Comments prepared for launch event of “Even it Up: Time to End Extreme Poverty” IMF, October 31, 2014. The views represented in these comments are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank.

1. Even It Up
Time to End Extreme Inequality
An Oxfam Report
Comments by
Dean Jolliffe
C o m m e n t s p r e p a r e d f o r l a u n c h e v e n t o f “ E v e n i t U p : T i m e t o E n d E x t r e m e P o v e r t y ”
IMF, Oc to b e r 3 1 , 2 0 1 4 .
The v i ews r e p r e s ent e d in the s e comment s a r e tho s e o f the a u tho r and do no t ne c e s s a r i l y
r e f l e c t th e v i ews o f the Wo r l d Bank .

2. The discussion has changed,
Inequality is now a focal issue
• Once again, Oxfam has delivered a powerful report with a strong
and persuasive call to action
• In rich and poor countries, inequality is now part of policy
discussions
• At the World Bank, sharing in prosperity is now twinned with
eliminating poverty
• Oxfam has consistently argued to bring inequality to the fore of
policy discussions, and deserves much credit for the change

3. Oxfam offers objectives & policy
recommendations
• Eliminate extreme inequality
• Focus on gender equality as the key source of existing inequity
• Recommendations:
• Wealth taxation
• Living wages
• Investment in free universal health and education coverage
• It’s a complete package with a penetrating picture of the injustices
of inequality and a prescription to improve equity.

4. Seemingly thousands of details,
references, statistics
• At times, the effectiveness of the report is almost harmed by all of
the details – some are very well substantiated, others less so.
• A worry is that the conversation could get ‘bogged down’ in
disagreements over the quality of a few estimates in the report –
mostly small picture stuff.
• The most important elements though are the reminders that
statistics are ultimately about the lives of people.
• Few people can understand injustice through a Gini coefficient, but
most can understand the personal stories of how vast disparity of
wealth adversely affects wellbeing.

5. Despite the abundance of detail,
“Sees the forest for the trees”
• The report continually keeps the reader’s eye on the big picture –
change is needed.

6. Is the prescription the right
solution?
• Depends
• Is the diagnosis correct?
• Is there clarity on what healthy (ie. “elimination of extreme inequality”) looks
like?
• Will the same, general prescription work for all?

7. Is the diagnosis right?
• Powerful picture of the state of the world
• But, the report sometimes reads as if reducing inequality will
unambiguously increase growth and eliminate extreme poverty.
• Reducing inequality can reduce poverty, but need not
• Reducing inequality can improve or harm growth, depends on the policies
• “Today’s extremes of inequality are bad for everyone.”
• If largely true, changing course is a matter of improving the evidence base for
policy discussions.
• But if many of the rich (more than just the billionaires) benefit from
inequality & are politically powerful, an improved evidence base will do little.

8. What does it mean to eliminate
extreme inequality?
• Many different ways to think about inequality – global or national
• Globally
As if the world were one country – 85 wealthiest control as much wealth as the
bottom half.
As if each country were an individual – growing (or potentially shrinking)
divergence between rich and poor countries
• Nationally – inequality within each and every country
• Many different ways to think about inequality – the measure
• Assessed over the entire distribution, such as the Gini.
• Assessed over specific parts of the distribution, 90/10 split, inter-quartile range

9. What does it mean to eliminate
extreme inequality? – the next step
• Bringing clarity to the goal will help bring focus to the
appropriate polices
• All measures and goals will have shortcomings, but typically
things that don’t have goals, nor defined measures, don’t get
done.
• Eg. Reducing the gini (or any measure defined over the entire
distribution) can be accomplished through shifts from the rich to
the middle class. In most countries, this is much easier to do than
shifts to the poor (political economy of voting, attachment to
formal sector).

10. US SNAP (Food Stamps) Example:
Inequality and poverty reductions
Focus on
inequality can
mask
important
changes for the
poor
10
2012 CPS Income Income +
SNAP value
%
change
Gini (2011) 0.477 0.470 1
Poverty Severity
(2011)
0.052 0.042 19
If SNAP were assessed on how well it redressed
inequality, it would have failed.
As it stands, SNAP is highly efficient in targeting severe
poverty and one of the most important programs in the
US for poverty mitigation.

11. Will the same policies work for all?
(gender focus, wealth taxation, living wages, free UC of
health & education)
• Good to see the ‘forest for the trees’, but the details and differences of the
trees are very important for effective policy.
• Progress is best made with combination of global and national efforts; but
global action without change in national policies will be ineffective.
• Eg. Living wages make sense in a country with high attachment to formal
sector, but in sub-Saharan Africa, an estimated 75% of extreme poor living in
rural areas largely engaged in farming.
• Eg. Free services does not necessarily lead to ‘take up’; issues of access,
quality, opportunity costs of time, cultural views of gender.
• Even in the presence of free basic health provisions, there can be steep income gradient in
access to health care.
• Even in the presence of free basic education, there can be sharp boy-girl differences in
attendance.

12. Afghanistan: Antenatal care by quintile
Despite inclusion of antenatal care in Basic Package of Health Services,
there is a steep income gradient in take up (true of healthcare access generally)
PC quintile Antenatal care (%)
1 (poorest) 24
2 29
3 38
4 42
5 (richest) 57
Total 37

13. Afghanistan: Access to Education
In contrast, no income gradient for 80% of children, but gender gap
has increased side-by-side increases in public investment in schooling.
Boys Girls Total
1 (poorest) 41 31 36
2 42 27 34
3 40 28 34
4 40 30 35
5 (richest) 51 40 46
Total 43 31 37
2007/08 Net primary enrollment of children aged 6-9
Boy enrollment
increased by 43%
between 2005-
2008, while
female
enrollment
increased by 34%

14. The twin goals of the World Bank
Boosting shared prosperity
(Growth of incomes of bottom
40% of population in every country)
• Not without weaknesses, but they offer some specificity.
• Poverty – a global measure with guidance on how to adapt to specifics
of each country (ie. CBN).
• Shared prosperity - Explicit inclusion of a measure that’s focused on
equity of outcomes.
Focus is on bottom 40%.
As with national poverty measures, scope for countries to focus on
particularly relevant dimensions of inequity.
• Gender, Consumption, Health, Education. Eg. if sanitation is the
key issue for health disparities, this should be a focus.
• 40% compared to average, top 60%, to 10%.
14
Ending extreme poverty by 2030
(< 3% of global pop. below
$1.25 a day)
www.worldbank.org/ameasuredapproach

15. Synergies to “twinning” the goals – Progress in boosting
shared prosperity is critical to eliminate extreme poverty
15
Scenario Head count
Each country sustains avg growth during past 20 years 6.8%
Each country sustains avg growth during past 10 years 4.8%
10-year growth rate + boost Shared Prosperity
(g40 2 percent points greater than growth in mean)
3% in 2028
www.worldbank.org/AmeasuredApproac
www.worldbank.org/ameasuredapphroach