1999
Eradication of poverty in the world: an assessment on the threshold of the year 2000
Constanza Moreira
In 1995, during the historic World Summit for Social Development held in Copenhagen, 185 countries committed themselves to eradicating absolute poverty and adopting concrete plans and objectives to that end.
Among the measures and initiatives agreed on, the
governments committed themselves to:
- By 1996, formulate national policies and
strategies aimed at the considerable reduction of
general poverty in the shortest time possible,
also reduction of inequality and eradication of
absolute poverty at a date to be established by
each country, in consideration of its own
context;
- Ensure provision of education, health, drinking
water and sanitation to all those people who were
in a situation of poverty, especially for women
and children living in this situation;
- Promote access of poor people to credit, land,
education, training, technology, and public
services;
- Gear the budget towards social objectives in
order to reduce inequalities and overcome
poverty;
- Analyse the impacts of adjustment policies on
social objectives and make efforts to ensure that
«adjustment costs» are not paid by the poorest.
On their part, to achieve these objectives, the donor
countries committed themselves to:
- Increase their official development assistance to
reach the target of 0.7% of the GNP;
- Devote 20% of this amount to basic social
services.
There was also a major commitment to policies to
alleviate foreign debt in the poorest countries, in
particular the countries of Africa, for whom the debt
burden is seriously compromising their possibilities for
economic and social development.
Today, Copenhagen+5 is a little over a year away. It
is essential to assess the achievements of the past
decade toward eliminating inequality and poverty, in
order to take to that meeting lessons learned from past
experience.
POVERTY, FAR FROM BEING
ERADICATED, IS GROWING
The number of poor people in the world is growing, and
one-third of the population in developing countries lives
in poverty. According to «global» measurement criteria
(people living on less than one US dollar per day), the
1,227 million poor existing in 1987, had become 1,314
million by 1993. In percentages, poverty has dropped very
little over the past few years and the objective of its
eradication does not seem attainable in the short term. (Table 1.)
Social indicators associated with poverty also reveal
a negative situation: the prevalence of hunger and
malnutrition continues to be high. Over 800 million
people go hungry and 190 million children are
underweight. They suffer a chronic, daily food deficit.
The percentage of children under five who are underweight
averages 30%1 in developing
countries. Female illiteracy is 38%. Over 30% of the
population in sub-Saharan Africa today has a life
expectancy of less than 40 years.
Prospects for growth are not promising: consumption
has stagnated in Latin America, North Africa and the Near
East, and has fallen in sub-Saharan Africa. If growth
decelerates over the next few years, poverty will
probably become more serious. The situation is
particularly serious in Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin
America.
In Southeast Asia, analysts estimate2
that poverty will double as a consequence of the crisis
in these countries, and that the distribution of income
will worsen. The number of people living under the
poverty line in countries affected by the crisis will
rise from 40 to 90 million people as a direct result of
the economic collapse that started in Thailand in
mid-1997. In the worst scenario possible, the number of
people in a position of poverty in the Philippines,
Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia would more than double
between 1997 and 2000.
In Latin America, the most unequal continent in the
world, poverty has increased in absolute figures. World
Bank and Economic Commission for Latin America statistics
show that the number of poor people increased by about
three million per year during the first half of the
nineties. In Argentina, Peru, Paraguay, Nicaragua,
Ecuador and the Dominican Republic, poverty has also
increased in relative terms. This has happened in a
context of economic growth and of overcoming the
stagnation of the eighties. Some studies3
show that the low expectation for economic growth in
Latin America in the medium term and the weak efforts to
eliminate factors generating inequality will work against
a reduction in poverty over the next ten years.
The trend toward an increase in poverty in Latin
America does not seem to be surmountable in the medium
term. Poverty in Latin American is basically rural and
goes back a long time. It is related to low investment in
«human capital» in countries that have not yet managed
to consolidate themselves as nations. Poverty in these
countries shows great fluctuations depending on
circumstances related to the physical environment and the
availability of natural resources. These countries are
particularly affected by growing environmental problems.
The constant reduction of per capita land area for crops,
the depletion of soil, and the degradation of enormous
forest areas caused by the use of wood for energy,
contribute to food insecurity and make hunger and disease
hard to eradicate.
Studies carried out by UNICEF also show that poverty
is worsening4 and that, even in
countries where the proportion of poor inhabitants has
dropped, those living in conditions of extreme poverty
have seen their living standard fall.
Table 2 shows a
summary of those countries having data available for the
19905
period, the last data available.
RETHINKING POVERTY: PROBLEMS OF
MEASUREMENT THAT HINDER FOLLOW-UP
The objective of reducing poverty has led to broad
debate on its causes, its characteristics and its
dimensions. Many efforts have been made to define a
concept that would reveal the many facets of this
phenomenon. Definitions of income have been complemented
by definitions of poverty based on the concept of
«unsatisfied basic needs», and UNDP coined the term
«human poverty» to define poverty in terms of its
results on people's living conditions.
National poverty measurements are usually based on
levels of consumption or income: persons are considered
to be poor if their consumption or income falls below a
certain limit necessary to satisfy basic needs. This
minimum level is called the «poverty line». As what is
necessary to satisfy needs varies from society to society
and from time to time, each country uses its own poverty
line, adapted to its level of development, its social
norms and its values. National surveys generate this
information.
There are also global poverty measurements that use
the same definition of poverty line in order to
standardise comparisons between countries. The World Bank
uses as a reference line one or two US dollars per day.
Efforts have been made in recent years to find new
ways of conceptualising poverty that incorporate
dimensions in addition to income. One of these is the
definition of «human poverty» as the lack of essential
human skills such as literacy and sufficient food.
The commitment of making available reliable
information on poverty is far from being fulfilled. There
is an enormous scarcity of available data for all the
countries, and data may not be for the same years. We
also find discrepancies between information produced by
the countries themselves and information provided by
international organisations about those countries.
Finally, the various efforts to measure poverty introduce
an additional problem in follow-up of agreements: the
enormous difficulty of dealing with widely varying
results, as in Table 3.
ERADICATION STRATEGIES
The governments of 185 countries have undertaken to
generate reliable statistics to measure poverty and
develop appropriate plans for its eradication.
According to a survey taken by UNDP in 130 countries,
national anti-poverty plans are being implemented in 33%
(43 countries), and in 27% (35 countries) the struggle
against poverty is included in national planning. 40
countries are preparing anti-poverty plans. Several
countries have goals with established target years: 15
countries in Africa, 12 in Asia/Pacific, 2 in the Arab
States, 7 in Eastern Europe/CIS and 8 in Latin America
have defined objectives for the reduction of extreme
poverty. With some exceptions,6
those countries that have defined poverty objectives are
those with plans in operation. The data appears in Table 4.
Many countries have defined their anti-poverty
strategies and have defined specific objectives with
years and goals. A total of 37 countries have defined
objectives against poverty, most of them in Southeast
Asia and the Pacific and in Africa. In Latin America only
Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Peru and
Trinidad & Tobago have poverty reduction goals, and
only Panama has set the reduction target at 0%.
The figures show us that, although significant
progress has been achieved regarding the definition of
poverty and the definition of strategies to struggle
against it, most countries have not defined goals or
eradication deadlines. The contexts in which poverty
thrives and is difficult to eradicate (rural poverty in
Africa and South Asia, urban poverty in Latin America)
will not be removed in the short term.
LESSONS FROM EXPERIENCE TO AVOID
REPEATING ERRORS
Many anti-poverty studies recommend the use of two
complementary strategies, depending on the type of
problem in each country, to reduce poverty:7
- Strategies benefitting economic development of
those sectors where poverty is more concentrated
(eg, creation of income in rural areas, human
resource use, widespread economic policies,
creation of employment, etc.);
- Investments in human capital and in basic social
services.
The most efficient strategy-according to UNDP, UNICEF
and World Bank assessments-is strengthening of human
skills and investment in human capital through
globalisation of access to basic social services (BSS).
All the studies have suggested that investment in basic
education (especially for women and girls) and health
have widespread and highly positive impacts on
populations living in poverty.
However, not all the countries assign sufficient
resources to achieving this objective. The 20/20
Initiative was established for this purpose, as a pact
between developing countries and industrialised nations
to assign 20% of the budgets of the former and 20% of
official development assistance from the latter to BSS
(primary education, primary health care, access to safe
water and sanitation, adult literacy, reproductive
health). Countries are still far from achieving these
levels of allocation.
Access to BSS has positive impacts on the reduction of
poverty when it is sustained over time: «human capital»
requires sustained investment. For this purpose,
institutional capacity and adequate resources are
necessary. Resources should be obtained through increased
public expenditure, improved efficiency in the allocation
of this expenditure, and adequate external assistance.
Although many studies point out that public expenditure
for BSS should be maintained, even vis-à-vis
severe economic situations, experience shows that
economic crisis are generally accompanied by adjustment
mandated cuts in social services. Hence beyond the
normative postulate of an increase in efficiency and
efficacy of social services, adjustments have been
largely negative in terms of social development and only
in exceptional cases have these adjustments implied
positive measures.
Analyses of the 20/20 Initiative show that poorer
people benefit less from public expenditure on health and
education than do those with higher income. To achieve a
more equitable distribution of the benefits, these
studies suggest making inter-sectoral transfers of
expenditure to the benefit of BSS. This goes hand in hand
with the recommendations by multilateral bodies towards a
«privatisation» of social services, such as tertiary
health care or secondary or tertiary education.
Accumulated experience shows that extreme care should
be taken with such statements. The aim must be that
the lowest income sectors benefit from this
expenditure. The aim is not a cut in social public
spending that takes resources away from BSS and
contributes funds to the training of «human capital».
This conceals a dilemma of «false equity». What must be
sought is greater inter-sectoral transfer, eg, from
defense spending to BSS. Expenditure for debt service is
frequently much higher than expenditure for social
services in these countries.
Finally, studies suggest that institutional capacity
should be created to implement anti-poverty strategies.
This refers to strengthening the State's capacity,
weakened by a decade of reforms that have contributed to
financial unsustainability without improving its
effective functioning. Only the State can ensure the
sustainability of anti-poverty policies over time. This
conclusion would seem to indicate that a «post
Washington consensus» climate is setting in, whereby the
role of political institutions and the State in
particular is being revalued, even if only to «establish
a favourable environment» for the market. Some
suggestive titles, such as Beyond the Washington
Consensus: Institutions Matters,8
show that toward the end of the century, the impacts of
the Asian crisis and the economic and financial
unsustainability of much of the «transition toward
market economies» (starting in the countries of the
former Soviet block and ending with experience cut short
in Africa), are obliging governments to reconsider the
role of the State.
In the poorest countries, however, the State's
capacity is minimal and corruption is at a maximum.
Institutional capacity-building must be accompanied by
the affirmation of transparency. In many developing
countries, if not in the majority, the lack of full
citizenship and scant State development have resulted in
high levels of corruption that hinder poor people's
access to available resources. The recent tragedies in
Honduras and Nicaragua have shown this drama as never
before. If the poor are to have access to basic
resources, transparency channels must be ensured. Here
again, the role of NGOs has proven fundamental. The
other complementary strategy that is recommended relates
to the way growth generates income opportunities for the
lowest income sectors, in particular, through employment.
However, the new accumulation models, capital mobility,
adjustment strategies (in particular, reduction of public
expenditure), and forms of foreign capital investment do
not contribute to the creation of employment.
Unemployment is even seen as a «cost» of the
application of adjustment policies.
Problems arising from unemployment, including increase
of poverty and inequality, demand a return to previously
criticised Keynesian precepts of public investment in
infrastructure: in addition to creating employment, such
programmes help to extend facilities to the poorest
populations.
Policies for the creation of employment should
especially consider the characteristics of poverty:
policies to promote the agricultural sector are essential
when poverty is basically rural, and policies promoting
the creation of urban employment are essential in
contexts of urban poverty. Employment must also imply a
minimum coverage and salary, as a condition for the
eradication of poverty. The «maquila» experience in
Central America (assembly plants) is not positive from
the standpoint of working conditions and in many cases
implies a retrocession in the human rights struggle.
WHO ARE THE POOR AND HOW MUCH DO
THEY PARTICIPATE?
Action to eradicate global poverty should take into
account that poverty is not one but many. Poverty is not
the same everywhere and consequently measures that are to
benefit the poorest should be tailored to the situation
in each country. In particular, special consideration is
needed for those most affected by poverty, inequality and
social marginality.
As may be seen in Table
6, rural poverty figures are always higher than the
national averages. Rural poverty differs from urban
poverty, which is very high in some regions such as Latin
America.
In most sub-Saharan African countries, East Asia and
the Pacific, over 60% of the population are employed in
agriculture with very low levels of productivity and
income. For these countries, strategies to fight rural
poverty are essential. Studies suggest that strategies
should prioritise development in the sectors where
poverty is concentrated (in most cases the agricultural
sector). This should be combined with strategies on food
security, natural resource management and training in
business skills.
In Latin America, poverty is essentially urban. Cities
grow and suburban populations live in miserable «shanty
town» conditions with problems of sanitation, water and
overcrowding. The Brazilian «favelas» exemplify these
shanty towns, which symbolise Latin American poverty. In
Latin America, the eradication of poverty depends mainly
on investment in human capital, as Southeast Asian
countries have done admirably for the last 20 years.
The impact of poverty on women is greater than on men,
it is more serious and it grows in greater proportion.
Cultural, economic, legal and political factors are
behind the so-called «feminisation» of poverty.
Structural adjustment policies have hastened this process
by cutting free public services and thereby making
families (that is to say women) responsible for looking
after children, the elderly and the sick.
The international community has been ambiguous and
fallacious on the feminisation of poverty. On the one
hand, they talk of greater spouse collaboration in the
domestic context (women heads of households are
multiplying at alarming rates). On the other hand, they
are stepping up efforts to get countries to reduce public
spending, with negative consequences on expenditures for
essential public services.
The success of anti-poverty policies depends on the
degree to which strategies exist to empower people
living in poverty. It has frequently been underscored
that an important limitation on anti-poverty programmes
is the scant participation given to the people involved,
in addition to the risks that may arise from the limited
participation of stakeholders in plans applied to them.
Since poor people lack influence and political power,
their capacity to obtain available resources is limited.
Assistance policies will not improve the situation unless
poor people are empowered.
Governments and international funding bodies have
shown considerable ambiguity with respect to empowerment.
They have often stimulated structural reform programmes
that partially or totally dismantled the autonomous
organisations of civil society, in many cases
substituting poor peoples' autonomous capacity for
initiative by private initiatives in the name of
«efficiency». If poor people do not ally with their
neighbours, however, they are at the mercy of State
co-optation or of assistance from those who may see them
as a politically «manipulable mass». The many studies
that show the withdrawal of public expenditure to the
benefit of middle level sectors, together with widespread
public perception that the middle classes have taken over
the goods of the poor, work against the possibility of an
effective political alliance between the middle class and
the poor. Historical-political studies show,9
however, that this is the only alliance capable of
transforming prevailing power structures and ensuring
reasonable levels of equity.
NECESSARY RESOURCES ARE
INCREASINGLY MEAGER
Poverty is growing in a world of persistent external
debt, cuts in official development assistance (ODA), and
increased restrictions on government spending dictated by
economic reform and structural adjustment policies. The
reduction of poverty in many countries seriously affected
by situations of generalized poverty, depends largely on
external assistance and debt cancellation.
Reforms in the eighties and nineties imposed
reductions on government spending, while the budget share
of interest payments on foreign debt and internal debt
have quadrupled in the past 15 years. For sub-Saharan
African countries in particular, strong dependence on
external resources has generated severe indebtedness that
absorbs a good part (if not most) of generated income.
The growth prospects of many poorer countries are
paralysed by overwhelming debt service. Sub-Saharan
Africa pays over 14% of income from exports in debt
service, Southern Asia pays 22% and Latin America and the
Caribbean, 33%.
Despite this problem of debt, not much effort has
been made on debt cancellation. The Initiative for
the Reduction of the Debt of the Highly Indebted Poor
Countries, promoted by the IMF and the World Bank, has
not been very successful and few countries will benefit
from it. One important limitation is that it only applies
in countries that have a history of structural adjustment
going back at least six years.
A second problem facing the poorest countries is
the reduction, not only relative, but absolute, of
development assistance. Official development
assistance (ODA) began dropping at the beginning of the
eighties and has fallen steadily since the early
nineties. Today, it is at its all time minimum
(0.22%)-not even one-third of 0.7% of the GNP which the
donor countries are committed to providing. The UNDP
report Overcoming Human Poverty (1998) observes
with concern «that while in 1997 ODA rose in 11 of the
14 donor non-Group of Seven countries, in the Group's
member countries, the level is now 0.19%. And the four
donors who have maintained their ODA above 0.7% are not
members of the Group of Seven» (p. 16). Table 5 shows this
situation.
A third problem facing countries with populations
living in poverty is the relatively small sums
allocated by governments and donor countries to funding
BSS (Basic Social Services). The 1996 Oslo Consensus
and the 1998 Hanoi Consensus recognised that
international assistance was essential to eradicate
absolute poverty and universalise access to BSS.
Present allocations are less than one-third the funds
needed to achieve universal coverage of BSS (calculated
at USD 220 billion). Studies carried out in the framework
of the 20/20 Initiative10 show that
present expenditure should be increased by at least 50%
to achieve the social development goals established by
the Summit meetings. On average, the countries studied
allocate 13% of their budget. An analysis of thirty
country studies carried out by UNDP (1998) shows that: a)
most of the developing countries and donors have assigned
less than the minimum required to ensure universal access
to BSS over the next five to ten years; b) on average,
BSS receive 12% to 14% of national budgets and 15% of
ODA. The last column in Table 5 illustrates this
situation.
THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF
ADJUSTMENT POLICIES AND OF THE «RETURN TO THE MARKET»
A basic assumption of economic theory on the
relationship between growth and poverty is that economic
growth will automatically «trickle down» toward the
more underprivileged sectors of society and improve their
standard of living. Many studies show the deficiencies of
this theory and the ambiguity of the relationship between
growth and reduction of poverty.
Studies are conclusive (UNDP, 1998: p.42) regarding
the negative impact of economic recession on poverty:
poor people are most vulnerable to negative growth.
Positive growth, on the other hand, does not have a
direct relationship with poverty. A UNDP study (1998)12
of 38 countries shows that neither moderate nor
accelerated growth are guaranteed to reduce poverty.
Excessive focus on anti-inflation policies that
predominated in «first generation» reforms does not
seem to have contributed to the eradication of poverty.
While hyperinflation made life harder for the poorest
people who were unable to defend themselves from
deterioration of their basic salaries, the effects of
moderate policies focused exclusively on inflation are
very much under discussion since they generate recessive
impacts. The benefits of privatisation are similarly
being questionned. Countries such as Viet Nam have
given the world lessens on «heterodoxy». They have
curbed pressure for «orthodox» adjustment by seeking
forms of adjustment that do not cut social public
spending and that mitigate the negative influence of
trade liberalisation on social goods such as employment.
The recent Asian crisis and probable slowing of the
economy in all developing countries flash a red warning
signal on the situation of the poor, the vulnerable and
the underprivileged of this world. If governments do not
agree on a solution that will help to mitigate the
negative effects of the new accumulation models, the
world will become increasingly unequal and also poorer.
Increasing inequality in the world will be responsible
in a good measure for the persistence of poverty.
Inequality reduces the positive impact that economic
growth could have on poverty. Inequality contributes to
minimising the benefits of growth for the poor. Just as
the poor are most vulnerable to recession, they also have
the least capacity to benefit from growth. The greater
the inequality between groups and persons, the lesser
will be the «trickle down» effect. It is imperative to
agree on joint action regarding equity and poverty and
not to focus exclusively on the latter.
Inequality in the world is on the rise, not only among
people but also among countries. The effects of
globalisation tend to increase the inequality gap between
rich and poor people within countries and between rich
countries and poor countries. The pernicious effects
of economic integration are to be seen: «While world
growth has slowed, the difference in per capita growth
rates between industrialized and developing countries has
widened» (UNDP, 1998: p.48).
Third World countries suffer most from this worsening
of inequality, both across and within borders. Latin
American, African and former Socialist block countries
are the most dramatically unequal. Latin America
continues to be marked by a fatal inequality that is a
«good» example of how-despite the economic recovery of
the nineties-poverty reduction is curbed by a stong
persistence of inequality.
In the countries of the former Socialist block,
transition from a planned economy to a market economy has
entailed an enormous redistribution, but in a regressive
sense. Inequality is growing, intensifying the incidence
of poverty and creating forms of poverty so far unknown
in that region. Furthermore, save for a few exceptions,
economic performance has remained mediocre and
insufficient.
As for Africa, studies indicate that the trends in
inequality reduction follow trends in poverty reduction.
Africa's problems arise from the multiplication of the
negative effects of inequality and negative growth rates
and nothing seems to indicate that either phenomenon will
be mitigated in the short term.
CONCLUSIONS
To describe poverty today in isolation from inequality
or exclusion, to ignore that it results from prevailing
accumulation models, or to discuss it without also
discussing the negative impact of adjustment policies on
lower income sectors, displays ignorance of the problem.
It is equally false to discuss strategies to empower the
poor in isolation from the impoverished middle classes. Such
discussion is as useless as talk of the positive impact
on the poor of a good operation of the market, since the
poor are not in the market.
To eradicate poverty, a «POLICY» in a capital sense
is required. The development model that is aggravating
the situation of the poor in the world, increasing their
numbers and strengthening existing patterns of inequity
while creating others needs to be revised. A development
style that depredates the environment and excludes
millions of people from any access to social goods such
as education, health and jobs has to change. The gap
between countries and between people is becoming
increasingly unsalvageable. If Copenhagen+5 does not
incorporate substantial criticism of prevailing
development models, the objectives of poverty reduction
will be no more than ethical imperatives: they will lack
the capacity to be politically imposed on anybody.
Table 1.
Evolution of
poverty in the world (%)
(population living on less than one dollar per
day) |
REGIONS |
1987
|
1993
|
Latin America
and the Caribbean |
22
|
23.5
|
South Asia |
45.4
|
43.1
|
Southeast Asia
& the Pacific |
28.8
|
26
|
Sub-Saharan
Africa |
38.5
|
39.1
|
Europe and
Central Asia |
0.6
|
3.5
|
Near East and
North Africa |
28.8
|
26
|
Total |
30.1
|
29.4
|
Source: Poverty: http://www.worldbank.org/poverty.
Children whose weight is under normal (UNDP, 1998).
Table 2.
Countries
having reduced poverty
( by lines of income, national survey) |
|
STARTING YEAR |
% |
END YEAR |
% |
Bangladesh |
1991-92 |
42.7 |
1995-96 |
35.6 |
Bolivia |
1990 |
52 |
1994 |
45 |
Brazil |
1989 |
47 |
1995 |
43 |
Chile |
1992 |
21.6 |
1994 |
20.5 |
China |
1994 |
8.4 |
1995 |
6.5 |
Costa Rica |
1989 |
28 |
1995 |
20 |
Dominican Rep. |
1989 |
24.5 |
1992 |
20.6 |
El Salvador |
1991-92 |
60 |
1996 |
52 |
Honduras |
1989 |
73 |
1996 |
68 |
India |
1992 |
40.9 |
1994 |
35 |
Jamaica |
1989 |
25 |
1995 |
22 |
Thailand |
1990 |
18 |
1992 |
13.1 |
Source: World Bank Tables, 1998; Overcoming Human
Poverty, UNDP, 1998.
Table 3.
Differences in estimates |
|
NATIONAL ESTIMATES* |
INTERNATIONAL
ESTIMATES * |
UNDP DATA
Global Survey, 1998** |
|
Survey year |
National % |
Survey year |
Population below USD 1 a day |
Population below USD 2 a day |
Survey year |
National %
(gen.) |
Côte d'Ivoire |
|
- |
1988 |
17.7 |
54.8 |
1995 |
36.8 |
Gambia |
1992 |
64.0 |
|
- |
- |
1993 |
30.0 |
Ghana |
1992 |
31.4 |
|
- |
- |
1997 |
30.0 |
Mauritania |
1990 |
57.0 |
1988 |
31.4 |
68.4 |
1996 |
50.4 |
Senegal |
|
- |
1991-92 |
54.0 |
79.6 |
n/year |
32.0 |
Uganda |
1993 |
55.0 |
1989-90 |
69.3 |
92.2 |
1997 |
66.3 |
Zambia |
1993 |
86.0 |
1993 |
84.6 |
98.1 |
1997 |
69.0 |
Philippines |
1991 |
54.0 |
1991 |
28.6 |
64.5 |
1994 |
35.5 |
India |
1994 |
35.0 |
1992 |
52.5 |
88.8 |
1993-94 |
36.0 |
Malaysia |
1989 |
15.5 |
1989 |
5.6 |
26.6 |
1996 |
8.3 |
Mongolia |
1995 |
36.3 |
|
- |
- |
1997 |
25.8 |
Sri Lanka |
1990-91 |
35.3 |
1990 |
4.0 |
41.2 |
1997 |
25-30 |
Viet Nam |
1993 |
50.9 |
|
- |
- |
1996 |
4.2 |
Kyrgyzstan |
1993 |
40.0 |
1993 |
18.9 |
55.3 |
1996 |
50.0 |
Moldova, Rep. of |
|
- |
1992 |
6.8 |
30.6 |
1997 |
43.0 |
El Salvador |
1992 |
48.3 |
|
- |
- |
1994 |
61.0 |
Honduras |
1992 |
50.0 |
1992 |
46.9 |
75.7 |
1994 |
67.2 |
Panama |
|
- |
1989 |
25.6 |
46.2 |
1997 |
37.1 |
Trinidad &Tobago |
1992 |
21.0 |
|
- |
- |
1996 |
35.9 |
* World Bank estimates,
1998 (http://www.worldbank.org/poverty).
** Overcoming Human Poverty, UNDP, 1998.
* World Bank estimates, 1998 ( http://www.worldbank.org/poverty).
** Overcoming Human Poverty, UNDP, 1998.
Table 4.
Countries
having poverty strategies, definitions and
estimates |
No.
of Countries that: |
AFRICA |
ASIA/
PACIFIC |
ARAB
STATES |
EUROPE
EASTERN
/CIS |
LATIN
AMERICA/ CARIBBEAN |
Have
a definition of general poverty by income |
35 |
13 |
7 |
12 |
19 |
Have
extreme poverty estimates |
36 |
19 |
11 |
16 |
25 |
Have
absolute poverty estimates |
36 |
16 |
9 |
16 |
22 |
Have
implemented national anti-poverty plans |
Benin |
Cambodia |
U.
Arab Emirates |
Azerbaijan |
Brazil |
|
Cape
Verde |
China |
|
Kazakstan |
Chile |
|
Gambia |
Korea,
Rep. of |
Tunisia |
Moldova,
Rep. of |
Colombia |
|
Ghana |
Philippines |
Jordan |
Uzbekistan |
Costa
Rica |
|
Guinea |
Iran
Islamic Rep. of |
Sudan |
|
Jamaica |
|
Lesotho |
|
|
|
Mexico |
|
Madagascar |
Malaysia |
|
|
Paraguay |
|
Mali |
Mongolia |
|
|
Peru |
|
Mauritania |
Sri
Lanka |
|
|
Dominican
Rep. |
|
Mozambique |
Viet
Nam |
|
|
|
|
Senegal |
|
|
|
|
|
Togo |
|
|
|
|
|
Uganda |
|
|
|
|
|
Zimbabwe |
|
|
|
|
Table 5.
Development
assistance, by donor countries |
OFFICIAL
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE: Variation in percentages |
|
ODA as % of
GNP (1996) |
ODA as % of
GNP (1997) |
ODA goals |
% of variation
in real terms |
% assigned to
BSS |
Australia |
0.29 |
0.28 |
0.7 |
3.6 |
10.86 |
Austria |
0.28 |
0.26 |
0.7 |
8.4 |
7.98 |
Belgium |
0.35 |
0.31 |
0.7 |
-4.8 |
5.93 |
Canada |
0.31 |
0.36** |
0.7 |
20.8** |
6.57 |
Denmark |
1.04 |
0.97 |
1 |
3.3 |
9.87 |
Finland |
0.34 |
0.33 |
0.7 |
3.7 |
9.69 |
France |
0.48 |
0.45 |
0.7 |
-3.8 |
|
Germany |
0.32 |
0.28 |
0.7 |
-10.9 |
14.6 |
Ireland |
0.3 |
0.31 |
0.7 |
8.9 |
8.12 |
Italy |
0.2 |
0.11 |
0.7 |
-45.2 |
4.74 |
Japan |
0.2 |
0.22 |
0.7 |
9.6 |
10.99 |
Luxembourg |
0.41 |
0.5 |
0.7 |
19.6 |
ÑÑ- |
Netherlands |
0.83 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
2.7 |
8.09 |
New Zealand |
0.21 |
0.25 |
0.7 |
22.1 |
1.44 |
Norway |
0.85 |
0.86 |
1 |
5.9 |
9.93 |
Portugal |
0.21 |
0.25 |
0.7 |
27.3 |
1.11 |
Spain |
0.22 |
0.23 |
0.7 |
10.9 |
9.16 |
Sweden |
0.82 |
0.76 |
1 |
-5.9 |
9.44 |
Switzerland |
0.34 |
0.32 |
0.4 |
-4.2 |
2.7 |
United Kingdom |
0.27 |
0.26 |
0.7 |
-2.2 |
4.19 |
United States |
0.12 |
0.08 |
none |
-35.5 |
15.37 |
* 0.33 when adjusted for IDA payments; * no growth
when adjusted for IDA payments.11
Sources: The Reality of Aid, 1997/1998; The
Reality of Aid 1998/1999, Earthscan, London; and Better
reporting on donor support to BSS: Opportunities and
constraints. Technical report prepared by Development
Initiatives, OECD/DCD and UNICEF for the Hanoi Meeting on
the 20/20 Initiative, held from October 27th-29th 1998.
Table 6.
Poverty
in the world: latest data |
|
|
Population below the poverty line |
|
Survey
year |
Rural
(%) |
Urban
(%) |
National
(%) |
Albania |
1996 |
.. |
.. |
19.6 |
Algeria |
1995 |
30.3 |
14.7 |
22.6 |
Argentina |
1991 |
.. |
.. |
25.5 |
Bangladesh |
1995-96 |
39.8 |
14.3 |
35.6 |
Benin |
1995 |
.. |
.. |
33.0 |
Brazil |
1990 |
32.6 |
13.1 |
17.4 |
Burundi |
1990 |
.. |
.. |
36.2 |
Chile |
1994 |
.. |
.. |
20.5 |
China |
1995 |
9.2 |
<2 |
6.5 |
Colombia |
1992 |
31.2 |
8.0 |
17.7 |
Dominican
Rep. |
1992 |
29.8 |
10.9 |
20.6 |
Ecuador |
1994 |
47.0 |
25.0 |
35.0 |
El
Salvador |
1992 |
55.7 |
43.1 |
48.3 |
Estonia |
1994 |
14.7 |
6.8 |
8.9 |
Gambia |
1992 |
.. |
.. |
64.0 |
Ghana |
1992 |
34.3 |
26.7 |
31.4 |
Guinea-Bissau |
1991 |
60.9 |
24.1 |
48.8 |
Honduras |
1992 |
46.0 |
56.0 |
50.0 |
Hungary |
1993 |
.. |
.. |
25.3 |
India |
1994 |
36.7 |
30.5 |
35.0 |
Indonesia |
1990 |
14.3 |
16.8 |
15.1 |
Jamaica |
1992 |
.. |
.. |
34.2 |
Jordan |
1991 |
.. |
.. |
15.0 |
Kenya |
1992 |
46.4 |
29.3 |
42.0 |
Kyrgyzstan |
1993 |
48.1 |
28.7 |
40.0 |
Lao
People’s Dem. Rep. |
1993 |
53.0 |
24.0 |
46.1 |
Lesotho |
1993 |
53.9 |
27.8 |
49.2 |
Malawi |
1990-91 |
.. |
.. |
54.0 |
Mauritania |
1990 |
.. |
.. |
57.0 |
Mauritius |
1992 |
.. |
.. |
10.6 |
Mongolia |
1995 |
33.1 |
38.5 |
36.3 |
Morocco |
1990-91 |
18.0 |
7.6 |
13.1 |
Nepal |
1995-96 |
44.0 |
23.0 |
42.0 |
Nicaragua |
1993 |
76.1 |
31.9 |
50.3 |
Nigeria |
1992-93 |
36.4 |
30.4 |
34.1 |
Pakistan |
1991 |
36.9 |
28.0 |
34.0 |
Paraguay |
1991 |
28.5 |
19.7 |
21.8 |
Peru |
1991 |
68.0 |
50.3 |
54.0 |
Philippines |
1991 |
71.0 |
39.0 |
54.0 |
Poland |
1993 |
.. |
.. |
23.8 |
Romania |
1994 |
27.9 |
20.4 |
21.5 |
Russian
Federation |
1994 |
.. |
.. |
30.9 |
Rwanda |
1993 |
.. |
.. |
51.2 |
Sri
Lanka |
1990-91 |
38.1 |
28.4 |
35.3 |
Tanzania |
1991 |
.. |
.. |
51.1 |
Thailand |
1992 |
15.5 |
10.2 |
13.1 |
Trinidad
& Tobago |
1992 |
.. |
.. |
21.0 |
Tunisia |
1990 |
21.6 |
8.9 |
14.1 |
Uganda |
1993 |
.. |
.. |
55.0 |
Ukraine |
1995 |
.. |
.. |
31.7 |
Viet
Nam |
1993 |
57.2 |
25.9 |
50.9 |
Yemen |
1992 |
19.2 |
18.6 |
19.1 |
Zambia |
1993 |
.. |
.. |
86.0 |
Zimbabwe |
1990-91 |
.. |
.. |
25.5 |
Table 7.
Other
forms of measuring poverty: the International
Line |
International
poverty line |
|
|
Survey
year |
|
National
% |
|
Survey
year
|
% USD 1 a
day |
% USD 2 a
day |
Countries having under 20% poor |
|
|
|
|
|
Belarus |
|
|
.. |
|
1993 |
<2 |
6.4 |
Hungary |
|
|
.. |
|
1993 |
<2 |
10.7 |
Russian Federation |
|
.. |
|
1993 |
<2 |
10.9 |
Kazakstan |
|
|
.. |
|
1993 |
<2 |
12.1 |
Poland |
|
|
.. |
|
1993 |
6.8 |
15.1 |
Algeria |
1995 |
|
22.6 |
|
1995 |
<2 |
17.6 |
Lithuania |
|
|
.. |
|
1993 |
<2 |
18.9 |
Morocco |
1990-91 |
|
13.1 |
|
1990-91 |
<2 |
19.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Countries having a poor population
of between 20% and 30% |
|
|
|
Colombia |
1992 |
|
17.7 |
|
1991 |
7.4 |
21.7 |
Tunisia |
1990 |
|
14.1 |
|
1990 |
3.9 |
22.7 |
Bulgaria |
|
|
.. |
|
1992 |
2.6 |
23.5 |
Jordan |
|
|
.. |
|
1992 |
2.5 |
23.5 |
Thailand |
1992 |
|
13.1 |
|
1992 |
<2 |
23.5 |
Jamaica |
|
|
.. |
|
1993 |
4.3 |
24.9 |
Turkmenistan |
|
|
.. |
|
1993 |
4.9 |
25.8 |
Malaysia |
|
|
.. |
|
1989 |
5.6 |
26.6 |
Moldova,
Rep. of |
|
|
.. |
|
1992 |
6.8 |
30.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Countries having a poor population
of between 31% and 40% |
|
|
|
Venezuela |
|
|
.. |
|
1991 |
11.8 |
32.2 |
Estonia |
|
|
.. |
|
1993 |
6.0 |
32.5 |
Chile |
1994 |
|
20.5 |
|
1992 |
15.0 |
38.5 |
Mexico |
|
|
.. |
|
1992 |
14.9 |
40.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Countries having a poor population
of between 41% and 50% |
|
|
|
Sri Lanka |
1990-91 |
|
35.3 |
|
1990 |
4.0 |
41.2 |
Brazil |
|
|
.. |
|
1995 |
23.6 |
43.5 |
Costa
Rica |
|
|
.. |
|
1989 |
18.9 |
43.8 |
Tanzania |
|
|
.. |
|
1993 |
10.5 |
45.5 |
Panama |
|
|
.. |
|
1989 |
25.6 |
46.2 |
Dominican
Rep. |
1992 |
|
20.6 |
|
1989 |
19.9 |
47.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Countries having a poor population
of between 51% and 60% |
|
|
|
Guinea |
|
|
.. |
|
1991 |
26.3 |
50.2 |
South
Africa |
|
|
.. |
|
1993 |
23.7 |
50.2 |
Egypt |
|
|
.. |
|
1990-91 |
7.6 |
51.9 |
Côte
d'Ivoire |
|
|
.. |
|
1988 |
17.7 |
54.8 |
Czech
Republic |
|
|
.. |
|
1993 |
3.1 |
55.1 |
Kyrgyzstan |
|
|
.. |
|
1993 |
18.9 |
55.3 |
Pakistan |
|
|
.. |
|
1991 |
11.6 |
57.0 |
China |
1995 |
|
6.5 |
|
1995 |
22.2 |
57.8 |
Indonesia |
1990 |
|
15.1 |
|
1995 |
11.8 |
58.7 |
Nigeria |
1992-93 |
|
34.1 |
|
1992-93 |
31.1 |
59.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Countries having a poor population
of between 61% and 70% |
|
|
|
Botswana |
|
|
.. |
|
1985-86 |
33.0 |
61.0 |
Philippines |
1991 |
|
54.0 |
|
1991 |
28.6 |
64.5 |
Ecuador |
1995 |
|
.. |
|
1994 |
30.4 |
65.8 |
Zimbabwe |
|
|
.. |
|
1990-91 |
41.0 |
68.2 |
Mauritania |
|
|
.. |
|
1988 |
31.4 |
68.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Countries having a poor population
of between 71% and 80% |
|
|
|
Romania |
|
|
.. |
|
1992 |
17.7 |
70.9 |
Lesotho |
|
|
|
|
1986-87 |
48.8 |
74.1 |
Nicaragua |
|
|
.. |
|
1993 |
43.8 |
74.5 |
Honduras |
|
|
.. |
|
1992 |
46.9 |
75.7 |
Guatemala |
|
|
.. |
|
1989 |
53.3 |
76.8 |
Kenya |
|
|
|
|
1992 |
50.2 |
78.1 |
Senegal |
|
|
.. |
|
1991-92 |
54.0 |
79.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Countries having over 80% of the
population in a position of poverty |
|
|
|
Slovakia |
|
|
.. |
|
1992 |
12.8 |
85.1 |
Nepal |
|
|
.. |
|
1995 |
50.3 |
86.7 |
Rwanda |
|
|
.. |
|
1983-85 |
45.7 |
88.7 |
India |
1994 |
|
35.0 |
|
1992 |
52.5 |
88.8 |
Ethiopia |
|
|
.. |
|
1981-82 |
46.0 |
89.0 |
Niger |
|
|
.. |
|
1992 |
61.5 |
92.0 |
Uganda |
|
|
.. |
|
1989-90 |
69.3 |
92.2 |
Madagascar |
|
|
.. |
|
1993 |
72.3 |
93.2 |
Guinea-Bissau |
|
|
.. |
|
1991 |
88.2 |
96.7 |
Zambia |
1993 |
|
86.0 |
|
1993 |
84.6 |
98.1 |
Peru |
1991 |
|
54.0 |
|
|
.. |
.. |
While... «New estimates show that the world's 225
richest people have a combined wealth of over USD 1
trillion, equal to the annual income of the poorest 47%
of the world's people (2.5 billion).»
PNUD. Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano, 1998.
Table 8.
Income
concentration in the world
|
Countries |
Previous year |
Gini Index |
Last available year |
Gini Index |
Algeria |
1988 |
38.73 |
1995 a,b |
35.3 |
Argentina |
1989 |
47.59 |
|
|
Armenia |
1989 |
39.39 |
|
.. |
Australia |
1989 c,d |
33.7 |
1990 |
41.72 |
Austria |
1987 c,d |
23.1 |
|
|
Bahamas |
1993 |
45.29 |
|
|
Bangladesh |
1992 |
28.27 |
|
|
Belarus |
1993 c,d |
21.6 |
1995 |
28.53 |
Belgium |
1992 c,d |
25 |
|
|
Bolivia |
1990 |
42.04 |
|
|
Botswana |
1986 |
54.21 |
|
.. |
Brazil |
1989 |
63.42 |
1995 c,d |
60.1 |
Bulgaria |
1992 c,d |
30.8 |
1993 |
34.42 |
Canada |
1991 |
27.65 |
1994 c,d |
31.5 |
Central African Rep. |
1992 |
55 |
|
.. |
Chile |
1994 |
56.49 |
|
|
China |
1992 |
37.6 |
1995 c,d |
41.5 |
Colombia |
1991 |
51.32 |
1995 c,d |
57.2 |
Korea, Rep. of |
1988 |
33.64 |
|
.. |
Costa Rica |
1989 |
46.07 |
1996 c,d |
47 |
Côte d'Ivoire |
1988 |
36.9 |
|
|
Czech Rep. |
1993 c,d |
26.6 |
1994 |
28.26 |
Denmark |
1992 c,d |
24.7 |
|
|
Dominican Rep. |
1989 c,d |
50.5 |
1992 |
49 |
Ecuador |
1994 a,b |
46.6 |
|
|
Egypt |
1991 |
32 |
|
|
El Salvador |
1990 |
44.77 |
1995 c,d |
49.9 |
Estonia |
1993 c,d |
39.5 |
1995 |
36.63 |
Finland |
1991 c,d |
25.6 |
|
|
France |
1989 c,d |
32.7 |
|
|
Germany |
1989 c,d |
28.1 |
|
|
Ghana |
1992 |
33.91 |
|
|
Greece |
1988 |
35.19 |
|
.. |
Guatemala |
1989 |
59.6 |
|
|
Guinea |
1991 |
46.84 |
|
|
Guinea-Bissau |
1991 |
56.2 |
|
|
Guyana |
1993 |
40.22 |
|
|
Honduras |
1993 |
54 |
1996 c,d |
53.7 |
Hong Kong |
1991 |
45 |
|
|
Hungary |
1993 |
27.94 |
|
|
India |
1992 |
32.02 |
1994 a,b |
29.7 |
Indonesia |
1993 |
31.69 |
1995 a,b |
34.2 |
Ireland |
1987 c,d |
35.9 |
|
|
Israel |
1992 c,d |
35.5 |
|
|
Italy |
1991 |
32.19 |
|
|
Jamaica |
1991 |
41.1 |
|
|
Japan |
1990 |
35 |
|
.. |
Jordan |
1991 a,b |
43.4 |
|
|
Kazakstan |
1993 |
32.67 |
|
|
Kenya |
1992 a,b |
57.5 |
|
|
Kyrgyzstan |
1993 |
35.32 |
|
|
Lao People’s Dem. Rep. |
1992 |
30.4 |
|
|
Latvia |
1993 |
26.98 |
|
|
Lesotho |
1987 |
56.02 |
|
|
Lithuania |
1993 |
33.64 |
|
|
Luxembourg |
1985 |
27.13 |
1991 c,d |
26.9 |
Madagascar |
1993 |
43.44 |
|
|
Malaysia |
1989 |
48.35 |
|
|
Malawi |
1985 |
59.9 |
|
.. |
Mauritania |
1988 a,b |
42.4 |
|
|
Mauritius |
1991 |
36.89 |
1995 |
36.69 |
Mexico |
1992 |
50.31 |
|
|
Moldova, Rep. of |
1992 |
34.43 |
|
|
Mongolia |
1995 a,b |
33.2 |
|
|
Morocco |
1991 |
39.2 |
|
|
Nepal |
1995-96 a,b |
36.7 |
|
|
Netherlands |
1991 c,d |
31.5 |
|
|
New Zealand |
1990 |
40.21 |
|
|
Nicaragua |
1993 |
50.32 |
|
|
Niger |
1992 |
36.1 |
|
|
Nigeria |
1992-93 a,b |
45 |
|
|
Norway |
1991 c,d |
25.2 |
|
|
Pakistan |
1991 a,b |
31.2 |
|
|
Panama |
1989 |
56.57 |
1991 c,d |
56.8 |
Papua New Guinea |
1996 a,b |
50.9 |
|
|
Paraguay |
1990 |
39.8 |
1995 c,d |
59.1 |
Peru |
1994 |
44.87 |
|
|
Philippines |
1991 |
45 |
1994 a,b |
42.9 |
Poland |
1992 a,b |
27.2 |
1993 |
33.06 |
Portugal |
1991 |
35.63 |
|
|
Puerto Rico |
1989 |
50.86 |
|
.. |
Romania |
1992 c,d |
25.5 |
1994 |
28.66 |
Russian Federation |
1993 c,d |
31 |
|
|
Rwanda |
1983-85 a,b |
28.9 |
|
|
Senegal |
1991 |
54.12 |
|
|
Sierra Leone |
1989 a,b |
62.9 |
|
|
Slovakia |
1992 c,d |
19.5 |
|
|
Slovenia |
1993 c,d |
29.2 |
|
|
Singapore |
1989 |
39 |
|
|
Spain |
1989 |
25.91 |
1990 c,d |
32.5 |
Sri Lanka |
1990 |
30.1 |
|
|
South Africa |
1993 a,b |
58.4 |
|
|
Sweden |
1992 c,d |
25 |
|
|
Thailand |
1992 a,b |
46.2 |
|
|
Taiwan |
1993 |
30.78 |
|
|
Tanzania |
1993 |
38.1 |
|
|
Tunisia |
1990 |
40.24 |
|
|
Turkmenistan |
1993 |
35.76 |
|
|
Turkey |
1987 |
44.09 |
|
|
Ukraine |
1992 |
25.71 |
|
|
Uganda |
1992 |
40.78 |
|
|
United Kingdom |
1986 c,d |
32.6 |
1991 |
32.4 |
United States |
1994 c,d |
40.1 |
|
|
Uruguay |
1989 |
42.36 |
|
.. |
Venezuela |
1990 |
53.84 |
1995 c,d |
46.8 |
Viet Nam |
1992 |
35.71 |
1993 a,b |
35.7 |
Yemen |
1992 a,b |
39.5 |
|
|
Yugoslavia |
1990 |
31.88 |
|
.. |
Zambia |
1991 |
43.51 |
1993 a,b |
46.2 |
Zimbabwe |
1990 |
56.83 |
1990 a,b |
56.8 |
a. Refers to expenditure shares by percentiles of
population.
b. Ranked by per capita expenditure.
c. Refers to income shares by percentiles of population.
d. Ranked by per capita income.
Notes
1 Data
for 1990-1997, UNDP, 1998.
2
Richard Newfarme, World Bank expert, cited in The
Business Times, Bangkok, October 30th, 1998.
3
Londoño, Luis. Poverty, inequality and human capital
development in Latin America, 1950-2025. World Bank
Latin American and Caribbean Study. 1996, p.35.
4 In Implementing
the 20/20 Initiative: Achieving universal access to basic
social services. A joint publication of UNDP, UNESCO,
UNFPA, UNICEF, WHO and the World Bank, September 1998.
5 For
1990, data was accepted from 1988 and 1989.
6
These countries are: Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Kenya,
Namibia, Central African Republic, South Africa,
Tanzania, Bhutan, Nepal, Algeria, Tajikistan, Cuba and
Honduras.
7
Particularly the «papers» prepared for the Workshop on
Knowledge Networking for Poverty Reduction, United
Nations Development Programme, New York, September 11-12,
1997. These are: Paul R. Gregory, Macroeconomics
policy, structural factors and poverty: The Russian and
Ukrainian transitions; Jean Luc Dubois: Comparisons
of national poverty reduction strategies: Cameroon,
Ethiopia, Mali, Senegal; Comparative poverty
reduction strategies in sub-Saharan African countries:
The case of Ghana, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe;
Larbi Jaidi: Strategies nationales de reduction de la
pauvrete: Egypte, Tunisie, Maroc; Marc Raffinot: Etude
comparative des strategies nationales de reduction de la
pauvrete: Côte d'Ivoire, Benin, Burkina Faso, Madagascar;
Richard Pomfret: A comparative study of national
poverty reduction strategies: Uzbekistan, Kazakstan,
Kyrgyz Republic; Irena Topinska: Transition to the
market and poverty alleviation strategies: Bulgaria,
Hungary, Poland, Romania. A Case Study for the UNDP
Project GLO/96/510, University of Warsaw, Department of
Economics, September 1997; Diana Alarcon: National
poverty reduction strategies of Chile, Costa Rica and
Mexico: Summary and findings; A.R.Khan: A
comparative analysis of poverty reduction strategies in
selected Asian countries. Also: Poverty
alleviation and macroeconomic policies: Lessons from past
experience, ILO, 1997.
8 World Bank
Latin American and Caribbean Studies. Viewpoints, 1998.
9
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Stephens, E.H., & Stephens,
John D. Capitalist Development and Democracy.
Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992.
10
In: Implementing the 20/20 Initiative, op.cit.
p.21
11
Denmark introduced the new system of national accounts,
ENS95, in 1997, which led to an upward revision of GNP.
This, combined with other technical factors, caused a
downward adjustment of the final Danish ODA/GNP ratio to
0.97 in 1997.
12
Rodriguez, F.C. Evaluation of Poverty Alleviation
Programmes: The Lessons Learned. Draft document for
the Network of Knowledge for the Reduction of Poverty,
New York, SEPED/UNDP, 1998.
|