A/HRC/44/40 China’s outsized contribution 21. Much of the progress reflected under the Bank’s line is due not to any global trend but to exceptional developments in China, where the number of people below the IPL dropped from more than 750 million to 10 million between 1990 and 2015, 34 accounting for a large proportion of the billion people ‘lifted’ out of poverty during that period. This is even starker under higher poverty lines. Without China, the global headcount under a $2.50 line barely changed between 1990 and 2010.35 And without East Asia and the Pacific, it would have increased from 2.02 billion to 2.68 billion between 1990 and 2015 under a $5.50 line. 36 The Bank’s response B. 22. The Bank’s response to the IPL’s critics has been resolutely ambivalent. It has accepted the validity of many of the criticisms, acknowledged certain shortcomings, and recognized the need for multiple indicators of poverty and human development. However, it continues to give the IPL top billing in its messaging, much of its research, and its most highprofile analyses of global trends. For all of its careful qualification, the Bank is explicit that its focus remains on lifting people above that line.37 23. In 2015, the Bank sought advice on how best to measure and monitor global poverty by appointing a 24-member Commission on Global Poverty, led by Anthony Atkinson. 38 It subsequently accepted many of the report’s 21 recommendations, conceding, for example, that there are legitimate questions over whether its line is too low to define a person as poor in all countries. 39 In 2018, it introduced a “societal poverty line” relative to countries’ consumption levels, under which the poverty headcount has been nearly stagnant for 25 years.40 It also reported on two higher-value lines that it considers typical of lower- and upper-middle-income countries, $3.20 and $5.50 respectively.41 24. Although the Commission urged the Bank to develop a basic needs-based estimate rather than relying on the yardsticks chosen by 15 of the world’s poorest countries, the Bank maintains that “it would be paternalistic and disrespectful to question the choices” made by those countries.42 This most uncharacteristic deference sits uneasily alongside the Bank’s determination to influence various other domestic policy choices and the compelling concerns raised about national poverty lines in countries such as India, 43 Malaysia, 44 and China.45 In 2019, a key Bank official acknowledged that “poverty is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon” and that “a richer menu of poverty indicators is needed.” 46 25. Overall, the Bank’s response fails to engage adequately with the concern that the line is too low in certain countries to achieve even a frugal standard of living. And it sidesteps tough questions about the validity of PPP rates, the risks of using a reference group comprised 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 World Bank, “Poverty and Equity Data Portal,” available at https://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/CHN. Peter Edward and Andy Sumner, “Global Inequality and Global Poverty Since the Cold War: How robust is the optimistic narrative?,” in P. van Bergeijk and R. van der Hoeven (eds.), Sustainable Development Goals and Income Inequality (2017), Figures 6-9. World Bank, “Regional aggregation using 2011 PPP and $1.9/day poverty line,” available at iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/povDuplicateWB.aspx. World Bank, Poverty and Shared Prosperity, p. 3. Atkinson, Measuring Poverty, pp. xiv-xv. World Bank, Poverty and Shared Prosperity, pp. 3, 8. Ibid, p. 8. Ibid, p. 7. Romer, et al., “Cover Note to the Report,” p. 7. Angus Deaton, “Price Trends in India and Their Implications for Measuring Poverty,” Economic & Political Weekly, 9 February 2008. Kenneth Simler, “An idea whose time has come: Increasing Malaysia’s poverty line,” World Bank Blogs, 15 October 2019. Andrew Fischer, Poverty as Ideology: Rescuing Social Justice from Global Development Agendas (2018), p. 74. Francisco Ferreira, “Measuring and Monitoring Global Poverty at the World Bank: A brief overview,” 5 March 2019, p. 22. 7