In the forestry literature, there are three hypotheses of the links between deforestation and poverty: (i) Win-win: deforestation decreases with poverty; (ii) win-lose: deforestation increases with poverty, and (iii) the Environmental Kuznets curve (EKC), deforestation increases with poverty to a turning point where the relationship is reversed. A meta-analysis of 71 studies linking deforestation and poverty was conducted to see if there is any consensus in the literature about which hypotheses holds best. In general, we find no consistent evidence supporting the â€œwin-winâ€ hypothesis (positing that economic development is good for both people and forest conservation).Our meta-analysis suggests that in Latin America, there is general support for the win-lose hypothesis and an â€˜environmental Kuznetâ€™s curveâ€™ of deforestation. In other regions (Asia and Africa), none of the hypotheses has clear support across the literature. This suggests that the deforestation processes in Latin America may follow a different trajectory, more consistent with the Win-lose and EKC stories, compared to other regions. It also suggests that links between deforestation and poverty in Asia and Africa are location-specific, and broad consensus across studies is not likely to be found. The meta-analysis reveals possible publication biases, where non-economic publication outlets are more likely to publish win-win compared to win-lose results. This work is being published as a chapter in the Tropical Forestry Handbook, edited by Michael Koehl and Laszlo Pancel, published by Springer, co-authored by Dr. Erin Sills from North Carolina State University.