The document summarizes two articles about reducing poverty in developing countries. The first article discusses how around 1 billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty in the last 20 years due to factors like emerging capitalism and free trade. It aims to reduce the number of extremely poor people by another billion by 2030. The second article discusses how developing countries have started implementing social safety net programs like cash transfers to help the poorest citizens. It provides guidelines for countries to implement these programs effectively, such as consolidating services and using biometric identification to reduce fraud.

1. FMGD PRE-COURSE
ASSIGNMENT
KrishnaKumari Sahoo
UM14029

2. ARTICLE NAME:
1) Towards the end of poverty - Nearly 1 billion people have been taken
out of extreme poverty in 20 years. The world should aim to do the same again
Print- Jun 1st 2013
2) Helping the poorest of the poor - Developing countries have started to
weave social safety nets. Here’s how they should do it
(Anti-poverty Programmes)
Print- Jan 8th 2015
REVIEW:
a) Summary:
The first article talks about the worldwide target for eradication of poverty. To
commence the article, a graph is shared which shows the timeline of approximate
count of poor people in world in last three decades. It also shows a futuristic estimate
for next two decades.
It starts with a quote by Harry Truman, the 33rd president of USA which says
“more than half the people in the world are living in conditions approaching
misery. For the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill
to relieve the suffering of those people.” It was in 1949. Between 1990 and
2010, the number of people living under extreme poverty line fell by half, a reduction
of around 1 billion people. As per current scenario, of the 7 billion populations on
earth, 1.1 billion subsist below the extreme-poverty line of $1.25 a day. Recently, the
United Nations, Govt. officials and international agencies are gearing up to repeat the
feat over next 15 years. They are meeting to draw up a new list of targets to replace
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were set in September 2000 and
expire in 2015. This time their main new goal would be to reduce the number of
extremely poor by another billion by 2030.
According to the article, The MDGs have helped marginally by creating a
yardstick for measuring progress, but most of the credit goes to the emerging
capitalism and free trade in developing countries, for they enable economies to grow
which in turn, has eased destitution. Poverty line in developed countries like America
is $63 a day for a family of four whereas the average of the 15 poorest countries’ own
poverty lines is below $1.25. People below that level lack not just education, health
care, proper clothing and shelter but even enough food for physical and mental health.
Around two-thirds of poverty reduction within a country comes from growth, rest
one-third from greater equality. A 1% increase in incomes in the most unequal
countries produces a mere 0.6% reduction in poverty. In the most equal countries, it
yields a 4.3% cut.
Again the article holds China responsible for one-third of this achievement. Its
fast-growing economy pulled 680m people out of misery in 1981-2010, and reduced

3. its extreme-poverty rate from 84% in 1980 to 10% in 2014. But replicating China’s
success in India and Africa is very difficult because of their poor governance. Also
pulling people over the $1.25-a-day line have been relatively easy because so many
people were just below it. When growth makes them even slightly better off, it
brought them over the line. With fewer people just below the official misery limit, it
will be more difficult to push large numbers over it.
In spite of the huddles, this goal is still achievable if developing countries can
maintain their impressive growth and if inequality doesn’t widen too much so that
rich gets all the benefit of this growth.
The second article continues the theme that has been introduced in first. It
talks about the anti-poverty programmes adopted by developing countries. It calls
these programmes as ‘social safety nets’ i.e., by definition, are non-contributory
transfer programs seeking to prevent the poor or those vulnerable to
shocks and poverty from falling below a certain poverty level. The no. of various cash
programmes has been increased significantly from 2008 to 2013, but if done badly,
these efforts might squander billions in vain. For example, around half of India’s huge
expenditure on subsidised food and cooking gas, and public-works programmes in
rural areas is thought to be wasted or stolen. But if done well, they could transform
lives. One such successful example is “Bosla Familia” (family allowance)
programme which provides financial aid to poor Brazilian families. It covers 14m
families and has cut dire poverty by 28% in a decade for just 0.5% of GDP. Taking
inspirations from this programme, the article has suggested some guidelines for
developing countries to go about social safety nets. They are as follows:
1. Check all the social spending and estimate how much of it really goes to the poor.
For example, fuel subsidies in many countries mostly benefit the rich, reducing
social spending. Trimming such misdirected spending would leave more for the
neediest.
2. Governments must decide what to give, and how. Cash is less wasteful and
economically distorting than food or fuel subsidies. Exception would be school
lunches which can boost enrolment and cut micronutrient deficiencies.
3. All the services should be rolled into a single programme to simplify
administration and cut overlap. Setting up a single register will also cut fraud.
This is adopted by the highly successful Bosla Familia programme.
4. Thefts or frauds in case of cash hand-outs can be prevented by recording and
identifying recipients using biometric data, such as face, fingerprint and iris scans.
India is halfway through creating biometric records for its 1.2 billion people.
Making recipients to do something in return for their money may amplify a
scheme’s benefits. But poorly chosen conditions can exclude some of the neediest.
For example, people in remote areas may struggle to bring their children to clinics for
compulsory health checks. The main reason the Bolsa Família has boosted enrolment
in Brazil is not that recipients are compelled to send their children to school, but that

4. the stipend makes it easier to forgo children’s meagre earnings. India, where
education for girls is valued less than for boys, such a condition would make a bigger
difference.
Also the developing countries should worry a little less about making sure
their spending is tightly targeted on the poorest. Few such countries have reliable
records of their citizens’ assets or earnings, so trying too hard may exclude some
worthy recipients. Also processes such a detailed forms will discourage many as
literacy rate is very low for them. When pay-outs are small, simple checks, such as
whether an applicant lives in a poor neighbourhood, may be the best option.
The article concludes by saying, to make a big difference to their poor,
developing countries will have to cast their social safety nets widely.
b) Thematic Link:
The thematic link between the two articles, as evident from the above
summery is about the target of bringing people over extreme poverty line in
developing countries. First article describes what is done in last decades and why it is
possible to repeat the feat in next two decades. The second article elaborates the
successful methods already undertaken in few countries and the guideline for weaving
social safety nets in rest of them. Being raised in a small town of India, I have always
seen destitute around me and have been concerned what is being done about it, if not
able to contribute directly towards the cause.
c) Comment:
According to me, one of the biggest poverty-reduction measure would be
liberalising markets to let poor people get richer. That means freeing trade between
countries and within them. Monopolies and restrictive practices need to go. Also
implementing welfare programs at grass-root levels is the key. In this context, I agree
with the articles.
Reference:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_safety_net
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsa_Fam%C3%ADlia