اندازه‌گیری رشد فقرزدا در مشاغل آزاد و مزد و حقوق‌بگیر طی پنج برنامه توسعه

نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه اقتصاد دانشگاه ایلام

2 کارشناس ارشد علوم اقتصادی

چکیده

هدف اصلی این مقاله اندازه­گیری رشد فقرزدا در مشاغل مزد و حقوق‌بگیر (عمومی، تعاونی و خصوصی) و مشاغل آزاد (کشاورزی و غیرکشاورزی) با استفاده از مدل کاکوانی و همکاران (2004) و داده­های هزینه و درآمد خانوار­های کشور، در طی پنج برنامه توسعه است. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که در دو برنامه اول توسعه رشد به نفع مزد و حقوق‌بگیران و خصوصاً در بخش عمومی‌ عمل کرده و برای مشاغل آزاد فقرزا بوده؛ اما در برنامه سوم رشد در مشاغل آزاد و مزد و حقوق‌بگیر (به استثنای بخش عمومی) فقرزدا است. رکود تورمی ‌برنامه‌های چهارم و پنجم توسعه نیز در همه گروه‌های شغلی (به‌جز مزد و حقوق‌بگیران بخش تعاونی مناطق روستایی در برنامه چهارم) به فقرا آسیب رسانده است در نتیجه اگرچه ممکن است رشد اقتصادی برای همه گروه‌های شغلی فقرزدا نباشد؛ اما رکود تورمی ‌به‌طور قطع برای اکثر آنها فقرزا خواهد بود. براساس نتایج این مقاله افزایش فقر در کشور گاهی ناشی از رشد و گاهی ناشی از نابرابری بوده لذا برای تعدیل فقر توصیه می‌شود که در برنامه‌های توسعه، رشد و سیاست‌های بازتوزیعی به‌صورت توأم مورد توجه قرار گیرند؛ زیرا توجه صرف به سیاست‌های باز توزیع محور (مانند برنامه چهارم و پنجم) و یا سیاست‌های رشد محور (مانند برنامه‌های اول و دوم) فقر را در اکثر گروه‌های شغلی تشدید خواهد کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Measuring Pro-poor Growth for Self-employment and Wage and Salary Earners, during Five Development Programs

نویسندگان [English]

  • bagher darvishi 1
  • mahin ahmadikhah 2
1 Assistant professor in economic, Iam University
چکیده [English]

The main objective of this study is to measure Pro-poor Growthfor wage and salaries earners (in public, cooperative and private sectors) and self-employed jobs (agricultural and non-agricultural).The studies have mostly measured the Pro-poor Growthin rural and urban areas, but due to the different impacts of inflation on wage and salaries earners and self-employed jobs, the consequences of economic growth for these two groups of employees will be different.
To investigate this issue, Kakwani.et al. (2004) model and spending-income data of urban and rural households during five development programs (1989-2014) were used. The data of income for mentioned groups of jobs deflated by using the related price index. Considering that there are the jobs having wages and salaries and freelance jobs in both urban and rural areas, it is used from two urban and rural poverty lines that the related poverty line is calculated according to minimum basic requirements (Urshanski’s method). 
The findings show that in the first plan of development, the growth for wages and salaries earners has reduced poverty, but it has increased poverty in the freelance jobs. During the second plan of development, the growth in the jobs having wages and salaries and non-agricultural freelance jobs has reduced poverty, but it makes poverty (it is harmful) in the agricultural freelance jobs. In the third plan of development, the growth in the freelance jobs and jobs having wages and salaries (excluding the public sector) has reduced poverty and also in the fourth and fifth plans of development, the economic recession in all occupational groups(except cooperative sector of rural areas in the fourth plan) has worsen the situation of the poor. One of the questions raised in the paper is how the growth affects poverty in two occupational groups including jobs having wages and salaries and freelance jobs, the results show that growth in the different plans has various impacts on the reduction of poverty of jobs, such that in the first two plans of development, growth merely was in favor of jobs having wages and salaries and it is frequently seen in the public sector and it mostly makes poverty rather than it can eradicate poverty, but in the third plan(in contrast to the previous two plans) , growth in the public sector made poverty. The stagnation during fourth and fifth development programs was causing poverty for all occupational groups (except for cooperation paid people within rural areas during fourth development program).Therefore, although economic growth may not cause poverty reduction for all occupational groups, but stagnation will be certainly harmful for them in terms of poverty.
Based on the result, any increase of poverty in Iran is sometimes the result of growth and sometimes is the result of inequality. Therefore, it's suggested to continually follow distributional and development growth policies together. That's because exclusive attention toward redistribution-focused policies (like the fourth and fifth development programs) or growth-focused policies (like the first and the second development programs) will cause poverty to be attenuates in most of occupational categories. On the other hand, the results show that economic growth will have different impacts on different groups of employees. Consequently, in the evaluation of the performance of policies of social development and plans of development, it should be separately considered their impacts on different occupational groups. Accordingly, mere focus on the general indicators of growth, poverty and inequality and negligence to the situation of different employees in the developmental policies will mislead policymakers.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Economic growth
  • Inequality
  • Poverty
  • pro-poor growth
  • development programs

ابونوری، اسماعیل و عباسی قادی، رضا (1386). «برآورد اثر رشد اقتصادی بر فقر در ایران»، فصلنامه پژوهش‌های اقتصادی ایران، 30: 52-23.

باقری، فریده و کاوند، حسین (1387). «اثر رشد اقتصادی بر فقر و نابرابری در ایران (1384-1375)»، فصلنامه علمی - ‌پژوهشی رفاه اجتماعی، شماره 28: 190-173. شماره صفحات نوشته شود

پروین، سهیلا؛ بانویی، علی‌اصغر و عباسیان نیگجه، ساناز (1392). «شناسایی رشد بخش­های اقتصادی در کاهش فقر با استفاده از رویکرد ضریب فزاینده قیمت ثابت SAM»، فصلنامه علمی-‌پژوهشی، پژوهش­های رشد و توسعه اقتصادی، شماره دهم، 40-27. شماره صفحات نوشته شود

پیرایی، خسرو و قناعتیان، آزاده (1385). «اثر رشد اقتصادی بر فقر و نابرابری درآمدی در ایران: اندازه­گیری شاخص رشد به نفع فقیر»، فصلنامه پژوهش­های اقتصادی ایران، 29: 141-113.

رحیمی‌بدر، بیتا (1392). «برآورد الگوی توزیع درآمد مناطق شهری و روستایی ایران با استفاده از اشکال مختلف تابعی تصریح شده (پارامتریک) برای منحنی لورنز»، فصلنامه راهبرد اقتصادی، شماره چهارم. 120-95. شماره صفحات نوشته شود

صادقی، حسین؛ عصاری آرانی، عباس و جلیلی، ظریفه (1388). «بررسی رابطه رشد اقتصادی و فقر با رویکرد کششی فقر در ایران (طی سال­های 1383-1363)»، فصلنامه پژوهش­های بازرگانی، شماره 50، 100-73.

صادقی، حسین و مسائلی، ارشک (1387). «رابطه رشد اقتصادی و توزیع درآمد با روند فقر در ایران با استفاده از رویکرد فازی»، فصلنامه علمی‌ - پژوهشی رفاه اجتماعی، شماره 28: 172-151. شماره صفحات نوشته شود

فرهمند، شکوفه؛ طیبی،کمیل و کریمی، محسن (1392). «اثر تولید و رشد بخشی بر فقر و رفاه اجتماعی در استان­های ایران (1386-1379)»، جامعه‌شناسی کاربردی، 2: 142-127.

مرکز آمار ایران (1388-1368)، سالنامه آماری (هزینه و درآمد خانوار).

نخعی، منیژه؛ راغفر، حسین و چراغی­زاده، مرضیه (1392). «بررسی رشد حامی‌فقرا طی سال‌های 1388-1363 دانشگاه الزهرا»، پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد رشته علوم اقتصادی.

Ahluwalia, M. and Chenery, H. (1974). “Redistribution with Growth”, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Araar, A. and Yves Duclos, J. (2007). “Testing for Pro-poorness of Growth, With an Application to Mexico”, Review of Income and Wealth, 55(4): 853-881.

Azpitarte, F. (2011). “Has Economic Growth in Australia Been Good for the Poor? And What Happens to the Socially Excluded?”, ECINEQ Working Paper Series, No. 278: 1-15. شماره صفحات نوشته شود

Bibi, S. (2006). “When is Economic Growth Pro-Poor? Evidence from Tunisia”, Centre interuniversitaire sur le risque, les politiques économiques et l’emploi, Working Paper 05-22.

Brzezinski, M. (2011). “Has recent economic growth in Poland been pro-poor?”, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, and Working Papers No 18, 1-21.

Farwati, R. (2012). “PRO-POOR GROWTH: Does it work in Indonesia?”, Institute of social studies Economic of Development. اگر نشریه است شماره و دوره و شماره صفحات نوشته شود.

Foster, J.; Greer, J. and Thorbeck, E. (1984). “A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures”, Econometrica, 52: 761-766.

James, R.; Arndt, Ch. and Simler, K. (2005). “Has economic growth in Mozambique been pro-poor?”, International Food Policy Research Institute, FCND Discussion, Paper 202:1-35.

Kakwani, N. (1980). “On a Class of Poverty Measures”, Econometrica, 48(2): 437-446.

Kakwani, N. (2000). “Poverty, Inequality and wellbeing with Focus on Mindanao”, Asian Development Bank.

Kakwani, N.; Khandker, Sh. and Son, H. (2004). “PRO-Poor Growth: Concepts and Measurement with Country Case Studies”, International Poverty Center, United Nations Development Program, Working Paper number 1:1-24.

Kakwani, N. and Son, H. (2006). “Pro-Poor Growth: The Asian Experience”, United Nation University, World Institute for development Economics Research, Research paper No 56:24-46.

Kakwani, N. and Pernia, E. (2000). “What is Pro-Poor Growth?”, Asian Development Review, Vol. 18(1): 1-22.

Kraay, A. (2004). “When Is Growth Pro-Poor? Evidence from a Panel of Countries”, Journal of Development Economics, vol. 80(1): 198-227.شماره و دوره و شماره صفحات نوشته شود

Kuznets, S. (1955). “Economic Growth and Income Inequality”, American Economic Review, 45: 1-28.

Lombardo, V. (2010). “Growth and inequality effects on poverty reduction in Italy”, Rivista italiana degli economisti, The Journal of the Italian Economic Association, No 2: 241-280.

Lopez, J. (2004). “Pro-poor growth: a review of what we know (and of what we don't)”, World Bank, PRMPR.

Lopez, J. (2004). “Pro-growth, pro-poor: Is there a trade-off?”, the World Bank, Policy Research, Working Paper No. 3378.

Lopez, H. and Serven, L. (2004). “The mechanics of growth-poverty inequality Relationship”, Mimeo, the World Bank.

Militaru, E. and Stroe, C. (2009). “Poverty and income growth: Measuring pro-poor growth in the case of Romania”, MCBE'10/MCBC'10Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS international conference on Mathematics and Computers in Business and Economics and 11th WSAEAS International Conference on Biology and Chemistry, 187-192.

OECD. (2001). “Rising to the Global Challenge: Partnership for Reducing World Poverty”, Statement by the DAC High Level Meeting. April 25-26. Paris: OECD.

Page, J. (2005). “Strategies for Pro-Poor Growth: Pro-Poor, Pro-Growth or Both?”, Oxford Journals, Journal of African Economies, Vol. 15, Issue 4: 510-542.

Ravallion, M. (2004). “Pro-poor Growth: A Primer”, Development Research Group, The World Bank, Washington DC, no. WPS3242.

Ravallion, M. and Chen, Sh. (2003). “Measuring pro-poor growth”, Economics Letters, Vol. 78: 93-99.

Selim, R. and Yildiz, F. (2010). “Pro-Poor Growth in Turkey”, Faculty of Management, Department of Management Engineering.

Son, H. (2004). “A note on pro-poor growth”, Economics Letters, Vol. 82: 307-314.

Suryahadi, A.; Suryadarma, D. and Sumarto, S. (2009). “The effects of location and sectoral components of economic growth on poverty: Evidence from Indonesia”, Journal of Development Economics,vol 89, No 1:109-117. شماره و دوره نوشته شود

Takeda, Y. (2010). “Is Russia’s Economic Growth Pro-Poor?”, In The Elusive Balance: Regional Powers and the Search for Sustainable Development , vol 2: 129-142. َماره و دوره نوشته شود

United Nations. (2000). “A Better World for All”, New York, United Nations.

Yves Duclos, J. and Chouchane, A. (2010). “Analyzing Pro-Poor Growth in Southern Africa: Lessons from Mauritius and South Africa”, African Development Bank Group, vol. 23(2):121-146.

Zaman, Kh.; Khilji, B.; Awan, U.; Ali, Gh and Naseem, I. (2014). “Measuring pro-poor sectorial analysis for Pakistan: trickle down”, Economic Research-EkonomskaIstraživanja, Vol. 27(1): 713-728.