This is good, of course, but if they only left the less than 50 cents a day category to enter the 50 to 75 cents a day category right above it, how big a change is that really for them? Does this solve anything in the long run, say, changing the quality of their life and that of their children?
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 1:57 PM on January 26, 2015

One can throw life preservers to those exiting a sinking ship while also planning better vessel construction methods.
posted by lalochezia at 2:01 PM on January 26, 2015 [22 favorites]

Considering they have strict criteria (80% of their money goes to only 80% of the food they actually need), any improvement means a fuller stomach which is pretty good on its own.
posted by just.good.enough at 2:06 PM on January 26, 2015 [2 favorites]

Our ancestors lived in dire poverty by today¡¯s development standards, living with poor sanitation and dying of cholera, tuberculosis and polio. As Paul Collier wrote in The Bottom Billion: ¡°Poverty is not intrinsically a trap. Otherwise we would all still be poor.¡±

what in the world
posted by The Bridge on the River Kai Ryssdal at 2:11 PM on January 26, 2015 [5 favorites]

One can throw life preservers to those exiting a sinking ship while also planning better vessel construction methods.

Agreed, lalochezia. I get frustrated with leftist friends of mine who dismiss global poverty interventions as mere band-aids or distractions. And then go back to sipping their artisanal chai lattes and sharing Jacobin articles. As you say, you can agitate for structural reform while also seeking to ameliorate the effects of global capitalism on individuals.
posted by dontjumplarry at 2:25 PM on January 26, 2015 [15 favorites]

but if they only left the less than 50 cents a day category to enter the 50 to 75 cents a day category right above it, how big a change is that really for them?

If I gave you a fifty percent raise, would you notice the difference?

This is a genuinely terribly written article. Don't they have media staff who can help with this? The intervention sounds interesting, but this is not the right piece for learning about it.
posted by Dip Flash at 2:29 PM on January 26, 2015 [3 favorites]

how does this compare to smashing capitalism?
posted by entropone at 3:05 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]

Don't they have media staff who can help with this?

"Scott MacMillan is a writer and manager for communications and outreach for Brac USA"

They do, and he's one of them.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:07 PM on January 26, 2015 [2 favorites]

Here's another article on Brac's efforts in 2012. The article in the OP covers the "how," while this article covers more context, and is less of a poorly written ad for what could be a great program.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:10 PM on January 26, 2015

how does this compare to smashing capitalism?

It actually works.
posted by jpe at 3:19 PM on January 26, 2015 [6 favorites]

Although if "works" means "looks awesome on a bumper sticker," then maybe smashing capitalism does work in some sense.
posted by jpe at 3:22 PM on January 26, 2015

It works? You mean it's easier to implement.

Yeah, it works, but the question for large-scale interventions like this is, does it have an effect that propagates itself?

This intervention provides sustenance, education, job training, and health care. This is something that societies should provide so that people don't become ultra-poor in the first place. My (only slightly) glib comment about smashing capitalism still applies, since capitalism is still going to create more and more ultra-poor people.

This intervention's successes are great. But it's a better band-aid.
posted by entropone at 3:33 PM on January 26, 2015

The article says that the majority of the ultra-poor are landless rural women, and the program teaches them some level of numeracy and literacy as well as a trade. Assuming that some of these women have children, it wouldn't be a stretch at all that these skills would propagate. It's hard to educate your children when you're illiterate and living hand to mouth.
posted by KGMoney at 3:47 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]

how does this compare to smashing capitalism?

Because it's a GOOD idea. Smashing capitalism is a horrible idea that has never succeeded when implemented on a large scale.

Strictly regulating capitalism, making smart decisions on what sectors of an economy to be more capitalistic and what sectors to be socialistic, and keeping your eye on maintaining that balance so that capitalism is allowed to work where it works best and socialism to work where it, in turn, works best.... well, before the neoliberal consensus, nicely capitalistic societies which operated under the monikers of 'social democracies' did a fairly fine job of having economic growth and still having a strong social safety net, TYVM.

Capitalism doesn't have to be economic darwinism run amok. Don't let the Koch brothers OR entropone tell you otherwise.
posted by chimaera at 4:19 PM on January 26, 2015 [12 favorites]

When I was in Mexico last year, the bed and breakfast I stayed at had a program where you could buy some groceries and give them to a local family. I thought that was a nice thing to do that would make a difference, so we did it, but I was shocked at what poverty really means in Mexico. A single mother with several children who were all obviously malnourished, that lived in a tiny cinder block shack with dirt floors, no doors or windows, no screen for mosquitos, and their only furniture was a hammock that a tiny baby was sleeping in.

I don't know what I expected to feel when I gave them food, but what I didn't expect to feel, as the little kid got excited about the lollipops in the care package (along with rice, corn flour, diapers, etc), was shame. They wanted to take pictures with us, because I guess that's what they usually do when they bring food, but it didn't feel right. There was nothing to be proud of, that we force people to get by with so little. It's a crime. It's different seeing it up close than in a tv commercial asking for money.

And yes, moving them up to a dollar a day would make a vast difference to their lives, and two dollars even more.
posted by empath at 4:39 PM on January 26, 2015 [9 favorites]

Malnutrition in children (and pregnant women) has lifelong consequences, among them lowered IQ and behavioral problems. Alleviating that malnutrition has far reaching effects.
posted by bq at 5:41 PM on January 26, 2015 [6 favorites]

This intervention's successes are great. But it's a better band-aid.

So what do you suggest we spend the money on? Righteous blog posts?
posted by happyroach at 9:37 PM on January 26, 2015 [1 favorite]

I'm just coming back from a conference (self-link) in Cebu, Philippines (and typing away thanks to satellite-provided WiFi, how cool is that??) and even the Philippines, nominally a middle income country has astoundingly terrible poverty, even just around the corner from our nice hotel.

There were people living on the streets with their kids. I asked a local why people seemed to be hanging out at the bank machine all the time, and he said "they live there."

So, yeah, anything that can alleviate poverty is a good thing.

One of the members of our organization actually used to be a youth representative in the Philippines legislature, and he now works as a community organizer. He says that addressing poverty really must be a grassroots effort. I didn't have a chance to ask him what he meant - we were busy drinking San Miguel Pilsen and eating Lechon at a fantastic hole-in-the wall restaurant while a young guy dressed in a starched white shirt with a riot gun stood watch outside.

But this seems like a cool initiative.
posted by Nevin at 12:48 AM on January 27, 2015

Economist article on Bangladesh, praising BRAC
posted by alasdair at 3:39 AM on January 27, 2015

Chimaera, what you're describing is what i would call smashing capitalism. Or, to elaborate beyond a bumper sticker, breaking the rule and domination on capitalism.

Happyroach, I don't know where you got fodder for your cheap dig about blog posts from. seemed pretty unnecessary to me.

This intervention is great but in alleviating poverty we can't forget economic conditions that CREATE it. Certainly we are intelligent enough to hold both in our minds, no?
posted by entropone at 6:12 AM on January 27, 2015

The Gross World product is about $75 trillion. There are 7 Billion people in the world. If we distributed all the wealth in the world evenly, year by year, everyone would live off of $10,700 a year. That's about $30 a day.
posted by empath at 6:34 AM on January 27, 2015

Although the price of everything would go up, because how are we going to get people to harvest food and work in sweatshop for pennies a day then.

Basically, if you make more than $10k a year, you're living off of the exploitation and suffering of others.
posted by empath at 6:38 AM on January 27, 2015

A lot of "Everything is terrible, so why try?" snark here.

THIS IS GREAT, PEOPLE!
posted by IAmBroom at 9:22 AM on January 27, 2015

One of the thoughts that immediately struck me as I read this was that it cost $500 per person to implement this program. I wonder would have happened to these same people if they had simply[*] given them all $500?

[*] I recognize there are practical implications on banking and personal security that means handing over $500 cash to someone in that position isn't necessarily appropriate.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:19 AM on January 27, 2015

This intervention is great but in alleviating poverty we can't forget economic conditions that CREATE it. Certainly we are intelligent enough to hold both in our minds, no?

We are, that's why we don't need people popping in to remind us, as if anyone had forgotten, so they can demonstrate how very progressive they are. We get it, your compassion makes the Buddha envious and you're too ideologically pure to let this band-aid fool you.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:36 AM on January 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

For just $365 I can lift someone out of ultra-poverty for two years.
posted by pfh at 6:41 PM on January 27, 2015