Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

La mesure de la croissance pro-pauvres en Afrique : espace de l’utilité ou des capacités ? Analyse comparative appliquée au Burkina Faso

Contents:

Author Info

  • Jean-Pierre Lachaud

    (GED, Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV)

Abstract

La recherche propose de contribuer au débat sur la croissance pro-pauvres, et présente une nouvelle évidence empirique pour le Burkina Faso, fondée à la fois sur l’espace de l’utilité et celui des capacités. Dans un premier temps, l’analyse comparative de la croissance pro-pauvres montre que les dimensions monétaire et non monétaire produisent des résultats très similaires, indépendamment des mesures « globales » ou « partielles » mises en oeuvre. Ainsi, au cours de la période 1994-2003, malgré une légère progression des privations en termes d’utilité et des capacités, la croissance économique nationale a été pro-pauvres, dans la mesure où les pauvres ont été proportionnellement moins affectés que les non pauvres par la baisse des dépenses et des capacités – une conclusion à nuancer selon le milieu. Corrélativement, au niveau national et dans le secteur rural, l’hypothèse d’une croissance monétaire pro-pauvres en termes absolus n’est pas vérifiée – contrairement à ce qu’indiquent d’autres études –, alors qu’un consensus semble prévaloir quant au caractère anti-pauvres de la croissance monétaire dans les villes, en termes absolus et relatifs. Ces divergences s’expliquent par des options méthodologiques différentes. Dans ces conditions, l’approche de la croissance pro-pauvres, à la fois par les capacités et l’utilité, peut susciter des questionnements additionnels quant aux méthodologies utilisées lors de la quête de la dynamique du progrès social, et relativiser les conclusions de certaines études. Dans un second temps, cette approche duale de la croissance pro-pauvres permet de tester la robustesse de quelques relations postulées entre la pauvreté, la croissance économique et l’inégalité. A cet égard, l’analyse comparative, mobilisant l’économétrie spatiale, vérifie deux faits stylisés. D’une part, l’élasticité provinciale de la pauvreté monétaire ou des capacités, par rapport à l’indicateur de bien-être approprié, est d’autant plus faible que l’indice de Gini initial (monétaire ou non monétaire) est élevé. De plus, la relative faiblesse des élasticités de pauvreté monétaire et non monétaire, dans les provinces relativement sensibles aux conditions climatiques ou les plus urbanisées, est susceptible de réduire les risques de l’environnement macro-économique instable. D’autre part, alors que l’évolution de l’indicateur de bien-être est un déterminant décisif de la variation de la pauvreté au cours de la période, les changements de la distribution des dépenses et des capacités constituent également un facteur important. Par ailleurs, l’analyse comparative montre que l’effet de la croissance sur la réduction de la pauvreté, monétaire ou non monétaire, est plus fort lorsque le niveau initial de développement est élevé. En définitive, l’approche de la croissance pro-pauvres en termes des capacités peut concourir non seulement à vérifier la robustesse de la dynamique stipulée du processus de croissance économique monétaire, mais également à appréhender ce dernier en l’absence d’informations fiables sur les conditions de vie monétaires des ménages. The research proposes to contribute to the debate on pro-poor growth, and presents a new empirical evidence for Burkina Faso, based at the same time on the spaces of utility and capabilities. Firstly, the comparative analysis of pro-poor growth shows that the monetary and non-monetary dimensions produce very similar results, independently of the implementations of « partial » or « full approach » measures. Thus, over the period 1994-2003, in spite of a small increase of poverty in terms of utility and capabilities, the national economic growth was pro-poor, insofar as the poor were proportionally less affected than the non-poor by the fall of the expenditures and capabilities – a conclusion to be moderated according to areas. Correlatively, at the national level and in the rural sector, the assumption of a monetary pro-poor growth in absolute terms is not checked – contrary to what certain studies have indicated –-, whereas a consensus seems to prevail as for the anti-poor monetary growth in the cities, in absolute and relative terms. These divergences are explained by different methodological options. In this context, the approach of pro-poor growth, at the same time by the capabilities and utility, can cause additional °questioning° as for the methodologies implemented at the time of the quest of the dynamics of social progress, and relativize the conclusions of some studies. Secondly, this dual approach of pro-poor growth makes it possible to test the robustness of certain postulated relations between poverty, economic growth and inequality. In this respect, the comparative analysis, mobilizing spatial econometrics, confirms two stylized facts. On the one hand, the provincial growth-elasticity of monetary or capabilities poverty is much lower when the initial index |Gini| (monetary or non-monetary) is high. Moreover, the relative lowness of growth-elasticities of monetary and non-monetary poverty, in the provinces relatively sensitive to climatic conditions or the most urbanized, is likely to reduce the risks of the unstable macroeconomic environment. In addition, whereas the evolution of the welfare indicator is an important determinant of the variation of poverty during the period, the changes of the expenditures and capacities’ distribution also constitute a significant factor. Moreover, the comparative analysis shows that the effect of the growth on monetary or non-monetary poverty reduction, is stronger when the initial level of development is high. Ultimately, the approach of pro-poor growth in terms of capabilities can contribute not only to check the robustness of the stipulated dynamics of the process of monetary economic growth, but also to have a good proxy of this last in the absence of reliable information on the monetary living standard of households. (Full text in french)

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://ged.u-bordeaux4.fr/ceddt122.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Groupe d'Economie du Développement de l'Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV in its series Documents de travail with number 122.

as in new window
Length: 31 pages
Date of creation: Jan 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:mon:ceddtr:122

Contact details of provider:

Related research

Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Dollar, David & Kraay, Aart, 2002. " Growth Is Good for the Poor," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 195-225, September.
  2. Bhagwati, Jagdish N., 1988. "Poverty and public policy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 539-555, May.
  3. Stewart, Frances & Streeten, Paul, 1971. "Conflicts between Output and Employment Objectives in Developing Countries," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 145-68, July.
  4. Michael Grimm & Isabel Günther, 2005. "Growth and Poverty in Burkina Faso. A Reassessment of the Paradox," Working Papers DT/2005/07, DIAL (Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation).
  5. Kraay, Aart, 2004. "When is growth pro-poor? Cross-country evidence," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3225, The World Bank.
  6. Ravallion, Martin, 1997. "Can high-inequality developing countries escape absolute poverty?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 51-57, September.
  7. Martin Ravallion, 2004. "The Debate on Globalization, Poverty and Inequality: why Measurement Matters," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 1, March.
  8. Theo S Eicher & Cecilia Garcia Penalosa, . "Inequality and Growth," Discussion Papers in Economics at the University of Washington 0083, Department of Economics at the University of Washington.
  9. François Bourguignon, 2002. "The growth elasticity of poverty reduction : explaining heterogeneity across countries and time periods," DELTA Working Papers 2002-03, DELTA (Ecole normale supérieure).
  10. Ravallion, Martin & Shaohua Chen, 2001. "Measuring pro-poor growth," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2666, The World Bank.
  11. Stephan Klasen, 2005. "Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction: Measurement and Policy Issues," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 246, OECD Publishing.
  12. Son, Hyun Hwa, 2004. "A note on pro-poor growth," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 307-314, March.
  13. Atkinson, A B, 1987. "On the Measurement of Poverty," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 749-64, July.
  14. Bigsten, Arne & Shimeles, Abebe, 2004. "Prospects for 'Pro-Poor' Growth in Africa," Working Paper Series UNU-WIDER Research Paper , World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
  15. 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.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Nouve, Kofi & Bambio, Yiriyibin & Kabore, Samuel & Wodon, Quentin, 2010. "Risque et mesures de la pauvreté rurale au Burkina Faso
    [Risk and Measures of Rural Poverty in Burkina Faso]
    ," MPRA Paper 34374, University Library of Munich, Germany.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mon:ceddtr:122. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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