The use of indicators designed for urban environments ends up exaggerating the actual poverty situation of rural communities located in the Amazon. Using data from the 2000 Census, a standard multidimensional poverty index showed a value approximately 17% higher for the rural area compared to the result obtained by applying a metric adapted to the region's reality.
To correct this inaccuracy and reduce the risk of countryside lifestyles being erroneously categorized as deprivation, a team of researchers coordinated by the Federal University of Pará (UFPA) developed the Multidimensional Poverty Trajectories Index (IPM-Trajectories). This new index was presented in a study published in the journal Nova Economia last Friday (23).
This model integrates health, education, and living conditions data from the 2000 and 2010 censuses, applying different criteria for both urban and rural areas. Specific indicators, such as land ownership, were created to measure poverty in the countryside, while the possession of a radio and other communication items, as well as the availability of a car or motorcycle, receive different weights depending on whether the context is rural or urban.
The new indicator showed that, in 2010, rural poverty in the area reached 27% of the rural population, a rate about four times higher than that observed in the urban area, which was 7%. Between 2000 and 2010, the multidimensional poverty index registered significant drops, reaching about 79% in the rural sector and 94% in the urban sector. However, those responsible warn that a direct comparison between the two years is unfeasible due to changes in the variables used by the Census.
In addition to UFPA, the creation of this tool involved several other entities, including Ipea (Institute for Applied Economic Research), the Ministry of Health, Inpe (National Institute for Space Research), Fiocruz (Oswaldo Cruz Foundation), federal universities such as UFSM, UFSCar, and UFMG, and the Barcelona Supercomputing Center. A multidisciplinary group composed of specialists in epidemiology, economics, ecology, biology, geography, and social sciences defined these new indicators.
General indicators, such as per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Human Development Index (HDI), use averages that mask the reality of those residing in the biome, and according to the authors, contributed to consolidating the perception of continuous poverty in the Amazon, linked to a supposed delay in its rural economy.
