Overcoming Household Shocks: Do Asset ...

1 downloads 32 Views 145KB Size Report
Mar 22, 2013 - 1Department of Sociology, Manchester Metropolitan University, ... 2Lancashire Business School, The University of Central Lancashire,.
This article was downloaded by: [41.215.162.17] On: 04 April 2013, At: 13:26 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Review of Social Economy Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrse20

Overcoming Household Shocks: Do Asset-Accumulation Strategies Matter? a

b

Shoba Arun , Samuel Kobina Annim & Thankom Arun b a

Department of Sociology, Manchester Metropolitan University, Geoffrey Manton Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M156LL, UK b

Lancashire Business School, The University of Central Lancashire, Lancashire, UK Version of record first published: 22 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Shoba Arun , Samuel Kobina Annim & Thankom Arun (2013): Overcoming Household Shocks: Do Asset-Accumulation Strategies Matter?, Review of Social Economy, DOI:10.1080/00346764.2012.761754 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2012.761754

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Review of Social Economy, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2012.761754

Overcoming Household Shocks: Do AssetAccumulation Strategies Matter?

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

Shoba Arun1, Samuel Kobina Annim2 and Thankom Arun2 1 Department of Sociology, Manchester Metropolitan University, Geoffrey Manton Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M156LL, UK; 2 Lancashire Business School, The University of Central Lancashire, Lancashire, UK Abstract This paper is motivated by the observation that the type and the combination of assets are associated with the likelihood of poor households’ experience of shock. Focusing on the case of adivasi households in the south Indian state of Kerala, we find that the type, number and combinations of specific assets (primarily social and physical capital) yield varied magnitudes of association with households’ experience of shock, which is a measure of vulnerability. Thus, going beyond mere welfare considerations, social policies that prioritise and sequence the type and combination of asset building based on contextual factors help minimise the incidence of shocks and improve livelihood choices. Keywords: asset accumulation, shocks, poverty, adivasi, Kerala

1.

INTRODUCTION

Asset poverty is an indication of systematic discrimination in the development process, which has often led to the ‘adverse’ incorporation of certain social groups (Aliber 2001; Du Toit 2004; Hall and Patrinos 2005). Influenced by Sen (1999) and Chambers (1992), asset-based approaches treat assets not just as resources but also as an ‘agency’ to transform such resources (Adato et al. 2004; Bebbington 1999; Gindling 2005; Moser 2006; Moser and Dani 2008; Schelzig 2005) and help transform livelihood choices. As inequalities in power relations affect asset building, often the asset structure and the ability to exercise their agency are crucial (Alsop 2004; De Haan 2008; Narayan et al. 2000). Thus, the capacity to build assets depends on a range of factors and circumstances; for example, social groups such as indigenous communities, specifically known as Scheduled Tribes in India or adivasis (hitherto used in the paper), face a range of vulnerabilities and structural constraints in everyday lives. This paper is motivated to explain how type, number and combination of assets play a significant role in minimising q 2013 The Association for Social Economics

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY

effects of shocks in asset-poor households, particularly adivasi livelihoods in southern India. Here we adopt a holistic approach to livelihood, constituting both tangible and intangible aspects, of both capabilities and assets (material and social resources), based on Chambers and Conway (1991) that renders it sustainable and able to cope with and recover from shocks1 (defined in this paper as the occurrence of an adverse event, as elaborated later). Indigenous communities share basic similarities in histories characterised by distinct social and cultural systems, and are disproportionately affected by poverty (McNeish and Eversole 2006). In India, adivasis are a persistently disadvantaged ethnic group, as evidenced by indicators of human capabilities (Arun 2008; Basu 1993; NSSO 2001). In the south Indian state of Kerala, despite the highly acclaimed social development model of the state,2 adivasis lag behind in terms of socio-economic development. Thus, besides social and economic deprivation, asset poverty is highly prevalent among adivasis. Although land is an important livelihood asset for such communities, ineffective legislation and ambiguous transactions have made such groups effectively landless. Persistent assetlessness, in terms of land and wider deprivation, demonstrates their marginalised position in the society. Research on social policies to improve livelihoods has focused on asset-based strategies (Moser 2006; Moser and Dani 2008), and this paper shows how the combination of assets and asset-building strategies is significant in overcoming socio-economic constraints and improving livelihoods. Thus, we hypothesise that the type and the combination of assets are associated with the likelihood of poor households’ experience of shock. Given the different types of assets (financial, physical, human, natural and social), we argue that there are multiple channels through which asset ownership, number and combination will be related to poor households’ experience of shock. Just to highlight a few, social assets are expected to provide a platform for both vertical and horizontal connectedness, certain level of collective responsibility and information sharing. Also, the process of building physical assets creates a sense of protection against shocks. The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 provides a brief discussion of some emerging issues on asset accumulation. Section 3 explains the data and econometric analysis, while Section 4 provides the main findings of the study. Section 5 is a detailed discussion of the results, with some policy implications. 1 Shock and asset ownership theoretically have a bi-causal relationship, however, we seek to explore at the association between assets and shocks, rather than its causality. 2 Kerala has received attention for its achievements in social development and redistributive policies, despite its low economic development. The new Kerala model explicitly seeks reconciliation of its development objectives at the local level through decentralisation strategies.

2

OVERCOMING HOUSEHOLD SHOCKS

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

2.

ASSET ACCUMULATION AND LIVELIHOODS

Debates on the multidimensionality of poverty comprise the livelihoods framework, rights-based and empowerment approaches that aim to improve social and economic aspects of livelihoods through capacity building and ensuring social protection (see Moser and Dani 2008). A range of assets are deployed by households to manage vulnerable circumstances (hereafter referred to as vulnerability context), normally characterised by susceptibility to the adverse effects of seasonality, shocks, trends and changes (see Bebbington 1999; Ellis 2000; Murray 2001; Narayan et al. 2000). Others have included political and psychological assets that lead to empowerment (Alsop and Heinsohn 2005) and their ability to exercise agency as individuals. Attention has also been drawn to the negative role of social capital3,4 (see Carroll and Stanfield 2003), which is less discussed in the current literature, although some critique has been raised on the limitations of social capital in practical policies (see Carroll and Stanfield 2003; Dolfsma and Dannreuther 2003). Scholars in the field of poverty and development have studied a diverse portfolio of assets or capital that households use in strategies for income generation and coping. In this study, we use the term ‘assets’ for all forms of capital, networks and assets. As an extension to this, proponents of asset-based social policy argue that asset building is crucial to expand opportunities and to overcome persistent socioeconomic constraints. Therefore, policies could not only enable direct access to assets, but also change the nature of returns or transform the value of existing assets (Moser and Dani 2008). However, structural inequalities such as social groupings or gender can perpetuate asset inequalities and may have an effect on asset building (Narayan et al. 2000; Sabates-Wheeler 2008). In particular, gender relations affect all aspects of livelihoods and well-being (Narayan et al. 2000; World Bank 2001). The thesis of feminisation of poverty—which posits that a larger number of women experience poverty compared to men—has helped to bring out the nexus between gender and poverty in terms of its extent, incidence and trends (Budowski and Rosero Bixby 2003; Jackson and Pearson 1998). Studies that challenge the concentration on the feminisation of poverty thesis based on female headship state that it is important to look at ways in which women in male-headed households also suffer poverty, which is multidimensional and ‘multisectoral’, in different ways, at different times and in different ‘spaces’ (Bradshaw 2002; Chant 2003). Thus, it is significant to address the different ways in which women contribute to, and face 3 Ambiguous land transactions were based on non-payment of price or at nominal prices through sale of commodities such as salt, liquor and tobacco with or without their conscious concurrence (Banu 2001; Kalathil 2004). 4 We are grateful to the anonymous reviewer for pointing this out.

3

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY

challenges in, asset building as drawn out in the paper, although issues of intrahousehold ownership and control of assets are not the focus of this paper. In this paper, ‘shock’ is referred to as the outcome variable that characterises both idiosyncratic (affecting individual households) and covariate (community level) dimensions of risk. Averting the occurrence of risk under uncertainty has received extensive attention in the poverty and vulnerability literature (Heltberg and Lund 2008; World Bank 2005). In the context of this paper, ‘risk’ refers to the probability of individuals/households slipping into poverty, experiencing further impoverishment or spells of poverty (hereafter referred to as shocks). The likelihood of such occurrence is triggered by any one of the multiple and complex determinants of poverty ranging from individual-level exposures to macro-level factors. Compared to other poverty-reduction strategies, the asset-accumulation approach offers an opportunity to identify those risk factors likely to affect livelihood strategies (Moser 2006). Heltberg and Lund (2008) assert that asset-based strategies and assistance from public institutions are useful to subvert the impact of risk. Also, an understanding of the impact of assets, such as networks, would enable the adaptability of economic agents to complex environments and aid in risk management and rural development (see Kostov and Lingard 2003). While the proposition of combating shock from an asset perspective has contributed significantly to policy, knowledge gaps on types, numbers and combination of assets remain. Household resilience to shock indicates their levels of vulnerability, particularly in terms of the capacity of individuals and social groups to respond to shocks related to any aspect of their livelihoods. By placing importance on assets, Moser (1998) proposes that the greater the assets, the lower are the risks of impoverishment. Other research on vulnerability has focused on the dimensions of household-level risk events, their respective probability distributions and vulnerability of households (Gaiha and Imai 2008; Heltberg and Lund 2008). The gap in most of these studies is an understanding of the tools and mechanisms through which adverse events are absorbed, and are even used as an opportunity to manage risk-related vulnerabilities and create opportunities for asset accumulation, as suggested in asset-based approaches. In this context, this study departs from existing studies in two ways. First, concentration on vulnerability – poverty studies may lead to the neglect of other relevant conceptual and measurement issues, such as vulnerability to shocks (Chaudhuri 2003). Equally important to the vulnerability – poverty nexus is the identification of different characteristics of shock (idiosyncratic and covariate) effects and household coping strategies from an asset-building perspective. Second, defining vulnerability as poverty plus risk (Chaudhuri et al. 2002; Pritchett et al. 2000) necessitates an investigation into households’ 4

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

OVERCOMING HOUSEHOLD SHOCKS

susceptibility to future spells or chronic poverty based on their exposure to a wide range of shocks. (For an extensive body of literature on chronic poverty, see Hulme and Shepherd 2003.) This can range from internal risk factors to multidimensional vulnerability that encompasses environmental and institutional risk factors (Birkmann and Wisner 2006). In most cases, exclusion from an informal support system and public service provision are the types of risk usually missed (Dercon 2001). In the approach that we develop, socioeconomic and institutional constraints and types of social network that limit the capacity to respond to shocks are explored. Social capital approaches deploy network and institutionalist perspectives to understand the management of risks and shocks (e.g. see Woolcock and Narayan 2000).5 Social capital refers to the benefits of membership within different kinds of social network. This study defines social assets as membership of one or more social networks; this idea has been explored extensively in the literature on social capital (e.g. Cattell 2001; Coleman 1990; Putnam et al. 1993; Woolcock and Narayan 2000). In contrast to overriding benefits of social capital, Grootaert and Narayan (2004) evidence that, disaggregating households by poor and non-poor, social capital has a more positive effect on household welfare in the case of the former than the latter. Hyden (2001) makes a case for the organic evolution of social networks that deepen over time, based on trust and sharing. All these studies identify the intrinsic risk of translating different types of household social interrelations into a composite ‘productive’ resource. The study adopts a connectionist view of asset base that focuses on resource flow through social ties (e.g. Putnam et al. 1993), with a greater emphasis on the types of networks and processes through which assets improve, leading to improved ability to respond to shocks. Most importantly, the role of some forms of assets such as social networks in breaking poverty traps depends on whether it complements or substitutes other productive assets (Chantarat and Barrett 2011). The plausible effect of asset ownership on minimising the incidence of shock is supported by the following arguments: (1) asset ownership incites a sense of protecting loss which might occur as a result of the incidence of shock. This argument is more plausible in the case of shocks that affect individuals or households (idiosyncratic) rather than community (covariate); and (2) asset is viewed from a flow concept with emphasis on social, human and financial capital rather than physical and natural capital. Through the former types of capital, information is gained on a continuous basis and that helps in minimizing the incidence of shock. 5 Woolcock (1999) distinguishes two types of ties in social capital, bridging (weaker ties) and bonding (stronger ties).

5

REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY

In contrast to an open recommendation suggesting that asset building is essential for coping with poverty and vulnerability, this paper examines household shock through the nature of asset combinations. The specific research questions that this study explores are: (1) Do the type and number of assets matter for poor household’s management of shock incidence? And if so, (2) do particular combinations and interactions of assets mitigate the incidence of a shock?

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

3.

DATA AND METHODS

The paper relies on cross-sectional data, using a household survey and semistructured interviews with adivasi households conducted in the adivasi regions in the Indian state of Kerala between June 2005 and January 2007.

3.1

Characteristics of the Target Group

Adivasi groups in India have variegated patterns of livelihoods and socioeconomic characteristics depending on region, ethnicity, historical origins and economic occupation. The areas6 investigated in the present study consist of selected ‘hamlets’ from panchayats (local administrative unit), from the districts of Waynad and Palakkad district. The selected panchayats are Noolpuzha, Bathery, Manathavady, Mepadi, Nenmeni, Pulpally, Thirunelli, Poothadi and Thondakkadav in Wayanad, and Agali and Sholayoor in Attapady. A sample of 38 women and 27 men from four adivasi groups were purposively selected for case studies, focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. The criterion for selection was based on discriminatory factors including socioeconomic characteristics and proportional to the unique features of the four adivasi groups. The breakdown of the four adivasi groups is as follow: adiyas (16.4%; landless labourers), kattunaikans (27.8%; forest based), paniyas (44.9%; landless labourers) and irulas (10.9%; agricultural labourers). The unique occupational characteristics of these groups informed their selection for the qualitative analysis. The qualitative data were augmented with a quantitative analysis covering 165 households randomly selected across adivasi-dominated districts in the state of Kerala. The hypothesis tested is that lack of assets makes a household vulnerable. Measuring vulnerability from an ex post viewpoint (whether household was affected by any kind of shock), a probit model is estimated to verify the relationship between type/combination of asset and vulnerability. For the sake of 6 The spatial concentration of adivasis is marked in Kerala, with the district of Waynad accounting for 36% per cent of adivasis, while Idukki and Palakkad (mostly the region of Attapady) account for 26% per cent (Government of Kerala 2007).

6

OVERCOMING HOUSEHOLD SHOCKS

brevity, a description of the probit estimation has been explained in Appendices 1 and 2. While endogeneity concern resonates based on plausible bi-causal relationship between asset ownership and vulnerability, it should be noted that the current study distances itself from asserting strict causality at this stage. 4.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

4.1

Qualitative Analysis

The qualitative component of the study facilitates a preliminary analysis of asset (broadly classified as tangible and intangible) portfolio among adivasi households, exploring how they manage such assets, and factors that enable or disable them to pursue viable livelihood options. 4.1.1 Tangible assets. Tangible or material assets comprise natural, physical and financial assets. Dependency on natural resources, such as land, as a livelihood resource is important among indigenous communities, but so is land dispossession, i.e. erosion of land ownership through different means (including unlawful; for more on this, read Kalathil 2004). Table 1 shows the ownership/ control of some of the assets, by type of adivasi and gender. Being dependant on wage labour, paniyas and adiyas have no or little ownership of land, although the household dwellings are seen as a natural asset. These are sometimes owned by women, in the cases where the state has provided dwelling plots, for example (25% for adiyas and 50% for paniyas). Living close to forest lands, Kattunaikans possess land resources, with women owning 25% of land, while this was 23.1%

Table 1: Household Asset Portfolio, by Type of Adivasi and Gender (percent)

Natural

Kattunaikans Irulas Adiyas Paniyas Total

Physical

Financial

M

F

M

F

M

F

23.1 32.7 9.6 34.6

25 0 25 50

0 0 0 0

17.7 10.9 12.6 58.8

21.7 13.1 26.1 39.1

10.2 27.6 21 41.2

100

0

100

Source: Field Work (2005–2007).

7

100

100

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY

for men. But this ownership is not legally recognised, due to lack of ‘recognised’ title deeds and land dispossession. In all areas, the proximity of adivasi lands to forests makes them prone to attack from wild animals, thus constraining livelihood options based on cultivation. Although protection with measures such as electric fencing and trenches exists, these are largely hampered due to the lack of their maintenance. In the Attapady region of Palakkad district, land ownership among Irula families is common and range from 50 –150 cents, cultivating food crops such as ragi, maize and vegetables. Land ownership is mostly by men, with around 32.7% of men owning land, but few practise cultivation due to poor water resources, frequent attack by wild animals and amount of time spent in paid employment. The lack of apposite support from the local agriculture office (Krishi Bhavan) is an example of insensitively formulated policies. Despite significant expenditure on grants and subsidies, this has negatively affected group such as irulas (Kalathil 2004). A typical example is the provision of hybrid seedlings of crops such as bananas, which is dependent on chemical fertilisers, pesticides and water. Dryland organic crops are more important to adivasi livelihoods, in terms of food, nutrients, such as iron, and eco-friendly practices. Often these schemes are availed by adivasis but are given to other (outsider) groups, showing exploitation of resources. In other cases, arrears in land tax have led to the denial of subsidies from the Krishi Bhavan. Furthermore, women who take up homeland farming also do not approach or are not approached by these offices. Physical assets are also meagre and unsuitable to diversify livelihoods. Table 1 shows that males in most households do not own any physical assets, while this is a different picture for women. This is due to the recent operations of self-help groups (SHGs) targeting households through women, who obtain loans to purchase goats, hens, etc., and help in diversifying livelihood strategies. Despite significant programmes for housing and success in meeting their yearly target of adivasi welfare programmes, its suitability and quality leaves much to be desired. For example, most dwellings have leakages, non-functioning solar and electrical systems, and lack of adequate toilets. Thus, while households do not have adequate sized nor decent quality housing and infrastructure, this further affects their ability to use this as a physical asset to transform their livelihoods, e.g. diversification of income such as extensions and use of space for economic generation activities such as tailoring. Some women have learnt tailoring but have not been able to pursue this as a source of income generation. If we look at the financial asset base of adivasi households, it primarily consists of income from waged work in farm and non-farm sector, or income from own farming, largely dependent on the seasonality of employment. Women earned regular incomes from waged labour, depending on their adivasi grouping. 8

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

OVERCOMING HOUSEHOLD SHOCKS

For example, 21% of adiya women, 27.6% of Irula women and 41.2% of paniya women relied on waged labour. All of these women also contribute to financial assets through borrowing from various sources. Borrowing of food materials (groceries) from petty shops is repaid during the working/harvesting season. Most debt accounts are subject to manipulation of money lenders, due to the illiteracy and poor accounting skills of the adivasi women, which drives them to a vicious cycle of debt from various sides. However, this temporary debt relief actually perpetuates long-term debt as they do not then have any income from their land. In Attapadi, during the off-peak season, it is common for households to obtain loans from informal moneylenders (known as Blade) from the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu. This is seen as a simple procedure compared to loans from formal institutions.7 On the whole, far from owning any financial assets, most households are unable to pursue alternative livelihood strategies and have a strong debt pattern.

4.1.2 Intangible assets. As much as material assets are important, other intangible assets such as social and human capital are important requisites for ensuring the asset base of the adivasis, ensuring sustenance of the livelihoods throughout their life cycle. This directly impacts on the building of other assets such as political, social and financial capital. Shows how chronic poverty is closely linked with both chronic and transitory food insecurity in Malawi. Being conditioned to economic and food insecurity, deprivation was accepted as a ‘norm’ and is seen as a form of inter-generational transfer, e.g. underweight children and ill-health. Starvation deaths and diseases caused by malnutrition are widely prevalent in the study areas. Illnesses caused by anaemia and poor personal and environmental hygiene were common. In short, the entire life cycle of the adivasis is characterised by ill-health8 of which scabies, jaundice, cancer, leprosy, tuberculosis, seasonal viral fever, rheumatism and asthma were reported, some being passed on to children. Hamlets located near the townships are reported to have venereal diseases. Increasing cases of physical disability, mostly of males from injuries from accidents at work, and with neglect and lack of treatment, have forced women to become primary earners and carers, as often girls are withdrawn from school for caring responsibilities. The girls get married at a very early age with little knowledge of pregnancy and childbirth. Some unsafe traditional practices are followed for the termination of pregnancies. 7 Only two-thirds of the total loan is given, the rest is seen as commission, with a weekly remittance of Rs. 100. 8 Strong dislike for mainstream health systems due to previous negative experiences was common.

9

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY

Human capital is not recognised as an important capital or route to build capabilities. Despite a large network of educational institutions from state schools to multigrade learning centres in the study areas and rigorous efforts of the tribal offices, dropout rates are high due to onset of puberty age of girls (at around 12 –13 years), caring responsibilities, lack of awareness among parents, expenses towards books and uniforms, distance to school, difficulties in transfer from primary to secondary school, rearing of goats and lack of role models to demonstrate benefits of education. To a large extent, education is taken up, but not regularly. While some children do attend the tribal residential schools or nearby schools, this is hampered by high rate of dropout for economic and social reasons. Young women are sent as domestic maids to cities, for a small amount, and sometimes trapped in prostitution. Political and social capital defined in terms of the ability to engage in political and social participation, both formal and informal, is quite important in livelihood frameworks. However, with continuous struggles for an economic livelihood and cases of ‘adverse’ incorporations in many respects, in general, the adivasi population often refrains from interactions with external communities. Despite robust political activism in campaigning for land rights, there is a lack of awareness on political issues in the selected study areas. Some have been forced to participate in campaigns, organised by the Adivasi Gotrasabha in Muthanga and the Adivasi Kshetra Samithi, but this is not sustained in any way. This may be due to the poor organisation of such activities and the distinct adivasi hierarchy still practised. There is a lack of leadership formation, and in parallel, traditional adivasi leaders have lost their relevance and power in the community. Others are divided into different political parties without real political consciousness, attracted by temporary benefits offered during elections and conventions. It may be argued that the historical marginalisation of adivasis has resulted in a vulnerable situation, with lack of capabilities and entitlements, communication skills, meaningful education, community participation and interaction, selfconfidence, initiatives, exclusion from the external communities, lack of perceptions and the exercise of freedom. Thus, the lack of ability to and absence of effective political participation by both men and women at all levels is a major reason for their persistent marginalisation, stemming from poor internal social relationships between and within adivasi groups, and intra- and inter-groups conflicts often lead to negative social capital. Social capital as an asset is stated to be more crucial for poor than non-poor households, having a positive effect on household welfare (Grootaert and Narayan 2004). Nevertheless, we also find evidences of negative social capital in our study, reiterated both in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Not only are adivasi groups exploited and politically unorganised, but also their limited interactions with institutions and external 10

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

OVERCOMING HOUSEHOLD SHOCKS

communities have cumulated their exploitation and discrimination. Adivasi youth are used as carriers in criminal and illegal activities such as illicit liquor sales, cultivation and guarding ‘Gangs’ plantations, and plundering forest wealth such as sandalwood, and end up being victims of such crimes, being killed for giving evidence or used as scapegoats. This perpetuates the general stigma that all adivasis are criminals and are often treated with suspicion. This attitude excludes adivasis from being entrusted with social responsibilities and leadership, for example participation in SHGs or in the beneficiary committees of panchayat projects. Of recent, women’s SHGs have been active in mobilising adivasi women, which has had a positive effect in terms of community participation and some effort towards household welfare, but is far off from a sustainable participation that meets both the practical and their strategic needs. All these observations lead us to take up a quantitative analysis to explore the link between household assets and shocks in more depth. 4.2

Quantitative Analysis

As a recall, the quantitative part of the study provides a response to the question— does type and combination of ‘assetlessness’ lead to vulnerability? The dependent variable, shock incidence, shows that two-thirds of households in our sample encountered either idiosyncratic or covariate risk in the 12 months preceding data collection. This depicts vulnerability of households among the adivasi group. Social networks emerged as the most important form of asset, with the least being financial. In over three-quarters of the households, females were the main earner. Some of the information related to the descriptive statistics is given in Table 2. Our multivariate finding on a household’s experience of shock incidence is presented in the following sequence: (1) effect of broad types of assets and their interaction; (2) effect of number of assets; and (3) particular type/number and their interaction. Households that had experienced at least one of either idiosyncratic or covariate shocks in the 12 months preceding the data collection were assigned the numeric value 1 and otherwise 0 (see Table 3). The reported marginal effect enabled a numeric interpretation of the responsiveness of each of the covariates on the peril of a household shock (Equation 2, Appendix 2). Denoting the incidence of shock as one led to the following broad directional interpretation: all positive coefficients signify a greater likelihood of a household experiencing an adverse shock, and negative values signify a lesser chance of occurrence (see Table 3). The outstanding observation from the estimation is that social, physical and financial assets and other covariates, such as location/tribe, number of households employed and 11

REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics

Variables

Mean

SD

Minimum

Maximum

Shock incidence Social asset: membership of network Physical asset

0.33 0.89 0.24

0.47 0.31 0.43

0 0 0

1 1 1

Human asset: number of literate member of household Natural asset: family land size Financial asset: savings

0.68

1.05

0

5

1.22 9.70

1.37 17.12

0 0

5 50

Number of household members employed Household per capita expenditure Tribe/location Gender of main earner

2.07 2.78 4.45 0.18

1.04 1.32 2.82 0.39

0 0 1 0

6 6 10 1

Source: Field Work (2005–2007). Note: Number of observations ¼ 165.

Table 3: Focus on Asset Type and their Interaction (Dependent Variable— Likelihood of Incidence of Shock)

›shock/›x

z-value

Dummy variable for physical asset Number of literate member of household (human asset) Family land size (natural asset) Savings (financial asset) Number of household members employed

0.320* 2 0.228* 0.015 2 0.003 2 0.004** 2 0.075**

23.07 0.34 20.09 21.71 21.82

Household per capita expenditure Tribe/location Gender of main earner/dominant person in decision-making Social asset £ physical asset

0.027 2 0.029** 0.192** 2 0.225*

0.88 22.01 1.79 23.04

Constant

2 1.08**

21.72

Covariates Dummy variable for social asset

5.81

Source: Field Work (2005– 2007). Note: Number of observations ¼ 165. Number of iterations ¼ 4. Pseudo R 2 ¼ 0.1485. ***Significant at 1%; **significant at 5%; *significant at 10%.

12

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

OVERCOMING HOUSEHOLD SHOCKS

gender, were either very significant or just significant at 5% in explaining incidence of shock. These covariates evidenced varied directions and degrees of sensitivity on household incidence of shock. The multivariate probit analysis is preceded by a correlation matrix (Appendix 1) to explore the effect of a potential co-linear relationship between the different assets on the dependent variable. While we argue that nature, combination and sequencing of assets affect the incidence of a shock outcome, the presence of asset co-linearity is capable of biasing our estimates. The observed highest strength of correlation, 0.24, for any pair of the five assets signifies less likely effect of co-linearity. Against this backdrop, we proceed with the probit estimation. The response to the main hypothesis of the study indicated that social and physical assets are very significant in explaining the incidence of shock. The weakness of financial assets as an explanation implies the need for caution in asserting its overall effect on the incidence of shock. A plausible reason is the liquidity leading to swift transferability and, as such, unreliability in predicting the incidence of shock. Human and natural assets, on the contrary, failed to explain the incidence of a household shock. This study captures the benefits derived from participation in different types of social networks. Thus, participation in voluntary organisations, different types of vertical and horizontal networks as well as connectedness to local institutions such as the panchayat office, tribal welfare office, anganwadis (child welfare agency), Kudumbashree9 (state sponsored SHGs) and other SHGs can be identified as contributing to a wide range of social capital responses. We also found that women participate in SHGs in the region operated by NGOs such as Shreyas (a religious based institution) and Gandhi Sevak Samithi (an NGO founded on the principles of Gandhian philosophy), leading to both income generation and an improved ability to manage assets, thus providing a buffer to minimise the incidence of household shocks. In the empirical model, social asset was initially captured as a composite variable. This was measured as a dummy represented by the respondent being a member of at least one social network (membership of a religious organisation, community, political, SHG or other social-based organisation). In contrast to a priori expectation, we observed marginal significance of social networking increasing the probability of shock incidence. This finding showed further interesting responses when explored in the context of number and type of social networks. 9 Kudumbashree —‘prosperity of the family’ —is an poverty alleviation programme of the state of Kerala’s State Poverty Eradication Mission (SPEM) since 1999. This is a women-oriented, participatory and integrated approach to fight poverty with the support of the central government and National Board for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) (GOK 2007).

13

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY

The estimation of the third Equation (see Appendix 2) to investigate the pattern of household adverse shock sensitivity on changes in the number of social networks reveals some insights into the strength of connectedness. For instance, the transition from no network/connectedness to one and from one to two shows an increasing probability of shock incidence. In reverse pattern, a sharp decline showing a lower probability of a shock incidence is observed, as the number of network/connectedness increases from three through to five. This finding shows that households are likely to tap gains from multiple social networks rather than single networks. This leads on to investigating the nature of network, and whether it offers positive or negative outturns to members. One of the interesting observations is that the incidence of shock is less likely if that household owns a physical asset. It is 23% less likely for a household that owns any form of physical asset to experience an adverse shock than for a nonownership household. In the study area, we found that despite state housing programmes, suitability and quality are of concern due to non-completion, constant leaks, non-functioning solar and electrical systems, and lack of proper sanitation. This affects their ability to use dwellings as an effective physical asset to transform their livelihoods. For example, diversification of income would be possible through use of the physical space or ownership of sewing machines for tailoring, as many women who have acquired tailoring skills have not been able to pursue this as a source of income generation. We observe weak evidence of the claim that financial assets reduce the likelihood of household incidence of shock. It reveals a significance level of 5% and marginally reduces the likelihood of a shock occurring (0.4%). In our study, the financial asset base primarily consisted of income from waged work (both farm and non-farm) and own farming (dependent on the seasonality of employment). In many households, borrowing tends to supplement household income, mainly during lean periods, whereby purchase of food (groceries) is debt financed and repaid in the harvesting season. However, most debt accounts are subject to manipulation of local moneylenders and shopkeepers, due to illiteracy and poor accounting skills of adivasis, drawing them into perpetual debt. Thus, it is not so much the presence of credit or debt but the access to the social networks that enables better coping. However, as noted, not all social networks for credit are likely to be positive for improved livelihoods; thus, savings in this sense are different from credit or debt, and perhaps are better considered to be similar to a physical asset. Let us further explore the link between type of asset and incidence of shock. Table 4 and Figure 1 examine the effect of changes in the number of assets on the incidence of shock. Although social capital, broadly assessed, increases the probability of household incidence of shock, it emerges from Figure 1 that in spite 14

OVERCOMING HOUSEHOLD SHOCKS

Table 4: Likelihood Impact of a Per Unit Change of Significant Assets (N ¼ 165)

Significant assets Social

Physical

Financial

0!1 1!2

0.3977480 0.4651606

2 0.2660206 2 0.1413223

2 0.0485744 2 0.0468273

2!3 3!4 4!5

0.0828797 0.0023800 0.0000062

0.0000000 2 0.0074700 2 0.0004703

2 0.0444428 2 0.0415255 2 0.0381978

Source: Field Work (2005–2007).

of the marginal increase between 0 and 1, there is a steep fall in the extent of greater likelihood as the number of networks increases, irrespective of the type. While the trend shows a positive association with the incidence of shock, this stabilises after the third ownership of physical assets. This observation requires detailed investigation of the appropriate number, type and combinations with other assets. The nature and interaction of social and physical assets on the probability of shock incidence are shown in Table 5. The interaction between these assets reveals a lower likelihood of households experiencing shock, i.e. there is a 23% likelihood of reducing a household shock. The magnitude of fall and the degree of Changes to household asset type and responsiveness to shock 0.6

Responsiveness of shock

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

Changes

Changes in number of assets Social Assets physical

0.4

Assets financial

0.2

0 0 to 1

1 to 2

2 to 3

3 to 4

4 to 5

–0.2 –0.4

Changes in number of assets by type

Figure 1: Changes to Household Asset Type and Responsiveness to Shock. Source: Field Work (2005 – 2007).

15

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY

relevance relative to the outcome of the two independent assets provide a policy argument on the need to empower households with appropriate assets, in this case physical and social assets, concurrently. We further augment our analysis with the estimation of a binary probit model that brings out the specific dimensions of social networks and identifies the interaction that is significant in explaining the incidence of shock (see Table 5). While we find that the specific types of social networks such as women’s networks and NGO membership proved insignificant on the likelihood of household shock incidence, interestingly households with any kind of political networks seemed to experience some household shock. How do we explain this? For this, the nature of political networks among adivasis needs to be made clear. Political networks are denoted by any kind of participation in political, either formal or informal, activities. Political participation by adivasis in Kerala reflects the case of adverse incorporation in several, yet connected, ways. Adivasis, throughout the country, have engaged in continuous struggles for a land rights and stable livelihoods, but experience limited and hostile interactions with mainstream society. Moreover, not only the poor organisation of political activities has hindered political activism, but also such activists are treated with suspicion from state authorities, particularly in the context of the infamous ‘Muthanga’10 riots of Kerala in 2001 and the recent Chengara (adivasi land struggle in the central region) protests. Furthermore, traditional community leaders have lost their relevance and power in the adivasi community, thus reducing the ability to engage in any kind of recognised political activity. Thus, the problematic nature of political participation by adivasis may, to some extent, explain household exposure to shocks, where members (mostly male) are usually not able to pursue a sustained household income, due to their participation in some form of political activities, often leading to persistent exclusion in social and political circles. Further, interactions with institutions and external (mainstream) communities have culminated in exploitation and discrimination, leading to negative social networks. For example, with some adivasi youth being involved in activities such as illicit liquor brewing and sales, drug cultivation and stealing forest resources, building trust through involvement in social and political ( panchayat) activities is often a difficult task. Thus, the external costs associated with the criminal behaviour of the youth translate into negative political capital for the larger community. This is similar to the negative aspects of social capital raised by Carroll and Stanfield (2003), which engenders adverse circumstances for asset building. 10 In September 2001, starvation deaths in the adivasi -dominant region of Wayanad led adivasi activists to engage in land agitation campaigns in the Muthanga region, ending in a violent struggle with state authorities.

16

OVERCOMING HOUSEHOLD SHOCKS

Table 5: Probit Estimation (Dependent Variable— Likelihood of Incidence of Shock). String-out Dimension of Social Capital and their Interaction

›shock/›x

Covariates

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

Dummy variable Dummy variable Dummy variable Dummy variable

for for for for

social social social social

capital: capital: capital: capital:

tribal network political network NGO network women network

0.119 0.159** 0.096 0.161

z-value 1.38 1.98 0.82 1.34

Dummy variable for social capital: other network Social capital of NGO £ women network Dummy variable for physical asset Number of literate member of household (human asset)

2 0.056 2 0.256* 2 0.256* 0.010

20.55 22.54 23.49 0.24

Family land size (natural asset) Savings (financial asset) Number of household members employed Household per capita expenditure

0.001 2 0.005** 2 0.074** 0.028

0.04 21.66 21.76 0.92

Tribe/location Gender of main earner/dominant person in decision-making Constant

2 0.029** 0.161 2 1.08***

22.00 1.42 21.72

Source: Field Work (2005– 2007). Note: Number of observations ¼ 165. Number of iterations ¼ 4. Pseudo R 2 ¼ 0.1485. ***Significant at 1%; **significant at 5%; *significant at 10%.

In contrast, other forms of social network beyond the identified types evidenced a significant and lesser likelihood of incidence of a household shock.11 This suggests a need to encourage households to have joint membership in both groups to tap their mutual benefits.

5.

DISCUSSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The evidence shows that social policies that address shocks and vulnerabilities need to focus on appropriate asset-accumulation strategies rather than on those based merely on welfare or social distribution. As Moser (2006) suggests, social policies need to distinguish between first-generation and second-generation asset 11 This pre-empts further exploration into the different types of known social networks. Interacting with any of the known social networks seemed insignificant in explaining household experience of shock, with the exception of households that have networks with both NGO and a women’s group.

17

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY

accumulation, highlighting a new hierarchy of need. The former is based more on welfare-based, poverty-reduction policies and aims at the provision of human, physical and financial capital, through educational, housing and employment programmes. The second-generation asset-accumulation policy strengthens accumulated assets through citizen rights, security, governance and accountability of institutions (Moser 2006). As seen from the qualitative analysis and further supported in the quantitative analyses, we find that the provision of social and economic infrastructure and services through housing, public distribution system, health and educational institutions are not sufficient to guarantee asset building. Instead, this approach needs to be sensitised to the needs of adivasi groups, for example through specific policies to strengthen the nature of social networks among adivasi groups, which may tackle wider issues of exclusion, e.g. the criminalisation of adivasi youth, and strengthen citizenship participation. The study has shown that not all assets may provide a positive outcome in terms of reducing shocks, and the sequencing of assets matters. In particular, the role of specific policies that strengthen the accumulation of social, financial and physical assets is found to be more significant in our study. At the same time, participation in political networks does not seem to be significant in reducing vulnerabilities—this may be because these groups have not been able to make any tangible benefits from such political networks, which is one area that needs further research. This calls for asset-accumulation policies that prioritise and sequence specific asset building, taking into account contextual factors and specific triggers of vulnerability. The findings also show that mere accumulation of assets such as housing and human capital is not sufficient to reduce vulnerabilities, unless this translates into meaningful assets and productive outcomes. Participation in multiple networks seems to have a more positive impact on reducing shocks, so households could tap from multiple sources of networks, rather than just single network. For example, participation in SHG networks may derive benefits (e.g. physical assets) which can be used to their full potential for financial gain. This indicates that policies should not just end with provision of assets, but should strive to strengthen the use of such assets, through combining with other assets that may reduce shocks. Here it is useful to adopt the distinction between practical and strategic needs of women (following Moser 1989), based on the triple roles of women in the spheres of production, reproduction and community. The former refers to practical needs in current activities, while the latter refers to those that transform the balance of power between men and women, and both are significant to achieve a range of outcomes including equity, welfare, efficiency and empowerment. Similar reference can be made to assets, i.e. strategic or practical in nature, and policies would need to identify the potential of assets that have long-term impact, for 18

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

OVERCOMING HOUSEHOLD SHOCKS

example knowledge and skills imparted through social networks or human capital, that can transform social relations compared to short-term or merely material benefits derived from physical assets. Tribal welfare intervention policies must take into consideration specific ethnic, social, economic and cultural dimensions of the social groups, avoiding a ‘one size fits all’ approach. For instance, work as paid labour is largely irregular, thus adiyas and paniyas, who are mostly paid workers, could benefit from appropriate skills in other types of labour which would ensure regular and appropriate levels of employment. Kattunaikers require support for their livelihoods based on forest produce collection, particularly in effective marketing of their produce. Irulas require support with cultivation, which is hampered by attack from wild animals, lack of appropriate subsidies and lack of timely availability of farming resources. The findings show the role of women in asset-building strategies at the household level. For example, women play multidimensional roles such as income earners, contributors to social capital through participation in SHGs and participants in decision-making within the household, which play a crucial role in asset accumulation. Thus, social policies that have been effective elsewhere in the state, such as the Kudumbashree programme, could be successful if tailored towards the needs of adivasi women. Other policies at the panchayat level need to involve more women to strengthen their social and political participation. The role of institutions—state, private and NGOs—to strengthen social and physical assets, as raised by other studies (Narayan et al. 2000), is reiterated here. Participation in networks and institutions, particularly by women, in NGOs such as Shreyas and Gandhi Smarak Seva, is significant, as highlighted earlier. State institutions such as the tribal office, Krishi Bhavan (local farm office) and local panchayat are therefore crucial in strengthening asset accumulation through citizenship forums, increased accountability and governance, focusing on social justice, development and democratic ideals. The current study assesses the relationship between asset accumulation, type and combination, and incidence of shock, as a measure of vulnerability, and offers interesting outcomes. For instance, observing that minimising the incidence of shock might be independent of the number of particular assets, such as affiliation with several social networks, and dependent on the mix among different assets, is pivotal for policy and future research. The study argues for an enabling asset-accumulation environment for adivasi livelihoods, which builds specific types of asset accumulation, facilitated by appropriate policies, institutions and life-cycle opportunities. Thus, mere provision of assets is not enough; what is required are appropriate levels of (in 19

REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY

this case, physical and social) assets that not only ensure an asset base, but also lead to the ability to manage an appropriate combination of assets. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

This paper was presented at the ‘Ten Years of War against Poverty’ Conference, organised by the Chronic Poverty Research Centre, the University of Manchester, 8 –10 September 2010. The authors are grateful to Armando Barrientos, David Hulme and Kunal Sen for comments on earlier versions. REFERENCES Adato, M., Carter, M. and May, J. (2004) “Sense in Sociability? Social Exclusion and Persistent Poverty in South Africa,” BASIS CRSP Brief Number 25. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadb054.pdf (accessed September 2012). Aliber, M. (2001) “Study of the Incidence and Nature of Chronic Poverty and Development Policy in South Africa: An Overview,” Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC) Working Paper 3. Manchester: The University of Manchester. Alsop, R. (ed) (2004) Power, Rights, and Poverty: Concepts and Connections, Washington, DC: World Bank. Alsop, R. and Heinsohn, N. (2005) “Measuring Empowerment in Practice: Structuring Analysis and Framing Indicators,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3510. Washington, DC: World Bank. Arun, S. (2008) “Managing Assets and Vulnerability Contexts: Vistas of Gendered Livelihoods of Adivasi Women in South India,” Brooks World Poverty Institute (BWPI) Working Paper No. 32. Manchester: The University of Manchester. Banu, Z. (2001) Tribal Women Empowerment and Gender Issues, New Delhi: Kanishka. Basu, S. K. (1993) “Health Status of Tribal Women in India,” Social Change 23(4), 19 –39. Bebbington, A. (1999) “Capitals and Capabilities: Framework for Analysing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty,” World Development 27(12), 2021– 2044. Birkmann, J. and Wisner, B. (2006) “Measuring the Un-Measurable: The Challenge of Vulnerability,” UNU Institute for Environmental and Human Security. Bonn: Germany. Publication Series No. 5. ISBN 3-9810582-6-7. Bradshaw, S. (2002) “Gendered Poverties and Power Relations: Looking Inside Communities and Households,” Managua: ICD/Embajada de Holanda, Puntos de Encuentro. Budowski, M. and Rosero Bixby, L. (2003) “Fatherless Costa Rica? Child Acknowledgement and Support Among Lone Mothers,” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 34(2), 229– 254. Carroll, M. C. and Stanfield, J. R. (2003) “Social Capital, Karl Polanyi and American Social and Institutional Economics,” Journal of Economic Issues 37(2), 397–404. Cattell, V. (2001) “Poor People, Poor Places, and Poor Health: The Mediating Role of Social Networks and Social Capital,” Social Science and Medicine 52(10), 1501– 1516.

20

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

OVERCOMING HOUSEHOLD SHOCKS

Chambers, R. (1992) “Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed, and Participatory,” Institute of Development Studies Discussion Paper 311. Brighton: University of Sussex. Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1991) “Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century,” Institute of Development Studies Discussion Paper No. 296. Brighton: University of Sussex. Chant, S. (2003) “Female Household Headship and the Feminisation of Poverty: Facts, Fictions and Forward Strategies,” New Working Paper Series, Issue 9. London: Gender Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science. ISSN:1470-8515 (Unpublished) Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/574/ (accessed September 2012). Chantarat, S. and Barrett, C. (2011) “Social Network Capital, Economic Mobility and Poverty Traps,” Journal of Economic Inequality 10(3), 299– 342. Chaudhuri, S. (2003) “Assessing Vulnerability to Poverty: Concepts Empirical Methods and Illustrative Examples,” Mimeo, Columbia University New York. Chaudhuri, S., Jalan, J. and Suryahadi, A. (2002) “Assessing Household Vulnerability to Poverty from Cross Sectional Data: A Methodology and Estimates from Indonesia,” Discussion Paper 0102-52. New York: Columbia University. Coleman, J. S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard: Harvard University Press. De Haan, A. (2008) “Citizens, Identity and Public Policy: Affirmative Action in India,” in A. Dani and A. de Haan (eds) Inclusive States: Social Policy and Structural Inequalities, Washington, DC: World Bank, pp. 225– 248. Dercon, S. (2001) “Assessing Vulnerability to Poverty,” Paper prepared for DFID. Available at: http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/members/stefan.dercon (accessed 15 June 2007). Dolfsma, W. and Dannreuther, C. (2003) “Subjects and Boundaries: Contesting Social Capital-based Policies,” Journal of Economic Issues 37(2), 405– 413. Du Toit, A. (2004) “Forgotten by the Highway. The Sociology of Chronic Poverty in South Africa: Challenges for Action and Research,” Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC) Working Paper 49. Manchester: The University of Manchester. Ellis, F. (2000) Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gaiha, R. and Imai, K. (2008) “Do Institutions Matter in Poverty Reduction? Prospects of Achieving the MDG of Poverty Reduction in Asia,” Statistica & Applicazioni IV(2), 129– 160. Gindling, T. H. (2005) “Poverty in Latin America,” Latin America Research Review 40(1), 207– 222. Government of Kerala (GOK) (2007) Economic Review, Kerala: State Planning Board. Grootaert, C. and Narayan, D. (2004) “Local Institutions, Poverty and Household Welfare in Bolivia,” World Development 32(7), 1179 –1198. Hall, G. and Patrinos, H. A. (eds) (2005) Indigenous Peoples, Poverty and Human Development in Latin America, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Heltberg, R. and Lund, N. (2008) “Shocks, Coping and Outcomes for Pakistan’s Poor: Health Risks Predominate,” Paper presented at the UNU-WIDER Conference, Frontiers of Poverty Analysis, HelsinkiSeptember 26 – 27. Hulme, D. and Shepherd, A. (2003) “Chronic Poverty and Development Policy: An Introduction,” World Development 31(3), 399– 402.

21

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY

Hyden, G. (2001) “The Social Capital Crash in the Periphery: An Analysis of the Current Predicament in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Journal of Socio-Economics 30(2), 161– 163. Jackson, C. and Pearson, R. (eds) (1998) Feminist Visions of Development: Gender Analysis and Policy, London/New York: Routledge. Kalathil, M. (2004) “Withering Valli: Alienation, Degradation and Enslavement of Tribal Women in Attapady,” Kerala Research Programme on Local Level Development Discussion Paper 66. Kerala: Centre for Development Studies. Kostov, P. and Lingard, J. (2003) “Risk Management: A General Framework for Rural Development,” Journal of Rural Studies 19(4), 463– 476. McNeish, J. A. and Eversole, R. (2006) “Indigenous People and Poverty,” in R. Eversole, J. A. McNeish and A. D. Cimadamore (eds) Indigenous People and Poverty: An International Perspective (International Studies in Poverty Research), London/New York: Zed Books, pp. 1 – 26. Moser, C. (1989) “Gender Planning in the Third World: Meeting Practical and Strategic Gender Needs,” World Development 17(11), 1799– 1825. Moser, C. (1998) “The Asset-Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies,” World Development 26(1), 1 – 19. Moser, C. (2006) “Asset-based Approaches to Poverty Reduction in a Globalised Context: An Introduction to Asset Accumulation Policy and Summary of Workshop Findings,” Working Paper 1. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Moser, C. and Dani, A. (2008) Assets, Livelihoods and Social Policy, Washington, DC: World Bank. Murray, C. (2001) “Livelihoods Research: Some Conceptual and Methodological Issues,” CPRC Working Paper 5. Manchester: The University of Manchester. Narayan, D., Patel, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A. and Koch-Schulte, S. (2000) Voices of the Poor. Can Anyone Hear Us? Washington, DC: World Bank. NSSO (National Sample Survey Organisation) (2001) “Employment and Unemployment Situation Among Social Groups in India, 1999– 2000. 55th Round,” Report No. 469. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programmes. Pritchett, L., Suryahadi, A. and Sumarto, S. (2000) “Quantifying Vulnerability to Poverty: A Proposed Measure with Application to Indonesia,” SMERU Working Paper. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Available at: http://www.smeru.or.id/report/ workpaper/vulnerability/vulnerability.pdf (accessed September 2012). Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R. and Nanetti, R. Y. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2008) “Asset Inequality and Agricultural Growth: How are Patterns of Asset Inequality Established and Reproduced?,” in A. Bebbington, A. Dani, A. de Haan and M. Walton (eds) Institutional Pathways to Equity: Addressing Inequality Traps, Washington, DC: World Bank, pp. 45 –72. Schelzig, K. (2005) “Poverty in the Philippines: Income, Assets and Access,” Asian Development Bank, ISBN: 971-561-563-5. Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom, New York: Anchor Books. Woolcock, M. (1999) “Learning from Failures in Microfinance: What Unsuccessful Cases Tell us about how Group-Based Programs Work,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 58(1), 17 – 42.

22

OVERCOMING HOUSEHOLD SHOCKS

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

Woolcock, M. and Narayan, D. (2000) “Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research and Policy,” The World Bank Research Observer 15(2), 225– 249. World Bank (2001) “Engendering Development: Through Gender Equality in Rights, Resources and Voice,” World Bank Policy Research Report. New York: Oxford University Press. World Bank (2005) “Afghanistan: Poverty, Vulnerability and Social Protection: An Initial Assessment,” Report No. 29694. Washington: World Bank.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS Shoba Arun is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. She obtained her PhD in Sociology, from the University of Manchester, UK. Her research interests are in the areas of social and economic inequalities; globalisation, gender, information and communication technology, labour market and employment, focussing on South Asia. She has published a range of articles in peer-reviewed journals and books. Samuel Annim is now a Lecturer in Economics at the Department of Economics, The University of Cape Coast, Ghana. He has taught in the past, taught economics related courses both in Ghana and in the UK. In terms of research, his areas of concentration are microfinance and household’s health and finance decisionmaking issues. Among the issues that he has investigated include; impact of microfinance on household poverty; efficiency and governance of microfinance institutions; child labour; wealth and risky sexual behaviour and child health. In examining these issues, micro econometric techniques have mainly been used to assert causality and the geographical focus of these studies have cut across developing countries in Asia and Africa. In addition to publication-oriented research, he has performed consultancy services for international organizations such as IFAD and the World Bank on issues related to poverty and microfinance. Thankom Arun is Professor of Development Finance and Public Policy, at the Lancashire Business School, University of Central Lancashire and Honorary Senior Fellow at the School of Environment and Development at the University of Manchester. Currently, he is Director of the Institute of Global Finance and Development, at the Lancashire Business School. His research is largely on the industrial and financial sectors in the context of globalisation, and the wider discussion on the purposeful reorientation of development objectives, and the 23

REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

functions of institutions to enhance the competitiveness of the system as a whole, and specifically researches on issues in International Business/Development; Global Finance; Corporate Governance; Microfinance Regulation and Competition. His publications include: Microfinance: A Reader (with David Hulme), Routledge, 2009; Corporate Governance and Development: Reform, Financial Systems and Legal Framework (with John Turner), Edward Elgar, 2009.

24

25

Source: Field Work (2005–2007).

Gender of main earner

Tribe/location

0.17

0.12

0.03

20.17

HH members employed

20.09

20.11

20.05

Financial asset 0.04

0.20

20.04

Natural asset

0.07

0.03

20.06

Human asset

HH exp. per capita

0.06 20.03

0.20

20.21

Physical asset

1

assets

Social

Social asset

1

incidence

Shock incidence

Variables

Shock

Appendix 1. Correlation Matrix

20.01 0.20

20.04

20.04

0.28

0.24

20.10

1

assets

Human

20.02

0.02

0.17

0.09

0.09

0.21

1

assets

Physical

20.09

0.09

0.12

0.08

20.09

1

asset

Natural

0.12

20.29

0.12

0.12

1

asset

Financial

0.14

20.03

20.02

1

employed

bers

HH mem-

Downloaded by [41.215.162.17] at 13:26 04 April 2013

HH

0.13

0.00

1

Capita

exp. per

20.06

1

location

Tribe/

1

earner

main

Gender of

OVERCOMING HOUSEHOLD SHOCKS