children and poverty - childfund...the cycle of poverty, what it means in our work and how program...

Children and Poverty

Shaping a Response to Poverty:A Conceptual Overview and Implications for

Responding to Children Living in Poverty

CHRISTIAN CHILDREN’S FUND

Children and Poverty Series

PART III

Children and Poverty:A Conceptual Overview of the CCF Poverty Study

By:THOMAS FEENY

JO BOYDEN

In 2002, Christian Children’s Fund (CCF) commissioned a comprehensive study on the expe-rience and the impact of poverty on children. What resulted was a three-part series whichoffers a fascinating and thought-provoking summary of major issues concerning the entrap-ments and seemingly endless cycles of poverty. This series challenges many of the stan-dard operating assumptions which may well be invalid. Even the role of children impactedby poverty may be quite different from the common understanding. This overview is offeredas a third piece in the three-part series.

CCF offers this study to our community and colleagues as a contribution to our commoneffort to reduce poverty plaguing the world’s children. There are controversial conclusionsin this study document. We hope that you will find these collected insights as valuable andas challenging as we do.

All opinions expressed here are those of the writers and are not CCF policy.

Christian Children’s Fund (CCF)2003

©Please contact CCF if you wish to reproduce any part of this paper

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………………………………i

1.0 WHAT IS POVERTY? ………………………………………………………………………………………11.1 MOVING BEYOND ECONOMIC EXPLANATIONS …………………………………………………11.2 RESPECTING CONTEXTUAL DIVERSITY …………………………………………………………11.3 QUESTIONING THE POWER OF MODERNITY7 ……………………………………………………31.4 RECOGNIZING THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF POVERTY ……………………………………………51.5 A CCF DEFINITION OF POVERTY …………………………………………………………………6

2.0 HOW CHILDREN EXPERIENCE POVERTY ……………………………………………………………………62.1 DEVELOPING A CHILD-FOCUSED PERSPECTIVE …………………………………………………62.2 THE EFFECTS OF POWER DIFFERENCES WITHIN CHILDHOOD……………………………………82.3 IDENTIFYING THE MOST VULNERABLE …………………………………………………………10

3.0 HOW CHILDREN RESPOND TO ADVERSITY ………………………………………………………………113.1 REVISING OUR IDEAS ABOUT CHILDHOOD ……………………………………………………113.2 SUPPORTING CHILDREN’S RESILIENCE AND COPING …………………………………………13

4.0 PARTNERS IN CHANGE ……………………………………………………………………………………154.1 THE STATE ………………………………………………………………………………………154.2 CSOs ……………………………………………………………………………………………164.3 THE FAMILY………………………………………………………………………………………18

CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………………20

FOREWORDToday, despite major advances in state provision, scientific knowledge and technology, onein four babies globally is born into extreme poverty and conditions of extreme adversity. Halfof all the world’s poorest people are children and there are more destitute babies than everbefore. The magnitude of child mortality and suffering globally because of poverty is over-whelming and has attracted the attention of organizations such as Christian Children’s Fund(CCF), that are focused on the protection and well-being of children in different parts of theworld.

In a recent agency wide organizational self-assessment within CCF, the following observa-tion was made:

“In general, CCF development practice insufficiently draws on a cause-based analysis ofchild poverty, vulnerability and deprivation. These symptoms are considered a sufficientbasis for action.”

Within this context, CCF set itself the task of developing an agency wide understanding ofthe cycle of poverty, what it means in our work and how program efforts work to break thecycle. To this end, a multi-country study of child poverty was planned, and a task force andsteering group established with responsibility for accomplishing this assignment. The firststep in the study was a critical review of the literature on child poverty. This has been pub-lished as the first volume in our “Children and Poverty” series. The country study, undertak-en in India, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Bolivia and Belarus, entitled “Voices of Children” has beenpublished as the second in the series.

This Overview document is the third in the series and seeks to summarize and integrate thefindings of the first two publications. It also underlines some of the implications of these find-ings for CCF. As we observe the results of the study, we can indeed note that children expe-rience poverty differently from their parents and other adults and, contrary to popular belief,are sensitive to their situation from an early age. It is clear that, while we should allow forthe evolving capacity of children as they get older, weight must be given to understandingtheir experience, perspectives, solutions and contributions as well as of adults. Anotherimportant lesson we learned from the study was that the impact of poverty on children is bet-ter understood in terms of living in adversity. Adversity should be understood comprehen-sively beyond material needs, to include psychosocial stress, stigmatization, enduring socialmarginalization and violence. Finally, it became clear throughout the study that, in most partsof the world, childhood is a period of social and economic responsibility where children areeffective agents contributing to family well-being. This is a vital source of self esteem andmotivation for many children.

We are very grateful to Dr. Jo Boyden, Tom Feeny and the team from Queen Elizabeth House,University of Oxford, who have worked so hard and effectively with us on this very compre-hensive study. Thanks also go to all those in our country offices who participated in the studyand gave their opinions. We are also appreciative of the work and efforts of the members ofthe Task Force, who worked long and traveled far to accomplish their mission. Above all, wewould like to thank all the children, who shared their views and perspectives openly andfreely with us. We hope that this series of publications will make a valuable contribution tothe current thinking and discussion on children and poverty.

Michelle J. PoultonVice President, International ProgramsChristian Children’s Fund

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The global mortality and suffering caused by poverty is overwhelming. Children are oftenmore gravely affected than other population groups. Although the problem of child povertyhas attracted increasing attention in recent decades, present trends do not bode well forchildren living in poverty.

The world’s resource base is falling into critical disrepair. Over consumption by the minorityworld drives the economic expectations and planning of the majority world with serious dis-tortionary effects. Inequitable access to the key resources of modernity, capital and mone-tary income, is becoming more pronounced. Many areas are affected by poor managementof basic assets, primarily fertile land and the related resources of food, wood and water. Themismanagement of basic assets with the accumulated effects of global warming is resultingin a growing frequency and intensity of environmental disasters. The effects of these trendson children are devastating. Despite major advances in state provision, scientific knowledgeand technology, one in four babies is born into extreme poverty. Half of all the world’s poor-est people are children. In fact, there are more destitute babies now than ever before inhuman history.

Concerned to mount an appropriate and effective response to the problem, ChristianChildren’s Fund (CCF) is committed to the development of an organization-wide understand-ing of the cycle of poverty. CCF policy and practice in this area is to be guided by a povertyframework in which an overview of the key issues, concepts and principles of strategy isgiven.

Rather than build on normative ideas and assumptions, CCF’s framework is to be based on acombination of recent theoretical understandings in social science and the actual experi-ences of children in the communities in which CCF operates. To this end, a multi-countrystudy of child poverty was planned and a taskforce established.

The study canvassed the views of CCF stakeholders, young people (mostly 8-20 years old),their families and communities, CCF staff and the staff of partner organizations, on the nature,causes and consequences of child poverty and coping strategies. A questionnaire was dis-tributed among CCF staff, and field research was conducted in India, Kenya, Belarus, Boliviaand Sierra Leone. The present document, which is based on the findings from the fieldresearch and the staff survey, is the foundation of CCF’s conceptual overview of poverty.

i

1

1.0 WHAT IS POVERTY?

1.1 Moving Beyond EconomicExplanations

For decades, influential financial institutionslike the World Bank and the IMF, policy ‘thinktanks’, research institutes and governmentbodies have conceptualized poverty as aneconomic problem, characterized by levelsof income, production, assets and consump-tion. This perspective has come under heavycriticism recently from scholars and agen-cies in the aid and social sectors who arguethat material scarcity is an inadequatemeasure of poverty. The critics maintain thatsocial concepts such as ‘relative affluence’are more meaningful to most people thaneconomic growth and to focus merely onmaterial deficits is to deny the true conse-quences of poverty in terms of human suf-fering and hardship. The United NationsDevelopment Program devised the HumanDevelopment Index (HDI), which includesindicators such as education, literacy, politi-cal representation and crime. The HDIattempts to develop a more effective meansof gauging human experience. However, theHDI relies heavily on traditional measuresand statistics that are poorly disaggregated,particularly in terms of children.

In line with other critical perspectives, theCCF study found poverty to be a very com-plex and dynamic process, with multiple andinteracting causes, meanings and manifes-tations. Conventional criteria like unstableand low income, poor housing, lack of pro-ductive assets, particularly land, livestockand seed were prominent in the study. Lessconventional economic factors such asextreme competition, lack of opportunity andmarginal return to innovation, appearedeven more pressing in some cases, particu-larly in India and Bolivia. Social and politicalcriteria were often more significant thaneither conventional or less conventionaleconomic factors.

The following are highlights in varying de-grees of different groups of CCF stakeholders:

• Powerlessness and exploitation (espe-cially in India and Bolivia).

• Social stigma and related discrimina-tion (material symbols are very impor-tant in distinguishing different statusgroups and are used as a basis fordiscrimination).

• Susceptibility to corruption and crime(mentioned in all case study countries).

• Exposure to environmental pollution,degradation and disasters (water wasthe single most important resourcementioned in the study; in Bolivia chil-dren were more concerned aboutenvironment matters than adults).

• Lack of social networks and resourcesfor crisis planning and management(kinship alliances were highlightedover and above neighbors and othersources of social support).

• Restricted or no access to services(especially health care and education)and the disproportionately high cost ofthe same.

The comments from stakeholders highlightthat that traditional production, consumptionor income-based analysis are flawed.Economic measures alone cannot tell uswhether people are able to meet their careeraspirations, educate their children, with-stand economic shocks and so on. In otherwords, poverty can not be thought of asexclusively or even primarily an economicphenomenon, but must be seen as a highlypolitical one. The poorest people and thepoorest countries in the world tend also toexperience chronic discrimination, corrup-tion, and political instability and their pover-ty is both a cause and consequence of theseexperiences.

Particularly compelling is the evidence link-ing poverty with entrenched armed conflict.Seven of the 10 countries with the highestunder-five death rates are exposed to con-flict.1 Yet, more children die of malnutrition orinfection in war than from exposure toweapons.2 In many places the havocwreaked by this potent combination ofpoverty and conflict is exacerbated by a

…the CCF study

found poverty to be a

very complex and

dynamic process,

with multiple and

interacting

causes, meanings and

manifestations.

1The Machel Review 1996-2000,p20

2The Machel Review 1996-2000,p20; Farhood, L., H. Zurayk, et al.(1993); The IRC InternationalRescue Committee (2000) foundthat in eastern Congo one thirdof deaths between August 1998and May 2000 were of childrenunder five, food shortages beingone of the main causes.

Ideas about the

causes of poverty

have too long been

shaped by economics

and economists, so

explanations of its

effects have provided

only a partial view.

3The Machel Review 1996-2000estimates that of the 17 countrieswith over 100,000 childrenorphaned by AIDS, 13 are in con-flict or on the brink of emergencyand 13 are heavily indebted poorcountries.

4The term ‘capital’ refers broadlyto the resources available to aparticular individual or group,and includes financial/materialcapital (money and assets),human capital (knowledge,health, nutrition etc.), social-cul-tural capital (social trust, socialnetworks, individual attitudesand personality traits), social-political capital (caste, kingroup, ethnicity, etc.) and envi-ronmental capital (naturalresources). See Moore, K.(2001) Frameworks for Under-standing the Intergenera-tional Transmission of Povertyand Well-Being in DevelopingCountries, Chronic PovertyResearch Centre Working PaperNo.6, IDD, University ofBirmingham.

5Rutter and Smith 1995 cited inHalpern, D. (1998). ‘Social capi-tal, exclusion and the quality oflife: towards a causal modeland policy implications.’ NexusBriefing Document, presented atNexus Westminster seminar 29April. Faculty of Social andPolitical Sciences, CambridgeUniversity.

2

close correlation with extremely high ratesof HIV infection and AIDS.3 What emergesfrom this evidence is that, beyond more tra-ditional strategies to improve livelihoodsecurity, poverty measures need to incorpo-rate dimensions that aim to increase peaceand security, empower disenfranchised pop-ulations, and reduce corruption and crime.

Ideas about the causes of poverty have toolong been shaped by economics and econo-mists, so explanations of its effects haveprovided only a partial view. Take the dis-course on child poverty for example.Undoubtedly health is a prime indicator ofchild poverty, especially for children underage 5. However, the discourse largely con-fines itself to considerations of mortality, andexcludes mental health and other less visibleyet very important concerns of older chil-dren. Children interviewed in the CCF studycited numerous emotional and psychologi-cal consequences of poverty, in many casesprioritizing these over and above physicaleffects. Such evidence calls for a moreholistic depiction of poverty, and for accountto be taken of morbidity and of the quality oflife experienced by children over age 5. Thisis in line with the World Health Organization(WHO), which defines health holistically as“a state of complete physical, mental andsocial well-being and not merely theabsence of disease or infirmity.”

Use of phrases like “quality of life” highlightsanother facet of the poverty discourserequiring critical review. Such phrasesreflect a growing recognition that there is nodirect causal relationship between econom-ic status and human gratification, or happi-ness. Additionally, wealth and good qualityof life are not synonymous. By the sametoken, many poor people are happy withtheir lot. Indeed, the idea that a direct andobservable link exists between difficult orpainful experiences and human suffering isincreasingly challenged. Without a doubtpoverty can cause immense hardship andhave a very corrosive effect on social andhuman capital, on the other hand, wealth iscertainly no guarantee of well-being.4 In

Britain, for example, psychosocial disordersin young people increased notably duringthe post-World War II period, a time ofalmost unprecedented economic growth inthat country.5

The experience of poverty is mediated by amultitude of factors, many of which do notrelate to ‘objective’ physical states such asdestitution, homelessness, malnutrition, orhunger.

Relative concepts of poverty and wealth aresignificant in shaping people’s sense of well-being. Among other things, cultural valuesand life goals are a very important mediatingforce in human experience and have a majorinfluencing on aspirations and expectations,thereby influence levels of material satisfac-tion. Unless proper account of social con-cepts of poverty is taken into consideration,concepts that are frequently subjective andrelative-poverty measures can not neces-sarily improve well-being or quality of life.The power of these subjective views ofpoverty among children was very apparentin the CCF study.

Summary & Implications for CCF

• The objective of child poverty inter-ventions should be to improve chil-dren’s well-being and increase theirquality of life rather than simply toreduce poverty.

• Ideas about well-being and quality oflife should embody cultural, social, andpolitical goals and not just economicones.

• In some situations, empowerment ofthe poor and creating an enabling envi-ronment through the development oflegal entitlements, political stability etc.may be as (or more) important thanincreasing access to assets, incomeand capital.

1.2 Respecting Contextual Diversity

According to conventional economic per-spectives, poverty is a universal phenome-

3

non demarcated by standardized criteria.National economies and populations areranked against benchmarks such as GrossNational Product (GNP), Gross DomesticProduct (GDP) per capita or an income-based poverty line. Critics in the develop-ment and social sectors argue that thisapproach may have aided measurement,planning and disbursement, but fails to cap-ture the reality of poverty as experienced bymost of the world’s poor.

Even in terms of measurement these bench-marks are of dubious value. For example, thepoverty line excludes nonmonetary inputssuch as non-remunerated labor (an impor-tant resource in the CCF study, especially inBolivia and Sierra Leone). It does not evenprovide an accurate gauge of monetaryincome, since it excludes remitted incomeand informal sector employment. Moreover,it does not take into account the inequities ofintra-household resource allocation, whichis often biased along lines of gender andgeneration and which can lead to the impov-erishment of certain members in an other-wise well-off household.

Recognizing the mediated nature of humanexperience and taking the concept of rela-tive poverty seriously means challengingstandardized definitions and benchmarksand emphasizing contextualized under-standings. It is true that in the CCF study cer-tain criteria of poverty, for example socialinjustice and the associated sense of exclu-sion, were cited across contexts and socialgroups. Nevertheless, the significance ofthese and other criteria varied greatlybetween stakeholder groups. Some groupsstressed susceptibility to exploitation, whileothers were far more concerned about thelack of livelihood security. Some of the crite-ria were unique to a particular group or set-ting. For example, lack of privacy was animportant measure of poverty in Belarus, butwas not a feature in any of the other casestudy countries.

Poverty is differently defined at differenttimes, in different societies and by different

social groups, suggesting a need for greatersophistication and disaggregation in theconceptualization, measurement and analy-sis of child poverty data to ensure that a trueportrayal of the phenomenon emerges.


• Poverty cannot be remedied through astandard, limited (health and educa-tion) and prescriptive approach;

• Poverty interventions should be cotext-specific, comparative and rela-tive, requiring local adaptation thatdraws on and is consistent with CCF’sglobal approach, policies and learning;

• Poverty interventions should be inaccord with contextualized under-standings, building on and addressingthe different perspectives of differentinterest groups in society;

• Participatory methodology and meth-ods should be employed in harnessingand fostering local understandings.

1.3 Questioning the Power ofModernity7

Most statistical, planning and financial insti-tutions assume affluence to be an almostinevitable by-product of the capitalist marketeconomy and related expansion of the mod-ern industrial/urban complex. Perceived as aforerunner to fiscal regulation and to thepolitical stability deemed necessary forinvestment, democratic rule is cited by manyas an impetus to wealth creation. Broadnational statistics often appear to supportthese hypotheses. However, adult respon-dents in the CCF case study countries, allfive of which have capitalist marketeconomies and varying histories and levelsof democratic rule, lamented the deteriora-tion of their economic circumstances overrecent years. This finding points to a possi-ble romanticization of the past and/or agrowing sense of alienation and disempow-erment among the poor as globalized valuesand aspirations make them more consciousof the inequities and injustices visited uponthem. It also reveals how, disguised within

Recognizing the

mediated nature of

human experience

and taking the concept

of relative poverty

seriously means

challenging

standardized

definitions and

benchmarks and

emphasizing

contextualized

understandings.

6Halpern, D. (1998). ‘Social capi-tal, exclusion and the quality oflife: towards a causal model andpolicy implications.’ NexusBriefing Document, presented atNexus Westminster seminar 29April. Faculty of Social andPolitical Sciences, CambridgeUniversity.

7‘Modernity’ is a widely used butpoorly defined term. It is mostoften associated with econom-ics and the introduction of, forexample, a capitalist marketeconomy and industrialization.However, for the purposes of thispaper it should also be taken toinclude the global circulation notonly of finance and products, butalso of technologies, people andideas.

4

gross national statistics indicating overallgrowth, there exist increasing concentra-tions of wealth and increasing disparitiesbetween rich and poor. At the same time, theopportunities to rise out of poverty are dimin-ishing as global resources become depleted,recession sets in and markets retreat. Today,certain countries in sub-Saharan Africa inparticular confront economic stagnationand, worse, observable decline.

As the globalized monetary economyexpands, so the geographic areas and socialgroups that are not part of this economybecome more marginalized. In the CCF studythere was a palpable tension between theforces of modernity (education, monetaryincome, urban lifestyles and the like) andthose of tradition (collective and unremuner-ated labor, communal land ownership and soon). People who are resource rich in termsof traditional culture and values are general-ly considered resource poor according tomodern, monetary based understandings ofpoverty. Among the Maasai in Kenya, forexample, large numbers of children and cat-tle and extensive areas of collectivelyowned grazing land are the means of accessto wealth. Yet, according to the principles ofa modern capitalist economy such attributesinhibit income and accumulation.

Aid agencies, financial institutions and otheroutside observers generally equate modernitywith progress. More importantly, many amongthem argue that the impact of global monopolycapital cannot be resisted and that theadvance of modernity is inevitable. Their pointis clearly born out by the fact that groups likethe Maasai are entirely peripheral to thenational polity and as such highly susceptibleto exploitation and other violations that couldin time lead to their complete demise.

Nevertheless, while it is clear that people onthe margins of the monetary economy arevery vulnerable, the CCF study warns of theneed for great caution with regard to theadvance of modernity. Because the poor arerelatively powerless, they are inevitablydrawn into national monetary economies on

terms that are at best unequal and at worst,overtly abusive. This was evident from theCCF findings on service access.Respondents complained bitterly of the inor-dinate and disproportionate prices paid bythe poor for public services like health care,education and water. They highlighted thecorruption and indifference of those whocontrol and provide these services, com-menting that they prey upon the poverty andpowerlessness of users by charging illicitfees, dispensing sub-standard goods andignoring them in favor of more wealthy andinfluential clients.

Education in particular tends to be heraldedas a cure-all for poverty and underdevelop-ment. But, for poor families schooling com-monly involves significant economic sacri-fices, not least being the income forgonedue to removing children from work, and thecost of uniforms, supplies and unofficial feespaid to teachers and examiners. Findingsfrom the field research also suggested thatimpoverished children are frequently bulliedand teased by others in their class, effec-tively reinforcing their sense of inferiorityand increasing their distress. Indeed, therewards from education are by no meansguaranteed, for the skills imparted may notfit those required by the labor market.

There are also serious risks associated withthe abandonment of customary values,practices and resources. This is apparentnot just in terms of destruction of culturalheritage, which can adversely affect senseof identity and self-efficacy, but also withregard to the traditional knowledge, skillsand assets that are brought to bear duringtimes of austerity. In Belarus following thecollapse of the Soviet Union and in SierraLeone during the war, traditional copingmechanisms like the consumption of wildplants, leaves and roots, recycling, or use oftraditional cost-free remedies for the cure ofdisease, proved essential to survival. Whenthe expertise underlying such strategies islost the poor risk becoming far more suscep-tible to famine during periods of severeadversity and crisis.

…the CCF study

warns of the need for

great caution with

regard to the advance

of modernity.

5


• Child poverty measures shouldembody proper respect for the manypersonal, material and social advan-tages offered by modernity (includingeducation). However due accountmust also be taken of the potential andactual costs involved.

• The benefits and strengths of tradition-al cultural values and practices, tradi-tional assets and traditional livelihoodand risk management strategies needto be acknowledged and fosteredwhenever possible and feasible.

1.4 Recognizing the Dynamic Natureof Poverty

Most of the world’s poor people experiencepoverty as a chronic condition that is causedby monumental structural forces, spans thelife of the individual and is transmitted tosubsequent generations. This is especiallytrue of countries like India where populationdensity and growth, inequitable distributionof natural resources, entrenched social hier-archy and discrimination, poor governanceand the like, represent apparently over-whelming odds against the economicadvancement of the poor.

Populations exposed to these kinds of struc-tural forces often become caught up in longcycles of poverty that extend through manygenerations. Some have attributed the inter-generational transmission of poverty to alack of consciousness in affected popula-tions of viable solutions, or to a passiveacceptance of their circumstances. Peoplewho are unable to free themselves from thechains of deprivation and exploitation, it issuggested, become resigned to their fate.Some ascribe poverty to personal failingssuch as laziness or substance abuse.Certainly the CCF study confirmed that alco-holism and similar behaviors can contributesignificantly to poverty, because they createdissent within the family, drain income andinhibit labor productivity. Nevertheless,ideas about fatalism, or a”culture of pover-

ty,” were revealed as an outsider’s view thatignores the many creative strategiesemployed by poor people for managing andameliorating adversity. Likewise, accept-ance that overwhelming structural forcesare at play can lead to the false impressionthat poverty is a static state.

The CCF study highlights the dynamic natureof poverty, finding it to be a highly volatileprocess that is subject to interacting andcountervailing forces and trends. In thisrespect, a close connection could be dis-cerned between structural, seasonal andpersonal factors in the experience of pover-ty. In countries like Belarus poverty has fargraver implications for children during thecold winter months when they are confinedin overcrowded rooms in which argumentsand conflict are commonplace. For a signif-icant minority of people poverty is a tran-sient experience, the result of random oridiosyncratic shocks such as family or per-sonal loss, or a major societal crisis. Oftenchronic conditions of poverty are exacer-bated by such shocks. During the war inSierra Leone many people who werealready extremely poor lost everything—family, home, land, cattle, seed, storedfoods, savings, and jobs. In some cases,livelihoods, property and whole familieswere obliterated in a matter of mere min-utes. The combination of long term structur-al disadvantage and rapid and immediateloss may result in outright destitution, fromwhich individuals, families or whole com-munities may be unable to recover.


• Poverty is not a static state but a con-tinuously changing condition thatarises from the interaction of severalprocesses, personal — familial andstructural — operating at the micro,meso and macro levels.

• Poverty interventions need to take fullaccount of broad structural trendswhile also focusing on individual,household and community vulnerabili-ties, capacities and strategies.

Nevertheless, ideas

about fatalism, or a

“culture of poverty,”

were revealed as an

outsider’s view that

ignores the many

creative strategies

employed by poor

people for managing

and ameliorating

adversity.

6

• Policy should be responsive and flexi-ble, adapting to changes in the condi-tions and circumstances of children,their families and communities and thewider society.

1.5 A CCF Definition of Poverty

In accordance with the above insights, it isapparent that an adequate and meaningfuldefinition of poverty should be a holistic onethat gives proper weight to social and politi-cal causes as well as to economic ones.Further, such a definition must acknowledgeboth the dynamic and the mediated nature ofhuman experience, in that the outcomes ofexposure to economic hardship are neitherpredictable nor fixed and are often closelylinked to subjective perceptions.

Proper recognition must be given to the situ-ated nature of poverty, which is defined dif-ferently in different social and cultural con-texts and in different historical periods. Dueaccount must also be taken not simply of thematerial or physical states induced bypoverty, but also of the social suffering andthe adverse emotional and psychologicalimpacts in affected populations.

Thus, taking all these principles intoaccount, CCF is moving towards definingpoverty broadly as:

A multifaceted, dynamic and contextualizdform of adversity in which material lackinteracts with and is mediated and con-pounded by social exclusion, inequity andpowerlessness, with multiple effects.

2.0 HOW CHILDREN EXPERIENCEPOVERTY

2.1 Developing a Child-focusedPerspective

It is widely accepted that children areamong those most affected by poverty, notsimply because they make up a significantportion of the world’s poor, but also becausethey often feel its impacts more acutely than

adults in both the short and long term.Poverty is a grave problem for the young,and some of the most cogent indicators ofpoverty globally, particularly under-5 mortal-ity, focus on the outcomes in children.8

Clearly, understanding what poverty meansfor children is an important forerunner toknowing how it affects them and what formsof assistance are most effective and appro-priate. In this section we draw on the per-spectives of the boys and girls, adolescentsand youth who took part in the CCF study andon recent research findings in the social sci-ences. Recalling that most of the young peo-ple in the study were about 8 to 20, we wouldemphasize that this reflects a bias in thereporting in favor of older children and ado-lescents.

Acknowledgement that children are pro-foundly affected by poverty and understand-ing how precisely they are affected are twovery different things. As it happens, the linksbetween macro level structures, policiesand processes and poverty in children areseldom made explicit and very rarely arechildren’s perspectives on poverty heard.This is partly because macroeconomic poli-cies often take years to work themselves outinto conceivable effects on the ground,while child poverty is consistently presentedby aid agencies and the media in terms ofimmediate impacts and threats (such as lackof clean drinking water). The traditionalpoverty discourse, based as it is on adultideas and assumptions, gives prominence tosurvival and physical health impacts, with aparticular focus on infants and under-fives,as we have indicated. The question iswhether children themselves recognizethese as their top priorities. This discoursealso gives preference to interventions at thelevel of the family or household, regardlessof whether this mode of delivery serves thebest interests of children.

Children are very much a part of the collec-tive culture in which they live and oftenshare the same views as adults.Nevertheless, poverty can have very differ-ent meanings and outcomes for children and

Proper recognition

must be given to the

situated nature of

poverty, which is

defined differently in

different social and

cultural contexts and

in different historical

periods.

8UNICEF has implemented a sys-tem of monitoring through itsState of the World’s Childrenreport and UNDP keeps tabson global trends measuredthrough national level statistics.However, these data are poorlydisaggregated and often inaccu-rate.

7

adults. This is partly because children areprofoundly influenced by their peers and bymatters that do not concern adults, or ofwhich adults are unaware. Intergenerationaldifferences in understandings of povertywere especially marked among CCF stake-holders in Belarus. In fact, children’s experi-ences of and responses to poverty are oftenquite different from what adults imaginethem to be. The adults who generate thepoverty discourse are not necessarily con-scious of the extent to which children areaffected. Consequently, adult perspectiveson the poverty of children are at best onlypartially relevant.

The study found children to be far more sen-sitive to and tormented by poverty than wasgenerally appreciated by adults. They areacutely aware of its divisive nature and feelits effects not merely (or so much) in terms oflack of basic goods and services as in theassociated stigma and humiliation. At thesame time, while they may be conscious ofthe larger macro level causes and conse-quences of poverty (especially in Bolivia,where children are highly politicized andarticulate), they commonly express greaterconcern about its more immediate effects onfriendships, schooling, family relationshipsand the like.

Because in many contexts poverty is per-ceived as shameful, it can be a serioussocial impediment for children. Indeed, thestudy found that how poverty constrainsrelationships with others and how it influ-ences others treatment of children can bemore important to children than having to gowithout food or other goods. Thus, in ruralBolivia, children know that chronic short-ages of water have a significant effect onlivelihoods and on the survival and health ofboth humans and livestock. Yet, they high-lighted the shame of being unable to washand being labeled dirty and poor as a conse-quence. Children recognize they are fre-quently the main instigators of abusesdirected at others due to poverty. In fact oneof the worst consequences of being thoughtof as ‘poor’ is the associated social exclu-

sion and susceptibility to teasing, bullyingand denigration by peers.

Only in Sierra Leone did children seem to belittle troubled by the stigma of poverty. This ismost likely due to the fact that the war hasrendered practically all populations equallypoor, and absolute shortage is a grave prob-lem everywhere. Hence it would appearthat, except in situations of acute and gener-alized scarcity, relative poverty has a moresignificant impact on children’s well-beingthan does absolute poverty (that is for chil-dren beyond early childhood at least).

Symbolic markers of wealth are very impor-tant in social assessments of differencebetween children. In the study childrenproved to be highly attuned not just to socialdistinctions and related stigmas but also tothe symbolism of poverty. Clothing andfootwear are generally the most importantindicators of difference, and lack of appareldeemed appropriate for school or socialoccasions was a major source of distress inchildren. Such symbols are very subjectiveand do not necessarily correlate exactlywith actual economic status. They are, nev-ertheless, crucial in determining relationsbetween peers and others. Aside from dresscodes, the physical attributes of children(skin color, height, weight, etc.) can also beimportant social markers. Many impover-ished children suffer from malnutrition,stunted growth and similar physical effectscaused by an inadequate diet and poorhealth. Often, such children are unable toactively participate in class on an equal foot-ing with others. They are ridiculed or simplyignored.

Such subjective perceptions need to betaken very seriously because social discrim-ination and exclusion are often associatedwith outright exploitation and abuse andwith a strong sense of disenfranchisementand grievance among poor children. Middleand late childhood are important life phasesin terms of the formation of identity, and of asense of self-esteem and self-efficacy.These are also important periods with

The study found

children to be far

more sensitive to

and tormented by

poverty than was

generally appreciated

by adults.

8

regard to increasing orientation towardspeers (as opposed to family and/or adults) asrole models, mentors and sources of socialsupport and affection more generally.Therefore, discrimination and socialostracism during these critical phases,especially by peers, can have seriousadverse developmental consequences forthe young.


• The link between macro environment(including macro level economic poli-cies) and children needs to be madeexplicit and closely monitored.

• More child-focused policies need tobe included within larger economicschemes and policies, so that chil-dren’s problems and needs areacknowledged and incorporated.

• Children’s perspectives on povertyneed to be incorporated within all poli-cies and programs that aim to assistthem directly.

• The grave social consequences ofpoverty for children need full and prop-er recognition in all policies and inter-ventions, implying the need for a focuson human and social capital in additionto livelihoods.

2.2 The Effects of Power DifferencesWithin Childhood

Economic analysts and other observersoften think of childhood as a relatively regu-lar and undifferentiated phase in the humanlife cycle marked only by stages of develop-ment: infancy and early childhood, middlechildhood, and adolescence. Conceptualiz-ing childhood in these terms has importantimplications to understanding the impacts ofpoverty. Essentially, it is presumed that child-hood is broadly similar throughout the globeand that all children have the same basicneeds. This means that the impacts of pover-ty on the young are understood to be rela-tively uniform regardless of gender, class orculture. Undoubtedly there is some uniformi-ty in childhood across social contexts and

groups. For instance, all healthy childrengain in strength and stature as they grow upand certain physical needs (food, fluids,exercise, rest and sleep) in particular areindispensable for all. Certain cognitiveprocesses are sequenced according tounderlying neurological development. Thereare, in addition, commonalities in the acqui-sition of language and in the way biology andculture interact in the development of chil-dren. And from the normative viewpoint,childhood is becoming an increasingly glob-alized concept, defined in the UNConvention on the Rights of the Child on thebasis of chronological age, with 18 years asthe upper limit.

That said, as with assertions about poverty,ideas about universality in childhood defi-nitely have their limits. Although, as indicat-ed, the development of children does followcertain universal biological sequences,childhood is, in practice, an extremelydiverse life phase, shaped also by material,cultural and social environment, geneticheritage, personal agency and economicand political circumstance. In other words,children’s multiple and varied competenciesare not merely a function of age, stage ofdevelopment, genetics and physiology, butalso of cultural, material and social environ-ment. How boys and girls behave, what isconsidered good for them and what bad,their skills and their aspirations are all heav-ily influenced by the social and culturalworlds they inhabit.

Social constructions of childhood differ rad-ically in what are sometimes termed “role”,or “socio-centric” societies (for example,many parts of rural Africa) and “person”, or“ego-centric”, societies (North America andnorthern Europe, for instance). In the former,the cultural expectation is that from a veryyoung age children should develop a strongsense of responsibility and obligation towardtheir families and communities. The specificresponsibilities assumed by children are asbefits someone in a particular social role,status and set of relations. Through the ful-fillment of their duties, children develop into

9

adults and are accepted as members of theircommunity. They understand that they areinterdependent and interpersonally respon-sible. In these kinds of settings, emphasis islikely to be given to competencies such asrespect for others, responsibility, sharingand reciprocity.

In person-centric societies, on the otherhand, personal autonomy and self-sufficien-cy are prized attributes of successful andwell-adapted adults and assume a centralplace that sometimes overrides responsibili-ty toward others. Such societies stress indi-vidual agency and individual rights over andabove group membership. In these settingschildren are frequently in training forautonomous adulthood for long periods andsuccess in childhood is more likely to begauged through education performance andpreparation for a good career than throughfulfillment of social duties.

Social constructions are also a major sourceof differentiation between children living inthe same community or society, with impor-tant consequences in terms of economicand social well-being. Power within child-hood even affects who is considered a child.For example, in Bangladesh an individualwho goes to school and has no economic orsocial responsibilities may be termed a“child” (shishu) up to the age of puberty,whereas a boy or girl who works is no longerreferred to as a shishu even by age six.9 Inhierarchical societies like India differencesof caste, gender and class are firmlyentrenched, for they are rooted in ancienthistory and culture and are recognized to beprescribed by divine authority. In Bolivia,Belarus, Kenya and Sierra Leone, on theother hand, there appears to be greater flu-idity in power relations during childhood. InSierra Leone, one of the few positive out-comes of war mentioned by CCF stakehold-ers has been its effect in minimizing eco-nomic inequality.

Many have come to regard gender prejudiceand discrimination as the most pervasiveand incapacitating source of differentiation

within childhood, with girls being the mostfrequently affected. Women are more physi-cally resilient than men from birth: throughevery decade of life, men are more prone tofatal diseases, and have a lower lifeexpectancy, than women. Despite this, UNstatistics indicate that there are fewerwomen in the world than men. Moreover,according to CCF stakeholders, girls bear thebrunt of family poverty as compared withboys. In all of the case study countries girlsappear to work harder and for longer hoursthan boys, are more likely to be out of schooland less likely to enjoy opportunities to play.However, this pattern does vary. Many of theboys interviewed also work very hard and insome settings boys complained that girlshave greater earning potential, especiallythose in the sex trade.

During times of trouble, distinctions such asthose based on gender, ethnicity and physi-cal ability often grow, sometimes with veryserious consequences for children who arethe least valued. For example, perpetuity ofthe social group is very important in manycontexts of enduring hardship where mutualinterdependence is strong and the individualcannot survive alone. This is especially truein socio-centric societies. In such settingsdurability of the family group is commonly agreater priority than the relative well-beingof individual children.10 When there is noother obvious option, children in certain cat-egories (second daughters for example) maybe considered surplus to requirement andabandoned. Others may be thought of as agood that can be exchanged or traded forincome, or to forge links with political oreconomic allies.

Selective neglect in the family, discrimina-tion in the community, political oppression innational government, and pronouncedinequity in international relations are allsocietal factors undermining children’s well-being and development that policy makershave the power to do something about. Thequestion is how to identify which groups andcategories of children are the most suscep-tible and to find ways both of reducing risk

Power within

childhood even

affects who is

considered a child.

9Blanchet, T. 1996 Lost Innoc-ence, Stolen Childhoods. Dhaka:The University Press

10Engle, Castle & Menon 1996.Child Development: Vulnerabilityand Resilience, Social Scienceand Medicine, 43(5):621-35

10

and providing support to affected children.The problem is that policy makers are oftenreluctant to engage with issues that havepolitical, social or cultural roots, preferringto de-politicize adversities like poverty bydefining them as a problem of family or indi-vidual pathology.

As well, despite evident disparities betweenchildren, it should not be assumed that sta-tus during childhood is fixed. As with defini-tions of poverty, concepts of the poorest ofthe poor are variable according to whoseperception one is referring to. These con-cepts are also very dynamic, in that who ismost vulnerable may be very changeableaccording to fluctuating circumstances. Forexample, the study showed that dependingon things like total family size, and the gen-der composition and birth order of the siblinggroup, the accepted gender roles of childrenmay be reversed to accommodate econom-ic necessity. Thus, if there are insufficientgirls of working age in the family boys maybe asked to do ‘girls tasks like cooking, gath-ering firewood, collecting water or takingcare of younger brothers or sisters.Sometimes boys expressed resentment atbeing expected to do girls’ work.


• Childhood is not a uniform life phaseand depending on individual and groupdifferences and on environmentalinfluences the circumstances, expec-tations, achievements and vulnerabili-ties of children are highly variable.

• Social power is one of most prominentforces of difference within childhood.

• Policy and practice need to acknowedge the social suffering and econom-ic loss associated with power differ-ences between children and to pay fullattention to issues of equity and socialjustice.

• In some contexts, social and econom-ic responsibilities are normal featuresof childhood with many positive out-comes for children and their families.Rather than attempting to remove

responsibilities from children, CCF mayneed to work with families and com-munities to ensure that the burdensare equally shared, not harmful andcompatible with schooling.

• School education can in itself be aburden, especially for working chil-dren. Education should take fullaccount of the contributions childrenmake to their families and communi-ties and be sufficiently flexible to allowfor the continuation of these.

2.3 Identifying the Most Vulnerable

Aside from the broader power distinctionsfounded on gender, class and the like, thereare more localized differences between chil-dren based on more specific personal andfamily circumstances. Often, these distinc-tions render certain groups among the poor-est of the poor. Within much of the literatureon poverty and within the Convention on theRights of the Child there is a notable empha-sis on the protection of these ‘especially vul-nerable groups’ of children. Among others,orphans, children separated from their fami-lies, children living in female or child headedhouseholds, those in hazardous and/orexploitative jobs, or living on the streets, arecommonly singled out for special attention.This is partly in recognition of the fact thatpoverty can be highly concentrated amongthese groups. It also reflects the probabilitythat those already marginalized by excep-tional circumstances are likely to be moreprofoundly affected by poverty than otherswho have more influence and opportunitiesand better networks of support.

Many agencies feel that only by directingtheir attention to the most vulnerable andpowerless social groups will they eradicatepoverty. Such an approach is also seen tomeet the imperatives of social equity andjustice. Definitely there are a number ofadvantages with this kind of targetedapproach, not least being the fact that limit-ed resources can be directed at those ingreatest distress. But, interventions that

Aside from the

broader power

distinctions founded

on gender, class and

the like, there are

more localized

differences between

children based on

more specific personal

and family

circumstances.

11

focus on the most vulnerable and weakestsections of the population confront a num-ber of obstacles and challenges. Preciselybecause they are isolated from decision-making, have little control over resourcesand commonly lack the sense of self-effica-cy needed to take control of their lives, themore marginalized members of society tendnot to present themselves before agenciesor projects. Accordingly, the researchrevealed that CCF does not always work withthe poorest of the poor or with the most vul-nerable groups of children but with groupsthat already have the capacity and time toorganize and become involved in projects.Prioritizing the least powerful sections of thepopulation entails a major commitment interms of accessing and learning aboutpotential beneficiaries, forging relationshipswith them and building their capacity andself assurance.

Giving preference to the most vulnerablegroups raises other concerns. First, childrenidentified as particularly vulnerable may wellbe in need of special attention, however thelevel of attention they receive can be dispro-portionate in comparison with other childrenwho may be suffering similar but less promi-nent threats to their protection. The tenden-cy to single out specific categories of chil-dren has in many cases unintentionallyadded to their stigmatization by society as awhole, as with children suffering fromHIV/AIDS.

Aside from this, social hierarchies are some-times highly entrenched and assistancegiven to the most vulnerable will not neces-sarily be enjoyed by them. Thus, loansawarded to women in micro finance projectsare commonly utilized by male partners orrelatives. Often women do not benefit fromthese projects and may become liable fordebts incurred by men. Worse still, becauseof the close link between the work of womenand children, some of these projects havebeen found to massively increase children’slabor burden. Social targeting of this sortmay even lead to resistance from other moreinfluential members of society, who may

object to the change in status and roles ofthose groups that are singled out for specialattention. Finally, concepts of vulnerabilityemployed by agencies are often based onstereotyped notions that do not conform tothe realities on the ground.


• There is some merit in focusing limitedresources on children who appearespecially vulnerable.

• Care must be taken though to ensurethat there is broad social acceptanceof these targeted approaches andthat highlighting the plight of a particu-lar group will not lead to theirstigmatization.

• The task is to develop child protectionapproaches that are not imposed fromoutside a society but build instead onlocal resources and understandingsand are sufficiently flexible to adjust tolocal conditions and circumstances.

• Concepts of vulnerability should begrounded in reality and in the particu-lar operational context rather than innormative and globalized ideas aboutchildhood.

3.0 HOW CHILDREN RESPOND TOADVERSITY

3.1 Revising Our Ideas AboutChildhood

One of the most serious problems associat-ed with conventional views about childhoodvulnerability is the tendency to think of chil-dren who live with adversity as passive vic-tims of circumstance. First, the causes ofpoverty are thought to be largely structural,having to do with global, regional and nation-al processes in which children have no sayand over which they have no control.Second, it is imagined that children do nothave much of a stake in poverty alleviationpolicies or interventions. Third, children aregenerally thought to have lesser abilitiesthan adults, as well as unique emotional,physical, psychological and social needs

Prioritizing the least

powerful sections of

the population entails

a major commitment

in terms of accessing

and learning about

potential beneficiaries,

forging relationships

with them and

building their capacity

and self assurance.

12

that render them especially vulnerable. Assuch, it is assumed that they are dependenton adults (especially parents) for theirsocialization and protection. Beyond this, asimmature persons in the process of develop-ment they are believed to have insufficientexperience or skills to hold valid views onthe possible solutions to their poverty.

This perspective undoubtedly has meritwhen it comes to infants and very young chil-dren who are entirely dependent on othersfor their survival. As well, it does highlighthow some older children lack the self-assur-ance to fend for themselves and how someare completely overwhelmed by adversitieslike poverty. There are other considerations.Since children do, as a rule, have less power,experience and information than adults, theycan benefit greatly from adult guidance andsupport. Most children receive immeasura-ble comfort and reassurance from the care,love and affection bestowed upon them byadults. Nevertheless, even with the numer-ous advantages children derive from the nur-ture and support given by adults, it remainsthe case that the young do not simply absorbadult ideas but are social agents in their ownright.

The children interviewed in the CCF studyshowed very clearly that they are not passiverecipients of experience but active contribu-tors to their own well-being and develop-ment. Just like adults, children are veryactive in engaging with the world aroundthem and harness their reasoning, insightand expertise to the construction of theirown values, meanings, and strategies. As wehave seen, many also have important socialand economic responsibilities and do notregard themselves as dependent on adultsso much as interdependent with adults. Theythink of themselves as co-contributors to thefamily, playing their own part in the care ofyounger siblings and incapacitated adultsand in household maintenance and survival.Indeed, the assumption of age-appropriateroles and responsibilities within the familyand community can be a vital source of self-esteem and motivation for children.

Such evidence calls for a profound rethink-ing of ‘childhood’ and for innovative child-focused interventions and strategies.Growing research and practical attentionglobally is now being given to participatoryprocesses that support children in theirefforts to overcome adversities such aspoverty. Rather than employ the traditionaldeficit (victim, or needs based) model,though, most of these efforts favor a focuson children’s abilities and on their potentialas change agents. The understanding is thatin all but the most dire circumstances chil-dren do have options and do make choicesand that a focus on children’s problems tothe exclusion of their strengths is unlikely tohave the desired effect in terms of eradicat-ing their poverty and suffering. In fact, it isbelieved that approaching children as thehelpless casualties of adversity rather thanactive survivors may render them more vul-nerable, since it denigrates their copingefforts and withholds from them the possibil-ity of acting on their situation.

Building childhood policy on a vision ofinclusion, self-determination and self-pro-tection carries many challenges. It entailschanges in the way adults think and act. Itrequires respect for children’s integrity andcapacity for responsible thought and action,while allowing for the provision of adult guid-ance and support. To do this, adults need tolearn to trust children’s choices. It meansaccepting that while children certainly canand do make errors of judgement, adults donot have an automatic monopoly of expert-ise concerning what is in children’s bestinterests. At the same time, great sensitivitymust be shown towards children’s existingresponsibilities, in that initiatives to supportand protect children should not add to theconsiderable family and community burdensmany already bear. As well, the responsibili-ties of childhood, including the responsibili-ties associated with participation, willinevitably change as children grow andmature and this needs to be taken intoaccount in policy and action.

Building childhood

policy on a vision

of inclusion,

self-determination

and self-protection

carries many

challenges.

13


• While some children may be very vul-nerable and require special assis-tance and support, it needs to beunderstood that children are not thehelpless victims of circumstances vis-ited upon them by adults but activeagents in their own right.

• Forms of assistance that focus on chil-dren’s abilities and on their potential aschange agents as opposed to theirweaknesses are more likely to rein-force their capacity to protect them-selves and to overcome adversity.

• Supporting children in their own pro-tection and in their role as changeagents entails the development anduse of participatory child-focusedmethodology and methods in planning,implementation, monitoring and evalu-ation and in policy more generally.Such methodology must be sensitiveto children’s existing responsibilities.

3.2 Supporting Children’s Resilienceand Coping

Even if we think of children as social actorsas opposed to passive victims, knowing howprecisely to build on children’s competen-cies and coping strategies, while also pro-tecting them against hazard, and supportingthe most vulnerable remains a major chal-lenge. A framework for understanding howchildren are affected by poverty and howbest to assist them must address this chal-lenge. Some practitioners employ a model ofintervention based on the concepts of “risk”and “resilience” as a means of achievingthis end. “Risk” refers to variables thatincrease an individual’s susceptibility to neg-ative developmental outcomes or becomingoverwhelmed by adverse circumstances. Anumber of risks are found internally; theyresult from the unique combination of char-acteristics that make-up an individual, suchas temperament or neurological structure.Other risks are external; that is they resultfrom environmental factors, including pover-ty and war, which inhibit an individual’s

healthy development.

Not all children exposed to risks developproblems later on: these children are oftendeemed “resilient”. The term resiliencerefers to an individual’s capacity to adaptand remain strong in the face of adversity.Resilience depends on both individual andgroup strengths, and is highly influenced bysupportive elements in the wider environ-ment. These positive reinforcements in chil-dren’s lives are often described as “protec-tive factors” or “protective processes”.11

While it is understood that risk andresilience are not constructed the same wayin all societies, it is generally accepted thatthe interaction of risk and protective factorsplays an important role in the developmentof all children.

Several processes or mechanisms at theindividual, family and wider environmentallevels have a significant influence on riskand resilience in children. For example, ahealthy, strong child is likely to be moreresilient emotionally and psychologicallythan one that is physically weak or sick.Gender, age, temperament, sense of humor,memory, reasoning, perceptual competen-cies and sense of purpose, have all beenfound to have a significant impact onresilience. Children who are capable of lat-eral thinking and problem solving canenhance their coping by identifying alterna-tive options to their current circumstancesand devising creative solutions. Childrenwho have experienced approval, accept-ance and opportunities for mastery are farmore likely to be resilient than those whohave been subjected to humiliation, rejec-tion, or failure. These protective factorsshape to a large extent the strategies thatchildren use to manage stressful situationsand to defend themselves against painfulexperiences or low self-esteem.

The CCF study highlights how, in addition totheir own inner resources and competen-cies, children’s interpersonal relationshipscan be essential factors mediating risk andresilience. Families and other important ref-

Resilience depends

on both individual

and group strengths,

and is highly

influenced by

supportive elements

in the wider

environment.

11Woodhead, M. 1998 Children’sPerspectives on Their WorkingLives — A Participatory Studyin Bangladesh, Ethiopia, thePhillippines, Guatemara, ElSalvador and Nicaragua.Stockholm: Radda Barnen.

14

erence persons play a major role in helpingchildren interpret, ‘process’ and adjust to, orovercome difficult life experiences. Peoplewho act as mentors can have an enormousimpact on children’s coping, by providingmodels of and reinforcement for problemsolving, motivation and other skills. Feelingsupported and secure and having guidanceand reassurance during difficult times pro-motes self-esteem and helps children tobuild a sense of hope.

The study also provides considerable evi-dence that social support from peers canenhance children’s resilience. Children whoare able to establish and maintain friend-ships have been shown to be more resilientthan those who are isolated from other chil-dren. Positive peer relationships providechildren with an arena of support outside thefamily in which they can experiment, devel-op attitudes, skills and values, and learn toshare, to help and to nurture one another.These relationships both mitigate the nega-tive effects of adversity, and also contributeto a child’s sense of self-esteem. Thisprocess may in turn enhance the develop-ment of other protective factors such as asense of competence, an ability to formother meaningful relationships, toempathize, and to feel a sense of belonging.In short, friendships provide children, likeadults, with opportunities to be themselvesand to feel good about who they are —these processes help to build resilience.

Community factors also play an importantrole in limiting children’s vulnerability andsupporting their resilience. Neighborhoods,schools and organized community groupsand programs can supplement protectivefactors at the individual level by providing asupportive context for children. In Belarus,computer clubs play a crucial role in chil-dren’s lives, allowing them to share leisuretime with peers in a comparatively safe envi-ronment far from the domestic strife thatprevails in many homes. Children unable toafford the entrance fee to these clubs feelthat they are at a major disadvantage in rela-tion to their peers. Participation in institu-

tional and social settings that provide chil-dren with meaningful opportunities to con-tribute and to feel useful and supported canhelp to foster in children a sense of hope andpurpose. As it happens, however, there waslittle evidence from the study that childrenwho are associated with CCF enjoy the rightto take part in decisions, planning and otherprocesses affecting them and there is con-siderable scope to develop this crucial areaof work further.

Variations in patterns of resilience and cop-ing are also a function of cultural beliefsabout childhood and child development. Wehave seen that particular societies havetheir own ideas about the capacities andvulnerabilities of children, the ways in whichthey learn and develop, and those things thatare good and bad for them. These ideasaffect approaches to child socialization,learning, discipline and protection, andhence to a significant degree, circumscribechildren’s adaptation, resilience and coping.

In other words, the social arrangements,child development goals and child rearingpractices of the communities in which chil-dren live play a fundamental part in deter-mining the different capabilities and suscep-tibilities that children develop. Therefore, it isimportant that “the ‘developmental appropri-ateness’ of children’s experiences, the‘harmfulness’ or ‘benefits’ of their environ-ment cannot be separated from the culturalcontext in which they are developing, the val-ues and goals that inform their lives and theirprior experiences of learning skills and waysof thinking.” Children grow and flourish in awhole host of different environments andunder a whole variety of circumstances, andwhat is adaptive in child development is verymuch a product of these specific settings.


• Risk and uncertainty are normal child-hood experiences. Most healthy chil-dren develop mechanisms that helpthem integrate these experiences andprotect them against becoming over-

Families and other

important reference

persons play a major

role in helping

children interpret,

‘process’ and adjust to,

or overcome difficult

life experiences.

15

whelmed. In this, children may be sup-ported by a range of protectiveprocesses within the environment,including and in particular supportiverelationships with family and peers.

• Exposure to adversities such as pover-ty increases the level of risk in chil-dren. Those who are able to cope withor overcome adversity are oftentermed resilient.

• Aside from prevention and eradicationof poverty, a key aim of strategies toreduce the suffering caused by pover-ty is to increase resilience in affectedchildren by supporting their copingskills, building on their resourceful-ness and competencies and fosteringprotective mechanisms within thewider environment. Again, this impliesinvestment in human and social capi-tal, and partnership with children, fam-ilies and civil society organizations.

• The competencies associated withenhanced resilience and coping, forexample sense of humor and self-effi-cacy, will in most cases also con-tribute positively to well-being andoverall quality of live. In this sense,efforts to support children’s resiliencecan also contribute to the broaderobjective of increasing child well-being.

4.0 PARTNERS IN CHANGE

Confronting child poverty is a massiveundertaking that entails involvement of and,in some cases, close collaboration with,children, their families and communities,civil society organizations (CSOs) and thestate. As indicated, partnership with chil-dren as the agents of their own developmentand protection and as contributing membersof families and communities should be thecornerstone of CCF’s strategy to reducechild poverty and enhance children’s well-being and quality of life. But children cannotbe treated as autonomous units in isolationfrom the wider society and from otherchange agents.

4.1 The State

In industrialized countries the state, or themachinery of government, appears to beeverywhere. Whether it is road building orindustry, food subsidies or taxation, housingor employment, most government decisionshave an impact on the economic well-beingof children. Government policy and interven-tion grows hand in hand with industrializa-tion and urbanization. During industrializa-tion in Europe the state assumed manyresponsibilities that had once belonged tothe family, such as care for the poor anddependent. By the beginning of the twenti-eth century most advanced states hadexpanded to regulate trade, consumer pro-tection and wages. Measures to providehealth care and housing also developed,child labor was abolished and universalschooling was introduced. The familyacquired a new definition as a private insti-tution, one in partnership with the state.Today, specialized state-run institutions ofchildhood—child care and leisure centers,schools and so on—complement the tradi-tional roles and functions of the family.

Most countries in the South do not have thefunds for widespread state support to socialand economic measures. Where high birthrates, early mortality and educationalwastage are pressing problems, birth spac-ing, health and education services take pri-ority over social services and welfare poli-cies. Aside from this, governments are com-monly reluctant to intervene in the econom-ic or social life of children, their families andcommunities, frequently on cultural grounds.Some are far more concerned about nation-al security and defense than the well-beingof the populace. The Convention on theRights of the Child has facilitated greaterstate involvement in child provision and pro-tection in many countries and there havebeen encouraging developments at localgovernment level in particular in someareas. But, in most places, beyond healthand education, responsibility for children stilltends to be assumed by young people them-selves, by their families and communities

Confronting child

poverty is a massive

undertaking that

entails involvement of

and, in some cases,

close collaboration

with, children, their

families and commu-

nities, civil society

organizations (CSOs)

and the state.

16

and by local, national and internationalCSOs.

Government policy is crucial to wealth cre-ation and distribution and active public sec-tor involvement in service provision canhave a fundamental impact on child poverty.Recognizing this, some international child-focused organizations work in very closepartnership with government. They providevarious forms of assistance, including train-ing for public sector employees, suppliesand equipment for schools and clinics, helpwith the planning and development of serv-ices and formulation of policy. Much of thiseffort is directed at the institutions of centralgovernment, especially the ministries ofeducation, health and, to a lesser extent,social welfare. However, many agenciesconfine themselves to supporting local gov-ernment, because in their view there isgreater accountability and efficiency at thislevel, greater awareness of and contact withgrass roots concerns and greater overallvalue to be had in fostering decentralization.Others work exclusively with CSOs on thegrounds of public sector inefficiency andcorruption and difficulties of going to scale.

The public sector was notable for itsabsence in the CCF study. While respon-dents were quick to complain about inappro-priate policy, corruption or inaction by gov-ernment as a cause of poverty, few talkedabout the public sector as fostering or con-tributing to wealth creation and povertyeradication. Regardless of the reasons whyCCF stakeholders concern themselves so lit-tle with government, CCF as an agency hasto decide on the extent to which, and waysin which, it will work with the public sector,either at the national or the local level, orboth.

At the moment CCF’s comparative advantageis definitely its grass roots links with families,communities and community-based organi-zations (CBOs). However, government is avital actor in the field of child poverty andchanges spearheaded by the public sectorin the fiscal and legal environments can

make a major difference to the well-being ofchildren. Also, in most countries there isample room for improvement in budgetaryallocations to the social and economic sec-tors. There is considerable potential indeveloping strategic partnerships with othernational and international NGOs in research-ing child poverty so as to inform and influ-ence public sector thinking and decisions.Such research could provide the basis ofawareness raising, advocacy and lobbyinginitiatives with government on child-focusedpoverty reduction interventions and other,related, policies and activities. Similarly,consideration can be given to orientationand training of government officials aroundissues of child poverty and social exclusionand the need for greater attention to thedevelopment of social and human capital.

4.2 CSOs

Experience demonstrates that government’sability to ensure broad social implementa-tion of child poverty schemes is limited. Theachievement of this goal in everyday prac-tice requires popular mobilization dependingon ample participation from CSOs. This isespecially true in an era of public sectorausterity, “downsizing” and decentralizationof public services. The non-state sectormust now carry greater responsibility forgenerating economic and social develop-ment. Also, support to CSOs has more pro-found implications, in that many consider ahealthy civil society to be an essential hall-mark of any open and well-governed democ-racy that intends to make its population citi-zens, rather than subjects.

Addressing child poverty entails coopera-tion with a wide variety of CSOs. The scopeand diversity of such organizations arealmost boundless. As long as they are struc-tured and functional, they need not be legal-ly formalized. Some pursue a broad socialpurpose, such as the expansion of peaceand social justice or the provision of charita-ble services to the sick and poor. Others pro-mote the narrower interests of particulargroups such as working or street children.

17

Some of the more influential CSOs are in factnetworks or umbrella groups comprised ofother member CSOs. Many CSOs resonatewith political overtones, while others main-tain an apolitical stance, focusing on issuesfrom what they consider to be a rigorouslytechnical perspective.

Children’s advocacy organizations, religiousand other value-forming institutions, non-for-mal education programs, community radiostations, professional associations, dramagroups and popular culture groups are butsome of the CSOs that have proven effectivechannels for child poverty interventions.What these many types of organizationshave in common is that they represent citi-zens’ own voluntary initiatives to promoteideas, values, groups or actions in local,national or international arenas outside theprivileged spaces of government. Of specialinterest to CCF is the fact that they increas-ingly enter and transact in what amounts toan expanding global market of ideas.

In many countries there exist large numbersof community and charitable groups eitherworking directly with children or advocatingfor their rights. The term CSO certainlyincludes such organizations, but it alsopoints beyond them to less common part-ners—for instance, industrial and employerassociations, trade unions, service clubs,religious institutions, social and sportingclubs, professional associations, researchinstitutes, non-profit media, children’s ownorganizations, and of course advocacygroups of many types.

Because many CSOs live closer to the prob-lems of children than do public sector agen-cies, they generally understand them ingreater detail. Indeed, some of the mosteffective CSOs in the field of child povertyreduction and child empowerment are chil-dren’s own organizations, for example thosethat support the self-organization and self-representation of street and working chil-dren. Children’s organizations and otherCSOs also tend to be more innovative inresponding to young people’s problems than

are public bodies. Often they are more child-centered in their approach to children’sissues than the public sector. They tend tofocus more readily on the key question ofwhat is in children’s best interests, and theyare more likely to bring to that question aholistic perspective of children’s develop-ment. Whereas government may be con-strained to a legalistic view rooted in exist-ing policy, or a political one reflecting inter-est group power relationships, CSOs aremore free to move directly to the matter ofwhat is good for children and make it themain point of public debate. This role hasbeen of critical importance in national andworld debate on many different issues.

Working with children on the very margins ofsociety who may be engaged in activitiesdefined as anti-social or illegal and are stig-matized socially and economically can beespecially challenging. It means reachingout to CSOs in less accessible communities,to children’s membership organizations andto small scale CBOs, for these tend to be thebodies with the most effective responses. Indealing with child labor issues, trade unions,industry associations and working children’sorganizations have in some countries beenespecially active and creative exponents ofchildren’s rights in the workplace.Supporting these organizations entails aserious commitment to the identification ofnew, non-traditional partners and the pro-motion and capacity building of weak orinexperienced CSOs.

While partnership with CSOs may involvelabor intensive and time-consumingprocesses, the rewards in terms of buildinga local constituency of support and action infavor of children can be considerable. CCFneeds to make a clear decision regardingthe extent to which it will foster partnershipswith CSOs in its efforts to combat childpoverty and social exclusion, especiallynon-traditional CSOs and children’s mem-bership organizations.

CCF is operating in an increasingly globalenvironment in which the policies and activ-

…some of the most

effective CSOs in the

field of child poverty

reduction and child

empowerment are

children’s own

organizations, for

example those

that support the

self-organization and

self-representation of

street and working

children.

18

ities that support the reduction of childpoverty are operative not simply at the coun-try level but also regionally and internation-ally. Indeed, many of the problems con-fronting children today have regional orglobal causes and some of the most severesituations confronting children, such aschild trafficking and sexual exploitation, aretransnational in character. In the network ofagencies working internationally with chil-dren, international child-centered NGOs andNGO alliances are particularly active, mostframing their policies and programs accord-ing to the Convention on the Rights of theChild. If CCF is to assume an active role in thechild poverty field, attention to the broaderregional and international dimensions ofpoverty is essential. At the very least thisimplies active engagement in internationaldebates, but could also entail more signifi-cant collaboration with child-centered andother INGOs, through networking and possi-ble partnerships.

4.3 The Family

In most countries, achieving widespreadrecognition and successful implementationof interventions to reduce child poverty andincrease children’s quality of life and well-being depends ultimately on extended socialdiscourse that includes all important actors,including children and their families.Fundamental issues such as ending tradi-tional forms of discrimination against girls,changing children’s family roles to avoiddetrimental child work, and providing forchildren to participate in social decisionsaffecting them requires extensive public dis-cussion in order to arrive at socially support-able solutions.

As the cornerstone of society and of chil-dren’s personal lives, the family should play akey role in this discussion. The centrality ofthe family in children’s well-being is hard toexaggerate. In most of sub-Saharan Africa tobe without family is to be destitute. In theChewa language of modern Malawi, theword for ‘poor’—(umphawi)—implies a lackof kin and friends. In Belarus, poor families

with single parents are often referred to bythe term ‘nepolneeye’ (using Roman script),which similarly implies a condition of being‘not full’ and ‘unfavorable’, and in Kenyawealth is often measured by the number ofwives and children a man has. In all thecountries researched, families whose mem-bers work collaboratively to maintain thehousehold were considered the most likely tobe able to withstand poverty. Accordingly,some of the poorest children globally arethose separated from their families and thosewho run households of sibling or peer groupswithout guidance or support from adults.

Nevertheless, while the power of family can-not be denied, we reiterate here that thefamily is not always a benign force in chil-dren’s lives. Given how commonplace par-tiality towards particular categories of chil-dren and inequalities in intra-familialresource allocation, intervention at the levelof the family is no guarantee that childrenwill benefit. At their best, families make aprofound contribution to the health of socie-ty and its individuals: preserving culture, val-ues, ethics, and wealth. At their worst, theyresist change, restrict individual freedom,and indulge in prejudices that can lead toabuse, conflict and abandonment. Thus, itshould not be automatically assumed thatchildren in families are better off then chil-dren outside them. Indeed, when offered thechoice between an abusive or oppressivefamily and living alone, with peers, or in afoster home, children often decide againstthe family.

CCF acknowledges the crucial role playedby the family in children’s lives. Indeed, thestudy reveals that one of the most devastat-ing consequences of poverty for children isits insidious impact on family life. In almostall cases, poverty threatens the family’s abil-ity to cater to the needs of its members, par-ticularly the weaker ones. Poverty alsobreeds powerlessness. Poor families havelittle control over resources such as capital,land, or labor. With so much time and energybeing devoted to survival, there is littleopportunity to use the family’s capabilities to

As the cornerstone

of society and of

children’s personal

lives, the family

should play a key role

in this discussion.

19

accumulate resources, secure sustainablelivelihoods, or protect children. In cases ofdestitution, to ensure the survival of the fam-ily, individual children may be trafficked intoprostitution, bondage, or other hazardoussituations. Some of the most profoundeffects of poverty noted by CCF stakeholdersincluded: undermining of relations betweengenerations; raised levels of intra-familialviolence, neglect and alcohol abuse; loss ofmale (father’s) authority and status due to hisinability to be an effective breadwinner; andfamily separation (including migration) andbreakdown.

Children in the CCF study live in a wide rangeof family and household types and struc-tures, including polygamous units, house-holds constituted of three or four genera-tions, and single-parent families. Withmigration, many families stretch across bothrural and urban areas, while increasingnumbers straddle international borders.Children themselves are often very mobile,circulating between households and com-munities in times of prosperity as well asdeprivation. Households that are short oflabor may foster children from householdswith a surfeit. Moreover, in many societies,child rearing is a communal affair thatincludes caregivers that may or may not berelated to the child in question. A significantproportion of the children interviewed byCCF come from female headed or femalemanaged households, whether due tomigration, death, or family breakdown andseparation. These children may have mini-mal or no contact with their fathers. Evenwhen a father is present and assumes con-siderable liability for his family, women tendto bear the greater burden of care, socializa-tion and protection of children (particularlygirls). The point here is that two-generation,two-parent, nuclear families are neither themost common household form in many partsof the world (regardless of adversity), nor actas primary caregivers for children in manycases.

As a matter of policy, the family mustinevitably play an important part in plans to

reduce child poverty and social suffering.However, as the CCF study confirms, familyand household structures are variable andcomplex, and we should not fall into the trapof thinking that all or even the majority ofchildren grow up in households togetherwith their immediate family. In some casesthe most viable family form for children isone constituted by a sibling or peer group.Furthermore, it should not be assumed thatchildren in lone parent families are neces-sarily worse off in terms of the level of carethey receive. Rather, they are more suscep-tible to poverty as a result of the social stig-ma and/or constraints that single parents(especially single mothers) face.

From this it is evident that if CCF is to supportfamilies in their efforts to secure sustainablelivelihoods, increase their quality of life andenhance the well-being of their children, theagency must be able to countenance sup-port to ‘non-traditional’ familial mechanisms.It must show considerable flexibility andopenness to working with a wide range offamily structures and forms. Every effortshould be made to avoid stereotypedassumptions about the level and quality ofcare received by children in accordancewith family structure. Recognition needs tobe given to the role of children themselves intheir own care and in the care of others, notjust younger siblings, but also incapacitatedadults. As well as assistance to families ledby adults, consideration may need to begiven to supporting child headed and/orchild managed households, especially incountries and communities where theseprevail in large concentrations. Where fami-lies are unable to muster sufficientresources to engage in NGO sponsoredlivelihood initiatives on an individual basis,collective CSO initiatives that benefit groupsof families should be considered as an effec-tive alternative.


• In order to implement its povertyframework, CCF needs to reduce itspresent comparative isolation from

20

ongoing aid and development activi-ties at the international, national andsub-national levels and to forge andconsolidate links with multiple civilsociety actors, including children.These links should aim to facilitatechild-focused research and program-ming on poverty issues and entail bothmembership of networks and umbrellaorganizations and partnership withother implementing bodies.

• CCF needs to be extremely flexible inits approach to partnerships, makingstrategic links with the organizationsand actors that can benefit childrenmost directly. This may mean workingwith non-traditional partners such asorganized children’s groups. It entailsconsiderable work internally withinCCF to create the structures andprocesses that support, integrate,empower and enable actors involvedat each action level, with definedmutual responsibilities, relationshipsand accountabilities.

• In the creation of alliances with actorsat different action levels, attentionneeds to be paid to the development ofdemocratic and inclusive processesand structures, adherence to mutuallyagreed ethical guidelines and codes ofconduct regarding work with childrenand employment of participatory phi-losophy and methodology throughout.

• To have beneficial impact, efforts toreduce child poverty must engage withgovernment in one way or another. Adecision needs to be taken as towhether CCF will work directly withcentral or local government on capaci-ty building and policy development,etc., or will work indirectly to influencepublic policy and resource allocationby building civil society consensus andsupporting civil society advocacy andlobbying on the issues.

• Partnerships with communities, fami-lies and children must be open andflexible and, as appropriate, mustacknowledge and accept that in manysituations unconventional societal

forms and structures can be valid andeffective in promoting children’s well-being and development.

CONCLUSION

We have stated that economic models eithercompletely disregard children, subsumethem under households, or construct worldsthat do not even approximate their realities.In so doing, economics is implicitly assertingthat children are not worthy of the consider-ation given to adult humans. Further, eco-nomic models do not attempt to consider theimplications of maximizing children’s well-being and quality of life, gauging povertysolely in terms of physical states, such asraised mortality, and monetary values. As aresult, they ignore the relative nature ofpoverty and the corresponding social injus-tices and anguish.

In this paper we have argued for an alterna-tive view of child poverty. We have noted thenecessity of sound empirical evidence andstrong theoretical and conceptual underpin-ning to policy. We have stressed the impor-tance of implementation approaches thatare tailored to children’s actual circum-stances and needs while at the same timeshowing respect for children as competentactors in the face of adversity. Significanteffort is also required to ensure outreach tothe more vulnerable population groups andsustainability.

A paradigm has been advocated in whichpoverty interventions and policies are to bedriven by children’s experiences and per-spectives and by recent social science the-ories on childhood and child development.Within this paradigm, childhood is conceptu-alized as a very diverse life phase. Emphasisis given to the importance of both individualagency and environmental forces in mediat-ing children’s competencies and susceptibil-ities, their development and well-being. Atthe same time, poverty is understood as ahighly dynamic and contextualized phenom-enon. It is held to be a complex and multifac-eted form of adversity that is manifested not

21

only in material states, but also in social andpsychological states, especially socialexclusion and the associated sense of griev-ance and loss of self-efficacy. In agreementwith this view, well-being and good quality oflife are confirmed as more effective objec-tives of poverty reduction measures thanmere wealth creation or sustainable liveli-hoods.

Recognizing that adversity is a potential oractual source of risk in children, attention isgiven not only to the positive, quality of life,objectives, but also to the protective mecha-nisms that mitigate negative impacts on chil-dren and reinforce their resilience and cop-ing. Such mechanisms are highlighted asoperating at the individual, family, communi-ty and societal levels. They include chil-dren’s own cognitive and social competen-cies, supportive relationships with familyand peers and opportunities to play a mean-ingful role in family and community life and inpoverty-reduction and other initiatives.

Hence, the paradigm provides a basis uponwhich CCF can act to prevent or reduce childpoverty and ameliorate its negative social,psychological and economic effects. Specificpolicies and activities will need to bedesigned in response to specific issues, con-ditions and circumstances affecting childrenin the communities and countries in whichCCF operates. However, an overriding princi-ple will be to foster and build on the idea ofchildren as the agents of their own develop-ment and protection and contributing mem-bers of families and communities. Children’sparticipation in social planning and action isbeing piloted by various NGOs and some gov-ernments in a range of situations throughoutthe world and CCF can learn a great deal fromthese initiatives. A second key principle willbe the enhancement of protective mecha-nisms and creation of an enabling environ-ment for children. Collaboration and partner-ship with children’s own organizations, fami-lies and other childcare units, CSOs, child-hood institutions (especially schools) and(possibly) government will be crucial to theachievement of this aim.

Christian Children’s Fund (CCF) is an international childdevelopment organization which works in approximately 30 countries,assisting approximately 4.6 million children and families regardless of

race, creed, religion or gender. CCF works for the well-being of childrenby supporting locally led initiatives that strengthen families and

communities, helping them overcome poverty and protect the rightsof their children. CCF works in any environment where poverty,

conflict and disaster threaten the well-being of children.

CCFCHRISTIAN CHILDREN’S FUND

2821 Emerywood Parkway, Richmond, Virginia 232941-800-776-6767 • www.ChristianChildrensFund.org

children and poverty - childfund...the cycle of poverty, what it means in our work and how program...

Documents