Search results

AbstractThis article examines the effect of poverty volatility on poverty in developing countries. Poverty volatility refers to the amplitude of the change in poverty rates over a given period of time. Variations in poverty rates can potentially arise from countries' vulnerability to a variety of shocks that induce greater macroeconomic volatility, including economic growth volatility. The empirical analysis shows that poverty volatility consistently induces a rise in poverty rates, and this positive poverty effect of poverty volatility increases as the degree of poverty volatility rises. Policies that help reduce poverty volatility (including by dampening economic growth volatility) would contribute to poverty reduction.

Two questions basic to welfare policy are examined: (1) whether the amount of poverty-related transfers is sufficient to fill the poverty gap; & (2) which families actually get benefits & how much of their income deficit is filled by those benefits. Transfers are seen to be sufficient. The post-Social Security poverty gap is $74 billion, while poverty-related programs total $198 billion. Further, 86% of current income-conditioned benefits go to the pretransfer poor & 89% of those are used to alleviate poverty (fill the poverty gap). Thus, if a substantial fraction of total federal & state expenditures on poverty-related programs could be targeted more toward the poor, the poverty gap would be eliminated. The current programs, however, would have to be changed substantially to achieve the necessary retargeting. 3 Tables, 1 Appendix. HA

This article offers a cross-country overview of child poverty, changes in child poverty, and the impact of public policy in North America and Europe. Levels and changes in child poverty rates in 12 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries during the 1990s are documented using data from the Luxembourg Income Study project, and a decomposition analysis is used to uncover the relative role of demographic factors, labor markets, and income transfers from the state in determining the magnitude and direction of the changes. Child poverty rates fell noticeably in only three countries and rose in three others. In no country were demographic factors a force for higher child poverty rates, but these factors were also limited in their ability to cushion children from adverse shocks originating in the labor market or the government sector. Increases in the labor market engagement of mothers consistently lowered child poverty rates, while decreases in the employment rates and earnings of fathers were a force for higher rates. Finally, there is no single road to lower child poverty rates. Reforms to income transfers intended to increase labor supply may or may not end up lowering the child poverty rate.

Poverty measures set a poverty line or threshold and then evaluate resources against that threshold. The official poverty measure is flawed on both counts: it uses thresholds that are outdated and are not adjusted appropriately for the needs of different types of individuals and households; and it uses an incomplete measure of resources which fails to take into account the full range of income and expenses that individuals and households have. Because of these (and other) failings, statistics using the official poverty measure do not provide an accurate picture of poverty or the role of government policies in combating poverty. To address these well-known limitations, the Census Bureau recently implemented a supplemental poverty measure (SPM) which applies an improved set of thresholds and a more comprehensive measure of resources. In this report we apply an alternative poverty measure which differs from the SPM in only one respect. Instead of having a threshold that is re-calculated over time, we use today's threshold and carry it back historically by adjusting it for inflation using the CPI-U-RS. Because this alternative measure is anchored with today's SPM threshold, we refer to as an anchored supplemental poverty measure or anchored SPM for short. In addition to the reasons discussed above, another advantage of an anchored SPM (or any absolute poverty measure, for that matter) is that poverty trends resulting from such a measure can be explained by changes in income and net transfer payments (cash or in kind). Trends in poverty based on a relative measure (e.g. SPM poverty), on the other hand, could be due to over time changes in thresholds. Thus, an anchored SPM arguably provides a cleaner measure of how changes in income and net transfer payments have affected poverty historically

This edited book analyses what traps people in chronic poverty, and what allows them to escape from it, using long-term panel surveys from six Asian and African countries. The distinguishing feature of these studies, which were commissioned by the Chronic Poverty Research Centre, is they span longer periods or have more survey waves than most developing country panels. This allows a detailed account of the maintainers of chronic poverty and drivers of poverty dynamics. Many of the studies (from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nepal, Pakistan, South Africa and Vietnam) are written by leading development

Using data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey and the March Current Population Survey, we provide poverty estimates for 1967 to 2012 based on a historical Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). During this period, poverty, as officially measured, has stagnated. However, the official poverty measure (OPM) does not account for the effect of near-cash transfers on the financial resources available to families, an important omission since such transfers have become an increasingly important part of government anti-poverty policy. Applying the historical SPM, which does count such transfers, we find that trends in poverty have been more favorable than the OPM suggests and that government policies have played an important and growing role in reducing poverty—a role that is not evident when the OPM is used to assess poverty. We also find that government programs have played a particularly important role in alleviating child poverty and deep poverty, especially during economic downturns.

Intro -- CONTENTS -- ABSTRACT -- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS -- ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS -- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- 1. Introduction -- PART 1-THE MAGNITUDE AND CAUSES OF POVERTY -- 2. Poverty and Social Indicators of "The Problem" -- 3. The Determinants of Poverty and Inequality: Endowments and Household Characteristics -- 4. Historical and Contextual Factors -- PART 2-KEY CHALLENGE: BUILDING OPPORTUNITIES AND ASSETS -- 5. Growth and Poverty -- 6. Livelihoods, Labor Markets, and Rural Poverty -- 7. Education and Poverty -- 8. Health, Malnutrition, and Poverty -- 9. Basic Utility Services and Poverty -- PART 3-KEY CHALLENGE: REDUCING VULNERABILITY -- 11. Vulnerability and Vulnerable Groups -- 12. Social Protection, Private Transfers, and Poverty -- PART 4-KEY CHALLENGE: EMPOWERMENT -- 13. Building Institutions and Empowering Communities -- PART 5-CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS -- 14. Priority Actions to Reduce Poverty -- Annexes -- References -- LIST OF TABLES -- LIST OF BOXES -- LIST OF FIGURES -- TECHNICAL BACKGROUND PAPERS.

What is poverty? -- The economic and human dimensions of poverty -- Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa -- Poverty in Asia and the Arab States -- Poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean -- Poverty in developed countries -- Women and children in poverty -- Poverty and environmental hazards -- Poverty and violence -- The fight against poverty : progress and prospects.