IslamicMarkets uses cookies.
About our cookie policy.

Poverty and Economic Growth: Does Pro-Growth mean Pro-Poor?

By IB Insights | October 03, 2014

Poverty can grind down countries and people. Almost 15 years on from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the debate rages on, with causes and remedies still surrounded by contention. The question many development economists are asking is: do pro-growth economic policies mean pro-poor? For if the answer is yes, then we can argue that poverty reduction policies should have an economic growth bias and the implications can be far reaching, affecting some of the most vulnerable people in society.

To underline the scale of the problem, globally, poverty remains remarkably high, with little progress made in Sub-Saharan Africa, according to the World Bank data (Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1: How Poverty has Evolved - 1985 to 2012

Poverty and Economic Growth: Does Pro-Growth mean Pro-Poor?

Even the most advanced economies cannot escape the debate. “The best anti-poverty program is economic growth” said Paul Ryan, the US Congressman, recently in a Wall Street Journal article, capturing the pro-growth side of the argument. In response, The New York Times senior economics correspondent, Neil Irwin, notes that “economic growth isn't leading to less poverty”, with income for people on the edge of poverty remaining low.

However, reality is much more complex. Firstly, pro-growth can either mean reducing inequality, that is, enacting policies that increase the income of the poor relative to the non-poor; or it can mean increasing the absolute income rate, so that the income increase is at a level that lowers the overall number of people living below the poverty line. How we choose to define “pro-growth” will determine the policy prescriptions at our disposal.

The World Bank prefers to use the absolute definition, noting that the relative definition has “limited operational use”, since it “places a premium on reducing inequality through growth more than reducing poverty.” For example 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.”

The economic rationale for focusing on inequality is clear. As Keynes demonstrated, inequality can cause poor households to increase consumption by borrowing more; and non-poor households to lower consumption and increase savings, leading to economic booms and busts. Such economic imbalances can undermine future generations and cause political uncertainty.

In What Makes Growth Sustain? Berg, Ostry, Zettelmeyer of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) undertook a comprehensive study, in 2008, on this area and the findings remain extremely relevant today. They find that enhancing equality in a country can lead to more sustainable economic growth. The key question here is: why does economic growth end more unexpectedly in some countries (with downturns being severe)? Attempting to get to the heart of the issue, the authors advise that we look at “turning points” in a country’s economic performance:

“If an economy has been falling off a cliff for a number of years and then turns itself around and starts climbing a mountain, it makes sense to ask what is going on around the time of the transition, and during the growth episode, to uncover any commonalities in the experience that can plausibly be exploited in other contexts. Likewise, if a country has been growing well for a number of years, but suddenly changes course for the worse, it would be useful to know what the path out of growth looks like so that other countries can take a different fork in the road”

The policy implications are significant. For example, trade liberalisation, often encouraged to boost economic growth, can also come with greater inequality, thereby affecting the country’s long-term economic performance. However, analysis shows that export focused policies - including export of manufactured goods, encouraging Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), and exchange rate stability and competitiveness - can reduce inequality. Exhibit 2 shows the effect of increase of different factors on economic growth spells. The key finding here is that a “10-percentile decrease in inequality - the sort of improvement that a number of countries have experienced during their spells - increases the expected length of a growth spell by 50 percent.”

Exhibit 2: Inequality and Growth Spells

 

Poverty and Economic Growth: Does Pro-Growth mean Pro-Poor?

 

These and other findings are gaining mainstream attention. Standard & Poor’s recent report notes the importance of addressing inequality in developing countries as  igniting growth is less difficult than sustaining it”. Even Wall Street is taking note - with Morgan Stanley recently positing that inequality is hindering economic growth.

Economic growth is not always pro-poor. In a time of burgeoning consumer debt and increasing government austerity, policymakers need to place greater emphasis on “growth spells”, which incorporate both growth and inequality-reducing policies, to achieve sustainable long-term economic progress.


Create FREE account or Login to add your comment
1 Comment

SVP, Dubai Islamic Bank

Do pro-growth economic policies mean pro-poor?
Pro-growth in true sense means reducing inequality, to enact such policies that should increase disposable income of the poor; or it can mean increasing the absolute income rate, so that the income increase is at a level that lowers the overall number of people living below the poverty line. This is an ideal and hypothetical statement and far from reality.
In reality; absolute income rate and growth in an economy only comes through economic policies that are prepared by economists but always need approvals of policymakers. Who are these policymakers and to which segment they represent. What do we see in the real world or what does our experience tell us. In every economy most of the policymakers are from rich background who get elected through campaigns funded by so called “donations”. If a policymaker has accepted donation he gets indebted and would always be obliged to the donors and we know donors are all from “Poor” people. In such case all the policies voted for are always favoring the poor.
I would leave this open for further discussion and would like someone to explain how this can be possible for rich people, who sit in cushioned seats, air-conditioned offices to understand the needs of poor and how can a poor person make both ends meet, to be pro-growth in real sense. (edited)