Looking at Poverty through the Tailspin of Vulnerability

On 06 April 2015

Thoughts following launch of the MDG Country Report 2014

By Prashanthi Jayasekara

Economists and development practitioners alike are still fumbling definitions of poverty, let alone how to resolve it. Hopefully, we’ve seen the back of hidebound notions, like trickle-down theory. Yet, we are still forced to work within the constricting and sterile framework of dollar values to understand poverty.

At the launch of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Country Report for Sri Lanka on the 23rd of March , Hon. Harsha de Silva, Deputy Minister of Policy Planning and Economic Development, expressed similar sentiments. “The current poverty measurements are questionable,” he remarked. “We need a more holistic way of measuring poverty.”

Dr. de Silva made this statement in light of declining poverty indicators, as shown in the MDG Country Report. The incidence of poverty, or the number of people living on US$1.25/day or less, has fallen at the national level from 26.1 per cent in 1990-1991 to 6.7 per cent in 2012-2013. However, Dr. de Silva questioned whether the metrics captured half the lived experiences and realities of poverty.

Also speaking at the event, Mr. Wimal Nanayakkara (Senior Visiting Fellow, Institute of Policy Studies) pointed out that increasing the poverty threshold by only 10% per cent redefines another 620,000 Sri Lankans as poor. In other words, current metrics discount a large number of people hovering precariously on the edge of poverty. By the same standards, 1.2 billion people around the world are technically classified as poor. But almost 800 million more people are at the risk of falling back into poverty if setbacks (such as financial crises, fluctuations in food prices, natural disasters and violent conflicts) occur (HDR 2014).

Human vulnerability is increasingly becoming an important vantage point to look at poverty. This perspective challenges us to understand the ‘sources of vulnerability by asking questions such as why some people do better than others in coping with setbacks’ (Godamunne, 2014). In Sri Lanka, educational disparities, health disadvantages, inequitable ownership of productive assets, asymmetrical exposure to market forces, patriarchy and unjust governance condition intensify socioeconomic vulnerability.

Furthermore, people experience varying degrees of instability and types of vulnerability at different stages of life. Shocks can have greater impact during tricky transitional periods, like from school to work and from work to retirement. It is also important to remember the multiple vulnerabilities that people face and intersectionality of peoples’ identities.

So, we cannot be complacent that poverty has declined at one-dollar-a-day or basic income-expenditure levels in Sri Lanka. We need to pay more attention to the ‘near poor,’ those who have little or no assets to absorb shocks. When measuring poverty, we need to capture the systemic vulnerability to setbacks that characterises this group.

And, as Prof. Ashwani Saith told me a few months ago, in a dimly-lit conference hall, ’We can only make poverty history by making the poverty line history.’

References

FERNANDO, P. 2014. Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience – HDR 2014, <https://www.cepa.lk/index.php/en/forum?view=comments&topic_id=61>

GODAMUNNE, N. 2014. UNDP Human Development Report 2014: Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience: Relevance for Sri Lanka.

UNITED NATIONS, 2014. 2.2 billion people are poor or near-poor, warns 2014 Human Development Report on vulnerability and resilience, <http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/2014/07/24/2-2-billion-people-are-poor-or-near-poor-warns-2014-human-development-report-on-vulnerability-and-resilience/>

UNITED NATIONS, 2014. Millennium Development Goals Country Report 2014. Sri Lanka: UN