east asia and pacific...number of poor (thousand) rate (%) national poverty line 294.3 34.0...

povertydata.worldbank.org

East Asia and Pacific

Number of Poor (million) Rate (%)

National Poverty Line 30.5 3.1

International Poverty Line

7.3 in Chinese yuan (2015) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita

Lower Middle Income Class Poverty Line

12.2 in Chinese yuan (2015) or US$3.20 (2011 PPP) per day per capita

Upper Middle Income Class Poverty Line

21 in Chinese yuan (2015) or US$5.50 (2011 PPP) per day per capita

Multidimentional Poverty Measure

SHARED PROSPERITY

Annualized Consumption Growth per capita of the bottom 40 percent 2013-2015

INEQUALITY

Gini Index

Shared Prosperity Premium = Growth of the bottom 40 - Average Growth 2013-2015

GROWTH

Annualized GDP per capita growth 2013-2015

Annualized Consumption Growth per capita from Household Survey 2013-2015

MEDIAN INCOME

Growth of the annual median income 2013-2015

2017

2015

9.14

46.5

1.75

7.0

27.2

N/A N/A

2015

2015

2016

10.0 0.7

95.5

372.8

Poverty Economist: Samuel Freije-Rodriguez

Sources: WDI for GDP, National Statistical Offices for national poverty rates, POVCALNET as of September 2019, and Global Monitoring Database for the rest.

8.51

7.39

6.6

Poverty & Equity Brief

ChinaEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

For decades China has experienced a sustained reduction in poverty rates as per the official poverty line of 2,300 Renminbi

(2010 standard) for the rural population. Recent estimates for poverty rates under the International Poverty Line of

$1.90/day 2011 PPP, the Lower Middle Income Class Poverty Line of $3.20/day, and the Upper Middle Income Class Poverty

Line of $5.50/day also confirm this trend. This is the result of yearly economic 6 percent sustained for years.

As of 2018, the official poverty rate stands at 1.7 percent of the rural population. The World Bank estimates that, by 2015,

poverty rates in China are 0.7 percent, 7.0 percent and 27.2 percent under the International, Lower Middle Income Class, and

the Upper Middle Income Class poverty lines, respectively.

Economic growth has also resulted in shared prosperity: as per our measures for the period 2013-2015, the average

consumption growth of the bottom 40 percent of the population has been 1.75 percentage points higher than the average

consumption growth of the total population. In other words, growth has brought fast welfare measured by

In addition, there is evidence of falling income inequality. Official data indicate a decline in income inequality, as measured by

the Gini index, falling from 49.1 in 2008 to 46.5 in 2016 (a trend also observed by independent researchers using different

data and methods). However, in 2017, the Gini index experienced an uptick to 46.7.

KEY INDICATORS

Non-Poor Poor Bottom 40 Top 60

Urban population N/A Monetary poverty

Rural population N/A Daily Consumption or income is less than US$1.90 per person

Males N/A Education

Females N/A At least one school-age child is not enrolled in school

0 to 14 years old N/A No adult in the household has completed primary education

15 to 64 years old N/A Access to basic infrastructure

65 and older N/A No access to limited-standard drinking water

Without education (16+) N/A N/A N/A N/A No access to limited-standard sanitation

Primary education (16+) N/A N/A N/A N/A No access to electricity

Secondary education (16+) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Tertiary/post-secondary education (16+) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Source: National Bureau of Statistics and World Bank Source: National Bureau of Statistics and World Bank

Notes: N/A missing value, N/A* value removed due to less than 30 observations

POVERTY DATA AND METHODOLOGY

HARMONIZATION

East Asia & Pacific povertydata.worldbank.org

China www.worldbank.org/poverty

Relative group (%)

The numbers presented in this brief are based on the EAPPOV database. EAPPOV is a database of socio-economic statistics constructed using microdata from

household surveys in the East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) region and is managed by the East Asia & Pacific Team for Statistical Development (EAPTSD). As of

January 2019, the collection includes 19 countries and 93 surveys. Harmonized surveys in the EAPPOV database are compiled into 4 modules following Global

Monitoring Database (GMD) Harmonization guidelines. A subset of the harmonized variables form the basis of the GMD collection, including the welfare

aggregate which is used for Global Poverty Monitoring. Terms of use of the data adhere to agreements with the original data producers.

INEQUALITY TRENDS, 2007-2016

Source: National Bureau of Statistics and World BankSource: National Bureau of Statistics and World Bank

World Bank poverty estimates differ from official poverty estimates because of methodological reasons. First, due to the lack of access to individual data from

the household surveys, the World Bank's estimates of poverty in China are based on household consumption from grouped data. These are often not as precise

as direct estimates based on the full distribution of household income and consumption from microdata. In addition, the official poverty line (at 2,300 renminbi

for the rural population in 2010) is higher than the global poverty line (2011 PPP), spatially adjusted for urban/rural price differences (around 1,990 renminbi for

rural areas for the same year). Second, the official estimates refer to a rural population that includes some migrants, whereas the World Bank estimates refer to

total population. Third, for 2013, the World Bank estimates use new survey data that include home ownership imputations in total consumption, a component

that is not included in the welfare aggregate used for official poverty estimates.

Multidimensional Poverty Measures (% of people):

POVERTY HEADCOUNT RATE, 2007-2017

International Poverty Line (%)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)

GDP per capita (Thousand)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

International Poverty Line Lower Middle IC Line

Upper Middle IC Line National Poverty Line

GDP

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Number of Poor (thousand) Rate (%)



2.5 in Fiji dollar (2013) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita






SHARED PROSPERITY


INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH



MEDIAN INCOME



FijiEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

The latest Household Income and Expenditure Survey used to estimate poverty in Fiji was conducted in 2013-14. A new HIES was

launched in February 2019, with data collection scheduled to conclude by January 2020. By World Bank definitions of data

deprivation, Fiji is classified as meeting the minimum data needs. In the past 10 years, Fiji has conducted a HIES on two occasions,

with a maximum of five years separating the two (2013-14 and 2008-09).

The national consumption-based poverty rate (see "Poverty Data and Methodology" section) was 34.0 percent in 2013-14, a decline

from 39.8 percent in 2002-03 and 35.2 percent in 2008-09. Poverty is higher in rural areas than urban areas (38.3 percent and

29.2 percent, respectively), but the gap has narrowed since 2008-09. Characteristics associated with poverty include larger

household sizes and household heads that are lower-educated, self-employed, or older.

Using the international $1.90 (2011 PPP USD per person per day) poverty line, the poverty rate for 2013-14 was estimated at 1.4

percent, among the lowest in the Pacific. Measured against the $5.50 poverty line, which reflects living standards across upper

middle-income countries, Fiji stood at 48.6 percent, much higher than the upper middle-income country global average of 29.7

percent. Multidimensional poverty measures show a strong performance in education indicators, but weaker performance in

indicators of access to basic infrastructure, such as water, sanitation, and electricity.

Inequality, as measured by a consumption-based Gini index, was estimated at 36.7. Inequality fell between 2008-09 and 2013-14,

driven by a growth in the consumption of the Bottom 40 (1.17 percent per year) in a period where the rest of the distribution

experienced negative growth (-0.51 percent per year). Median income growth between the two survey periods was 0.73 percent,

consistent with the trends seen in consumption growth.

11.8 1.4

121.9

420.7

Poverty Economist: Taufik Indrakesuma


0.73

-0.51

1.6

2013

2013

1.17

36.7

1.68

14.1

48.6

2.4 2013

2013

2013

2013

KEY INDICATORS


Urban population 99 1 33 67 Monetary poverty (Consumption)

Rural population 99 1 47 53 Daily Consumption or income is less than US$1.90 per person

Males 99 1 40 60 Education

Females 99 1 40 60 At least one school-age child is not enrolled in school

0 to 14 years old 98 2 52 48 No adult in the household has completed primary education

15 to 64 years old 99 1 35 65 Access to basic infrastructure

65 and older 99 N/A* 33 67 No access to limited-standard drinking water

Without education (16+) 98 N/A* 38 62 No access to limited-standard sanitation

Primary education (16+) 99 1 43 57 No access to electricity

Secondary education (16+) 99 1 36 64

Tertiary/post-secondary education (16+) 100 N/A* 11 89

Source: World Bank using HIES/EAPPOV/GMD Source: World Bank using HIES/EAPPOV/GMD



HARMONIZATION


Fiji www.worldbank.org/poverty

1.4

1.4

0.8

8.3

7.2

10.0

The numbers presented in this brief are based on the EAPPOV database. EAPPOV is a database of socio-economic statistics constructed using microdata from household

surveys in the East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) region and is managed by the East Asia & Pacific Team for Statistical Development (EAPTSD). As of January 2019, the

collection includes 19 countries and 93 surveys. Harmonized surveys in the EAPPOV database are compiled into 4 modules following Global Monitoring Database (GMD)

Harmonization guidelines. A subset of the harmonized variables form the basis of the GMD collection, including the welfare aggregate which is used for Global Poverty

Monitoring. Terms of use of the data adhere to agreements with the original data producers.


Source: World Bank using HIES/EAPPOV/GMDSource: World Bank using HIES/EAPPOV/GMD

Fiji has two alternative "cost of basic needs" poverty measures based on income and consumption data. For the income poverty measure, the Food Poverty Line

estimated the amount of income required to consume a food menu designed by the Fiji Food and Nutrition Centre in 2002-3 that would meet minimum nutritional

requirements, while the Non-Food Poverty Line was developed based on the average non-food consumption of the third decile of the income distribution. The measure

uses an adult-equivalence benchmark, with children aged 0-14 counting as half of an adult. Separate poverty lines were estimated for urban and rural areas. Poverty

measures in 2008-9 and 2013-14 continued to use the 2002-3 lines, adjusted for CPI inflation. For the consumption poverty measure, the FPL estimated the required

expenditure to achieve 2793 calories of consumption per adult-equivalent, using a basket of goods based on the consumption of deciles 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the distribution.

A single line was used in conjunction with spatial deflation of food consumption. The NFPL was estimated by scaling the FPL using the share of non-food consumption of

households around the FPL. Separate NFPLs were estimated for urban and rural areas. To facilitate meaningful comparisons across countries, the World Bank publishes

estimates using three different poverty lines (2011 PPP): the International Poverty Line (US$1.90), and two other poverty lines at US$3.20 and US$5.50. For Fiji, per

capita consumption aggregates were deflated to account for differences in the cost of living between rural and urban areas.

Distribution among groups: 2013 Multidimensional Poverty Measures (% of people): 2013


International Poverty Line (%) Relative group (%)

Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012




10195.6 in Indonesian rupiah (2017) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita






SHARED PROSPERITY


INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH



MEDIAN INCOME



IndonesiaEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

Based on the national poverty line, poverty rate in Indonesia declined to 9.4 percent in March 2019. Between 1993 and 2019, the

share of individuals living below the national poverty line declined by approximately 60 percent. In 2017, the share of population

living in extreme poverty (below the international poverty line of $1.90 per day in 2011 PPP) and in moderate poverty ($3.2 per day in

2011 PPP) was 5.7 percent and 27.3 percent respectively. Despite the progress, the pace of poverty reduction post-2010 has been

about one-half (0.3 percentage points per year) of what it used to be between 2003 and 2010 (0.6 p.p. per year). While the slowing

down of the rate of reduction at lower rates of poverty is to be expected, in Indonesia overall growth of the economy has also been

weaker post-2010 in comparison to the decade before. Vulnerability remains high; in 2018, 73.9 million individuals (30 percent of

the population) were either poor and vulnerable to falling back into poverty.

Inequality measured by the consumption Gini continued to moderate reaching 38.2 in March 2019. But the rate of decline has been

relatively slow, and inequality has not recovered to pre-1998 financial crisis levels. Most of the inequality decline has come as a

result of gains made at the middle of the distribution: between 2014 and 2018, the consumption share of the middle-40 (fifth to the

eight decile of the distribution) increased from 35 percent to 37 percent while that of the top 20 decreased from 48 percent to 46

percent. Overall, comparing this period to the 2000-11 period when the economy grew at a faster pace, the growth rate of

consumption of the bottom 40 has picked up (2.0 percent per year in comparison to 1.2 percent for the earlier period). But it still lags

the growth rate of consumption at the mean (2.9 percent). In fact, for those in the bottom 10 percent of the population (roughly the

official poor in today's terms), overall consumption increased by less than 0.1 percent per year in 2014-18 in comparison to 1.1

percent 2000-11. All of these highlight the enduring challenges of better targeting social assistance for those living in extreme

poverty as well as making the overall growth process inclusive.

15.1 5.7

72.3

155.8

Poverty Economist: Sailesh Tiwari


6.81

4.79

3.8

2018

2017

4.77

37.9

-0.02

27.3

58.9

8.0 2016

2017

2017

2017

KEY INDICATORS








65 and older 90 10 47 53 No access to limited-standard drinking water

Without education (16+) 86 14 58 42 No access to limited-standard sanitation



Tertiary/post-secondary education (16+) 99 1 11 89

Source: World Bank using SUSENAS/EAPPOV/GMD Source: World Bank using SUSENAS/EAPPOV/GMD



HARMONIZATION


Indonesia www.worldbank.org/poverty

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A







Source: World Bank using SUSENAS/EAPPOV/GMDSource: World Bank using SUSENAS/EAPPOV/GMD

The poverty line in Indonesia is defined by Indonesia's national statistics office (Badan Pusat Stasitik, BPS) as the amount of money required to obtain 2,100 calories per

day, along with a small amount for other basic non-food items. There are 67 poverty lines in Indonesia, one for each of the urban and rural areas of the provinces

outside of Jakarta; and the national poverty line is calculated as the weighted average of the 67 local poverty lines. Unlike in some countries, and in the calculation of

international poverty lines, where the basket of goods used in calculating the poverty line is fixed and simply inflated by CPI, in Indonesia, the basket of goods is allowed

to change every year in the calculation of each of the 67 local poverty lines. The basket of goods for each of the 67 local poverty lines is recalculated each year for a

reference group of ‘near poor' households, where ‘near poor' households are defined as households that fall between the poverty line and 20th percentile of the

consumption distribution above the poverty line. In the face of high food prices, the inflation factors applied to the national poverty lines tend to be larger than the CPI.

Also, because the basket of goods used in calculating the national poverty line may change, the price per calories changes. This may probably explain why poverty

reduction based on national poverty line appeared to be slower than that based on the international poverty line.

Distribution among groups: 2016 Multidimensional Poverty Measures (% of people):



Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016




1.6 in Australian dollar (2006) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita






SHARED PROSPERITY

Annualized Consumption Growth per capita of the bottom 40 percent N/A

INEQUALITY

Gini Index

Shared Prosperity Premium = Growth of the bottom 40 - Average Growth N/A

GROWTH


Annualized Consumption Growth per capita from Household Survey N/A

MEDIAN INCOME

Growth of the annual median income N/A


KiribatiEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

The latest Household Income and Expenditure Survey used to estimate poverty in Kiribati was conducted in 2006. A new HIES was

launched in April 2019, with data collection scheduled to conclude by March 2020. By World Bank definitions of data deprivation,

Kiribati is classified as extremely deprived, as it has not completed a HIES in the last 10 years.

Using the national measures (see "Poverty Data and Methodology" section for details), 21.8 percent of the population lived below the

basic needs poverty line in 2006. Poverty rates were considerably higher in South Tarawa (24.2 percent) and the Rest of the Gilbert

Islands (22.0 percent) than in the Line and Phoenix Islands (8.9 percent). Characteristics associated with poverty include having a

household head with lower levels of formal education.

Using the international poverty line of $1.90 (2011 PPP USD per person per day), the headcount poverty rate was estimated at 12.9

percent. Measured against the $3.20 poverty line, which reflects living standards across all lower middle income countries, the

incidence of poverty was at 34.6 percent, which was lower than the lower-middle income country global average of 60.8 percent in

2008. Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, was estimated at 37.0.

12.1 12.9

32.6

65.5



N/A

N/A

-0.1

2006

2006

N/A

37.0

N/A

34.6

69.4

N/A N/A

2006

2006

2006

KEY INDICATORS


Urban population 87 13 46 54 Monetary poverty










Tertiary/post-secondary education (16+) 89 N/A* N/A* 73




HARMONIZATION


Kiribati www.worldbank.org/poverty

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A






INEQUALITY TRENDS, 2006


The national poverty statistics of Kiribati for 2006 used a "cost of basic needs" approach to establish a welfare benchmark for the poverty line. A Food Poverty Line (FPL)

estimated the required expenditure to achieve 2100 calories of consumption per adult-equivalent (with children aged 0-14 counting as half of an adult), using a basket

of goods based on the actual consumption of the bottom three deciles in the distribution. Separate FPLs were estimated for each of three sub-regions: South Tarawa,

Line & Phoenix, and Rest of Gilberts. The Non-Food Poverty Line (NFPL) was estimated using the average non-food consumption of the bottom three deciles in the

distribution.

To facilitate meaningful comparisons across countries, the World Bank publishes estimates using three different poverty lines (2011 PPP): the International Poverty Line

(US$1.90), the Lower Middle Income Class Poverty Line (US$3.20) and the Upper Middle Income Class Poverty Line (US$5.50). In Kiribati, the consumption aggregates

were deflated using the three regional poverty lines to account for spatial differences in the cost of living. These estimates also differ from the national poverty

measures because they assess welfare needs on a per capita rather than an adult-equivalent basis.


POVERTY HEADCOUNT RATE, 2006


Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


1.55

1.6

1.65

1.7

1.75

1.8

1.85

1.9

1.95

2

2.05

2.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2006



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

2006




6700.4 in Lao kip (2012) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita


11284.9 in Lao kip (2012) or US$3.20 (2011 PPP) per day per capita


19396 in Lao kip (2012) or US$5.50 (2011 PPP) per day per capita


SHARED PROSPERITY


INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH



MEDIAN INCOME



Lao People's Democratic RepublicEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

Poverty in Lao PDR remains high and the pace of poverty reduction has been slow despite high growth. Between 2007 and 2012,

sustained growth in GDP per capita averaged around 6 percent a year, yet household consumption per capita and median income

moderately grew at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent. Poverty measured using the lower middle-income class poverty line only

fell by 7 percentage points and remained stubbornly high at 58.7 percent. The low poverty-reducing impact of growth in Lao PDR

was driven by its resource-based development pattern which created limited jobs. In the absence of redistributive policies, economic

growth had a limited trickle-down effect on improvements in the welfare of households. A gradual decline in per-capita GDP growth

since 2012 is expected to have slowed down poverty reduction in recent years.

Inequality is moderate but rising. The Gini index, a measure of inequality, steadily increased from 32.6 to 36.4 between 2002 and

2012. The resource-driven growth was less favorable for households at the bottom end of the distribution, mostly residing in rural

areas. While the hydro-power sector bolstered economic growth, with construction and manufacturing contributing to job creation,

agriculture which employs most poorer households was negatively affected by flooding and volatile commodity prices. This pattern

led to lower income growth among poorer households. Unequal access to public services and vulnerability to health shocks

compounded this uneven distribution of growth benefits. The shared prosperity premium for was therefore negative, at -

0.71 percentage points. As this growth pattern continues with redistributive policies failing to keep pace with economic expansion,

inequality is expected to have increased in recent years.

1.5 22.7

3.8

5.5

Poverty Economist: Tanida Arayavechkit


2.12

2.08

6.3

2012

2012

1.37

36.4

-0.71

58.7

85.0

27.1 2012

2012

2012

2012

KEY INDICATORS













Source: World Bank using LECS/EAPPOV/GMD Source: World Bank using LECS/EAPPOV/GMD



HARMONIZATION


Lao People's Democratic Republic www.worldbank.org/poverty

22.8

5.7

13.4

15.5

32.1

11.1







Source: World Bank using LECS/EAPPOV/GMDSource: World Bank using LECS/EAPPOV/GMD

The Lao Expenditure and Consumption Survey (LECS) is the primary source of poverty data. The survey is conducted at five-year intervals since 1992/93. The most recent

round was completed in June 2019, a year later than scheduled due to government financing delays. The 2018/19 dataset is currently in the data processing stage, and

the latest poverty estimates were from the 2012/13 survey. The quality of the data is relatively good, but access is highly restricted. Public groups including government

agencies only acquire at most 60 percent of the dataset. Often data must be purchased. National poverty is estimated with per capita consumption as the welfare

aggregate. Per capita consumption is estimated using the "cost-of-basic needs" methodology including both food and non-food consumption. The poverty line reflects a

minimum threshold of 2,100 Kcal per person per day. Non-food consumption includes durables in part but excludes housing rent. The national poverty line has been

updated for changes in the cost of living since 2002. In 2012, the national poverty line was marginally lower than the international poverty line (US$1.9 (2011 PPP) per

day per capita) and 40.7 percent lower than the lower middle-income class poverty line ($3.2 (2011 PPP) per day per capita). Poverty trends using both the national and

international poverty lines are consistent.




Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012




3.3 in Malaysian ringgit (2015) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita






SHARED PROSPERITY

Annualized Income or Consumption Growth per capita of the bottom 40 percent 2011-2015

INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH


Annualized Income or Consumption Growth per capita from Household Survey 2011-2015

MEDIAN INCOME



MalaysiaEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

Malaysia is an upper-middle income country with a GNI per capita of nearly US$ 31,000 (2011 PPP). The national poverty line is

approximately US$ 4.00 (2011 PPP) per day per capita and has not increased appreciably in real terms despite the country's rapid

economic development over the past 50 years, leading to the current poverty rate of 0.4 percent. This is the lowest nationally-

defined poverty rate among countries for which the World Bank has such data. At the WBG's Upper Middle Income Class poverty

line of US$ 5.50 (2011 PPP), poverty has declined from 16.7 to 2.7 percent of the population from 2008 to 2015. Because of the

significant increase in living standards, the Malaysian authorities should consider updating the national poverty line. Ravallion

(2019) reports that in countries at Malaysia's level of GNI poverty lines are generally closer to US$ 12.00 (2011 PPP), which in

Malaysia would yield a poverty line of approximately 21 Malaysian Ringgit per day per capita and a poverty headcount ratio of

around 18 percent.

In 2015 Malaysia introduced a national multidimensional poverty index (MPI) as one of the key indicators for its five-year

development plan. Like the monetary poverty line, the MPI is calibrated to a very low standard of living, such that less than one

percent of the population were considered multidimensionally poor in 2016. Malaysia's data for the WBG's Multidimensional Poverty

Measure (MPM) were not available in time for this brief, but will be included in a subsequent edition.

Annual growth of the bottom 40 percent's mean household income per capita was 8.3 percent from 2011 to 2015, or 2.4 percentage

points faster than the corresponding growth for the country's total population. Median household income per capita grew at 7.1

percent per year, also outpacing the growth in mean income. The inclusive pattern of growth has led to significant reductions in

relative income inequality. The relative Gini index declined rapidly from 43.9 to 41.3 from 2011 to 2013, and more slowly to 41.0 by

2015.

3.1 0.0

71.0

810.9

Poverty Economist: Kenneth Simler


7.14

5.95

3.9

2015

2015

8.30

41.0

2.35

0.2

2.7

N/A N/A

2015

2015

2015

KEY INDICATORS













Source: World Bank using HIS/EAPPOV/GMD Source: World Bank using HIS/EAPPOV/GMD



HARMONIZATION


Malaysia www.worldbank.org/poverty

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A







Source: World Bank using HIS/EAPPOV/GMDSource: World Bank using HIS/EAPPOV/GMD

The Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM) produces national poverty estimates. The estimates are income-based, using data from household surveys conducted

every 2.5 years. The method roughly follows the Cost of Basic Needs methodology, with a food component based on nutritional requirements and a nonfood

component based on consumption behavior of poor and near-poor households. Tens of thousands of poverty lines are calculated, tailored to the location (state and

rural/urban) and the specific age and gender composition of each surveyed household. Because DOSM's methods sometimes diverge from those commonly used for

international comparisons, particularly with regard to equivalence scales and weighting, DOSM's published results often differ from those published by the World Bank

or other international organizations even when using the same primary data. For example, DOSM's published poverty rates refer to the proportion of households—not

the more conventional proportion of the population—living below the poverty line. Similarly, the official published Gini index uses total household income as the

welfare aggregate, without normalization for household size or composition, and calculates inequality across households. The resulting Gini index estimates are 2.0 to

2.5 percentage points lower than those calculated by the more common approach that uses household income per capita and population weights.



Upper Middle Income line (%) Relative group (%)

Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2008 2010 2012 2014



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

2008 2010 2012 2014




2 in U.S. dollar (2013) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita


3.4 in U.S. dollar (2013) or US$3.20 (2011 PPP) per day per capita




SHARED PROSPERITY


INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH



MEDIAN INCOME



Federated States of MicronesiaEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

The latest Household Income and Expenditure Survey used to estimate poverty in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) was

conducted in 2013-2014. Using the national measures (see "Poverty Data and Methodology" section below for details), 41.2 percent

of the population lived below the basic needs poverty line. Poverty levels were highest in Chuuk (45.5 percent), the most populated

State. Poverty is slightly lower in the States of Yap (39.4 percent) and Pohnpei (39.2 percent), and lowest in Kosrae (21.0 percent).

Characteristics associated with poverty include households with more children and household heads that are female, lower-

educated, and working outside the public sector.


percent. According to the $3.20 Lower Middle Income Class Poverty Line, which reflects living standards across all lower middle

income countries, the incidence of poverty is at 38.7 percent. Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, was estimated at 40.1. For

the period 2005-2013, median income has changed at annualized rate of -4.05 percent for the period, which corresponds to a fall in

GDP per capita. There was also negative growth in annualized consumption per capita for the bottom 40 percent for this period (-

3.77 percent).

Like many countries in the Pacific region, FSM suffers from infrequent collection of data and a lack of comparability between

rounds. Methodological changes between the 2013-2014 HIES and the previous HIES in 2005-2006 mean that the resulting

estimates are not comparable. Using the World Bank's definitions for data deprivation, FSM is classified as moderately deprived. In

the past 10 years, FSM has only conducted one HIES in 2013-2014, with the previous one being in 2005. However, there is a HIES

planned for FSM following the 2020 population and housing census.

16.3 15.4

41.0

73.2

Poverty Economist: Darian Naidoo


N/A

N/A

-0.3

2013

2013

N/A

40.1

N/A

38.7

69.1

20.4 2013

2013

2013

2013

KEY INDICATORS


Urban population N/A N/A N/A N/A Monetary poverty (Consumption)

Rural population N/A N/A N/A N/A Daily Consumption or income is less than US$1.90 per person













HARMONIZATION


Federated States of Micronesia www.worldbank.org/poverty

15.4

28.0

8.7

5.0

19.1

23.6








The national poverty statistics of FSM for 2013-14 used a "cost of basic needs" approach to establish a welfare benchmark for the poverty line. A Food Poverty Line (FPL)


of goods based on the actual consumption of the bottom four deciles in the distribution. Separate FPLs were estimated for each state. The Non-Food Poverty Line

(NFPL) was estimated using the average non-food consumption of households whose food consumption was near or around the FPL.


(US$1.90), the Lower Middle Income Class Poverty Line (US$3.20) and the Upper Middle Income Class Poverty Line (US$5.50). In FSM, the consumption aggregates were

deflated using the state poverty lines to account for spatial differences in the cost of living. These estimates also differ from the national poverty measures because they

assess welfare needs on a per capita rather than an adult-equivalent basis.




Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013




1712.4 in Mongolian togrog (2016) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita


2884 in Mongolian togrog (2016) or US$3.20 (2011 PPP) per day per capita


4956.9 in Mongolian togrog (2016) or US$5.50 (2011 PPP) per day per capita


SHARED PROSPERITY


INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH



MEDIAN INCOME



MongoliaEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

Mongolia's rapid decline in poverty since 2010 was partly reversed in 2016, and poverty has remained relatively stagnant since. The

national official poverty rate in Mongolia declined from 38.8 percent in 2010 to 21.6 percent in 2014, to rise again to 29.6 percent in

2016 and moderately decline to 28.4 percent in 2018. Despite the robust GDP growth in the past two years there has been little

progress in poverty reduction since. This is primarily due to low wage and self-employed business income growth, a significant

depreciation of the Mongolian Togrog and increased consumer price inflation since 2016. In addition, in 2018, 14.9 percent of the

total population live in "near" poverty (between the poverty line and 1.25 times the poverty line) which makes them especially

vulnerable to negative shocks. While the percentage of poor under the national poverty line is substantial, the number of people

living under the international poverty line of US$1.90 and lower middle-income country poverty line of US$3.20 (both in 2011 PPP) in

2016 are estimated at 0.6 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively.

Poverty concentration continued to grow in urban areas. Rural poverty rates have been regularly higher than urban rates, but the

gap has narrowed over the years. During the period between 2016 and 2018, the poverty rate declined by 4.1 percentage points in

rural areas while it remained statistically unchanged in urban areas. Despite the higher incidence of poverty in rural areas, with two-

thirds of the total population of Mongolia living in urban cities, poverty has further concentrated in urban areas. The share of the

poor population in urban areas has increased from 55.2 percent in 2010 to 63.5 percent in 2018, and more than 40 percent of the

poor lived in Ulaanbaatar in 2018.

Economic growth has been broadly shared, and inequality has remained stable. Between 2010 and 2016, the bottom 40 percent

achieved a 1.7 percent annual growth in real per capita household consumption, which is 0.43 percentage points higher than the

average consumption growth of the total households. This pattern is mostly due to the favorable consumption growth of the bottom

40 in the period 2012-2014. These shared prosperity patterns have also been accompanied by a remarkably stable inequality in

consumption. The Gini moved from 33.1 in 2010 to 32.3 in 2016.

17.5 0.6

209.7

976.9

Poverty Economist: Ikuko Uochi


1.54

1.31

6.5

2018

2016

1.74

32.3

0.43

6.9

32.0

1.3 2016

2016

2016

2016

KEY INDICATORS













Source: World Bank using HSES/EAPPOV/GMD Source: World Bank using HSES/EAPPOV/GMD



HARMONIZATION


Mongolia www.worldbank.org/poverty

0.6

3.2

6.0

12.8

9.6

0.2







Source: World Bank using HSES/EAPPOV/GMDSource: World Bank using HSES/EAPPOV/GMD

The National Statistical Office (NSO) and the World Bank have been collaborating in developing poverty measurement and estimating poverty rates since 2002. The

Household Socio-Economic Survey (HSES) is the main survey used for estimating official poverty estimates. HSES data is collected over 12 months and the survey has

been implemented biennially since 2012. Official poverty rates have been estimated at an aimag (province) level for the first time in 2016.

The current national poverty line in Mongolia is derived from the 2010 HSES using the cost of basic needs approach. The poverty line is set at the cost of acquiring a

consumption bundle that provides 2100 calories per person per day as well as the cost of other non-food essential goods and services. The national poverty line was

updated only for changes in price levels between surveys and the 2018 national poverty line is estimated at 166,580 MNT per person per month.

The international poverty lines are set by the World Bank for global poverty monitoring. Purchasing Power Parity exchange rates (PPPs) are used to put consumption

estimates into internationally comparable terms. Using the lower middle-income class poverty line (US$3.20PPP), 6.9 percent of people in Mongolia are considered to

be in poverty in 2016.




Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

2010 2012 2014 2016




710.3 in Myanmar kyat (2015) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita






SHARED PROSPERITY


INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH



MEDIAN INCOME



MyanmarEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

Myanmar's triple a planned to an open market economy; from military to civilian rule; from conflict to

led to substantial reforms, and consequently rapid economic growth over the last decade. This translated into substantial poverty

reduction. The poverty headcount dropped by one-third between 2005 and 2015, from 48 to 32 percent using national estimates.

Recent estimates based on 2017 data indicate further reductions in poverty, which reached 25 percent. Using the international

poverty line, poverty was estimated to be 6.2 percent in 2015. Despite improvements in living conditions, about a third of the

population in 2017 was considered vulnerable to falling into poverty following weather, health or economic shocks. A large share of

the population also experiences disadvantages across non-monetary dimensions of welfare, such as education, employment, health,

water and sanitation, housing and assets.

The incidence of poverty is highly uneven across the country. In 2017, it ranged from 58 percent in Chin and 42 percent in Rakhine,

to as low as 13-14 percent in Tanintharyi, Mandalay and Yangon. The majority of the poor are however concentrated in the densely-

populated Delta and Dry areas. Poverty remains a predominantly rural phenomenon. 87 percent of the poor are concentrated in

villages, and depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Between 2005 and 2015, poverty declined more rapidly in urban areas,

reflecting sectoral growth patterns, with agricultural growth lagging behind manufacturing and services. Rural households who are

able to diversify their income sources, with off-farm activities, have experienced faster improvement in their living conditions.

Faster growth for urban households led to an increase in inequality in Myanmar over the 2005-2015 decade. The rise partly stems

from changes in spending patterns that likely reflect expansion and deepening of consumer goods markets now more broadly

available. It likely also reflects that individuals with more education and capital benefited disproportionately from early

liberalizations and reforms.

3.3 6.2

15.5

35.4

Poverty Economist: Giorgia Demarchi


N/A

N/A

6.4

2015

2015

N/A

38.1

N/A

29.5

67.2

N/A N/A

2015

2015

2015

KEY INDICATORS











Secondary education (16+) 99 N/A* 23 77


Source: World Bank using MPLCS/EAPPOV/GMD Source: World Bank using MPLCS/EAPPOV/GMD



HARMONIZATION


Myanmar www.worldbank.org/poverty

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A







Source: World Bank using MPLCS/EAPPOV/GMDSource: World Bank using MPLCS/EAPPOV/GMD

The evidence presented in the table and trends analysis in the section above are based on the 2015 Myanmar Poverty and Living Conditions Survey. The differences in

poverty across geographic areas included in the text, instead, use the 2017 Myanmar Living Conditions Survey (MLCS), which was released in June 2019 and is

representative at State and Region level. In 2017, Myanmar rebased its poverty measures to reflect changing consumption patterns over the past decade. It now reflects

living conditions in 2015. The consumption aggregate was compiled combining a detailed list of food, non-food expendables including education, and imputed housing

into a household level aggregate. The household consumption aggregate was converted into adult equivalent terms by applying equivalence coefficients. Differences in

prices across space were incorporated through spatial price adjustment using an agro-zone level (2015) and state-region level (2017) Laspeyres index. Due to changes in

survey methodology over time, international poverty trends are not presented. The number of poor is calculated using WDI population data. There are substantial

differences in the methodologies used to calculate the national and international poverty rates. The national poverty line is derived from household living conditions

surveys using the Cost of Basic Needs approach, and is valued in 2015 Myanmar kyat. The international poverty line was estimated from a collection of national poverty

lines among poor countries and is in 2011 PPP-adjusted USD. Finally, the national poverty line is based on per adult equivalent household size, while the international

poverty line uses a per capita measure.




Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2015



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

2015




3.8 in Papua New Guinea kina (2009) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita


6.4 in Papua New Guinea kina (2009) or US$3.20 (2011 PPP) per day per capita


11 in Papua New Guinea kina (2009) or US$5.50 (2011 PPP) per day per capita


SHARED PROSPERITY


INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH



MEDIAN INCOME



Papua New GuineaEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

The latest Household Income and Expenditure Survey used to estimate poverty in Papua New Guinea (PNG) was conducted in 2009-

2010. Data collection for the next HIES is scheduled to begin in 2021, after the conclusion of the 2020 Census enumeration.

Using the national measure (see "Poverty Data and Methodology" section below for details), 39.9 percent of the population lived

below the basic needs poverty line. Rural Momase and the New Guinea Islands had the highest incidence of poverty, though

population density means that more than two-thirds of poor people were located in the Highlands and Urban Momase. Poverty was

strongly correlated with the level of education, literacy, and economic activity of the household head.


percent. According to the $3.20 Lower Middle Income Class Poverty Line, which reflects living standards across all lower middle

income countries, the incidence of poverty is at 65.6 percent. Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, was estimated at 41.9.

Annual growth of median income for the period 1996-2009 was estimated to be 0.35 percent. For this same period, annualized per

capita consumption growth for the bottom 40 was estimated to be 4.53 percent.

Using the World Bank's definitions for data deprivation, PNG is classified as moderately deprived. In the past 10 years, PNG has only

conducted one HIES in 2009-2010, with the previous one being in 1996. This puts PNG at risk of falling into "extremely deprived"

status.

2.7 38.0

4.7

6.2



N/A

N/A

2.7

2009

2009

N/A

41.9

N/A

65.6

86.9

N/A N/A

2009

2009

2009

KEY INDICATORS
















HARMONIZATION


Papua New Guinea www.worldbank.org/poverty

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A








The national poverty statistics of Papua New Guinea for 2009 used a "cost of basic needs" approach to establish a welfare benchmark for the poverty line. A Food

Poverty Line (FPL) estimated the required expenditure to achieve 2200 calories of consumption per adult-equivalent (with children aged 0-6 counting as half of an

adult). Separate FPLs were estimated for each of six sub-regions: National Capital District, the South Coast, the Highlands, Urban Momase, Rural Momase, and the New

Guinea Islands. The Non-Food Poverty Line (NFPL) was estimated by scaling the FPL using the non-food consumption shares of households living exactly at the FPL.

Methodological changes between the 2009-2010 HIES and the previous HIES in 1996 mean that the resulting estimates are not comparable. For example, while the 2009-

2010 HIES used a 2-week diary to record consumption, the 1996 HIES used a recall method.


(US$1.90), the $3.20 line and the $5.50 line. In PNG, the consumption aggregates were deflated using the six regional poverty lines to account for spatial differences in

the cost of living.




Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008



GDP

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008




39.5 in Philippine peso (2015) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita






SHARED PROSPERITY

Annualized Income Growth per capita of the bottom 40 percent 2012-2015

INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH


Annualized Income Growth per capita from Household Survey 2012-2015

MEDIAN INCOME



PhilippinesEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

The pace of poverty reduction in the Philippines has picked up in recent years. Based on the WBG's lower middle income class

poverty line, poverty declined from 33.5 percent in 2012 to 26.0 percent in 2015, a 7.5 percentage point decline during this period

compared to the 0.7 percentage point decline during This faster pace of poverty reduction can be attributed both to the

transition of workers from agriculture to better paying jobs, principally in the services sector, and to increases in government

spending on social programs, most notably through expanded coverage of the conditional cash transfer program, Pantawid

Pamilyang Pilipino Program.

Household survey data indicate that per capita income growth in the Philippines has become more inclusive. In average

incomes of households in the bottom 40 percent grew at an annualized rate of 5.1 percent, about 2.6 percentage points faster than

the growth rate of average incomes of all households (this difference in the two respective growth rates is also known as the shared

prosperity premium). The distributional shift of incomes was spurred by the growth in non-agriculture wage incomes and receipts

from the conditional cash transfer program, particularly for households in the bottom 40. The observed faster decline in poverty is

thus due not just to income growth but also to the improved distribution of income. The more inclusive growth pattern in recent

years has resulted in a decline in inequality. The Gini index for the Philippines dropped from 47 in 2006 to 44 in 2015. However,

inequality in the Philippines is still higher than in most other developing countries in the East Asia and Pacific region.

According to the latest official estimate using the Family Income and Expenditures Survey of the first semester 2018, poverty

incidence against the national poverty line for the first half of 2018 has declined to 21 percent from 27.6 percent in the same period

of 2015. Official statistics of the full year information is expected to be released in December 2019.

6.3 6.1

26.6

56.3

Poverty Economist: Xubei Luo


4.03

2.56

4.7

2015

2015

5.12

44.4

2.56

26.0

55.1

8.3 2015

2015

2015

2015

KEY INDICATORS


Urban population 98 2 24 76 Monetary poverty (Income)











Source: World Bank using FIES/EAPPOV/GMD Source: World Bank using FIES/EAPPOV/GMD



HARMONIZATION


Philippines www.worldbank.org/poverty

6.1

4.4

4.5

10.6

6.8

9.1







Source: World Bank using FIES/EAPPOV/GMDSource: World Bank using FIES/EAPPOV/GMD

National official poverty estimates in the Philippines are produced by the Philippines Statistics Authority (PSA). These are derived using income welfare aggregates

evaluated against per capita poverty lines that are set broadly following the cost of basic needs (CBN) approach. Using a national reference food bundle based on expert

opinion of what constitutes a nutritionally adequate bundle, province-specific bundles are set separately for urban and rural areas and reflect locally consumed

commodities. These locally priced bundles that constitute food poverty lines are scaled up by a constant food-to-non-food ratio to calculate total poverty lines. There

are 163 poverty lines set corresponding to urban and rural areas of the 81 provinces in the country, and these were benchmarked to 2009, when this methodology was

developed. Unlike the international poverty line that is fixed and updated by CPI, the national poverty lines are updated by re-estimating the food poverty lines at

current prices. The fixed food to non-food ratio used to derive the poverty lines assumes that the non-food price inflation is the same as food price inflation. This

explains the relatively slower reduction in poverty using national poverty lines compared to the international poverty line.

Poverty estimates are calculated from the triennial Family Income and Expenditures Survey (FIES). The two rounds of information for each FIES, one for the first

semester and one for the full year, are not strictly comparable. The poverty estimates reported draw from the full year information if not otherwise specified.




Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015




3.7 in Samoa tala (2013) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita






SHARED PROSPERITY

Annualized Income or Consumption Growth per capita of the bottom 40 percent N/A

INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH


Annualized Income or Consumption Growth per capita from Household Survey N/A

MEDIAN INCOME



SamoaEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

The latest Household Income and Expenditure Survey used to estimate poverty in Samoa was conducted in 2018-19. However, data

presented in this brief refer to the previous HIES done in 2013 as the 2018-19 data is still undergoing cleaning and processing and

has not been released by the Samoa Bureau of Statistics. By World Bank definitions for data deprivation, Samoa is classified as

meeting the minimum data needs. In the past 10 years, Samoa has conducted a HIES on two occasions, with a maximum of five

years separating the two (2013 and 2018-19).

Using the national measures (see "Poverty Data and Methodology" section below for details), 20.3 percent of the population lived

below the basic needs poverty line in 2013, down from 26.7 percent in 2008. While there was little variation in poverty rates across

regions in 2008, the 2013 data show much higher rates in Apia Urban Area and North-West Upolu (25-26 percent) than in the Rest

of Upolu and Savai'i regions (around 14 percent).

Measured against the international poverty line of $1.90 (2011 PPP USD per person per day), the headcount poverty rate for 2013

was estimated at 1.1 percent. Measured against the $5.50 poverty line, which reflects living standards across all upper middle-

income countries, the incidence of poverty was at 33.9 percent, higher than the global upper middle-income country average of 29.7

percent in 2013. Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, was estimated at 38.7.

2.2 1.1

18.4

64.7



N/A

N/A

-0.9

2013

2013

N/A

38.7

N/A

9.6

33.9

N/A N/A

2013

2013

2013

KEY INDICATORS










Primary education (16+) 99 N/A* 42 58 No access to electricity






HARMONIZATION


Samoa www.worldbank.org/poverty

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A








The national poverty statistics of Samoa for 2013 used a "cost of basic needs" approach to establish a welfare benchmark for the poverty line. A Food Poverty Line (FPL)

estimated the required expenditure to achieve 2100 calories of consumption per capita, using a basket of the top 25 goods consumed by the bottom three deciles.

Separate FPLs were estimated for each of four sub-regions: Apia Urban Area, Northwest Upolu, Rest of Upolu, and Savai'i. The Non-Food Poverty Line (NFPL) was

estimated using the average non-food consumption of the bottom three deciles in the distribution. The poverty estimates produced by the World Bank for 2013 differ

from the Samoa Hardship and Poverty Report produced by the UNDP, due to differences in the consumption aggregate calculation. The UNDP report includes gifts given

away and other disbursements in the aggregates, while the World Bank aggregates do not; this results in World Bank estimates producing slightly higher rates of poverty

due to lower consumption aggregates.


(US$1.90), the $3.20 line and the $5.50 line. In Samoa, the consumption aggregates were deflated using the four regional poverty lines to account for spatial differences

in the cost of living.




Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2008 2010 2012



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

2008 2010 2012




15.1 in Solomon Islands dollar (2013) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita






SHARED PROSPERITY


INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH



MEDIAN INCOME



Solomon IslandsEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

The latest Household Income and Expenditure Survey used to estimate poverty in the Solomon Islands was conducted in 2012-2013.


below the basic needs poverty line. Poverty incidence was substantially higher in the provinces of Makira and Guadalcanal, relative

to other provinces. The capital, Honiara, also had a higher-than-average incidence of poverty in 2012-2013, but the majority an

estimated 87 percent of the poor in the Solomon Islands lived in rural areas. Using the international poverty line of $1.90 (2011 PPP

USD per person per day), the headcount poverty rate was estimated at 25.1 percent. Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, was

estimated at 37.1. Annual growth of median income for the period 2005-2013 was estimated to be 3.93 percent. During this period

there was stronger per capita consumption growth for the bottom 40 percent of the population as compared to the overall

population, as indicated by a shared prosperity premium 3.48 percent.

The Solomon Islands suffers from infrequent HIES data collection and a lack of comparability between rounds. Methodological issues

in the poverty estimation based on the 2005-2006 HIES, as well as methodological changes between 2005-2006 and 2012-2013,

mean that the two estimates are not directly comparable. For example, poverty lines in 2005-2006 were constructed using

separate and unequal food baskets in each region, which represented completely different standards of living. In addition, the 2005-

2006 estimation featured two errors: food price calculations used retail prices in Honiara while hypothetical selling prices were used

elsewhere, and the calorie calculations mistakenly used cooked rice and noodles although the quantities in the diaries were for

uncooked foods.

Using the World Bank's definitions for data deprivation, the Solomon Islands is classified as moderately deprived. In the past 10

years, the Solomon Islands only conducted one HIES in 2012-2013, with the previous one being in 2005-2006.

143.6 25.1

335.7

483.7



N/A

N/A

1.8

2013

2013

N/A

37.1

N/A

58.8

84.7

37.6 2013

2013

2013

2013

KEY INDICATORS
















HARMONIZATION


Solomon Islands www.worldbank.org/poverty

25.1

13.5

11.4

25.5

58.5

53.8








The national poverty statistics of the Solomon Islands for 2013 used a "cost of basic needs" approach to establish a welfare benchmark for the poverty line. A Food

Poverty Line (FPL) estimated the required expenditure to achieve 2200 calories of consumption per adult-equivalent (with children aged 0-6 counting as half of an adult),

using a basket of goods based on the actual consumption of the bottom two deciles in the distribution. Separate FPLs were estimated for each of nine provinces:

Central, Choiseul, Guadalcanal, Honiara, Isabel, Makira, Malaita, Temotu, and Western. The Non-Food Poverty Lines (NFPL) for the nine provinces were estimated using

the average non-food expenditures of households whose spending on food is equal to the FPL.


(US$1.90), the Lower Middle Income Class Poverty Line (US$3.20) and the Upper Middle Income Class Poverty Line (US$5.50). The international poverty estimates for

the Solomon Islands do not reflect any implicit spatial price deflation. These estimates also differ from the national poverty measures because they assess welfare needs

on a per capita rather than an adult-equivalent basis.




Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013


National Poverty Line 5,324.8 8.6


26.2 in Thai baht (2017) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita






SHARED PROSPERITY


INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH



MEDIAN INCOME



ThailandEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

For more than a quarter century prior to the 1997 financial crisis, Thailand's economy grew at an average annual rate of 7.5 percent,

creating millions of jobs that helped pull millions of people out of poverty. The country along multiple dimensions of welfare have

been impressive: mean per capita income has risen by 4.1 percent per year on average in 2000-2017, school enrollment and average

educational attainment have risen, virtually everyone is now covered by health insurance, and other forms of social security have

also expanded. Access to safe water and basic sanitation is almost universal, and connectivity have increased remarkably. Extreme

poverty, based on the International Poverty Line, is almost eradicated. Based on the World Bank's Multidimensional Poverty

Measure (MPM), Thailand has the lowest poverty rate of all ASEAN countries.

Historically, economic growth has been the key driver of poverty reduction in Thailand. However, the engine that delivered most of

the productivity gains in the movement of people from the low-productivity agricultural sector into higher-productivity

While initially cushioned by high global demand for primary commodities, the recent fall in agricultural prices negatively impacted

farmers and contributed to worsening household welfare in rural areas. Urban households also experienced declining market income

from 2015-17. Thailand's Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) began publishing national

poverty rates in the late 1980s, and since then the country's official poverty rate has increased in only four instances, three of which

coincided with financial crises (1998, 1999, and 2008): the fourth and most recent increase in poverty occurred in 2016.

The government has recently implemented policies aimed specifically at helping low-income households. For instance, in 2017 it

launched an unconditional transfer program, also referred to as the digital welfare card program. In April 2018, it raised the

minimum wage to 308-330 baht per day (varying by province), up from its previous range of 300-310 baht per day. Following the

2019 elections, the government has continued to increase commitments to social programs. Droughts once again threaten the well-

being of many farmers in the North, Northeast, and Central regions. One-third of the labor force still work in agriculture, and

significant impacts will be felt by rice, corn, and fish farmers if water levels are not restored.

20.7 0.0

330.8

5,371.3

Poverty Economist: Judy Yang


2.46

2.08

3.1

2016

2017

2.51

36.5

0.42

0.5

7.8

0.1 2017

2017

2017

2017

KEY INDICATORS


Urban population N/A Monetary poverty (Consumption)

Rural population N/A Daily Consumption or income is less than US$1.90 per person










Source: World Bank using SES/EAPPOV/GMD Source: World Bank using SES/EAPPOV/GMD



HARMONIZATION


Thailand www.worldbank.org/poverty

0.0

0.6

14.8

0.9

0.2

0.1







Source: World Bank using SES/EAPPOV/GMDSource: World Bank using SES/EAPPOV/GMD

Poverty and inequality statistics are calculated using data from the Thailand Socio-Economic Survey (SES), which is conducted annually by the National Statistical Office

of Thailand.

National and international trends in poverty are aligned but do not match exactly due to differences in methodology. A welfare aggregate based on nominal

consumption per capita is used for both national and international measurement. The main differences between the national and World Bank international measures

are due to the different poverty lines that are used. Thailand produces national poverty estimates which are based on household-level poverty lines, with variation by

household composition in age and gender, and which also incorporate regional price differences. The WBG measure is based on a singular poverty line, which allows for

ease of comparability across countries.



Upper Middle Income line (%) Relative group (%)

Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016










SHARED PROSPERITY

Annualized Income or Consumption Growth per capita of the bottom 40 percent N/A

INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH


Annualized Income or Consumption Growth per capita from Household Survey N/A

MEDIAN INCOME



Timor-LesteEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

Poverty in Timor-Leste has declined significantly in recent years. The poverty rate at the national poverty line has fallen from 50.4

percent in 2007 to 41.8 percent in 2014. Measured using internationally comparable poverty line of US$1.90 per person per day

(2011 PPP), poverty declined even more rapidly from 47.2 percent in 2007 to 30.7 percent in 2014.

These significant reductions of poverty were mostly experienced by those engaged in agriculture sector, which most of the poor

Timorese depend on for their livelihood. The incidence of poverty amongst households engaged in agriculture declined by eight

percentage points from 49 percent in 2007 to 41 percent in 2014. Over the same period, households who had wage income or non-

agriculture cash income experienced a decline in poverty by four and three percentage points, respectively.

Reduction in monetary poverty was also accompanied by substantial improvement in other measures of living standards. For

example, there was a noticeable growth in the ownership of certain consumer durables, such as televisions, motor cycles, and mobile

phones. However, many households, in particular the poor, still lack access to basic amenities. For example, even though access to

electricity has doubled between 2007 and 2014, around 40 percent of poor households still lived without access to electricity.

Similarly, in 2014, while 65 percent of non-poor households have access to improved sanitation facilities, nearly half of the poor

have not. Moreover, around one-quarter of households still did not have access to safe drinking water.

With a Gini index of 28.7 in 2014, inequality in Timor-Leste is low by international standards. Nonetheless, the consumption growth

was less favorable for the poor. Between 2007 and 2014, real consumption per capita for the bottom 40 grew at the average rate of

2.85 percent per year, slightly lower than the national average growth rate of 2.95 percent per year.

360.7 30.7

N/A

N/A

Poverty Economist: Ririn Salwa Purnamasari


N/A

N/A

-7.0

2014

2014

N/A

28.7

N/A

N/A

N/A

39.8 2014

N/A

N/A

2014

KEY INDICATORS













Source: World Bank using TLSLS/EAPPOV/GMD Source: World Bank using TLSLS/EAPPOV/GMD



HARMONIZATION


Timor-Leste www.worldbank.org/poverty

30.7

0.3

21.2

22.1

48.6

27.2







Source: World Bank using TLSLS/EAPPOV/GMDSource: World Bank using TLSLS/EAPPOV/GMD

Poverty in Timor-Leste is estimated based on per capita consumption expenditure. Members of a household are considered poor if the per capita consumption of the

household is below the poverty line, which is determined using the cost-of-basic-needs approach. This method calculates the poverty line as the cost of a consumption

bundle that is (1) consistent with the consumption pattern of the poor; and (2) deemed adequate for meeting basic needs. The poverty line has three main components:

food, rent, and non-food. The food poverty line is constructed based on representative food bundles to meet the recommended nutritional need of 2,100 calories per

person per day. The rent poverty line represents the average imputed rental cost per person of a reference dwelling. The non-food (excluding rent) poverty line is

estimated in terms of what the poor generally spend on non-food items.

In 2014, poverty lines were estimated for the 13 districts using the Timor-Leste Surveys of Living Standards (TLSLS-3). For 2007, poverty lines were constructed for six

domains (the rural and urban segments of three regions), as the TLSLS-2 sample size permitted only this degree of spatial disaggregation. Yet, both years present

comparable estimates of poverty.




Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013







SHARED PROSPERITY


INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH



MEDIAN INCOME



TongaEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

The latest Household Income and Expenditure Survey used to estimate poverty in Tonga was conducted in 2015-2016. The next

HIES round is scheduled for 2020-2021. By World Bank definitions of data deprivation, Tonga is classified as vulnerable to

deprivation. In the past 10 years, Tonga has conducted a HIES on two occasions, but they are separated by more than 5 years (2009

and 2015-2016).

Using national measures for 2009-10 (see "Poverty Data and Methodology" section below for details), 22.5 percent of the population

lived below the basic needs poverty line. The incidence of poverty was lowest in the capital, Nuku'alofa, at 21.4 percent, while it was

estimated at 23.5 percent in the Rest of Tongatapu and 22.9 percent for Other Islands.

Measuring the 2015-16 HIES data against the international poverty line of $1.90 (2011 PPP USD per person per day), the poverty

rate was estimated at 1 percent. Measured against the $5.50 poverty line, which reflects living standards across all upper middle-

income countries, the incidence of poverty was at 27.5 percent, slightly higher than the global upper middle-income country average

of 24.4 percent in 2015. Multidimensional poverty indicators indicate a strong performance by Tonga in ensuring access to

education and basic infrastructure such as water, sanitation, and electricity.

Inequality in 2015-16, as measured by a consumption-based Gini index, was estimated at 37.6. Consumption growth in the Bottom

40 between 2009-10 and 2015-16 exceeded the average growth rate (1.03 percent per year compared to 0.60 percent). The annual

median income growth rate during the same time was lower than the reported consumption growth, at only 0.16 percent.

1.0 1.0

7.5

27.7



0.16

0.60

2.1

2009

2015

1.03

37.6

0.43

7.5

27.5

1.7 2015

2015

2015

2015

KEY INDICATORS


Urban population 100 N/A* 35 65 Monetary poverty (Consumption)







Without education (16+) N/A N/A N/A N/A No access to limited-standard sanitation

Primary education (16+) N/A N/A N/A N/A No access to electricity

Secondary education (16+) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Tertiary/post-secondary education (16+) N/A N/A N/A N/A




HARMONIZATION


Tonga www.worldbank.org/poverty

1.0

0.8

N/A

0.1

1.8

0.0








The national poverty statistics of Tonga for 2009 (as reported for Sustainable Development Goals tracking purposes) used a "cost of basic needs" approach to establish a

welfare benchmark for the poverty line. A single food poverty line was used nationally, using a per capita basis rather than applying the adult equivalence scale

commonly used across the Pacific. Separate non-food poverty lines were constructed for each of three sub-regions: Nuku'alofa, the Rest of Tongapatu, and Other

Islands. National consumption-based poverty measures were not officially produced by the Tonga Statistics Department for 2015-16.


(US$1.90), the Lower Middle Income Class Poverty Line (US$3.20) and the Upper Middle Income Class Poverty Line (US$5.50). For Tonga, the consumption aggregates

were deflated using the three regional poverty lines to account for spatial differences in the cost of living.




Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015










SHARED PROSPERITY


INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH



MEDIAN INCOME



TuvaluEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

The latest Household Income and Expenditure Survey used to estimate poverty in Tuvalu was conducted in 2015-16. However, the

data presented in this brief refer to the previous HIES in 2010, as the 2015-16 data set is still undergoing processing and analysis.

The next round of the HIES is scheduled for 2020-21. By World Bank definitions for data deprivation, Tuvalu is classified as meeting

the minimum data needs. In the past 10 years, Tuvalu has conducted a HIES on two occasions, with a maximum of five years

separating the two (2010 and 2015-2016).


below the basic needs poverty line in 2010. The incidence of poverty was higher in the capital Funafuti (27.5 percent) than on the

Outer Islands (24.8 percent), although separate poverty lines were estimated for the two areas. Households headed by an elderly

person were more likely to be poor. Meanwhile, households headed by women were less likely to be poor, although this finding could

reflect the presence of households receiving remittance from seafarers working away from home.

Measured against the international poverty line of $1.90 (2011 PPP USD per person per day), the poverty rate in 2010 was estimated

at 3.3 percent. However, measured against the $5.50 poverty line, which reflects living standards across all upper middle-income

countries, the incidence of poverty was at 46.7 percent, higher than the global upper middle-income country average of 40.8

percent in 2010. Multidimensional poverty indicators for education and access to sanitation and electricity all exceed the $1.90

monetary poverty measure, implying that some Tuvaluans who are not poor by monetary measures are still deprived of basic

services. Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, was estimated at 39.1.

0.3 3.3

1.9

4.9



N/A

N/A

0.7

2010

2010

N/A

39.1

N/A

17.6

46.7

3.9 2010

2010

2010

2010

KEY INDICATORS









Without education (16+) 93 N/A* 54 N/A* No access to limited-standard sanitation







HARMONIZATION


Tuvalu www.worldbank.org/poverty

3.3

6.1

4.5

0.0

11.5

9.2








The national poverty statistics of Tuvalu for 2010 used a "cost of basic needs" approach to establish a welfare benchmark for the poverty line. A Food Poverty Line (FPL)


of goods comprising the top 30 goods consumed by the bottom three deciles in the distribution. Separate FPLs were estimated for each of two sub-regions: Funafuti and

the Outer Islands. The Non-Food Poverty Line (NFPL) was estimated using the average non-food consumption of the bottom three deciles in the distribution.


(US$1.90), the Lower Middle Income Class Poverty Line (US$3.20) and the Upper Middle Income Class Poverty Line (US$5.50). For Tuvalu, the consumption aggregates

were deflated using the two regional poverty lines to account for spatial differences in the cost of living. These estimates also differ from the national poverty measures

because they assess welfare needs on a per capita rather than an adult-equivalent basis.




Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2010



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

2010




217.7 in Vanuatu vatu (2010) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita






SHARED PROSPERITY


INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH



MEDIAN INCOME



VanuatuEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

The latest Household Income and Expenditure Survey used to estimate poverty in Vanuatu was conducted in 2010. Using the

national measures (see "Poverty Data and Methodology" section below for details), 13.1 percent of the population lived below the

basic needs poverty line. This is nearly unchanged from the levels of poverty measured in 2006, with a decrease in Port Vila (20.1 to

18.4 percent) offset by a substantial increase in Luganville (12.2 to 23.6 percent). However, comparability between the two years is

limited because the 2010 poverty line was recalculated using a new basket of goods from the 2010 HIES rather than adjusting the

2006 poverty line for inflation.

Using the international poverty line of $1.90 (2011 PPP USD per person per day), the headcount poverty rate in 2010 was estimated

at 13.1 percent. As a lower middle income country, it is also important to measure poverty in Vanuatu using the $3.20 Lower Middle

Income Class Poverty Line, which estimates poverty at 39.2 percent. Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, was estimated at

37.6. While annualized growth per capita in GDP was 2.5 percent for the period of 2005-2010, data on consumption growth for the

bottom 40 percent or growth in median incomes is not available.

Using the World Bank's definitions for data deprivation, Vanuatu is classified as moderately deprived. In the past 10 years, Vanuatu

has only conducted one HIES in 2010, with the previous one being in 2006. However, Vanuatu is currently in the field collecting a

2018-2019 HIES.

31.0 13.1

92.7

170.9



N/A

N/A

2.5

2010

2010

N/A

37.6

N/A

39.2

72.3

33.1 2010

2010

2010

2010

KEY INDICATORS
















HARMONIZATION


Vanuatu www.worldbank.org/poverty

13.1

14.6

18.5

19.1

45.6

55.9








The national poverty statistics of Vanuatu for 2010 used a "cost of basic needs" approach to establish a welfare benchmark for the poverty line. A Food Poverty Line

(FPL) estimated the required expenditure to achieve 2100 calories of consumption per adult-equivalent (with children aged 0-14 counting as half of an adult), using a

basket of goods comprising the top 30 goods consumed by the bottom three deciles in the distribution. An adjustment factor of 0.8 is applied to the market price when

consuming from household production. Separate FPLs were estimated for each of three sub-regions: Port Villa, Luganville, and Rural. The Non-Food Poverty Line (NFPL)

was estimated using the average non-food consumption of the bottom three deciles in the distribution.


(US$1.90), the Lower Middle Income Class Poverty Line (US$3.20) and the Upper Middle Income Class Poverty Line (US$5.50). For Vanuatu, the consumption aggregates

were deflated using the three regional poverty lines to account for spatial differences in the cost of living. These estimates differ from the national poverty measures

because they assess welfare needs on a per capita rather than an adult-equivalent basis.




Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2010



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

2010




17947.5 in Vietnamese dong (2016) or US$1.90 (2011 PPP) per day per capita






SHARED PROSPERITY


INEQUALITY

Gini Index


GROWTH



MEDIAN INCOME



VietnamEast Asia & Pacific

October 2019

POVERTY Period

National poverty estimates for 2016 show that the incidence of poverty declined by almost 4 percentage points since 2014 to 9.8

percent. Poverty is expected to continue declining rapidly as both the rate and pattern of growth sustain the underlying drivers of

poverty reduction in Vietnam. About 1.8 million more wage jobs and 2.8 million more non-agriculture jobs have been added between

2016 and 2018. Most of the new opportunities were in rural areas, resulting in a reallocation of labor from agriculture to the

manufacturing, construction and service sectors. Rising rural wages across all sectors further contributed to high growth in rural

non-agriculture incomes. More recently, significant poverty reduction has been observed among ethnic minorities, though with a

poverty rate of 44 percent in 2016, they remain significantly poorer than the rest of the population.

Being labor intensive, growth in Vietnam has been broad based, with a shared prosperity premium (higher consumption growth in

the bottom 40 compared to the average) of 0.14 percent during 2012-2016. Median incomes grew by an average of 5.06 percent per

year, matching the growth in GDP per capita over this period. Fiscal policy also contributed in making growth more inclusive by

enhancing people's ability to secure new and better opportunities through human capital investments and providing targeted

benefits to the poor. Vietnam was ranked among the top 20 in the 2017 PISA rankings - one reason its Human Capital Index of 0.67

places it above most middle-income countries. The bulk of social transfers (excluding pensions) goes to the bottom 40 percent of

the population who are clearly net beneficiaries of fiscal policy once government spending on social services is considered. With a

Gini index of 35.3, Vietnam has grown without a significant increase in inequality. Pro-poor fiscal policy is estimated to have lowered

inequality by more than 3 points.

1.8 2.0

7.9

27.1

Poverty Economist: Obert Pimhidzai


5.06

4.78

5.0

2016

2016

4.92

35.3

0.14

8.4

29.0

3.9 2014

2016

2016

2016

KEY INDICATORS


Urban population 100 N/A* 17 83 Monetary poverty (Consumption)











Source: World Bank using VHLSS/EAPPOV/GMD Source: World Bank using VHLSS/EAPPOV/GMD



HARMONIZATION


Vietnam www.worldbank.org/poverty

2.7

1.3

5.9

7.1

19.8

0.9







Source: World Bank using VHLSS/EAPPOV/GMDSource: World Bank using VHLSS/EAPPOV/GMD

The primary source of poverty data is the Vietnam Household Living Standards Survey (VHLSS), which is conducted once every two years. The data, collected over a 12-

month period for each survey, are available to users and have been widely applied in research. The consensus is that the data are of good quality.

Poverty is estimated using the cost-of-basic-needs approach, with household welfare measured using consumption, which includes imputations for housing rent and

durables. The current poverty line was estimated in 2010 and has been updated only for cost-of-living changes. The international poverty line estimates are generated

from the same consumption aggregate as national estimates, with the CPI used to inflate (deflate) the 2011 PPP-based poverty line into the survey-year prices. Poverty

trends using both the national and international poverty lines are consistent. The point estimates for the lower middle income poverty line of 2011 PPP $3.20 per

person per day and the national GSO-World Bank poverty line are also close, since the implied poverty lines are similar.




Gini Index

Poverty rate (%)


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016



GDP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

east asia and pacific...number of poor (thousand) rate (%) national poverty line 294.3 34.0...

Documents