The New Face of Poverty: How Has the Composition of Poverty in Low Income and Lower Middle-Income Countries (excluding China) Changed Since the 1990s?

To what extent do education, health and nutrition poverty rates differ by the spatial and social characteristics of households? And how has the composition of education, health and nutrition poverty changed since the 1990s in terms of the spatial and social characteristics of households? This paper provides an analysis of education, health and nutrition poverty in low-income countries (LICs) and lower middle-income countries (LMICs) by geography, education, employment and ethnicity characteristics of the household head based on the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) from countries with surveys in both the 1990s and 2000s. It should be noted at the outset that such an aggregated attempt to assess the changing pattern of poverty across low and lower middle-income countries would be best viewed as an indicative ‘sketch’ of changing patterns of poverty.

The data suggests that the composition of education, health and nutrition poverty –by the indicators chosen in this paper– has changed somewhat since the 1990s in terms of the spatial and social characteristics of households. This can be presented as a set of five ‘stylised facts’ on poverty as follows:

• I. 

  More than three-quarters of education, health and nutrition poverty in LICs and LMICs (combined) is to be found in rural areas. However, an increasing proportion of education, health and nutrition poverty is in urban areas.

• II. 

  Half of the education, health and nutrition poverty in LICs and LMICs (combined) is concentrated in those households where the head has ‘no education’. However, this share has fallen since the 1990s.

• III. 

  A third of the education, health and nutrition poverty in LICs and LMICs (combined) is focused in the poorest wealth quintile (by DHS Wealth Index). And this share is increasing.

• IV. 

  A third of the education, health and nutrition poverty in LICs and LMICs (combined) is concentrated among those in households where the head is ‘not in work’ and a further third where the household head is working in agriculture.

• V. 

  Two-thirds of the education, health and nutrition poverty in LICs and LMICs (combined) is to be found among those households where the head is the member of an ‘ethnic minority group’ (meaning an ethnic group which is not the largest ethnic group). However, this finding should be viewed as tentative due to data constraints.

Further, the composition of education, health and nutrition poverty differs between LICs and LMICs quite notably. The poor in LMICs – by the indicators used – are more urban and more educated than in LICs. Indeed, there are indications of marked differences in poverty profiles.