Talukdar Shahidur Thesis

THE EFFECT OF INFLATION ON POVERTY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES:
A PANEL DATA ANALYSIS

by
SHAHIDUR RASHID TALUKDAR, M.S.
A THESIS
in
ECONOMICS
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Approved
Dr. Masha Rahnama

Chairperson of the Committee
Dr. Victor Valcarcel
Accepted
Dean of the Graduate School
August, 2012
Copyright 2010, Shahidur Rashid Talukdar
Texas Tech University, Shahidur Rashid Talukdar, August 2012
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am extremely grateful to Dr. Masha Rahnama for being the Chair of my thesis
committee and also for guiding me throughout the process of conducting empirical
analysis as well as writing the thesis. I would like to thank Dr. Victor Valcarcel for being in
my thesis committee and providing me with relevant ideas, helpful comments, and
suggestions. Last but not the least, I want to thank my wife, Mumtaz B. Laskar, for
helping me with processing the data, and providing me the emotional support to complete
my thesis. Without their help my thesis would not have been complete.
ii
ABSTRACT
The aim of this thesis is to study the effect of inflation on poverty in developing
countries. I analyze the effect of inflation on poverty with a panel dataset comprised of
115 developing countries over the period 1981 - 2008. The dataset comprises 10
observations for each country as the data is available at 3 year intervals. As previous
studies indicate that poverty is also affected by factors such as income, external debt,
educational attainment, and quality of governance, besides inflation, I take these as
independent variables and poverty as the dependent variable. With the help of regression
analysis, I find evidence supporting the view that inflation in general is positively
correlated with poverty while income, educational attainment, and quality of governance
show negative correlation with poverty in most of the specifications. Apart from the study
of all the countries combined, I separately analyze the effect of inflation on poverty in low
income countries, lower middle income countries, and upper middle income countries to
see whether the effect of inflation is similar or different in countries with different levels of
income. I find that although in most of the cases inflation shows a positive and statistically
significant correlation with poverty, however, in the case of low income countries, the
relationship between inflation and poverty is negative and statistically insignificant under
certain specifications.
iii
LIST OF TABLES
1. Summary Statistics
14
2. Countries according to Level of Income
15
3. Descriptive Statistics
16
4. Results from the Panel Least Squared Model
25
5. Results from the Country Fixed Effects Model (CFE)
30
6. Results from the Period Fixed Effects Model (PFE)
33
7. Results from the Country & Period Fixed Effects Model
34
8. Results from the Dynamic Panel Model
36
9. Results from the Dynamic Panel Model with CFE
40
10.Results from the Dynamic Panel Model with PFE
41
11.Results from the Dynamic Panel Model with CFE+PFE
42
12.Summary Results
44
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. ii
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................... iv
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1.
MOTIVATION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2.
BACKGROUND.................................................................................................. 1
1.3.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................................ 3
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 4

2.1.
DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF POVERTY .......................................... 4
2.2.
THE STATUS OF POVERTY IN THE WORLD................................................... 5
2.3.
POVERTY AND INFLATION .............................................................................. 6
2.4.
EFFECT OF INFLATION ON POVERTY: POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE ................ 8
2.5.
INFLATION INEQUALITY .................................................................................. 9
2.6.
SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................... 10
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY......................................................................................11
DATA.............................................................................................................................. 1
4.1.
POVERTY DATA................................................................................................ 2
4.2.
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI) DATA ........................................................... 4
4.3.
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP) PER CAPITA DATA ............................. 4
4.4.
EXTERNAL DEBT DATA ................................................................................... 4
4.5.
SECONDARY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT RATIO ................................................ 4
4.6.
POLITY SCORE ................................................................................................. 5
EMPIRICAL MODELS .................................................................................................... 1

RESULTS ......................................................................................................................21
6.1.
PANEL LEAST SQUARED MODEL ................................................................. 21
6.1.1.
All Countries .............................................................................................. 21
6.1.2.
Low Income Countries ............................................................................... 24
6.1.3.
Lower Middle Income Countries ............................................................... 26

v

6.1.4.
Upper Middle Income Countries ................................................................ 27
6.2.
TESTING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FIXED EFFECTS ............................. 28
6.3.
PANEL LEAST SQUARED MODEL WITH COUNTRY FIXED EFFECTS ........ 29
6.3.1.
CFE - All Countries.................................................................................... 29
6.3.2.
CFEM - Low Income Countries.................................................................. 29
6.4.
PERIOD FIXED EFFECTS MODEL ................................................................. 31
6.5.
COUNTRY AND PERIOD FIXED EFFECTS MODEL....................................... 32
6.8.
DYNAMIC PANEL MODELS ............................................................................ 32
6.8.1.
Dynamic Panel Data Analysis (All Countries) ............................................ 35
6.8.2.
Dynamic Panel Data Analysis (Low Income Countries) ............................ 35
6.8.3.
Dynamic Panel Data Analysis (Lower Middle Income Countries)............... 37
6.8.4.
Dynamic Panel Data Analysis (Upper Middle Income Countries)............... 38
6.8.5.
Dynamic Panel Data Analysis with Country Fixed Effects.......................... 39
6.8.6.
Dynamic Panel Data Analysis with Period Fixed Effects ............................ 39
6.8.7.
Dynamic Panel Data Analysis with Country and Period Fixed Effects........ 39
6.9.
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................ 43
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................49
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................50
APPENDICES
A. WORLD BANK INCOME BASED CLASSIFICATION OF COUNTRIES ...................54
B. DATA SERIES .........................................................................................................56
vi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1.
MOTIVATION
When the prices of essential goods or services rise, it becomes harder for the
poor with a limited budget to be able to afford those goods and services. The limited
purchasing power of the poor shrinks when prices of essential commodities increase but
the income does not increase at the same pace (Wilson, 2011). To quote Wolfgang
Fengler, the World Banks lead economist in Kenya:
Imagine you are spending half of your income on something whose price suddenly
increases by a quarter. Seems impossible? This is how in fact inflation has hit the poor in
many developing countries, especially Kenya... So if you are exposed to high inflation,
there is no choice but to cut down on food or on other expenses, many of which are vital,
such as school fees or health care. This is why inflation is the worst tax on the poor.
(Blog post on Oct 03, 2011, Taxing the poor through inflation, Africa CanEnd Poverty A
World Bank Blog.)
If inflation hurts the poor in Kenya, what about the poor in other countries? Does
inflation hurt the poor everywhere else as well? Can inflation reduce people's
consumption because of higher prices of goods and services? Does that lead to an
increased level of poverty? Is the effect of inflation on poverty similar in all countries or is
it different? Questions such as these motivated me to carry out a study on the effect of
inflation on poverty.
1.2.
BACKGROUND
Economists hold diverse opinions about the impact and consequences of inflation
on peoples well-being. Although it is generally accepted that extremely high inflation

rates, such as those during hyperinflation, affect the economy negatively, many
economists contend that low inflation is good for the economy. Howitt (1990), for
instance, argues that although inflation is costly, once it is under way, society is better off
to tolerate a little inflation than to bear the cost necessary to achieve price stability.
Summers (1991) and DeLong and Summers (1992) argue that moderate inflation is good
for the economy. Analyzing similar arguments of a number of economists, Marty and
Thornton (1995) concluded that a group of economists believe that moderate inflation is
good for the economy.
1

Although there may be some economists who would argue that in the long run
inflation does not matter, however, in reality, inflation is a serious concern for common
people, i.e., non-economists. For example, Shiller (1996) found that there was a stark
difference between how common people and economists perceive inflation. Shiller found
that among non-economists, the largest concern with inflation appears to be that it lowers
peoples standard of living. Another study by Easterly and Fischer (2001) confirmed that
inflation concerns the poor more than the rich. Using polling data for 31,869 households
in 38 countries and allowing for country effects, they classify people as poor, average,
and rich through self-categorization. In the survey questionnaire, people classify
themselves as poor, average, or rich by their own standard. From this study, Easterly and
Fischer found evidence supporting the view that inflation is regarded as more of a
problem by the poor than it is by the non-poor and that inflation reduces the relative
income of the poor.
The concern over the role of inflation on poverty has, since then, been increasing.
A study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (2011) finds that inflation hits poorer families
much harder than the rich in the UK. Similar concerns have been expressed for
developing countries as well. As the effect of inflation on poverty draws popular interest,
the issue has drawn the interest of researchers as well. Considering the seriousness of
the issue, a number of studies have been carried out at different times, in different parts
of the world, to understand the impact of inflation on poverty.
Cardoso (1992), Powers (1995), Ravallion (1998), and Braumann (2004) find that
there is a positive correlation between inflation and poverty. Chaudhry and Chaudhry
(2008) found that food price inflation increases poverty in Pakistan. While there are
studies supporting the view that there is a positive relationship between inflation and
poverty, there are studies which negate this view as well. For instance, Blank and Blinder
(1985) found no such relationship between inflation and poverty. Cutler and Katz (1991),
in contrast, found that an increase in inflation reduces the poverty rate in the United
States. Romer and Romer (1998) found that, under certain conditions, there is a negative
relationship between inflation and poverty. The findings, so far, are fairly discrete in terms
of their spatial coverage, and mixed in terms of conclusion.

1.3.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Given the scale of poverty in the world (according to the World Bank's 2008
estimates, nearly 22.5% of the world's population still lives below the international poverty
line of $1.25 per day, see figure 1) and the importance of poverty alleviation, I believe the
impact of inflation on poverty and development deserves more attention. I, therefore,
intend to study the relationship between poverty and inflation on a global scale.
Specifically, the research questions I aim to address are:
1)
How does the CPI inflation correlate with poverty?
2)
Is the relationship between inflation and poverty similar in countries with

different income levels?
To answer these questions, I employ multivariate regression analysis panel data

analysis to be specific, accounting for country fixed effects, time fixed effects, random
effects, and dynamic panel data analysis with fixed and random effects. I also analyze
the effect of inflation on poverty in groups of countries differentiated by their level of
income. The results of my study show that, in general, there is a positive and statistically
significant relationship between inflation and poverty. I find that an increase in inflation is
associated with an increase in poverty, in most of the cases.
This brief introduction is followed by a detailed review of the existing literature in
Chapter 2. Chapter 3 describes all the data used in this study and record their respective
sources, Chapter 4 briefly describes the research methodology, and Chapter 5 formally
introduces the empirical models. I discuss the results in Chapter 6 which is followed by
conclusion in Chapter 7. Section 8 includes the references, followed by the appendices,
in section 9, where I enlist the entire dataset and a list of all the countries included in this
study.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
I have divided the literature review into a number of subsections. First, I discuss
the literature relevant to the concept and definition of poverty. After introducing the
concept of poverty, I discuss the debate about the status of poverty in the world among
various agencies. Then, I discuss the literature on the effect of inflation on poverty,
followed by a brief description of inflation inequality and how it affects our understanding
of the overall impact of inflation on poverty. I sum up the literature review with a summary
of the available literature on the present topic.
2.1.
DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF POVERTY

There has often been a debate regarding what constitutes poverty and, as a
result, there are many definitions of poverty. One of the most widely accepted definitions
of poverty comes from the United Nations (UN). According to the UN (1998),
Fundamentally, poverty is a denial of choices and opportunities, a violation of human
dignity. It means lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not
having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not
having the land on which to grow ones food or a job to earn ones living, not having
access to credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals,
households and communities. It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies
living on marginal or fragile environments, without access to clean water or sanitation
(UN Statement, June 1998 signed by the heads of all UN agencies)

This is a multidimensional definition of poverty which covers nearly all areas of
concern to poverty. The World Bank also offers another comprehensive definition of
poverty. According to the World Bank (2000),
"Poverty is pronounced deprivation in well-being, and comprises many dimensions. It
includes low incomes and the inability to acquire the basic goods and services necessary
for survival with dignity. Poverty also encompasses low levels of health and education,
poor access to clean water and sanitation, inadequate physical security, lack of voice, and
insufficient capacity and opportunity to better ones life."
As most of the definitions of poverty are quite broad, there are many approaches
to measure poverty. For the ease of measurement and comparison, I shall consider the
income poverty and adopt the absolute approach of measuring poverty. The absolute
approach sets a threshold level of income or consumption expenditure (Citro and
4

Michael, 1995). This threshold is widely known as the poverty line in development
literature. An individual or a family living with an income or consumption expenditure
below the set poverty line is designated as poor with reference to the poverty line
(Ravallion, 1992).
Different countries have different national poverty lines (Sachs, 2005). These
differences in the national poverty lines make it difficult to compare and analyze the
poverty statistics across countries. Hence, in order to be able to objectively calculate and
compare the poverty rates across countries, the World Bank has introduced the
international poverty line. In 2008, the World Bank came out with a revised figure of $1.25
per day adjusted for 2005 purchasing-power-parity (PPP) as the international poverty
line, which was previously set at $1.00 per day (Ravallion, Chen and Sangruala, 2009).
This means a person with a daily income or consumption less than $1.25 lives below the
international poverty line. The percentage of population living below the poverty line is
referred to as the poverty head count ratio or simply the head count ratio (UNDP, 2003).
This approach is very popular because of its objectivity and simplicity.
2.2.
THE STATUS OF POVERTY IN THE WORLD

As it is difficult to find poverty data for a large panel from census dataset, I
use the World Bank estimates for poverty data. The poverty data is estimated by
POVCAL interactive software.1 The POVCAL is computer executable for calculating
poverty measures from grouped data. It is designed to be used as a reliable tool for
routine poverty assessment work. It uses sound and accurate methods for calculating
poverty and inequality measures with only a basic computer and any of the various types
of grouped distributional data typically available, often in published form. For further
details about the POVCAL software, see Ravallion and Huppy (1991), Ravaliion (1992),
Datt (1998), and Ravallion and Chen (2001). The World Bank, with the help of POVCAL
software, estimated that in 2008, there were almost 1.29 billion people living below the
international poverty line.
1
PovcalNet: An online poverty analysis tool, developed by the World Bank, updated version
released in February, 2012.

Link: http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
% Population Below Poverty Line
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
# of Poor (in Hundred Millions)
Figure 1 - Declining Poverty*

* Graph by the author, showing fall in poverty level across the globe
Data source: POVCAL data, the World Bank (2012).
Although, according to the figure above, the poverty has declined since 1981,
however, with 1.29 billion people or 22.5 % of the world's population living below poverty
the poverty line ($1.25 per day), as of 2008, the world poverty is a matter of grave
concern. Hence, the search for the determinants of poverty becomes important.
2.3.
POVERTY AND INFLATION

Although there are many other factors that may cause poverty, inflation is
regarded as an influential factor in determining the poverty. The problem of poverty

intensifies even more when the prices of commodities in general, and food in particular,
increase. Several arguments have been made in support of the view that inflation
increases poverty (see Cardoso, 1992; Powers, 1995; Ravallion, 1998; Braumann, 2004;
Chaudhry and Chaudhry, 2008). Inflation has, accordingly, often been labeled as the
cruelest tax on the poor. However, empirical findings on the effect of inflation on
poverty, after controlling for the rate of economic growth, are, in fact, mixed. Blank and
Blinder (1985) with data from 1959 1983 period, studied the relationship between
6

macroeconomic variables such as growth, unemployment, business cycles, inflation and
poverty in the United States. They found, despite unending incantations about how
inflation weighs most heavily on the poor, that there was no evident correlation between
poverty and inflation. They confirmed that unemployment, not inflation, had the strongest
bearing on the well-being of the poor.
Cardoso (1992) studied the effect of inflation on poverty between 1970 and 1990
in the Latin American countries. She argued that Inflation increases poverty in two ways.
First, the inflation tax can reduce disposable real income. Second, if nominal wages
increase less than the price of goods consumed by wage earners, workers' real income
will decline. She found evidence that in Latin America, inflation affected the poor through
inflation tax but the effect was very small. Higher rates of inflation had resulted in higher
inflation taxes but unless the inflation was extremely high (above 100%) this increase in
inflation tax was less than 1%. However, she showed that the main effect of inflation on
poverty was manifested through real wages. She found that accelerating inflation reduces
real wages and increases poverty. According to her results, real wages fall by 14 percent
when inflation doubles.
Powers (1995) adopted a consumption based approach to measure poverty in the
United States. Analyzing data from 1959 through 1992, she found a robust and relatively
large positive relationship between inflation and the consumption poverty rate. Powers
argues that inflation affects the poor directly through a decline in their real wages owing
to the short-run rigidity of nominal wages.
Romer and Romer (1998) studied the impact of the United States monetary
policy on unemployment, poverty and inequality. They found that regression of the
change in poverty on the unanticipated change in inflation produced a small and
insignificant coefficient. However, the relationship between the change in poverty and the
anticipated change in inflation was significant. The point estimate implies that an
anticipated increase in inflation of one percentage point is associated with a decline in
poverty of 0.2 percentage points. According to Romer, unanticipated inflation reduces the
real value of nominal assets and liabilities. It therefore causes real capital losses for
nominal creditors and real capital gains for nominal debtors. If the poor are net nominal
debtors, these effects benefit them. However, owing to the fact that the poor households
7

usually hold liabilities of small size, these benefits from unanticipated inflation are
insignificant.
Another finding of theirs, in this context, is very interesting. They find that an
expansionary monetary policy aimed at rapid economic growth is associated with
improved conditions for the poor in the short run, but prudent monetary policy aimed at
low inflation and steady output growth is associated with enhanced well-being of the poor
in the long run. Romer contends that inflation can harm the poor by reducing the real
value of wages and transfers. Another argument is that since inflation reduces the value
of the cash-holdings, it hurts the poor by making them poorer.
Erosa and Ventura (2002) observe that poor households hold more cash relative
to other nancial assets than rich households do. The poor then pays a disproportionate
share of the ination tax and are hurt more by ination.
According to Braumann (2004), the fall in real wages during inflation can also be
linked to increasing poverty in Latin America during the last two decades. From an
examination of the data for the period 1960 - 1997, he shows that poverty maxima
coincided with inflation maxima. The living standards of the poor were most hurt by
inflationary macro policies that intended to favor them. He, therefore, concludes that
fighting inflation might thus be an important step towards reducing poverty.
In the Indian context, Ravallion (1998) studied the impact of higher food prices
with survey data spanning 1959-1994. He found that there was strong positive correlation
between higher prices and poverty. Later, Datt and Ravallion (2002), using panel data on
poverty from Indian states, showed that inflation adversely affected Indias poor and
attributed this effect primarily to adverse shocks on the real wage of unskilled labor.
2.4.
EFFECT OF INFLATION ON POVERTY: POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE

Although previous arguments and evidence tends to support the view that inflation
affects poverty positively, there are counter arguments to this. The UN Report on the
World Social Situation 2010, Rethinking Poverty, raises a number of interesting
questions: If inflation reduces real wages, then employment should rise, creating more
income-earning opportunities for workers. Therefore, the employment effect of inflation
(creating more jobs because of lower labor costs) can outweigh the real-wage effect
(lower income) on poverty. This is likely to be the case, as the inflation (real wage)
8

elasticity of poverty is found to be significantly less than the output (employment)
elasticity of poverty (UN Report, 2010). Furthermore, most of the poor are net debtors
and inflation reduces the real value of their debt. So this way inflation may have a
negative correlation with poverty. Thus, the effect of inflation on poverty is not
straightforward. Poverty may be positively correlated with inflation or the reverse can also
be the case.
2.5.
INFLATION INEQUALITY
Besides the direct effect of inflation on poverty, another issue that seems to have
a substantial impact on poverty is the inflation differentials across sectors. Inflation is not
the same in all the sectors and hence its impact on different section of population will also
be different. Given the heterogeneity of consumption pattern among various segment of
population, the effect of inflation will also be different in each section.
For example, those involved in transportation business will be more affected by
an increase in the oil price whereas a farmer will be more affected by the increase in the
prices of seeds and fertilizers. The most popular indicator of price level, the CPI, gives
more weightage to the consumption pattern of urban households. The CPI basket
contains many items that may not reflect the consumption pattern of rural households.
Further, the consumption set of the poor is most likely to be confined within food,
fuel, medicine, and some essential commodities. Therefore, inflation, for the poor, is the
increase in prices of those essential commodities. So the inflation computed from the CPI
- based on a representative urban household's consumption, is likely to be biased
Berkley (2003). Grimm and Gunther (2005) with evidence from Burkina Faso find that
ignoring inflation inequality in growth measurements can severely bias assessments of
inflation and growth.
Son and Kakawani (2006), in the context of Brazil between 1999 and 2006, found
that if food prices increased by 1%, the poverty head count ratio would increase by
0.42%. If non-food prices increased by 1%, the head count ratio increased by 1.02%.
Thus, they found that if the overall prices increased by 1%, the poverty head count ratio
increased by 1.44%.
In the case of Indonesia, Sugema, et al. (2010) have found evidence that inflation
has a larger impact on poor households both in rural and urban area relative to non-poor
9

household. They also found that rural poor households are more vulnerable to economic
shocks, especially inflation. Furthermore, they find that price fluctuation on foods and its
products has a larger impact on poverty relative to non-food commodity.
A study by the Asian Development Bank (2011) noted that global food prices
increased by more than 30% in the first 2 months of 2011, and domestic food inflation
averaged about 10% for a number of regional economies. The study further found that a
10% rise in domestic food prices in developing Asia risks creating an additional 64.4
million poor people, or increasing the percentage of poor by 1.9 points. So a 30%
increase in global food prices would increase the percentage of poor by 5.7%.
Chani, et al. (2011) have analyzed the impact of macroeconomic parameters on
growth and poverty in the context of Pakistan. Covering time series data from 1972
through 2008, they find that inflation is positively correlated with poverty. Quantifying the
effect of inflation on poverty, they found evidence that one percentage point increase in
the CPI is expected to raise the head count ratio of poverty by 0.38% next year.
2.6.
SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature reviewed so far can be summarized as follows. First, inflation is
positively correlated with poverty in many cases, but in some cases either there is no
clear relationship between inflation and poverty or the relationship, if at all exists, is
statistically not significant. Besides, there are some arguments which even contend that
the relationship between inflation and poverty could be negative, as well. Second,
inflation erodes the value of cash holdings, reduces real income and hence lowers
peoples purchasing power. Third, inflation inequality is a significant issue that needs
more attention as food price inflation affects the poor more adversely than inflation in
general. Although the existing literature allows us to know about the relationship between
inflation and poverty, most of the studies pertain to a country or a very specific group of
countries in a particular region such as Latin America, or Sub-Saharan Africa. So the
general question about the relationship between inflation and poverty is yet to be
answered. Hence there is scope for a study on the relationship between poverty and
inflation with a large cross-section of countries.
10
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In order to develop a general understanding of how inflation affects poverty, I form
a panel of 115 developing countries spanning the time period from 1981 through 2008.
However, within these developing countries, there are vast differences among them in
terms of their levels of income, inflation, consumption, and poverty (for a brief discussion
on the differences across countries, see Chapter 4 on Data). Given such differences
across countries, not much can be inferred from an attempt to study the effect of inflation
on poverty on a global scale. And studying just one country at a time contributes to the
country specific results but may not contribute much to the general understanding of the
effect. Keeping these points in mind, I first analyze the relationship between poverty and
inflation for all the countries and then group the countries into three separate groups: Low
Income Countries, Lower Middle Income Countries, and Upper Middle Income Countries.
For classifying the countries according to their income, I follow the World Banks
classification. In this method, economies are divided according to 2009 GNI per capita,
calculated using the World Bank Atlas method.1 The groups are: low income, $995 or
less; lower middle income, $996 - $3,945; upper middle income, $3,946 - $12,195;
and high income, $12,196 or more. A full list of all the countries according to their level of
income is included in the appendix.
For the regression models, I consider absolute poverty level as my dependent
variable and consumer price index (CPI) inflation as my main independent variable.
Further, poverty is argued to be dependent on many other factors, as well. For example,
studies such as Barro and Martin (1995), Todaro (1997), and Norton (2002) find that
poverty is negatively correlated with economic growth. Hence, I include real GDP per
capita as an independent variable and expect to find a negative relationship between
poverty and GDP per capita. Besides inflation and GDP per capita, poverty may also be
affected by external debt. External debt is a loan taken by a country either another
country or an international agency such as the World Bank, or the International Monetary
Fund.
1
The Atlas method is a method used by the World Bank to estimate the size of economies in terms of gross
national income (GNI) in U.S. dollars.
11

The debtor country has to pay interest on the loan amount to the creditor country
or agency. The interest payment made to the creditor agency reduces the funds available
to the debtor country which the latter could otherwise utilize for its development. As a
result, the amount of external debt may affect the wellbeing of the citizens of the country.
However, the relationship between poverty and external debt may not be
straightforward (Shreideh, 2008). Maier (2005) found evidence supporting the view that
higher external debts are associated with negative effects on the levels of income of the
poorest 40% of the population. However, he cautioned that the empirical findings of the
impact of the external debt on poverty should be interpreted carefully as sensitivity
analysis showed inconsistent results. So, I include external debt as a control variable and
expect to find a statistically significant relationship between external debt and poverty
although at this point, I am unable to ascertain the directionality of the relationship.
I consider educational attainment as another control variable as educational
attainment has been found to be negatively correlated with poverty in many studies (see
Bernstein, 2007 and Ladd, 2011) mostly because of its effect on the possibilities of
getting an employment offer as well as the amount of wage offered. Higher education
leads to higher employment possibilities and higher wages. The negative correlation
between poverty and education may be due to two reasons. For instance, high poverty
may result in low educational attainment or it may be the other way round. Lack of
education might restrict an individuals ability to earn. Hence, low educational attainment
may result in high poverty and vice versa. In the present case, I assume that low
educational attainment restricts ones earning power which results in a higher level of
poverty. Thus, I expect educational attainment to be negatively correlated with poverty.
Another factor that affects poverty is the state of governance. There are
arguments which support the view that democracy, as opposed to autocracy, helps in
reducing poverty and hence democracy should have a negative correlation with poverty.
Kamal (2000) argues that genuine democracy offers a unifying force, participatory
institutions, and a process that can bring different groups within a nation together to deal
with poverty. Thus, a negative relationship between democracy and poverty may be
expected.
12

However, there are counter arguments to this thesis, as well. For example,
Varshney (1999) shows that in some cases pure autocracies have succeeded in
eliminating poverty while democracies have not. So there may be some cases where
democracy can have positive correlation with poverty. I include the polity score
(difference between democracy score and autocracy score) as a proxy for the quality of
governance.
For the empirical analysis, I consider absolute poverty measured by poverty
head count ratio or the percentage of population living below the international poverty line
(denoted by POPBPL), as the dependent variable and log of CPI (denoted by LNCPI),
the consumer price index, as the main independent variable. In addition, I also control for
other factors such as GDP per capita (LNGDPPC) as a proxy for income, interest
payment on external debt (INTPMT) expressed as percentage of GDP as a proxy for
external debt, secondary school enrolment ratio (SECSCHENR) as a proxy for
educational attainment, and polity score (POLITY) as proxy for political/democratic
stability. In the dynamic model, I also include one period lag of poverty (LAGPOPBPL) as
an independent variable.
13
CHAPTER 4
DATA
Since poverty head count ratio is the dependent variable in this study, I have tried
my best to collect the absolute poverty data for the widest cross-section of countries
spanning the longest period of time. The World Banks POVCAL (February, 2012)
estimates poverty data for 139 countries for the period 1981 through 2008. POVCAL is
an online, interactive, computational poverty analysis tool. The estimation frequency is
three years. So the database has a total of 10 observations (including years 1981, 1984,
1987, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2008) for most of the countries.
The size of the dataset is restricted by that of the poverty data. Ideally, therefore, I
should have 1390 (=139 x 10) observations. However, owing to the fact that some
countries have data for only one or two years, I exclude those countries from my study
and included only 115 countries in my panel. Thus, the actual number of observations
stands 1150 which is less than 1390 (See Table 1). Since some of the countries have
data for only a few of the variables, the panel remains unbalanced.
Table 1. Summary Statistics of the dataset

Workfile structure: Panel Annual
Indices: COUNTRY x DATE
Panel dimension: 115 x 10
Range: 1981- 2008 x 115 -- 1150 observations
Total Data Points = 37550
The World Bank (POVCAL) further classifies the countries into four income
groups: Low Income Countries, Lower Middle Income Countries, Upper Middle Income
Countries, and High Income Countries depending on their levels of income. The low
income group consists of 45 countries, the lower middle income group consists of 46
countries, and the upper middle income group has 24 countries in it. The high income
group contains just one country. As the high income group includes only one country
Slovenia, I exclude this lone-country group from my study.
Table 2 shows the number of countries I include in my study from each group
(income level) along with their mean level of income. In the Low Income group, there are
1

45 countries with an average per capita annual income of $1684. There are 46 countries
in the Lower Middle Income range. These countries have an average annual per capita
income of $4218. The 24 countries in the Upper Middle Income group have an average
annual income of $8425 per person. The average income for all the countries in the
dataset is about $4000 which is close to the average annual per capita income of the
Lower Middle Income group. (At the end, in the appendices, I enlist the entire dataset
with all the variables for all the countries and also the list of countries according to their
respective income categories).
Table 2. Countries according to their Level of Income
4.1.
World Bank Level of Income
Number of Countries
Mean GDP per capita

($), adjusted for PPP
Low Income Countries
45
1684.272
Lower Middle Income Countries
46
4218.574
Upper Middle Income Countries
24
8425.301
All Income Levels
115
4065.158
POVERTY DATA
I collect the poverty data from the World Bank's poverty estimates released in
February 2012. The poverty estimates have been made using POVCAL - an online
poverty analysis tool. POVCAL is an interactive computational tool that allows one to
replicate the estimates made by the World Bank's researchers in assessing the extent of
absolute as well as relative poverty in the world. For my study, I use the poverty head
count ratio (percentage of population living below the international poverty line) as the
measure of absolute poverty. In February 2012, the World Bank released a major update
of the developing world's poverty estimates for 1981-2008. For exact methodology of this
estimation see Ravallion and Chen (2002), Ravallion and Chen (2004), Ravallion and
Lokshin (2006), Ravallion and Chen (2008), Chen, Ravallion, and Sangruala (2009).
The new poverty estimates combine the purchasing power parity (PPP) adjusted
exchange rates for household consumption data from more than 850 household surveys
across the developing countries. Over 1.2 million randomly sampled households were
interviewed for the 2008 estimate, representing 90 percent of the population of the
2

developing world. Covering 139 developing countries and a span of 27 years (with 10
observations for each countries at 3 year intervals), this is one of the largest dataset
available for measuring the absolute poverty at present. From this pool, I form a panel
comprising of 115 developing countries from around the world and 10 periods.
By looking at the poverty data, we can see that for most of the countries, the
absolute poverty has fallen over the period between 1981 and 2008 (see Figure 1, which
shows the fall in aggregate poverty level). However, there is a high degree of
heterogeneity among countries with respect to their poverty status. Table 3 shows the
descriptive statistics of the dependent and independent variables.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of the dependent and independent variables.
POPBPL
%Change
in CPI
CPI
GDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR POLITY
Mean
30.99668 85.26739
1.79E+09 3671.737 2.127057 49.30444
1.004967
Median
22.60500 8.800000
82.85750 2259.676 1.531781 47.50267
2.000000
Maximum
94.07000 10896.20
3.72E+11 36244.53 22.96408 110.0316
10.00000
Minimum
0.000000 -34.57100 0.007000 172.5
Std. Dev.
0.024114 2.569130
-10.00000
27.07798 641.2873
2.00E+10 4055.350 2.120229 28.74818
6.587463
Skewness
0.513429 13.02221
13.84906 2.844604 3.181515 0.089154
-0.139608
Kurtosis
1.917011 190.5670
222.1823 16.33172 22.63119 1.696722
1.384275
Jarque-Bera
56.05375 1417951.
1228336. 5287.564 10717.77 43.54654
67.66129
Probability
0.000000 0.000000
0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
0.000000
Sum
18722.00 80918.75
1.08E+12 2217729. 1284.742 29779.88
607.0000
Sum Sq. Dev. 442129.9 3.90E+08 2.41E+23 9.92E+09 2710.708 498354.0
26166.99
Observations 604
604
949
604
604
604
604
The column POPBPL represents the dependent variable - percentage of

population living below the poverty line or the poverty head count ratio. The highest level
of poverty was estimated to be 94% for Malawi in the year 1990. This means that in 1990
94% of Malawi's population lived below the international poverty line of $1.25 per day.
The lowest level of poverty is 0% which has been observed in many cases. The lowest
poverty range of 0 2 % has been estimated in as many as 250 instances, while the
highest poverty rate of 94% has been observed only once.
3

4.2.
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI) DATA

The end of the year CPI data for all countries (for which I have poverty data from
the POVCAL dataset) was available from the International Monetary Funds (IMF) World
Economic Outlook (WEO) report dataset. I adjust the base year to 2005 wherever it is
required. As the value of CPI widely varies across countries, it will be interesting to see
the percentage change in CPI, i.e. the inflation figures for countries. For empirical
analysis, I use log of CPI and not CPI as such. In the data pool, Armenia has
experienced the highest percentage change in inflation in the year 1993 which is a
catastrophic annual CPI-inflation of 10896%. The lowest inflation figure is recorded for
Vietnam which is -34%.
4.3.
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP) PER CAPITA DATA

I use the purchasing power parity (PPP) adjusted real GDP per capita from the
same World Economic Outlook (WEO) dataset. The countries under consideration vary a
great deal in terms of their income (GDP per capita figures). Among the countries
included in my study, the Gambia had the highest per capita income of $36,244 in 2008
while Mozambique with GDP per capita of $172.5 in 1984 had the lowest income.
Although every country has experienced an increase in the GDP per capita, this increase
is not uniform.
4.4.
EXTERNAL DEBT DATA

As a proxy for external debt, I use the data on interest payment made to foreign
countries as percentage of the national GDP. For most of the countries the data was
available from the World Banks Global Development Finance (GDF) dataset. From the
interest payments made, it is apparent that Guyana had the highest external debt relative
to its GDP as its interest payment was roughly 22% of its GDP.
4.5.
SECONDARY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT RATIO

This measures the number of pupils enrolled in secondary schools, regardless of
age, expressed as a percentage of the population in the theoretical age group for the
same level of education. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), describes 'Gross Enrollment Ratio' as the total enrollment
within a country "in a specific level of education, regardless of age, expressed as a
4

percentage of the population in the official age group corresponding to this level of
education. It provides information on the share of population with a level of skills deemed
to be necessary for significant developmental progress.
The Gross Secondary School Enrollment Ratio considers children usually
between the ages of 12 17 years. I have collected the data on secondary school
enrolment ratio from the World Development Indicators compiled by the World Bank. The
secondary school enrollment ranges from 2.57% to 110%. The reason that the maximum
enrollment exceeds 100% is because of the fact that the number of students enrolled in
secondary schools in a country can be more than the number of children in the specified
age group in that particular country.
4.6.
POLITY SCORE
I use the polity score as a proxy for democracy and political stability. It examines
concomitant qualities of democratic and autocratic authority in governing institutions,

rather than discreet and mutually exclusive forms of governance (Marshall, 2010). This
perspective envisions a spectrum of governing authority that spans from fully
institutionalized autocracies through mixed, or incoherent, authority regimes (termed
"anocracies") to fully institutionalized democracies. The polity score is defined as the
difference between the democracy score and the autocracy score of a country for a given
year. The polity score gives a measure of how democratic a country is against the other
extreme, that is, autocracy. The score is polity 2 series from the Polity IV project of the
Center for Systemic Peace, VA, USA. The polity score captures the regime authority
spectrum on a 21-point scale ranging from -10 (hereditary monarchy) to +10
(consolidated democracy) including zero (Marshall and Jaggars, 2010). The higher the
polity score, the more democratic a country is. If a country has a polity score of -10, it is
completely autocratic.
CHAPTER 5
EMPIRICAL MODELS
With the dependent and independent variables discussed in the previous section,
I construct and empirically estimate the coefficients of each of the independent variable
from the respective regressions.
POPBPLi,t = C + i,t LNCPI + i,t LNGDPPC + i,t INTPMT + i,t SECSCHENR + i,t
POLITY + i,t
...(1)
where, C
constant term,
POPBPL
percentage of population living below the $1.25 poverty line,
LNCPI
natural log of end of the year consumer price index (CPI),
LNGDPPC
natural log of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita,
INTPMT
interest payment on external debt expressed as a percentage

of GDP,
SECSCHENR =
secondary school enrollment ration expressed as percentage

of population,
POLITY
relative measure of polity expressed as the difference between

the democracy score and the autocracy score of a country.
error term, and , , , , and are coefficients to be estimated.
The fixed effect version of this model is specified as follows:

POPBPLi,t = t + i + i,t LNCPI + i,t LNGDPPC + i,t INTPMT + i,t SECSCHENR + i,t
POLITY + i,t
. (2)
where is expected to capture the period fixed effect and would capture the
cross-section or country fixed effect. Then I introduce the dynamic panel model in which
the lagged dependent variable is incorporated as a regressor. The basic idea behind the
dynamic model is to see how the value of the dependent variable in the previous period
affects its value in the present period. This gives another advantage of removing the any
possible autocorrelation from the dependent variable.
1

POPBPLi,t = C + i,t LNCPI + i,t POPBPLi,t-1 + i,t LNGDPPC + i,t INTPMT + i,t
SECSCHENR + i,t POLITY + i,t
(3)
where POPBPLi,t-1 denotes the one period lag of the dependent variable POPBPL.
It should be noted here that one period lag does not mean one year lag. Since the
frequency of the periods is 3 years, one period lag here means the value of the variable
three years ago. Once I set up the dynamic panel data model, I estimate the fixed effects
models for the dynamic case also.
CHAPTER 6
RESULTS
6.1.
PANEL LEAST SQUARED MODEL

The static multivariate regression analysis results are tabulated below in tables 4,
5, 6, and 7. Table 4 enlists the regression results of the panel least squared model
described as Model 1 in section 4. Table 5 enlists the results from the country fixed
effects model, Table 6 records the results from the period fixed effects model, and Table
7 records the country and time fixed effects model. The Table 4 contains results from four
different regressions. The first regression (regression number 1, as indicated by the
column 1) in the respective tables analyzes data from all countries, the second
(regression number 2) analyzes data from low income countries, the third (regression
number 3) refers to lower middle income countries and the fourth regression (regression
number 4) draws data from the upper middle income countries. The first row gives the
column titles; the other columns in the table are self-explanatory.
6.1.1. All Countries

The regression 1 (indicated in the first column of table 4) analyzes data from all of
the 115 countries together (as noted in the second column). It takes the poverty head
count ratio or the percentage of population living below the $1.25 per day poverty line
(POPBPL) as the dependent variable and natural logarithm of end of the year CPI
(LNCPI), natural logarithm of GDP per Capita (LNGDPPC), interest payment made on
external debt expressed as percentage of GDP (INTPMT), secondary school
enrollment ratio (SECSCHENR), and polity score (POLITY) in the fourth column as
regressors. The third column notes the model type; PLS indicates that the model is Panel
Least Squared model.
In the panel least squared regression (regression 1), the coefficient of LNCPI is
close to 0.67. This implies that, ceteris paribus, one percentage point increase in CPI is
associated with 0.67% increase in the POPBPL. i.e., an increase in the CPI by 1% can
result in an increase in the percentage of population living below the poverty line by
0.67%. The sign of this coefficient is as expected and the t-statistic is 4.65 (column G),
which is greater than t
critical
= 2.576 with 604 observations. The probability (prob = 0)
figure of zero means that there is 0% chance that this relationship has been recorded
21

purely by chance. The positive relationship between inflation and poverty is as expected.
This result is in agreement with the findings of Cardoso (1992), Powers (1995), Ravallion
(1998), Braumann (2004), and Chaudhary and Chaudhary (2008) that there is a positive
correlation between price level and poverty.
Researchers have given different explanation supporting the view that inflation
increases poverty. First, inflation hurts poor by making them poorer caused by erosion of
the value their cash-holdings. For instance, Erosa and Ventura (2002) find evidence that
poor households hold more cash relative to other financial assets than richer households.
Since inflation directly erodes the value of the cash holdings, the poor is hurt more than
non-poor. As a result, the poor becomes poorer with successive phases of inflation.
Another view is that inflation affects the poor directly through a decline in their real
wages owing to the short-run rigidity of nominal wages (Powers, 1995). Both these
explanation account for the sort run effects of inflation on poverty. Cardoso (1992) made
an even stronger assertion. She at first argued, and then provided evidence, that inflation
increases poverty by decreasing long term real wages.
Among the control variables, GDP per capita has the strongest correlation with
poverty. The coefficient on LNGDPPC = -11.60 indicates that one percentage point
increase in GDP per capita is associated with a decrease in the poverty head count ratio
by 11.6%. This is statistically significant and the magnitude of the t-statistic (= - 0.19771)
is again much larger than the critical value. Thus, I find evidence that economic growth
reduces poverty. This result is also according to my expectation. My finding conforms
with the findings of Barro and martin (1995), Todaro (1997), Norton (2002) that economic
growth reduces poverty.
The interest payment shows a negative relationship with poverty. An increase in
the interest payment (INTPMT) on external debt as a fraction of GDP apparently
decreases the poverty head count ratio by 0.88%. The sign of the coefficient on INTPMT
is contrary to my expectation as I was expecting to see positive relationship between
external debt and poverty. However, such a relationship is not totally unexpected as there
are arguments supporting both positive and negative relationship between external debt
and poverty exist. Shreideh (2008) observes that the Links between external debt poverty
are complex, reflecting, among other things, the multidimensional aspects of poverty.
22

Maier (2005) found evidence supporting the view that higher external debt levels are
associated with negative effects on the level of the income of the poorest 40 percent.
However, he cautioned that empirical findings of the impact of the debt indicators on propoor growth should be interpreted carefully due to inconsistent results of the sensitivity
analyses.
Although it is generally argued that higher external debt leads to higher levels of
poverty, but empirical findings suggest that the relationship is not straightforward. In fact,
there can be an argument in favor of the negative impact of external debt on poverty. For
instance, if the countries take loan from international agencies and other countries to fund
their poverty alleviation program and as a result if the poverty level goes down, then we
can find a negative relationship between external debt and poverty. But this is not
necessarily the only interpretation of this relationship. Although in the present case, I find
the evidence of a negative relationship between external debt and poverty but, later, in
the sensitivity analyses, the relationship becomes positive in some cases and becomes
statistically insignificant in some other cases. I shall discuss about the positive
relationship between external debt and poverty when such an occasion arises.
The educational attainment, as expected, has a negative correlation with poverty
with a coefficient of -0.43 on SECSCHENR. That is, one percent increase in the
secondary school enrollment is associated with 0.43% decrease in the poverty head
count ratio. That means, higher educational attainment reduces poverty and lower
educational attainment would increase poverty. The negative coefficient on POLITY (0.155) means a higher level of democracy in a country reduces poverty in that country. If
the democracy score increases by 1% relative to the countries autocracy score, the
poverty level falls by 15.5%. All the coefficients are statistically significant at 1% level.
The value of R-squared = 0.69 indicates that 69% of the variation in the dependent
variable can be explained by the regressors on column (D).
While it is generally accepted that educational attainment is negatively related to
poverty, the role of democracy in poverty alleviation is not clear. Varshney (1999) argues
that while it is true that no long-lasting democracy in the Third World has allowed the
conditions of its poor masses to deteriorate consistently or dramatically, none so far has
successfully eliminated poverty.
23

Varshney (1999) shows that democracies have been slow and steady, but not
spectacular, in attacking poverty. In comparison, countries with long authoritarian rule
show no such pattern. Another study, Kamal (2000), puts forward the argument that
genuine democracy offers a unifying force, participatory institutions and a process that
can bring groups within nations (and also different nations) together to deal with poverty.
Thus, a small negative relationship between poverty and democracy may be expected. In
this case, I find a negative relationship between poverty and democracy which is
expected.
However, an antithesis of this observation is also not unheard of. Varshney (1999)
has shown that in some cases pure autocracies have succeeded in eliminating poverty
while democracies have not. So there may be some cases where a positive relationship
between democracy and poverty can exist. Later in subsequent analyses, I find the
evidence of positive relationship between democracy and poverty. I discuss the possible
reasons and findings of previous studies as the case arises.
6.1.2. Low Income Countries

The second regression on Table 4 details the results from analysis of the
relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variables in low
income countries. The results, in this case, are slightly different than those in the case of
all the countries combined. In the low income countries, the relationship between inflation
and poverty is positive. The coefficient on LNCPI is 0.17 which is small compared to the
coefficient in regression 1. The standard error is greater than the coefficient itself which
casts doubt on the relevance of the coefficient. The t-statistic is also small and the
probability that this relationship might have been observed by chance is quite high with a
P-value of 0.82. Although this coefficient is not statistically significant, the sign of the
coefficient is positive which is as expected. Even the R-squared (=0.44) is also low as
compared to the previous regression. This means that in low income countries, inflation
has a small positive relationship but the relationship is not significant. This apart, the
coefficients on LNGDPPC, INTPMT, and SECSCHENR have negative signs. That is, an
increase in GDP per capita reduces poverty and so does the interest payment and
secondary school enrollment. The sign of the coefficient on INTPMT is not as expected.
However, the coefficient on INTPMT is not statistically significant at 5% or even 10%
level.
24
Table 4. Results from the Panel Least Squared Model (PLS)

Dependent Variable: Population Head Count Ratio (% of Population Living Below the Poverty Line)
Regression
Number
Income
Level
Model
Type
Independent
Variable
All Countries
P LS*
Low Income
Lower Middle
Income
Upper Middle
Income
Panel LS
Panel LS
Panel LS
Coefficients
Standard
Error
t-statistic
Probability
LNCPI
0.671535
0.14437
4.65136
LNGDPPC
-11.60097
0.58677
-19.771
INTPMT
-0.880023
0.27535
-3.1961
SECSCHENR
-0.434453
0.02738
-15.867
POLITY
-0.155239
0.05643
-2.7512
0.01
LNCPI
0.174838
0.766811
0.228006
0.82
LNGDPPC
-7.173599
1.539851
-4.65863
INTPMT
-0.517381
0.752792
-0.68728
0.493
SECSCHENR
-0.473793
0.045819
-10.3406
POLITY
0.259776
0.124889
2.080059
0.039
LNCPI
0.59471
0.133709
4.447799
LNGDPPC
-9.99929
1.786033
-5.5986
INTPMT
-0.004529
0.463271
-0.00978
0.992
SECSCHENR
-0.251769
0.040807
-6.16983
POLITY
-0.112208
0.049918
-2.24783
0.026
LNCPI
0.940321
0.176631
5.323646
LNGDPPC
-5.301079
1.358571
-3.90195
2E-04
INTPMT
-1.056483
0.434784
-2.4299
0.017
SECSCHENR
-0.252545
0.040632
-6.21535
POLITY
0.198451
0.126315
1.571074
0.12
* PLS: Panel Least Squared Model

Note: Estimates are Consistent with White's Heterogeneity Test.
25
R-Squared
DurbinWatson
Number
of observ
ations
0.6858
0.21
604
0.440287
0.298
251
0.37997
0.165
254
0.359273
0.368
102

The coefficient on POLITY in this case is positive. That means a countrys shift
from a relatively authoritarian regime to a relatively more democratic form of governance
increases poverty. This observation seems to contradict the previous observations.
However, the relationship between democracy and poverty may not always be
straightforward. For example, Bardhan (2001) notes that the empirical literature on
democracy and development is rather unhelpful and unpersuasive. He mentions in his
article Democracy and Development: A Complex Relationship that, the three surveys of
the empirical literature that he has seen come out with three different conclusions: One
by Sirowy and Inkeles (1991) is supportive of a negative relationship between democracy
and development; one by Campos (1994) is of a generally positive relationship; and the
one by Przeworski and Limongi (1993) is agnostic. I have already discussed the possible
explanations in favor of a negative relationship between poverty and democracy in the
previous section. In this article, Bardhan attributes the reason for a positive relationship
between democracy and poverty to the inefficiency of some of the democracies in the
developing countries.
Such a positive relationship between democracy and poverty may not be true for
all other countries but may be true for the low income countries. The reason is perhaps a
number of authoritarian regimes in some poor countries have been toppled and
democracies have been established or just a relative shift of regime characteristics has
taken place. However, this change has not resulted in reduced levels of poverty in those
countries. Hence, we see the positive relationship between polity score and the level of
poverty.
Overall, out of five independent variables, four have signs on the coefficients
similar to the previous regression. So the coefficients of the independent variables, in low
income countries, do not necessarily confirm or wholly contradict the findings in the case
of all the developing countries combined. Since the R-squared is low (= 0.44), the
independent variables can only explain 44% of the variation in the dependent variable.
6.1.3. Lower Middle Income Countries

From regression 3 we can see the relationship between the poverty head count
ratio and the independent variables in the lower middle income countries. Log of CPI has
a positive relationship with the poverty head count ratio. This implies that in lower middle
income countries also, an increase in the price level increases the percentage of
26

population below the poverty line. The coefficient on LNCPI is statistically significant at
1% level. The coefficients on other control variables, except INTPMT, have the expected
negative signs and are statistically significant as well. However, the estimated coefficient
on INTPMT is not statistically significant and the coefficient on POLITY is statistically
significant at 3% level. The low value of R-squared (= 0.38) shows that only about 38% of
the variations in the dependent variable can be explained by the independent variables.
Overall, the results are similar to those in the previous cases.
6.1.4. Upper Middle Income Countries

Regression 4 on Table 4 shows the relationship between the poverty head count
ratio and the independent variables for the upper middle income countries. The
coefficients, except those on INTPMT and POLITY, have expected signs. The
relationship between CPI and the poverty level is a strong, positive, and statistically
significant at 1% level. Although the coefficient on the polity score is positive, which is
unexpected, but it is not statistically significant at even 10% level. I have explained before
the possible reasons that may lead to negative relationship between external debt and
poverty, which we observe in this case. The low value of R-squared tells us that the
model explains only about 36% of the variation in the dependent variable.
To sum up the first set of results, I can say that while CPI shows a positive
relationship with poverty level in all cases, GDP per capita and educational attainment
show negative relationship with poverty. The other two control variables, INTPMT and
POLITY are not consistent in their signs or in the levels of statistical significance.
However, out of the four regressions, only in the first case, a high R-squared (= 0.6858 )
was observed. In all other cases, the regressions had low explaining power as indicated
by their respective R-squared values.
One of the reasons for low R-squared could be the inter-country heterogeneity, as
I have included countries from all over the world with different socioeconomic
characteristics in my study. The same can happen because of period specific factors, as
well. As a result, some information might have been left uncaptured by the model. So I
consider to run the regressions with Country Fixed Effects, Period Fixed Effects, and both
Country plus Period Fixed Effects. Before I go on to run regressions with country and
period fixed effects purely on the basis of intuition, I perform a formal F-ratio test to see
whether fixed effects model is a better fit than a pooled cross-section model. This tests
27

the null hypothesis that there are no differences across countries or periods against the
alternative hypothesis that there are differences across countries or periods or both.
Under the null hypothesis, all the constant terms are equal whereas the alternate
hypothesis is that the constants are different across countries or periods. Next, I
construct an F-ratio test for testing the significance of fixed effects.
6.2.
TESTING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FIXED EFFECTS

For the F-ratio test, I use the first regression (regression #1) without fixed effects
from Table 4 for all countries and regression # 13 from Table 7 with both country and
period fixed effects. I use the F-ratio as defined in Econometric Analysis by Greene,
William H., 6th Edition, page 197.
The F ratio is defined as
(RFE2 RPooled2)/(n 1)
(1 RFE2)/(nT n K)
F(n 1, nT n K) =
the number of periods covered, RFE2 is the R-squared from the model with fixed effects
and RPooled2 is the R-squared from the model without fixed effects.
Here, I have n = 115, K = 5, T = 10, RFE2 = 0.9399 and RPooled2 = 0.6858.
Therefore, F(114, 1030) = {(0.9399 0.6858)*1030}/{114*(1 0.9399)} = 38.199.
This F-ratio is much greater than the critical value for F-ratio with 114 and 1030 degrees
of freedom, which is equal to 1. Hence, the null hypothesis that there is no country or
period specific effects is rejected. So I conclude that the fixed effects model is a better fit
as compared to the model without fixed effects.
I run three different types of fixed effects models. First, country fixed effects
model, then period fixed effects model, and then country and period fixed effects model.
Table 5 records results from the regressions with country fixed effects, Table 6 details the
results from period fixed effects, and Table 7 records results from the country and period
fixed effects together. Each table has four regressions for countries with different income
levels as discussed in the case of Table 4. The structure of the Tables 5, 6, and 7 is the
same as that of Table 4. For the interpretation of each column, see the description of
Table 4.
28

6.3.
PANEL LEAST SQUARED MODEL WITH COUNTRY FIXED EFFECTS (CFE)

In this section, I shall discuss the results from country fixed effects model. At first,
I shall talk about the case with all the countries, then I shall discuss the results in the
context of Low Income countries to be followed by the results from Lower Middle Income
countries. Finally, I shall detail the results for the Upper Middle Income countries.
6.3.1. CFE - All Countries

The regression 5 on Table 5 records the estimation of the country fixed effects
model for all countries. The coefficient on LNCPI is strong, positive, and statistically
significant at 1% level. The coefficient is stronger than it was without the country fixed
effects. Apart from this, all other coefficients have negative signs. This is consistent with
the model with no fixed effects. However, except for the coefficient on LNGDPPC, which
is significant at 1% level, the other coefficients lose their levels of statistical significance.
While the coefficient on SECSCHENR is significant at 10% level, the coefficients on
INTPMT and POLITY are statistically insignificant. The increased value of R-squared
(=0.94) shows the models explaining power has increased with the introduction of
country fixed effects.
6.3.2. CFEM - Low Income Countries

From regression 6 (Table 5), we observe that the coefficient on LNCPI (= 2.85) is
positive, much stronger than before, and most importantly, it is statistically significant.
This implies that with one percentage point increase in CPI, the percentage of population
living below the poverty line increases by 2.85%. This confirms that even in the case of
low income countries, an increase in the price level increases the poverty head count
ration. Among the control variables, the coefficient on LNGDPPC has the usual negative
sign and is statistically significant at 1% level. Although coefficients on POLITY and
SECSCHENR maintain the usual negative sign, they become statistically insignificant.
The coefficient on INTPMT changes its sign from negative in the previous models to
positive in this model, which is as per my expectation but it is statistically insignificant.
29
Table 5. Results from the Panel Least Squared Model (PLS) with Country Fixed Effects (CFE)
Dependent Variable: Population Head Count Ratio (% of Population Living Below the Poverty Line)
Regression
Number
Income
Level
Model
Type
Independent
Variable
Coefficient
s
Standard
Error
t-statistic
Probab
ility
RSquared
DurbinWatson
Number
of
Observati
ons
All Countries
PLS (CFE)*
LNCPI
1.162411
0.288422
4.030237
0.0001
0.9399
1.0067
604
LNGDPPC
-12.66681
1.468067
-8.62823
INTPMT
-0.063278
0.247568
-0.2556
0.7984
SECSCHENR
-0.092148
0.051825
-1.77805
0.076
POLITY
-0.0442
0.095894
-0.46092
0.6451
LNCPI
2.846934
0.531367
5.357758
0.8507
1.03909
251
LNGDPPC
-21.96211
1.976445
-11.1119
INTPMT
0.230296
0.399798
0.57603
0.5652
SECSCHENR
-0.048732
0.134235
-0.36303
0.717
POLITY
-0.093014
0.123823
-0.75119
0.4534
LNCPI
0.652668
0.177218
3.682858
0.0003
0.90424
1.12484
254
LNGDPPC
-8.126109
1.928995
-4.21261
INTPMT
0.055451
0.333021
0.166508
0.8679
SECSCHENR
-0.133459
0.064308
-2.07533
0.0393
POLITY
-0.037485
0.190366
-0.19691
0.8441
LNCPI
0.628462
0.224339
2.8014
0.0064
0.90637
1.22119
102
LNGDPPC
-3.937402
1.44215
-2.73023
0.0078
INTPMT
0.166656
0.241483
0.690135
0.4922
SECSCHENR
-0.083783
0.061186
-1.3693
0.1748
POLITY
0.005319
0.075106
0.070817
0.9437
Low Income
Lower Middle
Income
Upper Middle
Income
PLS (CFE)*
PLS (CFE)*
PLS (CFE)*
* PLS: Panel Least Squared Model, CFE: Country Fixed Effects

30

The reason for which I expect to see a positive relationship between external debt
and poverty is that external debt, although viewed as an instrument for financing
economic growth, does not contribute significantly to financing economic development in
developing countries (Ayadi and Ayadi, 2008). Rather than help improve the economic
performance of a country, in developing countries, external debt becomes a burden on
the economy. Nakatami and Herera (2007) argue that external debt becomes a selfperpetuating mechanism of poverty aggravation, work over-exploitation and a constraint
on development in developing economies. However, as the coefficient on INTPMT is not
statistically significant, I cannot make any conclusion, at this point, about the effect of
external debt on poverty. Overall, the increased value of R-squared (= 0.85) gives more
credibility to the model.
From regression 7 we find that the coefficient on LNCPI is positive and
statistically significant. The coefficient on LNGDPPC has the expected negative sign
and is statistically significant. The coefficient on INTPMT has the expected positive sign
and the coefficient on SECSCHENR has the expected negative sign but both these are
statistically insignificant. The coefficient on the POLITY score has positive sign but
statistically insignificant. The model has a high value of R-squared = 0.90 which means
that in the country fixed effects model, the independent variables explain 90% of the
variation in the dependent variable. Similarly, regression 8 analyzes the case of upper
middle income countries. The results from upper middle income countries are not
significantly different from that of the lower middle income countries.
To sum up the country fixed effects model, the coefficients on LNCPI,
SECSCHENR, and LNGDPPC have the consistent signs and levels of statistical
significance. The values of R-squared have increased significantly as compared to the
model without the country fixed effects. This study, so far, allows us safely say that
inflation has a positive correlation with poverty. An increase in the price level increases
poverty and hence a decrease in the overall price would help reduce poverty.
6.4.
PERIOD FIXED EFFECTS MODEL

From the period fixed effects model (#9) in Table 6 for all countries, I find that
CPI has a statistically significant and positive relationship with poverty while GDP and
secondary school enrollment both show consistent and statistically significant negative
relationship with poverty. Although the coefficient on INTPMT is negative, it is
31

statistically insignificant. The negative sign of the coefficient on POLITY is expected,
but because it is statistically insignificant, we cannot establish any meaningful
relationship between the polity score and poverty in this case. For this regression, the
value of the R-squared which is equal to 0.69 is also not very good. This regression has
a similar explaining power as the initial regression without any fixed effects.
So to test the significance of period fixed effects model, I perform the F-ratio test
comparing the present model with the initial model without any fixed effects. F(134,
1210) = 0.1430 which is much lower than the critical F-ratio (=1) with 134 and 1210
degrees of freedom. Hence, it appears that period fixed effects model has no particular
significance, in this case.
6.5.
COUNTRY AND PERIOD FIXED EFFECTS MODEL

From Table 7, we can see that inflation has a positive relationship with poverty. A
coefficient of 1.27 on LNCPI means that if inflation increases by 1%, an additional 1.27%
people fall below the poverty line. GDP per capita has a negative relationship with
poverty. The coefficient (= -9.67) on LNGDPPC shows that if the per capita annual
income increases by 1%, poverty declines by 9.67% i.e. almost 10% people rise above
the poverty line who were previously below the line.. All other coefficients are negative
just as in the model with period fixed effects. However, we cannot infer much from these
coefficients, since none of these coefficients are statistically significant. The model has Rsquared = 0.94. This means that the independent variables can explain 94% of the
variation in the dependent variable.
As I go to different income categories, I find that the coefficients on LNCPI and
LNGDPPC have expected signs in all the cases. However, in the case of Lower Middle
income countries, the coefficient on LNCPI is statistically significant only at 9% level and
insignificant in the case of Upper Middle income countries. These apart, the coefficients
on INTPMT, SECSCHENR, and POLITY show inconsistent signs and in most cases are
not statistically significant.
6.8.
DYNAMIC PANEL MODELS
The dynamic models, which include one period lag of the dependent variable as an
independent variable, are expected to capture those effects which have not been
otherwise accounted for. This way the models will have the least autocorrelation, if any,
32
Table 6. Results from the Panel Least Squared Model (PLS) with Period Fixed Effects (PFE)
Dependent Variable: Population Head Count Ratio (% Population Living Below the Poverty Line)
Regression
Number
Income
Level
Model
Type
Independent
Variable
Coefficients
Standard
Error
t-statistic
Probability
RSquared
DurbinWatson
Number of
Observations
All Countries
PLS (PFE)*
LNCPI
0.493902
0.22813
2.164999
0.0308
0.6907
0.2036
604
LNGDPPC
-11.83688
3.523055
-3.35983
0.0008
INTPMT
-0.54959
0.67049
-0.81969
0.4127
SECSCHENR
-0.446293
0.106834
-4.17744
POLITY
-0.097184
0.224358
-0.43317
0.6651
LNCPI
1.168366
1.466905
0.796483
0.4266
0.46639
0.31085
251
LNGDPPC
-6.597678
4.345877
-1.51815
0.1303
INTPMT
-1.282053
1.371238
-0.93496
0.3508
SECSCHENR
-0.439316
0.09223
-4.76325
POLITY
0.40948
0.288208
1.420781
0.1567
LNCPI
0.465184
0.30581
1.521155
0.1295
0.39362
0.17114
254
LNGDPPC
-11.25981
3.522163
-3.19685
0.0016
INTPMT
0.392832
0.961903
0.408391
0.6834
SECSCHENR
-0.272239
0.103041
-2.64204
0.0088
POLITY
-0.18635
0.368171
-0.50615
0.6132
LNCPI
0.972672
0.377486
2.576708
0.0117
0.4312
0.3564
102
LNGDPPC
-6.127081
2.089044
-2.93296
0.0043
INTPMT
-1.601784
0.571874
-2.80094
0.0063
SECSCHENR
-0.248357
0.04427
-5.61002
POLITY
0.260861
0.166708
1.564779
0.1213
10
11
12
Low Income
Lower Middle
Income
Upper Middle
Income
PLS (PFE)*
PLS (PFE)*
PLS (PFE)*
* PLS: Panel Least Squared Model, CFE: Country Fixed Effects, PFE: Period Fixed Effects
33
Table 7. Results from the Panel Least Squared Model (PLS) with Country and Period Fixed Effects (CFE + PFE)
Regression
Number
Income
Level
13
All Countries
14
15
16
Low Income
Lower Middle
Income
Upper Middle
Income
Model
Type
PLS
(CFE+PFE)*
PLS
(CFE+PFE)*
PLS
(CFE+PFE)*
PLS
(CFE+PFE)*
Independent
Variable
Coefficients
Standard
Error
t-statistic
Probability
RSquared
DurbinWatson
Number
of
Observ
ations
LNCPI
1.265397
0.383906
3.296113
0.0011
0.94255
1.01906
604
LNGDPPC
-9.668968
2.024449
-4.7761
INTPMT
-0.166065
0.316638
-0.52446
0.6002
SECSCHENR
-0.063656
0.045833
-1.38888
0.1655
POLITY
-0.01902
0.078948
-0.24092
0.8097
LNCPI
3.381219
1.103599
3.063812
0.0025
0.86463
1.0875
251
LNGDPPC
-14.57654
4.401135
-3.312
0.0011
INTPMT
-0.385703
0.57731
-0.6681
0.5049
SECSCHENR
0.063149
0.119303
0.529315
0.5972
POLITY
0.072478
0.127564
0.568172
0.5706
LNCPI
0.53749
0.318155
1.689397
0.0928
1.091
254
LNGDPPC
-9.75545
4.542895
-2.14741
0.033
INTPMT
0.149295
0.335323
0.445227
0.6567
SECSCHENR
-0.142756
0.069834
-2.04423
0.0423
POLITY
-0.112918
0.204252
-0.55284
0.581
LNCPI
0.137847
0.325757
0.423158
0.6735
1.2046
102
LNGDPPC
-9.828058
3.468942
-2.83316
0.006
INTPMT
-0.03683
0.245805
-0.14983
0.8813
SECSCHENR
-0.11478
0.062203
-1.84525
0.0693
POLITY
-0.053184
0.102946
-0.51662
0.6071
* PLS: Panel Least Squared Model, CFE: Country Fixed Effects, PFE: Period Fixed Effects
Note: Estimates are Consistent with White's Heterogeneity Test
34
0.905907
0.92556

among the residuals. Further, the inclusion of lagged dependent variable as a regressor
would help us understand whether poverty at a given period is mainly because of
poverty in the previous period. Tables 8 through 11 record the results from regression
analyses with dynamic panel models. First, the results from the pooled regression is
presented in Table 8, then results from the dynamic panel regression with country fixed
effects is tabulated in Table 9, the regression with period fixed effects in Table 10 and
finally, Table 11 includes the results from regression analysis with both country and
period fixed effects.
6.8.1. Dynamic Panel Data Analysis (All Countries)

From regression 17, it is clear that after the inclusion of lagged dependent
variable (LAGPOPBPL) in the set of regressors, the effect of inflation on poverty is
small but still positive, as the coefficient on LNCPI is merely 0.04. However, the
coefficient is statistically insignificant. The one period lagged value of the poverty
determines 0.85% of the variation in the poverty level in the current year. One percent
increase in the level of poverty in the previous period can increase the poverty level by
0.85% in the current period. The coefficient is statistically significant at 1% level. The
coefficient on LNGDPPC has a negative sign which is consistent with the previous
observations. The coefficient is statistically almost significant at 5% level. Educational
attainment has a small but negative effect on poverty which is statistically significant.
Besides these, the coefficients on INTPMT and POLITY have expected signs but they
are not statistically significant. The value of R-squared (= 0.936) for this regression is
also high which means that about 94% of the variations in the dependent variable can
be explained by the independent variables.
6.8.2. Dynamic Panel Data Analysis (Low Income Countries)

From regression 18 on Table 8, we can see that in the case of low income
countries, an increase in CPI affects poverty negatively but as the coefficient is not
statistically significant, we cant rely much on the coefficient. Lag of the poverty variable
has a strong, positive, and statistically significant impact on poverty. The relationship of
all other independent variables with poverty is similar to the case with all countries.
Although the coefficients on the other control variables are similar to those observed
previously, the negative coefficient on the inflation seems a bit puzzling. A negative
coefficient on LNCPI means that an increase in inflation is associated with reduced
35

Table 8. Results from the Dynamic Panel Least Squared Model (DPLS)
Regres
sion
Number
17
Income
Level
All Countries
Model
Type
DPLS*
18
Low Income
DPLS*
19
Lower Middle
Income
DPLS*
20
Upper Middle
Income
DPLS*
Independent
Variable
LNCPI
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR
POLITY
LNCPI
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR
POLITY
Coefficients
0.039339
0.858748
-1.400495
0.122117
-0.051342
-0.023485
-0.88917
0.803011
-1.771309
0.055453
-0.070115
0.015917
Standard
Error
0.07656
0.021438
0.719884
0.176251
0.015254
0.042039
0.559781
0.043594
0.681516
0.417317
0.028257
0.087007
t-statistic
0.513829
40.05728
-1.94545
0.692859
-3.36592
-0.55864
-1.58842
18.42
-2.59907
0.132881
-2.4813
0.182941
Probability
0.6076
0
0.0522
0.4887
0.0008
0.5766
0.1136
0
0.01
0.8944
0.0138
0.855
R-Squared
0.9368
DurbinWatson
1.8744
Number of
Observations
549
0.826289
1.600671
230
LNCPI
0.107548
0.079134
1.359072
0.1755
0.91058
2.6028
228
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR
POLITY
0.879317
0.335204
0.239162
-0.050944
-0.03403
0.018125
1.160099
0.151052
0.025399
0.063074
48.51356
0.288944
1.583314
-2.00577
-0.53953
0
0.7729
0.1148
0.0461
0.5901
LNCPI
0.046129
0.128254
0.359667
0.72
0.896152
2.3385
93
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR
POLITY
0.879621
-2.295673
0.002661
0.006393
-0.018737
0.057583
0.506938
0.147135
0.017494
0.066727
15.27583
-4.52851
0.018086
0.365443
-0.2808
0
0
0.9856
0.7157
0.7795
* PLS: Panel Least Squared Model, DPLS: Dynamic Least Squared Model
36

levels of poverty. This may have many different explanations. First, since poverty has a
negative correlation with income, one can argue that the governments in the low
income countries might be following expansionary monetary policies to boost economic
growth (Sullivan and Sheffrin, 2003) and reduce poverty and hence there is a negative
relationship between poverty and inflation.
Another possible explanation is that in the low income countries, along with other
countries, poverty is declining (Figure 1). More people can afford goods and services that
were previously out of their reach. So demand for essential commodities is increasing at
a higher rate in low income countries. Thus, reduced levels of poverty are pushing
demands for consumer goods and services up. As a result, the prices increase and
hence, a negative relationship between poverty level and inflation maybe observed in the
case of low income countries.
Some other convincing explanations justifying a negative relationship between
inflation and poverty have been offered by a UN report ((Rethinking Poverty, UN Report
on the World Social Situation 2010). The report argues that if inflation reduces real
wages, then employment should rise, creating more income-earning opportunities for
workers. Therefore, the employment effect of inflation (creating more jobs because of
lower labor costs) can outweigh the real-wage effect (lower income) on poverty. This is
likely to be the case, as the inflation (real wage) elasticity of poverty is found to be
significantly less than the output (employment) elasticity of poverty. Furthermore, most
of the poor are net debtors and inflation reduces the real value of their debt. So this
way inflation may have a negative correlation with poverty.
Apart from the theoretical arguments, there are empirical evidences supporting
the view that inflation can have a negative correlation with poverty, at least in particular
situations, if not in general. For example, Romer (1998) found evidence that in the case
of the United States, inflation has a negative correlation with poverty in the short run.
So there is a possibility that under certain circumstances, an increase in inflation may
be associated with a decline in poverty.
6.8.3. Dynamic Panel Data Analysis (Lower Middle Income Countries)

The results from regression 19 show evidence that in the case of lower middle
income countries, the price level has a positive relationship with poverty. However, this
37

time again, the coefficient is not significant. The relationship of other control variables,
except GDP per capita, with the dependent variable is similar to what is observed in the
case of all countries. One interesting observation is that, in this case, LNGDPPC has a
positive coefficient. This does not make much sense, although there are direct
evidences that in some cases poverty increases despite increase in GDP per capita.
For example, in the case of Albania, the poverty head count ratio was 0.17% in 1981
which grew 0.85% in 2005. The poverty nearly increased by 5 times in that period in
Albania.
Another country in the lower middle income range, Armenia, recorded a very
low poverty head count ratio of 0.87 in 1981 which increased to a maximum of 24.29%
in 1993 and then declined to 4.74% in 2005. The same trend is recorded in the case of
Bolivia where the poverty head count ratio was 1.99% in 1981 which rose to 26.27 in
1999 and slowly declined to 15.61% in 2008. However, in the period under
consideration, the GDP per capita also increased over time in all these countries.
Cases like these may have led to a positive correlation between GDP per capita and
poverty level. The reason behind such a positive relationship between income and
poverty may be due to increased inequality. To see the average effect of an increase in
GDP per capita, we need to consider the country fixed effects model which, I believe,
will explain the relationships more accurately.
6.8.4. Dynamic Panel Data Analysis (Upper Middle Income Countries)

The regression results for upper middle income countries show that inflation has
a small and positive but statistically insignificant impact on poverty. The relationship
between previous periods poverty level and current period poverty level is positive and
significant. The other coefficients, except SECSCHENR, show expected signs but the
coefficients are really small and statistically insignificant. So the overall learning from
the dynamic panel models is that inflation may have a positive correlation with poverty
but as the previous periods poverty has a significant bearing on the current years
poverty level, the correlation of poverty with inflation becomes almost insignificant.
However, as there is a great deal of heterogeneity among countries in this income
group, a country fixed effects model may do a better job of explaining the relationship
between the independent variables and the dependent variable.
38
6.8.5. Dynamic Panel Data Analysis with Country Fixed Effects

Table 9 records the results from regressions 21 through 24 which account for
country fixed effects models for respective regions. The foremost observation from this
analysis is that LNCPI has positive coefficients in all cases, and with country fixed
effects, the coefficients are significant in three cases, although it is statistically
insignificant in the case of lower middle income countries. Lag of poverty has a
significant positive coefficient in all cases. The coefficients on LNGDPPC and POLITY
are negative as expected. The other two coefficients are either inconsistent with the
previous results or statistically insignificant. Summarily, one can say that the dynamic
country fixed effects model reaffirms the broad conclusions drawn from the previous
models that increase CPI and the level of previous periods poverty affect poverty
positively, whereas an increase GDP per capita, in general, leads to a decline in
poverty level.
6.8.6. Dynamic Panel Data Analysis with Period Fixed Effects

From the period fixed effects models for different regions (regressions 25 - 28),
the general observation is that CPI increase has a positive effect on poverty, with the
exception of Low Income countries. In the case of Low Income countries, the negative
coefficient on LNCPI indicates that poverty decreases as inflation increases. However,
the coefficient is not statistically significant. The lag of the poverty variable has a
positive correlation with poverty in all the cases. This implies that poverty in the current
period is mostly a result of poverty in the previous period. However, in the case of other
control variables, the results are either not as expected or they are not statistically
significant. From my previous experience, I have learnt that with this dataset the period
fixed effects model is not a good fit. So I move on to the country plus period fixed
effects.
6.8.7. Dynamic Panel Data Analysis with Country and Period Fixed Effects
Table 11 shows that after accounting for the country and period fixed effects,
the relationship between poverty and inflation is significant and positive in the case of
all countries together but negative in the case of low income countries, in particular. In
other cases, the coefficients are positive but not statistically significant. That means,
overall, an increase in the price level increases the poverty head count ratio. However,
39
Table 9: Results from the Dynamic Panel Least Squared Model with Country Fixed Effects
Regression
Number
21
22
23
24
Income
Level
All
Countries
Low
Income
Lower
Middle
Income
Upper
Middle
Income
Probability
RSquared
DurbinWatson
Number
of
Obser
vations
2.677809
0.0077
0.9593
2.1047
549
0.069415
1.217766
0.180676
0.051859
0.084797
7.695547
-5.83301
-0.789993
-0.452785
-2.048284
0
0
0.43
0.6509
0.0411
1.567205
0.529492
2.959828
0.0035
0.896957
1.92696
230
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR
POLITY
0.477473
-14.64708
-0.32488
0.052106
-0.239091
0.080852
2.037102
0.403193
0.137984
0.107486
5.905551
-7.190155
-0.805766
0.377627
-2.224385
0
0
0.4214
0.7061
0.0273
LNCPI
0.219379
0.171368
1.280161
0.2021
0.933523
2.5427
228
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR
POLITY
0.563072
-2.690344
0.06623
-0.08242
-0.138709
0.126671
2.367944
0.218132
0.050414
0.119393
4.445139
-1.136152
0.303622
-1.634872
-1.161785
0
0.2574
0.7618
0.1038
0.2469
LNCPI
0.482027
0.131795
3.657399
0.0005
0.9244
1.9839
93
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR
POLITY
0.412007
-3.616913
0.146233
-0.033277
-0.059069
0.091543
0.905887
0.181648
0.048603
0.074639
4.500681
-3.992673
0.805033
-0.684667
-0.791397
0
0.0002
0.4235
0.4958
0.4313
Model
Type
Independent
Variable
DPLS (CFE)*
DPLS (CFE)*
DPLS (CFE)*
DPLS (CFE)*
Coefficients
Standard
Error
LNCPI
0.486573
0.181706
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR
POLITY
0.534189
-7.103239
-0.142733
-0.023481
-0.173688
LNCPI
t-statistic
* PLS: Panel Least Squared Model, DPLS: Dynamic Least Squared Model, CFE: Country Fixed Effects
40
Table 10: Results from the Dynamic Panel Least Squared Model with Period Fixed Effects
Regres
sion
Number
25
Income
Level
All Countries
Model
Type
DPLS (PFE)*
26
Low Income
DPLS (PFE)*
27
Lower Middle
Income
DPLS (PFE)*
28
Upper Middle
Income
DPLS (PFE)*
Independent
Variable
LNCPI
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR
POLITY
LNCPI
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR
POLITY
Coefficients
0.660704
0.528258
-2.979227
-0.191592
0.004975
-0.130868
-0.276808
0.798808
-1.3568
-0.315741
-0.066213
0.066166
Standard
Error
0.249601
0.06515
1.879349
0.231789
0.051039
0.071011
0.730488
0.053762
1.583483
0.41467
0.054726
0.121894
t-statistic
2.64704
8.108341
-1.585245
-0.826578
0.097465
-1.842918
-0.378936
14.85822
-0.856845
-0.761428
-1.209902
0.542813
Probability
0.0084
0
0.1136
0.4089
0.9224
0.066
0.7051
0
0.3925
0.4472
0.2276
0.5878
LNCPI
0.11721
0.082886
1.414106
0.1588
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR
POLITY
0.888865
0.649963
0.231147
-0.044757
-0.023337
0.019874
1.284164
0.136372
0.024112
0.053632
44.72513
0.506138
1.694969
-1.856224
-0.435135
0
0.6133
0.0915
0.0648
0.6639
LNCPI
0.025815
0.165053
0.156407
0.8761
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
0.881657
-1.450361
-0.092258
0.063104
1.482947
0.168588
13.97145
-0.978026
-0.54724
0
0.3311
0.5858
SECSCHENR
0.001143
0.019452
0.058747
0.9533
POLITY
0.038217
0.079074
0.483304
0.6302
RSquared
0.961159
DurbinWatson
2.1458
Number
of
Obser
vations
549
0.833201
1.62755
230
0.915796
2.6306
228
0.916953
2.2966
93
* PLS: Panel Least Squared Model, DPLS: Dynamic Least Squared Model, CFE: Country Fixed Effects, PFE: Period Fixed Effects
41
Table 11: Results from the Dynamic Panel Least Squared Model with Country and Period Fixed Effects
Regress
Ion
Number
Income
Level
29
All Countries
Model
Type
PLS (CFE
+ PFE)*
30
Low Income
PLS (CFE
+ PFE)*
31
Lower Middle
Income
PLS (CFE
+ PFE)*
32
Upper Middle
Income
PLS (CFE
+ PFE)*
Independent
Variable
Coefficients
LNCPI
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR
POLITY
0.660704
0.528258
-2.979227
-0.191592
0.004975
-0.130868
0.249601
0.06515
1.879349
0.231789
0.051039
0.071011
2.64704
8.108341
-1.585245
-0.826578
0.097465
-1.842918
0.0084
0
0.1136
0.4089
0.9224
0.066
0.9611
2.145865
549
LNCPI
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR
POLITY
2.790081
0.444839
-6.38478
-0.94673
0.139218
-0.110539
0.724459
0.080433
2.715784
0.475299
0.128554
0.087192
3.851258
5.53057
-2.350989
-1.991861
1.082954
-1.267763
0.0002
0
0.0198
0.0479
0.2803
0.2066
0.9068
2.0151
230
LNCPI
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR
POLITY
0.306923
0.592808
-1.026925
0.120265
-0.052103
-0.180315
0.292128
0.131511
5.222913
0.218647
0.060303
0.105899
1.050644
4.507683
-0.196619
0.550039
-0.86402
-1.702707
0.2949
0
0.8444
0.583
0.3888
0.0904
0.93713
2.5957
228
LNCPI
LAGPOPBPL
LNGDPPC
INTPMT
SECSCHENR
POLITY
0.17149
0.424739
-6.296073
0.013987
-0.053694
-0.035597
0.246897
0.10228
3.988461
0.254243
0.050517
0.103834
0.69458
4.152722
-1.578572
0.055013
-1.062897
-0.34283
0.4899
0.0001
0.1194
0.9563
0.2919
0.7329
0.938828
1.939347
93
t-statistic
Probability
RSquared
DurbinWatson
Number of
Obser
vations
Standard
Error
* PLS: Panel Least Squared Model, DPLS: Dynamic Least Squared Model, CFE: Country Fixed Effects, PFE: Period Fixed Effects
42

percentage of population living below the poverty line decreases as inflation increases.
The level of poverty in the previous period is a significant determinant of poverty in the
current period. GDP per capita and polity score affect poverty negatively. The
relationship between external debt and poverty is not consistent. In some cases it is
positive while in other cases, it is negative. Educational attainment also fails the
robustness check.
6.9.
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 12 summarizes the regression results from the entire study. The table at
first records the findings from analysis with all the countries and then from countries of
different income groups separately. The dependent variable is the percentage of
population living below the poverty line. In the first row, the first column in each case
enlists the independent variable, second (column) indicates that the coefficients in the
subsequent rows are from panel list squared models (PLS). The third column records
results from the country fixed effects model (PLS-CFE), the fourth column records results
from period fixed effects model (PLS-PFE), and the fifth column shows the results from
models with both country and period fixed effects (PLS-CFE+PFE). Similarly, the sixth,
seventh, eighth, and ninth columns respectively record the results from the dynamic
panel model all different specifications. Inside each little rectangle, the value on the top is
the estimated coefficient, the (*) on the superscript gives the level of statistical
significance, the value below the coefficient within the parenthesis ( ) is the standard
error, and X denotes the case where the coefficient is not available or applicable.
To sum up the results, in the case of all countries combined, inflation has a
positive relationship with poverty in all the cases. This result is similar to the findings of
Cardoso (1992), Powers (1995), Ravallion (1998), Braumann (2004), Chaudhary and
Chaudhary (2008), and Chani, et. al. (2011) that there is a positive correlation between
price level and poverty. The relationship between GDP per capita and poverty is negative
and is robust in all specifications. My findings fall in line with those of Barro and Martin
(1995), Todaro (1997), Norton (2002), to name a few. I find that quality of governance
has a negative relationship with poverty.This is also in agreement with previous works
such as Varshney (1999) and Kamal (2000) as discussed in the previous section.
External debt and educational attainment have negative relationship with poverty in
almost all cases. I have tried to explain the negative relationship between external debt
43

Table 12: Summary Results
Dependent Variable: Percentage of Population Living Below the Poverty Line
ALL COUNTRIES
Independent
Variables
PLS1
PLS+
CFE1
PLS+
PFE1
CPI Inflation (LNCPI)
0.671***
(0.144)
1.162***
(0.288)
0.493**
(0.228)
PLS+
CFE
+PFE
1.265***
(0.383)
-12.666***
(1.468)
-0.063
(0.247)
-0.092*
(0.051)
-0.044
(0.095)
-11.836***
(3.523)
-0.549
(0.670)
-0.446***
(0.106)
-0.097
(0.224)
-9.668***
(2.024)
-0.166
(0.316)
-0.063
(0.045)
-0.019
(0.078)
Lag of POPBPL
(LAGPOPBPL)
GDP per Capita
(LNGDPPC)
External Debt
(INTPMT)
School Enrollment
(SECSCHENR)
Governance (POLITY)
X
-11.60***
(0.586)
-0.880***
(0.275)
-0.434***
(0.027)
-0.155***
(0.056)
DPLS1
DPLS+
CFE
DPLS+
PFE
0.039
(0.076)
0.858***
(0.021)
-1.400**
((0.719)
0.122
(0.176)
-0.051***
(0.015)
-0.023
(0.04)
0.486***
(0.181)
0.534***
(0.069)
-7.103***
(1.217)
-0.142
(0.180)
-0.023
(0.051)
-0.173**
(0.084)
0.660***
(0.249)
0.528***
(0.065)
-2.979*
(1.879)
-0.191
(0.231)
0.004
(0.051)
-0.130**
(0.071)
DPLS+
CFE
+PFE
0.660***
(0.249)
0.528***
(0.065)
-2.979*
(1.879)
-0.191
(0.231)
0.004
(0.051)
-0.130**
(0.128)
-0.889*
(0.559)
0.803***
(0.043)
-1.771***
(0.681)
0.055
(0.417)
-0.070***
(0.028)
0.015
(0.087)
1.567
(0.529)
0.477
(0.080)
-14.647
(2.037)
-0.324
(0.403)
0.052
(0.137)
0.239**
(0.107
-0.276
(0.730)
0.798***
(0.053)
-1.356
(1.583)
-0.315
(0.414)
-0.066
(0.054)
0.066
(0.121)
2.790***
(0.724)
0.444***
(0.080)
-6.384***
(2.715)
-0.946**
(0.475)
0.139
(0.128)
-0.110
(0.087)
0.219
(0.171)
0.563***
(0.126)
-2.690
(2.367)
0.066
(0.218)
-0.082*
(0.050)
-0.138
(0.119)
0.117
(0.082)
0.888***
(0.019)
0.649
(1.284)
0.231*
(0.136)
-0.044**
(0,024)
-0.023
(0.053)
0.306
(0.292)
0.592***
(0.131)
-1.026
(5.229)
0.120
(0.218)
-0.052
(0.060)
-0.180*
(0.105)
LOW INCOME COUNTRIES

Lag of POPBPL
(LAGPOPBPL)
GDP per Capita
(LNGDPPC)
External Debt
(INTPMT)
School Enrollment
(SECSCHENR)
Governance
(POLITY)
0.174
(0.766)
2.846***
(0.531)
1.168
(1.466)
3.381***
(1.103)
-7.173***
(1.539)
-0.517
(0.752)
-0.473***
(0.045)
0.259**
(0.124)
-21.962***
(1.976)
0.230
(0.399)
-0.048
(0.134)
-0.093
(0.123)
-6.597
(4.345)
-1.282
(1.371)
-0.439***
(0.092)
0.409
(0.288)
-14.576***
(4.401)
-0.385
(0.577)
0.063
(0.119)
0.072
(0.127)
0.594***
(0.133)
0.652***
(0.177)
0.465
(0.305)
0.537*
(0.318)
-9.999***
(1.786)
-.004
(0.463)
-0.251***
(0.040)
-0.112**
(0.049)
-8.126***
(1.928)
0.055
(0.333)
-0.133**
(0.064)
-0.037
(0.190)
-11.259***
(3.522)
0.392
(0.961)
-0.272***
(0.103)
-0.186
(0.368)
-9.755**
(4.542)
0.149
(0.335)
-0.142**
(0.069
-0.112
(0.204)
LOWER MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRIES

Lag of POPBPL
(LAGPOPBPL)
GDP per Capita
(LNGDPPC)
External Debt
(INTPMT)
School Enrollment
(SECSCHENR)
Governance
(POLITY)
1
0.107
(0.079)
0.879***
(0.018)
0.335
(1.160)
0.239
(0.151)
-0.050**
(0.025)
-0.034
(0.063)
PLS: Panel Least Squared Model, CFE: Country Fixed Effects, PFE: Period Fixed Effects, and DPLS: Dynamic Panel
Least Squared Model
2
Numbers in the parentheses indicate the standard errors.
(***), (**), and (*) indicate that the coefficients are statistically significant at 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively.
44

Table 12: Summary Results (Table continued)
Dependent Variable: Percentage of Population Living Below the Poverty Line
UPPER MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRIES

Independent
Variables
PLS1
PLS+
CFE1
PLS+
PFE1
0.940***
(0.176)
0.628***
(0.224)
0.972***
(0.377)
PLS+
CFE
+PFE
0.137
(0.325)
-5.301***
(1.358)
-1.056***
(0.434)
-0.252***
(0.040)
0.198
(0.126)
-3.937***
(1.442)
0.166
(0.241)
-0.083
(0.061)
0.005
(0.075)
-6.127***
(2.089)
-1.601***
(0.571)
-0.248***
(0.044)
0.260
(0.166)
-9.828***
(3.468)
-0.036
((0.245)
-0.114*
(0.062)
-.053
(0.102)
Lag of POPBPL
(LAGPOPBPL)
GDP per Capita
(LNGDPPPC)
External Debt
(INTPMT)
School Enrollment
(SECSCHENR)
Governance
(POLITY)
DPLS1
DPLS+
CFE
DPLS+
PFE
0.046
(0.128)
0.879
(0.057)
-2.295
(0.506)
0.002
(0.147)
0.006
(0.017)
-0.008
0.0187
0.482***
(0.131)
0.412***
(0.091)
-3.616***
(0.909)
0.146
(0.181)
-0.006
(0.048)
-0.059
(0.074)
0.025
(0.165)
0.881***
(0.063)
-1.450
(1.482)
-0.092
(0.168)
0.001
(0.019)
0.038
(0.079)
DPLS+
CFE
+PFE
0.171
(0.246)
0.424***
(0.102)
-6.296*
(3.988)
0.013
(0.254)
-0.053
(0.050)
-0.035
(0.103)
PLS: Panel Least Squared Model, CFE: Country Fixed Effects, PFE: Period Fixed Effects, and DPLS: Dynamic Panel
Least Squared Model
2
Numbers in the parentheses indicate the standard errors.
(***), (**), and (*) indicate that the coefficients are statistically significant at 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively.
and poverty in the results section. Educational attainment shows positive relationship with
poverty level in a couple of cases. However, the coefficients are extremely small (of the
order of 0.004) and statistically insignificant. In the case of low income countries, inflation
shows positive relationship with poverty in 8 out of 10 specifications. The only two cases
in which inflation shows a negative relationship with poverty is the dynamic panel case
and the dynamic panel case with period fixed effects. However, with the dynamic panel
model, the coefficient on LNCPI is statistically significant only at 12% level of significance
and in the dynamic panel model with period fixed effect the coefficient is small (= 0.28)
as compared to other specifications and is statistically insignificant. Thus, the positive
relationship between inflation and poverty is not significant in either case. GDP per capita
shows a consistent negative relationship with poverty in all the specifications. The
coefficients on the other control variables are either inconsistent or statistically
insignificant or both. I have tried to provide some possible explanations in each case in
the result section.
In the case of lower and upper middle income countries, inflation shows a
consistent positive relationship in all the specifications. However, the GDP per capita
loses its consistency in sign in the case of lower middle income countries. Educational
attainment and polity show consistent negative relationship with poverty in the case of
lower middle income countries, however, external debt fails the robustness checks.
45

In the case of upper middle income countries, inflation and GDP per capita
consistently show positive and negative signs respectively. Other than these, the
coefficients on all other control variables are either inconsistent or statistically
insignificant or both. A striking observation comes from the dynamic models. In all the
cases where the lag of poverty (LAGPOPBPL) has been used as an independent
variable, it shows a strong, positive, and statistically significant coefficient. This means,
present poverty, inevitably, is a result of past poverty.
Most of the findings from this study are similar to what other researchers have
found in the past. So the question arises here is: What is new about this study? One of
the most salient features of my study is the dataset I have used. Poverty data is hard to
find for a large number of countries. So, in that sense, the first thing about my study is
that it makes use of a large dataset developed by the World Bank with the help of
POVCALNET - an interactive poverty analysis software. I cover 115 countries, for the
period 1981 - 2008. Since the most updated version of this dataset was released in
February, 2012, and I have used this in my study, it is one of the most up-to-date and
comprehensive studies, in terms of coverage, thus far, on poverty and inflation.
As the dataset has one of the widest cross-sections of countries, my result is also
highly generic. So, considering the case with all the developing countries, I find a positive
relationship between inflation and poverty. Thus, inflation, in general, keeping all else
equal, increases poverty. The second observation is that the effect of inflation on poverty
is not same in all the countries. For instance, although in lower and upper middle income
countries, inflation has a positive relationship with poverty, but in the case of low income
countries, under certain specifications (with dynamic panel model and dynamic panel
model with period fixed effect), inflation has a negative relationship with poverty.
There can be many explanations for the negative relationship between inflation
and poverty. I have discussed about the possible explanations in the results section. But,
to be certain about which explanation is correct, further study is required. However, as
the coefficient, in the latter case, is not statistically significant, I refrain from making any
conclusion. Other than this, inflation, evidently, affects poverty. The higher the level of
inflation, the higher the level of poverty.
The second important realization from my study is that GDP per capita is
negatively correlated with poverty. Higher levels of GDP per capita is associated, in most
46

cases, with lower levels of poverty, with the exception of lower middle income countries
under dynamic panel model and dynamic panel model with period fixed effects. However,
even in the cases where the relationship between income and poverty is positive, the
coefficients are not statistically significant.
So growth, at large, is pro-poor. Another
important observation is that in some cases, external debt has a negative relationship
with poverty. This gives me an opportunity to think about the possible role of foreign debt
in fighting poverty. Some countries may be taking loans from international agencies and
other countries and utilizing this debt to fund their poverty reduction programs. This can
lead to a negative relationship between external debt and poverty. Thus, external debt, if
utilized properly, can help fight poverty.
Although I have carried out the analysis of the relationship between inflation and
poverty, along with control variables, I have had to come across many hurdles. One of
the most significant challenges of this study was to find a good dataset. Though some of
the variables were relatively easily available, finding poverty data for a large crosssection of countries was hard, as many of the countries dont carry out survey or census
on an annual basis. As a result, I chose to take poverty data from the World Banks
(POVCAL) estimates. This data has a limitation: the data is not annual; instead, the data
series obtained from the POVCAL software is tri-annual. This is a very low frequency
data. However, since the data was available for a large number of countries, I chose this
dataset for the poverty data.
Another issue was finding the data for educational attainment. Ideally, I would
prefer to take percentage of high school graduates or college graduates as an indicator of
a countrys level of educational attainment. However, since such data was not available
for a large number of countries, I considered gross secondary school enrollment as a
proxy for educational attainment.
Despite these limitations, I was able to study the effect of inflation and other
control variables for a cross-section of 115 countries. From this study, I conclude that, in
general, inflation affects poverty positively. An increase in inflation pushes more people
below the poverty line. Further, this time I have studied the effect of inflation in countries
with different levels of income by grouping them separately into low income, lower middle
income, and upper middle income countries. By grouping the countries with respect to
their average income, I find that the effect of inflation in different income level is not
47

same. In the case of low income countries, the relationship between inflation and poverty
becomes negative when I account for the period fixed effects orin the dynamic panel
case. This opens up an opportunity to study the relationship in the case of low income
countries in further details. Especially, it would be interesting to study the causality of
such a relationship. Later on, I would also like to study, the effect of inflation in different
geographical regions.
Besides the unavailability of data, shortage of time is another factor. Since I had
to complete this study in a very short period of time, I could not study how or why inflation
affects poverty. From the existing literature, two factors seem to contribute to the
mechanism via which inflation affects poverty. One of the channels is erosion of the value
of the cash holdings and the other channel is the effect of inflation on the real wages.
Some of the studies find that short run rigidity of the nominal wages lead to a positive
relationship between inflation and poverty while others contend that inflation reduces real
wage in the long run and hence the effect of inflation is not a short run concern only. In
future, I would like to study the causality of the inflation and poverty relationship.
48
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
To conclude, I can say that, in general, poverty is positively affected by inflation.
Keeping all else equal, an increase in inflation increases poverty. However, the effect of
inflation on poverty is not a very straightforward. Although in most cases, inflation has
shown positive relationship with poverty, but some of these results are not statistically
significant. In some cases, inflation has shown negative effect on poverty. In lower and
upper middle income countries, inflation has a positive relationship with poverty, but in
the case of low income countries, under certain specifications, inflation has a negative
relationship with poverty. However, the coefficient, in the latter case, is not statistically
significant. This apart, inflation, evidently, affects poverty. The higher the level of inflation,
the higher the level of poverty. Income, on the other hand, is generally negatively
correlated with poverty. An increase in the GDP per capita, leads to fall in the level of
poverty in absolute terms. However, the effect of income on poverty is not statistically
significant in all cases. But poverty in the previous period is a significant determinant of
poverty in the current period. This means that poverty itself is the cause of poverty in
most cases.
49
REFERENCES
Ayadi, F. S. and Ayadi, F. O. (2008). The Impact of External Debt on Economic
Growth: A comparative Study of Nigeria and South Africa. Journal of Sustainable
Development in Africa. Clarion, PA.
Bardhan, P. (2001). Democracy and Development: A Complex Relationship. Chapter 5,
Democracys Value. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. pp. 93 110.
Barro, R., and Sala-I-Martin, X. (1995). Economic Growth. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Berkley, M. (2003). Inflation and Poverty: A Theoretical Issue in Economics. Working
Paper. Retrieved from http://www.mattberkley.com/inflation.htm.
Bernstein, Jared. (2007). Is Education the Cure for Poverty? The American Prospect,
Washington D.C.
Blank, R. M. and Blinder, Alan S. (1985). Macroeconomics, Income Distribution, and
Poverty. NBER Working Paper No.1567. Cambridge, MA.
Braumann, B. (2004). High Inflation and Real Wages. IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 51, No. 1,
International Monetary Fund. Washington, D.C.
Cardoso, E. (1992). Inflation and Poverty. NBER Working Paper. No. 4006. Cambridge,
MA.
Chani M. I., Pervaiz, Z., Jan, S.A., (2011). Poverty, Inflation and Economic Growth:
Empirical Evidence from Pakistan. World Applied Sciences Journal. Dubai, UAE. pp.
1058-1063.
Chauhary, T. T. and Chaudhary, A. A. (2008). The Effects of Rising Food and Fuel Costs
on Poverty in Pakistan. The Lahore Journal of Economics, Special Edition (September).
Lahore, Pakistan. pp. 117-138
Chen, S. and Ravallion M. (2008). China is Poorer than We Thought, but No Less
Successful in the Fight Against Poverty. World Bank Policy Working Paper. No. 4621.
Washington, D.C.
Chen, S. and Ravallion, M. (2008). A Dollar A Day Revisited. World Bank Policy Working
Paper. No. 4620. Washington, D.C.
Chen, S. and Ravallion, M. (2008). The Developing World is Poorer than We Thought,
but No Less Successful in the Fight Against Poverty. World Bank Policy Working
Paper. No. 4703.
Citro, C. F. and Michael, R. T. (1995). Measuring Poverty: A New Approach. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Datt, G. (1998). Computational Tools for Poverty Measurement and Analysis.
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
50

Datt, G. and Ravallion. M. (2002). Is India's Economic Growth Leaving the Poor Behind?
Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 16, pp. 89 108.
Delong, J. B. and Summers, L. H. (1992). Macroeconomic Policy and Long-Run Growth.
Federal Reserve Bank Of Kansas City Economic Review, Fourth Quarter, pp. 5-30.
Easterly, W. and Fischer, S. (2001). Inflation and the Poor. Journal of Money, Credit and
Banking, Vol. 33. No. 2.
Erosa, A. and Ventura, G. (2002). On Inflation as a Regressive Consumption
Tax. Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, Vol. 49(4), pp. 761-795.
Fengler, W. (2011). Taxing the Poor Through Inflation, Africa CanEnd Poverty,
Retrieved from http://blogs.worldbank.org/africacan/taxing-the-poor-through-inflation
Global Food Prices and Developing Asia. March 2011, Asian Development Bank,
Retrieved from http://www.adb.org/publications/global-food-price-inflation-anddeveloping-asia
Gordon, D. (2005). Indicators of Poverty and Hunger. United Nations, New York.
Handbook on Poverty Statistics: Concepts, Methods and Policy Use, December, 2005.
United Nations, New York. Retrieved from
Http://Www.Adb.Org/Documents/Studies/Eco_Pov_Ban/Eco_Pov_Ban.Pdf
Howitt, P. (1990). Zero Inflation As A Long-Term Target For Monetary Policy. C. D. Howe
Institute, Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from
http://Www.Adb.Org/Documents/Studies/Eco_Pov_Ban/Eco_Pov_Ban.Pdf
Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals (2003). United Nations,
New York.
Kamal, S. (2000). Democratization and Poverty Alleviation in South Asia. South Asian
Regional Workshop, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Ladd, Helen, F. (2011). Education and Poverty: Confronting the Evidence. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management. Malden, MA.
Maier, R. (2005). External Debt and Pro-Poor Growth, Macroeconomics and Monetary
Economics. No. 0504031. Retrieved from
http://129.3.20.41/eps/mac/papers/0504/0504031.pdf
Marshall, M. G. (2010). Polity IV Project: Dataset Users Manual. The Center for
Systemic Peace, VA.
Marshall, Monty G. and Jaggers, K. (2010). Polity IV Project: Political Regime
Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2010. The Center For Systemic Peace, VA.
Marty, A. L., and Thornton, D. L. (1995). Is There A Case for Moderate Inflation?
Economic Review. pp. 27-37.
51

Morley, S. and Alvarez, C. (1991). Recession and the Growth of Poverty in Argentina.
Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, D.C.
Nakatani, P. and Herrera, R. (2007). The South Has Already Repaid its External Debt to
the North, but the North Denies its Debt to the South. Monthly Review. Vol. 59. pp. 31 36.
Norton, S. W. (2002). Economic Growth and Poverty: In Search of Trickle-Down. Cato
Journal. Vol. 22, No. 2. The Cato Institute, Washington D.C.
O'grady , S. (2011). Soaring Inflation Hurts the Poor More. Institute for Fiscal Studies
(IFS) Report.
PovcalNet: an online poverty analysis tool, The World Bank, Retrieved from
http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm
Poverty and Inequality Analysis. The World Bank, 2010. Retrieved from
http://web.worldbank.org/wbsite/external/topics/extpoverty/0,,contentmdk:22569747~pag
epk:148956~pipk:216618~thesitepk:336992,00.html.
Powers, E. T. (1995). Inflation, Unemployment, and Poverty Revisited. Economic Review,
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Qtr III
Ravallion, M. (1992). Poverty Comparisons: A Guide to Concepts and Methods. The
World Bank, Washington D.C.
Ravallion, M. (1992). Poverty Freak: A Guide to Concepts and Methods. Living Standards
Measurement Papers, The World Bank, Washington D.C.
Ravallion, M. (1998). Reform, Food Prices and Poverty in India. Economic and Political
Weekly, Mumbai, India.
Ravallion, M. (2000). Inequality and Poverty: Looking Beyond Averages. Development
Research Group, The World Bank, Washington D.C.
Ravallion, M. and Chen S. (2001). Measuring pro-poor growth. Policy Research Working
Paper Series 2666, The World Bank, Washington D.C.
Ravallion, M. and Huppi, M. (1991). Measuring Changes in Poverty: A Methodological
Case Study of Indonesia During an Adjustment Period. The World Bank Economic
Review Volume 5, Washington, D.C.
Ravallion, M. and Lokshin, M. (2006). Testing Poverty Lines. Review of Income and
Wealth. Vol. 52, Issue 3, pp. 399-421.
Ravallion, M., Chen S., and Sangraula, P. (2009). Dollar a Day. The World Bank
Economic Review. pp. 163-184
Rethinking Poverty, Report on the World Social Situation (2010, United Nations, New
York.
52

Romer, C. D. and Romer, D. H. (1999). Monetary policy and the well-being of the poor.
Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, issue Q I, pp. 21-49.
Sachs, J. D. (2005). The End of Poverty, Penguin Press. pp. 20.
Shiller, R. J. (1996). Why Do People Dislike Inflation? Cowles Foundation for Research In
Economics, Yale University. Discussion Paper No. 1115.
Shraideh, N. (2008). Foreign Debt and Poverty. Social Forum, United Nations Office of
the Higher Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva.
Son, H. H., Kakawani, N. (2006). Measuring The Impact Of Price Changes On Poverty.
International Poverty Centre, United Nations Development Program, Working Paper 33.
Sugema, I., Irawan, T., Adipurwanto, D., Holis, A., Bakhtiar, T. (2010). The Impact of
Inflation on Rural Poverty in Indonesiaan Econometrics Approach. International Research
Journal of Finance and Economics. Issue 58.
Sullivan, A., Sheffrin, S. Y. (2003). Economics: Principles in action. Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey. Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 551
Summers, L. H. (1991). How Should Long-Term Monetary Policy Be Determined? Panel
discussion. Journal of Money, Credit And Banking. pp. 625-31.
Thornton, D. L. (1996). The Costs And Benefits Of Price Stability: An Assessment of
Howitts Rule. Review - Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
Todaro, M. P. (1997). Economic Development. Addison Wesley, Reading,
Massachusetts.
Varshney, A. (1998). Democracy and Poverty. The U.K. Department for International
Development, and the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, U.K.
Wilson, L. (2011), Inflation, the Hidden Tax. The Center for Development. Retrieved from
http://drlwilson.com/articles/inflaton.htm
World Bank Sees Progress Against Extreme Poverty, But Flags Vulnerabilities (February
29, 2012), Press Release No:2012/297/DEC, Retrieved from www.worldbank.org on
2012-05-30.
World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty. World Bank, 2000.
Washington, DC.
World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistic, 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.worldhunger.org.
53
APPENDIX A
WORLD BANK INCOME BASED
CLASSIFICATION OF COUNTRIES
Bangladesh
Guinea-Bissau
Nigeria
Benin
Haiti
Pakistan
Bhutan
India
Papua New Guinea
Burkina Faso
Kenya
Rwanda
Burundi
Kyrgyz Republic
Senegal
Cambodia
Lao PDR
Sierra Leone
Central African
Republic
Liberia
Tajikistan
Chad
Madagascar
Tanzania
Comoros
Malawi
Timor-Leste
Congo, Democratic
Republic of
Mali
Togo
Cte d'Ivoire
Mauritania
Uganda
Ethiopia
Mongolia
Uzbekistan
Gambia, The
Mozambique
Vietnam
Ghana
Nepal
Yemen, Republic of
Guinea
Niger
Zambia
LOWER MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRIES

Albania
Djibouti
Macedonia, FYR
Algeria
Dominican
Republic
Moldova, Republic
of
Angola
Ecuador
Morocco
Armenia
Egypt, Arab
Republic of
Namibia
54
World bank income based classification of countries,

continued
Azerbaijan
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Belarus
Georgia
Paraguay
Bolivia
Guatemala
Peru
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Guyana
Philippines
Brazil
Honduras
Sri Lanka
Bulgaria
Indonesia
Suriname
Cameroon
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Swaziland
Cape Verde
Jamaica
Thailand
China
Jordan
Tunisia
Colombia
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Congo, Republic of
Lesotho
Ukraine
Costa Rica

Argentina
Hungary
Russian Federation
Botswana
Latvia
Slovak Republic
Chile
Lithuania
South Africa
Costa Rica
Malaysia
St. Lucia
Croatia
Mexico
Trinidad and
Tobago
Czech Republic
Panama
Turkey
Estonia
Poland
Uruguay
Gabon
Romania
Venezuela
55
APPENDIX B
DATA SERIES*
Country
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Benin
Benin
Benin
Benin
Benin
Benin
Benin
Benin
Benin
Benin
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
44.18
46.1
47.85
49.86
50.68
48.58
54.49
52.85
50.47
46.62
53.47
63.03
64.5
65.98
65.8
61.75
67.29
47.33
49.99
44.79
47.35
45.2
43.61
51.01
47.69
47.69
29.88
46.4
26.79
9.34
73.02
77.26
72.49
61.92
71.17
66.96
70.03
56.54
55.04
45.06
85.24
88.31
87.03
84.49
84.24
85.91
86.43
85.9
81.32
80.58
GDPPC
331.261
394.136
440.744
512.997
594.82
684.698
787.812
920.411
1,134.02
1,413.98
613.143
639.484
661.725
736.688
829.446
914.079
1,015.97
1,135.33
1,246.24
1,420.00
539.701
688.929
1,009.60
1,316.27
1,584.97
2,048.84
2,408.27
2,944.10
3,530.80
4,784.27
375.83
406.215
519.512
569.489
640.299
744.357
868.089
962.592
1,097.46
1,278.95
242.072
261.097
315.92
355.682
365.316
299.52
314.828
317.899
335.097
390.241
CPI
34.028
44.172
60.711
79.204
86.413
102.003
125.52
135.637
163.168
204.904
32.901
35.461
35.535
37.093
41.264
70.067
73.363
83.476
89.568
103.908
109.717
151.792
185.283
241.132
345
447.264
553.774
610.504
688.07
828.082
37.571
47.067
47.223
48.356
49.138
70.503
74.646
80.222
87.06
100.864
13.433
19.085
19.766
25.829
33.467
62.001
93.823
115.177
143.853
226.707
CPI-Inflation
19.481
10.436
10.163
11.782
5.444
0.733
3.073
3.833
7.064
6.031
0.795
10.265
-1.339
1.112
2.888
6.914
-3.244
1.222
3.734
9.897
9.717
8.059
7.912
9.418
8.937
8.316
4.504
2.28
4.933
9.035
6.543
7.493
2.981
-1.355
2.696
6.931
0.642
3.935
4.472
11.582
10.986
24.966
4.985
10.732
15.532
37.384
20.71
3.529
0.957
25.664
SecSchEnr
15.35476
18.76351
17.97279
18.03683
46.79228
50.57927
45.71364
45.41245
15.94813
20.67583
15.516
22.17601
27.08993
37.07148
12.02269
36.74025
48.06704
45.43338
55.44877
2.56913
3.10093
4.97543
6.65229
7.75343
9.12025
9.98406
13.35987
17.74582
2.83161
2.99239
3.83622
4.80301
6.56348
13.79438
18.21889
IntPmt
0.448016
0.598025
0.744642
0.637689
0.472409
0.476198
0.39889
0.349482
0.36831
0.28722
1.217771
2.359411
1.535147
0.923367
0.65896
0.821675
1.032486
0.902254
0.37267
0.622635
0.001721
0.024114
0.236106
0.763551
1.046692
0.826704
0.562566
0.384821
0.274235
3.087854
0.683448
0.60292
0.785626
0.501396
0.775964
0.679439
0.683527
0.509061
0.317423
0.2233
0.442893
0.971135
1.610714
1.259117
1.398228
1.123929
0.99765
1.1061
1.576789
0.701623
Polity
-4
-7
-5
-5
6
6
6
6
6
-6
-7
-7
-7
0
6
6
6
6
6
7
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-6
3
-7
-7
-7
-7
-5
-5
-4
0
0
0
-7
-7
-7
-7
0
-5
-1
2
6
6
* PopBPL: Percentage of Population Living Below the Poverty Line, CPI: Consumer Price Index, GDPPC:
GDP PerCapita, SecSchEnr: Secondary School Enrollment Ratio, IntPmt: Interest Payment as fraction of
GDP.
56

Data Series* (Low Income Countries), continued
Country
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Combodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
1
CAF
1
CAF
1
CAF
1
CAF
1
CAF
1
CAF
1
CAF
1
CAF
1
CAF
1
CAF
Chad
Chad
Chad
Chad
Chad
Chad
Chad
Chad
Chad
Chad
Comoros
Comoros
Comoros
Comoros
Comoros
Comoros
Comoros
Comoros
Comoros
Comoros
2
CDR
2
CDR
2
CDR
2
CDR
2
CDR
2
CDR
2
CDR
2
CDR
2
CDR
2
CDR
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
86.1
80.88
71.96
77.33
48.55
42.72
44.58
50.31
40.19
22.75
79.91
79.45
80.24
81.2
83.15
66.81
59.31
62.43
64.43
62.83
61.09
51.83
60.09
55.9
67.11
67.05
60.16
61.94
58.67
44.86
53.28
51.83
52.84
51.44
55.21
52.81
52.35
49.7
46.11
47.72
31.87
32.99
32.19
80.21
62.33
65.69
72.37
65.99
59.22
86.15
GDPPC
CPI
CPI-Inflation
482.992
562.453
666.123
676.185
830.413
1,052.19
1,456.70
2,033.84
514.666
545.366
578.089
605.633
573.378
558.804
633.894
650.135
657.923
739.113
381.508
520.031
620.102
726.398
811.355
826.297
898.124
1,062.33
1,648.44
1,695.22
636.613
768.864
801.568
851.809
956.039
907.751
982.631
1,046.53
1,130.59
1,184.92
369.559
406.073
431.187
404.181
281.795
261.775
229.153
217.88
261.694
309.691
1.04
6.461
48.281
67.728
83.346
83.499
95.248
127.256
49.285
65.603
69.025
66.032
62.403
99.236
92.55
111.855
112.524
137.749
32.73
46.798
39.373
44.537
55.688
78.038
83.952
107.571
100
110.5
SecSchEnr
n/a
151
41
10.034
-0.543
1.427
8.411
12.52
14.66
2.604
-6.986
-1.057
-4.769
4.608
-4.212
9.085
2.204
14.525
8.11
20.3
-4.7
3.413
31.4
10.5
3.3
12.556
-3.428
9.671
0.001577
2.694868
15.58153
22.66118
44.32628
13.41525
15.2655
12.6883
11.43235
11.93463
12.6721
5.5136
6.4769
8.23638
10.09491
13.62602
16.24977
22.39543
26.56527
34.30127
97.091
101.424
113.596
131.596
146.943
1
16.4
272.12
376.436
624.164
--1.287
-0.935
7.196
7.4
52.174
159.083
106.47
264.97
4,583.08
1,705.11
485.714
15.751
21.272
27.572
IntPmt
29.79911
35.28872
46.34076
23.84379
23.26126
22.80944
22.65985
19.01993
22.57164
35.98298
0.11425
0.414071
0.194535
0.244034
0.230641
0.633999
1.395028
1.06908
0.802144
0.463234
0.46778
0.627408
0.060293
0.066318
0.337847
0.074986
0.090322
0.3242
0.292891
0.387634
0.728581
0.68671
0.542963
0.390701
0.277088
0.629517
1.682554
0.707065
0.347334
0.244172
0.278956
0.412511
0.370197
0.368445
0.796473
1.564562
3.240886
2.8105
1.718289
0.229229
0.2216
0.453643
5.521614
1.509215
2.755849
Polity
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
-7
-7
-7
-7
5
5
5
5
-1
-1
0
-4
-7
-7
-4
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-5
-6
-7
4
4
4
-2
4
6
9
-9
-9
-9
-8
0
0
0
0
4
5
1
2
GDP. CAF: Central African Republic, CDR: Congo, Democratic Republic of.
57

Country
Cte d'Ivoire
Cte d'Ivoire
Cte d'Ivoire
Cte d'Ivoire
Cte d'Ivoire
Cte d'Ivoire
Cte d'Ivoire
Cte d'Ivoire
Cte d'Ivoire
Cte d'Ivoire
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Gambia, The
Gambia, The
Gambia, The
Gambia, The
Gambia, The
Gambia, The
Gambia, The
Gambia, The
Gambia, The
Gambia, The
Ghana
Ghana
Ghana
Ghana
Ghana
Ghana
Ghana
Ghana
Ghana
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea
Guinea
Guinea
Guinea
Guinea
Guinea
Guinea
Guinea
Guinea
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
6.66
9.65
8.68
17.34
17.79
23.65
24.06
23.34
20.38
23.75
66.22
65.59
63.53
65.88
60.72
56.74
55.58
47.85
39.04
15.98
64.32
76.18
73.6
67.87
63.72
68.41
34.39
34.34
31.3
32.12
48.85
53.15
50.97
50.68
49.74
43.97
39.12
34.96
29.99
24.64
88
89.15
93.89
94.07
56.06
43.89
54
70.13
69.83
42.29
GDPPC
1,257.39
1,227.79
1,281.75
1,346.08
1,384.25
1,542.69
1,677.70
1,580.28
1,580.16
1,644.14
314.793
349.656
380.666
395.1
370.51
445.348
450.938
511.374
632.685
881.054
9,488.91
11,687.48
13,770.52
16,855.39
16,174.79
18,967.87
22,781.97
26,355.33
30,459.16
36,244.53
7,777.12
9,286.88
8,260.93
10,838.09
11,513.23
12,811.72
12,378.00
12,195.71
13,081.16
14,559.22
CPI
36.944
44.056
53.556
55.889
60.344
88.925
97.915
109.826
117.48
132.509
34.015
38.963
39.462
49.177
76.199
84.641
99.73
87.669
124.482
248.241
47.178
59.16
66.498
77.008
85.041
87.49
91.59
98.05
100.41
107.12
n/a
n/a
n/a
74.094
63.516
97.351
99.006
102.154
106.41
118.177
CPI-Inflation
7.78
4.068
7.469
0.1
2.52
3.5
0.744
4.399
2.531
8.954
5.43
9.05
-4.66
5.005
4.714
-8.999
12.259
-1.016
12.99
55.27
9.897
6.132
3.622
2.067
2.96
1.731
2.244
1.722
1.057
3.388
n/a
n/a
n/a
15.369
1.317
0.822
-0.949
0.421
1.115
5.576
645.4
680.172
747.458
839.976
936.658
952.001
1,060.92
43.962
89.1
121.9
134.2
156.8
180.4
334.685
596.303
33.654
27.331
4.996
2.053
6.161
6.118
29.663
13.504
SecSchEnr
19.01242
18.51973
17.98529
22.9796
27.14373
11.53572
13.5458
10.92641
11.32758
13.3356
19.52273
24.97055
33.3462
14.43973
18.98734
18.40402
18.57427
21.99087
24.16925
54.06815
39.61545
38.54161
36.76198
35.16343
40.1816
40.6379
47.20623
56.26766
16.70584
15.44759
11.97187
10.38552
12.39718
13.58341
13.78233
21.38813
30.69876
36.7243
IntPmt
10.46207
12.44442
6.433856
6.955311
5.262521
4.586444
5.259122
2.855393
0.321738
0.983938
0.420268
0.579885
0.663148
0.489766
0.339776
0.654645
0.737896
0.476989
0.43671
0.149129
2.922704
3.87962
3.620648
4.203452
1.992378
1.48587
1.588751
1.694718
2.484411
0.872274
1.621296
1.548744
2.366633
1.809582
1.932055
1.976458
1.997863
1.495257
0.904745
0.512849
Polity
2.543996
2.334576
1.246494
1.244519
1.651082
1.102367
1.777481
1.118768
GDP.
58
-7
-8
-8
-8
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
8
8
-6
-5
-5
-5
-5
-7
-7
-7
-7
-1
2
2
6
8
8
-9
-7
-7
-7
-5
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1

Country
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
Kenya
Kenya
Kenya
Kenya
Kenya
Kenya
Kenya
Kenya
Kenya
Kenya
Kyrgyz Republic
Kyrgyz Republic
Kyrgyz Republic
Kyrgyz Republic
Kyrgyz Republic
Kyrgyz Republic
Kyrgyz Republic
Kyrgyz Republic
Kyrgyz Republic
Kyrgyz Republic
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
GDPPC
CPI
31.15
25.62
37.33
41.32
52.11
46.38
56.45
48.83
42.46
47.97
54.57
59.47
59.95
56.82
59.11
60.51
57.96
54.9
57.95
63.58
60.16088
55.4928
53.575
50.773
48.953
46.81367
40.647
40.96317
41.529
37.37
38.42
38.56
36.71
35.35
38.42
21.12
24.12
34.57
43.37
40.58
0
0
0
4.79
18.61
31.13
15.5
34.03
21.81
628.342
717.446
796.469
915.578
1,011.96
1,139.85
935.639
922.407
944.249
1,042.74
903.508
940.331
971.452
1,017.36
978.711
988.663
1,054.23
1,059.86
1,072.19
1,180.89
477.358
592.786
690.244
883.042
1,006.77
1,236.84
1,445.48
1,673.36
2,190.27
2,916.29
713.355
796.226
914.73
1,065.97
1,061.60
1,168.54
1,211.78
1,268.53
1,398.70
1,604.93
0.116
0.397
1.93
6.396
24.986
73.889
85.701
100.584
103.169
126.462
5.005
6.155
6.142
9.328
15.606
30.645
42.652
61.077
117.6
170.889
20.441
26.128
33.416
43
57
76
93
105
119
147
6.714
9.953
14.018
22.354
52.914
66.729
83.132
98.424
130.725
171.076
CPIInflation
27.04
94.642
76.887
32.138
30.7
65.621
-7.9
2.519
-1.026
8.68
n/a
5.428
-4.133
26.115
27.681
17.015
9.921
11.373
14.844
19.838
12.745
5.188
9.302
13.158
7.547
10.145
0
3.96
5.31
9.701
n/a
10.284
13.007
41.381
54.7
10.664
10.503
4.25
4.7
15.478
1,299.01
1,079.39
1,254.11
1,436.50
1,712.52
2,171.78
17.737
51.218
94.574
109.923
125.112
189.522
929.867
34.833
39.864
2.302
4.92
20.06
SecSch
Enr
6.48906
11.66838
6.39152
33.8009
IntPmt
Polity
1.419526
3.764561
4.077047
2.608845
1.009564
1.756022
2.392143
0.521877
0.379583
0.425417
0.449683
0.366509
0.415046
0.843842
0.984931
1.530945
1.531723
1.139924
0.845856
0.837892
0.544522
0.603244
3.630738
3.861948
3.7883
4.053092
4.917768
2.313515
1.363927
0.888486
0.487942
0.375999
-7
-8
-8
-8
-6
5
3
5
6
6
-9
-9
-8
7
-7
7
2
-2
3
5
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
-6
-7
-7
-7
-5
-5
-2
8
8
7
0.069811
2.124995
4.418751
1.911248
1.463227
1.033857
-3
-3
-3
-3
3
3
12.74015
17.05097
27.68513
30.59424
35.59588
37.34146
45.5184
46.03737
43.44509
47.34214
53.856
60.1621
29.28377
31.93531
41.11624
38.44118
40.80617
47.69848
59.12225
109.95881
102.53398
94.51779
76.71312
83.32765
84.51412
86.87448
85.5665
GDP.
59

Country
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Madagascar
Madagascar
Madagascar
Madagascar
Madagascar
Madagascar
Madagascar
Madagascar
Madagascar
Madagascar
Malawi
Malawi
Malawi
Malawi
Malawi
Malawi
Malawi
Malawi
Malawi
Malawi
Mali
Mali
Mali
Mali
Mali
Mali
Mali
Mali
Mali
Mali
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
88.01
82.43
76.6
65.91
55.68
44.52
46.63
43.96
35.68
33.88
75.06
80.07
82.76
83.19
88.32
87.31
87.72
88.7
86.07
83.06
85.89
82.5
78.88
68.37
72.49
74.92
82.32
76.34
67.83
71.62
85.28
86.09
91.71
90.48
86.15
83.4
80.78
75.71
73.86
67.34
81.52
81.21
86.23
85.19
86.08
78.91
69.72
57.72
51.43
50.96
GDPPC
423.316
515.955
582.939
685.287
806.06
980.776
1,108.79
1,323.12
1,647.39
2,140.66
396.263
319.763
383.057
587.729
598.238
621.399
705.78
677.755
683.423
736.163
694.804
833.419
997.537
321.299
377.257
369.345
391.988
450.408
516.658
555.894
532.719
605.55
732.132
382.715
409.419
440.977
537.191
583.578
645.315
726.827
813.493
1,018.61
1,187.04
CPI
n/a
n/a
3.567
9.305
12.008
18.425
90.449
123.878
164.866
188.048
CPI-Inflation
n/a
n/a
n/a
29.188
10.315
12.76
86.656
15.211
8.791
3.167
95
133.968
161.895
221.293
5.659
9.789
15.632
23.091
32.417
77.705
95.443
125.1
176.093
232.5
1.455
2.174
3.725
5.742
9.928
30.759
69.562
147.6
214.822
279.7
11.095
7
9.388
30.457
9.759
29.196
13.843
8.256
8.282
10.105
13.882
11.451
10.085
8.998
11.926
35.511
23.2
18.309
6.7
28.231
28.28
16.561
9.945
72.139
66.069
97.871
100.501
112.8
112.45
128.387
SecSchEnr
19.66684
20.81374
23.72418
22.52508
25.23144
32.75423
39.62774
44.6944
44.65939
31.10409
n/a
0.429
2.782
-1.277
4.078
3.361
7.439
34.68254
18.62441
21.76684
29.74828
15.95827
17.24287
17.03664
16.51822
17.54737
23.39917
38.16432
31.57353
27.94402
31.21711
8.01425
7.15071
5.85082
6.66727
8.47814
11.67676
14.34212
24.47858
32.32035
IntPmt
0.071081
0.176497
0.338856
0.35692
0.350303
0.649187
2.061214
1.799306
1.155087
3.787445
3.998685
1.360517
0.597787
0.136926
0.208773
81.00212
1.809149
2.224323
4.912228
3.452641
0.929547
0.587012
2.259834
0.770943
0.614202
0.133111
5.866773
3.927193
3.86161
2.539414
1.420062
1.465946
1.140073
0.660862
0.863429
0.374908
0.825116
1.232138
1.286423
0.99924
1.63469
2.419772
1.196757
0.782237
0.598332
0.292483
Polity
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-6
-6
0
0
0
0
0
5
6
-6
-6
-6
-6
9
9
7
7
7
7
-9
-9
-9
-9
-8
6
6
4
6
6
-7
-7
-7
-7
7
7
6
7
7
7
GDP.
60

Data Series*(Low Income Countries), continued
Country
Mauritania
Mauritania
Mauritania
Mauritania
Mauritania
Mauritania
Mauritania
Mauritania
Mauritania
Mauritania
Mongolia
Mongolia
Mongolia
Mongolia
Mongolia
Mongolia
Mongolia
Mongolia
Mongolia
Mongolia
Mozambique
Mozambique
Mozambique
Mozambique
Mozambique
Mozambique
Mozambique
Mozambique
Mozambique
Mozambique
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Niger
Niger
Niger
Niger
Niger
Niger
Niger
Niger
Niger
Niger
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
38.9
41.83
41.32
45.92
42.79
23.4
21.75
17.87
13.37
23.43
62.41
52.69
45.09
34.91
24.13
18.79
30.82
15.47
22.38
60.75
76.52
77.02
84.03
80.64
81.34
64.25
74.69
68.23
59.58
80.3928
78.1509
80.62
77.03
73.81
68.44
61.82
55.12
54.7
33.9
57.44
80.62
67.28
65.04
72.79
79.41
76.02
80.01
65.88
43.62
GDPPC
831.32
927
1,036.58
1,138.97
1,265.80
1,406.36
1,434.56
1,501.22
1,767.39
2,082.97
CPI
n/a
n/a
34.446
41.014
50.701
59.298
69.047
80.392
101.16
122.892
CPI-Inflation
n/a
n/a
4.093
-0.423
1.493
4.479
1.927
8.402
5.805
3.9
1,743.55
1,430.08
1,627.18
1,814.73
2,016.33
2,614.99
3,879.53
220.426
172.5
203.808
258.574
290.17
354.98
468.194
580.583
711.282
906.534
307.394
362.607
414.056
505.457
583.91
678.506
746.598
832.551
969.134
1,159.25
487.091
411.333
464.251
501.918
478.289
467.877
506.097
543.548
624.172
739.635
0.348
12.791
47.084
66.136
79.081
100
147.264
0.286
0.593
3.203
9.152
27.463
80.323
89.736
133.054
183.579
235.082
13.945
18.043
25.618
32.482
47.232
59.358
76.595
82.473
95.201
119.5
49.3
52.611
47.966
45.299
42.494
66.642
70.372
76.451
81.338
93.499
n/a
183
44.576
9.966
1.72
9.228
23.192
9.521
29.79
185.325
47.099
43.638
19.343
6.216
9.119
11.148
6.181
10.9
1.565
9.14
5.561
5.861
5.993
9.017
3.51
6.65
10.695
23.645
0.527
0.192
-2.572
3.471
3.634
-1.87
0.56
4.158
9.417
SecSchEnr
10.35266
14.99184
13.55543
14.40179
16.01432
18.10662
20.76279
22.71328
22.29379
91.63208
87.09979
65.90698
63.95632
61.12536
75.44544
89.3958
IntPmt
4.515284
5.252496
4.35064
4.403417
3.933759
2.363274
2.954303
1.413537
1.196819
0.705866
1.446449
0.660077
1.035925
0.896444
0.817941
0.639599
5.11275
5.39326
6.92226
6.68237
5.18658
8.44146
13.24601
20.51937
18.01258
24.17775
28.36248
31.9152
37.9385
43.50475
33.68521
41.78074
46.09262
4.58141
4.78432
5.02832
6.04684
6.30742
6.3529
7.08235
6.83847
9.82571
11.11397
0.1473
1.170783
1.624729
4.242267
1.615788
1.144216
0.644121
0.385581
0.250821
0.368295
0.309401
0.565063
0.764127
0.753914
0.69069
0.644655
0.466381
0.393078
0.277761
4.253358
3.303015
3.684248
1.483628
1.527836
0.609767
0.567022
0.400116
0.396602
0.208001
Polity
-7
-7
-7
-7
-6
-6
-6
-6
-5
-5
-7
-7
-7
2
9
10
10
10
10
10
-8
-8
-7
-7
-6
5
5
5
5
5
-2
-2
-2
5
5
5
6
-6
-6
6
-7
-7
-7
-7
8
-6
5
5
6
6
GDP.
61

Country
Year
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Pakistan
Pakistan
Pakistan
Pakistan
Pakistan
Pakistan
Pakistan
Pakistan
Pakistan
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Rwanda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Senegal
Senegal
Senegal
Senegal
Senegal
Senegal
Senegal
Senegal
Senegal
Senegal
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
Pop
BPL
47.24
53.93
54.1
49.07
49.19
68.51
69.27
62.75
62.39
66.46
72.9
68.25
66.46
58.47
23.87
48.14
29.56
13.95
22.59
21.04
29.46
32.88
32.54
43
42.56
35.82
27.12
29.35
29.7
42.47
66.52
63.33
69.88
70.46
69.12
74.14
75.42
74.75
74.43
67.66
68.26
66.6
64.44
65.81
58.77
52.85
47.95
41.99
33.5
25.19
GDPPC
CPI
892.119
866.962
761.414
1,005.05
1,021.54
1,056.43
1,078.88
1,457.40
1,795.50
2,164.04
646.774
812.556
982.206
1,193.04
1,386.22
1,598.43
1,706.86
1,868.41
2,231.04
2,690.20
937.418
1,036.30
1,225.12
1,198.03
1,676.65
1,794.98
1,734.95
1,703.20
1,770.91
2,096.55
399.267
484.075
520.412
502.858
468.408
495.762
590.141
673.413
855.685
1,122.02
761.574
847.356
948.076
992.761
1,042.51
1,100.98
1,238.15
1,327.31
1,565.48
1,757.20
0.543
1.018
1.289
2.647
7.838
23.966
29.627
44.338
67.373
89.7
26.532
30.991
35.658
47.427
66.999
92.577
114.931
128.039
153.903
215.433
n/a
74.099
83.836
100
116.284
154.81
224.846
313.283
364.21
414.342
7.644
9.761
10.086
11.02
17.235
42.635
47.718
53.497
67.061
98.041
34.174
48.835
53.846
52.67
52.292
77.73
80.331
85.969
87.362
100.493
CPIInflation
17.312
25
11.765
2.632
61.538
14.314
0.224
12.169
11.565
15.148
10.432
3.409
4.681
13.81
9.626
10.297
3.681
3.388
8.736
21.531
n/a
4.39
2.99
8.908
4.813
5.282
13.197
14.815
4.72
11.244
3.108
5.924
2.895
6.048
12.51
8.736
2.057
6.165
5.608
22.323
11.285
9.701
-5.164
-0.909
0.498
2.433
0.484
1.484
1.422
4.261
SecSch
Enr
16.82785
28.33147
26.87658
24.31295
23.25023
29.16394
34.43702
35.09154
16.35899
17.41709
18.38981
20.14668
29.48321
33.51434
10.2638
10.80948
11.50727
11.27538
12.94723
11.40859
14.13115
16.35798
17.37766
10.02174
11.72521
15.86902
22.16224
11.31379
11.88269
13.3017
14.97217
14.85307
15.87991
18.0933
23.48565
31.40293
IntPmt
Polity
1.978975
7.071055
3.076079
8.424633
4.798367
3.299027
1.376761
0.647851
5.056942
0.121051
1.257005
1.629072
1.824721
1.991811
1.665097
1.889667
1.677119
1.152417
0.658747
0.643708
4.03016
6.585404
5.423134
5.222733
3.704386
2.136366
1.999921
2.474876
1.401251
0.524228
0.445806
0.388933
0.441849
0.430515
0.532424
0.539467
0.603922
0.434817
0.422599
0.120905
3.091063
3.860227
3.333174
2.316038
0.756627
2.608636
1.522123
1.409551
0.670499
0.416561
GDP.
62
7
-7
-7
-5
-7
-6
4
4
4
4
-7
-7
-4
8
8
8
-6
-5
-5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-6
-6
-4
-3
-3
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
8
8
7

Country
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Tajikistan
Tajikistan
Tajikistan
Tajikistan
Tajikistan
Tajikistan
Tajikistan
Tajikistan
Tajikistan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Timor-Leste*
Timor-Leste*
Timor-Leste*
Timor-Leste*
Timor-Leste*
Timor-Leste*
Timor-Leste*
Timor-Leste*
Timor-Leste*
Timor-Leste
Togo
Togo
Togo
Togo
Togo
Togo
Togo
Togo
Togo
Togo
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
59.39
61.3
62.56
63.11
65.16
55.63
56.74
53.37
49.92
44.74
0
0.23
0.48
0
19.6
65.85
43.99
36.25
21.49
65.43
63.6
66.32
70.34
76.12
81.67
86.61
86.54
82.4
66.76
82.06
79.55
78.46
71.32
64.92
54.7
55.88
52.94
43.56
34.7
35.2
33.17
37.49
33.75
47.78
27.84
26.4
32.96
38.68
38.52
GDPPC
637.484
707.238
687.65
780.13
653.97
485.019
351.058
528.793
639.904
769.137
CPI
0.234
0.943
7.723
39.303
144.561
243.56
524.387
509.633
733.76
1,014.39
CPI-Inflation
25.37
52.279
116.797
98.286
26.69
6.379
36.745
-3.08
13.1
12.246
SecSchEnr
14.60327
18.37014
1,104.05
749.564
813.733
1,059.20
1,397.97
1,773.03
414.732
430.428
493.534
590.038
605.429
648.205
705.837
824.678
1,008.92
1,269.73
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1,802.60
1,922.23
2,133.99
2,459.04
627.312
553.15
561.399
691.163
563.508
717.779
700.817
655.927
755.292
829.127
1.19
37.942
133.689
276.494
356.172
537.22
1.476
3.124
7.395
15.7
32.93
66.551
91.36
103.712
118.517
146.412
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
97.12
112.354
117.76
143.534
36.015
40.609
42.847
42.499
44.725
74.128
78.706
83.278
89.694
103.776
7,344.00
40.546
30.142
14.471
7.125
11.857
26.29
27.564
32.303
18.624
26.108
15.546
6.962
4.404
4.982
9.281
92.99691
5.964
0.994
6.139
10.966
-3.132
-0.498
1.534
2.351
4.906
4.525
1.552
5.471
10.27
39.248
54.95435
49.51558
16.47353
74.60913
78.95515
82.45655
85.812
3.05671
3.0573
3.86352
5.04196
5.30322
5.16868
6.11549
7.36294
10.97348
25.16022
IntPmt
1.98431
1.519166
1.170672
1.5794
2.426817
1.637836
1.659592
0.711401
0.879849
0.171899
Polity
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
4
0
5
5
7
0.051759
0.113374
2.434796
1.443076
0.59339
0.606783
1.510452
2.616864
1.58806
0.917312
0.39382
0.385994
0.204214
-6
-6
-1
-1
-3
-3
-6
-6
-6
-6
-5
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
4.137325
6.890104
3.358918
2.693894
1.031148
1.828951
0.829051
0.240859
0.087222
1.925577
-7
-7
-7
-7
-2
-2
-2
-2
-4
-4
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
21.25665
18.05023
20.78265
23.03614
31.20353
40.62018
46.80196
GDP.
63

Country
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Yemen, Rep.
Yemen, Rep.
Yemen, Rep.
Yemen, Rep.
Yemen, Rep.
Yemen, Rep.
Yemen, Rep.
Yemen, Rep.
Yemen, Rep.
Yemen, Rep.
Zambia
Zambia
Zambia
Zambia
Zambia
Zambia
Zambia
Zambia
Zambia
Zambia
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
66.24
66.84
72.05
68.65
70.01
64.39
60.49
57.37
51.53
44.41
4.93
16.06
11.06
35.84
42.33
38.81
90.36
84.42
81.63
34.21
63.74
59.01
49.09
40.05
22.74
16.85
10.06
10.55
3.63
5.19
10.06
13.15
14.15
9.74
17.53
17.13
52
59.23
50.84
61.05
65.27
62.07
57.93
64.6
64.29
66.27
GDPPC
302.492
347.407
345.082
423.188
468.586
584.493
659.655
768.333
901.194
1,158.24
CPI
0.089
0.537
11.269
75.572
162.389
205.45
236.759
249.104
306.646
386.087
CPI-Inflation
n/a
20
240.541
26.877
-2.358
5.433
5.3
-2.5
10.74
12.5
1,255.61
1,203.87
1,353.86
1,557.24
1,952.03
2,606.52
339.461
460.574
525.261
657.7
839.612
1,106.71
1,322.89
1,649.28
2,142.72
2,799.90
n/a
n/a
n/a
1,406.44
1,579.36
1,747.99
1,919.41
2,126.03
2,203.05
2,412.94
920.824
905.924
938.49
999.933
1,004.79
865.268
867.562
976.706
1,130.41
1,360.61
4.101
201.978
481.873
949.668
1,254.42
1,790.41
n/a
n/a
4.186
34.359
71.295
92.381
100.637
105.082
129.452
186.516
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
69.85
92.201
127.647
179.368
238.294
0.038
0.061
0.19
1.31
16.752
45.748
85.444
167.09
266.49
366.246
884.782
64.374
25.97
21.557
12.335
14.449
SecSchEnr
5.45778
11.1803
19.20214
19.17172
26.26794
105.45797
101.48477
94.31026
86.31654
90.69453
101.04401
101.9511
IntPmt
1.352102
1.389994
0.694799
0.849269
1.103407
0.717246
0.569031
0.415575
0.395254
0.152842
Polity
3
3
-7
-7
-4
-4
-4
-4
-1
-1
0.101132
0.775496
1.215496
1.895954
1.014506
0.542141
1.157527
0.850422
0.798134
1.280566
0.872817
0.836905
0.648254
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
1.844783
0.923448
0.559946
1.132896
0.676123
0.412098
0.31687
3.265462
4.549027
3.859597
2.53579
5.022913
3.090759
3.036768
1.732606
1.00239
0.394853
-5
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-9
-9
-9
-9
6
1
1
5
5
7
n/a
n/a
-34.571
66.253
5.28
9.208
-0.307
4.119
8.819
19.891
35.4968
60.75352
69.21064
77.09219
77.206
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
27.226
10.184
4.33
12.478
10.795
13.997
20.019
47.028
96.008
128.105
35.21
20.633
26.654
15.851
16.56
39.95262
46.04035
43.27709
16.23158
19.59077
21.29864
GDP.
64

Country
Albania
Albania
Albania
Albania
Albania
Albania
Albania
Albania
Albania
Albania
Algeria
Algeria
Algeria
Algeria
Algeria
Algeria
Algeria
Algeria
Algeria
Algeria
Angola
Angola
Angola
Angola
Angola
Angola
Angola
Angola
Angola
Angola
Armenia
Armenia
Armenia
Armenia
Armenia
Armenia
Armenia
Armenia
Armenia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
0.17
0.16
0.1
0.85
0.86
0.2
0.42
0.57
0.85
3.5
2.82
7.56
7.07
6.23
6.79
8.23
5.41
4.26
2.73
63.6
48.37
46.62
47.31
63.25
58
54.31
50.51
42.53
55.9
0.87
0.95
1.06
6.34
24.29
17.5
18.03
14.97
4.74
14.25
15.06
15.96
16.8
17.35
18.64
13.85
3.15
0.03
GDPPC
2,093.00
2,389.82
2,516.24
2,630.11
2,155.22
3,006.83
3,456.95
4,453.30
5,352.51
6,901.01
2,771.71
3,414.17
3,503.56
3,802.31
3,766.43
4,023.54
4,392.42
4,894.62
6,059.89
6,759.61
1,724.83
2,016.49
2,037.72
2,149.43
1,549.55
2,102.24
2,194.64
2,599.98
3,328.61
5,614.74
CPIInflation
CPI
100
899.281
1,296.31
1,981.12
2,173.16
2,341.06
2,526.72
44.463
58.362
75.763
134.3
250.474
486.334
542.113
574.77
619.477
706.933
84.919
89.674
94.697
100
31,833.84
232,048,153
5,834,898,764
95,474,453,290
261,995,833,302
371,871,687,882
30.941
17.405
-1.029
1.681
2.038
2.162
6.632
10.662
3.168
47.373
16.1
15.1
1.212
-1.5
1.66
4.863
1.833
1.833
1.833
1.833
1,837.87
1,650.83
329.001
105.59
18.53
13.17
1,036.91
1,354.41
1,730.52
2,523.12
3,903.50
5,806.62
4.337
120.141
147.481
155.275
171.692
203.221
10,896.20
5.809
2.048
1.959
-0.182
5.307
2,325.82
1,706.71
2,219.33
2,774.00
4,455.83
8,724.71
2.863
106.677
98.499
105.436
127.271
195.546
1,350.00
6.677
-0.467
3.342
5.549
15.4
SecSch
Enr
92.646
83.234
88.238
89.099
74.983
72.543
84.645
33.207
42.703
53.451
62.016
59.830
60.156
74.890
83.380
16.621
13.502
12.543
10.915
12.958
18.124
25.538
90.326
91.582
84.716
87.857
88.393
94.526
88.768
86.762
73.262
78.452
80.088
84.260
IntPmt
Polity
1.744555
2.829932
5.80771
3.355795
1.619275
1.177701
0.725596
-9
-9
-9
1
5
0
5
7
9
9
-9
-9
-9
-2
-7
-3
-3
-3
2
2
-7
-7
-7
-7
-1
-2
-3
-2
-2
-2
0.127791
0.601219
1.039506
1.190415
0.690807
0.70392
7
-6
5
5
5
5
0.316065
0.612547
0.406849
0.303959
0.296941
-3
-6
-7
-7
-7
-7
0.249903
0.250144
0.24775
0.51545
0.348443
0.519269
4.095137
2.90433
2.504293
3.376911
3.703434
4.753603
3.905075
2.222223
0.947324
0.112618
GDP.
65

Country
Belarus
Belarus
Belarus
Belarus
Belarus
Belarus
Belarus
Belarus
Belarus
Belarus
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herz.
Bosnia and Herz.
Bosnia and Herz.
Bosnia and Herz.
Bosnia and Herz.
Bosnia and Herz.
Bosnia and Herz.
Bosnia and Herz.
Bosnia and Herz.
Bosnia and Herz.
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
Pop
BPL
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.02
2
0.63
0.3
0.18
1.99
4.97
3.85
4.03
9.87
19.15
26.27
22.81
20.47
15.61
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.16
0.14
0.13
0.16
17.1
20.56
16.68
15.49
15.6
11.43
14.85
13.22
9.23
6.01
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.19
0.29
1.02
1.32
0
CPIInflation
GDPPC
CPI
4,118.02
3,554.52
4,691.48
5,867.53
8,562.36
12,554.94
1,957.02
1,936.45
1,935.82
2,266.99
2,556.23
2,852.97
3,044.06
3,221.15
3,664.31
4,350.95
86,095.90
8,496,625.90
137,129,777.10
560,425,013.30
867,928,075.35
1,175,038,273.14
0.001
0.362
54.546
91.167
127.07
167.58
192.568
205.896
234.89
308.048
1,996.63
39.299
251.196
34.792
7.94
13.3
25.127
2,177.30
10.662
18.01
9.308
7.949
3.133
2.446
4.908
11.848
SecSch
Enr
97.393
97.410
99.788
97.590
90.714
94.397
84.940
88.678
95.494
77.223
86.570
81.022
IntPmt
0.0730048
0.6593752
0.8417817
0.6165247
0.5326382
0.5700745
3.718517
6.3097462
2.483012
3.1132073
2.5187051
2.5277865
1.603033
1.4993796
1.9015261
1.1115992
Pol
ity
7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
0
4,244.85
4,918.88
6,022.72
7,796.34
3,822.61
4,177.17
5,107.75
5,338.05
5,804.69
6,632.18
6,864.37
7,563.49
8,603.36
10,524.65
4,360.41
5,557.31
6,804.07
7,174.14
5,782.74
5,509.14
5,881.87
7,375.45
9,940.82
13,187.39
100
107.211
113.055
128.764
1.714
29.221
832.597
3,208,468.24
6,675,514,294.74
91,000,433,589.3
106,042,484,824
136,162,685,395
169,248,856,038
193,109,251,856
0.007
0.847
10.263
72.42
87.68
103.43
131.22
n/a
-0.4
4.3
3.809
95.623
215.263
363.412
1,620.97
2,477.15
9.564
8.94
12.53
5.69
5.902
64.325
63.8
310.8
6.956
3.812
7.393
7.188
78.378
99.205
110.032
105.832
101.340
90.314
92.145
100.967
99.073
93.171
93.057
92.154
95.526
89.291
89.172
2.6894599
1.1596129
1.3489084
1.6034221
4.1351743
4.7441768
2.5928025
0.5025434
0.9466275
1.2629833
3.1222729
3.0709264
1.5500052
1.002504
0.2169044
1.1768697
1.4792215
2.6707772
2.2906818
6.7122277
3.6166495
2.392393
2.1139058
3.2682927
GDP.
66
-4
-3
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
-7
-7
-7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9

*LOWER MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRIES
Country
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Cape Verde
Cape Verde
Cape Verde
Cape Verde
Cape Verde
Cape Verde
Cape Verde
Cape Verde
Cape Verde
China
China
China
China
China
China
China
China
China
China
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
42.99
53.39
27.63
45.67
53.78
51.46
42.98
32.81
27.51
9.31
52.9
47.4
45.74
36.55
41.48
31.78
23.06
21.02
18.8
10.55
81.68
68.015
47.6914
54.8078
46.837
31.2055
33.404
25.366
14.398
13.06
15.86
13.94
12.85
8.27
12.11
13.79
17.15
15.6
13.89
11.32
61.91
53.93
42.44
66.32
77.6
77.85
71.3
72.51
54.1
53.37
GDPPC
1,278.67
1,666.23
1,879.74
1,627.49
1,455.95
1,502.93
1,665.26
1,816.98
1,953.66
2,137.09
661.108
814.501
947.807
1,098.07
1,228.80
1,507.16
1,913.42
2,284.94
2,602.59
3,438.44
285.018
435.958
621.596
796.73
1,183.83
1,680.49
2,164.69
2,882.00
4,102.50
6,186.67
2,672.71
3,040.15
3,659.17
4,305.37
4,964.41
5,657.39
5,649.83
6,180.94
7,339.52
9,081.69
1,516.68
1,700.84
1,803.43
2,658.17
2,737.47
2,810.98
2,705.74
3,078.93
3,566.12
3,922.88
CPI
48.901
73.433
98.237
95.686
92.277
150.066
167.616
182
190.1
212.1
24.408
38.421
46.896
56.501
74.304
89.078
101.408
108.018
107.084
124.951
CPIInflation
4.55
16.59
18.89
-0.73
-4.06
4.57
2.15
4.339
3.465
5.313
20.67
9.677
3.75
11.111
4.373
9.106
-1.592
2.967
1.76
6.672
37.679
53.58
72.373
107.001
105.332
105.525
113.422
126.531
3.124
5.346
9.82
21.004
40.87
72.811
109.23
136.81
161.164
191.627
65.025
72.034
79.914
62.339
65.089
105.615
124
126.417
140.548
166.317
8.902
4.296
23.919
7.001
-0.911
-0.588
1.367
2.533
26.325
18.28
24.028
32.355
22.608
21.639
9.23
6.991
4.855
7.675
0.782
3.488
3.537
1.493
0
5.501
3.782
-2.856
3.053
11.391
SecSchEnr
17.297
19.849
23.389
24.837
26.091
27.814
38.018
7.910
10.894
14.511
20.253
69.486
70.710
86.587
46.754
36.327
43.466
38.457
46.088
55.751
61.398
64.449
78.491
41.989
45.157
51.340
60.927
67.602
72.884
73.552
82.550
90.519
67.431
65.061
68.181
47.585
46.983
38.635
IntPmt
2.4588058
2.794717
2.0769488
2.3165181
1.4720661
2.856586
2.6198861
1.5238336
1.5193497
0.5103334
1.5539083
0.5912655
0.5891171
0.585207
0.6755824
1.1069065
0.7091378
0.4413816
0.2779458
0.3853426
0.6717111
0.9073524
0.7830122
0.6514527
0.6643826
0.442652
0.2875038
0.2042001
2.0734338
2.5526627
4.1070219
4.4532709
2.4138409
2.1405429
3.1550629
2.3299907
2.0114831
1.2924413
6.6059488
5.6447633
5.8641817
7.0018796
3.3079378
13.740544
1.2777842
0.4470307
0.8587506
0.7992848
Polity
-8
-8
-8
-8
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-3
-2
8
8
8
10
10
10
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
8
8
8
8
9
7
7
7
7
7
-8
-8
-8
-8
5
5
-6
-4
-4
-4
GDP.
67

Data Series* (Lower Middle Income Countries), continued
Country
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Djibouti
Djibouti
Djibouti
Djibouti
Djibouti
Djibouti
Djibouti
Djibouti
Djibouti
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
Pop
BPL
21.39
16.3
10.78
9.39
7.9
7.08
4.19
4.18
2.37
2.42
6.32
3.84
4.56
0
3.91
4.66
11.75
18.84
18.55
13.78
16.64
18.82
15.74
14.94
5.34
5.87
4.41
5.3
4.98
3.3
11.72
12.69
12.82
14.58
15.5
15.27
14.68
11.89
9.78
6.45
12
9.05
7.23
4.46
3.56
2.46
1.81
1.81
1.99
1.69
7,354.79
8,739.05
10,770.55
CPI
2.179
5.143
7.665
13.445
21.487
35.95
49.459
66.359
94.089
129.95
CPIInflation
65.041
17.391
16.417
27.268
9.043
13.889
10.113
9.683
14.075
13.9
1,989.76
1,760.37
1,728.59
1,811.57
2,041.72
2,399.38
2,063.13
2,371.16
2,666.15
2,808.07
3,473.97
4,094.51
5,051.40
5,804.92
6,196.69
8,059.60
2,849.52
3,077.65
3,124.36
3,693.73
4,158.65
4,548.68
4,514.22
5,174.28
6,371.40
7,586.28
1,406.27
1,872.29
2,206.94
2,562.66
2,751.32
3,131.05
3,709.84
4,165.00
4,762.12
5,901.30
83.663
95.064
98.763
103.962
112.878
137.985
5.708
8.99
15.066
56.841
66.298
86.042
105.66
132.881
262.191
313.281
0.967
2.295
4.816
20.617
64.961
125.527
378.073
966.985
1,078.10
1,247.04
10.157
16.391
29.231
45.524
69.323
87.529
98.609
106.213
129.186
180.74
5.408
2.631
-0.577
1.384
3.483
9.249
7.365
38.636
22.672
79.919
2.788
3.949
5.101
10.512
7.437
4.517
17.3
25.1
32.5
49.5
32
25.527
60.7
9.4
3.1
8.831
9.6
19.58
25.11
21.38
14.953
8.156
2.877
2.749
4.68
20.178
GDPPC
SecSch
Enr
45.551
41.310
40.900
43.025
48.111
49.235
62.209
66.444
80.590
90.649
9.299
10.419
11.484
10.722
10.387
12.016
13.947
16.545
22.643
29.244
40.781
52.284
56.265
67.534
70.059
77.052
53.353
54.440
57.786
54.985
51.855
56.763
59.455
63.939
47.421
52.450
58.573
68.643
65.492
80.272
84.578
IntPmt
6.0554159
6.107327
3.4053727
2.8993461
2.2330027
1.8564011
1.4039562
1.7253447
1.4278736
1.5976516
Polity
0.4228434
0.557534
0.4184442
0.4094508
0.4861804
0.7293934
3.3609172
1.6341312
2.6254101
1.2724805
1.1901307
1.1395062
0.9858542
1.0492316
0.7714079
1.2532569
4.4181493
8.5226035
4.6195036
5.1776611
2.7893961
3.2817291
6.9125711
4.3896836
2.7142658
1.9013617
4.498642
5.1028668
1.9386497
3.1464808
2.6772851
1.7806835
0.9968173
0.905503
0.7818014
0.5687002
GDP.
68
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-8
-8
-8
-8
-7
-6
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
9
8
8
9
9
9
9
6
6
5
-6
-6
-6
-6
-6
-6
-6
-6
-3
-3

Country
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
14.02
15.09
15.46
15.24
15
14.96
13.02
13.92
13.95
5.44
1.45
1.7
1.98
2.24
2.4
4.71
9.43
15.73
14.09
46.73
50.98
52.54
37.23
29.31
21.26
15.09
16.92
12.13
13.17
3.06
6.77
4.6
10.27
6.91
8.09
8.7
7.83
8.24
7.94
13.36
13.78
43.65
43.5
30.8
16
14.44
17.19
22.19
21.36
GDPPC
2,163.35
2,339.59
2,542.11
2,915.90
3,701.16
4,419.40
5,058.15
5,593.27
6,375.42
7,410.26
10,939.04
12,978.31
14,810.64
18,183.89
19,707.97
21,887.97
24,640.52
27,352.34
30,413.04
33,958.66
2,422.74
2,429.21
2,514.71
2,898.95
3,250.84
3,542.49
3,859.76
3,933.05
4,181.47
4,879.65
2,280.57
2,234.41
2,421.23
2,222.40
2,991.27
3,754.79
4,195.75
4,726.62
5,213.62
6,423.66
1,730.51
1,842.14
2,030.66
2,267.56
2,638.42
2,765.08
2,839.70
3,153.65
3,559.16
4,256.96
CPI
6.801
9.719
19.994
34.839
53.223
66.976
70.418
76.563
86.232
100.031
49.143
62.856
69.302
76.358
81.866
86.643
88.837
93.855
100.001
106.822
9.775
10.998
18.68
40.294
56.489
75.894
91.677
115.8
145.36
182.95
1.304
2.216
3.423
16.71
35.938
47.128
55.86
63.679
76.36
96.479
10.582
12.867
14.244
23.101
33.76
69.146
100
129.5
162.7
206.7
CPIInflation
11.68
9.798
19.599
19.333
15.98
7.364
-1.019
2.791
4.261
5.483
13.892
6.69
3.115
3.212
2.07
2.086
0.562
1.938
1.9
3.159
8.8
7.2
9.3
59.8
11.6
10.854
4.916
6.326
8.567
9.4
29.011
28.085
34.562
75.3
6.8
4.485
8.622
6.089
8.279
6.37
9.151
3.659
2.923
36.421
13.047
25.312
10.888
8.097
7.748
10.831
SecSchEnr
36.110
43.833
52.511
57.627
62.011
61.699
109.403
79.836
78.661
78.961
80.662
81.621
88.998
19.025
18.764
24.840
25.918
33.349
44.529
51.140
56.389
66.376
78.928
88.367
92.601
93.610
92.025
33.858
32.486
64.498
IntPmt
1.6504854
2.8465755
2.3282973
1.789586
1.7888359
1.3173562
1.4013316
1.9194611
2.6967086
2.4021919
0.3073922
0.3931472
1.5898694
1.2671105
0.4667952
1.9952708
0.8416124
1.199078
2.4446353
1.5272994
1.0607172
0.9948232
0.9948696
1.00106
2.0562226
1.9554299
8.3324612
12.143538
22.964083
43.727679
11.090385
4.8625116
5.7027469
4.5326282
1.3234252
0.4694411
5.1458473
3.5471722
3.221655
6.354486
4.9920733
4.9217918
3.4444711
1.3624699
1.1308161
0.6688516
Polity
0
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
4
5
5
5
7
6
-5
-6
3
3
3
8
8
8
8
8
-7
-7
-7
-7
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
6
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
GDP.
69

Country
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jordan
Jordan
Jordan
Jordan
Jordan
Jordan
Jordan
Jordan
Jordan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
71.29
62.87
67.345
53.5784
53.4654
42.6325
46.395
28.6224
21.2332
22.64
3.95
2.36
4.09
3.85
1.7
1.7
1.26
1.77
1.45
0.92
5.6
4.94
3.97
0.18
3.82
1.74
1.26
0.36
0.24
0.13
0
0
0
2.78
2.77
1.93
1.61
1.16
0.38
0.07
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.55
4.21
4.98
2.18
5.15
1.15
GDPPC
836.93
1,022.17
1,184.34
1,539.50
1,928.71
2,451.59
2,243.90
2,675.61
3,207.44
3,985.23
3,296.07
4,371.09
3,970.24
4,491.48
5,022.84
5,703.98
6,417.75
7,635.13
9,144.88
11,200.80
3,419.74
4,079.51
4,893.08
5,607.13
6,350.63
6,641.66
6,666.17
7,129.19
8,129.64
9,016.07
2,425.80
2,703.44
2,744.46
2,321.89
2,652.72
2,920.95
3,104.90
3,556.61
4,289.12
5,463.26
CPI
11.754
10.527
13.103
16.139
20.534
25.782
51.485
69.617
91.228
113.86
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.136
15.365
33.045
55.345
80.85
118.415
197.045
3.158
5.171
7.638
12.612
41.458
76.455
96.122
118.66
172.893
249.338
41.696
46.023
39.292
61.42
69.359
77.64
84.176
86.162
95.917
118.118
CPIInflation
7.323
9.062
9.249
9.933
10.179
5.082
2.005
9.875
17.114
11.061
n/a
n/a
n/a
14.662
26.434
17.386
17.935
17.47
10.169
17.8
4.787
31.158
8.364
29.809
30.124
15.8
6.782
7.23
12.558
16.821
17.14
6.829
-15.462
9.453
1.959
2.537
2.824
0.507
4.171
9.071
4,130.95
3,861.29
4,289.43
6,245.88
8,657.79
11,281.31
3.611
71.115
95.249
118.769
146.692
206.631
2,165.00
28.638
18.095
6.686
7.868
9.598
SecSch
Enr
29.044
35.248
48.658
47.951
45.176
52.588
56.405
60.640
70.184
52.066
59.934
79.100
78.627
76.376
81.161
66.720
60.876
61.421
66.314
87.914
86.671
92.834
95.774
77.636
79.393
78.998
79.868
83.454
85.921
85.014
85.460
86.068
91.084
93.310
99.692
95.049
92.894
92.657
95.273
91.709
IntPmt
1.9089594
3.1223217
4.0911977
3.6417281
3.2570857
3.0043732
4.6041972
2.310048
1.2269741
0.9491291
0.2259344
0.2446511
0.1789394
0.3708694
2.3866289
1.2378519
0.6086052
0.346505
0.5832254
0.1835559
5.4102939
13.492096
9.6047367
6.260774
4.2354485
3.3269902
2.2790766
3.7457984
4.0015489
5.1629913
2.6558482
3.961436
5.5422007
9.9005062
4.9041369
5.8130516
3.140965
2.0628089
1.5318388
0.993053
0.039604
0.6277799
1.7430972
3.0584283
3.364868
3.8544197
* PopBPL: Percentage of Population Living Below the Poverty Line, CPI: Consumer Price Index, GDPPC: GDP Per
Capita, SecSchEnr: Secondary School Enrollment Ratio, IntPmt: Interest Payment as fraction of GDP.
70
Polity
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
6
6
8
8
-4
-6
-6
-6
-6
-6
3
3
-6
-6
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
-10
-9
-9
-4
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-3
-3
-4
-4
-6
-6
-6

Country
Lesotho
Lesotho
Lesotho
Lesotho
Lesotho
Lesotho
Lesotho
Lesotho
Lesotho
Lesotho
Macedonia, FYR
Macedonia, FYR
Macedonia, FYR
Macedonia, FYR
Macedonia, FYR
Macedonia, FYR
Macedonia, FYR
Macedonia, FYR
Macedonia, FYR
Macedonia, FYR
Moldova, Rep.
Moldova, Rep.
Moldova, Rep.
Moldova, Rep.
Moldova, Rep.
Moldova, Rep.
Moldova, Rep.
Moldova, Rep.
Moldova, Rep.
Moldova, Rep.
Morocco
Morocco
Morocco
Morocco
Morocco
Morocco
Morocco
Morocco
Morocco
Morocco
Namibia
Namibia
Namibia
Namibia
Namibia
Namibia
Namibia
Namibia
Namibia
Namibia
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
Pop
BPL
44.1
39.46
44.35
57.66
56.43
46.15
44.24
43.41
38.73
37.64
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.14
0.55
0.3
20.2
17.8
15.27
15.24
20.87
12.72
44.18
17.08
8.14
12.23
10.29
6.91
2.45
4.91
4.6
6.65
6.25
3.29
2.06
45.39
51.63
50.11
43.28
49.14
46.41
47.3
47.15
43.75
23.05
74.551
77.79
86.28
88.04
100.77
CPIInflation
11.268
12.621
11.803
15.848
5.991
8.603
6.255
7.903
5.133
10.541
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
-0.75
3.293
0.806
1.581
4.101
1,794.31
1,241.09
1,411.99
1,762.17
2,358.53
3,002.63
1,189.41
1,439.61
1,631.80
2,036.02
2,114.63
2,465.14
2,590.40
3,003.80
3,585.15
4,402.50
937
2,885.30
5,448.55
7,174.83
10,272.72
14,228.51
36.126
46.654
54.584
62.951
74.96
85.743
89.779
94.161
98.371
108
837
15.1
43.8
4.441
10.037
7.339
13.227
7.54
2.398
7.543
5.949
3.913
0.907
1.429
2.095
4.229
3,074.97
3,375.37
3,642.74
3,870.98
4,400.68
5,532.25
6,697.05
38.525
55.329
72.043
90.264
121.804
134.858
169.814
GDPPC
362.113
446.49
485.351
616.382
702.17
788.749
867.956
959.792
1,093.30
1,282.00
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5,166.92
5,298.23
5,974.78
6,322.00
7,599.82
9,601.56
CPI
6.556
9.627
14.15
21.536
30.831
40.334
50.749
64.292
73.713
95.493
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
9.74
8.447
7.888
12.475
3.477
10.923
SecSch
Enr
18.067
20.964
23.819
24.682
26.583
30.092
30.286
32.630
36.539
40.856
IntPmt
0.384453
0.5592369
0.853107
0.9152284
1.187771
1.4504161
2.1326142
1.8525626
0.76368
0.3746986
76.066
78.274
82.241
83.974
84.367
83.305
0.1736913
0.7416239
1.4611823
1.3919272
1.6056661
1.8625372
6
6
6
9
9
9
0.0520233
2.0449644
4.816731
3.3121312
1.9649821
1.3058603
5.8253753
6.3390945
4.6105404
3.5712372
5.1874547
3.9011343
3.0277038
2.8430405
1.0042051
0.8606779
7
7
7
8
8
8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-7
-7
-6
-6
-6
-6
93.880
84.099
80.323
82.911
83.444
88.063
88.235
25.694
31.153
36.869
37.502
36.509
38.081
36.640
42.005
49.687
Polity
35.836
37.946
52.170
55.561
57.410
63.589
63.129
GDP Per Capita, SecSchEnr: Secondary School Enrollment Ratio, IntPmt: Interest Payment as fraction of
GDP.
71
-7
-7
-7
-7
8
8
2
8
8
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

Country
Nicaragua*
Nicaragua*
Nicaragua*
Nicaragua*
Nicaragua*
Nicaragua*
Nicaragua*
Nicaragua*
Nicaragua*
Nicaragua
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
21.01
29.71
38.6
39.54
32.5
25.23
22.08
18.76
15.81
8.11
4.78
5.59
5.75
5.85
10.99
15.47
14.33
17.09
9.02
5.59
1.04
1.07
0.75
1.29
4.62
9.34
11.64
12.55
8.18
6.2
31.41
34.9
31.51
29.67
28.7
21.99
21.92
21.99
22.62
19.4
31.01
19.96
18.01
15.01
14.7
16.32
16.05
10.33
5.55
GDPPC
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2,554.35
2,961.45
2,222.55
2,288.29
2,451.38
2,959.66
3,161.79
3,447.47
3,451.52
3,403.74
3,972.45
4,791.60
3,336.41
3,335.09
4,163.46
3,242.16
3,594.98
4,580.98
4,894.36
5,376.38
6,474.70
8,603.21
1,471.42
1,529.70
1,540.54
1,872.58
1,928.69
2,232.21
2,351.77
2,590.50
3,060.98
3,661.14
854.126
1,095.37
1,279.62
1,543.29
1,883.17
2,227.17
2,594.95
2,864.08
3,554.62
4,593.20
CPI
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
54.775
72.964
84.584
107.831
156.936
1.639
3.474
7.361
17.495
27.738
39.235
50.35
67.973
83.9
107.5
---11.063
57.862
82.306
96.35
101.334
109.072
122.269
23.5
43.339
48.852
72.9
95.6
119.935
147.482
168.239
202.553
237.05
12.367
17.327
21.129
33.465
45.807
62.175
74.263
101.512
132.2
203.7
CPI-Inflation
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
12.097
4.839
3.873
9.583
13.774
28.442
28.442
28.442
44.064
20.37
8.176
5.404
14.646
9.817
7.5
n/a
111.458
114.534
7,649.73
39.485
11.84
3.726
1.516
1.494
6.65
16.337
50.826
7.047
18.178
7.658
7.1
3.9
2.5
6.7
7.994
18.27
9.482
10.167
19.622
10.32
16.801
3.984
11.289
7.48
14.374
SecSchEnr
34.138
33.646
36.783
43.452
51.666
60.745
67.069
68.018
27.630
31.071
29.684
30.851
36.561
43.245
57.785
67.657
66.602
66.638
58.619
61.814
64.135
67.213
65.764
71.796
83.295
89.903
85.491
89.834
63.884
65.395
65.348
70.718
73.993
75.697
74.303
79.662
83.538
82.716
55.498
59.965
67.653
71.625
75.206
85.453
IntPmt
5.7998782
1.7525787
0.3893829
1.1548141
5.2817342
2.8466406
2.4642341
1.2537871
1.1285975
1.7437989
1.2821627
1.372772
2.9871613
1.6723535
1.2718433
1.3581814
1.7439275
2.1504827
1.9473774
0.9894052
4.1755658
3.2726799
1.2707702
0.969167
3.434886
3.1624043
2.9101293
2.2907625
2.4790507
1.664478
6.2401006
6.4606825
5.5913008
4.0661414
3.895169
2.5301847
2.9735609
3.8840529
3.4635509
2.2913675
2.3344097
2.5480198
2.6285934
2.1343971
1.420058
1.3083253
1.4365702
1.2997346
0.6369449
0.8793055
Polity
-5
-1
-1
6
6
8
8
8
8
9
-8
-8
-8
2
7
7
7
7
8
8
7
7
7
8
1
1
1
9
9
9
-8
-6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
6
GDP.
72

Country
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Swaziland
Swaziland
Swaziland
Swaziland
Swaziland
Swaziland
Swaziland
Swaziland
Swaziland
Swaziland
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Tunisia
Tunisia
Tunisia
Tunisia
Tunisia
Tunisia
Tunisia
Tunisia
Tunisia
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
17.21
17.83
18.57
18.57
9.88
15.94
15.54
15.74
14.22
10.2
89.91
84.91
84.94
83.68
78.59
75.95
66.62
63
62.35
47.1
21.92
21.15
16.97
9.43
5.7
1.89
3.06
0.7
0.4
0.37
9.71
8.65
8.14
5.87
6.21
6.16
2.82
1.86
1.01
0.83
24.69
21.35
15.67
35.66
63.53
41.7
24.82
18.91
11.72
GDPPC
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
4,742.53
5,197.22
6,944.81
8,326.09
1,318.26
1,503.63
1,968.84
2,629.70
2,863.43
3,142.34
3,454.41
3,736.07
4,336.25
4,940.26
1,226.30
1,562.79
1,923.08
2,910.23
3,849.31
5,002.43
4,695.22
5,516.44
7,132.49
8,637.95
2,120.76
2,519.64
2,767.64
3,177.44
3,711.62
4,248.91
5,004.38
5,731.28
7,182.36
8,887.60
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2,139.60
1,511.08
1,601.11
2,674.66
4,050.96
5,930.90
CPI
n/a
n/a
n/a
108.561
722.332
6,824.07
21,117.69
50,397.96
71,954.60
89,311.42
13.711
20.073
30.038
42.684
57.47
76.19
93.961
123.508
143.611
186.591
n/a
n/a
47.3
55.1
62.1
73.2
82.7
85.9
95.2
102.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
58.823
68.784
79.18
86.804
93.045
102.01
115.154
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.078
82.316
143.956
186.205
230.83
292.594
CPIInflation
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
224.845
0.488
112.8
28.39
15.789
9.327
14.41
18.65
16.253
10.985
13.199
5.763
9.098
11.486
7.631
12.904
n/a
n/a
3.728
6.371
4.37
4.721
0.608
1.657
5.778
0.393
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.745
3.19
2.83
1.676
3.75
4.033
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
445.756
20.138
7.805
10.354
8.936
SecSchEnr
IntPmt
Polity
34.370
45.989
59.932
57.065
51.770
74.351
70.351
76.344
34.900
37.529
46.180
47.191
44.413
41.975
46.613
27.857
30.410
29.810
29.061
38.188
55.140
63.917
70.898
74.977
27.068
34.142
38.781
44.030
48.887
61.713
73.761
79.482
85.481
92.136
0.8223058
0.435371
0.631547
1.1997346
0.6940024
0.6070437
0.6762717
3.4037567
2.9475416
2.6565688
2.404354
1.7710343
2.9325631
5.6940043
2.0811566
0.9678869
0.6773333
2.9374498
3.3159363
4.0885156
3.7660364
3.6734596
3.0100401
2.9262331
2.7710105
3.104599
2.1963031
-10
-10
-10
-10
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
2
2
2
3
9
9
9
9
9
4
-8
-8
-5
-5
-3
-3
-3
-4
-4
-4
0.0536273
1.6701016
4.3860771
2.2347248
0.6081533
0.1822631
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
GDP.
73

Country
Ukraine
Ukraine
Ukraine
Ukraine
Ukraine
Ukraine
Ukraine
Ukraine
Ukraine
Ukraine
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
2.95
1.98
1.77
1.24
0.03
1.93
2.03
0.51
0.1
GDPPC
4,502.66
2,969.44
3,022.02
4,003.07
5,583.95
7,287.09
CPIInflation
CPI
300,020.28
5,859,814.88
9,249,005.10
12,273,936.56
16,454,993.66
26,194,956.23
10,155.04
39.623
19.427
-0.513
10.297
22.337
SecSchEnr
94.293
94.915
97.364
95.691
90.645
98.081
99.204
91.529
94.697
IntPmt
Polity
0.0969279
1.0601151
2.2034969
2.0655207
1.6733054
2.0760604
GDP.
74
5
7
7
6
6
7

Country
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Botswana
Botswana
Botswana
Botswana
Botswana
Botswana
Botswana
Botswana
Botswana
Botswana
Chile
Chile
Chile
Chile
Chile
Chile
Chile
Chile
Chile
Chile
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Croatia
Croatia
Croatia
Croatia
Croatia
Croatia
Croatia
Croatia
Croatia
Croatia
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
0.38
0.36
0.38
0.41
0.54
1.57
2.91
9.92
4.5
1.94
35.59
41.38
37.87
25.62
31.23
31.94
23.55
25.68
23.05
11.92
6.27
11.94
10.52
4.37
2.6
0.43
0.86
1.03
0.71
1.24
21.39
16.3
10.78
9.39
7.9
7.08
4.19
4.18
2.37
2.42
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.19
0.06
0.06
GDPPC
4,916.74
5,497.43
5,844.42
5,601.57
7,537.47
8,371.93
9,170.04
7,981.89
10,859.67
14,407.64
2,060.14
2,891.51
3,778.17
5,311.87
5,847.86
6,454.46
8,265.08
10,127.49
12,513.13
14,920.27
3,208.76
3,117.24
3,690.62
4,811.46
6,431.64
8,195.70
9,021.95
10,194.28
12,244.21
14,599.43
CPI-Inflation
131.275
687.981
174.79
1,343.93
12.567
0.054
-1.81
40.953
12.327
7.238
14.6
6.5
8.1
12
12.7
9.6
8.413
10.6
11.285
13.678
11.17
23.599
21.133
27.235
12.572
6.634
2.322
2.867
3.664
7.098
65.041
17.391
16.417
27.268
9.043
13.889
10.113
9.683
14.075
13.9
SecSchEnr
57.3326
66.15618
70.43604
72.33086
7,354.79
8,739.05
10,770.55
CPI
--0.012
41.077
100
105.581
104.701
144.235
178.184
227.658
15.903
20.673
27.336
37.619
55.616
74.157
92.183
116.962
149.373
199.277
8.229
15.149
27.313
47.3
71.438
90.095
102.324
112.995
121.321
143.729
2.179
5.143
7.665
13.445
21.487
35.95
49.459
66.359
94.089
129.95
6,979.36
9,116.85
10,061.43
12,399.90
15,254.19
18,685.90
69.9
72.9
85.3
93.8
101.6
112.8
1,148.21
3.404
3.898
1.846
3.673
2.826
82.65357
80.54232
84.28241
87.62424
92.58827
94.29039
78.25818
84.93886
87.05425
84.91157
85.84361
20.34196
24.95558
31.26124
40.11834
52.2648
73.1519
74.98104
76.87836
63.36649
71.93083
78.19454
77.38018
79.20423
85.83591
90.77296
89.86787
45.55053
41.3104
40.89979
43.02546
48.11059
49.23458
62.20911
66.44447
80.59043
90.64926
IntPmt
4.477929
6.088652
3.828682
2.009476
1.391163
2.309442
3.644121
2.2202
1.677643
0.96689
0.687747
1.379191
2.05639
1.053589
0.739062
1.72303
0.383267
0.299709
0.135191
0.065461
5.711923
13.58852
8.660913
6.013161
2.387546
1.761458
2.228608
2.665334
1.40108
1.22916
6.055416
6.107327
3.405373
2.899346
2.233003
1.856401
1.403956
1.725345
1.427874
1.597652
Polity
-8
8
8
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
-7
-6
-6
8
8
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-3
-5
1
8
9
9
GDP.
75

Data Series* (Upper Middle Income Countries), continued
Country
Czech Republic
Czech Republic
Czech Republic
Czech Republic
Czech Republic
Czech Republic
Czech Republic
Czech Republic
Czech Republic
Czech Republic
Estonia
Estonia
Estonia
Estonia
Estonia
Estonia
Estonia
Estonia
Estonia
Estonia
Gabon
Gabon
Gabon
Gabon
Gabon
Gabon
Gabon
Gabon
Gabon
Gabon
Hungary
Hungary
Hungary
Hungary
Hungary
Hungary
Hungary
Hungary
Hungary
Hungary
Latvia
Latvia
Latvia
Latvia
Latvia
Latvia
Latvia
Latvia
Latvia
Latvia
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
0
0
0
0
0
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.19
0.79
0.21
0.35
0.51
0.46
3.59
3.79
1.03
1.92
3.61
9.81
5.45
2.75
4.84
2.49
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.07
0.13
0.03
0.03
0.02
0
0
0.42
0
0
0.34
GDPPC
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
13,501.41
14,119.60
16,352.63
20,281.02
25,182.35
CPI
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
72.3
87
94.8
100.6
111.8
CPIInflation
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.722
2.353
0.637
2.236
3.614
5,719.63
6,841.46
8,777.42
12,050.22
16,618.43
20,319.87
1,564.04
1,737.08
1,741.02
2,401.52
2,666.86
3,146.26
3,429.46
3,644.51
4,161.19
4,493.94
5,830.82
7,139.18
8,254.16
9,055.43
8,338.80
9,452.27
11,261.08
13,657.92
16,930.86
19,460.01
83.29
114.833
139.915
157.261
172.818
212.975
n/a
14.833
3.884
2.682
3.556
6.978
4,652.86
5,537.50
6,977.68
9,319.32
13,181.39
17,181.42
40.826
71.86
80.87
86.14
102.56
137.83
100.5
106.4
118.6
126.941
140.934
167.325
n/a
n/a
n/a
13.457
26.198
48.788
70.853
87.312
100.577
119.067
SecSchEnr
94.07965
94.13117
92.70197
89.6206
99.02672
82.0452
94.51002
94.47149
91.53072
103.30193
95.55093
92.0401
94.18635
95.53144
99.07052
102.06126
33.61838
37.15692
40.85887
n/a
2.406
0.169
1.588
3.137
6.843
n/a
n/a
n/a
33.4
21.1
19.762
11.235
4.814
3.3
3.502
34.755
13.118
3.006
1.472
7.09
10.396
IntPmt
49.86196
47.91228
53.07932
10
10
10
10
10
8
3.396257
2.578193
2.415245
2.544148
2.296955
5.008007
6.276515
3.801248
0.742098
1.800689
85.62178
85.83468
87.73511
86.98627
92.62096
93.1642
99.35377
96.60742
97.21944
100.07492
103.26202
102.97448
95.99913
88.19115
88.04438
88.64133
93.32631
98.25541
99.8547
Polity
6
6
7
9
9
9
-9
-9
-9
-6
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-7
-7
-7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.146601
1.070631
2.447206
1.713516
3.375004
5.265368
GDP.
76
8
8
8
8
8
8

Country
Lithuania
Lithuania
Lithuania
Lithuania
Lithuania
Lithuania
Lithuania
Lithuania
Lithuania
Lithuania
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Panama
Panama
Panama
Panama
Panama
Panama
Panama
Panama
Panama
Panama
Poland
Poland
Poland
Poland
Poland
Poland
Poland
Poland
Poland
Poland
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
PopBPL
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.04
2.18
0
0.32
0.42
0.43
3.8
3.22
2.39
1.91
1.62
1.31
1.93
1.13
0.54
n/a
11.3
12.79
10.81
5.4
3.91
6.98
6.42
3.73
1.07
1.15
6.81
10.01
13.07
17.28
13.7
13.67
7.98
12.35
11.17
7.45
0.13
0.13
0.1
1.39
4.19
1.4
0.09
0.11
0.1
GDPPC
7,946.30
10,093.00
14,218.14
19,138.18
2,682.32
3,456.25
3,636.75
4,838.69
6,361.59
8,244.14
8,464.02
9,505.86
11,379.96
14,032.76
5,773.14
6,140.05
6,303.74
7,356.87
8,343.94
8,726.60
10,185.95
10,875.10
12,482.54
14,506.46
3,208.38
3,555.07
3,857.77
3,885.25
4,963.64
5,615.31
6,623.45
6,823.80
8,354.02
11,528.48
4,104.85
4,555.35
5,327.36
5,843.98
6,213.88
7,853.74
9,628.52
11,063.99
13,571.35
17,592.49
CPI
CPI-Inflation
94.4
97.05
101.46
124.48
44.893
49.682
51.118
57.817
65.45
72.205
80.189
83.435
89.05
98.087
0.109
0.623
5.44
12.83
18.427
38.282
59.016
70.962
80.2
92.241
91.6
98.921
100.642
102.295
105.8
110.6
113.3
116.1
121.557
141.062
n/a
0.77
3.62
13.654
43.538
81.344
109.801
124.411
133.017
144.904
n/a
-0.899
3.016
8.46
8.467
1.716
0.392
7.007
3.467
3.262
2.466
1.603
3.255
4.388
27.071
59.172
159.172
29.929
8.009
27.705
12.319
5.7
3.333
6.528
3.269
1.457
0.436
0.496
0.954
2.313
1.523
1.753
3.356
6.766
n/a
n/a
54.701
86.538
37.683
18.5
9.801
0.8
0.7
3.3
SecSchEnr
95.36314
84.46341
87.6686
95.5809
102.06372
100.54269
98.32318
49.09574
52.67252
58.25084
56.04358
55.95092
66.39524
66.9078
70.29899
69.05814
47.83256
55.75869
56.98368
54.81069
54.11014
61.27137
70.02147
76.80928
82.30405
86.82145
60.60051
59.29282
60.00588
61.3962
64.23457
67.11079
66.88143
70.11607
70.07108
71.44464
83.45483
81.95111
85.13254
87.89146
94.46546
99.7174
103.83635
99.63402
97.72794
IntPmt
0.053896
0.506167
2.006432
2.55606
1.275832
2.282811
2.889806
4.640729
5.500249
2.766195
2.127054
2.167172
2.613211
2.072532
1.659625
1.173825
4.069904
6.82682
6.238519
2.873498
2.049077
3.623951
2.561518
1.614857
1.267443
0.876504
7.646037
6.84586
4.4157
4.424547
1.952007
4.777524
3.780942
4.248935
4.318582
3.220132
Polity
10
10
10
10
10
10
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
6
-3
-3
-3
0
0
4
6
8
8
8
-6
-6
-8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
-8
-7
-6
5
8
9
9
10
10
10
GDP.
77

Country
Romania
Romania
Romania
Romania
Romania
Romania
Romania
Romania
Romania
Romania
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Slovak Republic
Slovak Republic
Slovak Republic
Slovak Republic
Slovak Republic
Slovak Republic
Slovak Republic
Slovak Republic
Slovak Republic
Slovak Republic
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
St. Lucia
St. Lucia
St. Lucia
St. Lucia
St. Lucia
St. Lucia
St. Lucia
St. Lucia
St. Lucia
St. Lucia
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
Pop
BPL
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.26
2.68
1.95
2.71
2.86
0.75
0.71
0.54
0.51
0.73
1.5
2.81
2.28
0.32
0.16
0
0
0
0
0
0.26
0.04
0
0
34.69
35.82
30.86
22.06
24.3
22.95
25.11
24.96
20.55
13.56
23.95
24.43
25.78
26.76
23.17
20.93
19.71
20.39
17.82
15.79
GDPPC
3,936.53
5,192.07
5,712.43
5,577.77
4,927.07
6,165.48
5,777.79
7,248.95
9,403.21
12,640.41
CPI
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.122
4.656
15.094
82.583
177.022
240.059
286.181
7,343.79
6,307.79
6,847.35
8,830.07
11,881.88
16,040.35
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
7,452.67
9,570.88
10,858.56
12,692.57
16,031.05
21,995.00
4,416.23
4,816.58
4,913.58
5,458.49
5,431.38
6,026.36
6,325.40
7,187.79
8,653.71
10,401.35
2,479.68
3,074.96
4,074.42
6,017.44
6,922.81
7,384.40
7,986.90
7,745.17
9,736.92
12,002.48
10.149
90.09
251.706
413.008
573.008
791.858
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
43.916
55.61
71.44
85.24
102
111.87
13.3
19
30.5
45.4
63.4
81.3
96.4
121.2
130.3
165.319
47.58
49.22
54.581
61.014
67.398
72.953
78.587
85.916
94.006
104.514
CPIInflation
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
295.481
56.9
54.81
17.58
8.834
6.4
839.9
21.8
36.5
15.1
10.9
13.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.462
14.176
3.121
3.669
3.507
13.675
13.095
14.662
14.937
9.689
9.274
2.444
12.43
3.577
10.066
9.463
1.534
5.066
6.012
0.728
-2.285
1.999
-0.676
5.18
3.405
SecSch
Enr
101.56568
81.35924
76.52464
81.25241
83.91038
84.24103
93.18003
95.72107
97.07047
94.77476
88.30719
92.30461
83.13237
85.99913
IntPmt
Polity
0.037737
0.790982
1.434172
1.590733
1.475861
1.619027
1.85472
-8
-8
-8
5
5
8
8
8
9
9
0.176199
1.075597
2.747768
2.115003
1.267906
1.400336
3
3
3
6
6
4
87.89008
91.19271
83.7918
86.41544
91.16334
89.33977
65.98008
88.32965
87.45332
92.38011
92.54634
27.09806
31.22376
43.24474
49.92321
67.80593
70.60611
72.94219
78.10765
92.98572
1.043199
1.112289
0.93903
0.494941
0.664082
0.351048
0.287223
0.667795
0.850419
1.122876
1.178246
1.221362
1.626335
2.231064
2.789099
GDP.
78
7
7
9
9
9
10
4
4
4
5
8
9
9
9
9
9

Country
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
Turkey
Turkey
Turkey
Turkey
Turkey
Turkey
Turkey
Turkey
Turkey
Uruguay
Uruguay
Uruguay
Uruguay
Uruguay
Uruguay
Uruguay
Uruguay
Uruguay
Uruguay
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Year
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
Pop
BPL
0
0
1.42
4.36
4.16
7.6
3.71
1.66
0.51
0.38
4.5
2.74
1.32
1.51
2.1
1.53
1.58
2
2.72
0
0.19
0
0
0.76
0.96
0.52
0.19
0.09
0.26
6.23
8.08
8.72
3.08
2.62
15.2
14.76
18.62
10.84
5.14
GDPPC
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
11,918.33
15,554.32
20,282.08
3,078.43
3,657.54
4,549.75
5,558.24
6,580.52
7,181.25
7,218.77
7,803.01
11,116.96
13,107.55
3,799.41
3,698.99
4,695.63
5,295.71
6,466.16
7,501.17
8,149.84
7,580.57
9,694.79
12,692.18
5,831.95
5,902.36
6,628.22
7,015.22
8,271.58
8,338.70
8,223.30
8,119.58
9,992.03
12,860.15
CPI
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
73.321
83.795
94.697
107.638
125.448
168.554
n/a
n/a
0.035
0.153
0.742
5.08
28.95
87.94
122.65
160.44
0.027
0.082
0.403
2.949
13.001
31.545
41.11
56.34
70.06
88.31
n/a
106.456
183.666
614.828
1,550.11
8,429.32
18,086.42
30,225.87
52,355.17
98,161.99
CPIInflation
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
16.799
4.348
3.424
4.3
7.163
14.453
n/a
n/a
55.027
60.425
71.076
80.142
68.805
29.705
7.72
10.064
29.361
66.125
57.285
128.954
52.882
24.328
4.181
25.956
4.896
9.2
n/a
n/a
40.275
36.478
45.941
103.243
20.028
31.215
14.358
30.9
SecSch
Enr
68.8167
76.41202
83.001
85.17226
78.92922
77.8651
76.10099
77.09106
89.94062
34.65248
36.98287
41.98563
46.68592
53.07075
69.03472
86.82721
82.01812
85.47801
64.68487
70.73135
73.97738
81.25183
81.90276
85.12613
92.16417
106.22462
101.4214
87.86821
50.7952
54.23381
57.06052
55.48198
56.96501
56.89162
67.81086
74.38677
81.64491
IntPmt
2.136981
3.125243
2.913285
2.302665
2.265766
2.482527
2.348884
2.480853
1.78449
1.862968
1.782457
7.817794
5.065626
4.777463
1.779262
1.813014
2.03485
3.502739
3.728676
1.639006
4.172336
5.323555
6.282381
7.009875
3.833215
3.231706
2.568902
2.509127
2.045108
1.06876
Pol
ity
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
-5
7
7
9
8
8
7
7
7
7
-7
-7
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
8
8
7
6
6
5
GDP.
79

Talukdar Shahidur Thesis

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Talukdar Shahidur Thesis

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

THE EFFECT OF INFLATION ON POVERTY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES:

A PANEL DATA ANALYSIS

Dr. Masha Rahnama

Dr. Victor Valcarcel

Dean of the Graduate School

Copyright 2010, Shahidur Rashid Talukdar

Texas Tech University, Shahidur Rashid Talukdar, August 2012

Texas Tech University, Shahidur Rashid Talukdar, August 2012

Texas Tech University, Shahidur Rashid Talukdar, August 2012

2. Countries according to Level of Income

4. Results from the Panel Least Squared Model

5. Results from the Country Fixed Effects Model (CFE)

6. Results from the Period Fixed Effects Model (PFE)

7. Results from the Country & Period Fixed Effects Model

8. Results from the Dynamic Panel Model

9. Results from the Dynamic Panel Model with CFE

10.Results from the Dynamic Panel Model with PFE

11.Results from the Dynamic Panel Model with CFE+PFE

Texas Tech University, Shahidur Rashid Talukdar, August 2012

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................................ 3

LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 4

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF POVERTY .......................................... 4

THE STATUS OF POVERTY IN THE WORLD................................................... 5

POVERTY AND INFLATION .............................................................................. 6

EFFECT OF INFLATION ON POVERTY: POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE ................ 8

INFLATION INEQUALITY .................................................................................. 9

SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................... 10

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI) DATA ........................................................... 4

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP) PER CAPITA DATA ............................. 4

EXTERNAL DEBT DATA ................................................................................... 4

SECONDARY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT RATIO ................................................ 4

POLITY SCORE ................................................................................................. 5

EMPIRICAL MODELS .................................................................................................... 1

PANEL LEAST SQUARED MODEL ................................................................. 21

All Countries .............................................................................................. 21

Low Income Countries ............................................................................... 24

Lower Middle Income Countries ............................................................... 26

Texas Tech University, Shahidur Rashid Talukdar, August 2012

Upper Middle Income Countries ................................................................ 27

TESTING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FIXED EFFECTS ............................. 28

PANEL LEAST SQUARED MODEL WITH COUNTRY FIXED EFFECTS ........ 29

CFE - All Countries.................................................................................... 29

CFEM - Low Income Countries.................................................................. 29

PERIOD FIXED EFFECTS MODEL ................................................................. 31

COUNTRY AND PERIOD FIXED EFFECTS MODEL....................................... 32

DYNAMIC PANEL MODELS ............................................................................ 32

Dynamic Panel Data Analysis (All Countries) ............................................ 35

Dynamic Panel Data Analysis (Low Income Countries) ............................ 35

Dynamic Panel Data Analysis (Lower Middle Income Countries)............... 37

Dynamic Panel Data Analysis (Upper Middle Income Countries)............... 38

Dynamic Panel Data Analysis with Country Fixed Effects.......................... 39

Dynamic Panel Data Analysis with Period Fixed Effects ............................ 39

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................ 43

Texas Tech University, Shahidur Rashid Talukdar, August 2012

on peoples well-being. Although it is generally accepted that extremely high inflation

Texas Tech University, Shahidur Rashid Talukdar, August 2012

Texas Tech University, Shahidur Rashid Talukdar, August 2012

How does the CPI inflation correlate with poverty?

Is the relationship between inflation and poverty similar in countries with

To answer these questions, I employ multivariate regression analysis panel data

Texas Tech University, Shahidur Rashid Talukdar, August 2012

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF POVERTY

(UN Statement, June 1998 signed by the heads of all UN agencies)

Texas Tech University, Shahidur Rashid Talukdar, August 2012