"A Time of Transition for EGR" -- by John Hammock, President, EGR Board of Directors

As President of the EGR Board of Directors, I want to dedicate this blog to reporting on Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation in this time of transition. Michael Kinman is stepping down as Executive Director at the end of March after over three years in that position. Michael began as Executive Director just as EGR became a legalized not- for-profit. From the beginning our mission has not been just to promote the Millennium Development Goals, but rather to lift up the Gospel of Jesus as we called for conversion—in our personal lives and in our commitment to end poverty. Michael never wavered from this commitment. His leadership, enthusiasm and dogged determination have helped EGR become a beacon of hope for many and an example of what a new type of organization can be.

EGR decided early on that it did not want to grow its own institution. Rather it was to grow a movement, building on the work of individuals, churches and Dioceses. EGR has kept its staff to the Executive Director and one half-time administrative assistant—even as its programs have extended nationwide and as it has sponsored event after event using the internet. EGR is the epitome of a non-hierarchical agency modeling a new approach to organizations within a very hierarchical church.

As EGR transitions to a new Executive Director the organization is committed to continue this organizational model. In our first three years, EGR has focused on the MDGs—first raising awareness and commitments on the 0.07% target for giving and later also on education and advocacy on these goals. This continues to be a primary focus of EGR.

From the very beginning EGR has reached out to young people. We have felt that a movement to eradicate poverty was a way to reach out to young people and to get them involved in the work of the church. The dynamism and active involvement of young folks in our work has proved us right.

This past year we instituted a Rule of Life and offered this up to our members. The idea was for people to commit to daily prayer and action and to know that a group of Christians were working to support each other in our commitments to end poverty. We will continue to look for ways to deepen this type of personal commitment and support structure—giving us a concrete way to show our daily solidarity with those who are less fortunate.

This past November the EGR Board decided that it could not be silent in this defining moment of our Church and our society—a time when the economic crisis engulfs not just those who are poor but many of those who have felt financially secure. EGR has begun a series of internal discussions on what its role should be, how it should frame the debate on this economic crisis—and its impact on the MDGs, poverty and the church as we know it. This will be a core challenge for EGR—to hold fast our commitment to personal conversion and personal action as we build a movement, to continue to promote the MDGs through individual, church and Diocesan action and, in addition, to begin a dialogue within the Episcopal Church to deal creatively with the financial and economic crisis we now live, seizing it as a defining moment in our lives. As such, how we respond is essential for us as we struggle to be Christians in today’s changing world.

I ask all of you who are concerned about EGR and its work to keep us in your prayers as we go through the process of finding a new Executive Director. I also ask you to pray for Mike as he moves on to his new challenges in St. Louis. Together we will continue to make a difference through EGR; together we will continue to be creative, breaking traditional boundaries and conventional thinking, building a movement that puts Christ at its center—calling for personal conversion and a personal commitment to living out our faith.

Thank you for your support, for your prayers and for your steadfast commitments to making a difference in this world.

Dr. John Hammock is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at The Fletcher School, Tufts University and works with Sabina Alkire as a research associate at the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, John was Executive Director at Oxfam America from 1984-1995 and Executive Director at ACCION International from 1973-1980. He is the EGR board president

"The Role of Government" -- by John Hammock

Up until just a few weeks ago, growth, spurred by the private sector and the market, was the centerpiece of development thinking. If you believe that growth in the economy will benefit everyone in the end, why would you need government services to serve the poor? Well, hand in hand with an unwavering faith in economic growth has been a move to “let the economy do it.”

There has been a full frontal attack on the role of the state—by those who believe that privatization is best and government should downsize. These suggestions have been made where healthcare has been concerned and it has not worked. The Millennium Project points out that for the last 20 years there has been a focus on the producer-consumer, privatized and fee-for-service model to improve systemic health care issues. Governments have asserted that there would be programs to help the most poor to procure healthcare, while others would buy healthcare services. However, this has not been effective at providing health care for all and one of the major barriers facing women who die due to maternal health issues continues to be access to affordable healthcare. Subsequently, the Millennium Project advocates making fundamental changes to the way health care reforms have been conceptualized by highlighting the importance of government.

The state is the only body that can look beyond private interests and keep an eye on the needs, rights and responsibilities of all citizens. It does not have a mandate to profit and should not become tired of serving the public. It is the responsibility of the state to regulate corporations and ensure that society is meeting the needs of all its members.

Government has a strong role to play in poverty reduction. This flies in the face of the dominant neo-liberal economic ideology that calls for government to cut services and to downsize. Some suggest that civil society can pick up the slack where governments have become inactive. That’s misguided thinking. Private charity, including Church charirity, is not enough—not enough money and not enough sustainability. NGOs do not have the resources that governments do. Additionally, they do not often have country-wide strategies for poverty reduction, rather they are locally based or focused. One NGO, with the best of intentions, may arrive in a country and build a number of clinics in one area and another NGO may come in and build a few clinics in another area. While it may be positive to increase the number of clinics in a country, this activity could be inefficient or scattered and thus ineffective. If NGOs are not working as part of a coordinated health approach that helps to meet an overall strategy for health care in the country, their activity may not be meeting the country’s needs. And this coordination must come from a national or state body has that has political legitimacy.

Additionally, if NGO, church, corporate or individual efforts to help others is based on benevolence or charity, it’s going to work for a day or two and maybe even a number of years. However, when that NGO, corporation or individual gets tired of giving, decides it wants to give for something else or its donors pull the funds, then the charity is going to end and those resources will leave. And then what? Do we just tell a community that its healthcare isn’t important enough to sustain? So the issue is how to build programs that are sustainable over time. The answer is to work to ensure that governments have the ability to strengthen and sustain their own systems and to provide the policy incentives and frameworks for private as well as public services. Yes, this is harder than just donating money to a local nonprofit. Yes, this is a mind change about working with governments rather than only putting our faith in the private sector—profit or non-profit.. And yes, it’s easy to say and incredibly tough to do. However, if real change is going to occur, it’s what we have to do.

Governments do not have to be wealthy to provide the context for human development and services that will cut poverty and help to meet the Millennium Development Goals. Money is important, but it is not the only thing required. Government will and policies are as important, if not more important, than funding.

Maternal mortality is highest in sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia and lowest in industrialized countries like the United States. However, one shouldn’t assume that just because a country is in the Global South, it is destined for a high maternal mortality rate. The case of Cuba, a country with 33 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, when other countries in Latin America are in the 100s, shows that it is possible for a developing country to successfully implement a maternal health strategy. It is hard to use Cuba as an example, since political ideology gets wrapped up into the discussion before one even finishes mentioning the country’s name. And we are certainly not advocating for the Cuban system of government. However, Cuba has done a good job at using limited funds in a way that responds to maternal health needs. In 1990, when the Soviet Union fell, Cuba lost its largest trading partner as well as a large amount of economic assistance, totaling an estimated $4 billion to $6 billion annually. Although the government cut its overall spending dramatically, it did not drop education and health completely and still considered health a priority for the country’s budget. It’s expenditure of 6.5% of GDP on health shows political will to keep the health system strong. Other countries that spend 6.5% of GDP on health include Canada and Switzerland. Political will and resulting government decisions on money, even in poor countries, can greatly impact maternal health and social services in general.

1 UN Millennium Project, Who’s Got the Power, 39-41.
2 Ibid., 109.
3 See Ibid., 102 for a chart on the renovations of country health systems that are suggested in order to make systems work better for maternal health.
4 See statistics for individual countries at UNICEF, Information by Country, Statistics Pages: http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry.
5 United States International Trade Commission. The Economic Impact of U.S. Sanctions With Respect to Cuba, Washington D.C., February 2001, USITC Publication 3398, 3-8 (78). http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/332/pub3398.pdf. (Accessed December 23, 2005.)
6 Acosta, Dalia. 2002. “HEALTH-CUBA: Maternal-Infant Mortality Down Despite Crisis.” Inter Press Service, January 16, 2002. http://ww2.aegis.org/news/ips/2002/IP020103.html. (Accessed December 23, 2005.)
7 United Nations Development Program. Human Development Report 2005: International Cooperation at a Crossroads: Aid Trade and Security in an Unequal World. “Human Development Indicators: Table 6: Commitment to health: resources, access and services,” 236.
8 Ibid.

"Practical Idealists" -- by Dr. John Hammock

The following is taken from the new book I co-authored. EGR believes that its work to promote the MDGs is a way to build a movement for spiritual transformation as well as to help those in poverty. The book Practical Idealists: Changing the World and Getting Paid was not written specifically for Christians; however, it is relevant, I believe, to the work of those who struggle to blend personal transformation, working for social change and making enough money to survive. The following is taken from different parts of the first chapter of the book.

Practical idealists can have any type of educational background and work in the private, public or nonprofit sectors. They can also self identify in any number of ways, including Type A, Type B, traditional, or nonconformist. A practical idealist might be an MBA who wouldn’t touch a pair of Birkenstocks or a hemp-wearing environmentalist. In organizations throughout the country, these are the people who have asked themselves questions about how they can have a life that they enjoy, make an impact on society, and still pay the bills.

Practical idealists

* See a connection between their individual choices and social change;
* Take time to evaluate their actions and choices in light of their value system;
* Are not content to merely envision positive change but are committed to making choices in their own lives that will help them bring that change about;
* Are well informed about their options.

…They have all confronted the questions that you may be currently facing:

* Can I be an idealist in today’s world?
* Can I make enough to live reasonably well and also live out my values and my idealistic dreams?
* Can I have meaning in my life through my work, my relationships, and my free time?

[Our] answer was a resounding "yes!"

Practical Idealists: Changing the World and Getting Paid is intended to encourage and inspire, as well as provide concrete tools for making the kinds of choices and decisions necessary for the practical idealist life. Through examples and exercises, the book explores

* Clarify your values and passions
* Learn relevant skills
* Find work
* Understand money issues and personal finance
* Create supportive community, and
* Use college and graduate school effectively.

…The interplay between your passions and your values will be the foundation for your practical idealism. For example, if you hold economic fairness as a value and are passionate about the environment, you might work for good air quality in economically disadvantaged regions. On the other hand, if you are excited by politics and its processes, you might work for equity by lobbying local governments to provide low-income housing for their citizens or work in government to enact legislation for school improvement. Thinking seriously about your values and your passions allows you to shape the form your practical idealism will take…

Take some time to read and answer the questions below. Write down what first comes to your mind and then consider whether that is genuinely what you believe at your core…

Spend the time to answers these questions even if you think you know exactly what you want to do to express your practical idealism. Doing this exercise can only serve to solidify what you have already established. The practical idealists we spoke with took the time to check-in with themselves about what they were doing and these types of questions allow you to do that.

1. What are your values? What do you believe in?...
2. What are your passions?...
3. How much is enough?

Your financial needs and desires will play a large role in your answer to this question. As our
practical idealists will vouch, however, “How much is enough?” does not just apply to money. [It also applies, among other things, to your time, your idea of success, and prestige.] What is
'enough' success?

Dr. John Hammock is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy & The Fletcher School, Tufts University. Currently working with the Rev. Dr. Sabina Alkire as a senior research associate at the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, John was Executive Director at Oxfam America from 1984-1995 and Executive Director at ACCION International from 1973-1980. He is the president of the EGR board.

"India, Market Economics and Poverty" -- by Dr. John Hammock

I just returned from India. The magnitude of India is staggering. Over one billion people. India’s economy is booming. Economists gloat over the fact that India’s growth rate over the last few years has been dramatic—and they say it shows that the liberalization of market forces in India has worked.

It is true that the national Indian economy is growing. Things look rosy if we just look at that overall economic indicator of success. If you look under the surface of this one dimension, however, we see that India is still a country of staggering poverty. Over one third of the world’s poor live in India. It also has a higher proportion of its population living on less than $2 per day than even sub-Saharan Africa. That is the sobering news coming out of the World Bank's latest estimates on global poverty. The fine print of the estimates also shows that the rate of decline of poverty in India was faster between 1981 and 1990 than between 1990 and 2005. In other words, the pro-market reforms, which started in 1991, have failed to reduce poverty at a faster rate.

While the rich have been getting richer in India and while the middle class has expanded, the poor in India have not seen the benefits of market-led economic growth. The disparity between rich and poor is growing.

I was in India to attend the Annual Conference of the Human Development and Capability Association, HDCA. This is an Association of academics and practitioners who believe that economics should be about more that increasing Gross Domestic Product, more than just focused on growth. The goal of economics should not just be growth. The goal must be the flourishing or wellbeing of all members of the society. Growth is one tool, but it must be combined with a concern for other aspects of wellbeing—such as education, health, security, even dignity and empowerment. While we do not hear in the United States from economists who believe that economic systems can be based on the notion of building from what people value and have reason to value (that is, on the ideas of personal wellbeing and freedom), these ideas are much more common in other countries.

We can see from our own economic woes, the losses on Wall Street, the collapse of large finance and banking ventures that our economy based on a purely free market system has not worked. Our government has come to the rescue of large businesses. But this is not the solution. The solution rests with the folks that attended the conference in India—a whole new way of looking at economics that puts people first, that allows government to play a crucial role in meeting the common good while preserving the market system. Now is the time not just to focus on the Millennium Development Goals. Of course these Goals are important. But we stand poised to reconsider our whole economic framework. We can hang on to a system that clearly does not work for the poor; it is now not even working well for the richer. Or we can look for an alternative. The Human Development and Capability economists provide us with an alternative—one that puts people first.

If you want to learn more about this approach to economics and in particular its approach to poverty, go to www.ophi.org.uk I work with the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, run by another EGR Board Member, Sabina Alkire (author of What Can One Person Do?: Faith to Heal a Broken World). OPHI is a research and policy effort that is challenging traditional economics and traditional conceptions of poverty. I urge you to join our cause.

I want to end with another note on India. India has recently passed the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. This is a unique scheme that guarantees rural workers a minimum of 100 days a year of employment at the minimum wage. Of course the details are much more complex than this simple one liner. This is not charity; it is payment for an honest day of work. Sixty per cent of India's workforce is self-employed, many of whom remain very poor. More than 90 per cent of the labor force is employed in the "unorganized sector", i.e. sectors which don't provide the social security and other benefits of employment in the "organized sector." It is in this environment that one sees the radical nature of this rural employment guarantee act—a bold initiative to help people survive with dignity, not handouts. If you want to learn more about this, go to www.righttofoodindia.org.

Dr. John Hammock is an associate professor of Public Policy at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy & The Fletcher School, Tufts University. He is also currently working with Sabina Alkire as a senior research associate at the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, John was Executive Director at Oxfam America from 1984-1995 and Executive Director at ACCION International from 1973-1980. John is the president of the EGR board.

"The MDGs -- A Vehicle For The Practical Idealist" -- by Dr. John Hammock

For EGR the work on promoting the Millennium Development Goals is as much about promoting personal transformation as it is about promoting the eight goals of the MDGs. The EGR mission calls us to conversion, to root our work with the MDGs squarely on our faith as Christians. This is why we want to build a movement, not just promote a series of projects overseas. Yes, it is important to help alleviate poverty and suffering overseas. Yes, it is important for our Bishops to march in London to lift up the MDGs. But it is equally important for each of us to pray, study, give and act—to make our personal journey intersect with the work of the MDGs. Please see EGRs mission on our website. Also check out our Rule of Life that incorporates these action-steps.

In today’s blog I want to share a personal story. It is from before the MDG campaign. I share it because for me the struggle to balance social activism and my personal life has been a constant one. As we build our movement we need to be sensitive to where each of us is—and realize that personal transformation and conversion does not mean that we will all be alike or be at the same place. In our faith or in our actions we need to celebrate our differences and realize that each person is on her own journey. I share one experience of mine in the hope that it may resonate with others.

In 1979, I was going through a particularly difficult personal time, struggling with the trade-offs between social activism to eradicate poverty and living a middle class family life in suburban America. I wanted to do both, but I felt that I was constantly compromising my goals of social justice. At one point I went to speak about my dilemma with the minister of the church I was attending. He was an older man with years of experience in a variety of parishes in the United States. He listened intently to my dilemma. He had one, and only one, piece of advice. He said, “John, God is not found only among the poor or behind an outhouse. God is everywhere. God is in relationships. Believe it or not, God is also with the rich.”

My values, my politics and my God had been firmly entrenched in solidarity with the oppressed and the impoverished. I tried to hear the pastor’s words. It has taken me almost a lifetime to understand the deep meaning and validity of those words. For me idealism and social activism are focused primarily on liberating the impoverished from oppression. It seems to me so clear that as long as people are impoverished, all human beings are diminished. But meaning is not only found in working with the impoverished. Meaning can be found in working with the rich, in battling for causes that do not directly relate to the impoverished—the environment, population explosion, the preservation of land and of other species on this planet, the fight for clean and fair elections, the rights of immigrants and labor--the list of possibilities is endless. Practical idealism screams out at us to get involved to further the values of a humane world.

But my pastor friend was going beyond that. He was also insisting that God is found in relationships, that meaning can be found outside of social activism and outside idealistic action to change the world. I have learned over time to take the time for myself for meditation, prayer, silent retreats. These are not self indulgence; they are fuel for the on-going work. And yes, I do believe that God is also found in relationships. They take time and yet, it is in these close personal connections that we learn to trust, that we find a way to express our faith and love.

However, for me, a life just focused on personal relationships or personal transformation is not enough. With the rampant injustice in this world, with the oppression of the poor, with the destruction of the environment, with the imperfect economic and political systems under which we live, with the issues that bombard our senses every day, it seems to me a cop out to pretend that none of this exists and to only value our own journey and our personal relationships. Of course, it is important to take care of oneself. It is important to have meaningful relationships. But it is equally important to be involved in social, economic and political issues to improve our society. Practical idealism calls for involvement, for some level of commitment to social action.

I have just finished a book to be distributed next month by Harvard University Press. In it my co-authors and I lay out some ideas on how to live as a practical idealist in today’s world. Practical Idealists: Changing the World and Getting Paid does not provide a magic bullet, but it does show that it is possible to combine personal transformation and social change. The MDGs are one clear manifestation of pragmatic achievable goals. They cannot be reached just through technology and the work of experts. Rather they will be reached if enough people work to combine social change with their personal transformation. For those of us who are Christian this transformation is grounded in our faith. The MDGs thus become an excellent vehicle for linking the need for social change with a balanced, meaningful, dedicated life, fueled by our faith in a living God. This is a theme for global reconciliation among Episcopalians, among Christians.

Dr. John Hammock is an associate professor of public policy at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy & The Fletcher School, Tufts University. He is currently on leave until September, 2008 and working Sabina Alkire as a senior research associate at the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, John was the Executive Director at Oxfam America from 1984-1995 and Executive Director at ACCION International from 1973-1980. He is the president of the board of Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation.

"The Impoverished of El Salvador: Economic Survival" -- by Dr. John Hammock

The impoverished of El Salvador live under the daily threat of hunger and destitution. Most survive on a daily ration of piecemeal work, luck and pure guts. Women do the housework and contribute to economic survival by washing the clothes or cooking the meals of the rich or working the land with their husbands. In rural areas men work the fields and in urban areas they work the streets for daily jobs. Impoverished families stare daily at the possibility of hunger. Most earn less than $1 a day.

The impoverished face the greatest risk from disasters. They are the most vulnerable to earthquakes, floods, droughts, fires, environmental degradation, economic dislocations and political decisions that eliminate their daily livelihoods. There are no insurance schemes to protect those most at risk. The national and municipal governments do not prioritize assisting the most vulnerable. 

El Salvador is a society in the throes into the maquila business. While the rich are richer and consumer spending has skyrocketed, the impoverished are no better off. With earthquakes at the beginning of 2001 followed by a drought that affected the first planting season, El Salvador's government continues to pursue policies that destroy its natural resources, thus making natural phenomena severe disasters. A large trade deficit is offset almost in its entirety by remittances from Salvadorans living in other countries (mostly the U.S.). Migration has been not only an escape valve for the society, it has also been a major financier of the Salvadoran transition into the globalized economy.

Economic Survival

The people most at risk are hard working members of the impoverished, working poor. Vulnerability is reduced when people own and accumulate assets that they can protect. Vulnerability is also reduced when assets can help to insure the person against the disaster and assist in attracting other services from government. Yet in El Salvador, the working poor live hand to mouth and cannot accumulate assets. Most do not have steady jobs or income. 

Following are how Salvadorans explain it in their own words. (Taken from interviews conducted in 2002):

"Before, people had cows and animals that helped them survive. But as this has become urbanized we are left with nothing. Now women either work in the homes of the rich or we sell. Some sell clothes or ice cream. Some take care of kids or wash or iron or cook for people in the urbanizations. I sell fruit. I go to the market every morning and buy fruit, like watermelon. Then I have a place to sell at a bus stop. I am lucky to have this place. Before, I used to sell on the street. If I need to, I also wash clothes for others to make some money.

"So, I have a long day. I get up early while it is dark to go to the market and I sell until my daughter takes over in the afternoon. Then I get time to come home to cook and to work on community issues." (Mendez)"

"I came to this community after the earthquake of '65. I was in my house when I felt the tremor. I grabbed one child under each arm and ran. none of us got hurt but the hut fell down. I had nothing. I was helped by neighbors. I really lived off charity for a while. A friend told me of this place, that this place was opening up. So I came, thought it was not a great place, living in this ravine. I live in a very humble house, but I have been fixing it up slowly. But every time something happens the house gets ruined, with the heavy rains or the earthquakes. I have seen it all here; but I have no place to go. So, I stay. I make some money sewing clothes. People know that I make dresses or whatever they need made. So I get a bit of business. But now there are so many used clothes that business is almost nonexistent. So, I have to wash or iron. Here you do what you have to do to survive. No one has a full time job, but everybody hustles." (Pastran)

"I am originally from San Miguel. I am 48 years old and have been here for 13 years. I have four children aged 22 to 16. They are all still here. None of them has any steady job. They go out to find day jobs to give us some money to survive. I have been a helper in the kitchen in a restaurant, a pizzeria. That is how we manage to get by." (Osorio)

"I live all alone. I am 61. my mother died not long ago. My wife died a while back. My kids are all grown up and gone. I have eight brothers and sisters. Two are in Guatemala. We are close to the border here, so they went up there to work and did not come back. One went to the United States. he is in Virginia. he sends nothing here. I have a small plot here. I do not have the strength to cultivate most of it; so I only plant what I can. Mostly I plant sweet corn and millet. It is just enough for me to survive." (Carran)

"I have nine kids. The eldest is 18; the youngest is just one year and four months old. Five are boys; four are girls. I am in my mid 30s. I was born here in El Chino. This community is dependent on the sugar cane cooperative that we have here. There are 53 members of the cooperative. The coop gives members a small plot for the family plot. on it we grow sweet corn and millet. We also work on the sugar cane fields. We get paid for three two week periods during the harvest. This is paid at 415 colones ($50) for each two-week period we work. That really is our only cash income for the year." (S. Ayala)

"I am 25 years old. I am a single mom living with my mother. I have two kids; the eldest is eight. I have been here for eight years. I am not a member of the cooperative. I do not have a plot of land. I work as a day laborer; sometimes I can get a job for two weeks at a stretch. Sometimes I can get hired by the cooperative, other times by others. I also fish and go to get shrimp. Fortunately, we live here near the water and can go fishing. The shrimp are there. Also, the community helps me. There is one woman particularly who has helped me. This year we went almost a month with no food. This woman helped me by giving me tortillas to survive." (Alfaro)

"I am 58 years old. I came to this place when I was two. I have lived here all my life. I have been with my wife for 19 years. We have four children -- all of them are boys. The eldest is 18, the youngest 7. When Mitch struck, things were horrible. The water kept rising. The police came to warn us and get us out. I sent my family to higher ground. I stayed to make sure that my house was safe. It did not collapse but it did fall sideways. It was damaged pretty badly. The worst is that I lost my corn. This really was a disaster because that is what we use to survive.

"Our community runs right along the road. We live here on the edge of this large private farm. As you can see he has fences running around his farm so that no one can get in. Some of us work for him when we can. none of us owns this land. He lets some of us grow food for our families on small plots. I do not have to pay rent to him for the two manzanas I farm; but it is his land. I grow sweet corn and millet. I also grow chili peppers. These I do not eat. They are for making a poison to control pests. I also grow some onions that I use to help store the corn. I store the corn in a green plastic garbage bag, mixed with onion. This year I grew a little bit of soybeans. I use this to eat, for meat and milk. It tastes just like meat when you cook it. And we like it. Most of what I grow is for our own use. But every once in a while I get enough so that I can sell some."  (Fuentes)

"Let me lay it out straight. If I go to buy one brick to build the wall of our house, we don't eat that day. If I go out to buy three bricks we die of hunger." (Castro)

But in El Salvador people do not die of hunger; they get by. They survive by working hard in a variety of urban and rural jobs that will never let them advance; but they keep people alive. The impoverished cannot earn enough to accumulate assets; they have no economic power to buy private insurance or insist on public policies and government actions to reduce the risks that plague them.

Dr. John Hammock is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at The Fletcher School, Tufts University. He is currently on leave until September, 2008 and working with Sabina Alkire as a senior research associate at the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative. John was Executive Director at Oxfam America from 1984-1995 and Executive Director at ACCION International from 1973-1980. John is the president of the board of EGR. 

 

"Hunger, Poverty and Economic Change" -- by John Hammock with the Rev. Gary Cartwright

Hunger riots, the cost of food soaring, soup kitchen lines getting longer--even in the United States. What is one to do? As Christians we know that if someone is hungry we need to give her food. We know that Jesus himself calls us to feed the hungry—as if we were feeding Jesus himself. But we also know that pure charity is not enough. People do not want to be dependent on charity over time. They want to be free to grow their own food, to start their own businesses—to have the opportunities to make it on their own with their families and communities. As Christians we give food gladly but we also must help people and communities as they move beyond charity. We can invest in micro credit and agricultural development programs; we can contribute to programs that fall within the goals of the Millennium Development Goals—from safe water to children’s education, from maternal health to community and environmental sustainable development in which local people own the process of local change.

I remember speaking to Fatima in Ethiopia. She had lost two of her small children to famine. Food had saved her other two young ones. When I spoke to her, she was clear that she did not want to be dependent on food aid. She wanted to move back to her own land again—to get on with her own life and make it in her own community. We need to be ready to help in a timely way in both these stages of her journey.

These two pillars are crucial—feeding people in need and assisting in the process of change leading to sustained development. But they are not enough. To solve the perennial problem of hunger, it is important to step back and look at the broader picture of poverty and economics.

Very simply, our current economic system is based on the assumption that if the national economy grows then the economy is doing well. Clearly the growth-based strategy makes some very wealthy; it unleashes invention and entrepreneurship. But the benefits do not trickle down to the majority of the poor. This growth-based strategy also produces more inequality and poverty over time. The very economic system that focuses on growth often exacerbates or leads to increased hunger. Unless we do something about our economic fixation on growth and income, we will not deal with hunger or with poverty. What can we do?

We must educate ourselves as to a new economics that accepts growth but moves beyond it to include what people value and have reason to value. Perhaps this is illustrated by the following equation: Freedom = growth +.

What does this mean?

Economics is not just about income and growth; it is about the freedom of each individual to do what he values or has reason to value. We all know that we value more than money. It means putting value on education, health, personal security, dignity and more. The wellbeing of its citizens becomes essential. It means putting a value on individual freedom. It means investing in the development and then promotion of a new approach to economics. This in turn means having a solid theoretical framework and good evidence based research to sustain such an approach.

This is not an argument against growth. Rather it is a plea in favor of broadening the dimensions that are essential to economics and development. It means that growth becomes a means to a goal, not an end in itself. It means that education, nutrition, health, empowerment, personal safety, employment and potentially other dimensions are given value and fall within the models and frameworks of national economics.

For example, if poverty is defined not just by income but rather includes some range of the types of things that people value given above, then our programs to deal with hunger and poverty will be shaped by this way of thinking rather than from the perspective of pure growth.

Governments and corporations can and must play a crucial role in putting people’s well being, not growth, at the top of their priorities. But we cannot leave this only to governments and corporations. Individuals have a crucial role. [See What One Person Can Do by Sabina Alkire and Edward Newell] And the church can mobilize people for this role. The Rev. Gary Cartwright, deacon in the Diocese of Southwest Florida, stated it this way:

Can we start a conversation that would grow and include others that is solution-orientated (not just hand-wringing)?…The intent would be to find solutions that would engage many others at the grass-roots level that could eventually change the political will of US and foreign world leaders.

Gary says (and I agree) that one place where that conversation could start is here at EGR. The earliest of Christians certainly focused on the role of economics. Gary writes:

When we look at the original group of Christians (as told in the Acts of the Apostles) it was a society where every new person joining turned over all their goods to the apostles who then distributed them according to the needs of the community. We don’t know what happened to that economic system, but it seems to have died pretty soon after. So, in my mind there is a direct connection between living as a disciple of Jesus Christ, and the participation in a fair and just economic system.

Gary ends by saying that he is not proposing the early apostles' economic system. Rather,

We do need a new economic system that is more than profit/bottom line oriented, and includes personal dignity, health, education, personal security and the like.. However, it needs to encourage personal initiative, a community understanding of our inter-connectedness, without establishing a world-wide government that imposes on personal liberties.

To deal with the current hunger crisis, charity and development aid are important. But equally relevant is rethinking our economics so that people’s wellbeing is at its center. Christians need to be involved at all three levels. Gary calls us to start a solution-based conversation on the need for a new economic system. It is a role for EGR.

For more information on this type of economic thinking please see
www.ophi.org.uk and www.hd-ca.org

Dr. John Hammock is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy & The Fletcher School, Tufts University. He is currently on leave until September, 2008 and working Sabina Alkire as a senior research associate at the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, John was Executive Director at Oxfam America from 1984-1995 and Executive Director at ACCION International from 1973-1980. He is the EGR board president.

"Giving it for Good" -- by John Hammock

This week, EGR launched the Give it for Good campaign to" urge people to contribute to MDG programs the money the US Government is about to send out to folks to stimulate the economy. This is worthwhile because it will raise money for the MDGs. But equally, if not more importantly it focuses on the fact that we in the richer countries need to look at how we spend our resources.

Working for a better world is not an abstract concept. And it does not just require money. It requires our own personal transformation. Every day we spend money; every day we make decisions about what to buy, what to support with our dollars. Do we buy fair traded goods? Do we buy clothes that are made in sweat shops? Do we purchase fuel efficient, energy efficient goods—from cars to light bulbs? Yes, change has to take place also at the national and international level. But it starts with us and what we do.

I am co-authoring a book about to be published called Practical Idealists: Changing the World and Getting Paid. The book tracks how over forty young people in our country have chosen to live out their values in their work. We found that it is first important to know what your values are. What do you believe in? In the case of Christians—do these values come from the Gospel? How would you articulate these? And then it is good to be in tune with your passion—what makes you tick, or get up in the morning.

“The interplay between your passions and your values will be the foundation for your practical idealism. For example, if you hold economic fairness as a value and are passionate about the environment, you might work for good air quality in economically disadvantaged regions. On the other hand, if you are excited by politics and its processes, you might work for equity by lobbying local governments to provide low-income housing for their citizens or work in government to enact legislation for school improvement. Thinking seriously about your values and your passions allows you to shape the form your practical idealism will take.”
Values and passion are important. But crucial is also asking yourself how much is enough? What do you want/need in terms of money, time, and/or recognition (success/prestige)? And can you live your life—including your spending habits—within these?

“Like it or not, one of the thorniest dilemmas facing those who wish to be practical idealists is how to have enough money to live well, but also have a job that allows them to have meaning in life. John often hears students say that they cannot take a practical idealist job and live well. There may be some truth to this; it depends on your definition of living well. It is possible in today’s world to live well and do good with a job in education, nonprofits, government, public service, farming or small-scale businesses. Likewise, practical idealists can be attorneys, physicians, mutual fund managers, or corporate executives-- they just need to avoid being sucked into a way of life that precludes mindfulness and doing good for society.”

The EGR campaign Give it for Good reminds us that it is all too easy to be sucked into a way of life that precludes mindfulness and doing good for society. What we do with our money matters; the choices we make every day matter. It is part of our discernment of how to be open to personal transformation in all aspects of our lives.

Editor's note: Find out more about Give It For Good at www.giveit4good.org. Take the pledge to give 100%, 10% or 0.7% of your "economic stimulus check" (or, if you don't qualify for a check, what you would be getting if you did qualify) to organizations of your choice supporting the MDGs. There are also advocacy actions and resources for personal and congregational study of the issues of consumption, consumerism and Christianity.
Dr. John Hammock is Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy & The Fletcher School, Tufts University. Currently on leave until September, 2008 and working for Sabina Alkire as a senior research associate at the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative. John was Executive Director at Oxfam America from 1984-1995 and Executive Director at ACCION International from 1973-1980. John is the president of the board of Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation.

"Development and Relief" -- by Dr. John Hammock

You—as a church, a diocese or an individual-- decide you want to have a relationship with a church or a church group overseas. Do you focus on relief programs or on longer term development? Do you focus on helping to meet immediate needs, such as food and shelter, or do you work for longer term solutions to poverty?

Development is a process of becoming, a permanent process of change that attempts to meet basic needs and enhance the security and well-being of people. Within this process people, churches, communities and societies run risks that can torpedo this process. These risks can become emergencies sparked by specific events such as hurricanes, earthquakes, conflict wars and/or public policies (such as severe economic or resource exploitation) that over time aggravate vulnerabilities and ignite discontent. All people, communities and societies are more or less vulnerable to these risks. Some people, churches and communities manage their risks through public, church or family insurance schemes that protect their assets and their lives. Others are much more vulnerable to one type of risk or another.

The long-term development process is a kaleidoscope of political, social, cultural and economic factors that impact the lives of individuals, communities and societies. At each level development is taking place; at each level there is concern about how to manage risk to enhance not only saving lives but also insuring the long-term stability of development efforts.

Dealing with risk management and with the reduction of vulnerabilities for members of communities is a key aspect of the development enterprise. Effective development insures that people’s risk is minimized by potential hazards (natural and man-made) that may torpedo the advances made by development. Good development attempts to minimize and mitigate possible hazards, not add to them. Development efforts must be cognizant of how they affect vulnerabilities and how they may have (even unwittingly) negative unintended consequences.

Relief efforts must also not be undertaken as a one-time, short-term measure in response to an isolated event. Events are not isolated. Knowing the context will help to insure that emergency events are viewed within the full development context of the people, communities and societies. Every emergency intervention will have a long-term impact. How it is done can help foster development or help destroy it. A small project can often be the beginning of a broader process of change. The process of how relief is done, therefore, is crucial. Relief, the reduction of vulnerabilities and the management of risk are an integrated part of the life of any person, community and society.

The duality and separation that exists in many frameworks of relief and development must be broken down. The continuum concept between relief and development is not helpful, for it fails to understand the very interconnectedness of both processes. Effective work needs a framework that allows for innovative, integrated approaches to mitigation, prevention, emergency response and development.

It is not enough to want to do good, to have good intentions. It is not enough to focus on one or more of the Millennium Development Goals. It is important to understand how the work undertaken fits within the broader change taking place both in the local group and society. To be effective it helps to have agreement on the concepts of relief and development. It is also important to discuss and agree on a broad framework of development.

Dr. John Hammock is an associate professor of Public Policy at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy & The Fletcher School, Tufts University. Currently on leave until September, 2008 and working Sabina Alkire as a senior research associate at the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative. John was the Executive Director at Oxfam America from 1984-1995 and Executive Director at ACCION International from 1973-1980. John is the president of the EGR board.

"10 Essential Principles of Effective MDG Ministry" - by Dr. John Hammock

Many of us get involved at the community or church level with MDG work. In my experience, whether one is working for a non-profit or a church, a government or an international organization, the work needs to be based on some sound principles. Below I summarize what I have found to be essential principles for effective work. These were originally written for a secular audience, but they readily apply to work by churches. If your church is thinking of working with a partner church overseas, these principles should be addressed. There are times when these principles may be mutually incompatible and the actors involved may need to decide which takes precedence over the other.

1. Accountability. This means being held responsible for one’s actions—to the community, to donors, to government, to the church. It means openness to evaluations and monitoring by all stakeholders. It means responsibility over time for actions committed. Build in the following types of actions: scheduled meetings with stakeholders, formal monitoring and evaluations, periodic review of actions with churches, funders, communities and government. Accountability means making available funds to insure that actions are documented and responsibility accepted over time. It means being open to measuring the impact of a program or partnership.
2. Participation/ownerhip. This means the community (or church) has ownership of the program and project. It is not just community participation in providing workers, in “doing” projects, or in attending meetings. Effective participation uses the strengths and talents of local people and helps to build their ownership of the program. The results become community assets—organizations, skills, infrastructure, etc.
3. People as People not Victims. This means seeing the worth, abilities and competencies of local people and building on these. It means abolishing the view of development and relief subjects as recipients or as victims or even as beneficiaries. They are participants and owners of a change process. Use of terms is important as terms help define frameworks, values and methods. Use of terms such as victims and the poor connote passive, unfortunate dependent people. Impoverished, owners, participants, partners better reflect the principle of participation/ownership.
4. Transparency. This means openness in all that one does, from methodology to objectives to finances. This means openness with communities, with donors, with churches, with vestries, etc.
5. Non-Partisan. This means not being tied to any one political party or partisan idea of change. It does not mean being apolitical, since all development work is political. Non-partisan means putting the needs of partner communities or partner churches first, not the political gain of a particular political party or group.
6. Solidarity-Trust. This means building trust with local community and church partners. The best way to build this trust is through the development of bonds of solidarity between the churches or partners. This means that the relationship is not limited to a specific project. The project becomes a tool for the building of a wider relationship to promote full development. One needs to open to the reality that this may lead to work to engage the socio-political and economic structures to reduce promote the necessary efforts to meet the MDGs.
7. Sustainability. This means that the church or community is trained and empowered to maintain the work that is begun to the best of its ability and potential. Sustainability is a dynamic concept and means for sustainability change over time. Sustainability means focusing on solutions that use resources in efficient and renewable ways, building local capacities to continue the work undertaken without outside intervention.
8. Division of labor. This means preserving and building the institutional structures that allow for effective ongoing spiritual and social renewal. You as the outsider need to fit into the plans of the host church or community. It is important to realize what gifts each partner has and try to use those gifts most effectively.
9. People Count. This means that church or community leaders and members count. Effective programs bank on effective community or church leaders and promoters of change. Meeting the MDGs is not just about efficiency and meeting numerical targets. People and their general wellbeing are important.
10. Timing. This means understanding local realities so that advantage is taken of doing things at the most appropriate time. It means listening to the local partners who know what can and cannot be done at a given time. Effective timing can make or ruin a program.

Dr. John Hammock is an associate professor of public policy at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy & The Fletcher School, Tufts University. He is currently on leave until September, 2008 and working Sabina Alkire as a senior research associate at the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, Was Executive Director at Oxfam America from 1984-1995 and Executive Director at ACCION International from 1973-1980. John is the EGR board president.

"The MDGs and Personal Transformation" by Dr. John Hammock

At EGR we are all about the Millennium Development Goals. We take our inspiration from the work of Jesus among the poor—his insistence that we share with others, that we treat others as we would treat ourselves. But today I want to write about another part of the equation—our own transformation and lives. It is easy to write a check to ERD or OXFAM. It is even relatively easy to be informed about what is going on overseas—perhaps a Sunday school talk on hunger or a gripping program on the crisis in Darfur on TV.

It is much more difficult to listen to the words of Jesus who calls us to reflection and action. In my last entry in this blog, I talked about how much is enough in our society. How do we balance what Jesus has to say about giving away material goods (the ability to let go of all) with our current culture of consumption and accumulation?

But Jesus does not just call us to not treasure, hoard or covet worldly goods. Jesus calls us each to confront our own lives—our own egos and ways of living and being. Jesus calls us to help the poor, but also to have this be but an outward manifestation of an inward spiritual growth—an acceptance of a radical way to live.

I say radical because Jesus is not one to feed us pabulum. Jesus calls us to live our lives every day as if it were our last day, to be cognizant in all we do of Jesus and what he calls us to be and do. Let me share with you what this means to me.

God is within each of us. God is not something out there; God is right inside each of us. We need but listen. We are free to listen or to ignore the God within us. If we say yes to this God, then we must take the time to discern what God is telling us. We need to stop to take the time to reflect, meditate—yes, pray. The more we can put the videos of our mind at rest (or to the side), the more we can name and acknowledge our own egos and the power tricks it plays on us, the more we will slowly begin to listen to God.

At this wintry time of year, there is much talk about Light. Scriptures focus on the light shining in the darkness, light enkindling our hearts and shining forth in our lives. We need but acknowledge that the light lives within us (“God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts” Galatians 3), capture that light and then let the light shine through in everything we do—not just feeding the hungry, but also in our daily work, our daily relationships, our daily shopping habits.

For it is not enough to listen to the inner voice of God. Last month I recommended Into the Silent Land by Martin Laird. For me it has been essential to take the time to be silent, to learn to slow down in order to run again. Part of this has been meditation and prayer (and yoga). But solitude and prayer is not enough.

Another part of this for me has been pure and simple gratitude. I truly resonated this month with Albert Nolan. He writes in Jesus Today: A Spirituality of Radical Freedom: “Personal transformation in the spirit of Jesus would have to include the development of a grateful heart.” We have so much. “Gratefulness is an alternative attitude to all of life.” We are encouraged by some of our leaders to live in fear, to protect what we have, to dwell on the negative. But Jesus calls us to hope; Jesus calls us to love life and live the life we have with gratitude and love. “It is challenging to develop and maintain a grateful heart in the midst of intolerable suffering and evil.” We cannot ignore evil; we cannot ignore the suffering and pain. But we must not allow it to destroy our “spirit of humble gratitude.” (See Nolan’s book chapter 10 for all these quotes.)

Having taken the time to listen to the inner voice of God and having been grateful for the love that we have in Jesus and for all that we have each day, we then must decide to act. For Jesus does not call most of us to radical contemplation. Rather he calls us to radical freedom—to do what needs to be done to bring the message of hope, peace and love to all. And this at times requires us to be bold, to be provocative, to go against institutions, even religious and civil laws that burden us and laden us down.

One can dismiss the MDGs by just treating them like one more program, one more panacea that probably will not work. Or we can sign on to the MDGs as a way of articulating part of the vision of change needed in today’s world—the outward societal part of the vision. But for this to provoke real change there must also be spiritual transformation-- for us as Christians fully based on the words and actions of Jesus. “For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest…” (Isaiah 61) We are called to action, to love our neighbors and our enemies, to forgive those who we perceive do us wrong, to stand up for what is right—even throwing the money changers out of the church or the corrupt officials out of office, or waging peace through non violent protest.

Jesus is not easy to follow. Jesus requires much of us. We must start by giving thanks for our lives, for Jesus and for being able to feel the strength of his teachings. We must reflect, meditate and pray. Then we must let God’s light shine through us in everything we do—not shying away from the little and the large battles—with faith and hope, not fear and hate. If we are able to follow Jesus in this, and people of faith in other religions can do the same within their traditions, then we can see the world ending hunger, reducing child mortality, ending maternal deaths and having the will to tackle all the goals of the MDGs.

Dr. John Hammock is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy & The Fletcher School, Tufts University. Currently on leave until September, 2008 and working Sabina Alkire as a senior research associate at the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, Was Executive Director at Oxfam America from 1984-1995 and Executive Director at ACCION International from 1973-1980. John is the president of the board of Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation.