Current Issue
Past Issues
About the Journal
Aims and Scope
Publisher
Editorial Board
Publishing Ethics
Indexing and Archiving
Copyright, Licensing and Access
For Authors
Submission Guidelines
Publication Fees
Peer-review Process
Editorial and Production Processes
Corrections and Retractions
Publishing Ethics
Copyright, Licensing and Access
Contact Us
RESEARCH PAPER
Did Economic Growth Benefit the Poor in Poland from 2005 to 2015?
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
KEYWORDS
JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES
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.
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.
3.
Atkinson A. B. [1987], On the measurement of poverty, Econometrica, vol. 4: 749–764.
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.
5.
Bhagwati J. N. [1988], Poverty and public policy, World Development, vol. 16, no 5: 539–654.
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.
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.
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.
9.
Chakravarty S. R., D’Ambrosio C. [2013], An axiomatic approach to the measurement of poverty reduction failure, Economic Modelling, vol. 35: 874–880.
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.
11.
Dollar D., Kraay A. [2002], Growth is good for the poor, Journal of Economic Growth, 195–225.
12.
Duclos J. Y. [2009], What is Pro-Poor?, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32, no. 1: 37–58.
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.
14.
Foster J. E., Greer J., Thorbecke E. [1984], A class of decomposable poverty measures, Econometrica, vol. 52, no. 3: 761–766.
15.
Foster J. E., Shorrocks A. F. [1991], Subgroup consistent poverty indices, Econometrica, vol. 59, no. 3: 687–709.
16.
Foster J. E., Shorrocks A. F. [1988], Poverty orderings, Econometrica, vol. 1: 173–177.
17.
Gastwirth J. L. [1971], A general definition of the Lorenz curve, Econometrica, vol. 39: 1037–39.
18.
Grimm M. [2007], Removing the anonymity axiom in assessing pro-poor growth, Journal of Economic Inequality, vol. 5, no. 2, 179–197.
19.
Grosse M., Harttgen K., Klasen S. [2008], Measuring pro-poor growth in non-income dimensions, World Development, vol. 36, no. 6: 1021–1047.
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.
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.
22.
Kakwani N. [1995], Income inequality, welfare, and poverty. An illustration using Ukrainian data, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 1411, World Bank.
23.
Kakwani N., Subbarao K. [1990], Rural poverty and its alleviation in India, Economic and Polital Weekly, vol. 25, no. 13, A2‑A16.
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.
25.
Kakwani N., Pernia E. M. [2000], What is pro-poor growth?, Asian Development Review, vol. 18, no. 1: 1–16.
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.
27.
Kakwani N., Son H. H. [2008], Poverty equivalent growth rate, Review of Income and Wealth, vol. 54, no. 4: 643–655.
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.
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.
30.
Kośny M. [2011b], Relative income changes and an identification of growth pattern, ECINEQ Working Paper, 230.
31.
Kośny M. [2012], Polaryzacja ekonomiczna a wzrost gospodarczy sprzyjający ubogim, Studia Ekonomiczne, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, t. 102, Katowice, 78–89.
32.
Kośny M., Yalonetzky G. [2015], Relative income change and pro-poor growth, Economia Politica vol. 32, no. 3: 311–327.
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.
34.
Lopez, H. [2006], Did growth become less pro-poor in the 1990 s?, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 3931.
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.
36.
Moyes P. [1999], Stochastic dominance and the Lorenz curve, w: J. Silber (red.), Handbook on income inequality measurement, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
37.
Panek, T. [2011], Ubóstwo, wykluczenie społeczne i nierówności. Teoria i praktyka pomiaru, Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH, Warszawa.
38.
Panek T. [2014], Ubóstwo i wykluczenie społeczne, w: T. Panek (red.), Statystyka społeczna, Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne, Warszawa, 210–257.
39.
Panek T. [2015a], Diagnoza Społeczna 2015. Warunki i jakość życia Polaków. Metodologia analizy ubóstwa, Contemporary Economics, vol. 9, no. 3: 517–524.
40.
Panek T. [2015b], Metodyka realizacji badania Diagnoza Społeczna, Raport metodyczny, Rada Monitoringu Społecznego, Warszawa.
43.
Ravallion,M. [2004], Pro-poor growth: A primer, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper: 32–42.
44.
Ravallion M., Chen S. [2003], Measuring pro-poor growth, Economics Letters, vol. 78, no. 1: 93–99.
45.
Sen A. [1976], Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement, Econometrica, vol. 44: 219–231.
46.
Ruiz-Castillo, J. [2009], Absolute and relative poverty: The case of Mexico, 1992–2004, El Trimestre Economico, vol. 76, no. 301: 67–100.
47.
Son H. H. [2004], A note on pro-poor growth, Economics Letters, vol. 82, no. 3: 307–314.
48.
Son,H. H., Kakwani N. [2008], Global estimates of pro-poor growth, World Development, vol. 36, no. 6, 1048–1066.
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....
50.
Szulc A. [2003], It is possible to estimate reliable household equivalence scales, Statistics in Transition, vol. 6, no. 4: 589–611.
51.
Thon D. [1979], On measuring poverty, Review of Income and Wealth, vol. 25: 429–440.
52.
Wagstaff A. [2009], Reranking and pro-poor growth: Decompositions for China and Vietnam, Journal of Development Studies, vol. 45, no. 9: 1403–1425.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2300-5238 |
© 2006-2024 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
