157
9 Poverty in Lake Victorian Fisheries – Understanding Governability
The chapter begins by discussing existing perceptions of poverty. It shows how
these views of the poverty problem are linked to the approaches that are taken to
alleviate it, and how these perspectives have changed over time. We then present
some background information about the study area. This is followed by discussion
about the “wickedness” of the poverty problem (Conklin 2006 ) within the three
component systems of the interactive governance approach. The section discusses
how the wickedness of poverty is an inhibiting factor for its governability. Based on
this discussion, we present a framework for assessing poverty as a governability
problem.
Perceptions About Poverty
What is poverty and how is it experienced by those who suffer from it? In responding
to questions such as these, it is necessary to understand the nature of the questions
and, further, the context in which an answer may be given. The question ‘What is
poverty?’ is one whose nature and the context available for its resolution are generally quite varied. Poverty cannot be isolated from the poor; this raises questions
with respect to whether its alleviation should really start from de fi ning it from an
objective, detached position or simply begin from how it is understood, lived and
experienced by the poor themselves. This indicates the complication that poverty
tends to mean different things to different people in different contexts (Narayan
et al. 2000 ; Jentoft and Midré 2011 ) . Historically, its understanding has ranged from
being attributed to those who are free commoners (in the medieval period), to
people with an individual disability (in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries), and
to a systemic failure (in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) (Hanson 1997 ) .
In recent years, however, three analytical perspectives of poverty have emerged
(see Onyango 2009 ) .
The fi rst is the individual perspective, which contends that the poor are themselves largely responsible for their pathological habits and ways of life (Hyatt 2001 ) .
This is a line of thinking that led to what Lewis ( 1963 , 17) called, the “culture of
poverty”. That is, poverty as a way of life sustained by the poor within their own
community. The second is the structural perspective, which contests the individualistic notion by arguing that the poor are led into such a life by external factors and
that poverty alleviation, therefore, requires intervention by the government or some
other external agent (Hyatt 2001 ) . The third is the multifaceted dimension perspective. It argues that poverty is neither an individual nor a structural issue alone, but
instead a combination of both.
Inspired by the work of Amartya Sen ( 1981 , 1999 ), Alkire and Foster ( 2008 )
discuss the multidimensional nature of poverty in terms of physical safety and security, employment and quality of work, empowerment and agency, the ability to go
about without shame, meaning, and psychological and subjective well-being.
Physical safety and security imply that one is not a victim of property, physical or
lethal violent crime or con fl ict. Employment and quality of work mean that one is
9 Poverty in Lake Victorian Fisheries – Understanding Governability
The chapter begins by discussing existing perceptions of poverty. It shows how
these views of the poverty problem are linked to the approaches that are taken to
alleviate it, and how these perspectives have changed over time. We then present
some background information about the study area. This is followed by discussion
about the “wickedness” of the poverty problem (Conklin 2006 ) within the three
component systems of the interactive governance approach. The section discusses
how the wickedness of poverty is an inhibiting factor for its governability. Based on
this discussion, we present a framework for assessing poverty as a governability
problem.
Perceptions About Poverty
What is poverty and how is it experienced by those who suffer from it? In responding
to questions such as these, it is necessary to understand the nature of the questions
and, further, the context in which an answer may be given. The question ‘What is
poverty?’ is one whose nature and the context available for its resolution are generally quite varied. Poverty cannot be isolated from the poor; this raises questions
with respect to whether its alleviation should really start from de fi ning it from an
objective, detached position or simply begin from how it is understood, lived and
experienced by the poor themselves. This indicates the complication that poverty
tends to mean different things to different people in different contexts (Narayan
et al. 2000 ; Jentoft and Midré 2011 ) . Historically, its understanding has ranged from
being attributed to those who are free commoners (in the medieval period), to
people with an individual disability (in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries), and
to a systemic failure (in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) (Hanson 1997 ) .
In recent years, however, three analytical perspectives of poverty have emerged
(see Onyango 2009 ) .
The fi rst is the individual perspective, which contends that the poor are themselves largely responsible for their pathological habits and ways of life (Hyatt 2001 ) .
This is a line of thinking that led to what Lewis ( 1963 , 17) called, the “culture of
poverty”. That is, poverty as a way of life sustained by the poor within their own
community. The second is the structural perspective, which contests the individualistic notion by arguing that the poor are led into such a life by external factors and
that poverty alleviation, therefore, requires intervention by the government or some
other external agent (Hyatt 2001 ) . The third is the multifaceted dimension perspective. It argues that poverty is neither an individual nor a structural issue alone, but
instead a combination of both.
Inspired by the work of Amartya Sen ( 1981 , 1999 ), Alkire and Foster ( 2008 )
discuss the multidimensional nature of poverty in terms of physical safety and security, employment and quality of work, empowerment and agency, the ability to go
about without shame, meaning, and psychological and subjective well-being.
Physical safety and security imply that one is not a victim of property, physical or
lethal violent crime or con fl ict. Employment and quality of work mean that one is