[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eab/govern/22980.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Governance Contribute to Pro-poor Growth? Evidence from Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Rashida Haq

    (PIDE)

  • Uzma Zia
Abstract
Economic growth is a driving force in reducing poverty, but experience has shown that good governance and pro-poor choices are vitally important in the process of alleviating poverty. This paper explores linkages between governance and pro-poor growth in Pakistan for the period 1996 to 2005. The analysis indicates that governance indicators have low scores and rank at the lowest percentile as compared to other countries. The dimensions of pro-poor growth, which include poverty, inequality, and growth, demonstrate that the poor do not benefit proportionately from economic growth. It is found that poverty and inequality have worsened and the share in income and expenditure for the bottom 20 percent has also decreased, while inflation for this lowestincome group is high as compared to the highest-income group. It is also observed that approximately 25 percent households reported that their economic status was worse than in the previous year, 2004-05. The results of the study show that a strong link exists between governance indicators and pro-poor growth in the country. Econometric analysis shows that there is a strong relationship between good governance and reduction in poverty and inequality. It is concluded that greater voice and accountability, political stability, regulatory quality, and rule of law can control corruption and the pro-poor policies, which ultimately reduce poverty and inequality in the long run. To face the challenge of good governance, Pakistan needs to formulate, and implement effectively, its governance policies to improve the governance dimensions, taking account of both higher growth and the aim of achieving the Millennium Development Goals, which require halving poverty by 2015.

Suggested Citation

  • Rashida Haq & Uzma Zia, 2009. "Does Governance Contribute to Pro-poor Growth? Evidence from Pakistan," Governance Working Papers 22980, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:eab:govern:22980
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eaber.org/node/22980
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Resnick, Danielle & Birner, Regina, 2006. "Does good governance contribute to pro-poor growth?: a review of the evidence from cross-country studies," DSGD discussion papers 30, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Dollar, David & Kraay, Aart, 2002. "Growth Is Good for the Poor," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 195-225, September.
    3. Howard White & Edward Anderson, 2001. "Growth versus Distribution: Does the Pattern of Growth Matter?," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 19(3), pages 267-289, September.
    4. Pernia, Ernesto & Kakwani, Nanak, 2000. "What is Pro-poor Growth?," MPRA Paper 104987, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Daniel Kaufmann & Aart Kraay, 2002. "Growth without Governance," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Fall 2002), pages 169-230, August.
    6. J. Humberto Lopez, 2009. "Pro-Growth, Pro-Poor: Is There a Trade-off?," Chapters, in: Robert J. Brent (ed.), Handbook of Research on Cost–Benefit Analysis, chapter 18, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Alberto Chong & Mark Gradstein, 2007. "Inequality and Institutions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(3), pages 454-465, August.
    8. Kraay, Aart, 2004. "When is growth pro-poor? Cross-country evidence," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3225, The World Bank.
    9. Mian Tayyab Hassan, 2002. "Governance and Poverty in Pakistan," MIMAP Technical Paper Series 2002:13, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.
    10. Aart Kraay, 2004. "When is Growth Pro-Poor? Cross-Country Evidence," IMF Working Papers 2004/047, International Monetary Fund.
    11. Luc Christiaensen & Lionel Demery & Stefano Paternostro, 2003. "Macro and Micro Perspectives of Growth and Poverty in Africa," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 17(3), pages 317-347, December.
    12. Ravallion, Martin & Chen, Shaohua, 2003. "Measuring pro-poor growth," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 93-99, January.
    13. Kaufmann, Daniel & Kraay, Aart & Mastruzzi, Massimo, 2005. "Governance matters IV : governance indicators for 1996-2004," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3630, The World Bank.
    14. Son, Hyun Hwa, 2004. "A note on pro-poor growth," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 307-314, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rabia Nazir & Mumtaz Anwar, 2013. "Growth Governance Nexus: A Case of Pakistan," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 5(8), pages 562-572.
    2. Dawood MAMMON & Huma RABBANI, 2017. "Effect of welfare and economic performance on good governance outcomes in Pakistan," Journal of Economics Library, KSP Journals, vol. 4(4), pages 451-472, December.
    3. Muhammad Khan & Muhammad Khan & Khalid Zaman & Umar Hassan & Sobia Umar, 2014. "Global estimates of growth–inequality–poverty (GIP) triangle: evidence from World Bank’s classification countries," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 2631-2646, September.
    4. Danish Ahmed Siddiqui & Qazi Masood Ahmed, 2019. "The Causal Relationship Between Institutions and Economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation for Pakistan Economy," Issues in Economics and Business, Macrothink Institute, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Agus Eko Sujianto & Tulus Suryanto, 2018. "Income differences, trade and Institutions: empirical evidence form low and middle-income countries," Business and Economic Horizons (BEH), Prague Development Center, vol. 14(2), pages 217-228, April.
    6. Shah Shirazi, Nasim & Obaidullah, Mohammed, 2014. "Why Poverty Reduction Programs of Pakistan Did Not Bring Significant Change: An Appraisal," Working Papers 1435-17, The Islamic Research and Teaching Institute (IRTI).
    7. Sajjad Ahmad & Muqarrab Akbar, 2019. "A Historical Review of Governance in Pakistan (1947-2012)," Global Regional Review, Humanity Only, vol. 4(1), pages 320-325, March.
    8. Muhammad Shahid Hassan & Samra Bukhari & Noman Arshed, 2020. "Competitiveness, governance and globalization: What matters for poverty alleviation?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 3491-3518, April.
    9. Danish Ahmed Siddiqui & Qazi Masood Ahmed, 2019. "Does Institutions Effect Growth in Pakistan? An Empirical investigation," Journal of Asian Development, Macrothink Institute, vol. 5(2), pages 1-24, April.
    10. Uddin, Moshfique & Chowdhury, Anup & Zafar, Sheeba & Shafique, Sujana & Liu, Jia, 2019. "Institutional determinants of inward FDI: Evidence from Pakistan," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 344-358.
    11. Burak Byükoglu & Ahmet Šit & Ibrahim Halil Ekši, 2021. "Governance matters on non-performing loans: Evidence from emerging markets," PSL Quarterly Review, Economia civile, vol. 74(296), pages 75-91.
    12. Zaman, Khalid & Khilji, Bashir Ahmad, 2013. "The relationship between growth–inequality–poverty triangle and pro-poor growth policies in Pakistan: The twin disappointments," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 375-393.
    13. Shirazi, Dr. Nasim Shah & Obaidullah, Dr. Mohammed & Haneef, Mohamed Aslam, 2015. "Integration of Waqf and Islamic Microfinance for Poverty Reduction," Working Papers 1436-5, The Islamic Research and Teaching Institute (IRTI).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rashida Haq & Uzma Zia, 2006. "Governance and Pro-poor Growth: Evidence from Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 45(4), pages 761-776.
    2. Resnick, Danielle & Birner, Regina, 2006. "Does good governance contribute to pro-poor growth?: a review of the evidence from cross-country studies," DSGD discussion papers 30, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Djeneba Doumbia, 2019. "The quest for pro-poor and inclusive growth: the role of governance," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(16), pages 1762-1783, April.
    4. Resnick, Danielle & Birner, Regina, 2005. "Does Good Governance Contribute to Pro-poor Growth?: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Evidence from Cross-Country Studies," Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Kiel 2005 5, Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics.
    5. Jean-Pierre Lachaud, 2006. "La mesure de la croissance pro-pauvres en Afrique : espace de l’utilité ou des capacités ? Analyse comparative appliquée au Burkina Faso," Documents de travail 122, Groupe d'Economie du Développement de l'Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV.
    6. Nanak Kakwani & Hyun H. Son, 2006. "Pro-Poor Growth: The Asian Experience," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2006-56, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    7. Kouadio, Hugues Kouassi & Gakpa, Lewis-Landry, 2022. "Do economic growth and institutional quality reduce poverty and inequality in West Africa?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 41-63.
    8. Jmurova, Aliona, 2017. "Pro-Poor Growth: Definition, Measurement and Policy Issues," MPRA Paper 85397, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Negre, Mario, 2010. "Concepts and Operationalization of Pro-Poor Growth," WIDER Working Paper Series 047, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    10. Rafael Ranieri & Raquel Almeida Ramos, 2013. "Inclusive Growth: Building up a Concept," Working Papers 104, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
    11. Khalid Zaman & Sadaf Shamsuddin, 2018. "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: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 595-619, April.
    12. Essama-Nssah, B., 2004. "A unified framework for pro-poor growth analysis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3397, The World Bank.
    13. Elena Bárcena‐Martin & Jacques Silber & Yuan Zhang, 2024. "Measures of Relative and Absolute Convergence and Pro‐poor Growth with an Illustration based on China (2010–2018)," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 32(2), pages 1-41, March.
    14. Abdelkrim Araar, 2012. "Pro-poor Growth in Andean Countries," Cahiers de recherche 1225, CIRPEE.
    15. Essama-Nssah, B., 2005. "A unified framework for pro-poor growth analysis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 216-221, November.
    16. Valensisi, Giovanni & Gauci, Adrian, 2013. "Graduated without passing? The employment dimension and LDCs' prospects under the Istanbul Programme of Action," MPRA Paper 86966, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Klasen, Stephan & Reimers, Malte, 2017. "Looking at Pro-Poor Growth from an Agricultural Perspective," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 147-168.
    18. Thorat, Sukhadeo, 2011. "Growth, Inequality and Poverty Linkages during 1983-2005: Implications for Socially Inclusive Growth," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 66(1), pages 1-32.
    19. Jean-Yves Duclos & Paul Makdissi & Abdelkrim Araar, 2009. "Pro-Poor Tax reforms, with an Application to Mexico," Working Papers 0907E, University of Ottawa, Department of Economics.
    20. Simplice A. Asongu & Oasis Kodila-Tedika, 2015. "On the Empirics of Institutions and Quality of Growth: Evidence for Developing Countries," Research Africa Network Working Papers 15/041, Research Africa Network (RAN).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Governance Indicators; Pro-poor Growth; poverty; Inequality;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I30 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General
    • I32 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty
    • O10 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eab:govern:22980. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Shiro Armstrong (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaberau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.