Politics

Comment les pays peuvent-ils réduire la pauvreté plus rapidement ?

Nov 15, 2018 M. Niaz Asadullah and Antonio Savoia

KUALA LUMPUR et MANCHESTER — Le monde peut-il mettre un terme à la pauvreté d'ici 2030, l'objectif fixé par l'Agenda pour le développement durable de l'Organisation des Nations Unies ? L'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies a récemment confirmé cette date butoir, mais a concédé à cette réunion qu'il faudra « accélérer les actions mondiales » pour lutter contre la pauvreté. Alors que la communauté internationale explore de nouvelles solutions, les leçons du passé pourraient nous être utiles.

La réduction de la pauvreté est un élément crucial des politiques de développement depuis des décennies. Durant les 15 années des Objectifs du Millénaire pour le Développement (OMD), le prédécesseur des Objectifs de Développement Durable (ODD), le pourcentage de personnes vivant dans la pauvreté, définie comme moins de 1,90 dollar par jour - a considérablement baissé, passant de près de 27 % en 2000, lorsque les ODM ont débuté, à environ 9 % en 2017.

À première vue, la réduction du taux de pauvreté dans les premières années des ODD a également été impressionnante. Entre janvier 2016 et juin 2018, d'un environ 83 millions de personnes sont sorties de la pauvreté extrême. Pourtant, pour rester sur la bonne voie pour atteindre l'objectif de 2030, environ 120 millions de personnes devraient avoir échappé à la pauvreté durant cette période. En dépit des avancées, le rythme des progrès a été moins que satisfaisant.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

M. Niaz Asadullah

Writing for PS since 2017
13 Commentaries

M. Niaz Asadullah, Professor of Development Economics at Monash University Malaysia, is Head of the Southeast Asia cluster of the Global Labor Organization.

Antonio Savoia

Writing for PS since 2018
1 Commentary

Antonio Savoia is Senior Lecturer in Development Economics at the University of Manchester.

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 19 Comments on this article

Cameron Zienty Nov 18, 2018

Both authors, Mr. Antonio Savoia the Senior Lecturer in Development Economics at the University of Manchester, and Mr. Niaz Asadullah Professor of Development Economics at the University of Malaya share some fair complaints as to why poverty is not being reduced fast enough. If you deal with global economics and even see extreme poverty in its full form daily in Asia like Mr. Asadullah does wouldn’t you be optimistically biased in your writing for eradicating poverty as well? If not, how about seeing that same poverty on such a widespread scale in your very own hometown, would that eventually take a toll on you? If you said yes to any of these questions, I ask you this. To what extent will you actually go out and better these poverty struck communities and countries yourself, instead of just complaining about it?
This is the indisputable problem with our society today and why things don’t get done how & when they should. Many and I am guilty of this myself will not physically or mentally exert themselves to positively impact others, but those same people are the ones that are so quick to judge and place blame for nobody else helping. This needs to stop now! I see it in myself, my family, my classmates and others on issues none as serious as extreme poverty but the same logic and reasoning still applies. Go out and better things yourself instead of hiding behind closed doors on social media placing blame on others for what you are too unwilling to do yourself.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lawrence Kramer Nov 18, 2018

The key to prosperity is de facto respect for private property. If, as a practical matter, you can actually live a comfortable life as a result of starting a business, and if you can live an even more comfortable life by investing in others' businesses, then people will train to start and/or work for such businesses,those businesses will be started, and they will succeed. De jure respect for private property almost always precedes de facto respect for it, but only the latter actually makes a difference.

A "good" government in this context must be defined circularly as a government that creates and maintains an entrepreneurial environment. The government can be corrupt, and it can be authoritarian and oppressive, as in China. But if it allows ENOUGH competent entrepreneurs, however unfairly chosen from a larger pool of potentially competent entrepreneurs, to start and profit from businesses, then the businesses will start, people will prosper, and they can then argue about fairness.

I would argue that Russia is the limiting example. Whereas Chinese pols are corrupt, Russia's are thieves. Putin's authoritarianism is not the problem. A dictatorship needn't be a kleptocracy. The dividing line isn't bright, but we can say that Russia is the latter, and China, warts and all, isn't. P.J. O'Rourke addressed this issue very well in his book "All the Troubles in the World," wherein he squarely places the blame for national poverty on the criminals who run the places where poverty prevails. In some of those places, the damage may be near irreparable absent a homecoming of talent; after years of depredations, the only people left in those places are the thugs who run the place and those too inept to get out. A prosperous place needs a critical mass of capable people. That critical mass can be made to disappear. (See "Killing Fields.")

Sadly, effective government, in the anti-poverty sense, cannot be imposed. It must emerge. We can help local forces that seek to modernize their economies, but we can only do so by training their operatives, not by putting our thumb on the scales. As the old Peace Corps ad used to say, the trick is not getting the villagers to dig the well; it's getting them believe that digging the well was their own idea. (That ad ran fifty years ago; I think today it might demand the the well actually BE the villagers' idea.)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Nov 17, 2018

Let me play the trick of devil's-advocate policy 😁! Why bother about some body else's poverty, hunger and misery? Let them worry about theirs and let us look after ours. Why not live in a gated community! What legal responsibility we bear towards others on this issue!

Atleast that is how , I think, a learned commentator on this blog believes!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Nov 16, 2018

I agree that good government is essential for reducing poverty.
However what I miss in this article attention to a second essential factor, the birthrate and its cumulative effect.
For a stable population a birthrate of 2,1 child per woman is needed.
African countries have bithrates ranging from 3,4 to 7,7.
Example Egypt: population in 1947 was 19 million, in 2017 it is 93 million.
In one generation the population increased 5 times. As the Nile river has not increased Egypt has to import evermore grain increasing its poverty.
- P. Kamath Nov 16, 2018
  
  Henk: I whole heartedly agree with you about the dangers posed by runaway
  Population. I wish population would fall to a level of say to that of mid twentieth century. Most of the global problems are caused by population bomb which has already exploded. Conservative religions like Islam and Catholicism are main culprits that promise it's followers to multiply without questioning the validity of the promise that the Lord will provide!
  - Henk Crop Nov 17, 2018
    
    P. Kamath. It is a great ommission of this article that demographic factors are excluded. How would China have developed if it had not had, for over a generation, a one child policy ?
    - P. Kamath Nov 17, 2018
      
      Henk: I am of the firm opinion that runaway population must be 'controlled' by education, persuasion of the people by providing family planning methods, free clinics etc. and not by coercion. In an autocratic society like Communist China . There brutal methods were employed such as fines, punishment, denial of jobs and forced sterilization and abortion of many a pregnant mothers. This action is now found to be wrong , for it has created new problems. Aging population, unhappiness in young people who are expected to look after aged parents etc. Now the policy is abandoned!
      
      So one has to be careful as to the methods . I am sure you know about these things.!
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Friesen Nov 15, 2018

To really reduce poverty in poor countries, industrialization is needed. This is something that was understood early on, in the 1950's, but which has been neglected for the past 50 years. The "small is beautiful" ideology has ruled development efforts, and it has been a disaster. Many countries in Asia have reduced poverty because they have industrialized. Africa has seen little industrialization, and thus little progress.

If we really want to help poor countries, we should focus on industrialization.
- Henk Crop Nov 16, 2018
  
  Paul. For succesful industrialization you need:
  - stable and honest Government
  - disciplined / educated population
  - market economy
  Without such conditions investments in industry tend to be wasted.
  - Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Nov 16, 2018
    
    Industrialization is an obsolete approach of The Wealth of Nations which needs to be replaced with an approach of The Wealth of Globalization. Please consider my initial comment and all the responses to NIGEL SOUTHWAY.
    - Henk Crop Nov 17, 2018
      
      Jose. We do not need new theories. We only have to analyse why some countries ( China, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Mexico, Indonesia, S- Korea) escaped poverty while half a century ago they were just as poor as many African countries are now.
      That, while Africa is rich in natural resources and has much potential ( see Ngozi Okonjo, PS 14 March 2016). Why is industrialization obsolete ?
      
      Much money has been spent on Africa, while China received none.
      Aid organisations should question the effectiveness of their donations.
      - Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Nov 17, 2018
        
        First try to post. PAUL FRIESEN said “To really reduce poverty in poor countries, industrialization is needed. This is something that was understood early on, in the 1950's, but which has been neglected for the past 50 years.” But the real problem is that it was no neglected, as we have emerging industrial markets that have continue to expand industrialization well beyond its useful life, while we also have least-developed countries that are negated the opportunity to leapfrog the industrial civilization, by unsustainable regulations driven by low trust money lobbyists legalized corruption in entities like the United Nations, World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the IMF.
        
        What follow is an out context (meaning that the two post added next must be read, not just my quotes) introduction of my experience since 1996 to try to leapfrog the industrial civilization that went on to become my vision on The Wealth of Globalization, with the separation between Theory and Practice, had been made obsolete a century ago by American Philosopher Charles Peirce action oriented scientific attitude, which support my thought experiments.
        
        As can be seen in the summary of the January 2010 post “A Better Decade Require the End of the Prevailing Style of Management ( https://grupomillenium.blogspot.com/2010/01/better-decade-require-end-of-prevailing.html ), “as suggested by W. Edwards Deming, the main barrier to basic innovations, like the EWPC-AF, and an increased standard of living, is the prevailing style of management. A better decade is thus dependent on the adoption of Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge.” Such emphasis on technology would mean that global society has lost a technological revolution due to the Groupthink of representative democracy. Shifting to the energy side is related to the EWPC-AF, which is the Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework. One key support to the second example as a source to address climate change is that of the electric power industry Groupthink ignorance of the social dimension that can be taken from the post “A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal, that says ( https://grupomillenium.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-complete-and-fully-functional.html ):
        
        Back in 1978, the late MIT professor Fred C. Schweppe, “… introduced the concept of a societal definition of a blackout to contrast it to the technical definition that is being used in the United States, China and other countries said to be following suit with smart-grid projects. Once that is understood, the public will respond by having supplemental energy sources.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Nov 15, 2018

This is an approach to poverty reduction that's based on my systemic vision of institutional innovations on The Wealth of Globalization open to constructive critique where the future is not a continuation of the past, like it is for the 2030 non systemic roadmap on The Wealth of Nations. The vision is aimed for a new world order where a few interdependent global blocs, like USA, China, European Union, mutually reinforce each other on a rising tide that raises all boats, as opposed to being the current independent blocs that by protecting their institutions have generated a global leadership vacuum that's now being fill by populist regimes. In a sense, some global platforms from one bloc are being regulated in other blocs to protect old business and institutions and thereby increasing poverty. The rising tide vision will eventually emerge when any small business will be able to get the best choice in the whole global market both in buying and in selling with the help of the large platforms.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/3Y5cs62fr

Comment les pays peuvent-ils réduire la pauvreté plus rapidement ?

Help us strengthen our reporting on global health and development by taking a short survey.

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Comment les pays peuvent-ils réduire la pauvreté plus rapidement ?

Help us strengthen our reporting on global health and development by taking a short survey.

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification