The statement deserve reflective analysis before answering.

Poverty is a condanation, it not the word i would use, but rather explained it as, countries which are affected by poverty become impoverished with time and is hard to struggle out of it,

Those which have emerged toward the creation of wealth are few and are at small scales.

We are experiencing a capitalist System, over which, the dominant culture rules and only their ethics that have been established as rules. The way of societal change depends on them only.

Poverty is a culture. It is a way of life that people adopts. Yet, it depends a lot on the state ruler, who is the sole saviour of poverty for this people. However, how hard one would like to struggle, there are factors that the society's hidden system, dominates and restricts one.

It is also to be noted that, there are different aspects of poverty. It is not only a matter of states, country or continents, but based also on simple facts, such as gender, race, ethnicity and age.

The Feminisation of Poverty across the world is a dominant issue. The poverty that varies across ages; child labour. The poverty in terms of race based; black and white coloured people.

It should be an issue raised at every level of the system, through conference based on economic decision, political arrangements, media presentations etc. It is an issue that concern every individual, whether linked or not directly linked to it :)

The previous comment by Hashwini Heerah asnwers the question, i think and points to several important directions to look at. Maybe the questions are "creation of wealth, for whom?", "condanation for whom?". As for poverty and wealth among states, capitalism along with colonisation & imperialism might be a good start to discuss the issue. It is not so easy not to remain poor if people ravage you from the means you have to survive.

Poverty arises from multi-factors. Once a country needs to develop, it should ensure equal distribution of benefits. If not development disparity will widen. And then poverty will be prevalent. So it depends on how policy makers tackle this problem.

It must be kept in mind that there are huge inequalities in developed countries as well. A Marxian analysis explains why this happens, though one must go beyond Marx, to explain how capitalism is trashing people all over the world. A must read is Garry Leech's Capitalism: A Structural Genocide.

The difference in the average levels of income and accumulated wealth among rich and poor countries is certainly influenced by the conditions that allowed the growth and development of only a few countries. Obviously we don’t refer only of the political conditions and influences, but for example also to the social and environmental ones (natural resources, pollution, ...). The conditions today have changed and so the poor countries can’t improve their situation by copying what has been done by the wealthiest.

The widespread poverty in the poorest countries and the difficulty of improving the condition (at personal or household level) is also due to the fact that, in addition to the low income levels, in these countries only a few subjects have some “useful additional resources”. In fact, the average wealth possessed should be more concentrated than income, even though the data and analyses are scarce and contradictory.

Having a low income and very few accumulated wealth (financial, material, ...) in countries with weak financial systems, and considering the imperfections in the credit market, it means having little chance to improve their condition (e.g. through investment in human capital).

The accumulated wealth (which has a different value depending on its shape and the socio-economic context) means the potential to generate income but also protection in periods of declining income or economic shocks.