Poverty and Inequality through 2030
Thanks to strong economic growth, poverty has tended to fall worldwide. But the trend is not sufficient to eradicate poverty by 2030. For this, growth would have to rise further and inequalities fall. Non-economic dimensions of well-being, such as education and health, also need to be taken into account. This assumes that governments in particular have the capacity to invest in public infrastructures.
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were adopted by the global community in 2000 with great fanfare, and set targets for wellbeing and progress to the year 2015. In 2015, the next phase of global goal setting was introduced with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which set targets to the year 2030. The 8 original MDGs have been expanded to 17 SDGs. The SDGs have themselves been further specified using more than 200 indicators. The pros and cons of this dramatic broadening in scope have been discussed in Kanbur, Patel and Stiglitz. The more open process of goal setting, incorporating a wider range of concerns, was bound to lead to greater expansiveness. And the importance of including sustainability in the expanded goals cannot be doubted. In any event, the global community now has a set of targets to aim for by the year 2030.
This paper will concentrate on a subset of the targets and ask where we are and what the prospects are for achieving them by 2030, which after all is only a little more than a decade away. The specific focus of this paper will be on income poverty and inequality. Reducing income poverty was the lead target of the MDGs and it is also mentioned first in the SDGs. Target 1.1 of the SDGs is: “By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day.” Income Inequality was not in the MDGs, but is now explicit as SDG 10. Target 10.1 states: “By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 percent of the population at a rate higher than the national average.” In effect, therefore, this target aims to reduce income inequalities within countries. Of course income is only one dimension of wellbeing and deprivation. The SDGs follow the MDGs in emphasizing non-income dimensions such as nutrition (SDG 2), health (SDG 3) and education (SDG4). Although my focus will be on the income dimensions, I will also touch on non-income ones.
The End of Income Poverty?
What level is global income poverty headed towards in 2030, and beyond? The answer to this depends of course on how poverty is measured, and this in turn involves technically difficult questions of comparing standards of living across space and time. SDG 1.1 specifies extreme poverty as persons living on less than $1.25 per day, but this is at “purchasing power parity” (PPP) exchange rates, not official exchange rates. […]
OUTLINE
- The End of Income Poverty?
- Inequality Within and Between Countries
- Universal Basic Income as a National Policy?
- Non-Income Dimensions
Ravi Kanbur is Professor of International Relations and Economics at Cornell University (USA). He has held various positions at the World Bank, including Chief Economist for Africa.
Available in:
Themes and regions
Share
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
Poverty and Inequality through 2030
Iran: Anatomy of a Power at War
The elimination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several high-ranking officials at the outset of the 2026 American-Israeli operation did not succeed in bringing down the Iranian regime. The regime had prepared for such a scenario, notably by decentralizing its structures. Moreover, it continues to adapt to war. The power of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is growing at the expense of the Shiite clergy. The security apparatus defends the country’s sovereignty and justifies its actions in the name of raison d’état.
“Remodeling” the Middle East?
Chaos continues to spread, seemingly without end, across the Middle East. The Israeli-American attack on Iran has resulted in a clear military and diplomatic failure, but it is paving the way for a regional realignment, the consequences of which remain uncertain. New regional groupings are taking shape, either centered around Israel or built on the prospect of coexistence with Tehran, alongside a decline in American influence and the marginalization of Europe, while China maintains a low-key presence.
Silicon Valley and War: Lessons from Ukraine
Over the course of international conflicts, and particularly in Ukraine, major tech companies have emerged as central actors. Initially subject to wartime maneuvering, they have since become decisive actors in their own right, privatizing a significant share of wartime exchanges, shaping the information flows of societies, and presenting themselves as providers of security. This situation raises important questions about states’ autonomy in making decisions and taking action.
Does Artificial Intelligence Change the Nature of War?
From Gaza to Ukraine and Iran, current conflicts are being shaped by the arrival of artificial intelligence and robots on the battlefield. The changes under way are so profound that humans risk rapidly losing control over entire aspects of the conduct of military operations. While these technological developments are altering the character of war, their impact on the very nature of war itself remains a matter of debate.