There are many different theories on how to reduce poverty,
how it is created in the first place and how poverty becomes cyclical. Two common schools of thought that I found in
Wikipedia include Personal Failing and Structural Failing.
The theory of Personal Failing points the
finger at those in poverty and basically says that they have caused their own
problem. Where as Structural Failing
focuses on the responsibility of government to create social and economic
systems that promote development.
Because poverty is such a large issue, it can be tempting to
point the finger at the party that holds the greatest power. Most economists believe that the greatest
effectiveness is achieved through regulation and government policies including
redistribution through social and welfare programs illustrated in the following
chart:
Source: OECD, *Poverty
thresholds: 50% of median income.
In my perspective however, the Personal Failure and
Structural Failure theories each individually represent an incomplete picture
of this very complex issue. Poverty is
more of a “yes, and…” situation that places responsibility on both the
individual and society.
In Norm’s blog on How
to Reduce Poverty in Poor Countries he points to an article
that highlights the benefits of microeconomics at work. Three books are promoted. The book called Poor Economics caught my eye. Here is a short video clip of one of
the authors expounding on how the effectiveness of social and economic programs
can greatly increase when we factor in the decision-making and behavioral
patterns of people living in poverty. The
author also suggests that because the macro level is so complex and
overwhelming with slow progress it may be more effective to approach the issues
of poverty on a micro level.
Due to high levels of corruption in developing nations (and at
times in developed nations) that impede the implementation of beneficial
government programs and regulations that would stimulate development on a Macro
level, Norm suggests that likely both approaches will be needed to move
development forward.
If considering the behavior patterns and the cause and
effect of decision-making can make a difference in the third world – the same
should hold true in the United States. Below
I have begun to map out the variables that initially come to mind:
Key:
The color blue has been used to indicate a positive or same relationship, red
arrows are used to indicate a negative or opposite relationship.
Thought
this first draft is quite busy to look at, and likely is still missing some
variables and connections, it has already been helpful to me to begin to see
the loops and patterns that reinforce behaviors. And to capture some of the new economic factors
that I have been learning about, helping me further see their connections to
the overall picture.
One
variable that I had not considered very much, that now stands out to me, is the
role of depression in this system and how it effect self-image, ambition and
how it can lead to personal failing that results in poverty. There are a significant number of factors
that lead into depression making this variable a possible strong leverage
point. The “example set” by others as influencers seams to be another important
leverage point.
The
next step will be to identify the reinforcing and balancing loops and identify
what factors might be leveraged to gain greatest economically change.
Are
there patterns that stand out to you?
Are
there any reinforcing loops with odd numbers of red/opposite relationships that
puzzle you or intrigue your thinking?
Your
comments and insights are welcome! In
the fight against poverty (both foreign and familiar) all hands are needed on
deck to address the problem . . . and all forms of economics – both macro and
micro!
Thanks
for your comments!
Arlene,
ReplyDeleteGreat post on a very important topic. Also, awesome system diagram! So complex. I enjoy your balanced approach to this topic and how you genuinely seem to have an open mind and be changed by the data and research you encounter.
I wanted to make one correction. Under the graph of OECD poverty rates and redistribution through social spending you state, "The United States leads in the percentage of redistribution among all first world countries considered." This assertion leads to an arguement that social spending must not be a very effective way of reducing poverty. According to the report "Social Expenditure and Poverty Reduction in the EU15 and other
OECD Countries" which I found when looking for your graph, your assertion and conclusion are not accurate.
First, we spend the least of all the OECD countries on poverty reduction through social spending, "Remarkably, the United States
relative poverty rate before taxes and social transfers is actually below average for the selected countries (and below EU15-average), even though the United States ranks the highest of all the countries in this comparison group in relative poverty rates after taxes and transfers. Given this divergence, it should be no surprise that of the countries listed, the United States (and Japan) devotes the smallest share of its resources to public antipoverty income transfer programs (cf. Smeeding, 2005).19"
Second, our lower amount of spending as compared to other OECD countries is improperly targeted and therefore also less effective than other countries. "Remarkably, each percentage point of total social expenditure alleviates poverty in both EU15 and non-EU15 countries on average by .7 percentage points...while the lowest scores are found in Korea and the United
States (.3-.4). Especially the targeting effectiveness of the United States is remarkably low, and lies just below half of the average of all countries presented"
Anyway, you probably already had a rough idea that the U.S. spends the least of all developed countries on poverty alleviation, but I was also surprised to find that we also spend our money in the least effective manner. The report states that part of the reason for this is that most EU countries spend more on stuctural change through universal healthcare and the like, while the U.S. spends more on individual interventions which only provide a bandaid fix, not a systemic change.
Anyway, I do love your system diagram so far and will be following your insights as they continue to come through the year. I only wanted to make sure the graph was not interpreted in a misleading way. Glad we are both interested in whatever strategies will alleviate poverty.
Link for the article: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20138/1/MPRA_paper_20138.pdf
Hey there Joel,
DeleteThanks for taking the time to respond in such a through way! I really appreciate your insights and CORRECTION: yes - I totally read that graph backwards!! Hum, if I was a phycology major I would think I had a predisposition that caused me to interpret it that way. Interesting!!
That system diagram is beautiful! What a great post. (Did you use Vensim? How did you make it into a transparent graphic?)
ReplyDeleteI would also suggest that EU countries don't necessarily spend more on structural change, but that the structure is already a little more efficient, so even band-aid fixes are more effective.
It's amazing how much the context of our blog posts have really been gravitating towards the theme of poverty.
One aspect I think is interesting, is the cultural interpretation of depression, as the globe manages it differently. This could be significant, because if we're talking about clinical depression, we're talking about chemical imbalances. And how those imbalances manifest in a individual's personality will really vary from country to country.
That video is very interesting as well. I believe questioning foreign aid is important.
I also tend to think that both band-aid solutions, and paradigm shifting work need to happen at the same time. But it needs to be done in a manner where enough structural change is happening that it's not just an uphill bandaid battle.
This may be the oversimplified answer, of supporting both micro and macro level solutions; I find that I gravitate towards more macro level solutions, and I think its critical to understand what's happening at the micro level.
Hi Aric,
DeleteYes I have loved getting to learn how to use Vensim - it seems like the next natural extension of mind mapping! So much fun - almost addicting! The way to pull the chart out with a transparent background is a little backwards - but glad that it's possible. With the hand tool selected, select everything on the page and just simply cut and past into a Word document. Once in Word simply right-click (PC) or two finger click (Mac) to save as a PNG file.
I totally agree regarding your idea that we need all the factors in play so that we are not fighting an "uphill bandaid battle." In m work experience I have focused mostly on the micro level. I'm glad to be at BGI learning more about how to address the Macro needs as well!
Hey Arlene,
ReplyDeleteThat system diagram is amazing. It has so much information and yet is totally readable. I don't think I could have managed that. One focus point I landed on when I looked at it was Standard of Living. That one is interesting to me because I feel like it is a consequence but also a cause of a lot of problems, and I believe that it might not be entirely tied to wealth. I believe that if we build up our communities we have many opportunities to increase our standard of living without money entering into the picture at all. For example, if you make friends with your neighbors, you can share meals, tools, even cars! All kinds of things that might make operating in our world a little easier but that do not actually need to be purchased by each and every one of us. When you make friends, you also have a good time and increased security in general because someone "has your back." I know that sounds kind of corny, but our current system is set up so that everyone is too busy to interact and too broke to do anything enjoyable.
Hey I just went back and looked again and I see Family Relationships as a variable, but I don't see anything about community. Maybe it isn't relevant but I think there are some pretty tangible effects of community that can influence poverty. Like having a community center where kids can go after school in an area where parents have to work long hours can have a really positive effect on their education, health, and happiness. And for that matter, having a network of other families near by to be that community center would fulfill the same purpose.
Anyway, thanks for the post and the inspiring system diagram,
Sash
Thanks Sash for the great ideas on additional connections! I will do some more adding and tweaking... in a way I kind of see this as a way to capture a lot of the things I am learning... so it may take me the better part of two years before it's really complete. It's amazing what a complex system we live in... I'm sure I have just scratched the surface!
DeleteThe theories for explaining the root source of poverty have always been interesting to me.
ReplyDeleteVandana Shiva, a physicist and prominent Indian environmental activist, provides a compelling perspective on poverty in the face of capitalist development and ecological degradation in her 2005 article: "Two myths that keep the world poor."
For example, she states that, "The poor are not those who have been “left behind”; they are the ones who have been robbed. The wealth accumulated by Europe and North America are largely based on riches taken from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Without the destruction of India’s rich textile industry, without the takeover of the spice trade, without the genocide of the native American tribes, without African slavery, the Industrial Revolution would not have resulted in new riches for Europe or North America. It was this violent takeover of Third World resources and markets that created wealth in the North and poverty in the South."
She sees the two main myths that keep poor people poor as being the following:
(1) Poor people being blamed for the destruction of nature and of people's ability to look after themselves, instead of recognizing that industrial growth and economic colonialism actually caused the destruction of nature and of people's ability to look after themselves. Vandana Shiva observes that "The disease is then offered as a cure: further economic growth is supposed to solve the very problems of poverty and ecological decline that it gave rise to in the first place."
and
(2) "The second myth is an assumption that if you consume what you produce, you do not really produce, at least not economically speaking. If I grow my own food, and do not sell it, then it doesn’t contribute to GDP, and therefore does not contribute towards “growth”.
People are perceived as “poor” if they eat food they have grown rather than commercially distributed junk foods sold by global agri-business. They are seen as poor if they live in self-built housing made from ecologically well-adapted materials like bamboo and mud rather than in cinder block or cement houses. They are seen as poor if they wear garments manufactured from handmade natural fibres rather than synthetics.
Yet sustenance living, which the wealthy West perceives as poverty, does not necessarily mean a low quality of life. On the contrary, by their very nature economies based on sustenance ensure a high quality of life—when measured in terms of access to good food and water, opportunities for sustainable livelihoods, robust social and cultural identity, and a sense of meaning in people’s lives . Because these poor don’t share in the perceived benefits of economic growth, however, they are portrayed as those “left behind”."
Thanks for discussing poverty and for providing a platform for dicussing issues of poverty in relation to the Global South.
Wow, Arlene, what a great systems diagram and what a thoughtful post. Seems like you've managed to attract some great comments, as well.
ReplyDeleteI would tend to agree with you and others that this is very much a "both...and" issue -- in terms of both causes and solutions. Perhaps your LPD training in polarity management will be useful to you in thinking through these issues: put personal responsibility on one axis and social responsibility on the other -- and let the oscillation begin!
In terms of your systems diagram, you've done a brilliant job of thinking through the causal links among a huge number of variables. Bravo! And, as Sistah Simplicity, I would challenge you to build either some oversimplified diagrams or some multi-colored loops to help you think about specific patterns of oppression. And to Aric's point, you might want to talk about "hopelessness" rather than "depression."
Also, I'm glad you're addicted to VenSim. You may become the go-to girl (aka pusher?) for your classmates!