ST PAULS UNIVERSITY-NAIROBI LECTURE NOTES

BACHELOR OF ARTS IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Interpretations of Poverty
(A Criti a! Revie" of #o$inant Approa %es&

BC# '()

Le t*rer+ P%i!ipe O,p O$-*.*

ST PAULS UNIVERSITY
BCD 217: Understand n! P"#ert$
Course Lecturer: Ombugu Philipe Jasis January-April Semester 2013 Email: pombugu@spu ac !e " pombugu@#a$oo com Cellp$o%e: &710482332/0733846164 Course Purpose
P !erty is b th a "ause an# " nse$uen"es % un#er#e!el pment& 'his " urse is #esigne# t gi!e the stu#ents an un#erstan#ing % p !erty( its mani%estati ns( "auses an# e%%e"ts& Stu#ents )ill als be intr #u"e# t p !erty assessment te"hni$ues as )ell as s me % the %rame) r*s % r analysing p !erty&

Lear%i%g ob'ecti(es

+y the en# % the " urse( stu#ents )ill be able t ,

1&
2& 3& 4& -.plain the " n"ept % p !erty( an# the !ari us mani%estati ns& /n#erstan# the elitist !ie)s % " n"epti n hel# ab ut the p r -.pli"ate the p ssible strategies an# p li"ies % r p !erty re#u"ti n an# era#i"ati n 0elate )ith a p !erty stri"*en " mmunity( an# %a"ilitate #e!el pment 1nter!enti ns

)o*e o+ ,eli(er#:
2e"tures( gui#e# #is"ussi ns( small gr up #is"ussi ns( in#i!i#ual e.er"ises( an# stru"ture# a"ti!ities

I%structio%al )aterials a%*"or e-uipme%t

'e.tb *s( bla"*b ar#( !erhea# pr 3e"t r( lapt p( 245 pr 3e"t r( an# 565s

Course E(aluatio%:
4 ntinu us Assessments 7 308( 9inal -.aminati n 7 708

.e# Re+ere%ce Te/ts:

1& +ryant( :yres& ;1<<<=& Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices to Transformational Development& Orbis + *s& >e) ? r* 2& ' #ar ( : an# Smith S ;2011=( Economic Development ;11th e#iti n=( Pears n -#u"ati n( 2 n# n an# thers 3& 2an#es( 5&S& ;1<<<=& The Wealth and Poverty of the Nations& @&@& > rt n an# 4 mpany& 4& @ rl# +an* ;2010=& Understanding Growth and Poverty& @ rl# +an* Publi"ati ns& A& 4hambers( 0& ;1<<A=& Poverty and Livelihoods Whose !eality "o#nts 0urt$er Rea*i%g 1& An#ers n( 5a!i# :& an# +r "h-5ue( 6ig#is ;1<<<=& The Poor $re Not Us: Poverty and Pastoralism in Eastern $frica( -&A&-&P& >air bi 2& +r "*( Baren an# :"Cee( 0 semary ;2002=& %nowing Poverty: "ritical !eflection on Participatory !esearch and Policy( -arths"an Publishers( 2 n# n 3& 0 berts( +ryan 0& ;1<<A=& The &aking of "iti'ens: "ities of Peasants revisited( Arn l# Publi"ati ns( 2 n# n

C"%rse C"ntent:
Week 2&3: Introduction to understanding poverty

1ntr #u"ti n -.planati n % %un#amental " n"epts, #e!el pment an# un#er#e!el pment

Re+ere%ces: 1& +ryant( :yres& ;1<<<=& Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices to Transformational Development & Orbis + *s& >e) ? r* 2& ' #ar ( : an# Smith S ;2011=( Economic Development ;11th e#iti n=( Pears n -#u"ati n( 2 n# n an# thers 3& 2an#es( 5&S& ;1<<<=& The Wealth and Poverty of the Nations& @&@& > rt n an# 4 mpany& Week 3: Understanding poverty: meaning of poverty nature of poverty manifestation/indicators of poverty Effects of poverty on society

Re+ere%ces: 1& 2an#es( 5&S& ;1<<<=& The Wealth and Poverty of the Nations& @&@& > rt n an# 4 mpany& 2& @ rl# +an* ;2010=& Understanding Growth and Poverty& @ rl# +an* Publi"ati ns& 3& 4hambers( 0& ;1<<A=& Poverty and Livelihoods Whose !eality "o#nts

Week 4: Biblical perspectives of poverty Week 5&6: overty !ssess"ents

Forms of poverty: - Absolute vs Relative poverty -Transient vs chronic poverty - Rural poverty vs Urban poverty - Generational vs Situational poverty

Re+ere%ces: 1& 2an#es( 5&S& ;1<<<=& The Wealth and Poverty of the Nations& @&@& > rt n an# 4 mpany& 2& @ rl# +an* ;2010=& Understanding Growth and Poverty& @ rl# +an* Publi"ati ns& 3& 4hambers( 0& ;1<<A=& Poverty and Livelihoods Whose !eality "o#nts Week #&$: %auses of poverty - Greed Fear Indifference orruption !re"udice In"ustice and oppression !o#er

Re+ere%ces 1& +ryant( :yres& ;1<<<=& Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices to Transformational Development & Orbis + *s& >e) ? r* 2& ' #ar ( : an# Smith S ;2011=( Economic Development ;11th e#iti n=( Pears n -#u"ati n( 2 n# n an# thers 3& 2an#es( 5&S& ;1<<<=& The Wealth and Poverty of the Nations& @&@& > rt n an# 4 mpany& Week &: 'evels of poverty :i"r le!els % p !erty :a"r le!els % p !erty 0ural an# urban p !erty

Re+ere%ces 1& +ryant( :yres& ;1<<<=& Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices to Transformational Development & Orbis + *s& >e) ? r*

2& ' #ar ( : an# Smith S ;2011=( Economic Development ;11th e#iti n=( Pears n -#u"ati n( 2 n# n an# thers 3& 2an#es( 5&S& ;1<<<=& The Wealth and Poverty of the Nations& @&@& > rt n an# 4 mpany& Week () & ((: *trategies and approac+es for poverty reduction 'arget sa%ety nets P !erty re#u"ti n p li"y instruments

Re+ere%ces 1& +ryant( :yres& ;1<<<=& Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices to Transformational Development & Orbis + *s& >e) ? r* 2& ' #ar ( : an# Smith S ;2011=( Economic Development ;11th e#iti n=( Pears n -#u"ati n( 2 n# n an# thers Week (2: %ase studies of poverty reduction pro,ects and progra"s

Chapter1. Understanding the Nature of Poverty

Chris Hawkins teaches history in a high-poverty secondary school. He's been teaching for 14 years and believes he's a good teacher. But he gets frustrated in his classes and hits a wall of despair at least once a week. His complaints about his students are common among many who teach economically disadvantaged students chronic tardiness! lack of motivation! and inappropriate behavior. "r. Hawkins complains that his students act out! use profanity! and disrespect others. #$t's like going to war every day!% he says. &he recurring thought that goes through his mind is #'etirement is only si( years away.% How would you feel if your son or daughter were a student in "r. Hawkins's class) *nly two short generations ago! policymakers! school leaders! and teachers commonly thought of children raised in poverty with sympathy but without an understanding of how profoundly their chances for success were diminished by their situation. &oday! we have a broad research base that clearly outlines the ramifications of living in poverty as well as evidence of schools that do succeed with economically disadvantaged students. +e can safely say that we have no e(cuse to let any child fail. ,overty calls for key information and smarter strategies! not resignation and despair. /%at Is Poverty0 &he word poverty provokes strong emotions and many -uestions. $n the .nited /tates! the official poverty thresholds are set by the *ffice of "anagement and Budget 0*"B1. ,ersons with income less than that deemed sufficient to purchase basic needs2food! shelter! clothing! and other essentials2are designated as poor. $n reality! the cost of living varies dramatically based on geography3 for e(ample! people classified as poor in /an 4rancisco might not feel as poor if they lived in Clay County! 5entucky. $ define poverty as a chronic and debilitating condition that results from multiple adverse synergistic risk factors and affects the mind, body, and soul. However you define it! poverty is comple(3 it does not mean the same thing for all people. 4or the purposes of this book! we can identify si( types of poverty situational! generational! absolute! relative! urban! and rural. 1. Sit*ationa! poverty is generally caused by a sudden crisis or loss and is often temporary. 6vents causing situational poverty include environmental disasters! divorce! or severe health problems. 7. 1enerationa! poverty occurs in families where at least two generations have been born into poverty. 4amilies living in this type of poverty are not e-uipped with the tools to move out of their situations. 8. A-so!*te poverty2 which is rare in the .nited /tates! involves a scarcity of such necessities as shelter! running water! and food. 4amilies who live in absolute poverty tend to focus on day-to-day survival. 4. Re!ative poverty refers to the economic status of a family whose income is insufficient to meet its society's average standard of living.

9.

Ur-an poverty occurs in metropolitan areas with populations of at least 9:!::: people. &he urban poor deal with a comple( aggregate of chronic and acute stressors 0including crowding! violence! and noise1 and are dependent on often-inade-uate large-city services. ;. R*ra! poverty occurs in nonmetropolitan areas with populations below 9:!:::. $n rural areas! there are more single-guardian households! and families often have less access to services! support for disabilities! and -uality education opportunities. ,rograms to encourage transition from welfare to work are problematic in remote rural areas! where <ob opportunities are few 0+hitener! =ibbs! > 5usmin! 7::81. &he rural poverty rate is growing and has e(ceeded the urban rate every year since data collection began in the 1?;:s. &he difference between the two poverty rates has averaged about 9 percent for the last 8: years! with urban rates near 1:@19 percent and rural rates near 19@7: percent 0Aolliffe! 7::41. T%e Effe ts of Poverty ,overty involves a comple( array of risk factors that adversely affect the population in a multitude of ways. &he four primary risk factors afflicting families living in poverty are 6motional and social challenges. Bcute and chronic stressors. Cognitive lags. Health and safety issues. =raber and Brooks-=unn 01??91 estimated that in 1??9! 89 percent of poor families e(perienced si( or more risk factors 0such as divorce! sickness! or eviction13 only 7 percent e(perienced no risk factors. $n contrast! only 9 percent of well-off families e(perienced si( or more risk factors! and 1? percent e(perienced none. &he aggregate of risk factors makes everyday living a struggle3 they are multifaceted and interwoven! building on and playing off one another with a devastatingly synergistic effect 0BtCaba-,oria! ,ike! > Deater-Deckard! 7::41. $n other words! one problem created by poverty begets another! which in turn contributes to another! leading to a seemingly endless cascade of deleterious conse-uences. B head in<ury! for e(ample! is a potentially dire event for a child living in poverty. +ith limited access to ade-uate medical care! the child may e(perience cognitive or emotional damage! mental illness! or depression! possibly attended with denial or shame that further prevents the child from getting necessary help3 impairments in vision or hearing that go untested! undiagnosed! and untreated3 or undiagnosed behavior disorders! such as BDEHD or oppositional personality disorder. $t's safe to say that poverty and its attendant risk factors are damaging to the physical! socioemotional! and cognitive well-being of children and their families 05lebanov > Brooks=unn! 7::;3 /apolsky! 7::91. Data from the $nfant Health and Development ,rogram show that 4: percent of children living in chronic poverty had deficiencies in at least two areas of functioning 0such as language and emotional responsiveness1 at age 8 0Bradley et al.! 1??41. &he following two sections e(amine how inferior provisions both at home and at school place poor children at risk for low academic performance and failure to complete school. Poverty at 3o$e

Compared with well-off children! poor children are disproportionately e(posed to adverse social and physical environments. Fow-income neighborhoods are likely to have lower--uality social! municipal! and local services. Because of greater traffic volume! higher crime rates! and less playground safety2to name but a few factors2poor neighborhoods are more haCardous and less likely to contain green space than well-off neighborhoods are. ,oor children often breathe contaminated air and drink impure water. &heir households are more crowded! noisy! and physically deteriorated! and they contain a greater number of safety haCards 0Gational Commission on &eaching and Bmerica's 4uture HGC&B4I! 7::41. Blthough childhood is generally considered to be a time of <oyful! carefree e(ploration! children living in poverty tend to spend less time finding out about the world around them and more time struggling to survive within it. ,oor children have fewer and less-supportive networks than their more affluent counterparts do3 live in neighborhoods that are lower in social capital3 and! as adolescents! are more likely to rely on peers than on adults for social and emotional support. Fow-/6/ children also have fewer cognitive-enrichment opportunities. &hey have fewer books at home! visit the library less often! and spend considerably more time watching &J than their middle-income counterparts do 05umanyika > =rier! 7::;1. *ften! poor children live in chaotic! unstable households. &hey are more likely to come from single-guardian homes! and their parents or caregivers tend to be less emotionally responsive 0Blair et al.! 7::K3 6vans! =onnella! "arcynysCyn! =entile! > /alpekar! 7::91. /ingle parenthood strains resources and correlates directly with poor school attendance! lower grades! and lower chances of attending college 0Li > Fal! 7::;1. Contrast these children with their peers living in stable two-parent families! who have more access to financial resources and parental time! receive more supervision! participate in more e(tracurricular activities! and do better in school 06vans! 7::41. Moung children are especially vulnerable to the negative effects of change! disruption! and uncertainty. Developing children need reliable caregivers who offer high predictability! or their brains will typically develop adverse adaptive responses. Chronic socioeconomic deprivation can create environments that undermine the development of self and the capacity for selfdetermination and self-efficacy. Compared with their more affluent peers! low-/6/ children form more stress-ridden attachments with parents! teachers! and adult caregivers and have difficulty establishing rewarding friendships with children their own age. &hey are more likely than well-off children to believe that their parents are uninterested in their activities! to receive less positive reinforcement from teachers and less homework help from babysitters! and to e(perience more turbulent or unhealthy friendships 06vans > 6nglish! 7::71. Common issues in low-income families include depression! chemical dependence! and hectic work schedules2all factors that interfere with the healthy attachments that foster children's selfesteem! sense of mastery of their environment! and optimistic attitudes. $nstead! poor children often feel isolated and unloved! feelings that kick off a downward spiral of unhappy life events! including poor academic performance! behavioral problems! dropping out of school! and drug abuse. &hese events tend to rule out college as an option and perpetuate the cycle of poverty. 4igure 1.1 shows how adverse childhood e(periences can set off an avalanche of negative life e(periences! including social! emotional! and cognitive impairment3 adoption of risky behaviors3 disease! disability! and social problems3 and! in the worst cases! early death. 4igure 1.7 demonstrates the negative correlation between adverse risk factors and academic achievement.

4i.*re (5(5 A6verse C%i!6%oo6 E7perien es 8o6e!

Source: Bdapted from #'elationship of Childhood Bbuse and Household Dysfunction to "any of the Feading Causes of Death in Bdults &he Bdverse Childhood 6(periences 0BC61 /tudy!% by J. A. 4elitti! '. 4. Bnda! D. Gordenberg! D. 4. +illiamson! B. ". /pitC! J. 6dwards! et al.! 1??K! American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14041! pp. 749@79K.

4i.*re (5'5 A6verse E ono$i Ris9 4a tors an6 A a6e$i Corre!ations

Source: Bdapted from #6nvironmental &o(icants and Developmental Disabilities B Challenge for ,sychologists!% by /. ". 5oger! &. /chettler! and B. +eiss! 7::9! American Psychologist, !081! pp. 748@799.

Poverty at S %oo! /tudies of risk and resilience in children have shown that family income correlates significantly with children's academic success! especially during the preschool! kindergarten! and primary years 0van $<Cendoorn! Jerei<ken! Bakermans-5ranenburg! > 'iksen-+alraven! 7::41. Due to issues of transportation! health care! and family care! high tardy rates and absenteeism are common problems among poor students. .nfortunately! absenteeism is the factor most closely correlated with dropout rates. /chool can help turn children's lives around! but only if the children show up. Bttendance problems often indicate negative parent attitudes toward school. ,arents who did poorly in school themselves may have a negative attitude about their children's schools 04reiberg! 1??81 and! in an effort to protect them! may even discourage their children from participating 0"orrison-=utman > "cFoyd! 7:::1. &hese parents are often unwilling to get involved in school functions or activities! to contact the school about academic concerns! or to attend parent-teacher conferences 0"orrison-=utman > "cFoyd! 7:::1. ,oor children are also more likely than well-off children are to attend poorly maintained schools with less--ualified teachers! and their day-care facilities2if available at all2are less ade-uate 0GC&B4! 7::41. $n addition! in many cases! low-achieving high school students report a sense of alienation from their schools. Believing that no one cares or that their teachers don't like them or talk down to them! students will often give up on academics 0"outon > Hawkins! 1??;1. 5ids raised in poverty are more likely to lack2and need2a caring! dependable adult in their lives! and often it's teachers to whom children look for that support.

A tion Steps Deepen staff understanding. $t's crucial for educators to keep in mind the many factors! some of them invisible! that play a role in students' classroom actions. "any nonminority or middleclass teachers cannot understand why children from poor backgrounds act the way they do at school. &eachers don't need to come from their students' cultures to be able to teach them! but empathy and cultural knowledge are essential. &herefore! an introduction to how students are affected by poverty is highly useful. Consider summariCing information from this chapter or other sources and sharing it with staff. Hold discussions at staff meetings that inform and inspire. 4orm study groups to e(plore the brain-based physiological effects of chronic poverty. Debunk the myths among staff members who grew up in middle-class or upper-middle-class households. 4or e(ample! some teachers perceive certain behaviors typical of low-/6/ children as #acting out!% when often the behavior is a symptom of the effects of poverty and indicates a condition such as a chronic stress disorder. /uch disorders alter students' brains 04ord! 4arah! /hera! > Hurt! 7::N1 and often lead to greater impulsivity and poor short-term memory. $n the classroom! this translates into blurting! acting before asking permission! and forgetting what to do ne(t. Change the school culture from pity to empathy. +hen staff members work with children raised in poverty! a common observation is #Bless their hearts! they come from such terrible circumstances.% &he problem with that sentiment is that it leads to lowered e(pectations. 6ncourage teachers to feel empathy rather than pity3 kids will appreciate your ability to know what it's like to be in their shoes. 6stablish a school culture of caring! not of giving up. Mou can help foster such a culture by speaking respectfully! not condescendingly! of and to your student population! and by using positive affirmations! both vocally and through displays and posters. E$-ra in. a Ne" 8ission Beyond its effects on individual children! poverty affects families! schools! and communities 0Bradley > Corwyn! 7::71. Bnd the problem promises to get worse. Children of immigrants make up 77 percent of the total child poverty cases in the .nited /tates 0'ector! 7::91! and immigration rates continue to increase. Because of the massive influ( of immigrants entering the .nited /tates every year! the ensuing competition for low-wage <obs! and the statistical link between low-wage earners and increased childbearing 0/chultC! 7::91! the number of ../. children in low-income situations is forecast to rise over the ne(t few decades. +e need to address this rising problem! and soon. &he timing and duration of poverty matter. Children who e(perience poverty during their preschool and early school years e(perience lower rates of school completion than children and adolescents who e(perience poverty only in later years. $n addition! for those who live below the poverty line for multiple years and receive minimal support or interventions! each year of life #carries over% problems from the prior year. .ltimately! these translate to earlier mortality rates 04elitti et al.! 1??K1. But there is hope. $ present research findings in the ne(t few chapters that suggest that early childhood interventions can be -uite potent in reducing poverty's impact. /chools around the world are succeeding with poor students! and yours can! too. +e must end the cycle of blame and resignation and embrace a new mission to help all our students fulfill their potential.

T%e Root a*ses of poverty &hings like fear and greed are very seldom mentioned in academic writings as a cause of poverty. But if their opposites! compassion and unselfishness! ruled the day! poverty would be largely eliminated. $t may be uncomfortable to think about greed! indifference! pre<udice etc.! but they lie behind all the more obvious causes of poverty. Human nature is fundamental to the causes and results of poverty! and we cannot underestimate its relevance. &he Bible says that =od loves <ustice and heOs not indifferent to the needs of the poor @ and neither should we beP Bt the end of the day! the root causes of poverty will only be dealt with by! Q=odOs will being done on 6arth as it is in Heaven%. +e can help bring about the 5ingdom of =od on the 6arth @ but not <ust in our actions in combating the causes of poverty. +e need to seek! with =odOs help! to deal with things like greed and pre<udice in our own lives! before we point them out in other people. Here is a list of some of the root causes of poverty

1ree65 +anting more than our fair share of resources. Bccumulating e(cessive wealth. 4ear5 4ear of people different to ourselves3 fear that helping others will have a negative effect on our life-style. In6ifferen e5 $ndifference to the needs of others. &his is not limited to people in developed countries @ the rich in developing countries can also be indifferent to their fellow countrymen. Corr*ption5 &his is found both at an $nternational level and at =overnmental! Corporate and /ocial levels. Po"er. Fove of power and control! often largely for its own sake. Pre,*6i e5 &his can take the form of racism and the class or cast system @ thinking of other people of races or cultures as inferior to our own. In,*sti e an6 Oppression5 Caused by any of the above. Note on Corr*ption &here are many types of corruption. &he taking of bribes by officials is one obvious one. Corruption is not limited to the one taking the bribe. &he giver of the bribe! whether a wealthy government! a big corporate entity or an individual seeking an unfair advantage is e-ually at fault. Corruption damages us all. $t is probably the largest single obstacle to giving aid by donor countries and individuals. &he map below gives an indication of perceived corruption but does not necessarily measure the true situation.

&he perception of Corruption throughout the world Inter$e6iate Ca*ses an6 Res*!ts &he following list contains things that are both causes of poverty and are themselves the results or the symptoms of poverty. /ome of these would normally be considered as root causes for e(ample natural disasters. But an earth-uake of magnitude N.1 in Gew Realand! although causing much structural damage! resulted in no direct deaths whereas a similar earth-uake in $ran caused 4:!::: deaths and left 9::!::: homeless. /o poverty makes the situation worse. &he following fit into this category

/ar an6 onf!i t5 Unfair Internationa! Tra6e. /ituations where restrictions prevent countries adding e(tra value to their e(ports. Unet%i a! internationa! 6e-t @ having to be repaid by people who did not benefit from the loan. :Str* t*ra! A6,*st$ent; @ imposed by creditors! the $"4 and +orld Bank! resulting in lack of money for educational and medical needs. Ine<*a!ity of ons*$ption of the earthOs resources. Nat*ra! 6isasters @ droughts! earth-uakes! floods! tsunamis! hurricanes. 4a$i!y -rea96o"n @ a ma<or cause of poverty in developed countries. A6verse !i$ate5 #isease an6 si 9ness2 preventable or otherwise.

Res*!ts of poverty = an6 a*ses of $ore poverty &he following are the results of poverty and also the causes of more poverty. &ogether with the things listed above they result in a vicious circle. 4or e(ample! a lack of access to clean water causes disease which! if not fatal! results in less education @ resulting in even more poverty.

In6ivi6*a! #e-t and lack of access to ethical investment. Un6er-no*ris%$ent and ill-health causing less education and economic efficiency. Una epta-!e %i!6 $orta!ity rate A !a 9 of+ Bde-uate s%e!ter Bccess to !ean "ater an6 sanitation Bde-uate e6* ation 3ea!t%- are facilities E$p!oy$ent opport*nities Po!iti a! or e ono$i po"er

Con !*sion &here are very many interrelated causes of poverty. &hese are difficult to distinguish from the symptoms of poverty. But the root causes are to be found in human nature. Bs humans we have an amaCing capacity for compassion and selflessness but the root causes of poverty are still to be found in greed! fear! indifference and pre<udice. It is o*r %a!!en.e to 6ea! "it% o*r o"n ina6e<*a ies5 /e are $a6e in t%e i$a.e of 1o6 an6 "it% 3is %e!p "e an over o$e t%ose t%in.s t%at a*se so $* % s*fferin. in ot%er peop!e5

#i$ensions of 6eve!op$ent
(5 Intro6* tion ,overty is defined and interpreted in different ways and academic debates on the sub<ect are packed with controversies over how to differentiate the SpoorO from the Snon-poorO and ascertain the different levels and causes of poverty among the former. $n describing and conceptualising poverty! researchers! policy makers and activists often employ terms such as vulnerability! destitution! deprivation! hunger! degradation! e(clusion and powerlessness. &here is no doubt that these words mean or connote a lack of certain things regarded as necessities of life. Met! 'ahnema 01??7 19K-19?1 insists that Spoverty is also a myth! a construct and the invention of a particular civiliCationT 6veryone may think of themselves as poor when it is the &J set in the mud hut which defines the necessities of life! often in terms of the wildest and fanciest consumers appearing on the screenO. /uch an e(treme construct of relative deprivation assumes that certain &J images alone define everyoneOs perception of his

or her state of well-being. $t is true that the &J is a most powerful tool of global capital in demonstrating and promoting consumerist lifestyles. However! current debates on poverty have very little to do with people who feel deprived because they cannot live like the Swildest and fanciest consumers appearing on the screenO. &hey are about distributional problems and social <ustice! about people who are unable to cope with stresses and shocks impacting on them because of their social location and individual susceptibilities. &hese stresses and shocks may originate in the institutional structures in which they find themselves and the ecosystems to which they are linked through the same structures. 4urthermore! none of the current definitions of poverty can be faulted for being so indeterminate as to include everyone. $n fact! a ma<or grouse of the critics of the most widely adopted definition of poverty! which is based on the income criterion! is that it is not inclusive enough. &here are competing and complementary conceptions of poverty and inevitably the ongoing debates are politically and ideologically charged. Constructions of poverty by researchers and policy advisors vary due to disciplinary biases and ideological values. &hey also vary over time and space due to differences in the political! economic! cultural and ecological conditions of the conte(ts in -uestion. &hese conte(ts are neither static nor closed to the outside world. $t should also be noted that the distinction between absolute and relative deprivationEpoverty has been a controversial issue 0/en! 1?K4! 1?K93 &ownsend! 1?K91. +hile there are sharp differences in views on the relationships between the neoliberal globalisation policies and poverty! there appears to be a consensus that poverty is a much broader and deeper issue of deprivation than having an income below a Spoverty lineO. However! this apparent consensus has become yet another point of departure for different analytical approaches to poverty. *n poverty and social <ustice! there have been clear shifts of focus from income 0or purchasing power1 alone to broader categories such as a combination of basic material and non-material goods including rights and liberties! best captured by the 'awlsian concept of Sprimary goodsO 0'awls! 1?N713 individualsO freedom to achieve valuable functionings! defined as capability by /en 01??81 and3 social e(clusion! which is interpreted in different ways as a negative state or process but generally around notions of disadvantage! citiCenship! social integration! identity! power relations! agency and institutions 0'odgers et al! 1??93 =ore and 4igueiredo! 1??N1. &he .GD,Os conceptual framework on human 6eve!op$ent has drawn heavily on /enOs capability approach. $t has also been inspired by the +est 6uropean debates on e(clusion. Concepts such as entitlement and capability and social e(clusion have been adopted and adapted by studies dealing with the political economy of poverty as a process with reference to the structural causes of vulnerability and deprivation from different perspectives. /ome of these studies have focused more systematically at the local and meso levels and developed frameworks to map vulnerability and poverty 0+atts and Bohle! 1??83 "oser! 1??K3 'akodi! 1???1. &here is also a growing emphasis by researchers and social movements on peopleOs own perceptions of well-being 0or ill-being1 and on assessments of 6eve!op$ent and poverty reduction policies and programmes from local perspectives 0/hanmugaratnam! 7::1a1. &oday! globalisation has become a ma<or frame of reference for debates on poverty whether the focus is sub-national! national or international. "ultilateral institutions such as the +orld Bank and the .G are actively engaged in the formation and dissemination of paradigms and interpretations of international poverty. Both these institutions approach the -uestions of poverty and 6eve!op$ent with reference to globalisation although their perspectives are not identical. &herien 01???1 has argued that the perspectives of the two international institutions are competing in paradigmatic terms. +hile the +orld Bank has generally adopted a strong

optimistic view of the benefits such as poverty reduction that would accrue to developing countries which have adopted its policy prescriptions for global integration! the .GD, has often highlighted the growing ine-ualities! distributional conflicts and the deprivations of millions of people in the modern era of unprecedented accumulation of wealth and called for 'globalisation with a human face'.1 /ome studies on globalisation have drawn attention to both credit and debit entries while raising concern about the real danger of the rural poor being left behind due to lack of access to knowledge and other assets 05illick! 7::11. &here are others who have taken more radical positions on globalisation and its implications for peopleOs well-being. 4or instance! the mass protests by anti-capitalist demonstrators in the +est against the policies of the +orld Bank! the $nternational "onetary 4und 0$"41 and the *6CD towards developing countries are based on a re<ection of the present global political economic order. Bmong other things! these protestors keep pointing at the marginalisation and e(clusion of millions of people and the destruction of the environment by the forces of globalisation. &hey also constantly remind the world of the power structures behind the growing global ine-ualities 0Bircham and Charlton! 7::11. &here already e(ists a considerable body of critical writings on the neoliberal engineering of globalisation from political economic and sociological perspectives.7 &hese studies recognise the reality that for the first time in history the international order is being reorganised from above around a common set of economic rules based on absolute deregulation and proceed to focus on the conse-uences of this unprecedented change. &he issues they address include the impact of this new phase of globalisation on what used to be regarded as the 'third world' and on human well-being and the environment world-wide. /ome writers have more e(plicitly argued for 'reregulation' of the global economy in order to make globalisation serve the Common =ood 0Dierck(sens! 7:::1. &he foregoing selective overview was meant to give an idea of the diversity of perspectives on poverty as a ma<or global issue. 1See the "ank#s $orld Development %eports and the &'(P#s )uman Development %eports since mid*1++!s, -he &'(P called for .globalisation /ith a human face# in its 1+++ report, 012amples of such studies include (ierck2sens 30!!!45 6astells 31++75 0!!!45 (e %ivero 30!!145 and 6hossudosky 31++74, $n the sections that follow! we discuss three most widely adopted conceptualisations of poverty @ viC. poverty as income deprivation! capability deprivation and social e(clusion! and critically review the approaches of the +orld Bank and the .GD,.

'5> Poverty as in o$e 6eprivation+ Poverty Line an6 Its Li$itations SB poverty line is generally taken to be a threshold! in terms of income or wealth! below which people can be considered to be Qpoor%. . . ,overty lines are generally seen as indicators of

poverty! rather than precise measures! because lack of income is not usually thought of as a sufficient definition of poverty.O -&he $nternational =lossary on ,overty! edited by =ordon and /picker 01??? 1:91 &he lack of ade-uate income to command basic necessities is the most widely known definition of poverty. ,overty thus defined is generally related to a poverty line. &he origins of the present day concept of poverty line could be traced to the early phases of industrial capitalism in Britain when concerned individuals and groups demanded state intervention to alleviate the deprivations of people who were being pauperised and proletarianised. However! more systematically worked out poverty lines came to be identified much later. 'owntreeOs study of the poor in the city of Mork! published in 1?1:! appears to be one of the early attempts to define poverty lines. 'owntree estimated the cost of obtaining the minimum necessities for the maintenance of Smerely physical efficiencyO in the conditions prevailing in Mork at the turn of the century. His calculations included food! rent and other necessities. He defined poverty with reference to the insufficiency of total earnings to obtain the minimum necessities and arrived at poverty lines for families of different siCes and composition 0'owntree! 1?1:1. &he concept came to be technically refined and widely adopted by governments and international agencies over the years. &oday! the most widely adopted poverty line in developing countries is the one prescribed by the +orld Bank! which has been estimating global income poverty figures based on sample survey of households since 1??:. &he Bank reports that the number of countries covered by the survey had increased from 77 in 1??: to ?; in 1???. ,overty lines are calculated on the basis of household consumption e(penditure per person. &he Bank uses its ,urchasing ,ower ,arity 0,,,1 prices to convert national poverty lines to international poverty lines. &he median of the lowest ten poverty lines is taken as the poverty line for all developing countries and that line is ./D 1.:K @ generally referred to as Sdollar a dayO in the BankOs publications. &he +orld Bank has also identified an upper poverty line! which is ./D 7 a day @ twice the figure for the lower poverty line. $t has been estimated that 1.7 billion people live on less than a dollar a day. *f this! 48.9U are in /outh Bsia! 74.8 in /ub-/aharan Bfrica! 78.7U in 6ast Bsia and ;.9U in Fatin Bmerica 0+orld Bank 7:::1. &he deficiencies of the dollar-a-day poverty line as a measure or an indicator of poverty are now well known. +hile it is useful as a simple device to count heads and roughly -uantify the poor in terms of income poverty! its shortcomings include the following. V $t says nothing about the structural conditions or the personal states of being of the individuals living in poverty. $t is used to lump together everyone below a certain level of income or consumption as poor irrespective of the variations among them in incomes! age! gender! health and other personal attributes. V $t captures only goods delivered through the market. V $t disregards differences in cost of living within countries- between urban and rural areas! for e(ample. V $t disregards intra-household distribution of goods and thus differences in deprivation within households. $t may be technically possible to overcome some of these shortcomings if the appropriate data are available. 4or instance! different poverty lines may be calculated for urban and rural areas. However! the income criterion alone 0i.e. poverty line1 is an inade-uate measure of poverty.

*f course! income is an important means to command certain goods but it is e-ually if not more important to be aware that the same level of income may translate into different levels of needssatisfaction between two individuals due to differences in personal characteristics and needs. &his observation takes us to the ends that a person e(periences by using income as a means. &he ade-uacy of income has to be seen in terms of its conversion into the ends valued by the person concerned. 4ocusing on this issue! /en 01??7 1111 says that to have Sinade-uate income is not a matter of having an income level below an e(ternally fi(ed poverty line! but to have an income below what is ade-uate for generating specified levels of capabilities for the person in -uestionO. Bs to what use a person could make of a given level of income depends on a number of contingent circumstances that are personal and social and /en 01???1 lists five distinct sources of variation V ,ersonal heterogeneities - Due to age! gender! illness or disability V 6nvironmental diversities @ Jariations in environmental conditions affect housing! clothing! health etc. V Jariations in social climate @ /ocial conditions that influence the conversion of incomes and resources into -uality of life3 these include social capital 0 o$$*nity relationships! prevalence or absence of violence1 and health status V Differences in relational perspectives @ Jariations in commodity re-uirements between communities due to conventions and customs3 Being relatively poor in a rich o$$*nity could prevent a person from achieving elementary functionings even though her income in absolute terms may be higher than that re-uired for members in a poorer o$$*nity to function successfully. V Distribution within the family @ $ntra-family distribution of income can lead to differences in the states of well-being of individual members. &he limitations of the income-based approach to attacking poverty should be evident by now. 4urther! as already noted! deprivation has dimensions other than income as well. &hese include matters such as personal insecurity! lack of rights and freedoms! discrimination on grounds of class! caste! gender! race and ethnicity. $n the liberal tradition! 'awlsOs contractarian theory of <ustice is often invoked to arrive at a broader conception of deprivation and the institutional arrangements to address it within a political economic order based on private property and free markets. $n this approach! poverty can be seen as the result of a lack of access to certain primary goods. 'awls advocates that the basic structure of society should distribute certain social primary goods e-ually to all citiCens. /uch a society would be fair as it is able to distribute the basic goods every rational person is presumed to want. S&he chief primary goods at the disposition of societyO! 'awls says 01?N7 ;71! Sare rights and liberties! powers and opportunities! income and wealth.O Fater on he includes self-respect as the most important primary good.8 However! /en 01??? N71 points out that the Sbroadening of the informational focus from incomes to primary goods is not ade-uate to deal with all the relevant variations in the relationship between income and resources! on the one hand! and well-being and freedom on the otherO. ,rimary goods! including income! are general purpose resources that are instrumental in achieving particular ends but the actual outcomes 0i.e. the ends1 are contingent upon the sources of variation mentioned above. /enOs capability approach to 6eve!op$ent and social <ustice presents an alternative to the 'awlsian view of deprivation as a result of lack of primary goods.

8, %a/ls enunciates t/o principles of 9ustice as fairness, -he first one deals /ith rights and states that .each person is to have an e:ual right to the most e2tensive basic liberty compatible /ith a similar liberty for others#, -he second principle 3also kno/n as the difference principle4, /hich deals /ith the distribution of income, resources and opportunities, states that .social and economic ine:ualities are to be arranged so that they are both a4 reasonably e2pected to be everyone#s advantage, and b4 attached to positions and offices open to all# 3ibid: !4, ?5> Poverty as Capa-i!ity #eprivation /enOs conceptualisation of poverty as capability deprivation has been gaining wider recognition among 6eve!op$ent researchers while being adopted by many agencies including the .G.4 &he +orld Bank has shown interest in capability too. Central to /enOs criti-ue of the mainstream approach to poverty is the point that it is almost entirely focused on means rather than ends and that even this focus disregards the wide variations among the individuals counted as poor. $t is not the lowness of the means with reference to an e(ternally determined general cut-off point 0such as a poverty line1 but their ade-uacy for a person to achieve valued functionings that determines whether or not she is e(periencing capability deprivation. &he issue of ade-uacy has to do with personal characteristics. 4urther! /en has also paid attention to the social location of individuals with reference to class! caste and gender although his basic philosophical approach! being rooted in liberalism! is strongly individualist. Conceptually! poverty as capability deprivation is derived from /enOs broader interpretation of social <ustice and 6eve!op$ent in terms of capability as freedom of choice. S$n the capability based assessment of <usticeO! /en 01??7 K11 says! Sindividual claims are not assessed in terms of the resources or primary goods the persons respectively hold! but by the freedoms they actually en<oy to choose the lives that they have reason to value.O 4urther! /en has been consistently advocating that 6eve!op$ent is best seen as an e(pansion of peopleOs capabilities! as a process of emancipation from necessities that constrain fuller realisation of human freedoms 0/en! 1?K43 1?KK3 1??73 1??83 1???1. &hus the capability approach brings poverty! social <ustice and 6eve!op$ent within a common conceptual rubric. /en 01??8 811 defines capability in terms of functionings ;unctionings represent parts of the state of a person - in particular the various things he or she manages to do or be in leading a life. &he capability of a person reflects the alternative combinations of functionings the person can achieve and from which he or she can choose one collection. &he approach is based on a view of living as a combination of various Sdoings and beingsO! with -uality of life to be assessed in terms of the capability to achieve valuable functionings. 4unctionings are constitutive of capability! and doings and beings constitute functionings. 4, See Sen 31+++4 for a comprehensive presentation of his ideas and theoretical position on development, poverty and related issues, < have critically e2plored Sen#s capability approach to development in Shanmugaratnam 30!!1a4,

4unctionings can vary from such elementary matters as being well nourished! disease-free! safely sheltered and free from illiteracy to more comple( doings or beings such as having self respect! preserving human dignity! being free from stress! taking part in o$$*nity life and political and social movements and so on.9 B personOs functionings depend on his or her personal characteristics 0age and physical fitness! for e(ample1 and social and economic circumstances which in turn are dependent on the nature of the larger political economic system as well as the power relations and rules and cultural codes of specific institutions such as family! caste! o$$*nity and work place. "ost of the characteristics that determine functionings are captured by the concepts of endowment and entitlement sets which are elaborated below in broader terms than in the writings of /en and his co-workers.; &he endo/ment set of a person consists of all the resources owned by him or her. &hese resources include tangibles such as physical means of production like land! livestock! tools and machinery and intangibles like the personOs own labour power! knowledge! and the social capital which he or she shares by virtue of being a member of social institutions and networks. *wnership here refers to ownership rights that are valid in law andE or legitimate according to social customs and conventions. &hey are constituents of the relations of production. &hese rights may also be e(tended to include the rights to resources en<oyed by an individual as a legitimate co-owner of a common property like a pasture! a woodlot! an irrigation tank or a fishing ground. /ocial capital refers to trust and formal and informal social associations and networks which enable cooperation among individuals on matters of common interest which may involve production and e(change! resource and environmental management! social security! and the cultural life of the o$$*nity. $n formal terms! the entitlement set consists of all the possible combinations of goods that a person can ac-uire in legitimate ways by using the resources of the endowment set and! wherever applicable! the public financial assistance received! and the goods provided by the state. =, < am paraphrasing /hat Sen says in various /ritings 3Sen, 1+775 1++05 1++84, , -he definitions offered here /ere originally inspired by >smani#s 31++=4 formulations but they have gone through notable changes, < have added access to common property resources and social capital as parts of the endo/ment set and also broadened the scope of the entitlement set, ?ore#s critical revie/ of Sen#s definitions of entitlements has been helpful in this regard 3?ore, 1++84, -he reader is also referred to Shanmugaratnam 30!!1a4,

&hus entitlements may be realised by using the means of production to produce goods of value! by selling the labour power for a wage which enables the purchase of goods! and by availing the assistance provided by the state in the form of financial transfers like unemployment allowance or pension and directly as goods like education and health care. 6ntitlements may be direct entitlements as for instance when one uses the food produced by him or her for consumption. +hen realised through markets! entitlements become e(change entitlements. =oods supplied by the state may be referred to as public entitlements. $t is not uncommon to find local level social associations engaged in provisioning needy persons at

times of distress. &his type of intervention is motivated by moral or humanitarian concerns at the o$$*nity level and it serves as a social net! a form of civil entitlement. ,ublic entitlements include private goods like education and health care as well as public goods like environmental -uality! protection of individual freedoms! and prevention of crimes 0freedom from harassment and violence of various kinds1. $t would be pertinent to add here that environmental -uality and prevention of crime are not entirely the responsibility of the state. Civil society is responsible for these entitlements too and beneficial effects may accrue to everyone where civil society 0non-governmental or o$$*nity-based1 bodies play an institutionalised role in these and any other activities that improve the common good. From endowments to entitlements $ndividuals strive to convert endowments into entitlements in local and larger institutional environments which determine the conditions of their access to the necessary e(ternal inputs such as information 0see below1! credit or material inputs such as seeds and fertilisers! and the final outcome. &he conditions of access differentiate the individuals according to their endowment statuses. 4or instance! a farmer operating a micro holding may be e(cluded from institutional credit facilities on the ground of Slack of credit worthinessO! or she may not be able to gain access to valuable information because she is illiterate. &he conditions of access may also reinforce the disadvantages historically suffered by women and other groups like so called lower castes. $n real terms! the goods one actually receives may be sub<ect to informal rules of distribution which are culturally conditioned. &his is particularly so where the individual is strongly tied to others through hierarchical relationships <ustified by kinship and moral codes. &he well-known e(ample is that of intra-household distribution of goods! which is mediated by established conventions and priorities. 4or instance! the amount and type of food or health care received by a member of a household may depend on that personOs age and gender or the position in the intra-household hierarchy. /imilarly! parentsO decision to spend in the education of children or to let them go for higher education may have a gender bias 0in favour of sons at the e(pense of daughters1 or may be based on aptitude and performance or the wish of the child concerned. Decisions of this kind depend on the nature of the dominant values at the family level. 6vidently! the translation of endowments into entitlements is not a straightforward process. $t is mediated by government policies and public institutions! markets! the local social institutions and the wider networks to which individuals belongN ! and ecological variables. B vital resource whose importance cuts across all aspects of endowment-entitlement relations is information. $nformation flows play a crucial role in production! e(change and human security and welfare. ,eople are in need of information about factors affecting production! marketing! employment! career 6eve!op$ent! human safety and long-term social security. &hey need information on how laws and government policies affect their entitlements. &herefore! access to sources of diverse information is of significant importance in the endeavour of individuals and groups to enhance the prospects of achieving their desired states of being. *bviously! people are better able to utilise their resources where the necessary information is available more readily and at affordable costs. &he sources of information include mass media and state! private and civil society institutions and social networks. "arkets determine the relative prices which in turn determine e(change entitlements. &he government is generally responsible for providing the policy environment in which production and e(change take place. "arkets may be regulated! protected or free depending on

government policy. ,rice policies have bearing on e(change entitlements. ,rice fluctuations in the world market can lead to e(change entitlement enhancement or failure for a commodity producer! depending on the effect of the changes in relative prices on the e(change value of the commodity concerned. 6cological factors K directly influence certain activities such as farming! pastoralism! forestry and fishing. 4avourable weather conditions promote biomass accumulation and a bumper harvest at the end while a flood! a drought or an outbreak of pests can cause crop failure - i. e. a direct entitlement failure. 'esource degradation is a longer-term cause of endowment depletion and direct entitlement failure. &he -uality of the environment is a ma<or variable affecting human health and hence the -uality of labour power and the ability of people to do things they value. @, -he role of local institutions and net/orks in the conversion of endo/ments to entitlements and the latter#s stabilisation and enhancement has not been ade:uately addressed in the literature on entitlements, -his relative neglect becomes more evident /hen seen against the /ell deserved4 attention received by the role of public policy in the /ritings of Sen and his co* /orkers, @5> So ia! E7 !*sion an6 #eprivation+ 4ro$ states to pro esses an6 o*t o$es S&he term Qsocial e(clusion% is so evocative! ambiguous! multidimensional and e(pansive that it can be defined in many different ways. Met the difficulty of defining e(clusion and the fact that it is interpreted differently in different conte(ts at different times can be seen as a theoretical opportunity.O @ Hilary /ilver 01??9 ;:1 S/ocieties and economies systematically marginaliCe some and integrate others! and distribute rewards in ways which both include and e(clude.O @ 'odgers 01??9 441 S/ocial e(clusion is the process through which individuals or groups are wholly or partially e(cluded from full participation in the society in which they live.O @ 6uropean 4oundation 01??9 41. &he debate on social e(clusion originated in 4rance in the 1?N:s and subse-uently e(panded into a wider discourse encompassing different dimensions of the Snew povertyO associated with the restructuring of the +est 6uropean economies in the ongoing phase of globalisation. &he term was coined in 1?N4 to refer to groups that remained unprotected by the 4rench social security system. &hese e(cluded groups! which made up one-tenth of the 4rench population at that time! were categorised as Smentally and physically handicapped! suicidal people! aged invalids! abused children! substance abusers! delin-uents! single parents! multi-problem households! marginal! asocial persons and other social misfitsO 0/ilver! 1??9 ;81. $n the 1?K:s! social e(clusion came to be conceptualised in broader terms by researchers and policy makers to capture the adverse conse-uences of deregulation! and the dismantling of the welfare states and the problems associated with increasing international migration in the +est. &he 6uropean debate on e(clusion soon drew the attention of analysts and institutions concerned with deprivation and poverty in developing countries. B ma<or reason for this was that the e(clusion discourse addressed a wide range of material and non-material aspects of deprivation in a more integrated fashion and showed that lack of income or wealth was not the only reason for which people could be marginaliCed. 4urther! the 6uropean debate generated interesting and useful theoretical insights by e(ploring the republican! liberal and social

7, Sen and his co*/orkers have generally failed to internalise ecological variables and the environment into their conceptual frame/orks and empirical analysis, )o/ever, the concepts of endo/ment and entitlement sets can be e2tended to be inclusive of these important aspects, <t should be noted that Sen has attempted to address environmental issues more recently 3Sen, 1+++5 Anand and Sen, 0!!!4, democratic conceptions of e(clusion. $n 1??8! the $nternational $nstitute for Fabour /tudies of the $F* convened a symposium to look into the relevance of the social e(clusion approach to these countries. &he ultimate ob<ective of this symposium! as stated by the Director of the $nstitute! was to contribute to the design of acceptable and effective policy interventions 0=opinath! 1??91. &he e(ercise led to the consensus that Smore attention should be given to the way social institutions! political rights and economic processes interact to generate better livelihoods! social <ustice and social cohesionO 0=opinath! 1??9 vii1. S/ocial e(clusionObecame a widely discussed issue at the +orld /ummit for /ocial #eve!op$ent held in 1??9. &he 6uropean Commission has adopted the concept to formulate its policy for assisting poverty reduction in developing countries. Si!vers t%ree para6i.$s of so ia! e7 !*sion Based on an analytical review of the literature on e(clusion in +estern 6urope and the ./B! Hilary /ilver provides three ideal paradigms of social e(clusion the /olidarity! /pecialisation and "onopoly paradigms. &his paradigmatic typology is helpful in understanding why social e(clusion means different things to different policy makers and practitioners. &he main points characterising the three paradigms as elaborated by /ilver 0op.cit ;;-;?1 are summed up below! often using her own words! while &able 1 gives an overview. So!i6arity+ V 'ooted in the 4rench republican tradition! e(clusion is the rupture of a social bond 0social solidarity1 between the individual and society. &he paradigm focuses attention on the e(clusion inherent in the solidarity of nation! race! ethnicity! locality and other cultural and primordial ties that delimit group boundaries and citiCenships. But its applications e(tend beyond these aspects to cultures of poverty and long-term unemployment. V /ocial order is conceived as e(ternal! moral and normative! rather than grounded in individual! group or class interests. &he individual is tied to the larger society by a national consensus! collective conscience or general will through vertically interrelated mediating institutions. V 'e<ects Christian charity! liberal individualism! socialist class conflict and strictly political citiCenship as sufficient bases of social integration. *ffers another moral approach to unity and e-uality! which regards individuals more as participants in a communal life of fraternity than as bearers of rights. V *riginally! SassimilationistO in the sense that rather than accepting cultural and political pluralism! separate interests and memberships are reconciled and synthesised into a unitary whole. $n recent times! more acceptance of cultural pluralism and the need for the dominant culture to ad<ust to minority cultures. Spe ia!isation+ V $n the Bnglo-Bmerican liberal tradition! which is individualist! e(clusion is considered a conse-uence of specialisation social differentiation! economic division of labour! and the separation of spheres 0economic! political! social etc.1. &he social order! like the economy and

politics! is conceived as networks of voluntary e(changes between autonomous and selfinterested individuals. V CitiCenship is based on contractual e(change of rights and obligations and separation of spheres of social life. /ocial groups are voluntarily constituted by individuals who agree on the rules! rights and obligations of membership. &he integration of society is a result of cross-cutting group affiliations and loyalties created by individuals freely choosing! according to their personal values and psychological motives! to engage in social relations. V /ocial e(clusion may result due to inade-uate separation of social spheres! the rules of admission to certain social spheres! inade-uate enforcement of rules! barriers to free movement! and discrimination. &he same individual may not be e(cluded in every sphere. 4urther! social spheres are not necessarily hierarchical in terms of resources or value. V /pecialisation protects liberties and may be efficient as long as the e(cluded have the right to move across boundaries. 6(clusion is a form of discrimination where group boundaries impede individual freedom to participate in social e(change. However! this form of e(clusion is countered by the liberal stateOs protection of individual rights as well as the group and market competition. 8onopo!y+ V $nfluential among the social democratic left and inspired mainly by +eber and to a lesser e(tent by "ar(! this paradigm views e(clusion as a conse-uence of the formation of group monopoly. &he social order is seen as a coercive arrangement imposed through a set of hierarchical power relations. 6(clusion involves the interplay of class! status and political power and serves the interests of the included. "onopoly is characterised by social closure which! as described by +eber! is a process of subordination whereby one status group monopoliCes advantages by closing off opportunities to outsiders who are regarded as inferior or ineligible. /tatus groups are manifestations of power relations and they claim social honour and esteem! and have their own consciousness! consumption patterns and styles of life. "aterial! legal or other forms of monopoly maintain the status groupOs e(clusivity. &he monopoly creates a bond of common interest among otherwise une-ual insiders. V /ocial closure is achieved when institutions and cultural distinctions not only create boundaries that keep others out against their will! but are also used to perpetuate ine-uality. /uch boundaries may be demarcated within or across nation states! localities! firms or social groups. V .nlike classical "ar(ism! which adopts an uncompromising class theory! this paradigm assumes that the une-ual power behind group monopolies can be mitigated with inclusive Qsocial democratic citiCenship%. /ilverOs typology can be useful in developing an understanding of different theoretical conceptions of social e(clusion and the specificity of their origins in terms of national traditions and political economy. CitiCenship is one of the central concepts in all three paradigms. 6(clusion implies incomplete citiCenship although the e(planation for this and the possible solutions put forward would vary according to the theoretical and ideological positions of the persons and institutions concerned. 4urther! e(clusion is a reflection of the social location of the e(cluded! i.e. the position in the web of institutions governing personsO access to resources and opportunities. *f the three! the monopoly paradigm seems to be the most useful in ascertaining the structural situation of the included and the e(cluded. &he currently dominant neoliberal paradigm of 6eve!op$ent challenges the 4rench republican and the 6uropean social democratic approaches to the problem of social e(clusion. $t

challenges the social democratic and the more radical approaches to 6eve!op$ent and elimination of poverty in developing countries as well. Types of E7 !*sion+ so$e e7a$p!es V 6(clusion from livelihood Fand and other productive resources3 Fabour market3 'egular employment3 Credit market V 6(clusion from decent housing and o$$*nity services V 6(clusion from social security nets V 6(clusion from public goods V 6(clusion from political decision making V 6(clusion from o$$*nity bodies and networks V 6(clusion from basic human freedoms such as the freedoms of thought! e(pression! mobility and collective action. 4actors Class! 6thnicity! 'ace! 'eligion! Caste! =ender! Bge! 6ducation! /kills.. Re!evan e to poverty st*6ies in 6eve!opin. o*ntries /ocial e(clusion has already entered conceptual frameworks used to study deprivation and poverty in developing countries 0=ore and 4igueiredo! 1??N1. &he notion of e(clusion can be conceptualised in different ways to incorporate ma<or theoretical and empirical -uestions of poverty that researchers and practitioners want to e(amine. $t may be noted that anti-poverty policies and programmes have been using ideas of e(clusion and integration without e(plicitly adopting those terms or theoretically framing deprivation in terms of social e(clusion. $ntegrated rural 6eve!op$ent programmes! o$$*nity 6eve!op$ent pro<ects and the interventions by G=*s to mobilise the poor at the local level and SempowerO them can be seen as e(amples of efforts to combat social e(clusion and promote social integration.? 6mpirical studies in Bsia! Bfrica and /outh Bmerica have shown that social e(clusion occurs in all societies Sbut has different meanings and manifests itself in different formsO 0=ore and 4igueiredo! 1??N K1. &hese studies have used a variety of definitions of social e(clusion. &his should not be surprising as it has also been the case in the +estern countries. +hat is more significant is that these diverse definitions have a number of common elements. &hese studies 0carried out in $ndia! &hailand! &anCania and ,eru1 have also shown that Sa precise definition of social e(clusion depends on the paradigms of social integration and citiCenship and the cultural environment in a given societyO 0ibid K1. 4urther! while various causes of social e(clusion could be identified from the studies! some commonalities also became evident. =ore and 4igueiredo provide the following tentative list V S+ithin countries! social e(clusion is the result of policies and institutions! and cannot simply be attributed to individual choices3 the attributes of individuals are regarded as being socially constructed3 at the individual level! social e(clusion is involuntary3O V S&he institutions which act to include and e(clude are both formal and informal3O V S/uch institutions encompass the working of the basic markets! the scope and configuration of citiCenship rights! and the patterns of associational life of civil society3O V S/uch institutions structure the relationship between the pattern of economic growth! and the changing life-circumstances of individuals! households and groups3 adopting a social e(clusion approach implies analysing these macro-micro relationship and proposing meso-level and institution centred policies3O

V S/ocial e(clusion within countries cannot be e(plained without reference to international relationships! as these relationships have important effects on domestic economic! social and political institutions and developments.O &he entitlementEcapability approach can be incorporated into a political economic framework with reference to the institutional structures that reproduce social e(clusionEintegration.

+, See <(S "ulletin, Aol, 0+, 'o, 1 1++7, for relevant articles on poverty and social e2clusion in 'orth and South, A5 T%e /or!6 Ban9s Approa %+ Beyon6 t%e poverty !ine -*t "it%in t%e neo!i-era! para6i.$ S+hen the institution whose self-stated mission it is to eradicate poverty can only hold its Bnnual "eetings under siege from those who believe its mission is to further the cause of the rich and the powerful! there is clearly a gap to be bridged.O @ 5anbur 07::1 1:?81! who resigned as Director of the +orld #eve!op$ent 'eport 0+D'1 7:::-7::1 on SBttacking ,overtyO. &he +orld Bank has addressed the problem of poverty systematically from its own global point of view. /ince 1?K:! poverty has been the special theme of the +D' every ten years. &he +D' 7:::-7::1 carries the evocative title of SBttacking ,overtyO. &he Bank is a ma<or source of funds for national poverty reduction programmes and research publications on poverty and related issues. $ts ,resident +olfensohn has taken a lot of trouble to present the institution as a friend of the poor. Met the BankOs 6eve!op$ent policy in general and the poverty reduction policy in particular have drawn heavy criticisms and popular protests from diverse sources in all parts of the world. &he controversy surrounding the production of +D' 7:::-7::1 and the resignation of its Director ,rof. 'avi 5anbur due to disagreements over the contents of the final report are now well known 0/hanmugaratnam! 7::11. B multi-country participatory assessment of structural ad<ustment carried out by /B,'$G 0/tructural Bd<ustment ,articipatory 'eview $nternational Getwork1 has held that ad<ustment policies Shave contributed to the further impoverishment and marginalisation of local populations! while increasing economic ine-ualityO 0/B,'$G! 7::7 1N81. +hat is the +orld Bank strategy for poverty reduction and why has it come under such severe attack from independent academics and activists worldwide) T%e Ban9s para6i.$ &he policy of the Bank on poverty cannot be understood in isolation from its paradigm of economic 6eve!op$ent. &he policy prescriptions of the +orld Bank and other $4$s 0$nternational 4inancial $nstitutions1 are widely known today. 4or almost three decades the Bank has been consistently advocating deregulation! privatisation! and the minimisation of the state. &hese are the main ingredients of a market-friendly policy! which the Bank believes will bring economic growth and prosperity to developing countries through closer! more rapid integration into the world economy. $n this model! competition in free markets and microeconomic efficiency are key to achieving growth through participation in globalisation. "acroeconomic policies are framed on this premise! which is underpinned by the belief that the market! being the most efficient allocator of resources! is the best problem solver under ideal

conditions of perfect competition and the state should intervene only to correct market failures. $t is also a fundamental assumption of the model that economic growth will lead to a progressive reduction of poverty into a minor residual problem in the long run. &he Bank maintains that the macroeconomic gains from structural ad<ustment offset any short-term losses suffered by some sections of the population. $t views poverty in a country as a domestic problem caused mainly by internal factors such as country-specific imbalances! policy errors 0i.e. failure to fully implement the $4$Os prescriptions for stabilisation and structural ad<ustment1 or political difficulties 0+orld Bank 1??91. However! in many countries at present! a poverty reduction strategy accompanies the growth strategy with the ob<ective of enabling the poor to find their way into the market economy as participants in the labour market. &he +D' 7:::-7::1 proposes three ways as the components of a strategy to reduce poverty promoting opportunity! facilitating empowerment and enhancing security. V ,romoting opportunity &he poor need <obs! credit! roads! markets for their produce! schools! water! health services and skills. "arket reforms and overall economic growth are central to generating opportunity. +here ine-uality is high! the state should take action to support the build-up of human! land and infrastructure assets that poor people own or to which they have access! 6ncourage effective private investment! 6(pand into international markets! Build the assets of the poor people! Bddress asset ine-ualities across gender! ethnic and social divides! ,rovide infrastructure and knowledge to poor areas V 4acilitating empowerment ,romote active collaboration among the poor! the middle class and other groups. &his can be facilitated by changes in governance that make public administration! legal institutions! and public service delivery more efficient and accountable to all citiCens! and by strengthening the participation of poor people in political processes and local decisionmaking3 'emove social and institutional barriers resulting from distinctions of gender! ethnicity and social status3 Fay the political and legal basis for inclusive 6eve!op$ent Create public administration that foster growth and e-uity3 ,romote inclusive decentralisation and o$$*nity 6eve!op$ent 3 ,romote gender e-uity &ackle social barriers3 /upport poor peopleOs social capital V 6nhancing security 'educe vulnerability to economic shocks! natural disasters! ill health! disability and personal violence3 Gational action to manage economy wide shocks and to reduce risks faced by poor people. Build assets of poor people! diversify household economic activities! provide insurance mechanisms to cope with shocks3 Help poor people manage risk3 Develop national programmes to prevent! prepare for and respond to macro shocks 0financial and natural1 3 Design pro-growth social risk management systems3 Bddress civil conflicts3 &ackle the H$JEB$D/ epidemic C!ai$s an6 Criti<*es &he BankOs general perspective and the thinking on action to Sattack povertyO! as summed up above! appear to be pragmatic. However! critics argue that behind this apparent pragmatism is a dogmatic commitment to market fundamentalism and a drive to impose a common set of policy principles on all recipient countries 0"awdsley and 'igg! 7::73 /hanmugaratnam! 7::1a3 Dierck(sens! 7:::1. &he Bank has often claimed that the rich-poor gap had begun to narrow and poverty was being reduced with the progress of implementation of its policies. However! the reality is more comple( and empirical evidence against the BankOs claims is growing. +hile the proportion of the population living under the absolute poverty line of dollar-a-day 0fi(ed by the +orld Bank1

has marginally declined in some regions! the total population of the worldOs poor has been steadily increasing in absolute terms. ,overty shares are also rising in many regions. 'ecently! the Bank has tempered its claims as studies by its own staff have generated results that cast doubts on the validity of the earlier claims. 4urther! a general weakness of the BankOs claims is that they are based on an international poverty line! the limitations of which have already been discussed. V 4rom an analysis based on data from the BankOs =lobal ,overty "onitoring Database! Chen and 'avallion 07::11 found that in the aggregate! and for some large regions! 1??:s did not see much progress against consumption poverty in the developing world and that progress in raising real incomes and alleviating poverty has been disappointingly slow in many countries. &hey further noted that even though 1??:-?N was a period of aggregate growth for the low- and middle-income countries! rising ine-uality was a factor that worked against reduction of consumption poverty. Drawing attention to other sources! they pointed out that there was evidence of -uite sharply increasing interpersonal income ine-uality in the 1??:s and that this Scould easily wipe out the gains to the worldOs poor from global economic growthO 0op cit 1K1. V Data provided by Chen and 'avallion 07::11 and other sources such as +eller et al 07::71 clearly show that consumption poverty remains a ma<or problem in Fatin Bmerica and Carribean! /ub-/aharan Bfrica and /outh Bsia. &able 7 reproduced from +eller et al 07::71 gives an overview of the global situation regarding consumption poverty. &he authors have drawn heavily on the work of Chen and 'avallion 0ibid1. &he relative poverty lines are based on mean consumption or income levels in each country. B highly disappointing finding is that the ma(imum daily consumption level of the worldOs poorest 4:: million has been below a dollar a day for the period 1?KN-1??K. B5 UN#Ps Approa %+ 3*$an #eve!op$ent to fi.%t poverty SB poor person is not only one who is hungry but also one who is oppressed! humiliated and manipulated.O @ .G 01??9 8K1 Bs noted earlier! the .G does not share the +orld BankOs optimistic view of the impact of globalisation on poverty. &he .GD, has been consistently highlighting the growing global ine-ualities and the need to focus more consciously on narrowing ine-ualities and reversing social e(clusion. /ince the launch of the first Human #eve!op$ent 'eport 0HD'1 in 1??:! the .GD, has viewed poverty as being caused by the denial of opportunities and choices most basic to human 6eve!op$ent! which has been defined as a process of widening peopleOs choices as well as raising the level of well-being achieved. Human 6eve!op$ent thus defined is about e(pansion of human freedom to choose different lifestyles and hence can be seen as a process of e(pansion of individualsO capabilities. Calling for a new paradigm of 6eve!op$ent! the HD' of 1??4 states that S/uch a paradigm of 6eve!op$ent enables all individuals to enlarge their human capabilities to the full and to put those capabilities to their best use in all fields- economic! social! cultural and political. $t also protects the options of unborn generationsO 0.GD,! 1??4 41. Bdvocating sustainable human 6eve!op$ent based on intragenerational and intergenerational e-uity! the same 'eport observes that a ma<or restructuring of the worldOs income distribution! production and consumption patterns may be a necessary precondition for any viable strategy to achieve it. /ubse-uent HD's have drawn more focused attention to the ever-widening gap between the rich and poor countries and to intra-national distributional issues. $t has been a concern of the

.GD, and other .G bodies that increasing global ine-ualities are aggravating the deprivations and conse-uently denying the right to human 6eve!op$ent for the ma<ority of the worldOs population! which e(ceeds 9.9 billion. *nly about a -uarter of this population may be en<oying economic security let alone the other types of security such as food! health! personal! political! environmental and o$$*nity. *bviously! human 6eve!op$ent is an open-ended concept with various dimensions and! as a process! it operates within globally linked political! economic and cultural structures that differentiate the endowment and entitlement statuses of individuals and determine the actual freedoms en<oyed by the people. Bt a given national or sub-national level! the factors that characterise these structures include the nature of the political regime 0whether it is authoritarian or democratic! and provides social security or not - for e(ample1! class and gender relations! and ethnic diversity and inter ethnic relations. Caste is another important structural factor that cannot be ignored in many parts of /outh Bsia. Bn individualOs state of human 6eve!op$ent or deprivation has a lot to do with hisEher location in the larger environment outlined above and in the micro level institutions such as the family. &he human 6eve!op$ent approach to poverty places deprivation in a broader structural conte(t of the 6eve!op$ent process. Bs already discussed! when seen as a conse-uence of capability failure or of the denial of opportunities for capability e(pansion! poverty is no longer regarded as a state that can ade-uately be defined with reference to a static poverty line e(pressed purely in terms of a minimum income to meet basic consumption needs. 4urther! since poverty elimination is about human 6eve!op$ent! income has to be seen as a part of other means 0such as access to -uality education and health care! freedom fromdiscrimination! personal security! and freedom of mobility1 that serve the struggle against poverty. However! while defining human 6eve!op$ent in broad and dynamic terms! the .GD, has primarily been focusing on a narrow range of -uantifiable variables in order to compute the aggregate Human #eve!op$ent $nde( 0HD$1 as an alternative to =G, for measuring the relative socio-economic progress of nations. Fongevity 0measured by life e(pectancy1! knowledge 0measured by a combination of adult literacy and mean years of schooling1 and standard of living 0measured by purchasing power parity- ,,,1 are the components of the HD$. Bs noted by the .GD,! a long and healthy life! ac-uisition of knowledge and access to the resources needed for a decent standard of living are the three essential choices for people at all levels of 6eve!op$ent. +here these essential choices are not available! many other opportunities remain inaccessible 0.GD, 1??:1. However! how useful is the HD$ as an indicator of 6eve!op$ent) $t cannot be denied that it has gained worldwide recognition as a more informative measure of 6eve!op$ent than =G,! especially for global comparisons. &he HD$ ranking of 1N4 countries listed in the HD' 01???1 shows that only 49 countries belong to the class of SHigh human 6eve!op$entO and 89 to that of SFow human 6eve!op$entO. 4urther! China and $ndia! the two most populous countries in the world! ranked ?K and 187 respectively! are in the category of S"edium human 6eve!op$entO countries. &he rankings of HD$ and =D, per capita! show that there is no automatic positive correlation between the two and that countries with similar income per capita can have very different HD$ values depending on how effective they have been in converting income into human 6eve!op$ent as captured by the HD$. &o cite some e(amples! for countries such as Bngola! Gamibia! /audi Brabia and the .B6! the income rank is far ahead of the HD$ rank while for China! "adagascar! Costa 'ica! Cuba! Colombia and /ri Fanka the HD$ rank is far ahead of the income rank. &he overall rankings show that the ma<ority of the countries have a long way to go if they were to reach the current levels of human 6eve!op$ent en<oyed by the countries in the class of SHigh human 6eve!op$entO.

&he usefulness of the HD$ is limited to such levels of generality! as intended by its authors. &he late "ahbub .l Ha- himself! the originator of the Human #eve!op$ent 'eport! did not regard it as anything more than an e-ually crude but more useful alternative to =G, as an indicator of 6eve!op$ent. $n a S/pecial ContributionO to the HD' 1???! /en recalls that .l Ha- had said the following about the HD$ S+e need a measure of the same level of vulgarity as =G, @ <ust one number @ but a measure that is not as blind to social aspects of human lives as =G, isO 0.GD,! 1??? 781. $n the same contribution! /en! who had also participated in devising the HD$! refers to =G, as an Soverused and oversold inde(O. But it would seem that the same might be happening to the HD$! although the HD' is not <ust about this aggregate statistical indicator. &he national HD$ says practically nothing about freedom of choice and it is possible for a country to show continuous growth in HD$ while its record of human rights and the -uality of life of substantial sections of the people continue to worsen. "oreover! the adult literacy rate used by the .GD, as an indicator of knowledge may be almost totally irrelevant as an indicator of the -uality of the knowledge and employability. $n fact! the underdevelopment of knowledge is a ma<or problem in poor countries in this age of high technology! and the growing gaps in knowledge creation between rich and poor countries! which are greater than the gaps in income! are not captured by the HD$ 0/agar and Ga<am! 1???1. $ndeed! each year the HD' provides informative materials on distributional issues! human freedoms and deprivations that the HD$ is not capable of reflecting. Met the 'eports have for several years avoided going beyond highlighting global and intra-national ine-ualities and mild statements on the need for more e-uitable distribution. 'ecent 'eports! especially since 1???! have attempted to address distributional conflicts more comprehensively although they have not gone deeper into the relations of power that deny basic freedoms to millions of people. /ince the early 1??:s! the .GD, has been trying to introduce ad<ustments in the HD$ to internalise aspects such as gender and income ine-ualities for countries that have the relevant data. 4urther! the Human ,overty $nde( 0H,$1 has been developed as an indicator of deprivation. .GD,Os definitions of H,$! =D$ and =6" Human ,overty $nde( 0H,$1 "easures deprivation in basic human 6eve!op$ent in the same dimensions as the HD$. &he variables used are the percentage of people e(pected to die before age 4:! the percentage of adults who are illiterate! and overall economic provisioning in terms of the percentage of people without access to health services and safe water and the percentage of underweight children under five. =ender-related #eve!op$ent $nde( 0=D$1 "easures achievements in the same dimensions and variables as the HD$ does! but takes account of ine-uality in achievement between women and men. &he greater the gender disparity in basic human 6eve!op$ent! the lower the countryOs =D$ compared with its HD$. &he =D$ is simply the HD$ discounted! or ad<usted downwards! for gender ine-uality. =ender 6mpowerment "easure 0=6"1 $ndicates whether women are able to actively participate in economic and political life. $t focuses on participation! measuring gender ine-uality

in key areas of economic and political participation and decision-making /ri Fanka is a case that amply illustrates these points 0/hanmugaratnam! 7::1b3 7::71.

Referen es Bircham! 6. and A. Charlton 0eds1. 7::1! Bnti-Capitalism! B =uide to the "ovement! Bookmarks! Fondon! /ydney De 'ivero! *. 7::1! &he "yth of #eve!op$ent - &he nonviable economies of the 71st century. Red Books Ftd. Chen! /. and ". 'avallion! 7::1! How Did the +orldOs ,oorest 4are in the 1??:s)! #eve!op$ent 'esearch =roup! +orld Bank! http EEwww.worldbank.orgEresearchEpovmonitorEmethod.htm Chossudovsky! ". 1??N! &he =lobalisation of ,overty. $mpact of $"4 and +orld Bank 'eforms! Red Books Ftd. Dierck(sens! +. 7:::! &he Fimits of Capitalism @ Bn approach to globalisation without neoliberalism! Red Books! Fondon! Gew Mork. 6uropean 4oundation for the $mprovement of Fiving and +orking Conditions! 1??9! ,ublic +elfare /ervices and /ocial 6(clusion &he 6eve!op$ent of consumer oriented initiatives in the 6uropean .nion! Dublin. =ore! =. C. 1??8! 6ntitlement 'elations and S.nrulyO /oial ,ractices B comment on the work of Bmartya /en! Aournal of #eve!op$ent /tudies! Jol. 7?! Go. 8 47?-4;:. =ore! C. and A. B. 4igueiredo! 1??N! /ocial 6(clusion and Bnti-poverty ,olicy B Debate! $nternational $nstitute for Fabour /tudies! $F*! =eneva. 5anbur! '.! 7::1! 6conomic ,olicy! Distribution and ,overty. &he Gature of Disagreements! +orld #eve!op$ent! Jol. 7?! Go. ; 1:K8-1:?4 5illick! &. 7::1! =lobalisation and the 'ural ,oor! #eve!op$ent ,olicy 'eview! 1?071 199-1K:. "awdsley! 6. and A. 'igg! 7::7! B /urvey of the +orld #eve!op$ent 'eports $ discursive strategies! ,rogress in #eve!op$ent /tudies! 7!7 ?8-111 "oser! C. *. G. 1??K! &he Bsset Julnerability 4ramework 'eassessing .rban ,overty 'eduction /trategies! +orld #eve!op$ent! Jol. 7;! Go. 1 1-1?. Garman! B. and 5. 5arunanayake! 7::7! &owards a Gew 'egional and Focal #eve!op$ent 'esearch Bgenda! =oterborg .niversity! =oterberg! /weden 'ahnema! ".! 1??7! ,overty! in +. /achs 0ed1 &he 6eve!op$ent Dictionary @ B =uide to 5nowledge as ,ower! Red Books! Fondon and Gew Aersey 'akodi! C. 1???! B Capital Bssets 4ramework for Bnalysing Household Fivelihood /trategies $mplications for ,olicy! #eve!op$ent ,olicy 'eview! Jol. 1N01???1 819-847. 'awls! A.! 1?N7! B &heory of Austice! *(ford .niversity ,ress. 'odgers! =.! C. =ore and A. B. 4igueiredo 0eds1! 1??9! /ocial 6(clusion! 'hetoric! 'eality! 'esponses! $nternational $nstitute for Fabour /tudies! $F*! =eneva. 'odgers! =. C. 1??9! +hat is /pecial Bbout a Q/ocial 6(clusion% Bpproach! in 'odgers et al 0eds1. 'owntree! B. /. 1?1:! ,overty B /tudy of &own Fife! Fondon "acmillan /achs! +. 0ed1 &he 6eve!op$ent Dictionary @ B =uide to 5nowledge as ,ower! Red Books! Fondon and Gew Aersey

/B,'$G 0/tructural Bd<ustment ,articipatory 'eview $nternational Getwork1! 7::7! &he ,olicy 'oots of 6conomic Crisis and ,overty @ B multi-country participatory assessment of structural ad<ustment! +ashington! http EEwww.saprin.org /en! B. 5. 1?K4! 'esources! Jalues and #eve!op$ent! Harvard .niversity ,ress /en! B. 5. 1?K9! B /ociological Bpproach to the "easurement of ,overty @ B reply to ,rofessor ,eter &ownsend! *(ford 6conomic ,apers! 8N ;;?-;N; /en! B. 5. 1??7! $ne-uality 'ee(amined! Clarendon ,ress! *(ford /en! B. 5. 1???! #eve!op$ent as 4reedom! *(ford .niversity ,ress /hanmugaratnam! G. 7::1a! *n the "eaning of #eve!op$ent @ Bn e(ploration of the capability approach! 4orum for #eve!op$ent /tudies! Jol. 7K! Go. 7 7;8-7KK /hanmugaratnam! G. 7::1b! Finking ,eace and #eve!op$ent in /ri Fanka. $nstitute of /ocial #eve!op$ent! 5andy /hanmugaratnam! G. 7::7! #eve!op$ent and +ar in /ri Fanka B 'eview of the Conflict and a Gote on Challenges 4acing 4uture 'esearch! in Garman! B. and 5. 5arunanayake 0eds1. 7::7 /ilver! H. 1??9! 'econceptualising /ocial Disadvantage &hree paradigms of social e(clusion! in 'odgers et al 0eds1. &herien! A-,! 1???! Beyond the Gorth-/outh Divide &he two tales of world poverty! &hird +orld Wuarterly! Jol. 7:! Go. 4 N78-N47. &ownsend! ,. 1?K9! B /ociological Bpproach to the "easurement of ,overty @ B re<oinder to ,rofessor Bmartya /en! *(ford 6conomic ,apers! 8N ;9?-;;K .G 1??9! 6thical and /piritual Dimensions of /ocial ,rogress! .nited Gations! Gew Mork +atts! ". A. and H. =. Bohle! 1??8! &he /pace of Julnerability the Causal /tructure of Hunger and 4amine! ,rogress in Human =eography! 1N. 1 48-;N +eller! C. 6. '. 6. /cott and B. /. Hersh! 7::7! &he .nremarkable 'ecord of FiberaliCed &rade! Briefing ,aper! 6conomic ,olicy $nstitute! +ashington! http EEepinet.org +orld Bank! 1??9! =lobal 6conomic ,rospects and the Developing Countries. +orld Bank! 7:::! +orld #eve!op$ent 'eport 7:::-7::1 - Bttacking ,overty! *(ford .niversity ,ress