Jagdish Bhagwati once again states his case for economic growth as the best path toward increased welfare of citizens across the income spectrum. At Project Syndicate, he argues that the best policy for countries with large populations living at or below poverty levels is growth with an explicit "inclusive development" strategy:
Since the 1950’s, developmental economists have understood that growth in GNP is not synonymous with increased welfare. But, even prior to independence, India’s leaders saw growth as essential for reducing poverty and increasing social welfare. In economic terms, growth was an instrument, not a target – the means by which the true targets, like poverty reduction and the social advancement of the masses, would be achieved.
A quarter-century ago, I pointed out the two distinct ways in which economic growth would have this effect. First, growth would pull the poor into gainful employment, thereby helping to lift them out of poverty. Higher incomes would enable them to increase their personal spending on education and health (as seems to have been happening in India during its recent period of accelerated growth).
Second, growth increases state revenues, which means that the government can potentially spend more on health and education for the poor. Of course, a country does not necessarily spend more on such items simply because it has increased revenue, and, even if it does, the programs it chooses to fund may not be effective.
Read Does Redistributing Income Reduce Poverty? here.
Posted
10-27-2011 8:10 AM
by
Graham Griffith