Where is poverty located? What are its shapes and forms? What strategies do households use to cope?
Poor neighbourhoods are often opaque to outsiders, even to those making
policies that have a direct impact on such communities. Government
planners need to probe beneath the surface – they should see the
complexity, understand the livelihood systems and appreciate the coping
strategies used in marginalised communities. Often, in a bid to
reorganise use of space or formalise the informal, government projects
cut across community vibrancy and advance the interests of local elites
at the expense of the poorest.
A case study of Evaton in Gauteng tells us a great deal about poverty.
Undertaken by research NGO, Studies in Poverty and Inequality (SPII),
the study, which probed 142 households, confirmed the reality of high
unemployment and its relationship to food insecurity – a problem that
places an additional burden on both our healthcare and education
systems.
In Evaton, 36% of households surveyed rely on social grants as their
main source of income. Only 47% of households depend primarily on wages
and 10% rely on income from business activities. Most households (72% of
those surveyed) survive on less than R1000 per month and another 24.8%
of households had an income of between R1000 and R3500. Only 4.1% of
households had a monthly income exceeding R3500.
Food security was a major problem in Evaton. SPII found that 23% of
households lack sufficient food. The bulk of Evatonians (72%) had “just
adequate” access to food -- sufficient but lacking in nutritional value.
The key trend – that most households are “just getting along” – is also
reflected in academic Sarah Mosoetsa’s study of conditions of poverty in
two KwaZulu-Natal communities, Mpumalanga in Hammersdale and
Enhlalakahle near Greytown. In her study described in the book,
Eating from One Pot,
Mosoetsa found that, of 29 households in her sample, 14 were declining,
nine were coping (“able to meet their basic needs in the present”) and
only five were improving (less vulnerable and with more assets and
resources).
Mosoetsa found that a massive 86% of households covered in her study had
a monthly income of less than R800. Food security was also a serious
problem. She argues, “(a)larmingly, 43 percent of the households
reported spending nothing at all on food”.
In his 2010 study of Orange Farm in Gauteng, undertaken for his Masters
degree, Larr Onyango found that 121 respondents out of 200 (60.5%) were
“not employed at all”, while 18.5% were employed in casual or ‘piece’
jobs in Orange Farm and areas such as Lenasia and Ennerdale. For some of
the unemployed, income-generating activities included illegal
activities (e.g. liquor brewing, liquor sales and black market
operations) and other informal activities such as hair salons, hawking
and dealing in scrap metal.
According to Onyango’s study, those involved in illegal activities (8%
of respondents) had an income of over R1000 per month. Those involved in
other informal activities earned less than R500 per month. Some in
Orange Farm are involved in urban farming, but Onyango was puzzled that
the practice was not more widespread. He reports that households that
grow their own food spend on average R350 per month on food purchases,
while those not practising urban agriculture spend about R650.
These and other examples of poverty research, for example by the
Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA), express concerns about the
sharp rise in food prices and the fact that food inflation outstripped
overall inflation. In all three studies, when household money ran out,
people ate less food, bought cheaper food or got help from neighbours
and friends. Sometimes, as DBSA reports, households simply go without
food “as a direct outcome of food price increases”.
We can draw some important conclusions about the impact of poverty and
the survival strategies of poor communities from these case studies.
Firstly, poor communities are under stress and the social capital – that
web of kinship and support – is being eroded. It is more difficult to
maintain social capital when most people withdraw from the bank of
community goodwill but lack the ability to make deposits. There is also
intra-household conflict in the form of gender conflict as well as
tensions between young and old over how income is used.
Secondly, extremely poor communities face problems of crime, instability
and mistrust. In extremely poor communities, a particular problem is
the feelings of alienation and despair that grip the youth.
Thirdly, and on the positive side, communities are resilient. They pull
through tough times without complete collapse. Strategies that build on
community resourcefulness can make significant inroads against poverty.
Finally, social grants are a lifeline. Government grants are often all
that stands between households and complete starvation. Related to this,
the provision of free school education and health services is vital.
The case studies are also instructive about ‘livelihoods’, the mix of
individual and household survival strategies. Mosoetsa is highly
sceptical of the livelihoods approach punted by donors and development
specialists. The approach asserts that development interventions should
start with what people have and focus on the voice, opportunities,
empowerment and participation of the poor. Mosoetsa says it assumes
community members have assets when often they don’t. The approach is
also used, she argues, to pick up the pieces when neo-liberal policies
are implemented and government backtracks from subsidies and decent
levels of social expenditure.
But we should also take account of other views of livelihoods. It is a
term that helps us think beyond “jobs” or “source of income”. It covers
activities undertaken for income or subsistence as well as non-income
activities (such as childcare). It is complemented by non-activity
income (grants and remittances).
Indeed, in dealing with poverty, community members deploy a range of
livelihood strategies. Experts tell us that households that employ a
broad portfolio of livelihood options fare much better than those who
don’t; in the words of a specialist on the subject Frank Ellis:
“(d)iverse livelihood systems are less vulnerable than undiversified
ones”.
Government should avoid solutions meant to “uplift” poor communities but
which inadvertently close down or impede certain livelihood
opportunities.
The same goes for the private sector. It should critically examine
whether planned ventures that bring some community benefit, will, in
their wake, undermine existing livelihood practices. Many new private
sector initiatives in mining, for example, create a defined number of
jobs but, in the process, cause long term damage to land, rivers and
other resources that are key to the community’s economic life.
Gender issues come to the fore in any discussion of poverty. Government
planners should be conscious of the differentiated impact on men and
women of development initiatives. It should be careful to avert damaging
impacts especially on women and their livelihood strategies. In this
context, there is a clear role for the Department of Women, Children and
People with Disabilitiwa: this department should be tasked with reviewing
all government programmes – before they are finalised – for the impact
on the livelihood strategies of women.
A department such as this will never have the right to veto or
unilaterally change programmes of powerful departments such as Mineral
and Energy Affairs and Trade and Industry. But it can clearly state its
concerns when it thinks initiatives will deepen poverty and inequality.
I initially published this article, on 23/9/2013, at sacsis.org.za.
