Measurement Of Global Poverty Research Articles

Measuring global poverty before and during the pandemic: a political economy of overoptimism

The contribution of this paper is to question the ‘official’ estimates of global monetary poverty up to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue there is a political economy of overoptimism in the measurement of global poverty. Specifically, we show that the methodological and presentational choices can lead to an over optimistic view of the levels of, and trends in, global poverty. We provide an up-to-date critique of the global poverty estimates and demonstrate how patterns of poverty would differ if small changes in methodology were implemented. We conclude with a theoretical discussion of why such methodological choices that lead to an optimistic view of global poverty levels and trends are made. Subsequently, we propose an alternative approach to global poverty measurement.

Purchasing power parities and the Dollar-A-Day approach: An unstable relationship

We show that the Dollar-A-Day methodology in global poverty measurement provides inconsistent International Poverty Line (iPL) solutions when a complete set of consistency criteria in the iPL definition is used. This article illustrates that minor fluctuations in purchasing power parity exchange rates can yield inconsistent iPLs. We find a rate of inconsistency of 46.1% and we conclude that this is a worrisome attribute of the method.

Long run trails of poverty, 1925\u20132010

What use has a poverty line when we do not know what it actually allows for? I exploit this weaknesses of the dollar-a-day methodology to motivate a relatively more consistent alternative in global poverty measurement. Poverty lines targeting well-defined welfare levels are constructed as consumption baskets, following recommendation 15 of the World Bank Commission on Global Poverty which promotes the use of a cost of basic needs approach in global poverty measurement. Those baskets are priced locally and separately for each year, and account for basic nutrition, heating, housing, health, education and other expenses. This transparent method is here applied on long run poverty measurement for a group of eight countries. A second contribution is the error accounting approach using Monte Carlo technique for micro-simulations. This is in line with recommendation 5 for “total error” accounting, published in the recent Commission on Global Poverty report. Thus, statistical analysis of global poverty becomes possible. The evolution of the poverty profile in five key western countries along with three countries from Africa, seen from a broader global perspective, allows for a comparative analysis. Among this small group of countries, the Netherlands appear to be the champions in fighting extreme absolute poverty, with all poverty lines producing zero absolute poverty rates since 1987. An important caveat in interpreting these results is the use of sub-optimal distributional data for these estimates, in order to keep the quality of the underlying data comparable throughout the estimation period.

The legitimacy of experts in policy: navigating technocratic and political accountability in the case of global poverty governance

Background: The canonical view of expert legitimacy in policymaking links it to objectivity and autonomy from politics. Yet, in practice such ‘epistemic gains’ stemming from the separation of facts and values are problematic, as expert advice inherently combines political and technical considerations. Aims and objectives: This article addresses the puzzle of double – technocratic and political – legitimacy of experts by proposing a framework for understanding expert legitimacy as an interplay of three analytical levels: epistemic, individual actor and institutional. The paper explores this problem in the case study of global poverty measurement as a field located at the interface of science and policy. Methods: This is a comparative case study of poverty measurement in the World Bank and UNICEF. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with 40 experts employed by the two organisations. Findings: The analysis posits expert legitimacy as constructed via navigation between specific practices of knowledge production, such as the production of policy-relevant and methodologically robust knowledge, a strategic distance between the research and the political setting aimed at extending or shortening the distance between experts and policymakers, and institutionalised cultures of evidence of the organisations through which expert advice is given. Discussion and conclusion: The paper offers a theorisation of expert legitimacy as symbiotic negotiation between technocratic and political modes of accountability which are irrevocably linked while remaining strategically separated.

Tony Atkinson's New Book, Measuring Poverty Around the World: Some Further Reflections

A new book on measuring global poverty by the late Tony Atkinson was published in 2019 by Princeton University Press. We describe how we edited the incomplete manuscript that Atkinson left at his death, the additions we made (which include afterwords by Francois Bourguignon and Nick Stern), and the content and structure of the book. We then discuss what we believe Atkinson was trying to achieve, emphasising both the important insights of the book and where the gaps remain. We also review parallel developments in the World Bank's measurement of global poverty that were stimulated by the report of the Commission on Global Poverty, written by Atkinson, from which this book was developed. The new book is more than four hundred published pages. It remains unfinished yet it is a masterly guide to the nuances of poverty measurement and an invaluable source for future research.

Where Are We in the Global Poverty Measurement? The Human Minimum Model as a Veritable Option

A dominant conception of poverty among many researchers is that it is a form of deprivation. There is, however, more focus on the idea of poverty as physical deprivation than there is on psychological deprivation. I argue that poverty is as much a psychological deprivation as it is a physical deprivation and propose a new index that explicitly takes the psychological into account in poverty measurement. I show that most extant literature tends to focus more on physical deprivations which poverty causes. I discuss some poverty indices which are employed to measure levels of poverty and highlight their inadequacy. Employing the conversational method, I tap into Odera Oruka’s ideas to offer the Human Minimum Measure (HMM) as a model that might also be desirable if the reality of psychological deprivation is taken seriously.

International income poverty measurement: which way now?

We critically review conceptual and empirical issues surrounding the derivation of the international poverty line, expressed in PPP-adjusted dollars and linked to various rounds of the International Comparison Program (ICP). We find that there are some limitations in the current estimation of these lines, but show that statistically superior methods lead to lines that are relatively robust and confirm the $1.25 using 2005 PPPs and suggest $1.67–1.71 using 2011 PPPs (or close to the $1.90 proposed by the World Bank if we follow the World Bank’s approach of adjusting inflation rates in some countries); they also roughly confirm the current shape of the proposed ‘weakly relative’ poverty line. Using the new absolute line based on 2011 PPPs would lead to substantially lower poverty in our estimation. The extent of the decline depends on whether and how one treats China, India, and Indonesia differently from other countries in the 2005 and 2011 PPPs. More seriously, we note that the dependence on successive ICP rounds creates conceptual and empirical problems that have become worse over time so that we suggest that it would be best to consider alternatives to the current reliance on ICP rounds and the resulting PPPs. As a short-term solution we propose to fix the international poverty line in national currencies using either the 2005 or 2011 level; in the medium term, we argue for global poverty measurement based on internationally coordinated national poverty measurement.

The mis-measurement of extreme global poverty: A case study in the Pacific Islands.

Debate over the measurement of global poverty in low- and middle-income countries continues unabated. There is considerable controversy surrounding the ‘dollar a day’ measure used to monitor progress against the Millennium Development Goals. This article shines fresh light on the debate with new empirical analyses of poverty (including child poverty), inequality and deprivation levels in the Pacific island state of Vanuatu. The study focuses not only on economic and monetary metrics and measures, but also the measures of deprivation derived from sociology in relation to shelter, sanitation, water, information, nutrition, health and education. Until recently, there had been few, if any, attempts to study poverty and deprivation disparities among children in this part of the world. Different measures yield strikingly different estimates of poverty. The article, therefore, attempts to situate the study findings in the broader international context of poverty measurement and discusses their implications for future research and the post-2015 development agenda.

Debates on the Measurement of Global Poverty. Edited by SudhirAnand, PaulSegal and JosephStiglitz. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2010. xvii + 446 pp. $56.95.

EconomicaVolume 80, Issue 317 p. 192-193 Book Review Debates on the Measurement of Global Poverty. Edited by Sudhir Anand, Paul Segal and Joseph Stiglitz. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2010. xvii + 446 pp. $56.95. Jean-Yves Duclos, Jean-Yves Duclos Université Laval and CIRPÉE, Québec, CanadaSearch for more papers by this author Jean-Yves Duclos, Jean-Yves Duclos Université Laval and CIRPÉE, Québec, CanadaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 17 December 2012 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2012.00913.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. Volume80, Issue317January 2013Pages 192-193 RelatedInformation

Book Reviews

Erik Thorbecke of Cornell University reviews “Debates on the Measurement of Global Poverty” edited by Sudhir Anand, Paul Segal and Joseph E. Stiglitz. The EconLit Abstract of the reviewed work begins “Fourteen papers examine the challenges and uncertainties involved in measuring global poverty. Papers discuss the debate on globalization, poverty, and inequality--why measurement matters; how not to count the poor; raising the standard--the war on global poverty; the irrelevance of the one dollar-a-day poverty line; the use of country purchasing power parities for international comparisons of poverty levels--potential and limitations; measuring poverty in a growing world (or measuring growth in a poor world); poverty or income distribution--which we want to measure; a note on the (mis)use of national accounts for estimation of household final consumption expenditures for poverty measures; unequal development in the 1990s--growing gaps in human capabilities; improving measurement of Latin American inequality and poverty with an eye to equitable growth policy; the changing nature of urban poverty in China; China is poorer than we thought but no less successful in the fight against poverty; poverty decline in India in the 1990s--a reality and not an artifact; and living standards in Africa. Anand is Professor of Economics at the University of Oxford and Official Fellow of St. Catherine's College, Oxford. Segal is a research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies and the New College, University of Oxford. Stiglitz is Co-President of the Initiative for Policy Dialogue and University Professor at Columbia University. Index.”

Debates on the Measurement of Global Poverty - Edited by Sudhir Anand, Paul Segal, and Joseph E. Stiglitz

Debates on the Measurement of Global Poverty - Edited by Sudhir Anand, Paul Segal, and Joseph E. Stiglitz

Debates on the measurement of global poverty

Debates in the Measurement of Global Poverty: Introduction PART I 1. The Debate on Globalization, Poverty and Inequality: Why Measurement Matters 2. How not to count the poor 3. Raising the Standard: the War on Global Poverty 4. Irrelevance of the $1 a Day Poverty Line 5. Use of Country Purchasing Power Parities for International Comparisons of Poverty Levels: Potential and Limitations 6. Measuring poverty in a growing world (or measuring growth in a poor world) 7. Poverty or income distribution: Which do we want to measure? 8. A note on the (mis)use of national accounts for estimation of household final consumption expenditures for poverty measures 9. Unequal development in the 1990s: Focusing on gaps in human capabilities 10. Improving Measurement of Latin American Inequality and Poverty with an Eye to Equitable Growth Policy PART II 11. The Changing Nature of Urban Poverty in China 12. China is poorer than we thought 13. Poverty Decline in India in the 1990s : A Reality And Not An Artefact 14. Living Standards in Africa