Vulnerability and Poverty: What are the causes

and how are they related?

Prepared by

Damas Philip and Md. Israt Rayhan

Term paper for Interdisciplinary Course, International Doctoral Studies

Program at ZEF, Bonn

November, 2004
 ABSTRACT

This paper aims to analyze how the terms ‘vulnerability’ and ‘poverty’ can be elucidated
in a variety of ways, with different meanings, different implications and their
interrelationship. The analysis shows poverty is generally associated with deprivation of
health, education, food, knowledge, influence over one’s environment and the many other
things that make the difference between truly living and merely surviving. There is
another universal aspect of poverty, which makes it particularly painful and difficult to
escape is: Vulnerability. The poor are more vulnerable than any other group to health
hazards, economic down-turns, natural catastrophes, and even man-made violence.
Shocks such as illness, injury and loss of livelihood have dreadful impacts, and are
significant causes of poverty. Scholars argue that vulnerability and poverty are comprised
of economic, social, cultural, political and environmental factors, thus to identify the full
range of factors, this paper encompasses an interdisciplinary analysis with some case
studies from developing countries.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We wish to express our heartiest gratitude to Dr. Ulrike Grote for her inspiration and
supervision to complete our term paper in time. We are grateful to all the Authors of our
reviewed literatures. In addition, we would like to articulate our sincere thanks to ZEF
officials for their kind support.

iii
 ACRONYMS

ADB Asian Development Bank

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
FY Fiscal Year
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
ILO International Labor Organization
IMF International Monetary Fund
NGO Non Governmental Organization(s)
UK United Kingdom
UNDP United Nations Development Program
USD United States Dollar
WHO World Health Organization

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................. II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .........................................................................................................................III

ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................. IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................V

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................... VI

LIST OF APPENDICES............................................................................................................................ VI

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW: VULNERABILITY AND POVERTY CONCEPTS .......................... 2

2.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF POVERTY AND COPING VULNERABILITY .................................... 2

2.2 THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ....................................................... 3
2.3 THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO POVERTY ANALYSIS .................................................................. 4
2.4 VULNERABILITY AND POVERTY: WHAT DO THEY MEAN? ............................................................ 5
2.4.1 The Meaning of Vulnerability ................................................................................................ 5
2.4.2 The Meaning of Poverty ......................................................................................................... 7
2.5 UNDERLYING CAUSES FOR POVERTY AND VULNERABILITY ........................................................ 8
2.5.1 Causes of Vulnerability .......................................................................................................... 8
2.5.2 Causes of Poverty ................................................................................................................... 9
2.6 MEASURING POVERTY AND VULNERABILITY ............................................................................. 11
2.6.1 Measuring Vulnerability....................................................................................................... 11
2.6.2 Measuring Poverty................................................................................................................ 11

3. INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POVERTY AND VULNERABILITY............................ 11

3.1 ECOLOGICAL VULNERABILITY AFFECTING ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY ................................... 12

3.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VULNERABILITY TOWARDS THE POOR................................. 13
3.3 GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND LOCAL POVERTY ................................................... 14

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 15

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 17

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................. 21

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Poverty-HIV/AIDS-Association ....................................................................... 10

Figure 2: Poverty-Vulnerability-HIV/AIDS-Linkage via child labor .............................. 14

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Indicators for measuring the multiple dimensions of vulnerability ............ 21

Appendix 2: UNDP measures of poverty ........................................................................ 22

vi
1. INTRODUCTION

The understanding of the concepts of poverty, vulnerability and their linkage is important
in the efforts to improve the standards of living in the world. Whilst vulnerability has
often been closely associated with poverty, it has also been seen as being distinct.
Historically, vulnerability has been seen as a dynamic concept which recognizes and
captures change, poverty has been seen as being static (Moser, 1998). However, the
increasing realization that poverty itself is dynamic, “that some of the poor are not poor
all of the time” (Yaqub 2000) means that the historical harmony has been established
between poverty and vulnerability.

Poverty is mainly viewed as an indicator of lack of access to resources and income

opportunities, but it has other aspects of social positioning such as geographical location,
age, gender, class, ethnicity, community structure, community decision making
processes, and political issues that determine poor people’s vulnerability (Yodmani,
2001). Poor households often identify vulnerability as a condition that takes into account
both exposures to serious risks and defenselessness against deprivation. Defenselessness
in turn is often seen as a function of social marginalization that ultimately results in
economic marginalization. Since understanding the linkages between poverty and
vulnerability calls for a clear understanding of these terms, consequently the paper is an
effort to review the different meanings and cause-effect relationship of vulnerability and
poverty using an interdisciplinary approach.

In this paper, we examined the causes of, link between poverty and vulnerability. In order
to achieve the objectives, this paper comprises reviews of various studies on poverty and
vulnerability. A few case studies of some developing countries have been presented to
substantiate the various arguments raised in this paper.

The paper encompasses four main sections. The first section provides a general
introduction of the concepts of vulnerability and poverty, objectives and organization of
this paper. The second section possesses a review of literatures. The review is mainly
based on the historical background, theoretical approach, meaning, causes,

1
measurements, indicators, dimensions and dynamics of poverty and vulnerability. This is
followed by the third section which describes the interrelationship between poverty and
vulnerability based on case studies. The last section gives summary and
recommendations.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW: VULNERABILITY AND POVERTY

CONCEPTS

2.1 Historical Background of Poverty and Coping Vulnerability

Poverty is blessed with a rich vocabulary, in all cultures and throughout history.
Rowntree’s study, published in 1901 was the first to develop a poverty standard for
individual families, based on estimates of nutritional and other requirements. In the
1960s, the main focus was on the level of income, reflected in macro-economic indicators
like Gross National Product per head. In the 1970s, poverty became prominent, notably
as a result of MacNamara’s celebrated speech to the World Bank Board of Governors in
Nairobi in 1973. Other factors that played a big role include the emphasis on relative
deprivation, inspired by work in the UK by Runciman and Townsend. Townsend had the
opinion that poverty was not just a failure to meet minimum nutrition or subsistence
levels, but rather a failure to keep up with the standards prevalent in a given society.
Thus, following ILO’s pioneering work in the mid-1970s, poverty came to be defined not
just as lack of income, but also as lack of access to health, education and other services.

The concept of basic needs inspired policies like integrated rural development. New
layers of complexity were added in the 1980s. The principal innovations were: (a) The
incorporation of non-monetary aspects, particularly as a result of Robert Chambers’ work
on powerlessness and isolation. (b) A new interest in vulnerability, and its counterpart,
security, associated with better understanding of seasonality and of the impact of shocks,
notably drought. This pointed to the importance of assets as buffers, and also to social
relations (the moral economy, social capital). It led to new work on coping strategies. (c)
A broadening of the concept of poverty to a wider construct, livelihood. (d) Theoretical
work by Amartya Sen (1981), who had earlier contributed the notion of food entitlement,

2
or access, emphasized that income was only valuable in so far as it increased the
capabilities of individuals and thereby permitted functionings in society. (e) A rapid
increase in the study of gender. Policies followed to empower women and find ways to
underpin autonomy, or agency. In 1990s UNDP developed the idea of human
development: ‘the denial of opportunities and choices to lead a long, healthy, creative life
and to enjoy a decent standard of living, freedom, dignity and self-esteem’.1

2.2 Theoretical Approaches to Vulnerability Analysis

The conception of vulnerability has been amended and adapted in various approaches.
For example: The biophysical approach mainly focuses on the vulnerability or
degradation of biophysical conditions. The approach extrapolates the biophysical
estimates to the impact on the human occupants of a landscape (Liverman, 1990). This
approach is widely used in studies of vulnerability to natural hazards and climate change
(Hewitt, 1995; Clark et al., 2000). Key articles from a development and sectoral
perspective include Bohle and Watts (1993). Studies on climate change explorations
include Adger and Kelly (1999), Bohle et al. (1994), Downing et al. (2001), Handmer et
al. (1999), Kasperson et al. (2002), Leichenko and O’Brien (2002), and Bogardi (2004).
The human ecological approach essentially embeds human systems within ecological
processes (e.g., Moran, 1990). The Political Economic Approach is based on the theory
of marginalization (Susman et al., 1983) and food entitlements (Sen, 1981). It emphasizes
the central role that differential economic and political power play in determining
differential vulnerability of individuals and groups (Greenberg et al., 1994). The
approach has been criticized for neglecting historical diversity of response,
underemphasizing the role of human agency, and diminishing the role of the environment
as an independent factor that affects social relations (Bryant, 1992). Political ecological
approach to vulnerability uses a political ecological view in vulnerability analysis. An
example of a research project that employed this methodology is a project aimed at
understanding vulnerability in Southern Honduras (Stonich, 1993).

1
Depicted from ‘The Meaning and Measurement of Poverty’ by Simon Maxwell (1999)

3
2.3 Theoretical Approaches to Poverty Analysis

The main objective of all approaches of poverty analysis is primarily to determine who
are the poor households, individuals, or groups of individuals? There are two main
approaches for estimating welfare for the purposes of analyzing poverty: Those that are
based on an indicator of welfare, hence the name of the welfare approach which refers to
the microeconomic concept of utility. The second approach is known as the non-welfare
approach which is basically regarded as being more social in character than the welfare
approach (Boccanfuso, 2004).

The welfare approach refers to the numerous microeconomic precepts that postulate that
economic actors are rational and that they behave in ways to maximize their benefit
(welfare). Since economic welfare is not observable, the welfarist school has fallen back
on real income and consumption expenditures as indicators of economic welfare. This is
the approach advocated by the World Bank, the IMF, and the main development partners
(Boccanfuso, 2004).

The non-welfare approach is more sociological in nature. In contrast to the previous

approach, this has to date been a multidimensional approach. There are two schools under
this approach: The first is the basic needs school and the second is the capabilities. The
basic needs approach appeared in its operational guise in the 1970s in response to the
policies for the fight against poverty proposed by the welfarists, and particularly to the
policies of growth trumpeted as a tool for reducing poverty. It views poverty as a problem
of unacceptable social inequality (Kanbur, 2002). Sen's(1981) school of capabilities
approach was also developed in opposition to the welfare approach. The aim in this
approach is for an individual or household to have the capacity to function well in society
and not solely on the basis of its own functions. In this context, this agent cannot be
considered poor, even if she/he decides not to achieve certain functions, provided that he
has the possibility to select them from the total range of functions.

4
2.4 Vulnerability and Poverty: What do they mean?

2.4.1 The Meaning of Vulnerability

Generally the term vulnerability refers to exposure to contingencies and stress, and
difficulty in coping with them. We have seen how increased attention is currently being
paid to the concept of vulnerability, this section provides a review of the views of various
authors regarding the meaning of vulnerability.

Chambers and Ellis - internal and external

The starting point in disaggregating vulnerability is the internal/external distinction
proposed by Chambers (1989): “Vulnerability thus has two sides: an external side of
risks, shocks, and stress to which an individual is subject to; and an internal side which is
defenseless, meaning a lack of means to cope without damaging loss. Loss can take many
forms-becoming or being physically weaker, economically impoverished, socially
dependent, humiliated or psychologically harmed”.

Moser – sensitivity and resilience

Moser (1998) also utilizes a two-step model of vulnerability but uses the concepts of
sensitivity and resilience to significantly change the focus and emphasis of Chamber’s
internal/external distinction. “Analyzing vulnerability involves identifying not only the
threat but also the resilience or responsiveness in exploiting opportunities, and in
resisting or recovering from the negative effects of a changing environment. The means
of resistance are the assets and entitlements that individuals, households, or communities
can mobilize and manage in the face of hardship. Vulnerability is therefore closely linked
to asset ownership. The more assets people have the less vulnerable they are, and the
greater the erosion of people’s assets, the greater their insecurity”.

Watts and Bohle - exposure, capacity and potentiality

The Watts and Bohle’s (1993) definition of the ‘space of vulnerability’ shows exposure
(risk of exposure to hazards) as the external side of vulnerability, whilst capacity (risk of
inadequate capacity to mobilize resources to deal with hazards) and potentiality (the risk

5
of severe consequences) form a more complex understanding of the internal side of
vulnerability.

Sinha and Lipton - exposure, vulnerability and aversion

Sinha and Lipton (1999) describe exposure to Damaging Fluctuations (DF) (this is
increased with size, frequency, earliness and bunching and correlates to what Watts and
Bohle also describe as exposure), the vulnerability to exposure (this increases with
unpredictability, co-variance with other DFs and exposure relatively to the portfolio of
assets and activities, this correlates roughly to capacity), and aversion (this increases with
exposure, vulnerability and experience, and correlates to potentiality).

Furthermore, Clark et al. (2000) define vulnerability "as the risk of adverse outcomes to
receptors or exposure units (human groups, ecosystems, and communities) in the face of
relevant changes in climate, other environmental variables, and social conditions."
Vulnerability has also been defined as “a human condition or process resulting from
physical, social, economic and environmental factors, which determine the likelihood and
scale of damage from the impact of a given hazard” (UNDP, 2004).

Vulnerability as Risk
Chronic exposure to risks is a crucially important source of vulnerability. Risks are varied
in nature and can range from macroeconomic shock, natural disaster, health hazard,
personal insecurity, and socially compulsive expenses such as dowry. Each of these
categories contains rich subset of varieties. Macroeconomic shocks can be caused by
changes in the external trading environment and/or as a consequence of domestic policies
(Kamanou, 2002). Natural disasters involve crop damage, housing and similar damages
caused by cyclone, flood, river erosion as well as drought and rising salinity. Health
hazards include both expenditures on member illness and livestock death through
diseases. Personal insecurity includes theft, eviction from land, money cheating, land
litigation, physical assault, physical threats, police harassment, court/police expenses,
rape and abandonment of women. Dowry includes expenses incurred on daughter’s
marriage. Others include death of the main earner.

6
2.4.2 The Meaning of Poverty
Poverty - just like its conceptual and social structural opposite pole, wealth - has many
dimensions and manifestations. It always means a reduced (or complete lack of) access to
material, economic, social, political or cultural resources needed to satisfy basic needs.
As a multidimensional phenomenon, poverty is defined and measured in a multitude of
ways. This section describes the various meanings of poverty.

Absolute and relative poverty

Poverty can be viewed in absolute and relative terms. Absolute poverty refers to
subsistence below minimum, socially acceptable living conditions, usually established
based on nutritional requirements and other essential goods (e.g. per capita income under
a certain arbitrarily fixed poverty line in USD per unit of time, a daily intake of less than
2,150 calories/person/day, or Human Development Index). Relative poverty compares the
lowest segments of a population with upper segments, usually measured in income
quintiles or deciles, may be quantified by concentrating on a small number of key
indicators such as the share, in national wealth or income, possessed by 20% of the
poorest inhabitants of a country.

Objective and subjective perspectives

Poverty can be approached from objective or subjective perspectives. The objective
perspective (sometimes referred to as the welfare approach) involves normative
judgments as to what constitutes poverty and what is required to move people out of their
impoverished state. The subjective approach places a premium on people’s preferences,
on how much they value goods and services (hence the emphasis on individual utility).

Physiological and sociological deprivations

Poverty concepts can be divided into two types of deprivations—physiological and
sociological. Regarding the former, the line of thinking is as follows: people are poor
because they lack income, food, clothing and shelter. Both the income and basic needs
concepts of poverty stem from physiological deprivations. The concepts of poverty
emerging from the perspective of sociological deprivations are rooted in the underlying
structural inequities and inherent disadvantages. They are based on observations that even

7
when resources are flowing into sectors dominated by the poor, they may not be able to
take full advantage because of social structural impediments.

Poverty, equity, human rights and health: the links

The links between the concepts of poverty, equity, and human rights in relation to health
are many and profound. Both equity and human rights principles dictate striving for equal
opportunity for health for groups of people who have historically suffered discrimination
or social marginalization. Achieving equal opportunity for health entails not only
buffering the health-damaging effects of poverty and marginalization: it requires reducing
disparities between populations in the underlying conditions — such as education, living
standards, and environmental exposures — necessary to be healthy. Thus, both human
rights and equity perspectives require that health institutions deal with poverty and health
not only by providing care to improve the health of the poor but also by helping to alter
the conditions that create, exacerbate, and perpetuate poverty and marginalization.

2.5 Underlying Causes for Poverty and Vulnerability

2.5.1 Causes of Vulnerability

Many factors contribute to vulnerability. These factors act to undermine capacity for self-
protection, blocks or diminish access to social protection, delays or complicate recovery,
or expose some groups to greater or more frequent hazards than other groups. They
include rapid population growth, poverty and hunger, poor health, low levels of
education, gender inequality, fragile and hazardous location, and lack of access to
resources and services, including knowledge and technological means, disintegration of
social patterns (social vulnerability). Other causes includes; lack of access to information
and knowledge, lack of public awareness, limited access to political power and
representation (political vulnerability), (Aysan,1993). When people are socially
disadvantaged or lack political voice, their vulnerability is exacerbated further. The
economic vulnerability is related to a number of interacting elements, including its
importance in the overall national economy, trade and foreign-exchange earnings, aid and
investments, international prices of commodities and inputs, and production and

8
consumption patterns. Environmental vulnerability concerns land degradation,
earthquake, flood, hurricane, drought, storms (Monsoon rain, El Niño), water scarcity,
deforestation, and the other threats to biodiversity.

2.5.2 Causes of Poverty

The causes of poverty can be attributed to different processes and multifaceted forces.
This section tries to highlight some causes of the wide prevalence of poverty.

Warfare: The material and human destruction caused by warfare is a major development
problem. For example, from 1990 to 1993, the period encompassing Desert Storm2, per
capita GDP in Iraq fell from $3500 to $761 (Dercon, 2001). The drop in average income,
while a striking representation of the drop in the well-being of the average Iraqi citizen in
the aftermath of the war, fails to capture the broader affects of damages to the
infrastructure and social services, such as health care and access to clean water. However,
there is no doubt that the persistent civil wars, like in the case of Angola, Mozambique
and Liberia have contributed significantly in impoverishing those countries.

Agricultural Cycles and Natural Disasters: Many families that rely on subsistence
production for survival, the period immediately prior to harvest is a 'hungry period.'
During these periods of scarcity, many families lack sufficient resources to meet their
minimal nutritional needs. Moreover, natural disasters such as hurricanes, droughts,
flooding and earthquakes have devastated communities throughout the world. Developing
countries often suffer much more extensive and acute crises at the hands of natural
disasters, because limited resources inhibit the construction of adequate housing,
infrastructure, and mechanisms for responding to crises.

Corruption and Social Inequality: Corruption often accompanies centralization of power,

when leaders are not accountable to those they serve. Most directly, corruption inhibits
development when leaders help themselves with money that would otherwise be used for
development projects. There is another source of poverty throughout the world is social
inequality that stems from cultural ideas about the relative worth of different genders,

2
The name of mission to liberate Kuwait in 1991
9
races, ethnic groups, and social classes. Ascribed inequality works by placing individuals
in different social categories at birth, often based on religious, ethnic, or racial
characteristics. For example in South African history, apartheid laws defined a binary
caste system that assigned different rights (or lack thereof) and social spaces to Whites
and Blacks, using skin color to automatically determine the opportunities available to
individuals in each group.

Pervasive Illiteracy and Wide Spread Diseases: In least developed countries there is a
high level of illiteracy. This is a very big problem in improving the livelihoods of people.
The poor, who are also illiterate, have a limited chance of making use of improved
production technologies and preventive health services. That is why diseases such as HIV
and Malaria have exacerbated the already precarious conditions of the poor. Diseases
increase expenditure on health, at the same time reduces effective working time thus
plummeting labor productivity and availability in the households. The association
between diseases and poverty can be easily depicted using the case of HIV-AIDS.

Figure 1: Poverty-HIV/AIDS-Association

Source: Kelk (2003)

10
2.6 Measuring Poverty and Vulnerability

2.6.1 Measuring Vulnerability

Vulnerability to poverty can be measured as the risk a household or community will fall
into poverty at least once in the next few years. This means that vulnerability is measured
as a probability. Since the future is uncertain, the magnitude of vulnerability rises with
the time horizon. Reviewing articles we tried to merge some important indicators for
measuring the multiple dimensions of vulnerability in Appendix 1.

2.6.2 Measuring Poverty

The complexity of poverty has lead to the development of various forms of
measurements. Economists have given a great deal of attention to the functional form of
a poverty measure, such as how the measure should respond to changes in distribution
below the poverty line. A poverty line is defined as the monetary cost to a given person,
at a given place and time, of a reference level of welfare. People who do not attain that
level of welfare are deemed poor, and those who do are not (Ravallion, 1998). The
poverty line can be established by using the equivalent expenditure method or the food
energy intake method. Reviewing literatures we found some important indicators of
poverty showed in Appendix 2.

3. INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POVERTY AND

VULNERABILITY: CASE STUDIES AND ANALYSIS

Some researchers claimed that there are two differing perspectives on vulnerability. The
first perspective may be called the ‘risks-centric view’ whereby vulnerability is typically
defined as variability in the living standard caused by consumption or income shocks.
The second perspective may be called the ‘rights-centric view’ whereby vulnerability is
caused by the lack of social and political rights. Both the views are important in
understanding how poverty and vulnerability are interlocked. These views attach
importance to differing dimensions of poverty. The risks-centric view tends to highlight

11
transient poverty while the rights-centric view focuses on chronic poverty, though;
admittedly, there is a considerable gray area between the two.

Poorer nations and disadvantaged groups within nations are more vulnerable to disasters
than the rich nations. It is usually the poor who are among the most vulnerable to famine,
malnutrition, and hunger. At a local level the highest levels of household vulnerability are
characterized by low household incomes. Adder and Kelly (1999) also demonstrated the
influence of poverty on a region's coping capacity; poor regions tend to have less diverse
and more restricted entitlements and a lack of empowerment to adapt.

3.1 Ecological Vulnerability Affecting Economic Sustainability

Case study 1: Bangladesh is a prime example of a country that is particularly vulnerable

to today’s climate. With a low-lying coastline, high population density, and an economy
highly dependent on agriculture, the lives and livelihoods of people are threatened by
frequent floods, cyclones and the associated effects, such as saltwater intrusion, that
render agricultural lands unproductive. Between 1974 and 2004, In 1998, about 68
percent of the country’s geographical area was flooded, affecting more than 30 million
people. Economic losses were estimated at US$3.3 billion, equivalent to 8 percent of the
country’s GDP (Choudhury 1998). The 2004 floods are likely to be as devastating as the
1998 floods in many ways. The joint mission’s preliminary estimates3 show that total
damage to assets and output losses are approximately Tk127 billion (about $2.2 billion)
or 3.9% of GDP ($56.9 billion in FY2004), most of which correspond to lost assets.
Residential housing, roads, bridges, crops, fisheries, and livestock have suffered the most
damage. The largest assets and output loss occurred in the agriculture (including
livestock and fisheries) sector, which was estimated at Tk34 billion ($580 million) or
27% of the overall loss.

3
A joint ADB and World Bank (WB) damage and needs assessment mission was fielded from 12
to 27 September 2004. The mission held discussions with a multitude of agencies, including all
concerned government agencies, UN agencies, development partners, NGOs, public and private
institutions, and academics.

12
Case study 2: El Niño is associated with floods and droughts in Latin America, Asia, and
Africa. El Niño has caused loss of life, destroyed livelihoods, and affected national
economies. For Ecuador, the overall costs of direct damages to agriculture, livestock and
fishing associated with the 1997–98 El Niño constituted 4.7 % of its agricultural GDP.
Loss of harvest and rising unemployment of agricultural workers led to an increase in the
incidence of poverty by 10 percentage points in the affected municipalities (Vos et al.
1999). In Tanzania, high rainfall due to the 1998 El Niño was followed by a two-year
period of erratic rainfall. This climatic shock caused some of the poorer farmers to give
up maize farming and opt instead to sell their labor at farms in other, more productive
areas. The resulting dependence on physical working capacity as their sole endowment
increased vulnerability, since malnutrition and disease can reduce their capacities for
manual labor.

3.2 Socio-economic and Cultural Vulnerability towards the Poor

Case study 3: At the root of the global socio-economic and cultural problems related to
HIV/AIDS are the unjust distribution and accumulation of wealth, land and power. This
leads to various forms of malaise in human communities. Some of the problems that are
associated with poverty are huge external and internal debts, critical health problems,
illicit drug and sex trades, including an increase in child prostitution, fragmentation and
marginalization of communities — all these factors form a web of inter-related global
problems which intensify the vulnerability of human communities to HIV/AIDS. To
substantiate the above descriptions we use a review study on the HIV and Labor Interface
by Le Bretonis and Brusati (2001). It reviewed studies conducted in Malawi, Zambia,
Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. The study came up with a schematic
presentation (Fig.2) on how poverty and vulnerability are related. The key findings of the
reviewed studies were: HIV/AIDS in parents increases child labor; HIV/AIDS leads to
increased poverty, which leads to increased child labor; Children affected by AIDS have
an increased risk of engaging in risky livelihood strategies, such as living and working on
the streets and informal sex work; Working children are exposed to increased risk of
contracting HIV through the lack of a supportive, protective working environment, sexual
abuse at work.

13
 Figure 2: Poverty-Vulnerability-HIV/AIDS-Linkage via child labor

Source: Le Breton and Brusati (2001)

3.3 Global Environmental Problems and Local Poverty

An important aspect of local adaptability to environmental change is the interaction

between various environmental problems at a local level. To an impoverished farmer, the
degradation of several natural resources that together form his or her subsistence base is
considered a single problem, even though the causes of the degradation are considered to
be separate phenomena at a global level.

Biodiversity in the form of local tree and plant species distributed throughout the farms
represents an alternative income source for poor farmers when crops fail. For example,
local wood is used to make stools, kitchen equipment, chicken coops, and so on. These
products are sold on the local markets. Lumber is also used to burn charcoal, which is

14
sold to urban areas and cities. Leaves and seeds from certain trees are used as feed for
goats and cattle. Drought resistant indigenous fruits are an important source of nutrition
for both children and adults when there is little food. Thus preservation of local
knowledge and biodiversity in cultivated areas helps enhance adaptability and reduce
vulnerability to extreme climate events such as drought and flooding (Eriksen 2000).

A similar case study was conducted by Nguyen Hoang Tri and colleagues (1998) in the
northern coast of Vietnam. Preservation of the natural mangrove forest with its species
diversity is important for local sources of income, for example, wood and honey
production. The mangrove forest is equally important for protection from cyclones and
typhoons. The coast is hit by between one and twelve typhoons per year, and there is
great uncertainty about how the frequency and magnitude of these will be changed in
connection with global warming. The mangrove forest protects agriculture against flood
damage from cyclones and reduces the maintenance costs of the dikes. Preservation of
this forest represents a type of climate adaptation.

These examples illustrate that the interaction between various global environmental
problems can result in different impacts in different places. To reduce the vulnerability of
the poorest populations, policy measures should be adapted to local conditions and
address several different environmental problems at the same time.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The main observation of this paper is that poverty and vulnerability are complex and
multifaceted concepts. They are interlinked in such a way that each causes the other. That
is to say, while poverty makes people vulnerable to various shocks, such as drought,
diseases and other natural disasters like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions; their
vulnerability to such shocks exacerbate their poverty and hence their vulnerability to
future shocks. The severe socio-economic problems caused by HIV/AIDS, and Floods
caused by the El Niño in Africa and by monsoon rains in South Asia are largely due to
the low coping capacities of those countries caused by the wide prevalence of poverty

15
Having observed the tricky linkage between vulnerability and poverty, the paper
recommends that all efforts of poverty alleviation should take into account those factors
which exacerbate the vulnerability of the poor. The complexity of poverty and
vulnerability means that no solution can be valid in all situations and/or locations. Thus it
is important to have a clear knowledge of the location in the process of designing poverty
and vulnerability alleviation programs. It means that any successful program must use a
multidisciplinary solution designing approach to tackle these multifaceted problems. The
programs should address problems of health and illiteracy which have been found to be
among the major causes of perpetuated poverty and vulnerability. Since income poverty
is one of the most notable aspects of poverty, there should be efforts to improve
infrastructure and other production support services in order to increase the incomes of
the poor. Good governance and rule of law are important in alleviating non-income forms
of poverty. The programs should also seek to reduce the vulnerability of the poor to
natural disasters by educating them on basic precautionary measures and making sure that
they have access important forecast information.

16
REFERENCES

Adger, N. and M. Kelly (1999). Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and the Architecture of
Entitlement. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. 4. pp. 253-266.

Aysan, Y. F. (1993). “Keynote Paper: Vulnerability Assessment.” In: P. Merriman and

C. Browitt, eds., Natural Disasters: Protecting Vulnerable Communities, pp. 1-
14.

Boccanfuso, D. (2004). A Conceptual Framework for Approaches to Poverty, Overview

Paper, IDRC.

Bogardi, J. J. (2004). Water Hazards, Risks and Vulnerabilities in a Changing

Environment, International Conference on Space and Water: Towards Sustainable
Development and Human Security, 1-2 April 2004, Santiago de Chile.

Bohle, H. and M. Watts (1993). The Space of Vulnerability: the Causal Structure of Hunger and
Famine. Progress in Human Geography. 13 (1). 43-67.

Bohle, H. G., T. E. Downing and M. Watts (1994). Climate Change and Social Vulnerability: The
Sociology and Geography of Food Insecurity. Global Environmental Change 4(1): 37-48.

Bryant, R. L. (1992). Political Ecology: An Emerging Research Agenda in Third-World

Studies. Political Geography 11(2):12-36.

Chambers, R. (1989): Vulnerability, Coping and Policy. IDS Bulletin (20,2), pp. 1-7.

Chowdhury Dr. A.M., Omar Haider,et al. (1998): "Loss and Destruction of 1998 Flood and its
Impacts on Macro Economics." Bangladesh Development Studies, No.16, Annual No.
1405, BIDS, Dhaka.

Clark, W. C. et al. (2000). Assessing Vulnerability to Global Environmental Risks.

Unpublished manuscript.

Dercon, S. (2001), “Income Risk, Coping Strategies and Safety Nets,” Centre for the
Study of African Economies, Department of Economics, Oxford University

Downing, T.E. et al. (2001) Vulnerability Indices: Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation.
Policy Series 3. UNEP, Nairobi.

Eriksen, S.H. (2000). Responding to global change: Vulnerability and management of

local agro-ecosystems in Kenya and Tanzania. PhD thesis, University of East
Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Gachathi, F.N.M. 1996. Conservation priorities in the arid and semi-arid lands: The case
of the hilltop forests of Kenya. In van der Maesen,, L.J.G. (ed.) The biodiversity
of African plants. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 313–316.

17
Gisele, K. and J. Morduch (2002). Measuring Vulnerability to Poverty. NYU Wagner
Working Paper No. WP1012

Greenberg, J. B. and K. P. Thomas (1994). Political ecology. Journal of Political Ecology

1:1-12.

Handmer, J.W.; D. Dovers and T.E. Downing (1999). Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and
Variability. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. 4. pp.267-281.

Hewitt, K. (1995). Excluded Perspectives in the Social Construction of Disaster.

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 13(3):317-319.

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/1998/en/

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Economic_Updates/ BAN/2004/eco-update-ban.pdf

http://www.wmo.ch/nino/updat.html

Kamanou, G. & J. Morduch (2002). "Measuring Vulnerability to Poverty". Discussion

Paper No. 2002/58, World Institute for Development Economics Research
(WIDER; United Nations University.

Kanbur, R. (2002).Conceptual Challenges in Poverty and Inequality: One Development

Economist’s Perspective. Department of Applied Economics and Management;
Cornell University.

Kasperson, J.X., W. Hsieh, and A. Schiller (2002). Vulnerability to Global Environmental

Change. In The human dimensions of global environmental change, ed.

Kelk, D. (2003): The Association Between Poverty and Vulnerability: Using the Case of
HIV-AIDS

Le Breton, S. and A. Brusati (2001). A Review Study on HIV and Labor Interface. Save
the Children.

Leichenko, R. and K. O'Brien (2002). The dynamics of Rural Vulnerability to Global Change.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 7(1): 1-18.

Liverman, D. M. (1990). Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change. In

Understanding Global Environmental Change, edited by R. E. Kasperson et al.,
pp.27-44, Worcester, MA, Center for Technology, Environment, and
Development, Clark University.

Moran, E. F. (1990). The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: From Concept to

Practice. Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan Press.

Moser,C. (1998) “The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty

Reduction Strategies” World Development Vol. 26, No. 1, pp1-19.

18
Nguyen, H. T.; W. N. Adger. and P.M. Kelly (1998). Natural resource management in
mitigating climate impacts: the example of mangrove restoration in Vietnam.
Global Environmental Change, 8(1): 49–61.

Ravallion, M. (1998). Living Standards Measurement Study. The World Bank-

Washington, DC.

Rob, V. (1999) 'How to measure the economic cost of natural disasters? The case of "El
Niño" in Ecuador, 1997-8', European Journal of Latin American and Caribbean
Studies, No.67: 21-33 (December).

Rowntree, S. (1901) Poverty. The Study of Town Life. London: Macmillan.

http://www.jrf.org.uk/centenary/poverty.html

Runciman, W.G. [1966] Relative Deprivation and Social Justice. Harmondsworth.

Runciman, W.G. (1970) Social Stratification: A Rejoinder to Mr. Ingham. In: Sociology
4: 246-8

Sen, A.(1981). Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. London,
Oxford University Press.

Simon, M (1999) ‘The Meaning and Measurement of Poverty’ by Simon Maxwell (1999)
http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/briefing/poverty/index.html.

Sinha, S. and M. Lipton (1999) “Damaging Fluctuations, Risk and Poverty: A Review”
Background Paper for the World Development Report 2000/2001, Poverty
Research Unit, University of Sussex.

Stonich, S. C. (1993). I am Destroying the Land: The Political Ecology of Poverty and
Environmental Destruction in Honduras. Boulder, CO, Westview Press.

Susman, P.; P. O'Keefe and B. Wisner (1983). Global Disasters: A Radical Interpretation.
In Interpretations of Calamity from the Viewpoint of Human Ecology, edited by
K. Hewitt. Boston, Allen and Unwin Inc.

Thorbecke, E. (2003). Conceptual and Measurement Issues in Poverty Analysis. Cornell

University

Townsend, P. (1970). The Concept of Poverty. London: Heinemann

UNDP. (1990). Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.

UNDP. (1998). Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.

UNDP (2004). Reducing Disaster Risk a Challenge for Development, a Global report,
UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, New York

19
Watts, M. and G. B. Hans (1993). The Space of Vulnerability: The Causal Structure of
Hunger and Famine. Progress in Human Geography 17(1): 43-67.

Yaqub, S. (2000) “Intertemporal Welfare Dynamics: Extents and Causes” Conference

paper given at Brookings Institution/Carnegie Endowment Workshop,
‘Globalization: New Opportunities, New Vulnerabilities’
http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf /shahin_dynamics.pdf

Yodmani, S. (2001). Disaster Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction: Protecting

the Poor. “Social Protection Workshop 6: Protecting Communities—Social
Funds and Disaster Management”.

20
 APPENDIX

Appendix 1: Indicators for measuring the multiple dimensions of

vulnerability
Indicator/Indices Proxy variables/Indicators

Ecological security Proportion of geographical area under forest

Per capita utilizable ground water potential
Population density per square kilometer
Proportion of arable land
Source of irrigation
Fertilizer consumption
Environmental sustainability index
Percentage of population living in coastal area and river bank
Economic efficiency Land productivity
Labor productivity
Per capita income
Percentage of population dependent on labor income
Social equity People below poverty line
Life expectancy
Female literacy
Percentage of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe population in rural areas
Empowerment Sex ratio
Female literacy
Fertility level
Ratio of agricultural labor to cultivators
Poverty Percentage of households below poverty line
Infant mortality rate
Percentage of landless population
Land tenure status
Food absorption Percentage of population with chronic energy deficiency
Percentage of severely malnourished children under five (rural)
Health insurance index

21
Appendix 2: UNDP measures of poverty
Measure Components
Human Development Index Life Expectancy at birth, adult literacy,
educational enrolment, GDP per capita
Gender related development index As above, adjusted for gender differences
Gender empowerment measure Seats in parliament held by women, female
professional and technical workers,
women’s share of earned income
Human Poverty Index (developing People not expected to survive to 40,
countries) (HPI-1) illiteracy, access to safe water, access to
health services, underweight children
Human Poverty Index (developing People not expected to survive to 60,
countries) (HPI-2) functional illiteracy, population below
mean income, long term unemployment
Source: UNDP Human Development Report 1998

22