Three faces of Vulnerability

Vulnerability as an entitlement problem
Endowment bundle is individual’s own labor power plus land and other assets he/she owns. And now Entitlement mapping is about rules and processes for transforming endowment bundle into entitlements (e.g. market structure & regulations, rights to communal output e.g. food, property etc.). Entitlement set is commodity bundles including food that can be commanded given an initial endowment. Lack of access to food and other resources caused vulnerability. Lack of command over food is caused by lack of power. There is a relation between power and command over food. Sen argues that famine is caused by power of the individual to command food, or exchange entitlement. He argues that there is always enough food to feed the worlds population, but there are many factors that prevent some people from receiving an adequate share of this. According Sen, there is enough food but extreme poor does not have command over resources (ie money) to purchase food. He emphasizes on entitlement relations. It is not lack of food rather it is lack of means to command over food. However, access to food may not help because vulnerable groups can not buy food from the market. Therefore, we need to focus on assets and entitlement.

Assets (labor, human capital, and productive assets) ------------------food entitlements

Command over food is the most essential. The striking question is how vulnerable group of people can get command over food. Food entitlements and assets have to be mutually complementary to each other. According to Ford an entitlements approach is adopted whereby vulnerability of a group is explained by the availability of resources, and the entitlement of individuals and groups to call on these resources. In a broader context this relationship between entitlement and assets depend on political economy, which in a wider context related to political economy of distribution and formation of entitlements. Globalization, economic reform, and liberalization of trade could be a broader political economy that can make poor vulnerable locally.

Vulnerability as powerlessness/ political empowerment
Extreme poor and disadvantaged by other means are the powerless community. In the power relation perspective, this community is known as the rights claimers. This group of people, some time, does not have enough voice to speak out for their rights. They are illiterate, poor, and unaware about rights as well as their duty bearers are ignorant and uneducated about rights. They live within the society but outside the power structure. They are vulnerable by means of their livelihoods. Well, what makes people vulnerable and eventually powerless? According to Watts and Bohle (1993), “Vulnerability can also be politically determined, where people are powerless in their command over basic necessities and rights”.

Within the context of a developing or poor country, political factors cause powerlessness or vulnerability. Absence of good governance and lack of efficacy of institutions leads poor to live as poor or to become poorer. Powerless groups are usually found as deprived of fundamental rights, for example, right to food, adequate house, education, health, and employment etc. When fundamental rights are violated, it could be beyond their capacity to deal with civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Therefore, weak governance and deprivation of fundamental rights cause powerlessness and eventually vulnerability.

Availability of assets and ability to own that asset makes one not to be vulnerable. Moser & McIlwailne (1997) defines vulnerability as, “The more assets people have, the less vulnerable they are; the greater the erosion of assets, the greater the level of insecurity”. Vulnerability is also defined as lack of material and immaterial condition to stand against risk events (assets, entitlements). Political economy of distribution and formation of entitlements is wider context of asset entitlement relationship. Therefore, powerless people are neither politically empowered nor economically.

Political economy / social position of vulnerability
According to Ford (2002), economic and political power plays in determining vulnerability of individuals and groups. Historical and structural class-based pattern of social reproduction lies within the causes of vulnerability. So, political, economic, and social structures influence vulnerability. According to pressure and release model (PAR), vulnerability is part of risk (Blaikie et al 1994). The model says Risk = Hazards + Vulnerability. Hazards mean natural disasters. The progression of vulnerability is a series of levels of social factors e.g. i) root cause, ii) dynamic pressures, and iii) unsafe conditions. These levels focus on social, cultural, and political processes that give rise to unsafe conditions of vulnerable groups. According to Ford the model has a distinct scale element whereby root causes concerns remote influences including economic, demographic, and political processes within society and the world economy that reflect the distribution of power. The dynamic pressures include factors such as lack of local institutions, training, appropriate skills, local investments, local markets, press freedom, ethical standards in public life, and macro forces such as population growth, urbanization, arms expenditure, debt repayment, and deforestation. Unsafe conditions mean when people live in dangerous location with dangerous livelihoods, poor health, lack of building codes and regulations, and a lack of disaster preparedness. Unsafe conditions determine the vulnerable groups.

Women headed households are vulnerable because of gender inequality, social position, lack of mobility, and lower level of income. Class, caste, gender, age, ethnicity,
religion, or disability are factors for marginality and social exclusion. Hierarchical systems, structural and historical sequences of a society, and class based patterns of social reproduction continue a society to reproduce exploitation, exclusion, inequality, and consequently inequity. Under these dominant social factors poor live constantly at vulnerable state where they do not have any choice and eventually they do not achieve freedom for development.

Context of Vulnerability

Special attention to vulnerable and so as special solutions for them is missing from SLA frame. Here, by the word “vulnerable” we mean extreme poor such as land less, low waged, disables, elderly, minority, women, and children who struggle for livelihoods. Some economic factors are dominant for food security of vulnerable groups in the community such as purchasing power and market relationship that underpins the access to food that is not produced by community or household.

Vulnerability context may differ from nation to nation especially in the context of shocks and disasters. According to Ford (2002), Bangladesh and Frorida are both vulnerable in terms of sea level rise and storms. 1992 hurricane caused damage of US $ 16bn but killed fewer than 20 people. Where as a year before a similar cyclone killed 140,000 people and ruined the livelihoods of millions. Ford suggests that there is a need to focus the characteristics of a system that influences the ability of the people and communities to respond to, cope with, and adapt to stimulus. Therefore, a generalized common framework on livelihood may miss the national context of vulnerability. What is useful in Africa may not be worthy for South Asia. Regional or even more microscopically national perspective of livelihoods of vulnerable groups should be dealt with special care and focus.

Different population living under different social, cultural, economic, and political circumstance may have different levels of vulnerability. The rights-based approach recognizes that households’ ability to access assets and entitlements are influenced to a great extent by power relations, which has political, social and economic dimensions. Therefore, fulfillment of rights by households requires transforming power relationships among stakeholders and removing the exclusionary mechanisms that prevent rights-realization by the poor (Frankenberger and Cogill 2001, cited in CARE 2003). Therefore, we suggest RBA as a process to deal power relation led exploitations and eventually to fulfill rights as an end to poverty. This argument could be further elaborated in power relation section.

A generalized version of SLA frame could miss the target. It may miss the deeper structural causes of vulnerability. SLA may be termed as superficial approach to deal with the remedies and eventually prescribe weak solutions for livelihoods. Analyzing the deeper causes Watts and Bohle (1993) came up with,

• The particular distribution of entitlements and how these are reproduced
• The larger canvas of rights by which entitlements are fought over, contested (empowerment)
• Structural properties – crisis proneness for the political economy which precipitates entitlement crisis

Capability perspective

The world “capability” consists of ability and potentiality of a person. Thus, capability of person is to move, to be clothed and sheltered, to meet nutritional level, to be in good health, and to have power to participate in the social process. Access to goods and services (e.g. education, health, and transportation) may not benefit people because of lacking physical and financial capacity and social opportunity. The three major components of capability which are complementary to each other are,

1. Endowment (commodities and assets)

2. Individual capacity

3. Social opportunities

Ability helps people to escape from poverty. When person does not have adequate ability, potentiality (i.e. constitution of endowment) may prevent the person from falling into poverty. Thus, ability helps to act against poverty and potentiality works for protection towards risk. In reality both components of capability (ability and potentiality) depends on individual capacity. People may not utilize endowments and assets because of lack of information, education, awareness, illness and so on.

A true development intervention should work for uplifting vulnerable labors from capability poverty, which means improved capability of a labor can improve his or her income. Therefore, development interventions need focus towards improving adequate standard of living of a person and eventually improving capability rather raising income only. RBA intends to ensure minimum standard of living, which includes right to food, health, education, adequate housing etc., which are fundamental needs for having capable persons. According to Rodrik, focusing on poverty is also warranted from the perspective of a broader, capabilities-oriented approach to development. He notes that an exclusive focus on consumption or income levels constitutes too narrow an approach to development. Sen (1999: 19) has explained the complex relationship between income and capabilities. Low income can cause illiteracy, ill health, hunger, and lack of well being. On the contrary, better health and education may help a person to earn well. In my opinion, Income poverty leads to potentiality poverty. Potentiality poverty leads to capability poverty. The cycle may occur in reverse way too, for example, capability deprivation – potentiality poverty- income poverty. According to Sen, if we shift our focus from “income poverty” to “capability deprivation”, it would help us to understand freedom of human lives from poverty.

Capability and Distributive justice for adequate standard of living

When human well-being and capability is the objective, distributive justice could be the means for fulfilling basic needs. Living standard and quality of life is higher in affluent and wealthy state than poor nations. Similarly, wealthy and rich people have improved quality life than poor within a poor state. Thus, poor countries with limited resources and poor having no resources are deprived of quality life, which in turn deprives capability of the people. If need is based on consumption of commodities, concept of need could be changed over time. Number of consumption may increase and become necessary need for tomorrow. Thus, basic need concept of development paradigm is now becoming obsolete. On the other hand, human capability for better functioning and enjoying freedom is now on the stage[i].

Adequate standard of living need to be justified. I claim that adequate house, health, education, food, and work could be the requirements to capable a person for functioning. Fulfillment of these fundamental rights creates atmosphere and opportunities for people to function. According to Dubois & Rousseau (2003), through design of human development strategies and capabilities the process, “…leads to the improvement of access to health and education services, to adequate nutrition and safe water supply, thus improving the level of human capital. It also helps to fight against social exclusion by increasing empowerment and participation in public decisions, therefore reinforcing the level of social capital.”

Here, we are not taking in to account consumption of commodities and luxuries, which are relative in the context of wealth and culture. Television set, car, refrigerator, air conditions, oven, etc. could be essential stuff for households in rich country, where these commodities may be luxuries and may not be relevant for poor of poor countries. Therefore, adequate standard of living could be minimum human essentials to function, to earn, to take part in social life, which could be universally acceptable for living with human dignity. We do not elaborate here comparing “need” and “want” of human being. Minimum nutrition and food is a need for human survival. Want could be extended for better food, nice restaurants, and music and more. Thus, increased income and wealth lead human for consuming more luxuries. Our focus area is marginalized poor of third world countries and so as focus is on “adequate standard of living” for them.

Distributive justice means the just allocation of goods in a society. Thoughts relating wealth disparity and inequality of living standard go in line with distribution justice. Egalitarianism version means people should be treated equal in some respect.

Development cooperation and aid once dominated by 1960s and 70s basic need theories is now shifting focus towards rights, people centered, capability, and functioning. As noted in Hellsten (2003),

The capability approach then gives alternative moral criteria for global distribution and particularly for the issues of development cooperation, development aid and globalized economy in general. We should make sure that whatever resources, commodities, services we provide to the poor countries, these countries can use these benefits to realize human capital and human resources, by realizing human functionings and human capabilities.

Poor is the object of development agenda whether their capability enhancement is a development subject. According to Alexander (2004), theory of human rights helps to effectively address many contemporary issues of social justice. Human rights has provided inspiration and guide lines to governments, national courts, parliaments, nongovernmental organizations, professionals and social activists for effectively combating atrocities and unjust social practices in different parts of the world. Thus, theory of human rights also came up with an agenda for equitable society. This theory takes side to the oppressed and disadvantaged whose rights are deprived and violated.

John Rawl’s two principles are[ii],

1) Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. (Egalitarian.)

2) Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity.

Rawl’s principle 2 (a) clearly points towards “least advantaged persons”. There are some criticisms about the contradiction of principles, which end in confusion and this paper has little scope to revisit these areas. However, distributive justice is useful at combating food insecurity and hunger.

End notes:
[i] According to Dr. Sirkku Kristiina Hellsten ,“ Meeting needs for individual freedom or social confinement: Capability ethics, basic needs and Redistribution of Justice”, approach moves from mere need satisfaction to human flourishing by defending the moral appropriateness of the concept of human well being measured in terms of human capabilities. Human capabilities provide fundamental moral categories for the evaluation of resources distribution. It concentrates on our freedom to promote objectives we have reason to value, such as participation/democracy, human rights and equality would be. In summary basic functionings and capabilities are life and health, and more advanced ones capabilities to personal integrity, thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation/participation, control over one’s fate/environment.

[ii] for detail see http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/johnrawl.htm