Visit the Shareweb

POVERTY | WELLBEING
www.shareweb.ch/site/Poverty-Wellbeing

POVERTY BRIEF – UNDERSTANDING POVERTY

EVA LUDI, ODI

What is poverty Multidimensional poverty

Definitions of poverty really matter. They set the stand- The idea that poverty is multidimensional was first pre-
ards by which we determine whether the incomes and sented by Townsend (Townsend, 1979) and further
living conditions of the poorest in society are accept- developed by Chambers (Chambers, 1983). In the final
able or not. Definitions of poverty are also important, declaration of the World Summit for Social Develop-
as they influence the way interventions and policies ad- ment in 1995, the United Nations concluded that:
dressing poverty are shaped. Despite this, there is am-
biguity as to how the term ‘poverty’ is used and as a ‘Poverty has various manifestations, including lack of in-
result, a range of definitions exists, influenced by differ- come and productive resources sufficient to ensure sus-
ent disciplinary approaches, world views and ideologies tainable livelihoods; hunger and malnutrition; ill health;
(Handley et al., 2009). limited or lack of access to education and other basic
services; increased morbidity and mortality from illness;
Historically, poverty has been defined in monetary homelessness and inadequate housing; unsafe environ-
terms, using income or consumption levels. In order to ments; and social discrimination and exclusion. It is also
be able to compare poverty levels across countries and characterized by a lack of participation in decision-mak-
over time, those that live below a given level of income ing and in civil, social and cultural life.”
– the poverty line (Ravallion, 2010) – are classified as (United Nations, 1995)
poor. Over the last decades, this economic definition of
poverty has been complemented by other approaches This description stresses the multidimensionality of pov-
to conceptualise poverty: basic needs approach, capa- erty. It combines notions of absolute and relative pover-
bilities approach, human development approach and ty and points to the need to differentiate poor people
multidimensional poverty approach (Handley et al., by gender, age, occupational status, origin or ethnicity.
2009). In 2001, the Development Assistance Committee (DAC)
of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and De-
Chambers (2006), a leading scholar on poverty and de- velopment (OECD) published its Guidelines for Poverty
velopment, clusters poverty definitions into four groups: Reduction (OECD, 2001) and adopted a multi-dimen-
sional poverty definition:
›› Income poverty (or its common proxy, consumption
poverty).
›› Material lack or want: besides income, this includes
Absolute and relative Poverty
absent, limited or low quality assets (such as shel-
ter, clothing, furniture, personal means of transport, Absolute poverty: when people lack basic neces-
radio, etc.). It also includes inadequate access to sities for survival. It quantifies the number of peo-
­services. ple below the poverty line and is independent of
›› Capability deprivation, referring to what people can place and time.
or cannot do, or can or cannot be. This goes well Relative poverty: when people’s way of life and
beyond material lack to include human capabilities, income is much worse than the general standard of
such as skills and physical abilities, and also self-­ living. It classifies people as poor not by comparing
respect in society. them with a fixed poverty line, but by comparing
›› Multidimensional deprivation, with material lack or them with others in the population under consid-
want, as only one of several mutually reinforcing eration.
­dimensions.

Poverty Brief – Understanding Poverty 1

“Poverty encompasses different dimensions of depri- implements and animals, forests and fishing waters,
vation that relate to human capabilities including con- credit and decent employment.
sumption and food security, health, education, rights,
voice, security, dignity and decent work. Poverty must ›› Human capabilities are building on having access
be reduced in the context of environmental sustainabil- to health, education, nutrition, clean water and shel-
ity. Reducing gender inequality is key to all dimensions ter. Lacking access to these services can mean dis-
of poverty.“ ease and illiteracy, which are barriers to productive
(OECD, 2001) work, and thus to economic capabilities for poverty
reduction. Reading and writing support communica-
The DAC recognises that poverty is defined in various tion, which is crucial in social and political participa-
ways, but suggests that poverty definitions should be tion. Education, especially for girls, is key to poverty
context-specific and should encompass the key dep- reduction.
rivations faced by poor women and men and identify
the ways in which they are incapacitated (Figure 1). The ›› Political capabilities include having human rights
DAC has adopted the capabilities approach to poverty and a voice in debates on public policies and polit-
(see below) and suggests that poverty outcomes are af- ical priorities. Deprivation of political freedoms or
fected by individual and household capabilities and that human rights, as well as arbitrary, unjust and violent
these capabilities are interrelated. However, the DAC action by public authorities, can be a major driver of
emphasises that distinguishing between capabilities is poverty.
important both for analysis and in order to design ef-
fective policies and interventions. ›› Socio-cultural capabilities relate to participation
as a valued member of a community and include
The DAC outlines the following 5 capabilities / dimen- social status, dignity and other cultural conditions.
sions (OECD, 2001): Geographic and social isolation is a major dimension
of poverty in many societies.
›› Economic capabilities, i.e. the ability to earn an
income, to consume and to have assets. These are ›› Protective capabilities enable people to withstand
the foundations for food security, material wellbe- seasonal variations and external shocks and prevent-
ing and social status, and poor people often identify ing poverty. Insecurity and vulnerability are strongly
them as priorities, along with secure access to land, related to poverty with links to all other dimensions.

PROTECTIVE
Capabilities, enabling people to
withstand
• Economic shocks
• Natural Disasters
• Conflicts

POLITICAL
ECONOMIC
Capabilities, including
Capabilities
• Human rights
• to earn income
• Voice
• to consume
• Political freedom
• to have assets
• Participation

HUMAN SOCIO-CULTURAL
Capabilities, based on Capabilities concerning
• Health • Dignity
• Education • Valued membership of
• Nutrition society
• Shelter • Social status

Figure 1: OECD’s Multidimensional Poverty Framework

(Source: OECD, The DAC Guidelines Poverty Reduction, 2001)

Poverty Brief – Understanding Poverty 2

 work by Sen and Nussbaum (Nussbaum & Sen, 1993;
Poverty Definitions and Measurements Nussbaum, 2000; Sen, 1985, 1999), describes pover-
ty as a “denial of choices and opportunities for living
Income poverty a tolerable life” (Lister, 2004). It comprises three core
Absolute definitions of poverty are based on income (or elements: functionings, capability and freedom. Func-
consumption) in relation to a specific living standard or tionings refers to the various things a person achieves
minimum income level deemed necessary to meet basic to do or be (Sen, 1999), such as being well-nourished
needs. In 1990, the extreme poverty line for devel- and having a decent shelter. It also includes more so-
oping countries was set at US$1 per person and day. phisticated things such as participation in community
The US$1-a-day threshold was adjusted in 2008 and in- life and self-respect. It differs from having commodities
creased to US$1.25, and in October 2015 to US$1.90 to (i.e. having a bicycle), but focuses on abilities to make
reflect the actual national poverty lines in the 15 poor- use of commodities (i.e. being able to ride a bicycle to
est countries (PovcalNet – The World Bank). go to the market). Capability refers to the set of valu-
able functionings a person is able to effectively access.
Impressive gains have been made in reducing extreme Freedom, finally, refers to the ability of a person to
poverty. The MDG target of halving the proportion of choose and prioritise different combinations of func-
people living below the US$1.25 extreme poverty line tionings (Wong, 2012).
has been reached five years ahead of the 2015 dead-
line. Nevertheless, global figures mask stark differences The capabilities approach provides a framework for
within and across countries (OECD, 2013). analysing poverty, which prioritises capabilities (ends)
over resources (means) and adopts a broad focus on
In September 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted the constraints that may restrict human lives (Hick,
the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 2012). It focuses on deprivation in capabilities, which
associated Targets. Goal 1 is concerned with ending is to a large degree the result of lack of opportunities,
poverty in all its forms everywhere. Target 1.1 aims at i.e. society’s actions denying people with access to the
eradicating extreme poverty, measured as living on less means to develop or maintain essential human capabil-
than US$1.25 a day, by 2030 for all people. It also calls ities. And it focuses on the positive – the kind of life we
for reducing at least by half the proportion of people want people be able to achieve rather than the negative
living in poverty in all its dimensions according to na- – the lack of material resources that prevents people
tional definitions (target 1.2) (United Nations, 2015). from achieving it (Lister, 2004).

Basic Needs approach One problem related to the capabilities approach is the
Basic needs are defined as minimum quantities of such lack of a fixed or universally defined set of capabilities.
things as food, clothing, shelter, water and sanitation, Not only are capabilities difficult to define, the capabil-
access to basic education and health services and secu- ities approach is also hard to operationalise, because it
rity to prevent ill health, undernourishment, or under- is difficult to compare capabilities across different peo-
and unemployment (Streeten et al. 1981). It is based ple and because there is no agreement how to weigh
on a broader understanding of well-being and includes different capabilities. Thirdly, the informational require-
access to different goods and services and related ments for assessing capabilities can be extremely high
achievements, such as adequate nutrition, life expec- (Clark, 2005).
tancy, mortality, etc. (Shaffer, 2008).
Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)
Despite a common poverty line used across countries The Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative
to compare poverty rates, it was always recognised that (OPHI) has developed an international measure of pov-
what is required to satisfy basic needs will vary greatly erty – the Multidimensional Poverty Index or MPI – for
across different countries. Countries, therefore, often the United Nations Development Programme’s Human
use several national poverty lines based on the cost of Development Report. The index goes beyond the tradi-
basic needs (CBN) approach – including a lower pover- tional focus on income to reflect the multiple depriva-
ty line which monetises the minimum calories required tions that a poor person faces with respect to educa-
to maintain life and an upper poverty line which also tion, health and living standard (see figure 2). It draws
includes a basic basket of goods and services deemed heavily on the capabilities framework as a:
necessary for a healthy life, including basic costs for
clothing, shelter and accessing education and health. “[…] process of enlarging people’s choices. The most
critical of these wide-ranging choices are to live a long
Capabilities approach and healthy life, to be educated and to have access to
Income and basic needs approaches look at ‘inputs’ rath- resources needed for a decent standard of living. Ad-
er than ‘outcomes’. Knowing the level of a household’s ditional choices include political freedom, guaranteed
income does not tell us anything about the well-being human rights and personal self-respect”
of this household. The capabilities approach, based on (UNDP, 1990).

Poverty Brief – Understanding Poverty 3

 Participatory approach
The participatory approach defining poverty is not a
specific way of conceptualising poverty, but a means
of determining who should do the conceptualisation.
It advocates that poverty and deprivation should not
be defined by outsiders – as the above described ap-
proaches all do – but by people themselves through a
participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA) process (Shaf-
fer, 2001). It was strongly advocated by Chambers, who
criticised current approaches to defining poverty as uni-
versal, reductionist, standardized and stable, whereas
the realities of poor people are local, complex, diverse
and dynamic. When poor people themselves are asked
to describe dimensions of poverty, many aspects are
mentioned that define ill-being: social inferiority, isola-
tion, physical weakness, vulnerability, seasonal depriva-
tion, powerlessness or humiliation (Chambers, 1995).

Figure 2: Indicators of the Multidimensional Poverty Index

(Source: http://www.ophi.org.uk/multidimensional-poverty-index/) Poverty Dynamics

Shepherd et al. (2014) point out that it is not only the

multidimensional definition of poverty, but the poverty
MPI is in no sense a comprehensive measure of human dynamics that are equally important determinants for
development – it lacks important dimensions such as designing appropriate interventions to eradicate pover-
rights and political voice – but it is a simple tool that is ty (Shepherd et al., 2014). Tackling chronic poverty
able to popularize the concept of human development requires addressing the needs of socially discriminated
as an improved understanding of well-being and that it groups: the old, the sick and the disabled, women, eth-
is an alternative to GDP per capita as a way to measure nic or religious minorities, internally displaced people,
levels of development for comparison across countries etc. These people either lack assets, the assets they
and time (Stanton, 2007). have produce poor returns, or they may lose assets due
to shocks and crises. They are shut out from participa-
tion in economic, social, cultural and political life or are
Voices of the Poor adversely included as a result of skewed distribution of
In the lead-up to the 2000/01 World Development power. And finally, the political settlement and govern-
Report on Poverty and Development, the World ment-citizen relationship, macroeconomic policy, and
Bank launched an extensive consultation of over social norms may all work against the interests of the
60,000 poor women and men from 60 countries poorest. Policies will include a mix of social assistance
– the ‘Voices of the Poor’. It enabled poor people programmes (e.g. cash transfers, employment guaran-
to share their views and experiences of being poor tees), asset building programmes and provision of basic
and their priorities and recommendations for ac- services in education, health, water and sanitation, etc.
tion. The study wanted to learn from poor people (ibid.).
directly what a bad or a good life meant for them
and what would make a difference in their lives. Stopping impoverishment needs a renewed focus, as
A set of common dimensions of poverty (ill-being) over the past two decades impoverishment has been
and well-being was distilled across the different almost as widespread as escapes from poverty in many
cultures and contexts: well-being and a good life countries (Shepherd et al., 2014). Reasons for impover-
included material wellbeing (having enough), phys- ishment often are natural disasters, conflicts, economic
ical wellbeing (being and appearing well), freedom crises and health shocks. Technically, stopping impov-
of action and choice, security, and social wellbeing erishment is the ‘easy’ part of improving poverty dy-
(e.g. being able to raise and educate children, help namics – social protection, disaster-risk management
others). Five cross-cutting problems were identified and universal health coverage can all be extended and
as being largely responsible for keeping poor peo- improved with the necessary political leadership and
ple trapped in poverty: corruption, violence, pow- sustained commitment. The biggest challenge remains
erlessness, incapacity and lacking agency, and bare solving conflict (ibid.).
subsistence living.
Anti-poverty policies are usually concerned with sup-
(Source: Narayan, Chambers, Shah, & Petesch, 1999)
porting people to escape poverty, but rarely with

Poverty Brief – Understanding Poverty 4

Figure 3: Policies to tackle chronic poverty, stop impoverishment and sustain escapes from
poverty

• Substantial investment in
post-primary education and
links to labour markets
Include the poorest people • Land policy reforms Sustain
better in the economy, in enabling mobility
politics and in society through: • Progressive regional
poverty
• Better quality basic educa- development policies escapes
tion and social assistance, • Universal access to sexual
employment quality and reproductive health
measures, and better
returns to farmers
• Anti-discrimination, affirma-

g
tive action measures,

pin
Poverty status

access to justice

ca
Es
Poverty line

Tackle
chronic
poverty

impoverishment
Stop

A period of
impoverishment

Chronically poor
• Prevent conflict
part of life • Disaster Risk Management
• Universal Health Coverage
• Manage economic vulnerability
• Insure against major risks (e.g.
assets, weather, old age)
• Universal access to sexual and
reproductive health

Progressive social change

Time

Figure 3 : Policies to tackle chronic poverty, stop impoverishment and sustain escapes from poverty
(Source: Shepherd et al., 2014)

keeping people out of poverty. Supporting people to alised groups (e.g. ethnic minorities, the landless, lower
sustain poverty escapes include a range of measures castes), whereas monetary and capability approaches
focusing on education and skills development, secure tend to focus on individual characteristics and circum-
land tenure systems for the poorest, and regional and stances. Such analysis shows that the situation of those
local economic development policies with a focus on deprived relative to the norm generally cannot be im-
employment and income generation (Shepherd et al., proved without some redistribution of opportunities
2014). and outcomes.

Social exclusion is the result of multiple and intersecting

inequalities that reinforces each other. The persistence
Social exclusion and adverse incorporation of social exclusion is rooted in cultural “de-valuation”
that can be silent and invisible, but nevertheless have a
The concept of social exclusion describes a process of profound impact on those who are excluded (Kabeer,
marginalisation and deprivation, and is closely related 2010).
to aspects of power and powerlessness. It focuses on
the processes that allow deprivation to arise and per- Recent research has challenged the notion of social ex-
sist. Analysing exclusion inevitably involves studying the clusion, and has advanced the concept of adverse in-
structural characteristics of society, the processes of ex- corporation. Poor people may be very much included
clusion and marginalisation and the situation of margin- in social, economic and political systems – but in a way

Poverty Brief – Understanding Poverty 5

that is to their detriment. For example, they may have ing inequality is considered a necessity to unleash the
little choice, but to take work which is paid so badly human and productive potential of people to achieve
that they will never have the opportunity to save and sustainable and inclusive growth. The 1995 World So-
escape poverty or they may vote and be nominally part cial Summit stressed that a people-centred approach to
of a democratic state, but one which does not truly rep- poverty reduction and development must be based on
resent their interests (Hickey & du Toit, 2007). principles of equity and equality to enable all individuals
to access resources and opportunities (United Nations,
2005). Addressing inequality is about levelling the play-
ing field to achieve equality of opportunity. It relates to
Vulnerability the social contract between the state and its citizens.
While inequality is often cast in economic and social
Vulnerability is not poverty, whichever way poverty terms, it has important civil and political dimensions,
is defined, but describes the likelihood of falling into which relate to access to justice, political opportunity
poverty or falling into greater poverty (Shaffer, 2001). and redistribution of wealth and to enable poor people
Vulnerability describes the degree of exposure to risks to demand more inclusive and non-discriminatory poli-
and the capacity to respond to pressures, i.e. to pre- cies (Tucker & Ludi, 2012).
vent, mitigate or cope with risks (Ludi & Bird, 2007).
Pressures can be either stresses or shocks, the former Over the past decades, inequalities in income distribu-
being gradual and cumulative, the latter sudden and tion and access to productive resources, basic social ser-
unpredictable. Poor people are particularly vulnerable vices, opportunities, markets and information have in-
to shocks and stresses and their resilience in resisting creased globally and often also within countries. Wealth
or recovering from the negative effects of a changing is even more concentrated than income. On average,
environment is particularly low, as they lack assets, enti- the 10% of the wealthiest households hold half of the
tlements and capabilities that would be required to deal total wealth, while the poorest 40% hold less than 3%
with shocks and stresses (Moser et al. 2001). of all assets (OECD, 2015). According to Oxfam, in 2015
the richest 62 individuals on the planet owned as much
Applying a vulnerability focus to poverty analysis pro- as the poorest half of humanity (Oxfam, 2016).
vides a lens through which to develop measures to ad-
dress poverty. Policy interventions proposed to address The more unequal a society in economic, social and po-
the specific vulnerabilities of poor people include: social litical terms, the fewer women complete higher educa-
assistance, pro-poor and pro-poorest economic growth, tion, fewer women are represented in government and
human development for those that are hard to reach (i.e. the pay gap between women and men is wider. Wom-
because of age, gender, geography, ethnicity, etc.), and en are more often than men employed in the informal
transformative social change (i.e. change in norms, val- sector, where low wages dominate and job security is
ues, and social relations that underpin development pro- lower than in the formal sector. Rising economic ine-
cesses) (Shepherd et al., 2014). quality is often accompanied by slowed-down or even
reversed efforts to achieve gender equality. While the
In a recent report on the geography of poverty, dis- reasons behind inequality between women and men
asters and climate extremes in 2030 (Shepherd et al., are about more than money, there is no doubt that the
2013), the authors conclude that climate change and overlap between economic inequality and gender ine-
exposure to natural disasters are distinct risks that quality is significant (Oxfam, 2014).
threaten to derail international efforts to eradicate pov-
erty by 2030. With increasing temperatures, many of In its 2014/15 Global Monitoring Report, the World
the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people will Bank (World Bank, 2015b) adopted a focus on the per-
face growing risks of more intense or longer droughts, formance of the bottom 40% (by income) of the pop-
extreme rainfall and flooding and severe heat waves – ulation across all countries. The World Bank proposes a
risks that threaten lives and livelihoods and the hard- range of measures supporting inclusive and sustainable
won gains made in reducing poverty in recent decades. growth for achieving the twin goals of ending poverty
and improving the living standards of the bottom 40%
in every country – developed and developing. They fo-
cus on policies for maintaining economic growth and
Inequality stability, investments in education and health, develop-
ing well-designed social safety nets, ensuring environ-
Inequality is not poverty, but inequality – or the ab- mental sustainability and improving the availability and
sence of fundamental rights, freedoms and opportuni- quality of data to monitor progress (ibid).
ties – is a central characteristic of poverty. Addressing
inequalities is not only a moral imperative, but from a In 2010, UNDP introduced the Inequality-adjusted Hu-
social perspective, increasing inequality is seen as an man Development Index/HDI (IHDI). It accounts for
impediment to economic growth and development, inequality of human development within a country.
poverty eradication efforts and social stability. Reduc- The greater the difference between the IHDI and the

Poverty Brief – Understanding Poverty 6

HDI, the greater the inequality in that specific country to fighting poverty, but recognising the dynamic nature
(UNDP, 2010). Globally, the loss in HDI due to inequal- of poverty – poverty can be chronic and entrenched,
ity is 22.9%. This loss is smallest in Finland (5.5%) and people can fall into poverty or experience increasing
largest in Sierra Leone (44.3%) (Switzerland: 7.7%).
­ levels of impoverishment and people can escape pov-
People in sub-Saharan Africa suffer the largest loss- erty – will provide guidance on the most appropriate
es due to inequality in all three dimensions (33.6%), policy interventions (Shepherd et al., 2014).
followed by South Asia (28.7%) and the Arab States
(24.9%) and Latin America and the Caribbean (24.5%) There is less agreement as to whether objective or sub-
(UNDP, 2014). jective definitions of poverty matter more. Proponents
of participatory approaches point to the need to let
people define for themselves what it means to be poor
and to define the magnitude, causes and outcomes of
SDC’s understanding of Poverty their poverty. Participatory definitions of poverty, how-
ever, are highly context, space and time-bound. They
As a member of the Development Assistance Com- allow for the formulation of concrete and localised de-
mittee (DAC) of the OECD, SDC subscribes to the DAC velopment interventions, but they are less useful in pol-
framework of multidimensional poverty (see Figure 1). icy formulation at national or international levels.
For over five decades, Switzerland supported the efforts
of poorer countries to overcome humanitarian crises Data availability might strongly influence how poverty
and deal with problems of poverty and development. is measured and defined. For many countries, data that
The commitment to support poorer nations and soci- allows a monetary definition of poverty is regularly col-
eties is in line with the Federal Constitution’s pledge to lected through household surveys and national income
data. Many of the indicators that would be required
“[…] assist in the alleviation of need and poverty in the to define multidimensional poverty, social exclusion or
world and promote respect for human rights and de- deprivation in capabilities are unavailable on a regular
mocracy, the peaceful co-existence of peoples as well basis (Ruggeri-Laderchi et al., 2006).
as the conservation of natural resources.” (art. 54)
There is evidence that poverty rates differ significantly ac-
SDC understands poverty as a result of discrimination, cording to which approach for estimating the number of
obstacles, exclusion and marginalisation, preventing poor is used. Furthermore, many non-poor households
people from accessing basic necessities for life (Del consume only just enough to live above the poverty line,
Pozo, 2004). Poor people are particularly affected by making them highly vulnerable to descend into poverty
interrelations of economic poverty, social and political as a result of stress or shocks (World Bank, 2015a).
exclusion, remoteness and vulnerability to natural disas-
ters. This understanding guides SDC’s actions in fight- Different poverty definitions lead to the identification
ing poverty: (1) empowering the disadvantaged and of different poverty reduction policies: a monetary ap-
enhancing their capacity to mitigate disparities and pre- proach to defining poverty might favour policies that
vent further impoverishment, (2) building the capacities, support economic growth in the hope that this will
experiences and skills, (3) establishing political priorities translate to increasing incomes for the poor, while a ca-
in favour of the poor and disadvantaged, (4) fostering pability approach might favour the provision of public
organisations operating in the interests of the poor, (5) services such as education and health care. Applying
working at all levels towards a change in structures and a social exclusion or adverse incorporation approach
framework conditions leading to the discrimination, would point towards addressing the structural deter-
impoverishment and exclusion of individuals and social minants of power asymmetries, exploitation, patronage
groups, (6) advocating for the poor in the defence of and exclusion.
their rights, and (7) confronting the conflicts that may
arise when challenging powerful elites in the quest for Considering the progress made so far in reducing pov-
poverty reduction (ibid). erty, but also taking account of the challenges encoun-
tered, the OECD proposes the following themes that
should be part of any post-2015 framework aiming to
end poverty for good (OECD, 2013):
Conclusions
›› Link poverty, inequalities and social cohesion
Although there is no single ‘correct’ definition of pover- ›› Strengthen multidimensional measures of poverty
ty, there is consensus that any poverty definition needs ›› Integrate poverty and environmental objectives
to acknowledge particular social, cultural and historical ›› Set global goals, but recognise national realities
contexts. Depending on the way poverty is defined, pol- ›› Strengthen statistical capacities
icy choices in tackling poverty will differ (Ruggeri-Lader- ›› Improve co-operation and finance for poverty
chi et al., 2006). However, it is not only the definition of ­reduction.
poverty that will define the most appropriate measures

Poverty Brief – Understanding Poverty 7

Acknowledgement Further Reading and references can be found on the
poverty-wellbeing shareweb (section “Addressing
This paper is an updated and enhanced version of an poverty in practice – Understanding poverty”):
earlier paper written by Eva Ludi and Kate Bird (ODI)
https://www.shareweb.ch/site/Poverty-Wellbeing
for the poverty-wellbeing shareweb, supported by the
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)
and operated by Intercooperation and the Overseas
­Development Institute. Helpful comments on an earlier
version of the Briefing Paper from Lucy Scott (ODI) are
gratefully acknowledged.

Poverty Brief – Understanding Poverty 8