The debate on poverty in Lebanon juxtaposes figures that seem to contradict each other. On November 11, An-Nahar reported several assessments of vulnerability and poverty. However, their comparison requires a prerequisite: who was questioned, when, on what territory and at what threshold. Without this information, moving from one percentage to another produces an illusion of precision.
The issue goes beyond the statistical discussion. A rate is used to estimate needs, target assistance or judge a policy. If it concerns a population different from that to which it is applied, the public decision may leave households aside or attribute to a measure an effect that it has not shown.
The figure of 44% has a date and a perimeter
The assessment published by the World Bank in May 2024 shows a poverty rate of 44 per cent in 2022 in the surveyed areas. The collection took place from December 2022 to May 2023. It covered Akkar, Beirut, Bekaa, Northern Lebanon and most of Mount Lebanon. Palestinians living in camps and rallies were excluded from its field.
The report distinguishes all the inhabitants covered by the survey from Lebanese nationals only. For the latter, the proportion was 33%. Both rates can therefore be accurate simultaneously. Their difference is neither a revision of the same indicator nor a change over a year. The World Bank also states that a new unofficial threshold was built to take into account the consumption conditions of 2022.
These results remain a documented historical reference. Presenting them as a national photograph of November 2026 would erase changes since the collection and the territories not covered.
Several deprivations may coexist
Income poverty compares resources or consumption to a threshold. Multidimensional poverty seeks to describe several deprivations, for example in education, housing conditions or access to services. Its result depends on the dimensions chosen, their weightings and the number of deprivations needed to classify a household.
It is therefore possible to be above a monetary threshold while suffering from service deficiencies. Conversely, two families with close consumption may have very different access to school, water or care. Comparing their situations requires several indicators, not replacing the lowest with the highest.
The multidimensional poverty rates cited in the public debate must therefore be accompanied by their own methodology. They do not add to the rate of income poverty: the same people can belong to both groups.
Hunger does not measure all poverty
A survey of whether a child has slept without eating provides information on a specific dietary experience. It does not automatically measure the number of people below a poverty line. Its unit can be the household with children, while another indicator has individuals of all ages.
The reference period also counts. A previous week’s difficulty, a month’s consumption and an annual income do not describe the same duration. Telephone surveys also require checking how households have been selected and weighted.
What a useful comparison would require
Before announcing an improvement or degradation, comparable measures should be approximated: the same population, the same geographical coverage, the same definition and the threshold correctly updated. A change in the cost of living must also be distinguished from a change in available resources.
This caution does not minimize difficulties. On the contrary, it allows us to locate them: food, housing, care, education or income. For a social policy, knowing what expenditure a household can pay more is often more useful than a spectacular figure whose perimeter remains unclear.
Comments