James Ferguson Give A Man A Fish Summary

The Politics of Redistribution A welfare system is an idea that is discussed often in American society, as to whether it is a good or a bad idea to provide extra cash or goods to individual’s in need. Arguments are made from every side of the issue; some claiming it to be the responsibility of the individual to make something of themselves—to pull themselves up by the metaphorical bootstraps—while others find it the duty of the government to ensure all of its citizens are able to live. James Ferguson in his book Give a Man a Fish, as well as Kathryn Edin and Luke Shaefer in their book $2.00 a Day: Living on Nothing in America analyze the welfare system at work, respectively, in South Africa and in America. Both books attempt to offer solution
The way Ferguson present’s his recommendations is by using South Africa’s success to insinuate that its success in South Africa is evidence that the same system could work well in any market (Ferguson, 192). Presenting his ideas with a success story, makes it appear that his ideas are warranted and thus successful, however there are confounding variables that, when considered, dismantle the strength of his argument. For example, in a crippled economic infrastructure such as Swaziland, I do not believe the same cash distribution handouts would work. Not only does the economy struggle independently, there is also a large proportion of the population that falls below the poverty line. Thus, not only would the government struggle to provide for a small number of persons in poverty; due to economic instability it is simply inconceivable that they would be able to provide any amount of comfort cash distribution to its citizens because of the high proportion of poverty prevalent in the country. As for Edin and Shaefer, they give specific examples of steps to take to support their theories. Likewise, their ideas are central to the United States and its system as opposed to a generalization that their ideas would be beneficial for all markets (Edin and Shaefer, 174). This makes their recommendations seem more well developed, in comparison to
This, Talwalker explains, is because the strategies for addressing poverty are usually created by individuals of higher classes within society who believe they know how to most affectively “produce the greatest good for the greatest number”(Roy, 133). Further, utilitarian approaches try to address poverty without critical analysis of the marketplace at present that innately undermines one’s ability to individual liberties (Roy, 134). Ferguson’s attempt at addressing poverty is does appear to be utilitarian in the way that Talwalker describes. Ferguson focuses his critiques on theories that lean more socialist, rather than critiquing the capitalistic system that oppresses and disenfranchises certain demographics and populations (Ferguson, 129). By refusing to find fault in the system that created the disadvantage we see, Ferguson recommends we use the means of the individuals or groups who benefit from the system to gather their capital so that it can be allocated with the most need is (Ferguson, 129). Not only is this a top-down strategy, but it also fails to critique the system at had as an oppressive tool. Edin and Shaefer’s recommendations on the other hand do not appear completely utilitarian. Though Edin and Shaefer are giving top-down recommendations, they are critical of the system at work in America. The