PHA-Exch> Food for a non-money-metric thought

[Claudio Schuftan]

Human Rights Reader 200



*A HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED POVERTY LINE IS POSSIBLE: *

*IT IS ONE THAT POINTS TO THE INCOME LEVEL AT WHICH HUMAN RIGHTS ARE
FULFILLED IN PRACTICE IN EVERY PARTICULAR CONTEXT.*

* *

Hitherto, the definition and measurement of poverty is the province of
economists and this has been instrumental in relegating poverty from a
primary human rights concern to considerations such as economic stability
and growth. (D. Woodward)





1. In the World Bank's 'money-metric' approach to assessing poverty, the
extent of global income poverty is quite grossly underestimated. As if this
were not bad enough, the WB infers, without justification, that global
income poverty has steeply declined. (As a matter of fact, in each country,
$1/day does not mean an income of $1/day as such; in money-metrics it means
an income that will buy the same that $1/day will buy in the USA. This is
why it is argued that a $2/person/day poverty line is a more appropriate
indicator of extreme poverty to be used for global purposes).



2. With such a money-metric distortion, it is no surprise that there is a
fundamental inconsistency between international standards in terms of
(WB-calculated) income poverty and social and economic rights. So,
money-metrics is of no help to those of us who have taken up the challenge
of going from
a-moral-outrage-about-the-consequences-of-too-many-people-living-on-extreme-low-incomes
to on-the-ground-political-action. Consequently, a poverty line defined as
attainable levels of health and nutrition as human rights (HR), and as a
threshold for all in society to surpass is clearly much more important for
us. In sum, the WB approach reflects the outright abandonment of the right
to health and nutrition in the developing world as inalienable rights of all
people.



3. Already from a moral perspective the concept of a single global poverty
line defined in money terms is problematic: Poverty is not merely a factor
of income; the standard of living which grossly insufficient income affords
is below a level which is considered to be morally acceptable.  From a moral
perspective, the primary consideration should be to set the poverty line in
a way that reflects our reasons for setting it at all, i.e., overcoming
poverty! [As of now, the poverty line is only an instrument to compare, not
an instrument to *do* anything about poverty: and this is outright cynical].



4. Global-poverty-counts (i.e., counting the number of people below a given
poverty line worldwide) have neither a normative value nor an empirical
relevance for analyzing and focusing on the underlying determinants of
poverty. It may be preferable to stick to national poverty lines instead
where such an analysis can be more realistic.



5. The dangerous trap we have fallen into in the contemporary world, is that
what is not measured, soon ceases to matter to policy makers --and to allow
any less attention than is now devoted to the HR issue underpinning global
poverty is a moral and political abdication of the worst order.



6. Many HR are closely linked to indicators which have a well-established
relationship with income levels (mortality rates, life expectancy, disease
prevalence, nutrition indicators, primary school enrollment particularly of
girls)  Every human being has the human right to an income commensurate with
the attainment of those HR-linked indicators!



7. Where to set the level of a better, fairer poverty line entails a large
element of subjective judgment --granted. However, this is an unavoidable
consequence of making our moral and political judgments explicit. (What
Child Survival or Health For All or Education for All actually mean, for
example, needs to be defined in HR terms, if not they will remain vague
aspirations rather than human rights in a meaningful sense).



8. A HR-based poverty line will thus be a valuable indicator of the
relationship between income and particular aspects of economic and social
rights. Consider, for instance, the following: Two countries may have the
same level of poverty, but one have a lower poverty line than the other;
this will indicate that the country with the lower poverty line performs
relatively well in terms of fulfilling particular human rights of its
population for that given level of living standards.



9. Here, then, is a call for a poverty line to be set according to living
standards --which is why we are interested in poverty in the first place: to
improve those standards!



10. Therefore, it is here contended that defining poverty explicitly in
terms of non-income dimensions of poverty broadens the definition of poverty
beyond income alone. It ensures that changes in poverty reflect changes in
living standards rather than changes in income (which may or may not be
associated with improvements in living standards).  Strengthening the focus
on living standards and on economic and social rights thus better defines
the factors associated with what it means to be poor and better points to
the alternatives of what needs to be done.



11. Moreover, by shifting the locus of the definition and measurement of
poverty to other disciplines such as health, nutrition and education, the
human rights-based poverty line approach has the potential to empower these
disciplines to more effectively participate in all debates about poverty
thus strengthening the moral and political discourse on poverty eradication.



12. Bottom line: By setting a money-metric poverty line --and, at that, one
that is way too low-- one overstates progress in reducing poverty giving the
entire world a false sense of security…and that is what the WB has been
doing. The rights-based framework, on the other hand, combines the use of
outcome indicators to provide a moral and political basis for the definition
of poverty. With country-specific, human-rights-based poverty lines one
better arrives at the latter according to what it means to be poor in each
country and why citizens there should be concerned about poverty: an
indispensable point of departure to do something meaningful about it.



Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City

cschuftan at phmovement.org

[All Readers can be found in www.humaninfo.org/aviva  under
No.69<http://www.humaninfo.org/aviva%20%20under%20No.69>
]

__________

Adapted from Woodward, D., How poor is poor? Towards a rights-based poverty
line, mimeo, third draft March 2008. (Full paper available from the author
at  David.Woodward at neweconomics.org)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20081120/f9967e6b/attachment-0001.html>