As applied particularly to the Third World, the ‘culture of poverty’ argument can be seen as part of the general debate, which emerged from the work of Talcott PARSONS, about the importance of VALUES in helping or hindering the process of ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. In this way, ‘backward’ values, such as ‘fatalism’ and ‘resignation’, were contrasted with the modernizing values of‘enterprise’ and ‘achievement’ visible in affluent capitalist societies (see also ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION).
More recent research suggests that people living in the poor shanty towns described by Lewis do not have a fatalistic attitude within a culture of poverty; rather families and neighbours work together to devise strategies in order to adapt and cope with their changing social and economic circumstances. The impoverished inhabitants of Third World barrios and bidonvilles are far from apathetic. Research has clearly shown (e.g. Roberts, 1978; Lomnitz, 1977) how far the qualities of enterprise and inventiveness are needed simply to ensure survival in such adverse circumstances. Typically, family and neighbours develop complicated survival strategies, often involving the articulation of many different forms of informal and formal economic activity Thus, relatively little empirical support has been found for the ‘culture of poverty’ argument. Other explanations are therefore required for Third World poverty (see UNDERDEVELOPMENT).