So what’s the latest on poverty in India from the World Bank? It is reported that the WB released some study which talks about the changes in the recent past. Good news or bad new? Depends on who is reporting the study. Sort of like assessing beauty — which we all know lies in the eyes of the beholder. Rediff says “India has fewer poor people: World Bank“. IBNLive reads the same report and says “Number of poor in India has gone up: World Bank.” (Thanks Dr A for the links.)

How’s that for objective reporting?

Poverty is a big word. It is multi-dimensional. It is complex in its causes, it is hugely complex in its implications, and it is perhaps the most intractable of all social challenges that humanity faces. Poverty has been the characteristic condition of humanity since its birth. It is not the existence of poverty that should surprise us but rather that some significant portion of humanity in the relatively recent history (about 100 years or so) are not living in poverty. Though it is not as inescapable as death, poverty has been much of human history’s most common condition. Ending poverty on a global scale will require a combination of technical ingenuity, enlightened political leadership, compassionate societies, and such on a global scale. Just technology alone cannot solve any problem as enduring and non-technical as the complex problem of global poverty.

You know that Monty Python skit involving a dead parrot. The character that John Cleese plays comes to the pet shop to return a parrot which he had “purchased not half an hour from this very boutique.” The problem was that the parrot was dead. The shopkeeper insists that the parrot — a Norwegian blue — is not dead. It is, he variously claims, merely resting; pining for the fjords; that it prefers to kick back. John’s character is frustrated and finally explodes:

“It’s not pining, it’s passed on. This parrot is no more. It has ceased to be. It’s expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late parrot. It’s a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies. It’s rung down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible.

Viz-a-viz the metabolic processes, he’s had his lot. All statements to the effect that this parrot is still a going concern are from now on inoperative. This is an ex-parrot.”

I feel a bit like that guy. I repeatedly keep insisting that technology is not the answer to all of the world’s problems. Technology helps only on those aspects of a problem that are technical in nature. So here’s yet another of my attempts at explaining why I think technology cannot solve the problem of global poverty.

In its most general formulation, problems involve constraints and their solutions involve choices within those constraints. If there were no constraints in a system, there would be no problems. To the extent that any particular problem has a solution at all, the solution involves making choices. Good solutions are the consequence of correct choices. Technology often relaxes some constraints to some degree, and thus expands the choices available. This expansion of choices is good but it is not costlessly so: greater choice implies a greater burden in making the correct choices. In other words, when the choice set expands, the chances of making the wrong choices also goes up.

Specifically in the case of mobile phones, we can immediately note the constraints that it relaxes. It essentially makes long distance communication of information possible. But then so do carrier pigeons, smoke signals, semaphores, the telegraph, the pony express, and land line phones. Mobile phones have an advantage over those earlier technologies because it is better, cheaper, faster, more accessible. So the second constraint the mobile phone pushes back is financial. For a given amount of money, you get more capacity. Third, the technology is transferable and is easily adopted. You don’t need to be literate, and you don’t need expensive terminal equipment.

What economic function does the mobile phone serve? It reduces transaction costs, to put it in economics terms. When you use the phone to ask for directions perhaps, you save time that you would have otherwise wasted in going round in circles. When you call ahead to fix up a meeting, you avoid a wasted trip if the person is not available. Telecommunications is a substitute for transportation in many instances.

By reducing transaction costs, the efficiency of the process goes up. That is, increased productivity and therefore more production for the same effort. More production, in turn, means more stuff. More stuff for a given population means more stuff per person. Stuff, as you all know, is what it is all about. If a person has too little stuff, he is poor. To the extent that global poverty can be helped through increased production of stuff, and to the extent that more efficient communications helps in production, only to that limited extent can cell phones affect global poverty.

Technology is an amplifying mechanism. Another way of saying that is that technology enters the production function multiplicatively. You have to have something to amplify to be able to use an amplifier. If there is no signal, no matter how powerful the amplifier, there will be no output. The productive capacity is multiplied by technology but where there is any production going on and what is being produced is a consequence of choices that were made outside of technology. That is the bigger challenge because the ability to make the correct choices is something that cannot be as easily imported as the importing of technology.

In the end, affluence — which I define here as the absence of poverty — is a consequence of correct choices made deliberately and consciously over the long term. Affluence is the result of economic policies made by thoughtful and wise policymakers. The existence and the necessity of such people is independent of the level and sophistication of the available technology. To solve our problem of poverty, technology is definitely necessary but it is far from sufficient.

Related links:

(1) Stuff and Ideas.

(2) The Importance of Producing Stuff.

(3) The Tathagata’s Sermon on Economics.

The micro details are: family lives in one of Bengal’s 4,600 backward villages; unemployment is over 40 percent; female literacy is 21 percent; father barely gets 70 days of work; the rice from the little land they own runs out in five months; the family starves most of the year. And one more detail the implications of which never seems to register: the family has six children.

The story, in keeping with the script that the writers of this sort of tripe have to follow, intersperses the struggles of the unfortunate family with contrasting details about IIT Kharagpur, the amazing GDP growth rate of India, and other such information that is supposed to shock the reader into the realization that he or she is complicit in the misery of the poor and has to do something about it as he or she is clearly responsible for the disparity. There isn’t even a hint in the article that perhaps the poor may have something to do with the poverty they suffer.

The family must have been poor when it was just the man and wife. Then instead of having one or two children, they decided that they would be all be better off by producing half a dozen children. They don’t have the resources to support even themselves in any degree of material well-being and yet don’t have the slightest hesitation in producing more babies. It is a vicious cycle: the fecundity of the poor ensures that the next generation is large and even poorer. Since no exponential process in nature can be sustained, this cycle meets its boundary condition soon enough: the land, however fertile, is unable to sustain the population and the population collapses from starvation, conflict and disease.

However, we live in a world where at least for a short time, the inevitable can be postponed and people shielded from the consequences of their own folly. The solution is generally to provide just enough food from outside the region to sustain the population for a short while. This relief provides the population breathing room to produce more babies so that in the next cycle, there are more people at risk of starvation. By continually supporting a poor but fecund population through the simple means of redistributing resources from a relatively more productive and non-fecund population, the general prosperity of continues to go down, while the overall population continues to spiral upwards. The boundary condition is once again reached: there are no surplus resources available anywhere as everything that is produced is consumed to just keep the immense population at subsistence level. Thermodynamic equilibrium has been attained.

I think that is what the aim of the socialistic government is: keep everybody at the edge of starvation because in this state of affairs, there is no inequality. Everyone is equally miserably poor and as there is no surplus production, there is no wealth and there is nothing for one person to envy another.

I am willing to bet that the budget that the UPA government will present today will make its contributions in terms of speeding India along the road to that socialistic heaven of equality.

Related Post:

The Sustaining of Poverty

People Matter: India’s Population Problem — Part 2

The Persistence of Poverty

Poverty and hunger are the world’s greatest challenges

• 1.2 billion people–one out of five–live on less than $1 a day.
• More than 800 million people are hungry, including 31 million in the United States.
• Every day, 24,000 people die from hunger and other preventable causes. One billion people do not have adequate shelter, and 2.4 billion people do not have access to proper sanitation. More than 1 billion people in developing countries lack access to safe water.
• Yet enough food is produced in the world to feed everyone.
• Overpopulation is not the main cause of hunger. In Japan, a densely populated country with 125 million people, hunger is rare compared to other countries. Many larger countries with fewer people, like Peru and Sudan, have much higher rates of hunger.
• The problem is inequality in access to education, resources, and power.

I have a slightly different take on the question of poverty and hunger. I think that ultimately, without the active participation of the world’s poor, poverty cannot be sustained. I believe that we have been looking for the solution to poverty everywhere else except at the source of poverty. The source of poverty is the poor. The poor sustain poverty.

I am not absolving anyone of blame by locating the source of sustained poverty among the poor. On the contrary, the non-poor also actively participate in helping the poor sustain poverty. But in the ultimate analysis, the poor have the power to kill poverty. How to awaken them to that realization is the challenge that those who wish to see poverty eradicated face.

My claim is that this pro-poor policy is not mere rhetoric. The policy works and how. I argue that all other policies have not yielded their expected results but the pro-poor policies have delivered as could be reasonably expected.

Pro-industrialization policies are expected to lead to an increase in industrialization. If India ever had such policies, they have had only marginal success because India is arguably not an industrial economy. Pro-poor policies are expected to promote the number of the poor, and there has been a monotonic increase in the number of poor in India.

The percentage of people below the poverty line is estimated to be around 25. That is, India has about 250 million people who are so unimaginably poor that they can’t cross the poverty line that is set way below what can be considered necessary for a human existence. Around 33 million were added to that role in 2001-02 alone For comparison, that is more than the entire population of Canada in 2001 (30 million).

Let’s put the number of the abjectly poor in perspective. Consider the number of people below the poverty line at the time of India’s independence. We had about 350 million people then. Assuming that 50 percent of them were below the poverty line then, there were 175 million abjectly poor people then. Now, about 57 years later, we have 250 million abjectly poor people. There has been an increase of 75 million in the ranks of the abjectly poor in the nearly six decades of pro-poor policies..

India’s pro-poor policies have succeeded in increasing the number of poor in the past and while past performance is not a guarantee of future results, the most probable outcome of current pro-poor policies can be expected to lead to increase in the number of the poor. The “Employment Guarantee Scheme” (introduced by the National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill) is pro-poor and the result will be as before.

National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS)

It promises Rs 60 per day for 100 days of employment a year to one member of every rural unemployed family. The Central government funds this scheme, with the State expected to contribute 10 percent of the cost. The cost in the first year alone is expected to be around Rs 15000 crores (or approximately $3.3 billion.)

The NEGS is not novel. Maharashtra has had an employment guarantee scheme for decades. According to Sharad Joshi, it “has produced few permanent assets. And the EGS in Maharashtra is synonymous with corruption. Government officials concoct false registers of attendance.”

Corruption is not unexpected when money is involved and the transaction is between officials who have the power and control over the money, and the poor unemployed labor who would be willing to take only a share of whatever is due to him or her. It has been variously estimated that only about 25 percent of any relief money actually reaches the intended beneficiary. Politicians and bureaucrats steal the majority of funds.

As a matter of equity and fairness, the rural poor do need some kind of safety net. The design of exact mechanism of a safety net is not easy considering the scope of the problem. But a number of questions that arise in connection of the NREGS and needs to be investigated. Even if the NREGS is not beset with corruption and fraud, is it the best mechanism?

Is the scheme consistent with the reforms required in the economy? Will the secondary effects drown out whatever primary benefits that accrue to the rural people?

The basic objection I have to the scheme is that is in effect it is a purely income redistribute scheme. A purely redistributive scheme is not objectionable in and of itself provided there is sufficient production but the production suffers from mal-distribution. However, the basic fact is that the production itself is insufficient. So in this case the all effort should be made to increase production and simultaneously seek a more equitable distribution.

The money spent on the NREGS has an opportunity cost. What is lost is the government’s ability to fund production enhancing projects. Suppose the money was spent for a massive drive to provide primary education and health services to rural areas coupled with a reduced family size drive. Or it was used to improve the infrastructure of the country such as building a modern rail transportation system. Any of a large number of public works projects would generate large employment opportunities and lead to capacity building and thus to an increase in the total national income. In this case, it would not be just an “employment generation” but “income generation”.

The problem is that the focus of the proposal is flawed. It focuses on employment instead of focusing on increasing incomes. The distinction is important. Income, to an individual, is a share of the total production that the economy produces. By focusing on the employment and not on the production, the scheme merely redistributes the proceeds of a limited production.

In summary, the NREGS will have the expected effect of deeping poverty and enriching the bureaucratic and political intermediaries. That the Left support this misguided scheme should have been sufficient proof of its effects. But I guess we will have to go through with this despiriting exercise once again before we learn the lesson that increasing employment is not the same as increasing production.

[Also see the importance of producing stuff and "Sir, won't you buy this employment guarantee act?"]

I believe that the choices that society makes depends on the cultural and institutional capital of the society. As much as land, labor, capital, and technology matter, the social capital — that is the cultural norms and values and institutions — matter fundamentally.

This line of thought was prompted by a report in the New York Times. It was the story of Shazia Khalid who was raped and then persecuted by all and sundry for her “sin.” This happened in Pakistan. The culture of that place is such that the victim is blamed. Rape is seen as a insult to the family honor which can only be restored by killing the woman who was violated.

The values of the society matter more than the availability of PCs and the ability to surf the internet and get neat stuff off the world wide web. Third world under-developed societies need a change of values desperately if they are to get out of the cycle of poverty. Unfortunately, values are endogenous and they can only change with great difficulty. They cannot be imposed externally any more than “democracy” be imposed externally as the US is ostensibly attempting to do in Iraq.

The sense of fairness and justice is, in my opinion, the major determinant of how developed a society is. And in some sense, development is the basis for economic development. Until a society has justice and fairness as its core values, it cannot get beyond a Hobbesian existence.

I argue that the large pool of poor people serve as a reservoir of extremely cheap labor which helps the rich. The rich have control and are powerful. They could choose to bring about the end of poverty. But they don’t because absent grinding poverty, the cheap labor will dry up and lead to less favorable outcomes for the rich and powerful. I hasten to add that the rich and the powerful cannot be distinguished by the color of their skin, racial origin, or nationality. The rich and the powerful exist in rich and poor countries alike. Their interests are aligned irrespective of which part of the world they live in.

Thus the rich in India would advocate policies that will ensure that the reservoir of poor Indians never run dry. Empirical evidence is plenty. There were only about 150 million abjectly poor people in India around 1950. Today, about 50 years later, India has about 300 million abjectly poor people. Mind you, this is after implementing every conceivable form of “pro-poor” policies. Not a single policy maker would ever claim that their policies were anti-poor. They all are for the benefit of the poor. And yet, the numbers of the poor continually increase. I claim that the policies are “more-poor” rather than “pro-poor”.

One such policy now making the rounds is the so-called “Employment Guarantee Scheme” which I mentioned here last time. In my considered opinion, this would raise the level of poverty in India and increase the number of poor. How this will come about, I will address later. For now, I will move to the utility of the poor. They are good for slave labor.

Slavery is an ancient institution. Mention slavery and you conjure up images of Africa. In the past, Africa paid the price and the benefits went to Europeans, both in the Old World as well as the New World. The rich and powerful, both in Africa and in Europe (and their American colonies), gained immensely. Let’s not forget that African slavery was not an entirely European-driven phenomenon. Africans were involved in it as much as anyone else. Africans managed the supply-side while Europeans the demand-side.

For guns and other European manufactures, powerful Africans would conduct raiding parties with guns and cavalry. Here is a heart-breaking account by James Richardson writing about it around 1850:

A cry was raised early this morning: “The Sarkee is coming!” … It turned out that a string of captives, fruits of the razzia, was coming in. There cannot be in the world … a more appalling spectacle than this. My head swam as I gazed. A single horseman rode first … and the wretched captives followed him as if they had been used to this condition all their lives. Here were naked little boys, running alone, perhaps thinking themselves upon a holiday; near at hand dragged mothers with babes at their breasts; girls of various ages, some almost ripened into womanhood, others still infantile; old men bent two-double with age, their trembling chins verging towards the ground, their poor old heads covered with white wool; aged women tottering along, leaning upon long staffs, mere living skeletons … then followed the stout young men, ironed neck to neck! This was the first installment of the black bullion of Central Africa; and as the wretched procession huddled through the gateways … the creditors of the Sarkee looked gloatingly on through lazy eyes, and calculated on speedy payment.

Only humans are capable of inhumanity. It is part of human nature and I don’t think that it can be eradicated. It takes different forms and shapes depending on the fashion of the era and the compulsions of the age. The compulsions range from monotheistic madness (the Crusades, the Islamic hordes destroying peaceful non-Muslims) to nationalism (the Nazis slaughtering Jews, the Americans carpet-bombing countries, the Belgians killing millions in the Congo, the Pakistani army slaughtering between 3 and 6 million other Pakistanis, … the list goes on) to natural resources (too many to mention but Iraq is the lastest example.)

{To be concluded tomorrow.}

But with inefficiency and local mismanagement plaguing distribution, it couldn’t move the grain fast enough through the system. Some even spoiled in warehouses. A 2002 government survey concluded that 48% of children under five years old are malnourished. That’s an improvement from three decades ago and even today, given rapid population growth, the proportion of chronically hungry Indians continues to fall. But in a sign that there are limits to the Green Revolution, the absolute number of hungry people in India began to rise again in the late 1990s, according to the U.N.

The paradox is easy to resolve if one understands one basic principle: that economic policies matter. The Indian economy has been chronically mismanaged by the Congress ever since India’s independence. And now the new Congress government could continue on the same failed path of socialism that led us to this sorry state. Vote-bank politics and the command and control license-permit-quota raj is responsible. Paul Samuelson could have been speaking about India when he wrote in April 2002 (HOW TO PROSPER IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY):

The good life does not come from dramatic speeches or boisterous parades. Where economics is concerned, so far, there is nothing in sight more promising than the limited welfare democracy where public laws harness and monitor the energies and efficiencies of the somewhat free marketplace.

It is a good time to review Amartya Sen’s book of 1982, Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Here is an excerpt from Ken Arrow’s review of the book:

In a free-enterprise economy every good or service has a price, and each economic agent starts out by owning some goods or services. The rice farmer owns some land, used for producing rice, which can then be sold on the market at the going price or reserved for use by the farmer and his family. The receipts from sales can be spent on other goods—different foods, spices, clothing, and so forth. The agricultural laborer has only his or her labor to sell; the proceeds can be spent on rice or other goods. Similarly the cities contain workers who sell labor for money to buy food, shelter, and clothing, and entrepreneurs who buy goods and labor, produce other goods, sell them, and have the proceeds for personal consumption and investment in business expansion.

People will starve, then, when their entitlement is not sufficient to buy the food necessary to keep them alive. The food available to them, in short, is a question of income distribution and, more fundamentally, of their ability to provide services that others in the economy are willing to pay for.

This, of course, does not mean that the supply of food is irrelevant. A decrease in the supply of food will usually increase its price, as people compete for the scarcer quantity. This will in turn decrease their ability to buy food by using their entitlement and, if they start close enough to the margin of hunger, may drive them to the point of starvation. Further, the entitlement approach, simple as it is, enables the analyst to say something about the distribution of the burden of starvation. Farm owners and, to a lesser extent, sharecroppers, should be less affected than others because the reduction in the amount they sell is at least partly offset by the higher prices. If the reduction in supply is caused by some factor, like flood, that reduces the amount to be harvested, farm laborers are thereby more likely to be seriously affected.

I am reminded of Oliver Goldsmith’s words from his poem The Deserted Village:

Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey
Where wealth accumulates and men decay

There is something rotten about India that so many people are so unconcerned about the true state of affairs. The communists are solely concerned with protecting a handful of jobs, the larger interests of the nation be damned. The government is concerned with blocking the liberalization of the economy and dragging it back to its insular autarkic pre-reform paralysis. The idiotic hype about India Shining and IT superpower crap has addled the brains of the already marginally stupid. One wonders where this is all going to lead to.

It is all karma, neh?

One in every three people in the world will live in slums within 30 years unless governments control unprecedented urban growth, according to a UN report. The largest study ever made of global urban conditions has found that 940 million people – almost one-sixth of the world’s population – already live in squalid, unhealthy areas, mostly without water, sanitation, public services or legal security.

The report, from the UN human settlements programme, UN-habitat, based in Nairobi, found that urban slums were growing faster than expected, and that the balance of global poverty was shifting rapidly from the countryside to cities.

Africa now has 20% of the world’s slum dwellers and Latin America 14%, but the worst urban conditions are in Asia, where more than 550 million people live in what the UN calls unacceptable conditions.

The emphasis on the word ‘unacceptable’ is mine. The UN in labeling something unacceptable is making a normative statement, not a positive statement. Meaning, the UN is saying that so many people living in slums should be unacceptable. Normative statements arise only in cases where the normative and the positive diverge. That is, when what is is not what should be. Here I argue that the reason that the reason so many people do live in squalid conditions is precisely because it is acceptable by all parties concerned.

Before you reject this seemingly idiotic stance, consider what it means for something to be unacceptable. If I accept something, I clearly cannot find it unacceptable. If I don’t totally and unconditionally reject it and somehow reluctantly accept it, it means that I don’t find it unacceptable. It is not ideal but it is not unacceptable either. If something were truly unacceptable, I would not accept it. So now consider the statement “550 million people living in unacceptable conditions.” They not only find it not unacceptable, but given that their numbers grow, they thrive in there. So slum dwellers find the slums acceptable in the strict sense of the word. So also, the rest of world which does not live in slums finds the existence of slums acceptable as well. If it were not acceptable, then they would have done something about it. There are ample resources in the world which if it were equitabley distributed would have resulted in a different outcome. The fact that this alternative distribution is feasible but not chosen reveals that the world as a whole prefers the unequal distribution. Therefore it is acceptable in the strict sense of the word.

I have just used what is called a revealed preference argument. If you really want to know what the preferences of an economic agent is, just note what they do rather than what they say. I don’t need to ask you whether you prefer tea or coffee at a particular time if I can simply observe you choosing tea over coffee when both were available to you. You would have revealed that you prefer tea over coffee by your choosing tea. The world has a billion people living in slums. The people of the world could choose an alternate state of being in which no one is forced to live in slums. The world chooses the former over the latter and therefore reveals its preference for the current setup.

The point I would like to stress is this: if poverty were truly unacceptable, then it would not exist given the technology and resources at the disposal of the global community. Both the poor and the rich are implied in this global community. The poor tolerate poverty as much as the rich do. I think I can explain why the poor accept poverty. I believe it has something to do with biology. The urge is for survival and therefore we adjust to unimaginably difficult conditions. People in concentration camps survive horrible deprivation. Slums are economic concentration camps. People survive. Life is Hobbesian (nasty, petty, mean, brutal, and short) but sufficiently large numbers survive so as to produce the next generation of slum dwellers. The poor breed poverty.

The rich and the powerful also tolerate poverty. If they did not, they would have mobilized against it and eradicated it. Poverty is not seen as unacceptable the way terrorism is seen as unacceptable. The US moves rapidly to spend hundreds of billions of dollars at real or imagined areas of terrorism. But it does fancy little for eradicating global poverty. A few hundred billion dollars every year would totally eradicate global poverty. But the US does not choose to wage a war against global poverty like it does against global terrorism. The rich are apparently quite comfortable with the idea of poverty. How else would one explain the persistence of poverty?

The house that I lived in is called Cloyne Court. It used to be a hotel and is even listed as a national historical monument. Cloyne Court housed about 150 students in about 80 single-, double-, and triple-occupancy rooms.

All household tasks such as cooking, cleaning, washing, and maintenance was done by the residents. In addition to our rent, we had to do five hours of ‘workshift’ every week. Like all other houses of the USCA, Cloyne Court had one common kitchen and one dinning hall for the 150 residents. Food was stocked in a huge pantry and in a walk-in freezer the size of a small apartment.

Under the best of circumstances, cooking is not an easy job. But for college students who can barely cook for themselves, the task of cooking for 150 people is well-near impossible. So dinner time was a real challenge. Around 6 pm, the dining hall would be crowded with students waiting for the food to show up from the kitchen.

The word may go around that there wasn’t much food that got cooked on some day. Perhaps the cooks weren’t very good and burnt half the stuff. Suddenly, there would be rush for the food as it was being brought out. All pretense of waiting for your turn would be dropped and pushing and shoving to get at the food would be so violent that half the food would end up on the floor.

If you were not quick, you were dead. If not dead, at least you’d have to order pizza to avoid starving.

During my one year at Cloyne Court, I learnt more economics than I could have imagined. I saw the tragedy of the commons revealed in all its stark reality. I understood why the Soviet Union collapsed. I learnt the common property problem and the problem of free-ridership.

I moved to a smaller house the next year. It was called the Convent because it used to be one before the USCA bought it. The Convent had 20 people and was restricted to graduate students. It was pretty well organized. Those who volunteered to cook were really into cooking. For 20 people, it was easy to cook enough that there was little chance of food running out. We all sat very calmly at the table while the food was passed around very politely. We had intelligent stimulating conversation at dinner. We had self-imposed rules: not taking any more than what we could eat, and cleaning up after ourselves.

The contrast between Cloyne Court and the Convent was stark and revealing.

For the record, here are the MDG:

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.
2. Achieve universal primary education.
3. Promote gender equality and empower women.
4. Reduce child mortality.
5. Improve maternal health.
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases.
7. Ensure environmental sustainability.
8. Develop a global partnership for development.

Poverty is manifested as an interrelated set of problems such as hunger, disease, child mortality, gender bias, and environmental degradation. All of the factors that the MDG seeks to address are causally related.

For instance, hunger is a consequence of poverty because even when the food supply is adequate, the poor suffer from hunger and malnutrition. Hunger and malnutrition is in part responsible for low productivity and low incomes. Low or even negative savings coupled with credit constraints do not allow investment in education. Lack of education leads to poor understanding of hygeine and health care, high birth rate and child mortality, and poor maternal health. Eliminating poverty therefore is a necessary condition for the eradication of the whole set of inter-related effects.

A Typology of Poverty

Poverty is the most common characteristic that defines the populations of developing countries. It can be broadly classified as income poverty and non-income poverty. Non-income poverty in terms of education, health-care, access to markets, etc., directly produce the income poverty that traps the average citizen of developing countries.

Thus, income poverty and non-income poverty are closely related. The problem appears almost intractable because the two kinds of poverty are mutually reinforcing. Any solution that does not address both kinds of poverty is unlikely to be successful in poverty alleviation. The question of how to raise huge populations out of this poverty trap is a formidable challenge that governments, multilateral organizations and policy makers face.

Another way of classifying poverty is to distinguish between urban and rural poverty. Urban poverty, to a certain degree, is the result of rural poverty. Often, lacking economic opportunities, rural populations are forced to migrate to urban areas. An excess rural migrant population which cannot be gainfully employed in the urban areas leads to urbanpoverty. Therefore, alleviating rural poverty is a precondition to solving a large part of the urban poverty.

The focus of the first Millennium Development Goal — Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger — therefore has to be rural poverty.