Skip to content
Advertisements

Generations of over-ambition?

August 24, 2014
tags:

Owen Barder lists 21 people who have claimed over the last century that ours is the first generation that can eradicate poverty. In 1919 Woodrow Wilson declared that “For the first time in history the counsels of mankind are to be drawn together and concerted for the purpose of defending the rights and improving the conditions of working people”.

This month Eric Solheim, chair of the OECD Development Assistance Committee, became the latest: “We are the first generation in history with ability to eradicate extreme poverty from the planet. The great kings, caliphs and emperors of the past would not have known how to go about it or how to pay for it.”

Owen’s unspoken point seems to be [Some people] argue that they’re all wrong, that social planners with their grand designs have repeatedly failed to eradicate poverty so they should probably stop trying. People like Owen [Some people] argue that poverty reduction is probably better achieved from the bottom up, using markets instead of goal-setting.

[NB. Owen says in the comments that this isn’t his view, that we need to “will the means and the ends”. Very sensibly this implies that it’s not enough just to promote targets; we should also make mechanisms and funding available to achieve those goals. People like William Easterly are probably more typical critics of social planning and grand designs. Here’s some more anti-goalism.]

Hold on a minute. A century is a tiny droplet in the ocean of human history. Just because a few high-minded world leaders came up short of their ambitions in the last few decades doesn’t mean the world should abandon its worthy goal.

The range of figures Owen cites is striking: from British Prime Minister David Cameron, to Jim Kim, president of the World Bank, to Tony Blair, Nelson Mandela, the Heritage Foundation, Henry Kissinger and John F. Kennedy.

Surely the unanimity of their ambition means something? It’s encouraging that right-wing warmongers and deified leftists can agree not only on the desirability of reducing world poverty but also that they predict poverty’s demise. It must be about the only thing such a wide range of political figures agree on! Some of them must know — at least a little bit — what they’re talking about. And if it’s just rhetoric, the politicians are presumably responding to popular demand for social justice.

World poverty has tumbled dramatically in the last century. Without goals to aspire to, without leaders setting targets, surely poverty reduction would have been a lot less. In my mind it’s probably despite the increasing domination of markets that poverty’s fallen, not because of it. After all the Washington Consensus period of liberalisation has been widely condemned by poverty specialists, partly because it brought a fall in African per capita incomes during the 1980s.

Solheim’s half-right: the kings, caliphs and emperors not only wouldn’t have known how to eradicate or pay for the eradication of extreme poverty, they wouldn’t have wanted to. Slavery, destitution and unspeakable inequality were central to those pre-democratic societies. Ours is the first epoch in which ending poverty is seen as either desirable or possible.

In another context the historian Eric Hobsbawm in his autobiography cites a late 1980s play by an East German dramatist called The Knights of the Round Table:

“What is their future? wonders Lancelot. ‘The people outside don’t want to know any more about the grail and the round table… They no longer believe in our justice and our dream’… Does he himself still believe in the grail? ‘I don’t know,’ says Lancelot. ‘I can’t answer the question. I can’t say yes or no…’ No, they may never find the grail. But is not King Arthur right when he says that what is essential is not the grail but the quest for it? ‘If we give up on the grail, we give up on ourselves.’ “

“Only on ourselves?” asks Hobsbawm. “Can humanity live without the ideals of freedom and justice, or without those who devote their lives to them?”

————————————————–

Hobsbwam, E. (2005) Interesting Times: A Twentieth-Century Life, The New Press, New York: p.151

Advertisements
8 Comments leave one →
  1. August 25, 2014 11:31 am

    Hi Dam…you will be pleased to know that these ambitions are still alive in your beloved Vanuatu….”The Government of Vanuatu, through a re-organised and restructured VCMB, is creating a new collaborative Agribusiness-Enabling Environment that will eradicate agricultural poverty in Vanuatu by 2016.” … http://dailypost.vu/content/%E2%80%98niufala-vision%E2%80%99-vanuatu-coconut-and-cocoa-growers

    • August 25, 2014 1:50 pm

      Amazing! Eradicated by 2016? Impressive stuff!

      • August 25, 2014 10:57 pm

        Well Sir…we know that defining the outcome is the devil in the detail…poverty is academically defined as social, environmental and/or economic hardship…anecdotally defines as the live of a copra farmer…and the assumption is that through building an Agri-business Enabling Environment, combining (1) Organic Superannuation earning the copra farmer cash premiums, (2) the Information Marketing and Management Systems, giving grower access to information and international markets and (3) the worlds first agri-superannuation program for small holder growers delivering VNPF member services of saving plus annual interest, access to micro-finance, medical plan and Sudden Death Benefit.

        The critical assumption is that a copra farmer with access to the 3 key aspects of increased earning, information and market access as well as savings and services would at least not define himself as poor….

        Hmmmmm …interested in your thoughts given you intimate knowledge of the country…. the definitions…and the potential scalability of such a concept…

  2. August 25, 2014 12:35 pm

    “Owen’s unspoken point seems to be that they’re all wrong, that social planners with their grand designs have repeatedly failed to eradicate poverty so they should probably stop trying.”

    That isn’t my view at all.

    Owen

  3. August 25, 2014 1:49 pm

    What is your view?

  4. August 25, 2014 1:51 pm

    My view is that as well as willing the ends, we have to will the means.

    • August 25, 2014 1:54 pm

      Eminently sensible. But surely a lot of these figures did try to will the means? And without ends, you’re unlikely to find the means?

Trackbacks

  1. Saturday Morning Reading #26 | A Pett Project

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: