« Calling the President Racist | Main | Letter from Bolivian Residents in VA »
Marzo 13, 2005
Cash to the Poor
A major driving force behind the anti-globalization movement in Latin America has been the fair and just claim that its economic benefits rarely trickle down to the most downtrodden. Whether it was been poor oversight, state corruption or unethical business practices, the poor often do have a legitimate gripe.
While it is true that globalization advances have been made over the past 20-30 years in the field of medical technologies and the reach of basic utilities to areas where once there was nothing, the poor may only believe it when they see how it directly benefits them.
A recent post by Tim in his El Salvador blog brought attention to an ambitious plan by President Saca that would give credits, and in some cases, cash to the poorest Salvadorans as long as they enroll their children in school and take the children to receive vaccinations.
Peru, which has a growing economy, has also implemented a plan that would give cash benefits (approximately $30 USD) to the poor. Graphs and economic figures mean very little to poor Limeños who live in shanytowns and squeak by on less than a dollar per day. Surely long term economic and social planning is the answer to permanently change the fortunes of the poor around Latin America. But in the meantime, could placing soles or dollars, in the case of El Salvador, in the pockets of the poor prove that there is a direct benefit as a result of the claimed economic growth?
This brings us to Bolivia. Would proposing a similar plan in order to get Mesa and Congress’ Hydrocarbons Law passed make people more cynical about politicians or more likely to accept the fact that it will probably pass in Congress? Why not tell the poor in the Altiplano, in el Beni, in the Plan 3000 barrio of Santa Cruz that once the new Hydrocarbons Law passes, then cash payments will be given to the poor to help them pay for food, shelter, transportation and medical needs in the meantime?
Even though the Referendum and Congress’ overtures have stressed that priority will be given to ensuring that Bolivia’s resources will be used to help Bolivians first (i.e. Natural gas for automobiles, Natural gas connections in homes), many are rightfully skeptical.
Giving cash payments gives a shady feel of vote-buying and fostering a dysfunctional reliance on the State. However, is it ethical to hope and wait that the market corrects the cycle of poverty?
There is a possibility of corruption and the challenge of making a bureaucracy work, however, there are also other advantages such as registering people who do not even exist according to state records or like in the case of El Salvador, killing two birds with one stone by ensuring the children are placed in schools and receive the necessary shots.
Whatever ultimately happens with the Hydrocarbons Law, the people and especially the poor need to see immediate and personal benefits so that Mesa is vindicated and that his decisions truly were done to help Bolivia and not the interests of the "transnacionales".
Posted by eduardo at Marzo 13, 2005 04:20 PM
Comments
That's a tough question, since it also starts looking like a rentier state. But, at the same time, one could argue that all representative governments are involved in some form of "vote buying" by giving voters benefits (e.g. a welfare state). It might be a suitable short-term solution to hold over until the economic benefits kick in.
Also, I think most of the problems w/ neoliberal economics are that it's not enough free market capitalism, not too much.
Posted by: Miguel Centellas at Marzo 13, 2005 05:42 PM
Gracias por la visita, sobre tu pregunta de quienes son los Humala, en este enlace encontrarás información al respecto. Saludos.
Posted by: Juan at Marzo 15, 2005 01:29 AM