Rural Development and Poverty free essay sample

Poverty eradication has been on the global development agenda since the birth of development itself. Unfortunately for the impoverished, the agenda of the neoliberal and transnational classes are not as concerned with poverty eradication as they are with capital and industry. This means that the needs of the citizens, poor citizens in particular, get put on the back burner in the name of economic growth and free market policy. In Latin America, 40% of the population is categorized as poor, and in Brazil the extreme level of disparity and the states refusal to adequately address it has led to the formation of a Landless Workers Movement which calls itself the MST (Leiva, 2008). The MST believe that agrarian reform and redistribution of wealth and power are the solution for Brazils poverty woes, and that the current top-down, or trickle down policies are not solutions but are in fact a part of the problem. We will write a custom essay sample on Rural Development and Poverty or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The purpose of this case study will be to not only get a better understanding of the MST but to also find out how, or even if its results can be duplicated in other third world countries. Identifying the problem the general problem is poverty, but under the surface there are many different elements at work. The driving force behind it all is the most important because identifying and understanding it will make it easier to diagnose, and from the research it is clear that the locomotive behind the poverty in Brazil is capitalism and its sidekick, consumptionism. As most probably already know 20% of the worlds population accounts for over 85% of total private consumption expenditures (UNDP, 1998). In Brazil, 10% of the population owns 75 percent of the nations wealth, to bring it even closer into perspective 0. 1% of the population owns 40% of the nations wealth. Brazil also has the second highest concentration of land ownership in the world with less than 1% owning over 46% of land area, meanwhile 4. 6 million landless families continue to live in conditions of extreme poverty and distress. (www. mstbrazil. rg/about-mst/). As mentioned earlier, the reason behind this is the focus put on free market forces controlling the land reform policies, it is believed that market forces produce more desirable results on the economy when left unhindered (Borras, 2008). This line of thought is pushed for by the Modernizationists of the West who push for neoliberal policies, declaring it as the ticket out of poverty. Theses Modernizationists want to see a n evolution in nations like Brazil, an evolution from subsistence farming towards commercial production of agricultural goods. This calls for a specialization in cash crops, purchase of non-agricultural products in the market and agricultural wage labour (Allen and Thomas, 2000). Oddly enough, these policies are known to be more of a benefit to Core nations, where the majority of these Modernizationists come from, at the expense of the periphery nations. In actuality it is capitalist consumerism that makes these demands putting a strain of the livelihood of impoverished citizens in the third world by demanding more for less. Neoliberal markets are the problem because they want to works with transnational corporations, which they believe will inject the economy with new money, when in reality, all the competition from outside the nation crushes the indigenous population. Eventually the owners of small and mid-sized businesses and particularly farmers in this case, are muscled out, those same farmers are eventually stripped of everything and forced to work for the big companies and plantations they once competed for, the cycle is vicious and long-standing (UNDP, 1998). The point of all this is too clarify that the agenda of capitalism and its constituents is in direct disagreement with the needs of the people of Brazil. Introducing the MST The Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra, otherwise known as Brazils Landless Workers Movement, is the reaction or alternative response to mainstream development (Allen and Thomas, 2000). It was born out of relentless poverty and desperation, which came after years of waiting on an unresponsive and seemingly nonchalant government. The MST is a radical movement which, unlike many other advocacy and alternative development groups, believes in taking matters into its own hands, Development vigilantes, if you will. From the landless perspective, complacency from both sides is the major deterrent to change and reform. The leaders of the MST blame ignorance for the complaceny, a misinterpretation of Federal rights, claiming that it is a major obstacle to agrarian reform, along with Big Capital and Big Estate (Branford and Rocha, 2002). With this in mind the MST has set out to educate and empower the Landless citizens of Brazil, advocating people-centered, alternative development. This means rejecting the mainstream development notion of trusteeship in which others determine the requirements for the development of the nation and also the rejection of the large-scale industrialization which is believed to alienate the impoverished (Allen and Thomas, 2000). With what most people assume about Brazil, the complaints and cries of the MST may seem a little dramatic, but despite the claims that Brazil has undergone the largest agrarian reform in the World, Brazil actually has seen a reversal of the clock. This is the product of neoliberal macroeconomic policies mentioned earlier, which have crept in to Brazillian legislature, further facilitating the concentration of land and producing a rise in unemployment (Moyo and Yeros, 2005). As mentioned earlier rural poverty and booming industry have caused a boom in urbanization, due to the many who have moved to cities in hopes of finding relief from poverty. The result of this is that Brazils major cities are now overpopulated and unable to adequately sustain many of their citizens, and with the poor being at the bottom of the ladder, they recieve the brunt of social injustice and economic woe (Wright and Wolford, 2003). The heart of the MSTs argument is that offering more opportunity in rural areas would be incentive for the impoverished to leave the overpopulated metropolis and return to the more familiar, agrarian lifestyle, hitting two troublesome birds with one stone. So now the question becomes where too get the land to make these opportunities available, but again the MST has a provision for this. In 1988, the brazilian goverment adopted a new constituition, this constituition stipulated that all Brazillian land must serve a social function. Article 184 of the consituition further specified that the Brazilian government was required to expropriate for the purpose of agrarian reform, rural property that is not performing its social function. (www. mstbrazil. org/about-mst/). Recently, along with promises of redistribution the Brazilian government let out a report classifying 55,000 rural properties, which account for about 300,000 acres of Brazilian land, as unproductive (www. mstbrazil. org/about-mst/). Armed with this information and aided by legal workers, the MST has made it their purpose and duty to empower fellow citizens to take a hold of what consituitionally belongs to them. Occupations The MST is comprised of unsatisfied and anxious citizens, meaning that they are not willing to wait on lobbyist and politicians to make due on their promises, instead they take immediate action. This means less focus towards voting, lobbying legislature, making campaign contributions for those running for office and writing letters to public officials (Ondetti, 2008). Clearly, the more traditional ways of bringing about reform are not favoured in rural Brazil. Indeed, most seem to have lost confidence in the passive approach, and in light of the governments history of unfulfilled promises to the Landless poor, rightfully so. Instead, the MST focus more on radical, coercive methods of collective pressuring, such as, marches, demonstrations, sit-ins, road blockages and most commonly, land occupations (Ondetti, 2008). Land occupations, sometimes simply referred to as occupations, are the weapon of choice for the MST. In fact, since its conception the Landless movement has used occupations as a key move in petitioning the state to for unproductive land. By occupying unused land the MST make their presence and demands known to both the landowners and the government, which otherwise may have simply overlooked them. With their attention and the help of friendly lawyers and Article 184, the MST make their case to for the right to socially unproductive land (Wolford, 2010). Although occupations are the most common form of protest used by the MST, it is very tedious and not always successful, in many cases hundreds of families will be living on land for years, maybe nearing decades, only to receive an eviction notice from the government deeming the land productive. Despite the risk of wasting years for nothing, the MST continues to use occupations, indeed, the MST has never won a single acre of land without first carrying out an occupation (Branford and Rocha, 2002). In recent years, the MST has begun to focus not only on unproductive land that is not being farmed by the landowner, but also land that is being used to produce commercial crops as opposed to food for the local population. Yes, the target is slightly different, but the principle remains the same, under the Brazilian constitution lands used for cash crops are unproductive or at least underproductive as there are local citizens starving while, crops are being grown and sold to wealthy capitalist nations (Branford and Rocha, 2002). Agrarian Reform In a nutshell, the MSTs objective is top-down agrarian reform, the question is whether it is possible in the Brazilian context. The landlords of Brazil have, like the plantations they own, been around for generations taking advantage of the seemingly timeless relationship they have with the landless peasants of the area. But the agrarian reform being called for by the Landless movement of today would put an end to that relationship requiring a total restructure to allow a democratic access to land and an improvement to how wealth and land are being distributed (Moyo and Yeros, 2005). So it is no wonder that the call for agrarian reform is not exactly welcomed amongst the aristocrats of Brazil. Regardless, the feasibility and not the necessity is what is really at question, in regards with this whether it is possible the MST says â€Å"absolutely†. The argument is that redistributing the unused, excess land in particular, would make the land more productive and the citizens more efficient, boosting the economy. The MST is also clear on the fact that it not only demands land reform but also the policies that support it, such as credit and housing support (Ondetti, 2008). As far as the MST is concerned these policies go hand in hand with Agrarian reform and are mandatory for any hope of rural development. Is it working With a better understanding of who the MST are and what it is they are doing, now one can begin to tally up the results. As many good intentions as the MST may have for the country and even the world, its system is not perfect. A devastating example of this would be the horrendous living conditions of many of these occupation camps, indeed, much of the suffering in these camps is a direct resulting of unsanitary living conditions. Eye infections, typhoid and dysentery, particularly among children, plagues of fleas and lice and of course malnourishment, make occupations a very dangerous choice of lifestyle (Wright and Wolford, 2003). Along with sanitation there is also the constant harassment from hired gangs and police, which has been known to escalate leaving more MST-ers dead. An unfortunate fact is that, many, women and children in particular, die under the harsh conditions while waiting for a decision, this makes the decision to join the MST more difficult than it already is. The heavy cost of this movement has brought favour to landowners, this is due to the concern for human life and the call from the state to stop putting innocent lives on the line needlessly. Members of the state have been known to swing in favour of private capital in hopes of disenchanting members of the MST and putting down any future oiners. There are cases where, contrary to the hopes and petitions of the MST advocates, access to and control over land resources are being redefined and restructured in favour of private capital, as a direct result of the â€Å"dangers† of advocacy groups (Borras, Edelman, Kay, 2008). An added set-back to the goals of the MST is the neoliberal thought that looks at the whole thing as a failure, and strong reasoning as to why the state should stay out of economic affairs. Neoliberal economists consider the â€Å"failure† of state-led land appropriation to be the reason for unrest in the rural markets. But they go further, as always, to argue that were the state to step aside and allow the market to control who owns what, as opposed to the state reallocating land resources, which is the hope of the MST (Borras, 2008). Of course, there is truth in the first statement it is the states mismanagement of land appropriation that is part of the agrarian problem, but less state intervention is not the answer, it would simply reverse any growth. With that being said, the achievements of the MST cannot be overshadowed, it has proven to be a reliable and in recent years essential part of rural society. Among other things the MST has raised the literacy rates almost everywhere it has gone. Solely thanks to the MST approximately 150 thousand children have attended elementary and secondary schools, and many of the teachers who taught at these schools were trained and government certified by the MST itself (Wright and Wolford, 2003). The MST has reached a generation that would otherwise have been overlooked by the government, and now these children learn everything from how to right to social rights. The recent rise in the new peasant movements [in Brazil] has achieved a level of reach and influence that can no longer be ignored even by mainstream development and financial institutions, which have intensified their attempts to capture and co-opt, collaborate with or undermine [these groups] (Borras et al. , 2008). The opposition is definitely growing against the MST but it is only due to the unquestionable level of success that it has had, with scrutiny there can be no question that what the MST is doing, is working. Can it be duplicated With poverty being a global issue, the world needs to know if the success of the Brazilian Landless workers can be recreated elsewhere. Already there are militant rural movements popping up all over the globe, from Mexico all the ay to Zimbabwe (Moyo and Yeros, 2005). Some nation s are seeing a more organized effort, South Africa and the Philippines being the prime example, with the formation of LPM and KMP, respectively (Borras, 2008). Of course many of these movements began due to internal factors, and yet â€Å"people around the have been inspired by the Brazilian landless movement and have studied its example [concerning social and even environmental problems] (Wright and Wolford). In Conclusion It is the radical approach of the MST that has gotten it where it is today as it is considered by many observers to be the most important social movement in Latin America today (Wright and Wolford, 2003). A trendsetter and trailblazer in its own respect, and in an arena that has seen centuries of inequality and injustice, where the cords of colonialism seem to be in an knot that cant be untied. The MST has earned the recognition of the globe for attempting the impossible and trying to overthrow the mainstream approach towards development, cutting the knot instead of wrestling to untie it, and placing in new laces. Again this is revolutionary simply because of the environment that it is being done in. Fernando Leiva writes, â€Å"Latin American policies on poverty are tricky because they must be designed without being perceived as a threat to the profit rate of domestic conglomerates and transnational capital; they cannot restrict capital mobility, flexible labour markets, or upset stable expectations for investors† (2008). It is against this mighty agenda that the MST fights and yet the MST has proven itself mighty in its own respect, with its ambitious, almost ridiculous demands. But the neoliberal capitalists need for stability and predictability, has been and must continue to be overpowered by the waves of change, if there should be any hope of a poverty free Brazil. As one MST advocate was quoted to have said, â€Å"there can be no progress as long as the demands are being deemed acceptable according to the standards of the establishment† (Branford and Rocha, 2002).

The Biggest Mistake Students Make When Writing Their Essays - Ap English Language Sample

The Biggest Mistake Students Make When Writing Their Essays - Ap English Language SampleThe biggest mistake many college students make when they are learning English is that they write an essay using only English words. Using terms and phrases from other languages is perfectly acceptable, but most students write their essays using only English terms to save time.It is okay for an English student to write an essay that uses many terms from another language because they will be used in this essay as a part of the research process. For example, if the student wants to read more about the French language, he or she can add the French term 'et,' as it usually means 'and.' This doesn't mean that they should write everything they write in this sentence.When they want to read up on their academic background, they should use the English term 'school,' as in a school of education. A better example would be to read up on your mother's academic background. Also, if you were learning another lang uage and needed to ask someone about it, using English as your primary language is acceptable.There are several reasons why this approach to writing an English essay is a big mistake. For one thing, it can result in poor pronunciation. People who only know English as their primary language will often make errors in their writing, as there is not always a precise way to say certain things. If they had a native speaking English speaker, this problem would be much less likely.Another problem with this approach is that a person who does not speak another foreign language is not able to read what they write. They don't understand how it should sound when they say certain words. Many English speakers, such as professors, do not have the ability to communicate in a foreign language. As a result, they can write papers that are filled with mistakes.A common example of this is in surveys. Surveys are often filled out in a foreign language, so the student will tend to mispronounce the word for 'vote' as 'zool.' The student may be saying 'zoolvah' instead of 'zoolvah' or worse, a combination of the two words.Even when students do speak another language, it can still be a big mistake to solely use English in their English essay. While it is nice to be able to speak the other language fluently, that does not necessarily mean that all words that are used should be in English. A student should learn to speak the second language in addition to the first.If the student already speaks a foreign language, a better approach would be to take a lesson and also use the words in his or her essay. In other words, a student could hear the words spoken in the foreign language and then imagine how it sounds. Then he or she can translate it to English and then write it.