Poverty, work and education

By Astrid von Kotze
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

 

Starting points:
· Notions of ‘work’ as synonymous with ‘employment’ are as prevalent as ascribing the causes of hunger (poverty) to a shortage due to underproduction (rather than access / distribution).
· The assumed model of a worker is often still someone (usually male) employed (in industry). If we make a woman working in the informal economy our ‘model’ the definitions of ‘work’ and ‘labour’ begin to shift. Diversification of paid and unpaid activities and food security as a top priority become the norm.
· Working in the context of poverty, livelihood studies (rather than a ‘workplace learning’ study) better allow us to understand the complex daily struggle for food and the necessities of life intertwined with care-giving, child-rearing, community-building.
· We need to re-think the roles and forms of (vocational) education for poverty eradication. Learning from specific, local and traditional forms of apprenticeships / socialisation into particular work must be a research priority.

If we are serious about addressing poverty through education and training I believe we require to make three shifts in emphasis: from the formal to the informal economy, from work as employment to work as livelihoods, and from sustainable development to sustainable livelihoods.

Three shifts

1. The informal economy as reference for poverty eradication
In official statistics, not only is unpaid work such as the care work undertaken by women both in the household and communities as volunteers not counted as ‘economic’ but much of the formal cash-earning work or subsistence production are also excluded from representations of economic activities. (Chen et al 2005) Yet, in the majority world, for increasing numbers of people informal survivalism is the current primary mode of living.

The report Progress of the World’s Women 2005 illustrates how women are generally in more precarious livelihoods than men, that a much greater number of women then men are working in the informal economy, and that their average incomes from the types of employment they are able to access are generally too low to lift their households out of poverty. The report shows conclusively that if we want to understand poverty and why women shoulder a disproportionate load, we need to understand women’s work: the relationship between formal and informal paid work, subsistence production, unpaid care work for household members, community volunteer work (Chen et al 2005, p.23). We also need to understand the gendered division of labour.

Furthermore, urban informal employment in Africa counts for over 60 per cent of total urban employment in Africa, and the UN Habitat report (2003:104) predicted that ’90 % of urban Africa’s new jobs over the next decade will somehow come from the informal sector.’ This means, whatever good intentions there are about ‘job creation’ in the formal economy this is and will be surpassed by relatively poor people creating and giving employment to the poorest  and those are usually women. Our first shift has to be towards the informal economy.

2. Defining work as livelihood activities
Work has come to be understood only as a paid activity undertaken on behalf of a third party, to achieve goals set by someone other than ourselves and according to procedures and schedules laid down by the employer. (Gorz 1999) If work is defined as livelihood activities it is taken out of commodity production and re-focused on the production of life. In its simplest sense a livelihood is a means to gaining a living. (Chambers & Conway 1991) However, when we consider sustainability we need to include not just all those actions undertaken in order to secure a livelihood, but we also must include those labours that reproduce life and living (Mies 1986, Mies and Bennhold-Thomsen 1999) and thus support the basis for other kinds of work. This includes housework and childcare, home-gardening and fuel collection as much as community organising and the often small acts of reciprocity and solidarity that establish and contribute to social protection mechanisms.

The shift from work as employment towards work as livelihood activities should not simply mean replacing one word for another but it represents thinking more holistically about the actions we employ in order to not just survive physically but live a dignified decent life. A more holistic thinking is required if we want to consider sustainability, and especially establishing a less exploitative relationship to the environment and natural resources, and to people as our partners in systems of reciprocity and conviviality.

3. Towards sustainable livelihoods
Taking on a sustainable livelihoods perspective represents a move away from ‘sustainable development’ thinking where development is defined in terms of production, employment and poverty-lines  or what Seabrook (2002) has referred to as the ‘tropic of indigence’. A focus on sustainable livelihoods compels us to consider people’s lives and life chances in terms of high-risk environments. The impact of hazards such as diseases / epidemics and weather phenomena on already vulnerable conditions and people renders them unable to cope. As informal workers they face high risks, firstly in terms of the conditions under which they live and work, and secondly, because they have low levels of income and are less likely to be able to save for emergencies or special occasions. (Chen et al 2005, Lund & Nicholsen 2003) As a result, they are much more exposed to common contingencies such as illness, property loss, death, without having access to the means to address these. Furthermore, as they face exclusion from the state, political institutions, markets, that is, all those who make the decisions that affect them very directly, they have fewer rights or knowledge of their rights, and less access to information, infrastructure and services.

To cope and to make their livelihoods sustainable requires the creation and maintenance of systems of support and a power base for wielding influence in order to affect policy changes. As the state assumes less and less responsibility for social security people have to make their own arrangements for social protection. In the world of the rich and comfortable this translates into insurance policies and the like; in the majority world it translates into all those actions that people undertake in order to expand their capacities to cope and create safety nets for emergencies, rather than simply waiting for the delivery of commodities and services. (Lund & Nicholsen 2003) Primarily, this involves establishing relationships of mutuality, solidarity, collective action. Workers in the informal economy organise themselves in a variety of forms, depending on issues of geography, culture, the nature and spatial/time conditions of their work and the different types of work performed.
 
Policy / UNESCO
On the one hand, the UNESCO discussion paper on ‘Technical and vocational education and training for sustainable development’ (2006) reiterates a commitment to TVE ‘as an integral component of lifelong learning’ and a contribution towards ‘a culture of peace, environmentally sound sustainable development, social cohesion, and international citizenship’.  On the other,  TVET is shown to encompass ‘preparation for the world of work’, ‘learning at the workplace’ and other ‘mechanisms for the delivery of further training’, and while citing critical voices that refer to the precedence of economic interests that result in TVET being seen as ‘training for growth’ and ‘skill-for-work’ the document does not move far away from seeing work as employment and TVET serving a capitalist economy  as long as it does so in environmentally sustainable ways.

In a study undertaken on behalf of UNESCO, Madhu Singh (2005) sought to demonstrate that far from being helpless victims who are economically inactive people in the informal economy are imaginative and inventive. Therefore, ‘developing education for the informal sector can only be successful to the extent that it reflects innovations, initiatives and approaches emerging from the informal sector itself.’ (Singh 2005:5) Previously, Singh (2000) had listed a range of important educational considerations for education and training for the informal economy and arrived at 8 lessons to be learnt from her study.

What emerges as a self-evident and yet still rarely practiced basic principle is that people in the informal economy must be part of planning any TVET intervention! Only they are in a position to identify existing skills and knowledge as well as needs so that resources and existing capabilities can be strengthened rather than undermined. This includes recognising appropriate local technologies so that they are not replaced by expensive, non-renewable imported ones.

I want to make 5 recommendations for education and training for poverty eradication:

(1) TVET should be local and specific: Given that the informal economy is very heterogeneous ‘Learning needs vary according to age, urban or rural location, gender, socio-cultural background and education level.’ (Singh 2005, p.5) What is needed, therefore, is ‘a context-specific mix of interventions, developed in consultation with working poor women and men and informed by an understanding of their significance in the labour force and their contribution to the economy.’ (Chen et al 2005, p.89)
It is also important to distinguish between learning needs of the segments in the “upper end” of the informal economy and those at the “lower end”. (ibid). We must move away from the ‘one size fits all’ attempts so characteristic of ‘skills training packs’.

(2) TVET must build on capability: capability refers to the ability to perform the actions necessary to create and sustain life, including being able to identify and make use of livelihood opportunities and cope with stress and shocks. However, capabilities must be seen in the context of availability and access.

(3) Broadly speaking, the Freirean term ‘conscientisation’ still captures best what differentiates many (informal) learning processes from education. Analysing what blocks  livelihood security, understanding the obstacles to equity are important if you want to work towards creating the conditions and opportunities for widening and opening up choices, for diminishing powerlessness and enhancing dignity and a sense of sovereignty.

(4) TVET for the informal economy must be gender-specific. Understanding the relationship between different types of women’s paid and unpaid work helps shed light on the dynamics of poverty and gender inequality. (Chen 2005, p.29) Hence, designing education / training must take into consideration the impact of expectations about women’s roles in unpaid work as this will directly affect their ability to participate in programmes and sustain such participation.

(5) A focus on organising/ collectives / associations: what allows groups of workers to survive are often their associations. Co-operative ventures are also a support base when coping with hazards and unforeseen threats, and a base for much useful learning.

Conclusion
No form of TVET, however negotiated and responsive can compensate for structural material change. I would therefore suggest we need yet another shift; from ‘poverty reduction’ to ‘wealth distribution’. Nothing short of real change will ultimately bring about social justice.

References
Chambers, R & Conway, G.R. (1991) sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion paper, 296.
Chen, Martha, Vanek, Joann, Lund, Francie, Heintz, James, Jhabvala, Renana & Bonner, Christine (2005) Progress of the world’s women 2005: Women, work and poverty. New York: UNDFW / UNIFEM
Gorz, A. (1999). Reclaiming work. Beyond the wage-based society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lund, Francie &Nicholsen, Jillian (2003) Chains of production, ladders of protection. Social protection for workers in the informal economy. Durban, SODS
Mies, M (1986) Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale. Women in the International Division of Labour. London: Zed Books
Mies, M. and Bennholdt-Thomsen, V. (1999). The subsistence perspective. Beyond the globalised economy, London / NewYork & Australia: ZED Books & Spinifex Press.
Singh, Madhu (2000) Combining work and learning in the informal economy: implications for education, training and skills development. International review of education, 46 (6) pp.599-620
Singh, Madhu (2005) Meeting basic needs in the informal sector. UNESCO-UNEVOC Bulletin, Dec. 2005, No 11 pp.4-6
UNESCO-UNEVOC International Centre for technical and Vocational Education and Training (2006) Orienting technical and Vocational Education and Training for Sustainable Development. Bonn, Germany: UNESCO