Guyana the wider world by Dr Clive Thomas
Stabroek News
April 15, 2001

In our search for answers as to what the statistics on global poverty represent, we examined last week a number of technical weaknesses, which beset its measurement. These weaknesses have cast doubt on the realism of the figures referred to in the global debates. The crux of the matter seems to be that several institutions and individuals engaged in the poverty debates find the poverty lines commonly used by the World Bank, of US$1 and US$2 per day, to be both arbitrary and low. If low, then the magnitude of global poverty will be larger than that already indicated in this series, which is 2.8 billion persons living on less than US$2 per day, and 1.2 billion persons living on less than US$1 per day out of a total global population of 6 billion persons.

Conceptual
The other class of weaknesses, which we shall consider this week, is more conceptual in nature. It is also, in many ways, more fundamental, in that this class of weaknesses stems from the challenge to the concept of poverty as embodied in the various headcount measures we have considered. If one reflects on it, the headcount measures of absolute and critical poverty presented so far are measurements of outcomes, or what has occurred. Poverty, however, is more than an outcome. It embodies a process of impoverishment. Further, it also has real causes and origins to it. Clearly, unless its causes are understood, and the processes of becoming and remaining poor are also carefully observed, it would be impossible to find effective solutions to global poverty on the scale we have identified.

Objective/subjective
The fact that the most widely used measures of poverty focus on outcomes is indeed a very grave limitation to the way the concept is employed. Its gravity is sometimes masked by the beguiling appeal of using numbers and quantitative data derived from an objective household survey. Indeed these measures are frequently referred to in the literature as objective measures of poverty, and ipso facto superior to subjective measures. Subjective measures of poverty, however, are vitally important, as they tell us how persons in society perceive poverty. Given also, that most persons act on their perceptions of social reality, such measures have a very strong impact in shaping day to day practice. An example from Guyana will illustrate. The 1999 Guyana Survey of Living Conditions that I referred to had indicated an absolute poverty level of 36 per cent and a critical poverty level of 19 per cent. These estimates showed a significant Aobjective@ improvement compared to 1992/93, when the respective figures were 43 and 28 per cent. However, a survey conducted by the St Augustine Research Associates, UWI in September of 2000 found that, contrary to the objective data, 60 percent of the Guyanese surveyed believed that poverty had worsened since 1992 and 12 per cent found it to be the same! Such paradoxes are not unique to Guyana. They occur in many countries and offer support to the view that the World Bank global poverty lines of US$1 and US$2 are low and measures no more than the basic physiological survival of the individual.

Private/public
A further concern is that the survey data gathered for the global statistics are based on household analysis of private consumption and income. These data, by definition, ignore the important roles played by public and community provision of goods and services, especially such items like health, education, nutrition and housing. In other words the household based poverty measures focus on private and not public income. Similarly, we should note that household surveys also by definition focus on households. Yet in most countries, including Guyana, a significant percentage of the poor live outside households. This category would include the homeless and indigent as well as those living in institutions for the poor. This marginalised population is deliberately excluded from household surveys.

Household surveys because they occur at a particular point in time, only provide a snapshot or cross-sectional view of poverty at the time of the survey. They do not measure the process of impoverishment longitudinally or time-wise, although a series of annual surveys may allow annual comparisons. This is a situation of comparative statics. The household approach to measuring poverty also focuses on the household as a discrete unit. It does not in any way seek to analyse the internal workings of the household and the effect this has on poverty within the household. Those familiar with the unequal control of resources and decision-making exercised in households, especially as between women, children, and men; close and distinct relatives; foster children and natural children; single and double-headed households; and so on, can imagine how much is left unsaid in the global head-count statistics of poverty.

Process
If the weaknesses noted above were taken on board, and we were to consider poverty as a process, then a broad number of co-determinants in this process would have to be brought together in the presentation of data on poverty. Thus we know for example, that in poor countries, or for that matter poor people everywhere, are typically found in low-wage, low-skilled, low-productivity jobs or self-employment. A lot of this activity can be classified as Ainformal@. The key aspects of this type of labour however, is that it is low paying and very insecure. As a result, households dependent on persons in this category are unable to secure sustainable livelihoods. We can also observe that another key determinant of poverty in a household is whether adult members are unemployed.

Other features
To these we could add other process categories. Thus, on a global basis, and for that matter in all individual countries, the adult poor are likely to be lacking in education, training and skills, or what is called, human capital. This limits the employment/self-employment potential of such persons. Typically also, those who are poor are likely to be marginalized not only in their ability to enter the labour market, but in their ability to acquire productive capital. This is seen in their lack of adequate access to land, finance/credit, public overheads e.g., roads and irrigation, and knowledge of markets. Poor households are also typically larger than average, with more children as well. Very often such households cluster into whole communities or regions of poverty. In these situations poverty persists and the reproduction of poverty becomes a process-driven and not just an ordinary outcome.

Next week we shall conclude this aspect of our discussion by commenting on some of the causes and origins of global poverty. We shall indicate as well, a broader more relevant way of characterizing poverty than the almost exclusive reliance on the head-count measures, which are now currently employed.