As a young student I would like to suggest some factors which would be helpful in our journey to reduce poverty. Basically we have to take necessary steps to reduce the population in our world. Natural resources don’t increase according to the population which is increasing at a high speed. When we consider the families in poor countries, they have at least six or seven kids. But those kids do not have a proper health or the parents cannot provide proper education for them. And also those parents cannot provide good foods filled with suitable nutrients to their kids due to lack of wealth. Because of that their healthiness decreases by a considerable amount. The development of their brains becomes insufficient and due to that their ability to get a proper education decreases.
So taking necessary steps to develop health and education sectors in these countries is a good way to reduce poverty. So firstly we have to develop services for pregnant women of those countries and provide them good foods filled with proper nutrients to keep the babies in good health. And then the kids will be in good health and their brains will be in a better condition to get a proper education. Developing the education sectors of those countries with the help of charity services and the governments of developed countries is also a good step to develop education systems in those countries. When we take a look at the situation of education in a number of African countries affected by poverty we see: language barriers; a lack of proper facilities; and military conflicts.
Robert Rector, “Examining the Means-tested Welfare State: 79 Programs and $927 Billion in Annual Spending,” testimony before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, April 17, 2012, .
Quoted in Trattner, From Poor Law to Welfare State, pp. 102–104. See also Robert H. Bremner, The Discovery of Poverty in the United States (1956; reprint, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1992), chapter 2; Olasky, The Tragedy of American Compassion, pp. 116–150.
Table No. 730, “Persons Below Poverty Level and Below 125 Percent of Poverty Level,” in United States Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1996 (Washington.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996), Section 14, “Income, Expenditures, and Wealth,” p. 472.
One cannot help being reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s final verdict on the British welfare system—a system, he argued, that promoted poverty by supporting people who chose not to work:
The incentive structure of the modern welfare state is similar to the one that Franklin condemned in old England, except that ours is more generous and more tolerant of single motherhood. Since 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson inaugurated the modern War on Poverty, total annual government welfare spending has grown from less than $9 billion (1.3 percent of gross domestic product) to $324 billion (5 percent of GDP) in 1993 to $927 billion (6 percent of GDP) in 2011. Between 1965 and 2013, the government spent $22 trillion (adjusted for inflation) on means-tested welfare programs—more than three times the costs of all military wars in the history of the United States.
I prefer to use "Third World" because "developing" seems to be just a euphemistic way of saying "underdeveloped but belatedly starting to do something about it." It still implies that poverty was an original historic condition and not something imposed by the imperialists.
The most destructive feature of the post-1965 approach has been its unintentional promotion of family breakdown, which is a recipe for the neglect and abuse of children, the widespread crime that such abuse fosters, the impoverishment of women and children, and the loneliness and anguish of everyone involved.
Before 1965, most Americans believed that property rights and the marriage-based family were the most effective means to get people out of poverty. After 1965, government policy and elite opinion turned against the older view.
A study of twenty of the poorest countries, compiled from official statistics, found that the number of people living in what is called "absolute poverty" or rockbottom destitution, the poorest of the poor, is rising 70,000 a day and should reach 1.5 billion by the year 2000 (San Francisco Examiner, June 8, 1994).
In spite of this intellectual assault on traditional welfare policy, the Founders’ approach persisted—in modified form, to be sure—until the 1960s. Contrary to common opinion, for example, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal modified but did not greatly change the older model. Social Security was originally sold as an insurance scheme in which workers funded their own retirement.
Of course, the Founders had never claimed that all poverty was caused by bad character. Jefferson’s poor law had made a clear distinction between those who were able to work but preferred not to and those whose age or disability prevented them from working. The new approach tended to blame indiscriminately what later came to be called “the system” for poverty of every kind.