|
|
|
Expert opinion
|
|
Poverty ReductionPoverty ReductionSustainable development of the ecologically-minded post-industrialized society will be a fake if humanity will not recover from its greatest disease – poverty. As it was pointed out at the World Conference in Copenhagen in 1995, «sustainability hardly makes any sense, if it means sustainability of the wretched and miserable life possibilities. The human asperity cannot be a goal”. The industrialized epoch is the time of outrages contrasts. It gives birth to both unprecedented wealth and horrifying poverty destroying human dignity. The character of the novel “Sibilla and two nations” by B. Dizraelli, UK Prime Minister and writer of the second half of the XIX century, in his talk with a stranger mentioned: “Our Queen reigns the greatest nation in the world”. The stranger returned: “Which nation? She reigns two nations. Es, two nations which does not know mutual communication and compassion, two nations ignoring the each others’ traditions and feelings as if they were living at different parts of the world, even on different planets. Two nations that are formed through different upbringing, are fed with different food, lead different ways of life and obey different laws”. The first one indecisively asked: “Are you talking about…” “About the poor and the rich”, - concluded the stranger. “Progress and poverty” is the name of the book that became a sharp characteristic of the epoch in which popular American economist and political activist, Henry George, lived (the end of XIX century). Many of the keen and noble human minds devoted their lives to the theoretical and practical search of the way out of this blind alley. If define poverty as the absolute deprivation and the living without good food, clothes and housing, then some economists believe that it is only Japan that managed to overcome it. Other industrialized countries have blunted up to the point when poverty is regarded as not economical but social or psychological state. Lots of economists explain the poverty of the 1/3 of the African population of the USA, the most developed countries, by the social reasons (he unwillingness to fit into the dynamic modern world). The problem of the industrialized countries is the poverty, defined by different, often quiet subjective criteria. The distinction between poverty and destitution is very subtle. Even more, against the background of the people’s suffering the discussions about the terms look like bad scholasticism, nonetheless the science distinguishes them. The most common poverty criteria are unemployment and inflation. In the USA the total sum of these figures is called “poverty index”. It is drawn on the basis of he polls. This index is actively by the candidates during the pre-election battles. But the USA has hardly had any real, vast-scope anti poverty programs. He most well known program, after Roosevelt’s “new direction”, was the program of the “Great Society” by the president L. Johnson (1963-1969). The poverty problem was the central one. The ideas and main maneuvers of advancing the poverty were worked out back in the times of G. Kennedy. He theoretical base of these measures was in the transition from the ideas of “social charity” to the ideas of “investments into the human resources”. It considered educational expenses and the expenses on the re-training of the working power to be productive. L. Johnson programs involved large number of measures: from professional trainings, help to the farmers, to the missioners’ organizations like “Volunteers at America’s service”. But the results were not comforting. The reports showed that 10-14 million people still suffered from chronic hunger. There was a reduction in the number of the poor. But it was mostly due to the economically beneficial state of the market in the late 60s, than to the State programs. The “Great Society” coursed disappointment in the state social program regulation, but left the faith into the triumph of the economical and market system growth. The faith was the basis of discussions of the English conservators’ who were trying to prove their country’s moving in the well being direction. In 1958 Churchill was already proving that there no class division in Great Britain and the country already lives as “one nation”. Though the real level, or as it is called in England “standard of living” was far from such optimistic mottos. And the poor in the city slum were still not in the list of the national pride. Among the main poverty criteria in the industrial countries’ statistics is the income level per one person. The average income counts out of the factual incomes and if the family gets less than that then the family fits into the category of the poor. Another important criteria is amount of money spent on food. For instance, in 1987 in the USA the poverty line was 1/3 of the income spent on food considering price change. Exceeding this line the family falls into the category of the poor. AS for the Eastern European countries, as well as CIS and Baltic ones, the line of 1/3 is too low as such level of food expenses is quite acceptable. In many cases the state of things is much worse. The amount of money spent on food, not always of good quality comes to 60-70 and even 90% of the family budget. In the world science and in the modern sociology the poverty level is measured by the cost of living. The latter can be of two kinds: social and living (physical). The living one is counted only for the main physical needs satisfaction. The social minimum includes physical and the expenses on the minimum spiritual and social demands. As it was mentioned above the poverty can be defined as the lack of the absolute absence of the necessary amount of food, clothes and housing. Industrially developed and ex-socialistic countries have serious poverty problem. In the first ones, it is primarily the problem of the social cost of living, in the second, especially in the CIS – it is on the verge of the physical cost of living. But the most horrifying world fact is the constantly growing absolute destitute. The reports of 1987 were saying that at those times the number of people in hunger were larger than ever throughout the history. In 1980 in 87 developing countries 340 million people were not getting enough calories. In 1995 the participants of the World Forum that took place in Copenhagen, reported that one fifth of the world population still go to bed being hungry, one fourth do not have access to such a necessity as pure water and one third live in a destitute that can hardly be described. According to the World Bank report in 1993 the number of “absolutely poor” people came to 1,3 billion people. This level of poverty implies awful deprivations, this is life on the verge of death. For instance, for the absolutely poor the close source of water is a luxury. International community has succeeded in defining the qualitative and quantitative aspects of poverty, but did little progress in practical measures to overcome it. Back in 1992 in Conference held in Rio the participants stressed that the main condition for the sustainable development is the concrete strategy on poverty reduction. This strategy should simultaneously deal with the poverty reduction problems, as well as environment protection and development. It means that the strategy should concentrated on people, production and resources. In such a way, logic came to the common economical problems. Which economical development will lead to poverty distinction? For the long time the hopes were laid on the economical and market system development. Most experts say that the most effective and long-term economical development possible within market system. Planned administrative-command systems cannot provide that. The experts of the World Bank and WMF define development as a sustainable growth of the economy supported by the market and without government intervention. This concept was summarized as “market centered, profit oriented development” (Breton Wood system). The Breton Wood system was formed after the World War 2 and was functioning up to the 70s. Some of its main institutions are functioning today. The development was in progress but economical growth did not reach the main goal, it did not put an end to the poverty. If in the poverty in the developed countries can be regarded as social, in the developing countries it is still economical. That’s why formulating agenda for the XXI, it was stresses that poverty is a world problem and every country should take mutual responsibility. The main strategies proposed by Rio-1992 are the following. The first step is assistance to the economical growth, which is to be continuous and sustainable. Second step is development of the programs providing occupation and possibilities to get income by the poor strata themselves. The “XXI century Agenda” focuses mainly on the investments into “human capital” instead of social charity. People should learn to earn their living on the steady basis. For that number of authorities should be given to the local and communal groups, so that they would be responsible for the resource, taking into consideration local ecological conditions. So the main two points are economical growth and local investments. At first sight they seem quite interdependent nonetheless they represent absolutely different spheres. As M. Arruda evocatively put it “they are supported by different authorities”. Economical growth is propagandized by the governments of the North and South, large private corporations, international organizations like World Bank and WMF. Local initiatives are supported by the civil society non-governmental organizations, socially oriented Church, ecumenical movements and communities. The first group accepts programs of the structural regulation of economy, they aim to stabilize the society. They different in different but share the idea that only the free market development of the private sector can be seen as progress. The clue points of those programs are usually the following: the export expansion, economy opening to the foreign investments and goods, the decrease in the public expenses, currency devaluation, industry privatization, markets’ deregulation, limitation of the trade and investment protective measures and barriers. According to the experts estimations there is a progress even after one year of the program in application. With the economic growth the poverty will decrease, so the programs will have social effects the same as a strong medicine. Though the representatives of the social movements, NGOs believe that market oriented economic growth does not lead to the poverty reduction, but to the income concentration and environment destruction. They ask why the poor have become even poorer after years of development , help and foreign investments? The opponents again argue about the market economy development. The problem can be viewed from another point which is not centered on the economy growth but market growth. Can a classical market system deal away with poverty? Unfortunately the authors of the “XXI century Agenda” are not good at those categories and skip this problem. But smooth text listing a number of quite logical measures tends to lead us away from the problem instead of solving it. There is a problem: market system, providing economic growth and poverty. Let’s refer to the arguments of already mentioned Mr. Arruda. He is the coordinator of the World Bank NGO working group and member of the Transnational institute. According to Mr. Arruda, the growing social gap shows that development can not be simultaneously market-centered and people-centered. Market-oriented programs cannot overcome or reduce poverty as they do not deal with its roots. Macroeconomic regulations continues creating and reproducing the poverty and marginalization matrix. Compensating social projects and social investment funds can offer temporary help but not a long-term solution. M. Arruda tried to summarize the alternatives ways to approach the problem and suggested another way of regulation – people- and community-centered adjustment. This regulation is based on the equality, participation and human development. The policy of such regulation will involve several elements which are offered as new priorities for the local, national and international development. • Economic growth limits. Regulation centered on people should subdue macroeconomic figures to the macro-social ethic aims of development. Individual and social human being will be the main goal and object of the economic activity. • Overcoming the roots of poverty. People-centered regulation will be contribute to the social policy, human resources development, democracy of participation, human rights as an integrative macroeconomic policy components, and to the recognition of the government role in the socio-economic processes. • Plenary powers to the local communities. People-centered regulation will be orientated at the local economy transformation into sustainable human development through investment and credit policy which will strengthen the local industry, agriculture, services, economical and social infrastructure and home market of mass consumption. • Education for the self financing. Education should be aimed at that that every person and community could be in charge of their own lives. New local and national priorities can be the following: — the policy carries out by people and for the people within a vast democratic dialogue. — Local communities’ projects. — Increasing number of owners through the tax reforms, tax policy, employment, income growth and redistribution. — Competition regulation, oligopoly and monopoly prevention. — neatly work out programs on the economy structural regulation. — selective privatization. New international priorities should be: — overcoming of the endless debt payment circulation. — sustainable trade, — transition from the “help in development” to the “participation in development”. — lager access to the information and participation. These is the project draft that enriched the proposals of Rio-92. Granted, it would not be a a magic wand that can instantly solve the eternal human problem. But as a dicussion proposal it looks quite competent. |
|
Expert opinion
|
