This Economist article is bit gutless in that it didn't speak at all to the economic issue of inequality which are the defining issues when you have high concentrations of poverty in stable, non-low income economies. It is particularly sad that the Economist shied away from inequality given that it is a central to one of the article's listed sources: Where do the World's Poor Live? A New Update.
At a minimum, the fact that poverty persists at higher levels of average levels of per capita income raises questions about the types of economic growth that lead some countries to reduce the number of people in extreme poverty and other countries not to.
Both are worth the read and if nothing else, it points out the fact markets are agnostic. There is nothing inherently good about growth measured by GDP. If the impact investing and social enterprise ecosystem is to be meaningful, then justice and equity must be part of everything we do. Scale and growth must be understood as the scale and growth of quality of life for all of us.
Article Excerpt: WHERE do the world’s poor live? There are a surprising number in so-called stable middle-income countries but their is significant disagreement on the trends. Will the future by defined by high levels of inequality in middle income countries or, will the poor and unstable countries retake the lead in terms of gross numbers of poor?