There are big differences between the poor people who live in rural areas and the poor people who live in urban areas in Mexico. In 2005 the average income in urban sectors was 3,002.7 pesos, while it was only 1,221.9 pesos in rural sectors. The urban areas experience a much faster growth than the rural areas, which have had a very stagnant growth since 1980. This is also shown by the fact that extreme poverty is mostly a rural phenomenon in Mexico.
The government in Mexico has tried to help the poor people in rural areas through cash transfer programs, such as Oportunidades and Procampo. The incomes of the poor people in rural areas have actually increased owing to these programs. However, these programs are not effective in the long term. A more sustainable and effective solution in the attempt to decrease poverty in rural areas, would be to generate the development of the economic activities that are associated to the rural activities.
I agree with the authors that when it comes to improving the poverty situation in rural areas, the government should change their focus. The government should rather then giving the people money, try to provide them with tools, equipment and ideas that would help them to be able to earn their own money. It is logic that poor people who live in urban areas have a bigger average income and a faster growth, since there are more job opportunities and more job options in urban areas than i rural areas. The government should probably prioritize the poor people in the rural areas when designing their programs, but still not forget about the people in the urban areas.
Q1：According to the same criteria of measuring poverty, there are obviously more poor people in the rural area than in the urban area. (In 1992, the proportion of people living with less than one dollar a day was 13.4 and 0.8 per cent; the proportion of people not meeting their daily nourishment necessities was 35.6 and 13.4 per cent, in rural and urban areas respectively.) Rural income is lower than urban income and the income growth rate is lower in the rural area. (During the period 2000-2005, rural and urban average incomes registered annual growth rates of around 0.3 and 1.1 per cent, respectively. In 2005, average income in the rural sector was 1,221.9 pesos, while that in the urban sector was 3,002.7 pesos.) Halving poverty in urban area is faster than in rural area. (Halving poverty incidence and poverty intensity seems to be a plausible event in urban areas, as they only have to grow at rates around 1 per cent per year to achieve the objective by 2015. Nevertheless, accomplishing it in rural areas would require little less than a miracle –assuming that their growth performance in the past continues during the next 10 years.)
Q2：The government has mitigated poverty in rural areas through cash transfer programs, such as “Oportunidades” and “Procampo”. They have been effective in increasing the income of poor people living in these areas. However, these programs may not be sufficient to halve poverty by 2015.The lack of income is just one of the problems of the poor people, they also need basic infrastructure and facilities.
Q3：As for the poverty in the urban area, to halve the poverty (by the criteria of income) is not that difficult because the income and the income growth in these areas are higher. However, poor people in these areas need much more income because the living cost in cities is higher. As the living standard in cities is definitely higher, poor people expect more resources and opportunities to live in “dignity” and not feel inferior. As for the poverty in the rural area, although the required living cost is lower in these areas, the per capita incomes in rural areas have been practically stagnant, meeting the goals of fighting poverty for rural areas seems to be very unlikely. Moreover, rural areas are in desperately need of basic infrastructure and living facilities. The quality of education and medical services is also a problem need to address.
There is a big difference when it comes to poverty if you are living in a rural or in an urban area in Mexico. For example, between the years 2000-2005 the annual growth for urban area was 1.1 per cent while for the rural part is was 0.3. In 2005 the average income for the people in the rural parts was 3,002.7 pesos while in the urban parts it was 1,221.9 pesos. It has been set out goals, the Millennium Development Goals to reduce the poverty. This consist in two parts; to halve the amount of population that has an income below one dollar per day and to halve the amount of people that are suffering from hunger, this should be met by 2015. If the rural sector should be able to meet the goals, that means that the growth must grow eight time faster than during the period 2000-2005 while for the urban sector the goal has already been met (and there is an estimated neagtive groqht instead), since the income that is requirted is 1.704.4 pesos. The result is that the extreme poverty is connected to the rural sector. Meet the goals seems quite likely for the urban sector since what they will acchieve, regarding the income, in one year will take the rural sector 30 years (if the have the same growth). The goverment has started different programs to reduce the poverty, Oportunidades and Procampo, which has resulted in higher income but it will not be enought to meet the goals. Poverty usually connects with money and eventhough if has a lot to do with it, it is not everything. Is also means lack of opportunities and resources. And that is something that we can see in these two types of poverty. From above we can see that is is a difference between the rural and the urban section and eventhough lack of money money is not a synonyme to poverty it leads to less possibilities. We really hope that the the fight against poverty will continue and that each of us can contribute with something that will help Mexico win the fight.
Based on the income there is a big difference between poverty in rural and urban areas. The average income according to the article in urban areas is 3,002 pesos, while the average income in rural areas is less than half of this, with 1,221 pesos. Also the growth rates between these two kinds of poverties show a significant growth in the urban areas while stays short in rural areas.
Oportunidades and Procampo are two programs that have been trying to help.But to reach the millenium objective o halving poverty and extreme poverty is not only important to do it by these year (2015) but to do it significantly after it, giving tools not only money to people in rural areas mostly.
I think that as the name of the program states it, "Oportunidades", opportunities must be given to poor people, jobs and education to start with, not only money which will be spent in the short run but will fail to solve the ultimate mean which is halving poverty.
There are big differences between the poor people who live in rural areas and the poor people who live in urban areas in Mexico. In 2005 the average income in urban sectors was 3,002.7 pesos, while it was only 1,221.9 pesos in rural sectors. The urban areas experience a much faster growth than the rural areas, which have had a very stagnant growth since 1980. This is also shown by the fact that extreme poverty is mostly a rural phenomenon in Mexico.
ResponderEliminarThe government in Mexico has tried to help the poor people in rural areas through cash transfer programs, such as Oportunidades and Procampo. The incomes of the poor people in rural areas have actually increased owing to these programs. However, these programs are not effective in the long term. A more sustainable and effective solution in the attempt to decrease poverty in rural areas, would be to generate the development of the economic activities that are associated to the rural activities.
I agree with the authors that when it comes to improving the poverty situation in rural areas, the government should change their focus. The government should rather then giving the people money, try to provide them with tools, equipment and ideas that would help them to be able to earn their own money. It is logic that poor people who live in urban areas have a bigger average income and a faster growth, since there are more job opportunities and more job options in urban areas than i rural areas. The government should probably prioritize the poor people in the rural areas when designing their programs, but still not forget about the people in the urban areas.
Q1：According to the same criteria of measuring poverty, there are obviously more poor people in the rural area than in the urban area. (In 1992, the proportion of people living with less than one dollar a day was 13.4 and 0.8 per cent; the proportion of people not meeting their daily nourishment necessities was 35.6 and 13.4 per cent, in rural and urban areas respectively.)
ResponderEliminarRural income is lower than urban income and the income growth rate is lower in the rural area. (During the period 2000-2005, rural and urban average incomes registered annual growth rates of around 0.3 and 1.1 per cent, respectively. In 2005, average income in the rural sector was 1,221.9 pesos, while that in the urban sector was 3,002.7 pesos.)
Halving poverty in urban area is faster than in rural area. (Halving poverty incidence and poverty intensity seems to be a plausible event in urban areas, as they only have to grow at rates around 1 per cent per year to achieve the objective by 2015. Nevertheless, accomplishing it in rural areas would require little less than a miracle –assuming that their growth performance in the past continues during the next 10 years.)
Q2：The government has mitigated poverty in rural areas through cash transfer programs, such as “Oportunidades” and “Procampo”. They have been effective in increasing the income of poor people living in these areas. However, these programs may not be sufficient to halve poverty by 2015.The lack of income is just one of the problems of the poor people, they also need basic infrastructure and facilities.
Q3：As for the poverty in the urban area, to halve the poverty (by the criteria of income) is not that difficult because the income and the income growth in these areas are higher. However, poor people in these areas need much more income because the living cost in cities is higher. As the living standard in cities is definitely higher, poor people expect more resources and opportunities to live in “dignity” and not feel inferior.
As for the poverty in the rural area, although the required living cost is lower in these areas, the per capita incomes in rural areas have been practically stagnant, meeting the goals of fighting poverty for rural areas seems to be very unlikely. Moreover, rural areas are in desperately need of basic infrastructure and living facilities. The quality of education and medical services is also a problem need to address.
There is a big difference when it comes to poverty if you are living in a rural or in an urban area in Mexico. For example, between the years 2000-2005 the annual growth for urban area was 1.1 per cent while for the rural part is was 0.3. In 2005 the average income for the people in the rural parts was 3,002.7 pesos while in the urban parts it was 1,221.9 pesos. It has been set out goals, the Millennium Development Goals to reduce the poverty. This consist in two parts; to halve the amount of population that has an income below one dollar per day and to halve the amount of people that are suffering from hunger, this should be met by 2015. If the rural sector should be able to meet the goals, that means that the growth must grow eight time faster than during the period 2000-2005 while for the urban sector the goal has already been met (and there is an estimated neagtive groqht instead), since the income that is requirted is 1.704.4 pesos. The result is that the extreme poverty is connected to the rural sector.
ResponderEliminarMeet the goals seems quite likely for the urban sector since what they will acchieve, regarding the income, in one year will take the rural sector 30 years (if the have the same growth). The goverment has started different programs to reduce the poverty, Oportunidades and Procampo, which has resulted in higher income but it will not be enought to meet the goals.
Poverty usually connects with money and eventhough if has a lot to do with it, it is not everything. Is also means lack of opportunities and resources. And that is something that we can see in these two types of poverty. From above we can see that is is a difference between the rural and the urban section and eventhough lack of money money is not a synonyme to poverty it leads to less possibilities. We really hope that the the fight against poverty will continue and that each of us can contribute with something that will help Mexico win the fight.
Riia and Jeanna
Based on the income there is a big difference between poverty in rural and urban areas. The average income according to the article in urban areas is 3,002 pesos, while the average income in rural areas is less than half of this, with 1,221 pesos. Also the growth rates between these two kinds of poverties show a significant growth in the urban areas while stays short in rural areas.
ResponderEliminarOportunidades and Procampo are two programs that have been trying to help.But to reach the millenium objective o halving poverty and extreme poverty is not only important to do it by these year (2015) but to do it significantly after it, giving tools not only money to people in rural areas mostly.
I think that as the name of the program states it, "Oportunidades", opportunities must be given to poor people, jobs and education to start with, not only money which will be spent in the short run but will fail to solve the ultimate mean which is halving poverty.