Gatherings | Seminars & Other Special Projects | NGO/UN Activities
Activities - Gatherings
Seeking an Ethical Framework for Poverty Reduction
May 2003 - White
Paper (PDF/103KB)
The last meeting of the Circle
held at American Academy of Arts and Science, 136 Irving Street,
Cambridge, MA 02136, was devoted to the subject: “Enriching the
Process of Socialization.” The rich discussion covered many
issues including spiritual dimensions, ethical dilemmas, the
current impact of the various intermediary institutions, and the
critical infant/ mother relationship and opportunities for the
rich and the poor.
This meeting will build on the past discussion and extend to new
ground in our search to bring more attention to the need to
enrich the public policy discourse on social progress with ideas
and values drawn from the great philosophies, cultures,
religions and other rational but not necessarily scientific
sources of knowledge on which wisdom is based.
The letter sent to you on the 13th of April suggested that the
subject of discussion for this gathering be focused on ethics
and poverty reduction. The rational for this choice was three
fold.
-
First, as noted above, the Triglav
circle was created in the aftermath of the Social Summit, held
in Copenhagen in 1995, in which governments expressed their
determination “to address more effectively the material and
spiritual needs of individuals their families and the
communities in which they live.” The Summit also proclaimed that
the “elimination of poverty” was an “ethical imperative.”
-
Second, after the Summit, the
international community, as represented by the international
organizations including the UNDP and the World Bank, has decided
to make the reduction and “elimination of poverty,” the most
important objective of international cooperation and therefore
the center of the relations between developed and developing
countries. The United Nations Millennium Declaration reflects
this decision.
-
Third, the United Nations University is
interested in the ethical framework[s] that sustain efforts to
reduce poverty and a research project submitted a few weeks ago,
if accepted, may involve the Triglav Circle. The letter of 13
April, of course, referred to the present international
situation and asked if this situation was “an expression of a
pathological form of poverty of the spirit that is recurrent in
human history.”
 With this background, and given the
vocation of the circle, this meeting offers an opportunity for
the expression of a wide range of views on poverty and on the
reasons that people and institutions try to reduce or eliminate
it. Two themes, and a few questions under each are suggested
below to help organize these reflections.
Theme I—Defining poverty and its opposite
International institutions refer to poverty as a condition of
people in developing countries—-also as a condition of these
countries, themselves, often labeled “poor countries”—, define
it in relation to the availability of a certain level of
income—see the famous “one billion people with less than a
dollar a day” of the World Bank—, and identify its reduction
with the progress of a country along a number of indicators,
including income per capita, level of infant mortality,
enrollment ratios, prevalence of slums, and, number of
telephones, televisions, and internet access. Governments
operate along the same logical lines. They identify poor regions
and communities, poor urban areas, pockets of poverty, and poor
and vulnerable groups.
Among possible questions to address:
Why do international organizations never refer to poverty in
developed countries? Is it simply a question of numbers and
magnitudes? Is it to keep the distinction between developed and
developing countries? Or is it because the recognition of
poverty in otherwise affluent countries would put in question
the prevalent model of development?
How do individuals themselves perceive their poverty or the
poverty of their fellow citizens? What is the part of the
material elements, such as those recognized by international
organizations and development, and the part of such non material
dimensions as control over one’s life, the meaning or purpose of
one’s life, social recognition, and hopes for one’s children?
To what extent are those non material or human spirit dimensions
of poverty as experienced by individuals, determined or related
to those aspects which are now recognized by international
institutions and governments?
How does human dignity fit into the picture? Is it a tool to be
used to get out of poverty, to accept poverty, or to be given to
the person with poverty reduction?
Is the implicit opposite of poverty disseminated by
international organizations, which is the condition of the
average middle class family of a developed country, a
legitimate, viable, and mobilizing alternative?
Is material wealth the opposite of poverty, or is harmony with
the self the true opposite of poverty?
What are the definitions and conceptions attached to poverty in
non-western cultures, e.g. China and Egypt, and in Latin
America?
Are there other elements to be considered?
Theme 2—Elements of an Ethical Framework for approaching the
issue of poverty
 Current efforts of international organizations and governments
to reduce or eliminate poverty in the developing world are based
on a certain number of explicit and implicit values. The
“ethical imperative” mentioned at the Social Summit has never
been defined but some elements are often mentioned. Solidarity
is one of these elements, but the practical consequences of
“solidarity” among and within countries are left largely
unexplored. Solidarity tends to be associated with private
initiatives—the traditional charity—and with the role of
non-governmental organizations. The relation between reduction
of poverty and the questions of stability and peace is sometimes
mentioned, more so, since the events of 9/11. Without much
evidence, it is said that the poor country and poor groups are
fertile grounds for unrest and terrorism. This is a modern
version of the 19th century identification of “working classes”
with “dangerous classes.” It shows that fear is one of the
motives for trying to “help” poor people and poor countries.
There are also arguments of “waste” of talents and energy that
would be useful for economic growth and development and that are
now unused because of poverty.
The need for social integration and cohesion is sometimes
mentioned as a justification for bringing people at a level
above poverty. Very noticeable since the last decade, is the
fact that the reduction or elimination of poverty is presented
in international documents and by governments themselves as
requiring no particular sacrifice on the part of the countries
or social groups who happen to be wealthy. Redistributive
measures are no longer on the agenda. On the other hand, the
numerous private organizations which at the international and
national levels are advocating the reduction of poverty and are
actually expressing solidarity with the poor seem to be
operating on the basis of traditional values, such as charity,
compassion, sympathy and the belief in social justice.
Among possible questions to consider are the following?
There is no evidence that the recent focus of IO’s on the
reduction of poverty has yielded any real positive results. Are
the approaches based on erroneous concepts and assumptions?
What elements for an ethical framework can be drawn from
traditional philosophies and religions to approach issues of
poverty and wealth today?
To what extent is poverty related to materialism?
Philosophically, culturally, and politically?
 Is “reduction and elimination of poverty” the right approach,
individually and collectively? In the same manner that a person
should try to attain his/her full potential rather than obtain a
“minimum level of income,” should a developing country and the
developing world as a whole be struggling for poverty reduction
or for wealth creation in its material and non material
manifestations?
What elements in the present approach should be rejected in the
future? Imposition of outside cultural values? The singular
paradigm of a developed society?
Should the ethical framework address all people and not single
out the poor in developing countries?
How can one reduce material poverty and enhance the good
characteristics found in many the poor societies, notably
spontaneity of creativity, untutored artistic expression,
hospitality, happiness? And, at the same time avoid the
contagion of the pitfalls of overdevelopment? |
