You are on page 1of 1

Answer to the question no: 04

In his short piece on the emergence of a disclosure around poverty, Akhil Gupta
strongly criticized the fit-for-all approach of the World Bank, IMF and others. According
to him, global poverty has been entertained with increasing interest since late 1990s in order
to legitimizing neoliberal globalization. He is always the advocate of unique solution to
poverty based upon geography, ethnicity, culture and so many factors. At one point in the
document, he suggested that the removal of agricultural subsidies for farmers in the USA and
Europe (including the subsidies for irrigation), the internalization of pollution costs (caused
by vehicle emissions and other factors that contribute to global warming), and the elimination
of some of the restrictive aspects contained in the TRIPS Agreement (which keep the price of
medication prohibitively high) would contribute to changing the structural factors that lie at
the root of poverty far more than the scaling up of micro-credit.
Guptas point was not to downplay the importance and utility of micro-credit. He
supports microcredit saying that it has played a very important role, particularly in the lives
of poor women, but once scaled up, this becomes costlier and more difficult to obtain for the
poor. Actually his larger point was that other important structural changes have been ignored
because they would compel changes in global power arrangements. The development
institutions could do more good by providing the intellectual arguments and institutional
support for such changes than by interfering in micro-credit programs and trying to scale
them up.