By Vedika Inamdar.
The first part of this post examined the liberal conceptions that shape approaches to tackling poverty. Drawing on Barbara Stark’s paper on Theories of Poverty, this blogpost as a continuation of the first post, critically examines the way such liberal conceptions add up and how they fall short.
Each of the conceptions of poverty (Moral Duty to the Poor, The Rights of the Poor, and Poverty and Utility) are grounded in the Enlightenment tradition. Each of them has their justifications and enforcement mechanisms that seek to produce and reproduce these conceptions of poverty. The enforcement mechanisms range from private charity (such as the philanthropic work of Bill Gates) in the case of Moral Duty to the Poor, rights as defined in laws in the case of The Rights of the Poor, and social welfare programs in the case of the Utility conception of poverty. There are tensions between these approaches and they compete for prominence.Â
The Moral Duty to the Poor conception is an obligation of one individual to another, rather than an obligation of the State to the individual. In contrast, if we view poverty as a question of justice, the image of the virtuous benefactor is quickly replaced by an image of the poor taking back what is rightfully theirs. This is an important distinction in terms of justice and Rights for the Poor and for political implications in terms of what must be done for the poor. As the utility conception argues, should the state be held responsible for helping the poor or is it the onus of those better off as the Morality conception suggests?Â
In contrast, if we view poverty as a question of justice, the image of the virtuous benefactor is quickly replaced by an image of the poor taking back what is rightfully theirs.
These tensions highlight the ambivalence present in liberal conceptions of poverty: There is almost no agreement between these competing ideas on how to deal with poverty or who should be responsible. Even when there is consensus, there is little political will to translate the agreements into practical action. As the following discussions on disillusionment with liberalism suggests, liberalism does not require the eradication of poverty.Â
Liberalisms Discontents
Socialism, since the 18th Century has offered an alternative vision to liberalism. In this vein, Enlightenment itself has been challenged. The Theocrats, the Radicals, and the Skeptics all question liberalisms emphasis on individual autonomy, as opposed to the values of solidarity and a sense of community.Â
The Theocrats
Charity is one of the fundamental pillars of many religions. The Theocrats argue that responsibility to the poor is that of the individual or the community and not of the State. This approach to poverty has its roots in the Enlightenment values of the separation of the Church and State. Europeans having just experienced the Wars of Religion were accepting of this idea, and the separation of the Church and State became a fundamental principle of the Treaty of Westphalia (1648).Â
Despite this separation, religion still continues to survive, and sometimes rule, to this day. This speaks to the power of religion and people’s lasting belief in God. Religion remains a strong force in Europe and America, inspiring good behavior and acts of charity, which involve giving to the poor. In addition, religion gives people a sense of community, which modern life does not always provide. For the theocrats the secular modern state is immoral, godless, and not spiritually fulfilling.Â
The Radicals
In the 19th century, Karl Marx argued that ‘rights’ were incompatible with the enjoyment of basic socioeconomic benefits such as health, education, and welfare. Rights were a part of the very system of the state that impedes the enjoyment of such benefits. For Marx, the liberal system itself was flawed and hence so were any of its approaches to eradicate poverty. The ideology of Rights was mere tokenism. Thus, for Marx and Rousseau, individual rights were not the solution to helping the poor. Marxists argue that the poor benefit the elite of society because they provide a workforce that is willing to work for low-wages. Thus, within the Capitalist system, there cannot be any true poverty eradication approach. Welfare programs, as advocated by the Rights of the Poor conception, are merely temporary solutions to poverty and are not designed to help poor people escape poverty.Â
The Skeptics and the North-South Divide
The skeptics question and challenge the metanarratives of the Enlightenment and theocracy and metanarratives in general. Postmodern scholars along with post-colonial scholars questioned the largely western and white-male oriented metanarrative of liberalism. This is apparent in development discourse that has the Global South in focus.Â
Skeptics envision a world unencumbered by large, all-encompassing visions and question the hegemony of any grand narrative. They also challenge the assumption of post-cold war approaches to poverty. Borrowing from Michel Foucault’s work on Discourse and Power, Arturo Escobar applies this work to Development in the Global South. During the post-war years a whole new strategy for dealing with the problems of what came to be known as the ‘underdeveloped world’ emerged.Â
Thus, as is evident from the discussions above, and from the previous post, approaches to tackling poverty are varied and are often politically motivated. One overarching theme across the Theocrats, Radicals, and Skeptics’ approach is that they advocate the values of community, solidarity, and oppose the individual approach to dealing with poverty.Â
By Vedika Inamdar
Vedika is from India, where she completed an undergraduate degree in sociology. She worked at an academic research organisation between finishing her undergraduate degree and starting her Masters in Poverty and Development at IDS. She is interested in the anthropological and sociological sides of development and the application of social theory in the field of development.