[ CHAPTER ONE | The End of Poverty ]
Ignorance is bliss. That is, until you catch a whiff of truth. At which point you’re thrown into an endless whirlwind trying to discover more of whatever that truth may be. We find this law at work in science, spirituality, and worst of all, women. I fear I’m embarking on such an adventure with looking into global poverty.
I’m probably not the first to admit I’m ignorant. Actually, I’d rather not talk about it. Suffice to say, poverty used to sit in a couple of little boxes stored away in my mind. One was labelled ‘Africa’, the other had something to do with ‘flies and no food’, but the label’s kind of been peeling away for a little while now. After a little bit of thinking, I’ve not only torn off the labels, but thrown the whole blasted box system out the window. We’re talking ladders baby, snakes and ladders.
According to Jeffrey Sachs, “economic development is a ladder with higher rungs representing steps up the path to economic well-being.” Surprisingly, those steps are more straight forward than you’d think. And once a country is on this ladder they usually keep moving on up the rungs, even if it is at a painfully slow pace. This is precisely why we’ve seen a worldwide increase in the numbers of moderate poor (those living on between US$1 and $2 per day) since the early 80s – the extreme poor are becoming the moderate poor, or to put faces on the figures, the farmers are becoming sweatshop workers. This is marked progress.
The crippling factor and crucial concern for our time is that much of the world can’t seem to get a foot on this ladder of economic development. For one reason or another, they are stuck in a rut, living from hand to mouth. They labour and work the land, but disease, hunger and bad farming practice inhibit their productivity.
Contrary to what you may have heard, for most of these people (what we call the extreme poor, those living on less than US$1 a day), economic development is within reach. A little bit of training and help, and they can grow enough produce not only for their family, but for others. The agricultural industry becomes large enough to feed the whole community. Families start providing minor goods and services. Specialisation increases. The economy grows.
It’s a glorious healing process for these ravaged lands, and maybe I’m too optimistic to believe it to be this simple. But it makes sense, doesn’t it? Have a think about history. What was the economic state of the western world like 100 years ago, and what is it like now? Fill in the gaps as to how we got to where we are and you may just surprise yourself with a workable answer to the problems of our age.
Presently, 21 year old Elliot spends most of his time volunteering for 
8 Comments
26 September, 2007 at 3:52 am
I love they way you introduced this piece, Isn’t it frustrating that just as soon as you realise that ignorance was bliss, you also realise it is now to late to go back to that blissful state
I’m looking forward to hearing what suggestions are made in this book. Somehow the idea that the economic ’snakes and ladders’ system should be the answer to the poverty problem seems a like a very western idea.
Would it really work in different cultures? Would implementing it effect culture in a dramatic way?
Take China for example, I’ve friends who lived there and spent time with university students in Beijing. One of the things that most suprised them was the way that everyone’s primary focus and goal was to make money, to get ahead in life. I wonder if 500 years ago that was the culture?
Is a desire for more wealth, to get ahead at the expense of others normal for human beings? To be honest, I don’t really know but I don’t think it is what we are called to as Christians.
Maybe all we need to do is give some people, tribes, nations a boost up on the economic ladder? But perhaps it will require a lot more sacrifice from us?
Well that’s my ‘2 cents worth’…
- James
26 September, 2007 at 11:05 am
Hi James, good thoughts.
First off, I wouldn’t so much say that the snakes and ladders system is in itself a solution, it’s more of a model that describes economic growth which, when applied, can provide insight and help us find a solution. I think if we can come to understand how economies develop then we are better placed to help them do this, pulling communities out of poverty in the process. The picture of economic development being a ladder is one way that helps with this – I’m sure there are many others.
You’re right, there is a lot of ironing out to be done with such a model. Serious questions need to be asked, like should industrialisation be the key rung developing countries aspire to grab a hold of? If a model has worked for the western world will it work for the worlds of Africa, East Asia or South Asia? And I guess, as you touched on, the big question itself, is affluence going to make anyone better off? Or put more bluntly, is it really worth it?
These are questions to wrestle with, not to disregard, which I guess is the reason I’m reading the book.
Thanks for the input, it keeps me thinking about these things from different perspectives.
9 October, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I won’t comment about the content of the post, Elliot, because Jeffrey is clearly more of an expert at African economic affairs than me.
The ‘dollar a day’ phenomenon however does rub me up the wrong way. Imposing the same economic and social paradigms to African cultures as the west leads to a wayward understanding of what problems Africa is suffering from. And please note the plural in cultures, at hundreds of millions of people across a land mass stretching across both hemispheres you’re going to get a fair few different types of people around.
And before people descry this comment, I have spent several months travelling through Africa in order to answer the question “What do Africans need?”
If only the answer could be as simple.
9 October, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Sorry, when you talk about the “‘dollar a day’ phenomenon” are you meaning the standard the World Bank uses to define what is poverty? And can you explain a little more how this leads to a “wayward understanding of what problems Africa is suffering from.” For example, what are the real problems of Africa that become overlooked?
11 October, 2007 at 10:50 am
To be honest, this sounds a lot like modernisation theory to me – the idea that every country follows the same path to economic development. In terms of development theory it was prominent in the 50’s and 60’s but basically has been rejected entirely because it’s just not true.
Every country is different – there’s no ladder.
For example, farmers becoming sweatshop workers. I think you’d struggle to argue that this was progress – it often means a major decrease in general well being even if it represents an increase in financial wellbeing. Firstly, that person may have far reduced food security due to having to purchase food (which is often far less nutritious). Secondly, they are much more vulnerable to shocks such as unemployment. Thirdly, their workload may be heavier and they’re far more at risk of injury. I know it was just an example, but it does represent the kinds of misconceptions that modernisation has known for.
I suppose the problem is, and its one you’ve noted, that this guy is an economist but poverty is a multidimensional concept.
Have a look at Wikipedia on modernisation, it might help you critique the book.
11 October, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Hey actually don’t look at Wikipedia on modernization because it’s a crap article. If you’re interested you can flick me and email and I can send you some info.
19 February, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Good thoughts on a pressing topic!
A couple of thoughts, it’s important to put the “$1 a day” into context too, remembering that living costs are significantly lower in these countries. Not to say that $1 a day will healthily equip an individual (as we know health), however things are proportional to some degree…they are definitely poor by western standards, but they do get by, somehow!
I’m slightly hesitant to accept the ideas around specialisation of business/employment for economic growth. A seemingly valid theory on paper, and there’s definitely examples to back it up; an african who set up an ‘american cookie shop’ to enable those homesick missionaries and tourists (and rich locals) to consume a quick fix of sugar, has led to a successful business. Loopholes (or should I say demands) have been spotted and filled and become beneficial to both parties…although I think the demands are very specific and perhaps minimal, as many locals do not have the need for anything more than the mere basics…and at the cheapest price possible!
(I speak of a couple of 3rd world african countries I’ve spent time in)
Agriculturally, everyone is farming, everyone is trying to sell vegetables and fruit and rice, there is sooo much produce, more than there is demand for, so few actually succeed. But where to for them? Keep plodding on? A bad season striked and they have nothing to sell, no money, where do they go? Perhaps many don’t have money to start anything other than farming…
hmmm…also size of the country is a significant factor, smaller countries are more easily managed/organised and resources can be drawn upon more readily for a bigger picture success…larger countries with no infrustructure or form of development struggle to start from scratch!!
20 July, 2008 at 8:45 pm
A man is driving in his car when he crashes into a powerpole and is flung from his car, he now lies on the road injured.
People begin to gather around and discuss how best to help the man who is hemorrhaging blood from his nose.
While they are busy discussing what the best method of assistance is, the man dies.
What is the moral of the story?
Wear your seatbelt