You are here:Poverty Facts and StatsPoverty Facts and StatsAlmost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening.The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.If current trends continue, the Millennium Development Goals target of halving the proportion of underweight children will be missed by 30 million children, largely because of slow progress in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.Based on enrollment data, about 72 million children of primary school age in the developing world were not in school in 2005; 57 per cent of them were girls. And these are regarded as optimistic numbers.Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen.Infectious diseases continue to blight the lives of the poor across the world. An estimated 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, with 3 million deaths in 2004. Every year there are 350–500 million cases of malaria, with 1 million fatalities: Africa accounts for 90 percent of malarial deaths and African children account for over 80 percent of malaria victims worldwide.Water problems affect half of humanity:Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.Access to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%.1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consume around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day.)Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhoeaThe loss of 443 million school days each year from water-related illness.Close to half of all people in developing countries suffering at any given time from a health problem caused by water and sanitation deficits.Millions of women spending several hours a day collecting water.To these human costs can be added the massive economic waste associated with the water and sanitation deficit.… The costs associated with health spending, productivity losses and labour diversions … are greatest in some of the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa loses about 5% of GDP, or some $28.4 billion annually, a figure that exceeds total aid flows and debt relief to the region in 2003.Number of children in the world2.2 billionNumber in poverty1 billion (every second child)Shelter, safe water and healthFor the 1.9 billion children from the developing world, there are:640 million without adequate shelter (1 in 3)400 million with no access to safe water (1 in 5)270 million with no access to health services (1 in 7)Children out of education worldwide121 millionSurvival for childrenWorldwide,10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (same as children population in France, Germany, Greece and Italy)1.4 million die each year from lack of access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitationHealth of childrenWorldwide,2.2 million children die each year because they are not immunized15 million children orphaned due to HIV/AIDS (similar to the total children population in Germany or United Kingdom)Rural areas account for three in every four people living on less than US$1 a day and a similar share of the world population suffering from malnutrition. However, urbanization is not synonymous with human progress. Urban slum growth is outpacing urban growth by a wide margin.Approximately half the world’s population now live in cities and towns. In 2005, one out of three urban dwellers (approximately 1 billion people) was living in slum conditions.In developing countries some 2.5 billion people are forced to rely on biomass—fuelwood, charcoal and animal dung—to meet their energy needs for cooking. In sub-Saharan Africa, over 80 percent of the population depends on traditional biomass for cooking, as do over half of the populations of India and China.Indoor air pollution resulting from the use of solid fuels [by poorer segments of society] is a major killer. It claims the lives of 1.5 million people each year, more than half of them below the age of five: that is 4000 deaths a day. To put this number in context, it exceeds total deaths from malaria and rivals the number of deaths from tuberculosis.In 2005, the wealthiest 20% of the world accounted for 76.6% of total private consumption. The poorest fifth just 1.5%:The poorest 10% accounted for just 0.5% and the wealthiest 10% accounted for 59% of all the consumption:1.6 billion people — a quarter of humanity — live without electricity:Breaking that down further:Number of people living without electricityRegionMillions without electricitySouth Asia706Sub-Saharan Africa547East Asia224Other101The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world’s 7 richest people combined.World gross domestic product (world population approximately 6.5 billion) in 2006 was $48.2 trillion in 2006.The world’s wealthiest countries (approximately 1 billion people) accounted for $36.6 trillion dollars (76%).The world’s billionaires — just 497 people (approximately 0.000008% of the world’s population) — were worth $3.5 trillion (over 7% of world GDP).Low income countries (2.4 billion people) accounted for just $1.6 trillion of GDP (3.3%)Middle income countries (3 billion people) made up the rest of GDP at just over $10 trillion (20.7%).The world’s low income countries (2.4 billion people) account for just 2.4% of world exportsThe total wealth of the top 8.3 million people around the world “rose 8.2 percent to $30.8 trillion in 2004, giving them control of nearly a quarter of the world’s financial assets.”In other words, about 0.13% of the world’s population controlled 25% of the world’s financial assets in 2004.A conservative estimate for 2010 finds that at least a third of all private financial wealth, and nearly half of all offshore wealth, is now owned by world’s richest 91,000 people – just 0.001% of the world’s population.The next 51 percent of all wealth is owned by the next 8.4 million — just 0.14% of the world’s population. Almost all of it has managed to avoid all income and estate taxes, either by the countries where it has been invested and or where it comes fromFor every $1 in aid a developing country receives, over $25 is spent on debt repayment.51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations.The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation.The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money.In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much.An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about:3 to 1 in 182011 to 1 in 191335 to 1 in 195044 to 1 in 197372 to 1 in 1992“Approximately 790 million people in the developing world are still chronically undernourished, almost two-thirds of whom reside in Asia and the Pacific.”For economic growth and almost all of the other indicators, the last 20 years [of the current form of globalization, from 1980 - 2000] have shown a very clear decline in progress as compared with the previous two decades [1960 - 1980]. For each indicator, countries were divided into five roughly equal groups, according to what level the countries had achieved by the start of the period (1960 or 1980). Among the findings:Growth: The fall in economic growth rates was most pronounced and across the board for all groups or countries.Life Expectancy: Progress in life expectancy was also reduced for 4 out of the 5 groups of countries, with the exception of the highest group (life expectancy 69-76 years).Infant and Child Mortality: Progress in reducing infant mortality was also considerably slower during the period of globalization () than over the previous two decades.Education and literacy: Progress in education also slowed during the period of globalization.A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World.Consider the global priorities in spending in 1998Global Priority$U.S. BillionsCosmetics in the United States8Ice cream in Europe11Perfumes in Europe and the United States12Pet foods in Europe and the United States17Business entertainment in Japan35Cigarettes in Europe50Alcoholic drinks in Europe105Narcotics drugs in the world400Military spending in the world780And compare that to what was estimated as additional costs to achieve universal access to basic social services in all developing countries:Global Priority$U.S. BillionsBasic education for all6Water and sanitation for all9Reproductive health for all women12Basic health and nutrition13Notes and Sources
Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion, , World Bank, August 2008
For the 95% on $10 a day, see Martin Ravallion, Shaohua Chen and Prem Sangraula, , World Bank, May 2008. They note that 95% of developing country population lived on less than $10 a day. Using 2005 population numbers, this is equivalent to just under 79.7% of world population, and does not include populations living on less than $10 a day from industrialized nations.
This figure is based on purchasing power parity (), which basically suggests that prices of goods in countries tend to equate under floating exchange rates and therefore people would be able to purchase the same quantity of goods in any country for a given sum of money. That is, the notion that a dollar should buy the same amount in all countries. Hence if a poor person in a poor country living on a dollar a day moved to the U.S. with no changes to their income, they would still be living on a dollar a day.The new poverty line of $1.25 a day was recently announced by the World Bank (in 2008). For many years before that it had been $1 a day. But the $1 a day used then would be $1.45 a day now if just inflation was accounted for.The new figures from the World Bank therefore confirm concerns that poverty has not been reduced by as much as was hoped, although it certainly has dropped since 1981.However, it appears that much of the poverty reduction in the last couple of decades almost exclusively comes from China:China’s poverty rate fell from 85% to 15.9%, or by over 600 million peopleChina accounts for nearly all the world’s reduction in povertyExcluding China, poverty fell only by around 10%The use of the poverty line of $1 a day had long come under criticism for seeming arbitrary and using poor quality and limited data thus risking an underestimate of poverty. The $1.25 a day level is accompanied with some additional explanations and reasoning, including that it is a common level found amongst the poorest countries, and that $2.50 represents a typical poverty level amongst many more developing countries.The $10 dollar a day figure above is close to poverty levels in the US, so is provided here to give a more global perspective to these numbers, although the World Bank has felt it is not a meaningful number for the poorest because they are unfortunately unlikely to reach that level any time soon.For further details on this (as well as some additional charts), see
on this web site.
(HDR), United Nations Development Program, November 27, 2007, p.25.
from this web site. (Note that the statistic cited uses children as those under the age of five. If it was say 6, or 7, the numbers would be even higher.)
See the following:
(HDR), United Nations Development Program, November 27, 2007, p.25. (The report also notes that although India is rising economically, “the bad news is that this has not been translated into accelerated progress in cutting under-nutrition. One-half of all rural children [in India] are underweight for their age—roughly the same proportion as in 1992.”)
. The report importantly notes that “As high as this number seems, surveys show that it underestimates the actual number of children who, though enrolled, are not attending school. Moreover, neither enrolment nor attendance figures reflect children who do not attend school regularly. To make matters worse, official data are not usually available from countries in conflict or post-conflict situations. If data from these countries were reflected in global estimates, the enrolment picture would be even less optimistic.”, UNICEF, Issue 287 - Feb 1997, New Internationalist (HDR), United Nations Development Program, November 27, 2007, p.25.
, pp.6, 7, 35
, UNICEF (HDR), United Nations Development Program, November 27, 2007, p.25.
Ibid, p.45
Ibid, p.45
, World Bank, August 2008
See the following:
, World Bank, accessed March 3, 2008Luisa Kroll and Allison Fass, , Forbes, March 3, 2007World Bank’s list of , accessed March 3, 2008
See the following:
, World Bank, accessed March 3, 2008Luisa Kroll and Allison Fass, , Forbes, March 3, 2007, World Bank Data & Statistics, accessed March 3, 2008
Eileen Alt Powell, , Associate Press, June 9, 2005;
James Henry,
, Tax Justice Network, July 2012, p.36
Based on World Bank data (accessed March 3, 2008) as follows:
: $2.7 trillion : $106 billion
See the following:
, IPS, August 11, 1998, by Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh, Institute for Policy Studies, November 2000, The Observer,
April 28, 2002, Issue 312 - May 1999, New Internationalist, United Nations Development ProgrammeIbidWorld Resources Institute Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems, February 2001, (in the ). Note, that despite the food production rate being better than population growth rate, there is still so much hunger around the world., by Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, Egor Kraev and Judy Chen, Center for Economic Policy and Research, August 2001.Maude Barlow, , The Institute for Food and Development Policy, Backgrounder, Summer 2001, Vol. 7, No. 3, United Nations Human Development Report 1998, Chapter 1, p.37)
Where next?Related articlesPoverty Facts and StatsShare this page with:Bookmark or share this with others using some popular social bookmarking web sites:Link to this page from your site/blogCopy/paste the following HTML code to your page:&p&Anup Shah, &a href="http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats"&Poverty Facts and Stats&/a&, &cite&Global Issues&/cite&, Updated: January 07, 2013&/p&… to produce this:Anup Shah, , Global Issues, Updated: January 07, 2013Alternatively, copy/paste the following MLA citation format for this page:Shah, Anup. “Poverty Facts and Stats.” Global Issues. 07 Jan. 2013. Web. 08 May. 2016. &&.Find this page/site useful?Other optionsDocument Revision HistoryAlternatives for broken linksSometimes links to other sites may break beyond my control. Where possible, alternative links are provided to backups or reposted versions here.Actual Link:Alternatives:Actual PDF-formatted report Actual Link:Alternatives:Actual PDF formatted report Actual Link:Alternative:Full report, 8Mb in size Actual Link:Alternatives:Actual report Home page for the reportNews report mentioning these stats from Inter Press ServiceActual Link:Alternative:Actual Link:Alternatives:Google search resultActual Link:Alternative:Actual Link:Alternatives:Actual chapter 1 in PDF format( C)7.--- How many people were there at the meeting?----_______.A.Nobody B.No one C.None D.Nothing(A )20.The doctor worked for ___ after twelve o’clock.A.two more hours B.two another hour C.more two hours D.another two hour( C)26.____John ____Jack may go with you because one of them must stay at home.A.Neither； nor B.Both； and .C.Either； or .D.Not only； but also括号中的是参考答案,请一个一个地详细说明( C)7.--- How many people were there at the meeting?----_______.A.Nobody B.No one C.None D.Nothing 为什么不选A，B
1 c(表示数量,只是与人有关）2 a(首先需要是复数,bd排除,c 的话按照比较级的用法不对,选a) 3 c(首先是排除a ,原文意思是有一个要留下,而a 是两个都不.同理,b 排除,它的意思是两个都,d也排除为两个都,只有c 符合原意）
为您推荐：
其他类似问题
7.none表示人数的多少, no one却不可以,no one的意思是没有人(做过什么事或是.....)20.另外两个小时,表示复数,必须加s,或者用two more 或者用another two,两者皆可,只有A符合这两个条件.26.根据意思,是两个人其中一个必须呆在家,用either...or 或者...或者
扫描下载二维码人教PEP版英语三年级下册Unit6《how_many》第一课时课件 2_图文_百度文库
两大类热门资源免费畅读
续费一年阅读会员，立省24元！
评价文档：
人教PEP版英语三年级下册Unit6《how_many》第一课时课件 2
上传于||暂无简介
大小：4.23MB
登录百度文库，专享文档复制特权，财富值每天免费拿！
你可能喜欢君，已阅读到文档的结尾了呢~~
广告剩余8秒
文档加载中
how much has information tec..
扫扫二维码，随身浏览文档
手机或平板扫扫即可继续访问
how much has information technology contributed to linguistics
举报该文档为侵权文档。
举报该文档含有违规或不良信息。
反馈该文档无法正常浏览。
举报该文档为重复文档。
推荐理由：
将文档分享至：
分享完整地址
文档地址：
粘贴到BBS或博客
flash地址：
支持嵌入FLASH地址的网站使用
html代码：
&embed src='/DocinViewer-4.swf' width='100%' height='600' type=application/x-shockwave-flash ALLOWFULLSCREEN='true' ALLOWSCRIPTACCESS='always'&&/embed&
450px*300px480px*400px650px*490px
支持嵌入HTML代码的网站使用
您的内容已经提交成功
您所提交的内容需要审核后才能发布，请您等待！
3秒自动关闭窗口A hidden world, growing beyond control |
This page has been archived.
Read the StoriesSee the MapExplore ConnectionsFind CompaniesSearch the DataThe top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.These are some of the findings of a two-year investigation by The Washington Post that discovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight. After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.The investigation's other findings include:* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings - about 17 million square feet of space.* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from
terrorist networks. * Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year - a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.Since Sept. 11, 2001, the top-secret world created to respond to the terrorist attacks has grown into an unwieldy enterprise spread over 10,000 U.S. locations. These are lack of focus, not lack of resources, was at the heart of the Fort Hood shooting that left 13 dead, as well as the Christmas Day bomb attempt thwarted not by the thousands of analysts employed to find lone terrorists but by an alert airline passenger who saw smoke coming from his seatmate.They are also issues that greatly concern some of the people in charge of the nation's security."There has been so much growth since 9/11 that getting your arms around that - not just for the <a href="/top-secret-america/gov-orgs/dni/DNI [Director of National Intelligence], but for any individual, for the director of the , for the secretary of defense - is a challenge," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in an interview with The Post last week.In the , where more than two-thirds of the intelligence programs reside, only a handful of senior officials - called Super Users - have the ability to even know about all the department's activities. But as two of the Super Users indicated in interviews, there is simply no way they can keep up with the nation's most sensitive work."I'm not going to live long enough to be briefed on everything" was how one Super User put it. The other recounted that for his initial briefing, he was escorted into a tiny, dark room, seated at a small table and told he couldn't take notes. Program after program began flashing on a screen, he said, until he yelled ''Stop!" in frustration."I wasn't remembering any of it," he said. Underscoring the seriousness of these issues are the conclusions of retired Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who was asked last year to review the method for tracking the Defense Department's most sensitive programs. Vines, who once commanded 145,000 troops in Iraq and is familiar with complex problems, was stunned by what he discovered."I'm not aware of any agency with the authority, responsibility or a process in place to coordinate all these interagency and commercial activities," he said in an interview. "The complexity of this system defies description."The result, he added, is that it's impossible to tell whether the country is safer because of all this spending and all these activities. "Because it lacks a synchronizing process, it inevitably results in message dissonance, reduced effectiveness and waste," Vines said. "We consequently can't effectively assess whether it is making us more safe."The Post's investigation is based on government documents and contracts, job descriptions, property records, corporate and social networking Web sites, additional records, and hundreds of interviews with intelligence, military and corporate officials and former officials. Most requested anonymity either because they are prohibited from speaking publicly or because, they said, they feared retaliation at work for describing their concerns. The Post's online database of government organizations and private companies was built entirely on public records. The investigation focused on top-secret work because the amount classified at the secret level is too large to accurately track. Today's article describes the government's role in this expanding enterprise. Tuesday's article describes the government's dependence on private contractors. Wednesday's is a portrait of one Top Secret America community. On the Web, an extensive, searchable database built by The Post about Top Secret America is available /topsecretamerica. Defense Secretary Gates, in his interview with The Post, said that he does not believe the system has become too big to manage but that getting precise data is sometimes difficult. Singling out the growth of intelligence units in the Defense Department, he said he intends to review those programs for waste. "Nine years after 9/11, it makes a lot of sense to sort of take a look at this and say, 'Okay, we've built tremendous capability, but do we have more than we need?' " he said.CIA Director Leon Panetta, who was also interviewed by The Post last week, said he's begun mapping out a five-year plan for his agency because the levels of spending since 9/11 are not sustainable. "Particularly with these deficits, we're going to hit the wall. I want to be prepared for that," he said. "Frankly, I think everyone in intelligence ought to be doing that."In an interview before he resigned as the director of national intelligence in May, retired Adm. Dennis C. Blair said he did not believe there was overlap and redundancy in the intelligence world. "Much of what appears to be redundancy is, in fact, providing tailored intelligence for many different customers," he said.Blair also expressed confidence that subordinates told him what he needed to know. "I have visibility on all the important intelligence programs across the community, and there are processes in place to ensure the different intelligence capabilities are working together where they need to," he said.Weeks later, as he sat in the corner of a ballroom at the Willard Hotel waiting to give a speech, he mused about The Post's findings. "After 9/11, when we decided to attack violent extremism, we did as we so often do in this country," he said. "The attitude was, if it's worth doing, it's probably worth overdoing."&Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the
governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. On TwitterTalk to UsWant to contribute to this ongoing project?Latest from around the web&&&&Follow us on Twitter! Use hashtag Like Top Secret America on Facebook: Live Q&As (July 19) (July 20) (July 21) (December 20) (December 20)Part 1: July 19, 2010Part 2: July 20, 2010Part 3: July 21, 2010Part 4: December 20, 2010ReferenceThis project was last updated in September 2010. Data is accurate as of that date."Top Secret America" is a project nearly two years in the making that describes the huge national security buildup in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. | More than a dozen Washington Post journalists spent two years developing Top Secret America. | VideoA short video from PBS’s FRONTLINE on The Post’s two-year investigation. An hour-long documentary film is forthcoming. The reportersDana PriestInvestigative reporter Dana Priest has been The Washington Post's intelligence, Pentagon and health-care reporter. She has won numerous awards, including the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for public service for "The Other Walter Reed" and the 2006 Pulitzer for beat reporting for her work on CIA secret prisons and counterterrorism operations overseas. She is author of the 2003 book, "The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace With America's Military, (W.W. Norton).William M. ArkinWilliam M. Arkin has been a columnist and reporter with The Washington Post
since 1998.
He has worked on the subject of government secrecy and national security affairs for more than 30 years.
He has authored or co-authored more than a dozen books about the U.S. military and national security.Project CreditsStephanie Clark, Ben de la Cruz, Kat Downs, Dan Drinkard, Anne Ferguson-Rohrer, Justin Ferrell, David Finkel, Jennifer Jenkins, Robert Kaiser, Laris Karklis, Jacqueline Kazil, Lauren Keane, Todd Lindeman, Greg Manifold, Jennifer Morehead, Bonnie Jo Mount, Larry Nista, Ryan O’Neil, Sarah Sampsel, Whitney Shefte, Laura Stanton, Julie Tate, Doris Truong, Nathaniel Vaughn Kelso, Michael Williamson, Karen Yourish, Amanda Zamora.Contact UsPhone: 202-334-9300E-mail:
The Washington Post Company}