Causes of Poverty in Africa

Africa has the richest natural resources and yet we are poor and stagnant in development. Poverty is defined by the dictionary as “The state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support”. This is an extremely vague definition and covers Poverty as a whole, although this speech will elaborate on the details of the causes of poverty in Africa. 

What causes poverty? There are many reasons why this would occur, the most prevalent of these being corruption, and lack of resources in the region. Corruption occurs in Africa when the governments do not use money responsibly and instead use it for themselves. Corruption destroys trust between the government and its people in ensuring that money is used responsibly.

Despite all the wealthy resources in its possession, Africa is the world's poorest continent.

Poverty in Africa is caused by a number of factors. The leading causes are corruption and poor governance, limited employment opportunities, poor infrastructure, poor resource usage, wars and unending conflicts, poor World Bank and IMF policies, among others.

CORRUPTION AND POOR GOVERNANCE (coupled with dictatorial regimes). Poverty can only be fought in the presence of strong institutions, and equitable distribution of resources. This requires a non-corrupt government. However, in Africa, programs designed to fight poverty are not fully implemented because the funds end up in the hands of corrupt individuals, who pocket the majority. And because of poor governance, those in authority have failed to apprehend the corrupt. This creates an imbalance in society and leads to more poverty because you end up with a few influential and powerful individuals oppressing the poor (who are the majority).

POOR LAND UTILIZATION. In most African countries, people own large chunks of land that are underutilized or sometimes not even used at all. This is partly because they are either not educated on what to do with the land, or because some people are just stuck in their rudimentary ways of doing things. Some people just use the land to grow crops which are just enough for subsistence survival. Nothing goes to the market for sale.

CIVILS WARS AND UNENDING POLITICAL CONFLICTS. Africa is popular for its civil wars, either between neighboring countries or within the same country. Such incidences render war zones unproductive, in addition to scaring away investment that would otherwise help foster economic development and create employment, which would help people get out poverty.

POOR INFRASTRUCTURE. Africa has a very poor infrastructure set up. They have poor roads, railways, water systems, etc, yet these are some of the major drivers of economic development. As a result, only a few areas with better facilities (such as urban areas) have developed over the other (rural) areas, which are occupied by the largest percentage of the population.

DISEASES AND POOR HEALTH FACILITIES. Another leading cause of poverty in Africa is the prevalence of diseases (such as malaria, HIV/AIDS, TB etc). When a household is affected by any of the diseases, the little resources are spent on treating the sick. In a worst case scenario where the bread winner dies, those who are left behind have no resources to support themselves, thus leading a poor lifestyle. And the situation is worsened by poor health facilities.

THE WORLD BANK AND IMF POLICIES. The loans given out by the World Bank and IMF (the International Monetary Fund) have contributed to the poverty problem in Africa. Such loans come with strict conditions, which usually required governments to adjust some of their economic decisions. For instance, the requirement to reduce total government spending has affected major social sectors such as education, health and infrastructure, which are drivers of economic development.

Facts of Poverty in Africa

Poverty is the principal cause of hunger in Africa and elsewhere.  Simply put, people do not have sufficient income to purchase enough food. Conflict and drought, for example, are certainly important causes of hunger, but the most typical situation is that people just do not have enough income to purchase the food that they need—they could be starving in some slum somewhere, for example.  As noted above, in 2008, 47 percent of the population of sub-Saharan Africa lived on $1.25 a day or less, a principal factor in causing widespread hunger.

Harmful economic systems

Hunger Notes believes that the principal underlying cause of poverty and thus hunger in Africa and elsewhere is the ordinary operation of the world's economic and political systems. Essentially control over resources and income is based on military, political and economic power that typically ends up in the hands of a minority, who live well, while those at the bottom barely survive. We have described the operation of this system in more detail in our special section on Harmful economic systems.  The role that harmful economic systems play cannot be demonstrated briefly and should not be taken as confirmed truth by students, who should nevertheless consider it seriously. Controlling the government and other sources of power and income is a fundamental way of obtaining income.  Freedom in the World is an annual index that measures the degree that people have political rights and civil liberties.One way that those in positions of power obtain income is through corruption.  The 2011 map of perceived corruption worldwide done by Transparency International (2011) shows that many sub-Saharan African nations are viewed as corrupt.

Conflict

2011 saw suffering on an epic scale. For so many lives to have been thrown into turmoil over so short a space of time means enormous personal cost for all who were affected. We can be grateful only that the international system for protecting such people held firm for the most part and that borders were kept open. –Antonio Guterres, UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR 2012)

Conflict is a principal source of human misery, including poverty and hunger. Poverty rates are 20 percentage points higher in countries affected by repeated cycles of violence over the last three decades. Every year of violence in a country is associated with lagging poverty reduction of nearly one percentage point. People living in countries currently affected by violence are twice as likely to be undernourished and 50 percent more likely to be impoverished. Their children are three times as likely to be out of school .  Countries with serious human rights abuses or weak government effectiveness, rule of law, and control of corruption have a 30 - 45 percent higher risk of civil war, and significantly higher risk of extreme criminal violence than other developing countries (World Bank 2011b).

The threat of death and serious injury resulting from conflict can result in such a desperate situation that people leave their homes. This is in spite of the fact that this requires leaving nearly everything behind:  house and land, sources of income, and most possessions,  becoming uprooted from the place where you have lived (which was home and loved), to go--typically a journey of great danger--in search of a better alternative, which is usually a very bare bones refugee camp or other marginal situation. Africa had an estimated 13.5 million refugees and internally displaced persons in 2011.

Environment

 Africa faces serious environmental challenges, including erosion, desertification, deforestation, and most importantly drought and water shortages, which have increased poverty and hunger by reducing agricultural production and people's incomes.  Many of these challenges have been caused by humans; the environment can be said to be overexploited.  Deforestation, for example, has been caused by humans seeking new places to live, farm, or obtain firewood.  Drought, water shortage and desertification in Africa have been caused to some extent by global warming, which has mostly been caused by the effects of human energy use outside of Africa.

Population growth 

Africa's population has been increasing rapidly, growing from  221 million in 1950 to 1 billion in 2009.  Africa, the world's poorest continent, has the highest population growth rate. A woman in sub-Saharan Africa will give birth to an average of 5.2 children in her lifetime (Guardian 2011). This rapid growth, along with other negative factors such as harmful economic systems, conflict and  deterioration in the environment,  has limited growth in per capita income, causing poverty and hunger.

Lack of drinking water in Africa

The lack of water is an often insurmountable obstacle to helping oneself. You can't grow food, you can't build housing, you can't stay healthy, you can't stay in school and you can't keep working.

Without clean water, the possibility of breaking out of the cycle of poverty is incredibly slim.

With unclean water sources often miles from villages, many of the able bodied members of a community are forced to spend hours each day simply finding and transporting water. The typical container used for water collection in Africa, the jerry can, weighs over 40 pounds when it's completely full.

Imagine how demanding it would be to carry the equivalent of a 5-year old child for three hours every day. And some women carry even more, up to 70 pounds in a barrel carried on the back. That's like carrying a baby hippo.

Increase in Poverty in Africa

Poor people are poor because markets fail them and governments fail them.  That markets fail them is well-known.  Failures in capital markets mean that young people cannot get loans to finance their education; imperfect or nonexistent insurance markets mean that poor people will not get decent health care if left to unfettered markets; economies of scale as well as the simple fact that basic services such as water are necessities mean that markets will not ensure that poor people will get the services they need to survive.  As Roy Radner, a former professor of mine once put it, “When you allocate resources by market prices, you discriminate against poor people.”

To overcome these failures—that is, to protect the poor—governments step in.  They finance and provide primary education and basic health care; they subsidize water and electricity so poor people can afford these services.  Unfortunately, these well-intentioned government interventions lead to failures of their own.  In Ugandan public schools, teachers are absent 27 percent of the time; health workers in primary health centers are absent 37 percent of the time.  Only one percent of the money allocated to non-salary spending in Chad reached the health clinics.  These “government failures” are sometimes as pernicious as the market failures they were intended to correct.  They are also difficult to overcome because various interest groups who benefit from the status quo may resist reform. 

One way to overcome them may be to create a debate around these failures, to amplify the voices of the poor, so that political leaders will listen to them. Today is Blog Action Day 2008, and the topic that bloggers worldwide are writing about is “Poverty.”  Let us hope this global movement, that is based on information-sharing, debate and discussion, will eventually help overcome both market and government failures so that poor people around the world can escape poverty. 

Hunger in Africa

Despite its natural resources, Africa is the world’s poorest continent, and every third African does not have enough food.

Many African countries are affected by a precipitation change with alternating floods and recurring droughts; especially in northern and southern Africa the rain does not fall in the way it used to, and the crops do not grow the way they used to. Climate changes continually make it more and more difficult to feed the continent’s 900 million inhabitants.

Throughout the 1990 s AIDS became Africa’s most severe hindrance to development. In some countries, nearly half of the citizens of working age were infected, and it threatened all positive social development.

After a 30 year long fight against the disease, in many countries the number of people who become infected is now dropping; nevertheless, information about modes of transmission and protection is still needed. Women still do not have authority over their own lives and millions of people who live with HIV in their bodies do not have access to the life-sustaining ARV medication.

These years, several African governments are making it gradually more difficult for the NGOs to do their job by introducing new laws that forbid NGOs to inform people about their rights. On the entire continent, corruption is a significant problem, the system of justice is not impartial, and oppression and assaults on women are widespread.

The majority of the world’s civil wars take place on the African continent. But when the wars are over, landmines and unexploded ammunition are left behind and make it extremely dangerous to move about, and the consequent fear of cultivating the land prevents tens of thousands from taking the first steps to creating a sustainable future for themselves and their children.

Poverty in Northern Africa

As elsewhere on the continent, poverty in Northern Africa is concentrated in rural areas. The percentage of rural poor people living below the national poverty line varies dramatically, from 6 per cent in Tunisia to 90 per cent in Somalia and 87 per cent in the Sudan. Rural poor people constitute about one third of Tunisia’s poor population and about three fourths of Somalia’s poor. Beginning in the late 1980 s, countries such as Egypt and Tunisia undertook structural adjustments with the aim of reducing poverty.

Rural poverty in the region has its roots in limited availability of good arable land and water, and the impact of droughts and floods. Political conflict has disrupted agriculture and aggravated poverty in countries such as Somalia and the Sudan. Among the obstacles to reducing rural poverty in Northern Africa are poor transport and social infrastructure, high rates of illiteracy (especially among women), weak local institutions, poor integration with the national economy, and the migration of rural youth to urban areas.

In Northern African countries in general, rural poor people have very little political influence. This is especially true of women. The rural population is poorly organized and often lives in isolated zones, beyond the reach of social safety nets and poverty programmes. Government policies and investments in the region tend to favour urban over rural areas.

Poverty in Eastern and Southern Africa

Rural poverty is deepening in Eastern and Southern Africa, where most of the region’s 130 million poor people live in rural areas. Ten of the 21 countries in the region have an average annual per capita income of less than US$400.

The progress of national and rural development is slow. Development assistance to agriculture has declined. This has a negative impact on smallholder farming, the basic source of livelihood for the rural poor. In general, agricultural productivity per worker is stagnating or decreasing.

More than 85 per cent of the rural poor live on land that has medium to high potential for increased productivity. The poorest people live in the desert or on semi-arid land that makes up almost 40 per cent of the land base of this part of Africa.

Poverty in Western and Middle Africa

Three fourths of poor people in Western and Middle Africa — an estimated 90 million people — live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. One in five lives in a country affected by warfare. In conflict-torn countries such as Angola, Burundi, Mozambique and Uganda, the capacity of rural people to make a livelihood has been dramatically curtailed by warfare, and per capita food production has plummeted.

Land degradation, a consequence of extensive agriculture, deforestation and overgrazing, has reached alarming levels and further threatens livelihoods. The poorest people live in isolated zones, deprived of the social safety nets and poverty reduction programmes available in semi-urban and urban areas.

The incidence of HIV/AIDS in Western and Middle Africa is generally lower than that of Eastern and Southern Africa, but the epidemic could spread dramatically if it is not combated vigorously.

Rural Poverty in Africa

Africa is the world's second largest continent after Asia. It has a total surface area of 30.3 million km², including several islands, and an estimated total population of 888 million (2005, UN). The vast Sahara Desert, covering an area greater than that of the continental United States, divides Northern Africa from Sub-Saharan Africa.

Poverty in Africa is predominantly rural. More than 70 per cent of the continent’s poor people live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for food and livelihood, yet development assistance to agriculture is decreasing. In Sub-Saharan Africa, more than 218 million people live in extreme poverty. Among them are rural poor people in Eastern and Southern Africa, an area that has one of the world’s highest concentrations of poor people. The incidence of poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa is increasing faster than the population. Overall, the pace of poverty reduction in most of Africa has slowed since the 1970s.

Rural poverty in many areas of Africa has its roots in the colonial system and the policy and institutional restraints that it imposed on poor people. In recent decades, economic policies and institutional structures have been modified to close the income gap. Structural adjustments have dismantled existing rural systems, but have not always built new ones. In many transitional economies, the rural situation is marked by continuing stagnation, poor production, low incomes and the rising vulnerability of poor people. Lack of access to markets is a problem for many small-scale enterprises in Africa. The rural population is poorly organized and often isolated, beyond the reach of social safety nets and poverty programmes. Increasingly, government policies and investments in poverty reduction tend to favour urban over rural areas.

HIV/AIDS is changing the profile of rural poverty in Africa. It puts an unbearable strain on poor rural households, where labour is the primary income-earning asset. About two thirds of the 34 million people in the world with HIV/AIDS live on the African continent.

Geographical Breakdown in United Kingdom

London is by far the richest part of Britain and the engine of the national economy. Yet it also has the highest poverty rates. Although the poorest places in the capital are still in the eastern part of the city, there has been a significant increase of deprivation in the outer London boroughs. Poverty has gone down in the center of London while it has increased in the suburbs.

This reflects what’s happening in major US cities, where a Brookings Institute report found suburbs were home to the largest and fastest-growing poor population in the country (source).

Total Poverty Rate in United Kingdom

In the UK, a household is in poverty if its income after tax is below 60% of the national median (a relative measure therefore). Usually, housing costs and housing benefits are deducted from income in order to calculate the poverty rate (source). Income is also adjusted for household size and composition because two people need a larger income than one person to enjoy the same standard of living (however, the adjustment is not simply a multiplication: two people do not need twice as much).

According to this measure, 22% of the UK population lived in poverty in 2009/2010:

The recent recession has had an impact: the real income of the median (pdf) non-retired household was in 2013 6.5% below its 2006-07 level.

In order to put UK poverty into an international perspective, consider this factoid: if income in India were distributed completely equally, the entire Indian nation would still be living on less than half the UK poverty line.

Income Inequalities in United Kingdom

• As it is measured in relation to median income, income poverty can be viewed as being about inequality in the lower half of the income distribution only.  In looking at what has happened to the whole of the income distribution, this indicator is therefore moving beyond poverty to look at income inequality more widely.  Income inequality can be analysed in a variety of ways, and the analyse included here covers:
  • Changes in income over time across the income distribution.
  • Shares of total income across the income distribution.
  • Ratios of the incomes between the top, middle and bottom.
  • Gini coefficient: a measure of overall income inequality.
• The overall message from these various analyses is simple: income inequalities have been increasing, both recently and over longer time periods.  These inequalities have been increasing at both ends of the spectrum.  In other words, the poorest have fallen further behind the average, and the richest have moved further ahead.
• Over the last decade, the poorest tenth of the population have, on average, seen a fall in their 'real' 1 incomes after deducting housing costs.  In other words, after adjusting for inflation, their incomes are, on average, slightly lower than a decade ago.  This is in sharp contrast with the rest of the income distribution, which, on average, has seen substantial rises in their real incomes.
• The richest tenth of the population have seen much bigger proportional rises in their incomes than any other group.
• Except for those in the top and bottom tenths of the income distribution, households with below-average incomes have, on average, enjoyed bigger proportional increases over the last decade than households with above-average incomes.
• In absolute (as opposed to proportional) terms, the vast majority (four-fifths) of the extra money has gone to those with above- average incomes and half of this (i.e. two-fifths of the total) has gone to those in the richest tenth.
• The poorest tenth of the population now have, between them, 1.3% of the country's total income and the second poorest tenth have 4%.  In contrast, the richest tenth have 31% and the second richest tenth have 15%.  The income of the richest tenth is more than the income of all those on below-average incomes (i.e. the bottom five tenths) combined.
• The proportion of total income going to the richest tenth is noticeably higher than a decade ago: 31% in 2008/09 compared with 28% in 1998/99.  The rest of the income distribution changed little over the last decade.
• The ratio of median income for the whole population compared to the income at the bottom decile point of the income distribution (50:10 ratio) rose for the fourth consecutive year in 2008/09.  It is now higher than at any point since the mid-1990 s.
• The ratio of income at the top decile point compared to median income (90:50 ratio) has also risen in each of the last four years, albeit at a slower rate.  It is also now higher than at any point since the mid-1990 s.
• Note that the trends in these 50:10 and 90:10 ratios over time are less extreme than the trends in the income shares previously discussed.  This is because, unlike the income shares, they are not affected by changes in the incomes of those at the very top of the income distribution, where such incomes appear to have been increasing very sharply.
• The gini coefficient measure of overall income inequality in the United Kingdom is now higher than at any previous time in the last thirty years. 2
• Inner London is deeply divided: it has by far the highest proportion of people on a low income (29% in the poorest fifth) but also a high proportion of people on a high income (28% in the richest fifth).
• The composition of the population varies considerably by level of income.  For example, whilst only 10% of the poorest tenth are of pensionable age, this proportion rises to 15% for the second tenth and 30% for the third tenth before gradually reducing down to just over 10% for the richest tenth.  Alternatively, whilst almost 50% of the poorest tenth live in workless, working-age families, the proportion falls to 40% for the second tenth, 20% for the third tenth and gradually reducing down to virtually 0% for the richest tenth.  The implication of all this is that the weights of the different population groups changes depending on the focus of concern.  More specifically:
• If the focus moves from the bottom two deciles (in effect, the ‘poverty’ focus) to the lowest decile only (i.e. those with very low incomes), then those of pensionable age become less of a concern.
• If the focus widens from the bottom two deciles to also include the third decile (as per some of the Scottish Government's targets), then both those of pensionable age and those in lower income, working families become more of a concern.

Changes in Real Income(percentages)

Changes in Real Income(shares)

Total Income(overtime)

Total Income(shares)

Income Ratios

Gini Coefficient

By Region

Composition By Income Level

Poverty in United Kingdom

The UK is the world's six largest economy, yet 1 in 5 of the UK population live below our official poverty line, meaning that they experience life as a daily struggle.

Oxfam has a vision of everyone in the UK having enough to live on, and of all men, women and children being treated with respect and dignity no matter how much money they have. We believe it is unacceptable that over 13 million people in the UK do not have enough to live on, and most do not have the power to speak out about what this feels like and why it is wrong. We work with others to achieve a fairer and more equal country, in which everyone in the UK can live lives free from poverty and shame. We do this in two ways:

• We develop projects to improve the lives of people living in poverty

• We work with policy-makers to tackle the causes of poverty

• We raise public awareness of poverty to create pressure for change

Discrimination and prejudice play a large role in the lives of people experiencing poverty. That is why challenging negative attitudes and addressing gender and race inequality are integral parts of our work.

Poverty in Pakistan

AT independence in 1947, Pakistan was a poor country. But it was richer than China, India and many other currently ‘emerging’ economies. Today, Pakistan’s per capita is $1000 while China’s is $5000 and South Korea’s $15,000. One per cent of Pakistan’s population controls over half its wealth; the other 99 pc struggles to survive on less than $500 annually.

At this time, when hope has been revived that new leaders and policies may retrieve Pakistan from the poverty trap, it is relevant to recall the dozen reasons why our people are poorer today than at the country’s creation.

First, population growth. At Pakistan’s birth, the then West Pakistan had around 50 million people. Today, we number 200 million. The population continues to grow at around 2.5 pc. There is progressively less for more. The explosion can be moderated through incentives and disincentives.

Second, inflation. The state spends more than it earns. It prints money to make up the deficits, steadily devaluing the earnings and savings of the people. Thus, rupee parity against the dollar has declined by around 5 pc on average each year. Until 1970, the rupee was 4:1 against the dollar. Today it is 100:1. If the dollar’s own deflation is taken into account, a Pakistani must earn over 50 times as many rupees as he did in 1947 to maintain the same living standard.

Third, unemployment. In 1947, 80 pc of people lived off the land in rural areas. Today, with the pressures of population, urbanization and the failure of industrialization, effective unemployment and under-employment afflicts almost half of Pakistan’s working age population. This can only be redressed by rapid industrialization, investment and skill creation.

Fourth, ignorance. In any event, almost 25 pc of our people are presently unemployable in anything except physical labor due to the progressive collapse of Pakistan’s education system. Literacy is defined as being able to read and write one’s name. By any objective standard, Pakistan’s real literacy rate is around 50 pc. Massive and well directed investment is needed to promote universal and quality education.

Fifth, inequality. Pakistanis were born in a state of feudal inequality in the rural regions. Feudalism has since spread to business, industry and bureaucracy. The gap between rich and poor has grown exponentially. Pakistan’s elite — the 1pc — lives high off the hog, while the vast majority slides steadily down towards the poverty precipice.

Sixth, wars. Locked since inception in mutual hostility with its larger eastern neighbor, Pakistan’s financial and intellectual capital has been heavily deployed to the defence of its borders. Three wars with India; a never-ending arms race, and involvement in America’s wars in Afghanistan, has drained Pakistan’s limited resources and attention away from economic and social development. Pakistan needs to find strategic and diplomatic ways to lower the burden of deterring India. Its nuclear weapons capability should help achieve this.

Seventh, extremism. Since 1977, Pakistan has become a virtual captive to the forces of religious and associated extremism. Their street power and misguided use by some Pakistani leaders and agencies to promote external and internal objectives has transformed Pakistan’s environment of tolerance into one of fanaticism and violence. They cannot be allowed to hold the country’s progress hostage.

Eighth, insecurity. The combination of organised crime, religious bigotry, violent extremism and political opportunism has resulted in the current state of insecurity in many cities and regions. The global perception of Pakistan’s security environment is even worse than the reality. No significant foreign or domestic investment or development can take place until the security challenge is addressed. Confusion, vacillation and fear are the government’s worst enemies.

Ninth, emigration and immigration. The composition of Pakistan’s population has changed significantly since independence. Many among the educated and skilled have left. These include members of religious minorities and those who were transformed into minorities. On the other hand, Pakistan has been inundated by millions of tribal Afghans. Despite pockets of brilliance, as an entity, Pakistan today is intellectually, culturally and financially a more backward place than 60 years ago.

Tenth, disinvestment. The country is poor because the state is poor. As the country spends more than its revenues so do the people. Savings are not smart if these are going to be eroded by inflation. Without national or personal savings, investment — in infrastructure, education, industry, small and medium enterprises — has not been forthcoming from the public or private sector. Pakistan has had to depend on external assistance and loans to fund development, which remains inadequate to meet the needs of its population.

Eleventh, globalization. Unfortunately, Pakistan was persuaded by the Washington Consensus that trade and financial liberalization was good for all. It unilaterally dismantled its protections. But it cannot produce most goods competitively. This, combined with the culture of consumerism, has led to Pakistan becoming an import destination rather than an export base. While the persistent trade deficits are partially offset by the remittances from poorer Pakistani emigrants, most of our governments have been obliged to carry the begging bowl to our rich friends, at times even to meet our vital defence needs.

Twelfth, bad governance. Most of the 11 previous shortcomings originate from bad governance. With some outstanding exceptions, Pakistan has a record of bad or no policies and even worse of execution. This is largely due to the decline and eventual collapse of Pakistan’s bureaucracy and the accompanying erosion of rules and due process Personalized decision-making is now the norm; senior bureaucrats act more as personal rather civil servants. From an occasional virus, corruption has become an endemic disease.

Without professional and competent people to formulate and execute sound policies in various areas, Pakistan will be unable to overcome its imposing array of challenges.

The challenge posed by the poverty dozen cannot be addressed piecemeal. It requires a comprehensive policy designed to transform Pakistan into a modern, peaceful and prosperous country. Patriotic Pakistanis should demand such a policy and contribute to its formulation and implementation. They cannot give in to the dark side.

More than half of population lives below poverty line in Pakistan

Sixty percent of Pakistan's population is living below poverty line, a World Bank report entitled World Development Indicators (WDI) 2013 said on Saturday. The international poverty line is two dollars a day or an income of Rs 200 per day. The report shows that 21 percent of Pakistan's population lives below $1.25 per day. 

A comparison of regional countries showed that the poverty rate in Sri Lanka and Nepal was significantly less than Pakistan with 23.9 percent and 57.35 percent, respectively. The poverty rate in India and Bangladesh was higher than Pakistan with 68.7 percent and 76.5 percent. Analysis of the data revealed that 30.9 percent of children under the age of five are suffering from malnutrition and underweight. Mortality rate under five is 72 per 1000 birth-rate and maternal mortality ratio is 260 per 100,000 births. The youth literacy rate was recorded at 71 per cent for age 15-24 and primary completion rate was 67 per cent of relevant age group. The vulnerable employment, the proportion of unpaid family workers and own account workers in total employment was 63 percent in Pakistan. 

Environment indicators show that average annual deforestation in the country is 2.24 percent cent and 9.8 percent of the terrestrial and marine area of the total terrestrial and marine area is nationally protected. The internal renewable freshwater resources are 311 per capita cubic meters and 92 percent of the total population has access to improved water resources. About 48 percent population, according to WDI, has access to improved sanitation facilities. The average annual growth in urban population is 2.7 percent. 

According to WDI economic indicators, economic growth of Pakistan for the current fiscal year is forecast at 3.9 percent. The country's military expenditures are reported at 3 percent of the GDP during 2011 and stock market capitalisation 15.6 per cent and domestic credit provided by the banking sector 43.3 percent of the GDP for the period. The tax revenue collection by the central government was recorded at 9.3 percent of GDP in 2011 and electric power consumption per capita 457 kilowatt per hour in 2010. The mobile cellular subscription was 62 people per 100 individuals and 1.8 percent high technology exports of the total manufactured exports in 2011.

Increase in Poverty in Pakistan

SDPI’s study on poverty shows that every third Pakistani is living his life below the poverty line. This is very shocking revelation for all of us. About 58.7 million out of 180 million Pakistanis are living below the poverty line. This below the poverty line population is living 52% in Balochistan, 33% in Sindh, 32% in KP and 19% in Punjab. This provincial wise detail shows that Balochistan, Sindh and KP are facing brunt of poverty and mostly in rural remote areas of their provinces. Punjab’s poverty is less but still alarming. Poverty requires deliberate measures and paradigm shift to invest on human development, said Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) Executive Director Dr Abid Qaiyum Suleri. He said that poverty should not remain merely a number game for government. Referring to absolute poverty in conflict ridden Balochistan and Fata, he said that when poverty and food security take an identity be it ethnic, religious or provincial, it leads to disintegration and destruction of social fabric of society. According to SDPI findings of the report 33 per cent of household are living below the poverty line in Pakistan with numbers amounting to 58.7 million people.

Balochistan is the poorest of all provinces with 52 per cent population living below poverty line, followed by Sindh with 33 per cent, KP with 32 per cent and Punjab with 19 per cent. Refereeing to 46 per cent rural poverty compared with 18% urban poverty, report identifies stark inequalities over the incidence of poverty across regions, between provinces and within each province.

Poorest of the poor districts in Balochistan and Sindh are demanding attention of the government. Pakistan’s increase in poverty is due to manifold reasons. Pakistan’s social indicators are at declining stage since three disasters (Earthquake in 2005 and then two floods of 2010 and 2011) attacked Pakistan. After last floods, Pakistan has started gradual recovery! The extent of flood havoc is so severe that it has shaken very fabric of Pakistani economy & World called it mother of all disasters. In first decade of the 21st century Pakistan has faced many disasters and still facing. Start from 9/11, severe earthquake in 2005 and then floods of 2010 and 2011. All have a greater impact on our socio-political and economic issues of Pakistan. In all these issues common citizen of Pakistan has suffered. Pakistan is very slow in achieving millennium Development Goals due to all these natural disasters.

These disasters of decade have left a mark on Pakistani society. Poverty has been increased manifold in the first decade of the 21st century. Millions of Pakistanis trapped in poverty due to three disasters of the decade. Beside this government’s weekly increase of fuel prizes have all add to the misery of the poor masses. This increase in poverty shows that Pakistan needs a Master plan to deal with poverty otherwise these young poor masses will find out other ways to address their poverty! Pakistani’s capabilities of earning have been decreased in first decade of the 21st century due to disasters. After three disasters of the decade in which millions of Pakistani society has faced unending troubles, government should think about new tools of measuring poverty. It is since three decades that tools of measuring poverty are remaining same. In wake of three disasters tools of measuring poverty can be different. Following are few suggested tools which government can use for the measurement of poverty:

Income-Poverty Measure Adjusted for Inflation
Income-Poverty Measure Adjusted for Overall Income Growth
Material Deprivation and Low Income due to Natural and Man Made Disasters

The second and third tiers to a percent of median income are particularly important. It ensures that the measure is updated annually in a manner consistent with the basic value of shared prosperity. That is, when our economy grows, we should all grow together, rather than further apart, as has happened in recent decades. It also jibes with public understanding of the income needed to get along at a basic level.

Given the timing of the current economic downturn, a measure that produces a higher rate may be less of a concern for the government. It’s important to be clear that the new approach is not a minor updating of the current measure. Instead, it’s a new and broader measure of minimum economic security, one that is not simply a measure of income inadequacy, but also gauges the extent to which we’re moving toward (or away from) an inclusive economy that works for all Pakistanis. To reflect this change, it would make sense to call the new approach a measure of poverty and economic inclusion. This broader understanding would be more helpful and result oriented.

Since 2001 poverty survey of Pakistan, we have never seen any government figures about poverty. They stuck up at old figures before three disasters. SDPI has chosen poorest of the poor districts in Sindh and Balochistan which shows increase in poverty. According to World Bank report of 2010-2011 Pakistan’s poverty reached upto 70% after disasters. Government has never confirmed these figures and nor denied about this. If SDPI and World Bank figures are correct then it shows that 120 million Pakistani souls are under poverty trap (below the poverty line), which is highly alarming situation. Three important organisations like Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund, Benazir Income Support Program and Rural Support Programs are remaining silent on increase in poverty figures! Benazir Income Support Program with the help of Rural Support Program started a “Poverty Scoring Card” about three years ago. Still no any result came out of this Poverty Scoring Card? All these programs are using huge government and donor funding on Poverty alleviation (according to one figure PPAF has 22 billion rupees endowment funding provided by the Govt. of Pakistan) but still poverty is increasing, Why? I think Social Audit of these three huge funding programs is required that how much impact these programs have created on poor Pakistani society? An independent Social Audit by third party is required? We have Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund, Benazir Income Support Program and Rural Support Program (total eight rural support programs are working in Pakistan) currently working in Pakistan. They all have huge donor and government funding.

If Pakistani government like to attend Millenium Development Goals of halving poverty by 2015, then they must take urgent measures and survey actual poverty with new indicators and declare result so that donors, INGOs, CSOs and other development actors involve themselves and address poverty according to the need of the people.

Rural Poverty in Pakistan

Throughout its history, Pakistan has experienced cycles of high growth interrupted by shocks and crises. Following steady economic growth in the early 2000 s, the country has faced significant challenges in recent years.

The sharp rise in international oil and food prices in 2008 had a devastating impact on the economy, slowing growth as inflation soared. Widespread floods in 2010 added to Pakistan's economic woes and threatened to reverse earlier gains in poverty reduction. Rising levels of ethnic and religious strife, conflict and insecurity have further limited the country's capacity to deal effectively with persistent poverty.

Although Pakistan's poverty rate declined by about 10 per cent from 2001 to 2005, almost a quarter of the population still live below the national poverty line, and some 60 per cent are just above that level. Meanwhile, health and education indicators remain low in comparison with other countries in South Asia, and socio economic indicators for women are the lowest in the sub-region.

Pakistan ranks 146th out of 187 countries on the United Nations Development Programme's 2013 Human Development Index – a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide. And poverty in Pakistan is predominantly a rural problem. While rural people make up two thirds of the population, they account for 80 per cent of the country's poor people. Agriculture is at the heart of the rural economy and accounts for roughly one fifth of the economy. Most of the land is arid, semi-arid or rugged, and not easily cultivated. Water resources are scarce in most of the country, and finding water for irrigation is a critical challenge for the agriculture sector – particularly in remote areas.

Approximately half of farmers are owner-operators and about one quarter are tenants. It is common for tenant farmers to be in debt to landowners. In total there are over 4 million family farms, with an average farm size of 4.7 hectares. Although most rural people rely on agriculture for their livelihoods, many of the poorest also depend on non-farm activities for income. The exact number of landless wage-laborers, the most vulnerable segment of the population, is not known.

The incidence of poverty in Pakistan varies from one province to the next. Poverty is widely and evenly distributed in mountainous regions, where communities are small, scattered and isolated. The coastal belt and low rainfall areas also tend to have a high incidence of poverty. The rugged terrain and fragile ecosystems in these areas make farming difficult, while lack of access to markets and services contributes further to chronic poverty among local populations.

Those who suffer most acutely from rural poverty are small farmers with limited land and livestock, landless farmers and especially women, who – as a result of systemic gender discrimination – have little access to resources, services or assets of their own. A major cause of rural poverty in Pakistan is the highly unequal distribution of assets, particularly land and access to water. As a result, the direct gains in income from crop production tend to accrue to a small fraction of the population.

Other causes of rural poverty include the price of food, lack of education, limited access to health services, large family size, gender discrimination, environmental degradation and deterioration of the natural resource base.

Poverty in Russia

The poor in Russia are primarily families with children, the unemployed, the disabled, the single elderly living alone, and women. The homeless and previously institutionalized population as well as some refugees form a small but critical group of the poor. The working poor are the largest group--66 of the poor live in households where at least one adult is employed. The largest sub-group of the working poor are families with children (approximately 60 percent of poor households have one or more children), and single-parent and young families are particularly at risk. Generally, the younger and more numerous the children there are in the household, the more likely that the household is poor. Family size and composition is a strong predictor of a household's poverty status, and poor and very poor families are larger on average than non poor families.

Unemployment is strongly linked with poverty, and an estimated 63 percent of households headed by an unemployed person were poor in 1993. Approximately 60 percent of unemployment benefit recipients are limited to the minimum benefit, and nearly 20 percent of the registered unemployed are involved in informal sector activities. Although the average duration of unemployment in Russia to date has been short (six months), it has increased, suggesting a rising number of long-term unemployed. Job losses have been disproportionately borne by women and early retirees.

Households with a disabled head are more likely to be poor, and the presence of a handicapped family member also increases significantly the chances that the household is poor (35 percent of households with disabled member(s) are poor).

Average pensions have been better protected in real terms, and the position of pensioners actually improved relative to wage-earners during the transition. However, the minimum pension was allowed to erode significantly in real terms, meaning that those pensioners who live alone and are restricted to receiving only the minimum pension (typically widows) faced real hardship. The poverty rate for elderly women (aged 55 and over) was 44 percent higher than that for elderly males. However, there are relatively few pensioners in that situation (about 25 percent of pensioners live alone), as more than 20 percent of pensioners continue to work and receive wage income in addition to their pensions. Pensioners have the lowest rates of measured poverty in Russia, and there is a very strong inverse correlation between poverty status and age, meaning that older heads of household are significantly less likely to be poor and more likely to be a donor of private transfers rather than a recipient.

While poverty during the transition has broadened in scope, it has also become more dynamic in nature. Headcounts for poor families (expenditures below the official poverty line) in Russia were 25.2 percent in July-September 1992, 31.9 percent in June-September 1993, and 26.8 percent in October 1993-February 1994. Very poor families (those with expenditures less than 50 percent of the official poverty line) comprised 8.4, 1 2, and 10.4 percent of households respectively. During the 1980 s, approximately 10 percent of the Russian population had a per capita income below the minimum consumption basket," based on overly generous consumption allowances for food and non-food items.

In addition, poverty during the transition, while wider, is also more dynamic than poverty under the old system. During the survey periods, a significant percentage of households rose out of poverty, while new households fell below the poverty line. In fact, nearly half of the very poor households in 1992 were not poor one year later, and only 7.3 percent of all households were consistently poor (1.0 percent of the very poor) between 1992 and 1994. Layoffs, involuntary leave without pay, and wage arrears are temporary shocks that cause households to be poor, while successful marketing of home production, profitable entrepreneurial ventures, and finding a well-paying job contribute to households rising out of poverty.

Finally, regional disparities in living standards have sharply widened during the transition, as price liberalization has resulted in sharply differing the costs of living and the average wages of the oblasts (regions) of Russia. The prevalence of one-company towns has meant that restructuring has been disproportionately concentrated in certain regions (such reductions in light industry in the textile-producing oblasts of central Russia). Other regions, that were traditionally poor under the old system (Dagestan, north Caucasus, and some areas in the Far East) have not yet benefited from the new economic opportunities in European Russia.

Child Poverty in Russia

For several consecutive years strong economic growth has been a reality across the region, as it is here in Russia. Together with slowly declining inequality, this has meant an overall reduction in levels of material poverty. Indeed, the recent World Bank report indicates that economic growth has lifted 40 million people out of poverty since 1998.

Even with this robust recovery, some 60 millions still find themselves living in poverty. And the characteristics of this poverty has changed. Economic growth has benefited those close to the poverty line, but the depth of poverty has increased for those left behind. It is concentrating in rural areas and amongst the most vulnerable and marginalized.

There are also important shifts taking place in the age-profile of poverty.  In a number of countries, children have become the majority of the poor. Indeed, the World Bank data points out that here in Russia while adults in age group 18-45 yrs have benefited from economic growth between 1999-2002, the highest incidence of poverty- and the greatest rate of deterioration- has been in the 0-14 yrs age group.  Among children!

These are all important reasons why holding this Round Table on child poverty in Russia is both timely and relevant. The current economic recovery gives a unique opportunity to address child poverty in a more systematic way within the framework of the government’s ongoing social reform effort.

Rapid increase in Poverty in Russia

The number of impoverished people in Russia has increased by 2.3 million and made up 22.9 million in one year, the Russian Federal Statistics Agency said. Many experts believe that official statistics does not reflect the real state of affairs and is very often undervalued. Therefore, it means that the number of the poor in the country grows much faster.

According to official statistics, an impoverished individual is a person, whose income is lower than the living wage. The level of the living wage is calculated by the state. This term virtually designates the limit enough for real physical survival; it is not the actual poverty line.

The number of people living close to this point has increased in Russia from 20.6 million in the first quarter of 2010 to 22.9 million in 2011. This is 16.1% of the entire population of the country. It is worthy of note that a year ago, the Russian Federal Statistics Agency was saying that the number of the poor in the country was decreasing.

The cost of living in Russia raised by 17%, which automatically increased the number of poor people. In the first quarter of the current year, the cost of living made up 6,437 roubles ($230). The inflation rate was quite high, whereas salaries in many regions of the country did not return to the pre-crisis level.

"The growing number of those living below the poverty line is connected with high inflation in the beginning of the year. The level of people's salaries and incomes was not growing much. The number of poor people in the country increased, but the level of people's income went down," Anton Safonov, an analyst with Invest cafe said.

In May 2011, the real money income of many Russians decreased by seven percent. We didn't have such a serious reduction even during the peak of the crisis. The reduction during the first five months made up 3.7%.

The World Bank published a regular report on the economy of the Russian Federation. The report also pointed out the negative situation with poverty.