Who is Not Poor? Dreaming of a World Truly Free of Poverty

IF 8.7 1区 经济学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES World Bank Research Observer Pub Date : 2006-01-25 DOI:10.1093/WBRO/LKJ002
L. Pritchett
{"title":"Who is Not Poor? Dreaming of a World Truly Free of Poverty","authors":"L. Pritchett","doi":"10.1093/WBRO/LKJ002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When the World Bank dreams of 'a world free of poverty,' what should it be dreaming? In measuring global income or consumption expenditure poverty, the World Bank has widely adopted the $1 a day standard as a lower bound. Because this standard is based on poverty lines in the poorest countries, anyone with income or expenditures below this line will truly be poor. But there is no consensus standard for the upper bound of the global poverty line: above what level of income or expenditures is someone truly not poor? This article proposes that the World Bank compute its lower and upper bounds in a methodologically equivalent way, using the poverty lines of the poorest countries for the lower bound and the poverty lines of the richest countries for the upper bound. The resulting upper bound global poverty line will be 10 times higher than the current lower bound and at least 5 times higher than the currently used alternative lower bound of $2 a day. And in tracking progress toward a world free of poverty, the World Bank should compute measures of global poverty using a variety of weights on the depth and intensity of poverty for a range of poverty lines between the global lower and upper bounds. For instance, rather than trying to artificially force the global population of 6.2 billion (a billion is 1,000 million) into just two categories 'poor' and 'not poor,' with the new range of poverty lines the estimates would be that 1.3 billion people are 'destitute' (below $1 a day), another 1.6 billion are in 'extreme poverty' (above $1 a day but below $2 dollar a day), and another 2.5 billion are in 'global poverty' (above extreme poverty but below the upper bound poverty line).","PeriodicalId":47647,"journal":{"name":"World Bank Research Observer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"73","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Bank Research Observer","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKJ002","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 73

Abstract

When the World Bank dreams of 'a world free of poverty,' what should it be dreaming? In measuring global income or consumption expenditure poverty, the World Bank has widely adopted the $1 a day standard as a lower bound. Because this standard is based on poverty lines in the poorest countries, anyone with income or expenditures below this line will truly be poor. But there is no consensus standard for the upper bound of the global poverty line: above what level of income or expenditures is someone truly not poor? This article proposes that the World Bank compute its lower and upper bounds in a methodologically equivalent way, using the poverty lines of the poorest countries for the lower bound and the poverty lines of the richest countries for the upper bound. The resulting upper bound global poverty line will be 10 times higher than the current lower bound and at least 5 times higher than the currently used alternative lower bound of $2 a day. And in tracking progress toward a world free of poverty, the World Bank should compute measures of global poverty using a variety of weights on the depth and intensity of poverty for a range of poverty lines between the global lower and upper bounds. For instance, rather than trying to artificially force the global population of 6.2 billion (a billion is 1,000 million) into just two categories 'poor' and 'not poor,' with the new range of poverty lines the estimates would be that 1.3 billion people are 'destitute' (below $1 a day), another 1.6 billion are in 'extreme poverty' (above $1 a day but below $2 dollar a day), and another 2.5 billion are in 'global poverty' (above extreme poverty but below the upper bound poverty line).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谁不穷?梦想一个真正没有贫困的世界
当世界银行梦想“一个没有贫困的世界”时,它应该梦想什么?在衡量全球收入或消费支出贫困时,世界银行(World Bank)普遍采用每天1美元的标准作为贫困线下限。因为这个标准是基于最贫穷国家的贫困线,任何收入或支出低于这条贫困线的人都是真正的穷人。但是,对于全球贫困线的上限并没有统一的标准:超过什么收入或支出水平的人才算真正不贫穷?本文建议世界银行以方法上相同的方式计算其下限和上限,使用最贫穷国家的贫困线作为下限,使用最富裕国家的贫困线作为上限。由此产生的全球贫困线上限将比目前的下限高10倍,比目前使用的每天2美元的替代下限至少高5倍。在跟踪实现无贫困世界的进展时,世界银行应该根据全球下限和上限之间的一系列贫困线,利用对贫困深度和强度的各种权重来计算全球贫困指标。例如,而不是试图人为地迫使全球62亿人口(十亿10亿)分为两类“贫穷”和“不可怜,”与新范围的贫困线估计将有13亿人“贫困”(低于1美元一天),另一个16亿人“极度贫困”(上图1美元一天但低于每天2美元),另有25亿人在“全球贫困”(上图极端贫困但上界贫困线以下)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
1.20%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The World Bank Journals, including the Research Observer, boast the largest circulation among economics titles. The Research Observer is distributed freely to over 9,100 subscribers in non-OECD countries. Geared towards informing nonspecialist readers about research within and outside the Bank, it covers areas of economics relevant for development policy. Intended for policymakers, project officers, journalists, and educators, its surveys and overviews require only minimal background in economic analysis. Articles are not sent to referees but are assessed and approved by the Editorial Board, including distinguished economists from outside the Bank. The Observer has around 1,500 subscribers in OECD countries and nearly 10,000 subscribers in developing countries.
期刊最新文献
Revisiting the Measurement of Digital Inclusion Measuring Total Carbon Pricing Social Norms and Gender Disparities with a Focus on Female Labor Force Participation in South Asia Is There Job Polarization in Developing Economies? A Review and Outlook Measuring Total Carbon Pricing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1