In 1992, when I was in my second year at university, I became interested in studying poverty and issues related to the poor. During my master’s and doctoral studies, I reviewed most of the experiences of countries in combating poverty. I looked at successful and unsuccessful experiences, and countries that had achieved unprecedented developmental leaps, such as India, Brazil, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and others. The indicator of success in most of these experiences was increased spending on development and social welfare programs, such as health and education and small and micro-production projects and labor-intensive projects.
However, in the Egyptian experience, I wondered, with logic in my mind: Why did the poverty rate increase as the trend toward small projects increased and the government’s spending on development programs increased?
Throughout its history, Egyptian state may have succeeded in overcoming many devastating diseases that nearly wiped out the Egyptian people, but it has never had a comprehensive plan to tackle poverty or limit its repercussions. It is not shameful to admit the weakness of the plans and policies adopted by successive governments to reduce poverty, but the real shame lies in the insistence on the same plans and policies that have largely caused poverty rates to rise and made social stability constantly at risk.
If we want to provide the state with a complete diagnosis of the problem of poverty in Egypt, we cannot ignore what we have mentioned in previous articles, which is, first: The belief of governments that poverty is not a disease that can be cured, but rather a permanent disability that people live with and pass on to their children, thus increasing the depth, breadth, and scale of poverty.
Second: The government’s adherence to old policies that have proven their failure in combating poverty over the years, believing that nothing is possible better than what was before and making cash subsidies its primary mechanism for reducing poverty, even though all studies have shown that cash subsidies and free food banks do not reduce poverty as much as they deepen and spread it. !
These policies teach the poor to be passive and dependent, as if begging for state funds is an acquired right. Even if the state makes cash subsidies conditional, as is the case with the Takaful and Karama programs, the continuation of support for more than five years is evidence of the failure of support policies and not an indicator of their success.
The true indicator of the success of support programs depends on the contribution cash support makes to the poor’s transition from the cycle of poverty and dependency to the cycle of production and independence, in a period not exceeding five years, according to studies by the World Bank and other international institutions concerned with poverty eradication.
Therefore, cash support policies and food cartons need to be reconsidered… They should not be more than a temporary remedy that the poor receive cautiously, as they receive medicine until they recover, not until they die…! What is meant here by “until they die” is that when the head of a family dies in poverty despite the support he receives, this adds four to five new poor people to the list of the poor, while lifting the head of the family out of poverty through support means protecting the entire family from falling into poverty. This calls on us to demand that the institutions responsible for providing cash support submit a detailed report on the rate of recovery from poverty and the transition from receiving support to work and production.
Third: Relying on microloans to escape poverty is an issue that needs to be reconsidered. There is a big difference between small loans and small projects, especially since small projects, like small loans, have no parent company. Each lending institution working in the field of small projects has its own credit policies. Work becomes the first victim of differences in these policies, as it is also a victim of accumulated interest, which may lead the customer to default on repayment or, in many cases, to imprisonment. The first banking rule in tackling poverty says that money loses its function in tackling poverty if it incurs interest for the lender!.
In other words, most experiences of combating poverty through lending have focused on the value and reality of the project, i.e. that it is actual and not just on paper, without focusing on the value of the loan, the interest rate, and the ability to repay it. Loans intended to finance projects for the poor are usually interest-free.
We concluded from studying the development experiences of countries that combating poverty requires commitment to the three sides of the poverty reduction triangle, namely: “political will, administrative efficiency, and sufficient financing.” It is impossible to tackle poverty or achieve development with a triangle of policies that is missing one side. .!
Forty years ago, more than half of the population of the People’s Republic of China was below the poverty line, consisting of workers, farmers, and fishermen. Today, UN reports confirm that more than 80% of China’s population is middle class, 18% is rich, and only 2% is poor. In searching for the reasons for the eradication of poverty, we can see that the triangle of poverty alleviation in China is complete.
Even in its food distribution policies, and so that people do not learn to beg and become dependent, Germany has taken a different approach. In a quiet corner of Germany, bags of food are discreetly hung for those who need them: the poor, the needy, the vulnerable, and the homeless. There are no public displays or fanfare, no cameras or videos to capture the numbers or fame. It is simply an unannounced gesture of goodwill, service, and humanity, carried out with genuine humility and compassion, not artificiality. This quiet act, which requires no appreciation, serves as a powerful reminder that true generosity often remains invisible, but its impact is deeply felt.
That is why I suggest that all the names of companies, banks, businessmen, and civil associations be removed from the cartons or food boxes and that only the name of Egypt be written on them… Egypt’s gift to its children, or as I said earlier, “Egypt is taking care of you,” to reinforce the feelings of belonging among simple families… and that Egypt alone is the one that feeds and provides support… As long as the state encourages, supervises, and adopts these activities as an important mechanism to combat poverty, or at least limit its repercussions, these boxes should not be considered charity from anyone, but rather a right guaranteed by the state and protected by law and established social values.
In any case, the rivers of poverty will not stop flowing unless the state adopts policies that motivate the poor to work and produce, encourage the government to apply justice, and stop those responsible for corruption!
