CAN WE END GLOBAL POVERTY?

There is a great deal of discussion today about the goal of ending global poverty.  It is estimated that 2.5 billion of the world’s population of 6.5 billion, almost 40%, try to survive on the equivalent of two dollars per day.  Poverty is relative to place and time.  A person living in poverty (as we define it in the US) would be viewed as wealthy in many areas of the world.  Even socialistic nations such as Sweden, Norway and Denmark have some small percentage of their population living in “poverty” as they define it. 

This is clearly a complicated subject with many different factors, some of them uncontrollable, influencing the outcome of the economic system in any society or nation.  When we are talking about the outcomes for individuals we consider two major factors:  nature and nurture.  Nature refers to the genetic heritage each of us inherits from our ancestors, with nurture referring to the parental, environmental and societal factors that influence our personal development.

When we are talking about societies or nations their economic outcome is heavily influenced by the culture; that is, the sum total of the societies beliefs, language, norms of behavior, customs, rituals, and their attitudes and feelings about themselves and others. The culture any society develops is strongly determined by the way individuals in that society thinks about their relationship to the society as a whole.  Does the individual believe that he or she is exists only as a cog in the mechanism of the society, or does he or she has individual rights that the societies is dedicated to protecting, and are there property rights and the rule of law?

As economist Robert Samuelson very neatly summarizes:

“By and large, nations have either lifted themselves up or have stayed down. Societies dominated by tribal, religious, ideological or political values that disparage the qualities needed for broad-based growth will not get growth. Economic success requires a tolerance for change and inequality, some minimum level of trust -- an essential for much commerce -- and risk-taking. There are many plausible combinations of government and market power; but without the proper cultural catalysts, all face long odds.” 

Dr. Jeffery D. Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is working with the United Nations to develop plans to end poverty in the Third World within the next several decades, but the kind of changes needed to substantially reduce or eliminate poverty in these countries will require substantial cultural changes.  Changes of the required magnitude will almost certainly result in changes in the formal and informal political and economic power structures within a society, changes that generally cause social instability, unrest and conflict. 

The developed nations of the world continue to provide economic and many other types of aid to poor nations, but if real progress is to be made the culture of the recipient societies has to change if the progress is to be self-sustaining.  Changing a societies culture is a difficult and slow process that requires that thinking, feeling and behavior to change at the individual level. 

As an illustration of the power of culture in maintaining the status quo, when we lived in Belgium I made weekly trips to the UK, staying at a small hotel in the town of Arundel in Sussex.  Arundel is the seat of one of the important “peers of the realm”, the Duke of Norfolk who lives in Arundel castle.  I became friends with the owner as the result of my many visits and one night as I was sipping a pint at the bar I asked him if he had ever considered expanding the hotel since he had plenty of land to do so.  He replied that he had thought of adding a second floor to the single story structure, but in discussing it with local elected officials they replied that he could apply for a permit to expand but it would not be approved because the “Castle” would not like to see their view obstructed.  The Duke had no local legal or political power in the matter, but he was able to prevent the owner of the hotel from expanding by simply expressing his concern that his view of the surrounding countryside would be blocked by a second story on the hotel. 

 The UK has been a democracy for several hundred years, but the Duke of Norfolk was still able to exert his informal power and influence, based on a cultural system of a thousand years to stop a businessman from expanding his hotel.

 We have not been able to eliminate poverty in our own society any more that Sweden has.  This does not mean that we should stop trying, but we have to recognize the role of the individual in improving their lives.  Every society will always have individuals and families that need assistance to obtain the basic necessities of life, such as food, shelter and healthcare, but a wise society will recognize that putting programs in place that encourage individuals to become self-supporting. 

 Helping the Third World is reduce poverty and become part of the modern world is essential, but grass roots projects that provide resources to individuals and communities to help them become self-supporting and prosperous will change their lives and their cultures.