What is Pro-Poor Growth?
A discussion on relative vs. absolute definition
• Pro-Poor Growth: What is it? (138kb PDF), One Pager No.1, International Poverty Center, UNDP, 2004.
• Comment on Pro-Poor Growth: What is It? (15kb PDF), by Martin Ravallion.
We know that an identity links the change in poverty to the change in the distribution of relative incomes and the growth of mean income for a given population (Bourguignon, 2002-03). Pro-poor growth is about changing the distribution of relative incomes through the growth process to favor the poor. There are two definitions for measuring pro-poor growth used in recent literature and policy-oriented discussions.
Relative Definition
The first and relative definition of pro-poor growth compares changes in the incomes of the poor with respect to changes in the incomes of the non-poor. Using this definition, growth is pro-poor when the distributional shifts accompanying growth favor the poor (Klasen, 2004; Kakwani and Pernia, 2000; McCulloch and Baulch, 1999; Kakwani and Son, 2003).
Although intuitively appealing, this relative definition of pro-poor growth presents three limitations, particularly when applied in an operational context. First, by focusing on inequality the relative definition could lead to sub-optimal outcomes for both poor and non-poor households. For example, a society attempting to achieve pro-poor growth under the relative definition would favor an outcome characterized by average income growth of 2 percent where the income of poor households grew by 3 percent over an outcome where average growth was 6 percent, but the incomes of poor households grew by 4 percent. While the distributional pattern of growth favors poor households in the first scenario, both poor and non-poor households are better off in the second scenario. In short, the relative definition places a premium on reducing inequality through growth more than reducing poverty. Second, under this definition an economic contraction could be pro-poor if the incomes of poor households fall by less than those of non-poor households — despite the fact that poverty has not fallen. Third, this definition might favor public sector interventions that reduce inequality regardless of their impact on growth. While in principle reductions in inequality may be welcomed and even become a policy objective, it is clear that a disregard for the impact of such actions on growth is likely to be of limited operational use.
Absolute Definition
The second and absolute definition avoids these problems by focusing instead on what happens to poverty. Growth is considered to be pro-poor if and only if poor people benefit in absolute terms, as reflected in some agreed measure of poverty (Ravallion and Chen, 2003; Kraay, 2003). In this case, the extent to which growth is pro-poor depends solely on the rate of change in poverty, which is determined by both the rate of growth and its distributional pattern. In short, under this definition the aim is to achieve the greatest amount of poverty reduction possible through growth and progressive distributional change.
Hence, although all considered pro-poor, an outcome characterized by average growth of say 6 percent with the income of the poor growing at a mere 0.1 percent would not be as desirable as an outcome where the income of the poor grow by 4 or 7 percent.
Given the importance that the World Bank and other donor agencies give to maximizing poverty reduction, the absolute definition will be operational definition used in the Operationalizing Pro-Poor Growth work program.
留言（12 条）
在 Twitter同步新浪微博的一个解决方案 留言：
玩微博都属于新潮了，我们这一代人潮不起；也没那么多时间精力去玩；更没时间精力去钻研。唉
家里的父母也不懂QQ 也没有微博，他们最爱就是和子女面对面地唠嗑。
2012-01-31 15:45:53
在 《禅与摩托车维修艺术》读后感 留言：
技术与禅是有一些道理的。两者是成金字塔形状，技术在最下，禅在最上。技术与禅之间的衔接依靠独立、自由、完整以及简单与纯粹。它们之间的共性在于两者之间均含有的变数与定数。
2011-12-19 00:59:46
在 济慈的《夜莺颂》 留言：
强烈要求阮同学完整翻译这首诗。等着拜读
2011-12-05 20:29:23
在 Javascript继承机制的设计思想 留言：
不要误导人了， 这样写法你确定能共享吗？
DOG.species = '犬科'; //这种写法，只能是 DOG 可以用，
它的子对象根本不受其影响。
2011-11-22 17:05:58
在 usenet下载最简教程 留言：
usenet推广的最大困难有两个，一是没有中文内容，二是存在一定的使用门槛。
===============================
我觉得最大的困难绝对是价格。
2011-10-15 11:10:15
在 乔布斯的告别 留言：
看得心里特别难受。。。。
2011-10-07 23:29:37
在 一封博士研究生的遗书 留言：
遗书是假的....博士的母亲已经去世了。
2010-03-26 03:54:10
在 2009年我的网志总结 留言：
加油，你很棒！
2009-12-31 09:10:44
在 《Joel谈软件》出版了 留言：
了不起！
2009-12-02 21:41:28
在 水彩故事《阿波罗11号登月记》 留言：
分镜脚本
2009-11-10 01:18:23
在 安装了Ubuntu 留言：
还是直接刻吧，偶申请了结果到现在都没有回音，估计弄丢了
2007-07-09 17:38:12
在 亚洲：经济增长没有失业快（pro-poor growth） 留言：
上文对于Pro-Poor Growth的定义似乎错了 （见世界银行定义）
What is Pro-Poor Growth?
A discussion on relative vs. absolute definition
• Pro-Poor Growth: What is it? (138kb PDF), One Pager No.1, International Poverty Center, UNDP, 2004.
• Comment on Pro-Poor Growth: What is It? (15kb PDF), by Martin Ravallion.
We know that an identity links the change in poverty to the change in the distribution of relative incomes and the growth of mean income for a given population (Bourguignon, 2002-03). Pro-poor growth is about changing the distribution of relative incomes through the growth process to favor the poor. There are two definitions for measuring pro-poor growth used in recent literature and policy-oriented discussions.
Relative Definition
The first and relative definition of pro-poor growth compares changes in the incomes of the poor with respect to changes in the incomes of the non-poor. Using this definition, growth is pro-poor when the distributional shifts accompanying growth favor the poor (Klasen, 2004; Kakwani and Pernia, 2000; McCulloch and Baulch, 1999; Kakwani and Son, 2003).
Although intuitively appealing, this relative definition of pro-poor growth presents three limitations, particularly when applied in an operational context. First, by focusing on inequality the relative definition could lead to sub-optimal outcomes for both poor and non-poor households. For example, a society attempting to achieve pro-poor growth under the relative definition would favor an outcome characterized by average income growth of 2 percent where the income of poor households grew by 3 percent over an outcome where average growth was 6 percent, but the incomes of poor households grew by 4 percent. While the distributional pattern of growth favors poor households in the first scenario, both poor and non-poor households are better off in the second scenario. In short, the relative definition places a premium on reducing inequality through growth more than reducing poverty. Second, under this definition an economic contraction could be pro-poor if the incomes of poor households fall by less than those of non-poor households — despite the fact that poverty has not fallen. Third, this definition might favor public sector interventions that reduce inequality regardless of their impact on growth. While in principle reductions in inequality may be welcomed and even become a policy objective, it is clear that a disregard for the impact of such actions on growth is likely to be of limited operational use.
Absolute Definition
The second and absolute definition avoids these problems by focusing instead on what happens to poverty. Growth is considered to be pro-poor if and only if poor people benefit in absolute terms, as reflected in some agreed measure of poverty (Ravallion and Chen, 2003; Kraay, 2003). In this case, the extent to which growth is pro-poor depends solely on the rate of change in poverty, which is determined by both the rate of growth and its distributional pattern. In short, under this definition the aim is to achieve the greatest amount of poverty reduction possible through growth and progressive distributional change.
Hence, although all considered pro-poor, an outcome characterized by average growth of say 6 percent with the income of the poor growing at a mere 0.1 percent would not be as desirable as an outcome where the income of the poor grow by 4 or 7 percent.
Given the importance that the World Bank and other donor agencies give to maximizing poverty reduction, the absolute definition will be operational definition used in the Operationalizing Pro-Poor Growth work program.
2007-03-09 00:48:40