Often, when experts talk about poverty, they use the measure of people who live on less than 1 US dollar a day. However, this measure has often been criticised. First of all, because currency exchange rates fluctuate continuously, it becomes difficult for individual countries to talk about poverty using the US dollar as a measure. But more importantly, when poverty is defined only by looking at the income an individual or a household receives (whatever currency is used), then a number of other factors are ignored.
Recently, the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI), in collaboration with the UNDP Human Development Report, announced the release of the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI). According to OPHI, the new measure recognises that people’s lives are affected by more than just their income, and so the MPI looks at individuals’ poverty as a combination of their education, health, and standard of living. The developers of the new index believe that this more complex measure will help policy-makers and development practitioners better understand the causes of poverty and then tailor their interventions accordingly. Go to the latest Wahenga Reporter for more.
Sissy Teese has taken up the gauntlet once again with the World Bank. This time, the object of her wrath is a new paper by the Bank entitled Rewarding STI Prevention and Control in Tanzania (with, according to Teese, “the horrendously contrived acronym of RESPECT”) which provides quarterly cash transfers, each equivalent to nearly one-tenth of average annual income, to those who avoid unsafe sex. Calling it “the most expensive condom in African history”, Teese questions the economic viability of this experiment.
Is there a link between social pensions and a decrease in the number of children born in sub-Saharan Africa? This Comment summarises the findings by Göran Holmqvist of the Nordic Africa Institute in a new paper which suggests there is.
Hot on the heels of RHVP’s meeting with IDS, ODI and DEV, which resulted in the joint statement on Social Protection in Africa: Where Next?, the Programme Director of RHVP, Nicholas Freeland, picks up on an errant formula which emerged at the meeting, was met with general derision, and was unceremoniously dropped from further discussion. But he sees some value in the equation, because it helps not only to understand the role of social protection in tackling vulnerability, but also to explain the difficulty of getting consensus on national social protection programmes in Africa. The equation is: vulnerability = poverty + risk – empowerment.