Whatever your motives, if you want to help the poor in faraway places, you have to be able to identify them. For several decades, rich nations assumed that the rural populations of the developing countries – countries that had not industrialized and had low Gross National Income per capita — were “the poor”. Around 1990, however, rich nations began to adopt [46](1. broadly 2. increasingly 3. generously) refined ways of identifying poor people.
The Oxford Dictionary defines poverty as the “want of the necessities of life”. But there are fierce debates about what those necessities are. While some of these debates are highly technical, most have a strong values dimension. [47](1. Try 2. Get 3. Take), for example, the different ways of setting a poverty line: the minimum income that a person or family needs to meet their necessities. This can be done in absolute or relative terms. In poor countries absolute measures are used: the minimum income needed to meet the body’s calorie needs and to provide basic shelter. Since 2015 the World Bank estimated this as around US $1.90 a day in poor countries. If someone has an income of less than 60% of their country’s median income, then they are classed as poor. In Europe that means around US $20 to US $40 per person a day. In the US in 2015 it was US $32.25 a day for a single adult. With that a poor person can afford a varied [48](1. feed 2. diet 3. nutrition), changes of clothing, have a television and a mobile phone – maybe even take their children to the zoo for their birthday. They are counted as relatively poor as they cannot do many of the things that the majority of their fellow citizens take for granted – going out to a restaurant, owning a laptop computer, or having a foreign holiday. These [49](1. contrasting 2. interacting 3. protective) measures are not just a technical choice; they mean that people officially classed as poor in a rich nation are much better-off in material terms than those classed as poor in a poor country.
For most people in rich countries, the mental image of the extreme poor is of women and children in [50](1. emergency 2. imminent 3. sustainable) situations: after a cyclone or an earthquake, or running away from a violent conflict. Such humanitarian relief has always been an important part of rich-nation support for the distant needy, but it can [51](1. assure 2. obscure 3. refute) the evidence that most extremely poor are trapped in grinding poverty. They are not simply the victims of a recent disaster or conflict. [52](1. Instead 2. However 3. Likewise), they make a living in a context that means they cannot meet their families’ basic needs – even if they work 12 or 14 hours a day. For those lucky enough to just be able to meet their basic needs, conditions are very insecure – a sickness in the household, an accident at work, or a downturn in the local labour market will see them [53](1. leap 2. break 3. slide) into poverty again.
The ideas that you have about poverty are important. They shape “who” you think is poor and “what” should be done about it. If you see poverty [54](1. profitably 2. relatively 3. simply) as a lack of income, as many people do, then you are likely to see economic growth and perhaps job creation) as the answer and look for market-based solutions. If you see poverty as multidimensional, then you are likely to also see a need for basic services (health, education, potable water, sanitation, etc.) and may well see a major role for public provision by the government. If you see poverty as caused by inequality or the abrogation of human rights, then you are likely to look for more radical action: the [55](1. re-creation 2. redistribution 3. restoration) of economic assets and/or social political power.
コメントを残す