I see now how poverty traps are almost so hard to cure. Most poverty issues are dealt with by giving aid to those in need, but that does not solve the entire problem does it? You can slap a band-aid on an injury all you like, but that still does not prevent injuries from happening. Thus these problems need a more creative solution and a preventive one. Hearing Chris talk about the poverty traps in Africa made me realize the contrast between there and in the United States, we have the infrastructure to better care of those in need, while in Africa they might not have that privilege. It has made me realize how well we have it here in the states.

The concept of a poverty trap may seem new to most people attending this university. The concept of a poverty trap revolves around the idea that there are forces either intentional or unintentional that makes it difficult for people to escape poverty or becoming impoverished. During this Rose Cafe, we discussed the various types of poverty traps in Africa and how people planned on combatting those issues. The discussion got me thinking about the poverty traps that may be surrounding me that I fail to recognize. One of the biggest ones I realized was schooling. Especially in the United States, K-12 level schooling heavily relies on public funding in order to teach students. As a result, those living in areas of lower income classes go to schools that receive lower funds than the middle class or upper-class students. The decreased level of education that these students receive as a result may potentially decrease their skill levels and make them less likely to go to university or be able to get jobs compared to the other students. The reality of the situation is that in order to address these poverty traps we have to accept that they are real systems being put in place. We will only be able to fully address the situation at hand when we are able to see the trap without biases or through any sort of filter. These are situations that we must look at head-on rather than pushing the issue to the side.

In the Rose Cafe given by Professor Barrett, I was very interested in the how, by his description, individuals can be stuck in situations where making even the most optimal decisions cannot help one escape poverty, leading to one being “trapped” in poverty. Last semester, I took a class called “the Politics of Poverty” in the Government department taught by Professor Michener, and it was very interesting for me to hear another perspective on economic disparities. While the course looked primarily on the socio-structural origins of poverty in America, Professor Barrett’s analysis, while certainly not discounting structural causes, made me consider even more concrete economic facets of poverty. For example, in America, economic wealth is generally not thought of as livestock, and it is (in general) not destroyable, even if it may slowly depreciate in value over time, and it can only be transferred. In contrast, a single drought in regions of Africa can cause a families wealth in livestock to die, thus causing not only economic disparity in terms of financial worth, but also material deprivation and possible starvation for a family. While weather can have an impact on an American family’s economic fortune, in the majority geographical areas it does not pose the threat it does to many in Africa. This made me realize just how powerful the structural factors contributing to poverty are in America.

Last Wednesday, I attended Professor Barrett’s talk on poverty traps and escapes. It was very informative, as I did not know much about the topic prior to the talk. The talk helped me to realize how difficult it can be to help people get out of poverty. One example of a poverty trap that I thought of in the United States is related to healthcare–which is a common topic in the news lately. Since healthcare in this country is so expensive, poor people often cannot afford to go see a doctor for a checkup. Even if they are not feeling well, they will often put off going to the doctor because they do not have the money to spare. If they are sick, then they will not be able to work to their full capacity, and therefore they could potentially earn less money. Furthermore, if they become seriously ill and have to go to the emergency room, they end up having extremely large hospital bills to pay, which just further pushes them into poverty. Meanwhile, those that have some money to spare often do go to see a doctor if they are not feeling well. This results in serious illnesses being caught early, which can reduce the time and cost of recovery. Thus, those who are not in poverty end up being less affected by illness, and are less likely to have large hospital bills. As Professor Barrett mentioned in his talk, identifying poverty traps is important, because then it is possible to find an escape from those traps. In the case of healthcare, one potential escape from poverty could be to provide preventative healthcare to the poor so that illnesses are caught early, before they become serious enough to require a visit to the emergency room. This would allow those people to recover faster–thus allowing them to work more and earn more money to help escape poverty–and reduce the costs that they have to pay to maintain their own health. Also reducing the costs of hospital bills could help people escape from poverty.

Last week I had the pleasure of attending Professor Barrett’s talk on poverty traps.  It was a really interesting topic that I knew little about, and it was clear that he both knew a tremendous amount and was very passionate about the subject.  In the United States, we’re very fortunate to live in a society that isn’t plagued with the same chronic, extreme poverty seen in countries like Kenya and Ethiopia, to name a few he has worked in.  The takeaway I appreciated most from this talk is his optimistic outlook that if these traps are created, there must be a way to escape.  I really enjoyed hearing his examples of how he has been able to help create poverty escapes, for example through drought insurance and prepaid phones.  Something like a prepaid phone might not seem like that much for someone in a poverty trap, but his explanation of how it helps women gain more financial independence showed me that even little efforts can have a big impact in improving others’ situations.

I really enjoyed learning about Professor Barrett’s research on poverty traps. One of the things that I found most interesting about this learning experience was how he gave us a chance to understand how researching and truly attempting to understand the barriers and difficulties that keep people in poverty reveals information about how those barriers can be mitigated or even removed to allow people to begin to propel themselves out of the trap of poverty. I think that, in the United States especially, politicians do not take time to truly understand problems and end up pushing simple solutions that may be intuitively appealing and politically advantageous but ill-suited to solve complex, multi-faceted issues. Moreover, I really appreciated how Professor Barrett emphasized that understanding the barriers and difficulties that people caught in poverty traps face reveals how their responses to these problems are calculated and rational even though they might not appear that way to an uninformed outsider. This point, in my opinion, is crucial to remember. I think that too often, at least in the United States, people have a tendency to point to specific actions of the poor as irrational, problematic, or even irresponsible to unjustly blame them for their own continued struggles. A closer look at the varied, complex challenges that the poor face often reveals those actions to be rational, necessary, and inventive. Given that decreases in rates of upward mobility are indicating that the United States is failing to be the meritocratic land of opportunity that it promises to be, I think it is extremely important that people recognize what kind of poverty traps exist in the U.S. as well. The increasingly polarized labor market, for example, forces many individuals without a college education to earn in a living in the precarious, low-wage service sector where jobs are usually part-time, last-minute scheduling makes it difficult to work two different jobs, and there is little room for promotion.

In his talk about poverty traps and escapes, Professor Christopher Barrett presented many impactful examples of poverty as a harsh, self-reinforcing state. I came into the talk with a general idea of how poverty naturally perpetuates itself; however, by precisely defining the vicious nature of this phenomenon, Professor Barrett greatly expanded my understanding of the issue. He defined a poverty trap as a scenario in which poverty reinforces itself, even when individuals are making optimal choices given their reality. I found his first example of this to be particularly demonstrative: a mother choosing to buy her profoundly malnourished child a pain-relieving, but ultimately nutrient-deficient plant, rather than investing money in food that is potentially more nutritious, yet costly money and time-wise. With her available resources, the optimal choice is to do whatever possible to soothe her child; however, this response only exacerbates his existing malnutrition and likely furthers their impoverished state. For me, it was this previously unrecognized notion of optimality that emphasized the truly cruel nature of poverty and poverty traps. 

Professor Barrett spent the latter portion of his talk discussing escapes from poverty traps. It was particularly interesting to hear about the positive impacts of technologies such as the mobile money system, which uses an e-banking model to enable economic relief through facilitated money transfers. As he admitted himself, even with the best intentions, influencing valuable change in impoverished areas can be incredibly difficult. When addressing these highly impoverished environments, it is oftentimes difficult to understand how to take meaningful action and be effective in expending both time and money. Professor Barrett’s discussion of both the successes and failures of various projects provided a much clearer picture into not only the complexities of such work, but also the potential for hugely successful returns. The talk gave me a far better understanding of poverty traps, escapes, and how to begin meaningfully addressing them via involvement/donations.

This week I attended the Rose Café with Chris Barrett where he talked about poverty traps, and how people become stuck in a reoccurring cycle of poverty. Specifically, he focused on farmers and herders in Kenya and Ethiopia, and how they are unable to escape the poverty cycle they are in. Simply put, these people are allocated land with the worst soil conditions because they are poor and at the bottom of the social food chain, and as a result they are not able to grow enough crops or maintain a large herd of livestock and thus they do not make much money. Because they do not make money, they are unable to move to better lands or improve their soil, and the cycle continues. While certainly not as severe, this reminded me of the poverty cycles that can be seen all across the US. For many people who are born into poverty, they will not have the opportunities they need to escape poverty, and as such when they have children they will also be born into poverty and the cycle continues. For example, in many low-income areas, the school districts do not provide students with an adequate education, and so it is much harder for the students to get into college or even graduate. This results in poor people being significantly less educated than their middle and upper class counterparts. Further, people living in poverty are not as healthy because fast food is often cheaper than good, nutritious food, and when money is scarce it makes financial sense to buy the cheapest food possible. This is the reason why many poor people in the US are obese and are more likely to suffer health complications, because they are eating lots of calories, but they are not obtaining the necessary nutrients they need to be healthy. As many poor people are obese and unhealthy, this also means they won’t be able to function as well throughout the day, and they would be more prone to having to call in sick. If they are sick and unable to work, then they do not get paid and they continue to be poor. There is a reason that Professor Barrett called it a poverty trap, because once you are in it, it is very difficult to get out. In terms of poverty traps in the US, I believe the best solution is to improve the education and job opportunities in low income areas so that young people have the means to either get a better education or a well paying job that would allow them to escape poverty.

Yesterday, I attended the talk on the book about escaping poverty traps. Barrett really opened my eyes in seeing that it is very easy for those in poverty to remain in a cycle of poverty. However, when organizations extend a hand by providing insurance, technology, etc, means of escape can be discovered. We are living in a society that is constantly progressing, and it is very important for people to empathize with those in need and those less fortunate in order to drive the progress towards bettering their lives. Without empathy, the less fortunate will remain trapped, and this talk has inspired me to think of ways to use my skills and/or education to contribute in improving their lives.

I went to Prof. Barrett’s talk on poverty traps and escapes today. Livestock insurance turned out to be the most important thing keeping the pastoral people at the Kenyan/Ethiopian border that Prof. Barrett talked about above water. Before insurance products made possible by satellite data had been possible, people just had to starve during droughts when their livestock was malnourished. I’m not sure why I thought about immigration, but I couldn’t stop thinking about how all of these people would be better off if they picked up everything and moved to a developed country where they could be much more productive. In Kenya and Ethiopia many people seem to be consigned to subsistence farming and herding, but if they moved to the US, they could twenty times what they earn as subsistence farmers by becoming Starbucks baristas. Obviously, it’s not easy for them to get the money to travel to the US, but a one-way plane ticket to the US must be cheaper than many of the aid programs that charities and governments currently fund, and has a massive return to the productivity and therefore living standards of these people. Instead of foreign aid programs, we could just open our borders to anyone who wanted to come and even offer to pay plane tickets so long as people stay for a certain period of time, maybe 5 years. If you barred them from the welfare state then they would almost certainly contribute more in taxes than they use in government transfers, so both the citizens and immigrants would benefit from the immigration in purely financial terms. Of course, immigrants are also new potential friends, colleagues, and spouses, which makes them a benefit above and beyond the financial impact. I think the best thing we could do for these poor herders would be to open our doors to them, but that probably won’t happen any time soon.