Thanks John for this insightful set of comments I have enjoyed them immensely.
The $2.15 per day threshold is arbitrary yes, and it also makes me angry sometimes. The idea that for $2.15 in Uganda, you can feed and clothe your family, send your kids to school, pay school fees, pay for healthcare and buy the technology and transport needed to do OK in the world for only $2.15 a day is borderline absurd. I’m thinking of writing a post about this threshold actually as I think it misleads a lot of people. Yes life is cheaper here, but nowhere near that much cheaper.
I might push back a bit on your comment “For all countries that have ever eliminated extreme poverty, the things that caused that were never cash transfers. Rather, they were usually caused by changes in economic policy. I think this is an oversimplification. Many African countries have had very liberal economic policy for the last 20-40 years and they haven’t seen the kind of growth China and Southeast Asia have seen. I’m not saying economic policy isn’t important, but listing it as “the cause” of the development boom in China and many other countries seems oversimplified.
”The thing that caused China to massively reduce extreme poverty was economic liberalisation under Deng, e.g. agricultural liberalisation, international trade etc. “For sure the liberalisation allowed the development to happen—it couldn’t have happened without the policy changes, but many other factors were needed as well. I’m far from an expert but some of these might include a high quality education system, fortunate timing in becoming the industrial powerhouse of the world, massive investment into local infrastructure and the one child policy.
I would be interested as a side note though to hear your thoughts on why liberalising African economies seems to have achieved so little in many cases.
I agree with your first comment. The idea that living on >$2.15 is in any sense an acceptable standard of living is clearly incorrect. A world in which everyone lives on $2.16 per day might be a decent enough outcome after a nuclear winter, but it definitely should not be a core global development goal.
I agree on your second comment.
I agree on the third comment, but not on some of the specifics. In any case, the changes were driven by national level systemic policy changes, not by direct targeted aid.
I’m not best placed to speculate on the last question.
Thanks John for this insightful set of comments I have enjoyed them immensely.
The $2.15 per day threshold is arbitrary yes, and it also makes me angry sometimes. The idea that for $2.15 in Uganda, you can feed and clothe your family, send your kids to school, pay school fees, pay for healthcare and buy the technology and transport needed to do OK in the world for only $2.15 a day is borderline absurd. I’m thinking of writing a post about this threshold actually as I think it misleads a lot of people. Yes life is cheaper here, but nowhere near that much cheaper.
I might push back a bit on your comment “For all countries that have ever eliminated extreme poverty, the things that caused that were never cash transfers. Rather, they were usually caused by changes in economic policy. I think this is an oversimplification. Many African countries have had very liberal economic policy for the last 20-40 years and they haven’t seen the kind of growth China and Southeast Asia have seen. I’m not saying economic policy isn’t important, but listing it as “the cause” of the development boom in China and many other countries seems oversimplified.
”The thing that caused China to massively reduce extreme poverty was economic liberalisation under Deng, e.g. agricultural liberalisation, international trade etc. “For sure the liberalisation allowed the development to happen—it couldn’t have happened without the policy changes, but many other factors were needed as well. I’m far from an expert but some of these might include a high quality education system, fortunate timing in becoming the industrial powerhouse of the world, massive investment into local infrastructure and the one child policy.
I would be interested as a side note though to hear your thoughts on why liberalising African economies seems to have achieved so little in many cases.
Hi Nick,
I agree with your first comment. The idea that living on >$2.15 is in any sense an acceptable standard of living is clearly incorrect. A world in which everyone lives on $2.16 per day might be a decent enough outcome after a nuclear winter, but it definitely should not be a core global development goal.
I agree on your second comment.
I agree on the third comment, but not on some of the specifics. In any case, the changes were driven by national level systemic policy changes, not by direct targeted aid.
I’m not best placed to speculate on the last question.