134 middle classes, a discussion which requires a re-conceptualisation of poverty as presented below.
5.6. RE-CONCEPTUALISING MIDDLE CLASSES RELATIONSHIPS INTO BIG P AND
135 Source: Author‟s Own
Figure 10: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Households
Supposing individual X forms part of the new black middle class, if individual or household Y is poor, that individual or household they can almost certainly count on the more affluent individual X to support them, whether individual X is located in primary, secondary or tertiary household. The reverse is also true. The affluent Individual X is often supportive of the less fortunate individual Y. Arguably; both individuals are poor, except in different ways.
Individual X commits resources to individual Y, which could be used to enhance primary household wealth. Additionally, this commitment limits the extent in which individual X can live out a given lifestyle. This scarcity experienced by individual X could be referred to as small p poverty y, in that it has measured effect on resource distribution among household members. This kind is easily addressed, and, it is not necessarily carried forward through generations. Supposing that individual Y has no formal education and unemployed, then he is a victim of a different kind of poverty, the structural type, which almost unavoidably recycles through future generations. This kind which is more difficult to terminate could be referred to as big P poverty.
Small and big P poverty are terms conceptualised by the author of this research, to describe different extents of scarcity. Distinguishing between p/P poverty helps to shed light on the complex and diverse nature of poverty. Mainstream measurements and analyses of poverty appear fundamentally biased towards little p poverty, as evident in Francis (2006) argument.
136 Francis (2006) contends that while measuring the incidence of poverty is important, this option does not explain the various causes of poverty. Neither does it explain the relationships which sustain poverty traps.
The difference between P/p poverty is not in scope or dimensions, rather, in character and extent. In a limited way, small p poverty is mainly represented by traditional approaches to poverty while big P poverty is better described through multi-dimensional approaches to poverty. This conclusion could be elucidated further in Fusco‟s (2003) observation. Frusco (2003) draws a distinction between traditional approaches to defining and measuring poverty, and, multi-dimensional methods of defining and measuring poverty. The traditional approach defines poverty as monetary deficiency, and consequently measures poverty through income and expenditure analyses (Fusco, 2003). Fusco(2003) criticises the traditional approach as (a) lacking the ability to view the diverse nature of poverty-varying needs of individuals, of groups, and how relationships shape „needs‟- and (b) the tendencies to lock individuals in a particular bracket based only on monetary income denies them the freedom of choice. On their part, Hulme, Moore and Shepherd (2001) draw attention to what they call severe or ultra-poverty, positing that this kind of poverty requires different kinds of interventions. Thus they point out the following:
“People who live far below consumption poverty lines are likely to require several strong poverty „interrupters‟ to emerge from poverty within a generation; for example, higher casual wages plus access to several years of post-primary education plus access to meaningful transfers such as pensions and child allowances plus land redistribution” (Hulme, Moore and Shepherd, 2001:17).
As observed above, Hulme et al., (2001) emphasize the multiple interventions to suggest the gravity of „ultra poverty‟. Thus, while Individual X might experience upward economic mobility which in per capita terms might appear significant, the distribution of individuals X‟s wealth might force them not only to live in scarcity, but also to constrain the effect of poverty alleviation interventions. While individual X might not be poor in the traditional sense of the term, their wealth is fully committed, effectively constraining their potential to remain affluent. Because of the demand placed on individual X‟s wealth, the possibilities to provide long range and major financial support (such as paying university fees, or paying for
137 other professional skills development opportunities) for his primary household members is limited.
While an individual can experience upward economic mobility which in per capita terms might appear significant, the distribution of that individual‟s wealth might force them not only to live in poverty, but also to implement less effective interventions in terminating future poverty. Poverty alleviation projects, for example, mis-treat „big P‟ poverty as an occurrence that can easily be ameliorated through small scale projects –a type of development tokenism.
There is no doubt that poverty alleviation projects have made some impact in addressing
„little p‟ poverty. Only that they do they simply scratch on the surface of „big P‟ poverty. As already pointed out, little p interventions are unsuitable for the far reaching poverty in developing countries, and, they are inadequate for transgenerational poverty –in itself a form of big P poverty.
Based on tendencies to promote development tokenism logic, methods of poverty evaluations and assessments follow the above noted ameliorative approach. The individual based theories especially, seemingly understand all poverty as little p –they could not be more wrong. The problem of the fractional effectiveness of development policy is that, in its formulation, implementation and evaluation processes, it systematically neglects the structural nature of underdevelopment in communities. The legitimacy of the popular discourses in South Africa is founded on a thin recourse dubbed pro-poor growth (Bond, 2003). These leanings are, by design, solutions manufactured to solve the „small p‟ kind-mainly found in developed countries. This kind of poverty does not always thrive through generations. Review of development economics literature reveals an over-researched little p theoretical trap within which development theories and practice have gravitated around, for roughly two thirds of a century. That is, a focus on empowering poor people mainly for subsistence purposes, or stated differently, a short range objective which assumes that future generations will navigate their own path, current policy needs to target current generation‟s subsistence.