Institute Notes: A Dialogue on Overcoming Hunger and Poverty

Poverty and Development

Lately, the news media has been buzzing with stories about measuring poverty, and that’s a good thing because it’s a long time coming that the federal government does something about measuring poverty more accurately. Most of the news has been about Mayor Bloomberg’s new poverty levels for New York City. Bloomberg raised the poverty level for a family of four in New York City from $20,444 to $26,138. Anybody who has spent some time in New York City, in fact, it’s not even necessary to have spent time there, knows that $26,138 for a family of four still leaves a lot of families out who otherwise could be described as poor. Nevertheless, we should applaud the mayor for his effort to raise poverty levels closer to reality. It’s an important step forward.

Reflection on "A New Safety Net for Low-Income Families"

The most recent report, “A New Safety Net for Low-Income Families”, was launched yesterday by the Urban Institute. The recommended safety-net calls for increasing work-supports and parallels many programs explained in the Bread for the World Institute 2008 Hunger Report, “Working Harder for Working Families.” This study continued to show that families are working more and in jobs that are paying less.

 

Sick leave was one of the main focuses in the report. Worker-paid sick leave was one solution discussed. The first program of its kind started in 2007 in San Francisco, CA. The results of this program are mixed. On one hand,  the “Paid Sick Days Ordinance provides up to nine days of paid sick leave annually (five days maximum for employers with fewer than 10 employees) for full-time workers; part-time workers earn one hour of leave for every 30 hours worked.” On the other hand, the sick leave does not act as a job guarantor; it simply provides an option for parents to use for child care.  Providing workers with benefits is a win-win scenario in a tough economy; when workers can take care of themselves and their loved ones, job retention rates increase. One example provided by the panel was that for every employee earning approximately $8.00 an hour, business owners would lose $5,500 in turnover costs.

G8 Leaders’ Statement on Food Security – Half a Loaf?

As I highlighted in my blog post of July 9, the number of “food-insecure” (i.e., hungry or malnourished) people in 70 developing countries increased by 130 million during 2007, to a new total of 980 million. How did the G8 leaders respond to this massive increase in global hunger and misery? 

The leaders’ rhetoric on global food security is not bad. (For the full statement, follow this link.) They express their “deep concern,” renew their commitment to address this multifaceted and structural crisis,  set a specific target of 6.2 percent growth in African agricultural productivity, and pledge (again) to conclude a Doha round that is “ambitious, comprehensive and balanced.” They express support for ending export restrictions and for local purchase of food aid. In line with President Bush’s pre-summit comments, they agreed to set up a G-8 experts group to monitor the implementation of commitments.

Another positive note in the statement is the G-8’s commitment to “explore options on a coordinated approach on stock management, including the pros and cons of building a ‘virtual’ internationally coordinated reserve system for humanitarian purposes.” This is something that Bread for the World strongly supports.

Declining Global Food Security (i.e., increasing hunger)

It’s official. According to the USDA’s Food Security Assessment, 2007, the number of “food-insecure” people in 70 developing countries increased by 15 percent during 2007 – from 850 to 980 million. That’s another 130 million more individuals consuming less than 2,100 calories/day (the nutrition target set by the FAO) and subject to hunger, malnutrition and associated ills. This, after years of progress in reducing hunger in percentage if not absolute terms, particularly in Asia.

According to the USDA assessment, in 2002 the declining commodity prices of the last few decades changed direction. Grain prices jumped about 50 percent from 2005-07, and although some moderation is projected, prices are expected to remain at high levels in coming years. For poor people, who spend more than half of their disposable income on food, the impact is devastating. The recent oil price hikes add to the financial burden because the higher energy import bill puts further pressure on national budgets and can result in squeezing out imports of food.   

Aid Accountability -- It's About Time

According to a story in today’s Washington Post, G-8 leaders are expected to endorse a document that actually assesses, in some detail, how well individual countries are doing in meeting their commitments for development assistance. If true, this is an important and long overdue step in the direction of responsible behavior on the part of the G-8, which is noted more for its promises regarding development assistance than for carrying them out. Each summit has turned into a showcase of extravagant (or sometimes, not so extravagant) commitments of additional money to address the urgent needs of the world’s poor countries, but with no mechanism or procedures to see that commitments are met. And, in fact, many are not. Adding further insult to injury, the G-8 then reliably goes on to perpetuate those commercial and environmental practices (farm subsidies and trade restrictions, unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions) that further impede poor countries’ development prospects.