Syndicate content

Add new comment

Submitted by Andy Sumner on
Dear Shaida, good points - ones I have made myself since the very first paper on this matter and in the World Development article recently. Interestingly, if you remove India and China (respectively a third and about 15% of world poverty in Povcal data) one is left with world poverty split evenly between LICs and other MICs. However, of course nothing suddenly happens when a country crosses a line - a point I've made on numerous occasions but the World Bank does treat countries quite differently on that basis - and yet that seems surprising - so why is that? (btw when I calculated it for the UN Least Developed Countries - which does have a more conceptual basis - are 25% of world poverty). Lest we forget - MICs do have higher average incomes than LICs and they are less poor in some senses. There are presumably more resources for poverty reduction as a result of higher per capita incomes. One important question I think is looking closely at why so many countries are attaining much higher per capita incomes whilst retaining structural characteristics of very poor nations. And on the new thresholds/categories - if you didn't catch my comment on Martin's blog the paper below may be of interest which suggests development isn't linear and there are five clusters of quite different developing countries with different challenges faced: www.ids.ac.uk/idspublication/beyond-low-and-middle-income-countries-what-if-there-were-five-clusters-of-developing-countries Happy to continue discussing and help in any way if I can. Andy Sumner King's College London