论文部分内容阅读
近年来联合国拉丁美洲和加勒比地区经济委员会（ＥＣＬＡＣ）、联合国开发署（ＵＮＤＰ）和世界银行这三个国际组织先后对拉丁美洲的贫困问题进行了调查研究，ＵＮＤＰ是在“克服地区贫困研究项目”下进行工作的。本文试图对它们所用的调研方法进行批评分析。前两个案例证明它们所使用的贫困线方案均有内在矛盾和局限性。本文认为ＥＣＬＡＣ－ＵＮＤＰ确定的贫困线衡量的是相对的营养贫困，而世界银行的贫困线则可解释为衡量营养不良或勉维生存的尺度。后者仅相当于墨西哥较广泛应用的贫困线的２８．５％，比ＥＣＬＡＣ－ＵＮＤＰ的绝对贫困线还要低。世界银行所确定的绝对贫困线几乎没有意义。本文也指出了ＵＮＤＰ克服地区贫困项目所用方法（它把贫困线（ＰＬ）和未满足的基本需要（ＵＢＮ）两种方法结合起来用）的局限性，例如指出两种方法结合的机械性质和交叉重复；应用ＵＢＮ法所确定的贫困程度取决于所用贫困指标的数目；还有该法对贫困程度的衡量为力。本文最后对三项调研所得数据进行了比较分析。
In recent years, the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the World Bank have conducted surveys and studies on poverty in Latin America. The UNDP has worked in the “Overcoming Regional Studies on Poverty” Under the work. This article attempts to critique the research methods they use. The first two cases demonstrate that the poverty line schemes they use have inherent contradictions and limitations. This paper argues that the poverty line defined by ECLAC-UNDP measures relative nutritional poverty while the World Bank poverty line can be interpreted as a measure of malnutrition or resilience. The latter is equivalent to only 28.5% of Mexico’s more widely used poverty line, which is lower than the absolute poverty line of ECLAC-UNDP. The absolute poverty line set by the World Bank is almost pointless. This paper also points out the limitations of the UNDP approach to tackling regional poverty programs that combine both the PL and the UBN, such as the combination of the mechanical properties and the crossover Repeat; The level of poverty as determined by UBN depends on the number of indicators of poverty used; there is also the measure of poverty as a measure of poverty. In the end, this article makes a comparative analysis of the data from the three surveys.