Absolute Poverty vs Relative Poverty
Absolute Poverty and Relative Poverty are two International & Development Economics concepts in AP Economics that students often mix up. Absolute poverty is being below a fixed threshold of income or consumption set by the cost of basic needs, regardless of what everyone else has. Relative poverty is having income far below the typical income in your own country, usually below half or sixty percent of the national median. Here is how they compare side by side.
The threshold is anchored to a bundle of goods, food, shelter, clothing and basic health care, rather than to the incomes of neighbors. Because it is fixed in real terms, it does not shift when average incomes rise, so broad economic growth mechanically pulls people over the line and the absolute poverty rate falls. That is why absolute poverty can in principle reach zero in a country, while relative poverty cannot be removed by growth alone. Rich countries mostly report relative measures because almost nobody there sits below a basic-needs threshold, and the international extreme-poverty line is aimed at the world's poorest economies. The count always depends on where the fixed threshold was drawn.
The line moves with the distribution, so relative poverty measures distance from the middle of your society rather than physical deprivation. Statisticians usually equivalize incomes first, adjusting for household size so a family of four is not compared directly with a single adult. Because the threshold rises when the median rises, uniform growth leaves the relative poverty rate almost unchanged, and a recession that cuts middle incomes can lower it even though everyone got poorer. Rich countries favor this measure because it captures being shut out of ordinary life: no internet at home, no school trips, no way to reach a job interview across town. It is a measure of inequality in the lower half of the distribution more than a measure of hardship.
Absolute vs Relative Poverty: A Fixed Line Against a Moving One
| Absolute poverty | Relative poverty | |
|---|---|---|
| Where the line comes from | The cost of a basket of basic needs, held fixed in real terms | A fraction of the national median income, usually a half or three fifths |
| What it measures | Deprivation, whether a household can cover basic needs at all | Distance from the middle of your own society, a form of inequality |
| If every income doubles | Measured poverty falls and can reach zero | Unchanged, because the line doubles with the median |
| If a slump cuts every income | Rises, as households drop below a line that has not moved | Can hold steady or even fall, since the median falls too |
| Comparing two countries | Possible using one line converted at purchasing power parity | Awkward, because each country's line reflects its own median |
| Policy it points to | Food, clean water, basic health care and cash for the very poorest | Transfers, minimum wages, schooling and housing that lift the bottom toward the middle |
| Main criticism | The basket is a judgment call, and what counts as a basic need changes as countries get richer | It can be improved by making middle incomes fall, which helps nobody |
Double every income and one measure collapses while the other does not move
Work through an illustrative country whose median household income is 40,000 in local currency. Put the relative line at 60 percent of the median, which is 24,000, and an absolute line at 15,000, the invented cost of a basic needs basket. Now let a decade of growth double every income. The median becomes 80,000, the relative line rises with it to 48,000, and exactly the same households sit below it, so measured relative poverty does not move at all. The absolute line stays at 15,000 in real terms, every household that was near it has sailed past, and measured absolute poverty falls toward zero. Run the experiment backwards. A slump cuts every income by a quarter, so the median drops to 30,000 and the relative line to 18,000. Relative poverty again holds steady while absolute poverty climbs, because households are now falling below a threshold that has not moved. The two measures can point in opposite directions in the same year and neither is wrong; they answer different questions. International absolute lines are quoted in purchasing power parity terms and revised as price surveys improve, which is one reason a headline poverty figure can change without anyone's living standard changing. That conversion is explained at /glossary/purchasing-power-parity-ppp.
Rich countries still report poverty, and the definition is the reason
A country that measures poverty relatively will report a positive rate forever unless the bottom of its distribution catches up with the middle. That is a property of the definition, not a verdict on its policies. The thinking behind it is participation: a household that cannot afford a school trip, a bus fare to an interview or a home internet connection is shut out of ordinary life in that society, even if nobody in it goes hungry. What it takes to take part is set by the society you live in, so the line has to move with it. That is also the measure's weak spot. Relative poverty falls when the median falls, so a deep recession that hurts middle income families can improve the statistic while making almost everyone poorer. Reading the rate next to a summary of the whole distribution avoids that trap, and /calculate/gini-coefficient works through one such summary. Most statistical agencies publish several lines at once, differing in the equivalence scale used for household size and in whether housing costs are deducted, which is why two honest figures for the same country can disagree by several percentage points. How any of these thresholds gets drawn in the first place is set out at /glossary/poverty-line.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between absolute and relative poverty?
Absolute poverty is measured against a fixed threshold based on the cost of basic needs, so the line does not move when the rest of society gets richer. Relative poverty is measured against typical income in your own country, so the line rises as the country grows and the measure tracks distance from the middle rather than raw deprivation.
Can a rich country have absolute poverty?
Yes. A fixed basic needs line still finds households that cannot cover food, heating or shelter, and destitution and homelessness exist in high income countries. Rich countries usually headline a relative measure instead, which is why their published poverty rates stay well above zero after long stretches of growth.
Why does relative poverty not fall when the economy grows?
Because the line grows with the economy. If every income rises by the same proportion the median rises by that proportion too, the threshold set at a fraction of the median rises with it, and the same households stay below. The measure only improves when incomes at the bottom grow faster than incomes in the middle.
Get AP Econ exam tips in your inbox
Occasional emails with study tips, new interactive graphs, and exam-season reminders. Free, no spam.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Read our privacy policy.
Keep track of what you have studied
A free EconLearn account adds progress tracking, your quiz history, and achievements. Studying here is free either way, and there is nothing to pay for as a student.
Create a free accountAlready have one? Sign in
Last updated