"Designer poverty": it cannot be far away
01/09/2008
Sadly "poverty" must be one of the most overused words around these days. It is a pity because people matter hugely and in a way concepts like "poverty" distract from the real people whose life is at stake. But even so I guess we are all getting fed up as everyone tries to join the bandwaggon with each neologism "child poverty", "fuel poverty", "social poverty", "fighting poverty", "relative policy", "ending poverty"... what next "digital TV poverty", "gameboy poverty" "satellite poverty" or even "designer poverty" (spending more than 10% of your income on designer clothes)? The mind boogles. Increasingly these seem to have little to do with charity or those in need and more and more to do with politics.
Perhaps politicians like the idea of "poverty" because it makes charity all about politics: trying to put political action on a par with charitable giving. Isn't it tempting to alleviate your feeling that you should be giving something by making out that political action (which doesn't involve your pocket) is somehow better. I wonder if charity is really a nuisance to government, or simply seen as a tremendous opportunity for extra cash. There is a consistency between moves to get charities to provide public services (so that our donations subsidise taxation) and the blur between "good causes" (i.e. replacement tax funding) in the lottery funds with proper charities. If they regard all the things the government does with billions of pounds as "good causes" (which presumably they do or they wouldn't spend it) how dare anyone give to anything else?
The cynic amongst us cries that many charities also find the term convenient too. "Fighting poverty" is such a broad term that a charity could even include sending out bulk junk mail in the UK or TV campaigns as part of its "fight". That can't be what it is all about.
Is it getting better?
And there is such a confusion of definitions that you can prove anything you want from them. People probably just don't believe the statistics any more. Poverty is often in terms of absolute or relative poverty. Absolute poverty compares how someone lives compared a fixed standard, for example the percentage of people eating less food than is required to live healthily. The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than a dollar day on which basis the number of people in extreme poverty has halved over the last two decades or so. This improvement is good (but that's still a a billion people including more than 300 million in Africa, where the number is increasing).
So what should we do?
It is hard not to raise an eye brow at politicians (or rock stars) who seek a political solution to what is considered a political problem caused by politicians. There are very few success models for where things have got better as a result of trying to pressure foreign governments to behave differently. Some parts of the world have improved from within (South America and China perhaps) others have got worse because of their leadership. But neither the success nor failure is the fault of the child alone with nothing. A proven track record at improving their lot in life is more success than most others can show for themselves and as a charity we will stick to our strengths. And if a flying pig drops an end to poverty onto Africa we will be the first to celebrate it, but in the meantime by sponsoring a child we will know we have made a real difference.