What Can Satellite Night-Time Photos Tell Us About the State of Global Poverty?


Economists Maxim Pinkovskiy of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Xavier Sala-i-Martin of Columbia University have written a paper on a new way to assess the state of global poverty.
Over at the Adam Smith Institute's blog Tim Worstall summarizes the problem Pinkovskiy and Sala-i-Martin are addressing:
A government that hasn't quite worked out how to collect the rubbish isn't going to be all that good at counting the people nor what they do or earn.
The upshot of this is that we really don't know how many poor people there are out there. We know there are fewer than there used to be, and the poor are a very much smaller portion of the growing population than used to be true, but we really only know trends rather than actual numbers. Basically because the numbers we've got for things like GDP and inequality are so sketchy themselves.
What Pinkovskiy and Sala-i-Martin are proposing is the following:
In new research we suggest such a data-driven way to assess the relative quality of national accounts and survey means by using a third, independently collected data source on economic activity. This data is satellite-recorded luminosity at night as measured by weather satellites of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The advantage of this data is that measurement error in night-time lights is unrelated to measurement errors in national accounts or surveys, making lights an independent measurement of true income, against which we can assess the other measurements.
To disentangle whether national accounts or survey means are closer to true income we postulate a factor model in which national accounts GDP per capita, survey means and night-time lights are linear functions of unobserved, true income (and, potentially, other covariates), perturbed by random disturbances.
What is particularly interesting about Pinkovskiy and Sala-i-Martin's paper is that it concludes with some encouraging news:
Under our procedure, developing world poverty declines from 11.8% in 1992 to 6.1% in 2005 and 4.5% in 2010, much lower than the path constructed by giving a weight of 1 to the surveys, which entails poverty falling from 42% to 20.5% between 1992 and 2010. We run a battery of robustness checks on our findings; under the ones most favourable to replicating the survey-based results, the largest that we find developing world poverty to be in 2010 is 12%.
Read more from Reason.com on poverty here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Who cares about the state of global poetry?
I do.
But perhaps,
Not you.
All this "prosperity" is fucking up the views from my telescopes.
I must destroy the Earth. It obstructs my view of Venus.
Meanwhile Epi is staring at Uranus.
I was actually born on the anniversary of the day Herschel discovered Uranus.
So I got THAT goin' for me.
Oh, you know whose birthday I was born on? Just ask Pro Lib. He hates me for it.
What I said was that you were a prime candidate for possession by Neil Armstrong. I certainly don't hate Neil Armstrong.
Oh, I thought you meant for him to come back now and take possession of my body so he could once again walk the earth and other celestial bodies.
Well nevermind then.
Finally got over the Orange Bowl?
[sigh]
No.
I'm saying this without the slightest bit of snark: what the hell happened to your basketball team? I thought they were a serious contender this year, but they've imploded on a Biblical level.
No offensive leadership. Craft was supposed to be a stud this year but all he does is dribble down the floor and look to pass. And it's tough to compete in a decent conference when the other team can use 5 guys to defend four. I thought they could right the ship when Della Valle started getting more floor time but Craft saw it coming and stepped up his offensive production...only to sink back into the shitter the past couple of games.
And they're really not very deep this year either. 6-7 guys can't get it done in this day and age.
It's too bad, but I'm sure they'll bounce back. I had to endure that with my college football team this year, but I'm sure they'll be back in contention next season.
I don't know to what purpose his possession of you will be put, just that it's likely to happen.
The horrible thing is, Sloopy - he *already* has.
You think you have free-will? Hah, everything you do is because Neil is pulling the strings from beyond the grave.
He can deny it, but he can't prove Neil Armstrong isn't in direct control of his body. And by the way, your imminent denials are exactly what we'd expect Neil Armstrong to say.
I certainly don't hate Neil Armstrong.
I do.
What the hell makes him so great?
Won a government run lottery to go to the moon.
Big whoop. "hey look guys I am luckier then you doesn't that make me super awsome"
Good ol Neil.
Friggin jack off is what he is.
You're just upset that you can never be the first human to walk on the fucking Moon. However, I do believe first to have sex on the Moon is still open.
I was born on the very same day that Elvis made the down payment on Graceland.
Actually, I was born on the very day that Episiarch was born.
Sucks to be you.
I was born the same day the Challenger exploded so I got that going for me.
Damn it. I swear I'm not old enough for that statement to make me feel old.
Shouldn't you be in class right now?
Now get off my lawn!
I'm sorry, sloopy, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.
I hope this is not another scientific hoax, like global warming or second-hand smoke.
Oh really, what did they change it to?
Urrectum.
Urrectum? You nearly killed him!
Yo mama
They should have just renamed your anus.
+1 illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator
+ 1 Marvin the Martian
+ 24 and 1/2 century
I have a private rubbish hauler, thank you very much.
Rumpke FTW!
I have to pay 3 bucks to get my trash hauled away by the City. Marvel in that if you will.
Unlimited, or just 1 can?
I'm going to speculate that you pay way more than that, it's just hidden in taxes and other fees.
(If that was actually your joke, just indicate so with a mold-friendly thumbs up.)
What Pinkovskiy and Sala-i-Martin are proposing is the following:
I'll paraphrase their proposal into layman's terms:
They are proposing that governments throw money at a study that they will perform with a predetermined outcome and an unlimited timeframe and budget. They will then "adjust" the data points to ensure that their predetermined outcome is obtained and they will then propose that the first world nations (that developed the tech to put the satellites into space in the first fucking place) be shamed into altering their lifestyle and giving a percentage of the wealth they have accumulated to the corrupt officials that run the UN and third world countries that have been given trillions over the last few decades but have nothing to show for it. And if those programs fail, they will wash, rinse and repeat their proposals.
How close am I?
Eh. Sala-i-Martin may not be an Austrian, but he's one of the goodies.
Is that really the best public domain picture they could get of him?
Shut down the thread, we have a winner.
Nailed it.
Not too close from what I can tell. I don't see any value judgement being made on the abundance of artificial light. Just people looking for a metric for poverty that is independent of traditional measures which usually are highly influenced by governments.
Whether governments should throw a bunch of money at it is debatable, but it sounds like a pretty good idea.
Sure, how bright the lights are is a good indication of how rich you are. Remember, environmentalists do everything they can to shut those lights off.
I've had to turn off documentaries lately about Africa that bemoan the economic advancement of people because it "changes" the landscape.
God forbid these people have a decent standard of living, there's a bug that lives there that could be endangered!!!
"I've had to turn off documentaries lately about Africa that bemoan the economic advancement of people because it "changes" the landscape."
Fine. I'll make a deal with these fuckers. Let's exchange Africans with STEM majors for the documentarians. Let them try living at subsistence levels grueling over a patch of dirt.
I hate that shit. The best way to keep nice natural parts of the world nice is for people to become rich enough that they can care about that sort of thing. Keeping people poor definitely doesn't help. Look at fucking Haiti.
I suspect large swaths of poverty in the USA, west of the Mississippi
Seems like Canuckistan is pretty poor, too.
Yeah, Alaska looks almost as poor as North Korea.
This is all very hilarious, but I don't think anyone is actually suggesting that you can rely solely on the amount of night time illumination to determine poverty rates. Whether or not there are actually any people living in a place is probably slightly relevant, and I doubt that these economists overlooked that fact.
I really don't get the hostility to this. It seems like a good thing to have some data independent of the numbers that are usually provided by governments to measure where and when people are becoming more or less poor.
Funny. I drive 100 miles to be able to use my telescopes, and I'm still in the lighted area.
Wilson? Palomar?
I usually get a room in Palm Desert, and then head out towards the Salton Sea. Also some decent viewing on the North side of Big Bear.
Make your way up to Kings Canyon National park and hike across the first ridge where the lights of the valley don't impact your view. It's absolutely incredible.
What's the elevation there?
Between 8-10k feet depending on how far you want to hike. You can walk from the road to Buck Rock in about 30 minutes and it's 8500 ft.
I still remember the first time I saw the Milky Way with my naked eye when I went to my wife's village in rural Thailand.
For me it was a cornfield in Iowa when we had to go out there for my wife's cousin's wedding. Being from the NYC area, it was quite shocking.
There's the (possibly mythological) story that in 1994 after the Northridge quake, with the power out across the city, Los Angelinos were so confused by the Milky Way in the night sky that they called 911 to report it.
First an earthquake and now this weird glow in the sky! WAS THIS IN REVELATIONS!?
Myth. The power was back on before nightfall. I know because I helped both sets of grandparents clean up that evening, in Northridge and Canoga Park. Plus, there were huge fires burning everywhere.
The only Milky Way most Angelinos were worried about then were the ones they were stealing from the local Junior Market. That sounds like an urban legend, like Bigfoot or Warty.
I saw the Milky Way for the first time in a while up in Blowing Rock, NC (near Boone) last fall. It was fucking epic, that night sky. My kids, who had never seen it, were blown away.
There are places in Florida where you get really good night skies, but I haven't been out of the cities at night here very much in years.
Using my night vision goggles on a hill in the middle of nowhere Kosovo gave me an awesome look at the stars, a rather green look, I'll admit, but cool.
First time: Sun River, OR (no street lights allowed there).
The Brightest: Bora Bora. The entire sky was glowing.
Bora Bora.
Yep. If you have not seen the night sky at sea, you have not seen the night sky.
My dad and I snapped some spectacular photos of the milky way from the Gila Wilderness. You understand why it was dubbed 'Milky'.
I'm thinking of adding a period to the end of my name. Do I need to give you credit?
Fun fact: I had to add the period on my name because I took a long vacation and when I had returned, Reason had implemented registration. When I tried to register 'Paul' it was already taken. Not being particularly creative or clever, I didn't want to come up with a new handle (although I have one in mind now that I'm thinking of switching to... you know, in case I run for public office one day and want to distance myself from all the dumbass comments I've made over the years).
So anyhoo, I stuck a period on the end.
No, no need for credit. I'm not a hat-tip hound... any longer.
"in case I run for public office"
I'm not going to go digging for the link, but I thought it was you that came out against this earlier in the week? Something about arresting anyone who shows up?
I'm not going to go digging for the link, but I thought it was you that came out against this earlier in the week? Something about arresting anyone who shows up?
Ah, so you don't filter my comments.
Yes, that's exactly what I said, and have been saying it around here for a long time. The sentiment hasn't changed. I could use the three hots and a cot.
I had always wondered about the period. Now I won't feel bad leaving it off when I mention you because it breaks up the text.
Re h/t: so, the bastards wore you down, did they?
I had always wondered about the period. Now I won't feel bad leaving it off when I mention you because it breaks up the text.
Nah, don't. There was a guy (pre-registration) who would occasionally post as "Paul" so I presumed he took it first. But I haven't seen any postings with 'Paul' sans period. So who knows... maybe Episiarch took it to fuck with me.
btw, I still read your name as playuh (long A), even though I know know it's the spanish pronunciation.
I'm worried that everyone does. It makes me feel like a douchebag asshole.
You can take comfort knowing that I know better but find old habits hard to break.
I had always assumed "player".
It makes me feel like a douchebag asshole.
"feel"?
Ok, make that "aware". I set myself up for that.
Check out the night sky in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. It's seems like you can just reach up and touch it.
I see it on every clear night.
Poor bastards.
According to the study, you're the poor bastard.
Yep. My life is miserable.
Huh. I'd never really thought about how many people haven't seen that. Weird.
Even if you live in a relatively small town, you rarely see it with real clarity. You really have to get way away from stuff to get the kind of clarity you only find in a truly remote place.
Sure, I don't see it in brilliant glory very often, but on clear nights it is visible outside my house and I'm hardly out in the wilderness.
I take it the town you live in isn't adjacent to anything larger. That probably helps.
I do remember when we'd get out to the Gila wilderness for camping, it would kind of take your breath away that first night of camping.
I've read that it takes three months for a city-dweller's eyes to adjust before he/she can really see stars at night.
I woulda guessed Mt Pinos
So, what we should be doing is covering every square foot of the U.S. with green lasers, pointing towards space.
Sounds like the fastest way to make North Korea prosperous.
Why, do they manufacture green lasers?
IDK. They could just buy a few, aim them at space, and claim prosperity. Or, they could just burn piles of Boron. I'm no expert.
I suppose they could drill into the ground and release massive amounts of gas, then set the gas off with a nuke.
Remember, environmentalists do everything they can to shut those lights off.
So maybe there is a point of diminishing returns then? You don't find a lot of environmentalists among the poverty stricken.
OT: Mr. B drops a new joint.
Professor Elemental.
Nice, reminds me a bit of the Bonzo Dog Band, from whom Death Cab for Cutie took its name.
1) You are a total nerd/geek/dweeb HM.
2) Thanks for that. Looking forward to watching it.
Imagine how much poverty we could alleviate if we'd just pay everyone $15 an hour?
Disappearing the abortion thread after two minutes? How karmaic.
It was before 20 weeks, so OK.
I thought anything under 26 was cricket.
I would really like to see someone put together a time-lapse compiled from night shots over several years, so we could visualize economic development over decades.
We could watch North Korea get dimmer.
And watch Leon getting laaaaaarger.
-Johnny
I read the article and thought "What complete bullshit that study is.".
Sloopy has that covered.
I've heard that Belgium is the brightest country at night. Mostly because of their absurdly well lit motorways.
Well, you want the Germans to be able to see where they are going when they roll in the next time.
So based on this study, I guess Hiroshima, Japan had a super-low poverty rate on August 6, 1945.
I typed a follow up joke, but just couldn't bring myself to hit submit. I was headed down the same road, though.
For a second or so Japan was the lowest-poverty rate country in the world.
I'm not sure I would trust someone who thinks its *government's* job to arrange garbage collection to be able to count how many poor people there really are.
And, in the best traditions of managing what you measure, we're going to start seeing government programs to give the poor lightbulbs.
The difference in access to artificial lighting between rich and poor is horrible. Not having ready access to it is what makes those poor people inefficient workers and their children are just falling further and further behind the children of the well off.
Replace lightbulb with internet access and you have the current situation.
But not just any light bulbs...compact fluorescents!