Economics is famously, or notoriously, abstract. It is a discipline focused on the calculating parts of human behaviour, rather than the emotions. This would have made no sense to Adam Smith. As Emma Rothschild argues in her book [amazon_link id=”0674008375″ target=”_blank” ]Economic Sentiments[/amazon_link], “Economic life is a system of sentiments.” This is why for Smith, [amazon_link id=”1840226889″ target=”_blank” ]The Wealth of Nations[/amazon_link] followed [amazon_link id=”0143105922″ target=”_blank” ]The Theory of Moral Sentiments[/amazon_link]. Economic behaviour only makes sense in the context of understanding what drives human beings.

[amazon_image id=”0674008375″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Economic Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet and the Enlightenment[/amazon_image]

Julia Unwin’s book Why Fight Poverty? in our Perspectives series lies in this tradition, and makes a really important contribution to the public policy debate. She argues passionately that poverty is not inevitable, it can be reduced, but nothing will change unless we face up to the emotions that seeing poverty arouse in most of us – the fear, the shame, the sense of disgust, giving rise to the creation and retelling of myths about poor people.

[amazon_image id=”1907994165″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Why Fight Poverty? (Perspectives)[/amazon_image]

The role of ‘moral sentiments’ in addressing poverty is a timely theme on the day the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Prospect are launching a recent set of essays (free e-book) on poverty at an event in the House of Commons. One of the chapters in Julia’s book is titled ‘Is poverty inevitable?’ The answer is no.