Various press reports over the past month have noted that the World Bank recently re-evaluated methodology for measuring global economic statistics, with particularly stunning results for the world’s most populous nation, China. GDP was reduced by an extraordinary 40%, and the estimated number of people in poverty tripled, to 300 million, or nearly a quarter of the population. (Correction: initial posting said a third.) The World Bank extreme poverty standard has generally been living on $1 per day in the poorest nations, while it and many development, hunger and poverty experts would describe the approximately half of the world’s population living on around $2 a day or less as impoverished as well, many would say in extreme poverty--and other measures of income and cost of living suggest an even higher rate of global poverty in varying degrees. The World Bank's re-evaluation is apparently based on a new survey of dollar purchasing power. (Correction: the above more accurately describes the historical standard, new evaluation and related views than the initial postings. A related correction is that the 12/24/07 Issue of the Week inadvertently used $3 per day rather $2 in describing income of approximately half the world's people.) Additional millions in the more developed and rich nations living on much more also live in poverty by developed nation standards such as cost of living. Much of China’s improvement in reducing hunger and poverty over the past half century was a result of providing basic health care and other measures, followed by increasing measures to give more ownership-like rights to land worked on by peasant farmers, at the same time as the shift toward a market economy gained momentum. Even China’s draconian policy on population control has occurred in a context where infant death rates and other measures of reducing hunger and poverty and enhancing health were improving as a result of other policies. However, many basic reforms and services needed have not been extended to the point required to reduce poverty further, even as the economy has boomed in other areas. Many development experts concluded long ago that without basic reforms and services in place, the trickle down effect in even the most robust economies is not sufficient to eliminate poverty. Even in the United States, while estimates vary and the state of the economy has impact on the degree of poverty, nearly one in five children have remained in poverty for many years. Regardless of your views as to the role of overall economic growth and market factors in achieving self sufficiency for the largest number of people, or what specific additional interventions may be needed, do you agree that ending hunger and poverty for a substantial number of people suffering under these conditions requires reforms and services beyond what market economics can provide by themselves?