# **Target 2:** _86 countries will have three or more poverty data points in ten years by 2030._

To achieve the target for indicator 2, the main focus will have to be placed on increasing data points for countries that already have two data points. For the period of 2002-11, 17 countries have two data points regularly while 18 countries have data irregularly (and are considered vulnerable to data deprivation). Incidentally, of these 35 countries, 18 are low income countries and the remaining 17 are middle income countries.

In order to reach the target of 86 countries with three or more data points, at least 23 countries that currently have two data points or less (in a ten year interval), will have to increase data frequency to at least 3 data points. Various existing efforts of increasing the number of data points from two or less to three or more can be capitalized on to achieve this target. For example, as already discussed, innovations in data collection methods and modes have changed the way in which data can be collected and analyzed. Traditional, face to face household survey data collection is costly, time-consuming and complex. Recent innovations in Information and Telecommunication Systems (ITS) and Computer Assisted Personal Imputation (CAPI) allows NSOs to switch to more affordable interview modes and techniques without impeding the quality of data.

# **Target 3** : _All new poverty estimates are of good quality and thus can be included in the WDI_ .

The target for indicator 3 measures whether new poverty estimates fulfill the quality criteria set forth by the Global Poverty Working Group (GPWG) and can thus be included in the WDI database. In some instances, poverty estimates are not included in the WDI after careful review of the methodology and comparability across years by the GPWG. This is often due to changes in the methodology, the lack of transparency of metadata information, or the lack of capacity and technical know-how on poverty measurement of NSOs.

One of the major quality issues is the lack of comparability of poverty estimates over time. Paradoxically, often the challenge arises from good intentions. The methodology of poverty measurement needs to reflect the consumption patterns of the people, but since consumption patterns may change over time, the methodology for poverty measurement also needs to be revisited once in a while. If the existing methodology does not reflect the current consumption patterns of consumption, it needs updating. A dilemma is that updating the methodology will likely make new poverty estimates incomparable to previous ones. However, this sort of challenge can be resolved through planning ahead. One way to maintain the comparability of poverty estimates is to prepare a subsample for which both data and the methodology of poverty measurement are the same as before. Using the subsample it is possible to produce poverty estimates that are comparable to the previous ones. Furthermore, using the rest of sample, poverty can be estimated based on the new methodology.

Lack of capacity, on the other hand, is also a serious source of quality concern and requires attention. To be successful, capacity building initiatives need to be hands-on and practical and build on existing local abilities, and very importantly, engender a local commitment toward sustainable improvements in data. For this, capacity building should not be narrowly focused or be one-time stand-alone initiatives, but rather be part of a longer term comprehensive engagement. It may also require governments to commit staff and financial resources to statistical efforts on a more permanent basis (rather than staffing tasks as they come along in an _ad hoc_ manner).

18