Friday, August 12, 2011
Another ridiculous statement form the UN REPORT
The following quote is from the UN's 2003 report Slums of the World.
The poor do not automatically benefit from good "macroeconomic statistics", compared with the non-poor, particularly in terms of the corresponding improvements in the quality and coverage of public services.
I suppose it is true that the poor do not benefit from macroeconomic statistics, unless they are doing research of course. However, the poor, as a group, do necessarily benefit from increased production in the society for many reasons and increased production in the society is a macroeconomic variable. Holding other variables constant, increased production will lead to lower prices, which is clearly good for the poor. Further, increased production, in the vast majority of cases, leads to increased employment.
The second part of the statement implies that increases in quantity and quality of public services that result from economic growth help the non-poor disproportionately. This is most likely no the case, as the more income someone earns, the more likely it is that they can afford substitutes to public services. Also, even if the services help the non-poor more, this does not imply that the poor do not benefit. Lastly, many (free-market) economists will argue that most people are worse off as a result of public services due to the opportunity cost associated with such services.
The poor do not automatically benefit from good "macroeconomic statistics", compared with the non-poor, particularly in terms of the corresponding improvements in the quality and coverage of public services.
I suppose it is true that the poor do not benefit from macroeconomic statistics, unless they are doing research of course. However, the poor, as a group, do necessarily benefit from increased production in the society for many reasons and increased production in the society is a macroeconomic variable. Holding other variables constant, increased production will lead to lower prices, which is clearly good for the poor. Further, increased production, in the vast majority of cases, leads to increased employment.
The second part of the statement implies that increases in quantity and quality of public services that result from economic growth help the non-poor disproportionately. This is most likely no the case, as the more income someone earns, the more likely it is that they can afford substitutes to public services. Also, even if the services help the non-poor more, this does not imply that the poor do not benefit. Lastly, many (free-market) economists will argue that most people are worse off as a result of public services due to the opportunity cost associated with such services.
# posted by Gavinomics : 8:06 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Hi there! You are forgetting that many people still live and LIKE to live in rural areas all over the world. The increase in production causes destruction of ecosystems, pollution, destruction of biodiversity, etc. Thus, some "poor" people (actually living in much better conditions than many "urban middle-classes") would prefer that the world stop "developing" right now. I don't know which country you're from, but that is true in many tropical areas, including (but not only in) tropical rain forests. We share some research interests though, maybe you'll like my project: www.simnation.info. Cheers! Rodrigo. PS: I've commented your comment here: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/statistics-on-poverty/statistics-on-poverty-urbanization-and-slums
Thanks for your comment. I agree that many people prefer living in rural areas, and thus choose to live in rural areas. However, with the population growing around the world the way it is, especially in areas of faster development, the increased efficiency and productivity that comes with economic growth is necessary to avoid widespread famine. We must remember that there are about 7 Billion people in the world today, and with about 50 million km squared of "agriculture land" on Earth, this leaves only 1/140 of one km squared per person. Further, the population is likely to continue to increase for the next several decades, and the amount of "agriculture land" is likely to decrease due to climate change. I think that destruction of ecosystems, destruction of biodiversity, and pollution are all results of human population growth in general, rather than economic development. In fact, people living in cities probably have a smaller marginal effect on forest destruction etc., than those living in rural areas. Don't get me wrong though, I believe people should live where they want whether urban or rural. The thing that I think needs to be avoided above all else is planning on the part of an outsider. I do not think governments should say, "We know what is best for these people, so we will make a plan for them."
Thanks, Gavin
Thanks, Gavin
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Post a Comment