CHAPTER TWO: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.8 THEORIES
2.8.5 Tools for Analysing poverty
o Mal-distribution of resources-This arises from an inequitable distribution of resources.
It‘s also the relation between formal political machine and the poor.
o Structural Class Conflict-this arises from the division necessary to maintain an economic system based on profit thus one class might not be impressed by another class moving up the class ladder hence ways are sought to always oppress the poor.
There are other causes of poverty termed ―entrenched‖ causes of poverty (Srinivas (2007). These can be divided into six namely corruption, social inequality, environmental degradation, warfare, centralised power and colonial histories. Of these, colonial histories have had a huge impact through apartheid in South Africa. In South African history, apartheid laws defined a binary caste system that assigned different rights (or lack thereof) and social spaces to Whites and Blacks, using skin color to automatically determine the opportunities available to individuals in each group (Srinivas 2007).
and the ability to ‗resist‘ those threats, which is derived from the assets that individuals, households and communities possess and can mobilize during times of hardship. As assets increase, vulnerability decreases (Davies 1996; Moser 1996, 1997; Rakodi 1995; Swift 1989). Assets may be both tangible (productive, human and labour) and intangible (social capital and household relations) (Moser 1998).Vulnerability is also dependent on the capacity to manage assets, which Moser classifies into two; coping and adapting. Coping, involves a short-term immediate response to threats and adapting, which involves a permanent change in way of life. Assets such as labor, human capital, productive assets, households and social relations are crucial in coping and adapting to vulnerability. Diversifying and transforming assets into food and income may offset threats to a household. Coping and adapting to vulnerability is determined by a number of factors.
Responses to vulnerability are shaped by, intra-household factors, household level factors and community level factors (ibid). Moser‘s analysis suggests that poverty alleviation strategies should encourage opportunities and remove obstacles to asset accumulation, management and productivity.
ii. Livelihood Approaches
The livelihood approach to poverty is based on the work of (Chambers and Conway 1992). A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is sustainable if it can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihoods opportunities for the next generation; which contribute net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the long and short term (Chambers and Conway 1992). The livelihood approach is plethora of strategies used by households to mobilise resources and opportunities. The livelihood approach has been used by various organizations such as UN, UNDP, CARE, SIDA, IFAID, World Bank and DANIDA in understanding poverty and in their various poverty alleviation strategies. The livelihoods approach is quite useful since it helps underline the dynamic causes of poverty, and shows various pathways to alleviate poverty, and encourages the poor to be decision makers (Holland and Blackburn, 1998). Nevertheless it is fraught with methodological problems such as identifying who the poor are.
iii. Capabilities Approach (Human Development)
The capability approach advocates that development focuses on people‘s capabilities when making normative evaluations, such as those involved in poverty measurement, cost-benefit analysis, efficiency evaluations, social justice issues, development ethics, and inequality analysis(Sen 1995).
The capabilities approach can be traced back to among others, Aristotle, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx but the approach in it present form is attributed to philosopher Amartya Sen (Sen 1999 and Sen 2002). Sen argues that capabilities are people‘s potential functioning‘s.
Functioning‘s are beings and doings. Examples are being well fed, taking part in the community, being sheltered, relating to other people, and working on the labour market, caring for others, and being healthy. It can be used to evaluate a wide variety of aspects of people‘s well being, such as individual well-being, inequality and poverty (Sen 1999). The core characteristic of the capability approach is its focus on what people are effectively able to do and to be as implied in the statement below.
―I’m old and I can’t work, and therefore I am poor. Even my land is old and tired, so whatever little I manage to work does not give me enough harvest for me and my children”. —Togo 1996 pg42 (World Bank 1999)
The capabilities approach can be used to measure poverty and inequality as well as coming up with poverty alleviation strategies (Sen 1999). The premise of the capabilities approach with regards to poverty alleviation is that people‘s capabilities should be enlarged .It acknowledges that ppoverty is understood as capability-deprivation (ibid). It is noteworthy that the emphasis is not only on how human beings actually function but on their having the capability, which is a practical choice, to function in important ways if they so wish (ibid). Someone could be deprived of such capabilities in many ways, e.g. by ignorance, government oppression, lack of financial resources, or false consciousness (World Bank 1993). This approach contrasts with the common view that sees development purely in terms of GNP growth, and poverty purely as income-deprivation. It has been highly influential in development policy where it has provided foundations of the human development paradigm (Sen 1999). It has also shaped the evolution of the human development index HDI (UNDP 2000).
It has to be noted that the capabilities approach faces difficulties in measuring educational attainment since some data such as nutrition may not be readily available in developing countries (Townsend 2006). Townsend (2006) also argues that the capabilities approach reflects western concepts of the good life; hence there are doubts on its ability to be applied in the developing world.
iv. Social Exclusion Approach
Unlike the asset vulnerability framework and livelihoods approaches that focus on households, the social exclusion approach places emphasis on the wider structural processes that impact upon poverty. Social exclusion means individuals are cut-off from active engagement with dimensions considered normal in society (Atkinson 1998, Burchard et al 1999). Giddens (1998) goes on to argue that social exclusion is about mechanisms, which detach groups or people from the social mainstream as intimated in the statement below
―Without these simple humane signs of solidarity, our lives would be unbearable”.
—a poor woman, Ukraine 1996 pg35 (World Bank 1999
Therefore poverty means not being able to have and do the things that permit full participation in our society. Poverty and social exclusion cannot be solved in isolation. People in poverty find it hard to participate in society, because they lack resources to do so. Conversely, lack of participation exacerbates poverty, both directly (exclusion from paid work) and indirectly (exclusion from social networks enabling people to improve their lives) (Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2006).
Ruggeri et al (2003) however argues that even though the social exclusion approach highlights the institutional causes of poverty it is difficult to interpret, hence its limited use in the developing world.
v. The Participatory Approach
The participatory approach aims at getting the people to participate in deciding what it means to be poor (Ruggeri et al 2003; World Bank 2003; Chambers 2002; Kristanjanson et al 2004). This approach has been championed by The World Bank in their county poverty assessments and FAO in assessing poverty dynamics in Kenya. The participatory approach avoids external standards and it solves problems from other approaches, for example the people define a basket of food and what they need for poverty alleviation (Ruggeri et al). With this approach people define the cause,
processes and outcomes of poverty, as they perceive them. Chambers (2002) therefore argues that with this approach it is the reality of the poor that counts not the researchers. It also assists in correct targeting of poverty alleviation strategies. In western Kenya the community realized that loss of livestock was the main cause of falling into poverty thus they improved veterinary services to avoid loss and they diversified their income sources. Nevertheless the participatory approach is time consuming, laborious, it usually produces shopping lists of needs and constraints and it seldomly addresses the underlying processes or dynamics of poverty (Kristanjanson et al 2004).