Approaches to addressing poverty cover so many areas. These areas are monetary, capability, social exclusion, participatory, and right approaches. These dimensional approaches are based on the context of the people living in poverty. Today, I will discuss with you the monetary and capability approaches to addressing poverty.
Monetary Approach
Economists used the monetary approach because it is widely accepted and commonly used to measure and understand poverty. The probability that it is consistent with micro-economic theory is highly consistent. It is the basis for the economist to draw many policies out. The poverty threshold is the international method to measure poverty if the family income should be lower or above the 1 US dollar.
When it was applied as a policy in many third-world countries, such as the Philippines and other Asian countries, this approach was incorrect. It caused a limitation in understanding poverty and a misappreciation of the cause of it. This is the basis of the statement made recently by the Presidential Adviser on Poverty Alleviation Larry Gadon. If we used this approach, he would be corrected in his statement, but in the Philippines, there are so many approaches to be used. In using this approach, states utilized income-based views to fit reality, but the real reading of poverty was left aside. Therefore, the types of welfare based on political interest are considered to be models, such as the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program and other poverty initiative models. That’s why using it failed to raise the poverty line. It is misleading and unrealistic to try to solve poverty.
The principle of capitalizing on money as an approach to reducing poverty is a useless policy. Instead, we contextually study the causes of poverty in every area to determine the appropriate approach. There is no universal approach to addressing poverty. The next one is the capability approach.
Capability Approach
When I first entered Heathrow Airport in London to study for my master’s degree in 2003, there was a long queue of students at the immigration line. Almost all of the students were Chinese who were also studying at various universities in the UK. I noticed that it has become tradition for the Chinese to send their children to study abroad because they believe that education is the way to uproot them from poverty. Contextually, there is a Filipino saying too: “Ang mga anak ay kayamanan.” Our parents work hard to fulfill the dream of their children to become well-educated because this is the way to economic prosperity.
The capability approach is long-term. It was commonly used by every family. In regards to state policy, the Philippines is left behind in competency level in the ASEAN region. Despite numerous natural resources and enormous cultural and historical attributes, our country has received a low rating in competencies at the core level. Eventually, the capability approach will be a counter to the monetary approach. Nobel Peace Amartha Sen developed this concept, which has become an alternative model of progress and development.
The capability approach is a useful approach to minimizing poverty on a long-term basis. It should focus on the ability of individuals to achieve their goal; individuals should develop themselves through skill enhancement and educational advancement, empowering the powerless to manage their resources, skills, and talents, and lastly, identifying human capital skills and talents as the main resource for national industrialization.
Both approaches are applicable; however, the monetary capability is on a case-to-case basis only, while the capability approach is the long-term program for poverty alleviation. Government agencies such as education, technical education and skills development, community development, and science and technology development should strengthen the capability development program as a core implementation to reduce poverty in the country. Adopting the capability approach as the main dimension to address poverty will reduce inequality because it will defeat the unused efforts implemented by government agencies as well as development agencies.
Summing Up
In the parable of talents in the book of Matthew (25:14–30), the first and second servants were recognized by the master as well-equipped servants, while the third servant was expelled by the master. According to the third servant, the master, who is not referring to God itself, is a harsh man; he reaps where he did not sow, and he gathers where he did not scatter. Then, the master replied to his third servant, “You are a wicked and lazy slave.” Many of the poor are branded as being wicked and lazy because they are unambitious and indolent. In reality, poor people are so resourceful in getting their daily bread. They have no opportunity to look for decent jobs and enhance their skills to work according to their capabilities.
To conclude this, there are two types of servants that serve the master: the first and second servants are resourceful in order to be fruitful and resourceful on behalf of their master, while the third servant does agree on the master plan to have more while the other becomes poor. Fundamentally, being poor is not created by God but by the human system. The human system is one that dictates that the poor become poor and the rich become rich.
Prayer
Dear Lord,
Please give us the strength to empower the powerless and make them a force for change. They are the powerless, abused by the human system to become slaves, and used by the powerful, particularly politicians.
Allow our poor people to define their meaning of life and become a change agent for the future. Amen.
