Disaster and Disability in Bangladesh - Behinderung und Dritte Welt

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A RTIKELvantage in unison. Therefore bridging socialcapital, or rather cross-cutting ties amonggroups is often low. These factors are critical issuesfor disabled people, who like most otherpoor people, often lack contacts and membershipin organisations that could leverage assistanceor improve their lot. At the most basiclevel, disabled poor people have little if anycontact with other disabled people, while collectiveorganisations (other than those in urbanareas frequently set up by non-poor urban disabledpeople or their families) remain seriouslyabsent. Without these, they are unlikely tolobby governments and other parties. Evidencein fact indicates how poor disabled people oftenconfront the most basic of constraints toparticipation in organisations: geographicaldispersion, the inability to afford transport toattend meetings, inadequate information, mobilityproblems and lack of medical treatmentand adapted assistive devices, power differentials,and high direct, indirect and opportunitycosts (see for example Yeo 2001, Ingstad1995). Even more lacking, is linking social capitalor rather, contact with those in powerful positions(especially policy makers) that are capableof enabling access to resources not availablethrough lower level social contacts, itselfreflecting the often minimal political clout ofdisabled people and their organisations as votersand citizens, even when compared to othermarginalised populations.Within this context, the implications for developmentare the provision of support in buildingthe organisational capacity of the poor, andthe bridging of spaces between communitiesand social groups at different levels (hence enhancingbridging and linking social capital toenable access to new opportunities, informationetc.), without threatening and reinforcingexisting support networks and the security theyprovide (bonding social capital).Social Capital: the Negatives of anImperfect ConceptSocial ties are not without problems, implyingthat like other concepts, social capital is nomagic formula. Indeed, increasing evidence indicatesthat while social relations can enableaccess to resources, they do can also be ameans of control; exacerbate or maintain socialdifferentiations; exclude non-members; asource of conflict, violence, oppression andsubordination; and a threat to personal freedom(see for example Portes and Landolt 1996,Portes 1998, Narayan 1999, Fine 2003). AsPantoja (1999: vii) aptly notes: “if one acceptsthat social capital is a common resource thatcan facilitate access to other resources, oneshould also consider that under scarcity conditions–such as those prevalent in developingeconomies and particularly among the poor – itcan also become an integral part of the structuresof constraint.”In societies where inequalities prevail(whether on the basis of gender, race, caste,ethnicity or disability), more social contacts willnot necessarily benefit all people, especially ifthe structures and processes that disadvantagein the first place remain untouched - this ismore akin to addressing the symptoms ratherthan the causes. Similarly, the ambitious claimby parties such as the World Bank, to be able tobuild social capital, just like building a school,remains problematic, arrogant and resonateswith imperialistic overtones. At best, it remainsdifficult to conceive of social relationships justlike any other commodity that can be imputeda value, controlled and traded on a market,and it remains highly dubious whether any externalparty can objectively develop and shapenetworks and relationships that are not onlygrounded in long historical lineages and localcultures, but also which develop on their ownaccord in particular spaces and time and todeal with specific contexts and situations.Finally, an issue of major importance is thedevelopment environment within which socialcapital came to gain importance, most notablythe neo-liberal agenda 3 promoted by the WoldBank and IMF and forced onto cash-strungcountries through Structural Adjustment Programs(SAPs), and more recently Poverty ReductionStrategy Papers (PRSPs). In this case, in aneo-liberal setting typified by mass privatization(including health and education), cuts in publicsector size and expenditures, the vanishing offormal safety nets, and enhanced individualism,community may have simply been a convenientand cost-effective non-economic rediscovery tofill gaps (in information, services etc.) left wideopen by a vanishing welfare state. This is reflectedin the increasing fate in NGOs and notfor-profitsas government substitutes in morerecent years, and increasing reference to notionssuch as social inclusion and exclusion inthe North and increasingly in the South assynonyms for equity and inequity respectively.This therefore implies that the emphasis on socialcapital may be little more than a depoliticizedeffort in keeping the neoliberal wheelspinning at a consistent speed, while more importantand complex issues concerning structuralproblems and neo-colonialism are sidelinedor unaddressed altogether.10 Zeitschrift Behinderung und Dritte Welt 1/2010
A RTIKELConclusionThis paper has addressed the potential applicationof social capital to the disability and developmentdebate, a debate that is as complex asit is marginalised, and often bereft of disciplinarycross-fertilisation. Local complexities, contexts,and cultures, require a degree of attentionto people, what they are doing on theground, their needs and aspirations, capabilitiesand so on. While valuable and rich ethnographicinputs emphasising the primacy of contexthave emerged from fields such as anthropology(see for example Ingstad and Whyte1995, 2007), and while development studieshas long been addressing issues around povertyand its reduction (and has much relevanceto disability), these are often rendered invisiblein the global disability debate. The Western disabilitystudies and its main tenets are all too oftenexported across cultures (through developmentand other organisations, of and for disabledpeople, North and South), often with lackof engagement with the realities of disabledlives in complex and often misunderstood settings,and how these impinge on issues of applicabilityof epistemologies across cultures.Lack of engagement with disciplines such asdevelopment studies remains problematic,since these, for better or for worse, have alonger (albeit turbulent) history of engagementwith issues of poverty, gender, and ethnicityamong others in the majority world, and fromwhich lessons can be usefully drawn. At thevery least, this can initiate much needed debatebetween disability and development studies ifthe phrase disability and development is to everbecome a concrete currency the equivalent ofgender and development that decades downthe line remains a (albeit a much engagedwith) work in progress.The starting point perhaps is to understandthat poverty remains an impending reality inwhich disability is enveloped, and poverty anddisability are in turn engrossed in complex (andseldom understood) cultures, beliefs, ideologies,and communities. At the most basic level,it points towards the imperative of understandingpoverty and its implications by those engagedin the study of disability across cultures.In this process, the expansion of boundaries(whether disciplinary or simply those of dialogue),remain perhaps most important tomove for example beyond the views of socialrelationships solely as processes of disablement,to engage with the notion that communitiesfor better or for worse, still matter, in someplaces more than others, continue to embraceand often ensure survival of most poor people(disabled and non-disabled) and consequentlyneed to be understood further and reinforced.Notes1 The term majority world is used to refer to countrieswhere the bulk of the world’s population reside andwhere poverty is largely concentrated. Similar toStone (1999), the term is employed to delineate thepower and resource differentials with rich countriesthat host a smaller percentage of the world’s populationbut where wealth is largely concentrated andcontrolled, and which exert influence and power (economically,politically, socially, and culturally) over poorcountries.2 While it is beyond the scope of this paper, it is importantto emphasise that the term human capital “constitutesthe individual as an economic rather than asocial actor, and as a competitive individual ratherthan a co-operative social being“ (Dean et al. 2005:31) and often translates into pressures in the majorityworld for educational and skills provision, with thetarget of enhancing labour force participation, productivityand more broadly economic growth in aglobalised economy. Dean et al. (2005) go on to emphasisethat this approach has often translated inpolicies with the proclaimed aim of creating opportunitiesfor the poor, without taking account of thestructural problems creating and perpetuating poverty,and hence the responsibility again falls squarelyupon the shoulders of poor people, while leavingstructures unaltered.3 The neoliberal agenda is one premised on “…an entirestructure of beliefs founded on right-wing, but notconservative, ideas about individual freedom, politicaldemocracy, self-regulating markets, and entrepreneurship“(Peet, 2003:8) and one that often translatesinto a set of prescriptive one size fits all measures forcountries in the majority world (described in text inrelation to structural adjustment programmes).ReferencesBIRD, K./HULME, D./MOORE, K./SHEPHERD, A. (2002):Chronic poverty and remote rural areas. UK: Instituteof Development Policy and ManagementBOLT, V.J./BIRD, K. (2003). The Intrahousehold DisadvantagesFramework: A Framework for the Analysis of Intra-householdDifference and Inequality. UK: CPRCBOURDIEU, P. (1983): Forms of capital. In: Richards, J.C,ed, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociologyof Education. New York, Greenwood Press, 241-258BURT, R.S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital.Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 339-65.CBM (2007): Disability and Development Policy. Germany:CBMZeitschrift Behinderung und Dritte Welt 1/201011
Page 1 and 2: 21. JAHRGANG AUSGABE 1/2010Behinder
Page 3 and 4: E DITORIALLiebe Leserinnen und Lese
Page 5 and 6: A RTIKELthat relationships matter a
Page 7 and 8: A RTIKELet al. 2002: 28). In such c
Page 9: A RTIKELthe patterns of families in
Page 13 and 14: A RTIKELschaften in der Konstruktio
Page 15 and 16: A RTIKELder Frühförderung für Ki
Page 17 and 18: A RTIKELbeinhalten die Rahmenbeding
Page 19 and 20: A RTIKELschaffung und Nachsorge die
Page 21 and 22: A RTIKELderte Kinder die Chance auf
Page 23 and 24: A RTIKELMaking it WorkFrom Good Pra
Page 25 and 26: A RTIKELGood Practice? Best Practic
Page 27 and 28: A RTIKELDisaster and Disability in
Page 29 and 30: A RTIKELtion: vulnerability due to
Page 31 and 32: A RTIKELings, training and material
Page 33 and 34: B ERICHTEIncluding Persons with Dis
Page 35 and 36: B ERICHTEin the resolution back the
Page 37 and 38: B ERICHTEren Lernbedürfnissen und
Page 39 and 40: B ERICHTEwobei bislang kaum Bedingu
Page 41 and 42: K URZMELDUNGENKurzmeldungenAktionsb
Page 43 and 44: L ITERATURrung von Projekten zur in
Page 45 and 46: VERANSTALTUNGEN10.05. - 12.05.2010
Page 47 and 48: Zeitschrift Behinderung und Dritte

Disaster and Disability in Bangladesh - Behinderung und Dritte Welt

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?