II. Causes and Characteristics of Poverty (2024)

2.1 Causes of Poverty
2.2 Who are the poor?
2.3 Dimensions ofPoverty

2.1 Causes of Poverty

1. Lack of knowledge and good skills in herdingwas widely given as a main cause of poverty. This was often mentioned inconjunction with laziness, although not always. Lack of good skills was often acause related to life-cycle stage of a household, and a problem particularlyassociated with young herders beginning their herding career, and those who hadnot been herders during the negdel period. These were not necessarily seen to belazy people.

2. Another reason given as a cause of poverty wasthe distribution of animals at privatisation and the receipt of only a smallnumber; insufficient for effective, self-sufficient herding. This was mostlyexperienced by those in government service, who were not herders within thenegdel and had limited eligability for animals. Another significant factorrelated to number of animals held after transitions is the general wealth of thehousehold during the negdel period. Some animals were privately owned by negdelworkers and so these households began with larger herds after the privatisationprocess, and thus were in a better starting position. Some households also foundthemselves in debt to the negdel at the time of privatisation and lost theirshare of privatised animals in repayment, and this they identified as a cause oftheir poverty. An historical profile of the poor in bag II supports theexplanation that those beginning the transition period with few animals havelargely been unable to build up the herds since. Their livestock numbers havecontinued to deplete primarily due to the need to sell or exchange animals(usually sheep) for necessary items, such as flour, rice, clothing, cash, etc.The lack of available cash to purchase these things and the reliance on traderswho give poor rates, was identified as a main problem by many herders. Herderswith no supplementary skills, e.g, carpentry, saddle making, boot making, etc.,were seen as particularly vulnerable to herd depletion.

3 The most noteable cause of intractable povertyidentified by the majority, both in interviews and the training, was‘laziness’. This is characterised as having low interest in a goodlife, passivity, lack of motivation and initiative, low interlect, dependencythinking, reliance on assistance from others, and lack of life skills (to planand organise their life), bad training and care of children by parents. It wasfelt by some participants in the workshop that laziness should be dealt withthrough education. The overall feeling was that these types of people are‘no hopers’ and in need of some form of assistance to survive; they donot have the ability and life skills to manage alone. The wealth rankingexercise also identified drunkards who squandered their animals within thecategory of lazy and poor.

4. Another cause of poverty related to life-cyclestage was identified as the traditional inheritance practice of providinganimals to sons (and also daughters) at marriage, thus reducing the stock of theparents.

See Also

How To Break Free of a Poverty Mindset and Make Your Financial Goals a RealityBehavior Matters

5. The lack of employment elsewhere andimmigration of people without assets into the sum was also seen as a cause ofpoverty in the area.

6. The risk of natural disasters, such as dzud,was seen to be a threat to all herders and could cause people to becomepoor.

7. The lack of a livestock insurance system wasalso regarded as a cause of poverty by some people.

2.2 Who are the poor?

The poor are identified by herders according to differentcriteria:

The poor are seen as people who have a limitedherd size and composition, inadequate for self-sufficiency. This depends on thenumber of bod owned, i.e., yaks, cows and horses, due to their productivity indairy products. Sheep are given lesser productive value, although goatsproviding cashmere are valuable. Such households are extremely vulnerable torisk, e.g., dzud, and hence rapid decline into poverty. They need support fromothers to survive and lack cash income to acquire basic needs, such as flour,clothes, etc. They may also lack sufficient labour, e.g., in a female-headedhousehold. Their security depends largely on the type of support system they arepart of. For example, a female-headed household with 50 sheep and 5 milking cowswas considered poor by others (in wealth ranking exercise) because of the lackof labour. Although the woman part of a surpportive kin khot ail who sharedlabour tasks, she also categorized herself as poor because she felt that heranimals were insufficient for subsistence. Lack of labour, however, was not feltto be a major problem since it could be provided through khot ailrelations.

The poorest amongst the poor are identified asthose who are lazy and hopeless, and unable to help themselves. They have veryfew animals, lack the interest and skills necessary for herding. It wasmentioned that they may be from poor families or kin groups, such that theirpoverty and sense of dependency is inherited. A significant feature is largehouseholds with many dependent children. These poorest people may also includethe elderly who lack animals and kinship support.

However, criteria for the very poor also includespeople who are largely found in the sum centre. These are people with skills andeducation but due to difficult circ*mstances are unable to find employment orsources of income. They may be people who have migrated to the sum from anotherarea without animals, or those who lost a job in transition.

The main criteria identified for households to becomfortable or rich were sufficient number of animals, estimated at around 20bod and above, and herd diversification with high numbers of mostly cows/yaks.Good herding skills, hard working, sufficient labour and available cash fornecessary purchases were also seen as essential.

2.3 Dimensions ofPoverty

The interviews with bag governors and herders indicate thatthere is an increasing tendency towards poverty in the countryside.

For example, an historical profile in bag II shows that thenumber of poor has been progressively rising:

(out of 285 households, 100 of which are in thesum centre).

Through the interviews and a mapping exercise in the workshop,it was also evident that the majority of the poor in Chuluut live in ruralareas, e.g., bag V has 129 households, 26 are identified as poor, and only 3 ofthese are in the sum centre. In bag III there are 172 households, 42 of whichwere identified to be poor and 12 of which live in the sum centre (see Appendix5). During the winter season some migrate (particularly the elderly) to the sumcentre due to the cold and to care for children attending school, and thenreturn to the countryside the following summer. However, strong resistance wasexpressed by one poor household at the suggestion (by another herder) that theyshould move to the sum centre to work.

There appear to be several support mechanisms which allow poorherders to remain in the countryside:

Poor households are supported within khotails ofclose kin, on a basis of mutual exchange of labour and material support. Thesehouseholds may have only a few animals but the security of kin support issufficient to protect them from adverse risk and sudden deterioration. Suchkhotails tend to be stable units throught the year, remaining together atseasonal migrations.

The more vulnerable poor households are thosewhich do not have the security of a kin-based khotail. They may be part of atemporary or unrelated khotail, with whom they stay for part of the year, movingto join or form another at seasonal migration. In this situation the degree ofsupport provided to them by the richer households in the khotail is much lower.One such herder on the list of poor (5 members with 5 cows, 5 horses and 20sheep) informed us that they received very little support from the 6 otherunrelated households in his khotail, many of which were in fact as poor as his.Only one household was seen to be better off than the others, and this was alsoon the official list of poor. Only in moving did they share the assets ofothers, i.e., bullock carts. They received no official support from the sum orbag, other than some handouts of flour. When asked about support from richerhouseholds, they said that the poor could live within a richer khotail but thatmaking this arrangement was difficult, and that it only really happened withinkin. They were very much left to their own devices to survive. This raises thequestion of whether there is a tendency for poor households to form groups orknot ails?

Another mechanism of ‘support’identified was the traditional and somewhat exploitative practice of poorhouseholds herding male sheep and goats for other herders. These are knownlocally as khuts ukhna khariulakh. Two households were found to be doingthis, in isolation from other khotails, in order to keep the male animalsseparate from female herds. During the summer months they herd the animals andin return, in the autumn they receive one young animal for every male herded.The condition and sex of the young given is dependent on the will of the richerherder, such that they may receive all male young, making it impossible to breedwithin their own animals. The condition of the animals is also critical,determining whether they are able to survive the harsh winter and spring. Thus,the system benefits the richer households far more than it does the poor herder.Asked about this issue a richer herder replied that the khuts ukhnakhariulakh households will have to slaughter almost all of the animalsreceived as payment in order to survive the winter. He estimated the figure ofthree animals which might be left after winter. Even if this custom of herdingwould be repeated for two more years - 3 years of this kind of support ismaximum according to traditions - the final animal number would by no means besufficient to provide a basis for subsistence to the households concerned. Theinterviewed poor khuts ukhna khariulakh household, however, stronglystressed his will to try everything to avoid a move into the sumcentre.