Xiaoyu Zhou Leiden University

一、Introduction

The definition of security is changing， and the range it includes is expanding （Baldwin， 1997）. Some argue that the traditional concept of security has been interpreted narrowly， and it overlooks the risks and threats that ordinary people face in their daily lives （Paris， 2001）. The recent development in the field has proposed the new concept of human security， which identifies seven elements that comprise human security， and one of these elements is economic security， which， for instance， includes eliminating poverty （Paris， 2001）.

Poverty remains a big issue in the modern world. According to the World Bank， 10% of the world population still lives in extreme poverty， which means they lived on less than $1.9 per day （The World Bank， 2018）. In order to protect people from the threat of poverty， a debate on whether poverty should be securitized has raised. In order to answer this question， this essay will argue that it may not be a good idea to frame poverty as a security issue because it involves several ethical dilemmas.

二、Summary

The securitization theory is developed by the Copenhagen School； it can be understood as the politicization of specific issues where government intervention， resource allocation， and policy are on demand （Williams， 2003）. The process of securitization involves three types of elements： referent objects， securitizing actors and speech act （Williams， 2003）. In this case， securitizing poverty can be interpreted as 1. People who live in poverty are identified as the reference object since they are considered as the victims who directly under the threat of poverty； 2. The securitizing actors who declare the poor are threatened can be the state， international organizations， and NGOs， etc.； 3. The example of speech act is securitizing actors declare that the damage of poverty has significantly threatened the civilization of the society and the survival of humankind. Securitization always brings 'threat-defense' logic to the issues that it is dealing with， and the ‘threat-defense' logic does not always turn to be helpful in every case （Elbe， 2006）. For instance， the ‘threat-defense' logic is proved to be problematic in securitizing HIV/Aids （Elbe， 2006）. Another problem of securitization theory is ‘de-securitization，' which means to remove the issues from the security agenda and put it back to normal political dispute and accommodation （Williams， 2003）. However， it is difficult to decide when the issues can be de-securitized.

Before discussing the pros and cons of securitizing poverty， it is essential to understand what poverty is. As one category of the economic security problem， poverty is directly linked to income. One way to measure poverty is by using the purchasing power parity. As the international poverty line indicates， people who purchase less than $1.90 a day， are considered to live in extreme （absolute） poverty （The World Bank， 2018）. Besides this， poverty also implies that the income of a family does not exceed the threshold established by the state authority （Smith， 2013）. Another concept of poverty is relative poverty， which stresses on the relations between the economic status of people and the status of other members of the society （UNESCO， 2017）. Poverty is a multidimensional issue. Except poverty resulted by low income， other types of poverty like time poor also need to be highlighted （UNESCO， 2017）.

Poverty brings enormous troubles to its victims. Poverty has resulted in more barriers in labor force participation for the poor because well-paid jobs usually require a higher level of education background， which the poor usually do not have access to it （Smith， 2013）. Poverty also endangers physical health. Statistics have shown that the disability rate among the poor is higher than the non-poor （Smith， 2013）. Another research has also indicated that poverty is correlated to the stress level； for instance， not having money to purchase enough food is a source of getting stress （Hjelm et al.， 2017）. Furthermore， poverty is also correlated with social inequality. It is noticed that the poor feel helpless due to the reason that they are aware of the fact that they do not have the power to speak for themselves， and they are placed at the bottom of the society （Narayan et al.， 2000）.

三、Critique

Securitizing poverty contributes to the process of solving poverty. Securitizing poverty means that the priority of diminishing poverty is increased， which means more resources and institutions will engage in the process. The securitization of poverty can force states and international organizations to invest more funds to tackle poverty. Besides， securitizing poverty can increase public awareness of the poverty issue， and thus it urges policymakers and scholars to find more solutions that can minimize the damages caused by poverty.

The application of securitization theory on poverty also has its drawbacks and limitations. Securitizing poverty means that state institutions like the military are used in the problem-solving process. However， whether the military is useful in solving poverty is questioned. It is argued that the military has a minimal contribution to solving poverty because unlike other security problems like terrorism， poverty is an economic issue.

The ‘threat-defense' logic of securitization theory also makes securitizing poverty problematic. One should differentiate the argument ‘poverty is a security threat' from the argument ‘people lived in poverty are the security threat.' The latter argument is not uncommon in reality since several attempts to link poverty to high crime rate and terrorism are observed （Krueger and Maleckova， 2003； Wilson， 1987）. Although studies have suggested that there is no evidence to support the association between poverty and high crime rate （or terrorism）， it argues that securitization of poverty may increase the supporters of the latter argument and further consequents in the discrimination on the poor.

Moreover， it is argued that once poverty is securitized， it is extremely difficult to de-securitize it， especially when it comes to relative poverty and other social aspects of poverty. It argues that solving absolute poverty cannot solve the social consequences of poverty because the lack of voice will still exist due to the relative poverty. Since relative poverty occurs when the poor fail to meet the living standards in a given societal context， and taking the unequal economic development among countries， who and how get to decide the boundary between the poor and non-poor？ Besides， as a multidimensional concept， poverty also cover problems such time poor and health poor. Therefore， when poverty is put on the security agenda， these problems are considered as security threats as well. However， the reasonability of securitizing these problems is questioned because it is in danger of over-securitizing problems that are not so urgently needs to be solved. For instance， one can ask whether time poor is a real threat to the entire mankind. Beyond the dangerous of over-securitizing， what securitization can do to solve other aspects of poverty is highly doubted.

四、Conclusion

To briefly conclude， this essay argues that despite securitizing poverty may help in solving poverty by attracting public awareness and forcing states and international organizations to invest more financial aids； it cannot solve the ethical dilemmas of linking poverty to security. It argues that the negative consequence of securitizing poverty might be the increase in discrimination on the poor. Furthermore， it suggests poverty is difficult to de-securitize because of the uncertain standards of relative poverty. Finally， it argues that securitization theory has limited power to solve other types of poverty， and the possibility of over-securitizing cannot be overlooked.

Bibliography

[1] Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Malecˇkova. Education， Poverty， Political Violence and Terrorism： Is There a Causal Connection？Cambridge， Mass： National Bureau of Economic Research， 2002.

[2] D.A. Baldwin， ‘The Concept of Security， Review of International Studies 23/1 1997， 5-26.

[3] Hipp， John R.， and Daniel K. Yates. "GHETTOS， THRESHOLDS， AND CRIME： DOES CONCENTRATED POVERTY REALLY HAVE AN ACCELERATING INCREASING EFFECT ON CRIME？*." Criminology 49， no. 4 （2011）： 955-90.

[4] Hjelm， Handa， De Hoop， and Palermo. "Poverty and Perceived Stress： Evidence from Two Unconditional Cash Transfer Programs in Zambia." Social Science & Medicine 177 （2017）： 110-17.

[5] Michael C. Williams， ‘Words， Images， Enemies： Securitization and International Politics， International Studies Quarterly 47/4 2003， 511 – 31.

[6] Narayan， Patel， Narayan， Deepa， Patel， Raj， and The International Bank for Reconstruction Development. Voices of the Poor. [Vol. 1]： Can Anyone Hear Us？ New York， NY [etc.]： Oxford University Press for the World Bank， 2000.

[7] Roland Paris， ‘Human Security： Paradigm Shift or Hot Air？， International Security 26/2 2001， 87 – 102.

[8] Stefan Elbe， ‘Should HIV/Aids be Securitised？ The Ethical Dilemmas of Linking HIV/Aids and Security， International Studies Quarterly 50/1 2006， 119-144.

[9] The World Bank Group. "Decline of Global Extreme Poverty Continues but Has Slowed." World Bank. Accessed October 22， 2018. http：//www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/09/19/decline-of-global-extreme-poverty-continues-but-has-slowed-world-bank.

[10] United Nations Educational， Scientific and Cultural Organization. "Poverty." Poverty | United Nations Educational， Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2017. Accessed October 22， 2018. http：//www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/international-migration/glossary/poverty/.

[11] Vicki Smith， 2013. Sociology of Work ： An Encyclopedia. Thousand Oaks， California： SAGE Publications， Inc.

[12] Wilson， William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged： The Inner City， the Underclass， and Public Policy. Chicago， IL： University of Chicago Press.