Living In The 21st Century

Living in the 21st century, depending on geographic location and socio-economic class, as the quote from Dickens illustrates, could be either the best of times or the worst of times. At this point in history, we have reached an incredible level of scientific and technological advancement as well as significant economic and social transformations. At the present, we have the scientific knowledge to provide vaccines against and cure some of the most deadly illnesses. The technological advancements has allowed us to communicate with people on the other side of the globe within seconds. Although the progress made is unarguable, there is another side of the world that is not as pleasant. In the world we live in there is more than 3 billion people

In 1990, the number of people living on less than $1 per day was much higher in the underdeveloped countries than the developed countries. It was 452 million in East Asia and Pacific; 495 million in South Asia; 74 million in Latin America and the Caribbean; and 242 million in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Europe and Central Asia however, it was only 7 million people living under $1 per day. The same trend is observed under the number of people living on less than $2 per day in 1990. Further, the table predicts that the number of people living on less than $2 per day will drop in every region, with the exclusion on Sub-Saharan Africa, in

Their failure is due to the fact that they were not initially designed to please anyone but their shareholders. The IMF and the World Bank has institutionalized economic retardation, rather than promoting economic growth in underdeveloped countries. Even with all the rhetoric, there are less driven by the hopes of alleviating poverty, and more driven by the interest of the main economic and political institutions in the Group of Seven (G7) countries, which is capitalist expansionism for capital accumulation. A 2000 Meltzer Report reveals that the World Bank’s evaluation of their own projects show that the failure rate is 55-60%. In the most impoverished countries, the failure rate is even higher as it ranges from 65-70% (US Congress, 2000 & Bello, 2001: 63). Ironically, the countries that was supposed to be the key targets of the World Bank’s anti-poverty programs are those most affected by the failure