needed to cover the costs of adaptation among the most vulnerable, as well as strong political will to set just priorities and incentives to protect those with the least adaptive capacities.

# _2)_ _<u>Agrarian poverty and relational vulnerabilities in India</u>_

In a case study from semi‐arid Andhra Pradesh, southern India, Taylor (2013) demonstrates how poor and marginalized farming populations become entangled in social, economic, and political relationships that generate their vulnerability to climatic changes while creating relative security for others. While studies examining local manifestations of climate change often emphasize changes in consumption patterns, asset availability and flexibility, and impacts on productivity, they can obscure the unequal geographies of power and the political mechanisms that create and sustain marginality and, thus, blind us with respect to needed adaptive solutions (Mosse, 2010; Tschakert et al. 2013). In Taylor’s (2013) words, “the relative security of some social groups is achieved through the production of insecurity among others” (318). Although set in a distinctly different cultural and geographic context compared to the above vignette on coastal communities in the United States, similar dynamics are at work.

<!-- Start of picture text --> they can obscure the unequal geographies of power and the political mechanisms that create<br>and sustain marginality and, thus, blind us with respect to needed adaptive solutions (Mosse,<br>2010; Tschakert et al. 2013). In Taylor’s (2013) words, “the relative security of some social<br>groups is achieved through the production of insecurity among others” (318). Although set in a<br>distinctly different cultural and geographic context compared to the above vignette on coastal<br>communities in the United States, similar dynamics are at work.<br>In rural Andhra Pradesh, uneven control over key productive assets, primarily land, water, labor,<br><!-- End of picture text --> In rural Andhra Pradesh, uneven control over key productive assets, primarily land, water, labor, and credit produces not only differential insecurity but also hierarchical displacement of security, across the farming population. Processes of relational vulnerability and associated poverty do not simply occur because subordinate groups lack assets or income. Neither are they the only ones to encounter rising temperatures, higher unpredictability of rainfall events, and increasingly severe droughts (such as those in 2012‐13). They are relationally poor because they depend on access to assets that are in control of the more affluent and dominant groups.

<!-- Start of picture text --> and credit produces not only differential insecurity but also hierarchical displacement of<br>security, across the farming population. Processes of relational vulnerability and associated<br>poverty do not simply occur because subordinate groups lack assets or income. Neither are they<br>the only ones to encounter rising temperatures, higher unpredictability of rainfall events, and<br>increasingly severe droughts (such as those in 2012‐13). They are relationally poor because they<br>depend on access to assets that are in control of the more affluent and dominant groups.<br><!-- End of picture text --> Unlike many other studies that focus on the exclusion of the poor from processes of production, Taylor, building on Mosse (2010) and Hickey and du Toit (2007), explains how ‘adverse inclusion’ of the subordinate groups may lock them into highly unequal power dynamics by being dependent on other social actors to transform their assets into meaningful lives. Practically, this lock‐in occurs as less endowed individuals and households, lacking other choices, take up contract work with advanced salaries to be repaid as a debt. Or, they may seek credits from intermediary merchants at high interest rates in order to participate in new forms of agriculture and trade relations geared toward high‐yield varieties, fertilizer, and pesticides. While the more affluent farmers and merchants extract raising surplus through these debt relations, creating new opportunities for themselves and becoming new rural elites, the subordinate groups could easily find themselves in spiraling debt traps. These traps may force desperate farmers to engage is distress sales that further benefit the privileged.

<!-- Start of picture text --> Taylor, building on Mosse (2010) and Hickey and du Toit (2007), explains how ‘adverse inclusion’<br>of the subordinate groups may lock them into highly unequal power dynamics by being<br>dependent on other social actors to transform their assets into meaningful lives. Practically, this<br>lock‐in occurs as less endowed individuals and households, lacking other choices, take up<br>contract work with advanced salaries to be repaid as a debt. Or, they may seek credits from<br>intermediary merchants at high interest rates in order to participate in new forms of agriculture<br>and trade relations geared toward high‐yield varieties, fertilizer, and pesticides. While the more<br><!-- End of picture text --> By focusing explicitly on such uneven landscapes of power and privilege, and the lack of options to circumvent extractive and impoverishing practices, this case study reveals how poverty is created as vulnerabilities and risks of the marginalized segments of society serve “as a buttress 13