poverty and vulnerability

The Government recognizes that poverty and vulnerability pose significant risks to the people of Kenya, challenging the country’s social and economic foundations. About 46% of the population of Kenya lives below the national poverty line while 19% live in extreme poverty. The high poverty levels are as a result of several factors including, but not limited to; natural disasters, environmental degradation, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, unemployment, a lack of income in old age and a breakdown of traditional safety net mechanisms.

Kenya, like most developing countries, is actively pursuing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, current progress towards the MDGs indicates that they are unlikely to be met partly because of inadequate access to social services, especially for the poor in our society. This therefore calls for a social protection strategy to reverse the trend.

Social Protection in Kenya is defined as: “policies and actions for the poor and vulnerable which enhances their capacity to cope with poverty, and equips them with skills to better manage risks and shocks.” The Government has developed this Strategy to guide its implementation of activities aimed at addressing the needs of the poor and vulnerable in the next five years. This Strategy builds on other related government strategy documents, namely the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) of 2001, the Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (ERS) of 2003 and the Kenya Vision 2030 of 2008.

Kenya’s economic growth has averaged 5.6% over the last 3 years.The Kenya Vision 2030 - the new development blueprint for the period 2008 to 2030 - has an ambitious goal of achieving an average growth rate of 10% per annum for the next 25 years. However, the Government acknowledges that economic growth alone is insufficient to achieve a meaningful improvement in the quality of life of the poor and vulnerable members of the population. Inequality in Kenya is fairly high; the Gini index is 42.5 and the richest 20% of the population consume 49.1% of GDP.  It is, therefore, critically important that mechanisms to tackle poverty and vulnerability directly are given priority if an improvement in social indicators is to be registered.

Based on an assessment of poverty, vulnerability, risk factors and inputs from the national and provincial consultations held in 2007/8 as part of the development of this Strategy, the objectives to be addressed by the Strategy are to:

§ Enhance the long-term capacity of poor and vulnerable households to meet their basic consumption needs and to improve their access to basic services;

§ Contribute to the building of human capital as a way of addressing the underlying causes of poverty and breaking the cycle of inter-generational poverty;

§ Promote strategies that will (a) reduce the likelihood of an adverse risk, (b) reduce the impact of the future risk, and (c) relieve the impact of the risk once it has occurred; and

§ Mobilise resources and effectively coordinate their use to address poverty, vulnerability and risk management at the national level.

In the short and medium-term, the Strategy will meet the immediate needs of the poorest and most vulnerable members of the society. This means focusing primarily on the 19% of the population that is living in extreme poverty and those most vulnerable to income poverty due to external shocks. Given the limited financial and human resources in the country, the initial Social Protection interventions will begin where the need is greatest.

In the long-term the Strategy will facilitate the development of a comprehensive Social Protection system. This system should provide interventions that are protective, preventive, promotive and transformative, and that enhances risk management. Although in the long-run the multi-faceted nature of Social Protection will mean coverage of most of the population, its priority will remain on those identified as poor and vulnerable to poverty.

The Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA) has undertaken several studies on poverty in Kenya. At the household level, poverty is found to decline rapidly depending on the level of education of the head of household, and to rise with household size and involvement in agricultural activities. Extreme poverty is found to decline rapidly as farm households shift to non-agricultural activities. Household data also shows that older people in rural areas are more likely to be poor than other age groups.5 At the macro-level, a decline in national income and employment and a rise in inequality are associated with higher levels of poverty.

Vulnerability is the likelihood of falling into poverty. It is dynamic in nature and provides further insight into the nature of poverty. In addition to providing support to those in a state of poverty, Social Protection is also about addressing the risks that can cause people to fall into poverty. These include natural disasters, unemployment and sickness. Assessing vulnerability can strengthen the impact of Social Protection by providing a pre-emptive component to addressing poverty.

A study using the Welfare Monitoring Surveys (WMS) of 1994 and 1997 established that rural households faced a 39% chance of becoming poor in future. Households in arid areas were more vulnerable than households in non-arid areas. The main risk factor in arid areas was the unpredictability of rainfall while in non-arid areas malaria was the main problem. The study also found that possession of livestock – cattle, sheep and goats – was largely ineffective in mitigating the impact of natural disasters. However, livestock in arid areas was found to have some impact in alleviating the impact of household level shocks such as death and unemployment. Based on policy simulations, the study established that interventions aimed at reducing the incidence of malaria, promoting adult literacy, improving market accessibility, and promoting off-farm employment prospects would significantly reduce vulnerability among non-pastoralist communities.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) provides a framework for Social Protection that separates measures into 4 categories – protective, preventive, promotive and transformative measures. Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler build on the ILO framework to provide a framework with an additional category referred to as transformative measures.

Protective measures: aim to provide relief from deprivation. These include social assistance measures such as social pensions and social services (for example, free primary education).

Preventive measures: these are used to prevent deprivation that may result from a shock. This refers to formal social insurance mechanisms such as health and unemployment insurance and informal mechanisms like funeral societies.