Posts Tagged ‘Third World’

polyp_cartoon_yuppie_tourism

Special mention

600_209072

lowndes

By the 1960s, it was known as “Bloody Lowndes”—because of the long history of lynchings and other forms of racial terrorism against the poor, majority-black population. Then, they began to fight back, with the assistance of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, forming the the Lowndes County Freedom Organization, which was the first independent black political party in the county since Reconstruction.

But the county remained poor, with a median household income of only $25,876 and a poverty rate of 28.5 percent, with a still-declining population that has been mostly consigned to oblivion.

Lowndes has been largely forgotten—until yesterday, when a new study was published concerning the health of the county’s residents.

What is remarkable is that the study was published in The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene and it documents a high incidence of hookworm, an infection that affects 430 million people worldwide, causing iron deficiency, impaired cognitive development, and stunting in children.

This was supposed to be a parasite found only in poor, Third World countries, with poor sanitation and a natural environment suitable for the hookworm life-cycle. It’s a public health problem that I vividly remember from all my years working in and teaching development economics, especially in Latin America.

But here we are in the United States—where hookworm had been rampant, especially in the deep south, in the earlier twentieth century. But by the 1980s public health experts assumed the parasite and the attendant public-health problems had disappeared altogether. However, the authors of the study found that more than one third (34.5 percent) of the participants tested positive for Necator americanus, the American species of hookworm.

Clearly, the authors understand the significance and implications of their study:

The discovery of these parasitic diseases within the United States begins to shift the idea behind global health. One concept is blue marble health, which reveals that many of the world’s neglected tropical diseases are paradoxically found in some of the wealthiest countries, especially in these small regions of extreme poverty.

 

polyp_cartoon_land_grab_farmers

Special mention

188529_600 170211opposition981934145_t755_h67e992d098e7c84b4485828573761abe5dbf53c0

corporatehumor

a005bd2774bef0687238c46f8238519a

Special mention

185533_600 185398_600

ar-306059983

More than 400 thousand Philadelphians live in poverty. The United States, even after the latest decline, still has more than 43 million men, women, and children below the poverty line. And nearly one half of the world’s population—more than 3 billion people—are poor (more than 1.3 billion of them in extreme poverty).

And yet the policy debate remains the same: how do we get poor people to get themselves out of the “culture of poverty”?

Not how do eliminate poverty? Or, alternatively, how do we create the economic and social institutions that don’t, on a regular and sustained basis, drive millions of people into and keep many of them in poverty?

Instead, what we get from Steve Volk [ht: ja] on Philadelphia, just like from Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo (in their book Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty) for the Third World, is a focus on the pathologies of the poor and the strategies that can be tested and implemented so that poor people can find their way out of poverty.

Now, I’ll admit, Volk writes (of Mattie McQueen and other poor Philadelphians) with more heart than Banerjee and Duflo seem to be able to muster. But it’s the same basic idea—that there’s something enduring about poverty, which pertains to poor people and “their” culture and which needs to be disrupted with the right sort of economic interventions.

In Volk’s case, the problem is “generational poverty”—such that poverty is passed down through two or more generations. And the solution is the “two-gen” strategy, such as the HIPPY (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters) program Bill Clinton celebrated at the Democratic National Convention.

In practical terms, the strategy means providing educational support to kids while offering the full range of housing, social, mental-health and economic services to their parents. “In hindsight, this way of approaching generational poverty looks kind of obvious,” says Susan Landry, director and founder of the Children’s Learning Institute in Houston, Texas. “Everyone wants to help children. What the two-gen strategy recognizes is that children exist in families.”

Educating children without stabilizing the home, says Landry, puts kids in an impossible position — requiring them to lead their parents. Making a child’s home safer and less stressful yields huge benefits in the child’s ability to learn. And two-gen strategies are gaining support among conservatives and progressives alike. Republican governors like Bill Haslam of Tennessee and Gary Herbert of Utah champion the two-gen approach for imparting a sense of responsibility to parents and streamlining government — parking disparate social agencies under one roof. Paul Ryan, Republican Speaker of the House, recently told NPR that helping children requires helping their families — a truism of two-gen thinking.

What is true of all such programs—the ones Volk writes about as well as those that are tested through randomized control trials by Banerjee and Duflo—is they focus on improving individual decisions and household environments, not on the history and dynamics of larger economic and social structures that create and perpetuate mass poverty. In other words, it’s all about individual, not social, responsibility and outcomes. The goal, it seems, is to change individual decisions and promote the mobility of a select few up and out of poverty—and, by the same token, to avoid an analysis of the kinds of changes that need to be made in the economy in order to end existing poverty and prevent its recurrence in the future.*

The problem, as I see it, is not a culture of poverty. It’s a culture of poor economics.

 

*I am reminded of an early World Development Report (unfortunately, I don’t remember the exact year) in which it was shown that a redistribution of productive assets (such as land reform) was much more likely to end poverty than other reforms (such as universal schooling). However, the authors of the report argued, land reform often faces social and political opposition, especially from landlords, and therefore needs to be set aside since it is an unrealistic strategy.

de23115058cc8be8f825a8d7de853927

Special mention

184449_600 184423_600