This paper makes several points based on a review of household survey evidence from Africa, Asia and Latin America. (i) In contrast to conventional wisdom, the evidence is very mixed as to the effect of non‐farm employment on rural income inequality. The non‐farm employment and microenterprise programmes now in vogue will not necessarily resolve rural income inequality problems and attendant social tensions nor automatically benefit the poor. (ii) Policymakers should be worried by substantial evidence of poor people's inability to overcome important entry barriers to many non‐farm activities. (iii) The main determinants of unequal access to non‐farm activities are the distribution of capacity to make investments in non‐farm assets and the relative scarcity of low capital entry barrier activities. Therefore, it is crucial for public investments and policy to favour an increase in the access of the poor to assets that allow them to overcome non‐farm employment entry barriers, (iv) It would be an error to assume that one can address asset‐poverty and inequality in the non‐farm sector without addressing farm‐side problems and vice versa.

No abstract

Indonesia has an impressive record of economic growth and poverty reduction over the past two decades. The growth-poverty nexus appears strong at the aggregate level. However, newly constructed panel data on the country's 285 districts reveal huge differences in poverty change, subnational economic growth and local attributes across the country. The results of econometric analysis show that growth is not the only factor to affect the rate of poverty change; other factors also directly influence the welfare of the poor, as well as having an indirect effect through their impact on growth itself. Among the critical ones are infrastructure, human capital, agricultural price incentives and access to technology. While fostering economic growth is crucial, a more complete poverty reduction strategy should take these relevant factors into account. In the context of ecentralisation, subnational analysis can be an instructive approach to examining local governance in relation to growth and poverty reduction.

Examines the nature, pattern, characteristics, and causes of poverty and inequality in the Philippines over the last quarter‐century using comparable household data. The principal macro conclusion is that levels of poverty are highly growth‐sensitive. Since distribution does not change significantly in the short to medium term, this means that changes in the level of household income, which is affected by aggregate levels of economic activity, is the major proximate determinant of poverty. Apart from the economic growth, other factors – such as education, infrastructure, terms of trade, agrarian reform, governance, and certain geographic attributes – exert direct impact on the welfare of the poor. The chapter concludes with policy suggestions for winning the war against poverty.

No abstract