The purpose of this article is to revisit the relationship between growth and poverty which was widely discussed during the sixties. In view of the renewed reliance on this mechanism during the eighties by the Reagan administration and a concomitant increase in the incidence of poverty, a revisit of the topic is relevant. A regression model similar to the previous studies, but expanded to capture the emerging issues during the eighties is estimated for the period 1964–1987. A simple variable coefficient model to capture the secular decline in the effectiveness of growth to reduce poverty is also estimated. It is found that over the sample period, growth and transfer payments had significant effects on poverty; but their effects have been diminished by changes in income distribution, family composition, and the decline of the manufacturing sector during the seventies and eighties. Another interesting finding is that the impact of growth on the incidence of poverty is race neutral.

It is widely considered that minorities’ rights and dignity are protected in liberal societies particularly in western liberal countries up to a level humanly possible. However, in this article I show that it’s not as much heroic a theory as we conceive specifically when the liberal society is committed to accommodate plurality of ideas and lifestyles. After briefly explaining principal tenets of classical liberalism I claim that some fundamental weakness of the theory makes it untenable in liberal plural society let alone non-western society of diversityPhilosophy and Progress, Vol#55-56; No#1-2; Jan-Dec 2014

No abstract

Liberal multicultural theories developed in late twenty-first century aims to ensure the rights of the minorities, social justice and harmony in liberal societies. Will Kymlicka is the leading philosopher in this field. He advocates minority rights, their autonomy and the way minority groups can be accommodated in a liberal society with their distinct cultural identity. Besides him, there are other political theorists on the track and Galston is one of them. He disagrees with Kymlicka on some crucial points, particularly regarding the scope of civil rights of the minority groups and the responsibilities of both majority and minority groups for the sake of social harmony and justice. He tries to develop a moral theory of mutualism based on inter-community toleration and constitutionalism. Considering toleration as one of the fundamental liberal virtues he contends that the majority government has the responsibility to make arrangement both for the members of majority and minority groups so that they can build inter personal relation and learn toleration. The paper critically justifies the feasibility of his theory in a liberal society and claims that although Galston’s theory has a higher possibility to be accommodated in liberal societies, it eventually fails.