Fiche du document
2023
- handle: 10670/1.qrlynx
- halshs: halshs-04330985
- doi: 10.1007/s10888-023-09598-2
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1007/s10888-023-09598-2
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
Mots-clés
Growth Mobility Inequality Social welfare D - Microeconomics/D.D3 - Distribution H - Public Economics/H.H0 - General J - Labor and Demographic Economics/J.J6 - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant WorkersSujets proches
Social welfare Social work Social service agencies Relief stations (for the poor) Philanthropy Benevolent institutions Social reform Social welfare Reform, Social Public welfare--Government policy Welfare (Public assistance) Social welfare Poor relief Public welfare reform Relief (Aid) Welfare reform Public assistance Benevolent institutions Public relief Public charities Social welfare Philanthropy Human welfare Institutions, Charitable and philanthropic Social welfare Endowed charities Charitable institutions Poor relief Alms and almsgiving Relief (Aid) Philanthropy Benevolent institutions Private nonprofit social work Charities--Societies, etcCiter ce document
Yonatan Berman et al., « On the social welfare interpretation of growth incidence curves », HAL-SHS : économie et finance, ID : 10.1007/s10888-023-09598-2
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
The Growth Incidence Curve (GIC), introduced in the poverty measurement literature by Ravallion and Chen (Econ. Lett. 78 (1), 93–99, 2003), proved to be a valuable and widely used tool to analyze the impact of growth on poverty and its ‘pro-poorness’. Beyond pro-poorness, however, the relationship between the shape of GICs and social welfare is ambiguous. If a declining GIC, together with a positive overall rate of growth, is unambiguously associated with a social welfare gain, such a shape is not the most common and the reciprocal is not necessarily true. This paper analyzes the social welfare properties of GICs, as well as their non-anonymous counterpart (NAGICs), which describe how income growth depends on the initial rank of individuals in the initial income distribution. NAGICs thus account not only for the change in the distribution of income but also for income mobility, and differ conceptually from their anonymous counterpart. However, their social welfare interpretation proves to be very similar.