OneWorld.net (U.S.)

Average: Select ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

Your rating: None

“In an era of global abundance, our world has the resources to reduce dramatically the massive divides that persist between rich and poor, if only those resources can be unleashed in the service of all peoples.” Kofi Annan U.N. Secretary-General

In the year 2000, world leaders at the U.N. Millennium Summit made a commitment to ending extreme poverty by 2015. This goal was to be reached by meeting eight specific targets. These “Millennium Development Goals” (MDGs) included pledges by 189 countries to ensure universal education, to reduce child mortality, to combat HIV/AIDS, and to improve maternal health, among others. The foremost goal of this ambitious agenda was to reduce by half (between 1990 and 2015) both the number of people suffering from extreme poverty and from hunger.

Coming to agreement on measuring poverty has been difficult at best, but, for the purposes of the MDGs, “extreme poverty” has come to be defined as the population living on less than $1/day. For the most part, the consensus among international institutions is that over 1 billion people (or about one in every six worldwide) subsist on such bare minimums. Those living at this level of existence have difficulties meeting even basic needs for food, shelter, or health care. They have reached a level of human suffering that is viewed by many as a moral outrage in a world of plenty. The nearly 3 billion people living on less than $2/day fare little better. Such sobering statistics have led to an unprecedented show of global support for the MDGs.

In his 2005 report on the global goals, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan noted that they were unique because they were “people-centred, time-bound, and measurable.” He added that they were different from prior commitments because they had the political support of both developed and developing countries, as well as civil society and major development institutions. While cutting extreme poverty in half worldwide may seem unachievable to some, many non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—who have been working on such issues for decades—argue that, with the knowledge and technologies that the world has at its disposal, these targets are reachable.

Progress and Setbacks

Each of the eight goals of the MDGs has measurable indicators, which are beyond the scope of this article to review. In sum, however, the U.N. reports that global poverty rates are falling and notes that hunger has been reduced by 25 percent over the past decade in some 30 countries around the world. There has also been considerable progress in many parts of the world, especially in Asia, Russia, and Latin America, in ensuring that girls’ enrolment in schools equals that of boys—a major factor in combating poverty.

The gains to tackle poverty made in parts of Asia are particularly noteworthy. The U.N. indicates that economic growth in China and India, for example, has helped to bring a quarter of a billion people out of extreme poverty. Eveline Herfkens, U.N. Coordinator of the MDG Campaign, notes that, largely because of the weight of the statistics in this region, the goal of halving extreme poverty by 2015 is technically on track. Even as some experts disagree with this optimistic assessment, most parties acknowledge that advances in Asia mask a worsening situation in other parts of the world—like in Sub-Saharan Africa—where the poor are getting poorer. A study published by the University of Cape Town reports that the number of people in extreme poverty has in fact doubled in Africa overall between 1981 and 2001, rising to over 300 million. This figure represents about one-third of the continent’s population.

Examining Income Inequality The number of poor in a country and their quality of life depend not just on per capita income, but on how equally—or unequally—income is distributed. In an article on China’s rural poor, the Washington Post reported figures released by China’s government claiming that the richest 10 percent of the population controlled 45 percent of the country’s wealth, while the poorest 10 percent held little more than 1 percent. In Brazil, adds a World Bank book called Beyond Economic Growth, the richest 20 percent of the population earns more than 30 times the poorest 20 percent. The book also cites high discrepancies in Zimbabwe, Mexico, and Russia and specifies that such excessive income inequalities can lead to both more poverty and political instability.

While chronic hunger has been on the decline globally, progress has slowed over the past few years. And, again, the picture is not uniform. Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as in parts of South Asia, has offset the gains made in East Asia, for example. The original aim of the MDGs was to see progress in every country, but, in reality, some countries have moved rapidly ahead while the situation for others has deteriorated. And, the setbacks aren’t just confined to Africa.

A June 2005 report from the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) cites slow progress in this region where 220 million people remain poor and where halving extreme poverty remains a struggle for many countries. Although citing progress in countries such as Chile, the report notes that “the poorest countries, where the population has the most trouble gaining access to food, are the ones making the least progress.” It blames high inequality in the region for this state of affairs. The Role of Aid, Trade, and Debt

While income inequalities in developing countries are a contributing factor, the reasons for poverty’s persistence are multi-faceted. And, there are plenty of competing studies to show that economic growth alone may—or may not—ensure that poverty reduction takes place. The investment climate in a country, as well as the state of its labor markets and agricultural development, all play a role. Poverty can also be exacerbated by the low status of women, the prevalence of conflict and natural disasters, and lack of education.

The Millennium Development Goals are meant to address many of these inter-related aspects of poverty. NGOs have consistently argued, however, that poverty will only become history when rich countries improve the quantity and quality of aid they provide, when trade policies don’t unduly disadvantage developing countries, and when such countries can be freed from debilitating debts.

Where aid is concerned, such assistance helps countries devastated by famine or other natural disasters, offers immunizations and treatments to millions of children suffering from preventable diseases, and provides safe drinking water to poor communities, among many other benefits. Industrialized countries have long promised to contribute 0.7 percent of their gross national product (GNP) for such assistance to developing nations. This target was set by the U.N. General Assembly in the 1960s and was reinforced by heads of state in a document called “the Monterrey Consensus” in 2002. To date, however, only a few countries in Europe have met or exceeded this target. Wealthy countries like the U.S. and Japan have refused to make firm commitments. The U.S. contributed about 0.16 percent of its GNP (now known as Gross National Income, or GNI) to development assistance in 2004. This figure is less than most Americans think does, or should, go to foreign aid. In dollar amounts, the U.S. gives more than any other country, but, as a percentage of its income, it ranks nearly last. After significant decreases in the 1990s, official development assistance from all donors has rebounded. But, overall, the rich world still hasn’t come close to meeting its 0.7 percent commitment. On the trade front, the world’s poorest countries continue to have difficulties competing internationally because of the disinclination of rich countries to open their markets to agricultural products from the developing world. Significant financial subsidies to rich country farmers give them a further advantage and drive down prices on world markets, making the fruits of poor country farmers’ labor much less profitable. Even countries like Switzerland give farm subsidies to the tune of $140 per pig and $990 per cow—compared to only $0.25 in aid per developing world person. Although concrete actions have yet to materialize, discussions about diminishing such subsidies are now taking place at the highest levels.

Finally, a substantial debt burden keeps many countries locked in a cycle of poverty. Poor countries typically spend more on interest payments than on needed social services, such as education and health care. Advocates for debt relief argue that many original debts, largely for development projects in the 60s and 70s, have already been paid several times over in interest. Due in part to years of pressure brought to bear by anti-debt activists around the world, rich countries agreed in June 2005 to cancel some $40 billion in debt owed by 18 of the world’s poorest countries. Characterized by many in the developing world and the global NGO community as a welcome first step, the deal covers only a fraction of the world’s total debt and excludes many countries in desperate need of relief if the anti-poverty goals are to be met by 2015.

See other stories in this issue on “Finding Solutions” and “Citizen Voices.”

Average: Select ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

Your rating: None