CHAPTER 1

MORE THAN MONEY

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who isstriking at the root.

—Henry David Thoreau

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY! In the global wars on poverty money has servedas both the primary weapon and chief foot soldier for both academics andpractitioners. If we deploy the right amount to the right place at the righttime, the right things would happen, poverty would abate, and misery giveway to human happiness. Development economists, business scholars, socialentrepreneurs, and thought leaders all trumpet the right amount and mix ofinvestment and spending by government, businesses, and consumers, as criticalto meaningful gains by the world's poor.

I like Thoreau's observation. Most of the billions, or trillions, of dollarsthrown at the poverty problem ends up in the branches—alleviating thesymptoms of poverty—but little gets at the root and creates lasting prosperityfor individuals. Money doesn't eliminate poverty. Money fails, primarily,because it does little to develop or encourage self-reliance; I'll make a case inthese pages that self-reliance leads to a lasting solution to poverty. First, however,let's truly understand the fascination with money as the key to battlingthe curse of poverty.

The focus on money conforms to our conventional wisdom about whatpoverty is, and by implication how it can be overcome. The World Bank'soperating definition of poverty tells us that

Poverty is "pronounced deprivation in well-being." The conventional viewlinks wellbeing primarily to command over commodities, so the poorare those who do not have enough income or consumption to put themabove some adequate minimum threshold. This view sees poverty largelyin monetary terms.

Specialists and lay people alike may intuitively realize that it takes morethan just money to create meaningful change, but requests for aid—often urgent—inmonetary terms often force other critical conversations to the background.The "conventional view"—deeply engrained into our mental mapsof poverty—means that the conversations about strategic solutions quicklydevolve into tactical talk about fund raising, potential donors, and expectedreceipts.

Money also provides a seductively convenient soldier to deploy. When wemove past the simple symptoms of want we begin to see the complex causesof need, and those deeper causes constitute what planners refer to as wickedproblems: ones that defy definition, have multiple causes and potential remedies,and no definite or optimal solution. At one level, writing a check iseasier than finding the causal roots in the quagmire of wicked complexity. Ata deeper level, money-as-the-solution appeals to a deeper belief that moneyis the apparent solution to our own problems, so giving money to the poorshould help them with their problems. Money acts as a quick palliative for thepain of the destitute.

For some, maybe many, money represents not only a convenient way toengage in a worthy cause; it also consoles the conscience. Living lives at or nearthe top of the economic pyramid, our drive for justice, or perhaps our senseof guilt over our abundance, encourages us to do something. But again, doingsomething requires getting our hands dirty and admitting our weakness in theface of an intractable problem. Giving money relieves our feelings of helplessnessand hopelessness. Money becomes a palliative for the pain of the donor.

Money may conform to convention, provide a convenient and consolingway to get involved. What it hasn't shown, at least to date, is a curative effecton poverty. That's a bold claim, one I'll back up in a moment, but it will provehelpful to think more about poverty and the different levels where it exists. Wecan think of two overarching types of poverty, Big P and little p.

Big P poverty describes poverty driven by macrosocial forces and measuredat very aggregate levels. Big P poverty isn't about people, at least not oneswith names and faces; it's about people as statistics and the metalevel forcesthat drive them: famine, ignorance, marital and family institutions, politicaloppression, and war, to name a few. Percentages and aggregates matter in thefight against Big P poverty, the percent of people with clean drinking water,access to sanitation, or secondary education. It's not about whether the Agbetesof Accra or the Walkers of Window Rock have any of those things. Thefocus lies in alleviating—mitigating the effects of—poverty but tacitly framesits underlying causes as intractable.

Little p poverty focuses on individuals and families. It's about the Agbetes,the Walkers, and millions of other people with names, faces, lives, and realneeds. Real people live in corrupt or fragile states; they often lack access toformal educational opportunities or participation in the formal economy. Thecauses of Big P poverty put real people in little p poverty, as do things likephysical or mental handicaps, family dynamics, and personal choices. Fightinglittle p poverty means improving the lives and livelihoods of individuals,one at a time. Little p poverty can be eliminated, individuals and families canmove from poverty to prosperity.

If Big P poverty focuses on statistics, then little p poverty concerns stories,the intimate arcs of individual lives. Slicing poverty into Big P and little p doesmore than provide a memorable metaphor; it highlights that those fighting itwill be more effective when their efforts and...