Dynamic and long-term linkages among agricultural and non-agricultural growth, inequality and poverty in developing countries

Imai, Katsushi S.; Cheng, Wenya; Gaiha, Raghav

doi:10.1080/02692171.2016.1249833

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, the findings highlight that agriculture has a poverty-reducing effect in selected transition economies. This finding exhibits direct parallelism with the studies of Imai et al (2017), Rehman et al (2016), Fan et al (2005), Datt and Ravallion (1998), Mathur (1985) and Bourguignon and Morrison (1998).…”

Section: Extended Abstractsupporting

confidence: 86%

Geçiş Ülkelerinde Tarımın Yoksulluk Üzerindeki Etkisi: Panel ARDL Modeli

Oskonbaeva

Najimudinova

2021

Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of people who cannot meet their basic needs is increasing day by day. In other words, poverty is emerging as a critical issue that needs to be urgently handled. It is important for researchers as well as policymakers to examine factors leading to possible reductions in poverty levels. Among these, the effect of the agricultural sector on the poverty alleviation is enormous. It is well documented that the share of agriculture in the stimulating development is high in all countries. Thus, to establish empirical validity for poverty-reducing effect of agricultural sector, the link between these two series needs to be examined comprehensively.In the current paper, the influence of agriculture on poverty in selected transition countries was investigated with the Panel ARDL model. In empirical analysis, annual data of Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, and Russia covering the period 2006-2015 was used. First, the stationarity properties of the series were analyzed with Panel unit root test. Then, variables were investigated with the Panel ARDL model. According to the findings obtained, it can be concluded that agriculture has a poverty reducing impact in the countries mentioned above.

show abstract

Section: Extended Abstractsupporting

confidence: 86%

Geçiş Ülkelerinde Tarımın Yoksulluk Üzerindeki Etkisi: Panel ARDL Modeli

Oskonbaeva

Najimudinova

2021

Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CT's study found that migration out of agriculture into "the missing middle" is key to faster poverty reduction than agglomeration in mega cities. Echoing CT, a recent paper by Collier and Dercon (2014) questions the role of smallholders in the development process in the African context, while Imai and et al (2017) used cross-country panel data and showed that agricultural growth has the greater potential for poverty and inequality reduction over time than non-agricultural growth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poverty reduction during the rural–urban transformation: Rural development is still more important than urbanisation

Imai

Gaiha

Garbero

2017

Journal of Policy Modeling

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on cross-country panel datasets, we find that (i) an increase in population share in agriculture is associated with poverty reduction once the longer-term poverty change or the dynamic is taken into account; (ii) rural non-agricultural sector also is poverty reducing in some cases; and (iii) increased population in the mega cities has no role in poverty reduction. In fact, the growth of population in mega cities is "poverty-increasing" in a few cases. Given that a rapid population growth or rural-urban migration is likely to increase poverty, more emphasis should be placed on policies that enhance support for rural agricultural and non-agricultural sectors. If our analysis has any validity, doubts are raised about recent research emphasising the role of secondary towns or urbanisation as the main driver of extreme poverty reduction. Based on cross-country panel datasets, we find that (i) an increase in population share in agriculture is associated with poverty reduction once the longer-term poverty change or the dynamic is taken into account; (ii) rural non-agricultural sector also is poverty reducing in some cases; and (iii) increased population in the mega cities has no role in poverty reduction. In fact, the growth of population in mega cities is "poverty-increasing" in a few cases. Given that a rapid population growth or rural-urban migration is likely to increase poverty, more emphasis should be placed on policies that enhance support for rural agricultural and non-agricultural sectors. If our analysis has any validity, doubts are raised about recent research emphasising the role of secondary towns or urbanisation as the main driver of extreme poverty reduction.

show abstract

“…So far most of the literature has focused on how overall inequality in income distribution (frequently measured by the Gini coefficient) undermines the trickle-down effect (eg Kulkarni andGaiha, 2018, Narayan andMurgai, 2016;Ravallion, 2016;Gaiha, 1995;;Imai et al, 2017;Gaiha et al, 2009). In other words, the higher the inequality in the income distribution, the lower is the growth elasticity of poverty.…”

Section: Discussion and Concluding Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 How reliable night-lights data are for measuring the intensity of production is not self-evident. In any case, in a recent study by Imai et al (2017), based on a large cross-country panel, agriculture is still the leading sector in poverty reduction, followed by the rural non-farm sector.…”

Section: Evolution Of Poverty and Inequalitymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Plutarch was right when he said that an imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics. Much has been written to demonstrate that overall income inequality hurts the poor (Kulkarni and Gaiha, 2018, Gaiha et al 2009, World Bank 2006, Ravallion, 2016, Imai et al 2017. However, following Piketty's (2014) magnum opus, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, the focus has shifted to rapid growth of income shares among the top 1% as a byproduct of growth in the developed countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond Piketty: A new perspective on poverty and inequality in India

Kulkarni

Gaiha

2021

Journal of Policy Modeling

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

So far most of the literature on poverty and inequality has focused on how overall inequality in income distribution (frequently measured by the Gini coefficient) undermines the 'trickle down' effect. In other words, the higher the inequality in the income distribution, the lower the growth elasticity of poverty. However, with the publication of Piketty's magnum opus in 2014, and a subsequent 2017 study by Chancel and Piketty of evolution of income inequality in India since 1922, the focus has shifted to the income disparity between the richest 1% (or 0.01 %) and the bottom 50%. Their central argument is that the rapid growth of income at the top end of millionaires and billionaires is a byproduct of growth. This study extends this argument by linking it to poverty indices in India. Using the India Human Development Survey 2005-12a nationwide panel surveywe examine the links between poverty and income inequality, especially in the upper tail relative to the bottom 50%, state affluence (measured in per capita income) and their interaction or their joint effect. We also analyse their effects on the FGT class of poverty indices. The results are similar in as much as direction of causality is concerned but the elasticities vary with the poverty index. The growth elasticities are negative and significant for all poverty indices. In all three cases, the disparity between the income share of the top 1% and the share of the bottom 50% is associated with greater poverty. These elasticities are much higher than the (absolute) income elasticities, except in the case of the poverty gap. The largest increase occurs in the poverty gap squared: a 1% greater income disparity is associated with a 1.24% higher value of this index. Thus the consequences of even a small increase in income disparity are alarming for the poorest.

show abstract

Dynamic and long-term linkages among agricultural and non-agricultural growth, inequality and poverty in developing countries

Cited by 11 publications

References 31 publications

Geçiş Ülkelerinde Tarımın Yoksulluk Üzerindeki Etkisi: Panel ARDL Modeli

Geçiş Ülkelerinde Tarımın Yoksulluk Üzerindeki Etkisi: Panel ARDL Modeli

Poverty reduction during the rural–urban transformation: Rural development is still more important than urbanisation

Beyond Piketty: A new perspective on poverty and inequality in India

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About