Pro-poor_final.pdf (1.02 MB)
Download file

Was pro-poor economic growth in Australia for the income-poor? And for the multidimensionally-poor?

Download (1.02 MB)
journal contribution
posted on 08.01.2019, 14:33 by Fran AzpitarteFran Azpitarte
We investigate the pro-poorness of Australiaís strong economic growth in the Örst decade of the XXI century using anonymous and non-anonymous approaches to the measurement of pro-poor growth. The sensitivity of pro-poor growth evaluations to the deÖnition of poverty is evaluated by comparing the results for the standard income-poverty measure with those based on a multidimensional deÖnition of poverty. We Önd that Australian growth in this period can be only categorized as pro-poor according to the weakest concept of pro-poorness that does not require any bias of growth towards the poor. In addition, our results indicate that growth was clearly more pro-income poor than pro-multidimensionally poor. Counterfactual distribution analysis reveals that di§erences in the distribution of health between these two groups is the non-income factor that most contributes to explain this result.

Funding

Financial support from the Ministerio de Ciencia e InnovaciÛn (grant ECO2008-03484-C02-01/ECON and ECO2010-21668-C03-03) Xunta de Galicia (10SEC300023PR) is gratefully acknowledged.

History

School

  • Social Sciences

Department

  • Communication, Media, Social and Policy Studies

Published in

Social Indicators Research

Volume

117

Issue

3

Pages

871 - 905

Citation

AZPITARTE, F., 2014. Was pro-poor economic growth in Australia for the income-poor? And for the multidimensionally-poor? Social Indicators Research, 117(3), pp. 871 - 905.

Publisher

© Springer Nature

Version

AM (Accepted Manuscript)

Publisher statement

This work is made available according to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. Full details of this licence are available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Publication date

2014

Notes

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Social Indicators Research. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0378-8

ISSN

0303-8300

eISSN

1573-0921

Language

en