PL EN
 
PL EN
Current Issue
Past Issues
About the Journal
For Authors
Contact Us
2/2019 vol. 298
Stats
CC-BY 4.0
Get citation
RESEARCH PAPER
Did Economic Growth Benefit the Poor in Poland from 2005 to 2015?
Tomasz Panek 1
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie, Instytut Statystyki i Demografii
 
 
Submission date: 2019-01-24
 
 
Acceptance date: 2019-04-17
 
 
Publication date: 2019-06-24
 
 
GNPJE 2019;298(2):5-39
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33119/GN/108604
 
 
Article (PDF)
References (52)
 
KEYWORDS
economic growth
poverty
inequality
 
JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES
D31
D63
I32
O15
 
ABSTRACT
Poland’s economic growth accelerated strongly after the country became a member of the European Union in 2004. The average 10-year GDP growth rate has since exceeded 4 percent. Rapid economic growth has been accompanied by rising real household incomes. However, not all social groups have benefited equally from this growth. This article attempts to answer the question whether poor people in Poland have benefited more or less than the non-poor from rapid GDP growth and increasing real incomes. In the theoretical part of the article, pro-poor growth is defined. In the next step, various approaches to the analysis of the nature of growth and the basic measures of pro-poor growth are presented. In addition, the main advantages and limitations are discussed, and some modifications are proposed. In the empirical part of the article, the hypothesis is verified of whether economic growth in Poland was pro-poor from 2005 to 2015. The analyses are based on panel data taken from the Social Diagnosis (DS) study. The results of empirical analyses indicate that economic growth in Poland from 2005 to 2015 was generally favourable for the poor.
REFERENCES (52)
1.
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, vol. 55, no. 4: 853–881.
Google Scholar
 
 
2.
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, vol. 17: 333–338.
Google Scholar
 
 
3.
Atkinson A. B. [1987], On the measurement of poverty, Econometrica, vol. 4: 749–764.
Google Scholar
 
 
4.
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, vol. 6: 20–127.
Google Scholar
 
 
5.
Bhagwati J. N. [1988], Poverty and public policy, World Development, vol. 16, no 5: 539–654.
Google Scholar
 
 
6.
Bourguignon F. [2011], Non-anonymous growth incidence curves, income mobility and social welfare dominance, The Journal of Economic Inequality, vol. 9, no 4: 605–627.
Google Scholar
 
 
7.
Brzezinski M. [2011], Has recent economic growth in Poland been pro-poor? Evidence from 1998–2008, Working Paper, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
Google Scholar
 
 
8.
Brzezinski M. [2012], Pro-poorness of economic growth in Poland: contrasting cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches, w: Statistical methods in regional and social analyses under integration and globalization, A. Jaeschke, W. Starzyńska (red.), Łódź, Statistical Office in Lodz, 175–190.
Google Scholar
 
 
9.
Chakravarty S. R., D’Ambrosio C. [2013], An axiomatic approach to the measurement of poverty reduction failure, Economic Modelling, vol. 35: 874–880.
Google Scholar
 
 
10.
Copeland P., Daly M. [2012], Varieties of poverty reduction: Inserting the poverty and social exclusion target into Europe 2020, Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 22, no. 3: 273–287.
Google Scholar
 
 
11.
Dollar D., Kraay A. [2002], Growth is good for the poor, Journal of Economic Growth, 195–225.
Google Scholar
 
 
12.
Duclos J. Y. [2009], What is Pro-Poor?, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32, no. 1: 37–58.
Google Scholar
 
 
13.
Essama-Nssah B., Lambert P. J. [2009], Measuring pro-poorness: A unifying approach with new results, Review of Income and Wealth, vol. 55, no. 3: 752–778.
Google Scholar
 
 
14.
Foster J. E., Greer J., Thorbecke E. [1984], A class of decomposable poverty measures, Econometrica, vol. 52, no. 3: 761–766.
Google Scholar
 
 
15.
Foster J. E., Shorrocks A. F. [1991], Subgroup consistent poverty indices, Econometrica, vol. 59, no. 3: 687–709.
Google Scholar
 
 
16.
Foster J. E., Shorrocks A. F. [1988], Poverty orderings, Econometrica, vol. 1: 173–177.
Google Scholar
 
 
17.
Gastwirth J. L. [1971], A general definition of the Lorenz curve, Econometrica, vol. 39: 1037–39.
Google Scholar
 
 
18.
Grimm M. [2007], Removing the anonymity axiom in assessing pro-poor growth, Journal of Economic Inequality, vol. 5, no. 2, 179–197.
Google Scholar
 
 
19.
Grosse M., Harttgen K., Klasen S. [2008], Measuring pro-poor growth in non-income dimensions, World Development, vol. 36, no. 6: 1021–1047.
Google Scholar
 
 
20.
Harmáček J., Syrovátka, M., Dušková L. [2017], Pro-poor growth in East Africa, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, vol. 64 (C): 82–93.
Google Scholar
 
 
21.
Kakwani N. [1984], Issues in Measuring Poverty, w: R. L. Bassmanni, G. F. Rhodes Jr. (red.), Advances in Econometrics, 3, JAJ Press, Greenwich, CT & London, 253–282.
Google Scholar
 
 
22.
Kakwani N. [1995], Income inequality, welfare, and poverty. An illustration using Ukrainian data, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 1411, World Bank.
Google Scholar
 
 
23.
Kakwani N., Subbarao K. [1990], Rural poverty and its alleviation in India, Economic and Polital Weekly, vol. 25, no. 13, A2‑A16.
Google Scholar
 
 
24.
Kakwani N., Khandker S., Son H. H. [2004], Pro-poor growth: concepts and measurement with country case studies, International Poverty Centre Working Paper, 1, United Nations Development Programme.
Google Scholar
 
 
25.
Kakwani N., Pernia E. M. [2000], What is pro-poor growth?, Asian Development Review, vol. 18, no. 1: 1–16.
Google Scholar
 
 
26.
Kakwani N., Son H. [2004], Pro-poor growth: concepts and measurement with country case studies, The Pakistan Development Review, vol. 42, no. 4, 417–444.
Google Scholar
 
 
27.
Kakwani N., Son H. H. [2008], Poverty equivalent growth rate, Review of Income and Wealth, vol. 54, no. 4: 643–655.
Google Scholar
 
 
28.
Klasen S. [2008], Economic growth and poverty reduction: Measurement issues using income and non-income indicators, World Development, vol. 36, no. 3: 420–445.
Google Scholar
 
 
29.
Kośny M. [2011a], Koncepcja dominacji pierwszego i drugiego rzędu w analizie wzorca zmian w rozkładzie dochodu, w: E. Konarzewska-Gubała (red.), Zastosowania badań operacyjnych. Zarządzanie projektami, decyzje finansowe, logistyka, Prace Naukowe UE we Wrocławiu, t. 238, 111–119.
Google Scholar
 
 
30.
Kośny M. [2011b], Relative income changes and an identification of growth pattern, ECINEQ Working Paper, 230.
Google Scholar
 
 
31.
Kośny M. [2012], Polaryzacja ekonomiczna a wzrost gospodarczy sprzyjający ubogim, Studia Ekonomiczne, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, t. 102, Katowice, 78–89.
Google Scholar
 
 
32.
Kośny M., Yalonetzky G. [2015], Relative income change and pro-poor growth, Economia Politica vol. 32, no. 3: 311–327.
Google Scholar
 
 
33.
Kraay A. [2006], When is growth pro-poor? Evidence from a panel of countries, Journal of Development Economics, vol. 80, no. 1: 198–227.
Google Scholar
 
 
34.
Lopez, H. [2006], Did growth become less pro-poor in the 1990 s?, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 3931.
Google Scholar
 
 
35.
Layard R., Mayraz G., Nickell S. [2010], Does relative income matter? Are the critics right? w: E. Diener, D. Kahneman, J. Lelliewell (red.), International differences in well-being, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 139–165.
Google Scholar
 
 
36.
Moyes P. [1999], Stochastic dominance and the Lorenz curve, w: J. Silber (red.), Handbook on income inequality measurement, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
Google Scholar
 
 
37.
Panek, T. [2011], Ubóstwo, wykluczenie społeczne i nierówności. Teoria i praktyka pomiaru, Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH, Warszawa.
Google Scholar
 
 
38.
Panek T. [2014], Ubóstwo i wykluczenie społeczne, w: T. Panek (red.), Statystyka społeczna, Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne, Warszawa, 210–257.
Google Scholar
 
 
39.
Panek T. [2015a], Diagnoza Społeczna 2015. Warunki i jakość życia Polaków. Metodologia analizy ubóstwa, Contemporary Economics, vol. 9, no. 3: 517–524.
Google Scholar
 
 
40.
Panek T. [2015b], Metodyka realizacji badania Diagnoza Społeczna, Raport metodyczny, Rada Monitoringu Społecznego, Warszawa.
Google Scholar
 
 
41.
Pen J. [1971], Income distribution, Praeger Publishers, New York.
Google Scholar
 
 
42.
Ravallion M. [1994], Poverty comparisons, Harwood Academic, Publishers, Chur.
Google Scholar
 
 
43.
Ravallion,M. [2004], Pro-poor growth: A primer, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper: 32–42.
Google Scholar
 
 
44.
Ravallion M., Chen S. [2003], Measuring pro-poor growth, Economics Letters, vol. 78, no. 1: 93–99.
Google Scholar
 
 
45.
Sen A. [1976], Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement, Econometrica, vol. 44: 219–231.
Google Scholar
 
 
46.
Ruiz-Castillo, J. [2009], Absolute and relative poverty: The case of Mexico, 1992–2004, El Trimestre Economico, vol. 76, no. 301: 67–100.
Google Scholar
 
 
47.
Son H. H. [2004], A note on pro-poor growth, Economics Letters, vol. 82, no. 3: 307–314.
Google Scholar
 
 
48.
Son,H. H., Kakwani N. [2008], Global estimates of pro-poor growth, World Development, vol. 36, no. 6, 1048–1066.
Google Scholar
 
 
49.
Subramanian S. [2011], The focus axiom and poverty: On the co-existence of precise language and ambiguous meaning in economic measurement, Economics, The Open-Access, Open Assessment E-Journal, 6, 2012–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/econ....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
50.
Szulc A. [2003], It is possible to estimate reliable household equivalence scales, Statistics in Transition, vol. 6, no. 4: 589–611.
Google Scholar
 
 
51.
Thon D. [1979], On measuring poverty, Review of Income and Wealth, vol. 25: 429–440.
Google Scholar
 
 
52.
Wagstaff A. [2009], Reranking and pro-poor growth: Decompositions for China and Vietnam, Journal of Development Studies, vol. 45, no. 9: 1403–1425.
Google Scholar
 
 
Share
Send by email
RELATED ARTICLE
Assessing Macroeconomic Influences on Indian Sovereign Bond Yields: An Insight from the ARDL Bound Test Approach
Female Labour Force Participation in Saudi Arabia and its Determinants
Ownership Inequalities: Protection of Minority Shareholder Rights
Real Convergence Models in the World
The Use of the Economic Growth Model for the Estimation of Optimal Pay Disparities
Indexes
 
Keywords index
JEL Classification Codes index
Authors index
eISSN:2300-5238
Journals System - logo
The system was developed as part of the task "Digitization of the journal Gospodarka Narodowa," financed under contract 555/P-DUN/2018 from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education funds allocated from the dissemination of science.

© 2006-2024 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
Scroll to top