Maybe I am very naive, but there's something about this whole 'Make poverty history' campaign, led by rich and famous 'celebs' that somehow does not ring true. We live in a world dominated by capitalism and one of the facts of capitalism is that the rich get richer, so inevitably, by comparison the poor get poorer. This is to me inescapable, and easily illustrated at the local, community level. If you are living on the breadline, and do not have a car, you go to the local shop and buy your food and other essentials. If you are slightly wealthier, you have a car, can drive to a supermarket and benefit from discounts. If you are even wealthier, you can shop around and afford to buy in bulk, taking full advantage of special offers, and laying in stocks when commodities are cheap.
We live in an era when governments are obsessed with low taxation. One does not need to be an ecomomic genius to realise that this benefits the rich more than the poor, since the latter are more dependent on the facilities that are provided by taxes.
So am I being naive, or can an economist out there explain how, without some neo-socialist radical redistribution of wealth, we are going to make poverty history? Hand-outs from charity and foreign aid programmes demonstrably do not work -- yet that is all that is really on offer at present. Well intentioned as I am sure they are, sending used computers to the third world, old wellington boots, used spectacles may make the donors feel good, but I believe they do nothing at all to solve the long term problems. Nor do big grants to, often, corrupt governments.
In fact, many of the solutions may exacerbate the environmental problems that organisations such as the World Land Trust are trying to combat. Extending irrigation, providing goats to poor families, 'modernising' agriculture, all have potentially serious damaging environmental impacts.
I don't know the answers, but I am pretty sure that the evidence of the past 50 years is that hand-outs and foreign aid do little to 'make poverty history'. They may even have caused it.
The main cause of third world poverty is surely the constant leakage of capital from the poor countries to the rich? And that is why the WLT's modus operandum is likely to be relatively effective in the long term. In essence all we are doing is providing the capital, to acquire land, the ownership of which then stays where it belongs, in its country of origin. That land cannot be sold to overseas investors, and income generated by the ownership of the land will help provide sustainable incomes for those working in and around the reserves; and protect the wildlife and biodiversity the reserves contain. It's a simple concept, but I believe it is effective and sustainable, and if we could carry out our activities on a much larger scale, then we might even be making a contribution to 'making poverty history'.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"..... one of the facts of capitalism is that the rich get richer, so inevitably, by comparison the poor get poorer..."
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that this is quite right. Usually, in capitalist societies, both the poor and the rich get richer over time.
There wouldn't be many countries like Britain where, if you are a solo parent with two children over ten and elect not to work, you can get your rent and council tax, for a 3 bedroomed house, paid in full, plus an income of £170 a week to live on. Has there been a time in the past when the poor have been better off than they are today in Britain?
" Extending irrigation, providing goats to poor families, 'modernising' agriculture, all have potentially serious damaging environmental impacts."
It's great to buy up vast tracts of land where the local fuana and flora are protected, but those same countries also have to be able to feed their people, which means devoting a large portion of their land to farming, with suitable irrigation.
"... I am pretty sure that the evidence of the past 50 years is that hand-outs and foreign aid do little to 'make poverty history'. They may even have caused it....Hand-outs from charity and foreign aid programmes demonstrably do not work ..."
You are probably right about the corruption. Recently, a guy from Nigeria was telling us this story about how the government over there got a grant worth several million Euros to build some transport infrastructure and buy buses in one of the towns. The first thing they ordered were several mercedes benz limousines to ferry themselves and their extended families around the place.
I think too, individual safety and security play a big part. Another guy, a Middle Eastern man who owns several businesses in the UK, when asked why he didn't go and set up branches in his own country, in an effort to employ people there and do his bit for his country of origin, said that, while the government there was stable, there was no security at the local level. He likened local officials in the main city where he came from to gangsters who liked to go from business to business collecting protection money. Refusing to pay and going higher up the chain for justice didn't work. Even if you succeeded, he said, and those particular officials were thrown in jail, others would soon take their place, plus you had compromised the security of your own family, who would then be threatened, injured or killed by disgruntled family members of the officials families. How can any country successfully address the poverty of its own people unless it first of all guarantees their freedom from persecution?
"I am not sure that this is quite right. Usually, in capitalist societies, both the poor and the rich get richer over time"
ReplyDeleteIn the UK this is certainly not so - the institute for Public Policy research found that the divide between rich and poor has increased in the last ten years rather than decreased
http://www.ippr.org.uk/pressreleases/?id=810
and one of the reasons that George W Bush enjoys such popular support in the US is as a result of his tax-cuts for the rich and lack of support for the poor - a fact highlighted by the abysmal response to the Katarina hurricane.
We even have the example of Roman Abramovich selling his oil assets for 7 billion pounds and buying a premier league football club - these assets belonged to the Russian people, many of whom live in poverty and will never see improvement in their lives.
At an international level; across the world organisations like the WTO exist for the avancement of richer nations, at the expense of poorer nations.
So where is there an example of a capitalist society where both rich and poor are getting richer?
"So where is there an example of a capitalist society where both rich and poor are getting richer?"
ReplyDeleteThough the gap between the rich and poor is widening as a result of neo-liberal governments I believe that trickle down occurs to a certian extent which makes the lives of the poor seem more comfortable than ever. Almost everyone owns a car or a mobile phone even if they are earning little more than the minimum wage or are on benefits. Of course in society today absolute poverty is very rare, most people are clothed, have shelter and food. However, relative poverty does exist. As said before: "one of the facts of capitalism is that the rich get richer, so inevitably, by comparison the poor get poorer."
Britian's Breadline survey:
1.10 Million people in the UK cannot afford adequate housing e.g. their home is unheated, damp, older children sharing rooms.
2.7 million go without essential clothing e.g. a warm waterproof coat
3. 2.5 Million children go without at least one of the things they need, like 3 meals a day, toys, or out of school activity
4. Around 5 million people are not properly fed by todays standards they can't afford fresh fruit, vegetables or two meals a day.
5. 6.5 Million people cann ot afford one or more typical house hold good, a fridge, a phone or carpet.
6. At least one of the necessities which make life 'worth living' - hobbies holidays, celebrations - are too expensive for 21 million people.
7. More than 31 million people live without minimal financial security. They say they cannot save £20 a month or insure their homes.
If poverty exists to this extent in Britian, what chance is there of eradicating poverty in Africa?
John,if you think you are naive by hitting the nail on the head. what you have written is what i have been thinking ever since the campaing started. I would even go further to the root of the problem and give the solution to make poverty history.
ReplyDeleteI have analysed this problem to be caused by all the oil companies. you may laugh but the richer you are the more power and influence you have over people,(the rich has many friends to poor has little)everybody wants to be rich but thats impossible under capitalism someone has to do the dirtywork, you may ask what has this got to do with the oil companies, answer is they and not the governments of the world run the planet someone mentioned the curruption in nigeria
chicken feed to what secretly goes on in well known governments, the truth is they have the answers to global poverty global warming of which they can no longer hide.they influence goverments to fund ineffective alternative rewnewable energy source such as solar panels and wind driven turbines so to have little effect on there grip on power. they have the the means of producing totally green 24/7 rewnewable energy source. but choose not to. with this machine they would raise world poverty up 3 stages (stage 3 level being roof over head, food 2meals daily, and clean water on tap)in the next 15 years.