Usually we tend to see social reality as aggregated phenomena, with statistics, projections and graphs that seek to explain in a simplified way an otherwise complex reality. The world of work, unemployment statistics, the percentage of poverty or the coefficients that measure inequality have the objective of making a reality that often overwhelms us measurable.
One of the great promises of the technological disruptions that came with the fourth industrial revolution is to radically improve the precision and specific content of those statistics so that the supposed knowledge of reality that they gave us is more accurate. But we will immediately return to these techniques, such as artificial intelligence or through data science.
This way of approaching social reality, as Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo warn in their book Rethinking Poverty, brings with it a problem: as we add complex variables of social reality through statistics, we move away from the specific elements that They are causing that certain social problem, such as poverty, but also youth unemployment, informality or school dropout, to mention a few of many.
The challenge of disconnection
In other words, the number two is the same in Burundi and in the United States. However, the characteristics of poverty, life experience and the needs of a person in a situation of vulnerability in these two countries are radically different. If we focus the question of poverty on statistics, we will most likely tend to compare two incomparable realities, such as poverty in Burundi and the United States.
The problem with this would be, then, to believe that a poor person has the same life experience and the same needs in two totally different contexts and that, consequently, canned social programs could be implemented that would solve the problem on all sides.
How do we solve poverty? So far we only have a diagnosis on how social problems cannot be faced. But if the question is “so, what do we do?”, the approach presented by the authors of this book also has a notion to contribute in this regard.
Joan Cwaik: “Whoever is free of technology should throw away the first Smartphone”
The experimental approach applied to social problems has the advantage that it allows us to get to know the specific reality of each field much better and remove canned programs from our toolbox. This vision also forces us to keep our minds open to new possibilities and alternatives to address social problems, and to be determined to question those things that we take for granted in theoretical terms.
In addition, on the other hand, the behavioral economic approach adds a novel component to the way we understand or can work to solve social problems, focusing on the way in which the different actors perceive reality and act accordingly. Thus, for example, the authors are satisfied that it is more feasible for the community to decide to contribute to solving the problem of poverty when presented with a specific case of a person than if a statistic with a global problem is presented. Paraphrasing other situations, we were able to say that one person in a vulnerable situation represents a tragedy, while millions of people in that situation are seen as statistics.
How can technology help us? This undoubtedly novel approach to the issue of poverty can lead us to reflect on the role of technology as a tool that could help us deepen this new way of dealing with the social issue. As we said, the technological disruptions that came with the fourth industry, such as machine learning, big data and artificial intelligence, help to improve the precision and specific content of these statistics so that the supposed knowledge of reality that they provide us is more accurate. .
Argentina, cradle of the crypto revolution
Using AI, for example, we have developed algorithms that can identify with a high degree of precision those families that are most likely to drop out of school or have food deficiencies, to name a few. Without going any further, in the province of Salta, from the Ministry of Early Childhood, this has been applied in conjunction with Microsoft since 2017.
It would give the impression that, in line with what the authors proposed in 2012, and even more energized by the technological disruption brought about by the fourth industrial revolution, a deeper knowledge of the terrain and of citizens in vulnerable situations allows us to apply policies much more focused and generate greater impact with fewer resources.
The big question that arises from this reflection is: can technology then be a powerful tool to fight poverty in an innovative and disruptive way? At first, it would seem so. But, as Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo would say, it will be a matter of testing how these ideas work in the field.
*Author and disseminator. Emerging technologies specialist.
You may also like
