Poverty is one of the economic statuses of people. There are some significant differences in the poverty of people in Developed countries and Developing countries. Poverty is a perception. It is an economic status symbol of society. To see the world in which so many "haves" and "have-nots". It is a status which is bestowed on people who have relatively little - even societies of plenty. That's why we probably can't really ever "remove poverty".
The poverty in Developed countries is totally different from the Developing countries. For example, in the US the people have a car, bank balances, secured food but they don't have a house to sleep at night. They used to sleep in the car itself. They are poverty people in the US.
The poverty people in developing countries do not have enough food, money, and assets but they have the house to live in.
Economic growth is the most powerful tool for reducing poverty and the poor people will fail to benefit those privileges given by the Government. The chances of removing poverty altogether are zero. The closer look at we get to ending poverty, the harder it is going to be to do it. Even though the Government is taking serious measures to remove poverty from society but it is existing again. That means the rate of growth of the poverty level can be reduced but not remove. Finally, we can differentiate them that Urban Poverty and Rural Poverty.
Yes, First of all there is not proper definition of poverty. So if it can be reduced also relative poverty will be always there.
Poverty is a relative term. The contextual understanding is very important. GINI index of the wealth and income gap in a given country will show you the real background of poverty. Thus, in such circumstances we have to first identity the contextual background. Poverty on the local level or on the global scale. These two things are quite different.
All societies decide the level of poverty that can be tolerated; which is socially and economically sustainable and when it needs to be reduced. These evaluations are made on the basis of priorities and objectives of economic development and political consensus, religion and consolidated social values. The new fact is that many governments have now understood that extraordinary economic development can be built without affecting widespread poverty levels and may co-exist with it. In many societies, tolerance and non-application of the rules are sufficient. In this way, completely separate areas of life (in urban areas and rural areas) are built, tolerating violence, drug dealing and prostitution but only in these areas.
I have to thank the RG users who have replied to my Question.
Saswatik Tripathy - Focused on the Definition of Poverty aspects. I agreed that there are some definitions by some experts and UN definition also there.
Linjie Chou - Focused on the Statistical measurement of poverty by the Index. It is true that contextual on location-specific research study will imply the result of poverty. Poverty in Rural and Urban is totally different based on geographical differences.
Prof.Remo Siza - I am highly respecting Professor for having commented on my Questions more experienced way of replying to my question. Prof focused on economic development including Government Interventions. The poverty in both urban and rural areas are easily identified by different anti-social activities. The rate of the poverty level can be reduced due to the effective Government with strong policy measures.
Regards
M.Senapathy
agree with the statement...
This paper contributes to explain the cross-country heterogeneity of the poverty response to changes in economic growth. It does so by focusing on the structure of output growth itself. The paper presents a two-sector theoretical model that clarifies the mechanism...
Loayza, N. V., & Raddatz, C. (2010). The composition of growth matters for poverty alleviation. Journal of development economics, 93(1), 137-151.
...The attempt of the Grameen Bank to alleviate poverty and enhance the skills and productivity of its rural women clients provides the fascinating backdrop to this important study of micro-credit institutions ...
Islam, T. (2012). Microcredit and poverty alleviation. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..
Case of Uganda...
Kassie, M., Shiferaw, B., & Muricho, G. (2011). Agricultural technology, crop income, and poverty alleviation in Uganda. World development, 39(10), 1784-1795.
Lessons from Nicaragua...
Zapata, M. J., Hall, C. M., Lindo, P., & Vanderschaeghe, M. (2011). Can community-based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Lessons from Nicaragua. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(8), 725-749.
Case studies from Asia and the Pacific...
Quinones, B., & Remenyi, J. (Eds.). (2014). Microfinance and poverty alleviation: Case studies from Asia and the Pacific. Routledge.
Latin American perspectives...
Abel, C., & Lewis, C. M. (Eds.). (2015). Welfare, poverty and development in Latin America. Springer.
Research on poverty in rich countries relies primarily on household income to capture living standards and distinguish those in poverty, and this is also true of official poverty measurement and monitoring. ...
Nolan, B., & Whelan, C. T. (2011). Poverty and deprivation in Europe. OUP Catalogue.
Non‐monetary indicators of deprivation are now widely used in studying poverty in Europe. While measuring financial resources remains central, having reliable information about material deprivation adds to the ability to capture poverty and social exclusion...
Nolan, B., & Whelan, C. T. (2010). Using non‐monetary deprivation indicators to analyze poverty and social exclusion: Lessons from Europe?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2), 305-325.
...overview of the dimensions and sources of American poverty scenario... John Iceland combines statistical data, theoretical arguments, and historical information...
Iceland, J. (2013). Poverty in America: A handbook. Univ of California Press.
I think too that poverty can be removed or drastically reduced if humanity returned. Currently, societies decide the level of poverty that can be tolerated; which is socially and economically sustainable and when it needs to be reduced. These evaluations are made on the basis of priorities and objectives of economic development and political consensus, religious and consolidated social values. The new fact is that many governments have now understood that extraordinary economic development can be built without decrease poverty levels and may co-exist with it. In many societies, tolerance and non-application of the rules are sufficient. In this way, completely separate areas of life (in urban areas and rural areas) are growing, within these area crimes, violence, drug dealing and prostitution are tollerated, but only in these areas.
It highly depends on the economic policies that applied within country and governmental interface with its people in addition to the level of corruption that prevalence in country
Poverty cannot be eliminated, but can be reduced to a very minimal or tolerable level. There are several reasons for this.
First, humans are heterogeneous. That is, no two human beings are exactly the same even if they are Siamese twins. This creates inequality in ability, character, potential, intelligence (academic, social and emotional intelligence), knowledge, and by extension, level of education and the capacity to utilize scarce resources and opportunities. Consequently, this inequality or disparity creates an imbalance in human's capacity to get adequate
financial resources to provide for the basic needs of life (food, clothing, shelter and it's associated infrastructures such as good water supply, electricity, etc), resulting in some people having enough (i.e being rich) and others lacking (i.e being poor). This is the scenario in all societies, including the very developed and wealthy ones.
Second, all countries are naturally endowed differently. This accounts for the differential in their development potentials as well as their capacity to create wealth. Again, this is why some countries are poor and others are rich.
Certainly, poverty can only be reduced, especially among nations, but can't be completely eliminated.
Absolute poverty can and has been largely eliminated in a number of countries as long as the bar is not moved. The WB has already lifted its 'dollar a day' definition to $1.90 for 'extreme poverty' and $3.10 for 'moderate poverty' since most countries got over the lowest bar.
Relative poverty can only be eliminated by government intervention. Defined as say 40% of median income, there will always be a proportion in this zone unless the government pays transfers to bring all households above the line.
Being a citizen of a developing country which follows capitalism, I can say that poverty can be reduced but it is very difficult to remove. For a country to flourish we need a situation where the country follows socialism as well as capitalism and ofcourse humanity.
Previously, our policy makers thought that if people are provided with free market trade then after they reach their highest level of profit the surpluses will trickle down but clearly that did not happen and people are still facing poverty with added pressure of private ownership in everything. Perhaps our policy makers didn't consider the greedy side of human nature. Also, due to free market economy small enterprises of our society are facing tremendous challenges from foreign companies and in many cases small businesses are dying which is adding more towards the proverty state of people.
In this era, all people thinks about is industrialisation but we never think about the people who are associated with agriculture in rural areas. If we do not think about the needs and necessities of people providing the industries with raw materials then how can be expect that the poverty scenario will be reducing. In these circumstances where rural people specially the landless are dying of poverty we need good interventions from the government. Government needs to do things like allocating loans with low interest to people in need and take care of farmers who are landless.
To sum it up, it can be said that we need socialism along with capitalism because private ownership doesn't always thinks about the wellbeing of all the people.
It is not possible to remove poverty because it drives a certain social class; particularly the one at the base. people will always serve people. It is the law of nature. However, poverty can be reduced through careful planning and implementation of poverty-relieving policies and strategies.
On peut partir d’une définition de la pauvreté comme étant la situation de personnes qui ne disposent pas des ressources matérielles suffisantes, dont le manque d’argent, et qui vivent dans des conditions qui ne leur permettent pas d'exister dignement selon les droits légitimes et vitaux de la personne humaine et qui les condamnent à survivre péniblement au jour le jour.
Des lors, il s’agirait d’un positionnement, dans une « hiérarchie » des satisfactions des besoins, allant de la misère à l’opulence, en passant par la pauvreté et le bien-être
Cette hiérarchie des satisfactions des besoins résulte, dans un contexte donné de territoire, des normes et pratiques d’organisation économique, sociale et culturelle de la société considérée, lesquelles feront qu’il y aura plus ou moins de personnes dans les catégories de cette hiérarchie
Tout mouvement dans un sens dans une catégorie aurait des conséquences en sens inverse dans les catégories adjacentes et affecterait les catégories extrêmes : L’augmentation du nombre de personne dans la catégorie bien-être peut correspondre à une diminution du nombre de personnes dans celle de pauvreté, mais une diminution du nombre de personne en opulence pourrait correspondre aussi à une augmentation du nombre de personne dans la catégorie de la misère; supprimer la pauvreté ce serait modifier cette hiérarchie des satisfactions des besoins induite par l'organisation politique économique sociale et culturelle d'un territoire, que l'on soit en PD ou PMA, en zone rurale ou en zone urbaine. Les gens vivront ou subiront leurs catégories différemment.
Thank you for all the highly experienced specialists on Poverty issues who have rightly answered my Questions more pertinently.
The world today has become a rich island surrounded by seas of the poor. " This is how the South African President" Mbeki described the dilemma of poverty last year at the Earth Conference in Johannesburg, poverty is increasing day after day despite the progress made by mankind in various fields, and despite the reaping of many of the planet’s resources which is sufficient to provide the well-being of the six billion people who live above it if it were distributed with minimal justice.
I can say being a Nigeria I believe poverty can be removed if there is shift of attention from government to personal capability and empowerment by individuals
Poverty can be removed and will be removed completely its just a matter of time.
Time would come when the problems of the earth would be beyond food to eat or water to drink, a time would come when issues of over population and global power tussle will be the problems on earth.
Il y aura toujours des situations d'inégalité dans une société. La question est de savoir quels pourcentages de gens de cette société sont dans les différentes strates de mal être ou de bien être; lesquelles vont de la misère à l'abondance, en passant par la pauvreté et le niveau de vie moyen. Je suis passé par toutes ces strates, misère, pauvreté, vie moyenne, abondance, de 1950 à 2006, avant de revenir à une vie normale de retraité. chacune de ces strates correspond à des monde très différends, souvent dans le même pays. Et, en tant qu'économiste, j'ai peut peut-être mieux compris les dimensions, humaines, culturelles et spirituelles incontournables de la pauvreté et de la richesse; Si un individu, à lui seul , comme JB possède une fortune qui monte vers 200 milliards, cela suppose que des milliards d'individus régressent vers la misère. Et inversement la diminution appropriée de cette fortune peut faire reculer puissamment la misère.
We cannot remove poverty as relative condition (compared to average income levels). But we can significantly reduce the intensity of poverty that affects some social groups, to prevent families and individuals from living in extreme poverty, without a minimum standard of living.
In many societies, we accept that a minimum standard of living is just about subsistence (includes physical essentials like food and shelter). In other means enable people to participate even partially in the society in which they live.
Of course, YES !!: Through a better distribution of wealth, eliminating the exploitation of men or women by the human being himself and those who have more are not greedy
Yes, because poverty has occurred in different epochs and economic systems, regardless of the pace of economic development, the specificity of the technological revolution, the type of applied instruments of social and socio-economic policy, etc. The sources of poverty are multifaceted and heterogeneous. Depending on the circumstances, the socio-economic situation, the pace of economic development, average income level, etc., the scale of poverty may change over time, but it has always occurred to some extent. In the future, due to the ongoing global warming process and the negative effects of this process, the scale of poverty may increase significantly.
Thank you, Best wishes,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
I try to clarify my previous answer. Nations cannot remove the relative condition of poverty but they can tackle the condition of severe material deprivation. For example that defined Destitution. People are destitute if:
They have lacked two or more of the following six essential items over the past month because they cannot afford them:
shelter (they have slept rough for one or more nights)
food (they have had fewer than two meals a day for two or more days)
heating their home (they have been unable to heat their home for five or more days)
lighting their home (they have been unable to light their home for five or more days)
clothing and footwear (appropriate for the weather)
basic toiletries (such as soap, shampoo, toothpaste and a toothbrush).
Or, their income is so extremely low that they are unable to purchase these essentials for themselves.
Poverty can be removed if the government and the private sector avoid corruption
There is never a single cause of an event. Almost always there is an interaction between several dynamics: in many contexts corruption play a critical role because democratic and collective organizations are two weak; in others (Europe, USA, East Asia) poverty is created by accelerated economic development not regulated by Institutions and social and political subjects
Thank you Professors and Doctors for having highlighted your valuable answers and comments for my Question.
This is an interesting and relevant article about poverty. Look through this link: https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/ending-poverty
Dear Marisennayya Senapathy
This is an interesting point. The difference in the nature and type of poverty in the DCs and LDCs is quite motivating. However, I do believe that we can still able to eradicate poverty at least to its meaningless level.
Based on priorities and objectives of economic development, political consensus, and consolidated religion and social values, all societies decide which level of poverty can be socially and economically sustainable. In recent decades, many governments have understood that extraordinary economic development can co-exist with widespread poverty.
Poverty is a relative term. What is considered poor in some developed countries is relative affluence in developing countries. This, the level of poverty can only be lowered but not eliminated altogether.
Surely, poverty can be diminished in various countries with sound social policies, mainly - adequate social security measures, and there are some examples, like in the European Nordic countries, that historically there were certain population groups, like old-age pensioners in Finland in the 80-ies of the 20-th century, that poverty was almost totally removed among them (according statistics - remaining 0,4 percent of old-age pensioners in poverty). And it is not an "absolute poverty" indicator, but "relative poverty" indicator, talking about "absolute poverty" - of course, it was 0 percent. Later, with more globalization and neoliberalism influence, these indicators slightly increased, but the attention to anti-poverty measures in the Nordic countries are more or less remaining until nowadays. This is one of the achievements of the famous "Nordic welfare state model", look, please, to the literature, like G. Esping-Andersen's, St. Kuhnle's, S.E. Olsson-Hort's, H.Koht's and A.Guogis', etc.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude