Poverty Alleviation: Policy and Growth

Part of the Economic Studies in Inequality, Social Exclusion and Well-Being book series (EIAP, volume 2)


For policy purposes, it is often as useful to assess the impact of reforms to a benefit or public expenditure program as it is to evaluate the effect of existing programs. For administrative or political reasons, it may indeed be impossible to eliminate or to amend dramatically the structure of existing programs. Hence, comparing a current tax or benefit program with a situation in which it is supposed not to exist may not be very useful for practical purposes. Marginal reforms to such programs are nevertheless often feasible, and we therefore focus on them in this chapter. As we will see, focusing on marginal reforms also has the advantage of making it possible to measure the welfare impact of such reforms independently of the behavioral adjustment that individuals may make in reaction to these reforms.


Poverty Line Gini Index Poverty Alleviation Lorenz Curve Poverty Index 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

12.9 References

  1. Ahmad, E. and N. Stern (1984): “The Theory of Reform and Indian Indirect Taxes,” Journal of Public Economics, 25, 259–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmad, E. and N. H. Stern (1991): The Theory and Practice of Tax Reform in Developing Countries, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Alderman, H. (2002): “Do Local Officials Know Something We Don’t? Decentralization of Targeted Transfers in Albania,” Journal of Public Economics, 83, 375–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Besley, T. and R. Kanbur (1988): “Food Subsidies and Poverty Alleviation,” The Economic Journal, 98, 701–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bigman, D. and P. Srinivasan (2002): “Geographical Targeting of Poverty Alleviation Programs: Methodology and Applications in Rural India,” Journal of Policy Modeling, 24, 237–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bisogno, M. and A. Chong (2001): “Foreign Aid and Poverty in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Targeting Simulations and Policy Implications,” European Economic Review, 45, 1020–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornia, G. and F. Stewart (1995): Two Errors of targeting, Public Spending and the Poor Theory and Evidence, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Creedy, J. (1998a): “Measuring the Welfare Effects of Price Changes: A Convenient Parametric Approach,” Australian Economic Papers, 37, 137–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creedy, J. (1998b): “The Welfare Effect on Different Income Groups of Indirect Tax Changes and Inflation in New Zealand,” Economic Record, 74, 373–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Creedy, J. (1999b): “Marginal Indirect Tax Reform in Australia,” Economic Analysis and Policy, 29, 1–14.Google Scholar
  11. Creedy, J. (2001): “Indirect Tax Reform and the Role of Exemptions,” Fiscal Studies, 22, 457–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Creedy. J. and J. van de Ven (1997): “The Distributional Effects of Inflation in Australia 1980–1995,” Australian Economic Review, 30, 125–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grosh, M. (1995): “Toward Quantifying the Trade-Off: Administrative Costs and Incidence in Targeted Programs in Latin America,” in Public spending and the poor: Theory and evidence, ed. by D. van de Walk and K. Nead, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press for the World Bank, 450–88.Google Scholar
  14. Gueron, J. (1990): “Work and Welfare: Lessons on Employment Programs,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4, 79–98.Google Scholar
  15. Hungerford, T. (1996): “The Distribution and Anti-poverty Effectiveness of U.S. Transfers, 1992,” Journal of Human Resources, 31, 255–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liberati, P. (2001): “The Distributional Effects of Indirect Tax Changes in Italy,” International Tax and Public Finance, 8, 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lundin, D. (2001): “Welfare-Improving Carbon Dioxide Tax Reform Taking Externality and Location into Account,” International Tax and Public Finance, 8, 815–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Makdissi, P. and Q. Wodon (2002): “Consumption Dominance Curves: Testing for the Impact of Indirect Tax Reforms on Poverty,” Economics Letters, 75, 227–35.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Mayeres, I. and S. Proost (2001): “Marginal Tax Reform, Externalities and Income Distribution,” Journal of Public Economics, 79, 343–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mayshar, J. and S. Yitzhaki (1995): “Dalton-Improving Indirect Tax Reform,” American Economic Review, 85, 793–807.Google Scholar
  21. Mayshar, J. and S. Yitzhaki (1996): “Dalton-Improving Tax Reform: When Households Differ in Ability and Needs,” Journal of Public Economics, 62, 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moffitt, R. (1989): “Estimating the Value of an In-Kind Transfer: The Case of Food Stamps,” Econometrica, 57, 385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Newbeky, D. (1995): “The Distributional Impact of Price Changes in Hungary and the United Kingdom,” Economic Journal, 105, 847–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Park, A., S. Wang, and G. Wu (2002): “Regional Poverty Targeting in China,” Journal of Public Economics, 86, 123–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ravallion, M. (1999): “Are Poorer States Worse at Targeting Their Poor?” Economics Letters, 65, 373–77.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ravallion, M. (2002): “Are the Poor Protected from Budget Cuts? Evidence for Argentina,” Journal of Applied Economics, 5, 95–121.Google Scholar
  27. Schady, K. (2002): “Picking the Poor: Indicators for Geographic Targeting in Peru,” Review of Income and Wealth, 48, 417–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slesnick, D. (1996): “Consumption and Poverty; How Effective Are In-Kind Transfers?” Economic Journal, 106, 1527–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stern, N. (1984): “Optimum Taxation and Tax Policy,” IMF Staff Papers, 339–378.Google Scholar
  30. van de Walle, D. (1998b): “Targeting Revisited,” World Bank Research Observer, 13, 231–48.ADSGoogle Scholar
  31. van de Walle, D. and K. Nead (1995): Public spending and the poor: Theory and evidence, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press for the World Bank.Google Scholar
  32. Ravallion, M., D. van de Walle, and M. Gautam (1995): “Testing a Social Safety Net,” Journal of Public Economics, 57, 175–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wodon, Q. (1997b): “Targeting the Poor Using ROC Curves,” World Development, 25, 2083–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yitzhaki, S. (1997): “The Effect of Marginal Changes in Prices on income Inequality in Romania,” in Inequality and taxation. Research on Economic Inequality, vol. 7. Greenwich, Conn, ed. by S. Zandvakili, and London: JAI Press, 241–58.Google Scholar
  35. Yitzhaki, S. and J. Lewis (1996): “Guidelines on Searching for a Dalton-Improving Tax Reform: An Illustration with Data from Indonesia,” The World Bank Economic Review, 10, 541–562.Google Scholar
  36. Yitzhaki, S. and J. Slemkod (1991): “Welfare Dominance: An Application to Commodity Taxation,” American Economic Review, LXXXI, 480–96.Google Scholar
  37. Yitzhaki, S. and W. Thirsk (1990): “Welfare Dominance and the Design of Excise Taxation in the Cote D’Ivoire,” Journal of Development Economics, 33, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Personalised recommendations