Conceptualizing ‘precarious prosperity’: Empirical and theoretical elements for debate

Abstract

Empirical studies have recently pointed towards a socio-structural category largely overlooked in social inequality research: the dynamic positions of households adjacent to those of the poor and yet not representing those of the established, more prosperous positions in society. These results suggest that the population in this category fluctuates into and out of poverty more often than moving into and out of secure prosperity. This category -still lacking theoretical conceptualization -is characterized by both precariousness and a certain degree of prosperity; despite a restricted and uncertain living standard it holds a range of opportunities for action. We seek analytical elements to conceptualize 'precarious prosperity' for comparative empirical research by subjecting various concepts of social inequality research to critical scrutiny. We then operationally define 'precarious prosperity' to screen for this population in three countries. Based on qualitative interviews with households in precarious prosperity, we present first analyses of perceptions and household strategies that underline the relevance of the concept in different countries.

Romanian Households Dealing with Precariousness: A life-course approach

“…This term refers to the socio-economic position of households that are situated just above the poverty threshold, but whose means to cope with life's contingences are few (Budowski et al 2010). Monica Budowski and her colleagues refined the term 'precarious prosperity' starting from Hübinger's(1996) empirical findings on a particular socio-structural category in Germany situ-ated above the poverty line but whose lived realities are similar to those in poverty.…”

“…Hübinger split the range of population's income in five equal parts both above and below the poverty line and found that in order to under-stand the challenges of upward and downward socio-economic mobility it is more meaningful to look at a zone of precariousness which extends beyond the poverty line and also encompasses the first three quintiles above this threshold. Building on this, Budowski et al(2010) claimed that such a struc-tural category could be identified in other socio-economic and cultural con-texts, and sought to design criteria to delineate it within international comparative research. An attempt to use this concept and its underlying research methodology in international settings concerned the comparative study of precarious prosperity in Chile, Costa Rica, Spain and Switzerland (Budowski et al 2010;Amacker et al 2013).…”

“…Building on this, Budowski et al(2010) claimed that such a struc-tural category could be identified in other socio-economic and cultural con-texts, and sought to design criteria to delineate it within international comparative research. An attempt to use this concept and its underlying research methodology in international settings concerned the comparative study of precarious prosperity in Chile, Costa Rica, Spain and Switzerland (Budowski et al 2010;Amacker et al 2013). The authors looked at the strat-egies households situated in this precarious prosperity zone design so as to cope with life uncertainties and avoid slipping into poverty, depending on the structural contexts shaped by the complex relationship between welfare state type, family composition and level of community support.…”

“…Within the frame of a recent comparative project on precarious prosperity in Romania and Switzerland, the methodology developed by Budowski et al (2010) was adapted by the binational research team in order to render operational the concept of precarious prosperity in Romania. Based on EU-SILC data from 2011 for Romania, the target population has been found either between 60% and 100% of median equivalised income of 8.970 lei (approximately 2.075 euro), or above 100% of the median equivalised income while simultaneously witnessing the enforced lack of at least 4 items out of a total of 9 deprivations considered (e.g.…”

“…The most salient feature of the precarious prosperity group is the significant threat posed to it of slipping into poverty (Budowski et al 2010). This is par-ticularly true in contemporary Romania, where household resources are scant due to increasing vulnerabilities in the labour market (Stă nculescu and Marin 2011), a minimalistic or emergent welfare state (Cerami 2008;Kuitto 2011), little community support and widespread social distrust (Voicu 2010;Mueller 2011).…”