Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Longitudinal Study:||HILDA||Title:||Was Economic Growth in Australia Good for the Income-Poor? and for the Multidimensionally Poor?||Authors:||Azpitarte, Francisco||Institution:||Society for the Study of Economic Inequality||Publication Date:||20-Jul-2013||Keywords:||Pro-poorness
|Abstract:||We investigate the pro-poorness of Australia’s strong economic growth in the first decade of the twenty-first century using anonymous and non-anonymous approaches to the measurement of pro-poor growth. The sensitivity of pro-poor growth evaluations to the definition of poverty is evaluated by comparing the results for the standard income-poverty measure with those based on a multidimensional definition of poverty. We find that Australian growth in this period can be only categorized as pro-poor according to the weakest concept of pro-poorness that does not require any bias of growth towards the poor. In addition, our results indicate that growth was clearly more pro-income poor than pro-multidimensionally poor. Counterfactual distribution analysis reveals that differences in the distribution of health between these two groups is the non-income factor that most contributes to explain this result.||URL:||http://www.ecineq.org/milano/WP/ECINEQ2012-278.pdf||Keywords:||Health; Income & Finance -- Poverty and disadvantage||Research collection:||Journal Articles|
|Appears in Collections:||Reports|
Show full item record
checked on Mar 21, 2023
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.