Fighting Poverty in Emerging Markets
A. At the recent food summit in Rome, former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva donned a pair of bright-red boxing gloves labelled “Hunger-Free” and waved to the cameras. They were his prize-if that is the right term-for Brazil’s success in topping a league table drawn up by ActionAid, a British charity, of countries that have done most to reduce hunger. The occasion was a stunt, of course, but had a serious purpose: to show that even the poorest places can mitigate poverty and hunger. Brazil is not in that category, but Ghana, Vietnam and Malawi, which came third, fourth and fifth, are.
B. ActionAid’s list was inevitably influenced by the sort of things that NGOs love: social-protection programmes, constitutional and legal guarantees against poverty, the rejection of free markets. But now comes a more rigorous assessment of poverty-reduction in Brazil, China and India by Martin Ravallion, the director of the World Bank’s Development Research Group. It also suggests that hunger is not simply something that growth will take care of. Mr Ravallion shows that the performance of the giants varies a lot more than their growth. And he, too, regards Brazil’s performance as exceptional.
C. Between them, Brazil, China and India account for half the world’s poorest people and an even bigger share of those who have escaped poverty. In 1981, 84% of China’s population was below the poverty line of $1.25 a day (in 2005 prices); in 2005, the share was just 16%. This amounted to a 6.6% proportionate annual rate of poverty reduction-the difference between the growth rates of the number of poor and the total population.
D. Nobody did as well as China. Brazil’s share of those in poverty fell by half from 17% to 8%, an annual reduction of 3.2%. India did the least well, cutting the share below the poverty line from 60% to 42% between 1981 and 2005. This implies an annual reduction of 1.5% a year, though there are problems with Indian statistics; using different consumption figures yields an annual reduction of 3%, comparable to Brazil’s.
E. As Mr Ravallion points out, these figures do not mirror growth rates. Brazil cut poverty by more than India despite much lower growth, just over 1% a year in 1993-2005, compared with India’s 5%. If you calculate the rate of poverty reduction for each unit of GDP growth per person, Brazil did even better than China: the ratio is 4.3 for Brazil, 0.8 for China and 0.4 for India (0.8 if you use the adjusted consumption figures). Per unit of growth, Brazil reduced its proportional poverty rate five times more than China or India did.
F. How did it do so well? The main explanation has to do with inequality. This, as measured by the Gini index, has fallen sharply in Brazil since 1993, while it has soared in China and risen in India. Greater inequality dampens the poverty-reducing effect of growth. Government policy played a big role in reducing inequality. Brazil’s main cash-transfer programme, called Bolsa Familia, provides help to 11m families, or 60% of all those in the poorest tenth. In contrast, social security in China is still provided largely through the enterprise system (ie companies), so it tends to bypass those not in work. And government interventions in India are extraordinarily perverse. People in the poorest fifth are the least likely to have any kind of ration card, the key to public handouts, whereas the richest fifth is the most likely to.
G. Mr Ravallion concludes with some useful lessons. In all three countries, economic stability made a big difference for the better. China cut poverty the most but did best early on when agriculture was growing fastest. As growth shifted towards the cities and manufacturing, inequality rose. It might have done even better with Brazilian style “progressive” policies. India had both growth and social policies yet did worst because its policies, in fact, did rather little to help the poor. With its caste system and bad state schools, India may be an unequal society than the numbers alone suggest. Both Asian countries could learn some lessons from Brazil. But Brazil, in turn, will not be able to match China’s record in reducing the number of poor people without higher growth.
One of the reasons why did so well in its fight against is because it was able to reduce the levels of in the country. In doing so was higher than it would otherwise have been. It managed to achieve this partly due to the initiative Bolsa Familia which aims to some of the country’s people.
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Question Focus: Identifying the country being discussed - summary refers to success in fighting poverty
Correct Answer: Brazil
Why this is correct: The summary asks which country did very well in fighting poverty. The passage clearly focuses on Brazil and repeatedly describes its performance as exceptional.
Passage Reference: Nobody did as well as China. Brazil's share of those in poverty fell by half from 17% to 8%, an annual reduction of 3.2%. India did the least well, cutting the share below the poverty line from 60% to 42% between 1981 and 2005.
Common Mistake: Some students write China because it reduced poverty the most overall, but this summary is about doing well through reducing inequality, which the passage links to Brazil. This is a context shift trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'Brazil's performance as exceptional' = Summary: 'why Brazil did so well'
Tips: Always check which country the paragraph is focusing on, not just which one has the biggest numbers.
Key Vocabulary:
- exceptional = extremely good
Question Focus: Understanding what Brazil was fighting against
Correct Answer: poverty
Passage Reference: Brazil cut poverty by more than India despite much lower growth, just over 1% a year in 1993-2005, compared with India's 5%. If you calculate the rate of poverty reduction for each unit of GDP growth per person, Brazil did even better than China: the ratio is 4.3 for Brazil, 0.8 for China and 0.4 for India (0.8 if you use the adjusted consumption figures). Per unit of growth, Brazil reduced its proportional poverty rate
Why this is correct: The passage repeatedly says Brazil cut poverty and reduced the poverty rate. The summary phrase 'fight against' clearly refers to poverty.
Common Mistake: Some students write hunger because it is mentioned earlier, but this part of the passage focuses on poverty reduction. This is a wrong section trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'cut poverty' = Summary: 'fight against poverty'
Tips: Follow passage order. Earlier mentions of hunger do not mean every summary gap is about hunger.
Key Vocabulary:
- poverty = being very poor
Question Focus: Identifying what Brazil reduced to improve results
Correct Answer: inequality
Passage Reference: How did it do so well? The main explanation has to do with inequality. This, as measured by the Gini index, has fallen sharply in Brazil since 1993, while it has soared in China and risen in India. Gr
Why this is correct: The passage clearly says the main explanation was inequality, which fell sharply in Brazil. The summary directly paraphrases this idea.
Common Mistake: Students sometimes write poverty again, but the sentence already mentions poverty earlier. This is a partial truth trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'inequality has fallen sharply' = Summary: 'reduce the levels of inequality'
Tips: When you see 'levels of', expect an uncountable noun like inequality.
Key Vocabulary:
- inequality = unfair difference between rich and poor
Question Focus: Understanding the effect of reduced inequality
Correct Answer: growth
Passage Reference: Greater inequality dampens the poverty-reducing effect of growth.
Why this is correct: The passage explains that inequality affects the poverty-reducing effect of growth. Reducing inequality means growth has a stronger effect.
Common Mistake: Some students write poverty reduction, but the passage talks about the effect of growth, not the result itself. This is a paraphrase trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'poverty-reducing effect of growth' = Summary: 'growth was higher than it would otherwise have been'
Tips: Look carefully at cause and effect language like 'effect of'. Do not jump to conclusions.
Key Vocabulary:
- growth = economic increase
Question Focus: Understanding the role of Bolsa Familia
Correct Answer: Support
Passage Reference: Brazil's main cash-transfer programme, called Bolsa Familia, provides help to 11m families, or 60% of all those in the poorest tenth.
Why this is correct: The passage says Bolsa Familia provides help to poor families. The summary paraphrases this as support, which matches the meaning.
Common Mistake: Students often write help, but you must follow the summary grammar after 'aims to'. Support works as a verb here. This is a synonym match.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'provides help' = Summary: 'aims to support'
Tips: Check the grammar around the gap. Infinitive forms need a verb, not a noun.
Key Vocabulary:
- support = help
Question Focus: Identifying which people receive help
Correct Answer: poorest
Passage Reference: provides help to 11m families, or 60% of all those in the poorest tenth.
Why this is correct: The passage clearly states that Bolsa Familia helps those in the poorest tenth. The summary shortens this to poorest people.
Common Mistake: Some students write poor, but the passage uses the superlative poorest, which is more precise. This is a qualification trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'poorest tenth' = Summary: 'poorest people'
Tips: Pay attention to comparative and superlative forms. IELTS often tests this.
Key Vocabulary:
- poorest = very poorest group
General Tips:
- Summary completion questions follow passage order. Find the first gap, then keep reading forward.
- Always respect the word limit. One extra word makes the answer wrong.
- Use the exact word or form that fits the grammar of the summary.
- Look for paraphrasing. The summary often uses different words with the same meaning.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation