Click here to join telegram group
Chronic poverty refers to long-term, persistent poverty that continues across generations despite economic growth or welfare interventions. To understand its depth, scholars have moved beyond mere income measures to multidimensional perspectives.
Two important approaches are:
- Capability Deprivation Approach – Amartya Sen’s human development perspective.
- Social Capital Deprivation Approach – inspired by Pierre Bourdieu and Robert Putnam, focusing on social networks, trust, and collective resources.
Both highlight different but complementary aspects of chronic poverty.
Capability Deprivation Approach
Origin: Developed by Amartya Sen (1980s–1990s).
Core Idea: Poverty is not just lack of income, but lack of substantive freedoms (capabilities) to live a dignified and meaningful life.
Key Features:
- Functionings and Capabilities
- Functionings = achievements (e.g., being nourished, educated).
- Capabilities = real opportunities to achieve these functionings.
- Poverty as Capability Deprivation
- A person may have income but still lack health, education, or voice → hence still poor.
- Focus on Human Development
- Shift from GDP to Human Development Index (HDI): life expectancy, education, income.
- Agency and Freedom
- Poverty denies people freedom of choice, voice, and participation in shaping their lives.
Example:
- A girl child in a poor household may not attend school due to gender bias → even if family income rises, her capability deprivation persists.
Social Capital Deprivation Approach
Origin: Pierre Bourdieu (social resources embedded in networks), James Coleman (rational choice in education), Robert Putnam (trust and civic engagement).
Core Idea: Poverty is also perpetuated by lack of social capital – the networks, norms, and trust that enable individuals and groups to access opportunities.
Key Features:
- Bonding Social Capital
- Networks within close groups (family, community).
- Can provide support but may also restrict mobility (e.g., caste endogamy).
- Bridging Social Capital
- Links across diverse groups. Enables access to wider opportunities.
- Linking Social Capital
- Connections with institutions and authorities (government, NGOs).
- Poverty as Social Exclusion
- Chronic poverty persists when communities are excluded from mainstream networks of power and resources.
Example:
- A rural artisan may have skills but lack market access, credit networks, or institutional connections → social capital deprivation keeps them chronically poor.
Comparative Analysis
| Dimension | Capability Deprivation | Social Capital Deprivation |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Individual freedoms and choices | Collective networks and relationships |
| Unit of Analysis | Person/household | Community/social group |
| Nature of Poverty | Lack of health, education, voice, dignity | Lack of access to networks, institutions, opportunities |
| Key Thinker(s) | Amartya Sen | Bourdieu, Putnam |
| Mechanism | Absence of capabilities restricts life chances | Social isolation and exclusion perpetuate poverty |
| Policy Implications | Invest in education, health, empowerment | Build networks, trust, community participation, institutional linkages |
| Critique | Overemphasizes individual agency, less on structures | May romanticize community ties; ignores power inequalities |
Relevance to Understanding Chronic Poverty
- Complementary Insights
- Chronic poverty is both individual capability failure and collective exclusion from social capital.
- Example: A Dalit woman in India may lack education (capability deprivation) and also face caste-based exclusion from networks (social capital deprivation).
- Policy Relevance
- Capability approach → focus on education, health, gender equality, skill-building.
- Social capital approach → focus on community mobilization, self-help groups, microfinance, participatory governance.
- Breaking Intergenerational Poverty
- Capability expansion ensures long-term empowerment.
- Social capital networks ensure sustainability through support systems.
Criticisms
- Capability Approach:
- Too individualistic; ignores structural barriers like caste, patriarchy, or class.
- Difficult to measure capabilities objectively.
- Social Capital Approach:
- Networks can also be oppressive (e.g., feudal patron-client ties, caste panchayats).
- May underplay state responsibility by overemphasizing community.
Conclusion
Both approaches enrich our understanding of chronic poverty by moving beyond income. While the capability deprivation approach highlights the human development and agency dimension, the social capital approach stresses relational and structural barriers.
For contemporary societies, combining the two is essential: expanding individual capabilities while ensuring inclusive networks and institutional linkages. Only such a multidimensional framework can effectively tackle chronic poverty and break its intergenerational cycle.