Global MPI 2026: Poverty Count Rises to 1.2 Billion, Testing SDG 1

What the 2026 update establishes

The update covers 108 countries representing about 78 per cent of the global population. It reports 1.2 billion people in multidimensional poverty, with children accounting for more than half and rural residents forming the overwhelming majority.

Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia account for the overwhelming majority of deprivations across every indicator. These patterns suggest that effective poverty policy must combine household support with improvements in local public services.

• The headline refers to the number of people in poverty, not necessarily an increase in the poverty rate across all countries.
• The estimate covers the countries included in the update; it is not a fresh, simultaneous survey of every country.
• The update year must be distinguished from the underlying survey years.

How multidimensional poverty is measured

The global MPI uses 10 indicators grouped into health, education and standard of living. Health includes nutrition and child mortality; education includes years of schooling and school attendance; living standards include cooking fuel, sanitation, drinking water, electricity, housing and assets.

A household is identified as multidimensionally poor when its weighted deprivation score reaches at least one-third, and its members are counted as poor. The threshold concerns weighted deprivations, not a simple count of equally weighted indicators. Each dimension carries equal aggregate weight.

MPI = H × A, where H is the incidence or share of people identified as multidimensionally poor and A is their average intensity of deprivation. Consequently, an MPI value is neither the poverty headcount nor simply the percentage of people who are poor.

• Incidence answers how widespread multidimensional poverty is.
• Intensity answers how many weighted deprivations poor people experience on average.
• MPI can decline when deprivation intensity falls, even before households cross the poverty cutoff.

Reading the reversal: demography, surveys and comparability

In 95 countries without new survey data, revised population estimates increased the number counted as poor by nearly 16 million. This component does not establish a newly observed deterioration in household living conditions.

The remaining increase comes from 13 countries with updated survey data. It reflects changes in poverty incidence and population, alongside differences in indicator coverage. The entire headline increase therefore cannot be attributed to worsening deprivation alone.

Egypt, Nepal, Tajikistan, Angola and Zambia reduced their poverty shares. However, population growth outpaced poverty reduction in Angola and Zambia, raising their absolute counts. Nigeria illustrates a different pattern: both the poverty rate and the number of poor people increased after earlier progress.

• A falling poverty rate can coexist with a rising number of poor people.
• Comparisons should examine survey timing, indicator consistency and population revisions.
• A robust assessment should distinguish headcount, incidence, intensity and MPI value.

SDG 1 and targeted social protection

SDG 1 seeks to end poverty in all its forms. Its multidimensional poverty commitment concerns reducing the proportion of people living in poverty according to national definitions. A higher absolute count signals greater human need and service pressure, but does not by itself establish that every country has moved backwards against a proportion-based target.

The source reports that 33 countries have halved their MPI value in fewer than 15 years, including six in sub-Saharan Africa. This demonstrates that rapid progress is possible, but halving an MPI value must not be equated automatically with halving the poverty rate.

For India, MPI analysis can support convergence across nutrition, schooling, healthcare, housing and basic services. NITI Aayog's national MPI provides a domestic policy lens, but global and national measures should not be treated as interchangeable. Targeting should use deprivation profiles alongside current household information, with safeguards against exclusion.

• Prioritise children through linked nutrition, maternal health and school-continuity interventions.
• Address rural disadvantage through reliable services, connectivity and livelihood support.
• Combine cash or food assistance with service delivery; purchasing power cannot substitute for an unavailable clinic or school.
• Make support responsive to conflict, displacement, economic disruption and climate shocks.