Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiEscaping The Poverty Trap
PRETORIA - What do they have in common -- the landless widow with a deaf son in Bangladesh, the 12-year-old miner in Kyrgyzstan, the Ugandan farming couple with 12 children and the South African domestic worker who loses her home when her husband dies and her job when she breaks a leg? They, and their children, are trapped in chronic poverty, even as their countries show economic growth.
Worldwide, between 320 and 440 million people live in chronic poverty. They need not. Five policy measures could help them escape the poverty trap, says the second international Chronic Poverty Report 2008-2009, launched in London last month.
The report was produced by the Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC), a global partnership of universities, research institutions and NGOs from countries including Bangladesh, India, South Africa, Uganda and the UK, and is funded by the UK government's department for international development. The centre is led by the University of Manchester, UK and the UK's Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
It intersperses these personal stories with analysis, and identifies five factors which underlie poverty: insecurity, limited citizenship, spatial distribution, social discrimination and poor work opportunities.
The solutions to these 'poverty traps' include nets of social protection, particularly through cash transfers to households; public services for the hard to reach poor; anti-discrimination and gender empowerment measures; building individual and collective assets, and strategic urbanization and migration policies.
Perhaps the report's most interesting proposal is to expand welfare systems to guarantee the chronically poor a basic income, both as their right and as a way out of poverty. The experiences of Brazil, Chile, India and South Africa show that social transfers in cash or in kind reduce vulnerability, allow the poor to engage in more productive economic activities, and are generally judiciously spent.
According to the researchers, social protection is affordable and can be scaled up even in relatively poor countries, as Bangladesh and Uganda have shown.
However, governments often have questions about creating dependency and the long-term financial commitments required. Gaining a constituency for social protection is key, says the report, and it calls on world leaders to commit to the drawing up of a Global Social Protection Strategy by 2010 to target the eradication of extreme poverty by 2025. This strategy would build on the Millennium Development Goals of halving poverty by 2015.
Controversially, the report notes that some governments that have effectively responded to poverty -- Ethiopia, Uganda and Vietnam -- are not wholly democratic. Democracy alone does not guarantee pro-poor policies, says the report. Some 'elite projects' (a polite term for mildly authoritarian regimes) have forged a social compact between citizens and the state that placed chronic poverty seriously on the policy agenda. Policy-makers must get "thinking beyond the contemporary mantra of democracy, elections and decentralization".
What this means, CPRC director Andrew Shepherd told IPS, is that there is sometimes "a tension at the international level between promoting poverty reduction ... and promoting competitive multi-party democracy."
"In many cases democracies produce governments which are very effective in reducing poverty -- witness recent experience in Brazil, for example," he added.
"There are less democratic regimes which have been and are very effective in reducing poverty, and the international community needs to recognise that part of this effectiveness may be due to the nature of the regime, where a strong connection between regime and citizens has been forged through a popular movement, which generates a 'social compact' between elite and the poor as part of a national development 'project'.
"China and Vietnam would also be examples, and there are others during the last 60 years. The implication for the international community would be to exercise caution in attaching political conditionalities to aid or other international negotiations. Of course this does not mean that in extreme cases (eg Zimbabwe) the international community should not take a strong political position."
Duncan Green, head of research at the British charity Oxfam, finds this analysis "courageous". He adds: "We need to talk about this. Especially after traumatic events, autocracies may do nation-building more effectively than elected governments. There is more to politics than ballot-counting."
Only a few 'elite projects' are so considerate. In mineral-rich countries, like Sudan, Myanmar, Angola, and Congo (Brazzaville), predatory elites siphon off, through non-transparent fiscal systems, revenue that could ease poverty. Worse, some violently predatory governments so scare their citizens that they would rather avoid any dealings with the state, says the study.
In one of the most interesting chapters, the report analyses several states. Of the 32 countries identified as chronically deprived, 22 are considered fragile states, racked by conflict, war and greedy elites. A fragile state is one that does not reduce risk to its citizens through providing law and order, services and infrastructure.
"Shoring up fragile states should be as important to donors as tackling climate change", Shepherd said at the launch of the report.
In mineral-rich but 'poor-unfriendly' states, donors should support advocacy efforts to empower citizens and provide technical assistance for social protection, mainly on health and education, nudging such states to become institutions that interact meaningfully with poor people.
In resource-poor countries with 'poor-friendly' governments, donors should step up budget support, reduce aid volatility, and shoulder much of the cost of providing basic services and social protection.
This, until economic growth raises the revenue base. Eventually, functional states should set up effective systems of public finances. People who should pay taxes will do so, instead of evading them, and the poor will benefit.
Economic growth eases poverty, but a rising tide does not lift all boats, warns the report. Growth alone does not automatically benefit the chronically poor. Living in remote areas, suffering from food shortages and poor health, exploited in work, not fully participant in social and economic life, they are locked out of the national growth process.
The much vaunted tool, the Poverty Reduction Strategies, have failed, says the report. Perceived as donor-owned products, they neglect the chronically poor, lack serious analysis of poverty, and ignore issues of justice, discrimination, gender empowerment, and migration. They remain, says the report, a missed opportunity to build a fairer social compact.
Two trends stand out: the dramatic reduction in the numbers of the poor in China, and that in Latin America and the Caribbean poverty is becoming urban rather than rural. In other parts of the developing world, 70 percent of the poor are rural but, given the world's rapid urbanization, a shift towards urban chronic poverty can be predicted.
This demands bold policies towards migration and urban planning. Instead of seeing migrants as a problem, as policy-makers and urban residents tend to, they should be assisted in gaining a share of urban benefits, productivity and growth. In remote areas, establishing urban growth poles can boost local economies.
At the root of poverty lies powerlessness. The chronically poor have limited citizenship and little or no voice in the capitals. Society is mostly indifferent to them. But social movements - from cooperatives to ethnic minorities, from the landless rural to urban squatters - can influence the public policies needed to eliminate the chronic poverty traps.
"The chronically poor in developing countries do not need to wait forever," Shepherd told IPS.
© 2008 Inter Press Service
25 Comments so far
Show AllLet them be, the last thing they need are western nations imposing our way of life on them. The picture does not move me at all - I have seen much worse in other countries.
contrary to one poster- most people in their own communities DO know what they need and just need support in going about the HOW... indigenous people aren't stupid.. in fact their brains work better than ours do in many instances. we could not reproduce stonehenge, the pyramids or many other things that indigenous cultures created using only their tools.
The success of Barefoot initiatives in rainwater harvesting and well recharging as part of the collective efforts of rural communities in India have demonstrated the need to reintroduce traditional, low-cost technologies that communities can implement themselves. medicine people in the jungle have a better knowledge of plant chemistry than anything we can reproduce in a lab-- even if they can't draw out the periodic table etc..
What we need is to get out of their way, and stop imposing our agendas onto their cultures!
The Barefoot approach draws upon local knowledge and skills, and involves local people to administer, supervise and finance their own community development. This helps to reduce dependency on external aid and creates a sense of local ownership in managing the local water supply.
jruebel said "Let's bring the Third World up to Western Middle-Class standards. It should do wonders for the environment"
Actually, the plan is to bring you down to their level.
Let's bring the Third World up to Western Middle-Class standards. It should do wonders for the environment.
marxistsocialist:
Didn't Mao say that political power comes from the barrel of a gun?
Didn't Hume say that "laws without the sword are but empty words?"
It is an unfortunate truth that the corrupt and criminal only respect the power of violence. And the poor are poor usually because of the corrupt and criminal leadership controlling the administration of government.
\
FYI, an excerpt from an interview of someone who knows what he's talking about:
What would happen if these aid organizations pulled out of these countries?
I think if all of them went out of business today, there would be very few people who would be any worse for it, and a great number of people would be better off. People know what's best for themselves. They can do what they need to do. In most of these countries-I'm thinking of Africa-people are not developing economically because they're not being allowed to.
The populations that suffer under dire poverty are not even allowed to understand their need for land/water/food rights and independence. This amounts to double oppression. Notice that welfare gifts address only half of this oppression.
While the Inter-Press Service said something about local predatory elites it did not mention the western capitalist corporations that enable them with purchase contracts for large quantities of mined natural resources.
We want a comprehensive view of capitalist destruction across the world society and biosphere. But when it comes to taking action, let's not fragment our energy. Let's put the boot of justice squarely on the neck of the capitalist beast, and keep crunching until we have worldwide relief.
Our planet can not sustain the current reproduction rates. Other environmental improvement measures--despite their importance--are secondary by comparison. Nonetheless this president continues his subtle war against family planning that he waged since his first day in office, when he essentially halted our international aid to these essential programs.
Bush's contribution to over population and his war against the envirionment have already caused immeasurable suffering and environmental damage to our planet. Until effective family planning programs can proceed without blockages from such irrational zealots guided by religious right radicals, starvation and environmental degradation from overpopulation can only worsen.
Matti, Matti, Matti, your long one almost sounds like something straight out of the Cheney/Bush/Neo-Con book (or may be Milton Friedman's). I'm surprised you didn't find time to add a few more words about the Shrub's "War On Terror." I'm also not impressed with Nietzche's obscene rant.
The fact of the matter is that we will NEVER see an end to the "War On Terror" or the insurgencies, or "terrorists" until something is done about poverty. If you follow the Milton Friedman line (Disaster Capitalism, see Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine"), you'll realize that the creation of poverty is the engine of his (Friedman's) drive to greater wealth for the ruling elite - - the very line that our nation's ruling elite have swallowed, hook, line and sinker. And where has it gotten us? On the down slop in oh, so many ways - - check out "The Limits Of Power" by Andrew J. Bacevich - - but only if you don't scare easily.
I look at that picture and think about what a contrast a White House dinner party is.
Where is Zorro or the Lone Ranger?
I don't believe in violence but my beliefs are not worth a single one of those kid's death.
APOCALYPSE NOW! Fuck morality. The morality of the ruling class has nothing to do with full bellies, shelter, and health care.
I would say let's start over but there is no point when everything man touches turns to shit.
barefoot college. ultimate empowerment!
http://www.barefootcollege.org/
The Barefoot College began in 1972 with the conviction that solutions to rural problems lie within the community.
The College addresses problems of drinking water, girl education, health & sanitation, rural unemployment, income generation, electricity and power, as well as social awareness and the conservation of ecological systems in rural communities.
The College benefits the poorest of the poor who have no alternatives.
The College encourages practical knowledge and skills rather than paper qualifications through a learning by doing process of education.
It's a place where the teacher is the learner and the learner is the teacher. It's a place where NO degrees and certificates are given because in development there are no experts-only resource persons. It's a place where people are encouraged to make mistakes so that they can learn humility, curiosity, the courage to take risks, to innovate, to improvise and to constantly experiment. It's a place where all are treated as equals and there is no hierarchy.
hoytdouglas: The poor, peasant and lower classes of USA need marxists and revolutionary-books, which are more powerful than weapons, and can overthrow even a Hitler
Read this article in spanish on how to prevent the fall of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and the Bolivarian Democratic Socialist system for workers and poor:
¿Cómo evitar la destrucción del Socialismo en Venezuela?
Como evitar el Waterloo de Chavez
http://irresponsabilidad.blogspot.com/2007/12/heinz-dieterich-posible-fin-de-los.html
La derrota del referendo debilita sustancialmente el poder del Presidente en cuatro frentes de batalla: a) ante la oposición interna; b) dentro de los aparatos del oficialismo, donde los delfines de la Nueva Clase PolÃtica reorganizarán con urgencia sus escenarios del "ChavÃsmo sin Chávez"; c) en la polÃtica internacional y, d) en las Fuerzas Armadas. Lo último es fundamental si tomamos en cuenta que hace tres meses hubo un conato de rebelión en un Comando Regional (CORE) de la Guardia Nacional.
Para evitar que esta derrota se convierta en el Waterloo del Presidente, es imprescindible que renueva el sistema de conducción del bolivarianismo a nivel del partido, del Estado y del parlamento y que se construyan instancias que se atrevan a debatirle sus propuestas. Estas instancias tienen que ser pluralistas, para ser funcionales, abarcando un amplio espectro polÃtico, desde el General Alberto Mueller Rojas, militar jacobino; el General Raúl IsaÃas Baduel, representante del centro polÃtico; los partidos y sindicatos obreros de la izquierda que están naciendo; el Socialismo cientÃfico del Siglo XXI y los movimientos sociales, entre otros sectores, que no sean fascistas.
Hugo Chávez es necesario para la continuación del proceso, pero sólo tendrá futuro, si se abre a instancias colectivas de conducción. Si no, destruirá el proceso que ha ayudado a construir, porque no solo es cierto, que "la Revolución devora a sus hijos", sino también que los lÃderes revolucionarios, cuando se convierten en conductores unilaterales, "devoran a la Revolución".
La previsibilidad de la polÃtica
En agosto del 2005 advertà sobre los peligros de la Nueva Clase PolÃtica para la revolución ("Venezuela: diez Tésis sobre la Nueva Clase PolÃtica"), y en julio del 2006, sobre la previsible contraofensiva oligárquica-imperial: mientras los "cinco pilares de poder de la oligarquÃa: el económico, el militar, el eclesiástico, el mediático y el imperialismo estadounidense-europeo siguen intactos, la guerra no ha terminado. Y de hecho, una fuerte contraofensiva oligárquica-imperial puede esperarse a partir de 2008/9".
Esa ofensiva contrarrevolucionaria ha llegado. Y las fuerzas de la liberación están mal preparadas para derrotarla. Es necesario un gran esfuerzo inmediato, para no perder la guerra.
.
"They should just work harder...then they could get ahead. If you give them things then they will never have the incentive to work.... and thus take personal responsibility for their lives. "
Some Conservative... ;>P
The poor need guns, then they will get "empowerment."
"Two trends stand out: the dramatic reduction in the numbers of the poor in China..."
What planet is Ms. Sayagues observing?
China has a phony reduction in poverty based on a ridiculously low threshold:
Poverty in China refers to people whose income is less than a poverty line of $1 per day (PPP) set by the World Bank benchmark.
Congratulations! Your income is now $1.01 per day! You're poor no more!
Hallelujah!
Now let's forget about 500,000,000 people living in what almost any of us would think of as abject poverty, and...
Enjoy the Olympics
-----Long Post Warning-------
C'mon, you can do it!
------
First some notes on the awful and disunified examples of "chronic poverty" at the head of the piece:
1.-"...the landless widow with a deaf son in Bangladesh"
Umm, I don't think her son's infirmity is relevant to her poverty -unless we think people are "poor" just becuse they do not have special means to send their special children to special schools so they can be "normal" -i.e. able to function as effective consumer/workers comepletely on their own, the "American" concept of shark-like hyper-individuality. The relevant bit here is her "landless"-ness which, we are led to presume is connected to her "widow(hood)".
So the problem here is the breakdown of tribal and village social support systems and the end of even "benevolent" paternalism that would "look after" the women. Underlying all of this is the undoubted conversion of the Bangladeshi agricultural and land-ownership systems to more "modern" and "Western" forms. No doubt some wealthy "agribusinessman" or corporation now "owns" the productive land that this widow's village elders would have bestowed to her to partially compensate for the death of her husband.
2.-"...the 12-year-old miner in Kyrgyzstan"
I'm not quite sure I see the problem here -unless one of the basic points of the article is directly contradicted by this example. I'm not sure there is anything intrinsically wrong with being a "12-year-old-miner". My own great-grandfather was a miner in Ireland at an even younger age and, as far as my grandfather told me, while he wished for an easier life for his children, he was always proud of that work. He credited it for the independence he was able to achieve at an early age, which he credited for his emigration to the States, which he in turn credited for his children's easier lives. He also often chided his children for being lazy, and used this as an example.
My point is, I can see an independent-minded, and physically near-mature, 12-year-old SEEKING work -even hard, dangerous work- and then remembering this time with pride. UNLESS -and this is a big unless- they are NOT working the mines by an even nominal choice on their part, or the conditions of the work are so degrading and frought that NO ONE would wish to do it.
I think we can all guess that this is in fact the case with the article's specific 12-year-old. But WHY do we assume these harsh and freedomless conditions? Because of the second part of the fragment:
"...in Kyrgyzstan"
So, in other words, this particular "chronically poor" person's condition, presumedly, has EVERYTHING to do with the lack of democratic institutions in his home nation-state. Institutions which would uphold his -and his family's- rights, which would either allow him not to work the mines, or at least improve conditions there so we wouldn't have to feel so sorry for him.
So it seems there IS a connection between democratic society and the "chronic"-ness of poverty! I can only conjure pity for a "12-year-old miner" if he is COMPELLED to work, and -at least in this example- we must admit that our assumtion that he is compelled is directly connected to our understanding of the lack of democracy in Krgyzstan.
This would seem to -at least partially- contradict the article's odd stressing of the unimportance of democracy in this matter. A position that is also -rather pathetically- reinforced by a mere FOUR examples -with little data to back them up- from the ENTIRE world.
All of this makes it clear that this stress on the unimportance of democracy is merely a bridge to the "talking up" and excusing of the Communist Party of China. Whether to kiss-ass or to cover complicity I will not speculate.
3.-"...the Ugandan farming couple with 12 children"
This one is gonna be short, all I have to do to "unlock the mystery" of this couple's "chronic poverty" is repeat the quote with a little emphasis added:
"...the Ugandan farming couple WITH 12 CHILDREN"
Get it? No "study" by big-brained, "big-heart" Brits required. Breeding one's way out of poverty hasn't been a good strategy in quite a while now -if it ever was even in gatherer-hunter times.
I have no pity at all for this "couple" only scorn, my pity is reserved for their children.
4.-"...the South African domestic worker who loses her home when her husband dies and her job when she breaks a leg?"
This is perhaps -and oddly- the strangest of all the examples. Because of all of them it actually seems to FIT the study's conclusions and the article's focus, not dispute them as the other examples do.
The "five factors" of "insecurity, limited citizenship, spatial distribution, social discrimination and poor work opportunities."...
...seem in her case, quite appropriate in their limited scope and ASSUMPTION OF BASIC RIGHTS.
If she had a bit more of a social safety net, better work opportunities, was not discriminated against because of color or class, and lived in a more coherent community, this "domestic worker" would surely have a better lot in life.
-To conclude, I respect the CPRC's attempt to deal with these issues out side of a "political" or "philosophical" framework.
AND I respect the Inter Press Service for publicising this study.
But I have two gripes:
1.-I think these issues CANNOT be divorced from "political" or "philosophical" frameworks because they are at the core issues with how human beings interact with each other and how they share -or hoarde- the resources of the World. The three minor examples the article -and the study- give for a "non-democratic" system responding to poverty -Ethiopia, Uganda and Vietnam- are not presented with any evidence to back them up AND -hilariously- one of them, Uganda, is the country of one of the EXAMPLES of "chronic poverty" used at the head. How does that compute exactly?
2.- The study -or at least the article's presentation of it- seems to not only deem democracy or the preservation of Rights relevant to "chronic poverty", but, in fact, seems determined to DISSUADE persons concerned about poverty from such notions. The creepiest line:
"...autocracies may do nation-building more effectively than elected governments."
What cowardly, greedy, short-sighted bullshit! I don't believe people have spent the last several hundred years attempting to establish social and political systems that uphold and protect their Funadamental Human Rights just so those systems could more effectively "nation-build"!
These are the words of "Duncan Green, head of research at the British charity Oxfam, finds this analysis "courageous"." COURAGEOUS!
Total capitulation in morals and ethics in the face of greed for cheaply made products and laziness is labelled "courageous" by this social "researcher"- disgusting.
"Live free or die" becomes "Live as a slave and you may die more comfortably".
Pathetic.
What can be given by absolute authority, can be just as easily be taken-away by absolute authority.
This is NOT an "idealistic" sentiment, this is a statement of a basic Truth of the World.
Watch how quickly China's newly-not-poor become poor again in the face of the environmental disaster their Communist Party masters have created with their "economic and industrial expansion". Watch how quickly they re-enter poverty if the economic crisis in the "west" collapses the market for cheap prison labor crap, and first stage refined materials such as steel -those things which are the backbone of China's "expansion".
Then watch what happens to them if they try to organise against their re-impoverishment or openly resent the -inevitable- continued luxury of the "business oligarchs" with Party connections.
It will be similar to the fate of those who would like to have cultral and political autonaomy in conquered regions (Tibet) religious and expressive freedom (Fao Lun Gong) and more inclusion in government for the common People (Tiananmen Square).
What level of ignorance is required to fail to see the obviousness of this?
And what level of moral and ethical cowardness is required to excuse it?
The only way for people to preserve decent standards of living -over the long term- is for the societies that those people live in to acknowledge their Fundamental Human Rights to decent standards of living.
The task of reshaping our societies from the inside -and don't think for a moment the U.S.A doesn't need this as well as China- is, of course, an incredibly difficult one. And it will be even more of a stuggle to also ensure these societies interact positively and cooperatively with each other AND solve the basic living system issues of resource use and sustainability.
But there can be no Coward's Way Out here.
This re-shaping MUST occur, not just for some abstract concepts of "right" and "wrong", not even for the survival and well being of individual persons.
But for the very survival of civilization and the preservation of all of the knowledge, beauty, and wonder of the History of Humanity in the World.
Greedy, lazy, short-sighted compromise such as this article and study promote is counter-productive and should be abandoned.
Have Fun,
-matti.
No real change will occur in these countries under a capitalist system. If anything, their situation[s] will only become worse.
lillulu,
I completely disagree with your last sentence, but yes, it is foolish for those in chronic poverty to continue to reproduce so regularly. The use of long term contraceptives in these situations should be a given. There is no excuse for delivering child after child into a life of misery.
Education, healthcare and microloans all help but all we ever send is unpayable debt and International Loan Sharks (World Bank & IMF) to keep the world's poor in misery.
I feel badly that anyone has to go hungry, especially when the war profiteering "elite" leaders dine on lobster, caviar, steak, French champagne, etc.
It's difficult to understand why people in poverty-stricken countries keep having babies when they can barely feed them. Why don't the richer countries send them birth control instead of food??
Okay, I take that back, keep sending food -- but ALSO send them birth control. If they refuse the birth control, then stop sending food.
>>Perhaps the report's most interesting proposal is to expand welfare systems to guarantee the chronically poor a basic income, both as their right and as a way out of poverty. .
This IMHO is key and something the IMF, World Bank and other such "Institutions" have tried to get rid of for decades.
Yes Social programs DO WORK, nothwithstanding the spin the corporatists put on this.
It so very interesting that while reports like these are coming out that speak to the importance of welfare programs for the poor, world bodies are still trying their best to head them off or see them dismantled where they do exist.
And why not let Africa grow its own Cannabis? Cannabis keeps the thirst and hunger at bay and promotes inner strength and happiness to get everything else in life going.
Oops, I forgot. Them US supported dictators that keep them Africans poor ! Can you get even your supposedly American "liberal" leaders in the Democratic party to even try?
Hey, the standard of living in the U.S. slid down the hill when the USSR broke up.
Say what you will about bad and evil empire called the USSR, but the standard of living in the 'stans slid down the tubes after the Soviet Union broke up. That big bad communist government provided free healthcare, education and training and there were no 12 yo children in mines back then. Welcome to the neoliberal World Bank adjustments.
There's a finite amount of resources in the world. We in the West consume many times more resources per capita than the people in the poorer countries. Poverty will not get solved if that doesn't change. They haven't developed in part because we are in charge of funding their development, believe in competition and are asking the elites here to essentially fund their future competition (which means they won't, and haven't). Is that in their "enlightened self interest"? We make it so that in order to fund ANY development the poorer countries must go into massive debt, if they don't what other "incentive" do investors have, since all they care about is money and their own "enlightened self interest". If we refuse to change and sacrifice the only thing poorer countries can do is accept their fate or go to war with us. After all, the resources we consume are in large part IN the developing world. The West, because we're all reactionary bourgeoisie in the end, believe not only in outright materialism, but we believe whole heartedly in the values that prop it up. Nothing short of a revolution in values and social relations will solve this problem, again outside of violent revolution by the world's poor.