Presentation on theme: "Social policy and the poverty-shame nexus"— Presentation transcript:
1 Social policy and the poverty-shame nexus Erika K. Gubrium Oslo & Akershus University College Department of Social Work, Child Welfare and Social Policy
2 The Shame of It: Global Perspectives on Anti-poverty Policy Erika K The Shame of It: Global Perspectives on Anti-poverty Policy Erika K. Gubrium, Sony Pellissery, Ivar Lødemel (Eds) Policy Press, December 2013The 6th principle of Recommendation 202: ‘respect for the rights and dignity of people covered by the social security guarantees’How has this worked, in policy making and practice?What does policy do for recipients?
3 The Shame of It: Global Perspectives on Anti-poverty Policy Erika K The Shame of It: Global Perspectives on Anti-poverty Policy Erika K. Gubrium, Sony Pellissery, Ivar Lødemel (Eds) Policy Press, December 2013The 6th principle of Recommendation 202: ‘respect for the rights and dignity of people covered by the social security guarantees’How has this worked, in policy making and practice?What does policy do to recipients?What are implications as we move forward?
4 (China, India, Norway, Pakistan, S. Korea, Uganda, UK) 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)
5 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 rehabilitationPolicy that is shaming is self-defeating
6 The poverty/shame nexus? Low self worthShame(ashamed)Lack of agencyShamingSocietySocial exclusionLow social capital
7 Research Aims & Design 4 1 3 2 Policy analysis (social interaction) Perspectives of the ‘general public’3Experiences of individuals in poverty2To explore relational poverty via focus on impact (shame):The dominant notions of poverty and its connection to shameWhat it means to live in povertyHow the poverty experience is connected with shameThe role policy plays (interactionist, social psychological)Dominant notionsof poverty & shame
8 Global context & policy response 2012 ILO Resolution 202Respect for the rights and dignity of people covered by the social security guarantees.2013 Resolution of the UN General AssemblyRespect 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…
9 3 Policy ‘Moments’ Shaming and dignity-building as linked to: Policy framing: social contexts/understandings/ discourses on poverty, broader political goals guiding the policymaking processShaping and structuring: how the relevant policies came into existence and what they look like (objectives, resource distribution, adequacy of benefits)Delivery: how policies have been implemented and prioritised (delivery, access, administration, eligibility, conditionality, abuse/corruption)
10 Key FindingsIn all settings: Shaming occurs & its impact reaches across the policy cycle – framing, shaping, delivery‘Earlier’ policy cycle moments may change the way that policy delivery takes shape & is experiencedDistinctions to differentiate the undeserving from the deserving (strict eligibility, conditionality and restricted social citizenship) are a key source of shaming
11 Policy Implications (Moving forward) The social matters – focus on social divisions and social context over ‘troubled’ individualsMismatch between strategy and reality – infrastructural weakness, deep social divisions, corruption, assumptions concerning target groupsShaming via conditionality – the paternalism of assumed ‘needs’ and ‘choices’, reduced benefits, increased discretion, new possibility for corruptionFocus on process as well as outcome
12 Case ‘stories’India: Sony Pellissery Uganda: Grace Bantebya Kyomuhendo Norway: Erika Gubrium
13 Sony Pellissery National Law University, Bangalore IndiaSony Pellissery National Law University, Bangalore
14 Context Hugely hierarchical society – caste & class. Wide spread poverty and inequalityFlawed democracy (less informed as well as identity politics determining the political space).No social contract (fragmented society) and limited legitimacy for the State.
15 FramingPrior 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.
16 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’).
17 ImplementationCorruption 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.
18 “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”.
19 Food that Can not be Eaten : Uganda’s Anti-Poverty Policies Grace B KyomuhendoSchool of Women and Gender Studies Makerere University
20 Uganda country context High levels of povertyBelow 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 strategyCurrent focus: econ transformation and wealth creationRef : Uganda National Poverty status Report 2011Northern Uganda 80% of the vulnerable children in 2005/6.
22 Forms and manifestations of Poverty Household wellbeing and survival ..may lead to kusara, kuhemukaSchooling of childrenMaterial possessionsLand ownership..Poor sanitationSocial Exclusion
23 Main antipoverty programmes/policies The 1997 DecentralizationThe 1998/99 Poverty Action FundThe 1997 Universal Primary EducationThe 2000 Plan for Modernization of AgricultureThe 2001 NAADSThe 2000 Rural Electrification programme -The 2005 Prosperity for AllThe 2007 Universal Secondary Education (USE)
24 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).. NAADSA vision of poverty eradication through profitable, competitive, and dynamic agricultural and agro-industrial sector
25 Structuring UPE Policy Government committedTuition fees for four children per family, later on all children of school going ageInstructional materials in the form of text books.construction of basic physical facilities in form of classrooms, laboratories, libraries and teachers’ housesTrain teachers & Pay their salaries.Other costs - transport, uniforms among others remained the responsibility of families.
26 Delivery of the UPE Policy/Program Enrollment rate rose from 77 percent in 1996 to 137 percent in “access shock”
27 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 familiesBUT ignored the potential aspects of poverty shame
28 “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 pensPrivate 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
29 UPE Schools became unavoidable arenas of poverty induced shaming. “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 shamingUPE Schools became unavoidable arenas of poverty induced shaming.
30 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)
31 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 improvementTo increasing the proportion of market-oriented production by empowering farmers to demand and control agricultural advisory and information services.
32 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.
33 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.
34 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
35 Voice of the Pooran 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.
36 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.”
37 Conclusionpolicies 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 objectivelack 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.
38 Government poverty eradication programs were described as “food that can not be eaten”
39 ‘Not good enough’: Building dignity in Norwegian social assistance Erika K. Gubrium Oslo & Akershus University College
40 Norway (Framing) Small population: 5 million Redistributive tax system + oilHigh median income: $53,860 (2010) – yet costs are highHigh income equality: Gini coefficient (2010) of (3rd) – yet has increased in past decadeEmployment: over 75% (2011) – yet almost half employed women are part-timeNorway a small country with a small, scattered population, higher population density in urban areas. Redistributive tax system + oil reserves in North Sea (late 1960s) – funds welfare provisions. Comparatively high income and low inequality (Gini)Our research (public perceptions of and personal experiences with poverty) highlights: income inequality, consumption societyOECD average employment is 66% (US is 66%)OECD average income is in 30,000s
41 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.Generous welfare provisions: “cradle to grave” social security net: along with free higher education, health care, generous benefits aimed at various risk categories: to reduce effect of social origin on social mobility: the state actively engaged in ensuring that equal opportunities translate into equal outcomes.
42 Relative Poverty in Norway Relative income poverty:The poverty rate – proportion of those whose income falls below the poverty line (half median household income)On the rise:Rising poverty! Norwegian poverty according to OECD -- below 50% median income: 6.4% in mid 1980s and 7.8% in 2010; below 60%: 12.2% in mid 1980s and 13.3% in 20101980s201050% median6.4%7.8%60% median12.2%13.3%
43 Relative Poverty in Norway Relative income poverty:The poverty rateThe poverty gap - the distance between the mean income of individuals in poverty and the poverty lineNorway is fairly unique: its poverty rate is relatively low, yet its poverty gap is relatively high.While we looked at dominant notions (literature) and understandings of general public (focus groups, newspapers), today I’ll focus on understandings/experiences of individuals in poverty, with relation to policy.High income, high employment, low poverty, high relative intensity of poverty How does this play out in a relational sense?
44 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).We have focused on social assistance (28 interviews), as the groups officially defined as living in poverty (below 50% of median income) are mostly the same as those making up long term claimants: single parents, single people under the age of 35, unemployed non-western immigrants, the long-term unemployed, and individuals beset by a complex array of physical, substance abuse and mental health issues: full employment is not a real option for many
45 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).
46 A Hierarchy of Welfare Provision (Structure) Social InsuranceA Hierarchy of Welfare Provision (Structure)Two-tiered system: regulated by different laws, with significantly weaker rights for social assistancePoverty Marginalized Social Assistance2.5% of population: 40% are “long term” claimants1964 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 workfareBenefits: locally provided and discretionary (means-tested). On average: comparatively high (but not high enough).≈WELFARE SYSTEM HIERARCHYSocial Assistance
47 The Qualification Programme (2007) WorkThe Qualification Programme (2007)Social InsuranceWelfare system (NAV) reform in Premise: creating a more “user friendly” and “efficient” systemState developed and funded programme targeted to “eligible” SA claimants (long-term claimants)Promise of more for participantsCustomized courses & internships: focus on human capitalHigher, stable ‘paycheck’, paid by local government officeThat “job feeling”: Regular work day and regular work rights and duties (vacation, taxed, pension accruing)WorkQualification ProgrammeWELFARE SYSTEM HIERARCHYThe creation of a new SA tier based on employability creates the possibility for heightened shame by users who – as our research findings suggest – already experience shame due to their difficulties in “making ends meet” in a society where everyone is assumed to be doing fairly well. The creation of a tiered system of deservingness within SA and de-contextualization of the work approach heightens the potential for further marginalizing the “out” group of those individuals who aren’t (and realistically probably won’t be, due to a complex set of issues) fully employed with the on those with lowest function was decreased and creating a tiered system of deservingness within SA.Social Assistance
48 The Qualification Programme (2007) WorkThe Qualification Programme (2007)Social InsuranceNew social assistance hierarchy based on employability over needWhat happens to those who remain on regular social assistance?New possibility for heightened shame by users who already experience shame due to their difficulties in “making ends meet” in a society where everyone is assumed to be doing fairly well.WorkQualification ProgrammeWELFARE SYSTEM HIERARCHYSocial Assistance
49 The Qualification Programme (2007) WorkThe Qualification Programme (2007)Social InsuranceWhat happens to those who enter the Qualification Programme?It depends:“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 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)WorkQualification ProgrammeWELFARE SYSTEM HIERARCHYSocial Assistance
50 The Qualification Programme (2007) WorkThe Qualification Programme (2007)Social InsuranceWhat happens to those who enter the Qualification Programme?It depends:‘Permanent entry’ (Leibetseder, 2013):The whole time I’ve only gotten internship, internship, internship... Why have I not been hired? …I received an award because I’m a very 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 each and every day, …[but] it’s free for them” (Pouneh).WorkQualification ProgrammeWELFARE SYSTEM HIERARCHYSocial Assistance
51 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” incentivesState-indexed guaranteed minimum benefitMechanisms for increasing claimant participation when developing service offeringThank you.Supply side focus: the opportunity of work training may be useful for those claimants with the ability and skills to gain and maintain employment: “place, then train” strategies may be successful, but only insofar as tasks are shaped to the ability of the participant and only if institutional follow-up occurs to ensure the transition of participants to longer term work. The use of internships is only a short-term strategy – and offers the possibility of longer-term despair. A set of provisions tied to internships that subsidize the continued employment of those with reduced work capacity through employer “benefits” and encourages the broader labour market and individual employers to meet claimants half way is a promising strategy to ensure that programme participants do not remain an easily exploited workforce.Whole package: those respondents in the QP suggested that the “whole package” of a clearer right to a benefit, paid as a salary, with salary-deduced rights that provided them with a sense of normality and dignity, along with a sense of new opportunities and new hope and motivation. The format and source of the benefit are important to maximizing claimants’ sense of social and civic participation.State-indexed benefit: Given a benefit that was at or above a level that the respondents felt reached a level of sustainability that fit with sociocultural norms, they did not suggest that it was the provision of a higher benefit that had served as an incentive or disincentive. A guaranteed minimum basic social assistance benefit based on a reasonable household budget would minimize the challenges and frustrations experienced by social assistance claimants.Mechanisms for participation: providing protocols for increased claimant involvement in their own activation may provide a broader notion of what it means to be “active”.Thinking bigger about the realities and particularities of claimants, with an aim to move claimants into a realm in which they feel “normal”, secure, and recognized by the larger system might begin the move toward an anti-poverty policy framework based on dignity.