ISSN: 2469-2794 FRCIJ

Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal
Opinion
Volume 2 Issue 3 - 2016
Poverty Intensive Curve: A New Form of Pro-Poor Growth Index
Khalid Zaman*
Department of Economics, University of Sargodha, Pakistan
Received: January 26, 2016| Published: April 29, 2016
*Corresponding author: Khalid Zaman, Department of Economics, University of Sargodha, Canal Campus Lahore, Pakistan, Email:
Citation: Zaman K (2016) Poverty Intensive Curve: A New Form of Pro-Poor Growth Index. Forensic Res Criminol Int J 2(3): 00055. DOI: 10.15406/frcij.2016.02.00055

Opinion

The term ‘Pro-poor growth’ was coined in the early 1970s by Ahluwalia & Cauas [1], subsequently move forward in Ahulwalia, et al. [2,3]. All of these studies mostly gyrated under the growth, inequality and poverty trajectory, which was further carry on by Wheeler & Adams [4-7]. In 1990s, pro-poor growth agenda become the more volatile figure in the academic literature and every one become contribute to recommend the basket of policy recommendations for the poors, especially, McCulloch & Baulch [8-11]. In 2000s, Kakwani & Pernia [12] proposed an index of pro-poor growth by relative component of growth elasticity of poverty by total poverty elasticity, while [13] measured pro-poor growth rate for China by Watts’s index of poverty. Son [14] proposed a new index for measuring pro-poor growth i.e., ‘poverty growth curve’ that is based on ‘Atkinson’s theorem’. Klasen [15] in the similar line emphasized the importance of pro-poor growth and discussed policy issues for sectoral pro-poor growth. Lopez [16] unveiled the reality of pro-poor growth and suggested successful poverty reduction strategies across the countries. Kraay [17] defined pro-poor growth i.e., “Growth is pro-poor if the poverty measure of interest falls” and argued that pro-poor growth policies should required institutional coverage to trickledown its impact on poor. Son & Kakwani [18] estimated the global pro-poor growth estimates by the measure of ‘poverty equivalent growth rate’. Kakwani & Neri [19] linked labor market with social support programmes that lead to strengthen the pro-poor growth agenda for Brazil. Recently, Dollar & Kleineberg [20] confirmed the previous notion of 1970s for pro-poor growth i.e., ‘growth still is good for the poor (p.68)’.

Pro-poor growth agenda is more complex as it is associated with the different theoretical and empirical linkages, however, after studying these pro-poor growth theories it is evident that growth rate alone is not a sufficient tool for poverty reduction. Therefore, it is necessary to device an appropriate pro-poor growth theory that would more sound with the growth rate of the countries. This study proposed a new pro-poor growth theory, called ‘poverty intensive curve’ rather than ‘poverty growth curve’ by Son [14]. The major chucks of this pro-poor growth theory are as follows i.e., Poverty -based countries have a slow or weaker growth base, while using the estimates of per capita income for measuring pro-poor growth for these countries have may not presented the correct picture of pro-poor growth reforms held in a countries, as per authors’ believe. Poverty intensive curve would allowed to re-correct the per capita income specification in the pro-poor growth agenda i.e., growth elasticity of poverty should be substitute with the square of the growth elasticity of poverty. It should serve two main purposes i.e., it would reduce the sudden jumps of growth rates by some unexpected structural adjustments in a countries, while lower growth rate should be adjusted for future policy dimensions that would designed more pro-poor and pro-growth for the countries. Secondly, inequality elasticity of poverty substituted by square of inequality elasticity of poverty (as the name implies i.e., ‘poverty intensive curve’) that would allow to access the intensification of inequitable income distribution in the countries. Thirdly, it includes social expenditures related to poverty that would provide more social adjustments for achieving the pro-poor growth framework. Finally, the series of residual for poverty, growth, inequality and social expenditures should be used as a regressor to examine the policy lags for the countries.

The study perceived that ‘Poverty intensive curve’ would be the better measure for pro-poor growth rather than conventional pro-poor growth index available in the previous literatures. The study opens the debate on ‘poverty intensive curve’ for measuring pro-poor growth for poverty-associated countries and advice for long-term sustained policy framework for poors to live better and prosperous against the unwanted war of hunger and thrust. This debate is open for discussion.

References

  1. Ahluwalia MS, Cauas J (1974) Instrumentos de Política y Modelos de Planificación para la Distribución del Ingreso. Cuadernos de Economía 11(32): 110-123.
  2. Ahluwalia MS (1976) Inequality, poverty and development. Journal of development economics 3(4): 307-342.
  3. Ahluwalia MS, Carter NG, Chenery HB (1979) Growth and poverty in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics 6(3): 299-341.
  4. Wheeler D (1980) Basic needs fulfillment and economic growth: A simultaneous model. Journal of Development Economics 7(4): 435-451.
  5. Adams RH (1985) Development and structural change in rural Egypt, 1952 to 1982. World Development 13(6): 705-723.
  6. Bhagwati JN (1988) Poverty and public policy. World development 16(5): 539-555.
  7. Sawers L (1988) Poverty weighted measures of social welfare change. World Development 16(8): 899-901.
  8. McCulloch N, Baulch B (1999) Tracking pro-poor growth. New ways to spot the biases and benefits. Popline (31): 3.
  9. Ravallion M, Chen S (1999) Measuring Pro-Poor Growth. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2666.
  10. Ravallion M, Datt G (1999) When Is Growth Pro-Poor? Evidence from the Diverse Experiences of India's States. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2263.
  11. Mellor JW (1999) Pro-poor Growth: The relation between growth in agriculture and poverty reduction. 
  12. Kakwani N, Pernia EM (2000) What is pro-poor growth? Asian development review 18(1): 1-16.
  13. Ravallion M, Chen S (2003) Measuring pro-poor growth. Economics letters 78(1): 93-99.
  14. Son HH (2004) A note on pro-poor growth. Economics Letters 82(3): 307-314.
  15. Klasen S (2004) In search of the holy grail: how to achieve pro-poor growth? Toward pro poor policies-aid, institutions, and globalization, p. 63-94.
  16. Lopez JH (2004) Pro-poor growth: a review of what we know (and of what we don’t). The World Bank.
  17. Kraay A (2006) When is growth pro-poor? Evidence from a panel of countries. Journal of development economics 80(1): 198-227.
  18. Son HH, Kakwani N (2008) Global estimates of pro-poor growth. World Development 36(6): 1048-1066.
  19. Kakwani N, Neri MC, Son HH (2010) Linkages between pro-poor growth, social programs and labor market: the recent Brazilian experience. World Development 38(6): 881-894.
  20. Dollar D, Kleineberg T, Kraay A (2016) Growth still is good for the poor. European Economic Review 81: 68-85.
© 2014-2016 MedCrave Group, All rights reserved. No part of this content may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means as per the standard guidelines of fair use.
Creative Commons License Open Access by MedCrave Group is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://medcraveonline.com
Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version | Opera |Privacy Policy