Jared Diamond, in his book Guns, Germs and Steel talks about the roots of inequalities in the world. Human beings have been continuously developing their capabilities to achieve more food, good shelter, long life, wealth and prosperity. For instance, 13,000 year ago, hunters and gatherers had to travel from one place to another looking for new food sources. Later, human beings discovered that these food sources could be controlled. They domesticated both plants and animals, and brought the food sources back home. However, this transformation was not as easy as expected, because their close interaction with animals invited diseases. With diseases came more challenges, and innovation began to flourish to overcome the challenges. With innovation came technology, with technology came power, and power led to wealth and prosperity.
Therefore, power in today’s age of globalization has been defined in terms of economy, and economy is determined in terms of growth. In the process of growing, developed countries have continuously been engaged in expanding their wants, desires and necessities, while poor countries are still struggling with basic needs. Prosperity became uneven, and consequently, some parts of the world (say North) are richer than others (say South) at present.
KITERUNNERGROUP6.BLOGSPOT.COM
In recent years, poverty has become the favorite word, both globally and regionally. Huge global fund has been invested in least developed regions and impoverished societies to fight poverty. World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Asian Development Bank are some of the major caretakers of the process. But is it possible to get rid of poverty?
I admire Jeffrey Sachs for his wonderful book, The End of Poverty: How Can we Make it Happen in Our Lifetime, because he believes that our generation holds the capacity to eliminate extreme poverty in the next 20 years. Sachs’ idea of ‘global fund’ and proper investment to eliminate poverty is very convincing. According to him, the extreme poor lack six major capitals—human capital, business capital, infrastructure, natural capital, public institutional capital, and knowledge capital. In other words, impoverished countries fail to achieve increased saving (at household level) and increased tax revenues (for government spending and investment), meaning the country is in a poverty trap. Therefore, investment on these capitals is essential. But such an investment requires good economy which poor countries lack.
Sachs argues that every developed country needs to make “concrete effort” to commit 0.7 percent of their total GNP as Official Development Assistance (ODA) to poor countries. This would eventually, in his belief, make poverty a history. The role of Office Development Assistance (ODA) would be crucial in breaking the poverty trap, because it supports public budget for investment on aforementioned capitals. However, this also means that there is a need for scaling up investment (foreign assistance), including a system of governance that empowers the poor while also holding them accountable. This calls for the need of global partnership and cooperation by redefining the role of the United Nations and donor communities (rich countries) including global financial institutions like IMF and World Bank.
It is commendable that the world is making relentless efforts to push a billion poor people up the ladder of development. But when we put poverty aside and focus on the bigger picture, then we will find that there are bigger problems awaiting us. For example, the recent World Happiness Report 2012, edited by Helliwell, Layard and Sachs, has a story to tell. It states that we are living in the age of stark contradictions. There is a huge part of the globe living in unimaginable technological sophistication, while at least one billion on the other part live without enough food to eat. The world economy is setting up new standards with mass production and consumption through technological advancement. The dimensions of our changing world are the outcome of modern economic growth and development.
But on the other hand, we are seemingly little bothered about the destruction of the natural environment that the technological advancement has engendered.
Environmental degradation, growing inequality in terms of income and wealth, social division, etc are leading the entire human history to another phase of the world, termed Anthropocene by scientists (Here, “Anthropo” means ‘for human’ and “cene” means new geological epoch). This means we human beings have entered a new era, where we are the major factors behind the transformation of the earth’s physical systems, including climate, weather, habitat, carbon cycle, water cycle, nitrogen cycle and biodiversity.
Such a transformation is likely to usher global problems of food scarcity, water shortage and natural calamities among others. Its effects have already been noticed in some parts of the world, especially in Africa and Asia. Even in Nepal, the monsoon has shifted. Farmers cannot comprehend the change and keep waiting for rain. Sometimes heavy rainfall destroys all crops, leaving farmers no choice but to restart the process. The world is experiencing various natural calamities, like frequent earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, and landslides. These emerging problems forecast a more severe life in the near future.
A lot has been spent in least developed regions and impoverished societies to fight poverty. But is it possible rid of it?
So does that mean we need to revisit our choices? Is happiness mere economic growth, increased income or high consumption? Is happiness money, or a safer world? Is there something we know we can change but feign ignorance? How long will we run after GNP at the cost of environmental damage?
Our main objective now is to reduce environmental degradation and improve our lifestyle. In other words, reducing environmental degradation means correcting our production and consumption patterns, or in general, opting for a new kind of lifestyle which is less sophisticated and less materialist. ‘Living with less’ might not be a problem for those of us who have learned to live without food for some time. But is it equally possible for those who have plenty of choices regarding what to eat, how much to eat, and where to spend? What could be the meeting point of both of these extreme ends? The elitist world wants a billion of us to step up the ladder of economic development. In return, will they agree if we ask them to step down?
The author is Director, Center for Youth Studies, YUWA
kanchan@yuwa.org.np
Related story
7 Earth-size worlds found orbiting star; could hold life
