[Peace-discuss] Defeating World Poverty

[patton paul]

This article explains one thing the US could do to constructively and
peacefully enhance its own security.
-Paul P.


If We Cared to, We Could Defeat World Poverty
by Jeffrey D. Sachs and Sakiko Fukuda-Parr


The great paradox of our time is that the massive suffering of the world's
poor  from disease, hunger, unsafe water and more  could be readily
overcome with just a modicum of help from the richest countries. For less
than 1% of the income of the wealthiest countries each year, the worst
afflictions of poverty could be substantially reduced, if not eliminated.

Indeed, rich and poor countries have solemnly promised, not just once but
at least four times in the last three years, to work to accomplish exactly
that: a breakthrough in the elimination of poverty. The greatest puzzle in
economic development is not how to alleviate the suffering but how to get
rich and poor countries to follow through on their repeated promises.

In 2000, 150 world leaders assembled at the United Nations in New York to
help set global goals for the new millennium. At three summits  including
last month's Group of 8 meeting in France  support for those goals was
reiterated.

The goals emphasize poverty reduction, but they also target related issues
such as HIV infection, literacy and child mortality. To achieve them, the
richest countries  the United States, Japan and Western European nations
agreed to increase their foreign aid, aiming at a long-term target of
seven-tenths of 1% of their national incomes. And poor countries pledged
to participate as well, by implementing honest and effective public
administration and economic reforms.

The deal was a fair one: more aid in return for good governance. The
amazing fact is that financial assistance of up to seven-tenths of 1% of
wealthy nations' annual economic output  aid totaling roughly $175 billion
at today's income levels  would, if used effectively by the recipient
countries, make it possible to control the great pandemic diseases of
AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria; increase food productivity of impoverished
farmers in the tropics; ensure that children are in school rather than at
work; and enable poor households to obtain at least minimally acceptable
access to safe drinking water, energy and markets.

The United Nations' 2003 Human Development Report, released this week,
cites repeated successes of practical development programs  when financial
assistance and fair rules are in place  and outlines in detail how
specific investments in health, education, agriculture, water, sanitation
and other urgent areas can get the job done.

But it also shows how much work remains. Wealthy countries contribute only
two-tenths of 1% of their incomes to the countries in greatest need. As
for poor countries, though good governance is still a distant goal in many
corners of the world, there are candidates for expanded aid right now: the
vibrant democracies of Bangladesh, Bolivia, Ghana, Senegal and Tanzania,
among others. These nations are struggling mightily with their poverty and
need much more help than they receive.

If poverty reduction is such a straightforward equation, what then
explains the inability of the world to follow through on its repeated
commitments to the cause?

In the case of the United States, where foreign aid remains the lowest as
a share of income in the entire donor world (about $10 billion a year in
development assistance in a $10-trillion economy, or one-tenth of 1% of
GNP), the main answer seems to be public confusion over what the U.S. is
doing and what aid could accomplish. Public opinion polls show that
Americans strongly believe that the United States is giving much more help
to poor countries than is the case.

Moreover, during the Cold War and even today, too much U.S. foreign aid
went to tyrants and crooks for tactical foreign policy purposes, while too
little aid was used to fight poverty, hunger and disease. Not only have
the amounts been much too small, they have been poorly directed.

It is sometimes claimed that rich countries simply lack the means to
provide more financial help, that their budgets are already too strained
to donate more to the rest of the world. Yet the United States, Japan and
the European Union together spend much more in wasteful subsidies to their
own farmers  protecting inefficient sugar producers in temperate climates,
for example  than they do in foreign aid.

The question is not whether the rich countries can afford to do more or
have to choose between, say, defense and reducing world poverty. Since
less than 1% of national income is needed, the question is only whether
they will make the elimination of the world's extreme poverty a priority.

The goals established at the millennium conference at the U.N. in 2000 are
humanity's best hope for ensuring that globalization is inclusive rather
than a benefit for the rich. Yet time is short. The targets for reducing
poverty, hunger and disease are set for 2015, a mere dozen years from now.

Wealthy countries must show unequivocally that they are ready to give
adequate help  through fairer rules on trade and much more generous aid
contributions  to the many poor countries that are ready to help
themselves.

There is no more time to lose in creating a world of greater justice,
prosperity and shared security.

Columbia University economist Jeffrey D. Sachs is special advisor to
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the Millennium Development
Goals, and Sakiko Fukuda-Parr is director of the U.N.'s 2003 Human
Development Report.

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times