The dominant story that is handed down to us from technocrats and the media is that global poverty is

rapidly decreasing, thanks to free-market globalization. But this narrative relies on a very low poverty line.
If we look at more accurate poverty lines, it’s clear that the reality is more complex. The number of people
living on less than $5 per day (2005 PPP), the minimum necessary for good nutrition and normal human
life expectancy, has increased dramatically since the 1980s, particularly during the era of structural
adjustment. It is estimated that 4.2 billion people live with less than this amount; it is nearly 60% of the
world’s population. This is a blistering indictment of our global economy, and it suggests that our usual
approach to development has basically failed.

Take the debt system, for example. Poor countries have to bend to the wishes of creditors and investors,
who prohibit the use of tariffs, subsidies, capital controls and regulations – key tools that Western
countries used to build their own economies. At the World Bank and IMF, horrible imbalances in voting
power mean that a handful of rich nations get to dictate macroeconomic policy across much of the global
South

What does that look like? Well, for one, it’s time to cancel unpayable debts, and liberate poor countries
from the policy diktats of creditors. We need to democratize the institutions of global economic
governance –to ensure that poor countries get a fair say in the policies that affect them. We need to allow
poor countries to use tariffs, subsidies, and capital controls, without rich countries responding to these
measures with crushing sanctions

. In The Divide I explore a number of other exciting solutions, including how we might implement a global
minimum wage, and even a universal basic income extended to all humans on the planet. What should
be the role of development agencies? It’s clear that development agencies need to shift their focus
beyond aid to tackle the structural determinants of global poverty and inequality.

According to you, GDP growth cannot be equivalent anymore to human progress. One of the most
popular alternatives is the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). It starts with GDP and then subtracts social
and ecological negatives from it. If our politicians were set the task of pursuing something like GPI instead
of GDP, then they would be incentivized to improve social goods while minimizing ecological bads. That’s
the shift we need to make, and urgently.

TRIBUNE ALSO READ GDP GROWTH OR MEET THE CLIMATE COMMITMENTS? WE HAVE TO
MAKE A CHOICE! ECONOMYCLIMATE READ Is it possible to eradicate poverty while we have already
overpassed the ecological limits of our planet? Yes, it is possible to end poverty! We already know that it
is possible to achieve high levels of human development with relatively low ecological impact, because
some countries have already done it, like Costa Rica and Cuba If we are to prevent ecological collapse,
then rich countries will need to dramatically reduce their ecological footprint. Is it possible to make such
reductions while at the same time pursuing GDP growth? The answer – according to all available studies
– is no. That means that rich countries need to shift to a completely different economic model – one that,
instead of relying on endless growth, enables human flourishing in the absence of growth

We need to realize that our world is an abundant place, with more than enough for everyone. The
problem is that it is very unevenly distributed. The first step, then, is to share what we already have more
fairly, so that we don’t need to plunder the earth for more. The second step is for rich nations to shift
toward a post-growth economic model. There are lots of ways we can move in this direction. For instance,
a shorter working week would allow us to scale down socially unnecessary economic activity (marketing,
derivatives, single-use products) without causing unemployment to rise. A universal basic income would
allow people to walk away from what David Graeber calls bullshit jobs, which have little or even negative
social value. Decommoditizing key social goods like healthcare, education and perhaps even housing
would allow people to access the resources they need to live well without endlessly increasing their
incomes to do so. There are dozens of exciting ideas out there that it’s time to start experimenting. It’s
time to evolve beyond capitalism toward something better: something more caring, more intimate, more
beautiful and more ecological.

De-growth does not mean poverty. On the contrary, de-growth is perfectly compatible with high levels of
human development. It is entirely possible for us to shrink our resource consumption while increasing
things that really matter such as human happiness, well-being, education, health and longevity. Consider
the fact that Europe has higher human development indicators than the US in most categories, despite
40% less GDP per capita and 60% less emissions per capita.

Let’s face it – in an age of rapid automation, full employment on a global scale is a pipe dream anyhow.
It’s time we think of ways to facilitate reliable livelihoods in the absence of formal employment. Not only
will this assist us toward necessary de-growth, it will also allow people to escape exploitative labour
arrangements and incentivise employers to improve working conditions – two goals that the SDGs set out
to achieve. What’s more, it will allow people to invest more of their time and effort into things that matter:
caring for their loved ones, growing their own food, nourishing communities, and rebuilding degraded
environments
- Copyright ID4D, https://ideas4development.org/en/end-poverty-changing-rules-economy/