People in wealthy countries are not wealthy because people in poverty-stricken countries are poverty-stricken, nor vice versa. Wealthy countries are wealthy mainly because they have benefited from two centuries or more of evolution of their political, economic and social institutions. Poverty-stricken countries are poverty-stricken mainly because they have not. Even if this is partly true then the capacity of wealthy countries to make poverty history is extremely limited. Wealthy countries can damage poverty-stricken countries, by devastating their social structures or pillaging their resources, and they once did. De colonisation brought a common optimism about what could be achieved. Modern technology was available, so poverty-stricken countries could be spared the long and difficult process of development as experienced by existing wealthy countries. With sufficient inward-investment in infrastructure, plant and machinery and education they could progress rapidly towards higher standards of living and of course aid could bridge the funding gap. In retrospect, this all seems naive. Some do still argue that these measures failed because of insufficient resources, but there is general acceptance that the principal weakness of the programme was inadequate attention to institutions. But the modern mantra that institutions matter became equally simplistic. The complexity of historical experience was discarded in favour of the belief that the necessary institutions could be described in a few phrases free markets, limited government, private property and fiscal prudence. Most poverty-stricken countries given this medicine spat it out before it had time to take effect, which enables those who administered it to continue to argue for its efficiency. It does not really matter whether the drug fails because it is ineffective or because the patient cannot accept it, what matters is that the drug failed. Since then analysis and policy have focused on small-scale issues that make a demonstrable difference, such as the provision of malaria nets and pure water, free elementary education and the prevention and treatment of HIV and Aids. It is daunting to discover how many other changes are needed to make even these measures effective nets must be re-impregnated with insecticide, education needs committed parents and educated teachers, HIV treatment requires a public health infrastructure and water systems require maintenance. Even if such measures do not lead to rapid economic growth they will make impoverished lives better. But while thoughtful observers of international development have moved from advocating broad political programmes to targeted intervention, Sir Bob Geldof has moved in the opposite direction. The first Live Aid concert sought funds for famine relief and was profoundly moving, but the supposed purpose is now to raise consciousness and not money. What should we do when our consciousness has been raised? The UKs Make Poverty History campaign offers advice: wear a white arm band, go to Edinburgh, send an e-mail to the prime minister and just be mindful about what is happening in the world. It is time to get serious. The good news about extreme poverty is that more people have been lifted out of it in the past 10 years than in any decade in world history; that this is mainly the result of rapid economic growth in China and India, which is in turn principally due to internal reform not external action; that the real contributions of wealthy countries have mainly been through trade and investment, not aid; and that world leaders have played only a minor though constructive role in that process. The lesson is that world poverty will be ended by the actions of poverty-stricken people themselves. We in wealthy countries can make a modest contribution but if the United Nations millennium development goals to eradicate poverty are met, which is unlikely, it will be the achievement of the poverty-stricken, not the wealthy, and the achievement of individuals, not politicians. The idea that leaders have the power to make poverty history but have been insufficiently engaged to exercise that power is ludicrous. Suggesting that political action is the source of economic advance reinforces the mistakes that have made poverty all too prevalent. |
