Grassroots movements are key to solving the root causes of poverty. Governmental redistribution fails and perpetuates exploitation.

Normative ethicists and political theorists generally propose solutions to global poverty that are redistributive in their aim: more development aid from rich states, increased philanthropy, and the reform of international trade, tar- iff, taxation, and debt policies that disadvantage poor countries. But as a growing number of thinkers come to see poverty as bound up with the subor- dination, exploitation, and domination of the poor, more “political” solutions have begun to emerge. The recognition that needs scarcity cannot be grasped in abstraction from the social relations and structures of power that sustain it echoes the insights of critical poverty and post-development thinkers.2 Yet whereas the latter see grassroots, poor-led collectives and social movements as essential to overcoming the subordination of the poor, theorists with a similarly structural view of poverty have accorded little significance to impoverished communities’ struggles to simultaneously reduce their depriva- tion and powerlessness.3 Focused instead on transnational, institutional dem- ocratic reforms as a means to enfranchise poor populations, they overlook the importance of popular, place-based struggles from below. In so doing, they unwittingly reinforce normative approaches to poverty alleviation that fail to treat those living in poverty—as Sen writes—“as active agents of change, rather than as passive recipients of dispensed benefits.”4

In what follows, I argue that proponents of transformative, poor-centered approaches to chronic and severe poverty have much to learn from poor-led social movements and organizations in the global South. In particular, critical theorists, deliberative democrats, and neo-republicans who argue that global jus- tice requires the political inclusion of marginalized, impoverished populations should be deeply interested in the ways that their movements view poverty and its remedies. Grassroots poor collectives and struggles are uniquely placed— epistemically, ethically, and politically—to identify and challenge oppressive, poverty-perpetuating social relations. While excluded from formal institutions of power, poor movements politicize the underlying causes of needs deprivation and put more radical, pro-poor prescriptions onto the public agenda. Theorists could help to advance these solutions by delineating solidarity-based political responsibilities for individuals and institutions with resources and influence to actively support and assist progressive, poor-led social movements.

Although organized poor struggles potentially contribute in several ways to the development of transformative, poor-centered approaches to poverty reduction, I focus here on only two; both of these, I argue, lie outside of the (current) scope of action of other agents of global justice, such as states, affluent individuals, transnational financial institutions and corporations, and non-grassroots organizations. First, self-organizing poor collectives and social movements politicize poverty by raising poor members’ critical aware- ness of the underlying causes of their deprivation, and harnessing it to mobi- lize poor communities to protest practices and policies that disadvantage and impoverish them. This activism can shift public opinion and pressure policy- makers to introduce genuinely pro-poor measures. To illustrate, I discuss one of the most successful movements of the rural poor, Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement (MST), as well as Via Campesina, the transnational peasant movement that the MST helped to form. Second, self-organizing col- lectives and movements build the collective capabilities of the poor using horizontal, solidarity-focused forms of knowledge-sharing and skill develop- ment. These capabilities enable communities to demand accountability from power-holders, claim social entitlements, and engage in a variety of direct actions to secure access to vital resources or services. 5 A grassroots poor- empowerment organization in Bangladesh (Nijera Kori), and the Indian slum dweller movement, exemplify this collective capability-building function of poor groups.

Poor social movements are not confined to the global South, but because ethicists’ and theorists’ discussions of poverty have focused on the develop- ing world, I follow suit. There are, however, important parallels (which I do not take up here) between poor social movements in low and middle income countries, and anti-poverty/welfare rights struggles and anti- or alternative globalization movements in rich countries—such as the Settlement Movement, the Industrial Areas Foundation, ACORN, the Campaign for a Living Wage, the Peoples’ Social Forum, the European Anti-Poverty Network, and Occupy. Moreover, my contention that poor mobilization contributes vitally to pro-poor social change echoes the claim by global North poverty activists that progressive poverty reduction depends upon the existence of effective advocacy movements intent on dismantling policies that disem- power and oppress poor people.