Search

This paper comments on the work of Rector et al. (1999a, 1999b). The poverty lines implicit in their restrictive material deprivation approach are disputed and the claim that America has triumphed over poverty is rejected. Evidence is presented showing that poverty among the poorest Americans has significantly increased and is now near an all time high. The long economic expansion since the recession of 1990-1991 has left hardcore poverty essentially unchanged and relative deprivation among the poorest of the poor has increased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Regional Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In 1947, Harry S. Truman could scarcely imagine that "anyone thought [India] was important." But only a decade later, Senator John F. Kennedy put forward a radically different appraisal of the value of India, and the strategic meaning of poverty. The sheer scale of India's deprivation, he argued, made it the decisive ideological battleground, and "a world power with a world audience" in its own right. In the minds of American planners, India's position at the center of a line of containment gradually gave way to its more crucial function as a model of economic development. The goal of representing India as an authentically Western model, distinct from China, underlay an aid relationship that created the "problem" of hunger and then made solving it an international goal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a study which examined welfare reform and labor markets in the U.S. in the 1990s. Discussion of whether President Bill Clinton supported specific measures to assist the poor; Details of the argument that welfare reform has been a failure in terms of addressing poverty problems; Role of economic growth in solving poverty.

The article criticizes the use of the Misery Index as a gauge of macroeconomic performance. The use of the Misery Index by U.S. President George Bush symbolizes the almost exclusive focus of economic policy in the 1980s on growth and price stability. There is no doubt that the rate of economic growth and the rate of inflation should be two important criteria in judging the success of any economic policy. Assuming for the moment that distributional concerns are unimportant, the Misery Index still has several shortcomings that diminish its usefulness as a policy indicator. First, the index is generally used to judge the success or failure of economic policy in specified periods. Another limitation of the Misery Index is that it simply adds together the unemployment and inflation rates unweighted. Economic justice, like macroeconomic performance, has many dimensions, and capturing its trends can be difficult. Nonetheless, two prominent indicators of absolute and relative economic well-being are the poverty rate and overall income inequality. The sum of the two produces what we call the Poverty And Inequality (PAIN) index. Between 1980 and 1990, the Misery Index declined about 50 percent, a fact which the Bush administration heralded. At the same time, however, the PAIN index rose by about 8 percent, despite eight consecutive years of overall economic expansion.

The article provides information on the development of East Asian societies compared to Western societies in 1994. It mentions that the U.S. could wait until the proof of East Asian success becomes too overwhelming and strong to ignore before determining whether it should compete the East Asians in critical self-analysis. It states that the U.S. could start reflecting on how and why it has to question its fundamental presumptions about its political and social arrangements, and learn from East Asian societies.

Presents views on the role of the U.S. government in promoting sustainable development internationally. Consideration of the impact of international capitalism and the unknowingness of consumers to understand the effects of the behavior of politicians; How the U.S. has cut back on aid by targeting nations with strategic significance rather than those in poverty; Need for an increased commitment by the United Nations and the U.S. to providing family planning and health care in the efforts to promote sustainable development; Examples of cooperative initiatives focused on energy-saving projects and recycling globally.