1.2.1 Definition of Marginality
We define marginality as “an involuntary position and condition of an individual or group at the margins of social, political, economic, ecological, and biophysical systems, that prevent them from access to resources, assets, services, restraining freedom of choice, preventing the development of capabilities, and eventually causing extreme poverty” (Gatzweiler et al.
2011, 3; also see Gatzweiler and Baumüller
Chap. 2 this volume). The marginality perspective encompasses those poor who are below certain thresholds and outside mainstream socio-economic and human geographical systems, where improved access to rights, resources, and services would help enable decent standards of living. With reference to biological systems, marginality describes the state of organisms outside optimal homeostatic ranges which are necessary for living systems (Damasio
2011; also see Callo-Concha et al.,
Chap. 4 this volume).
As the meaning of the word indicates, marginality is a relative concept that refers to where people are and to what they have. “Where people are” not only refers to physical locations, but also to societal positions. “What they have” refers to capital assets—using a broad definition of capital—and the rules and regulations (both formal and informal) that enable access to these assets and their use. For example, ethnic minorities in rural Africa or Asia may live in geographically remote areas and be perceived as socially marginal by their respective national governments. Nevertheless, according to traditional institutions they may have user rights and access to land, water, and biological resources (e.g., forests) that enable them to function in the livelihoods of their choice. By disabling them of traditional access and rights to use these resources (e.g., by imposing rules of the nation state, prohibiting access to resources, and measuring their well-being in terms of material ownership or monetary savings), they become poor and marginalized. The marginalized poor are those who are affected by both marginalization and poverty. Causalities of the two concepts are complex (Dasgupta
2009) and the linkages between them need to be further explored, and that is a task of this book.
1.2.2 Marginality and Poverty
The concept of marginality should not be construed as an alternative to the concept of poverty; rather these two concepts overlap and are complementary. Marginality encompasses broad approaches like relative deprivation, social exclusion, or the capabilities approach. It entails an interdisciplinary and systemic perspective on the lives of the poor with the aim of revealing the underlying contributors to poverty, which have their roots in the functioning (or malfunctioning) of economic, socio-cultural, or ecological systems. This includes taking spatial dimensions such as geography and location into account. In the words of Dasgupta (
2003, 2) “policies matter, as do institutions, but the local ecology matters too.” Influenced by Sen’s “capability approach” (
1987a,
1993,
1999), which focuses on functions or living conditions defined as “what we can do or cannot do, can or cannot be” (
1987b, 16), and the ability to achieve them (capabilities), the marginality concept goes beyond a measurement of well-being in terms of goods or commodities. This concept seeks to reveal real opportunities or barriers that exist as a result of what people have (goods, rights, knowledge, and opportunities) and where they are (understood as their geographical location or their positions within socio-political and economic systems). Both define their access to resources, services, or decision making. As in Sen’s capabilities approach, what matters for achieving desired well-being is not only the amount of what people have and can do, but also how these assets are transformed (by real opportunities) into fully functioning lives that people choose to live (Nussbaum and Sen
1993; Nussbaum
2004; Schlosberg
2007).
Where these opportunities do not exist or where they are actively constrained, barriers hinder the empowerment of people and they are constrained from developing the full potential of their lives. These barriers are constraints or capability deprivations that can originate from multiple causes rooted in economic, social, political, or ecological systems, which can also be considered enabling conditions or freedoms (see Sen
1999).
Within the concept of marginality, the nexus of poverty, environmental change, and development may be addressed. Marginality is a multidimensional and interdisciplinary concept integrating poverty, discrimination, and social exclusion; the degradation of ecosystem function; and access to services, markets, and technology. Marginality incorporates the understanding that subjective perceptions of poverty, values, and aspirations matter, and that all of these are part of calibrating the tools of poverty measurement. Apart from being inclusive and interdisciplinary, the concept of marginality offers an integrated and systemic basis for understanding the interactions between social and ecological systems. In a world with fewer natural resources for all, the linkages and changing patterns between both kinds of systems become more apparent, and the role of access to services and technologies ever more critical.
“De-marginalizing” the marginalized requires the creation of the physical infrastructure and institutional arrangements that can help to overcome the barriers to access, exchange, and communication, and facilitate a shift away from the margins of development through building accessible assets beyond natural capital (i.e., access to services that foster human capital and technology), while including the marginalized in the process. The ability to live a life to its full potential, or to achieve the living conditions of one’s choice, can be constrained by factors stemming from social or ecological systems. If access is denied to land, forest, water or the benefits they provide (e.g., habitat, nutrient and hydrological cycling, soil fertility, carbon sequestration), then we speak of constraints or barriers to the delivery of ecosystem goods and services.
The concept of marginality facilitates an understanding of the underlying systemic contributors of poverty and exclusion that can overlap with the lack of resources and opportunities needed to achieve the desired conditions in life. Although the income poverty approach is easy to conceptualize and measure (in its simplest form the headcount ratio counts the proportion of people living under a particular poverty line), it has been criticized because it does not relate to multitudinous concepts of individual need “or to any agreed definition of what it is to be poor” (Gordon et al.
2000, 8). Relative deprivation (RD) measures build on the idea that the value of objective circumstances depends on subjective comparisons (Townsend
1979; Stark and Bloom
1985; Walker and Smith
2002; Wilkinson and Pickett
2007; Stark et al.
2011). The RD concept adds a whole new dimension to absolute poverty concepts, because it refers to the circumstances under which comparisons are made and does not define a general threshold. The RD approach is helpful, as it differs from traditional poverty concepts in that it defines the relative level of deprivation of material or social assets and conditions, whereas poverty is understood as “lacking or being denied the resources to obtain these conditions of life” (Townsend et al.
1987, 85; as cited in Sauders
1994, 235–236).
The conceptual foundations of marginality are elaborated further in
Chap. 2 (this volume) by Gatzweiler and Baumüller. The authors review the distinctions between frameworks, theories, and models, and highlight that marginality is best perceived as a framework within which different sets of theories and models can be usefully applied and tested. Reducing the diversity of poverty to a few indicators entails the risk of overlooking critical features and causalities underlying poverty as analyzed from a systems perspective. Gatzweiler and Baumüller review the evolution of the marginality concept, as well as classes of poverty theories. In practical ways, they illustrate situations of the marginality of an actor (a person or group) by a specific position within the multiple dimensions (e.g., social, economic, political, nutritional, educational, geographical) of peoples’ lives in which they are more or less marginalized. They further refine the conceptual framework for investigating marginality by distinguishing “biophysical causality clusters” from “societal causality clusters” as enabling or constraining factors that lead to outcomes of well-being or poverty, and changes in positions and conditions being shaped by feedback to the factors and causality clusters.
The social exclusion approach overlaps with the concept of marginality when it is seen as a condition and process of “becoming detached from the organizations and communities of which the society is composed and from the rights and obligations that they embody” (Room
1995, 243). In
Chap. 3 (this volume) Zohir emphasizes that in relation to exclusion:
In all development endeavors over the last two decades or more, either in the guise of Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), or to achieve greater equity and foster inclusive growth, the general concern was reaching out to those who are “left out”…[where]…“left out’s” could be children not being sent to schools by their parents, poor rural women unable to avail themselves of health services or market opportunities, people from minority or socially outcast groups having little or no access to jobs and public amenities, and the physically or mentally disabled. We refer to these people or social groups as “excluded” and to the broader subject of study as “exclusion.”
Both belonging to a group or community and being embedded within an institutional environment that secures rights and duties are necessary for escaping marginality, improving function, and achieving freedoms. Basic but crisp economic theory is invoked by Zohir to guide development practice toward understanding exclusion and initiatives to “include” the marginalized. The relationships between contracts, goods and services, and exclusion are highlighted, and types of exclusion are identified with the help of a supply and demand analysis of services: voluntary exclusion, exclusion caused by a lack of awareness, exclusion for survival, exclusion due to a lack of demand, and exclusion caused by “distance” (social exclusion, poor connectivity). Useful practical insights are gained when this theoretical analytical framework is applied by Zohir to identify the scope of different interventions for addressing the different types of exclusion, such as innovations in production, price subsidies, or transfers.
A socio-ecological perspective of marginality is pursued by Callo-Concha et al. in
Chap. 4 (this volume). The authors highlight that marginality is the norm rather than an exception in ecological systems. They underline that many complex phenomena are shaped by both social and ecological systems simultaneously and inseparably, and therefore the complex issue of marginality can usefully be addressed by integrated socio-ecological systems approaches. The three conceptual and theoretical chapters mentioned above provide guidance to many of the more applied chapters of this book. They underline the complementary roles of alternative disciplinary approaches for addressing marginality and the opportunities for further conceptual and theoretical research.
Changing perceptions of development and global change call for such a new approach for addressing poverty through a marginality lens. Throughout the last two decades the global development landscape has changed dramatically. In many developing countries high economic growth rates have enabled millions to move out of income poverty. However; in South Asia and SSA we find countries with high economic growth rates, but also with a high prevalence of poverty. This is the case where in many rural settings land is becoming less available; ecosystems often turn out to be more degraded, while access to drinking water, sanitation, and energy resources remains constrained for many poor communities.