World Poverty,

 

We having of course no world government, and no real global consensus on dealing with poverty, cutting poverty is chiefly for each country to deal with. There has been a little international aid available for this, though often with unwanted conditions attached, but it still relies on individual governments not all of which consider poverty bad. And the possible solutions for poverty clearly depend on what is chiefly causing it, and this can clearly vary with time and with place. The early 21st century sees big poverty differences as between majority poverty as in poorer countries like Somalia, and minority poverty in richer countries like the USA and Britain. None of it may be easy to solve and the long history of anti-poverty measures has often been of failure, but successful action on poverty reduction is really possible. Yet large numbers of people still live in poverty, which the WPF 2020 World Hunger Map below indicates ;

Basicly in this World Poverty Fund map more red is poorer, and more blue is richer. (see Hunger Map.)

 

1. Poverty in poor countries.

There are unfortunately today still many very poor countries especially in Africa, Asia and South America where the majority of their populations still now suffer absolute poverty. For such countries where the poor are a majority, the first requirement is to convince the richer countries that they will benefit by abolishing poverty worldwide. But many in the richer countries, including their governments, may have wrongly come to actually liking having poor countries and to also believing quite incorrectly that having poor countries benefits richer countries economically.

But having poor countries is not an economic benefit to anybody, and it chiefly encourages low productivity in the richer countries by their employing or exploiting in the lowest wage poor countries. There is also no doubt that accepting having poor countries involves world fractures causing wars and other serious problems that our world would really be much better without. Accepting having poor countries can only encourage international badness rather than goodness, and it also encourages accepting poverty within richer countries. The richer countries really need better education on this.

If richer countries could be taught correctly the real problems of accepting poverty, then it should be in principle a relatively simple matter for governments of rich and poor countries together to gradually end poverty worldwide with improved world trade terms and international government and better charity aid systems. And lower-level universal right welfare systems could also work well in many poorer countries, along the lines noted below for richer countries.

 

But richer governments and charities actually choose which poor countries to help, usually giving no help to those poor countries whose governments are considered 'unfriendly', and they also choose how to help. Giving food is often prioritised, and in some immediate crises this is essential - but food aid alone may not reduce poverty at all in the longer term. And some 'help' is offering loans that can actually involve rich countries exploiting poor countries. Richer countries governments and charities who want to help poorer countries really need to more closely study the actual needs of each poor country.

 

Increasingly many poorer countries are getting better at helping themselves emerge from poverty especially by prioritising education and science. Hence some poor countries are at last catching up in innovation and science. From this recently poverty has been greatly cut in China and it can likewise be cut elsewhere.

2. Poverty in rich countries.

In richer countries, like the USA and UK, where their poor are a minority the first requirement for any real solution to that poverty is to convince the majority in those countries that they will benefit by abolishing poverty in their own country. But many people in such countries have come to like having a poor minority and to believing wrongly that having a poor minority benefits the majority economically. In this mistaken belief their governments may encourage immigration from poorer countries for cheap labour and adopt other policies to maintain poverty.

But having a poor minority is certainly not any economic benefit, and it chiefly encourages exploiter inefficiency in businesses employing poor workers on the lowest possible wages instead of looking for new ways of higher productivity working. There is also no doubt that accepting having a poor minority involves social fractures worsening crime and other serious social problems that any society would really be much better without. Claims by some that 'generous welfare for the poor discourages working' are false - see Welfare and Work. The richer majority need teaching correctly how having a poor minority is really bad for themselves.

It is then in principle a relatively simple matter for governments in richer countries to essentially abolish their minority poverty as with improved minimum wage laws and welfare systems such as the universal-right basic income welfare system proposed on our sister site Social Exclusion Housing and now being considered by some governments as a 'basic income guarentee'. (and dealing with any social exclusion issues existing for their poor is also dealt with at that sister site of ours.) Hence 2009 saw Europe having legal Minimum Wage levels varying from around £200 a month to around £1,200 a month, with some high wage unionised countries having no legal minimum wage as in Scandinavia - and many poor countries also having no legal minimum wage. With better understanding of the real poverty issues, private charities could also help more than they do now. While charities may need to use only attempted-targeting means-tested welfare, a government universal welfare for all better fits smaller, less interfering and more democratic government. While government 'targeted welfare' empowers controlling governments, universal welfare by right empowers the people. And as targeting always misses some of the most needy and everybody needs at least a minimum income, a government Universal Benefit approach seems to make sense. Set at a lower level would seem cheaper for governments but set at a higher level could save governments in welfare costs, and for a country at some time there should be some level that should work best. Of course not all of the poor would immediately respond perfectly, as not all of the rich behave perfectly, but that calls for good government with good education. It would certainly make unemployment less of a problem for many people, but might require higher taxes and might tend to attract more immigrants to that country and so need more immigration control ? And having a national welfare payment level may suit some part of a country better than other maybe poorer parts of the country.

 

2022 saw a progressive Finland government run a trial giving 2,000 unemployed adults a condition-free and tax-free basic income of £475 a month for 2 years, more than the then UK Jobseekers Allowance though below Finland's Jobseeker Allowance. Supporters say it will make people happier, healthier and more productive though sceptics doubt the latter but conditional Jobseekers Allowances, that only pay as long as people are unproductive, certainly reward being unproductive. 2023 also saw a universal basic income being considered by governments in Switzerland, Netherlands, France, Canada and the UK with some test pilots including in England and in Wales. The Universal Income was first proposed in 1797 for all adults by Thomas Paine the revolutionary when there were generally no welfare benefits, and could allow adding targeted additions according to need. It might work best as a basic income for all issued by government sufficient for a reasonable basic living, per adult and per child with the child amount for age below 11 paid fully to parents but half paid to the child from age 11 by schools ? It would be a simpler means of dealing with poverty that also helps give the poor more self-control and motivation for betterment. But the actual amount paid may well be key, so that too high an amount may encourage laziness and too low an amount may have little or no effect - for the best effect some specific key amount may be needed for a given society at a given time ?

 

In some countries, inadequate education is chiefly helping maintain poverty for many.

In some countries, inadequate medicine is chiefly helping maintain poverty for many.

In some other countries, war or bad government or limited resources or some mix of reasons is helping maintain poverty for many. But especially in recent years rich-country governments, as of the USA or EU, have often been imposing economic sanctions on poorer countries whose government they dislike. These can be attempts at getting those governments overthrown by their people, by economically harming and possibly starving to death their people. Or it may be an attempt to get a government to change some policy. Of course the poorer-country people will generally be innocent people who have done no wrong, so intentionally starving them may be very wrong. But the richer-country governments will always present their economic sanctions as being against bad and so as being good. When often they fail to achieve their main aim, they can still be supported as 'helping to maintain good values in the world'. Yet imposing sanctions may sometimes be an alternative to declaring war and so may be a lesser of two evils ? But maybe other methods of dealing with apparently bad governments might be better than either war or harsh economic sanctions ?

A political solution to improve governments that could help governments be more truly representative of their electors, would be having maybe a third of representatives chosen randomly by computer from eligible elector lists. These randomly selected representatives could go for a second term only by election. They would be able to turn down the job, and if three draws produce no acceptance then political parties could nominate representatives in proportion to the numbers of their elected representatives. Randomly selected representatives, unlike professional politicians, would include some average Joes and some from the poor and other rarely represented minorities - and political parties could seek to attract them to their ranks. This could do a real bit of good for democracy, and further improvement could come from increasing direct consultation with the people as through the internet. Voting in itself is boring to many, and elections should be more of an exciting spectacle if they included such 'Lottery Selection'. (This idea recently put on a local web forum got only support.)

Another practicable form of government might be having a main government chamber of say 400 representatives chosen randomly by computer from eligible graduate-elector lists and a secondary moderating government chamber of say 400 representatives chosen randomly by computer from eligible non-graduate-elector lists. Political parties would then chiefly promote and lobby policies for which people could vote, but they would not directly govern. Government chambers would elect leaders and ministers from their members. This form of government might be introduced by stages, as by at 10 year intervals making a new third of government representatives randomly-selected till 100% is reached, and could continue replacing a third each 10 years. (Additional to periodic reselections of representatives, a confidence-vote system could allow additional changes of leadership and a Supreme Court could oversee the system.)

Now some may try to form a good government based on the fantasy of some religion claiming to promote goodness and claiming some god and heaven that almost certainly do not exist while encouraging goverments to start wars or expand the wars of others. But a surer rock to found good government on is the more human scientific practical goodness of people wanting to work with each other and help each other which better promotes good human life and a better world and does not promote wars. Of course no current politician who chiefly wants easy votes will support such good government but will rather lean more towards following Machiavelli instead.

And many good people now do try to help with poverty by donating to some charity, though generally maybe science has been more successful at reducing poverty than most charity. And not until the 20th century did wills in richer countries begin to often include poverty charities, medical charities and pet charities and still rarely including anything for basic science. Many charities seem to be run by 'idiots with the best intentions' who direct help to 'those most in need' people in circumstances who would naturally perish, to instead live impoverished lives for them and their children in larger numbers. Hence charity with the best intentions can largely helps maintain poverty. One example concerns wars when people have often died but modern charities often help those directly involved in wars which can maybe unfortunately help prolong those wars. Or they may help people poor and non-poor survive wars in increasing numbers of terrible poverty 'refugee camps' housing ever-increasing millions, so helping create terrible refugee-camp poverty. Charities can also help some whose poverty is due to them having very bad government and such charity help may perhaps unfortunately help maintain bad governments. Of course there is obviously some good charity, but good technological and economic progress can commonly rest on basic physics and other science experiment, so that the greatest advance for medicine was basics physics experiment producing the microscope. Maybe now for Earth the Climate Change danger, the Superbugs danger, the Asteroid danger and the Poverty danger all need big new basic science advance to handle them and as that is not being done in physics today needing some people to write wills leaving something to some basic science experiment programs or otherwise support novel experiment ? So maybe some people could do much better by donating to basic science experiment even though it may not seem to be directed at poverty reduction directly ? (see the bottom of New Science Theory.)

 

# Recently increased concern about terrorism, and it being encouraged by poverty, may have somewhat boosted support for abolishing poverty being a benefit for the non-poor also - as see eg UK Eliminating World Poverty pdf.

 

# For one South American government's attempt at dealing with poverty, see Brazil Anti-Poverty Plan  - FAO/IDB/WB pdf 170 kb

 

# For facts about individual countries, see NationMaster

 

 

 Absolute poverty