It seems that this blog is now allowing comments and new entries again! Hurrah. Here’s one I prepared earlier:
Matt has made a few comments that I�ll address together.
I stand by my claim that the principal cause of global poverty is �the exploitation of the free-market system by economic hyperpowers, with all the structural consequences that follow. As long as corporate power is largely untamed in a global economy, there will be poverty.�
This is admittedly an oversimplification. The principal cause is far from singular. Additionally, this focuses on poverty as a global and international phenomenon, as opposed to one that is internal to a society. The two are related but distinct. The cultural rationalisation of poverty (Matt uses Indian religion and culture as his example) is an important factor, but I believe its importance is small relative to the global economic structures within which that culture exists. The relief of poverty will require a profound cultural change, but I am convinced that a structural change must happen first � which brings us back to the economic hyperpowers.
This situation is also a new one. A global economy has not really existed until this past century, reliant as it is on a magnitude of information and goods transfer impossible before recent technological developments. This magnifies a structural inequity that has been around for as long as there have been economies. Poverty has existed as long as economic systems have existed, but the economic systems have changed radically.
Matt also questions another theory of mine: �Not sure I agree. I don’t think that civilian giving shames governments and governments giving shames corporations. What gives you that idea?
This, of course, is not something that can be proved. I think it can be convincingly argued that civilian giving has encouraged greater governmental giving, certainly in the UK; although this can never be confirmed, because no government would ever admit to such a cause. There are, no doubt, other influences as well, but this one should never be underestimated, especially in the UK where the tabloid press would love nothing better than to call the government to account for stinginess. I think this link is relatively uncontroversial.
The link between governmental giving and corporate giving is much less clear, and basically an assumption based on how I think corporations make all such decisions. Any giving will, I believe, be made with one eye on the government, and the other on the public. I don’t think such decisions are made in a vaccuum, and the government’s giving sets a social context that corporations must respond to when making their own decisions. Even the most sincere of corporate donors cannot fail to be at least subconsciously influenced in their calculations by the number of zeroes in the government’s donation.
All of these points are quite theoretical. On a more practical level, Matt reminds us of the incredible difficulty of even so fundamental a task as ensuring economic aid gets to those who desperately need it. Like him, I have no solutions to offer. Perhaps – and I can’t believe I’m suggesting this seriously – aid money should be used to send auditors into the stricken zones?
Oohh…I get my own blog title 🙂
Anyway, in response to some of your responses.
Morgue wrote: “The relief of poverty will require a profound cultural change, but I am convinced that a structural change must happen first – which brings us back to the economic hyperpowers.”
Ahh, but this is chicken and egg material. Which comes first, the cultural or the structural change? I think a compelling case can be made for cultural change having to come first – how can you get people to change their actions. Change their beliefs (and see my comments on the necessity for belief in your Dr King post).
How do you change their beliefs? Change the culture they live in.
So – based on that we return to having to deal with the social causes of poverty in individual societies before we can create the structural change that will actually enable generosity.
You also wrote (in regard to aid not getting to the needy): ” Perhaps – and I can’t believe I’m suggesting this seriously – aid money should be used to send auditors into the stricken zones?”
Actually this is what happens to some extent. A friend here works for “Convoy of Hope” a distaster relief organisation set up by the Aseemblies of God chruches in the US. He has been working extensivly in Sri Lanka since the Tsunami setting up distaster relief working through the local AoG chruchs in Sri Lanka. Over the next three months they are feeding 5000 famileis at the cost of 500,000 USD, they’ll also initiate long term housing and business redevelopment as cost of millions. It’s not just AoG church members who get this. Rather the local curches help others in the community (christian or not) to recover. The guy who works for Convoy of Hope oversees the operations, sets up the distribution and organsises logistics etc. He also keeps an eye on it to make sure the money and goods are going where they should be.
He has an accounting and business degree. In a very real sense he is an auditor…