Interview with Professor Stephan Klingebiel

“It is possible to eradicate extreme poverty”

In an interview with Friederike Bauer, Professor Stephan Klingebiel from IDOS discusses the fight against poverty, fragile states, geopolitical interests and why the SDGs remain a suitable framework.

Published in October 2024

portrait picture of interview partner Klingebiel
Professor Stephan Klingebiel heads the International and Transnational Cooperation research programme at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) in Bonn. The doctor of political science, who specialises in development policy and cooperation, has extensive experience in research, policy consulting and practice. Professor Klingebiel established the KfW office in Kigali, Rwanda, from 2007 and remained its director until 2011.

The world is in turmoil, with one crisis coming on the heels of the next. How much global poverty is caused by unstable conditions? Are they a driver of poverty or a product of it?

We know that the majority of impoverished persons live in fragile countries. Poverty is a consequence of this. If a person cannot turn to a reliable legal framework, if there are violent disputes – right in the middle of their village, for example – or if the conditions are not right for agriculture, this will undoubtedly have an impact on that person's income. Unfortunately, the number of poor people in fragile states is continuing to rise, with extreme poverty expected to affect 60% of people by 2030.

Isn't poverty also declining in some parts of the world?

That is correct. We have seen a positive trend in countries in East and South Asia – areas that were traditionally home to many poor people – for years now. This applies in particular to China and India, but also extends to countries such as Bangladesh and Vietnam. In these areas, poverty has been reduced and is continuing to fall. Moreover, China is scheduled to officially shed its status as a developing country in the next few years. In the years between 1990 and 2015 in particular, major progress was made in many parts of the world, with the number of extremely poor falling from close to half of the population in developing countries to around 14%.

Where is the situation the worst today?

In Sub-Saharan Africa. While this region has seen some progress, it has been much slower. Of course, you have to look at each country in detail. Where conflicts are widespread, such as in Somalia or the Democratic Republic of Congo, the situation is more serious than, say, in Rwanda or Mauritius. Overall, though, Africa is the poorest continent.

The coronavirus pandemic and the Ukraine conflict have caused poverty figures to soar. Are the consequences still noticeable or have we now managed to overcome the effects?

In the OECD countries, the effects have been overcome economically. Approximately half of the poorer developing countries are still struggling to deal with the consequences. There is a clear dip in their figures. The reasons for this are higher prices for food, energy and fertilisers. Burundi, for example, was hit hard and has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels.

Is there such a thing as the "traditionally poor"? If so, could you explain what this means?

Poverty has many faces. People can be poor because they don't have paid work. Unemployment and underemployment are a typical phenomenon in many slums around the world. People in these areas can still be poor, despite agriculture being at full capacity. In some cases, certain traditional forms of agriculture are not enough to elevate people out of poverty. However, poverty can also be a consequence of climate change due to extreme drought or repeated cyclones. Gender also plays a role: a woman living in a rural area whose husband died in a conflict and who now has to provide for her four children alone has a high probability of falling into poverty.

Woman with baby on her back who is washing her clothes.
Women are often exposed to a higher risk of poverty than men.

What about the conflicts already mentioned? How do they affect people?

It is very often the case that people displaced by conflict will be poor. In these cases, conflicts over land use and a phenomenon that we might call a “war tax” come into play; these often affect villages during periods of violent conflict. They can also plunge people into poverty or leave them in it.

Where is poverty worse: in urban or in rural areas?

While poverty tends to be more noticeable in urban centres, it usually hits harder and is more extreme in rural areas. In cities, people will often still be able to find casual work, while in rural areas this is much harder to come by. That is why we can observe strong migration from rural to urban areas almost everywhere in the world. Rural poverty is more elementary, more hopeless.

Poverty is not just about hunger. It may also take other forms, such as energy poverty or lack of access to the Internet. How relevant are these factors?

Poverty is indeed much more extensive in scope. Extreme poverty is measured internationally by available income, as a lack of income makes people unable to pay for basic things such as food, housing, water and so on. However, there is also a multidimensional concept of poverty that encompasses many more aspects and considers poverty relative to the general situation in the country. Poverty is also inextricably linked to inequality, leading to a lack of opportunity for social participation. All of these factors hinder personal development. In other words, poverty is more than just income although income is an important yardstick.

What are the most important resources for combatting poverty? In the past, education was always critical. Does this still apply in view of the multidimensional concept of poverty?

In my view, education, health and the most elementary forms of social security are key investments that safeguard against poverty or at least reduce its worst forms. Education is and remains the key to an individual improving their productivity. This is particularly true in the Digital Age, but it also applies to farmers who could use their education to manage their land more effectively or find a job that pays better. Even the simplest professions can be better leveraged with a certain level of education. Health is also crucial: if a person has to contend with malnutrition and a lack of nutrients from birth, this will usually limit their physical and mental capacity.

Person stands next to dismantled car engine and teaches others.
Good education and vocational training can make a decisive contribution to lifting people out of poverty.

You mentioned social security...

I also consider this to be of central importance, because social security systems mitigate certain risks, whether temporarily or permanently, such as in the event of a poor harvest or illness. These risks could easily upend peoples' lives and plunge them into poverty.

Looking at these three points, there is a case for optimism, because the level of education has risen worldwide, health budgets have grown, not least during the coronavirus pandemic, and social security systems are slowly expanding. Are you hopeful?

In principle, it is possible to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030, as SDG 1 aims to do. We can do it. But the question is: can we galvanise countries enough to make it happen? And are all countries willing to do their bit?

Do you see evidence of this will?

Unfortunately, many countries have different priorities – and may even benefit from instability. Take three countries of the Sahel as an example: Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso. Prioritising the fight against poverty is simply not on the cards in these states. Instead, instability is a rationale for displacing democratically elected governments. Instability is a strategy. Another example: anyone seeking to claim land or resources will have no interest in improving the living conditions of inhabitants. In fact, they would rather do the opposite and displace these people. What does that mean? Assuming there are decision makers all over the world who want nothing more than to achieve SDG 1 would be a rather naive thing to believe.

So, in your opinion, SDG 1 is not achievable?

It is possible, but not realistic. As things stand, only about one third of countries will be able to eradicate absolute poverty by 2030.

The world has changed significantly since the adoption of the SDGs in 2015. Geopolitical interests now play a greater role. The idea of acting in solidarity to achieve the SDGs seems to be fading. Do the SDGs still provide an appropriate framework today?

I continue to believe the SDGs are a good coordinate system, because they cover all the major challenges of our time. While they could certainly be refined, I believe it is wrong to declare them obsolete solely due to new geopolitical realities or because we are unlikely to achieve them. They provide guidance for (governmental) actions that the entire community of states has agreed on. This alone is worthwhile in an increasingly geopolitical world.

What will happen to the SDGs after 2030? There is not long left…

From my point of view, there are three possibilities. First, the goals could be reviewed, revised and adapted to reflect global conditions today – in a similar manner to the transition from the Millennium Development Goals to the SDGs. This would allow us to factor in the multiple crises and challenges and formulate new, global and ambitious goals. Second, the state community could end up so fragmented that it is unable to agree on anything. In this scenario, the SDGs expire and are not replaced. That would be a pity. Third, the existing SDGs could simply be extended for another 10 to 15 years. Right now, I think option three is the most likely.