Resolved: On balance, economic globalization benefits worldwide poverty reduction 3

Poverty Increasing

Absolute global poverty is increasing

2(1): 42, p. 42-57

It is important to distinguish between the incidence of poverty as a percentage of a total population and the absolute number of the poor. World Bank (2000) states that the share of the population in poverty has declined for developing countries as a whole (from 28.3% in 1987 to 24% in 1998 based on $1/day and from 61% in 1987 to 56% in 1998 based on $2/day) and in all developing regions except Sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Declines have been pronounced and sustained over a longer time period for the most populous developing countries. For example, the incidence of poverty in India measured by the official poverty line fell from 57% in 1973 to around 35% in 1998, whereas the incidence of poverty fell from 60% to 20% between 1985 and 1998 for Indonesia. Standards of living have also improved. Infant mortality rates globally have been cut in half during 1970-1997, from 107 to 56 per thousand; and life expectancy has risen from 55 years to 67 years. However, in spite of this broad based progress, more than 40 developing countries with 400 million people have had negative or close to zero per capita income growth over the past thirty years. And the absolute number of poor has continued to increase in all regions except East Asia and the Middle East. Overall, despite impressive growth performance in many large developing countries, absolute poverty worldwide is still increasing.

Latin American and African poverty increasing

Anish Bharadwaj, 2014, International Max Planck Research School for Competition and Innovation, Munich Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship Research, Advances in Economics and Business

2(1): 42, p. 42-57

Poverty trends between 1990 and 2001 vary according to the definition of poverty applied

If the poor are considered to be those living on less than one dollar a day – that is to say, those in a situation of extreme poverty – then during that period there was a significant reduction in the number of poor from 1, 209 million to 1, 101 million.

On the other hand, if the poor are considered to be those living on less than two dollars a day, then the number increased from 2,689 million to 2,733 million over that period (World Bank, 2004a). Even more important is the fact that under both these definitions of poverty the regional dispersion is rather significant. The only region in which poverty went down was Asia; in the other regions the number of poor increased. Thus, under the definition based on an income of less than one dollar a day, the number of poor in Asia went down from 934 to 712 million between 1990 and 2001, whereas in Africa it rose from 233 to 321 million over the same period, and in Latin America it went up, albeit only slightly, from 49 to 50 million.

Environmental Destruction Turn

Capitalism destroys the natural ecosystems that destroy life on earth

John Hillary, 2013, Journalist, The Poverty of Capitalism, page number at end of card

At the same time as this social reality was brought home to new audiences, capitalism's drive for growth at all costs was also shown to be the root cause of the ecological crisis facing the planet. 5 The finite limits of natural ecosystems are unable to support the infinite process of expansion that capital must engineer in order to prosper, and the consequences of that conflict are apparent in every new media report detailing the latest evidence of irreversible climate change, biodiversity loss or resource depletion. Nowhere is this crisis more obvious than in the additional pressure on the world's natural resource base generated by the rise of today's emerging economies, whose ‘outward turn’ into the global economy has further intensified a rush for land, oil, minerals and other strategic resources that was already driving stocks towards exhaustion. Increasingly, in international conferences as well as local articulations of protest, the connection between capitalist expansion and its ecological consequences is made explicit, with system change recognised as the last and only means of avoiding ecological disaster. While this book focuses primarily on the human poverty of globalised capitalism, the connection between the social and ecological should be understood as an unspoken reality throughout. Hilary, John (2013-10-09). The Poverty of Capitalism: Economic Meltdown and the Struggle for What Comes Next (Kindle Locations 215-220). Pluto Press. Kindle Edition.

Environmental destruction causes by globalization increases poverty

Raphael Kaplinsky, Professor of International Development, 2005, Globalization, Poverty, and Inequality: Between a Rock and a Hard Place, page number at end of card

All of this global sourcing is at a cost to the environment. Some of this is a direct outcome of global transport, as in the case of the Exxon Valdez oil-spillage in Alaska during the 1990s. But the bulk of this negative environmental impact is indirect, particularly through the link between increased energy consumption and global warming. For much of this intricate system of global production depends on the low price of energy which makes it profitable to ship low-value-added commodities and components around the world. Despite the claims of the hydrocarbon lobby to the contrary, we now know that there is growing evidence of global warming, and that this is predominantly a consequence of increased carbon emissions. We also are beginning to realize that one consequence of climate change is its disproportionate negative impact on poor people and low-income economies. 18 If we are to respond appropriately to global warming, then energy will have to be priced at its true environmental cost. But, if so, what will be the impact of this on the profitability of globalized production systems? How many activities which are currently profitable will be unattractive should energy prices be increased significantly? To what extent is the current pattern of globalization environmentally sustainable? On the other hand, it is possible (and perhaps even probable) that, despite the logic of forcing energy prices to a level which reflects its true environmental cost, the power of the vegetables is, as we have seen in chapters 1, 5 and 6, replicated at an increasing rate across a wide range of sectors. All of this global sourcing is at a cost to the environment. Some of this is a direct outcome of global transport, as in the case of the Exxon Valdez oil-spillage in Alaska during the 1990s. But the bulk of this negative environmental impact is indirect, particularly through the link between increased energy consumption and global warming. For much of this intricate system of global production depends on the low price of energy which makes it profitable to ship low-value-added commodities and components around the world. Despite the claims of the hydrocarbon lobby to the contrary, we now know that there is growing evidence of global warming, and that this is predominantly a consequence of increased carbon emissions. We also are beginning to realize that one consequence of climate change is its disproportionate negative impact on poor people and low-income economies. If we are to respond appropriately to global warming, then energy will have to be priced at its true environmental cost. But, if so, what will be the impact of this on the profitability of globalized production systems? How many activities which are currently profitable will be unattractive should energy prices be increased significantly? To what extent is the current pattern of globalization environmentally sustainable? On the other hand, it is possible (and perhaps even probable) that, despite the logic of forcing energy prices to a level which reflects its true environmental cost, the power of the hydrocarbon lobbies to block an increase in prices makes this an unlikely outcome. In this case, energy-intensive global value chains are likely to worsen global warming and hence exacerbate poverty and inequality. This outcome, as we will see in the following discussion, challenges the sustainability of globalization. So either way – be it through higher energy prices or through the impact on poverty and inequality – the energy intensity of globalized production systems poses a threat to the sustainability of globalization. Kaplinsky, Raphael (2013-04-29). Globalization, Poverty and Inequality: Between a Rock and a Hard Place (Kindle Locations 4348-4351). Wiley. Kindle Edition.

Directory: uploads
uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10
uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers
uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It?
uploads -> For want of a nail
uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models
uploads -> Police Militarization
uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016
uploads -> Township of winfield
uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014
uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now!

Download 1.02 Mb.

Share with your friends: