A lot of talk about the poor - DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Yesterday, Tita Cory gathered some of the top corporate CEOs as part of an effort to get them behind poverty alleviation programs. Today, there is a conference at the Asian Institute of Management sponsored by a German foundation to discuss poverty. And these are not the only conferences on poverty going on around town these days.

I was wondering if perhaps, that German foundation just gave the money earmarked to pay for food, venue and honoraria to an NGO active in the drive against poverty, wouldn't that have been more meaningful in the war against poverty? As it happens, talk isn't even cheap. And we have been talking much too long about the problem of poverty. One would think, we all know what we ought to be doing now.

I guess it cannot be helped. It seems that poverty and how to deal with it, is the most fashionable topic to discuss these days not just here but also abroad. This week's issue of The Economist has an extensive report on the rich… the poor… and the widening gap between them. The articles are an interesting read. The point of the whole thing is well summarized in the editorial.

The main task of governments, The Economist concludes, is "to provide a proper welfare safety net; to provide and protect public education in the poorest areas; to provide remedial training and schooling; to provide adequate incentives to help the poor get back into (or just get into) work through which they can support themselves."

The Economist also had some ideas on the role of the rich and I guess, the rest of the private sector include those of us who are neither rich nor poor. It cited the rich of 20th century America and how they used philanthropy to distribute some of their wealth, salving their consciences as well as defusing some of the criticism. "Today's rich," The Economist warns, "would do well to follow that example."

The rich really ought to do more, The Economist observed. "The more they give away to help the poor, the less anybody else will care that the rich have so much money in the first place. And, who knows, it might even turn out that philanthropy is what gives the rich pleasure."

From our own perspective, the rich must do it out of a sense of Christianity and even survival. Our poverty problem is overwhelming. I understand that in Basilan, Sulu and Tawi tawi, the poor in those areas are at the same level as some of the poorest in Africa. While this condition does not justify the barbarism to which the Abu Sayyaf has resorted to, it explains why our government can't seem to get the support of the local population in the fight against terrorism.

Obviously, government does not have the resources to make a difference, given its limitations. This is why the thrust is to get the corporate sector to actively participate in poverty alleviation projects. One proposal I heard calls for a corporation to adopt a particular community. This way, it will be easier to monitor developments and see if the beneficiaries of the program are feeling the difference in their lives. The corporation and its employees also get to feel a sense of accomplishment as poverty alleviation programs take root.

I think we have studied and talked about the problem of poverty enough. Organizations like the PBSP also have enough experience and case studies that could be used by new NGOs and anti-poverty warriors. We simply have to talk less and do more. But once we have done something that seems to be working, it is important that we talk about it, so that it will bring hope that something good is happening.

I think the worst thing that could happen is for a bunch of academicians under grants from well meaning foundations, transforming our poor into laboratory rats as they test some theory of development or something. For so long as the NGOs active in poverty alleviation programs document their programs well, we should have enough empirical data to support future programs.

National ID system

Reader Nestor Reyes sent me an e-mail reacting to our column on the need to have a more responsive bureaucracy, specially for frontline services. Here is his e-mail.

I share the disappointment you and your relatives have in going through the horrid ordeal of dealing face-to-face with the government’s bureaucracy, to obtain business permits and licenses. Just to add to your suggestion of putting up a superbody with the ‘colossal’ task of making our public agencies friendlier (and making unscrupulous and obtuse public servants less wealthy), I think having a national ID card is a good step forward.

Take those inane procedures you have to go through to get a driver’s license. We can get rid of those long litanies of documents needed to have our applications processed – like residence certificate, police clearance, and all sorts of affidavits (if your name happens to be identical to the town’s notorious drug dealers). A single ID that affirms your citizenship and your unique identity makes all the other documents and certificates unnecessary. It makes our agencies a little less prone to corruption; and maybe we’ll see less impatience among our citizens who would otherwise bribe just to get around those unnecessary requirements.

Difference

Somebody texted me this one.

What lesson did a released Abu Sayyaf hostage learn about the difference between a terrorist and a wife?

You can negotiate with a terrorist.

(Boo Chanco's e-mail address is [email protected])