In what ways do poverty and/or (under) development constitute a security threat?

Summative essay for second year's optional module International Security

Submitted at The University of Warwick on May 4, 2016

Words: 2969        Grade: 68

In the post-cold war era the impact of poverty on every scale is becoming more relevant and dangerous, and produces major crises in the political, economic, environmental and societal aspects of a state. In recent years the impact of poverty in poor or ‘failed’ states has worsened while the conditions of living in the developed world have improved. The gap between the rich and poor is becoming even more relevant, and poverty remains an on-going contemporary issue and concern. Among seven billion individuals, half live on $2 a day or less. Ever since development discourses have emerged aiming to eradicate poverty and foster (human) security, poverty has been securitised and politicised as a threat to stability and security. Whilst many authors have claimed poverty and under-development represent a threat to international peace and security (Stewart 2003, Duffield 2010 et al), others argue that its roots and effects are a result of our failing system (Preibsch 1949, Wallerstein 1970, Wilkin 2002, et al). Poverty is considered as one of the greatest security threats as it reduces quality and quantity of life of the poor and rich, and produces an unequal world resulting in instability.

Understanding poverty implies different definitions, approaches and measures. Relative poverty would be defined in relation to the economic status and in terms of the inability to participate properly in society, owing to the lack of resources[1], and is context-dependent. According to the United Nations in 1995 absolute poverty refers to the lack of sufficient resources “necessary to meet basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter”. It is not related to the quality of life or overall inequality, and includes non-material elements, such as a ‘violation of human dignity’, ‘powerlessness’, and ‘susceptibility to violence’[2]. The way poverty and development are measured also differ: either a person’s material resources, such as their income or the “actual outcomes in terms of living standards and activities”[3]. There is a direct link between human security and poverty, as security could be achieved when freed from ‘death, poverty, pain, fear or whatever else makes people feel insecure’.[4] In this context, poverty will be understood as absolute and measured in terms of living standards and human development.

In what ways do poverty and under development constitute a security threat?

I will hold the argument throughout this essay that although poverty involves security threats, their very roots are constructed and perpetuated by the developed world. On the one hand, I will argue that poverty implies negative consequences in very various ways. On the other hand, I will establish that poverty’s conditions are not necessarily threatening security and that part of the problem to alleviate it lies in its policies. There is a need to rethink poverty and under-development other than being a threat and to challenge the orthodox security discourses around poverty and development.

***

The “Global Poverty Report” issued at the G8 Okinawa Summit in July 2000 stated that eradicating global poverty “is both a moral imperative and a necessity for a stable world” [5] Established by the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in 2000, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) emerged as international development goals to achieve by 2015, including one to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. I will argue in this part why and how poverty could be linked with insecurity, especially in terms of economics, politics, society and environment.

There is an undeniable correlation between development and security to Frances Stewart. Defined as the progress in human well-being but usually equated with economic growth, development has as objective to enhance people’s capabilities and opportunities according to Sen. One common way in which poverty threatens security implies conflict. The ‘poverty-conflict nexus’[6] argues that poverty and under development is a cause of conflict violence. The theory behind is that poor states have a tendency to political instability, corruption and bad governance leading to tensions and conflict. To Frances Stewart, there is empirical evidence to such hypothesis: “one third of low-human development countries are currently in conflict”, undermining the possibility of achieving the MDGs. Paul Collier concluded that low-income countries face a risk of internal conflict around 15 times that of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.[7] Also, in countries with low human development indicators (HDI), deaths represent 0.02% in 1960-1999, 20 times higher than high HDI countries– with the most affected regions being the Arab States and sub-Saharan Africa.[8] However, the coincidence between poverty and insecurity suggests the ‘chicken and egg’ debate as poverty and conflict are only linked, not necessarily inter-correlated.

Moreover, very poor countries witness high national inequalities and disparities from an economic perspective. The UN Security Council and NATO sought to provide economic solutions to these crises. For instance humanitarian interventions were held in Rwanda and Somalia, as part of a new world order of globalisation and global governance. The increased global economic activity associated with globalisation has been accompanied by a decline in global income inequality. According to the OECD study of the world economy from 1820-1992, the intercountry range (between the leading and the worst country) was 11:1 in 1913 and was 72:1 in 1992[9], and those numbers just keep on increasing. The lack of economic opportunities lead people to flee their countries and seek asylum to states with better living standards. Poverty can lead to mass unemployment, mass migration and the movement of populations from poor to rich areas. In terms of economics, the poverty-conflict nexus seems relevant to F. Stewart since vertical inequality and high poverty lead to the failure of the social contract and to the disability of weak governments to suppress conflicts, thus labelling those as ‘failed’.

In recent years poverty has also been associated with environmental degradation, even though it is usually rich states that are the offenders to the global ecosystem, for their lack of will to address the problem. Yet poor states lack both the capabilities and will to respond to the problem, for their existent economic, social and political issues. The WWF Organisation currently aims at reducing poverty linked with improving their failing ecosystem and biodiversity. A study prepared for the United Nations Development Program and European Commission in 1998 declared that poverty was a major cause and effect of global environmental problems and environmental insecurity. In 1987 the commission wrote that “poor people are forced to overuse environmental resources […] and their impoverishment of their environment impoverishes them”[10] (p.5).  To Brown (1998) poorer and ecologically vulnerable communities imply very negative environmental consequences. Poverty undermines the ecosystem and imposes a short-term perspective. Vincent Ferraro illustrates this with the example of deforestation: in poor tropical countries and especially in South America, the causes of deforestation are directly bonded with poverty since they either have to “clear land for agriculture or habitation” or because it is more economically beneficial for them to resort to deforestation and export wood products. This concern will be raised as developing countries are predicted to populate more with time, and more globalised in the economy, adopting the industrial techniques of the developed world. Also, if climate experts are right, environmental degradation will lead to mass migration in the future.[11]

Furthermore, poverty and under development are a major cause of human insecurity in terms of health, including issues of famine, hunger, starvation, nutrition. Given the mortality and life expectancy rates in poor countries the concern is very threatening. One child dies every six seconds from hunger and one in four children are not properly weighted. Deaths from the famines rose from 0.5m in the 1950s to 5.5m in the 1980s. In 2014-6 the estimation of chronically undernourished individuals was of 276m and touched particularly countries of Eastern and South-eastern Asia.[12] To Armatya Sen, famines are only experienced in non-democratic states and are a major consequence of poverty. Furthermore poverty is also often accompanied with the revival and spread of infectious diseases, including HIV, malaria and tuberculosis. In 2014 more than 1.2m people died from HIV-related causes, with 65% of them being located in Africa. Even though progress has shown a decline in the spread of diseases in poor countries, it remains a significant consequence of under development, added to the lack of access to food, water and shelter in those regions.

Above directly affecting poor states, it has ben claimed that poverty also constitutes a security threat to the developed states and that “global poverty is a threat to the national interest of global stability.” “Poverty undermines the political legitimacy of the richer states” according to Ferraro. By national interest, Ferraro refers to security interests established in terms of political, economic, social and environmental stability, to which the poor states are influential. Powerful states have an interest in the stability of the international system. To him, poverty is menacing rich states because their weaknesses apply in the process of globalisation. Their condition influence the developed states’ quality of life and system as a whole. [13]

Hence, poverty seems to be linked in many respects with a threat to international and human security. Development remains a tool for conflict prevention and societal stability. The development of the MDGs to promote development, security and prosperity among the under developed is as expected as urgent. As Kofi Annan stated in 2004 “If we are to succeed in better protecting the security of our citizens, it is essential that due attention and necessary resources be devoted to achieving the Millennium Development Goals.”

***

Such indisputable implications of poverty are however inconclusive. Poverty as a threat to security has been constructed and securitised recently by orthodox security discourses but does not necessarily imply instability and insecurity. In this part I will argue that the poverty-security nexus should be rethought, depoliticised and desecuritised, especially when associated with terrorism. I will also emphasis the limits of neoliberal economic policies as a solution to development and account for critical theories in confronting the traditional security debate and in claiming that poverty is a product of our system.

Since the early 2000s poverty has been securitised and neoliberal leaders have politicised aid to promote development. Securitisation in Security Studies refers to the discursive process in which an issue is discussed as an existential threat to a particular object and therefore requires exceptional measures to counter it. According to David Chandler, we are experiencing a shift in the solution of international policy makers to development and security in which poverty should be depoliticised and desecuritised.[14] When the 2002 US National Security Strategy report wrote that “America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones” [15], they securitised the critical importance of interventionism and created an interventionist consensus to alleviate poverty linked with conflict and insecurity, as Mazarr argues.[16] Barry Buzan, a critical figure of the Copenhagen School argued that the War on Terror (WoT) was significantly securitised as a threat related to poverty, and is capable of replacing the Cold War macro-securitisation.[17] World leaders established an unfounded link between terrorism and poverty: in 2002 US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared “the root cause of terrorism does come from situations where there is poverty, where there is ignorance”. Vincent Ferraro claims this to be reductionist and simplistic since most poor people don’t have time or energy to waste on plotting.[18] Although poverty represents a concern and is dangerous, it is being securitised and exaggerated and is being unfairly associated with the developed world’s current concerns: terrorism but also the current migrant crisis in Europe.

While many scholars argue that the solution to counter the effects of poverty requires a neoliberal response, others claim neoliberalism to be at the heart of the problem. As Held (1995) and Wheeler (2000) agreed, orthodox security discourses in the 1990s were embedded in neoliberalism and assumed that the West had sufficient knowledge and power to solve problems that ‘failed’ or ‘failing’ states could not. Wilkin declared that the orthodox security discourse is full of contradictions, which “underpin the institutions and social structures that generate both global poverty and global governance”[19]. The most telling contradiction remains their will to alleviate poverty while searching profit in the frame of capitalist corporations. In the 1980/90s the Washington Consensus appeared to embody the solutions to development, based on neoliberal institutional impositions. The consensus was a set of ten neoliberal economic policies which identified poverty as an internal state-problem and the solution to economic growth lying in a global economic integration; and including financial and trade liberalisation, privatisation, deregulation. However with time, critiques raised and accused it of rising inequalities between rich and poor, increasing economic, political and social problems and compromising the poor, lacking a voice and a say. We have now entered a post-Washington consensus era where neoliberal policies proved their limits to eradicate poverty. As part of neoliberal core institutions, the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Funds (IMF) and the United Nations aim at providing global stability, security and development. While the UN take into account health, education, economics and governmental solutions to eradicate poverty, the WB and the IMF are often seen as irrelevant and uncountable as they offer only a one-dimensional solution based on their monetary method. As Woods pointed out, the IMF and the WB are accused of ineffectiveness and are demanded to be more transparent and participatory.[20] They are even accused of profiting by the weak and poor when they indebt developing nations due to their policies, with their Structural Adjustment Policies imposed in order to ensure debt repayment. Robbins argued that although exporting raw or unprocessed materials seems beneficial for developing states, it in fact “represents a type of exploitation called unequal exchange”[21] To Smith, the systems of the WB and IMF grow the developed countries richer as they sell cheap products at a high price and buy expensive products for a low price. “This imbalance of trade expands the gap between rich and poor […] and maintains the monopolization of the tools of production, and assures a continued market for the product”.[22] Thus, international organisations embedded in core liberal principles, originally aiming to reduce poverty by allowing financial support are argued to have in fact maintained poverty and dependency. As Thomas stated in 2013 “a radical critique of those neoliberal policies and the development of an alternative should be at the heart of diplomatic endeavour”.[23] Also, Duffield highlighted that the liberal policies contribute to and reproduce the differentiation between development and under development and wrote “development has functioned as an instrument of security since the dawn of industrial capitalism”.[24] It seems that the solutions supposed to alleviate poverty are actually part of the problem, rendering blurry the extent to which poverty constitutes a security threat. Is the developed world responsible for the maintenance of poverty?

Lastly, it is my argument that critical theories have raised concerns about our unequal system in which the developed are the only beneficiaries. They help us leave the Western centric scope and challenge the debate on poverty. On the same foundations as the critics addressed to the WB and IMF, some theories have shed light on the assumption that the rich exploits the poor and perpetuates a state of dependence. From a Marxist position, the Dependency Theory was developed by Singer and Prebisch in 1949 and stressed the dependency of developing states upon developed ones in terms of trade. What Prebisch concluded was that developed states acquired their wealth at the expense of the poor. In the 1970s Wallerstein published his World Systems Theory based on a neo-Marxist ground, stating that the core states dominated semi-periphery and periphery states by enjoying capital-intensive production and importing raw materials from the rest of the world. Vernengo noted that both theories argue that “at the core of the dependency relation between centre and periphery lies the inability of the periphery to develop autonomous and dynamic process of technological innovation”[25] especially in Latin America, on which the author focuses. Such theories are fundamental to understand the dichotomy between the rich and poor, and the roots of poverty. Similarly, post-colonial arguments, seeking to emancipate the oppressed and raise a voice for the voiceless, are useful for their critique of development and how they challenge traditional debate. Indeed, post-colonialism deconstructs development discourses to establish a non-dominant view and include the ‘other’ within. Its views on oppression confers a huge importance to historicity and a link to poverty, as colonised states are now dependent economically, politically, socially and lack reliability. As Hoogvelt observed, “the imposition of the international division of labour under formal colonialism has the indirect effect of laying the foundations of the continued economic control and domination over colonial resources even in the absence of direct political over lordship and administration”[26].  McEwan noted: “the third world is integral to what the west refers to as ‘modernity’ and ‘progress’. It contributes directly to the economic wealth of western countries through its labour and through its exploitation.”[27]. Critical theories aim at disrupting the orthodox debate on poverty and development and manage to denounce the side effects of our neoliberal and capitalist societies.

***

In conclusion, poverty has a tendency to be accompanied with economic, political, societal and environmental disasters but it does not necessarily threaten security. However there are ways that produce poverty, embedded in neoliberal economic policies and embodied in the developed world. The orthodox security discourses tend to politicise and securitise poverty as an existential security threat, which undermines national and international interests, stability and security. These discourses actually expand the problem rather than solve it. Critical theories understand the threat of poverty as being constructed and aim at challenging the Western-centric traditional debate. They question our Western system that has prided itself of being the solution to the problem. Poverty and under-development should be alleviated by the developed countries and should reflect the developed world’s will to favour a human rights agenda over their capitalist interests.

References

Buzan, B., (2006) The ‘War on Terrorism’ as the New Macro-Securitisation?, Oslo Workshop, Oslo, pp. 1-25.

Chandler, D., (2015) “Rethinking the Conflict-Poverty Nexus : From Securisiting Intervention to Resilience” in International Journal of Security and Development, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1-14 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/sta.fb

Duffield, M. (2010) The Liberal Way of Development and the Development-Security Nexys Impasse: Exploring the Global Life-Chance Divide,  Global Insecurities Centre, Department of Politics, University of Bristol, pp. 53-76.

Ferraro, V., (2003) “Globalizing weakness: is global poverty a threat to the interests of states?” in V. Ferraro et al., Should Global Poverty be Considered as US National Security Issue, Environmental Change and Security Program, Commentaries, Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, pp. 637-644.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) The State of Food Insecurity in the World Report 2015, pp. 8.

Forsyth, T., Leach, M., and Scoones, I., (1998) ‘Poverty and Environment: Priorities for Research and Policy, an Overview Study’ prepared for the United Nations Development Program and European Commission, Institute of Development Studies, pp. 1-15.

Hoogvelt, A., (2001) Globalisation and the Postcolonial World, Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 29-30.

Langmore, J., (2000) “Reducing poverty: the implications of the 1995 Copenhagen Agreement for research on poverty” in Breadline Europe: the Measurement of Poverty by Gordon, D., and Townsend, T., The Policy Press, pp. 35-47.

Maddison, A., (1995), The World Economy: a Millennial Perspective, Development Centre Seminars, Development Centre of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, pp. 17-27.

Mazarr, M.J., (2014) The Rise and Fall of the Failed-State Paradigm: Requiem for a Decade of Distraction, Foreign Affairs, January-February 2014 Issue

McEwan, C.  (2001).  “Postcolonialism, feminism and development: intersections and dilemmas”, in Progress in Development Studies Vol. 1, No. 2, 93-111.

National Security Strategy, report 2002, pp. 1.

Nolan, N., and Whelan, C., (1996) “Measuring poverty using income and deprivation indicators: alternative approaches” in Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 225-40.

Paul Collier et al., (2003) Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy, A World Bank Policy Research Report, Washington, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-13.

Robbins, R.H., (1999) Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, Allyn and Bacon, pp. 95.

Smith, J.W. (1994) The World’s Wasted Wealth: Save our Wealth, Save our Environment, Institute for Economic Democracy, p. 127-139.

Stewart, F., (2003) ‘Conflict and the Millennium Development Goals’ , Journal of Human Development, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 325-351.

Thomas, C., (2013) “Poverty” in Williams, P.D., Security Studies: An Introduction, Routledge, 2nd Edition.

Townsend, P., (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom: a Survey of Household Resources and Standards of Living, Penguin Books Ltd, pp. 31-43.

Vernengo, M. (2004) Technology, Finance and Dependency : Latin American Radical Political Economy in Retrospect, University of Utah, Department of Economics, pp. 3-4.

Wilkin, P. (2002) “Global poverty and orthodox security” in Third World Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 4, Carfax, Publishing, p. 633-645.

Woods, N., (2006) The Globalisers : the IMF, the World Bank, and their Borrowers, Cornell University Press, pp. 1-25 and 84-104.

World Bank (2000) Global Poverty Report, G8 Okinawa Summit, pp. 1-23.

_________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Townsend, P., (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom: a Survey of Household Resources and Standards of Living, Penguin Books Ltd (UK) pp. 31-43.

[2] Langmore, J., (2000) “Reducing poverty: the implications of the 1995 Copenhagen Agreement for research on poverty” in Breadline Europe: the Measurement of Poverty by Gordon, D., and Townsend, T., The Policy Press, pp. 35-47.

[3] Nolan, N., and Whelan, C., (1996) “Measuring poverty using income and deprivation indicators: alternative approaches” in Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 225-40.

[4] Ogata, S., (2001) Overview for the Commission on Human Security Report, pp. 1.

[5] World Bank,(2000) Global Poverty Report, G8 Okinawa Summit, pp. i, 1-23.

[6] Duffield 2010; Thomas 2013; Roberts 2014

[7] Paul Collier et al., (2003) Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy, A World Bank Policy Research Report, Washington, Oxford University Press, pp. 5, 1-13.

[8] Stewart, F., (2003) ‘Conflict and the Millennium Development Goals’ , Journal of Human Development, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 325-351.

[9] Maddison, A., (1995), The World Economy: a Millennial Perspective, Development Centre Seminars, Development Centre of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, pp. 22, 17-27.

[10] Forsyth, T., Leach, M., and Scoones, I., (1998) ‘Poverty and Environment: Priorities for Research and Policy, an Overview Study’ prepared for the United Nations Development Program and European Commission, Institute of Development Studies, pp. 1-15.

[11] M. Klare used the example of the Sahara and Mali to describe the waves of refugees due to climate change as some regions are becoming less habitable in Resource Wars : The New Landscape of Global Confllict (2002), Holt Paperbacks, Ch. 1.

[12] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) The State of Food Insecurity in the World Report 2015, pp. 8.

[13] Ferraro, V., (2003) “Globalizing weakness: is global poverty a threat to the interests of states?” in V. Ferraro et al., Should Global Poverty be Considered as US National Security

Issue, Environmental Change and Security Program, Commentaries, Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, pp. 640.

[14] Chandler, D., (2015) “Rethinking the Conflict-Poverty Nexus : From Securisiting Intervention to Resilience” in International Journal of Security and Development, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1-14 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/sta.fb

[15] National Security Strategy, report 2002, pp. 1.

[16] Mazarr, M.J., (2014) The Rise and Fall of the Failed-State Paradigm: Requiem for a Decade of Distraction, Foreign Affairs, January-February 2014 Issue

[17] Buzan, B., (2006) The ‘War on Terrorism’ as the New Macro-Securitisation?, Oslo Workshop, Oslo, pp. 1-25.  

[18] Ferraro, V., (2003) “Globalizing weakness: is global poverty a threat to the interests of states?” in V. Ferraro et al., Should Global Poverty be Considered as US National Security Issue, Environmental Change and Security Program, Commentaries, Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, pp. 642.

[19] Wilkin, P. (2002) “Global poverty and orthodox security” in Third World Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 4, Carfax, Publishing, p. 633.

[20] Woods, N., (2006) The Globalisers : the IMF, the World Bank, and their Borrowers, Cornell University Press, pp. 1-25 and 84-104.

[21] Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, Allyn and Bacon, 1999, p. 95

[22] J.W. Smith (1994), The World’s Wasted Wealth: Save our Wealth, Save our Environment, Institute for Economic Democracy, p. 127-139.

[23] Thomas, C., (2013) “Poverty” in Williams, P.D., Security Studies: An Introduction p. 308

[24] Duffield, M. (2010) The Liberal Way of Development and the Development-Security Nexys Impasse: Exploring the Global Life-Chance Divide,  Global Insecurities Centre, Department of Politics, University of Bristol, pp. 66, 53-76.

[25] Vernengo, M. (2006) Technology, Finance and Dependency: Latin American Radical Political Economy in Retrospect, University of Utah, Department of Economics, pp. 2.

[26] Hoogvelt, A., (2001) Globalisation and the Postcolonial World, Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 29-30.

[27] McEwan, C.  (2001).  Postcolonialism, feminism and development: intersections and dilemmas. Progress in Development Studies 1(2): 93-111.