NHDR Core Message # 4

 


Pakistan
 
 

PAKISTAN NATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003

POVERTY, GROWTH AND GOVERNANCE

COST OF SEEKING JUSTICE DRAINS MEAGRE RESOURCES OF THE POOR*
 

 
 

    Given the powerlessness of the poor and their vulnerability to social and economic injustice within the local power structure, the poor are engaged in a variety of disputes. The NHDR/PIDE Survey 2001 has investigated the frequency and type of disputes for various income classes of the poor and the cost of mediation as well as the rate of successful resolution.

The highest frequency of reported disputes occurs in the case of the poor, while the extremely poor, perhaps due to their acutely constrained economic circumstances, are often not prepared to take on the burden of a dispute. Their disputes as a percentage of the total disputes is 17.1%, with the figure for the non-poor being 34.2%. In the relatively few cases where the extremely poor do engage in disputes, the cost of mediation (Rs.18,333) places a crippling burden on them since it is more than their annual household income. Yet inspite of having spent such a large amount of money, usually by taking out loans or selling whatever few assets they have, the percentage of successful resolution of disputes in the case of the extremely poor is the lowest amongst the three income classes (38.5%). In the case of the non-poor, the percentage of reported disputes resolved is much higher at (80.8%) indicating the role of their relatively greater social influence in dispute resolution.

    The greatest proportion of disputes related with money/credit occurs in the case of the poor (61.2%) and to a much lesser extent in the other two income classes, being 22.2% for the extremely poor and 16.7% for the non-poor. In the case of land disputes, again the highest proportion occurs in the case of the poor (42.9%) with the extremely poor also facing a substantial proportion of land disputes (21.4%). In disputes related with honour or “loss of face”, again the greatest percentage occurs amongst the poor (47.1%) with the figure in the case of the extremely poor being 17.6%, and in the case of the non-poor being 35.3%.

    In all the three income classes, the poor by and large tend to avoid involving the police. This is indicative not only of the perceived inefficiency of the police in handling disputes, but also the danger of harassment by them. This is quite apart from the bribe money that has to be paid to register and pursue a case with the police, whether it is theft, violence or kidnapping. The extremely poor involve police in only 1% of the disputes, the poor to the extent of 2.8% and the non-poor to the extent of 4.9%. The relatively low involvement of police in the disputes of the poor is explained to some extent by the fact that a relatively large amount of bribe money has to be paid to the police just to register a case.

  In the relatively few cases where the extremely poor do engage in disputes, the cost of mediation (Rs.18,333) places a crippling burden on them since it is more than their annual household income

In the case of extremely poor the bribe money paid to police, in cases where it was involved was Rs.16,171/-, in the case of the poor, it was Rs.14,517/- and in the case of the non-poor, it was Rs.35,558/-


* NHDR 2003, Page 68-69



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Text Box: POLICE INVOLVEMENT IN DISPUTES AND AMOUNT OF BRIBE MONEY PAID BY ECONOMIC STATUS
ECONOMIC STATUS
POLICE INVOLVEMENT IN ANY DISPUTE
BRIBE MONEY PAID TO POLICE 
Extremely Poor
1%
Rs.16,171
Poor
2.8%
Rs.14,517
Non Poor
4.9%
Rs.35,558
Average
2.5%
                                  Rs.22,648
SOURCE: NHDR/PIDE Survey 2001.

Text Box: FREQUENCY OF DISPUTES, RESOLUTION AND COST OF RESOLUTION BY ECONOMIC STATUS (CASES REPORTING DISPUTES ONLY)
ECONOMIC STATUS
DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED DISPUTES
AMOUNT SPENT ON MEDIATION (MEAN)
PERCENT OF REPORTED DISPUTES RESOLVED
Extremely Poor
17.1
Rs. 18,333
38.5%
Poor
48.7
Rs. 12,074
59.5%
Non Poor
34.2
Rs. 18,264
80.8%
Total/Average
100
Rs. 15,123
63.2%
Source: NHDR/PIDE Poor Communities Survey 2001.