Defining pro-poor growth
Defining pro-poor growth
复制标题
定义有利于穷人的增长
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Osmani
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Osmani
P国际，本网页的内容不一定反映国际贫穷中心或联合国开发计划署的官方观点。马丁·拉瓦利安和纳纳克·卡瓦尼重启了一场他们已经投入了一段时间的辩论。我发现自己认同这两种观点--不是认同他们对有利于穷人的增长的定义，而是认同他们对彼此的批评。也就是说，我觉得他们的定义都有问题。Ravallion的定义与减贫增长的概念相同--任何减少贫困的增长都被认为是有利于穷人的。在我看来，简单地减少贫困总体上不能成为“扶贫”的充分条件。必须有更多的东西；特别是，增长过程必须表现出有利于穷人的偏见。从这个意义上说，Kakwani的定义是朝着正确方向迈出的一步。他称，只有在穷人受益比例高于富人的情况下，增长过程才有利于穷人。但他将这种偏见推向了极端，导致了潜在的违反直觉的暗示。比较两种情景。在情况A中，增长率很低，但按比例来看，穷人比富人受益更多。相比之下，情况B的增长率要高得多，但穷人受益的比例较小。进一步假设，由于更高的增长，在情景B中贫困的减少比在情景A中更多，按照Kakwani的定义，我们将A描述为有利于穷人的增长，而不是B，即使穷人在后者中实际上做得更好！如果更多地减少贫困的增长过程不能被描述为有利于穷人的增长过程，但减少贫困的增长过程可以被描述为有利于穷人的增长过程，那么我们的定义肯定是有问题的。显然，需要进行一些反思。我们首先需要澄清扶贫质量应归因于的对象，同时铭记增长速度和增长性质之间的区别--后者通常表示其分配影响。支持贫困是为了衡量增长的性质，还是衡量增长过程的整体？如果它仅仅指的是增长的本质，那么如果“有利于穷人”的增长碰巧比不被认为是“有利于穷人”的增长减少的贫困更少，那么它将不再重要，Kakwani的定义将是自然采用的定义。但如果增长的本质是我们所追求的，为什么还要费心创造一个新术语呢？我们已经…了
P INTERNATIONAL The content of this page does not necessarily reflect the official views of the International Poverty Centre or the United Nations Development Programme. Martin Ravallion and Nanak Kakwani have reopened a debate in which they have been engaged for some time. I find myself in agreement with both – not with their definitions of pro-poor growth, but with their criticisms of each other. That is to say, I find both their definitions problematic. Ravallion's definition is identical with the concept of poverty-reducing growth – any growth that reduces poverty is said to be pro-poor. In my view, simply reducing poverty cannot, in general, be a sufficient condition for 'pro-poorness'. There has to be something more; in particular, the growth process must exhibit a bias in favor of the poor. In that sense, Kakwani's definition is a move in the right direction. He calls a growth process pro-poor only when the poor benefit proportionately more than the rich. But he takes the bias to an extreme, leading to potentially counterintuitive implications. Compare two scenarios. In situation A, the growth rate is low but the poor benefit proportionately more than the rich. By contrast, the growth rate in situation B is much higher, but the poor benefit proportionately less. Assume further that, because of higher growth, poverty is reduced more in scenario B than A. By Kakwani's definition, we shall characterize A as a case of pro-poor growth but not B, even though the poor have actually done better in the latter! Something surely must be wrong with our definitions if a growth process that reduces poverty more cannot be described as pro-poor, but one that reduces poverty less can. Clearly, some rethinking is required. We first need to clarify the object to which the quality of pro-poorness is to be attributed, bearing in mind the distinction between the rate and the nature of growth – the latter usually denoting its distributional impact. Is pro-poorness meant to gauge the nature of growth, or the totality of the growth process? If it merely refers to the nature of growth, then it will no longer matter if 'pro-poor' growth happens to reduce poverty less than growth that is not deemed 'pro-poor' , and Kakwani's definition would be the natural one to adopt. But if the nature of growth is what we are after, why bother to coin a new term? We already …