O combate à pobreza
Na "The Economist" (link acesso livre).
"The reductions in poverty in both countries [China & India] are primarily the result not of the policies of the global great and good, or of the charity of rich countries, but of better domestic government—including the provision of basic education and health care and, crucially, the freeing up of markets. In both countries, even better government would reduce poverty further. For instance, corruption remains rife in both countries, and has a particularly severe impact on the poor by depriving them of needed services and raising their cost of access to markets and to finance. Likewise, in those parts of the world where little progress has been made in reducing poverty—notably much of Africa—abysmal government deserves much of the blame. "
"World leaders would do better to consider the Copenhagen Consensus, a series of studies and a plan of action produced earlier this year by some of the world's top economists. They concluded that the best way to spend, say, $50 billion (which is peanuts for rich countries) to help the poor would be on programmes to limit the spread of AIDS, to combat malaria and to reduce malnutrition.
Trade liberalisation, by contrast, ought to be a simple choice for poverty-fighting politicians. Oxfam, a campaigning group, estimates, for example, that a 1% increase in Africa's share of world exports would be worth five times as much as the continent's share of aid and debt relief. Yet trade liberalisation requires politicians in rich countries to confront vocal protectionist interests at home. That can be painful and politically costly, and so takes courage. Thus, what deal, if any, is struck at the WTO meeting next December may provide the truest test of whether the will really exists to make poverty history"
"The reductions in poverty in both countries [China & India] are primarily the result not of the policies of the global great and good, or of the charity of rich countries, but of better domestic government—including the provision of basic education and health care and, crucially, the freeing up of markets. In both countries, even better government would reduce poverty further. For instance, corruption remains rife in both countries, and has a particularly severe impact on the poor by depriving them of needed services and raising their cost of access to markets and to finance. Likewise, in those parts of the world where little progress has been made in reducing poverty—notably much of Africa—abysmal government deserves much of the blame. "
"World leaders would do better to consider the Copenhagen Consensus, a series of studies and a plan of action produced earlier this year by some of the world's top economists. They concluded that the best way to spend, say, $50 billion (which is peanuts for rich countries) to help the poor would be on programmes to limit the spread of AIDS, to combat malaria and to reduce malnutrition.
Trade liberalisation, by contrast, ought to be a simple choice for poverty-fighting politicians. Oxfam, a campaigning group, estimates, for example, that a 1% increase in Africa's share of world exports would be worth five times as much as the continent's share of aid and debt relief. Yet trade liberalisation requires politicians in rich countries to confront vocal protectionist interests at home. That can be painful and politically costly, and so takes courage. Thus, what deal, if any, is struck at the WTO meeting next December may provide the truest test of whether the will really exists to make poverty history"
