This House Believe That Goverment Doesn't Pro The Poor

A subsidy is a form of government assistance to a group or economic sector. A direct

subsidy usually means that taxpayers money is used to help support an activity, industry or
social group which would not be competitive or viable without financial assistance.
Sometimes the subsidy is indirect, for example if the government sets the price for certain
products and/or requires that they must be bought from certain producers. In either case,
the government is intervening economically to support favoured sectors or communities.
Some of the most common types of subsidies are: direct subsidies, indirect subsidies, tax
subsidies, production subsidies, infrastructure subsidies, trade protection, export subsidies,
procurement subsidies and consumption subsidies. When it comes to dealing with poor
communities, the main types of subsidies are direct, indirect, tax and infrastructure
subsidies. This topic also requires a very clear definition of what we mean by poor
communities, something that is often difficult to achieve, given that poor communities living
in the favellas of Brazil, the slums of India, the suburbs of Paris or Bucharest, the inner-cities
of Washington DC, Baltimore or New York, rural areas, or refugee camps are all different.
While subsidies are often thought of as state subsidies, one needs to consider whether
different forms of international aid should not be considered subsidies as well. The debate
over subsidies thus varies depending on the community that it seeks to address and the
extent to which they manage to achieve their intended goals. While subsidies have generally
proven to have a relatively positive short-term effect, in the long-run their effects have
sometimes been judged insignificant or even negative. Alternatives to subsidies include
private investments, economic and social reforms, and different forms of social integration
schemes focusing mainly on housing or education schemes.
Affirmative
1.

Given that in general state taxation and redistribution systems have been under fire
for being inefficient, it is doubtful that subsidies, as a particular form of tax
redistribution would be more efficient. Not only is a bureaucratic mechanism for
creating and distributing subsidies a nightmare, but the effects of such subsidies
have often been questioned as well. The needs of poor communities, such as the
immigrant communities in the suburbs of indonesia, as often much larger than the
state can provide, and patch solutions are often not a solution at all. Subsidies will
not be able to solve the problems of unemployment and the concentration of the
poor and immigrants in particular areas. Other solutions are required for such
problems and oftentimes, the involvement of the private sector has proven to be
more efficient. Encouraging a more competitive, dynamic economy by reducing the
burdens of taxation and regulation is the best way to provide a route out of poverty,
especially if improved educational provision and meritocratic hiring policies are also
implemented.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Because government subsidies are not efficient, the large problem of social unrest is
not avoided. The poor communities in the suburbs of Paris were already receiving
state subsidies for housing and education, but this did not keep them from rioting.
Always looking at the state for solutions makes these communities dependent on
the government in a world in which the state will continue to gradually lose its
power. Putting more pressure on increasingly weaker states is probably not the best
idea. While powerful social-democratic states such as France might be able to handle
it, developing countries or unstable states will never be able to withstand these
pressures. We need to look for solutions elsewhere, and we need to accept the fact
that there might not be one solution for all. Each community, facing different kinds
of problems, will have to be addressed differently. The new rise in the field of
corporate social responsibility signifies that corporations are looking to take over
some of the responsibilities of the state.
The states of Latin America are faced with larger social, economic and political
problems and the existence of slums and favellas with increasing criminality cannot
be explained by the lack of social subsidies. In fact, quite the opposite is the case: the
leftward turn in Latin America with an increase in state subsidies that promised to
help poor communities has yet to ease the problems of criminality. Subsidies not
only do not help or provide only weak temporary relief, but they are also used to
manipulate political opinions and influence the poor particularly around election
time. The successful campaigns of Lula da Silva in Brazil, and Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela have been run precisely on promises to the poor that for the most part
were left unfulfilled.
The need to rethink urban-rural connections is unarguable and this will certainly
need to be faced in the future. However, this has little to do with the question of
subsidies. As modern societies are clearly moving away from an agricultural
economy to an industrial and post-industrial economy, new demographic challenge
arise with high concentrations of people in urban areas where jobs are available. The
solution here is not subsidies, but rather the spreading of jobs across the whole
economy, including rural areas, and the re-education of those who need to fill these
jobs. These are structural problems that every society will need to address,
regardless of how many subsidies the state is providing or not.
This kind of idealism and desire to make the world an equal place has already gotten
us into quite a bit of trouble, ruining a large part of the world under the rule of
communism. The idea that we could solve all the worlds problems through
redistribution of wealth through government subsidies is not only naive but also
dangerous. Being committed to new human rights and wanting to offer help to the
poor is not the same thing as imposing subsidies. Indeed, in many countries subsidies
for particular activities end up favouring well-off landowners and the urban middle
classes. Examples include agricultural subsidies in the EU and the USA, subsidies for
power and water in rural India, and subsidies for water or Higher Education in much

6.

of Latin America. In each case the well off benefit disproportionately, while the poor
end up paying via the tax system and through reduced economic growth. It would be
much better to price these activities at commercial levels and to develop economic
policies aimed at growth and job creation.
Rich communities have a disastrous effect on the environment as well. The question
of whether development is possible without manipulating nature and the
environment is again entirely separate from the question of subsidies. Ultimately,
the problem is one of resources and the best distribution and management of those
resources, particularly natural resources. Getting people to understand that forests,
water and land are essential resources that need to be preserved is what should be
done. Subsidies have in fact often created more environmental problems by
investing in poorly built infrastructure and housing, and by encouraging people to
stay in areas that could otherwise not support them.

Negative
1. Subsidies are the most efficient means for a state to redistribute wealth within its
borders and insure stability. Poor communities, often concentrated in rural areas or
around large cities, carry a large risk for social instability, whether through epidemic
illnesses, crime, drug abuse or political and social revolts. Even the most developed
countries find it difficult to deal with these communities without paying proper
attention to their development. The suburbs of Paris have recently been in the
attention of the press for the violent riots led mainly by poor, unemployed, young
men from immigrant families who felt abandoned by their own government. France
is by no means the only country dealing with such problems, and in order to avoid
such high-risk behaviour, the state should be encouraged to create new subsidy
schemes that address these communities in particular. For example, employment
could be subsidised by paying companies to create new jobs in such deprived areas.
2. While getting the private sector involved might indeed be a more effective solution,
the reality is that many of these poor communities are groups of outsiders. They
often discriminated against by the rest of the population, including decision makers
from private business. These communities often find themselves abandoned, and at
the mercy of the state. Despite its inefficiencies, the state remains the main
organisation capable to reaching out to all different communities, of gathering funds
and redistributing them, and of making new investment opportunities in places
where the free market would not otherwise have created them. At the risk of some
inefficiency, this problem does require solvency, and while ideally things might run
otherwise, this is the closest solution to the problem at hand. Governments have
also been creative with their subsidies schemes, often getting the private sector
involved by providing them with incentives such as tax breaks.
3. We cannot wait for each community to find creative solutions on its own, or for
corporations to decide when they want to be socially responsible and under what

conditions. Waiting too long will transform dangerous suburbs into real slums,
creating long lasting problems such as the ones currently experienced in the cities of
Latin America. These areas have become a haven for criminals and drug lords, who
both have a clear interest in keeping these communities poor so that they can
continue to exert their influence on them and use them as a hiding and recruiting
ground for illegal activities.
4. Unless we deal with the problem of poor communities, our cities will be surrounded
by a belt of poverty, an increasing growing belt that will create a serious threat. As
most cities continue to grow and attract more and more people from rural areas, the
state needs to find a way to address the problem of urban migration, which is closely
linked to the formation of poor communities particularly around cities. Illegal
immigration also contributes tremendously to this problem, particularly in areas
such as the Mexico-California border. Targeted subsidies can slow the pace of
migration, by giving those in the countryside and in poorer countries a better
standard of living where they already live.
5. Subsidies help create an important sense of equality and non-discrimination that is
essential in the new multi-cultural states of today. With more and more people
moving across the globe and the clear realization of inequalities in lifestyles, creating
this sense of equality is essential. If we are serious about our commitment to
universal human rights, including the right to equal survival chances and
opportunities, then we need to consider using subsidies to promote these values.
Without such a commitment to equality, problems like the unrest in the suburbs of
Paris, the reaction to the flooding of New Orleans, and crimes in the favellas of Rio
de Janeiro will simply become uncontrollable.
6. Poor communities have a disastrous effect on the environment. Unless we do
something about it we risk seeing our planet destroyed. The destruction of forests
for coal or agricultural land, the destruction of farmland through illegal buildings
lacking proper infrastructure, water pollution, deserting arable land in the
countryside in order to move to the city are all serious environmental problems and
their effects are long lasting. Subsidies need to be used to provide incentives for
people to act in ways which will preserve the environment for the benefit of all.