Permanent (Collective) Poverty

PERMANENT POVERTY IS AS the term implies: a condition of permanent material deprivation. Because it persists over time it is different from the temporary condition of poverty caused by flood or famine. Poverty that is permanent has a stable pattern of insufficient resources available for satisfying the needs and wants of all the people of an area. It is different from the transitory and impermanent cyclical poverty caused by nature or by human calamity.

Permanent poverty is concentrated over a large area among a large number of people who may have little else except for their poverty in common. Permanent poverty shared in groups may also be transmitted from generation to generation. This occurs as the result of patterns of behavior that are nonproductive and often destructive in character.

Even if resources become available, they will be squandered because of destructive cultural patterns. Permanent poverty can be found in many areas of the globe, from east Kentucky to east Africa or east Asia. People numbering in the hundreds of millions are trapped in permanent poverty where life is lived as a marginalized existence.

In places where poverty has settled in to become permanent, the effects are such that life expectancy is low, infant mortality rates are high, and the people are often further impoverished by poor health. The health factors alone allow diseases to flourish. Poor diet and the lack of modern medical services cause the energy levels of the poor to be so low that just existing day to day takes all of their strength.

Places experiencing permanent poverty have low rates of economic development. The total production of permanent poverty areas would not be better, even if all the available resources were distributed equally. The solutions to permanent poverty proposed by many concerned people or agencies are to expand the Gross Domestic Product of areas, increasing agricultural and industrial production.

Working against ending permanent poverty in many areas is the problem of overpopulation. There are a number of forces that are opposed to population control. These include sheer ignorance, traditional beliefs, the biological imperialism of some religions, the fact that children are the social security system of the aged in much of the world, and other forces. Without population control the gains made in increased agricultural and industrial production are easily negated by population growth. In a Malthusian situation the population grows more rapidly (a geometric progression) than do resources (arithmetic progression), so the improvements are negated. However, the one factor that does seem to lead to decreased population is the education of women—this empowers them to have control over reproduction.

Population growth is directly related to the reduction in mortality rates for infants that comes as the result of improving the availability of modern medical services. The survival of more infants leads to birthrates of three or four percent, which can double a population in 20 years or effectively in a generation. Some countries have tried or even imposed various birth control or family planning programs.

In the case of many areas of permanent poverty and in the countries that contain these areas, there is often an unequal distribution of the wealth, such that there are a few very wealthy “haves” and a great many “havenots.” This pattern of inequality is very likely to continue despite production increases, because the powerful are able to extract an increased share in the [Page 822]productive gains. The trickling-down of more than was permanently available to the poor is usually negated by the population increases, so that vast numbers of people are permanently imprisoned in subsistence conditions, where there is little likelihood of freedom from poverty. Overall the results of efforts to reduce or eliminate permanent poverty have been discouraging to many. The results have often been too meager for the resources expended.

...