Search

This paper analyses poverty and calorific undernourishment in the Indian state of Gujarat, where high and market-led industrial growth has resulted in rapid economic improvement. The study is carried out through a combination of secondary and survey-based data. We conclude that the neoliberal agenda of uncontrolled, outward-looking growth has not resulted in significant reduction of poverty or malnourishment in rural areas. Furthermore, while land ownership is officially used as a proxy for wealth distribution, class position appears a better predictor of poverty status in the rural areas than landownership per se. At the policy level, there is a need to revive the agrarian economy and create new non-agricultural assets, and the primary focus in the state must shift to the distribution of created assets rather than a single-minded focus on growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

This article has two goals: (i) to reduce the 7-fold productivity differential required to explain the observed 33-fold income difference between the richest and poorest countries of the world; and (ii) to explain cross-country differences in the capital-output ratio. To achieve the first goal we modify the production function of the standard neoclassical growth model to include public capital whose provision is subject to intermediation costs. For the second goal we distort private investment by introducing credit frictions. The model, quantified using cross-country data, generates an income gap of 33 with productivity differences of only 3 under the measured variations in public and private capital. The required productivity gap declines even further, to 2.1, when we introduce a home-production sector. On the second goal, however, credit frictions do a poor job of explaining cross-country variations in the capital-output ratio. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Urban & Regional Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)