Les meilleurs moyens de combattre l’extrême pauvreté

Jul 22, 2015 Bjørn Lomborg

COPENHAGUE – En 1950, le revenu annuel des citoyens de la Corée du Sud et du Pakistan était sensiblement le même. Aujourd’hui, il est difficile de comparer les deux pays. Le revenu par habitant des Sud-Coréens a été multiplié par 23 depuis cette date, et celui des Pakistanais par 3 seulement.

Comment aider les pays les plus pauvres à reproduire le succès sud-coréen est l’une des plus importantes questions posée à l’heure actuelle à la communauté internationale. Améliorer les perspectives économiques permettra à des pans entiers de la population mondiale de bénéficier d’une meilleure santé, d’une éducation plus poussée, d’une vie plus longue et d’une vulnérabilité moindre face à de nombreux défis, dont les catastrophes naturelles.

Une grande partie des 169 cibles de développement proposées par les Nations unies pour les 15 prochaines années ont fondamentalement trait à une réduction de la pauvreté. Mais ces cibles ne sont pas toutes de valeur égale. Le Centre du Consensus de Copenhague, dont je suis le directeur, a récemment demandé à 60 équipes d’économistes d’évaluer les coûts et bénéfices de chacun des objectifs proposés, qui remplaceront en septembre prochain les Objectifs du Millénaire pour le développement (OMD).

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

Bjørn Lomborg

Writing for PS since 2005
169 Commentaries

Bjørn Lomborg, a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School, is Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. His books include The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cool It, How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place, The Nobel Laureates' Guide to the Smartest Targets for the World, and, most recently, Prioritizing Development. In 2004, he was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people for his research on the smartest ways to help the world.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 18 in all 18 Comments on this article

Lanre Rotimi Aug 5, 2015

Juan is of the view that Bjorn's proposal is fit only for comic relief while Majit's view is that it spells disaster for our fragile planet. I will not go that far to the left. Others have been celebrating the proposal as the brightest set of ideas moving forward. Again I will not go that far to the right.

If you assemble 10 groups of 100 economists, each group will come up with a different set of preferred number of development targets. The problem is not whether 169 targets is too much or too little, the real problem is that SDG and AAAA are Action Plans without ACTION. The suggested 19 targets does NOTHING to address this flaw. The argument that 19 targets can be easily remembered by many people does not hold water - that targets are remembered is not the same thing as that targets are achieved. The 19 targets cover 3 of 6 Ps'. Is this saying that there is nothing to measure in the remaining 3Ps'? Certainly this cannot be correct.

Our study findings reveal that the 17 Goals are not enough if the world is serious about finding the best ways to fight hunger and poverty in ways that achieve overarching National and International Development Goals of poverty elimination and environmental sustainability. To achieve these Goal 16 has to be un-bundled to new Goal 16 focused on Governance and 4 new Goals focused on Corruption, Conflict, Religion and Data with accompanying targets that is there will be more than 169 targets. It is the Action Agenda Items that will determine the number of targets in each Goal so how will the 19 targets be allocated to the 21 Goals?

Peter note rightly that Bjorn's proposal does not include Education. This is a grievous omission. David notes that current political efforts to reduce poverty does not actually reduce poverty (in reality increases poverty) but furthers partisan agendas. Bjorn's proposal may be well intended but open to accusation for seeking to advance partisan agendas.

The reality is that poverty is increasing in many developed and developing countries; that ending world hunger and poverty is no longer issues of charity and morality but issues of economic well being and national security on the part of developed countries, that the UN Family Organization including World Bank Group and IMF need to be reformed to be fit for the 21st century thus empowering them to effectively mobilize global collective action for: political stability, economic stability, financial stability, peace and security and fighting corruption and that unless urgent ACTION is taken om time to address discontent, fill gaps and link disconnect in SDG and AAAA the probability is high that within the next few years there will be Global Recession that make 1930's Global Recession Child's Play or worse 3rd World War.

A Great error will be made if SDG and AAAA as is are adopted at the 70th UN General Assembly in September 2015. Delaying UN General Assembly till say December 2015 to allow for flaws and failures in current SDG and AAAA to be removed could save our World from likely catastrophic consequences in the future and there is precedent - Synthesis Report was to have been released 17 September 2014 but was not released until 4 December 2014.

Post 2015 Consensus can do much more to help achieve National and International Development Goals, if truly independent and not pursuing partisan agendas, if it will genuinely focus on helping to lift up the over 2 billion poor above hunger and poverty line through making concrete proposals on answer to SDG and AAAA How questions in each of the 6Ps' and in ways that promote and protect fundamental principles of "people centered, get every one involved and leave no one behind" in each of the 193 UN Member Countries. Yes there will be issues of sequence and pace, common definition of Goals, Targets and Indicators as well as Advocacy, Development Research, Standards, One Worldwide Approach; Coordination, Collaboration and Cooperation; Learning and Results; Transparency Accountability and Participation etc that are best tackled through bringing Whole of World Thinking to bear towards the Sustainable Solution to Whole of World problems. This is where they should focus their work and influence and not on a set of so called 19 phenomenal targets. As food for thought, please reflect on points raised in this article and JOIN in finding practical solutions in Common Interest and Common Future of Citizens in all 193 UN Member States
http://developmentchangechampions.blogspot.com/2015/07/final-push-to-achieve-mdgs-and-create_30.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
lakshma reddy Jul 30, 2015

Mr lomborg,

Before any policy/path recommendation we have to understand the global price formation visavis national and product line prices and the distribution and transfer of values from unorganised, non capitalist farming to advanced productive organised, capitalist farming and also estimate the transfer of use values in this process

The trillions of dollers benefit estimated from Doha round free trade if barriers to trade are removed is one factor considered rightly. The right to recompense from the inequalities arising out of imperfect international competition and trade is also to be devised as a global policy. This is unconnected to the suggested south Korea path.

The national fiscal and monetary and other sovereign regulatory policies are generally directed to free flow of capital and labor within national borders as well as poverty alleviation progrogrammes. Who has such power at global level to free the capital and labor free flows outside the national borders and with respect to people who are falling behind global competition and put to unemployment and poverty?

People with public spirit espousing this global issue (unrepresented by national politicians) should focus the issue in proper perspective posing right questing for global leaders at summits so that at least the global debate and media attention will be generated for near future right solutions.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
VS Aditya Jul 27, 2015

Totally agree! I believe the reason behind the never ending poverty is due to the time and resources that each of these economies are allocating towards the betterment of underprivileged and the effective rate at which these programs are being implemented. Despite 50+ years of economic stability and poverty elimination programs for a vast poor state like India, alleviation of poverty is still a mammoth task. Can we expect to see it in the near future - A distant dream altogether.

None to be blamed of, the economists, planning or the administration authorities who shall need to coordinate the implementation root level ?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Margit Alm Jul 27, 2015

Bjorn Lomborg: it is my view that your remedy spells disaster to this planet. We are already overpopulated by more than 5 billion, your proposal worsens the situation.
So what should we do?
Emancipate both women and men and educate them about the benefits of small families, family planning, rights for women (listen to Obama's speech in Kenya), encourage micro-businesses in their homelands. Teach them organisation, methods, law and order, honesty (no corruption) - all those desirable North European values.
Would it not be nice if these third world countries would look from the air as organized, neat and tidy as does your country (Denmark) and my homeland (Northern Germany).
We don't need help from third world countries for aged care. Each generation is perfectly capable of looking after itself, it just needs some change of social systems, some adoption of robot technology, and legalized euthanasia.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Doyle Jul 26, 2015

Yes, today full employment is a dream, Yesterday, it was policy. Full employment, not the NAIRU type, is 1 to 2% unemployment, so there IS space for changing jobs. Under Neo-liberal distortions the political landscape is strewed with inequality and corruption.
What needs to be understood, and clearly isn't for 99% of the population, including Dr Lomborg, is how money and finance work in today's era of fiat money. Modern Monetary Theory explains and describes a system which is operational today throughout the world, but little understood.
It shows that federal taxes do not limit federal spending. They are not related.
MMT shows that government spending is only limited by the entire value of the nation's wealth and capacity.
With that proviso there is little impediment in paying every worker who wants a job to earn a living wage, and have virtual full employment. The government can pay for free education, and free health care. It'd almost be like a return to what we had [here in Australia] in the 1970's. It is entirely NOT paid for by taxpayers.
This and other misconceptions would revitalize the economy and world trade. Right now treaties like the TTIP and TPP are skewing trade and betraying democratic rights, in line with Neo-Liberal perceptions. That too must change.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
E Kant Jul 26, 2015

I will be curious to read the results of experimenting with minimum national incomes in developed countries, and how that affects thinking about cash transfers globally. The small experiments which I'm aware of with cas transfares, suggest that corruption is the main issue, while if a mechanism can be found to transfer directly while eliminating all welfare programs and jobs, could be extremely disruptive to many patrona
ge systems and therefore lives.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
William Pu Jul 26, 2015

For most industries the single largest cost of business is payroll. None of the so called "free" trades include free migration.
So stop calling "free" trades "free" would be a good start. One cannot begin to address a problem unless one recognizes it first.
All those who claim we are all God's children but refuse to share the resources "God" created for your brothers and sisters need to start thinking how you'd face Him.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Juan Barrios Jul 26, 2015

So, Lomborg wants everyone gets a smartphone (via free trade) with internet. This, he argues, would in turn be much better for poverty reduction, and the economy as a whole, than actually everyone having a job.
Thank you, Mr. Lomborg, I will be sharing this article with fellow economists, as comedic relief.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bruno Berewono Jul 23, 2015

Dr Lomborg, i also have a little problem with your statement that increase penetration of mobile broadband will help small scale farmers and fishermen. It may, ormay not be the case. Many small scale farmers and fishermen in developing countries are illiterates who can neither read nor write. So how'll they access the market information you're talking about. To me, i think the best way to help small scale farmers is to provide them fast yielding, drought resistant seeds for planting. Any intervention short of this may not exactly address their plight. Also granting loans to individual farmers as well as cooperative farmers group could go a long way to increase the size of their farms. These farmers are mainly subsistence farmers and only an increase in the size of their farms and high yields can guarantee them some financial respite. They can eat the produce and sell the rest to improve their financial standing. Best regards.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bruno Berewono Jul 23, 2015

The reality of poverty is graphic perhaps in Africa. Thousands of young people are roaming the streets with certificates combing every nook and cranny for non-existent jobs. African gov'ts seems completely bereft of ideas on ways of dealing with the hydra-headed monster called unemployment. Whiles in the university, (UDS in Ghana), we went on a number of field trips to rural communities and it'll amaze you to realise many people have annual incomes less than $100. The hopelessness, squalor, deprivation and marginalisation is much real when one enters into these rural communities. The solutions proposed by the author are good, but i think policy makers should invest heavily in the manufacturing sector to create jobs for the teaming unemployed youths. Invest in technical and vocational education as well as enterpreneural courses for the youth.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jul 23, 2015

The real stumbling block is lack of law and order. Education, free markets, and everything else is tier two or tier three issues. When there is no law or order nothing else will affect the poverty. The best thing that could be done is to put massive diplomatic pressure and sanctions on leaders of regimes who do not maintain basic law enforcement in their countries.
- Michael Public Jul 23, 2015
  
  Important to say that the laws and enforcement must be aimed at helping the people live, and not aimed at entrenching the government in power.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Chee-Heong Quah Jul 23, 2015

In a nutshell, as Hayek and Friedman have said many times, free the market and shrink the reach of government. That simple!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Richard Teo Jul 23, 2015

South Korea imposed restriction to import and they export like hell in the early phase of their 23-fold growth.

I do not know what you proposed will work in today world, that is all developing countries following South Korea to impose restriction to imports and export to prosperity.
- Richard Boltuck Jul 26, 2015
  
  Well, Lomberg clearly isn't proposing that countries follow the South Korean development model in detail -- he uses the example of South Korea to set a prosperity goal for other countries, then offers his own development strategies based on engagement with the rest of the world and international public investments, evaluating their relative return. We ought to remember, though, that aspects of the South Korean model, including respect for property rights and rule-of-law, plainly are transferable today and would form the foundation for any overlay of a detailed strategy.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Horacek Jul 22, 2015

Dr. Lomborg, all that you say here is entirely reasonable. Unfortunately, political efforts to "reduce poverty" are not actually trying to reduce poverty, but to further partisan agendas, and to *appear* concerned. The best way to expose this hypocrisy is to lay out a plan what serious efforts to reduce poverty would look like, and then ask questions when something demonstrably inferior is actually implemented.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jul 22, 2015

The "copehnagen 19" does not include ANY items on education. Not one.
- Petey Bee Jul 22, 2015
  
  oops pardon me it does, I can't read
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.