AEGIS ECAS 2007 - View abstract

Panel	39. Livelihood, Vulnerability and Health. Moving beyond existing frameworks
Paper ID	335
Author(s)	Neubert, Dieter ; Macamo, Elìsio
Paper	No paper submitted
Abstract	The concept of vulnerability has been extremely useful in development research and in development co-operation. It has been used in a wide range of fields starting from poverty reduction through health to hazard studies. Moreover, it has become part of received wisdom in development programs, especially with regard to the description of development problems. In this paper we want to push the concept of vulnerability further in the direction of spelling out analytical implications which have tended to be ignored. In fact, vulnerability is often understood as a descriptive tool which brings to light the way in which hazards affect different groups of people differently. Empirical results tend to identify the poor as particularly exposed arguably in view of their lack of coping means. This kind of reasoning seems to be informed by two analytically problematic assumptions. One is that reducing vulnerability is all that it takes to counter the effects of hazards. In other words, vulnerability reduction is premised on making the poor if not rich, at least not poor. The other is that wealth in and of itself shields people from vulnerability. These assumptions are problematic because they ignore the social processes which go on in the context of coping with hazards. Our research into how local communities cope with disasters and hazards in Mozambique, Germany and the USA showed that notions of insecurity and uncertainty are central to an understanding of vulnerability, livelihood and resilience. Vulnerability is not only shaped by external factors, as suggested by the concept itself, but also by the expectations which people are able to formulate regarding their coping ability. To put it simply, depending on the nature of coping mechanisms and institutions people may react to hazards differently, thereby enhancing or diminishing their vulnerability independently of the external factors responsible for their original situation. A natural disaster of similar proportions in Mozambique and Germany which, moreover, claims more lives in the former than in the latter, is perceived in Germany as catastrophic, whereas in Mozambique it is seen as a normal crisis. In our paper we want to suggest that this is due to different expectations in terms of security which, in turn, are shaped by what we call the “standard coping expectation”, i.e. the institutional response which individuals expect and which determines, to a large degree, how they structure their lives before, during and after a disaster. The poor are not vulnerable under all circumstances. Understanding vulnerability in different contexts may help us appreciate the extent to which non-poor individuals become vulnerable as a result of the improvement of coping or vulnerability reducing mechanics.

How vulnerable are the poor? Understanding vulnerability in different contexts