Although various attempts have been made to define and capture the meaning of
‘vulnerability’, there is no universally accepted single definition (Du Toit & Ziervogel, 2004).
However, it is possible to distinguish between two broad categories of definitions namely, those that are depoliticised and technicist, on the one hand, and those that are grounded in political economy and/or political ecology. It is important to highlight this distinction so as to avert the possible pitfall of viewing vulnerability of the rural poor as ‘something that is only perpetuated by the processes and dynamics that can be grasped at the micro-level of individual or household level resources or strategies’ (Du Toit & Ziervogel, 2005). Such processes are themselves sustained and perpetuated by the broader and thoroughly historical systems of social relations in which they are embedded (Ibid.). In light of this, the assertion by this thesis is that definitions of vulnerability in the context of historically
40 marginalized South African communities, such as those associated with smallholder irrigation schemes in Limpopo Province, necessarily have to take cognizance of the historical and contemporary political economy and political ecology underpinning much of the evident vulnerability within livelihood systems in impoverished contexts. Such an approach enables a clearer articulation of the linkage and interactions between the micro-level of individual or household level resources or strategies and meso- and macro-levels of policy, planning and resource allocation.
At a very basic level, Chambers (1989) provides a simplified definition that “Vulnerability refers to exposure to contingencies and stress and difficulty in coping with them…”
Chambers distinguishes between two facets of vulnerability namely, an ‘external side of risks, shocks and stress to which an individual or household is subject’ and an ‘internal side which is defenselessness, meaning a lack of means to cope without damaging loss’. External vulnerability refers to the structural elements that determine sensitivity and risk to exposure (Moser, 1998 in Hart, 2009), whereas internal vulnerability concerns the ability of households to respond and cope with stressors and the actions required to overcome, or at least reduce, the undesirable effects of exposure to processes of environmental, economic, political and social change (Bohle, 2001 in Hart, 2009).
From the perspective of vulnerability to global climatic change, Liverman (1990) distinguishes between two broad strands of definitions, wherein vulnerability is defined as a biophysical condition and as an aspect of political economy. The former class of definitions considers the most vulnerable people to be those who live in the most precarious physical environments. In Malthusianist fashion, such definitions link the problem to demographic drivers, such as population growth and attendant resource demands, which exceed the ‘carrying capacity’ of given landscapes. The latter class of definitions provide a strong critique of both physical and demographic determinism.
Liverman states that this political economy or neo-Marxist framework defines vulnerability in terms of the political, social and economic conditions. From this perspective, Susman et al (1984 in Ibid.) define vulnerability as “the degree to which different classes in society are differentially at risk”. Proponents of the political economy definition employ the theory of social marginalization to demonstrate how underdevelopment (i.e. flows of resources out of a region, land expropriations,
41 exploitative labour conditions, political oppression, and other processes associated with colonialism and capitalism has made people, especially the poor, to more vulnerable and forced them to degrade their environments (p. 30). As Liverman points out, such critique resonates with similar views expressed with respect to vulnerability to the 1972 Sahel drought (e.g. Darkoh, 1996).
Du Toit & Ziervogel (2005) assert that vulnerability cannot simply be understood, as econometric studies sometimes do (e.g. Bhorat et al 2001 in ibid.), in terms of poverty-sensitive segmentation of the labour market in order to identify who is ‘vulnerable to poverty’. Such an approach is highly non-dynamic and misses the longitudinal and temporal aspects of vulnerability, reducing it simply to the likelihood of someone being in a particular income segment at a particular moment. Du Toit & Ziervogel (Ibid.) assert that a much more rigorous approach comes from the literature on natural hazards and epidemiology, within which scholars argue that vulnerability needs to be understood as a condition of exposure and sensitivity to shocks and stresses - it characterises those who are ‘at the tipping point,’ where a small push can cause an irreversible or hard-to-recover-from decline in welfare (Devereux 2002 in Ibid.; Alwang et al 2001 in Ibid.).
Furthermore, the scholars argue that vulnerability is best conceptualised as a property of systems or networks, not individuals, and hence reference to vulnerable groups effectively says something about the systems upon which they depend. Ultimately, such an approach to defining vulnerability is a complex judgement about the sensitivity of those networks to particular impacts and their resilience or the ability to recover (Du Toit
& Ziervogel, 2004).
The study considered that the vulnerability of livelihood systems to possible negative effects of neo-liberal agricultural interventions can result in shocks and risks that test the resilience of affected livelihoods and possibly exacerbate the antecedent impacts of historical resource alienation and social marginalization. Risks and hazards were associated with the negative effects of exogenous agricultural commercialization policies, unequal power relations within contractual joint ventures and strategic partnerships, as well as the vulnerability profile of socially-differentiated individuals, households and communities.
Vulnerability was conceptualized in terms of ‘livelihood systems’ within which petty
42 commodity producers, subsistence farmers and ordinary members of selected irrigation scheme communities lived, and particular attention was given to the poorest and most vulnerable individuals and groups.