Nguyen 1

For a brief period of my life, I was fortunate enough to have resided in

Vancouver, British Columbia. I was 11 years old, when I had my first memorable

encounter with poverty. I was driving with my family when a homeless teenager, cleaned

our windshield with newspaper and water. I was perplexed as to how he had arrived at

this situation; he looked no more than 5 years older than me. Many years later, I travelled

to my home country of Vietnam, under the pre-conceived notion of what “poverty” is.

Much to my surprise, I discovered that the “poverty” I knew of, was minimally applicable

to the situation that presented itself. Their standards of living were significantly different

to what I was accustomed to, yet they did not exhibit signs of what I had known to be

poverty. Although they were less developed, their definition of poverty was noticeably

different. Glynn Cochrane, author of Festival Elephants and the Myth of Global Poverty,

suggested that the World Bank defined global poverty as a “homogeneous category for

which objective, quantifiable, case income/material consumption standards could be

defined and measured,” (Cochrane 2009: 1). The parameter by which poverty is

measured is monetary based, rather than standards such as culture. By this standardized

measurement, pastoralist and horticulturalist societies can be deemed “impoverished”,

although having a high standard of living and being able to sustain themselves, because

they produce little income. The World Bank’s definition is a Western ethnocentric notion

and cannot be evenly applied worldwide. Western society engages the problems of

poverty under the pretence that lack of material goods and low income are the

predominant cause. Through the analysis of the foundations of global poverty, a

developed nation’s notion of poverty, and the differences and similarities each concept
 Nguyen 2

shares, it can be concluded that poverty is an ambiguous term that can neither be uniform

nor absolute.

In its most basic form, poverty can be defined as a condition of deprivation

(Seipel 2003: 191). Many scholars argue that deprivation does not explicitly ascertain

what is missing, which causes the term poverty to become vague. Since the creation of

the United Nations in 1945, there has been heavy emphasis on multilateralism amongst

developed nations. During the 1970s, the World Bank created what we know today as

global poverty. Through the analysis of the global “poor”, the World Bank “constructed

an image of billions of faceless and voiceless poor people,” (Cochrane 2009: 2) that are

in desperate need of help and that only western methods could alleviate the problems.

The World Bank assimilated the voices of hundreds of thousands of poor people and was

able to reduce the locally varied perceptions into five fundamentals of deprivation:

“material well being, health, security, freedom of choice and action, and social agency”

(5). Without consideration of local opinions of poverty, organizations aimed at reducing

poverty imposes what they believe is the most appropriate fix for current problems. In the

1970s the McNamara approach, a Western method, was used to reduce poverty; it

suggests that:

“If people all over the world lack clean water or medicine, give them more
money; if they are illiterate, give them more money; if they are malnourished,
give them more money; if they are ill-served by their government, give them more
money,” (2).

The Western approach implicates that all aspects of life revolve around monetary status.

Why is Western thought so prevalent in international attempts to “eradicate” poverty?

Developed nations believe that it is their duty to help those that are deemed less fortunate,
 Nguyen 3

by their standards. This hegemonic behaviour has construed the problem of global

poverty as a developed nation’s burden because they are under the “assumption that

[they] have a duty of justice to eradicate global poverty only if, and to the extent that,

they are responsible for its existence,” (Gilabert 2004: 540). Guilt, masked as

humanitarianism, for creating impoverished countries, has caused developed nations to

assume responsibility. The dominance of Western mentality and approaches suggests that

poverty is a single term that can be applied and labelled according to their standards

without consideration of the locals. The circumstances by which people become

impoverished vary because of the situation and their culture. There is no universal

parameter that can explain or define poverty.

There are many methods of categorizing the “poor”. The standard by which

global poverty is most commonly determined is the “$1USD a day poverty line,” which

was calculated by averaging 33 countries’ poverty line; ten of which were third world

countries (Kakwani et al. 2006: 3). The inclusion of developed of nations such as Canada,

Belgium and the United States, skew the average because the standard for being

considered impoverished is significantly different in each respective country. However,

the value of an American dollar varies from country to country. It is worth more in third

world countries, compared to first world countries. Another approach to determining

global poverty is the caloric cost and the food poverty line. This method is concerned

with how much it would cost to consume the regular amount of calories needed to be

nourished, which is 2000 calories (9). The food poverty line of a household can be

calculated by multiplying the calorie requirement of the household by the calorie cost (9).

The assumed 2000 calories a day is yet another “universal” standard that does not take
 Nguyen 4

into consideration cultural aspects such as when food is consumed and how much is

consumed. Once again, these two methods of measure poverty suggest universality in its

application and are purely based on the pretence that all situations are the same

everywhere. Although global poverty is expected to apply equally, within developed

nations there is a much different standard that determines who the impoverished are.

In Canada, the standard by which poverty is measured is significantly different

from those that apply globally. However, images such as starving children deprived of

food and basic needs are still present. Although there is no official “poverty line” in

Canada, many researchers have used Statistics Canada’s Low-Income Cut-Offs (LICOs)

as a measurement of poverty (Sarlo 2001: 5). In 2001, the LICO measurement was

approximately $34 000 per year for a four member family (5). This unrealistically high

number for determining the impoverished reveals more of an inequality rather than

poverty. Despite the LICO method’s inaccuracy to measure poverty, many researchers

and journalists still continue to portray it as a poverty line (6). This measurement is

inaccurate because it does not represent spatial differences such as different levels of

income and variations in costs. Once again cultural aspects are extrinsic variables that are

not considered. Because there is no set standard to establish who is impoverished in

Canada, poverty remains ambiguous even in developing nations. Unlike the methods

applied to reduce global poverty, there are more local and many community based

projects. There are programs that address local problems, such as breakfast programs in

certain urban area. One such example is the Student Nutrition Program in Hamilton. In

2005, over $350 000 in provincial funding was provided to feed 15, 000 students in 84

different schools across the city (MyHamilton 2005). Programs such as these coupled
 Nguyen 5

with a stable social infrastructure, allow for Canada to address the problems of poverty

more effectively. If global poverty is applied world-wide, than the independent actions of

developed nations contradict its foundations and possible solutions, which cause for an

inconsistency in addressing this problem and reducing it.

There are clearly numerous differences as well as similarities that are evident in

the analysis of the definition of and reduction of poverty, both globally and within a

developed nation. First and foremost, the threshold that determines who is impoverished

is significantly different. One US dollar a day is not comparable to $34 000 a year for a

family of four. The Canadian threshold is just too high and if applied globally, there

would be billions considered impoverished. Unlike the global method of alleviating

poverty, the Canadian method is more effective because it is more acceptable. And

secondly, imposing Western solutions on a third-world or developing country, does not

guarantee the expected outcome of success. Aforementioned the Western method of

resolving global poverty is to increase funding, more specifically, in elaborate,

bureaucratic organizations that “represent” the poor; organizations such as UNICEF,

UNESCO and the United Nations Development Programme. In 2003, the Bush

administration created the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) which “would reward

a select set of poor countries with as much as $5 billion in new aid by 2006” (Hart et al

2003: 9). However, the funds would only be available of the country met a strict standard,

as such, those that do not meet the standard are than barred from having any chance of

receiving financial aid (10). A multilateral endeavour also has a hidden cost that

significantly impacts the funding that they provide, expenditures such as UN poverty

assistance “can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to keep [...] staff member in
 Nguyen 6

a poor country” (Cochrane 2009: 2). Due to hidden costs, more money is needed to fund

these organizations. Without more funds, a larger percentage of available funds would

most likely be used, resulting in less money actually helping the poor. After the funds

have endured the bureaucratic process, the poor countries receive the money, and it is at

the discretion of the country to distribute the money. Dispensing money in this top-down

method, has never worked effectively because of the extensive time it takes (8). Poverty,

although defined in several ways has a commonality, whether global or national; it is still

at a state of deprivation. The foundations of both are centred on deprivation of wealth,

how little money they have compared to the rest of the general population. They both

exclude important aspects such as the circumstances that poverty arises. Both methods,

because they are influenced by Western ethnocentric thinking, assume that financial

improvements are the most effective method to reducing poverty. Along with similarities

in fundamental definition and method, there is also the intention. The reason this

campaign of reducing poverty was to help those in need. The aspirations for a

harmonious world, where there is no such thing as poverty, cannot be achieved because

there are so many differences; because there is so much difference the efforts applied are

not able consider each and every circumstance.

Through the investigation of the foundations of global poverty, Canada’s notion

of poverty and the differences and similarities shared, it is concluded that poverty is an

ambiguous term that can neither be uniform nor absolute. Western thinking has

dominated most of the international endeavours because they are the only ones in any

position to do so. The principles on which poverty and its method of resolution is based

on Western ethnocentrism. Due to this hegemonic environment, the differences that are
 Nguyen 7

evident amongst people all across the world are assimilated into one homogenous voice

and forgotten.