Centre for Development, Environment and Policy P525 Food ... · Centre for Development, Environment...

Centre for Development, Environment and Policy

P525

Food Security and Social Protection

Prepared by:

This version of the module was prepared in 2013 by Rebecca Kent with contributions

from Julia Compton and Colin Poulton, drawing on an earlier version of the module

prepared by Thi Minh-Phuong Ngo, Julia Pacheco Loureiro and Lucrezia Tincani.

The main contributor to each of the current units is thus as follows:

Units 1,2 Julia Compton

Unit 3 Thi Minh-Phuong Ngo

Units 4,5 Julia Pacheco Loureiro

Units 6 to 10 Julia Compton

© SOAS | 3736

P525 Food Security and Social Protection Introduction

© SOAS CeDEP 2

MODULE INTRODUCTION

ABOUT THIS MODULE

Despite considerable progress in reducing income poverty in many parts of the world,

hundreds of millions of people suffer from food insecurity and malnutrition. This has

major consequences for human health and development. Globalisation, combined

with increasing incomes in many countries, has resulted in major changes to the

structure of food markets, and new challenges for food production and consumption

policies. High and volatile international food prices over the past few years have

increased food insecurity and heightened international awareness of these issues.

The past two decades have also witnessed massive growth in the scope and scale of

social protection (welfare) in low- and middle-income countries. Some famous

examples include the ‘Progresa’ and ‘Zero Hunger’ schemes in Mexico and Brazil, the

National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in India, and the move away from

international food aid to a national social protection programme in Ethiopia.

This module considers food security and social protection together, because there are

complex linkages and trade-offs between them. Social protection programmes can be

a key tool in fighting poverty and hunger. However, the design of social protection

programmes is debated. Should governments provide free or cheap food, or simply

offer poor people cash? Is offering a job on a public works scheme a better option?

Who should be eligible to receive help, and for how long? Is social protection a costly

‘band-aid’, which doesn’t really change anything in the long term or can it promote

growth and job creation? What are the potential trade-offs with other investments

which could reduce food insecurity, such as direct investments in small-scale

farming? The module explores practical policy issues such as these, while providing

students with an academic foundation to explore concepts and evidence.

STRUCTURE OF THE MODULE

Unit 1 introduces concepts to be used throughout the module and emphasises the

importance of shocks (such as to ill-health or crop failure) in the livelihoods of poor

people. Unit 2 discusses issues in the definition and measurement of poverty and

food insecurity, which underpin practical policy debates. Unit 3 provides an

introduction to social protection, while Units 4 and 5 discuss some major

implementation issues, including targeting and politics. Units 6 to 10 consider the

key dimensions of food security and critically assess policies and interventions to

tackle food insecurity, including the important role of social protection.


© SOAS CeDEP 3

WHAT YOU WILL LEARN

Module Aims

To set out some key food security concepts and frameworks, including the

relationship between food insecurity and poverty.

To set out some key social protection concepts and frameworks, with a special

focus on social protection as a set of approaches and instruments for tackling

poverty and food insecurity in low- and middle-income countries.

To explore policies, approaches and instruments that have been used for

tackling food insecurity in low- and middle-income countries, including social

protection in particular.

To highlight current debates and questions on food security and social

protection and to explore the concepts and evidence which underpin them.

Module Learning Outcomes

By the end of the module, students should be able to:

describe and assess critically the main conceptual frameworks and

measurements used to analyse poverty, food security, and nutrition

describe and compare critically major approaches and instruments used for

social protection in developing countries, with a particular emphasis on social

protection

critically examine implementation processes and challenges in social protection

programmes, including targeting methods and benefit setting, information

systems and payment mechanisms, and exit and graduation strategies

critically examine the importance of the political economy of social protection:

public and private financing methods; government versus donor investment;

how policy history, political actors and socioeconomic factors affect the scope,

characteristics and support for social protection

describe and appraise critically the main approaches that have been taken to

promote the four main aspects of short and long-term food security

(availability, access, utilisation and stability), including the role of social

protection interventions

engage critically in current international debates on food security and social

protection, discussing the merits and disadvantages of different policy

proposals, for example, interventions to mitigate the impacts of international

food price volatility.


© SOAS CeDEP 4

ASSESSMENT

This module is assessed by:

• an examined assignment (EA) worth 20%

• a written examination in October worth 80%

Since the EA is an element of the formal examination process, please note the

following:

(a) The EA questions and submission date will be available on the Online Learning

Environment.

(b) The EA is submitted by uploading it to the Online Learning Environment.

(c) The EA is marked by the module tutor and students will receive a percentage

mark and feedback.

(d) Answers submitted must be entirely the student’s own work and not a product

of collaboration. For this reason, the Online Learning Environment is not an

appropriate forum for queries about the EA.

(e) Plagiarism is a breach of regulations. To ensure compliance with the specific

University of London regulations, all students are advised to read the

guidelines on referencing the work of other people. For more detailed

information, see the User Resource Section of the Online Learning

Environment.


© SOAS CeDEP 5

STUDY MATERIALS

There is one textbook that accompanies this module.

Grosh M, del Ninno C, Tesliuc E, Ouerghi A (2008) For Protection and

Promotion: The Design and Implementation of Effective Safety Nets. The World

Bank, Washington DC.

This textbook is very clearly written and provides a good overview of the evidence

for social protection by drawing on examples from a wide range of countries. Up-to-

date references as well as some alternative views are given in the module units.

For each of the module units some Key Readings are also provided. These Key

Readings are drawn mainly from relevant academic journals and internationally

respected reports. The Key Readings are intended to extend the material covered in

the units to provide a broader and more thorough treatment of the material being

covered, and their content is examinable.

A selected number of Further Readings are also listed. These texts are not provided

in hard copy, but links are often provided. Further Readings are NOT examinable and

some are provided mainly for individual interest. The notes under each reading

indicate particular aspects of interest to, and relevance for, the course.

Most units also contain multimedia links (mostly video, with some audio links).

Students are encouraged to listen to these where possible, and use the Online

Learning Environment to discuss their implications with other students and the tutor.

Finally, each unit contains a full list of References.

Students are encouraged to discuss and provide feedback on the usefulness and

clarity of the course materials through the Online Learning Environment or directly to

the Course Tutor.


© SOAS CeDEP 6

INDICATIVE STUDY CALENDAR

Study material Unit title Study time (hours)

Unit 1 Introducing food security and social protection 10

Unit 2 Measuring poverty and food insecurity 15

Unit 3 Social protection: foundations, instruments,

challenges

15

Unit 4 Design and implementation of social protection 15

Unit 5 The political economy of social protection 10

Unit 6 Access to food 15

Unit 7 Utilisation of food: nutrition, health, culture and

economics

15

Unit 8 Policies and programmes for improved access

and utilisation

15

Unit 9 Availability of food 15

Unit 10 Policy for increasing food availability 10

Examined Assignment

Check the online learning environment for submission deadline

15

Examination entry July

Revision and examination preparation September

End-of-module examination October


© SOAS CeDEP 7

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Asian Development Bank

ATMs automated teller machines

BF Bolsa Familia

BFP Brazilian Bolsa Familia Programme

BMI body mass index

BNP Bangladesh National Party

BRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee

BWPI Brooks World Poverty Institute

CaLP The Cash Learning Partnership

CBA cost–benefit analysis

CCI complementary community investment

CCT conditional cash transfer

CE cost-effectiveness

CEBRAP Centro Brasileiro de Análise e Planejamento

CEISIN Center for International Earth Science Information Network

CeMMAP Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice

CEPAL Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe

CFS United Nations Committee on Food Security

CGAP Consultative Group to Assist the Poor

C-IMI community integrated management of childhood illnesses

CPI Consumer Price Index

CPRC Chronic Poverty Research Centre

CSDH Commission on Social Determinants of Health

CSI Coping Strategy Index

CSP Centre for Social Protection

CSR corporate social responsibility

DAC Development Assistance Committee

DFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom)

DHS demographic and health surveys

DI disability insurance

Eldis Electronic Development and Environment Information System

EPPI-Centre Evidence for Policy and Practice Information-Centre

ESA Agricultural Development Economics Division of FAO

EU European Union


© SOAS CeDEP 8

FANTA Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FBS food balance sheet

FCND Food Consumption and Nutrition Division (of IFPRI)

FEWSNET Famine Early Warning Systems Network

FIAN Food First Information and Action Network

FIS food indicator surveys

FIVIMS Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems

FSP Food Security Programme

GAIN Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition

GBS general budget support

GDP gross domestic product

GIEWS FAO Global Information and Early Warning System

GM

GNH

genetically modified

gross national happiness

GNI(GNP) gross national income

GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit

HCES household consumption and expenditure surveys

HDI human development index

HDN Human Development Network (the World Bank)

HFIAS Household Food Insecurity Access Scale

HHS Household Hunger Scale

HI health insurance

HIV human immunodeficiency virus

HIV/AIDS human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency

syndrome

HMSO Her Majesty’s Stationery Office

HNP Health, Nutrition and Population (the World Bank)

HPLE High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition

ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

ICP International Comparison Programme

IDD International Development Department

IDS Institute of Development Studies

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

IGVGD Income Generation for Vulnerable Groups Development Program

I-LIFE Improving Livelihoods through Increasing Food Security

ILO International Labour Organization


© SOAS CeDEP 9

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

IMF International Monetary Fund

IPC International Policy Centre

IPC Integrated Phase Classification (for food insecurity)

IV instrumental variable

KCAL kilocalorie

KES Kenya shillings

LBW low birth weight

MAHFP months of adequate household food provisioning

MAM moderate acute malnutrition

MASAF Malawi Social Action Fund

MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (also

known as NREGA) in India

M-PESA mobile money (pesa=money in Swahili)

MPI Multi-dimensional Poverty Index

MUAC mid-upper-arm circumference

NBER National Bureau of Economic Research

NCPB National Cereals and Produce Board

NGO non-governmental organisation

OASI Old Age & Survivors Insurance

ODAN Emergency Needs Assessment Branch

ODI Overseas Development Institute (UK)

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OPHI Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative

PAN Mexico’s National Action Party

PDS public distribution system

POS point of sales

PPP purchasing power parity

PRAF Programa de Asignación Familiar (Honduras)

PREM Poverty Reduction and Economic Management

PRSP poverty reduction strategy paper

PSA Mozambican Food Subsidy Programme

PSNP Productive Safety Nets Programme

PW public works

R&D research and development

RCT randomised control trials

REBA Regional Evidence Building Agenda


© SOAS CeDEP 10

RHVP Regional Hunger and Vulnerability Programme

RPDS Research Program in Development Studies (Princeton University)

RPS Red de Protección Social (Social Protection Network)

RRI Rights and Resources Initiative

RUTF ready-to-use therapeutic foods

SAM severe acute malnutrition

SASSA South African Social Security Administration

SCN Standing Committee on Nutrition of the UN

SEDAC Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center

SENAC Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity

SEWA Self Employed Women’s Association

SP social protection

SPI social protection index

SSI supplemental security income

SSRN Social Science Research Network

SUN Scaling Up Nutrition movement

SWAp sector-wide approach

TD targeting differential

UCTs unconditional cash transfers

UN United Nations

UNCESCR UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

UNCHR United Nations Commission on Human Rights

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNFPA United Nations Population Fund

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund (used to be United Nations

International Children’s Emergency Fund)

UNRISD United Nations Research Institute for Social Development

UNSD/UNSTATS United Nations Statistics Division

UNU United Nations University

USAID United States Agency for International Development

VAM Vulnerability Assessment Mapping

VGD Bangladesh’s Vulnerable Group Development Programme

WFP World Food Programme (of the UN)

WFP-VAM World Food Programme Vulnerability Mapping Unit

WHO World Health Organization

Unit One: Introducing Food Security and Social Protection

Unit Information 2

Unit Overview 2 Unit Aims 2 Unit Learning Outcomes 2 Unit Interdependencies 2

Key Readings 3

Further Readings 4

References 5

Multimedia 12

1.0 Food security: initial concepts and definitions 13

Section Overview 13 Section Learning Outcomes 13 1.1 Introduction 13 1.2 Definition of food security 15 1.3 Components of food security 17 Section 1 Self Assessment Questions 21

2.0 Introduction to poverty, vulnerability and livelihoods 22

Section Overview 22 Section Learning Outcomes 22 2.1 Poverty: basic definitions and concepts 22 2.2 Risk and vulnerability 26 2.3 Livelihoods approach 35 Section 2 Self Assessment Questions 39

3.0 Social protection: a brief introduction 41

Section Overview 41 Section Learning Outcomes 41 3.1 Introduction 41 3.2 Values and their influence on social policies 42 3.3 Definitions and objectives of social protection 44 Section 3 Self Assessment Questions 46

Unit Summary 47

Unit Self Assessment Questions 47

P525 Food Security and Social Protection Unit 1

© SOAS CeDEP 2

UNIT INFORMATION

Unit Overview This unit will introduce the basic concepts and frameworks which underpin analysis of food security and social protection. These include the concepts of poverty, livelihoods, and risk and vulnerability and how these are linked to food security and social protection. The unit also discusses the different values and world-views which may underpin different social policies and introduces some of the terminology used to describe values. Finally, the unit introduces the concept of social protection and explains what this module will and will not cover.

Unit Aims • To provide a basic introduction to the most common concepts and frameworks

which underpin analysis and debate about food security and social protection.

• To set out some linkages between them.

• To discuss the competing values and world-views that underpin debates on social protection and food security policy.

Unit Learning Outcomes By the end of this unit, students should be able to:

• outline the historical evolution of the current international definition of food security and distinguish its components

• explain the importance of shocks, trends and seasonality in perpetuating poverty and inequality

• define the livelihoods approach and discuss its strengths and limitations

• discuss the competing values and world-views that underpin debates on social protection and food security policy

Unit Interdependencies This is an introductory unit and many of the concepts will be further explored later in the module. In particular: Unit 2 discusses measurements of poverty and food security, Unit 3 discusses the underlying approaches to social protection, and Units 5–7 discuss the main components of food security (availability, access and utilisation) in much more detail.

If you would like to look further at the poverty and livelihoods concepts covered here, see other CeDEP modules: P519 (Understanding Poverty) and P535 (Socioeconomics of Rural Livelihoods).


© SOAS CeDEP 3

KEY READINGS

Section 1

No key reading required. See link to FAO website below for a short e-learning course that will reinforce these terms and concepts. This centre has free e-learning courses on a variety of aspects of food security. They are quick to take online and carefully thought through, so they are highly recommended, especially if the concepts are new to you. They also have course versions in French and Spanish.

For example, you could start with the introductory course on Food Security Concepts and Frameworks (from the front page this is labelled ‘What is Food Security’?)

http://www.foodsec.org/dl/elcpages/food-security-learning-center.asp?pgLanguage=en&leftItemSelected=food-security-learning-center

Section 2

Grosh M, del Ninno C, Tesliuc E, Ouerghi A (2008) Appendix A: Basic concepts of poverty and social risk management. In: For Protection and Promotion: The Design and Implementation of Effective Safety Nets. The World Bank, Washington DC, pp. 453–464.

This book will be the main textbook for the course as regards social protection. This appendix covers many of the concepts introduced in this unit, including poverty, risk and vulnerability. Note that not all terms are used in exactly the same way we use them in this module. This is an introduction to the variability in terminology that you will encounter in your wider reading!

Scoones I (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working Paper 72, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Brighton, UK.

A fairly early paper on the sustainable livelihoods approach (introduced in Section 2) that was influential in establishing the approach in its current form.

Section 3

Grosh M, del Ninno C, Tesliuc E, Ouerghi A (2008) Introduction. In: For Protection and Promotion: The Design and Implementation of Effective Safety Nets. The World Bank, Washington DC, pp. 1–9.

As mentioned above, this book will be the main textbook for the course as regards social protection. Section 1.3 (pp. 4—6) provides a useful introduction to what the book calls safety nets and we call social transfers. It is also worth skimming through the rest of the chapter to get an overview of what the book covers, much of which we will be returning to in later units.


© SOAS CeDEP 4

FURTHER READINGS

Morduch J (1995) Income smoothing and consumption smoothing. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(3) 103–114.

Available from: http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.9.3.103

This paper introduces the concepts of risks and risk aversion and distinguishes between income- and consumption-smoothing strategies adopted by households in the backdrop of missing or incomplete insurance and credit markets. The discussion highlights the role of, and costs associated with, the risk-mitigation strategies which help smooth income, by affecting household production and employment decisions.

Sen AK (1981) Ingredients of famine analysis: availability and entitlements. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 96(3) 433–464.

Available from: http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/3/433.full.pdf+html

This seminal paper by Amartya Sen introduces what is known as the ‘entitlement’ framework. It was (together with Sen’s book Poverty and Famines, published in the same year) influential in shifting the analysis of famine away from a focus on the decline of food availability as a major cause of famine, to highlight the various channels through which a household is able, or fails to, acquire enough food. The entitlement approach is applied to analyse three large-scale famines (in Bengal, Ethiopia and Bangladesh) to show how famines can occur as a result of direct and trade-based entitlement failures, even in the absence of food availability decline.


© SOAS CeDEP 5

REFERENCES

Alden Wily L (2012) Customary Land Tenure in the Modern World. Brief 1 of 5, Rights to Resources in Crisis: Reviewing the Fate of Customary Tenure in Africa, Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI).

Available from: http://www.rightsandresources.org/documents/files/doc_4699.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Alkire S (2002) Dimensions of human development. World Development 30(2) 181–205.

Bachelet M (chair) (2011) Social Protection Floor for a Fair and Inclusive Globalization. Report of the Advisory Group chaired by Michelle Bachelet convened by the ILO with the collaboration of the World Health Organization, International Labour Organization (ILO), Geneva.

Barrientos A (2011) Social protection and poverty. International Journal of Social Welfare 20(3) 240–249.

Benson T (2004) Africa’s Food and Nutrition Security Situation: Where Are We and How Did We Get Here? 2020 Discussion Paper No 27, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC.

Available from: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/2020/dp/dp37/2020dp37.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Bradbury M (1998) Normalising the crisis in Africa. Disasters 22(4) 328–338.

CFS (2012a) Coming to Terms with Terminology (Draft 30 April 2012). UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS).

Available from: http://www.csm4cfs.org/files/Pagine/10/cfs_terminology_30_april_2012_final_draft.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

CFS (2012b) Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition (Second draft May 2012). UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS).

Available from: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1112/WGs/GSF/MD976E_GSF_Draft_Two.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Chambers R, Conway G (1992) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. IDS Discussion Paper 296, Institute for Development Studies (IDS), Brighton.

Available from: http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/775/Dp296.pdf?sequence=1 [Accessed 22 July 2013]


© SOAS CeDEP 6

Clay E (2002) Food Security: Concepts and Measurement. Paper 1, FAO Expert Consultation on Trade and Food Security: Conceptualizing the Linkages, 11–12 July 2002, Rome.

Available from: http://ieham.org/html/docs/food_security_concepts_and_measurement.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Davis P (2006) Poverty in Time: Exploring Poverty Dynamics from Life History Interviews in Bangladesh. CPRC Working Paper 69, Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC).

Available from: http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/WP69_Davis.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Dercon S, Krishnan P (2000) Vulnerability, seasonality and poverty in Ethiopia. Journal of Development Studies 30(6) 25–53.

Dercon S (2006) Vulnerability: a Micro Perspective. Working Paper 149, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.

Available from: http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/RePEc/qeh/qehwps/qehwps149.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Devereux S (2006) Distinguishing Between Chronic and Transitory Food Insecurity in Emergency Needs Assessments. Emergency Needs Assessment Branch (ODAN)/Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity (SENAC)/ Institute of Development Studies, United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), Rome.

Available from: http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp085331.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Devereux S (2009) Seasonality and Social Protection in Africa. Future Agricultures FAC Working Paper SP07.

Devereux S, Baulch B, Hussein K, Shoham J, Sida H, Wilcock D (2004) Improving the Analysis of Food Insecurity. Food Insecurity Measurement, Livelihoods Approaches and Policy: Applications in FIVIMS. Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems (FIVIMS) Secretariat.

Available from: http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/ppme/Final_Paper5.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

DFID (1999) Section 2: Framework. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Department for International Development (DFID).

Available from: http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0901/section2.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]


© SOAS CeDEP 7

Dilley M, Boudreau TE (2001) Coming to terms with vulnerability: a critique of the food security definition. Food Policy 26(3) 229–247.

Dorward A, Poole N, Morrison J, Kydd J, Urey I (2003) Markets, institutions and technology: missing links in livelihoods analysis. Development Policy Review 21(3) 319–332.

European Communities (2010) Social Protection for Inclusive Development: A New Perspective in EU Co-operation with Africa. The 2010 European Report on Development.

Available from: http://erd.eui.eu/media/2010/Social_Protection_for_Inclusive_Development.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

FAO (2002) The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.

FAO (2003) Trade Reforms and Food Security. Conceptualizing the Linkages. Commodity Policy and Projection Services, Commodity and Trade Division, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.

Available from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y4671e/y4671e00.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

FAO (2006) Food Security. Policy Brief Issue 2, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.

Available from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esa/policybriefs/pb_02.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Garrett J, Natalicchio M (eds) (2011) Working Multisectorally in Nutrition: Principles, Practices, and Case Studies. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC.

Available from: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/oc68.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Gauri V, Gloppen S (2012) Human Rights Based Approaches to Development: Concepts, Evidence, and Policy. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 5938, The World Bank, Washington DC.

Available from: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/01/09/000158349_20120109120516/Rendered/PDF/WPS5938.pdf [Accessed 14 January 2014]

Gore C (2000) The rise and fall of the Washington consensus as a paradigm for developing countries. World Development 28(5) 789–804.


© SOAS CeDEP 8

Grosh M, del Ninno C, Tesliuc E, Ouerghi A (2008) For Protection and Promotion: The Design and Implementation of Effective Safety Nets. The World Bank, Washington DC.

Hoddinott J (2001) Choosing outcome indicators of household food security. In: Hoddinott J (ed) Methods for Rural Development Projects. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC.

Hulme D, Moore K, Shepherd A (2001) Chronic Poverty: Meanings and Analytical Frameworks. CPRC Working Paper 2, Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC).

Available from: http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/WP02_Hulme_et_al.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Jakiela P, Ozier O (2012) Does Africa Need a Rotten Kin Theorem ? Experimental Evidence from Village Economies. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 6085, The World Bank, Washington DC.

Available from: http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/6085.html [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Jalan J, Ravallion M (1997) Are the Poor Less Well-Insured? Evidence on Vulnerability to Income Risk in Rural China. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 1863, The World Bank, Washington DC.

Available from: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1997/12/01/000009265_3980203115037/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Kuhn TS (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn. University of Chicago Press.

Levinson J (2002) Searching for a Home: The Institutionalization Issue in International Nutrition. Background Paper, The World Bank–UNICEF Nutrition Assessment, Washington DC and New York, pp. 131–143.

Available from: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CFEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tulane.edu%2F~internut%2Fpublications%2FWB_Bckgrd_Pprs%2FNarrative%2FNarrative%2520fiveLevinson.doc&ei=QTLaT_-0GOql0QXDwcCWAg&usg=AFQjCNFNkEiuiu-AKpJGfATGo2agXoal7g [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Maslow AH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50(4) 370–396.

Merriam-Webster (undated) Dictionary.

Available from: http://www.merriam-webster.com [Accessed 22 July 2013]


© SOAS CeDEP 9

Narayan D, Chambers R, Shah M, Petesch P (1999) Global Synthesis: Consultations with the Poor. Draft. The World Bank, Washington DC.

Available from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVERTY/Resources/335642-1124115102975/1555199-1124138742310/synthes.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Nyamu-Musembi C, Cornwall A (2004) What is the ‘Rights-based Approach’ All About? Perspectives from International Development Agencies. IDS Working Paper No 234, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Brighton.

Available from: http://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/what-is-the-rights-based-approach-all-about-perspectives-from-international-development-agencies [Accessed 22 July 2013]

OECD (2011) How’s Life? Measuring Well-Being. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

OECD-DAC (2009) The Role of Employment and Social Protection: Making Economic Growth More Pro-Poor. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development- Development Assistance Committee.

poverty-wellbeing.net (undated) The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach – a Reference Frame for SDC.

Available from: http://www.poverty-wellbeing.net/media/sla/docs/introduction.htm [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Ravallion M (2012) Poor, or Just Feeling Poor? On Using Subjective Data in Measuring Poverty. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 5968, The World Bank, Washington DC.

Available from: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/02/13/000158349_20120213135845/Rendered/PDF/WPS5968.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Ravallion M, Chen S (2010) Weakly relative poverty. Review of Economics and Statistics 93(4) 1251–1261.

Rosenzweig MR, Binswanger HP (1993) Wealth, weather risk and the composition and profitability of agricultural investments. Economic Journal 103(416) 56–78.

Scoones I (2009) Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies 36(1) 171–196.

Sen AK (1981) Ingredients of famine analysis: availability and entitlements. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 96(3) 433–464.

Available from: http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/3/433.full.pdf+html [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Sen AK (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.


© SOAS CeDEP 10

UNDP (1990) Human Development Report 1990. Oxford University Press.

UNDP (2011) A Social Protection Floor for All. Video. International Labour Organization (ILO). Video. Duration 6:50 minutes.

Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhdfxHnJAl0 [Accessed 22 July 2013]

UNICEF (2009) Tracking Progress on Child and Maternal Nutrition: A Survival and Development Priority. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), New York.

Available from: http://www.unicef.org/nutrition/files/Tracking_Progress_on_Child_and_Maternal_Nutrition_EN_110309.pdf[Accessed 22 July 2013]

UNICEF (2012) Integrated Social Protection Systems: Enhancing Equity for Children. UNICEF Social Protection Strategic Framework, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), New York.

Available from: http://www.unicef.org/socialprotection/framework/files/UNICEF_Social_Protection_Strategic_Framework_full_doc_std%281%29.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Ura K, Alkire S, Zangmo T (2012) Case study: Bhutan. Gross National Happiness and the GNH Index. In: Helliwell J, Layard R, Sachs J (eds) World Happiness Report. United Nations/Columbia University, pp. 108–148.

Available from: http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Sachs%20Writing/2012/World%20Happiness%20Report.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Vicarelli M (2010) Exogenous Income Shocks and Consumption Smoothing Strategies Among Rural Households in Mexico. Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

Available from: http://yale.academia.edu/MartaVicarelli/Papers/1369512/Exogenous_Income_Shocks_and_Consumption_Smoothing_Strategies_Among_Rural_Households_in_Mexico [Accessed 22 July 2013]

World Bank (2001) Social Protection Sector Strategy: From Safety Net to Springboard. The World Bank, Washington DC.

Available from: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/01/26/000094946_01011705303891/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]


© SOAS CeDEP 11

World Bank (2012) Resilience, Equity, and Opportunity: The World Bank’s Social Protection and Labor Strategy 2012–2022. The World Bank, Washington DC.

Available from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/280558-1274453001167/7089867-1279223745454/7253917-1291314603217/SPL_Strategy_2012-22_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2013]

World Bank (12 April 2012) Catching Hope: Safety Nets Change Lives in Brazil and Ethiopia. The World Bank, Washington DC.

Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bovGA93Q5-s&feature=relmfu [Accessed 22 July 2013]

Zimmerman FJ, Carter MR (2003) Asset smoothing, consumption smoothing and the reproduction of inequality under risk and subsistence constraints. Journal of Development Economics 71(2) 233–260.


© SOAS CeDEP 12

MULTIMEDIA

Al Jazeera News (20 July 2011) Millions Face Famine in Somalia. Video. Duration 4.13 minutes.

Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hr7wSDNgxI

Al Jazeera news item on the declaration of famine in Somalia in 2011 (referred to in Section 1.1).

UNDP (25 October 2011) A Social Protection Floor for All. Video. International Labour Organization (ILO). Video. Duration 6.50 minutes.

Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhdfxHnJAl0

UNDP video on the concept of a Social Protection Floor (a minimum level of social protection that countries should work towards), with examples of social protection programmes in different countries (referred to in Section 3.1).

World Bank (12 April 2012) Catching Hope: Safety Nets Change Lives in Brazil and Ethiopia. Video. Duration 6.09 minutes.

Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bovGA93Q5-s&feature=relmfu

World Bank video on safety nets in Brazil and Ethiopia (referred to in Section 3.1).


© SOAS CeDEP 13

1.0 FOOD SECURITY: INITIAL CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

Section Overview This section discusses the evolution of the concept of food security and nutrition and introduces some of the terms you will be using in the module.

Section Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, students should be able to:

• describe the evolution of international thinking around food and nutritional security

• explain the differences between food insecurity, hunger and malnutrition

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 Some definitions

Hunger:

– an uneasy sensation occasioned by the lack of food

– a weakened condition brought about by prolonged lack of food

Malnutrition:

– faulty nutrition due to inadequate or unbalanced intake of nutrients or their impaired assimilation or utilization (first known use of word: 1862)

Source: Merriam-Webster online dictionary

Food security:

– a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life

Source: FAO (2002)

Often, the most visible face of world hunger is severe transitory food insecurity (these terms will be defined later in the unit), accompanied by an international appeal for food aid. If this is not already very familiar to you, you can find an example in the video link by Al Jazeera News (2011).

FAO (2006) states that ‘as of May 2006, 39 countries in the world were experiencing serious food emergencies and required external assistance for dealing with critical food insecurity: 25 in Africa, 11 in Asia and the Near East, two in Latin America and one in Europe’ and further stated that since 2000 about 30 countries a year have declared some type of food emergency (see 1.1.2), below.


© SOAS CeDEP 14

1.1.2 Countries facing food emergencies for five or more consecutive years, 1986—2005

Source: FAO (2006) p. 2.

However, chronic food insecurity — in particular malnutrition or ‘hidden hunger’ — is much more widespread. One measure of chronic malnutrition (stunting) is shown in 1.1.3.

1.1.3 Prevalence of chronic malnutrition (percentage of children under 5 who are moderately or severely stunted)

Source: UNICEF (2009) p. 15, data from 2003—2008

Countries facing food emergencies (1986–2005)(consecutive years including 2005)

< 5 years 12 –14 years5 – 8 years > 15 years9–11 years

Less than 5 per cent5 –19 per cent20 – 29 per cent30 – 39 per cent40 per cent or moreData not available


© SOAS CeDEP 15

Consider the two maps in 1.1.2 and 1.1.3. Which countries are in the most severe (red) category for food emergencies? Are these the same countries that are in the most severe category for long-term malnutrition? (The years don’t match, but please ignore that for this exercise).

1.2 Definition of food security The concept of food security has evolved considerably since it was first introduced in international development policy debates in the 1970s. Many definitions and indicators have been proposed (Hoddinott 2001 p. 31). In the table in 1.2.1 we present a few of the declarations on hunger and definitions of food security.

1.2.1 Food security: an evolving definition

1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights This includes a ‘Right to adequate standard of living’ but without defining very specifically what this means in terms of food security.

1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ‘to improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition …’ and ‘… to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need’ (Article 11).

1974 Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition ‘Every man, woman, and child has an inalienable right to be free from hunger and malnutrition’.

1974

World Food Summit ‘Availability at all times of adequate world food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and prices.’ This is believed to be the first internationally-agreed definition of food security.

1983 FAO, World Food Security ‘Ensuring that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to the basic food that they need’.

1996 World Food Summit ‘Food security, at the individual, household, national, regional and global levels [is achieved] when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.’

2002 (current)

FAO ‘Food security [is] a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.

Sources: FAO (2003) pp. 25—34, CFS (2012a)


© SOAS CeDEP 16

Look through the definitions in the table in 1.2.1. What are the key changes from the 1974 definition of food security to 1983 and then 1996?

Answer

The 1974 definition focuses on world availability of basic foodstuffs. It does not consider distribution of food among or within countries, or other aspects. Its main concern is diminishing volatility (fluctuations) in supply and prices.

In 1983, the definition focuses on people’s access to basic food. (see below for more explanation of the term access) Access includes both availability (physical access) and economic access. Access is conceived in economic terms. Stability is also included (‘all times’).

By 2002, the definition has brought in many different concepts:

Who? All people

What? Safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences (concepts of nutrition, food hygiene and safety, and cultural acceptability)

How much? Sufficient for an active and healthy life

When? All times (stability)

How? Physical (availability), social and economic access

More details on the history of the food security definition are given in FAO (2006).

Over the years, definitions of food security have become broader, including a wide range of food-related issues. There are four main components of food security normally used:

(a) aggregate food availability, usually at the global or national level

(b) food access (or entitlement) at the household or individual level

(c) food utilisation, is concerned with the conversion of food into adequate nutritional well-being at the individual level

(d) stability of access to food is concerned with ensuring that people maintain access to food at all times, for example, avoiding seasonal hunger

Finally, quality considerations such as food safety and the cultural acceptability of food have also been incorporated into the definition.

The final definition in the table above (that of FAO 2002) is now widely accepted as the international definition of food security. As noted by Edward Clay, however, the increasing complexity of the definition has had a mixed effect on practice:

‘… the concept [of food security] had lost its simplicity and was not itself a goal, but an intermediating set of actions that contribute to an active and healthy life … The international community has accepted these increasingly broad statements of common goals and implied responsibilities. But its practical response has been to focus on narrower, simpler objectives around which to organise international and national public action.’

Source: Clay (2002) p. 3.


© SOAS CeDEP 17

These ‘narrower, simpler’ objectives often focus on one of the components in the food security definition. Each of these will be discussed in turn.

1.3 Components of food security

(a) Food availability

‘Availability: The availability of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate quality, supplied through domestic production or import (including food aid).’


Early definitions of food security focused on the availability of food at the national or global level and emphasised the ability of a country to produce and import enough food to feed its population. In terms of policy, food security was to be attained through three main channels: by enhancing food production; through trade flows between food surplus and food deficit countries; and by building regional and national food stocks. In a national emergency, these channels might be supplemented by international (large-scale, normally untargeted) food aid.

Concerns regarding food availability at the global level were particularly acute in the early 1970s, as global food prices shot up, in particular, due to high oil prices. This is reflected in the 1974 definition of food security in the table above.

The question of overall food availability has taken centre stage again in the last few years as demand has risen and world food prices have again shot up. This has triggered a return to policy discussions about food production, self-sufficiency, large versus small farms, land-grabbing, grain storage and trade. These will be discussed at more length later in the course.

(b) Access to food

During the 1980s, an important dimension was added to the concept of food security: access to food, analysed at the household and individual level.

Food access: ‘Access by individuals to adequate resources (entitlements) for acquiring appropriate foods for a nutritious diet.’


This conceptual shift from aggregate food availability to household or individual food entitlement has been credited to the seminal analysis of large-scale famines conducted by Amartya Sen (1981). The potency of Sen’s analysis came from his demonstration that there was no evident decline in food availability in three out of the four large-scale famines he analysed: the Bengal Famine (1943), the famine in Bangladesh (1974), and the 1973 famine in Ethiopia.


© SOAS CeDEP 18

Sen’s major insight was that decline in overall food availability was not the direct cause of famine. Rather it was the ability to ‘access’ food which counted: it was perfectly possible to ‘starve in the midst of plenty’ if you had no means to buy, borrow or beg food. This was not a new discovery: for example, throughout the Great Famine in Ireland (1845–1852), food continued to be exported in large quantities from Ireland to England. However, Sen’s analysis was successful in changing the international debate from a focus on aggregate food availability to a focus on access (which he called ‘entitlements’) to food by different, disaggregated population groups, such as small farmers, small traders and pastoralists.

(c) Utilisation of food

Good nutrition depends on much more than the availability of nutritious food. Among other things, it depends on healthy food choices and good health to digest the food.

In the 1990s the concept of nutrition was incorporated in the definition of food security through adding a new component, of food ‘utilisation’. As FAO (2006) defines it:

‘Utilization: Utilization of food through adequate diet, clean water, sanitation and health care to reach a state of nutritional well-being where all physiological needs are met. This brings out the importance of non-food inputs in food security’


To what extent the concept of food security should include responsibility for ensuring good nutrition, however, has been the subject of debate for many years. To put the history in simplistic terms (detailed accounts are given in Levinson 2002 and Garrett and Natalicchio 2011): until the 1970s, food security was mostly seen as the job of agriculturalists, trade specialists and home economists: to ‘put food on the table’. The nutritional quality of food and its effect on human growth was seen as the job of nutritionists and doctors, who, in their turn, took a medical view of nutrition, as a problem to be treated by supplementary feeding and medical treatment. From the 1970s, a number of developing countries tried to promote a multi-sectoral approach to nutrition, while a number of international conferences were called to try to bring different institutions together to work on a collaborative approach. However, this was only moderately successful and, even within the United Nations, there was a clear split between agencies. To quote Levinson (2002 p. 135), ‘Institutionally speaking, did nutrition belong in ministries of health or social welfare or departments of women and children, the logical loci of UNICEF-assisted programs, or did it belong in ministries of food, agriculture or even industrial development, the prime counterparts in FAO-assisted programs?’ These issues have not been completely resolved to this day.


© SOAS CeDEP 19

Many authors make a distinction between food security and nutrition security. For example:

‘A household is food secure if it can reliably gain access to food in sufficient quantity and quality for all household members to enjoy a healthy and active life. It is possible, however, for individuals in food-secure households to have deficient or unbalanced diets. Nutrition security is achieved when secure access to food is coupled with a sanitary environment, adequate health services, and knowledgeable care to ensure a healthy and active life for all household members. The ability of an individual to fully reach his or her personal and economic potential, however defined, must depend to a large degree on his or her level of nutrition security.

Source: Benson (2004) p. ix.

However, there is not yet any internationally agreed definition of nutrition security. The United Nations Committee on Food Security (CFS) has been reconsidering the terminology (CFS 2012a and 2012b), noting that ‘The current lack of consistency in the use of these terms can cause confusion and hold back meaningful discussion of the core issues’. One way forward proposed was to use the term ‘Food and Nutrition Security’.

This module will employ the Benson (2004) definition quoted above for nutrition security and the FAO (2002) definition above for food security.

(d) Stability

‘To be food secure, a population, household or individual must have access to adequate food at all times. They should not risk losing access to food as a consequence of sudden shocks (eg an economic or climatic crisis) or cyclical events (eg seasonal food insecurity). The concept of stability can therefore refer to both the availability and access dimensions of food security.’


The distinction between short-term (transitory) and long-term (chronic) food insecurity is important, as different policies are needed to address them.

• Chronic food insecurity is generally associated with long-term poverty and poor nutrition

• Transitory (temporary) food insecurity comes from intensified pressure caused by conflict, economic factors (world food prices) or natural disasters

• Seasonal food insecurity is recurring and generally associated with an annual hungry period

The above terms all refer to the duration of food insecurity, while the terms moderate and severe (or acute) refer to the severity of food insecurity.


© SOAS CeDEP 20

Devereux (2006) points out that ‘transitory’ can be confused with ‘acute’, with the assumption that chronic food insecurity implies a low level of hunger: what (Bradbury 1998) has called the ‘normalisation of crisis’. This might seem a mere matter of words, but as Devereux highlights, the confusion between ‘acute/severe’ and ‘transitory’ can have practical consequences. Political support for relief in food crises often reflects a rapid drop from what is seen as a ‘normal’ level of malnutrition rather than an objective assessment of relative needs. As an example, Devereux (2006 p. xii) cites ‘a humanitarian intervention in one Southern African country that was triggered by a rise in malnutrition rates from 2.5% to 5%, but routine nutritional surveillance in Somalia that reported 13% malnutrition produced no donor reaction, as this level was considered “normal” for Somalia’.

Preventing and responding to shocks, and maintaining stability of food security, is one of the major objectives of both food security and social protection programmes.


© SOAS CeDEP 21

Section 1 Self Assessment Questions

uestion 1

What are the four key components of food security agreed in the international definition?

uestion 2

What are the main differences between food security and nutrition security, as reflected in the definitions given by FAO (2006) and Benson (2004) above?

Q

Q


© SOAS CeDEP 22

2.0 INTRODUCTION TO POVERTY, VULNERABILITY AND

LIVELIHOODS

Section Overview This section starts by introducing some of the basic concepts of poverty that you will be using. It goes on to discuss the importance of shocks in perpetuating long-term poverty and food insecurity, and to define some of the key terms used in discussing shocks, risks and vulnerability. It presents evidence that risks and shocks may not only cause short-term suffering but also lead to long-term increases in poverty, reduce entrepreneurship, increase inequality and reduce economic growth. Finally, this section introduces the livelihoods approach, a bottom-up way of thinking about poverty and vulnerability which underpins much food security and social protection work.


• set out the main concepts and terms used in poverty analysis

• explain the importance of risks, trends and seasonality for long-term poverty and food security, giving examples

• describe the main points of the livelihoods framework, including how the five capitals may affect the food security options available to a household

2.1 Poverty: basic definitions and concepts Poverty is intimately connected to food security. Poor households in poor countries often spend over half of their entire income on food, and this can rise to 75% or more in hard times. This compares to around 12–15% of income spent by the average household in a wealthy country. However, the many factors affecting food security – in particular the utilisation of food – mean that the relationship between poverty and food security is not straightforward.

What is meant by poverty? There is no single concept or definition (see 2.1.1, below). When you are reading about social protection and food security, you will come across a number of different definitions and measures. For this module, the most important point to remember is that different ways of measuring poverty can drastically affect the numbers of people who are counted as poor, as well as the depth of poverty.

It is often argued that poor people’s own perceptions, what is important to them, and what they consider makes a person ‘rich’ or ‘poor’ should underpin any definition of poverty. The views of poor people from developing countries, have been collected in various ‘participatory’ exercises, most famously in the World Bank’s global study Voices of the Poor (summarised in Narayan et al 1999).


© SOAS CeDEP 23

2.1.1 Dimensions of well-being according to the voices of the poor

Material well-being: having enough

Food

Assets

Work

Bodily well-being: being and appearing well

Health

Appearances

Physical environment

Social well-being:

Being able to care for, bring up, marry and settle children

Self-respect and dignity

Peace, harmony, good relations in the family/community

Security:

Civil peace

A physically safe and secure environment

Personal physical security

Lawfulness and access to justice

Security in old age

Confidence in the future

Freedom of choice and action

Psychological well-being:

Peace of mind

Happiness

Harmony (including spiritual life and religious observance)

Source: Alkire (2002) p. 190, extracted from The Voices of the Poor summarised by Narayan et al (2000)

Poor people’s own perceptions, however, do not provide us with a firm basis for comparing poverty among households and areas (Ravallion 2012). For this reason, poverty has been conceptualised in a number of ways. The main concepts are described briefly below.

Some of the main concepts of poverty that you will encounter are:

(a) Income poverty or ‘money metrics’

The income poverty or money-metric approach essentially views poverty as a lack of goods and services (consumption), and of the money (income) with which they can be purchased. Income and/or consumption measures are the most commonly used measures of poverty and the basis of most of the international poverty statistics that you will see quoted, but have also been widely criticised on the grounds that ‘money cannot buy happiness’, and income does not measure what is truly important to people.


© SOAS CeDEP 24

(b) Absolute and relative poverty

International poverty statistics use an absolute definition of poverty: you are poor if your income or consumption falls below a certain defined level (the poverty line), and not poor if your income is above it. However, many people feel ‘poor’ or ‘rich’ in comparison to others around them, rather than in relation to an absolute standard. With this in mind, many wealthier countries take a relative approach to measuring poverty, where poverty is defined as being below a certain fraction of median income. It has been suggested (Ravallion and Chen 2010) that this approach should also be applied to measuring poverty in developing and middle-income countries.

(c) Basic needs

The basic needs philosophy counts people as poor if they are deprived of certain basic material needs. The underlying thinking is that material deprivation must be addressed before other more complex psychological needs can be satisfied (this reflects a popular psychological theory called Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – Maslow 1943). While most people agree that humans have basic material needs, it has proved more difficult to agree on what these are, and to make comparisons across countries. For example, a household without a television might be counted as poor in some wealthy countries, whereas a television might be a luxury in other places.

The concept of basic needs (and also the concept of capabilities) has some difficulty in integrating the problem of what might be termed poor choices. For example, if someone has a good salary but chooses not to spend the money on basic needs (preferring to blow it all on drink and gambling, for example) are they counted as poor?

(d) Happiness

The happiness approach focuses on measuring life satisfaction and what is most important to people. In that sense, it represents an approach to quantifying the qualitative perceptions of poor people. The most famous happiness index is Gross National Happiness, used by the Kingdom of Bhutan (Ura et al 2012), and the concept is gaining much interest in wealthy countries (OECD 2011). However, the use of a happiness measure has also been criticised on the grounds that people can report feeling happy when they are actually poor, ill and oppressed (or oppressing others).

(e) Capabilities and human development

This influential and philosophically rich approach was initially proposed by Amartya Sen in his book Development as Freedom (Sen 1999). Poverty is conceived as a set of constraints or ‘unfreedoms’ to people realising their full human potential, and therefore the objective of development should be to enable them to mobilise their ‘capabilities’ and ‘functionings’. The capabilities approach was taken up by the UNDP and popularised in their annual Human Development Reports. The term human development was defined by the first Human Development Report (UNDP 1990) as ‘a process of enlarging people's choices’, and is often used as a shorthand for the

capabilities approach to poverty reduction.


© SOAS CeDEP 25

(f) Chronic and transient poverty

Whatever concept of poverty is used, it is also important to understand that households may move in and out of poverty over time. A stylised depiction of some of the possible poverty trajectories for a household, using a poverty line, is given in the figure in 2.1.2. All the households vary in their poverty levels over time. However, on the far left of the figure you can see households who always fall below the poverty line and thus are in chronic poverty. On the far right there are households that never fall below the poverty line (the non-poor). The middle of the diagram shows households that are usually or sometimes non-poor but sometimes or often fall below the poverty line – the transient (or transitory) poor.

2.1.2 Stylised diagram showing chronic and transient poverty

Source: Hulme et al (2001) p. 13.

The diagram in 2.1.3 gives a real-life example of changes in perceived household poverty levels over time, taken from an interview with a poor rural Bangladeshi woman, 33 years old at the time of interview. In this case, what were the main causes of sudden declines in household well-being?

2.1.3 Stylised depiction of ‘life condition’ based on an interview with a rural Bangladeshi woman

Source: re-drawn from Davis (2006) p. 18.


© SOAS CeDEP 26

(g) Poverty and the lifecycle

In most societies there is a strong relationship between poverty and the lifecycle. For example, the birth of a baby commonly causes household expenses to increase while reducing household income during the period the mother does not work. Old people and children cannot work full time (or even if they could, it is normally not accepted that they should). The presence of many such dependants in a household (a high dependency ratio) is likely to increase household poverty, whereas households with grown-up children may find themselves better off. For these reasons, most societies see the need to provide extra support to households which would otherwise be in poverty due to lifecycle events such as maternity and old age.

2.2 Risk and vulnerability An important point to note from the previous section is that insecurity (including food insecurity) forms a significant part of what poor people identify as important to their definition of poverty. Everyone faces shocks in their lives: for example, sickness, unemployment or theft of an important item. Sources of shocks such as extreme weather, price changes, and disease prevalence are particularly high in many poor countries, particularly in rural areas. As this section will show, shocks and insecurity are important causes of long-term poverty as well as short-term suffering.

Terminology

Many of the terms used in discussing risks and shocks have no generally-accepted international definition and are used in different ways by different authors. The table in 2.2.1, below, explains how the terms are used in this module, as well as noting some other definitions you may come across in the literature. This is a reminder to check meanings carefully as you read!

A particular source of potential confusion is the term vulnerability, which may be applied either to households or communities. This may describe either:

• an imprecise term denoting a general condition of weakness and defencelessness (‘vulnerable old people’)

• a lack of ability to cope with or mitigate the effect of shocks when they arise, ie the opposite of resilience (Dilley and Boudreau 2001)

• a combination of the likely exposure to shocks and the ability to cope with them. Grosh et al (2008 p. 516) express this as ‘the probability that a household will pass below the defined acceptable threshold of a given indicator’ (for poverty or food insecurity) and the mathematics are further explored by Dercon (2006)

In this module we will use the third definition, but all three definitions are in common use and you should check readings carefully to understand what is meant.


© SOAS CeDEP 27

2.2.1 Key terms used to describe risks, shocks and vulnerability

Term Definition in this module Other usages

Shock A specific, uncertain (in timing or magnitude) event which has a negative effect on welfare. A shock may be natural (eg a flood) or man-made (eg a price rise).

In economic parlance, a shock can be positive or negative, but in this module we are talking about negative shocks. The term hazard is sometimes used instead of shock.

Risk A (potential) shock whose probability can be predicted to some extent, so in theory would be ‘insurable’.

Risk may also be used to refer to the probability of a negative shock, or to a combination of probability and (predicted) impact of a shock.

Trend An overall directional change in some aspect of the external environment over time.

Uncertainty A (potential) shock which is not sufficiently predictable to be insurable, such as an earthquake.

A few authors use risk for negative events and uncertainty for positive events.

Idiosyncratic (adjective)

Refers to a shock which affects a single individual or household — such as an illness.

Sometimes called individual.

Covariate (adjective)

Refers to a shock which is common to the community or the whole economy, such as a drought or a rise in world food prices.

Sometimes called common.

Volatility The degree of variability in prices, incomes etc – this may or may not be quantified.

A statistical measure of variation in prices, incomes etc (usually the coefficient of variation).

Vulnerability The likelihood of a long-term decline in well-being due to shocks. This has two components: exposure to shocks and lack of ability to absorb or cope with them.

See discussion above. Vulnerability can also refer to the lack of ability to cope with a shock (ie the opposite of resilience) or to general weakness or need for support (eg vulnerable elderly people) rather than being specifically related to shocks.

Resilience The capacity to absorb or mitigate shocks without a long-term decline in well-being.

The concept of resilience may be applied to the community or environment as well as to the household.

Note: all terms are nouns unless otherwise stated

Source: unit author


© SOAS CeDEP 28

Shocks, trends and seasonality

The table in 2.2.2 shows an example of shocks that affected rural households in Ethiopia over a 20-year period. Fluctuations in weather, changes in commodity prices, illnesses affecting family members, and diseases affecting livestock, were among the most widespread cited sources of shocks.

2.2.2 Shocks faced by rural households in rural Ethiopia

Types of shocks Households reporting hardship in last 20 years (%)

Harvest failure (drought, flooding, frost, etc) 78

Policy shock (taxation, forced labour, ban on migration, …) 42

Labour problems (illness or deaths) 40

Oxen problems (diseases, deaths) 39

Other livestock (diseases, deaths) 35

Land problems (villagisation, land reform) 17

Assets losses (fire, loss) 16

War 7

Crime/banditry (theft, violence) 3

Source: Dercon and Krishnan (2000) p. 5, based on Ethiopian Rural Panel Data Survey (1994—1997)

Dercon (2006) analysed later data from the same Ethiopian survey, and estimated that shocks (in particular from drought and illness) in the 1999–2004 period had increased the proportion of households in poverty by almost half in 2004 over what it would have been without the shocks. In another much-cited paper, Rosenzweig and Binswanger (1993) estimated that the coefficient of variation (CV) of farm profits in their study villages in a semi-arid part of India was 127% over a 7–10 year period, largely due to weather variability (for comparison, they calculated the CV for incomes in young white American males to be about 39%, or less than a third as variable). For people living close to bare subsistence level, this degree of variability is a major threat to survival.

Wider trends may affect the likelihood and amplitude (extent) of shocks as well as the resources needed to cope with them. For example, climate change may increase the likelihood of droughts and also of extreme weather events such as cyclones.

Can you think of other global or regional trends that might increase pressure on poor households, or alternatively open up new opportunities?

Answer

Some examples are:

Increasing population puts more pressure on land and water resources and may increase conflicts.


© SOAS CeDEP 29

Increasing use of new technology may increase opportunities, for example the use of mobile phones to transfer money.

Increasing international price of fossil fuels will increase the cost of food, fertilisers and transport.

Seasonality is a concept which falls between shocks and trends, in the sense that it is recurring and to some extent predictable. Seasonal pressures on household food security are particularly strong in rural areas where there is only one main harvest. The pre-harvest season is often characterised by low food stocks, high food prices and other pressures (such as disease) which cause considerable stresses to the poor.

Coping with and reducing shocks

Shocks will be more or less damaging depending on the extent to which households are able to mitigate their impact. In rich countries, people are able to purchase private insurance against many types of risk (eg fire, theft, sudden death) or to get payments from the government (eg unemployment, missing work through ill health). In countries or places where this is not possible, households deal with risk by resorting to two types of strategies: ex post (after the event) and ex ante (in anticipation of the event).

(a) Ex post strategies

Reactions to shocks are normally referred to as coping strategies, although this term is debatable (some of them might be termed acts of desperation). The table in 2.2.3, below, shows the different coping strategies adopted by the richest and poorest households in northern Ghana during the 1988–1989 food crisis.

2.2.3 Household responses to food deficit (northern Ghana, 1988/1989)

Coping strategy Percentage of households in the

Richest 25% Poorest 25%

Rationed food consumption 22 93

Bought inferior foods 4 59

Relatives, friends helped 4 59

Borrowed/mortgaged crops 22 57

Sold livestock 48 52

Postponed debt repayment 15 52

Sold cash crops 57 48

Ate seeds for planting 0 33

Sent children to relatives 0 22

Postponed a funeral 0 8

Whole household migrated 0 3

Source: Devereux (2009) p. 8, reorganised by unit author


© SOAS CeDEP 30

Look through the table in 2.2.3. What were the most common coping strategies (a) for rich households (b) for poor households? Which strategies were used only by the poorest 25% of households?

Answer

The answers should be obvious from 2.2.3, but here are a couple of points to note:

– stored crops and livestock function as a ‘savings bank’, to be sold any time that money is needed (another common ‘bank’ is stored grain, although this is not mentioned in the example). However, if everyone in an area is selling at the same time in a ‘covariate shock’ such as a drought, prices will drop. This is one of the reasons that pastoralists are often very badly affected in a drought

– the most potentially damaging strategies such as eating seeds intended for the next year’s crop, or migrating, were used only by a minority of poor households, and not used by any of the richer households.

Households facing a shock need to make difficult decisions about the trade-offs between current and future consumption – for example, the decision to eat less and save the seed intended for next year’s planting, or the decision not to pay their debts versus the chance that they will not be able to get credit the next time they need it. The table in 2.2.4, below, lists some of the most common coping strategies (approximately in order of ‘popularity’) and their disadvantages. Note that apparently short-term actions to cope with a shock can have long-term consequences for the people concerned.

2.2.4 Common ‘coping strategies’ and their potential disadvantages

Strategy (most common at the top, least common at the bottom)

Potential disadvantages

Eating less-preferred foods. It is common to cut back on animal products, vegetables and fruit in the diet as they are most expensive.

Micronutrient malnutrition may increase.

Shifting from special ‘complementary’/weaning foods for infants (with higher nutrition) to infants sharing the family’s main food.

Infant malnutrition may increase which has serious impacts on a child’s lifetime prospects of health, education and income.

Eating less at each meal; skipping meals.

Malnutrition may increase, especially in children and pregnant and breastfeeding women.

Taking credit (in cash or kind) or delaying repayment of debt.

Social risks of non-repayment and more serious asset risks eg seizure of assets or loss of pawned assets.


© SOAS CeDEP 31

Getting help from social networks. May include sending family members to relatives or friends.

‘Social debts’ build up.

Getting extra work to generate income: for example, woodcutting and charcoal burning, breaking stones. Stress migration is common in some countries (eg Nepal).

Health problems. When mothers take on additional work this may reduce childcare quality and breastfeeding which may increase infant malnutrition. Migration has social and often health costs (such as an increase in HIV). Woodcutting depletes forests.

Cutting back on non-food expenses, for example, healthcare, education.

Long-term health, education and income loss. Many children who ‘temporarily’ drop out of school never return.

Selling or pawning non-productive assets such as jewellery and radios, then in the last resort productive assets such as oxen or even land.

Loss of standard of living. For productive assets, loss of future income-earning opportunities.

Begging, stealing and prostitution. Socially unacceptable. Risks of violence and disease.

Source: unit author

(b) Ex ante risk management strategies

Understandably, households prefer to avoid ex post strategies if possible. Ex ante risk management involves taking actions that reduce exposure to risks (probable shocks) and minimising their likely impact.

Some common ex ante actions taken by households are listed in the table in 2.2.5. These fall into four main categories:

• Low-risk activities: involving lower investments, thus lower losses if anything goes wrong.

• Diversification of activities: so that a shock affecting one activity will not affect all of them.

• Risk sharing: sharing both risks and rewards, such as share-cropping.

• Keeping a buffer: building up assets, keeping savings in cash or in kind (eg animals), or building up a social support network (‘social credit’).

The poorest households generally find it hardest to build up a buffer, so they can less afford to invest in risky activities, and are therefore termed more risk-averse (risk-avoiding).


© SOAS CeDEP 32

2.2.5 Ex ante options for management of risks

Strategy Potential disadvantages

Choosing lower-risk production options. A classic example is low-investment farm technologies (no or low fertiliser, self-saved seeds instead of hybrid seeds etc).

Lower risk options are likely to be less lucrative.

Spreading risks by diversifying the production portfolio, eg cultivating a range of varieties, crops, or animals; or planting at different times of year.

May not be the highest profit option. Cannot reach economy of scale in production or knowledge specialisation.

Diversifying household livelihoods portfolio — eg new jobs, and sending members to work in city or abroad.

Some authors (eg Vicarelli 2010) have found that an inability to diversify into higher-profit activities characterises the poorest households who are exposed to the highest risks.

Variable, but there are social and health risks (eg transmission of diseases such as HIV from spouses working away from home).

Keeping a ‘buffer’ of savings, eg cash or ‘buffer assets’ such as stored grain or small animals that can be sold quickly when cash is needed. In some cultures women’s jewellery also partially serves this function.

Tying up capital may have an opportunity cost in alternative investments foregone. In the case of a widespread (‘covariate’) shock such as drought, the assets may lose value. Buffer assets are also subject to theft and other hazards (eg grain may be eaten by insects, or animals may die).

Sharing risk with others. For example, in share-cropping, tenants get credit for farm inputs from landlords, payable by a share of the harvest. Payment is lower if the harvest is poor.

Likely to reduce overall rewards in return for risk sharing.

Cash savings and credit. A complex web of credit is common in very poor households.

Inflation may erode the value of savings, also other risks like theft. Social risks of non-repayment of credit, and more serious asset risks, eg seizure of assets or loss of pawned assets.

Contributing to informal social networks including through formal groups such as religious groups and funeral clubs — helping other families in good times and getting help in bad times.

Possible disadvantages are that people are tied into particular social networks. Migrants, people from minority religions, or those who are ‘badly-behaved’ according to local customs may be excluded.


© SOAS CeDEP 33

Formal insurance — this is still rare in poor rural areas, but increasing. Insurance can be against various risks including health, crop and weather insurance. Paying for vaccination of animals against disease (eg Newcastle disease in chickens) can also be considered a form of insurance.

May not be highest profit option if insured risk does not materialise.

Source: unit author

The table in 2.2.5 also lists the potential disadvantages of each strategy. In most cases, it can be seen that there is a trade-off between avoiding risks and maximising profits.

The economic perspective: consumption, income and asset smoothing

Economics uses the terms consumption smoothing and income smoothing to express the activities that people undertake to maintain their consumption (and income, respectively) stable in the face of a variable economic environment. As discussed above, many poor households undertake a mixture of consumption and income smoothing, using both ex ante and ex post strategies, in order to deal with risks and shocks. Households make inter-temporal (over time) trade-offs between present consumption and future income.

The poorest households are concerned to avoid penury (an irretrievable loss of livelihood) as well as to smooth their consumption, and therefore they always need to maintain some assets against future shocks. Zimmerman and Carter (2003) show that this often leads to what they call asset smoothing, ie a higher volatility of consumption in poorer households following a ‘defensive strategy’, than in richer households, which have sufficient assets to maintain a steadier level of consumption, so that they are able to take more risks and tolerate a higher volatility of income (the ‘entrepreneurial strategy’) (see 2.2.6, below). Put in simple terms, this model depicts why the poorest households may seem to ‘enjoy the moment’ in good times, followed by ‘tightening their belts’ in hard times, rather than using any surplus they may have to invest, which might give them a higher level of income but at an unacceptable risk.


© SOAS CeDEP 34

2.2.6 Stylised model of income and consumption for two contrasting risk management strategies: ‘entrepreneurial’ (volatile income, fairly steady consumption) and ‘defensive’ (varying consumption to preserve assets)

Source: Zimmerman and Carter (2003) p. 25.

Poverty traps and implications for economic growth and equality

As can be seen from the tables in 2.2.4 and 2.2.5, risk-management strategies can be costly. When households allocate their productive assets and labour to minimise the impact of shocks ex ante, they are giving up potential income in return for greater stability. On the other hand, ex post coping strategies can undercut the human and physical capital of households and undermine their ability to develop their livelihoods and sustain shocks in the future. These two factors create a poverty trap for individual households.

Inequality is also affected by shocks. The poorest households are the most affected by shocks, as explained above. One study in rural China found that the poorest tenth of households were the most affected by shocks, ‘with 40% of an income shock being passed on to current consumption. By contrast, consumption by the richest third of households [was] protected from almost 90% of an income shock’ (Jalan and Ravallion 1997, summary). The result of this unequal effect is that inequality usually perpetuates itself or increases with the incidence of shocks (Zimmerman and Carter 2003), or in colloquial terms: ‘the rich get richer and the poor get poorer’.

Finally, the implications of risk management potentially lower economic growth. On the individual household level, the need to manage risk discourages investment. On the community level, social and kinship networks designed to minimise risk by sharing good fortune may also discourage investment that might create more wealth in future (Jakiela and Ozier 2012).


© SOAS CeDEP 35

For the above reasons, vulnerability to risks and shocks is a key aspect of poverty, and minimising vulnerability is likely to have a major effect not only on individual welfare but also on overall economic growth. This is a very important part of the argument in favour of social protection.

2.3 Livelihoods approach An influential way of thinking about poverty and poverty reduction, which incorporates concepts of risk and vulnerability, is the ‘livelihoods’ approach.

‘Sustainable livelihoods’ thinking was first developed in the 1990s in the UK. It built on the human capabilities approach to incorporate thinking about long-term social and environmental sustainability as well as risk and vulnerability, particularly in the rural context.

One definition of sustainable livelihoods (Scoones 2009, simplified from Chambers and Conway 1992) is:

‘A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base’

Source: Scoones (2009) p. 172.

The original sustainable livelihoods approach represented an alternative paradigm (way of thinking) to the dominant approach to poverty reduction and food insecurity reduction that was based on maximising economic growth. The approach promoted an alternative, bottom-up way of conceptualising and measuring poverty and livelihoods, that could help frame the choices made by governments and international actors in promoting certain types of growth. For example, a major hardwood logging operation for export might increase GDP in the short term, and provide some local jobs, but might not be viewed as very positive through a sustainable livelihoods lens. The livelihoods approach also highlighted the diversity of income sources of poor households and the importance of risk and vulnerability.

A number of frameworks have been developed for sustainable livelihoods which reflect slightly different emphases. The version in 2.3.1, below, is probably the best known: it is from the UK Department for International Development, which promoted its version of the livelihoods approach heavily in the late 1990s. A central focus of this version has been the so-called ‘livelihoods capitals pentagon’ which can be seen to the left on the diagram. This presents a simplified model of human capabilities and assets, as being composed of five ‘capitals’:

H – Human capital: eg education, good health, cognitive and non-cognitive skills.

N – Natural capital: eg access to land, water, woodland resources and other natural resources (‘NR’ in the diagram).


© SOAS CeDEP 36

F – Financial capital: eg income from wages or sales of produce, savings, credit and financial assets (note that only the last of these is included in the ordinary meaning of the term financial capital).

S – Social capital: eg access to supportive networks of family, friends and neighbours, political access. Note that some writers (eg Hulme et al 2001) have argued that social capital is too apolitical and general a term, and suggest that it should be divided into ‘socio-political’ and ‘socio-cultural’ capital.

P – Physical capital: eg tools and equipment for work, house, electricity, bicycle.

2.3.1 UK Department for International Development version of Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Source: re-drawn from DFID (1999) p. 1.

The concept of ‘capitals’ is useful for thinking about vulnerability to risks and shocks that affect poverty and food insecurity. The capitals serve as a type of buffer to shocks, and the approach recognises that different households may develop different kinds of buffers. For example, if a poor farming family loses their harvest to drought, they may be able to call on natural capital (picking wild food, selling firewood) which is not available to an urban family. Similarly, a poor family with many friends and relatives may be able to call on social capital for support (for example, with childcare while they are out at work), while a rich but friendless urban couple may use their financial capital to buy similar services.

The imaginary example above is depicted diagrammatically in 2.3.2, below. It is important, however, to realise that no-one has developed a reliable method of measuring capitals, so the diagram only reflects a qualitative impression. The further from the centre a household is along each of the five axes of the pentagon, the greater their endowment of the capital class in question. Thus, the poor rural household has greater natural and social capital than the rich urban one, but the rich urban one has more human, physical and financial capital.


© SOAS CeDEP 37

2.3.2 Livelihoods capitals diagram showing two imaginary households

Source: unit author

How is the livelihoods approach used in practice? It has mainly been used by organisations working at the field level. The framework helps us think systematically about different ‘entry points’ or ways of tackling a problem, as shown in the diagram in 2.3.3, below (taken from a slightly different livelihoods framework used by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation). The strength of the approach is that it starts with the household, rather than the macro-economy, and compels us to look at poverty from a holistic perspective. It helps us think about the things that make households vulnerable to poverty and food insecurity, the different kinds of ‘capitals’ that support them, and the policies and institutions that have an effect on their present and future livelihoods. It also makes us think more systematically about potential sources of future household vulnerability, for example, the effect on a rural household of loss of access to common property resources such as pasture and woodlands (Alden Wily 2012).


© SOAS CeDEP 38

2.3.3 Using the livelihoods approach to identify ‘entry points’ for tackling poverty: example from Swiss Development Cooperation

Source: re-drawn from poverty-wellbeing.net (undated)

However, the livelihoods approach also has a number of limitations. It has been criticised for failing to engage with some key areas of development thinking, for example, markets and technology (Dorward et al 2003), globalisation and other ‘fundamental transformatory shifts in rural economies’ (Scoones 2009). Like other holistic, participatory and qualitative methods, it is hard to scale up and hard to use within sectoral institutions, such as a government ministry responsible for food security (Devereux et al 2004). Finally, although a ‘livelihoods perspective’ enables a broad analysis of problems, it does not point to any particular type of solution. A livelihoods analysis may be employed to give an air of objectivity and rationality to what are in fact deeply political decisions (Scoones 2009).

Like food security, the concept of sustainable livelihoods has gone through many permutations (some of which drop the sustainability aspect), and has been used by many institutions. It has proved useful in thinking through both food security and social protection issues.


© SOAS CeDEP 39


uestion 3

True or false?

Relative poverty is when one country is just a little bit richer than another.

uestion 4

Which of these activities can be considered as consumption smoothing?

(a) Borrowing a cup of sugar from a neighbour

(b) Vaccinating your chickens against disease

(c) Storing most of your maize harvest

(d) Taking a microfinance loan

(e) Eating fewer meals when food prices rise

Q

Q


© SOAS CeDEP 40

uestion 5

Apply each type of ‘livelihood capital’ to the appropriate segment in the diagram.

(a) The grazing area near your house

(b) The woodland near the house

(c) Your healthy baby girl

(d) Your income from vegetable sales

(e) Your membership of a trade union

(f) Your mother in the next village

(g) Your oxen and plough

(h) Your son finished primary school

(i) Your wage from labouring

Q


© SOAS CeDEP 41

3.0 SOCIAL PROTECTION: A BRIEF INTRODUCTION

Section Overview This section provides an initial introduction to social protection and its potential roles. It also introduces the concept of values (‘normative underpinnings’) and their importance in debates on social protection and food security. Finally, it explains some of the key terms used regarding social protection, and explains the limitations of what this module will cover.


• explain some of the main differences in definitions of social protection

• discuss the competing values and world-views that underpin debates on social protection and food security policy

• explain the key terms used in social protection

3.1 Introduction

Watch the World Bank and UNDP videos listed in the Multimedia section (World Bank, 12 April 2012, UNDP 2011). Note down the types of social protection described.

Many wealthy countries have so-called ‘cradle-to-grave welfare states’ where citizens are assured of some financial support in their old age and in times of difficulty. In contrast, in poor countries, the coverage of social protection measures has been much more patchy, although many governments have provided some type of support to citizens in hard times, in particular, food subsidies. Until the beginning of this century, the majority of international support for the poorest people was organised through civil society organisations or humanitarian responses to disasters, rather than as systematic support to long-term social protection.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, the International Financial Institutions (IFIs – principally the International Monetary Fund and World Bank) took the view that large-scale investment in social protection was a luxury that developing country governments could not afford. The so-called ‘Washington Consensus promoted a development model based on market liberalisation reforms, and a diminished role of the government in the economy and society in favour of an increased role of the market in the provision of social services. Poverty reduction was to be achieved through a ‘trickling down’ of the benefits of growth to the poor through greater income-generating opportunities. The Washington Consensus prioritised macroeconomic stability through the control of inflation and the reduction of fiscal deficits, the opening of the national economy to international trade and capital flows,


© SOAS CeDEP 42

and the liberalisation of domestic consumer and factor markets through privatisation and deregulation (Gore 2000). Although some social spending was supported by the IFIs, this was very limited:

‘In the social safety net approach, social policies were considered as residual to economic development. The implementation of such measures was driven by the need to provide relief to the poor and vulnerable during structural reform by cushioning the effects of the structural adjustments and facilitating political support to them. These measures were generally temporary, fragmented and targeted to the poor and vulnerable in a needs-based framework’

Source: Bachelet (2011) pp. 12–13.

A combination of factors changed the international discourse. These arguably included:

• the Millennium Development Goals and targets adopted in 2001, which encouraged poor countries and donors alike to prioritise social measures that would reduce poverty more rapidly, together with pressure on major aid donors to fund these

• the Mexican government introduced a very successful cash transfer programme to poor households (Progresa, later called Oportunidades), and an evaluation demonstrated rapid improvements in nutrition, health and education outcomes for children

• the Ethiopian government and its aid donors noted the large amounts of funding going to foreign food aid year after year, and started investigating more sustainable alternatives. This resulted in one of the world’s largest social protection programmes in a very poor country (Productive Safety Nets Programme).

• the Indian government introduced an influential programme giving the right to temporary employment to poor rural people (National Rural Employment Guarantee Act)

Since the beginning of this century, the coverage of social protection and other social services in poor countries has shot up (Barrientos 2011). There has also been new light focused on older social support programmes, especially food subsidies, and a lively discussion of how best to approach and support social protection aims.

3.2 Values and their influence on social policies This seems a good moment for taking a little side trip to discuss some of the values which underpin discussions of social policy, and to introduce some of the terminology used in the economic literature in particular.

Different values and world-views permeate thinking about social protection and food security. It is important to look for implicit assumptions which may underlie apparently neutral statements. These can include, for example:


© SOAS CeDEP 43

• Different views on desirable moral objectives: For example, one person may see improved gender equality as an essential part of poverty reduction, and another may disagree.

• Different definitions and measurements: For example, different priorities may result if poverty is defined from a happiness perspective, rather than as income.

• Different underlying theories about how to reach the objectives. One example is the balance between market-led and state-led views of growth and human development. Many countries have lively debates about to what extent the state has a right to intervene in household choices, for example, in promoting nutritious food, or in insisting that all citizens must take out health insurance.

• Different views about the desirable balance between different objectives, for example, between growth and poverty reduction, or between equity and economic efficiency.

• Absolute versus relative views of what should be done. A major example that you will meet in food security and social protection is the Rights Based Approach (Nyamu-Musembi and Cornwall 2004, Gauri and Gloppen 2012), which takes the position that all human beings have equal rights, and that every human being has the moral and legal right to a minimum standard of living, including access to food. There are two main competing world-views to the Rights Based Approach. First, some economists take the view that given limited economic resources and competing investments, immediate needs should be viewed in the context of trade-offs between short-term and long-term objectives (for example, they may estimate that education may be a more beneficial investment in the long run for a particular group of people than immediate social protection payments). Rights based approaches have also been challenged from the cultural perspective: for example, not everyone in the world accepts that all people (particularly men and women) should be equal, and there have been questions as to whether international human rights should trump local cultural norms. Both of these arguments take a relativist position in contrast to the absolutist position that there are certain legal human rights which must be fulfilled.

Terminology

Economics distinguishes between positive statements – factual statements that attempt to describe reality – and normative statements, which incorporate a vision of what ‘should be’ the case. For example, ‘one million people are poor’ is a positive statement, while ‘social protection is needed to reduce poverty’ is a normative statement. The words equality and equity are another example: ‘equality’ is descriptive, while the word ‘equity’ usually has normative connotations of ‘fairness’, ie that people should have equal chances or be less unequal.

The word underpinnings refers to the set of ideas underlying a normative statement, which in their turn may be either explicit (clearly stated) or more often implicit (hidden, perhaps even to the person making the statement). Related terms


© SOAS CeDEP 44

to normative underpinnings include: moral and philosophical underpinnings, value judgements and ideology.

Even positive statements may not be as neutral as they seem. Famously, Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn 1996) pointed out that the paradigm (world-view) of a scientist affects the questions that s(h)e asks and how the results are interpreted. A paradigm shift occurs when an accumulation of new evidence results in the overturning of the previous world-view.

3.3 Definitions and objectives of social protection The terminology of social protection is even more complex than that of food security.

Some definitions used by international agencies are in 3.3.1. As you can see from the exercise below, there are various differences of detail, some of which have specific policy implications.

3.3.1 Definitions of social protection published by some international agencies

Social protection is/comprises …

A. ‘… the set of public measures that a society provides for its members to protect them against economic and social distress that would be caused by the absence or a substantial reduction of income from work as a result of various contingencies (sickness, maternity, employment injury, unemployment, invalidity, old age, and death of the breadwinner), the provision of health care, and the provision of benefits for families with children.’ (ILO, cited by various authors including World Bank 2012)

B. ‘… public interventions that assist individuals, households, and communities to manage risk better and that provide support to the critically poor.’ (World Bank 2001)

C. ‘A specific set of actions to address the vulnerability of people’s lives through social insurance, offering protection against risk and adversity throughout life; through social assistance, offering payments and in kind transfers to support and enable the poor; and through inclusion efforts that enhance the capability of the marginalised to access social insurance and assistance.’ (European Communities 2010)

D. ‘… social protection and labor systems, policies, and programs that help individuals and societies manage risk and volatility and protect them from poverty and destitution—through instruments that improve resilience, equity, and opportunity.’(World Bank 2012)

E. ‘… policies and actions that enhance the capacity of poor and vulnerable people to escape from poverty and enable them to better manage risks and shocks. Social protection measures include social insurance, social transfers and minimum labour standards.’ (OECD-DAC 2009)

F. ‘… the set of public and private policies and programmes aimed at preventing, reducing and eliminating economic and social vulnerabilities to poverty and deprivation’ (UNICEF 2012)

Source: compiled by unit author from quoted sources


© SOAS CeDEP 45

Study the definitions above. (Don’t worry if you don’t understand all the details, as we will return to them later.)

Which definitions of social protection mention:

(a) Management of risk and/or vulnerability (such as sickness and unemployment)?

(b) Help to the poorest to meet basic needs/minimum standard of living?

(c) Support with lifecycle events (old age, maternity etc)?

(d) The reduction of poverty/escape from poverty?

(e) Reducing inequalities in social status? (equity)

(f) Private interventions, as well as public?

Secondly, what are the changes in emphasis that you can see between the 2001 and 2012 definitions used by the World Bank?

Thirdly, note the distinction made in definition C between social insurance, social assistance and social inclusion efforts.

Terminology in this area is complicated and terms may not be used consistently, so it is important to check what meaning is intended. Some of the terms you may come across include:

Social transfers: This is the main focus of this module (and when we use the term ‘social protection’ it usually means social transfers). Social transfers (or social assistance) schemes are non-contributory schemes designed to assist the poorest and reduce their risks, ie where the benefits obtained from the scheme do not depend on the individual’s prior contributions. The term safety nets may also be used, for example, in Grosh et al (2008), but we prefer the term social transfers in recognition of the fact that this does involve transferring resources from wealthier people (in the same country or elsewhere) to poorer people. You will also see the term social security occasionally, especially in extracts and tables taken from papers from OECD countries. Social transfers may be in various forms or instruments, for example, in cash (financial, however, not necessarily in actual cash notes) or in kind (for example, food). Transfers can also be ad hoc (for example, emergency food aid) or regular (for example, pensions). There is no clear distinction between these as many instruments (for example, public works programmes or school feeding) can be used either temporarily or on a long-term basis.

Social insurance: This term generally is used to focus on reducing the impact of shocks and lifecycle events through contributory schemes, ie where the person who receives the benefit contributes payments in anticipation of benefiting at some point. This includes, for example, many pension schemes, unemployment and sickness payments, and national health insurance.

Social security or welfare: These terms are often used to refer to social assistance programmes, particularly in OECD countries. However, the term welfare state usually denotes a comprehensive approach to social protection that goes beyond social assistance to include labour market policies and contributory social insurance programmes.


© SOAS CeDEP 46


uestion 6

The Rights Based Approach is an example of an

(a) absolutist

(b) relativist perspective

uestion 7

Is the following a positive or a normative statement?

In several studies, social transfers were shown to have very little or no impact on children’s nutritional levels.

uestion 8

Which of the following count as social transfers (also called social assistance)?

(a) Food aid

(b) Subsidised sales of food

(c) A minimum national pension which everyone receives

(d) A workplace pension to which you make monthly payments

(e) Free school meals

(f) Free primary education

Q

Q

Q


© SOAS CeDEP 47

UNIT SUMMARY

This unit introduces some of the main concepts, frameworks and terms, including food security, poverty, social protection and the linkages between them. The importance of risk and vulnerability is highlighted. A key message of this unit is that definitions are important: they can affect the policies that are chosen and the way that success is understood. It is equally important to understand the values and world-views that lie behind policy debates.

UNIT SELF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

uestion 1

Seasonal hunger – common in semi-arid rural areas of poor countries – is a common manifestation of which of the four main components of food security?

uestion 2

Why is taking measures to increase national food production likely to be an inadequate policy response to a survey reporting high levels of child malnutrition?

uestion 3

List two examples of an idiosyncratic shock and two examples of a covariate shock that may affect household food security.

Q

Q

Q

Centre for Development, Environment and Policy P525 Food ... · Centre for Development, Environment...

Documents

Transcript of Centre for Development, Environment and Policy P525 Food ... · Centre for Development, Environment...