全球贫困:从历史角度回顾贫困的衡量、水平和趋势

IF 5.9 2区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
M. Moatsos
{"title":"全球贫困:从历史角度回顾贫困的衡量、水平和趋势","authors":"M. Moatsos","doi":"10.1111/joes.12644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Global poverty both in terms of conceptualization and measurement has been the point of a long‐standing debate for at least the last 20 years. The debate mostly evolves around the appropriateness of the dominant dollar‐a‐day approach—conceptualized and popularized by the World Bank since the early 1990s—and the quest for (better) alternatives. The most prominent alternatives are the cost of basic needs method and the capabilities/multidimensional. However, the later lacks medium and long run global reach due to data limitations. In addition, global poverty estimates across the literature resist meaningful direct comparison due to the substantial methodological differences between each attempt, even using the same broad methodological framework. More welfare demanding definitions of cost of basic needs implementation, building upon the EAT‐Lancet healthy reference diet, indicate that global poverty has reduced at a much lower rate, and its estimates diverge at an increasing rate from the dollar‐a‐day definition of extreme poverty. This review compares the two main approaches on the definition and measurement of global poverty and contrasts available results with a focus in the long run implementations.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Global poverty: A Review of Measurement, Levels, and Trends in a Historical Perspective\",\"authors\":\"M. Moatsos\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/joes.12644\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Global poverty both in terms of conceptualization and measurement has been the point of a long‐standing debate for at least the last 20 years. The debate mostly evolves around the appropriateness of the dominant dollar‐a‐day approach—conceptualized and popularized by the World Bank since the early 1990s—and the quest for (better) alternatives. The most prominent alternatives are the cost of basic needs method and the capabilities/multidimensional. However, the later lacks medium and long run global reach due to data limitations. In addition, global poverty estimates across the literature resist meaningful direct comparison due to the substantial methodological differences between each attempt, even using the same broad methodological framework. More welfare demanding definitions of cost of basic needs implementation, building upon the EAT‐Lancet healthy reference diet, indicate that global poverty has reduced at a much lower rate, and its estimates diverge at an increasing rate from the dollar‐a‐day definition of extreme poverty. This review compares the two main approaches on the definition and measurement of global poverty and contrasts available results with a focus in the long run implementations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51374,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Economic Surveys\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Economic Surveys\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12644\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Surveys","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12644","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

至少在过去的 20 年里,全球贫困的概念和衡量标准一直是长期争论的焦点。争论的焦点主要是世界银行自 20 世纪 90 年代初提出并推广的 "每日一美元 "方法是否合适,以及寻求(更好的)替代方法。最突出的替代方法是基本需求成本法和能力/多维法。然而,由于数据的限制,后一种方法缺乏中长期的全球影响力。此外,由于每种方法之间存在巨大差异,即使使用相同的广泛方法框架,文献中的全球贫困估算也无法进行有意义的直接比较。以 EAT-Lancet 健康参考膳食为基础,对基本需求实施成本的福利要求更高的定义表明,全球贫困人口减少的速度要低得多,而且其估算值与每天一美元的极端贫困定义的偏差越来越大。本综述对全球贫困定义和衡量的两种主要方法进行了比较,并以长期实施为重点,对现有结果进行了对比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Global poverty: A Review of Measurement, Levels, and Trends in a Historical Perspective
Global poverty both in terms of conceptualization and measurement has been the point of a long‐standing debate for at least the last 20 years. The debate mostly evolves around the appropriateness of the dominant dollar‐a‐day approach—conceptualized and popularized by the World Bank since the early 1990s—and the quest for (better) alternatives. The most prominent alternatives are the cost of basic needs method and the capabilities/multidimensional. However, the later lacks medium and long run global reach due to data limitations. In addition, global poverty estimates across the literature resist meaningful direct comparison due to the substantial methodological differences between each attempt, even using the same broad methodological framework. More welfare demanding definitions of cost of basic needs implementation, building upon the EAT‐Lancet healthy reference diet, indicate that global poverty has reduced at a much lower rate, and its estimates diverge at an increasing rate from the dollar‐a‐day definition of extreme poverty. This review compares the two main approaches on the definition and measurement of global poverty and contrasts available results with a focus in the long run implementations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: As economics becomes increasingly specialized, communication amongst economists becomes even more important. The Journal of Economic Surveys seeks to improve the communication of new ideas. It provides a means by which economists can keep abreast of recent developments beyond their immediate specialization. Areas covered include: - economics - econometrics - economic history - business economics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信