The poverty gap: how does Madagascar fare ?

I do not know enough about economics and development to assess the current situation in Madagascar. However, this index makes a lot of sense (to me at least): you can tell the state of wealth or (poverty) of a country by observing how much does its poorest population contribute to the total GDP ? Keep in mind that Madagascar's GDP /capita is now evaluated at $905 (169th in the worldout of 180). Here is a list of how subsaharian countries fare in that regard:

As a comparison, here is how other developing countries fared:

So it seems that Madagascar poverty gap is wider than in most countries other than Argentina and Brazil. Still we are only a few points away from the USA (4.9 vs 5.4)... What conclusions to draw from this... I am not sure :) but it seems fare to say that the USA poverty gap is not getting better. Of course, their GDP/capita is $41,000 so it is difficult to compare. I am just worried for Madagascar because the external signs may indicate that things are moving in the right directions: shopping mall everywhere, cell phones and entertainment facilities... when it might just hide the underlying growing poverty.


  1. as long as everyone gets their food water shelter it's not poor. rest depends on the opportunites available for the poorer section to advance.

    good game although why vikash didn't come in I don't know... would have been 2-0 with him!

  2. and basic healthcare. Opportunity is exactly what is hard to come by back home if you are in the lower tier percentile. There is a risk of serious negligence of all things or people not immediately financially profitable in our economy. Vikash's contribution cannot only be measured with the on- field actions. Apparently he was at the center of "us-against-the-world" attitude of the french team after a dismal showing back in April. Vikash might be channeling some of Nehru's rallying skills :).

  3. I think Gandhi was more that type. Nehru was just riding on his coat-tails as far as organising the people went. Gandhi realised that most of India was really poor and really religious and led an ascetic existance to appeal to those people. They trusted him and did whatever he said. He picked simple battles... the british ban on buying indian goods, their insistance on a tax for salt etc.
    Nehru was the Mahatma's heir apparent and the people just transferred loyalties to him. In hindsight it would have been better for Vallabhai Patel to have been the PM as Nehru made a couple of 'Himalayan blunders' because he thought that as long as you are not hostile to others, they will not be hostile to you. He failed to realise that not being hostile would be perceived as being a soft target and died of heartbreak.
    Sorry for the long history!
    This immigrant work ethic / attitude seems to be good for France! What are your equivalent of the WASPMs saying on the streets?

  4. Anonymous2:42 AM

    Where did you find it? Interesting read here