Photo Credit: Commonwealth Foundation

In January 1964, United States President Lyndon B. Johnson declared war on poverty, intent on achieving a ‘total victory’ or completely ending poverty in the country.  Although the United States is well known for this declaration of war on poverty, it is not the only country that has done so.  In 2008,  Brunei Darussalam set a national target of Zero Poverty by 2035, as mentioned here and in our scholarly article on poverty in Brunei, which is available here.  Globally, although the war on poverty was declared in 2000 with the target of halving extreme poverty by 2015 (Millennium Development Goal 1), it was only in September 2015 that United Nations member states made a bold declaration to completely eradicate poverty in all its forms worldwide by 2030 (Sustainable Development Goal 1).  Even though some argued that the United States of America won its war on poverty,  President Ronald Reagan’s famous remark still holds true: “Some years ago, the federal government declared war on poverty, and poverty won.” January 2024 marked the 60^th Anniversary of America’s war on poverty. Admittedly, significant progress has been made in eradicating poverty, but the war is far from over, as shared here and in the 2023 book ‘Poverty by America’ by Matthew Desmond, winner of the Pulitzer Prize. And neither is the global war on poverty. Commendable progress has been made in the global war on poverty, as seen here, but global poverty remains relentlessly pervasive. As I blogged here and here, over a billion people worldwide are multidimensionally poor, and poverty has been exacerbated by pandemics, climate change and conflicts.

We owe a debt of gratitude to President Lyndon B Johnson for demonstrating unwavering optimism in eradicating poverty in his declaration that “… for the first time in our history, it is possible to conquer poverty.” Global commitment to achieving the ‘No Poverty’ Sustainable Development Goal by 2030 demonstrates the optimism that poverty can indeed be conquered. I firmly believe that we can achieve a poverty-free world in our lifetime, and I shared some thoughts here on what it would take to eradicate poverty.  In order to really win the war on poverty, it is crucial to understand how it could be lost and take appropriate corrective measures. In this blog post, therefore, I share 10 ways in which the war on poverty could actually be lost.

1. Not having an accurate and comprehensive definition of poverty: As Sun Tzu (The Art of War) rightly put it: “If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.”  It is very possible to lose the battle against poverty if our definition of poverty is not accurate and comprehensive. If a definition of poverty does not accurately reflect the experiences or realities of people living in poverty, then it is inaccurate. It is common for governments and non-governmental institutions to define poverty differently from how the poor experience it, as highlighted in this paper and this one. I have also personally witnessed this in our poverty studies in Africa and Southeast Asia. A definition of poverty that is not comprehensive is one that fails to acknowledge the multidimensional nature of poverty. As we argued here, poverty has financial, economic, material, social, environmental and seasonal dimensions. For this reason,  poverty cannot be defined in a single sentence or phrase – such as earning less than USD 2.15 a day, a definition which I critiqued here and which was challenged by the former UN Special Rapporteur: Olivier De Schutter, here or as lacking certain basic needs. Without an accurate and comprehensive definition of poverty, therefore, our efforts to eradicate poverty may be misguided and ineffective.
2. Continuing to use flawed poverty measurements:  Referring to poverty measurements, Stiglitz et al. (2009, paragraph 3) rightly noted that: “What we measure affects what we do; and if our measurements are flawed, decisions may be distorted.” As I argued in a scholarly article found here, current poverty measurements are flawed. What we know to be the extent and nature of poverty in the world may therefore not accurately reflect reality. This is significantly impeding our efforts to eradicate poverty.
3. Prioritising economic growth over other means in efforts to eradicate poverty: Economic growth undoubtedly leads to a substantial reduction in poverty, as seen here, here and here . As I argued in a book chapter found here, it does not even require a high economic growth rate for significant poverty reduction: a growth rate of 0.95 translated to substantial poverty reduction in China, for example. Prioritising economic growth over other poverty eradication means, however, would not bring an end to poverty. As I argued in the same book chapter, a combination of a high initial level of economic development and a low initial level of income inequality is required for economic growth to result in significant poverty reduction. It is therefore unlikely that countries with a low initial level of economic growth and a high initial level of income inequality will end poverty by depending primarily on economic growth. Moreover, as widely critiqued, see here , here, here,  and in my blog post here, for example, economic growth alone is not sufficient for poverty eradication. By way of example, the Dominican Republic’s 1992-2000 average economic growth rate of 6.7% per year did not translate into a significant poverty reduction, and you can read more about this in the World Bank publication found here. This all bears out the words of the former UN Special Rapporteur that “economic growth is not a magic wand for ending poverty.”
4. Not taking bold and meaningful action to combat climate change, particularly by embracing Nature-based Solutions: As highlighted here, here and here, climate change is the most serious impediment to ending poverty as it is simultaneously reversing the significant progress made in poverty eradication and worsening poverty across the globe. By way of example, as shared here, climate change could increase extreme poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean by up to 300% by 2030, the deadline for the ‘No Poverty’ Sustainable Development Goal. If we do not meaningfully intensify our actions to fight climate change, poverty will likely emerge as the ultimate victor. Nature-based Solutions (NbS), measures inspired and supported by nature intended to address societal challenges, are actions that we could embrace to this end as they have enormous potential to simultaneously combat climate change and eradicate poverty in all its forms, as I shared in a blog post here. Unfortunately, NbS have not been adopted at the scale and pace they deserve, especially in efforts to end poverty, as I observed in my upcoming scholarly paper on NbS and poverty eradication.
5. Not commercialising poverty eradication efforts: Poverty eradication is typically considered to be a non-profit endeavour. It is, therefore, largely the responsibility of governments and non-profit-driven organisations, an act of charity for religious institutions and general individuals, and corporate social responsibility for profit-driven companies. This is all well and good, but maintaining this paradigm is not viable if we want to succeed in ending poverty.  The conventional approach to ending poverty is faced with financial obstacles. There has been an alarming decrease in financial aid that non-profit organisations depend on, and most governments, especially those in the developing world, are grappling with high national debt and finding it difficult to secure credit due to unpaid loans, as can be seen here, here and here. It is also widely known that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the loss of savings for many people, and some even lost their sources of income (see here, here and here, for example). Moreover, corporate social responsibility could not be counted that much as it depends on a company’s financial position and is not mandatory. Besides, the persistence of poverty means that the conventional approach to poverty eradication has not been adequate. It is necessary, therefore, to complement the conventional poverty eradication approach by commercialising poverty eradication. If combating climate change has been successfully commercialised through the Voluntary Carbon Market, which is now worth billions of dollars and has been proven to be effective in fighting climate change (see here , here and here),  why couldn’t we do the same in the area of poverty eradication? What is certain is that nothing should stop us from commercialising poverty, given the emerging market of Sustainable Development Goals credits and existing certification standards for assessing initiatives’ contribution to achieving SDGs, such as VERRA’s Sustainable Development Verified Impact Standard (SD VISta). Companies could receive commercial compensation for helping poor people graduate from poverty, starting with eradicating corporate poverty. As I blogged here, a tool known as the Business Multidimensional Poverty Index already exists to verify companies’ efforts in lifting the working poor and their households out of multidimensional poverty. A long-time research colleague and friend, Jeofrey Matai, raised the possibility of the “Cobra Effect” (that commercialising poverty could worsen it); preventive measures can be put in place to avoid any unintended consequences.
6. Not offering a Bachelor’s Degree in Poverty:  Do you know of any undergraduate poverty degree programme offered by any university in your country or abroad? To the best of my knowledge, no universities in Zimbabwe and Brunei Darussalam currently offer a Bachelor’s Degree in Poverty. Most universities in other countries do not offer such a degree, either. A Google search for BA/BSc/Bachelor’s Degree in Poverty yielded only two results: minor programmes at Rice University and Baylor University. How can we effectively combat poverty without adequately or properly educating or training professionals specialising in fighting poverty? Admittedly, we have related fields such as economics, community development, development studies, rural development and sociology, for example. However, can a cousin possibly have a deep enough understanding of your household to effectively solve a problem you may be facing therein? I very much doubt it! These related programmes usually only have one or two poverty modules designed to introduce students to poverty. Surprisingly, I have also come across development studies programmes that do not include a single module on poverty.  It would be virtually impossible to bridge the gap in this area of study at the Master’s level. By the way, there are a few universities offering Master’s degrees in Poverty. It is just impossible to truly comprehend the depth of poverty by studying a module or two unless you have experienced it firsthand. A Bachelor’s Degree in Poverty is critical, therefore, in efforts to end poverty as it provides ample time to understand poverty realities, causes, dimensions and other traits, classification, myths, dynamics, eradication, etc., and develop sound skills in poverty conceptualisation, measurement and eradication or graduation.
7. Not having poverty graduation models, especially ones that are context-specific. Without well-thought-out and context-specific poverty graduation models, we cannot graduate the poor from poverty. I have heard of cases where governments and NGOs provide significant amounts of money directly to poor people in the hope of lifting them out of poverty, but without achieving the intended outcome. There have been instances where various programmes have been implemented to end poverty, but the desired outcome has not been achieved. Poverty graduation models provide insight into what and how long it takes to eliminate poverty. Having an understanding of these in advance contributes to effectively fighting poverty.
8. Not bringing an end to conflicts: wars and political unrest. As reported here, the world has experienced a high number of violent conflicts since World War II. Conflicts, particularly wars, fuel poverty and reverse the progress made in poverty eradication, much like climate change, as shared here, here and here. The ongoing conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan, for example, are having a devastating impact on people’s lives. It is crucial to make meaningful and determined efforts to end wars and other conflicts once and for all. Failure to invest in peacebuilding will lead to the continued destruction of livelihoods, increased hunger, broken social capital, loss of lives, health challenges, environmental degradation, resource diversion, etc.
9. Not taking urgent and exclusive action to combat child poverty: Child poverty has become a very serious global concern, see also here. More than half of the over a billion multidimensional poor people worldwide are children, according to the latest Global Multidimensional Poverty Index report. It is commonly believed that ending adult poverty results in the eradication of child poverty. This is not always necessarily the case. Child poverty is unique in that children face specific poverty realities shaped by their evolving needs,  priorities and experiences throughout childhood. For this reason, children are more vulnerable to poverty and remain in poverty longer than adults, as explained here and here. Although combating adult poverty is crucial for children’s well-being, it is not enough to end child poverty.  In order to put an end to poverty in general, it is crucial to take immediate and focused actions on child poverty. This will also bring an end to intergenerational poverty since children are often the ones who carry poverty into the next generation.
10.  Designing poverty eradication from the comfort of our offices: The simple but powerful phrase “Nothing About Us Without Us” is crucial in lifting the poor out of poverty. It emphasises poor people’s full and direct participation in designing initiatives to transform their lives. Any attempt to eradicate poverty without the active participation of the poor is bound to fail and promote a dependency syndrome. For this reason, the active participation of the poor in determining how to uplift themselves is key to ending poverty. It gives rise to poverty eradication efforts that perfectly align with the unique needs, values, aspirations and realities of the poor.  Not only does the active participation of the poor in poverty eradication empower the poor and uphold their dignity, but it also avoids the “donor syndrome” prevalent in some parts of the world.

It is crucial, therefore, that we take note of these 10 ways in which we could actually undermine the efforts to combat poverty. We could make significant progress in ending poverty by recognizing these ways and actively avoiding them or taking remedial action where this is required. I would love to hear your thoughts on these 10 ways in which we might be sabotaging the war on poverty or learn from you how else we risk losing the war on poverty. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section or email me.