Search

This paper considers the implications for poverty measurement of the observed fact that any individual's level of deprivation is a function not only of his own income, but of the general level of prosperity of the group to which he is affiliated. Individual deprivation functions are specialized to a form that reflects this 'group-affiliation' externality, and the resulting poverty measure is studied with respect to its properties, and its implications for poverty rankings. Mainstream approaches to measuring deprivation tend to neglect group-related externalities in favour of a certain thorough-going 'individualism'. This paper is a preliminary attempt at filling this gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary This article is the introduction to a volume containing findings from a program conducted over five years in 11 Latin America countries, to answer three questions: (1) Are there rural territories that have experienced simultaneous economic growth, poverty reduction, and improved distribution of income?; (2) What factors determine these territorial dynamics?, and; (3) What can be done to stimulate and promote this kind of territorial dynamics? The article outlines the analytical and policy issues and the methodology, summarizes the remaining 10 papers in the collection, and presents a conceptual framework that itself is one of the results of the program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: This paper constitutes an attempt to determine the relative contribution of changes in economic growth and in the distribution of income to changes in poverty in Mexico. Our findings clearly indicate that growth with redistribution (lower income inequality) was the key to reducing poverty continuously and in an important manner during 2000–2006. However, after 2006, decreasing per-capita income, coupled with the persistently high inequality (Gini of 52%), caused the reversal of the favorable trend observed since 1996, raising poverty to pre-2002 levels. Consequently, it is argued that, for Mexico, a middle-income country exhibiting quite low growth rates and high inequality levels, the further improvement in its distribution of income and assets is essential if the economy is to succeed in making a real dent in poverty. For that purpose, the implementation of an active pro-poor growth policy should be strongly encouraged. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In this paper, we evaluate income distributions in four European countries (Austria, Italy, Spain and Hungary) using two complementary approaches: a standard approach based on reported incomes in survey data, and a microsimulation approach, where taxes and benefits are simulated. These two approaches may be expected to generate slightly different results, particularly in respect of individuals on lower incomes, because benefit receipts tend to be under-reported in survey data, and over-estimated in microsimulation procedures. However, we find that the two approaches do in fact produce reasonably consistent results, in terms of both inequality measures and poverty rates. To the extent that the results differ, we explore the reasons why these differences arise, and suggest directions for future research, in which each approach may inform improvements in the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Growth is good for the poor" is a ubiquitous statement and one generally backed by theory, research and history. In the long-run, growth reduces poverty. Yet, growth in output - per se - is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for poverty reduction in the short-term. The paper uses a number of parametric and non-parametric methodologies to assess the relation between growth and poverty in Kazakhstan, a country that experienced rapid growth and poverty reduction in the short-term. Combining macro and micro regional data, we find a very small trickle down effect of output growth on household incomes and no evidence that output growth is correlated with poverty reduction. We find instead that pro-poor growth in household income explains well poverty reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The urban-rural disparity is a common phenomenon in most developing economies. In particular, this disparity is strengthened by the household registration (Hukou) system in China. Chinese economy, as well as its income inequality, rose dramatically in last decades. Most researches show that urban-rural disparity is an important source of income inequality. In this paper we study the impact of this disparity on innovation through the demand for quality goods. For simplicity, we assume that there are two types of consumers: rich people living in the urban and poor people living in the rural area. The income distribution is measured by the population share of the poor and the relative income of the poor. The larger the income difference between the rural and the urban area, the more individuals migrate to the city in order to improve their income. Firms first invent quality goods, and then produce them in an oligopolistic market. Rich consumers have a higher willingness to pay for the better quality than the poor. Hence, the firms' profit depends on the income distribution of consumers. We focus on the separating equilibrium, where goods of different qualities are sold to different consumers. In this equilibrium, a lower relative income of the poor is good for innovation, while a larger population share of the poor is bad. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past 20 years or so India, China, and the rest of East Asia, experienced fast economic growth and falls in the poverty rate, Latin America stagnated, the former Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa regressed. But what are the net trends? The neoliberal argument says that world poverty and income inequality fell over the past two decades for the first time in more than a century and a half, thanks to the rising density of economic integration across national borders. The evidence therefore confirms that globalization in the context of the world economic regime in place since the end of Bretton Woods generates more “mutual benefit” than “conflicting interests.” This paper questions the empirical basis of the neoliberal argument. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]