1. UNSCRAMBLING THE POVERTY PUZZLE
Are We Poor or Are We POOR?
By Myrtle Palacio
Article in The Amandala—July 2000
“If the misery of our POOR be caused not by laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin …”
Charles Darwin. “Voyage of the Beagle”.
KOHM EEN DA MEE MEK AHM
Human dignity is not the outcome of charity or handouts. In the final analysis, the only
person who can give a person worth is the woman, man, child, himself/herself.
Emerging thinking on the issues of sustainable development and basic human needs has
long ago moved beyond “the quantity of goods” as a basis to judge development. These
thinkers see the concepts of “per capita income” and “economic growth” as a
materialistic idea of progress, as these indicators measure human welfare by the level of
material consumption. Therefore development should not only be concerned with
material output. It is a transformation of the entire society.
Community grassroots development stems in part due from an aversion to the regard for
the GNP and the rate of growth as sole arbiters of human progress and economic growth.
In fact grassroots development refuses to be judged by such standards. The participants
in this arena perceive their contribution as valuable in itself without regard to its overall
impact. They participate without the reassurance of optimistic reports of the macro-
economic consequences of their effort.
This week’s article will put forward arguments against poverty profiles against income
poverty, while next week’s article will argue for. You make your analysis.
POVERTY PROFILE
The ‘P’ word was introduced at the most opportune time in Belize. Blane D. Lewis,
whose research was funded by USAID in November 1994, first initiated it via a “Poverty
Profile Report on Belize”. One year later, a poverty assessment, funded by CDB and
GOB, was conducted. Since then, the poverty lingo along with its indicators have been
quoted and banded at will from most every niche.
Lewis’ report utilized data from the 1990 Household Expenditure Survey, and the 1990
Consumer Price Index. The CDB/GOB study utilized 1995 statistics from secondary
sources, and conducted focus groups studies in communities identified as POOR. Both

2. studies relied heavily on the minimum food basket approach to arrive at the poverty line.
The assumption is that an individual needs a minimum amount of food and non-food
items in order to survive.
The cost of the basic items is calculated to arrive at the lowest amount of money
necessary to feed a family of a given size with minimum nutrition. This is then weighed
against income to arrive at the number/percentage of POOR in the country. So that
Belize’s poverty level is based primarily on income and expenditure, referred to as
INCOME POVERTY by the literature. A comparison of some of the findings is
demonstrated in the table below.
Profile Lewis CDB/GOB Variance
1990 Data 1995 Data
Highest incidence in Toledo District 41% 57.6% 16.6%
Belize’s poor population 23% 33% 10%
Belize’s indigent population 6.4% 13.4% 7%
Belize’s rural poor 24% 42.5% 18.5%
Belize’s urban poor 21% 20.6% -.4%
Poorest sector Agric. & Constr. Agric & Fish
Poorest ethnic group Garifuna & Maya Maya
In looking at the “Variance” column above, one would quickly conclude that poverty
increased tremendously between 1990 and 1995. Also one would conclude that the
number of Belize’s indigent population more than doubled—6.4% in 1990 (Lewis) and
13.4% in 1995 (CDB/GOB). However, other characteristics offered by both authors
soften the blow for the POOR in Belize. These are the following:
• High % of land ownership
• High % of home ownership
• No significant (poverty) differences in the gender of the household head
• High dependency and taste for the more expensive imported food items
Is Poverty Overestimated?
Several arguments have been put forward for or against income poverty. Income, a
significant variable in the calculation of the poverty size, is oftentimes understated.
Firstly, significant numbers of poor and low-income families have cash-income, which
are not reported. Women’s contribution falls under this category. So our worth by way
of direct supplemental income is not valued statistically.
Secondly, savings through the community banking systems are ignored in the
determination of poverty. Informal credit/savings systems, such as the syndicate have
long been a source of finance for small-persons. Thirdly, whereby home ownership
among those identified as poor is high, such non-cash asset is also not a variable for
computing the poverty line.
Lastly, there are those who are only “temporarily poor”, a condition that is brought on by
sudden illness or death, loss of employment, change in marital status, and those who are
not interested in seeking employment. Therefore the official poverty line for Belize is

3. not a demarcation of economic distress. By its very definition, INCOME poverty
overestimates poverty.
Is Poverty Underestimated?
The poverty profile offered by the Lewis (1990) and CDB/GOB (1995) reports is
manifested in both the rural and urban areas, even after a decade of development projects.
This is after a decade of development projects funded by multilateral aid agencies. In the
1980’s the hardware of development projects were ubiquitous in the form of UNICEF’s
income-generating fund for women, CARE latrines and water systems, Peace Corps
rabbit hutches, USAID schools and scholarships , UNHCR hand-outs, a proliferation of
NGO’s and government officials in acronym initialed four-wheel drive vehicles. The
POOR then are better educated and better connected to the outside world. Hence the
reason the poverty we face is more deeply ingrained and more inculcated than the
traditional poverty of our parents’ generation.
The real characteristics of poverty then, are the non-monetary aspects. For the urban
POOR, it is the noises, the smells, and the fears of living in the “City” with a lack of
knowledge of resources. It is the invidious quality in our lives that particularly
constitutes our poverty. It is the perception of having less than everyone else that
continually redefines and upgrades what are regarded as necessities of a decent life. It is
the labeling and stereotyping, with acknowledged traits, such as, helpless, lazy, and
illegitimate that is the absolute condemnation. It ultimately creates misplaced values and
a vicious circle of behaviour and a lifestyle that is not consistent with the need to compete
in our mixed economy.
The Poverty Paradox—What It symbolizes
Trying to understand poverty only in terms of a simple figure on absolute
income/expenditure levels is not enough. As many of the more direct consequences of
poverty cannot be translated into income figures. The prevalent rural to urban movement
within Belize, as well as out of Belize, resulted largely from the presumption that there
exists a better opportunity than the marginal economy one migrated from.
Large pockets of new Belize City residents comprise of rural migrants who have come to
the City, which offers them only a ‘place” in line. Some left behind family plots or a
seaside environment for a piece of the swamp. They live in clusters in the under-
developed outer fringes of the City, and the poorer areas of the South-side. Raised in
such an environment, their children discover their “place” at an early age. Unfortunately,
that “place” is further down the socio-economic ladder compared with the village
environment.

4. Therefore, home life which once implied a web of multi-generational, extended family
households, now consists more and more of family fragments. The separation from
place, the loss of resources due to dislocation, among others, have all increased the
number of people who are very poor, relatively to those who are merely poor. The
leaving communities also suffer, as they are left leaderless, and in some instances have
become virtual ghost towns.
The poverty experience in Belize is certainly not income-based. It more symbolizes a
general deterioration of the society, which is still relatively unfathomable.