NextBillion.net - Development Through Enterprise - What About U.S.? - Comments

Collier's point

Derek Newberry — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:24:09 -0500

Good points Robert - I guess my issue was with how the Bottom Billion gets defined. My understanding is that Collier looks at poverty through the lens of the nation-state, in terms of identifying who the Bottom Billion are, the reasons they are in poverty and the solutions to help them escape poverty. I would only suggest that the Bottom Billion are not confined to certain nations, that even a well-off or rapidly growing country can have plenty of people with little to no access to that country's resources, potentially making them no better off than what Collier identifies as the Bottom Billion in sub-saharan Africa.

Not to say that state policy and characteristics of a nation don't matter at all, I'm just advocating an alternative perspective, that the nation-state is still an important, but not the only actor that matters in individual peoples' lives.

Missed Collier's point

Robert Granger — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:10:34 -0500

I think you missed the point re: Paul Collier's position. There's plenty of work to be done to address poverty in all countries--top and bottom billion. It's a matter of approach and priority. Addressing the "bottom billion"--using appropriate tools--is a priority because of the global cost and impact of not making that a priority. It's Pareto's principle: 80% of the impact of a problem is produced by 20% of the root causes. For the biggest impact, focus on the 20%...but don't ignore the other 80%. It is analogous to the issue of ending homelessness in the US. Over the last 10 years there's been a radical realization that huge gains can be made by focusing on helping the most chronically homeless get directly into housing...and then providing the needed support. This approach can be viewed as unfair because it only focuses on the bottom few. However, it hasn't stopped people from addressing the rest of the homeless population...and it has focused policies, optimized resources and produced significant overall results.

What About U.S.?

Derek Newberry — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:40:56 -0500

In the several days since the news that Yunus' microfinance movement would be coming to the U.S., I've had some time to consider what this says about how we treat the BoP institutionally. To me, the fact that Yunus' forays in NYC are seen as so newsworthy illustrates the "us and them" (or "U.S. and them") mentality we have in dealing with poverty.

By this, I mean that in general, there is a thick barrier separating domestic poverty programs from those that work internationally. Just go to Kiva or Microplace and try to find a U.S. based project to invest in. We at New Ventures don't cross this line either, maintaining ourselves as an internationally-focused organization, and the same principle works for the many poverty-focused organizations that bill themselves as domestic in scope.

Odd that in this age of globalization, goods and capital are increasingly flowing across borders indiscriminately, yet we think that how we impact poverty should be determined and defined by national boundaries?

I remember thinking that Paul Collier was implying as much during a talk I attended a while ago in which he discussed his book The Bottom Billion. To paraphrase, he made the argument that we shouldn't target support for the poor in China or India because those countries' growth rates are high enough, people are reaching the middle-class etc. In other words, unlike the poor in sub-saharan Africa, they're doing just fine.

(This post continues past the break; click "Read More" to continue)