What do national poverty lines tell us about global poverty?

The basic question about ‘how many poor people are there in the world?’ generally assumes that poverty is measured according to international poverty lines (IPLs). Yet, an equally relevant question could be ‘how many poor people are there in the world, based on how poverty is defined where those people live?’ In short, rather than a comparison based on monetary values, the latter question is germane to estimates based on a concept – ‘poverty’ – as defined by countries’ specific circumstances and institutions. Estimates of poverty by national poverty lines (NPLs) and international poverty lines (IPLs) may vary in terms of technical grounds. But how similar are they? How different is poverty captured by comparable (in PPP monetary value) cross-country measures as embodied by the IPL compared to that viewed in NPLs? This paper offers a new perspective on global poverty. It does so by estimating the distribution of poverty across countries, regions and income categories based on national poverty lines (NPLs). Even though comparing NPLs across countries means comparing poverty lines of different monetary value, we argue that exploring “poverty” as a nationally defined concept by countries at different stages of development unveils important and often unnoticed findings. By addressing the question of poverty as defined where those poor people live, this paper seeks to offer a new perspective on global poverty and at the same time extend thinking on the ‘middle-income countries poverty paradox’ – meaning that most of the world’s poor do not live in the world’s poorest countries Using data from 160 countries covering nearly 92 per cent of world population, we estimate that globally 1.5 billion people live in poverty as defined within their own countries (by NPLs), a billion of which are in middle-income countries (MICs) and - surprisingly perhaps - one in ten of world’s poor live in high-income countries (HICs). Our analysis shows that NPL and IPL-based estimates lead to similar poverty estimates only in a limited number of cases. In particular, we conclude that (i) there is a considerable difference between regional and national poverty estimates based on IPLs and NPLs – that is, differences for a same country could be as high as 55 percentage points in poverty rates, or about 45 million in the number of poor people; (ii) NPLs may be particularly important for analysis of poverty in MICs: indeed, their NPLs don’t feed into the construction of IPLs. Hence, poverty at national level may not be adequately captured by IPLs themselves; (iii) NPLs are not substitutes for IPLs, but instead enrich and complement international analyses. Yet, there could be trade-offs between the two, especially in terms of different development actors tracking different poverty estimates. Our findings also have implications for debates about global poverty targets and international assistance. Keywords: poverty; inequality; aid; Middle-Income; Low-Income Countrie

Landscapes in transition: an analysis of sustainable policy initiatives and emerging corporate commitments in the palm oil industry

The recent Southeast Asian haze crisis has generated intense public scrutiny over the rate, methods and types of landscape change in the tropics. Debate has centred on the environmental impacts of large-scale agricultural expansion, particularly the associated loss of high carbon stock forest and forests of high conservation value. Focusing on palm oil—a versatile food crop and source of bioenergy—this paper analyses national, international and corporate policy initiatives in order to clarify the current and future direction of oil palm expansion in Malaysia and Indonesia. The policies of ‘zero burn’, ‘no deforestation’ and ‘no planting on peatlands’ are given particular emphasis in the paper. The landscape implications of corporate commitments are analysed to determine the amount of land, land types and geographies that could be affected in the future. The paper concludes by identifying key questions related to the further study of sustainable land use policy and practice

A Poverty of Rights: Six Ways to Fix the MDGs

The reactions of the human rights community to the MDGs have been diverse. The goals have given a clear, communicable and quantitative focus to development but they arguably distract attention from important issues and are structurally flawed. In looking backwards, we need to consider whether the human rights gaps in the MDGs architecture are partly responsible for the mixed success of the enterprise and whether the MDGs are also being used to avoid human rights commitments. This reflection is used to look forwards to 2015 and it is argued that, even if we accept the target?based approach, human rights can make six key contributions, namely: (1) increasing participation in target selection; (2) ensuring targets better reflect human rights; (3) aiming for equality not just average improvements; (4) adjusting the targets for resource availability; (5) locating economic trade?offs within a human rights?based normative framework; and (6) improving the accountability infrastructure