اثر متغیر‌های کلان اقتصادی بر رشد به نفع فقیر در ایران

نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری اقتصاد، واحد شیراز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شیراز، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه اقتصاد واحد شیراز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شیراز، ایران

3 دانشیار گروه اقتصاد دانشگاه کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی رامین خوزستان

10.22084/aes.2019.17453.2732

چکیده

کاهش فقر از مهم‌ترین اهداف سیاست‌هایی است که توسط دولت‌ها دنبال می‌شود. ضمن آنکه رشد اقتصادی و اعتقاد جدی به رشد همراه با عدالت نیز همواره موردتوجه سیاست‌گذاران بوده است. در این راستا، مفهوم رشدبه‌نفع‌ فقیر، بر ارتباط متقابل بین سه عنصر رشد، فقر و نابرابری تمرکز می‌کند. از طرف دیگر، رشدبه‌نفع فقیر از عوامل متعددی از جمله متغیرهای کلان اقتصادی تأثیر می‌پذیرد. هدف این مقاله، بررسی اثر متغیرهای کلان اقتصادی بر رشدبه‌نفع فقیر طی دوره 1394-1361 است. بدین منظور پس از محاسبه شاخص رشدبه‌نفع فقیر، با استفاده از داده‌های سری زمانی متغیرهای نقدینگی، بدهی خارجی، مخارج مصرفی و عمرانی دولت، پرداخت‌های انتقالی، درآمد نفت، بازبودن اقتصادی و به‌کارگیری روش خود رگرسیونی با وقفه‌های توزیعی به تخمین رابطه موردنظر پرداخته شده است. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که متغیرهای موردبررسی به استثنای پرداخت‌های انتقالی و بازبودن اقتصاد اثر منفی بر رشد‌به‌نفع فقیر دارند. به‌عبارت‌دیگر، با افزایش آنها، سهم فقرا از رشد اقتصادی کمتر از اغنیا خواهد بود. لذا پیشنهاد می‌شود دولت با بهبود زیرساخت‌ها و افزایش مخارج اجتماعی در زمینه آموزش و بهداشت، همچنین هدایت نقدینگی به‌سمت فعالیت‌های مولد و اشتغال‌زا و اختصاص درآمدهای نفتی به بهبود عوامل زیربنایی، مسیر رشد اقتصاد را به‌گونه‌ای تغییر دهد که هدف کاهش فقر و نابرابری محقق گردد. همچنین با وجود اثر مثبت پرداخت‌های انتقالی و بازبودن اقتصاد بر رشد‌به‌نفع فقیر، پیشنهاد می‌شود با شناسایی دقیق افراد فقیر و هدفمندسازی یارانه‌ها و همچنین برداشتن موانع تجارت آزاد و عضویت در سازمان تجارت جهانی به همراه ایجاد زیرساخت‌ها و نهادهای متناسب، بر اثرگذاری سیاست‌های فوق افزوده گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Macroeconomic Variables on Pro Poor Growth in Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mona Tasan 1
  • Khosrow Piraee 2
  • Masoud Nonejad 2
  • Abbas Abdoshahi 3
1 PhD Student in Economics, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
3 Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan
چکیده [English]

Poverty reduction is one of the main goals of policies pursued by governments. At the same time, economic growth and a strong belief in growth along with justice have always been of interest to policymakers. In this regard, the concept of pro poor growth focuses on the interaction between three elements: growth, poverty and inequality. On the other hand, pro poor growth is affected by several factors including macroeconomic variables. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of macroeconomic variables including government expenditures, transfers, liquidity, openness, oil revenue and external debt on pro poor growth during the period of 1982-2015. For this aim, first, we calculate pro poor growth index and then by using the time series data of desired macroeconomic variables and by ARDL model we estimate that relationship. The results show that all macroeconomic variables, except transfers and openness, have a negative and significant effect. In other words, by increasing liquidity, external debt, oil revenues and government expenditure, the share of poor people from economic growth will be less than the rich. Therefore, it is suggested that the government should change the path of economic growth by improving infrastructure and increasing social spending in the field of education and health, as well as directing liquidity towards productive and employment activities and allocating oil revenues to improve the infrastructures so the benefits of the poor will be more than the rich from economic growth, and the goal of reducing poverty and inequality would be achieved. Also, in spite of the positive effect of transfers and the openness of the economy on pro poor growth, it is suggested that the accurate identification of poor people and the targeting of subsidies, as well as the removal of barriers of free trade and membership of the WTO, along with the establishment of appropriate infrastructures and institutions, will increase the effectiveness of these macroeconomic variables.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Pro Poor Growth
  • External debt
  • Liquidity
  • government expenditure
  • Transfers
  • Oil revenue
  • Trade Openness
  • ARDL Method
باقری، فریده و کاوند، حسین. (1387). «اثر رشد اقتصادی بر فقر و نابرابری در ایران (1384-1375)»، فصلنامهعلمیپژوهشیرفاهاجتماعی، سال هفتم، 28، 190-173.

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

محمودی، وحید. (1382). «ارائه یک متدولوژی جدید برای تجزیه تغییرات در فقر به دو اثر رشد و توزیع مجدد»، مجلهتحقیقاتاقتصادی، 63، 186-165.

Agénor, P. (2002). Macroeconomic Adjustment and the Poor: Analytical Issues and Cross-Country Evidence. Washington DC: The World Bank.

Agénor, P. (2003). Does Globalization hurt the poor?, Washington DC: The World Bank.

Auty, R. (2001). Resource Abundance and Economic Development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bannister, G. & Thugge, K (2001). International Trade and Poverty Alleviation. Working Paper 54/2001. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.

Berg, A. & Krueger, A. (2003). Trade, Growth, and Poverty: A Selective Survey. IMF working paper.

Breen, R., Garcia-Peñalosa, C. (1999). Income inequality and macroeconomic volatility: an empirical investigation. European University Institute, Oxford.

Cardoso, E. (1992). Inflation and Poverty. NBER Working Paper. No. 4006. Cambridge, MA.

Claessens, S., Detragiache, E., Kanbur, R. & Wickham, P. (1996). Analytical aspects of debt problems, in: Iqbal, Zubair, Kanbur, Ravi (ed.), External finance for low-income countries. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.

Collier, P. & Hoeffler, A. (1998). “On economic causes of civil war”, Oxford Economic Papers, Volume 50(4), 563-573.

Collier, P. & Hoeffler, A. (2002). “On the Incidence of Civil Wars in Africa”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46, 13-28.

Dollar, D. & Kraay, A. (2002). “Growth is good for the poor”. Journal of Economic growth, 7, 195-225

Fan, S., Brzeska, J. & Shields, G. (2007). Investment priorities for economic growth and poverty reduction. Washington D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Fearon, J. D. & Laitin, D. D. (2003). “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War.” American Political Science Review, 97: 75-90.

Gomanee, K., Morrissey, O., Mosley, P. & Verschoor, A. (2003). Aid, Pro-Poor Government Spending and Welfare. Centre for Research in Economic Development and International Trade, University of Nottingham.

Gugerty, M. & Roemer, M. (1997). Does economic growth reduce poverty?, CAER II Discussion Paper 50. Harvard Institute for International Development

Ghura, D., Leite, C. A. & Tsangarides, C. (2002). Is growth enough? Macroeconomic Policy and Poverty Reduction, Working Papers 118/2002. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.

Gylfason, T. (2000). Natural resources, education and economic development. Paper presented at the 15thAnnual Congress of the European Economic Association, Bolzano, August-September.

Klasen, S. (2006). Macroeconomic policy and pro-poor growth in Bolivia, Discussion papers, Ibero America Institute for Economic Research, 143.

Lam, R. & Wantchekon, L. (1999). Political Dutch Disease, Working Paper. Yale University.

Leite, C. A. & Weidemann, J. (1999). Does Mother Nature Corrupt? Natural Resources, Corruption, and Economic Growths, IMF working Paper.

Loko, B., Mlachila, M., Nallari, R. & Kalonji, K. (2003). The Impact of External Indebtedness on Poverty in Low-Income Countries. IMF working Paper. Policy Development and Review Department.

Maier, R. (2004). Macroeconomic Policy for Pro-poor Growth, Ph.D. Thesis in Ludwing- Maximilians University, Munich.

Manhage, M. (1994). Is Inflation Bad for Growth. Working paper. Economic Department at Sveriges Riksbank.

Manzano, O. & Rigobon, R. (2001). Resource Curse or Debt Overhang. NBER Working Paper No. 8390, National Bureau of Economic Research.

McCulloch, N. & Winters, A. & Cirera, X. (2001). Trade liberalization and Poverty: A Handbook. Centre for Economic Policy Research. London.

Menezes Filho, N., Vasconcellos, L. (2004). Has Economic Growth Been Pro Poor in Brazil? Why?, OPPG Working Program. GTZ Commissioned Study.

Mogues, T., Yu, B., Fan, S. & McBride, L. (2012). The impacts of public investment in and for agriculture. Synthesis of the existing evidence. International Food Policy Research Institute.

Moradi, M. A. (2009). Oil Resource Abundance, Economic Growth and Income Distribution in Iran. www.eomod.org. paper No. 990.

Murphy, K., Schleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1989). “Industrialization and the big Push”. Journal of Political Economy, 97(5), 1-34.

Ouattara, W. (2012). “Public Expenditure Contribution to Pro-Poor Growth in Cote d’Ivoire: A Micro Simulated General Equilibrium Approach”. Modern Economy, 3, 330-337.

Piraee, K. (2003). “Does Economic Growth Help the Poor People? Evidence from Iran in the First Five-Year Plan”, Iranian Economic Review, 9, 85-99.

Rabin, J. & Stevens, G. L. (2002). Handbook of Monetary Policy. Public Administration and Public Policy.

Romer, C. & Romer, D. (1998). “Monetary Policy And Well – Being Of The Poor”. NBER Working Paper, 6793, 21-49.

Ross, M. (2003). How Does Mineral Wealth Affect the Poor?, Manuscript.

Simson, R. (2012). Following the money: Examining the evidence on ‘pro-poor’ budgeting. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Sachs, J. D. & Warner, A. M. (1997). “Sources of slow growth in African economies”, Journal of AfricanEconomies, 6 (3), 335-376.

Sachs, J. D. & Warner, A. M. (1999). “The big push, natural resource booms and growth”, Journal ofDevelopment Economics, 59, 43-76.

Sachs, J. D. & Warner, A. M. (2001). “The Curse of Natural resources”, European Economic Review, 45, 827-838.

Timmer, P. (2004). “The road to pro-poor growth: the Indonesian experience in regional perspective, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, 40(2), 22-27.

Whitfield, L. (2008). Pro-Poor Growth: a review of contemporary debates, Elites, Production and Poverty research program (www.diis.dk/epp)

Winters, L.A. (2000a). Trade Liberalisation and Poverty. Discussion Paper No. 7, Poverty Research Unit, Sussex, University of Sussex, UK.

Winters, L.A. (2000b) Trade, Trade Policy and Poverty: What are the Links?, Discussion Paper No. 2382, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.