During
the 20th century, global average per capita income rose
strongly, but with considerable variation among countries.
It is clear that the income gap between rich and poor
countries has been widening for many decades. The most
recent World Economic Outlook studies 42 countries
(representing almost 90 percent of world population) for
which data are available for the entire 20th
century. It reaches the conclusion that output per capita
has risen appreciably but that the distribution of income
among countries has become more unequal than at the
beginning of the century.
But
incomes do not tell the whole story; broader measures of
welfare that take account of social conditions show that
poorer countries have made considerable progress. For
instance, some low-income countries, e.g. Sri Lanka, have
quite impressive social indicators. One recent paper finds
that if countries are compared using the UN’s Human
Development Indicators (HDI), which take education and
life expectancy into account, then the picture that
emerges is quite different from that suggested by the
income data alone.
Indeed
the gaps may have narrowed. A striking inference from the
study is a contrast between what may be termed an "income
gap" and an "HDI gap". The (inflation-adjusted)
income levels of today’s poor countries are still well
below those of the leading countries in 1870. And the gap
in incomes has increased. But judged by their HDIs,
today’s poor countries are well ahead of where the
leading countries were in 1870. This is largely because
medical advances and improved living standards have
brought strong increases in life expectancy.
But
even if the HDI gap has narrowed in the long-term, far too
many people are losing ground. Life expectancy may have
increased but the quality of life for many has not
improved, with many still in abject poverty. And the
spread of AIDS through Africa in the past decade is
reducing life expectancy in many countries.
This
has brought new urgency to policies specifically designed
to alleviate poverty. Countries with a strong growth
record, pursuing the right policies, can expect to see a
sustained reduction in poverty, since recent evidence
suggests that there exists at least a one-to-one
correspondence between growth and poverty reduction. And
if strongly pro-poor policies—for instance in
well-targeted social expenditure—are pursued then there
is a better chance that growth will be amplified into more
rapid poverty reduction. This is one compelling reason for
all economic policy makers, including the IMF, to pay heed
more explicitly to the objective of poverty reduction.
By
