“In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.” – Confucius
The very first goal in the list of United Nations’ seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) declared in 2015 is: ‘End poverty in all its forms everywhere’ by the year 2030. However, with all the difficulties created by Covid-19, even the UN experts are now saying that it is highly unlikely that the world will be able to achieve not only the first one but also the other SDGs by 2030.
Poverty
Though it is understandable that the world would need a bit more time to recover from the economic and psychological shocks brought in by the pandemic, a more important inquiry would be to analyse whether any of these SDGs would have been achieved by 2030 even if there was no pandemic.
Poverty is an issue the UN and other forums have been addressing through all types of different formats such as reduction, alleviation, or eradication long before the current SDGs came into being, though without much of a success.
The first report of the ‘Implementation of the first UN’s decade for the Eradication of Poverty (1997 – 2006) was tabled at the 62nd General Assembly in 2007 and the report about the second decade discussed the activities through the period from 2008 to 2017.
A similar proposal was tabled at the 73rd General Assembly in 2018 showcasing the plan of action for poverty eradication during the period from 2018 to 2027. In addition to this sequence of ten-year plans the UN declared its Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000 with ‘Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger’ as the first goal to be achieved by the year 2015.
We are now living through the period of UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) again with ‘end poverty in all its forms everywhere’ as the first goal to be achieved by the year 2030.
Looking at the history of all these declarations and what the world has achieved in eradicating poverty over all these years one might start wondering whether these are realistic goals of sustaining the economic development without driving more and more people into poverty or their intention is to sustain this set of goals as long as they can in order to camouflage all other activities by them. More importantly, one might question the ability to reduce poverty using the same economic concepts and political frameworks of creating it.
Adam Smith first published “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” in 1776 describing the industrialised capitalist systems highlighting the societal benefits as a by-product of individual need to fulfill self-interest (invisible hand), division of labor and the importance of minimising the Governments’ interference on market activities.
Though there have been counter arguments, time to time, the world has been following what Smith preached in 1776 for almost 250 years now and still groping in the dark trying to eradicate poverty and protect the environment. Smith’s statement “The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market” referred to the geographical reach of the market area when the industrialisation was replacing the artisanal production. What in the contemporary world known as ‘trickle-down economics’ is the modern version of Smith’s ‘invisible hand’.
Income distribution
However, the IMF itself has admitted that income distribution matters even more than income inequality for growth and sustainability. It has been shown that an increase of the income share of the top 20 percent, the richest, can effectively reduce the growth of the economy in medium term contradicting the trickle-down theory.
It has also been shown that an increase of the income share of the bottom 20 percent, the poorest, fueled a higher economic growth. Economic growth refers to the increment in amount of goods and services produced by an economy, increasing real national income influencing changes in the indicators of economy in the positive direction.
The definition of poverty according to the United Nations is: “denial of choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity.
It means lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not having the land on which to grow one’s food or a job to earn one’s living, not having access to credit.
It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households, and communities. It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies living on marginal or fragile environments, without access to clean water or sanitation.”
The World Bank updated its definition of ‘extreme poverty’, in 2017, as living with an income less than US$ 1.90 a day which amounts to about LKR 377 today. Therefore, when a Government of a country or organisations such as the UN refers to reducing poverty what that means is to reduce the number of people whose average daily income is less than US$ 1.90.
Even if a person’s income (which is below the poverty line at present) increases tenfold, would that strengthen his basic capacity to participate effectively in society? Would it make him someone who does not fit into the UN’s definition of poverty? Is income the only factor influencing the conditions such as: ‘insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households, and communities, susceptibility to violence, and living on marginal or fragile environments’ stated in UN’s definition of poverty?
Why haven’t the measures taken by Governments and international organisations worked as expected so far? Can there be a fundamental flaw in the framework within which the world is trying to solve these problems?
Economics
Economics, as a subject, is being taught around the world as the field of study that analyses possible methods of managing limited resources while satisfying unlimited needs and wants of human beings. Is there a way to raise the awareness of human beings to a level where they would understand that it is not their needs and wants but their greed that is unlimited?
There is enough in the world for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed. Is it possible to introduce a field of study that would analyse most effective methods of fulfilling humans’ limited needs and wants using not only the limited physical resources but also unlimited spiritual resources humans either already have or have the potential to grow?
Is it possible to increase the awareness of people about their responsibilities and contributions towards economic growth and poverty reduction in their own neighborhoods, in the country and in the world?
In addition to the awareness of their own responsibilities, what are people’s understandings and the expectations of contribution from parents in establishing ethical and moral standards in their children, educators in making learners aware of economic and social concepts, religious leaders in making people aware of the importance of developing compassion into their perception of the ‘path to success and happiness’ and policy makers in understanding the importance of their role in creating a just society which would encourage the participation and contribution of each and every member of the society with their compassionate and innovative thinking about how to achieve a sustainable economic growth that would keep reducing poverty instead of increasing the income gap and destroying the environment.
Creating poverty and polluting environment are the worst forms of violence and that is perhaps why Ban Ki-moon, the 8th Secretary General of the United Nations itself said: “Saving our planet, lifting people out of poverty, and advancing economic growth; these are one and the same fight.
The writer has served in the higher education sector as an academic over twenty years in the USA and fifteen years in Sri Lanka and he can be contacted at [email protected]