4.1 Article

Neoclassical and structural analysis of poverty: winning the 'economic kingdom' for the poor in southern Africa

期刊

THIRD WORLD QUARTERLY
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 887-901

出版社

CARFAX PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1080/0143659042000232009

关键词

-

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [M571255001] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In situations characterised by historical injustice in the distribution of economic resources, such as in many southern African 'settler' countries, there is a powerful intuitive case that ameliorative and palliative public policy is insufficient to significantly affect poverty reduction. This is because of the dulling effects on growth caused by significant structural inequality in the distribution of resources. However, the proposition that inequality is a problem for poverty reduction is contentious. This article reviews the neoclassical and structuralist literatures on the relationship between growth, inequality and poverty. It argues that the first is inconclusive and, furthermore, can only be so, while the second requires to be made more relevant to the discussions of how redistribution and inequality relate in legitimate policy and practice. The concept of property regimes can help here, within a more contextual understanding of development in practice as not necessarily involving growth and economic progress, but as being subject to periodic phases of 'de-development', or well-being retrogression. The paper concludes that state-sponsored redistribution policy has an important role to play in changing underlying property regimes for the benefit of the poor in southern Africa. Inequality does matter, and a consideration of radical, redistributive social change is worth rehabilitating as an efficient means of reducing poverty, particularly in situations of low or fluctuating growth. This consideration, in turn, requires a political acceptance of the legitimacy of a broader role for economic public policy and state action.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据