Social movements and the politicization of chronic poverty policy

Publication date: Tuesday 10 October 2006

Discussions of chronic poverty have emphasised the extent to which poverty is chronic
because of the social relationships and structures within which particular groups of the poor
are embedded. In this sense chronic poverty should be understood as a socio-political
relationship rather than a lack of assets. In such an understanding, processes of social
mobilisation become central to any discussion of chronic poverty because they are vehicles
through which such relationships are argued over in society and potentially changed.
full report available at:
http://www.chronicpoverty.org/pdfs/63Bebbington.pdf

Parting from this observation, the paper reviews the roles of social movements in addressing
chronic poverty. It focuses on three domains in which such movements might influence
chronic poverty. First, it discusses their roles in challenging the institutions, social structures
and political economy dynamics that underlie chronic poverty. In this domain, movements
can play potential roles in changing the conditions under which accumulation occurs and
attacking relationships of adverse incorporation. They can also change the relationships that
underlie processes of social exclusion. Second, movements have played important roles in
the cultural politics surrounding chronic poverty. They have helped change dominant
meanings associated with poverty, and influenced the ways in which the poor are thought of
in society. Third, in some instances movements – and in particular social movement
organisations – have direct impacts on the assets that poor people own and control.
All this said, movements themselves suffer many internal weaknesses that can limit their
contributions to changing conditions of chronic poverty in a society. Furthermore, at times
elite groups and others aim to aggravate these weaknesses in efforts to dissipate the effects
that these movements might have on existing relationships of power and patterns of
accumulation.
Social movements' main contribution is, perhaps, that they politicize debates on chronic
poverty. Any changes that they elicit owe much to this politicization and to the contentious, at
times threatening, relationships between these movements and other social actors,
government organisations and businesses. This contentious nature of movements
complicates the extent to which policy might work directly with them. However, policy can do
much to support environments that enable the work of, and protect the rights of, social
movement activists and members. It can also provide more direct forms of support if and
when movement organisations and activists shift strategies and ultimately take up positions
in government – as has occurred in a number of regime transitions in the recent past.