For a long time, as a college professor and then as the chief economic adviser to the Indian government, I was a happy user of the World Bank’s data on global poverty, tracking trends and analyzing cross-country patterns. I seldom paused to think about how those numbers were computed. Then, three years ago, I joined the World Bank as its chief economist. It was like a customer, happily ordering dinner in a favorite restaurant, suddenly being asked to go into the kitchen and prepare the meal.
Being in the business of measuring poverty is a challenge for the World Bank. If poverty declines, critics accuse us of trying to showcase our success. If it rises, they say we are ensuring that we stay in business. If it stays the same, they accuse us of trying to avoid these two charges.
Fortunately, there is something liberating in knowing that you are likely to be criticized for any outcome. Still, as our team set about defining the global poverty line this year — and thus the incidence of poverty — I was acutely aware of the note of caution from Angus Deaton, this year’s Nobel laureate in economics: “I am not sure it is wise for the World Bank to commit itself so much to this project.”
I could see his point: This year’s poverty calculation was particularly momentous. In 2011, new purchasing power parities — or PPPs, which essentially estimate how much US$1 buys in different nations — had been computed, and the data became available last year. This was one reason to take stock of how we would adjust the global poverty line, estimate new poverty numbers and publish them in our Global Monitoring Report, which was released last year.
A second reason is that the UN has included the eradication of chronic poverty in its new Sustainable Development Goals. This means that our decision on where to draw the poverty line is likely to influence not just the World Bank’s mission, but also the development agenda of the UN and all nations around the world. Clearly, as we crunched the numbers, we had a special and daunting responsibility to fulfill.
Our first task was to see how the global poverty line had been determined earlier. In 2005, when the previous round of PPPs were estimated, the method used was to take the national poverty lines of the 15 poorest countries, compute their average and treat that as the global line. This led to a global poverty line of US$1.25. The idea was that a poor person was anyone whose PPP-adjusted daily consumption fell short of US$1.25.
The validity of this method has been questioned — and I have had my own reservations. However, where the line is drawn in the initial year is, in some sense, not that important. As there is no unique definition of poverty, what matters is to draw a line at some reasonable place and then hold the line constant in real, inflation-adjusted terms so that we can track the performance of the world and individual nations over time.
DEFINING POVERTY
Some critics say that the 2005 poverty line of US$1.25 was too low. However, what should alarm them is that, in 2011, 14.5 percent of the world’s population — one in every seven people — lived below it. Given that we are already committed to the goal of ending extreme, chronic poverty by 2030, our first decision was to hold the yardstick for measuring poverty constant.
Since there had been inflation between the two rounds of the PPP computation, in 2005 and 2011, we would obviously have to raise the nominal poverty line to keep the real line constant. However, doing this for the world as a whole is far from easy. Which nations’ inflation should we use?
We ran two experiments: One was to inflate the poverty lines of the 15 nations used in 2005, using their respective inflation rates and then taking an average; the other was to do the same for 101 nations for which we had the necessary data. These two methods raised the line to US$1.88 and US$1.90 respectively.
However, a third approach was possible: to raise the poverty line with the new PPP indices so that the incidence of global poverty remained unchanged — because PPP arguably tells us about parity across nations and should not change the absolute level of global poverty. This exercise — and it was beginning to look like a strange alignment of the stars — resulted in a poverty line just above US$1.90. In short, by keeping to one decimal place, all three methods led to US$1.9, and that is the line we adopted.
We are unlikely to always have the good fortune to be able to use different methods and still arrive at virtually the same line. Furthermore, poverty can and should be measured by many metrics other than money: life expectancy, educational attainment, health and various other measures of human “functionings and capabilities” — as Amartya Sen calls them — are all important. To tackle these problems in the future and broaden the World Bank’s poverty research, we have established the 24-member Commission on Global Poverty — chaired by Sir Tony Atkinson of the London School of Economics and Nuffield College, Oxford — which is to submit its report next spring.
Measuring poverty attracts attention from both politicians and academic researchers — and we had an ample amount of both. We were attentive to the politics of poverty, but we resisted political lobbying. We took account of the suggestions of researchers, but we used our judgment. One researcher was adamant that the poverty line should be US$1.9149. I decided that those last three digits were a bit excessive.
Kaushik Basu, senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank, is a professor of economics at Cornell University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.