Has Economic Growth in Balkan Countries Been Pro-Poor in the 2012–2017 period?

• Authors: Jan Zwierzchowski , Tomasz Panek

Abstracts

EN

The study investigates whether economic growth in the Balkan countries was pro-poor in the most recent period. We also try to establish to what extent various measures of pro-poorness of economic growth produce consistent and comparable results. Firstly, concepts of pro-poor growth are defined and corresponding approaches toward measuring pro-poor growth are presented. We distinguish between measures based on a general class of pro-poor indices and a dominance-based techniques. In the empirical part of the study, we verified whether economic growth in six Balkan countries (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia) was pro-poor in the 2012–2017 period. The analyses is based on the latest available panel data of the European Union Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC). Growth was pro-poor in Croatia, Romania and Slovenia during the whole analysed period. The growth pattern was non pro-poor in Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia in certain years, mainly during periods of economic downfall. Various measures of pro-poor growth patterns do not produce consistent results in all instances. The results of the conducted comparative analysis suggest that the level of social benefits does not directly influence the pro-poor nature of the economic growth.

Keywords

EN

economic growth; poverty; inequality

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Central European Economic Journal
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 9
• Issue: 56
• Pages: 76-92

Dates

published

2022

Contributors

author

Jan Zwierzchowski

• Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis, Warsaw, Poland

author

Tomasz Panek

• Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis, Warsaw, Poland

References

• Araar, A., Duclos, J-Y., Audet, M., & Makdissi, P. (2009). Testing for pro-poorness of growth, with an application to Mexico. Review of Income and Wealth, 55(4), 853–881. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2009.00357.x
• Ashley, R. (2007). Growth may be good for the poor, but decline is disastrous: On the non-robustness of the Dollar – Kraay result. International Review of Economics and Finance, 17, 333–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2007.09.001
• Atkinson, A. B. (1987). On the measurement of poverty. Econometrica, 55(4), 749–764. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911028
• Bibi, S., Duclos, J.-Y., & Verdier-Chouchane, A. (2012). Assessing absolute and relative pro-poor growth, with an application to selected African countries. Economics: The Open-Access Open-Assessment E-Journal, 6, 20–127. https://doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2012-7
• Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2002). Growth is good for the poor. Journal of Economic Growth, 7(3), 195–225. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020139631000
• Duclos, J. Y. (2009). What is pro-poor? Social Choice and Welfare, 32(1), 37–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00355-008-0308-x
• Essama-Nssah, B., & Lambert, P. J. (2009). Measuring pro-poorness: A unifying approach with new results. Review of Income and Wealth, 55(3), 752–778. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2009.00335.x
• Foster, J. E., & Shorrocks, A. F. (1988). Poverty orderings. Econometrica, 56(1), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911846
• Grimm, M. (2007). Removing the anonymity axiom in assessing pro-poor growth. Journal of Economic Inequality, 5(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-006-9038-4
• Grosse, M., Harttgen, K., & Klasen, S. (2008). Measuring pro-poor growth in nonincome dimensions. World Development, 36(3), 1021–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.10.009
• Harmáček, J., Syrovátka, M., & Dušková L. (2017), Pro-poor growth in East Africa. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 64(C), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2016.07.002
• Kakwani, N., Khandker, S., & Son, H. H. (2004). Pro-Poor Growth: Concepts and Measurement with Country Case Studies. Working paper; New York: United Nations Development Programme. https://doi.org/10.30541/v42i4Ipp.417-444
• Kakwani, N., & Pernia, E. M. (2000). What is pro-poor growth? Asian Development Review, 18(1), 1–16.
• Kakwani, N., & Son H. (2004). Pro-poor growth: concepts and measurement with country case studies. The Pakistan Development Review, 42(4), 417–444. https://doi.org/10.30541/v42i4Ipp.417-444
• Kakwani, N., & Son, H. H. (2008). Poverty equivalent growth rate Review of Income and Wealth, 54(4), 643–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2008.00293.x
• Kakwani, N., & Subbarao, K. (1990). Rural poverty and its alleviation in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 25(13), A2–A16.
• Klasen, S. (2008). Economic growth and poverty reduction: Measurement issues using income and non-income indicators. World Development, 36(3), 420–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.03.008
• Kośny, M., & Yalonetzky, G. (2015). Relative income change and pro-poor growth. Economia Politica, 32(3), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-015-0017-8
• Kraay, A. (2006). When is growth pro-poor? Evidence from a panel of countries. Journal of Development Economics, 80(1), 198–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2005.02.004
• Layard, R., Mayraz, G., & Nickell, S. (2010). Does relative income matter? Are the critics right? In E. Diener, D. Kahneman, J. Lelliewell (Eds.), International Differences in Well-Being (pp. 139–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732739.003.0006
• Lo Bue, M., & Palmisano, F. (2019). The individual poverty incidence of growth. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 82(6), 1295–1321. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12362
• Lopez, H. (2006). Did Growth Become Less Pro-Poor in the 1990s? Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-3931
• Moyes, P. (1999). Stochastic dominance and the Lorenz curve., In J. Silber (Ed.), Handbook on Income Inequality Measurement. Boston: Kluwer, 199–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4413-1_7
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007). DAC Guidelines and Reference Series Promoting Pro-Poor Growth: Policy Guidance for Donors. Paris: OECD.
• Panek, T. (2011). Poverty, Social Exclusion and Inequality. Theory and Measurement Practice. Warsaw: Warsaw School of Economics Press [in Polish].
• Panek, T., Zwierzchowski, J. (2021). Economic Growth, Poverty, Inequality, and Social Transfers in the European Union, Warsaw: SGH Publishing House.
• Pen, J. (1971). Income Distribution. New York: Praeger. https://doi.org/10.2307/2230231
• Ravallion, M. (1994). Poverty Comparisons. Chur: Harwood Academic.
• Ravallion, M., & Chen, S. (2003). Measuring pro-poor growth. Economics Letters, 78(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(02)00205-7
• Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2009). Absolute and relative poverty: The case of Mexico, 1992–2004. El Trimestre Economico, 76(301), 67–100.
• Son, H. H. (2004), A note on pro-poor growth. Economics Letters, 82(3), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2003.08.003
• Son, H. H., & Kakwani, N. (2008). Global estimates of pro-poor growth. World Development, 36(6), 1048–1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.10.002
• Subramanian, S. (2004). Indicators on Inequality and Poverty. Helsinki: World Institute for Development Economics Research, United Nations University.
• Tebaldi, E., & Kim, J (2015). Is income growth in the United States pro-poor? A state-level analysis. Eastern Economic Journal, 41(2), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1057/eej.2014.14
• Zeman, K., & Shamsuddin, S. (2017). Linear and non-linear relationships between growth, inequality, and poverty in a panel of Latin America and the Caribbean countries: A new evidence of pro-poor growth. Social Indicators Research, 41(2), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1581-9
• Zheng, B., (1997). Aggregate poverty measures. Journal of Economic Surveys, 11(2), 123–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00028

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/ceej-2022-0006

Biblioteka Nauki

2076902