The transformation of Slovak society has also led to the emergence of a phenomenon such as poverty. One of its essential features is social differentiation in society. On the one hand, an economic elite has emerged, and on the other hand, the number of individuals or groups that are dependent on social assistance transfers has increased. The perception of poverty has different dimensions. People can be materially poor, yet happy and inwardly rich. Conversely, people who have everything materially may feel inner emptiness. There are still individuals among us who cannot adapt in the changed social situation. In Slovakia, poverty is still perceived as a problem of relative lack. It is not linked with spiritual poverty, which has much more serious consequences for society. Since combating poverty is often associated with politics, there are tendencies to downplay it.

Part of society also consists of evidently poor population groups that are not statistically reported because they are untraceable. These are primarily the homeless, to whom the definition of poverty applies, whether from the perspective of income or social exclusion. A homeless person is a person without a home, socially excluded and at the same time “integrated” into the lowest layer of the community, without relevant social contacts and ties. Common causes of homelessness are various kinds of social pathology and dependencies, supported by an individual’s personality resignation.

In general, a poor person has traditionally been considered someone who lived in visibly poor life conditions and had difficulties with physical survival. In current times, broader definitions of poverty prevail in European countries. According to the Council of Europe in December 1984, “poverty denotes persons, families or groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited that they exclude them from the minimally acceptable standard of living of the countries in which they live.” The World Bank defines poverty as the inability to attain a minimum standard of living. Jan Keller (1995, p. 17) calls this part of society “superfluous people.” In its radical form, poverty means homelessness, lack and defenselessness, misery and helplessness. In this context, we often speak of absolute poverty, based on the idea of a minimum living level involving exclusively physiological survival. A person does not have even a minimum standard in nutrition, clothing and housing. Absolute poverty places a person as unable to be human and threatens the core of his or her existence. In the Slovak Republic, we still encounter the term material deprivation, which is an example of an attempt to objectify poverty as a social phenomenon.

Karaska, based on analyses in the Slovak Republic, demonstrates the methodological validity of distinguishing two layers of poverty: a lower layer of poverty and a broader layer of poverty. From a second perspective, poverty can be defined as so-called relative poverty, which characterizes poverty in industrially developed countries. Poor means anyone who does not achieve relative standards dependent on a society’s wealth. It is therefore a poverty issue in a wealthy society characterized by inequality. Relative poverty also expresses the level of education, qualifications, health, family background, use of free time, and other indicators. Different countries use various statistical tools to measure poverty. These mainly include:

  • surveys of food habits, the nutritional content of different types of meals and their relationship to health indicators. Statistical offices do not often carry out this type of research, but it forms the basis for measuring basic needs. Such surveys are not carried out in Slovakia.
  • household accounts surveys – these are carried out with some regularity by statistical offices to identify the consumption basket of different social groups. On the basis of the collected data, a cost-of-living index is calculated for various groups. The Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic has conducted this survey for a long time. Its methodology is currently being changed.
  • household surveys – many countries conduct these regularly. Household surveys are the main tool for monitoring citizens’ living conditions, income and employment. From the surveys of the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic, the Microcensus (in 5-year cycles) could be included; it covers only the household income situation, followed by the EU-SILC survey.
  • continuous employment and consumer price surveys – these are monthly surveys that track short-term fluctuations in employment and prices. They are conducted in Slovakia, but data files should be systematically analyzed in relation to poverty.
  • living conditions surveys – this type of research is specifically aimed at an in-depth analysis of poverty conditions and its links. In the SR, with support from the World Bank and UNDP, such a survey was carried out in 2005 in Roma households in settlements.
  • price data – is a good basis if poverty needs to be measured at the local level. They can be combined with and extended by various types of household surveys. In the SR, a census is carried out every 10 years. However, analyses linking it with other surveys are missing.
  • administrative registers – if the state provides benefits conditioned by poverty criteria. These data can be combined with household survey data and other sources. MPSVaR and ÚPSVaR have created an information system on recipients of benefits in material need. In the future, it would be worth considering using these databases for analytical purposes.

The study of poverty in Slovakia shows insufficient statistical research of this phenomenon. Attention is usually focused only on income poverty; its other dimensions are less covered by research. A shortcoming of research is also the major “fragmentation” of data sources on poverty. It may be said that Slovakia lacks a research institution that deals only with poverty issues and the collection of relevant data. Previous research activities in this area do not use administrative data sources for research purposes. It can also be stated that cooperation between statistics and research has significant shortcomings and could have a different qualitative and quantitative dimension.

Social inequality is an inevitable consequence of stratification. Certain groups are positioned higher within social organization, control wealth and power resources, and accumulate a larger volume of well-being. In other words, members of society do not have equal access to social resources, especially wealth, power and social status. In every society these social resources are limited, and therefore not every member of society can receive a sufficiently large or equal share. Inequality and poverty are deeply intertwined: inequality gives rise to poverty, and it is the result of unequal social organization.

We can understand social inequality in two ways: 1. as an inevitable consequence of social life, 2. as a consequence of its organization, The origin of inequality in society is explained by three basic approaches (Aleš Sekot, 2004):

  • conservative approach – focuses on social diversity in society. It derives the causes of inequality from innate dispositions and also from human nature and the nature of each society. Therefore, all efforts to establish equality through programs are seen as futile and fruitless. On the path to building a society of equality, it is enough to create a unique system of its own privileges and advantages.
  • liberalist approach - sees inequality as a natural consequence and impulse of social supply-and-demand systems. Fear of poverty is a motivational resource and an instrument of achievement and personal effort.
  • social - blames poverty on unequal access to existential and social resources and to property. Inequality is explained by the fact that some have power and control in their own hands, while others are subordinate to this power and control.

Within society, there is also an internal social arrangement on the basis of which social resources are distributed unequally between individuals and social groups. This social arrangement is always hierarchical and resembles a pyramid made up of layers that differ from one another. They are arranged according to how they participate in using social resources. We call this arrangement social stratification (stratification).

The basic features of social stratification according to Ján Sopóci and Bohumil Búzik (2003): 1. it is a characteristic of the whole society as a certain type of organized system, not only a result of individual differences between people, 2. it is universal – it exists in every society, though in diverse forms, 3. it is transmitted from generation to generation, 4. it is justified, defended and supported by ideologies of certain parts of society, while ideologies of other parts of society also reject and challenge it.

The foundation of social stratification is considered to be: Economic position – is conditioned by wealth, both property owned by a person and income. Power – is the ability of individuals and social groups to impose their will and interests in social affairs despite opposition from others. Prestige – is social esteem, admiration and recognition linked to a certain social position, manifested in awards, privileges, social gravity and similar forms. In our cultural sphere, it is usually the level of prestige derived from an interesting professional position. (More in Urban, David - Kajanová, Alena - Davidová, Eva, 2008)

Social classes in modern society are neither given by law nor derived by gender. They are achieved through high social mobility and rest primarily on economic differences, that is, ownership and control of material resources. They are characterized by impersonal relationships derived from economic or personal ties. A key marker of class affiliation is ownership or occupation, the degree of self-awareness, prestige and corresponding level of openness or closure. (More in Žiaková Eva, Sčensná Monika. 2009)

The modern conception that reflects the complexity and frequent opacity of ownership relations prefers the term social layer as a large group of persons having similar, socially significant and distinguishable features. It is a set of persons integrated by a certain internal link and a feeling of importance. It may be a layer with a characteristic professional orientation, source of income, position in the management system, power position, lifestyle, value anchoring, or even a market-consumer orientation. Belonging to a particular social layer determines the social status of an individual and thereby directly or indirectly determines corresponding behavior and conduct of a social role.

For these reasons, the problem of poverty is considered unsolvable. It also appears as a global phenomenon, rooted in the discrepancy between expansive tendencies of human demands and population growth on one side and the limitedness of resources on our planet on the other. On the other hand, it is necessary to consider the community as a space where solidarity emerges and where it is possible to influence the factors that create and deepen poverty.

In the future, among other things, it will be necessary not only to eliminate and mitigate the effects of poverty but also to address the causes of poverty. It is not enough that poverty is only talked about; it is necessary to contribute to real results in solving this social phenomenon. It is necessary to create tools, methods and procedures capable of influencing such a problematic part of our reality as poverty. In the fight against poverty, we accept not only the solution of existing poverty, but especially the removal of causes leading to its emergence and spread. Supporting the development of activities focused on poverty and homelessness is also support that the community should provide to those who undertook to address this issue for the benefit of the entire community. We cannot view poverty only as a problem of individuals. This problem has a much broader dimension and remains tied to the whole community. If the community becomes poor, wealthy individuals will lose their life space. They will live in an environment affected by poverty just as much as the poor themselves.

Author: Doc. JUDr. Mgr. Dušan Šlosár, PhD References:

BALVÍN, J., Šlosár, D., Vavreková, L. 2010. Romové ve spektru mezinárodních vědeckých studií. Wroclaw: Foundation of Social Integration Prom, p.413. ISBN 978-83-928354-3-1.

FABIÁN Anton. 2009. Chudoba od biblických čias po dnes. p. 18-27. In: Migrácia, chudoba, nezamestnanosť: zborník príspevkov z vedeckej konferencie s medzinárodnou účasťou konanej dňa 11.12.2009 v Košiciach. Košice: KSK, pp. 49-59. ISBN 978-80-970306-0-5.

HANGONI, T. Sociálny pracovník. In. Ondrušová, Z. a kol.: Základy sociálnej práce. Brno: MSD Brno, 2009, p. 45 – 66. ISBN 978-80-7392-109-5.

KOČIŠOVÁ Agnesa, KRÁLIKOVÁ Viera, ŠIŇANSKÁ Katarína. 2009. Hľadanie potenciálov sociálnej práce v problematike migrácie v Slovenskej republike. In: Migrácia, chudoba, nezamestnanosť: zborník príspevkov z vedeckej konferencie s medzinárodnou účasťou konanej dňa 11.12.2009 v Košiciach. Košice: KSK, pp. 49-59. ISBN 978-80-970306-0-5.

KOTRÁDYOVÁ K., KALANIN P. 2008. Slovensko v Európe a jeho bezpečnostné riziká vzhľadom na marginalizované skupiny obyvateľstva. p. 64-69 In: Stratégie vo vzťahu k marginalizovaným skupinám. Košice : KSK, 121 s. ISBN 978-80-969932-1-5.

LEŠKOVÁ, L. - Bašistová, A. – Krajňáková, E. 2007. Podoby chudoby v súčasnosti a možnosti riešenia etnickej chudoby. In: Lešková, L. (edit.): Odkaz svätej Alžbety, Košice: TF KU v Ružomberku, p. 151-160. ISBN 978-80-89138-85-2.

LOVAŠOVÁ Soňa. 2009. Násilie v práci s.94-99 In: Drogová prevencia v sociálnej práci. Košice : KSK, 141 s., ISBN 978-80-970251-8-2.

RUŽIČKA Vojtech. 2009. Chudoba a bezdomovectvo v SR ako sociálny problém. p. 164-171 In: Migrácia, chudoba, nezamestnanosť: zborník príspevkov z vedeckej konferencie s medzinárodnou účasťou konanej dňa 11.12.2009 v Košiciach. Košice: KSK, pp. 49-59. ISBN 978-80-970306-0-5.

SEDLÁKOVÁ Mária. 2009. Aspekty chudoby. p. 38-42. In: Migrácia, chudoba, nezamestnanosť: zborník príspevkov z vedeckej konferencie s medzinárodnou účasťou konanej dňa 11.12.2009 v Košiciach. Košice: KSK, pp. 49-59. ISBN 978-80-970306-0-5.

URBAN, David - KAJANOVÁ, Alena - DAVIDOVÁ, Eva (2008). Possible Risks in the Romany Child Development. Journal of Health Science Management and Public Health, 2, (9). 236-246.

VAŠUTOVÁ, Maria., PANÁČEK, Michal. 2010. Některé aspekty smysluplnosti života u sociálních pracovníků. In: Konference sociálních pracovníků Ostrava 2010. Evropský rok boje proti chudobě a sociálnímu vyloučení, Havířov: INFO PRESS s.r.o., 8s. ISBN 978-80-254-7445-7.

ŽIAKOVÁ, Eva, SČENSNÁ, Monika. 2009. Zmysel života dlhodobo nezamestnaných. Špecifiká sociálnej práce s touto skupinou klientov. In: ŠLOSÁR, Dušan. 2009. Migrácia – chudoba – nezamestnanosť. Zborník príspevkov z vedeckej konferencie s medzinárodnou účasťou. Košice: Košický samosprávny kraj, p. 28-37. ISBN 978 -80-970306-0-5.

The article was published in the proceedings of the conference, ,,Inclusion of Socially Excluded People and Models of Functioning of Low-threshold Facilities in Slovakia', organized by Depaul Slovakia, a non-profit organization in Bratislava, on 26 October 2010. The reviewers of the proceedings were: Ing. Mgr. Juraj Barát, Mgr. Jaroslava Poloňová, PhD. Publisher: DEPAUL SLOVENSKO, non-profit organization, Bratislava 2010 ISBN: 978-80-970578-2-4