You are on page 1of 51

Social policy and the

poverty-shame nexus

Erika K. Gubrium
Oslo & Akershus University College
Department of Social Work, Child Welfare and Social Policy
The Shame of It:
Global Perspectives on Anti-poverty Policy
Erika K. Gubrium, Sony Pellissery, Ivar Lødemel (Eds)
Policy Press, December 2013

The 6th principle of Recommendation 202:

‘respect for the rights and dignity of people covered


by the social security guarantees’

1. How has this worked, in policy making and


practice?
2. What does policy do for recipients?
The Shame of It:
Global Perspectives on Anti-poverty Policy
Erika K. Gubrium, Sony Pellissery, Ivar Lødemel (Eds)
Policy Press, December 2013

The 6th principle of Recommendation 202:

‘respect for the rights and dignity of people covered


by the social security guarantees’

1. How has this worked, in policy making and


practice?
2. What does policy do to recipients?
3. What are implications as we move forward?
The Shame of Poverty:
Shame, social exclusion and the effectiveness of anti-
poverty programmes: A study in seven countries
ESRC/DfID, Robert Walker (Oxford)

(China, India, Norway, Pakistan, S. Korea, Uganda, UK)


Why is shame important?

• May be how poverty is often felt/experienced


• If commonly experienced, may provide an
equivalent concept and metric for global
discourse on poverty (beyond income)
• If robustly negative and ‘incapacitating’ (Ho et al.,
2004), it impacts on health, welfare, disability and
rehabilitation
• Policy that is shaming is self-defeating
The poverty/shame nexus?

Poverty Shame Low self Lack of agency


(ashamed)
worth

Shaming Social exclusion Low social


capital

Society

6
Research Aims & Design

1 4
3
2
Perspectives
Dominant Experiences of the Policy
notions of ‘general analysis
of poverty & individuals public’ (social
shame in poverty interaction)
Global context & policy response

• 2012 ILO Resolution 202


– Respect for the rights and dignity of people covered by the social
security guarantees.
• 2013 Resolution of the UN General Assembly
– Respect for the inherent dignity of those living in poverty must
inform all public policies.
– State agents and private individuals must respect the dignity of
all, avoid stigmatization and prejudices, and recognize and
support the efforts that those living in poverty are making to
improve their lives…

8
3 Policy ‘Moments’

Shaming and dignity-building as linked to:

1. Policy framing: social contexts/understandings/


discourses on poverty, broader political goals guiding the
policymaking process
2. Shaping and structuring: how the relevant policies came
into existence and what they look like (objectives,
resource distribution, adequacy of benefits)
3. Delivery: how policies have been implemented and
prioritised (delivery, access, administration, eligibility,
conditionality, abuse/corruption)
Key Findings

1. In all settings: Shaming occurs & its impact reaches


across the policy cycle – framing, shaping, delivery
2. ‘Earlier’ policy cycle moments may change the way
that policy delivery takes shape & is experienced
3. Distinctions to differentiate the undeserving from
the deserving (strict eligibility, conditionality and
restricted social citizenship) are a key source of
shaming
Policy Implications
(Moving forward)
1. The social matters – focus on social divisions and
social context over ‘troubled’ individuals
2. Mismatch between strategy and reality –
infrastructural weakness, deep social divisions,
corruption, assumptions concerning target groups
3. Shaming via conditionality – the paternalism of
assumed ‘needs’ and ‘choices’, reduced benefits,
increased discretion, new possibility for corruption

Focus on process as well as outcome


Case ‘stories’

India: Sony Pellissery


Uganda: Grace Bantebya Kyomuhendo
Norway: Erika Gubrium
India

Sony Pellissery
National Law University, Bangalore
Context
• Hugely hierarchical society – caste & class.
• Wide spread poverty and inequality
• Flawed democracy (less informed as well as
identity politics determining the political space).
• No social contract (fragmented society) and
limited legitimacy for the State.
Framing
• Prior to economic liberalization, ‘social life’
and ‘social institutions’ were considered as
objects to be changed in the pursuit of
development.
• In recent times, ‘social life’ is seen as a means
to achieve development.
• Thus societal values (e.g. hierarchical society,
gendered labour market) are legitimized
through policy instrumentalization.
Shaping and Structuring
• Clientalist approach to poverty alleviation:
anti-poverty programmes announced as a
vote-gathering instrument.

• Indian state’s policies guided by dominant


social forces (paradox of ‘hunger with surplus
food’).
Implementation
• Corruption reduces the moral worthiness of
participation in most of the programmes (eg.
Entry into below poverty line list; access to
employment guarantee).
• Poor quality government services (health,
education, food provision) seen as ‘last
humiliating resort’ for the poor people while
the rich proudly exits them.
• “Those who are lazy and do not want to do
any work go and stand at the NREGA work site
all day and collect wages. On private farms
they are closely monitored and they can’t be
so lazy”.
Food that Can not be Eaten :
Uganda’s Anti-Poverty Policies

Grace B Kyomuhendo
School of Women and
Gender Studies Makerere
University
Uganda country context
High levels of poverty
• Below the poverty line 24% (7.5
million); non poor but insecure
42.5%
• Most absolute poor are in rural
areas (27.2%).
Agriculture the mainstay of the
economy..
Poverty and vulnerability reduction
part of the national dev strategy
Current focus: econ transformation
and wealth creation

20
Reducing Poverty Levels
Forms and manifestations of Poverty
• Household wellbeing
and survival ..may
lead to kusara,
kuhemuka
• Schooling of children
• Material possessions
• Land ownership..
• Poor sanitation
• Social Exclusion
Main antipoverty programmes/policies
• The 1997 Decentralization
• The 1998/99 Poverty Action Fund
• The 1997 Universal Primary Education
• The 2000 Plan for Modernization of Agriculture
• The 2001 NAADS
• The 2000 Rural Electrification programme -
• The 2005 Prosperity for All
• The 2007 Universal Secondary Education (USE)
Anti-poverty programs

• Universal Primary and secondary


Education (UPE 1997 and USE 2007)
– equitable access to quality and affordable
education to all Ugandans;
• Plan for Modernization of
Agriculture…(PMA).. NAADS
– A vision of poverty eradication through
profitable, competitive, and dynamic
agricultural and agro-industrial sector
Structuring UPE Policy
• Government committed
– Tuition fees for four children per family, later on all
children of school going age
– Instructional materials in the form of text books.
– construction of basic physical facilities in form of
classrooms, laboratories, libraries and teachers’
houses
– Train teachers & Pay their salaries.
– Other costs - transport, uniforms among others
remained the responsibility of families.
Delivery of the UPE Policy/Program

• Enrollment rate rose


from 77 percent in 1996
to 137 percent in 1997.
“access shock”
UPE policy: invisible shame

• Overall policy language , target and


emphasis placed on eliminating disparities
and inequalities in access, and achieving
gender parity in enrollment .. Targeting poor
families
• BUT ignored the potential aspects of poverty
shame
“Access Shock”
– Academic and other standards plummet,
– Differences between children from the poor and
relatively rich families started to emerge.
– Despite free tuition some pupils often had to do
without school essentials like uniform, lunch,
scholastic materials especially exercise books and
pens
– Private Vs Public UPE schools became a popular
public rhetoric; with differences triggering
negative, internalized feelings of shame,
inadequacy, low self worth and anger among UPE
children
“Access Shock”

• Public sentiments of UPE as Bonabasome


(education for all) soon degenerated to
Bonabakone (illiteracy/mediocrity for all); a
derogatory, undignifying phrase that both the
poor pupils and their respective families
described as particularly shaming
UPE Schools became unavoidable arenas of
poverty induced shaming.
Children’s Experience
of poverty

My friends report to school early, because they have no chores to do at


home. They have pocket money for lunch, ride bicycles to school and
have calculators. I lack all these. I feel ashamed (mpurra ninswara)”
(Case C30)

“Unlike me, my friends dress well. They dress smartly in good uniform,
shoes and belts. They carry school bags. They have mathematical sets
and enough pens. They come to school with pocket money for lunch. I
stay hungry at school. Sometimes I feel annoyed and humiliated
(haroho obu mpura ekiniga n’okuswara.)” (Case C28)
The Case of NAADS Program

• structured to take into consideration the


particular needs, constraints and resources of
economically vulnerable farmers in order to
generate practical options for improvement
• To increasing the proportion of market-
oriented production by empowering farmers
to demand and control agricultural advisory
and information services.
NAADS Principles and activities
• targeting the economically active poor—
those with limited physical and financial
assets, skills, and knowledge rather than
destitute or large scale farmers—through
farmers’ forums based on specific profitable
enterprises, which makes the program
enterprise based.
Farmer groups

• Co-funding as a preliquisite to NAADS


Membership
– NAADS targets active poor farmers who
are members of registered groups, who
own land and are willing to co-fund and
engage in farming as a business.
(Namara, 2009;172)
• This requirement excludes most households
without land.
NAADS: spaces and pointers to poverty shame

NAADS programme as an arena of poverty


induced shaming –
– Meetings where the poor farmers lack
voice,
– Poor Members openly ridiculed and put
down by their better off counterparts.
– NAADS was, indeed, not well matched to
the realities and wellbeing of the rural poor,
who live from hand to mouth and often
subsist on casual labour
Voice of the Poor
• an immediate neighbour who is better off
and has greater voice in the community took
the piglets meant for me. If I was not poor,
this would not have happened. When I
complained, they just laughed at me, saying
that after all I have no means to raise the
piglets. I felt humiliated and worthless and
inferior.
Experiences of poverty
Shame

I keep quiet with all my problems in my heart. Yes, the heart is like a
suitcase, it keeps all problems . For instance now you [interviewer] is
the only outsider who knows that my house is bare of basics including
a chair, table, and even bed.”

“…poverty cannot be hidden. It’s like a shadow that always trails the
poor. When interacting with a poor person, you should be aware of their
invisible but inseparable ‘shadow’. It affects the way they respond
especially when talking about poverty.”
Conclusion
• policies have been explicitly framed in a
manner seeking not only to address poverty,
but also to promote human dignity, their
structuring and delivery fall far short of
attaining this noble objective
• lack of attention to non income aspects of
poverty in design , structuring and
implementation may lead to poverty shame
leading to major impediments in their
implementation processes.
Government poverty
eradication programs were
described as “food that
can not be eaten”
‘Not good enough’: Building dignity
in Norwegian social assistance
Erika K. Gubrium
Oslo & Akershus University College
Norway (Framing)
• Small population: 5 million
• Redistributive tax system + oil
• High median income: $53,860
(2010) – yet costs are high
• High income equality: Gini
coefficient (2010) of 0.249 (3rd) –
yet has increased in past decade
• Employment: over 75% (2011)
– yet almost half employed
women are part-time
Best case: Social mobility in a
generous welfare state
• Since WWII: free education and healthcare.
Broad and generous social insurance benefits
targeted to varying risk categories of all
social/income classes, without means-testing:

• BUT: Norway is not a purely universal welfare


state. Many national social insurance benefits
depend on a history of gainful employment.
Relative Poverty in Norway
• Relative income poverty:
1) The poverty rate –
proportion of those whose
income falls below the
poverty line (half median
household income)

On the rise:

1980s 2010
50% median 6.4% 7.8%
60% median 12.2% 13.3%
Relative Poverty in Norway
• Relative income poverty:
1) The poverty rate
2) The poverty gap - the
distance between the mean
income of individuals in
poverty and the poverty line

Norway is fairly unique: its


poverty rate is relatively low,
yet its poverty gap is relatively
high.

High income, high employment, low poverty, high relative intensity of poverty
How does this play out in a relational sense?
Heightened shame in a
generous welfare state
“I think in a way that people look down on people who aren’t
in work – ‘why don’t you work? There has to be a reason for
it’ ...not everyone knows how it is to hit the wall. …they don’t
understand that it can take a long time” (Wenche).

“I don’t hang out with friends…I feel like I can’t hang out with
people before I’ve gotten a job. …I mean, everyone thinks that
I have a job…When I meet some people...and they ask me
where I’ve been, I say…’I’ve been at work, I just have to
deliver a note to (the welfare office)’. …I don’t want people to
see me like that. As pitiful, and such” (Gabriel).
Heightened shame in a
generous welfare state
(Framing meets delivery)
“Having little money is shameful in a society where
‘everyone’ is thought to be rich and contributes to making
poverty an individual problem that must be kept secret
and tackled by individuals” (Aamodt, 2008).

“It’s definitely shame I feel. Year after year after year after
year. It’s shame…one has to experience it to say it…I don’t
need to think it over…that I’m a burden for other people,
I can just go to the social assistance office, and get the
evil eye there. Yeah…can anyone be proud of going to the
social assistance office and asking for money?” (Kari
Anne).
A Hierarchy of Welfare Provision (Structure)
Two-tiered system: regulated by different laws, with
Social Insurance significantly weaker rights for social assistance
WELFARE SYSTEM HIERARCHY

Poverty ≈ Marginalized Social Assistance

2.5% of population: 40% are “long term” claimants

1964 Social Care Act:


- Replaces Poor Law, but retains many ideas
- Temporary, “help to self help”

Programming status by early 2000s:


- Supply side /labor force entry focus (if any)
- Limited and locally provided, primarily workfare
Assistance
Social

Benefits: locally provided and discretionary (means-


tested). On average: comparatively high (but not high
enough).
Work
The Qualification Programme (2007)

Welfare system (NAV) reform in 2006. Premise:


Social Insurance creating a more “user friendly” and “efficient”
WELFARE SYSTEM HIERARCHY

system

State developed and funded programme targeted


Work to “eligible” SA claimants (long-term claimants)

Promise of more for participants


- Customized courses & internships: focus
on human capital
Qualification
Programme

- Higher, stable ‘paycheck’, paid by local


government office
- That “job feeling”: Regular work day and
regular work rights and duties (vacation,
Assistance

taxed, pension accruing)


Social
Work
The Qualification Programme (2007)

Social Insurance New social assistance hierarchy based on


WELFARE SYSTEM HIERARCHY

employability over need

What happens to those who remain on regular


social assistance?
Work
New possibility for heightened shame by users
who already experience shame due to their
difficulties in “making ends meet” in a society
Qualification
Programme

where everyone is assumed to be doing fairly


well.
Assistance
Social
Work
The Qualification Programme (2007)

What happens to those who enter the


Social Insurance Qualification Programme?
WELFARE SYSTEM HIERARCHY

It depends:

Work “The biggest joy of mine, in the last year, was to


go from being a social assistance client…the
worst time, to come into the QP-programme, and
get a wage and such. It…was a big step for me,
and it was so enjoyable…from not having any
Qualification
Programme

self-confidence at all, to like know that you’ve


begun to build self-confidence, and feel that you
are a person who’s contributing” (Thomas)
Assistance
Social
Work
The Qualification Programme (2007)

What happens to those who enter the


Social Insurance
WELFARE SYSTEM HIERARCHY

Qualification Programme?

It depends:

Work ‘Permanent entry’ (Leibetseder, 2013):

The whole time I’ve only gotten internship,


internship, internship... Why have I not been
Qualification

hired? …I received an award because I’m a very


Programme

skilled worker…but they won’t hire me …They


just say that it’s only a seasonal job..and the
employer offers me another internship. I never
get hired, I’ve worked like a slave and worked
Assistance

each and every day, …[but] it’s free for them”


Social

(Pouneh).
Dignity building in a
generous welfare state
Norway can afford to “think bigger”:

- Supply side focus countered by demand side


regulations/encouragement (internships)
- “Whole package” incentives
- State-indexed guaranteed minimum benefit
- Mechanisms for increasing claimant participation when
developing service offering

Thank you.

You might also like