Who are marginalised groups and why we should include them in development practice

If you have been active in any kind of development work, practice, research, consulting, you will have come across the “marginalised groups”, “most-at-risk populations” and other similarly defined groupings of individuals. Let it be clear – I think that the various acronyms and definitions are themselves quite questionable and can at times be unhelpful.

Nevertheless the so-called marginalised groups are those effectively excluded from decision-making processes and their needs for development are not taken into account. This is wrong for several reasons.

First, development for the majority is, in principle, not wrong. After all, development practice is generally most concerned with improving the livelihoods of vast swathes of a country or a population before the same can be done for the few individuals who “fall through the cracks”. But is this not the very same reason for which some of the current development challenges exist? Entire countries have fallen through the cracks… Today’s social justice approach means justice for all, not just the majority – and these are achievable objectives.

Second, let’s think about the public health reality. Think about HIV for example. There are groups in some countries (i.e. men who have sex with men, commercial sex workers, and many many more) who are excluded from policies benefiting the wider public – in some cases there are laws against MSM. Now, excluding people who are at risk of infection promotes the creation of “pools” within which a virus continues to exist. And replicate. And mutate. And eventually, once the virus has been eliminated from the general population, it is still present in the at risk population. The experience with HIV has shown that there is mixing between marginalised and general populations: this has been the basis for the spectacular global spread of the virus. So, as long as pools persist in marginalised groups, the risk for re-infection of the wider population remains real. Put differently, the wider population is only as protected from HIV as the marginalised groups are.

Here’s a twist, though. Who are the marginalised or at-risk populations? Conventional wisdom creates images of these groups in our minds. But there’s a problem with that: do we know whether marginalised or at-risk groups remain the same over time? Are we overlooking some groups because they are closer to the mainstream than we think – and yet they are excluded? Again, using HIV as an example: truckers are some of the at-risk groups. But are they “universally” at risk in all countries? Are there countries where in fact “electricians” are at-risk? Research has provided evidence of police in various developing countries being highly at risk because they take advantage of sex workers who. The police are not exactly marginalised, yet they are at-risk, and unless that’s recognised, we may transfer the virus via this group back to the main population – the majority we have attempted to rid of HIV, but failed to pay attention to the at-risk and marginalised groups.

That’s why marginalised groups be included in development policy.

Advertisement