Can poverty ever be eradicated?

Qn: Can poverty ever be eradicated?

Looking at some of the poor countries' situation like India; famine, drought, hunger, AIDS and all sorts of disadvantages it has, I must say that it is impossible to eradicate poverty in the short run. However, degree of poverty can be reduced with the aids from richer countries and world organisations.

In the article written by Kamala Sarup, Kathmandu, Nepal, titled "Can a Poor Country Become Rich?" dated on March 16, 2007, he concluded that technologies are necessary for a country to be rich. Kamala claimed that a lot of poor countries are unable to move out of the poverty cycle because they lacked the "ingredients" needed for technologies to take place. What are these ingredients kamala is referring to? These ingredients include poor geographical location of a country, culture, availability of education, forms of government and government's practices.

In Kamala's article, he claimed that geographical location is important in determining whether a country has any prospects of becoming richer. Countries that have poor infrastructures; which means that the countries are mountainous and waterless regions, are likely to be poor. Without access to navigable rivers and oceans, they are especially disadvantaged in their quest for wealth, since the capital and technologies to cross the rivers and get over the mountains are relatively expensive. With poor infrastructure means that the countries are unable to trade with other countries to aid its economy. This will result in the countries being relatively poor because they have no money to invest in technologies which means that they are unable to advance forward. The article states that the poorest people today are located in mountainous, waterless regions. Thus, it is impossible for a mountainous and waterless countries to undergo such massive revolution in the short run to totally eradicate poverty. However, their condition can be improved with the aids from richer countries. Countries with excellent infrastructure should send experts to these countries to help improve their transport systems. Such improvements in transportation will bring in more trade and revenue to these poor countries, thus enabling them to modernise their economy by introducing technologies.

Kamala also claimed that the availability of education determines whether a country will be rich or poor. Technologies depend on technical education. Without education, countries are unable to impart the knowledge on use of technologies to the people. Nations that have no basic schools will forever be stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty. How can you teach a farmer or factory worker to perform simple tasks efficiently if he/she cannot read or write?

The lack of education may be linked to the type of culture the country has. For example, India. Both the governments and people think that women do not need to have education. This forms of discrimination is affecting the progression of the country. The lack of manpower will means that rich and developed countries will have less confidence in investing in India. This point is being pointed out in the article on the interviews with Jeffrey Sachs, a Celebrity economist written by Kristina Tom, which states that reducing illiteracy to ending discrimination against women will help to solve the problem of poverty. Sachs is very confident and positive in eradicating poverty. However, I think that poverty cannot be eradicated in the short run as educating people with the right knowledge and removing the deep-seated gender discrimination will not be an easy task.

The lack of education is also related to the forms of government the countries have. Kamala claimed that democratic countries are likely to be richer than countries with leftist government. This is because people in countries under leftist government have no incentives to climb up the social ladder because there do not have one. Leftist governments practise equality. So Why work hard when you get the same reward as your dumb and lazy neighbor? This is why I feel that poverty cannot be eradicated in the short run because it is impossible to change the form of government in one country overnight and people need time to change their deep-seated mindsets.

Sachs also blamed environmental factors for the poverty in some countries. Sachs claimed that drought, famine and diseases cause one country to be poor. When one country cant even afford to have the basic necessities, how are they going to make a difference in their economies. For example India, both population and death rate are rising exponentially. The people do not have sufficient to eat, how are they going to work hard and contribute to the economy? Thus, it is impossible to eradicate poverty in countries like India. However, richer countries can help by setting up the foundation required for a economy to grow, for example helping the country to set up factories and invest in the country's economy.

Overall, I think that poverty cannot be eradicated. Even if it can be, it will take probably quite a long time before we can see the effects!