Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2019
DOI: 10.1111/soru.12250
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Social Networks and Coping with Poverty in Rural Areas

Abstract: This article draws attention to the spatial dimensions of poverty and the importance of social networks as coping resources for the rural poor. We analyse data from an explorative, mixed‐methods study conducted in rural and urban areas in north‐eastern Germany, and show that spatial contexts shape poor people's social networks. Our quantitative analyses indicate that compared to the urban networks, the rural networks in our sample are smaller, and include more family members and fewer supportive relationships.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 80 publications
0
17
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Has pervasive solidarity become a thing of the past (Hogan, Eggebeen, and Clogg 1993), when networks were mostly dense and local (Wellman 1979), family structures more extensive, and employment opportunities more widespread (e.g., González de la Rocha 2007)? Do some people in poverty encounter solidarity while others in similar circumstances face isolation (Klärner and Knabe 2019; Marques 2012), and if so, what explains this difference? Or can solidarity and individualism coexist in the same individuals or communities?…”
Section: Social Network and Povertymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Has pervasive solidarity become a thing of the past (Hogan, Eggebeen, and Clogg 1993), when networks were mostly dense and local (Wellman 1979), family structures more extensive, and employment opportunities more widespread (e.g., González de la Rocha 2007)? Do some people in poverty encounter solidarity while others in similar circumstances face isolation (Klärner and Knabe 2019; Marques 2012), and if so, what explains this difference? Or can solidarity and individualism coexist in the same individuals or communities?…”
Section: Social Network and Povertymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A key value which governs many social norms in the participants’ networks is respect. Adding to the understanding of social exclusion in rural areas ( Klärner and Knabe, 2019 ; Shucksmith, 2012 ; Guiaux et al, 2011 ), we illustrate how participants regularly perceive a lack of respect in contacts outside their own network. The intricate notion of respect plays a key role in the outward distrust and many conflicts observed within the networks, which ultimately reinforce social exclusion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…An appropriate way to start exploring class practices is by closely examining the characteristics of social networks of poor and their position in social space ( Lee et al, 2005 ). In a sociological sense, examining social networks entails looking at the structure of social ties and how they facilitate support or exclusion processes ( Klärner and Knabe, 2019 ). Social networks and the resources located within them have a strong determining effect on the opportunities and life prospects of individuals (see Putnam, 2001 ; Forrest and Kearns, 2001 ).…”
Section: Class Practices In Social Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the next stage, considering the spatial dimensions of poverty and following research stating that rural and urban social networks are structurally and functionally distinctive and differentially influence how people cope with economic and other circumstances ( Klärner and Knabe, 2019 ), we purposively selected three rural districts within the Gunung Kidul regency and four urban districts within the Sleman regency. For this, we followed the official urban-rural classification based on Village Potential ( podes 1 ) statistics [Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) Indonesia (Statistics Indonesia), 2016].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%