Analysis
Novogratz’s framing reflects the **capability approach** (e.g., Amartya Sen, Martha Nussbaum), which defines poverty as deprivation of freedoms to achieve well-being, not just low income. However, her statement omits that *institutions like the World Bank* still primarily use **income-based metrics** (e.g., $2.15/day threshold) for global comparisons, and debates persist over whether subjective 'potential' can be objectively measured. While her claim resonates with human development discourse, it risks implying consensus where none exists.
Background
The **capability approach** (1980s–90s) expanded poverty definitions beyond income to include health, education, and agency, influencing the UN’s **Human Development Index (HDI)**. Yet, operationalizing 'potential' remains contentious; critics argue it’s culturally relative or politically biased. Novogratz’s organization, **Acumen**, advocates for this view, but policymakers often prioritize quantifiable metrics for aid allocation.
Verdict summary
Jacqueline Novogratz’s statement aligns with *broad* academic and institutional definitions of poverty but oversimplifies its contested, multidimensional nature by presenting it as a universally accepted truth.