Ending Extreme Poverty
(Note: I've also cross posted this at my blog and the up/rooted blog.) This past Monday Annie Gill-Bloyer from Bread for the World talked to up/rooted (my Emergent Cohort) about the ONE Campaign to end extreme global poverty. The discussion was informative and challenging. As we talked about the reality of extreme poverty and what we can do about it, I was personally struck by the simplicity of the solutions. For a relatively tiny fraction of our federal budget we can save the lives of millions. Over 1 billion people live on less than $1 per day, and thousands die every day from the effects of poverty, hunger and disease. And these things are entirely preventable!
One of the key points that we discussed the other night was that the solutions to extreme poverty have to include both governmental and faith-based involvement. We all expressed our desire to see the church lead the way with giving and service and compassion for the poor. However, Annie also made the point that governments are too powerful of a tool to leave out of the equation - not to mention the fact that when it comes to things like debt relief and trade justice, there are certain structural/systemic things that have to be changed on the national and international level beyond what individuals and churches are able to do. As we learned, the Millenium Development Goals, which are the United Nations' blueprint for eliminating extreme poverty by 2015, include both issues of charity and justice - i.e. addressing both structural injustices and material needs. The eight Goals are:
Goal 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
| Target 1: Reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day |
| Target 2: Reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger |
Goal 2. Achieve universal primary education
| Target 3: Ensure that all boys and girls complete a full course of primary schooling |
Goal 3. Promote gender equality and empower women | Target 4: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005, and at all levels by 2015 |
Goal 4. Reduce child mortality | Target 5: Reduce by two thirds the mortality rate among children under five |
Goal 5. Improve maternal health
| Target 6: Reduce by three quarters the maternal mortality ratio |
Goal 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
| Target 7: Halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS |
| Target 8: Halt and begin to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases |
Goal 7. Ensure environmental sustainability
| Target 9: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes; reverse loss of environmental resources |
| Target 10: Reduce by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water |
| Target 11: Achieve significant improvement in lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers, by 2020 |
Goal 8. Develop a global partnership for development
| Target 12. Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial system Includes a commitment to good governance, development, and poverty reduction — both nationally and internationally Target 13. Address the special needs of the least developed countries Includes: tariff and quota free access for least developed countries’ exports; enhanced programme of debt relief for HIPCs and cancellation of official bilateral debt; and more generous ODA for countries committed to poverty reduction Target 14. Address the special needs of landlocked countries and small island developing States Target 15. Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries through national and international measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long term. Target 16: In cooperation with developing countries, develop and implement strategies for decent and productive work for youth. Target 17: In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries Target 18: In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications |
To achieve these goals, every member of the United Nations (including the United States) pledged a certain portion of their national budget towards these projects. The ONE Campaign's purpose is simply to hold the United States accountable for actually doing what we said we would do, which is to devote a mere 1% of our federal budget towards these goals. (Right now less than 1/2 of one percent of the US budget is given towards global poverty reduction - which, percentage-wise, is one of the lowest amounts of any nation in the world.)
The good news is that we can all get involved in changing this simply by going to ONE.org and signing the petition to our government, as well as making your own personal contributions towards the goal of ending extreme poverty in our lifetimes. You can also obtain resources to inform others at your church or school about these issues at Bread for the World.
posted by Mike Clawson at 2:03 PM
15 Comments:
As someone who grew up in a developing country in Africa and who worked in the development field in the same country as an adult let me say that this kind of stuff saddens me. People who work in development know full well that money is not the answer but they also know where their pay check comes from. There are also way too many people who naively think they have the answers and end up doing far more harm than good. Even the use of the term "extreme" poverty points directly to a lack of understanding of the issue.
If development is not done with extreme care and wisdom it will only make matters worse. We definitely need to deal with poverty but it is extremely complex. The first and most important step is a direct, long term relationship with the people you are trying to help. (They will help you too, by the way.) People who tell you otherwise are usually making a living off of it.
Sorry for the rant but it is so sad when well meaning people get sidetracked into thinking running around some country drilling wells is actually doing some good. Reducing poverty is simply not that simple.
The problems are complex, and the MDG's are primarily about dealing with some of the structural and systemic causes of poverty. At the same time, many of the organizations on the ground who would receive these funds (World Vision for example) are building the long term relationships that you advocate. It's not an either or, and anyone who says that relationships are all that are needed without dealing with systemic problems is probably a libertarian. ;-)
At any rate, these goals (and terms like "extreme poverty") were developed by the UN with the help of some of the most brilliant experts worldwide and I have to believe that they know what they're talking about and are well aware of the complexities of the issues. For instance, if you haven't read it yet, you definitely need to pick up Jeffrey Sachs book "The End of Poverty". Sachs is the foremost expert in the field of global economic development and was one of the crafters of these 8 goals. I don't get the sense that there is anything naive about his approach or that they are forgetting the importance of long term relationships on the ground. Again, it's a both/and.
Believe me I am very familiar with the "experts in the field" from the UN, World Bank, ILO and IMF and I also know what is said off the record by many of these same folks. On top of that I have seen first hand the results of these organizations several years after they have left. I have personally had people from the UN brag in my living room about the success of their project and had the privilege of taking them to the area they were talking about to show them what really happened.
As for relationships, please read what I said a little more carefully. I never said that "relationships were all that were needed."
I think the MDG's are OK as far as systemic goals go, and can be useful for churches that are looking for direction on how to get involved, but I have a hard time trusting the U.N. or the typical secular NGO. I'm not naive enough to think Christian orgs. are always better, but Tom is right: there is a CD (Community Development) industry out there that takes advantage of well-meaning individuals and organizations.
I talked with a missionary in Haiti a few years ago, and he said (rather cynically) that the poor were/are Haiti's primary resource. As a result of its poverty, Haiti attracts enormous amounts of international aid, much of which was siphoned off into the European bank accounts of the wealthy elite. Even the socially conscious Aristide quickly succumbed to the temptation and betrayed his constituents. Haiti is an example of how CD actually backfires: rather than eliminating "extreme poverty," international CD actually perpetuates it.
I agree that American Christians need to step up to the plate (the offering plate, that is), but we need to discern carefully where that money is going. It sounds great to say that we have a social conscience and can point to this or that project, but are we truly engaged with the lives of the people?
Going back to Haiti, the CGGC has reached a milestone in celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Project Help ministry there. Ten years ago, the churches associated with Project Help achieved formal conference status in the CGGC, and assumed the leadership role in the Project Help ministry. No longer do American missionaries call the shots, nor the CGGC office in Findlay, OH. Haitians do. That's why I'm excited about participating in ongoing cooperative ministries based on a relationship between churches in Haiti and in the U.S. The Haitian Conference understands the situation much better than we do, and they administer funds with accountability and transparency to their fellow Haitians and to their brothers and sisters here in the U.S. I encourage others to work in Haiti through the Haitian Conference. They know what they're doing.
Blessings in Christ,
Ben Tobias
(Tom, you probably don't remember me. You and your brother drove me out to Urbana '87, and my dad is from the Zanesville Church of God, where my aunt Lois is a long-time member. It's good to hear from you!)
If the money is not getting to the people it's supposed to help, and if the proposed solutions are not actually working, then it sounds to me that we need more systemic reforms, not less.
I'm all for long term relationships and all that (our church is involved in Haiti too), but I think Christian people can be awfully naive if we think that charity alone, or even long term ministry projects and partnerships alone will be able to fix all the problems. We cannot do it by ourselves. The problems are too big, and the systems are already unjust. We have to work on the level of governments and international organizations too, because that's where a lot of the root injustices lie.
It's like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, being a Good Samaritan is great, but if people go on getting mugged on the Jerusalem road, then maybe it's time to invest in some street lights and better law enforcement too.
This comment has been removed by the author.
BTW Tom, which of those 8 goals do you have a problem with? Nothing in what I posted says anything about the means by which they would be accomplished. It seems to me that we can work toward these goals by whatever means are most effective - including whatever it is that you are suggesting in place of whatever it is you've seen that doesn't work.
I just watched the American Idol fundraiser last week, in which they raised $70 million dollars for all kinds of charity issues across American and especially in Africa. I suppose you could criticize them for just throwing money at the problems, but from what I saw, they were funding projects run by people who did have a long-term local presence in these communities - from literacy programs in Appalachia, to community youth centers in New Orleans, to providing school materials and regular meals for kids in Africa. Does Ryan Seacrest or Simon Cowell have a long term relationship there? No, but the groups they're giving the money to do. I'm sorry, but I have a hard time finding fault with this sort of thing. At least they're doing something, which is more than most affluent Americans and even most Christians can say.
And if the ONE Campaign and others like them can tap even more resources via government funding for similar programs, I have a hard time faulting that either. Money may not be the sole answer, but it's got to be at least part of the solution. A long term relationship won't do much if people are dying from malaria for lack of affordable drugs, or can't afford school tuition or are too hungry to learn, or don't know how to make use of micro-finance loans even if they are available, etc... And all of these take money - whether from charity or from governments, it doesn't really matter to me so long as people are helped.
And besides, we built our own affluence on the backs of the developing world in the first place. Why shouldn't we now give some of it back?
Mike,
I am not opposed to giving to those in need and I believe the economic imbalance in this world is horrible and sinful. I desperately want to help those in need and I believe it is our obligation. However, I have witnessed first hand how the community development system works and I have little faith in either Christian or non-Christian efforts. Yes, there are some things that governmental agencies can do that will help (fair trade policies, for example) but overall too much politics takes place.
This post will be way too long as it is to go into all the problems but let me just throw out a few examples.
A large portion of aid actually returns to the country of origin. Development projects usually have rules as to what can be purchased. For example, tractors and vehicles must be of brand x made in country y even if another arrangement would be more efficient. Where I worked (the least developed country in the world) I ran into one project that used a certain type of plastic bag for palm seedling nurseries. Though those types of bags were made in-country this project had to import them from Germany, the funding country.
We hear a lot these days about debt relief. I'm all for it but it must be done carefully. What good is debt relief if all it does is allow a rogue government to stay in power and steal even more money. The same is true for money that is given to fight AIDS and Malaria.
My church does medical mission trips to Central America. We go to very poor areas and give away a lot of medicine. What if the only access to medicine before we got there was from the little shack on the corner? What if in our effort to help we had just dumped enough drugs in the community to put that shop out of business? Did we help in the long run? The same is often true of school supplies.
Where I worked, the time just before the harvest was called the hungry season because food from last year's harvest would begin to run out. I know of one area that was helped by a well known Christian Relief agency who gave away large quantities of free food just before the harvest. When the farmers harvested their crops they found that the market prices had been artificially suppressed and they weren't able to pay school fees for their kids as a result.
The problem with much in community development is that it is conceived with a western mindset. That causes problems with dependency and ownership. I worked in one village that wanted me to write a letter to the ILO and ask them to come back and fix their (meaning the ILO's) well. The ILO dug the well a year earlier and the pump had broken. It wouldn't have cost much to fix the well but in their minds it was the ILO's responsibility. I never saw that well used again. How you approach those issues is very important and it is not easy.
You've probably heard what some African Economists like James Shikwati have to say about these efforts. And while I don't agree with everything they say I do know that very few listen to them. Now, with China, the Arab world, and a few others countries indiscriminately throwing money around Africa the situation well probably get worse. (Russia and the US did the same thing during the cold war to win UN votes.) You even have to be careful who you listen to now days. Where I worked most people were familiar with aid agencies and they know what to say and how to say it to get a handout. That's how they survive.
Mike, I'm glad you are so interested in this topic and I hope you will continue to push the issue. I'm just saying it is one of the most insane fields in the world and I'm just hoping for a little sanity. Haiti is a great example. It is the poorest country in the western hemisphere and yet it must (my guess) have more NGOs and aid money per capita than any other country in the world.
Ben, I remember going to Urbana that year but I don't remember that you or my brother went. My wife had to remind me. I also know your aunt and appreciated your uncle before he passed a way. Good to hear from you.
Tom, you've mentioned a lot of problems and all the things you think don't work. So what does? The picture you're painting is pretty bleak. If I thought it was as hopeless as all that I'd probably not be motivated to do much of anything.
You don't trust Christian NGO's. You don't trust non-Christian NGO's. You don't trust governments. You don't trust the U.N. You don't trust the Western experts. And you don't agree with the indigenous experts either. So who should we trust? I'm kind of at a loss to see what your proposed solutions are.
I completely agree with you about all the dependency issues and political problems. Development does need to be done in the right way. I just don't want to see cynicism keep us from doing anything at all.
I'm not sure where to start. Let me just rattle some things off the top of my head.
Purchase products from developing countries. Be a tourist there. Take time to research whether products really come from sweat shops or not. That's often used unfairly. Many Americans do not understand economies of scale and so they don't buy products that are legitimate. We often hear that people are only making a couple dollars a day and we think it is horrible. But that only depends on the cost of living in that country. In some places that would be enough to pay for housing, food, health care and education. Where I was that would be 100% above average. There are sweatshops were workers work long hours, are treated like animals and receive hardly any pay. But that isn't always the case.
Help make NGOs better by not falling for the buzz words that come along. Ask about long term results and don't be impressed by short term numbers. NGOs do what they do because that is where the funding is. Here are some examples.
Poorest of the poor (this is why I didn't like extreme poverty) Most developing countries don't have a middle class or at least not a very big one. You're either poor or rich. Often the poorest of the poor have other issues that make them difficult to work with. On the other hand, the group just above this is usually much more functional and helping them can have the biggest impact on a community. Don't make the NGOs you support work with the poorest of the poor. Leave that for relief agencies and not development agencies. There are exceptions of course but the buzz word is a response to funding.
Look for sustainability in any lending scheme. I took some visitors to our local development bank when I was overseas. They were shocked that the bank charged 35% interest on loans. What I couldn't get them to understand that inflation at the time was 100% and even 35% wasn't enough to sustain the bank. They just couldn't understand. As a result they started their own lending scheme in another part of the country charging no interest. That put all the other lending agencies out of business and when there program term was up there was nothing left.
Top down economics is of the devil. You will hear this from NGOs working in micro-enterprise development. Micro enterprise can help but it has just as many problems as bigger enterprises. They often simply move opportunities around. The guy you helped start a small scale chicken farm may have simply put another small scale chicken farmer out of business. Micro-enterprise development is good but it isn't the only thing.
Numbers of wells and latrines. This is a favorite because American givers really get into this because it is easily measureable. Don't be impressed. I could get a well dug with local labor for far less money than any one can drill one. If people really want a well they could dig one. Sure they'll take it if you offer to do it for them but wait until it becomes economically feasable before you wheel out your drilling rig. It is not development.
95% goes directly to recipients and only 5% goes to administration. Sounds good but it really doesn't mean much. I think in most cases it is a guesstimate because if they really did it that way it would probably be very inefficient. Find out exactly what they are doing and see if it makes sense. It wouldn't bother me if the numbers were completely reversed if the job was getting done.
These kinds of things put a lot of pressure on NGOs. If they don't impress their donors they fold. We also like immediate results. In many cases we have to recognize it will take time. Unfortunately donors are usually impatient and I've seen some very good NGOs fold up because of this. At the same time there are a lot of snake oil salesmen out there. We need to constantly learn and ask the right questions if we are going to have effective NGOs.
I said I didn't agree with everything guys like Shikwati says but I do agree on a lot of things. (In his particular case I'm not sure about his AIDS numbers. I do agree with his assertion that people make a living off of it.) I think they provide valuable insight. We need to support NGOs that have developed relationships with the people they are working with and have had extensive dialogue with them about their problems. Only then can they begin to work together to bring about real development.
Finally, realize that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of NGOs around the world who do nothing more than study the parameters, (like the goals in the original posts) find some one who fits the criteria, and then writes proposals for projects. It is an industry in and of itself and the amount of money wasted is incredible. Find an NGO you believe is doing it right, study them carefully, and support them through thick and thin.
Is there a limit to how many long posts one can have on one issue? :-)
Thanks for the tips Tom.
Are there any NGO's you can recommend who are doing it right? I don't really have the time or expertise to research them myself.
Hi Tom,
My name is George; you may not recognize my screen name since I haven't commented on this blog for months. I had to comment to this post because I am anxiously hoping that you will answer Brother Mike's question. As a family, we give to NGO's. I teach my kids to do this as a matter of stewardship and heeding the Gospel's call. However, I too would like to hear your insight regarding which NGO's are "doing it right." I am interested in any information regarding this very important matter to ensure that we as a family do the right thing when it comes to sharing our blessings with those less fortunate. You seem to have a remarkable amount of knowledge and insight into this whole arena of poverty. Any information you could give would be appreciated. Blessings on your day.
Sorry for not getting back to this earlier. There are several places to start but remember that it will take some of your time. You have to be more involved than simply sending a check in most cases. I think that we need to understand that stewardship is more than just sending money. It also means we are willing to do the work of making sure it is used wisely. There is not an easy way around that.
A lot of NGOs are donor driven so they need to know what you expect. That is the key to change. NGOs need to know that you insist on sustainability and aren't impressed with numbers that may look impressive but really aren't helpful (and may actually do more damage)in the long run. Let them know that long term sustainability is what you will give to.
There are literally thousands of NGOs and every country in the world will have several if not hundreds. I would hate to pick out just a few but here are some things I would look for.
I prefer NGOs that are founded by people who have a long history in the area they will be serving. They may have been in another field but have seen a need and they want to address it. (Even USAID used to require an "existing link" before they would give grants. I'm not sure if that is current.) They are often much more sensitive than people who visit a place a few times and then start a project there. These folks usually have good intentions but they often don't see the big picture. They tend to be a little more impulsive because they usually come from a land of plenty to a land of want and the contrast is drastic for them and their emotions can sometimes keep them from thinking clearly.
As a side note, be careful of what books you read on development. Unfortunately those who have years of experience in one location don't write. Books are usually written by kids fresh out of a PHD program who have little experience or by professionals who have spent their whole career jumping all over the place and end up as consultants. A good book is "Two Ears of Corn" by Roland Bunch of World Neighbors. It may be hard to find but they are still out there.
Sometimes you can find good NGOs started by people who are originally from the area of service who are returning to help. You have to be careful though. I would be cautious if this person was actually running the program and making his livelihood from it. There may be some who do this well but I prefer those who have started an NGO and are involved with it from a governing board position. I recently communicated with a guy who is an engineer here in the States who went back to his home country to help clean up after hurricane Mitch. That led to his founding of a micro-credit project that is doing very well.
Work through your denomination asking a lot of the questions we've raised earlier in the comments about sustainability. They can probably direct you to an NGO they are familiar with that could use the help. Our church is seriously considering a partnership with several other churches in my denomination to start a development work in a Central American country where we have developed some strong relationships. We will probably do a lot of development work through that but we will also partner with other NGOs in the country to do even more. Don't be afraid to try something in partnership with other churches.
As I said in the beginning, it will take work on your part to do the research. That's what good stewardship is.
A final side note about how frustrating this field can be. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development is chaired on a revolving basis from continent to continent. It is Africa's turn and the country that has been put forward to take over is Zimbabwe which is currently in the midst of economic chaos with inflation over 2,200%.
Tom, are you familiar with World Vision? What is your opinion of them? We have supported their projects in the past and have generally been impressed with their approach, though I don't know enough about this field to identify any potential flaws.
As for our own work, our church has partnered with a few other CGGC churches for a project called New Life for Haiti. It's just getting going, but we are trying to work with indigenous groups already over there and are intending to stay involved there for the long haul (i.e. decades, not years). We are targeting just one specific area of Haiti and doing whatever we can to improve life for the people there. What exactly that will involve is still being figured out.
Mike, I like a lot of the things WV does. I know this may not sit well with some evangelicals but they don't proselytize though they will explain why they do what they do if asked. They also don't discriminate when it comes to who they help and I like both of those thoughts. For the most part many of their projects are sustainable but I do think they are a little over-confident at times when it comes to how to solve problems. I think they really believe that if they had enough money they could end poverty and as I've stated before I think it is much more complicated than that. What they really understand is that one of the biggest obstacles to helping the poor is the lack of personal connection with the wealthy. That is why they use child sponsorship. It makes a direct connection. One of the difficulties in development is that development experts usually aren't that good at administrating a large organization. That means that they have to bring in competent leadership who know how to run a large organization but may not be fully versed in the intricacies of development. I think Stearns is an extremely talented individual and that WV is lucky to have him. But I think in time he will learn it takes more than money. I don't have a problem with people supporting WV. Just remember that these organizations respond to donors so give them feedback.
I'm glad to hear about your work in Haiti. One of the best things you can do is use your voice to influence the direction of a new entity.
Post a Comment
<< Home