Rethinking Poverty: The Strength of the Kinship System

When Western media and policymakers talk about poverty in places like PNG, they often rely on indicators that measure material wealth, such as income levels, access to consumer goods, and formal employment. While these measures are useful in some contexts, they fail to capture the complexity and strength of traditional social structures like the kinship system, which continue to play a critical role in the daily lives of many Papua New Guineans.

ChatGPT-generated image symbolizing kinship and generosity in PNG.

The kinship system is more than a family tree; it is a living social network that organizes obligations, responsibilities, and resource-sharing among individuals and groups. It determines who you can call upon for help, who you must support, and how resources such as land, food, and labor are distributed. In many rural communities, and even in urban settings, it remains the primary form of social security, welfare, and resilience.

One of the great strengths of the kinship system is that it provides a safety net that formal state structures often fail to deliver. Even in the absence of a stable income or access to formal employment, individuals within a kinship network are rarely left without food, shelter, or support. The idea of someone being completely abandoned or homeless is far less common in kinship-based societies compared to highly individualistic societies.

Because of this, the narrative of widespread poverty must be reframed. While there are undeniable challenges, it is inaccurate to view communities through a lens that ignores the resilience embedded in traditional social systems. Material wealth is important, but social wealth—the network of people who care for and support each other—is equally vital, yet often invisible to outside observers.

This perspective also raises important questions about how we think about fiscal policy. Some have proposed that lowering income tax could allow individuals to better fulfill their obligations within the kinship system. After all, a significant portion of personal income is often redistributed informally to support relatives, fund school fees for nieces and nephews, assist elders, or contribute to communal events. Allowing people to retain more of their earnings could strengthen these organic systems of support.

However, this idea must be approached with caution. Government revenue from taxes is crucial for funding public goods—healthcare, education, infrastructure—that kinship systems alone cannot provide at a national level. Any proposal to reduce income tax must ensure that it does not inadvertently weaken the very services that support vulnerable groups, including those without strong kinship ties.

Rather than pitting traditional social structures against modern state systems, there is an opportunity to harmonize them. Policymakers could recognize the economic importance of kinship networks by introducing targeted tax credits or deductions that reflect customary financial obligations. Likewise, development programs could be designed to strengthen, rather than bypass, traditional forms of social protection.

The kinship system reminds us that resilience is not just about individual achievement or material accumulation; it is about community, relationships, and shared responsibility. Any genuine discussion about poverty, development, and social progress must therefore take into account the enduring strength of indigenous social systems that continue to sustain and empower our communities.