• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exposing the great 'poverty reduction' lie

David_N

David_N

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
6,562
Reaction score
2,769
Location
The United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I found this brilliant piece and it truly is disturbing.
Exposing the great 'poverty reduction' lie - Al Jazeera English
It is a comforting story, but unfortunately it is just not true. Poverty is not disappearing as quickly as they say. In fact, according to some measures, poverty has been getting significantly worse. If we are to be serious about eradicating poverty, we need to cut through the sugarcoating and face up to some hard facts.
Click to expand...
The most powerful expression of the poverty reduction narrative comes from the UN's Millennium Campaign. Building on the Millennium Declaration of 2000, the Campaign's main goal has been to reduce global poverty by half by 2015 - an objective that it proudly claims to have achieved ahead of schedule. But if we look beyond the celebratory rhetoric, it becomes clear that this assertion is deeply misleading.
Click to expand...
The world's governments first pledged to end extreme poverty during the World Food Summit in Rome in 1996. They committed to reducing the number of undernourished people by half before 2015, which, given the population at the time, meant slashing the poverty headcount by 836 million. Many critics claimed that this goal was inadequate given that, with the right redistributive policies, extreme poverty could be ended much more quickly.
Click to expand...
But instead of making the goals more robust, global leaders surreptitiously diluted it. Yale professor and development watchdog Thomas Pogge points out that when the Millennium Declaration was signed, the goal was rewritten as "Millennium Developmental Goal 1" (MDG-1) and was altered to halve the proportion (as opposed to the absolute number) of the world's people living on less than a dollar a day.
Click to expand...
By shifting the focus to income levels and switching from absolute numbers to proportional ones, the target became much easier to achieve. Given the rate of population growth, the new goal was effectively reduced by 167 million. And that was just the beginning.
Click to expand...
First, they changed it from halving the proportion of impoverished people in the world to halving the proportion of impoverished people in developing countries, thus taking advantage of an even faster-growing demographic denominator. Second, they moved the baseline of analysis from 2000 back to 1990, thus retroactively including all poverty reduction accomplished by China throughout the 1990s, due in no part whatsoever to the Millennium Campaign.
Click to expand...
This statistical sleight-of-hand narrowed the target by a further 324 million. So what started as a goal to reduce the poverty headcount by 836 million has magically become only 345 million - less than half the original number. Having dramatically redefined the goal, the Millennium Campaign can claim that poverty has been halved when in fact it has not. The triumphalist narrative hailing the death of poverty rests on an illusion of deceitful accounting.
Click to expand...
But there's more. Not only have the goalposts been moved, the definition of poverty itself has been massaged in a way that serves the poverty reduction narrative. What is considered the threshold for poverty - the "poverty line" - is normally calculated by each nation for itself, and is supposed to reflect what an average human adult needs to subsist. In 1990, Martin Ravallion, an Australian economist at the World Bank, noticed that the poverty lines of a group of the world's poorest countries clustered around $1 per day. On Ravallion's recommendation, the World Bank adopted this as the first-ever International Poverty Line (IPL).
Click to expand...
But the IPL proved to be somewhat troublesome. Using this threshold, the World Bank announced in its 2000 annual report that "the absolute number of those living on $1 per day or less continues to increase.
Click to expand...
The worldwide total rose from 1.2 billion in 1987 to 1.5 billion today and, if recent trends persist, will reach 1.9 billion by 2015." This was alarming news, especially because it suggested that the free-market reforms imposed by the World Bank and the IMF on Global South countries during the 1980s and 1990s in the name of "development" were actually making things worse.
Click to expand...
This amounted to a PR nightmare for the World Bank. Not long after the report was released, however, their story changed dramatically and they announced the exact opposite news: While poverty had been increasing steadily for some two centuries, they said, the introduction of free-market policies had actually reduced the number of impoverished people by 400 million between 1981 and 2001.
Click to expand...
 
This new story was possible because the Bank shifted the IPL from the original $1.02 (at 1985 PPP) to $1.08 (at 1993 PPP), which, given inflation, was lower in real terms. With this tiny change - a flick of an economist's wrist - the world was magically getting better, and the Bank's PR problem was instantly averted. This new IPL is the one that the Millennium Campaign chose to adopt.

The IPL was changed a second time in 2008, to $1.25 (at 2005 PPP). And once again the story improved overnight. The $1.08 IPL made it seem as though the poverty headcount had been reduced by 316 million people between 1990 and 2005. But the new IPL - even lower than the last, in real terms - inflated the number to 437 million, creating the illusion that an additional 121 million souls had been "saved" from the jaws of debilitating poverty. Not surprisingly, the Millennium Campaign adopted the new IPL, which allowed it to claim yet further chimerical gains.
Click to expand...
Just think about it. :shock:
 
The most powerful expression of the poverty reduction narrative comes from the UN's Millennium Campaign. Building on the Millennium Declaration of 2000, the Campaign's main goal has been to reduce global poverty by half by 2015 - an objective that it proudly claims to have achieved ahead of schedule.
Click to expand...

Not true. Big surprise, coming from AlJ.

The Millennium Campaign, as far back as 1996, has always been considered a 'pie in the sky' dream and is often cited in academic literature as evidence of a need for development policy reform. Like most UN initiatives, it was heavy on promises and light on resources.

The main reason is simple. Aid to developing countries is snatched by corrupt dictators and used to build palaces and pay cronies.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Not true. Big surprise, coming from AlJ.

The Millennium Campaign, as far back as 1996, has always been considered a 'pie in the sky' dream and is often cited in academic literature as evidence of a need for development policy reform. Like most UN initiatives, it was heavy on promises and light on resources.

The main reason is simple. Aid to developing countries is snatched by corrupt dictators and used to build palaces and pay cronies.
Click to expand...

This amounted to a PR nightmare for the World Bank. Not long after the report was released, however, their story changed dramatically and they announced the exact opposite news: While poverty had been increasing steadily for some two centuries, they said, the introduction of free-market policies had actually reduced the number of impoverished people by 400 million between 1981 and 2001.
Click to expand...
:shrug:
 
David_N said:
:shrug:
Click to expand...

The World Bank does not equal the UN. If you don't know that, you have no business in an international development debate.

Beside, I've no more faith that AlJ got that right than they did the ludicrous claim made about the UN. Honestly, unless someone was a complete idiot on world development, they wouldn't believe the claim I highlighted, so I guess the target audience of the article is obvious.

And I say this as someone that has criticized UN development policy for decades and as a matter of formal education. I agree, the UN has failed spectacularly. But the claim I pointed out is still false; AlJ is using a strawman.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
The World Bank does not equal the UN. If you don't know that, you have no business in an international development debate.

Beside, I've no more faith that AlJ got that right than they did the ludicrous claim made about the UN. Honestly, unless someone was a complete idiot on world development, they wouldn't believe the claim I highlighted, so I guess the target audience of the article is obvious.

And I say this as someone that has criticized UN development policy for decades and as a matter of formal education. I agree, the UN has failed spectacularly. But the claim I pointed out is still false; AlJ is using a strawman.
Click to expand...
Of course it doesn't, and I never claimed it did. Read the article, the way all of this **** is happening is disturbing and distorted.
 
ecofarm said:
The World Bank does not equal the UN. If you don't know that, you have no business in an international development debate.

Beside, I've no more faith that AlJ got that right than they did the ludicrous claim made about the UN. Honestly, unless someone was a complete idiot on world development, they wouldn't believe the claim I highlighted, so I guess the target audience of the article is obvious.

And I say this as someone that has criticized UN development policy for decades and as a matter of formal education. I agree, the UN has failed spectacularly. But the claim I pointed out is still false; AlJ is using a strawman.
Click to expand...

The entire article Isn't even about the UN.
 
David_N said:
Of course it doesn't, and I never claimed it did. Read the article, the way all of this **** is happening is disturbing and distorted.
Click to expand...

The "way all of this **** is happening" is made up by AlJ. AlJ took common knowledge (the UN's development policy/programs are a stark failure) and turned it into "we're exposing the truth!" when, in fact, it's fighting a strawman. The UN never claimed the Millennial goals were accomplished early. That's flat-out BS in attempt to play the hero exposing the Truth.

I hope you can separate the fact that UN policy has failed from "and we're saving everyone by exposing their lies". Because the latter is a load of crap.
 
ecofarm said:
The "way all of this **** is happening" is made up by AlJ. AlJ took common knowledge (the UN's development policy/programs are a stark failure) and turned it into "we're exposing the truth!" when, in fact, it's fighting a strawman. The UN never claimed the Millennial goals were accomplished early. That's flat-out BS in attempt to play the hero exposing the Truth.

I hope you can separate the fact that UN policy has failed from "and we're saving everyone by exposing their lies".
Click to expand...

Dude, the article doesn't even touch on the UN that much, maybe you should actually read it. :shrug:
 
David_N said:
Dude, the article doesn't even touch on the UN that much, maybe you should actually read it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I stopped reading when your quote displayed a flat-out lie and strawman.

I know more about UN development policy than I ever cared to and I've done actual work and research in developing nations, experiencing the failures (in all their forms and impacts) first hand. I've published about the failures of UN development policy and suggested solutions for more focused and effective programs.

And I know a strawman fight when I see one. AlJ is playing Alex Jones with the false claims about UN claims; "we're here to save you with the Truth" when there never was a lie.

If you'd like to debate UN development policy, free it from the AlJ strawman with a legit article.
 
ecofarm said:
I stopped reading when your quote displayed a flat-out lie and strawman.

I know more about UN development policy than I ever cared to and I've done actual work and research in developing nations, experiencing the failures (in all their forms and impacts) first hand. I've published about the failures of UN development policy and suggested solutions for more focused and effective programs.

And I know a strawman fight when I see one. AlJ is playing Alex Jones with the false claims about UN claims; "we're here to save you with the Truth" when there never was a lie.

If you'd like to debate UN development policy, free it from the AlJ strawman with a legit article.
Click to expand...
You don't get it, the article isn't even entirely about the UN. We both agree the UN is failing, the article touches on more then that.
 
ecofarm said:
I stopped reading when your quote displayed a flat-out lie and strawman.

I know more about UN development policy than I ever cared to and I've done actual work and research in developing nations, experiencing the failures (in all their forms and impacts) first hand. I've published about the failures of UN development policy and suggested solutions for more focused and effective programs.

And I know a strawman fight when I see one. AlJ is playing Alex Jones with the false claims about UN claims; "we're here to save you with the Truth" when there never was a lie.

If you'd like to debate UN development policy, free it from the AlJ strawman with a legit article.
Click to expand...
Deceitful usage of numbers and shifting the goal posts just a tiny bit.. I'd call that a lie to make something seem more successful then it is.
 
David_N said:
You don't get it, the article isn't even entirely about the UN. We both agree the UN is failing, the article touches on more then that.
Click to expand...

When the article, very early on, makes false claims about the UN as a way to prop itself up as the savior, I don't need to read further.

I'm aware of the failings of the IMF and WB (actually, the IMF is more directly responsible for developing world loans, the WB deals with developed countries). The IMF is basically the "poor country division" of the WB. I'm aware of the UN's responsibility therein. I'm aware of the strings, good and bad, as well as outright blunders resulting from a lack of scientific or local knowledge.

There are so many problems with the UN's, WB/IMF's and other organizations' development policy and projects, we could fill several books.

But all of that takes a back seat to AlJ's claims of being the hero. I reject that sort of "journalism", no matter the subject.
 
ecofarm said:
When the article, very early on, makes false claims about the UN as a way to prop itself up as the savior, I don't need to read further.

I'm aware of the failings of the IMF and WB (actually, the IMF is more directly responsible for developing world loans, the WB deals with developed countries. The IMF is basically the "poor country division" of the WB. I'm aware of the UN's responsibility therein. I'm aware of the strings, good and bad, as well as outright blunders resulting from a lack of scientific or local knowledge.

There are so many problems with the UN's, WB/IMF's and other organizations development policy and projects, we could fill several books.

But all of that takes a back seat to AlJ's claims of being the hero. I reject that sort of "journalism", no matter the subject.
Click to expand...

Eco, please, please read the article, and demonstrate the false claims. The article DISCUSSES THE DISTORTIONS used, and touches on so much more.
 
ecofarm said:
When the article, very early on, makes false claims about the UN as a way to prop itself up as the savior, I don't need to read further.

I'm aware of the failings of the IMF and WB (actually, the IMF is more directly responsible for developing world loans, the WB deals with developed countries). The IMF is basically the "poor country division" of the WB. I'm aware of the UN's responsibility therein. I'm aware of the strings, good and bad, as well as outright blunders resulting from a lack of scientific or local knowledge.

There are so many problems with the UN's, WB/IMF's and other organizations' development policy and projects, we could fill several books.

But all of that takes a back seat to AlJ's claims of being the hero. I reject that sort of "journalism", no matter the subject.
Click to expand...


Um, this is a persons article published on ALJ, ALJ doesn't directly endorse it.
 
David_N said:
Deceitful usage of numbers and shifting the goal posts just a tiny bit.. I'd call that a lie to make something seem more successful then it is.
Click to expand...

Given AlJ's obvious lie, I don't believe that happened. At least, not nearly to the extent AlJ is claiming. So, you see... the debate becomes not about development policy but the claims AlJ makes about the WB.

David_N said:
Um, this is a persons article published on ALJ, ALJ doesn't directly endorse it.
Click to expand...

I suppose the strawman/savior routine is less horrible if its an editorial.
 
ecofarm said:
Given AlJ's obvious lie, I don't believe that happened. At least, not nearly to the extent AlJ is claiming. So, you see... the debate becomes not about development policy but the claims AlJ makes about the WB.



I suppose the strawman/savior routine is less horrible if its an editorial.
Click to expand...

What lie are you talking about? Dude, if you won't even bother to read a short article, why are you responding? You seem cool to..
 
David_N said:
Eco, please, please read the article, and demonstrate the false claims. The article DISCUSSES THE DISTORTIONS used, and touches on so much more.
Click to expand...

This, in bold, is a flat-out lie:

Building on the Millennium Declaration of 2000, the Campaign's main goal has been to reduce global poverty by half by 2015 - an objective that it proudly claims to have achieved ahead of schedule.
Click to expand...

How can I skip over that and give any credit to other claims in the article? I can't.
 
David_N said:
So, will you read the article now? There wasn't a lie.
Click to expand...

Ok, did. I suppose it's fair enough. As I noted, even before reading the article, including China's cooked books is crap.
 
ecofarm said:
Ok, did. I suppose it's fair enough. As I noted, even before reading the article, including China's cooked books is crap.
Click to expand...

Yep. I believe we seriously need to take a look at the blatant goal post moving and distortions taking place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom