Changing World, Changing Needs
In the 21st century, rapid changes are taking place all over the world – even in the economically underdeveloped countries under the wave of globalization and revolution in IT and communication technologies. The poverty standard of income devised in the historical past is no longer relevant under new conditions. People today are no longer subject to the same laws, customs and social order of the bygone era. Globalization and easy of connectivity is exposing the ultrahigh inequalities between the rich West and the poor East as well as the unjust world-order. People no longer want mere economic growth but also aspire for social justice and political freedom to influence the direction of development. Therefore, a comprehensive viewpoint is needed in order to understand poverty properly.
Low Income – The Traditional Concept of Poverty
Poverty is traditionally associated with lack of income – you don’t expect a poor to have money. This is the traditional way to look at poverty. People are considered poor when they don’t have enough income to obtain basic necessities of life – food, shelter, drinking water, education, medicines and so on. When poverty is seen from this subsistence perspective it is absolute poverty – the poor are just struggling to survive.
According to the United Nations’ 1995 World Summit in Copenhagen, “absolute poverty is a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services.”
This gave rise to the concept of subsistence or absolute poverty line – people with income below it are poor; in fact, they are extremely poor. India’s official poverty line is actually a subsistence poverty line.
The exploitative colonial powers have used such poverty line definitions to set bare minimum wages for their subjects so that they could get just sufficient food and replenish their energies to keep working. This is how the colonial countries like the UK laid the foundation for affluence in their own countries while leaving their subjects to bare survival and plundering their natural resources.
Today, the Word Bank uses $1.25-a-day benchmark of extreme poverty and estimated that globally around 1 billion people are extremely poor.
Basic Needs Approach
The basic needs approach evolved in the 1970s. It revolves around listing most basic needs of people like food, shelter, clothing and other essentials of a household. Then it fixes the quantum of their minimum consumption requirements. It also considered services provided by the state or community such as safe water, sanitation, public transport, medical and education facilities etc. It, thus, established a basic framework for community development.
Of course, these are defined by the ‘experts’ and the poor remain as mere passive recipients. However, it is attractive to policymakers due to ease of its implementation. It helped the international agencies make developmental plans.
While it is easier to restrict the poverty perspective to material and physical needs which can be planned easily by the government, it helps to remind that human lives can’t be simplified to the level of policies that the government can plan.
Society can also Dictate “Necessities”
Clearly, people are not robotic creatures needing only replenishment of physical energy needed to work. They also have social demands which must be met in order to live a satisfactory life.
“By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even the lowest order, to be without. . . . Custom . . . has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them.” – Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations
After all, people are social beings and are affected by the social opinions and processes. Therefore, poverty can’t be seen in isolation and must necessarily be seen in the overall social context. It must be seen in relation with the society. This relative poverty moves in response to changing social environment and what used to be luxuries can become necessities now. Living in society demands that one has to satisfy social obligations and expectations; not having the resources to do so mean one is living in poverty.
The philosophical foundation of relative poverty is provided by Karl Marx, “Our needs and enjoyments spring from society; we measure them, therefore by society and not by the objects of their satisfaction. Because they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature.”
As Peter Townsend, a leading authority on UK poverty, puts it: People are poor if they live with resources that are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities.
People are “relatively poor” when their average resources or average living standard falls below the society average. Relative poverty is also seen as inequality. It will be always present in any society, no matter how much it progresses. Certain sections of the society will always perform less than others, so relative poverty can never be eliminated. However, if the wealth distribution becomes more even the it falls.
Moving to relative poverty is in fact a shift from the “needs” to “wants” – people are poor if they “want” to live like others but can’t. Now the measure is “the deficit in the living standard”, compared with the society average. The philosophy of relative poverty is common in the developed nations, since they have progressed beyond the point where people are no more struggling for basic survival needs.
Definition of Relative Poverty in Europe
“Relative poverty is when some people’s way of life and income is so much worse than the general standard of living in the country or region in which they live that they struggle to live a normal life and to participate in ordinary economic, social and cultural activities.” – European Anti Poverty Network (EAPN)
The EU’s Relative Poverty Standard
“People falling below 60% of median income are considered to be at-risk-of poverty.”
The capability approach of Amartya Sen expresses poverty in terms of deprivation of people’s capabilities – referring to what they can or cannot do, can or cannot be. It sees income, resources and public facilities as mere means to achieve or expand human capabilities. In laymen’s language, Sen’s development approach aims to make people more capable in terms of their skills, physical and mental abilities – it is kind of holistic approach.
Expanding capabilities increase well-being and shrinking capabilities decrease well-being. The set of capabilities needed to escape poverty is rather limited. The capability poverty is typically lack of capabilities related to satisfying basic needs of food, nutrition, health, shelter, etc. In the capability approach, expansion of people’s capabilities is the prime goal – income, resources and facilities have no meaning unless they enhance human capabilities.
Consider this simple example: Having a cell phone can enable the capability of connectivity, but only if the person uses it properly. Mere ownership of the cell phone doesn’t tell what the person can do with it; a blind and deaf person may not be able to use it. Therefore, the important point is not the possession of a commodity or its features, but the capability to use it.
As mentioned above, when Adam Smith argued that leather shoes became social necessity in order to avoid shame in the public, he was referring the capability of avoiding public shame. As societies get richer and richer, the commodities required to “avoid shame” also increase. Being poor in such societies mean lacking the capability to “avoid shame” because the poor lacks the capability to “afford” all those commodities. There is certainly a strong psychological component here because the “needs” are dictated by social customs (and people’s degree of obeisance).
This is not the case in the context of basic needs; for example, the poor lack the capability to be well nourished, or to move about freely, or to live in a good shelter, or to be free from diseases. But there are no social interactions urging people to take care of such needs.
The Human Development (HD) Approach
It was developed in the 1980s when it was noted that handing over economic growth to market forces alone (free market economy) and curtailing the role of government in the economic activities led to increased poverty. It combines the elements of the basic needs and capability approaches and defines the human development as a process of enlarging people’s choices. The most critical choices relate to leading a long and healthy life, to be educated and to enjoy a decent standard of living. Other choices include political freedom, guaranteed human rights and self-respect.
The HD idea revolves around the basic theme: “People are the real wealth of a nation.” And the basic objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to live long, healthy and creative life. It was stated in the first Human Development Report (HDR) published in 1990. A key aspect of HD is that it puts the focus on people and sees them as ends, not means; incomes and resources are taken as means, not ends.
In practical sense, the HD considers the basic material needs of goods and services but also give importance to other issues such as freedom, environment and society. It is open ended, and considers everything that may affect human life, so that different societies can focus on what is important for them. It sees development as widening human choices. Poverty is just the opposite – people with limited few choices.
The HD approach offers several advantages: It goes beyond the basic needs of material and physical conditions to consider institutional and political elements and simplifies the concept of capability approach to include “choices” and “freedom”. It has been attracting people who are seeking human-focused and humane alternatives to the usual “economic growth” as development. It went a step further, by offering an alternate measure of development in the form of the human development index (HDI) which combines life expectancy, literacy and adjusted income. The HDI is an important milestone in efforts to measure human well-being in terms other than per capita GDP or income.
Since the first HDR in 1990, every year a different human development theme is picked up for the report and the global scenario is presented. These reports have greatly impacted the national policies and provide fresh perspective to look at poverty. It has brought into focus the importance of issues like women empowerment and literacy, income inequalities, inclusive growth, social exclusion etc as major impediment to human development.
It paved the way to look at poverty from a multidimensional perspective. Thus, in 2010 a multidimensional poverty index (MPI) that analyses poverty through a set of 10 indicators was launched. It has been adopted as an effective policy-making tool by many countries around the world.
The Way Forward
Do we really need experts and poverty research in order to eradicate poverty? Why not ask the poor themselves. It would give perhaps the most useful perspective. They see themselves mostly as deprived, marginalized, excluded and vulnerable. They are people without much voice and choice. To be meaningful for them, the development process must help them come out of deprivation, exclusion and vulnerability by enabling and empowering them. Thus, it makes sense to understand poverty form as many perspectives as possible.
As Muhammad Yunus, the Bangladeshi Nobel laureate of 2006 and better known for the micro-credit movement, puts it “The poor themselves can create a poverty-free world… all we have to do is to free them from the chains that we have put around them.”
You may also like to explore