IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isd/wpaper/80.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Wzrost sprzyjaj¹cy ubogim: koncepcje i pomiar dla polski w latach 2005-2015

Author

Listed:
  • Tomasz Panek

    (Institute of Statistics and Demography, Warsaw School of Economics)

Abstract

Po przyst¹pieniu Polski do Unii Europejskiej w 2004 r. wzrost gospodarczy znacznie przyspieszy³ a œrednie tempo wzrostu PKB w przeci¹gu 10 lat wynios³o przesz³o 4 proc. Szybkiemu wzrostowi gospodarczemu towarzyszy³ wzrost dochodów realnych gospodarstw domowych. Powstaje pytanie czy z szybkiego wzrostu PKB oraz dochodów realnych ludnoœci bardziej skorzystali ubodzy czy te¿ nieubodzy. Innymi s³owy czy wzrost gospodarczy by³ sprzyjaj¹cy ubogim czy te¿ nieubogim. Problematyka wp³ywu wzrostu gospodarczego na redukcjê ubóstwa stanowi od kilkunastu lat przedmiot dyskusji naukowej i badañ empirycznych. W ostatnich latach pojawi³o siê szereg propozycji definicji wzrostu sprzyjaj¹cego ubogim. Pomimo braku konsensusu co do definicji pojêcia wzrostu sprzyjaj¹cego ubogim mo¿emy wyró¿niæ tutaj dwa podstawowe podejœcia konceptualne – absolutne i relatywne. Podejœcia te ró¿ni¹ siê miêdzy sob¹ ze wzglêdu na punkt odniesienia stosowany przy ocenie zmian zamo¿noœci (mierzonej wysokoœci¹ dochodów czy te¿ wydatków konsumpcyjnych) badanych grup jednostek, czyli od przyjêcia czy absolutny czy te¿ relatywny wzrost zamo¿noœci jest wymagany do oceny tych zmian jako korzystnych dla danej grupy jednostek. W literaturze przedmiotu funkcjonuj¹ ró¿ne kryteria rozró¿niaj¹ce sposoby analizy charakteru wzrostu. Pierwsze z nich zwi¹zane jest z aksjomatem anonimowoœci. W podejœciu bazuj¹cym na anonimowoœci nie musimy obserwowaæ w analizowanym okresie zmian zamo¿noœci (dochodów) tych samych jednostek. Natomiast w drugim podejœciu aksjomat anonimowoœci jest odrzucany - obserwacji musz¹ podlegaæ te same jednostki. W ramach drugiego kryterium sposobu analizy charakteru wzrostu rozró¿niamy podejœcie czêœciowe i podejœcie pe³ne. Pierwsze z nich nie wymaga ustalenia granicy ubóstwa. Analizy charakteru wzrostu opieraj¹ siê w tym podejœciu na krzywych dominacji. Jego ograniczeniem jest niemo¿noœæ oceny charakteru wzrostu gdy nie spe³niony jest warunek dominacji, st¹d te¿ podejœcie to nazywane jest podejœciem czêœciowym. Drugie z podejœæ (podejœcie pe³ne) bazuje na wskaŸnikach wzrostu sprzyjaj¹cego ubogim i pozwala w ka¿dej sytuacji oceniæ charakter wzrostu. W czêœci teoretycznej opracowania dokonano uporz¹dkowania definicji wzrostu sprzyjaj¹cego ubogim rozró¿niaj¹c przede wszystkim wzrost sprzyjaj¹cy ubogim w ujêciu absolutnym i w ujêciu relatywnym, a w ich ramach wzrost „mocny” i wzrost „s³aby”. W kolejnym kroku zosta³y przedstawione ró¿ne podejœcia do analizy charakteru wzrostu oraz podstawowe miary wzrostu sprzyjaj¹cego ubogim. Obok prezentacji teoretycznych podstaw konstrukcji tych miar omówiono ich podstawowe zalety i ograniczenia. W czêœci empirycznej opracowania dokonano weryfikacji hipotezy czy wzrost gospodarczy w Polsce w latach 2005-2015 by³ sprzyjaj¹cy ubogim, stosuj¹c wczeœniej przedstawione metody oceny charakteru wzrostu. Podstaw¹ przeprowadzonych analiz charakteru wzrostu w Polsce s¹ dane panelowe z badania Diagnoza Spo³eczna (DS) realizowanego przez Radê Monitoringu Spo³ecznego.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomasz Panek, 2018. "Wzrost sprzyjaj¹cy ubogim: koncepcje i pomiar dla polski w latach 2005-2015," Working Papers 80, Institute of Statistics and Demography, Warsaw School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:isd:wpaper:80
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://kolegia.sgh.waw.pl/pl/KAE/struktura/ISiD/publikacje/Documents/Working_Paper/ISID_WP_50_2018.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nanak Kakwani & Shahid Khandker & Hyun H. Son, 2004. "Pro-poor growth: concepts and measurement with country case studies," Working Papers 1, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
    2. Pernia, Ernesto & Kakwani, Nanak, 2000. "What is Pro-poor Growth?," MPRA Paper 104987, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Atkinson, A B, 1987. "On the Measurement of Poverty," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 749-764, July.
    4. Abdelkrim Araar & Jean‐Yves Duclos & Mathieu Audet & Paul Makdissi, 2009. "Testing For Pro‐Poorness Of Growth, With An Application To Mexico," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 55(4), pages 853-881, December.
    5. Foster, James & Greer, Joel & Thorbecke, Erik, 1984. "A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 761-766, May.
    6. François Bourguignon, 2011. "Non-anonymous growth incidence curves, income mobility and social welfare dominance," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 9(4), pages 605-627, December.
    7. Ravallion, Martin, 2004. "Pro-poor growth : A primer," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3242, The World Bank.
    8. Zheng, Buhong, 1997. "Aggregate Poverty Measures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 123-162, June.
    9. Chakravarty, Satya R. & D'Ambrosio, Conchita, 2013. "An axiomatic approach to the measurement of poverty reduction failure," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 874-880.
    10. Peter C. Fishburn, 1980. "Stochastic Dominance and Moments of Distributions," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 94-100, February.
    11. Sreenivasan Subramanian, 2004. "Indicators of Inequality and Poverty," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2004-25, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    12. Dominique Thon, 1979. "On Measuring Poverty," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 25(4), pages 429-439, December.
    13. Marek Kośny & Gastón Yalonetzky, 2015. "Relative income change and pro-poor growth," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 32(3), pages 311-327, December.
    14. Ravallion, Martin & Chen, Shaohua, 2003. "Measuring pro-poor growth," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 93-99, January.
    15. Michael Grimm, 2007. "Removing the anonymity axiom in assessing pro-poor growth," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 5(2), pages 179-197, August.
    16. Gastwirth, Joseph L, 1971. "A General Definition of the Lorenz Curve," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(6), pages 1037-1039, November.
    17. Buhong Zheng, 1997. "Aggregate Poverty Measures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 123-162, June.
    18. Adam Wagstaff, 2009. "Reranking and Pro-Poor Growth: Decompositions for China and Vietnam," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(9), pages 1403-1425.
    19. Grosse, Melanie & Harttgen, Kenneth & Klasen, Stephan, 2008. "Measuring Pro-Poor Growth in Non-Income Dimensions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1021-1047, June.
    20. Nanak Kakwani & Hyun H. Son, 2008. "Poverty Equivalent Growth Rate," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 54(4), pages 643-655, December.
    21. Sen, Amartya K, 1976. "Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to Measurement," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(2), pages 219-231, March.
    22. Bhagwati, Jagdish N., 1988. "Poverty and public policy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 539-555, May.
    23. Klasen, Stephan, 2008. "Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction: Measurement Issues using Income and Non-Income Indicators," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 420-445, March.
    24. Son, Hyun Hwa, 2004. "A note on pro-poor growth," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 307-314, March.
    25. Thon, Dominique, 1979. "On Measuring Poverty," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 25(4), pages 429-439, December.
    26. Kakwani, Nanak, 1995. "Income inequality, welfare, and poverty : an illustration using Ukranian data," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1411, The World Bank.
    27. Son, Hyun H. & Kakwani, Nanak, 2008. "Global Estimates of Pro-Poor Growth," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1048-1066, June.
    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. Elżbieta Sobczak & Bartosz Bartniczak & Andrzej Raszkowski, 2021. "Implementation of the No Poverty Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) in Visegrad Group (V4)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, January.

    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. Tomasz Panek, 2019. "Czy wzrost gospodarczy w Polsce w latach 2005 -2015 był korzystny dla ubogich?," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 2, pages 5-39.
    2. Higgins, Sean & Lustig, Nora, 2016. "Can a poverty-reducing and progressive tax and transfer system hurt the poor?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 63-75.
    3. Sean Higgins & Nora Lustig, 2015. "Can Poverty-Reducing and Progressive Tax and Transfer System Hurt the Poor?," Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Working Paper Series 1333, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    4. Sami Bibi, 2006. "Growth with Equity is Better for the Poor," Cahiers de recherche 0640, CIRPEE.
    5. B. Essama‐Nssah & Peter J. Lambert, 2009. "Measuring Pro‐Poorness: A Unifying Approach With New Results," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 55(3), pages 752-778, September.
    6. Deutsch, Joseph & Silber, Jacques, 2011. "On various ways of measuring pro-poor growth," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 5, pages 1-57.
    7. Buhong Zheng, 2011. "Consistent comparison of pro-poor growth," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(1), pages 61-79, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Jean-Pierre Lachaud, 2006. "La croissance pro-pauvres au Burkina Faso. L’éviction partielle de l’axiome d’anonymat en présence de données transversales," Documents de travail 126, Groupe d'Economie du Développement de l'Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV.
    10. Vito Peragine & Flaviana Palmisano & Paolo Brunori, 2014. "Economic Growth and Equality of Opportunity," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 28(2), pages 247-281.
    11. Edwin Fourrier-Nicolai & Michel Lubrano, 2019. "The Effect of Aspirations on Inequality: Evidence from the German Reunification using Bayesian Growth Incidence Curves," Working Papers halshs-02122371, HAL.
    12. James E. Foster & Joel Greer & Erik Thorbecke, 2010. "The Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) Poverty Measures: Twenty-Five Years Later," Working Papers 2010-14, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    13. Jmurova, Aliona, 2017. "Pro-Poor Growth: Definition, Measurement and Policy Issues," MPRA Paper 85397, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Harmáček, Jaromír & Syrovátka, Miroslav & Dušková, Lenka, 2017. "Pro-poor growth in East Africa," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 82-93.
    15. Francisco Azpitarte, 2014. "Was Pro-Poor Economic Growth in Australia for the Income-Poor? And for the Multidimensionally-Poor?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 117(3), pages 871-905, July.
    16. 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.
    17. 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).
    18. James Foster & Joel Greer & Erik Thorbecke, 2010. "The Foster–Greer–Thorbecke (FGT) poverty measures: 25 years later," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 8(4), pages 491-524, December.
    19. Ismael Ahamdanech & Carmelo García-Pérez & Mercedes Prieto-Alaiz, 2020. "A Stochastic Dominance Approach to Evaluating Pro-Poor Growth—An Application to the Spanish Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, February.
    20. Zheng, Buhong, 2000. "Minimum Distribution-Sensitivity, Poverty Aversion, and Poverty Orderings," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 116-137, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    polaryzacja ekonomiczna; indeksy polaryzacji; zanikanie klasy œrodkowej.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being

    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:isd:wpaper:80. 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: Milena Borkowska (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/issghpl.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.