In this innovative study, Dr Şebnem Eroğlu's central aim, as stated in the first chapter, is ‘to understand how households respond to poverty and why some are more successful in reducing their deprivation than others’ (p. 1). The book consists of eleven chapters and two appendices based on data drawn from a longitudinal study of low-income households living in a Gecekondu settlement of Ankara. Gecekondu settlements are neighbourhoods constructed of very low-cost housing in both smaller and larger Turkish cities. This housing generally does not adhere to building permit requirements, but because of their being constructed overnight, requires more complicated legal proceedings and therefore often cannot be demolished by the authorities the next day. As a result, many of these neighbourhood Gecekondu settlements usually have high population density and are inhabited by the very poor who have migrated from more rural areas to the urban areas in the hope of finding a way to alleviate their poverty.

The most important distinctive feature of this book comes from its theoretical standpoint and its methodology. Dr Eroğlu critically examines and rejects the concepts of ‘household survival’, ‘livelihood’ and ‘coping strategies’ and instead proposes the concepts of ‘households’ responses to poverty’ as an alternative model in order to understand the socio-economic behaviour of poor households. After critical evaluation of the former concepts (pp. 12–18), her conceptualisation of the households’ behaviour sees it as consisting of ‘a broader range of actions than the notions of livelihood, coping and strategy will allow, and to avoid the problem of indiscriminate application inherent to the term survival’ (p. 18). This broader, more sociological approach allows for exploring household responses in more complex ways by using variables that better express the multidimensional character of family responses and lead to a deeper understanding of how structural problems and socio-political-economic processes must be understood and addressed, rather than simply means-tested aid, in order to seriously impact on poverty in Turkish society.

Dr Eroğlu's methodology combines qualitative study with quantitative methodology in order to better take into account the subjective and objective basis of deprivation. A longitudinal study based on two in-depth visits with a number of families in the settlement over a period of six months examines the variability of the degree of poverty over that time. Dr Eroğlu's analysis then looked at different forms of behaviours, including income generation, income allocation, investment and consumption. The study seeks to determine if there is a causal relationship between poverty and those behaviours, using a very sophisticated methodology. The objective dimensions of poverty are weighted using a factor analysis based on how the respondents themselves perceive aspects of poverty/deprivation, including interviews with both spouses. By applying quantitative analysis to the in-depth qualitative data, this study utilises what is best about both types of analysis while avoiding the limitations that are sometimes present when only one or the other method of analysis is employed.

Whole chapters are devoted to in-depth examinations of the four behaviours mentioned above: income generation, income allocation, investment and consumption and these are then explored in relation to how the degree of poverty, or deprivation as the author calls it, changed over time.

The conclusions of the study, however, do have important implications for: (1) understanding the ways that deprivation is created, intensified or alleviated among the very poor; (2) understanding the limitations of previous methodologies and how those narrow methodologies lead to narrow conclusions and narrow policy implications and recommendations; (3) developing methodologies that can more deeply and broadly explore the structural, especially economic, processes that have the most profound impact on the creation, maintenance and alleviation of deprivation; (4) drawing conclusions that can better take into account these broader structural factors; and (5) developing policy recommendations that reflect these conclusions and offer potentially more effective means of reducing deprivation/poverty than many policies currently in place.

What are Dr Eroğlu's conclusions? Some of the most important are that ‘Higher levels of income diversification did not significantly reduce deprivation’; ‘Labour resources comprised the main source of income generation’; ‘Lower dependency ratios did not significantly reduce deprivation’; ‘Institutional entitlements had a limited capacity to generate income’; and while social capital and cultural capital were often used to search for employment, their impact on achieving employment success was limited as was their impact on reducing deprivation, and ‘Overall, deployment of a greater range of resources did not reduce deprivation’ (pp. 226–7). There are other conclusions as well, but what this points to is that piecemeal attempts at alleviating poverty have little effect. Not only do direct payments have very limited and temporary impact on reducing poverty, but such factors as cultural capital and social capital have little impact if the poor cannot be integrated into the formal sector of the labour market in a stable way. This might seem to go against popular notions that if someone is lacking assets and they are given assets, they will be able to improve their economic situation. At best, this is only a ‘holding action’ against even more increased deprivation, and is temporary at best. Even job training is inadequate if there are no stable jobs in the formal labour market. Furthermore, the informal labour market might provide some temporary income but the lack of government regulations, including minimum wage scales, are a serious problem. The obvious policy recommendations that flow from this are that the state must make major structural changes in the educational system and in the creation of a stable formal sector of the labour market, both for employment and for access to social security and other benefits. Additionally, Dr Eroğlu's design includes paying special attention to the role of females in the generation and management of assets in the household – factors which deserve special attention. One might, however, wish that the discussion of gender relations would go deeper. In particular, the conclusion that women's use of ‘secret kitty money’ (that they have been able to accumulate by careful planning) often serves to help alleviate the deprivation of the household as a whole, would benefit from considering how using that for general household needs may mean that the women's special needs are not adequately met.

The author is modest in her conclusions and proposes further research, since her sample size is very limited, but, as it stands, this work is an important contribution to our understanding of poverty and policy proposals that may well be applicable outside of Turkey as well.