Today it seems as if everyone has a theory about fighting poverty, now it is not necessary
to be moving in the theoretical plane. Our country has had successful anti-poverty
programs that were effective back a century ago, effective because they were based
on these seven points: affiliation, bonding, categorization, discernment, employment,
freedom, and God. But a key element in all of them is personal involvement and
challenge, both material and spiritual.
If folks a hundred years ago could help others to move out of poverty,
and then turn their attention to the next group of immigrants and impoverished, why
can’t we? Did they have more time than we do? No, even though we feel stressed, their
work days on the average were longer. Did they have more money? No, we are far
more affluent as a society now. Did they have more space in their homes, so they could
take in another person and we cannot? No, on the average our houses are far larger.
Did they have less of a drug and alcohol problem? Probably not. They did have fewer
single-parenting situations – there was less illegitimacy and divorce then – but life
expectancy was lower, so there were lots of orp
hans and half-orphans. We’re more
spread out now, but our travel time is not any greater.
What I learned leads me to wonder: Why can’t we do the same? Were
Americans then a different people than we are today? Have we become so corrupted
that we don’t care about others? Have we become so lazy that we are unwilling to
suffer with? I think not. I hope not. But we have become used to having someone else
do it for us – even though we know that a professional social worker, with a case load of
200 or so, can’t do much more than shuffle paper. Bad charity drives out good.
My conclusion is that when we complain about a spendthrift modern
welfare state, we’re right about the costs but we’re actually stating the problem
backwards. The major flaw of the modern welfare state is not that it is extravagant, but
that it is too stingy. It gives the needy bread and tells them to be content with that
alone. It gives the rest of us the opportunity to be stingy also: We can soothe our
consciences as we scrimp on what many of the destitute need most – love, time, and
challenge. We need to recapture the optimism that a look at history can provide. We
need to recapture the understanding that a true definition of compassion suggests.
Gorboduc. written by Thomas Norton and Thomas Sackville soon after their entry into law and public life, and first presented before Queen Elizabeth I during Christmas of 1561, is a landmark in English literature for several reasons, most notably because it is the first English drama written in blank verse—that is, largely unrhyming iambic pentameter, the form used by later writers such as Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson, and William Shakespeare. For this reason alone, the play has a place in the English literary canon. Gorboduc is important for further reasons as well.
In addition to establishing blank verse as a language for the stage, Gorboduc set the basic pattern for the structure of English Renaissance drama. For the structure of Gorboduc Sackville and Norton turned to classical models, most notably those of closet plays of the Roman author Lucius Annaeus Seneca (closet plays are dramas that are meant to be read rather than acted) and the comedies of Titus Maccius Plautus, another Roman playwright, and so based their own drama on a five-act division, with each act subdivided into a varying number of scenes.
This simple device proved extremely important for the development of English Renaissance drama, since it provided a vehicle equally suitable for all major genres—tragedy, comedy, and history. Additionally, as Norton and Sackville demonstrated, the flexible act and scene structure allows playwrights to shift rapidly but logically from large, public settings to small, intimate ones, thus extending the range and scope of their dramas.
Perhaps Gorboduc ’s most telling use of this flexibility is the dumb shows that punctuate the play and comment on its actions. These plays within plays developed from native English mystery and miracle plays, such as Everyman (1508), and are allegorical representations of Gorboduc ’s plot. They emphasize and offer silent comment upon the moral of the story being enacted. The dumb shows are a highly effective combination of morality and theater.
As an example, Gorboduc opens with six wild men, characteristically dressed in leaves, who appear on stage, trying and failing to break a bundle of sticks; taking the bundle apart, each wild man easily snaps an isolated branch. This symbolic representation of the disastrous effects of disunity in a kingdom is.
(The entire section is 985 words.)Get Free Access
Start your free trial with eNotes for complete access to this resource and thousands more.
30,000+ Study Guides
Save time with thousands of teacher-approved book and topic summaries.
Get Homework Help
Ask real teachers questions on any subject or search 300,000+ answers.
On the Go Access
Learn from study guides, Homework Help, and quizzes on the eNotes iOS app.
Custom King Lear and Gorboduc.
When having a close look at the English drama, it should be noted that the historical dimension of its development is essential for understanding the dynamics of its formation. In this respect, while Shakespearean influence is widely recognized, pre-Shakespearean drama should not be underestimated because of its historical impact despite the fact it is less popular. The comparison of Gorboduc and Kind Lear reveals that, by the time of Shakespeare, certain trends and plots of tragedies had already been shaped; moreover, they affected Shakespeare’s choice of sources and themes. When speaking about the two tragedies under analysis, it should be noted that they use the same pattern of a family tragedy, when greed, pride, and struggle for power ruin the bloodline. Yet, although they both use the plot that is based on feuds, betrayal, and massacres of family members, these two works have considerable differences too. King Lear is a rather reflective than didactic play that is less preoccupied by moralizing; it is a new type of drama while Gorboduc is a classical Senecan tragedy, an example of an older genre.
First, it should be noted that indeed there are similarities between Gorboduc and King Lear. Presumably, Shakespeare took the former as the basis for his tragedy. When looking at the two plots in a more detail, it should be admitted that there is a certain pattern that unites the two works. Gorboduc, otherwise known as Ferrex and Porrex, originally was written by Thomas Norton and Thomas Sackville in 1562 in order to be staged and performed for Queen Elizabeth I. This detail is crucial because it reveals the purpose of the play, which had to go in alignment with the historical situation of the time period. It had to focus mainly on the idea that monarchy is sacred and that feuds lead to tragedy; it was supposed to warn against the danger of ambition. Showing the consequences of greed for power, the play is didactic and speaks in favor of the state’s unity, at the same time. The plot of the tragedy is based on the King Gorboduc’s decision to share his kingdom between his sons, Ferrex and Porrex, which led to feud between the two. As a result of their argument, one brother murdered the other one, and enraged Queen, killed her remaining son. The people of the kingdom could not accept these events and rebelled against their monarchs, and in the end murdered them. After the death of King and Queen, rebellion was repressed, but the people in power had fought for a long time to decide on the heir. Thus, the plot discloses the authors’ idea of a monarchy, and it should not be forgotten that the play was supposed to be approved by Queen Elizabeth I. The message of the play goes about the necessity of power’s succession rather than division; in addition, it asserts that it is the monarch’s respect for authority that ensures people’s respect for a monarch’s power in return.
Just as Gorboduc, King Lear uses a similar plot pattern, where the King resigns and divides his power and possession between his three daughters. Scholars suggest that the story used by the authors of both works is quite an ancient one, “The plots have a literary precedent in two legends found in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historiae Regum Britanniae (1136)… Both legends recount the disastrous effects of an old monarch’s decision to divide his kingdom between his sons” (Martinez 100). Yet, it should be noted that, unlike Gorboduc, King Lear’s plot and message are far more layered and sophisticated. While Gorboduc deals with a social conflict and direct moral appeal, King Lear demonstrates the development of the English drama genre into a more complex entity. Therefore, despite some similarity of a plot, there is a significant difference between the two works because King Lear is not only about the importance of monarchy, but also about a personal choice and tragedy. At the same time, the similarity between the two plays lies in the fact that they are historically rooted in the events that took place in England at the time when the works were created. Thus, the problem of unity and order was an important issue in Shakespeare’s time. This fact was reflected in the play: chaos around the throne was similar to that of the epoch when the tragedy was written. At the same time, historical reference is less important to Shakespeare because his aim was to draw a universal parable of a human being and temptation of power.
When comparing Gorboduc and King Lear, it should be noted that evolution of a tragedy genre could be traced between pre-Shakespearean and Shakespearean drama. Thus, Gorboduc is labeled a Senecan play because it followed classical ancient drama traditions. Danson asserted, “Seneca’s style is declamatory and self-consciously rhetorical; his characters speak lengthily” (37). For instance, researchers point out that it contains structural elements of the Greek theater such as Chorus, which serves as a transmitter of an ethical message. Therefore, as Danson notices, whenever characters express negative emotions or intentions, they are commented in a moralizing manner. For instance, when Gorboduc is eager to revenge his son for killing his sibling, his “anger is quickly contained by the moralizing Chorus, who comes on to tell us blandly that “the lust of kingdom knows no sacred faith” and can turn child against parent, brother against brother. King Lear may include the same commonplace, but neither the play nor its massively demanding central character can be pacified with a political slogan”. Thus, it can be concluded that the moral of Gorboduc is more straightforward, as it is typical of classical Greek drama. The plots of ancient plays were known to all spectators; the pathos and ethos were at the core of each performance, and the moral message had to be explained clearly. It is quite different with King Lear; though, this makes it a more complicated work in terms of ethical message. While in Gorboduc, a message is declared, in King Lear it is implied, which makes the last a modern play. Apparently, the moral dilemma of King Lear is more controversial because the evil is not condemned directly but is presented as part of reality. Therefore, it is up to the reader to make conclusions about the characters and their actions. This approach reflects the evolution of Elizabethan English drama and literature in general. The world becomes more complex, less predictable, and the morality becomes less stable. People’s ability to think and decide on their own values is revealed as part of Renaissance ideal. However, the world is no less gloomy as it was in Gorboduc. Nevertheless, the causes for this are different: King Lear is not “like Gorboduc didactic warnings about the evils of ambition and the pitfalls of royal succession, but their deeply troubled engagement with issues of inheritance and legitimacy is a product of the troubled times”.
Thus, it would be true to say that there is a certain similarity between Gorboduc and King Lear, because they use the same literary and historical sources as background. The themes of feud, family, monarchy, and authority are raised in both plays, though they are interpreted and presented in different ways because of genre and historical differences. Based on Senecan play tradition, Gorboduc has a less complex structure but a more didactic character. It employs Chorus as a composition element that is used to declare the author’s moral position, to condemn the evil and praise the good. In contrast, King Lear does not have an aim of teaching people in a straightforward way. This tragedy is rather Shakespeare’s contemplation about human nature and the essence of power, and how easily a person is tempted by the evil. The complexity of the play’s structure and the message made King Lear a step forward in the development of the English drama.Custom King Lear and Gorboduc.
This essay has a total of 972 words and 4 pages.
Poverty? How many people actually know the meaning of this word? However, I think is it
possible to understand the meaning of poverty even if you have never suffered from it.
Poverty is defined as the state of being poor or having the lack of providing material
needs or comforts. Living in the United States, many of us do not think about poverty too
much. Most people in the United States are above poverty level. They do not think about
the less fortunate of America. On the other hand. more U.S. children live in poverty than
in any other developed country (Parrillo 155). I think poverty is blamed either on the
individual or the system. Several aspects such as intelligence, family life, and the
system of capitalism are the author?s examples as to why poverty exists in the U.S. In
addition, he explains methods the government is using to eliminate poverty in the United
First, intelligence is marked as one of the factors of poverty because people tend to
blame the actual person for their poor quality. For example, Richard Herrnstein, who
?argued that the poor have a lower intellectual capability than the non-poor, and that
they marry other people of low intelligence, thus producing children of low intellectual
capacity (Parrillo 157). The fact is poverty does seem to be an inherited trait and
that?s why people tend to think of the poor as lacking the knowledge to qualify and obtain
a well paying job. For this reason, people of poor financial conditions receive fewer
opportunities in the work force. In addition, families with parents that have a lack of
education will impact the children?s education. For example, they are ?given little
academic encouragement or assistance at home, and encountering the low expectations from
their teachers that intensify their own low achievement (Parrillo 169). This results in
the youth becoming unqualified for most decent paying jobs and just repeating the cycle of
Next, family life, like intelligence, places blame of poverty on the individual. It has
been consistently found that family instability is more common among the poor than in any
other economic class. For example. marriages and pregnancies occur at an earlier age,
divorces and desertions happen at a higher rate; and incidents of family disputes and
violence are more frequent (Parrillo 168). In addition, family structure is important for
developing stability for a child. It is also a factor in the way a child will themselves
feel about the institution of marriage. Likewise, children from poor households are more
likely to develop bad attitudes towards family life. Because there is a lack of support in
poor families, individuals raised in these families are prone to failure.
In addition, the system of capitalism is one of the aspects that place the blame on
society for the continuation of poverty. For example. socialist, Michael Harrington
argued the inadequate programs and misdirected priorities hampered efforts to solve this
far from intractable problem (Parrillo 182). Because the poor have no positive influence
in society and lack political support, they have no way to break the ongoing cycle of
As a final point, the United States government has many plans to help end poverty. The key
Continues for 2 more pages >>
Copyright ©1998-2016 FreeEssay.com. All Rights Reserved.
The English drama of the 16th century showed from the beginning that it would not be bound by classical rules. However, we could say that it borrows features from the early dramatic forms adding others, fitting more with the Renaissance way of thinking. These early dramatic forms could be the mystery, miracle, and morality plays and they focused on the religious and moral themes that dominated the Christian imagination during the Middle Ages. The morality play, usually, called a 'morality', presented religious and ethical concerns from the point of view of the individual Christian, whose main concern was the salvation of his soul. However, by the 16th century, morality plays were not only religious -- they also gathered social and political analysis and satire. Therefore, Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus has elements of both Christian morality and classical tragedy but also includes very recent concerns as the craving for knowledge and discovery.
Besides, Gorboduc, written by Thomas Norton and Thomas Sackville and first performed in 1561, adhered to an old form of tragedy: the Senecan tragedy but it also modifies that tradition to express concepts of Tudor political theory. The Senecan tragedy was rediscovered by Italian humanists in the mid-16th century, at the origin, the Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca wrote nine closets plays in blank verse. They became the models for the revival of tragedy on the Renaissance stage.
On the one hand, Doctor Faustus takes place in an explicitly Christian cosmos. Indeed, the Bad and Good Angels appear the devil tempting people into sin and the angel urging them to remain true to God. This resembles to the well known morality play: The Castle of Perseverance (1425). But the devil here, the devil seems far more convincing than the good one. Thus, at the end of the play, Faustus does not repent and so, he is damned.
Whereas, in the medieval morality plays like Everyman and Mankind or.
View Full Essay
National poverty data are calculated using the official Census definition of poverty, under this definition poverty is determined by comparing pretax cash income with the poverty threshold, which adjusts for family size and composition. The federal government classified a family of four as “poor” if its cash income was less than $18,100; for a family of three, the poverty threshold was $15,020; for a married couple, $11,940; and for an individual, $8,860. The number of poor families in America increased by more than 6% in 2001, with 6.8 million families – one out of every ten – living below the poverty line in 2001. In 2002, according to the official measure, 12.1 percent of the total U.S. population lived in poverty.
There are many problems connected to the measure of poverty that the US Census Bureau uses. The definition was first calculated in the mid 1960s as three times the minimum basket of food a family would need. Since then it has only been adjusted to inflation, and it has not taken into account that the spending pattern of American families have changed quite a lot since the 1960s.
This means that these poverty data can easily be compared and used for measuring the progress against poverty. At the same time, it is at times difficult to find out and to decide what kind of benefits are taken into account when the poverty line is drawn. Benefits such as Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) are excluded and costs such as child care are excluded. Because of this, the poverty rate could be as high as 20% or as low as 10%, all depending on what is included.
1. Evolution of the poverty in the USA
As we can see in Table 1 of the appendix 1, the US poverty’s evolution has been very positive during the last 45 years. In 1959 more than 22% of the US population, almost 40 million people, lived below the poverty line; but nowadays, this has changed so much that “only” 12,1% of their population is considered poor. We can see that in percentage the rates have halved while in total number the difference is not so much, the main reason is that the population of this North American country has increased so much that the percentage has decreased.
But if we look more carefully to the evolution of this rate we will notice that the decrease hasn’t been a constant. At first, and until mid-70’s, there had been a quite continuous and high decrease of poverty in the US, reaching the lowest rates of the analyzed period. After that, the rate has been up and down until 1993, when it starts a quite long decreasing period, getting an 11% poverty rate in 2000.
The last interesting conclusion of this graph is probably that the recession affects importantly to the poverty, making the rates go up during this years.
After that if we analyze the Table 2 of the appendix 1, which show the incomes evolution for the top and lowest 5% of the US population, we can conclude that the incomes of the US society have increased during the last 35 years, specially of those top 5%. But this hasn’t happened equally with the lowest 5%, whose upper income has increased few. This rates shows us that even the US society has become in general more rich, the distribution hasn’t been proportional in the population, but with the richness of the people.
2. The type of people that is poor
In 1960 America’s poor were much older, more rural and more overwhelming black than they are today. About 30% of the elderly were poor in 1960 and four out of ten black families were poor. The public pension program, set up by Roosevelt in 1935, helped to decrease the number of poor elderly, and today only one in ten of elderly are poor. There has also been a process in civil rights, migration to the cities and large-scale inward investment, which has reduced the rural poverty dramatically. Today close to 50 % of the poor live in the cities instead of the rural areas.
As before minorities continue to experience higher poverty rates than whites (see appendix 2). But the new is that today the poor are younger than they were a generation ago, and the largest and fast-growing segment of the poor is families headed by single mothers. They make up over 50% of the poor compared to 20% in 1960. The poverty rate is almost six times higher for single mothers than for families with two parents. Over 30% of all American children live in a single-parent family, and they account for 67% of the poverty. 62% of the mothers do work, but often the wages are so low that they are not capable to lift their family out of poverty. The single mothers are often low-skilled, they earn low wages and they have to pay for all the cost of raising a child. The poverty rate for high-school dropouts is 12 times the rate for college graduates, so there is a lot of low-skilled labour in America. This doesn’t help the situation in America today; with increased competition from abroad, weaker unions and a minimum wage that is lower now in real terms than it was two decades ago. The main problem isn’t the low wages as you would think, but the fact that only 13% of the poor work full-time. Normal working works is 2000 hours a year, and a poor person works less than 1000 hours a year. If everyone worked 2000 hours, the poverty rate would be hafted. So why don’t they just work more? To answer this question we have to look at the other groups of poor, which are people that have mental illness, disability, drug and alcohol abuse, this which makes them either incapable of working or not wanted. The growing number of ex-convicts also has slim chances of finding a job.
3. Poverty in the European Union
In many aspects, the EU is trying to get the same level of the US, with different instruments such as the common money ( ) in some of the countries, opening of trade barriers, etc. But, what happens if we refer to the poverty in the EU? There are lots of analyses both for USA and EU’s poverty situation, but it is really difficult to make a proper comparison between them, because there are lots of data for each region (USA and EU).
So, first of all, and after having talked in the previous paragraphs about the poverty in the US, we are going to explain what really happens in the European Union. We will choose four different indicators which indicate the (human) poverty in the EU and we will make a comparison between different European countries.
Income: the % living below 50% of national median income
Length of life: % of people not expected to live to age 60
Education: the % of 16 to 65 year olds classified as illiterate
Social inclusion: long term unemployed in the labour force
The Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands top the table, with Germany, France and Spain falling in the middle. No functional literacy data are available for France and Spain, however, and this potentially affects the rankings.
Just mention The UK’s performances: they are perhaps the most polarised, comparing favourably on life expectancy and unemployment, but badly on poverty and illiteracy. Finland, Denmark and Germany all do relatively well on illiteracy, poverty and unemployment, but have shorter life expectancy than neighbouring member states.
After having talked about some indicators, we are going to show another table which apart from comparing poverty rates, compares as well as comparing some other “curious” rates.
Self-reported bad health is more common among the poor than the non-poor in every country but the table shows that only in Portugal does the figure for the poor get quite high. The last indicator, social contact, seems a convincing measure of one aspect of social exclusion. Although there are reasons why it could relate to income poverty, the Eurostat report does not show large differences between the poor and non-poor for this indicator within each country.
As far as the differences across countries are concerned, Table 2 shows that social networks appear in general to be stronger in countries with higher poverty rates. Portugal is the oddball here: one in eight poor Portuguese claims to go for one month without meeting friends or relatives, separating them from the norm for Southern Europe.
So, in conclusion, if we would have to compare both European and US’s poverty situation, we could confirm that poverty situation in USA (12,1) is apparently better than in the UE but not as good as we could have thought, because poverty does exists in every wealthy country.
The potential impact of enlargement
The question of whether poverty in Europe should be measured using a single EU standard is particularly important when the prospective enlargement of the Union to include new members from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is considered. Disparities in national income per head, among current member states, are small compared to those between members and applicants. GDP per capita in the ten CEE countries being considered for membership ranged, in 1997, from 23 per cent (Bulgaria) to 68 per cent (Slovenia) of the EU average. Slovenia falls just behind Greece, the back-marker among the current members.
By extension, enlargement will mean dramatic shifts in where poverty is found if a single EU poverty line is used, common to all members old and new. The majority of people in most of the applicant countries will classify as poor.
If a single EU-wide standard is used as the measure, enlargement would also result in a drop in measured poverty in existing EU member states. Average incomes in the EU as a whole would fall with the accession of the CEE countriesPost navigation Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Poverty causes crime. From the male point of view, it is hard no to get caught up in crime. Black men can get slapped with domestic and violent crime; society looks at us with lower standards.
The majority of men that are locked up came from a background of poverty. They did not have their fathers. Many of their mothers had them at a young age. They did not have any positive, real male role models. They basically had to raise themselves. The fathers did not have the money to get abortions and then once the baby arrived, they did not have the money to raise the child. Then once the baby arrived, they were living in squalor and poverty and they turned on the TV and saw how the rich and famous were living and they wanted to live like what they saw. So if they saw someone who had something that they wanted, they would take it from them by any means necessary.
People who live in poverty often want to escape from their lifestyle. For many, this escape is drugs. Once they start doing drugs, they keep trying to achieve the feeling of getting high for the first time. Once they use up their entire source of income and possessions (which are scarce to begin with), they will try to get money for drugs by stealing, robbing, and killing.
Society also shows that people without money and material wealth are basically nothing. They get no respect and they have no power to even try to change their situations. They are basically made to feel as though they are worthless and have nothing to live for. Once people feel that they are backed into a corner like that, they will usually do anything to get out. And usually that results in violence or crime.Related Essays:
Poverty Causes Crime. (2000, January 01). In DirectEssays.com. Retrieved 20:38, July 25, 2016, from http://www.directessays.com/viewpaper/88606.html
Direct Essays. "Poverty Causes Crime." DirectEssays.com. DirectEssays.com, (January 01, 2000). Web. 25 Jul. 2016.
Direct Essays, "Poverty Causes Crime.," DirectEssays.com, http://www.directessays.com/viewpaper/88606.html (accessed July 25, 2016)
The Indian social system is based on a strong social hierarchy in the form of birth castes. Social class, too, is apparent through money power. The poor and their poverty continue to attract and repel alternatively politicians, social scientists, religious groups. Though poverty is a universal phenomenon, it’s expressed through the poverty line which is different in different nations. In India 35.97% people have been estimated to live below the poverty line.
Image Source: connessioniprecarie.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Democrazia-in-movimento.jpg
Poverty is a negative but relative term denoting absence or lack of material wealth to fulfill one’s needs.
Poverty tends to be characterized by the denial of rights as well as material insufficiency. It may seem paradoxical that many people do not wish to improve their current condition either due to their lack of awareness of societal policies or religious beliefs or prolonged deprivation conditioning or personal reasons. Here is another attempt to define poverty, keeping psychological and political, economic and cultural factors in view. Poverty is a state of want of subjective and objective means and opportunities to develop and utilize potential of the individual to minimized sense of being left behind. Thus subjective articulation and objective measures are applied onto the persons to be designated as poor. A health condition, to any caste, creed or religion, to any part of the country, may belong to any political affiliation, to any educational background or to any occupation. One thing is, however, universal that poverty divides families, and forces children to work.
The caste system in India is a traditional drag on society since early times. Some castes seem to suffer from a feeling that all human beings are not equal. This superiority complex among some castes has brought a situation in which the untouchables are the poorest among the poor and suffer as bonded labor, child labor and prostitution.
It was only after independence that the government carried out certain legal reforms to abolish untouchability and to reserve seats in schools and colleges for the scheduled and backward communities. The major part of the benefits has, however, been grabbed by a few privileged Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes. The poorest still remain poor.
In recent past, the question of poverty and development has been discussed both at national and international levels. According to a UNDP-HPI Report of 1998, Human Development Index (HDI) measures overall progress in a country in achieving human development and the Human Poverty Index reflects the distribution of progress and measures the backlog of deprivation that still exists. The HPI measures deprivation in the same dimensions of basic human development. The HPI-1 measures poverty in developing countries while HPI-2 measures it in industrial countries. A UNDP report shows components and measurements of human development and poverty.
There are numerous causes of poverty which operate in a vicious circle. These could be divided into two groups broadly: chronic or prolonged and acute or critical. Repeated draught, floods or other natural calamities rendering people in poor health, beggary, prostitution, crime or migrating options. A family may be a victim of chronic poverty on account of the absence of the earning member or fatal illness of any of its members.
Fire, theft, conflict, loss in business, agriculture or job, steep rise in prices of commodities, and underemployment are some of the critical reasons of poverty. Recently the suicides by farmers in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra have been attributed to losses in crops.
The Government of India has been aware a sincere about eradicating poverty. Zamindari abolition, stopping the privy purses, land consolidation and land ceilings, abolition of untouchability, provision of subsidies on agricultural inputs, on cottage industries, and food stuffs distributed through fair price shops, reservations for scheduled castes and schedules tribes, women, disabled and many other specific poverty-elimination programmes are all exemplary actions taken by the government.
However, deprivation, exploitation, denial and refusal by few, neglect and social injustice are still prevalent in the roots of society. The term minimization appears better and more practicable than elimination in regard to poverty, because there is no limit to wealth acquisition and it is changeable over a period of time, two approaches could be thought of poverty minimization-community-based as well as individual-based programmes.
Using excising indicators, a selected community, slum, village, block or district may be provided with the infrastructure, including roads, transport, water lines, electricity lines, sanitation facilities, fair price shops, schools, basic health centers, and agricultural and cottage industrial consultancy. People should be nominally for contribution in these programmes of development. It will instill feelings of participation in construction and maintenance of facilities provided three. Community area specific programme should be made environment-friendly.
If the poverty-invaded area has people of different backgrounds, the needs would be different. Hence first of all a needs assessment should be undertaken employing nay suitable technique. The needs of everyone should be related to pay loans, to buy instruments, seeds or fertilizers, to buy animals like buffaloes/cows. The entrants to the programme may require monetary help to repair his house damaged by rain or earthquake. He/she may need financial help to send a baby to the school or may have to marry his grown-up son/daughter.
Generally few conditions may be enforced before helping such individuals and communities. They should follow the norm of two children per family if they are in the reproductive age. The addicts should be advised to seek the treatment. Some help in getting such treatment should be undertaken.