Make Poverty History
January 31, 2005 2:51 AM Subscribe
MakePovertyHistory. "The gap between the worlds’s rich and poor has never been wider. Malnutrition, AIDS, conflict and illiteracy are a daily reality for millions."
This seems like an interesting endeavour, with people like Nelson Mandela involved, as well. I'm a bit of a cynic about this because one of the biggest endorsements has come from Gordon Brown. He's a known quantity, and I wonder if this is another P.R. run to bolster his international credentials.
Oh, and there's a possibility it could be blocked before it gathers enough steam -- so much for Soft Power.
Malnutrition, AIDS, conflict and illiteracy are a daily reality for millions.
and wearing white wristbands and throwing more money at africa is going to change this.
if nelson mandela wants to so something about poverty and AIDS he should be speaking out against mugabe in zimbabwe and mbeki in hs own country instead of begging for coin in london.
we can't expect gordon brown to the challenge south african president's absurd views on AIDS. maybe he shares mandela's applause for robert mugabe as well.
posted by three blind mice at 3:24 AM on January 31, 2005
and wearing white wristbands and throwing more money at africa is going to change this.
if nelson mandela wants to so something about poverty and AIDS he should be speaking out against mugabe in zimbabwe and mbeki in hs own country instead of begging for coin in london.
we can't expect gordon brown to the challenge south african president's absurd views on AIDS. maybe he shares mandela's applause for robert mugabe as well.
posted by three blind mice at 3:24 AM on January 31, 2005
People are suckers for ribbons ("Look! I'm good! And fashionable! And I have more ribbons that you do!") and I hope all good charities continue to take advantage of their vanity and acquisitiveness.
"2005 is the year of the white band" -- I guess they'll have to be a little more selective if they plan on recording one of those "We Are The World" things. Bruce? Check. Stevie? Uh... not this year, dude.
posted by pracowity at 3:53 AM on January 31, 2005
"2005 is the year of the white band" -- I guess they'll have to be a little more selective if they plan on recording one of those "We Are The World" things. Bruce? Check. Stevie? Uh... not this year, dude.
posted by pracowity at 3:53 AM on January 31, 2005
I don't think you "know" your "known quantity". Brown is a very old-school leftist son of the manse Scottish type of socialist. Doing this, and meaning it seriously, is exactly the sort of thing he would do. Doing something for the PR of it absolutely isn't.
Ignoring the hornet's nest of Mbeki-on-Aids is prudent too, unless you think curing all the world's ills at one swoop is achievable.
posted by bonaldi at 4:19 AM on January 31, 2005
Ignoring the hornet's nest of Mbeki-on-Aids is prudent too, unless you think curing all the world's ills at one swoop is achievable.
posted by bonaldi at 4:19 AM on January 31, 2005
Let me second what bonaldl said: Brown has been sidling up towards the global poverty remediation thing for several years now, and seems to view it as his personal long term goal. This isn't a sudden populist flash in the pan triggered by his desire to replace Blair -- although he's clearly the strongest contender for next Labour Prime Minister.
Also note that the other logical career progression for Brown -- once he leaves 11 Downing Street -- and one that's been openly talked about for a year or so now, is head of the World Bank. Which could be very interesting indeed ...
posted by cstross at 4:31 AM on January 31, 2005
Also note that the other logical career progression for Brown -- once he leaves 11 Downing Street -- and one that's been openly talked about for a year or so now, is head of the World Bank. Which could be very interesting indeed ...
posted by cstross at 4:31 AM on January 31, 2005
I realise Brown is bit more more to left than Tony, but that's not saying much.
I just wonder if there really is an ulterior motive here. I think it's a decent effort and I hope it pans out, but if it becomes a half-arsed PR job to keep his profile up then I'm afraid the only real hope for a New Labour redemption may be lost -- that's all.
posted by gsb at 4:38 AM on January 31, 2005
I just wonder if there really is an ulterior motive here. I think it's a decent effort and I hope it pans out, but if it becomes a half-arsed PR job to keep his profile up then I'm afraid the only real hope for a New Labour redemption may be lost -- that's all.
posted by gsb at 4:38 AM on January 31, 2005
I also have to agree with bonaldi with regard to Brown's stance on Mbeki and Mugabe (ie not to say anything). If you read around concerning African responses to any potential 'Marshall Plan for Africa' you will see that there are already accusations of paternalism and concerns about neo-colonialism. Dictating behaviour to African states is only going to make things more difficult and increase the barriers to actually assisting people to climb out out of poverty
posted by biffa at 4:42 AM on January 31, 2005
posted by biffa at 4:42 AM on January 31, 2005
Dictating behaviour to African states is the standard right now. Structural Adjustment Programs have determined things like how much money governments can spend on health care and education, and have been central in trying to force countries like Ghana to privatize their water supply.
Debt relief and trade equity are very reasonable approaches to eliminating poverty. three blind mice, I agree about the white armbands, but not the "throwing more money at africa." Most international aid goes to strategically important countries: sub-Saharan Africa doesn't get all that much proportionately. Also, debt loads and trade barriers account for a huge amount of poverty. We could eliminate those and Africa could help itself (for perspective, many African countries have already paid back around 5 times the principle of their original debts).
"Much of the debt accumulated by African countries was built up during the 1970s, a time of reckless lending by banks and international agencies, and was agreed to by undemocratic governments."
posted by carmen at 6:17 AM on January 31, 2005
Debt relief and trade equity are very reasonable approaches to eliminating poverty. three blind mice, I agree about the white armbands, but not the "throwing more money at africa." Most international aid goes to strategically important countries: sub-Saharan Africa doesn't get all that much proportionately. Also, debt loads and trade barriers account for a huge amount of poverty. We could eliminate those and Africa could help itself (for perspective, many African countries have already paid back around 5 times the principle of their original debts).
"Much of the debt accumulated by African countries was built up during the 1970s, a time of reckless lending by banks and international agencies, and was agreed to by undemocratic governments."
posted by carmen at 6:17 AM on January 31, 2005
carmen if african debt relief was anything other than a perquisite for borrowing more money, you might have a point. as gordon brown knows the key to opening the IMF vault (and acquiring the power of that purse) is the improved balance sheet that debt relief provides.
it seems to me that corrupt governments and inefficient bureaucracies are the root of africa's problems, not a lack of money. money exacerbates the problem. isn't this what past lending has shown?
posted by three blind mice at 7:02 AM on January 31, 2005
it seems to me that corrupt governments and inefficient bureaucracies are the root of africa's problems, not a lack of money. money exacerbates the problem. isn't this what past lending has shown?
posted by three blind mice at 7:02 AM on January 31, 2005
That's way debt relief has to be coupled with fair trading conditions. For every $1 rich nations spend in aid, poor nations loose $14 in trade restrictions. Rich nations benefit from aid far more than poor nations do.
From the original site, Trade Justice:
"What are they doing?
Between them, they're forcing poor countries to open up their markets to foreign imports and businesses, and sell off public services like electricity - even when this isn't in their interest. They're also banning poor countries from supporting vulnerable farmers and industries, while wealthy nations continue to support their own.
All this is being done in the name of 'liberalisation' - and 'free trade' or leaving things to market forces.
The fall out
...
Governments are losing control of basic public services, as they're snapped up by profit-hungry investors. And workforces are being cynically plundered for cheap labour by powerful, under-regulated transnational companies, leaving thousands open to abuse and exploitation.
What can we do?
It's simple really, change the rules. Now.
It's an obvious solution - challenge and change the rules so they work for poor countries. Re-write them in favour of the poorest countries so they can develop, build their own industries, grow stronger, and one day compete as equals.
Rich countries used trade rules to protect themselves as they developed - which is how they got where they are now. We consider it fair to use trade rules to end world poverty as we know it."
(me again, sorry for the long quote but it seemed pertinent) It's true that they are also asking for "More and Better" aid, but the focus is on better: i.e. targeting aid towards the needs of poor people rather than to economic market reform. If you did all three in concert: debt forgiveness, trade equity, and better aid, then it is conceivable that the better aid would be a temporary solution that would fill the gap while African economies recovered and made use of new opportunities.
posted by carmen at 7:25 AM on January 31, 2005
From the original site, Trade Justice:
"What are they doing?
Between them, they're forcing poor countries to open up their markets to foreign imports and businesses, and sell off public services like electricity - even when this isn't in their interest. They're also banning poor countries from supporting vulnerable farmers and industries, while wealthy nations continue to support their own.
All this is being done in the name of 'liberalisation' - and 'free trade' or leaving things to market forces.
The fall out
...
Governments are losing control of basic public services, as they're snapped up by profit-hungry investors. And workforces are being cynically plundered for cheap labour by powerful, under-regulated transnational companies, leaving thousands open to abuse and exploitation.
What can we do?
It's simple really, change the rules. Now.
It's an obvious solution - challenge and change the rules so they work for poor countries. Re-write them in favour of the poorest countries so they can develop, build their own industries, grow stronger, and one day compete as equals.
Rich countries used trade rules to protect themselves as they developed - which is how they got where they are now. We consider it fair to use trade rules to end world poverty as we know it."
(me again, sorry for the long quote but it seemed pertinent) It's true that they are also asking for "More and Better" aid, but the focus is on better: i.e. targeting aid towards the needs of poor people rather than to economic market reform. If you did all three in concert: debt forgiveness, trade equity, and better aid, then it is conceivable that the better aid would be a temporary solution that would fill the gap while African economies recovered and made use of new opportunities.
posted by carmen at 7:25 AM on January 31, 2005
Seems like corporatism disguised as international "aid" is the problem here, not that third world countries are irresponsible.
Sometimes governments need to have control of certain industries/utilities in order to serve the public good instead of corporate profit.
posted by nofundy at 8:10 AM on January 31, 2005
Sometimes governments need to have control of certain industries/utilities in order to serve the public good instead of corporate profit.
posted by nofundy at 8:10 AM on January 31, 2005
"The gap between the worlds’s rich and poor has never been wider. Malnutrition, AIDS, conflict and illiteracy are a daily reality for millions."
Is this claim founded? Something tells me it's been worse.
posted by knave at 8:48 AM on January 31, 2005
Is this claim founded? Something tells me it's been worse.
posted by knave at 8:48 AM on January 31, 2005
Knave, a dollar a day is not an exageration for many.
In any case, things could be a lot better for a lot of people.
posted by pwedza at 10:55 AM on January 31, 2005
In any case, things could be a lot better for a lot of people.
posted by pwedza at 10:55 AM on January 31, 2005
carmen, good points all.
the generous farm subsidies in the US and Europe severly distort markets against developing nations.
there is a report somewhere that says the average french cow receives more in farm support per day from the EU than 2/3s of the african population lives on.
raising money for africans might be easier than defeating french and american farmers.
posted by three blind mice at 11:44 AM on January 31, 2005
the generous farm subsidies in the US and Europe severly distort markets against developing nations.
there is a report somewhere that says the average french cow receives more in farm support per day from the EU than 2/3s of the african population lives on.
raising money for africans might be easier than defeating french and american farmers.
posted by three blind mice at 11:44 AM on January 31, 2005
thanks, three blind mice. Ironically, I spent all of today preparing a presentation on small farmer resistance to vertical integration, and one thing I'm learning is that not all industrial-world farm subsidies are created equal. The poorest farms get the fewest subsidies, while the large, integrated agri-corps reap in over 60% of subsidies in some places. It has a lot to do with the fact that subsidies were designed in a period when industrial farming was rare, and they have not be sufficiently redesigned.
It would be cool to see rules change so that truly small scale farmers in both the East and West (or South and North) have a shot at competing with the agri-corps. I think a co-ordinated effort to help impoverished farmers everywhere would have a better chance at success (although agri-corps are certainly going to protest losing those sweet, sweet subsidies).
posted by carmen at 3:42 PM on January 31, 2005
It would be cool to see rules change so that truly small scale farmers in both the East and West (or South and North) have a shot at competing with the agri-corps. I think a co-ordinated effort to help impoverished farmers everywhere would have a better chance at success (although agri-corps are certainly going to protest losing those sweet, sweet subsidies).
posted by carmen at 3:42 PM on January 31, 2005
knave: Is this claim founded? Something tells me it's been worse.
I was thinking exactly the same. While I agree we can and should do something about ending poverty now, I think this is an interesting historical question. So I looked into it.
For example, in England in the early Middle Ages, royalty had a life expectancy of 50 years, while they still haven't found a single buried peasant who lived past 45. Link for more info. Let's say the average peasant lived to be 35. That's 43% longer life expectancy if you're wealthy.
Today the life expectancy in Japan (the highest in the world) is 82 years. On the other end of the scale we have Zambia at 32 years. That's 156% longer life expectancy if you're wealthy.
I'd be the first to admit that comparing these two percentages is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. But they do give us hint that it may be true that the gap is bigger now than ever before, a conclusion which frankly surprised me a little.
posted by Triplanetary at 5:15 PM on January 31, 2005
I was thinking exactly the same. While I agree we can and should do something about ending poverty now, I think this is an interesting historical question. So I looked into it.
For example, in England in the early Middle Ages, royalty had a life expectancy of 50 years, while they still haven't found a single buried peasant who lived past 45. Link for more info. Let's say the average peasant lived to be 35. That's 43% longer life expectancy if you're wealthy.
Today the life expectancy in Japan (the highest in the world) is 82 years. On the other end of the scale we have Zambia at 32 years. That's 156% longer life expectancy if you're wealthy.
I'd be the first to admit that comparing these two percentages is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. But they do give us hint that it may be true that the gap is bigger now than ever before, a conclusion which frankly surprised me a little.
posted by Triplanetary at 5:15 PM on January 31, 2005
Good for knave and Triplanetary for examining the claim: "The gap between rich and poor is greater than ever," rather than just accepting it at face value. (It's a claim I've heard elsewhere as well.) Here's the question: Does that 'gap' mean the poor are poorer than ever, or that the wealthy are wealthier than ever?
We hear the same thing about the stagnating US standard of living. Yet, many products are more available and actually cheaper than ever. Maybe our standard of living truly is stagnating, but there are also mitigating circumstances that are rarely mentioned. We (probably) won't die of polio or smallpox, or the plague. We can live further away from our jobs (read: cheaper rents) because of public transportation. Etc.
We live in a world where we have more powerful tools for alleviating poverty than ever before. I'm allergic to 'the world is going to hell because you don't care' hype, but I don't want anyone to starve, either. I do have reason for pause when I see something like 'end poverty by putting this sticker on your site.' I mean, I'd rather raise money for the homeless shelter down the street. Or head down and feed people myself, or mop up after them. There's something more substantial and less self-serving about that. But that's just my take on it.
We do have an inequitable distribution of wealth. A substantial portion of that is due to waste, greed, arrogance, and other human failings. We should indeed strive to be our brother's keeper. I'm more concerned about that than I am about what someone might think about me if I DON'T jump on the latest high-profile charity bandwagon.
posted by humannature at 6:22 PM on January 31, 2005
We hear the same thing about the stagnating US standard of living. Yet, many products are more available and actually cheaper than ever. Maybe our standard of living truly is stagnating, but there are also mitigating circumstances that are rarely mentioned. We (probably) won't die of polio or smallpox, or the plague. We can live further away from our jobs (read: cheaper rents) because of public transportation. Etc.
We live in a world where we have more powerful tools for alleviating poverty than ever before. I'm allergic to 'the world is going to hell because you don't care' hype, but I don't want anyone to starve, either. I do have reason for pause when I see something like 'end poverty by putting this sticker on your site.' I mean, I'd rather raise money for the homeless shelter down the street. Or head down and feed people myself, or mop up after them. There's something more substantial and less self-serving about that. But that's just my take on it.
We do have an inequitable distribution of wealth. A substantial portion of that is due to waste, greed, arrogance, and other human failings. We should indeed strive to be our brother's keeper. I'm more concerned about that than I am about what someone might think about me if I DON'T jump on the latest high-profile charity bandwagon.
posted by humannature at 6:22 PM on January 31, 2005
I think that one of the ways they get these figures is by GDP per capita. The GDP per capita has shrunk for many African countries since independence while it has grown for many rich countries.
Third world poverty is very real, although it doesn't usually look like what you see on a World Vision commercial. When I was in Africa, everyone I saw there worked. It was a month or so before I realized that not everyone who worked was also getting paid.
The cost of living was obviously much cheaper, but there were things that we don't even consider paying for like elementary education, that were real financial burdens for many Africans. I saw lots of signs of malnutrition in children and also signs of having survived childhood starvation among adults (like bow-leggedness).
When I first got to Africa, I was surprised to see that the poverty didn't seem as devestating as I had expected. But as I got to know the country I was in better, I came to recognize that many things that offer security here don't offer security there.
I've studied African history and international development, and between that and my experience in Africa I am convinced that initiatives to help the third world are necessary and deserved. We (the West) are culpable in at least some of the poverty that exists now, and we need, at the very least, to even the global playing field.
All that said, I share the general suspicion expressed in this thread about the value of charitable and aid initiatives. So many well-meaning charities and aid programs are poorly planned and result in failure. The Make Poverty History initiative is worth keeping an eye on: they recognize that aid won't get better without policy change and they also recognize that aid has been poorly organized in the past. Thanks to gsb for pointing it out. I think that's about all I can muster to say about aid, so I'll leave it to you-all from here.
posted by carmen at 7:50 PM on January 31, 2005
Third world poverty is very real, although it doesn't usually look like what you see on a World Vision commercial. When I was in Africa, everyone I saw there worked. It was a month or so before I realized that not everyone who worked was also getting paid.
The cost of living was obviously much cheaper, but there were things that we don't even consider paying for like elementary education, that were real financial burdens for many Africans. I saw lots of signs of malnutrition in children and also signs of having survived childhood starvation among adults (like bow-leggedness).
When I first got to Africa, I was surprised to see that the poverty didn't seem as devestating as I had expected. But as I got to know the country I was in better, I came to recognize that many things that offer security here don't offer security there.
I've studied African history and international development, and between that and my experience in Africa I am convinced that initiatives to help the third world are necessary and deserved. We (the West) are culpable in at least some of the poverty that exists now, and we need, at the very least, to even the global playing field.
All that said, I share the general suspicion expressed in this thread about the value of charitable and aid initiatives. So many well-meaning charities and aid programs are poorly planned and result in failure. The Make Poverty History initiative is worth keeping an eye on: they recognize that aid won't get better without policy change and they also recognize that aid has been poorly organized in the past. Thanks to gsb for pointing it out. I think that's about all I can muster to say about aid, so I'll leave it to you-all from here.
posted by carmen at 7:50 PM on January 31, 2005
« Older 37 degrees of separation | stems cells-->neurons Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by panoptican at 3:12 AM on January 31, 2005