SNAKES AND LADDERS, BUFFERS AND PASSPORTS:RETHINKING VULNERABILITY VIA A HUMAN WELLBEING LENS

Andy Sumner and Rich Mallet

Institute of Development Studies, Sussex

a.sumner@ids.ac.uk

21 OCT 2010

Abstract

Much research to date has tended to view vulnerability by disciple or sector and yet

individuals and households experience multiple, interacting and sometimes compound

vulnerabilities. Cross-disciplinary thinking is emerging as multi-dimensional vulnerability is

increasingly recognized to be likely to come to the fore if the outlook over the next 15-25

years is one of multiple, interacting and compound stressors and crises as a result of the

‘perfect storm’ or ‘long crisis’ thesis of the interaction of demographics, climate change and

food and energy prices. In light of the above this paper reviews the literature on vulnerability

and asks what a ‘Human Wellbeing’ approach – a complement to more traditional ways of

understanding poverty - might contribute to the analysis of vulnerability.

Draft – to add:

Page 6 - ADD ANNEX TABLE IN TEXT

Page 26 - ADD TO TABLE 9 FOM TABLES 6, 7 and 8

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Much research to date has tended to view vulnerability by disciple or sector and yet

individuals and households experience multiple, interacting and sometimes compounding

vulnerabilities. Cross-disciplinary thinking is emerging as multi-dimensional vulnerability is

increasingly recognized to be likely to come to the fore if the outlook over the next 15-25

years is one of multiple, interacting and compound stressors and crises as a result of the

‘perfect storm’ or ‘long crisis’ thesis of the interaction of demographics, climate change and

food and energy prices (Beddington, 2009; Evans et al., 2010; Sumner et al., 2010). In light of

the above this paper reviews the literature on vulnerability and asks what a ‘Human

Wellbeing’ approach – a complement to more traditional ways of understanding poverty -

might contribute to the analysis of vulnerability.

This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a ‘broad-sweep’ of the

vulnerability literature. Section 3 introduces the ‘human wellbeing’ approach. Section 4

explores vulnerability via a wellbeing lens. Section 5 concludes.

2. DISCIPLINARY AND SECTORAL PERSPECTIVES ON VULNERABILITY

2a. The evolution of the concept of vulnerability in development studies literature

There is, of course, an enormous literature on vulnerability (see for reviews Alwang et al.,

2001; Bohle, 2003; Sharma et., 2000). Vulnerability is defined and measured in different

ways in different disciplines and sectors and yet individuals and households experience

multiple and interacting vulnerabilities at the same time. Room’s (2000) approach that we

draw upon in this paper refers to ‘snakes and ladders’ and unexpected and expected

variability – shocks and stressors - that can lead to advancement (ladder) or decline (snake)

in wellbeing and ‘buffers and passports’ to refer to resilience stock/capacities (buffers) and

abilities to take opportunities (passports).

Vulnerability is not only shocks but slow-burning stressors too. It is also about

exposure/sensitivity to harms/hazards and capacity to cope or resilience. Further, it is

experienced in different ways by different people. In this vein Sharma et al., (2000:1) note,

that even when exposed to the same event, impacts will vary, depending on the person’s

2

capacity to cope: that is, to withstand and recover from the impact of that event (Sharma ,

et. al., 2000, p.1). In this respects Sen historical work on entitlement failures and famine was

seminal.1 Other seminal works to note would be Chambers (1989) discussion of vulnerability,

risk, shock, stress and coping mechanisms, and Moser’s (1998) asset vulnerability.

The poverty dynamics literature is also of direct relevance with particular reference

to research on chronic and transient poverty (see in particular Hulme et al., 2001; Shepherd

et al., 2010). In countries with data, the percentage of the poor that are always poor is

around a third of poor households (see table 1). This implies that two-thirds of the poor

move in and out of poverty depending on vulnerability and capacities to cope.

Table 1. Selected countries: the chronic poor (‘always poor’) as % of poor households

Countries Periods Always poor HH as percentage of total poor households

Bangladesh 1994-2006 25China 1991-1995 30India 1970-1982 42Indonesia 1993-1997 29Vietnam 1992-1997 44Uganda 1992-1999 30-32South Africa 1997-2001 38Ethiopia (rural) 1994-2004 32Source: Calculated from Dercon and Shapiro (2007).

In their wide ranging review of datasets, Dercon and Shapiro (2007) identify key reasons to

explain escaping long-run poverty as (see table 2): changes in economic and social assets

(e.g. changes in employment, land, ownership and education) and/or social exclusion and

discrimination and/or location in remote or otherwise disadvantaged areas (extending to

fragile states). Further, that temporary shocks are key reasons for descent into poverty:

1 The literature on entitlements and famine has had a ‘major theoretical, empirical and policy impact’ (Fine 1997:619). Aside from influencing the practice of major global institutions, the literature has also driven the concept of entitlement into other areas of interest, from the welfare system (entitlement to benefits) and the legal system (entitlement to property rights) to human rights (ibid.). Entitlement failure exists when there is a failure to establish command over sufficient resources for survival (Dreze and Sen 1981 ). This is fundamentally about the relationship between endowment and exchange. As Elahi (2006: 544) points out, endowment – which is determined by one’s entitlements – refers to an individual’s ability to command a resource through legal means through a process of exchange. For example, an individual can sell (exchange) his or her labour power (endowment) in return for a wage (resource). Entitlement underpins the entire process. Although strongly influenced by a material approach insofar as the framework tends to deal with the ownership of tangible assets, entitlement also incorporates relational aspects as vulnerability depends to some extent on the nature of ‘terms of trade relationships’ (Vatsa and Krimgold 2000: 136).

3

illness and health-related expenses, social and customary expenses on marriage and

funerals, high-interest private loans, crop disease, drought and irrigation failure, etc.

Table 2. Determinants associated with escaping or falling into poverty

Country Years Snakes –

Factors significant for entering into poverty

Ladders , Buffers and Passports

Factors significant for escaping poverty

Chile 1968-1986 Per capita income in 1968, Livestock losses

Area of land owned, age of HH head, average years of schooling of HH workers, accumulation of land and livestock, dependency ratio; Age of HH head, accumulation of land and livestock

Bangladesh 1987-2000 Non-structural factors includes factors related to lifecycle changes (number of working members, high dependency ratio, abandonment by husband) and crises and shocks e.g. illness and natural disasters

Structural factors related to the HH asset base e.g. asset accumulation, multiple livelihood activities, income diversification, occupational shift to off-farm activities

India 1970-1981 - Literacy, ownership of a house, increase in cultivated area and income from livestock, better infrastructure

Uganda 1980-2004 Illness and health-related expenses, social and customary expenses on marriage and funerals, high-interest private loans, crop disease, drought and irrigation failure

Income diversification, irrigation and land improvement

Kenya 1997-2005 High dependency ratio, illness and heavy healthcare expenses, drought

Income diversification, formal sector employment, crop diversification, social factors

South Africa Large household, female headed household, low employment access, low asset endowment, low education.

Owning more physical assets (livestock, land, etc).

Source: Dercon and Shapiro (2007).

There is a clear implication that interventions should distinguish the chronic and transient

poor (Baulch and McCulloch, 1998; Hulme et al., 2001). Chronic poverty is about expanding

4

assets and free at point of delivery public services. In contrast, transient poverty policy

responses are about reducing risks, fluctuations, etc such as safety nets and insurance

schemes (McCulloch and Baulch, 2000). However, this is not just a question of material

assets – relational dimensions and subjectivities play a crucial role too: In Latin America,

Barros et al. (2009), found that more than two-thirds of the poorest 10% (of the distribution

of consumption) constitute ethnic minorities and ECLAC (2010) study of 8 Latin America

countries found infant mortality of indigenous peoples/territories and infant mortality of the

non-indigenous people, 2000 census at much higher levels.

A related body of literature is that on the inter-generational transmission (IGT) of

poverty (see for detailed discussion Moore, 2001). The IGT approach is a well established

conceptualisation of how poverty is transmitted from one generation to another (Castañeda

and Aldaz-Carroll, 1999:2, Bird 2007:1). IGT is often conflated with the dynamics of poverty

literature. Poverty dynamics and IGT are both temporal and about how people move in and

out of poverty over time. But IGT is typically about poor adults having poor children rather

than poor children becoming poor adults or poor adults staying poor (Moore, ibid.,

suggested IGT could work in various ways not previously considered). Most work on IGT has

tended to be on American societal and income mobility or state benefits dependency

because large scale longitudinal household data is available annually from 1968-89 from the

American Panel Study of Income Dynamics (see for details Altonji et al., 1997). In contrast,

there are virtually no long term longitudinal panels from the developing world, hence the

approach is much less well established in the development literature

2b. The evolution of the concept of vulnerability in the wider literature

Birkmann (2006: 11), notes that the emergence and early evolution of the concept of

vulnerability was closely linked to the ‘purely hazard-oriented perception of disaster risk in

the 1970s’. Vulnerability was by and large dominated by ‘technical interventions focused on

predicting hazards or modifying their impact’ (Hilhorst and Bankoff 2004: 2). But while these

early origins framed the concept in relatively narrow terms, the last three decades or so

have witnessed a considerable conceptual expansion of vulnerability, as well as its

application into a wide and diverse range of disciplines. Now the subject of a huge and

burgeoning literature, it has been increasingly recognised by researcher and practitioner

5

communities within various disciplines that reducing vulnerability is necessary for improving

wellbeing and human security, particularly in the face of multiple shocks and stressors

(O’Brien 2009: 23). Additionally, within development and economics it is increasingly

acknowledged that considerations of risk and vulnerability are central to understanding the

dynamics of poverty noted above (Christiaensen and Subbaro 2004). Further still, the

concept of vulnerability has relatively recently been adopted by those engaged in climate

change research, or more specifically by those investigating the relationship between the

impacts of climate change and various anthropocentric dimensions (e.g. Haines et al. 2006;

Gaillard 2010). Aside from such practical and operational imperatives, the concept of

vulnerability has contributed greatly to the advancement and refinement of various

academic pursuits. Cardona (2004) has pointed out that over time vulnerability has helped

clarify the concepts of risk and disaster – concepts which make up the cornerstones of a

number of disciplines, including disaster management (‘vulnerability has emerged as the

most critical concept in disaster studies’ [Vatsa 2004: 1]) and environmental change.

Different disciplinary and sectoral approaches to vulnerability

Discipline/sector Approach to vulnerability

Development Studies

Economics

etc

Sources: xxxx

In its most general sense, vulnerability is seen as the risk that a ‘system’ (e.g. household,

community, country) would be negatively affected by ‘specific perturbations that impinge on

the system’ (Gallopin 2006: 294). These perturbations that give rise to undesirable outcomes

originate from various sources, including environmental, socio-economic, physical and

6

political (Naude, et al., 2009: 185). The question of risk is thus at the heart of the

vulnerability concept: how systems deal with and react to risk; what kinds of outcome result

from a particular risk; and through what processes a risk produces an outcome. Closely

related to this notion of risk is the idea of un/certainty. In a context of imperfect information

there an element of risk involved (for example, not knowing when a natural disaster or a

sudden fall in primary commodity prices will occur), thus giving rise to uncertainty about,

say, the future livelihood of an individual, the wellbeing of a household, or the performance

of an economy. From a development perspective this might mean that vulnerability exists

when ‘poverty cannot be safely ruled out as a possible future scenario’ (Calvo 2008: 1014).

2c. Defining vulnerability

As noted above a common starting point in defining vulnerability is to separate sensitivity

and resilience (see table 3) as hazard exposure (not only shocks) and capacity to cope (ie

resilience and agency).

Table 3. What is vulnerability?

Capacity to cope (buffers) and/or advance (passports)

High Low

Sensitivity or hazard exposure (to snakes and ladders)

HighVulnerable High vulnerability

Low Not vulnerable Vulnerable

Sources: Alwang et al., (2001), Davies (1996), Room (2000), Sharma et al., (2000).

Despite the many disciplinary variations, most contemporary approaches to vulnerability

share (to varying degrees) some common elements. Vulnerability analysts working in a wide

range of disciplines frequently cite Kofi Annan’s (2003) observation that hazards only

become disasters when people’s lives and livelihoods are affected. Many agree that at the

foundation of any conceptualisation of vulnerability is this issue of interaction: an interaction

between an environmental hazard and a population, as Annan suggests; an interaction

between market dynamics and a local community; or an interaction between a food

shortage and the characteristics of a particular household. The interaction that exists

7

between a perturbation of some kind (e.g. earthquake, famine, hyperinflation) and the

unit/system of analysis (e.g. individual, household, community, country) is a complex one,

and influenced by a multitude of different factors. These could include anything from the

asset stock of a household, to the size and quality of an individual’s social network, to the

geographical characteristics of a particular place. Accordingly, vulnerability – in any discipline

– is rarely defined solely in relation to the hazard or source of risk. Furthermore, exposure to

a perturbation is generally not considered to be sufficient in itself to constitute a robust

conceptualisation of vulnerability, meaning that the interaction is made up of more than

simply the ‘convergence’ of shock and individual. Using Bohle’s (2001) conceptual

framework, (the level of) vulnerability is ‘produced’ through the interaction between

exposure to external events and the internal coping capacity of the affected individual,

household. This has led some to talk of the ‘double structure of vulnerability’ (e.g. van Dillen

2004). Coping capacity in this sense can broadly be understood as ‘resilience’, and as such

cannot be thought of as distinct from vulnerability. Resilience and vulnerability do not

represent opposite ends of the spectrum, but rather form part of the same equation:

resilience determines in large part how people or systems respond to shocks, and hence

determines how people or systems are affected by those shocks and how vulnerable they

are to experiencing a particular outcome.

Perturbations aside), coping capacity or resilience is shaped not only by the kinds of

activities engaged in by individuals or systems (e.g. work-related actions or membership in

social networks that enhance their ability to respond to shocks), but also by the underlying

characteristics of an individual or a system. More specifically, fragilities that in some way

reduces resilience will determine to a large extent the degree of vulnerability an individual

or a system experiences. Further, vulnerability is also influenced by the characteristics and

nature of wider social, political and institutional structures. In some cases, these structural

factors can actually prove to be more influential than the perturbation itself. For example,

Devereux (2009) contends that structural conditions are more responsible for the

persistence of famines in twenty-first century sub-Saharan Africa than the shocks that trigger

them. So we must consider: the ex ante (that is, before a risky event) characteristics and

conditions – the underlying conditions – of the unit of analysis in question (and the various

factors and processes that determine them); the wider structural conditions in which our

unit of analysis exists; the type of perturbation or risky event that the unit of analysis

8

experiences, whether that be a short-term shock or a longer-term stressor; and the various,

complex interactions between these dimensions and as many reserarchers have argued,

when thinking about these things it is important to apply the framework to a specific

outcome and ask the question: ‘vulnerability to, or from what exactly?’ (e.g. vulnerability to

starvation, vulnerability to infection, etc.).

2d. Vulnerable to or from what shocks and stressors?

A key distinction is that between vulnerability to something, and vulnerability from

something. Alwang et al. (2001: 3) argue that when we talk about an outcome – for example,

malnutrition, homelessness, bankruptcy – we are talking about vulnerability to that

particular outcome, whereas when we talk about the relationship between vulnerability and

risk, we are talking about vulnerability from risk. As noted, vulnerability is influenced by

resilience (or coping capacity), as well as by structural features of the surrounding

environment: these are the things that determine the degree of ex ante vulnerability (that is,

before the onset of a risky event). So before an individual or a system is even threatened by

a hazard, it is possible to identify certain socio-economic fragilities (underlying conditions)

and pre-existing vulnerable context elements that increase vulnerability (Carreno et al.

2005). However, vulnerability is also determined by the type of risk or perturbation that the

individual or system faces. For example, a particular building might already suffer from poor

architectural design and shoddy construction (fragilities), but its overall vulnerability to

experiencing major structural damage from an earthquake will ultimately be determined by

the scale and magnitude of that event. Hence, it is important to ask ‘vulnerability to what?’,

as the answer to that question greatly influences just how vulnerable an individual or a

system is to a particular outcome.

Perturbations or risks are understood broadly as ‘a potentially damaging influence on

the system of analysis’ or an ‘influence that may adversely affect a valued attribute of a

system’ (Fussel 2007). This is what Chambers (1989) refers to as the external side of

vulnerability, i.e. the risks, shocks and stress with which an individual or system is

confronted (the internal side representing a lack of coping capacity). Although it should be

noted that while risks are generally considered as external to a system, this is not always the

9

case, as dangerous practices within a community (e.g. certain business practices) may also

present themselves as threats (Fussel 2007).

Perturbations can be disaggregated into two broad categories: shocks and stressors.

Shocks refer to sudden risk events, such as floods, droughts, unemployment and price

increases, whereas stressors refer to more gradual changes, such as changes in service

delivery, land degradation, socio-economic marginalisation, and the HIV/AIDS epidemic (Hart

2009: 363). A key distinction is thus the difference in time-scale. However, while the

duration of a shock may be short-term, the impacts of a shock can persist for many years

after the initial event. This has been demonstrated by evidence from Ethiopia where a

collapse in output prices in 2001 and a serious drought in 2002 were found to be still

affecting consumption outcomes in rural Ethiopia several years later (Dercon et al. 2005).

It should also be recognised that shocks and stressors can threaten an individual’s or

a system’s wellbeing in indirect ways. As Dercon (2005: 484) points out, in dealing with the

impact of a shock, the ex post coping responses of a household may ‘destroy or reduce the

physical, financial, human or social capital of the household’. This might happen, for

example, due to the selling off of important or valuable material assets, leaving the

household more vulnerable in the future.

Various disciplines have started to recognise this complex interplay of

shocks/stressors. There have been various efforts to build interdisciplinary or

multidisciplinary understandings of vulnerability and resilience. Those working in global

environmental change have begun to acknowledge that the vulnerability of people to the

negative consequences of climate change does not result solely from environmental changes

by themselves, but from a mixture of stressors (O’Brien et al. 2004). Further, Leichenko and

O’Brien (2002) note that food security in developing countries is influenced by political,

economic and social conditions, as well as climatic factors. This multiple stressors approach

to vulnerability assessments has an important advantage over conventional approaches: as

O’Brien et al. (2009: 24) argue, ‘interventions that address the outcomes of single stressors

may provide measurable results, but if they do not consider the dynamic context in which a

stressor is occurring, they are unlikely to enhance human security over the longer term’.

Webb and Harinarayan (1999) have proposed that vulnerability itself be used as a

‘bridging concept’ to better link the fields of humanitarianism and development. However,

multidisciplinary approaches are by no means straightforward undertakings. As Thywissen

10

(2006: 449-450) explains, ‘multidisciplinarity often results in the same term being defined in

different ways...[as] definitions of the same terms may have been developed simultaneously

and separately in different disciplines’. The resulting confusion are difficult to escape as most

of the definitions are ‘valid in their respective contexts and cannot be discarded’ and that

‘the search for a single measure of vulnerability is likely to be futile as each discipline

stresses different components of the concept’ (Alwang et al. 2001: 34-35). While this

undoubtedly presents academics, practitioners and policy-makers with various challenges,

both methodological as well as empirical, it is in many ways understandable that such a

multiplicity of interpretations and understandings exist. Indeed, that ‘vulnerability’ can be

applied in such a diverse range of contexts and disciplines is arguably testament to its

strength as an analytical and descriptive concept.

When an individual or a system is affected by a perturbation, it is unlikely that that

perturbation would have a single origin. Rather, the original perturbation would have

combined with, and been shaped by, a series of other factors that together form the nature

of the perturbation as experienced by the individual/system. To take a well known example,

famines are not purely natural phenomena. While a drought-induced food shortage one year

might certainly increase the risk of famine, the actual risk experienced by a particular

household would have ultimately been influenced by a range of other factors, such as food

distribution mechanisms, global demand, or national or sub-national politics. Therefore, the

risk is usually the product of a complex interaction of forces.

Many agree that vulnerability is a multifaceted and multidimensional concept (e.g.

Cutter et al. 2000; Bohle 2002; Birkmann 2006). Even if we were to take as an example a very

specific type of vulnerability and outcome (e.g. the vulnerability of household x falling below

a pre-determined poverty line within five years), there would still be a wide range of factors

to consider when carrying out a vulnerability assessment. Indeed, vulnerability in its

broadest sense is a concept that encompasses physical, social, economic, environmental and

institutional features reflecting the complex relationships that shape the overall impact of a

given shock or stressor. It is this multidimensionality that aligns the concept of vulnerability

well with the approach of ‘human wellbeing’.

11

3. A ‘HUMAN WELLBEING’ APPROACH

‘Human Wellbeing’ or ‘3-dimensional human wellbeing’ is emerging as a complement to the

more traditional and material ways of conceptualizing and measuring poverty and

deprivation. Evidence of this is most visible in the recent Sarkozy Commission, chaired by

Amartya Sen, Joseph Stiglitz and Jean-Paul Fitoussi, which has provided one of the most

recent and strongest signposts with its conclusion that there is a need “to shift emphasis… to

measuring people’s wellbeing.” (2009: 10). There is further evidence in the OECD’s

Measuring the Progress of Societies that suggests that current approaches to poverty are

being rethought (Giovanni, 2009). The 2010, 20-year review of Human Development by the

UNDP Human Development Report Office adds to this sense (see UNDP, 2010). One might

also note the five-year, multi-country research of the ESRC Wellbeing in Developing

Countries (WeD) network (eg. Copestake, 2008; McGregor, 2007; White, 2008; 2010) and

the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHI) that have stimulated academic

debate (eg. Alkire and Santos, 2010). Indeed, although, wellbeing in its broadest sense has a

long intellectual history, the concept has been particularly hotly debated over the last ten

years or so, if the amount of published books and articles is a measure (see for overview

discussion Gough and McGregor, 2007; McGillivray and Clarke, 2006).

The approach to human wellbeing that is outlined here draws upon and synthesises various

traditions (see discussion in McGregor, 2007). ‘Human well-being’ shifts our focus even

further beyond income alone - that Seers (1972), Streeten (1980), Stewart (1985) and Sen

(1999) have critiqued in seminal works - but also beyond narrow human development

indicators as well such as the Human Development Indices to take account of what people

can do and be, and how they feel about what they can do and be.

Wellbeing thus seeks to build on conceptualisations of human development in particular

and Sen’s (1999) ‘beings’ and ‘doings’ (human development is about freedoms and what a

person can do and be), focusing on the interactions between beings, doings and feelings.

Robert Chambers’ (1997; 2007) emphasis on the need for the development profession to

listen to the voices of poor and to their perceptions and feelings about poverty has also been

influential (Of course feminist development thinkers have always stressed the importance of

listening, and of inclusiveness and looking out for the silenced exclusions).

12

McGregor (2007) suggests a comprehensive way to understand people’s well-being. He

emphasizes that a practical concept of wellbeing should be conceived as the combination

three things which are (i) Needs met (what people have) (ii) Meaningful act (what people do)

and (iii) Satisfaction in achieving goals (how people be). Copestake (2008: 3) echos this:

‘Wellbeing is defined here as a state of being with others in society where (a) people’s basic

needs are met, (b) where they can act effectively and meaningfully in pursuit of their goals,

and (c) where they feel satisfied with their life’. Human wellbeing can thus be discussed as

three-dimensional: it takes account of material wellbeing, subjective wellbeing and relational

wellbeing and their dynamic, and evolving interaction. People’s own perceptions and

experience of life matter, as do their relationships and their material standard of living.

These three dimensions of material, subjective and relational wellbeing are summarised in

Table 4. The columns here are artificial boundaries where we are suggesting such

demarcations are highly fluid. The material dimension of wellbeing emphasises ‘practical

welfare and standards of living’. The relational emphasises ‘personal and social relations’

and the subjective emphasises ‘values, perceptions and experience’ (White, 2008:8). The

wellbeing lens can take both the individual and the community as the unit of analysis.2

Table 4. Human Wellbeing: Dimensions, Areas of Study, Indicators and Key determinants

Dimensions of Wellbeing

Material wellbeing –

‘needs met’ and ‘practical welfare and standards of

living’

Relational wellbeing –

‘ability to act meaningfully’ and

‘personal and social relations’

Subjective wellbeing –

‘life satisfaction’ and ‘values, perceptions and

experience’

Area of study The objectively observable outcomes that people are able to achieve.

The extent to which people are able to engage with others in order to achieve their particular needs and goals.

The meanings that people give to the goals they achieve and the processes in which they engage.

Indicators Needs satisfaction indicators.Material asset indicators.

Human agency indicators.Multi-dimensional resource indicators.

Quality of life indicators.

Key determinants income, wealth and assetsemployment and livelihood activitieseducation and skillsphysical health and (dis)abilityaccess to services and

relations of love and carenetworks of support and obligationrelations with the state: law, politics, welfaresocial, political and cultural identities and

understandings of the sacred and the moral orderself-concept and personalityhopes, fears and aspirations

2 The WeD group found that the relational and the community aspects of wellbeing were particularly emphasised in the developing countries they studied. ‘Relatedness’ in people’s lives was central for wellbeing. Further, there was often a strong moral aspect of subjective wellbeing related to collective aspects of wellbeing and the community rather than just individual preferences (see discussion in White, 2008).

13

amenitiesenvironmental quality

inequalitiesviolence, conflict and (in)securityscope for personal and collective action and influence

sense of meaning/ meaninglessnesslevels of (dis) satisfaction.trust and confidence

Sources: Synthesised from Copestake (2008); McGregor (2007); McGregor and Sumner (2010); White (2008; 2010).

Jodha (1988) is illustrative of wellbeing debates and the contradictions.3 Jodha studied the

same households in rural India over a 20 year period (1963-6 and 1982-4) by both

conventional household income surveys and by villagers’ perceptions of their poverty and

wellbeing, and found that ‘households that have become poorer by conventional

measurements of income in fact appear better off when seen through different qualitative

indicators of their wellbeing’ (p. 2421). In Jodha’s study people felt they were better off

because they consumed a greater range of commodities (i.e. the material wellbeing

dimension), were less reliant on particular patrons (i.e. the relational wellbeing dimension);

and felt more independent with greater levels of mobility (i.e. the subjective wellbeing

dimension). Consistent with Jodha are proposals from Ryan and Deci (2000: 6-7) and others

that autonomy – meaning ‘self-determination, independence and the regulation of behavior

from within’ - is one of the three fundamental and universal psychological needs (along with

relatedness and competence).

Subjective wellbeing itself (see various recent reviews such as Samman, 2007) is

composed of two aspects: affective (mental health or hedonic balance), and cognitive (life

satisfaction or eudemonic). The focus for wellbeing is the latter. As Alvarez and Copestake

(2008:154) and Deiner (2006: 401) respectively note, the ‘eudemonic approach emphasizes

more the nature of human beings as searchers of meaning (actions consistent with their

values) through fulfillment of cherished goals’ and ‘life satisfaction represents a report of

how a respondent evaluates or appraises his or her life taken as a whole. Domain

3 Kanbur (2004:5-8) identified a series of contradictions: If the total number of people in poverty (however measured) rises because of population growth, but the percentage of the poor in the total population falls, has poverty risen or fallen? If the number of poor or the percentage of poor people (however measured) falls because the poor die at a faster rate than the non-poor (through HIV/AIDS, for example), has poverty risen or fallen? This is a particular issue when we assess gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Because the poor are more likely to work in the informal economy, their economic activity is less likely to be recorded in GDP data, so it is likely that the faster poor people die, the faster GDP per capita rises. If the number of poor or the percentage of poor people (however measured) falls overall, but poverty falls for some and rises for others, has poverty risen or fallen? If the number of poor or the percentage of poor people falls overall because of an increase in private ‘bads’, such as the consumption of cigarettes and/or alcohol, or public ‘bads’ (in contrast to public goods), has poverty risen or fallen?

14

satisfactions are judgments people make in evaluating major life domains, such as physical

and mental health, work, leisure, social relationships, and family’.

There is, of course, a whole debate on preference setting to consider (See Clark, 2007

for wide-ranging discussion). Indeed, it has been argued that psychosocial factors might be

working as additional reinforcement mechanisms to keeping people in poverty. For example,

Harper et al., (2003:547) note in their review of the literature the importance of individual

agency and the role of attitudes and aspirations in the inter-generational transmission of

poverty. Further, a circle of low (or frustrated) aspirations and endemic poverty may be a

self-sustaining outcome (Appadurai, 2004; Ray, 2006). In a empirical review of the

determinants of the inter-generational transmission of poverty, Bird (2007: ix) also notes,

low aspirations probably contribute to reduced income and asset formation and may

influence parenting patterns and investment decisions (including in children’s human

capital formation) thus contributing to IGT poverty.

However, this is not a reason to discount people’s own perceptions of poverty and

wellbeing. Rather to recognize the limitation of researching wellbeing and poverty. So, what

does a wellbeing approach add? Many contemporary conceptualisations of poverty already

go beyond income-based definitions and include more socio-cultural and subjective

dimensions of deprivation (e.g. human development, rights-based approaches, social

exclusion approaches, sustainable livelihoods). One can posit that a wellbeing lens sharpens

the focus of a ‘traditional’ poverty lens in at least two ways. In the first instance, it

emphasises the relational and the subjective. What people feel they can do or can be,

influences what people will actually be able to be and to do. In turn, these feelings and

perceptions are determined by people's experiences as well as by the norms and values that

are culturally and socially determined. In the case of child poverty, this might include

prevailing notions of ‘normal’ adult-child interactions or relationships at school, home and in

the case of child labour, at work and norms about child participation. An example, of this is

White and Choudury’s (2007: 530) research on Bangladesh, which explored the empirical

realities of ‘genuine’ or ‘meaningful’ participatory initiatives with children. They argue that

whilst ideally, participation is about raising children’s collective voice in development

matters, in reality participation is ‘produced’ through ‘projectisation’ of participation.

15

Drawing on primary data collected with Amra, a children’s organisation in Bangladesh, they

note understandings of what counts as ‘participation’ as determined by development agency

staff and therefore children’s agency is constrained and determined by adults in

development agencies (i.e. what can be said, when it should be said).

An example of subjectivities, can be found in Cornwall and Fujita (2007) in their analysis of

representations made of ‘the poor’ in the World Bank’s Voices of the Poor exercise. Drawing

upon the Crying Out for Change volume, they argue that (2007:60),

The ‘voices’ are editorialized so as to tune out any discordant sounds and present an

overarching narrative that is in perfect harmony with the bank’s own policies: their

‘cries’ for change are harnessed to support a particular set of highly normative

prescriptions. In order to obtain quotes that could pack a punch, Crying Out for

Change obscures other linkages, other perspectives, other parts of the conversation

that provide less convenient justification for the overall narrative.

Second, a wellbeing approach is about positives. It is is based on what people (and above -

children) can do/be/feel, rather than deficits in what they can do/be/feel. This resonates

with Nancy Fraser’s work (see for example, Fraser, 2000) on recognition, respect and issues

of stigma. In particular how labeling or ‘othering’ of people as the ‘poor’ infers a status

inferior to the ‘non-poor’ and in itself can lead to material and relational deprivation via

social exclusion. It is also about self-determination rather than exogenously defined

wellbeing.

Third, wellbeing addresses a need for an analytical approach that is sufficiently flexible to

take account of the differential experiences of different groups of people. This is particularly

evident when considering poverty and wellbeing across the life course. As Hird (2003:25)

suggests citing Ryff and Heidrich (1997) and Westerhof et al (2001): ‘older adults tend to

refer to life satisfaction and health in their spontaneous descriptions of self and life, whereas

young adults focus more on self, personality, happiness, work, and education’, [in contrast]

Middle-aged individuals were found to emphasise self-confidence, self-acceptance, and self-

knowledge, as well as job and career issues’.

If we develop this further we can understand better how some people’s wellbeing – here

child poverty - is distinct from other peoples – here adult poverty. We can thus seeks to

16

identify dimensions to be explored further to better understand that difference. For

example, we can posit that child poverty is different to adult poverty because not only do

children have differing needs, wants and capacities depending on the stage of childhood

(e.g. infancy, early childhood, middle childhood and adolescence) but also the meaning of

‘childhood’ itself is defined by the prevailing context and culture. Adult poverty differs by

age and context but arguably to a lesser extent than childhood poverty. We can also posit

that a further key difference in children’s experiences is that childhood poverty and

wellbeing are more intensely relational in nature. Adult poverty is also relational in nature

but arguably to a lesser extent than childhood poverty because for children there is greater

reliance on ‘others’ for care and nurture, typically adults or older children; greater

physiological and psychological vulnerabilities; and reduced autonomy/power.

We can illustrate this further if we consider poverty tracking via a wellbeing lens during the

recent global crisis using the empirical work of Hossain et al., Turk et al., and May et al., (see

table 5).

In terms of child wellbeing and the material wellbeing dimension there were cross-country

reports of school absenteeism and dropout, and some reports of child labour and/or

education expenses being reduced and there were reports across countries of children

combining labour with education. Whilst in the relational domain there are some clear

findings on changes in the household division of care labour, social tensions, family conflict

and crime. In the Turk et al., studies there was cross-country reports of children were being

left unattended for long hours while mothers worked late into the evening and sometimes

unpaid work of childcare was taken over either by elderly household members or by the

older children. As a general rule, respondents were trying to protect the nutrition and

education of children: Normally respondents suggested that food consumption for adults

would be cut in order to protect the nutritional intake of children but there were changes in

the quality of food. Finally, in terms of the subjective domain there is relatively little to

report perhaps because it was not explicitly or formally asked about.

What there is, is striking in terms of evidence of levels of everyday stress rising and the

inter-connection of material, relational and subjective child and adult wellbeing via, for

example, the stress around sending children to school on an empty stomach and how this

connected psychological stress, food insecurity and children's educational access. Economic

stress was understood to be generating tensions - both men and women made many

17

references to increases in the number of arguments between husbands and wives,

sometimes including violence – and that much of this was driven by stress over money.

Again, this would suggest the inter-linkages of material, relational and subjective wellbeing

and a need for research design to seek to capture these dimensions and their interactions.

18

Table 5. Using the ‘wellbeing’ approach to analysis crisis impacts of global crisis and general versus child-specific impacts

Wellbeing dimension Impacts reported Hossain et al., in 5 countries May et al., in 11 countries Turk et al., in 8 countriesMaterial wellbeing General Food prices still higher than 2007; Export sector job losses

in Jakarta but not in Dhaka; Micro- and informal credit markets effected; higher proportion of income being spent on food; less diverse/lower nutritional value, less; Range of health impacts reported;

Women, particularly in supply chains in South East Asia have been hard hit via falling wages, less decent work and shorter working hours;families have reported reducing their food consumption or quality; borrowing money and selling assets is extremely common;

Workers in the urban informal sector are facing particularly high levels of income insecurity; some layoffs; reduced working hours; laid-off workers remaining in urban areas; reduced hours; altered adult food consumption patterns and reduced remittances; increased competition for local, day-laboring jobs in rural areas; smallholder, rural households remain vulnerable to falling commodity prices. Nearly all groups in all low income countries were unable to access formal safety protection mechanisms

Child-specific School absenteeism and dropout, and child labour reports Education is being prioritized by families but education costs are being reduced – through moving children from private to public schools, cutting tuition or going into debt; research did not find evidence of significant numbers of children being taken out of school

Reports of children combining work/labour with education.

Relational wellbeing General Women eating least/last; intra-household tensions, abandonment of elderly; signs of rising social tension.

Women, particularly in supply chains in South East Asia have been hard hit via falling wages, less decent work and shorter working hours have increased time burdens and reproductive pressures; the first port of call has been the family and social networks; Some evidence of family conflict and domestic violence.

Some sectors hit hard by the crisis are those that are dominated by female employment; Economic stress was understood to be generating tensions and sometimes, shifting roles in the households; tensions associated with competition for scarce work were mentioned in some instances; Young, single women appeared more resilient to these impacts than those that were married with children.

Child-specific Intra-household tensions and abandonment of children; youth crime reported

Some evidence of family conflict and domestic violence. Children were being left unattended for long hours while mothers worked late into the evening. Sometimes unpaid work of childcare was taken over either by elderly households members or by the older children; As a general rule, respondents were trying to protect the nutrition and education of children. Normally respondents suggested that food consumption for adults would be cut in order to protect the nutritional intake of children but changes in quality of food.

Subjective wellbeing General People’s own crisis indicators identified: Changes in prices, reduction in the amount of paid workers; number of vacant dormitories rented for export workers, reduced working hours, termination/broken contracts, lay-offs, returning migration .

na Economic stress was understood to be generating tensions - Both men and women made many references to increases in the number of arguments between husbands and wives, sometimes including violence - much of this was driven by stress over money.

Child-specific Levels of everyday stress rising and the inter-connection of material, relational and subjective child and adult wellbeing via for example the stress around sending children to school on an empty stomach and how this connected psychological stress, food insecurity and children's educational access.

na na

Sources: Hossain et al., (2009; 2010); May et al., (1999); Turk et al., (2009).

19

4. ANALYSING VULNERABILITY VIA A WELLBEING LENS

4a. Vulnerability in material, relational and subjective dimensions

In light of the preceding discussion what can wellbeing offer to understanding multi-

dimensional vulnerability? In the first instance a wellbeing lens helps to analytically

approach the different dimensions of vulnerability taking the material, relational and

subjective dimensions and their interactions. It has long been commonplace to think

about vulnerability by its material wellbeing dimensions. There has traditionally been

a focus on tangible assets and entitlements (such as income, labour, capital – as per

the Sustainable Livelihoods approach); a focus that is still today proving influential

within economic approaches to vulnerability. The assumption here is that assets and

entitlements represent the resources that can be mobilised and managed when an

individual or a system is confronted with a threat; in other words, resilience (Moser

1998: 3).

Households can also make ‘material-based’ decisions in order to increase

their resilience. Morduch (1995) presents a range of examples that demonstrate how

individuals and households engage in ‘income smoothing’ activities, such as making

conservative production or employment choices and diversifying economic activities,

in order to protect themselves from ‘adverse income shocks’ before they occur (i.e.

ex ante). Such a material approach recognises that people or systems respond

differently to the same threat (as determined by their ‘asset portfolio’), but it also

opens up the important issue of power. A person’s ability to establish their

command over a set of commodities is dependent on the power they hold in the first

place.4 We can understand this as their agency, and the successful command of

commodities as the exercise of that agency (see later discussion). However, it is

important to remember that the agency of one individual is influenced by both the

agency of others as well as wider structures (Giddens 1979). For example, in their

study of resource accessibility and vulnerability in Andhra Pradesh, India, Bosher et

al. (2007) find that the caste system – and the rigid arrangement of relations within

it – is the key factor in determining who has assets, who can access public facilities,

4 Entitlements are a ‘the set of alternative bundles of commodities over which one person can establish...command’ (Dreze and Sen 1989: 9-10).

20

who has political connections, and who has supportive social networks. Thus, there

is also a relational aspect to access to material assets and entitlements – a mix of

power as political economy and power as institutions.

Material aspects of vulnerability have been typically measured as

‘vulnerability to poverty’ or the probability of falling below the poverty line in the

next time period (e.g. Pritchett et al., 2000). Many have subsequently criticised the

economics literature for ‘its use of money metrics and the underlying presumption

that all losses can be measured in monetary terms’ (Alwang et al. 2001: 5). While it

would be shortsighted to claim that this is true of all the literature – Moser (1998),

for example, adopts an approach dominated by the relationship between asset

ownership and vulnerability, but also includes intangible and unquantifiable assets,

such as household relations and social capital – there is certainly a case to make that

by focusing overwhelmingly on the material aspects of vulnerability, it is easy to

overlook the many other dimensions. A material focus on the geographical

characteristics of a particular place has, in the past, and particularly within the

disaster risk literature, been used to identify people living in particular areas as

vulnerable, when it is now widely acknowledged that ‘Hazard risks, their impacts and

local responses are not predetermined by individual or location’ (Webb and

Harinarayan 1999: 293). Table 6 takes the example of a material stressor – market

volatility and illustrates across the wellbeing dimensions.

Table 6. Examples of vulnerability viewed by a wellbeing lens (material

stressor)

Variability –Shock or stressor

Wellbeing domainsMaterial wellbeing –

‘needs met’ and ‘practical welfare and

standards of living’

Relational wellbeing –

‘ability to act meaningfully’ and

‘personal and social relations’

Subjective wellbeing –

‘life satisfaction’ and ‘values, perceptions and

experience’

Material snakes

and ladders

Material buffers

and passports

Relational snakes

and ladders

Relational buffers

and passports

Subjective snakes

and ladders

Subjective buffers

and passports

Material

e.g. market volatility

Uneven income stream

Income smoothing

Access to welfare receipts

mediated by

gatekeepe

Informal knowledg

e and networks

to navigate

Higher propensity

to be exposed

to economic

Re-appraising

daily situation

in a positive

21

rs institutions

stresses light

Appreciating the relational wellbeing aspects of vulnerability are also important for

developing a robust understanding. Of particular relevance here are institutions. As

North (1995: 23), noted, in his seminal work, institutions are the ‘humanly devised

constraints that structure human interaction...composed of formal rules...[and]

informal constraints’. While the risk of a household falling below the poverty line is

minimised in a society in which formal safety nets, such as the provision of basic

levels of welfare and social protection, exist, in many developing countries life is

‘non-insured’ (Duffield 2008). This relates to what Wood (2003) refers to as the

‘Faustian bargain’ (see also Kabeer 2002 for immediate needs/long-term goals

balancing among South Asian households). In the absence of welfare regimes which

reduce the uncertainties, poor people engage in certain kinds of risk management in

order to ensure security and survival in the present (Chambers, 1989). Longer-term

preparations are therefore foregone in favour of more immediate imperatives. In

such a situation, when formal welfare regimes are non-existent, informal institutions

take on a greater significance. Informal institutions are generally deeply connected

to the cultural and social norms of particular places, and can often provide a means

of coping when people become especially vulnerable to experiencing a particular

negative outcome. As an example, more than 25 years ago Bardhan (1984)

demonstrated how tied labour contracts – commonly thought of as ‘inefficient relics

of an age when slavery was condoned (Morduch 1995: 110) – actually mitigated the

risk for agricultural workers of facing low consumption levels in slow seasons

characterised by low employment rates. Another example might be reciprocity

arrangements and inter-household transfers whereby households cope with

misfortune by drawing on the resources of extended families and communities

(Morduch and Sharma 2002: 575). Table 7 illustrates.

Table 7. Examples of vulnerability viewed by a wellbeing lens (relational

stressor)

Variability –Shock or stressor

Wellbeing domainsMaterial wellbeing –

‘needs met’ and

Relational wellbeing –

‘ability to act

Subjective wellbeing –

‘life satisfaction’ and

22

‘practical welfare and standards of living’

meaningfully’ and ‘personal and social

relations’

‘values, perceptions and experience’

Material snakes

and ladders

Material buffers

and passports

Relational snakes

and ladders

Relational buffers

and passports

Subjective snakes

and ladders

Subjective buffers

and passports

Relational

e.g. loss of inter-household reciprocity arrangements due to change in personal circumstances

Loss of access to credit line

Taking ad-hoc

opportunities to earn

income

Loss of entitleme

nt to welfare receipts

Borderline non—

compliance with

welfare conditions

(eg. Conditiona

l cash transfers)

Isolation and

hopelessness

Group based

collective action (ie urban por collectives

).

A substantial portion of the diverse literature on vulnerability is devoted to exploring

the ways in which vulnerability, risks and hazards are above all else social

constructions or subjectivities. These studies dispute the idea that vulnerability is

preordained. For example, Quarantelli (2005) contends that a disaster is both socially

constructed and rooted in the particular social structure of the community which has

been affected by a given hazard. Depending on one’s characteristics – age, gender,

class, ethnicity, and so on – perceptions of what constitutes being or feeling

‘vulnerable’ can vary enormously. Research by Valentine (1989) into how public

spaces are experienced differently by men and women has discussed how

perceptions of vulnerability are shaped by this. However, Hollander (2002) found

that women actively resist the conventional construction of women’s vulnerability.

Capturing the subjectivity displayed in these two examples, Cannon (1994) explains

how, more broadly, the determination of vulnerability is a complex characteristic

formed by a mix of factors, themselves derived in large part from class, gender and

ethnicity and personal perceptions of vulnerability. The same ideas apply to

perceptions of risk. As Cutter (2003: 2) points out, if rational choice is framed in

relative (and therefore subjective) terms, then it is easier to understand an

‘irrational’ choice. The example she goes on to offer brings this point to light: ‘the

same risky behaviour (e.g. suicide bomber) would seem like a perfectly rational

choice in one setting (disenfranchisement of Palestinian youth), but appear as totally

irrational in another (American mass media). The value of a subjective approach to

23

vulnerability is that it compels us to question the assumptions that go into both

vulnerability assessments, as well as common attitudes towards vulnerabilities. It

also represents a step in the direction of privileging hitherto silenced voices, and

tailoring a perspective of vulnerability that is more contextually sensitive (see table

8).

Table 8. Examples of vulnerability viewed by a wellbeing lens (subjective

stressor)

Variability –Shock or stressor

Wellbeing domainsMaterial wellbeing –

‘needs met’ and ‘practical welfare and

standards of living’

Relational wellbeing –

‘ability to act meaningfully’ and

‘personal and social relations’

Subjective wellbeing –

‘life satisfaction’ and ‘values, perceptions and

experience’

Material snakes

and ladders

Material buffers

and passports

Relational snakes

and ladders

Relational buffers

and passports

Subjective snakes

and ladders

Subjective buffers

and passports

Subjective

e.g. lower caste identity

Poor access to

formal sector

employment

Taking informal

sector work

Discrimination in

access to state

institutions

Mediating state

institutions via non-

caste networks

Social exclusion

Collective action

based on caste

identity

4b. Resilience, agency and wellbeing

In terms of capacity to cope and resilience, wellbeing’s focus on the perceptual and

relational is inherently about agency and capacities to act meaningfully. A wellbeing

approach seeks to makes power more explicit in each dimension. This is not only as

material political economy (in Marx’s terms), but also as discourse (i.e Foucault), and

as embedded in norms, values and conventions (i.e. North’s institutions (see North,

1990) or Bourdieu’s habitus (1990).5 We can map dimensions of agency and capacity

to cope across the domains of wellbeing (here with a child focus again). This seeks to

build on research on agency and poor people (see review of Lister, 2004). Lister’s

(2004) taxonomy of agency exercised by those in poverty recognises that people’s

agency can be good/progressive and bad/regressive. Lister’s model has four

5 Although these last two are different disciplinary approaches there is some overlap in a focus on the formal and informal ‘rules of the game’ or ways of doing things For Bourdieu, power is an unconscious negotiation of an individual and her/his social environment as s/he unconsciously interacts with this environment to define his/her dispositions, tendencies, propensities and inclinations.

24

quadrants. The vertical axis is about actions poor people (and children) take to

improve their situation in the short-term and the horizontal axis is about long-term

actions. This stretches from everyday matters of ‘getting by’ and ‘getting back at’

(meaning rebellious behaviour) to more strategic matters of ‘getting out’ and ‘getting

organised’ (meaning collective action). The model could be applied to those who are

not in poverty too. When Lister talks of ‘getting’ by she is referring to the little things

people do in order to cope with everyday situations such as prioritising daily

expenditures and juggling resources. Of course everyone has to make these choices

but they are starker for those with fewer resources.

Redmond (2009) in his application of Lister’s approach to child agency provides

examples of child agency a such as children who take advantage of informal and ad-

hoc opportunities to earn income (ie agency in the material wellbeing domain), help

parents with housework and childcare (agency in the relational wellbeing domain)

and reappraise their daily situation in a positive light (agency in the subjective

wellbeing domain). We can start to map Redmond and Lister’s concepts of agency

across wellbeing domains. Their work particularly deals with the capacity to cope

aspects – providing examples of children’s agency or capacity to cope. Many of these

are slow burning stressors rather than acute crises. Redmond argues that children’s

agency – here anaylsed as examples of resilience or capacity to cope - is generally

exercised in the domains of the everyday and personal (what Lister terms ‘getting

by’, ‘getting back at’). Children are less likely to exert agency that is strategic and

political (‘getting out’, ‘getting organised’), although children can do this, especially

with the facilitation of adults (White and Choudhury (2007) discuss how adults can

provide ‘supplements and extensions’). Getting organised is constrained by people’s

subjectivities, for example, how they understand and account for their own

experiences and identities and the extent to which they experience belonging and

‘sameness’ with others. People overcome constraints to getting organised by

collective self-help, and political action. Individual agency is of course a product of

wider social forces. As Lister notes (2004:128) it is not only about how those in

poverty (including children) act, but also about how those in power act in relation to

them – in this discussion how poor as well as richer adults act with poor children.

Further, structures are perpetuated or modified by individual and collective action

25

and non-action. What matters is not just the system of cultural norms, values,

attitudes and behaviours that is transmitted across generations, but also the degree

to which a person assumes these or identifies herself with them.

26

Table 9. Agency and vulnerability by a wellbeing lens

Agency Dimension of wellbeing with examplesMaterial Relational Subjective

Material political economy (i.e. Marx), and the available resources

upon which children can call

Institutions (e.g. North), norms, and conventions, including the

formal/informal ‘rules of the game’ or ways of doing things in terms of

children-adult relationships

Power as discourse (i.e. Foucault) and embedded in values and ways of

seeing the world, (e.g. the social construction of ‘childhood’)

Material snakes and ladders

Material buffers and passports

Relational snakes and

ladders

Relational buffers and passports

Subjective snakes and

ladders

Subjective buffers and passports

Agency as everyday and personal

Getting by - coping strategies, personal and social resources, and augmenting resources through the informal economy

Taking advantage of informal and ad-hoc opportunities to earn income.

Helping parents with housework and childcare.

Reappraising daily situation in a positive light.

Getting back at - the channelling of anger and despair into activities and lifestyles that signal resistance to bureaucratic and social norms.

Petty crimes. Borderline non-compliance with rules and obligations of welfare receipts (i.e. conditional cash transfers).

Vandalism and drug/solvent use.

Agency as strategic and political

Getting out - seeking routes out of poverty via officially sanctioned responses to poverty

Children deciding to look for, or take work and/or education.

Children can and influence parental decisions to look for work, seek education etc.

27

Agency Dimension of wellbeing with examplesMaterial Relational Subjective

Getting organised – collective responses

Child labour collectives/unions.

Collective self-help, political action, and gendered action.

Child collective action based on identity as children or child-labourers, etc.

Source: Adapted from Sumner (2010).

28

5. CONCLUSIONS

5a. The point of departure

We noted at the outset that research has tended to view vulnerability by disciple or

sector and yet individuals and households experience multiple, interacting and

sometimes compounding vulnerabilities at the same time and that multi-dimensional

and compound vulnerability is only likely to come further to the fore. This paper has

sought to review different approaches to vulnerability in order to contribute to

understanding multi-dimensional vulnerability. This paper had drawn in particular on

Room’s (2000) ‘snakes and ladders’ and unexpected and expected variability that can

lead to advancement (ladder) or decline (snake) in wellbeing and ‘buffers and

passports’ to refer to resilience stock/capacities (buffers) and abilities to take

opportunities (passports).

5b. What does wellbeing add?

In light of the above what might a ‘Human Wellbeing’ approach contribute to the

analysis of vulnerability? First, insecurity is a dimension of poverty and illbeing in its

own right (subjective wellbeing) and perceptions of insecurity can frame and

influence both material and relational domains of wellbeing. The threat of hitting

critically low outcome levels (in any dimension) is already a form of hardship. Lack of

‘peace of mind’ is a form of deprivation (Wood, 2008). Second, if insecurity is chronic

or the ‘norm’ rather than a crisis/shock then wellbeing helps understand various

sources of stressors. Third, vulnerability and resilience are not opposites – resilience

is a sub-set of vulnerability as capacity to cope – and wellbeing helps to identify

material, relational and subjective dimensions. Fourth, a wellbeing lens helps with

analysis of information on the causes of vulnerability and consider the dynamics of

vulnerability before, during and after the hazard occurs. Fifth, wellbeing helps move

analysis from thresholds to continuums and dynamics – from vulnerability to poverty

(based on a poverty line threshold) to vulnerability to greater poverty severity and a

focus on processes as well as thresholds or the gradient of downward spiral. Sixth,

29

wellbeing can help with the ‘vulnerability/resilient to what’ question and to

identification of different entitlement losses. Not only in the material domain - land;

labour; state transfers; remittances but also the relational and subjective

dimensions.

5c. Key questions for researching vulnerability via a wellbeing lens

Key questions for future research that wellbeing could thus assist with are: What are

the endowments and buffers (or lack of them) that are especially likely to make

people vulnerable? How to understand that where people are located in society not

only plays a role in the different snakes and ladders they face but how their end

goals differ too by different tastes and goals and differences in capacities to cope

under adversity? Why are opportunities open to some as coping strategies

proscribed to others due to gender, ethnicity, class, etc? How does the nature of

exposure to harm - extent in time, quantity and weight of exposure, speed and

density (ie chronic or slow stressor) shape vulnerability and resilience? How do

major disinvestments as a result of snakes lead to future risks? How do entitlement

failure types – production-based entitlement; labour entitlements; trade

entitlements; transfer entitlements – interact with stressors and shocks? To what

extent are there ‘layers of resilience’ like an onion? (ie the formal welfare system of

the state if it exists; social relationship support in groups and networks, and

distressed asset sales and ill-health as coping mechanisms), and how are

vulnerability and resilience transmitted across time and generations?

30

REFERENCES

Alwang, J., Siegel, P. B. and S. L. Jorgensen (2001) ‘Vulnerability: A View From Different Disciplines’, Social Protection Discussion Paper Series No. 0115, Washington DC: The World BankAnnan, K. (2003) ‘Message for International Day for Disaster Reduction’, 8 October 2003Baker, S. M. (2009) ‘Vulnerability and Resilience in Natural Disasters: A Marketing and Public Policy Perspective’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 28, 1: 114-123Bankoff, G. (2001) ‘Rendering the World Unsafe: “Vulnerability” as Western Discourse’, Disasters, 25, 1: 19-35Bardhan, P. (1984) Land, Labour, and Rural Poverty: Essays in Development Economics, New York and Delhi: Oxford UniversityBirkmann, J. (2005) ‘Danger Need Not Spell Disaster – But How Vulnerable Are We?’, Research Brief (1), Tokyo: United Nations UniversityBirkmann, J. (2006) ‘Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks and definitions’, in J. Birkmann (ed.) Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies, New Delhi: TERIBohle, H-G. (2001) ‘Vulnerability and Criticality: Perspectives from Social Geography’, Newsletter of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, IHDP Update 2/2001: 1-7Bohle, H-G. (2002) ‘Editorial: The Geography of Vulnerable Food Systems’, Die Erde, 133, 4: 341-344Calvo, C. (2008) ‘Vulnerability to Multidimensional Poverty: Peru, 1998-2002’, World Development, 36, 6: 1011-1020Camfield, L. (2006) ‘The Why and How of Understanding “Subjective” Wellbeing: Exploratory Work by the WeD Group in Four Developing Countries’, WeD Working Paper 26, Bath: ESRC Research Group on Wellbeing in Developing CountriesCannon, T. (1994) ‘Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of natural disasters’, in A. Varley (ed.) Disasters, Development and Environment, Chichester: John WileyCardona, O. D. (2004) ‘The Need for Rethinking the Concepts of Vulnerability and Risk from a Holistic Perspective: A Necessary Review and Criticism for Effective Risk Management’, in G. Bankoff, G. Frerks and D. Hilhorst (eds.) Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People, London: EarthscanChristiaensen, L. J. and K. Subbaro (2004) ‘Toward an Understanding of Household Vulnerability in Rural Kenya’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3326, Washington DC: The World BankCutter, S. L. (2003) ‘The Vulnerability of Science and the Science of Vulnerability’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93, 1: 1-12Cutter, S. L., Mitchell, J. T. and M. S. Scott (2000) ‘Revealing the Vulnerability of People and Places: A Case Study of Georgetown Country, South Carolina’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90, 4: 713-737Dercon, S. (2005) ‘Risk, Poverty and Vulnerability in Africa’, Journal of African Economies, 14, 4: 483-488Dercon, S., Hoddinott, J. and T. Woldehanna (2005) ‘Shocks and Consumption in 15 Ethiopian Villages, 1999-2004’, Journal of African Economies, 14, 4: 559-585Dercon, S. and Joseph S. Shapiro (2007). Moving On, Staying Behind, Getting Lost: Lessons on

31

poverty mobility from longitudinal data. ESRC Global Poverty Research Group: Manchester. Devereux, S. (2009) ‘Why does famine persist in Africa?’, Food Security, 1: 25-35De Waal, A. (2006) AIDS and Power: Why There is No Political Crisis – Yet, London: Zed BooksDilley, M. and T. E. Boudreau (2001) ‘Coming to terms with vulnerability: a critique of the food security definition’, Food Policy, 26: 229-247Dreze, J. and A. Sen (1989) Hunger and Public Action, Oxford: Oxford UniversityDuffield, M. (2008) ‘Global Civil War: The Non-Insured, International Containment and Post-Interventionary Society’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 21, 2: 145-165Elahi, K. Q-I. (2006) ‘Entitlement Failure and Deprivation: a Critique of Sen’s Famine Philosophy’, Journal of Development Studies, 42, 4: 541-558Elson, D. (1999) ‘Labor Markets as Gendered Institutions: Equality, Efficiency and Empowerment Issues’, World Development, 27, 3: 611-627Fine, B. (1997) ‘Entitlement Failure?’, Development and Change, 28: 617-647Fussel, H-M. (2007) ‘Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research’, Global Environmental Change, 17, 2: 155-167Gaillard, J. C. (2010) ‘Vulnerability, Capacity and Resilience: Perspectives for Climate and Development Policy’, Journal of International Development, 22: 218-232Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory, Berkeley: University of CaliforniaHaines, A., Kovats, R. S., Campbell-Lendrum, D. and C. Corvalan (2006) ‘Climate change and human health: impacts, vulnerability, and mitigation’, The Lancet, 367: 2101-2109Hart, T. (2009) ‘Exploring definitions of food insecurity and vulnerability: time to refocus assessments’, Agrekon, 48, 4: 362-383Hilhorst, D. and G. Bankoff (2004) ‘Introduction: Mapping Vulnerability’, in G. Bankoff, G. Frerks and D. Hilhorst (eds.) Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People, London: EarthscanHollander, J. A. (2002) ‘Resisting Vulnerability: The Social Reconstruction of Gender in Interaction’, Social Problems, 49, 4: 474-496Holzmann, R. and S. Jorgensen (2000) ‘Social Risk Management: A Conceptual Framework for Social Protection and Beyond’, Social Protection Discussion Paper No. 0006, Washington DC: The World BankHussein, K., Sumberg, J. and D. Seddon (1999) ‘Increasing Violent Conflict between Herders and Farmers in Africa: Claims and Evidence’, Development Policy Review, 17: 397-418Kabeer, N. (2002) ‘Safety Nets and Opportunity Ladders: Addressing Vulnerability and Enhancing Productivity in South Asia’, Development Policy Review, 20, 5: 589-614Kirby, P. (2006) Vulnerability and Violence: The Impact of Globalization, London: PlutoKrishnan, P. (1997) ‘Poverty’, paper for the Indicators of Poverty Workshop, 8 October 1997, London: ODILeichenko, R. M. and K. L. O’Brien (2002) ‘The dynamics of rural vulnerability to global change: the case of southern Africa’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 7: 1-18

32

Morduch, J. (1995) ‘Income Smoothing and Consumption Smoothing’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 3: 103-114Morduch, J. and M. Sharma (2002) ‘Strengthening Public Safety Nets from the Bottom Up’, Development Policy Review, 20, 5: 569-588Moser, C. O. N. (1998) ‘The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies’, World Development, 26, 1: 1-19North, D. C. (1995) ‘The New Institutional Economics and Third World Development’, in J. Harriss, J. Hunter & C. M. Lewis (eds), The New Institutional Economics and Third World Development, London: RoutledgeO’Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venema, H., Aandahl, G., Tompkins, H., Javed, A., Bhadwal, S., Barg, S., Nygaard, L. and J. West (2004) ‘Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India’, Global Environmental Change, 14: 303-313Quarantelli, E. L. (2005) ‘A Social Science Research Agenda for the Disasters of the 21st Century: Theoretical, Methodological and Empirical Issues and their Professional Implementation’, in R. W. Perry and E. L. Quarantelli (eds.) What Is a Disaster? New Answers to Old Questions, Philadelphia: XlibrisRibot, J. C. (2009) ‘Vulnerability does not just Fall from the Sky: Toward Multi-scale Pro-poor Climate Policy’, in R. Mearns and A. Norton (eds.) The Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World, Washington DC: The World BankSen, A. (1981) Poverty and Famines, Oxford: ClarendonSperanza, C. I. (2006) ‘Gender-Based Analysis of Vulnerability to Drought among Agro-Pastoral Households in Semi-Arid Makueni District, Kenya’, in S. Premchander and C. Muller (eds.) Gender and Sustainable Development: Case Studies form NCCR North-South, Bern: Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research North-South, University of BernStephen, L. and T. E. Downing (2001) ‘Getting the Scale Right: A Comparison of Analytical Methods for Vulnerability Assessment and Household-level Targeting’, Disasters, 25, 2: 113-135Thywissen, K. (2006) ‘Core terminology of disaster reduction: A comparative glossary’, in J. Birkmann (ed.) Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies, New Delhi: TERIValentine, G. (1989) ‘The geography of women’s fear’, Area, 21, 4: 385-390Van Dillen, S. (2004) ‘Different Choices: Assessing Vulnerability in a South Indian Village’, Studies in Development Geography, Saarbrucken: Verlag fur EntwicklungspolitikVatsa, K. S. (2004) ‘Risk, vulnerability, and asset-based approach to disaster risk management’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 24, 10/11: 1-48Vatsa, K. S. and F. Krimgold (2000) ‘Financing Disaster Mitigation for the Poor’, in A. Kreimer and M. Arnold (eds.) Managing Disaster Risk in Emerging Economies, Washington DC: The World BankWebb, P. and A. Harinarayan (1999) ‘A Measure of Uncertainty: The Nature of Vulnerability and Its Relationship to Malnutrition’, Disasters, 23, 4: 292-305Webb, P., von Brau, J. and Y. Yohannes (1992) ‘Famine in Ethiopia: Policy Implications of Coping Failure at National and Household Levels’, Research Report 92, Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute

33

Abbitt, R. J. F., Scott, J. M. and D. S. Wilcove (2000) ‘The geography of vulnerability: incorporating species geography and human development patterns into conservation planning’, Biological Conservation, 96: 169-175Adger, W. N. (1999) ‘Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and Extremes in Coastal Vietnam’, World Development, 27, 2: 249-269Alwang, J., Siegel, P. B. and S. L. Jorgensen (2001) ‘Vulnerability: A View From Different Disciplines’, Social Protection Discussion Paper Series No. 0115, Washington DC: The World BankBarrett, C. (1999) ‘On Vulnerability, Asset Poverty and Subsidiarity’, Comments to the Ford/Rockefeller Foundations Seminar Series Managing Vulnerability and Shocks within the Agro-Food System, New York, May 26 1999Bird, K., McKay, A. and I. Shinyelawa (2007) Isolation and poverty in Uganda: applying an index of isolation, paper presented at the International Workshop on Understanding and Addressing Spatial Poverty Traps, 29 March 2007, StellenboschBirkmann, J. (2006) ‘Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks and definitions’, in J. Birkmann (ed.) Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies, New Delhi: TERIBlaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and B. Wisner (1994) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters, New York: RoutledgeBriguglio, L., Cordina, G., Farrugia, N. and S. Vella (2009) ‘Economic Vulnerability and Resilience: Concepts and Measurements’, Oxford Development Studies, 37, 3, 229-247Chambers, R. (1987) Sustainable Livelihoods, Environment and Development: Putting Poor People First, Discussion Paper 240, Sussex: IDSChambers, R. (1989) ‘Editorial Introduction: Vulnerability, coping and policy’, IDS Bulletin, 20, 2: 1-7Chambers, R. and G. Conway (1992) ‘Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century’, IDS Discussion Paper 296, Brighton: IDSCutter, S. L., Mitchell, J. T. and M. S. Scott (2000) ‘Revealing the Vulnerability of People and Places: A Case Study of Georgetown Country, South Carolina’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90, 4: 713-737De Haan, L. and A. Zoomers (2005) ‘Exploring the Frontier of Livelihood Research’, Development and Change, 36, 1: 27-47Dercon, S. (ed.) (2005) Insurance against Poverty, Oxford: Oxford UniversityDilley, M. and T. E. Boudreau (2001) ‘Coming to terms with vulnerability: a critique of the food security definition’, Food Policy, 26: 229-247Guillaumont, P. (2009) ‘An Economic Vulnerability Index: Its Design and Use for International Development Policy’, Oxford Development Studies, 37, 3: 193-227Guimaraes, R. J. R. (2007) ‘Searching for the Vulnerable: A Review of the Concepts and Assessments of Vulnerability Related to Poverty’, European Journal of Development Research, 19, 2: 234-250IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University

34

Jaspers, S. and J. Shoham (1999) ‘Targeting the Vulnerable: A Review of the Necessity and Feasibility of Targeting Vulnerable Households’, Disasters, 23, 4: 359-372Kirby, P. (2006) Vulnerability and Violence: The Impact of Globalization, London: PlutoKuhl, J. J. (2003) ‘Disaggregating household vulnerability – analyzing fluctuations in consumption using a simulation approach’, Manuscript: Institute of Economics, University of CopenhagenLigon, E. and L. Schechter (2003) ‘Measuring Vulnerability’, Economic Journal, 113, 486: 95-110Makoka, D. and M. Kaplan (2005) ‘Poverty and Vulnerability – An Interdisciplinary Approach’, MPRA Paper 6964, Munich Personal RePEc Archive: University of BonnMaxwell, D., Levin, C., Armar-Klemesu, M., Ruel, M., Morris, S and C. Ahaideke (2000) Urban Livelihoods and Food and Nutrition Security in Greater Accra, Ghana. Research Report 112. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPI): Washington, D.C.McFadden, L. and C. Green (2007) ‘Defining “vulnerability”: conflicts, complexities and implications for Coastal Zone Management’, Journal of Coastal Research, 50: 120-124Moser, C. O. N. (1998) ‘The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies’, World Development, 26, 1: 1-19Moser, C. and J. Holland (1997) ‘Household Responses to Poverty and Vulnerability. Volume 4: Confronting Crisis in Cawama, Lusaka, Zambia’, Urban Management Programme Report No. 24, Washington DC: The World BankNaude, W., McGillivray, M. and S. Rossouw (2009) ‘Measuring the Vulnerability of Subnational Regions in South Africa’, Oxford Development Studies, 37, 3: 249-275Naude, W., Santos-Paulino, A. U. and M. McGillivray (2009) ‘Measuring Vulnerability: An Overview and Introduction’, Oxford Development Studies, 37, 3: 183-191Rogers, A. C. (1996) ‘Vulnerability, health and health care’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26: 65-72Saunders, R. (2003) ‘Defining Vulnerability in the Labour Market’, Vulnerable Workers Series No. 1: Work Network, Canadian Policy Research NetworksShu, S. C-F. (1999) ‘Housing Layout and Crime Vulnerability’, in F. Holanda (ed.) Proceedings, Second International Symposium on Space Syntax, Universade de Brasilia, 29 March – 2 April 1999Tipple, G. (2005) ‘Housing and Urban Vulnerability in Rapidly-Developing Cities’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 13, 2: 66-75Turvey, R. (2007) ‘Vulnerability assessment of developing countries: the case of small island developing states’, Development Policy Review, 25, 2: 243-264Yohannes, Y. and P. Webb (1999) ‘Classification and Regression Trees, CART: A User Manual for Identifying Indicators of Vulnerability to Famine and Chronic Food Insecurity’, Microcomputers in Policy Research Paper No. 3, Washington: International Food Policy Research InstituteZhang, Y. and G. Wan (2006) ‘An Empirical Analysis of Household Vulnerability in Rural China’, Journal of Asia Pacific Economy, 11, 2: 196-212Zhang, Y. and G. Wan (2009) ‘How Precisely Can We Estimate Vulnerability to Poverty?’, Oxford Development Studies, 37, 3: 277-28.

35

36