& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Opinion

'Halving poverty by 2015'

Shaddy writes from University of Toronto, Canada
This refers to the article by Prof Yunus published in The Daily Star on March 14. Prof Yunus mentioned that "But it can be equally plausible that a person sets up a pharmaceutical company to bring quality medicine at the lowest price possible so that even the poorest family can afford it". I fail to understand how that can be as plausible as a person setting up a company for profit motive. The fact is, the world doesn't have people who want to help the poor. Human beings are by nature selfinterested. Just by introducing the concept of "social objective driven" entrepreneurs wouldn't at all result in people being that type.
Now about the behavioural pattern of social entrepreneurs. Yes, I agree that there will be investors willing to invest in "social objective driven" enterprises, but the story doesn't end there. How
will these firms cope up with the strongly profit motivated firms, who are constantly improving efficiency, cutting costs, engaging in more investments, better technology? I'm afraid the social firm will not make it in the long run. They'd have goods being produced at much higher price than these profit making firms. Prof Yunus might argue that the customers will give preference to firms that are engaging in social welfare. Yes that is true, but not at the stake of their personal loss.
"Personal profit based private sector has its own clear agenda Economic theory has not provided us with any alternative to this familiar private sector. I argue that we can create a powerful alternative -- a social-consciousness-driven private sector, created by social entrepreneurs". This is true but the whole argument just lacks one basic reality. That is the nonexistence and the improbable existence of "social entrepre-
neurs". How do you think that in the western world the private sectors like health, telephone, police force are not only making profit but also not depriving the poor of the amenities.
This is not because of the entrepreneurs, but because of the government pressure. If we hand over sectors to private firms and the government keeps a constant vigilance on these sectors then I think we'll be able to obtain what you call a "social consciousness driven private sector" but created by government, something that already exists and is successful in many parts of the world.
Then about globalisation and free trade I have to say that Prof Yunus cites examples of situations that are highly improbable. When he says that globalisation means big enterprises trading with small enterprises and that free trade should be freedom for the weakest, I think the statements are contra-
dicting themselves. Firstly, free trade is nothing but exploiting cheap labour, filling local market with excellent cheaper foreign goods, making domestic firms go out of business, resulting in more unemployment and cheaper labour.
Future of nations will be decided by wealth they have. Because it is the wealth that can help them create a quality workforce and that in turn will make them wealthier. Quality workforce doesn't just come out from the blue. They come from a country which has good educational system, good job opportunities and for all those the nation has to be rich.
Finally, going to the burning question, "Can we reduce poverty by half in 2015"? Yes, we can but the reasons are a bit different:
Remove corruption at all levels starting from corruption in government offices. Strengthen police force and legal system (the heart of
any country) and remove political bias from them.
Impose tax on foreign goods. Any student of basic economics knows that imports hurt and exports help. Keep money in the country, place a limit as to what the tourists can take out. Bring in more multinational firms rather than directly importing. Increase employment at any cost. Encourage small enterprises.
Use taxes. Progressive taxes. Canada has taxes of over 40 per cent. Place taxes of those sorts on people earning in 6 digits. Place 60 per cent on those in 7 digits. Be strict on tax collection.
Increase geographical dimension of commercial Dhaka. Encourage industries in rural areas; make Narayanganj and suburban areas of Dhaka commercial places. Divide Dhaka into 2 or 3 zones and have a responsible mayor for each zone.
Create a minimum wage rate,
improve working conditions.
Create good educational infrastructure for local students and encourage foreign students to come to Bangladesh. Good educational system is one of the major sources of income for Australia from foreign students.
Engage in social programmes and encourage people by means of media, mosques, social gatherings to help poor people.
Help local industries to get more efficient and export more.
Upgrade agricultural facilities, help the farmers with loans and new instruments so that they can improve productivity.
Encourage tourism. Tourism is now a major business for Malaysia.
These small points can add up to be a lot and indeed can turn Bangladesh into an economically strong country, and thus help in alleviating poverty.