This study was designed to provide a scientific model for the components of welfare and wealth in urban and rural households based on data from NSCI. Also, identifying the relationship among these components to each other, the contributing level of factors, and the variables affecting them was the other purposes of the present investigation.
In the previous investigation SES items were detected for Iranian community. (13) Accordingly, SES items extracted from the previous study were added to the present conceptual model. After analysis, the welfare components model was confirmed in urban population. It is notable that the presented structural model proves the strong relationship between education and job as well as between job and income level. It should be emphasized that the factors generating wealth in a city initiate from education and then lead to employment. Consequently, employment facilitates income and ultimately it arranges wealth and welfare. In fact, in urban society there is no distinction between the concept of welfare and wealth, representing the two sides of the same coin.
The present study showed that the economic structure of rural society is quite different from that of urban society. After exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis for welfare components, it was found that wealth is the source of welfare in rural society. Therefore, in a rural community, a family with higher wealth earns higher income, may seek higher education for its younger members, and able to access more home facilities. In addition, the size of these families is noticeably larger. In the past, it was believed that family size reflects the pride and child-bearing ability is a privilege in the community. It was interesting to know that there is a similar condition, to some aspects, in Egypt and Ivory Coast rural communities. (16 & 17) However, it seems that difference of interaction between wealth and welfare, in rural as opposed to urban social structure, may stems from cultural differences.
The results of this study showed that the urban community structure is in accordance with the proposed welfare and wealth model. It is, therefore; logic that in order to design poverty alleviation policies, it is better to institute on prerequisites of income generation in urban society, such as education. Conversely, such policies may not succeed in rural areas in the field of poverty alleviation, because of their defective causal mechanism. As such, in the countryside, policy makers should seek measures to consolidate land ownership concept rather than advocating education. Accordingly, land ownership is closely linked to agricultural production and consequently brings about income which in turn leads to wealth on the national level.
However, as a key factor, land has the pivotal role in wealth generation and economic equity, in a rural community. The results of a study on poverty and inequality in Tanzania also confirmed that human capital, land, and livestock as of the most important assets of rural households. (18) The UK Department for International Development states that land is a safe and secure livelihood asset for villagers. In addition, it is noteworthy to mention that it added that land is a necessary, but not always an absolute condition for poverty alleviation. (19) Another study conducted in Asian rural areas shows that rural poverty usually has an inverse relationship with the size of arable land. (20) Another study in Java endorses the fact that access to land is closely linked to access to capital, as well. (21)
As an emphasis, according to the Article #30 and Article #31 of the Iranian constitution, provision of free education is the task of government for citizens of the country. (22) Nonetheless, this does not imply that same policy can be implementable in rural areas as well as urban areas, for poverty alleviation. A national study on the distribution and severity of poverty concluded that poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon in rural areas. (23) In fact, the policy for poverty alleviation should trigger housing and education in such communities. But based upon the present investigation, land ownership has priority to the other factors. Obviously, this does not infer that state capitalism is a successful economic solution in a rural society.
Additionally, the entry of technology in the agricultural industry will undoubtedly increase the productivity, besides land ownership. The process of productivity will fail if the technology holder exploits the ownership of farmer. Another indicator which has a destructive role is inequity; a fact that has a tight link to poverty. This means the disproportionate distribution of ownership resources among farmers.
Plus, economic challenges are other indicators that may jeopardize income level of a villager. For instance, inflation is one of the major causes of decline in the purchasing-power of the low-income group. This economic indicator places this group in the vulnerable status with later consequences. Unfortunately, the villagers are the main victims of unbridled inflation in the societies. In addition, lack of financial support can exacerbate this susceptibility condition. (24) It should be highlighted that governments have a definitive role in adoption of more equitable and targeted policies for the allocation and distribution of resources. These policies result in sustainable employment which settles a sustainable national economy.