Global differences of distribution and living conditions
( Innledning; Marte H
Punkt 1: Hvorfor den sørlige delen av verden er fattig - Marthe N
Punkt 2: tiltak – Marte H
Avslutning: konklusjon – Marthe N )

Why the south part of the world, is the poor part.

One of the main questions is how these huge differences have been made; How come the minor part of the world population nearly drown in wealth, while the better struggle finding a way to survive. This is clearly not an “over the night” accident. There are many reasons for the global poverty, and many of the causes we find during the world history. It is written back to when the world was gradually globalized, or tightened together in a trading system.

Back in the 16th century the Europeans discover the world outside Europe. The colony time is a fact, and during the next 500 years the homelands of the colony masters experience an economic progress never seen before. The masters of the colonies area, the west, is the part of the world to develop technology, and to sit on the competence and earn money, while the colonies deliver the raw materials.

During the 20th century all of the colonies become liberated, and for the first time in several centuries they are supposed to stand on own feet and control their own country, but this shows to be difficult in practice. The liberated countries have to face loads of problems, as consequences for the colony time. After many years living under suppression and refused influence and knowledge on how the country should be controlled, they were now supposed to find their own way to rule the countries. The politics driven by the innhabitants were for example particular stamped by corruption.


In the 60’s the global poverty gets a theme in the world. We point at several possible causes, which is superficial in itself, but we have to ask ourselves; “why?” The answers I believe we find during the history, where I find four outstanding factors:

- - War. The liberations after the Second World War were very expensive for the liberated countries. They had put their selves in great dept because of weapon purchases. In addition the war had in many cases ruined the little they had of infrastructure. The wars mostly came from the disorder between the different groups of people within the countries. After the liberation the lands were supposed to get ruled by its inhabitants. This showed to be a source for even more conflicts of which group of people should control the land.

- - Natural disasters. Natural disasters have largely been created by humans. The colony masters did not seem to respect the nature; quick profit was a keyword. The Europeans nor heard at advices from those who knew the environment. The result were ecologic failures such as drought, floods and ruined soil. I can for example mention the back flipping floods in Bangladesh, as a consequent of deforestation in Himalaya.

- - Low education level: Few of the countries’ own inhabitants had a higher education and the necessary competence, and many of those who got it in industrialized countries never returned to their home countries, because the possibilities for work and income was significant larger there. During the colony time there had never been gambled on real education of the local population, because they were often seen as unintelligent and uncivilized, and besides it was demanding and expensive to build up a education-system. I personal think this is one of the main reasons that they still struggle with poverty in these days, because how are they supposed to control their country in a good way, not knowing how to do it?

- Raw material production. A great share of the gross domestic product is attached to the raw material production. Ever since the colony time, the lands in south had mostly produced raw materials as cotton, tobacco, coffee, sweet corn, cocoa and fruit, while we in the north had industry and trade. The raw material prices showed off to be more unstable than the finished products. The grade of raw production is more than anything attached to the past as colonies.
The colonies were often suppliers only; they produced items that were too hard, or too expensive to produce in Europe. Further the raw materials were transported to Europe, where they got worked up. The developed countries did their best to deliver materials after the industrialized countries requirement, at the same time they had to produce food to provide their own people. As the enquiry for raw materials from north increased, the need inwards the colonies also grew, owing to population growth. This led to even less food for the people in south.
You may say some of – or all of these explanations are just contingencies and “the natures lows”. But how many coincidences are too many, and when should we get any suspect that there is something wrong?


The industrialized countries in north decide to help the underprivileged countries in south, with loaning them money to help getting started with the developing.

The creditors which consists of wealthy countries, companies and organizations makes an amount of conditions to get the loaned money back, which among other were:
- - The countries has to priority to pay the money back
- - The lands has to produce the raw materials that the rich countries wants to buy

Two pretty simple and reasonable requirements, but for the south the results are worse healthcare, less education, overproduction of some raw materials, and impoverish of soil.
At the 70’s and 80’s the raw material prices dramatically drop and this of course strikes the countries in south very hard. When the dollar in addition gets more expensive, the developing countries get serious consequences, since they are depending of getting paid for their products in dollars.

As a result of these two tragedy happenings, the rent also increases, and the final result is a dept crises. At the same time it is brought to light that a great amount of the money have not been transported directly to investment for the peoples best, but straight in the pocket of a rich elite or dictator, who lives a life in glam and shine while the poor people gets even more underprivileged.


Multinational companies are another important factor that reinforces the difference between the countries in south, and the countries in north. Many of the worlds biggest companies are multinational, which means that they do not belong in a specific country and that the main goal is profit. Av the worlds 100 biggest economics, are 51 of them multinational companies, while 49 are countries. These companionships got the advantage of being so big that they are not depending of a particular country, and if the expenses in one country are too high, they can simply move the production to another country.

These companies are very important for the countries in south, because they give loads of workplaces, but this is both positive and negative. On the hand it is positive with high employment, since high income among the population, means increased sales of money in the country. But on the other hand, the main part of the incomes end up in the hands of the owners, which of course is located in the north. The knowledge and the competence are mostly located in north, which means that the main sources to the highest incomes also located in the north.
At the same time, the multinational companies are famous for having little respect for the environment (for example coca cola’s pollution of the water recourses around their fabric in Kerala, India), and for exploit the workers who easily have to work 14 hours shifts in tumbledown fabrics missing necessary equipments, while the authority do not dear to protest, in fear of losing workplaces. In this way the multinational companies contribute to maintain the distorted distribution in the world.

Written by Marthe Nesse.


As you can see there are many reasons for the global poverty. I have chosen to lay most weight on causes like the colony time, the low education level, natural disasters, raw material production, developed countries dept and last but not least the multinational companies. As I mentioned earlier, it may be easy to say that the poverty is a result of a row of unfortunate coincidences, but how many of these coincidences can be swollen with no second thoughts?
I find it very obvious that something during the history went seriously wrong. I choose to take my point of departure during the colony time, on the basis that it was here “the modern world balance” came into being, but unfortunately there never were a balance, but an obliquity built on racism and the feeling of being superior, that we partly has dragged with us. But all though the obliquity still is obvious, it seems like the world slowly is heading for the light at the end of the tunnel.

Written by Marthe.


"Thale Berg Husby" URL [Lest 21.02.09]
" Nanna, Norge 30/03/07" URL [Lest 21.02.09]
" Poverty" URL