Search

Summary: Motivation: While economic growth is usually necessary to reduce poverty, it is often not sufficient. Industrialization, especially manufacturing, tends to create jobs that are more productive than in other sectors, and which pay more, thereby reducing poverty. Structure of production therefore matters as well as growth of production. Purpose: How much does industrialization mediate the relation of economic growth to poverty reduction? Methods and approach: We deploy Causal Mediation Analysis, with industrialization as the mediator. The mechanism decomposes the impact of economic growth into direct effects on poverty, and those that apply indirectly through the mediator of industry. Data comes from the Groningen Growth and Development Centre and UNU‐WIDER Economic Transformation Database (ETD) which covers 51 countries in the global South from 1990 to 2018. Findings: Economic growth directly reduces poverty, but the full impact arises from the mediating role of industrialization. Almost 50% of the impact on poverty occurs through employment in manufacturing. Policy implications: Social policies to reduce poverty will be incomplete if the production structure of economy is disregarded. Economic policy must consider the importance of industrial economic activities to amplify the impact of economic progress. On the contrary, policies promoting economic growth without creating industrial jobs will fail to offer accurate solutions to the poverty problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dominant view in academic and policy arenas is increasingly one in which the major contribution of capture fisheries to development should be derived from the capacity of society to maximise the economic rent of fishery resources. Drawing upon empirical experience from the South, this article highlights the potentially disastrous consequences that a universal implementation of the rent-maximisation model would have in developing countries, and argues that a more gradual approach would be preferable. The welfare function of small-scale fisheries, namely, their capacities to provide labour and cash income to resource-poor households, should be preserved until the appropriate macroeconomic conditions for rent-maximisation and redistribution are fulfilled. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the sake of less developed countries, it is time to adjust the discussion of international development assistance on poverty reduction. This article attempts to do so by reviewing new and old literature explaining why some countries are rich and others are poor. History has repeatedly shown that building up capabilities in manufacturing and improving the productivity of agriculture are the keys to wealth creation and long-term sustained poverty reduction. Furthermore, industrialisation and increased agricultural productivity are interdependent processes. Discussion about ending world poverty needs to be shifted back to consideration of economic transformation and the role foreign aid can reasonably play in achieving these objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aquaculture is equated with the reduction of poverty by intergovernmental agencies such as the FAO, which advocate the promotion of small-scale aquaculture through project-based interventions. There is a lack of convincing empirical evidence to support the efficacy of this type of intervention, however. Meanwhile, commercial cultured freshwater fish production has increased hugely throughout Asia, despite limited direct donor or government support. Its impact with respect to poverty also remains ambiguous, however. This article critically evaluates the developmental impacts of both immanent and interventionist forms of aquaculture and advances finely nuanced interpretations of both. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The accountability movement in public policy hails a new programme for US foreign assistance - the Millennium Challenge Account established in 2004 with the aim of 'picking winners' for grants among developing countries based on their demonstrated quality of governance. This article uses the MCA's own rating system to dispute its claim to know in advance which countries are best positioned to meet major development goals. High governance scores alone bear little or no relationship to growth in national income or decline in poverty. Attempting to measure public-policy performance limits the range of choice available to policy-makers, and may inadvertently limit true performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]