The World Over 200 Years

This is a pretty interesting video showing the progression of every country in the world over the last 200 years, accounting for health and income. Overall, the video is very optimistic about the prospects for developing countries. Overall, I agree with what the narrator has to say. Over the last 200 years, living conditions have improved dramatically in most countries. People are living longer, and being more productive, than in the past. If the trend the video predicts is true, why does it seem many people are pessimistic about the prospects of development for many countries? Overall, do we have more reason to be optimistic or pessimistic about the future?
At the end of the video, the narrator touches on the subject of inequalities within regions, focusing on China. Although the topic is mentioned, the issue does not seem to be as important as the overall statistics for countries  Would it be true to argue that inequality within countries is actually a more critical part of overall well-being than the numbers for the whole of the population? I think it would be interesting to see a similar video made with one access representing the Gini value for each country; as GDP may increase overall, inequality may increase quicker, causing a region to become worse off.
One other interesting thing to keep in mind when watching this video is that the axis for wealth is on a logarithmic scale (with $4,000 being the midpoint between $400 and $40,000). At the end of the video, it appears the bulk of the countries sit somewhere in the middle of the chart in regards to wealth. However, most of these countries are much poorer than they appear on the graph.
Despite these few things, I think we have reason to be optimistic about the future of most countries. Overall, conditions are improving around the world, and I think this trend will continue to held true in the upcoming years.

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/200-years-that-changed-the-world-bbc/

In response to Lorraine's post: "Is it crazy to think we can eradicate poverty?"

I really enjoyed reading Lorraine’s post on the article “Is It Crazy To Think We Can Eradicate Poverty?” The comment on how this goal of everyone living above $1.25 per day is “too little a goal” was most interesting to me. I before never questioned whether that was a reasonable goal. Even if a family does live above $1.25 per day it does not mean they are in a living condition one would deem as not living in poverty. Or as Pritchett who was interviewed in for this article commented on that it just meant they are “ barely getting by”. Thinking back on the article I wondered if it is even fair to say that once everyone does achieve living on $1.25 or more per day, poverty has been eradicated. It makes me wonder if this standard was made just to make developed countries feel better about their efforts and also keep those efforts to a minimum while they attend to their other responsibilities? Was it more out of convenience and making this goal more manageable for developing countries. There is probably already much debate about this but these are just my own after-thoughts from reading the article and blog post. I guess I have become more skeptical about why this goal was created if it is known that living on that amount does not significantly improve one’s life. Of course little improvement is always better than no improvement but if living at or just above $1.25 per day is considered eradicating poverty then I am not so confident that poverty can really be eradicated when goals are set so low. Not to say this should not be a goal but that it should not be the mark of ending poverty. I would consider this goal to be more of a step in the process of eradicating poverty. I guess this is where the idea of romanticism of poverty from GPP 115 comes into play. To think that living above $1.25 a day is not living in poverty is like thinking that if you only smoke 2 cigarettes a day instead of a pack then you will not get lung cancer. Though we know that it may be that you have a lesser risk of developing cancer compared to someone who smokes a pack a day. In the end both are still at a very high risk of getting lung cancer because they are still smoking. The problem of lung cancer has not gone away and neither is poverty if living on $1.25 or more per day is considered not living in poverty.  It would only mean that the risk of an individual not able to getting three meals a day is less than for someone who is living on a lesser amount. And to add another point, once this WB goal is met what will happen next or will anything happen at all after that? So I guess my response to the article’s title would be, “yes”, if we keep handling poverty alleviation in this way and not making those drastic changes needed and if developing countries “don’t get their act together”.

Is It Crazy To Think We Can Eradicate Poverty?

Earlier this week, my phone updated me on an article from the New York Times with this title "Is it Crazy To Think We Can Eradicate Poverty?".

Being a GPP Minor, anything with poverty in an article is something I am deeply curious on reading about. So I read on...

The author of this article, Annie Lowery, explores the different dimensions of poverty eradication on both sides of the argument. In late April at the IMG & World Bank Conference, Jim Young Kim, the president of the World Bank writes "2030" on a piece of paper and claims that this is the global target to end poverty. This part of the article I thought was a reminder of GPP 115 with the Millennium Development Goals for 2015. As Lowery has her own reservations about eradicating poverty, she interviews Jeffery Sachs who has the utmost faith in the 2030 goal, and believes that it is absolutely feasible. Nany Birdsall, president of the Center of Global Development, also has the same sentiments as Sachs.

The World Bank aims for everyone to be above $1.25 each day, but there are many counter arguments to this aim. Stuies show that 1/2 or 3/4 of most families' income goes towards food. Other expenses become put in the back burner, and that's what categorizes people in the poverty pool; their lack of resources. Even though, the Millennium Development Goals achieved their goal "early" in 2010 when there was a 21% drop in poverty rates from the 43 % in 1990, there are still many factors to take into account. This statistic did not take into account the shift from labor intensive work to capital intensive work. This switch caused an uprising in the economics, but the shift resulted from rural movement to urban movement. These movements were caused by the time era and the eruption of technology. Each country has their own governmental and economical issues that expecting to eradicate poverty by 2030 is expecting all the countries to be in the same level of playing field. 

Lowery interviews a developmental researcher, Pritchett who criticizes the WB's goal that $1.25 is too little. It is "penurious, charity like, and not development." Expecting people to live above $1.25 is not going to help their economic being. It is not development, he argues, but barely getting by. Pritchett argues that poverty cannot be eradicated if the goal is only to live above $1.25. There would need to be more changes, and the goal needs to be higher if we expect development. 

Poverty and development are two different worlds. Eradicating poverty cannot be done by simply hoping and expecting the impoverish population to live above $1.25. Poverty is a lifestyle, and within that lifestyle, the only way it could be lifted is if there was development. The development of a better infrastructure of the economy or government, or the living situations. It cannot be done by each individual. 

The last part of this article is what stood out to me, and what caused me to write about it.

“The developing world has gotten its act together,” Birdsall says. But poverty reduction “depends on the advanced economies getting their act together, too.”

There are so many factors as to how to "fight" poverty. I only hope that the world and those who have power, would be able to soon see that.

Read Article Here

Neglected Tropical Diseases

I am currently taking Public Health 112 - Global Health: A Multidisciplinary Examination. I highly recommend it to any GPP students who are interested in the intersections between poverty and health. (It's a GPP elective course so I was able to get a CEC from the minor!)

In any case, a topic came up that struck me - neglected tropical diseases or NTDs. These are non-fatal diseases - ones that do not have high mortality, yet they are extremely high in morbidity - the burden of disease. Other types of diseases or disorders that have high morbidity include diarrhea, heart disease, stroke, and neck pain. They are a group of arguably 33 diseases - 13 of which have the highest disease burdens include helminthic and protozoan infections such as ascariasis, schistosomiasis, and lymphatic filariasis. I would not be surprised if no one has heard of these terms before because I certainly did not. So why am I posting about this? NTDs disproportionately affects the bottom billion  - the individuals and families that are the poorest of the world. Hotez et al (article) suspect that almost every person in the bottom billion suffers from at least one of these diseases. NTDs feed into the cyclic nature of the poverty trap because those who suffer from NTDs are so burdened by the disease that they cannot work most of time, reducing their economic potential, and at the same time NTDs treatment is expensive. These two factors inadvertently affect a person's ability to escape from the poverty trap. But NTDs do not only affect the bottom billion; there are numerous cases of NTDs such as Chaga's disease right here in America (article). These diseases are detrimental and there is much work that needs to be done in this area.

Thus, the reason I feel the need to post about this is for the N in NTDs - neglected. There is an enormous lack of knowledge and awareness of these diseases, yet not much funding nor research has been done in this area. An incredible number of people are affected each year by these diseases and the general public does not know of them. Many people know malaria, HIV/AIDs, and tuberculosis. I am not advocating to stop research in those areas because that would be - to put it bluntly, stupid. What I am advocating for is increasing the awareness and support for research in other diseases that so dangerously affect those that are the most vulnerable in this world.

I have added a video here to watch. It's part of a campaign to reduce the prevalence and effects of 7 of the most burdening of NTDs. These diseases can be prevented by just one packet of pills that costs only $0.50. That's 50 cents. If enough people join in the effort, the world can see the end of all 7 of these diseases by 2020.

There are even some celebrities in it (Emily Blunt, Tom Felton, etc.) I hope you all watch it! It's incredibly moving though I must warn you, it can be disturbing!!

Debating the Ethics of Poverty

It's hard to say what the bound ethical constraints are when dealing with issues of solving poverty.  A huge issue or debate surrounding my practice experience is the ethical nature of making money off the poor.  But doesn't that question itself have a moral dilemma of treating the poor as the other and as one that should strictly be in the business of charity and donations.  Doesn't the BOP also have the right to be able to purchase items that can be made affordable to them that also happen to address some urgent or dire need that will not only improve their quality of life, but perhaps their health or circumstances?  This debate rages through much of the world and is similar or parallel to the emerging concept of voluntourism. The follies of voluntourism are numerous as laid out by the video linked here.  Many people assume they are doing good by paying money to agencies who go and volunteer but ends up having detrimental consequences on those it actually serves.  Many times it creates dependency and stress on communities and increases poverty in areas.  It also makes poverty a part of a tourism industry where you can volunteer as a tourist experience.  This change in thinking runs parallel to treating the poor as the other as opposed to the familiar with different circumstances.  This debate has no right answer as there are always situational issues involved.

The Roma

Most I've met in GPP are aware that I have a lot of interest in issues in Europe, as I will be doing my PE in Ukraine this summer. However, one issue of particular interest of mine is the issue of Roma communities in Europe. This is something I have not had the chance to talk to many people about. When I was initially looking into opportunities for my PE, I wanted to end up working with the Roma population in some way. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any organizations that were doing work in this field that interested me.

For those who aren't aware of Roma issues in Europe, here's some background. The Roma are the largest ethnic minority in Europe. Roma communities exist in just about every country in Europe, to varying degrees. This population is also one of the most impoverished in Europe and widely discriminated against. Many people also view the Roma as a self-segregating group, living in their own cities and villages and not assimilating with other European communities. Many Roma individuals speak Romani (their own language) in addition to the language of the country where they reside (French, Slovakian, Ukrainian, etc.)

This article tells the story of a photographer who traveled to the Roma village of Jarovnice, Slovakia, in order to document the experiences of the people he met. He depicts the community in a very positive light. According to the article, many of the problems Roma communities face come from institutionalized discrimination, and government deprivation of education, employment opportunities, and basic amenities and infrastructure.

Around a year ago, when I was in the Czech Republic, I met a photographer doing a similar study. This person was working in the city of Košice, Slovakia (around 60km south of Jarovnice). His opinion on the topic was completely different. He described to me how Roma communities are one of the most heavily subsidized groups in Europe. The governments of many countries were more than happy to provide basic services and infrastructure, however, the use of these services by the Roma were the real problem. He showed me pictures of apartment complexes in Košice that had been recently built by the Slovakian government, but had been torn apart by their inhabitants. Members of the community would tear plumbing out of the walls of these buildings in order to sell the metal, and then move to another apartment complex to do the same. According to many likeminded people throughout Europe, the Roma people have dug themselves into poverty, both by behavior like that which I've described with the apartment buildings and by self-segregating and not assimilating with other communities. Many attempts have been made to raise the standards of living of the Roma, but none of these attempts have worked because of the lack of cooperation of the Roma people.

This is a very important issue throughout Europe and I think the contrast in opinions is extremely interesting. I have not decided for myself which viewpoint I find more convincing. I'd love to talk to anybody that's interested in the issue about this, and I hope by reading this, you've learned something about the subject.

http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/looking-past-poverty-life-roma-ghettos

When is asylum a good idea?

A recent has event has come up within the realm of refugees and asylum seekers, a field that is arguably linked to poverty work in many ways, which I think is really interesting. This story has the potential to shape the way Americans view refugee law and set a new precedent to the granting of asylum in the future.

A German family, having moved to the United States in 2008, is seeking to gain asylum status in the United States and avoid deportation back to Germany. The family claims that they have been discriminated against as a social group in Germany because they have home-schooled their children. The family claims that education and the right to educate one's own children is a fundamental human right and claim the law against home-schooling in the country is a violation of international human rights. If the family returns to Germany, the parents face possible incarceration and loss of custody of their children.

In the most recent ruling, a judge decided asylum would not be granted because home-schoolers do not constitute a "social group." The family has been applying to appeal this decision. Although events in the US and Germany do not directly concern developing nations, there are many implications for impoverished communities worldwide. Suppose asylum were granted to the family. Would this lower the bar for other asylum seekers from developing countries attempting to enter the United States for more legitimate reasons (under the assumption that persecution of home schooling is not a legitimate reason)? J. Thomas Ordóñez describes many of the difficulties such individuals face in an article we read earlier this semester. Assuming the US grants the German family asylum but does not begin admitting a larger number of asylum seekers, would this imply a sort of systemic racism when it comes to the granting of asylum? And does such a thing already exist in US policies? I'm curious to hear the thoughts of others on this. Immigration and the status of refugees is a very important and contentious issue that deserves more discussion.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/home-schooling-german-family-fights-deportation/story?id=18842383#.UYGvS6KORMh

Cynicism and our PE's

Antonina Entler

4-30-13

The last few weeks I have spoken with several fellow GPP 105 students and I have gotten the impression that the critical analysis of our PE orgs we have been undertaking has gotten some people down, even cynical. This is completely understandable since critical analysis breaks things down into so many pieces and finds so many faults that it is easy to feel like there is no approach we can take, nothing we can do to help, without failing in some aspect. However, when we fall into cynicism we risk becoming paralyzed by it and stuck within it-- as Professor Robert Reich said in his blog, “Cynicism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.” If we begin our PEs with a cynical attitude, we will not be able to see past the flaws and will be unable to learn and grow from the experience. As Reich also said, “the alternative to cynicism is to become more involved,” meaning that the only way for us to break through our doubts and fears is to wholly throw ourselves into this new experience-- aware of the flaws, but open to the possibilities.

            Identifying the problem is the first step toward making a change. Any recovering alcoholic can tell you that. What I mean is that because we have first identified the limitations of our PEs we will begin our practice experience already be aware of many of the flaws, and will be able to get right down to the business of understanding how those flaws could be/ are attempted to be mitigated. Because of this framework we have already built we may be able to give our orgs some really constructive feedback (or  maybe not). Either way, some of our experiences will be positive and some will be negative, but they will all be learning experiences. In a larger perspective, even this experience will be only one in a long process of learning and growing that will help us to become the people we want to be, taking the actions that we hope to take, but from a very grounded and realistic level. Our PE experience, combined with future endeavors, will help us to decide which forms of poverty alleviation we find the most intriguing and appropriate. Isn’t that what this all boils down to? Every approach can be critiqued to death, but in the end, for each of us, isn’t this about finding the approach that we personally are excited about-- even after knowing its flaws?

See: http://robertreich.org/post/34302125733

'Meducating' our children: is Adderall the magic bullet?

By Vivian Nguyen

I recently read a New York Times article published back in October of 2012 which discussed an alarming trend in some poor communities around America: physicians with low-income patients are prescribing elementary school kids powerful attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (A.D.H.D.) medicine in order to boost academic performance. 

Dr. Anderson, a pediatrician for many poor families in Cherokee County, Georgia, is one such physician. He prescribes the pills not for A.D.H.D but rather to treat what he considers the children's true illness - poor academic performance in inadequate schools. According to the article, Dr. Anderson states that "I don't have a whole lot of choice. We've decided as a society that it's too expensive to modify the kid's environment. So we have to modify the kid." 

His statement got me thinking about something that we've discussed many times in GPP - the importance of how an issue is framed and how that framing produces certain solutions. If we believe that the education system is broken, then a structural remedy is called for. But if we believe that it is the children themselves who are broken, then the answer is to fix the kids. 

Given that the costs of implementing structural change are high, the cost-effective idea of fixing the issue at the individual level can be tempting. However, I personally disagree with Dr. Anderson's claim that we've decided as a society that "it's too expensive to modify the kid's environment." The issue isn't so much finance as it is convenience. We, as Americans, desire quick fixes. It is much easier for doctors to simply prescribe a child Adderall and see an immediate improvement in test results than it is to restructure our entire public education system. With just a flick of their pen, physicians have the power to significantly improve the education outcomes of America's poorest kids. The children have a better chance to succeed, their parents support the physician's decision (since the cost of Adderall is covered by Medicaid) and we as a society all benefit. Seems too good to be true?

That's because it is. Just because something is convenient in the short term doesn't mean that the long-term consequences won't be dire. In fact, as the article points out, many proponents of "meducation" have admitted to not knowing the potential hazards of prescribing these powerful and highly addictive pills to young kids. And because of that, this whole idea sounds like a huge gamble. We are essentially experimenting on poor kids from vulnerable communities and replicating the experiments just because we've seen some short term successes. This isn't science - it's exploitation. We are naive if we, as a society, have truly decided that that adderall is the "magic bullet" to fixing our education system.    

Although the battle over how to improve education in America will continue on for many years, one this is clear to me now - meducating our children is not the answer. 

You can find the original NYT article here.

Building relations between Sinhalese and Tamil people

            The organization I will be working with this summer, Sarvodaya, has been doing a lot of relief and rehabilitation work in the war-torn northern regions of Sri Lanka. For some context, the war was fought between the Tamil liberation fighters (the LTTE) and the Sri Lankan army. The Tamil people were fighting for their own independent state within Sri Lanka. The civil war in Sri Lanka was above all an ethnic conflict. The Sinhalese and Tamil cultures are vastly different. The two groups speak different languages and practice different religions; most Sinhalese people are Buddhist, while most Tamil people are Hindu. Although the war ended in 2010, there is still much hostility between the two groups, as well as a certain distrust.

            Sarvodaya does a lot of work in the regions affected by the war. Part of their work deals with physical infrastructure projects, such as building homes and clean-water wells. Other projects deal with community building and empowerment. Sarvodaya also runs meditation and spiritual programs based on Buddhist practices. I found this interesting because many regions in northern Sri Lanka are primarily Tamil. From what I know about the organization’s work, their religious programs do not involve the Hindu religion. They do not have any cultural programs that cater to the Tamil demographic. Because Sarvodaya does a lot of work in the conflict-affected area, I think it is important for them to think about the people who are receiving their services, and tailor their programs to that demographic.

            I believe it is important to integrate the Tamil people into the Sri Lankan community. The war began because of the ethnic difference between the two groups, and these differences of language and religion still exist. They must be addressed in order to prevent any future conflict or alienation. There is a lot of deep-seated mistrust and sometimes dislike between the Sinhalese and Tamil peoples, a result of decades of fighting. In order to effectively rebuild the country, rebuilding the physical and health infrastructure is not enough. Sarvodaya can implement different social and education programs to bridge the gap between the two groups. Sarvodaya runs its programs in over half the villages in Sri Lanka, so it reaches a very large population. Sarvodaya could also focus on bringing Sri Lankan and Tamil children together as a way to change the mindset of the future generation. Sarvodaya has the resources to run these programs as well. Social integration programs can help rebuild the relationships between the Sri Lankan and Tamil people in the conflict-affected areas and help build a sense of community between these groups. I think Sarvodaya is doing good work in rebuilding the war-torn areas, but they could be doing more to build solid relationships between the Sri Lankan and Tamil people.