Internationaler
Verband für Hauswirtschaft (IVHW) Kaiser-Friedrich-Str. 13, D-53113 Bonn, Germany Phone:
+49 (0) 228 – 9 21 25 90 Fax:
+49 (0)228 – 9 21 25 91 E-Mail: office.ifhe@t-online.de or office@ifhe.org
International
Federation for Home Economics (IFHE)
The Eradication of
Poverty and the 10th Anniversary of the International Year of the
Family
Dr.
Gertraud Pichler, IFHE President, Austria
IFHE Americans Regional Conference,
TCU, Ft. Worth, TX June 20-21 2002
I would like to cordially thank you for
the invitation to participate in your international congress “International
Federation for Home Economics – Region of the Americas Conference” as well as
in the Convention of the American Association for Family and Consumer Science
(AAFCS).
I would like to extend special thanks
to Mrs. Juanita Mendenhall, not only in her position as Vice-President of
the IFHE, but also for her outstanding commitment and support of our
Federation. She is an excellent representative of the Region of the Americas.
In my function as the President of the
IFHE being present at regional conferences means a valuable enrichment and
offers big chances to get to know the significance of home economics on the
spot, within the framework of a wide range of congresses and in multiple talks
with representatives of different federations. For instance, I had the
opportunity to participate in two congresses of ARAHE, the Asian Regional
Association for Home Economics: 1999 in Yokohama and 2001 in Taipei, Taiwan.
Each of these congresses has been a very special experience for me. I was
particularly impressed by the large number of young people who not only
participated in the congresses, but are also members of their regional home
economics federations. I was happy to see that, in Asian countries, home
economics plays an important role both in the vocational field and with respect
to university education. I am also very glad that, for the first time since the
IFHE’s establishment in 1908, the IFHE World Congress – the twentieth such
congress then - will take place in an Asian country, Japan, in 2004.
The term “home economics” constitutes a
world-wide link for us and we take all possible efforts to attend to similar,
or even equal, goals and concerns, whether they relate to countries like Japan,
the Philippines, Ghana, the U.S.A., or to Europe. Our concern is people’s
well-being, their health and quality of life, and optimum nutrition of the
individual person; our concern are issues relating to the environment, the
peaceful living together of people, and many other things. The framework
conditions, the concept of the so-called “quality of life”, and also the ways
in which good quality of life are put into reality may differ widely among
regions and countries, but, having committed ourselves to home economics, we
all pursue the same goal: to make an important contribution to the improvement
of people’s life quality. As actors and experts and as persons who have
accepted responsibility you have come from many countries all over America to
address topics of common importance, to exchange experiences, and to develop
strategies for future tasks.
On behalf of the International
Federation for Home Economics (IFHE) I would like to thank you for having
supported the Federation for many years by your membership and for promoting
its goals in all parts of the world.
We are living in a fascinating time.
Even the people who assert having been immune against the “millennial fever”
wonder what the 21st century will bring. The 20th century
brought so far unknown quantum leaps in the fields of electronics and
technology, in science and research, in medicine, astronautics, etc.;
nevertheless we must keep in mind that billions of people do not participate in
these developments and do not have a share in the quality of life which we can
enjoy in many western, or industrial, countries.
I am well aware of the fact that there
is no uniform definition of the term “quality of life” and that any definition
depends substantially on people’s individual experiences, on their working and
private life situations. Thanks to their complex field of study home economists
can approach the concept “quality of life” in a holistic way, as they consider
the relevant family and household activities just as much as the individual’s
everyday life. The quality of life is determined by social, economic,
ecological, and other framework conditions, by people’s living environment and
corresponding lifestyles, by their personal values as well as by values
determined by the society.
As you attach high importance to this
inequality, you have made “The
Eradication of Poverty” the topic of this Congress and of the 10th Anniversary of the
International Year of the Family. Poverty and the family are inevitably
linked and influence each other.
Although I am aware of the complex and
difficult nature of this topic I have decided to dedicate my speech to the
issue of poverty and to its consequences for individuals and families. I would
also like to raise the question of how we can fight poverty in the world - as members of home economics federations and
in the framework of our professional and honorary functions - and in which ways
we can help to improve the quality of life of individuals, families and
households in our society.
What do we mean by poverty?
Similar to the concept “quality of
life” also the term “poverty” is hardly definable. Poverty has many faces, is
complex, and is perceived differently in different areas: People in Ethiopia,
in Mexico City and in industrial countries will perceive poverty in different
ways.
Within the framework of social sciences
a global concept of poverty has become generally accepted, defining poverty as
the lack of means to secure the needs of
life at those relevant standards of a society which are historically applicable
and typical from the social and cultural points of view.
When studying literature for this
speech I came across XENOPHON (430 – 354 B.C.), who presented the first paper
on economic management, OIKOS, and gave a description of richness and poverty.
According to XENOPHON “rich is who manages with the available means, also when
they are modest; poor again is who, even if he owns more, does not have
enough”. XENOPHON’s understanding of the relative value of property,
·
the importance
of the proper use of goods,
·
the necessity
of due utilisation of property,
·
the ethical
responsibility concerning household management, and
·
the
moderateness of consumption in line with the available means
probably comprises all the conditions which today can be summarised in the concept of “ecological” management. Due use of property and asceticism or moderateness with respect to the use or consumption of goods lead to a careful management of our world’s resources. The original science of the economy, the OIKONIMA or household science, thus referred to ecological management in its modern sense, to the reasonable and economical use of goods entrusted to people in order to secure their living now and in the future[1].
However, modern poverty research with
its economically-oriented way of thinking does not know moderateness but rather
unlimited needs. It is not aimed at promoting an economical way of management
or at teaching people how they can manage with more “moderate means”. It is
based on the assumption that material richness and the best possible use of
nature and resources bring about maximum welfare and that everybody must be
familiar with the art of earning money (v. Schweitzer, 2002). This concept
reveals the complexity of poverty, which is felt primarily on the micro level and
concerns individuals and families. However, the poverty of the individual has
severe impacts on society, on regions and continents. As an example, we should
remember the impacts of HIV/AIDS for the South African region.
Forms of poverty in the world
Social sciences address the different
forms of poverty and I would like to address the following three concepts:
Primary
poverty (absolute
poverty) is defined as the living conditions of persons whose income is below
the level on which public assistance is granted. People are in want of
everything, they lack the basic necessities of life and, in particular, the
ways and means to satisfy their physical needs. The causes are manifold
(disasters, AIDS, epidemic diseases, but also wars, violence and terror).
Secondary
poverty (relative
poverty) is the individually or collectively perceived lack of resources in
comparison to other regions, nations, other historical times, professions,
social classes, other lifestyles, etc.
This concept of poverty relates to the
“resource approach”, which is based on the income as the key of, and an
indispensable precondition of, people’s ability to secure their material needs
and to acquire the goods and services offered.
For the European Union, people are
considered poor if their incomes are lower than 40, 50, or 60 percent of
the average income in their relevant countries.
The
term “tertiary poverty”
can also be used to describe “precarious
situations of life” occurring in welfare societies. It goes beyond the
income as the key characteristic of people’s socio-economic situation and
includes also other important fields of life such as gainful work, completed
education and training, living conditions, health, nutrition, as well as social
and cultural participation in the society. This approach makes the different
forms of poverty even more evident and draws the attention to the multidimensionality of poverty. It is
used for poverty reports, which the European Union presently requests from all
European countries. Also in industrial countries poverty occurs more and more
frequently, referred to as “new poverty”.
Poverty being discussed world-wide I am
particularly concerned about the data and facts which are given on the one hand
by the reports of the World Bank, of UNDP, FAO, UNESCO, UNIFEM, UNICEF, and, on
the other hand, by the poverty reports of the individual countries. In the
internet, I also found a lot of data on the U.S.A. Let me present just a few
data and statements to illustrate the situation:
Vital
Statistics:
More than 2.8 billion people, close to
half the world’s population, live on less than the equivalent of $2/day. More
than 1.2 billion people, or about 20 per cent of the world population, live on
less the equivalent of 1$/day.
South Asia has the largest number of poor people (522 million of whom live on less than the equivalent of 1 $/day).
Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest
proportion of people who are poor, with poverty affecting 46.3 per cent or
close to half of the region’s population.
Nearly 1 billion people are illiterate;
more than 1 billion people do not have access to safe water; some 840 million
people go hungry or face food insecurity; about one third of all children under
five suffer from malnutrition.
According to the U. S. Bureau of the
Census, Poverty in the United States, 2000 Report, 16.2 per cent of all
children under the age of 18 (almost one in five) are living in poverty, for
black people this rate is 30.9 per cent and for Hispanics 28.0 per cent.
Millions of children in the U.S. are at
developmental risks of poverty in early childhood.
Research shows that the first years of
life are more important for children’s emotional and intellectual development.
These risks factors include
·
inadequate
nutrition
·
environmental
toxins
·
trauma and
abuse
·
lower quality
child care
·
parental
substance abuse
Each of the risk factors listed above
can have a particularly negative impact on brain development during early
childhood. As children grow into adolescence and adulthood, they are more
likely to drop out of school, have children out of wedlock, and be unemployed.
Again, this has complex consequences.
In
simple terms we can say:
Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of
shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is
not being able to go to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not
having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at the time. Poverty is
losing a child to illness brought about by unclean water. Poverty is
powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom.
Poverty has many faces, changing from
place to place and across time, and has been described in many ways. Most
often, poverty is a situation people want to escape. So poverty is a call to
action for the poor and the wealthy alike – a call to change the world so that
many more may have enough to eat, adequate shelter, access to education and
health, protection from violence and a voice in what happens in their
communities.
Poverty
has multiple dimensions, and many of them are inter-related, making for a vicious
cycle:
To see it from the micro level:
Health
Poor health, disease and disability can
prevent people from working full time, limiting their income and their ability
to work to move out of poverty. Health problems for the breadwinner mean income
problems, but an illness in the family can ruin an entire household. Not only
is income lost, but expenses go up due to the need for medicine and health care
and the need for family members to care for the sick person.
Poverty has been identified as a major factor
in the spread of HIV/AIDS in many parts of Africa, South Asia and other
regions. From simply being a cause of individuals suffering, HIV/AIDS has
become a major economic and social crisis for entire economies, as it affects
the economically productive sections of society and makes it harder to
eradicate poverty. It has been estimated that, at the end of 1999, nearly 34
million people world-wide were infected with HIV/AIDS and by 2010 in Africa
alone there will be 40 million orphans from the epidemic.
Education
Those with less formal education tend
to be disproportionately represented in the ranks of the poor, perhaps because
they are more likely to hold poorly paid jobs or to be unemployed. Poor
families often face enormous difficulties in keeping their children in school
due to the costs as well as to the pressure to have as many household members,
including children, out working. The next generation, being poorly educated,
could in turn end up holding similarly poorly paid jobs or even lose the job.
They can never step out of that circle.
Single
parent
Women with children constitute the
priority of the poor in many countries. Where women can move out of poverty
their children appear to face a brighter future but where their chances are
limited, poverty is transmitted inter-generationally.
In many cases, girls have a higher drop
out of school to help with household work and childcare. Yet, experience has
shown that investment in girl’s and women’s education not only makes for
greater equity but also tends to translate directly into better nutrition for
the family, better health care, declining fertility and potentially greater
economic empowerment.
As United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan points out in his Millennium Report, “poor countries...especially
those with significant inequality between ethnic and religious communities,...
are more likely to be embroiled in conflict than rich ones”. In fact, twenty of
the world’s 38 poorest countries are either in the middle of an armed conflict
or have recently emerged from it, according to other UN sources.
What
are the roots of poverty?
Poverty exists in many of the
industrialised countries and characterises whole regions of the developing
world. The roots of poverty lie in a tangled web of local situations combined
with national and international circumstances. It is the product of economic
processes occurring at a variety of levels, as well as a range of particular
social and economic conditions that appear to structure the possibilities of
individuals.
To see it from the macro level:
To
pay back debts:
Some countries have to pay more to
finance their debt than they can spend on health or education. For example:
Sub-Saharan Africa pays over 14 per cent of its export revenue in debt service.
South Asia pays 22 per cent. Latin America and the Caribbean region must devote
almost one third of their export to debt serving. In 1994, the IMF and the
World Bank adopted the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Countries Initiative, aimed at
providing debt relief to 41 heavily indebted poor countries (HITLs). But so far
few countries have been able to qualify for relief and debt serving has not
always been sustainable, i.e. even after debt relief, the cost of servicing the
debt has been greater than the amount of basic health and education, leave
alone allowing for increased investment levels necessary for economic growth.
Trade-related
factors and structural adjustment policies have had unfavourable
effects:
Many countries must rely on exporting
unprocessed agricultural commodities to earn income overseas, but the prices of
these agricultural products have been relatively unfavourable and have
continued to fall. At the same time, world market prices for fuel and
manufactured and processed goods have risen.
The situation was often compounded by
structural adjustment policies which encouraged depreciation of the currencies.
Owning
few assets:
The poor have little access to capital
or credit. In many countries, a majority depend upon agriculture and inadequate
access to land is one or the primary causes of rural poverty. Most of the
world’s poor either own no land or own land not worth owning. Caught in a trap
between marginal incomes and little chance to obtain funds for improvements,
there is little opportunity for advancement.
Lack
of sufficient employment opportunities:
Escaping the poverty of the rural
areas, many people head towards the cities – in their own and in foreign
countries - to find a job. But in most countries, there aren’t enough decent
jobs – the kind that pays a living wage – to go around. Globally, it is
estimated that of a workforce of a three billion people, 140 million are
unemployed and between a quarter and a third are underemployed.
Moving
from rural to urban areas:
Because of the lack of sufficient
employment opportunities people move from the urban area into cities.
We all know how difficult it is to
define urban areas or urban population. In Austria urban populations will be
called those of more than 2,500 inhabitants. Japan will call urban areas those
consisting of more than 50,000 inhabitants, USA of more than 2,500, Norway of
200 inhabitants. It is rather difficult to say what is “urban”. The United
Nations for example define a “mega-city” as an urban area of 10 millions or
more population. In the year 2000 there were more than 19 such cities. But the
situation around the world is that people from rural areas move into cities,
hoping to get reasonable jobs and decent incomes, to find better living
conditions, social service, education, and so on.
Looking at the United Development
Population Division’s Report at the list of the world’s mega-cities 2000:
(1)
Tokyo 24.4 million
(2)
Mexico 18.1 million
(3)
Bombay 18.1 million,
(4)
Sao Paulo 17.8
(5)
New York 16.6, Lagos 13.4
(6) and (7) Calcutta and Shanghai: 12.9
The unprecendented growth of these
cities, particularly in developing countries, signals a real shift in world
population growth trends. Cities do offer the promise of a gradually improving
life. In all likelihood, the existence of a thriving, “informal employment
sector both encourages rural urban migration and offers genuine opportunities
for money income”. We know the reality. Unemployment, slums, squatter
communities, criminal situation ... are the reality. People often do not have
any family network for security, healthcare, childcare, when they leave their
rural environment.
Overpopulation:
Overpopulation has a lot to do with
poverty. Poor families, and badly educated family members have more children.
There is a deficiency on family planning, birth control and sex education on
the one hand and on the other hand poor families want to have more children to
have care when the parents are old and to help to manage everyday life. At the
same time the family cannot effort to provide their children an adequate chance
for education. It is hard for young people to escape poverty.
Inadequate
infrastructure and lack of access to basic social services in relation to education, health and
reproductive health. Often living in areas that have no sewage or clean water,
poor people are much more susceptible to illness and disease. They often lack
the means to obtain the health care they need. They lack information on health
and reproductive health issues and, consequently, are often uninformed on
measures they can take to avoid risks.
Social
exclusion:
Poverty and social exclusion remain
significant problems in rural areas. There a biases and prejudices in every
country, and in some cases policies that exclude people of a certain race,
religion, or sex from attaining positions of power or from getting jobs.
Women are suffering first when it comes
to feed and take care for the family.
Hunger
and malnutrition:
The increase in hunger and malnutrition
results from the current economic model, supported by economic, agricultural
and trade policies imposed at world, regional and national level by governments
of the developed countries and their corporations, in their eagerness to
sustain and intensify their political, economic, cultural and military
hegemony.
The real cause of the hunger and
malnutrition in the world is not deficient food production; it lies in the
unfair distribution of food, manufacturing resources and income. Hunger and
malnutrition are for many countries still a top graded problem. Many countries
in the developing countries had been somehow self-sufficient in food
production. Due to the global market food products are imported. For example, I
realised in Ghana, attending the World Home Economics Congress, that, although
thousands of tons of rice are imported from abroad, it has been never
cultivated in Ghana. Good land with good soil is not used for the cultivation
of agricultural products. The structural adjustments imposed in most countries
result in rising unemployment and erosion of labour rights and conditions among
and rural populations, accompanied by increasing poverty, hunger and
malnutrition.
The
situation of families:
When we talk about the eradication of
poverty we have to discuss the situation of families around the world. I am
aware of the fact that dealing with the topic of family is also a balancing act
between various regions whose countries are marked by different cultural,
social, religious, economic, and ecological features. Family and family forms
and the changes they are undergoing have thus to be seen in a differentiated
way and within a broad socio - cultural context. It is also rather difficult to
define the term “family” as it is to define “poverty”.
Gary S. Becker, 1992 Nobel Prize in
Economics, in his book entitled “A
Treatise on the Family” develops
an economic approach to what he calls “the major institution throughout history
in essentially all human societies”. Becker sees the family as kind of little
factory or multi-person unit producing goods, meals, health, skills and children.
In the introduction of his book Becker points out that family decisions
crucially impinge on many issues. He further says that the family merits the
great attention it receives “for despite major changes over time and enormous
variations across social and economics environment, it remains the most
influential of all institutions”. These few flashes from Becker’s “Treatise on
the Family” convey an economist’s viewpoint on the family as an institution.
But it can be safely said that there is growing general awareness of the
importance of the family at all levels.
The family is universal, the
cornerstone of society, a unit of production and consumption. It is essential
to the education and socialisation of children and youth and to the
stabilisation of adults. It is the place where children, the elderly, the sick
and disabled receive emotional and practical support.
The family unit is also a powerful
agent of social change: Factors such as demography, fertility, ageing
population, environment, social welfare, and development are ultimately
influenced by family behaviour and by the decisions taken within the family.
The family in turn is influenced by external factors, among others
modernisation, technology, poverty, armed conflicts and natural disasters. Decent
living conditions, including adequate income, nutrition and health, are
necessary for family well-being, strength and security. A rising number of
families (both in developing and in industrialised countries), especially
single-parent families, in many parts of the world are enduring the
consequences of globalisation and the impacts of sanctions. Although in times
of deep trouble (think about Afghanistan, Pakistan and India ) the sense of
family ties is a source of strength, extreme poverty can destroy, displace and
separate families; in this situation, children, who are denied the right to be
cared for, are the most vulnerable ones.
Families in the western world maybe
have different concepts and face other problems than in the developing
countries, but even so, it has an impact on the quality of life of human beings
within the family structure.
The fact that more and more women have
a job, due also to their more qualified professional education and training,
leads to a higher average marriage age; children are born later. Furthermore,
the number of divorces rises seriously. As to western countries, the number of
births is markedly decreasing. Young people are today independent of their
families earlier. Frequently they live together in marriage-like relationship -
without actually being married. Who lives together with whom and for how long
(without being married)? When should children be born? This form of living
together is referred to as “patchwork
families”, which means that each of the participants defines by him- or
herself who is a member of the family. As a result, life and family are more
and more becoming an individual planning project. Marriage is no longer a basic
institution and by itself is an administrative process and contracted solely to
give children a legal status.
In countries where the birth-rate
shrinks and the number of elderly people grows, poverty becomes a risk factor.
Therefore it is necessary to guarantee the balance within generation.
In Sweden, the rate of women and men
going out to work is today almost equal (83 % of the women, 95 % of the men).
Sweden has the highest birth-rate in Europe. Despite the high rate of working
women the country offers sufficient family-relieving framework conditions
(part-time work, kindergardens, in-home and out-home day care services, more
flexible possibilities for the re-entry to the job, etc.) which meet the
demands.
A country’s economic development is
generally linked to the changes in family systems such as smaller size and
lower complexity of households, looser relationship to relatives living outside
the household, stronger man/women relationship, or less pronounced
patriarchalic structure.
What are the reasons for the changes
within family development? On the one hand there is the increasing trend
towards “individualisation” – which
results in a loss of tradition and in the dissolution of firm commitments. On
the other hand, a rising tendency towards more liberal forms of living together
is observed, what we call pluralisation
in forms of living together.
Increasing economic welfare and social security offered by the welfare state
allow a high degree of freedom to choose the options which best suit people’s
personal requirements, which again leads to open relationships.
In any families in developing countries
or in the industrialised world mutual aid in the circle of family is needed
(family support). Every family goes through various stages such as marriages
and setting down, birth of the children, school education, caring for elderly
or sick people. All the services and tasks provided by families require high
competence and qualification which are rarely or not at all conveyed in the
framework of formal education systems. Many national and international reports
and political discussions especially in relation to the eradication of poverty
(in developing as well as in developed countries) call for everyday life and
family management competences. This is one of the most important issues if we
want to help families to step out of the poverty trap.
To eradicate poverty and to improve
social protection systems of poor and vulnerable families should be a priority
target.
Families should be supported and
empowered to fulfil their multiple functions and responsibilities and to
realise their rights, with policies and programme based on a functional and
global approach to the family as a basic provider of social security and
protection.
It is necessary to increase the
awareness of family issues and problems and to promote knowledge of economic,
social and demographic processes affecting families and their members.
There is need to foster equal
participation of men and women in family responsibilities and tasks, with the
possibility for both to reconcile paid work and family life.
A
strategy to fight poverty
Defining
poverty
In the early days of the UN, poverty
was measured in terms of the ability to meet a minimum number of calories or to
have a minimum level of income to satisfy needs (income poverty). There have
been changes in thinking as to how to measure poverty with attempts at
incorporating some of its various dimensions, as well as its circular
connections that I discussed earlier. Inspired by the work of Amartya Sen, the
Nobel Prize winner for Economics in 1999, the UNDP introduced measures for
progress and for deprivation that focus on poverty from the human development perspective. It now views poverty as a denial of
choices and opportunities for living a tolerable life. The human poverty index (HPI) established for each country provides a country-by-country
picture of deprivation in terms of longevity, education, economic factors.
Considering poverty in a different way leads to new observations. For example,
an elevated level of the United States population experiences acute “human
poverty” despite its high average income level.
Based on the experience of the past
years, there is now a growing consensus among national and international policy
makers on what works and what does not work in fighting poverty.
But, as I said, each country has to
define its own poverty concept.
Economic
growth is one of the
most important factors in helping to reduce poverty, but we know it is not
sufficient. The effectiveness of economic growth in reducing poverty depends
upon the structure of growth, existing levels of inequality, and on how the
benefits of growth are distributed. Inequality in income is a function of
distribution of economic assets (land, industrial and financial capital), so
called “human capital” in the form of education and skills. We have to solve
the problem of unemployment, to create more and new jobs, or we have to help
for example that women and man can develop their own enterprise, or farm
business, especially in rural areas, if it is needed (India, Africa, even in
Austria). Governments need to work on creating more equity in the distribution
of income and assets.
Promoting
good governance, accountability and participation:
Honest and fair government practices,
free of corruption; decision-making open to the input of the public - transparency;
supporting self-help groups and anti-poverty projects; providing vocational
training; fostering new business; creating opportunities for income generating
activities especially for women via the increased access to credit and through
a focus on skill formation and improved status of women.
Achieving
gender equality:
More women than men live in absolute
poverty. We often talk about the “feminisation
of poverty”. Economic crises often hit women harder. They tend to get fewer
skilled jobs, or lose their jobs. Experience has also shown that investment in
girls’ and women’s education translates directly into better nutrition for the
family, better health care and declining fertility. It is has also been widely
acknowledged that poverty is unlikely to be overcome without immediate and
sustained attention to girls’ education and women’s empowerment. According to
one estimate, closing the gender gap in education adds 0.5 percentage points to
annual growth in GNP per capita.
The World Summit for Social Development
1995 (Copenhagen) and 2000 (Geneva) expanded the context of poverty eradication
to include such factors as
·
Access to
basis services
·
Productive
employment
·
Sustainable
livelihoods
·
Sense of human
security
·
Reduction of
inequalities
·
Elimination of
discrimination
·
Participation
in the life of the community
Education
in home economics – a key to avoid or reduce poverty
In all the documents which I have
studied in preparing this speech I have not found a single word relating to
home economics, or a remark that home economics education provides every
individual with the basic knowledge and skills to manage everyday life.
Home economics education has never been
mentioned as one of the basic strategies to overcome poverty, to help to secure
food and nutrition, health and hygiene, to handle the household budget, to cope
with the market, to train to be a good shopper, to care and bring up well their
children, to care for the elderly, to be able to combine profession, family
life and household.
All the services and tasks provided by
families and individuals require high competences and qualification which are
rarely or not at all conveyed in the framework of formal educational systems.
In political discussions, the family reports of national states call for everyday
life and family management competences, but it is not said how or where such
skills and competences could be gained. Young people are in many cases prepared
for their professional lives in an all too one-sided way and are not taught
what they would need for being able to reconcile the job-related, family,
economic, social, and cultural components of their lives.
Home economics education can help to
avoid poverty or even provide poor people with the knowledge necessary to
overcome poverty in many ways. Parents today convey fewer and fewer household
competences to their children. Education and training in this field must be
provide primarily in the framework of general education.
All home economics professional
associations around the world must see it as their most important task to
convince policy makers that a fundamental home economics education can be the
best eradication strategy for poverty.
In that context we must be thankful
that the United Nation proclaimed 2004 the 10th Anniversary for the International Year for the Family.
We should use the next two years to observe the situation of families. The
family, however, as the unit involving individual members and performing, in
interdependence and solidarity, such functions as caring, nurturing, education,
clothing and housing, requires global treatment and should be mainstreamed into
all issues related to social development and to individual family members.
Home economists could get involved in
the investigation of the conditions of families especially in connection with
poverty. Home economists do have a holistic approach to everyday life.
They can help to find out who are the
poor and how they came to be poor. They can help to provide a concept for
government and non-governmental organisations to develop indicators and
measurements to make sure they make the right policy to avoid poverty or to
reduce poverty in their cities. A very good example has just been provided by
the Faculty for Home Economics and Family Science of the University of Giessen,
Germany,.
The Vienna NGO Committee on the Family has provided a number of
objectives for the preparation for the 10th Anniversary of IYF in 2004 and, as
IFHE is a member of this Vienna Committee, I would like to recommend these for
your future work:
·
Increase
awareness of family issues among governments as well as in the private sector
·
Strengthen
national institutions to formulate, complement and monitor policies in respect
to families
·
Stimulate
efforts to respond to problems affecting, and affected by, the situation of
families
·
Undertake at
all levels review and assessments of the situation and needs of families,
identifying specific issues and problems
· Enhance the effectiveness of local, national and regional efforts to carry out specific programmes concerning families
·
Improve the
collaboration among national and international NGOs in support of families
·
Assess global
trends that have an impact on families
·
Review the
progress achieved and the obstacles encountered in the implementation of IYF
objectives since 1994
·
Reaffirm the
commitments made and identify further action
Activities should be focused primarily
at national and local levels. 2004 should be seen as a target year by which
concrete progress should have been made to identify and elaborate issues of
direct concern to families to provide practical guidelines for national,
regional and global activities.
The follow-up to the International Year
of the Family has a clear target. This requires a close collaboration between
the Family Unit within the Division for Social Policy and Development and
non-governmental organisations in each state, and regions. As home economists
we can take an important part in the different actions. We also can create
awareness for poverty and help to find solutions.
At the XX World Congress of the International Federation for Home Economics
in 2004 in Japan we will organise a
special plenary session concerning the IYF and hope we will be able to have an
excellent report on the implementation of the Plan of Action, on what our IFHE
member organisations have achieved in that context.
I hope many of you can and will be
involved in future actions either within your profession or as a member of an
active NGO and I do hope that many of you will have the opportunity to attend
the XX World Home Economics Congress in Kyoto, Japan, in 2004.
1. Lebenslangen in Deutschland. Der erste Armuts- und Reichtumsbericht der
Bundesregierung.
Bundesministerium f?r Arbeit und Sozialwesen, Postfach 53105 Bonn, 2001, Teil
1, Teil II
2. K?sselberg, H.G., Heinz Reichmann (Hrsg.)
Zukunftsperspektive Familie und Wirtschaft vom Wert von Familie f?r Wirtschaft,
Staat und Gesellschaft, ISBN-3-929304-42-2, Vektor-Verlag, Grafschaft 2002
3. Huston Perdita, "Families as we are. Conversation from around the
world.", 2001
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data, The Femist Press at the
City University of New York.
4. Stage Sarah and Virginia B. Vicenti "Rethinking Home Economics. Women
and the History of a Profession", Cornell University Press 1997
5. v. Schweitzer Rosemarie "Einf?hrung in die Wirtschaftslehre des privaten
Haushalts", UTB Ulm 1991, ISBN 3-8001-2623-0
6. Pichler Gertraud "IFHE's Role to improve quality of life", in
the Journal of Asian Regional Association for Home Economic (ARAHE), Nr. 3
September 1999
7. Pichler Gertraud "Tradition, Transition, Transformation of Families",
in the Journal of Asian Regional Association for Home Economic (ARAHE), Nr.
4 November 2001
8. Leisinger, "Die sechste Milliarde", 1999, Seite 15
9. Deutsche Stiftung Weltbev?lkerung "Die Divergenz der Trends",
2001, Seite 26/27
10. 3. Familienbericht der Bundesrepublik 1979, Seite 49
11. Giessner Amtsbericht (BRD), Ute Meier, Universit?t Giessen, 2002
12. Giessner Armutsbericht (BRD), Ingrid-Ute Leonh?user "Ern?hrung und
Armut: erste empirische Befunde", 2001
13. United Nations Development Programme "Partnership to Fight Proverty
- Annual Report 2001", UNDP, New York
14. UN Millenium Report 2000, Kofi Annan
15. Gary S. Becker "A Treative an the Family", 2001
16. Proverty Data:
UNDP Proverty Report: http://www.undp.org/provertyreport
UNDP Human Development Report Office: http://www.undp.org/hdro
World Bank: http://www.worldbank.org/proverty/data/trends/index.htm
http://www.viennafamilycommittee.org
17. Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the International Year of the Family
2004"
Emprovement and Proverty Reduction: A sourcebook Prem, World Bank, May 2002