Agent Orange: Poverty and
Means of Relief.
Comparitive Case study: Binh
Dinh, Danang-Vietnam
Vu Le Thao Chi
Graduate school of Media and Governance
*The research was conducted on the 3 areas as proposed. But the
observation was focused on the 2 areas including Binh Dinh and
gEconomic growthh
has long been considered the key to solving many social issues. Many countries
choose economic growth as the top policy goal and expect the distribution of
its benefits to follow later on. In Development
as Freedom, Amartya Sen also referred to the ggrowth mediatedh process[1]. and
some successful cases such as
The Relationship between gEconomic
Growthh and gCapabilitiesh in Dioxin Victim Communities in Binh Dinh and
Capabilities of the Dioxin victims and their families, as the key concept for this comparison, should be understood as the self- freedom to choose the life they value.
Binh Dinh, especially Phu Cat district, and
Comparing these two places helps clarify the puzzle if geconomic growthh creates more and better choices for the affected individuals and families, and at what costs.
1. Proposition 1: gEconomic growthh enhances gcapabilitiesh:
|
Thanh Khe |
Phu Cat |
Notes |
Surface |
9.3km2 |
679 km2 |
70 times larger |
Number of communes |
8 |
18 |
Only twice as many |
Population |
160582 |
194100 |
Not much different |
Number of victims |
147 |
1857 |
13 times higher |
Income per capita |
100 USD a month |
2-300 USD/ year |
|
The economic achievements of Da Nang help provide more and better gsocial opportunitiesh which are considered as one of the instrumental freedoms by Amartya Sen. This refers to the arrangements that society makes for education, health care and so on which influence the individualfs substantive freedom to live better[2].
Health
care:
Da Nang generally, and Thanh Khe specifically, have a more well- trained medical staff with 51 doctors for 8 clinics compared to 45 for 18 clinics in a much bigger area like Phu Cat. In Phu Cat, every clinic has only one doctor and some even none. So it is obvious that the victim families in Thanh Khe can rely on the medical services available in the area. Also, within the area of only 9.3 km2 so, the families not need to travel far to go to the health center. Even though some clinics may not have the ambulance, they can mobilize one from the center quickly in emergency cases. In Phu Cat, the large area is the biggest problem when the people have to live far away from the health center while the communal clinic is not well-equipped. To those victim families, when they need or want to take their affected children to the health center, their popular vehicles are motobikes which cost a great deal of money for gasoline and are not even safe. Also, it costs so much time to travel to the center that one the of two parents have to stop working for a whole day or more to take the affected children to the place. There are no ambulance at the communal clinics. In emergency cases, it takes hours to get an ambulance to the patients victims.
One more advantage that the victims whose majority are handicapped can enjoy in Thanh Khe is that there is a rehabilitation room at the center. In Phu Cat, there is one being built in Cat Hung commune but it has not been in operation yet.
Education:
The economic improvement entails the increase in the education opportunities. In Thanh Khe, out of 10 families interviewed, 9/10 families have children who can go to school, 1/10 family has 2 children both of who are mentally retarded. 4 families have children who can go to college. Besides, the other normal member of the families can have stable jobs (state workers) with stable income and can go back and help parents. In Phu Cat, there are only 2 families out of 15 families interviewed that have children receiving education and the highest level is 10th grade/ 12. Most popular jobs are farmers, builders or odd jobs like their parents.
In addition, there are more services available like good pharmacies, private health services, more good schools, the poplar means of communication like mobile, telephone, television and computer with access to internet. The people, accordingly, will have more information and opportunities just about everything even for the victims. For example, Nguyen Dinh Thanh finished the 8th grade, now is a electronic repairer and he is ambitious to own a electronic shop. The development of means of communication also helps increase the awareness in young couples who have affected children. They tend to have only 2 or they stop giving birth right after the affected child.
One more advandtage that Thanh Khe has is the professional social network to help not only the dioxin victim families but also other victims like HIV patients. In Phu Cat, the assistance is mostly spontaneous among the medical workers and other social workers, both of whom often need to supplement their own income by farming.
2. Proposition 2: gEconomic growthh reduce the gcapabilitiesh?
The pursuit of geconomic growthh leads to the introduction of market economy where everything has to be purchased through the market. While everything in Thanh Khe is available, people always need cash to purchase it, of course at a higher price than it is in the rural areas. If the people donft have cash, it is hard to get things. The family is always under the pressure of having more income to meet the demands in life. When people rely too much on these services the self subsistence ability already disappears. But in Binh Dinh, in case they donft have cash, they still can rely on their own farm to have rice or vegetables. Or you can buy things today and pay tomorrow.
Furthermore, the demand for goods and services when living in a big city are much higher and more expensive. Children have to spend more time and money for their extra classes. Parents need to buy TV, freezer, washing machine, etc. In other words, the families are always exposed to the pressure of having higher income to meet all the demands. This leads to one risk: debts. In Thanh Khe, the people tend to borrow a lot of moneys, even from hot lenders at a very high interest for final consumption, for paying previous debts and for job investment or for education for the children or for medical treatment. 8/ 10 families interviewed have debts ranging from 650 USD to 10 000 USD. One extreme case in Thanh Khe is LE kim khoai es household. They have the debt of 6500 USD. The older son is affected. They decide to spend a lot of money for the young child instead She keeps borrowing the money all the time from different sources. She is even going to sell half of the house just to pay the debt. In Phu Cat, people have different choices such as borrowing the money from relatives, from the Bank (small amount) for final consumption or no debts because they are afraid of not being able to pay back. People still can rely on their self subsistence.
Another downside of the economic growth is the decrease of mutual trust in the community. People in a big city like Thanh Khe are always under pressure to earning more income and therefore they always feel more competitive, more preoccupied and more concerned of their own life to the point that the neighbor ties are eroding. They may think this is their own problem and they have to try to take care of it by themselves. If they need help, they may have to hire a baby sitter. If one of the parents has to stay home to take care of the affected children, this will become a real elostf productivity. In Phu Cat the neighbor ties are still very strong. Victim families can always rely on their neighbors for small housework. Sometimes they can ask their neighbors to keep an eye on their affected child if they need to go out for a while. Even if one the parents has to stop working, they can both work on their own land and take care of the affected children at the same time. Economic growth destroyed the ties in neighborhood, in community. That is why the network between medical and social workers is established in Thanh Khe to help remain the tie between those victim family and community and help them integrated into the families.
From my personal impression, those families in THanh KHe look more depressed even in a well- to do families. Because of the worries of debts, the pursuit of higher income, the feeling that this is only their own problem and they cannot count on anybodyfs help, those victim families look isolated or different in their neighborhood. Also, the other side of living in a big city and receiving good education is that the people are more aware of the problem, their demands and of the impossible. But in Phu Cat, the parents take the way it is and try to live with it because they feel they are not isolated in the community and they can rely on the community.
Poverty in the commen sense is the low income. From this perspective, economic growth is considered as the only solution to poverty. But to Amartya Sen, Poverty is also ecapability inadequacyf[3]. In this sense, both families in THanh Khe and PHu Cat are in the state of lack of capabilities or lack of freedom to choose the way they value. Those in PHu Cat lack economic support and those in THanh Khe still cannot be free from the conventional thinking that economic pursuit is the only way, thus turning the pursuit from means to the ends.
Whose Capabilities Count?
The conventional thinking assumes that having a handicapped victim in the family ehandicapsf the condition of the family and its family members. The social costs involved are lost productivity, lost opportunities, lost time, mental and financial burdens. The outsiders, therefore, conclude that victim families need help and as a result, the victims families consider their affected child(ren) as those who badly needs help. However, this mode of thinking could more ehandicapf or, as Amartya Sen put it, deprives the capability of the affected children. Both in Phu Cat and Thanh Khe, the parents do not give up on the affected children, but more sadly, they give up hope on the children, even to those who have the potential of rehabilitation. The dioxin victims are the center of the issue but it is also them whose ecapabilitiesf are often so easily ignored. The parents tend to invest into the other children while taking care of this child (Some families have to take of the children after they got married and have children), and just hope for something coming from outside sources to help affected children. The victim themselves could never voice out what they want, what they can do or even if they can, it is deeply engraved in their minds from their parents that they are willing to receive help. This will turn the victim always into the passive and the process of helping will never ends from the parents and people around, which becomes the real burden for the families and the community.
In order to help the victims in a positive sense, the ecapabilitiesf of the victims should be clarified. That is the freedom of the victims themselves to decide what they can do and what they want to do and most importantly, the freedom to ask for help when they need, not wait for help. What the parents and the people in the community can do to enhance the ecapabilitiesf, besides the financial and medical support, is empower the victims with the ability to speak up and to take care of themselves. This can be started from a very small thing. For example, instead of feeding the victims, the parents can teach them how to eat by themselves.
In order to realize this, the parents and the communities also should be empowered to enhance their own capabilities which include the freedom from the conventional thinking about the pursuit of economic growth as the only key to their problem and about the impression that they and their children should be the target of care of the whole society.