more negative attitudes.

Besides education and race, research indicated that geographical location plays a significant role in how people’s perceptions of the causes of poverty are formed. With regard to geographical location a number of prominent works revealed that how the economic resources is distributed within a community or the socio-economic conditions within an area impact on people’s perceptions of the causes of poverty.

Employment status is another variable that impacts on how people perceive the causes of poverty. For instance, a study in the United States found that employed minorities such as Latinos are often confronted with conflicting perceptions with regard to perceptions of the causes of poverty. On the one hand, employed Latinos compared to the unemployed or poor Latinos ascribe their success to internal or individualistic factors such as hard work. On the other hand, employed Latinos also contribute poverty to structural factors when they compare themselves with middle class whites.

The literature in Chapter 3 highlighted that people’s poverty status influences their perceptions of the causes of poverty. Findings from these studies show that the non-poor perceive the poor both in a positive and negative manner (Clarke et al., 2003: 215). Other studies found that the non-poor perceive the poor as responsible for their own poverty status, while those who are poor perceive the causes of poverty as a consequence of external circumstances beyond their control such as failure of government to provide jobs (Cozzarelli et al., 2001: 224). It is against this background that the current study investigates whether access to basic necessities (measured by the LPI) and an individual’s LSM determine perceptions of the causes of poverty according to individualistic, structural, or fatalistic perspectives.

Based on the arguments advanced in the literature the following hypotheses were formulated:

Hypothesis 5: There are statistically significant differences among the respondents from the various race groups on how they perceive the causes of poverty.

Hypothesis 6: There are statistically significant differences among the respondents from the various geographical locations on how they perceive the causes of poverty.

Hypothesis 7: There are statistically significant differences among the respondents with different levels of education on how they perceive the causes of poverty.

Hypothesis 8: There are statistically significant differences among the respondents with different levels of employment on how they perceive the causes of poverty.

Hypothesis 9: There are statistically significant differences among the respondents with different LSM levels on how they perceive the causes of poverty.

Hypothesis 10: The respondents that have high access to basic necessities are more likely to perceive the causes of poverty in terms of individualistic factors.

Hypothesis 11: The respondents that lack access to basic necessities are more likely to perceive the causes of poverty in terms of structural factors.

Hypothesis 12: The respondents that lack access to basic necessities are more likely to perceive the causes of poverty in fatalistic dimensions.

Hypothesis 13: There are statistically significant differences among the male and female respondents on how they perceive the causes of poverty.

4.5 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The study is an empirical study that uses primary data to answer causal questions about perceptions of the causes of poverty.

4.5.1 National representative survey

To test the hypotheses I employ national representative household survey data collected by the HSRC in 2006.

4.5.2 Study population

The target population for the survey was adult residents of South Africa aged 18 and older with no upper age limit regardless of their nationality or citizenship.¹⁰

4.5.3 Sample

A total of 3510 randomly selected respondents across South Africa participated in the study between 18 April and 30 May 2006. The sample was based on the 1996 Census.

More specifically, the HSRC Master Sample of 1000 Enumerator Area (EA), which was developed using the Census 2001, was used as the sampling frame. The 1000 EAs were stratified by province, race, and geographical location. Overall, 354 EAs were randomly chosen with the probability proportionate to population size from the list of 1000 EAs.

However, disproportionate over-samples were drawn in the Northern Cape and among Indian respondents particularly in KwaZulu-Natal to ensure sufficient numbers of cases for analysis. All interviews were post-weighted to ensure that they were reflected proportionately. Interviewers travelled to the selected areas and conducted face-to-face interviews in the language of the respondent.

When the sample of 3510 is disaggregated the results show that 76 percent of the participants are black African, 12 percent are white, 9 percent are coloured and 3 percent are Indian / Asian (Table 4.1). Further, the sample is almost evenly divided between male (49 percent) and female (51 percent) respondents. Fifty nine percent of the participants live in urban formal areas, 4 percent in urban informal areas, 31 percent live traditional / in traditional areas and 6 percent in rural formal areas.

The biggest proportion of the respondents come from Gauteng (22 percent), followed by KwaZulu-Natal (20 percent), Eastern Cape (14 percent), Western Cape (11 percent) and Limpopo (11 percent). About 39 percent of the respondents are categorized as unemployed, 29 percent not working and 32 percent employed. More than two-thirds of the sample (67 percent) attended secondary school while 9 percent had some tertiary education or completed tertiary education. Lastly, less than a quarter (23 percent) had no formal education or some primary school.

Table 4.1 Demographic characteristics of the sample (N = 3510)

The research instrument was a questionnaire that measured attitudes and perceptions of information communication technologies (ICT), the South African media as well as perceptions of poverty. More specifically, the first part of the questionnaire assessed views about postal services (e.g. post offices), broadcasting services (e.g. television, radio including community radio stations) and wireless services (e.g. mobile phones and the internet).