The objectives of this research are to identify the difference between sustained and temporary poverty escapes for policy and program design, based on research in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Nepal, Niger, the Philippines, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. The method adopted is the q-squared method used in studies on the dynamics of poverty, embedded in a conceptual extension of the capability approach through a risk chain analysis. The results show that key livelihood factors conducive to sustained escapes include diversification of economic activities typically spanning agricultural and off-farm sectors, and sometimes involving rural-urban migration. Important tangible assets include general asset holdings of consumer durables, farm or business equipment, livestock, and electricity. Intangible assets include the completion of at least lower secondary education of the household head, good health, and different forms of social relationships and networks. However, while livelihood strategies help improve income and build assets necessary for resilience, various risks permeate. In these risky contexts, the study finds that the enabling environment is critical in determining whether households can ultimately sustain escapes from poverty. Interactive features of this environment that are conducive to sustained escapes include context-specific pro-poor policy and infrastructure, for example around livestock insurance, climate-smart agriculture alongside predictable disaster risk management, universal health coverage, and supporting a negotiated approach to norm change. Together, these features place an emphasis on collective risk management, beyond a focus only or even primarily on inclusive growth policies. The paper argues that it is essential to understand the circumstances in which people live, from the local (micro) up to the societal (macro) contexts that can influence their ability to sustain a poverty escape, and respond in ways that together address the multifaceted sources of risk and vulnerability, which in turn allows for the less interrupted development of people’s capabilities.

本研究的目标是根据在孟加拉国、柬埔寨、埃塞俄比亚、肯尼亚、马拉维、尼泊尔、尼日尔、菲律宾、卢旺达、坦桑尼亚和乌干达的研究，确定政策和项目设计中持续和临时脱贫的区别。所采用的方法是在贫困动态研究中使用的 q 平方方法，通过风险链分析嵌入到能力方法的概念扩展中。结果表明，有利于持续逃亡的关键生计因素包括经济活动的多样化，通常跨越农业和非农部门，有时还涉及农村向城市迁移。重要的有形资产包括耐用消费品、农场或商业设备、牲畜和电力的一般资产持有。无形资产包括户主至少完成初中教育、身体健康以及不同形式的社会关系和网络。然而，虽然生计战略有助于提高收入和建立抵御能力所需的资产，但各种风险依然存在。在这些危险的背景下，该研究发现，有利的环境对于决定家庭最终是否能够摆脱贫困至关重要。这种有利于持续逃离的环境的互动特征包括特定环境的扶贫政策和基础设施，例如围绕牲畜保险、气候智能型农业以及可预测的灾害风险管理、全民健康覆盖，以及支持通过谈判达成的规范变革方法. 一起，这些特点强调集体风险管理，而不是仅仅关注或什至主要关注包容性增长政策。该论文认为，必须了解人们生活的环境，从当地（微观）环境到社会（宏观）环境，这些环境会影响他们维持脱贫的能力，并以共同应对多方面问题的方式做出回应。风险和脆弱性的来源，这反过来又可以减少人们能力的中断。