global_poverty_extreme_kenya_children_child_Smiling_usaid_obama_fiscal_budget_report_international_aid_opt (1)

Martin Ravallion of World Bank argues that countries with an average income above $4,000 dollars could resolve their own domestic poverty crisis by taxing residents who earn more than $13 a day. Laurence Chandy and Geoffrey Gertz of the Brookings Institution suggest a way to complement Ravallion’s plan, which would end extreme poverty completely. They estimate that by 2015, there may be only 586 million people living below the absolute poverty line, and suggest that the world’s wealthier countries could aid those unable to fix their own economic situations, for only $40 billion dollars. We could live in a world where none of our nearly 7 billion neighbors is forced to face the dehumanizing reality of absolute poverty, for less than the annual budget of New York City.

So what’s the catch?

Unfortunately, what Ravallion, Chandy and Gertz suggest is only a theory. Tracking the exact number of people in need of help would be impossible, therefore estimating the exact cost of helping is impossible. There are less exact ways to monitor a household’s income, such as tracking ownership of assests such as bicycles or land, but no precise method.

So, since we can’t assign concrete numbers, let’s assume that it would actually cost much more than the theoretical $40 billion proposed by Chandy and Gertz. Let’s be conservative and double it. No, for argument’s sake, let’s go even higher; let’s estimate $100 billion dollars. $100 billion sounds like much more than the world’s wealthier countries would be willing to contribute to end another country’s struggle, right?

Now consider that in President Obama’s 2013 fiscal budget, foreign aid accounts for around 1% of our country’s federal spending. That 1% equals about $70 billion dollars.

The bottom line is this; eradicating extreme poverty is possible, and it can be accomplished for a fraction of a percent of our Gross Domestic Product, if we can just unite with other countries and attack this problem as a team. One world, one mission: end absolute poverty.

– Dana Johnson

Sources: Foreign Policy, National Priorities
Sources: Echwalu

Can we really end global poverty? Earlier this year, World Bank announced that we can virtually end extreme global poverty by 2030, meaning that the number of people in the world living on $1.25 per day or less would be reduced to 3%.

But while that would be a huge victory for the world, we should set our standards higher. Right now, extreme poverty is defined as living on $1.25 per day, and poverty is $2 per day. But even many of those with $2 to live each day don’t have access to other essentials such as drinking water and electricity. In rural areas of the poorest countries, 1 in 10 children die before their first birthday from easily preventable diseases, and $2 per day cannot afford these children the medication or vaccines they need.

Furthermore, the people who make more than $2 in poor countries (i.e. those not living in poverty) still have five times higher infant mortality rates than the poorest and most deprived areas of rich countries, which shows the gap between poverty in rich and poor nations.

Some economists suggest that the “global middle class” earns approximately $10 per day. But if we were to change the definition of “poverty” to living on less than $10, rather than $1.25 or $2 per day, we would find that 98% of people in sub-Saharan Africa would be living in poverty.

But is it really feasible to get everyone in the world living on more than $10 per day?

Economists crunched the numbers and say yes. By 2050, the population will be around 9 billion and global GDP will quadruple. They predict that the GDP related to getting everyone to the $10 per day mark would take less than 1/5 of the $300+ trillion output. In other words, it’s entirely possible if we raise our goals and fight harder to end global poverty. $1.25 will get most people the bare necessities they need to survive, but $10 will give them a much better standard of living.

Katie Brockman

Source Businessweek

The Adventure Project, founded in 2010 by Becky Straw and Jody Landers, invests in social enterprises to end global poverty across the world.

The Adventure Project comes up with low-cost, yet high-impact solutions that lead to the creation of jobs that improve communities and save lives. The Adventure Project provides necessary support to local community members to enhance their skills to develop products and services. The support from the Project helps communities become profitable entrepreneurs and creates successful, sustainable, social ventures that are beneficial to their entire community.

In this way, The Adventure Project sets itself apart from many other nonprofit organizations. Instead of providing direct monetary charity that might not directly benefit members of the community in long-term development, The Adventure Project helps impoverished individuals personalize and gain their own skills and businesses that allow hard work and hands-on involvement in their own development. Therefore, community members create the solutions to their distinct issues.

The founders’ hard work is evident through their difficult journey to make The Adventure Project the success that it is today. Co-founder Becky Straw maxed out her credit cards, stayed on friends’ couches, and devoted several hours to develop, build, and find the financial structure necessary to create a successful business plan. Co-founder Jody Landers used her adoption of two children for Sierra Leone as a catalyst for devoting her life to humanitarian work via The Adventure Project. The founders’ passion for investing in social capital has created a positive impact for many donors and recipients.

And now, through the Adventure Project, Becky Straw and Jody Landers, as well as their many partners, offer people the opportunity to reach their own goals and become successful on their own by investing in social enterprises to end global poverty.

– Angela Hooks

Sources: Business Insider