I think it goes without saying that, when fighting poverty, balance is necessary. It's not feasible to address structural issues when you don't have a healthy labor force to constitute an economic system -- when malnutrition, war, and disease cripple a society. On the other hand, it seems self-evident that merely addressing the needs of the global poor on a day-to-day basis is shortsighted and merely perpetuates the status quo, in which handouts are perennially necessary. Of the blog entries I have read so far, most seem to argue in favor of giving greater weight to addressing overarching structural issues (Athkor is the only one who does not); it seems unpleasant for all parties involved to be locked into a perpetually dependent relationship.
I would agree. It makes more economic sense to invest in infrastructure programs (as well as education, civil society, and market development) that provide a return on our investment. Much of the impoverished world is rich in natural resources, and lacks only the capital to effectively exploit them. But, at the same time, we cannot take a messianic view of infrastructure, education, and microcredit. We must acknowledge that, as Inayatullah pointed out, the capitalistic division of labor generates vast wealth but also creates inherently unequal power relationships. Any economic system which generates surplus wealth will distribute that wealth unequally and create an institutionalized underclass, which is simply impossible to eradicate without reverting to subsistence farming and autarky. The best we can do is create a relatively efficient economic system that creates a relatively small institutionalized underclass, and then acknowledge that the only way to ensure the survival of that underclass is via direct welfare.
I would argue against Antonio Ipparalde, though, and say that providing for that underclass is necessary. This derives not from any moral imperative, but from simple utility. In an increasingly specialized, globalized economy, social problems have a way of spreading. Although a starving underclass probably couldn't pose a serious military challenge to any established government, they could serve, for example, as a breeding grounds for all types of nasty and decisively not-fun-to-have diseases. Specialization and automation can generate enough wealth that, in many cases, "charitable" giving has a greater personal utility for an individual or state than direct investment does.
P.S. After writing this blog post, I was struck with a revelation: it is entirely possible to eliminate the root cause of poverty. Poverty is fundamentally caused, not by any economic structure, but by poor people. Therefore, we can eradicate poverty quite simply by eradicating poor people.
Posts
2 comments:
Bad Attitude,
You're correct, and I was probably vague in articulating what "economic infrastructure" might entail. For the record, I do consider maintaining a well-nourished workforce part of developing a viable market. The last part of my argument was directed at "moralistic" humanitarian efforts, whereas the money thrown into those programs could be better spent elsewhere on long-term development. But of course, the machine needs to be oiled every once in a while, so direct aid would be germane in that regard.
However, I'd say that disease control isn't exactly a necessity; in fact, it could work to our benefit. I'm totally down with your final (perhaps facetious) point about the need for population cullings, and I can hardly think of a more efficient means of doing so. Disease is devoid of cost, effort, and blame, and leaves the victim’s (meager) wealth intact. It would probably be more beneficial to simply immunize ourselves, rather than try to prevent diseases from popping up.
Disease is a contingency we cannot fully control. Some diseases that devastate the third world, like malaria, can be easily contained and counteracted with the budget and infrastructure of a first-world country. But some diseases can't. AIDS wasn't widely identified and understood for a decade after it first emerged. An ebola outbreak in a major First World city could be devastating. In order to protect ourselves reactively against disease, we'd have to entirely cut off migration and trade with the third world -- and the cost of doing that seems likely to far outweigh the cost of some investment in global public health.
Post a Comment