How absolute is absolute poverty then?

Well, to be honest about this, it depends upon who is doing the defining. We run with “absolute” poverty as being the $3 a day in consumption value that the World Bank uses. Some prefer to call that “extreme poverty” and we’d agree with either description. Here in the UK “absolute poverty” means in relative poverty by the standards of 2010. That’s the definition - relative poverty is less than 60% of median household income (adjusted for household size, before or after housing costs to taste) and if you’re below what that was in 2010 then here in 2025 you’re in absolute poverty.

So, when someone says “absolute poverty” we do need to know what it is they mean:

Meanwhile, at home, the cracks are deepening too. On 12 December, as Atreju was in full swing, thousands across Italy took part in a general strike against a budget bill they say is defined by stealth cuts and a chronic lack of investment in public services. These arguments cannot simply be brushed aside. Approximately 5.7 million people now live in absolute poverty in Italy, nearly one-tenth of the population.

So, what is meant here? Other than, obviously, the insinuation that having a right wing government leads to the masses howling in the streets for a crust?

The number quoted is correct but what is the standard being employed?

The ISTAT estimate of absolute poverty defines as poor a household with a monthly expenditure equal to or less than the value of a basket of goods and services considered as essential to avoid severe forms of social exclusion. The monetary value of the basket of absolute poverty is reviewed every year in the light of trend in prices and compared to the levels of spending on household consumption.

Ah. It’s much, much, closer to the calculation the Joseph Rowntree folk use to measure that real living wage and so on than anything else. Here’s what we think a household should be able to do so as not to be in poverty and if they cannot have/do those things then they’re in absolute poverty. It’s as valid a measure as any other - Adam Smith and the linen shirt after all - but it is a different measure.

As a different measure it’s not quite the “Hah! See!” it’s being presented as.

Ho well, but then numeracy from British journalists, eh?

Tim Worstall