Themes Rethinking Poverty

Sign in to add comments or Join (It's free and fast!)

• Zahid Torres-Rahman – May 12 2008

  I am convinced that the most scalable and sustainable way to fight poverty is through good business. Ultimately, it is entrepreneurs – from the smallest to the largest – that will generate the jobs and economic opportunities that will lift people out of poverty. A World Bank survey of 60,000 poor people, published in 2000, showed that the vast majority of individuals share this view. The great news is that everyday there are new pioneers bringing new insights and ideas to this fight - whether it is social entrepreneurs, corporate executives, policy officials or academics. To connect this movement, we have created Business Fights Poverty - http://www.businessfightspoverty.org – a free-to-join professional network that connects hundreds of pioneering practitioners and thinkers from around the world. If you share our passion, please join us!

• Jesse Teshara – April 16 2008

  Vampires. The problem is vampires.

• Red Slider – March 29 2008

  Another out-of-the-loop idea at the intersection of poverty and novel solutions: one which deals with the human realities of immigration rather than the labor and enforcement issues upon which most of us have fixated.
  
  The Repatriation School Concept:
  
  'Repatriation Schools' would be organized very similar to community colleges. Though current needs suggest they would best be located along the U.S. -Mexico border, they might be established anywhere and for any culture-group that presented significant populations of undocumented people within our borders. In the current circumstance, classes at these schools would be taught entirely in Spanish by experts on the regions from which the undocumented students originate. Curricula and content materials would be drawn from the reality of life and conditions in the home countries of the undocumented students/ participants ( Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc.) Their purpose would be to provide the undocumented person, when contacted/apprehended, who would otherwise be on a direct deportation track, with specific skill-sets designed to empower them to improve both their lives and the life of their communities in their home country .
  
  These skill sets might include things such as basic reading/writing skills (many students may be virtually illiterate), vocational skills which would raise their economic opportunities in their home country; political and organizing skills which might empower them to work for change in their home countries and communities; parenting skills, nutrition and health skills and other skill sets that could lead to successful repatriation rather than our current practices which simply lead to repeated boarder-crossing/deportations and the in-between tragedies, in a vicious circle of despair. Repatriation School alternatives to detention/deportation would be a voluntary option. Those who refuse such an offering would simply be tracked for deportation or other disposition by the usual processes.
  
  In most cases, Repatriation School enrollment would be limited to a year or two and generally be somewhat shorter than those that the rounds of hearings, determinations, appeals and other legal processes currently absorb. Indeed, the present system forces the undocumented to inappropriately use an expensive and severely strained legal system in much the same manner as the poor are forced to use emergency rooms for basic health care when other avenues would be far more efficient and effective.
  
  Those who choose to enter a Repatriation School, however, would understand that their attendance was not to be construed as some round-about path to U.S. citizenship. They would have to agree that their acceptance of this educational opportunity is contingent on their return to their community of origin at the completion of an individually tailored curricula designed to give them optimum chances for successful repatriation.
  
  The main thing to keep in mind is that, sending people back to their country with more understanding of their situation and how they might improve conditions at home, would likely see undocumented immigration significantly reduced, over time, by a method which does not criminalize and subject the victims to sensless indignity. This is in addition to other skill-sets that would maximize their opportunities to address the many personal and family challenges that brought them to the United States in the first place.
  
  As mentioned, this proposal neither hampers nor comments upon enforcement or labor related issues that currently define the ‘immigration debates’ in this country. It simply adds something that would not only end most illegal immigration in the long-term (as well as deal with the problem of 11 million undocumented people already here) but, does so in a manner which doesn't deny the undocumented the dignity and compassion which all human beings are entitled to have.
  
  The normal processes now employed for other categories of undocumented people would still apply:
  
  1. Those seeking/claiming political asylum would be processed as usual (perhaps more fairly than we now do);
  
  2. Those who are working in jobs which are necessary and do not depress the American workforce might be referred to one or another 'guest worker' program and provided visas commensurate with their status or other proposals suggested by Congress and elsewhere.
  3. Those who are found to have committed serious or violent crimes would be referred for prosecution and/or deportation as is now customary.
  
  The remainder of the undocumented, as contacted, would be evaluated by case workers and counselors and offered the option to attend one of the repatriation colleges. Curriculum would be tailored to each individual's need and the circumstances that compelled them to flee their home. Their length and course of study would be tailored to provide them with those skill sets which might permit them to return home with some empowerment to change those circumstances which made it necessary to flee in the first place. For many, these might include vocational skills appropriate for their home communities. This, along with other skill sets such as those mentioned above should drastically reduce the rate of recidivism in illegal border-crossings and the compelling need to come to the U.S. illegally. Attendance is reasonably assured since it would be fair enough to insist that an undocumented immigrant either attend all classes during their stay or face being 'criminalized' for being in non-compliance (or, perhaps by being held 'in contempt of court' by the judicial process that assigns them to a repatriation school).
  
  Not only does this proposal treat the causes of illegal immigration in a manner that does not trade on the dignity of the undocumented, it also puts the countries of origin on notice that they must also play a part in reducing the rate of illegal immigration, improve their own social and economic climates and consider improved enforcement on their own side of the border. After all, every undocumented person who arrives in the U.S. would, under my proposal, represent to the country of origin the return of a potential activist and organizer after completing a repatriation curriculum and being sent back to the home country. Certainly, the home countries would not appreciate the fact that we are sending back their own citizens to participate in a process of change within their own borders. As it stands now, they are content with the way things are since every illegal crossing represents an exodus of the poorest and most deprived from their own rolls - a problem which the Mexican government is quite happy to let the U.S. manage. Repatriation schools would make continuing this policy much more risky for the home country. Each citizen they "encourage" to flee to this country might very well return home as trained activist and organzer.
  
  While this is an idea that might seem, at first glance, unrealistic, it does solve the host of problems which our current and proposed immigration policies do not. Simply turning serious social or economic problems into criminal ones solves nothing. That course only makes things a good deal worse. In addition, social and educational solutions should prove a good deal less expensive than military, paramilitary and enforcement solutions. If for no other reason, law-enforcement solutions always result in increased costs and resources over time (as we have seen in the half-century of drug-enforcement policy). The solution which I have proposed anticipates diminishing costs over time in addition to less expensive initial outlays.
  
  True, political realization of such a project presents some difficult obstacles. But what sane and worthwhile project these days does not? Certainly, it deserves serious consideration.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Red Slider
  Sacramento
  
  
  Main Talking Points:
  
  The concept, which I call ‘Repatriation Schools’, offers two important elements which none of the proposals on immigration that I have heard seem to address:
  
  1. They offer a mechanism for long-term change in the home countries of undocumented persons which would lead toward a significant reduction in the reasons many illegal immigrants come to the United States in the first place. Strikingly, these changes do not depend on cooperation or compliance in the countries of origin.
  
  2. They address the problems of stateless/undocumented persons in a manner which fully respects their worth as human beings and avoids the more devastating effects and indignities of criminalization.

• Red Slider – February 20 2008

  The comments posted by others in this section are very adroit and lead one to imagine adjustments to existing mechanisms and structures that may yield better distributions of wealth and resource. The problem I have with them is that my personal way of minding does not seem to find solutions that live within those structures. Indeed, many of my nascent ideas about solving problems such as poverty, conflict and general well-being in the world are not generated by thinking of things in easily manageable catagories such as the ‘Themes’ that TED has devised for the sake of convenience. Let me provide three brief sketches that have some focus on poverty and wealth to give the idea of what I mean (briefly enough that many of important features are omitted entirely or glossed over):
  
  1. National Service: Ending Both Poverty and Welfare
  
  This idea proposes the following:
  
  Citizenship is an earned and voluntary status (rather than compulsive birthright) through participation in a National Service Program.
  
  Citizen candidates work a number of years in the production of basic essentials (food, health care, education, transportation, housing , energy and information) such that their contribution may be expected to cover the costs of essential necessities in times of personal hardship due to circumstance, misfortune or other vagaries of life.
  
  These essentials are guaranteed for the remainder of a citizen’s life. They are earned basic supports considered necessary to maintain health, essential comfort and the ability to participate as citizens in their society. They are benefits (due and payable on demand) that must be earned prior to, and requisite for, citizenship. No means tests or other assessments are required to receive such benefits once a citizen has completed their national service tour. With such an understanding of "citizenship" as the guarantee that the members of a society can and will provide to themselves, by definition, the basic necessities of life, the entire concept of welfare and charity ceases to have meaning or relevance.
  
  All the rest are "luxuries" which capitalism can have at as it wishes. There will be far less need to restrict these markets since they will not hold the essentials of life and the people (labor) that need them as hostage.
  
  2. The 100% "Death-tax": Equitable Distribution of Wealth
  
  All proceeds from the estates of individuals who have died in a given year are redistributed to all persons obtaining their citizenship (see #1) during that same year.
  
  There is no personal inheritance - wealth is returned to the society as a whole and redistributed to its new members in equal portions as a ‘grubstake’ upon reaching their majority. The current mythology proposes that all will get wealthier from the largess and generosity of a few. This proposal says that the wealthier one gets, the more there will be for all (including their own children and grandchildren) .
  
  3. Eco-labeling: Resource Conservation and Preservation as a Marketplace Mechanism.
  
  The costs of all direct and indirect resource impacts must be included in the price of each product and clearly given on its label. That cost must be directly related to the total consumer price of the product such that, the more a producer controls the cost of impacts (pollution, resource depletion, energy extraction, etc.) the lower the cost of the product.
  The portion of the price associated with the eco-label costing will be invested in a dedicated fund solely for the purpose of repairing and mitigating damage done by the production of a product. The relation between eco-costing and production should be such that all products will become impact-neutral. The better a producer controls such costs, the lower the unit price of the product and the better it will compete in the marketplace.
  
  
  Gradually these and other ideas are beginning to take shape for me as a work-in-progress (mentally, at any rate) which I call "The Next America". A bit of a misnomer, since I personally do not believe the "next America" will either be devised or populated by that culture group we commonly refer to as "Americans". Indeed, while many of my ideas suggest ‘national containers’ to build and operate such mechanisms, I am not certain that will even be necessary. The internet and person-to-person communication is evolving such that people of like mind and spirit may very well find ways to declare themselves "nations" without any reference to geographies or cultural histories. Mainly, the title was chosen to suggest that the original visions that created the idea, "America" , brilliant as they were, was an incomplete vision and is proving woefully inadequate (as we are now witnessing). The "Next America" envisions a social construction that begins where Solon and Jefferson and Ghandi left off.
  
  Like I said, I’m not sure this is the appropriate place to put such ideas. They are novel, and I haven’t heard them (or others I’ve proposed) elsewhere. On the other hand, they are, at best, impractical and unlikely to see the light of day, given the world we live in and our fixations on our current mythologies of what ‘must be’. Perhaps I should have posted these in ‘storytelling’ and left it at that.
  
  Best to all,
  
  Red

• Ron Rosenberger – February 18 2008

  The number one issue to end poverty is access to land. The number one cost for people on this planet is a location/site to live on and the building on it. In country after country vast areas are owned by a very few. The remaining population must pay higher rent to exist because much of the land is denied to
  them by royal title.
  
  Even if the impoverished are presented opportunity, investment, etc. their human effort creating new wealth would be absorbed into higher land values. Land owned by a few. They would remain essentially a hamster on a treadmill. Outside investment and innovative ideas would only make the treadmill spin faster but they remain in the same position.
  
  The first solution should be the installation of a land value tax. End the hoarding of land by a few. Also, all mineral extraction, air waves, oil, and gas profits should have a royalty of some sort. The revenue should be split between the local governments and each individual citizen. The government should not be the landlord and neither should the capitalist.

• Stijn Lefebure – February 14 2008

  Poverty can be caused by lack of opportunity and/or lack of capability. Roslings presentations clearly show that world poverty is primary a result of lack of opportunity. The great merit of the Rosling presentation is that it shows that the poor are catching up rather than lagging behind.
  
  However, When opportunity in a given country is maximized, a hard core of poverty remains which is caused by lacking capabilities. In these countries, the poor are lagging behind rather than catching up.
  
  I hope in the future this topic will offer presentations that are also covering poverty in advanced societies.

• José Tavares – November 13 2007

  Olá António!
  
  In the present context, any innitiative has its own merit.
  That said, I'd like to address some issues concerning the microcredit & risk capital innitiative.
  
  I'm aware of its benefits, so I'll address the apparent downsides which are not exclusive of the microcredit innitiative, by the way.
  
  On point 3., comes an often 'misworded' definition of a poor "who live with less than one dollar per day"; the issue is that, most of them would still be as poor with 50 or 500; goods, environmental conditions, potable water, exploitation, 'you-name-it', would prevent them from improving their condition.
  The problem has a much wider base (Majorana Carter gave a pin-point example...), often exogenous to the country's effective capabilities to take off. It's like - and quoting Carrie Blakley - "Feed a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime.", except when someone's taking all the fish away.
  
  On point 6., you almost nailed it: "...the enormous monetary flows necessary to eradicate the poverty."
  And that, scares everyone out of altruism. Even with a 'reasonable' success (depends upon: *insert variables*), the outcome is away from immediate and it only creates small pockets of 'less poor' by a small margin.
  
  Finally, on point 7., it's also a mistake (in my opinion) to take everyone as a potential entrepreneur; it doesn't work like that, in any place in the world. And, when capital is at risk, one failure is worth many successes.
  
  So, while we - the 'Developed World' - keep our policies of resource-draining for "less than a dollar per day", there'll be not enough money to eradicate poverty. As a matter of fact, it exists in our societies as well; we tend to ignore it and overall... I think we do it consciously and intentionally. Mea culpa.
  
  
  Cheers!

• António Muni – November 13 2007

  Reduction of the poverty
  
  The United Nations had established as goal, in the Millennium Declaration, the significant reduction of the poverty by 2015.
  
  2. The microcredit has shown to be a powerful instrument to stimulate the entrepreneurship in local communities and to make them to leave the poverty.
  
  3. However the resources mobilized for the microcredit are insufficient regarding to the financing necessities, having in account the existence of more than a billion of poor persons, who live with less than one dollar per day.
  
  4. The solution for this scarcity of financial resources can be found in a financial instrument that was conceived for other purposes - the risk capital.
  
  5. The connection of the risk capital with the logic of the microcredit has enormous potentialities.
  
  6. The combat to the poverty, being an altruistic goal, established in a vision based in the human rights, can be transformed in a lucrative activity. In such a way it will be possible to obtain and to mobilize the enormous monetary flows necessary to eradicate the poverty.
  
  7. The concept is simple. It consists in the use of the mechanisms of the risk capital for a solidarity purpose and development. This is not an assistance project, but a partnership for the development and a chance of business. The subscribers of the reduction of the poverty mobilize themselves on behalf of solidarity and know that they may lose the totality of the capital subscript. However, if the beneficiaries of the risk capital have success, also the capital fund of risk and/or the society of risk capital will have success, having been able to generate interesting profits. In this situation the subscribers of the fund will get an income with their investments. Such would mean that to fight the poverty, betting in the most dynamic elements of each society, in their ideas of business or producing activities, could mobilize significant resources for this purpose, even if the mobile was not exclusively altruist. This is a bet on the individuals, their capacities and initiatives. Farmers, craftsmen or any person who intends to initiate small businesses or productive activities, with raised potential of growth and add value, can apply for the risk capital, to their micron companies, already constituted or to constitute.
  
  8. The promotion in the local communities of the risk capital could be in charge of ONG, established in the respective countries, entities as the Grameen Bank, or local agents trained for that effect.
  
  9. The goal is, as it was mentioned, to allow the attainment from individual, companies and foundations of the capital to invest and to create wealth in poor countries, breaking the vicious cycle of the poverty. And give a chance to those who want to produce and do not have the necessary means and, simultaneously, to get profits for the subscribers of the solidary risk capital.
  
  10. The resources collected with the funds will be invested acquiring a minor participation in the micron companies.
  
  11. The management of these funds should be done by a society of capital fund risk and must have professional management.
  
  12. Reasons of adhesion and advantages for the subscribers of the solidary risk capital: social solidarity; social prestige; social responsibility of the companies; tax benefits (eventually); expectation of profits.
  
  13. Subscribers of the solidary risk capital: individuals, companies, foundations, public bodies.
  
  14. Policy of investment: criteria and priorities for the selection of the countries or regions should be defined by each fund.

• Carrie Blakley – August 24 2007

  Fighting for development, and fighting for the means by which to develop are two very different things.
  One GIVES you deveopment...the other, CONTINUES it indefinately.

• guru RAJMOHAN – August 2 2007

  developed countries not bother about poverty,but speak only...asio-affrika-latin america countries only fight forthe development.