Rising poverty in conflict zones ‘causes a billion people to go hungry'
Extreme poverty is accelerating in 39 countries affected by war and conflict, leaving more than a billion people to go hungry, according to the World Bank.
Civil wars and confrontations between nations, mostly in Africa, have set back economic growth and reduced the incomes of more than a billion people, 'driving up extreme poverty faster than anywhere else', the Washington-based body said.
Underscoring the breadth of conflicts beyond the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza wars, it said the 39 developing economies classified as being in fragile and conflict-affected situations are plagued by instability and weak institutions, 'hindering their ability to attain the robust, sustained economic growth needed for development'.
In its first assessment of conflict zones since the Covid-19 pandemic began in 2020, the World Bank urged western governments to step up support for war-torn countries to end the conflicts and rebuild vital institutions.
Since 2020, the level of national income per head of population has shrunk by an average of 1.8% a year in the affected countries, while it has expanded by 2.9% in other developing economies, the report found.
The World Bank, which lends to poor nations to promote stable economic growth, said acute hunger was increasing and development goals set by the United Nations were now 'further out of reach'.
'This year, 421 million people are struggling on less than $3 a day in economies afflicted by conflict or instability – more than in the rest of the world combined,' the report said. 'That number is projected to rise to 435 million, or nearly 60% of the world's extreme poor, by 2030.'
The number of deaths in wars and conflicts across the world was stable before the 2008 banking crisis, which forced many developing countries to cut back welfare and education programmes to pay for rising debt payments.
The report said the average number of such fatalities was about 50,000 between 2000 and 2004 and even lower between 2005 and 2008, but then there was an increase to more than 150,000 in 2014. Since the pandemic, the number of deaths in conflict has averaged 200,000, hitting more than 300,000 in 2022.
'For the last three years, the world's attention has been on the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, and this focus has now intensified,' said Indermit Gill, the World Bank Group's chief economist.
'Yet more than 70% of people suffering from conflict and instability are Africans. Untreated, these conditions become chronic. Half of the countries facing conflict or instability today have been in such conditions for 15 years or more. Misery on this scale is inevitably contagious.'
He said of the 39 economies currently classified as facing conflict or instability, 21 are in active conflict.
Several major donors to investment programmes across the developing world have reduced their funding in recent years, including the UK and the US.
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
Some philanthropic organisations, including the Bill Gates Foundation, have said they cannot increase funding to fill gaps left by governments, leaving many countries to scramble for funds to pay loan interest payments.
According to the report, the extreme-poverty rate has fallen to 6% on average across all developing world countries. However, in economies facing conflict or instability the rate is nearly 40%.
The 39 countries have a rate of national income per head of $1,500 a year, 'which has barely budged since 2010 – even as GDP per capita has more than doubled to an average of $6,900 in other developing economies,' the report said.
Joining the army of local militia can also be an attractive option for young men and women. In 2022, the latest year for which such data was available, more than 270 million people were of working age in these economies, yet less than half were employed.
'The global community must pay greater attention to the plight of these economies,' said M Ayhan Kose, the World Bank Group's deputy chief economist.
'Jumpstarting growth and development here will not be easy, but it can be done – and it has been done before. With targeted policies and stronger international support, policymakers can prevent conflict, strengthen governance, accelerate growth, and create jobs.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
President Trump approval rating: Poll released after US strikes Iran
In a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday, June 26, the Republican leader had a 41% approval rating among respondents, with 54% disapproving. This compares to Quinnipiac's poll released June 11, when 38% approved and 54% disapproved. New poll: Majority of Americans disapprove of US strikes on Iran Respondents gave Trump less-than-majority marks across his handling of seven key issues: The military: 45% approve, 49% disapprove Foreign policy: 40% approve, 54% disapprove The Israel-Iran war: 39% approve, 53% disapprove Immigration: 41% approve, 57% disapprove Deportations: 39% approve, 59% disapprove The economy: 39% approve, 56% disapprove Trade: 38% approve, 55% disapprove The survey of registered voters was conducted June 22-24 among 979 respondents with a ?3.1% margin of error. The poll was conducted after the U.S. strikes on Iran, which occurred June 21 (in EST). A Reuters/Ipsos poll released earlier this week gave Trump a similar 41% approval number, the lowest that the poll has found in his second term and down one point from earlier in the month. The poll opened after U.S. airstrikes on Iran June 21 and ended early June 23 before Iran said it attacked a U.S. air base in Qatar. The Reuters/Ipsos survey gave him a 57% disapproval rating, with opinions of his stance on the economy and foreign policy both slipping four points to 35% approval. An average of recent polling from the New York Times shows Trump's approval rating at 44%, as of Thursday, June 26, with 53% disapproving of his job performance. Pollster Nate Silver's "Silver Bulletin" newsletter calculated the president has a 45% approval and 52% disapproval Thursday, and RealClearPolitics' average was slightly higher, giving the president a 46% approval and 51% disapproval rating. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Oxfam's Gaza propaganda
An astonishing email from Oxfam, one of Britain's oldest and biggest humanitarian charities, dropped into my inbox this week. Dramatically titled (in blood scarlet) 'Red Lines for Gaza', it demanded that if I am as outraged by the 'horrors that Israel is inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza' as Oxfam is, and I want to do something about it, I should scrawl a red line across the palm of my hand and send the image to the charity. They will then use it to make a striking design for their campaign on the Gaza issue in the coming days. The email simply assumed that I must share Oxfam's one sided, extreme and unbalanced views, and would automatically lend my support to their absurd and sinister propaganda stunt Nowhere in the angry text of the email was there any attempt to explain or explore why there is a conflict in Gaza. There was no mention either of what happened on 7 October 2023. Nor was there any indication that the Strip is controlled by Hamas – an armed jihadist terrorist group banned in Britain, which is sworn to the destruction of Israel and the death of its Jewish citizens. A terrorist group who are still holding more than 50 of the hostages they abducted during their invasion of Israel on that deadly October day. The email simply assumed that I must share Oxfam's one sided, extreme and unbalanced views, and would automatically lend my support to their absurd and sinister propaganda stunt. Oxfam has always been a leftist and anti-western organisation, but it's a swift moral decline when the charity ignores the actions of a ferocious and murderous bunch of terrorists so it can focus on Israel. It is not the only household name to take up the anti-Israel cause this week. On Tuesday, the Co-op food retailer announced it would no longer stock produce from Israel or 16 other countries that it deemed guilty of serious human rights violations. The Co-op claimed it made this move as a result of pressure from their members. I hold a Co-op loyalty card myself – but have never once been asked by them for my views on Israel, Gaza, or any other 'human rights' issue. Like Oxfam, the Co-op is a venerable British institution with deep left-wing roots (it was affiliated with the Labour party and even sponsored many of their MPs), but its open support for one side on such a controversial issue is not what I expect from my grocer, and clearly limits its customers' freedom of choice in selecting what they can and cannot buy from the supermarket chain. International politics and buying toilet tissue should be kept firmly apart. Founded in Oxford in 1942 in the midst of the second world war, Oxfam began life as an initiative by a bunch of bien pensant local Quakers and university academics to bring food to people ravaged by the global conflict. After the war, as it grew into an industry and expanded with branches across the world, Oxfam doubtless did much worthy good work in alleviating hunger in famines and relieving suffering caused by wars, earthquakes, floods and similar natural and manmade catastrophes. But in doing so, the charity conglomerate became drawn away from disaster relief and into politics over issues such as national debt and climate change (inevitably on the 'progressive' leftist side). It also has been embroiled in several scandals, leading to suggestions that the once-upstanding institution had become irredeemably tainted. Oxfam workers in Haiti and Chad were accused of sexual abuse and exploitation of the very people they were supposed to be helping; the charity's higher executives drew obscenely high salaries; and in 2017 Oxfam was fined under the Data Protection Act for misusing private information naively entrusted to them by donors. But in its Gaza propaganda, Oxfam has plumbed new depths. That may give the naturally generous and fair-minded British public second thoughts, the next time they are asked by the charity to reach into their wallets.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The global south needs more than tinkering at a conference: debt forgiveness is the only fair way
It is 2025, and the architecture of economic power remains grossly tilted against the nations of the global south. Nowhere is this imbalance more acute – and more enduring – than in the debilitating impact of sovereign debt. From the vast countries of Africa to the scattered but strategically vital small island developing states (Sids) of the Caribbean and the Pacific, debt has become a modern form of bondage – the chains that restrict growth, sovereignty and the basic human dignity of nations struggling to define their own path to development. The statistics tell an alarming story. By the start of 2024 developing countries' public debt reached approximately $29tn (£21.2tn), rising from 16% of global debt in 2010 to nearly 30%. This escalation was fuelled by a convergence of a global pandemic and rising costs internationally. Today, average borrowing costs in Africa are almost 10 times higher than for the US. Why? International credit rating agencies will point at risk in Africa but this is perception, and a myth, not reality. Africa has consistently been the least risky continent for returns on the dollar when compared worldwide. But nevertheless, the impact is profoundly immoral as global south countries face prioritising debt servicing over essentials. One-third of these fragile countries have to allocate more to servicing interest – as much as 14% of domestic revenue – than to healthcare, education or climate resilience. For decades, these countries have been trapped in a cycle of borrowing to survive and repaying to remain 'credible' in the eyes of the international financial order. But the terms of this credibility have always been set elsewhere – primarily in western capitals, behind the closed doors of international financial institutions. These institutions, under the guise of technical neutrality, have in fact driven economic ideologies that have crippled the same countries they claim to help. As a young economics student in the 1980s, it was made clear to me that the true path was Thatcherism and Reaganomics, elevated to near-religious orthodoxy, both rooted in neoliberalism. Developing countries were told to liberalise, privatise and deregulate. Structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), driven by IMF and World Bank conditionalities, imposed austerity measures that gutted public services and sacrificed the welfare of millions on the altar of fiscal discipline. Healthcare systems collapsed. Schools were closed. Public sector wages were frozen and trade unions deemed to be evil. And yet, we were told to believe this was 'development'. In truth, this was not development but dependency. During the 1980s and 1990s, in Jamaica, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago, these policies led not to prosperity but to deepening poverty, growing inequality and social unrest. In the Caribbean alone, SAPs contributed to lost decades of growth, political upheaval, and widespread disillusionment with the promise of independence. More than a few governments were ousted as a result of electoral backlash against IMF-imposed hardship. Foreign aid – so often touted as a benevolent solution – has played a double-edged role. Far from empowering states, it has often eroded their autonomy. Much of the aid has come with heavy strings attached: contracts that must go to western contractors; conditions that require the opening of markets before local industries are ready; and monitoring mechanisms that diminish sovereign decision-making. No wonder so many African leaders prefer the Chinese offers of lending. The result has been a facade of support, what the great activists Frantz Fanon or Kwame Ture, might have called a 'pitiful mimicry' of development – where countries are forced to pursue western-centric models of skyscrapers, luxury seafront resorts denying locals access to their beaches, and white elephant vanity projects destroying the environment, while their people continue to lack access to clean water, reliable electricity, or functioning hospitals. Development, at its core, should be about expanding the freedoms and capabilities of people. It should mean children can attend school without hunger. That mothers can give birth in safe conditions. That farmers can bring their goods to market on decent roads. That communities can trade, access clean water, and benefit from the natural resources of their lands without being poisoned by extraction. But the dominant model of development, dictated by external creditors and investors, has misconstrued these priorities. In its place, we see the proliferation of unsustainable debt-financed projects, many of which serve elite interests or foreign investors rather than local communities. Loans from the IMF and World Bank have frequently funded projects that do little to enhance long-term national resilience or productivity. And these loans, compounded by high interest rates and currency volatility, are serviced partially – through austerity and further borrowing – but rarely repaid. This is by design. Debt, in this system, is not a tool for development but a mechanism of control. Across the global south, the story is much the same. Multinational corporations, often operating with generous tax concessions and little oversight, engage in resource extraction that depletes environments and communities. They argue that their share of profits is justified by their investment in infrastructure and innovation. Yet these same companies contribute disproportionately to environmental degradation – through oil spills, deforestation, over-mining and pollution – without being fairly taxed or held accountable. One-sided trade agreements perpetuate this imbalance. The rules of global commerce, whether in mining, agriculture or tourism, are rigged in favour of the north. Risk assessments by international credit rating agencies, often influenced by outdated or racist perceptions, and opaque and biased criteria, further discourage equitable investment in the south. These assessments have more to do with where a country is located than with its actual economic potential or fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile, the brain drain continues. The brightest young minds of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific are drawn to wealthier countries in search of opportunity denied at home, leaving behind hollowed-out institutions and leadership vacuums. Local education systems produce excellence, only for it to be exported. The voices of our nations are also muted on the global stage. Despite holding the majority of the world's population, the global south holds a minority of voting power in institutions such as the UN. Decisions that affect our future are made without our meaningful participation but with token theatre. The UN holds its future of development financing conference in Seville, Spain, next week, it should be a moment for honest discussion on how the world can come together to support sustainable development, but already the US and the UK have blocked action on tackling the unfair burden of debt. When disasters strike – whether hurricanes, earthquakes, or the slow violence of the climate crisis – the burden of recovery falls overwhelmingly on us. The loss and damage fund, formally established at Cop27 in 2022 and only put into operation in 2024, has been long championed by vulnerable nations but still remains underfunded and under-prioritised. Yet for many Sids, the climate emergency is not a future threat – it is a catastrophe now. Shorelines are disappearing. Coral reefs are dying. Agriculture is failing. Lives are being lost. It is long past time for a reckoning. The economic architecture that dominates global development discourse has failed. It has failed the poor. It has failed the planet. And it has failed the very ideals of justice and solidarity upon which the post-second world war international system was supposedly built. We need more than tinkering at the margins. We need more than an extravagant conference in Seville can deliver. We need debt forgiveness – not as a charity, but as a historical rectification. We need concessional financing with reduced interest rates and transparent, fair assessments of investment risk. We need climate reparations through robust, predictable and progressive loss and damage funds. In times of force majeure, we need aid that empowers, not aid that entraps. Most of all, we need the freedom to define development on our own terms – rooted in equity, sustainability and sovereignty. Until these structural injustices are addressed, the global south may remain poor not because of a lack of potential or ambition, but because the rules of the game were never written for our success.
