We Can End Poverty, So Why Don't We?
Daniel Altman is Big Think's Chief Economist and an adjunct faculty member at New York University's Stern School of Business. Daniel wrote economic commentary for The Economist, The New York Times, and The International Herald Tribune before founding North Yard Economics, a non-profit consulting firm serving developing countries, in 2008. In between, he served as an economic advisor in the British government and wrote four books, most recently Outrageous Fortunes: The Twelve Surprising Trends That Will Reshape the Global Economy.
Almost everyone agrees that poverty is not a good thing. Almost everyone would like to end poverty. Almost everyone would benefit from ending poverty. So why don't we?
To find out, let's look at the problem through the lens of game theory. In every political cycle, our leaders face a choice: how much should they do to fight poverty, a lot or a little? If they do a lot, they'll benefit almost everyone. But if they do a little, they'll have resources left over for their other priorities.
They're not the only players in this game, though. There's also the rest of society, which includes all the poor people. In every political cycle, the rest of society also has a choice: keep the leaders, or throw them out. This is as true in dictatorships as it is in democracies.
Now, the thing the leaders want least is to get thrown out, but they also want money to spend - otherwise, what good is having power? Their best choice is to spend just enough money on fighting poverty to keep the rest of society from throwing them out. In other words, their optimal strategy is appeasement, year after year.
And that's what we have - a lot of rhetoric matched by very little action. This combination is usually enough to keep your job, whether you're the president of Iran, a senator in Congress, or the secretary-general of the United Nations. The question is, how do we stop the stalemate?
There is only one way. The rest of society has to take a more farsighted point of view. They have to realize that being appeased year after year is not in their long-term interest. They have to send a message that they will not accept the same payoff anymore; in fact, they will accept nothing less than enough action to end poverty. Anything else, and they'll throw out their leaders, every time.
This is a standard result in game theory. In a repeated game like this one, you have to make a credible threat to punish your opponent - and often yourself, too, at the same time - until your opponent will do what you want. The result is clear, but what will it take for the rest of society to commit to this strategy?
The answer is a popular movement that looks further into the future than just a couple of years, with leaders who are ready for a long and painful fight. Not by coincidence, it will have a lot in common with the civil rights movements of the last hundred years. I'm ready to sign up - are you?
Image Credit: Shutterstock.com
In a breakthrough for nuclear fusion research, scientists at China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor have produced temperatures necessary for nuclear fusion on Earth.
- The EAST reactor was able to heat hydrogen to temperatures exceeding 100 million degrees Celsius.
- Nuclear fusion could someday provide the planet with a virtually limitless supply of clean energy.
- Still, scientists have many other obstacles to pass before fusion technology becomes a viable energy source.
Military recruits are supposed to be assessed to see whether they're fit for service. What happens when they're not?
- During the Vietnam War, Robert McNamara began a program called Project 100,000.
- The program brought over 300,000 men to Vietnam who failed to meet minimum criteria for military service, both physically and mentally.
- Project 100,000 recruits were killed in disproportionate numbers and fared worse after their military service than their civilian peers, making the program one of the biggest—and possibly cruelest—mistakes of the Vietnam War.
The 116th Congress is set to break records in term of diversity among its lawmakers, though those changes are coming almost entirely from Democrats.
- Women and nonwhite candidates made record gains in the 2018 midterms.
- In total, almost half of the newly elected Congressional representatives are not white men.
- Those changes come almost entirely from Democrats; Republican members-elect are all white men except for one woman.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.