How Not to Count the Poor

By S. Reddy, Thomas Pogge. 2005

545 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/935e68718d5b955d392e8d385216bbf8aef08427

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Sociology and Political Science

1. P. Segal
2. A. Krishna
3. S. Anand
4. Kaushik Basu
5. R. Allen
6. Robert H. Wade
7. O. Morrissey
8. Karuna Gomanee

Citations in the corpus

• Aid, public spending and human welfare: evidence from quantile regressions (2005, background): “The infant mortality rate (IM) is likely to be correlated with poverty, and as such is a reasonable indicator of the welfare of the poor (Reddy and Pogge, 2002).”
• The Global Distribution of Income (2014, background): “A more fundamental challenge to the PPP $ 1-a-day poverty line has been made by Reddy and Pogge (2010).”
• The Social Impact of Globalization in the Developing Countries (2006, unknown): “…2002), its critics show that this averaged outcome is mainly the result of the exceptional growth of China; meanwhile, absolute poverty has increased in sub-Saharan Africa and relative poverty (inequality) has increased in the majority of countries (Milanovic 2002b; Reddy and Pogge, 2005).”
• Absolute Poverty: When Necessity Displaces Desire (2017, background): “Recent contributions include Ferreira et al. (2016), Deaton (2010), Reddy and Pogge (2010), and Ravallion (2010).”
• Globalization, Poverty and Inequality: What Is the Relationship? What Can Be Done? (2006, background): “8 Some of these controversies on global inequality are mirrored in the discussion on global poverty (see Chen and Ravallion, 2001; Reddy and Pogge, 2003; Reddy and Minoiu, 2005).”
• The First United Nations Millennium Development Goal: A cause for celebration? (2004, background): “Substantially lowering the international poverty line for 77 of 92 countries, containing 82% of their aggregate population, the revision significantly reduced the number of people counted as extremely poor (Reddy and Pogge, 2005, Table 5).”