Abstract
The subject of human well-being continues to gain traction in disciplines as diverse as psychology, sociology, development studies, and economics. Current scholarship, however, is still largely framed by normative assumptions about what being well means, and the overwhelming majority of conceptual approaches to well-being being have been conceived and applied by researchers in the industrialized, wealthy contexts of the global North. We critique the current conceptualizations of well-being and assess their applicability to research in the global south, particularly in contexts marked by poverty and inequality.
Introduction
While the North lives/acts, the South survives/reacts. (Rosa, 2014, p. 857)
Human well-being research spans decades and geographies, in part due to its ability to traverse varied academic disciplines (Camfield, Streuli, & Woodhead, 2008). At the same time, definitions of well-being are widely contested, even within disciplines, with critiques ranging from those concerned with the conceptualization of the subject (Camfield, Crivello, & Woodhead, 2008), its measurement (Delle Fave et al., 2016), and the practical and political utility of well-being research (McGregor, Camfield, & Woodcock, 2009; White, 2010). Indeed, experts in the field have considered the subject intangible, complex, difficult to define, and even harder to measure (Dodge, Daly, Huyton, & Sanders, 2012; Gasper, 2007; Pollard & Lee, 2003). Despite these contestations, there is some consensus among scholars about the need to consider both material influences on people’s well-being and less tangible affective domains. McAllister (2005, p. 2), in a review of well-being literature, arrives at a definition:
Well-being is more than the absence of illness or pathology [with] subjective (self-assessed) and objective (ascribed) dimensions; it can be measured at the level of individuals or society; it accounts for elements of life satisfaction that cannot be defined, explained or primarily influenced by economic growth.
As the field has grown, scholars have expanded their investigation into the influence of the quality of social relationships on individual well-being, described as “relational well-being” (Keyes, 2003; Ryff, 1989; Wissing, 2014), as well as the influence of societal structures on “social well-being”. (Keyes, 1998, 2003).
More recently, well-being research has found relevance beyond the immediate realm of individual experience to be factored into estimations of the well-being of entire countries, seen in the development of national well-being indexes and policies (Layard, 2005). Such an expanded, multidimensional approach to well-being has become increasingly important in light of growing awareness of the inadequacy of using a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) as a proxy for what counts for an ordinary person’s well-being. For instance, subjective indicators of well-being have been included in objective 3 of the sustainable development goals, relating to the guarantee of healthy lives and well-being at all ages. This marks a departure from millennium development policy initiatives targeting causes of ill-being, such as poverty and inequality (McGregor, Mckay, & Velazco, 2007; Research and Information Systems for Developing Countries [RIS], 2016).
Clearly, the concept of well-being has been deliberated and problematized in both theoretical and empirical scholarship. These more granular conceptualizations of well-being, however, remain subject to critiques for neglecting the context, dynamics of power, and social and political barriers to well-being (McGregor et al., 2009). Much of the well-being scholarship continues to be generated in what can be described as the global north, and while some studies have applied insights from this field to other contexts, questions around the utility and relevance of mainstream conceptualizations of well-being for scholars working in the global south remain. James (2007) notes that the contemporary rhetoric of well-being upholds ‘‘a fastidiously modern and a historical presumption about how individuals ought to fare in life’’ (pp. 20–21). These critiques problematize the notion that well-being frameworks developed in the global north can necessarily be seamlessly transported to the global south, where people’s environments, relationships, and circumstances may differ considerably, often in ways outside of an individual’s control.
In this article, we critically review the established knowledge about well-being, to consider how well this body of scholarship responds to some of the shared characteristics, challenges, and interests of people living in southern contexts. We base this on a critical theoretical perspective of knowledge production, which is viewed as a process that is “intricately interwoven with […] socio-historical and socio-economic power relations” (Macleod, 2004, p. 615). Throughout our analysis, we highlight what we argue are some of the critical elements that are necessary for a southern perspective on well-being. We do so by providing illustrative examples from research conducted in the global south and highlight the shortcomings of contemporary well-being scholarship from the North, thereby generating productive insights for expanding as well as deepening the field of well-being studies. 1 In what follows we clarify our use of the term “global south,” which is followed by an overview of some of the established theoretical perspectives on well-being, before turning our attention to areas of investigation that hold promise for critical scholarship about well-being conducted in southern contexts.
What/Who Is the Global South?
The countries of Africa, Central and Latin America, the Pacific and Caribbean islands, and most of Asia are collectively known as the global south. 2 Global south countries share a host of social, political, and economic challenges, for example, “poverty, environmental degradation, human and civil rights abuses, ethnic and regional conflicts, mass displacements of refugees, hunger, and disease” (Hollington, Salverda, Schwarz, & Tappe, 2015, p. 8). Comaroff and Comaroff (2012) state that the global south has become synonymous with uncertain development, unorthodox economies, failed states, and countries fraught with corruption, poverty, and strife. Although these issues are not the preserve of the south, southern nations have struggled to meet the objectives of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and now, the newly adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reiterate concerns about inequality in the south. For instance, sub-Saharan Africa remains the epicenter of crisis, with continuing food insecurity, increasing poverty, high child and maternal mortality, and large numbers of displaced people living in slums. Asia is the region with the fastest progress, but even there, hundreds of millions of people remain in extreme poverty, and even fast-growing countries failed to achieve some of the non-income MDGs. Other regions have mixed records, particularly Latin America, the transition economies, the Middle East and North Africa show slow or no progress on some of the MDGs and persistent inequalities undermining progress on others. 3 Yet, highlighting these challenges does not downplay the resources embedded in the unique socio-cultural features of this context.
The predominantly negative lens employed in development research and policy geared to the global south has been met with some resistance, perhaps exemplified in the coining of the term “global south.” Unlike its predecessors—“developing countries,” “low-income countries,” “third world,” “poor world,” and “non-Western world”—the term holds promise for hegemonic pushback, compared to phrases that denote deficit conditions and qualities. The “global south” has been described as critical, post-colonial, and indeed an almost anti-imperialist term (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2012; Hollington et al., 2015). For Rosa (2014), the south does not just denote a geographic entity but rather a specific epistemological form (knowledge system) that could be defined by its negative and repairing relationship with colonialism and transnational capitalism, associated with the global north.
The term does not refer exclusively to the Southern Hemisphere, hence the addition of the word “global” to indicate that this is not an exact geographic classification but rather based on structures of inequalities which in general happen to have some cartographic link (Hollington et al., 2015). Global south countries share a number of but not necessarily all the same characteristics. It is not a static concept and, as with geopolitical shifts, the definition of the global south may change along with the countries which may be considered to be a part of it (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2012; Hollington et al., 2015).
Some criticisms of the term global south include that it “tends to obscure specific (historical) relationships between different countries and/or regions, especially when it comes to unequal power balances” or that “it may obscure wealth differences within countries” (Hollington et al., 2015, p. 2). Neoliberal globalization has created inequalities within individual countries such that the characteristics used to differentiate between global north and global south countries tend to be present across regions and countries (Hollington et al., 2015). For example, global south cities like Cape Town and Mumbai now hold concentrated pockets of great wealth while the global north contains pockets of extreme poverty, such as the inner cities and poorest rural parts of North America (Cooper, 2016). Thus, there is much north in the global south and much south in the global north, and it is not an easy or neat demarcation to make (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2012).
While these criticisms are noteworthy, the term “global south” nevertheless provides a useful framing designation for this article as a geopolitical category of countries working to resist hegemonic forces largely centered in the Northern Hemisphere of the planet. We use this term to counter the “ahistorical” and “decontextualized” nature of much of the literature and research because we find that the well-being research and development practice in the countries of the global south do not adequately capture the particularities of these countries and their inhabitants. Consequently, although the term might suffer the shortfall of lumping together in one overarching category very diverse countries with socio-cultural, economic, and political differences and countless ways of life, it equips us with the language to challenge many of the questionable normative assumptions embedded in much of the well-being scholarship, while paying attention to the nuanced conceptualizations and experiences of well-being in the global south. Connell (2014) notes that “southern theory is not a fixed set of propositions but a challenge to develop new knowledge projects and new ways of learning with globally expanded resources” (p. 210). In what follows we provide a brief (and necessarily selective) overview of established well-being scholarship, outlining not only the contributions but also some of the main limitations of this body of work for advancing well-being knowledge in the global south.
Overview of Conceptual Approaches in Well-being Scholarship
Camfield and colleagues (2008) provide a useful overview of the diversity of well-being concepts, which are presented in Table 1, which draw on White’s (2007) distinctions between “having a good life (material welfare and standards of living), living a good life (values and ideals), and locating one’s life (experience and subjectivity)” (p. 8).
As noted, the bulk of this scholarship has been conducted in industrialized, comparatively wealthier Northern countries (Camfield, 2004). Further to this, the definitions captured in Table 1 largely mirror the dominant disciplinary perspectives within which well-being scholarship has been generated over the past decades—that of psychology and economics. With this in mind, we structure our overview under the umbrella of these two disciplines, starting with theoretical insights from psychology.
An Adapted Snap-shot of Definitions of Well-being
Psychological Perspectives of Well-being
A core assumption of the psychological perspectives is that well-being comprises an individual’s experience of their life, absence of mental ill-health, and their ability to function and contribute to their social environment (Keyes, 2003; Ryff, 1989). This perspective is divided into two broad dimensions: subjective and psychological well-being. In addition to these two domains, we also briefly describe social and relational well-being, which is currently gaining increased research attention.
Subjective well-being research is underpinned by the assumption that well-being is a private, individualized phenomenon and consequently the focus of this area of work is on internalized representations. These include an individual’s emotional response, domain satisfaction, and evaluation of life (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). In addition to affective reactions, subjective well-being researchers also focus on life satisfaction, which taps into the desire to change one’s life, satisfaction with current life, past, and future life and significant others’ view of one’s life (Diener, 2000). Well-being frameworks that prioritize subjective well-being, however, risk neglecting or downplaying structural influences that shape not only material but also subjective well-being of individuals. This is because levels of happiness could be similar across both affluent and poor contexts, obscuring other important elements of well-being that extend beyond this domain (Camfield, 2004).
It is also worth pointing out that individualized experiences such as happiness occur through relationships as well as social and environmental processes larger than the individual. For instance, research in Ghana shows that adolescents express subjective well-being in economic and relational terms (Wilson & Somhlaba, 2016). Adolescents were satisfied with life when they had all they needed or when their parents were able to provide for their needs.
Psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995), in turn, taps into the individual’s ability to function and fulfill their potentials. It combines insights from personal growth models, lifespan development, and positive mental health (Forgeard, Jayawickreme, Kern, & Seligman, 2011). Ryff’s (1989) psychological well-being theory outlines six dimensions: self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth. Alternative theories on psychological well-being suggest similar dimensions, such as positive emotion, engagement, relationship, meaning, and accomplishment (PERMA model) (Seligman, 2011). Keyes (2003) combines these dimensions into a mental health continuum comprising subjective well-being, psychological well-being, and social well-being. Psychological well-being differs from subjective well-being because of its focus on eudaimonia as opposed to hedonia. 4 In this perspective, human flourishing is dependent on doing and living well and not only feeling well.
As useful as psychological theories are for understanding well-being, they do not necessarily reflect the influence of different socio-cultural contexts or the role of social relationships in understanding well-being. Psychological perspectives of well-being tend to view relationships as something people have and place less emphasis on the fact that people are who they are through relating with others. Wilson, Wissing, Schutte, and Kruger (2018) argue that goals and needs in rural parts of South Africa are relational in nature. The need for material things is underscored in the ability to ensure external utility. Grounding the individual’s well-being in relationships enables us to take more adequately into account the social and cultural settings that influence goals (White, 2010). Also noteworthy is the critique that in exploring dimensions of well-being such as meaning or sense of purpose among individuals experiencing severe deprivation, it may be concluded that these experiences are “luxuries” in social contexts of adversity.
The domain of social well-being was developed partly in response to this limitation in theories of psychological well-being and to offer a theoretical lens that can be used when exploring the influence of social structures on well-being. Although not the first to propound a theory of well-being with a social dimension, Keyes (1998) adds this perspective to previous work in psychological well-being research. Keyes (2003) argues that in addition to psychological functioning and subjective well-being, social well-being is also crucial. Keyes (1998) describes social well-being as an individual’s circumstances and functioning in society and this involves the role of social structures in the individual’s ability to properly respond to the challenges of life. This dimension comprises the experience of integration, contribution, coherence, acceptance, and actualization.
Keyes’ (1998) conceptualization of well-being brings to the forefront the relational nature of well-being. However, one critique of social well-being is the skewed focus it places on macro-structures and the social roles the individual plays. Another shortfall is that only limited emphasis may be placed on education, age, and stratification as societal structures influencing well-being. Some social well-being scholars do not fully account for the relationship between social well-being and social inequality, injustice, gender differences, and violence. It is also important to note that structural factors are not the same across different social contexts and these contextual differences must be recognized in theorizing social well-being.
Related to Keyes’ work on social well-being, the domain of relational well-being has also emerged as one of the perspectives of well-being. This concept is characterized by its focus on the quality of relationships that contribute to individual well-being. It also includes increased access to social support, the building of networks, and the importance of nurturing relationships (Bess & Doykos, 2014). Relational well-being encompasses all the dimensions of an individual’s ecology including family, ancestors, physical environment, society, and culture, with these aspects regarded as interdependent and relational (McCubbin, McCubbin, Zhang, Kehl, & Strom, 2013). Beyond relational well-being as a dimension of well-being, it is also the expression of how people feel about their lives in social and economic terms (White, 2015), considering that individuals tend to intermingle the objective and subjective dimensions when asked about their lives (McGregor et al., 2009).
Beyond these considerations, a close look at psychological perspectives on well-being indicates that this theoretical approach generally considers well-being as an individualized phenomenon that centers on the experience of the individual in isolation from others. By treating well-being as a private, internalized phenomenon, external factors are reduced to predictors of levels of well-being, providing little room given to understanding well-being as it is experienced within particular cultural milieus. When socio-cultural context is given consideration in the literature, the focus tends to be limited to exploring cross-cultural differences as levels and predictors of well-being, and not enough focus is given to how context and values shape well-being (refer Delle Fave, Brdar, Freire, Vella-Brodrick, & Wissing, 2011; McCubbin et al., 2013). Many of these studies shroud the philosophical assumptions underlying methodological approaches to the study of well-being. For instance, the objective scrutiny of psychological and subjective well-being as internalized processes presupposes the use of positivist methodologies, as opposed to more critical methodologies. In this sense, the methodology underlying the dominant scholarship on well-being presupposes it as a state of being rather than a social phenomenon that combines place, time, and internalized processes (White & Blackmore, 2015).
Economic Perspectives
An underlying assumption of economic perspectives is that well-being must be explored in terms of the extent to which individual needs are fulfilled. One of the need-based accounts of well-being is the capabilities framework of Sen (1993, 1999), who emphasizes the extent to which individuals can function effectively with the goods at their disposal. The focus of this approach ranges from basic needs, such as economic security and access to education, to psychological needs such as achieving self-respect or being socially integrated. Rawls (1999) proposes a set of primary goods that can facilitate a rational plan of life, including rights, liberties, opportunities, income, and wealth. Related to this framework is the work of Doyal and Gough (1991) on the basic needs approach that highlights the need to do no harm, where harm refers to those things preventing individuals from realizing activities crucial to their life plan. A common emphasis among these theories is establishing an objective list of material goods required for well-being or a happy life.
Economic perspectives adopt a set of objective indicators that can be clearly observed and empirically verified (Diener et al., 1999). A central concern with the use of objective indicators is deciding which indicators should constitute the measurement of well-being. Objective social indicators, also termed “quality of life,” have been used to not only assess individual well-being but also track and evaluate the well-being of a nation (Dolan & White, 2007). Examples of these indicators include rates of homelessness, education, life expectancy, and social support. For instance, the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) is a set of objective social indicators used to assess well-being (Hou, Walsh, & Zhang, 2015). The HDI was created to make sure that people and their capabilities are the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, rather than economic growth alone.
Although not typically classified as an objective social indicator, Prilleltensky and Fox (2007) propose the domain of collective well-being as a critical component of what it means to be well. These authors argue that defining well-being as depending primarily on our inherent capacities and family relationships neglects the impact of collective variables on a person’s context. These collective variables, while at times acknowledged in economic perspectives on well-being, are often portrayed as either remote, difficult to discern, or beyond the reach of scientific study (Prilleltensky & Fox, 2007). For instance, Deneulin and McGregor (2010) argue that dominant economic perspectives on well-being do not provide conceptual tools that are nuanced enough to account for how poverty is produced and reproduced, since they tend to ignore, or treat too simplistically, the influence of social structures, politics, and power.
White (2010) argues that the dominant theories of well-being will benefit from including socio-political dimensions of well-being, such as social capital, social networks, access to public goods, social divisions, and inequalities, as well as other axes of identity, such as class, caste, gender, religion, or disability. Although White (2010) does not refer directly to the term “collective well-being,” her comments raise important questions of access and forms of entitlement that influence the well-being of a group. Without engaging these dimensions, economic perspectives remain limited in the extent to which the state and other structures are engaged in transforming these inequalities. Other limitations of objective indicators include: (a) partial perspectives when deciding what to include in well-being measurement; (b) limited engagement with decisions about whose values to prioritize; and (c) neglect of the influence of socio-cultural context and localized meanings of different indicators (Gasper, 2010). In the remaining sections of this article, we consider responses to some of the main limitations of established well-being scholarship.
Southern Well-being theories and Research: Networks of Well-being
What does a southern perspective ask us to do that we are not now doing, as knowledge workers? (Connell, 2014, p. 218, emphasis in original)
The preceding overview highlights a common limitation of both the psychological and economic well-being perspectives, that is, a lack of engagement with the social processes and socio-cultural contexts within and through which well-being exists (White, 2010). Critical well-being scholars have linked this shortcoming to a disciplinary bias that precludes the consideration of culture (McGregor et al., 2009). Christopher (1999) has noted “models of psychological well-being conform to the dominant ideology of Western society,” which assume that the responses shared by Western subjects are both superior and typical. Because of this bias there is the potential to “misinterpret the responses of other (non-Western) subjects” and/or “attributing to them a much lower quality of life” (White, 2010, p. 167).
In the sections that follow, we discuss responses to these limitations, providing illustrative examples from research conducted in the global south. Noteworthy in this regard is the work of the multidisciplinary Wellbeing in Developing Countries (WeD) research group, which we will refer to often in the discussions below. 5 The scholarship generated by the WeD research group is focused on the study of poverty, inequality, and the quality of life in less-resourced countries. The work by this research collective is of critical importance, not only because of their empirical work in global south countries but also because the group recognizes that an individualized, material focus in developing contexts is insufficient. 6 Much of the critical well-being scholarship conducted in the global south tends to expand the focus beyond the individual or community, to consider the broader socio-cultural context in which people aspire to be well. Such an expanded focus includes the consideration of “underlying social, governmental, political and cultural structures and processes” (White, 2015, p. 11). This approach considers well-being as best explored through a focus on relationships, not only on the social processes between the individual and the collective but also on the interactions between the local and the global, including people’s interactions with the state (White, 2010).
We organize the discussion that follows on four main areas of investigation, loosely cohering around White’s (2010) description of the importance of relationships between the (a) individual and collective; (b) people and the state; (c) people and the environment; and (d) people and power. It is with the influence of socio-political and cultural context at the forefront that we argue for inclusion of these four areas of investigation, on what we term “networks of relations” in well-being in the global south.
People and Other People/the Individual and Collective
Relatedness as an indicator of well-being emerges as prominent in many empirical well-being studies both in the global south and in other contexts. The World Bank’s Consultations with the Poor Study conducted in over 50 developing nations between 1999 and 2000 used relatedness as a prominent indicator of well-being across country contexts. The findings reveal social well-being (i.e., close family and other interpersonal relationships) as an indicator of a good life or living well (WeD 26, 2006). In research using semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and a number of well-being scales in Ethiopia, Thailand, and urban Bangladesh, the values and aspirations of the participants were ascertained via three questions:
When were you happiest? What are the characteristics of a woman or man who lives well? Who are the people you most admire/respect or the best/model persons of this community? The answers revealed many commonalities across sites and countries; for example, having good relationships with immediate and the natal family was important. (WeD 26, 2006, p. 2)
Relationships between people is a dominant social structure across global south countries. For instance, the African philosophy of ubuntu (an ethical concept referring to shared humanity) reflects a legacy from a history where survival was determined by kinship and social relationships (Moller & Roberts, 2017). This philosophy remains crucial for the well-being of people living in sub-Saharan Africa. South African research emphasizes the centrality of the care and support offered by friends and family in well-being (Clark, 2005) as well as the role of social relations both within the family and the larger community (Wilson, Wissing, & Schutte, forthcoming). Research conducted in Peru reveals the importance to well-being of having the strength to undertake valued activities, such as caring for family members and keeping good social relations (Mathews & Izquierdo, 2009).
Similarly, ethnographic research conducted in Sri Lanka identifies social connectedness as a key domain of well-being (Abeyasekera, 2014). In India, people “continue to comprehend their well-being in terms of doing what is right according to the standards that have been transmitted to them from their families and communities” and maintaining family honor is still considered more important than having money (Clarke-Deces & Smith, 2017). Latin American research indicates that the centrality of relationships with family and others stands in contrast to materialistic values (Rojas & Vega, 2017). Indeed, cultural characteristics may play a significant role in explaining the sense of well-being in countries marked by significant adversity. For instance, Gallup Survey data show that 10 of the 11 countries in the world that report a high degree of subjective well-being are located in Latin America, underscoring the importance of family and community social life in generating a sense of well-being in this region (Estes & Sirgy, 2017). 7 This is not to say that people do not name income as critical to their well-being, only that what contributes to well-being in adverse contexts extends beyond material assets.
Clearly, the networks of relations identified in these studies extend beyond the domain of “relational well-being” as conceptualized in Northern-centric well-being scholarship (e.g., by Keyes, 1998, 2003). Here, well-being is described not only as fostered through relationships with kin and other loved ones but also as an experience that is attained and expressed through care for others, belonging, and being embedded in a social context (Mathews & Izquierdo, 2009; Wilson et al., under review).
Considering the centrality of social relationships in many of the countries described above, it is not surprising that a second research focus concerned with well-being and social relatedness focuses on the fractured relationships that negatively impact well-being. Horizontal inequality and violence between people are manifested in particular ways in post- and neo-colonial societies. For example, the South Asian region faces ethnic, religious, and territorial tensions that have had a negative effect on general well-being (Shrotryia & Mazumdar, 2017). These regional concerns coupled with persistent gender inequality have greatly hindered well-being in the region (Shrotryia & Mazumdar, 2017).
Of course, harsh circumstances can in themselves forge relationships with others. Hardship may galvanize people and bring them closer together. Through friends, family, and neighbors, people living in adverse contexts help each other survive and overcome safety and social problems. Accordingly, well-being research conducted in hostile environments benefits from carefully considering social contexts, because it is in these conditions where people employ strategies to maintain a sense of well-being (Rojas & Vega, 2017). In this sense, hostile environments may propel people to mobilize social networks and bonds of solidarity, or social capital, which consist of “informal networks with individuals or institutions such as political or civic bodies; membership of formalized groups such as churches; and relationships of trust, reciprocity, and exchange” (Green, 2013, p. 455). Narayan, Patel, Schafft, Rademacher, and Koch-Schulte (2000) contend: “[I]n the absence of connections to state resources these informal networks become critical for survival; they become poor people’s lifelines” (p. 5).
People and State
Green (2013) argues the state most plays a role in overcoming inequality and fostering well societies and notes that “history shows that no country has prospered without a state that can actively manage the development process” (p. 11). The colonial history of most global south countries is one in which the connection between governance and well-being has been ambiguous. In the past, “the well-being of the colony and its peoples was not the principal mission of colonial officials; their mandate was to promote the well-being and the interests of the mother country and her people,” and the legacy of this colonial past is evident in many postcolonial states (Mangaha & De Jesus, 2017, p. 384).
Although the colonial governments had to deal with security, subsistence, and other aspects of well-being to maintain their colonial rule, the bare minimum was always considered for the indigenous inhabitants. This legacy is still felt, for instance, in South Africa, where the colonial legacies of racialization and segregation continue to exert a painful influence on human relations. In India, the caste system was maintained during British colonial rule as a central mechanism of the colonial system, and it continues to drive discrimination and violence in India (Clarke-Deces & Smith, 2017). In recent times, the decades of erosion by “deregulation, ‘structural adjustment programmes’, and international trade and aid agreements [have left many] states weak or absent,” in efforts to address inequality (Green, 2013, p. 11). It is no wonder then that post-independence political leaders have huge economic, infrastructural, security, health, and education issues to contend with.
Adding to the persistent challenges brought about by colonial legacies are new forms of structural violence resulting from neo-colonialism. Corruption and lack of security represent two major nemeses of material well-being. Corruption affects the business environment, political life, and, overall, the culture and values of society. It undermines the creation of efficient governance and an equitable society. For instance, Ugandan research shows that local communities recognize that poverty is perpetuated by a lack of strong local leadership and participatory governance as well as incessant corruption and insecurity (Lawson, Mckay, & Okidi, 2003). Besides corruption, lack of security breeds fear, which limits one from living wholly. In theory, most Latin American countries claim to have a democratic political system; however, in practice, large parts of the population are excluded from political life because of weak political institutions and the disruption of elections (Rojas & Vega, 2017). These governments adversely affect people’s material and collective well-being by regulating their freedom and by limiting their opportunities. Moreover, “most dictatorships and pseudo-democratic regimes tend to reflect the interests of the economic, political, and military elites” and therefore they marginalize the well-being of the majority of the population (Rojas & Vega, 2017, p. 232). In contrast, genuine democratic governments should promote well-being since “democratic regimes, together with strong, transparent judicial institutions, are designed to develop and implement public policies that can enhance the well-being of the majority of citizens” (Rojas & Vega, 2017, p. 232).
Social development requires peace, “or at least minimum levels of positive social, political, and economic stability,” but a failing state has adverse effects on the quality of life and social development (Estes, 2012, p. 577). In sub-Saharan Africa, there is a close correlation between states that have been “entrenched in civil conflict in the recent past” and low social development (Moller & Roberts, 2017, p. 188). Contemporary Ethiopia offers an example of positive improvements in social development, while Nigeria’s experience with democracy has been marred by election tampering, resulting in a significant reversal of social development (Moller & Roberts, 2017). Conflicts, particularly civil conflict, give rise to significant barriers for pursuing happiness and improving quality of life, largely as a result of the relational nature of social development underscored in interactions between individuals and the state. In delving deeper into development and well-being in Peru, Copestake (2009) argues for a “rights first” model, emphasizing “relational as well as material components of well-being, particularly the struggle against injustice and the potential for human rights discourse to mobilize poor and marginalized citizens” (p. 7). This acknowledges the importance of personal agency and social relationships for well-being and its eudaimonic aspect: freedom from domination by others and freedom to live a life that is meaningful, in the sense of being consistent with personal goals and values. These are important points to make because liberties, rights, and dignity are compromised in the face of injustice, inequality, and oppressive or exclusionary political regimes.
Finally, an active citizenry can transform state responses so that they contribute to the full enjoyment of rights of citizenship, including personal and societal well-being. Active citizenship is a key component of well societies because, through bonds of solidarity, it creates the ability for people to “determine the course of their own lives, fighting for rights and justice in their own societies [and] holding states, private companies, and others to account” (Green, 2013, p. 11). It is particularly important for people living in oppressive contexts to have a voice to decide “their own destiny, rather than be treated as passive recipients of welfare or government action” (Green, 2013, p. 11). Abeyasekera’s (2014) research conducted in Sri Lanka notes that “exercising participation” is considered key to people’s well-being. Through community-led change, people living in adverse contexts can change from passive victims to active agents, which recognizes “the capacity for agency while recognizing that it occurs within a social context that influences it” (Bevir & Richards, 2009, p. 9).
This is not to say that the responsibility of states to transform unequal structures is dependent on facilitating an active citizenry alone. One state response to persistent inequality is offering social protection. Lacking in much of the work on well-being and material deprivation is a theoretical basis that explicitly responds to structural inequalities. This is seen not only in research but also in neo-liberal social welfare policies that view poverty and vulnerability as rooted in the personal characteristics and circumstances of individuals and households. As indicated earlier in the article, even more critical approaches to well-being accept much of the underlying premises of individualism and understate the structural determinants of impoverishment (Deneulin & Mcgregor, 2010). Devereux and McGregor (2014) argue for transformative social protection as a key mechanism through which states contribute to well-being, through addressing economic exclusion and poverty.
People and the Environment
A holistic understanding of a person’s life must take into account how people’s lives are embedded not only in dynamic and often diverse socio-cultural contexts but also in relation to environmental risks and resources (Gough et al., 2007; Green, 2013). Seasonal fluctuations in food and water, fragile natural environments, and resource degradation all impact the well-being of poor people (Narayan et al., 2000). In Bolivia, well-being is expressed in the indigenous concept of suma qamaña or “living well together,” which emphasizes the importance of harmonious relations between nature and human beings (Artaraz & Calestani, 2015). Panelli and Tipa (2009) build on the understanding that well-being comprises complex assemblages between people and places—including interactions between environments, histories, and beliefs. White (2015, p. 12) contends that environmental factors are a key dimension of well-being and “human well-being is intimately tied up with planetary well-being, and that the natural world has its own processes, flows and constraints, checks and balances which respond to human action” and at times they are beyond human control. For example, “South Asia is subject to recurring floods, mudslides, frequent earthquakes and temperature extremes”; and it is no surprise that the casualties and deaths brought on by these natural disasters create much human suffering (Shrotryia & Mazumdar, 2017, p. 350).
The impact of environmental factors on well-being in the global south is mediated by colonial histories of environmental resource exploitation (Tuck, McKenzie, & McCoy, 2014). Environmental degradation has been linked to growing inequality, where “early industrialized countries have accumulated wealth through such means of production that had a negative ecological impact and has caused undue stress on the global environment” (RIS, 2016, p. 10). For low-income countries, “environmental damage is proportionately more costly, since natural resources make up a greater share of their national wealth” (Green, 2013, p. 92). Further to this, within global south countries, the impact of environmental degradation and risk is often felt most profoundly by poor people—those “whose livelihoods are more directly connected to the natural resource base” (Narayan et al., 2000). Well-being research in Peru notes that participants relate their ability to work, hunt, and fish to their experience of well-being (Mathews & Izquierdo, 2009). The impact of environmental degradation on well-being also has a gendered aspect, due to women’s social and economic roles:
[Women] are often at higher risk and more vulnerable than men to the impacts of environmental degradation. When environmental hazards damage the livelihoods and health of impoverished communities, commonly accepted gender roles place the burden of maintenance, care, and recovery most heavily on women. (Green, 2013, p. 92)
People and Power
Interwoven in the various networks of well-being highlighted above is the role of power. Efforts to promote well-being can be constrained, or facilitated, through the relative power of those affected. It is not difficult to see how colonial systems relied heavily on skewed relationships of power. Further to this, many social scientists now understand that “the current relations of power and domination created and/or exacerbated by neoliberal policies often result in sustained experiences of injustice and major disparities in wealth” (Clarke-Deces & Smith, 2017, p. 102). Green (2013, p. 25) describes this as follows:
Contemporary inequalities in power driv[e] the motor of social and economic inequality in the lives of poor and rich alike. Power resembles a force field that permeates households, communities and society at large, shaping both the interactions and the innermost thoughts of individuals and groups. And like a force field, it is often only detectable through its impact on events.
The social identities people occupy—such as gender, sexuality, age, “race,” occupation, (dis)ability, and so forth—constitute clear markers of difference that impact on people’s relative power and shape their interactions with the institutions they rely on—that is, constructing vertical inequities between people and institutions. People’s social identities also influence how power operates through relationships that shape horizontal inequities, which we foregrounded, in particular, in the earlier section focused on social/relational networks of well-being:
Poor people’s experiences reflect fundamental inequities in power among different social groups, and the lack of bridges or horizontal linkages between those more powerful and those less powerful. It is no surprise that in this institutional environment the experiences of poor people are characterized by the lack of power and by voicelessness. (Narayan et al., 2000, p. 266)
This is evident in people’s differential access to physical assets that may improve their well-being. For instance, land and land rights form a central concern for much of the debate around poverty and inequality. Speaking to gendered social institutions, Narayan et al. (2000) note that socio-cultural practices of passing ownership of land through male lineage generally leave women without primary access to this valuable resource in improving well-being.
This impact of different social identities is also strongly felt in people’s ability to mobilize social capital in achieving well-being. This is important because the global south cannot be homogenized—even within societies/communities different configurations of power shape the experiences of people positioned differently in society. The social networks within which people are embedded are often stratified according to local power relations. For instance, the social capital of men and women generally differ in significant ways:
Men are more embedded in formal patron-client relations, whereas women, lacking access to formal systems, invest heavily in social relations with other women, both for social solidarity and for informal sharing of limited resources. Most of these women’s organisations remain disconnected from any external resources. (Narayan et al., 2000, p. 272)
Disparate social networks also manifest geographic distinctions between rural and urban areas: Narayan et al. (2000) state, “[A]ssociations are stronger in rural than in urban areas, where they are more likely to be organized around occupational groups” (p. 272). Of course, the converse is also true where people in contexts of adversity may form collective movements that effect change and increase their well-being, despite these odds. For instance, partnerships between NGOs and women’s credit groups in India have been effective in mobilizing around women’s rights and their access to economic opportunities (Center for Community Economics and Development Consultants Society, 1997).
Narayan et al. (2000) call attention to the more immediate and potentially more destructive impacts of deprivation, concluding that experiences of powerlessness have profound psychological impact on how people experience being well or unwell. Inequality adds to stress, insecurity, and anxiety, increasing feelings of anger, apathy, frustration, low self-worth, and helplessness. This is true for those belonging to the lower strata of the social hierarchy but especially those at the very bottom: “Again and again, powerlessness seems to be at the core of the bad life” (Narayan et al., 2000, p. 36). As illustrated earlier, the relationship between well-being and power relations is often neglected in well-being scholarship.
Conclusion
Our goal in this article has been to not only question some of the Northern-centric assumptions about well-being evident in the established scholarship but to also explore the creative possibilities that north–south learning can provide and in that manner generate productive insights for the development of a more relevant set of theoretical tools and strategies. As Copestake (2009) argues, speaking about a Peruvian study on well-being, the aim is not to privilege particular individual, local, global, or disciplinary models of well-being but to confront them against each other and to do so in a way that is empirically grounded. It is essential to theorize well-being in ways that address universal challenges (such as natural resource pressures, environmental disasters, and the unequal distribution of wealth), as well as context-specific challenges (such as the impact of colonial histories and related power dynamics) (Huq & Reid, 2004; Robinson & Parnell, 2011; Sánchez-Rodríguez et al., 2005). Research done in this manner, across a wider array of contexts, can help promote a better understanding of the plurality of aspirations, interests, and localized meanings that feed into efforts to improve well-being (Copestake, 2009).
To conclude, we return to the conceptualization of well-being as existing in relationships, offered at the outset of our discussion of southern perspectives on well-being. White (2010) powerfully states that the concept of “relationship is […] at the center of well-being analysis and politics” (p. 15). We identified four networks of relations that hold particular promise in structuring enquiries into well-being in the global south: that of relationships between the (a) individual and collective; (b) people and the state; (c) people and the environment; and (d) people and power. We argue that engagement with the politics of power is especially critical when responding to well-being in the global south. Established well-being theories largely neglect addressing the, admittedly, greater challenge of investigating power relations and redressing the structural inequities that impact people’s ability to be well. It is for this reason that attending to power relations in conducting well-being research is important in order to strengthen the extent to which this research can contribute to making real changes in people’s lives and improving their well-being (Davie, 2015).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.