STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE

Structural violence is a term commonly ascribed to Johan Galtung, which he introduced in the article
"Violence, Peace, and Peace Research" (1969).[1] It refers to a form of violence wherein some social
structure or social institution may harm people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs.
Institutionalized adultism, ageism, classism, elitism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, speciesism, racism,
and sexism are some examples of structural violence as proposed by Galtung.[citation needed] According to
Galtung, rather than conveying a physical image, structural violence is an "avoidable impairment of
fundamental human needs".[2] As it is avoidable, structural violence is a high cause of premature death
and unnecessary disability. Because structural violence affects people differently in various social
structures, it is very closely linked to social injustice.[3] Structural violence and direct violence are said to
be highly interdependent, including family violence, gender violence, hate crimes, racial violence, police
violence, state violence, terrorism, and war.[4]
In his book Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic, James Gilligan defines structural violence as
"the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as
contrasted with the relatively lower death rates experienced by those who are above them". Gilligan
largely describes these "excess deaths" as "non-natural" and attributes them to the stress,
shame, discrimination, and denigration that results from lower status. He draws on Sennett and Cobb,
who examine the "contest for dignity" in a context of dramatic inequality.[5]
Bandy X Lee wrote in her article Causes and cures VII: Structural violence, "It refers to the avoidable
limitations society places on groups of people that constrain them from achieving the quality of life that
would have otherwise been possible. These limitations could be political, economic, religious, cultural, or
legal in nature and usually originate in institutions that have authority over particular subjects." [6] She goes
on to say that it "directly illustrates a power system wherein social structures or institutions cause harm to
people in a way that results in maldevelopment or deprivation". [6] Rather than the term being called social
injustice or oppression, there is an advocacy for it to be called violence because this phenomenon comes
from, and can be corrected by human decisions, rather than just natural causes. [6]

Cause and effects

In The Sources of Social Power, Michael Mann makes the argument that within state formation,
"increased organizational power is a trade-off, whereby the individual obtains more security and food in
exchange for his or her freedom."[7] Sinia Maleevi elaborates on Mann's argument by saying, "Mann's
point needs extending to cover all social organizations, not just the state. The early chiefdoms were not
states, obviously; still, they were established on a similar basisan inversely proportional relationship
between security and resources, on the one hand, and liberty, on the other."[7] This means that although
those who live in organized, centralized social systems are not likely subject to hunger or to die in an
animal attack, they are likely to engage in organized violence, which could include war. These structures
make for opportunities and advances that humans could not create for themselves, including the
development of agriculture, technology, philosophy, science, and art; however, these structures take tolls
elsewhere, meaning that these structures are both productive and detrimental. In our early history,
hunter-gather groups used organizational power to acquire more resources and produce more food, but
at the same time, this power was also used to dominate, kill, and enslave other groups in order to expand
territory and supplies.[7]
Although structural violence is said to be invisible, it has a number of influences which shape it. These
include identifiable institutions, relationships, force fields, and ideologies, including discriminatory laws,
gender inequality, and racism.[8] Moreover, this does not only exist for those of the lower class, although
the effects are much heavier on them, including the highest rate of disease and death, unemployment,
homelessness, lack of education, powerlessness, and shared fate of miseries. The whole social order is
effected by social power, but these other groups have much more indirect effects on them, with the acts
generally being less violent.[8]
Due to the social and economic structure in place today, specifically the division into rich and poor,
powerful and weak, and superior and inferior, the death rate is between 10 and 20 million per year, which
is about ten times the death rates from suicide, homicide, and warfare combined. [6]
TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATION

Transnational corporations (TNCs) are incorporated or unincorporated enterprises comprising parent

An equity capital stake of 10 per cent or more of the ordinary shares or voting power for an incorporated
enterprise, or its equivalent for an unincorporated enterprise, is normally considered as a threshold for the
control of assets (in some countries, an equity stake other than that of 10 per cent is still used. In the
United Kingdom, for example, a stake of 20 per cent or more was a threshold until 1997.).

A foreign affiliate is an incorporated or unincorporated enterprise in which an investor, who is resident in

CONCEPT OF POVERTY

Poverty is general scarcity or the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or
money (people with $1.25 a day).[1] It is a multifaceted concept, which includes social, economic, and
political elements. Absolute poverty or destitution refers to the lack of means necessary to meet basic
needs such as food, clothing and shelter.[2] Absolute poverty is meant to be about the same independent
of location. Relative poverty occurs when people in a country do not enjoy a certain minimum level of
living standards as compared to the rest of the population and so would vary from country to country,
sometimes within the same country.[3]
After the industrial revolution, mass production in factories made producing goods increasingly less
expensive and more accessible. Of more importance is the modernization of agriculture, such
as fertilizers, to provide enough yield to feed the population.[4] Providing basic needs can be restricted by
constraints on government's ability to deliver services, such as corruption, tax avoidance, debt and loan
conditionalities and by the brain drain of health care and educational professionals. Strategies of
increasing income to make basic needs more affordable typically include welfare, economic
freedoms and providing financial services.[5]

Global prevalence
The World Bank forecasts that 702.1 million people , down from 1.75 billion in 1990.[6][clarify] Of these, about
347.1 million people lived in Sub-Saharan Africa (35.2% of the population) and 231.3 million lived
in South Asia (13.5% of the population). According to the World Bank, between 1990 and 2015, the
percentage of the world's population living in extreme poverty fell from 37.1% to 9.6%, falling below 10%
for the first time.[7] Nevertheless, given the current economic model, built on GDP, it would take 100 years
to bring the world's poorest up to the previous poverty line of $1.25 a day. [8] Extreme poverty is a global
challenge; it is observed in all parts of the world, including developed economies.[9][10]UNICEF estimates
half the world's children (or 1.1 billion) live in poverty.[11] It has been argued by some academics that
the neoliberal policies promoted by global financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank are
actually exacerbating both inequality and poverty.[12]
Another estimate places the true scale of poverty much higher than the World Bank, with an estimated
4.3 billion people (59 percent of the world's population) living with less than $5 a day and unable to meet
basic needs adequately.[13]
In 2012 it is estimated that, given a poverty line of $1.25 a day 1.2 billion people lived in poverty.

Etymology
The word poverty comes from old French povert (Modern French: pauvret), from Latin pauperts from
pauper (poor).[15]
The English word "poverty" via Anglo-Norman povert.[citation needed] There are several definitions of poverty
depending on the context of the situation it is placed in, and the views of the person giving the definition.

Measuring poverty
Income Poverty: a family's income fails to meet a federally established threshold that differs across
countries.[16]
United Nations: Fundamentally, poverty is the inability of having choices and opportunities, a violation of
human dignity. It means lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having
enough to feed and clothe a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not having the land on which to
grow one's food or a job to earn one's living, not having access to credit. It means insecurity,
powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households and communities. It means susceptibility to
violence, and it often implies living in marginal or fragile environments, without access to clean water or
sanitation.[17]
World Bank: Poverty is pronounced deprivation in well-being, and comprises many dimensions. It
includes low incomes and the inability to acquire the basic goods and services necessary for survival with
dignity. Poverty also encompasses low levels of health and education, poor access to clean water and
sanitation, inadequate physical security, lack of voice, and insufficient capacity and opportunity to better
one's life. [18]
Poverty is usually measured as either absolute or relative (the latter being actually an index of income
inequality).
In the United Kingdom, the second Cameron ministry came under attack for their redefinition of poverty;
poverty is no longer classified by a family's income, but as to whether a family is in work or
not.[19] Considering that two-thirds of people who found work were accepting wages that are below the
living wage (according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation[20]) this has been criticised by anti-poverty
campaigners as an unrealistic view of poverty in the United Kingdom. [19]

Absolute poverty[edit]
See also: Extreme poverty

Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is consistent over time and between countries. First
introduced in 1990, the dollar a day poverty line measured absolute poverty by the standards of the
world's poorest countries. The World Bank defined the new international poverty line as $1.25 a day in
2008 for 2005 (equivalent to $1.00 a day in 1996 US prices).[21][22] In October 2015, they reset it to $1.90 a
day.[23]
Absolute poverty, extreme poverty, or abject poverty is "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of
basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and
information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services."[24] The term 'absolute poverty',
when used in this fashion, is usually synonymous with 'extreme poverty': Robert McNamara, the former
president of the World Bank, described absolute or extreme poverty as, "a condition so limited
by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality, and low life expectancy as
to be beneath any reasonable definition of human decency."[25][notes 1][26] Australia is one of the world's
wealthier nations. In his article published in Australian Policy Online, Robert Tanton notes that, "While this
amount is appropriate for third world countries, in Australia, the amount required to meet these basic
needs will naturally be much higher because prices of these basic necessities are higher."
However, as the amount of wealth required for survival is not the same in all places and time periods,
particularly in highly developed countries where few people would fall below the World Bank Group's
poverty lines, countries often develop their own national poverty lines.
An absolute poverty line was calculated in Australia for the Henderson poverty inquiry in 1973. It was
$62.70 a week, which was the disposable income required to support the basic needs of a family of two
adults and two dependent children at the time. This poverty line has been updated regularly by the
Melbourne Institute according to increases in average incomes; for a single employed person it was
$391.85 per week (including housing costs) in March 2009.[27] In Australia the OECD poverty would
equate to a "disposable income of less than $358 per week for a single adult (higher for larger
households to take account of their greater costs).[28] in 2015 Australia implemented the Individual
Deprivation Measure which address gender disparities in poverty.[29]
See also: Purchasing power

For a few years starting 1990, the World Bank anchored absolute poverty line as $1 per day. This was
revised in 1993, and through 2005, absolute poverty was $1.08 a day for all countries on a purchasing
power parity basis, after adjusting for inflation to the 1993 U.S. dollar. In 2005, after extensive studies of
cost of living across the world, The World Bank raised the measure for global poverty line to reflect the
observed higher cost of living.[30] In 2015, the World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than
US$1.90 (PPP) per day, and moderate poverty[citation needed] as less than $2 or $5 a day (but note that a
person or family with access to subsistence resources, e.g., subsistence farmers, may have a low cash
income without a correspondingly low standard of living they are not living "on" their cash income but
using it as a top up). It estimated that "in 2001, 1.1 billion people had consumption levels below $1 a day
and 2.7 billion lived on less than $2 a day."[31] A 'dollar a day', in nations that do not use the U.S. dollar as
currency, does not translate to living a day on the equivalent amount of local currency as determined by
the exchange rate.[32] Rather, it is determined by the purchasing power parity rate, which would look at
how much local currency is needed to buy the same things that a dollar could buy in the United
States.[32] Usually, this would translate to less local currency than the exchange rate in poorer countries as
the United States is a relatively more expensive country.[32]
The poverty line threshold of $1.90 per day, as set by the World Bank, is controversial. Each nation has
its own threshold for absolute poverty line; in the United States, for example, the absolute poverty line
was US$15.15 per day in 2010 (US$22,000 per year for a family of four),[33] while in India it was US$1.0
per day[34] and in China the absolute poverty line was US$0.55 per day, each on PPP basis in
2010.[35] These different poverty lines make data comparison between each nation's official reports
qualitatively difficult. Some scholars argue that the World Bank method sets the bar too high, others
argue it is low. Still others suggest that poverty line misleads as it measures everyone below the poverty
line the same, when in reality someone living on $1.20 per day is in a different state of poverty than
someone living on $0.20 per day. In other words, the depth and intensity of poverty varies across the
world and in any regional populations, and $1.25 per day poverty line and head counts are inadequate
measures.[34][36][37]
The share of the world's population living in absolute poverty fell from 43% in 1981 to 14% in 2011. [31] The
absolute number of people in poverty fell from 1.95 billion in 1981 to 1.01 billion in 2011.[38] The
economist Max Roserestimates that the number of people in poverty is therefore roughly the same as 200
years ago.[38] This is the case since the world population was just little more than 1 billion in 1820 and the
majority (84% to 94%[39]) of the world population was living poverty. The proportion of the developing
world's population living in extreme economic poverty fell from 28 percent in 1990 to 21 percent in
2001.[31] Most of this improvement has occurred in East and South Asia.[40] In East Asia the World Bank
reported that "The poverty headcount rate at the $2-a-day level is estimated to have fallen to about 27
percent [in 2007], down from 29.5 percent in 2006 and 69 percent in 1990."[41] In Sub-Saharan
Africa extreme poverty went up from 41 percent in 1981 to 46 percent in 2001,[42] which combined with
growing population increased the number of people living in extreme poverty from 231 million to 318
million.[43]
In the early 1990s some of the transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia
experienced a sharp drop in income.[44] The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in large declines in GDP
per capita, of about 30 to 35% between 1990 and the trough year of 1998 (when it was at its minimum).
As a result, poverty rates also increased although in subsequent years as per capita incomes recovered
the poverty rate dropped from 31.4% of the population to 19.6%.[45][46]

Relative poverty[edit]
Relative poverty views poverty as socially defined and dependent on social context, hence relative
poverty is a measure of income inequality. Usually, relative poverty is measured as the percentage of the
population with income less than some fixed proportion of median income. There are several other
different income inequality metrics, for example, the Gini coefficient or the Theil Index.
Relative poverty is the "most useful measure for ascertaining poverty rates in wealthy developed
nations."[55][56][57][58][59] Relative poverty measure is used by the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) and Canadian poverty researchers.[55][56][57][58][59] In the European Union,
the "relative poverty measure is the most prominent and mostquoted of the EU social inclusion
indicators."[60]
"Relative poverty reflects better the cost of social inclusion and equality of opportunity in a specific time
and space."[61]
"Once economic development has progressed beyond a certain minimum level, the rub of the poverty
problem from the point of view of both the poor individual and of the societies in which they live is not
so much the effects of poverty in any absolute form but the effects of the contrast, daily perceived,
between the lives of the poor and the lives of those around them. For practical purposes, the problem of
poverty in the industrialized nations today is a problem of relative poverty (page 9)." [61][62]
In 1776 Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations argued that poverty is the inability to afford, "not only the
commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life but whatever the custom of the
country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without." [63][64]
In 1958 J. K. Galbraith argued that "People are poverty stricken when their income, even if adequate for
survival, falls markedly behind that of their community."[64][65]
In 1964 in a joint committee economic President's report in the United States, Republicans endorsed the
concept of relative poverty. "No objective definition of poverty exists... The definition varies from place to
place and time to time. In America as our standard of living rises, so does our idea of what is
substandard."[64][66]
In 1965 Rose Friedman argued for the use of relative poverty claiming that the definition of poverty
changes with general living standards. Those labeled as poor in 1995 would have had "a higher standard
of living than many labeled not poor" in 1965.[64][67]
In 1979, British sociologist, Peter Townsend published his famous definition, "individuals [...] can be said
to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and
have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or are at least widely encouraged or
approved, in the societies to which they belong (page 31).".[68] This definition and measurement of poverty
was profoundly linked to the idea that poverty and societal participation are deeply associated. [69]
Peter Townsend transformed the conception of poverty, viewing it not simply as lack of income but as the
configuration of the economic conditions that prevent people from being full members of the society
(Townsend, 1979;[68] Ferragina et al. 2016 [69]). Poverty reduces the ability of people to participate in
society, effectively denying them full citizenship (as suggested by T.H. Marshall). Given that there are no
universal principles by which to determine the minimum threshold of participation equating to full
membership of society, Townsend argued that the appropriate measure would necessarily be relative to
any particular cultural context. He suggested that in each society there should be an empirically
determinable 'breakpoint' within the income distribution below which participation of individuals collapses,
providing a scientific basis for fixing a poverty line and determining the extent of poverty (Ferragina et al.
2016 [69]).
Brian Nolan and Christopher T. Whelan of the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) in Ireland
explained that "[P]overty has to be seen in terms of the standard of living of the society in question." [70]
Relative poverty measures are used as official poverty rates by the European Union, UNICEF, and the
OEDC. The main poverty line used in the OECD and the European Union is based on "economic
distance", a level of income set at 60% of the median household income.

MANIFESTATIONS OF STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE

1. Rampant Corruption
REFERENCES:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence

http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DIAE/Transnational-corporations-(TNC).aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty