Two former presidents discuss globalization in Latin America
Scott Lowenstein
Issue date: 10/4/07 Section: Campus News
Two former presidents - Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil and Ricardo Lagos Escobar of Chile - told a full Salomon 101 Wednesday that democratic social programs like improved public health and education were responsible for their respective countries' successes addressing poverty and income inequality.
The presidents' lecture was the inaugural event of a three-year initiative on globalization and inequality sponsored by the Watson Institute for International Studies, where both men are professors-at-large.
Each former president talked for about 20 minutes at the beginning of the lecture on poverty and inequality in their respective countries and in Latin America as a whole, presenting an array of statistics ranging from the percentage of people in extreme poverty to changes in the minimum wage and inflationary data. The presidents then asked each other questions in a dialogue format. The audience was allowed to asked questions at the end of the lecture.
Cardoso, who served as president of Brazil from 1995 to 2003, said the decline of poverty and unequal wealth distribution in Brazil is a result of lowered inflation and a slate of social welfare programs that he instituted as president.
Going through the series of steps Brazil took starting in 1994, Cardoso said, "with stabilization to stop inflation then agrarian reform then education then public health, it is possible to reduce poverty."
Cardoso stressed that a broad range of initiatives was needed to reduce poverty in Brazil, especially in cities where population shifts from rural to urban areas caused "chaos and disaster" in urban areas like Sao Paolo, where Cardoso is from. He also pointed to the challenges of addressing the needs of people in the "backwaters areas of Brazil," where enduring poverty and inaccessibility make alleviating poverty and illiteracy difficult.
He also stressed the importance of providing jobs as a means for escaping poverty.
Referring to agrarian reform that provided many rural Brazilians with employment, Cardoso said, "From an economic point of view ... (agrarian reform) is probably negative. But there is a good argument from the social point of view because (those who gained from agrarian reform) have work and dignity."
The presidents' lecture was the inaugural event of a three-year initiative on globalization and inequality sponsored by the Watson Institute for International Studies, where both men are professors-at-large.
Each former president talked for about 20 minutes at the beginning of the lecture on poverty and inequality in their respective countries and in Latin America as a whole, presenting an array of statistics ranging from the percentage of people in extreme poverty to changes in the minimum wage and inflationary data. The presidents then asked each other questions in a dialogue format. The audience was allowed to asked questions at the end of the lecture.
Cardoso, who served as president of Brazil from 1995 to 2003, said the decline of poverty and unequal wealth distribution in Brazil is a result of lowered inflation and a slate of social welfare programs that he instituted as president.
Going through the series of steps Brazil took starting in 1994, Cardoso said, "with stabilization to stop inflation then agrarian reform then education then public health, it is possible to reduce poverty."
Cardoso stressed that a broad range of initiatives was needed to reduce poverty in Brazil, especially in cities where population shifts from rural to urban areas caused "chaos and disaster" in urban areas like Sao Paolo, where Cardoso is from. He also pointed to the challenges of addressing the needs of people in the "backwaters areas of Brazil," where enduring poverty and inaccessibility make alleviating poverty and illiteracy difficult.
He also stressed the importance of providing jobs as a means for escaping poverty.
Referring to agrarian reform that provided many rural Brazilians with employment, Cardoso said, "From an economic point of view ... (agrarian reform) is probably negative. But there is a good argument from the social point of view because (those who gained from agrarian reform) have work and dignity."