Describe in Detail The Phenomenon of Social Exclusion and Marganilization How Is It Less Threatening Than Proverty?

Describe in detail the phenomenon of social exclusion and marganilization How is it less threatening
than proverty?
Abstract
Historically poverty as a concept considered to be a key factor to design social policy. The social
development normally concerned with socio-economic empowerment of poor of concerned
society. The treatment of poverty is different from society to society. In advanced countries, an
individual who is unable to actively participate in society, has weak social network, environment
, health and education etc is considered to be poor, parallel with financial empowerment is also
considered to be important in these countries but it takes into account with other dimensions of
poverty as well ( Lyberak and Tinios, 2005) while in developing countries, policy focus is on uni
dimensional definition of poverty however this multidimensional poverty concept is also going
to get acceptance in these countries.
This study tries to see the intensity of multidimensional poverty among marginalized class in
Punjab. With the help of two waves of Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) 2007 and 2011,
problem with national level data set is that they do not address issue of marginality, therefore this
study used sample of marginalized class from Zahra and Tasneem (2014) and employee Poison
Regression technique on the extracted sample. The findings reveals that marginalized class has a
great incidence of poverty and poor in multidimensional aspects. Introduction:
Historically poverty as a concept considered to be a key factor to design social policy. The social
development normally concerned with socio-economic empowerment of poor of concerned
society. It is always been a key issue for developing as well as developed countries, however the
nature and treatment of issue is different among nations. The treatment of poverty is different
from society to society. In advanced countries, an individual who is unable to actively participate
in society, has weak social network, environment, health and education etc. is considered to be
poor, parallel with financial empowerment is also considered to be important in these countries
but it takes into account with other dimensions of poverty (Lyberak and Tinios, 2005) while in
developing countries, policy focus is on uni-dimensional definition of poverty where a single
dimension either consumption or income is a strong factor which affect standard of living of an
individual (Wagle, 2005). However this multidimensional poverty concept is also going to get
acceptance in these countries with a perception that an individual’ status in one dimension cannot
represent his status in another dimension. Another important transformation in the literature of
poverty is seen in form of marginality and social exclusion (Ruth et al, 2007, Zoran et al, 2006.
Whelan & Bartrand, 2005).
Marginality and social exclusion is highlighted as policy focuses and treated as an independent
phenomenon related with poverty. In developed countries, especially in Britain, different
initiatives were taken by government and non-government agency to reduce social exclusion
hence poverty. Separate surveys was conducted to see the gross root of the problem, in Canada,
Canadian Institute of health sciences introduce marginality index as a policy measure. In
developing countries, unfortunately very limited literature is available in the area of marginality
and social exclusion. However in India, due to caste inequalities, this issue is getting great
attention of the researchers (World Bank, 2011, Thorat & Nidhi, 2010, Thorat et al 2009, Mitra,
2004). Marginality broadly defines as a state situated at the margin, this could lead toward social
exclusion hence poverty or a marginal person can be out of poverty. On the other hand the term
“social exclusion” is a vibrant, multidimensional process driven by unequal power relationships.
This exclusion can affect individual, household, group, community and countries across four
dimensions i.e. economic, political, social and cultural and make certain object more vulnerable
which leads them to high incidence of poverty (Jennie et al, 2008). In this respect, the study ofpoverty
dynamics could benefit from engaging with, and incorporating, models or detailed
conceptions of multidimensional social exclusion among the marginalized population.
The state of poverty among this marginalized class may be different from other population. This
marginalized class may face exclusion in socio-economic and cultural participation in the society
which deprive them in education, health, networking etc. however the determinants of poverty
may be the same but the effect of these determinants may be different. This article aims to
provide a district level analysis which focus on micro level poverty analysis of this marginalized
class. A number of literature available which theoretically and conceptually establish dimensions
and characteristics of marginalization, addressing processes of restricted participation of this
marginalized class in social, economic, political or cultural life of common society. Nevertheless,
poverty and social exclusion as two descriptions of severe social inequality have often been
mixed up, and hypothesis about their interrelation and characteristics have hardly been tested
empirically. Is poverty the first stage on the way out of society, or are there considerable
differences between the risks of becoming poor or socially excluded? In this contribution this
article proposes the conceptualization and operationalization of social exclusion tendencies and
incidence of poverty in this marginalized class. The empirical analysis employs Poisson
regression analysis to see the determinants of multidimensional poverty among marginalized
class.
4.1. Literature Review
The global importance of urban poverty has been acknowledged due to its investigation in
various dimensions and by being tested on different population cadre. The rapid rural-urban
migration, structural changes in developing economies and globalization is enhancing the issue
of urban poverty and is creating serious problems in the management of urban areas of
developing countries, Pakistan being one of them. One of the evident causes of poverty and
inequality in the urban areas is vulnerability (Susan et al, 2001, WDR, 2001, Oxfam GB Urban
Program, 2009). Poverty is not a uni-dimensional concept and is not the name of material
deprivation but is a set or an outcome of interlocking factors such as physical weakness, socio-
economic isolation, vulnerability and powerlessness (Philip, 2008). This incidence of
vulnerability to poverty is high among socially excluded groups and ultimately these groups are
more vulnerable to health poverty, education poverty and other dimensions of poverty (Jennie et
al, 2008). Since these groups are more vulnerable, they face greater incidence of poverty than therest of
the community. This vulnerability to poverty may be same or different within certain
socially excluded groups and is strongly dependent upon the clan network of households existing
in a marginalized group. Evidence shows a strong impact of social networking on the extent of
vulnerability in these marginalized groups, social relationships of reciprocal exchange and
mutual help in the struggle for the survival play an important role (Bruce, 2004, Margarida, et al
(2007)). Unfortunately these factors leading to poverty have received less attention of the
researchers in Pakistan, mostly research on the issue of poverty in Pakistan explores levels,
trends and dynamics but not much attention is given to the issue of vulnerability to
multidimensional poverty of the marginalized livelihood of this country.

A person is normally considered vulnerable due to deficit consumption but there are other factors
that contribute significantly to make one feel deprived including the shortfall of living needs.
The living standards are highly affected by insecurity and powerlessness of future shortfalls.
Calvo (2008) therefore considered this vulnerability to multidimensional poverty as a form of
hardship that is defined in both conceptual and empirical way. He extended his own index that he
developed in 2005 and used bi-dimensional measures of consumption and leisure. His findings
suggest that these two dimensions are negatively correlated in both rural and urban cases. This
vulnerability is different from poverty much attention is needed to differentiate between
vulnerability and poverty.
Vulnerability is related with poverty but it is not necessary that all poor are vulnerable or all
vulnerable are poor. Angemi (2011) supported this view in his study with the help of household
level analysis within poverty framework. He pointed out that the characteristic of vulnerability is
consistent with the characteristics of poor so by this he found that poverty and vulnerability both
are related with each other. However, an important point of his analysis was that all poor are not
vulnerable while some proportions of non-poor are vulnerable. In the same lines Susan and
Takashi (2002) employed two period panel data set of the North-West Frontier Province,
Pakistan and proved that the sample household was subject to a high risk of income poverty.
Results also revealed the households are more vulnerable to consumption poverty and are
affected by the shock of outside employment as compared to self-employed households. An
important outcome from this analysis concludes that the age, having less land and irregular
sources of income strongly affect the extent of vulnerability among households. Diego (2011) is
of the view that the dynamics of risk and uncertainties are helpful to understand the nature ofpoverty.
By applying the pooled GLS method on the national data sets of Uganda, he discovered
that along with a sharp reduction in poverty, the vulnerability to poverty in Uganda has also
declined, however, the issue of marginalization existed due to geographical segregation. The
results revealed that the central region experienced reduction in incidence of vulnerability while
the rural areas, where 90% of population is living under extreme poverty conditions, the
incidence of vulnerability has increased. Supporting the findings of Diego (2011), a worldly
accepted truth is that this high incidence of vulnerability to poverty is mostly dominant in
socially excluded and marginalized group.
Early research also support the idea of this social exclusion, In industrialized countries, the
evolution of one parent family defines a new pattern of poverty and marginalization. This
marginalization exists not only in labor market of these countries but also exists in the provision
of public housing (HILARY, 1989). On the other hand, David, et al (2000) tried to develop a
baseline for understanding the nature of poverty and social exclusion. They used poverty in
terms of deprivation from goods, services and social activities. They are of the view that this way
of measuring deprivation satisfied both absolute and relative poverty terms. The analysis shows
the there is an increase in the multiple deprivation and poverty in Britain during the survey
period. By identifying these issues in family-cycle approach, Dewilde (2003) tried to develop a
framework of analysis of poverty and social exclusion. As per his views, a life course
perspective re-conceptualizes the traditional approaches and combines their best element into the
analysis of social exclusion hence poverty. He used three sociological perspectives on the life
course i.e. the traditional North-American life course perspective by Elder (1974), the
Continental institutional approach and “political economy of the life course”. With the help of
these three approaches, he proposed a new framework to analyze poverty and social exclusion
relationship over the life course, both theoretically and empirically.
These circumstances of poverty are strongly related with level of social exclusion and parental
social class. The factors that provide the poverty prospects at childhood age due to parental
social class are strongly associated with current lacking of basic infrastructure (Aya, K., 2009).
This was also proved by Christopher et al (2013) with the help of a comparative analysis
between four important factors i.e. social exclusion, parental status, childhood economic status
and state of current poverty. With the help of EU-SILC module, they figured out how the welfare
regimes mediate the impact of parental social class and childhood economic circumstances onpoverty.
Findings showed that by applying social class plan, intergenerational factors have least
impact on income poverty. The other objective of the analysis was to get knowledge about the
impact of parents’ class and childhood economic circumstances on income poverty and it was
discovered that the impact of parent social class on income poverty is weak for social democratic
countries and strong for liberal countries, however social class has high impact on vulnerability.
In case of income poverty the impact of vulnerability is high in relation to both parent’s social
class and childhood economic circumstances. Economic vulnerability has also high impact on
welfare regimes which experienced difficult economic circumstances in childhood.
Franz et al (2011) has provided conceptual and analytical framework in order to explore the root
cause of poverty. They were of the view that there is need to highlight poverty with respect to
marginality. They found marginality to be the root cause of extreme poverty. According to them,
marginality is an involuntary position and is a condition of an individual or group that is at the
brink of social, economic and ecological systems. Such marginality prevents affected
communities to utilize resources, assets and service and all other factors, that become the cause
of poverty. They define poverty as a matter of absolute deficiencies as perceived by the poor.
They look poverty as a relative, subjective, dynamic and systematic mechanism and concluded
marginality as a pattern of causal complexes in a societal and spatial dimension.
Nayar (2007) is of the view that poverty and social exclusion that are significant socio-economic
variables and are generally ignored while estimating ill-health effects. Social exclusion mainly
refers to the inability of a society to realize its full potential while keeping all groups and
individuals within reach. The relationship between caste and health indicator shows that poverty
is a complicated issue that requires to be addressed with a multi-dimensional facet.
Literature no doubt covers issues of poverty, marginality and social exclusion on very broad
way. Valuable input was given by different authors to explore issues of poverty among
marginalized class. But there is a lack of literature available in identification of marginal and
socially excluded population from poverty and social status dataset. Researchers made effort by
conducting survey of marginalized group but that was not at province or national level, however
the importance of defining socially excluded class at national level is vibrant. Therefore this
study identifies marginal population from existing dataset and analyzes extent of their
multidimensional poverty in Punjab. 4.2. Theoretical Framework
Poverty is a long term debate and developing countries are targeting to be free of poverty by
2015, the millennium development goals directly and indirectly target poverty eradication and
aims for a good standard of living for the livelihood of the society. To eradicate extreme poverty
and to make people out of extreme hunger requires a good educational infrastructure; reduced
child mortality, improved maternal health and gender equality and enhanced women
empowerment (United Nation, 2007). These goals not only help to reduce poverty among
general population but also address the issue of social exclusion in the deprived class. The
gender inequality is considered to be one of the important factors of social and economic
exclusion, women in developing countries have fewer opportunities to grow in education and
professional life, and globally around 25% of senior positions have been occupied by women but
are paid 23% less than men on average. Although in paid job women share has been increased by
40% but still there is a large room for improvement (David et al, 2011). In education and health
sector, these women are discriminated, and have fewer chances to avail good health and
education facilities as maternal mortality in developing world is fifteen times higher than the
developed world. The least developed economies face serious challenges in eradication such
exclusion in their respective countries. Progress towards reducing poverty is slower which
addresses policy gaps in achieving the target. Policies overlook the depth in the issues of poverty
and take poverty at general level, but the population who is actually excluded from rest is
ignored, that population is living below poverty line and marginalized in participating socio-
economic activities with rest of the population of the region. Unfortunately pro-poor growth
ignores this important aspect of poverty. The facts shows progress is slower in developing world
where globalization is seen in form of higher rural-urban migration but on other side, the
economic and social side is still deprived and fails to meet the challenges of this higher rate of
rural-urban migration. This causes an increase in the burden of city management and also an
increase in the size of the excluded area within the city or periphery of the city. Such population
is marginalized while living in the slums and katchi abadies of urban area and face a lack of
opportunities to acquire skills and access to labor market. This marginalized population then
becomes socially and ethnically excluded from the rest of the society and has less access to
educational, health and other urban services. This marginalization defines boundaries between groups
living in a society, some groups are
economically excluded and to some extent social inclusion prevail in such group, but on the
other hand some are demographically and economically excluded, in a society of developed as
well as developing countries, therefore marginalization can be considered as a process in which a

community or individual lives at margin and gradually become economically, culturally, socially
and politically excluded from rest of population (Zahra and Tasneem, 2014). There are some
deprived groups who are excluded in all dimensions of exclusion and spent deprived and
vulnerable life even being part of that society. Thus marginality leads to social exclusion in long
run and this social exclusion is blamed to be primarily responsible for social conflict due to its
inability to transform itself since it is strongly connected to the systems of oppression and
domination.
Figure 4.1:
Usually poverty links with material lacks, it has theoretical as well as strategic importance, but
the increasing understanding is that poverty is not just a name of material lacks, but also
associated with restricted access to resources that can make an individual or household well off.
UN has defined poverty through the “capability approach” and “the human rights approach”.
These inter-related themes provide an enriched understanding of poverty and we can define
poverty as: “A human condition characterized by the sustained or chronic deprivation of the resources,
capabilities, choices, security and power necessary for the enjoyment of an adequate standard of
living and other civil, cultural, economic, social and political rights”1
In continuation of defining poverty, Oxfam (2009) extends this definition into four dimensions,
these dimension includes social exclusion, relative and income poverty as well as relative
poverty status. Poverty can be defined as:
“Poverty can’t be comprehensively defined by a single approach; it needs to cover the aspects of
not having enough to either live on or to build from and being excluded either from wealth or
from the power to change for betterment, these sums up to four areas.”2
Thus poverty cannot be restricted to income and expenditure but it is the name of deprivation of
the resources that makes an individual better off in his social, economic, cultural and political
life. Oxfam (2009) also explains social exclusion as the fourth dimension of poverty. Exclusion
causes poverty, this relation may be causal and may make people vulnerable and then poor, this
marginality emerges due to certain groups’ representation from ethnic minority, deprived class,
deprived gender and due to lack of participation in social life, restricted access toward living
facilities etc that causes vulnerability amongst these groups and in turn poverty in the long run.
This marginality has two way relationships with poverty, it enforces people to be poor or poverty
enforces people to be marginalized. Individual or settlements being excluded from the dimension
of development and progress move towards extreme poverty. The people that are affected by
poverty and exclusion are considered to be the marginalized poor (ZEF, 2011).
Poverty is ex post phenomenon of social exclusion, it is caused by marginality or vice versa. A
vulnerable household can be in and out of poverty over time depending on the future income
prospects, expenditure stream, and accessibility to social services. A marginalized household can
be poor or non-poor. A marginalized household considers being poor or more sensitive to
shocks if that household has:
i. Low level of human capital, knowledge and access to skill improvement
UN, 2007 quoted in Oxfam, 2009
Oxfam, 200ii. Suffers from physical or psychological disabilities and poor access to health facilities
iii. Poor infrastructure and have less capacity to improve it
iv. Few productive and financial assets and has limited access to credit market
v. Poor social networking and excluded from normal lives of society.
vi. Poor access to job market opportunity.
Therefore:
A marginalized household is considered to be poor if it has a limited access to the living
needs, has limited or restricted access to social, economic and political life of its society due
to residential, societal, spatial, environmental deprivations etc. and has poor capacity to
ensure good standard of living for its members.
4.3. Methodology
The geographical focus of this paper is Punjab, Pakistan which is an economic hub of the
country. The dynamic nature of agriculture and industrial production along with having major
population share of the country makes it more important than other areas. Punjab witness major
urbanization in past few decades and trade liberalization is not proved to be beneficent for entire
population and segments of urban areas remain in extreme poverty. Numbers of studies are
available which covers issues of poverty in Punjab as well as Pakistan. The focus of the extent of
poverty and inequality among household, however advance level analysis on poverty is rare in
literature. In Pakistan, the studies based on the household level determinants of poverty are no
exception. Primary data from the combined round of PIHS was used by Siddiqui (2007) whereas
Siddiqui, A. (2009) used PSLM 2004-05 survey. Sikander (2009) use the data from Multiple
Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS)-2003-04 to analyze the determinants of poverty in Punjab.
Malik (1996) used self-collected data on a rural locality called “Wanda” (District Bhakkar,
Punjab). His results were based on a sample of size 100 and however were not nationally
representative for inference about the determinants of poverty.
The analysis of marginalization and poverty in this study is based on two waves of data from
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) conducted in 2007-08 and 2011-2012. In 2007-08,
91,280 households drawn to be participated in data collection process from which 59456 were
rural and 31824 were urban. Of this sample 594851 individual from urban and rural areasii. Suffers from
physical or psychological disabilities and poor access to health facilities
iii. Poor infrastructure and have less capacity to improve it
iv. Few productive and financial assets and has limited access to credit market
v. Poor social networking and excluded from normal lives of society.
vi. Poor access to job market opportunity.
Therefore:
A marginalized household is considered to be poor if it has a limited access to the living
needs, has limited or restricted access to social, economic and political life of its society due
to residential, societal, spatial, environmental deprivations etc. and has poor capacity to
ensure good standard of living for its members.
4.3. Methodology
The geographical focus of this paper is Punjab, Pakistan which is an economic hub of the
country. The dynamic nature of agriculture and industrial production along with having major
population share of the country makes it more important than other areas. Punjab witness major
urbanization in past few decades and trade liberalization is not proved to be beneficent for entire
population and segments of urban areas remain in extreme poverty. Numbers of studies are
available which covers issues of poverty in Punjab as well as Pakistan. The focus of the extent of
poverty and inequality among household, however advance level analysis on poverty is rare in
literature. In Pakistan, the studies based on the household level determinants of poverty are no
exception. Primary data from the combined round of PIHS was used by Siddiqui (2007) whereas
Siddiqui, A. (2009) used PSLM 2004-05 survey. Sikander (2009) use the data from Multiple
Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS)-2003-04 to analyze the determinants of poverty in Punjab.
Malik (1996) used self-collected data on a rural locality called “Wanda” (District Bhakkar,
Punjab). His results were based on a sample of size 100 and however were not nationally
representative for inference about the determinants of poverty.
The analysis of marginalization and poverty in this study is based on two waves of data from
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) conducted in 2007-08 and 2011-2012. In 2007-08,
91,280 households drawn to be participated in data collection process from which 59456 were
rural and 31824 were urban. Of this sample 594851 individual from urban and rural areascovered with a
wide range of socio-economic issues on living condition, economic situation,
health and education, housing etc. in data collected in 2011-12, 3102048 household was covered,
in which 3488 was urban and 3788 are rural, and this data set also covered more than 90
indicators from different socio-economic perspective. The unit of observation for the analysis of
this study is individual resides in urban areas of Punjab, Pakistan.
4.3.1. Empirical Model and Estimation Procedure
This paper is primarily concern with the measurement poverty among marginalized people of
Punjab with immediate focus on whether these people are living in extreme poverty or out of
poverty. The definition behind is that poverty is a relative concern which can be explain with
economic and social wellbeing, capability and social inclusion. Whereas marginalized and
socially excluded concept is another important dimension of the study which has been extracted
from Zahra and Tasneem (2014). The flow of empirical analysis based on marginalized
population as this study is concerned about measurement of poverty among marginalized people.
Zahra and Tasneem (2014) extract marginalized and socially excluded population in urban areas
of Punjab with the help of Index and calculate income inequalities of the socially excluded
population of all cities of Punjab.
Multidimensional poverty has been evaluated with different techniques in literature. Ramya et al
(2014) and Labar &Bresson (2011) estimated multidimensional poverty index based on alkair
foster measure, whereas Mahlberg & Obersteiner (2001), Sikander and Mudassar (2008) and
Merz & Rathjen (2011) used logit regression to see multidimensional poverty. Wagle (2005)
contributed in literature by introducing index based estimation of multidimensional poverty and
used structural equation modeling. Literature support a wide range of methodologies which used
structural as well as simultaneous equation modeling. Attention has now been diverting to
analyze the impact of different deprivation on extent of multidimensional poverty. The extent of
multidimensional poverty can be seen with the help of number of areas in which a specific
household or individual is deprived (Alkair & Foster, 2011, Jhon et al. 2013). Dimensions in
which household or individual are deprived measured as count data (number of dimension in
which each individual is deprived) are assessed with Poisson regression, a useful technique for
count data modeling. It is one of the robust model for discrete data modeling with an assumption
that the dependent variable (number of dimensions in which individual is poor) is distributed asPoisson
and its logarithm is a linear function if independent variables. Wang & Famoya (1997)
used this technique for the modeling of household fertility decision, Femoya et al (2004) made
an application of this model on accidental data, John et al (2013) use this to assess
multidimensional poverty in Nigeria.
Poisson regression capture discrete and non-negative nature of data, the second advantage of
Poisson regression is that it allows inference to be drawn on the probability of occurrence
(Winkelmann and Zimmermann 1995). Another important feature of Poisson regression is that
dependent variable is modeled as a deterministic function of independent or explanatory
variables, therefore randomness is fundamental and not because of other factors.
The dependent variable in the model is the number of dimension in which an individual is poor
with non-negative numbers. An individual’s deprivation in different dimension is based on
different socio-economic and demographic characteristics, the expected value of dependent
variable (y) on a set of explanatory variables (x) can be written as:
(
⁄)
Where
Y = dependent variable
x = set of explanatory variables such as health, education, assets, social wellbeing, environmental
wellbeing, economic inclusion etc.
e = base of natural logarithm
x’ = transpose of x
β = the vector of parameters
Above equation shows that E(y/x) is greater than zero, therefore an individual deprived in
number of dimensions conditional on x is the Poisson distributed with a probability of
⁄)
Where y = 1, 2, 3…8The maximum likelihood poison multidimensional poverty equation can be:
∑(
X’s in above equation are the set of independent socio-economic variables which describe
individual’s characteristics. The full model therefore can be written as:
Where
δi = the expected number of dimension in which individual is poor
e = the base of natural logrithem
β0 = the intercept
βj’s = coefficient of regression
xj’s = explanatory variables
4.3.2. Explanation of Variables:
The study takes “number of dimension in which an individual is deprived” as dependent
variable. To calculate the number of dimension in which an individual can be poor, Alkair foster
(2010) methodology helps to measure dimensions of poverty. Furthermore Ataguba et al (2013)
also used same technique to find dimensions in which an individual can be poor. Taseer and
Zaman (2013) use this technique to show time series breakdown in multidimensional poverty in
Pakistan. This methodology uses dual cut-offs to find dimension adjusted measure of poverty
and is better than other methodologies as it satisfy assumption of monotonicity and
decomposability.
To identify and measure multidimensional poverty, head-counts and dimension adjusted head
count rations are used. The dimension adjusted head count M0 can be calculated as:
where H0 is the proportion of people who are deprived in certain dimension and A is the mean
share of deprivation among the poor, M0 use as dependent variable in the model. Internationally
eleven dimensions has been selected to measure multidimensional poverty among household orThe
maximum likelihood poison multidimensional poverty equation can be:
∑(
)
Where
β0 = the intercept
decomposability.
eleven dimensions has been selected to measure multidimensional poverty among household orThe
maximum likelihood poison multidimensional poverty equation can be:
∑(
Where
β0 = the intercept
decomposability.
eleven dimensions has been selected to measure multidimensional poverty among household
orindividuals but in case of MICS dataset, it is only useful to calculate seven dimensions. These
include economic, housing, air quality, health, education, water & sanitation, assets. Detail
composition of these dimensions in given in annexure.
The contribution of human capital to poverty alleviation is proved by previous literature. The
development of human capital leads to an increase in standard of living at household level.
Communities with more low-skilled workers in general are more likely to experience high rates
of poverty. The educational attainment as measure of the quality of human capital is important,
High educational attainment may imply a greater set of employment opportunities which cause
to decrease poverty (Cameron, 2000; chaudhary et al, 2009). The availability of education
facilities serve as main indicator of remains poor. If the household have an accessibility of
school then there is a greater chance to get rid from poverty. Theory shows a fundamental
impact of health on households, it is considered that the accessibility to health services directly
influence the productivity of individual household (McDonough et al, 2009; Zhong, 2009).
Another indicator of housing standards is access to electricity. The housing indicators also affect
the standard of living of households. Employment is considered as an important factor to affect
poverty. The occupational affiliation of the head of household is found to be an important
determinant of poverty. . The empirical results suggested that the industry specific employment
is necessary for reducing poverty (increased per capita consumption and ultimately per capita
food consumption) (Sikander, 2009). The employment trend is defined by participation rate
which is the ratio of the number of workers to the number of adults in a household. The
participation rate is expected to be negatively correlated to poverty. Household income is an
important determinant of household expenditure since it serves as the budget constraints to the
amount that can be spent within a period, there is also bound to be correlation between income
and poverty level of a household, all other things being equal. The household income is also
important to define the poor and non-poor households for further analysis. In economic
perspective, to judge, the standard of living of households, the household Property and Assets
which contains the land, livestock and other accessories of life is also play role to determine the
poverty level among households.

As this paper is more concerned with relative poverty related with socio-economic inclusion,
capability etc. Therefore this study also uses some indices based on socio-economic
characteristics of individual and household from where s/he belongs developed by Wagle (2005) The
integration of different theories would develop a realistic picture of poverty. This study uses
different dimension of poverty as explanatory variable i.e. economic inclusion, social wellbeing,
capabilities and environmental wellbeing. The index of economic inclusion is developed with
the help of different variables which affect an individual in his economic life. Theories suggest a
strong link between employment type, access to finance and occupation with standard of living
(Athinkson 1999, Wagle, 2005). The employment in executive and professional fields,
employment in other fields, income, wealth and employment of HHH’s partner are some of
indicators which are important for economic inclusion of a person. Theory suggests that social
wellbeing can be measured by housing condition, electricity, access to safe drinking water,
access to secure housing tenure, type of toilet facility, type of cooking fuel and type of assets etc.
The index of social wellbeing helps to predict the contribution of this index in the poverty status
of household. The approach to measure capabilities of household to earn and to make its standard
of living better proves to be important for poverty analysis. Previous literature support that
educational achievement, health status, gender related discrimination within households,
household head health and access to health facilities as indicators of capability.(Sen, 1992,
UNDP, 2000, Wagle, 2005, Alkair, 2007). Finally, the index of environmental wellbeing also
plays an important role in determining the level of poverty among urban household, this index
include such indicators which directly affect the health of household, the access of safe water,
proper sanitation and solid waste disposal facilities can be considered some important aspects of
environment condition. All indices are calculated with the help of principle component analysis.
4.3.3. Marginal population in various poverty bands
The estimation of poverty line is very helpful to define various bands of poverty such as
extremely poor, ultra poor, non-poor etc. (Economic Survey of Pakistan 2007). Population which
consumes less than 50% income of poverty line categorize as extremely poor, whereas
population which lies between income groups (more than 25% of poverty line income) is
considered as non-poor.
Table 4.1: Marginal population in various poverty bands
2007-08 2011-12Income based poverty line
($1.5 per day)
Food consumption
based poverty (Rs.
1668)3
Extremely Poor > 50% 40.8 94
Ultra Poor 50% <X>75% 30.0 4.1
Poor 75% <X>100% 11.0 1.2
vulnerable 100% <X>125% 5.8 0.3
Non poor 125% <X 6.8 0.4
Around 70% of total population live within extremely poor and ultra-poor and only 6.8% of
marginal class live out of poverty in 2007 while in 2011 the poverty line is based on expenditure
approach, where 94% population live in extreme poverty.
4.3.4. Poisson Regression Analysis and Results
The results from poison regression analysis is presented in table 4.2, the study use four models
(two for each data set) to prove hypothesis. Theory suggest a chain of marginality, social
exclusion and poverty, therefore model 1 of each dataset shows results which includes
marginality as explanatory variable, while model 2 contains all other variable of model one and
use social exclusion index as independent variable to prove the theoretical link. We found that
coefficient has correct signs as defined in theory except some minor contradictions.
Table 4.2: Poisson Regression Output (2007-08)
Dependent Variable: poverty counts
Model 1 Model 2
Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient Standard Error
Income -.000261*** 0.000157 -.000259*** .000157
Poor Health .00362 .01121 .001378 .011224
No Education (reference)
Pre-primary -.238136*** .019691 -.22552*** .01975

Primary -.254944*** .008643 -.23253*** .009776
Middle -.26673*** .0107994 -.237417*** .012318
Planning Commission of Pakistan, 2011Matric -.292634*** .022817 -.25584*** .023737
Higher -.292006*** .0278123 -.25359*** .028669
Madrassa -.316337*** .0978124 -.28196*** .098035
Poor Housing Condition .11037*** .00729 .11064*** .00729
Occupation -.00135*** .000102 -.00130 .000104
Assets -.21986** .09553 -..19139** ..095745
Capability -.315201*** ..035955 -.26964*** .036493
Environment wellbeing .26406*** .03086 .26964*** .03087
Social wellbeing -.71456*** .096468 -.724314*** .096684
Economic wellbeing -.55788*** .072224 -..632038*** .070282
Marginality index -.03103** .007036 - -
Social exclusion index - - .02941 .00722
Log likelihood
Pseudo R2
LR χ2 (12)
Prob > χ2
-50127.518
.0239
2457.01
0.0000
-50129
.0239
2454.04
0.0000
Results shows that income has a negative impact on the proportion of dimension in which
household can be poor, increase in income level will reduce poverty threats by .02%
(e0.0002=1.00), keeping all other variable constant. The coefficient is significant at 1%. This also
proves the importance of multidimensional poverty that income has contributory role if defining
a person poor but not has a unique role. While occupation of an individual also plays a negative
impact on the possibility to be poor and can draw him out from poverty, individual who has good
mean of earning than an individual with no or odd job has lesser threat of poverty by 13%
(e.0013= ) at 1% level of significance. As well as education of individual is concerned, compared
to those individuals who are illiterate, people having incomplete primary education, threat of
poverty lower by 23% (e0.2381 = 1.269), compared to not being literate, people having primary
education is found to be at minimal threat of poverty by 25% (e 0.2549 = 1.290 ) again assuming
all other variable constant. for those persons, who have matric and higher education has a lesser
threat to be poor by 29% (e 0.2926 = 1.339). As well as housing conition is concerned, the variable
reported those individual who have poor housing condition, the result shows a positiverelationship of
both variable, compared to people living in better housing, the threat to be poor
for those individual living in poor housing is increased by 11%(e 0.1103 = 1.116). The coefficient
of housing is significant at 1%. An individual who has good amount of assets is also better off as
compared to individual with no assets, the possibility to be poor for that individual is lower by
21% (e 0.2198 = 1.245) while holding all other variable constant. Capability to be better off has
also strongly affect the status of poverty of an individual, a person with good capabilities has a
31% (e0.3152
= 1.530 ) less chances to be in multidimensional poverty than a person with no
capabilities. Economic inclusion also lower the risk of poverty, an individual who has greater
inclusion in economic activities has 55% (e 0.5578 = 1.746) chances of deprivation in different
dimension that a person with no economic inclusion. Similar with social wellbeing, person with
greater social and civic services has less chances of deprivation than a person with no social and
civic services. The coefficient is significant at 1% level. Model 2 has almost same results with
same nature of relationship.
Table 4.3: Poisson Regression Output (2011-12)
Dependent Variable: poverty counts

Model 1 Model 2
Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient Standard Error
Food Exp -.00035** .000151 .000346** .000513
Poor Health .28101*** .050004 .26754*** .04996
No Education
(reference)
Pre-primary .241633*** .05386 .244616*** .053865
Primary .225908*** .00840 .231517*** .008779
Middle -.03337** .01031 -.03517** .011005
Matric -.045371*** .00970 -.028226** .010339
Higher -.04938*** .00677 -.028919** .01123
Poor Housing
Condition
.04979** .016667 .03649** .01650
Occupation .000184 .000239 .000205 .000239
Assets -2.3437*** .161364 -2.4809*** .16043Capability -.173256** .069413 -.151884** .06940
Social wellbeing 3.6445*** .12478 3.7985*** .12019
Economic
inclusion
-.163873*** .022886 -.10671*** .01974
Marginality
index
.035296*** .006772 - -
Social exclusion
index
- - .01079** .00513
Log likelihood
Pseudo R2
LR χ2 (12)
Prob > χ2
-58456
.019
2275.35
0.0000
-58468.287
.0189
2252.63
0.0000
Results of Poisson regression of 2011-12 data wave had only expenditure data while income
aspect of household has been ignored. Therefore above table has two variables missing due to
non-availability of data, one is income of an individual and the other is environmental wellbeing
while one variable is additional i.e. expenditures. According to results, expenditure has
negatively affect the risk to be in poverty, increase in expenditure will down deprivation by .03%
(e0.0003=1.00), keeping all other variable constant. The coefficient is significant at 5%. As well as
education of individual is concerned, compared to those individuals who are illiterate, people
having incomplete primary education, threat of poverty increase by 24% (e0.2416 = 1.269),
compared to not being literate, people having middle level education is found to be at minimal
threat of poverty by 3% (e 0.0333 = 1.034 ) again assuming all other variable constant. for those
persons, who have matric and higher education has a lesser threat to be poor by 5% (e 0.0497
1.051). As well as housing condition is concerned, the variable reported those individual who
have poor housing condition, the result shows a positive relationship of both variable, compared
to people living in better housing, the threat to be poor for those individual living in poor housing
is increased by 5%(e 0.0497 = 1.051). The coefficient of housing is significant at 5%. Capability to
be better off has also strongly affect the status of poverty of an individual, a person with good
capabilities has a 17% (e 0.1732 = 1.189) less chances to be in multidimensional poverty than a
person with no capabilities. Economic inclusion also lower the risk of poverty, an individual whohas
greater inclusion in economic activities has 16% (e 0.1638 = 1.178) chances of deprivation in
different dimension that a person with no economic inclusion. Similar with marginality index
and social exclusion index, person with higher marginality and social exclusion has high threat
tobe poor in different dimensions than a person who is not at marginal position and not socially
excluded. Model 2 of this wave also shows similar results with same nature of relationship.
The results showing almost significant relationship with relationship with poverty perceived in
theory expect some of variable which shows opposite results. Above results shows a picture of
poverty in two time period i.e. 2007-08 and 2011-12 respectively, increase in income and
expenditure making an individual better off and reduce chances to be in poverty. An individual
with high income and good nutrition can access living facilities well and can be more productive
than a person with less food consumption (Headey, 2008), result also shows a negative and
significant impact of income and expenditure on deprivation and poverty in both waves. Wealth
of an individual also includes type and number of assets which an individual have, therefore the
state of poverty is strongly depends upon the asset ownership of an individual or household
(Moser, 1998, 2006). Results shows a negative, strong and significant relationship of assets
ownership on risk of multidimensional poverty, a person with good assets has lower chances to
be poor in different dimension than a person with no assets. Same relationship is proved by
Meck & Lansley (1985) and Milton (2003), where lack of assets make a person more poor.
Liverpool and Alex (2010) shows a positive impact of asset building on consumption
expenditure.
Another important determinant of poverty is education which is proved by results from both
waves. To make a detail analysis, we split education into different levels and compare risk to be
poor with illiterate person. The higher education lower chances of poverty, Haroon (2009) shows
a positive impact of education on expenditures of household, Dewilde (2004) proves that with
increase in educational attainment, the risk of poverty has been reduced, he tested this theory
both on uni-dimensional and multidimensional poverty risk, results also reflect theoretical base,
first wave supports the attainment in education lower the chances for household to be poor, all
results are significant at 1% level, while second wave (2011-12) shows a positive relation of
education attainment till primary level with poverty risk for an individual, while education
attainment (above primary and onward) will lower risk of poverty significantly. Jhon et al (2013)
also found a positive impact of education attainment till primary on multidimensional povertycounts,
similarly Dewilde (2004) also found greater proportion of population with higher
education within poverty. Narrayan et al (2000) and Meck & Lansley (1985) also highlight
assets, income and education as important determinants of poverty.
Alkire (2008) gives high importance to housing condition as it plays very important role in
defining multidimensional poor. If a person living in poor housing, his chances of living in
poverty is greater, poor housing will reduce chances of having good living facilities, relax life
style and productive socio-economic contribution (Taseer and Zaman, 2013). Results support
theory and prove a significant impact of poor housing on chances to be remain in poverty. As
well as health of an individual is concerned, in case of first wave, results are insignificant and
positive toward risk of poverty, while second wave shows highly significant and positive
relationship of poor health of a person.
Sen (1992) approach of capability was define as a transformed area of poverty research, further
OPHI measure by Alkier and Foster (2008) also focused on this dimension. She gave due
importance to capabilities in definition of multidimensional poverty measurement. Results show
a negative relation between capabilities and to be in risk of poverty. The improvement in
capability will reduce the chances of poverty. Wagle (2005) also proves a negative relation
between poverty and capability improvement. Similarly index of environment wellbeing has a
negative impact on poverty and environmental up gradation ensure a betterment in standard of
living of an individual. There is a significant contribution of environment hazards in urban
poverty, degradation of renewable resources i.e. fresh water and poor mean of waste
management lead toward poor standard of living (Satterthwait, 2003). The index of social
wellbeing also shows expected relation and negatively affect the risk of poverty, an individual
who is socially empower has less chances to capture in the trap of poverty then a socially
deprived person.
The relationship between marginality and poverty shows different results in two waves, during
2007-08, relationship shows a negative relationship, here one thing which should be consider
while explaining this relationship is marginality index is in form of least to most marginal, the
increase in value of marginality index shows high marginalization of specific individual,

therefore if we assume marginality leads to poverty then the expected relationship between
dependent variable and marginality index is positive which exist in 2001-12 data results, however
according to Franz et al (2011), it is not necessary that a marginalized person is poor or
a poor is marginalized, however both are interlinked, therefore results support the theory
presented by Franzs et al (2011) that in 2007-08, a negative relationship between marginality
index and poverty counts is reported, however in second wave relationship is positive and
increase in marginality would cause an increase in poverty counts. According to (Sen, 2000), the
concept of social exclusion takes into account as a root cause of poverty. The composition of
social exclusion index is similar as composition of marginality index, higher value shows higher
exclusion or vice versa. Both data results show a positive and significant relationship between
social exclusion and poverty counts. An increase in social exclusion would cause ultimate
poverty in different dimension of socially excluded person.
4.4. Conclusion
The study tried to analyze the determinants of poverty among marginalized population of urban
Punjab. For this purpose, two waves of Multiple Indicator Cluster survey (MICS) of the year
2007-08 and 2011-12 has been used. Among a sample set of more than two hundred thousand,
around 96000 were reported as marginalized based on marginality index, and 33629 were drawn
as socially excluded from marginal group, rest of population is considered as marginal but not
socially excluded.
Results verify hypothesis and question that marginality becomes a root cause of extreme poverty.
As well as multidimensional poverty of this marginal class in concerned, then population with no
education or low level of education is highly poor in multidimensional way, the extent of
economic inclusion, social betterment, capability improvement also positively affect an
individual and his poverty count is reduced with the betterment of above mentioned indicators.
Overall results confirm objective and research question that marginality cause poverty.
On the determinants side, the income support programs cannot break the vicious circle of
poverty until and unless policy focus convert toward the determinants of poverty. Along with
education, health and housing, the role of capabilities, environment, exclusion and marginality
cant be ignored. There is a strong link of these variables with poverty. Therefore a need to focus
on these determinants is important and despite of providing them income, skills, education and
other related factors should be focus of policy. Marginality and social exclusion may be a new
concept of poverty for policy making, but we can’t deny this fact that in Pakistan, the focus ofpoverty
reduction strategies is on curative measures, not on preventive measures. Therefore those
factors which exclude a household or individual from community is not at target of policy
makers.
This study is a basic attempt to highlight the poverty among marginalized and socially excluded
people of the province Punjab and also analyze the determinants of their poverty structure.
However the lack of appropriate dataset and some indicators is the main problem which we faced
while compiling analysis empirically. This exercise with the help of some national level surveys
can be possible at country level. Countries are going to treat marginal communities separately to
make specific policies of the benefits but in Pakistan very few literature found in related subject
but no dataset exist which could cover issues of marginal community specifically. A need to
target marginal class and their problem though survey and research is vibrant.
A new diverted focus of policy should be on the treatment of poverty among disadvantaged
class. The separate survey to target marginalized communities is not possible but a possibility to
include this dimension in some national and provincial level data set can fulfill the purpose.
These people have a different nature of issues in their social, economic and cultural lives which
is related with service delivery despite of providing them infrastructure. The monitoring and
evaluation system by using GIS techniques and online servers can reduce the threat of social
exclusion in Punjab as well as in Pakistan. POVERTY AND social exclusion continue to pose major
challenges to governments across
the world. As has been noted in the context of poverty, it is a global phenomenon which
affects all states to different extents and is not confined to the developing world.1
Both
conditions relate to the denial of or absence of resources, opportunities, or rights, which
affects participation in society on equal terms with others, with at times, affected persons
being in a situation where even basic needs for survival are denied or cannot be accessed. The
World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 affirmed that, “extreme poverty and social
exclusion constitute a violation of human dignity”.2
In this light, both conditions can be seen
as impacting the right to life of affected persons or groups, as far as life is understood as life
with dignity.
As the Eleventh Five Year Plan document noted in the context of India, there have been a
number of positive developments as concerns economic growth, investor perception, etc., but
at the same time, a “major weakness” of the economy is that “growth is not perceived as
being sufficiently inclusive for many groups, especially Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled
Ph.D. Scholar, Indian Law Institute, New Delhi.
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation
of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Poverty and the International Covenant
on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Statement Adopted by the Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural
Rights, E/C.12/2001/10 (4 May 2001), para 5.
2Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action 1993, para 25, available at:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/Vienna.aspx (last visited on Sep. 12, 2015). Tribes

(STs) and Minorities”.3
Similarly, although the incidence of poverty is reducing in
percentage terms, a large number of persons still continue to be poor.4
In other words, growth
in economic terms may not necessarily be inclusive or of itself reduce poverty significantly.
Social exclusion and poverty are not identical but can be said to have certain common
elements such as exclusion from or denial of access to resources and opportunities, both
constituting a violation of dignity, and imposing constraints under which human rights cannot
be enjoyed in the same manner as by others in society. They have also been seen to impact
each other as causes or vulnerability factors.
This paper seeks to look into these issues from the point of view of human rights and
attempts to explore the role of a human rights framework in addressing the issues of social
exclusion and poverty. The first and second sections look into the concepts of social
exclusion and poverty, respectively, particularly in the context of human rights. The third
section focuses on the relationship between social exclusion and poverty, attempts to
highlight commonalities and differences, as well as to show how these phenomena impact on
each other. As both poverty and social exclusion are related concepts and are also concerned
with the denial of rights, the final section considers the role that a comprehensive human
rights framework can play towards addressing these issues.
Social exclusion
Social exclusion, as the name suggests relates to exclusion from mainstream society. Social
exclusion or “being ‘set apart’ or excluded from resources or opportunities confers
disadvantage on certain groups”.5
The term owes its origin to France, where it was first used
in the mid 1970s in the context of individuals unable to access welfare entitlements.6
The term, however, does not have a universal or generally accepted definition, with different
commentators and institutions defining the term differently. As Deshpande notes, while the
literal meaning of the concept of social exclusion may be easy to grasp, “its operational
meaning is hard to capture”.7
Social exclusion has been defined in terms of violation or denial of rights, centring on,
though not limited to social rights. As defined by India in an ILO country case study, it is
“the denial of the basic welfare rights which provide citizens positive freedom to participate
in the social and economic life, and which thereby render meaningful their fundamental
Planning Commission of India, 11th Five Year Plan (2007-2012), Ch. 1: Inclusive Growth 1(Planning
Commission, Government of India).

4
For instance, as noted in the Twelfth Plan Document, rural poverty between the years 2004–05 to
2009–10
(head count ratio) reduced from 41.79 to 33.8 and urban poverty from 25.68 to 20.9. See, Planning
Commission,
Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017), III Social Sectors 221 (Sage Publications, New Delhi, 2013).
5Ashwini Deshpande, “Exclusion and Inclusive Growth” 3 (UNDP, 2013), available at:
http://www.in.undp.org/content/dam/india/docs/human-development/exclusion-and-inclusive-
growth.pdf (last
visited on Sep. 11, 2015). As Kansra observes, “[t]he process of social exclusion is directly concerned
with the
marginalized groups excluded by mainstream society from fully participating in social and political life”.
Deepa
Kansra, Contemporary Democratic Theory: A Critique of the Status of Rights, Governance, and
Constitutionalism”, unpublished Ph.D Thesis, (Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi, 2010).
Kathy Arthurson, “Editorial”, 39 (1) Australian Journal of Social Issues 3 (2004).
Deshpande, supra note 5 at 1. negative freedoms”.8
Similarly, the definition by Russia in its country study also takes
account of social rights. It states: 9
[S]ocial exclusion is both an objective and a subjective feature of people’s rights.
As an objective condition, it is characterized by material deprivation and
infringement of social rights (including rights related to employment for the
employed and unemployed). As a subjective feeling, it is characterized by a sense
of social inferiority in the community or a loss of prior social status.
Another commentator, Landman “argues that social exclusion is a form of rights violation if
systematic disproportionality of treatment of people across social, economic, and political
spheres can be demonstrated”, and “human rights deficits can increase people’s vulnerability
to exclusion”.10 Thus, Landman views inequalities or gaps between groups as a feature of

exclusion which makes it a rights violation, and absence of full enjoyment of rights as a
vulnerability factor, rather than as causing exclusion of itself, unlike, for instance, India’s
definition in its country study wherein the denial of social rights itself (which affects
participation and enjoyment of other rights) constitutes exclusion. However, it would be also
be important to note, as Kansra observes, that “ironically, the fact of social exclusion exists
and grows within the established rights framework of the state”.11 In other words, while
social exclusion relates to violations of social rights and also to the exercise of “negative”
rights, it also exists within a system of rights, which fact would be important to bear in mind
when considering solutions.12
Levitas, in their study on a multi-dimensional analysis of social exclusion develop the
following working definition: 13
Social exclusion is a complex and multi-dimensional process. It involves the
lack or denial of resources, rights, goods and services, and the inability to
participate in the normal relationships and activities, available to the majority
of people in society, whether in economic, social, cultural or political arenas.
It affects both the quality of life of individuals and the equity and cohesion of
society as a whole.
Jehoel- Gijsbers and Vrooman set out a conceptual framework for social exclusion, also
treating it as a multidimensional phenomenon, which includes four elements, namely,
material deprivation and inadequate access to government and semi-government provisions
(social rights), which together comprise “economic or structural exclusion”, and insufficient
social integration and insufficient cultural integration comprising “socio-cultural
Jane Matheison, Jennie Popay, Etheline Enoch, Sarah Escorel, Mario Hernandez, Heidi Johnston, and
Laetitia
Rispel, “Social Exclusion: Meaning, Measurement, and Experiences and Links to Health Inequalities: A
Review
of Literature”, WHO Social Exclusion Knowledge Network Background Paper 1 88(SEKH, Commission on
Social Determinants, Lancaster University, 2008), available at:
http://www.who.int/social_determinants/media/sekn_meaning_measurement_experience_2008.pdf.p
df (last
visited on Sep. 15, 2015).
Ibid.
10 Matheison , id. at 16.
11 Kansra, supra note 5.
12 Ibid.
13 Ruth Levitas, Christina Pantazis, Eldin Fahmy, David Gordon, Eva Lloyd, and Demi Patsois, “The Multi-
Dimensional Analysis of Social Exclusion” 25 (University of Bristol, January 2007), available at:
http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6853/1/multidimensional.pdf (last visited on Sep. 17, 2015). Poverty as a human

rights issue
While poverty is commonly understood in terms of lack of income or resources, which is
indeed an important dimension of this concept, it has long been seen as a much wider
concept. In Amartya Sen’s words: 24
…the characterization of poverty as simply shortage of income...is...still fairly
common in the established literature on deprivation or destitution. This view,
which is rather far removed from the relational notion of social exclusion, is not,
however, entirely without merit, since income—properly defined—has an
enormous influence on the kind of lives we can lead.
Even Aristotle, Sen notes, viewed an “impoverished life” as “one without the freedom to
undertake important activities that a person has reason to choose”.25 Elsewhere, he writes,
“poverty can sensibly be defined in terms of capability deprivation; the approach concentrates
on deprivations that are intrinsically important (unlike low income, which is only
instrumentally significant)”.26 The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights under
the (ICESCR) endorses a broad and multi-dimensional definition of the term, which in its
view, “reflects the indivisible and interdependent nature of all human rights”: Poverty is “a
human condition, characterized by sustained or chronic deprivation of resources, capabilities,

choices, security and power necessary for the enjoyment of an adequate standard of living
and other civil, cultural, economic, social and political rights”.27
Poverty is also seen not only in terms of deprivation of resources or capabilities but also in
terms of human rights. As a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) practice note
points out, “the definition of poverty is steadily moving towards a human rights-based vision
highlighting its underlying multitude of causes”.28 In fact, according CESCR, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as far back as in 1948 “established that poverty is a
human rights issue”.29 From the point of view of human rights, poverty represents a condition
where human rights are denied to people, particularly, those rights that are classed as
“economic and social rights” as they lack even what is necessary for their very survival or
meeting basic needs. The CESCR has in fact, categorically observed, that “poverty
constitutes a denial of human rights”.30 In fact, as has been noted, poverty can be seen as both
a cause and effect of human rights violations, as the denial of economic and social rights not
22 Jehoel-Gijsbers and Vrooman, supra note 14 at 15.
23 Matheison, supra note 8 at 16.
24 Amartya Sen, “Social Exclusion: Concept, Application, and Scrutiny”, Social Development Papers No. 1
3(Asian Development Bank, Philippines, 2000).
25 Ibid.
26 Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom 87 (Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000).
27 Supra note 1 at para 8.
28 UNDP, “Poverty Reduction and Human Rights: A Practice Note” 2 (June, 2003), available at:
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/democratic-governance/dg-
publications-
for-website/poverty-reduction-and-human-rights-practice-note/HRPN_(poverty)En.pdf (last visited on

Sep. 14,
2015).
29 Supra note 1 at para 1. only is a root cause of poverty, it also reinforces the “vicious cycle” of
poverty.31 The Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action considers poverty as preventing the enjoyment of
rights noting, “[t]he existence of widespread extreme poverty inhibits the full and effective
enjoyment of human rights...”32 These observations thus identify three ways in which poverty
is seen as related to human rights, as a violation of human rights of itself; as a cause and
consequence of rights violations; and as an impediment to the full enjoyment of human
rights.
One important aspect in the issue of poverty, as mentioned, is lack of access to basic needs.
Professor Pogge notes human beings need access to safe food and water, clothing, shelter,
and basic medical care in order to live and people in poverty lack access to sufficient
quantities of these basic necessities.33 However, as he also observes, “most of the current and
mass under-fulfilment of human rights is more or less connected with poverty”, and while the
connection is direct in the case of social and economic rights, it is more indirect as regards
civil and political rights.34 Thus, while poverty can be viewed in terms of lack of access to
economic and social rights, it is not necessarily only these rights that they impact. Those in
poverty “are often excluded from participating meaningfully in the political process and
seeking justice for violations of their human rights”.35 The Human Development Report of
2000 “conveyed the central message that poverty is an infringement on freedom and that the
elimination of poverty should be addressed as a basic entitlement and a human right—not
merely as an act of charity”.36
Social exclusion and poverty: How are they related?
As social exclusion is concerned with, though not restricted to, deprivation of material
resources, and violations of social or welfare rights, it can also be seen as relating to the
phenomenon of poverty, which as discussed in the previous section is also concerned with the
absence of sufficient resources, the violation of human rights, including in particular basic
needs which fall within the realm of social rights. It would be useful here again to refer to
Deshpande who notes that a distinction between social exclusion and concepts like poverty or
inequality is that while the former is a group phenomenon, the latter is individual but the
distinction may not be as watertight as it might appear at first sight.37 Another distinction
highlighted between the two is that while poverty emphasizes material as well as social
deprivation, social exclusion underscores the ability of a person or group to participate in
31 B.C. Nirmal, “Poverty and Human Rights: An Indian Context”, 46 Indian Journal of International Law
187
(2006). As illustrated on the website of the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights,
extreme
poverty can be a cause of human rights violations, such as extremely poor people being forced to work
in
unhealthy working conditions, or a consequence, such as children being unable to escape poverty
because of
lack of adequate state provisions for education. See, website of “Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty
and
Human Rights”, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Poverty/Pages/SRExtremePovertyIndex.aspx (last

visited on
Sep. 17, 2015).
32 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action 1993, supra note 2 at para 14.
33 Thomas Pogge, “Severe Poverty as a Human Rights Violation” (2003), available at:
http://www.etikk.no/globaljustice/papers/GJ2003_Thomas_Pogge_Severe_Poverty_as_a_Human_Right
s_Violat
ion.doc (last visited on Oct. 11, 2008).
34 Thomas Pogge, “Poverty and Human Rights”, available at:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/poverty/expert/docs/Thomas_Pogge_Summary.pdf (last visited

on Oct.
12, 2008).
35 See, website of “Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights”, supra note 31.
36 UNDP, supra note 28 at 2.
37 Deshpande, supra note 5 atsocial, economic, political and cultural life.38 It has also been observed
that while poverty
may include deficiencies other than financial shortages, the reason behind them is essentially
financial while social exclusion may also result due to factors such as illness, old age, etc.,
without financial poverty.39

For the Independent Expert on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty, social exclusion is an
element of both “capability poverty” as defined by Sen, and “extreme poverty” which
“considers poverty as a denial of human rights”.40
The relationship between poverty and social exclusion is a reciprocal one. Poverty is seen as
a result of social exclusion or exclusion as a vulnerability factor leading to poverty, while
poverty in turn may result in or create vulnerability to social exclusion. For instance, a DFID
paper points out that social exclusion denies people the same rights and opportunities as
afforded to others in their society, and that it causes poverty of particular people leading to
higher rates of poverty among affected groups, besides “increas[ing] the level of economic
inequality in society, which reduces the poverty reducing impact of a given growth rate”.41 It
explains “why some groups of people remain poorer than others, have less food, are less
economically and politically involved, and less likely to benefit from services” making it
difficult for the Millennium Development Goals to be achieved, besides also being a leading
cause of conflict and insecurity.42 The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR) has also argued that both poverty and exclusion may result from
each other: “Socially and politically excluded people are more likely to become poor and the
poor are more vulnerable to social exclusion and political mobilization”.43 Estivill notes that
poverty and social exclusion are not equivalent or synonymous but sees them as
complementary and relative, with those affected by one or the other being identified as poor
or excluded according to a number of standards defining material well-being and the degree
of hierarchical division in each society.44 A number of considerations relating to exclusion
are also valid in the case of poverty.45 Hirsch sees the process as cyclical with poverty being a
38 “Social Exclusion”, available at: http://www.poverty.ac.uk/definitions-poverty/social-exclusion (last

visited
on Sep. 17, 2015).
39 Jehoel-Gijsbers and Vrooman, supra note 14 at 14–15.
40 Arjun Sengupta, “Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights including the Right to Development”, (Human Rights Council Feb. 28, 2008), paras 39–40,
available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/111/56/PDF/G0811156.pdf?
OpenElement
(last visited on Sep. 17, 2015).
41 DFID, “Reducing Poverty by Tackling Social Exclusion: A DFID Policy Paper” 5-6 (Glasgow: DFID 2005).
42 Id. at 6.
43 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “A Human Rights Approach to Poverty
Reduction
Strategies” 48 (OHCHR 2002).
44 Jordi Estivill, “Concepts and Strategies for Combating Social Exclusion: An Overview” (International
Labour
Office, ILO, 2003). Hirsch similarly argues that poverty and social exclusion cannot be resolved in
isolation
noting that people in poverty find it difficult to participate in society as they lack resources to do so and
conversely, lack of participation exacerbates poverty, for instance, directly in the form of exclusion from
paid
work or indirectly by exclusion from social networks that help people improve their lives. Donald Hirsch,
“Where Poverty Intersects with Social Exclusion: Evidence and Features of Solutions” 4 (York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation, September 2006), available at :
http://www.wlmhtrecoverycollege.co.uk/download/Social%20Inclusion/Where%20poverty
%20intersects%20wi
th%20social%20exclusion%20Evidence%20and%20features%20of%20solutions.pdf (last visited on

Sep.17,
2015).
45 Estivill, ibid. Another study similarly notes that poverty has a profound effect on some aspects of
social
exclusion though not all, and that there are other causal factors as concerns social exclusion; for
instance age,
disability, gender, etc. “Social Exclusion”, supra note 38. However, these factors too can be seen as
vulnerability factors for poverty. For instance, a Report of the Independent Expert on the Question of
HumanThe role of a comprehensive human rights framework
As discussed in the previous sections, both poverty and social exclusion are concerned with
human rights, and are situations where those experiencing poverty or exclusion are unable to
enjoy or are denied their human rights, both economic and social, as well as civil and
political. Moreover, though much debated, there are ample views that highlight the links
Rights and Extreme Poverty notes, “[g]ender inequality causes and perpetuates poverty”. Report of the
Independent Expert on the Question of Human Rights and Extreme Poverty, UN General Assembly,
A/65/259,
“Human Rights and Extreme Poverty, Note by Secretary General (August 2010), para 49, available at:
http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/6910952.92568207.html (accessed September 12, 2015).
46 Hirsch, supra note 44 at 9.
47 Philip Lynch, “Homelessness, Human Rights, and Social Inclusion”, 30 (3) Alternative Law Journal 116,
117
(June 2005).
48 Ibid.
49 Jehoel-Gijsbers and Vrooman, supra note 14 at 13–14. between poverty and social exclusion. Many
have thus recommended the protection of
human rights as part of the strategy to address poverty and social exclusion.50
A human rights-based approach to poverty reduction forms part of the recommendations of
the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. They highlight that a human
rights-based approach to poverty reduction inter alia, provides a deeper understanding of the
causes and consequences of poverty; broadens the scope of poverty reduction strategies to
address the structures of discrimination that generate and deepen poverty; strengthens civil
and political rights as they can play an instrumental role in addressing the cause of poverty;
and confirms that economic and social rights are binding obligations, not just programmatic
aspirations.51 This approach is dynamic, leaving scope for “tailoring it to a specified
context”.52 In this context, it is important to take note of the fact that enjoyment of one right
is indivisibly linked to others, for instance the right to health is linked to basic needs such as
food and water, as well as a clean environment, as also to information and education, and in
turn impacts the right to livelihood and other rights.53 Further, the principles of equality and
non-discrimination, participation and inclusion are of importance.54 In other words, this

approach highlights the importance of both social rights and civil and political rights.
The role of a human rights-based approach can be important in this regard as it “works from
the position that international human rights standards place an obligation and duty on
governments to ensure that their plans, policies and processes promote these rights”, and is
based on principles of legitimacy, accountability and transparency, empowerment, and
equality, non-discrimination and attention to vulnerable groups.55 The aspect of binding
obligations that a human rights framework imposes also finds mention in the report of the
independent expert on extreme poverty and human rights, who observes that “there is a
significant value added to invoking a human rights framework in policies to eradicate
poverty” as basic human rights are seen as “valuable objectives” that all human beings are
entitled to; and as one, considering poverty as a violation of human rights can mobilize public
action, which could significantly contribute to the adoption of appropriate policies; and two,
being binding obligations, governments would have to demonstrate that they have made their
best efforts towards adopting appropriate policies.56
Similarly others have also argued in favour of a comprehensive human rights framework to
address social exclusion and poverty, while highlighting specific areas of human rights which
50 For instance, one of the ways identified by DFID to address the challenges posed by social exclusion is
“increasing accountability to protect citizens’ basic rights”. DFID, supra note 41 at 9. Similarly, on
poverty, the
CESCR notes that while poverty is a multi-dimensional problem raising issues “not amenable to simple
solutions”, the international human rights framework can be applied to ensure that “essential elements
of anti-
poverty strategies, such as non-discrimination, equality, participation and accountability, receive the
attention
they deserve”. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, supra note 1 at para 9. Again,
Matheison et
al. note that the “UNDP has been a strong advocate for a human rights-based approach to address social
exclusion”, and it has been argued that “translating social exclusion as the UN non-discrimination clause
enables the concept to be grounded in international law applicable to the majority of states and allows
the
necessary relationships between ‘duty bearers’ and ‘claim holders’ to be cultivated”. Matheison , supra
note 8 at
15.
51 UNDP, supra note 28 at 6.
52 Ibid.
53 Id. at 7.
54 Id. at 7–8.
55 EAPN, Ireland, A Handbook on using a Human-Rights Based Approach to Achieve Social Inclusion and
Equality”, 9 (EAPN, Ireland, December 2007).
56 Sengupta, supra note 40 at para 41. their view deserve particular attention. For instance, Castellino
sees the focus of human
rights mechanisms primarily on civil and political rights and not on “the full spectrum of
human rights”, which include economic and social rights, as making them “relatively
ineffective in addressing issues of social exclusion, empowering communities in socio-
economic terms, or making contributions to ending poverty”.57 In fact, for him this excessive
reliance on civil and political rights, at the expense of economic and social rights is a
shortcoming of the “prevailing approach to human rights”, in addition to other weaknesses
such as an overt focus on individual over collective rights; and inter alia, an over-emphasis on
states as the primary liable actors for human rights violations.58
In the same way, Yeates also argues in favour of viewing rights as interdependent and
indivisible and does not see ensuring social rights alone as the appropriate solution. She
concludes that social rights in themselves, although social exclusion is often defined in terms
of these rights, cannot be assumed to protect people against poverty and social exclusion, as
there is no clear-cut relationship between the provision of rights and well-being of people.59
She also points out that informal networks are important in dealing with social exclusion; that
rights can be exclusionary as well as integrative (though this does not imply that the concept
of rights should be rejected); that the standard of a right to an adequate standard of living can
be met without eliminating poverty; and that addressing social rights requires rights being
seen as universal and indivisible, besides the issue of equality or reducing differentials.60 She
thus argues that an anti-poverty strategy cannot be based on a “social rights of the poor”
approach and that it must embrace a citizenship perspective which involves social, political,
and civil rights.61 However, while a social rights approach by itself, may not be sufficient as
Yeates notes, due to lack of sufficient attention to social rights over the years, relegating them
to the position of “secondary” rights or even aspirations, Castellino’s argument for focussing
on social and economic rights becomes important.
A further dimension of human rights which has been referred to in the context of poverty
alleviation is that of the right to property. As Kansra notes, “[t]he security of property is
crucial to freedom, prosperity and realizing equality”, and access to land may contribute to
livelihoods for poorer households as well as poverty alleviation in the short and long-run.62 In
fact life, liberty, and property are the three basic “human” rights identified by philosophers
like Locke. She further notes, “[f]or a long time, the mainstream human-rights discourse has
been self-contradictory for proposing human rights as essential for freedom and prosperity,
without even committing to the protection of the right to property. Within the rights
57 Joshua Castellino, “Social Inclusion and Human Rights: Implications for 2030 and Beyond”,
Background
Paper for the High Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Agenda 1 (Jan. 15, 2013), available
at:
http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/130114-Social-Exclusion-and-Human-Rights-Paper-for-
HLP.pdf
(last visited on Sep. 11, 1015).
58 Id. at 2–3.
59 Nicola Yeates, “Social Exclusion, Social Rights, and Citizenship: The Contribution of a Social Rights
Perspective to Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion”, An Internal Discussion Document Prepared for
the
Combat Poverty Agency 11(1995), available at :
http://www.combatpoverty.ie/publications/SocialExclusionSocialRightsAndCitizenship_1995.pdf (last
visited
on Sep. 11, 2015).
60 Id. at 11–16.
61 Id. at 16.
62 Kansra, supra note 5.
Reference Labar, K., Bresson, F. (2011), “A multidimensional analysis of poverty in China from 1991 to
2006”,China Economic Review, Vol. 22.

Describe in Detail The Phenomenon of Social Exclusion and Marganilization How Is It Less Threatening Than Proverty?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Describe in Detail The Phenomenon of Social Exclusion and Marganilization How Is It Less Threatening Than Proverty?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Describe in detail the phenomenon of social exclusion and marganilization How is it less threatening

development normally concerned with socio-economic empowerment of poor of concerned

to get acceptance in these countries.

great incidence of poverty and poor in multidimensional aspects. Introduction:

development normally concerned with socio-economic empowerment of poor of concerned

developing countries, policy focus is on uni-dimensional definition of poverty where a single

Whelan & Bartrand, 2005).

phenomenon related with poverty. In developed countries, especially in Britain, different

Canadian Institute of health sciences introduce marginality index as a policy measure. In

“social exclusion” is a vibrant, multidimensional process driven by unequal power relationships.

conceptions of multidimensional social exclusion among the marginalized population.

and characteristics of marginalization, addressing processes of restricted participation of this

regression analysis to see the determinants of multidimensional poverty among marginalized

4.1. Literature Review

economic isolation, vulnerability and powerlessness (Philip, 2008). This incidence of

vulnerability in these marginalized groups, social relationships of reciprocal exchange and

multidimensional poverty of the marginalized livelihood of this country.

Calvo (2008) therefore considered this vulnerability to multidimensional poverty as a form of

vulnerability is different from poverty much attention is needed to differentiate between

vulnerability and poverty.

affected by the shock of outside employment as compared to self-employed households. An

relationship over the life course, both theoretically and empirically.

welfare regimes which experienced difficult economic circumstances in childhood.

marginality is an involuntary position and is a condition of an individual or group that is at the

marginality as a pattern of causal complexes in a societal and spatial dimension.

is a complicated issue that requires to be addressed with a multi-dimensional facet.

multidimensional poverty in Punjab. 4.2. Theoretical Framework

well as developing countries, therefore marginalization can be considered as a process in which a

poverty status. Poverty can be defined as:

Poverty is ex post phenomenon of social exclusion, it is caused by marginality or vice versa. A

be poor or non-poor. A marginalized household considers being poor or more sensitive to

shocks if that household has:

i. Low level of human capital, knowledge and access to skill improvement

UN, 2007 quoted in Oxfam, 2009

iii. Poor infrastructure and have less capacity to improve it

v. Poor social networking and excluded from normal lives of society.

vi. Poor access to job market opportunity.

A marginalized household is considered to be poor if it has a limited access to the living

ensure good standard of living for its members.

Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS)-2003-04 to analyze the determinants of poverty in Punjab.

representative for inference about the determinants of poverty.

iii. Poor infrastructure and have less capacity to improve it

v. Poor social networking and excluded from normal lives of society.

vi. Poor access to job market opportunity.

A marginalized household is considered to be poor if it has a limited access to the living

ensure good standard of living for its members.

Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS)-2003-04 to analyze the determinants of poverty in Punjab.

representative for inference about the determinants of poverty.

this study is individual resides in urban areas of Punjab, Pakistan.

4.3.1. Empirical Model and Estimation Procedure

contributed in literature by introducing index based estimation of multidimensional poverty and

multidimensional poverty in Nigeria.

Poisson regression is that it allows inference to be drawn on the probability of occurrence

dependent variable is modeled as a deterministic function of independent or explanatory

variables, therefore randomness is fundamental and not because of other factors.

with non-negative numbers. An individual’s deprivation in different dimension is based on

different socio-economic and demographic characteristics, the expected value of dependent

variable (y) on a set of explanatory variables (x) can be written as:

wellbeing, economic inclusion etc.

e = base of natural logarithm

β = the vector of parameters

number of dimensions conditional on x is the Poisson distributed with a probability of

δi = the expected number of dimension in which individual is poor

Income -.000261* 0.000157 -.000259* .000157

Pre-primary -.238136* .019691 -.22552* .01975

Middle -.26673* .0107994 -.237417* .012318

Planning Commission of Pakistan, 2011Matric -.292634* .022817 -.25584* .023737

Higher -.292006* .0278123 -.25359* .028669

Madrassa -.316337* .0978124 -.28196* .098035

Poor Housing Condition .11037* .00729 .11064* .00729

Assets -.21986 .09553 -..19139 ..095745

Capability -.315201* ..035955 -.26964* .036493

Environment wellbeing .26406* .03086 .26964* .03087

Social wellbeing -.71456* .096468 -.724314* .096684

Economic wellbeing -.55788* .072224 -..632038* .070282

Food Exp -.00035 .000151 .000346 .000513

Poor Health .28101* .050004 .26754* .04996