This document discusses definitions of poverty and factors contributing to it on a global scale. It summarizes the World Bank's definitions of extreme and moderate poverty based on income. It also notes that over 60% of the world's population lives in poverty, with India and China containing the largest populations of poor. Various traditional and new forces are examined as driving poverty, including lack of infrastructure/services, economic conditions, climate change, and financial crises. The document suggests all citizens and corporations should care about reducing poverty.
7. WHERE DO THE POOR LIVE?
Other
29%
India
41%
Nigeria
8%
China
22%
7 Source: Kotler & Lee
8. % OF POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LINE
a
eri
Lib rip
St i
G Haza ait
e
bw
ba ad
Zim Ch
s tan
ani dia
A fgh In
U .S.
ina
Ch
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Source:
8 Kotler & Lee
9. WHY
TRADITIONAL FORCES
Adverse environmental factors
Poor health
Lack of basic infrastructure & services
Hard economic conditions
Poor access to education
Strong social factors
Lack of family planning
9
Hello everyone. \nThank you for giving me this opportunity. \nMy name is Tim McLaughlin.\nI am one of your classmates.\n\nSource:\nKotler and Lee, Up and Out of Poverty. (2009) Wharton School Publishing. Upper Saddle River, NJ.\n\nImage and data sources noted on slides.\n
Here’s the outline of my presentation.\n“W” questions.\nFinally, I’ll briefly explore if we should even care.\n
- You’re in extreme poverty if you make less than $1.25 / day.\n- You’re moderately poor if you make between $1.25 and $2 / day.\n\nThey were selling imported beer at our event last night for $10 each.\n\nSo using these figures ... NEXT: pie chart\n
This data is from 2005.\nUsing the World Bank definition, \nHere’s us. 38% of the world is NOT poor. What? Only 38% of the world is doing OK? This was pre-financial crisis. I wonder if the US pie has shrunk?\n\n...NEXT: UN poverty index\n
From 2008-2009 study\nFrom Norway to Niger\n* US: is 13th\n* N. Korea and Iraq NOT ranked\n\n... NEXT: defined by location\n
Kotler & Lee also define poor by location.\n\nVillage poor: little industry exists (Asia)\nRural poor: small communities, depressed by drought or industry abandonment, few job opportunities exist (midwest)\nUrban poor: people live in relative poverty, slums \npicture: Mumbai\n\n... NEXT: Speaking of Mumbai ...\n
... you can see here that 41% of people under the poverty line live in India (2.7B people) .\nMostly India and China, due to their large populations.\n\n... NEXT: However, looking at % of poor in a country ...\n
% of a country’s population below the poverty line.\n\nHaiti is at 80% along with these others.\nUS @ 12%, China @ 10%. Surprising?\n\n... Next: WHY? ...\n\n\n
Kotler & Lee list several traditional forces.\n\nNone of these should be a surprise to you.\nWe’ll look at 2 of them.\n\n... NEXT: Haiti ...\n
Earthquake Jan 2010\nCholera Oct 2010\n\nall on the list affect Haiti, where at least 80% of the citizens are under the poverty line. \nThis is cholera, under a microscope.\n\n...NEXT: New Forces\n
Kotler & Lee describe many new forces, too. \nLet’s look at 3: \nthe rise of China \nGlobal warming\n& the financial meltdown.\n... NEXT: First China.\n
China is using more energy. this line will continue to rise exponentially, driving up energy prices for the rest of the world, including its poorest citizens.\n\n... NEXT: global warming.\n
In 2008, a quarter of New Orleans citizens live under the poverty line.\nThey’re in a location where global warming won’t be doing them any favors. \n\nNEXT: Financial meltdown.\n\n\n.\n
The 2008 Financial collapse, which stopped economic output in its tracks.\nThese guys probably weren’t thinking about the poor... but should they? Should we?\n\nNEXT: Should we care?\n\n\n
Should those rational economic men care? Now I know you all do, (preaching to the choir)\nBut should the “rational” economic actors in the last slide care?\n\nI would argue yes. why?\n\nNEXT: Who is affected\n
Because we are all affected. \nRich. Poor. Black, white, hispanic, Asian.\nBusinesses, citizens, taxpayers.\nYou are affected. \nI am affected.\nEveryone is affected.\n\n... NEXT: 1 of 2 segments of society should care (business)\n
As citizens, we should care.\n\nLess poverty = better national security\nless crime,\n & ultimately lower taxes.\n\n\n
Businesses should care.\nAccording to C.K. Prahalad, the poor can spend about $8B/day. This calculates out to $2.9 trillion annually.\nMore than the French GDP!\n\n... NEXT: plug for google.com/publicdata\n
where can you learn more about poverty? \n\nI encourage you to go to these 2 web sites to explore the macro trends of poverty.\n
I hope I was able to lay some groundwork. We defined poverty, discussed where it is, who the poor are, traditional and new reasons for it, and why we should care. My teammates will build upon this.\n\nI put my twitter ID on here cuz that’s what everyone else does @ Igniteshow.com\n\nThank you very much.\n\nSource:\nKotler and Lee, Up and Out of Poverty. (2009) Wharton School Publishing. Upper Saddle River, NJ. \n\n