Poverty Line Estimation — Explained

On this page

1. Understanding Poverty Line Estimation in India: A Vyyuha Deep Dive
2. 1. Origin and Historical Evolution of Poverty Estimation
3. 2. Constitutional and Legal Basis
4. 3. Key Methodologies and Expert Committees
5. 4. Absolute vs. Relative Poverty and Poverty Metrics
6. Key Poverty Metrics:
7. 5. Data Sources and Practical Functioning
8. Rural-Urban Differentials and State-wise Variations:
9. Worked Numerical Examples:
10. Example 1: Calorie-based Poverty Line (Simplified)
11. Example 2: Consumption Expenditure-based Poverty Line (Simplified Tendulkar Approach)
12. 6. International Comparisons
13. 7. Criticisms of Threshold Choice and Methodology
14. 8. Recent Developments and NITI Aayog Frameworks
15. Vyyuha Analysis: The Political Economy of Poverty Estimation
16. Inter-Topic Connections
17. Timeline of Major Poverty Estimation Committees in India

Detailed Explanation

Understanding Poverty Line Estimation in India: A Vyyuha Deep Dive

Poverty line estimation is a foundational aspect of socio-economic policy in India, directly influencing welfare programs, resource allocation, and the overall narrative of development. From a UPSC perspective, a comprehensive understanding requires delving into its historical evolution, methodological shifts, inherent criticisms, and contemporary relevance.

1. Origin and Historical Evolution of Poverty Estimation

India's journey in poverty estimation began even before independence, driven by nationalist concerns about economic exploitation.

Dadabhai Naoroji (1901): — Often credited with the first systematic attempt, Naoroji, in his book 'Poverty and Un-British Rule in India', estimated the 'poverty line' based on the cost of a 'jail diet'. He calculated the subsistence cost for an adult, arriving at an annual per capita income of Rs. 16 to Rs. 35. His work was primarily aimed at highlighting the 'Drain of Wealth' theory, connecting poverty to colonial exploitation. While rudimentary, it laid the groundwork for future discussions.

National Planning Committee (1938): — Chaired by Jawaharlal Nehru, this committee suggested a poverty line ranging from Rs. 15 to Rs. 20 per capita per month, based on a 'minimum standard of living' rather than just a 'bare subsistence' level. This marked an early shift towards a more holistic view.

Working Group (1962): — The first official attempt by the Planning Commission, this group set the poverty line at Rs. 20 per capita per month for rural areas and Rs. 25 for urban areas (at 1960-61 prices). This was based on a minimum calorie intake of 2250 calories per day per adult. This calorie-based approach became a dominant feature of subsequent estimations.

Dandekar and Rath (1971): — This seminal study, 'Poverty in India', provided a robust academic framework. They estimated the poverty line based on a calorie norm of 2250 calories per capita per day for both rural and urban areas. The monetary equivalent was Rs. 15 per capita per month for rural areas and Rs. 22.5 per capita per month for urban areas (at 1960-61 prices). Their work highlighted the inadequacy of food intake as a primary driver of poverty and emphasized the need for growth with equity.

2. Constitutional and Legal Basis

The pursuit of poverty alleviation is deeply embedded in India's constitutional framework, particularly the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).

Article 39: — Directs the state to secure an adequate means of livelihood for all citizens, equitable distribution of material resources, and prevention of concentration of wealth. This forms the philosophical bedrock for state intervention in poverty reduction.
Article 47: — Mandates the state to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and improve public health. This directly links to the calorie-based approaches and the provision of essential services.

These principles have guided the formulation of Five-Year Plans, which consistently prioritized poverty alleviation and social justice. For instance, the 'Garibi Hatao' slogan of the Fifth Five-Year Plan (1974-79) underscored this commitment.

The National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013 , is a direct legal manifestation of this commitment, aiming to provide subsidized food grains to approximately two-thirds of India's population. The identification of beneficiaries for NFSA relies heavily on poverty estimates and socio-economic criteria, though not solely on the official poverty line.

Supreme Court Judgments and PILs: The Right to Food campaign and various Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have often pushed the judiciary to intervene, directing the government to ensure effective implementation of welfare schemes and to re-evaluate poverty measurement criteria to prevent exclusion of the genuinely poor. The court's emphasis on a 'life of dignity' often challenges purely economic definitions of poverty.

3. Key Methodologies and Expert Committees

The methodology for poverty estimation has undergone significant refinements through various expert committees appointed by the Planning Commission (now NITI Aayog ).

Alagh Committee (1979): — Tasked with constructing a poverty line for rural and urban areas based on nutritional requirements. It recommended a poverty line based on 2400 calories per person per day for rural areas and 2100 calories for urban areas. This committee was significant for providing a consistent methodology for poverty estimation across states.

Lakdawala Committee (1993):

* Base Year: 1973-74. * Methodology: Continued the calorie-based approach but made crucial changes: * Used state-specific poverty lines instead of a national one, recognizing inter-state price differences.

* Used Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers (CPI-IW) for urban areas and Consumer Price Index for Agricultural Labourers (CPI-AL) for rural areas to update the poverty line, moving away from the Wholesale Price Index (WPI).

Assumed that health and education expenditures are provided by the state, thus not explicitly including them in the poverty line basket. Impact: Led to a higher number of people being classified as poor compared to previous estimates, providing a more realistic picture of poverty.

The official poverty estimates were based on this methodology for over a decade.

Tendulkar Committee (2009):

* Base Year: 2004-05. * Methodology: Marked a significant departure from previous calorie-based approaches. * Shift from Calorie Norm: Moved away from the calorie norm, acknowledging that nutritional outcomes depend on many factors beyond just food intake (e.

g., sanitation, healthcare, clean water). * Consumption Expenditure Basket: Adopted a poverty line based on a basket of goods and services that included food, education, health, clothing, and footwear.

This basket was derived from the urban poverty line of 2004-05, which was then applied to rural areas after adjusting for price differentials. * Uniform Poverty Line Basket (PLB): Used a uniform PLB across rural and urban areas, but adjusted for price differences using appropriate price indices (CPI-IW for urban, CPI-AL for rural).

* Poverty Line Amounts (2004-05): Rs. 446.68 per capita per month for rural areas and Rs. 578.80 for urban areas. * Poverty Line Amounts (2011-12): Rs. 816 per capita per month for rural areas and Rs.

1000 for urban areas. * Impact: Resulted in a higher poverty ratio than the Lakdawala method for 2004-05, indicating a broader understanding of deprivation. It was widely accepted and became the official methodology for poverty estimation until 2014.

Rangarajan Committee (2014):

* Base Year: 2011-12. * Methodology: Formed to review the Tendulkar Committee methodology due to criticisms regarding its low poverty lines and exclusion of certain essential items. * Separate Consumption Baskets: Recommended separate consumption baskets for rural and urban areas, reflecting distinct consumption patterns.

* Calorie, Protein, Fat Norms: Reverted to a modified calorie norm, incorporating norms for protein and fat intake alongside calories (2155 Kcal, 48 gm protein, 28 gm fat for rural; 2090 Kcal, 50 gm protein, 26 gm fat for urban).

* Poverty Line Amounts (2011-12): Rs. 972 per capita per month for rural areas and Rs. 1407 for urban areas. These were significantly higher than Tendulkar's estimates for the same year. * Data Source: Used Modified Mixed Reference Period (MMRP) consumption data from NSSO, which captures consumption over a 365-day period for low-frequency items and 30 days for high-frequency items, aiming for better accuracy.

* Impact: Estimated a higher poverty ratio (29.5% in 2011-12) compared to Tendulkar's 21.9% for the same year. However, its recommendations were not officially adopted by the government, primarily due to the significant increase in the estimated number of poor, which had policy implications for targeting and subsidies.

4. Absolute vs. Relative Poverty and Poverty Metrics

Absolute Poverty: — Defined by a fixed minimum standard of living, often expressed as a poverty line. Individuals or households below this line are considered absolutely poor, regardless of the overall economic prosperity of the society. India's poverty estimation largely focuses on absolute poverty.
Relative Poverty: — Defined in relation to the median or average income/consumption of a particular society. For example, individuals earning less than 50% of the median income might be considered relatively poor. This concept is more relevant in developed economies where basic needs are largely met, and inequality becomes the primary concern .

Key Poverty Metrics:

Poverty Headcount Ratio (HCR): — The most common measure, it is the proportion of the population whose income or consumption expenditure falls below the poverty line. While simple, it doesn't capture the depth of poverty.
Poverty Gap Index (PGI): — Measures the average distance of the poor from the poverty line, expressed as a percentage of the poverty line. It indicates the total resources needed to bring all poor people up to the poverty line.
Squared Poverty Gap Index (FGT2 or Foster-Greer-Thorbecke measures): — A more sophisticated measure that gives greater weight to those who are further below the poverty line, thus being sensitive to the severity of poverty. It helps in understanding inequality among the poor.

5. Data Sources and Practical Functioning

The primary data source for poverty estimation in India is the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), specifically its quinquennial (every five years) surveys on Household Consumer Expenditure. More recently, the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) also collects consumption expenditure data, providing more frequent insights, though its primary focus is employment.

These surveys collect detailed data on household consumption of various goods and services, which are then used to calculate per capita consumption expenditure.

Rural-Urban Differentials and State-wise Variations:

It is crucial to have separate poverty lines for rural and urban areas due to significant differences in price levels, consumption patterns, and the cost of living. Urban areas generally have higher prices for goods and services, necessitating a higher poverty line.

Similarly, state-specific poverty lines are essential because of variations in price levels and socio-economic conditions across states. The Lakdawala and Tendulkar committees adopted state-specific poverty lines, which are then aggregated to derive national estimates.

Worked Numerical Examples:

Example 1: Calorie-based Poverty Line (Simplified)

Assume a rural household of 5 members, where the calorie norm is 2400 Kcal/person/day. Total daily calorie requirement = 5 2400 = 12000 Kcal. If the cost of food providing 1000 Kcal is Rs. 10, then the daily food expenditure for the household to meet the calorie norm is (12000/1000) 10 = Rs.

120. Monthly food expenditure = 120 30 = Rs. 3600. If non-food expenditure is assumed to be 25% of food expenditure, then total monthly expenditure = 3600 + (0.25 3600) = Rs. 4500. Per capita monthly poverty line = 4500 / 5 = Rs.

900.

Example 2: Consumption Expenditure-based Poverty Line (Simplified Tendulkar Approach)

Let's say the Tendulkar Committee identified an urban poverty line of Rs. 1000 per capita per month in 2011-12. This line corresponds to a specific basket of goods and services. To derive the rural poverty line, the cost of this same basket is calculated in rural areas, adjusted for rural prices using CPI-AL.

If the price index for rural areas is 0.8 times that of urban areas for this basket, then the rural poverty line would be 1000 * 0.8 = Rs. 800 per capita per month. This ensures that the standard of living represented by the poverty line is comparable, even if the monetary value differs.

6. International Comparisons

India's poverty estimation methodologies are often compared with international standards, primarily those set by the World Bank.

World Bank Poverty Line: — The World Bank defines an international poverty line, currently at **$2.15 per person per day (2017 PPP)**, adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). This line is used to measure extreme poverty globally. The previous line was$1.90 per day.
Purchasing Power Parity (PPP): — PPP exchange rates are used to convert local currency poverty lines into a common international currency (like USD) to account for differences in the purchasing power of money across countries. This allows for meaningful cross-country comparisons of poverty levels.
[LINK:/indian-economy/eco-11-01-02-multidimensional-poverty-index|Multidimensional Poverty Index] (MPI) : — Developed by UNDP and OPHI, MPI measures acute poverty across multiple deprivations in health, education, and living standards. India's official MPI, calculated by NITI Aayog, provides a complementary perspective to income/consumption-based poverty, highlighting that poverty is not just about lack of money but also lack of access to essential services.

7. Criticisms of Threshold Choice and Methodology

Despite continuous refinements, India's poverty line estimation faces several criticisms:

Arbitrariness of the Line: — The choice of a specific calorie norm or consumption basket is often seen as arbitrary, leading to debates about whether the line truly captures minimum needs. A slight change in the threshold can significantly alter the number of poor.
Exclusion/Inclusion Errors: — A single poverty line can lead to exclusion of deserving poor (exclusion error) or inclusion of non-poor (inclusion error), making targeted welfare programs less effective. This is particularly problematic given the vast diversity across India.
Ignoring Non-Income Dimensions: — Traditional poverty lines primarily focus on income or consumption, neglecting other crucial dimensions of deprivation like access to healthcare, education, sanitation, and clean water. The MPI addresses this to some extent.
Data Quality and Frequency: — Reliance on quinquennial NSSO surveys means poverty estimates are not always current. Data collection methodologies can also be imperfect.
Underestimation of Poverty: — Critics argue that the official poverty lines are too low, failing to account for the rising cost of living and the aspiration for a better quality of life beyond mere subsistence.
Political Economy of Estimation: — The process is often politicized, as a lower poverty line can be seen as a sign of economic progress, while a higher line implies greater policy failure. This can create incentives to keep the line low.

8. Recent Developments and NITI Aayog Frameworks

With the dissolution of the Planning Commission, NITI Aayog has taken over the role of poverty monitoring and evaluation. While NITI Aayog has not officially adopted a new poverty line after the Rangarajan Committee, it has emphasized a multidimensional approach to poverty.

SDG Alignment: — India's poverty measurement is increasingly aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). Monitoring progress on these goals requires robust and multi-faceted poverty data.
Post-COVID Poverty Measurement: — The COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns had significant economic impacts, potentially pushing many into poverty or exacerbating existing deprivation. Measuring this impact accurately and designing appropriate policy responses (e.g., increased food subsidies, direct benefit transfers ) has become a critical challenge. Reports from international bodies like the World Bank and IMF have offered varying estimates of poverty changes during this period, highlighting the need for updated domestic data.
Debates on Universal Basic Income (UBI): — Discussions around UBI as a potential poverty alleviation tool often bring the poverty line back into focus, as UBI aims to provide a minimum income floor, implicitly challenging the existing poverty thresholds.

Vyyuha Analysis: The Political Economy of Poverty Estimation

Vyyuha's analysis reveals that poverty line estimation is not merely a statistical exercise but a deeply political one. The choice of methodology and the resulting poverty figures have profound implications for policy, resource allocation, and the government's narrative of development.

A lower poverty line can be politically convenient, suggesting greater success in poverty reduction and potentially reducing the fiscal burden of welfare programs. Conversely, a higher, more realistic poverty line might expose a larger segment of the population as poor, demanding greater state intervention and potentially challenging existing policy frameworks.

This tension between administrative feasibility (simplicity, ease of targeting) and statistical accuracy (capturing true deprivation) is a recurring theme. Policy incentives often lean towards methodologies that yield lower poverty numbers, impacting the identification of beneficiaries for schemes like NFSA or MGNREGA .

The shift towards a Multidimensional Poverty Index by NITI Aayog can be seen as an attempt to move beyond the contentious single-line debate, offering a more nuanced picture of deprivation while also providing a broader framework for policy interventions across health, education, and living standards.

However, the core challenge of identifying the 'income poor' for direct cash transfers or food subsidies remains, making the consumption expenditure-based poverty line a persistent, albeit debated, tool.

Inter-Topic Connections

Understanding poverty line estimation is crucial for connecting to various other UPSC topics:

Poverty Trends and Regional Patterns : — The poverty line provides the benchmark against which trends are measured and regional disparities are identified.
Multidimensional Poverty Index : — Offers a complementary, broader perspective on poverty, moving beyond income/consumption.
Food Security and Nutrition Programs : — Poverty lines are critical for identifying beneficiaries for schemes like PDS and ICDS.
Rural Development Schemes Impact : — The effectiveness of schemes like MGNREGA is often assessed by their impact on poverty reduction, measured against the poverty line.
Social Sector Expenditure Analysis : — Government spending on health, education, and social welfare is directly linked to the scale of poverty and the need for social safety nets.
Inequality Measurement Techniques : — While distinct, poverty and inequality are intertwined. High inequality can exacerbate poverty, and poverty lines help delineate the bottom strata of the income distribution.
Economic Survey Poverty Data : — The Economic Survey regularly presents data and analysis on poverty, often discussing the latest estimates and methodological debates.

Timeline of Major Poverty Estimation Committees in India

Committee Name	Year Formed	Base Year	Methodology Summary - Vyyuha's analysis reveals that the poverty line, despite its inherent limitations, remains a critical tool for policy formulation and resource allocation in India. The shift from calorie-based to consumption expenditure-based methodologies, and further to a multidimensional approach, reflects a maturing understanding of poverty. However, the political economy surrounding its estimation often leads to a 'race to the bottom' in terms of the actual monetary value, impacting the effectiveness of targeting and potentially understating the true scale of deprivation. The challenge for policymakers, and thus for UPSC aspirants, is to critically evaluate these methodologies, understand their implications for welfare delivery , and propose more holistic frameworks that balance statistical rigor with administrative feasibility and social justice. The future of poverty estimation in India will likely involve a hybrid approach, leveraging both consumption data for targeted income support and MPI for broader human development interventions, while also incorporating real-time data from various government programs to improve accuracy and responsiveness.

Often confused with

Side-by-side differences the UPSC paper likes to test.

Poverty Line Estimation vs Tendulkar Committee vs. Rangarajan Committee

Open Tendulkar Committee vs. Rangarajan Committee

Aspect	Poverty Line Estimation	Tendulkar Committee vs. Rangarajan Committee
Year of Report	2009	2014
Base Year for PLB	2004-05	2011-12
Methodology Type	Consumption expenditure-based, moving away from calorie norm.	Consumption expenditure-based, with explicit calorie, protein, fat norms.
Poverty Line Basket (PLB)	Uniform PLB for rural and urban, derived from urban 2004-05 PLB, adjusted for price differentials.	Separate PLBs for rural and urban areas, reflecting distinct consumption patterns.
Components of PLB	Food, education, health, clothing, footwear, conveyance, rent.	Food, education, health, clothing, footwear, rent, conveyance, and a 'modest' amount for discretionary spending.
Price Indices Used	CPI-AL for rural, CPI-IW for urban.	CPI-AL for rural, CPI-IW for urban (similar to Tendulkar).
Poverty Line (2011-12, per capita/month)	Rural: Rs. 816; Urban: Rs. 1000	Rural: Rs. 972; Urban: Rs. 1407
Poverty Ratio (2011-12)	21.9%	29.5%
Official Adoption	Adopted by Planning Commission (until 2014).	Not officially adopted by the government.
Main Criticism	Poverty line considered too low; exclusion of essential non-food items; uniform PLB for diverse rural-urban areas.	Higher poverty estimates had significant fiscal implications; partial return to calorie norms; still considered low by some activists.

The Tendulkar Committee marked a significant methodological shift by moving away from a purely calorie-based approach, adopting a comprehensive consumption expenditure basket that included non-food items and a uniform PLB.

In contrast, the Rangarajan Committee, while also consumption-based, recommended higher poverty lines, separate PLBs for rural and urban areas, and reintroduced explicit calorie, protein, and fat norms.

The Tendulkar methodology was officially adopted, leading to lower poverty estimates, whereas Rangarajan's higher estimates were not accepted, highlighting the political economy of poverty measurement in India.

From a UPSC perspective, understanding these differences is crucial for analyzing the evolution and challenges of poverty estimation.

Why it is tested: Directly relevant for Prelims (facts, figures, methodologies) and Mains (critical analysis, policy implications, comparative study) on poverty estimation committees. Connects to [VY:ECO-11-01-01].

Poverty Line Estimation vs Absolute Poverty vs. Relative Poverty

Open Absolute Poverty vs. Relative Poverty

Aspect	Poverty Line Estimation	Absolute Poverty vs. Relative Poverty
Definition Basis	Fixed minimum standard of living (e.g., poverty line).	In relation to the median or average income/consumption of a society.
Measurement Focus	Ability to meet basic needs (food, shelter, clothing).	Inequality and social exclusion within a society.
Relevance	More relevant in developing countries (like India) where basic needs are unmet for many.	More relevant in developed countries where basic needs are largely met, but disparities exist.
Change with Economic Growth	Can be eradicated with sufficient economic growth and redistribution.	Will always exist as long as there is income inequality, even in wealthy societies.
Policy Implications	Focus on direct poverty alleviation, basic needs provision, safety nets.	Focus on income redistribution, social inclusion, reducing disparities [VY:ECO-11-02].
Example	World Bank's $2.15/day international poverty line.	Households earning less than 60% of the median income in a country.

Absolute poverty defines a fixed minimum standard of living, below which individuals cannot meet basic needs, and is the primary focus of poverty measurement in developing nations like India. It can theoretically be eradicated through economic growth and targeted interventions.

Relative poverty, conversely, defines poverty in relation to the overall economic status of a society, highlighting inequality and social exclusion, and is more pertinent in developed economies. While India primarily uses an absolute poverty line, understanding relative poverty is crucial for a holistic view of deprivation and inequality .

Why it is tested: Fundamental concepts for understanding poverty measurement globally and in India. Essential for Mains answers on the nature of poverty and policy approaches. Connects to [VY:ECO-11-02] (Inequality Measurement).

Questions students ask

8 answered on this topic.

What is the current poverty line in India?

As of 2024, India does not have an officially adopted consumption expenditure-based poverty line after the Rangarajan Committee's recommendations in 2014 were not accepted. The last official estimates were based on the Tendulkar Committee methodology for 2011-12, which set the rural poverty line at Rs.

816 and urban at Rs. 1000 per capita per month. NITI Aayog now primarily focuses on the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) for poverty monitoring, which offers a broader perspective beyond just income or consumption.

How does the Tendulkar Committee method differ from earlier approaches?

The Tendulkar Committee (2009) marked a significant shift by moving away from a purely calorie-based poverty line. It adopted a consumption expenditure basket that included food, education, health, clothing, and footwear, derived from the urban poverty line of 2004-05. It also used a uniform poverty line basket across rural and urban areas, adjusted for price differentials using appropriate price indices (CPI-IW for urban, CPI-AL for rural), making it more comprehensive and comparable.

Why was the Rangarajan Committee methodology criticized?

The Rangarajan Committee (2014) was criticized for its higher poverty line estimates (e.g., Rs. 972 rural, Rs. 1407 urban for 2011-12), which would have significantly increased the number of people classified as poor. This had major fiscal and political implications, as it would require a larger allocation for welfare programs. Critics also debated its partial return to calorie, protein, and fat norms, and the specific consumption baskets chosen, which were seen by some as still too low.

What role does consumption expenditure play in poverty estimation?

Consumption expenditure is central to India's poverty estimation. It is considered a more stable and accurate indicator of a household's welfare and standard of living compared to income, especially in an economy with a large informal sector.

Expert committees like Tendulkar and Rangarajan based their poverty lines on the cost of a basket of goods and services deemed essential, which is then translated into a per capita monthly consumption expenditure threshold.

Data is collected through NSSO surveys.

How do rural and urban poverty lines differ?

Rural and urban poverty lines differ primarily due to variations in price levels and consumption patterns. Urban areas generally have higher prices for goods and services, and often different consumption needs (e.

g., higher transport costs). Therefore, the monetary value of the poverty line is typically higher for urban areas to ensure a comparable standard of living to their rural counterparts. Committees like Lakdawala, Tendulkar, and Rangarajan all provided separate rural and urban poverty lines.

What are the main challenges in accurate poverty measurement?

Accurate poverty measurement faces challenges such as the arbitrariness of the poverty line threshold, data quality and frequency (reliance on quinquennial surveys), difficulties in capturing non-income dimensions of poverty (health, education), exclusion/inclusion errors in targeting, and the political sensitivity of the estimates. The dynamic nature of consumption patterns and inflation also makes it challenging to maintain a relevant and updated poverty line.

What is the significance of the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) in India?

The MPI is significant because it moves beyond monetary measures to assess poverty across multiple deprivations in health, education, and living standards. NITI Aayog's adoption of the MPI provides a more holistic view of poverty, aligning India's measurement with global Sustainable Development Goals. It helps identify specific areas where interventions are needed, complementing traditional consumption-based poverty lines and offering a nuanced understanding of deprivation.

How does Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) relate to poverty lines?

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is crucial for comparing poverty lines across different countries. It adjusts for differences in the purchasing power of currencies, meaning it accounts for how much goods and services a unit of currency can buy in different economies. The World Bank uses PPP-adjusted international poverty lines (e.g., $2.15 a day) to provide a comparable measure of extreme poverty globally, allowing for a standardized assessment of poverty levels worldwide.