Publication: Pro-poor Growth: Explaining the Cross-Country Variation in the Growth Elasticity of Poverty
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2008
ISSN
14468956
Published
2008
Author(s)
Chhibber, Ajay
Editor(s)
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to analyse the cross-country variation in the growth elasticity of poverty across a sample of developing countries during the period from 1990 to 2000. In order to identify variables that may explain the cross-country variation in the growth elasticity of poverty, the paper sets up a theoretical framework. Subsequently, the explanatory power of these variables is tested empirically by panel data econometric analysis. For a sample of 52 low and middle income countries, it is found that the level of initial income inequality, credit available to the private sector, literacy, the extent of business regulations and trade openness are important determinants of the growth elasticity of poverty. Countries that reduce regulatory burdens, improve literacy, increase access to finance, undertake land reforms (asset redistribution), and provide safety nets while liberalizing trade can create more growth and ensure that it is pro-poor. The paper identifies variables (at a cross-country level) that may guide the conscious policies which create pro-poor growth.
Link to Data Set
Associated content
Other publications in this report series
Journal
Journal Volume
Journal Issue
Citations
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
Publication Reranking and Pro-poor Growth: Decompositions for China and Vietnam(2009)Reranking in the move from one income distribution to another makes it impossible to infer from changes in Lorenz and generalised Lorenz curves how income growth among those toward the bottom of the initial income distribution compares to that among those toward the top, and whether there has been income growth among those who were initially poor. Decompositions allowing for reranking indicate that economic growth in China and Vietnam has been better for households who were initially poor than changes in the Lorenz and generalised Lorenz curve and poverty growth curve would suggest.Publication Was Vietnam's Economic Growth in the 1990s Pro-poor? An Analysis of Panel Data from Vietnam(2011)International aid agencies and almost all economists agree that economic growth is necessary for reducing poverty, yet some economists question whether it is sufficient for poverty reduction. Vietnam enjoyed rapid economic growth in the 1990s, but a modest increase in inequality during that decade raises the possibility that the poor in Vietnam benefited little from that growth. This article examines the extent to which Vietnam's economic growth has been "pro-poor," giving particular attention to two issues. The first is the appropriate comparison group. When comparing the poorest x% of the population at two points in time, should the poorest x% in the first time period be compared to the poorest x% in the second time period (some of whom were not the poorest x% in the first time period) or to the same people in the second time period (some of whom are no longer among the poorest x%)? The second is measurement error. Estimates of growth among the poorest x% of the population are likely to be biased if income or expenditure is measured with error. Household survey data show that Vietnam's growth has been relatively equally shared across poor and nonpoor groups. Indeed, comparisons of the same people over time indicate that per capita expenditures of the poor increased much more rapidly than those of the nonpoor, although failure to correct for measurement error exaggerates this result.Publication Poverty Reduction without Economic Growth? Explaining Brazil's Poverty Dynamics, 1985-2004(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2007-12)Brazil's slow pace of poverty reduction over the last two decades reflects both low growth and a low growth elasticity of poverty reduction. Using GDP data disaggregated by state and sector for a twenty-year period, this paper finds considerable variation in the poverty-reducing effectiveness of growth-across sectors, across space, and over time. Growth in the services sector was substantially more poverty-reducing than was growth in either agriculture or industry. Growth in industry had very different effects on poverty across different states and its impact varied with initial conditions related to human development and worker empowerment. The determinants of poverty reduction changed around 1994: positive growth rates and a greater (absolute) elasticity with respect to agricultural growth contributed to faster poverty reduction. But because there was so little of it, economic growth played a relatively small role in accounting for Brazil's poverty reduction between 1985 and 2004. The taming of hyperinflation (in 1994) and substantial expansions in social security and social assistance transfers, beginning in 1988, accounted for a larger share of the overall reduction in poverty.Publication Measuring Pro-poorness: A Unifying Approach with New Results(2009)Recent economic literature on pro-poor growth measurement is drawn together, using a common analytical framework which lends itself to some significant extensions. First, a new class of pro-poorness measures is defined, to complement existing classes, with similarities and differences which are fully discussed. Second, all of these measures of pro-poorness can be decomposed across income sources or components of consumption expenditure (depending on the application). This permits the analyst to "unbundle" a pattern of growth, revealing the contributions to overall pro-poorness of constituent parts. Third, all of these pro-poorness measures can be modified to measure pro-poorness at percentiles. An application to consumption expenditures in Indonesia in the 1990s reveals that the poverty reduction achieved remains far below what would have been achieved under distributional neutrality. This can be tracked back to changes in expenditure components.Publication Growth, Inequality, and Poverty : Looking Beyond Averages(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2001-02)The evidence is compelling that the poor in developing countries do typically share in the gains from rising aggregate affluence and in the losses from aggregate contraction. But how much do poor people share in growth? Do they gain more in some settings than others? Do some gain while others lose? Does pro-poor growth mean more or less aggregate growth? Recent theories and evidence suggest some answers, but deeper microeconomic empirical work is needed on growth and distributed change. Only then will we have a firm basis for identifying the specific policies and programs needed to complement and possibly modify growth-oriented policies.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
No results found.