1 / 16

Deprivation and Poverty

Deprivation and Poverty . Deprivation and Poverty

mirella
Télécharger la présentation

Deprivation and Poverty

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Deprivation and Poverty

  2. Deprivation and Poverty • Deprivation is a broader concept than poverty. Deprivation is what occurs when people are unable to reach a certain level of functioning or capability (Rakodi, 2002). Defining a poor household based on its income and consumption may not capture all aspects of deprivation. • According to Chambers (1989) deprivation does not indicate a lack of income or shortage of assets, but the lack of necessities to achieve well-being. Furthermore, he has identified social inferiority, isolation, physical weakness, seasonality, powerlessness and humiliation as other dimensions of deprivation further to income poverty that are extremely appropriate to the situation of poor. In other words, deprivation is a product of intertwining of the above factors. • It is important here to discuss the two main definitions of “poverty”: first, common usage in development that is a broad blanket word used to refer to the whole spectrum of deprivation and ill being. • The second usage of poverty is reported as low income and consumption that is a narrow and a technical definition. This is specifically used for the purpose of measurement and comparisons by using mostly quantitative, large scale, random sample household surveys (Chambers, 1995).

  3. With regard to types of poverty, one can identify absolute and relative poverty as two different types of poverty defined in monetary terms. Serageldin defines: • “Absolute poverty as inability to secure the minimum basic needs for human survival, while relative poor may have barely secured the minimum basic needs but have such limited resources that they lack the means of adequate social participation. They are effectively marginalized from mainstream society, even though they may constitute a majority of the population” (Serageldin, 1989:12).

  4. Vulnerability and Livelihoods Security • The concept of vulnerability is applied in a number of research disciplines such as sociology, geography, environment science, economics and psychology (Adger, 2006; Alwang et el., 2001). • Researchers belonging to these disciplines attempt to explore how people exposed to risks such as poverty, conflict, natural hazards, and climate change deal with them (Bohle and Adikari, 1999a; Birkmann et al., 2007; Birkmann and Fernando, 2007; Moser, 1998; Pryer, 2003; Fünfgeld, 2007; Cutter et al., 2008; Brooks et al., 2005). • According to Adger (2006:270), two major research traditions on vulnerability, namely vulnerability due to lack of entitlements, and vulnerability to natural hazards, “acted as seedbeds for ideas that eventually translated into current research on vulnerability”. • Sociologists and economists more often used vulnerability concept similar to poverty which, in fact, is not the same, although there is a close connection between the two concepts (Morrow, 1999). • For instance, poor people have higher exposure to a variety of risks, shocks and stress situations and a lack of assets to mitigate and cope with such situations (Rakodi, 1995). As a result of this confusion “vulnerability analysis has been neglected” (Chambers, 1989:1).

  5. Vulnerability and Livelihoods Security • Chambers defines vulnerability as means not lack or want, but defencelessness, insecurity and exposure to risk, shocks and stress. Moreover, to him “vulnerability has two sides: an external side of risks, shocks and stress to which individuals or households’ are exposed to, and an internal side which deals with individuals or households’ capacity to successfully cope with risks, shocks and stress without damaging loss”(1989:1). • “A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living” (Scoones,1998:5). • Livelihood security can be understood as the internal side of vulnerability since it focuses on strategies and actions to overcome, or at least to reduce, the negative effects of risks, shocks and stresses created by the external side of vulnerability (Chambers, 1989; Bohle, 2001; Moser, 1998). • The present concerns of researchers and policy makers are to reduce individual or household level vulnerability and enhance security, which is not an easy task. This is because “social vulnerability is highly context dependent, dynamic and differential, in this context, there are no easy solutions for it” (Bohle, 2007:23).

  6. Two Conceptual Frameworks to Study Vulnerability Bohle’s Conceptual Model on Double Structure of Vulnerability Sustainable Livelihoods Framework Source: Ashley, C & Carney, D, 1999:47 Source: Bohle, 2001:4

  7. Sri Lankan Poverty Context The 2001 population census shows that 72.2% of the country’s population live in the rural sector, while 21.5% live in the urban sector and 6.3% in the estate/plantation sector (Census, 2001). This shows a continuing rural bias in the spatial distribution of the Sri Lankan population on the one hand and slow rate of urban growth on the other. Recent poverty statistics based on head count ratio data for the year 2002 from the Department of Census and Statistics (2004) show that there are more poor people in estate (30%) and rural areas (nearly 25%) compared to only 8% of the urban poor population 1Head count ratio is defined as the percentage of the population whose monthly per capita total consumption expenditure falls below the district poverty line (Census, 2004). It is important to note that, in general, over one third of the urban population is poor. With regard to district variations, there are more poor people living in Badulla (37%), Monaragala (37%) and Rathnapura (34%), districts compared to the Colombo district (6%).

  8. When focusing on the urban poor in Colombo, various studies have confirmed that a large proportion of them in the Colombo Municipal Council area live in slums and shanties (Hettige, 1990; Silva and Athukorala, 1991). • The Colombo Municipal Council area constitutes the largest urban centre accommodating a residential population of about 642,000 spread over a 37.3km area and a daily commuter population of 400,000 making it a city with a population over one million (Sevanatha, 2003). • The average population density in the city has increased up to 172 people per hectare according to the 2001 Census data, in contrast to 40 people per hectare in 1871. • The current density data indicates the city’s increasing average population density. Some Municipal Wards have a much higher density, for example there are 974 people per hectare in Colombo North, which is recognized as a low income residential area. • On the other hand, Colombo South represents a low density area, which is closer to the city’s current average population density of 172 persons per hectare Slum refers to old deteriorating tenements or subdivided derelict houses. • Shanties refer to improvised and unauthorised shelters; constructed by urban squatters on state or private owned land, without any legal rights of occupancy.

  9. In 1998, there were about 1506 underserved settlements in the Colombo Municipal area with 66,021 housing units (REEL, 1998). • However, a survey carried out jointly by the Sevanatha and the Colombo Municipal Council in 2001 has identified a total of 77612 families living in 1614 underserved settlements. A majority of these settlements are of slum and shanty type, popularly known as low-income settlements. • A unique feature of these settlements in Colombo is that they are relatively small in size. For instance, 74% of them consist of 50 housing units or less, while the larger settlements with more than 500 housing units account for just about 0.7% of the total low-income settlements in Colombo (Sevanatha, 2003).

  10. With regard to the characteristics of Colombo’s urban poor who live in these settlements, low levels of educational attainment and illiteracy and the high school dropout rate are important (Hettige, 1990; Silva & Athukorala, 1991). • Nevertheless, other studies have pointed out that the urban poor acquire skills and other forms of training through non-formal methods of education such as on the job training (Wanasinghe & Karunanayake, 1988). • Lack of access to basic amenities such as sanitation and drinking water are some critical issues faced by Colombo’s urban poor. For instance, 30% of families have difficulty accessing drinking water, while only 44% have individual water connections. 24 hour pipe-water supply is available to only 56% of the poor families in the city while 10% of the families receive less than 10 hours of water supplies per day. About 65% use shared toilets while 2% do not have access to any form of toilet (Sevanatha, 2003; Colombo Municipal Council 2004). • Studies by Sevanatha (2003) and Colombo Municipal Council (2004) have further pointed out that it is important to improve the solid waste collection methods and internal access roads in these settlements. Conversely, a significant proportion of people are engaged in legal (street vendors, waste pickers, domestic servants etc) and illegal (prostitution, illicit liquor selling and drug peddling etc) income earning activities all of which referred to as informal sector employment (Silva & Athukorala, 1991; Sevanatha, 2003).

  11. Most of these illegal settlements have come up on or near canal banks or low lying land, which are often exposed to natural hazards like floods during the rainy season. A high dependency ratio, lack of savings, violence, ill health and child abuse are some of the other main problems found in these communities (Silva & Athukorala, 1991, Kabir et. al, 2000).

  12. Colombo City Flood Prevention and Human Environment Development Project (FPHEP) • The urbanization process in Sri Lanka has been largely confined to Colombo and its surroundings when compared to other areas in the country. • This has been accelerated following economic liberalization over the past two decades. Urban growth generated new opportunities along with socio-economic and environmental problems for city dwellers, worsening some of the existing problems such as urban poverty, violence, crime, drug trafficking and flooding during the inter monsoon and southwest monsoon periods, which require serious attention of the urban authorities and land planners. • In response to the above problems, the government took steps to relocate the shanty dwellers who were living on the embankments of canals and slum settlements. • They were relocated in the vicinity of some of the selected canal banks in and around the Colombo Municipal Council area. The intention was to repair and maintain the canals in order to control flooding to improve the economic and social status of the poor urban inhabitants. • The Japanese government provided funding for this project and it was initiated by the National Housing Development Authority together with the Land Reclamation and Development Board. The illegal inhabitants on the embankments of several canals were moved to seven locations (Sri MahaViharaMawatha, Badowita, BathiyaMawatha, Obeysekarapura, DematagodaArmaya Road, KadiranaWaththa and WadugodaWaththa) situated in or around the immediate suburbs of the Colombo Municipal Council area with the intention of doing minimum harm to their existing social relationships and livelihood activities. • Under the above project, they also received 1-2 perches of land with Rs. 20,000 given in four installments as an interest free loan to build their houses.

  13. The Study Region - Badowita Low Income Settlement • “Badowita” is the largest relocated settlement under the FPHEP project situated in the Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia Municipal Council area that spreads over thirty-five acres of land under the KatukuruduwaththaGramaNiladhari Division. • This settlement is divided into four stages (i.e. 1, 2, 3, and 4) and the number of plots allocated for each stage varies in relation to the extent of land allocated for each stage (Please see Table 1.2). • The settlement initially started in 1992 by relocating selected families in stage 1, while the other stages started few months later. The total population of the settlement according to the last all island census in 2001 is approximately 4,500.

  14. The settlement as a whole is socially and economically marginalized from the outside world not only because of the unlawful activities of some settlers (such as drug peddling, illicit liquor selling, crime and violence, etc) but also due to their nature of casual employment. The above situation was further elaborated from one key informant interview – • “Outside people believe that all the thieves and thugs in the region live in this settlement, so, we do not like to say that we live in ‘Badowita’. If we say so, principals in the surrounding schools show reluctance to admit our children in their schools and people cannot find decent employment”.

More Related