By Mohammad Tariqur Rahman
People who are born in a poverty-ridden family are most likely to inherit poverty – yet it is not an inherent characteristic of an individual. That makes poverty a social construct rather than a natural phenomenon. Others described poverty as a social evil, social injustice, or social inequality – which could be at least theoretically alleviated, if not eliminated, with the right policies.
While there are social, philosophical, and psychological perspectives on poverty, diverse economic theories are also in place for poverty alleviation. Ironically, amidst those intellectual discourse, poverty continues to persist.
In human society, the existence of hierarchical strata from a king to a servant, from a master to a slave, or from a CEO to a janitor is undeniable. That means there has always been and will always (?) be a gap in ownership of wealth or fortune. That makes some rich and the rest poor in a society.
Indeed, the prevalence as well as the scale and indicator to measure poverty varies. However, purchasing power parity is a common indicator where each nation has its own national poverty line.
For example, In the year 2022 approximately 18.7% of Bangladeshis, 14% of Turkish, 6.2% of Malaysian, and 11.3% of US citizens live below their respective national poverty lines, i.e., 2.57, 7.63, 21, and 24.5 USD/day respectively. Notably, less than 2.15 USD/day is considered extreme poverty.
In the year 2000, 2.8 billion people worldwide lived on less than 2 USD/day. In 2022, the global population of extreme poverty was reduced to 713 million. Albeit with a decreasing rate, poverty continues to exist.
None of the policies such as imposing higher taxes for high-income brackets, curbing inflation, increasing industrial or agricultural productivity, upgrading the monetary system, creating a job market, or controlling state asset ownership seem to effectively alleviate poverty prevalence. On the contrary, those in the end favor the rich. Fortune favors the rich – as it says.
Those efforts were also proven futile for a number of inapt realities: (1) There has been a growing number of worldwide forcibly displaced people due to imposed wars, persecution, conflict, (ethnic) violence, human rights violations, or events seriously disturbing public order – the majority of them are living in poverty. (2) The wealth of the world’s richest 1% has been increasing rapidly – billionaires’ fortunes growing by billions daily, while a majority of the global population faces inflation outpacing wages. (3) The affluent control Power politics at a national level – making the economic apparatus favorable for that selected group of the rich population.
At the same time, the rich are in a sickening race to accumulate wealth while conveniently ignoring their accountability and obligation to the rest of society. Some rich could buy the fame of “philanthropist” by donating a pinch of their monthly if not daily savings.
Sadly though, a competition to race for their names in the list of “the richest” has become an indicator of success in the race for economic prosperity. Albeit a fathomable calculation makes one ponder on the fate of their accumulated wealth that is impossible to use in their lifetime or in the lifetime of their heirs.
Apparently, nothing is wrong with accruing fortune if that comes through the right means such as successful entrepreneurship. Nonetheless, that apparently right perception feeds wealth to the malign chain of “billionaires’ fortunes that grows by billions daily”.
The richest use that malign chain beyond the national and regional boundaries and shackle the global economy in their grip. The existence of business monopolies and the disappearance of small industries are discussed at length in that direction.
Indeed the richest have their “acumen” for economic prosperity, yet they clearly lack the accountability to ensure prosperity for the rest of the world.
While we are striving to alleviate poverty, we could at least offer a reasonable quality of life for all – where people at the bottom strata of society such as janitors, servants, or modern-day slaves will have a guarantee of basic needs for their lives. A wisdom that was reminded by Datuk Dr Anis Yusal Yusoff in a group conversation with his colleagues at the International Institute of Public Policy and Management (INPUMA) at Universiti Malaya.
Offering a reasonable quality of life to everyone in society is a collective moral responsibility.
Merely a policy or a government initiative might not suffice. Or else, like any other policies such as those that helped to shape democracy, education, or health, some Nobel-winning economic theories could have been instrumental in eliminating extreme poverty and offering a quality of life to all.
For example, no national or international policy could stop the wicked symptoms of raging wars and ethnic cleansing or violence that are at the root of the plight of millions of forcibly displaced people. Like it or not, almost every nation is burdened with a fraction of those people living in poverty.
Again a policy for salary hike may add more to the monthly savings of a CEO, while a janitor continues to struggle with a tiny increase in their salary. The policy does not cure the symptom of making the rich richer while keeping the “status quo” of the poor living in poverty.
Furthermore, a policy that allows the usage of AI technology makes the company owners richer with less on their expenditures such as slashing EPF, pension, or health insurance for human workers. That in turn adds to the prevalence of poverty.
Having said that, it is reasonable to argue that poverty is not merely an economic issue—it is a symptom of a deeper social syndrome than merely a social injustice or social inequality perpetuated by systemic inequalities and an ever-widening wealth gap. Ironically, the symptoms of that social syndrome are not among the poor. That is rather with the rich.
As long as the economic apparatus continues to favor the rich becoming richer, any effort to alleviate poverty or pull the poor to become rich might not see the silver lining.
While certain social security policies may provide temporary relief, they rarely address the root causes that keep the cycle of poverty intact. True change requires more than economic restructuring; it demands a shift in collective moral responsibility.
No policy alone can dismantle the structures that allow the wealth of a few to grow at the expense of many. The persistence of poverty, despite numerous interventions, suggests that solutions must go beyond taxation, wage adjustments, or economic incentives. Instead, they should foster a society where prosperity is shared, and basic human dignity is guaranteed for all.
Until we can cultivate a culture of ethical responsibility—where wealth is not just accumulated but also redistributed to those who are in need —poverty will remain an enduring global challenge. Different forms of charity including the Islamic Zakat and Waqf could offer a practical solution to root out the social syndrome.
In the end, the real question is not just whether a policy can fix this social syndrome but whether societies are willing to confront the values and systems that sustain it. Perhaps the best we could do is to educate ourselves to feel and realize the plights that others suffer for our greed, be it for wealth or power.
Prof Mohammad is the Deputy Executive Director (Development, Research & Innovation) at International Institute of Public Policy and Management (INPUMA), Universiti Malaya
Leave a comment