A country’s economic success depends on the education, skills and health of its population. When its young people are healthy and well educated, they can find gainful employment, achieve dignity and succeed in adjusting to the fluctuations of the global labor market. Businesses invest more, knowing that their workers will be productive. Yet many societies around the world do not meet the challenge of ensuring basic health and a decent education for each generation of children.
Why is the challenge of education unmet in so many countries? Some are simply too poor to provide decent schools. Parents themselves may lack adequate education, leaving them unable to help their own children beyond the first year or two of school, so that illiteracy and innumeracy are transmitted from one generation to the next.
The situation is most difficult in large families (of say, six or seven children), because parents invest little in the health, nutrition and education of each child.
Yet rich countries also fail. The US, for example, cruelly allows its poorest children to suffer. Poor people live in poor neighborhoods with poor schools. Parents are often unemployed, ill, divorced or even incarcerated. Children become trapped in a persistent generational cycle of poverty despite the society’s general affluence. Too often, children growing up in poverty end up as poor adults.
A remarkable new documentary film, The House I Live In, shows that the US’ story is even sadder and crueler than that, owing to disastrous policies. Starting around 40 years ago, US politicians declared a “war on drugs,” ostensibly to fight the use of addictive drugs like cocaine. As the film clearly shows, the war on drugs became a war on the poor, especially on poor minority groups.
In fact, the war on drugs led to mass incarceration of poor, minority young men. The US now imprisons around 2.3 million people at any time, a substantial number of whom are poor people arrested for selling drugs to support their own addictions. As a result, the US has ended up with the world’s highest incarceration rate — a shocking 743 people per 100,000.
The film depicts a nightmarish world in which poverty in one generation is passed on to the next, with the cruel, costly and inefficient “war on drugs” facilitating the process.
Poor people, often African-Americans, cannot find jobs or have returned from military service without skills or employment contacts. They fall into poverty and turn to drugs.
Instead of receiving social and medical assistance, they are arrested and turned into felons. From that point on, they are in and out of the prison system and have little chance of ever getting a legal job that enables them to escape poverty. Their children grow up without a parent at home — and without hope and support. The children of drug users often become drug users themselves; they, too, frequently end up in jail or suffer violence or early death.
What is crazy about this is that the US has missed the obvious point — and has missed it for 40 years. To break the cycle of poverty, a country needs to invest in its children’s future, not in the imprisonment of 2.3 million people a year, many for non-violent crimes that are symptoms of poverty.
Many politicians are eager accomplices to this lunacy. They play to the fears of the middle class, especially middle-class fear of minority groups, to perpetuate this misdirection of social efforts and government spending.
The general point is this: Governments have a unique role to play to ensure that all young members of a generation — poor children as well as rich ones — have a chance.
Poor kids are unlikely to break free of their parents’ poverty without strong and effective government programs that support high-quality education, health care and decent nutrition.
This is the genius of “social democracy,” the philosophy pioneered in Scandinavia, but also deployed in many developing countries, such as Costa Rica. The idea is simple and powerful: All people deserve a chance, and society needs to help everybody to secure that chance. Most important, families need help to raise healthy, well-nourished and educated children. Social investments are large, financed by high taxes, which rich people actually pay, rather than evade.
This is the basic method to break the inter-generational transmission of poverty. A poor child in Sweden has benefits from the start. The child’s parents have guaranteed maternity/paternity leave to help them nurture the infant. The government then provides high-quality day care, enabling the mother — knowing that the child is in a safe environment — to return to work. The government ensures that all children have a place in preschool, so that they are ready for formal schooling by the age of six. And health care is universal, so the child can grow up healthy.
A comparison of the US and Sweden is therefore revealing. Using comparable data and definitions provided by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US has a poverty rate of 17.3 percent, roughly twice Sweden’s poverty rate of 8.4 percent. And the US’ incarceration rate is 10 times Sweden’s rate of 70 people per 100,000. The US is richer on average than Sweden, but the income gap between the US’ richest and poorest is vastly wider than it is in Sweden, and the US treats its poor punitively, rather than supportively.
One of the shocking realities in recent years is that the US now has almost the lowest degree of social mobility of the high-income countries. Children born poor are likely to remain poor; children born into affluence are likely to be affluent adults.
This inter-generational tracking amounts to a profound waste of human talents. The US will pay the price in the long term unless it changes course. Investing in its children and young people provides the very highest return that any society can earn, in both economic and human terms.
Jeffrey D. Sachs is professor of Economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also special adviser to the UN Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) led a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan in late February. During their various meetings with Taiwan’s leaders, this delegation never missed an opportunity to emphasize the strength of their cross-party consensus on issues relating to Taiwan and China. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi are leaders of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Their instruction upon taking the reins of the committee was to preserve China issues as a last bastion of bipartisanship in an otherwise deeply divided Washington. They have largely upheld their pledge. But in doing so, they have performed the
It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) ambition is to rejuvenate the Chinese nation by unification of Taiwan, either peacefully or by force. The peaceful option has virtually gone out of the window with the last presidential elections in Taiwan. Taiwanese, especially the youth, are resolved not to be part of China. With time, this resolve has grown politically stronger. It leaves China with reunification by force as the default option. Everyone tells me how and when mighty China would invade and overpower tiny Taiwan. However, I have rarely been told that Taiwan could be defended to
It should have been Maestro’s night. It is hard to envision a film more Oscar-friendly than Bradley Cooper’s exploration of the life and loves of famed conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein. It was a prestige biopic, a longtime route to acting trophies and more (see Darkest Hour, Lincoln, and Milk). The film was a music biopic, a subgenre with an even richer history of award-winning films such as Ray, Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody. What is more, it was the passion project of cowriter, producer, director and actor Bradley Cooper. That is the kind of multitasking -for-his-art overachievement that Oscar
Chinese villages are being built in the disputed zone between Bhutan and China. Last month, Chinese settlers, holding photographs of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), moved into their new homes on land that was not Xi’s to give. These residents are part of the Chinese government’s resettlement program, relocating Tibetan families into the territory China claims. China shares land borders with 15 countries and sea borders with eight, and is involved in many disputes. Land disputes include the ones with Bhutan (Doklam plateau), India (Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin) and Nepal (near Dolakha and Solukhumbu districts). Maritime disputes in the South China