The philosophy it seems is correct. However one question rises. Why 20%? Why not 30 or 10% of the poorest section to be focused upon. The segment of society requiring such attention varies from country to country and probably more from region to region. It may be inappropriate to define a threshold percent value. 2. A reasonable approach may be to tie up such a strategy with demographic data so that financial support is inversely proportional to mathematical distribution of wealth within the society, resulting in maximum funding for the poorest and zero or negligible for the affluent. 3. Ways and means must be found out for simultaneous political progress. The hen and egg dilemma is also applicable vis-a-vis economic and political progress. The poor and middle class is required to be represented adequately from people from their own class rather than by those whose only right to contesting elections is their nationality. Policies need to be developed to which such mechanisms. 4. The policy is applicable globally. For the rich nations it may still be a choice. However for the developing countries it is a matter linked to their survival.