International view about the living conditions distinguished studies on different approaches. Poverty as a global basic problem is mentioned and applied along with the globalization influence. Many observers and scientists identify poverty and chronic poverty. Moreover, debates of Cornwall, Brock, Milanovic, Harriss, and Kanbur on poverty reduction argue about the circumstances and rationales of this phenomenon nature in different countries. In its turn, analysis of Sanchez, Kanbur, and Milanovic invoke the issues of opposite power and effects of globalization. It is connected with a fact that local, national, and global experiences on poverty proclaimed the influence of globalization on different levels. Furthermore, historical and cross-sectoral approach indicates the challenges in the state governance.
Poverty as a social phenomenon was mentioned in the social and economic works in terms of poverty and chronic poverty, its historical patterns in different countries, characteristic dynamics, and appropriate rationales. Matin and Hulme (2003) indicates that poverty occurs when individuals experience capability deprivations over five years. The scientists showed that chronic poverty is the course of living when the income level is below the poverty line for a certain period of time. A five-year period was assigned by Matin and Hulme (2003) as essential term signed for life and culture. Therefore, if population or the largest part of a country live below the poverty line for five years, they fall under the persistent chronic poverty. In addition, the views of these scientists include different levels of this phenomenon that distinguishes descending and escaping households as representative units for poverty determination. The authors critically concern their dimensions. As a result, the scientists indicate material approach, season intergenerational aspect, and number of people of low position in life cycle. Therefore, poverty and chronic poverty can be characterized as the notions of low material status for a certain duration and rationale.
In comparison to Shepherd and Hulme, Cornwell and Brock refer to poverty as a social problem that can be reduced through liberalization, macroeconomic stability, and privatization. In fact, their common points are empowerment, economic restructuration, and increased participation as the tool for reduction of this phenomenon (Cornwall & Brock, 2005). The researchers find almost appropriate solutions, invoked by Hulme and Shepherd. However, the latter observers provide detailed description and analytical framework for these considerations and assumptions.
In terms of Kanbur study, the researchers neglect the impact of globalization (Kanbur, 2001). If the globalist focuses poverty as the issue, impacted by this process, Hulme and Shepherd occupied both macroeconomic and microeconomic scope (Milanovic, 2003). Furthermore, Milanovic (2003) does not track the chronicity of poverty despite the study of the negative effects of globalization. Therefore, poverty for Hulme and Shepherd is more capacious and profound concept than for the other authors. Nevertheless, different thinkers gave the poverty problem both global and local dimension. The view of Hulme and Shepherd is valuable for the studies of Cornwall, Brock, Milanovic, Harriss, or Kanbur as the determined dimensions of economic and social character of poverty reduction serve as the background to possible solutions. Thus, the scientists draw attention to the same concepts and categories of governmental efforts and internal policies.
Through the prism of Hulme and Shepherd, there are conditions, which describe the same disagreements, highlighted by Kanbur. Income and measures of consumption are included in the fiscal and monetary policy, driven by one of the disagreements in the word development and globalization processes. Long-term poverty can be described by multidimensionality, which is inherent to the world development. In addition, the researchers indicate the households that can be easily studied that is also reflected in Kanbur's essay (Kanbur, 2001) when the author told about the grouped objects of consideration. However, Kanbur drawn attention to the classification of disagreeing groups, including finance ministries and the representative of civil society.
Moreover, Kanbur tells that the attitudes to the poverty reduction are divided into two groups. The followers of the financial and economic attitude consider proper adjustment to economic and financial imbalances, lowered inflation and deficits, high interest rates, liberalization of financial sector, and deep privatization as the tools and causes of poverty reduction. These financial factors are one-sided as the vision of the Hulme and Shepherd is much broader while Kanbur narrows the possibility of considering these causes. In the Kanbur's perspective, the social aspect is opposed to the financial prism. This view is becoming an alternative and complementary. Thus, the vision of Hulme and Shepherd aggregates both financial and social aspects of poor conditions of the societies.
One of the poverty causes is also the lack of development. It becomes clear if compare the sociologists' articles on poverty and economic development. Considering views of Harris, Hulme and Shepherd, it is possible to draw parallels and find a common ground. If view that the views of Hulme and Shepherd are focused more on the macrolevel of political forces, especially taking into account the level of income, Harris assumes that poverty can be evaluated through non-income metrics. Harris indicated that poverty should include some other socioeconomic factors, like autonomy and security instead of regulation and measurement (Harriss, 2002). Therefore, social background supports the poverty reduction, disregarding the income level in the developing and developed countries.
The conceptualization of poverty is fueled by theoretical assumptions about the constituting components of the poverty concept, its causes, accompanying circumstances, and economic development. Scientific studies are based on the fact that poverty occurs and continues due to the lack of intensive exchange and communication with the other countries. However, the level of development is relevant to the concept of poverty as it is low-level and is studied along with the other dimensions of the world economic development. However, the core problem does not correlate only with the political system. The crisis consists in the modern vision of globalization by the civilization based on the one-sided approach and simplistic economic comprehension of social life.
The views of Sanchez, Kanbur and Milanovic open the disagreements and white spots in efficiency of globalization. Controversial nature of this term revealed significant gaps in the economic benefits and disadvantages. Their studies show that the view of globalized patterns and relationships as a particular benign power is actually flawed. Observers indicate misunderstanding according to which the phenomenon of globalization is perceived as a positive one against the background of the introduced negative effects. The authors analyze the causal links, neglected by the modern politicians, social, and economic observers. A double effect of globalization is indicated to shape correct and objective globalization perception that can bring some inconsistencies in the national and global economies. Such an effect already carries serious economic imbalances, accompanied by significant risks and threats. Thus, the authors bring some balance to the objective perception of globalization.
For instance, Kanbur (2001) indicates that the tools of economic policy, directed to poverty reduction and other improvements, have irreducible core. Specific disagreements are the areas of fiscal adjustment, regimes of exchange rates, policy of interest rates, openness of foreign policy and trade, financial liberalization, and privatization processes. The author mentioned these areas as questioned and controversial for thoughtful and correct understanding of beneficial character of globalization. Consequently, in the easiest way, the author ensures agreement areas, including health and education outcomes, which provide new perspectives for poverty reduction.
The same suggestions are offered in the studies of Sanchez and Milanovic. These observers revealed that there is an inequality between different countries. It is evident due to the fact that globalization stimulates mainly corporate communication and market, neglecting the other areas. At the same time, the health and education institutions for provision of social guarantees and services do not keep pace with the intensive rapid development and occupation of market mechanisms. Therefore, observers' essays can speak of two completely different types and forms of poverty: hungry poverty in the developing countries and well-fed poverty in the developed countries. Therefore, laid material shows that the two poles of globalization do not only coexist, but also contribute to the economic changes.
Nevertheless, negative consequences of globalization are assumed in the works of the sociologists as well. Poverty is widely recognized as a result of the globalization influence on the world and national economies. However, both internal and external factors shift this impact on different countries. Thus, economic development should be evaluated differently in various states.
Top 10 writers
The origin of the poverty and its chronic form is discussed widely, regarding all the possible reasons for further elimination. Globalization as the main external reason for this phenomenon affected all the national economies in the world. Thus, globalization contributes to the rapid socioeconomic development in different countries that were among the developing ones, e.g. in Asian region. Thus, foreign investment and international trade have caused Chinese prosperity and boosted the marked growth of its economy. However, the level of education and income levels still determine its chronic forms. In the poorest countries, especially in African region, globalization has not had the positive influence because it did not come there. Therefore, the lack of access to socioeconomic relationships and communications with the other countries does make sense, regarding the cause of poverty chronic form within the globalized world.
Moreover, income-based inequality between various countries increases due to the influence of globalization that stimulates mainly common market mechanisms. Simultaneously, the educational and social institutions guaranteed health and social services for population, suffering from poverty. However, it did not coincide with the modern patterns and dynamics of market communications and imbalances inner relations within the society. Thus, the concern, invoked by the problem of poverty in certain countries, is due to the globalization that hinders the world development and diverts socioeconomic resources from more favorable areas of capital investment.
In its modern form, globalization has a significant controversial effect. It provides the world development with unprecedented integrity. However, the sociologists believe that it does not smooth or eliminate internal inconsistency of such development patterns in the developing and poor countries. On the contrary, globalization intensifies and reinforces it. As a result of such influence, the maturing stage of mutual country interdependence turns to the increasing level of their vulnerability.
To sum up, various attitudes to the globalization, poverty and its forms, and development state make efforts to reveal important issues of socioeconomic mode. Discussion on poverty indicated that its definition relates to its persistence and chronic forms for certain countries. The studies, devoted to this topic, are related and interweaved in the circumstances and factors, influencing the stable social and economic vulnerability. Distribution of countries, developed and developing, particularly the impact of globalization, and response of different countries to it draws attention to the multilateral nature of this process.