Charles Karelis seems to think so. A philosopher rather than an economist by trade, he addresses a basic and usually poorly answered question from economics - why do the poor behave in ways that aggravate and continue their poverty? Why do so many drop out of school, have babies as teenagers, develop drug addictions, gamble, commit petty crime, and otherwise do things that reinforce their poverty rather than getting them out of it?
The right argues it's because they're lazy and/or stupid. The left argues it's because they're victimized by racism and other forms of prejudice. Karelis takes a different approach altogether. He flips around the theory of diminishing marginal utility (a basic economics idea that, say, your fifth ice cream cone is less pleasing than your first), and applies it to negatives rather than positives. The problems facing the poor are so overwhelming, he argues, that they don't see the point in fixing even one of them. If you get stung by a bee, you treat it. If you get stung by a dozen bees, you're not going to pay as much attention to a single sting.
Personally, I think there's a lot of merit to this idea, but it's not a sole explanation, maybe not even a primary one. I grew up poor, and have many friends who are still living below the poverty line, and I see the behaviors. Even in non-economic terms, I've felt it. We've all felt it. I feel it when it's time to clean up the house and yard... there's so much to do that I don't want to do ANY of it. Overwhelmed is overwhelmed.
But I think there are a lot of other things combining to keep the poor poor as well. Here's a few offhand...
- Ignorance of how money and financial tools work. A lot of people don't understand basic things like interest and taxes. They lose money to simple errors (bounced check fees, for example), or being lured into bad decisions (rent to own).
- Self-selection. Tracking people in poverty doesn't track the people who started in poverty but got out. Lots do! I certainly did. If you're capable of working and determined to not be poor, you can probably make it to the middle class in America, even today.
- The theory also doesn't take into account people who have simply become comfortable and happy within the poverty line. It works from the assumption that poverty = misery, and that's not necessarily true. Many of my impoverished friends choose certain freedoms and obligations over money, even though they know they could make more. They're not willing to give up the non-financial positives in their lives for the sake of money. These people are often artists or social workers.
But back to Karelis' argument. If you accept his idea as a basic driver of poverty, it undermines the theories of both the right and the left. The "welfare makes them lazy" argument of the right is shown for nonsense, because welfare doesn't make a difference to their motivation one way or the other (unless perhaps there was somehow enough of it to completely eliminate their poverty). But it's a difference that doesn't matter... imho, right-wing thought is largely about stories rather than facts, and they'll always choose a comfortable myth over uncomfortable facts.
I think it's more interesting addressing the left, probably because I still cling to the tattered remnants of my belief that liberals prefer facts and logic to stories and magical thinking. If we start from a liberal belief that the poor need help to get out of poverty, how do we best help them? Rather than giving them money (or semi-monetized benefits like food stamps), we should solve problems. Universal health care is one such issue. If they don't have to worry about health care costs, it's one load off their minds entirely. I'm sure we could come up with other examples.
But finally, this comes back to my biggest gripe with economics... that economists conflate value with money. There are things that are immensely valuable but have little or no monetary value - things that people can value more than money. Artistic freedom. Direct responsibility for your life. Spending time with your children, or caring for loved ones who can't care for themselves. There are any number of excellent, positive reasons people choose to have less money than they could. Maybe someday we'll see a proper economic analysis of that.