![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
Abstract
The problem of chronic poverty in urban areas has been given little attention despite an increasing interest in poverty and some recognition of the growing significance of urban populations. This paper reviews the literature to bring together what we know about the nature and scale of chronic poverty in urban areas. It begins with a consideration of the definition of chronic urban poverty and related issues of poverty measurement. The section also reports on some recent assessments of the scale and scope of urban poverty. Following sections report on the different nature of such poverty in specific kinds of urban settlements (small towns, urban peripheries and the inner city) and social groups that appear to be particularly vulnerable. The paper concludes by drawing out some of the factors that appear to be of significance in understanding the causes of chronic poverty in urban areas.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges Professor David Hulme for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper and, more generally, in supporting an urban dimension within the Chronic Poverty Research Centre, University of Manchester. More information on the work of the Centre can be found at www.chronicpoverty.org
Notes
1. This section draws on Mitlin & Satterthwaite Citation(2002) and Satterthwaite Citation(1997).
2. Deaton (Citation2001, p. 138) notes that “in the World Bank's calculation of the number of poor in the world, separate urban and rural [price] indexes are used only for India and China. In other countries, a single index does service for everyone, an expedient that must overstate rural relative to urban poverty.” As the recent debate between Pogge & Reddy (Citation2002a, Citation2002b) and Ravallion Citation(2002) shows, the issue is even more complex. Pogge & Reddy (Citation2002a, pp. 8–11) argue that whatever the base poverty lines used, the PPP conversion is misleading because it is not based on a ‘basket’ of goods consumed by the poor (but on general consumption). Ravallion Citation(2002) raises the issue of what might be considered to be the ‘right’ basket. The discussion here suggests that different baskets would be required for urban and rural areas.
3. For more information see the following: Asia (ESCAP, Citation1991); Colombia (IABD, 2003); Mexico (World Bank, 2004); Panama (Jacobs & Savedoff, Citation1999); the Philippines (Ballesteros, Citation2002); and Tanzania (Government of Tanzania and UN-Habitat, 2003).
4. Equally, economic growth may result in resettlement as low-income squatters are pushed out of the city centre and relocated in peripheral areas at considerable cost to the poor (see ACHR, Citation2004, for a current example of this process in Phnom Penh).
5. For example, Kedir & McKay (this issue) found a higher incidence of poverty in women-headed households in Ethiopia. However, the findings of Herrera & Roubaud (this issue) point to the difficulties of generalisation; in Madagascar households headed by women are at greater risk of being chronically poor but in Peru this is not the case and the gender of household head seems not to be relevant.
6. A similar three-fold distinction of income (or assets), rights and living conditions is made in the editorial of Environment and Urbanization (Citation1995, pp. 6–7).
7. A recent hunger-mapping exercise in one Brazilian city found that 1 in 10 of the poor is hungry and without food at any one time (Yves Cabannes, personal communication).
