“Eliminate the most extreme poverty” is ranked 2nd it is given high priority.
“Reduce all poverty by half” is ranked 16th at Medium priority
while “Boost per capita GDP” is ranked 40th at Low priority.
This implies that the “experts” think that “Eliminate the most extreme poverty” is a matter of distribution of money and power via state authority (taxation). Similarly “Reduce all poverty by half” is higher ranked than “per capita GDP growth” its about taxation and distribution again.
If a roughly a dollar a day is given to the 700 million people in extreme poverty, it cost $200 billion roughly. I don’t see the political will for this. In contrast putting all kids in school for 12 years has a $39 billion shortfall, that is better use of money (more effective).
This implies that the “experts” think that “Eliminate the most extreme poverty” is a matter of distribution of money and power via state authority (taxation).
I don’t think it implies that these experts think redistribution is the best way to eliminate extreme poverty. Increasing GDP per capita is 40th out of 117 targets, and being ranked this low could mean that they value it as a means of reducing poverty but not as an end in itself.
Given the order for goals and targets, it’s clear that taxation has to play a role, otherwise how are inequalities going to be reduced?
From FAQ
asked them to identify the first 20 that should be tackled in a multi-year effort to fulfill all of the SDGs. We then asked them to put the 20 they selected into the proper sequence, such that doing each facilitated the tackling of subsequent options.
It’s clear. They want to tackle extreme poverty and inequality. economic growth is far less important.
the capability approach broadens our lens just to make us see much more of people’s lives and how they interact with the economy rather than narrowly focusing in this case on income the thinking about human development and the work that Dreze and Sen had then done began to find a new form of expression in the human development report I think was one articulation of that with the largest development agency in the world at the time the human development reports use the index as a tool to send it the main message which is let us think beyond income
Hi Aaron,
“Eliminate the most extreme poverty” is ranked 2nd it is given high priority.
“Reduce all poverty by half” is ranked 16th at Medium priority
while “Boost per capita GDP” is ranked 40th at Low priority.
This implies that the “experts” think that “Eliminate the most extreme poverty” is a matter of distribution of money and power via state authority (taxation). Similarly “Reduce all poverty by half” is higher ranked than “per capita GDP growth” its about taxation and distribution again.
If a roughly a dollar a day is given to the 700 million people in extreme poverty, it cost $200 billion roughly. I don’t see the political will for this. In contrast putting all kids in school for 12 years has a $39 billion shortfall, that is better use of money (more effective).
I don’t think it implies that these experts think redistribution is the best way to eliminate extreme poverty. Increasing GDP per capita is 40th out of 117 targets, and being ranked this low could mean that they value it as a means of reducing poverty but not as an end in itself.
From https://www.sdgsinorder.org/goals
1 SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities 4.1569
2 SDG 1: No Poverty 3.7812
3 SDG 5: Gender Equality 3.5569
4 SDG 16: Peace Justice & Strong Institutions 3.0923
5 SDG 7: Affordable & Clean Energy 2.2784
6 SDG 4: Quality Education 2.0549
7 SDG 6: Clean Water & Sanitation1.8721
8 SDG 8: Decent Work & Economic Growth 1.7282
Given the order for goals and targets, it’s clear that taxation has to play a role, otherwise how are inequalities going to be reduced?
From FAQ
It’s clear. They want to tackle extreme poverty and inequality. economic growth is far less important.
Also relevant. From research to action—the story of a book that changed the way we think about development
Actually this post may be of interest to read on the topic: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bsE5t6qhGC65fEpzN/growth-and-the-case-against-randomista-development