More questions about world poverty
Previously I have addressed the problem of world poverty. For another class we are reading the Constitution of Liberty, by Friedrich Hayek, and I thought his point of view about poverty was very interesting. First of all, Hayek addresses progress and the notions of inequality. In essence, he claims that progress demands inequality, and as the upper class moves up, so does the lower class. In other words, the lower class benefits from the upper class’s advancement. As I read this, it seemed true that although there are large divisions between the West and other poorer countries, as the West advances, those poor nations do as well.
Therefore, like we talked about in class, Hayek would agree that poverty is an endless, necessary cycle. I had never really looked at addressing poverty like that before, and realized that it does make a lot of sense. Although there are many underlying issues that people would raise regarding the wealthy, such as the wealthy are not necessarily the innovators, they just finance the innovations, it is obvious that the problem of poverty does not come with an overt answer.
Another important aspect Hayek looks at is the utilization of knowledge, and that wealthy countries are wealthy because of their use of knowledge. Therefore, could the division between wealthier and poorer countries be lessened through more education? If wealthy nations funded more educational programs and helped generate more knowledgeable institutions, could poorer nations close the divide somewhat?
Therefore, like we talked about in class, Hayek would agree that poverty is an endless, necessary cycle. I had never really looked at addressing poverty like that before, and realized that it does make a lot of sense. Although there are many underlying issues that people would raise regarding the wealthy, such as the wealthy are not necessarily the innovators, they just finance the innovations, it is obvious that the problem of poverty does not come with an overt answer.
Another important aspect Hayek looks at is the utilization of knowledge, and that wealthy countries are wealthy because of their use of knowledge. Therefore, could the division between wealthier and poorer countries be lessened through more education? If wealthy nations funded more educational programs and helped generate more knowledgeable institutions, could poorer nations close the divide somewhat?
posted by green7 at 9:04 PM
3 Comments:
Prof. Simmons was telling us that story a few weeks ago about the smart girl he met in Petra, Jordan. She was smart but was still poor by U.S. standards because she didn't have any opportunities to put that knowledge to use. If she lived in the U.S., she probably would have been richer.
So I think the first problem is with governments and how the economy is allowed to run rather than an educated population. Maybe it is not the lack of education, but of opportunities.
Hayek shows a lot of wisdom in this book. I really enjoy reading it too.
Although it is also the first time I read about such written notion of progress and inequality, I have sensed it in the world practice. It is true that as the developed countries progress, the under-developed ones are gaining benefits as well, in ways of absorbing investment etc. A compelling example nowadays is the technology outsourcing by developed countries, although some see it as exploitation, I think it is to a win-win end.
When it comes to the use-of-knowledge part, my understanding is it mostly about the application of science and technology and encouragement of innovation. “Could the division between wealthier and poorer countries be lessened through more education?” I think it depends, because sometimes it is not all about the opportunities of education, but how and what the poorer ones educate their people, i.e. how they encourage “the use of knowledge” and what knowledge to be used.
“If wealthy nations funded more educational programs and helped generate more knowledgeable institutions, could poorer nations close the divide somewhat?” I doubt it.
In response to Brooks, I understand that a small majority of educated people will not really help the poor country that much, but what if a great number of the population was educated, then couldn't they maybe change the institutions and organizations to better promote economic advancement? I agree that government institutions need to change in order for poorer countries to be better off, but I believe it needs to start from the ground up, and the more people who are educated the more they could make progressive changes.
Post a Comment
<< Home