3.3. POVERTY TRANSMISSION FACTORS -DEBATES AND DISCONTENTS
3.3.5. Spatial Based Factors
Moving away from household intergenerational poverty transmission, there is a body of literature –albeit limited- which suggests that spatial factors play a fundamental role in sustaining transgenerational poverty. In other words, living in a particular place pre-disposes a particular individual towards inheriting neighbourhood characteristics some of which include poverty. “The idea is that children who grow up in poverty concentration neighbourhoods” argue Van Ham, Hedman, Manley, Coulter and Osth (2012:3), “might be more likely than others to end up in such a neighbourhood as adults”.
Although literature on urban geography does not seem to explicitly affirm Van Ham et al.,’s view, a closer investigation reveals that the dynamics in urban geography do generate transgenerational poverty character. Grant (2010:5) has made a useful contribution towards poverty traps in urban areas. In his work titled spatial inequality and urban poverty traps, Grant presents three main features of urban geography, as follows.
First is the urban ecology framework which contends that urban centres are not random creations, they are rather established in response to strategic advantageous environment, with the intention of taking advantage of the surroundings environs. Availability of supplies and raw materials could form part of the motivations for establishing urban centres. Inevitably, as Grant (2010) argues, neighbourhoods agglomerate around the commercial centre in what
51 Grant refers to as „concentric rings from the centre‟. These „concentric rings‟ include downtown residential areas.
Second, Grant draws attention to urbanism studies, which accept that the “…density of social life creates distinct neighbourhoods. Yet these neighbourhoods may retain the character of small communities, for example immigrant areas may retain traditional types of social interaction. Over time, such distinctions decline as different groups merge and are absorbed into different neighbourhoods” (Grant, 2010:5). Contrary to Grant‟s view, it could be argued that Grant‟s „declining distinction‟ does not always take place. Social interaction among various groups tends to last for generations. In the main, poor neighbourhoods constitute of low incomes and poor quality services such as education and health, and therefore households are potentially locked into this cycle.
Third, and critical to this study, Grant points to the fact that urban centres reflect spatial manifestations of social forces. Cases in point, taxation systems determine who is able to build, buy or rent where, while governments regulate which kinds of buildings should exist in which particular area. Urban centres therefore reflect undercurrent social and economic systems, and as such, “…wealth and power concentrate in some areas and sectors, [while]
others are left to decay” (Grant, 2010:6). Importantly, the areas left to decay are not just abandoned areas; rather, poor populations interact socially on an on-going basis. The culture and traditions of these neighbourhoods are passed on from one generation to another. Infact, it could be added that these traditions and cultures create a contentment framework, so much so that leaving the neighbourhood become social and emotional disconnects. In other words, the ordinary becomes the normal.
Hulme, Moore and Shepherd (2001) have summarised all the above factors, into five broad themes, namely, financial capital, human capital, natural capital, socio-cultural capital as well as socio-political capital. In this analysis, the various types of capitals can either be negative or positive. For example, inheritance and bequests could positively influence the next generation, while debts and environmental degradation can result to a negative influence on the next generation‟s well-being. These authors also contend that transmission of the various capitals operates within given structures. This is illustrated below.
52
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF
POVERTY
Structures, processes and livelihood strategies which affect IGT poverty
Capital being transmitted
Financial / material capital
Human Capital
Insurance, pensions
Inheritance, bequests
Gifts and loans
Dowry/ bride wealth
Debt, labor, bondage
Care duties
Labor contributions (from older generation to working generation)
Investment of time and capital in health and education
Knowledge/skills used as coping strategies
Inherited diseases
Inherited capabilities (such as intelligence)
Natural / environment capital
Environment degradation / conservation of private or public resources
Socio- cultural capital
Traditions, institutions and value systems
Sub culture of poverty
Socio- political capital
Position in community (family name, caste, race, nationality, language, physical appearance.
Access to key decision makers, political patrons, civil society organizations and development agencies.
Demographic and health factors
Nature of guardian /caregiver and child/dependent
Social, cultural, legal and governance related factors
Economic factors
Nature of living space
Gender, age and health status of guardian/caregiver, child/dependent
Household structure and birth position of child
HIV/AIDS pandemic, epidemiology
Broader process of fertility transition
Education and skill level
Intent, attitudes and character
Norms of entitlement determining access to economic, political and social resources inclusive of legal and cultural institutions of inheritance, property rights, debt, marriage, child rearing and fostering, etc.
Presence, quality and accessibility of public, private and community-based social services and safety nets
Labor market, particularly employment opportunities for children, young and old people and labor migration
Physical environment, sanitation, violence/security, stigma, sense of community, remoteness
Source: Adapted from Hulme, Moore and Shepherd, (2001: 17)
Figure 3: Transmission of Various Types of Capital
Of interest is that, Hulme, Moore and Shepherd (2001) pick up non-conventional factors such as attitudes and character, government services as well as community status such as family name, race, language, etc. and by doing so they attribute well-being to culture, government capability and performance, as well as perceived advantages such as family name.
53 Another non-conventional factor presented by Hulme et al., (2001) is a poverty coping strategy. The transmission of coping strategies from one generation to the next can either assist a household to manage adversities or trap the given household in poverty (Hulme et al., 2001). For example, if a household uses basic goods credit from a nearby long term supplier, the next generation can pursue the same strategy, even when the need for credit might not necessarily exist. These sorts of unique household (intergenerational) dynamics are rooted in household value systems. And, they function often regardless of occupational or social mobilities. The question of occupational systems and social mobility, and the continuum of household traditions are explored below.