Thanks for this write-up, it’s nice to have an opportunity to discuss Hickel’s book. I haven’t yet finished the book (I’ve yet to read the recommendations section) but here are a few thoughts I had so far:
1) The number of people around the world in absolute poverty is increasing, not decreasing
Overall, what I learnt from this section (my charitable takeaway) is:
1a) and 1b) are a reminder that organisations like the World Bank and IMF have strong incentives to make themselves look good by changing the goalposts. We should be consistent about dates & metrics when discussing longitudinal changes in poverty
1c) is a reminder that the IPL is not the bar for a decent quality of life, and that we should be more demanding of poverty eradication efforts.
We should probably look at poverty rates over time by region, or at the very least exclude China. OurWorldInData’s history of poverty charts on this it contains data on multiple poverty lines. Here is my summary of the extreme poverty line ($1.90 per day):
Subsaharan Africa (1 billion in 2015): A drop in relative poverty from ~60% to ~40% from 1990s to 2015. An increase in absolute extreme poverty from ~280 to ~412 million people.
South Asia (1.7 billion in 2013): Absolute improvements in extreme poverty from 513 to 274 million people from 1981 to 2013, and relative improvements of 55% to 16%.
East Asia & Pacific (2 billion in 2015): An extreme drop in relative poverty from ~80% to ~2%, and a drop in absolute poverty from 1.1 billion to 47 million people.
Latin America & the Caribbean (620 million in 2015): An drop in relative poverty from ~13% to ~4%, and 49 to 24 million people.
Proxy for South East Asia—Philippines and Indonesia (101 million in 2015, 263 million in 2017): A drop in relative poverty in Indonesia from ~70% to ~6%, and 115 to 15 million people. A drop in relative poverty in the Philippines from ~28% to ~8%, and 15 to 8 million people.
With the exception of Subsaharan Africa, all other regions have seen decreases in absolute poverty, and all regions have seen drops in relative poverty. Even if you look at higher poverty lines that are there in the chart, there is a similar (but less extreme) positive growth trajectory.
And this is my major issue with his choice to use absolute poverty rather than relative poverty, which he justifies using because this was the original goalpost, and the way he presents the situation, which I think is a bit misleading. I don’t think this is a very strong reason to use that numbers, I think that consider. The decrease in extreme poverty in Asia (specifically South Asia, if we are to exclude China) has been a real improvement, even if many are still living in poverty.
There is this chart which shows the world decrease in extreme poverty split up by regions and a projection of stagnation in extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa if those economies stagnate.
What are the implications of this?
It makes me wary of Hickel’s overall argument, and makes me concerned his narrative doesn’t fully make sense (although individual parts of his arguments may be true). I don’t think that the second part of his argument is actually invalidated by the above if we just change the argument to be more accurate:
Hickel’s claim: Neocolonialisms has prevented the absolute decrease in extreme poverty for countries that experienced it.
(in my opinion) The more defensible claim: Neocolonialism has slowed down the rate of relative decrease in extreme poverty for countries that experienced it.
Thus, in both cases neocolonialism is the cause for a counterfactual where the world is much better, my claim is less extreme than Hickel’s. I haven’t spent too much time on the claims he makes in the neocolonialism section yet, although I also was shocked by the number of coups, and agree with your comment that he may have overlooked the negative aspects of some of the regimes.
I’d be curious to know what you find out from your research!
Thanks Vaidehi, great comment. If those numbers are right then the drops in both absolute and relative poverty in both South Asia and Indonesia seem pretty amazing.
Very interesting! I will let you know. I definitely want to spend some time just looking at the data for myself, and will let you know when I come to some (tentative) conclusions.
Thanks for this write-up, it’s nice to have an opportunity to discuss Hickel’s book. I haven’t yet finished the book (I’ve yet to read the recommendations section) but here are a few thoughts I had so far:
Overall, what I learnt from this section (my charitable takeaway) is:
1a) and 1b) are a reminder that organisations like the World Bank and IMF have strong incentives to make themselves look good by changing the goalposts. We should be consistent about dates & metrics when discussing longitudinal changes in poverty
1c) is a reminder that the IPL is not the bar for a decent quality of life, and that we should be more demanding of poverty eradication efforts.
We should probably look at poverty rates over time by region, or at the very least exclude China. OurWorldInData’s history of poverty charts on this it contains data on multiple poverty lines. Here is my summary of the extreme poverty line ($1.90 per day):
Subsaharan Africa (1 billion in 2015): A drop in relative poverty from ~60% to ~40% from 1990s to 2015. An increase in absolute extreme poverty from ~280 to ~412 million people.
South Asia (1.7 billion in 2013): Absolute improvements in extreme poverty from 513 to 274 million people from 1981 to 2013, and relative improvements of 55% to 16%.
East Asia & Pacific (2 billion in 2015): An extreme drop in relative poverty from ~80% to ~2%, and a drop in absolute poverty from 1.1 billion to 47 million people.
Latin America & the Caribbean (620 million in 2015): An drop in relative poverty from ~13% to ~4%, and 49 to 24 million people.
Proxy for South East Asia—Philippines and Indonesia (101 million in 2015, 263 million in 2017): A drop in relative poverty in Indonesia from ~70% to ~6%, and 115 to 15 million people. A drop in relative poverty in the Philippines from ~28% to ~8%, and 15 to 8 million people.
With the exception of Subsaharan Africa, all other regions have seen decreases in absolute poverty, and all regions have seen drops in relative poverty. Even if you look at higher poverty lines that are there in the chart, there is a similar (but less extreme) positive growth trajectory.
And this is my major issue with his choice to use absolute poverty rather than relative poverty, which he justifies using because this was the original goalpost, and the way he presents the situation, which I think is a bit misleading. I don’t think this is a very strong reason to use that numbers, I think that consider. The decrease in extreme poverty in Asia (specifically South Asia, if we are to exclude China) has been a real improvement, even if many are still living in poverty.
There is this chart which shows the world decrease in extreme poverty split up by regions and a projection of stagnation in extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa if those economies stagnate.
What are the implications of this?
It makes me wary of Hickel’s overall argument, and makes me concerned his narrative doesn’t fully make sense (although individual parts of his arguments may be true). I don’t think that the second part of his argument is actually invalidated by the above if we just change the argument to be more accurate:
Hickel’s claim: Neocolonialisms has prevented the absolute decrease in extreme poverty for countries that experienced it.
(in my opinion) The more defensible claim: Neocolonialism has slowed down the rate of relative decrease in extreme poverty for countries that experienced it.
Thus, in both cases neocolonialism is the cause for a counterfactual where the world is much better, my claim is less extreme than Hickel’s. I haven’t spent too much time on the claims he makes in the neocolonialism section yet, although I also was shocked by the number of coups, and agree with your comment that he may have overlooked the negative aspects of some of the regimes.
I’d be curious to know what you find out from your research!
Thanks Vaidehi, great comment. If those numbers are right then the drops in both absolute and relative poverty in both South Asia and Indonesia seem pretty amazing.
Very interesting! I will let you know. I definitely want to spend some time just looking at the data for myself, and will let you know when I come to some (tentative) conclusions.