Have the economic policies of Hugo Chávez managed to seriously reduce the rate of poverty in Venezuela during his 10 years in office? The answer is... well, it depends - on who, and what, you wish to believe.

According to the latest available figures from Venezuela's official statistics bureau, the INE, in cash income terms poverty rates have declined from just over 40% of households in 1999 to around 28% in the second half of 2007. But if poverty is defined as being unable to satisfy basic necessities, the rate was down to nearer 23% in 2007.

Complicating comparisons, and probably distorting reality, are changing and varied methodologies and definitions, such as what is meant by "poor" and "extremely poor", and what exactly are "basic necessities" and what does it mean not to have them satisfied, etc.

Then we also need to be careful with what period of comparison we use, as Venezuela's economy imploded following the 2002 oil strike and a failed military coup, but then grew rapidly in 2004 and 2005. By any standards or methodology, poverty would have risen when comparing the recession years with the year Chávez took office, but thinktanks such as the Center for Economic Policy and Research point out that that's hardly a fair assessment of the big picture. With the higher oil prices in subsequent years, it does appear that poverty in Venezuela has fallen, although how long that trend can continue is open to debate.

Then there's the question of how reliable INE figures are at all. A few years ago, critics and opinion piece writers such as Andrés Oppenheimer (aka "anti-Chavistas") poured scorn on Venezuela and its government because, despite the rise in the price of oil from US$8 a barrel when Chávez took office to some US$60 at the time, the poverty rate in the country actually rose from 43% to 53% between 1999 and the end of 2004, at least according to INE figures. Mr Chávez then lambasted the bureau, describing its methodology for measuring poverty as "neoliberal," soon after which the INE reported that poverty had suddenly fallen to pre-1999 levels.

The methodology focusing on basic necessities, such as healthcare, education and foodstuffs, is interesting and, according to the INE and independent analysts, makes a significant difference to the poverty rate. Providing free healthcare and education for the poor are fine and noble causes for the state to pursue. The benefits of the Venezuelan government's food subsidies program known as Mercal are, however, rather more questionable. Food shortages are said to be commonplace as paying famers so little under the program acts as a disincentive to produce, and encourages a black market. While such subsidies may help to alleviate chronic shortages in the very short term, in the long term they do nothing to solve the underlying problem.

Even worse, in terms of eradicating poverty and improving ordinary Venezuelans' living standards, are the on-going nationalizations of private sector businesses. These companies will end up being run inefficiently and according to political criteria (like state oil giant PDVSA has been for years). Mr Chávez needs to understand that the best way to get rid of poverty in the long run is for people to have decent, fairly rewarded, productive jobs in well managed companies (whether they be state or private sector).