Anyone share this vision?
I have this idea buzzing around in my head and I need to know what others think of it. It concerns the world gap between rich and poor, with those living in developed countries shaking their heads and saying "I wish I could do more..." and those struggling to survive in the developing world saying exactly the same: "I wish I could do more" but meaning something rather different: i.e. that they lack the tools, the employment opportunities, the crops, the land, the water supply, the prospects, the training, the support, the good health, the power and the money...to earn more for their families.
On the one hand there are some brilliant charities working in the developing world: Tools for Self-Reliance, Breadline Africa, Practical Action (that used to be Intermediate Technology) and Opportunity International UK are among my own personal favourites. On the other hand, poor people everywhere are getting nowhere near enough support and many of those who are better off and live in the developed world seem to know and care little for how many people in the world are having to live.
Thats why I've called my blogs 'Shareworldpoverty'. Not 'Shareworldwealth': that would be great, but you don't often see people queuing up to share their wealth with others. But who needs a share of poverty? Perhaps we all do. Otherwise its easy to forget just how disabling and cruel poverty can be. And unless we are reminded of what it means to lack even modest wealth and opportunity, perhaps few of us will remember often enough to try to do something about it.
So that's my idea: Share out the Poor World - share it in portions, giving a single portion of the poorest fifth of the world (where average annual GDP per capita is between $500 and $2400) to a similar sized portion of the richest fifth of the world (where average annual GDP per capita is between $9900 and $55,100). In other words, the average person's income in even the least affluent of the richer countries is at least four times as great as the average income in even the richest of the poorer countries.
Assuming that each portion will contain approximately half a million people, it would mean matching up about 1200 poor areas in the world with a similar number of richer areas. Based on national populations this would mean 120 portions would go to the UK and 592 portions to the USA. Very small countries in the developed world would share a portion, while very large communities in the developing world would be allocated to a number of areas in the developed world where the aggregated population was of a similar size. In this way, districts in about 70 countries in the developing world would be allocated to similarly populated areas in about 7o countries in the developed world.
After that, decisions could be made at a national level. In the UK, where there are 120 letter combinations for postcodes (though many more separate postcode areas), I would suggest a postcode lottery. This phrase is usually associated with inconsistencies in the public services available in different areas, but here a publicly witnessed postcode lottery (wouldn't it make great TV!) could determine how the UK's 120 poverty portions were allocated. In my home area of western Cambridgeshire where the Postcode is PE (for Peterborough) the allocation could be for a district in, let us say, Angola or Nepal or Bolivia (or wherever). The local media could be used to publicise the problems of poverty in that area and further subdivisions could be made locally, linking individual towns and rural areas in the developed and developing worlds. The more news about the linked area abroad, the more publicity the scheme would get at home; so more people would become aware not only of world poverty, but also of possible bottom-up solutions.
Schools have already been sucessfully linked across continents. The postcode lottery could heighten awareness of these links and offer new avenues of support. Similarly, new links could be established between community groups or professions in the richer countries and their counterparts in the poorer ones. However, I think that working through the existing development charities would be preferable to attempts to offer direct financial assistance. Instead, the first 6 to 12 months after a connection has been made between a rich and a poor area could be used to disseminate information about the needs of the developing world. Perhaps young people (and older ones) might spend part of a gap year visiting the area of the world to which their home town has been connected and their experience could be used not only to raise awareness on their return, but also to get into dialogue with the relevant development aid charities about the construction of a wish list for each area, in which each item would be costed and given a price tag. Individuals and community groups could then pledge to raise funds to meet the costs of specific price-tagged projects.
Although I would envisage setting up a charity to organise the distribution of information (usually online) and the allocation of areas, I would hope to get the backing of the charities concerned to ensure that sums of money from fundraising were channelled to the relevant charities, i.e. the ones organising the running of a chosen project or else liaising with the local groups and individuals in the developing world who were running projects themselves.
I could, of course, just go ahead immediately with this idea by registering what I've been thinking of calling 'Connect & Transform' as a charity and publishing lists of matched communities, but it seems that this idea will only work if it is taken up in a big way. As yet I have worked on the figures (which seem to add up) but not canvassed for support. I am hoping that this blog will give me some feedback. Is 'Connect & Transform' a viable idea? Would you consider giving it your support? How might it best be implemented?
I will put forward more ideas in my next blog. Till then, please let me know what you think.
Best wishes
Catalyst
On the one hand there are some brilliant charities working in the developing world: Tools for Self-Reliance, Breadline Africa, Practical Action (that used to be Intermediate Technology) and Opportunity International UK are among my own personal favourites. On the other hand, poor people everywhere are getting nowhere near enough support and many of those who are better off and live in the developed world seem to know and care little for how many people in the world are having to live.
Thats why I've called my blogs 'Shareworldpoverty'. Not 'Shareworldwealth': that would be great, but you don't often see people queuing up to share their wealth with others. But who needs a share of poverty? Perhaps we all do. Otherwise its easy to forget just how disabling and cruel poverty can be. And unless we are reminded of what it means to lack even modest wealth and opportunity, perhaps few of us will remember often enough to try to do something about it.
So that's my idea: Share out the Poor World - share it in portions, giving a single portion of the poorest fifth of the world (where average annual GDP per capita is between $500 and $2400) to a similar sized portion of the richest fifth of the world (where average annual GDP per capita is between $9900 and $55,100). In other words, the average person's income in even the least affluent of the richer countries is at least four times as great as the average income in even the richest of the poorer countries.
Assuming that each portion will contain approximately half a million people, it would mean matching up about 1200 poor areas in the world with a similar number of richer areas. Based on national populations this would mean 120 portions would go to the UK and 592 portions to the USA. Very small countries in the developed world would share a portion, while very large communities in the developing world would be allocated to a number of areas in the developed world where the aggregated population was of a similar size. In this way, districts in about 70 countries in the developing world would be allocated to similarly populated areas in about 7o countries in the developed world.
After that, decisions could be made at a national level. In the UK, where there are 120 letter combinations for postcodes (though many more separate postcode areas), I would suggest a postcode lottery. This phrase is usually associated with inconsistencies in the public services available in different areas, but here a publicly witnessed postcode lottery (wouldn't it make great TV!) could determine how the UK's 120 poverty portions were allocated. In my home area of western Cambridgeshire where the Postcode is PE (for Peterborough) the allocation could be for a district in, let us say, Angola or Nepal or Bolivia (or wherever). The local media could be used to publicise the problems of poverty in that area and further subdivisions could be made locally, linking individual towns and rural areas in the developed and developing worlds. The more news about the linked area abroad, the more publicity the scheme would get at home; so more people would become aware not only of world poverty, but also of possible bottom-up solutions.
Schools have already been sucessfully linked across continents. The postcode lottery could heighten awareness of these links and offer new avenues of support. Similarly, new links could be established between community groups or professions in the richer countries and their counterparts in the poorer ones. However, I think that working through the existing development charities would be preferable to attempts to offer direct financial assistance. Instead, the first 6 to 12 months after a connection has been made between a rich and a poor area could be used to disseminate information about the needs of the developing world. Perhaps young people (and older ones) might spend part of a gap year visiting the area of the world to which their home town has been connected and their experience could be used not only to raise awareness on their return, but also to get into dialogue with the relevant development aid charities about the construction of a wish list for each area, in which each item would be costed and given a price tag. Individuals and community groups could then pledge to raise funds to meet the costs of specific price-tagged projects.
Although I would envisage setting up a charity to organise the distribution of information (usually online) and the allocation of areas, I would hope to get the backing of the charities concerned to ensure that sums of money from fundraising were channelled to the relevant charities, i.e. the ones organising the running of a chosen project or else liaising with the local groups and individuals in the developing world who were running projects themselves.
I could, of course, just go ahead immediately with this idea by registering what I've been thinking of calling 'Connect & Transform' as a charity and publishing lists of matched communities, but it seems that this idea will only work if it is taken up in a big way. As yet I have worked on the figures (which seem to add up) but not canvassed for support. I am hoping that this blog will give me some feedback. Is 'Connect & Transform' a viable idea? Would you consider giving it your support? How might it best be implemented?
I will put forward more ideas in my next blog. Till then, please let me know what you think.
Best wishes
Catalyst
posted by Catalyst at 9:10 PM
2 comments
