• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The economist >Economics focus
【24h】

Economics focus

机译：经济学重点

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In its issue of March 13th, The Economist argued that the World Bank has overstated the extent of absolute poverty in the world-that there is less poverty than the Bank claims and that it is falling faster. A methodological debate lies at the heart of this claim. The Bank relies as much as possible on nationally representative household surveys, typically done by governmental statistics offices following international standards. The Bank's latest estimates draw on interviews with about 1.1m randomly sampled households in 100 developing countries, representing 93% of the population of the developing world. The Bank's method of measuring poverty from surveys follows long-standing practices. But it is not the only possible approach. The Economist points to an alternative method that ignores data on levels of income or consumption from surveys. Instead the poverty measures are anchored to national accounts data, using the surveys only to measure inequality-the shares of total income accruing to different income groups. (It is unclear why proponents of this approach think that surveys can be trusted for measuring inequality, but not levels of poverty.)
机译：在3月13日的《经济学人》杂志上，世界银行夸大了世界上绝对贫困的程度，即世界上绝对的贫困比世界银行所宣称的要少，而且下降速度更快。方法论辩论是这一主张的核心。世行尽可能依靠国家代表性的家庭调查，通常由政府统计局按照国际标准进行。世行的最新估计来自对100个发展中国家约110万户家庭的随机抽样采访，占发展中国家人口的93％。世行通过调查衡量贫困的方法遵循了长期的惯例。但这不是唯一可能的方法。 《经济学人》指出了另一种方法，该方法忽略了调查中有关收入或消费水平的数据。取而代之的是，将贫困衡量标准固定在国民账户数据上，仅使用调查来衡量不平等程度-即不同收入群体在总收入中所占的比例。 （目前尚不清楚为什么这种方法的支持者认为调查可以用来衡量不平等，但不能用来衡量贫困程度。）

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号