SNAKES AND LADDERS, BUFFERS AND PASSPORTS:

RETHINKING VULNERABILITY VIA A HUMAN WELLBEING LENS

Andy Sumner and Rich Mallet

Institute of Development Studies, Sussex
a.sumner@ids.ac.uk

21 OCT 2010

Abstract

Much research to date has tended to view vulnerability by disciple or

sector and yet individuals and households experience multiple, interacting
and sometimes compound vulnerabilities. Cross-disciplinary thinking is
emerging as multi-dimensional vulnerability is increasingly recognized to
be likely to come to the fore if the outlook over the next 15-25 years is one
of multiple, interacting and compound stressors and crises as a result of
the ‘perfect storm’ or ‘long crisis’ thesis of the interaction of
demographics, climate change and food and energy prices. In light of the
above this paper reviews the literature on vulnerability and asks what a
‘Human Wellbeing’ approach – a complement to more traditional ways of
understanding poverty - might contribute to the analysis of vulnerability.

Draft – to add:

Page 6 - ADD ANNEX TABLE IN TEXT

Page 26 - ADD TO TABLE 9 FOM TABLES 6, 7 and 8

1
1. INTRODUCTION

Much research to date has tended to view vulnerability by disciple or

sector and yet individuals and households experience multiple, interacting
and sometimes compounding vulnerabilities. Cross-disciplinary thinking is
emerging as multi-dimensional vulnerability is increasingly recognized to
be likely to come to the fore if the outlook over the next 15-25 years is one
of multiple, interacting and compound stressors and crises as a result of
the ‘perfect storm’ or ‘long crisis’ thesis of the interaction of
demographics, climate change and food and energy prices (Beddington,
2009; Evans et al., 2010; Sumner et al., 2010). In light of the above this
paper reviews the literature on vulnerability and asks what a ‘Human
Wellbeing’ approach – a complement to more traditional ways of
understanding poverty - might contribute to the analysis of vulnerability.
This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a ‘broad-
sweep’ of the vulnerability literature. Section 3 introduces the ‘human
wellbeing’ approach. Section 4 explores vulnerability via a wellbeing lens.
Section 5 concludes.

2. DISCIPLINARY AND SECTORAL PERSPECTIVES ON

VULNERABILITY

2a. The evolution of the concept of vulnerability in development studies

literature

There is, of course, an enormous literature on vulnerability (see for

reviews Alwang et al., 2001; Bohle, 2003; Sharma et., 2000). Vulnerability
is defined and measured in different ways in different disciplines and
sectors and yet individuals and households experience multiple and
interacting vulnerabilities at the same time. Room’s (2000) approach that
we draw upon in this paper refers to ‘snakes and ladders’ and unexpected
and expected variability – shocks and stressors - that can lead to
advancement (ladder) or decline (snake) in wellbeing and ‘buffers and

2
passports’ to refer to resilience stock/capacities (buffers) and abilities to
take opportunities (passports).
Vulnerability is not only shocks but slow-burning stressors too. It is
also about exposure/sensitivity to harms/hazards and capacity to cope or
resilience. Further, it is experienced in different ways by different people.
In this vein Sharma et al., (2000:1) note, that even when exposed to the
same event, impacts will vary, depending on the person’s capacity to
cope: that is, to withstand and recover from the impact of that event
(Sharma, et. al., 2000, p.1). In this respects Sen historical work on
entitlement failures and famine was seminal.1 Other seminal works to note
would be Chambers (1989) discussion of vulnerability, risk, shock, stress
and coping mechanisms, and Moser’s (1998) asset vulnerability.
The poverty dynamics literature is also of direct relevance with
particular reference to research on chronic and transient poverty (see in
particular Hulme et al., 2001; Shepherd et al., 2010). In countries with
data, the percentage of the poor that are always poor is around a third of
poor households (see table 1). This implies that two-thirds of the poor
move in and out of poverty depending on vulnerability and capacities to
cope.

Table 1. Selected countries: the chronic poor (‘always poor’) as % of poor households

Countries Periods Always poor HH as

percentage of total
poor households
Bangladesh 1994-2006 25
China 1991-1995 30
India 1970-1982 42

1
The literature on entitlements and famine has had a ‘major theoretical, empirical and
policy impact’ (Fine 1997:619). Aside from influencing the practice of major global
institutions, the literature has also driven the concept of entitlement into other areas of
interest, from the welfare system (entitlement to benefits) and the legal system
(entitlement to property rights) to human rights (ibid.). Entitlement failure exists when
there is a failure to establish command over sufficient resources for survival (Dreze and
Sen 1981 ). This is fundamentally about the relationship between endowment and
exchange. As Elahi (2006: 544) points out, endowment – which is determined by one’s
entitlements – refers to an individual’s ability to command a resource through legal
means through a process of exchange. For example, an individual can sell (exchange) his
or her labour power (endowment) in return for a wage (resource). Entitlement underpins
the entire process. Although strongly influenced by a material approach insofar as the
framework tends to deal with the ownership of tangible assets, entitlement also
incorporates relational aspects as vulnerability depends to some extent on the nature of
‘terms of trade relationships’ (Vatsa and Krimgold 2000: 136).

3
Indonesia 1993-1997 29
Vietnam 1992-1997 44
Uganda 1992-1999 30-32
South Africa 1997-2001 38
Ethiopia (rural) 1994-2004 32
Source: Calculated from Dercon and Shapiro (2007).

In their wide ranging review of datasets, Dercon and Shapiro (2007)

identify key reasons to explain escaping long-run poverty as (see table 2):
changes in economic and social assets (e.g. changes in employment, land,
ownership and education) and/or social exclusion and discrimination
and/or location in remote or otherwise disadvantaged areas (extending to
fragile states). Further, that temporary shocks are key reasons for descent
into poverty: illness and health-related expenses, social and customary
expenses on marriage and funerals, high-interest private loans, crop
disease, drought and irrigation failure, etc.
Table 2. Determinants associated with escaping or falling into poverty

Snakes – Ladders , Buffers

Country Years
and Passports

Factors significant Factors significant

for entering into for escaping poverty
poverty
Per capita income in Area of land owned,
Chile 1968-1986
1968, Livestock age of HH head,
losses average years of
schooling of HH
workers,
accumulation of land
and livestock,
dependency ratio;
Age of HH head,
accumulation of land
and livestock
Non-structural Structural factors
Bangladesh 1987-2000
factors includes related to the HH
factors related to asset base e.g. asset
lifecycle changes accumulation,
(number of working multiple livelihood
members, high activities, income
dependency ratio, diversification,
abandonment by occupational shift to
husband) and crises off-farm activities
and shocks e.g.
illness and natural
disasters
- Literacy, ownership
India 1970-1981
of a house, increase
in cultivated area
and income from
livestock, better
4
 infrastructure
Illness and health- Income
Uganda 1980-2004
related expenses, diversification,
social and irrigation and land
customary expenses improvement
on marriage and
funerals, high-
interest private
loans, crop disease,
drought and
irrigation failure
High dependency Income
Kenya 1997-2005
ratio, illness and diversification,
heavy healthcare formal sector
expenses, drought employment, crop
diversification, social
factors
Large household, Owning more
South Africa
female headed physical assets
household, low (livestock, land, etc).
employment access,
low asset
endowment, low
education.
Source: Dercon and Shapiro (2007).

There is a clear implication that interventions should distinguish the

chronic and transient poor (Baulch and McCulloch, 1998; Hulme et al.,
2001). Chronic poverty is about expanding assets and free at point of
delivery public services. In contrast, transient poverty policy responses are
about reducing risks, fluctuations, etc such as safety nets and insurance
schemes (McCulloch and Baulch, 2000). However, this is not just a
question of material assets – relational dimensions and subjectivities play
a crucial role too: In Latin America, Barros et al. (2009), found that more
than two-thirds of the poorest 10% (of the distribution of consumption)
constitute ethnic minorities and ECLAC (2010) study of 8 Latin America
countries found infant mortality of indigenous peoples/territories and
infant mortality of the non-indigenous people, 2000 census at much higher
levels.
A related body of literature is that on the inter-generational
transmission (IGT) of poverty (see for detailed discussion Moore, 2001).
The IGT approach is a well established conceptualisation of how poverty is
transmitted from one generation to another (Castañeda and Aldaz-Carroll,
1999:2, Bird 2007:1). IGT is often conflated with the dynamics of poverty
literature. Poverty dynamics and IGT are both temporal and about how
5
people move in and out of poverty over time. But IGT is typically about
poor adults having poor children rather than poor children becoming poor
adults or poor adults staying poor (Moore, ibid., suggested IGT could work
in various ways not previously considered). Most work on IGT has tended
to be on American societal and income mobility or state benefits
dependency because large scale longitudinal household data is available
annually from 1968-89 from the American Panel Study of Income
Dynamics (see for details Altonji et al., 1997). In contrast, there are
virtually no long term longitudinal panels from the developing world,
hence the approach is much less well established in the development
literature

2b. The evolution of the concept of vulnerability in the wider literature

Birkmann (2006: 11), notes that the emergence and early evolution of the
concept of vulnerability was closely linked to the ‘purely hazard-oriented
perception of disaster risk in the 1970s’. Vulnerability was by and large
dominated by ‘technical interventions focused on predicting hazards or
modifying their impact’ (Hilhorst and Bankoff 2004: 2). But while these
early origins framed the concept in relatively narrow terms, the last three
decades or so have witnessed a considerable conceptual expansion of
vulnerability, as well as its application into a wide and diverse range of
disciplines. Now the subject of a huge and burgeoning literature, it has
been increasingly recognised by researcher and practitioner communities
within various disciplines that reducing vulnerability is necessary for
improving wellbeing and human security, particularly in the face of
multiple shocks and stressors (O’Brien 2009: 23). Additionally, within
development and economics it is increasingly acknowledged that
considerations of risk and vulnerability are central to understanding the
dynamics of poverty noted above (Christiaensen and Subbaro 2004).
Further still, the concept of vulnerability has relatively recently been
adopted by those engaged in climate change research, or more
specifically by those investigating the relationship between the impacts of

6
climate change and various anthropocentric dimensions (e.g. Haines et al.
2006; Gaillard 2010). Aside from such practical and operational
imperatives, the concept of vulnerability has contributed greatly to the
advancement and refinement of various academic pursuits. Cardona
(2004) has pointed out that over time vulnerability has helped clarify the
concepts of risk and disaster – concepts which make up the cornerstones
of a number of disciplines, including disaster management (‘vulnerability
has emerged as the most critical concept in disaster studies’ [Vatsa 2004:
1]) and environmental change.

Different disciplinary and sectoral approaches to vulnerability

Discipline/sector Approach to
vulnerability
Development Studies
Economics
etc

Sources: xxxx

In its most general sense, vulnerability is seen as the risk that a ‘system’
(e.g. household, community, country) would be negatively affected by
‘specific perturbations that impinge on the system’ (Gallopin 2006: 294).
These perturbations that give rise to undesirable outcomes originate from
various sources, including environmental, socio-economic, physical and
political (Naude, et al., 2009: 185). The question of risk is thus at the heart
of the vulnerability concept: how systems deal with and react to risk; what
kinds of outcome result from a particular risk; and through what processes
a risk produces an outcome. Closely related to this notion of risk is the
idea of un/certainty. In a context of imperfect information there an
element of risk involved (for example, not knowing when a natural disaster
or a sudden fall in primary commodity prices will occur), thus giving rise to
uncertainty about, say, the future livelihood of an individual, the wellbeing
7
of a household, or the performance of an economy. From a development
perspective this might mean that vulnerability exists when ‘poverty cannot
be safely ruled out as a possible future scenario’ (Calvo 2008: 1014).

2c. Defining vulnerability

As noted above a common starting point in defining vulnerability is to

separate sensitivity and resilience (see table 3) as hazard exposure (not
only shocks) and capacity to cope (ie resilience and agency).
Table 3. What is vulnerability?

Capacity to cope (buffers) and/or advance

(passports)

High Low

Vulnerable High vulnerability

Sensitivity or High
hazard exposure
(to snakes and Low Not vulnerable Vulnerable
ladders)

Sources: Alwang et al., (2001), Davies (1996), Room (2000), Sharma et al., (2000).

Despite the many disciplinary variations, most contemporary approaches

to vulnerability share (to varying degrees) some common elements.
Vulnerability analysts working in a wide range of disciplines frequently cite
Kofi Annan’s (2003) observation that hazards only become disasters when
people’s lives and livelihoods are affected. Many agree that at the
foundation of any conceptualisation of vulnerability is this issue of
interaction: an interaction between an environmental hazard and a
population, as Annan suggests; an interaction between market dynamics
and a local community; or an interaction between a food shortage and the
characteristics of a particular household. The interaction that exists
between a perturbation of some kind (e.g. earthquake, famine,
hyperinflation) and the unit/system of analysis (e.g. individual, household,
community, country) is a complex one, and influenced by a multitude of
different factors. These could include anything from the asset stock of a
household, to the size and quality of an individual’s social network, to the
8
geographical characteristics of a particular place. Accordingly,
vulnerability – in any discipline – is rarely defined solely in relation to the
hazard or source of risk. Furthermore, exposure to a perturbation is
generally not considered to be sufficient in itself to constitute a robust
conceptualisation of vulnerability, meaning that the interaction is made up
of more than simply the ‘convergence’ of shock and individual. Using
Bohle’s (2001) conceptual framework, (the level of) vulnerability is
‘produced’ through the interaction between exposure to external events
and the internal coping capacity of the affected individual, household. This
has led some to talk of the ‘double structure of vulnerability’ (e.g. van
Dillen 2004). Coping capacity in this sense can broadly be understood as
‘resilience’, and as such cannot be thought of as distinct from
vulnerability. Resilience and vulnerability do not represent opposite ends
of the spectrum, but rather form part of the same equation: resilience
determines in large part how people or systems respond to shocks, and
hence determines how people or systems are affected by those shocks
and how vulnerable they are to experiencing a particular outcome.
Perturbations aside), coping capacity or resilience is shaped not only
by the kinds of activities engaged in by individuals or systems (e.g. work-
related actions or membership in social networks that enhance their ability
to respond to shocks), but also by the underlying characteristics of an
individual or a system. More specifically, fragilities that in some way
reduces resilience will determine to a large extent the degree of
vulnerability an individual or a system experiences. Further, vulnerability
is also influenced by the characteristics and nature of wider social, political
and institutional structures. In some cases, these structural factors can
actually prove to be more influential than the perturbation itself. For
example, Devereux (2009) contends that structural conditions are more
responsible for the persistence of famines in twenty-first century sub-
Saharan Africa than the shocks that trigger them. So we must consider:
the ex ante (that is, before a risky event) characteristics and conditions –
the underlying conditions – of the unit of analysis in question (and the
various factors and processes that determine them); the wider structural

9
conditions in which our unit of analysis exists; the type of perturbation or
risky event that the unit of analysis experiences, whether that be a short-
term shock or a longer-term stressor; and the various, complex
interactions between these dimensions and as many reserarchers have
argued, when thinking about these things it is important to apply the
framework to a specific outcome and ask the question: ‘vulnerability to, or
from what exactly?’ (e.g. vulnerability to starvation, vulnerability to
infection, etc.).

2d. Vulnerable to or from what shocks and stressors?

A key distinction is that between vulnerability to something, and

vulnerability from something. Alwang et al. (2001: 3) argue that when we
talk about an outcome – for example, malnutrition, homelessness,
bankruptcy – we are talking about vulnerability to that particular outcome,
whereas when we talk about the relationship between vulnerability and
risk, we are talking about vulnerability from risk. As noted, vulnerability is
influenced by resilience (or coping capacity), as well as by structural
features of the surrounding environment: these are the things that
determine the degree of ex ante vulnerability (that is, before the onset of
a risky event). So before an individual or a system is even threatened by a
hazard, it is possible to identify certain socio-economic fragilities
(underlying conditions) and pre-existing vulnerable context elements that
increase vulnerability (Carreno et al. 2005). However, vulnerability is also
determined by the type of risk or perturbation that the individual or
system faces. For example, a particular building might already suffer from
poor architectural design and shoddy construction (fragilities), but its
overall vulnerability to experiencing major structural damage from an
earthquake will ultimately be determined by the scale and magnitude of
that event. Hence, it is important to ask ‘vulnerability to what?’, as the
answer to that question greatly influences just how vulnerable an
individual or a system is to a particular outcome.

10
 Perturbations or risks are understood broadly as ‘a potentially
damaging influence on the system of analysis’ or an ‘influence that may
adversely affect a valued attribute of a system’ (Fussel 2007). This is what
Chambers (1989) refers to as the external side of vulnerability, i.e. the
risks, shocks and stress with which an individual or system is confronted
(the internal side representing a lack of coping capacity). Although it
should be noted that while risks are generally considered as external to a
system, this is not always the case, as dangerous practices within a
community (e.g. certain business practices) may also present themselves
as threats (Fussel 2007).
Perturbations can be disaggregated into two broad categories:
shocks and stressors. Shocks refer to sudden risk events, such as floods,
droughts, unemployment and price increases, whereas stressors refer to
more gradual changes, such as changes in service delivery, land
degradation, socio-economic marginalisation, and the HIV/AIDS epidemic
(Hart 2009: 363). A key distinction is thus the difference in time-scale.
However, while the duration of a shock may be short-term, the impacts of
a shock can persist for many years after the initial event. This has been
demonstrated by evidence from Ethiopia where a collapse in output prices
in 2001 and a serious drought in 2002 were found to be still affecting
consumption outcomes in rural Ethiopia several years later (Dercon et al.
2005).
It should also be recognised that shocks and stressors can threaten
an individual’s or a system’s wellbeing in indirect ways. As Dercon (2005:
484) points out, in dealing with the impact of a shock, the ex post coping
responses of a household may ‘destroy or reduce the physical, financial,
human or social capital of the household’. This might happen, for example,
due to the selling off of important or valuable material assets, leaving the
household more vulnerable in the future.
Various disciplines have started to recognise this complex interplay
of shocks/stressors. There have been various efforts to build
interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary understandings of vulnerability and
resilience. Those working in global environmental change have begun to

11
acknowledge that the vulnerability of people to the negative
consequences of climate change does not result solely from environmental
changes by themselves, but from a mixture of stressors (O’Brien et al.
2004). Further, Leichenko and O’Brien (2002) note that food security in
developing countries is influenced by political, economic and social
conditions, as well as climatic factors. This multiple stressors approach to
vulnerability assessments has an important advantage over conventional
approaches: as O’Brien et al. (2009: 24) argue, ‘interventions that address
the outcomes of single stressors may provide measurable results, but if
they do not consider the dynamic context in which a stressor is occurring,
they are unlikely to enhance human security over the longer term’.
Webb and Harinarayan (1999) have proposed that vulnerability itself
be used as a ‘bridging concept’ to better link the fields of humanitarianism
and development. However, multidisciplinary approaches are by no means
straightforward undertakings. As Thywissen (2006: 449-450) explains,
‘multidisciplinarity often results in the same term being defined in
different ways...[as] definitions of the same terms may have been
developed simultaneously and separately in different disciplines’. The
resulting confusion are difficult to escape as most of the definitions are
‘valid in their respective contexts and cannot be discarded’ and that ‘the
search for a single measure of vulnerability is likely to be futile as each
discipline stresses different components of the concept’ (Alwang et al.
2001: 34-35). While this undoubtedly presents academics, practitioners
and policy-makers with various challenges, both methodological as well as
empirical, it is in many ways understandable that such a multiplicity of
interpretations and understandings exist. Indeed, that ‘vulnerability’ can
be applied in such a diverse range of contexts and disciplines is arguably
testament to its strength as an analytical and descriptive concept.
When an individual or a system is affected by a perturbation, it is
unlikely that that perturbation would have a single origin. Rather, the
original perturbation would have combined with, and been shaped by, a
series of other factors that together form the nature of the perturbation as
experienced by the individual/system. To take a well known example,

12
famines are not purely natural phenomena. While a drought-induced food
shortage one year might certainly increase the risk of famine, the actual
risk experienced by a particular household would have ultimately been
influenced by a range of other factors, such as food distribution
mechanisms, global demand, or national or sub-national politics.
Therefore, the risk is usually the product of a complex interaction of
forces.
Many agree that vulnerability is a multifaceted and multidimensional
concept (e.g. Cutter et al. 2000; Bohle 2002; Birkmann 2006). Even if we
were to take as an example a very specific type of vulnerability and
outcome (e.g. the vulnerability of household x falling below a pre-
determined poverty line within five years), there would still be a wide
range of factors to consider when carrying out a vulnerability assessment.
Indeed, vulnerability in its broadest sense is a concept that encompasses
physical, social, economic, environmental and institutional features
reflecting the complex relationships that shape the overall impact of a
given shock or stressor. It is this multidimensionality that aligns the
concept of vulnerability well with the approach of ‘human wellbeing’.

13
3. A ‘HUMAN WELLBEING’ APPROACH

‘Human Wellbeing’ or ‘3-dimensional human wellbeing’ is emerging as a

complement to the more traditional and material ways of conceptualizing
and measuring poverty and deprivation. Evidence of this is most visible in
the recent Sarkozy Commission, chaired by Amartya Sen, Joseph Stiglitz
and Jean-Paul Fitoussi, which has provided one of the most recent and
strongest signposts with its conclusion that there is a need “to shift
emphasis… to measuring people’s wellbeing.” (2009: 10). There is further
evidence in the OECD’s Measuring the Progress of Societies that suggests
that current approaches to poverty are being rethought (Giovanni, 2009).
The 2010, 20-year review of Human Development by the UNDP Human
Development Report Office adds to this sense (see UNDP, 2010). One
might also note the five-year, multi-country research of the ESRC
Wellbeing in Developing Countries (WeD) network (eg. Copestake, 2008;
McGregor, 2007; White, 2008; 2010) and the Oxford Poverty & Human
Development Initiative (OPHI) that have stimulated academic debate (eg.
Alkire and Santos, 2010). Indeed, although, wellbeing in its broadest sense
has a long intellectual history, the concept has been particularly hotly
debated over the last ten years or so, if the amount of published books
and articles is a measure (see for overview discussion Gough and
McGregor, 2007; McGillivray and Clarke, 2006).
The approach to human wellbeing that is outlined here draws upon and
synthesises various traditions (see discussion in McGregor, 2007). ‘Human
well-being’ shifts our focus even further beyond income alone - that Seers
(1972), Streeten (1980), Stewart (1985) and Sen (1999) have critiqued in
seminal works - but also beyond narrow human development indicators as
well such as the Human Development Indices to take account of what
people can do and be, and how they feel about what they can do and be.
Wellbeing thus seeks to build on conceptualisations of human
development in particular and Sen’s (1999) ‘beings’ and ‘doings’ (human
development is about freedoms and what a person can do and be),
focusing on the interactions between beings, doings and feelings. Robert

14
Chambers’ (1997; 2007) emphasis on the need for the development
profession to listen to the voices of poor and to their perceptions and
feelings about poverty has also been influential (Of course feminist
development thinkers have always stressed the importance of listening,
and of inclusiveness and looking out for the silenced exclusions).
McGregor (2007) suggests a comprehensive way to understand people’s
well-being. He emphasizes that a practical concept of wellbeing should be
conceived as the combination three things which are (i) Needs met (what
people have) (ii) Meaningful act (what people do) and (iii) Satisfaction in
achieving goals (how people be). Copestake (2008: 3) echos this:
‘Wellbeing is defined here as a state of being with others in society where
(a) people’s basic needs are met, (b) where they can act effectively and
meaningfully in pursuit of their goals, and (c) where they feel satisfied with
their life’. Human wellbeing can thus be discussed as three-dimensional: it
takes account of material wellbeing, subjective wellbeing and relational
wellbeing and their dynamic, and evolving interaction. People’s own
perceptions and experience of life matter, as do their relationships and
their material standard of living.
These three dimensions of material, subjective and relational wellbeing
are summarised in Table 4. The columns here are artificial boundaries
where we are suggesting such demarcations are highly fluid. 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.2

Table 4. Human Wellbeing: Dimensions, Areas of Study, Indicators and Key determinants

Dimensions of Material wellbeing – Relational wellbeing – Subjective wellbeing –

Wellbeing
‘needs met’ and ‘ability to act ‘life satisfaction’ and
‘practical welfare and meaningfully’ and ‘values, perceptions
standards of living’ ‘personal and social and experience’
2
The WeD group found that the relational and the community aspects of wellbeing were
particularly emphasised in the developing countries they studied. ‘Relatedness’ in
people’s lives was central for wellbeing. Further, there was often a strong moral aspect of
subjective wellbeing related to collective aspects of wellbeing and the community rather
than just individual preferences (see discussion in White, 2008).
15
 relations’
Area of study The objectively The extent to which The meanings that
observable outcomes people are able to people give to the
that people are able engage with others in goals they achieve
to achieve. order to achieve their and the processes in
particular needs and which they engage.
goals.
Indicators Needs satisfaction Human agency Quality of life
indicators. indicators. indicators.
Material asset Multi-dimensional
indicators. resource indicators.
Key income, wealth and relations of love and understandings of the
determinants assets care sacred and the moral
employment and networks of support order
livelihood activities and obligation self-concept and
education and skills relations with the personality
physical health and state: law, politics, hopes, fears and
(dis)ability welfare aspirations
access to services social, political and sense of meaning/
and amenities cultural identities and meaninglessness
environmental quality inequalities levels of (dis)
violence, conflict and satisfaction.
(in)security trust and confidence
scope for personal
and collective action
and influence
Sources: Synthesised from Copestake (2008); McGregor (2007); McGregor and Sumner
(2010); White (2008; 2010).

Jodha (1988) is illustrative of wellbeing debates and the contradictions.3

Jodha studied the same households in rural India over a 20 year period
(1963-6 and 1982-4) by both conventional household income surveys and
by villagers’ perceptions of their poverty and wellbeing, and found that
‘households that have become poorer by conventional measurements of
income in fact appear better off when seen through different qualitative
indicators of their wellbeing’ (p. 2421). In Jodha’s study people felt they
were better off because they consumed a greater range of commodities
(i.e. the material wellbeing dimension), were less reliant on particular
3
Kanbur (2004:5-8) identified a series of contradictions: If the total number of people in
poverty (however measured) rises because of population growth, but the percentage of
the poor in the total population falls, has poverty risen or fallen? If the number of poor or
the percentage of poor people (however measured) falls because the poor die at a faster
rate than the non-poor (through HIV/AIDS, for example), has poverty risen or fallen? This
is a particular issue when we assess gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Because
the poor are more likely to work in the informal economy, their economic activity is less
likely to be recorded in GDP data, so it is likely that the faster poor people die, the faster
GDP per capita rises. If the number of poor or the percentage of poor people (however
measured) falls overall, but poverty falls for some and rises for others, has poverty risen
or fallen? If the number of poor or the percentage of poor people falls overall because of
an increase in private ‘bads’, such as the consumption of cigarettes and/or alcohol, or
public ‘bads’ (in contrast to public goods), has poverty risen or fallen?

16
patrons (i.e. the relational wellbeing dimension); and felt more
independent with greater levels of mobility (i.e. the subjective wellbeing
dimension). Consistent with Jodha are proposals from Ryan and Deci
(2000: 6-7) and others that autonomy – meaning ‘self-determination,
independence and the regulation of behavior from within’ - is one of the
three fundamental and universal psychological needs (along with
relatedness and competence).
Subjective wellbeing itself (see various recent reviews such as
Samman, 2007) is composed of two aspects: affective (mental health or
hedonic balance), and cognitive (life satisfaction or eudemonic). The focus
for wellbeing is the latter. As Alvarez and Copestake (2008:154) and
Deiner (2006: 401) respectively note, the ‘eudemonic approach
emphasizes more the nature of human beings as searchers of meaning
(actions consistent with their values) through fulfillment of cherished
goals’ and ‘life satisfaction represents a report of how a respondent
evaluates or appraises his or her life taken as a whole. Domain
satisfactions are judgments people make in evaluating major life domains,
such as physical and mental health, work, leisure, social relationships, and
family’.
There is, of course, a whole debate on preference setting to consider
(See Clark, 2007 for wide-ranging discussion). Indeed, it has been argued
that psychosocial factors might be working as additional reinforcement
mechanisms to keeping people in poverty. For example, Harper et al.,
(2003:547) note in their review of the literature the importance of
individual agency and the role of attitudes and aspirations in the inter-
generational transmission of poverty. Further, a circle of low (or frustrated)
aspirations and endemic poverty may be a self-sustaining outcome
(Appadurai, 2004; Ray, 2006). In a empirical review of the determinants
of the inter-generational transmission of poverty, Bird (2007: ix) also
notes,

low aspirations probably contribute to reduced income and asset

formation and may influence parenting patterns and investment

17
 decisions (including in children’s human capital formation) thus
contributing to IGT poverty.

However, this is not a reason to discount people’s own perceptions of

poverty and wellbeing. Rather to recognize the limitation of researching
wellbeing and poverty. So, what does a wellbeing approach add? Many
contemporary conceptualisations of poverty already go beyond income-
based definitions and include more socio-cultural and subjective
dimensions of deprivation (e.g. human development, rights-based
approaches, social exclusion approaches, sustainable livelihoods). One can
posit that a wellbeing lens sharpens the focus of a ‘traditional’ poverty
lens in at least two ways. In the first instance, it emphasises the relational
and the subjective. What people feel they can do or can be, influences
what people will actually be able to be and to do. In turn, these feelings
and perceptions are determined by people's experiences as well as by the
norms and values that are culturally and socially determined. In the case
of child poverty, this might include prevailing notions of ‘normal’ adult-
child interactions or relationships at school, home and in the case of child
labour, at work and norms about child participation. An example, of this is
White and Choudury’s (2007: 530) research on Bangladesh, which
explored the empirical realities of ‘genuine’ or ‘meaningful’ participatory
initiatives with children. They argue that whilst ideally, participation is
about raising children’s collective voice in development matters, in reality
participation is ‘produced’ through ‘projectisation’ of participation.
Drawing on primary data collected with Amra, a children’s organisation in
Bangladesh, they note understandings of what counts as ‘participation’ as
determined by development agency staff and therefore children’s agency
is constrained and determined by adults in development agencies (i.e.
what can be said, when it should be said).
An example of subjectivities, can be found in Cornwall and Fujita (2007)
in their analysis of representations made of ‘the poor’ in the World Bank’s
Voices of the Poor exercise. Drawing upon the Crying Out for Change
volume, they argue that (2007:60),

18
 The ‘voices’ are editorialized so as to tune out any discordant
sounds and present an overarching narrative that is in perfect
harmony with the bank’s own policies: their ‘cries’ for change are
harnessed to support a particular set of highly normative
prescriptions. In order to obtain quotes that could pack a punch,
Crying Out for Change obscures other linkages, other perspectives,
other parts of the conversation that provide less convenient
justification for the overall narrative.

Second, a wellbeing approach is about positives. It is is based on what

people (and above - children) can do/be/feel, rather than deficits in what
they can do/be/feel. This resonates with Nancy Fraser’s work (see for
example, Fraser, 2000) on recognition, respect and issues of stigma. In
particular how labeling or ‘othering’ of people as the ‘poor’ infers a status
inferior to the ‘non-poor’ and in itself can lead to material and relational
deprivation via social exclusion. It is also about self-determination rather
than exogenously defined wellbeing.
Third, wellbeing addresses a need for an analytical approach that is
sufficiently flexible to take account of the differential experiences of
different groups of people. This is particularly evident when considering
poverty and wellbeing across the life course. As Hird (2003:25) suggests
citing Ryff and Heidrich (1997) and Westerhof et al (2001): ‘older adults
tend to refer to life satisfaction and health in their spontaneous
descriptions of self and life, whereas young adults focus more on self,
personality, happiness, work, and education’, [in contrast] Middle-aged
individuals were found to emphasise self-confidence, self-acceptance, and
self-knowledge, as well as job and career issues’.
If we develop this further we can understand better how some people’s
wellbeing – here child poverty - is distinct from other peoples – here adult
poverty. We can thus seeks to identify dimensions to be explored further
to better understand that difference. For example, we can posit that child
poverty is different to adult poverty because not only do children have

19
differing needs, wants and capacities depending on the stage of childhood
(e.g. infancy, early childhood, middle childhood and adolescence) but also
the meaning of ‘childhood’ itself is defined by the prevailing context and
culture. Adult poverty differs by age and context but arguably to a lesser
extent than childhood poverty. We can also posit that a further key
difference in children’s experiences is that childhood poverty and
wellbeing are more intensely relational in nature. Adult poverty is also
relational in nature but arguably to a lesser extent than childhood poverty
because for children there is greater reliance on ‘others’ for care and
nurture, typically adults or older children; greater physiological and
psychological vulnerabilities; and reduced autonomy/power.
We can illustrate this further if we consider poverty tracking via a
wellbeing lens during the recent global crisis using the empirical work of
Hossain et al., Turk et al., and May et al., (see table 5).
In terms of child wellbeing and the material wellbeing dimension there
were cross-country reports of school absenteeism and dropout, and some
reports of child labour and/or education expenses being reduced and there
were reports across countries of children combining labour with education.
Whilst in the relational domain there are some clear findings on changes in
the household division of care labour, social tensions, family conflict and
crime. In the Turk et al., studies there was cross-country reports of
children were being left unattended for long hours while mothers worked
late into the evening and sometimes unpaid work of childcare was taken
over either by elderly household members or by the older children. As a
general rule, respondents were trying to protect the nutrition and
education of children: Normally respondents suggested that food
consumption for adults would be cut in order to protect the nutritional
intake of children but there were changes in the quality of food. Finally, in
terms of the subjective domain there is relatively little to report perhaps
because it was not explicitly or formally asked about.
What there is, is striking in terms of evidence of levels of everyday stress
rising and the inter-connection of material, relational and subjective child
and adult wellbeing via, for example, the stress around sending children to

20
school on an empty stomach and how this connected psychological stress,
food insecurity and children's educational access. Economic stress was
understood to be generating tensions - both men and women made many
references to increases in the number of arguments between husbands
and wives, sometimes including violence – and that much of this was
driven by stress over money. Again, this would suggest the inter-linkages
of material, relational and subjective wellbeing and a need for research
design to seek to capture these dimensions and their interactions.

21
Table 5. Using the ‘wellbeing’ approach to analysis crisis impacts of global crisis and general versus child-specific impacts

Wellbeing Impacts Hossain et al., in 5 countries May et al., in 11 countries Turk et al., in 8 countries
dimension reported
Material wellbeing General Food prices still higher than 2007; Export sector Women, particularly in supply chains in South Workers in the urban informal sector are facing
job losses in Jakarta but not in Dhaka; Micro- East Asia have been hard hit via falling wages, particularly high levels of income insecurity;
and informal credit markets effected; higher less decent work and shorter working hours; some layoffs; reduced working hours; laid-off
proportion of income being spent on food; less families have reported reducing their food workers remaining in urban areas; reduced
diverse/lower nutritional value, less; Range of consumption or quality; borrowing money and hours; altered adult food consumption patterns
health impacts reported; selling assets is extremely common; and reduced remittances; increased competition
for local, day-laboring jobs in rural areas;
smallholder, rural households remain vulnerable
to falling commodity prices. Nearly all groups in
all low income countries were unable to access
formal safety protection mechanisms
Child-specific School absenteeism and dropout, and child Education is being prioritized by families but Reports of children combining work/labour with
labour reports education costs are being reduced – through education.
moving children from private to public schools,
cutting tuition or going into debt; research did
not find evidence of significant numbers of
children being taken out of school
Relational General Women eating least/last; intra-household Women, particularly in supply chains in South Some sectors hit hard by the crisis are those
wellbeing tensions, abandonment of elderly; signs of rising East Asia have been hard hit via falling wages, that are dominated by female employment;
social tension. less decent work and shorter working hours Economic stress was understood to be
have increased time burdens and reproductive generating tensions and sometimes, shifting
pressures; the first port of call has been the roles in the households; tensions associated
family and social networks; Some evidence of with competition for scarce work were
family conflict and domestic violence. mentioned in some instances; Young, single
women appeared more resilient to these
impacts than those that were married with
children.
Child-specific Intra-household tensions and abandonment of Some evidence of family conflict and domestic Children were being left unattended for long
children; youth crime reported violence. hours while mothers worked late into the
evening. Sometimes unpaid work of childcare
was taken over either by elderly households
members or by the older children; As a general
rule, respondents were trying to protect the
nutrition and education of children. Normally
respondents suggested that food consumption
for adults would be cut in order to protect the
nutritional intake of children but changes in
quality of food.
Subjective General People’s own crisis indicators identified: na Economic stress was understood to be
wellbeing Changes in prices, reduction in the amount of generating tensions - Both men and women
paid workers; number of vacant dormitories made many references to increases in the
rented for export workers, reduced working number of arguments between husbands and
hours, termination/broken contracts, lay-offs, wives, sometimes including violence - much of
returning migration . this was driven by stress over money.

Child-specific Levels of everyday stress rising and the inter- na na

connection of material, relational and subjective
child and adult wellbeing via for example the
stress around sending children to school on an

22
 empty stomach and how this connected
psychological stress, food insecurity and
children's educational access.

Sources: Hossain et al., (2009; 2010); May et al., (1999); Turk et al., (2009).

23
4. ANALYSING VULNERABILITY VIA A WELLBEING LENS

4a. Vulnerability in material, relational and subjective dimensions

In light of the preceding discussion what can wellbeing offer to
understanding multi-dimensional vulnerability? In the first instance
a wellbeing lens helps to analytically approach the different
dimensions of vulnerability taking the material, relational and
subjective dimensions and their interactions. It has long been
commonplace to think about vulnerability by its material wellbeing
dimensions. There has traditionally been a focus on tangible assets
and entitlements (such as income, labour, capital – as per the
Sustainable Livelihoods approach); a focus that is still today proving
influential within economic approaches to vulnerability. The
assumption here is that assets and entitlements represent the
resources that can be mobilised and managed when an individual or
a system is confronted with a threat; in other words, resilience
(Moser 1998: 3).
Households can also make ‘material-based’ decisions in order
to increase their resilience. Morduch (1995) presents a range of
examples that demonstrate how individuals and households engage
in ‘income smoothing’ activities, such as making conservative
production or employment choices and diversifying economic
activities, in order to protect themselves from ‘adverse income
shocks’ before they occur (i.e. ex ante). Such a material approach
recognises that people or systems respond differently to the same
threat (as determined by their ‘asset portfolio’), but it also opens up
the important issue of power. A person’s ability to establish their
command over a set of commodities is dependent on the power
they hold in the first place.4 We can understand this as their agency,
and the successful command of commodities as the exercise of that
agency (see later discussion). However, it is important to remember
that the agency of one individual is influenced by both the agency of
4
Entitlements are a ‘the set of alternative bundles of commodities over which one
person can establish...command’ (Dreze and Sen 1989: 9-10).

24
others as well as wider structures (Giddens 1979). For example, in
their study of resource accessibility and vulnerability in Andhra
Pradesh, India, Bosher et al. (2007) find that the caste system – and
the rigid arrangement of relations within it – is the key factor in
determining who has assets, who can access public facilities, who
has political connections, and who has supportive social networks.
Thus, there is also a relational aspect to access to material assets
and entitlements – a mix of power as political economy and power
as institutions.
Material aspects of vulnerability have been typically measured
as ‘vulnerability to poverty’ or the probability of falling below the
poverty line in the next time period (e.g. Pritchett et al., 2000).
Many have subsequently criticised the economics literature for ‘its
use of money metrics and the underlying presumption that all losses
can be measured in monetary terms’ (Alwang et al. 2001: 5). While
it would be shortsighted to claim that this is true of all the literature
– Moser (1998), for example, adopts an approach dominated by the
relationship between asset ownership and vulnerability, but also
includes intangible and unquantifiable assets, such as household
relations and social capital – there is certainly a case to make that
by focusing overwhelmingly on the material aspects of vulnerability,
it is easy to overlook the many other dimensions. A material focus
on the geographical characteristics of a particular place has, in the
past, and particularly within the disaster risk literature, been used to
identify people living in particular areas as vulnerable, when it is
now widely acknowledged that ‘Hazard risks, their impacts and local
responses are not predetermined by individual or location’ (Webb
and Harinarayan 1999: 293). Table 6 takes the example of a
material stressor – market volatility and illustrates across the
wellbeing dimensions.
Table 6. Examples of vulnerability viewed by a wellbeing lens (material stressor)
Variability – Wellbeing domains
Shock or Material wellbeing Relational Subjective
stressor – wellbeing – wellbeing –

25
 ‘needs met’ and ‘ability to act ‘life satisfaction’
‘practical welfare meaningfully’ and and ‘values,
and standards of ‘personal and perceptions and
living’ social relations’ experience’
Materia Materia Relatio Relatio Subject Subject
l l nal nal ive ive
snakes buffers snakes buffers snakes buffers
and and and and and and
ladders passpo ladders passpo ladders passpor
rts rts ts
Material Uneven Income Access Informal Higher Re-
income smoothi to knowled propensi appraisi
e.g. market stream ng welfare ge and ty to be ng daily
volatility receipts network exposed situation
mediate s to to in a
d by navigate economi positive
gatekee institutio c light
pers ns stresses

Appreciating the relational wellbeing aspects of vulnerability are

also important for developing a robust understanding. Of particular
relevance here are institutions. As North (1995: 23), noted, in his
seminal work, institutions are the ‘humanly devised constraints that
structure human interaction...composed of formal rules...[and]
informal constraints’. While the risk of a household falling below the
poverty line is minimised in a society in which formal safety nets,
such as the provision of basic levels of welfare and social protection,
exist, in many developing countries life is ‘non-insured’ (Duffield
2008). This relates to what Wood (2003) refers to as the ‘Faustian
bargain’ (see also Kabeer 2002 for immediate needs/long-term
goals balancing among South Asian households). In the absence of
welfare regimes which reduce the uncertainties, poor people engage
in certain kinds of risk management in order to ensure security and
survival in the present (Chambers, 1989). Longer-term preparations
are therefore foregone in favour of more immediate imperatives. In
such a situation, when formal welfare regimes are non-existent,
informal institutions take on a greater significance. Informal
institutions are generally deeply connected to the cultural and social
norms of particular places, and can often provide a means of coping
when people become especially vulnerable to experiencing a
particular negative outcome. As an example, more than 25 years

26
ago Bardhan (1984) demonstrated how tied labour contracts –
commonly thought of as ‘inefficient relics of an age when slavery
was condoned (Morduch 1995: 110) – actually mitigated the risk for
agricultural workers of facing low consumption levels in slow
seasons characterised by low employment rates. Another example
might be reciprocity arrangements and inter-household transfers
whereby households cope with misfortune by drawing on the
resources of extended families and communities (Morduch and
Sharma 2002: 575). Table 7 illustrates.
Table 7. Examples of vulnerability viewed by a wellbeing lens (relational stressor)
Variability – Wellbeing domains
Shock or Material wellbeing Relational Subjective
stressor – wellbeing – wellbeing –

‘needs met’ and ‘ability to act ‘life satisfaction’

‘practical welfare meaningfully’ and and ‘values,
and standards of ‘personal and perceptions and
living’ social relations’ experience’
Materia Materia Relatio Relatio Subject Subject
l l nal nal ive ive
snakes buffers snakes buffers snakes buffers
and and and and and and
ladders passpo ladders passpo ladders passpor
rts rts ts
Relational Loss of Taking Loss of Borderli Isolation Group
access ad-hoc entitlem ne non and based
e.g. loss of inter- to credit opportu ent to — hopeless collectiv
household line nities to welfare complia ness e action
reciprocity earn receipts nce with (ie
arrangements income welfare urban
due to change in conditio por
personal ns (eg. collectiv
circumstances Conditio es).
nal cash
transfer
s)

A substantial portion of the diverse literature on vulnerability is

devoted to exploring the ways in which vulnerability, risks and
hazards are above all else social constructions or subjectivities.
These studies dispute the idea that vulnerability is preordained. For
example, Quarantelli (2005) contends that a disaster is both socially
constructed and rooted in the particular social structure of the
community which has been affected by a given hazard. Depending
on one’s characteristics – age, gender, class, ethnicity, and so on –

27
perceptions of what constitutes being or feeling ‘vulnerable’ can
vary enormously. Research by Valentine (1989) into how public
spaces are experienced differently by men and women has
discussed how perceptions of vulnerability are shaped by this.
However, Hollander (2002) found that women actively resist the
conventional construction of women’s vulnerability. Capturing the
subjectivity displayed in these two examples, Cannon (1994)
explains how, more broadly, the determination of vulnerability is a
complex characteristic formed by a mix of factors, themselves
derived in large part from class, gender and ethnicity and personal
perceptions of vulnerability. The same ideas apply to perceptions of
risk. As Cutter (2003: 2) points out, if rational choice is framed in
relative (and therefore subjective) terms, then it is easier to
understand an ‘irrational’ choice. The example she goes on to offer
brings this point to light: ‘the same risky behaviour (e.g. suicide
bomber) would seem like a perfectly rational choice in one setting
(disenfranchisement of Palestinian youth), but appear as totally
irrational in another (American mass media). The value of a
subjective approach to vulnerability is that it compels us to question
the assumptions that go into both vulnerability assessments, as well
as common attitudes towards vulnerabilities. It also represents a
step in the direction of privileging hitherto silenced voices, and
tailoring a perspective of vulnerability that is more contextually
sensitive (see table 8).
Table 8. Examples of vulnerability viewed by a wellbeing lens (subjective stressor)
Variability – Wellbeing domains
Shock or Material wellbeing Relational Subjective
stressor – wellbeing – wellbeing –

‘needs met’ and ‘ability to act ‘life satisfaction’

‘practical welfare meaningfully’ and and ‘values,
and standards of ‘personal and perceptions and
living’ social relations’ experience’
Materia Materia Relatio Relatio Subject Subject
l l nal nal ive ive
snakes buffers snakes buffers snakes buffers
and and and and and and
ladders passpo ladders passpo ladders passpor
rts rts ts

28
Subjective Poor Taking Discrimi Mediatin Social Collectiv
access informal nation in g state exclusio e action
e.g. lower caste to sector access institutio n based
identity formal work to state ns via on caste
sector institutio non- identity
employ ns caste
ment network
s

4b. Resilience, agency and wellbeing

In terms of capacity to cope and resilience, wellbeing’s focus on the
perceptual and relational is inherently about agency and capacities
to act meaningfully. A wellbeing approach seeks to makes power
more explicit in each dimension. This is not only as material political
economy (in Marx’s terms), but also as discourse (i.e Foucault), and
as embedded in norms, values and conventions (i.e. North’s
institutions (see North, 1990) or Bourdieu’s habitus (1990).5 We can
map dimensions of agency and capacity to cope across the domains
of wellbeing (here with a child focus again). This seeks to build on
research on agency and poor people (see review of Lister, 2004).
Lister’s (2004) taxonomy of agency exercised by those in poverty
recognises that people’s agency can be good/progressive and
bad/regressive. Lister’s model has four quadrants. The vertical axis
is about actions poor people (and children) take to improve their
situation in the short-term and the horizontal axis is about long-term
actions. This stretches from everyday matters of ‘getting by’ and
‘getting back at’ (meaning rebellious behaviour) to more strategic
matters of ‘getting out’ and ‘getting organised’ (meaning collective
action). The model could be applied to those who are not in poverty
too. When Lister talks of ‘getting’ by she is referring to the little
things people do in order to cope with everyday situations such as
prioritising daily expenditures and juggling resources. Of course

5
Although these last two are different disciplinary approaches there is some
overlap in a focus on the formal and informal ‘rules of the game’ or ways of doing
things For Bourdieu, power is an unconscious negotiation of an individual and
her/his social environment as s/he unconsciously interacts with this environment
to define his/her dispositions, tendencies, propensities and inclinations.

29
everyone has to make these choices but they are starker for those
with fewer resources.
Redmond (2009) in his application of Lister’s approach to child
agency provides examples of child agency a such as children who
take advantage of informal and ad-hoc opportunities to earn income
(ie agency in the material wellbeing domain), help parents with
housework and childcare (agency in the relational wellbeing
domain) and reappraise their daily situation in a positive light
(agency in the subjective wellbeing domain). We can start to map
Redmond and Lister’s concepts of agency across wellbeing domains.
Their work particularly deals with the capacity to cope aspects –
providing examples of children’s agency or capacity to cope. Many
of these are slow burning stressors rather than acute crises.
Redmond argues that children’s agency – here anaylsed as
examples of resilience or capacity to cope - is generally exercised in
the domains of the everyday and personal (what Lister terms
‘getting by’, ‘getting back at’). Children are less likely to exert
agency that is strategic and political (‘getting out’, ‘getting
organised’), although children can do this, especially with the
facilitation of adults (White and Choudhury (2007) discuss how
adults can provide ‘supplements and extensions’). Getting
organised is constrained by people’s subjectivities, for example,
how they understand and account for their own experiences and
identities and the extent to which they experience belonging and
‘sameness’ with others. People overcome constraints to getting
organised by collective self-help, and political action. Individual
agency is of course a product of wider social forces. As Lister notes
(2004:128) it is not only about how those in poverty (including
children) act, but also about how those in power act in relation to
them – in this discussion how poor as well as richer adults act with
poor children. Further, structures are perpetuated or modified by
individual and collective action and non-action. What matters is not
just the system of cultural norms, values, attitudes and behaviours

30
that is transmitted across generations, but also the degree to which
a person assumes these or identifies herself with them.

31
Table 9. Agency and vulnerability by a wellbeing lens

Agency Dimension of wellbeing with examples

Material Relational Subjective
Material political economy Institutions (e.g. North), Power as discourse (i.e.
(i.e. Marx), and the available norms, and conventions, Foucault) and embedded in
resources upon which children including the formal/informal values and ways of seeing the
can call ‘rules of the game’ or ways of world, (e.g. the social
doing things in terms of construction of ‘childhood’)
children-adult relationships
Material Material Relational Relational Subjective Subjective
snakes and buffers and snakes and buffers and snakes and buffers and
ladders passports ladders passports ladders passports
Agency as Getting by - Taking Helping Reappraising
everyday and coping strategies, advantage of parents with daily situation
personal personal and informal and housework in a positive
social resources, ad-hoc and childcare. light.
and augmenting opportunities
resources through to earn
the informal income.
economy
Getting back at - Petty crimes. Borderline Vandalism
the channelling of non- and
anger and despair compliance drug/solvent
into activities and with rules and use.
lifestyles that obligations of
signal resistance welfare
to bureaucratic receipts (i.e.
and social norms. conditional
cash
transfers).

Agency as Getting out - Children Children can

strategic and seeking routes out deciding to and influence
political of poverty via look for, or parental

32
Agency Dimension of wellbeing with examples
Material Relational Subjective
officially take work decisions to
sanctioned and/or look for work,
responses to education. seek
poverty education etc.

Getting Child labour Collective Child

organised – collectives/uni self-help, collective
collective ons. political action based
responses action, and on identity as
gendered children or
action. child-
labourers,
etc.

Source: Adapted from Sumner (2010).

33
5. CONCLUSIONS

5a. The point of departure

We noted at the outset that research has tended to view

vulnerability by disciple or sector and yet individuals and
households experience multiple, interacting and sometimes
compounding vulnerabilities at the same time and that multi-
dimensional and compound vulnerability is only likely to come
further to the fore. This paper has sought to review different
approaches to vulnerability in order to contribute to understanding
multi-dimensional vulnerability. This paper had drawn in particular
on Room’s (2000) ‘snakes and ladders’ and unexpected and
expected variability that can lead to advancement (ladder) or
decline (snake) in wellbeing and ‘buffers and passports’ to refer to
resilience stock/capacities (buffers) and abilities to take
opportunities (passports).

5b. What does wellbeing add?

In light of the above what might a ‘Human Wellbeing’ approach

contribute to the analysis of vulnerability? First, insecurity is a
dimension of poverty and illbeing in its own right (subjective
wellbeing) and perceptions of insecurity can frame and influence
both material and relational domains of wellbeing. The threat of
hitting critically low outcome levels (in any dimension) is already a
form of hardship. Lack of ‘peace of mind’ is a form of deprivation
(Wood, 2008). Second, if insecurity is chronic or the ‘norm’ rather
than a crisis/shock then wellbeing helps understand various sources
of stressors. Third, vulnerability and resilience are not opposites –
resilience is a sub-set of vulnerability as capacity to cope – and
wellbeing helps to identify material, relational and subjective
dimensions. Fourth, a wellbeing lens helps with analysis of

34
information on the causes of vulnerability and consider the
dynamics of vulnerability before, during and after the hazard occurs.
Fifth, wellbeing helps move analysis from thresholds to continuums
and dynamics – from vulnerability to poverty (based on a poverty
line threshold) to vulnerability to greater poverty severity and a
focus on processes as well as thresholds or the gradient of
downward spiral. Sixth, wellbeing can help with the
‘vulnerability/resilient to what’ question and to identification of
different entitlement losses. Not only in the material domain - land;
labour; state transfers; remittances but also the relational and
subjective dimensions.

5c. Key questions for researching vulnerability via a wellbeing lens

Key questions for future research that wellbeing could thus assist
with are: What are the endowments and buffers (or lack of them)
that are especially likely to make people vulnerable? How to
understand that where people are located in society not only plays a
role in the different snakes and ladders they face but how their end
goals differ too by different tastes and goals and differences in
capacities to cope under adversity? Why are opportunities open to
some as coping strategies proscribed to others due to gender,
ethnicity, class, etc? How does the nature of exposure to harm -
extent in time, quantity and weight of exposure, speed and density
(ie chronic or slow stressor) shape vulnerability and resilience? How
do major disinvestments as a result of snakes lead to future risks?
How do entitlement failure types – production-based entitlement;
labour entitlements; trade entitlements; transfer entitlements –
interact with stressors and shocks? To what extent are there ‘layers
of resilience’ like an onion? (ie the formal welfare system of the
state if it exists; social relationship support in groups and networks,
and distressed asset sales and ill-health as coping mechanisms),
and how are vulnerability and resilience transmitted across time and

35
generations?

36
REFERENCES

Alwang, J., Siegel, P. B. and S. L. Jorgensen (2001) ‘Vulnerability: A

View From Different Disciplines’, Social Protection Discussion Paper
Series No. 0115, Washington DC: The World Bank
Annan, K. (2003) ‘Message for International Day for Disaster
Reduction’, 8 October 2003
Baker, S. M. (2009) ‘Vulnerability and Resilience in Natural
Disasters: A Marketing and Public Policy Perspective’, Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, 28, 1: 114-123
Bankoff, G. (2001) ‘Rendering the World Unsafe: “Vulnerability” as
Western Discourse’, Disasters, 25, 1: 19-35
Bardhan, P. (1984) Land, Labour, and Rural Poverty: Essays in
Development Economics, New York and Delhi: Oxford University
Birkmann, J. (2005) ‘Danger Need Not Spell Disaster – But How
Vulnerable Are We?’, Research Brief (1), Tokyo: United Nations
University
Birkmann, J. (2006) ‘Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-
resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks and definitions’, in J.
Birkmann (ed.) Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards
Disaster Resilient Societies, New Delhi: TERI
Bohle, H-G. (2001) ‘Vulnerability and Criticality: Perspectives from
Social Geography’, Newsletter of the International Human
Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, IHDP
Update 2/2001: 1-7
Bohle, H-G. (2002) ‘Editorial: The Geography of Vulnerable Food
Systems’, Die Erde, 133, 4: 341-344
Calvo, C. (2008) ‘Vulnerability to Multidimensional Poverty: Peru,
1998-2002’, World Development, 36, 6: 1011-1020
Camfield, L. (2006) ‘The Why and How of Understanding
“Subjective” Wellbeing: Exploratory Work by the WeD Group in Four
Developing Countries’, WeD Working Paper 26, Bath: ESRC Research
Group on Wellbeing in Developing Countries
Cannon, T. (1994) ‘Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of
natural disasters’, in A. Varley (ed.) Disasters, Development and
Environment, Chichester: John Wiley
Cardona, O. D. (2004) ‘The Need for Rethinking the Concepts of
Vulnerability and Risk from a Holistic Perspective: A Necessary
Review and Criticism for Effective Risk Management’, in G. Bankoff,
G. Frerks and D. Hilhorst (eds.) Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters,
Development and People, London: Earthscan
Christiaensen, L. J. and K. Subbaro (2004) ‘Toward an Understanding
of Household Vulnerability in Rural Kenya’, World Bank Policy
Research Working Paper 3326, Washington DC: The World Bank
Cutter, S. L. (2003) ‘The Vulnerability of Science and the Science of
Vulnerability’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
93, 1: 1-12
Cutter, S. L., Mitchell, J. T. and M. S. Scott (2000) ‘Revealing the
Vulnerability of People and Places: A Case Study of Georgetown

37
Country, South Carolina’, Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 90, 4: 713-737
Dercon, S. (2005) ‘Risk, Poverty and Vulnerability in Africa’, Journal
of African Economies, 14, 4: 483-488
Dercon, S., Hoddinott, J. and T. Woldehanna (2005) ‘Shocks and
Consumption in 15 Ethiopian Villages, 1999-2004’, Journal of African
Economies, 14, 4: 559-585
Dercon, S. and Joseph S. Shapiro (2007). Moving On, Staying Behind,
Getting Lost: Lessons on poverty mobility from longitudinal data. ESRC
Global Poverty Research Group: Manchester.
Devereux, S. (2009) ‘Why does famine persist in Africa?’, Food
Security, 1: 25-35
De Waal, A. (2006) AIDS and Power: Why There is No Political Crisis
– Yet, London: Zed Books
Dilley, M. and T. E. Boudreau (2001) ‘Coming to terms with
vulnerability: a critique of the food security definition’, Food Policy,
26: 229-247
Dreze, J. and A. Sen (1989) Hunger and Public Action, Oxford: Oxford
University
Duffield, M. (2008) ‘Global Civil War: The Non-Insured, International
Containment and Post-Interventionary Society’, Journal of Refugee
Studies, 21, 2: 145-165
Elahi, K. Q-I. (2006) ‘Entitlement Failure and Deprivation: a Critique
of Sen’s Famine Philosophy’, Journal of Development Studies, 42, 4:
541-558
Elson, D. (1999) ‘Labor Markets as Gendered Institutions: Equality,
Efficiency and Empowerment Issues’, World Development, 27, 3:
611-627
Fine, B. (1997) ‘Entitlement Failure?’, Development and Change, 28:
617-647
Fussel, H-M. (2007) ‘Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual
framework for climate change research’, Global Environmental
Change, 17, 2: 155-167
Gaillard, J. C. (2010) ‘Vulnerability, Capacity and Resilience:
Perspectives for Climate and Development Policy’, Journal of
International Development, 22: 218-232
Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory, Berkeley:
University of California
Haines, A., Kovats, R. S., Campbell-Lendrum, D. and C. Corvalan
(2006) ‘Climate change and human health: impacts, vulnerability,
and mitigation’, The Lancet, 367: 2101-2109
Hart, T. (2009) ‘Exploring definitions of food insecurity and
vulnerability: time to refocus assessments’, Agrekon, 48, 4: 362-383
Hilhorst, D. and G. Bankoff (2004) ‘Introduction: Mapping
Vulnerability’, in G. Bankoff, G. Frerks and D. Hilhorst (eds.) Mapping
Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People, London:
Earthscan
Hollander, J. A. (2002) ‘Resisting Vulnerability: The Social
Reconstruction of Gender in Interaction’, Social Problems, 49, 4:
474-496

38
Holzmann, R. and S. Jorgensen (2000) ‘Social Risk Management: A
Conceptual Framework for Social Protection and Beyond’, Social
Protection Discussion Paper No. 0006, Washington DC: The World
Bank
Hussein, K., Sumberg, J. and D. Seddon (1999) ‘Increasing Violent
Conflict between Herders and Farmers in Africa: Claims and
Evidence’, Development Policy Review, 17: 397-418
Kabeer, N. (2002) ‘Safety Nets and Opportunity Ladders: Addressing
Vulnerability and Enhancing Productivity in South Asia’,
Development Policy Review, 20, 5: 589-614
Kirby, P. (2006) Vulnerability and Violence: The Impact of
Globalization, London: Pluto
Krishnan, P. (1997) ‘Poverty’, paper for the Indicators of Poverty
Workshop, 8 October 1997, London: ODI
Leichenko, R. M. and K. L. O’Brien (2002) ‘The dynamics of rural
vulnerability to global change: the case of southern Africa’,
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 7: 1-18
Morduch, J. (1995) ‘Income Smoothing and Consumption
Smoothing’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 3: 103-114
Morduch, J. and M. Sharma (2002) ‘Strengthening Public Safety Nets
from the Bottom Up’, Development Policy Review, 20, 5: 569-588
Moser, C. O. N. (1998) ‘The Asset Vulnerability Framework:
Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies’, World
Development, 26, 1: 1-19
North, D. C. (1995) ‘The New Institutional Economics and Third
World Development’, in J. Harriss, J. Hunter & C. M. Lewis (eds), The
New Institutional Economics and Third World Development, London:
Routledge
O’Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venema, H., Aandahl, G.,
Tompkins, H., Javed, A., Bhadwal, S., Barg, S., Nygaard, L. and J.
West (2004) ‘Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate
change and globalization in India’, Global Environmental Change,
14: 303-313
Quarantelli, E. L. (2005) ‘A Social Science Research Agenda for the
Disasters of the 21st Century: Theoretical, Methodological and
Empirical Issues and their Professional Implementation’, in R. W.
Perry and E. L. Quarantelli (eds.) What Is a Disaster? New Answers
to Old Questions, Philadelphia: Xlibris
Ribot, J. C. (2009) ‘Vulnerability does not just Fall from the Sky:
Toward Multi-scale Pro-poor Climate Policy’, in R. Mearns and A.
Norton (eds.) The Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and
Vulnerability in a Warming World, Washington DC: The World Bank
Sen, A. (1981) Poverty and Famines, Oxford: Clarendon
Speranza, C. I. (2006) ‘Gender-Based Analysis of Vulnerability to
Drought among Agro-Pastoral Households in Semi-Arid Makueni
District, Kenya’, in S. Premchander and C. Muller (eds.) Gender and
Sustainable Development: Case Studies form NCCR North-South,
Bern: Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research North-
South, University of Bern

39
Stephen, L. and T. E. Downing (2001) ‘Getting the Scale Right: A
Comparison of Analytical Methods for Vulnerability Assessment and
Household-level Targeting’, Disasters, 25, 2: 113-135
Thywissen, K. (2006) ‘Core terminology of disaster reduction: A
comparative glossary’, in J. Birkmann (ed.) Measuring Vulnerability
to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies, New Delhi:
TERI
Valentine, G. (1989) ‘The geography of women’s fear’, Area, 21, 4:
385-390
Van Dillen, S. (2004) ‘Different Choices: Assessing Vulnerability in a
South Indian Village’, Studies in Development Geography,
Saarbrucken: Verlag fur Entwicklungspolitik
Vatsa, K. S. (2004) ‘Risk, vulnerability, and asset-based approach to
disaster risk management’, International Journal of Sociology and
Social Policy, 24, 10/11: 1-48
Vatsa, K. S. and F. Krimgold (2000) ‘Financing Disaster Mitigation for
the Poor’, in A. Kreimer and M. Arnold (eds.) Managing Disaster Risk
in Emerging Economies, Washington DC: The World Bank
Webb, P. and A. Harinarayan (1999) ‘A Measure of Uncertainty: The
Nature of Vulnerability and Its Relationship to Malnutrition’,
Disasters, 23, 4: 292-305
Webb, P., von Brau, J. and Y. Yohannes (1992) ‘Famine in Ethiopia:
Policy Implications of Coping Failure at National and Household
Levels’, Research Report 92, Washington DC: International Food
Policy Research Institute

Abbitt, R. J. F., Scott, J. M. and D. S. Wilcove (2000) ‘The geography

of vulnerability: incorporating species geography and human
development patterns into conservation planning’, Biological
Conservation, 96: 169-175
Adger, W. N. (1999) ‘Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and
Extremes in Coastal Vietnam’, World Development, 27, 2: 249-269
Alwang, J., Siegel, P. B. and S. L. Jorgensen (2001) ‘Vulnerability: A
View From Different Disciplines’, Social Protection Discussion Paper
Series No. 0115, Washington DC: The World Bank
Barrett, C. (1999) ‘On Vulnerability, Asset Poverty and Subsidiarity’,
Comments to the Ford/Rockefeller Foundations Seminar Series
Managing Vulnerability and Shocks within the Agro-Food System,
New York, May 26 1999
Bird, K., McKay, A. and I. Shinyelawa (2007) Isolation and poverty in
Uganda: applying an index of isolation, paper presented at the
International Workshop on Understanding and Addressing Spatial
Poverty Traps, 29 March 2007, Stellenbosch
Birkmann, J. (2006) ‘Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-
resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks and definitions’, in J.
Birkmann (ed.) Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards
Disaster Resilient Societies, New Delhi: TERI

40
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and B. Wisner (1994) At Risk:
Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters, New York:
Routledge
Briguglio, L., Cordina, G., Farrugia, N. and S. Vella (2009) ‘Economic
Vulnerability and Resilience: Concepts and Measurements’, Oxford
Development Studies, 37, 3, 229-247
Chambers, R. (1987) Sustainable Livelihoods, Environment and
Development: Putting Poor People First, Discussion Paper 240,
Sussex: IDS
Chambers, R. (1989) ‘Editorial Introduction: Vulnerability, coping
and policy’, IDS Bulletin, 20, 2: 1-7
Chambers, R. and G. Conway (1992) ‘Sustainable Rural Livelihoods:
Practical Concepts for the 21st Century’, IDS Discussion Paper 296,
Brighton: IDS
Cutter, S. L., Mitchell, J. T. and M. S. Scott (2000) ‘Revealing the
Vulnerability of People and Places: A Case Study of Georgetown
Country, South Carolina’, Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 90, 4: 713-737
De Haan, L. and A. Zoomers (2005) ‘Exploring the Frontier of
Livelihood Research’, Development and Change, 36, 1: 27-47
Dercon, S. (ed.) (2005) Insurance against Poverty, Oxford: Oxford
University
Dilley, M. and T. E. Boudreau (2001) ‘Coming to terms with
vulnerability: a critique of the food security definition’, Food Policy,
26: 229-247
Guillaumont, P. (2009) ‘An Economic Vulnerability Index: Its Design
and Use for International Development Policy’, Oxford Development
Studies, 37, 3: 193-227
Guimaraes, R. J. R. (2007) ‘Searching for the Vulnerable: A Review of
the Concepts and Assessments of Vulnerability Related to Poverty’,
European Journal of Development Research, 19, 2: 234-250
IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution
of Working Groups I, II and III to the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge
University

Jaspers, S. and J. Shoham (1999) ‘Targeting the Vulnerable: A

Review of the Necessity and Feasibility of Targeting Vulnerable
Households’, Disasters, 23, 4: 359-372
Kirby, P. (2006) Vulnerability and Violence: The Impact of
Globalization, London: Pluto
Kuhl, J. J. (2003) ‘Disaggregating household vulnerability – analyzing
fluctuations in consumption using a simulation approach’,
Manuscript: Institute of Economics, University of Copenhagen
Ligon, E. and L. Schechter (2003) ‘Measuring Vulnerability’,
Economic Journal, 113, 486: 95-110
Makoka, D. and M. Kaplan (2005) ‘Poverty and Vulnerability – An
Interdisciplinary Approach’, MPRA Paper 6964, Munich Personal
RePEc Archive: University of Bonn

41
Maxwell, D., Levin, C., Armar-Klemesu, M., Ruel, M., Morris, S and C.
Ahaideke (2000) Urban Livelihoods and Food and Nutrition Security
in Greater Accra, Ghana. Research Report 112. International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPI): Washington, D.C.
McFadden, L. and C. Green (2007) ‘Defining “vulnerability”:
conflicts, complexities and implications for Coastal Zone
Management’, Journal of Coastal Research, 50: 120-124
Moser, C. O. N. (1998) ‘The Asset Vulnerability Framework:
Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies’, World
Development, 26, 1: 1-19
Moser, C. and J. Holland (1997) ‘Household Responses to Poverty
and Vulnerability. Volume 4: Confronting Crisis in Cawama, Lusaka,
Zambia’, Urban Management Programme Report No. 24,
Washington DC: The World Bank
Naude, W., McGillivray, M. and S. Rossouw (2009) ‘Measuring the
Vulnerability of Subnational Regions in South Africa’, Oxford
Development Studies, 37, 3: 249-275
Naude, W., Santos-Paulino, A. U. and M. McGillivray (2009)
‘Measuring Vulnerability: An Overview and Introduction’, Oxford
Development Studies, 37, 3: 183-191
Rogers, A. C. (1996) ‘Vulnerability, health and health care’, Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 26: 65-72
Saunders, R. (2003) ‘Defining Vulnerability in the Labour Market’,
Vulnerable Workers Series No. 1: Work Network, Canadian Policy
Research Networks
Shu, S. C-F. (1999) ‘Housing Layout and Crime Vulnerability’, in F.
Holanda (ed.) Proceedings, Second International Symposium on
Space Syntax, Universade de Brasilia, 29 March – 2 April 1999
Tipple, G. (2005) ‘Housing and Urban Vulnerability in Rapidly-
Developing Cities’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,
13, 2: 66-75
Turvey, R. (2007) ‘Vulnerability assessment of developing countries:
the case of small island developing states’, Development Policy
Review, 25, 2: 243-264
Yohannes, Y. and P. Webb (1999) ‘Classification and Regression
Trees, CART: A User Manual for Identifying Indicators of Vulnerability
to Famine and Chronic Food Insecurity’, Microcomputers in Policy
Research Paper No. 3, Washington: International Food Policy
Research Institute
Zhang, Y. and G. Wan (2006) ‘An Empirical Analysis of Household
Vulnerability in Rural China’, Journal of Asia Pacific Economy, 11, 2:
196-212
Zhang, Y. and G. Wan (2009) ‘How Precisely Can We Estimate
Vulnerability to Poverty?’, Oxford Development Studies, 37, 3: 277-
28.

42
43