Townsend’s poverty ‘threshold’ revisited: an analysis that utilises his critics’ insights and all 60 of his deprivation indicators

Abstract Peter Townsend’s influential 1968/69 poverty study is still lauded. Yet controversy surrounded his claim that it established a meaningful poverty ‘threshold’ at an income level equivalent to 140 per cent of means-tested state benefit rates, below which deprivation increased more rapidly. This article presents findings from the first detailed analysis of the data to offer no support to Townsend’s ‘threshold’ claim. Earlier analyses used his sub-set of twelve deprivation indicators, such as lacking a refrigerator, and Townsend said it was a ‘pity’ more were not used. Using all sixty, the research presented here both replicated Townsend’s methods and utlilised criticisms of them by, for example, employing a ‘mean’ (alongside a ‘mode’) measure of average deprivation. Remarkably, even with only Townsend’s twelve indicators, mean deprivation was lower among those with an income at 120–139 per cent of benefit rates (immediately below Townsend’s 140 per cent ‘threshold’) than at 140–159 per cent. Whether Townsend’s or other methods were applied, deprivation increased significantly as income fell below about 119 per cent of benefit rates, but it plateaued as income fell further. The article highlights the arbitrariness of poverty lines and the advantages of using various lines when evaluating social policies.