Different ways to measure poverty

ARTICLE: World poverty 'more widespread', By Steve Schifferes, BBC, 27 August 2008

I still think Collier's notion of the "bottom billion" holds, despite this revision, because his argument was more comprehensive than just poverty (e.g., we have impoverished here in America), meaning he argued that a cluster of issues (poor governance, conflict trap, landlocked and resource-deprived) tended to yield the deep poverty and disconnectedness that I like to cite.

The percentages of global population cited, however, are a bit high. Global population now is over 6.8 billion, so 1.4B would still be only 20%, a fairly amazing decline from roughly 50% going back to the early 1980s. So it's not just those living in poverty that were rescued, it's also the new people who never entered into such poverty (that have been added to the planet).

Still, such revisions are useful and important reminders of the work yet to be done in spreading globalization. I've tended to cite the Core-Gap divide and say 2/3rds are connected and 1/3rd isn't. Collier says "bottom billion" and suggests a truly disconnected population in the range of 15%. This calculation suggests something in the 20-25% range.

So clearly there are different ways to measure (Do you live in a connected society/economy? Are you subject to traps beyond poverty? How much per day do you subsist on?).

Comments

[Vinay Gupta]

I think that life expectancy, infant mortality etc. are very good fundamental quality of life indicators, in many ways more important than absolute purchasing power. I tend to think in terms of those numbers when trying to estimate just how tough life is somewhere.

[Dan McIntosh]

A good indicator that includes life expectancy, infant mortality, education, etc., is the UN's Human Development Index (HDI).