The primary goal of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDG1) is to end poverty in all forms everywhere. This implies that no single person in any part of the world should be, in any way, poor at any point during our lifetime. Is this actually possible, one might ask? The responses to this question vary. Some, as we can see here, hold that there will always be poor people in the world while others strongly believe in the possibility of having a world free of poverty, as we can see here,  here, here and here, for example. I have firsthand experiences of these different perspectives about ending poverty. In poverty discussions and studies, I constantly witnessed optimism and reservations about the possibility of eradicating poverty. I also often asked: can we really eliminate poverty in our lifetime? I vividly recall being asked such a question at the end of my poverty research presentation in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the Universiti Brunei Darussalam in 2016.

I strongly believe that a world without poverty is possible in our lifetime. In fact, I agree entirely with the view of the late former President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, that poverty is not natural but man-made, which means that it can be eradicated. The world today is much better than it was some centuries ago. Countries such as Singapore,  Switzerland, Norway, Spain and Brunei used to be poor. China, too, recently uplifted millions of its people out of extreme poverty, as reported here and here. Moreover, some of today’s world billionaires and millionaires, as reported here and here, were also once poor. If these examples are a bit of a stretch, pause and think of the well-off people in your communities or neighbourhoods who were once poor. In the poverty studies in which I have participated in Zimbabwe and Southeast Asian countries, I have heard many stories of people who graduated from poverty. All this suggests that it is indeed possible for countries or people that are poor today to become better off tomorrow.

Poverty could be ended in our lifetime, therefore, if we could:

Graduate from defining poverty as lack of income but rather as capability deprivation (lack of basic opportunities). The pioneering work of Charles Booth and Seebohm B. Rowntree, in construing poverty through the income lens is commendable. It greatly influenced the manner in which governments and international development organisations, such as the World Bank, define poverty. Perspectives of what poverty is have, however, evolved significantly, thanks to the Nobel Laureate and Harvard Scholar Amartya Sen, who developed the capability approach, which has greatly influenced how poverty is construed and measured today. According to the capability approach, being poor means lacking basic capabilities (opportunities) to live a good life or a life free of suffering. This understanding of poverty is consistent with the widely accepted notion that poverty is multidimensional and complex (Gweshengwe and Hassan, 2020). Viewing poverty as a lack of income does not take into account the multidimensional and complex nature of poverty. Earning less than USD 1.90 a day (the current international poverty definition) does not truly reflect how poor one is. Even under the financial dimension, poverty is more than a lack of income: it also includes a lack of opportunities to save and borrow money.

How poverty is defined, as discussed in detail here, shapes poverty eradication efforts. Defining poverty as lack of income usually results in poverty eradication efforts that increase one’s income level or in a donation of necessities of life like food and clothes. This, albeit crucial, does not result in sustained poverty eradication. I have heard of governments or individuals donating thousands of dollars to poor people without, however, eliminating their poverty. Construing poverty through the income lens could be one of the reasons why more people suffer from multidimensional than ‘less than  $1.90/day’ poverty worldwide. Thus, in order to attain the goal of zero poverty in our lifetime, we must graduate from defining poverty as a ‘lack of income’ but rather as a lack of capabilities (opportunities). Defining poverty as capability deprivation results in poverty eradication measures that create opportunities that the poor need in order to escape all forms of suffering.

Consider abandoning the Income Poverty Line, and use a Multidimensional Poverty Measure instead. As I discussed in an article here, it is well acknowledged that the Income Poverty Line (IPL) is flawed since it does not take into account the multidimensionality and complexity of poverty. Hence, the IPL gives a false picture of the nature and level of poverty in a country. According to World Bank’s 2020 Poverty and Shared Prosperity report, about a third of the world’s multidimensionally poor people were not captured by the USD 1.90-a-day poverty line. It is therefore very possible for the IPL to make countries celebrate false poverty eradication achievements. Mauritania, for example, had a very low monetary poverty headcount (6 %) but a high multidimensional poverty headcount (46%) in 2020 (World Bank’s 2020 Poverty and Shared Prosperity report). Based on the IPL alone, the conclusion would be of a very low poverty level in Mauritania.

A flawed poverty measure distorts decisions relating to poverty eradication. To achieve effective poverty eradication, therefore, we need to abandon the IPL as a poverty measure and replace it with a Multidimensional Poverty Measure (MPM), which acknowledges the multidimensionality and complexity of poverty. The good news is that the world is warming to the idea of measuring poverty using an MPM. Credit goes to the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) at Oxford University, which developed the Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (Global MPI) and related tools like National MPI, Child MPI, Rural MPI and  Business MPI. The OPHI’s work has inspired the World Bank, as reported here,  and some governments to complement their IPLs with an MPM. However, it would be ideal for international development organisations and governments to consider using an MPM.

Accept that economic growth is vital but not enough for poverty eradication: Economic growth is essential for poverty eradication, but it is not, in and of itself, enough to achieve poverty eradication, as argued in this book and here, here and here. The welfare benefits of economic growth are not usually enjoyed by everyone. For example, the poor and most disadvantaged members of society rarely benefit from economic growth due to their weak purchasing power and lack of entrepreneurial skills, among other factors (Asian Development Bank, 2012; Gasiorek et al., 2016). Accordingly, governments should pursue economic growth alongside interventions that directly tackle poverty, as reported here and here. The Government of Brunei, for example, is doing precisely that and has therefore made significant strides in poverty eradication. If all governments adopt this development approach, zero poverty in our lifetime would certainly be possible.

Have the will to eradicate poverty: One of the renowned economists, Martin Ravallion, strongly believes that poverty can be eradicated, but it is a matter of will. The big question is: Do we really want to eradicate poverty? If we really do, nothing should stop us!

If we consider the above suggestions, which are not exhaustive, however, we could indeed eradicate poverty in our lifetime.