In(the)Out

Running Head: POVERTY

A Research and Applied Perspective on the Psychological Effects of Poverty on Children of Modern Indian Society

Yasmin Ogale
Senior Project
Apr. 18, 2008

    According to the standards set by the World Bank in 1990, global poverty is defined by an income level of $2 a day or less, and extreme poverty at $1 a day or less (ThinkQuest Team, 2006).  However, from a more humanistic approach:
 “Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not having access to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time. Poverty is losing a child to illness brought about by unclean water. Poverty is powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom.” (World Bank Group, 2008, Overview).
However, “not having a job” and “powerlessness” imply that one had the potential to work or was able to have power before (World Bank Group, 2008, Overview).  What of those who are hungry from the start, who have lacked shelter since the day they were born, who have never been represented or free in their lives?  In short, what of the children?  This ultimate form of “disempowerment” “damages” their “mental, physical, emotional and spiritual development”(Unicef, 2004).  Moreover, it is through research of the psychological effects of poverty as well as the context of the child’s specific society, say India, that one is able to correlate the relationship a low income has on an international child.  For, according to UNICEF, “children experience poverty with their hands, minds and hearts” (Unicef, 2004).     
    Before one can analyze the effects of global poverty on development, an understanding of the effects of poverty on children in general is necessary.  In an article by Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Greg J. Duncan, it is highlighted that children are especially vulnerable and helpless in the economic tract, because “children are dependent on others…enter[ing] or avoid[ing] poverty by virtue of the their family’s economic circumstances” (Brooks-Gunn, 1997, p. 55).  Due to such dependence, there are a few positive correlations which can be drawn from their study of low income families in the United States.  The study’s evidence supported the “conclusion that family income can substantially influence child and adolescent well being” (Dawes, 2005, p. 67).  Yet although the relationship is complex and is influenced by other factors such as degree of poverty, age of child during poverty, and the timing of the poverty during the child’s development, the study focused on four main areas in general: physical health, cognitive abilities, school achievement, and emotional and behavioral outcomes.  More specifically, in comparison to nonpoor children, or children able to meet the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter, poor children in the United States “experience[d] diminished physical health”, having lower birth weight as well as a higher infant mortality rating (Brooks-Gunn, 1997, p. 57).  The poor physical health exhibited by the kids in the lower income families also related to their “cognitive and emotional problems” which could “persist through childhood and adolescence” (Brooks-Gunn, 1997, p. 60).  Furthermore, the article reported that as a result of their poorer upbringing, “the poorer children scored between six and thirteen points lower on various standardized test of IQ, verbal ability, and achievement” (Brooks-Gunn, 1997, p. 61).  Increased study into the relationship also suggest that “the effects of poverty on children’s cognitive development occur early” (Brooks-Gunn, 1997, p. 61).  Finally, Brooks-Gunn and Duncan’s research found that children living in poverty averaging 13 years, ranked higher on the behavioral problem index than nonpoor children (Brooks-Gunn, 1997, p. 63).  Thus the study correlates that children brought up in poverty exhibit worse behavioral and emotional outcomes than children raised above the poverty line.  In conclusion, the article proved that poverty does effect its children in a variety of domains of their lives, positively correlating low income with negative outcomes, hurting their future without their control.
          While the Brooks-Gunn and Duncan study did address the repercussions of poverty, it addressed only as an input and output relationship using statistics.  To be frank, the study focused on the effects of poverty, not the affects.  A child’s psychological workings are based on the critical developmental stages of their young life.  Experiencing such crucial phases amidst poverty does have its affects on the child’s cognitive perspective, personality, and development.  Aber, et al. (1997), have characterized these set of developmental stages into a set of “epochs”, which, specifically, “take account of the transitions that occur at significant points where new demands are placed on the young by their society” (Dawes, 2005, p. 15).  In accordance to this definition, also, it is to be recognized that the developmental epochs are universal, and are experienced by children all around the world, only differing in societal values and priorities.  Thus it can be drawn that children experience “physical and psychological maturation” during the same basic periods of their lives, and so the effects of poverty are able to correlate to different impoverished children around the globe (Dawes, 2005, p. 15).
      Aber and his companions, however, did delve deeper into the role the four general epochs had on a human’s life.  The first epoch, defined as “the period from conception to the beginning of formal schooling”, showed the primary influences of the child to be home-based (Dawes, 2005, p. 15).  Psychologically, the first epoch is a “sensitive time for critical elements of emotional as well as cognitive growth” for the child, and to foster such growth, “reasonable consistent, predictable environment…[and] a responsiveness on the part of the caregivers” is required (Dawes, 2005, p. 15).  Impoverished environments, however, frequently do not meet the necessary conditions to allow for such growth for the child, and thus the child is uncontrollably set back from his/her global peers.  The last epoch relevant to children is from the primary period of schooling to the age of about ten years (Dawes, 2005, p. 15).  It is during this developmental stage that children are exposed to a larger variety of influences due to schooling, and thus contact with foreigners allows for the acquisition of skills useful in the “adult world” (Dawes, 2005, p. 16).  Schooling assists in the formation of a child’s “self-concept” (Dawes, 2005, p. 160).  However, in most developing countries, classrooms are not properly funded, and the children that can afford to go often dropout early in order to assist with the family income, or lack thereof.  It is because of poverty that the psychological development of children in third world countries is stunted, leaving them negatively affected.
    As previously stated, the developmental epochs are coeval to all children around the world.  However, the environment of a child does factor into their development to a certain extent as well.   The concepts of Brofenbrenner’s “ecological framework” are able to build upon the foundation of environmental influences on development.  In his framework, Brofenbrenner explains that “children’s development is influenced by four nested systems: the micro-system, the meso-system, the exo-system, and the macro-system” (Dawes, 2005, p. 10).  In short, his theory describes the multidimensional facets associated with the child’s environment and their growth, including: the continuous, day-to-day interactions the child experiences; the associations each area of their life has on one another; the influences effecting the child indirectly, via their proximal relationships; the political, global, or cultural influences; historical time period; the child’s interaction with all of the aforesaid systems (Dawes, 2005, p. 10-12).  Therefore, according to Brofenbrenner’s complex framework, it is easy to see how large an impact poverty would create on all of those branches of the child’s life.  And with all of those branches stemming back to the child, it is no wonder that poverty certainly does prove to have its effects on a developing child. 
    With environment clearly translating to a child’s development, in order to fully understand the depth of the psychological effect, one “must be sensitive to the several contexts that simultaneously influence the child’s development” (Dawes, 2005, p. 6).  More specifically, these contexts can be defined as the “cultural practices” or social environment the child is exposed to, for as the Christian Children Fund (CCF) states “cultures structure the experience of childhood” (Dawes, 2005, p. 6).  It is necessary, therefore, to explore the culture of an impoverished country so a context-specific psychological diagnosis may be drawn.  One of such impoverished countries includes the jewel of Asia: India.  With 29 % of the country below the national poverty line, and its population being around 1.1098 billion, India is ranked as one of the highest countries experiencing child poverty (World Bank Group, 2008, India).  According to UNICEF, in 2005, India also had a high 56 infant mortality rating (under 1) versus the 6 of the United States.  Furthermore, 30% of India’s infants were born with a low birth weight, in comparison to the U.S.’s 8%, which most likely correlates to Brooks-Gunn and Duncan’s study of low income upbringing causing poor physical health (Unicef, India; Unicef, United; Brooks-Gunn, 1997).  India also measures its line of poverty by calorie intake, “with an intake of 2400 calories in rural areas and 2100 calories in urban areas” marking the border (iloveindia.com).  By that definition, over 200 million Indians are poor and approximately half of all Indian children are malnourished (Tomaltach, 2007).  In conclusion, “nothing can prepare you for the scale of poverty in India”, for its severity goes deeper than numbers (Tomaltach, 2007).
    However, statistics only show a quantitative view of the poor in India.  The culture and traditions of India are also crucial to understanding the full context of the child’s experience with poverty.  According to a textbook by A. K. Sharma, India has always been “in favor of gradual change or reform” (Sharma, 2003, p. 101).  It is because of this “change with continuity” that in order to understand the situation of children today, one must look back and understand what angle Indian culture is coming from (Sharma, 2003, p. 101).  More specifically speaking, one must at the larger scope of systems first, or Brofenbrenner’s macro-system, to trace the lasting effects of the traditions of early India (Dawes, 2005).  This macro-system begins with the highly “stratified” caste and class system following the independence of India from Britain (Sharma, 2003, p. 35).  Sharma defines this social system: “Caste represents primarily social differentiation while class represents primarily economic differentiation” (Sharma, 2003, p. 35).  It is through the caste system that the “untouchable” theory and the concept of static movement in a social hierarchy was formed.  The classism also expounds on the idea of a tiered system and if poor, one is more than likely to be stuck at the lower levels of both systems.  Although westernization, industrialization and legislation have alleviated the extreme severity of both, the caste system in particular, the underlying “notion of karma, dharma, and purity and pollution have figured prominently in both religious and legal thought” (Sharma, 2003, p. 37).  These key views which were behind after an antiquated social structure still linger in the psychology of the Indian society today, and unfortunately have not been erased for today’s children, leaving them to retard socially due to the stigmas against the poor.
    The social systems of India are not the only important factors which help to mold the definition the Indian values.  The child of India is also exposed to various other values and virtues original to the context of his/her own country.  It is therefore vital to study the features of India which, paired with poverty, could also effect the child’s development.  As previously stated by the CCF, “development is seen as the acquisition of competencies that are appropriate for the society in which the child lives” (Dawes, 2005, p. 8).  Some of such competencies include the “patterns of thought and behavior of people” (Sharma, 2003, p. 96).  According to Indologists, “Indian culture stands not only for a traditional social code but also for a spiritual foundation of life” (Sharma, 2003, p. 96).  It is through this “spiritual foundation” that “Indian culture had been very tolerant of diversifies”, as well as tolerance and peaceful co-existence (Sharma, 2003, p. 99).  A mantra of Indians is both “unity in diversity as well as diversity in unity” (Sharma, 2003, p.101).  It is thus through this acceptance of beliefs and religion that the philosophy of “innate harmony” with all human begins, nature, and God (Sharma, 2003, p. 100-101).  Values of karma, or that “one has to bear the fruit on one’s action”, and sacrifice also stalk from the spiritual foundation of India (Sharma, 2003, p. 101).  Another article elaborates on Sharma’s observation on the emphasis Indian’s place on “moral duty” or dharma, stating that “individualism is more of a western value” (Sharma, 2003, p.101; Zaidi, 2000).  The article further states that Indian society has “always focused more on paying your debt to society and being responsible for one’s family…rather than…[pursuing] your own individual desires” (Zaidi, 2000).  This “great” conflict between self and societal obligations is more experienced by the younger generation of modern India (Zaidi, 2000). However, for the impoverished children of India, this value explains the high dropout rate from formal schooling in order to assist in raising the family income.  Finally, the Indian value of a “joint family” and the respect accompanied with the family identity, also defines an Indian child, for the family is a the major developmental influence in the first epoch (Sharma, 2003, p. 101; Dawes, 2005, p. 15).  Unfortunately for the children in poverty, however, the family unit is oftentimes indefinite, for the parents might be always at work or the child may simply not have one.  Conclusively, by examining the values of the child’s context in detail, in this case Indian culture, one is able to understand what an impoverished child must face, at least on a grander scale. 
    It is thus with a concrete understanding of the child’s macro-system, one is able to analyze how the society at large effects a child’s psychology particularly when a plaguing force such as poverty comes into play (Dawes, 2005).  First, however, a specific case study is necessary.  In India, there is a particular program called the Door Step School (DSS), which branches throughout India.  Looking at the Mumbai and Pune sectors in distinction, however, the School has one main goal: “making education accessible to working children who may not otherwise have access to a regular school” (Asha, 2008).  The two areas also focus primarily on children, ages seven to eighteen, living in the slums and secondarily on children of migrant workers in urban areas.  Hoping to give “the opportunity of education” to the children stricken with poverty, the Door Step School has created numerous projects including: balwadis (pre-school programs), study centers (extra coaching for students), libraries, and a “School-on-Wheels” (a traveling bus which makes “basic education easily accessible to a larger number of children”) (Door Step School, p. 2).  As a result, the “children are more vocal, able to express themselves clearly and [are] aware of their environment” (Door Step School, p. 2).  Valuing education, good discipline, increased concentration, attention to cleanliness, and reduction of begging are all positive effects of the DSS on the children’s psychology (DSS).  When prompted by a question regarding an altered outlook on behalf of the children due to poverty, Mrs. Paranjpe, head of DSS, stated that “it is the family’s economic status that affects a child’s development”.  Additionally, she asserts that the children of the poorly educated are “engulfed by the daily struggle for existence deprived of simple things which a child [should learn] naturally”.  Upon further inquisition of the staff at DSS, the general concept that a lack of education was the root problem effecting the children’s minds and their pockets.  As Mrs. Paranjpe states, “Illiteracy [is the major issue].  Poverty is the result.”  (R. Paranjpe, personal communication, February 14, 2008).  Finally, in regards to the children’s beliefs, Mrs. Pratibha Kane (staff member of DSS) emphasizes that the kids “lack parental guidance and support” and, as relative to Maslow’s heirachy of needs, they must “fend for themselves…[and until their basic] needs are fulfilled values have no meaning” (P. Kane, personal communication, February 23, 2008). Therefore, because of the lack of food, shelter, money, love, and education, the children are effected cognitively, physically, and most of all psychologically.
    In conclusion, by taking a more context specific approach to international human development, one is able to deduce the role of society in the life of a young child.  In short, poverty effects a child psychologically, and the culture and society surrounding the child make each poor one’s case genuine, as seen in the study of the Door Step School children in the slums of India.  By understanding the effects of poverty on children in general, and then focusing on a certain developmental epoch, one is able to understand that poverty has varied, albeit potent, effects on the development of a child.  Additionally, the environment plays a key role in the child’s personal growth and a background, and research into the systems and cultural affects is fundamental.  Only after a thorough understanding of a child’s developmental and social influences, one is able to study a specific case for further knowledge.  The Door Step children not only provided a deeper understanding, but also provided hope.  Whether represented by a number, a graph, or a quality of life, poverty is a serious issue which has stained the faces of hundreds of countries globally.  What remained untouched, however, was the spirit left in the children’s psychology, for although they don’t know any better, they know that things can only get better. 
    “A poor man with nothing in his belly needs hope…more than bread.”
                        —Georges Bernanos

Works Cited

Asha for Education.  (2008).  Door step school (mumbai).  Retrieved January 3, 2008, from     http://www.ashanet.org/projects/project-view.php?p=58

Brooks-Gunn, J. & Duncan, G. J.  (1997).  The effects of poverty on children.  The future of children: children and poverty, 7, 2.  Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol7no2ART4.pdf.

Dawes, A. & Donald, D.  (2005).  Children & poverty, working paper 2.  Improving children’s chances: linking developmental theory and practice.  Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://www.christianchildrensfund.org/uploadedFiles/Public_Site/news/Relief_professionals/ChildrenandPoverty-%20Paper%202%20-%20Linking%20Dev%20Theory%20and%20Practice.v5.pdf

Door Step School.  Door step school.  Pune.

DSS.  School-on-wheels.  Retrieved Janueary 2, 2008, from http://www.doorstepschool.org/dss/sow.php

iloveindia,com.  Poverty in india.  Retrieved January 2, 2008, from     http://www.iloveindia.com/population-of-india/poverty-in-india.html

Sachs, J.  (2005).  What is poverty?  Retrieved January 2, 2008, from http://www.netaid.org/global_poverty/global-poverty/.

Sharma, A. K.  (2003).  Structure of indian society.  Retreived January 2, 2008, from         wwwoa.ees.hokudai.ac.jp/…/ncert_XII_structure_indian_society.pdf

ThinkQuest Team.  (2006).  A dollar a day:: what is poverty?  Retrieved January 3, 2008, from      http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00282/over_whatis.htm.

Tomaltach.  (2007).  Incredible india.  Retrieved January 3, 2008, from  http://fichefocal.blogspot.com/2007/08/india-has-just-celebrated-her-60-th.html

Unicef.  (2004).  Issue: defining child poverty.  Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://www.unicef.org/sowc05/english/povertyissue.html.

Unicef.  India: statistics.  Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/india_statistics.html#30

Unicef.  United States of America: statistics.  Retrieved January 4, 2008, from http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/usa_statistics.html

World Bank Group.  (2008).  India: data & statistics.  Retrieved January 2, 2008, from        http://www.worldbank.org.in/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/I NDIAEXTN/0„menuPK:295609~pagePK:141132~piPK:141109~theSitePK:295584,00.html.

World Bank Group.  (2008).  Overview: understanding poverty.  Retrieved January 4, 2008, from http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/0„contentMDK:20153855~menuPK:373757~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:336992,00.html.

Zaidi, A.  (2000).  Teaching kids indian values.  Retrieved January 4, 2008, from http://www.indianchild.com/teaching_kids_indian_values.htm