Approaching Poverty: Beliefs that Underpin the Jargon

Posted on 12 February 2009

I am beginning to like this blogging thing.  I must confess that I had predicted that my first post would end up lost in a cyber black hole.  But no – quite the contrary!  To my surprise, that post generated some quick reactions and sparked a spirited exchange.  (The discussion was on the extent to which compensation is the deciding factor in attracting and retaining talent in the nonprofit sector – and the extent to which compensating at for-profit rates would increase the sector’s impact.)

Toward the end of that rich discussion, a sentence in one comment stopped me in my tracks.  I thought it would be interesting fodder for another exchange of ideas and opinion, if anyone wants to take me up on it.  Here’s the sentence that made me pause and reflect: “poverty, susceptibility to ill health, and lack of education are humankind’s natural state.”

Personally, I believe the opposite to be true: that poverty, ill health, hunger, lack of education, etc. are not a natural state, but rather conditions that are caused by – and persist because of – man-made systems, structures and practices.  I also believe that interventions that don’t help change these underlying structures for the better can alleviate the symptoms of problems, but they won’t fundamentally address the causes.

The problems that NGOs seek to address are enormous and varied.  So there is room for many different approaches.  Although some organizations still view poverty in purely economic terms, most have a broader understanding.  They see poverty as a deprivation of rights, opportunities and control – as being driven by discrimination, corruption and exclusion.  The Human Development Index was launched two decades ago to provide a measure of development that was broader than per capita income.  A decade ago, Amartya Sen’s book Development as Freedom expanded and enriched this concept.

This situates poverty within a very complex web of factors, and often makes our jargon-filled discourse sound like gobbledygook.  Although the international development world might be fragmented into varying business models, programmatic approaches and technical specialties, it is (for the most part) held together by the belief that poverty is not inevitable – and that a world free of poverty is not only possible but also imperative.

In this time of unprecedented economic uncertainty, a reversal of development gains and worsening poverty are distinct possibilities.  As anxiety and attention turn inward, the challenge of overcoming global poverty may seem even more colossal – even impossible.  Haven’t billions of dollars been spent on foreign aid?  What difference has that made?  Has globalization helped or hurt?  Have NGOs played a useful role?  

The questions are important.  The answers are sometimes ambiguous.  Should that put into question our belief that poverty can be ended?   I hope not: there is nothing inevitable about poverty.