Poverty: case studies & synthesis

Answer

(1) What kind of poverty (absolute/relative, multidimensional)? (2) What causes it (structure, conflict, governance, trap)? (3) Whose power keeps it in place? (4) What response fits, at what cost? (5) What trade-offs?

Answer

Because measurement, causes, power and responses interlock — a case usually involves several at once, and Paper 3 rewards synthesising them.

Answer

Both resources and empowerment — money AND power/voice — rather than only one, using the right mix of tools.

Answer

Extreme poverty has fallen dramatically and we know what works (transfers, services, fairer rules), so ending it is a matter of resources and political will.

Answer

Structures and power entrench poverty, conflict and weak governance keep resetting it, relative poverty tracks a moving standard, and every response hits trade-offs — so poverty is only partly solvable.

Answer

Extreme (absolute) poverty is largely endable, but relative poverty is reducible not eliminable — how much falls depends on political choices about resources, rules and power.

Answer

It has fallen dramatically as economies grew and interventions spread, proving it can be reduced by resources, will and shifting power.

Answer

Apply the frame to the stimulus (don't recite memorised facts): analyse kind, causes and power, then recommend a mix of tools and synthesise.

Answer

Because most poverty has both material and power roots and both national and global causes, so no single tool or actor suffices.

Answer

Connect it to the wider challenge — development, inequality and health — and weigh trade-offs (conditionality, dependency, cost), landing a judged position.

Answer

Realism plus agency: extreme poverty is largely endable and relative poverty reducible, and how much falls depends substantially on political choices.