“Human development is a process of enlarging people’s choices. The most critical ones are to lead a long and healthy life, to be educated and to enjoy a decent standard of living.” —Human Development Report 19901

“Vulnerability is not the same as poverty. It means not lack or want but defenselessness, insecurity and exposure to risks, shocks and stress.” —Robert Chambers

Human vulnerability is about the prospect of eroding human development achievements and their sustainability. A person (or community or country) is vulnerable when there is a high risk of future deterioration in circumstances and achievements.

Inequality as a Factor of Vulnerability

One of the biggest contributors to vulnerability is inequality, and it is a contributor in many ways. Inequality causes instability, increasing the frequency of big swings in the economy. Extremes of inequality mean that larger fractions of the population are in poverty—with a lower ability to cope with shocks when they occur. Extremes of economic inequality inevitably lead to political inequality— with the result that governments are less likely to provide the systems of social protection that can protect those at the bottom from the consequences of large shocks. Inequality not just a moral issue but also as a fundamental economic concern, integral to thinking about human development and especially relevant to any analysis of vulnerability.

Inequality in access to resources and outcomes that coincides with cultural differences can become mobilizing agents that end in a range of political upheavals and disturbances. This is not only because of the resentments of the excluded and deprived. Unrest and conflict can also erupt if the privileged take actions to ensure that the underprivileged do not make demands for more resources or political power.

A key facet of vulnerability is often an inability to influence decisions that affect one’s life: decisions are instead made by more-powerful actors, who may neither understand the situation of the vulnerable nor necessarily have their interests at heart.

Structural Vulnerability

Where social and legal institutions, power structures, political spaces, or traditions and socio-cultural norms do not serve members of society equally—and where they create structural barriers for some people and groups to exercise their rights and choices—they give rise to structural vulnerabilities. Structural vulnerabilities are often manifested through deep inequalities and widespread poverty, which are associated with horizontal or group inequalities based on socially recognized and constructed group membership. Structural vulnerabilities are perpetuated by exclusion, low human development and people’s position in society, reducing their ability to cope with downside risks and shocks.

‘Structurally vulnerable’ groups of people are more vulnerable than others by virtue of their history or of their unequal treatment by the rest of society. These vulnerabilities have often evolved and persisted over long periods of time and may be associated with gender, ethnicity, indignity or geographic location. These factors are manifested in their economic disparities, lack of political participation, and wide spread exploitation.

Many of the most vulnerable people and groups face numerous and overlapping constraints on their ability to cope with setbacks. For example, those who are poor and also from a minority group, or are female and have disabilities, face multiple barriers which can negatively reinforce each other.

Some periods of life are identified as particularly important: for example, the first 1,000 days of a child’s life or the transition from school to work or from work to retirement. Setbacks at these points can be particularly difficult to overcome and may have prolonged impacts.

Social Exclusion

Almost all countries have groups that suffer from social exclusion, which occurs when institutions systematically deny some groups the resources and recognition that would enable them to fully participate in social life. Horizontal inequality and social exclusion can endure over long periods and may be associated with denial of rights and unequal access to social services by some groups. In some cases the persistent inequalities and prolonged deprivations last centuries.

Role of Work and Employment

Work provides more than wages. Employment, especially decent employment, is associated with dignity and status—and with stable and cohesive communities and societies. Stable employment brings benefits for society—enabling the workforce to retain experience, knowledge and productivity, thus enhancing economic performance. Employment also contributes to social cohesion, particularly by improving the well-being of girls. Increased employment of women helps change perceptions of the ‘value’ of girls and encourages investment in their education and health. It also helps reduce poverty. Bouts of unemployment are also associated with high rates of depression and alcoholism. In developing countries adverse economic conditions can reduce school enrolment rates by up to 12 percentage points.

Economic security and personal security are linked. People feel secure when they have jobs with sufficient social protections—and when they are confident about the future.

Full employment reduces crime and increases well-being generally. By contrast, high unemployment fuels uncertainty and inflicts a sense of hopelessness. Equally, long-standing unequal treatment and denials of rights feed into deep discrimination, and at times groups or communities seek to redress long-established inequities through violent means. In India estimates range from a tenth to a third of districts having insurrection movements or armed struggles, in one form or the other, by such dissident groups as the Naxalites and other Maoist groups. Horizontal inequality and unmet basic rights are often the causes of group violence

Global Factors

Several global factors can fuel conflicts and enhance fragility, such as transnational organized crime, international markets in military goods and security services, and the spread of radical extremism. Addressing these sources of vulnerability will be crucial to promote peace and advance human development. The connection between social exclusion and conflict can be illustrated in many examples: the Muslim rebellions in the Philippines and Thailand; the separatist movements of Aceh, Timor-Leste and Papua in Indonesia; and the separatism of East Pakistan and Eritrea, among others.

Correlation between Group Inequalities and Violent Conflict

There is evidence of correlation between group inequalities and violent conflict, which becomes more likely when political and socioeconomic and political inequalities are reinforcing. For example, the probability of conflict rises significantly in countries with severe economic and social horizontal inequality. Similarly, violent conflict is more likely to occur when development is weaker and religious polarization is greater. While there are many examples of peaceful multicultural societies, cultural ties can be a powerful source of mobilization and potential conflict when they interact with strong economic and political deprivations. In addition, sharp increases in group inequality raise the likelihood of tension and conflict.

How governments respond to protests explains how social exclusion can induce some groups to take to violence, even if they start as peaceful protests. Peaceful protests in which the state limits protesters’ space and protection can either generate little change and more frustration or face violent and exclusionary actions by the state, unifying protesters and transforming what were mainly peaceful protests into violence.

Civil Unrest

Civil disorder, also known as civil unrest or civil strife, is a broad term that is typically used by law enforcement to describe one or more forms of unrest caused by a group of people. More frequently, the cause of such issues is related to economic stagnation, severe inflation, devaluation of currency, disasters, be they man made or natural, severe unemployment, oppression, political scandal.

 Civil unrest has been fuelled by a growing perception that policymaking has not prioritized people’s needs or listened to their voices, which should be taken as an important call for better governance. This requires greater accountability and responsiveness of governments to the concerns of their citizens. Profound transformations are needed—beyond changes in government, as the Arab Spring illustrated—to open the political space and enable agency. Growing economic and social tensions—emerging from increasing inequality and a lack of economic opportunities— are likely to continue to fuel social unrest.

Factors Associated With the Onset of Civil Conflict

Demographic factors: Populous countries have more armed conflicts than small countries, but have fewer conflicts or casualties per capita than small countries. Countries with a large youth cohort (i.e. a large proportion of the population in the15–24year age group) have a high risk of internal conflict.

Economic Factors: Low income levels and low rates of economic growth: A disproportionate share of internal conflicts occur in low income and lower middle income countries and in countries with low growth rates. One possible explanation for this relationship: Low income countries have governments with limited capacity to provide public goods and to enforce the monopoly on the use of force

Oil and other natural resources dependence: Countries with a large proportion of primary commodity exports also have a somewhat higher risk of conflict. Political institutions, however, play a strong role in mitigating the destabilizing effects of natural resource dependence. Nevertheless, without strong institutions, dependence on oil and natural resources significantly increases the risk of conflict.

Political Factors: Inconsistent political institutions (i.e. institutions that are neither democratic nor authoritarian) give rise to conflicts as they are relatively non-responsive to popular demands at the same time as they are more inefficient than authoritarian regimes in countering insurgencies. Semi-democratic institutions typically also provide incentives for nationalistic and sectarian politics, and are liable to experience conflict-generating institutional changes. A particularly dangerous constellation of political institutions is a strong unconstrained executive combined with expanded public participation. Changes to the design of political institutions (typically partial democratizations) often lead to or are associated with violent conflict.

Regional Factors: Countries in conflict-prone and non-democratic neighborhoods have a heightened risk of conflict. Rebel groups often depend on sanctuaries outside the country’s border and enjoy (tacit) support from rivalling neighboring regimes, which are more easily obtained in an unstable environment and in areas with limited statehood. Conversely, a stable and democratic regional neighbourhood helps economic growth and stimulates non-violent economic activities.

Kinship and Identity Factors: Ethnic differences are related to violent conflict, but may be less important as causes of large-scale civil war than often argued. However, societies where one ethnic group is dominant but minorities are sizeable are more conflict-prone – particularly when the politically marginalized groups reside in the periphery of the country

Link between Poverty, Criminal Activities and Civil Unrest

Multidimensional poverty has a strong geographical component, since it tends to be highest in rural areas. Indigenous people (Tribals) tend to have poor educational attainment, unequal opportunities and unequal access to land and other productive assets. The existence of criminal gangs has been found to correlate with lower support for formal mechanisms of social control and regulation, which further opens the way for criminal groups to be the sole sources of protection.

Persistent horizontal inequality experienced along political, economic and social dimensions can create conditions that promote acts of physical violence that threaten human development for large numbers of people, including some specific groups. Homicide and armed violence occur most frequently in poverty-stricken urban areas characterized by lack of employment, poor standards of housing, overcrowding and low standards of education and social amenities.

Young people are at particular risk of being coerced or manipulated into criminal activity by gangs and criminal groups managed by adults. In environments with high youth unemployment, gangs offer an occupation, a sense of identity and belonging and a platform to protest against society.

Internal and nonstate armed conflicts account for the vast majority of conflicts worldwide. The number of nonstate conflicts has risen recently, and although the total number of internal conflicts is declining, the number of internationalized internal conflicts is on the rise. Armed conflicts occur for different reasons and in very different contexts. But deficits in development, unaddressed grievances (including past conflicts) and natural resource rents are common threads in the majority of armed conflicts.

Cost ofInternal Unrest

violent conflict— and mostly intrastate conflict as well as internal civil unrest—continues to impose enormous costs on development in affected countries. A combination of causes can be identified for these types of conflict. One common characteristic is the fact that the causes—from exclusionary policies and elite rent-seeking to unaddressed social grievances—all contribute to social discord or, at the very least, impede the social harmony and cohesion conducive to resilient development outcomes A ‘socially cohesive’ society is one that works towards the well-being of all its members, fights exclusion and marginalization, creates a sense of belonging, promotes trust and offers its members the opportunity of upward mobility.

Lack of these attributes is often correlated with conflict and violence, especially in situations of unequal access to resources or benefits from natural wealth, or with the inability to deal effectively with rapid social or economic change or the impact of economic or climate-related shocks.

Armed conflict is an important vulnerability for human development, for its aggregate effects not only on society but on some specific groups. In Kashmir exposure to violence in utero and in infancy was shown to have reduced children’s height. Children in areas affected by insurgency were 0.9–1.4 standard deviations shorter than children less affected by insurgency. The effect was stronger for children born during peaks in violence.

Conflicts also force people to flee their homes and livelihoods. Women and children account for 80 percent of the world’s refugees and displaced persons. Between 2012 and 2013 more than 1 million people fled their countries of origin due to conflict and persecution Conflicts disrupt essential public services such as basic health care and education, doing permanent harm to people throughout their lives, with lasting health problems for entire generations of children in conflict zones often held back from completing primary school. In addition, violent conflict can cause immense psychological distress. Loss of family and community, loss of homes and livelihoods, displacement and disruption can have severe mental health consequences, which affect many household decisions, including migration.

In some conflicts civilians are targeted and mutilated as a deliberate strategy to demoralize communities and destroy their social structures; rape has been used as a deliberate weapon as an act of humiliation and revenge against the enemy as a whole.

Steps to address the issues

Putting People First

The notion of putting people first is not just about people-centered policies. It is also about policies that people influence, so all members of society have full rights as citizens and have a voice that is heard in developing policies. Reducing vulnerability requires that the voice of the disadvantaged be heard clearly. Empowering all citizens is a powerful tool for reducing risks. As Amartya Sen observed, “Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to do so, and a democratic government, facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers, cannot help but make such an effort. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule up to independence, . . .[with a democratic government after independence] they disappeared.”

Putting people first has implications for policies and measures: The two are inextricably linked because “what we measure affects what we do; and if our measurements are flawed, decisions may be distorted.” As all HDRs have argued, focusing narrowly on GDP and its growth is misleading. Economic growth is important, not for itself but for what it enables a country and people to do with the resources generated. Growth that does not generate sufficient jobs—jobless growth—cannot be treated on a par with growth that does. Jobs are a source of dignity and self-worth. Higher quality or decent jobs contribute to social cohesion and political stability. For example, austerity in Europe is severely straining social structures, with larger burdens borne by the young and the old, even after conceding the need to reduce fiscal deficits.

There are promising employment initiatives around the world—from China’s strong commitment to high growth in order to absorb new entrants to the labour force to India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme to secure work as a basic right of all citizens. The examples highlight the opportunities in vigorously pursuing full employment as a strategic objective, at different stages of development, to reduce vulnerability and build the resilience of people and societies.

If people remain at risk of slipping back into poverty because of structural factors and persistent vulnerabilities, development progress will remain precarious. The eradication of poverty is not just about ‘getting to zero’—it is also about staying there.

Role Of Sensitive State

States require the capacity to recognize the concerns of the vulnerable and react to them through appropriate interventions. This requires, among other things, giving the poor and marginalized a greater voice in decision making and opportunities for recourse when rights are violated or discrimination is encountered. Research suggests that women are more likely than men to suffer from negligence, petty corruption and harassment when they engage with state institutions.

Simply understanding the technical cause of a vulnerability is not enough to design policies to reduce it. Rather, the processes that created the risk in the first place must be identified, and the political incentives and will to tackle them must be present. Political freedoms are a key part of this, as Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen underlined when discussing the role of the media in holding governments to account during famines. Direct representation, social movements, and union and civil society pressures also shape policy and political processes in the broader political economy and are important for representing the interests of vulnerable groups.

Key national policies can reduce vulnerability and enhance resilience—at both the individual and society levels. These policies include universal provision of basic services, addressing life cycle vulnerabilities, promoting full employment, strengthening social protection, addressing societal inclusion and building capacity to prepare for and recover from crises.

Several considerations underlie the focus on these policies. First, each addresses vulnerability in multiple dimensions. For instance, universal provision of basic social services can promote opportunities across the board by delinking basic entitlements from the ability to pay for them. Similarly, high employment has a large, positive impact on people’s well-being while reducing violence and boosting social cohesion.

These policies are interconnected, with strong synergies among them. Development pathways that are not informed by voices of all stakeholders are neither desirable nor sustainable. But when societies create space for all voices to be heard, policymakers are more likely to be attentive to the concerns and needs of minorities and other vulnerable groups. And people can be both the agents and the beneficiaries of progress. Such societies are also more likely to attach a high priority to job creation and universal social policy. Indeed, if full employment expands the tax base, it also creates greater fiscal space for providing quality social services.

Third, these policies address vulnerability at different points in an individual’s life cycle and at different points in a country’s development pathway. Well designed social services can ensure that children receive care and education in the most critical phase of life and that older people receive appropriate care when they need it. Full employment policies smooth the critical transition for young people from education to employment. These policies also set up virtuous cycles that sustain national development pathways.

While resource constraints are a valid concern, mobilizing resources, restructuring the fiscal space, reprioritizing spending and improving the efficiency of service delivery through better institutional design can create more options.

Universal access to basic social services, especially health and education; stronger social protection, including unemployment insurance and pensions; and a commitment to full employment, recognizing that the value of employment extends far beyond the income it generates. It examines the importance of responsive and fair institutions and increased social cohesion for building community-level resilience and for reducing the potential for conflict to break out.

Building capacities for disaster preparedness and recovery, which enable communities to better weather— and recover from—shocks, is vital. At the global level, recognizing that risks which are trans-border in nature, require collective action, global commitments and better international governance.

Role of Governance and Healthy Institutions

Institutions, especially well functioning state institutions, have an important function in creating a cultural space where various groups can exchange ideas peacefully and where people can start to incorporate the views of others into their own understanding of the world. This could be very important for peaceful conflict resolution, indicating a large role in violent conflict prevention.

Inclusive and representative institutions can reduce the potential for conflict, since they can take action to counter exclusion, changing practices in the way public goods and services are delivered. Examples of policies to reduce horizontal inequality include improving the group ownership of land via redistribution of government-owned land, forcible purchases and restriction on ownership in Fiji, Namibia, Malaysia and Zimbabwe. Other examples refer to public sector employment quotas (India, Malaysia and Sri Lanka and the requirement for balanced employment in the private sector in South Africa).

State institutions can become more responsive to the needs of the poor and vulnerable when:

• Public administrations implement policies efficiently and are transparent, accountable and responsive to users. This curbs corruption and harassment, and the power of the state is used proactively to allocate resources for public actions benefiting poor people. Some encouraging examples include civil service reforms in Botswana and South Africa, where reforms in ministries and rationalized departments strengthened service delivery and effectiveness.
• Legal systems are pro-poor when they assign and defend rights and are accessible to poor people. Promising interventions in this context have occurred in Cambodia, with the establishment of the Arbitration Council, a national statutory alternative dispute resolution body, and in Mozambique, with the implementation of the progressive land law, which has helped improve poor people’s access to land.
• Central and local governments are aligned to ensure the delivery of public services to all and to minimize the scope for capture by elites or dominant groups. Various forms of decentralization are under way across countries, which have tried to respond to the needs and interests of excluded communities. For example, the Philippines has long tried to address the rights of indigenous people in Palawan and their claim on the forest resources, and the Local Government Code of 1991 provided an opportunity for them to interact with government institutions and participate in forest management.
• Governments generate political support for public action against poverty by creating a climate favorable to pro-poor action, facilitating the growth of poor people’s associations and increasing poor people’s political capacity. Such social movements and political activism propelled Brazil’s ruling party to undertake pro-poor policies and helped set the agenda for political leadership in post-apartheid South Africa.
• Political regimes honour the rule of law, allow the expression of political voice and enable the participation of vulnerable people in political processes. 10 A case in point is the peaceful democratic transition in Bolivia that brought into power the country’s indigenous majority after a long history of exclusion.

Nonetheless, the challenges in building responsive institutions are manifold: from weak political will to inadequate capacities and funding of public institutions, including the civil service and courts. Improving accountability through transparency measures such as India’s Right to Information Act can expose corruption and graft and boost efficiency. Increasing opportunities for participation, through such processes as participatory budgeting and greater representation in government, can give the excluded greater voice. All too often governments respond to fiscal pressures at times of volatility and crises with austerity measures that limit social spending.