Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
8
3 Policy ‘Moments’
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.
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
“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
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:
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
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
system
It depends:
Qualification Programme?
It depends:
(Pouneh).
Dignity building in a
generous welfare state
Norway can afford to “think bigger”:
Thank you.