provides economic analysis and policy advice with the aim of promoting sustainable and equitable development. The Institute began operations in 1985 in Helsinki, Finland, as the first research and training centre of the United Nations University. Today it is a unique blend of think tank, research institute, and UN agency-providing a range of services from policy advice to governments as well as freely available original research.The Institute is funded through income from an endowment fund with additional contributions to its work programme from Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom as well as earmarked contributions for specific projects from a variety of donors.

for the Lancet NCDI Poverty Commission Study Group Executive summary"As we embark on this great collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind. Recognizing that the dignity of the human person is fundamental, we wish to see the goals and targets met for all nations and peoples and for all segments of society. And we will endeavour to reach the furthest behind first."Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development 1

No abstract

No abstract

SummaryThis paper argues that the global poverty problem has changed because most of the world's poor no longer live in low income countries (LICs). Previously, poverty was viewed as an LIC issue predominantly; nowadays such simplistic assumptions/ classifications are misleading because some large countries that graduated into the MIC category still have large numbers of poor people. In 1990, we estimate 93 per cent of the world's poor lived in LICs; contrastingly in 2007-8 three quarters of the world's poor approximately 1.3bn lived in middle-income countries (MICs) and about a quarter of the world's poor, approximately 370mn people live in the remaining 39 low-income countries -largely in sub-Saharan Africa.This startling change over two decades implies a new 'bottom billion' who do not live in fragile and conflict-affected states, but in stable, middle-income countries. Such global patterns are evident across monetary, nutritional and multi-dimensional poverty measures. This paper argues the general pattern is robust enough to warrant further investigation and discussion.

Two decades ago, most of the world's poor lived in countries officially classified as low income. Now, most of the world's poor live in middle‐income countries. The shift has been brought about by fast growth in a number of countries with large populations. This ‘new geography of global poverty’—with the mass of the poor not living in the world's poorest countries—raises questions for the current model of development assistance, where national per capita income is a key determinant of the volume and composition of aid flows. This paper reprises the changes in global poverty and discusses the case for continued development assistance to middle‐income countries. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Assessing the impact that research evidence has on policy is complex. It involves consideration of conceptual issues of what determines research impact and policy change. There are also a range of methodological issues relating to the question of attribution and the counter-factual. The dynamics of SRH, HIV and AIDS, like many policy arenas, are partly generic and partly issue- and context-specific. Against this background, this article reviews some of the main conceptualisations of research impact on policy, including generic determinants of research impact identified across a range of settings, as well as the specificities of SRH in particular. We find that there is scope for greater cross-fertilisation of concepts, models and experiences between public health researchers and political scientists working in international development and research impact evaluation. We identify aspects of the policy landscape and drivers of policy change commonly occurring across multiple sectors and studies to create a framework that researchers can use to examine the influences on research uptake in specific settings, in order to guide attempts to ensure uptake of their findings. This framework has the advantage that distinguishes between pre-existing factors influencing uptake and the ways in which researchers can actively influence the policy landscape and promote research uptake through their policy engagement actions and strategies. We apply this framework to examples from the case study papers in this supplement, with specific discussion about the dynamics of SRH policy processes in resource poor contexts. We conclude by highlighting the need for continued multi-sectoral work on understanding and measuring research uptake and for prospective approaches to receive greater attention from policy analysts.

In this article, we consider the recent increase in inequality in Indonesia. We make new, consistent estimates of expenditure inequality for 1993-2013, using several measures that draw on household expenditure data from the National Socioeconomic Survey (Susenas) for 1993-2013. In doing so, we note that the central statistics agency, Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS), used grouped data for its estimatesof inequality until 2009 and that this underestimated inequality up to then. Thus the rise in inequality reported since 2009 actually has a longer history. We argue that Indonesia experienced divergence and convergence at the same time: the magnitude of the rise in inequality was significant (divergence), but the rise was greatest in provinces or districts with low initial levels of inequality (convergence). We consider the literature on drivers of changes in inequality and identify a set of hypotheses, with an empirical basis, which we introduce as potential Indonesian-specific drivers of rising inequality for future exploration.