What do you think of when you hear the words "solving poverty?" Usually, one imagines an adolescent hippy spouting off thoughts on how people getting along better and understanding each other will solve the world's problems. And because of this imagery, people typically dismiss ideas regarding the topic as crazy or idealistic. What I would like to propose as a solution to poverty however is solution that is both feasible in modern society, and is not crazy, as it has been done before. This solution is the restructuring of corporate law in the third-world. A minor ripple in our massive economic system that is the most realistic approach to making immediate change, can sustain itself as a solution without constant political intervention, and eventually may solve many of the most flagrant problems we associate with the third world. It is my theory that the re-wording of these documents which bind native, uneducated people and their land to future opportunities in foreign markets can be done with relative ease, support itself as an international trend, and naturally fix societal issues in impoverished regions. Many human rights specialists blame the imperialistic expansion of international (resource based) business for the global income gap and wealth consolidation, and in most cases rightfully so. But before discussing why corporate law is the best current solution, let me first address why the idea of removing business from society for communal sharing (as some extreme socialists would believe) could not work.

 In the United States we throw away billions of dollars worth of food every year, and often our worst day-to-day problem involves a slow Internet connection. In other hemispheres around the world people have to make the choice of who will get to eat in their family today, and their day-to-day struggle involves working for wages below the poverty line while keeping their children safe from extremist criminal organizations. Any critically minded person observing the two will eventually ask the questions, "why are people starving and poor while others live in wealth? Why can't everyone share resources?" They are questions that seem morally simple, however they cannot be realistically met with the concept of "sharing." No matter the natural disaster, war, or any incident that causes massive casualties to human life, populations continue to expand exponentially each year into new regions of land or live in tighter conditions. And while the Earth itself is finite, the human race, theoretically, is not. Due to this principle that we are constantly multiplying in a limited environment, the condition arises that for every resource we extract there is what is called an opportunity cost, or loss of something, that goes with it. The management of these losses is what we call economics. This idea of opportunity cost is ultimately what prevents the sharing of necessary resources for nation to nation, as the sudden donation of an entire industry (such as half of our agricultural output to starving countries) would weigh too heavily on multiple other industrial aspects of our economy ultimately causing a collapse. For example, take an orange farmer whose orchard is ready to be harvested. Everyone available around him will want the food, but how does the farmer decide who should get it? The answer is currency. Not as a value of gold, but as a representation on linin and cotton of participation in the grand system of economics. To get back to the example of the farmer, what if the people who needed the oranges most were 100 miles away? Who would provide the diesel for the farmer's truck to get the food there? And when drilling for the oil, who would be the CEO in that situation versus the labor force doing the work itself without money as the primary distinguishing factor between people? One might argue that education should be the primary factor when deciding roles of power, but what is education if not an outcome of economic success? The ability to have children and young adults leave the workforce so that they can study is a direct sign that an economy is both already producing plenty for its population to do this, and is stable enough without younger aged workers taking part because there are already enough high-paying jobs. Basically, the level of modern education, which we hold as the necessary standard in the world, can only exist because there is a monetary system below it organizing people quickly into taking care of one another (unknowingly through competition). Without business and money nothing would ever be decided on nearly as fast of a basis as decisions are made in the real world, and with floating positions in a community setting there would be a decrease in specialization, leading to less experts making new scientific breakthroughs in industry. From this, I believe that the catalyst for growth in social structures, education, and overall health must come from first a solid foundation for business.

According to Tarun Khanna of The Harvard Business Reviews' article "Emerging Giants" there are four tiers of customers that can be supplied from any country in international business. The best tier of consumers consists of western buyers including the United States and many western European countries who have, by far, the most money to spend per individual good. The second highest tier consists of  "consumers who demand customized products of near global standard and are willing to pay a shade less than global consumers do" (Khanna). The third tier of consumers consists of individuals of minor, local economic power in developing regions of the world such as Africa or the war-torn Arabic regions of the Middle East. And the fourth lowest tier, where a majority of the world is classified, lives in poverty that can only afford enough to survive and buy what is locally available to them. The countries in developing regions of the world face the struggle of how to deal with their apparent lack of consumers, due to the fact that only the fourth and third tiers of buyers who cannot afford economically sustainable prices surround their small businesses. Forcing them to sell goods at prices far below what they could in western nations (ultimately making many potential entrepreneurs feel that no opportunities exist where they live). Sometimes local businesses that overcome the odds in developing regions can compete with the larger multinationals in the second tier of buyers; however this is still not the best market for them to be tapping into, as these consumers can't buy goods for as high of prices. These businesses could sell to the more wealthy foreign nations if they had the money and infrastructure necessary to move goods over long distances, but the fact of the matter is they do not. Therefore, the only way for goods to successfully flow from developing regions is with the aid of government supplies, and most importantly multinational corporations who have the ability to convince investors that paying for the movement of resources from these areas will be profitable for them.

 Working with these companies or their own governments, however, almost always results in vertical consolidation by the companies. Often corporations make deals with corrupted governments to pay off leaders in exchange for signing off the resources below the poor populations living there. One example being the Mittal mining company who signed a contract with the Liberian government for "$900 million ...  which included tax breaks, land access and favorable pricing schemes for iron ore" without any public knowledge (Wachter). Or take for example the current issues in Papua New Guinea investigated by Vice News where Exxon has signed a contract with government leaders for drilling rights on lands formerly held under native title. Instead of any money going to the people who legally owned the lands, the handful of corrupted leaders signing the deal pocket the money, leading to what is commonly referred to as "the resource curse" (Vice). When this occurs, nobody living in the areas undergoing corporate expansion ever sees or receives money (outside of sweatshop conditions) as the production process is completely controlled by the company itself which has no economic pressure to worry about the people living there. "This can often lead to the outbreak of civil war" between the impoverished populations and their small but corrupted government leaders (Vice). Mainly due to the fact that the people have literally all of their resources taken and can no longer provide for their families on their own or by working at wages below the poverty line for the companies that have acquired their lands.

 So due to this conflicting situation of the native populations not having any buyers, and companies which have the means to move goods to wealthy buyers wanting to exploit the native people's resources; it is my opinion that the best outcome can occur from better contracts being signed between the natives living there and the corporations looking for resources. This is because it would prevent government intervention (therefore also preventing corruption) allowing for grassroots businesses to negotiate prices advantageous to the people living there. Once prices of the goods being sold by the native populations rise, the entrepreneurs in these areas can make the transition from sustaining business to actually expanding their businesses (giving more people around them opportunity as well).  While at the same time helping the companies attempting to move into these regions as the native people would not charge as high of prices as wealthy government leaders, giving companies incentive to sign with locals. 

Also, the government would not be inclined to intervene in the process under the idea of increasing taxes on the populations that live in their respective lands. The growth of their profits would increase exponentially over the upcoming years with the establishment of private industry for taxation, for the same reason that taxes in the United States and England accumulate money far beyond anything African governments could work deals with single industry corporations for. According to Demonocracy, a website acclaimed for putting the US budget in visuals, the US government has 16 times the spending ability of Nigeria, one of the most resource based nations in Africa (Demonocracy). In the case of Papua New Guinea the government had to, before any deals could be made with Exxon, first hire "foreign contracting companies" to build infrastructure for any business to occur in the first place (Vice). Forcing administrators to pay for the shipping of supplies and machinery along with the international transportation of workers, all of which would cost them far more than hiring local contractors through tax money. In the case of Ghana, the government had "insufficient channels for spreading the economic benefits of extraction beyond the petroleum sector" (Simpson). From which, similar to the case with Exxon in PNG, the country deteriorated rather than showing signs of growth, as its most valuable resource was no longer theirs and could be used to fund projects which would stimulate diversified business in other industries. If the profits were to be negotiated on the local level however, natives within these regions would be able to use the money to invest in other physical capital for the creation of new industries, along with being able to better market themselves to other companies which would be interested in investing in the area.  

Along with funding a diversified economy, the idea of negotiating corporate contracts between local native populations and multinational corporations would also put all contracts drawn up on public record. While this may sound minor, public records would allow for international developmental organizations, such as the United Nations, to monitor deals being made to prevent future sweatshops from arising, and most importantly would allow for the controlling of counterfeiting. As huge corporations move into regions of little to no wealth and make deals "behind closed doors with government officials," nobody can truly tell how much money should actually be in the already nearly lawless countries (Chow). This often leads to a boom in counterfeit production of money, which, due to its illegal nature, is mostly used to fund goods sold in the black market. This counterfeit wave of currency, in the cases of most African nations, eventually goes into the funding of drug smuggling, arms dealing, and other aspects of goods made illegal by international law. All of which heavily factors into the social degradation, crime and violence associated with the third-world. So, if these documents of contracts could be monitored under public view, it would allow for a more democratic monitoring of deals being made and would directly impact the social issues that often plague third-world nations as well. 

The international economic system that we live in has been carefully shaped over thousands of years of enhancing trade between populations. While you may agree with it morally or not, it is just simply the world that we live in. Change is not an overnight process when talking about entire nations and continents; it takes small steps first to get momentum going for larger social changes to occur. Much like an organ transplant, if it is the wrong type of organ for the particular individual, the body will reject it. But if it fits, it uses the same system of operations the body was used to in the first place but with a better future for the individual who received it. That is how I view contractual law for developing countries, as a small change in the normal system of how our international world operates that over time can lead to exponential economic growth for the people in developing regions, sustain itself in future political conflicts, and eventually make better societies for families now struggling in the third-world. 

