I found the article interesting and it's approach to poverty in general. It seemed to me that the article was insinuating that with efficient markets and infrastructure, the problem would be solved, which I strongly disagree with.
One thing, before turning to my critique of the article which might be outside the scope of what the article is concerned with, I found the fact that extremely poor people spent a good portion of their money on festivals and entertainment incredibly humanizing and beautiful.
I think the article overlooks the structural causes of people becoming and being poor. I think in most of the countries mentioned there is a strong legacy of colonialism that devastated the populations, like in India where famines were rampant during the British Mandate.
It also does not address the fact that currently, multinational corporations benefit from being able to tap into the cheap labor force and the weakly protected claims to land and resources. Allowing the companies and corrupt officials to extract and expropriate huge value from the poor of these countries, while oftentimes leaving environmental and social devastation. For example, the fast fashion industry has led to an incredible amount of pollutants, cotton farmers committing suicide, and political unrest, like in Bangladesh, leading to people getting killed and protesting for an increase in wages.
Thus, I think the article does not adequately address the pressures that directly or indirectly keep and benefit from the poor being extremely poor.
This piece allowed readers to understand that people in poverty cannot be defined by a singular threshold, and there cannot be one solution to mitigate these causes. It alluded to there being multiple ways of life, and layers to every person’s story. What struck me was how the poor spent their money, not just on necessities, but activities that they valued. While a problem among those in poverty is low BMI and poor nutrition, people in poverty continue to spend money on festivals.
South Asian countries were frequently mentioned in this article as case studies. In South Asian culture, the celebratory nature of deaths, births, and weddings are extravagant and worth the time and money. It is notable to identify religious and cultural practices and how they influence how all people, regardless of income, spend their money.
This marks the human desire for quality of living, and finding joys in cultural, celebratory, and familial aspects of life. I believe many people enter policy and decision making with a narrow mindset that if they advise those in poverty to adjust their spending habits, focus on their education, and invest more, they forget to consider the autonomy of the people themselves. This article signifies that proper solutions must not just address the basic needs of one’s life, but also ensure people note they have a life worth living.
A flaw of this argument is generalizing people in poverty, especially their personal choices on physical/mental well-being. As the previous comment mentions, the previous history and systemic discrepancies that have left people in poverty leave people in different starting conditions. Every person in poverty will be different, and this must be acknowledged.
As I was reading this article, I noticed how in some sections, the authors did not fully elaborate on their ideas. Even though I agree with some of the authors’ talking points, I don’t think they were successful in discussing why the fertility in poor countries is so high, and why the poor in the 13 specific countries spend so much money on festivals such as weddings and funerals.
When discussing the reason for high fertility in these poor countries, the authors state “One reason the population is young is that there are a lot of younger people”. They then state that the second reason for there being high fertility is that there are very few elders in these poor countries. Not only are these statements synonymous, the authors do not provide enough evidence to back up their claims. As discussed in class, they could have easily mentioned limited access to health care, a poorly run government, or the lack of education as a reason instead of just stating the statistics for a country that has high fertility.
As I previously mentioned, the authors seem to be shocked that a good portion of these countries spend most of their money on weddings and funerals. Considering they just discussed high fertility in these poor countries, it would make sense that much of their money would go to festive activities like these. Furthermore, many of these countries, such as Pakistan, India, and South Africa, take religion as a huge part of their culture. The people of these countries are living on less than a dollar a day, so, it makes sense that they would spend money on religion more than anything else. Religion is a driving force in many cultures, however, in countries with a developing economy, religion may be a way for people to stay in connected with each other, despite the living circumstances.
The authors bring up intriguing facts on developing countries such as their state of living and how spend their money. However, I wanted the author to delve deeper into the facts listed and give a more concise explanation about other topics mentioned.
This paper works well in providing an overview of poverty in developing countries and how the poor survive in these conditions. In fact, I found it particularly interesting how the authors wrote that although a poor person by definition is someone without enough to eat, they knowingly and willingly decide to use their money in areas of life that they feel better enhance their wellbeing.
However, this paper was written/published in 2006, almost 20 years ago. While I cannot speak for other countries, I do know that in India there have been certain advancements which do impact the argument made by Banerjee and Duflo about the poor in the country. Eg. the availability of technology/ entertainment technology; this needs to be remeasured because mobile phones, TVs, radios, etc are comparatively more affordable and accessible for purchase even for those who belong to the lowest income in India. So, I wonder how this change currently affects the expenditure of the low-income households described in the paper. I do believe though that despite the availability and accessibility of these devices, there is likely still more spending on festivities just because these countries are more collectivist than individualistic and find a lot more value in maintaining relationships through such celebrations.
Another point that I am certain has changed massively is the long term migration of the poor to urban areas. With an increasing demand of manual labor in urban/ industrial cities, I believe more people from rural Indian villages are migrating not just out of their areas, but out of state too. And with phones easily available and more accessible, people are able to stay in touch with family/ friends/ communities in their villages through phone calls. And so I want to note that in the modern Indian context the government and private entities are making a lot of services eg. internet/ data plans, bus and train transportation etc. are much cheaper and accessible, probably to increase this form of migration while being somewhat aware of the cultural phenomenon of not wanting to leave one’s family/community for long periods of time.
In the discussion about ownership of assets, I disagree with phones, clocks, watches, stools, cots, sewing machines, etc being used as measures of durable assets. Most of these assets have a high depreciating monetary and physical value and are not necessities for people living on the bare minimum. While land and vehicles should be included in the study, some of the other ones seem more unnecessary.
Overall, while there does exist correlation amongst a lot of the measures discussed, there are definitely a lot of omitted variables that the paper did not get too deep into, a big one being government incentives and how that changes expenditures of these households. Additionally, the paper discussed income earned by adults, but I don’t think it accounts for the income earned through child labor and how this is spent.
I found the articles discussions about the challenges surrounding credit, loans, and savings particularly interesting. I thought the Saving Clubs are a very interesting concept. I was curious wether such communal programs would work in the US as well. Or would American cultural concepts surrounding autonomy stymie such efforts?
There were two very surprising things in this reading. The first surprise was the daily allowance that defines poverty. 1$ a day is insane. I cannot think of any ingredient in a grocery store that is 1$ a day. Honestly 10$ a day would still be insanely low. I wonder how this affects our perception of what poverty is. The second surprise was the amount people spend on festivals. This seems completely normal. Living in abject poverty is a dehumanizing state of life, and our rituals and cultural celebrations create sense of meaning. Of course people would want to feel that way as they rightfully should.
The article reminded me a lot of a book I read senior year of high school called Behind the Beautiful Forevers by Katherine Boo. Katherine Boo decided to do research in the slums of Mumbai India to better understand the lives of the people who live there. She discovered the extreme poverty that these individuals experienced and she allowed her readers to gain insight into her finding through her book. I remember reading this book and being astounded at the level of poverty in these slums and it opened my eyes to economical issues outside of the United States. This article had a very similar effect although it was more data driven than emotional which helped me understand these issues even better. Like the book the article mentioned these extremely poor people doing anything to make some change including frying dosas and collecting trash.
In the article it talks about living arrangements of the poor and I thought it was interesting that it included that poor families on average have more household members. This is confusing due to the increasing expense that comes with raising children. I am curious what drives this increase in children in poor households and if this statistic will begin to change in the future? The article says not all surveys report fertility rates which would help answer my question.
To finish off my blog post I wanted to include a quote from the article: “In either case, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the poor do see themselves as having a significant amount of choices, and choose not to exercise it in the direction of spending more on food”.(6) This seems surprising and the article concludes it can be attributed to addiction and festivals.
Question
How do extremely poor people operate their own business without productive assets?
I found this article very interesting, particularly the discussion on credit, savings, and insurance. Even in their situations, the poor have tremendous agency and help each other out even without access to formal credit, savings accounts, and insurance. I was especially impressed by the Self-Help Groups, which sound very similar to the credit unions that we have here in the US (on a much smaller scale). Even in completely different parts of the world with completely separate socioeconomic factors, the same cooperative, community, altruistic economic and finance ideas arise and are put into practice by people regardless of how much money they have. I was wondering, if the interest rates for credit loans are so much lower at formal institutions, why don't poorer people, especially in cities, get loans from there? The article didn't really do a great job explaining why that is, though I suspect it is because land is often used to verify identity and credit-worthiness, and there are (as the article mentioned) significant land-title issues (incomplete records of land titles) that would obstruct people from being able to verify their assets.
I also found the discussion on public/private education and healthcare interesting. I read the book "Behind the Beautiful Forevers" about the Mumbai, India slum "Annawadi" for an urban sociology course last spring and a common theme in that book was the fact that in Annawadi private education was considered paramount and superior to public education, even in poor families (that is absolutely not the case in the US), due to its "better quality" of education (less absenteeism, less local political patronage) than the more corrupt and incompetent government schools (even with less formal certification for teachers). A failed state is one that cannot provide goods effectively to its citizenry and all of these countries, with their inability to guarantee provision of education and healthcare (resulting in the private sector taking over these areas) are failed states. The most common explanation for why the government fails to provide (both in the article and "Behind the Beautiful Forevers") is corruption and patronage. However, I was wondering if other causes are considered key as well in the case of poor public provision of services, such as overpopulation and massive debt/"structural adjustment programs" (neoliberalism/public spending cuts encouraged by international credit agencies like the IMF/World Bank) that have been common in developing countries in the past and present.
Lastly, I was interested in the article's explanation of many poor people's spending on seemingly non-essential goods like alcohol, tobacco, and festivals, which was the idea of relative poverty (not specifically mentioned by name). Relative poverty is the idea that people tend to feel a pressure to compete with their neighbors, and if their neighbors are doing "better" than they are (more alcohol, more festival tickets etc.), then people tend to become more unhappy and devote more of their resources to "catching" their neighbors in goods/assets etc. I've only ever heard relative poverty be used in the context of very wealthy individuals and their spending sprees (even with lots of money) due to feelings of inadequacy compared to even wealthier individuals, it was very interesting to see that even amongst poorer and middle class individuals, the phenomena is seemingly universal.
As someone interested in the field of medicine, one aspect of the paper that stood out to me was the discussion of the quality of healthcare in certain countries. Specifically, I was shocked by the study by Das and Hammer (2004), which claims that the average provider in their sample was slightly more likely to do harm than good (18). Elsewhere, the author mentions that in terms of low-quality education, many parents of school children are themselves illiterate. The authors speculate that because of this, the parents may not recognize that their kids are not learning much, so there is no effort to improve the quality of education. My question is to what extent does this reasoning apply to the low quality of health care? In other words, do those seeking health care recognize the low quality of care that they are receiving?
Banerjee and Duflo’s “The Economic Lives of the Poor” explores five aspects of the multidimensional lives of the poor and the extremely poor. By researching what the poor’s lives are like and delving into the complexities behind why the poor lead their lives the way they do, Banerjee and Duflo’s piece encourages potential solutions to the growth-inhibiting characteristics of life in undeveloped countries.
Banerjee and Duflo define those living on less than $2 per day per capita at purchasing power parity as the poor and those living on less than $1 per day as the extremely poor. The audience of this piece includes those living in developed countries. Those who live well above the poverty line tend to believe the poor are those who do not have enough means to pay for food. I fell into this belief pattern without proper data to back up my biases. Contrary to popular belief, “The Economic Lives of the Poor” immediately debunked this myth by emphasizing that many poor households do not allocate as much as they can to food. Instead, they prioritize festivals and indigenous forms of entertainment. The poor exercise self-control concerning their spending, withholding from purchasing more food that would provide them with the nutrition necessary to be more productive. For example, the typical poor household in Udaipur could spend up to 30% more on food than it currently does. Essentially, the extremely poor do not feel an extra compulsion to purchase more calories. This leaves me wondering why the extremely poor do not seem as hungry for additional calories as the developing world might instinctively expect and why our perceptions are warped.
In addition to the poor allocating their minimal savings in a counterintuitive manner, the poor also self-report happiness and health levels as not “particularly low” (p.9). Yet, Banerjee and Duflo concretely explained that the poor are unable to specialize due to a lack of opportunity to risk-take, their infant mortality rates are high as a result of poor health infrastructure, and their public school teachers are unqualified and often absent. All of these factors and more make it difficult to explain how the poor are experiencing self-reported normal utility levels. Perhaps a lack of awareness of a more productive, healthy, and consequently happy life is diminished by the poor’s subsistence economy.
A lack of allocation towards nutrition and self-perceived happiness and health are just a few of the many topics Banerjee and Duflo cover in their exploration of the lives the poor lead and how developing countries can work towards a future of productivity and growth.
This article does an excellent job at providing a high-level analysis of the lives of the poor. It comes as no surprise that the poor does not have savings, receive proper education, or have little access to infrastructure. However, the part that grabbed my attention is what they spend their money on. Seeing how spending changed across countries and even from rural to urban was interesting. The items they were buying such as a radio or television varied greatly.
A place where I felt where the article fell short, was not digging into the historical background of these countries. It would provide insight on why countries do not have access to certain infrastructure. What causes or has caused countries to be underdeveloped? Discrimination, unfair trading, insufficient aid? The research could have also included information on the importance of culture. Some context for why families or individuals do not have the same upward mobility (values, norms, location, etc.) as other countries. I would’ve also like to see some research on the difference between those making less than $2 per day compared to those making less than $5. I just want to see if there is a large difference or if its insignificant.
The lack of spending power individuals who are extremely poor has, represents a clear dilemma that makes it obvious that markets alone cannot develop the economy. Without disposable income individuals are unable to make spending choices on things such as healthcare and education, and much less so invest in firms in the economy that could spur development in these impoverished areas. The idea of extreme poverty destroys the assumptions of basic microeconomic models, and calls for a new approach. Furthermore, making clear the need for intervention from governments and NGO's to progress these economies.
This paper goes into detail about the economic choices of the poor and how they spend and receive their money. Some of the findings were particularly interesting such as the research surrounding the elasticity of spending on food compared with increasing income. Considering that a significant portion of respondents reported that they either cut back on meals or missed some entirely. It was also interesting to note that increasing income tended to go towards foods which were less efficient on a calorie to dollar basis I wonder if allocating a higher percentage of food budgets would result in better outcomes particularly when it comes to health.
I also wonder what effect a stronger legal system would have on the lives of the poor. The paper mentions that the high interest rates associated with loans are not because of the default rate, but the expense that must be undertaken to collect repayment. It also notes that those who own land often spend a significant amount of time protecting their land from those who would want to encroach on it. One reason why savings levels could be so low is that people are fearful that a malicious actor could steal all of their savings and that spending it now is the only way to avoid losing it. Given that a stronger legal system would require more resources, would it be worth it?
It seems like a decent number of problems come from a lack of stability or a temporary stressor on a family or community. Considering that most of the respondents possessed very little savings or productive assets, an unexpended event could have the ability to significantly destabilize an entire family. If something happens, education and food consumption could very easily be affected, as the paper notes, leading to consequences in the future.
One other interesting thing that the paper notes is that people often avoid taking risks by specializing in a specific task as a sudden contraction in opportunity for that task would result in them, and their family, losing their income. Is there an effective way to incentivize specialization by minimizing the risks associated with it?
This article was an interesting overview of the lifestyle, practices, and conditions experienced by the extremely poor. As others have mentioned, it didn't answer all the questions about the "why?" of these data points, but it did present them very informatively. Most of it was relatively unsurprising, but I was intrigued by a few aspects of the paper. Firstly, the extreme youth of the extremely poor and the high quantity of children they had. This lines up with what I've learned about demographic transitions in developing nations, where death rates fall much faster than birth rates and lead to a very young population. I'd be curious to know to what extent a high quantity of children is a cause of poverty and to what extent it's a symptom.
Overall, the article took a benevolent view of the extremely poor, trying to understand the circumstances behind their condition rather than condemning them for it. I'm interested to know why undernourished people don't spend extra money on extra calories. It'd be easy to explain as incompetence or lack of self-control, but I expect there's more rational reasoning at play here. The one point I would disagree with is the assertion that entertainment (festivals, TV/radio, etc.) wasn't a genuine "need." While it may not be necessarily essential for survival, it's not difficult to imagine that a certain degree of escapism is a psychological need for people who, as the article confirmed, live under a high level of stress each day.
One thing I found particularly interesting about this article was the cyclical nature of the economic lives of the poor. One thing that struck me as such was the part of the article that talked about the lack of specialization of work amongst the poor. Because they do not have extra money to spare on education, then their children take a job (or multiple jobs) that isn't highly specialized. When this happens, they still do not make enough money to spare much of it towards education, and the vicious cycle continues. Many other aspects of the economic lives of the poor have this cyclical nature to it that really seems to institutionalize poverty across the globe.
There were multiple things that I found quite interesting from the article. First of all, It was against my intuition that the most poor people tend to have larger families. However, the argument as to why made a lot of sense. It said that it makes sense to have large families as you spread the fixed cost of living across more people. I also found it interesting that a substantial portion of poor people make money by being an entrepreneur. This makes sense that they have more entrepreneurs in more developing areas as large corporations/franchises do not have tons of low level jobs. Finally, I was interested in the articles discussion about poor people spending money on alcohol and drugs. I think it is a common conotation that many homeless people are waisting money on things like drugs and alcohol. However, in multiple countries it was reported as a pretty small % of spending. The highest was mexico with 8.2%.
I have read many economic papers in my time here at W&L, and let me tell you, this is one of the first that I have genuinely enjoyed. This is not to say that I agree with every point made; it just addresses and sheds light on an issue I have a high interest in and low knowledge of.
Which is where my discussion begins.
The passage I was probably most invested in was the discussion of entrepreneurship amongst the poor. Admittedly, for reasons largely removed from the topic itself. In Western society, when the question of poverty or helping the impoverished/homeless comes up, many of the solutions proposed sound like "they should get a job" or "maybe if they worked harder they wouldn't be homeless" or "if they didn't want to be poor than they wouldn't be poor". So how is it then that there are people who are fulfilling these requirements (even two or three times over) but are still categorically the poorest in the world?
To me, it indicates a much more important disconnect. That barrier between poverty and prosperity is not truly (strictly) monetary, but an issue of perspective. Banerjee and Duflo do a great job of expanding and providing evidence for the reasons people are struggling to progress. And yet their explanations still look nothing like what poverty and its origins are largely perceived to be. Why? I don't really have an answer, but it's a disparity this reading got me thinking about. (Largely due to the understanding that those who "have it" should help those who don't, but you can't help someone if you don't fundamentally understand what's stopping them in the first place.)
This journal article had lots of discussion relating to how the poor and extremely poor in 13 countries spent and earned their money, their respective markets and economic environments, living arrangements and their infrastructure.
What intrigued me the most about this reading was the discussion on 'How the Poor Spend Their Money' and the analysis of food and calorie efficiency. When reading about this, I had wished there was more incorporation of the countries' cultural aspects. Banerjee and Duflo note that millets are the most financially logical choice to buy for grains in order to increase BMI, but families are spending less and less of their budget on calorie per dollar. They add that this could be explained by them not prioritizing calorie efficiency, or that they know that disease will hit them inevitably. However, they fail to mention any sort of cultural aspect in this discussion, such as considering that millets are not best suited for traditional dishes, while rice (which is calorically less efficient per dollar) is.
As this article is close to 20 years old, I believe that part of the reason why I find issue with this particular point is because of the increasing awareness in the modern day of noneconomical factors, such as cultural cuisine. These factors can impact the "irrational" economic decisions that researchers that Banerjee and Duflo pointed out.
Global poverty is a complex and multidimensional problem without easy answers. The author highlighted this idea while discussing all the most important aspects of the issue. However, in my opinion, the overarching theme of the whole analysis can be reduced to low-quality or non-existent institutions in countries with high poverty rates. Living in developed countries, we tend to overlook the importance of basic institutions such as sound money, well-functioning labor markets, or reliable banking systems. These institutions are what allow us to earn a stable income and secure our purchasing power. In the sample discussed in the study, the labor markets are dysfunctional, which makes earning a decent, stable income an incredibly difficult task. And even if a person earns enough, the lack of a secure way to store money makes rational consumption and savings nearly impossible. Unfortunately, the solution that would come to our mind first in the developed world, government intervention, seems to yield very limited effects due to the weakness of its institutions. To some extent, the poor are trying to fill in the gap through their own, small-scale institutions such as self-help circles, mutual credit societies, and mutual insurance. While their principles are admirable, their structural risk renders them fragile and often leads to collapse. The article did a great job of emphasizing the importance of institutions in alleviating poverty. After all, the problem can't be solved without eliminating its root, which in big part is the highly uncertain institutional environment.
One part of the paper that really stood out to me is how impoverished individuals form strong ties with their family and community. This is evident through the norm of cohabitation with relatives, as well as with the formation of informal loan networks and Self-Help groups. One aspect I wish the paper addressed is the role of emotional fulfillment in the decision-making of the poor. For instance, the paper suggests that one reason the poor may spend a substantial amount of their income on festivals— clearly a non-essential expenditure—is due to their desire to keep up with their neighbors' and not have a lower relative level of spending. However, to me it seems far more likely that this spending is due to these festivals having a cultural or religious significance and providing a respite from their difficult daily lives. A similar rationale might explain why the poor do not always purchase the most calorie-efficient food options, such as by solely purchasing millets instead of a mix of milelts, rice, and wheat. The author seems to paint this as an irrational decision, but to me, this analysis misses the potential impact on emotional well-being. Overall, while I found the paper extremely interesting and believe it treated the poor in a very humanizing way, I believe it focuses too much on material needs and presents them as the only rational priorities.
I found the poor women being entrepreneurs to be very interesting, especially when it mentioned entrepreneurship for them was often easier than finding a job. I think it is interesting to see women capitalizing off of the skills they already have, the same skills they are using to serve their families or their communities. The women making dosas were a great example of this, as the reading stated the women were utilizing their own materials to make and sell dosas, and then using those same materials again to feed their children and families. It connects well to our reading from the textbook, where women often were tasksed with the role of bringing up children. It begs the question about the roles and freedoms of women in a society where they are truly working two jobs: caring for the family and bringing up children, while also trying to help the family financially in whatever ways they can.
Why do people with extremely limited resources, people who occasionally have to skip meals, spend resources on festivals?
Humans have an intense desire to connect with other people, and festivals are a chance to do so. Our love of connection can generate a fear of violating social expectations, which could drive spending that might not make sense from an outside perspective. This is not to suggest that spending on social events is a bad idea. Of course, social events are fun, and bring a community closer together, and makes bonds between family stronger. This is important in and of itself, but also fro economic reasons.
Because the rural poor often lack access to insurance and credit, the social network often serves as both. Close communities take care of those who are injured, sick, or who need a bit of money to pay for a surprise expense. I doubt many families think “I need to maintain access to credit and insurance, so I’ll make sure I spend on festivals”, but rather place more import on connection to communities that support them.
I was also interested in the program in Kenya, which offered farmers a voucher for fertilizer directly after harvest, when their cash on hand is highest, and found that many farmers requested the fertilizer immediately, long before the next growing season. Banerjee and Duflo argue that farmers could have exchanged the fertilizer for other consumption but didn’t, showing that self-control in this program as compared to saving cash. I am skeptical of this argument; I imagine it’s difficult to trade fertilizer for other commodities, especially outside of growing season. If the exchange is easy to do logistically, maybe it’s more mentally difficult to spend fertilizer, which has a clear future use at planting time, compared to money, which could be used for just about anything at any point in time.
I was initially surprised that the extremely poor across the world, in general, do not specialize and tend to work odd jobs or pull income from varying sources. While I previously knew that many low income workers across the world migrate to find jobs, I figured that this trend was typical for agricultural jobs from my experience growing up in a rural area of Tennessee that is a hotspot for agriculture and horticulture. However, the article made me realize that urban areas also offer up plenty of service-related jobs.
I also, faultily, assumed that the extremely poor generally worked agricultural jobs, but the paragraphs addressing markets in urban areas contextualized the importance of other sources of income for the underserved. Diversifying income streams also makes sense; agriculture is not productive year-round for many climes across the world. The urban poor also do not have access to arable land to propagate, generally speaking. Instead, service and food industry jobs can provide a vital lifeline to those who do not own land or have access to agricultural jobs.
Throughout the article, I was also surprised by the price per calorie analysis, especially with regard to India. While millet gives the most bang-for-buck, rice and wheat are more desirable to eat. It is easy to assume rational actor logic and ridicule the choice to spring for more expensive food under an economic lens, but we must use empathy in our analysis. People want to eat more desirable food, and rice and wheat are much more widely used in recipes and dishes. The extreme poor, like anyone else, would obviously prefer tastier ingredients, even at a higher price.
I found the article interesting and it's approach to poverty in general. It seemed to me that the article was insinuating that with efficient markets and infrastructure, the problem would be solved, which I strongly disagree with.
One thing, before turning to my critique of the article which might be outside the scope of what the article is concerned with, I found the fact that extremely poor people spent a good portion of their money on festivals and entertainment incredibly humanizing and beautiful.
I think the article overlooks the structural causes of people becoming and being poor. I think in most of the countries mentioned there is a strong legacy of colonialism that devastated the populations, like in India where famines were rampant during the British Mandate.
It also does not address the fact that currently, multinational corporations benefit from being able to tap into the cheap labor force and the weakly protected claims to land and resources. Allowing the companies and corrupt officials to extract and expropriate huge value from the poor of these countries, while oftentimes leaving environmental and social devastation. For example, the fast fashion industry has led to an incredible amount of pollutants, cotton farmers committing suicide, and political unrest, like in Bangladesh, leading to people getting killed and protesting for an increase in wages.
Thus, I think the article does not adequately address the pressures that directly or indirectly keep and benefit from the poor being extremely poor.
Posted by: Ignas | 09/08/2024 at 03:28 PM
This piece allowed readers to understand that people in poverty cannot be defined by a singular threshold, and there cannot be one solution to mitigate these causes. It alluded to there being multiple ways of life, and layers to every person’s story. What struck me was how the poor spent their money, not just on necessities, but activities that they valued. While a problem among those in poverty is low BMI and poor nutrition, people in poverty continue to spend money on festivals.
South Asian countries were frequently mentioned in this article as case studies. In South Asian culture, the celebratory nature of deaths, births, and weddings are extravagant and worth the time and money. It is notable to identify religious and cultural practices and how they influence how all people, regardless of income, spend their money.
This marks the human desire for quality of living, and finding joys in cultural, celebratory, and familial aspects of life. I believe many people enter policy and decision making with a narrow mindset that if they advise those in poverty to adjust their spending habits, focus on their education, and invest more, they forget to consider the autonomy of the people themselves. This article signifies that proper solutions must not just address the basic needs of one’s life, but also ensure people note they have a life worth living.
A flaw of this argument is generalizing people in poverty, especially their personal choices on physical/mental well-being. As the previous comment mentions, the previous history and systemic discrepancies that have left people in poverty leave people in different starting conditions. Every person in poverty will be different, and this must be acknowledged.
Posted by: Jaeya | 09/10/2024 at 11:11 PM
As I was reading this article, I noticed how in some sections, the authors did not fully elaborate on their ideas. Even though I agree with some of the authors’ talking points, I don’t think they were successful in discussing why the fertility in poor countries is so high, and why the poor in the 13 specific countries spend so much money on festivals such as weddings and funerals.
When discussing the reason for high fertility in these poor countries, the authors state “One reason the population is young is that there are a lot of younger people”. They then state that the second reason for there being high fertility is that there are very few elders in these poor countries. Not only are these statements synonymous, the authors do not provide enough evidence to back up their claims. As discussed in class, they could have easily mentioned limited access to health care, a poorly run government, or the lack of education as a reason instead of just stating the statistics for a country that has high fertility.
As I previously mentioned, the authors seem to be shocked that a good portion of these countries spend most of their money on weddings and funerals. Considering they just discussed high fertility in these poor countries, it would make sense that much of their money would go to festive activities like these. Furthermore, many of these countries, such as Pakistan, India, and South Africa, take religion as a huge part of their culture. The people of these countries are living on less than a dollar a day, so, it makes sense that they would spend money on religion more than anything else. Religion is a driving force in many cultures, however, in countries with a developing economy, religion may be a way for people to stay in connected with each other, despite the living circumstances.
The authors bring up intriguing facts on developing countries such as their state of living and how spend their money. However, I wanted the author to delve deeper into the facts listed and give a more concise explanation about other topics mentioned.
Posted by: afanney | 09/11/2024 at 04:16 PM
This paper works well in providing an overview of poverty in developing countries and how the poor survive in these conditions. In fact, I found it particularly interesting how the authors wrote that although a poor person by definition is someone without enough to eat, they knowingly and willingly decide to use their money in areas of life that they feel better enhance their wellbeing.
However, this paper was written/published in 2006, almost 20 years ago. While I cannot speak for other countries, I do know that in India there have been certain advancements which do impact the argument made by Banerjee and Duflo about the poor in the country. Eg. the availability of technology/ entertainment technology; this needs to be remeasured because mobile phones, TVs, radios, etc are comparatively more affordable and accessible for purchase even for those who belong to the lowest income in India. So, I wonder how this change currently affects the expenditure of the low-income households described in the paper. I do believe though that despite the availability and accessibility of these devices, there is likely still more spending on festivities just because these countries are more collectivist than individualistic and find a lot more value in maintaining relationships through such celebrations.
Another point that I am certain has changed massively is the long term migration of the poor to urban areas. With an increasing demand of manual labor in urban/ industrial cities, I believe more people from rural Indian villages are migrating not just out of their areas, but out of state too. And with phones easily available and more accessible, people are able to stay in touch with family/ friends/ communities in their villages through phone calls. And so I want to note that in the modern Indian context the government and private entities are making a lot of services eg. internet/ data plans, bus and train transportation etc. are much cheaper and accessible, probably to increase this form of migration while being somewhat aware of the cultural phenomenon of not wanting to leave one’s family/community for long periods of time.
In the discussion about ownership of assets, I disagree with phones, clocks, watches, stools, cots, sewing machines, etc being used as measures of durable assets. Most of these assets have a high depreciating monetary and physical value and are not necessities for people living on the bare minimum. While land and vehicles should be included in the study, some of the other ones seem more unnecessary.
Overall, while there does exist correlation amongst a lot of the measures discussed, there are definitely a lot of omitted variables that the paper did not get too deep into, a big one being government incentives and how that changes expenditures of these households. Additionally, the paper discussed income earned by adults, but I don’t think it accounts for the income earned through child labor and how this is spent.
Posted by: Archita | 09/11/2024 at 04:53 PM
I found the articles discussions about the challenges surrounding credit, loans, and savings particularly interesting. I thought the Saving Clubs are a very interesting concept. I was curious wether such communal programs would work in the US as well. Or would American cultural concepts surrounding autonomy stymie such efforts?
Posted by: Henry | 09/11/2024 at 06:00 PM
There were two very surprising things in this reading. The first surprise was the daily allowance that defines poverty. 1$ a day is insane. I cannot think of any ingredient in a grocery store that is 1$ a day. Honestly 10$ a day would still be insanely low. I wonder how this affects our perception of what poverty is. The second surprise was the amount people spend on festivals. This seems completely normal. Living in abject poverty is a dehumanizing state of life, and our rituals and cultural celebrations create sense of meaning. Of course people would want to feel that way as they rightfully should.
Posted by: Thomas McRae | 09/11/2024 at 06:28 PM
The article reminded me a lot of a book I read senior year of high school called Behind the Beautiful Forevers by Katherine Boo. Katherine Boo decided to do research in the slums of Mumbai India to better understand the lives of the people who live there. She discovered the extreme poverty that these individuals experienced and she allowed her readers to gain insight into her finding through her book. I remember reading this book and being astounded at the level of poverty in these slums and it opened my eyes to economical issues outside of the United States. This article had a very similar effect although it was more data driven than emotional which helped me understand these issues even better. Like the book the article mentioned these extremely poor people doing anything to make some change including frying dosas and collecting trash.
In the article it talks about living arrangements of the poor and I thought it was interesting that it included that poor families on average have more household members. This is confusing due to the increasing expense that comes with raising children. I am curious what drives this increase in children in poor households and if this statistic will begin to change in the future? The article says not all surveys report fertility rates which would help answer my question.
To finish off my blog post I wanted to include a quote from the article: “In either case, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the poor do see themselves as having a significant amount of choices, and choose not to exercise it in the direction of spending more on food”.(6) This seems surprising and the article concludes it can be attributed to addiction and festivals.
Question
How do extremely poor people operate their own business without productive assets?
Posted by: Harry G | 09/11/2024 at 06:39 PM
I found this article very interesting, particularly the discussion on credit, savings, and insurance. Even in their situations, the poor have tremendous agency and help each other out even without access to formal credit, savings accounts, and insurance. I was especially impressed by the Self-Help Groups, which sound very similar to the credit unions that we have here in the US (on a much smaller scale). Even in completely different parts of the world with completely separate socioeconomic factors, the same cooperative, community, altruistic economic and finance ideas arise and are put into practice by people regardless of how much money they have. I was wondering, if the interest rates for credit loans are so much lower at formal institutions, why don't poorer people, especially in cities, get loans from there? The article didn't really do a great job explaining why that is, though I suspect it is because land is often used to verify identity and credit-worthiness, and there are (as the article mentioned) significant land-title issues (incomplete records of land titles) that would obstruct people from being able to verify their assets.
I also found the discussion on public/private education and healthcare interesting. I read the book "Behind the Beautiful Forevers" about the Mumbai, India slum "Annawadi" for an urban sociology course last spring and a common theme in that book was the fact that in Annawadi private education was considered paramount and superior to public education, even in poor families (that is absolutely not the case in the US), due to its "better quality" of education (less absenteeism, less local political patronage) than the more corrupt and incompetent government schools (even with less formal certification for teachers). A failed state is one that cannot provide goods effectively to its citizenry and all of these countries, with their inability to guarantee provision of education and healthcare (resulting in the private sector taking over these areas) are failed states. The most common explanation for why the government fails to provide (both in the article and "Behind the Beautiful Forevers") is corruption and patronage. However, I was wondering if other causes are considered key as well in the case of poor public provision of services, such as overpopulation and massive debt/"structural adjustment programs" (neoliberalism/public spending cuts encouraged by international credit agencies like the IMF/World Bank) that have been common in developing countries in the past and present.
Lastly, I was interested in the article's explanation of many poor people's spending on seemingly non-essential goods like alcohol, tobacco, and festivals, which was the idea of relative poverty (not specifically mentioned by name). Relative poverty is the idea that people tend to feel a pressure to compete with their neighbors, and if their neighbors are doing "better" than they are (more alcohol, more festival tickets etc.), then people tend to become more unhappy and devote more of their resources to "catching" their neighbors in goods/assets etc. I've only ever heard relative poverty be used in the context of very wealthy individuals and their spending sprees (even with lots of money) due to feelings of inadequacy compared to even wealthier individuals, it was very interesting to see that even amongst poorer and middle class individuals, the phenomena is seemingly universal.
Posted by: Ethan Babb | 09/11/2024 at 06:48 PM
As someone interested in the field of medicine, one aspect of the paper that stood out to me was the discussion of the quality of healthcare in certain countries. Specifically, I was shocked by the study by Das and Hammer (2004), which claims that the average provider in their sample was slightly more likely to do harm than good (18). Elsewhere, the author mentions that in terms of low-quality education, many parents of school children are themselves illiterate. The authors speculate that because of this, the parents may not recognize that their kids are not learning much, so there is no effort to improve the quality of education. My question is to what extent does this reasoning apply to the low quality of health care? In other words, do those seeking health care recognize the low quality of care that they are receiving?
Posted by: John Santowski | 09/11/2024 at 07:03 PM
Banerjee and Duflo’s “The Economic Lives of the Poor” explores five aspects of the multidimensional lives of the poor and the extremely poor. By researching what the poor’s lives are like and delving into the complexities behind why the poor lead their lives the way they do, Banerjee and Duflo’s piece encourages potential solutions to the growth-inhibiting characteristics of life in undeveloped countries.
Banerjee and Duflo define those living on less than $2 per day per capita at purchasing power parity as the poor and those living on less than $1 per day as the extremely poor. The audience of this piece includes those living in developed countries. Those who live well above the poverty line tend to believe the poor are those who do not have enough means to pay for food. I fell into this belief pattern without proper data to back up my biases. Contrary to popular belief, “The Economic Lives of the Poor” immediately debunked this myth by emphasizing that many poor households do not allocate as much as they can to food. Instead, they prioritize festivals and indigenous forms of entertainment. The poor exercise self-control concerning their spending, withholding from purchasing more food that would provide them with the nutrition necessary to be more productive. For example, the typical poor household in Udaipur could spend up to 30% more on food than it currently does. Essentially, the extremely poor do not feel an extra compulsion to purchase more calories. This leaves me wondering why the extremely poor do not seem as hungry for additional calories as the developing world might instinctively expect and why our perceptions are warped.
In addition to the poor allocating their minimal savings in a counterintuitive manner, the poor also self-report happiness and health levels as not “particularly low” (p.9). Yet, Banerjee and Duflo concretely explained that the poor are unable to specialize due to a lack of opportunity to risk-take, their infant mortality rates are high as a result of poor health infrastructure, and their public school teachers are unqualified and often absent. All of these factors and more make it difficult to explain how the poor are experiencing self-reported normal utility levels. Perhaps a lack of awareness of a more productive, healthy, and consequently happy life is diminished by the poor’s subsistence economy.
A lack of allocation towards nutrition and self-perceived happiness and health are just a few of the many topics Banerjee and Duflo cover in their exploration of the lives the poor lead and how developing countries can work towards a future of productivity and growth.
Posted by: Sofia Iuteri | 09/11/2024 at 07:07 PM
This article does an excellent job at providing a high-level analysis of the lives of the poor. It comes as no surprise that the poor does not have savings, receive proper education, or have little access to infrastructure. However, the part that grabbed my attention is what they spend their money on. Seeing how spending changed across countries and even from rural to urban was interesting. The items they were buying such as a radio or television varied greatly.
A place where I felt where the article fell short, was not digging into the historical background of these countries. It would provide insight on why countries do not have access to certain infrastructure. What causes or has caused countries to be underdeveloped? Discrimination, unfair trading, insufficient aid? The research could have also included information on the importance of culture. Some context for why families or individuals do not have the same upward mobility (values, norms, location, etc.) as other countries. I would’ve also like to see some research on the difference between those making less than $2 per day compared to those making less than $5. I just want to see if there is a large difference or if its insignificant.
Posted by: WD | 09/11/2024 at 07:20 PM
The lack of spending power individuals who are extremely poor has, represents a clear dilemma that makes it obvious that markets alone cannot develop the economy. Without disposable income individuals are unable to make spending choices on things such as healthcare and education, and much less so invest in firms in the economy that could spur development in these impoverished areas. The idea of extreme poverty destroys the assumptions of basic microeconomic models, and calls for a new approach. Furthermore, making clear the need for intervention from governments and NGO's to progress these economies.
Posted by: Ben_Sundell | 09/11/2024 at 07:35 PM
This paper goes into detail about the economic choices of the poor and how they spend and receive their money. Some of the findings were particularly interesting such as the research surrounding the elasticity of spending on food compared with increasing income. Considering that a significant portion of respondents reported that they either cut back on meals or missed some entirely. It was also interesting to note that increasing income tended to go towards foods which were less efficient on a calorie to dollar basis I wonder if allocating a higher percentage of food budgets would result in better outcomes particularly when it comes to health.
I also wonder what effect a stronger legal system would have on the lives of the poor. The paper mentions that the high interest rates associated with loans are not because of the default rate, but the expense that must be undertaken to collect repayment. It also notes that those who own land often spend a significant amount of time protecting their land from those who would want to encroach on it. One reason why savings levels could be so low is that people are fearful that a malicious actor could steal all of their savings and that spending it now is the only way to avoid losing it. Given that a stronger legal system would require more resources, would it be worth it?
It seems like a decent number of problems come from a lack of stability or a temporary stressor on a family or community. Considering that most of the respondents possessed very little savings or productive assets, an unexpended event could have the ability to significantly destabilize an entire family. If something happens, education and food consumption could very easily be affected, as the paper notes, leading to consequences in the future.
One other interesting thing that the paper notes is that people often avoid taking risks by specializing in a specific task as a sudden contraction in opportunity for that task would result in them, and their family, losing their income. Is there an effective way to incentivize specialization by minimizing the risks associated with it?
Posted by: Ryman Smith | 09/11/2024 at 07:48 PM
This article was an interesting overview of the lifestyle, practices, and conditions experienced by the extremely poor. As others have mentioned, it didn't answer all the questions about the "why?" of these data points, but it did present them very informatively. Most of it was relatively unsurprising, but I was intrigued by a few aspects of the paper. Firstly, the extreme youth of the extremely poor and the high quantity of children they had. This lines up with what I've learned about demographic transitions in developing nations, where death rates fall much faster than birth rates and lead to a very young population. I'd be curious to know to what extent a high quantity of children is a cause of poverty and to what extent it's a symptom.
Overall, the article took a benevolent view of the extremely poor, trying to understand the circumstances behind their condition rather than condemning them for it. I'm interested to know why undernourished people don't spend extra money on extra calories. It'd be easy to explain as incompetence or lack of self-control, but I expect there's more rational reasoning at play here. The one point I would disagree with is the assertion that entertainment (festivals, TV/radio, etc.) wasn't a genuine "need." While it may not be necessarily essential for survival, it's not difficult to imagine that a certain degree of escapism is a psychological need for people who, as the article confirmed, live under a high level of stress each day.
Posted by: Alex Malone | 09/11/2024 at 07:50 PM
One thing I found particularly interesting about this article was the cyclical nature of the economic lives of the poor. One thing that struck me as such was the part of the article that talked about the lack of specialization of work amongst the poor. Because they do not have extra money to spare on education, then their children take a job (or multiple jobs) that isn't highly specialized. When this happens, they still do not make enough money to spare much of it towards education, and the vicious cycle continues. Many other aspects of the economic lives of the poor have this cyclical nature to it that really seems to institutionalize poverty across the globe.
Posted by: Dara Bage | 09/11/2024 at 10:19 PM
There were multiple things that I found quite interesting from the article. First of all, It was against my intuition that the most poor people tend to have larger families. However, the argument as to why made a lot of sense. It said that it makes sense to have large families as you spread the fixed cost of living across more people. I also found it interesting that a substantial portion of poor people make money by being an entrepreneur. This makes sense that they have more entrepreneurs in more developing areas as large corporations/franchises do not have tons of low level jobs. Finally, I was interested in the articles discussion about poor people spending money on alcohol and drugs. I think it is a common conotation that many homeless people are waisting money on things like drugs and alcohol. However, in multiple countries it was reported as a pretty small % of spending. The highest was mexico with 8.2%.
Posted by: Colin Ryan | 09/11/2024 at 10:36 PM
I have read many economic papers in my time here at W&L, and let me tell you, this is one of the first that I have genuinely enjoyed. This is not to say that I agree with every point made; it just addresses and sheds light on an issue I have a high interest in and low knowledge of.
Which is where my discussion begins.
The passage I was probably most invested in was the discussion of entrepreneurship amongst the poor. Admittedly, for reasons largely removed from the topic itself. In Western society, when the question of poverty or helping the impoverished/homeless comes up, many of the solutions proposed sound like "they should get a job" or "maybe if they worked harder they wouldn't be homeless" or "if they didn't want to be poor than they wouldn't be poor". So how is it then that there are people who are fulfilling these requirements (even two or three times over) but are still categorically the poorest in the world?
To me, it indicates a much more important disconnect. That barrier between poverty and prosperity is not truly (strictly) monetary, but an issue of perspective. Banerjee and Duflo do a great job of expanding and providing evidence for the reasons people are struggling to progress. And yet their explanations still look nothing like what poverty and its origins are largely perceived to be. Why? I don't really have an answer, but it's a disparity this reading got me thinking about. (Largely due to the understanding that those who "have it" should help those who don't, but you can't help someone if you don't fundamentally understand what's stopping them in the first place.)
Posted by: Kylie Sheridan | 09/11/2024 at 11:55 PM
This journal article had lots of discussion relating to how the poor and extremely poor in 13 countries spent and earned their money, their respective markets and economic environments, living arrangements and their infrastructure.
What intrigued me the most about this reading was the discussion on 'How the Poor Spend Their Money' and the analysis of food and calorie efficiency. When reading about this, I had wished there was more incorporation of the countries' cultural aspects. Banerjee and Duflo note that millets are the most financially logical choice to buy for grains in order to increase BMI, but families are spending less and less of their budget on calorie per dollar. They add that this could be explained by them not prioritizing calorie efficiency, or that they know that disease will hit them inevitably. However, they fail to mention any sort of cultural aspect in this discussion, such as considering that millets are not best suited for traditional dishes, while rice (which is calorically less efficient per dollar) is.
As this article is close to 20 years old, I believe that part of the reason why I find issue with this particular point is because of the increasing awareness in the modern day of noneconomical factors, such as cultural cuisine. These factors can impact the "irrational" economic decisions that researchers that Banerjee and Duflo pointed out.
Posted by: Brandon Lee | 09/11/2024 at 11:59 PM
Global poverty is a complex and multidimensional problem without easy answers. The author highlighted this idea while discussing all the most important aspects of the issue. However, in my opinion, the overarching theme of the whole analysis can be reduced to low-quality or non-existent institutions in countries with high poverty rates. Living in developed countries, we tend to overlook the importance of basic institutions such as sound money, well-functioning labor markets, or reliable banking systems. These institutions are what allow us to earn a stable income and secure our purchasing power. In the sample discussed in the study, the labor markets are dysfunctional, which makes earning a decent, stable income an incredibly difficult task. And even if a person earns enough, the lack of a secure way to store money makes rational consumption and savings nearly impossible. Unfortunately, the solution that would come to our mind first in the developed world, government intervention, seems to yield very limited effects due to the weakness of its institutions. To some extent, the poor are trying to fill in the gap through their own, small-scale institutions such as self-help circles, mutual credit societies, and mutual insurance. While their principles are admirable, their structural risk renders them fragile and often leads to collapse. The article did a great job of emphasizing the importance of institutions in alleviating poverty. After all, the problem can't be solved without eliminating its root, which in big part is the highly uncertain institutional environment.
Posted by: Eryk Chojnacki | 09/12/2024 at 12:22 AM
One part of the paper that really stood out to me is how impoverished individuals form strong ties with their family and community. This is evident through the norm of cohabitation with relatives, as well as with the formation of informal loan networks and Self-Help groups. One aspect I wish the paper addressed is the role of emotional fulfillment in the decision-making of the poor. For instance, the paper suggests that one reason the poor may spend a substantial amount of their income on festivals— clearly a non-essential expenditure—is due to their desire to keep up with their neighbors' and not have a lower relative level of spending. However, to me it seems far more likely that this spending is due to these festivals having a cultural or religious significance and providing a respite from their difficult daily lives. A similar rationale might explain why the poor do not always purchase the most calorie-efficient food options, such as by solely purchasing millets instead of a mix of milelts, rice, and wheat. The author seems to paint this as an irrational decision, but to me, this analysis misses the potential impact on emotional well-being. Overall, while I found the paper extremely interesting and believe it treated the poor in a very humanizing way, I believe it focuses too much on material needs and presents them as the only rational priorities.
Posted by: Evan Daigle | 09/12/2024 at 01:49 AM
I found the poor women being entrepreneurs to be very interesting, especially when it mentioned entrepreneurship for them was often easier than finding a job. I think it is interesting to see women capitalizing off of the skills they already have, the same skills they are using to serve their families or their communities. The women making dosas were a great example of this, as the reading stated the women were utilizing their own materials to make and sell dosas, and then using those same materials again to feed their children and families. It connects well to our reading from the textbook, where women often were tasksed with the role of bringing up children. It begs the question about the roles and freedoms of women in a society where they are truly working two jobs: caring for the family and bringing up children, while also trying to help the family financially in whatever ways they can.
Posted by: Katherine | 09/12/2024 at 07:58 AM
Why do people with extremely limited resources, people who occasionally have to skip meals, spend resources on festivals?
Humans have an intense desire to connect with other people, and festivals are a chance to do so. Our love of connection can generate a fear of violating social expectations, which could drive spending that might not make sense from an outside perspective. This is not to suggest that spending on social events is a bad idea. Of course, social events are fun, and bring a community closer together, and makes bonds between family stronger. This is important in and of itself, but also fro economic reasons.
Because the rural poor often lack access to insurance and credit, the social network often serves as both. Close communities take care of those who are injured, sick, or who need a bit of money to pay for a surprise expense. I doubt many families think “I need to maintain access to credit and insurance, so I’ll make sure I spend on festivals”, but rather place more import on connection to communities that support them.
I was also interested in the program in Kenya, which offered farmers a voucher for fertilizer directly after harvest, when their cash on hand is highest, and found that many farmers requested the fertilizer immediately, long before the next growing season. Banerjee and Duflo argue that farmers could have exchanged the fertilizer for other consumption but didn’t, showing that self-control in this program as compared to saving cash. I am skeptical of this argument; I imagine it’s difficult to trade fertilizer for other commodities, especially outside of growing season. If the exchange is easy to do logistically, maybe it’s more mentally difficult to spend fertilizer, which has a clear future use at planting time, compared to money, which could be used for just about anything at any point in time.
Posted by: _jteer | 09/12/2024 at 10:25 AM
I was initially surprised that the extremely poor across the world, in general, do not specialize and tend to work odd jobs or pull income from varying sources. While I previously knew that many low income workers across the world migrate to find jobs, I figured that this trend was typical for agricultural jobs from my experience growing up in a rural area of Tennessee that is a hotspot for agriculture and horticulture. However, the article made me realize that urban areas also offer up plenty of service-related jobs.
I also, faultily, assumed that the extremely poor generally worked agricultural jobs, but the paragraphs addressing markets in urban areas contextualized the importance of other sources of income for the underserved. Diversifying income streams also makes sense; agriculture is not productive year-round for many climes across the world. The urban poor also do not have access to arable land to propagate, generally speaking. Instead, service and food industry jobs can provide a vital lifeline to those who do not own land or have access to agricultural jobs.
Throughout the article, I was also surprised by the price per calorie analysis, especially with regard to India. While millet gives the most bang-for-buck, rice and wheat are more desirable to eat. It is easy to assume rational actor logic and ridicule the choice to spring for more expensive food under an economic lens, but we must use empathy in our analysis. People want to eat more desirable food, and rice and wheat are much more widely used in recipes and dishes. The extreme poor, like anyone else, would obviously prefer tastier ingredients, even at a higher price.
Posted by: Porter | 09/12/2024 at 01:53 PM