GLOBAL POVERTY IN THE LATE 20TH CENTURY Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, author of The Globalization of Poverty, Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms, TWN, Penang and Zed Books, London, 1997. (The book can be ordered from twn@igc.org) Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, 1998. All rights reserved. The author can be contacted at fax: 1-514-4256224, Email: chossudovsky@sprint.ca THE GLOBALIZATION OF POVERTY The late 20th Century will go down in World history as a period of global impoverishment marked by the collapse of productive systems in the developing World, the demise of national institutions and the disintegration of health and educational programs. This "globalization of poverty" --which has largely reversed the achievements of post-war decolonization--, was initiated in the Third World coinciding with the onslaught of the debt crisis. Since the 1990s, it has extended its grip to all major regions of the World including North America, Western Europe, the countries of the former Soviet block and the Newly Industrialised Countries (NICs) of South East Asia and the Far East. In the 1990s, local level famines have erupted in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and parts of Latin America; health clinics and schools have been closed down, hundreds of millions of children have been denied the right to primary education. In the Third World, Eastern Europe and the Balkans there has been a resurgence of infectious diseases including tuberculosis, malaria and cholera. Impoverishment - An Overview Famine Formation in the Third World >From the dry savannah of the Sahelian belt, famine has extended its grip into the wet tropical heartland. A large part of the population of the African continent is affected: 18 million people in Southern Africa (including 2 million refugees) are in "famine zones" and another 130 million in 10 countries are seriously at risk. In the Horn of Africa, 23 million people (many of whom have already died) are "in danger of famine" according to a UN estimate. In South Asia in the post-Independence period extending through the 1980s, starvation deaths had largely been limited to peripheral tribal areas. In India, there are indications of widespread impoverishment of both the rural and urban populations following the adoption of the 1991 New Economic Policy under the stewardship of the Bretton Woods institutions. In India, more than 70 percent of rural households are small marginal farmers or landless farm workers representing a population of over 400 million people. In irrigated areas, agricultural workers are employed for 200 days a year, and in rain-fed farming for approximately 100 days. The phasing out of fertiliser subsidies (an explicit condition of the IMF agreement) and the increase in the prices of farm inputs and fuel is pushing a large number of small and medium sized farmers into bankruptcy. A micro-level study conducted in 1991 on starvation deaths among handloom weavers in a relatively prosperous rural community in Andhra Pradesh sheds light on how local communities have been impoverished as a result of macro-economic reform. The starvation deaths occurred in the months following the implementation of the 1991 New Economic Policy: with the devaluation and the lifting of controls on cotton yarn exports, the jump in the domestic price of cotton yarn led to a collapse in the pacham (24 meters) rate paid to the weaver by the middle-man (through the putting-out system). "Radhakrishnamurthy and his wife were able to weave between three and four pachams a month bringing home the meagre income of 300-400 rupees for a family of six ($12-16), then came the Union Budget of July 24, 1991, the price of cotton yarn jumped and the burden was passed on to the weaver, Radhakrishnamurthy's family income declined to Rs. 240-320 a month ($9.60-13.00)". Radhakrishnamurthy of Gollapalli village in Guntur district died of starvation on September 4, 1991. Between August 30 and November 10, 1991 at least 73 starvation deaths were reported in only two districts of Andhra Pradesh. There are 3.5 million handlooms throughout India supporting a population of some 17 million people. "Economic Shock Treatment" in the former Soviet Union When assessing the impact on earnings, employment and social services, the post-cold War economic collapse in parts of Eastern Europe appears to be far deeper and more destructive than that of the Great Depression. In the former Soviet Union (starting in early 1992), hyperinflation triggered by the downfall of the ruble contributed to rapidly eroding real earnings. "Economic shock treatment" combined with the privatisation program precipitated entire industries into immediate liquidation leading to lay-offs of millions of workers. In the Russian Federation, prices increased one hundred times following the initial round of macro-economic reforms adopted by the Yeltsin government in January 1992; wages on the other hand increased ten-fold; the evidence suggests that real purchasing power had plummeted by more than 80 percent in the course of 1992. The reforms have dismantled both the military-industrial complex and the civilian economy. Economic decline has surpassed the plunge in production experienced in the Soviet Union at the height of the Second World War, following the German occupation of Byelorussia and parts of the Ukraine in 1941, and the extensive bombing of Soviet industrial infrastructure. The Soviet GDP had by 1942 declined by 22 percent in relation to pre-war levels. In contrast, industrial output in the former Soviet Union plummeted by 48.8 percent and GDP by 44.0 percent between 1989 and 1995, according to official data, and output continues to fall. Independent estimates, however, indicate a substantially greater drop and there is firm evidence that official figures have been manipulated. While the cost of living in Eastern Europe and the Balkans was shooting up to Western levels as a result of the deregulation of commodity markets, monthly minimum earnings were as low as ten dollars a month. "In Bulgaria, The World Bank and the Ministry of Labor and Social Assistance separately estimated that 90 percent of Bulgarians are living below the poverty threshold of $4 a day". Old age pensions in 1997 were worth two dollars a month. Unable to pay for electricity, water and transportation, population groups throughout the region have been brutally marginalized from the modern era. Poverty and Unemployment in the West Already during the Reagan-Thatcher era, but more significantly since the beginning of the 1990s, harsh austerity measures are gradually contributing to the disintegration of the Welfare State. The achievements of the early post-war period are being reversed through the derogation of unemployment insurance schemes, the privatisation of pension funds and social services, and the decline of Social Security. With the breakdown of the Welfare State, high levels of youth unemployment are increasingly the source of social strife and civil dissent. In the United States, political figures decry the rise of youth violence, promising tougher sanctions without addressing the roots of the problem. Economic restructuring has transformed urban life, contributing to the "thirdworldization" of Western cities. The environment of major metropolitan areas is marked by social apartheid: urban landscape have become increasingly compartmentalized along social and ethnic lines. Poverty indicators such as infant mortality, unemployment, and homelessness in the ghettos of American (and increasingly European) cities are in many respects comparable to those prevailing in the Third World. Demise of the "Asian Tigers" More recently, speculative movements against national currencies have contributed to the destabilization of some of the World's more successful "newly industrialised" economies (Indonesia, Thailand, Korea), leading virtually overnight to abrupt declines in the standard of living. In China, successful poverty alleviation efforts are threatened by the impending privatization or forced bankruptcy of thousands of State enterprises and the resulting lay-offs of millions of workers. The number of workers to be laid off in State industrial enterprises is estimated to be of the order of 35 million. In rural areas, there are an estimated 130 million surplus workers. This process has occurred alongside massive budget cuts in social programs, even as unemployment and inequality increase. In the 1997 Asian currency crisis, billions of dollars of official Central Bank reserves were appropriated by institutional speculators. In other words, these countries are no longer able to "finance economic development" through the use of monetary policy. This depletion of official reserves is part and parcel of the process of economic restructuring leading to bankruptcy and mass unemployment. In other words, privately held capital in the hands of "institutional speculators" far exceeds the limited reserves of Asian central banks. The latter acting individually or collectively are no longer able to fight the tide of speculative activity. THE CAUSES OF GLOBAL POVERTY Global Unemployment: "Creating Surplus Populations" in the Global Cheap Labor Economy The global decline in living standards is not the result of "a scarcity of productive resources" as in preceding historical periods. The globalization of poverty has indeed occurred during a period of rapid technological and scientific advance. While the latter has contributed to vastly increasing the potential capacity of the economic system to produce necessary goods and services, expanded levels of productivity have not translated into a corresponding reduction in levels of global poverty. On the contrary, downsizing, corporate restructuring and relocation of production to cheap labor havens in the Third World have been conducive to increased levels of unemployment and significantly lower earnings to urban workers and farmers. This new international economic order feeds on human poverty and cheap labor: high levels of national unemployment in both developed and developing countries have contributed to depressing real wages. Unemployment has been internationalised, with capital migrating from one country to another in a perpetual search for cheaper supplies of labor. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), worldwide unemployment affects one billion people or nearly one third of the global workforce. National labor markets are no longer segregated: workers in different countries are brought into overt competition with one another. Workers rights are derogated as labor markets are deregulated. World unemployment operates as a lever which "regulates" labor costs at a World level: the abundant supplies of cheap labor in the Third World (e.g. China with an estimated 200 million surplus workers) and the former Eastern block contribute to depressing wages in the developed countries. Virtually all categories of the labor force (including the highly qualified, professional and scientific workers) are affected, even as competition for jobs encourages social divisions based on class, ethnicity, gender, and age. PARADOXES OF GLOBALIZATION Micro-Efficiency, Macro-Insufficiency The global corporation minimises labor costs on a World level. Real wages in the Third World and Eastern Europe are as much as seventy times lower than in the US, Western Europe or Japan: the possibilities of production are immense given the mass of cheap impoverished workers throughout the World. While mainstream economics stresses efficient allocation of society's scarce resources, harsh social realities call into question the consequences of this means of allocation. Industrial plants are closed down, small and medium sized enterprises are driven into bankruptcy, professional workers and civil servants are laid off, and human and physical capital stand idle in the name of "efficiency". The drive toward "efficient" use of society's resources at the micro-economic level leads to exactly the opposite situation at the macro-economic level. Resources are not used "efficiently" when there remain large amounts of unused industrial capacity and millions of unemployed workers. Modern capitalism appears totally incapable of mobilizing these untapped human and material resources. --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@desk.nl

Makes me wonder what the hell I'm doing here. What is the use to live to pay one's damned bills??? We should be there, helping.

It's an overwhelming situation and one that most well off industrialized people of only peripherally aware of.

They should create a programme were all children of the western well-off world have to do 2 years of obligatory service in developing countries, helping people, before embarking upon their comfortable, protected grown-up lives.

Except that in doing so, we would infect the rest of the world even more heavily with our egocentric, industrialized, and money-lusting thoughts while we were there... doesn't mean that something shouldn't be done, either...

http://iisd1.iisd.ca/pcdf/meadows/living_on_sun.htm Living on Sun, Water, Wind, Grass, and Community (Donella Meadows --- March 12, 1998) Nearly everyone who has been to the solar village Gaviotas, east of the Andes in Colombia, calls it a utopia. But it isn't, says Paolo Lugari, its founder. That word means in Greek "no place." Gaviotas has existed, however improbably, for more than 30 years now. Lugari says it's a "topia" -- simply a place. When he first saw it, looking down from a small plane in 1965, it surely looked like no place. There were two crumbling warehouses abandoned by a road crew at the end of a failed attempt to cut a highway across the huge, wild, wet savanna called the llanos. No one lived on the llanos except a few scattered ranchers and the Guahibo Indians, who fished and hunted in mosquitoey forest strips along the rivers. The soil was so toxic that nothing but tough grass could grow. If people can live here, they can live anywhere, Lugari thought. He set out to show that they could. His secret weapons were the professors and students of the universities of Bogota. Lugari dropped into the office of a mechanical engineer named Jorge Zapp and asked, "Can you build a turbine efficient enough to generate electricity from a stream with just a one-meter drop?" He went to Sven Zethelius, a soil chemist and asked, "What can we grow in that soil?" He posted notices inviting doctoral theses on how to press oil from palm nuts, how to raise hundred-pound wild capybaras for meat, how to make fiberboard out of llano grass. Most of these experiments didn't work, but once the engineers got out to Gaviotas, a 16-hour tire-destroying jeep drive from Bogota, they began having other ideas. Necessity surrounded them, and they produced a stream of invention. They found that 14 parts of that terrible soil combined with one part cement hardened into a stony substance they could use for dams and buildings. They made water pipes by lining ditches with soil-cement, laying down long polyethylene tubes filled with water, pouring more soil-cement on top, letting the whole business harden, then draining the water and pulling out the plastic. Trucks could drive over those pipes without crushing them. They attached water pumps to see-saws; kids provided the pumping power. They designed ultra-light windmills to catch the mild but steady llanos wind without being blown over by the occasional llanos gale. They invented solar water-heaters so cheap and effective that Gaviotas started a business back in Bogota, installing them everywhere from the president's house to a 30,000-resident slum housing project. Often engulfed in mountain clouds, Bogota is no ideal place for solar power, but the Gaviotans developed a collector so efficient it could catch scattered sun energy even on cloudy days. The technical and architectural triumph of Gaviotas is its hospital, cooled by the wind, heated by the sun. The sun also provides hot water, boiled sterilized water, and the heat for six pressure cookers in the kitchen, plus enough electricity for the lights. By the time the hospital was built, Gaviotas had several hundred inhabitants, including the only doctors, nurses, and teachers for hundreds of miles around. People came there for medical care and sent their children there to school. There were fish in the river, and cattle could eat the grass. Zethelius had discovered enough decent soil on the riverbanks to plant mangoes and cassava and cashews, but not enough to provide fresh vegetables for a growing population. So the Gaviotans learned to grow lettuce and tomatoes and cucumbers in containers of nutritionless rice hulls, washed with manure tea. They kept searching for some plant that could survive the llanos soil and finally found it. A Caribbean pine from Venezuela thrived, they discovered, as long as they dipped the roots of its seedlings in a fungus, a mycorrhyza, which was missing from their soil but importable from the pines' native territory. Without knowing quite why, they planted hundreds of acres of pines. As the pines grew into forests, the Gaviotans found a use for them. They tapped their oozing gum, which could be distilled (with solar energy) into turpentine and a valuable resin used in paints, glues, cosmetics, perfume, and medicines. There was a huge market. Gaviotas had a new industry. The pines dropped needles and built up soil. They cooled the ground, slowed the wind, raised the humidity. Suddenly new kinds of plants sprang up beneath them -- hundreds of kinds of plants. The rainforest, not far to the south, had once grown here, and now, through seeds carried by birds or roots creeping up from the river-edges, it was returning. The Gaviotans imagine themselves planting pines in expanding circles out into the llanos, harvesting gum for 100 years, leaving rainforest behind. Meanwhile their technologies for pumps and collectors and windmills, all simple, affordable, and purposely unpatented, are spreading throughout the world. "This is what the world needs," said Aurelio Peccei, aged founder of the Club of Rome, who visited Gaviotas ten days before he died. I agree, not only because of Gaviotas's technical ingenuity, but because of its attitude. Gaviotans live in peace surrounded by narcotics dealers and guerillas. They live without guns, without pesticides, willing to serve and teach all comers. They count their wealth in sun, water, and community. They believe that solutions can come from anyone, anywhere, even from, most especially from, the Third World. (Gaviotas: A Village to Reinvent the World, by Alan Weisman, has just been published by Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction VT.)

Nothing in here for a LONG time ..... Here's a few thoughts to stimulate more... Poverty is a relative concept. We define it by the standards of the culture we ourselves are part of. Is there a commonality which we can define as poverty?? Whose concept is this? In Britain there is a 'poverty line' an income level below which someone is considered 'poor', but that level of poverty is relative. I'm not denying that poverty exists in my society. I know it does. I was brought up in relative povetty by an aunt who did not have a state pension (she was too old for the welfare state!), had gas lights, no indoor sanitation, never bought any new clothes, everything was patched until it fell apart. Is that really 'better' than my adopted family in an African village who would be considered 'poor' and by by our standards, yet actually they were better fed and dressed than my aunt, and considered me 'poor' because I did not have a field to feed my family from. Yet, my aunt would consider today's 'poor' in Britain as incredibly rich with their household appliances, TVs and income spent on leisure and presents. I ma not here talking about the homeless poor, but about people who live around me in soc al housing who I know well. Maybe I'll get flamed down, but at least we'll get some dialoigue going .....

Income is relative to what it will buy in the local economy. There is a huge difference in many developing countries over the price of locally produced goods and imported goods. To buy food from the local market rather than the expatriat supermarket is very feasible on local incomes. That's how I survive on a small housekeeping budget in Africa. We all make decisions on what we will spend our available income on. Natural disasters such as droughts and floods are devastating to local economies. Whereas it is possible to live on a meagre income with extended family support and subsistence levels of farming etc. Natural disasters and conflicts take away that undergirding support structure.

Other than needing the basic necessities to live, I think poverty is realtive...AND a state of mind. It is far harder on parents than kids. Kids never notice it, it seems, at least did not years ago when shoes were not endorsed by expensive athletes.

For U.S. poverty threshholds and guidelines, look here. http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/poverty/00poverty.htm

Poverty : challenging the myths (http://www.oneworld.org/ni/issue310/keynote.htm) Being poor is about not having enough money. Or is it? Nikki van der Gaag investigates. The people of Devonport are surrounded by a wall. Three metres high and six kilometres long, it serves to separate them from the military complex on their doorstep. But it has another, less obvious function. It marks out the boundaries of an estate known for its deprivation. Devonport, a suburb of Plymouth in south-west England, is labelled as an area with a high poverty rate, where crime, vandalism and drug-dealing abound. My own reception in Devonport is warm and welcoming. I am picked up from the train station and driven to an apartment block overlooking the wall. Karen and her son Chris give me a slap-up meal before taking me downstairs to meet 79-year-old Alice, who regales me with tales of being a submarine fitter during the War and puts me to bed with a cup of tea and an electric blanket. From the spare-room window I can see a yard, grim and dripping in the rain, but inside I am full, snug and warm. This feeling stays with me for the whole of the next day as I attend a workshop that Devonport Action Against Poverty (DAP) is holding in the local community centre which has been refitted and decorated by local people. Poverty, say the DAP members firmly: �is not about money, though it is about what you can do with money�. People should be respected not for what they have but for who they are. �We call ourselves �people experiencing poverty�, or �grassroots people� rather than poor people. We are people first. People who just happen to be poor,� says Karen. �But we are rich in lots of other ways.� Generosity, for one. I am not used to being housed and fed by complete strangers, let alone those who can little afford it. Of course money is an issue, but so too are good housing, jobs, healthcare, education, leisure facilities, improved levels of benefit which don�t penalize people for working, better transport, and an improved environment. Then there are the things money can�t always buy: more time, good relationships, privacy (�Poor people don�t have the luxury of privacy; their affairs are everyone�s business,� says Karen), community spirit and, importantly, respect. The need for respect comes high on the list of all those experiencing poverty. Moraene Roberts, another �grassroots person� and a member of the UK Coalition Against Poverty, puts it plainly: �The very poor tell us over and over again that a human being�s greatest misfortune is not hunger or being unable to read, nor even being without work. The greatest misfortune of all is to know that you count for nothing, to the point where even your suffering is ignored. The worst blow of all is the contempt of your fellow-citizens.�1 Such intangible things are hard to measure or even define. Poverty itself is discussed, defined and measured in an infinite number of ways. The United Nations Development Programme talks about �human poverty�: �a denial of choices and opportunities for living a tolerable life�; the World Bank of �income poverty� � �living on less than a dollar a day�. Then there is �absolute� poverty � those below a defined poverty line or threshold � and �relative� poverty � poor in relation to those around you. Recently, governments have begun to use the term �social exclusion� as a useful tool for describing what poor people experience. This is fine, as long as it is not an excuse for failing to spend money. And it begs a number of questions: If some people, areas, or communities are �socially excluded� what are they excluded from? Who then are the �included�? Is this simply a way of avoiding the word �poor�? (A word which people overseas have no problem claiming but which people in the West often reject because it comes with such stigma attached). What Devonport and other places of �social exclusion� least need is yet another label. The interesting thing about all these definitions is that they only define the poor. No-one thinks of finding labels for the rich � there are far more words for poverty than there are for wealth, as the dictionary on clearly shows. It is the poor who are the �problem� � a belief hotly contested by �the poor� themselves. The other problem is gender; social exclusion doesn�t value economic roles and relationships at the household and community level, which are mainly performed by women. Yet women all over the world bear the brunt of poverty, partly because of the extra burden of responsibilities they have for the household and partly because they lack access to land, credit and employment.2 Labels and measurements are useful tools for dealing with poverty; but sometimes they can detract from what being poor really means, like having to spend all your time worrying about where the next meal is coming from. It means hunger, isolation and disempowerment. And waste, not just for those experiencing it, but for everyone. In the words of Joseph Wreskinski, founder of ATD Fourth World, an organization set up to combat poverty: �Behind the silence of our records and our statistics lie children mutilated in their heart and spirit, young people condemned to despair, adults driven to doubt their very humanity.�3 Poverty is relentless; it grinds you down and leaves you deprived of hope, of opportunity, of confidence in yourself. At first glance, the statistics give cause for optimism. In the last 50 years poverty has fallen more than in the previous 500. Over the century some three to four billion of the world�s people will have experienced substantial improvements in their quality of life. Since 1960, child death-rates in developing countries have been halved and malnutrition has declined by more than a third. However, such figures hide the fact that the absolute number of poor people is increasing as the world�s population rises. The number of people with incomes of less than a dollar a day rose by almost 100 million between 1987 and 1993. By next year more than half the people in sub-Saharan Africa will not have enough to live on, and the global economic crisis means that over one billion people will suffer a fall in their already-meagre living standards.4 And this is not just in the Majority World. In Eastern Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union, the average incidence of income poverty increased sevenfold between 1988 and 1994.4 In the US, there are 35.5 million poor people.5 In Australia poverty levels are five per cent higher than when poverty was first measured in 1973 (and likely to increase again if the Government implements the proposed new tax on food).6 In Britain, nearly a quarter of old people and a fifth of children are poor � twice as many as in Taiwan and six times as many as in Finland. The proportion of poor people in �income poverty� jumped by nearly 60 per cent under the Thatcher Government. And yet the wealthiest fifth in Britain are among the richest in Europe. The most industrialized countries have 147 of the world�s 225 richest people (Asia has 43 and South America 22). Globally, the gap between rich and poor is increasing all the time � the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined Gross Domestic Product of the 48 least-developed countries.7 And yet the cost of eradicating poverty has been estimated at a mere one per cent of global income. That�s about $80 billion.4 In 1995 the world spent $800 billion � ten times that amount � on the military alone. Poverty is not just about inequality � but it is the inequality that makes poverty so appalling. The urgency of addressing what the UN calls the �scandal� of poverty is being recognized at the highest levels. Poverty is very much on the international agenda; the papers, the statements, the targets are pouring in with the overall aim of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015.8 And participation is the new buzz-word. Every- one says they want to involve poor people in the debate about what should be done. It remains to be seen if theory becomes practice. What should be done If poverty is to be eradicated, it must be more than talk. There needs to be an almighty push towards the following goals: providing access for those with the lowest incomes to good healthcare and education reducing military spending and promoting peace creating employment and economic res- ources for poor people working towards a sustainable environment for all reducing the gender gap creating rural development policies which benefit the poor, such as agrarian reformcurbing corruption cancelling debt increasing overseas aid (see above). But many people experiencing poverty have another, even more radical point to make. One of the most extraordinary things about listening to people in poverty in different parts of the world is that so many are concerned not just about inequality, but about the way money has become the measure of all things. Thousands of kilometres away from Devonport, in a small town in the middle of the forests of southern India, I am with a group of tribal people � considered by other Indians to be the poorest of the poor and the lowest of the low. I tell them I am working on this magazine and they urge me not just to focus on money, in words similar to Karen�s in Devonport: �It�s about what you value,� says Bomman. �When everything is valued in terms of money, it is those who have the money who are looked up to. But if we use other ways of valuing people, it is the poor who are rich...� Bomman�s words are echoed too by studies on a macro level, which show that governments which go for economic growth alone fail to address the problem of poverty.9 It is only when social development policies go hand-in-hand with what is known as �pro-poor� growth that poor people begin to benefit. The emphasis has to be on equity, not just economics, and on concrete policies to accompany the noble commitments to eradication. But people experiencing poverty are often aware that any �help� � whether from governments or charities � works best when those being �helped� are organized in workers� movements, trade unions or women�s networks. To this end, poor people are making links across the globe and learning new strategies for change from each other. This gives a strength in numbers enough to challenge the most powerful of systems. �If the poor of the world could start supporting each other then we would have a movement strong enough to change the world,� said Chandran, one of the tribal people from India. �We�ll not give up,� said Sam in Devonport. �If enough people keep shouting the same things loud and long then things might start to happen.� International institutions are saying they want to listen to people in poverty. And the latter are laying siege to the assumptions we all hold about rich and poor and shaking the foundations on which wealth, status, and the myths about poverty are built. Who knows? In the end it might even be enough to bring down the wall. Stranger things have happened.

Try this URL. It should give food for thought.... http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/mission/up1.htm