|
Sign
up for our Free newsletter
|
|
|
|
Poverty-free
Futures
Ivana Milojević
Graduate
School of Education
The
University of Queensland
ivanam@mailbox.uq.edu.au
Approximately
10 years ago I was standing with my mother at a food store in Novi
Sad, Yugoslavia. We needed to buy yogurt required by a recipe to
finish a dish. It didn’t cross our minds that between her, who
worked as a senior manager, and myself, employed as an associate
lecturer at the university, we wouldn’t have enough money to make
such a purchase. At that time it was only the cash economy that
worked, as personal checks and credit cards were no longer accepted.
The prices of all goods regularly skyrocketed over night as
inflation reached the highest ever-recorded in history. People were
going straight from their workplaces – where everyone received
income as banks collapsed – directly to the markets. Delaying your
visit to the market by couple of hours would cost half of your
salary. Our family friend, gynecologist and director of maternity
hospital, was too busy to go for a couple of days. Eventually, for
his half-monthly income, he managed to buy a bar of soap.
The
interesting thing is that most people didn’t feel as horrible,
depressed or anxious as you would expect. In the situation when we
could not afford one yogurt my mother and I could not help but
laugh. Running to the market became some sort of national sport.
Women “competed” to find out exactly how many liters of juice
could be made from one orange (I still have a recipe which makes
four to five). But at that time we could laugh because we felt that
our poverty was temporary. We still had other assets apart from
income that we could use. We could still envision a better future.
And for some reason, we stopped comparing ourselves with “the
West” as we had in previous years of relative affluence (a
comparison which would have given us a sense of inadequacy,
apprehension and inferiority). We looked around us and concluded
that most people were in the same boat and that compared to many
others we were still quite fortunate.
My
first thought in coming to Australia was that Australia would
collapse were it to experience the sorts of the economic sanctions
in place in Yugoslavia. At that time, petrol could be found only
sporadically but unlike in Brisbane people of Novi Sad could walk to
most places or drive bicycles. Alternatively, they could easily
organise car polling. Other strategies included waiting in queues
for days and taking turns to do so, borrowing cars using less gas
from family and friends, smuggling petrol over the border and buying
at the black market. The joke at the time was that while a western
European earns 3,000 spends 2,500 and saves 500 DEM, the average
Yugoslav person earns 30 but spends 3,000 DEM a month. While
probably serving to boost everyone’s morale this joke as well as
the previous petrol and juice examples help make few important
points.
First,
how easy it is to move from a situation of relative affluence to a
situation of poverty. This has happened to millions of people in
Eastern Europe, over a relatively short period of time. For example,
using the cost of a basket of basic goods as a measure of poverty,
the figures show that child poverty in Russia has now reached 98 per
cent (Bradbury & Jantti, 1999)! Throughout history, this has not
only happened to the members of the middle class like myself but to
the members of the financial and social elite as well, and not only
in Eastern Europe. Empires fell, the economic system collapsed, wars
occurred, family, age and work situation changed, and so on. Because
of what I saw in my life and learned from glimpses into history, I
believe that no one is safe from finding herself/himself in a
situation of poverty. And, if we factor in environmental degradation
as an indicator of overall quality of life we all might already be
poor, without even knowing. Therefore, addressing and resolving
poverty is everyone’s business and should be everyone’s
priority.
The
second point I make in regard to the previous examples is that
people who find themselves in situations of poverty use multiple
strategies to alleviate their condition. The poorer they are the
more elaborate and ingenious their strategies for survival are. At
the same time, it is often thought that the poor are totally
powerless to change their situation and that their only hope is to
be passive recipients of aid. Because of this, strategies that
today’s poor use or have used before to maintain their societies
are rarely considered in poverty elevation measures. In Australia,
for example, Aborigines stress the importance of the land at all
levels as necessary in addressing their current disadvantage.
However, the government’s reply to Aboriginal poverty is almost
entirely through welfare state measures which primarily focus on
financial transactions and welfare handouts. This reply is a product
of western, materialistic and industrialised society. It fails to
address the issue of importance of traditional natural and cultural
assets as well as the importance of spiritual progress and
well-being. Another example is the 1994 boycott of products produced
by child labour, led mostly by the USA which resulted in 50,000
Bangladeshi children losing their jobs, and as a result many of them
then turned to begging and prostitution (Bjonnes, 2001). While the
boycott had good intentions it was one more case “of Westerners
selectively applying universal principles to a situation they did
not understand” (Marcus quoted in Bjonnes, 2001). It is depressing
that more strategies for alleviation of poverty have failed rather
then succeeded. In addition, some have directly contributed to an
increase in poverty. For example, development policies in the Third
world have made many people landless and/or destroyed their
environmental assets, as well as their social cohesion and
traditional economy. This has not only contributed to the increase
in their poverty but has sometimes been the single biggest factor
that created it in the first place. Still, just because poverty
alleviation measures have not been successful in the past does not
mean that the problem of poverty is such that it cannot be resolved.
This however requires tapping into the experiences and strategies
developed by those who experience poverty on daily basis.
Third,
and related to the previous perception that poor are powerless, is
also the conviction that poor have no future since their predicament
will only get worse (S P Udayakumar, 1995: 339). For example, a 1995
study by the International Food Policy Research Institute concluded
that poor countries that now suffer widespread malnutrition and a
general lack of food security can look forward to little improvement
in the foreseeable future (Gately, 2001). Another study (Hanmer et
al., 2001) concluded that Sub-Saharan Africa would not be able to
meet the international development targets – halving of the
extreme poverty by 2015- in any likely future scenario. While such
forecasting and trend analysis is powerful and might be accurate it
does little when it comes to envisioning alternative futures and
motivating people to work toward social change.
Fourth,
poverty is a complex, multidimensional issue which cannot be
understood only in terms of economic indicators, such as GNP or per
capita income. Access to other assets such as community support,
infrastructure and knowledge base play an equal, if not a more
important role. This is why poverty alleviation strategies in the
future need to be based on a reconceptualised understanding of
poverty, if they are to be successful. This includes understanding
that there are poverties not poverty, that these poverties are
processes not states and that prevention rather then relief is
crucial (Walker & Park, 1998: 47).
Fifth,
poverty needs to be defined from the perspective of the poor. For
example, one study shows that poor rarely speak of income but rather
focus on their ability to manage physical, human, social and
environmental assets (Narayan, 2000: 5). This means asking the poor
how they define and see their living and working conditions and
which areas do they believe need to be transformed.
Sixth,
poverty is a cumulative process. The longer it goes on the more
difficult it is to uproot it. And while the common understanding is
that the poor somehow get accustomed to the situation, in fact, the
longer poverty goes on the more difficult it is to bear it. People
who find themselves temporarily poor might respond to that situation
with dignity, humour and resourcefulness. But sooner or later other
feelings such as shame, humiliation and despair set in and the
opportunities and assets for ingenuity decrease. That the poor do
not get accustomed to the situations of poverty can be easily seen
from the higher level of poor health and illness among poor as well
as from their higher mortality rates. Around 500,000 women die
yearly from pregnancy and birth related complications which are
usually related to a lack of proper nutrition and adequate health
services. Almost 2 million children will die this year because of
poverty. And it is estimated that around 30 million people die each
year from hunger.
These
are only some of the important factors that need to be considered if
we are to eradicate poverty. The literature on poverty is huge,
including both the economy oriented studies as well as critical and
alternative approaches. In order to summarise what I see to be
crucial issues in regard to poverty eradication, I use the Causal
Layered Analysis methodological approach, developed by Inayatullah
(1998). This approach offers deconstruction, reorders knowledge and
seeks to find the root causes of social diseases (Fricker, 2000). It
implies that there are different levels of reality and different
ways of knowing. Consequently this requires different levels of
analysis and understanding of various realms for implementation of
social and individual transformations. Causal Layered Analysis has
four levels: the litany, social causes, discourse/worldviews and
myths/metaphor. The litany focuses on quantitative trends and
problems which are often exaggerated and used for political
purposes. At the level of social causes interpretation is given to
the quantitative data. The third level is concerned with structure
and the discourse/worldview that supports and legitimates it. At the
fourth level analysis looks for the deep stories, the collective
archetypes, subconscious dimension of the issue under inquiry.
Causal Layered Analysis does not privilege a particular level but
attempts to integrate discourses, ways of knowing and worldviews as
well as create transformative spaces for the creation of alternative
futures (Inayatullah, 1998: 815-829).
Litany
At
the litany level poverty is measured only through economic and other
quantitative indicators. The discourse tends to focus on the
overwhelming nature of global poverty, for example, estimates that
currently 53% of the world population is classified as poor and that
around 3 billion of people live on less then 2US$ a day. The number
of people in poverty is represented as the matter of fact and causes
are rarely explored. In western media, poverty is usually
constructed to be “out there”, among “the Others” and rarely
“here”. The common results of poverty, such as high fertility
rates, low literacy levels, political arrest, organised crime and
scarcity of resources are often presented as its main causes. For
example, in mainstream discourse on poverty there is a huge concern
about overpopulation. It is often stressed that world population is
expected to increase from 6 billion as it is today to 7.2 billion in
2015 and somewhere between 7.7 and 11.2 billion in year 2050. As the
95% of this increase is projected to occur in the countries with
currently have high proportion of the poor it is implicit that the
poor themselves are “guilty” of creating a future poverty.
At
this level, the strategies for elevation of poverty mostly focus on
poverty relief and aid packages. The common response among the
affluent is either apathy
– the problem of poverty is so huge that it cannot be resolved; helplessness
– I wish there is something I/we could do; or projected
action – the government, UN or NGO’s should do something.
Sometimes, magical solutions, such as genetically modified rice and
other crops, are also discussed.
Social causes
At
the level of social causes analysis, economic, cultural, political
and historical factors are discussed. Social causes analysis is most
commonly found among policy planners and academics. At this level,
processes such as colonisation, modernisation, globalisation,
capitalism, urbanisation, as well as national and international
governance are discussed. Other indicators of poverty, such as
access to education, health care, are included but poverty is still
primarily measured through economic indicators, such as GNP and
income per capita.
Strategies
usually include suggestions on how to increase economic growth rate
or labour productivity and how to encourage foreign investment.
Other suggested strategies include investments in
agricultural research, education, health, creation of welfare safety
net and so on.
Worldview/discourse
At
the worldview/discourse level, the main debate is whether economy
needs to be regulated. Libertarians and conservatives argue against
any or against any significant interference into the free-market
economy, and maintain that poverty can only be elevated through the
free flow of capital and labour. Some also argue that the widening
gap between the rich and the poor is “a natural, necessary and
even desirable component and hallmark of the improvement of the
human condition” (www.libertarians.org).
That is, poverty is the normal
condition of human society and if the rich were not allowed to get
ever richer the poor would never have any chance to improve their
conditions at all. This they could do through ever- increasing
access to tools of ever-increasing productivity, through acquiring
advanced technology and by “jumping on the bandwagon” of the
general development and economic growth that entrepreneurs create (www.libertarians.org).
Left-liberals,
environmentalists and socialists argue that the global “casino
capitalism” is directly complicit in creation of poverty where
previously there was none as well as that the unregulated,
“free” economy/markets is a myth. They stress that poverty is
not created through production (or the lack of it) but because of
the way profits are distributed. They argue that although global
economic activity has grown at nearly 3% each year and doubled in
size twice over the past 50 years the number of people living in
absolute poverty hadn’t been reduced at the same pace. In regard
to the widening gap between rich and poor they argue that this
indeed is a problem because in the future world where “two-thirds
are poor and deprived of basics and promise, there will not be any
peace and security” (Udayakumar, 1995: 47). Contrary to the focus
only on the competitive aspects of the human nature it is
cooperation that is seen as the only possible way out. The future is
seen as a collaborative enterprise in which the “well-being of the
poor demands on the cooperation of the rich, and the safety of the
rich relies on justice for the poor” (Udayakumar, 1995: 347).
Discussions
on this level also allow for an analysis of the ways in which the
discourses themselves not only mediate issues but also constitute
them. Or how discourses we use to understand poverty directly
influence strategies that are being put in place. For example, if
poverty is understood predominantly in terms of economic indicators,
only economic measures are going to be suggested. The strategies
will therefore not include measures that work against oppressive
social structures that are complicit in creation and sustenance of
poverty, such as, patriarchy, for example.
Myth/metaphor
At
the myth/metaphor level deeper cultural stories are discussed. For
example, in which ways western advertisement or other propaganda
makes indigenous populations believe that their own culture, dress,
food, or language are inferior as well as how are needs for products
and lifestyles produced elsewhere created (Bjonnes, 2001). Or, in
which ways are local and global narratives creating a situation in
which some become easy prey for economic exploitation by others.
At
this level, we can see how deep beliefs, such as the belief that
humans are inherently competitive and selfish, create a worldview
that informs discussions that formulate policies that determine the
actions (or the lack of it). Or how these actions and policies
differ from those that are formed by the worldview that emphasizes
the role of communication, cooperation, altruism, caring and
nurturing as the main themes in human evolution.
At
this level we can also investigate deep cultural myths and their
relevance for poverty creation and elevation. For example, in the
western history two basic narratives about the relationship between
men and nature exist (Hollis, 1998). One is the myth of
“The Land of Cockaygne”, the land of milk and honey, the
“golden age” where the nature provides abundant resources and
the magic bowl of porridge never empties.
This is the land of unlimited consumption, limitless choices,
and ever increasing growth and progress. The current version is
consumer based global capitalism where new wealth and products are
constantly being created. This is being done both through
technological and economic innovations as well as through the
colonisation of nature, lands, peoples, and space.
Another
myth is that of Arcadia, where nature is bountiful but humans do not
indulge themselves beyond their needs (Hollis, 1998). It is the idea
and the image about the harmony between humanity and nature rather
then the image of domination and control of the nature by humanity
so as to produce society and civilisation. Throughout European
history, the Land of Cockaygne was especially popular during
medieval ages and among lower classes which sought to relieve the
drudgery of their everyday lives “through the pure satisfaction of
sensual pleasures” (Hollis, 1998:14). Arcadia, on the other hand,
originated in ancient Greece and was revived by Renaissance
humanists that were “seeking to restrain the selfish tendencies of
the rich and powerful classes” (Hollis, 1998:14). Its modern
version are today’s ecological, New-Age and anti-globalisation
movements.
Conclusion
Poverty
is not a necessary evil but the result of how we perceive the world
and act within it. The poverty is continuing because the poor are
truly silenced, that is, alternatives that incorporate local
knowledge, experiences, desires and worldviews of the poor are
invisible in the mainstream discourses. Writing and reading about
poverty is a luxury in itself, luxury that is beyond the means of
those that are poor.
In
addition, official discourse rarely allows for a discussion about
the ways in which we, the affluent of the world, are complicit in
creation and perpetuation of the poverty. Or in which ways spiritual
poverty -“a psychological state, generally among the affluent,
expressed as a constant hunger for more material things; a sense of
alienation, loneliness, and spiritual emptiness” (Bjoness, 2001) -
is also an issue which needs to be addressed.
But
the worst thing that the mainstream discourse and both the
“left” and the “right” worldviews do,
is to describe poverty in such terms that it becomes unthinkable to
imagine poverty-free futures. Together with the focus on
overwhelming nature of current poverty this lack of imagination
makes us powerless to act today, one step at the time. But for this
to happen, we do not need to travel far and wide nor do we need to
carry with us the influence of political power and huge wealth. What
we could do is to address destitution among ourselves, listen to
those among us who are not allowed to speak and jump on the wagon
that is carrying their imagination into the poverty-free futures.
The future in which every person will have an easy access to at
least one delicious yogurt a day.
References:
Bjonnes,
R. (2001). “Strategies to Eradicate Poverty: An Integral Approach
To Development”, Encyclopedia
of Life Support Systems, UNESCO, forthcoming.
Brandbury,
B. and Jantti, M. (1999). Child
Poverty Across Industrialized Nations, Innocenti Occasional
papers, Economic and Social Policy Series No. 71, UNICEF
International Child Development Centre, Florence.
Fricker,
A. (2000). “Poverty Amidst Plenty: a role for Causal Layered
Analysis”, paper presented at DEVNET Conference on Poverty,
Prosperity, Progress, Wellington, New Zealand, November 2000.
Gately,
D. (1995). “Comprehensive Projections Model Predicts Future Hunger
Hot Spots” (reports on the study released by the International
Food Policy Research Institute on malnutrition and lack of food
security), www.ifpri.cgiar.org
Hanmer,
L. (2000). “Will Growth Halve Global Poverty by 2015?”, www.odi.org.uk
Hollis,
D. W. (1998). The ABC-CLIO
World History Companion to Utopian Movements. ABC-CLIO, Santa
Barbara, CA.
Inayatullah,
S. (1998). “Causal Layered Analysis.” Futures
30(8): 815-829.
Narayan,
D. (2000). Crying Out for
Change, Published by Oxford University Press for the World Bank,
Oxford.
Udayakumar,
S.P. (1995). “The futures of the poor.” Futures
27(3): 339-353.
Walker,
R. and Park, J. (1998). “Unpicking poverty”, in C. Oppenheim, An
Inclusive Society: Strategies for Tackling Poverty, Institute
for Public Policy, London.
Tell
your friends about this article
|
|
|
|
|
