arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2609.16203

Global Poverty Beyond the Official Line: A bounded estimate of material insufficiency

Abstract

Numbers this large invite a defensive reflex: reach for the reassuring figure and move on. By the most widely cited measure, the World Bank's extreme-poverty line of \$3.00 per day (2021 PPP), approximately 847 million people, or 10.4% of the world's population, lived in poverty in 2024. That figure is accurate as measured. It is also, by design, a floor: a threshold built to mark bare survival in the poorest economies, not to describe what it takes for a family anywhere to live with basic security. The central argument of this report is that the reassurance offered by that single line is largely an artifact of how we chose to measure. Held to the \$3.00 floor, roughly 847 million people are poor; held to the standards of their own societies, the number is several times larger, and even the most cautious, honest count exceeds a billion. Measured against income standards appropriate to each country's level of development, some 3.7 billion people fall below the World Bank's \$8.30/day upper-middle-income reference line, roughly 1.1 billion are multidimensionally poor, and around 2.3 billion are food insecure. These are not competing errors but answers to different questions. This report does not dispute the official data. It takes those figures as accurate and asks what they do and do not capture. It disaggregates by geography, age, and gender and supplements the monetary count with multidimensional measures of food security, working poverty, social protection, and relative poverty. It also documents a data-quality problem that runs in one direction: survey coverage is weaker in regions with the worst poverty, so official figures are far likelier to understate deprivation than to overstate it.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Giancarlo Crocetti. 2026-09-14. Global Poverty Beyond the Official Line: A bounded estimate of material insufficiency. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21860388

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN