This web page has the following sub-sections:

1. Introduction 2. World Banks Poverty Estimates Revised 3. Inequality 1. Inequality in Industrialized Nations 2. Inequality in the US 3. Inequality, globalization and a new global elite 4. Inequality in Cities Around the World 5. Inequality in Rural Areas 6. Inequality Between Genders 7. Inequality and Health 8. Inequality fueled by many factors 9. Inequality increases social tensions 10. Fragile Democracies, Inequality turn good people to evil 4. The Wealthy and the Poor 5. The World Bank and Poverty 6. Poverty in Industrialized Countries 7. Corruption

Introduction
What does it mean to be poor? How is poverty measured? Third World countries are often described as developing while the First World, industrialized nations are often developed. What does it mean to describe a nation as developing? A lack of material wealth does not necessarily mean that one is deprived. A strong economy in a developed nation doesnt mean much when a significant percentage (even a majority) of the population is struggling to survive. Successful development can imply many things, such as (though not limited to): An improvement in living standards and access to all basic needs such that a person has enough food, water, shelter, clothing, health, education, etc; A stable political, social and economic environment, with associated political, social and economic freedoms, such as (though not limited to) equitable ownership of land and property; The ability to make free and informed choices that are not coerced; Be able to participate in a democratic environment with the ability to have a say in ones own future; To have the full potential for what the United Nations calls Human Development: Human development is about much more than the rise or fall of national incomes. It is about creating an environment in which people can develop their full potential and lead productive, creative lives in accord with their needs and interests. People are the real wealth of nations. Development is thus about expanding the choices people have to lead

lives that they value. And it is thus about much more than economic growth, which is only a meansif a very important oneof enlarging peoples choices. What is Human Development?, Human Development Reports, United Nations Development Program At household, community, societal, national and international levels, various aspects of the above need to be provided, as well as commitment to various democratic institutions that do not become corrupted by special interests and agendas. Yet, for a variety of reasons, these full rights are not available in many segments of various societies from the richest to the poorest. When political agendas deprive these possibilities in some nations, how can a nation develop? Is this progress? Politics have led to dire conditions in many poorer nations. In many cases, international political interests have led to a diversion of available resources from domestic needs to western markets. (See the structural adjustment section to find out more about this.) This has resulted in a lack of basic access to food, water, health, education and other important social services. This is a major obstacle to equitable development. Back to top

World Banks Poverty Estimates Revised

In August 2008, the World Bank presented a major overhaul to their estimates of global poverty, incorporating what they described as better and new data. The World Banks long-held estimate of the number of people living on the equivalent of $1 a day has now been changed to $1.25 a day. The World Bank also adds that the previous $1 a day estimate for the international poverty line would have been $1.45 a day at 2005 prices if only inflation was accounted for. The revised estimates include a lot more recalculations and the $1 a day measure used in some of the charts below are therefore not to be confused with the old $1 a day measure, and where available, a $1.45 measure is also provided as well as a more current $1 a day measure. (Because some developing countries also have poverty lines at $2 and $2.50 a day, those are also shown, where available.) At a poverty line of $1.25 a day, the revised estimates find 1.4 billion people live at this poverty line or below This is more than the previous estimate of 984 million with the older measure of a $1 a day in 2004 In 1981, the estimated number of poor was also revised upward, from 1.5 billion to 1.9 billion

The World Bank notes that the incidence of poverty in the world is higher than past estimates have suggested. The main reason is that [previous data] had implicitly underestimated the cost of living in most developing countries. The data also does not reflect the recent global food crisis and rising cost of energy, which is feared will bring another 100 million into poverty. Accounting for the increased population between 1981 and 2005, the poverty rate has, however, fallen by about 25%. While this at least sounds encouraging, it masks regional variations, and perhaps most glaringly the impact of China:

Chinas poverty rate fell from 85% to 15.9%, or by over 600 million people China accounts for nearly all the worlds reduction in poverty Excluding China, poverty fell only by around 10%

As a result, the World Bank feels that while China is on target to reach the Millennium Development Goals to reduce poverty and tackle various other issues, most other countries are not. Here are the World Banks new estimates of poverty at different poverty levels: Different poverty levels Data in other graph formats Raw data

Different poverty levels

Poverty lines shown here include $1 a day, $1.25 a day, $1.45 a day, $2 a day (typical for many developing countries), $2.50 a day (which includes a poverty level for some additional countries), and $10 a day, which a World Bank report referred to if looking at poverty from the level of a wealthy country, such as the US.

But even with some poverty reduction, inequality is quite high in many regions around the world:

Back to top

Inequality
Inequality is not just bad for social justice, it is also bad for economic efficiency Growth with equity is good for the poor, Oxfam, June 2000 While poverty alleviation is important, so too is tackling inequality. Inequality is often discussed in the context of relative poverty, as opposed to absolute poverty. That is, even in the wealthiest countries, the poor may not be in absolute poverty (the most basic of provisions may be obtainable for many) or their level of poverty may be a lot higher than those in developing countries, but in terms of their standing in society, their relative poverty can also have serious consequences such as deteriorating social cohesion, increasing crime and violence, and poorer health. Some of these things are hard to measure, such as social cohesion and the level of trust and comfort people will have in interacting with one another in the society. Nonetheless, over the years, numerous studies have shown that sometimes the poor in wealthy countries can be unhappier or finding it harder to cope than poor people in poorer countries. In the context of tackling poverty then, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) for example sees poverty reduction as a twin function of 1. The rate of growth, and 2. Changes in income distribution.

The ODI also adds that as well as increased growth, additional key factors to reducing poverty will be: The reduction in inequality The reduction in income differences

A few places around the world do see increasing rates of growth in a positive sense. But globally, there is also a negative change in income distribution. The reality unfortunately is that the gap between the rich and poor is quite wide in most places. For example: About 0.13% of the worlds population controlled 25% of the worlds assets in 2004. The wealthiest 20% of the worlds population consumes 76.6% of the worlds goods while 80% of humanity gets the remainder.

(See poverty facts and stats on this site for more examples.)

Inequality in Industrialized Nations

Professors Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, from the Equality Trust, produced an informative lecture video titled Inequality: The enemy between us? based on their recently released book, The Spirit Level; Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better (Penguin, March 2009). In the lecture, compelling evidence is presented by the two professors that once nations are industrialized, more equal societies almost always do better in terms of health, well-being and social cohesion and that large income inequalities within societies destroys the social fabric and quality of life for everyone: Inequality: The enemy between us?, Equality Trust, 2009 As they studied the data for industrialized nations, they noticed a clear tendency for countries which do badly (or well) on one outcome to do badly (or well) on others. They looked at a wide range of health and social problems and found that, Outcomes are substantially worse in more unequal societies The problems tend to move together, implying that they share an underlying cause Whether their findings are tested internationally among the rich countries, or among the 50 states of the USA, there is almost always the same tendency for outcomes to be much worse in more unequal societies. Health is related to income differences within rich societies, not between them Health and social problems are worse in more unequal countries Health and social problems are not related to average income in rich countries Child well-being is better in more equal rich countries Child well-being is unrelated to average incomes in rich countries Levels of trust are higher in more equal rich countries The prevalence of mental illness is higher in more unequal rich countries Drug use is more common in more unequal countries Life expectancy is longer in more equal rich countries Infant mortality rates are higher in more unequal countries

As they note in a presentation of their findings:

More adults are obese in more unequal rich countries Educational scores are higher in more equal rich countries Teenage birth rates are higher in more unequal rich countries Homicide rates are higher in more unequal rich countries Children experience more conflict in more unequal societies Rates of imprisonment are higher in more unequal societies Social mobility is higher in more equal rich countries More equal societies are more innovative More equal countries rank better on recycling

An interesting point they make is that economic growth alone which is supposed to raise the income of all is not necessarily a good determinant of life-expectancy and well-being: individuals in some developing countries can attain a level of life-expectancy comparable to industrialized nations even when their income may be far lower:

Income per head and life-expectancy: rich & poor countries, The Spirit Level Slides, The Equality Trust, 2009 (previous link has larger image)

In other words, economic growth is important when developing, but after that equality may be more important. The following graphs (reproduced with kind permission) are just examples of the problems they looked at, but the trends are always the same: the more unequal the society, the worse the problem generally:

Violence is more common in more unequal societies, Evidence: Violence, The Equality Trust, 2009. From the source for the above graph, the Equality Trust notes that, The link between inequality and homicide rates has been shown in as many as 40 studies, and the differences are large: there are five-fold differences in murder rates between different countries related to inequality. The most important reason why violence is more common in more unequal societies is that it is often triggered by people feeling looked down, disrespected and loss of face. The next example compares social mobility (the ability for someone to move up the social ladder, escape poverty etc) with inequality:

Social mobility is higher in more equal rich countries, Evidence: Social Mobility, The Equality Trust, 2009. It may be surprising to see the US at the low end of social mobility when it is touted as the land of dreams and possibilities for anyone, no matter who they are. The UK is also surprisingly at the low end. Interestingly, the US and UK are the biggest proponents of neoliberal economic ideology, which has often played down concerns about inequality and instead focused more on raising the lot for everyone (as the interview with Tony Blair noted further below reveals). Yet, the Equality Trust finds that, It looks as if the American Dream is far more likely to remain a dream for Americans than it is for people living in Scandinavian countries. Greater inequalities of outcome seem to make it easier for rich parents to pass on their advantages. While income differences have widened in Britain and the USA, social mobility has slowed. Bigger income differences may make it harder to achieve equality of opportunity because they increase social class differentiation and perhaps prejudice. Evidence: Social Mobility, The Equality Trust, accessed December 7, 2009 The implications of all these findings are important in many ways. For example, it is often said that to develop and industrialize, developing nations carbon emissions must increase, as industrialization implies a more energy-intensive economy. However, what is less discussed is whether that means carbon emissions of poorer countries must be similar to todays industrialized nations. Many of todays industrialized nations are often seen as over consuming with respect to the planets health (climate change being something largely a result of greenhouse emissions from wealthier nations, for example). As the next graph shows, a number of developing nations have achieved average life expectancies that are close to industrialized nations, but with far less carbon emissions in the process:

High life expectancy can be achieved with low CO2 emissions, The Spirit Level Slides, The Equality Trust, 2009 (previous link has larger image) Addressing inequality implies tackling many, many social, political, economic and environmental issues, for they are all inter-related in many ways. (Interestingly, the data they used for the study came from the early 2000s, so are not distorted by the global financial crisis that started around 2008.) Further below there is more about poverty in industrialized nations, but first, some more on inequality.

Inequality in the US
The US for a long time has had the largest gap and inequality between rich and poor compared to all the other industrialized nations. For example in 2003, the top 1% received more money than the bottom 40% with the gap widest in 70 years. Furthermore, in the last 20 years while the share of income going to the top 1% has increased, it has decreased for the poorest 40%. Inter Press Service also summarizes an updated report by the US Census Bureau that 1 in 7 people in the US are in poverty. In 2009, 43.6 million people 14.6 percent of the population were living in poverty in the U.S., up from 13.2 percent of the population in 2008. The United States currently has the highest number of people in poverty it has ever had since the government began counting in 1959,

although the percentage of people this represents is lower than it was then (due to the increased population size since then). IPS also notes factors such as the global financial crisis, stagnant wages and more contribute to this deepening poverty. But the article also adds that the poverty estimate may be understated because of assumptions made in calculations years ago and changes in costs of living since then as well as regional differences.

Percentage change in US income since 1979, adjusted for inflation, Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 CBO, October 2011, p.3 Figure 2 , US

The US Congressional Budget Office released updated figures for US household income between 1979 and 2007 which showed that the top 1% were driving the main increases in income. Their income had grown some 275% over that period, some 7 times more than the remaining 99%. This is likely to add fuel to the so-called Occupy protest movement in the US and around the world, where in the US in particular, we are the 99% (or its variations) are popular slogans in the protests against the current economic conditions and those who largely caused it or are benefiting from it. Factors included more market income in the top percentages, a larger increase in wage rates for those at the top, increases in corporate pay, the expansion of technology disproportionately benefiting those at the top, increasing pay for those working in the financial and legal professions, the expansion of financial services, etc. The report notes similar findings to that in earlier years, mentioned further above that the top 1% received more than the bottom 40%:

As a result of that uneven income growth, the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined. The share of income received by the top 1 percent grew from about 8 percent in 1979 to over 17 percent in 2007. In 2007, those shares were 53 percent and 47 percent, respectively. In 1979, the top 1 percent received about the same share of income as the lowest income quintile; by 2007, the top percentile received more than the lowest two income quintiles combined. Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Budget Office, October 2011, p.3 , US Congressional

Source: Supplemental data for 1979 - 2005, US Congressional Budget Office, December 2008 Nobel prize winner for economics, Paul Krugman, comments on earlier CBO data that even within the top 1% the big gains have gone to the top 0.1%. The 99%/Occupy protest movement is aiming too low he remarks! Krugman also notes that lack of education is not a driving factor for inequality in the US as some have argued. Instead, inequality in America is mainly a story about a small elite pulling away from everyone else, including ordinary college grads. In a short follow-up, Krugman adds that the change in income share in that period shows that just about all of the redistribution has taken place from the bottom 80 to the top 1. And stressing his point about education, Its a tiny minority, not a broad class of well-educated Americans, who have been winning here.

Noting that around the world there is a new global working wealthy dominating the new global elite, an earlier New York Times article notes for the US that the gap [in the US] between the super rich and everybody else is now greater than at any time since before the Depression of the 1930s. Furthermore, The richest one-hundredth of 1 percent of American families about 15,000 accounted for less than 1 percent of national income in 1974. By 2007, the figure was 6 percent, according to Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University outside Washington. That difference translates into hundreds of billions of dollars. Countries like Russia have been seen as having an oligarchical structure. But for a while many have talked of countries like the US also showing similar patterns. And so a long-time concern is that a lot of this increased concentration in wealth is not just from successful business practices, but collusion, corruption and undue influences: One concern some economists express about the emergence of a global plutocracy is that it may be driven, not only by seemingly benign forces like the technology revolution and global trade, but also by malign ones, particularly the elites ability to shape government and other public policy activities in its own self-interest. The rise of government-connected plutocrats is not just a phenomenon in places like Russia, India and China. The generous government bailouts of United States financial institutions prompted Simon Johnson, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to compare American bankers with emerging-market oligarchs. In an article in The Atlantic magazine, which he later expanded into a book, Mr. Johnson wrote that American financiers had pulled off a quiet coup. Chrystia Freeland, Working Wealthy Predominate the New Global Elite, New York Times, January 25, 2011

Inequality, globalization and a new global elite

Globalization has, as noted above, benefited a new working elite globally, not just in the US. They have largely pulled away from their compatriots, even in more egalitarian countries, such as Germany and various Scandinavian countries, while those already with large inequality in emerging developing countries are getting more unequal too. An analysis of over 43,000 transnational corporations (TNCs) has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy. Of those companies, There was a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownership The 1318 companies represents around 60 per cent of global revenues by collectively owning through their shares the majority of the worlds large blue chip and manufacturing firms the real economy An even tighter 147 (about 1%) of these were described as super entities that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network.

The problem with such super concentration is that a small minority can influence the world system disproportionately what is good for them is not necessarily good for everyone else, for example. In addition, given the enormous position in the world system, a problem in just a handful of them can, and have, had a terrible effect on the rest of the economy as the current financial crisis has shown. Adam Smith, who was amongst the first to argue for free markets, had also warned against the impacts and undue influences of such concentration, but it would seem the modern TNCs have, in his name, achieved the same position.

Inequality in Cities Around the World

Inequality is usually associated with poorer, developing nations. But for many years, studies have shown that many wealthier nations also suffer from inequality, sometimes at levels similar to those of some developing countries. For example, the UN Habitats State of the Worlds Cities 2008/2009 report has found that disparities within cities and between cities and regions within the same country are growing as some areas benefit more than others from public services, infrastructure and other investments. In addition, and almost counter to conventional wisdom, the report finds that in cities that have high levels of inequality increases the chance of more disparities increases, not reduces, with economic growth. This is because high levels of urban inequality have a dampening effect on economic growth and contribute to a less favorable environment for investment. The report also added that in such cities, the lack of social mobility tends to reduce peoples participation in the formal sector of the economy and their integration in society. This exacerbates insecurity and social unrest which, in turn, diverts public and private resources from social services and productive investments to expenditures for safety and security. In another UN Habitat report, the issue of equality was noted: As a municipal official, one has to decide whether to spend taxpayers money on road infrastructure, which in developing cities mostly serves higher income citizens with cars, or to spend it on public utilities and amenities, thus providing for a majority of the population, particularly benefiting the poor. This is why the major issues for todays cities have to do with equality and politics, rather than engineering alone. Enrique Pealosa, former mayor of Bogot, Colombia, Urban World: Bridging the urban divide, Why cities must build equality, UN Habitat, December 2009-January 2010, p. 8 Factoring in democratic principles also makes things harder: Government has many roles but a fundamental one, in democracy, is to build equality. For legitimacy to exist in society, citizens must perceive that inclusion and equality are fundamental objectives of public authorities. (p.9) Yet different priorities and interests easily result. For example, the report adds that in many developing cities, wealthier citizens live in private spaces and may even avoid visiting or walking around in city centers. As a result, they do not care much about citys parks or public schools but may be more interested in better roads, for example. There is therefore a dilemma that the public sector faces compared to the private sector: for the private sector, deciding where to invest usually boils down to where the best returns will be. By contrast, in the public sector every project is good, a police station, a road, a school or a park all provide a benefit which is difficult to measure. In parallel with growing cities are growing informal settlements or slums. Numerous factors create this rise, from poverty in the countryside, changes towards neoliberal economic ideology, corruption, globalization factors and so on. The problem is so immense that, according to UN Habitat, approximately 1 billion people live in slums in the cities of the world approximately 1 in every 6 people on the planet. While there have been some successes in reducing the number of people living in such areas in recent years by about a tenth (mostly in China and India), numerous problems persist. World Habitat Day Stop forced evictions in Africa, Amnesty International, October 2009

Without the ability to make their voices heard, people in informal settlements often find that in addition to less services, the threat of forced eviction is commonplace as private developers often want prime land for development. Amnesty International provides numerous examples of this from around the world. A short video summarizes a number of other videos they have compiled on this. Some settlements dont have official recognition. As a result, residents have been denied a range of essential services provided by the government to other residents [such as] water, sanitation, electricity, garbage collection, health, education, access roads and transport (from Amnesty Internationals report: Kenya: the unseen majority; Nairobis two million slum-dwellers p.7). , June 2009,

Kibera, Nairobi, Sub-Saharan Africas largest slum, from Share The Worlds Resources work on Megaslumming. Kenyas Kibera slum, Sub-Sharan Africas largest informal settlement, is an example of a massive settlement without official recognition which has been around for decades. The video clip shows that despite the hardships there is still a sense of vibrant humanity. Share The Worlds Resources, an organization that produced the video, released the book Megaslumming which described this further, highlighting that despite the grinding reality of poverty, human nature can still prevail and people work together to help each other and are enterprising despite all the circumstances.

Image: Deep Sea slum in Kenya.( Amnesty International) In developing countries, where some 1 in 3 people living in cities are living in slum areas, the urgency to address this has never been more. With increasing migration to cities (almost half of humanity lives in urban areas), there is increasing pressures on providing sufficient resources in a sustainable way. Furthermore, as cities grow in this way, addressing greenhouse emissions from urban areas can go a long way to helping combat climate change. Some of the other findings the 2008/2009 UN Habitat reported included that Some 3 million people per week were added to cities of developing world. Some American cities are as unequal as African and Latin American cities. For example, New York was found to be the 9th most unequal in the world while Atlanta, New Orleans,

Washington, and Miami had similar inequality levels to those of Nairobi, Kenya Abidjan and Ivory Coast. Race is one of the most important factors determining levels of inequality in the US and Canada. For example, The life expectancy of African-Americans in the US is about the same as that of people living in China and some states of India, despite the fact that the US is far richer than the other two countries. India was becoming more unequal as a direct result of economic liberalization and globalization. The most unequal cities were in South Africa and Namibia and Latin America. Beijing was now the most egalitarian city in the world, just ahead of cities such as Jakarta in Indonesia and Dire Dawa in Ethiopia. Europe was found to be generally more egalitarian than other continents. Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Slovenia were classed as the most equal countries while Greece, the UK and Spain were among the most unequal.

Conventional thinking on development issues is often characterized by many assumptions, clichs and rationalizations about the residents of slums. Challenging some of these core myths about slums can help focus on the structural causes of urban poverty that result in the rapid growth of informal settlements, as Adam Parsons from Share the Worlds Resources organization notes. Although the above focuses on cities, more generally, rural areas exhibit more poverty than urban areas which is briefly looked at next. In addition, the section further below on poverty in industrialized areas also suggests that inequality is unfortunately widespread.

Inequality in Rural Areas

Poverty and inequality in rural areas is also high, particularly in the developing world. The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), an international financial institution and a specialized UN agency, released a major report on the state of rural poverty in the developing world in December 2010. Reuters summary of IFAD report, December 2010 The Rural Poverty Report 2011 contains updated estimates by IFAD of the number of rural poor people living in the developing world, poverty rates in rural areas, and the percentage of poor people residing in rural areas. The report also includes new information on how many people move in and out of poverty over time. It points to what it describes as emerging opportunities for rural growth and development and suggests how to help rural women and men move out of poverty and become part of the solution for the global food security challenges of the next several decades. The report adds that despite an historic shift towards urbanization, poverty remains largely a rural problem, and a majority of the worlds poor will live in rural areas for many decades to come. In addition, of the 1.4 billion people living in extreme poverty [less than US$1.25/day] in 2005, approximately 1 billion around 70 per cent lived in rural areas. (p.47) Changes over time are not the same in all regions, however.

Rural share of total poverty (Rural people as percentage of those living on less than US$1.25/day), Rural Poverty Report 2011, p.47 As the IFAD chart shows, As a total average, yo% of those in extreme poverty live in rural areas East Asia has reduced the rural share of total poverty to just over 50 per cent Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East and North Africa, the most urbanized regions, a majority of the poor now live in urban areas In South Asia, South East Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, by contrast, over three-quarters of the poor live in rural areas, and the proportion is barely declining, despite urbanization

But rural areas are not with poor only. In recent years, many have been lifted out of poverty:

Incidence of extreme rural poverty (Percentage of rural people living on less than US$1.25/day), Rural Poverty Report 2011, p.48 As the IFAD chart shows, as a total average across developing nations, just under 35% of the total rural population of developing countries is classified as extremely poor, down from around 54% in 1988. The various regions have fared differently, however. For example, Rural poverty has declined more slowly in South Asia, where the incidence is still more than 45 per cent for extreme poverty and over 80 per cent for US$2/day poverty Likewise, sub-Saharan Africas rural poverty decline is also slow, where more than 60% of the rural population lives on less than US$1.25 a day, and almost 90% lives on less than US$2/day.

Even within these regions, the IFAD reports that some countries and sub-regions fared better than others. IFAD also noted that the number of those living on less than $2 a day is also down, from around 80% of all rural populations to around 60% (but mostly due to massive rural poverty reduction in East Asia (mostly China) where today the incidence of rural poverty is around 15% for the US$1.25/day line and 35% for the US$2/day line. (p.48) Despite successes in areas like Latin America when using the internationally comparable $1.25/day poverty line, the report also warns that the numbers there that can be classified in poverty would be higher if using their own national poverty lines. In other words, inequality is high even while absolute poverty is slowly being reduced. In addition, in terms of raw numbers of people, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa are where most rural poor live:

Rural people living in extreme poverty (Millions of rural people living on less than US$1.25/day), Rural Poverty Report 2011, p.49 Although the graphs seem to show progress, the report warns of complacency as further efforts to reduce rural poverty will be complicated by

Increasingly volatile food prices as seen in 2008 The uncertainties and effects of climate change, and A range of natural resource constraints

Inequality Between Genders

IFAD also notes that women tend to do more work (for less pay) and are the primary care givers in virtually all rural societies, yet barely feature in recognition or policy. IFAD also adds that The general implication of these findings is that achieving gender equality requires challenging social institutions, and that doing so is crucial to address interlocking deprivations which result in poverty not only for women, but poverty more broadly. womens access to better paid, more secure jobs is not only beneficial to them and their families, but also to the growth of the wider economy. (p.63) For more information, see this sites section on womens rights which goes into the above further.

Inequality and Health

A Canadian study in 1998 suggested that the wealthiest nations do not have the healthiest people; instead, it is countries with the smallest economic gap between the rich and poor. For many years, poverty has also been described as the number one health problem for many poor nations as they do not have the resources to meet the growing needs. Yet, it is not beyond humanity: At the end of August, 2008, the World Health Organizations Commission on the Social Determinants of Health presented a 3-year investigation into the social detriments to health in a report titled the Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health.

The report noted that health inequalities were to be found all around the world, not just the poorest countries: The poorest of the poor, around the world, have the worst health. Those at the bottom of the distribution of global and national wealth, those marginalized and excluded within countries, and countries themselves disadvantaged by historical exploitation and persistent inequity in global institutions of power and policy-making present an urgent moral and practical focus for action. But focusing on those with the least, on the gap between the poorest and the rest, is only a partial response. In rich countries, low socioeconomic position means poor education, lack of amenities, unemployment and job insecurity, poor working conditions, and unsafe neighbourhoods, with their consequent impact on family life. These all apply to the socially disadvantaged in low-income countries in addition to the considerable burden of material deprivation and vulnerability to natural disasters. So these dimensions of social disadvantage that the health of the worst off in high-income countries is, in a few dramatic cases, worse than average health in some lower-income countries are important for health. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health , Commission on Social Determinants of Health, World Health Organization, August 28, 2008, p.31 Get the Flash Player to see this video. Sir Michael Marmot explains why social, political and economic policies affect health. Source: WHO. Higher quality video Sir Michael Marmot, chair of the Commission, noted in an interview that most health problems are due to social, political and economic factors. The key determinants of health of individuals and populations are the circumstances in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, he says. And those circumstances are affected by the social and economic environment. They are the cause premature of disease and suffering; thats unnecessary. And thats why we say a toxic combination of poor social policies, bad politics and unfair economics are causing health and disease on a grand scale. Marmot expands on this further in the video clip. Even within a country such as the UK, then, the report finds that the average life-span can differ by some 28 years, depending on whether you are in the poorer or wealthier strata of society. This is discussed in more detail on this web site on this page: Global Health Overview.

Inequality fueled by many factors

Various things can create inequality. Most common generalizations will be things like greed, power, money. But even in societies where governments are well-intentioned, policy choices and individual actions (or inactions) can all contribute to inequality. In wealthier nations, the political left usually argue for addressing inequality as a matter of moral obligation or social justice, to help avoid worsening social cohesion and a weakening society. The political right in the wealthier nations generally argue that in most cases, western nations have overcome the important challenge of inequality of opportunity, and so more emphasis and responsibility should be placed on the individual to help themselves get out of their predicament. Both views have their merits; being lazy or trying to live off the system is as abhorrent as inequalities structured into the system by those with wealth, power and influence.

In poorer countries, those same dynamics may be present too, sometimes in much more extremes, but there are also additional factors that have a larger impact than they would on most wealthier countries, which is sometimes overlooked by political commentators in wealthy countries when talking about inequality in poorer countries. For example, in some poorer countries, a combination of successive military governments (often supported or aided by the West) and/or corrupt leadership, as well as international economic policy have combined to create debt traps and wealth siphoning, affecting the poorer citizens the most (because the costs such as the debt gets socialized). Nigeria is one often-mentioned example, as Jubilee 2000 highlights where Western backed dictatorships have siphoned off much of the nations wealth in the past leaving the country under immense debt for later generations to suffer under. Indonesia is another example as part of this Noam Chomsky interview by The Nation magazine reveals. Latin America on the whole is another. Latin America has the highest disparity rate in the world between the rich and the poor: Internal, regional and external geopolitics, various international economic factors and more, have all contributed to problems. For example, the foreign policy of the US in that region has often been criticized for failing to help tackle the various issues and only being involved to enhance US national interests and even interfering, affecting the course and direction of the nations in the region through overt and covert destabilization. This, combined with factors such as corruption, foreign debt, concentrated wealth and so on, has contributed to poverty there. Much of the above was written around early 1999. Unfortunately, well into 2003, the World Bank reported that the Latin American rich-poor gap is widening. There has been progress in closing the gender gap in income, and girls and young women had overtaken their male counterparts in education. However, inequality is very high. For example: Income inequality in the region had worsened with the richest one tenth of the population earning 48% of its total income, while the poorest tenth earns only 1.6% Race has also been a factor where Indigenous and Afro-descended people are at considerable disadvantage with respect to whites, with the latter earning the highest wages in the region.

Into 2010, Inter Press Service (IPS) reports that 10 of the 15 most unequal countries in the world are in Latin America: Bolivia, followed by Haiti, Brazil, Ecuador, and Chile, which is tied in fifth place with Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama and Paraguay. The UK and US are often two of the more dynamic nations, economically and opportunities to make a very successful life is well within the realms of possibility. Yet, these two tend to have the worst levels of inequality amongst industrialized nations. Such levels of inequality implies that it is overly simplistic to blame it all on each individual or solely on government policy and white-collar corruption. While ideological debates will always continue on the causes of inequality, both the political left and right agree that social cohesion (social justice or family values, etc) is suffering, risking the very fabric of society if it gets out of control.

Inequality increases social tensions

Andrew Simms, policy directory for the New Economics Foundation in U.K. (which spear-headed the Jubilee 2000 campaign to highlight the injustices of third world debt) makes an interesting suggestion in the British paper, The Guardian (August 6, 2003). He suggests that as well as a minimum wage, for the sake of social cohesion there should perhaps be a maximum wage, too.

Amongst various things, Simms notes that tackling inequality from the other end is important because the economic case for high executive pay in terms of company performance doesnt hold up, and because highly unequal societies have a habit of falling apart. In addition: Crime and unhappiness stalk unequal societies. In the UK the bottom 50% of the population now owns only 1% of the wealth: in 1976 they owned 12%. Our economic systems incentive structure, instead of trickle-down, is causing a flood-up of resources from the poor to the rich. Inequality leads to instability, the last thing the country or world needs right now. Even the former hardline conservative head of the International Monetary Fund, Michel Camdessus, has come to the conclusion that the widening gaps between rich and poor within nations is morally outrageous, economically wasteful and potentially socially explosive. Above subsistence levels, what undermines our sense of well-being most is not our absolute income levels, but how big the gaps are between us and our peers. Allowing the super-rich to live apart from society is as damaging in its own way as the exclusion of the poorest. Andrew Simms, Now for a maximum wage, The Guardian, August 6, 2003 It seems, however, that neoliberal economic ideology may lead many to think inequality is not important. This partial transcript of an interview with Britains then-Prime Minister, Tony Blair, by the BBC prior to the June 2001 elections, reveals an example of that where Blair appeared to evade the question of the importance of reducing inequality, and kept suggesting that he wants to improve the lot of the poor, regardless of the levels of inequality between rich and poor. Britains BBC aired a documentary on March 17, 2004, titled IF. It looked into a scenario of what would happen in a few years if the growing inequality in the United Kingdom continued to widen. While the predictions of what would happen are always tough to make, the documentary noted some important issues that are already present, and that also parallel many parts of the world today. In summary, the documentary noted the increasing alienation and exclusion of people in society where inequality was high, but if government tried to do something about it, they would face a powerful obstacle: the rich. The remainder of this subsection provides more details: Gated communities, while providing an opportunity to develop otherwise derelict areas, also represents a sign of growing inequality, whereby those who can afford to do so live in areas where security is paid for and managed to ensure undesirables are kept out. While individuals are making understandable decisions regarding their security, there is the additional effect of cutting off from the rest of society, leading to consequences such as: Resentment, fragmentation, and exclusion; A divided society (described as an apartheid of society); Further inequality of Wealth; Opportunities; Space. Side Note These are times when the welfare state is failing people because it gives people a false sense of security and uses an element of coercion (payment of taxes to pay for the services). Yet, at the same

time, the documentary noted, what is making this situation more complicated is that the super rich are taking advantage of globalization and all the loop holes it provides, such as off-shore tax havens. As a result, there is less the state is able to do, leading to further frustrations. In the U.K., it was noted that inequality has been increasing to levels not seen since around the Second World War. At the same time, in U.K. (as elsewhere) private security services are increasing, providing a quasipolicing role. This is in response to the increase in crime, an effect of inequality. But this has important implications. For example: Such services are good at protecting everything that is a commodity and has a price. This typically implies possessions of individuals. The wealthy, the documentary also noted, can afford more private security than the poor. When a fear of crime exists then it is understandable that people will want security services that can protect their property. Furthermore, one would not expect an individual concerned with their own well-being to appear to sacrifice that for the sake of society. The concerns for their immediate family, children naturally take precedence. Regrettably though, a downward spiral potentially emerges that seems hard to get out of, because of the increasing fragmentation and exclusion that this results it.

However, policing is meant to be more than protecting things of material value; the police are supposed to have social and human concerns for society as well, something a private security firm neither is mandated to have, nor is usually created for. Due to the different roles, the costs, structures and accountability are also different. If crime is perceived to be increasing and the police are not seen as trusted, people can, and do take actions into their own hands. Wealthier people of course can afford to take more measures. In theory then, one of the many things that makes up a functioning, stable and democratic society is an uncorrupted judicial system and law enforcement. Addressing the root causes of inequality would therefore seem to be where the challenge lies. The political costs of inequality are recognized and accepted as being too high. The economic costs of fighting effects are also high. Citing some research, the BBC also noted that for each dollar spent on poverty causes, seven dollars was saved on consequences. Unfortunately, governments are in a difficult situation, because they can try to address inequality, but they will anger the rich.

Fragile Democracies, Inequality turn good people to evil

In May 2002, the BBC aired another documentary related to inequality, called The Experiment, where they showed in detail how inequality can turn good people to evil. The experiment involved a system of guards and prisoners. The prisoners eventually revolted against the initial inequality. However, some of the former prisoners themselves instituted what was becoming an almost fascist regime before the experiment was eventually stopped. The documentary concluded that on a more general sense, Our democracies are more fragile than we realize;

In addition, any power vacuums, which inequality can create and exacerbate, can seriously threaten to undermine democracy.

Inequality is also characterized by a concentration of wealth, which means a concentration of political power. Historically, one of the main reasons for continued poverty has been in order to maintain this power. Back to top

The Wealthy and the Poor

In the developing world, there is a pattern of inequality caused by the powerful subjugating the poor and keeping them dependent. Outside influence is often a large factor and access to trade and resources is the usual cause. It is often asked why the people of these countries do not stand up for themselves. In most cases when they do, they face incredible and often violent oppression from their ruling elites and from outsiders who see their national interests threatened. Consider the following from the United Nations: Everyone has the right to work, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection for himself and his family [and] an existence worthy of human dignity Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 And contrast that with the following around the same time, from a key superpower that helped create the United Nations. It is from George Kennan, head of the US State Department planning staff until 1950, and his comments on US relations with Far East: we have about 50% of the worlds wealth, but only 6.3% of its population.In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives.We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better. We should recognize that our influence in the Far Eastern area in the coming period is going to be primarily military and economic. We should make a careful study to see what parts of the Pacific and Far Eastern world are absolutely vital to our security, and we should concentrate our policy on seeing to it that those areas remain in hands which we can control or rely on. George Kennan, U.S. State Department Policy Planning, Study #23, February 24, 1948. (See also Foreign Relations of the United States 1948, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1976 for the full text where this was first published; The text to the part on realism of US relations in the Far East; David McGowan, Derailing Democracy, (Common Courage Press, 2000), p.169; Noam Chomsky, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, (Odian Press, 1993), Chapter 2. While it is recognized that strong institutions, a functioning and non-corrupt democracy, an impartial media, equitable distribution of land and a well structured judicial system (and other such factors), etc. all help in realizing a successful nation and society, a lack of any of these things can lead to a marginalization of a sector of people. Often, it can be a very large sector. For example, those likely to lose out in such an equalizing effect are the rich, elite power holders.

As a result of their ability to own and/or influence one of these above-mentioned things, they affect the lives of millions. This is a pattern seen throughout history. Take for example the medieval days of Europe where the wealthy of the time controlled land via a feudal ruling system and hence impoverished the common people intentionally. The rulers (Kings etc), would proclaim their Divine Right to rule over their subjects. They had an army of Lords and Bishops to advise on policies that benefited these groups (religion was usedand still isto control and influence people, while Lords and Knights were an extension to the ruling family that would carry out the wishes.) They would heavily tax the people of their land. Not allowing the peasants to own the land upon which they lived meant that they would be stuck in poverty and dependency. When the elite could no longer tax the poor, they started to tax the wealthy nobility. It was only at that point did the revolutions such as the French Revolution take hold (because now the nobility had their wealth affected and were able to influence the peasants to fight for their cause.) While this helped bring more rights, once the people won, there were concessions made that allowed the elite to retain their power, but to share it a bit more. Trading superiority was maintained by raiding and plundering areas deemed as a threat. Summarizing from the works of the Institute for Economic Democracy: The old European city states, which were centers of wealth, would control their countryside as the source of their resources and production, and hence, the source of their wealth. If the countryside became more efficient and produced better, or threatened to trade with other neighboring cities, this would be seen as a threat to the wealth, power and influence of the city. These peripheries would therefore be raided and their means of production would be destroyed. The cities would fight over each other for similar reasons. For continual support, those rulers would proclaim various reasons to their people, of maintaining security and so on (not unlike what we hear today about national security). Even some laws were established that basically allow these practices. A strong military was therefore necessary (just as it is today) to ensure those trade advantages were unfairly maintained. Those European city states evolved into nation states and imperial powers, and the countryside expanded to include todays third world, which was much of the rest of the world. The effects of colonialism and imperialism are still felt today.

The discovery of the Americas, expansion of trade routes etc brought much wealth to these centers of empire which helped fuel the industrial revolution, which required even more resources and wealth to be appropriated, to continue this growth. Mass luxury consumption in Europe expanded as well as a result of the increased production from the industrial revolution. Get the Flash Player to see this video. Eric Toussaint: globalizations roots lie in colonialismSee link for transcript But this had a further negative impact on the colonized nations, the country side, or the resourceproviders. For example, to keep profits up and costs down, they used slavery where they could,

sometimes transferring people across continents, introducing others when indigenous populations had either been wiped out, decimated, or proved too resistant in some way. Europeans also carved out artificial borders to reflect their territorial acquisitions, sometimes bringing different groups of people into the same borders that had never been forced to live together in such short times. (Some poorer countries today still suffer the effects of this.)

Side Note
As with the previous wars throughout Europes rise, World War I and II were also battles amongst the various European empires who struggled over each other to control more of the worlds resources and who would decide the rules of unequal trade. Except for religious conflicts and the petty wars of feudal lords, wars are primarily fought over resources and trade. President Woodrow Wilson recognized that this was the cause of World War I: Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? J.W. Smith, Economic Democracy: The Political Struggle for the Twenty-First Century, (M.E. Sharpe, 2000, 1st Edition), p.58 Plundering the countryside to maintain dominance and control of the wealth-producing process has been an age-old process. These mercantilist processes continue today. Those policies of plunder by raid have continued, but include a more sophisticated plunder by trade: The powerful and cunning had learned to plunder by trade centuries ago and societies ever since have been caught in the trap of those unequal trades. Once unequal trades were in place, restructuring to equal trade would mean the severing of arteries of commerce which provide the higher standard of living for the dominant society and collapse of those living standards would almost certainly trigger open revolt. The world is trapped in that pattern of unequal trades yet today. J. W. Smith, Economic Democracy: The Political Struggle for the Twenty-First Century, (1st Books, 2002, 2nd Edition), Chapter 2 The geopolitical events of the post World War II era have been crucial for their impacts on poverty and most other issues. J.W. Smith summarizes this: Virtually the entire colonial world was breaking free, its resources would be turned to the care of its own people, and those resources could no longer be siphoned to the old imperial-centers-of-capital for a fraction of their value. If India and the rest of the worlds former colonies continued to take the rhetoric of democracy seriously and form the nonaligned bloc as they were planning, over 80 percent of the worlds population would be independent or on the other side of the ideological battle. And, if Japan, Germany, Italy, and France could not be held (it was far from sure they could be), that would leave only the United States, Britain, Canada, and Australia, about 10 percent of the worlds population, still under the old belief system, and even there the ideological hold would be tenuous at best. After all, if there were no countryside under the firm control of an imperial center, the entire neo-liberal/neo-mercantilist belief system will have disappeared. What Western nations were observing, of course, was the same potential loss of the resources and markets of their countryside as the cities of Europe had experienced centuries earlier. National security and security interests, which citizens were coached (propagandized) to believe meant fear of a military attack, really meant maintaining access to the weak, impoverished worlds valuable resources.

The domestic prosperity worried about was only their own and the constantly expanding trade were unequal trades maintaining the prosperity of the developed world and the impoverishment of the undeveloped world as the imperial-centers-of-capital siphoned the natural wealth of their countryside to themselves. Those crucial natural resources are in the Third World and developed world capital could never compete if those people had their own industrial capital and processed their own resources into consumer products. With their own industrial capital, and assuming political and economic freedom as opposed to world neo-liberal/neo-mercantilist law dictated by military power, they could demand full value for their natural resources while simultaneously underselling the current developed world on manufactured product markets. The managers-of-state had to avert that crisis. The worlds break for freedom must be contained. J.W. Smith, The World Breaking Free Frightened the Security Councils of Every Western Nation, Economic Democracy; The Political Struggle for the 21st Century (1st Books, Second Edition, 2002), Chapter 7 While European nations are now more cooperative amongst themselves (in comparison to the horrors of World War II) and the U.S. had long taken the lead in the international arena, for the rest of the world, international trade arrangements and various economic policies still lead to the same result. Prosperity for a few has increased, as has poverty for the majority. Todays corporate globalization, is an example where the wealthier companies and nations are able to determine the rules, shape the international institutions and influence the communication mechanisms that disseminate information to people. In this backdrop, how do developing nations contend with poverty? During the Post World War II period, during the Cold War, poorer country governments often found that if they tried to improve the situation for their people, they could have been perceived as a threat or worse still going communist. They may have faced external pressure, external meddling in internal affairs or even military intervention by the powerful nations. The powerful nations would of course claim this was necessary for something like world stability, national interest, or to save the other country from themselves, but it would often be to do with protecting their national interests, such as a secure and constant supply of cheap resources or some other reason related ultimately to maintaining influence and power. Dictators and other corrupt rulers have often been placed/supported in power by the wealthier nations to help fulfill those national interests in a similar way the old rulers of Europe used the Lords and Knights to control the peripheries and direct resources to the centers of capital. (Although, now, increasingly, democracies are supported, but ones where the economic choices are so limited, that the democracy provides a similar environment that a dictatorship did, for foreign investors, but without the overt violence and oppression.) This means that it is hard to break out from poverty, or to reduce dependency from the US/IMF/World Bank etc.

Structural Adjustment (SAP), as described in a previous section on this web site, is an example of that dependency. Neoliberal economic ideology has been almost blindly prescribed to poor countries to open up their economies. The idea is that opening markets for foreign investment will also help improve exports and contribute to economic growth. Cutting back on social spending (e.g. health and education) which are seen as inefficient will also help pay back loans and debts.

But what ends up happening is the poorer nations lose their space to develop their own policies and local businesses end up competing with well-established multinationals, sometimes themselves subsidized (hinting a more mercantilist economic policy for the rich, even though free market capitalism is the claim and the prescription for others). Get the Flash Player to see this video. Joseph Stiglitz explains the effects of liberalization & subsidized agriculture on poor farmers(see link for transcript) Hence, many back the economic neoliberal policies without realizing the background to it. It is another example that while international trade and globalization is what probably most would like to see, the reality of it is that it is not matching the rhetoric that is broadcast. J.W. Smith has researched this in depth and the following offers a relevant summary: The Third World remains poor because the powerful strive to dominate every choke-point of commerce. One key choke-point is political control through the co-respective support of local elites. Where loyalty is lacking, money will be spent to purchase it. If a government cannot be bought or otherwise controlled, corrupt groups will be financed and armed to overthrow that government and, in extreme cases, another country will be financed to attack and defeat it. The pattern has been well established repeatedly throughout history and throughout the world, as noted by the well-known philosopher Bertrand Russell, An enormous proportion of the income of nations and individuals, nowadays, is blood money: payment exacted by the threat of death. Therefore the most prudent nation is the nation which is in the best position to levy blackmail.Modern nations are highwaymen, saying to each other your money or your life, and generally taking both. J.W. Smith, The Worlds Wasted Wealth 2, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), p. 134. (To find out more about the political dimensions of the economy of the world and to see the detailed links between history (how it is both told and repeated), politics that are always at play and the effects on the economy the world over, visit the Institute for Economic Democracy web site. It provides much more in-depth research into these backgrounds and in far more detail than what I have summarized above.) With this in mind, why would so many people not oppose such things? There are many reasons, including: Most people dont knowthis is not an accident. It is in the interest of power-holders to ensure as little is questioned by outsiders as possible. Whether it be via an aristocracy or by simple distortion of information, educational systems, or whatever, different nations have had various means to handle this. The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrumeven encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that theres free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. Noam Chomsky, The Common Good, Odonian Press, 1998 Those that have opposed such things in the past may have been persecuted in some way. In some societies those who try to say something may just face ridicule due to the embedded belief

systems which are being questioned, while in other societies, people may even face violent oppositions. Some dare not entertain the thought that the work they may be doing could be at the expense and exploitation of someone else. The following summarizes this aspect quite well: [W]e should be familiar with the sincerity with which people will protect the economic territory that provides them their livelihood and wealth. Besides the necessity of a job or other source of income for survival, people need to feel that they are good and useful to society. Few even admit, even to themselves, that their hard work may not be fully productive. This emotional shield requires most people to say with equal sincerity that those on welfare are lazy, ignorant, and nonfunctional. Those above the poverty level vigorously insist that they are honest and productive and fulfill a social need. It is important to their emotional well-being that they believe this. They dare not acknowledge that their segment of the economy may have 30 to 70 percent more workers than necessary or that the displaced should have a relatively equal share of jobs and income. This would expose their redundancy and, under current social rules, undermine their moral claim to their share. Such an admission could lead to the loss of their economic niche in society. They would then have to find another territory within the economy or drop into poverty themselves. J.W. Smith, The Worlds Wasted Wealth 2, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), p. 90. J.W. Smith, quoted above, also points out (and details in his work) how we have moved from plunder by raid to plunder by trade in recent centuries. The complexities of some of todays economics and trading systems also make it harder to address root causes of poverty: Although in [the] early years the power brokers knew they were destroying others' tools of production (industrial capital) in the ongoing battle for economic territory, trade has now become so complex that few of todays powerful are aware of the waste and destruction created by the continuation of this neomercantilist struggle for markets. Instead, they feel that it is they who are responsible for the worlds improving standards of living and that they are defending not only their rights but everybodys rights. This illusion is possible because in the battle to monopolize societys productive tools and the wealth they produce, industrial capital has become so productive thateven as capital, resources, and labor are indiscriminately consumedliving standards in the over-capitalized nations have continued to improve. And societies are so accustomed to long struggles for improved living standards that to think it could be done much faster seems irrational. J.W. Smith, The Worlds Wasted Wealth 2, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), p. 158. And when considering how todays global economic model promotes the liberalization of capital more and more, the effects of rapid flows of capital and other impacts of over-liberalization is borne largely by the poorer members of society: A French humorist once wrote, When its money youre after, look for it where it is most abundant, among the poor. Governments now do this more than ever because the poor are rooted, stationary, slow; whereas the big money is nomadic and travels at the speed of bytes. Stationary money (of local businesses, professionals, wage and salary earners) will be taxed to the limit for the simple reason that it can be got at. Susan George, The Lugano Report, (Pluto Press, 1999), p. 186 Back to top

The World Bank and Poverty

The World Bank is a major international institution involved in poverty and development. It has the capacity to lend a lot of money and expertise to developing countries and advise on development matters. The World Bank produces an annual report, called the World Development Report. The Bank regards this as its flagship report. Most mainstream economists use this report in some way or form, and it is one of the few reports on development that the US mainstream media reports on (because it usually shows the US, and its policies that it prescribes to the rest of the world, in a favorable light.) The way the 2000 report was released highlighted another problem with the World Bank, and how it doesnt like to accept criticism on the current forms of globalization and neoliberalism. For the 2000 report, Ravi Kanbur, a professor from Cornell University had been asked to lead up the report team. Kanbur won respect from NGO circles as he tried to be inclusive and take in a wide range of views, something the Bank has been criticized for not doing (which is a problem in itself!). However, as the report was to be published, he resigned because he was unreasonably pressured by the Bank to tone down sections on globalization, which, amongst other things called for developing nations to accept market neoliberalism cautiously. The World Bank was apparently influenced itself by the US Treasury on thisthis is not new though; critics have long pointed out that the Bank is very much influenced by the US, thus affecting the chance of real progress being made on poverty issues around the world. The following quotes collected from the Bretton Woods Project, reveal some interesting insights: The Washington Consensus has emerged from the Asia Crisis with its faith in free markets only slightly shaken. Poverty eradication is now the menu, but the main dish is still growth and market liberalisation, with social safety nets added as a side dish, and social capital scattered over it as a relish. The overall implication of the resignation is fairly clear. The US does not want the World Bank to stray too far from its agenda of economic growth and market liberalisation. Ravi Kanburs draft has raised a few too many doubts about this agenda, and strayed too much towards politics. The Nation, Bangkok, 5 July, 2000 To keep the Bank afloat Wolfensohn has to steer between two major constituencies. The first are the critics, the second is the US Treasury. You dont need to be a World Bank economist to do the cost benefit analysis. To save the Bank, and his own reputation, it is essential that the Banks policies and public pronouncements do not err too far from its main shareholder and political protector, the US Treasury. Focus on Trade, Issue Number 51, Focus on the Global South, June 2000 The World Bank has often come under criticism for its development projects not actually helping the societies that they claimed they will. One such example is the numerous dam projects that have seen lives devastated, where millions have been displaced and people have not seen the benefits promised, while at the same time, the environment has degraded and crucial arable land has been flooded. This is discussed further on this sites hunger and poverty causes section. Another example is the devastating Structural Adjustment Policies pressured upon poor countries by the First World, The World Bank and the IMF. These have had devastating consequences for much of the third world, though benefiting the First World. Another example involves a recent Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project, which started construction in 2000. The World Bank had also stressed commitments to ensure policies were observed that would

protect society and the environment, while helping millions of poor in Chad out of extreme poverty (Chad is the fifth poorest country in the world) and also providing land-locked Cameroon with much needed revenue. The World Banks actual monetary investment amount was just four percent of the cost. However their participation and stated commitment to poverty-combating development gave political backing that allowed multinational oil companies (who were the main investors) to raise sufficient capital on the international capital markets, which they would not have been able to otherwise do. The World Bank had therefore highlighted this project as a prototype for the extractive industry, designed to carry oil wealth not to a few but to the mass of the poor. AfricaFiles is an organization about African issues from the perspective of human rights, economic justice, and African perspective and alternative analysis. Given the World Banks claims and presenting this project as a flagship of sorts, AfricaFiles issued a report looking to see how the World Banks claims held up. They concluded that 1. Oil corporations cannot be transformed into development agencies even with the best intentions and monitoring mechanisms referring to the sidelining of time-intensive parts of the project such as capacity building and taking social and environmental issues into consideration. 2. As a result, global levers of development outcomes like the World Bank cannot exercise sufficient clout on oil multinationals' penchant for profits 3. The World Bank is incapable of respecting its own weakening safeguard policies, which are premised on controlling damage rather than avoiding harm. This is particularly significant as Africa banks on the increasing trend in Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs). 4. The embryonic neo-liberal governance structures in Africa are incapable of forcing FDIs, which are principally attracted by ground mineral resources, to respect ecological and social principles. This cannot be over-stressed, especially as the World Bank prepares to engage in what it calls high risk/high reward projects in developing countries. 5. The flawed contention of the World Bank is you cannot eat omelettes without breaking some eggs. As this paper has demonstrated, the eggs most often broken are those of the poor who are left with no alternative livelihood. The paper has also noted the high level of corruption, implying that those who would eat the omelette so to speak, would be the wealthy elite and multinationals. 6. Public Private Partnership [PPP], the buzz paradigm of sustainable development, is fundamentally incapable of addressing the unequal power relation between fattening multinationals, weakening states and the World Bank, in this era of globalisation. AfricaFiles also, interestingly, suggested the World Bank use its precious resources to support more renewable energy sources development rather than oil, which has had so much political, economic and environmental problems associated with it. This was also a recommendation from a report commissioned by the World Bank itself, which has not been followed. In mid-2004, the committee set up to oversee transparency in the oil revenues in Chad has protested about the lack of resources from both the government and the oil company involved, and that people in Chad were becoming disillusioned at the project. In September 2005, the human rights organization, Amnesty International criticized the project investment agreements for undermining human rights, noting that, The investment agreements

governing the project risk seriously undermining the ability and willingness of Chad and Cameroon to protect their citizens human rights, making the oil companies de facto unaccountable in the pipeline zone. Nearby fisherman and farmers have also been denied access to water and land, and that there is a prevailing climate of fear and intimidation around the pipeline, some of whose critics have already been arrested and intimidated. In mid-January, 2006, the BBC reports that the World Bank shut down the Chad oil account which was to keep 10% of the oil revenue for future generations of people in Chad. The Chad government argued it needed to fight against poverty now and had a right to that revenue and signed a law allowing access to that account early. Earlier, the World Bank had suspended some loans, too. Some will raise concern of possible intention for corrupt practices by the Chad government, while others will see the World Banks influence at play here, preventing another African country to determine its own policies and be accountable to its own people. The World Bank also provides the main source of poverty figures, such as those presented further above. The $1 dollar a day poverty line (now upgraded to $1.25 dollars a day using newer data and updated techniques) has also fallen under criticism in the past. For example, during the long period the $1 dollar a day measure was used the World Bank was criticized for almost arbitrarily coming up with a definition of a poverty line to mean one dollar per day. In addition, as also stated in the previous link, in the United States for example, the poverty threshold for a family of four has been estimated to be around eleven dollars per day. The $1 a day (now $1.25) definition then misses out much of humanity. Indeed, as the chart earlier showed, the number of people living on under $10 dollars a day is estimated to be just under 80% of humanity (95% of developing countries). To be fair, the World Bank did explain why they did not use a $10 dollar a day poverty line. They felt that Learning that (possibly) 95% or more of the [developing country] population is poor by such a standard is unlikely to have much relevance, given that US standards of living are not within the foreseeable reach of most people in a typical developing country. It does seem sadly true that this level is sadly not attainable in the near future for so many people. However, it serves as a useful figure to remind us how divided the world may indeed be (although, as also mentioned earlier, numbers alone do not capture all the issues; as also mentioned earlier, a number of studies show that some of the poorest in rich countries can be regarded as worse off than some in developing countries, depending on what you measure such as well-being, health, social cohesion, etc.) This can be seen more vividly in that chart also shown earlier:

Another critique of the $1 a day figure came from Columbia University, called How not to count the poor .

The report describes 3 main errors as being: 1. An ill-defined poverty line; 2. A misleading and inaccurate measure of purchasing power equivalence; and 3. Incorrect extrapolation of limited data giving the false impression of precision while masking the high probably error of the estimates. These errors, they feared, would lead to a large understatement of the extent of global income poverty and to an incorrect inference that it has declined. (Emphasis added). At the same time, it allowed the World Bank to insist that the world is indeed on the right track in terms of poverty reduction strategy, attributing this success to the design and implementation of good or better policies. Since that report, the World Bank has indeed revised the poverty line as explained earlier and they noted more people were in poverty than previously realized. The links provided earlier from the World Bank do provide a better explanation of why their poverty lines were chosen as they were. And while the data this time significantly includes China and India for the first times, they also acknowledge various challenges with collecting the data. However, while they have also given their reason for not using a $10 a day poverty line (because most poor people are unlikely to reach that level in the foreseeable future), we must still wonder if poverty, and its effects, are worse than the figures reveal. As an aside, Morgan Spurlock, the Oscar nominee for his documentary Super Size Me where he went 30 days on a diet of burgers to see what the effects would be, produced another documentary where he tried

to live on the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour for 30 days. At times he was earning $50 to $70 a day and yet the tremendous hardships he faced was incredible (including a ludicrous $40 for a bandage in a hospital, and some $500 for just being seen to). Back to top

Poverty in Industrialized Countries

As mentioned earlier, poverty in industrialized nations is also an important issue. While many poor in wealthy countries may not be in absolute poverty as the many poor people in developing countries, the relative poverty and high inequality in many wealthy nations creates significant issues. The gap between rich and poor has grown in more than three-quarters of rich countries since the mid1980s, according to a study of income inequality and poverty by the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD) released in October 2008. In addition, the study finds that the economic growth of recent decades has benefited the rich more than the poor. However, amongst those 30 countries, results are mixed. The study finds, for example, that the past five years saw growing poverty and inequality in two-thirds of OECD countries. Canada, Germany, Norway and the United States are the most affected. The remaining thirdparticularly Greece, Mexico and the United Kingdomhave seen a shrinking gap between rich and poor since 2000. As summarized by an OECD briefing , the income of the richest 10% of people is, on average across OECD countries, nearly nine times that of the poorest 10%. The average hides large variations. For example the top 3 countries with the highest income gaps are: 1. Mexico, where the richest have incomes of more than 25 times those of the poorest 2. Turkey, where the ratio is 17 to 1 3. USA, where the ratio is 16 to 1. Portugal and Poland also have large gaps, making it the top 5, but their gaps are not as large as those first three. (For many years, the US was regarded as having the largest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nations, but the group of industrialized nations has slightly grown since to include Mexico and Turkeyalso the two poorest OECD countriesamongst others.) In Nordic countries, however, such as Denmark, Sweden and Finland, the gap is much smaller. The incomes of the richest 10% average around five times those of the poorest 10%.

from Are we growing unequal?, OECD Briefing, October 2008, p.2 Although the elderly are more likely to be poor, the risk of them falling into poverty has reduced over the last two decades such that people aged 66-75 are now no more likely to be poor as the population as a whole. Worryingly, however, children and young adults have poverty rates that are now around 25% higher than the population average, while they were below or close to that average 20 years ago.

from Are we growing unequal?, OECD Briefing, October 2008, p.4 The OECD report noted for example UKs shrinking gap between rich and poor. Back in 2000, the UK was the worst place in Europe to be growing up if you were poor, as more children were likely to be born in to poverty there, compared to elsewhere in the EU. Despite a period of boom, in April 2000, the UK National Office of Statistics found that disparities between rich and poor continued to grow in UK. In April 2008, the BBC noted that after 30 years of unprecedented economic growth, the British are richer and healthier but no happier than in 1973. As well as growing inequality and other issues, the BBC noted that the UK figures follow trends from around the world that show that happiness and satisfaction do not correlate with average income once countries reach middle-income levels. In addition, one in six UK adults reported that they suffered

from a variety of mental health problems in the latest survey, of which the largest category was mild anxiety and depression. As Britains wealth generally increased, improvements in health were also accompanied by unhealthy luxury consumption including excessive alcohol consumption and excessive unhealthy eating creating a rise in alcohol related deaths and in obesity. Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation in an article mentioned further above about inequality notes that Crime and unhappiness stalk unequal societies. In the UK the bottom 50% of the population now owns only 1% of the wealth: in 1976 they owned 12%. Our economic systems incentive structure, instead of trickle-down, is causing a flood-up of resources from the poor to the rich. Inequality leads to instability, the last thing the country or world needs right now. Even the former hardline conservative head of the International Monetary Fund, Michel Camdessus, has come to the conclusion that the widening gaps between rich and poor within nations is morally outrageous, economically wasteful and potentially socially explosive. Andrew Simms, Now for a maximum wage, The Guardian, August 6, 2003 However, although there has been some improvement, there is a long way to go. A UNICEF report in February 2007 found that UK is failing its children as it comes bottom of all industrialized nations in terms of child well being. UK child poverty has doubled since 1979, for example. As another example, it may be surprising for some readers to learn that the United States, although the wealthiest nation on Earth, has often had one of the widest gaps between rich and poor of any industrialized nation. United For a Fair Economy reported that for 1998 almost 70% of the wealth was in the hand of the top 10%. In another report, they mentioned that the gap had widened in recent decades. In 1989, the United States had 66 billionaires and 31.5 million people living below the official poverty line. A decade later, the United States has 268 billionaires and 34.5 million people living below the poverty line-about $13,000 for a three-person family. In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of ones home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Prof. G. William Domhoff, Wealth, Income, and Power, Who Rules America, University of California, Santa Cruz, last updated July 2010 Inter Press Service also summarizes an updated report by the US Census Bureau that 1 in 7 people in the US are in poverty. In 2009, 43.6 million people 14.6 percent of the population - were living in poverty in the U.S., up from 13.2 percent of the population in 2008. The United States currently has the highest number of people in poverty it has ever had since the government began counting in 1959, although the percentage of people this represents is lower than it was then (due to the increased population size since then). IPS also notes factors such as the global financial crisis, stagnant wages and more contribute to this deepening poverty. But the article also adds that the poverty estimate may be understated because of

assumptions made in calculations years ago and changes in costs of living since then as well as regional differences. As with Britain, even during the booming economy in the late 1990s and early 2000, there was an increasing gap between the rich and poor. Into 2002, fighting poverty did not appear to have been a major election campaign issue (nor was it in previous election campaigns). Then chairman of the Federal Reserve, Allan Greenspan, revealed concerns in mid-2005 that the increasing and widening income gap might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself in the US. While health and education are key to any economy or nation to grow and be strong, both of these suffer issues of access, equality and pressure to cut back (including elsewhere around the world as discussed in the structural adjustment part of this site). For example,

As a summary of a report titled Economic Apartheid in America mentions, that the United States is the only industrialised nation that views health care as a privilege, not a basic human right.. (Unfortunately the report itself not available on the Internet, but is produced by United for a Fair Economy where you can see many extracts and similar reports.) In addition, as good education is linked to a strong economy, Business Week reports (February 14, 2002) on a study that analyses OECD data from 1994 to 1998, and summarizes that the literacy of American adults ranks 10th out of 17 industrialized countries. In addition, the issue of inequality was highlighted: More troubling, the U.S. has the largest gap between highly and poorly educated adults, with immigrants and minorities making up the largest chunk of those at the bottom. While Business Week concentrates on the U.S. they also point out that Despite the mediocre U.S. ranking, it still beat out most of its major trading partners except Germany, including France, Britain, and Italy. (Japan didnt participate [in the study].)

The above-mentioned UNICEF report on child health found that as well as the UK being ranked bottom of all rich countries, the US ranked second to last. The report suggests that absolute wealth isnt necessarily a guarantor of poverty alleviation or a measure for indicators such as child well-being, and factors such as inequality are also important. And it isnt in just these two industrialized nations that these problems persist. A Guardian news report, for example, shows that certain types of poverty in various European cities can be regarded as worse than in some other parts of the world which one would not normally think would compare with Europe, such as India.

Almost half the world over 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the worlds 7 richest people combined. Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names. Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didnt happen.

1 billion children live in poverty (1 in 2 children in the world). 640 million live without adequate shelter, 400 million have no access to safe water, 270 million have no access to health services. 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (or roughly 29,000 children per day).

More Facts (and Sources) Poverty is the state for the majority of the worlds people and nations. Why is this? Is it enough to blame poor people for their own predicament? Have they been lazy, made poor decisions, and been solely responsible for their plight? What about their governments? Have they pursued policies that actually harm successful development? Such causes of poverty and inequality are no doubt real. But deeper and more global causes of poverty are often less discussed. Behind the increasing interconnectedness promised by globalization are global decisions, policies, and practices. These are typically influenced, driven, or formulated by the rich and powerful. These can be leaders of rich countries or other global actors such as multinational corporations, institutions, and influential people. In the face of such enormous external influence, the governments of poor nations and their people are often powerless. As a result, in the global context, a few get wealthy while the majority struggle. These next few articles and sections explore various poverty issues in more depth: 13 articles on Causes of Poverty and 6 related issues:

Poverty Facts and Stats

Last updated Monday, September 20, 2010. Most of humanity lives on just a few dollars a day. Whether you live in the wealthiest nations in the world or the poorest, you will see high levels of inequality.

The poorest people will also have less access to health, education and other services. Problems of hunger, malnutrition and disease afflict the poorest in society. The poorest are also typically marginalized from society and have little representation or voice in public and political debates, making it even harder to escape poverty. By contrast, the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to benefit from economic or political policies. The amount the world spends on military, financial bailouts and other areas that benefit the wealthy, compared to the amount spent to address the daily crisis of poverty and related problems are often staggering. Some facts and figures on poverty presented in this page are eye-openers, to say the least. Read Poverty Facts and Stats to learn more.

Structural Adjustmenta Major Cause of Poverty

Last updated Sunday, November 28, 2010. Cutbacks in health, education and other vital social services around the world have resulted from structural adjustment policies prescribed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank as conditions for loans and repayment. In addition, developing nation governments are required to open their economies to compete with each other and with more powerful and established industrialized nations. To attract investment, poor countries enter a spiraling race to the bottom to see who can provide lower standards, reduced wages and cheaper resources. This has increased poverty and inequality for most people. It also forms a backbone to what we today call globalization. As a result, it maintains the historic unequal rules of trade. Read Structural Adjustmenta Major Cause of Poverty to learn more.

Poverty Around The World

Last updated Saturday, November 12, 2011.

Around the world, in rich or poor nations, poverty has always been present. In most nations today, inequalitythe gap between the rich and the pooris quite high and often widening. The causes are numerous, including a lack of individual responsibility, bad government policy, exploitation by people and businesses with power and influence, or some combination of these and other factors. Many feel that high levels of inequality will affect social cohesion and lead to problems such as increasing crime and violence. Inequality is often a measure of relative poverty. Absolute poverty, however, is also a concern. World Bank figures for world poverty reveals a higher number of people live in poverty than previously thought. For example, the new poverty line is defined as living on the equivalent of $1.25 a day. With that measure based on latest data available (2005), 1.4 billion people live on or below that line. Furthermore, almost half the worldover three billion peoplelive on less than $2.50 a day and at least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day:

Read Poverty Around The World to learn more.

Today, around 21,000 children died around the world

Last updated Saturday, September 24, 2011.

Images UNICEF Around 21,000 children die every day around the world. That is equivalent to: 1 child dying every 4 seconds 14 children dying every minute

A 2011 Libya conflict-scale death toll every day A 2010 Haiti earthquake occurring every 10 days A 2004 Asian Tsunami occurring every 11 days An Iraq-scale death toll every 1946 days Just under 7.6 million children dying every year Some 92 million children dying between 2000 and 2010

The silent killers are poverty, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. Despite the scale of this daily/ongoing catastrophe, it rarely manages to achieve, much less sustain, prime-time, headline coverage. Read Today, around 21,000 children died around the world to learn more.

World Hunger and Poverty

Last updated Sunday, August 22, 2010. Meaningful long-term alleviation of hunger is rooted in the alleviation of poverty, as poverty leads to hunger. World hunger is a terrible symptom of world poverty. If efforts are only directed at providing food, or improving food production or distribution, then the structural root causes that create hunger, poverty and dependency would still remain. While resources and energies are deployed to relieve hunger through technical measures such as improving agriculture, and as important as these are, inter-related issues such as poverty means that political solutions are likely required as well for meaningful and long term hunger alleviation. Read World Hunger and Poverty to learn more.

Food Dumping [Aid] Maintains Poverty

Last updated Monday, December 10, 2007. Food aid (when not for emergency relief) can actually be very destructive on the economy of the recipient nation and contribute to more hunger and poverty in the long term. Free, subsidized, or cheap food, below market prices undercuts local farmers, who cannot compete and are driven out of jobs and into poverty, further slanting the market share of the larger producers such as those from the US and Europe. Many poor nations are dependent on farming, and so such food aid amounts to food dumping. In the past few decades, more powerful nations have used this as a foreign policy tool for dominance rather than for real aid. Read Food Dumping [Aid] Maintains Poverty to learn more.

Food and Agriculture Issues

Last updated Sunday, July 31, 2011.

Food and agriculture goes to the heart of our civilizations. Religions, cultures and even modern civilization have food and agriculture at their core. For an issue that goes to the heart of humanity it also has its ugly side. This issue explores topics ranging from the global food crisis of 2008, to issues of food aid, world hunger, food dumping and wasteful agriculture such as growing tobacco, sugar, beef, and more. Read Food and Agriculture Issues to learn more.

Trade, Economy, & Related Issues

Last updated Saturday, November 12, 2011. Read Trade, Economy, & Related Issues to learn more.

Corruption
Last updated Sunday, September 04, 2011.

We often hear leaders from rich countries telling poor countries that aid and loans will only be given when they show they are stamping out corruption. While that definitely needs to happen, the rich countries themselves are often active in the largest forms of corruption in those poor countries, and many economic policies they prescribe have exacerbated the problem. Corruption in developing countries definitely must be high on the priority lists (and is increasingly becoming so in the wake of the global financial crisis), but so too must it be on the priority lists of rich countries. Read Corruption to learn more.

Foreign Aid for Development Assistance

Last updated Sunday, June 05, 2011. In 1970, the worlds rich countries agreed to give 0.7% of their gross national income as official international development aid, annually. Since that time, billions have certainly been given each year, but rarely have the rich nations actually met their promised target.

For example, the US is often the largest donor in dollar terms, but ranks amongst the lowest in terms of meeting the stated 0.7% target.

Furthermore, aid has often come with a price of its own for the developing nations. Common criticisms, for many years, of foreign aid, have included the following: Aid is often wasted on conditions that the recipient must use overpriced goods and services from donor countries Most aid does not actually go to the poorest who would need it the most Aid amounts are dwarfed by rich country protectionism that denies market access for poor country products while rich nations use aid as a lever to open poor country markets to their products Large projects or massive grand strategies often fail to help the vulnerable; money can often be embezzled away.

This article explores who has benefited most from this aid, the recipients or the donors. Read Foreign Aid for Development Assistance to learn more. 2012 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics World Hunger Education Service (Also see World Child Hunger Facts) This fact sheet is divided into the following sections:

Hunger concepts and definitions Number of hungry people in the world Does the world produce enough food to feed everyone? Causes of hunger Progress in reducing the number of hungry people Micronutrients

Hunger concepts and definitions Hunger is a term which has three meanings (Oxford English Dictionary 1971) the uneasy or painful sensation caused by want of food; craving appetite. Also the exhausted condition caused by want of food the want or scarcity of food in a country a strong desire or craving

World hunger refers to the second definition, aggregated to the world level. The related technical term (in this case operationalized in medicine) is malnutrition.1 Malnutrition is a general term that indicates a lack of some or all nutritional elements necessary for human health (Medline Plus Medical Encyclopedia). There are two basic types of malnutrition. The first and most important is protein-energy malnutrition-the lack of enough protein (from meat and other sources) and food that provides energy (measured in calories) which all of the basic food groups provide. This is the type of malnutrition that is referred to when world hunger is discussed. The second type of malnutrition, also very important, is micronutrient (vitamin and mineral) deficiency. This is not the type of malnutrition that is referred to when world hunger is discussed, though it is certainly very important.

[Recently there has also been a move to include obesity as a third form of malnutrition. Considering obesity as malnutrition expands the previous usual meaning of the term which referred to poor nutrition due to lack of food inputs.2 It is poor nutrition, but it is certainly not typically due to a lack of calories, but rather too many (although poor food choices, often due to poverty, are part of the problem). Obesity will not be considered here, although obesity is certainly a health problem and is increasingly considered as a type of malnutrition.] Protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) is the most lethal form of malnutrition/hunger. It is basically a lack of calories and protein. Food is converted into energy by humans, and the energy contained in food is measured by calories. Protein is necessary for key body functions including provision of essential amino acids and development and maintenance of muscles. Take a two-question hunger quiz on this section Number of hungry people in the world 925 million hungry people in 2010

No one really knows how many people are malnourished. The statistic most frequently cited is that of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which measures 'undernutrition'. The FAO did not publish an estimate in its most recent publication, 'The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011' as it is undertaking a major revision of how it estimates food insecurity (FAO 2011 p. 10). The 2010 estimate, the most recent, says that 925 million people were undernourished in 2010 (FAO 2010). As the

figure below shows, the number of hungry people has increased since 1995-97.. The increase has been due to three factors: 1) neglect of agriculture relevant to very poor people by governments and international agencies; 2) the current worldwide economic crisis, and 3) the significant increase of food prices in the last several years which has been devastating to those with only a few dollars a day to spend. 925 million people is 13.6 percent of the estimated world population of 6.8 billion. Nearly all of the undernourished are in developing countries. Number of hungry people, 1969-2010

Source: FAO In round numbers there are 7 billion people in the world. Thus, with an estimated 925 million hungry people in the world, 13.1 percent, or almost 1 in 7 people are hungry. The FAO estimate is based on statistical aggregates. The FAO first estimates the total food supply of a country and derives the average per capita daily food intake from that. The distribution of average food intake for people in the country is then estimated from surveys measuring food expenditure. Using this information, and minimum food energy requirements, FAO estimates how many people are likely to receive such a low level of food intake that they are undernourished.3 Undernutrition is a relatively new concept, but is increasingly used. It should be taken as similar to malnutrition. (It should be said as an aside, that the idea of undernourishment, its relationship to malnutrition, and the reasons for its emergence as a concept is not clear to Hunger Notes.) Children are the most visible victims of undernutrition. Children who are poorly nourished suffer up to 160 days of illness each year. Poor nutrition plays a role in at least half of the 10.9 million child deaths each year--five million deaths. Undernutrition magnifies the effect of every disease, including measles and malaria. The estimated proportions of deaths in which undernutrition is an underlying cause are roughly similar for diarrhea (61%), malaria (57%), pneumonia (52%), and measles (45%) (Black 2003, Bryce 2005). Malnutrition can also be caused by diseases, such as the diseases that cause diarrhea, by reducing the body's ability to convert food into usable nutrients. According to the most recent estimate that Hunger Notes could find, malnutrition, as measured by stunting, affects 32.5 percent of children in developing countries--one of three (de Onis 2000). Geographically, more than 70 percent of malnourished children live in Asia, 26 percent in Africa and 4 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean. In many cases, their plight began even before birth with a malnourished mother. Under-nutrition among pregnant women in developing countries leads to 1 out of 6 infants born with low birth weight. This is not only a risk factor for neonatal deaths, but also causes learning disabilities, mental, retardation, poor health, blindness and premature death.

Take a three-question hunger quiz on this section Does the world produce enough food to feed everyone? The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find.(FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food. What are the causes of hunger? What are the causes of hunger is a fundamental question, with varied answers. Poverty is the principal cause of hunger. The causes of poverty include poor people's lack of resources, an extremely unequal income distribution in the world and within specific countries, conflict, and hunger itself. As of 2008 (2005 statistics), the World Bank has estimated that there were an estimated 1,345 million poor people in developing countries who live on $1.25 a day or less.3 This compares to the later FAO estimate of 1.02 billion undernourished people. Extreme poverty remains an alarming problem in the worlds developing regions, despite some progress that reduced "dollar--now $1.25-- a day" poverty from (an estimated) 1900 million people in 1981, a reduction of 29 percent over the period. Progress in poverty reduction has been concentrated in Asia, and especially, East Asia, with the major improvement occurring in China. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the number of people in extreme poverty has increased. The statement that 'poverty is the principal cause of hunger' is, though correct, unsatisfying. Why then are (so many) people poor? The next section summarizes Hunger Notes answer. Harmful economic systems are the principal cause of poverty and hunger. Hunger Notes believes that the principal underlying cause of poverty and hunger is the ordinary operation of the economic and political systems in the world. Essentially control over resources and income is based on military, political and economic power that typically ends up in the hands of a minority, who live well, while those at the bottom barely survive, if they do. We have described the operation of this system in more detail in our special section on Harmful economic systems. Conflict as a cause of hunger and poverty. At the end of 2005, the global number of refugees was at its lowest level in almost a quarter of a century. Despite some large-scale repatriation movements, the last three years have witnessed a significant increase in refugee numbers, due primarily to the violence taking place in Iraq and Somalia. By the end of 2008, the total number of refugees under UNHCRs mandate exceeded 10 million. The number of conflict-induced internally displaced persons (IDPs) reached some 26 million worldwide at the end of the year . Providing exact figures on the number of stateless people is extremely difficult But, important, (relatively) visible though it is, and anguishing for those involved conflict is less important as poverty (and its causes) as a cause of hunger. (Using the statistics above 1.02 billion people suffer from chronic hunger while 36 million people are displaced [UNHCR 2008]) Hunger is also a cause of poverty, and thus of hunger. By causing poor health, low levels of energy, and even mental impairment, hunger can lead to even greater poverty by reducing people's ability to work and learn, thus leading to even greater hunger. Climate change Climate change is increasingly viewed as a current and future cause of hunger and poverty. Increasing drought, flooding, and changing climatic patterns requiring a shift in crops and farming practices that may not be easily accomplished are three key issues. See the Hunger Notes special report: Hunger, the environment, and climate change for further information, especially articles

in the section: Climate change, global warming and the effect on poor people such as Global warming causes 300,000 deaths a year, study says and Could food shortages bring down civilization? Progress in reducing the number of hungry people The target set at the 1996 World Food Summit was to halve the number of undernourished people by 2015 from their number in 1990-92. (FAO uses three year averages in its calculation of undernourished people.) The (estimated) number of undernourished people in developing countries was 824 million in 1990-92. In 2010, the number had climbed to 925 million people. The WFS goal is a global goal adopted by the nations of the world; the present outcome indicates how marginal the efforts were in face of the real need. So, overall, the world is not making progress toward the world food summit goal, although there has been progress in Asia, and in Latin America and the Caribbean. Micronutrients Quite a few trace elements or micronutrients--vitamins and minerals--are important for health. 1 out of 3 people in developing countries are affected by vitamin and mineral deficiencies, according to the World Health Organization. Three, perhaps the most important in terms of health consequences for poor people in developing countries, are: Vitamin A Vitamin A deficiency can cause night blindness and reduces the body's resistance to disease. In children Vitamin A deficiency can also cause growth retardation. Between 100 and 140 million children are vitamin A deficient. An estimated 250,000 to 500 000 vitamin A-deficient children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight. (World Health Organization) Iron Iron deficiency is a principal cause of anemia. Two billion peopleover 30 percent of the worlds populationare anemic, mainly due to iron deficiency, and, in developing countries, frequently exacerbated by malaria and worm infections. For children, health consequences include premature birth, low birth weight, infections, and elevated risk of death. Later, physical and cognitive development are impaired, resulting in lowered school performance. For pregnant women, anemia contributes to 20 percent of all maternal deaths (World Health Organization). Iodine Iodine deficiency disorders (IDD) jeopardize childrens mental health often their very lives. Serious iodine deficiency during pregnancy may result in stillbirths, abortions and congenital abnormalities such as cretinism, a grave, irreversible form of mental retardation that affects people living in iodine-deficient areas of Africa and Asia. IDD also causes mental impairment that lowers intellectual prowess at home, at school, and at work. IDD affects over 740 million people, 13 percent of the worlds population. Fifty million people have some degree of mental impairment caused by IDD (World Health Organization). (Updated December 4, 2011) Footnotes 1. The relation between hunger, malnutrition, and other terms such as undernutrition is not 'perfectly clear,' so we have attempted to spell them out briefly in "World Hunger Facts." 2. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary (1971 edition) has 'insufficient nutrition' as the only meaning for malnutrition. 3. For discussions of measuring hunger see Califero 2011, Headey 2011 and Masset, in press. 4. The table used to calculate this number.
Region % in $1.25 a day poverty Population (millions) Pop. in $1 a day poverty (millions)

East Asia and Pacific Latin America and the Caribbean South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Total Developing countries Europe and Central Asia Middle East and North Africa Total

16.8 8.2 40.4 50.9

1,884 550 1,476 763

316
45 596 388 1345 17 11

28,8
0.04 0.04

4673
473 305

1372 5451 Poverty has existed for a very long time, and to different extents it remains worldwide still now in this 21st century. In primitive societies it was most often the case that everybody was equally poor, but more modern societies have generally tended to involve poverty being confined to an often substantial minority only - though this can often harm those concerned even more than universal poverty does.

News. The UN food agency reported that world food prices in January 2011 reached their highest level ever recorded - and looking likely to keep rising for at least some time, meaning hunger for many. And 2012 sees extreme drought famine in East Africa affecting Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. 2009 saw richer G20 countries doing trillion-plus bailouts of their misrun banks, while charities called for more aid for poor countries to prevent the economic crisis from destroying more poor people's lives as poorer countries are being hit by dramatic declines in trade and foreign investment. But the UN is now reporting that recent cuts in aid by richer countries and poor investment practices have been increasing poverty in Africa, and worldwide now the poor are facing increased hardship. The present economic downturn also seems to have increased the abandonment of children and of elderly women in poorer countries, and to have increased the murder of children and of elderly women in poorer countries. Often with 'justifications' that they are witches or devil-possessed, with total annual numbers estimated to be some millions. see - Victims. And 2010 saw a French government deporting poor Roma gypsies to a poverty-stricken Romania, while a new UK Deputy Prime Minister backed the old unhelpful view that 'poverty affects children little if they have good parenting'. 2010 also saw many governments pledging to stick to the UN's Millennium Development Goals to 'halve global poverty and hunger' by 2015, though progress has reversed for now and it is not as good a target as it looks. One measure of world poverty is given in the FAO poverty statistics map below - this is a good but slightly dated measure, you can compare it with the less dated FAO world poverty map in our Poor in a Rich World section ;

Absolute poverty involves people and their children having extreme difficulty in merely surviving. Such poverty at its worst can involve hunger amounting to starvation, often combined with inadequate shelter or housing and clothing. Absolute poverty has been common in more primitive societies, and is still common in many Third World countries in Africa, Asia and South America especially where it can afflict the majority of the population. But many of today's richer societies like the USA and UK have a poor who are a minority and suffer relative poverty - which generally involves the inability to obtain social necessities available to the majority and is often intensified by social exclusion. In a society where 90% rely on their own computer and car, then those who cannot afford these things may function badly and are poor and may well be ostracised or socially excluded (unlike someone richer who chooses to not have such things and may merely be considered eccentric). Hence the answer to what is poverty is not simple, as poverty does come in different forms and extents, allowing different definitions of poverty, but it is always harmful to those concerned and especially harmful to children whose biological development and survival chances can also be greatly harmed. Poverty itself means misery to the poor and it also greatly limits their freedom of life choices and makes them vulnerable to other various nasty forms of exploitation including child exploitation. Poverty can also be very harmful to society as a whole, insofar as it can maintain a divided conflict society where the poorer conflict with the richer and acceptance of poverty generally encourages social badness rather than goodness. Two issues have been preventing most governments from handling poverty well ; 1. Most governments in both rich and poor countries do not see poverty-reduction as being any priority to them, and so do not make much attempt to reduce poverty. The wider benefits of reducing poverty are not widely understood. 2. The few governments in rich or poor countries that do see poverty-reduction as being of some priority to them, have commonly wasted much of the resources they use in mistaken attempts at poverty reduction from not understanding their best policy options for that. Recently food prices have been rising worldwide, partly from new Biofuel policies, mostly helping to worsen global poverty. 2009 has also seen richer countries hitting a substantial economic downturn that could make it harder for them to help reduce poverty for some years. And of course all governments

do have other problems to try to deal with, and also all have some resource limitations that restrict the actual amount that they can achieve. But mostly governments could certainly do better. In many poorer countries, the current world recession is also causing family remittances from overseas workers or migrant workers to fall. As more migrant workers lose jobs in Western Europe and the USA, remittances to poor families in Africa, Central Asia and Eastern Europe are expected to be hardest hit. NOTE: As well as looking at the persisting extent of poverty worldwide, as shown in world poverty maps, this website also seeks to seriously examine the various real causes of poverty and the various real possible solutions to poverty. Better understanding about poverty issues and poverty statistics are really needed to help end poverty. The menu on the left clicks to give our Poor in a Rich World, Environment Poverty, Biological Poverty, Economic Poverty, Exploitation Poverty, Social Poverty, Poverty in Africa, Poverty in Asia, Poverty in Latin America, Solutions to World Poverty and other sections - and each carries further poverty information and informative links to give a wider picture of poverty worldwide.

Main Causes of Poverty in Pakistan

Causes of Poverty in Pakistan. There are several causes of poverty in different nations and in Pakistan these causes expand in different aspects Causes of Poverty in Pakistan. Main Causes of Poverty in Pakistan is given by ilm.com.pk and its sources of Causes of Poverty in Pakistan. Poverty is the biggest causes of inflation in Pakistan. Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not having access 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. Poverty has many faces, changing from place to place and across time, and has been described in many ways (for a collection of readings, see Poems and Personal Accounts of Poverty). Most often, poverty is a situation people want to escape. So poverty is a call to action for the poor and the wealthy alike a call to change the world so that many more may have enough to eat, adequate shelter, access to education and health, protection from violence, and a voice in what happens in their communities. To know what helps to reduce poverty, what works and what does not, what changes over time, poverty has to be defined, measured, and studied and even experienced. As poverty has many dimensions, it has to be looked at through a variety of indicators levels of income and consumption, social indicators, and indicators of vulnerability to risks and of socio/political access. Pakistan is a poor country. Its economy is facing fluctuations now a day. At the time of independence Pakistan has very low resources and capital, so the processes of progress were very slow. Unfortunately the politicians of Pakistan were all not well aware of modern global system and the progress processes and the needs of country. Due to bad policies today Pakistan is facing a lot of problems. The continuous failure of policies leads the people of country to miserable conditions. The major problem in the country is poverty which is becoming the cause of crime and social disorder. Causes of poverty in Pakistan:

It is difficult to point out all causes of poverty in Pakistan but the major causes of are given below: Government Policies: Government is not well aware of present conditions of country. The policies of government are base on the suggestions of officials which do not have awareness about the problems of a common man. After implementation the policies do not get effective result. After the failure of one policy, government does not consider its failure and announces another policy without studying the aftermaths of last one. Heavy taxes and unemployment crushes the people and they are forced to live below poverty line. The suitable medical facilities are not provided to people and they are forced to get treatment for private clinics which are too costly. Corruption: Another cause of poverty is corruption. There are two types of corruption. There is not morality and every one is trying to earn more and more by using fair and unfair means. Officials waste their time has low efficiency. Only one relationship that is exists in society is money. One has to pay a heavy cost to get his right. Law and order conditions are out of control and institutions are failed to provide justice to a common man. Justice can be bought by money only. But government is unable to control such type of things. In this whole scenario some corrupt people has been occupying the resources and common man is living in miserable conditions. Division of Agricultural Land:

Pakistan is an agricultural country. Most of people are farmers by profession. One has land which is fulfilling the needs of his family but he has to divide the

land into his children when they got young. After division the land is not sufficient to support a family. Now the families of his children are suffering and spending their lives below poverty line. Materialism: In our society social bonding are gradually becomes thinner and thinner. A race of material object has been started even no one tried to understand the problems of others. Every one is gradually changing from human to a bioman which only know about his needs and have no concept about the limitations of others. People are not ready to help each other. At last every one has lose his trust on others which effect our social and economic system and it is another cause of poverty. Lack of Education:

The literacy rate of Pakistan is very low. Most of people do not have any concept about the modern earning sources. Most people are unable to adopt technology for their business needs, thats why business do not meet international standards and results as decrease in revenue which lead the society to poor financial conditions. Large Scale Import: The import of Pakistan is greater than export. Big revenue is consumed in importing good every year, even raw material has to import for industry. If we decrease import and establish own supply chains from our country natural resources the people will have better opportunities to earn. Pakistan is a developing country whose economy is not that much stable as other countries have. A large proportion of our economy heavily relies on agriculture. By agriculture we mean producing from land through farming and cultivation. Pakistan is an agricultural country having a total area of 7, 96,096 square kilometers out of which almost 25% of the area is under cultivation. Approximately 70% of the total population is living in villages where their main source of income is through agriculture. In a census held in 1950-51 it was stated that 66% of the total workforce of Pakistan is employed in the agriculture sector, which later in 1999-2000 decreased to 47.3% showing how people are becoming least interested to indulge themselves in this sector.

The importance of this sector for Pakistan lays in this fact that it is multifarious as feeds the local people, provide raw material for industrial purposes and is one of the major constituent of the countrys foreign trade. It is being observed that the foreign exchanges earned through the export of agricultural products are about 45% of the total exports of Pakistan. The sector of agriculture contributes to up to 26% of the total GDP and almost 52% of the total population of Pakistan is earning their living from this respective sector. This sector carries immense importance and can be denoted as the backbone of the Pakistan economy, but still unfortunately this sector is exploited due to several reasons. Government, monopoly of foreign companies and dis loyalty in the nation is responsible for this cause. Soil erosion is one of the most critical problems as no specific mechanism is adopted to eliminate soil erosion which is continuously decreasing the fertility of the land. The irrigation system in Pakistan is not up to prescribed standards which results in heavy water wastage causing water shortage. Most of the farmers are using old and traditional means of cultivation and harvesting which reduces the efficiency in the process ultimately decreasing per acre yield while in other countries like Nepal, India and Bangladesh are using modern techniques resulting in high productivity. Another major issue is that no real focus is made by the government in educating the farmers, as they are not aware of various processes and perceptional measures. The only way of communication in rural areas is television or radio which is not that much effective. Small farms are increasing which disables them to get facilitated from the credit policies of the government. The pesticide companies have formulated partnerships with the World Bank and due to IMF policies they are selling expensive fertilizers and pesticides to the poor farmers which are breaking their backbone and leaving them helpless. If these threatening problems are not resolved at emergency basis Pakistan economy can be in great danger and a living threat of losing one of their major sources of income and economy can go in vein. Education has never been a top national priority and got the serious attention and adequate resources in Pakistan despite the fact it is the basic human right. Current economic survey 2009-10 revealed that literacy rate in the country has improved from previous 56% in 2008-09 to 57% in 2009-10%. However Primary school enrollments is less than 70% and among those 30% got dropped off before acquiring

basic literacy skills (details by the UNESCO in its 2008 report). Pakistan stands at 163 of 180 countries in literacy rankingthese statistics show that Pakistan has terribly poor progress in Educational sector. Several factors and complexities have led to current situation including national spending on education. In Budget 2010-2011 allocated for education sector is 31 Billion Rupees that is 2.6% of GDP. While like other political parties PPPP also pledged to allocate 5% of GDP in its electoral manifesto. Since Independence attempts have been made to relate the education system to the needs and inspirations of the country but statistics showed nothing was done in this regard. It is inevitable for all political parties to issue its electoral manifesto that explains parties policy and positions on various issues including education as per Election Commissions rules. Because In parliamentary systems of governance the main stream political parties influence policy making process whether in government or happen to sit in opposition in accordance with these manifestos. However critical analysis of these manifestos shows; these used to be abstract and remained quite on several issues including education. Weakness of the system or political parties will to ensure people of their interest instead of explaining official stand; political parties found to be less interested in their manifestos or publicizing it. This fact can be conformed from last election campaign in which Election manifestos were issued by the political parties just one week before the polling day. Educational policies and plans have been of key importance for social researchers in Pakistan; fortunately lot of reviews and research studies have been conducted to analyze different angles of educational policies. Hence a lot of published material is present to give insight of these educational policies and their effective implementations. First All Education Conference was held in 1947 to provide the basic guidelines for the future development of education in the country. Hitherto five educational policies have been framed (In 1959, 1970, 1979, 1992-2002, and 1998-2010,) yet. Each policy stressed on Islamic ideology and character building; the Universalization of primary education and promotion of literacy; science education; quality of education; and access to educational opportunities equally. Unfortunately the unsustainability of the National Educational Policies due to rapid regime change has effected the education system overall. Because every government indulged in setting up useless reform commissions, standing committees, and task forces; and sometimes they ended up with few useful recommendations but before implementations; either government changed its priorities or new government came to establish new reform programs. Taking over power from the military Pakistan Peoples Party pledged to reform the education system. The 1973 constitution i.e. given by Pakistan peoples Party when it was in government earlier tells that the state shall: Promote unity and observance of the Islamic moral standards; Promote with special care the educational and economic interests of backward areas; Remove illiteracy and provide free and compulsory secondary education within minimum possible period; Make technical and professional education generally available and higher education equally accessible to all on the basis of merit; Enable the people of different areas, through education, training, agriculture and industrial development , and other methods to participate fully in all form of national activities including employment in the services of Pakistan; and Ensure full participation of women in all the spheres of national life.

Bhuttos education policy, announced in 1972, shifted the goal of universal primary education to a more realistic target. After the military rule Benazir Bhuttos PPP government committed to raise the 30% literacy rate to 90.5% within five years and expansion in the infrastructure of vocational, scientific and higher technical and university education. It signed the Education for All (EFA) Policy but was dismissed by the military in 1990 before it could formulate a full education policy. After that; government of Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan Muslim league (N) adopted an education policy in 1992, which set the target of universal primary education for 2002. It pledged to provide free and compulsory primary education, to eliminate dropouts, to fulfill basic learning needs, and to raise the adult literacy rate to 70% by 2002. In addition, the new policy identified measures to improve the quality of public instruction through changes in curricula, textbooks, teaching methods and evaluation techniques. The Sharif Government also launched a World Bank-funded Social Action Program (SAP) for social sector development. To be implemented jointly by provincial governments, with communitybased involvement, and the participation of NGOs and the private sector, a primary goal was promotion of primary education. It focused female enrollment and improvements in the quality of primary education through measures including: an enhanced non-salary education budget; improved school facilities; adequate classroom materials; better quality textbooks; and improved teaching techniques. These ambitious goals were left unrealized when the Sharif Government was forced out by the military less than half way through its term. Later Pakistan Peoples Party returned to power in the general elections of 1993. Although the government continued its predecessors education policy, little was achieved as Prime Minister Bhutto was again dismissed less than half way through her term by the Time president, acting at the militarys behest. In February 1997, Sharifs of Pakistan Muslim League returned with a new Education Policy 19982010, which emphasized: Education is a basic human right. It is the commitment of the government to provide free secondary education to citizens The new education policy provided time-bound targets for the promotion of education at the elementary, secondary and higher levels In October 1999. Unfortunately General Pervez Musharraf ousted Premier Nawaz Sharif and imposed military rule and generally rejected the policies of its civilian predecessors. Now Again the PPPP has taken power from the military gave a new educational policy with some alterations. Ritualistically, every party has its manifesto issued at election time but these manifestos hide a number of contradictions or we ignore them deliberately, e.g. While they consciously try to be all things to all people, they are also high nuance documents nuances that only seasoned and native political analysts can adequately fathom. While manifestos tend to address a long list of problems, they evade prioritizing them as well as the pledged solutions. While they promise an array of outputs, they rarely specify how resources, not only financial and economic but political, administrative, cultural and social are to be generated and allocated to mutually competing promises. Parties are rarely serious enough to sift through and solve even serious contradictions among pledges made in their manifestos.

It is a general observation that the majority of the literate population doesnt check manifestos for their voting choice. Lacks of awareness besides lesser publicity of manifestos are strong causes of this behavior. Political parties are seen to be less interested in their formulation of manifestos or its

publicizing. The change in Educational system; it requires a level of political will and commitment that prioritizes education and makes the actual implementation possible that has been lacking since inception of the country. ISLAMABAD: For the third year in a row, the government of Pakistan refused to state how many people in the country live below the poverty line, although estimates based on data provided by the finance ministry in its economic survey suggest that the poverty rate may have increased to an astonishing 43%. During much of the press conference, both Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Sheikh and the finance secretary refused to answer the question on poverty and unemployment rates, despite the fact that nearly every journalist present started off by asking about those two key metrics of the nations economic health.

Process of Compiling: The question was usually summarily ignored by both the minister and other officials present before the finance secretary finally gave a non-answer, saying that he had no new information on the matter. Since the last poverty survey in 2006, there are no new figures on poverty, said Finance Secretary Waqar Masood, during a press conference that marked the release of the 2011 Economic Survey. The government is in the process of compiling the results of its new poverty survey and will be able to release the data next year. In 2006, the government had determined that 22.3%, a figure that hid the fact that there was an increasingly wide gap between the poverty rates in urban and rural areas. Poverty rates in urban areas are lower by as much as 20% compared to rural areas. The government uses the World Banks definition of poverty, which is any person earning less than $1.25 per day. In Pakistan, that figure comes to any person living on less than Rs3,243 per month. The government has not given any reason as to why it does not produce even estimates of the poverty rates, even though this years economic survey seems to include suggestions on how much it might have increased by. By the ADBs estimates, as cited by the ministry of finance, every 10% increase in food prices pushes 2.2% of Pakistans population below the poverty line. The ministry estimates that food prices have risen 94% since its last poverty survey. If the ADBs estimates hold across several years, poverty in Pakistan has increased to an astonishing 43%. Data from the finance ministry suggest that nearly 75% of the population lives very close to the poverty line and very small changes can push very large numbers of people below it, while relatively medium-paced economic growth can also bring several million people out of poverty as well. Hassan Ali Thursday, 20 Jan 2011 10:00 pm | Comments (6) Poverty is a curse. It is consistently on the rise around the globe. According to the latest report of the World Bank, global poverty ratio is on the rise and Pakistan is not an exemption. The ongoing global financial and banking crisis, especially in the USA and the EU has already pushed millions of people into deeper poverty.

According to the latest estimates of the World Bank, almost 40 percent of 107 developing countries are highly exposed to the poverty. Pakistan is ranked among the 43 countries most exposed to poverty risks. Poverty is widespread in Pakistan and is predominantly a rural phenomenon. Nearly two thirds of our population lives in rural areas. Most of them depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Many of them lack basic needs such as safe drinking water, primary health care, education and other social services. A World Bank report titled Sparing lives, better reproductive health for poor women in South Asia has revealed that Pakistans 37.4 percent children under the age of five are malnourished. The South Asia region still has nearly 400 million poor people out of a population of 1.42 billion. Poverty is not just endemic; it is increasingly becoming concentrated with the passage of time. A high poverty ratio has decreased Pakistans spending on social sector further. According to Pakistans Planning Commission, poverty rate has jumped from 23.9 to 37.5 percent in the last three years. The commission has estimated that in 2005 there were 35.5 million people living below the poverty line but in 2008 their number increased to over 64 million. Consequently, unemployment has also increased. Moreover, 40 percent of the urban population lives in slum areas. Reduction in social sector spending is increasing poverty and has reduced the standard of living in the country. High inflation, price hike and shortage of commodities have also added to the problem. It is the hallmark of our macro-economy. I would like to suggest the following steps to the government to wage a war against poverty. A massive effort for job creation and employment generation in order to reduce the high levels of poverty must be launched. Infrastructure development would be an effective tool to curb the rising ratio of poverty. Housing is another sector which needs to be promoted and encouraged through a well planned incentives package. Transportation sector should also be reactivated. Better law and order situation would be helpful in the restoration of business activities and to reduce rising poverty.
METROPOLITAN ECONOMIC STRATEGY

ELIMINATING POVERTY THROUGH MARKET-BASED SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Muhammad Yunus I have chosen to discuss the most daring of all Millennium Development Goals halving poverty by 2015. I have chosen it for two reasons. First, this is the most courageous goal mankind ever set for itself. For the last two decades I have been talking about creating a world free from poverty. I talk about it not because it is unjust to have a world with poverty, which is, of course, true. I talk about it simply because I am totally convinced from my experience of working with poor people that they can get themselves out of poverty if we give them the same or similar opportunities we give to others. The poor themselves can create a poverty-free world all we have to do is to free them from the chains that we have put around them. I have chosen this subject secondly because a feeling is getting stronger in me everyday that very few people are really serious about reaching the goal of halving poverty by 2015. Leaders who made this bold announcement went back to their other important commitments feeling happy that they have captured the world's imagination. They are expecting that as the decision has been made at the highest level, actions will follow, and a wellcoordinated powerful machinery will get activated to get the job done. Unfortunately, so far it has not happened. Only the donor agency officials, supported by the thriving consulting business, are carrying the ball. What is emerging reminds us of the decade of the 1990s when the global goals were put in the form of education for all by the year 2000, health for all by the year 2000, everything else for all by the 2000. My worry is that these courageous Millennium Development Goals may degenerate into a cut-and-paste job of the earlier edition, merely replacing the year 2000 with the year 2015, with appropriate changes in the text.

Please forgive me if I sound too pessimistic. I assure you that I remain a compulsive optimist despite all the bad signs that I see. I keep hoping that these signs will change. I am an optimist because I am convinced that poverty is not as difficult a subject as the experts keep warning us. It is not a difficult subject because it is not about space science, or about an intricate design of a complicated machine. This is about people. I don't see the possibility of a human being becoming a 'problem' when it comes to his or her own well-being. All the ingredients for ending a person's poverty always comes neatly packaged within that person. A human being is born into this world fully equipped not only to take care of himself or herself (which all other life forms can do, too), but also to contribute in enlarging the well-being of the world as a whole (that's where the special role of a human being lies). Then why should 1 billion plus people on the planet suffer through a lifetime of misery and indignity and spend every moment of their lives looking for food for physical survival alone? We must find some explanations. This will help us achieve the 2015 Millennium Development Goals.

Poverty is not created by low-income people

Here is my explanation. Poverty is not created by people who are poor. So we shouldn't give them an accusing look. They are the victims. Poverty has been created by the economic and social system that we have designed for the world. It is the institutions that we have built, and feel so proud of, which created poverty. It is the concepts we developed to understand the reality around us, which contributed to the creation of poverty, made us see things wrongly, and took us down a wrong path, causing misery for people. It is our policies borne out of our reasoning and theoretical framework, with which we explain interactions among institutions and people, that caused this problem for many human beings. It is the failure at the top, rather than lack of capability at the bottom which is the root cause of poverty. The essence of my argument is that in order to reduce, and ultimately eliminate, poverty we must go back to the drawing board. Concepts, institutions, and framing conditions which created poverty cannot end poverty. If we can intelligently rework these framing conditions, poverty will be gone, never to come back again. In this article I will draw your attention to five issues which need to be urgently revisited: (a) widening the concept of employment; (b) ensuring financial services even to the poorest person; (c) recognizing every single human being as a potential entrepreneur; (d) recognizing social entrepreneurs as potential agents for creating a world of peace, harmony, and progress; (e) recognizing the role of globalization and information technology in reducing poverty. Let me narrate how I came to face these issues in the real world and how they affected me. I became involved in the poverty issue not as a policymaker or a researcher. I became involved because poverty was all around me. I could not turn my eyes away from it. In 1974, I found it difficult to teach elegant theories of economics in the university classroom in the context of a terrible famine then occurring in Bangladesh. Suddenly I felt the emptiness of those theories in the face of crushing hunger and poverty. I wanted to do something immediate to help people around me. Not knowing what I could do, I decided to find a way to make myself useful to others on a one-on-one basis. I wanted to find something specific that I could do to help another human being just to get by another day with a little more ease than the previous day. That brought me to the issue of poor people's struggle and helplessness in finding small amounts of money to support their efforts to eke out a living. I was shocked to discover a woman borrowing US $0.25 under the condition that the lender would have the exclusive right to buy all she produced at the price the lender decided! What a way to recruit slave labor. I decided to make a list of the victims of this money-lending business in the village next door to our university campus. When my list was done it had the names of 42 victims. The total amount they borrowed was US $27! What a lesson for an economics professor who was teaching his students about the Bangladesh Five Year Development Plan with billions of dollars in investments to help the poor. I could not think of anything better than offering this US $27 from my own pocket to get the victims out of the clutches of the moneylenders. The excitement that was created by this action got me further involved in it. The question that arose in my mind was, if you can make so many people so happy with such a tiny amount of money, why shouldn't you do more of it?

I have been trying to do just that ever since. The first thing I did was to try connecting the poor people with the bank located on the campus. It did not work. The bank said that the poor were not creditworthy. After all my efforts over several months failed, I offered to become a guarantor for the loans to the poor. I was stunned by the result. The poor paid back their loans every single time! But I kept confronting difficulties in expanding the program through the existing banks. Several years later I decided to create a separate bank for the poor, to give loans without collateral. Finally in 1983 I succeeded in doing that. I named it Grameen Bank, or village bank. It now works all over Bangladesh, giving loans to more than 4 million poor people, 96% of whom are women. The bank is owned by its borrowers. Over the past two decades, the bank has loaned a total of more than US $4.8 billion. Generally the repayment rate has been nearly 99%. The Grameen Bank makes profits, and financially it is selfreliant. It stopped taking international donor money in 1995, and stopped taking loans from the domestic market in 1998. It has enough deposits to carry out its lending program. It gives income-generating loans, housing loans, and student loans to poor families. More than 620,000 houses have been built with loans from the Grameen Bank. Impact studies done on the Grameen Bank by independent researchers find that 5% of borrowers come out of poverty every year, children are healthier, education and nutrition levels are higher, housing conditions are better, child mortality has declined by 37%, the status of women has been enhanced, and the ownership of assets by poor women, including housing, has improved dramatically. Now, the obvious question that anybody will ask: if poor people can achieve all this through their own efforts within a market environment, why isn't the world doing more of this? Some progress has been made, but much more could have been achieved. One difficulty may have arisen from confusion. Grameen's banking methodology has become known as microcredit. But gradually the label of microcredit got into general use for all types of small loans, including agricultural loans, co-operative loans, savings bank loans, rural credits, etc. This has created confusion in policymaking, institution-building, and in designing regulatory frameworks. If we now classify microcredit into different categories to sort this out, I think we can come out of this confusion. (I think we could have avoided the confusion, to some extent, if we had called it micro-capital. That's what it really is. The Bangla-language term that I use for it translates as micro-capital.) Grameen-type microcredit has spread around the world over the last two decades. Nearly 100 countries have Grameen-type microcredit programs. In 1997, a Microcredit Summit was held in Washington, DC, which adopted a goal to reach the 100 million poorest families with microcredit and other financial services, preferably through the women in those families, by 2005. At that time the number of families reached with microcredit was only 7.5 million globally, of which 5 million were in Bangladesh. This outreach crossed the halfway mark of 50 million at the end of 2003. I am still hoping to double these results and reach our goal of 100 million by the end of 2005. But the biggest problem for expanding the outreach is not the lack of capacity, but strangely, the lack of availability of donor money to help microcredit programs get through the initial years until they reach the breakeven level. Beyond that level, these programs can expand their outreach with loans from the market or from savings deposits. In most countries, microcredit NGOs are not legally permitted to take deposits. If microcredit NGOs can open the door to taking public deposits, expansion of their outreach could be very rapid, because this would free them from the dependence on donor money. It is a very strange phenomenon in many countries to see that conventional banks with a repayment rate of below 70% are allowed to take huge amounts of public deposits year after year, but microcredit institutions with an unbroken record of over 98% recovery are not. It is often argued that since microcredit programs do not come under any law, it is highly risky to allow them to take deposits. This always seems to me a strange argument. Why don't we pass laws to bring microcredit programs under legal oversight, establishing special regulatory commissions to regulate them and allow them to take public deposits? This will make local deposits in the villages work for local poor people, instead of being siphoned off to the big cities to finance big businesses. This is the frustrating part of our experience. One feels like throwing one's arms in the air and screaming in protest.

Self-employment is the quickest way

The most important step to ending poverty is to create employment and income opportunities for the poor. But orthodox economics recognizes only wage-employment. It has no room for self-employment. Yet self-employment is the quickest and easiest way to create employment for the poor. I have been arguing that credit should be accepted as a human right, because it is so important for a person who is looking for an income. Credit can create self-employment instantaneously. Why wait for others to create a job for you? A person can create his or her own

job. And this is so much more convenient for women who would prefer to work out of their homes. We are so much influenced by orthodox economics that we forget that our forefathers did not wait for someone else to create jobs for them. They just went ahead in a routine manner to create their own jobs and incomes. They were lucky. They did not have to learn economic theories and end up with a mindset that the only way they can make a living is to find a job in the job market. And if you don't get a job, then march in the streets! In developing countries, even if you march in the streets, there is still no job for you. As a result the poor go out and create their own jobs. Since economics textbooks do not recognize them, there are no supportive institutions or policies to help them. That's why the money-lending business thrives. The money-lenders' business is as old as money itself. We read about the cruelty of money-lenders in our religious books. We condemn them as a part our religious duty. We read the great classics about making payment with a pound of flesh and get horrified by it, but we had done nothing significant about addressing that problem until Grameen credit came around. While we keep hearing about the spread of microcredit around the world, about its 98% repayment record, about poor people getting out of poverty with microcredit loans, about womens empowerment, it has had no impact whatsoever on conventional banking. These banks continue to practice the same old banking as they have been doing from the very start of their business as if nothing new happened in the world! Probably they still shield themselves by arguing that the poor are not creditworthy. It is a very strange world. A big step towards eliminating poverty is to make sure that we offer financial services even to the poorest people, that nobody is rejected by a bank on the ground that he or she is a poor person.

Each person is a potential entrepreneur

In some important ways our designing of the theoretical framework of economics or the misrepresentation of it is responsible for perpetuating poverty. Its conceptualization of individual human beings as labor took the rest of the theory on a completely wrong track. The role assigned to human beings in economic theory is certainly not something a self-respecting person can celebrate. Economic theory in its simplest form visualizes people as providers of labor. They are born to take orders from a small group of a very special kind of people known as entrepreneurs. These special people are the only people who can think, organize, and act. All other people simply fill in the work slots created by the thinking and driving people. The level of well-being of the working people depends on the level of their wages. After creating a world overwhelmingly populated by uninteresting working people, economic theory gets busy with the interesting people the entrepreneurs because they are the movers and shakers of the economy. Taking their cue from economic theory, powerful institutions are built, rebuilt, and improved; support systems are created, detailed legal systems developed, policies formulated, guidelines created, and research undertaken, all to ensure that the movers and shakers of the economy find it convenient to go in the direction they wish to go, and are able to utilize every last bit of their talents without any hindrance. Try to imagine how the economists would have built their theory if they had started out with an axiom that all men and women are created equal, that each of them is endowed with unlimited creativity, and each of them is a potential entrepreneur. I am sure you'll agree with me that with this as a starting point, they would have built a very different economic theory, and we would have created a very different, and definitely much better, world as a result. It will be an uphill task to end poverty in the world unless we create new economic thinking and get rid of the biases in our concepts, institutions, policies, and above all, our mindsets created by the existing orthodoxy. Unless we change our mindsets, we cannot change our world.

Market economies missed a great opportunity

Economic theory took the second, and most damaging, wrong turn when it came to explaining the driving force behind the competition among entrepreneurs. It recognizes the profit motive as the only motive behind this. Maximization of profit is the battle cry. This explanation occupies such a central position in economic theory, and everything else has been built in such intricate detail around it, that nobody dares to question it. Accepting this as the ultimate truth about capitalism, people who are not interested in making money stayed away from business and the market in a capitalist world. For the same reason, people who enjoy making money headed straight for

the market. So the market became an exclusive club of the fortune seeker only. What a shame for missing a great opportunity! Economic theory missed the most thrilling opportunity to change the fate of the world by completely ignoring the number and power of people who are more interested in social gains than personal financial gains, and those passionately interested in making the world a better place to live in, rather than remaining narrowly focused on their own personal benefit. By restricting the driving force of the market to narrow self-interest, economic theory also missed the greatest opportunity to become a truly social science and escape from being a cut-and-dried dollars-and-cents science. Nobody doubts that an entrepreneur can set up a pharmaceutical company to make a big personal profit. But it can be equally plausible that a person may set up a pharmaceutical company to sell quality medicines at the lowest possible price so that even the poorest family can afford them. If economics could envisage two types of entrepreneurs, personal-gain driven and social-objective driven, it would not only be more realistic, but it would help the world solve many of the problems that the profit-driven market doesn't solve today.

Behavior pattern of a social entrepreneur

The behavior pattern of a social-objective-driven entrepreneur, i.e. a social entrepreneur, is as follows: 1. He or she competes in the marketplace inspired by a set of social objectives. This is the basic reason for being in the business. 2. He or she may earn personal profit as well. This personal profit may range from zero to a significantly large amount, even larger than the personal gain-driven competitors. But in this case, personal profit is a secondary consideration, rather than the prime consideration. On the other hand, a personal profit-driven entrepreneur may contribute in achieving some social objectives. But this will be a by-product of the business, or a secondary consideration in the business. This will not make him or her a social entrepreneur. 3. The higher the social impact per dollar invested, the higher will be the market rating of the social entrepreneur. Here market will consist of the potential investors who are looking for opportunities to invest their money in social objective-driven enterprises. Social investment dollars will move from low social impact enterprises to higher social impact enterprises, from general impact enterprises to specific and visible impact enterprises, from traditional social enterprises to highly innovative and efficient social enterprises. Social-objective-driven investors will need a separate (social) stock market, separate investment rating agencies, separate financial institutions, social mutual funds, social venture capital, etc. Almost everything that we have forprofit-driven enterprises will be needed for social-objective-driven enterprises, such as audit firms, due diligence, and impact assessment methodologies, regulatory frameworks, and standardization, only in a different context, and with different methodologies. Because of the way the orthodoxy of economics has given shape to the existing world, all the investment money now is locked up in only one category of investment: investment for making personal profit. This has happened because people have not been offered any choice. There is only one type of competition: competition to amass more personal wealth. The moment we open the door for making a social impact through investments, investors will start putting their investment dollars through this door, too. Initially some investors will divert a part, maybe a small part, of their investment money to social enterprises, but if social entrepreneurs show concrete impact, this flow will become larger and larger. Soon a new type of investor will be appearing on the scene who will put all or almost all their investment money into social investments. Some of the existing profit-driven entrepreneurs may start revealing another dimension of their entrepreneurial ability. They may successfully operate in both worlds, as conventional profit-seekers in one, and as dedicated social entrepreneurs in the other. If social enterprises can demonstrate high impact and creative enterprise designs, a day may come when personal-profit-driven enterprises will find themselves hard-pressed to protect their market share. They will be forced to imitate the language and style of social enterprises to stay in business. I don't think I need to work hard to convince anybody that there are millions of investors right now who would gladly put their money into a social enterprise if they can be assured that their investment will at least retain its original value, while making a significant impact on the lives of poor people, deprived people, or any group of disadvantaged people. I receive many letters from people around the world asking me if they can invest in the Grameen Bank. Obviously none of them are looking for an opportunity to make money by investing in the

Grameen Bank. Why has our business world failed to offer opportunities to people who want to invest for the benefit of the people? If socially motivated people can dedicate their lives in politics to bringing changes in their communities, nations, and to the world, I see no reason why some socially-motivated people will not dedicate their lives to building and operating social objective-driven enterprises. So far they have not done so because neither the opportunity nor the supportive framework exists. We must change this situation. A completely new world can be created by making space for social entrepreneurs and social investors in the business world. This is a very important agenda for all of us. Eliminating poverty will become so much easier if social entrepreneurs can take up the challenge of ending poverty, and social investors can put their investment money into supporting the work of social entrepreneurs.

Who is a social entrepreneur?

Let me define social entrepreneurs in a broad way and then divide them into two categories: market-based and non-market-based. Anybody who is offering his or her time and energy to address any social or economic problem of a group or community is a social entrepreneur. The problem addressed may be a small local problem or a big global problem. The action of a social entrepreneur may need money, or may not need money. It may be a personal campaign for or against something. It may need cooperation and coordination with others. It may need fund-raising. It may be organized as a sustainable business, ensuring 100% cost recovery. It can generate very attractive profits, although making profits is not the goal of the enterprise. In terms of cost recovery a social entrepreneur can work within a scale ranging from zero cost recovery to 100% cost recovery, and even far beyond cost recovery. If a social entrepreneur distributes food to the hungry, he or she is operating at zero level of cost recovery. If he provides health services and charges a fee which covers part of the cost, he is operating at a positive point on the cost recovery scale. Once she reaches 100% cost recovery, she becomes a market-compatible or sustainable social entrepreneur. This is the most critical point on the cost-recovery scale. If a social entrepreneur can stay on the correct side of this point he or she can become a legitimate player in the marketplace. He can grow as much as he wishes and has the capacity to manage. She can draw on the resources of the market. The more that social entrepreneurs are in the category of market social entrepreneurs, the more powerful they become as a business community. They can start gaining access to the trillions of dollars of market capitalization money, part of which will find market social entrepreneurs just the right kind of investment. Social entrepreneurs operating on one side of this critical point are dependent on subsidies and philanthropy money to carry out their noble mission. We may call them non-market social entrepreneurs. The size of their operations will always be limited by the size of the donor money they can obtain. Obviously, the total donor money in the world is only a small fraction of the total business money. In addition, uncertainty about donor money always remains a big problem for non-market social entrepreneurs. Donor priorities and procedures change frequently, and put non-market social entrepreneurs into serious difficulties.

From non-market to market social entrepreneurs

Given all the limits of non-market social entrepreneurs, it must be recognized that they have the longest tradition of social entrepreneurship, almost as old as human beings on this planet. Market social entrepreneurs have a lot to learn from them. Together both types of social entrepreneurs can form a very strong coalition to bring changes in the ways that people do things, that policymakers make policies, and that institutions treat people. Some social entrepreneurs may operate on both sides of the scale, creating different types of socially-oriented programs. Some non-market social entrepreneurs will continue to operate at the same point on the scale all the time, because of their philosophy, availability of funds, or other considerations. Some non-market social entrepreneurs will find it advantageous to move gradually towards self-sufficiency, to get a better grip on their finances and reduce outside dependence. Some will make deliberate efforts to cross the critical point and become internally sustainable. Transforming from a non-market social entrepreneur to a market social entrepreneur is almost like converting a bicycle into a race-car; one can go so much faster in reaching the goal. But there may be some cost to this conversion. You may gain some, while you also lose some. Social entrepreneurs must be very innovative in this conversion process in order to pursue the maximum extent of their social agenda while gaining economic power to scale up and ensure large outreach.

Global efforts should be organized to help the interested non-market social entrepreneur cross the critical point by giving him or her legal support, access to business capital, marketing skills, and technology, connecting him or her with mentors among the successful market social entrepreneurs, and providing advisory services. Social entrepreneurs are not characters in an economic fiction. They exist in the real world. But we refuse to recognize them because we have no place for them in our analytical framework. So they carry out their mission as some kind of misfits or freak characters. We should change that viewpoint immediately and turn them into heroes of our economic endeavors. The future of the world lies in the hands of the market-based social entrepreneurs. Leaving the business world exclusively in the hands of the personal profit-driven entrepreneurs and investors will create more and more social and political tension within and among countries than ever before. With the advance of technology the world is getting smaller, almost distanceless. Businesses are getting bigger and more powerful, while governments are shrinking in power and prestige. Through globalization the whole world is turning into a gaming table of the extraordinarily rich people and extraordinarily rich countries. We cannot cope with the problem of poverty within the orthodoxy of capitalism preached and practiced today. With the failure of many developing country governments in running businesses, health, education, and welfare programs efficiently, everyone is quick to recommend hand it over to the private sector. I endorse this recommendation wholeheartedly. But I raise a question with it. Which private sector are we talking about? The personal-profit-based private sector has its own clear agenda. It comes into serious conflict with the pro-poor, prowomen, pro-environment agenda. Economic theory has not provided us with any alternative to this familiar private sector. I argue that we can create a powerful alternative a social-consciousness-driven private sector, created by social entrepreneurs.

Globalization and the role of social entrepreneurs

The role of social entrepreneurs becomes very important in the context of the race for globalization. Globalization should not turn into an open house for bulls to enter the china shop. I am an ardent supporter of the process of globalization. I think globalization can bring more benefits to the poor than its alternative. But it would be naive to think that there is only one architecture of globalization. We can easily divide all the options of globalization into two broad classes: 'right' globalization and 'wrong' globalization, in the context of a set of objectives. If one of our prime objectives is to bring the quick reduction of poverty we must choose the global architecture which best ensures this result. Unless we go through this exercise and make serious efforts to build it, the most likely architecture that will emerge is the anti-poor people, anti-poor country globalization. This dreadful outcome must be checked forthwith. That's what anti-globalization demonstrations are trying to tell us. The least the world should do is to set up a global regulatory body to stop globalization from going in the wrong direction, and to encourage and facilitate it to go in the right direction. Globalization needs traffic rules and traffic police. Without that, the highways of globalization will be littered with ugly sights. We should initiate a global debate and generally agree on the features of a right architecture of globalization rather than drift into terribly wrong globalization in the absence of a framework for action. There may be many features of this architecture, but I would like to emphasize some. They are: (a) The creation of a level playing field for the rich countries and the poor countries, and for big powerful enterprises and small weak enterprises. The rule of the strongest takes all must be replaced by a rule that ensures everybody a place and a piece of the action without being elbowed out by the stronger players. Free trade must mean freedom for the weakest. The poor must be made active players in the process of globalization rather than becoming passive victims. Globalization must promote harmony and partnership between the big and the small economies, rather than become a vehicle for unhindered dominance by the rich economies. (b) Globalization must ensure the easiest movement of people across borders. (c) Each nation must make serious and continuous efforts to bring information technology to poor people to enable them to take maximum advantage of globalization. This is particularly important for poor countries. (d) Social entrepreneurs must be supported and encouraged to get involved in the process of globalization to make it friendly to the poor. Special privileges should be offered social entrepreneurs enabling them to scale up and multiply. Social entrepreneurs, information technology, and microcredit can play key roles in taking globalization in the right direction, including cutting extreme poverty in half by 2015.

Globalization, the knowledge economy, Grameen scholarships, and student loans

Poor people are like bonsai trees. They could have grown as giant trees if they were supported by the right environment for growth. It is the size of the pots in which they were made to grow that turned them into sad replicas of the real trees. In a similar way, poor people are sad replicas of the real persons hidden inside of them. They cannot grow to their potential size because society does not offer them the social and economic base to grow. Poor people are condemned to survive as Lilliputians in the land of super-giants. We should look at the emerging knowledge economy supported by the process of globalization as an unprecedented opportunity for poor people and the poor countries. The future of nations will no longer be decided by the size of financial wealth of a nation, but by the quality of human resources it has. Information technology and education will make a big impact on the capacity of poor people and poor nations to change their economic situation. A group of Grameen companies have been created to bring both information technology and education to the poor people of Bangladesh. Grameen Phone, Grameen Star Education, Grameen Cybernet, Grameen Information Highway, Grameen Software, and Grameen IT Park were created to bring information technology to the poor and to build IT capacity in Bangladesh. Grameen Phone brings internet-enabled mobile phones to the Grameen borrowers and makes them telephone ladies of their villages. Today there are more than 21,000 telephone ladies selling telephone services in half of the villages in Bangladesh. Many of these phones are powered by solar power because electricity does not exist in those villages. Soon these women can become internet ladies if we can design appropriate services for them. Technology is already in their hands. While extending telecommunications services to the poor, Grameen Phone also has done very well as a business. It has expanded its services to become the largest mobile phone company in South Asia within five years its operations. The Grameen Bank not only focuses on giving financial services; it also promotes a strong social agenda. The Sixteen Decisions adopted by Grameen Bank borrowers commit them to making many non-economic changes in their lives, such as practicing family planning, sending children to school and making sure they stay in school, breaking away from the custom of giving dowry to the bridegroom's family, making sure everyone drinks clean drinking water, etc. Because of the Sixteen Decisions, Grameen borrowers have taken great care to send their children to school. Today not only are all of them in school, but some of them are also in colleges, universities, and professional schools. The Grameen Bank hopes to see that the second generation of the borrowers will grow up to take advantage of the knowledge economy and permanently shift away from poverty. The Grameen Bank offers nearly 4,000 scholarships every year to students of Grameen families, and gives student loans to 100% of students who are enrolled in higher education institutions. Another Grameen company, called Grameen Education, offers a scholarship management service. If a sponsor gives a recoverable grant of Taka 100,000 (US $1,724), a scholarship of Taka 500 (US $8.62) per month, or 6% per year on the grant amount, is given to any poor student, Grameen or non-Grameen, in perpetuity or as long as the money is kept with Grameen Education. Grameen Education hopes to find hundreds of thousands of sponsors for these scholarships to prepare the poor boys and girls of Bangladesh for the knowledge economy and globalization. Information technology can be a big help. Supported by microcredit, information technology can open doors, providing opportunities for innovative financing, connection with markets, and direct access to information. Information technology and telecommunications can eliminate layers of middlemen between the poor and the market. An individual poor person is an isolated island. Information technology can end that isolation overnight. A poor person can be at the central shopping mall of the world, gaining access not only to finance and the market but also to health, education, ideas, and friendships. Information technology, with microcredit, can bring dramatic results in eliminating poverty, if designed appropriately for the poor. It can be easily and sustainably done.

Yes, we can
Now, going back to the original question can we really reduce extreme poverty by half by 2015? My emphatic, unequivocal answer is: yes, we can! We can do more than that. We can set ourselves on a course to eliminate poverty from the world for all time to come. We can get ready to put poverty in the museum, where it belongs. Each human being is too resourceful and intelligent to suffer from the misery of poverty. Poverty and the human species just do not go together. But in reality poverty has persisted because we created wrong mindsets which did not allow poor people to know how much potential they truly have. All we have to do is to remove the heavy crust that keeps their abilities unknown to them. Enabling people to explore their full potential is an agenda we must take up seriously, to make sure our efforts to reach the 2015 goal become a thumping success. This goal of halving extreme poverty must be achieved by 2015 if we pride ourselves to be sensible, sensitive, and creative human beings.

Muhammad Yunus is the founder and Managing Director of the Grameen Bank in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and a member of the Advisory Board of Global Urban Development. Dr. Yunus is the author of the best-selling book, Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty. His article is adapted from a lecture he delivered at the Commonwealth Institute in London, UK, and is printed with permission of the author.

Twelve Steps to Cutting Poverty in Half

by Katrina Vanden Huevel Last Wednesday, at the Center for American Progress (CAP) in Washington, the CAP Task Force on Poverty released the results of fourteen months of work in its report, From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half. The report offers twelve concrete recommendations to reduce over the next ten years, creating a stronger middle class and setting our country on a course to end American poverty in a generation. Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, were both on hand to pledge their leadership on what Task Force co-chair Peter B. Edelman, professor of Law at Georgetown University, called "a national shame. There should be no one [in this country] who's poor." This is one of the great scandals of our times. In the richest industrialized nation in the world, 37 million Americans--one in eight citizens--live below the official poverty line (just $19,971 income for a family of four); in 2005, more than 90 million Americans had incomes below 200 percent of the poverty threshold (less than $40,000 for a family of four); the United States ranks 24th out of 25 developed nations in the share of the population with an income below 50 percent of the national median income-and the US is dead last among 24 rich nations when the same measurement is used to assess child poverty. Nearly 20 percent of American children are poor, and it's estimated that allowing children to grow up in persistent poverty costs our economy $500 billion per year. Lastly, income inequality has reached record highs and is getting worse. "From 1947 to 1973, we saw every economic quintile growing together, and those at the lowest level were growing the fastest," Kennedy said. "In 1980, with President Reagan, you see the beginning of growing apart...And now, those at the lowest end of the ladder are not even keeping up while there is an explosion at the highest level." In fact, the post-tax income of the top 1 percent rose $145,500 between 2003 and 2004; it rose just $200 for the bottom fifth during that same period. "The goal to cut poverty in half over the next [ten] years is not an overly ambitious task when you look at what other industrialized countries are doing," Kennedy said. He noted that Great Britain has raised its minimum wage to $9.78 an hour and brought 900,000 children and 2.5 million workers out of poverty in the last three years. Ireland has reduced childhood poverty by 40 percent with a minimum wage of $9.60. "No single measure is going to answer the problem," Kennedy said. "But nonetheless we can see how important it is that we put [actions] together... [The Task Force] summary of what we can do to move a whole group of our fellow citizens forward makes enormous sense." "With the exception of getting the hell out of the Middle East," Rangel said, "I can't think of anything more patriotic that we can do than eliminate poverty." Edelman said that the Task Force worked hard to pull out some key points from the extensive list of what needs to be done to address poverty. It was not a top-down process, he said, but rather a response to what people in diverse communities feel is needed.

"The focus here is not just what we technically call 'poverty' in this country," said Edelman. "That's a concept that's deeply flawed. Thirty-seven million people is bad enough. But when you take the idea that an income of a little bit over $15,000 gets a family of three out of poverty, an income of $20,000 gets a family of four out of poverty, it's a really bad joke. It's not true. In vast, vast, vast parts of this country, when you get a dollar over those numbers, you're not out of poverty. And so this report is really about everybody in this country who's having a difficult time... who has trouble making ends meet, who has trouble paying the bills at the end of the month...Who has to make a decision whether or not to go see a physician for something quite important because they're not sure that they're going to [be able to] pay for it. And so really this report is about roughly 90 million people whose incomes are up to twice the poverty line all the way down to the bottom--those nearly 16 million people who have incomes below half the poverty line--below $7,500 for a family of three--astonishing! And that's gone up by over 3 million people under the current administration. Our focus is on full inclusion in this country for everybody who has a tough time." The twelve recommendations revolve around four core principles: promote decent work that pays enough to avoid poverty, meet basic needs, and save for the future; provide opportunity for all-maximizing people's opportunities for success from childhood through adulthood; ensure economic security so that no American falls into poverty when work is unavailable, unstable, or doesn't pay enough to make ends meet; and help people build wealth so that they can weather periods of flux and have the resources that may be essential to upward mobility. Here are key excerpts from the twelve recommendations: 1. Over a 10-year period, raise and index the minimum wage to half the average hourly wage--that would presently be $8.40 an hour. The report notes that for most of the 1960's and 1970's a worker with a full-time minimum wage job could lift a family of three above the poverty line. Now it's at its lowest level in real terms since 1959. 2. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. The EITC is an earnings supplement that raises incomes and helps low-income working families build assets. The Task Force recommends tripling the EITC for childless workers and expanding help to larger working families. The Child Tax Credit provides a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child but provides no help to the poorest families. It should be made fully refundable so that it's available to all low- and moderate-income families. (Currently people with incomes below $10,000 do not receive this credit. "Totally absurd," Edelman said. "This is a powerful anti-poverty step. It will get over 3 million people out of poverty just from that one, single public policy step alone.") Doing all of the above would move as many as 5 million people out of poverty. 3. Promote unionization by enacting the Employee Free Choice Act. This would require employers to recognize a union after a majority of workers signs cards authorizing union representation. "It's very important that we get this legislation enacted this year," Edelman said. "Unions are absolutely a backbone of getting fair labor standards and fair wages in our country." 4. Guarantee child care assistance to low-income families and promote early education for all. Federal and state governments should guarantee child care help to families with incomes below about $40,000 a year. "We're not going to achieve this unless communities take the initiative with civic leadership to pull that together," Edelman said. "We would have an Innovation Fund as part of that effort." The funding would be about twice the level of current federal funding for quality state initiatives. This childcare expansion would raise employment among low-income parents and help nearly 3 million parents and children escape poverty. 5. Create 2 million new "opportunity" housing vouchers, and promote equitable development in and around central cities. Nearly 8 million Americans live in neighborhoods where at least 40 percent

of residents are poor. We should seek to end such concentrated poverty. Over the next ten years, the federal government should fund 2 million new "opportunity vouchers" designed to help people live in opportunity-rich areas. "The housing vouchers that we currently have reach only a quarter of the people who are eligible," Edelman said. "People should also be able to choose where they live, they should be able to live near the jobs and get to the jobs." Any new affordable housing should be in communities with employment opportunities and high-quality public services, or in gentrifying communities. 6. Connect disadvantaged and disconnected youth with school and work. About 1.7 million poor youth ages 16 to 24 were out of school and out of work in 2005. The federal government should restore Youth Opportunity Grants to help the most disadvantaged communities and expand funding for effective and promising youth programs--with the goal of reaching 600,000 disadvantaged youth through these efforts. A new Upward Pathway program would offer low-income young people opportunities to train in fields that are in high-demand and provide needed public services. 7. Simplify and expand Pell Grants and make higher education accessible to residents of each state. Low-income youth are much less likely to attend college than their higher income peers, even among those of comparable abilities. Pell Grants play a crucial role for lower-income students. The Pell grant application process should be simplified, and the grants gradually raised to reach 70 percent of the average costs of a four-year public institution. States should develop strategies to make post-secondary education affordable for all residents, following promising models already underway in a number of states. 8. Help former prisoners find stable employment and reintegrate into their communities. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world--600,000 prisoners are released to their communities each year. Most are low-income, minority men returning to high-poverty communities. Two-thirds are rearrested within three years and about half return to prison. States should not bar former prisoners from receiving public benefits like food stamps or deny them the right to vote. All states should develop comprehensive reentry services aimed at reintegrating former prisoners with full-time, consistent employment. 9. Ensure equity for low-wage workers in the Unemployment Insurance system. Approximately 35 percent of the unemployed, and a smaller share of unemployed low-wage workers, receive unemployment insurance benefits. States should reform eligibility rules that screen out low-wage workers, broaden eligibility for part-time workers and workers who have lost employment as a result of compelling family circumstances, and allow benefits to continue when workers are in programs that upgrade their skills and qualifications. 10. Modernize means-tested benefits programs to develop a coordinated system that helps workers and families.A functional safety net should help people get into or return to work and ensure a decent level of living for those who cannot work or are temporarily between jobs. Our current system fails to do so. The government should simplify and improve benefits access for working families and improve services to individuals with disabilities. The Food Stamp Program should be strengthened to improve benefits, eligibility, and access. And the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program should be reformed to shift its focus from cutting caseloads to helping needy families find sustainable employment. 11. Reduce the high costs of being poor and increase access to financial services.Lower-income families often pay more than middle and high-income families for the same consumer products. Federal and state governments should address the foreclosure crisis through expanded mortgage assistance programs and by new federal legislation to curb unscrupulous practices. The federal government should also establish a $50 million Financial Fairness Innovation Fund to support state efforts to broaden access to mainstream goods and financial services in predominantly low-income communities.

12. Expand and simplify the Saver's Credit to encourage saving for education, homeownership and retirement. For many families, saving for purposes such as education, a home, or a small business is key to making economic progress. The federal "Saver's Credit" (a relatively new tax provision which matches voluntary contributions to retirement savings accounts with a tax credit) should be reformed to make it fully refundable. This Credit should also be broadened to apply to other savings vehicles such as individual development accounts, children's saving accounts, and college savings plans. The Urban Institute studied the impact of just four of the Task Force recommendations--the minimum wage, EITC, child tax credit, and child care assistance expansion--and found that together they would reduce poverty by 26 percent, more than halfway toward the ten year goal. The combined cost of the twelve recommendations is approximately $90 billion a year. The current annual costs of the Bush tax cuts (skewed for the wealthy) enacted in 2001 and 2003 are approximately $400 billion. In 2008, the value of tax cuts solely for households exceeding an annual income of $200,000 is projected to be $100 billion. "Making a commitment to cut poverty in half in a ten year period is a bold goal," said Angela Glover Blackwell, Task Force co-chair and Founder and CEO of PolicyLink. "This isn't just about lamenting the fact that we have so much poverty, this is about doing something about it, and doing something in a time period that people can measure and hold us to. Also, this report comes at a time when the mayors, when the faith institutions, the civic organizations, are all looking at what we're going to do about poverty [So it] comes into an atmosphere in which Americans are saying 'we can do something about this'." "What we need here is a massive effort to reach out both through every communications method and the grassroots," Edelman said. "Maude Hurd, National President of ACORN is a member of the Task Force--they work with millions of people around the country who are struggling for economic justice. [We are] working with the unions--Linda Chavez-Thompson [(Executive Vice President of the AFLCIO)], was on the Task Force...with faith-based groups...This has got to reach all around the country and people need to own it, and bring it back, and say this is what we have to do...We know what to do, we know what it will accomplish. The question is the political will. Are we as a nation going to do what we should be doing?"

Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund Project

print version updated August 2005 OVERVIEW 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. For many people in developing countries, acute poverty means difficulty making a living, as well as a lack of basic services in education and health. In Pakistan, lack of access to credit,

training in income-generating activities, basic social services and infrastructure are critical factors behind the persistence of substantial poverty, especially in under-served rural and urban areas. The World Bank funded Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund Project was designed to reduce poverty and empower the rural and urban poor in Pakistan. The project provides access to much-needed microcredit loans and grants for infrastructure and capacity building. As such, the PPAF project aims to help the rural poor in Pakistan get out of a cycle of misery, and get into a virtuous cycle of opportunities. THE CHALLENGE Poverty remains a serious concern in Pakistan, where the per capita gross national income (GNI) is US$520. Poverty rates, which had fallen substantially in the 1980s and early 1990s, started to rise again towards the end of the decade. According to the latest figures, as measured by Pakistans poverty line, 32.6 percent of the population is poor. More importantly, differences in income per capita across regions have persisted or widened as have gender gaps in education and health. High administrative costs and lack of collateral resources have kept traditional financial institutions from supporting small businesses and self-employment in poor areas. As a result, the poor must often rely on money lenders and traders for credit paying interest rates from 80 to 120 percent per year. Although the government has tried to address the problem, experience in Pakistan - and worldwide - has shown that autonomous, nongovernmental institutions can be more effective in reducing poverty by delivering better services to the poor. To help poor people gain access to resources to earn an income and to develop projects aimed at improving their lives, the Government of Pakistan created the Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund (PPAF) as an autonomous body working with local partners to provide loans, grants and technical assistance to the poorest individuals and communities in the country. The PPAF was funded by a US$ 90 million World Bank credit and an endowment of US$ 10 million from the Government of Pakistan in 2000. UPDATE The Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund (PPAF) represents an innovative model of public private partnership. Sponsored by the Government of Pakistan and funded by the World Bank and other leading donors the PPAF has as of now, a resource base of US$500 million. As the lead Apex institution of the country wholesaling funds to civil society organizations, the PPAF forms partnerships on the basis of rigorous criteria. Before finalizing partnerships, the PPAF ensures that the partners have well targeted community outreach programs that are committed to enhancing the economic welfare and income of the disadvantaged peoples. The target population for the project is poor rural and urban communities, with specific emphasis being placed on gender and empowerment of women. Benefits accrue directly to the vulnerable through income generation, improved physical and social infrastructure, and training and skill development support. Women and girls in particular have benefited, since they bear a higher share of the burden of poverty because of fewer economic opportunities and lower endowment of land and other income-generating assets. Traditional development programs have focused on womens

social development, with little focus on the economic empowerment needed to truly improve the situation for women. PPAF focuses on improving the lives of women by ensuring that community projects and loans responding to their priorities, and designed with their participation, take precedence over others. In this sense, Daiyanand and Sughar are no exception in Nenisaar, a small village in Sindhs Thar desert, as the majority of the women in the village are, direct or indirect, beneficiaries of the program. The PPAF has also enhanced public awareness through community participation. The experiment was so successful that there has not been any default, and the communities are willingly contributing to the infrastructure and training programs of the partner organizations. The timely completion of the projects is improving the quality of life of the beneficiaries. Partner organizations are engaged and have been finding their individual solutions to indigenous problems and challenges. This creates a framework of shared values and mutual trust, which in turn allows for partner organizations to reach new levels of understanding and maturity. LOOKING AHEAD The first US$ 107m phase was completed in the year 2004. All targets and forecasts were surpassed well before time, and the project was evaluated as "highly satisfactory" (the highest possible ranking by the Operations and Evaluation Department (OED) of the World Bank). As a result of the above a second project of US$ 238 million was negotiated between the Government of Pakistan and the World Bank in January, 2004. As of today, PPAF is working with 56 partner organizations in 96 districts of Pakistan. Total disbursements have crossed the Rs10 billion mark, over 40,000 new community organizations have been formed (these can transform into Citizen Community Boards), the lowest tier of local government in Pakistan more than 8,000 infrastructure schemes have been initiated of which 5,500 stand completed, micro credit lending has exceeded the Rs. 6 billion figure with 100% recoveries, and over 100,000 community members and staff of partner organizations have participated in trainings facilitated by the PPAF. The Fund is contributing significantly to mitigate affects of drought in Sindh and Balochistan through preparedness programs. After the huge success of one integrated area development program, PPAF has now planned 300 such programs across the country. At the qualitative level PPAF has met the biggest challenge which was to change a deeply entrenched "grant" culture towards a more pragmatic and professional approach among the civil society organizations. Impact studies carried out by independent observers have shown significant change in the quality of life of PPAF beneficiaries. PPAF envisions itself to be the vanguard of civil society endeavors for achieving a decisive impact on poverty by building human, social and economic capital and moving towards a long term integrated program.

Through partnership with TRDP, Nenisaar community approved the construction of a 750-foot tube well.

Microfinance facility has empowered these women. Now they are earning members of the family.

MAKING PROGRESS

A village comes into its own Story of Dhok Tabarak village A village of about 800 people, Dhok Tabarak is located on Lehtrar Road, only about 25 km from the Federal Secretariat. Rain-fed agriculture constituted its only economic base, which was severely hit by persistent drought. Women and girls of school going age had to make several trips to the adjacent dug well to bring enough water for drinking and cooking. Their

miseries increased manifolds as the adjacent well dried up during drought and they had to walk several kilometers to bring water from a distant source. Household latrines were nonexistent. Streets were un-surfaced, remaining dusty during most of the year, turning muddy in the rainy season. Many of them remained inundated with wastewater, which not only made it difficult and hazardous to walk through, but also led to skin diseases and malaria. There were no health or education facilities. Water borne and respiratory diseases were common and iodine deficiency widespread. A bold departure from the conventional single intervention approach, the Dhok Tabarak Pilot Project experimented with an integrated delivery of physical and social services, resulting in synergistic impact in improving the quality of life in the village and creating demand for micro credit, which was also channeled in by PPAF. This was done in collaboration with two of its partner, the National Rural Support Program and Human Development Forum. A grant funding of Rs 3.11 million by PPAF was matched by a community contribution of Rs 0.84 million. The Plan has since been implemented and the facilities built are being successfully maintained by the community. Major physical infrastructure components include: safe drinking water supply, household latrines, small-bore sewerage, street surfacing, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. Micro-credit has been extended to 34 entrepreneurs, who have acquired additional livestock and revitalized their family businesses. A community managed school is fully functional with an enrollment of 75 students, almost half of which are girls. A basic health unit has been set up in the adjacent village, which provides both preventive and curative health services. Like all PPAF assisted community infrastructure interventions, the Dhok Tabarak
Project followed a community based, demand driven approach in accordance with its operational policies. This included consensus building on the scope of work and cost sharing.

A walk through the neatly paved streets of Dhok Tabarak reveals many improvements at the houses, where people have been living in apathy for decades. Boundary walls are being rebuilt with cement mortar, most of which have been voluntarily set back to help increase the width of the street. Living rooms are being re-floored and house facades are being plastered or painted. All this is happening owing to the enormous lifting of spirits following the integrated development of community infrastructure in the village and ready access to health and education facilities. There is also a solid economic justification for these investments as the environmental improvements brought about by the Integrated Project has resulted in two to three folds increase in land values. The greatly improved living environment has provided the people of Dhok Tabarak a strong impetus to lead a more dynamic and fulfilling life. Owing to the vivid and conspicuous improvement in the quality of life at Dhok Tabarak, communities from all over the country are approaching PPAF for the implementation of similar projects in their areas. Under the World Banks Second PPAF Project, there is a provision of implementing similar projects in 300 villages.