Centre for
Action Research and People?s Development CARPED, Hyderabad, India. AIESEC
Development Traineeship February 15 - May 15, 2004. Lukas Schweizer.
Poverty concerns
probably every country in our world. But the nature of the poverty phenomenon
differs from nation to nation. In industrialized countries like Switzerland the
phenomenon of working poor has become important in the last few years. Whereas
in India death because of famines due to droughts still occurs. There are also
various understandings of the notion of poverty, and still poverty is mostly
measured in terms of money which does not present an adequate indicator. As a
consequence the poverty lines used to determine poverty ratios vary as well.
These facts are the reason for the following structure of my study and raise
the main question: What is poverty?
First of all I
will start with a short summary of the Amartya Sen?s Capability Approach in
part two. This outlines a worthy approach to determine poverty in an adequate
way and is therefore a formal answer to the main question mentioned above. The
aim of this paper is provided in section three: a definition of poverty based
on the society`s perception of poverty and on the Capability Approach, namely
by concentrating in a multidimensional way on ends and not only on means like
money. These concerns are motivated, as already mentioned above, by the fact
that poverty comparisons are especially difficult to conduct between different
countries. Different societies have different perceptions and definitions of
poverty. A poor Swiss person cannot be easily compared with a poor Indian because
the kind of poverty is quite different. Further, money is not an appropriate
indicator to measure the extent and the depth of poverty. It is only a means to
reach multiple ends that constitute the well-being of a person. In a next step
I try to give an idea of how to implement Sen`s approach while comparing
briefly the different kinds of poverty in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh by
focusing on the tribal villages in the rural area of the Medak District and the
slums in Hyderabad. In this forth section the practical use of Sen`s Capability
Approach is emphasized. Conclusion and suggestions for further development
strategies are withdrawn in chapter five from analyzing these two parts while
stressing and respecting the value of freedom to choose. The methodologies I
use are simple observations and interviews with Indian academics, concerned
indigenous people (tribes) and inhabitants of slums. Where possible I refer to
consulted literature. Although I try to be as scientific as possible the study
should be considered as a report of my own experiences and interpretations of
the collected facts. I am completely aware of possible biases caused by
different sources like translation problems, unrepresentative samples and so
on.
In the
literature there exist several approaches to define and identify poverty.
Mainly classifications are reduced to poverty as an objective or subjective and
absolute or relative term.
Further, poverty is mostly defined or at least measured in a one-dimensional
way by using money as an indicator. But it is obvious that not every person can
get the same (you can think of utility, standard of living, well-being or
whatever you like to consider as a goal) out of an equal amount of money. The
satisfaction of the goal by using money as a means depends on several factors
internal and external to the human being. That is exactly one motivating
element of the Capability Approach its main features I explain in this section.
To do it as simple as possible I start with a clear and convincing example.
Imagine there is
a good, namely a bike. This good, it is a material good to be more precise,
inheres certain characteristics. In this case one characteristic, possibly
besides others, can be described as transport. The good in question, here our
bike, makes an achievement possible for a person while using the good. But the
good itself does not guarantee for an achievement, it is only essential as a
means to the achievement. And of course, there are other possible means as for
example a car. Sen calls the achievement functioning and in our example it can
be called moving. The crucial point now lies in what the person can achieve
with the good and its characteristics given the external circumstances and the
personal abilities. This element that fills up the gap between the
characteristics and the functioning Sen calls capability to function. From this
point of view, a person who does not have the capability to function ? in this
context the capability to move with the bike ? for example because of being
physically disabled, cannot achieve the functioning with this given means.
Achieving a functioning can lead to utility. The utility itself depends on the
mental attitude of the person in question.
Presentation 1: Theoretical relations of
well-being
Source:
Own presentation following Sen (1982: 30) and Muellbauer (1987: 40).
Sen defines the
crucial notion of functioning as following: ?A functioning is
an achievement of a person: what he or she manages to do or to be. It reflects,
as it were, a part of the ?state? of that person. It has to be distinguished
from the commodities which are used to achieve those functionings.? (Sen 1985: 10). The capability to function on the other hand indicates
that the person is able to realize a certain achievement, a functioning, and at
the same time leaves the person the freedom to choose between doing so or not:
?The capability of a person reflects the
alternative combinations of functionings the person can achieve, and from which
he or she can choose one collection.? (Sen 1993: 31). For instance, there is a
difference between fasting and starving. Fasting is an active chosen situation
of hunger whereas starving is determined by the fact that somebody does not
have enough food available. Sen`s Capability Approach emphasizes thus the value
of freedom to choose.
His approach catches the crucial element of individual well-being
from which poverty can be derived as a lack of having opportunities to generate
well-being: poverty as a lack of capabilities to function. This definition
takes into account the value of freedom to choose by considering freedom as an
element of well-being. Sen`s approach has further the advantage that it does
not rely on means itself but on ends thus giving up the opulence based
definition of well-being and poverty. Also the focus on utility concepts does
not persist anymore in his idea. Whereas opulence and its characteristic of
providing only means to ends does not guarantee the same amount of well-being
for everybody, utility is distracted by the fact that it is a question of
mental attitude how much utility somebody can generate out of a certain
situation. Stressing freedom to choose, giving up the opulence perspective and
utility based concepts of well-being and poverty are in summary the main
characteristics and advantages of the Capability Approach. Further, it
concentrates on individuals rather than households within which discrimination
can occur. Of course, there are also a few disadvantages especially concerning
its operation. The main question is `How can we observe capabilities to
function?` Functionings themselves are observable because they are realized
achievements. But capabilities to function actually represent a set of
alternative potential functionings out of which one is realized and the others
are not chosen. Sen`s approach does not say anything about the characteristics
of well-being and poverty. It is only a formal concept that has to be filled up
by the opinion and understanding of the society in question. Exactly this point
incorporates both an advantage and disadvantage. It is good that this approach
can be adapted to different societal understandings of poverty. But to evaluate
well-being or poverty it is necessary to establish a list of relevant
capabilities and their indicators which constitute well-being. Further, it is
useful that we aggregate them to get an overall quantitative picture of
individual and societal well-being and poverty. These two steps require an
adequate method of evaluation in order to weigh, which because of the normative
issue, bear the main difficulties in implementing this approach.
When I saw a tribal village for the first time I thought that
probably even there exist people who are poorer or richer than other community
members. Motivated by this assumption I wanted to find out who is supposed to
be poor or rich by their perspective. Out of their opinion I can hopefully draw
conclusions about their valuing of living standards and different states of
well-being. This information is useful and essential to create a list of
different capabilities, functionings or simply dimensions of well-being. To do
this I tried to ask the following same questions the various people. In any
case, the questions have obviously had to be adapted and modified to their
level of understanding and in the end some questions have not been asked at
all. Anyway, these questions should serve as a guideline for the current
chapter.
1. What is your definition of poverty? Who is rich,
who is poor?
2. Do you think poverty is a multidimensional
phenomenon and a relative term depending on the society (time and place)?
3. What dimensions are important to the Indian
society?
4. How would you value freedom ? the opportunity
to choose among a set of alternatives?
5. How do you value having sufficient nutrition,
good health (physical and mental), sufficient shelter/housing, environment,
education, being socially accepted?
6. What do you think, is the life better in a
tribal village or in a big city like Hyderabad?
7. Would you agree that poverty is a lack of
having opportunities to generate well-being?
I talked to four
people of Mondi Thanda to get information about their perception of poverty.
Before I start with the results a few basic facts about this tribal village of
the Kowdipally Mandal in the Medak District need to be established for an
overall impression. Mondi Thanda, a village where Lambada tribes live, is
situated about 70 km away from Hyderabad. There are 27 houses and an equal
number of families living at this place. The total population amount to 129
persons, whereas 69 are male and 60 female. On average a family consists of
less than five members. Out of these 129 people 12 are children between 0-5
years and 85 between 6-14 years (42♂, 43♀).
From a European point of view I would say that these tribes live really
basically. For further information about their standard of living I refer to
section four.
To get as
valuable and representative information and opinions as possible I tried to
speak with two women and two men on Wednesday March 10, 2004, within the gender
each of a younger and elder age. But that was not so easy. Because of the fact
that I am a foreigner we were soon surrounded by several people of the
community. Further sometimes every man wanted to talk at the same time. Really
interesting for me was the fact that the women seem to speak only after the men
have spoken or if they are asked to speak. For me it is an indication of
discrimination.
The first man
who is between 30 and 35 years old told me that poverty is equal to a state
without food. He mentioned also that rich means to have better houses and to
own more land. But on the other side he continued people with much land have
also more debt and are therefore not really better off. Electricity for example
is considered by this man as a luxury and work is related to earning money. But
because of the climate and the population pressure it is not easy to get enough
out of cultivation. Whereas the climate influences the crop in a direct way by
reducing it, the population growth requires a higher total amount of produce.
According to his statement the land will be equally passed on to the sons. That
means that a certain land size is automatically reduced in the future if there
is more than one son. To the question of how he values health he answered that
health was essential for work but it was also important that the person had the
mind to work. Education makes people richer because they have more
opportunities. Normally they leave the village as he said. The status of poor
people is inferior, leading to social exclusion according to him. He would lend
them money. Whereas rich people enjoy a superior status they are socially
accepted in his opinion. For this tribal man freedom is if somebody else is
working for him and he is served while lying down under the fan. With the life
in the village he is happy because he knows that he has to work everywhere
whether in the village or in the city.
The second
person I interviewed was a woman of the age between 40 and 50 years. Her
definition of poverty is to have no harvest. Hard work is related to earnings.
She said that you had to make an effort and somebody who was working and had no
money was also poor. The priority in life is health according to her. The
argument goes as following: Without a good health you are limited in working
and as a consequence you will earn less. Persons who work less are socially
unaccepted according to her statements. And she would advise them to work
harder. Educated people have more opportunities and so they can go elsewhere
whereas uneducated people have to stay here in the village. She considers well
built houses as safer because these houses have solid walls and doors that are
lockable. In her opinion the life in the village is better than the life in the
city because there is land to cultivate. Unfortunately the interview was
interrupted because the people there had to go out for a wedding in another
village. Her husband advised her in a quite rude tone to finish the
conversation immediately and to leave. So we went to another group of people in
Mondi Thanda in order to continue the interviews.
The third and
the forth interviewed Lambada persons live in Mondi Thanda as well but their
houses are situated separately maybe around 50m next to the main part of Mondi
Thanda. One man about 30 years old told me that poverty for him is having no
land and no cattle. Also a lack of water and the existence of debt are
important elements of poverty because these elements determine respectively
reduce the earnings.
According to his statements good health is essential for earning and bad health
is expensive because there could be a need to go to the hospital. And this
means that added earnings are necessary to pay the health expenses. Education
is not highly valued by this man. For him it is better and easier to work in
the agriculture sector. The house he lives in is quite basic from our
perspective and probably one of the worst in Mondi Thanda.
But he is happy with it and explained that it was possible to adapt. And on the
other hand a house has to be maintained which requires earnings that have to
increase with the higher quality of a house according to his statement. These
people there live together in a community and because of that they do not
discriminate against the poor. This was in answer to my question of how they
value social acceptance and represents a good example how differently they can
understand a question. If the harvest is good then he is free because he can
afford every expense. That is his evaluation of freedom. With his life in the
village he is happy and does not like to go elsewhere.
A 70 year old
female inhabitant told me that poverty was to have no water, as a consequence
no crop and in the end no earnings. If you can eat well, you are happy and if
you have a good health, then you can lead a good life. Education was good for
her sons she said, but for her the harvest was more important than education.
Houses with slopes she considers as better because it was cooler. People who
have more cattle have a better status in her eyes than people with less cattle.
The latter are treated worse and she also looks down on them. If there is
harvest she can lie back and enjoy life: good harvest means more money and good
houses. That reflects the value of freedom in her opinion. I also asked her if
she preferred the rural or urban life. ?Who would care
about me in the city? ? she asked without expecting an
answer and went on telling that for her it was better to live there in the
village because she could cultivate crop there.
On Wednesday
March 24, 2004 I had the occasion to interview three academics of the Kakatiya
University in Warangal. In this group discussion there were Mrs. Dr. E. Revathi
(Reader in economics at the Kakatiya University in Warangal), Mr. Sudheer
Kodati and Mr. Dr. Sanjeer Reddy (Reader in political science, Kakatiya
University) present. In the following I integrate all their statements in one
group opinion because the conversation was characterized by a continuing
process of developing this represented opinion. And therefore it would not be
adequate to assign one single statement to one single person because it is out
of the procedural context of the interview.
In their opinion
poverty is inadequate nutrition which is fulfilled with around 2400 kcal (per
day and person supposedly). Further, besides the basic nutrition there are also
other elements like the housing situation (having a roof for instance) and the
health. They differentiate also from the specific and narrowly defined income
poverty which is determined by the poverty line and stress again that not only
income matters. Also other amenities like food, access to education, health,
quality of life, living standard, safe drinking water, preventive health care
etc. are mentioned once more. In their view the definition is changing and
poverty, they all agree, is relative, depending on the context and is not
comparable between different countries because of the different necessities.
The question concerning freedom to choose was answered by first mentioning that
in India there is no choice. But they consider having choice as very important
and having freedom may lead to well-being. Gender issues for instance can
reduce the freedom according to them. There was also an interesting difference
in understanding of the term freedom. These academics do not equate having
freedom with having choice. The question of which life they prefer, rural or
urban, was quite confusing for them. It seemed to me that because of their
academic background in poverty this question did not make sense for them to
answer it from their point of view. But anyway, I was interested in getting
their opinion and perception of the value of these two different kinds of life.
The starting answer was a general statement: to feel comfortable where a living
is found. In a (rural) village, there are no earnings, but in a bigger city
(than Warangal) the life is also not better because of the high pollution and
the traffic. All of them agreed that their life is maybe not ideal, there is
still an improvement possible.
At this same
place in Warangal I also had the opportunity to ask Padma a few questions. She
is the housekeeper there, 16 years old, married since the age of 14, has one
child, likes to have a second child and originally comes from a tribal village.
To the question which life is better she answered that she liked to stay in the
village because there she had all her people and further she liked the
agriculture work. The best thing for her would be to go back and possess land
and property after earning money in town during around one year. Her dream is
to have lots of money and to own land. Padma considers herself as a poor person
but nevertheless she thinks that she is better off than others because she has
a few comforts, amenities and a regular income. She is also better off compared
to her parents according to her. Padma expects that her children will have a
better life because they will have the possibility to study whereas there is no
choice to study in the villages at the moment.
On Saturday
March 27, 2004 I had the opportunity to visit with Mr. Bharat Bhushan and Mr.
A. Sujan a slum in Hyderabad and to conduct a few interviews with people living
there.
I talked to a
group of about five women and one man. During the conversation we were sitting
in the two-room building and were drinking coffee. At the same time I tried to
find out what amenities they possess. I was quite surprised when I saw that
they have a TV, a radio with a cassette recorder, a cell phone, electricity, a
fan, a clock, pictures, photos, a calendar, a newspaper and nice glasses and
cups for the beverages. The house itself is made of massive walls with a roof
of corrugated iron and lockable solid door. First they told me their situation
and explained to me the main problems they have in this slum. Mrs. Pushpa
Latha, 38 years old, and her family own the house we were in. Usually, most
people only rent a house for about 500-600 Rupees a month. One room is the
kitchen and the bedroom as well. The second room serves as a living room they
share with other families. They have cooked with LP gas for one year, before
that first with wood till 1999 and then with kerosene. There is a public tap
where she has to collect the water from that runs every day for one hour. She
and her husband have two sons that live with them at this place and one married
daughter. The husband, who has been living there for the last 20 years,
seasonally works as a painter under a labor contract for three to four month a
year and also employs other workers. Their eldest son works for a newspaper in
town and earns 600 Rupees a month. The second son who studied is unemployed at
the moment. Further, she mentioned that her son in law worked in a TV shop.
According to Mrs. Pushpa Latha, 5000-6000 Rupees per month are necessary (I
guess for the family to live) and out of it 1600 Rupees a month are needed for
the maintenance of her house. She considers her family not as very poor because
they have a comparably good employment. Further, she explained to me the
different types of employment people have in this slum. There are jobs with
long term character as for instance the occupation her husband has or
government jobs. Such employment is obviously valued most by her. People also
work as daily wage labourers. This means that they go to a pick-up place where
they offer their labour according to labour demand. There are also garbage
collectors who do the worst job and even children do collect rubbish. Women
usually work in the domestic service sector for example washing the laundry or
cleaning the house. Mrs. Vijaya, 24 years old, does exactly this kind of job.
She works in two houses as a housekeeper for a total amount of 900 Rupees a
month. Her husband recently died. He had been occupied as a daily wage labourer
before. The widow has to nourish three children two of them are in the school
age. Usually, Mrs. Vijaya cooks only once a day on a kerosene stove and eats
one meal in the employer`s house where she also gets the rest of the food to
take home and clothes as well. There are also ration cards distributed by the
government that allow poor people to buy subsided lower quality food for their
families. Mrs. Vijaya owns one card. The small house (around 2x3m) they live in
is rented for 500 Rupees a month. In that area the inhabitants share one
toilet.
Main problems
that exist in this slum are the drinking water contaminated by broken pipes of
the drainage, water shortages in summer, insufficient drainage system,
unemployment, high dropout rate of the children from school caused by child
labour opportunities and expensiveness of skills education. Everybody wants to
learn skills and work but there is no possibility. The inhabitants of this slum
have created a self-help group to grant loans for education and health. Loans
are given at an interest of 12% p.a.
After this
introductory part I continued with my standard questions and got some
interesting and well-differentiated answers. The question `What is poverty?`
was answered in the opposite way namely what means to be rich. As in every
discussion the answers were developed during the conversation. These women
started with saying rich means having money and added also in a second step the
element of enjoying prestige and being respected by the community. They
supplemented further the term rich with nice housing conditions, amenities,
transportation means and savings. That somebody is considered as rich it is a
must to own a house and having a job is not a sufficient indicator of richness
according to them. A family with more girls is supposed to be poorer because of
the obligation to provide a marriage dowry. But on the other hand having more
boys does not mean to be necessarily richer because the parents have to spend
money for the boys` education. In the end, a family with more boys is only
richer if the sons get a job and earn money. That is what they said. The
interviewed group evaluates the different dimension in question as follows.
Food is important. The rich people can afford three meals a day whereas poor
persons have to be satisfied with less meals, less variety, less tasty, healthy
and rich food. Health is considered to be an important precondition for work
and earning bread, cooking and raising children but they also see in health a
value in itself.
Money without a good health condition is not worth much and there are also
people with money but who have mental problems at the same time. Everybody is vulnerable
to diseases but there is a difference where the poor and the rich go to for
treatment. Rich people go to private hospitals where they get better care,
powerful medicine and neat and clean rooms. Poor people on the other hand go to
a government hospital. I was also quite impressed about their differentiated
perception and evaluation of education. They think that without education you
could not do anything but with it you could get jobs and earn more for a better
life. Education also gives power and allows better decisions, provides
awareness and information. In the same way as they evaluate the other
dimensions as really important they give much importance to the environment.
But a good environment is also expensive and they do not have the choice to
move to a better place with a better environment. Also the freedom to choose is
considered by this group as very important for life. The greater choice has in
their opinion the rich population. This class can choose their way of life.
Freedom to choose is restricted by money, they think. Everywhere one has to
have money but the life in villages seems to be better for them because it is
cleaner there and more space is available. The rural life also makes people
happier, the life is supposed to be easier, less stressful in a mental way and
more secure in terms of unemployment risk. There the expenses are lower, and
they spend less because everything is cheaper according to their perception.
All the opinions
in these different interviews of Indian people determine the overall Indian
societal definition and perception of poverty. I do not claim that this choice
of interviews is completely representative but I would say that there are many
valuable and useful hints in form of similarities and also differences.
In my opinion,
the main point is the varying valuation of the dimensions concerning their
purpose. The tribal people for instance reduce the term poverty to a
one-dimensional situation of having not enough food, where a sufficient
nutrition is their single end and all other dimensions are considered only as
means. The `richer` on the contrary include more dimensions as ends and not
only as means. This seems quite plausible and can also be justified by the
theory of Maslow.
According to his `pyramid of needs`, basic needs like food and shelter have to
be satisfied (at least to a certain degree), before higher preferences like
security and further self-realization can become important and a driving,
motivating force for a person. People like tribes that still live a more
primitive life than the high society first have to look after their fulfillment
of basic needs before other preferences can be satisfied. In the interview led
in the slum the women explained that health was not only a means but also an
end in itself. Compared to the tribes the interviewed women in the slum lead a
more developed life with more amenities and comfort in a more progressive
society.
In Europe for instance, the people value the different dimensions like health,
education, environment, social circumstances etc. not only as a means for a
given end, but also strongly as ends in themselves. Therefore, I would conclude
that the more developed a society is, the sooner this society values such
different dimensions also as ends.
The term freedom
to choose is obviously a quite confusing notion. The answers I got are rather
limited. There were also disparities in understanding on the part of the
academics. Apparently, freedom and choice are interrelated and have to be
considered together. Freedom to choose is not much worth without having choice
and even choice can have different values depending on the quality and quantity
of the choice set ? the set of alternatives or opportunities. Although the
interviews do not deliver much information about the evaluation of freedom
there are partly certain hints that indicate a high value. Regardless, I am
convinced that freedom to choose has a big value for all societies. Therefore,
I argue that for development measures it is really important to let the persons
concerned participate in planning so they can choose. Choosing through
participation also guarantees acceptance.
The question of
what life is better was answered on the one hand in the expected way on the
other hand concerning the tribes in a surprising way. The initial motivation
for this question was whether the tribes see an incentive in going to the
cities or not. I would have expected that because of the opulence they prefer
to move to a city rather than doing agriculture work in rural areas. Indeed
there exists a migration from villages to cities: ?The
fact that there is net migration from the villages to cities shows the
disparities in living standards between the two. Ideally, both rural and urban
areas should be equally attractive with no net migration either way.? (Abdul
Kalam 2002: 128). But the answers I got are not so surprising from another
perspective. I would say it is obvious that many people appreciate the site
where they grew up and spent most of their lifetime. They like the place where
they have their roots. Yet the interviewed inhabitants of the slum would prefer
to live in the village. They see some advantages in the life there especially
the more available space there. For me it seems that because of the more
developed life in this slum people there are able to fulfill their basic needs
to a higher degree than the interviewed tribes. As a consequence this allows
them to think about higher preferences like happiness etc. Such preferences
would probably have been more fulfilled in rural areas. But in my opinion the
slum inhabitants overestimate or do not consider the (lower) fulfillment of
basic needs in villages which is a precondition to think about higher
preferences.
In many of the
interviews it is obvious that an improvement in the living conditions between
the former and the actual generation took place. There are also optimistic
attitudes concerning the future development especially due to the expected
power of education.
Part three has
examined the different perceptions of poverty which allows us to establish a
list of different dimensions constituting well-being. In accordance with the
Capability Approach, poverty would therefore be a lack of having opportunities
to generate well-being. The focus is no longer on (one) means (namely money)
but on different valuable ends which can of course be achieved by various means
? poverty is not a one-dimensional phenomenon anymore but a multidimensional
deprivation. The dimensions expressed by functionings respectively
capabilities, as well as their indicators can differ from culture to culture
and from society to society. They have to be adjusted to the given context. But
many dimensions would probably be similar regardless to the society. Only the
evaluation and importance of the different dimensions can vary. Some people as
we have seen in chapter three value certain functionings more as a goal or end
rather than as a means and vice versa. The main purpose of this part is to
provide an idea of a kind of checklist on which a poverty analysis of the
tribal situation and the conditions in slums based on the Capability Approach
and in accordance with the Indian understanding of poverty can be made. This
analysis represents in a first step the conceptual idea and gives in a second
way information about where disparities exist. The comparison itself should not
be considered as complete and fully scientifically proven, more these are my
observations, interpretations and ideas. Although the emphasis lies on the
methodology, the comparison hopefully makes possible a more differentiated
picture of the two forms of poverty.
Before starting
with the comparison itself it seems to be appropriate to give a short
definition of tribes and slums based on my experiences, observations and
information.
Tribes are
indigenous people that originally live in rural areas. Their life is strongly
based on peculiar traditional elements and appears to be considerably
disconnected from our life in our globalized world. The major occupation is
agricultural work in the first place for self-supply.
In Hyderabad it
seems that there exist two different sorts of slums: the notified and the
unnotified slums. The former defines a settlement that is recognized by the
government and also officially supported by providing basic infrastructure like
water supply, toilets, drainages and houses. The latter refers to an illegal
gathering of mobile basic shelter and infrastructure in form of wooden huts
etc.
As the title of
this chapter says I equate the tribal life with rural poverty and the slums
with urban poverty. Of course, this is a dangerous generalization since poverty
has various facets and can concern all groups of people.
Now it is time
to create a possible list that constitutes individual well-being from which
poverty can be derived.
To avoid the difficulty of measuring capabilities I stick to actually realized
functionings but incorporate sometimes certain indicators that describe
capabilities in terms of access to something. This renunciation of capabilities
as a compromise to the practical application is possibly not as problematic as
feared. One can probably assume that basic needs such as eating are chosen to
be fulfilled if the situation makes it possible. Cases where people choose not
to eat are rare, I would guess. But it is still important to have always in
mind the possible discrepancy between realization and opportunity respectively
functioning and capability. The following list shows the important dimensions,
the related functionings or goals and their broad indicators that have to be
described in more detail in a next step. Remember the analysis is primarily
related to single individuals. Afterwards aggregations are possible, of course.
Table 1:
Dimensions, functionings and indicators of well-being
Dimension
|
Functioning/Goal
|
Indicator
|
|
Food
|
Having enough (well-balanced
healthy) food
|
Body mass index
|
|
Health
|
Being in a physically and
mentally good health
|
Presence or absence of certain
diseases and handicaps, access to medical treatments, happiness
|
|
Shelter and
infrastructure
|
Having an adequate living
standard
|
Availability of certain amenities
|
|
Education and
knowledge
|
Being adequately educated
|
Degree of school, profession
etc., access to school
|
|
Social and environmental
conditions
|
Living in socially and
environmentally adequate circumstances
|
Happiness with relation- and
friendships, working situation, state of the environment (pollution)
|
|
Economical condition
|
Having enough financial
resources
|
Amount of money and other
opulence available
|
Source: Own
representation.
Food seems to be
the most valued dimension of well-being by the Indian society and a lack of
food therefore defines mainly poverty here. The related functioning expresses
the goal of having enough and well-balanced healthy food. To which extent the
goal is fulfilled can probably be measured best by the body mass index which
relates the body weight with the height. But the component of well-balanced
healthy food is not included by this indicator. I think this aspect can be
better incorporated by the second dimension of health. There, good physical and
mental health is the end. It can be measured by a list of different diseases
and handicaps of various severities. Such a list can include for example
Malaria, AIDS, Polio, Japanese Encephalitis etc. Also the opportunity to go to
a doctors place or a hospital should be considered. It reflects more a
capability because it emphasizes the freedom to choose, namely to go or not to
go for diagnosis and treatment. Happiness represents at least partly the mental
state of a person. As an indicator the use of simple questions like `Are you
happy and content?` can provide information. Shelter and infrastructure as a
dimension show the living standard. What kind of accommodation do people have?
Is it a own house, an apartment, a hut or a place without roof? And what
amenities are available? Is there drinking water, electricity, a phone, a TV, a
bed per person, a stove, transport mediums etc. available? There are many other
things to think about. What kind of indicator should be chosen is a question of
society and their overall level of development. This is especially in this
dimension quite obvious. Education and knowledge can be measured by the degree
of education, for instance by distinguishing between no education, primary
education, secondary or third education. Also the access to education by
considering the access to school can be a valuable indicator. A human being
also has social needs. Communication, friendships and relationships are
important for them. There are plenty of indicators to think about. And
environmental conditions as well influence or constitute the well-being of
people. Here the air, the water and the soil should be considered. Economic
resources are mainly a means to reach a valuable end. But meanwhile, especially
in Europe, having enough economic resources is also valued as an end in itself.
But of course, I have to admit, that this is still more an issue of
instrumentality instead of purpose in my opinion. Anyway, in a world of
exchange and globalization money has an important role not only as a means to
pay that hardly can be neglected in matters of well-being, poverty and
development in the light of the capability context.
It is apparent
that all these dimensions cannot be considered in an isolated way. There exist
considerable interdependencies. For instance, it is quite likely that a bad
health condition influences the stock of economic resources, and this can as a
consequence have impacts on the housing condition etc. In summary, certain
functionings can themselves serve as a means to reach other functionings. This
is not necessarily in contradiction with the fact that functionings constitute
ends in themselves ? concentration on ends instead of means for defining
well-being. The operation that functionings perform, can be either as an end or
a means but people`s valuation of functionings is mainly as an end in itself.
In accordance with the results given by the different interviews in section
three we can say that well-being and poverty is chiefly related to the food
dimension. Other dimensions do not play the same role as food does. The above
list therefore could be reduced to the single dimension of food. But in my
understanding and from a development perspective it is better to include other
dimensions presented by functionings that will get value with an improved life
situation in the future ? this again seen in the light of Maslow`s theory. A
next step could be an investigation of how Indian people really value the
different elements of well-being in quantitative terms. As I have already
mentioned this requires sophisticated methods of evaluation and aggregation.
Such steps again include normative statements in the form of judgements
comparing different life situations to get a societal evaluation of the
functionings` importance. Furthermore, the different values of the indicators
and dimensions can then be aggregated to an overall value of individual and in
a further aggregation step of societal well-being. In this paper I do without
it for mainly two reasons. First of all, I do not have the time to study and
research this topic in more detail. This task is indeed demanding in every
sense because of its complexity: sophisticated methods are important and
people`s participation is a must ? all that takes much time. However, the lack
of a detailed quantitative evaluation and aggregation does not affect the
purpose of such a checklist and comparison because every chosen dimension
influences the most valued one to a certain extent ? and we already know this
is the food. Hence, it is first of all more important to know the
interdependencies in more detail in order to improve the main goal, the
reduction of food insecurity, instead of knowing more about the various
evaluation of the other dimensions in question. Anyway, the more developed the
life the more valued the other aspects of well-being become. It is also
possible to define a poverty line or range after the aggregation of the values
of the well-being dimensions. I will not do this here because of the same
reasons already mentioned.
Based on the
previous list and my observations I finally compare briefly and generally the
life situation in the tribal villages in Medak District and slums in Hyderabad.
To be able to
make a statement concerning the food situation it is necessary to have the body
mass index of every person and ideally at different seasons in the year. I do
not have access to such information. But I would say that there are people in
the villages ? especially women ? that seem to be quite well-nourished from the
energetic point of view.
Concerning
health different diseases that appear seasonally like Malaria and Japanese
Encephalitis are still a big problem both in villages and slums. Slum
inhabitants suffer moreover from respiratory diseases caused by the heavy
pollution in town according to a statement of a doctor at the private one-man
hospital Zikra in the slum area at Sri Ram Nagar Colony in Hyderabad. Problems
in access to medical treatment seem to be severe at both places. But in slum
areas the physical distance at least is obviously smaller than in villages on
average. The main problem is probably the payment of such treatments.
Houses in
villages are considerably primitive although the standard varies from house to
house. You can find houses with thatched roofs and others with solid walls and
roofs. Problematic is that the cattle live just next door to their houses
causing unhygienic situations what increase the risk of diseases. Toilets are
not available everywhere and therefore a clean and safe separation of wasted
water and clean water is not provided. Drinking water is available at public
taps and the source is mainly the ground water. The quality of water has to be
examined more deeply. I guess that it is still quite bad and unhealthy although
there are some UNICEF projects that provided pipes and reservoirs. Electricity
is available at some places. Cooking has still to be done on fire. I would say
that in villages you can find less well-developed facilities than in notified
slums although even there gaps are quite big. Worst seem to be unnotified slums
in this sense because of probably less help from the government side. Property
rights concerning land do not exist at all in unnotified slums whereas in
notified ones and in villages they are better defined but likely still
vulnerable to governmental power etc. for example in form of (forced)
resettlements.
Land prices are higher in town than in the countryside. Furthermore, I would
say that slums are generally more crowded than villages also bearing a health
risk.
It is also
difficult to make clear statements about the education. In villages there are
certain schools provided by the government or NGOs. In terms of access
determined by distance slums are probably better off (closer to facilities),
but still the financial burden for education remains in both places.
Both tribal
people and slum inhabitants are not really part of the Indian society I would
say even though there are efforts to develop and integrate these people. The
working situation is difficult in both areas but all in all probably a little
bit better in towns. There are strong dependencies on employers and on the
government (as an employer or buyer of products). From an environmental
perspective the countryside is definitely better in my opinion because of less
pollution and more space and availability of natural resources as well.
The economic
dimension is on the one side determined by the earnings and the endowments and
on the other side by the expenses. Both sides are probably higher in urban
areas but in the end it depends mainly on the possibility of getting a job or
not.
These statements
are based on my own observations and information I received. I am completely
aware that some statements and conclusions are vague. But the main aim is to
show how the idea of the functionings and capabilities can be implemented. A
more extensive comparison is required to judge where the life is `better` and
who is poorer.
In the preceding
chapters we have had a short summary of Sen`s Capability Approach, the Indian
understanding of poverty and an example of how to implement parts of Sen`s idea
by comparing briefly the situation in slums and tribal villages.
Functionings
represent the state of a person to do or to be something, whereas capabilities
stand for the ability to achieve the functionings given external and internal
circumstances. His approach therefore concentrates on the ends rather than
means as many other approaches to determine well-being or poverty respectively
do. The capabilities emphasize the notion and value of freedom to choose.
Interviews with
different members of the Indian society show that poverty is strongly related
to having not enough food and therefore is reduced to this dimension only.
Surprisingly, money does not play the main role in their poverty definition.
Other dimensions like shelter, health and education are mostly valued more as
means than as ends in themselves as this is the phenomenon of most western
countries. I have tried to explain this result with the theory of Maslow. The
brief comparison of the situation in the slums of Hyderabad and tribal life in
the Medak District demonstrates the following results: It is difficult to say
which life is better from a well-being perspective because I do not have
sufficiently detailed information for a convincing comparison and because I did
not aggregate. But anyway, in some dimensions the rural areas are better off,
in other dimensions the urban regions.
In the long
term, to overcome poverty and to develop people`s living conditions it is
necessary to increase and provide individual capabilities. This means that
basis has to be built to make it possible for people to achieve desired goals ?
realize certain functionings ? by providing means. The forms of doing so and
the necessary amount of means are as manifold as diverse people are. But there
are of course more preferable means and dimensions where immediate action is
required and where a reinforcing effect is to be expected. I am thinking of
education apart from relief of essential problems interfering in the
fulfillment of basic needs. Providing access to a good education and creating
awareness of how important it is, influences the existing interdependencies
through other dimensions as well. Education works as a help to self-help which
is really important in my opinion from an efficient as well as sustainable
point of view. There are also other factors that have impact on different
capabilities. I distinguish between hard and soft factors. Hard factors I would
describe as more or less visible and obvious ones like for instance
environmental circumstances or biological facts. You can think of the climate
or diseases. Soft factors on the contrary are less concrete and comprehensible.
The society or the individual themselves are the source of such soft factors.
Culture, tradition and religion for example are such ones and exhibit influences
and affections on capabilities by inhering certain values. To this category I
mainly assign therefore sociological, psychological, religious and cultural
facts. It is this class I think we have to investigate in more detail to find
out why India as a nation does not perform as well as others. I think the
following statement also indirectly points to this direction: ?Since
the last fifty years, India has been a developing country. It means
economically it is not strong, socially it is not stable, in security aspects
it is not selfreliant, and that is why it is called a developing country.?
(Abdul Kalam 2002: 74). At this point I would like to take the opportunity to
express my opinion concerning this. During my stay here in Hyderabad I
experienced and observed a lot ? India and its population is quite different in
many ways to Switzerland and its people. The Indian culture and the value
system seem to be far away from the Swiss one. And I recognized some elements I
like and some I do not like and that could also be responsible for the India`s
low performance in my opinion. I am aware that it is dangerous to make such
generalizing statements that as a consequence limit to judgements. But I do it
with a good intention namely to give to the Indian society a different
perspective ? a perspective from outside ? in order to learn. I really
appreciate how the different religions here in India can live together without
interfering each other. Another impressive fact is that I have almost never
seen aggression here in this country. And the most people I have met are
friendly and open-hearted. These elements are good and really important for an
overall high performance. But the religion of Hinduism with its caste system
obviously causes discrimination among the society. By being put on different
levels injustice can flourish and provoke inequality. An unequal basis
increases inequality through the various human activities, above all the
economic activity. Therefore, disparities rise as well. Gender discrimination
appears to be still common in India whereas European countries perform better
in this context. It inhibits the potential women could contribute to society
and to a more developed life apart from the ideal and claim itself of women and
men having equal rights and duties. Time in my opinion is valued considerably
low in India, cheating (at least foreigners) is widespread, talking people into
buying something often happens and also saying something but not doing it
frequently occurs. These are all elements that disturb trust and trust is an
essential precondition for trade and economic activities in general. The latter
usually and hopefully produces wealth in form of added value and wealth again
is a means of several for well-being. To me it seems that such values affect
the Indian standard to a big extent since India is a really abundant country.
Even if there were not much natural resources the country could anyway perform
well. Look at Switzerland! What natural resources does it have? Not much: There
is water, salt and stones, but nevertheless it developed during the last
century to one of the countries with the highest living standards in the world.
Monetary contribution as a means to increase capabilities are, in my opinion,
only appropriate to bring short-term relief in emergency cases, for example
famines. The reason is that money causes many incentive based sideeffects that
rather harm than help in the end. In summary, capability improvement can be
done by different approaches. But there are better ones in terms of efficiency
and sustainability and it is necessary to identify the right ones. As I have
already mentioned earlier I strongly believe in education although its fruits
only grow slowly with the time. Improvements are therefore not apparent
immediately but in the long-term perspective efficient and sustainable.
So,
India, you have the potential to change. The only obstacle is to overcome the
collective action problem you are facing. The change starts in every individual
mind, have a common vision and dream as Abdul Kalam (2002) says!
?That is something addressed to all of us.
It is the people of a nation who make it great. By their effort, the people in
turn become important citizens of their great country. Ignited minds are the
most powerful resource on earth, and the one billion minds of our nation are
indeed a great power waiting to be tapped.? (Abdul Kalam 2002:137).
At this point I
like to take the opportunity to say thank you to the CARPED staff who made it
possible to get a valuable overview of the different issues in poverty,
development and also of the Indian culture. I am also grateful to the AIESEC
members that organized this traineeship and the pleasant stay here in
Hyderabad.
Abdul Kalam, Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen. 2002. Ignited minds.
Unleashing the power within India. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
Alkire, Sabina. 2002. Valuing Freedoms.
Sen?s Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bandyopadhyay, D. 2004. ?Rayagada Story
Retold. Destitutes of Development.? Economic and Political Weekly
January 31, 2004, pp. 408-411.
Chiappero Martinetti, Enrica. 2000. ?A multidimensional assessment of well-being based on Sen?s
Functioning Approach.? Forthcoming in Rivista
Internazionale di Scienza Sociali 2, 2000. http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/vhi/sen/papers/martinet.pdf,
30.9.2003.
Comim, Flavio. 2001. ?Operationalizing Sen?s
Capability Approach.? http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/vhi/sen/papers/comim.pdf,
25.9.2003.
Fusco, Alessio. 2003. ?On the definition and
measurement of poverty: The contribution of multidimensional analysis.?
http://cfs.unipv.it/sen/papers/Fusco.pdf, 6.11.2003.
Lelli, Sara. Without year. ?Factor Analysis
vs. Fuzzy Sets Theory: Assessing the Influence of Different Techniques on Sen?s
Functioning Approach.? Preliminary. http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/vhi/sen/papers/lelli.pdf,
30.9.2003.
Muellbauer, John. 1987. ?Professor Sen on
the Standard of Living.? In: Hawthorn, Geoffrey (Ed.). The Standard of
Living. The Tanner Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
39-58.
Nussbaum, Martha. 2000.
Women and Human Development. The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Saith, Ruhi. 2001. ?Capabilities: the
Concept and its Operationalisation.? Queen Elizabeth House Working Paper
Series, Working Paper Number 66 (QEHWPS66).
http://www2.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/qehwp/qehwps66.pdf, 25.9.2003.
Sen, Amartya. 1982. Choice, Welfare and
Measurement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Sen, Amartya. 1984. Resources, Values and Development. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Sen, Amartya. 1985. Commodities and
Capabilities. Professor Dr. P. Hennipman Lectures in Economics Volume 7.
Amsterdam: North Holland.
Sen, Amartya. 1987. ?The Standard of Living:
Lecture II, Lives and Capabilities.? In: Hawthorn, Geoffrey (Ed.). The
Standard of Living. The Tanner Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 20-38.
Sen, Amartya. 1993. ?Capability and
Well-Being.? In: Nussbaum, Martha and Amartya Sen (Eds.). The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, pp. 30-53.
Sen, Amartya. 1995. Inequality
reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, Amartya. 1997. On Economic
Inequality. Enlarged edition with a substantial annexe ?On Economic
Inequality after a Quarter Century?. James Foster and Amartya Sen. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf.
