The bottom 1.4 billion

csuwyl

The bottom 1.4 billion
最贫穷的14亿人

Aug 28th 2008 | DELHI
From The Economist print edition

The world is poorer than we thought, the World Bank discovers
世界银行发现，世界比我们想象的要更加贫穷

IN APRIL 2007 the World Bank announced that 986m people worldwide suffered from extreme poverty—the first time its count had dropped below 1 billion. On August 26th it had grim news to report. According to two of its leading researchers, Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion, the “developing world is poorer than we thought”. The number of poor was almost 1.4 billion in 2005.

2007年4月世界银行发表声明表示世界范围内极度贫困的人是9.86亿，这是这个数据首次降到10亿以下。在今年8月26日世界银行却将发布更加严峻的消息。根据世界银行两个首席研究者——Shaohua Chen和 Martin Ravallion的研究，“发展中国家比我们想象的要更加贫穷”。以2005年的标准来看，贫穷的人数接近14亿。

This does not mean the plight of the poor had worsened—only that the plight is now better understood. The bank has improved its estimates of the cost of living around the world, thanks to a vast effort to compare the price of hundreds of products, from packaged rice to folding umbrellas, in 146 countries. In many poor countries the cost of living was steeper than previously thought, which meant more people fell short of the poverty line.

这并不意味着穷人的状况会更糟——只不过穷人的状况得到了更充分的了解。通过在146个国家对从袋装米到折叠伞等数百种产品的价格比较，世界银行提高了其对全世界生活成本的估计。在许多贫穷的国家，生活成本比先前想象的要多，这意味着更多的人将降到贫困线以下。

Ms Chen and Mr Ravallion have counted the world’s poor anew, using these freshly collected prices. They have also drawn a new poverty line. The bank used to count people who lived on less than “a dollar a day” (or $1.08 in 1993 prices, to be precise). This popular definition of poverty was first unveiled in the bank’s 1990 World Development Report and was later adopted by the United Nations (UN) when it resolved to cut poverty in half by 2015.

Chen女士和Ravallion先生用他们新收集的价格重新计算了世界穷人的数目。他们重新设定了一个贫困线。世界银行过去常常计算生活低于“一美元一天”的人数（精确地说是，在1993年价格标准下的1.08美元）。这个对贫困通俗的定义首次由世界银行1990年的《世界发展报告》发布出来，后来联合国在下决心于2015年将世界贫困人口降低一半的时候也采纳了这个标准。



The researchers now prefer a yardstick more typical of the 15 poorest countries that have credible poverty lines. By this definition, people are poor if they cannot match the standard of living of someone living on $1.25 a day in America in 2005. Such people would be recognised as poor even in Nepal, Tajikistan and hard-pressed African countries such as Uganda. But for those who still think a “dollar a day” has a better ring to it, the authors also calculate the number of people living on less than that at 2005 prices (see table).

Chen女士和Ravallion先生这两位研究者现在却更愿意采纳有着15个最穷国家特征的尺度标准做为更可靠的贫困线。在这种定义下，如果没有达到美国2005年的1.25美元一天的生活水平则就是贫困。甚至可以在尼泊尔，塔吉克斯坦以及处于困境的非洲国家例如乌干达找到这样贫困的人。但是对于那些仍然倾向“一美元一天”标准的人来说，作者也计算出了那些低于2005年1美元价格水平的贫困人数（如图所示）。

The discovery of another 400m poor people will not satisfy some of the bank’s critics, who think it still undercounts poverty. Its cost-of-living estimates are based on the prices faced by a “representative household”, whose consumption mirrors national spending. But the poor are not representative. In particular, they buy in smaller quantities—a cupful of rice, not a 10-kilogram bag; a single cigarette, not a packet. As a result, the “poor pay more”.

新发现的额外的4亿贫困人口同样没有令世界银行的批评者满足，他们认为还有更多未被计数的贫困者。世界银行的生活成本估计法是基于一个“典型的家庭”所面临的价格，他们的消费反映了国家开支。但是穷人不是典型的。特别是，他们购买的是小份——一杯米而不是一袋米，一支烟而不是一包烟。因此，“穷人支付的更多”。

Such concerns prompted the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to carry out its own study of the prices faced by the poor in 16 of its member countries (not including China). Its results, released on August 27th, found that in nine of those countries the poor in fact pay less. Even though they buy in smaller quantities, they save money by buying cut-price goods from cheaper outlets: kerbside haircuts not salons; open-air stalls not supermarkets; toddy not wine.

这些担忧促使亚洲开发银行在其16个成员国（不包括中国）实施其自己的有关穷人面临价格的研究。亚洲开发银行于8月27日发布的研究结果发现，这其中的9个国家的穷人实际上支付的更少些。虽然他们购买的是小份，但是他们能从廉价的地方买到打折的物品从而省钱：在路边理发而不是在理发店里；在露天的农贸市场而不是超市；购买棕榈酒而不是葡萄酒。

This penny-pinching adds up. In Indonesia, for example, the poor’s cost of living is 21% below the World Bank’s estimate. The survey also shaved more than 10% off the cost of living in other populous countries, such as Bangladesh and India. The difference was narrower in smaller countries, such as Cambodia. This may be because in big countries, such as India, the rich are large in number, though a tiny part of the population. Perhaps their spending has an undue influence on the prices faced by the representative household.

这些小气吝啬会积累起来的。例如在印度尼西亚，穷人的生活成本比世界银行估计的要低21％。在其它一些人口众多的国家的调查结果也同样如此，例如孟加拉国和印度的生活成本降低10％甚至更多。不同的是在一些小国家例如柬埔寨，则降低的很少。这可能是因为在一些大国，例如印度，富人虽然占比例很小，但是数目不小。也许他们的消费对于典型的家庭面临的价格有着降低的作用。

The ADB’s findings face an obvious philosophical objection. In theory a poverty count is supposed to calculate how many people fail to meet a certain standard of living. A person eating coarse rice, not fine-grained basmati, dressed in polyester not cotton, has a lower standard of living, even if he eats the same amount of grain and owns the same number of shirts. And when a household buys fruit in a supermarket, its members are buying more than just an apple. They are also enjoying the comfort of air-conditioning, the convenience of a parking space, and the hygiene of airtight packaging. But until such comforts are within the poor’s reach, the ADB is right to track the prices the poor actually pay. It hopes the next global price survey, due in 2011 and led by the World Bank, will do the same. Then, perhaps, the number of poor will be back to nine digits.

亚洲发展银行的研究发现面临着一个显而易见的哲学异议。从理论上讲，贫困人数应该是计算有多少人无法得到一个适当的标准生活水平。一个人吃着粗米而不是精细的印度香米，穿着涤纶衣服而不是棉制的衣服，那么他的生活水平就是在标准生活水平之下，尽管他吃着同样多的谷物，有着同样多的衬衣。当一个家庭在一家超市购买水果的时候，其家庭成员获得的不仅仅是一个苹果。他们同时享受着空调带来的舒适环境，停车位的便利，以及密封包装的卫生。但是当这些舒适穷人能够真正得到的时候，亚洲开发银行才正确追踪到穷人实际上支付的价格。现在期望世界银行将于2011年进行的下次全球价格调查，将会做这些事情。那时，可能世界贫困人数将会回到九位数。

Dough

i do believe reading more can help us a lot in improving our english

but , sorry to say, i find articles like this always make me sleepy.

大鸟复活

the  article    is  not   as   sexy  as  your   head  sculpture