Comic Relief ‘Public Perceptions of Poverty’

Omnibus Survey – Wave 4 Findings

Summary Report

22nd December 2005

Background and Methodology

-The following data are taken from the Wave 4 findings from the quantitative element of the Comic Relief ‘Public Perceptions of Poverty’(PPP) study, funded by DfID.

-The data were collected by means of the Taylor Nelson Sofres ‘Omnimas’omnibus survey.

-The omnibus was conducted via face to face interviews in England Wales and Scotland from 2nd to 6th December 2005.

-A total of 1,952 adults (aged 16 and over) were interviewed .

-The data given here have been weighted such that they are representative of the whole adult population, in terms of gender, age, social class and regionality.

Where possible, the Wave 4 data presented here are compared with those gathered in Waves 1, 2 and 3, which used the same methodology, and were conducted in December 2004, April 2005 (post-Red Nose Day), and July 2005 (post-G8). However it should be noted that Wave 4 was a mini-wave, which was not originally scheduled in the PPP research plan; this Wave was conducted at the behest of the Make Poverty History co-ordination team, in order to provide them with additional end of year data. Thus not all the questions used in Wave 3 were repeated in Wave 4; also, Wave 4 incorporated two new attitude statements, and one question on any action taken this year to tackle global poverty (ie. not limited to MPH). The questions asked in Wave 4 are reproduced in the Appendix to this report. Further details on all four waves of the PPP omnibus survey and on the qualitative elements of the PPP project are available from

The next wave of PPP omnibus research (Wave 5) is scheduled for January 2006.

Key Findings

  • In Wave 4, three quarters (76%) of all respondents said they were concerned about poverty in poor countries; this figure is very similar to that recorded in the three previous waves. 28% of respondents in Wave 4 said they were ‘very concerned’about poverty in poor countries, and this represents a slight rise from Wave 3 (26%). However, that Wave 3 figure represents the lowest proportion of ‘very concerned’respondents recorded in the PPP surveys, and at the time we suggested that the significant movement of respondents from the ‘very concerned’to the ‘fairly concerned’categories was a direct response to the London bombings of 7th July. The Wave 4 findings support the hypothesis that Wave 3 represented a (downward) blip in the proportion of ‘very concerned’respondents.
  • In December 2005, over three quarters of respondents (78%) were aware of the Make Poverty History campaign. However, the Wave 4 data also show levels of public knowledge and awareness of Make Poverty History to have dropped back from their highpoint in July 2005 (Wave 3). In Wave 4, 66% of all respondents said they knew something about the Make Poverty History campaign, as opposed to 76% in Wave 3. Including those who had only heard the name, 78% were aware of MPH in Wave 4 (against 87% in Wave 3). This decline was most marked among those respondents who reported knowing ‘a lot’about MPH – a decline in this group from 31% in Wave 3 to 19% in Wave 4 was recorded.
  • In Wave 4, 13% of all respondents said they had been involved in the Make Poverty History campaign. This suggests a slight decline from Wave 3, when 15% said they had been involved in MPH. However the narrow percentage difference is not ‘statistically significant’, so it can only be said that levels of involvement in MPH remained static up to December 2005, at around the 15% level. Wave 4 confirmed that the MPH-involved tended to be younger (under 30) and more upmarket (in ABC1C2 SEGs) than other respondents.
  • In Wave 4, 39% of respondents agreed that there was ‘nothing they could do personally to tackle poverty’, although 47% disagreed (and this represents a steady shift away from agreeing with the statement since PPP surveying began). Furthermore, over half of respondents (57%) agreed that‘all they could do personally to tackle poverty was to give money’, while just under a third (31%) disagreed. Across all four waves of surveying, no clear trend is evident in these data, which vary only slightly from wave to wave. It is notable that among those respondents who had been involved in MPH, 54% disagreed that all they could do was give money.
  • Looking at responses to the new attitude statements in Wave 4, the survey found that more than two thirds (70%) of respondents agreed that ‘UK politicians have the power to tackle poverty in poor countries’, with 35% of respondents ‘agreeing strongly’. A new statement on trade issues met with overwhelming support from respondents: more than half (54%) ‘agreed strongly’that ‘poor countries should be allowed the freedom to trade their way out of poverty’. In all, 83% of respondents agreed, and only a very few (3%) disagreed. However, it should be noted that this strong level of agreement came in response to a strongly worded question.
  • Two of the PPP survey’s five standard statements on debt trade and aid were included in Wave 4; neither revealed much variation in responses from previous waves. Thus in Wave 4 nearly three quarters of respondents agreed that in order to tackle poverty in poor countries ‘fairer trade not free trade’and ‘trade justice not free trade’were required (71% and 61% respectively agreed with these methods). In Wave 4, trade justice was again the least understood method of tackling poverty, with 17% of respondents saying they didn’t know whether to agree with it or that they didn’t understand the issues involved.
  • In response to a new question in Wave 4, just over half (52%) of respondents said they had done something this year to tackle global poverty. Rates of taking action declined down the socio-economic grades, such that while 63% of ABs had done something, only 41% of DEs had done likewise.
  • Bringing together the findings from Wave 4 which relate to social justice, it has been seen that 83% of respondents agreed that ‘poor countries should be allowed the freedom to trade their way out of poverty’. It has also been noted that 61% of respondents agreed that in order to tackle poverty in poor countries we need ‘trade justice not free trade’. However, 17% of respondents either did not know how to answer that question, or said they did not understand the issues involved; a further 18% said they did not have a view either way (thus 35% of respondents were uncertain in one way or another about trade justice as opposed to free trade). This apparent uncertainty is underlined by the question on awareness and knowledge of trade justice. In Wave 4, the majority of respondents (51%) said they had never heard of the term, while the proportion saying they knew something about trade justice stood at just over one third (37% - down from 46% in Wave 3).
  • The Wave 4 data contain interesting findings relating to respondents from Black and Minority Ethnic subgroups. As with previous waves, the non-white respondents in Wave 4 (171 in total) were the most likely subgroup to say they were ‘very concerned’about poverty in poor countries: 52% said so (double the proportion among white respondents – 26%). The non-white respondents in Wave 4 were also more likely to think that UK politicians have the power to tackle global poverty, and also more likely to think that they could put pressure on UK politicians to do so. However, these respondents were slightly less likely than white respondents to have heard of MPH, and were also less likely to have taken part in it (9% had done so, as opposed to 13% of white respondents).

Summary of Findings

Q 0.1. I am going to read you a series of statements. Please say how much you agree or disagree with each one, if at all, or say if you don’t have a view or don’t understand the issues involved. So, how much do you agree or disagree that...?

  • Note: this question was asked separately from the other questions in the module of PPP questions, in order to avoid biasing responses through ‘ordering effects’(ie. respondents might have answered differently if they knew this question related to a Comic Relief / Make Poverty History survey about poverty).

Q0.1a) UK politicians have the power to tackle poverty in poor countries

Base = all respondents (Wave 4 n=1,952)

All (Wave 4)
Agree strongly [+2] / 35%
Agree slightly [+1] / 35%
Don’t have a view either way [0] / 11%
Disagree slightly [-1] / 7%
Disagree strongly [-2] / 7%
[Mean] / 0.897
  • Note: this attitude statement was asked for the first time in Wave 4.
  • Across the whole sample, more than two thirds (70%) of respondents agreed with this statement, with more than a third (35%) ‘agreeing strongly’. Less than a sixth of respondents (14%) disagreed with this statement, and only 6% said they did not know (or didn’t understand the issues). The most likely subgroup to agree with this statement were those who reported being ‘very concerned’about the level of poverty in poor countries [see Q2 below], 84% of whom agreed with it. Nearly as likely to agree were those respondents who reported having been involved in the Make Poverty History campaign [see Q5 below], 83% of whom agreed. Respondents from non-white ethnic groups were also much more likely than average to agree with the statement (81% did so). Respondents in higher socio-economic grades (AB SEGs) were also more likely to be in agreement (80% did so).

Q0.1b) The UK government should be taking more action to tackle poverty in poor countries

Base = all respondents (Wave 3 n = 2,135; Wave 4 n=1,952)

All (Wave 3) / All (Wave 4)
Agree strongly [+2] / 37% / 41%
Agree slightly [+1] / 31% / 30%
Don’t have a view either way [0] / 12% / 10%
Disagree slightly [-1] / 12% / 8%
Disagree strongly [-2] / 9% / 8%
[Mean] / 0.757 / 0.918
  • Across the whole sample, nearly three quarters (71%) of respondents agreed with this statement, with more than a third (41%) ‘agreeing strongly’. Less than one fifth of respondents (16%) disagreed with this statement. Agreement with this statement about government action was slightly stronger than that with the previous question about government’s ability to act effectively. Agreement with this statement appears to have increased very slightly since Wave 3 (in July) – although statistically this rise (from 68% to 71%) is not ‘significant’, ie. it could be accounted for by methodological changes between the two waves.
  • In Wave 4, the most likely subgroup to agree with this statement were those who reported being ‘very concerned’about the level of poverty in poor countries, 92% of whom agreed with it; the MPH involved were nearly as likely to agree with the statement (88% did so). Respondents from non-white ethnic groups were also much more likely than average to agree with the statement (88% did so), as, to a lesser extent, were respondents in AB SEGs (78 %).

Q0.1c) Rich countries should allow poor countries the freedom to use trade to help end poverty

Base = all respondents (Wave 4 n=1,952)

All (Wave 4)
Agree strongly [+2] / 54%
Agree slightly [+1] / 29%
Don’t have a view either way [0] / 9%
Disagree slightly [-1] / 2%
Disagree strongly [-2] / 1%
[Mean] / 1.394
  • Note: this attitude statement was asked for the first time in Wave 4.
  • This new statement met with overwhelming support from respondents: more than half (54%) ‘agreed strongly’that poor countries should be allowed the freedom to trade their way out of poverty. In all, 83% of respondents agreed, and only a very few (3%) disagreed. The most likely subgroup to agree with this statement were the‘very concerned’about the poverty in poor countries, 81% of whom ‘agreed strongly’with it; nearly three quarters (74%) of the MPH Involved also ‘agreed strongly’with the statement. Respondents from non-white ethnic groups (65%) and respondents who were regular broadsheet readers (64%) were also much more likely than average to agree strongly with the statement.
  • A degree of caution should be adopted when handling these data, as the question was couched in leading terms, in order to establish how broadly support for fairer trade arrangements had spread. Other statements on trade issues [see Q9 below] reveal much higher levels of neutrality and uncertainty among respondents,

Q2. Which of these statements best describes how you feel about levels of poverty in poor countries?

Base = all respondents (Wave 1 n = 2,268; Wave 2 n = 2,368; Wave 3 n = 2,135; Wave 4 n=1,952)

(Wave 1) / (Wave 2) / (Wave 3) / Wave 4
Very Concerned [+2] / 30% / 32% / 26% / 28%
Fairly Concerned [+1] / 43% / 43% / 50% / 48%
No strong feelings one way or another [0] / 18% / 13% / 14% / 15%
Not Very Concerned [-1] / 6% / 7% / 6% / 6%
Not At All Concerned [-2] / 2% / 3% / 3% / 2%
Don't Know / 1% / 1% / - / -
[Mean] / 0.927 / 0.954 / 0.910 / 0.947
  • Note: this question is identical to that asked annually by DfID in their ONS Omnibus (except for the use of “developing countries”instead of “poor countries”in that survey). In July 2004, the most recent published wave, the DfID Omnibus interviewed 1,698 respondents; it found that 66% were concerned, with 26% ‘very concerned’.
  • In Wave 4 of the PPP Omnibus, the proportion of respondents who were ‘very concerned’about poverty in poor countries (28%) had risen very slightly from that recorded in Wave 3 (26%), although it still lagged slightly behind the levels recorded in the first two waves of PPP surveying.
  • It should be recalled that the Wave 3 fieldwork commenced on July 15th, one week after the outcomes of the G8 Summit were announced, but also one week after the London bombings of 7th July. The Wave 4 data seem to support the hypothesis that the Wave 3 data represented a sudden downturn in the highest levels of concern about global poverty, triggered by the London bombs. It is notable that themovement between Waves 3 and 4 appears to be of respondents from ‘fairly concerned’back up to ‘very concerned’, which reverses the flow observed between Waves 2 and 3. Again though, it must be stated that these percentage differences are small, and not statistically significant.
  • Only 8% of respondents were on balance not concerned about poverty in poor countries, and this proportion has remained steady across the four waves.
  • Considered in terms of subgroups, women were more likely to report being ‘very concerned’than were men (31% vs. 26%). Social class also impacted on concern, such that ABs were much more likely to be ‘very concerned’(37%) than were C1C2s (26%) or DEs (25%). Broadsheet readers were also more likely to be ‘very concerned’(34%), and considered by age, respondents in the 45 to 64 bracket were more likely to be ‘very concerned’(31%) than those aged 18 to 30 (24%). Of all subgroups, the 171 respondents from non-white ethnic groups were the most likely to be ‘very concerned’about poverty in poor countries (more than half, 52%, said so). Those respondents who had been involved in MPH were also more likely than average to report being ‘very concerned’about poverty in poor countries: nearly half (45%) of the 230 MPH-involved respondents did so.

Q3. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements…?

Q3a) There is nothing I can do personally to tackle poverty in poor countries

Base = all respondents (Wave 1 n = 2,268; Wave 2 n = 2,368; Wave 3 n = 2,135; Wave 4 n=1,952)

(Wave 1) / (Wave 2) / (Wave 3) / Wave 4
Agree strongly [+2] / 18% / 17% / 17% / 16%
Agree slightly [+1] / 22% / 23% / 24% / 23%
Don’t have a view either way [0] / 14% / 11% / 13% / 11%
Disagree slightly [-1] / 26% / 25% / 25% / 26%
Disagree strongly [-2] / 18% / 22% / 19% / 21%
Don’t understand the issues / 1% / 1% / 1% / 1%
Don’t Know / 1% / 2% / 1% / 2%
[Mean] / -0.051 / -0.128 / -0.036 / -0.142
  • The responses to this (negative) question have altered only slightly between Waves 1 and 4. On average respondents tended to think that they could personally do something to tackle poverty in poor countries: in Wave 4, 47% disagreed with the statement, while 39% agreed. Although Wave 4 shows the highest level of disagreement to date, the level of agreement is the same as that recorded in Wave 2 – as such there is no clear trend across the four waves.
  • Respondents in the higher socio-economic grades (AB SEGs) were much more likely to disagree with the statement (62%) than agree with it (30%); among those in DE SEGs the pattern was reversed (only 29% disagreed while 55% agreed). Looked at by newspaper readership, the majority of regular broadsheet readers (58%) disagreed with the statement, while just under a third (32%) agreed. It is interesting to note that non-white respondents were no more likely than all adults to disagree with the statement (48% did so).
  • The subgroup of respondents most likely to disagree with this statement were the MPH-involved, nearly three quarters of whom (71%) disagreed, with 41% disagreeing strongly.

Q3b) The only thing I can do to tackle poverty in poor countries is to give money to charities and appeals

Base = all respondents (Wave 1 n = 2,268; Wave 2 n = 2,368; Wave 3 n = 2,135; Wave 4 n=1,952)

(Wave 1) / (Wave 2) / (Wave 3) / Wave 4
Agree strongly [+2] / 23% / 27% / 19% / 23%
Agree slightly [+1] / 36% / 36% / 33% / 34%
Don’t have a view either way [0] / 12% / 8% / 12% / 10%
Disagree slightly [-1] / 14% / 15% / 17% / 17%
Disagree strongly [-2] / 14% / 12% / 17% / 14%
Don’t understand the issues / 1% / 1% / 1% / 1%
Don’t Know / 1% / 2% / 1% / 2%
[Mean] / 0.411 / 0.521 / 0.209 / 0.359
  • As with the statement above about there being nothing respondents can do to tackle global poverty, levels of agreement with this (negative) statement on only being able to give money show a similar lack of a clear trend. Where agreement with the statement had dropped sharply from Waves 2 to 3, agreement rose again between Waves 3 and 4 (from 52% to 57%). In Wave 4, slightly fewer respondents (31%) disagreed with the statement than had done so in Wave 3 (34%).
  • As with the previous statement, the most likely subgroup to disagree were the MPH-involved, the majority of whom (54%) disagreed that all they could do was give money. Respondents in AB SEGs were also more likely than average to disagree that all they could do was give money (42% disagreed), while those in DE SEGs were much less likely to disagree (19% did so). On this statement, non-white respondents were actually more likely than all respondents to agree that all they could do was give money (64% agreed, against 57% of the whole sample).

Q3c) I can tackle poverty in poor countries by putting pressure on UK politicians

Base = all respondents (Wave 3 n = 2,135; Wave 4 n=1,952)

(Wave 3) / (Wave 4)
Agree strongly [+2] / 19% / 17%
Agree slightly [+1] / 31% / 32%
Don’t have a view either way [0] / 16% / 17%
Disagree slightly [-1] / 14% / 13%
Disagree strongly [-2] / 18% / 18%
Don’t understand the issues / 1% / 1%
Don’t Know / 2% / 2%
[Mean] / 0.198 / 0.174
  • Note: this attitude statement was asked for the first time in Wave 3.
  • Agreement with this (positive) statement remained static between Waves 3 and 4. In Wave 4, nearly half (49%) of respondents agreed with this statement, while nearly a third (31%) disagreed.
  • Rates of agreement with this statement declined gradually down the social grades, such that while 61% of ABs agreed, only 39% of DEs did likewise. The most likely subgroups to agree with this statement were the ‘very concerned’(72% did so), and the MPH-involved (70% did so). In contrast to the two previous statements, respondents from non-white ethnic groups (59%) were more likely than average to agree with the statement; regular broadsheet readers were also more likely to do so (59% agreed with the statement).

Q3.5. Have you done anything this year to help tackle poverty in poor countries?