ERADICATING EXTREME POVERTY AND HUNGER: THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Otive Igbuzor

The challenge of how to eradicate poverty has engaged scholars throughout history. There are several theories that have emerged on the causes of poverty and how to eradicate it. We shall examine some of the categorisations. Bradshaw has identified five theories of poverty.

 The first theory of poverty argues that the individual is responsible for his/her poverty situation. This theory blames individuals in poverty for creating their own problems, and argue that with harder work and better choices, the poor could have avoided (and now can remedy) their problem.

The second is the theory of cultural belief systems which argues that poverty is created by the transmission over generations of a set of beliefs, values and skills that are socially generated but individually held. The theory contends that individuals are not necessarily to blame because they are victims of their dysfunctional subculture or culture. 

The third is the theory of poverty caused by economic, political and social distortions or discrimination. The theory points out that it is the economic, political and social system which causes people to have limited opportunities and resources with which to achieve economic well-being.

The fourth is the theory of poverty caused by geographic disparities and argues that people, institutions and cultures in certain areas lack objective resources needed to generate well-being and also lack power to claim redistribution. 

Bradshaw’s fifth theory is the theory of poverty caused by cumulative and cyclical interdependence which argues that the individual and their communities are caught in a spiral of opportunity and problems, and that once problems dominate, they close other opportunities and create a cumulative set of problems that make any effective response nearly impossible.

According to Albrecht, theories of poverty generally fall into two major categories: cultural and structural.

Cultural explanations are generally based on what has been called a “culture of poverty” in which the primary problem lies with the individual. According to cultural theories of poverty, people are poor because they have a distinctive culturally determined way of life that largely explains the occurrence and persistence of poverty. 

Relevant aspects of this "defective" culture include a limited time horizon, impulsive need for gratification, low aspirations, and psychological self-doubt. When these aspects are taken together, the resulting worldview helps poor people to cope with pervasive hopelessness and despair. Poor families and communities then socialize their young with these ingrained values and norms, and consequently limit or obstruct their successful participation in mainstream institutions.

The resulting "underclass" thus becomes permanent and is "locked into its own unique, but maladaptive culture".

 According to the structural theories of poverty, the causes of poverty can be found in the social or economic system rather than in the individual.

These theories argue that people are poor because of racism, gender, class and segregation which limit or deny certain categories or groups of people access to training or jobs that are sufficient to maintain an acceptable standard of living or quality of life.

Finally, we can classify the theories of poverty into Marxist theories and neo-liberal theories. Marxist theories argue that poverty and inequality are functional components of the capitalist mode of production and that capitalism necessarily produces inegalitarian social structures.

 Inequality is therefore transferred from one generation to another through the environment of services and opportunities which surround each individual. 

The end result is the reproduction of a hierarchical class structure that can only be changed through class struggle. On the other hand, neo-liberal (neo-classical) trickle down theories suggests that the problem of poverty and unequal distribution can be resolved without recourse to special policy interventions by simply accelerating the rate of growth of production.

Neo-liberalism is a model and ideology of economic development that promotes the rolling back of the role of the state and the dominance of market forces.

In our view, the utilisation of the Marxist and neo-liberal theories of poverty can help us to understand the programmes that have been put in place all over the world to address poverty. Our position is that capitalism generates and promotes poverty, hunger and injustice. The global political and economic structures are organised in such a way as to continue to perpetuate poverty, hunger and injustice through policies and actions that continue to widen the disparity between the rich and the poor. 

Marx and Engels propounded the laws of historical materialism and stated that the inherent contradictions in capitalism will lead to ruin of the capitalist system with the enthronement of socialism. Some scholars arguing for a non-communist approach to societal development encouraged conspicous consumption in the developed capitalist economies leading to the present economic melt down and credit crunch. 

With the recent crisis, Northern governments have resorted to policies and actions that progressive and socialist scholars have advocated for years including state intervention in the economy, massive subsidies and nationalisation of banks. This is a somewhat confirmation of the correctness of the progressive approach and hence the kind of intervention required including state intervention and social protection measures. Unfortunately, public funds are now being used to bail out the failure of the bourgeosie and the capitalist system.

In some way, Bradshaw’s first and second theories correspond to neo-liberal propositions while the third, fourth and fifth theories correspond to the progressive positioning. Similarly, Albrecht’s cultural theory approximates neo-liberal theory of poverty while the structural theory corresponds to the Marxist theory of poverty or progressive approach. We posit that the focus on individual is misplaced and misdirected. In this regard, we agree with Bradshaw who points out that this will amount to “blaming the victim.” For us, the cause of poverty can be located in the structural failings of the economic, political and social system.