The Poverty Reduction Strategy - Essay Example

Total Number of Words: 3,113 International Poverty Agenda: Issues and Problems, and Some Proposed Alternative Course of Actions or Solutions to Completely Eradicate Poverty Poverty reduction programmes as the pivotal design of international poverty agenda need not really be temporary, but it must be sustainable to see the impact of these actions ensuring the access of impoverished people to key resources and let them experience the fruits of the initiatives undertaken. That and other prevailing problems and notions, approaches to poverty elimination, and the two most important worldwide poverty agenda initiatives like the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), will be threshed out, as this researcher at the end of this paper sought to give proposed strategies and solutions to problems seen in the poverty agenda as a whole. Poverty Defined Poverty is a global phenomenon and much more than that it is a condition that the poor must be unbounded from and what the world agreed to eliminate. For the past 15 years, the basis for global poverty reduction approaches is on the “multi-dimensional” understanding of impoverishment. In this prevailing “poverty consensus,” material scarcity is not the only basis, but it now expands to include ‘the right to live with dignity, to have a voice, and security.’ With these additional dimensions, it gives a poor person or a country the capacity to control or influence the living conditions, the chance to participate in the different processes of decision-making, and to gain protection against violence, threats, and hazards. The old world view of the definition of poverty is only confined with income or consumption levels (i.e., a person or family living with less than a dollar a day is judged poor). To define poverty based on income level is not enough however, the Development Programme (UNDP) realized. Hence, UNDP introduced such multidimensional definition of poverty since 1990 when it came out with its first Human Development Report (1990). Further consolidation of this definition was contained in the World Bank’s 2000 World Development Report (Attacking Poverty) and OECD/DAC’s Guidelines on Poverty Reduction (2001). Thus, on the World Bank webpage, Stewart and Wang (2003) said the introduction to poverty states- What is poverty? Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not being able to go to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time. Poverty is losing a child to illness brought about by unclean water. Poverty is powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom. Uchitelle (2001) approved in saying, thus,“the income level formula, is not merely a statistical statement; it carries a particular viewpoint as well, about who is responsible for poverty — government, society or the individual.” The world seems to agree and today, majority of countries have also widened the scope of what will constitute or define poverty. The multidimensional approach to poverty has, in recent years, been related more commonly to the ‘social exclusion’ concept, which means that the lack or inadequate access to important resources and capabilities cannot be simplified to mean a matter of ‘scarcity’ or ‘accidental miss-allocation’. Kees Koonings of Utrecht University in his “Bringing politics into poverty: the political dimensions of poverty alleviation,” consider impoverishment and poverty as a result of the social processes. He argued that individual and groups interacting within and across social systems actually helps in shaping the pattern by which people will be able to access resources, control these patterns, and legitimise or denounce their outcomes. Furthermore, Dubois (2007) said recent research on poverty and social exclusion also shows that the various dimensions of poverty such as insufficient livelihood, powerlessness and insecurity, go hand in hand and are often mutually reinforcing. Within this frame, Koonings argued that singling out just one dimension of poverty in any given poverty reduction strategy is not feasible but only put to risk the other dimensions, and the worst is that this would lead to a failed poverty alleviation programme. Amartya Sen, a Nobel laurete, meanwhile defined poverty as “the lack of freedom to have or to do basic things one values.” Sen, a Nobel awardee in economics, cited that a family in a slum that wants to transfer to a more livable neighborhood yet cannot afford to do so is stalled by discrimination from pushing through is impoverished. Or, do we judge a family in a slum area as poor just because of its crime-ridden and filthy neighborhood, despite the fact that the family has sufficient income to reach above par the poverty line? (Uchitelle 2001). Approaches to Poverty Reduction Over the years, strategic mapping and policy practise developed by think tank groups, policymakers, world leaders and decision makers use the following approaches to poverty reduction (Koonings 2007); 1) Using economic growth. In the post-World War II era, poverty was defined on account of insufficiency in consumptions and income, which in turn expected a market-driven trickle-down scheme to really distribute wealth to the poor. This world view was panned during the 70s because critics pointed out that despite growth, poverty still persisted. It was only during the 80s and 90s that the distribution effect be stopped temporarily and was resurrected to mean ‘pro-poor growth’. 2) The provision of basic (material and human) needs. This means that growth paradigm would include the inclusion by governments of developing countries of so-called aid elements other than private income and consumptions. Apparently its negative effects were pointed out to include: lack of fiscal sustainability, resources are misallocated, and worst, poor countries became too dependent to aid. While discredited in the 80s, however, doling out still serve as a common practise among emergency humanitarian aid donors to bridge goods and services for survival. Lastly, 3) Good governance and human rights. In light of the need for effective and desirable management of a liberalized market reform, the ‘good governance’ concept was coined. This in turn was updated to include a focused management of relevant institutions and their performance, that would later pave the way for other key concepts such as empowerment, participation and rights to become part of poverty discussions. Since this was meant to incorporate the multiple dimensions of poverty (from income, assets and public services to the dignity, security and others) the approach would then lead into human rights framework. Eventually, international conventions and declarations would stress the empowerment of the poor to enjoy their rights to live a life with dignity, and ‘not to be poor’ once more. The World Responded, the International Poverty Agenda Initiatives Two important undertakings, namely: the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), are significant milestones that put into more solid ground the strategies of international poverty agenda. The PRSP, designed in the late 1990s, was meant to be part of the debt relief offered to debt-ridden countries in line with the aim to obtain poverty reduction approaches (Stewart and Wang 2003). Under this design, poverty reduction is to be the main national concern of governments. With the donor community at the helm, under this approach, they are expected to ensure the harmonious flow of its support of governments of heavily indebted countries with the participation by other stakeholders to meet the goals of the poverty reduction strategies. For many poor, underdeveloped and middle-income countries, year 2000 was remarkable for this was the year when 189 nations and 147 head of state of governments stood as one to wage a war against world poverty, an unprecedented move that capped the Millennium Summit (Koonings 2007). The targets, proposed actions, and commitment by these nations are sealed in the Millennium Declaration which contains the so-called Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that stipulates key development goals, first, to eliminate extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. Additionally, the others include “achieving of universal primary education, promoting of gender equality and women empowerment, reducing child mortality, improving of maternal health, fighting spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability, and developing a global partnership for development.” As for targets specified by the MDGs, these three (3) are as follows: 1) Halving the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day between 1990 to 2015; 2) halving the proportion of population below the minimum level of dietary energy consumption and halve the proportion of underweight children (under five years); and, 3) halving the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water or those who cannot afford it by 2015. Problems of Current International Poverty Agenda Now that the world is at the midpoint towards 2015, the hopes of achieving the goals and targets of the international poverty agenda remains fleeting according to the United Nations, despite progress that has been made in many areas. Here are a few problems- 1) The initiatives of the cited approaches failed to reflect on actions that would address the powerlessness of the major stakeholders, the poor, in view of the design of the poverty agenda. Evident is the fact that in most strategy thinking conventions or conferences, the dialogues seem to include minimal input from the these sectors: civil society organizations or groups and even elected officials. Negotiations and dialogues usually happens between donors and the recipient governments (Pratt 2007). 2) Poverty agenda and programmes to reduce poverty discuss symptoms than causes. The eight MDGs that set forth the targets for poverty reduction by 2015, according to S. Maxwell (2003): ‘the MDGs are strong on material aspects of deprivation, but not so strong on non-material aspects.’ In some respect, what happened is this: country donors or associations only see the easier route and that is what they follow. In the long term, these programmes may or can give a positive impact to the overall aim of reducing poverty, but on dealing with major structural constraints, these aids or donations may fail. Koonings (2007) used as a case when and if illiteracy may decrease, however, our societies may still face little change in terms of job availability, access to resources and even economic policies. 3) Historical context of poverty is not considered. For programmes, agenda and dialogues about poverty reduction to ever see change, it would be imperative also that discussions would also focus on poverty’s historical context. Persistent poverty can further be studied behind its historical part to help strategy thinking assemblies and conventions to see how poverty in different generations is transmitted, aside from identifying means to see how this malaise interact with its multi-dimensional aspects (Pratt 2007). From there, strategy thinkers, leaders and even the committed society groups can help develop and design essential concepts, tools and even explanations to ensuring that the vision is attainable. 4) Poverty agenda structures does not impose wealthy donor countries to help poor countries trade more to pay off their debts. This eventually comes as an inevitable problem when little participation by civil society groups and the major stakeholders, the poor ones, are overshadowed by the more active, and intimidating participation of rich donor countries. As sometimes is the case, WorldTribune.com’s John Metzler (2000) wrote that ‘these donors are now slashing on the aid that would help alleviate at least the impoverished conditions of countries in heavy debt.’ In fact, poorer nations who need to be as equally competitive with strong and wealthy countries, in order to pay off their huge debts, are disregarded or not even bothered to be done by countries and their governments who are responsible and should care about the fight to allow genuine open markets and tariff free trade. As is almost the case, the vested or negative interests of the institutional and socio-political interests of the policy makers in managing global cooperation programmes, are often ignored or are assumed to be significant implications. 5) Other dimensions for poverty reduction were not mentioned in the agenda. On historical perspective, it can be assumed that the context for understanding poverty will still evolve as it is the case now. As one problem that can be pointed out not immediately expressed on policy agenda for poverty reduction programmes is the issue of disarmament. This concept refers to how on an international to multinational basis, a nation or society of nations undertake a systematic planning and schedule of reducing weapons. According to Louis Michel, an EU Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, the lack or no solid reform of the Security Council, would impede further workings to really define some guidelines and schematics about the same. Are progress already made as a result of international poverty agenda initiatives? The real measure, how far both at the country and at the global level, changes in the poverty measures and social indicators are already affecting the different initiatives and approaches in the international agenda to poverty reduction would require changes or differences across areas and time. Such knowledge on whether or not initiatives to combat global poverty is progressing or not can help or be used in influencing poverty measures , its design and policies as well. In 2005, as the UN Summit reels to put the MDGs in global spotlight, special coordinator for Africa, Kamran Kousari identified several positive outcomes that have emerged during the year. Among them: 1) doubling the aid to poor countries from the present year and 2015; 2) writing off the debts of the poorest countries; 3) pledged made by certain countries to meet the 0.7 percent target for aid by 2015; and, 4) European Union’s commitment to reaching its 0.5 percent target by 2010. Statistically speaking, figures released by the World Development Indicators Report 2004 showed that globally, there are 1.1 billion people who live on less than $1 a day and 2.7 billion who live on less than $2 a day. It was also recorded that there are eight million deaths each year due to poverty and 800 million of people who go hungry daily. In Latin American/Caribbean region alone, with population of approximately 534 million people, the number of people who live on less than $2 a day reached 132 million, and 57 million live on less than $1 a day. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the region which houses the former Soviet republics, 20.3%, or 97 million, out of the population of around 471 million, live on less than $2 a day; and 24 million live on less than $1 a day. In the region where extreme poverty is more evident and the most important region in the fight against poverty, the sub-Saharan Africa, almost half of its population live on under $1 a day. This figure is the highest in the world and considered one of the regions with no realistic progress so far on the MDGs. Its 32 countries are among the world’s 48 poorest nations, which suffer from ceaseless conflicts, dysfunctional governments, and diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria. Comparatively with its neighboring regions in the south and the east, North Africa and Middle East, however, reportedly has 23 percent of its 6 million population that live on less than $2 a day, and 2.2 percent live on below $1 a day. Coming in second to sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia also has the worst poverty situation. Half of the world’s poorest are said to be living in this region, the World Bank reported, adding that 85 percent of its 1.3 billion population live on less than $2 a day. In turn, over 1 billion people in this region alone live on less than $2 a day. One of the most populous regions globally, the East Asia/Pacific region, meanwhile has about 50 percent of its 1.8 to 2 billion population who live on less than $2 a day (Geoffry 2004). The same report indicated that there is far less than satisfactory progress made in the global effort to reduce poverty. The global picture masks large regional differences, although China and the East Asia and Pacific region improved in its poverty reduction efforts. In South Asia, including India whose steady, continuing progress is remarkable, targets to cut poverty levels will be reached and exceeded. The growth and poverty reduction trend, however, in Latin America and the Caribbean, is expected to be slower than ever, one which will not beat targets unless a considerable growth will be posted. In the pan-European and Central Asia, and in the Middle East and North Africa, where the $1 a day poverty rates are low, the current poverty levels will be halved. The region with the most difficult case is Sub Saharan Africa, where unless a major growth is achieved, its poverty condition to slide very slowly in the next 11 years. The region’s GDP per capita fell 14 percent and poverty grew 41 percent in 1981 to 46 percent in 2001, and in addition, 150 million people were living in extreme poverty. Some Observations and Recommendations The “world poverty agenda remains adrift,” according to the United Nations and further intoned that what is needed is fresh approaches and new focus on governance and empowerment of people that is less on social welfare. As it may already be a cliché but in fact necessary to point out that ‘the problem of poverty cannot be solved overnight.’ To achieve sustainable economic growth, a requirement in ensuring that the approach to poverty reduction scheme is met, national governments should build efficient and incorruptible institutions in several countries and that would ensure more and predictable flows of development aid to achieve more sustainable economic growth. As a reality though, the world’s organizations which help in the international poverty agenda, would require cooperation, and an interactive community that would provide historic opportunity to really fight global poverty (Frassoni 2007). In addition to this, the involvement or participation of the different stakeholders should include not only the wealthy country donors and strategy thinking organizations, among others who should have the say in influencing and controlling policy rules and guidelines are: 1) groups of poor and vulnerable public, 2) civil society groups (women’s groups), 3) trade unions, and 3) private sector such as professional associations. As a matter of experience by nations, donors’ involvement actually ‘weakens the empowerment consequences’ because they can dominate the process through which they can set the agenda, by their financial clout and articulateness (Stewart and Wang 2003). On the rosy side, participation through dialogue and power relations among the different sectors improves the quality and broadens the scope of poverty diagnostics, as well as highlight on the poorest and most vulnerable through proper and appropriate design of socio-economic policies. In sum, the recent world attempts for cooperation to undertake efforts to reduce poverty worldwide may not be the sole solution to unbound the chains to this cycle of poverty, at least, for everyone, this could be a good start in the right direction. Bibliography Are the developed countries hitting the millennium development goals? September 2005, Friends of Europe, Available at [Online] http://www.friendsofeurope.org/portals/6/documents/reports/sod%20millenium%20development%20goals%2022-09-05.pdf Dubois, Jean-Luc 2003, ‘Poverty and political capabilities’, The Broker, Available at [Online] http://thebrokeronline.eu/en/debate/politics_and_poverty/poverty_and_political_capabilities Ferreira, Francisco 2003, Inequality in Latin America & the Caribbean: Breaking with History? Gilbert, Geoffry 2004, World Poverty. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO Koonings, Kees 2007, ‘Bringing Politics into Poverty’, The Broker, Available at [Online] http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/en/content/download/866/4317/version/1/file/Bringing_politics_into_poverty.pdf Metzler, John J. April 12, 2000, ‘A riveting reality check for development aid’, WorldTribune, [Online] Available at http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/Archive-2000/mz04-12.html Pratt, Brian December 2007, ‘Losses and Gains’, The Broker, [Online] Available at http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/en/debate/politics_and_poverty/losses_and_gains Poverty Around the World 2005, A Dollar A Day, Available at http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00282/over_whatis.htm#intro Poverty Analysis 2005, PovertyNet, Available at [Online] http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPA/0,,contentMDK:20153855~menuPK:435040~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:430367,00.html Road map towards the implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration, United Nations Development Programme, Available at [Online] http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/56/a56326.pdf Stewart, F. and Wang, M. 2003, ‘Do PRSPs empower poor countries and disempower the World Bank, or is it the other way round?’, GlobalPolicy [Online] Available at http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/wbank/2003/10doprsps.pdf The world poverty agenda: how the IMF sees it 2007, Friends of Europe, Available at [Online] http://www.friendsofeurope.org/portals/6/old_import_pdfdoc/imfroundtablederato09.02.07sodfinal_2.pdf Uchitelle, Louis May 2001, ‘How to Define Poverty? Let Us Count the Ways’, The New York Times [Online] Available at http://hss.fullerton.edu/sociology/orleans/povertydef.htm Read More