Chris Meakin offers (below) an interesting hypothesis--that the cause of
poverty is illiteracy, and that literacy is both necessary and sufficient
to turn it into national prosperity.  "Historically," he tells us, "Britain
went from poverty under the Plantagenets to prosperity under the Tudors at
precisely the time literacy became the norm.  Hence William Shakespeare etc."

	Universal literacy as a cure for world poverty is an appealing idea for a
number of reasons.  First, it's eminently achievable in every country and
at a relatively modest cost.  Second, literacy has an inherent value to
humans--as an enrichment of the mind and spirit--quite apart from any
purely economic benefits it might confer on a nation.  Third, it is no
doubt a much more 'sellible' program--in terms of its likely acceptance by,
say, politicians and intellectuals--than many of the alternative agendas
for curing national poverty.

	Perhaps even more importantly, however, it is a theory that lends itself
to solid empirical investigation.  Literacy rates are regularly reported by
virtually all of the world's 200 countries.  See e.g., World Almanac 1999,
pp. 760-861.  Initially, then, one would want to array those nations in,
say, descending order of per-capita incomes (for such an array, see my
print journal, Antitrust Law & Economics Review, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 2-10)
and observe whether there is in fact a corelation with the literacy rates.
If so, the first test has been passed.

	Corelation, though, does not of course prove causation--which could in
fact run in exactly the opposite direction, with rising literacy being a
RESULT of increasing affluence, not its cause.  Or BOTH could be caused by
some other factor.  
In any event, however, a modest amount of historical investigation of the
few dozen most prosperous nations should at least tell us which, if either,
regularly came first in point of time. 

	The most difficult hurdle for Chris' idea, though, may well be the
linking-mechanism test.  In other words, exactly HOW would rising literacy,
for example, translate into growing national prosperity?  What are the
hydraulics of the links, if any, between the two?   Suppose, for example,
that we should learn from empirical investigation that the IMMEDIATE causal
factor in every case of national affluence is the number and quality of
that country's ENTREPRENEURS.  If that should be the case--and I suspect it
is--then we would need to ask:  What causes a relatively large number of
talented entrepreneurs to appear in country A but not in country
B?  Is it, for example, the fruit of an exceptionally high literacy rate in
the former and a lower one in the latter?  If we should find that rising
literacy corelates with increasing nationwide entrepreneurial vigor, then,
the case for Chris' hypothesis would start to take on some strong empirical
support.

	An additional area for investigation is reflected in the so-called
'pockets' of poverty in the richer countries themselves, e.g., the black
minority in America, particularly in the inner cities.  Does the evidence
suggest that illiteracy is at the root of the various regional, ethnic, and
other subnational categories of poverty?

	Any thoughts, anyone, on the theory that the road to national prosperity
runs through the schoolhouse door?

	Charles
 
				________________________


>To : Poverty Nations Group
>From : Chris Meakin
>London, Friday 5 February 1999
>
>        
>Charles asks (Thursday 4 February 1999)  "Can anyone give us a capsule
>version of 'Why Is It So Poor?,' and sum up its land situation, on any one
>of these nations?"
>
>Let me answer that question with three other questions:
>
>1. Can anyone name a very poor country which has almost universal literacy?
>
>2. Can anyone name a highly literate country which has remained poor for
>very long?
>
>3. Can anyone name an illiterate country which is prosperous, other than by
>a bounty of natural resources being exploited by (very literate!)
>multinationals paying huge royalties?
>
>Prima facie, literacy is the key to genuine non-poverty.
>
>So : if literacy is a necessary condition of prosperity, is it also a
>sufficient condition?
>  
>If it is both a necessary and a sufficient condition, then QED.  Among
>prosperous countries there are many different patterns of land
>ownership/use.  No one of them has magical properties.
>
>Historically, Britain went from poverty under the Plantagenets to
>prosperity under the Tudors at precisely the time literacy became the norm.
> Hence William Shakespeare etc. 
>
>Let no-one forget that, until about 1400, EVERYWHERE was part of what we
>now call the Third World. By modern standards, even the Roman Empire with
>few patchy exceptions was part of the Third World. For Ancient Rome,   read
>"Delhi", "Shanghai" or "Beijing".
>
>
>Chris Meakin
>
                                         ________________

Charles Mueller, Moderator
Mueller's Poverty of Nations List
([log in to unmask])
              	  ___
Mueller's Land-Reform List
([log in to unmask])
              	 ___
Mueller's Antimonopoly List
([log in to unmask])
             	 ___
UNsubscribe:  Add 'un' to above addresses 
                 ___
(Archives at:  
http://www.egroups.com/list/poverty-nations
http://www.egroups.com/list/land-reform
http://www.egroups.com/list/antimonopoly)
                  ___
(Antimonopoly Web site:
http://webpages.metrolink.net/@cmueller)


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%