C1.1 Poverty Elimination Capacity
Material Security. Can the system provide material necessities reliably and universally?
Pass threshold
≥90% poverty reduction within 20 years under base scenario, ≥85% under stress testing
Clause by clause:
- ≥90% poverty reduction within 20 years under base scenario
- ≥85% under stress testing
What it asks
Near-universal elimination of poverty within a measurable timeframe: ≥90% poverty reduction within 20 years under base scenario, ≥85% under stress testing.
How it is measured
Poverty definition: a person is poor whose household income or consumption per person is below the World Bank Societal Poverty Line (SPL) for their economy, the line the Bank derives from the cost of basic needs as it rises with median income (a floor at the international poverty line plus half the median), in 2021 PPP international dollars; the line's parameters are revised with each PPP round, and the round used is stated. Data sources: the World Bank Poverty and Inequality Platform; for a design, the rate projected at the same line in the economy the design is proposed for. Calculation: poverty reduction = (baseline rate − rate at year 20) / baseline rate × 100%, the baseline being the rate at the stated base year (the adoption year for a design; for a configured national economy, the start of the 20-year window ending at its stated date). Temporal tracking: at baseline and at 5-year intervals, distinguishing temporary from persistent poverty.
Indicators
World Bank Poverty and Inequality Platform, poverty headcount at the Societal Poverty Line (2021 PPP).
How scores are anchored
1.0, pass
Documented or credibly projected reduction meeting the threshold. Nordic Social Democracy (1.0): "Achieves 94-96% poverty elimination through comprehensive welfare state," a documented real-world figure clearing the bar.
0.5, partial
Real but partial reduction (roughly 30-89% documented), or a threshold-clearing claim resting on favorable/untested assumptions. Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.5): "15-25% reduction... far below the 95% elimination threshold" — note this is actually below even the 0.5 band's usual floor, but scored 0.5 rather than 0.0 because a real, functioning mechanism (welfare programs) exists, however inadequate; contrast with C1.1's 0.0 anchor below, which requires absence of any state mechanism, not merely an inadequate one.
0.0, structural failure
No structural mechanism, or explicit ideological refusal of poverty elimination as a legitimate system function. Libertarian Minarchism (0.0): "ideologically refuses poverty elimination as a state function... relies entirely on private charity."
(Note: Section 6's "Requirement" line states an aspirational 95%; the operative Pass Threshold used for actual scoring throughout this corpus is 90%/85% — use the Pass Threshold, not the Requirement line, when the two differ, and flag any future criterion where this gap exists rather than silently picking one.)
Normative roots
From N1 (Human Flourishing) + N2 (Labor Non-Necessity) + N3 (Coercion Minimization).
Judgment calls on this criterion
How the systems score
0.5, partial
CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Participatory Economics, Integral, Degrowth Economics, Nordic Social Democracy, Market Socialism, Sovereign Wealth Fund Statism, Georgism / LVT, Ostrom Commons, Islamic Finance, Mutual Credit / LETS, State Capitalism / Singapore, Universal Basic Income, Universal Basic Services, MMT + Job Guarantee, Status Quo Market Capitalism, State Capitalism / China, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Stakeholder Capitalism, State Capitalism / Qatar, Centrally Planned Socialism
0.0, structural failure
Sources
Definition: Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V). Anchors: Paper Appendix H.7.