1 / 11

AIDS, Community Resilience and Social Protection: Random Thoughts & Lots More Questions!

AIDS, Community Resilience and Social Protection: Random Thoughts & Lots More Questions!. Stephen Devereux IDS Sussex. Introduction. Communities are often described as the strongest link in supporting PLWHA.

princess
Download Presentation

AIDS, Community Resilience and Social Protection: Random Thoughts & Lots More Questions!

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. AIDS, Community Resilience and Social Protection:Random Thoughts & Lots More Questions! Stephen Devereux IDS Sussex

  2. Introduction • Communities are often described as the strongest link in supporting PLWHA. • Paradoxically, communities are often the weakest link in both our understanding and our response. • Understanding “community resilience” requires defining and disaggregating communities. • Improving “social protection” responses requires building these insights into programming.

  3. Defining “Community” [1] • A group of people living together (eg Heia Safari Lodge 12–14 March 2007)Defining feature = proximity • A group of people who share common interests or characteristics (eg. TAC, Heia Safari Lodge)Defining feature = affiliation When we use the term “community” we usually mean “proximity”. We should not underestimate the importance and power of “affiliation”.

  4. Defining “Community” [2] “Affiliation communities” – common experiences, shared aspirations, mutual support, mobilisation for collective action around collective goals. “Proximity communities” – economic inequality, social stratification, power hierarchies, exclusion and marginalisation of vulnerable members. The naïve but pervasive assumption that “proximity” equals “affiliation” has: (1) undermined more sophisticated understandings of the complexity of real–world communities; (2) led to sub-optimal policy prescriptions and failed interventions.

  5. Disaggregating “Community” [1] 1. Gender and Age: • “Extended women”: sub-groups within communities provide most care for the ill and orphaned. • Male resistance to behavioural change is often a major driver of continued transmission of HIV. • Selected age cohorts are often the most vulnerable (children, youth, older people) A fully gender-disaggregated approach to HIV & AIDS is needed, at household and community levels. Alternatively, a “cohort-disaggregated” approach may be needed: Women, Children, Youth, Men, Older people.

  6. Disaggregating “Community” [2] 2. “Class positionality” What happens to “moral economy” and patron-client relations as HIV–prevalence spreads? Most social capital is “horizontal” (poor-to-poor). Most “vertical” social capital (rich-to-poor) is exploitative. • Patron is HIV–affected: Vulnerability of clients increase, because their social capital declines. • Client is HIV–affected: Need for assistance rises: (1) “Altruistic patron” might assist (up to a point); (2) “Instrumentalist patron” will not assist.

  7. Disaggregating “Community” [3] 3. Social structure • The “Good” community [people share food] • The “Bad” community [people hide food] • The “Non”–community [urban alienation] • The “Mobile” community [high migration] • The “Resilient” community [“coping”] • The “Collapsing” community [“not coping”] = The “Changing” community [i.e. all !]

  8. Implications for Response [1]Multi–sectoral impacts of HIV & AIDS =Multi–sectoral needs for social protection HIV & AIDS Livelihoods Demography Economy Social/ Political SOCIAL PROTECTION

  9. Implications for Response [2]Multiple levels of HIV & AIDS impacts =Multiple levels of social protection needs HIV & AIDS Individual Household Community National SOCIAL PROTECTION

  10. Implications for Response [3] • Communities are not homogeneous and are not amenable to simple generalisations. • Vulnerability / resilience varies within communities, across communities, and over time. • Action research should map community “typologies” onto dynamic trends in HIV–prevalence, and track how communities (or sub-groups) respond over time. • Track key determinants of vulnerability or resilience at community level: (1) Demographic structure? (2) Material resources? (3) Social cohesion? • Link community research to community response.

  11. Implications for Response [3] Challenges for “scaling up”: • Impacts are felt at individual, household and community levels. • Most successful responses (local NGOs, CBOs, FBOs) have been at community level. • Don’t lose the advantages of interactions with communities, by “scaling up”. • Replicate!

More Related