SubscribeSubscribe to this blog's feed
129 posts categorized "Hunger Report"
Good news for data nerds: The OECD has just released its latest disposable income, poverty and inequality numbers for all of its 34 member states. You can access the entire data set here, but don't miss the the fun interacive tools that were released along with it. OECD was kind enought to make them embeddable:
So what are the key stories in this beautifully arranged chart? You may not find them all that surprising:
- Poverty and inequality have grown in OECD countries since the global recession of 2007-2008.
- The United States still has greater-than-average inequality and relative poverty than the typical OECD country.
- The United States has less pre-tax/transfer poverty than most other countries.
- The overall OECD unemployment rate has eased slightly to 8.0%.
- Iceland, Slovenia, Norway and Denmark shared the lowest poverty rate of member countries, while Israel bore the highest at 21%.
This data release is well timed, just before the 39th G-8 summit to be held in Lough Erne, Northern Ireland between June 17-18. As member states gather to focus on shared global development goals like advancing trade, ensuring tax compliance, and promoting greater transparency, the OECD offers a humbling reminder that poverty, hunger, and inequality are on the rise across the developed world. A global committment to solving the poverty problem will require committment from all countries, regardless of income level. This is still everyone's problem.
Posted by Bread on May 16, 2013 in Asia, Assets for the Poor, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Prices, Foreign Aid Reform, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Report, Inequality, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Challenge Account, Millennium Development Goals, Trade, U.S. Hunger, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Developed and developing, north and south, rich and poor—these are some of the dichotomous terms we use to categorize a country's quality of life. Does any country, or any person, fit neatly into one category or another?
Increasingly, though, people are finding that development is more a continuum than an all-or-nothing condition, an up or down vote. Every country whether it’s been labeled “developed” or not, falls somewhere along that continuum. The 2013 Hunger Report acknowledged this point in its recommendation for continued universal ownership of goals after the expiration of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2015. All countries face the same threats to their development to varying degrees.
The momentum behind this more inclusive way of looking at development and quality of life has been helped along by new concepts and tools. The old standards such as gross domestic product (GDP) or income per capita offer limited insight. Indices such as the Human Development Index (HDI) and the Multi-dimensional Poverty Index (MPI) point out the need for a more diverse set of indicators to complete the development picture, expanding it to include less obvious but equally important measurements like access to education, gender equality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Transparency is one of the more recent additions to the expanding development concept. It has only been a major priority of U.S. foreign assistance for a relatively short time. The Millennium Challenge Corporation only made “fighting corruption” an absolute requirement for funding recipients in 2002.
Short clip explains how Transparency International guages corruption and why it matters.
More recently, the push for open government has gained rapid momentum as citizens across the world discover promising new ways to track their leaders’ actions, their use of public resources, their campaign contributors, their vested interests in legislation, and more.
Organizations such as Transparency International and the Sunlight Foundation are leading a growing grassroots movement to open government data to public scrutiny. They’re ranking countries by degree of corruption, tracking political ad spending, and crowdsourcing to fill in missing information gaps. Perhaps most important, they’re collaborating internationally as they never have before. For example, Sunlight recently held its first Transparency Camp International, where members of civil society and government employees from 25 countries (of all income and “development” levels) gathered to join the global open government network and absorb the experiences and solutions of others.
The 2013 Hunger Report, Within Reach: Global Development Goals, links open government and transparency to the end goal: good governance. “Improving governance is essential to progress on development,” it explains. “The corrosive effects of government corruption are just one example of how governance problems undermine progress. Good governance, on the other hand, is an enabling condition and a prerequisite to lasting change. Good governance includes many elements, but the most relevant for reducing poverty have to do with creating space for a strong civil society that can hold governments accountable for making progress; building effective institutions to manage and deliver public services; and respecting the rule of law—for example, by protecting the rights of minorities and ensuring that people have recourse to redress for injustices.”
“Most of the work to put these elements in place must be done by national governments and by civil society in developing countries. What the United States and other countries can do as a partner is set high expectations for levels of accountability and transparency. Additionally, they can provide technical know-how, strengthen global institutions that foster good governance, and support leaders who want to govern well. The United States itself must be an example of good governance and continue to work towards becoming more transparent and accountable.”
For more on the importance of transparency in the fight to end hunger, visit hungerreport.org.
Posted by Bread on May 13, 2013 in Africa, Asia, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Prices, Foreign Aid Reform, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Report, Inequality, Latin America, Millennium Challenge Account, Millennium Development Goals, Trade, U.S. Hunger, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
One of Bangladesh's main exports is fish. Photo credit: USAID.
Dr. Muhammed Yunus and the Grameen Bank are well-known pioneers of microfinance -- i.e., making modest loans to poor people that enable them to create sustainable improvements in their lives, largely by building small businesses. When Yunus founded the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh in 1983, the necessity of country-led development, let alone decision-making by poor people themselves, was not recognized. Lending a woman $75 to buy a sewing machine was a revolutionary concept.
Much has been written since then about the microfinance movement, its accomplishments, continuing debates, and more. Here, we emphasize one of Grameen's contributions to our understanding of global poverty: a very concrete definition that can help educate policymakers in donor countries about its realities and solutions.
In the United States, we tend to define poverty in terms of dollar income. So we readily understand the idea of an international poverty line -- originally $1 a day, now $1.25. Donors also realize that poverty has many implications for hunger, health, education, and other spheres. But the Grameen Bank recognized early on that poverty occurs in a context, and that communities themselves must determine who is poor and what it means to leave poverty.
Yunus and Grameen developed a checklist of 10 indicators that gauge whether a microfinance participant and her family have, in fact, escaped from poverty in Bangladesh. It's a helpful counterbalance to our sometimes abstract notions of who "the poor" are and what their priority needs might be. The specifics are:
- The family home has a tin roof or is valued at 25,000 taka or more (about $300-$325). Each member of the family sleeps in a bed rather than on the floor.
- The family drinks clean water -- either from wells, or boiled, or purified using arsenic-free tablets.
- All children age 6 or older are either going to school or have finished primary school.
- The microloan is being repaid in installments of at least 200 taka a week (about $2.50).
- The family uses a sanitary latrine.
- Family members have adequate everyday clothing, warm clothing for winter (such as sweaters and blankets), and mosquito nets.
- The family has a source of additional income, such as a vegetable garden or fruit trees, that they can fall back on when necessary.
- The microloan borrower maintains an average savings account balance of 5,000 taka (about $60-$65).
- The family has no difficulty providing each member with three square meals a day throughout the year.
- The family can afford necessary medical treatment if someone falls ill.
Grameen's indicators proved to be a reliable way of identifying those most in need and gauging their progress. Later, the indicators were broadened to form the Progress out of Poverty Index (PPI). The PPI uses similar data -- including what material a family's roof is made of -- to enable development organizations to calculate how likely it is that a given family lives below the national poverty line. So far, PPIs have been tailored to conditions in 45 countries.
couple of weeks ago, Yunus was here in Washington, DC, to receive
the Congressional Gold Medal. Along with the Presidential Medal of
Freedom, it is the highest American award for civilians. In 2006, Yunus and Grameen Bank won the Nobel Peace Price. Both have clearly made major contributions to Bangladesh's significant progress against hunger. For more on how that progress is being sustained, see the introduction to the 2013 Hunger Report, Within Reach: Global Development Goals.
Michele Learner is associate editor for Bread for the World Institute.
By Anna Wiersma
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were proposed at the Rio+20 Summit in 2012 as one way to extend the work of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) beyond 2015. The SDGs are intended to compensate for the lack of focus on climate change, biodiversity loss, and other environmental problems missing from the MDG framework. Table 3.1 shows the proposed SDG focus areas alongside the existing MDGs.
The proposed SDG framework includes both opportunities and challenges for anti-poverty efforts. With any expansion of goals comes the risk of losing clarity and ocus. Each of the MDGs has a direct link to the goal of ending poverty. The proposed SDG focus areas do not include important ways of ﬁghting poverty—ways that go beyond simply providing food—such as education, empowering women, improving child and maternal health and nutrition, and ﬁghting HIV/AIDS.
In spite of these concerns, elements of the SDG agenda could well enhance future anti-poverty efforts. Climate change affects poor people disproportionately, and feeding a rapidly rising global population will require more sustainable forms of agriculture.
Expanding the post-2015 development agenda to address the urgent problems posed by climate change and the need for sustainable food production should not come at the cost of losing the focus on key health, education, and equality issues or the overall clear anti-poverty message. Finding a balance that includes both these essential elements of the MDGs and the essentials of the SDG agenda is the challenge, particularly with numerous stakeholders already vying to shape the SDG agenda and the relationship between the SDGs and MDGs. But just as the MDGs brought global attention to the ﬁght against poverty, the SDGs could serve as a platform for the need to act on climate change.
Anna Wiersma is a senior at Valparaiso University in Indiana pursuing a degree in international economics and cultural affairs. She was a summer 2012 intern in Bread for the World’s government relations department.
This exerpt is borrowed from the 2013 Hunger Report, Within Reach: Global Development Goals. Visit hungerreport.org to learn more about the MDGs, sustainable development, and the post-2015 agenda.
Photos from the immigration reform rally last Wednesday, April 10, 2013. (Photos by Derek Schwabe/Bread for the World)
A path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States may be closer to reality than it has been in more than 25 years. This week, a bipartisan group of senators — the so-called “Gang of Eight” — is expected to make public its proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. The proposal is believed to represent an agreement between Congress and the president. It could reach the Senate floor for debate before the Memorial Day recess.
Thousands of advocates descended upon the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol last Wednesday in an effort to jump-start the reform process. They carried flags of Latin American countries together with U.S. flags, as well as signs and banners in English and Spanish with phrases like “The time is now” and “We are all immigrants.” Rally leaders described the event as vital to building public momentum for reform in what they see as a window of political opportunity.
As U.S. policymakers and advocates alike weigh in on the necessary discussion of how to fairly draw the nation’s current undocumented immigrants “out of the shadows,” we cannot neglect the other half of the problem. As we’ve mentioned before, there is no question that undocumented immigrants will continue to come. The more important (though less often addressed) question is why.
The 2013 Hunger Report, Within Reach: Global Development Goals, opens a discussion of “why” with information about the economic situation in many Latin American communities:
Immigration from Latin America is at the center of the debate on immigration policy in the United States—yet very little attention has been paid to the conditions that drive people in Latin America to enter the United States illegally. Migration as a coping strategy is not unique to Latin American immigrants in the United States. Around the world, people have escaped poverty by migrating to places where there is a better chance of earning a living. This includes the rural youth in Uganda mentioned earlier in this chapter, migrating to cities in search of opportunity, and it includes young people from village after village in Guatemala who head to the United States or sometimes to jobs on sugar and coffee plantations in Guatemala or Mexico. The United States is a more popular destination—despite the risk of crossing the desert—because the plantations pay little more than they would be able to earn at home.
While thousands speak out for a better life for immigrants here in the United States, we should remember that the voices we aren’t hearing are those of more than 40 million people in Latin America who struggle to feed their families. Global initiatives such as the U.N. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have driven economic progress in many countries, but efforts to end hunger and extreme poverty must come from both sides of the border for an effective response to the “supply” side of undocumented immigration.
Visit the 2013 Hunger Report website to read more about the relationship between hunger and poverty and immigration.
It’s easy to forget that hunger and malnutrition are still big problems here in the Western Hemisphere. The focus tends to be on countries in Africa and South Asia, where malnourished women and children are more visible and international organizations more active. In previous posts on Institute Notes, I’ve written about traveling to Guatemala and described efforts now under way to reduce the country’s stubbornly high rates of maternal/child malnutrition.
Today 1,000 children will be born in Guatemala. If the past predicts the future, half of these babies will grow up stunted (far too short for their age). Stunting causes children to be more susceptible to illness and less likely to do well in school. People who are stunted have lower lifetime earnings than their peers, and they are more likely to raise stunted children themselves. Does this make you a little angry? When a national survey in Guatemala revealed that less than 1 percent of the respondents thought malnutrition was a problem in the country, it angered President Perez Molina more than a little. He ordered every member of his cabinet to spend time living with a family facing chronic food shortages and malnutrition. Many such families are indigenous Guatemalans in difficult to reach mountainous regions.
It didn’t stop with the cabinet. In the end, 6,212 middle- and high-income Guatemalans -- officials, families, members of church and civil society groups -- connected with some of the poorest people in their country. The result was a nationwide commitment to break the cycle of malnutrition and stunting. It’s an ambitious goal in the sense that malnutrition is an entrenched problem that has persisted for decades despite earlier attempts to solve it. In a country whose president is limited to one term (four years), it has proven difficult to muster the political will to initiate actions that might not be sustained. But the Perez Molina administration reconvened after the rural visits to launch a concerted nationwide effort to scale up nutrition in Guatemala. The Zero Hunger Pact was born.
“Zero Hunger” has two main goals: to reduce chronic malnutrition among children by 10 percent and to prevent deaths caused by acute malnutrition by focusing on seasonal hunger (the spike in hunger that generally comes just prior to harvest time). A series of specific actions to combat malnutrition and to encourage people to participate have been developed. The pact’s other areas of focus are to include promoting development and fighting poverty, especially among indigenous rural women. Activities have now begun in various parts of the country, and plans call for expansion in 2014 and 2015.
Last week, I attended a meeting about the Zero Hunger Pact at the State Department, along with Guatemalan government leaders; the State Department’s Acting Special Representative for Global Food Security, Jonathan Shrier; and USAID’s Assistant to the Administrator for the Bureau of Food Security, Paul Weisenfeld. With the strong backing of Guatemala’s president, leaders from government, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and civil society are working together on a plan to make sustainable improvements in nutrition.
Guatemala has been active in the global Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement, which now brings together 34 countries committed to improving maternal and child nutrition. The world now knows what to do and how to do it. What Guatemala has added is political will at its highest level, a national budget allocation, and public commitment.
The Zero Hunger Pact says it best:
“Today we dare dream about a different Guatemala, in which children with smiles are free from hunger and reach their full potential. We have launched the process of change and as a society we are ready to pay the cost for reaching our collective success. What used to divide us, brings us together now in the fight for one single cause: to eradicate malnutrition.”
So with this blog we can salute Guatemala for its efforts, along with other SUN Movement countries who are making political decisions and changing government policies to reduce malnutrition.
Posted by Scott Bleggi on April 15, 2013 in Agriculture, Assets for the Poor, Climate Change, Development Assistance, Economic Development, Food Aid, Foreign Aid Reform, Global Hunger, Good Governance, Hunger Hotspots, Hunger Report, Immigration, Inequality, Latin America, Malnutrition, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Millennium Development Goals, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
This is not to say, of course, that leaders in South Korea (and around the world) are or should be taking the threats lightly. But wider South Korean society now regards the North’s public pronouncements and brinksmanship tactics with more pity than fear. This shift in broader perception accompanies South Korea’s transformation from one of the poorest countries in the world in the 1950s to a leading developed economy today. It makes the contrast with North Korea’s widespread poverty and hunger all the more stark.
Hunger in North Korea is rampant. In 2011, 32 percent of the population didn’t always know where their next meals were coming from. Nearly one in five children was underweight, and one in three was stunted (that’s largely irreversible cognitive damage to 1/3 of children). The statistics are, sadly, amply illustrated by story after heart-wrenching story of famine, attempts to flee the country, and even cannibalism. Meanwhile, only miles away, South Korea has beaten back hunger to the level s of an industrialized country. The country was recently ranked just after the United Kingdom in food security – it’s the 21st most food secure nation in the world.
The existence of two very different Koreas is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in today’s world for Bread’s argument that hunger is not necessary. It is a choice made by national policy makers.
The 2013 Hunger Report includes a short account of the inspiring South Korean story and the lessons it taught the world about how country-led development and true partnership work:
South Korea’s transformation from one of the poorest countries in the world in the 1950s to a member of the OECD by the 2000s makes it a powerful symbol of the potential impact of effective aid. For decades, the United States, Japan, and other donors provided Korea with a steady stream of financial support and equally significant assistance in capacity building. Between 1962 and 1971, for example, 7,000 Koreans received training abroad, and from this group have come many of the country’s leaders in government, business, and academia.
The South Korean government and the United States did not always agree on the conditions attached to U.S. assistance. The Korean government wanted to focus on large-scale economic infrastructure, while the United States favored building up small and medium-size enterprises. It rejected the government’s request for financing a road project to connect the main port at Busan with the country’s major population centers, so the government spent a quarter of the entire national budget to build the road itself. Seven years after its completion, South Korea’s national income had quadrupled. Thus, it was particularly appropriate for the December 2011 Fourth High-Level Meeting on Aid Effectiveness to be held in Busan, Korea. Busan is now one of the busiest port cities in the world, and its success demonstrates why country-led development should be more than a slogan.
Each year, the U.S. government spends $18 billion on improving its workforce, and most policy makers agree that it’s one of the best investments our country can make. Any job in this modern economy requires a unique set of skills commensurate with essential training or education. And of course, a more highly skilled workforce is a key prerequisite to economic growth. But those who have tried to evaluate the effectiveness of current federal workforce development programs — including the Government Accountability Office(GAO) — report that it is not easily measured. There are at least 47 such programs, many of which serve overlapping purposes and offer inconclusive, poorly documented results.
The House took its first stab at sweeping workforce program reform last month with the passage of the SKILLS Act. This measure, passed largely against the will of House Democrats and President Obama, would consolidate scattered funding pools into a single “Workforce Investment Fund” from which block grants would be issued directly to states to be dispersed and managed in accordance with their plans. A Democratic alternative was also proposed, prioritizing funding for community colleges, training for high-growth industries, and programs targeted at low-income people. Both plans promise to reduce administrative overhead, build in more rigorous evaluation, and bridge the gap between the unemployed and the 3.6 million unfilled job openings in the United States.
A better educated and skilled workforce is always a good idea, not just for broad-based economic growth, but because a better trained worker is an empowered worker—more capable of finding and keeping a job that pays enough to keep a family out of poverty.
Chapter 4 of the 2013 Hunger Report, With Reach: Global Development Goals, explores the role of the labor market in fighting poverty:
Most of the changes needed to reduce the poverty that now exists in the United States, as opposed to preventing poverty for the next generation, must take place in the labor market. Clearly, there’s a lot of scope for government to make mistakes while trying to correct problems in the labor market, and in the end, government power in this sphere is limited. However, there are also improvements that could be made now. These include raising the minimum wage, indexing the minimum wage to inflation, and ensuring labor rights such as the right to organize and join a union. (Congress and the president have already taken some encouraging actions toward making the minimum wage a living wage.)
Government has failed workers—both low-wage workers and those who were once relatively insulated from eroding purchasing power. The GDP of the country continues to rise, yet real wages are now stagnant even for people with bachelor’s degrees. The most severe effects of the increasingly skewed labor market fall on low-wage workers. The work low-wage workers do is needed, and always will be: janitors, food-service workers, landscapers, farm workers, and others. And the people who have these jobs will, of course, always need to earn a living.
Thus, one essential response is to ensure that all jobs pay enough to keep employees above the poverty line. Government must do more to counter the downward pressure on wages. Human-capital development must be strengthened so that even if some jobs are dead-end jobs, no one is trapped in them for lack of alternatives.
See the rest of Chapter 4 for more on U.S. workforce development and education.
Suburban Montgomery County, Maryland is not the kind of place you’d expect to find hunger. It is the 10 th richest county in America with a median income of almost $93,000 in 2011, and it also happens to be where I live.
Hunger exists in Montgomery County as it does in the 9 counties where the median income is even higher. I haven’t witnessed it everywhere myself, but working for Bread for the World Institute, I have access to this information and I talk to enough people who are working to reduce hunger in such places.
Rural and urban areas of the US have a higher share of people who experience hunger, but the suburbs are home to more of them in absolute numbers. Manna Food Center has been operating for 30 years, so hunger in the county is not a new phenomenon.
Hunger in suburban areas is largely hidden. Because it’s not supposed to happen here, the victims suffer more shame for their condition, which drives them out of plain view. At the symposium I was talking to a man who had recently lost his job and was getting food from Manna and using the SNAP program to feed his wife, himself and their three children. He was telling me that while at the bus stop in the morning, he saw two adults come walking out of a wooded area. Before he became impoverished, the sight of these people would not have registered with him. He now knows people who are living in those woods, homeless.
Since 1983, Manna has distributed 43 million pounds of food to 2.7 million residents of the county. Last year, Manna gave food to 41,000 households and worked with 50 partner agencies. You don’t have that kind of reach without the infrastructure to make it possible, and this includes a warehouse where food donations arrive daily, trucks dropping off food packages at delivery points around the county, and an army of staff and volunteers to make sure the system operates officially. Manna’s volunteers put in 52,000 hours of service last year.
Minnerva Delgado, Manna’s executive director, asked if I would speak at the symposium. When she called to offer a spot at the end to talk about advocacy, I had just finished reading an article called “The Problem with Food Banks” in the online journal Salon, and it seemed too weird a coincidence to resist, so I said sure. The article is about food banks in Canada, written by Nick Saul, a Canadian, and it reminded me of a book published in the US back in the early 90s. Sweet Charity, by Janet Poppendieck, is essential reading for anyone who is helping to feed the hungry in the US.
In the article, Saul expresses the same conflict Poppendieck described in Sweet Charity:
“Yet each time I visit such warehouses, I find myself alternating between hope and despair. Hope born of the understanding that all of this is motivated by the human urge to help others with that most basic of needs: food. Despair because this effort, and that of food banks all over Canada, has not solved the problem of hunger. On the contrary, I believe food banking makes it worse.
Worse—but how can that be? As he says,
“It is time to have a frank conversation about the limitations of this approach and start harnessing that caring and the engagement with food issues into a new political force. We need to ask ourselves and our elected representatives how we can make real, lasting change, and ensure that everyone finds health and dignity at our nation’s table.”
Sweet Charity came to much the same conclusion. I have written about Sweet Charity at different times for Bread for the World Institute. I decided to go back not only to what I’d written but to my notes about the book and I came across this passage in a review of the book by Larry Brown, the former director of the National Center on Hunger and Poverty at the Harvard School of Public Health.
“While charity feeds the poor, it also has become the basis for complacency. If the poor have food, they are no threat to the status quo. If volunteers feel they have done "something to help," they have little need to probe into the causes of hunger and the impact of charitable programs. And political leaders point to the "limits of government" and the effectiveness of "public-private partnerships" as the excuse for not using the apparatus of public policy to protect people from hunger as is done in other wealthy industrialized nations.”
The emphasis is mine. I thought what Brown had to say in the last sentence adds an important point to the statement above. Bread for the World has engaged with policymakers since the 1970s. Here we are in 2013, engaged again – fighting the same battles we fought before. It takes more than engagement.
It used to be that we could tell policymakers in the US, you know, other rich countries don’t have hunger like we have here. I’m not sure it had any effect, but was a reminder to ourselves at least that the US is an anomaly, and that any one of these days our policymakers could easily snap out of their indifference. Based on the news from up north, we probably underestimated the export potential of our indifference.
At the symposium, I congratulated my hosts on their 30 years of service. I exhorted them to keep up the good work, and like my predecessors in this endeavor, I urged them to take up advocacy regardless of how frustrating it seems.
The world's poorest citizens are steadily moving into the global “middle class,” according to the recently released 2013 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI). The report, an Oxford University poverty and human development initiative, predicts that countries among the most impoverished in the world could eradicate acute poverty within 20 years if they continue at present rates. Their tool for measurement, the MPI, is not only significant for its promising economic forecast, but for its groundbreaking multifaceted method of defining true poverty.
In recent years, especially since the launch of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000, economists and development experts have learned to expand their concept of development to encompass far more than traditional economic yardsticks such as GDP or income per capita. They've discovered that it is really about a human being’s quality of life, an appropriately more complex concept. In previous posts, we have discussed the ingenuity of new tools like the Human Development Index (HDI), which now help us more accurately track the many ways in which human beings can improve their livelihoods. Just as the HDI has redefined the end goal, which is development, the MPI has redefined one of the most urgent barriers — poverty.
The MPI uses 10 key indicators that complement traditional income-based poverty measures by capturing a number of severe deprivations that a person faces simultaneously. The result is a more complete poverty measurement that can identify the poorest among the poor and direct aid resources to them accordingly.
Perhaps the most encouraging outcome of the MPI, as the 2013 report shows, is that it is uncovering progress previously less visible in even the world's “poorest” nations. Read more about the MPI and its impact on the effort to end poverty and hunger in chapter 1 of the 2013 Hunger Report, Within Reach: Global Development Goals.