AT: Poverty (Global)
Alt. Causality- Population Growth is why poverty is increasing
The Internationl News 6 (“More Births, More Poverty, More Crime” http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=185768 June 30 accessed 7/1/09) SC
So, it’s an inconvertible truth that the weeds of runaway population growth choke development effort, beat individual quality of life or macro-economic goals. Fifty-one per cent of our total farms in 1980 were smallholdings of under-three acres, growing to 71% by 2000. When a family has six or eight children the same small piece of land gets divided into that many children and the holdings reduce. Such land fragmentation inhibits development as it becomes unviable for farm production and increases poverty because it’s insufficient to support even a small family. And that’s true of 2009 with 3.3 million more births a year. Attention the woman minister concerned! The elders of the twin cities, like educated youths, today realise the rise in population is alarming. They say it’s as disturbing to the mind as the behaviour of the politicians in February 2008 elections. They didn’t utter a word about the population explosion and its consequences—- for instance, increase in prices, poverty, joblessness, extremism and militancy, disease, hunger and crime of loot and murder. They preferred achievement of political power individually to the ultimate objective of the family’s welfare and well-being. Let’s glance at the figures (in millions) since Pakistan’s birth on August 14, 1947. The population was 32.5m in that year, 33m in 1950, 84.3m in 1981, 145.5m in 2002 and 148.723m in 2005. Pervez Musharraf put the figure at160m in 2006 while President Zardari raised it to 170m in 2008. And, according to some politicians, the figure is nearly 180m. Anyhow, the population growth rate was 2.45% in 1951-61, 3.66 % in 1961-72, 3.05 % in 1972-81, 2.61% in 1981-98 and 2.1% in 2002. The birth rate in the preceding year, according to an institute, was 11,517 children per day. Political and religious organisations haven’t cared to do any noble research from a socio-economic point of view to control the fantastically growing population. Isn’t it their moral, social and constitutional obligation? There’s no denying the fact that a three per cent annual increase in population has an adverse impact on the national resources. How many persons of the 170m, or say 160m, are living below the poverty line in the country? Independent estimates suggest that poverty may have taken in its fold up to 13/14m between 2005 and 2009. That means an increase in poverty from 22.3% of the population in 2005-06 to 30-35% in 2008-09. A study reveals that food security in 2007-08 worsened as a result of heart-breaking food price hike. How poor we really are may be judged from ‘The News’ story that 62m live under poverty line, 45m face severe food security and 30% can’t afford any healthcare. The unbridled population growth, accompanied by nepotism, has caused disappointment and despondency, depression and tension, bringing in its wake the germs of revolt in the youths. Not long ago, a B.Sc student was among the youths who had come to Islamabad from Lahore, Faisalabad and Sahiwal for test and interview. He had applied for a low-grade post of attendant in the Ministry of Special Education and Social Welfare, also desiring consideration for appointment as LDC if not UDC. The candidates stood on the roadside in sizzling heat with no drop of drinking water. During the long wait for interview call the student fell conscious. Such incidents created acrimony against the rulers. Hasn’t the head of state ever given his mind to population rise, future of the unemployed youths and opportunity for enlightened experienced men of emotional wisdom who can lend him a helping hand in dealing with the crimes and problems arising from an unplanned population growth? That’s in national interest.
Globalization has made poverty more likely
Cancian and Danziger 9 (Maria, La Follette School of Public Affairs, School of Social Work and Institute for Research on Poverty, and Sheldon Danziger Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, Population Studies Center and National Poverty Center at U-Mich Ann Arbor, April 2009, “Changing Poverty and Changing Antipoverty Policies”)
Bane suggests that policymakers should consider changing their language. Instead of “helping the poor,” they should focus on “helping people who can’t take care of themselves,” “aiding struggling working families,” and “guaranteeing food and shelter.” She also suggests that American policy analysts 26 should pay more attention to the high poverty rates in developing countries, both because globalization has increased linkages between countries and because immigration to the United States would be likely to fall as living standards increase in sending countries, such as Mexico.
Alt Cause to poverty- Capitalism
Wilks 2k (Alex, studied the politics and economics of colonialism and decolonization at Oxford University, founder of the Bretton Woods Project. The Bretton Woods Project, “The World Bank And The State: A Recipe For Change?” June 15, 2000. http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art.shtml?x=16242 AD 6/15/09) JM
The numbers in absolute poverty are growing North and South, as are income disparities. Thirty years ago, the combined incomes of the richest fifth of the world’s population were 30 times greater than those of the poorest fifth. Today, their incomes are over 60 times greater. With joint assets of $762 billion, just 358 billionaires now own more than the combined annual income of the world’s poorest two billion people. Moreover the gap between rich and poor is widening, in large part, according to the United Nations Committee on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), due to the uneven impacts of globalisation inequalities which UNCTAD believes could cause major social upheavals.90In the "transitional economies" of Central and Eastern Europe and of the former Soviet Union, for example, globalisation has brought: "growing income inequality and conjunctural poverty, even as liberalisation policies foster private entrepreneurship and bolster the prospects of structural change leading to sustained economic growth."91 According to World Bank estimates, the number of absolute poor in the economies of Eastern Europe and Central Asia grew from 2.2 million in 1987 to 14.5 million, or 3.5 per cent of the population, in 1993.92This increase, notes UNCTAD, "has been due to the erosion of real wages and entitlements in recent years".93The Bank reports a similar picture for East Asia, where despite strong growth rates, more than two-thirds of people still lived in poverty, and inequality was increasing even before the 1997 economic crash.94 In Central and Latin America, too, inequality and poverty have accompanied liberalisation. Although the percentage of the population in absolute poverty in Latin America as a whole fell during the early 1990s, the numbers are again on the increase.95A recent study concludes that "the new economic model has done little to improve poverty and has a tendency to harm income distribution".96 Indeed, "real minimum wages fell substantially in almost all countries as local industries adapted to increased competition from imports".97In Mexico, between 1989 and 1992, the richest 5 per cent of the population increased its share of income from 24 per cent to 29 per cent of the total, while the income of the poorest 5 per cent fell from 0.6 per cent to 0.5 per cent.98 Globalisation and liberalisation have also increased regional inequality. Job creation increasingly relies on inward investment, so the pattern of inward investment determines whether or not people have jobs and what kind of jobs are on offer. Firms seeking to reduce labour costs, for example, tend to relocate to areas where labour is cheapest; firms seeking to establish retail outlets, to those areas where incomes are highest. Such inward investment reinforces existing regional disparities. In Europe, for example, a new division of labour is emerging as the EU workforce fragments into: "a slimmed down, highly-trained and skilled core of workers for electronics, research and ’sunrise’ industries, and a mass of ’flexible’ unskilled workers in, for example, building and construction, service industries, garment manufacture and food processing, who can be taken on, laid off, employed part-time and moved around... as required."9
Structural barriers prevent poverty from being solved – no personal accountability
Cancian and Danziger 9 (Maria, La Follette School of Public Affairs, School of Social Work and Institute for Research on Poverty, and Sheldon Danziger Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, Population Studies Center and National Poverty Center at U-Mich Ann Arbor, April 2009, “Changing Poverty and Changing Antipoverty Policies”)
Other critics argued that the goal of eliminating income poverty should be replaced by the goal of changing the behaviors of the poor. An American Enterprise Institute task force concluded: Money alone will not cure poverty; internalized values are also needed. (T)he most disturbing element among a fraction of the contemporary poor is an inability to seize opportunity even when it is available and while others around them are seizing it. Their need is less for job training than for meaning and order in their lives. An indispensable resource in the war against poverty is a sense of personal responsibility (Novak et al. 1987)
Share with your friends: |