CAPTURING MULTIDIMENSIONALITY:
WHAT DOES A ‘HUMAN WELLBEING’ CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKADD TO THE ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY?
Andy Sumner and Richard Mallett [1]
Abstract
Much research to date has tended to view vulnerability by discipline or sector, despite the fact that individuals and households experience multiple, interacting and sometimes compound vulnerabilities. However, cross-disciplinary thinking on vulnerability has emerged. At the same time, also emergent is an alternative to traditional thinking on poverty, which shifts the focus away from poverty as a static set of deprivations towards poverty as a dynamic set of interacting material, relational and subjective aspects of life in a ‘human wellbeing’perspective.The contribution of this paper is to bring together these two strands of thinking in order to explore the ways in which a human wellbeing conceptual framework might contribute to the analysis of vulnerability in terms of better capturing the multidimensionality of vulnerability.
Keywords: Poverty, Vulnerability, Wellbeing.
1. INTRODUCTION
The global financial crisis of 2008 – the reverberations of which are still being experienced – highlighted the complex and globalised nature of vulnerability for people around the world.As McGregor (2010: 5) argues, the consequences of the crisis are likely to manifest themselves not as one-off and acute shocks but rather as recurrent waves of impact that generate “an ongoing level of volatility and uncertainty in the global economic system” – a system which connects and shapes the livelihoods of billions of people.
Driven in part by recognitions of such complexity, but also by broader developments in the way we think about the nature of poverty, there has been growing recognition of the need for concepts and operational approaches that are able to capture multidimensionality and to look across time. One recent report, for example, recommends that ‘poverty research and analysis should be multidimensional, dynamic, and relational in character’, acknowledging that money-metric measures of poverty ‘do not give us the whole picture’ and that ‘mobility underlies any static picture of deprivation’ (Poverty Analysis Discussion Group, 2012: 5-6).
In light of the above, the contributionof this paper is, in a small but tangible way, to push forward analytical understandings of vulnerability by bringing together the conceptual literature on vulnerability with the conceptual literature on ‘human wellbeing’ in order to assess what the latter might bring to the former, particular in terms of better capturing the multidimensionality of vulnerability.Given the relevance of these issues to international development, this is also a contribution that might help inform ongoing discussions on what might replace the Millennium Development Goals when they expire in 2015.
‘Human wellbeing’ as an approach, framework or perspective iscomplementary to more traditional ways of understanding poverty. We do not wish to suggest that such an approach is “new”. Indeed, there is a long intellectual history underpinning the conceptual development of ‘human wellbeing’, with particular strides having been made over the last decade or so (if the weight of the published literature is any measure to go by(for reviewssee Gough and McGregor, 2007; McGillivray and Clarke, 2006). However, for two reasons it is an approach or framework that appears to be of particular relevance to the analysis of contemporary poverty and vulnerability.First, not only does ‘human wellbeing’ seek to be multidimensional in character (composed mainly of three core elements—the material, the relational and the subjectivedimensions of life), but it also seeks to be a cross-disciplinary concept,drawing on development studies, economics, anthropology, psychology and other areas of enquiry. And second, by rescaling analysis, i.e. taking both the individual and the community as the unit of analysis, and adopting the holistic lens of human wellbeing, it is possible to identify and make visible some of the “invisible impacts” of the current compound crisis,such as subjective wellbeing impacts (Hossain et al., 2010: 270).
The paper proposes that there arefive specific points of ‘added value’ of applying a human wellbeing conceptual framework to the analysis of vulnerability. First, a human wellbeing conceptual framework can draw greater attention to insecurity as a dimension of poverty and ill-being in its own right. Second, a human wellbeing conceptual framework can help to understand the various sources of different ‘stressors’ that may be experienced by individuals on an ongoing basis. Third, and of particular operational value, a human wellbeing conceptual framework can aid analysis of information on the causes of vulnerability by considering the dynamics of vulnerability before, during and after a hazard or harm occurs. Fourth, human wellbeing as a framework shifts analysis from thresholds (as per extreme poverty) towards continuums and dynamics. In particular, research shows that a large number of households move in and out of poverty (especially in relation to agricultural seasons), suggesting there is a need to understand the dynamics of fluctuation and the determinants of change over time. Finally, human wellbeing can help with the question of “vulnerability to what?”, and with the identification of different entitlement losses across various dimensions.
The paper is structured as follows. An outline of the human wellbeing conceptual framework is presented in section 2. Section 3 reviews the literature on vulnerability and the contentions arising in the conceptual literature. Section 4 then seeks to synthesise and consider vulnerability within a human wellbeing conceptual framework. Section 5 concludes by clarifying and expanding uponthe specific ways in which a human wellbeing conceptual framework might contribute to the analysis of vulnerability and how the human wellbeing framework adds value to the discussion on MDGs post-2015.
2.A ‘HUMAN WELLBEING’ CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Human wellbeing is an increasingly influentialconceptual perspective or framework that offers an alternative to more traditional and material ways of conceptualising poverty and standards of living, challenging both the supremacy of GDP per capita as a measure of societal progressas well as the idea of poverty as a set of deprivations (or, “gaps”to be “filled”).[2]
2.1 DISCIPLINARY APPROACHES TO HUMAN WELLBEING
Human wellbeing can be interpreted in several possible ways, and scholars have summarised the different conceptions below under the heading of human wellbeing measures:
- Material or objective aspects of life – historically/typically,judged by income or consumption per capita (e.g. e.g. in developing countries by poverty lines based on minimum expenditures converted into internationally comparable measures such as the World Bank’s $1.25 or $2/day of Ravallion and Chen, 2008; 2012) but increasingly shifting to multi-dimensional wellbeing or poverty measures (e.g. e.g. respectively, the UNDP Human Development Index and the UNDP/OPHI Multi-dimensional poverty measure[3]).
- Relational aspects of life –meaning personal relationships and social relations (e.g. social cohesion measures such as the one put forward by the OECD in 2012).
- Subjective aspects of life – this could be declared subjective life satisfaction (e.g. Gallup’s surveys - see discussion in Deaton, 2012) or more hedonic concepts of happiness and/or mental wellbeing/health (see for example, Layard, 2010).
Human wellbeing is generally considered to be a multi-dimensional concept, as illustrated by the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission(also known as the Sarkozy Commission):
Objective and subjective dimensions of well-being are both important … The following key dimensions that should be taken into account [include] … (a) Material living standards (income, consumption and wealth); (b) Health; (c) Education; (d) Personal activities including work (e) Political voice and governance; (f) Social connections and relationships; (g) Environment (present and future conditions); and (h) Insecurity, of an economic as well as a physical nature (Stiglitz et al., 2009: 10; 14-15).
The Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission was inspired by three different streams of conceptual thinking on human wellbeing: subjective wellbeing (individuals are the best judges of their own condition); capabilities (a freedom to choose amongst different “functionings”); and fair allocations (weighting the various non-monetary dimensions of quality of life beyond the goods and services that are traded in markets) in a way that respects people’s preferences (ibid.: 42).
The Commission’s report distinguished further between current and future wellbeing:
Current well-being has to do with both economic resources, such as income, and with non-economic aspects of peoples’ life (what they do and what they can do, how they feel, and the natural environment they live in). Whether these levels of well-being can be sustained over time depends on whether stocks of capital that matter for our lives (natural, physical, human, social) are passed on to future generations(ibid.: 11).
But – one should not forget – material indicators of income and consumption per capita remain enduring as measures of wellbeing, despite all the literature published.
There have been several attempts to identify a core set of capabilities,functioningsand dimensions that can be considered part of human wellbeing (see for discussion, Alkire, 2010; Doyal and Gough, 1990). For example, the OPHI ‘Missing Dimensions of Poverty Data’ project, which considers quality of work, empowerment, physical safety, ability to go about without shame and psychological wellbeing (seeDiprose, 2011; Ibrahim and Alkire, 2009; Lugo, 2009;Samman, 2009; Zavaleta, 2011).
However, the 3D conceptual framework of human wellbeing seeks to build on Sen’s (various, notably Sen, 1999) vision of human development—that is, moving beyond “beings” and “doings” by focusing on the interactions between beings, doings and feelings.
The exact differences between human development, represented by measures such as the UNDP HDI and MPI, and human wellbeing approaches haveto date not be fully specified in detail. As Kapur et al. (2010: 41) note:
Amartya Sen has emphasised that well being is subjectively assessed and emphasises “capabilities” and “functionings” that reflect a particular subjective valuation. However, in empirical practice this conceptual insight has congealed into merely emphasising a slightly different set of outcomes (and slightly different set of summary statistics) while the question of whose views matter in the design of the survey instrument is ignored.
Also important and influential in this regard is Robert Chambers’ (1997) emphasis on the need for the development profession to listen to the voices of poor and to their perceptions and feelings about poverty. Of course, feminist development thinkers have longstressed the importance of listening, of inclusiveness and of looking out for the silenced exclusions – see, for example, Cornwall (2003).
2.2 THREE DIMENSIONAL HUMAN WELLBEING
McGregor (2007) suggests a comprehensive way of understanding people’s wellbeing, drawing on the work of the five year, cross-country Wellbeing in Developing Countries (WeD) research group[4]. He emphasises that a practical concept of wellbeing should be conceived of as the combination of three things: (i) needs met (what people have); (ii) meaningful acts (what people do), and; (iii) satisfaction in achieving goals (how people feel) (see also Copestake, 2008: 3).Further, White (2008) codifies this as material, relational and subjective/perceptional wellbeing.
Human wellbeing can thus be discussed as three-dimensional (meaning that wellbeing is holistic and has three discernible dimensions): it takes account of material wellbeing, relational wellbeing and subjective wellbeing, and their dynamic and evolving interaction. People’s own perceptions and experiences of life matter, as do their relationships and their material standard of living. The three core dimensions of wellbeing are summarised in Table 1. The material dimension of wellbeing emphasises “practical welfare and standards of living”; the relational emphasises “personal and social relations”; and the subjective emphasises “values, perceptions and experience” (White, 2008: 8). The wellbeing lens can take both the individual and the community as the unit of analysis.[5] It is important to emphasise that the categories are interlinked and their demarcations highly fluid. For this reason the table’s columns should not be taken as barriers (the table was developed from references noted and in particular McGregor and Sumner, 2010).
Table 1.Human wellbeing: areas of study, determinants and indicators
Material wellbeing –‘needs met’ and ‘practical welfare and standards of living’ / Relational wellbeing –
‘ability to act meaningfully’ and ‘personal and social relations’ / Subjective wellbeing –
‘life satisfaction’ and ‘values, perceptions and experience’
Area of study / The objectively observable outcomes that people are able to achieve / The extent to which people are able to engage with others in order to achieve their particular needs and goals / The meanings that people give to the goals they achieve and the processes in which they engage
Key determinants / Income, wealth and assets
Employment and livelihood activities
Education and skills
Physical health and (dis)ability
Access to services and amenities
Environmental quality / Relations of love and care
Networks of support and obligation
Relations with the state: law, politics, welfare
Social, political and cultural identities and inequalities
Violence, conflict and (in)security
Scope for personal and collective action and influence / Understandings of the sacred and the moral order
Self-concept and personality
Hopes, fears and aspirations
Sense of meaning/ meaninglessness
Levels of (dis)satisfaction
Trust and confidence
Indicators / Needs satisfaction indicators
Material asset indicators / Human agency indicators
Multi-dimensional resource indicators / Quality of life indicators
Sources: Synthesised from Copestake (2008); McGregor (2007); McGregor and Sumner (2010); White (2008).
More recently, and in a similar vein, Kapur et al. (2010: 39) analyse a unique survey designed and implemented by a Dalit community in Uttar Pradesh (UP), India, which they introduce as follows:
[The survey] capture[s] social practices and conditions important to them which are not captured in the usual household surveys … The survey results show substantial changes in a wide variety of social practices affecting Dalit well-being—increased personal consumption patterns of status goods (e.g. grooming, eating), widespread adoption of “elite” practices around social events (e.g. weddings, births), less stigmatising personal relations of individuals across castes (e.g. economic and social interactions), and more expansion into non-traditional economic activities and occupations. These findings suggest that placing exclusive focus on measures of material well-being, such as consumption expenditure and its inequality, is misplaced as it misses important changes socially structured inequalities and hence in individuals” “functionings.”… [T]he decline of unfreedoms resulting from the reduction in social inequalities in the case of Dalits in UP was itself development – and for them perhaps more fundamental than any other yardstick of development.
In sum, although there is a significant amount of literature on poverty beyond income and including non-income deprivations (such as health, nutrition, housing and so forth), a human wellbeing conceptual framework places a stronger emphasis on relational and subjective aspects, implying what a person feels can influence what they will do. Such feelings may be determined by personal experience or by wider institutions, norms and values which are culturally embedded and potentially disrupted during the process of economic development (e.g. e.g. above citation).
Further, a 3D human wellbeing conceptual framework focuses on agency and what people can do/be/feel rather than deprivations or deficits. This then resonates with research on the importance of recognition, respect, and issues of stigma, and in particular how labelling or ‘othering’ people as the ‘poor’ infers a status inferior to the ‘non-poor’ (see discussion in Fraser, 2000). The focus on power (structure and agency) is evident in the sense that the human wellbeing approach raises questions about who commands resources and who constructs meaning.
Related to the above discussion are ideas about the role of structure and agency in explaining poverty, vulnerability and wellbeing. Lister’s (2004) taxonomy of agency, which recognises that agency can be good/progressive or bad/regressive, can be juxtaposed against structure evident in each wellbeing domain.Lister’s model has four quadrants based on two axes: one axis is everyday and personal, and is about the actions people take to improve their situation in the short term; the second is strategic and political, and relates to longer term actions. Thus, this analytical approach stretches from everyday matters of ‘getting by’ (the small things people do in order to cope with everyday situations) and ‘getting back at’ (e.g. e.g. rebellious behaviour) to more strategic matters of ‘getting out’ (moving out of material poverty) and ‘getting organised’ (collective action). To take but one example of how structure and agency might be viewed via the lens of 3D human wellbeing, the process of getting organised is shaped by people’s subjectivity – or how they understand and account for their own experiences and identities – and the extent to which they experience belonging and ‘sameness’ with others. Individual agency is, of course, a product of wider social forces; it is not only about how those who are vulnerable or poor act, but also about how those in power act in relation to them. Further, structures are perpetuated or modified by individual and collective action (and non-action). What matters, therefore, is not just the system of cultural norms, values, attitudes, and behaviours that is transmitted across generations, but also the degree to which a person assumes or identifies herself with them.
3. VULNERABILITY:A REVIEW OF APPROACHES
This section centres on a discussion of the concept of vulnerability, first exploring disciplinary approaches to defining and understanding vulnerability before teasing out cross-disciplinary commonalities. It is based on a review of key literature on the subject.
3.1 DISCIPLINARY APPROACHES TO VULNERABILITY
While it is not possible to provide an exhaustive overview of the literature on vulnerability across disciplines, it is worth mapping its disciplinary evolution, particularly in relation to the developmentstudies literature in recent years and the contours of the wider literature.[6]
Birkmann (2006: 11) notes that the emergence of the concept of vulnerability was closely linked to the “purely hazard-oriented perception of disaster risk in the 1970s”. The study of vulnerability was generally dominated by “technical interventions focused on predicting hazards or modifying their impact” (Hilhorst and Bankoff, 2004: 2). While these early origins framed the concept in relatively narrow terms, in the last three decades or so there has been a considerable conceptual expansion of vulnerability, as well as its application into a much wider range of disciplines, from economics to environmental change (see below). It is now the subject of a huge and burgeoning literature, and researchers and practitioners in various disciplines have increasingly recognised that the reduction of vulnerability is necessary to improve human wellbeing, particularly in the face of multiple and compound shocks and stressors (O’Brien et al., 2009: 23). Additionally, in development studies it is increasingly acknowledged that considerations of risk and vulnerability are central to understanding the dynamics of poverty (Christiaensen and Subbaro, 2004).