Over the past three decades, the number of people living on less than 2.15 U.S. dollars a day in terms of 2017 Purchasing Power Parities either dropped or remained stable across all regions except for Sub-Saharan Africa. On the continent, the number of people living on less than 2.15 U.S. dollars a day increased from 282.2 million in 1990 to nearly 411.15 million in 2019. East Asia & The Pacific saw the most significant poverty reduction, where 20.28 million lived in poverty in 2022 compared to more than one billion in 1990. Even though the absolute number of people living in poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa increased, the share fell during the same period, indicating that there has been poverty reduction in the region as well.

Most remarkably, the poverty rate in East Asia & The Pacific fell from over 65 percent in 1990 to one percent in 2022, underlining the rapid increase of living standards in the region over the past three decades. Also South Asia has seen a remarkable reduction of poverty during the period, from around 50 percent in 1990 to less than 10 in 2022. As of 2019, Sub-Saharan Africa was the region with the highest share of people living on less than 2.15 U.S. dollars per day, but also here there has been a poverty reduction since 1990.

Among ASEAN countries considered, Myanmar had the highest share of the population living below the national poverty line, with nearly a quarter of its population falling into that category in 2017. As of 2022, Indonesia had 9.5 percent of its population living beneath the poverty line.

Poverty headcount ratio at $5.50 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $5.50 a day at 2011 international prices. As a result of revisions in PPP exchange rates, poverty rates for individual countries cannot be compared with poverty rates reported in earlier editions.

In 2023, the around 11.1 percent of the population was living below the national poverty line in the United States. Poverty in the United StatesAs shown in the statistic above, the poverty rate among all people living in the United States has shifted within the last 15 years. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines poverty as follows: “Absolute poverty measures poverty in relation to the amount of money necessary to meet basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. The concept of absolute poverty is not concerned with broader quality of life issues or with the overall level of inequality in society.” The poverty rate in the United States varies widely across different ethnic groups. American Indians and Alaska Natives are the ethnic group with the most people living in poverty in 2022, with about 25 percent of the population earning an income below the poverty line. In comparison to that, only 8.6 percent of the White (non-Hispanic) population and the Asian population were living below the poverty line in 2022. Children are one of the most poverty endangered population groups in the U.S. between 1990 and 2022. Child poverty peaked in 1993 with 22.7 percent of children living in poverty in that year in the United States. Between 2000 and 2010, the child poverty rate in the United States was increasing every year; however,this rate was down to 15 percent in 2022. The number of people living in poverty in the U.S. varies from state to state. Compared to California, where about 4.44 million people were living in poverty in 2022, the state of Minnesota had about 429,000 people living in poverty.

Over the past 30 years, there has been an almost constant reduction in the poverty rate worldwide. Whereas nearly 38 percent of the world's population lived on less than 2.15 U.S. dollars in terms of 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) in 1990, this had fallen to 8.7 percent in 2022. This is despite the fact that the world's population was growing over the same period. However, there was a small increase in the poverty rate during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, when thousands of people became unemployed overnight. Moreover, rising cost of living in the aftermath of the pandemic and spurred by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 meant that many people were struggling to make ends meet. Poverty is a regional problem Poverty can be measured in relative and absolute terms. Absolute poverty concerns basic human needs such as food, clothing, shelter, and clean drinking water, whereas relative poverty looks at whether people in different countries can afford a certain living standard. Most countries that have a high percentage of their population living in absolute poverty, meaning that they are poor compared to international standards, are regionally concentrated. African countries are most represented among the countries in which poverty prevails the most. In terms of numbers, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia have the most people living in poverty worldwide. Inequality on the rise How wealth, or the lack thereof, is distributed within the global population and even within countries is very unequal. In 2022, the richest one percent of the world owned almost half of the global wealth, while the poorest 50 percent owned less than two percent in the same year. Within regions, Latin America had the most unequal distribution of wealth but this phenomenon is present in all world regions.

aFrom [10], [11].bAsian Development Bank key indicators for Asia and the Pacific.

Asian Poverty Rate Statistics for 2022. This is part of a larger dataset covering poverty in Live Oak, Texas by age, education, race, gender, work experience and more.

In 2019, the proportion of the population below the poverty line in Taiwan was at 1.3 percent. Comparatively, approximately 25 percent of Myanmar's population were living below the poverty line in 2019.

Asian Poverty Rate Statistics for 2022. This is part of a larger dataset covering poverty in Dover Base Housing, Delaware by age, education, race, gender, work experience and more.

At the global level in 2015 countries set in motion the most far reaching and ambitious development agenda of our time, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In
Asia and the Pacific, countries have already begun translating this ambitious agenda into action and many have already set up the national architecture for coordinating and promoting the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, the policy transformations required to put countries on track to achieve the SDGs have yet to take shape across this or any other region. Business as usual policies and investments are locking countries into unsustainable pathways that will create a gap between ambition and action.

To help address this gap, cooperation and action is needed at the national, regional and international levels. Regional cooperation can support and complement the effectiveness of national mechanisms upon which the ultimate success of the global 2030 Agenda rests. Transboundary challenges such as climate change and natural disasters, energy security, ecosystem degradation, and contamination of oceans, seas and marine resources require regional actions. Transboundary infrastructure networks can help reduce vulnerability, and cooperation can help develop energy solutions and ensure environmental protection of cross-border resources and ecosystems. Regional economic cooperation and integration will facilitate better transport, energy and ICT connectivity which in turn will increase access to services such as education, health, and housing as well as electricity and markets for marginalized populations.

Recognizing these opportunities, the countries of Asia and the Pacific have developed a regional road map for implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
to facilitate cooperation at the regional level supported by the ESCAP Secretariat and other United Nations entities. The road map was agreed on during the 4th Asia Pacific Forum on Sustainable Development and subsequently endorsed by the ESCAP Member States via Resolution 73/9 which was adopted during ESCAP’s 73th Commission Session. The road map identifies priority areas of regional cooperation for implementation of the 2030 Agenda. These priority areas underline the major challenges still faced in our region, including leaving no one behind; disaster risk reduction and resilience; climate change; management of natural resources; connectivity; and, energy. Priority actions under the means of implementation for the 2030 Agenda are also identified in the road map, including data and statistics, technology, finance, policy coherence and partnerships.

ESCAP Member States and the Secretariat considered a number of overarching issues regarding sustainable development in the region and the achievement of the 2030 Agenda as a part of the road map drafting process.

The work of ESCAP and Member States recognized that despite achievements on reducing poverty levels with action for MDGs, poverty is still persistent in the region and limits the opportunities for well-being for a large number of people. According to the latest data, some 400 million people, or 10.3 per cent of the region’s population, were living in extreme poverty in Asia and the Pacific during the period 2010-2013. The highest income poverty rates are found among countries with special needs and lower-middle-income countries.

In addition to challenges posted by poverty, inequality is also rising in the region and threatens to disrupt efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda. ESCAP research indicates that income inequality as well as inequality for opportunities is either on the rise or still very high without signs of improvement in most of the countries in the region. The road map responds by placing the elimination of inequality at the center of the region’s development path.

Quality of governance and the effectiveness of public institutions are also crucial for the successful implementation of the 2030 Agenda and therefore recognized in the road map. Effective governance, and especially in its normative dimension, is a basis for reinstituting the state and the society towards achieving sustainable development. It is a principle means to enable voices of people and participation in an effective, transparent and results oriented decision-making process. Effective governance allows people to be the driving force for sustainable development.

As recent ESCAP research shows, governance also affects the capacity of an economy to gain access and manage better human and natural resources, improve investment prospects and sustain innovation. Additionally, effective governance is pivotal for efforts to close development gaps across countries by supporting reforms that enable countries with special needs to benefit more from regional economic integration initiatives.

All these aspects of governance are fundamental for improving the performance and effectiveness of national and regional development systems and therefore to contribute to the achievement of SDGs.

Acknowledging that promoting sustainable development in Asia Pacific is the most pervasive and lasting solution for meeting today’s challenges and delivering durable peace and stability in our region, this road map recognizes that sustainable development must be underpinned by peaceful and inclusive societies, and also places gender equality and women’s economic empowerment as a central issue in the regional policy agenda.

The Secretariat will follow up and support member states on implementing this road map as requested. It will continue to provide annual updates and recommendations to Member States, including through the Asia-Pacific Forum on Sustainable, with its reports on implementing the 2030 Agenda in the region including, but not limited to, thematic and statistical reports as well as reports on inequality and social development. It will also strengthen support to Member States in their efforts to implement the 2030 Agenda in an integrated approach, inter alia, with analytical products, technical services and capacity-building initiatives through knowledgesharing products and platforms. The Secretariat is establishing an SDG Helpdesk and a Rapid Response Facility that will make available implementation models to support key aspects of SDG implementation that span across the different thematic areas that have been identified in the regional road map.

The Secretariat will give particular attention to effectively using the means of implementation for the 2030 Agenda, while it has already realigned its programme of work and strategic framework to make this happen. Effective use of financing for development, trade, science, technology and innovation (STI) and data and statistics will define the success of SDGs implementation. On financing for development there is an opportunity to translate the concrete policies and actions as outlined in the outcome document of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development to implement the SDGs. Trade has considerable potential to boost implementation of SDGs, but there are still challenges to fully harness this potential; the road map identifies specific areas of work that can tackle obstacles and create opportunities. In the context of STI, the success of implementing the 2030 Agenda will be depend inter alia on Member States’ ability to collaborate and create open and inclusive knowledge economies. With regard to data and statistics, without credible figures and indicators it will be impossible to review progress on SDG implementation and, consequently, improve performance. With eighty-eight of the global SDG indicators lacking methodological guidelines or standards, action on strengthening the statistical capacities of member states are urgently needed. ESCAP’s long-standing programmes in each of these areas are being strengthened to ensure that member States are well-supported as they go forward, and that the actions across means of implementation are mutually supportive.

With this regional road map, ESCAP member States have set the course for transforming the region and delivering inclusive and sustainable development in Asia and the Pacific. Their success will define the global success of the 2030 Agenda.

For the past several censuses, the Census Bureau has invited people to self-respond before following up in-person using census takers. The 2010 Census invited people to self-respond predominately by returning paper questionnaires in the mail. The 2020 Census allows people to self-respond in three ways: online, by phone, or by mail. The 2020 Census self-response rates are self-response rates for current census geographies. These rates are the daily and cumulative self-response rates for all housing units that received invitations to self-respond to the 2020 Census. The 2020 Census self-response rates are available for states, counties, census tracts, congressional districts, towns and townships, consolidated cities, incorporated places, tribal areas, and tribal census tracts. The Self-Response Rate of Los Angeles County is 65.1% for 2020 Census, which is slightly lower than 69.6% of California State rate. More information about these data are available in the Self-Response Rates Map Data and Technical Documentation document associated with the 2020 Self-Response Rates Map or review our FAQs. Animated Self-Response Rate 2010 vs 2020 is available at ESRI site SRR Animated Maps and can explore Census 2020 SRR data at ESRI Demographic site Census 2020 SSR Data. Following Demographic Characteristics are included in this data and web maps to visualize their relationships with Census Self-Response Rate (SRR)..1. Population Density2. Poverty Rate3. Median Household income4. Education Attainment5. English Speaking Ability6. Household without Internet Access7. Non-Hispanic White Population8. Non-Hispanic African-American Population9. Non-Hispanic Asian Population10. Hispanic Population

For the past several censuses, the Census Bureau has invited people to self-respond before following up in-person using census takers. The 2010 Census invited people to self-respond predominately by returning paper questionnaires in the mail. The 2020 Census allows people to self-respond in three ways: online, by phone, or by mail. The 2020 Census self-response rates are self-response rates for current census geographies. These rates are the daily and cumulative self-response rates for all housing units that received invitations to self-respond to the 2020 Census. The 2020 Census self-response rates are available for states, counties, census tracts, congressional districts, towns and townships, consolidated cities, incorporated places, tribal areas, and tribal census tracts. The Self-Response Rate of Los Angeles County is 65.1% for 2020 Census, which is slightly lower than 69.6% of California State rate. More information about these data are available in the Self-Response Rates Map Data and Technical Documentation document associated with the 2020 Self-Response Rates Map or review our FAQs. Animated Self-Response Rate 2010 vs 2020 is available at ESRI site SRR Animated Maps and can explore Census 2020 SRR data at ESRI Demographic site Census 2020 SSR Data. Following Demographic Characteristics are included in this data and web maps to visualize their relationships with Census Self-Response Rate (SRR)..1. Population Density2. Poverty Rate3. Median Household income4. Education Attainment5. English Speaking Ability6. Household without Internet Access7. Non-Hispanic White Population8. Non-Hispanic African-American Population9. Non-Hispanic Asian Population10. Hispanic Population

In 2023, 6.4 percent of Asian families in the United States were living below the poverty level. The poverty rate of Asian families in the U.S. peaked in 2003, when 10.2 percent of Asian families were living below the poverty level. Poverty is the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money. Absolute poverty or destitution is inability to afford basic human needs, which commonly includes clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter.

The qualitative research was conducted in order to illuminate older people’s quality of life from the perspective of older people themselves. The aim was to paint a picture of the lives of older people and to gain insight into how older people in the region have been affected by the massive societal changes of the last 15 years and how they are coping with the impacts of these changes.

The project involves a mixed method design, combining quantitative analysis of the living standards of older people of recently available household survey data, with qualitative research providing deep insight into the reality of life for older people today. Obtaining greater insight into how the lives of older people have been affected by the socio-economic transformations of the last 15 years, and relative role of the state and family in both providing support to and benefiting from the contribution of, older people will aid the formulation of poverty alleviation programmes. Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Moldova were chosen as countries for qualitative research as these three countries are the poorest of the former Soviet states. In each country, data collection sites were selected to represent different geographical and social conditions. Data collection commenced in each country with the capital city. Data were also collected in a smaller town and a rural location as it was seen as important to investigate any differences in older people’s experiences which might be related to the places in which they live. With consideration for the above criteria, sites were then selected according to safety and accessibility issues and the availability of local contacts.

This project examines the living conditions and sources of finance and social support (both state and family) amongst older people living in the seven poorest countries of the former Soviet Union. The break-up of the Soviet Union and the subsequent transition to market-led economies has been accompanied by a decade of economic and social upheaval on an unprecedented scale. Older people face particular challenges. Having lived their entire working lives under a paternal and relatively generous welfare system, they now find themselves in later life facing a new world – politically, economically, socially, psychologically and physically.

Home to over 1.3 billion people, approximately 443 million of whom lived in rural areas in 2018, Africa was the second largest, second most populous, and second poorest continent on Earth. In 2012, more than half of its rural residents lived in poverty, despite decades of initiatives aimed at poverty alleviation. These initiatives have included agriculture growth programmes, market liberalisation programmes and, more recently, rural development strategies.This thesis examined the relationship between the effectiveness of implementation of rural development strategies and rural poverty reduction. The hypotheses of the study were that the effective implementation of a rural development strategy reduces rural poverty and that Africa’s failure in the fight against rural poverty is largely attributed to ineffective implementation of rural development strategies. Both of these hypotheses were accepted.The study used four regional economic communities in Africa and southeast Asia as case studies. The period of study was from 1980 to 2015. This period coincided with the global deadline of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals for ending hunger. A six-step process was developed to achieve the study objectives. This process was guided by the study’s conceptual framework that effective rural poverty reduction is a function of effective rural development strategy implementation. This involved examination of the soundness of rural development strategies in the case studies, examination of what constituted effective implementation, profiling of theoretical expected outcomes of implementing case study strategies, and review of the poverty status in the respective case study regions.The findings of the study were that a positive relationship exists between the effectiveness of the implementation of a rural development strategy and rural poverty reduction, but also that the mere existence of a sound rural development strategy was not enough to reduce rural poverty. It was the effectiveness of their implementation that mattered most. The study also found that the ineffectiveness of the implementation of rural development strategies in Africa was largely due to lack of political responsibility, weak collaborative competencies for policy implementation, and low level commitment.To effectively and sustainably reduce rural poverty in Africa, the author recommended that policy makers, leaders and all key actors and stakeholders on the African continent should (a) commit to and intensify the effective implementation of sound rural development strategies, a multi-sectoral and multi-dimensional approach to dealing with the interlocking factors of poverty; (b) demonstrate political responsibility in a tangible form through including the allocation of sufficient resources (financial, human and institutional capital) for effective implementation of rural development strategies; (c) commit to establishing dynamic strategy-management team structures for effective implementation; and (d) capacitate collaborative competencies of policy implementers to effectively implement rural development strategies.The study largely relied on qualitative analyses in its methodology. Consideration should be given in future studies to quantitative methods of measuring the soundness and effectiveness of the implementation of rural development strategies. Econometric modelling of the cause and effect in the relationship between effective rural development strategy implementation and rural poverty reduction is suggested.

The Asia-Pacific region is an economic powerhouse, with some of the world’s most dynamic economies. But it has been making slower progress with some of the Millennium Development Goals. Its greatest success has been with poverty, for which the region as a whole is likely to meet the 2015 target of halving the proportion of people living in income poverty. But most countries will miss at least some of the other targets and goals, and a number will miss their goal even for poverty.Available onlineCall Number: [EL]ISBN/ISSN: 978-92-1-120547-3Physical Description: 96 p.

In 2023, 17.9 percent of Black people living in the United States were living below the poverty line, compared to 7.7 percent of white people. That year, the total poverty rate in the U.S. across all races and ethnicities was 11.1 percent. Poverty in the United States Single people in the United States making less than 12,880 U.S. dollars a year and families of four making less than 26,500 U.S. dollars a year are considered to be below the poverty line. Women and children are more likely to suffer from poverty, due to women staying home more often than men to take care of children, and women suffering from the gender wage gap. Not only are women and children more likely to be affected, racial minorities are as well due to the discrimination they face. Poverty data Despite being one of the wealthiest nations in the world, the United States had the third highest poverty rate out of all OECD countries in 2019. However, the United States' poverty rate has been fluctuating since 1990, but has been decreasing since 2014. The average median household income in the U.S. has remained somewhat consistent since 1990, but has recently increased since 2014 until a slight decrease in 2020, potentially due to the pandemic. The state that had the highest number of people living below the poverty line in 2020 was California.

Percentage of people deprived in each indicator of the MPI by social groups in India.

For the past several censuses, the Census Bureau has invited people to self-respond before following up in-person using census takers. The 2010 Census invited people to self-respond predominately by returning paper questionnaires in the mail. The 2020 Census allows people to self-respond in three ways: online, by phone, or by mail.The 2020 Census self-response rates are self-response rates for current census geographies. These rates are the daily and cumulative self-response rates for all housing units that received invitations to self-respond to the 2020 Census. The 2020 Census self-response rates are available for states, counties, census tracts, congressional districts, towns and townships, consolidated cities, incorporated places, tribal areas, and tribal census tracts.The Self-Response Rate of Los Angeles County is 65.1% for 2020 Census, which is slightly lower than 69.6% of California State rate.More information about these data is available in the Self-Response Rates Map Data and Technical Documentation document associated with the 2020 Self-Response Rates Map or review FAQs.Animated Self-Response Rate 2010 vs 2020 is available at ESRI site SRR Animated Maps and can explore Census 2020 SRR data at ESRI Demographic site Census 2020 SSR Data.Following Demographic Characteristics are included in this data and web maps to visualize their relationships with Census Self-Response Rate (SRR).1. Population Density: 2020 Population per square mile,2. Poverty Rate: Percentage of population under 100% FPL,3. Median Household income: Based on countywide median HH income of $71,538.4. Highschool Education Attainment: Percentage of 18 years and older population without high school graduation.5. English Speaking Ability: Percentage of 18 years and older population with less or none English speaking ability. 6. Household without Internet Access: Percentage of HH without internet access.7. Non-Hispanic White Population: Percentage of Non-Hispanic White population.8. Non-Hispanic African-American Population: Percentage of Non-Hispanic African-American population.9. Non-Hispanic Asian Population: Percentage of Non-Hispanic Asian population.10. Hispanic Population: Percentage of Hispanic population.