Nandy Response

Nandy says that “the presently trendy slogan of globalization can be read as the newest effort to disguise both the declining political clout of the historically disadvantaged and an interest in poverty” (107). It is true that globalization has destroyed the chances of any non-industrialized state to live in peaceful non-destitute poverty and relative isolation. Pressure to industrialize and involvement of foreign, powerful nations has shifted the dynamics of poverty and the perception of poverty. The problem I had with this article was that Nandy offers no suggestions. He attacks the West for not dealing with the problem of worldwide policy, but does not discuss the best way to solve the problem. Nandy says that the money to solve the problem of poverty exists, and that wealthy nations suppress their guilty, but just having the money is not a solution in itself. There are many complications when donated wealth is distributed within a country. It requires much more than writing a check.
Nandy also criticizes the trend of impoverished nations to try to liberalize and modernize in order to shift and neglect the poverty problem without actually solving it. It is hard to get the money to people who actually need it. Countries with destitution often have corrupt governments that will try and hoard the money. It is also complicated to figure out how the money will be absorbed into society. Too much money in a poor and simple economy at once could prove disruptive. Globalization is also an inevitable trend that is unlikely to reverse. Discussing its negative effects on poor countries is not going to solve any problems. The problem of poverty must be faced within the context of the contemporary world order.
Nandy also says, “Particularly in a democracy, numbers matter, and once the number of poor in a society dwindles to a proportion that can be ignored while forging democratic alliances, the political parties are left with no incentive to pursue the cause of the poor” (110). Currently, democracies tend to have less poverty than other forms of government. It is a problem that politicians in democracies ignore the problem when it is not pressing, but isn’t the fact that the poor is only a small proportion more important than this tendency to neglect the small number?