Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access September 9, 2011

On Various Ways of Measuring Pro-Poor Growth

  • Joseph Deutsch and Jacques Silber EMAIL logo
From the journal Economics

Abstract

This paper examines three possible approaches to pro-poor growth. The first one assumes that the poverty line remains constant in real terms over time. The second perspective examines the case where the poverty line is equal to half the median of the income distribution but assumes that such a poverty line is determined exogenously. Finally we also propose a third type of decomposition of the change in poverty, one which is obtained when the poverty line is assumed to be endogenous.

In addition, whatever the assumption made concerning the poverty line, we take both a relative and an absolute approach to inequality measurement when defining pro-poor growth. With a relative approach to pro-poor growth it is assumed that inequality does not to vary when all incomes are multiplied by a constant whereas, with an absolute approach to pro-poor growth, inequality is supposed not to vary when an equal sum is added to all incomes. The empirical illustration covers the period 1990–2006 in Israel and the analysis is based on the use of the FGT poverty index. It turns out that the assumptions made concerning the way the poverty line is defined and the choice between a relative and an absolute approach to pro-poor growth greatly affect the results. As a whole however growth was pro-rich in Israel during the 1990–2006 period.

JEL Classification: I32; O15

References

Atkinson, A. B. (1987). On the Measurement of Poverty. Econometrica, 55: 749–764. http://ideas.repec.org/a/ecm/emetrp/v55y1987i4p749-64.html10.2307/1911028Search in Google Scholar

Baulch, B. and N. McCulloch (2002). Being Poor and Becoming Poor: Poverty Status and Poverty Transitions in Rural Pakistan. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 37(2): 168–185. http://jas.sagepub.com/content/37/2/168.abstract10.1177/002190960203700208Search in Google Scholar

Bourguignon, F. (1979). Decomposable Income Inequality Measures. Econometrica, 47: 901–920. http://ideas.repec.org/a/ecm/emetrp/v47y1979i4p901-20.html10.2307/1914138Search in Google Scholar

Buhmann, B., L. Rainwater, G. Schmaus and T.M. Smeeding (1988). Equivalence Scales, Well-Being, Inequality and Poverty: Sensitivity Estimates Across Ten Countries Using the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) Database. Review of Income and Wealth, 34: 115–142. http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revinw/v34y1988i2p115-42.html10.1111/j.1475-4991.1988.tb00564.xSearch in Google Scholar

Chantreuil, F. and A. Trannoy (1999). Inequality Decomposition Values: The Trade-Off Between Marginality and Consistency. THEMA Discussion Paper, Université de Cergy-Pontoise. http://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/pnegmi/99-24.htmlSearch in Google Scholar

Deutsch, J. and J. Silber (2009). Measuring Pro-Poor Growth with a Variable Poverty Line, mimeo. Bar-Ilan University.Search in Google Scholar

Datt, G. and M. Ravallion (1992). Growth and Redistribution Components of Changes in Poverty Measures: A Decomposition with Applications to Brazil and India in the 1980s. Journal of Development Economics, 38: 275–295. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/deveco/v38y1992i2p275-295.html10.1016/0304-3878(92)90001-PSearch in Google Scholar

Dollar, D. and A. Kraay (2002). Growth is Good for the Poor. Journal of Economic Growth, 7(3): 195–225. http://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jecgro/v7y2002i3p195-225.html10.1023/A:1020139631000Search in Google Scholar

Grimm, M. (2007). Removing the anonymity axiom in assessing pro-poor growth. Journal of Economic Inequality, 5(2): 179–197. http://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jecinq/v5y2007i2p179-197.html10.1007/s10888-006-9038-4Search in Google Scholar

Kakwani, N. (1980). On a Class of Poverty Measures. Econometrica, 48(2): 437–446. http://ideas.repec.org/a/ecm/emetrp/v48y1980i2p437-46.html10.2307/1911106Search in Google Scholar

Kakwani, N. (2000). On Measuring Growth and Inequality Components of Poverty with Applications to Thailand. Journal of Quantitative Economics, 16: 67–80.Search in Google Scholar

Kakwani, N., S. Khandker and H. H. Son (2004). Pro-Poor Growth: Concepts and Measurement with Country Case Studies. Working Paper Number 1, International Poverty Centre, Brasilia. http://ideas.repec.org/p/ipc/wpaper/1.htmlSearch in Google Scholar

Kakwani, N. C. and E. M. Pernia (2000). What is Pro-Poor Growth. Asian Development Review, 18(1): 1–16. http://www.adb.org/documents/periodicals/adr/adr_vol_18_1.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

Kakwani, N. and H. Son (2002). Pro-Poor Growth and Poverty Reduction: The Asian Experience. The Poverty Center, Office of the Executive Secretary, ESCAP, Bangkok.Search in Google Scholar

Kakwani,N. and H. Son (2006). Global Estimates of Pro-Poor Growth. World Development, 36(6): 1048–1066. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v36y2008i6p1048-1066.htmlSearch in Google Scholar

Kakwani, N. and H. Son (2008). Poverty Equivalent Growth Rate, Review of Income and Wealth 54(4): 643–655. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2008.00293.x/abstractSearch in Google Scholar

Nissanov, Z. and J Silber (2009). On Pro-Poor Growth and the Measurement of Convergence. Economics Letters, 105: 270–272. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v105y2009i3p270-272.html10.1016/j.econlet.2009.07.019Search in Google Scholar

Ravallion, M. (2004). Pro-Poor Growth: A Primer. World Bank Research Working Paper, No. 3242. http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/3242.html10.1596/1813-9450-3242Search in Google Scholar

Ravallion, M. and S. Chen (2003). Measuring Pro-Poor Growth. Economics Letters, 78(1): 93–99. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v78y2003i1p93-99.html10.1016/S0165-1765(02)00205-7Search in Google Scholar

Sastre, M. and A. Trannoy. (2002). Shapley Inequality Decomposition by Factor Components: Some Methodological Issues. Journal of Economics, Supplement 9: 51–89. http://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jeczfn/v9y2002i1p51-89.html10.1007/978-3-7091-6166-1_3Search in Google Scholar

Shorrocks, A. F. (1999). Decomposition Procedures for Distributional Analysis: A Unified Framework Based on the Shapley Value. mimeo, University of Essex.Search in Google Scholar

Son, H. (2003). A New Poverty Decomposition. Journal of Economic Inequality, 1: 181–187. http://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jecinq/v1y2003i2p181-187.htmlSearch in Google Scholar

Son, H. (2004). A Note on Pro-Poor Growth. Economics Letters, 82: 307–314. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v82y2004i3p307-314.html10.1016/j.econlet.2003.08.003Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2011-09-09
Published in Print: 2011-12-01

© 2011 Joseph Deutsch et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 25.2.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2011-13/html
Scroll to top button