One of the more recent criticisms of North American Christianity, or at least the right wing version of it, has been that it has ignored many causes (justice, poverty) in favor of the pet causes (anti-gay, anti-abortion). While I agree that there is a level of truth to the accusation of imbalance I also get frustrated with what is perceived as the right way to help the poor.
The economic platforms of both the democratic and republican parties have deep histories that go far beyond our own country. Both have proven to successful at reducing poverty at various times in the past. (Both have had failures too.) Believe it or not there are some who favor republican policy not because they are rich and want to get richer but because they truly do believe that it will reduce poverty in the long run and it is therefore the kindest thing to do.
My main point of this post, however, is not to argue which is best but to point out the complexity of the whole thing. Having worked in development in Africa I have seen how complex the issues are. That's why, while I applaud people like Bono who are concerned about the impoverished, I am skeptical about their proposed solutions. (More aid, debt relief)
An excerpt from a LA Times article by Max Boot is interesting. "By any measure, the U.S. is extraordinarily generous, and President Bush is making us more generous still. He has already tripled development aid to Africa and plans to double it again. But for the anti-poverty campaigners it's not enough. It never is. Their animating idea is the same one that was behind Lyndon Johnson's Great Society: Massive transfers of wealth can eradicate poverty. It didn't work in the U.S., and it has even less chance of working abroad.
In the last 50 years, $2.3 trillion has been spent to help poor countries. Yet Africans' income and life expectancy have gone down, not up, during that period, while South Korea, Singapore and other Asian nations that received little if any assistance have moved from African-level poverty to European-level prosperity thanks to their superior economic policies.
Economists who have studied aid projects have found numerous reasons for the failures. In many instances, money was siphoned off by corrupt officials. Even when funds did reach the intended beneficiaries, the money often distorted local markets for goods and labor, creating inflation that drove local businesses out of business. Only one major research paper in recent years has found any positive correlation between foreign aid and economic growth, and that only in countries "with good fiscal, monetary and trade policies," which excludes much of Africa. Most experts think even that conclusion is too optimistic."
To be simplistic about the problem of poverty is easy. What we really need to do though is struggle with these questions and be willing to dig into the complexities of the problem. To be willing to do that is to be truly compassionate.
WWJD About Poverty
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10:19 AM
Here are a couple of links that are interesting in light of your comments.
http://www.zwnews.com/issuefull.cfm?ArticleID=12432 This one is an interview with Roy Bennett after he had been released from jail in Zimbabwe.
Unfortunately the second one I wanted I can't find. It was a Yahoo news post from a Kenyan economist that claimed aid was the source of Africa's poverty. I thought one of his most interesting comments was that African leaders spent more time thinking about how to get more aid than how to develop their own country. Why wouldn't they?
Randy
7:30 AM
Post a Comment