> Juan Jose Barrios wrote:
>
> > Maybe some of you are interested in the results of a study carried on by
> > ECLAC
> > on Poverty and Indigency (needies) in Latin America:
> >
> > Poverty Line(1) Indigency
> > Line(2)
> >
> > Country Year Country Urban Rural Country Urban
> > Rural
> >
> > Argentina 1990 16 4
> > 1994 10 2
> > 1997 13
> > 3
> >
> > Bolivia 1990 47
> > 20
> > 1994 46 17
> > 1997 44 16
> >
> > Brazil 1990 41 36 64 18
> > 13 38
> > 1993 37 33 53 15
> > 12 30
> > 1996 29 25 46 11
> > 8 23
> >
> > Chile 1990 33 33 34 11
> > 10 12
> > 1994 24 24 26 7
> > 6 8
> > 1996 20 19 26 5
> > 4 8
> >
> > Colombia 1990 35 12
> > 1994 47 41 57 25
> > 16 38
> > 1997 45 39 54 20
> > 15 29
> >
> > Costa Rica 1990 24 22 25 10
> > 7 12
> > 1994 21 18 23 8
> > 6 10
> > 1997 20 17 23 7
> > 5 9
> >
> > Ecuador 1990 56 23
> > 1994 52 22
> > 1997 50 19
> >
> > El Salvador 1995 48 40 58 18
> > 12 27
> > 1997 48 39 62 19
> > 12 28
> >
> > Guatemala 1989 63 48 72 37
> > 23 45
> >
> > Honduras 1990 75 65 84 54
> > 38 66
> > 1994 73 70 76 49
> > 41 55
> > 1997 74 67 80 48
> > 35 59
> >
> > Mexico 1989 39 34 49 14
> > 9 23
> > 1994 36 29 47 12
> > 6 20
> > 1996 43 38 53 16
> > 10 25
> >
> > Nicaragua 1997 66 36
> >
> > Panama 1991 36 34 43 16
> > 14 21
> > 1994 30 25 41 12
> > 9 20
> > 1997 27 25 34 10
> > 9 14
> >
> > Paraguay 1990 37 10
> > 1994 42 15
> > 1996 40 13
> >
> > Perú 1997 37 25 61 18
> > 7 41
> >
> > Dom. Rep 1997 32 32 34 13
> > 11 15
> >
> > Uruguay 1990 12 2
> > 1994 6 1
> > 1997 6 1
> >
> > Venezuela 1990 34 33 38 12
> > 11 17
> > 1994 42 41 48 15
> > 14 23
> > 1997 42 17
> >
> > Lat. Am. 1994 38 32 56 16
> > 11 34
> > 1997 36 30 54 15
> > 10 31
> >
> > (1)= % of households below poverty line (income is not enough to
> > buy a
> > consumption basket)
> > (2)= % of households below inigency line (income is not enough to
> > cover
> > min. nutritional requierments)
These are absolute poverty numbers I gather. How did ECLA (Economic Commission for Latin America) go about gathering its information? How many of those below the poverty line are formally employed? Employed in the informal sector? In ECLA's view what are the causes of this poverty? ECLA, when it was under Prebisch, laid the intellectual basis for import-substition policies through a critique of orthodox trade theory. Prebisch thought that the terms of trade for LatAm countries were constantly declining because the prices for raw materials exports were falling at the same time prices for manafactured imports was rising. It was an early version of unequal exchange theory. Prebisch also thought the transfer of value from the periphery to the core could be slowed by inflationary policies. Does ECLA still hold to a semblance of this analysis? What does it recommend?
Sam Pawlett