ILPC 2026

Brief outline It is a common misapprehension that people in the UK who are ‘in poverty’ are only those who are unemployed and receiving welfare benefits. Indeed, recently there has been an increase of people who are often referred to as being in ‘in-work poverty’ (IWP). Whilst many correlate IWP with low-paid work, a recent in-depth study of in-work poverty in the UK, (Hick and Lanau 2017) makes it clear that the correlation between ‘low pay’ and ‘in-work poverty’ is far from straightforward (also see Bennett, 2014, Marx and Nolan, 2012). They note how IWP occurs when the total of a working household’s net income is not enough to meet their needs (2017:5). However, although important, we note that in most of these studies, when ‘job quantity’ is mentioned, it is based on the labour market participation of all members in one household – not on one member of a household involved in multiple employment as in our study. Furthermore most of the academic literature on IWP is based on comparative statistics across the EU and is mainly quantitative (see for example Maitre et al 2011, and Fraser et al 2011). Whilst these figures highlighting the rising scale of people in poverty are acknowledged as providing a significant, if concerning insight into the scale of the problem, we would suggest that the ‘voices’ of these people are missing. What they are experiencing, why they feel they are in work poverty, how this is affecting themselves, their family, their lives. This is the purpose of our study. Methodology Drawn from a qualitative study of 50 interviews with low-paid workers engaged in multiple employment, this data subset comprises detailed interviews with workers we identified were ‘in-work poverty’ and others through ‘self definition’ (also see Shildrick et al. 2012 and Garthwaite 2016). These workers’ jobs include: cleaning, security, retail, administration, social services and education, and they are employed in 2, 3, 4, 5 and even 7 different jobs. Yet, many are still struggling to survive. We also conducted interviews with food bank organisers (2), trade union officials (9) and 6 employers. Key findings All of the workers we interviewed are engaged in multiple employment because they are struggling to make ends meet. The data highlighted many significant issues with low-pay, limited working hours, underemployment and constrained employment opportunities combining to generate severe financial complexities and challenges. Despite a rise in the UK National Living Wage, many found their working hours were cut by their employer due to the rise and were therefore worse off. Some interviewed feel vulnerable and highly stressed about cuts, including benefits, and some make use of foodbanks. Others receive financial support from family and relatives. These all raise issues in relations to the current ‘make work pay’ agenda whereby successive UK governments have viewed (and continue to view) employment as the best route out of low-pay/poverty. References Bennett, F. (2014) The ‘living wage’, low pay and in work poverty: Rethinking the Relationships. Critical Social Policy, 34, 1 pp 46-65 Fraser, N., Gutierrez, R., and Pena-Casas, R (2011) Working Poverty in Europe: A comparative approach. Palgrave Macmillan. Garthwaite, K. (2016) Hunger pains: inside foodbank Britain, Bristol: Policy Press. Hick, R and Lanau, A. (2017) In-Work Poverty in the UK: Problem, policy analysis and platform for action. Final Report. Cardiff University. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2016) UK Poverty: Causes, Costs and Solutions. https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions Maitre, B., Nolan, B & Whelan, C.T. Low pay, In-Work Poverty and Economic Vulnerability. A Comparative Analysis Using EU SILC. The Manchester School Vol 80 No. 1 99–116 Marx, I and Nolan, B (2012) In-Work Poverty. AIAS. GINI Discussion Paper 51, July Shildrick, T., MacDonald, R., Webster, C. and Garthwaite, K. (2012) Poverty and Insecurity: Life in low-pay, no-pay Britain, Bristol: Policy Press.