JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT, 2016

VOL. 32, NOS. 3–4, 365–370

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1117519

COMMENTARY

Poverty as we never knew it: THE source of vulnerability for

most of humankind
Ronald Paul Hill
Department of Marketing & Business Law, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Most of humankind lives in poverty. Over 1.2 billion people survive Impoverished consumers;
on less than $1.25 per day, and around 2.7 billion people survive vulnerability; restricted
on less than $2.50 per day. Of course, these statistics do not take marketplaces; base-of-the-
into account those living in relative poverty within the very high- pyramid
est development nations in the world. Yet few within entitled
sectors of the global economy have had much to do with people
living in poverty, except for occasional and indirect contact. Even
basic ideas about poverty lack clarity; for example, what is the line
between poor and not poor both within and among countries? Is
it only about income or do other resources matter or act as
substitutes for money when impoverished consumers engage
their markets? Is poverty in the USA the same or different than
poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa? Answers to such questions are
provided in this commentary through an examination of three
different research projects conducted in poverty communities.
Together, they reveal distinct patterns of results between more
affluent and more impoverished consumers across the globe.

Commentary on poverty and vulnerability

Most of humankind lives in poverty. Over 1.2 billion people live on less than $1.25 per
day, and around 2.7 billion people survive on less than $2.50 per day. Of course, these
statistics do not take into account those living in relative poverty even within the very
highest development nations in the world (UNDP, 2014). While poverty and vulnerability
are not synonymous, they combine to include many persons within groupings such as
informal workers, socially excluded persons, women, people with disabilities, migrants,
minorities, many children and elderly, and entire communities and even regions of the
world like Sub-Saharan Africa. Understanding various needs and wants of these sub-
populations is important for marketers (Prahalad, 2005).
Yet few within entitled sectors of the global economy, from ordinary people to
marketing researchers, have had much to do with people living in poverty, except for
occasional and indirect contact. When most of us think about poor people, we either
conjure up images of a homeless man we passed on the streets, a movie or favourite
novel such as Oliver Twist, or folklore about starving people in a faraway land. These

CONTACT Ronald Paul Hill ronald.hill@villanova.edu

© 2015 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
366 R. P. HILL

images almost become experiences, where we believe that we know who they are and
what their lives are like. Can we really appreciate their existences from this distance? Are
their fantasy based images consistent with their lived realities in the marketplace?
Of course, there are seeds of truth in fictional accounts and casual meetings, but they
often rise to a level of perceived understanding that fails to resonate with many of the
poor. Even basic ideas about poverty lack clarity; for example, what is the line between
poor and not poor both within and among countries? Is it only about income or do
other resources matter or act as substitutes for money when impoverished consumers
engage their markets? Is poverty in the USA the same or different than poverty in Sub-
Saharan Africa? Answers to such questions are provided in this commentary.
I now turn to three different research projects conducted in poverty communities by
me and several esteemed colleagues. The first looks at impoverished children in a major
Eastern US city compared to their more affluent counterparts (Chaplin, Hill, & John,
2014). The second study examines how social comparisons of material wealth differ
between people living in poorer (e.g. Vietnam, Ghana, and Zambia) versus richer (e.g.
Canada, Sweden, and Germany) nations (Hill, Martin, & Chaplin, 2012). Finally, the third
considers how saving behaviour manifests with individuals who live in the same set of
developing and developed countries (Martin & Hill, 2015). Together, they reveal distinct
patterns of results between the more affluent and more impoverished consumers across
the globe.
Study one was conducted in suburban and urban sections of a large eastern metro-
polis, with the former composed of homes with an average selling price of $1,000,000
and the latter of $30,000. Youths ages 8–17 were asked a series of questions about their
material needs and desires, and they were forced to make difficult tradeoffs between
nonmaterial and material possessions that held value for them. The initial results are
consistent with previous research in that as children aged, they became increasingly
materialistic in response to the many pressures associated with social development and
the onset of puberty. This result was true regardless of whether they lived in relative
affluence or relative poverty. However, it was the comparison between haves and have-
nots that was the most enlightening, especially once they were of high school age.
First, poorer youths were more materialistic than wealthier children after about age
11, despite their relative inability to obtain goods and services. Second, while material
desires eventually declined for more affluent kids as they entered their late teens, no
such decline occurred for more impoverished youths. Explanations for the former
suggest that a dearth of opportunities among the poor leads to exaggerated cravings
for the largess that others have within the broader material world. The rationale behind
decreasing interests by wealthier children for goods and services is that their commu-
nities allow for other ways of increasing self-efficacy and self-esteem such as academic
honours, sports, and extracurricular activities that have been eliminated or drastically
reduced in poorer neighbourhoods because of draconian cuts to school budgets and
youth services. Thus, poorer youths face a proverbial ‘Catch-22’ where they want more
of what they are unlikely to ever legitimately have in transactions with marketplaces.
Study two involved thousands of people from around the world who either lived in
affluent developed nations or impoverished developing countries. The principal goal
was to look at the relationship between consumption restrictions and life satisfaction,
using national poverty as a moderator of this connection. Not surprisingly, results show
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 367

that individuals who make upward socioeconomic comparisons to more affluent neigh-
bours were much less satisfied with their lives than those persons who make downward
comparisons. It seems that having access to more goods and services than most
community members makes people feel better about their overall lives. If one does
not, dissatisfaction occurs that has a negative halo impact on their contentment.
The surprise in this investigation was where it seemed to matter most. While differ-
ences in life satisfaction were significant in both national categories, it was even greater
for people living in poorer countries. Thus, in places where individuals have highly
restricted access to products that allow them to survive or thrive, social comparisons
that place them on a lower rung than peers have potentially devastating emotional
effects as well as possible physical harm. It appears that the difference between having a
Lexus or a Ford is not as great as having one versus two cows. In fact, it might also mean
the difference between material subsistence of a family and its inability to provide
healthful food to eat or a safe and secure shelter.
Study three also includes a large global sample but looked, instead, at the impact of
saving behaviour on individual wellbeing. Once again, national poverty levels acted as a
relationship moderator. Findings reveal that as societal poverty increases, wellbeing
decreases. This result was expected, but it is how saving behaviour was impacted by
poverty that is the most interesting outcome. It turns out that the number of individuals
who actually save is higher in nations where impoverishment is the norm, and saving has
an even greater impact on wellbeing for them than for their wealthier nation
counterparts.
The rationale becomes more intuitive once lenses of the poor are substituted for the
viewpoint of the affluent. For a moment, imagine living close to survival level in Sub-
Saharan Africa. What is life like when meagre incomes and other resources are disrupted
by illness, economic downturns, or government policies? The consequences can be
shattering and lead to starvation or even death. Such dire circumstances happen in
developed countries but fewer individuals are left completely helpless or without some
place to seek basic sustenance. One simple conclusion is that saving is necessary for the
poor in impoverished nations because without some ‘nest egg’ they will perish. It may
be the difference between having something to eat and a place to sleep or nothing
at all.
On a more positive note, The United Nations has demonstrated that global poverty
has been reduced through conscious efforts by governments and their various partners
over the last 25 years (UNDP, 2014). Yet more than 750 million people do not have
enough food, leading to starvation, early death, and stunted growth. Over three-quarters
of the world population lives in countries where income differentials continue to rise,
and the poorest 40% around the globe exist on a mere 5% of total income.
Approximately 1 billion people lack any access to potable water, and 1.8 million child
deaths occur each year from diarrhoea (see globalissues.org).
So what have we learned? Let’s consider the following ideas: Poverty impacts the
broader experience of life in ways that one might not ordinarily recognise. It seems
obvious that it has significant negative consequences for physical and psychological
health, but the impact on our socio-emotional wellbeing has received less emphasis. Yet
why are we surprised? Even the most impoverished citizens in nations like the USA are
aware of the cornucopia of material ‘things’ that exist in the marketplace, and they
368 R. P. HILL

eventually must come to realise that they have little or no opportunity to partake. More
affluent citizens often say that they would work at any job if they had no other options
for a livelihood, but would they really? The low-level service jobs in affluent nations
provide limited relief from want and do not precede better circumstances, and the same
is true for many who work in the informal economy in developing nations. Who would
select to face such a dismal future?
Also, poor children often become poor adults (Hill, 2001). True, a rare few find their
way out of poverty, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Just imagine a poor
child living in a US ghetto who has wide-eyed wonder at the holiday season, only to
discover few gifts of primarily mundane items year after year. They also attend sub-
standard schools where teachers, counsellors, supplies and books, and after-school
activities have been eliminated and replaced only by metal detectors. With dim pro-
spects for self-enhancement and future careers, where would you turn? Drugs? Crime?
Sex? Or anything else that can take you away from your lived experiences, even if it is
only for a short period of time? Another study with impoverished juvenile felons
unmistakably makes this case (Ozanne, Hill, & Wright, 1998).
Such comparisons also occur on a relative basis that has fuelled media portrayals of
impoverished children injuring or killing other kids for scuffing their sneakers or having a
desired pair. These tragedies leave us speechless and questioning the morals of com-
munities or the rearing skills of their parents. However, just imagine what it is like to
have only a modicum of products that are highly valued in our material world, with no
options for getting them now or in the future. This knowledge, which comes to people
fairly early in their lives, impacts feelings and behaviours in profound ways that may lead
to such unfortunate outcomes. My recent work with incarcerated men shows this ill-
fated path and also reveals a dark side of American politics (Hill, Rapp, & Capella, in
press): much criminal activity is due to a lack of opportunities to engage the market, and
the solution is often mass incarceration in the United States.
Images of inequality and inequity pervade the media as our ability to record events
expands beyond anything imaginable even a decade ago. We see the rise of radical
groups that spread their messages to youths around the world who feel a great sense of
alienation and isolation. African Americans, who have been targets of discrimination
since the European invasion of America, have been gunned down on US streets, igniting
riots that lead to destruction and looting of retailers who are objects of pent up rage
over access and distributive justice. Experiences of immigrants throughout Europe may
mirror this treatment and reactions.
We can do something about it, and I recommend four interrelated steps. First, as people
and as nations we must suspend judgments of the poor that hold them wholly responsible
for circumstances and condemn them to poverty. As presented, no one would choose to
live this life and it is only our good fortune that allows the rest of us to have access to
products that enhance our existences. Second, we must learn more about poverty in our
world and how it manifests in the daily lives of the poor. If this commentary is any guide,
beliefs and behaviours of impoverished citizens can be markedly different from affluent
citizens because of the contexts and restrictions they face. We cannot understand their
circumstances unless we are educated to larger realities of their worlds.
Third, we need to get ‘proximal.’ As Stevenson (2014) recounts in his book Just Mercy,
knowing something is wrong and seeing it in practice have significantly different
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 369

impacts on perceptions of inequality. Take the time to meet with and listen to the poor
in their living environments and see their worlds through their eyes. You will find that
your sense of entitlement that has matured over your lifetime is not operable. Feel the
frustration and restriction that has little or no chance of abating. Fourth, and finally, we
must create a political climate that no longer tolerates people living in abject poverty,
especially a billion children around the world. If we took a percentage of what devel-
oped countries spend on armament and dedicated it to poverty eradication and other
enhanced life opportunities, we could solve this shameful dilemma. We can and must do
more for the sake of all human beings.

Acknowledgements
I want to take this opportunity to thank the special issue editors, Susan Dunnett, Kathy Hamilton, and
Maria Piacentini, for their support and helpful remarks on the original draft of this commentary.
Additionally, my colleagues from the research cited, including Kelly Martin, Justine Rapp, and Lan
Chaplin, gave important advice on how to capture previous research within the context of this
assignment.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding
The financial assistance of the Naclerio family also is greatly appreciated.

Notes on contributor
Ronald Paul Hill, PhD, is the Richard and Barbara Naclerio Chairholder in Business at the Villanova
School of Business. His research involves how consumers navigate consumption restrictions.

References
Chaplin, L. N., Hill, R. P., & John, D. R. (2014). Poverty and materialism: A look at impoverished
versus affluent children. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 33(1), 78–92. doi:10.1509/
jppm.13.050
Hill, R. P. (2001). Surviving in a material world: The lived experience of people in poverty. Notre Dame,
IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Hill, R. P., Martin, K. D., & Chaplin, L. N. (2012). A tale of two marketplaces: Consumption restriction,
social comparison, and life satisfaction. Marketing Letters, 23(3), 731–744. doi:10.1007/s11002-
012-9175-4
Hill, R. P., Rapp, J. M., & Capella, M. L. (in press). Consumption restriction in a total control
institution: Participatory action research in a maximum security prison. Journal of Public Policy
& Marketing. doi:10.1509/jppm.14.101
Martin, K. D., & Hill, R. P. (2015). Saving and well-being at the base-of-the-pyramid: Implications for
transformative financial services delivery. Journal of Service Research, 18(3), 405-421.u.
doi:10.1177/1094670514563496
370 R. P. HILL

Ozanne, J. L., Hill, R. P., & Wright, N. (1998). Juvenile delinquents’ use of consumption as cultural
resistance: Implications for juvenile reform programs and public policy. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 17(Fall), 185–196.
Prahalad, C. K. (2005). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits.
Philadelphia, PA: Wharton School Publishing.
Stevenson, B. (2014). Just mercy: A story of justice and redemption. New York, NY: Random House.
UNDP. (2014). Human development report: Sustaining human progress. New York, NY: United
Nations.
Copyright of Journal of Marketing Management is the property of Routledge and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.