In terms of the major theories of poverty, they can be categorized into two distinct groups. The first is a cultural/behavioral route to poverty, which states that the cause of poverty lies in the behavior, value, and culture of those who are poor. In contrast, the structural/economic view of poverty proposes that poverty is a result of a lack of equal opportunity. As can be expected, this topic can be very controversial and political, with conservatives tending to favor a cultural/behavioral perspective, and liberals tending to focus on a structural/economic cause. Both theories will be reviewed in some detail, with proponents of the respective views offering their perspectives and arguments. While these supporters of the respective theories provide strong arguments, there are many arguments against each theory. As such, as with many things, it is likely that the root cause is some combination of the two theories.

The cultural/behavioral theory is a rather controversial topic, especially the interpretation offered by Myron Magnet; this theory rests on the foundation that people become poor because they lack inner resources needed to become financially stable. This theory rests on the assumption that individuals of all cultural backgrounds have the same opportunities for success. Individuals who support this theory believe that individuals who are in poverty are in this situation because of their own fault. Specifically, when applying this theory, those who drop out of school early, have children early, abuse substances, and commit crimes are all victims of cultural/behavioral factors that led to these occurrences. Magnet contends that the cultural revolution of the 1960s in the United States contributed substantially to the development of a group of individuals who learned to “blame the system” for personal failures. In other words, he argues that during the 1960s, a subset of individuals subscribed heavily to the idea that the government should provide handouts, and that individuals should not have personal responsibility for any faults. However, research has suggested that people who are poor are not innately dysfunctional people. This research has instead suggested that conclusions are quickly made because dysfunctional individuals with social problems are a large and visible group within a society.

The structural/economic theory is largely supported by those who identify as being moderate or liberal in political views. These individuals believe that poverty results from unfairness within the economy, educational systems, and the political system. As described by William Wilson, this theory is supported by incidents such as the ways in which civil rights laws have led to housing discrimination, which led to concentrated masses of poor individuals within ghettos in cities. He claims that the turn to white-collar jobs, and away from factory based jobs, led to a loss of employment for low-skilled black workers. This, in turn, led to a lack of activity, and “hustling” drugs. Furthermore, the high level of unemployment, combined with crime, led women who lived in these areas to have few worthy partners, and this reduced the marriage rate, while the number of children born outside of marriage increased (increasing the use of public social services).

In sum, there is much controversy surrounding the theories that attempt to describe how poverty develops. While some favor that notion that poverty develops due to inherent deficits in certain individuals, others support the idea that poverty results from discrimination and unequal opportunities for a select subset of the population. While each side of the argument presents valid ideas, it is plausible to assume that the true answer lies somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.