Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Poverty, traditionally measured by income levels, offers a limited understanding of deprivation. The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), developed by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), provides a more holistic view by considering multiple deprivations at the individual level. The statement "The incidence and intensity of poverty are more important in determining poverty based on income alone" underscores the limitations of solely relying on monetary metrics. The 2022 UN MPI report, covering 111 countries, reveals that 1.9 billion people – 24.9% of the global population – live in multidimensional poverty, offering a stark contrast to income-based poverty estimates and highlighting the significance of understanding both *who* is poor (incidence) and *how* poor they are (intensity).
Understanding Multidimensional Poverty
Traditional income-based poverty measures, like the World Bank’s poverty line, focus on consumption or income levels. While useful, they fail to capture the various non-monetary dimensions of deprivation that significantly impact well-being. The MPI, in contrast, assesses poverty across three key dimensions: Health (nutrition and child mortality), Education (years of schooling and school attendance), and Living Standards (access to electricity, safe drinking water, sanitation, flooring, cooking fuel, and assets).
Key Findings of the 2022 UN MPI Report
The 2022 report presents several crucial findings:
- Global MPI Value & Incidence: The global MPI value stands at 0.129, indicating that 24.9% of the population (1.9 billion people) are multidimensionally poor. This is a significant number, exceeding income-based poverty estimates.
- Sub-Saharan Africa: This region remains the most affected, with over half the population (55.1%) experiencing multidimensional poverty. The incidence is significantly higher than in other regions.
- Intensity of Poverty: The average intensity of poverty – the average number of deprivations experienced by poor households – is 3.1. This means that, on average, each poor household faces over three simultaneous deprivations.
- Children & Poverty: Nearly half of all multidimensionally poor individuals are children under 16. This highlights the intergenerational nature of poverty and the importance of investing in child development.
- Internal Variations: The report emphasizes significant variations *within* countries. Poverty is often concentrated among specific ethnic groups, rural populations, and marginalized communities.
Incidence vs. Intensity: A Deeper Dive
The statement in the question is validated by the MPI’s methodology. Consider two hypothetical countries:
| Country | Incidence (Percentage of Population in MPI Poverty) | Intensity (Average Deprivations) | MPI Value (Incidence x Intensity) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Country A | 30% | 2 | 0.6 |
| Country B | 20% | 4 | 0.8 |
Country B, despite having a lower incidence of poverty (20% vs. 30%), has a higher MPI value (0.8 vs. 0.6) due to its higher intensity of poverty (4 vs. 2). This demonstrates that focusing solely on the percentage of people in poverty can be misleading. Country B’s poor experience a greater degree of deprivation, indicating a more severe poverty situation overall.
Policy Implications
The MPI’s focus on incidence and intensity has significant policy implications. It necessitates a shift from solely income-focused interventions to a more comprehensive approach that addresses multiple deprivations simultaneously. For example:
- Targeted Interventions: Identifying specific deprivations prevalent in different regions and communities allows for targeted interventions.
- Integrated Programs: Programs addressing health, education, and living standards in an integrated manner are more effective than siloed approaches. The Pradhan Mantri Jan Vikas Mission (PMJVM) in India, aiming to improve the quality of life of people in identified backward districts, exemplifies this approach.
- Data-Driven Policymaking: Regular monitoring of MPI indicators allows for evidence-based policymaking and evaluation of program effectiveness.
Conclusion
The latest UN MPI report reinforces the argument that understanding the incidence and intensity of poverty is crucial for effective poverty reduction. Moving beyond income-based measures allows for a more nuanced and accurate assessment of deprivation, leading to more targeted and impactful policy interventions. Addressing the multiple dimensions of poverty simultaneously, particularly focusing on vulnerable groups like children and marginalized communities, is essential for achieving sustainable and inclusive development. Future MPI reports should continue to refine indicators and expand coverage to provide a more comprehensive global picture of multidimensional poverty.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.