Benerjee and Duflo in Poor Economics analyze various conditions that the poor face that are so-called poverty traps. In the two chapters read, these are hunger and healthcare based poverty traps. The book does a decent job of introducing the reader to the central issue of the chapter, using basic theory for the average reader to explain the poverty trap, and then presenting and analyzing statistics to determine whether or not the issues the poor face are in fact poverty traps.
The book also tends to present a problem that many people wouldn't find it hard to imagine, and then turns the problem on its head by noting easy solutions exist that are readily available. The most poignant example of this can be found in chapter 3. It is not hard to understand just how rampant of a problem diarrhea and unsanitary water is in third world nations. However, what is surprising is that the solution to the problem, bleach and ORS (a rehydration solution), is cheap and affordable for the poor, yet rarely make use of this solution.
While there does not appear to be a statistic on the percentage of people in the world who do not have enough food on page 26, there is one on the percentage of Indians who believe they do not have enough food, measured to be 2% of the Indian population in 2004. This is not to say that they are starving, but rather that they think they do not have enough food, or need more. The problem in this statistic lies in how the authors introduce it; the idea of what is enough food to eat is never defined. Two meals a day as enough to eat could mean bacon and eggs for breakfast and steak for dinner, or it could mean a banana at dawn and an egg at dusk. Likewise, enough to eat could mean the minimum necessary caloric intake a person must get from eating each day just to function based on energy, or the proper level of nutrition to maintain a healthy body. While the authors use the fact that this statistic has decreased over time (from 17% in 1983 to 2% in 2004) to bring doubt to the idea that a food based poverty trap actually exists, the argument is made weaker by this point just because of the uncertainty associated with this statistic.
I completely agree with what you said about the others presenting a situation and turning it on it's head. I feel like with them doing so they dispel the popular opinions with what is the actuality of the situation. I really do like this approach and your observation.
ReplyDeleteThey do talk about the amount of calories that was necessary for the average person in Indian who was doing strenuous work. They also say that there are ways to maximize caloric and nutritional value, by eating mostly bananas but it's not a favorable option for a lot of people. It is also safe to say that a good number of Indians would not be eating a steak for dinner, or any part of a cow for that matter.
Like Kay-Chelle, I really like your description of how the authors present their arguments. They do a very good job of describing both the problems and the solutions. For instance, with the poverty traps, they are able to show how and why these problems occur and potential ways to fix them. And, in doing that, they bring in the human side of the problem by putting a story behind the data. That certainly helps in allowing the reader understand the subject.
ReplyDeleteI 100% agree with you on almost every topic you brought up. I think it is important to stress how education (even basic) could entirely turn the lives of the poor around. You brought up the fact that treating dirty water with bleach will significantly decrease diarrhea rates. You then go onto say that even though bleach is extremely cheap, even the very poor, it goes unused quite often. This is a direct result of the poor not receiving even a minimal threshold of education. In advanced countries if you go to a doctor's office and they tell you to drink this and you will feel better, 90% of people will oblige by that order. However, in many developing countries there is a general distrust among the poor concerning doctors and nurses. If this mistrust would be alleviated, most likely through education, many lives could be saved and improved.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your interpretation of the book as a whole. I think the problem of the statistic as described on page 26 is well defined by you. I do agree that a standard caloric count is not presented well and even the examples in the book were way off. Ether way, these people are not receiving enough food and the lacking nutrient and calories are definatly affecting their lives.
ReplyDeleteKay-Chelle, the diet proposed by the authors is probably not only insufficient, but nutritionally dangerous. While a banana-rich diet is certainly good due to the large potassium intake as a result, eating just eggs in complement could be dangerous due to the increased cholesterol. Likewise, given the poor sanitation of the water system of the locations the book discusses, it is highly likely that the eggs would be contaminated with salmonella. To put it bluntly, if people follow the diet suggested by the authors, they will die.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point about heterogeneity. Nice work and great discussion, all.
ReplyDelete