IEA wins Templeton Freedom Award for groundbreaking work on poverty

Received in the 'Free-market solutions to poverty' category

The Institute of Economic Affairs is the proud recipient of a 2011 Templeton Freedom Award, received in the category of ‘Free-market solutions to poverty’.

Through a range of publications in the past two years – including Transforming welfare - incentives, localisation and non-discrimination and the groundbreaking A New Understanding of Poverty– the IEA has greatly contributed to the debate on how poverty can best be tackled.

Winners this year were drawn from five continents. The 16 recipients in the various categories were chosen from over 183 applications from 48 countries by an independent panel of expert judges.

Named after the late investor and philanthropist Sir John Templeton, the Templeton Freedom Award was established in 2003 and is the largest international prize program that celebrates think tank contributions to the understanding of freedom. 

Announcing the winners, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation said:

“Despite being the oldest organisation of its kind, the Institute of Economic Affairs proves that it is as vibrant and relevant as ever with the IEA Poverty Project. Spearheaded by Kristian Niemietz, the Poverty Project has produced no less than eight IEA publications, seven external publications and one comprehensive academic study, which was published in the Journal of Public Policy. The Poverty Project has been widely lauded as debate changing work, receiving frequent mentions in Britain’s national print and television media. There are few studies of free market solutions to poverty that are as high quality and as fundamentally robust as the Poverty Project.”

Commenting on the award, Prof Philip Booth, Editorial and Programme Director at the IEA said:

“The Institute of Economic Affairs began its poverty project three years ago. Having published important work on the measurement of poverty, we are now in the stage of developing serious proposals for free-market solutions to poverty. We must take this debate from being the natural territory of the interventionists who propose precisely the policies that lead to higher poverty. In particular, we must de