Living on a dollar a day

What exactly does it mean to live on a dollar a day? Here's a fascinating paper (pdf) that tells us, by drawing on evidence from 13 countries. Some highlights:
1. "The average person living at under $1 a day does not seem to put every available penny into buying more calories...Food typically represents  from 56 to 78% [of household spending]."
Despite this, hunger is common. Among the extremely poor in Udaipur, only 57% said their household had enough to eat in the previous year, and 72% report at least one symptom of disease.
2. "The poor generally do not compain about their health - but then they do not complain about life in general. While the poor certainly feel poor, their levels of self-reported happiness or health are not particularly low."
3. Spending on festivals - religious ceremonies, funerals and weddings - is high. In Udaipur, median spending on these by people living on $1 a day was 10% of income.
4. In several countries, the extremely poor spend about 5% of income on alcohol and tobacco.
5. In the Ivory Coast, 14% of people on $1 a day have a TV - and 45% of those on $2 a day have one.
6. Many of the extremely poor get income from more than one source. Cultivating their own land is not always the main source of income.
7. Participation in microfinance is not as high as you'd think. The poor seem unable to reap economies of scale, therefore.

Comments

[james higham]

6. Many of the extremely poor get income from more than one source. Cultivating their own land is not always the main source of income.

This very much describes the Russian situation. Even the poorest household sports at least one TV and income comes from many undeclared sources. It must. Plus the family is more extended and the infrastructure more complex. They often survive through networking and windfalls.

[Alex (in a professional capacity)]

Any data on mobile phone penetration?

[Gracchi]

Interesting I particularly am intrigued by the data on satisfaction- given one of the justifications for redistribution has to be
that it secures the safety of society showing that the truly poor are not disatisfied is intriguing. Maybe it takes a modicum of wealth to be disatisfied- like the artisan rebels of Victorian England.

[thortz]

Interesting survey, although I find that their attitude a little dehumanised. They seem surprised that the poor are not willing to spend more time away from their village, for instance, and they strangely classify attendance at weddings and festivals as "entertainment".

I would have thought that the one thing the poor do have in these environments is other people; families, neighbours, friends. So to migrate for long periods for hard work in shitty conditions and little reward is to lose the one precious thing they have access to. I would also imagine that the weddings, festivals, and other social situations are at the very centre of their lives; their main reason for living. Otherwise they are just working to feed themselves so they can work to feed themselves tomorrow.