STWR has launched a new website:
This older website is no longer being updated and is due to be closed down within the next few weeks.
All of STWR’s own content has been transferred to the new website, but most of the third-party content currently on the old site will soon be unavailable.
If you have any questions, contact firstname.lastname@example.org
|Fighting Poverty: A Global Challenge|
A new system should be created that is totally focused on social relief and justice, not pandering to the calls of the profit-driven private sector capitalist market that permeates the present world, says Dr David Hill.
4th September 08 - Patricia Khashayar interviews Dr David Hill, Press TV
The following is an interview with the Executive Director of World Innovation Foundation Charity (WIFC), Dr. David Hill, on poverty and its causes.
Q. Poverty has become a global challenge, affecting nearly all world countries, what are the main causes of this international problem?
A. According to Mollie Orshansky who developed the poverty
measurements for the US government, "to be poor is to be deprived of
those goods and services and pleasures which others around us take for
But this is a sedate definition for the majority of the worlds poor
and where in the developing world can one consider poverty to be a
daily battle just for human survival.
That is the big difference in perceptions here between the rich
capitalistic west and around half the population of the world. I can
tell you now that things will not get any better by continuing to adopt
the 'West's' capitalist system to defeat poverty in the developing East
and where it will cause immense harm both in human misery and global
The reason I say this is really common sense, for as the population
of the world increases to between 9 billion and 12.5 billion people by
2050, and as the world's basic natural resources to sustain life
dwindles to an acute situation, wars are inevitable under the dictum of
the capitalist market system.
In this respect, nations only go to war basically for economic
reasons if you read into the causes of wars and the underlying
objectives for those who started them. The first and second world wars
were economic wars and the latter was definitely fuelled by poverty in
Germany and the imperialistic aspirations of Japan (economics, in other
Therefore, the right economic mechanisms will either destroy the human experience forever or allow the human experience to live on for thousands of millenniums to come. But I have to say that most probably, this greatest decision of human existence will be determined in this present century as the effect of depleting non-renewable natural resources meets head on with 9-12.5 billion people to be fed, clothed and housed.
Q. Many international organizations and companies have attempted to fight poverty and improve the quality of life in the world, what do you think of such approaches? How successful have these efforts been?
A.Overall and presently, the World Bank, the IMF and IFC
have failed the world's poor and in doing so, have hardly improved the
lives of half the population of the world. Indeed, these institutions
have impoverished the world's poor through un-repayable national debts
with their massive repayments structures that alleviate nothing.
For all-in-all, the post application process of the Bretton Wood's
thinking has totally failed the poor of the world and where the
executing institutions need abolishing and replacing with ones that in
the future have successful outcomes. This is where a new system should
be created and totally focused on social relief and justice, not
pandering to the calls of the profit driven private sector capitalist
market that permeates the present world.
For as Friends-of-the-Earth state, "The World Bank Group has
steadily increased its support of the private sector over the years and
its private sector lending arm, the International Finance Corporation
(IFC), is an increasingly important facilitator of private investment
in the developing world. A part of the World Bank Group whose mission
as a development institution is to promote development and alleviate
poverty, IFC's lending to the private sector is often at odds with this
To put poverty into perspective, it pervades all countries both rich and poor.
Q. Could you provide us with some statistics showing the prevalence of this global issue? How many countries are affected by it?
A. In this respect, I give hereafter a mere present-day
snapshot of the global problem relative to poverty and where all
nations suffer from this iniquity. Therefore the capitalist system
according to current information available does not work in the
interests of the elimination of poverty and where therefore a better
system has to be found, and quickly!
Unfortunately, this highly needed 'change' thinking will not come from the present 'establishment/status quo' thinking of the 20th century economic class, but from 'independent' revolutionary thinking of this present century.
1.World Poverty- According to the World Bank, in 2008 there
are still 987 million people living on US $1 a day or around 15 percent
of the world's population. Adding to this, a further 2 billion people
still live on US $2 dollars a day that combined together equate to 45
percent of the world's population. But taking into account inflation
since the 1 and 2 dollar arbitrary poverty line was introduced by World
Bank economist Martin Ravallion, poverty has not declined in real terms
and is in fact increasing.
This is indifference to what the World Bank et al are telling the world. In this respect, a dollar today is only worth 55 percent of what it was in 1998 or the equivalent present day worth of US $1.82. Therefore, the primary statistics released by the World Bank with regard to poverty are totally flawed and very wide off the mark. Considering this therefore, global poverty is far greater today than it was a mere decade ago and the trends are not encouraging for the future.
2. USA- According to Education News Colorado on 18th June
2008, more kids are now living in poverty than in 2000, but more
alarmingly they now live at extreme levels of poverty.
According to the author JS Hacker in his book, "The great risk shift: The new insecurity and the decline of the American dream", 58.5 percent, of all Americans will spend at least one year beneath the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75.
Thirty-seven million Americans live in poverty according to the US Census Bureau, the "Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage Report" for 2007, US Census Bureau, 26th August 2008 (quoted by Press TV on 27th August 2008).
3. Pakistan- According to the Asian Development Bank in its report of August 2008, the number of poor in Pakistan grew since 1999 from 32 percent of the population to 40 percent of the population in 2002.
4. Chile- According to the Inter-American Bank of Development's report of August 2008, food prices internationally were up 68 percent between January 2007 and March 2008 and where if food prices remain high in Chile, the nation's poverty rate will increase from 12.3 percent to 17.2 percent.
5. Peru- Due to high international food prices poverty will rise from 44.2 to 49.5 percent of the population according to the August 2008 report by the Inter-American Bank of Development.
6. Canada- A report in late 2007 by The United Way of Greater Toronto stated that 30 percent of Toronto families, amounting to about 93,000 households, were living in poverty. A similar study in 1990 showed that about 16 percent of families were in the same situation and therefore a 14 percent increase in a mere 17 years.
7. Mexico- Latin American News Agency quoted on 18th August 2008 that 8 million additional Mexicans had been pushed into poverty over the last two years due to the soaring fuel prices and their impact on food prices. At least 18.5 million Mexicans now live in extreme poverty.
8. Scotland, UK- More than 1million Scottish households will face fuel poverty before the end of the year after two energy firms announced huge increases in the price of gas and electricity - Media comment on 22nd August 2008.
9. United Kingdom-There are 900,000 more people living in severe poverty than there were in 1997. The gap in infant mortality between the poorest and richest households has grown - George Osborne, Conservative Party shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, August 2008.
10. India- In July 2008 after the collapse of the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations, India's commerce minister Kamal Nath stated that India is a country where 700 million people live on a maximum of 2 dollars a day and where 300 million people of these live on 1 dollar a day, equating together to 87 percent of the total population of India.
11. China- Although China has gone through an unprecedented economic miracle, achieved in a single generation, there are still 300 million Chinese living on a maximum of USD2 a day and 2/3rds of this number on only USD1 a day - BBC interview late 2007.
Q. How has Globalization influenced poverty? Has it succeeded in overcoming the problem or has it worsened the situation?
A. Indeed, according to the environmental activist Lorna
Salzman, for the millions squatting in hovels daily (over 1 billion
people), they derive NOTHING from globalization. It is infuriating to
realize that globalization is a total scam for the vast majority of the
In terms of the poor and what a capitalist predicts for their
future, James D. Wolfensohn stated in 1999 when he was President of the
World Bank, that out of the 6 billion people living on our planet, 3
billion live on less than two dollars a day. By the end of the next
fifteen years (2015), these will be 4 billion out of 8 billion (living
on the same amount). In other words, the UN's Millennium Development
Goals of halving poverty by 2015 was defunct before it even began.
These two statements in many ways say everything to me in terms of
future world poverty adopting the dictates of capitalism, as we have on
the one hand the environmental activist and on the other hand the head
of the institution that is charged to reduce poverty. Both say
basically that capitalism and globalization will do nothing for the
poor, other than to further impoverish them or keep the status quo.
But overall I have made some basic observations:
1. Capitalism harnesses self-interest in a helpful and sustainable
way but only for those who can pay. The poor therefore have no part in
this inequitable system.
2. Capitalism increases inequality. In modern times, China and India are experiencing this social problem already.
3. Capitalism is a system that uses people to make a very small minority rich beyond their wildest dreams and a world that suffers through that process. Indeed, although capitalism gives the people a wage, it has no real human conscience and where people are always at the whims of the rich who employ them. As world population grows and the Earth's natural finite resources depletes forever, one does not have to be an Einstein to see that the present capitalist system will eventually fail human development with catastrophic effects.
the capitalist system has made the very few enormously rich but left
half the world conversely poor. This can be seen in that the richest 5
percent of the world's countries generated 64 percent of the world's
output and income in 2007. Therefore, world income and wealth is
distributed very unequally and where the bottom 95 percent of countries
earned only 36 percent of world GDP last year.
Indeed, only a minority of people become rich through capitalism
and where the vast remainders of people live in comparative poverty.
Considering the ramifications of this, it cannot be right for either
the sustainability of our planet or the very survival of the human
experience itself in the long term.
Inequality in Affluent Democracies?" that he presented to the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in late 2007, that the analysis of 18 affluent democracies from the 1960s to the present day demonstrate that globalization significantly increased earnings inequality.
Q. How can we end poverty? Are there any practical ways which can help communities combat this global challenge?
A. When we discuss capitalism and its link with poverty we
have to read one of the most authoritative and 'independent' modern-day
reports undertaken on the subject. In this respect, the report is from
the New Economics Foundation (NEF) based in the United Kingdom. First
published in 2006 its title is, "Growth isn't working: the uneven distribution of benefits and costs from economic growth". It reported that the world economy is giving less to the poorest in spite of the ongoing global poverty campaign.
In this respect, the report commented that the worlds poorest have
seen a 73 percent drop in share of benefits from growth in the last
decade. Indeed, according to the NEF, globalization is failing the
world's poorest, as their share of the rewards of growth plummet and
where added to this the accelerating climate change hurts the poorest
The NEF report revealed that the share of benefits from global
economic growth reaching the world's poorest people is actually
shrinking, while they continue to bear an unfair share of the costs.
According to the figures contained in the report, growth was less
effective at passing on benefits to the poorest in the 1990's than it
was even in the 1980's, but where also it concluded in an age of rising
climate chaos, this would definitely deteriorate the future prospects
for the poor even further.
This analysis equated to 73 per cent less than in the 1980's, the
so called 'lost decade for development', when US$2.20 in every US$100
worth of growth contributed to reducing poverty for those living on
less than a dollar a day.
Indeed, to achieve a single dollar of poverty reduction in the
1990's it took US$166 of extra global production and consumption with
enormous environmental impacts that hurt the poorest most. As an
example the upheaval from climate change.
The NEF report stated that the belief that global economic growth
is the only way of reducing poverty for the world's poorest people is
the self-serving rhetoric of those who already enjoy the greatest share
of the world's income. Indeed, based upon the global distribution of
income in 1993, even if the benefits of global growth were distributed
evenly, it would benefit someone in the richest 1 percent of the
world's population 120 times more than someone in the poorest 10
Overall NEF stated that, "Our obsession with growth and our
relentless pursuit of a global system which creates ever greater
dependency on it has put us on the road to perdition. This confronts us
with an artificial and unnecessary choice between the moral imperative
of poverty eradication and the practical necessity of environmental
sustainability. We need policies aimed directly at reducing poverty and
ensuring environmental sustainability, leaving growth as a by-product.
That means a new global economic system which will allow, foster and
support such policies at the national level."
The problem is that the growth dictum places the economies of the
developed world as motivating models of economic development for the
rest of the world to follow. But to duplicate these standards of
living, in an environmental understanding, is fundamentally invalid.
Indeed, for everyone in the world to sustain themselves at the present
EU level of consumption, the world would require twice the resources of
the biosphere, an impossibility. Indeed, if we all consumed at the rate
of the USA, we would require the resources of five biospheres to
sustain ourselves, another impossibility.
Therefore, we are really fooling ourselves in believing that
between 9 and 12.5 billion people by 2050 can live at this level.
Unfortunately, our politicians do not tell us this and by not doing so
they create the conditions that will eventually create enormous
conflict throughout the world.
I say this with no relish and can only hope that our leaders
eventually see our present system of development for what it really is,
a recipe for human disaster on a momentous level and where human
extinction awaits us all.
According to the NEF report, "Orthodox economics tells us that a rising tide lifts all boats, or that, rather than sharing the cake more evenly, it is better to bake a larger one. Ironically now, however, sea levels really are rising, as a result of global warming and driven by the pollution from economic growth. And millions of the poor have no boats at all to rise in. Where the cake is concerned, the massed ranks of orthodox economists are yet to find the ingredients, or even a recipe, to bake a spare planet to share among the world's population."
Q. In your opinion, what are the most important strategic initiatives that should be pursued on national and international levels to confront poverty?
A. Relying on growth to deliver the world's poorest people out of poverty is both economically and ecologically inept in even the short-term. For as NEF's figures exposed, poverty could be reduced without growth by undertaking more effective distribution with what we already have. In this respect, by redistributing just 1 percent of the income of the richest 20 percent of the world's population would have the same rewards as world growth of 20 percent without redistribution.
This would be over ten times the average per capita growth rate of
global GDP since 1981. Added to the rate of poverty decline attained
from 1981 to 2001 could have been obtained through the annual
redistribution of just 1/10th of 1 percent of the income of the richest
10 percent of the world's population
Conformist economists, who are the vast majority, assert that
redistribution of income is flawed in the long term, but where the NEF
report shows that this rate of transfer could be sustained for 300
years before the world as a whole reached even the average level of
inequality of EU countries.
Therefore, economists in the old school and with the vested interests of capitalism at heart do not fully understand the global dynamics of today.
Overall, NEF considers that, if we are to reconcile the objectives
of poverty reduction and environmental sustainability, we need to
challenge this conventional wisdom, and the blind pursuit of economic
growth, which springs from it.
Indeed the NEF states and I fully concur that we cannot afford to continue with a system which sacrifices the environment on which we all depend for our very survival to give yet more to those who already have too much, in the hope that a few more crumbs will fall from the rich man's table.
Therefore, to achieve real progress we need to change in the way we think about and discuss economic issues, and break out of the confines of mainstream economic thinking. We also need a shift in power relations, both globally and nationally, to move power from developed countries, elites and commercial interests to the majority of the world's population, the poor.
Q. Any last points...
A. Presently I believe governments, the private sector and
the wealthy are creating omnicide, human extinction, as a result of
irresponsible human action.
|Climate Change & Environment|
|Global Financial Crisis|
|Global Conflicts & Militarization|
|IMF, World Bank & Trade|
|Poverty & Inequality|
|Aid, Debt & Development|
|The UN, People & Politics|
|Food Security & Agriculture|
|Health, Education & Shelter|
|Land, Energy & Water|
|Economic Sharing & Alternatives|