Penguin Press 2005, 368 pp.
The biblical passage most cited with respect to poverty, that the poor will always be among us, stands alone as the most fatalistic among its prophetic peers. It is, however, not enough for me to quibble with simple fatalism because there is something quite unique about this statement. True, it speaks to the thoroughgoing presence of the downtrodden in this world for as long as we have been able to experience it; but, it also frames the issue in a functionally inalterable way. It belies that fact that poverty is not a monolith. Poverty is a complex issue that is worth classifying, one that is worth reducing only in terms of its ground-level effects.
In his book, “The End of Poverty,” Jeffrey Sachs hits the ground running in South America on his way to all points east for a survey of the current state of global poverty and all its machinations. In doing so, he points up many of the issues that serve to further the scope of poverty in the global south. The “developing” world of the south is rife with the touchstones of struggling economies: autocracy, lack of infrastructure, inflation and hyperinflation, vast tracts of inarable land, shortages of medical supplies and biomass, and little or no broad-based education programs. In a perverse reversal of fortune, in a manner of speaking, these noxious characteristics of “developing” nation-states have made many of them desired locales for the production of petty commodities for distribution in the world market. These are the countries that have a minimum level of the necessary components to replicate a labor force on a day-to-day basis.
But, what of the rest?
What is there to say about the continent of Africa, for example?
Here we have a continent that is so bereft of infrastructure that it is not even fortunate enough to be a desired locale for resource exploitation. It’s like the old adage about the exploitative effects of capitalism: “the only thing worse than being exploited under capitalism is not.” The continent of Africa embodies this statement to a tee and this is where Sachs’ book starts to rub anti-capitalists the wrong way—more on that later.
Africa is the worst case scenario of underdevelopment and, perhaps, as good a reason as any for why poverty as a concept must be understood in all its stark gradations. I find Sachs’ discussion of poverty-types to be his most prescient. Taking on poverty as a concept, to my current and ever-changing understanding, might just be best presented in a dispassionate, if not arcane, manner as only an economist can do.
What Kind of Poverty Do You Have?Sachs’ states early on that it is important to recognize the three distinct degrees of poverty: extreme, moderate, and relative. Sachs’ takes great pains to deconstruct, often with the dexterity of a clinician, extreme poverty—its causes and prospective solutions. This is not to say that he is dismissive of relative or moderate poverty, but that the psychological affects of relative poverty and the more-encompassing affects of moderate poverty do not rise to the level of outright emergency.
Extreme poverty differs from its moderate and relative counterparts in that it signifies a revolving lack of basic needs—i.e. the very minimum level of resources a household needs to survive. This, to my pre and post-Sachs way of thinking, is unacceptable especially when you consider the abundance of resources globally; additionally, there are the prospective economic benefits of a world in which extreme poverty has been eliminated—i.e. truly global markets, more productive locales and an relatively untapped pool of new consumers. But, it is not development economics that is failing according to Sachs; the failure here lies in the relative lack of global support for struggling nations coupled with a high level of debt overhang in the developing world.
Reaching the Rung
Sachs’ parts company with the “anti-capital gang” when he asserts, early and often, that the circulation of global capital and the emergence of transnational enclave economics is not part of the problem but part of the solution. In other words, Sachs’ still believes in the ethos of the Development Project—the project that, in its heyday, many argue led to a stunning increase in the level of austerity and structural instability in the “developing” world.
[1] In his world, export-processing zones in Thailand or Vietnam symbolize upward mobility—a position that truly destitute countries would give away their sovereignty to share in.
In his explanation of why some countries fail to thrive, he writes that “precisely because economic development can and does work in so many parts of the world, it is all the more important to understand and solve the problems of the places where economic development is not working, where people are still off the ladder of development, or are stuck on its lowest rungs.”
[2] This is the analogy that is made ad nauseam throughout the book. It is helpful in spite of its pestering ubiquity in that it gives readers an object lesson in development economics. As a general rule, to gain a foothold on the bottom rung of a ladder, one must take a step up. This, in a nutshell, is Africa’s problem. In order to set out on the road of development, far from it being paved, there must be a road to begin with.
UN-Met ObligationsThe underpinning purpose of this book is to convince the powers-that-be of the alterability of extreme poverty. Sachs believes that the compassionate nations of the world can eliminate extreme poverty by the year 2025. In my lifetime, Sachs writes, poverty can be made history. This, however, will take a concerted effort on the part of the rich nations of the world—a cabal that has historically complemented its deep pockets with short arms.
For his part, Sachs believes in the goals that have already been put forth by the 191 United Nations member-states for global development. These Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were promulgated in the year 2000 but, like most every other resolution coming out of the UN, they appear to have the staying power of a bassoonist at the Apollo. Rich countries like the United States agreed to a level of support for struggling nations through the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, but they have not yet held up their end of the bargain.
[3]In order to meet these goals, it is incumbent upon the rich nations of the world to do their part—and not just on the hard money end of it. Sachs uses the United States’ weeks-old arch nemesis, Ghana, as an example of how rich countries need to inaugurate global development. In a country that has been saddled with First World debt originating decades ago, when the World Bank and the IADB were the prominent predatory lenders in Third World, new policies are certainly not the solution. Countries like Ghana cannot simply “liberalize” and become desired locales for capital investment overnight; productive capital is needed to build infrastructure in these countries to attract capital investment. Economic assistance coming from the core to the periphery is necessary to allow countries like Ghana to escape from the clutches of underdevelopment at best, and extreme poverty at worst. The development of human capital is expensive, but in the end the rich countries will benefit from raising the standard of living globally by investing abundant resources and cancelling decades-old debt.
.7th HeavenWhat’s in a number?—A lot of things, potentially. Sachs states that if the rich countries of the world reserved 0.7 per cent of their gross national products toward alleviating global poverty, we could meet the UN’s Millennium Development Goals and be well on our way to eliminating extreme poverty by 2025.
[4] It should be noted that .7 per cent of the United States’ GNP for Official Development Assistance (ODA) is significantly less than the one per cent of GNP reserved for the rebuilding of Europe under the Marshall Plan.
[5] But, even being signatories to international agreements on ODA has not compelled the United States’ government to act on its word. Much to our shame, the ratio of military expenditures to Official Development Assistance is astronomical already and rising—currently 27 to 1. In other words, we have an overcapacity to destroy and an unwillingness to rebuild.
Even considering our military largesse, the United States could still afford to give .7 per cent of GNP for global development. Taken with what we already give, the United States would need to increase aid as a percentage of GNP a whopping .55 per cent. Think of it, our GNP grows at a much higher rate than that! For Sachs the benefits—both economic and moral—outweigh the costs. He’s convinced me—if only he could convince the bond market.
Concluding CritiquesCritically speaking, this book is a wellspring of juiceless jargon that, taken together, actually makes a compelling case for the possibility of the eradication of global poverty. The excitement is in the end, the stark-raving boredom is in the numerous means. I appreciated his willingness to be at odds with the anti-capitalists at specific points during the book. This gives his arguments a level of objectivity that does not take well to the run-of-the-mill talking points of anti-capitalist and development studies. For this reason, Sachs may well become the authority on sustainable development much like Jared Diamond is to biogeography and Thomas Friedman is to airline miles.
The most fascinating aspects of this book, for me, are his numerous case studies of the success stories of development. These, at least on the surface, eased my sense of hopelessness early on. These individual studies give readers skin and bone to wrap around some of the more abstract ideas presented later in the book.
Enough Kofi to Stay Up All NightOne point of contention I have with “The End of Poverty” is the author’s insistence upon constantly delineating the alphabet soup of the United Nations’ various development projects and initiatives. Even as a lover of acronyms, there is only so much of that that I can take. This is a book that is too important to be drowned in the stale language of impotent global bureaucracy. I guess, in my world, only initiatives that actually have teeth, or potentially have teeth, are of true importance. Trusting the United Nations to be an efficient arbiter of aid on such a scale takes a lot of trust to go along with an acute case of amnesia. But I digress…
I believe that following the guidelines of the UN’s Millennium Development Goals could begin to lift struggling nations out of the poverty trap. That being said, however, until following the initiatives of the United Nations becomes something more than an ancillary consideration for member states we are destined to remain in the status quo. As the most powerful nation in the world, the United States should lead by example in the fight against global poverty.
Being Pro-Bono Finally PaysAs I draw to a close, I have been doing a quick cost/benefit analysis in my head over whether or not aligning U2’s front man, Bono, with the cause of Global Poverty eradication is actually a good thing. Now, on the surface, it makes sense to utilize the star power of a recognizable figure like Bono to aid the cause—it’s marketing 101. That being said, however, what about the credibility gap that exists between the superrich and the extremely poor? Bono belongs to a class of people that, when they talk at all, angles its words down at the poor. His jet-setting lifestyle, in many ways, belies the cause that he seems so passionate about. But, far be it from me to demand high thinking and plain living from a man who once paid $25,000 to have his favorite hat flown across the Atlantic—the same ocean that prevents him from being a “limousine leftist” in Africa.
For my taste, Bono’s whole aura smacks of arrogance. In my opinion he is just another member of the guardian class with a conscience. When your net worth is in the hundreds of millions and your homes are gated—all five of them—you take the risk of being looked upon as a hypocrite. And while I appreciate many of things he has done where this is concerned, his frivolous lifestyle is for me a bitter pill to swallow.
My Advice: Check this book out at your local library and send the 16 bucks you would have spent on it to the ICRC. Or, you can take your 16 bucks and flush it down the toilet--it will eventually make it to the UN.
[1] Specifically, he denotes the proliferation of inflation and its big brother, hyperinflation, in developing economies still smarting from decades of debt peonage. There was also a significant decrease in the ability of developing countries to sustain infrastructural spending on welfare, health services, education, etc.
[2] Sachs, 51.
[3] Agreements that rich nations would make every effort to reserve a reasonable percentage of gross national products have been made, with the oversight of the United Nations, going back more than 35 years.
[4] As years pass without total compliance to the 0.7 agreement, the goal of total elimination of extreme poverty by 2025 is fleeting.
[5] Sachs, 342.
DAY ONE:
.JPG)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=small}