SubscribeSubscribe to this blog's feed
Gender bias is a principal cause of hunger. Women produce well over half of the global food supply and are more likely to spend additional income on food. We won’t be able to end extreme poverty by 2030 without tackling gender inequality around the world. This is why women’s empowerment will be the focus of Bread for the World Institute’s (@breadinstitute) upcoming 2015 Hunger Report, currently being developed.
Join Bread for the World Institute Senior Policy Analyst Faustine Wabwire (@fwabwire) for a Twitter chat on the linkages between hunger, poverty, and women’s empowerment this Friday, March 7—the eve of International Women's Day. We want to hear your recommendations and stories to help answer the question:
What can we absolutely not leave out of the 2015 Hunger Report on women's economic empowerment to end hunger?
Be sure to include the hashtag #IWD2014 in your tweets. Here are the details:
What: Twitter Chat on Women’s Empowerment to end Hunger and Poverty
When: Friday, March 7, 2014
Time: 12 p.m. - 1 p.m. EST
Chat Hashtag: #IWD2014
Primary Twitter Accounts:
@asmalateef (Asma Lateef, director of Bread for the World Institute)
Faustine and the Institute will start the conversation with a few questions—but we hope to do a lot of listening. We look forward to hearing from you!
Posted by Bread on March 05, 2014 in Africa, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Aid, Gender, Global Hunger, Hunger Report, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Religion and Hunger, U.S. Hunger, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Immigration reform momentum has slowed in recent weeks as House Speaker John Boehner questioned whether an immigration bill could pass the House due to Republicans’, “Widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws.”
But even as reform was put on the legislative back-burner, there is a growing general consensus in public opinion and in Congress about how to move forward. Even after indicating that immigration would not be among House Republican legislative priorities early this year, both President Obama and Boehner said that during a rare hour-long face-to-face meeting at the White House, the issue they most agreed upon was immigration. But for Congress and the public, the devil is in the details.
Recent poling from the Pew Research Center shows broad support for the general outlines of some of the most controversial components of reform. For example almost three-fourths of respondents (73 percent) said that “immigrants living in the United States illegally should have a way to stay legally.”
But the broad agreement among the public breaks down when it comes to what type of legal status qualifying unauthorized immigrants should be granted. Almost half of all respondents (46 percent) said that immigrants should be granted a path to citizenship while about a quarter (24 percent) said they should be eligible to apply only for permanent residency status. The remaining quarter of respondents said that unauthorized immigrants should not be allowed to stay in the United States at all.
This also reflects the divides among policymakers. While Democrats generally support immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants, Republicans have proposed a path to legalization for most immigrants with no "special path to citizenship."
The Republican principles on immigration reform that allowed for a general legalization of unauthorized immigrants was a major step toward building a bipartisan consensus. But bridging the details among the public and the political parties on the path forward for unauthorized immigrants will be one of many thorny policy details that will be at the forefront of discussion and debate during 2014.
Nadine poses for a portrait. Click this image to view a video of Nadine's story. (Joseph Molieri/Bread for the World)
Nadine is a registered nurse, low-vision therapist, and former school teacher in Philadelphia who lost her job as a health service administrator when a debilitating medical condition struck without warning. Left with no job, drained savings, and limited assistance, the safety net is the only thing keeping Nadine from homelessness.
Food insecurity in the United States is much more common among members of society who have faced social exclusion, either due to a vulnerability like age or disability, or to discrimination by race, gender, or some other characteristic (see the chart below). Unfortunately Nadine has endured exclusion for all of these reasons.
As an African American woman, even in her healthiest years, Nadine fought to hurdle serious barriers to the educational and employment opportunities that more men, and more women of other racial groups, enjoyed—opportunities that helped provide her with a steady, well paying job. But now, as a disabled senior, her physical inability to work, has left her teatering on the edge of poverty, homelessness, and food insecuirty.
African American females are least likely to earn a high school or college degree, yet most vulnerable to fatal health conditions like hypertension and various forms of cancer. African American women also have higher rates of unemployment than white women and continue to have lower amounts of weekly usual earnings and median wealth compared to their male counterparts and white women. In 2010, African American women earned, on average, 64 cents for every one dollar earned by a white, non-Hispanic male. White women made 78.1 cents to the same dollar.
We can get close to ending hunger in America by making improvements in economic policies as regularly discussed on Institute Notes. But we cannot end hunger altogether without confronting knottier social issues that beleaguer people like Nadine. Ending hunger requires ending discrimination so that all people can have access to the educational and job opportunities that allow an individual to earn enough money to keep her family out of poverty. But it also requires a strong federal safety safety net--made up of programs like Social Security, SNAP (food stamps) and disability insurance--so that physical inability to work does not remain a condemnation to chronic homelessness and hunger.
This blog was submitted by Pirbhu Satyani, who is an intern in Bread for the World Institute. He has a Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship through American University and comes from Tharparkar/Sindh, Pakistan.
Pakistan, a middle-income country, has taken the significant step of becoming the 46th member country of the SUN (Scaling Up Nutrition) Movement. An important role of SUN member countries is to collaborate with each other in making the issue of nutrition a top priority. SUN helps member countries design nutrition-focused policies and use resources efficiently to achieve improved nutrition, especially among women and children.
In my country, malnutrition is a serious issue with many causes, including ineffective government policies, a poor health infrastructure system, food insecurity, and widespread poverty. In terms of Millennium Development Goal 4 (MDG 4), Pakistan is still far behind in reducing its under-5 child mortality rate. Every year, 800,000 children die in Pakistan -- 35 percent due to malnutrition. The risk of death is nine times higher for a child suffering from malnutrition than for a child with a balanced diet. Pakistan’s National Nutrition Survey in 2011 indicated that 58.1 percent of households were food insecure. The government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are working on small projects, but there is no comprehensive and focused long-term plan or strategy to address the situation, to scale up successful programs with a goal of reducing the child mortality rate. The provincial governments (there are four) have been trying to make changes in policies and practices to improve the health and nutrition system since the 2010 introduction of the 18th Amendment to Pakistan’s Constitution, which empowered provinces to take action.
Malnutrition arises when people have little access to food and limited health services. In Pakistan, the majority of the population (around 63 percent) lives in rural areas, where health services are very limited. The main livelihood of most people is agriculture – even though it would seem that being a farmer and being malnourished contradict each other. In Pakistan it is lack of access to a diversified diet that causes malnutrition. An unprecedented natural disaster (flood) in 2010-2011 made poor communities even more vulnerable. An estimated 20 million people were displaced, millions of acres of land were damaged, and there was widespread damage to crops, mostly wheat and rice. Farmers were unable to feed their families and malnutrition increased rapidly.
Malnutrition in Pakistan can only be addressed through collaborative efforts -- by engaging the international donor community and by initiating long–term, sustainable programs such as food security, women’s empowerment, agricultural safety nets, early childhood development programs, and quality health service at the grassroots level (meaning reaching to rural communities). Pakistan hopes that best practices and effective government policies around the world can be shared with and imitated in Pakistan as it seeks ways to scale up successful nutrition actions via the platform the SUN movement has provided.
The commitment of Pakistan’s government to join the SUN movement may open more opportunities for technical support and may mobilize resources by engaging international donors to invest more in improving policies and strategies in the health and agriculture sectors, and in building the capacity of human resources and systems. If that is achieved, effective implementation of services can be ensured at all levels to improve health and nutrition for all in my country.
Posted by Scott Bleggi on February 26, 2014 in Agriculture, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Aid, Food Prices, Foreign Aid Reform, Gender, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Inequality, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
This graph from the CBO’s minimum wage report shows the estimated broadly shared income gains that a $10.10 minimum wage would bring. (Congressional Budget Office)
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a federal nonpartisan agency, heralded good news for America’s working poor families with the release of a report confirming the net positive economic impact of raising the federal minimum wage to the president’s proposed $10.10 per hour.
News agencies and opponents of raising the minimum wage, however, mostly ignored the good news of positive outcomes not only for working poor people, but for the vast majority of Americans. That’s why I’ve decided to recap them here:
If the minimum wage is raised to the proposed $10.10 an hour by 2016, the CBO estimates that…
- 16.5 million low-wage workers would earn higher wages.
- A net 900,000 people (i.e., factoring in potential job losses) would no longer be working full-time yet living in poverty.
- The American workforce would see a $31 billion increase in income — the majority of it going to families earning at or below twice the poverty threshold.
- Families with earnings below the poverty threshold would have an average 3 percent increase in income.
- Only America’s top earners (with incomes six or more times the poverty threshold) would see a decrease in their income, and this decrease would be small.
Opponents of a higher minimum wage trumpeted the only statistic in the entire report that suggested a potentially harmful effect on low-wage earners – an estimate that there is a two-thirds chance that raising the minimum wage would lead to a loss of about 500,000 jobs (0.3 percent of total U.S. employment).
But the benefits I’ve just listed, for millions of low-wage workers and for the entire economy, overwhelmingly outweigh the possible loss of 500,000 jobs that pay poverty-level wages.
The idea that higher wages necessarily result in fewer jobs is simplistic and short-sighted. Higher wages do not operate in a vacuum. Raising the minimum wage produces many other positive results — most obviously, a rise in people’s earnings. And as people make more money, they spend more, they pay more in taxes, the economy grows, and more good jobs are created.
Thanks to the Congressional Budget Office, U.S. policymakers have a small mountain of evidence that raising the federal minimum wage is the right course of action — for the nation's economy, and especially for its most vulnerable families.
The 2014 Hunger Report, Ending Hunger in America, recommends a $12 minimum wage — what it takes for a single breadwinner in a family of four, working full-time, year-round, to pull her or his family just over the federal poverty line. Read more about the rationale behind that recommendation at hungerreport.org.
Get updates on issues and actions to take on behalf of hungry people.