FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W58367600> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W58367600 startingPage "33" @default.
• W58367600 abstract "As reforms in economic policy--generally centered on dismantling inward-looking policies on international trade and attracting equity investment--and the privatization of many public-owned enterprises have swept across the developing world, critics have charged that these reforms are inimical to the reduction of poverty. Thus, it is not unusual for a long-standing proponent of these reforms like myself to get into recurring debates on the question. Only a few months ago, I and Martin Wolf of The Financial Times teamed up to face two rather impassioned opponents in a BBC debate. Our opponents claimed that proglobalization policies are responsible for the accentuation of poverty, while we argued exactly the opposite. In fact, this debate is only a replay of the debate that we Indian economists and planners had almost four decades ago, with occasional argumentation thereafter, when we began planning for national poverty amelioration. India at the time had (and still has, precisely because of the policies that presently call for proglobalization reforms) the misfortune of having a comparative advantage in poverty. Since policy economics is like literature and reflects the immediacy of one's experience, Indian economists have not surprisingly been at the forefront of debates about how to reduce poverty. As I shall presently argue, this debate in India was precisely between those who maintained that growth reduced poverty and those who argued that it bypassed or even increased it. Proponents of the pro-growth strategy were divided into those who came to see the inward-looking import-substitution (IS) model toward trade and direct foreign investment (DFI) as the culprit that crippled growth and hence accentuated poverty (a minority in the 1960s and 1970s), and the vast majority that continued to cling to the increasingly implausible notion that these antiglobalization strategies were in fact pro-growth policies, despite compelling theoretical arguments and a growing body of evidence suggesting the opposite. Since the 1980s, a majority of policy economists around the world have begun to favor economic reforms that increase global integration, in the strong belief that such reforms would, ceteris paribus, promote growth and would, both directly and indirectly (by raising resources for spending on social programs and in other ways discussed below), help to improve living standards among the poor. Today, the widespread view among Indian intellectuals and policymakers is that the absence of pro-growth economic policies for nearly three decades only served to accentuate Indian poverty. Ironically, the growth-retarding and hence poverty-enhancing policies in place throughout this time were adopted at the urging of those very economists who claimed that they were the virtuous ones who wished to attack poverty, while the rest of us were interested in growth for itself.(1) Against this backdrop, I argue that pro-globalization and proprivatization economic reforms must be treated as complementary and indeed friendly to both the reduction of poverty and social agendas. I maintain that poverty reduction and advancement of social agendas require not merely a policy focus on schooling, public health, etc., but also simultaneous attention to reforms aimed at improving the economic efficiency and growth of the economy. More precisely, I shall argue specifically in this paper that: * Growth (or development) has been regarded for several decades as a principal instrument for reducing poverty, rather than as an objective in itself. Hence the contention in some influential developmental circles and international agencies that poverty reduction has only recently been designated as an objective of development, displacing the earlier preoccupation with growth per se, is totally off the mark. The falsity of this argument is a cause for concern insofar as it encourages the harmful ethos that somehow growth is irrelevant, if not inimical, to poverty reduction and to the promotion of social agendas. …" @default.
• W58367600 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W58367600 creator A5075328004 @default.
• W58367600 date "1998-09-22" @default.
• W58367600 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W58367600 title "Poverty and Reforms: Friends or Foes?" @default.
• W58367600 hasPublicationYear "1998" @default.
• W58367600 type Work @default.
• W58367600 sameAs 58367600 @default.
• W58367600 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W58367600 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W58367600 hasAuthorship W58367600A5075328004 @default.
• W58367600 hasConcept C138921699 @default.
• W58367600 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W58367600 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W58367600 hasConcept C178377140 @default.
• W58367600 hasConcept C189326681 @default.
• W58367600 hasConcept C196777733 @default.
• W58367600 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W58367600 hasConcept C199728807 @default.
• W58367600 hasConcept C47768531 @default.
• W58367600 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
• W58367600 hasConceptScore W58367600C138921699 @default.
• W58367600 hasConceptScore W58367600C162324750 @default.
• W58367600 hasConceptScore W58367600C17744445 @default.
• W58367600 hasConceptScore W58367600C178377140 @default.
• W58367600 hasConceptScore W58367600C189326681 @default.
• W58367600 hasConceptScore W58367600C196777733 @default.
• W58367600 hasConceptScore W58367600C199539241 @default.
• W58367600 hasConceptScore W58367600C199728807 @default.
• W58367600 hasConceptScore W58367600C47768531 @default.
• W58367600 hasConceptScore W58367600C50522688 @default.
• W58367600 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W58367600 hasLocation W583676001 @default.
• W58367600 hasOpenAccess W58367600 @default.
• W58367600 hasPrimaryLocation W583676001 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W118734656 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W1497353430 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W1550376807 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W1776012478 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W2066768270 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W2088090125 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W2153769831 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W2187236311 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W231787014 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W2337266380 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W2397185864 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W2740879302 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W2760430024 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W2800858796 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W43184064 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W583723417 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W747241942 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W782074436 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W1410696102 @default.
• W58367600 hasRelatedWork W2501494033 @default.
• W58367600 hasVolume "52" @default.
• W58367600 isParatext "false" @default.
• W58367600 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W58367600 magId "58367600" @default.
• W58367600 workType "article" @default.