Principal Voices is intended to be a global debate everyone can participate in, and we are keen to hear your views on the subjects being discussed. These comments will form a central part of the Principal Voices Web site.

Is business the answer to global poverty?

Name
E-mail address
Your location
Comment
	Comment Policy All fields are required

Even though business is not the only answer to solve the issue of poverty, it has a major role to play in its eradication. Charity on the other had has a limited role in solving the problem.

I think there are a couple of reasons for thins. Businesses don't say "Don't give me fish" but "teach me how to fish". This philosophy is integrated in business and hence it helps in earning sustainable income. Also beggars cannot be choosers. Hence poor people/countries cannot move ahead with the helping hand from rich people/countries. They have to find their own solutions to their problems.

All in all, business is a better solution to resolve the problem at hand.

Businesses are responsible for creating private sector jobs. Governments are responsible for establishing an environment where private sectors businesses can function efficiently. Governments tend to work for their wealthy supporters and do little or the rest of its citizens. As a result, their economies do not function as efficiently as they could.

Governments must pay damages to their citizens for failing to meet their obligations. If unemployment is above 5 percent then governments should be forced to pay damages to its unemployed citizens. Taxes on the middle class should be reduced. Taxes on the wealthy should be raised as they are partially responsible for the situation. If unemployment falls below 5 percent then taxes could be returned to more normal levels.

Government officials are accountable to their citizens through elections, but if governments are also financially penalized for failing to meet their obligations, they may work harder to fulfil their obligations. Lower taxes and financial penalties paid to the unemployed would help stimulate the economies to grow.

Business is the answer to solving poverty and whilst this concept has merits I can't see that it is addressing the causes of poverty. What is needed is an incubator programme that promotes the development of micro businesses opportunities in rural areas. This could be simply done by giving people access to appropriate technology, education and ideas.

No, business is not the answer. The issue is how to make sure that all and sundry benefit from them. Leaders, especially of third world countries, need to stop corruption and siphoning off their countries treasuries.

If there comes to be a business with a very large co-operative network and carries out its activities transparently, business will be the answer to global poverty.

Is business the answer? Yes, because I believe foreign investors and transparency on the part of government are the essentials tools necessary for economic development.

The problem of solving poverty is not dependent on any institution or organization. It is our mindset, individually and collectively, how we look at solving the problem of poverty.

Poverty could not have been created if we could have developed our inner world, our human nature, at the same pace of the development of our industry and commerce.

The problem with business is the same. Every corporate entity is suffering from megalomania and in this race it is very difficult to treat a man as a human being. Corporate social responsibility may be showcased and glorified but the efforts in most of the cases is a human being treated as a resource and not as something which has feelings and needs care, sharing and love, not money only.

We need to change our mindset. We need to start afresh with a simple mind.

Business is the answer, but where should it be established and where has the poverty dominated in a country?

When we are establishing business we shouldn't forget to establish most of them in the rural areas, because it is the place where poverty dominates. When we shift all or the greater part of established businesses to urban areas, it prompts the rural dwellers to move to the city, and this will bring over-population and unemployment and hence poverty to the rest of the unemployed in the city, and the rest in the villages who have not got a job at all.

Besides, let us not encourage too much importats that will collapse most businesses that sustain or keep people in employment, especially when the imported products are too competitive.

Moreover, people should be educated on how to establish and ran a business on their own, without always relying on others for their daily bread. This must be done with the aid of the government, giving out loans with a low interest rate, or if possible no interest.

Most times, too, we need to pay attention to the skilled people who invent something new but don't get help to further their researches. For this research, if it is good, will affect the community greatly and therefore needs to be financed.

Business is a tool, a way of doing things or achieving goals. The business nature of existence is to be useful, to be effective.

Just as we can use a hammer to get a nail into the wall or a car to transport ourselves; with business we can make cheaper cell phones, better use of energy or lower cost by smart designs of structures and processes. As we can see, is a much more complex tool than a hammer or a car, because it is a combination of tools such as marketing, human resources, finance, engineering, etc.

It is not the business itself the one that is going to take people out of poverty; the outcome of the use of this tool depends on the use that we give to it. Just like a hammer can be used to hit a nail, smash a window or be painted as a work of art, or a car to go to work, race in the street or sell it by parts; a business can be used with many more intentions than can solve very complex problems because of its level of sophistication.

As mentioned before, different uses will bring different outcomes. We have the tool that can take rockets to the moon, communicate billions of people, produce billions of product or services and we are free to use it.

If I understand the poor, I can change my view of them, and I if I change my view of them I can stop fearing to face them. If I do not fear them, the possibility of communication between us starts to exist. If I can communicate with another person we can start knowing our differences, our preferences and our cultures; in other words we can start negotiating. When I speak of negotiation I mean it in the broad sense of the word. I mean negotiation as way of approach between parts not as a trading action.

There is where NGOs or governments should come into action and promote and maximize these points of contact between poor and non-poor. In that way, the mental wall that separated us starts reducing and the myths of the different social classes start to evaporate and communication comes into scene. This is the first step to make progress between two sides.

There are a lot people willing to help but few are the ones that dare to face the reality of poverty with their own hands and talk to face to face with poor and ask for their problems. In that point is where communication can make the difference. Getting all the people that are willing to help in a way they don't fear the uncomfortable reality.

Money is very important to make progress but it finishes, on the other hand the bonds that people can do by communicating do not finish and can be a source of progress. Communication should be the main driver of business tools in order to solve poverty in order to make long term achievements.

So to the question: is business the answer to poverty? Is the hammer the way to get in a nail into the wall? It depends what we do with the hammer.

Sure, we can use business to solve poverty. It depends what we do with business whether we solve it or not.

Yes, I think business is the answer to global poverty, since any involvement in a business activity of any kind, no mather how small greatly contributes to improving the rate of poverty around the world. Secondly taking part in any business, indirectly provides employment.

I think that it is not business which can help us out of poverty, but education, and only education, which can help is become happy and wealthy.

I totally agree that business is the answer to global poverty. Our company recently set up a join venture in a sports company with the community to address unemployment and youth problems in their communities. I support Lodge in his quest and it will succeed in Africa for sure.

In the current capitalist system, a high level of unemployment is desirable. This is because salary levels and inflation can be kept low. The capitalist system therefore self-regulates to a high level of unemployment.

Private industries can produce jobs more efficiently then governments. The problem is that there is little incentive to do so.

If you want a capitalist system to self-regulate to a low level of unemployment you need to introduce an unemployment tax. This tax should be levied against all persons making more than the median income. If the unemployment rate is 10% then a 10% tax should be levied to help the government pay to employ these unemployed individuals.

If wealthy people and corporations want to increase their wealth, they would need to create more jobs so that this tax burden can be reduced.

I do not believe that the government should give free money to the unemployed so they sit around doing nothing or get involved in anti-social activities. Governments can hire people to clean the streets, create parks, refurbish homes of the people living in poverty, etc.

If there is low unemployment then inflation would be a problem. When there is pressure to raise wages the corporation increase prices to offset this wage increase and this result in inflation.

If you want the capitalist system to self-regulate to a low level of inflation, then you need to introduce an inflation tax. This tax should be levied against all persons making more than the median income. If inflation is 4% then a tax of 4% should be levied to help deal with the problems caused by inflation. If wealthy people and corporations want to increase their wealth, they would need to resist wage increases or pay for these increases from their profits.

Corporations need to be involved in solving these social problems and the only way to force them to become involved is to make them pay a penalty if they do not fulfill their responsibility.

Yes, ethical big business may provide the answer to global poverty, but unethical multinationals are the cause.

I have always held the view that multinationals operating overseas should conduct themselves in an ethical manner to make this a better world. I have always held that the US multinationals and their affiliates should hold the ethical behavior as a standard operating procedure.

Is business the answer? I do not think so. Political investment (conditions of aid from the north) plus skilled manpower, strong government and commonality among the population working together, is needed to alleviate poverty.

A good example is India. It has been getting aid, especially in the energy sector from Great Britain, getting grants to build power generation stations. The same was true for Japan and South Korea, getting huge aid from America during the Cold War.

The join clubs like the EEC (now EU) or ASEAN can help -- as it has helped Spain, or for that matter Poland and Vietnam.

Excellent. I would like to meet the author.

Yes! I agree 110%

(President) Lula da Silva of Brazil has it right. The $50 a month that is paid to people living in extreme poverty eliminates several problems at once with the lowest cost to the Brazilian economy.

This $50 will go a long way toward Brazil meeting the Millennium Development Goals. It significantly reduces the number of people living in extreme poverty and increases the number of children receiving an education.

This $50 a month will spur new demand for products and services, which will result in the creation of a large number of new jobs. A higher-educated population will attract more foreign investment and more jobs. This will in turn reduce the number of people entitled to this grant. When the unemployment rate drops to less than 6%, then the grant can be eliminated and the normal safety net projects such as soup kitchens, shelters and disaster relief can be implemented.

This model, along with investments in infrastructure, should be implemented in other underdeveloped countries.

As this article points out we all know what causes poverty -- no money. If you have money you would not be poor. So the logic simply flows to how do you get money? You work for it. And how do you do that? You start a business or you work for one. This is a pretty clear connection.

However, looking at those statements there are some fundamentals that must be in place for those equations to work.

There must be property rights, there must be rule of law. Without this in place then why would any business get created if someone else can take your business and your investments.

Then that leads to the enforcement part of the law. What good will come if there is no one enforcing the law? That is the corruption that as this article outlines has diverted so much aid and support away from those who need it. Or take bribes in order to start a business or keep your business.

So if a country has the basic solid structure to support individual rights, and protect them. Then starting businesses, having companies create jobs...that will over time bring an end to poverty just as described.

The issue of global poverty could be addressed from multiple points of view. One cannot in absolute terms say that business is the answer to global poverty. But my view is that, to a very large extent business can contribute to poverty reduction in developing countries, Ghana to be specific.

In Ghana, for instance, most of the people doing business are in the informal sector and ever since some programs had been put in place by the government with support of its development partners towards the growth of the private sector, from my experiences there is positive change in the well-being of the people.

Although I agree business should be used more to contribute to combating poverty, relying solely on this mechanism may lead the government to being more and more disempowered.

By focusing solely on businesses, governments may no longer be supported, for example by means of education, capacity building and finance. It may even cause good (potential) government leaders to choose to work for the private sector in stead of working for in government administration.

There is always a need for good and strong government services, for example for providing social services, taxation departments, infrastructure etc regardless of the business environment, and business will thrive even better if a good infrastructure is present.

A good business environment can create a stronger incentive to achieve a good government, but to achieve good government is likely to require more than just the incentives provided by business ventures.

Business organizations and especially large globalized businesses have at their command expertise; initiatives and resources which governments led by 'politicians' can hardly match by any stretch of the imagination.

Politicians again know that they have a short life of service and would therefore hardly have the resilience to keep the needs of the communities 'going'. Business has long-term interests and business leaders with a holistic touch can do wonders that no government can do.

The Tatas of India may be one fine example and there are many more such men of goodwill that I have no space to mention. Kudos for at least generating this thought which hopefully will germinate in the 'minds' of the business world.

Look around you. What do we see? Offices, restaurants, highways, airports etc. What makes the construction or development of these facilities possible? It's all money.

I believe the main difference between a developed nation and a less developed one is how efficient their financial systems is run. When I mean financial systems, I mean issues such as allocation of capital, financial liberalization and government incentives to spur both foreign and domestic investment.

Poor countries are poor and will continue to be poor unless they improve their financial industry. They should open up their economies to foreign investment gradually, cut down corruption so that money is diverted to channels that will actually stimulate economic growth and increase the wealth of the general population.

They should also strive to improve financial transparency so that companies' financial information is known to the public. When the financial information of companies is disclosed to everyone, there won't be any group of people who is more advantaged than the other to reap commercial profits. When this equality is achieved, companies will less likely resort to corruption and have more reason to improve their company financial performance to attract potential investors.

Is business the answer? No! Education is the answer to global poverty. Educate people and they will find a way to come out of poverty.

Perhaps these businesses, instead of contributing funds that may never lead to a result due to the potential for corruption, should invest that money into educating children and their families.

The old saying goes, "knowledge is power," and without creative minds rationalizing the best options for themselves, the status quo will prevail. However, if you educate those who are young enough to mobilize themselves out of a bad situation and yet give those who are unable to leave for a better life the chance to to maximize their own profits, eventually the private business sector will close the gap between the rich and the poor....or at least narrow it to some degree.

Poverty cannot be resolved by business alone. Business's primary motive is to bring riches to its principals, not eradicate poverty.

Some African countries have in principal gone backwards in the last 20 years. Globalization has given rise to mammoth economic corporations monopolizing entire market segments, the result of the unbridled greed of business owners, primarily from the West.

Education is the key to tackling poverty. Everyone must have the right to education. Education will give an individual the means to escape poverty.

The answer to global poverty is that it is not a problem that needs answering, but rather a reality that has been with us from the beginning of human time and will always be with us. Even in communal organizations, some individuals have more than others. Poverty and wealth are relative faces of the same coin (human development).

For example, if the world were to plunge into nuclear war tomorrow, whereby all of the historically wealthier nations of the world were plunged into a world of contamination and gore, and Africa was spared, then the currently poor nations with their green forests, water and animal stocks would be FAR richer than the rest of the world.

My point here, of course, is that to accept world poverty is to accept reality. We should strive to help alleviate our fellow man's plight, but perhaps we should focus within, before looking without.

Most small communities (especially in Africa) have little money to invest and no buyers of products and services that might be produced. Agriculture products are produced but nobody has money to purchase the products produced. The products have to be sold at near cost of production, traded for other products, or consumed by the producer. These communities do not have the minimum level of products and services needed for existence.

Is there a solution to this problem? Money is available for investment in small businesses, but what good is this in a community with few buyers? What good is this in a community with low education and few entrepreneurs?

A solution could be to set up several mutually compatible service companies (franchises) at the same time. These companies would be set up on borrowed money, which would bring money into a community.

The companies would create a large number of new jobs. They would purchase the agriculture products of the community, add value to these products, and re-sell the products back to the community with only a small markup to cover operating costs and to repay the loans.

I personally think there is no answer. These people breed faster than any business could ever keep up with. They keep having babies even though they are starving and homeless?? They do this no matter what is done for them. I for one do not want any money to go to these countries!!!

Sure!! Busineses can bridge the gap between the wealthier and the poorer ones. There is one solution for people community in Africa where there is very little support from the government in monetary terms and where people do not have any resources for generating funds for their livelihood.

With microcredit, you invite an entrepreneur to start operating a "bank" in the region to provide the loans, initially for encouraging people to carry some new business activity on small scale. This money is then returned and lent to another person.

In this way everybody is encouraged to work for one purpose and the money gets fully utilized. This solution is well tested in Bangladesh.

Can business help? Absolutely.

In the ideal world a country is run by a board of directors who oversee every part of it with a view to making it work as a business. Thus the health service would work so efficiently that it couls esily be sustained from specific taxes.

No company director would countanance the manufacture of gas guzzling vehicles that are able to exceed the legal speed limit. Costs would come down dramatically if vehicles able to go too fast were banned from being made and imported.

Like wise the most efficient transport system is the railway. With a proper system in place costs would tumble and roads would be emptied.

Only businessmen can achieve these result, not namby pamby, frightened to lose your vote politicians.

A forever changing government is the surest way to ruin. But we must not forget the safeguards. Otherwise our directors may become despots.

It is an undeniable fact that businesses create wealth. C. K. Prahalad in his book ‘The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid' gives another strong view of how poverty can be alleviated. It is time we listen to these good brains. Governments are wasting poverty-alleviation monies.

In my opinion there is a point which seemingly everyone here has forgotten -- that many of the people living in poor countries already do business, and do it good!

There's a reason why Latin American countries score fairly low on income-distribution rates: there are many people there who make millions a year producing everything from shoes to computers. To artificially create a ‘corporation workgroup' in order to ‘develop' a country like Brazil would only take these people who are already producing there out of the market! This is really not a solution, not even for the poorest of the countries.

I do think that business is the one thing than can bring countries to develop themselves. But this business should be created inside these countries, and not through an international collusion.

For me, the only way to develop poor countries is through fighting the overwhelming corruption inside these countries. Not only the independent work of people such as the Transparency International plays a big role here, but also international politics have to do their part.

Helping to create small businesses is certainly one answer. 2005 was the International Year of Microcredit. A small loan of $150 can start a small business and mean an income for the borrower. A better quality of life results for their children, too.

Give a man a fish... or a fishing industry.

This conversation is a wonderful start in the right direction. Who burnt the bridge between the wealth-creating power of businesses and the state of lack which characterizes the poor's existence?

We need to think more deeply about how to harness the strength of the profit motive so that the poor are not favored, aided or given welfare but have the same opportunities and support as anyone else.

Yes, business can be an answer to poverty, hunger, shelter and education. However, there is a need to create a system.

Let's take an example. Choose a country in Africa which may need new living areas. Approach two private aid sources. Approach a large construction company. Approach a shipping company. We have the capital to ask the two to provide the material and help for about two years in that country to build living areas, schools, hospitals. It will cost a LOT! But will be worth it.

Similarly, the locals can be helped to put together an agricultural background. Ultimately this is all possible only through a strong source; strong in capital, manpower and logistics. And this is only through business.

Can business end poverty? Yes, in many ways it is if harnessed appropriately. Being in Africa I see a real lack of empowerment and I think helping people help themselves does a lot more than making them dependent.

No, business is for people who have excess. People who cannot solve their basic human needs of shelter, food and clothing have nothing to invest.

I believe that before getting a man a job, solve his pressing problem first. This will prepare him mentally for the task. The have should aid the have nots to solve their basic human day-to-day needs. It is after this that business could come in.

Is business the answer to global poverty? I say yes to quite an extent. The thing we need to be sensitive about is that the interests of the involved nations should not be lost while thinking of business sense.

Education and working on a common platform seems to be a logical solution to the above. There needs to be a strong political will and we need to look beyond natural and mental barriers.

Well, whether we Africans like it or not, we need to come to a common understanding and quit giving up on Africa, put the blame on our leaders, try to combat poverty by all means possible.

At the end of the day, we will be the ones to blame. Why? Because I believe we have an opportunity to make a difference.

I agree that business WILL change the face of Africa, what I am not satisfied with is that Western companies should come and implement their firms in Africa (mark you I am not trying to be biased or anything close to that).

Of course, there are plenty of these companies as mentioned earlier eg Unilever, Microsoft, Bata, the list goes on, but what difference does it make?

None at all, because these businesses are being pushed to deliver or else they are shut down; of course to them there is nothing to lose only something to gain.

Is business the answer? Yes!

The business world development path seems to be closer to a positive kind of democracy than most of today's politically-based governments, by allocating a reasonable part of the available resources to production of what most people actually want.

However, there is a need for transparency and clarity which is almost as difficult to achieve for the business world as for politically-based organizations.

This forum is great. One thing I feel we cannot miss in this whole picture is that in order for a multinational business to help with poverty in developing countries, they must also work within the host culture to acheive objectives.

By this I mean that culturally motivated ideas which work in Western countries might not be congruent with the culture and society of various developing countires. Sometimes big business could mean the erosion of culture and if care is not taken can become a new colonialism.

I strongly believe that business is an answer to global poverty. But the problem is with the mindset that business is all about profit making. Business with philanthropic motives can solve a number of problems which we face in the current scenario.

But obviously, there is a difference in business and charity.

No, business is not the answer. The answer in education. Each country has their own culture which you cannot change. Respect the culture, and then educate.

Some of these multinational firms have very aggressive business policies that only worsen poverty among the locals.

An example is Nestle, because one of its principal products, chocolate, which is made from cocoa beans, a plant mainly grown in poor nations in Africa, the Caribbean and South America, is priced too high for locals consumers in these nations where the Income levels are very low.

Business alone is not the answer. It depends on the willingness and ability of businesses and countries to implement a cultural change on an unprecedented scale whilst also achieving some clear business benefits.

It's essential to define a solution that is self-sustaining and allows countries in poverty to play an active and positive role in the world economy.

I'd be inclined to say that the key is maintaining the external view and developing towards that. It's much the same principal as many successful businesses run on. Perhaps a different interpretation on the question -- running a country like a business is the answer to global poverty.

My father is a businessman, we buy livestock and sell it afterwards to markets.

Even though I'm a computer engineering student, I myself agree that big businesses is the key to easing global poverty.

But how can we create business if we don't have the passion to work hard? Planting and growing crops really needs some time, it needs a lot sweat. If you don't have the passion to work, hard how can global poverty be eased?

For a professor at an American business school, big business is the answer, regardless what the question is.

I recall that Nestle -- a company recommended by him -- a while ago suggested that WATER be made a commodity, as foodstuffs are. If that became true, I think it would be logical to do the same with BREATHING AIR!

Big business is the PROBLEM and not the solution.

Food shortages in Third World nations is a big problem around the world. Agricultural technology must be supplied to Third World countries so they can produce more crops on their own.

Genetically modified crops must be given to these poor nations, meaning their crop harvesting can be three times the normal.

There is a group of agro-biologists working in Cambodia to help rice farmers grow their rice. The idea is on the right track, but such organizations must enlarge their efforts.

Given the failure to break the vicious circle of poverty in Africa after many years of ineffective aid money, it is a wise idea to try other strategies that might work. I support this business idea and feel it is promising.

Business (meaning result-oriented international trade, participation, collaboration, etc) is the answer, if it can accommodate growth and development within its all- important profit motivations.

In view of the nature of multinational corporation, this aim (businesses solving poverty) is difficult to realize.

I think it is a significant part of a solution going forward. It has strong merits, as business will enforce and apply the following:

1. Good corporate governance.
2. Effective use of all tangible and intangible resources.
3. Self-sustainability
4. Lifting standards by transferring skills and knowledge.

Just one caveat; it must be a model based on genuine partnership to create long-term ownership and relationship-building. Shareholders and investors must be prepared to lower their hurdle rates.

Is business the answer to global poverty? Absolutely so, if we can convince the major player to give up some of their monopolizing international powers.

Harnessing the power and momentum of big businesses and emphasizing capacity building for aid organizations in developing countries, and having political know-how, that is the way to bypass red tape and government corruption and greed.

I have no comment for now, but this platform is good.

I believe that business, and the answers to poverty, must come from the developing world, not from the West.

I also know those of us who study in the West must take the lead to make a difference.

I strongly believe that business development and management will suffice in alleviating the poverty level in poorer nations.

The highest hurdles are the political instability in these countries and the greedy natures that are inherent in the governments.

Many program have failed because they were poorly implemented and/or alien to the supposed beneficiaries. World organizations and NGOs should be part of the implementation if the businesses must mushroom. Nigeria is a quintessence of where such programmes have failed.

The local people need re-orientation and should be part of the structuring/implementation to give them sense of belonging. Education and social amenities are some of the basic problems that need to be solved for business to thrive.

The multinationals should exhibit a level of independence otherwise they will be overwhelmed by the greedy inclination of the host government.

The idea of business as a key to ending global poverty is sometimes true. There are a few places that do need to introduce some varieties of businesses to be economically fit, especially those that could have the potential to connect the locals to international clients.

However, do not forget that Japan, South Korea and Singapore have abundant resources and water.

In countries like Ethiopia or Mauritania, fish farms and the growth of indigenous casava plants (which do not need much water to grow) could help boost the economy to some extent, not to mention the Arabic palm trees from which dates (fruit) and Jallab juice drink (Lebanese sugar-concentrated syrup) can be obtained.

And finally, tourism-related industries such as hotels, resorts or shopping malls are required by some poor but famous, pleasant cities to invite tourists into the country.

This also generates money to the country and into its people's pockets. Yemen, Oman and a few others have done this their way.

Big business might represent the core capital of such a massive global venture as discussed in this essay, but there must be a global force -- strength in arms, managed by objective and moral people -- in order to police this challenge.

Most of the investment through government and NGOs wasted over the past half century was stolen by local governments, warlords and anyone in the local area with a half wit of ambition.

I've dealt with Third World nations a lot in my own field of work, and my company has been burned -- seriously.

Graft is rampant, and it can't be resolved by crooked local police forces or local militia -- which, often enough, are the source of the problem.

We need a world police body, and a global government based on equitable and reasonable governance. Until that time, any efforts to combat poverty in the poor nations will be wasted, and hopelessly inefficient because of graft.

We must impoverish and disempower the greedy, those predators who feed off the weak.

Until that is changed even the biggest companies on Earth cannot make changes. But ironically, I see a time coming when the corporate powers form this government. It won't come from the UN -- that organization is already ruined by graft.