Search

The article provides an overview of the factors that contribute to the concept of privilege and poverty in developed and underdeveloped countries. The increasing rate of population, income comparisons, broadening of the welfare gap, people's attitudes and their behavior were considered elemental basis that accounted for the country's development. Moreover, income, race, culture and geography were also observed as components that determine the poor class of the society and underdeveloped countries from the middle class and developed countries.

The article focuses on the relationship of unemployment to crime and delinquency. It would appear that rises in juvenile crime go hand in hand with industrialization and economic affluence. In India, a country with a generally low delinquency rate, a sudden rise of delinquency in Orissa province coincided with the erection of a new steel plant and anew urban, industrial center in the area. Advocates of rapid industrialization stress the positive social effects of economic well being, pointing out that providing employment opportunities gives people the means of escaping from the antisocial consequences of poverty. In order to have a clear look at the relationship between employment and crime, one must discard the idea that a simple cause and effect relationship can be isolated. It is necessary to explore the exact nature and operation of the variables intervening between these two conditions. Initially, rates of adult crime and rates of juvenile crime must be separately examined since considerable evidence suggests that they are not positively correlated.

The article comments on anti-poverty policy. With respect to anti-poverty policy, two major positions have emerged-one emphasizing a structural approach, the other an aggregative approach. These positions are not mutually exclusive, their difference being a question of relative emphasis. Both hold that there is some link between the rate of economic growth and the rate at which poverty incidence is reduced. The essential point of departure between the two points of view lies with the strength of this linkage: the structural position holding that, although economic growth opens up possibilities to escape poverty, a substantial proportion of the poor are not able to exploit these opportunities and are thus left behind in a poverty backwash. In short, the crucial distinction between the two theses is disagreement over the effect of economic growth in reducing poverty incidence. The higher levels of poverty incidence among minority families indicates, of course, that family poverty is relatively more concentrated among these groups and is what one would expect to be likely.