Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/259849 
Year of Publication: 
2001
Series/Report no.: 
Working Paper No. 2001:12
Publisher: 
Lund University, School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Lund
Abstract: 
This paper summarizes and synthesizes some literature that picks up and extends the discussion of Dollar and Kraay (2000). While most of the theory has been known for a long time, the empirical material that has gradually become available in the past decade or so in the form of household budget surveys has made it possible to paint a more detailed and nuanced picture than the one usually available. Here, three major arguments are developed. First, the poverty reduction (PR) impact of a certain rate of growth depends crucially on the pattern of that growth, with rural growth usually being more efficient than urban growth, and agricultural growth more efficient than manufacturing growth. Second, poverty reduction in agriculture is much stronger in the medium run than in the short run. This is because the indirect PR effect – a multiplier effect – is typically much stronger than the direct one. Third, there is much that both governments and donors can do to improve the rate of PR, including appropriate targeting of public expenditure, increased provision of primary education to address growth-hampering income inequality, and better focus onb gender issues.
Subjects: 
poverty reduction
growth
agriculture
JEL: 
F35
O13
O19
Q12
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.