Anti Poverty Programs
Anti-poverty programs refer to government initiatives designed to alleviate poverty and improve the living standards of low-income individuals and families. These programs may include social welfare, food assistance, housing support, education and job training, and healthcare services. The aim is to address the root causes of poverty and provide a safety net for those in need.
4 Key excerpts on "Anti Poverty Programs"
eBook - ePubInternational Social Work
Issues, Strategies, and Programs
- David R. Cox, Manohar Pawar(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- SAGE Publications, Inc(Publisher)
...Comprehensive and well-coordinated poverty reduction programs are essential. Poverty reduction strategies generally fail to reach the major pockets of poverty, resulting rather in a creaming effect on the population in poverty; hence the emphasis is increasingly on pro-poor or poverty-targeted strategies. Finally, a major reason for failure to significantly reduce poverty is frequently attributed to the political aspect of poverty reduction, identified as a lack of political commitment to the task. This is presumably because such strategies are expensive and not popular with the influential sections of the electorate, or because the political party in power represents only selected vested interests. As we consider the roles of international social work in poverty alleviation (and we shall use this term rather than poverty reduction because it more closely reflects what is feasible in this context), it is essential to keep the above conclusions in mind...
eBook - ePubDevelopment Economics
Theory and Practice
- Alain de Janvry, Elisabeth Sadoulet(Authors)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...We build on it in what follows. An important consideration in the design of anti-poverty programs is whether the poor are caught in a poverty trap, meaning they cannot escape poverty unless they reach a certain threshold of asset endowments, or whether they can slowly improve their asset positions to move out of poverty, starting at their current level of assets. Carter and Barrett (2006) have argued for the existence of poverty traps—for example, when pastoralists in Kenya fall below a minimum asset threshold, in this case a viable herd size. Existence of a minimum asset threshold to allow productive use comes from the fact that there may be economies of scale in production or that assets will otherwise be depleted to meet consumption needs. Antman and McKenzie (2007), by contrast, have shown with Mexican data that it is the slow process of recapitalization after a shock that keeps people in poverty for a long time, not existence of an unmet threshold endowment. The importance of avoiding poverty traps is behind the design of the successful BRAC Ultra-Poor Graduation program that provides sufficiently large asset endowments together with training and livelihood support to give a chance to the ultra-poor to escape poverty (Banerjee et al., 2015). A Typology of Social Programs In Figure 14.1, we categorize social programs based on what we have learned in previous chapters. We distinguish three types of programs according to their objectives (income opportunities for the poor, transfers to the poor through social assistance, and protection of the vulnerable non-poor through social protection) and the category of people to whom they apply (the chronic poor and the vulnerable non-poor). 1. Programs to reduce chronic poverty and vulnerability. a. Type 1 (T1). Programs to reduce chronic poverty via income-generation opportunities for the poor; that is, provide “safety ropes” out of poverty, to use the terminology proposed by Barrett et al. (2008). b. Type 2 (T2a)...
eBook - ePubThe Shame of It
Global Perspectives on Anti-Poverty Policies
- Gubrium, Erika K., Pellissery, Sony(Authors)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Policy Press(Publisher)
...This dilemma forced potential recipients to be more dependent on the men in their lives and reinforced for them their lack of real power. In Chapter Eight the Ugandan National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) and the Prosperity for All (PFA) programme likewise reflects the difference between lofty intention and delivery realities. At the national level, both aim to increase the self-sustainability and empowerment of poor subsistence farmers. However, cronyism and corruption by bureaucrats at all levels means that those with the fewest social or financial resources literally cannot afford to partake in the services and benefits offered. In part, the mismatch may also derive from a key difference that exists between anti-poverty measures and other welfare policy measures. Unlike, for example, social insurance, anti-poverty measures are always more local. In the welfare states of the North and South that are based on the Bismarckian model, the overriding goal has been social cohesion more than poverty relief (Walker, 2014). This goal has shaped the strategies applied. The presence of clear categories and entitlements tied to, for example, work-generated pensions, are easy to calculate using technical strategies that can be done from a removed central/national office. The people being served by anti-poverty measures, however, fit into unclear and diffuse categories whose needs are not best served using a one-size-fits-all technical approach. Norway’s work approach is aimed at a narrow target group. As Chapter Five reports, however, today the broad majority of individuals claiming social assistance face a diffuse set of social, structural and financial obstacles. The evidence presented suggests that while the work approach may be useful for some, it is not the answer for most claimants...
...With regard to government policies of prevention, these take time to implement; it might make it more difficult to get sufficient support for such policies as they could potentially damage certainty of re-election. Furthermore, if the reason for poverty by some is seen as some not wanting or being able to get out of poverty, there might not be sufficient will and effort to do something about it. It might not be a populist policy to reduce poverty (Greve 2019), unless it can be seen as part of a wider issue of supporting groups seen as being deserving of support from the welfare state. There is also the issue about being sure of what and how are the most effective ways of being able to prevent poverty from increasing, given that this might be due to, for example, technological change. It will presumably also be difficult to prevent poverty arising in cases of national emergency and war. Another issue is how to be sure to have the necessary instruments in place to prevent people ending up living in poverty. However, given what we know it seems obvious that an early intervention for children would be cost-effective (Heckman 2006), even though this has been questioned by recent studies, as also argued in Chapter 4. Still, knowledge about what works and what does not work is also important with regard to these interventions, given the drive to get most value for the available resources. The reason why prevention might be difficult to measure with regard to poverty is that the precise counterfactual situation is often not available, and further that the necessary data are also lacking (Greve 2017a). It further seems logical that investment in social and human capital, including high levels of education, can be strong policies if the aim is for long-term prevention and avoidance of poverty...
