R&D Poverty Traps

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abiin Garcca-Rodrrguez ◽  
Fernando SSnchez Losada
Keyword(s):  
Poverty Traps

Spatial Poverty Traps?

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Ravallion ◽  
Jyotsna Jalan
Keyword(s):  
Poverty Traps

Do Poverty Traps Exist?

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aart Kraay ◽  
David McKenzie
Keyword(s):  
Poverty Traps

Poverty-Reducing Growth Strategy in Poor Countries

2005 ◽  
pp. 103-134
Author(s):  
Rodney Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Poverty Reduction ◽  
Growth Strategy ◽  
Poverty Traps ◽  
Income Poverty ◽  
Poor Countries ◽  
Land Redistribution ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
The North ◽  
Urban Rural

This paper synthesizes and develops research undertaken by participants in The North-South Institute project, "Macroeconomic policy choices for growth and poverty reduction" in low- income developing countries.1 The project analysed the features of poverty and growth in seven poor countries of varying circumstances and proposed macroeconomic and growth policies for poverty reduction for them. The research was guided by the question: "How does poverty inform growth strategy?" Our research provides evidence of the channels through which growth and distribution or poverty processes depend on each other and respond to policy together. We encapsulate the messages of these case studies in the following six propositions, discussed at length in the paper: i) macroeconomic stability reduces poverty; ii) land redistribution enhances growth; iii) income poverty traps constrain growth; iv) urban-rural growth disparities drive income inequality; v) regional poverty traps resist growth, and vi) ley growth policies can aggravate poverty gaps.  The propositions suggest growth policies that may be either of two types in terms of impact on growth and distribution. They have the potential to enhance both growth and distribution (win-win) or to enhance growth while aggravating income gaps or vice versa (win-lose).

scholarly journals Urban–rural gap and poverty traps in China: A prefecture level analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (30) ◽  
pp. 3300-3314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jian-Xin Wu ◽  
Ling-Yun He
Keyword(s):  
Poverty Traps ◽  
Urban Rural ◽  
Level Analysis

scholarly journals Implications of poverty traps across levels

2021 ◽  
Vol 144 ◽  
pp. 105437
Author(s):  
Sonja Radosavljevic ◽  
L. Jamila Haider ◽  
Steven J. Lade ◽  
Maja Schlüter
Keyword(s):  
Poverty Traps

POVERTY TRAPS AND INFERIOR GOODS IN A DYNAMIC HECKSCHER–OHLIN MODEL

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1227-1251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric W. Bond ◽  
Kazumichi Iwasa ◽  
Kazuo Nishimura
Keyword(s):  
Economic Theory ◽  
Steady State ◽  
World Economy ◽  
Steady States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Poverty Traps ◽  
Poverty Trap ◽  
Multiple Steady States ◽  
The World ◽  
State Capital

We extend the dynamic Heckscher–Ohlin model in Bond et al. [Economic Theory(48, 171–204, 2011)] and show that if the labor-intensive good is inferior, then there may exist multiple steady states in autarky and poverty traps can arise. Poverty traps for the world economy, in the form of Pareto-dominated steady states, are also shown to exist. We show that the opening of trade can have the effect of pulling the initially poorer country out of a poverty trap, with both countries having steady state capital stocks exceeding the autarky level. However, trade can also pull an initially richer country into a poverty trap. These possibilities are a sharp contrast with dynamic Heckscher–Ohlin models with normality in consumption, where the country with the larger (smaller) capital stock than the other will reach a steady state where the level of welfare is higher (lower) than in the autarkic steady state.

Why Do People Stay Poor?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Balboni ◽  
Oriana Bandiera ◽  
Robin Burgess ◽  
Maitreesh Ghatak ◽  
Anton Heil
Keyword(s):  
Occupational Choice ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Choice Model ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Threshold Level ◽  
Poverty Traps ◽  
Asset Transfer ◽  
Small Livestock ◽  
Program Costs ◽  
Almost All

Abstract There are two broad views as to why people stay poor. One emphasizes differences in fundamentals, such as ability, talent, or motivation. The other, the poverty traps view, emphasizes differences in opportunities which stem from access to wealth. To test between these two views, we exploit a large-scale, randomized asset transfer and an 11-year panel of 6,000 households who begin in extreme poverty. The setting is rural Bangladesh and the assets are cows. The data supports the poverty traps view—we identify a threshold level of initial assets above which households accumulate assets, take on better occupations (from casual labor in agriculture or domestic services to running small livestock businesses), and grow out of poverty. The reverse happens for those below the threshold. Structural estimation of an occupational choice model reveals that almost all beneficiaries are misallocated in the work they do at baseline and that the gains arising from eliminating misallocation would far exceed the program costs. Our findings imply that large transfers which create better jobs for the poor are an effective means of getting people out of poverty traps and reducing global poverty.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document