First Summary - Contributors Inputs

Topic of Discussion: Poverty
Moderator: NOVRI
Contributors: NOVRI, JUNBO, ITO, KAMEI, CITRA, SAYAKO, MAKY
Reactors: DANAASUREN, NOVRI,KAMRUL, ERNA, TIN, BINAYA, MATHURANA, DON

Note on posts:
Junbo, Sayako and Maky have yet to give their much valued inputs as contributors.

I think most of the contributors have already presented their opinion relates to root causes of poverty. Let me try to summarize and map your thought now. Firstly thank you for the contribution.

In the opinions screen, generally poverty can be divided in to two root causes. First is a cultural cause in which people do not have a will to improve their live. Dana mentions that in Mongolia there is lack of capacity in improving a better prosperity. Somehow this root cause is true for some cases. However as Citra urges about labelling.The people who do not want to ‘improve’ their live may feel peace. They feel happy without watching MTV or eating McDonald. They do not need a formal school but local wisdom. Then we are asking, what poverty is exactly for them? Is it only about the labelling? How if Marx’s thought is true that actually people are being oppressed and exploited but there is a false consiosness? In Javanese culture there is a say “trim ing pandum” means just accept what you get. They are happy even everyday only eating dried cassava.

Second is a structural cause in which people can not fulfill their basic needs because there is no opportunity for them. They have a will to improve their life. They want their children to get a good education. However, the system do not allow them. Now the issue is what kind of system that hinders the people to improve their life? Let us look at some phenomenon: When Muslim in Mindanao want to get a job, they should change their name in to Catholic name. When Chinese people in Indonesia want to get a job, they should change their name in to local name. Different places may will have different kind of system that hampers poor people to improve their life. In Mongolia as Dana argues that poverty is likely caused by the absence of good governance.

Kamei and Ito let us think harder now. Can we mention that a protracted violent conflict is the root cause of poverty too? We can not simplify the answers. In Sierra Leone, may be the answer is yes. However in some cases the answer will be different. When one group do a revolt against their government, perhaps they have seen an injustice system on their life. Violence is a means of resistance against injustice. Hence, in this case we can not say that violent conflict is the root cause of poverty. This perspective will ignore the fact behind the violent conflict: the Injustice System. We can see to the cases of Aceh and Mindanao for this perspective.

Dana and Kamei put natural disaster is one of the root causes of poverty. Why can it be? Do natural disaster such as flood, erosion, landslide, or earthquake impoverish people?

Any reactors want to comment?