The basic-needs approach to measuring poverty sometimes yields dramatically different results from the World Bank method, depending on the provisioning systems that are in place. This is clear in the case of China, which we explored in a recent paper, and which provides an important example (Sullivan et al., 2023, Sullivan and Hickel, 2023). The World Bank’s method suggests that extreme poverty was very high during the socialist period, and declined during the capitalist reforms of the 1990s, going from 88% in 1981 to zero by 2018. However, the basic-needs approach tells a very different story. From 1981 to 1990, when most of China’s socialist provisioning systems were still in place, extreme poverty in China was on average only 5.6%, much lower than in other large countries of similar GDP/capita (such as India and Indonesia, where poverty was 51% and 36.5% respectively), and lower even than in many middle-income countries (like Brazil and Venezuela, where poverty was 29.5% and 32%, respectively). China’s comparatively strong performance, which is corroborated by data on other social indicators, was due to socialist policies that sought to ensure everyone had access to food and housing at an affordable price. However, during the capitalist reforms of the 1990s, poverty rates rose dramatically, reaching a peak of 68%, as public provisioning systems were dismantled and privatization caused the prices of basic necessities to rise, thus deflating the incomes of the working classes

you’re telling me China isn’t socialist??

maybe this Hickel guy is just a globalist imperial plant…

It is worth highlighting that the World Bank’s approach to poverty is convenient, from the perspective of capitalism, because it celebrates any increase in any form of production as a “solution” to poverty. Of course, for capital, the primary objective of production is not to meet human needs, or to achieve social progress, but to maximize profit, including by constantly increasing commodity production (Wallerstein, 1996, Wood, 1999).

And the core economies, including Denmark, cannot reasonably be used as a benchmark for development, because they have high levels of excess production and consumption, they dramatically exceed sustainable boundaries, and – as we described in the introduction – they rely on imperialist appropriation.

The UK has a GDP/cap of $38,000 (2011 PPP), representing very high levels of aggregate production and consumption, and yet 4.7 million people in that country do not have secure access to nutritious food (Francis-Devine et al 2023). Despite sustained GDP/cap growth in recent decades, most high-income countries have witnessed an increase in extreme poverty, as measured by the BNPL.

hmm 🤔

abs amazing paper 👏