Solidarity with the Poor
Exported from Holy-Writings.com on 2026-06-20 - 1 clipping

Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Gregory Baum, Solidarity with the Poor, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2000, bahai-library.com.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

CHAPTER 2

Solidarity with
the Poor
Gregory Baum

A ROMAN CATHOLIC IDEA OF DEVELOPMENT

The idea of development that emerged in the 1950s envisaged the res-
cue of poor people from their misery through the industrialization of
their societies. The hope was that the economic system that produced
the wealth of Western nations could be exported to the developing
countries and eventually make them wealthy too. W.W. Rostow (1960)
elaborated this idea in detail in his celebrated work, The Stages of Eco-
nomic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. This book offered a vision and
a plan for overcoming poverty in the world, as an alternative superior to
the Marxist enterprise. Rostow, director of Policy and Planning in the
us State Department during the Kennedy administration, is said to
have inspired President J.F. Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress. The inten-
tion of this program was to promote the modernization of Latin
America by supporting industrial development and fostering an entre-
preneurial culture of self-reliance and competitiveness.
To render a full account of how the Christian churches have viewed
the idea of development would demand an entire book. Both the Roman
Catholic Church and the Geneva-based World Council of Churches have
produced significant, critical literature on the topic of development.
What I wish to do in this paper is much more modest. In this section,
I draw on a number of papal documents to provide a summary of a
Roman Catholic idea of development; in the second section, I show that

in recent years the World Bank has come to regard religion as a possible    61
BAUM

factor in the promotion of economic development; and in the final sec-
tion, I argue that the social and economic sciences are never entirely
value free and that the researcher’s political vision and attitude toward
religion are likely to influence her or his conclusions.

Critics of the idea of development
At first, the Christian churches were ill at ease with the new idea of
development. They had heard the protests of Christian and non-
Christian groups in the poorer parts of the world, denouncing the
aggressive modernization of their regions. I will mention but two of
their objections. One is from Latin American liberation theology. The
theologians of this school, in dialogue with political economists, recog-

62   nized that the industrialization of the South by Northern capital created
patterns of dependency that prevented the countries of the South from
creating their own future in accordance with their own culture. If indus-
trialization was supported by Northern capital, they argued, it would be
guided by the North; it would produce goods for export to sell at high
prices on the world market, not goods needed by the local population;
it would use sophisticated technologies, not those appropriate to the
skills of the people; it would exploit the simple workers, paying them
in accordance with the law of supply and demand. More than that, these
Christians opposed the globalization of Western culture, with its com-
petitive spirit, ideals of personal autonomy, unrelenting work ethic, and
impatience with celebration and contemplation. Liberation theologians
replaced the notion of “development” (desarrollismo) with the concept of
“liberation” (Gutierrez 1973). They advocated the creation of a regional,
low-scale economy, based to a large extent on local resources, relying
mainly on local skills, and serving, for the most part, the needs of the
local population. Is there still room in today’s world, they asked, for
alternatives to Western industrial culture?
Liberation theology made use of dependency theory to interpret
the situation of the continents at the periphery of the global capitalist
system. To many observers this appeared to be an infiltration of Catholic
theology by Marxist ideas. Not so to Canadian observers. By the 1930s,
the Canadian liberal economist Harold Innis had already analyzed the
evolution of Canadian society in terms of the exploitative dynamics
between the “metropolis” and the “hinterland” (Drache 1995).
The arguments of liberation theology against Western-style devel-
opment are mainly economic and cultural. Yet, some communities have
also had specifically religious reasons to protest the globalization of cap-
italist culture. In Canada, we are keenly aware of this as First Nations
defend themselves against private developers and government-
sponsored development projects by affirming the sacredness of their
understanding of the land and their relationship to it. They claim that,
in the first place, natural resources are not commodities, means of
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

creating wealth, or even objects of barter to enrich First Nation
communities; natural resources, they insist, sustain a specific lifestyle,
support a local community, and form part of a living entity. For these
people, land is not real estate to be bought and sold: it is something
sacred. They venerate it as something that has given them life and con-
tinues to support and protect them. The land claims of First Nations are
not based on a Western liberal idea of property: they demand the power
to protect their land from the invasion of developers and preserve it to
ensure the continuance of their lifestyle. Yet, they are quite willing to
share this land with people from the dominant population, as long as
these people have the same reverence for the natural environment.
First Nation peoples, whether they are Christians or practice their
traditional cosmic religion, regard with great suspicion the secular

approach to life taken for granted in business, government, economics,         63
and other social sciences. As all these endeavours systematically exclude
the spiritual dimension of life, native peoples often regard them as a
form of brainwashing designed to undermine their cultural identity.
This theme is developed at length by the Ecumenical Association
of Third World Theologians, which was founded in Tanzania in 1976
and has been meeting since then at regular intervals. Here, Christian
theologians from Africa and Asia offer critical reflections on the secu-
larism of the industrialized world (Fabella 1997). They argue that polit-
ical science, economics, and other social sciences and development
projects based on the dominant model presuppose an anthropology — a
vision of humankind — that severs the human being from the realm of
the Spirit and contradicts the understanding of human life in African
and Asian cultures. Some of these theologians are even critical of Latin
American liberation theology: they feel that in relying primarily on an
economic critique of the oppressive conditions of their continent, liber-
ation theology has become excessively influenced by the secularism of
the oppressors. The position of these theologians is that the Western
economic empire makes people in Africa and Asia suffer “anthropolog-
ical oppression,” that is, the people find themselves caught in institu-
tions and overwhelmed by a set of symbols that rob them of their
cultural identity and produce religious anguish. If this analysis is cor-
rect, it may not be surprising that in many parts of the world people
turn to religious fundamentalism to protect themselves from the inva-
sion of the Western empire and mind-set.
It is not surprising that after listening to these and other voices of
protest, the Christian churches, especially the World Council of
Churches, made “development” an important issue, calling for a
response of faith. The major churches, Protestant and Roman Catholic,
have denounced the purely economic understanding of development
and the aggressive globalization of the free-market economy. In the pre-
sent world, marked by soul-destroying and often death-dealing inequal-
ity, the Christian churches have expressed in public statements their
BAUM

solidarity with the poor and their commitment to analyzing their own
societies and the world system from the perspective of the marginalized
and excluded. This expression of solidarity has produced a new under-
standing of the church’s mission to serve God’s reign in the world, to
bear, in other words, the burden with the victims of society and promote
love, justice, and peace.
The literature on the churches and development is extensive.1 As
I indicated above, I confine myself in this paper to a résumé of the
Roman Catholic idea of development proposed in two papal encycli-
cals — Pope Paul vi’s (1967) “Populorum Progressio” and Pope John
Paul ii’s (1987) “Sollicitudo Rei Socialis” (see excerpts of both in Annex 1).

64   Paul vi’s “Populorum Progressio”
In the “Populorum Progressio,” Paul vi showed himself keenly aware of
the protest against development mounted by Christian and non-
Christian groups in the poorer parts of the world. As we shall see, he
pays attention to their economic and religious arguments. As John Paul ii
(1987, p. 12) later noted, the “Populorum Progressio” emphasized “the
ethical and cultural character of the problems connected with develop-
ment” and the legitimacy of the Church’s intervention in the field.
Paul vi supported the idea that the wealthy nations of the North
must help the poorer nations of the South overcome the conditions that
produce misery and suffering. International solidarity is an obligation of
love and justice. Love of God and neighbour, which is the heart of bib-
lical faith, implies a commitment to universal solidarity, beginning
with the poor and oppressed. But even strict justice, required of Chris-
tians and non-Christians alike, demands that rich people and nations do
their utmost to help poor people and nations gain access to the wealth
of the Earth. Because God intended the goods of the Earth for the whole
of humanity, the current scandalous maldistribution of wealth is an
offence against justice and a grave sin. Paul vi praised the efforts of
international organizations, particularly the United Nations, to try to
restructure the economic order, support development projects in the
poor countries, and demand the reduction of their public debt.
Paul vi supported the modern idea of development, but in an
alternative mode. He appreciated, in particular, the humanistic devel-
opment theory of Father Louis Lebret (1959). The Pope took with
utmost seriousness the economic and religious arguments against the
dominant form of development. He gave an extended critique of liberal
capitalism and its impacts on the poorer continents. He recognized that
the plight of many Southern nations is, at least in part, the result of the
precarious economic conditions created by the colonial powers, such as
For a useful summary of this literature, see the Dictionary of Mission (Orbis Books
1997).
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

the concentration of agricultural production on a single crop, which left
these nations vulnerable when they became independent (Paul vi 1967,
s. 7). He also recognized the fear that “under the cloak of financial aid
or technical assistance, there lurk certain manifestations of what has
come to be called neo-colonialism, in the form of political pressures and
economic suzerainty aimed at maintaining or acquiring complete dom-
inance” (Paul vi 1967, s. 52). In more general terms, the Pope lamented
the emergence of neoliberalism, that is, the globalization, in theory and
in practice, of the self-regulating market system.
It is unfortunate that … a system has been constructed which con-
siders profit as the key motive for economic progress, competition
as the supreme law of economics, and private ownership of the

means of production as an absolute right that has no limits and car-               65
ries no corresponding social obligations. This unchecked liberalism
leads to dictatorship rightly denounced by Pius xi as producing
“the international imperialism of money.”2 One cannot condemn
such abuses too strongly by solemnly recalling once again that the
economy is at the service of man.
Paul vi (1967, s. 26)
Paul vi argued that “if certain landed estates impede the general
prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because
they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the
country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation”
(Paul vi 1967, s. 24). The Pope also considered it “unacceptable that
citizens with abundant incomes from the resources and activity of their
country should transfer a considerable part of this income abroad purely
for their own advantage, without care for the manifest wrong they
inflict on their country by doing this” (Paul vi 1967, s. 24). In certain
situations, the Pope continued, injustice cries to heaven:
When whole populations destitute of necessities live in a state of
dependence barring them from all initiative and responsibility, and
all opportunity to advance culturally and share in social and politi-
cal life, recourse to violence, as a means to right these wrongs to
human dignity, is a grave temptation. … We know, however, that
a revolutionary uprising — save where there is manifest, long-
standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental
personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the
country — produces new injustices, throws more elements out of
balance and brings on new disasters.
Paul vi (1967, ss. 30 and 31)

The reference is to paragraph 109 of Pope Pius xi’s “Quadragesimo anno” (O’Brien
and Shannon 1992).
BAUM

The Pope also asked us to question even the sacred cow of technol-
ogy, in a passage particularly prescient of today’s issues in development:
It is not sufficient to promote technology to render the world a
more humane place in which to live. The mistakes of their
predecessors should warn those on the road to development of the
dangers to be avoided in this field. Tomorrow’s technocracy can
beget evils no less redoubtable that those due to the liberalism of
yesterday. Economics and technology have no meaning except from
man whom they should serve.
Paul vi (1967, s. 34)
The Pope favoured the reform of these circumstances and dynamics,
calling for “bold transformations, innovations that go deep” (Paul vi
1967, s. 32) and encouraging individual involvement in the necessary

66   reforms, each according to his or her resources and capacity for action.
Yet, after reflecting on the nature of the human vocation and the
current condition of the world, he came to the conclusion that the
industrialization of society had become a necessity. According to the
Christian understanding of the human being, the Pope argued, the
quest for self-fulfillment is not optional. People must work, and work
hard, to humanize the conditions of their lives. One sentence of the
encyclical has a particularly “Western” ring:
By persistent work and use of his intelligence man gradually wrests
nature’s secrets from her and finds better application of her riches.
As his self-mastery increases, he develops a taste for research and
discovery, an ability to take a calculated risk, boldness in enter-
prises, generosity in what he does and a sense of responsibility.
Paul vi (1967, s. 25)
In this passage, the Pope endorsed modernization. In an earlier passage,
he supported industrialization. The evils of neoliberal capitalism,
according to Paul vi, must not be attributed to industrialization as such.
Industrialization can take place in a mixed economy in which market
forces — regulated by government, contained by the labour movement,
and tamed by a culture of solidarity — are made to serve the common
good of society.
Paul vi also took seriously the religious arguments against devel-
opment. He repudiated the generally accepted and purely materialistic
idea of development current at the time and suggested, instead, what he
called “integral” development, that is to say, a development that
improves people’s material conditions in the context of the fuller real-
ization of humanity in social, political, cultural, and religious terms.
Economic development must go hand in hand with the intensification
of social solidarity, political freedom and responsibility, access to educa-
tion, cultural continuity, and the search for greater religious depth:
If further development calls for work of more and more technicians,
even more necessary is the deep thought and reflection of wise men
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

[and women] in search of a new humanism which will enable mod-
ern [persons] to find [themselves] anew by embracing the higher
values of love and friendship, of prayer and contemplation.
Paul vi (1967, s. 20)

A purely secular culture has no access to this new humanism.
According to Paul vi, it is only by calling on the hidden divine powers,
graciously and undeservedly made available to us, that humans can
make progress on the road of love, justice, and peace in today’s complex
global society. Christian faith, hope, and love are not meant as an entry
into personal piety; rather, they constitute a world-transforming power
that dwells in people’s hearts and summons forth a transpersonal piety
of solidarity3 and concern for others.

The “Populorum Progressio,” it seems to me, is a document that
supports development, but from a particular perspective. First, it
affirms the need for worldwide industrialization; second, it endorses the
idea that the North must assist the development of the South, albeit in
an alternative fashion; and third, it understands the presence of God in
human life as a means to rescue us from personal and social sin and to
empower us for the sanctification of human history.
The passage of time has shown us that many questions remain.
First, can the resources of the Earth afford industrialization on a global
scale? Are all subsistence economies destined to disappear? Second,
should the somewhat paternalistic idea that the rich North must help
the poor South be replaced by a more cooperative model that recognizes
the distinct contributions of both partners to mutually beneficial inter-
action? The 1971 World Synod of Bishops moved beyond Paul vi’s
analysis when it insisted that Southern nations receiving help from the
North should remain the principal architects of their development and
the guardians of their culture (sbsga 1971). And third, is the humanis-
tic theology of Paul vi, which I fully and joyfully endorse, shared by all
people who believe in God? Members of other religions may have dif-
ferent ideas. Many Christians may interpret God as other than the
redeemer and transformer of human history — that is, acting in the here
and now — but look on God as the saviour rescuing them from history
and offering them a refuge in the sacred temple (in the afterlife).

Pope John Paul ii explained the term solidarity in “Sollicitudo Rei Socialis”: “polit-
ical leaders, and citizens of rich countries considered as individuals, especially if they are
Christians, have the moral obligation, according to the degree of each one’s responsibility,
to take into consideration, in personal decisions and decisions of government, this relation-
ship of universality, this interdependence which exists between their conduct and the
poverty and underdevelopment of so many millions of people” (John Paul ii 1987, s. 9,
emphasis in the original).
BAUM

John Paul ii’s “Sollicitudo Rei Socialis”
To commemorate the 20th anniversary of the “Populorum Progressio,”
Pope John Paul ii (1987) composed the encyclical “Sollicitudo Rei
Socialis.” He reexamined the question of development in the light of
more recent events and, through theological reflections on present-day
culture, demonstrated the need for a more nuanced concept of develop-
ment. John Paul ii agreed with the positions adopted by his predecessor
in the “Populorum Progressio,” namely, the need for industrialization,
the deleterious material and cultural consequences of neoliberalism, and
the need for international solidarity to promote the integral develop-
ment of developing countries. John Paul ii grieved with his predecessor
over the misery, oppression, and marginalization imposed on masses of
people in the South. He lamented that despite major political and eco-

nomic efforts made in the North and the South, several indicators of
basic needs revealed that the global situation was getting worse and that
the social and economic inequalities between rich and poor countries
and between rich and poor people in each country were increasing.
In this paper, I mention only one issue introduced by John Paul ii’s
encyclical, namely, the cultural causes that, in conjunction with eco-
nomic and political ones, are responsible for the increasing misery in the
world. John Paul ii mentioned in particular the economistic under-
standing of human beings; and the belief, sustained and guided by sci-
ence, in humanity’s orientation toward limitless progress. The Pope
reminded his readers that both liberals and Marxists share these two
convictions, even if they interpret them differently. He pointed an
accusing finger at contemporary Western culture and suggested that to
account for the “underdevelopment” of the South, we have to examine
the “superdevelopment” of the North; in other words, to understand the
troubling situation of the poor, we must examine the trouble-creating
situation of the rich:
A disconcerting conclusion about the most recent period should serve
to enlighten us: side-by-side with the miseries of underdevelop-
ment, themselves unacceptable, we find ourselves up against a form
of superdevelopment, equally inadmissible, because like the former it
is contrary to what is good and to true happiness. This superdevel-
opment, which consists in an excessive availability of every kind of
material goods for the benefit of certain social groups, easily makes
people slaves of “possession” and of immediate gratification, with
no other horizon than the multiplication or continual replacement
of the things already owned with others still better. This is the so-
called civilization of “consumption” or “consumerism” … .
John Paul ii (1987, s. 28, emphasis in the original)
John Paul ii analyzed “consumerism” from an ethical and theolog-
ical perspective. He argued that the urgent task of helping developing
countries overcome the conditions of hunger and misery demands a
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

moral conversion of wealthy countries and people everywhere. British
sociologist John Hargreaves, in his book Sport, Power and Culture, offered
a detailed analysis of consumerist, capitalist culture:
It is the way discourses and practices are articulated around features
of a consumer culture, and the way this whole complex is orches-
trated by certain key themes, that gives [contemporary capitalism]
its coherence and power. The orchestrating themes of this culture
are directed at selling a specifically modern, secular version of the
good life. The dominant discourse/practice is of youth, beauty,
romance, sexual attraction, energy, fitness, health, movement,
excitement, adventure, freedom, exotica, luxury, enjoyment, enter-
tainment, fun. Above all, it is a culture that esteems “self-expression.”
A truly astonishing variety of goods and services — from washing
powder, cars and foreign holidays, to cosmetics, fashion-wear, eat-

ing and aerobics — circulate on this basis: and concomitantly,
major segments of social life are organized around this consumer
culture.
Hargreaves (1975, p. 131)
According to John Paul ii, the North needs to transform its culture,
reject the consumerist mentality, and reenter the spiritual life.
The new idea that John Paul ii added to Paul vi’s idea of develop-
ment was that the goal of a world of justice and peace that meets the
basic needs of all people is wholly unrealistic unless rich nations are
willing to undergo a spiritual conversion. This is a bold assertion. Most
of the development literature, including reports by the United Nations
and the World Bank,4 deal with the situation of the poor. If the Pope
was correct, then what we need is research on the rich: their power,
ideals, culture, and worldview and the impact of their institutions on
the world at large.5

A personal spirituality
Before turning to the other questions I want to address, I will make a
few remarks on where I stand as a Catholic theologian and what inspires
me in my work of exploring the meaning and power of the Gospel in
today’s world. One important influence on my life has been the concept
of an “option for the poor,” first articulated in Latin American liberation
theology and then endorsed in papal and episcopal documents. This
option involves two commitments: to look at society from the
Most recently, the “World Development Report 2000/01: Poverty and Develop-
ment” (to be published by the World Bank in September 2000).
Susan George, Associate Director of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam and
a well-known critic of economic globalization, said, “Let the poor study themselves. They
already know what is wrong with their lives and if you truly want to help them, the best
you can do is give them an idea of how the oppressors are working now and can be
expected to work in the future” (George 1976, p. 289).
BAUM

perspective of its victims; and to publicly manifest solidarity with their
struggle for justice. Whereas the implications of this option are secular,
its inner spirit is religious and grounded in the Bible. Its roots are par-
ticularly evident in the Exodus story (the rescue of the people of Israel
from pharaonic oppression), the divine demand of social justice
announced by the Hebrew prophets, and the provocative preaching of
Jesus Christ that led to his condemnation as a troublemaker and to his
death on the Roman cross.
The option for the poor has released a new inwardness in the
Christian churches, marked by a certain spiritual anguish; that is, (1) we
are deeply troubled by the suffering of others, especially those who are
oppressed (the majority of humankind); (2) we grieve over the Church’s

70   past and present complicity with empire, colonialism, and other forms
of domination; and (3) we willingly expose ourselves to the painful and
unanswerable question of how we can reconcile our faith in a loving and
omnipotent God with the evil we see in the world. This new spiritual-
ity, which has its own “dark night of the soul,” is not devoid of hope and
the energy to act. In situations of grave injustice, Christian love trans-
forms itself into a yearning for justice and an impulse to act to lift the
heavy burdens from the shoulders of the oppressed.
What amazes many Christians, like me, is that in our association
with secular men and women committed to justice we often discover
that they also have a “spirituality.” By this I mean an inwardness of
compassion, urgency, and hope that inspires them and guides their lives,
even though they never talk about it. Perhaps they never talk about this
motivation because traditional spiritual language appears otherworldly
to them and they do not possess an alternative discourse to describe such
feelings. I often feel closer to such inwardly blessed secular people than
I do to those members of my own church who are insensitive to the
divine summons for justice. I do not speak of God to these secular asso-
ciates of mine. It does not occur to me to desire their “conversion”; on
the contrary, I marvel at their spiritual experience of standing aloof from
the dominant culture, feeling compassion for the unjustly treated, and
being empowered to act on their behalf. I detect there a moment of tran-
scendence. As a Catholic in the theological tradition of St Augustine
(354–430 ad), I am greatly impressed — as he was — by the sinful
dimension of society’s dominant structures and, at the same time, the
gratuity or “grace” of people’s capacity to love, do justice, and make
peace. Just as I respect their “secular spirituality” and have no intention
to “convert” my friends, I hope that they also respect — in their social-
scientific research and their support for public policies — the “other-
ness” in the mind-set of religious people.
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

THE WORLD BANK’S NEW INTEREST IN RELIGION

Structural-adjustment policies
imposed by the World Bank
After World War ii, the Bretton Woods Agreement created the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund (imf) to monitor the world
economy, loan money to poor countries in urgent need, and prevent
financial collapse on a universal scale. At the time, the British partici-
pants were unhappy that (on the insistence of the Americans) the
Bretton Woods institutions would be guided by a liberal economic
philosophy that conceived the free market as the engine moving history
forward toward universal well-being. When, in the early 1980s, Prime
Minister Thatcher of the United Kingdom and President Reagan of the

United States implemented neoliberal economic policies in their coun-
tries, the Bretton Woods institutions were confirmed in their neoliber-
alism and pursued it with even greater vigour.
The neoliberal policies had devastating effects on many of the
developing countries of the South. To promote free trade and the free
reign of market forces, the World Bank and the imf imposed the so-
called structural-adjustment policies (saps) on these countries. These
countries were to get no further loans unless they

porations;
Opened their borders to free trade and the entry of foreign cor-

 Deregulated their national economies;
 Privatized publicly owned enterprises;
and Reduced   government spending by cutting social programs
laying off government employees; and

 Shifted production from the local market to the export market.
The saps increased hunger and misery in many countries. Instead
of growing their own food and producing the goods they needed, peo-
ple were obliged to produce for export and thus increase their depen-
dency on the centre of world power. In the eyes of the World Bank and
the imf, this bitter medicine was needed to contain what they judged to
be irresponsible governments, discipline what they thought to be lazy
populations, and convince people that in the long run the self-regulating
market system would be the wealth-creating engine of world development.
Neoliberalism has become the new orthodoxy. In response to crit-
ics, the World Bank and the imf claim that they have no alternative.
Yet, others have offered alternatives. A well-known example is the 1989
report of the Economic Commission for Africa entitled African Alterna-
tive Framework to Structural Adjustment Programmes for Socio-Economic
Recovery and Transformation (eca 1989). Pressure from the World Bank
BAUM

seems to have been a strong contributing factor in the stagnation of this
report (Mihevc n.d.).
The industrialized countries of the North, I note, have increas-
ingly applied the saps to their own economies, and this has brought
about a major shift in the distribution of power and wealth. There are
signs that we are entering a new phase of human history. Central con-
trolling power has moved to international financial institutions and
transnational corporations (tncs), which are accountable to neither the
public nor any supervisory agency. National governments have lost the
capacity to promote the well-being of their people and protect them
from the tncs that enter their countries, destabilize their local
economies, and invest local profits in other countries (Martin and
Schumann 1997). As a policy and ideology, neoliberalism has widened

72   the gap between rich and poor in the industrialized countries; it has
produced a growing sector of chronically unemployed people and
promoted a culture of competitive individualism devoid of both social
solidarity and self-restraint. Only minority movements of spirited
people resist this culture. One such movement among the churches is
the world-wide ecumenical Jubilee 2000 Initiative,6 which addresses
itself to the Northern nations, the World Bank, and the imf. Based on
the Jubilee texts of Leviticus (25:13–24), in which God commands the
Israelites to redistribute wealth, release slaves, and cancel debts at reg-
ular intervals, this initiative demands the cancelation of the heavy debt
load that currently burdens developing countries. Accompanying this
ecumenical initiative is a major educational effort to raise the awareness
of church-going Christians.

Mounting criticism of the World Bank
We saw in the first part of this paper that the major Christian churches
on all continents have condemned neoliberal philosophy and demanded
political and economic policies based on international solidarity and a
desire for social justice. A growing number of nongovernmental organi-
zations (ngos) active in the South have also formulated criticisms of the
World Bank and the saps. This wave of complaints climaxed in 1994,
the 50th anniversary of the Bank’s foundation, when, under the slogan
“50 Years Is Enough,” the ngos succeeded in organizing a major cam-
paign critical of the Bank. This campaign informed the public of the
destructive, undemocratic, and unaccountable policies adopted by the

The Canadian Ecumenical Jubilee Initiative published a 30-page brochure, entitled
“A New Beginning: A Call for Jubilee,” about this initiative. It is available from the
Canadian Ecumenical Jubilee Initiative, po Box 772, Station F, Toronto, on, Canada
M4Y 2N6. More information on the Jubilee 2000 Debt Campaign can also be found on
the Canadian Ecumenical Jubilee Initiative homepage (www.web.net/~jubilee/debt.htm).
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

Bank and called for fundamental reforms of this institution. The cam-
paign received massive support. In fact, the leaders of the G7 countries
put reform of the World Bank on the agenda of their 1995 meeting in
Halifax.
In 1994, under its new president, James Wolfensohn, the World
Bank decided to listen to these complaints, enter into dialogue with the
ngos, and modify some of its policies. The Bank canceled its involve-
ment in a controversial project in India — the Narmada Dam. It admit-
ted that in many countries foreign debt was a serious problem and
prepared measures to alleviate it; it strengthened its commitment to
reduce poverty in the world; and, most significantly, it began to hold
meetings with the ngos. The World Bank admitted ngos to the 1995
assembly of the Bank and imf and created a joint World Bank–ngo

committee to review the saps.                                                 73
Great controversy roars around the significance of the changes
introduced by the World Bank. Some commentators think that the
Bank has adopted a new orientation more beneficial to developing coun-
tries, whereas others argue that these changes are largely window dress-
ing and do not weaken the Bank’s commitment to the saps or the
neoliberal logic behind them. Today, the World Bank is deeply com-
mitted to “world governance.” Good governance has also become a
concern of the United Nations (1995). Governance, I note, is not the
equivalent of government. Governance refers, rather, to the interaction of
several factors — including government and markets — in creating and
sustaining order and peace in society, especially given the social and cul-
tural consequences of globalization. Apart from governments and
markets, the concept of civil society encompasses other governance-
producing factors. Civil society includes professional associations,
labour unions, religious institutions, schools and universities, nonprofit
organizations, citizens’ movements, cultural centres, and — especially
in the South — foreign ngos.
The protest movement leading up to the World Bank’s 50th birth-
day may not have been the only reason for the Bank’s new concern for
global governance. The Bank shares the fear of all well-informed
citizens that the globalization of the economy and the breakdown of
subsistence economies, cultural cohesion, and social integration in many
developing countries are producing conditions of grinding misery and
social chaos that may easily explode in violence. An explosion of vio-
lence in developing countries would cause great human suffering,
threaten investment and private property, inhibit production and deliv-
ery of goods, and thus impede the expansion of the free-market econ-
omy. For all of these reasons (humanitarian and economic), the World
Bank has decided to encourage and support good governance, that is,
the ordering and pacifying of society under conditions of poverty and
dislocation.
BAUM

In the name of good governance, the World Bank now actively
intervenes in the affairs of developing countries on several levels:

 It puts new emphasis on role of the state;
ngosIt and
seeks cooperation with, and offers financial support for,
other organizations of civil society; and

spirituality.
It recognizes and encourages a role for religion, ethics, and

The World Bank’s dialogue with religion
Good governance includes support for an ethical culture that promotes

74   social well-being. Inwardness or spirituality has social consequences.
The world religions form patterned communities that sustain people in
difficult times, strengthen them in their communal efforts, and create
close bonds of friendship, cooperation, and mutual aid. For these rea-
sons, religious communities, as part of civil society, play an important
role in ensuring good governance. It is not surprising that the World
Bank, faithful to its new, post-1994 image, has begun to show concern
for spirituality and religion. It has sponsored several international con-
ferences on these issues in the hope that a better understanding of the
Bank’s aims will allow religious leaders and teachers of spirituality to
make a more focused contribution to humanity’s well-being. At the
same time, the World Bank is willing to learn from the wisdom of the
world religions.
I wish to comment on two such international conferences: the first,
the 1995 Conference on Ethics and Spiritual Values, held in Washington,
dc, focused on sustainable development; the second, the 1998 Confer-
ence on World Faiths and Development, held at Lambeth Palace in
London, United Kingdom, focused on cooperation between religions
and the World Bank.
At the opening of the 1995 Conference on Ethics and Spiritual
Values, James Wolfensohn gave the keynote address, “New Partner-
ships,” in which he made the following statement:
Development is not just a matter of looking at increases in gross
domestic product (gdp) par capita. In Africa I saw successful devel-
opment in villages where people were pulling themselves out of
deep poverty. Development is visible in people who, within the
structure of their familial or tribal system, possess a sense of
grandeur, a sense of optimism, a sense of hope; who talk with
excitement in their eyes about their children’s future. These people,
living on next to nothing, feel a sense of progress that is more than
economic. It encompasses recognition of roots and their spiritual
and cultural values, which we [the World Bank] need to nurture
and encourage. These values are what we should be developing … .
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

The [World Bank’s] central mission is to meld economic assistance
with spiritual, ethical and moral development.
It is not easy to explain to most people why I would leave a
successful business practice to come and try to make the world a
better place. … I came [here] because of a background that had, I
believe, within my own Jewish religion some sense of ethical, spir-
itual and moral values that I have attempted to live by and that
guide me.
Wolfensohn (1996, p. 1)
The conference proceedings, published by the World Bank, gave
the names of the 34 men and women it had invited to address the topic.
All the speakers agreed that ethics and spiritual values must be taken
into account in formulating economic policy, especially that related to
sustainable development. Most of them lamented the indifference of

economics to ethical considerations, but, with one exception, all failed
to articulate a critique of the World Bank’s economic policies. Only
Denis Goulet, a well-known, critical development economist, said in
plain language that economic globalization (as promoted by the World
Bank) undermined local economies and dissolved traditional values and
that environmentally sustainable development was therefore impossible
under the conditions created by these neoliberal policies (Serageldin and
Barrett 1996).
The Conference on World Faiths and Development, 18–19 February
1998, was hosted by George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury, and
James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, and held at Lambeth
Palace, London. Participants were leaders from nine world religions
(Baha’i Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism,
Judaism, Sikhism, and Taoism) and included the main traditions within
these religions.
The conference at Lambeth Palace was preceded by a roundtable
conference, A Christian Response to the International Debt Crisis, on
16–17 May 1996, organized by the Anglican Community Office at the
United Nations. This earlier conference set forth the biblical and Chris-
tian foundations for ethical norms relevant to the economy. It assigned
special significance to the Jubilee year. As stated in the conference doc-
uments, the immediate purpose of the roundtable conference was “to
express uncompromising concern with the human impact of imf and
World Bank policies” and to explore with the participants “possible
lines of practical action which might help alleviate negative effects of
[imf and World Bank] policy on the poor and vulnerable.”7 The confer-
ence participants produced a series of policy measures that they urged
the Bretton Woods institutions to take into account.8
See www.aco.org/united-nations/debtconf.html.
A 13-page statement of these recommendations (acoun 1996), plus the conference
program, can be obtained from the Rt Rev. James Ottley, Anglican Observer at the
United Nations, 815 Second Avenue, New York, ny 10017, usa (e-mail:
anglican_un_office@ecunet.org).
BAUM

In response to the roundtable conference, James Wolfensohn
agreed to cohost, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the 1998 Confer-
ence on World Faiths and Development. Here leaders of the world reli-
gions were engaged in sustained conversation with staff members of the
World Bank. At the end of the conference, the two co-chairs made a
joint statement summing up in 11 points the agreements that had been
reached. I offer a brief summary:9
1.     The religious leaders and the leading staff of the World Bank are
at one in their deep moral concern for the future of human well-
being and dignity.
2.     Human development must have regard for spiritual, ethical, envi-
ronmental, cultural, and social considerations.

3.     Human well-being includes spiritual and cultural expansion and
rescue from suffering that is due to poverty.
4.     It is important to listen to all the actors involved in development,
including especially the local community.
5.     The World Bank and the major religious communities agree on
the need to continue the dialogue.
6.     The religious communities will be allowed to influence the think-
ing of the World Bank.
7.     Several joint working groups will be established.
8.     The World Bank staff want more education regarding the world’s
religions, and the religious communities want more education
regarding international development.
9.     The religious communities have already contributed much to
development projects: they will continue to do so, with the back-
ing of the World Bank.
10. A light and flexible steering group will monitor progress in this
area.
11. Governments and international agencies will be exhorted to join the
search for better understanding between religion and development.
It is difficult to know how to interpret this joint statement. It is
unlikely that the churches have modified the position they have adopted
and defended over the years. Nor has the World Bank moved away from
its policy of imposing saps on developing countries or from its neolib-
eral approach. Critics claim that by engaging in this dialogue, the Bank
The documentation can be obtained from the Press Office, Lambeth Palace, London,
uk, SE1 7JU. It is also available on the Internet (www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/
faithsdialogue).
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

wants to persuade the world religions to contribute to the cause of good
governance and help stabilize society under the conditions of disinte-
gration produced by the saps. These critics think the World Bank wants
religion to save society for the globalization of the free market. In my
opinion, it is too early to judge the significance of this dialogue.

THE SUBJECTIVE DIMENSION OF
SOCIAL-SCIENCE RESEARCH

In this section, I touch on a topic that has been an interest of mine ever
since I studied sociology. I have always been impressed by the social the-
orists who challenged the claim to objectivity, or value neutrality, made

by the social sciences. These critical theorists had great respect for the
objective methodology of these sciences, that is, the so-called scientific
method: relying on empirical research, testing hypotheses, and produc-
ing a set of arguments that can be verified by other researchers. Yet, the
critical theorists insisted that in social-science research there is
inevitably a subjective dimension that depends on the social location,
talents, and options of the researcher. I note that this claim is quite dif-
ferent from certain postmodern trends in sociology that deconstruct the
objective methodology altogether. As the social sciences are never fully
objective, or value free, the critical theorists argue that it would be more
scientific if the social scientists articulated the implicit values operative
in their research and offered a rational critique of them, not, indeed, “to
prove” them but to defend their coherence and clarify their social
implications.
In the following pages, I comment on two issues in relation to
social-scientific research: its implicit sociopolitical perspectives and its
dominant secularism. These are issues of concern to the Christian
churches because Christianity — as well as all other religions — is
linked to a particular ethic and the churches must respond to the cur-
rent situation and its irrationalities in terms of this ethic. To do this,
they must enter into dialogue with political scientists, economists, and
other social scientists. Which of the many diverse currents in these
sciences should the churches trust? To give a brief answer to this ques-
tion, I say that the churches find social, political, and economic analy-
ses trustworthy if the evaluative presuppositions operative within these
analyses have an affinity with their own sets of values (Baum 1998).

The sociopolitical perspective
That the social location of social scientists and their political options
affect their analyses of society was an insight that was first articulated
by Marx and then explored and developed in the sociology of
BAUM

knowledge. I became acquainted with the sociology of knowledge
through two German authors of the 1920s: Max Scheler (1980 [1924]),
a conservative social thinker, and Karl Mannheim (1936 [1928]), a lib-
eral sociologist. Today’s students of sociology are introduced to this crit-
ical approach — admittedly a minority trend in sociology — through
the work of Jürgen Habermas (1971 [1968]), who has systematically
explored the relations between knowledge and social interest.
This paper is not the place to develop this critical theory in any
detail. Simply put, we bring to our scientific study of social phenomena
a perspective that expresses the relationship we have with our own soci-
ety. This is part of the subjective dimension operative in social-science
research. The critical approach is also very persuasive to the ordinary cit-
izen because it explains why research institutes and think tanks —

78   which all apply the scientific method faithfully — arrive at such diverse
conclusions. Critical theory explains why a simple appeal to the social
sciences cannot resolve the important social debates. Let me give a con-
crete example of this dilemma, drawn from an ecclesiastical document.
When the American Catholic bishops were preparing the 1986
pastoral letter, “Economic Justice for All,” they sought an answer to the
question of why unemployment and poverty were growing, why the gap
between rich and poor was widening, and why ever larger sectors of the
population were being marginalized and excluded from participation.
In their first draft of the pastoral letter (acb 1986), the bishops told us
that the social and economic scientists they consulted were divided on
these issues. Some of these scientists argued that major changes had
taken place in the structure of capital and the orientation of the econ-
omy; for this reason, repairing the damage and overcoming present
injustices would demand major structural changes. Other scientists dis-
agreed with this. They argued, instead, that the current economic
decline was not dramatic, that it indicated no significant break with the
past, and that it was simply the result of unwise policies adopted by
governments and certain industries. Adopting appropriate measures
could therefore incrementally overcome these issues.
In this first draft, the bishops mentioned another question that
remained unresolved by the scientists they had consulted. The bishops
wanted to know whether the economic collapse and the widespread
misery in the South were produced by developments in these countries
(to which American society was simply an onlooker) or whether these
conditions were in some way related to the growing wealth and power
of American society. Here, again, the scientists were unable to resolve
the question, even though they all followed an objective method and
provided demonstrations based on empirical research.10
For the two passages in the first draft of the pastoral letter, see acb (1984, pp. 342
and 370).
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

Because the scientists failed to arrive at an agreement, the American
bishops decided not to raise critical questions regarding liberal or
neoliberal capitalism in the final version of their pastoral letter. How-
ever, not all national bishops’ conferences have been as reticent. The
Latin American bishops who met at Medellín in 1968 were keenly
aware that economists and other social scientists are guided by a social
perspective: they may operate out of an implicit identification with the
established order or they may read the social reality from the perspec-
tive of society’s victims, that is, the poor, the oppressed, and the mar-
ginalized. The Latin American bishops were not surprised that scientists
disagreed in their analyses of society, and the bishops decided, for theo-
logical reasons, to trust those scientists who opted for the perspective of
the poor (lab 1968).

The Latin American bishops called this perspective the option for        79
the poor. They believed that, in fidelity to Jesus, Christians want to
commit themselves to this perspective. Thanks to liberation theology
and the leadership of the Latin American bishops, the option for the
poor has become an important principle of interpretation guiding spir-
ituality and social ethics in both Catholic and Protestant churches. The
Canadian Catholic bishops, in particular, have produced a series of pas-
toral statements on social and economic ethics, based on the perspective
of society’s victims. This has created a certain affinity between Christian
thought and critical theory.
I conclude from these reflections that because all social-scientific
research operates with a conscious or unconscious value-based orienta-
tion, “engaged research” — that is, research guided by a social-justice
commitment — is not only perfectly scientific but also more transpar-
ent, because it willingly articulates its implicit presuppositions.

Questioning the dominant secularism
of social science
Another implicit presupposition of the social sciences, closely related to
the topic of this paper, concerns their relation to the spiritual order. The
majority of social scientists recognize that, in the past, religion played
an important role in society, either as a principle of order (creating “a
sacred canopy”) or as a source of motivation (generating a common
ethos). But most social scientists have reduced religion to its social func-
tion: the study of religion does not provide them with empirical argu-
ments for a transcendent spiritual order. Most sociologists, moreover,
are convinced that in modern society, which is marked by industrializa-
tion, scientific rationality, and cultural pluralism, religion no longer ful-
fills any important social function. Religion no longer unites the social
order or provides a universally accepted set of values. As the existence of
a divine order cannot be scientifically demonstrated, many sociologists
argue that religion is becoming increasingly unbelievable. Religion,
BAUM

they think, survives only as the purely personal conviction of certain
groups of people, as a sentiment and a commitment to an imaginary
universe. Religion remains wholly extrinsic to the constitution of soci-
ety. The only true reality, “the really real,” is here in the visible universe
and human history, without any relationship to an invisible order. The
traditional notion of transcendence has lost its meaning. Spirituality is
at best the private interest of the few.
This secular outlook has been adopted by vast numbers of people
in present-day society, and this secularism is predominant in the guild
of political scientists, economists, and other social scientists. These sci-
entists, we note, do not regard this secular outlook as the creation of a
particular culture, that is to say, modern, Western, industrial culture:
rather, they see this outlook as revealing the truth about the world and

80   hence as a perspective applicable to the understanding of all other cul-
tures. Secularism here makes its own culture-transcending claim.
The early literature on development, starting with The Stages of
Economic Growth, by W.W. Rostow (1960), regarded the religions of peo-
ples in the South as an obstacle to economic development, because these
religions often trusted the rhythm of nature, fostered social identifica-
tion with family and community, and failed to promote a culture
oriented toward personal achievement and social mobility. Seen from
this perspective, development had to be accompanied by a secularization
of culture, that is to say, by an exclusion of religious values from public
policies and the organization of production and distribution.
On a previous page, I mentioned that critical voices in Asia and
Africa, as well as among native peoples of the Americas, have decried
the secular presupposition implicit in economic and other social
sciences and in the development projects sponsored by the industrial-
ized West. They regard secularization as a construct of Western empire,
aimed at undermining the identity of non-Western peoples. This out-
look finds a parallel in work such as Orientalism, by Edward Said (1978),
which demonstrated how the West’s claim to cultural superiority has
shaped the Western perception of Islamic–Arab civilization. Other
authors have shown that the same is true of the Western perception of
India and other Asian civilizations (see Lopez 1995). The contemporary
Christian theology of African theologians is critical of the secular atti-
tude of Western missionaries who looked on African belief in the
presence of spirits as a superstition to be discarded, even though the
Near Eastern world — in which Jesus himself lived — fully shared this
belief.
According to Peter Berger (1966), sociologists who study religious
phenomena must adopt what he called “methodological atheism.” The
sociologist must examine these phenomena with the presupposition
that they have material and cultural causes within history. For Berger
(who presents himself as a believing Christian), science must adopt the
perspective of Western secularism. In response, Robert Bellah, one of
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

Berger’s colleagues, argued instead that to appreciate religious phenom-
ena and avoid their systematic distortion, sociologists must opt for
“symbolic realism” (Bellah 1970, pp. 220–221). What does Bellah
mean by this? The sociologist, he argued, must be open to the possibil-
ity that the religious symbols that define the identity of a human
community have a transcendent referent; and that the sociologist’s own
secular presupposition is a Western cultural product rather than a uni-
versal truth. Bellah argued that without such an openness to, and empa-
thy with, religious phenomena, sociologists are unable to appreciate the
creativity of religion, its resourcefulness in helping people cope with
their hardship, and its self-transforming power in new historical
situations.
The question I cannot avoid asking is whether the attitude of the

social-science researcher toward the existence of a transcendent order           81
influences his or her analysis and conclusion. It seems to me that a social
scientist committed to a secular outlook would be insensitive to the cre-
ative powers of religion, unless he or she reached out for a special open-
ness. By this I do not mean, of course, that social scientists should all be
theists or believers of some sort. Not belief, but empathy, is required.
Max Weber insisted that sociologists stretch their imagination and learn
to think themselves into the mind-set of religious people. He wanted
students of sociology to read the great novels of world literature to dis-
cover that their own symbolic understanding of the universe was just
one among many others. Weber also recognized that science, or formal
rationality as he called it, does not reply to the riddle of the universe.
Science was not a philosophy that replied to the great human questions:
What is the meaning of it all? Where do we come from and where do
we go? Weber regarded himself as a nonbeliever, but he was modest
about it. He did not erect his unbelief into a metaphysics. He was not
committed to secularism as a definitive interpretation of the universe.
In his study of religion, he was open to the new and unexpected; he
recognized the historical weight of religious convictions. If there is any
truth in the above reflections, then development research should acquire
a special sensitivity to the spiritual dimension of people’s self-constitution
and to the ways the secular presuppositions of contemporary Western
culture threaten their identity.
Appreciating the creativity of religion has been a characteristic of
the alternative development theories produced by researchers and social
thinkers since the 1950s. The paradigms proposed by Louis-Joseph
Lebret (1959) (and see Malley 1968) in France and Denis Goulet (1971)
in the United States, based on practical experience and theoretical con-
siderations, have always demanded that a certain cultural and religious
continuity be a dimension of integral development. This is why they
insisted that the local community must be recognized as a partner in
any development project, be listened to by the so-called technical
experts, and be allowed to exercise co-responsibility fully. Although
BAUM

Western science plays an important role in such a project, the symbolic
meaning and creative energy to make the project work must come from
the culture and the religion of the local community. Any new attitudes
or practices must find roots in the dynamic elements of the community’s
own tradition. As much as people are changed by participating in a
development project, they want to retain their identity or, more pre-
cisely, they want to remain faithful to the past while reconstituting their
identity under new conditions.
When we examined the concept of development proposed by the
popes, we found that they recognized several dimensions of this process,
including a religious one. Yet, they did not sufficiently emphasize, I
then suggested, that to assure such an integral development, the local

82   community must be recognized as a partner in the full sense. Develop-
ment is not a process devised by Western scientists and executed by
Western-trained men and women of the South. Co-responsibility means
that both parties — the Western specialists and the local community —
make an original contribution. This point, as we saw, was made by the
1971 World Synod of Bishops. A truly creative aspect of integral devel-
opment is the summoning forth of meaning and wisdom derived from
the cultural and religious tradition.

ANNEX 1: EXCERPTS FROM PAPAL ENCYCLICALS AND
STATEMENTS BY THE WORLD SYNOD OF BISHOPS
CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT

Excerpts from “Populorum Progressio” 11
Encyclical letter of His Holiness Pope Paul vi, promulgated on
26 March 1967
7. … It must certainly be recognized that colonizing powers have
often furthered their own interests, power or glory, and that their
departure has sometimes left a precarious economy, bound up for
instance with the production of one kind of crop whose market
prices are subject to sudden and considerable variation. Yet while
recognizing the damage done by a certain type of colonialism and
its consequences, one must at the same time acknowledge the qual-
ities and achievement of colonizers who brought their science and
technical knowledge and left beneficial results of their presence in
so many underprivileged regions. The structures established by
them persist, however incomplete they may be; they diminished

Original footnotes omitted. Emphasis added by the author (bold).
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

ignorance and sickness, brought the benefits of communications
and improved living conditions.
8. Yet once this is admitted, it remains only too true that the resul-
tant situation is manifestly inadequate for facing the hard reality of
modern economics. Left to itself it works rather to widen the dif-
ferences in the world’s levels of life, not to diminish them: rich
peoples enjoy rapid growth whereas the poor develop slowly. The
imbalance is on the increase: some produce a surplus of foodstuffs,
others cruelly lack them and see their exports made uncertain.
…
14. Development cannot be limited to mere economic growth.
In order to be authentic, it must be complete: integral, that is,
it has to promote the good of every man and of the whole

man. As an eminent specialist has very rightly and emphatically           83
declared: “We do not believe in separating the economic from the
human, nor development from the civilizations in which it exists.
What we hold important is man, each man and each group of men,
and we even include the whole of humanity.”
15. In the design of God, every man is called upon to develop and
fulfill himself, for every life is a vocation. At birth, everyone is
granted, in germ, a set of aptitudes and qualities for him to bring
to fruition. Their coming to maturity, which will be the result of
education received from the environment and personal efforts, will
allow each man to direct himself toward the destiny intended for
him by his Creator. Endowed with intelligence and freedom, he is
responsible for his fulfillment as he is for his salvation. He is aided,
or sometimes impeded, by those who educate him and those with
whom he lives, but each one remains, whatever be these influences
affecting him, the principal agent of his own success or failure. By
the unaided effort of his own intelligence and his will, each man can
grow in humanity, can enhance his personal worth, can become
more a person.
16. However, this self-fulfillment is not something optional. Just as
the whole of creation is ordained to its Creator, so spiritual beings
should of their own accord orientate their lives to God, the first truth
and the supreme good. Thus it is that human fulfillment constitutes,
as it were, a summary of our duties. But there is much more: this
harmonious enrichment of nature by personal and responsible effort
is ordered to a further perfection. By reason of his union with Christ,
the source of life, man attains to new fulfillment of himself, to a
transcendent humanism which gives him his greatest possible per-
fection: this is the highest goal of personal development.
17. But each man is a member of society. He is part of the whole of
mankind. It is not just certain individuals, but all men who are
called to this fullness of development. Civilizations are born,
develop and die. But humanity is advancing along the path of his-
tory like the waves of a rising tide encroaching gradually on the
BAUM

shore. We have inherited from past generations, and we have bene-
fited from the work of our contemporaries: for this reason we have
obligations towards all, and we cannot refuse to interest ourselves in
those who will come after us to enlarge the human family. The
reality of human solidarity, which is a benefit for us, also imposes a
duty.
18. This personal and communal development would be threatened
if the true scale of values were undermined. The desire for necessi-
ties is legitimate, and work undertaken to obtain them is a duty: “If
any man will not work, neither let him eat.” But the acquiring of
temporal goods can lead to greed, to the insatiable desire for more,
and can make increased power a tempting objective. Individuals,
families and nations can be overcome by avarice, be they poor or
rich, and all can fall victim to a stifling materialism.

19. Increased possession is not the ultimate goal of nations nor
of individuals. All growth is ambivalent. It is essential if man
is to develop as a man, but in a way it imprisons man if he con-
siders it the supreme good, and it restricts his vision. Then we
see hearts harden and minds close, and men no longer gather
together in friendship but out of self-interest, which soon leads to
oppositions and disunity. The exclusive pursuit of possessions thus
become an obstacle to individual fulfillment and to man’s true
greatness. Both for nations and for individual men, avarice is the
most evident form of moral underdevelopment.
20. If further development calls for the work of more and more
technicians, even more necessary is the deep thought and reflection
of wise men in search of a new humanism which will enable mod-
ern man to find himself anew by embracing the higher values of
love and friendship, of prayer and contemplation. This is what will
permit the fullness of authentic development, a development which
is for each and all the transition from less human conditions to those
which are more human.
21. Less human conditions: the lack of material necessities for
those who are without the minimum essential for life, the moral
deficiencies of those who are mutilated by selfishness. Less human
conditions: oppressive social structures, whether due to the abuses
of ownership or to the abuses of power, to the exploitation of work-
ers or to unjust transactions. Conditions that are more human:
the passage from misery towards the possession of necessities, vic-
tory over social scourges, the growth of knowledge, the acquisition
of culture. Additional conditions that are more human: increased
esteem for the dignity of others, the turning toward the spirit of
poverty, cooperation for the common good, the will and desire for
peace. Conditions that are still more human: the acknowledgment
by man of supreme values, and of God their source and their final-
ity. Conditions that, finally and above all, are more human: faith, a
gift of God accepted by the good will of man, and unity in the
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

charity of Christ, Who calls us all to share as sons in the life of the
living God, the Father of all men.
…
24. If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because
they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring
hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the coun-
try, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.
While giving a clear statement on this, the Council recalled no less
clearly that the available revenue is not to be used in accordance
with mere whim, and that no place must be given to selfish specu-
lation. Consequently it is unacceptable that citizens with abundant
incomes from the resources and activity of their country should
transfer a considerable part of this income abroad purely for their

own advantage, without care for the manifest wrong they inflict on          85
their country by doing this.
25. The introduction of industry is a necessity for economic growth
and human progress; it is also a sign of development and con-
tributes to it. By persistent work and use of his intelligence man
gradually wrests nature’s secrets from her and finds a better appli-
cation for her riches. As his self-mastery increases, he develops a
taste for research and discovery, an ability to take a calculated risk,
boldness in enterprises, generosity in what he does and a sense of
responsibility.
26. But it is unfortunate that on these new conditions of soci-
ety a system has been constructed which considers profit as
the key motive for economic progress, competition as the
supreme law of economics, and private ownership of the
means of production as an absolute right that has no limits
and carries no corresponding social obligation. This unchecked
liberalism leads to dictatorship rightly denounced by Pius xi as
producing “the international imperialism of money.” One cannot
condemn such abuses too strongly by solemnly recalling once again
that the economy is at the service of man. But if it is true that a type
of capitalism has been the source of excessive suffering, injustices
and fratricidal conflicts whose effects still persist, it would also be
wrong to attribute to industrialization itself evils that belong to the
woeful system which accompanied it. On the contrary one must rec-
ognize in all justice the irreplaceable contribution made by the
organization of labor and of industry to what development has
accomplished.
…
30. There are certainly situations whose injustice cries to heaven.
When whole populations destitute of necessities live in a state of
dependence barring them from all initiative and responsibility, and
all opportunity to advance culturally and share in social and
BAUM

political life, recourse to violence, as a means to right these wrongs
to human dignity, is a grave temptation.
31. We know, however, that a revolutionary uprising — save where
there is manifest, long-standing tyranny which would do great
damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the
common good of the country — produces new injustices, throws
more elements out of balance and brings on new disasters. A real
evil should not be fought against at the cost of greater misery.
32. We want to be clearly understood: the present situation must be
faced with courage and the injustices linked with it must be fought
against and overcome. Development demands bold transformations,
innovations that go deep. Urgent reforms should be undertaken
without delay. It is for each one to take his share in them with gen-

86          erosity, particularly those whose education, position and opportuni-
ties afford them wide scope for action. May they show an example,
and give of their own possessions as several of Our brothers in the
episcopacy have done. In so doing they will live up to men’s expec-
tations and be faithful to the Spirit of God, since it is “the ferment
of the Gospel which has aroused and continues to arouse in man’s
heart the irresistible requirements of his dignity.”
33. Individual initiative alone and the mere free play of com-
petition could never assure successful development. One must
avoid the risk of increasing still more the wealth of the rich and the
dominion of the strong, whilst leaving the poor in their misery and
adding to the servitude of the oppressed. Hence programs are nec-
essary in order “to encourage, stimulate, coordinate, supplement
and integrate” the activity of individuals and of intermediary bod-
ies. It pertains to the public authorities to choose, even to lay down
the objectives to be pursued, the ends to be achieved, and the means
for attaining these, and it is for them to stimulate all the forces
engaged in this common activity. But let them take care to associ-
ate private initiative and intermediary bodies with this work. They
will thus avoid the danger of complete collectivization or of arbi-
trary planning, which, by denying liberty, would prevent the exer-
cise of the fundamental rights of the human person.
34. This is true since every program, made to increase production,
has, in the last analysis, no other raison d’être than the service of
man. Such programs should reduce inequalities, fight discrimina-
tions, free man from various types of servitude and enable him to be
the instrument of his own material betterment, of his moral
progress and of his spiritual growth. To speak of development, is
in effect to show as much concern for social progress as for
economic growth. It is not sufficient to increase overall wealth
for it to be distributed equitably. It is not sufficient to pro-
mote technology to render the world a more humane place in
which to live. The mistakes of their predecessors should warn
those on the road to development of the dangers to be avoided in
this field. Tomorrow’s technocracy can beget evils no less
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

redoubtable than those due to the liberalism of yesterday. Eco-
nomics and technology have no meaning except from man
whom they should serve. And man is only truly man in as far as,
master of his own acts and judge of their worth, he is author of his
own advancement, in keeping with the nature which was given to
him by his Creator and whose possibilities and exigencies he him-
self freely assumes.
…
40. In addition to professional organizations, there are also institu-
tions which are at work. Their role is no less important for the suc-
cess of development. “The future of the world stands in peril,” the
Council gravely affirms, “unless wiser men are forthcoming.” And
it adds: “many nations, poorer in economic goods, are quite rich in

wisdom and able to offer noteworthy advantages to others.” Rich or         87
poor, each country possesses a civilization handed down by their
ancestors: institutions called for by life in this world, and higher
manifestations of the life of the spirit, manifestations of an artistic,
intellectual and religious character. When the latter possess true
human values, it would be grave error to sacrifice them to the for-
mer. A people that would act in this way would thereby lose the
best of its patrimony; in order to live, it would be sacrificing its rea-
sons for living. Christ’s teaching also applies to people: “What does
it profit a man to gain the whole world if he suffers the loss of his
soul.”
41. Less well-off peoples can never be sufficiently on their
guard against this temptation which comes to them from
wealthy nations. For these nations all too often set an example
of success in a highly technical and culturally developed civi-
lization; they also provide the model for a way of acting that is
principally aimed at the conquest of material prosperity. Not
that material prosperity of itself precludes the activity of the human
spirit. On the contrary, the human spirit, “increasingly free of its
bondage to creatures, can be more easily drawn to the worship and
contemplation of the Creator.” However, “modern civilization itself
often complicates the approach to God, not for any essential reason,
but because it is excessively engrossed in earthly affairs.” Develop-
ing nations must know how to discriminate among those things
that are held out to them; they must be able to assess critically, and
eliminate those deceptive goods which would only bring about a
lowering of the human ideal, and to accept those values that are
sound and beneficial, in order to develop them alongside their own,
in accordance with their own genius.
42. What must be aimed at is complete humanism. And what is
that if not the fully-rounded development of the whole man and of
all men? A humanism closed in on itself, and not open to the val-
ues of the spirit and to God Who is their source, could achieve
apparent success. True, man can organize the world apart from
God, but “without God man can organize it in the end only to
BAUM

man’s detriment. An isolated humanism is an inhuman
humanism.” There is no true humanism but that which is open to
the Absolute and is conscious of a vocation which gives human life
its true meaning. Far from being the ultimate measure of all things,
man can only realize himself by reaching beyond himself. As Pascal
has said so well: “Man infinitely surpasses man.”
…
47. But neither all this nor the private and public funds that have
been invested, nor the gifts and loans that have been made, can suf-
fice. It is not just a matter of eliminating hunger, nor even of reduc-
ing poverty. The struggle against destitution, though urgent and
necessary, is not enough. It is a question, rather, of building a world
where every man, no matter what his race, religion or nationality,
can live a fully human life, freed from servitude imposed on him by

other men or by natural forces over which he has not sufficient con-
trol; a world where freedom is not an empty word and where the
poor man Lazarus can sit down at the same table with the rich man.
This demands great generosity, much sacrifice and unceasing effort
on the part of the rich man. Let each one examine his conscience, a
conscience that conveys a new message for our times. Is he prepared
to support out of his own pocket works and undertakings organized
in favor of the most destitute? Is he ready to pay higher taxes so that
the public authorities can intensify their efforts in favor of develop-
ment? Is he ready to pay a higher price for imported goods so that
the producer may be more justly rewarded? Or to leave his country,
if necessary and if he is young, in order to assist in this development
of the young nations?
48. The same duty of solidarity that rests on individuals exists
also for nations: “Advanced nations have a very heavy obligation
to help the developing peoples.” It is necessary to put this teaching
of the Council into effect. Although it is normal that a nation
should be the first to benefit from the gifts that Providence has
bestowed on it as the fruit of the labors of its people, still no coun-
try can claim on that account to keep its wealth for itself alone.
Every nation must produce more and better quality goods to give
to all its inhabitants a truly human standard of living, and also to
contribute to the common development of the human race. Given
the increasing needs of the under-developed countries, it should be
considered quite normal for an advanced country to devote a part of
its production to meet their needs, and to train teachers, engineers,
technicians and scholars prepared to put their knowledge and their
skill at the disposal of less fortunate peoples.
…
52. There is certainly no need to do away with bilateral and multi-
lateral agreements: they allow ties of dependence and feelings of
bitterness, left over from the era of colonialism, to yield place to the
happier relationship of friendship, based on a footing of constitu-
tional and political equality. However, if they were to be fitted into
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

the framework of worldwide collaboration, they would be beyond
all suspicion, and as a result there would be less distrust on the part
of the receiving nations. These would have less cause for fearing
that, under the cloak of financial aid or technical assistance, there
lurk certain manifestations of what has come to be called neo-
colonialism, in the form of political pressures and economic
suzerainty aimed at maintaining or acquiring complete dominance.
…
57. Of course, highly industrialized nations export for the most part
manufactured goods, while countries with less developed economies
have only food, fibers and other raw materials to sell. As a result of
technical progress the value of manufactured goods is rapidly
increasing and they can always find an adequate market. On the

other hand, raw materials produced by under-developed countries            89
are subject to wide and sudden fluctuations in price, a state of affairs
far removed from the progressively increasing value of industrial
products. As a result, nations whose industrialization is limited are
faced with serious difficulties when they have to rely on their
exports to balance their economy and to carry out their plans for
development. The poor nations remain ever poor while the rich ones
become still richer.
58. In other words, the rule of free trade, taken by itself, is no
longer able to govern international relations. Its advantages are
certainly evident when the parties involved are not affected by any
excessive inequalities of economic power: it is an incentive to
progress and a reward for effort. That is why industrially developed
countries see in it a law of justice. But the situation is no longer the
same when economic conditions differ too widely from country to
country: prices which are “freely” set in the market can produce
unfair results. One must recognize that it is the fundamental prin-
ciple of liberalism, as the rule for commercial exchange, which is
questioned here.
59. The teaching of Leo xiii in Rerum Novarum is always valid: if
the positions of the contracting parties are too unequal, the consent
of the parties does not suffice to guarantee the justice of their con-
tract, and the rule of free agreement remains subservient to the
demands of the natural law. What was true of the just wage for the
individual is also true of international contracts: an economy of
exchange can no longer be based solely on the law of free com-
petition, a law which, in its turn, too often creates an eco-
nomic dictatorship. Freedom of trade is fair only if it is subject
to the demands of social justice.
…
71. We are happy that experts are being sent in larger and larger
numbers on development missions by institutions, whether inter-
national or bilateral, or by private organizations: “they ought not
conduct themselves in a lordly fashion, but as helpers and
BAUM

co-workers.” A people quickly perceives whether those who
come to help them do so with or without affection, whether
they come merely to apply their techniques or to recognize in
man his full value.
Their message is in danger of being rejected if it is not presented
in the context of brotherly love.
72. Hence, necessary technical competence must be accompanied
by authentic signs of disinterested love. Freed of all nationalistic
pride and of every appearance of racism, experts should learn how to
work in close collaboration with all. They realize that their com-
petence does not confer on them a superiority in every field.
The civilization which formed them contains, without doubt,
elements of universal humanism, but it is not the only civi-

90          lization nor does it enjoy a monopoly of valuable elements.
Moreover it cannot be imported without undergoing adapta-
tions. The men on these missions will be intent on discovering,
along with its history, the component elements of the cultural
riches of the country receiving them. Mutual understanding will be
established which will enrich both cultures.
…
76. Excessive economic, social and cultural inequalities among peo-
ples arouse tensions and conflicts, and are a danger to peace. As We
said to the Fathers of the Council when We returned from Our jour-
ney of peace to the United Nations: “The condition of the peoples
in process of development ought to be the object of our considera-
tion; or better: our charity for the poor in the world — and there
are multitudes of them — must become more considerate, more
active, more generous.” To wage war on misery and to struggle
against injustice is to promote, along with improved conditions,
the human and spiritual progress of all men, and therefore the com-
mon good of humanity. Peace cannot be limited to a mere
absence of war, the result of an ever precarious balance of
forces. No, peace is something that is built up day after day, in
the pursuit of an order intended by God, which implies a
more perfect form of justice among men.

Excerpts from “Sollicitudo Rei Socialis” 12
Encyclical letter of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul ii, promulgated in
1987 on the 20th anniversary of “Populorum Progressio”
9. … Unfortunately, from the economic point of view, the develop-
ing countries are much more numerous than the developed ones;
the multitudes of human beings who lack the goods and services
Original footnotes omitted. Emphasis in the original (italics) and added by the
author (bold).
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

offered by development are much more numerous than those who pos-
sess them.
We are therefore faced with a serious problem of unequal distrib-
ution of the means of subsistence originally meant for everybody,
and thus also an unequal distribution of the benefits deriving from
them. And this happens not through the fault of the needy people,
and even less through a sort of inevitability dependent on natural
conditions or circumstances as a whole.
The Encyclical of Paul vi, in declaring that the social question
has acquired worldwide dimensions, first of all points out a moral
fact, one which has its foundation in an objective analysis of reality.
In the words of the Encyclical itself, “each one must be conscious”
of this fact, precisely because it directly concerns the conscience,
which is the source of moral decisions.

In this framework, the originality of the Encyclical consists not
so much in the affirmation, historical in character, of the universal-
ity of the social question, but rather in the moral evaluation of this
reality. Therefore political leaders, and citizens of rich coun-
tries considered as individuals, especially if they are Chris-
tians, have the moral obligation, according to the degree of
each one’s responsibility, to take into consideration, in personal
decisions and decisions of government, this relationship of
universality, this interdependence which exists between their
conduct and the poverty and underdevelopment of so many
millions of people. Pope Paul’s Encyclical translates more suc-
cinctly the moral obligation as the “duty of solidarity”; and this
affirmation, even though many situations have changed in the
world, has the same force and validity today as when it was written.
On the other hand, without departing from the lines of this
moral vision, the originality of the Encyclical also consists in the
basic insight that the very concept of development, if considered in
the perspective of universal interdependence, changes notably. True
development cannot consist in the simple accumulation of
wealth and in the greater availability of goods and services, if
this is gained at the expense of the development of the masses,
and without due consideration for the social, cultural and
spiritual dimensions of the human being.
…
15. … We should add here that in today’s world there are many
other forms of poverty. For are there not certain privations or depriva-
tions which deserve this name? The denial or the limitation of
human rights as for example the right to religious freedom, the
right to share in the building of society, the freedom to organize and
to form unions, or to take initiatives in economic matters — do
these not impoverish the human person as much as, if not more
than, the deprivation of material goods? And is development which
BAUM

does not take into account the full affirmation of these rights really
development on the human level?
In brief, modern underdevelopment is not only economic but
also cultural, political and simply human, as was indicated twenty
years ago by the Encyclical Populorum Progressio. Hence at this
point we have to ask ourselves if the sad reality of today might
not be, at least in part, the result of a too narrow idea of devel-
opment, that is, a mainly economic one.
16. It should be noted that in spite of the praiseworthy efforts made
in the last two decades by the more developed or developing nations
and the International Organizations to find a way out of the situa-
tion, or at least to remedy some of its symptoms, the conditions
have become notably worse.
Responsibility for this deterioration is due to various causes.

Notable among them are undoubtedly grave instances of omissions
on the part of the developing nations themselves, and especially on
the part of those holding economic and political power. Nor can we
pretend not to see the responsibility of the developed nations,
which have not always, at least in due measure, felt the duty to help
countries separated from the affluent world to which they them-
selves belong.
Moreover, one must denounce the existence of economic,
financial and social mechanisms which, although they are
manipulated by people, often function almost automatically,
thus accentuating the situation of wealth for some and
poverty for the rest. These mechanisms, which are manoeu-
vred directly or indirectly by the more developed countries, by
their very functioning favor the interests of the people manip-
ulating them. But in the end they suffocate or condition the
economies of the less developed countries. Later on these mecha-
nisms will have to be subjected to a careful analysis under the
ethical–moral aspect.
Populorum Progressio already foresaw the possibility that under
such systems the wealth of the rich would increase and the poverty
of the poor would remain. A proof of this forecast has been the
appearance of the so-called Fourth World.
…
28. At the same time, however, the “economic” concept itself, linked
to the word development, has entered into crisis. In fact there is a
better understanding today that the mere accumulation of goods and
services, even for the benefit of the majority, is not enough for the
realization of human happiness. Nor, in consequence, does the avail-
ability of the many real benefits provided in recent times by science
and technology, including the computer sciences, bring freedom
from every form of slavery. On the contrary, the experience of
recent years shows that unless all the considerable body of
resources and potential at man’s disposal is guided by a moral
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of
the human race, it easily turns against man to oppress him.
A disconcerting conclusion about the most recent period should
serve to enlighten us: side-by-side with the miseries of under-
development, themselves unacceptable, we find ourselves up
against a form of superdevelopment, equally inadmissible,
because like the former it is contrary to what is good and to
true happiness. This superdevelopment, which consists in an
excessive availability of every kind of material goods for the. bene-
fit of certain social groups, easily makes people slaves of “posses-
sion” and of immediate gratification, with no other horizon than the
multiplication or continual replacement of the things already
owned with others still better. This is the so-called civilization of
“consumption” or “consumerism,” which involves so much “throwing-

away” and “waste.” An object already owned but now superseded by            93
something better is discarded, with no thought of its possible last-
ing value in itself, nor of some other human being who is poorer.
All of us experience firsthand the sad effects of this blind sub-
mission to pure consumerism: in the first place a crass materialism,
and at the same time a radical dissatisfaction, because one quickly
learns unless one is shielded from the flood of publicity and the
ceaseless and tempting offers of products that the more one
possesses the more one wants, while deeper aspirations remain
unsatisfied and perhaps even stifled.
The Encyclical of Pope Paul vi pointed out the difference, so
often emphasized today, between “having” and “being,” which had
been expressed earlier in precise words by the Second Vatican Coun-
cil. To “have” objects and goods does not in itself perfect the human
subject, unless it contributes to the maturing and enrichment of
that subject’s “being,” that is to say unless it contributes to the real-
ization of the human vocation as such.
Of course, the difference between “being” and “having,” the
danger inherent in a mere multiplication or replacement of things
possessed compared to the value of “being,” need not turn into a
contradiction. One of the greatest injustices in the contemporary
world consists precisely in this: that the ones who possess much are
relatively few and those who possess almost nothing are many. It is
the injustice of the poor distribution of the goods and services orig-
inally intended for all.
This then is the picture: there are some people — the few
who possess much — who do not really succeed in “being”
because, through a reversal of the hierarchy of values, they are
hindered by the cult of “having”; and there are others — the
many who have little or nothing — who do not succeed in
realizing their basic human vocation because they are
deprived of essential goods.
The evil does not consist in “having” as such, but in possess-
ing without regard for the quality and the ordered hierarchy of
the goods one has. Quality and hierarchy arise from the
BAUM

subordination of goods and their availability to man’s “being”
and his true vocation.
This shows that although development has a necessary economic
dimension, since it must supply the greatest possible number of the
world’s inhabitants with an availability of goods essential for them
“to be,” it is not limited to that dimension. If it is limited to this,
then it turns against those whom it is meant to benefit.
The characteristics of full development, one which is “more
human” and able to sustain itself at the level of the true vocation of
men and women without denying economic requirements, were
described by Paul vi.
29. Development which is not only economic must be measured
and oriented according to the reality and vocation of man seen in

94          his totality, namely, according to his interior dimension. There is no
doubt that he needs created goods and the products of industry,
which is constantly being enriched by scientific and technological
progress. And the ever greater availability of material goods not
only meets needs but also opens new horizons. The danger of the
misuse of material goods and the appearance of artificial needs
should in no way hinder the regard we have for the new goods and
resources placed at our disposal and the use we make of them. On
the contrary, we must see them as a gift from God and as a response
to the human vocation, which is fully realized in Christ.
…
32. … Collaboration in the development of the whole person and of
every human being is in fact a duty of all towards all, and must be
shared by the four parts of the world: East and West, North and
South; or, as we say today, by the different “worlds.” If, on the con-
trary, people try to achieve it in only one part, or in only one world,
they do so at the expense of the others; and, precisely because the
others are ignored, their own development becomes exaggerated
and misdirected.
Peoples or nations too have a right to their own full devel-
opment, which while including as already said the economic
and social aspects should also include individual cultural
identity and openness to the transcendent. Not even the need
for development can be used as an excuse for imposing on
others one’s own way of life or own religious belief.
33. Nor would a type of development which did not respect and
promote human rights — personal and social, economic and politi-
cal, including the rights of nations and of peoples — be really worthy of
man.
Today, perhaps more than in the past, the intrinsic contradiction of
a development limited only to its economic element is seen more
clearly. Such development easily subjects the human person and his
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

deepest needs to the demands of economic planning and selfish
profit.
The intrinsic connection between authentic development and
respect for human rights once again reveals the moral character of
development: the true elevation of man, in conformity with the
natural and historical vocation of each individual, is not attained
only by exploiting the abundance of goods and services, or by hav-
ing available perfect infrastructures.
When individuals and communities do not see a rigorous
respect for the moral, cultural and spiritual requirements, based on
the dignity of the person and on the proper identity of each com-
munity, beginning with the family and religious societies, then all
the rest — availability of goods, abundance of technical resources
applied to daily life, a certain level of material well-being — will

prove unsatisfying and in the end contemptible. The Lord clearly
says this in the Gospel, when he calls the attention of all to the true
hierarchy of values: “For what will it profit a man, if he gains the
whole world and forfeits his life?” (Mt 16:26).
True development, in keeping with the specific needs of the
human being man or woman, child, adult or old person implies,
especially for those who actively share in this process and are
responsible for it, a lively awareness of the value of the rights of all
and of each person. It likewise implies a lively awareness of the need
to respect the right of every individual to the full use of the bene-
fits offered by science and technology.
On the internal level of every nation, respect for all rights takes
on great importance, especially: the right to life at every stage of its
existence; the rights of the family, as the basic social community, or
“cell of society”; justice in employment relationships; the rights
inherent in the life of the political community as such; the rights
based on the transcendent vocation of the human being, beginning
with the right of freedom to profess and practice one’s own religious
belief.
…
In order to be genuine, development must be achieved within the
framework of solidarity and freedom, without ever sacrificing either of
them under whatever pretext. The moral character of development
and its necessary promotion are emphasized when the most rigorous
respect is given to all the demands deriving from the order of truth
and good proper to the human person. Furthermore the Christian
who is taught to see that man is the image of God, called to share
in the truth and the good which is God himself, does not understand
a commitment to development and its application which excludes
regard and respect for the unique dignity of this “image.” In other
words, true development must be based on the love of God and neigh-
bor, and must help to promote the relationships between individuals
BAUM

and society. This is the “civilization of love” of which Paul vi often
spoke.
34. Nor can the moral character of development exclude respect for
the beings which constitute the natural world, which the ancient
Greeks — alluding precisely to the order which distinguishes it —
called the “cosmos.” Such realities also demand respect, by virtue of
a threefold consideration which it is useful to reflect upon carefully.
The first consideration is the appropriateness of acquiring
a growing awareness of the fact that one cannot use with
impunity the different categories of beings, whether living or
inanimate — animals, plants, the natural elements — simply
as one wishes, according to one’s own economic needs. On the
contrary, one must take into account the nature of each being and of its
mutual connection in an ordered system, which is precisely the

96          “cosmos.”
The second consideration is based on the realization which
is perhaps more urgent that natural resources are limited;
some are not, as it is said, renewable. Using them as if they were
inexhaustible, with absolute dominion, seriously endangers their
availability not only for the present generation but above all for
generations to come.
The third consideration refers directly to the consequences of a cer-
tain type of development on the quality of life in the industrialized
zones. We all know that the direct or indirect result of indus-
trialization is, ever more frequently, the pollution of the envi-
ronment, with serious consequences for the health of the
population.
Once again it is evident that development, the planning which
governs it, and the way in which resources are used must include
respect for moral demands. One of the latter undoubtedly imposes
limits on the use of the natural world. The dominion granted to
man by the Creator is not an absolute power, nor can one speak of a
freedom to “use and misuse,” or to dispose of things as one pleases.
The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator himself
and expressed symbolically by the prohibition not to “eat of the
fruit of the tree” (cf. Gen 2:16–17) shows clearly enough that, when
it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological
laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with
impunity.
…
37. This general analysis, which is religious in nature, can be sup-
plemented by a number of particular considerations to demonstrate that
among the actions and attitudes opposed to the will of God, the
good of neighbor and the “structures” created by them, two are very
typical: on the one hand, the all-consuming desire for profit, and
on the other, the thirst for power, with the intention of imposing
one’s will upon others. In order to characterize better each of these
attitudes, one can add the expression: “at any price.” In other words,
we are faced with the absolutizing of human attitudes with all its
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

possible consequences. Since these attitudes can exist independently
of each other, they can be separated; however in today’s world both
are indissolubly united, with one or the other predominating.
Obviously, not only individuals fall victim to this double atti-
tude of sin; nations and blocs can do so too. And this favors even
more the introduction of the “structures of sin” of which I have spo-
ken. If certain forms of modern “imperialism” were consid-
ered in the light of these moral criteria, we would see that
hidden behind certain decisions, apparently inspired only by
economics or politics, are real forms of idolatry: of money,
ideology, class, technology.
I have wished to introduce this type of analysis above all in order
to point out the true nature of the evil which faces us with respect
to the development of peoples: it is a question of a moral evil, the
fruit of many sins which lead to “structures of sin.” To diagnose the

evil in this way is to identify precisely, on the level of human con-
duct, the path to be followed in order to overcome it.
38. … In the context of these reflections the decision to set out or
to continue the journey involves, above all, a moral value which men
and women of faith recognize as a demand of God’s will, the only
true foundation of an absolutely binding ethic.
One would hope that also men and women without an explicit
faith would be convinced that the obstacles to integral development
are not only economic but rest on more profound attitudes which
human beings can make into absolute values. Thus one would
hope that all those who, to some degree or other, are respon-
sible for ensuring a “more human life” for their fellow human
beings, whether or not they are inspired by a religious faith,
will become fully aware of the urgent need to change the spir-
itual attitudes which define each individual’s relationship
with self, with neighbor, with even the remotest human com-
munities, and with nature itself; and all of this in view of
higher values such as the common good or, to quote the felicitous
expression of the Encyclical Populorum Progressio, the full devel-
opment “of the whole individual and of all people.”
…
It is above all a question of interdependence, sensed as a system deter-
mining relationships in the contemporary world, in its economic,
cultural, political and religious elements, and accepted as a moral
category. When interdependence becomes recognized in this way, the
correlative response as a moral and social attitude, as a “virtue,” is
solidarity. This then is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow
distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On
the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit one-
self to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each
individual, because we are all really responsible for all. This deter-
mination is based on the solid conviction that what is hindering full
development is that desire for profit and that thirst for power
already mentioned. These attitudes and “structures of sin” are only
BAUM

conquered — presupposing the help of divine grace — by a diamet-
rically opposed attitude: a commitment to the good of one’s neighbor
with the readiness, in the Gospel sense, to “lose oneself” for the sake
of the other instead of exploiting him, and to “serve him” instead of
oppressing him for one’s own advantage (cf. Mt 10:40–42; 20:25;
Mk 10:42–45; Lk 22:25–27).
39. The exercise of solidarity within each society is valid when its
members recognize one another as persons. Those who are more
influential, because they have a greater share of goods and common
services, should feel responsible for the weaker and be ready to share
with them all they possess. Those who are weaker, for their part, in
the same spirit of solidarity, should not adopt a purely passive
attitude or one that is destructive of the social fabric, but, while
claiming their legitimate rights, should do what they can for the

98          good of all. The intermediate groups, in their turn, should not self-
ishly insist on their particular interests, but respect the interests of
others.
Positive signs in the contemporary world are the growing
awareness of the solidarity of the poor among themselves,
their efforts to support one another, and their public demonstra-
tions on the social scene which, without recourse to violence,
present their own needs and rights in the face of the ineffi-
ciency or corruption of the public authorities. By virtue of her
own evangelical duty the Church feels called to take her stand
beside the poor, to discern the justice of their requests, and to help
satisfy them, without losing sight of the good of groups in the con-
text of the common good.
The same criterion is applied by analogy in international rela-
tionships. Interdependence must be transformed into solidar-
ity, based upon the principle that the goods of creation are
meant for all. That which human industry produces through the
processing of raw materials, with the contribution of work, must
serve equally for the good of all.
Surmounting every type of imperialism and determination to pre-
serve their own hegemony, the stronger and richer nations must have
a sense of moral responsibility for the other nations, so that a real
international system may be established which will rest on the foun-
dation of the equality of all peoples and on the necessary respect for
their legitimate differences. The economically weaker countries, or
those still at subsistence level, must be enabled, with the assistance
of other peoples and of the international community, to make a con-
tribution of their own to the common good with their treasures of
humanity and culture, which otherwise would be lost for ever.
Solidarity helps us to see the “other” — whether a person, people or
nation — not just as some kind of instrument, with a work capac-
ity and physical strength to be exploited at low cost and then dis-
carded when no longer useful, but as our “neighbor,” a “helper” (cf.
Gen 2:18–20), to be made a sharer, on a par with ourselves, in the
banquet of life to which all are equally invited by God. Hence the
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

importance of reawakening the religious awareness of individuals and
peoples.
Thus the exploitation, oppression and annihilation of others are
excluded. These facts, in the present division of the world into
opposing blocs, combine to produce the danger of war and an exces-
sive preoccupation with personal security, often to the detriment of
the autonomy, freedom of decision, and even the territorial integrity
of the weaker nations situated within the so-called “areas of influ-
ence” or “safety belts.”
…
In this way, the solidarity which we propose is the path to
peace and at the same time to development. For world peace is
inconceivable unless the world’s leaders come to recognize that

interdependence in itself demands the abandonment of the politics of      99
blocs, the sacrifice of all forms of economic, military or political
imperialism, and the transformation of mutual distrust into collab-
oration. This is precisely the act proper to solidarity among individu-
als and nations.
The motto of the pontificate of my esteemed predecessor Pius
xii was Opus iustitiae pax, peace as the fruit of justice. Today one
could say, with the same exactness and the same power of biblical
inspiration (cf. Is 32:17; Jas 3:18): Opus solidaritatis pax, peace as
the fruit of solidarity.
The goal of peace, so desired by everyone, will certainly be
achieved through the putting into effect of social and international
justice, but also through the practice of the virtues which favor
togetherness, and which teach us to live in unity, so as to build in
unity, by giving and receiving, a new society and a better world.
…
42. Today more than in the past, the Church’s social doctrine must
be open to an international outlook, in line with the Second Vatican
Council, the most recent Encyclicals, and particularly in line with
the Encyclical which we are commemorating. It will not be super-
fluous therefore to reexamine and further clarify in this light the
characteristic themes and guidelines dealt with by the Magisterium
in recent years.
Here I would like to indicate one of them: the option or love of
preference for the poor. This is an option, or a special form of pri-
macy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradi-
tion of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian
inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it
applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner
of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the
ownership and use of goods.
Today, furthermore, given the worldwide dimension which the
social question has assumed, this love of the preference for the poor,
and the decisions which it inspires in us, cannot but embrace the
immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those
BAUM

without medical care and, above all, those without hope of a better
future. It is impossible not to take account of the existence of these
realities. To ignore them would mean becoming like the “rich man”
who pretended not to know the beggar Lazarus lying at his gate (cf.
Lk 16:19-31). …
43. The motivating concern for the poor — who are, in the very
meaningful term, “the Lord’s poor” — must be translated at all lev-
els into concrete actions, until it decisively attains a series of neces-
sary reforms. Each local situation will show what reforms are most
urgent and how they can be achieved. But those demanded by the
situation of international imbalance, as already described, must not
be forgotten.
In this respect I wish to mention specifically: the reform of the
international trade system, which is mortgaged to protection-

100          ism and increasing bilateralism; the reform of the world mone-
tary and financial system, today recognized as inadequate; the
question of technological exchanges and their proper use; the
need for a review of the structure of the existing International
Organizations, in the framework of an international juridical
order.
The international trade system today frequently discriminates
against the products of the young industries of the developing
countries and discourages the producers of raw materials. There
exists, too, a kind of international division of labor, whereby the low-
cost products of certain countries which lack effective labor laws or
which are too weak to apply them are sold in other parts of the
world at considerable profit for the companies engaged in this form
of production, which knows no frontiers.
The world monetary and financial system is marked by an excessive
fluctuation of exchange rates and interest rates, to the detriment of
the balance of payments and the debt situation of the poorer
countries.
Forms of technology and their transfer constitute today one of the
major problems of international exchange and of the grave damage
deriving therefrom. There are quite frequent cases of developing
countries being denied needed forms of technology or sent useless
ones.
In the opinion of many, the International Organizations seem to be
at a stage of their existence when their operating methods, operat-
ing costs and effectiveness need careful review and possible correc-
tion. Obviously, such a delicate process cannot be put into effect
without the collaboration of all. This presupposes the overcoming
of political rivalries and the renouncing of all desire to manipulate
these Organizations, which exist solely for the common good.
…
44. Development demands above all a spirit of initiative on
the part of the countries which need it. Each of them must act
in accordance with its own responsibilities, not expecting everything
from the more favored countries, and acting in collaboration with
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

others in the same situation. Each must discover and use to the best
advantage its own area of freedom. Each must make itself capable of
initiatives responding to its own needs as a society. Each must like-
wise realize its true needs as well as the rights and duties which
oblige it to respond to them. The development of peoples begins
and is most appropriately accomplished in the dedication of each
people to its own development, in collaboration with others.
…
In order to take this path, the nations themselves will have to identify
their own priorities and clearly recognize their own needs, according
to the particular conditions of their people, their geographical set-
tling and their cultural traditions.

…                                                                          101
45. … An essential condition for global solidarity is autonomy and
free self-determination, also within associations such as those indi-
cated. But at the same time solidarity demands a readiness to accept
the sacrifices necessary for the good of the whole world community.
46. Peoples and individuals aspire to be free: their search for full
development signals their desire to overcome the many obstacles
preventing them from enjoying a “more human life.”
Recently, in the period following the publication of the Encycli-
cal Populorum Progressio, a new way of confronting the problems
of poverty and underdevelopment has spread in some areas of the
world, especially in Latin America. This approach makes liberation
the fundamental category and the first principle of action. The pos-
itive values, as well as the deviations and risks of deviation, which
are damaging to the faith and are connected with this form of the-
ological reflection and method, have been appropriately pointed out
by the Church’s Magisterium.
It is fitting to add that the aspiration to freedom from all forms
of slavery affecting the individual and society is something noble and
legitimate. This in fact is the purpose of development, or rather lib-
eration and development, taking into account the intimate connec-
tion between the two.
Development which is merely economic is incapable of
setting man free; on the contrary, it will end by enslaving him
further. Development that does not include the cultural, tran-
scendent and religious dimensions of man and society, to the
extent that it does not recognize the existence of such dimen-
sions and does not endeavor to direct its goals and priorities
towards the same, is even less conducive to authentic libera-
tion. Human beings are totally free only when they are
completely themselves, in the fullness of their rights and
duties. The same can be said about society as a whole.
BAUM

Excerpt from “Justitia in Mundo”
World Synod of Bishops, Second General Assembly, 30 November 1971
71. (8) In order that the right to development may be fulfilled by
action:
(a) people should not be hindered from attaining development in
accordance with their own culture;
(b) through mutual cooperation, all peoples should be able to
become the principal architects of their own economic and social
development;
(c) every people, as active and responsible members of human soci-
ety, should be able to cooperate for the attainment of the common
good on an equal footing with other peoples.

REFERENCES

acb (American Catholic Bishops). 1984. Pastoral letter: economic justice for all.
Origins: National Catholic Documentary Service, 14(1884), 338–383.
acoun (Anglican Community Office at the United Nations). 1996. A Christ-
ian response to the international debt crisis. Conference programme and
recommendations of the Round Table Conference, May 16–17, 1996.
acoun, New York, ny, usa. 13 pp.
Baum, G. 1998. Sciences sociales et option pour les pauvres. Relations, Mar,
pp. 46–49.
Bellah, R. 1970. Beyond belief. Harper and Row, New York, ny, usa. 298 pp.
Berger, P. 1966. The sacred canopy: elements of a sociological theory of religion.
Doubleday, Garden City, ny, usa. 230 pp.
Drache, D. 1995. Celebrating Innis: the man, the legacy, our future. In D.
Drache, ed., Harold Innis: staples, markets and cultural change.
McGill–Queen’s University Press, Montréal, pq, Canada. pp. xiii–liii.
eca (Economic Commission for Africa). 1989. African alternative framework to
structural adjustment programmes for socio-economic recovery and trans-
formation. eca, Addis Ababa. un Ref. No. e/eca/cm.15/6/Rev.3.
Fabella, V. 1997. Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians
(eatwot). In Dictionary of mission. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, ny, usa. pp.
117–120.
George, S. 1976. How the other half dies: the real reasons for world hunger.
Penguin Books, New York, ny, usa. 352 pp.
Goulet, D. 1971. The cruel choice: a new concept in the theory of development.
Athenaeum, New York, ny, usa. 362 pp.
Gutierrez, G. 1973. A theology of liberation. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, ny, usa.
323 pp.
Habermas, J. 1971 [1968]. Knowledge and human interest. Beacon Press,
Boston, ma, usa. 256 pp.
Hargreaves, J. 1975. Sport, power and culture. St Martin’s Press, New York, ny,
usa. 258 pp.
John Paul ii. 1987. Sollicitudo rei socialis. Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican
City, Italy. 102 pp.
SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR

lab (Latin American Bishops). 1968. Medellin documents: justice, peace, fam-
ily and demography, poverty of the Church. In Gremillion, J., presenter,
The gospel of peace and justice. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, ny, usa.
pp. 445–476.
Lebret, L.-J. 1959. Pour une civilisation solidaire. Les Éditions Ouvrières, Paris,
France. 141 pp.
Lopez, D. 1995. Curators of Buddha: the study of Buddhisms under colonial-
ism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, il, usa. 298 pp.
Malley, F. 1968. Le Père Lebret : l’économie au service des hommes. Les Éditions
du Cerf, Paris, France. 254 pp.
Mannheim, K. 1936 [1928]. Ideology and utopia. Harcourt, Brace and Co.,
New York, ny, usa. 319 pp.
Martin, H.-P.; Schumann, H. 1997. The global trap: globalization and the
assault on democracy and prosperity. Black Rose, Montréal, pq, Canada.
269 pp.

Mihevc, J. n.d. The market tells them so: the World Bank and economic fun-
damentalism in Africa. Zed Books, London, uk. 320 pp.
O’Brien, D.; Shannon, T., ed. 1992. Catholic social thought: the documentary
heritage. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, ny, usa. 668 pp.
Orbis Books. 1997. Dictionary of mission. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, ny, usa.
518 pp.
Paul vi. 1967. Populorum progressio: on the development of peoples. In
Gremillion, J., presenter, The gospel of peace and justice. Orbis Books,
Maryknoll, ny, usa. pp. 387–415. Internet: listserv.american.edu/
catholic/church/papal/paul.vi/p6popp.txt
Rostow, W.W. 1960. The stages of economic growth: a non-communist mani-
festo. University Press, Cambridge, uk. 178 pp.
Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. Pantheon Books, New York, ny, usa. 368 pp.
sbsga (Synod of Bishops, Second General Assembly). 1971. Justitia in mundo:
justice in the world. In Gremillion, J., presenter, The gospel of peace and
justice. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, ny, usa. pp. 513–529.
Scheler, M. 1980 [1924]. Problems of the sociology of knowledge. Routledge
and Kegan Paul, London, uk. 239 pp.
Serageldin, I.; Barrett, R., ed. 1996. Ethics and spiritual values: promoting
environmentally sustainable development. International Bank for Recon-
struction and Development–World Bank, Washington, dc, usa. Environ-
mentally Sustainable Development Proceedings Series, No. 12. 54 pp.
United Nations. 1995. Our global neighborhood. Oxford University Press,
New York, ny, usa. 410 pp.
Wolfensohn, J. 1996. New partnerships. In Serageldin, I.; Barrett, R., ed.,
Ethics and spiritual values: promoting environmentally sustainable devel-
opment. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development–World
Bank, Washington, dc, usa. Environmentally Sustainable Development
Proceedings Series, No. 12. p. 1.
APPENDIX 1

Contributing
Authors

Farzam Arbab
Farzam Arbab’s doctorate in theoretical particle physics led him to
Colombia to work with the University Development Program of the
Rockefeller Foundation to strengthen the Department of Physics at the
Universidad del Valle. While there he began to study the relationship
between science, technology, and educational policy and their effects on
development, which led him and a group of colleagues to form the Fun-
dación para la Aplicación y Enseñanza de las Ciencias (Foundation for
the Application and Teaching of Science). This organization still func-
tions as a successful development program in Colombia and has earned
an international reputation for its application of spiritual principles in
education and development. In 1993, Dr Arbab was elected to the inter-
national governing body of the Bahá’í Faith, on which he currently
serves.
Azizan Baharuddin
Dr Baharuddin’s degrees in biology and the history and philosophy of
science allowed her to pursue her interest in the relationship between
Islam and science. Her research interests and teaching areas include the
history and philosophy of science; science and religion; ethics, environ-
mental ethics, and bioethics; gender studies and human development;
and futures studies. She has written various publications on the issues of
science and faith and ethics and the environment. Dr Baharuddin is an
associate professor in the Department of Science and Technology Stud-

ies at the University of Malaya.                                             247
APPENDIX   1

Gregory Baum
With degrees in mathematics, sociology, and Catholic theology,
Dr Baum has for 40 years been a professor of theology and religious
studies. He currently teaches religious studies at McGill University in
Montréal, Quebec. He has written more than 20 books on ethics and
economics, solidarity, and various approaches to social justice within the
Christian churches. He is a member of the Karl Polanyi Institute at
Concordia University and was a member of a research team on environ-
mental ethics at Université du Québec à Montréal. He is also an officer
of the Order of Canada.
Pierre Beemans
Pierre Beemans has degrees in education and philosophy and has worked
in the field of international development for more than 30 years, includ-

ing living and working for extensive periods in Latin America and
Africa. He has held both field and management positions with cuso and
the Canadian International Development Agency and was for 3 years a
policy adviser in the Privy Council Office of the Government of Canada.
Since 1992, he has been Vice-President, Corporate Services Branch, of
the International Development Research Centre.
Sharon Harper
Her degrees in journalism, law, and theology led Sharon Harper to seek
a position that would allow her to explore the scriptures and practice of
the world’s religions and their manifestations, roles, and effects in the
public sphere. After graduating from Harvard Divinity School, she
became the project officer for the International Development Research
Centre’s Science, Religion, and Development project. She is a lawyer
and legal researcher with experience in human-rights and discrimina-
tion issues, both domestic and international; an experienced writer and
editor; and a program manager who is knowledgeable about mediation
and arbitration techniques, issues of gender and research for develop-
ment, and feminist ethics and epistemologies.
Promilla Kapur
With degrees in psychology and sociology, Dr Kapur has worked as a
researcher, teacher of sociology, and counselor–therapist for more than
30 years. She specializes in the sociology of women, family, and mar-
riage and has done extensive empirical research on women, adolescents
and girl children, working women, family violence, and sex workers.
She has published extensively in these areas, with books in English,
Hindi, and Japanese. She has been a student of Indian culture, Hinduism,
interfaith dialogue, and integrated human development. Since 1984 she
has been the director of the Integrated Human Development Services
Foundation, a charitable organization providing counseling and crisis
intervention based on the principle of whole health, which includes
human and spiritual values. She has been honoured by the British
CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

International Biographical Centre, the American Biographical Institute,
and the All India Conference of Intellectuals.
William Ryan, S.J.
Dr Ryan entered the Jesuit Order in 1944 and was ordained into the
priesthood in 1957. He has an ma in labour relations and a PhD in eco-
nomics from Harvard University and has been very active in Canada and
the United States thinking, writing, and organizing around social-
justice, ethics, and economic issues. He was the founding director of the
Center of Concern (Washington, dc) and has been a senior research fel-
low at the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security and
held the chair in Social Faith and Justice at St Paul University in
Ottawa. He is the director of the Jesuit Project on Ethics in Politics in
Ottawa and was recently appointed coordinator of the Jesuit Centre for

Social Faith and Justice. Dr Ryan is the author of many articles and lec-
tures on multinational corporations and the new international economic
order, the poor, the relationships between faith and social justice and
between faith and culture, and the role of religious people in socioeco-
nomic change. He has been working with the Science, Religion, and
Development project since its inception in 1993.
APPENDIX 2

Acronyms and
Abbreviations

cswr       Center for the Study of World Religions
dav        Dayanand Anglo Vedic
fundaec    Fundación para la Aplicación y Enseñanza de las
Ciencias (Foundation for the Application and Teaching
of the Sciences) [Colombia]
idrc       International Development Research Centre
iiit       International Institute of Islamic Thought
imf        International Monetary Fund
mais       Malaysian Academy of Islamic Science
minds      Malaysian Institute for Development Studies
ngo        nongovernmental organization
s&t        science and technology
sap        structural-adjustment policy
srd        science, religion, and development
tnc        transnational corporation
undp       United Nations Development Programme

-- Solidarity with the Poor (Used by permission of the curator)