Hubbry Logo
PovertyPovertyMain
Open search
Poverty
Community hub
Poverty
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Poverty
Poverty
from Wikipedia

Clockwise from top left: a homeless man in Toronto, Canada; a disabled man begging in the streets of Beijing, China; waste pickers in Lucknow, India; a mother with her malnourished child in a clinic near Dadaab, Kenya
Global income distribution over time. The chart shows a significant shift of incomes toward higher levels.

Poverty is a state or condition in which an individual lacks the financial resources and essentials for a basic standard of living. Poverty can have diverse environmental, legal, social, economic, and political causes and effects.[1] When evaluating poverty in statistics or economics there are two main measures: absolute poverty which compares income against the amount needed to meet basic personal needs, such as food, clothing, and shelter;[2] secondly, relative poverty measures when a person cannot meet a minimum level of living standards, compared to others in the same time and place. The definition of relative poverty varies from one country to another, or from one society to another.[2]

Statistically, as of 2019, most of the world's population live in poverty: in PPP dollars, 85% of people live on less than $30 per day, two-thirds live on less than $10 per day, and 10% live on less than $1.90 per day.[3] According to the World Bank Group in 2020, more than 40% of the poor live in conflict-affected countries.[4] Even when countries experience economic development, the poorest citizens of middle-income countries frequently do not gain an adequate share of their countries' increased wealth to leave poverty.[5][page needed] Governments and non-governmental organizations have experimented with a number of different policies and programs for poverty alleviation, such as electrification in rural areas or housing first policies in urban areas. The international policy frameworks for poverty alleviation, established by the United Nations in 2015, are summarized in Sustainable Development Goal 1: "No Poverty".

Social forces, such as gender, disability, race and ethnicity, can exacerbate issues of poverty—with women, children and minorities frequently bearing unequal burdens of poverty. Moreover, impoverished individuals are more vulnerable to the effects of other social issues, such as the environmental effects of industry or the impacts of climate change or other natural disasters or extreme weather events. Poverty can also make other social problems worse; economic pressures on impoverished communities frequently play a part in deforestation, biodiversity loss and ethnic conflict. For this reason, the UN's Sustainable Development Goals and other international policy programs, such as the international recovery from COVID-19, emphasize the connection of poverty alleviation with other societal goals.[6]

Definitions and etymology

[edit]

The word poverty comes from the old (Norman) French word poverté (Modern French: pauvreté), from Latin paupertās from pauper (poor).[7][page needed]

There are several definitions of poverty depending on the context of the situation it is placed in. It usually references a state or condition in which a person or community lacks the financial resources and essentials for a basic standard of living.

United Nations: Fundamentally, poverty is a denial of choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity. It means lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not having the land on which to grow one's food or a job to earn one's living, not having access to credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households and communities. It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies living in marginal or fragile environments, without access to clean water or sanitation.[8]

World Bank: Poverty is pronounced deprivation in well-being, and comprises many dimensions. It includes low incomes and the inability to acquire the basic goods and services necessary for survival with dignity. Poverty also encompasses low levels of health and education, poor access to clean water and sanitation, inadequate physical security, lack of voice, and insufficient capacity and opportunity to better one's life.[9]

European Union (EU): The European Union's definition of poverty is significantly different from definitions in other parts of the world, and consequently policy measures introduced to combat poverty in EU countries also differ from measures in other nations. Poverty is measured in relation to the distribution of income in each member country using relative income poverty lines:[10] an EEC Council Decision in 1984 stated that for EEC purposes, "the poor" should be taken to "mean persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member States in which they live".[11][a] Relative-income poverty rates in the EU are compiled by the Eurostat, in charge of coordinating, gathering, and disseminating member country statistics using European Union Survey of Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) surveys.[10]

Measuring poverty

[edit]

Absolute poverty

[edit]
Share of the world population living on under 1.9, 3, 5, 10 and 30 equivalent of 2011 US dollars daily
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 a day (2011 PPP) (% of population). Based on World Bank data ranging from 1998 to 2018.[13]

Absolute poverty, often synonymous with 'extreme poverty' or 'abject poverty', refers to a set standard which is consistent over time and between countries. This set standard usually refers to "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services."[14][15][16] Having an income below the poverty line, which is defined as an income needed to purchase basic needs, is also referred to as primary poverty.

The "dollar a day" poverty line was first introduced in 1990 as a measure to meet such standards of living. For nations that do not use the US dollar as currency, "dollar a day" does not translate to living a day on the equivalent amount of local currency as determined by the exchange rate.[17] Rather, it is determined by the purchasing power parity rate, which would look at how much local currency is needed to buy the same things that a dollar could buy in the United States.[17] Usually, this would translate to having less local currency than if the exchange rate were used.[17]

From 1993 through 2005, the World Bank defined absolute poverty as $1.08 a day on such a purchasing power parity basis, after adjusting for inflation to the 1993 US dollar[18] In 2009, it was updated as $1.25 a day (equivalent to $1.00 a day in 1996 US prices)[19][20] and in 2015, it was updated as living on less than US$1.90 per day,[21] and moderate poverty as less than $2 or $5 a day.[22] Similarly, 'ultra-poverty' is defined by a 2007 report issued by International Food Policy Research Institute as living on less than 54 cents per day.[23] The poverty line threshold of $1.90 per day, as set by the World Bank, is controversial. Each nation has its own threshold for absolute poverty line; in the United States, for example, the absolute poverty line was US$15.15 per day in 2010 (US$22,000 per year for a family of four),[24] while in India it was US$1.0 per day[25] and in China the absolute poverty line was US$0.55 per day, each on PPP basis in 2010.[26] These different poverty lines make data comparison between each nation's official reports qualitatively difficult. Some scholars argue that the World Bank method sets the bar too high,[27] others argue it is too low.

Children of the Depression-era migrant workers, Arizona, United States, 1937

There is disagreement among experts as to what would be considered a realistic poverty rate with one considering it "an inaccurately measured and arbitrary cut off".[28] Some contend that a higher poverty line is needed, such as a minimum of $7.40 or even $10 to $15 a day. They argue that these levels are a minimum for basic needs and to achieve normal life expectancy.[29]

One estimate places the true scale of poverty much higher than the World Bank, with an estimated 4.3 billion people (59% of the world's population) living with less than $5 a day and unable to meet basic needs adequately.[30] Philip Alston, a UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, stated the World Bank's international poverty line of $1.90 a day is fundamentally flawed, and has allowed for "self congratulatory" triumphalism in the fight against extreme global poverty, which he asserts is "completely off track" and that nearly half of the global population, or 3.4 billion, lives on less than $5.50 a day, and this number has barely moved since 1990.[31] Still others suggest that poverty line misleads because many live on far less than that line.[25][32][33]

Other measures of absolute poverty without using a certain dollar amount include the standard defined as receiving less than 80% of minimum caloric intake whilst spending more than 80% of income on food, sometimes called ultra-poverty.[34]

Relative poverty

[edit]
Graphical representation of the Gini coefficient, a common measure of inequality. The Gini coefficient is equal to the area marked A divided by the sum of the areas marked A and B, that is, Gini = A/(A + B).

Relative poverty views poverty as socially defined and dependent on social context. It is argued that the needs considered fundamental is not an objective measure[35][36] and could change with the custom of society.[37][35] For example, a person who cannot afford housing better than a small tent in an open field would be said to live in relative poverty if almost everyone else in that area lives in modern brick homes, but not if everyone else also lives in small tents in open fields (for example, in a nomadic tribe). Since richer nations would have lower levels of absolute poverty,[38][39] relative poverty is considered the "most useful measure for ascertaining poverty rates in wealthy developed nations"[40][41][42][43][44] and is the "most prominent and most-quoted of the EU social inclusion indicators".[45]

Usually, relative poverty is measured as the percentage of the population with income less than some fixed proportion of median income. This is a calculation of the percentage of people whose family household income falls below the Poverty Line. The main poverty line used in the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU) is based on "economic distance", a level of income set at 60% of the median household income.[46] The United States federal government typically regulates this line to three times the cost of an adequate meal.[47]

There are several other different income inequality metrics, for example, the Gini coefficient or the Theil Index.

Global share of wealth by wealth group —Credit Suisse, 2021
The Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality. Based on World Bank data ranging from 1992 to 2018.[48]

Other aspects

[edit]
World map of countries by Human Development Index categories in increments of 0.050 (based on 2019 data, published in 2020)
  ≥ 0.900
  0.850–0.899
  0.800–0.849
  0.750–0.799
  0.700–0.749
  0.650–0.699
  0.600–0.649
  0.550–0.599
  0.500–0.549
  0.450–0.499
  0.400–0.449
  ≤ 0.399
  Data unavailable

Rather than income, poverty is also measured through individual basic needs at a time. Life expectancy has greatly increased in the developing world since World War II and is starting to close the gap to the developed world.[49] Child mortality has decreased in every developing region of the world.[50] The proportion of the world's population living in countries where the daily per-capita supply of food energy is less than 9,200 kilojoules (2,200 kilocalories) decreased from 56% in the mid-1960s to below 10% by the 1990s. Similar trends can be observed for literacy, access to clean water and electricity and basic consumer items.[51]

An early morning outside the Opera Tavern in Stockholm, with beggars waiting for scraps from the previous day. Sweden, 1868.

Poverty may also be understood as an aspect of unequal social status and inequitable social relationships, experienced as social exclusion, dependency, and diminished capacity to participate, or to develop meaningful connections with other people in society.[52][53][54] Such social exclusion can be minimized through strengthened connections with the mainstream, such as through the provision of relational care to those who are experiencing poverty. The World Bank's "Voices of the Poor", based on research with over 20,000 poor people in 23 countries, identifies a range of factors which poor people identify as part of poverty. These include abuse by those in power, dis-empowering institutions, excluded locations, gender relationships, lack of security, limited capabilities, physical limitations, precarious livelihoods, problems in social relationships, weak community organizations and discrimination. Analysis of social aspects of poverty links conditions of scarcity to aspects of the distribution of resources and power in a society and recognizes that poverty may be a function of the diminished "capability" of people to live the kinds of lives they value. The social aspects of poverty may include lack of access to information, education, health care, social capital or political power.[55][56]

Relational poverty is the idea that societal poverty exists if there is a lack of human relationships. Relational poverty can be the result of a lost contact number, lack of phone ownership, isolation, or deliberate severing of ties with an individual or community. Relational poverty is also understood "by the social institutions that organize those relationships...poverty is importantly the result of the different terms and conditions on which people are included in social life".[57]

In the United Kingdom, the second Cameron ministry came under attack for its redefinition of poverty; poverty is no longer classified by a family's income, but as to whether a family is in work or not.[58] Considering that two-thirds of people who found work were accepting wages that are below the living wage (according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation[59]) this has been criticised by anti-poverty campaigners as an unrealistic view of poverty in the United Kingdom.[58]

Secondary poverty

[edit]

Secondary poverty refers to those that earn enough income to not be impoverished, but who spend their income on unnecessary pleasures, such as alcoholic beverages, thus placing them below it in practice.[60] In 18th- and 19th-century Great Britain, the practice of temperance among Methodists, as well as their rejection of gambling, allowed them to eliminate secondary poverty and accumulate capital.[61] Factors that contribute to secondary poverty includes but are not limited to: alcohol, gambling, tobacco and drugs. Substance abuse means that the poor typically spend about 2% of their income educating their children but larger percentages of alcohol and tobacco (for example, 6% in Indonesia and 8% in Mexico as of 2006).[62][needs update]

Variability

[edit]

Poverty levels are snapshot pictures in time that omits the transitional dynamics between levels. Mobility statistics supply additional information about the fraction who leave the poverty level. For example, one study finds that in a sixteen-year period (1975 to 1991 in the US) only 5% of those in the lower fifth of the income level were still at that level, while 95% transitioned to a higher income category.[63] Poverty levels can remain the same while those who rise out of poverty are replaced by others. The transient poor and chronic poor differ in each society. In a nine-year period ending in 2005 for the US, 50% of the poorest quintile transitioned to a higher quintile.[64]

Global prevalence

[edit]
Worlds regions by total wealth (in trillions USD), 2018

According to Chen and Ravallion, about 1.76 billion people in the developing world lived above $1.25 per day and 1.9 billion people lived below $1.25 per day in 1981. In 2005, about 4.09 billion people in the developing world lived above $1.25 per day and 1.4 billion people lived below $1.25 per day (both 1981 and 2005 data are on inflation adjusted basis).[65][66] The share of the world's population living in absolute poverty fell from 43% in 1981 to 14% in 2011.[67] The absolute number of people in poverty fell from 1.95 billion in 1981 to 1.01 billion in 2011.[68] The economist Max Roser estimates that the number of people in poverty is therefore roughly the same as 200 years ago.[68] This is the case since the world population was just little more than 1 billion in 1820 and the majority (84% to 94%)[69] of the world population was living in poverty.

According to one study, the percentage of the world population in hunger and poverty fell in absolute percentage terms from 50% in 1950 to 30% in 1970.[70] According to another study the number of people worldwide living in absolute poverty fell from 1.18 billion in 1950 to 1.04 billion in 1977.[71] According to another study, the number of people worldwide estimated to be starving fell from almost 920 million in 1971 to below 797 million in 1997.[72] The proportion of the developing world's population living in extreme economic poverty fell from 28% in 1990 to 21% in 2001.[67] Most of this improvement has occurred in East and South Asia.[73]

In 1963, the Third World Food Survey estimated that 10-15% of the world’s population were undernourished and that up to half suffered from general hunger hunger and malnutrition.[74] In subsequent decades, however, estimated levels of malnutrition and undernourshent steadily fell. From 1970 to 1990, the percentage of the world’s population estimated to be suffering from malnutrition fell from 24.8% to 15.9.%.[75] From 1970 to 2015, the percentage of people in developing nations estimated to be undernourished fell from 34.75% to 12.90%.[76]

In 2012 it was estimated that, using a poverty line of $1.25 a day, 1.2 billion people lived in poverty.[77] Given the current economic model, built on GDP, it would take 100 years to bring the world's poorest up to the poverty line of $1.25 a day.[78] UNICEF estimates half the world's children (or 1.1 billion) live in poverty.[79] The World Bank forecasted in 2015 that 702.1 million people were living in extreme poverty, down from 1.75 billion in 1990.[80] Extreme poverty is observed in all parts of the world, including developed economies.[81][82] Of the 2015 population, about 347.1 million people (35.2%) lived in Sub-Saharan Africa and 231.3 million (13.5%) lived in South Asia. According to the World Bank, between 1990 and 2015, the percentage of the world's population living in extreme poverty fell from 37.1% to 9.6%, falling below 10% for the first time.[83]

During the 2013 to 2015 period, the World Bank reported that extreme poverty fell from 11% to 10%, however they also noted that the rate of decline had slowed by nearly half from the 25 year average with parts of sub-saharan Africa returning to early 2000 levels.[84][85] The World Bank attributed this to increasing violence following the Arab Spring, population increases in Sub-Saharan Africa, and general African inflationary pressures and economic malaise were the primary drivers for this slow down.[86][87] Many wealthy nations have seen an increase in relative poverty rates ever since the Great Recession, in particular among children from impoverished families who often reside in substandard housing and find educational opportunities out of reach.[88] It has been argued by some academics that the neoliberal policies promoted by global financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank are actually exacerbating both inequality and poverty.[89][90]

In East Asia the World Bank reported that "The poverty headcount rate at the $2-a-day level is estimated to have fallen to about 27 percent [in 2007], down from 29.5 percent in 2006 and 69 percent in 1990."[91] The People's Republic of China accounts for over three quarters of global poverty reduction from 1990 to 2005, which according to the World Bank is "historically unprecedented".[92] China accounted for nearly half of all extreme poverty in 1990.[93]

In Sub-Saharan Africa extreme poverty went up from 41% in 1981 to 46% in 2001,[94] which combined with growing population increased the number of people living in extreme poverty from 231 million to 318 million.[95] Statistics of 2018 shows population living in extreme conditions has declined by more than 1 billion in the last 25 years. As per the report published by the world bank on 19 September 2018 world poverty falls below 750 million.[96]

In the early 1990s some of the transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia experienced a sharp drop in income.[97] The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in large declines in GDP per capita, of about 30 to 35% between 1990 and the through year of 1998 (when it was at its minimum). As a result, poverty rates tripled,[98] excess mortality increased,[99][100] and life expectancy declined.[101] Russian President Boris Yeltsin's IMF-backed rapid privatization and austerity policies resulted in unemployment rising to double digits and half the Russian population falling into destitution by the early to mid 1990s.[102] By 1999, during the peak of the poverty crisis, 191 million people were living on less than $5.50 a day.[103] In subsequent years as per capita incomes recovered the poverty rate dropped from 31.4% of the population to 19.6%.[104][105] The average post-communist country had returned to 1989 levels of per-capita GDP by 2005,[106] although as of 2015 some are still far behind that.[107] According to the World Bank in 2014, around 80 million people were still living on less than $5.00 a day.[103]

World Bank data shows that the percentage of the population living in households with consumption or income per person below the poverty line has decreased in each region of the world except Middle East and North Africa since 1990:[108][109]

In July 2023, a group of over 200 economists from 67 countries, including Jayati Ghosh, Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty, sent a letter to the United Nations secretary general António Guterres and World Bank president Ajay Banga warning that "extreme poverty and extreme wealth have risen sharply and simultaneously for the first time in 25 years."[110] In 2024, Oxfam reported that roughly five billion people have become poorer since 2020 and warned that current trends could postpone global poverty eradication for 229 years.[111]

Region $2.15 per day[112]
1981 1990 2000 2010 2018 2019
East Asia and Pacific 83.5% 65.8% 39.5% 13.3% 1.6% 1.2%
Europe and Central Asia 9.1% 4.1% 2.3% 2.3%
Latin America and the Caribbean 15.1% 16.8% 13.5% 6.4% 4.3% 4.3%
Middle East and North Africa 6.5% 3.5% 1.9% 9.6%
South Asia 58% 49.8% 26% 10.1% 8.6%
Sub-Saharan Africa 53.8% 56.5% 42.2% 35.4% 34.9%
World 43.6% 37.9% 29.3% 16.3% 9% 8.5%

Characteristics

[edit]
Life expectancy has been increasing and converging for most of the world. Sub-Saharan Africa has recently seen a decline, partly related to the AIDS epidemic. Graph shows the years 1950–2005.

The effects of poverty may also be causes of poverty thus creating a cycle of poverty operating across multiple levels, individual, local, national and global.

A Somali boy receiving treatment for malnourishment at a health facility

Health

[edit]
Life expectancy, 2016
National homicide rates are larger in countries with lower median income.[113]

One-third of deaths around the world—some 18 million people a year or 50,000 per day—are due to poverty-related causes. People living in developing nations, among them women and children, are overrepresented among the global poor and these effects of severe poverty.[114][115][116] Those living in poverty suffer disproportionately from hunger or even starvation and disease, as well as lower life expectancy.[117][118] According to the World Health Organization, hunger and malnutrition are the single gravest threats to the world's public health and malnutrition is by far the biggest contributor to child mortality, present in half of all cases.[119]

Almost 90% of maternal deaths during childbirth occur in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, compared to less than 1% in the developed world.[120] Those who live in poverty have also been shown to have a far greater likelihood of having or incurring a disability within their lifetime.[121] Infectious diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis can perpetuate poverty by diverting health and economic resources from investment and productivity; malaria decreases GDP growth by up to 1.3% in some developing nations and AIDS decreases African growth by 0.3–1.5% annually.[122][123][124]

Studies have shown that poverty impedes cognitive function although some of these findings could not be replicated in follow-up studies.[125] One hypothesised mechanism is that financial worries put a severe burden on one's mental resources so that they are no longer fully available for solving complicated problems. The reduced capability for problem solving can lead to suboptimal decisions and further perpetuate poverty.[126] Many other pathways from poverty to compromised cognitive capacities have been noted, from poor nutrition and environmental toxins to the effects of stress on parenting behavior, all of which lead to suboptimal psychological development.[127][128] Neuroscientists have documented the impact of poverty on brain structure and function throughout the lifespan.[129]

Infectious diseases continue to blight the lives of the poor across the world. 36.8 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, with 954,492 deaths in 2017.[130]

Poor people often are more prone to severe diseases due to the lack of health care, and due to living in non-optimal conditions. Among the poor, girls tend to suffer even more due to gender discrimination. Economic stability is paramount in a poor household; otherwise they go in an endless loop of negative income trying to treat diseases. Often when a person in a poor household falls ill it is up to the family members to take care of them due to limited access to health care and lack of health insurance. The household members often have to give up their income or stop seeking further education to tend to the sick member. There is a greater opportunity cost imposed on the poor to tend to someone compared to someone with better financial stability.[131] Increased access to healthcare and improved health outcomes help prevent individuals from falling into poverty due to medical expenses.[132][133]

Hunger

[edit]
Percentage of population suffering from hunger, World Food Programme, 2020

It is estimated that 1.02 billion people go to bed hungry every night.[134] According to the Global Hunger Index, Sub-Saharan Africa had the highest child malnutrition rate of the world's regions over the 2001–2006 period.[135]

Poor people spend a greater portion of their budgets on food than wealthy people and, as a result, they can be particularly vulnerable to increases in food prices. For example, in late 2007, increases in the price of grains[136] led to food riots in some countries.[137][138][139] Threats to the supply of food may also be caused by drought and the water crisis.[140] Intensive farming often leads to a vicious cycle of exhaustion of soil fertility and decline of agricultural yields.[141] Approximately 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously degraded.[142][143] Goal 2 of the Sustainable Development Goals is the elimination of hunger and undernutrition by 2030.[144]

Mental health

[edit]
A Venezuelan eating from garbage during the crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela

A psychological study has been conducted by four scientists during inaugural Convention of Psychological Science. The results find that people who thrive with financial stability or fall under low socioeconomic status (SES) tend to perform worse cognitively due to external pressure imposed upon them. The research found that stressors such as low income, inadequate health care, discrimination, and exposure to criminal activities all contribute to mental disorders. This study also found that children exposed to poverty-stricken environments have slower cognitive thinking.[145] It is seen that children perform better under the care of their parents and that children tend to adopt speaking language at a younger age. Since being in poverty from childhood is more harmful than it is for an adult, it is seen that children in poor households tend to fall behind in certain cognitive abilities compared to other average families.[146] The World Health Organization highlights that social determinants such as income inequality, lack of access to quality education, unemployment, insecure housing, and exposure to violence are strongly associated with poor mental health outcomes. These structural factors contribute significantly to disparities in mental well-being across different populations.[147]

For a child to grow up emotionally healthy, children under three need "A strong, reliable primary caregiver who provides consistent and unconditional love, guidance, and support. Safe, predictable, stable environments. Ten to 20 hours each week of harmonious, reciprocal interactions. This process, known as attunement, is most crucial during the first 6–24 months of infants' lives and helps them develop a wider range of healthy emotions, including gratitude, forgiveness, and empathy. Enrichment through personalized, increasingly complex activities".[citation needed]

In a 1996 survey, 67% of children from disadvantaged inner cities said they had witnessed a serious assault, and 33% reported witnessing a homicide.[148] 51% of fifth graders from New Orleans (median income for a household: $27,133) have been found to be victims of violence, compared to 32% in Washington, DC (mean income for a household: $40,127).[149] Studies have shown that poverty changes the personalities of children who live in it. The Great Smoky Mountains Study was a ten-year study that was able to demonstrate this. During the study, about one-quarter of the families saw a dramatic and unexpected increase in income. The study showed that among these children, instances of behavioral and emotional disorders decreased, and conscientiousness and agreeableness increased.[150]

Education

[edit]

Research has found that there is a high risk of educational underachievement for children who are from low-income housing circumstances. This is often a process that begins in primary school. Instruction in the US educational system, as well as in most other countries, tends to be geared towards those students who come from more advantaged backgrounds. As a result, children in poverty are at a higher risk than advantaged children for retention in their grade, special deleterious placements during the school's hours and not completing their high school education.[151] Advantage breeds advantage.[152] There are many explanations for why students tend to drop out of school. One is the conditions in which they attend school. Schools in poverty-stricken areas have conditions that hinder children from learning in a safe environment. Researchers have developed a name for areas like this: an urban war zone is a poor, crime-laden district in which deteriorated, violent, even warlike conditions and underfunded, largely ineffective schools promote inferior academic performance, including irregular attendance and disruptive or non-compliant classroom behavior.[153] Because of poverty, "Students from low-income families are 2.4 times more likely to drop out than middle-income kids, and over 10 times more likely than high-income peers to drop out."[154]

For children with low resources, the risk factors are similar to others such as juvenile delinquency rates, higher levels of teenage pregnancy, and economic dependency upon their low-income parent or parents.[151] Families and society who submit low levels of investment in the education and development of less fortunate children end up with less favorable results for the children who see a life of parental employment reduction and low wages. Higher rates of early childbearing with all the connected risks to family, health and well-being are major issues to address since education from preschool to high school is identifiably meaningful in a life.[151]

Poverty often drastically affects children's success in school. A child's "home activities, preferences, mannerisms" must align with the world and in the cases that they do not do these, students are at a disadvantage in the school and, most importantly, the classroom.[155] Therefore, it is safe to state that children who live at or below the poverty level will have far less success educationally than children who live above the poverty line. Poor children have a great deal less healthcare and this ultimately results in many absences from school. Additionally, poor children are much more likely to suffer from hunger, fatigue, irritability, headaches, ear infections, flu, and colds.[155] These illnesses could potentially restrict a student's focus and concentration.[156]

In general, the interaction of gender with poverty or location tends to work to the disadvantage of girls in poorer countries with low completion rates and social expectations that they marry early, and to the disadvantage of boys in richer countries with high completion rates but social expectations that they enter the labour force early.[157] At the primary education level, most countries with a completion rate below 60% exhibit gender disparity at girls' expense, particularly poor and rural girls. In Mauritania, the adjusted gender parity index is 0.86 on average, but only 0.63 for the poorest 20%, while there is parity among the richest 20%. In countries with completion rates between 60% and 80%, gender disparity is generally smaller, but disparity at the expense of poor girls is especially marked in Cameroon, Nigeria and Yemen. Exceptions in the opposite direction are observed in countries with pastoralist economies that rely on boys' labour, such as the Kingdom of Eswatini, Lesotho and Namibia.[157]

Shelter

[edit]
Homeless family in Kolkata, India
Street child in Bangladesh. Aiding relatives financially unable to but willing to take in orphans is found to be more effective by cost and welfare than orphanages.[158]

The right to housing is argued to be a human right.[159][160] Higher density and lower cost housing affords low-income families and first-time homebuyers with more and less expensive shelter opportunities, reducing economic inequality.[161][162]

The geographic concentration of poverty is argued to be a factor in entrenching poverty. William J. Wilson's "concentration and isolation" hypothesis states that the economic difficulties of the very poorest African Americans are compounded by the fact that as the better-off African Americans move out, the poorest are more and more concentrated, having only other very poor people as neighbors. This concentration causes social isolation, Wilson suggests, because the very poor are now isolated from access to the job networks, role models, institutions, and other connections that might help them escape poverty.[163] Gentrification means converting an aging neighborhood into a more affluent one, as by remodeling homes. Landlords then increase rent on newly renovated real estate; the poor people cannot afford to pay high rent, and may need to leave their neighborhood to find affordable housing.[164] The poor also get more access to income and services, while studies suggest poor residents living in gentrifying neighbourhoods are actually less likely to move than poor residents of non-gentrifying areas.[165]

Poverty increases the risk of homelessness.[166] Slum-dwellers, who make up a third of the world's urban population, live in a poverty no better, if not worse, than rural people, who are the traditional focus of the poverty in the developing world, according to a report by the United Nations.[167]

There are over 100 million street children worldwide.[168] Most of the children living in institutions around the world have a surviving parent or close relative, and they most commonly entered orphanages because of poverty.[158] It is speculated that, flush with money, for-profit orphanages are increasing and push for children to join even though demographic data show that even the poorest extended families usually take in children whose parents have died.[158] Many child advocates maintain that this can harm children's development by separating them from their families and that it would be more effective and cheaper to aid close relatives who want to take in the orphans.[158]

Utilities

[edit]
Affordable household toilets near Jaipur, Rajasthan

The poor tend to pay more for access to utilities and ensuring the availability of water, sanitation, energy, and telecommunication services such as broadband internet service[169] help in reducing poverty in general.[170][171]

Water and sanitation

[edit]

As of 2012, 2.5 billion people lack access to sanitation services and 15% practice open defecation.[172] Even while providing latrines is a challenge, people still do not use them even when available. Bangladesh had half the GDP per capita of India but has a lower mortality from diarrhea than India or the world average, with diarrhea deaths declining by 90% since the 1990s. By strategically providing pit latrines to the poorest, charities in Bangladesh sparked a cultural change as those better off perceived it as an issue of status to not use one. The vast majority of the latrines built were then not from charities but by villagers themselves.[173]

Water utility subsidies tend to subsidize water consumption by those connected to the supply grid, which is typically skewed towards the richer and urban segment of the population and those outside informal housing. As a result of heavy consumption subsidies, the price of water decreases to the extent that only 30%, on average, of the supplying costs in developing countries is covered.[174][175] This results in a lack of incentive to maintain delivery systems, leading to losses from leaks annually that are enough for 200 million people.[174][176] This also leads to a lack of incentive to invest in expanding the network, resulting in much of the poor population being unconnected to the network. Instead, the poor buy water from water vendors for, on average, about 5 to 16 times the metered price.[174][177] However, subsidies for laying new connections to the network rather than for consumption have shown more promise for the poor.[175]

Energy

[edit]
Homes without reliable access to energy such as electricity, heating, cooling, etc.

In developing countries and some areas of more developed countries, energy poverty is lack of access to modern energy services in the home.[178] In 2022, 759 million people lacked access to consistent electricity and 2.6 billion people used dangerous and inefficient cooking systems.[179] Their well-being is negatively affected by very low consumption of energy, use of dirty or polluting fuels, and excessive time spent collecting fuel to meet basic needs.

Predominant indices for measuring the complex nature of energy poverty include the Energy Development Index (EDI), the Multidimensional Energy Poverty Index (MEPI), and Energy Poverty Index (EPI). Both binary and multidimensional measures of energy poverty are required to establish indicators that simplify the process of measuring and tracking energy poverty globally.[180] Energy poverty often exacerbates existing vulnerabilities amongst underprivileged communities and negatively impacts public and household health, education, and women's opportunities.[181]

According to the Energy Poverty Action initiative of the World Economic Forum, "Access to energy is fundamental to improving quality of life and is a key imperative for economic development. In the developing world, energy poverty is still rife."[182] As a result of this situation, the United Nations (UN) launched the Sustainable Energy for All Initiative and designated 2012 as the International Year for Sustainable Energy for All, which had a major focus on reducing energy poverty.

The term energy poverty is also sometimes used in the context of developed countries to mean an inability to afford energy in the home. This concept is also known as fuel poverty, household energy insecurity or energy hardship.[178][183]

Financial services

[edit]

For low-income individuals and families, access to credit can be limited, predatory, or both, making it difficult to find the financial resources they need to invest in their futures.[184][185]

Prejudice and exploitation

[edit]
The urban poor buy water from water vendors for, on average, about 5 to 16 times the metered price.[174]

Cultural factors, such as discrimination of various kinds, can negatively affect productivity such as age discrimination, stereotyping,[186] discrimination against people with physical disability,[187] gender discrimination, racial discrimination, and caste discrimination. Children are more than twice as likely to live in poverty as adults.[188] Women are the group suffering from the highest rate of poverty after children, in what is referred to as the feminization of poverty. In addition, the fact that women are more likely to be caregivers, regardless of income level, to either the generations before or after them, exacerbates the burdens of their poverty.[189] Those in poverty have increased chances of incurring a disability which leads to a cycle where disability and poverty are mutually reinforcing.

Max Weber and some schools of modernization theory suggest that cultural values could affect economic success.[190][191] However, researchers[who?] have gathered evidence that suggest that values are not as deeply ingrained and that changing economic opportunities explain most of the movement into and out of poverty, as opposed to shifts in values.[192] A 2018 report on poverty in the United States by UN special rapporteur Philip Alston asserts that caricatured narratives about the rich and the poor (that "the rich are industrious, entrepreneurial, patriotic and the drivers of economic success" while "the poor are wasters, losers and scammers") are largely inaccurate, as "the poor are overwhelmingly those born into poverty, or those thrust there by circumstances largely beyond their control, such as physical or mental disabilities, divorce, family breakdown, illness, old age, unlivable wages or discrimination in the job market."[193] Societal perception of people experiencing economic difficulty has historically appeared as a conceptual dichotomy: the "good" poor (people who are physically impaired, disabled, the "ill and incurable," the elderly, pregnant women, children) vs. the "bad" poor (able-bodied, "valid" adults, most often male).[194]

According to experts, many women become victims of trafficking, the most common form of which is prostitution, as a means of survival and economic desperation.[195] Deterioration of living conditions can often compel children to abandon school to contribute to the family income, putting them at risk of being exploited.[196] For example, in Zimbabwe, a number of girls are turning to sex in return for food to survive because of the increasing poverty.[197] According to studies, as poverty decreases there will be fewer and fewer instances of violence.[198] Some data such as the UNICEF reports and also a research called "Echo of Silence" show that there is a close correlation between economic poverty and early marriage. In some developing countries, child marriage is considered an economic measure that can improve the family’s poor condition, strengthen family bonds.[199][200][201][202]

Poverty reduction

[edit]
Logo of the Sustainable Development Goal 1 of the United Nations, to "end poverty in all its forms, everywhere" by 2030[203]

Various poverty reduction strategies are broadly categorized based on whether they make more of the basic human needs available or whether they increase the disposable income needed to purchase those needs.[204] Some strategies such as building roads can both bring access to various basic needs, such as fertilizer or healthcare from urban areas, as well as increase incomes, by bringing better access to urban markets.[205][206]

Reducing relative poverty would also involve reducing inequality. Oxfam, among others,[207] has called for an international movement to end extreme wealth concentration arguing that the concentration of resources in the hands of the top 1% depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else, particularly for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.[208][209] And they say that the gains of the world's billionaires in 2017, which amounted to $762 billion, were enough to end extreme global poverty seven times over.[210] Methods to reduce inequality and relative poverty include progressive taxation, which involves increasing tax rates on high-income earners,[211][212] wealth taxes, which involve taxing a portion of an individual's net worth above a certain threshold,[213][214][215] reducing payroll taxes, which are taxes on employees and employers and reducing this provides workers greater take-home pay and allows employers to spend more on wages and salaries,[216][217][218] and increasing the labor share, which is the proportion of business income paid as wages and salaries instead of allocated to shareholders as profit.[219][220]

Increasing the supply of basic needs

[edit]

Improving technology

[edit]
Spreading fertilizer on a field of rapeseed near Barton-upon-Humber, England

Agricultural technologies such as nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides, new seed varieties and new irrigation methods have dramatically reduced food shortages in modern times by boosting yields past previous constraints.[221] Before the Industrial Revolution, poverty had been mostly accepted as inevitable as economies produced little, making wealth scarce.[222] Geoffrey Parker wrote that "In Antwerp and Lyon, two of the largest cities in western Europe, by 1600 three-quarters of the total population were too poor to pay taxes, and therefore likely to need relief in times of crisis."[223] The initial industrial revolution led to high economic growth and eliminated mass absolute poverty in what is now considered the developed world.[224] Mass production of goods in places such as rapidly industrializing China has made what were once considered luxuries, such as vehicles and computers, inexpensive and thus accessible to many who were otherwise too poor to afford them.[225][226]

Other than technology, advancements in sciences such as medicine help provide basic needs better. For example, Sri Lanka had a maternal mortality rate of 2% in the 1930s, higher than any nation today, but reduced it to 0.5–0.6% in the 1950s and to 0.6% in 2006 while spending less each year on maternal health because it learned what worked and what did not.[227][228] Knowledge on the cost effectiveness of healthcare interventions can be elusive and educational measures have been made to disseminate what works, such as the Copenhagen Consensus.[229] Cheap water filters and promoting hand washing are some of the most cost effective health interventions and can cut deaths from diarrhea and pneumonia.[230][231] Fortification with micronutrients was ranked the most cost effective aid strategy by the Copenhagen Consensus.[232] For example, iodised salt costs 2 to 3 cents per person a year while even moderate iodine deficiency in pregnancy shaves off 10 to 15 IQ points.[233]

State funding

[edit]
Hardwood surgical tables are commonplace in rural Nigerian clinics.

Certain basic needs are argued to be better provided by the state. Universal healthcare can reduce the overall cost of providing healthcare by having a single payer negotiating with healthcare providers and minimizing administrative costs.[132][133] It is also argued that subsidizing essential goods such as fuel is less efficient in helping the poor than providing that same money as income grants to the poor.[234]

Government revenue can be diverted away from basic services by corruption.[235][236] Funds from aid and natural resources are often sent by government individuals for money laundering to overseas banks which insist on bank secrecy, instead of spending on the poor.[237] A Global Witness report asked for more action from Western banks as they have proved capable of stanching the flow of funds linked to terrorism.[237]

Illicit capital flight, such as corporate tax avoidance,[238] from the developing world is estimated at ten times the size of aid it receives and twice the debt service it pays,[239] with one estimate that most of Africa would be developed if the taxes owed were paid.[240] About 60 per cent of illicit capital flight from Africa is from transfer mispricing, where a subsidiary in a developing nation sells to another subsidiary or shell company in a tax haven at an artificially low price to pay less tax.[241] An African Union report estimates that about 30% of sub-Saharan Africa's GDP has been moved to tax havens.[242] Solutions include corporate "country-by-country reporting" where corporations disclose activities in each country and thereby prohibit the use of tax havens where no effective economic activity occurs.[241]

Developing countries' debt service to banks and governments from richer countries can constrain government spending on the poor.[243] For example, Zambia spent 40% of its total budget to repay foreign debt, and only 7% for basic state services in 1997.[244] One of the proposed ways to help poor countries has been debt relief. Zambia began offering services, such as free health care even while overwhelming the health care infrastructure, because of savings that resulted from a 2005 round of debt relief.[245] Since that round of debt relief, private creditors accounted for an increasing share of poor countries' debt service obligations. This complicated efforts to renegotiate easier terms for borrowers during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic because the multiple private creditors involved say they have a fiduciary obligation to their clients such as the pension funds.[246][247]

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as primary holders of developing countries' debt, attach structural adjustment conditionalities in return for loans which are generally geared toward loan repayment with austerity measures such as the elimination of state subsidies and the privatization of state services. For example, the World Bank presses poor nations to eliminate subsidies for fertilizer even while many farmers cannot afford them at market prices.[248] In Malawi, almost 5 million of its 13 million people used to need emergency food aid but after the government changed policy and subsidies for fertilizer and seed were introduced, farmers produced record-breaking corn harvests in 2006 and 2007 as Malawi became a major food exporter.[248]

Distressed securities funds, also known as vulture funds, buy up the debt of poor nations cheaply and then sue countries for the full value of the debt plus interest which can be ten or 100 times what they paid.[249] They may pursue any companies which do business with their target country to force them to pay to the fund instead.[249] Considerable resources are diverted on costly court cases. For example, a court in Jersey ordered the Democratic Republic of the Congo to pay an American speculator $100 million in 2010.[249] Now, the UK, Isle of Man and Jersey have banned such payments.[249]

A family planning placard in Ethiopia. It shows some negative effects of having too many children.

Improving access to available basic needs

[edit]

Even with new products, such as better seeds, or greater volumes of them, such as industrial production, the poor still require access to these products. Improving road and transportation infrastructure helps solve this major bottleneck. In Africa, it costs more to move fertilizer from an African seaport 100 kilometres (60 mi) inland than to ship it from the United States to Africa because of sparse, low-quality roads, leading to fertilizer costs two to six times the world average.[250] Microfranchising models such as door-to-door distributors who earn commission-based income or Coca-Cola's successful distribution system[251][252] are used to disseminate basic needs to remote areas for below market prices.[253][254]

The loss of basic needs providers emigrating from impoverished countries has a damaging effect.[255] As of 2004, there were more Ethiopia-trained doctors living in Chicago than in Ethiopia[256] and this often leaves inadequately less skilled doctors to remain in their home countries.[257] Proposals to mitigate the problem include compulsory government service for graduates of public medical and nursing schools[255] and promoting medical tourism so that health care personnel have more incentive to practice in their home countries.[258] Telehealth is the use of telecommunication technologies to deliver health services. For remotes communities in Alaska, telehealth has been found to reduce travel costs alone for the state by $13 million in 2021[259] and, according to one study, reduced the life expectancy gap between whites and American Indian population in Alaska from eight to five years.[260]

Preventing overpopulation

[edit]
Map of countries and territories by fertility rate as of 2020

Poverty and lack of access to birth control can lead to population increases that put pressure on local economies and access to resources, amplifying other economic inequality and creating increase poverty.[261][95][262] Better education for both men and women, and more control of their lives, reduces population growth due to family planning.[263][264] According to United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), those who receive better education can earn money for their lives, thereby strengthening economic security.[265]

Increasing personal income

[edit]

The following are strategies used or proposed to increase personal incomes among the poor. Raising farm incomes is described as the core of the antipoverty effort as three-quarters of the poor today are farmers.[266] Estimates show that growth in the agricultural productivity of small farmers is, on average, at least twice as effective in benefiting the poorest half of a country's population as growth generated in nonagricultural sectors.[267]

Income grants

[edit]
Afghan girl begging in Kabul

A guaranteed minimum income ensures that every citizen will be able to purchase a desired level of basic needs. One method is through a basic income (or negative income tax), which is a system of social security, that periodically provides each citizen, rich or poor, with a sum of money that is sufficient to live on.[268] Studies of large cash-transfer programs in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Malawi show that the programs can be effective in increasing consumption, schooling, and nutrition, whether they are tied to such conditions or not.[269][270][271]

Employment subsidies go to those already employed and this has shown to have little effect on those at the lowest income levels.[216][272][273] Proponents argue that a basic income is more efficient than a minimum wage and unemployment benefits, as the minimum wage effectively imposes a high marginal tax on employers, causing losses in efficiency. In 1968, Paul Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith and another 1,200 economists signed a document calling for the US Congress to introduce a system of income guarantees.[274] Winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics, with often diverse political convictions, who support a basic income include Herbert A. Simon,[275] Friedrich Hayek,[276] Robert Solow,[275] Milton Friedman,[277] Jan Tinbergen,[275] James Tobin[278][279][280] and James Meade.[275]

Income grants are argued to be vastly more efficient in extending basic needs to the poor than subsidizing supplies whose effectiveness in poverty alleviation is diluted by the non-poor who enjoy the same subsidized prices.[234] With cars and other appliances, the wealthiest 20% of Egypt uses about 93% of the country's fuel subsidies.[281] In some countries, fuel subsidies are a larger part of the budget than health and education.[281][282] A 2008 study concluded that the money spent on in-kind transfers in India in a year could lift all India's poor out of poverty for that year if transferred directly.[283] Additionally, in aid models, the famine relief model increasingly used by aid groups calls for giving cash or cash vouchers to the hungry to pay local farmers instead of buying food from donor countries, often required by law, as it wastes money on transport costs.[284][285]

The primary obstacle argued against direct cash transfers is the impractically for poor countries of such large and direct transfers. In practice, payments determined by complex iris scanning are used by war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo and Afghanistan,[286] while India modified its subsidies in favor of direct transfers.[287] Central bank digital currencies are argued to be an efficient tool in direct cash transfers to the poor as it can reach the unbanked and be more cost effective without having to physically send money and without needing an intermediary such as a bank.[288][289]

Economic freedoms

[edit]

Corruption often leads to many civil services being treated by governments as employment agencies to loyal supporters[290] and so it could mean going through 20 procedures, paying $2,696 in fees, and waiting 82 business days to start a business in Bolivia, while in Canada it takes two days, two registration procedures, and $280 to do the same.[291] Such costly barriers favor big firms at the expense of small enterprises, where most jobs are created.[292] Often, businesses have to bribe government officials even for routine activities, which is, in effect, a tax on business.[293] Noted reductions in poverty in recent decades has occurred in China and India mostly as a result of the abandonment of collective farming in China and the ending of the central planning model known as the License Raj in India.[294][295][296]

The World Bank concludes that governments and feudal elites extending to the poor the right to the land that they live and use are 'the key to reducing poverty' citing that land rights greatly increase poor people's wealth, in some cases doubling it.[297] Providing secure tenure to land ownership creates incentives to improve the land and thus improves the welfare of the poor.[298] It is argued that those in power have an incentive to not secure property rights as they are able to then more easily take land or any small business that does well to their supporters.[299]

Greater access to markets brings more income to the poor. Road infrastructure has a direct impact on poverty.[300][301] Additionally, migration from poorer countries resulted in $328 billion sent from richer to poorer countries in 2010, more than double the $120 billion in official aid flows from OECD members. In 2011, India got $52 billion from its diaspora, more than it took in foreign direct investment.[302]

Financial services

[edit]
Information and communication technologies for development help to fight poverty.

Microloans, made famous by the Grameen Bank, is where small amounts of money are loaned to borrowers who typically lack collateral, steady employment, or a verifiable credit history.. However, microlending has been criticized for making hyperprofits off the poor even from its founder, Muhammad Yunus,[303] and in India, Arundhati Roy asserts that some 250,000 debt-ridden farmers have been driven to suicide.[304][305][306]

Those in poverty place more importance on having a safe place to save money than on receiving loans.[307] Additionally, a large part of microfinance loans are spent not on investments but on products that would usually be paid by a checking or savings account.[307] A large portion of the poor are unbanked because it is often not profitable to open bank accounts for the poor. One altervative option is the postal savings system. Another option is mobile banking which utilizes the wide availability of mobile phones.[307] This usually involves a network of agents of mostly shopkeepers who would take deposits in cash and translate these onto an account on customers' phones. Cash transfers can be done between phones and issued back in cash with a small commission, making remittances safer.[308] Central bank digital currencies could allow, even in areas without internet access, digital transactions with little or no cost using simple feature phones.[288]

Education and vocational training

[edit]
Early childhood education through USAID in Ziway, Ethiopia

Free education through public education or charitable organizations rather than through tuition, from early childhood education through the tertiary level provides children from low-income families who may not otherwise have the financial resources with better job prospects and higher earnings and promotes social mobility.[309][310][311][312] Job training and vocational education programs that target training in technical skills in specific industries or occupations that are in high demand can reduce poverty and wealth concentration.[313]

Strategies to provide education cost effectively include deworming children, which costs about 50 cents per child per year and reduces non-attendance from anemia, illness and malnutrition, while being only a twenty-fifth as expensive as increasing school attendance by constructing schools.[314] Schoolgirl absenteeism could be cut in half by simply providing free sanitary towels.[315] Paying for school meals is argued to be an efficient strategy in increasing school enrollment, reducing absenteeism and increasing student attention.[316]

Desirable actions such as enrolling children in school or receiving vaccinations can be encouraged by a form of aid known as conditional cash transfers.[317] In Mexico, for example, dropout rates of 16- to 19-year-olds in rural area dropped by 20% and children gained half an inch in height.[318] Initial fears that the program would encourage families to stay at home rather than work to collect benefits have proven to be unfounded. Instead, there is less excuse for neglectful behavior as, for example, children stopped begging on the streets instead of going to school because it could result in suspension from the program.[318]

Obstacles

[edit]

Economist William Easterly diagnoses a problem with the traditional approach to poverty reduction, whose advocates he calls "Planners." He notes that $2.3 trillion were spent on foreign aid in five decades, yet twelve-cent medicines were not able to be given to children to prevent malaria-related deaths and three dollars were not given to new mothers to help prevent millions of child deaths. He argues that even though the aid was well-meaning, it failed to bring results because "Planners," and not "Searchers," are supplying it.[319]

Planners Searchers
Unable to motivate people to carry out their good intentions Find ways to make things work
Take no responsibility for their actions Accept responsibility
Determine what to supply Find out what is in demand
Apply global blueprints Adapt to local conditions
Lack knowledge of the bottom Find out what the reality is at the bottom
Believe outsiders know enough to offer solutions Believe that solutions must be homegrown

Antipoverty institutions

[edit]

Intergovernmental organizations

[edit]

In 2015 all UN Member States adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals as part of the Post-2015 Development Agenda, which sought to create a future global development framework to succeed the Millennium Development Goals, which were goals set in 2000 and were meant to be achieved by 2015.[320] Most targets are to be achieved by 2030, although some have no end date.[321] Goal 1 is to "end poverty in all its forms everywhere".[322] It aims to eliminate extreme poverty for all people measured by daily wages less than $1.25 and at least half the total number of men, women, and children living in poverty. In addition, social protection systems must be established at the national level and equal access to economic resources must be ensured.[323] Strategies have to be developed at the national, regional and international levels to support the eradication of poverty.[324]

Development banks

[edit]

A development financial institution, also known as a development bank, is a financial institution that provides risk capital for economic development projects on a non-commercial basis. They are often established and owned by governments to finance projects that would otherwise not be able to get financing from commercial lenders. These include international financial institutions such as the World Bank, which is the largest development bank.

Nongovernmental organizations

[edit]

In recent decades, the number of nongovernmental organizations has increased dramatically. The high level forums on aid effectiveness which were coordinated by the OECD found that this leads to fragmentation where too many agencies were financing too many small projects using too many different procedures and that the civil service of the donor countries were overstretched producing reports for each.[325]

A major proportion of aid from donor nations is tied, mandating that a receiving nation spend on products and expertise originating only from the donor country.[326] US law requires food aid be spent on buying food at home, instead of where the hungry live, and, as a result, half of what is spent is used on transport.[327] Domestic NGOs have more expertise in their respective regions and have less overhead and thus tend to be more efficient in delivering aid but receive less funding. Housing only for a Western aid worker in Ethiopia is enough to pay the salaries of four or five local NGO workers, for example. Bilateral government aid programs such as US Agency for International Development aim to increase their share of funding to go through 'local partners', called 'localizing'. The obstacles include accountability where it is easier to delegate responsibility for spending on one international NGO than having to track tax payer money going to numerous smaller domestic NGOs.[328]

For-profit institutions

[edit]

The Poverty industrial complex refers to for-profit companies taking over roles previously held by government agencies. The incentive for profit in such companies has been argued to interfere with efficiently providing the needed services. Aid from richer nations increasingly go through for profit institutions. Such hospitals are found to imprison patients and retain corpses for non-payment of fees.[329]

Causes

[edit]
Data shows substantial social segregation correlating with economic income groups.[330] However, social connectedness to people of higher income levels is a strong predictor of upward income mobility.[330]

The cause of poverty is a highly ideologically charged subject, as different causes point to different remedies. Very broadly speaking, the socialist tradition locates the roots of poverty in problems of distribution and the use of the means of production as capital benefiting individuals, and calls for redistribution of wealth as the solution, whereas the neoliberal school of thought holds that creating conditions for profitable private investment is the solution. Neoliberal think tanks have received extensive funding,[331] and proponents of neoliberalism have been able to apply their ideas in highly indebted countries in the global South as a condition for receiving emergency loans from the International Monetary Fund.

The existence of inequality is in part due to a set of self-reinforcing behaviors that all together constitute one aspect of the cycle of poverty. These behaviors, in addition to unfavorable, external circumstances, also explain the existence of the Matthew effect, which not only exacerbates existing inequality, but is more likely to make it multigenerational. Widespread, multigenerational poverty is an important contributor to civil unrest and political instability.[332] For example, Raghuram G. Rajan, former governor of the Reserve Bank of India and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, has blamed the ever-widening gulf between the rich and the poor, especially in the US, to be one of the main fault lines which caused the financial institutions to pump money into subprime mortgages—on political behest, as a palliative and not a remedy, for poverty—causing the subprime mortgage crisis. In Rajan's view the main cause of the increasing gap between high income and low income earners was lack of equal access to higher education for the latter.[333]

A number of articles have found linkages between poverty reduction and good governance.[334] Some find that economic growth is more impactful at reducing poverty in well governed countries.[335][336][337] Others find that there is a direct effect of governance on poverty reduction.[338][339] Research also finds that governance above a certain level contributes to poverty reduction.[340][341] Others still find a relationship between governance and poverty even controlling for economic growth, indicating an independent association.[334] A data based scientific empirical research, which studied the impact of dynastic politics on the level of poverty of the provinces, found a positive correlation between dynastic politics and poverty; i.e. the higher proportion of dynastic politicians in power in a province leads to higher poverty rate.[342] There is significant evidence that these political dynasties use their political dominance over their respective regions to enrich themselves, using methods such as graft or outright bribery of legislators.[343]

Most economic historians believe that throughout most of human history, extreme poverty was the norm for roughly 90% of the population, and only with the emergence of industrialization in the 19th century were the masses of people lifted out of it.[344][345]: 1 This narrative is advanced by, among others, Martin Ravallion,[346] Nicholas Kristof,[347] and Steven Pinker.[348]

Some academics, including Dylan Sullivan and Jason Hickel have challenged this contemporary mainstream narrative on poverty, arguing that extreme poverty was not the norm throughout human history, but emerged during "periods of severe social and economic dislocation", including high European feudalism and the apex of the Roman Empire, and that it expanded significantly after 1500 with the emergence of colonialism and the beginnings of capitalism, stating that "the expansion of the capitalist world-system caused a dramatic and prolonged process of impoverishment on a scale unparalleled in recorded history." Sullivan and Hickel assert that only with the rise of anti-colonial and socialist political movements in the 20th century did human welfare begin to see significant improvement.[344] However, all scholars and intellectuals, including Hickel, agree that the incomes of the poorest people in the world have increased since 1981.[345] Nevertheless, Sullivan and Hickel argue that poverty persists under contemporary global capitalism (in spite of it being highly productive) because masses of working people are cut off from common land and resources, have no ownership or control over the means of production, and have their labor power "appropriated by a ruling class or an external imperial power," thereby maintaining extreme inequality.[344]

Marian L. Tupy, a senior fellow of the Cato Institute, a right-libertarian think tank, criticized Hickel's claim that people before industrialization lived well without a lot of monetary income, stating that "The evidence from contemporary accounts and academic research" shows that "Compared to today, Western European living standards prior to industrialization were miserably low.", that "poverty was widespread and it was precisely the onset of industrialization and global trade … which led to poverty alleviation first in the West and then in the Rest."[349] and that both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, while advocating for socialism, recognized that the capitalist system developing around them had improved people's material conditions.[349]

Ethics

[edit]

Human rights

[edit]

It is sometimes argued that poverty is a violation of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights state that “Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security.”[350]

Environmentalism

[edit]
Demonstration against climate poverty in 2007.

The poor tend to suffer most from environmental degradation caused by reckless exploitation of natural resources by the rich.[351] For example, it is estimated that 92% of accumulated greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to countries from the Global North while 8% of emissions are attributed to countries from the Global South.[352][353] However, developing countries suffer 99% of the casualties attributable to climate change.[354] This unfair distribution of environmental burdens and benefits has generated the global environmental justice and climate justice movement.[355]

The Brundtland Report concluded that poverty causes environmental degradation, while other theories like environmentalism of the poor conclude that the global poor may be the most important force for sustainability.[356] A 2013 World Bank report estimated that climate change was likely to hinder future attempts to reduce poverty with a 2016 UN report claiming that by 2030, an additional 122 million more people could be driven to extreme poverty because of climate change.[357] The possible impacts of a temperature rise of 2 °C include: regular food shortages in Sub-Saharan Africa; a deficiency in water availability, with droughts predicted to happen much faster and last longer;[358] degradation and loss of reefs in South East Asia, resulting in reduced fish stocks; and coastal communities and cities more vulnerable to increasingly violent storms.[359]

Green imperialism is the term used to refer to influencing poorer nations in the name of environmentalism. Green colonialism is grabbing of land in the name of environmentalism. Fortress conservation is the conservation model based on the belief that biodiversity protection is best achieved by creating protected areas in isolation from humans and this has led to the eviction of indigenous people.

Spirituality

[edit]
A Japanese Buddhist pilgrim on alms round (during Shikoku Pilgrimage in Shikoku, Japan)

Among some individuals, poverty is considered a necessary or desirable condition, which must be embraced to reach certain spiritual, moral, or intellectual states. Poverty is often understood to be an essential element of renunciation in religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism (only for monks, not for lay persons) and Jainism, whilst in Christianity, in particular Roman Catholicism, it is one of the evangelical counsels. Some Christian communities, such as the Simple Way, the Bruderhof, and the Amish value voluntary poverty;[360] some even take a vow of poverty, similar to that of the traditional Catholic orders, in order to live a more complete life of discipleship.[361] Another example is mendicancy, where one chooses to rely chiefly or exclusively on alms to survive. The main aim of giving up things of the materialistic world is to withdraw oneself from sensual pleasures (as they are considered illusionary and only temporary in some religions—such as the concept of dunya in Islam).

Pope Paul VI referred to "the spirit of poverty" as a fundamental characteristic of a Christian life,[362] while Pope Benedict XVI distinguished between "poverty chosen" (the poverty of spirit proposed by Jesus), and "poverty to be fought" (unjust and imposed poverty).[363]

Voluntary poverty can also be the result of solidarity with the poor.[364] Benedict XVI considered that such solidarity is a necessary condition to fight effectively to eradicate the non-voluntary poverty.[363]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Poverty is a condition of pronounced deprivation in , characterized by insufficient or resources to secure basic necessities such as adequate , clean , , healthcare, and , often perpetuated by limited access to productive opportunities and economic institutions. The World Bank defines as living below an international line of $2.15 per day (in 2017 purchasing power parity terms), a threshold calibrated to represent the minimum for survival in the poorest countries, though higher lines like $3.65 or $6.85 apply to middle-income contexts to capture broader deprivations. As of 2024 estimates, approximately 700 million people—about 8.5% of the global population—remain in extreme poverty, with the vast majority concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa amid stalled progress from recent crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and conflicts. Historically, extreme poverty afflicted nearly the entire world population until the Industrial Revolution, with incomes stagnant for millennia; however, over the last two centuries, it has plummeted from over 90% of humanity in 1820 to under 10% today, largely due to sustained economic growth enabled by market-oriented reforms, technological innovation, and property rights in regions like East Asia. This decline lifted over 1.5 billion people out of extreme poverty between 1990 and 2019 alone, though rates have since decelerated, projecting only modest reductions to around 9.9% by 2025. Empirical evidence attributes persistent poverty not primarily to global inequality or resource scarcity, but to proximate causes like unemployment, family instability (e.g., female-headed households), poor governance, and behavioral factors including low productivity and risk-averse decisions that trap individuals in cycles of deprivation. Controversies surround measurement approaches, with absolute metrics highlighting progress from growth while relative poverty definitions—tied to national medians—often exaggerate persistence in wealthy nations by conflating inequality with destitution, and aid programs sometimes exacerbating dependency through disincentives to self-reliance.

Conceptual Foundations

Definitions of Poverty

Poverty is characterized as a state in which individuals or households possess insufficient resources to secure essential requirements for physical survival and minimal social participation, including adequate nutrition, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. This condition arises from limited access to income, assets, or public services, often perpetuating cycles of deprivation through constrained opportunities for economic mobility. Definitions vary by framework, emphasizing either material thresholds, comparative societal standards, or broader deprivations in human functioning, with international bodies like the World Bank and United Nations providing standardized metrics grounded in empirical data on consumption and needs. Absolute poverty delineates a fixed, universal benchmark below which needs cannot be met, independent of prevailing economic conditions in a . The World Bank operationalizes extreme absolute poverty as daily consumption below $3.00 per in 2021 purchasing power parity terms, an adjustment announced in June 2025 that supersedes the prior $2.15 line to reflect updated price data and reference baskets from low-income countries. This threshold approximates the cost of basic caloric intake plus non-food essentials like shelter in the world's poorest nations, where approximately 700 million people resided in such conditions as of recent estimates. National absolute lines similarly fix costs for minimum baskets of goods, such as those calibrated to prevent starvation or exposure, though they incorporate local pricing. Relative poverty assesses deprivation against a society's prevailing living standards, typically identifying it as income or consumption falling short of 50% to 60% of the median household level. This approach, prevalent in high-income contexts, highlights disparities in social inclusion rather than bare subsistence, as seen in European Union statistics where thresholds adjust dynamically with median incomes. Critics note its sensitivity to inequality rather than absolute hardship, potentially inflating poverty rates in unequal societies even as overall welfare rises. Multidimensional definitions extend beyond monetary metrics to encompass simultaneous deprivations in , and living conditions, recognizing that income alone inadequately captures barriers to . The ' framework, for instance, evaluates poverty through indicators like , years of schooling, and access to , deeming a multidimensionally poor if deprived across a weighted third of these domains. Amartya Sen's capability approach reframes poverty as the absence of substantive freedoms or "capabilities" to achieve valued functionings, such as literacy or mobility, prioritizing what individuals can do and be over mere resource possession. This perspective, influential in development economics, underscores causal links between deprivations, like how illiteracy perpetuates income shortfalls, though it requires subjective weighting of capabilities for measurement.

Historical and Etymological Context

The term "poverty" derives from Middle English poverte, adopted around the late 12th century from Old French poverté (modern French pauvreté), which traces to Latin paupertās, the abstract noun denoting the condition of a pauper or "poor person." The root pauper combines pau- ("few" or "little") with a form of pario ("to produce" or "bring forth"), implying scarcity of production or resources, a connotation that emphasized material lack rather than moral judgment in its classical origins. This etymological focus on insufficiency persisted into early usages, where poverty denoted destitution in money or goods, distinct from mere simplicity or voluntary deprivation. In ancient societies, poverty was broadly conceived as a pervasive state of subsistence-level rather than an aberration, with empirical estimates indicating that approximately 90% of the in regions like first-century Galilee lived near or below minimal caloric needs for . Legal codes in the , such as those in , addressed poverty through provisions for debt remission and communal support, viewing it as a cyclical risk tied to agricultural failures or warfare rather than inherent individual failing, though without large-scale redistributive mechanisms. In classical Greece, poverty (penía) was often stigmatized as eroding civic virtue and moral character, with philosophers like Aristotle associating it with dependency that undermined the self-sufficient household (oikos) ideal, leading to social exclusion of the destitute from full participation in the polis. Similarly, in ancient Egypt, scholars reconstruct poverty primarily as relative deprivation within a hierarchical society, inferred from tomb inscriptions and administrative texts showing disparities in access to Nile-dependent resources, though absolute starvation was mitigated by state granary systems during famines. The medieval European understanding retained classical scarcity notions but infused them with theological dimensions, distinguishing "holy poverty" of voluntary renunciation (as in monastic orders) from the involuntary indigence of the masses, which was ameliorated through ecclesiastical almsgiving and feudal obligations rather than market-oriented solutions. By the early modern period, coinciding with commercialization and enclosure movements from the 16th century onward, poverty shifted toward perceptions of idleness or economic disconnection, as seen in English poor laws of 1601 that categorized the deserving poor (e.g., aged or infirm) separately from vagrants, reflecting a transition from agrarian subsistence crises to urban unemployment amid proto-industrial growth. This evolution culminated in Enlightenment-era framings, where thinkers like Adam Smith in 1776 analyzed poverty as a failure of productive labor and capital accumulation, laying groundwork for 19th-century statistical measures that quantified it via income shortfalls, decoupling it from divine or moral causality in favor of empirical economic indicators.

Absolute Versus Relative Measures

Absolute poverty refers to a condition where individuals or households lack the resources to meet basic physiological needs, such as adequate , , and , typically measured against a fixed monetary threshold adjusted for (PPP). The World Bank's international poverty line for , updated in June 2025 to $3.00 per day in 2021 PPP terms, represents the median of national poverty lines from low-income countries and serves as a benchmark for global comparisons. This absolute standard enables tracking of genuine material deprivation over time, as it remains constant regardless of societal wealth changes; for instance, the proportion of the global population below $1.90 per day (the prior threshold) fell from 36% in 1990 to under 10% by 2019, reflecting tangible progress in access to essentials. Absolute measures prioritize empirical indicators of survival, such as caloric intake or housing adequacy, over subjective perceptions. In contrast, relative poverty gauges deprivation in comparison to the prevailing living standards within a given society, often defined as household income below 50% or 60% of the national median equivalized disposable income. The OECD employs the 50% threshold as standard for cross-country analysis in developed economies, while the European Union frequently uses 60%, emphasizing social exclusion from norms like education or leisure participation. Relative measures adjust dynamically with median income shifts, capturing how economic growth may widen gaps; for example, in the United States, the relative poverty rate hovered around 17-18% from 2019 to 2022 despite absolute income gains for most groups, as inequality metrics like the Gini coefficient remained elevated. This approach aligns with sociological views that poverty involves not just scarcity but inability to participate in societal activities, though it conflates deprivation with distributional outcomes. Historically, poverty manifested predominantly as absolute deprivation, particularly in ancient and pre-industrial societies, where insufficient access to food, warmth, and shelter led to frequent famines, rampant diseases, short lifespans, and direct threats to survival. In contemporary developed societies, poverty has largely transitioned to relative forms, with basic needs generally satisfied but individuals facing reduced comfort and social exclusion relative to societal norms; globally, absolute poverty persists in pockets, marking an overall shift from near-universal absolute hardship to a minority enduring absolute conditions alongside widespread relative disparities. The distinction yields divergent policy implications and assessments of progress: absolute metrics highlight reductions in dire want through interventions like agricultural yields or vaccinations, as seen in sub-Saharan Africa's drop from 56% extreme poverty in 1990 to 35% by 2023 under the $2.15 line. Relative metrics, however, can register increases amid overall affluence if inequality rises, such as in the UK where relative poverty (60% threshold) affected 17% of the population in 2022 despite per capita GDP exceeding $45,000. Critics argue relative measures overemphasize envy-driven inequality rather than biological imperatives, potentially misleading on welfare improvements; for instance, if all incomes double proportionally, absolute poverty falls but relative stays constant, ignoring enhanced capabilities. Absolute standards better suit causal analysis of root deprivations like malnutrition, which affected 148 million children stunted in growth globally in 2022 per WHO data, independent of national wealth medians. While relative approaches inform cohesion in high-income contexts, their reliance on endogenous benchmarks risks circularity, as poverty thresholds inflate with medians without verifying heightened needs. Empirical rigor favors absolute for universal human thresholds, with relative as a supplementary lens for discretionary exclusion.

Measurement and Empirical Assessment

Methodologies for Quantifying Poverty

Absolute poverty measures define deprivation against a fixed threshold representing the cost of basic human needs, such as food, shelter, and minimal non-food expenditures, adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP). The World Bank's international poverty line, currently set at $2.15 per person per day in 2017 PPP terms, serves as the standard for extreme poverty globally, derived from national poverty lines in the poorest countries and updated periodically to reflect new price data and consumption patterns. These measures rely on household survey data, typically consumption or income, to count the proportion of the population falling below the line, known as the headcount ratio. Absolute approaches prioritize empirical tracking of material hardship, enabling cross-country and temporal comparisons without confounding poverty with inequality changes. Relative poverty measures, in contrast, set thresholds as a fraction of a society's median income, often 50% or 60% of equivalized household disposable income, emphasizing exclusion from prevailing living standards. Predominant in high-income countries like those in the OECD, these metrics capture social and relative deprivation but have been criticized for equating poverty with inequality, potentially registering increases even as absolute wellbeing rises due to overall economic growth. For instance, in scenarios of unequal expansion, absolute measures may show poverty reduction based on improved individual incomes, while relative measures reflect widened gaps from the median. Critics, including economists favoring causal assessments of deprivation, argue relative lines lack a universal anchor to basic needs, rendering them less suitable for gauging true hardship or policy impacts on subsistence. Multidimensional poverty indices extend beyond monetary metrics to incorporate deprivations in , and living standards, addressing limitations of unidimensional approaches that overlook non-income facets of . The Alkire-Foster (AF) method, developed by Sabina Alkire and James Foster , constructs a deprivation score for each across weighted indicators—such as , , schooling years, , , , , , , and assets—identifying the poor as those deprived in at least one-third of the total weighted dimensions. The global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), computed by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) and UNDP, aggregates the incidence (headcount) and average intensity of poverty into an adjusted headcount , applied to over 100 using Demographic and Health Surveys or Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys. The World Bank's Multidimensional Poverty Measure (MPM) similarly includes monetary poverty alongside education attainment, enrollment, , , and , but weights differ and it integrates with consumption data for broader coverage. These methodologies vary in data demands and robustness: absolute and relative rely on standardized welfare aggregates from living standards surveys, with consumption preferred in developing contexts for underreporting issues in income data, while multidimensional approaches require indicator-specific household-level information, often introducing challenges in weighting schemes, cutoff selection, and comparability across contexts. Empirical assessments favor absolute measures for monitoring global extreme poverty reductions, as evidenced by declines from 36% in 1990 to under 10% by 2019, whereas relative and multidimensional tools better highlight persistent non-monetary gaps but risk overgeneralization without disaggregated analysis. Hybrid proposals, combining absolute thresholds with relative adjustments, aim to reconcile these but remain less adopted due to complexity. Source credibility in poverty quantification draws from international bodies like the World Bank, which prioritize data-driven PPP benchmarks over subjective national lines, though academic influences in multidimensional frameworks may embed normative assumptions in indicator selection.

Key Global and Regional Indicators

The World Bank's primary indicator for extreme poverty is the headcount ratio at $2.15 per day (2017 purchasing power parity), representing the share of the population unable to meet basic needs in low-income contexts. In 2024, this metric stood at approximately 8.5% globally, affecting nearly 700 million people, though recent revisions incorporating updated PPPs have elevated the estimate to 10.3%. Higher thresholds capture moderate poverty: at $3.65 per day (aligned with lower-middle-income standards), the global rate exceeds 25%, while at $6.85 per day (upper-middle-income), it approaches 47%, encompassing over 3.7 billion people. Regional disparities reveal concentration in low-growth areas. bears 67% of global despite 16% of , with a $2.15/day rate of about 37% (or 46% at $3/day per updated estimates), driven by high , conflict, and industrialization. Asia's rate hovers at 5-6%, reflecting faster but persistent rural . and Pacific report under 2%, buoyed by export-led growth, while and average 3-4%, with urban informal sectors amplifying vulnerability. Middle East and North Africa exhibit around 5%, skewed by conflict zones, and Europe/Central Asia below 2%.
RegionExtreme Poverty Rate ($2.15/day, %)Share of Global Extreme Poor (%)Latest Estimate Year
Sub-Saharan Africa37672023
South Asia5202023
East Asia & Pacific152023
Latin America & Caribbean332023
Middle East & N. Africa532023
Europe & Central Asia112023
The United Nations Development Programme's Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) extends beyond income, weighting deprivations in nutrition, child mortality, schooling, sanitation, and assets. The 2025 global MPI covers 109 countries and finds 1.1 billion people (17.5% of 6.3 billion assessed) in acute multidimensional poverty, with 584 million children affected—over half the total—and highest incidence in sub-Saharan Africa (58%) and South Asia (20%). This metric highlights non-monetary barriers, such as 887 million poor exposed to climate hazards like extreme heat or drought, underscoring causal links between environmental shocks and sustained deprivation.

Recent Trends and Projections (Post-2020)

The COVID-19 pandemic caused the first global increase in extreme poverty since 1998, pushing an estimated 71 to 150 million additional people below the $2.15 per day international poverty line in 2020, raising the rate from 8.9 percent in 2019 to approximately 9.2 to 9.7 percent. This reversal was driven by lockdowns, supply chain disruptions, and income losses, disproportionately affecting urban and rural populations in developing regions. By 2023, global extreme poverty had returned to pre-pandemic levels at 8.6 percent, or 691 million people, reflecting partial economic recovery in middle-income countries. However, progress stalled in low-income countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where extreme poverty rates remained elevated due to persistent vulnerabilities including conflict, debt burdens, and limited fiscal space for stimulus. In June 2025, the World Bank updated its estimates using 2021 purchasing power parities (PPPs), which adjusted the extreme poverty threshold upward and increased the counted number of poor individuals by 125 million without indicating a real-world deterioration, as the revision better reflected price changes in low-income contexts. Under this framework, nowcasted global extreme poverty stood at 10.5 percent in 2022, declining modestly to a projected 9.9 percent by 2025, with further estimates at 10.3 percent in 2024 falling to 10.1 percent in 2025. Projections indicate decelerated poverty reduction post-2020, with only about 69 million people expected to escape extreme poverty between 2024 and 2030, compared to 150 million in the 2013-2019 period, amid overlapping shocks like the Ukraine conflict's food and energy price spikes, climate events, and inflation. By 2030, extreme poverty is forecasted to affect 7.3 to 9 percent of the global population—around 575 to 700 million people—falling short of the UN Sustainable Development Goal target of below 3 percent, with sub-Saharan Africa accounting for nearly 90 percent of the extreme poor. These trends underscore that while aggregate global figures show stabilization, regional disparities and slower per capita declines in low-income areas signal entrenched challenges beyond measurement adjustments.
YearGlobal Extreme Poverty Rate ($2.15/day)Estimated Number in Extreme Poverty (millions)
8.9%~
9.2-9.7%~
20238.6%
10.3% (2021 PPPs)~
9.9-10.1% (projected)~
20307.3-9% (projected)

Historical Evolution

Poverty in Pre-Industrial Societies

In pre-industrial societies, prior to the widespread adoption of mechanized production around 1800, the global population predominantly subsisted at levels equivalent to extreme poverty by contemporary metrics, with economic output per capita remaining largely stagnant for millennia due to limited technological advancement and Malthusian population pressures. Estimates from the Maddison Project Database place world GDP per capita at approximately $453 in 1 CE and $667 by 1820, expressed in 1990 international Geary-Khamis dollars—a figure comparable to the income threshold for extreme poverty today when adjusted for purchasing power. This subsistence equilibrium meant that gains in agricultural productivity, such as those from crop rotations or iron plows, were typically offset by population increases, keeping real wages for unskilled laborers near the minimum required for survival. Agricultural workers, who constituted 80-90% of the populace in regions like , , and , relied on hand tools and labor for farming, yielding caloric intakes often hovering around 2,000-2,500 per day but vulnerable to depletion and climatic variability. In feudal , serfs were bound to , paying rents or labor dues that left households with scant surplus, while in agrarian , tenant farmers faced similar extractive obligations to landlords. Historical reconstructions indicate that 85-95% of the lived below thresholds in 1820, with even higher proportions in earlier centuries, as non-agricultural sectors like crafting or supported only a small urban minority, many of whom also teetered on destitution. Life expectancy at birth averaged 30-35 years across pre-industrial civilizations, skewed by infant mortality rates of 150-300 per 1,000 live births and frequent epidemics, such as the in 14th-century , which, despite temporarily boosting survivor wages, ultimately reinforced the cycle of . Recurrent famines exacerbated vulnerability; for example, in 18th-century under Mughal and early British rule, events like the 1770 famine killed up to one-third of the population, underscoring the fragility of systems without storage innovations or transport . bands, comprising a shrinking share of humanity after the Neolithic Revolution around 10,000 BCE, offered marginally more leisure—estimated at 15-20 hours weekly of foraging—but endured higher risks from predation, injury, and seasonal starvation, with average statures and health metrics inferior to later pastoralists. Social structures provided minimal safety nets, relying instead on kinship ties or alms, which proved inadequate against systemic underproduction and elite extraction that concentrated surpluses among 1-5% of nobility or merchants.

Capitalism and the Long-Term Decline in Extreme Poverty

The emergence of capitalist institutions, including secure private property rights, competitive markets, and incentives for innovation, correlates strongly with the sharpest long-term reduction in extreme poverty in human history. In 1820, an estimated 84% of the global population lived below the extreme poverty line of $1.90 per day (in 2011 purchasing power parity terms), reflecting subsistence-level existence in largely agrarian, pre-industrial societies. By 1950, this share had declined to around 72%, and by 2015, it fell below 10%, lifting over 2 billion people out of extreme poverty since 1990 alone. This trajectory accelerated following the Industrial Revolution in Britain around 1760-1840, where capitalist reforms enabled sustained economic growth through mechanization, division of labor, and capital accumulation. Countries adopting market-oriented policies experienced rapid poverty reductions: for instance, post-World War II Western Europe and North America saw extreme poverty rates drop to near zero by the mid-20th century, driven by GDP per capita growth averaging 2-3% annually. Similarly, East Asian economies like South Korea transitioned from 60% extreme poverty in 1960 to under 1% by 2000 via export-led industrialization and deregulation. Causal mechanisms include heightened productivity from entrepreneurial risk-taking and trade liberalization, which expanded access to goods and technologies. Real wages in England rose over 150% from 1800 to 1850 despite initial disruptions, enabling broader consumption beyond mere survival. Globally, the spread of capitalism via colonization and later globalization integrated subsistence economies into market systems, fostering specialization and innovation; non-capitalist regimes, such as the Soviet Union, stagnated with persistent high poverty until market reforms. China's extreme poverty rate plummeted from 88% in 1981 to 0.6% by 2015 following Deng Xiaoping's 1978 shift to market incentives, underscoring the role of private enterprise over central planning. Critics, often from academic circles with left-leaning orientations, argue capitalism exacerbated inequality or initially worsened conditions in colonized regions, citing stagnation during early industrialization. However, refute this as a dominant long-term effect: global from 31 years in 1800 to 72 by 2019, paralleling poverty declines, while socialist experiments like Maoist (1950s-1970s) resulted in famines claiming tens of millions amid economic isolation. Empirical correlations between indices of —measuring and —and poverty reduction rates further support capitalism's , with freer economies averaging 2-3 times faster growth than repressed ones since 1990. Despite these successes, poverty persists due to incomplete or uneven adoption of capitalist institutions, including weak property rights, rule of law, or free markets that limit wealth creation; external disruptions such as conflict, corruption, poor governance, and geographic challenges; and the ongoing nature of escape from historically near-universal poverty, which remains recent and nonuniform, concentrated in fragile, low-growth regions. Capitalism effectively lifts populations where implemented with strong institutions, but achieving zero poverty requires universal institutional strengthening and time.

Modern Shifts: Globalization and Policy Interventions

Globalization, characterized by increased trade, capital flows, and integration of economies since the late 20th century, has contributed significantly to the reduction of extreme poverty worldwide. Between 1990 and 2019, the proportion of the global population living in extreme poverty—defined as less than $1.90 per day in 2011 purchasing power parity—fell from 36% to 8.7%, lifting approximately 1.5 billion people out of this condition. This decline was driven primarily by rapid economic growth in developing Asia, where countries like China and India integrated into global markets through trade liberalization and foreign investment, accelerating per capita income growth from an average of 1.7% annually before 1980 to over 4% afterward in poor countries. Trade liberalization policies, such as China's accession to the in 2001 and India's economic reforms starting in 1991, facilitated export-led growth that directly reduced poverty by creating jobs in manufacturing and services for low-skilled workers. Empirical studies indicate that greater openness to correlates with faster poverty reduction in developing nations, as export expansion and foreign direct investment boosted incomes for the poor more than for the rich in many cases, though short-term dislocations occurred during transitions. However, globalization's benefits were uneven; in and sub-Saharan Africa, slower integration and commodity dependence limited poverty gains compared to . In developed economies, globalization prompted structural shifts, including manufacturing job losses due to offshoring and competition from low-wage countries, contributing to localized poverty increases among displaced workers. In the United States, the trade deficit with China alone accounted for over 2 million manufacturing job losses between 1999 and 2011, exacerbating wage stagnation and inequality for non-college-educated males without commensurate retraining successes. Policy responses in these contexts, such as trade adjustment assistance programs, have shown limited efficacy in mitigating long-term poverty, as they often fail to address skill mismatches or labor market rigidities. Policy interventions aimed at poverty alleviation have varied in impact, with market-oriented reforms proving more effective than expansive welfare expansions. In China, partial privatization and deregulation since 1978 enabled sustained growth that halved extreme poverty rates within decades, contrasting with state-heavy approaches elsewhere that stifled incentives. Welfare programs in high-income countries, such as U.S. transfers, reduce measured poverty short-term by 10-15 percentage points via income supplementation, but evidence suggests work disincentives and dependency effects can offset gains, with some analyses finding no net decline in underlying poverty since the 1960s War on Poverty initiatives. Conditional cash transfers in programs like Brazil's Bolsa Família, tied to school attendance and health checks, achieved modest poverty reductions by encouraging human capital investment, though scalability depends on fiscal sustainability and avoidance of universal basic income pitfalls that may erode work norms. Overall, policies fostering economic dynamism through deregulation and trade access have outperformed redistributive measures in driving durable poverty declines, as growth expands the pie rather than merely reallocating slices.

Root Causes

Individual Behaviors and Choices

Individuals who complete high school, obtain full-time employment, and delay childbearing until marriage exhibit poverty rates of approximately 2 percent, according to analysis of U.S. longitudinal data spanning multiple decades. This "success sequence" demonstrates that adherence to these sequential behaviors markedly reduces the likelihood of economic deprivation, with nearly 75 percent of adherents attaining middle-class status. Empirical evidence from government surveys underscores that deviations, such as dropping out of high school or entering parenthood without stable employment or partnership, correlate with poverty rates exceeding 70 percent in affected cohorts. Choosing steady, full-time work over intermittent or part-time labor significantly mitigates poverty risk. In the United States, households where the primary earner works at least 35 hours per week experience poverty rates under 5 percent, compared to over 20 percent for those with limited or no work hours, based on Census Bureau data from 2022. Weak work ethic, manifested as voluntary underemployment or job avoidance, perpetuates dependency, as evidenced by longitudinal studies linking consistent labor participation to income mobility across generations. While structural factors influence job availability, individual decisions to seek and sustain employment remain pivotal, with data showing that even low-wage full-time workers escape deep poverty more readily than non-workers. Family formation choices profoundly impact economic outcomes. Single-parent households, often resulting from non-marital births or divorce, face poverty rates five times higher than married-couple families, per U.S. Census analyses of 2023 household data. Children in intact, married-parent homes benefit from dual incomes and shared responsibilities, reducing child poverty incidence to below 10 percent, whereas single-mother families exceed 30 percent poverty thresholds. Decisions to prioritize marriage before children align with causal patterns of stability, as corroborated by intergenerational mobility studies indicating that family structure independently predicts 20-30 percent of income variance beyond parental earnings. Substance abuse represents a self-inflicted barrier, with addiction correlating to unemployment rates twice that of non-affected populations. In 2022, U.S. data revealed that individuals with drug or alcohol dependencies were 2.5 times more likely to live below poverty lines due to impaired productivity and employability. Recovery programs demonstrate reversibility, as abstinent individuals regain economic footing at rates 40 percent higher than persistent users, highlighting choice in cessation as a pathway out of cycles. Prudent financial behaviors, such as over conspicuous consumption, foster wealth accumulation. Low-income households allocating to status like luxury electronics exhibit 15-20 percent lower net savings than those prioritizing necessities and assets, per field experiments in developing economies adaptable to U.S. contexts. U.S. surveys from indicate that consistent savers, even at modest rates of 5 percent of , reduce long-term poverty exposure by building emergency funds that buffer against shocks. Engaging in criminal activity, a deliberate under rational decision frameworks, entrenches poverty through incarceration and employability loss. Convicted individuals face rates over 50 percent post-release, perpetuating reliance on assistance, as tracked in U.S. from 2020-2023. Avoiding crime preserves , with non-offenders demonstrating 25 percent higher lifetime trajectories in cohort studies. polls reflect widespread recognition of such agency, with 60 percent of attributing persistent poverty primarily to personal decisions over systemic barriers.

Family Structure and Cultural Norms

Family structure exerts a substantial influence on poverty outcomes, with intact two-parent households consistently exhibiting lower poverty rates than single-parent or fragmented families. In the United States, children in married-couple families faced a rate of about 4.2% in 2022, whereas the rate for children in single-mother families exceeded 35%, reflecting a fivefold disparity driven by the absence of a second earner's income and increased economic vulnerability. This pattern holds after controlling for factors like parental education and race, indicating that family configuration independently predicts economic hardship. The causal mechanisms linking family structure to poverty include resource pooling, where dual incomes in married households buffer against shocks, and enhanced parental supervision, which correlates with better child educational and behavioral outcomes that perpetuate economic stability across generations. Single parenthood, often resulting from nonmarital births or divorce, elevates poverty risk by 80% for children compared to those in stable married families, as evidenced by longitudinal data tracking family transitions and income trajectories. While some analyses attribute these gaps primarily to preexisting socioeconomic differences, empirical studies affirm bidirectional causality, with family dissolution directly precipitating income drops and reliance on public assistance. Cultural norms reinforcing stability—such as prioritizing before childbearing, valuing long-term commitment, and emphasizing paternal involvement—further mitigate poverty by fostering environments conducive to development. Societies or subgroups with norms favoring early and fertility restraint until economic readiness, like certain immigrant communities, demonstrate lower poverty persistence despite similar starting conditions. Conversely, the post-1960s decline in rates among lower-income groups in Western nations, from over 90% of adults ever marrying in 1960 to about 70% by 2020, correlates with stagnant mobility and heightened , as norms shifted toward and cohabitation without equivalent economic safeguards. Cross-nationally, with cultural emphases on support and marital stability, such as and , exhibit lower single-parenthood rates (under 10%) and correspondingly reduced poverty among children compared to nations like the (23% single-mother households) or (despite welfare supports, higher to persistent inequality). Norms devaluing out-of-wedlock births, observed in from the Demographic and Health Surveys, predict stronger economic outcomes by aligning family formation with participation. These patterns underscore that cultural prescriptions around family formation operate as causal levers for poverty alleviation, independent of macroeconomic policies.

Institutional Barriers and Policy Distortions

Weak and insecure tenure discourage in and capital, perpetuating poverty traps in many developing economies. Empirical studies show that with robust institutions faster , as secure incentivizes productive use of resources and reduces expropriation risks. In contrast, weak of contracts and titles in regions like correlates with lower agricultural yields and , as individuals avoid long-term improvements fearing arbitrary . Corruption within institutions exacerbates poverty by diverting resources and undermining trust in . Cross-country from 1960 to 1990 indicate a positive between indices and poverty headcount ratios, with high-corruption environments reducing by 0.5 to 1 percentage point annually. In BRICS nations from 2000 to 2021, failures tied to explained up to 20% of variance in persistent poverty rates, as bribes and favoritism out merit-based allocation of and opportunities. Regulatory barriers, including and restrictions, low-income by raising entry costs for small businesses. In the United States, such regulations affect over 1,000 occupations, imposing fees and requirements that disproportionately exclude the poor from , with compliance costs averaging $39,000 per in some states. State-level reveal that easing these barriers increases startup rates among immigrants and low-wage workers by 10-15%, correlating with localized poverty declines. Labor market policies like minimum wage hikes distort employment for low-skilled workers. Meta-analyses of U.S. state-level increases from 1979 to 2016 find elasticities of -0.1 to -0.3 for teen and low-education employment, leading to 1-3% job losses per 10% wage floor rise, with displaced workers facing prolonged unemployment. In developing contexts, similar mandates reduce formal sector hiring, pushing marginal workers into informal or subsistence activities that yield lower real incomes. Welfare systems often create work disincentives through high marginal tax rates on earnings, trapping recipients in dependency. U.S. federal and state programs totaling over $1.8 trillion annually in 2022 exhibit "welfare cliffs" where benefits phase out abruptly, effectively imposing effective tax rates exceeding 100% on initial wages, discouraging labor force participation among able-bodied adults. Longitudinal evidence from 1996 welfare reforms shows that time limits and work requirements reduced caseloads by 60% and lifted millions from poverty, but subsequent expansions reversed gains, with dependency rates rebounding amid stagnant exit-to-employment transitions.

Environmental and Geographic Constraints

Landlocked countries encounter structural disadvantages in trade and economic integration due to reliance on neighboring states for port access, resulting in trade costs 50% higher than coastal economies and contributing to slower growth rates averaging 1.5 percentage points lower annually. Among the 44 landlocked nations, 32 are classified as developing, with poverty rates exceeding global norms; for example, in landlocked developing countries, 30.3% of the population lived below the $1.90 daily poverty line in 2015, down from 41.7% in 2005 but still indicative of entrenched challenges. Tropical latitudes impose biophysical hurdles to development, including nutrient-poor soils that limit crop yields, high evapotranspiration rates reducing water availability for agriculture, and pervasive tropical diseases like that reduce worker by up to 20% through morbidity and mortality. Empirical reveals a stark divide, with tropical economies achieving per capita incomes roughly one-third of temperate zone counterparts, attributable in large measure to these environmental factors rather than solely policy differences. Rugged , such as mountainous in regions like the or , elevates infrastructure costs for roads and by factors of 2-4 times compared to flatlands, hindering and . Arid and semi-arid zones, covering 40% of Earth's surface, face chronic water deficits that constrain and production, with drought-prone areas experiencing poverty rates 15-20% higher than humid counterparts. These constraints interact with factors to sustain poverty traps, as geographic isolation amplifies the effects of low , limiting and returns. While adaptable through and interventions, such as anti-malarial campaigns that have boosted GDP by 1-2% in affected areas, unmitigated environmental barriers perpetuate in vulnerable locales.

Manifestations and Impacts

Physical Health Outcomes

Poverty is associated with reduced , with a 1% increase in the of undernourishment linked to a 0.00348 decline in life expectancy across sub-Saharan African countries. Empirical studies indicate that higher household expenditure correlates with lower rates of malnutrition indicators such as stunting and globally. Infant mortality rates rise with malnutrition, as evidenced by analyses of 36 African countries from 2003 to 2018 showing malnutrition's direct impact on infant deaths and overall life expectancy. In low-income settings, food insecurity exacerbates undernutrition, contributing to physical growth impairments and heightened vulnerability to infections. Poverty heightens susceptibility to infectious diseases through mechanisms including poor sanitation, inadequate housing, and malnutrition-induced immune suppression, perpetuating cycles in developing regions. Lack of basic sanitation, prevalent among impoverished populations, facilitates transmission of diarrheal diseases like cholera and typhoid, as well as helminth infections. Infectious diseases of poverty, such as tuberculosis and neglected tropical diseases, disproportionately burden low-income groups due to limited access to preventive measures and treatment. In developed countries, relative poverty correlates with elevated rates among children and adolescents, with low-income teens facing a 27% or prevalence compared % in higher-income peers in . This arises from reliance on calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods amid economic constraints, contrasting with undernutrition in contexts. Chronic burdens, including cardiovascular conditions, are higher in impoverished populations to cumulative effects of poor , stress, and delayed care.
Health OutcomeAssociation with PovertyKey Evidence
Stunting and Higher in low-expenditure sGlobal surveys show inverse with .
Infectious IncidenceElevated due to sanitation deficitsLinked to 1.7 billion lacking basic services, driving diarrheal .
(Developed Contexts)Increased in low-SES groupsObservational from industrialized nations.

Educational Attainment and Skills Gaps

Lower educational attainment correlates strongly with elevated poverty rates. In the United States, individuals aged 25 and older without a high school diploma faced a poverty rate of approximately 25% in recent years, compared to 13% for high school graduates and under 5% for those with a bachelor's degree or higher, based on Census Bureau data reflecting median household incomes where college graduates earn over twice as much as high school graduates. This pattern holds across demographics, with empirical analyses showing that each additional year of schooling reduces the likelihood of poverty by enhancing employability and wage potential. Globally, years of schooling inversely relate to the share of the population living below poverty lines, such as $4.20 per day for lower-middle-income contexts; countries with higher attainment exhibit poverty headcounts below 10%, versus over 40% in low-attainment regions. Causal evidence from econometric studies attributes 60-70% of gains among the world's poorest to private returns on schooling, with expansions in access directly lowering extreme poverty rates by boosting individual and labor market outcomes. However, attainment metrics alone overlook learning quality; the World Bank's learning poverty indicator, measuring inability to read a simple text by age 10, stood at 53% pre-pandemic in 2015, rising to 70% by 2022 due to disruptions, perpetuating intergenerational poverty through deficient foundational skills. Skills gaps these effects by hindering effective labor participation even among the formally educated. analyses reveal widespread deficiencies in technical skills, problem-solving, and , which constrain firm growth, job creation, and worker advancement, particularly in mismatched economies where cognitive and vocational competencies fail to align with . In developing contexts, such gaps manifest as and stalled poverty escape, with indicating that targeted enhancement yields higher poverty-reduction returns than rote attainment increases, as it addresses causal barriers to rather than mere credentials. This underscores that poverty persistence often stems from inadequate formation, driven by systemic educational shortcomings rather than access alone.

Living Conditions and Access to Essentials

Individuals in extreme poverty frequently inhabit inadequate housing, such as dwellings with dirt floors, unstable walls made from mud or scrap materials, and leaky roofs, which heighten vulnerability to extreme weather, pests, and structural collapse. The Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) for 2023 identifies housing deprivations—defined by unimproved flooring or inadequate roofing and walls—as prevalent among the 1.1 billion people living in acute multidimensional poverty across 110 developing countries, with over 50% of the multidimensionally poor deprived in this indicator in regions like sub-Saharan Africa. These conditions correlate strongly with low incomes below $2.15 per day, as measured by the World Bank, affecting nearly 700 million people globally in 2023, predominantly in fragile states. Access to safe drinking water is severely restricted for the impoverished, with many relying on contaminated surface water sources that transmit diseases like cholera and diarrhea. As of 2022, 2.2 billion people worldwide lacked safely managed drinking water services, a figure disproportionately impacting those in extreme poverty, where household surveys in low-income countries show over 40% deprivation rates in water access per the MPI framework. In sub-Saharan Africa, where extreme poverty is concentrated, basic water access lags, contributing to child mortality from waterborne illnesses. Sanitation facilities are often absent or rudimentary, leading to open and poor practices that exacerbate infectious outbreaks. The WHO Monitoring Programme reported in 2023 that 3.5 billion globally lack safely managed , with multidimensional poverty metrics indicating that deprivations affect around 60% of the poor in and sub-Saharan , far exceeding global averages. This deficiency perpetuates cycles of illness and reduced , particularly in densely populated slums. Energy access remains a critical shortfall, with the poor dependent on inefficient and hazardous traditional fuels like and dung for cooking, resulting in responsible for millions of premature annually. In 2023, approximately 750 million —largely in —lacked access, according to International Energy Agency estimates, stalling of , for , and basic appliances, with accounting for over 80% of those without power. Clean cooking fuels are unavailable to over 2 billion, intensifying health burdens from respiratory diseases among impoverished households. Despite some progress through off-grid solar in recent years, reversals occurred in 2022 due to economic shocks and conflict, underscoring the fragility of gains in unstable environments.

Social and Psychological Dimensions

Poverty exerts significant psychological effects, including elevated rates of depression and anxiety, with empirical evidence indicating a bidirectional causal relationship where income declines precede mental health episodes and vice versa. Studies using randomized cash transfers demonstrate that alleviating poverty reduces symptoms of common mental illnesses by mitigating chronic stress, which impairs cognitive function and decision-making. In children, prolonged exposure to poverty from birth to age 9 correlates with increased behavioral problems and task-based measures of executive function deficits, mediated by cumulative stress rather than isolated events. Learned helplessness emerges as a key psychological outcome, particularly in low-income youth, where daily poverty-related stressors predict passive coping behaviors and reduced persistence in problem-solving tasks. Longitudinal data show that children in poverty exhibit higher levels of this helplessness compared to higher-income peers, potentially perpetuating cycles of economic disadvantage through diminished self-efficacy and motivational deficits. Neuroendocrine responses to poverty, such as elevated , further contribute to altered development, linking early deprivation to lasting impairments in attention and impulse control. Socially, poverty fosters isolation through stigma, which correlates with diminished social connections and heightened negative self-evaluations among affected individuals. Experiences of poverty-related predict poorer outcomes, including internalized that discourages and exacerbates . structures in poverty often , with associated with 10-15% higher delinquency rates in juveniles, independent of alone, as unstable households transmit via inconsistent and absent . Poverty neighborhoods exhibit elevated rates, though suggests association rather than causation, with urban poverty concentrating risks through neighborhood effects like weak social ties and exposure to . Approximately 35% of American adolescents from low-income, non-intact families early relational disruptions, social withdrawal and limiting access to supportive essential for resilience. These dynamics reinforce intergenerational transmission, where parental economic strain and relational model maladaptive social behaviors for .

Effective Alleviation Approaches

Economic Growth and Market Mechanisms

Economic growth has historically been the primary driver of poverty alleviation worldwide, as it expands employment opportunities, raises productivity, and increases incomes across income distributions. Empirical studies indicate that a 10% rise in GDP per capita correlates with a 4-5% reduction in multidimensional poverty measures, encompassing health, education, and living standards. This causal link stems from growth's capacity to generate jobs and spur innovation, enabling individuals to escape subsistence living through market participation rather than reliance on transfers. Cross-country analyses confirm that sustained growth rates above 3-4% annually lead to proportional declines in extreme poverty, with the effect amplified in economies prioritizing export-led expansion and private investment. Market mechanisms, including secure , open , and minimal regulatory barriers, facilitate this by incentivizing and efficient . In , the shift from central to market-oriented reforms beginning in 1978 lifted over 800 million out of by 2020, with rural poverty incidence dropping from 97.5% to under 1% as GDP grew at an rate of 8.2%. This outcome resulted from decollectivizing agriculture, establishing special economic zones for foreign investment, and fostering private enterprise, which boosted agricultural yields and industrial output. Similarly, India's 1991 liberalization dismantled the "License Raj," accelerating poverty reduction from 0.7 percentage points annually pre-reform to faster rates post-1991, as GDP growth averaged 6% and openness created millions of manufacturing and service jobs. Globally, fell from 44% of the in 1981 to 9% by 2019, predominantly in to market-driven growth rather than or redistribution alone. Studies comparing growth-oriented policies to redistributive find that markets outperform transfers in sustainable , as the latter often distort incentives and foster dependency without addressing root gaps. For instance, export-oriented industrialization in generated broad-based gains, contrasting with stagnant outcomes in highly redistributive, closed economies. and competition further enhance growth's pro-poor impact by enabling small-scale farmers and entrepreneurs to access and markets, thereby amplifying multipliers from macroeconomic expansion. Critics from academic institutions, which exhibit systemic biases toward interventionist narratives, sometimes attribute poverty declines to state programs; however, econometric attributes over 70% of reductions in and to dynamism and integration, not fiscal redistribution. Policies that lower barriers and reduce in markets have yielded the highest elasticity of poverty to growth, with each 1% increase in openness linked to 0.5-1% poverty drops in developing nations. Thus, prioritizing growth via market liberalization remains empirically superior for long-term alleviation, as it builds self-sustaining wealth creation over temporary relief.

Human Capital Investments

Human capital investments encompass expenditures on , , and skills development aimed at enhancing individuals' productivity and long-term earning potential, thereby facilitating escape from poverty cycles. Empirical evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and econometric analyses demonstrates that such investments yield high returns, particularly in low-income settings where baseline human capital deficits are pronounced. For instance, private returns to schooling average 9.3% annually in developing countries, exceeding returns from investments and contributing to intergenerational by improving and labor market outcomes. These returns are higher in private sectors and low-income nations, underscoring the causal link between education and income gains, though public investments must account for externalities like reduced fertility and crime. Investments in primary and have proven effective in alleviating poverty through mechanisms like increased enrollment and completion rates. Conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs, evaluated via RCTs in countries such as and , boosted school attendance by 20-30% and reduced dropout rates, leading to sustained earnings increases of 10-20% per additional year of schooling. Globally, expanding secondary education access could lift 420 million adults out of , halving the total poor by enhancing employability in skill-intensive sectors. However, returns diminish if education quality remains low, as evidenced by studies showing that improvements, rather than mere years of schooling, drive 60-70% of gains among the poorest. Health interventions targeting early childhood and nutrition form another pillar, with RCTs revealing persistent effects on human capital formation. Deworming programs in Kenya, for example, increased school attendance by 25% and adult earnings by 20% years later, at a cost-benefit ratio exceeding 40:1 due to improved physical and cognitive development. Similarly, iron fortification and micronutrient supplementation in rural India enhanced child health and mental health outcomes, reducing stunting—a key poverty perpetuator—by addressing causal nutrient deficiencies that impair brain development. These low-cost interventions outperform broader aid in generating long-run economic returns, as healthier individuals invest more in skills and exhibit higher labor productivity, though scalability depends on local implementation fidelity. Vocational and skills training programs show mixed but promising results for poverty reduction, particularly when targeted at youth and women in developing economies. RCTs of job training in low-income countries report modest employment gains of 5-15% and earnings boosts, with stronger effects for programs combining skills instruction and business grants to overcome capital constraints. In Africa and Asia, technical-vocational education has alleviated poverty by equipping participants with market-relevant skills, increasing income-generating capacities and reducing reliance on subsistence activities, though outcomes vary by program design and local labor demand. Evidence indicates that demand-driven training, informed by private sector needs, yields higher returns than supply-side approaches, emphasizing the importance of aligning investments with causal economic opportunities rather than generic interventions. Overall, integrating human capital strategies—such as bundled education, health, and training—amplifies impacts, as seen in "graduation model" RCTs that sustained poverty escapes for ultra-poor households through holistic capacity-building.

Strengthening Family and Community Institutions

Stable structures, particularly intact two-parent households, demonstrably lower poverty rates among children by providing dual parental involvement, shared economic resources, and reduced reliance on assistance. In the United States, data from 2021 indicate that only 6.8% of children in married-couple families lived in poverty, compared to 37.1% in female-householder families without a present. Similarly, 2019 Census Bureau statistics reveal that single-mother-led families were five times more likely to experience poverty than those headed by married couples. These disparities persist even after controlling for levels, suggesting that family configuration influences , supervision, and long-term economic behaviors beyond mere earnings. Marriage itself acts as a causal mechanism for poverty reduction by pooling incomes, enhancing labor market participation, and fostering stability that correlates with better educational and occupational outcomes for offspring. Simulations from Brookings Institution analysis show that increasing marriage rates among low-income parents with children could lower the overall child poverty rate from 13% to 9.5%. Empirical studies further estimate that marital status reduces a family's poverty risk by 41% to 80% relative to cohabiting or single-parent arrangements, with effects amplified in contexts of economic hardship where dual-earner stability buffers against downturns. Longitudinal data underscore this: children from stable two-parent homes exhibit higher intergenerational mobility, as family cohesion mitigates the transmission of economic disadvantage through improved human capital formation. Policies promoting family formation, such as those emphasizing premarital counseling or work incentives aligned with marital stability, have shown promise in pilot programs, though broader implementation faces cultural and institutional barriers. Community institutions, including religious congregations and voluntary associations, supplement family efforts by building social capital that aids poverty escape through mutual aid, skill-sharing, and norm enforcement. Faith-based organizations historically deliver direct assistance—such as food distribution, job placement, and emergency housing—reaching underserved populations where state programs fall short. Local churches, for instance, provide ancillary services like childcare and financial literacy training, which correlate with sustained economic uplift in participating low-income communities by reinforcing behaviors like savings and employment persistence. These entities foster resilience via relational networks that reduce isolation and encourage self-reliance, as evidenced by higher volunteerism and lower welfare dependency in areas with dense civic participation. Unlike centralized aid, such grassroots structures emphasize accountability and holistic support, yielding lower recidivism in poverty cycles compared to transactional handouts.
Family StructureChild Poverty Rate (US, 2021)Source
Married-Couple Families6.8%Childstats.gov
Female-Householder (No Spouse)37.1%Childstats.gov
Strengthening these institutions requires addressing erosion from factors like welfare policies that inadvertently disincentivize marriage and community ties, prioritizing instead incentives for familial responsibility and local self-governance.

Targeted Interventions: Evidence of Success

Conditional cash transfer programs, which provide financial incentives tied to behaviors such as school attendance and health checkups, have demonstrated success in alleviating poverty through randomized controlled trials. In , the Progresa program, launched in 1997 and later expanded nationwide as , increased household consumption by 10-20% among beneficiaries and reduced poverty rates by improving children's enrollment in school by up to 20% and health outcomes like rates. Similarly, evaluations of Brazil's , implemented from 2003, showed a 15-27% reduction in incidence and sustained gains in , with cost-benefit ratios exceeding 1:7 in long-term human capital returns. These programs succeed by addressing immediate liquidity constraints while incentivizing investments in , though effects diminish without sustained economic opportunities. Mass deworming initiatives targeting parasitic infections in children have yielded robust evidence of via productivity and earnings gains. A long-term study of a Kenyan program from 1998-2002 found that additional years of treatment increased adult hourly earnings by 13-20% and consumption expenditures by 14%, with annualized returns of 37% per dollar invested, due to reduced (25% drop in school days missed) and improved cognitive function. Externalities extended benefits to untreated siblings and neighbors, amplifying community-level impacts without proportional cost increases. Such interventions, costing as little as $0.50 per child annually, outperform many alternatives in causal evaluations by directly mitigating barriers to labor participation and in endemic areas. The Graduation Approach, pioneered by BRAC in since 2002, combines asset transfers, training, cash stipends, and savings access to enable ultra-poor households to escape poverty traps, with replicated success across 20 countries. Randomized evaluations show 95% of participants in graduated from , sustaining benefits like 50-100% income increases and asset growth seven years post-intervention, through diversified livelihoods and . In and , similar programs boosted household revenues by 40-60% via transfers and coaching, fostering self-sufficiency rather than dependency. This multifaceted "big push" model addresses multiple constraints simultaneously, yielding higher returns than isolated interventions like alone, which RCTs indicate expand businesses but rarely lift average incomes out of poverty.

Persistent Challenges

Dependency Traps from Redistribution

Redistribution policies, particularly expansive welfare systems, can engender dependency traps by structuring benefits such that incremental earnings trigger disproportionate losses in aid, culminating in effective marginal s exceeding 100%. This dynamic, termed the "benefits cliff," occurs when phase-outs of programs like , food assistance, and housing subsidies impose a net financial penalty on increased work effort, rationalizing prolonged reliance on transfers over labor market participation. In the United States, for instance, a earning near 100-150% of the federal poverty level—approximately 30,00030,000-45,000 annually for a household of three in 2023—may forfeit thousands in annual benefits for modest wage gains, equivalent to an implicit of 70-100% or higher when accounting for lost eligibility and added work expenses. Empirical analyses substantiate these disincentives' impact on employment decisions. A Danish study exploiting variation in welfare payments for unmarried childless youth found that a 10% increase in benefits reduced employment probabilities by 1-2 percentage points, with effects persisting up to two years, indicating reduced labor supply responsiveness among potential recipients. In the U.S., pre-1996 welfare reforms under Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) correlated with elevated non-employment rates, as beneficiaries faced cliffs deterring transitions to work; post-reform implementation of (TANF) with time limits and work requirements yielded a 10-20% rise in single-mother by , suggesting prior structures perpetuated idleness. Disability programs exhibit similar traps, where empirical data reveal beneficiaries constraining earnings to preserve eligibility, with anecdotal and econometric showing suppressed work activity to avoid exceeding thresholds, thereby locking participants into subsidized non-productivity. These mechanisms extend to intergenerational effects, where sustained transfers erode work norms and acquisition. Longitudinal U.S. data indicate that children raised in households dependent on welfare for multiple generations exhibit 15-25% lower employment rates in adulthood, attributable in part to modeled behaviors and reduced exposure to market incentives rather than solely exogenous barriers. European cases, such as prolonged in countries like and , mirror this: recipients with access to generous replacements averaging 60-70% of prior wages experience durations extended by 20-50% compared to shorter-benefit regimes, fostering atrophy and detachment from labor markets. While some econometric reviews question the universality of such traps—citing low overall labor supply elasticities—disaggregated evidence from phase-out simulations consistently highlights localized disincentives severe enough to trap subsets of recipients, particularly those with marginal . Reform efforts underscore the causal link, as gradual phase-outs or earned income disregards in programs like the U.S. have mitigated cliffs, boosting participation rates by 5-10% among eligible low-wage workers without commensurate rises in overall dependency. Nonetheless, expansive redistribution absent such calibrations risks amplifying traps, as observed in states with high benefit overlaps where effective EMTRs deter advancement, perpetuating poverty cycles through diminished accumulation.

Governance Failures and Corruption

Governance failures, including ineffective institutions, poor regulatory environments, and inadequate public service delivery, perpetuate poverty by impeding efficient resource distribution and economic opportunities. Countries with low scores on the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators—particularly in government effectiveness and regulatory quality—exhibit persistently higher poverty rates, as weak enforcement of contracts and property rights deters investment and innovation. These systemic shortcomings often stem from centralized power structures that prioritize elite interests over broad-based development, leading to infrastructure deficits and service gaps that disproportionately affect the poor. Corruption amplifies these failures by siphoning public funds, distorting markets, and undermining antipoverty programs. Empirical analyses demonstrate that elevated levels reduce , bias tax systems toward the wealthy, and increase income inequality, thereby elevating poverty incidence; for example, a one-standard-deviation increase in correlates with an 11-point rise in inequality metrics. Cross-country studies reveal a strong positive (0.885) between Corruption Perceptions Index scores and poverty indices, with administrative particularly linked to lower growth and higher deprivation in low-income settings. In , corruption's bidirectional causality with poverty manifests in diverted , heightened , and widened inequality, where higher corruption levels align with elevated undernourishment rates and stalled human development. exemplifies this dynamic, with its 2021 score of 14/100 coinciding with a 51.9% poverty rate in 2023, as and in state oil revenues fueled and resource scarcity. Such cases underscore how corruption not only erodes fiscal capacity for social spending but also fosters dependency on illicit networks, entrenching poverty despite natural resource endowments.

Demographic and Migration Dynamics

High fertility rates in low-income countries sustain poverty by diluting household resources and impeding per capita income growth. Globally, nations with total fertility rates exceeding three children per woman, common in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia as of 2023, exhibit extreme poverty rates above 20% in many cases, compared to under 2% in high-income countries with rates below 1.6. Time-series analyses across 140 countries demonstrate that lagged fertility increases country-specific poverty rates, with a one-child reduction potentially lowering poverty headcount by several percentage points through enhanced economic growth and reduced dependency ratios. Larger family sizes exacerbate household poverty, particularly in female-headed or non-marital structures prevalent in developing regions. , for instance, reaches 44% in female-headed families versus 11% in married-couple ones, a pattern amplified in poorer nations where out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood correlate with diminished parental employment and resource sharing inefficiencies. Demographic transitions—declining mortality followed by —enable poverty alleviation via a "demographic dividend," where a rising working-age share boosts GDP and reduces poverty, as observed in East Asia's rapid escapes from mass poverty between 1960 and 2000. However, stalled transitions in high-poverty areas, such as parts of , hinder this shift, perpetuating youth bulges that strain education and job markets. Rural-urban migration in developing countries often stems from agricultural stagnation and urban opportunity pulls but frequently entrenches poverty through slum formation and informal employment. In nations like and , net rural outflows since the have swelled urban populations by 2-3% annually, yet migrants—typically low-skilled—face higher urban poverty risks due to elevated living costs and limited social safety nets, with up to 40% of urban dwellers in informal settlements below national poverty lines. This migration reduces rural poverty marginally via remittances and labor relief but amplifies urban inequality, as evidenced by persistent gaps in consumption and welfare between rural poor and new urban arrivals. International migration from origin countries yields remittances that directly mitigate poverty, with inflows to low- and middle-income nations totaling over $600 billion in 2022, equivalent to 2-5% of GDP in recipients like the and . A 10% per capita remittance rise correlates with 1.3% , alleviating depth and severity through household investments in and , though effects vary by inequality levels in sending areas. Brain drain accompanies this, depleting skilled labor and potentially slowing growth in small developing states, where emigration of tertiary-educated workers exceeds 20% and correlates with fiscal shortfalls and lags; yet, countervailing gains from diaspora knowledge transfers and induced investments can offset losses if migration rates remain below optimal thresholds. Overall, selective skilled outflows may exacerbate poverty traps in coordination-failure prone economies, underscoring migration's dual causality in poverty dynamics.

Institutional Responses

International Bodies and Aid Mechanisms

International bodies addressing poverty primarily include the World Bank, (IMF), and agencies such as the (UNDP) and the (FAO). The World Bank's (IDA) provides concessional loans and grants to low-income countries aimed at boosting and reducing poverty, while the IMF offers balance-of-payments support with structural adjustment programs that condition aid on fiscal reforms. These entities coordinate through mechanisms like Official Development Assistance (ODA), tracked by the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC), which defines ODA as government aid for and welfare in developing countries with terms more generous than market loans. Global ODA disbursements reached approximately $274 billion in total aid flows in 2023, including bilateral and multilateral channels, though preliminary 2024 data indicate a 7.1% real-term decline to levels still 23% above 2019 figures, reflecting donor fatigue and shifting priorities amid geopolitical tensions. Mechanisms such as initiatives, exemplified by the IMF-World Bank (HIPC) Initiative launched in 1996, have canceled over $100 billion in debt for 36 countries by 2023, ostensibly to free resources for . However, empirical analyses reveal limited poverty impacts; for instance, studies find ODA often fails to translate into sustained growth due to its small scale relative to recipient economies and absorption constraints, with some research concluding it has not significantly reduced rates in despite decades of inflows. Critiques highlight systemic issues undermining efficacy, including aid-induced dependency where recipient governments prioritize donor compliance over domestic reforms, leading to weakened bureaucracies and reduced incentives for self-reliance. In countries like those in Africa, prolonged ODA has fostered reliance, with examples such as free food distributions displacing local agriculture and perpetuating import dependency, as seen in cases where donor-supplied grains undercut domestic producers. IMF and World Bank conditionalities, such as austerity measures, have been linked to short-term poverty increases via higher unemployment and reduced social spending, with structural reforms showing negative effects on inequality in developing nations. Governance imbalances exacerbate this, as voting power in these institutions favors wealthy donors, potentially aligning aid with geopolitical interests rather than recipient needs, a point raised in analyses of post-pandemic lending where G7 nations influenced terms disproportionately. UN-led efforts, including the (SDGs) targeting poverty eradication by 2030, rely on coordinated aid but face similar hurdles; progress reports indicate that while some regions saw poverty declines, aid —where funds substitute for domestic budgets—often enables or inefficient spending without addressing root causes like institutional weakness. Efforts to mitigate dependency, such as Ghana's 2017 aid , demonstrate potential for transition but remain exceptions amid broader patterns of stagnation in high-aid recipients. Overall, while these bodies provide essential financing in crises, evidence suggests their mechanisms frequently prioritize short-term palliatives over structural reforms, contributing to persistent poverty traps in governance-failed states.

Private Sector and NGO Contributions

The alleviates poverty through job creation, income generation, and provision of affordable goods and services, fostering economic growth that lifts populations out of destitution. In developing countries, a dynamic has driven substantial poverty reductions by expanding employment and mobilizing resources for , as evidenced by empirical analyses linking private investment to lower poverty rates. For instance, multinational enterprises have emerged as key drivers of poverty alleviation in certain regions by generating formal jobs and stimulating local economies, unlike domestic firms in some contexts during the . Corporate programs targeting small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with tailored finance and skills training have demonstrated impacts on , enhancing business viability and household incomes. Initiatives like , pioneered by private entities such as , aimed to empower the poor through small loans but have shown limited overall effects on poverty according to randomized controlled trials. Meta-analyses of these studies reveal negligible impacts on consumption or income for novice entrepreneurs, challenging earlier optimistic claims, though some benefits appear in business investment and reduced spending on temptation goods. Corporate philanthropy complements these efforts; for example, companies like Chevron and have funded poverty-reduction programs including microloans and training for women entrepreneurs, contributing to income improvements in targeted communities. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) deliver direct interventions, with evidence-based ones achieving measurable gains in and that bolster economic productivity and reduce poverty's intergenerational transmission. Rigorous evaluations identify high-impact programs, such as those recommended by , including the Against Malaria Foundation's distribution of insecticide-treated nets, which avert deaths at low cost—estimated at around 1,000 lives saved per $1 million donated—and improve child survival rates, enabling better workforce participation. Similarly, initiatives by organizations like Evidence Action have increased school attendance by up to 25% and earnings in adulthood, providing long-term poverty mitigation. However, broader NGO efforts yield mixed results; while some projects, like income-generating activities in rural , have raised household earnings, others show no significant , highlighting the importance of empirical validation over anecdotal success. Organizations such as address housing deficits by constructing affordable homes for low-income families, partnering with volunteers and donors to provide shelter that enhances stability and outcomes in over 70 countries since 1976. Despite these contributions, NGO impacts are often constrained by scale and dependency risks, with only a fraction of interventions rigorously proven effective, underscoring the need for private sector-led growth as the primary engine of poverty escape.

Critiques of Large-Scale Antipoverty Programs

Critics of large-scale antipoverty programs contend that despite trillions of dollars expended, these initiatives have often failed to achieve lasting , instead perpetuating dependency and undermining economic incentives. In the United States, the , launched by President in 1964, has involved federal spending exceeding $23 trillion through 2019 on means-tested programs, yet the official poverty rate for the non-elderly population has remained largely stagnant at around 13-15% since the 1970s, after an initial decline. This outcome is attributed to programs like and food stamps, which create "benefit cliffs" where additional earnings lead to sharp benefit losses, resulting in effective marginal tax rates over 100% that discourage employment and self-sufficiency. Empirical analyses, including those examining Danish welfare expansions, reveal that increased payments reduce youth labor participation by altering opportunity costs of work. Internationally, foreign aid programs coordinated by bodies like the World Bank and UN agencies have drawn similar rebukes for inefficacy and counterproductive effects. Economist Dambisa Moyo argues in Dead Aid (2009) that over $1 trillion in aid to since the 1940s has not correlated with , instead enabling corrupt , crowding out domestic savings and , and fostering a dependency culture that stifles . Data from aid-recipient nations show minimal poverty alleviation; for instance, sub-Saharan 's poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 per day barely improved from 56% in 1990 to 41% by 2015, despite aid inflows averaging 5-10% of GDP in many countries. Critics highlight how aid often bypasses the poor, benefiting elites and NGOs, with studies indicating negative impacts on quality and social cohesion in recipient states. Further critiques emphasize unintended behavioral consequences, such as eroded family structures and reduced investment. U.S. program evaluations find that prolonged welfare receipt correlates with higher rates of single parenthood and lower attachment across generations, as benefits reduce the relative costs of non-marital childbearing and . In developing contexts, large-scale transfers and subsidies have shown short-term consumption boosts but limited long-term income gains, with evidence of duration dependence where initial recipients become less likely to exit assistance over time. analyses argue that such policies, by prioritizing redistribution over market-oriented reforms, exacerbate poverty traps through distorted labor markets and fiscal burdens that hinder overall growth. These programs' scale amplifies risks, as centralized designs overlook local contexts and incentives, leading to inefficiencies documented in randomized evaluations of initiatives like conditional transfers, which yield modest effects overshadowed by high administrative costs.

Key Debates

Validity of the Culture of Poverty Concept

The culture of poverty concept, introduced by anthropologist in the late 1950s and early 1960s, posits that prolonged economic deprivation fosters distinct subcultural traits—such as feelings of , short-term orientation, weak family structures, and low aspirations—that become self-perpetuating across generations, even when structural opportunities improve. Lewis based this on ethnographic studies of and Puerto Rican families, arguing these elements create a "design for living" transmitted intergenerationally, insulating individuals from mainstream economic incentives. Empirical tests, including a 1970s study of poor Israeli youth and parents, found partial support for traits like present-mindedness and interpersonal distrust correlating with persistent deprivation. Supporting evidence for the concept's validity draws from intergenerational mobility data and cross-group comparisons. , children born into poverty have a 49% chance of spending at least half their childhood in it, with adult poverty rates significantly higher for those from persistently poor families, mediated by behavioral factors like and stability rather than alone. Studies on maladaptive transmission show how poverty-linked stress leads to inconsistent and low educational emphasis, perpetuating cycles independent of ongoing material hardship. Economists like highlight cultural variances explaining divergent outcomes: groups such as post-1960s immigrants in the U.S. achieved higher and lower than native-born counterparts despite similar initial poverty, attributing success to imported values of and cohesion over structural . Sowell further notes that poverty is humanity's historical norm, with escape tied to cultural adaptations like , evident in rapid Asian-American socioeconomic rises post-World War II amid . Critics, often from sociological and civil rights perspectives, contend the concept victim-blames by overemphasizing individual or familial deficiencies while underplaying systemic barriers like labor market exclusion and racial . Such critiques, prominent since the , argue framework distracts from policy needs like expanded welfare, sometimes recasting it as a justification for . However, many rebuttals rely on ideological assertions rather than disconfirming data; for instance, while structural factors influence entry into poverty, persistence rates remain elevated in subgroups with comparable access to and jobs, suggesting behavioral . Reanalyses incorporating cultural metrics, such as frames of aspiration and social networks, affirm that attitudes toward work and authority predict economic stagnation beyond class origins. Overall, the concept holds partial validity when grounded in causal evidence of behavioral transmission, as seen in and mobility studies where environmental lifts alone fail to fully disrupt patterns without cultural shifts. Policies ignoring these dynamics, such as redistribution without or educational reforms, show limited long-term efficacy, with U.S. data indicating welfare expansions correlated with single-parent household rises and dependency persistence from the 1960s onward. This underscores culture's role not as sole cause but as a realist mediator amplifying structural vulnerabilities.

Relative Poverty as Inequality Metric

Relative poverty is defined as the condition of households whose income falls below a specified proportion of the median income in a given society, commonly 50% or 60% of the median after adjustments for household size. This threshold adjusts dynamically with changes in the overall income distribution, making it inherently relational rather than fixed to objective needs like food, shelter, or health requirements. Proponents argue it captures social exclusion and the inability to participate in societal norms, such as affording expected consumption patterns, but this framing often equates material shortfall with positional disadvantage. As a metric, relative poverty functions primarily as an indicator of income inequality, since its rate remains unchanged if all incomes in a rise proportionally, even as absolute living standards improve substantially. For instance, , the relative poverty rate using a 50% threshold hovered around 17-20% from 1967 to 2019, despite real household more than doubling in constant dollars and widespread access to amenities like , indoor , and automobiles becoming near-universal. This stasis occurs because the measure tracks dispersion, not deprivation: a uniform 10% increase across the board leaves the proportion below the intact, masking gains in caloric intake, , or quality that define absolute . Critics, including economists emphasizing causal links between and basic capabilities, contend that relative poverty conflates inequality with poverty, leading to misdirection toward redistribution over growth. Absolute poverty lines, such as the World Bank's $1.90 per day in 2011 terms, have documented a decline from 36% of the global population in 1990 to under 10% by 2019, correlating with expanded and technological rather than equalized shares. In contrast, relative measures in high-income nations show persistent "poverty" rates—e.g., 16.8% in the EU-27 using a 60% threshold in 2022—despite these societies achieving near-elimination of absolute want, with average life expectancies exceeding 80 years and undernourishment rates below 3%. Empirical analyses reveal weak or context-dependent ties between relative position and objective well-being markers like outcomes; for example, countries with high relative poverty but rapid absolute income growth, such as post-reform , exhibit stronger correlations with improved and than inequality-focused metrics predict. This metric's reliance on income shares invites subjective calibration, where thresholds like 40% versus 70% of can alter reported rates by factors of two or more, undermining cross-national comparability. Moreover, sources advocating relative measures, often from inequality-focused organizations, may overstate its urgency by prioritizing envy-driven perceptions over verifiable needs, as evidenced by stagnant relative rates amid falling absolute hardship in expanding economies. From a causal standpoint, poverty alleviation stems from enhancements enabling resource command, not from compressing distributions that relative metrics reward; historical data show absolute thresholds better track deprivations resolvable by innovation, such as or , independent of peers' gains. Thus, while useful for analyzing stratification, relative poverty mischaracterizes core poverty dynamics when deployed as a standalone gauge of societal failure.

Welfare Policies' Unintended Consequences

Welfare policies often create high effective marginal tax rates through benefit phase-outs, forming "welfare cliffs" where additional earnings result in loss due to forfeited aid exceeding wage gains. A 2022 analysis in , found such rates ranging from 90 to 100 percent for recipients, deterring as rational actors forgo work to preserve benefits. Empirical studies confirm these disincentives reduce labor supply; for instance, a Danish experiment increasing welfare payments for unmarried childless led to decreased among that group. Similarly, informing recipients of work incentives via randomized trials has shown potential to boost , implying unawareness or perceived traps otherwise suppress participation. These structures foster long-term dependency, with intergenerational transmission evident in data linking parental welfare receipt to reliance. NBER indicates children of welfare-dependent mothers are more likely to enter welfare themselves, perpetuating cycles independent of levels. Pre-1996 U.S. reforms exemplified this, as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) rules correlated with sustained caseloads; the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) imposed time limits and work requirements, slashing rolls by over 60 percent and halving rates from 1996 levels by promoting self-sufficiency. However, residual programs retain cliffs, as a 2023 District of Columbia study revealed effective marginal rates up to 56 percent or higher, exceeding federal top rates and impeding mobility. Family structure alterations represent another consequence, with benefits structured around single-parent households incentivizing non-marital births and marital dissolution. Empirical analysis of U.S. welfare rules from 1996 to 2004 found significant negative effects on and rates among low-income women, as aid eligibility favored biological single mothers over two-parent families. Cross-national data further link larger welfare states to higher rates and lower in intact families, suggesting subsidies undermine traditional structures by reducing economic pressures for partnership stability. These shifts correlate with poorer child outcomes, including elevated maltreatment risks in non-intact homes, though requires controlling for selection effects. Critics attribute such patterns to , where policies inadvertently signal that dependency yields security without effort, eroding work ethic and family norms. While reforms like PRWORA mitigated some effects—evidenced by surges and dependency drops—persistent high-benefit designs in and residual U.S. programs illustrate ongoing trade-offs between short-term relief and long-term behavioral distortions.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.