Ananya Roy: Who benefits from Poverty?

The question is raised by University of California professor Ananya Roy on NextBillion who speaks of "the impossible space between the hubris of benevolence and the paralysis of cynicism.".

From our direct experience, I would say organised crime tops the list at the extreme end of poverty.  Maintaining a state of poverty creates the conditions in which the poor represent a market opportunity.  Human trafficking, for example, cannot flourish without a ready supply of those willing to take almost any risk to improve the circumtances of their being.  We see this in our own efforts to deal with the problem of institutionalised children in Eastern Europe, but it may also be found on our own doorstep, for example in the narcotics trade.  Both depend on the willing participation of those presented with a quick exit from poverty.  

Corruption we discover, is a taboo topic. A group called Business Fights Poverty for example , barred me after introducing it in their discussion forum. As Popular Resistance, illustrates, the corporate world has a defence strategy for the like of us, 

The greatest beneficiary may not be human at all. As we observe in the proliferation of children living and prostituting themselves on the streets and becoming dependent on drugs to ease the pain of their existence, the greatest opportunist is arguably the growth of disease, from which we cannot be defended by legislation or national boundaries.  

For the greater majority however, it is corporate capitalism which binds us to poverty. The focus on production and profit maximisation which inevitably drives down the cost of the product and the income of the worker. By exporting the variable of labour cost to where the protection of economic rights is minimal we create a similar dependency to that which benefits organised crime. In our Western economies the impact of low wages is to maintain a dependence on low prices. I can bear witness to those unemployed locally who petition for the opening of a new Walmart chain outlet, because it will bring them jobs and lower food prices.

Payday lenders, a recent focus of the Archbishop of Canterbury, benefit from the hand to mouth existence of those on low incomes. A former US senator who took a stand against global poverty wanted to legislate against these opportunist predators.  Across the world, much of what passes  for microlending is not intended to benefit the poor.

Now lets turn to the academics. In promoting the concept of  'Creating Shared Value' we are presented with the argument that business can profit from solving social problems - profit from purpose.  It's something of a twist on the social business theme which makes the benefit of people and planet the new bottom line. - profit for purpose.

The New Bottom LIne 

When it comes to the matter of responsibility we have argued that not only is there a moral but a strategic case for tackling poverty. given that those dienfranchised would inevitably rise up in protest, as would be observed 15 years after the warning was made, with the Arab Spring an Occupy movement.

The strategic case for tackling poverty was reiterated in senator John Edwards' campaign for the US presidency

While professor Roy may want to encourage discussion and dialogue the same can't be said of much of the media, where taking ownership is often the objective.

Here's the Guardian for example, who illustrate nicely that the first instinct of corporate culture is to hand out awards for brand propagation    

"Capitalism must be a force for good" says Stephen Howard of Business in the Community, reflecting all we've argued particularly in the case of extracting children from institutions, yet BITC aligns itself with the oligarchs in partnering those that undermine us.  

The risk of this kind of control become obvious when the zeal for market based solutions leads to the thie kind of bilateral agreement we've seen recently at USAID, leading to the kind of intervention which delivers greater benefit to organised crime. When this means children are left to die, because it disturbs the comfortable picture of benevolent capitalism it is time to distance oneself.