Miller, Karen Lowry, “The Poor Problem: The war on poverty is gaining momentum, and will figure high on the agenda at Davos (Switzerland, World Economic Summit meetings), against this sobering backdrop: the war is not going as well as many thought,” Newsweek (International), 31 January 2005

, p. 43.

 

 

OVERVIEW

 

The year 2005 came in featuring two world wars: Bush’s war on terrorism and Blair’s (new) war on poverty. Blair, who’s stood firmly with President Bush, is building into his leadership of G8 this year a campaign against poverty in Africa, and his Chancellor of the Exchequer is pushing a Marshall Plan for Africa.

 

“The consensus among the elite who gather at Davos,” the writer of this article says, “has been that, no matter what street protestors and the U.N. do-gooders may say, globalization is good for the poor.” But there is an emerging a realization “that the war is going worse than thought.”

 

There has been general acceptance of the opinion that flourishing world trade and finance have reversed the growing number of poor for the first time in history. The work of ColumbiaUniversity professor, Xavier Sala-i-Martin has provided the statistical basis for this view. He calculated that the boom in trade, travel and communications since 1970 has reduced global poor by three to five hundred million between 1970 and 2000. And, in that time, the number of those living on less than $2 a day has lessened from 29.6 percent to 10.6 percent. Obvious pockets of poverty in Africa and Central Asia were blamed on being outside the primary reaches of globalization.

 

Exceptions to this view, or at least the realization that its picture is spotty, are being considered. A report of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) claims that “the number of hungry worldwide rose in the second half of the 1990s, particularly because of India, where the number of hungry people rose by 18 million, and stalled progress in rural China.”

 

Although this report has been challenged, “Indian authorities do not dispute the basic trend: they sy the number of poor people is rising in absolute terms, though not as a share of the population. Even the World Bank senior development research adviser, Martin Ravallion, who argues that the number of poor people in India is falling by about 1% a year, says the rate of poverty reduction is lagging far behind (Indian) economic growth, which is no better than 7%…. ‘It will constrain the ability of the poor to participate in growth and ultimately constrain India from growing,’” Ravallion concludes.

 

India would seem to be a striking example of the fact that “opening up national borders to globalization is not enough.” About growing rural poverty, Indian agricultural economist, M.S. Swaminathan says: “… 30 percent of rural Indians have no land, no fishponds, no assets of anhy kind. Our problem of undernutrition… is lack of purchasing power. We need to create jobs in rural areas.”

 

Swaminathan hopes the new Indian government under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh may adopt measures to insure that “at least one member of a rural family has at least 100 days of employment each year, and that schoolchildren receive a midday meal.” The government is also looking to introduce new food processing measures to save the estimated 25% of milk, fruit and vegetables that spoil before use.

 

In December (2004), the U.N. General Assembly resolved to pursue the Millennium goals (including halving global poverty by 2015) under the rubrid of “fair globalization.” What this means in essence is that the war of poverty will be waged as Sweden (and not the U.S.) might do it: with a focus on social programs to fill the gaps where the free market doesn’t reach.

 

Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia professor who led the Millennium review, hopes the ideological debate is over. He wants to concentrate on practical solutions: roads, water wells, mosquito nets. “This is not a morality story,” he says. “Globalization has bypassed people caught in the poverty trap.”

 

 

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

1.   Compared to the tsunami disaster, how many people do you think die world-wide each year because of poverty-related problems (malnutrition, lack of clean water of medical care, etc.)?

2.   Why is the world more concerned about space exploration than eliminating global poverty?

3.   What are the human consequences of poverty? How does it affect families and children? Is there such a thing as being “trapped in poverty?”

4.   What are your impressions of this article, and what opinions do you have on this subject?

5.   Where can our opinions go? What can most of us do about world poverty?  What do we want to see done?

 

 

 

IMPLICATIONS

 

1.   It is said that American travel less outside their borders than those of other developed countries. And much travel doesn’t include real contact with the poor. Lack of concern for the poor is present among most middle-class and rich of the world.

2.   It seems much easier to respond to disasters like the tsunami of 2004 than to prevailing killers much less spotlighted in the mass media.

3.   Poverty not only causes death but wretchedness and hopelessness that destroy and weaken families and communities.

4.   Many good people are engaged in fighting poverty and promoting community development around the world. And many others are supporting their efforts. We should be aware of the many relief and development organizations.

5.   With all the problems of the U.N., and criticisms leveled against it, its efforts to fight poverty and promote development stand high among all other organizations and give us a hopeful story and strategy.