Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis paper studies the impact of remittances on cross‐country poverty using a panel data set from 65 developing counties over a long period 1970–2008. This study differs from the existing literature on poverty impact of remittances by explicitly noting the importance of financial development in shaping the link. This analysis shows that the effect of remittances on poverty depends on the level of financial development of a remittances receiving economy. Those economies that have a low level of financial development seem to acquire an unfavourable effect of remittances while economies with comparatively developed financial systems do not suffer from the adverse effects of remittances. In sum, remittances accentuate not ameliorate poverty in countries with the low level of financial development. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dominant explanations within the existing development literature for the differences in poverty levels around the world have tended to ignore the influence of international inequality on poverty, instead focusing solely on domestic factors. In this paper, I conduct a regression analysis of the effect of inequality between countries on world poverty between 1980 and 2007, employing a new structural measure of international inequality which is created using social network analysis to calculate countries' positions in international trade networks. Countries' infant mortality rates are used to measure poverty. The results of the empirical analysis provide cross-country evidence to demonstrate that structural inequalities in the international system have a significant impact on poverty around the world. As such, the analysis demonstrates the need to move beyond focusing exclusively on domestic attributes of developing countries towards considering the broader international political economy in analysing contemporary poverty. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractPoverty analysis is in the midst of a multidimensional "turn" due, in part, to the growing awareness of the limitations of relative income measures of poverty. In this paper, we argue that the conceptualisation of poverty remains a neglected aspect of this multidimensional turn to date, and demonstrate that the counter-intuitive results which flow from relative income analyses are not problems of measurement, but are entirely consistent with the conceptualisation of poverty under Peter Townsend's dominantPoverty as Relative Deprivationframework. In response to these problems we articulate an alternative framework,Poverty as Capability Deprivation, drawing on Amartya Sen's capability approach, and argue that this provides more persuasive explanations as to why some nations have greater poverty than others and why poverty remains a problem even in the richest nations.

European countries vary in the extent to which they succeed in reducing poverty using social transfers. However, we do not have good ways of understanding how these different outcomes are achieved. It is therefore very difficult to learn lessons from abroad. This paper uses micro data from the EU Statistics on Income and Living Condition (SILC), and attempts to decompose reductions in child poverty rates and gaps into the contribution made by children, old age, social exclusion, housing and work-related benefits. The analysis is undertaken for all families with children under 16, lone parent families, couple families, and then for families with varying levels of work intensity. Transfers make a substantial contribution to reducing child poverty rates and closing poverty gaps. The contribution varies between countries in the European Union. There is no single model, no most successful exemplar. Some countries do better for their children in lone parent households and others do better for their children in couple households. The analysis has enabled some opening up of the how question, though what is going on is still something of a mystery in some countries. It is probable that analysis at the national level with greater knowledge of national benefits systems is necessary to further open the 'black box'.

AbstractWe focus our research on this question: Does an expansion in the percentage of labour employed in the manufacturing sector lead to reductions in the poverty rate? While some research suggests that regional differences in the employment share of the manufacturing sector explain variation in poverty rates, we do not find empirical evidence of this poverty‐ameliorating effect in our regression analysis of Canadian Census Districts between the years 2001 and 2006.

SummaryThis paper presents a novel analysis about the capabilities of academic researchers and academic poverty. Adopting the capability approach, which Amartya Sen developed to address concerns such as poverty, inequality and development, we shift the focus of analysis and discussion around evaluating academic research and academics in the social sciences from measures of so‐called 'quality', 'impact' or 'excellence' to the capabilities of academics. For us, the conceptualization and evaluation of academic research is a question about what academics have reasons to value, and about their ability to achieve valuable beings and doings. It is also about determining what might constitute academic poverty, and what academics are required to do in order to avoid that poverty.Relating our analysis to debates around universities, in particular about quasi‐market pressures, we identify the possibility of basic capabilities in academic research, namely: the capabilities that are necessary to fulfill basic academic needs. Our proposition is that there is academic poverty when an academic researcher is not capable of fulfilling basic academic needs, such as: adhering to standards of coherence, robustness and rigour; searching for and disseminating the spirit of the truth. Moreover, if the academic has the capabilities to fulfill those basic academic needs and yet chooses not to do so, she renders herself in a state akin to academic poverty.

Using NSS data (through 26 different rounds) on per capita consumption expenditure on various items (primarily, food), separately for rural and urban regions, we attempted to make a statistical measurement of the extent of interstate divergences in India. The basic objective was that, in a knowledge economy like ours, people need to be made aware of the gravity of the extent of such divergences. To accomplish the task, we performed Wilks' general classificatory analysis, duly followed by hierarchical and k‐means clustering of the states. General classificatory analysis pointed toward the existence of a high degree of overlap between rural regions of certain leader and laggard states. Results from the cluster analysis provided strong confirmatory evidence toward the presence of high‐profile gaps among the states. Constitution of the clusters of states for rural regions was at a gross variance with that for urban regions. The findings, thus, call for an urgent need to consider what is happening in individual states on social sector fronts, so as to be able to explain the reasons for interregional and interstate divergences. Region‐specific and state‐specific strategies need to be devised to enable the laggard states to replicate the success stories of the leading ones.