Every political administration wants to be seen as determined to eradicate poverty. Still, poverty levels remain high despite the good economic results measured by traditional key performance indicators.

The government has published a draft strategy document entitled The National Strategy for Poverty Reduction and Social Inclusion 2025-2035. The Ministry of Social Policy worked with various stakeholders to define micro measures that hopefully will address poverty and social exclusion over the next decade.

There is no shortage of valid proposals to deal with the various forms of poverty. But for this strategy to be more than an exercise in blue sky thinking we need a process that encourages participants to consider options without constraints. We need to foster innovative ideas by pushing beyond comfort zones, and supplement it with a soul-searching exercise that will identify why so many people are caught in the poverty trap.

The government bears the primary responsibility for delivering essential services to the poor. It has traditionally been the agent for healthcare, education and job training. A significant portion of the costs associated with public services will continue to be borne by the state until the incomes of the poor rise. Sadly, government-run institutions struggle to offer quality services because they cannot deliver the value for money necessary for lower-income families to prosper and escape from the poverty trap.

The economic success of the last several years has been partly achieved at the cost of increasing wealth and income inequality. This phenomenon must be addressed with more determination if the new poverty reduction strategy is to reap the desired results. Until then, the ‘haves’ have markets to choose from, while the ‘have-nots’ have bureaucrats to dictate to them.

There are different forms of poverty, including larger families, families with childcare responsibilities limiting their ability to work, many minority ethnic groups, disabled people, informal carers, families not in work, part-time workers with precarious conditions, people living in rented accommodation, and families depending solely on income-related benefits.

The government’s role in addressing the challenges these different forms of poverty present is that of acting as a catalyst. For instance, those who work must earn enough to be able to come out of poverty. Minimum wages and benefits must be adequate to meet at least basic human needs. Economic success and social justice must go hand in hand.

While poverty will never be eliminated, effective law enforcement and regulations concerning minimum wage, worker safety and benefits, non-competitive practices, workers' exploitation, and environmental protection must be addressed with a steely political determination.

Non-integrated solutions often fail to achieve lasting results. The quality of services that the poor need to break the poverty trap that ensnares them can best be achieved if NGOs who work at the coalface of the disadvantaged in society coordinate these services with the service providers.

With NGOs as project facilitators, opportunities can also be created for public-private partnerships.

With a competitive and independently monitored system where the cost of providing certain services is subsidised or even fully paid by the government, the business community can prove that it is indeed committed to fulfilling its corporate social responsibilities to the community.

Handouts will not solve poverty; neither will it be solved by grand government projects or piecemeal interventions of NGOs, however well-intentioned they may be.

More money is not a pre-requisite for success in breaking the poverty trap; proper use of available funds is. There is no substitute for good planning, effective organisation and execution accountability for all those involved in the poverty reduction process.