Modelo Teórico para AA que propician el desarrollo de la CE

The literature on extreme poverty identifies different structural causes that are seen as leading to and sustaining extreme poverty. This section examines these identified causes.

CPRC(Addison et al., 2008) and Lawson et al. (2010) identified five main causes of extreme poverty: poor work opportunities, denial of or limited citizenship, insecurities, (social) discrimination, and spatial disadvantage (Addison et al.,2008, p. vii; Lawson et al., 2010, pp. 263-264).

534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019

Processed on: 5-12-2019 PDF page: 87PDF page: 87PDF page: 87PDF page: 87

87

Firstly, when growth is concentrated in certain areas or is limited, the opportunities to work become limited and are often on a causal or short- term basis. While this type of work may assist extreme poor people to stay alive, it does not contribute to any accumulation of assets. Moreover, it may stimulate poor work conditions and contribute to exploitation of extreme poor people.

Lipton was clear that poor work opportunities (casual labour status and severe fluctuations in unemployment) are the cause of extreme poverty (Lipton, 1988). He linked the fragility of nutrition among extreme poor people with their problems concerning labour participation (Ibid.). Firstly, extreme poor people have low resistance to illnesses, thus affecting their ability to work. Secondly, extreme poor people do not have many calories spare to search for work. Lipton mentioned “discouraged worker effects”, especially amongst men, meaning that the search for employers, especially in slack seasons, takes so long that it deters participation (Ibid.). Thirdly, the higher frequency of child deaths and replacement births raise the dependency ratios and workforce withdrawal of women. Moreover, because of a lower incidence of extended kin groups helping with childcare, women’s participation rates are constrained (Ibid., p. 17). Hence, due to their bad physical condition, the ultra-poor cannot respond to their poverty by working harder (Lipton, 1988). Moreover, as the ultrapoor are so dependent on income from labour, these limits to their capacity to “work their way out of poverty” are severe (Ibid., p. 17).

Dasgupta also explicitly mentioned poor working conditions as a primary cause of extreme poverty. According to him, “economic disenfranchisement” (the inability to participate in the labour market) and undernourishment (affecting people’s productivity) that result from unequal distribution of resources are the main reasons behind extreme poverty (Dasgupta, 1993, p.475). Dasgupta wrote that it is often claimed that the assetless at least have labour power. He disagreed with this, saying that those who are assetless have potential labour power. This potential can only be converted into labour power if they have access to nutrition and healthcare (Ibid., p. 474). The assetless are identified as being particularly vulnerable and these “economic out-casts”, as Dasgupta referred to them, predominantly come from this segment of the population (Ibid.). More specifically, he mentioned “involuntary unemployment”. A person falling under this category is someone who “cannot find employment in a market that employs someone very similar to him, and if the latter person, by virtue of his employment in this market, is distinctly better off than him” (Dasgupta, 1993, p.482). Although

534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019

Processed on: 5-12-2019 PDF page: 88PDF page: 88PDF page: 88PDF page: 88

88

he considered destitution to be a personal calamity, he also viewed it as a grave weakness of any society that allows it to exist (Dasgupta, 1993, p. viii). He therefore advised including an analysis of “the forces that bring about states of affairs where a large part of people can be destitutes” (Dasgupta, 1993, p. 8).

The second cause identified by CPRC (Addison et al., 2008) and Lawson et al. (2010) is limited citizenship. This means that extreme poor people lack basic rights and needs, have no or very limited political influence/voice and lack access to institutions (i.e. state, market, civil society). This political and economic exclusion keeps extreme poor people trapped in their poverty (Harris-White, 2005a; Addison et al., 2008; Lawson et al., 2010).

Sen explained this lack of power in his work on entitlements (Sen, 1981). He explained that starvation is the characteristic of people not getting enough food; starvation, however, does not necessarily mean that there are food shortages – indeed, this is just one of many possible causes (Sen, 1981, p. 1). According to Sen, people face starvation because they lack sufficient food entitlements, e.g. because they are not able to produce food (“direct entitlement failure”) or other goods to exchange for sufficient food (“trade entitlement failure”) (Sen, 1981, p. 51).

Third, CPRC (Addison et al., 2008) and Lawson et al. (2010) mention insecurities as a cause of extreme poverty. Insecurities means that extreme poor people often live in insecure environments and lack the assets or entitlements (Sen, 1981) to deal with any shocks or stresses that come their way. Consequently, they are forced to trade long-term goals for short-term survival.

Fourth, CPRC (Addison et al., 2008) and Lawson et al. (2010) have identified (social) discrimination as a cause of extreme poverty. They state that the relationships that extreme poor people have are often of an exploitative nature and can lead to denial of access to both public and private services or goods. These exploitative relationships are based on e.g. caste system, religion, ethnicity and gender.

The fifth cause identified by CPRC (Addison et al., 2008) and Lawson et al. (2010) is spatial disadvantage, e.g. weak economic integration, political exclusion, and remoteness, which can contribute to intra-country spatial traps. This can also occur across nations.

534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019

Processed on: 5-12-2019 PDF page: 89PDF page: 89PDF page: 89PDF page: 89

89

Lastly, it is noteworthy that CPRC identified intergenerational transmission of poverty (IGT) as both a characteristic of, but also a cause of extreme (chronic) poverty (Bird, 2007; Bird & Higgins, 2011; CPRC, 201828_{). IGT}

can be studied through intergenerational transfer of capitals and assets, e.g. parental investment in the education of their children, inheritable diseases, pensions, debts, bonded labour and coping strategies, meaning that strategies for survival, passed on to a next generation, may indeed help them survive, but also keep them in poverty (Hulme et al., 2001; Bird, 2007; Bird & Higgins, 2011). In relation to IGT, it is good to mention Lewis’ work on a “culture of poverty”, in which he explained that poverty is sustained because of inherent psychological, sociological, economic, and political traits (Lewis, 1959; 1966). This is a controversial theory, however, (see e.g. Eames & Goode, 1996; Small, Harding & Lamont, 2010) as cultures and the corresponding norms are not static. According to Hulme et al. (2001), Lewis’ theory requires more reflective and qualitative research.

Although the literature has identified multiple causes of extreme poverty, there is a need to further investigate their interrelationship. Individual, household and larger-scale causes interact with each other and different causes can be at play simultaneously, e.g. insecurities and limited citizenship. Addison et al. (2008) stated that what causes and sustains extreme poverty is not always straightforward and there is still much to learn if we are to establish an in-depth understanding of the individual and structural causes. They suggested that both quantitative and qualitative panel data and life histories could contribute to this understanding (Addison et al., 2008).