ROOM FOR DEBATE
What is the most effective means of reducing (rural) poverty?
Local governance promotes good governing practices such as participatory democracy and grassroots or civil society participation in decision making and resource allocation, transparency and anti-corruption mechanisms, human rights and administrative justice, equitable and fair access to services, fair balance between government and private sector, and the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial arms of government. CSOs and NGOs claim to play a leading role in building public-private partnerships in rural economic development activities. Over the past 5 years I have experienced firsthand the work of many NGOs. Some NGOs make a project one year and then they leave that project in rural areas. I absolutely disagree with this method of aid. If the NGOs or CSOs don’t have a long term or 5 year plan, they shouldn’t try to start in rural areas because rural areas cannot sustain the projects themselves due to insufficient funds to implement and conduct the good quality service comparable to that of the original organizations.
I do believe that the government is the only institution with the power and authority to solve these problems in rural areas. Other private sectors, NGOs, CSOs, are reliant on government policies to act, but are extremely beneficially if they put proper investment into rural areas. That is why the government can the most effectively reduce the rural poverty by collaborating with other institutions.
In many countries, governments have set up complicated systems to alleviate poverty, including food stamps, subsidized housing, systems of earned income tax credit (EITC), among many others. While these programs aid in poverty reduction, one of the most effective ways of alleviating poverty is deceptively simple: give every citizen a check each month.
The universal basic income (UBI), also known as the basic income or unconditional basic income, appears to be a too-simple solution to poverty in which everyone receives a no-strings-attached stipend each month. The program is also seemingly less progressive than some other poverty-reduction policies, as it is a flat income–everyone gets the same amount, independent on your earnings or other quantifiers. However, this equality in the stipend may be more politically palatable, as it’s simply a check that each person receives each month, removing the “free-riders” argument or other criticisms of welfare in which more impoverished citizens receive more assistance. The UBI allows for everyone to sustain themselves at a basic level, but most proposed plans are low enough as to provide incentive for individuals to find employment in addition to the stipend.
Emma Wennberg, California
Aung Myo Htun (Kelly), Myanmar
Have an opinion on the issue? Share your perspective by clicking here
Editor's Note: Op-Eds were edited to fit the page, to view the full versions, click on the headline.