Why Growth Matters: How Economic Growth in India Reduced Poverty and the Lessons for Other Developing Countries. By Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya.PublicAffairs; 290 pages; $28.99 and £19.99. Buy from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.ukFrom The Economist
INDIA needs more market liberalisation to promote economic growth. A few years ago, with its economy expanding at an annual rate of nearly 10%, there was talk of India one day rivalling China, or even overtaking it. But policymakers have grown complacent. They assumed rapid growth would continue, but did nothing to foster it. The result is that India now putters on at less than half what it could achieve. Investors are anxious and the politicians are bickering.
In their new book Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya, both economics professors at Columbia University, outline a series of measures to boost growth. “Why Growth Matters” is a blunt book; almost a manifesto for policymakers and analysts. It explains how rapid expansion has brought India immense gains, and why more change is needed—and needed soon. Both men are champions of globalisation and they hope their ideas will stiffen the resolve of India’s leaders.
What they have to say is convincing. Increasing growth rates over the past couple of decades lifted some 200m Indians out of poverty. That is an immense gain. In 1978, say the authors, more than half of all Indians were below the poverty line; today it is roughly a fifth. Gradually even those politicians who put their trust mostly in redistribution and the early roll-out of welfare grasp that a bigger economy means more resources to share around. Read More
Showing posts with label Poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Poverty. Show all posts
Friday, July 26, 2013
Beyond bootstraps
An Uncertain Glory: India and its Contradictions. By Amartya Sen and Jean Drèze. Allen Lane; 434 pages; £20. To be published in America in August by Princeton University Press; $29.95. Buy from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk
From The Economist
AS A conundrum it could hardly be bigger. Six decades of laudably fair elections, a free press, rule of law and much else should have delivered rulers who are responsive to the ruled. India’s development record, however, is worse than poor. It is host to some of the world’s worst failures in health and education. If democracy works there, why are so many Indian lives still so wretched?
Amassive blackout last summer caught global attention, yet 400m Indians had (and still have) no electricity. Sanitation and public hygiene are awful, especially in the north: half of all Indians still defecate in the open, resulting in many deaths from diarrhoea and encephalitis. Polio may be gone, but immunisation rates for most diseases are lower than in sub-Saharan Africa. Twice as many Indian children (43%) as African ones go hungry.
Many adults, especially women, are also undernourished, even as obesity and diabetes spread among wealthier Indians. Despite gains, extreme poverty is rife and death in childbirth all too common. Prejudice kills on an immense scale: as many as 600,000 fetuses are aborted each year because they are female. Compared even with its poorer neighbours, Bangladesh and Nepal, India’s social record is unusually grim.
“An Uncertain Glory”, an excellent but unsettling new book by two of India’s best-known development economists, Amartya Sen and Jean Drèze, sets out how and why this is so. They argue that Indian rulers have never been properly accountable to the needy majority. Belgian-born Mr Drèze has lived in India since 1979 and became an Indian citizen in 2002. Now at Allahabad University in the north, he is influential among Indian policymakers, particularly for pushing a right-to-information law. Mr Sen, a Nobel laureate, now at Harvard, famously showed how famines have never happened in democracies. The two men want a debate on India’s social failures and how to fix them. Read More
AS A conundrum it could hardly be bigger. Six decades of laudably fair elections, a free press, rule of law and much else should have delivered rulers who are responsive to the ruled. India’s development record, however, is worse than poor. It is host to some of the world’s worst failures in health and education. If democracy works there, why are so many Indian lives still so wretched?
Amassive blackout last summer caught global attention, yet 400m Indians had (and still have) no electricity. Sanitation and public hygiene are awful, especially in the north: half of all Indians still defecate in the open, resulting in many deaths from diarrhoea and encephalitis. Polio may be gone, but immunisation rates for most diseases are lower than in sub-Saharan Africa. Twice as many Indian children (43%) as African ones go hungry.
Many adults, especially women, are also undernourished, even as obesity and diabetes spread among wealthier Indians. Despite gains, extreme poverty is rife and death in childbirth all too common. Prejudice kills on an immense scale: as many as 600,000 fetuses are aborted each year because they are female. Compared even with its poorer neighbours, Bangladesh and Nepal, India’s social record is unusually grim.
“An Uncertain Glory”, an excellent but unsettling new book by two of India’s best-known development economists, Amartya Sen and Jean Drèze, sets out how and why this is so. They argue that Indian rulers have never been properly accountable to the needy majority. Belgian-born Mr Drèze has lived in India since 1979 and became an Indian citizen in 2002. Now at Allahabad University in the north, he is influential among Indian policymakers, particularly for pushing a right-to-information law. Mr Sen, a Nobel laureate, now at Harvard, famously showed how famines have never happened in democracies. The two men want a debate on India’s social failures and how to fix them. Read More
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Pro-poor or pro-poverty?
Poverty is a terrible thing. There are few things as demeaning to a human being as not having the means to fulfil his basic needs in life.
India is one of the poverty havens of the world. We have all heard of India's teeming millions, probably since childhood. While one could blame the British for all our mistakes pre-1947, it has been almost 67 years since they left. We are still one of the poorest nations on earth. Many countries in Asia, which started with similar poverty levels in the 1940s, have progressed faster — some of them dramatically. We, however, remain poor.
The continuance of poverty is particularly surprising because there are so many smart and powerful people who claim to be representing the poor. Politicians, academics, poverty economists, NGOs — there are so many people trying to help the poor. It is baffling, then, why we can't seem to get rid of poverty. Our public debates are virtually controlled by left-leaning intellectuals, who are some of the most pro-poor people on earth. And yet, they seem to be get-ting nowhere.
Well, they won't. Because while they may be experts on the poor and their suffering, they have little idea about the one thing that eventually removes poverty — money. Yes, it is over-simplistic, but it is perplexing how little our top thinkers and debate-controllers know about wealth creation, true economic empowerment, productivity and competitiveness. For, if they did, they would not support one of the most hare-brained schemes to have ever come out of our illusionist politicians` hat — the food security Bill. Read More
India is one of the poverty havens of the world. We have all heard of India's teeming millions, probably since childhood. While one could blame the British for all our mistakes pre-1947, it has been almost 67 years since they left. We are still one of the poorest nations on earth. Many countries in Asia, which started with similar poverty levels in the 1940s, have progressed faster — some of them dramatically. We, however, remain poor.
The continuance of poverty is particularly surprising because there are so many smart and powerful people who claim to be representing the poor. Politicians, academics, poverty economists, NGOs — there are so many people trying to help the poor. It is baffling, then, why we can't seem to get rid of poverty. Our public debates are virtually controlled by left-leaning intellectuals, who are some of the most pro-poor people on earth. And yet, they seem to be get-ting nowhere.
Well, they won't. Because while they may be experts on the poor and their suffering, they have little idea about the one thing that eventually removes poverty — money. Yes, it is over-simplistic, but it is perplexing how little our top thinkers and debate-controllers know about wealth creation, true economic empowerment, productivity and competitiveness. For, if they did, they would not support one of the most hare-brained schemes to have ever come out of our illusionist politicians` hat — the food security Bill. Read More
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Law and poverty: the legal system and poverty reduction
Cause and effect: exploring the relations between law and poverty Authors: L. Williams; A. Kjönstad; P. Robson Publisher: Comparative Research Programme on Poverty , 2008
Full text of document
Poverty tends to be considered as an economic subject area rather than a legal one. And yet, a society’s distribution of income and opportunity is the outcome of its legal system which may encourage or fail to prevent various forms of marginalisation. Even when individuals are responsible for their poverty, modern notions of citizenship enshrined in national and international law entitle them to various forms of state protection. Under these circumstances, the law becomes an instrument for redistribution. Much of this work is still cutting-edge but a start was made at a workshop held in Onati, Spain in 1999 which aimed to explore the theme of “Law and Poverty”. The twelve papers presented at the workshop are now reproduced in a book brought out by the Comparative Research Programme on Poverty (CROP) of the International Social Science Council. The book is divided into four sections which look into:
>poverty as a legal construction
>the responsibility for alleviating poverty
>establishing legal entitlements
>legal initiatives to address poverty
The paper titles comprise of:
>the right to development as a basic human right
>cross-border reflections on poverty: lessons from the United States and Mexico
>poverty as a violation of human rights: the Pinochet case and the emergence of a new paradigm
>the politics of child support
>the state, laws and NGOs in Bangladesh
>exclusion and rights
>poverty and property – human rights and social security
>the effect of legal mechanisms on selective welfare strategies for needy persons: the Greek experience
>gender mainstreaming as an instrument for combating poverty
>does alcohol and tobacco legislation help reduce poverty: the evidence from Sri Lanka
>child labour: a threat to the survival of civilization
>labour organization and labour relations law in India: implications for poverty alleviation
The book comes to the following broad conclusions:
>improved understandings of and approaches to poverty require broad analysis that takes into account different angles, frameworks and lenses
>while poverty is culture and nation-specific, it also has an increasingly important global >dimension which needs to start being taken into account
>support initiatives for poor people are more powerful when framed as citizenship rights – >particularly in the context of social exclusion and gender inequality
>more effective poverty reduction in an age of globalisation requires reconsidering traditional >distinctions between public and private areas of responsibility
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Why no bailout for the hungry?
Could all those bailout billions been put to better use? How about feeding poor, starving people?
From the Washington Post:
"The amount of money used for the bailouts in the U.S. and Europe -- people here are saying that money is enough to feed the poor in Africa for the next three years," said Stephen Muchiri, head of the Eastern Africa Farmers Federation.
No question: On its face, there is an obscene disparity between the trillions of dollars that will be spent by Western governments to keep financial markets from breaking down and the paltry $12.3 billion pledged in July by governments and other donors in Rome to tackle the world food crisis. Even just in the United States, the Department of Energy appears to see little problem with loaning GM $5 billion to purchase a nearly worthless Chrysler, but the White House couldn't find the cash to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program from $5 billion to $12 billion a year so as to cover everyone. These are the kinds of funding gaps that drive caring people insane.
But suppose that the U.S. and various European governments had decided not to bail out their banking systems, and in consequence, credit markets completely collapsed and world trade ground to a halt. It's quite possible that global poverty and hunger would drastically worsen. If farmers have no access to credit, they are unable to pay for seed and fertilizer and labor. If shipping companies have no access to credit, food doesn't move across the oceans. If enough banks collapse, mass unemployment is sure to follow.
I do not mean to privilege one form of spending over another. I think one of the clear lessons from the efforts of governments to address the financial crisis is that when properly motivated, political leaders will throw astonishing amounts of money at a problem. If we can find $700 billion to bail out our banks, surely we can fund national health care and end starvation. But it's also not an either-or question. We would all likely be worse off, in Africa and the United States, if the wheels came completely off the global economy.
― Andrew Leonard
From the Washington Post:
"The amount of money used for the bailouts in the U.S. and Europe -- people here are saying that money is enough to feed the poor in Africa for the next three years," said Stephen Muchiri, head of the Eastern Africa Farmers Federation.
No question: On its face, there is an obscene disparity between the trillions of dollars that will be spent by Western governments to keep financial markets from breaking down and the paltry $12.3 billion pledged in July by governments and other donors in Rome to tackle the world food crisis. Even just in the United States, the Department of Energy appears to see little problem with loaning GM $5 billion to purchase a nearly worthless Chrysler, but the White House couldn't find the cash to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program from $5 billion to $12 billion a year so as to cover everyone. These are the kinds of funding gaps that drive caring people insane.
But suppose that the U.S. and various European governments had decided not to bail out their banking systems, and in consequence, credit markets completely collapsed and world trade ground to a halt. It's quite possible that global poverty and hunger would drastically worsen. If farmers have no access to credit, they are unable to pay for seed and fertilizer and labor. If shipping companies have no access to credit, food doesn't move across the oceans. If enough banks collapse, mass unemployment is sure to follow.
I do not mean to privilege one form of spending over another. I think one of the clear lessons from the efforts of governments to address the financial crisis is that when properly motivated, political leaders will throw astonishing amounts of money at a problem. If we can find $700 billion to bail out our banks, surely we can fund national health care and end starvation. But it's also not an either-or question. We would all likely be worse off, in Africa and the United States, if the wheels came completely off the global economy.
― Andrew Leonard
Friday, October 17, 2008
Don’t Ignore Poverty Data
Latest figures show an urgent need for inclusive growth
Vinod Thomas
Robust economic growth in the first few years of the 21st century has helped reduce poverty worldwide. But new numbers show that the actual extent of deprivation in India and elsewhere is far greater than previously thought. This insight does not question the role of growth in improving livelihoods, but it spotlights the need for much greater inclusiveness in the growth process in the face of the scale of poverty. Sustained growth remains a high priority. But it is not just how fast a country grows; crucially, it is also how it grows. Widening gaps between the rich and the poor dampen the impact of growth on poverty. Countries such as Brazil or Mexico have historically had a much higher income inequality than India or Indonesia. But disparities have been rising in recent years in the large Asian countries, while they have been falling in major Latin American nations. The new poverty estimates from the World Bank incorporate the finding that living costs are actually higher than estimated before, reflected in a global poverty line of $1.25 a day. These calculations suggest that as of 2005 there were 1.4 billion people worldwide living in extreme poverty. One-third of them would be in India, signifying the largest number of poor compared to other countries — and even relative to the country’s own past by these measures. Rapid growth has helped reduce India’s percentage of people in poverty, though far slower than in East Asia. And when coupled with high population growth, the numbers of the poor, which is what matters, show an increase. What’s striking is how close to the poverty line tens of millions live in India, making for a large change in the poverty numbers from a small shift in the chosen threshold. Even modest shocks can push millions below the poverty line. How well do these poverty measures mirror deprivation and its changes? For one thing, they do not adequately reflect access to schooling, health care, water and sanitation, or other public services that mark people’s well-being. Nor do they capture crime and violence or environmental destruction, which are especially serious in low-income localities. Across countries, some of these attributes — especially those affecting the underprivileged — have improved in recent years, but others have taken a turn for the worse. But regardless of the precise numbers, the urgency is clear in India for achieving more inclusive growth. Experience across countries tells us that it is important to get at inequalities, but in ways that do not derail growth. In this respect, generating opportunities and jobs for the poorer segments of the population would seem to be the best way forward. Policy leaders and policy documents in India recognise the directions needed: the key would be to spur actions and achieve results. High on the agenda for greater inclusiveness would be actions to address disparities in education that contribute to large earning differentials. Compared to Korea or Russia, education inequalities are large in India or Indonesia. What matters, of course, are not only greater access to schooling, but also the relevance and quality of the education — and learning outcomes that determine its usefulness in the workplace and contribution to growth. Narrowing earning gaps also calls for efforts to address the growing skill differentials, worker mobility and the functioning of labour markets. A second issue concerns rural-urban and regional differences in incomes. Expansion of agricultural productivity, complemented by the construction of all-weather rural roads and rural electrification, would have important impacts on rural poverty. Systematic differences in income levels across states and sub-regions also merit attention. In China and India, the poorer states or provinces have, in general, grown slower than the richer ones, while it has been the other way around in some other middle- and high-income countries. A third policy area for inclusion involves improved ways to provide income support to the poor. Many countries have relied on the provision of subsidies for consumer items, but the programmes have seldom been well targeted or effective.On the other hand, conditional cash transfer programmes have looked promising. Mexico and Brazil provide cash support to poor families conditional on children attending school and going to clinics for check-ups. These approaches have shown encouraging results in reducing poverty today, and improving education and health that help sustain future growth. And then there is the new danger that is affecting all: climate change and natural disasters wreaking havoc in the lives of people, especially the poor who are most likely to be in harm’s way. The Indian Ocean tsunami left more than 10,000 people dead and about 5,600 missing in India alone. The fury of the Kosi river affected 2.5 million people in 1,600 villages in Bihar, and 70,000 people in the immediate shock in Nepal. If combating damages to the environment was once considered a diversion from growth, its neglect now represents a central threat to growth. The poverty data reminds us that it is not enough to grow, it is also vital that increasing numbers of people benefit from the growth. India can generate high growth with a far greater impact on poverty through policy actions. As it turns out, inclusive growth is not only key to social progress, it is indispensable to sustaining growth itself.
The writer is director-general, Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank. Views expressed are personal.
Vinod Thomas
Robust economic growth in the first few years of the 21st century has helped reduce poverty worldwide. But new numbers show that the actual extent of deprivation in India and elsewhere is far greater than previously thought. This insight does not question the role of growth in improving livelihoods, but it spotlights the need for much greater inclusiveness in the growth process in the face of the scale of poverty. Sustained growth remains a high priority. But it is not just how fast a country grows; crucially, it is also how it grows. Widening gaps between the rich and the poor dampen the impact of growth on poverty. Countries such as Brazil or Mexico have historically had a much higher income inequality than India or Indonesia. But disparities have been rising in recent years in the large Asian countries, while they have been falling in major Latin American nations. The new poverty estimates from the World Bank incorporate the finding that living costs are actually higher than estimated before, reflected in a global poverty line of $1.25 a day. These calculations suggest that as of 2005 there were 1.4 billion people worldwide living in extreme poverty. One-third of them would be in India, signifying the largest number of poor compared to other countries — and even relative to the country’s own past by these measures. Rapid growth has helped reduce India’s percentage of people in poverty, though far slower than in East Asia. And when coupled with high population growth, the numbers of the poor, which is what matters, show an increase. What’s striking is how close to the poverty line tens of millions live in India, making for a large change in the poverty numbers from a small shift in the chosen threshold. Even modest shocks can push millions below the poverty line. How well do these poverty measures mirror deprivation and its changes? For one thing, they do not adequately reflect access to schooling, health care, water and sanitation, or other public services that mark people’s well-being. Nor do they capture crime and violence or environmental destruction, which are especially serious in low-income localities. Across countries, some of these attributes — especially those affecting the underprivileged — have improved in recent years, but others have taken a turn for the worse. But regardless of the precise numbers, the urgency is clear in India for achieving more inclusive growth. Experience across countries tells us that it is important to get at inequalities, but in ways that do not derail growth. In this respect, generating opportunities and jobs for the poorer segments of the population would seem to be the best way forward. Policy leaders and policy documents in India recognise the directions needed: the key would be to spur actions and achieve results. High on the agenda for greater inclusiveness would be actions to address disparities in education that contribute to large earning differentials. Compared to Korea or Russia, education inequalities are large in India or Indonesia. What matters, of course, are not only greater access to schooling, but also the relevance and quality of the education — and learning outcomes that determine its usefulness in the workplace and contribution to growth. Narrowing earning gaps also calls for efforts to address the growing skill differentials, worker mobility and the functioning of labour markets. A second issue concerns rural-urban and regional differences in incomes. Expansion of agricultural productivity, complemented by the construction of all-weather rural roads and rural electrification, would have important impacts on rural poverty. Systematic differences in income levels across states and sub-regions also merit attention. In China and India, the poorer states or provinces have, in general, grown slower than the richer ones, while it has been the other way around in some other middle- and high-income countries. A third policy area for inclusion involves improved ways to provide income support to the poor. Many countries have relied on the provision of subsidies for consumer items, but the programmes have seldom been well targeted or effective.On the other hand, conditional cash transfer programmes have looked promising. Mexico and Brazil provide cash support to poor families conditional on children attending school and going to clinics for check-ups. These approaches have shown encouraging results in reducing poverty today, and improving education and health that help sustain future growth. And then there is the new danger that is affecting all: climate change and natural disasters wreaking havoc in the lives of people, especially the poor who are most likely to be in harm’s way. The Indian Ocean tsunami left more than 10,000 people dead and about 5,600 missing in India alone. The fury of the Kosi river affected 2.5 million people in 1,600 villages in Bihar, and 70,000 people in the immediate shock in Nepal. If combating damages to the environment was once considered a diversion from growth, its neglect now represents a central threat to growth. The poverty data reminds us that it is not enough to grow, it is also vital that increasing numbers of people benefit from the growth. India can generate high growth with a far greater impact on poverty through policy actions. As it turns out, inclusive growth is not only key to social progress, it is indispensable to sustaining growth itself.
The writer is director-general, Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank. Views expressed are personal.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Not playing God in mission
A great interview in Christianity Today with Jayakumar Christian, head of World Vision India (a Christian humanitarian organization, as its website puts it. Interesting to see they have Rajdeep Sardesai's endorsement prominently flashing across the homepage! He's a famous journalist and founder of the 24/7 TV channel CNN-IBN.), on mission, focusing on the work they've done in one district (I suspect it's in Tamil Nadu. I've never heard of Gudiyatham district) in reducing bonded labor by children. He seems very level-headed, humble, deeply committed to the Gospel, and respectful of India's religious heritage as well, including the deep religiosity of India, at a level that most Westerners simply cannot appreciate until they've witnessed it firsthand. Here's some bits that really caught my attention.
But was seeing God in their liberation a theological shift for these Hindus?I don't think it's a theological shift for the average Hindu Indian. For Indians, God is more involved in day-to-day life than most Western Christians' theology would allow. The average Hindu need not be introduced to God in that sense. They need to be introduced to the name of that God—Jesus. I've said many times that we do not need to break our heads in India convincing any Indian about the existence of God. The challenge is, "What is the name of this God who is involved with the poor?" That's where Christian distinctiveness—and divisiveness—is felt. Our privilege in World Vision is being able to call attention to the name of God as Jesus through our lives, relationships, and actions, not in a divisive manner, but in a distinctive manner.Is there suspicion that your development work is a subtext for proselytizing?There is suspicion in certain quarters. But we insist that in World Vision India, we do not trade our God for development. We do not trade our God to buy relationships. He is too precious for us to be bargaining with, too precious to be bargained for. He is not for sale.So proselytizing, conversion through coercive means, is a non-issue for us. Not just because we respect the people we serve. That's one part of the story. But also because we value the God we worship.And here's another part -- about access and linkages. One doesn't think about these things, especially not India's privileged, or even middle classes -- we take it for granted. For instance, the fact that I can speak English -- a sign of education, access, power and status -- opens doors automatically. In the stratified and inherently inegalitarian mileu of India, walking into a bank or talking to an official is a hugely intimidating experience for the poor.
You seem to think about poverty less in terms of prosperity and more in terms of access.The word we use is linkages. Poverty is the absence of linkages, the absence of connections with others. So we look for opportunities to link powerless communities with people with good intentions, people with good hearts—government officials, health officials, panchayat presidents, headmasters in schools—who have an influence in the local area and who mean good. We work closely with them.We also work hard on our own linkages. Here in India, there are government officials in very senior positions who are most willing to design programs that serve poor communities—if we can link with them and help them understand the needs and opportunities there.The next part flows from this -- cultivating the powerful (and the wealthy) as partners in development. Most importantly, I find this attitude absolutely admirable -- to constantly beware of playing God.
The truth is that both the powerful and agents of transformation need to transform our understanding of power. It is not enough to simply play the power game better or more humbly. We need to come deeply to believe that our basis of power is not our professionalism or connections or resources. Those are only tools to be used. The basis for our power is our dependence on God. If we do not remember these fundamentals, it is so easy for us in World Vision to play God in the lives of the poor.What form does 'playing God' take in mission?You have to understand that my assumption is that the poor are poor because someone else is trying to play God in their lives. Human beings were designed to submit their spirit only to the Creator. Any attempt to take the place of the Creator leads to poverty. I talked about this with the community yesterday several times, and you could see heads nodding. Only God can direct how I should live my life, when my child should go to work, what my child should be doing. But others had taken that role of control in the lives of men, women, and children in that community.In the very process of breaking the human tendency to play God, though, I can begin to play God. Because I have similar power. I have the power to approve or not approve development programs; I have the power of connections; I know people in high places. For the agent of transformation to refuse to play God requires great strength of character.So how does one use one's power without playing God?We constantly remind ourselves that our organization is dependent on God. We might have budgets, strategies, professionalism, and sophistication in organizational practices, but those do not explain our effectiveness. Our effectiveness is explained by our dependence on God.I remember talking to one of my colleagues just three weeks ago. An elderly Hindu lady in his community came and handed a small wooden cross to him. She said, "I have figured out that this is the secret of your success." She said she had kept another cross for herself. I thought to myself, Who told her this? She must have observed his life. I was so grateful to God when I heard that.
But was seeing God in their liberation a theological shift for these Hindus?I don't think it's a theological shift for the average Hindu Indian. For Indians, God is more involved in day-to-day life than most Western Christians' theology would allow. The average Hindu need not be introduced to God in that sense. They need to be introduced to the name of that God—Jesus. I've said many times that we do not need to break our heads in India convincing any Indian about the existence of God. The challenge is, "What is the name of this God who is involved with the poor?" That's where Christian distinctiveness—and divisiveness—is felt. Our privilege in World Vision is being able to call attention to the name of God as Jesus through our lives, relationships, and actions, not in a divisive manner, but in a distinctive manner.Is there suspicion that your development work is a subtext for proselytizing?There is suspicion in certain quarters. But we insist that in World Vision India, we do not trade our God for development. We do not trade our God to buy relationships. He is too precious for us to be bargaining with, too precious to be bargained for. He is not for sale.So proselytizing, conversion through coercive means, is a non-issue for us. Not just because we respect the people we serve. That's one part of the story. But also because we value the God we worship.And here's another part -- about access and linkages. One doesn't think about these things, especially not India's privileged, or even middle classes -- we take it for granted. For instance, the fact that I can speak English -- a sign of education, access, power and status -- opens doors automatically. In the stratified and inherently inegalitarian mileu of India, walking into a bank or talking to an official is a hugely intimidating experience for the poor.
You seem to think about poverty less in terms of prosperity and more in terms of access.The word we use is linkages. Poverty is the absence of linkages, the absence of connections with others. So we look for opportunities to link powerless communities with people with good intentions, people with good hearts—government officials, health officials, panchayat presidents, headmasters in schools—who have an influence in the local area and who mean good. We work closely with them.We also work hard on our own linkages. Here in India, there are government officials in very senior positions who are most willing to design programs that serve poor communities—if we can link with them and help them understand the needs and opportunities there.The next part flows from this -- cultivating the powerful (and the wealthy) as partners in development. Most importantly, I find this attitude absolutely admirable -- to constantly beware of playing God.
The truth is that both the powerful and agents of transformation need to transform our understanding of power. It is not enough to simply play the power game better or more humbly. We need to come deeply to believe that our basis of power is not our professionalism or connections or resources. Those are only tools to be used. The basis for our power is our dependence on God. If we do not remember these fundamentals, it is so easy for us in World Vision to play God in the lives of the poor.What form does 'playing God' take in mission?You have to understand that my assumption is that the poor are poor because someone else is trying to play God in their lives. Human beings were designed to submit their spirit only to the Creator. Any attempt to take the place of the Creator leads to poverty. I talked about this with the community yesterday several times, and you could see heads nodding. Only God can direct how I should live my life, when my child should go to work, what my child should be doing. But others had taken that role of control in the lives of men, women, and children in that community.In the very process of breaking the human tendency to play God, though, I can begin to play God. Because I have similar power. I have the power to approve or not approve development programs; I have the power of connections; I know people in high places. For the agent of transformation to refuse to play God requires great strength of character.So how does one use one's power without playing God?We constantly remind ourselves that our organization is dependent on God. We might have budgets, strategies, professionalism, and sophistication in organizational practices, but those do not explain our effectiveness. Our effectiveness is explained by our dependence on God.I remember talking to one of my colleagues just three weeks ago. An elderly Hindu lady in his community came and handed a small wooden cross to him. She said, "I have figured out that this is the secret of your success." She said she had kept another cross for herself. I thought to myself, Who told her this? She must have observed his life. I was so grateful to God when I heard that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)