Making Poverty History

At the heart of Kibera slum in Nairobi, the prospect of a world without poverty seems hopeless. In Kibera, “Africa’s biggest slum,” over one million people live in a vast extension of tin and mud structures, with no electricity, water or sewage. Children in Kibera have a one-in-ten chance of dying before they reach their fifth birthdays. If they survive, they are unlikely to go to school, and will probably be caring for someone in their household dying from AIDS. At least seven other slums like this in Nairobi, hundreds more in other African cities, and thousands across the globe compound Kibera’s impact.

To understand the hopes for Kibera, we should look at poverty trends globally. The most common lens on world poverty is the tracking done in relation to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a set of U.N. targets for poverty reduction by the year 2015 agreed upon by the world’s nations. These eight targets included: halving the numbers of people living in extreme poverty; significantly reducing maternal and infant mortality; and achieving universal primary education. Another target committed northern governments to redressing the huge imbalances in economic opportunity by reducing trade barriers, eliminating debt and meeting their aid commitments.

The world’s progress on MDGs includes good news and bad news. Good news is that globally, the 2015 poverty target may be met.1 Overall, the number of poor people in the world is decreasing. The number of extremely poor has fallen from 1.5 billion to 1.1 billion. East Asia has already halved extreme poverty, 15 years ahead of time. On current trends, the poverty rate for the developing world as a whole will fall from 40 percent to 15 percent by 2015.

High levels of economic growth in China actually mask the bad news: China accounts for most of the progress in decreasing poverty over the last 10 years. Outside China the number of poor people has risen. The poor in sub-Saharan Africa have almost doubled from 164 million to 316 million since the early 1980s. Life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa has fallen from 50 to 46 years of age since 1990, largely due to HIV/AIDS. Other sobering figures come from South Asia. Poverty levels have declined due to strong economic growth in India and other countries, but nearly half of all children under 5 are malnourished and illiteracy is high—23 percent for males and 39 percent for females. Even meeting the MDG for global poverty reduction leaves 900 million people living in poverty.

Is it possible to hope for a world without poverty in our lifetimes? The easy answer is no. We will not come close to meeting the MDGs if we continue on our current course. Developing countries, largely dependent on commodity exports, will not achieve the growth levels needed for wider economic development. They will not be able to fund education and health care, key investments in human capital required for development. Inequalities will continue for women and girls due to domestic violence, prejudice and lack of investment in social services. HIV/AIDS will take an additional 45 million lives in Africa; South and Central Asia will see falling life expectancy levels due to the disease. Millions will lose their homes and agricultural lands due to flooding and droughts brought on by climate change and deforestation. For our generation, the more challenging answer is yes, not only can the world meet the MDGs, we can make world poverty a chapter of history. The data reveal that we can shift the perspective toward a different scenario. If we can eliminate poverty, why aren’t we doing everything in our power to make it happen?

What is required is not a secret. First, we know that poverty reduction will cost money. Oxfam estimates that it will cost $150 billion per year from now to 2015 to meet the MDGs. This compares with $57 billion in current aid commitments. When we look at $956 billion in global military spending in 2003, we can surely find an additional $100 billion for development assistance, depending on our priorities. Wealthy northern countries have already committed to dedicating 0.7 percent of their GNP to development assistance. If countries honored their commitments $165 billion would be available for poverty reduction. A further $100 billion would be available for development if commitments to debt relief were met for the poorest countries.

Second, economic development requires economic growth, which requires investments in infrastructure for small-scale producers, as well as increasing trade. If Africa increased its share of global trade by just 1 percent, millions of people would be lifted out of poverty. But southern countries are at a structural disadvantage in the global trade arena. Oxfam estimates that developing countries lose $100 billion per year in potential income due to tariff barriers in the north. In a most striking example, Oxfam calculated that U.S. subsidies on cotton in 2001–02 resulted in losses to West African farmers of nearly $200 million. This also translates into a significant negative impact on national economies, and the chances for investment in health and education. Burkina Faso, for example, saw a 1 percent decline in its GDP and 12 percent drop in its export earnings due to unfair competition; Mali lost 1.7 percent of its GDP and dropped 9 percent in its export earnings.

Third, we need immediate action on climate change. Although poor people have benefited the least from fossil fuel combustion, they are now the most vulnerable to the impact of global warming. Levels of food production in the developing world are predicted to decline significantly over the coming decade due to environmental change. Environmental risk factors—poor water quality, pollution, toxic waste—are also estimated to cause 20 to 30 percent of the entire disease burden in the developing world. A recent World Bank report asserts little likelihood, now, of reversing global warming, but we can slow it down and take steps to protect the most vulnerable. This will require increasing the efficiency of and decreasing the dependency on fossil fuels, investing in renewable energy and in restoring forests and watersheds.

Politicians and the public express skepticism about increasing development assistance. Corruption and mismanagement within governments and institutions leads not only to waste, but to boosting the power of the most corrupt. These are real risks, but we can use the substantial experience about how to direct aid effectively. We just need to build from the many positive examples from around the world. For instance:

• In China, the government gave financial assistance to upgrade infrastructure in rural areas, particularly for transportation and power. Farmers were given greater control over their land and production. As a result, rural poverty fell from 31 percent to 11 percent between 1990 and 1998.

• India has made remarkable progress in education. Between 1992 and 1998, net
enrollment of 6- to 10-year-olds increased from 68 percent to 82 percent. Much of this expansion was attributed to improved access, especially for girls and rural children.

• In Iran, an innovative public health program, based on a network of state-supported “health houses” and the training of local health promoters, contributed to the reduction of child mortality rates from 120 to 30 deaths per thousand live births over a 20-year period.

• In Brazil, the “Bolsa Familia” program has targeted 11 million extremely poor families with cash payments in exchange for school attendance, vaccinations and participation in adult vocation training. By 2003, 32 percent of Brazil’s families had received benefits from the program.

• Uganda has brought down the HIV prevalence rate from 30 percent in 1986 to 6 percent in 2002. This is a huge achievement, accomplished through broad public awareness campaigns, strong presidential leadership and an effective ministry of health.

• In northern Pakistan, per capita income in some poor rural areas has increased by 84 percent through increased investments in services and programs that involve community members in local level planning and monitoring public expenditure.

• The Loess Plateau Watershed Project in China successfully rehabilitated 1.5 million hectares of degraded land through investments in sustainable crop production, reforestation, terracing and water management. The project vastly improved water and soil conservation and the percentage of people living under the poverty line fell from 59 percent to 27 percent in 7 years.

Other examples like these exist around the world. They show that with political will, proper resources and good management, we can turn poverty indicators around. Our generation—through our jobs, our votes, our influence and our resources— will decide whether ending poverty will be a political priority, or whether we are willing to let the downward trends take their course.

Next year is crucial: In 2005, the U.N. will mark the 10-year countdown to the target date for achieving the MDGs. The United Kingdom will host the G-8, the meeting of the leaders of the world’s largest economies, with a commitment to put poverty on the agenda in a serious way. The world’s media will reflect back on the tenth anniversary of “Live Aid.” Approaching this historic moment is our opportunity to garner the political commitment and resources to make poverty history.

Reach Becky at rbuell@ntlworld.com.
Becky Buell ’78

Back to Magazine