People's Stories Equality

Drowning just below the surface: The socioeconomic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic
by Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, agencies
Nov. 2021
The COVID-19 pandemic has had major economic, as well as health, impacts on every nation in the world. It has amplified existing inequalities, created new ones, and destabilized communities—reversing development gains made in recent decades.
The enormous socioeconomic impacts of COVID-19 are wide-ranging and have not affected everyone equally. Throughout this pandemic, those facing the greatest vulnerabilities have been the people and groups most neglected by society—those who were already drowning just below the surface.
This report, featuring brand new research from Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies around the world, sheds light on who has been most impacted by the pandemic and how. It also examines how Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies have adapted their responses to support newly and increasingly vulnerable communities—many of whom have also been affected by large-scale disasters and other complex humanitarian crises.
* As highlighted by Dr. Joyce Mwikali Mutinda in the ODI broadcast, the accounting of the increase in poverty and economic vulnerabilities suffered globally during the Covid pandemic may well be incomplete. Many people were forced to borrow - take loans to manage the loss of incomes, others to simply survive and are now carrying much higher debt burdens that official poverty estimates do not adequately reflect.

Visit the related web page

Reducing urban poverty – lessons not learnt?
by David Satterthwaite, Diana Mitlin
International Institute for Environment and Development
Around one billion people are residents of informal settlements and tenements in urban areas in the global South, with most living in poor and overcrowded conditions lacking access to basic services.
So why have so few of these people actually benefited from poverty reduction initiatives? Why have most aid agencies given this such a low priority?
Part of the reason is that most measures of poverty do not include living conditions and access to basic services. There is an urgent need to rethink how urban poverty is defined, set and applied, and by whom and for what.
A previous blog in this series highlighted how much the scale and depth of urban poverty is underestimated in most official statistics.
Most poverty lines are income-based and set far too low in relation to the cost of food and non-food needs. Mention is often made of people living in poverty yet the poverty definitions and measurements take no account of housing and living conditions.
There is also the lack of engagement by governments and international agencies with those designated as ‘the poor’, meaning those on low incomes and with other sources of disadvantage. The definition and setting of poverty lines make little or no provision for consultation with them.
So there is no scope for them to challenge the inaccurate and often unfair stereotypes being used by politicians, local government officials, the media and other bodies in discussions of poverty. And there’s no opportunity for them to hold governments and international agencies to account for the inaccuracies.
It may be difficult for those who are used to equating poverty with income or consumption-based criteria to accept the broader view. But it brings many important changes. It helps shift official perceptions of ‘poor people’ from being seen as ‘objects’ of government policy to being seen as citizens with rights and legitimate demands – and capacities to act.
A fresh lens can bring clarity about the different deprivations that make up poverty and who is impacted. It can reveal opportunities for addressing them – as well as their many economic, social and political underpinnings.
It also helps identify the groups who are more vulnerable, more at risk or who face discrimination.
Urban governments, NGOs and grassroots organisations generally have relatively little scope to directly increase incomes, but they could address other aspects of poverty – for instance, improving or extending provision of essential services (good quality water, sanitation, solid waste collection, health care, schools, electricity and so on), increasing access to assets such as decent housing thus reducing expenditure on rents, safety nets or improving housing conditions.
And these reducing health-related expenditures and so improving incomes. Or through political change that would allow low-income groups to negotiate more support – or less harassment.
Some pointers for addressing urban poverty
It’s important to recognise the multiple roles that housing and neighbourhoods can play in urban poverty – and in poverty reduction.
Housing in urban contexts generally has more influence on the incomes, asset bases, livelihoods, vulnerability and quality of life (and health) of low-income groups than external poverty reduction specialists recognise.
Housing not only provides accommodation and access to basic services but also provides:
A location for getting to and from income-earning sources or possibilities, and accessing services. Some low-income groups have to put up with low quality accommodation because it is close to income-earning opportunities.
Transport costs are often a significant cost in individual or household budgets – so reducing these can mean more disposable income.
Safer and more secure housing also provides residents with greater protection against the loss of their household assets from eviction or extreme weather, and for many, a location where income-earning activities take place as in home-based work or income raised by renting out space.
They benefit from the reliable provision of electricity, good quality water supply and toilets and regular waste collection as the primary defence against most environmental health risks.
So there is an urgent need to recognise and act on the very large (and mostly preventable) health burdens suffered by the hundreds of millions of urban dwellers living in poor quality accommodation.
These burdens are more serious in urban contexts than rural because of the larger and denser concentration of people and their associated waste.
Making decent housing affordable
One way of achieving this would to be to reduce the cost of housing and inputs into housing (land, tenure, materials, credit, infrastructure and so on).
An example would be helping low-income people by giving them access to vacant or under-utilised land on which they can secure their homes, incrementally developing shelter if and when it is affordable.
The key point is that good local governance, including support and space for urban poor organisations and federations, can considerably reduce poverty, even if people’s actual incomes are not increasing.
The knock-on effects of poverty reduction measures can be powerful. For instance, improved basic service provision has health benefits, reduces time burdens and fatigue, and increases real income (as a result of less time off work through illness or injury coupled with lower medical costs).
Key routes to effective poverty reduction include:
Recognising the importance of what city and municipal governments can do to support poor residents and address poverty – and the importance of what urban poor groups can do (individually and collectively).
Recognising how competent, accountable, adequately-resourced urban governments can contribute enormously to poverty reduction.
This is both by what they provide or ensure provision for (the now familiar list of water, sanitation, household waste collection, health care, schools, rule of law, documentation) and in how they work with low-income groups.
Incompetent, unaccountable, inadequately resourced urban governments enormously increase urban poverty and reduce or even remove health advantages of urban dwellers over rural dwellers.
Recognising and acting on key roles and space for the urban poor and their organisations, include a greater understanding of their competencies and capacities.
A real commitment to work with the urban poor by local governments can remove one of the most profound aspects of poverty – the lack of voice/recognition, as well as the lack of government accountability, and providing flexible finance through local institutions to engage with and support community-led development, as in the work of the Akiba Mashinani Trust in Kenya.
Commitment to a dramatic improvement in the local documentation of all aspects of poverty, both in depth and coverage so that each local government and its citizens and civil society organisations have the basis for key decisions and actions, is important.
Organisations and federations of informal settlement residents, such as Slum Dwellers International, have demonstrated their capacities to help governments do this in hundreds of cities.
The mapping and enumeration of informal settlements provides detailed data on the different aspects of poverty in each settlement – and often for each household. This is the level of disaggregation needed for planning poverty reduction.
The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals call for more disaggregated data – but they do not recognise the importance of community-led data gathering and its key role in getting action and forging partnerships with local governments. In other words, indicators that drive needed change.

Visit the related web page

View more stories

Submit a Story Search by keyword and country Guestbook