« The macroeconomic bias | Main | Trident and feudalism »

December 05, 2006


james higham

6. Many of the extremely poor get income from more than one source. Cultivating their own land is not always the main source of income.

This very much describes the Russian situation. Even the poorest household sports at least one TV and income comes from many undeclared sources. It must. Plus the family is more extended and the infrastructure more complex. They often survive through networking and windfalls.

Alex (in a professional capacity)

Any data on mobile phone penetration?


Interesting I particularly am intrigued by the data on satisfaction- given one of the justifications for redistribution has to be
that it secures the safety of society showing that the truly poor are not disatisfied is intriguing. Maybe it takes a modicum of wealth to be disatisfied- like the artisan rebels of Victorian England.


Interesting survey, although I find that their attitude a little dehumanised. They seem surprised that the poor are not willing to spend more time away from their village, for instance, and they strangely classify attendance at weddings and festivals as "entertainment".

I would have thought that the one thing the poor do have in these environments is other people; families, neighbours, friends. So to migrate for long periods for hard work in shitty conditions and little reward is to lose the one precious thing they have access to. I would also imagine that the weddings, festivals, and other social situations are at the very centre of their lives; their main reason for living. Otherwise they are just working to feed themselves so they can work to feed themselves tomorrow.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad