[ CHAPTER TWO | The End of Poverty ]
Borders are funny things. Aside from the various ceremonies conducted at them, the idea that an imaginary line defines one nation, one law, and one people, from another is a little absurd. And to think of the patriotism and passion that this imaginary line can arouse in a person. Consider the historical divide between India and Pakistan; geographically metres away, but at times relationally worlds apart. And I need not remind you of what happens when different countries meet on the sports field, even if they are from opposite sides of the world.
Recently, a friend of mine has been experiencing this divide first hand. In a post chronicling his trip to Mexico and the USA, my flatmate and daily-routine buddy, Scottie Reeve, wrote the following: “Grass and vegetation in the slums is non-existent, yet only half an hour across the border suburban lawns sprout lush crops of green grass. I’ve spent time in crowded homes which stench with the smell of many people, yet in the same day walked through air-conditioned shopping centres which seem to stretch for acre upon acre.”
Isn’t that absurd? I wonder, how close do the poor have to become before we begin to experience compassion? Another continent, a few kilometres across the border, or on our doorstep?
What I’ve been learning as I read through The End of Poverty is that until two hundred years ago geographical borders were not also lines of wealth. Everybody was poor. Whether it be India, Pakistan, America, Mexico, New Zealand, France, or Africa. By today’s standards, even with purchasing power parity adjustment, we were all in the same boat.
What two hundred years, agricultural breakthrough, coal, the steam engine, and industrialisation can do to a country eh? Starting in Britain, due to a number of key conditions, modern economic growth swept throughout the western world. Since 1820, world population increased six-fold. Gross world product increased forty-nine fold. Western Europe’s per capita income increased fifteen-fold, and the US twenty-five-fold. We’re talking enough exponential graphs to make a stats teacher go dizzy.
Sure, all regions have experienced growth in the last two centuries. Just some countries have experienced higher and more consistent growth. And over that period of time consistency counts for a lot. A difference of 1% per year can propel one country to the heights of economic glory, leaving other nations catching their breath in an attempt to chase them down. It’s exactly the same principle as compound interest, just with a lot more money.
So, the question remains, why the rocket increase in some areas, but not others? As Jeffrey Sachs puts it, “The crucial puzzle for understanding today’s vast inequalities, therefore, is to understand why different regions of the world have grown at different rates during the period of modern economic growth.”
Your thoughts?
Presently, 21 year old Elliot spends most of his time volunteering for 
Hi me again.
My thoughts are:
1. Unequal power relationships
2. Colonisation and decolonisation
Plus lots of other things, but those two would be the majors.
And maybe 3. Debt and 4. Structural Adjustment
I am thinking that it is also relevant on a microscale in Wellington. Check out the process of gentrification where rich mobile middle/upper class couples are buying apartments and houses in Newtown, yet you have the slums of the Council Houses just around the corner.
I was also aware of this in London. I went to Lords with a mate and we were an hour early for a tour so we went to find some lunch first. You think that Lords is an upper class rich man’s place. You should’ve seen the dive of an area so close to the home of cricket.
Similarly I stayed with my cousin in Leytonstone, East London (where David Beckham comes from). You feel uneasy walking the streets, you don’t see many white people and there are heaps of incidents around the tube station. One tube stop (2minutes away) in Wanstead and there is open space, posh Brits and wide quiet streets.
Don’t get me started on social class. I did my third year human geography on the topic using Christchurch as a case study. I have a passion for it! University week long field trips are character building, but unlike our physical geography counterparts we had to go to towns and cities.
It’s a possibility that the entire economic ‘growth’ paradigm that predominates in international relations, and through which we seek to resolve the dilemmas of our world… poverty and the host of other injustices, may be flawed.
Does ‘growth’ really mean that we can all be happy, healthy and wealthy? Logic seems a little simpler that that. We buy, they don’t; we buy for less, they eat less.
I reckon the intellectuals of our world have created a complex fix-it equation that masks the real power dynamics going on!
Still, more are getting poorer!
Scotty – I guess, considering the microscale examples you gave, my first question is how in need are those that live just down the road from us in the relative luxury of the Goatshed? Though need is a tough thing to quantify, are we talking I’ve got a 60GB iPod and they’ve got a 30GB, or are we talking a daily struggle to put food on the table? If the latter, why do we not know about it? Or do we just choose not to listen?
Sarah – I’m not sure I agree that the intellectuals of the world have a fix-it equation for the problems of the world. That would imply they also have a solution, but the present state of the world argues otherwise. Nonetheless, I’m interested to hear your thoughts on what the real root of the problem is.
Oh totally, I didn’t mean to suggest that.. At the end of the day I reckon our world’s probs can be traced simply (or complexly)
to human nature and corruption.
As a side point though, I do wonder if many of the “intellectual” discussions and ideas (that feature prominently at the high-level diplomatic relations) are in vain and have limited usefulness, other than to legitimise the acts of the powerful.
But those comments are prob a bit random because I know that Sach’s has many revolutionary ideas and (although its been a while since I’ve read his work) he is prob more of an activist than many others…
Ya post got me a bit inspired about poverty! I’ll try bring a more informed approach next time
This is actually rose, i’m using my generous flatmate’s comp. Thanks andy.
Just a thought about your comment on the huge change in the western world since 1820 and how you mention that around 200 years ago everyone was poor.
You seem to mean poor in materialistic terms of what we have today compared to what little they people had back then, and there certainly is a massive change. But i consider the people who lived 200 years ago to have a far richer community and they probably had minimal, if non-existent, suicide rates. When people are materialistically poor they need the community around them far more and that is were i consider true riches to exist.
Just a thought.
Rose
I guess the most interesting aspect of your thought process is looking back 200 years everyone was poor.
Well given the current shift in global economies it wouldnt be too much of a stretch to say that that time may yet come back.
Stagflation for western economies generally means we as citizens and consumers are royally stuffed, cause no matter how we approach things the cost of surviving will be outpacing any potential growth we may get in our jobs, and that mixed with our debt ridden society the equalisation to debt netural will be incredibly painful for everyone!
It all means we should get along better with one another to share the burden, as having wide seperation between have’s and have not’s is not beneficial to anyone.