The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0306-8293.htm

IJSE
35,4 Globalization, growth, and
poverty: the missing link
Ibrahim F. Akoum
226 Arab Monetary Fund, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Abstract
Purpose – To review the literature on the relationship between growth, globalization, and poverty,
and present empirical evidence on whether countries registering high growth rates do necessarily
succeed in reducing the incidence of poverty.
Design/methodology/approach – Notwithstanding data and methodological problems cited in the
literature, this paper makes an effort to quantitatively examine the issue of statistical correlation
between growth and poverty variables, through regressing the share of population in poverty on
growth rates of countries for which data is available from World Bank surveys.
Findings – The paper concludes that countries registering high growth rates do not necessarily
succeed in reducing poverty, thereby, holding that a wide-ranging policy approach could be more
effective in poverty reduction than the broad-based growth policy approach.
Originality/value – The debate among academics and practitioners over the causal relationship
between growth and poverty has not rendered any conclusive evidence that growth is a sufficient
condition for reducing poverty, hence the difficulty facing policy makers on the most effective
approach for poverty reduction. This paper is an attempt to contribute to this debate and assessing
whether to embrace the broad-based growth or pro-poor growth policies.
Keywords Poverty, Globalization, Economic growth
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Social
Economics
Vol. 35 No. 4, 2008
pp. 226-238
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0306-8293
DOI 10.1108/03068290810854529
Introduction
Poverty amid plenty is the world’s greatest challenge (James D. Wolfensohn, Former World
Bank President).
Eradicating poverty is an ethical, social, political and economic imperative of humankind
(UN General Assembly, 1996).
Many first-rate globalizers have fifth-rate records on poverty reduction (Watkins, 2002).
Growth and poverty reduction are supposedly the ultimate goals of all development
endeavors. International development, financial, and trade organizations, as well as
practitioners and academics in this field attest to this assertion. For example, the World
Bank holds that its mission is to fight poverty and put it at the center of all the work it
undertakes (World Bank, 2001, p. v). On its part, the World Trade Organization (WTO,
2005) contends that its goal is to improve the welfare of the peoples of the member
countries, through promoting trade liberalization, the result of which is a more
prosperous, peaceful, and accountable economic world.
Even the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is supposedly a monetary rather
than a development institution, has commenced actively working toward poverty
reduction in the past few years, through the provision of financial support via its
concessional lending facility, the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF), and
debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative.
In most low-income countries, IMF’s support is underpinned by Poverty Reduction
Strategy Papers (PRSP), which are prepared by country authorities to describe a Globalization,
comprehensive framework that is being implemented to promote growth and reduce growth, and
poverty in the country (IMF, 2006).
As is the case in most economic fields of study, there have been varying poverty
assessments of the progress made so far on poverty eradication, and of the adequacy of
varying approaches advocated by academics and practitioners towards achieving this
goal. The literature is ample with studies supporting both differing schools of thought. 227
Yet, there is limited scientific consensus on the causes and the appropriate policies
needed to help achieve growth and poverty reduction (Bird, 2004). This paper reviews
some of the literature and empirical research on this subject and presents quantitative
evidence that growth by itself is not a sufficient condition for poverty alleviation.
The paper will present in the next section a quick overview of the contrasting claims
on the progress in poverty reduction. It will then present the broad-based growth and
pro-poor growth approaches to poverty, followed by a section containing a quantitative
analysis of the causal relationship between growth and poverty. The paper concludes
with some policy implications.

Poverty eradication record: contrasting claims

Different claims have been heard within the development community about how just
much progress has been made against poverty (Ravallion, 2003). As a matter of fact,
research has presented conflicting arguments and estimations, with some claiming
that overall poverty is on the decline, while others claim otherwise.
The World Bank’s (2001, p. 21) figures show that between 1987 and 1998 the share
of the population in developing and transition economies living on less than $1 a day
fell from 28 percent to 24 percent. Further, it is estimated that the number of the poor
in the world were 200 million fewer in 1998 than in 1980 (World Bank, 2002).
The millennium development goals (MDGs) web site portal’s estimates reveal that the
proportion of people living on less than $1 a day has fallen to about 19 percent in 2002
from nearly 28 percent, its level in 1990, and that in 2001 there were 100 million fewer
people living in poverty than in 1990. Chen and Ravallion (2004, p.1) estimate that
there were almost 400 million fewer people living in poverty in 2001 than 20 years
earlier, adding that if the trends over 1981-2001 continue then the aggregate $1 per day
poverty rate for 1990 will be almost halved by 2015.
However, many others take issue with these findings and present contrary
estimates to support their argument that the international community seems incapable
of coming to grips with the poverty menace and thereby reach the goal of halving
poverty by 2015, as agreed in 2000 by the United Nations, as a main component of
the MDGs.
Questioning the empirical basis of the neoliberal argument, Wade (2004, p. 572)
considers that the World Bank’s poverty estimates contain a large margin of error for a
number of reasons mainly that poverty headcount is very sensitive to the precise level
of the international poverty lines and to the reliability of household surveys, especially
that the bank introduced a new methodology in 1990, making comparisons with
previous estimates unreliable. Deaton (2002) presented a similar argument.
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD, 2006, p. 31)
suggests that the incidence of poverty did not decline in the 1990s in the least
developed countries (LDCs) as a group and has remained at 50 percent of the total
IJSE population, and that if this trend continues, the number of people living in poverty in
35,4 the LDCs will increase from 334 million in 2000 to 471 million in 2010.
The Human Development Report 2005 (UNDP, 2005, pp. 3-4) offers a more somber
picture stating that about 2.5 million people live on less than $2 a day (40 percent of
the world’s population), 10.7 million children every year do not make it to their
fifth birthday, and in 2003 the HIV/AIDS pandemic claimed three million lives and left
228 five million more people infected, and the MDG target of universal primary education
will be missed on current trends. On its part, the World Health Organization (WHO,
2006, p. 16) estimates that some diseases associated with a lack of access to safe
drinking-water and inadequate sanitation results in nearly 1.7 million deaths
annually.

Beyond statistics
These essential arguments with respect to just how much poverty has been reduced
have been associated with equally vital discussions on what economic policies are most
effective in combating poverty and achieving the MDGs goal of halving extreme
poverty by 2015. There are primarily two main strands of thought, one of which
presents globalization and economic growth as the ultimate answer for poverty
reduction, while the other contends that growth alone has not been a panacea.
It would be expedient here to emphasize the fact that both sides acknowledge the
shortcomings of the data, statistics, and methodologies used and that underpin their
policy inferences, hence the need for a more focused approach on such an important
matter. And regardless of the various statistics on the number of people still in poverty,
all agree that more ought to be done in this regard. Eradicating poverty is an ethical,
social, political and economic imperative of humankind (UN General Assembly, 1996).
It is only in this spirit that the issue of poverty eradication can be adequately tackled,
for economic theory alone can neither explain nor come to grips with poverty and
inequality. It is not simply scarcity of resources that is plaguing the poor, but it is
rather the misuse of resources and their improper distribution.
Nevertheless, the scope of this paper is limited to the economic aspect of poverty
alleviation, in particular, the forces of globalization and growth, with regard to their
impact on poverty.

Broad-based growth advocates

The broad-based growth proponents claim that poverty is on the decline, due primarily
to the forces of globalization and the growth it engenders. In other words, they accord
great importance to globalization as a prime and cogent force behind growth and in the
fight against poverty.
To them, the process of globalization is considered as a crucial engine of growth and
unprecedented gains in human welfare over the past 50 years, through the spread of
knowledge, better division of labor, increased productivity, and access to foreign direct
investment (Köhler, 2002). It is argued that globalization, in way of free trade and open
capital markets has been instrumental in producing an optimal allocation of the
world’s resources (Krueger, 2002), and that it has boosted incomes and helped raise
living standards in many parts of the world (Aninat, 2002). A large body of the IMF
literature backs this opinion (Masson, 2001).
 The World Bank (2000, p. 5) espouses an identical view holding that globalization, Globalization,
through its impact on growth, has played an important catalytic role in global growth, and
prosperity and in lifting more people out of poverty in the past century, than in all of
human history. It asserts that it is not openness, but rather the lack of it is what poverty
increases inequality between countries, citing that closed developing economies have
performed much more poorly than more open ones.
The World Development Report maintains that growth in the 1980s and 1990s was a 229
powerful force for reducing income poverty (World Bank, 2001, p. 47) and that evidence
confirms that economy-wide growth improves the incomes of poor people and, in the
longer run, reduces non-income poverty (World Bank, 2001, p. 32). The World Bank
(2004, pp. 2-3) later on repeats this argument with a caveat, that is economic growth
will not be enough to reach the MDGs and that greater resource transfers to the
developing countries, along with better policies and institutions in these countries,
are needed to enhance productivity of domestic and external resources.
In the same line of reasoning, Dollar (2005, p. 155) argues that poverty reduction in
low-income countries is very closely related to growth rates and that the accelerated
growth rates in these countries have led to unprecedented poverty reduction. Likewise,
Berg and Krueger (2003, p. 3) affirm that changes in average per capita income are the
main determinants of changes in poverty. Emphasizing the impact of trade, the WTO
(2000) affirms that trade liberalization is generally a strongly positive contributor to
poverty alleviation.
Supporting these findings (Dollar and Kraay, 2001, p. 27), confirm that there is no
evidence that more openness and trade is associated with increased inequality.
Maintaining that there is no systematic relationship between changes in trade
volumes and changes in household income inequality, they conclude that the evidence
supports the view that open trade regimes lead to faster growth and poverty reduction
in poor countries. This is also affirmed by Berg and Krueger (2003, pp. 37-9) who
examined the impact of trade policy on poverty reduction and concluded that trade
openness does not have systematic effects on the poor beyond its effects on overall
growth, and that evidence supports the view that trade openness contributes greatly
to growth. Hence, the relationship between poverty and openness is determined
through growth.

Pro-poor growth advocates

In contrast with the broad-based growth views, the pro-poor growth proponents, while
recognizing the necessary role played by openness and growth, maintain that this does
not constitute a sufficient condition for poverty reduction. They suggest a broader
approach which includes social, economic, and political dimensions, arguing that
focusing exclusively on economic growth and income generation as a development
strategy is ineffective as it deepens the poverty of many and does not acknowledge
intergenerational transmission of poverty (United Nations, 2005, p. 1).
Klasen (2005, p. 5) concurs that while economic growth is the basis for increasing national
income, it does not necessarily result in poverty reduction since policies that merely
concentrate on growth may only be looking at a part of the development problem. Laying
emphasis on the significance of equity in this regard, the UNDP (2005, p. 53) asserts that
extreme inequality is not just bad for poverty reduction but it is also bad for growth, and
long-run efficiency and greater equity can be complimentary.
IJSE The World Development Report (World Bank, 2004, p. 2) maintains that although
35,4 the world as a whole is on track to eradicate extreme poverty, primarily in China and
India, the world is off track in reaching the other goals related to non-income poverty.
Further, the World Bank’s MDGs portal, despite its estimates showing reduction in the
numbers of the poor, it concedes that in many regions the number of hungry people
continues to grow, and progress in eradicating hunger and reducing rates of
230 undernourishment have been too slow in most regions to reach the MDGs target
(MDGs portal, http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/GMIS/gdmis.do?siteId ¼ 2&goalId ¼ 5
&menuId ¼ LNAV01GOAL1).
Thus, advocates of pro-poor growth generally question the wisdom that trade
liberalization and greater openness is the way towards greater growth and
poverty eradication. Examining the financial integration aspect of openness, Prasad
et al. (2003, p. 5) concludes that “if financial integration has a positive effect on growth,
there is as yet no clear and robust empirical proof that the effect is quantitatively
significant.”
Stiglitz (1999) argues that too often the benefits of development have not been evenly
shared in countries during the boom and growth periods and that economic growth does
not help the poor much in countries where distribution of wealth is highly unequal.
Accordingly, Stiglitz (2002, p. 8) faults the way globalization has been managed, arguing
that in too many instances, its benefits have been less than its advocates claim. Further
yet, Stiglitz (2002, p. 248) warns that if globalization continues to be conducted in the way
that it has been in the past, then it will not only fail in promoting development but it will
also continue to create poverty and instability.
Elaborating on this argument, an UNCTAD study (Rowthorn and Kozul-Wright, 1998,
p. 31) takes issue with the “Washington Consensus” and the claim that globalization has
rendered domestic determinants of growth subordinate to international economic forces
and that it is the primary factor of income convergence across the global economy. The
study concludes that empirical evidence in support of the globalization thesis is very weak.
The report concludes that:
. . . the successful economies of East Asia, far from illustrating the virtue of rapid
liberalization and unfettered global market forces, confirm the complexities of policy making
in an interdependent world.
Some has been more blunt in their criticism of the negative repercussions of
globalization, stating that current practices in international trade are reinforcing
income inequalities. For instance, Watkins (2002) holds that realities in some Latin
American and Asian countries do not fit well with the argument that globalization is
working for the poor. Citing Latin America as a striking example, he notes that the
region have liberalized imports far more rapidly than in any other region, turning as a
model of trade openness, but the returns in terms of poverty reduction have been
abysmal. As insightfully put by Watkins:
Countries such as China, Thailand, and Vietnam may be premier globalizers. They also have
a strong record on economic growth and poverty reduction. Yet, they have liberalized imports
very slowly and still have relatively restrictive trade barriers. Conversely, countries such as
Brazil, Haiti, Mexico, Peru, and Zambia have been world-beaters when it comes to import
liberalization, but have a weak record on growth and poverty reduction. In short, many
first-rate globalizers have fifth-rate records on poverty reduction.
Viewing globalization as an uneven process that leads to a growing gap between the Globalization,
rich and the poor, (Khor, 2000) faults it for engendering economic losses, social
dislocation, growing inequalities, and even the erosion of independent national
growth, and
policy-making capacity. poverty
Fortunately, the debate over the impact of globalization and growth on poverty and
income inequality has not been entirely polarized. For example, between the extreme
view insisting that globalization, through growth, has increased world prosperity and 231
reduced poverty, and the opposing extreme view blaming globalization for increasing
poverty and perpetuating economic dependence of poor countries, there is a large
continuum, along which numerous points of views belong. Globalization is not in itself
a folly (Sen, 2001); it can be a force for good and has the potential to benefit all,
including the poor (Stiglitz, 2002).
The following section attempts to empirically examine the extent to which economic
growth is associated with poverty reduction indicators.

Methodology
It is expedient at the outset to lay emphasis on the intricate conceptual and
methodological problems, as well as data limitations confronting researchers and
statisticians in their attempts to devise estimates of the number of people below
poverty lines. The significance of this issue stems from the fact that it greatly
influences the researchers’ inferences and policy recommendation. Ravallion (2003)
attributes the differing views in this debate to differences in the concepts and
definitions used, as well as differences in data sources and measurement assumptions.
For instance, the quality of poverty estimates reported in the WDR 2000/2001, was
questioned by many researchers. For example, (Pogge and Reddy, 2006) contended that
the bank’s estimates of the extent, distribution and trend of global income poverty are
neither meaningful nor reliable and that the systematic distortions introduced in the
measurement methodology likely leads to a large understatement of the extent of
global income poverty and to an incorrect inferences that it has declined. Dollar and
Kraay (2001, p. 27) admit that there are substantial difficulties in comparing income
distribution data across countries, along with a variety of econometric difficulties.
Milanovic (2002) presents similar difficulties. Arguing that world poverty may or may
not have increased since the 1990 and that this assessment is critically dependent on
the assumptions made, Reddy and Minoiu (2006) conclusions highlight the importance
of improving global poverty statistics.
Notwithstanding data and methodological problems, this paper makes an effort to
answer some questions related to the issue of correlation between growth and poverty
variables. In particular, I will investigate the patterns of poverty incidence and GDP
growth by answering the following three questions:
(1) Do countries with higher real GDP growth rates have lower shares of
population in poverty than countries that register negative or low growth rates?
(2) Do countries that register real GDP growth rates reduce the share of population
in poverty over time?
(3) Does economic growth impact urban and rural poverty differently?

The evidence presented in this study indicates that the answer for the three above
stated questions is negative.
IJSE As shown in Figure 1, I regressed the share of population in poverty on growth rates
35,4 in countries for which data are available for both variables. The results did not show
any evidence that countries with higher GDP growth rates have lower percentages of
the population living in poverty. In this exercise, I used the poverty data reported in the
world development indicators (WDI) of the World Development Report 2000/2001,
which summarize the results of surveys conducted to measure the share of the
232 population living below the national poverty line. And since poverty surveys for
different countries have been conducted at different years, I regressed the share of
population living below poverty in each particular country on the average annual GDP
growth of the country during the last five years preceding the year in which the
poverty survey had been conducted. Gross domestic product data series was obtained
from the online database of the WDI of the World Bank.
The results indicate that many countries with relatively high average annual GDP
growth rates have had relatively higher shares of the population in poverty than many
countries with low growth rates or even countries that registered significant decline in
gross domestic product. For instance, countries like India, Honduras, Malawi, Niger,
Vietnam, Guatemala, Lesotho, Nepal, and El Salvador registered relatively high
average annual GDP growth rates ranging between around 3.5 percent (Niger) and
6.9 percent (Vietnam), while the share of population in poverty in these countries was
high with a range between 41 percent (India) and 63 percent (Niger).
By contrast, countries like Ukraine, Russia, Moldova, Estonia, and Belarus with GDP
declining at an average rate ranging between 7.4 percent (Estonia) and 16.7 percent
(Ukraine) have much lower shares of population in poverty such as 31.7 percent in
Ukraine and as low as 8.9 percent in Estonia.
Likewise, Figures 2 and 3 show a similar pattern in the rural and urban areas,
showing that economies with higher growth rates do not have lower shares of
population in poverty in rural or urban areas.

R sq 0.005
80

70
% of Population in Poverty

60

50

40
7
30

20

10
Figure 1.
GDP growth and share 0
–20 –10 0 10
of population in poverty
GDP Growth
 R sq 0.007 Globalization,
90
growth, and
poverty
% of Rural Population in Poverty

233

40

Figure 2.
–15 –5 5 15 GDP growth
–10
and urban poverty
GDP Growth

R sq 0.007
90
% of Rural Population in Poverty

40

Figure 3.
–15 –5 5 15 GDP growth
–10
and rural poverty
GDP Growth

Regarding the question of whether countries that register GDP growth rates tend to
witness reduction in the share of population in poverty over time, Figure 4 shows that
there is no indication that this is the case. Using the World Development Report
2000/2001 data on poverty for countries for which two poverty surveys are available,
I plotted each country’s average annual GDP growth rate registered between the two
surveys against the percentage point change of population in poverty. The results of
this exercise show that in some countries growth has been associated with a reduction
in the share of population in poverty, while in others growth has been associated with
an increase in the share of population in poverty.
IJSE 20
% GDP Growth
35,4 Percentage points change in people in poverty
15

10
234
5

0
Ba ent a
rg eri
ng ina
Ca desh

Ch le
om olom a
ic ia
H Rep
H uras
ry

N co
a

iL s
Th ka

Tu d
Za sia
a
M an
Jo a

Sr ine
di

Ph eri

bi
n
In ia
si
i

ga
lg

oc

an
Ch

la
ni
rd
bo

m
d
ne

ig
pp
d
A

ai
un

In
la

an

or
on
m

do
Figure 4. –5

ili
A

GDP growth and poverty in

D

reduction
–10

For example, as shown in Table I, in Bangladesh two surveys were conducted the first
of which in 1990-1991 and the second in 1995-1996. Despite the fact that real average
annual GDP growth rate was about 4.6 percent during the period between the two
surveys (1990-1996), the share of population below national poverty line rose
drastically from 24.7 percent to 35.6, that is nearly 11 percentage points higher in

Percentage of population below

poverty linea
Survey Survey Percentage of Percentage of avg. GDP growth
1 2 point changes between the two surveysb

Algeria 12.2 22.6 10.4 0.95

Argentina 25.6 17.6 28 8.3
Bangladesh 24.7 35.6 10.9 4.6
Cambodia 39 36.1 22.9 4.9
Chile 21.6 20.5 21.1 6.3
China 6 4.6 21.4 8.3
Colombia 16.9 17.7 0.8 4
Dominican Rep. 24.5 20.6 23.9 0.8
Honduras 50 53 3 7.1
Hungary 1.6 8.6 7 2 4.9
India 40.9 35 25.9 5.9
Indonesia 11.3 20.3 9 2 4.7
Jordan 15 11.7 23.3 6.3
Morocco 13.1 19 5.9 2
Nigeria 43 34.1 28.9 3.7
Philippines 40.6 40.6 0 5.2
Sri Lanka 40.6 35.3 25.3 3.6
Thailand 18 13.1 24.9 8.1
Tunisia 19.9 14.1 25.8 2.8
Zambia 68 86 18 1
Table I. Notes: aSource of poverty data: World Development Report 2000/2001; bcalculated by the author
GDP growth and poverty based on real GDP figures from online WDI of the World Bank
1995-1996 than it was in 1990-1991. On the other hand, in Jordan two surveys were Globalization,
conducted in 1991 and 1997, and during this period an average annual GDP growth of growth, and
about 6.3 percent was associated with a decline in the share of population below
national poverty line from 15 percent to 11.7 percent, respectively, which represents a poverty
decline of about 3.3 percentage points.
Table I also shows that, out of the twenty countries for which data was available for
this exercise, I found that only in 11 countries an increase in GDP growth has been 235
associated with a reduction in the share of population below the national poverty line.
On the contrary, in Algeria, Bangladesh, Colombia, Honduras, Morocco, and Zambia,
growth was associated with an increase in the share of population below the national
poverty line.

Conclusion and policy implications

It is important to note that the lack of enough data on poverty, in addition to the
substantial technical problems associated with measuring poverty in the first place, do
not allow one to make conclusive statements regarding the results of this study, or any
similar study for that matter. To avoid falling in the fallacy of composition, definite and
more accurate answers require in depth country-specific case studies. Nevertheless,
simple statistical methods used in this paper support the arguments that higher
economic growth rates are not necessarily translated into lower poverty rates.
What is of great significance though is that due to the lessons imparted by the
financial crises, notably the ones erupted in South East Asia in the late 1990s, most
observers and concerned parties have narrowed the theoretical gap with regard to the
impact of unfettered financial and trade liberalization on overall economic stability.
The IMF, a staunch proponent of financial and trade liberalization, has itself published
research questioning the wisdom of pushing for unfettered capital flows, concluding
that empirical evidence casts doubt on the theoretical models claiming that financial
globalization promotes economic growth in developing countries. The research found
that it is difficult to establish a strong causal relationship between financial
globalization and economic growth (Prasad et al., 2003, p. 5).
Echoing this growing line of reasoning (Khor, 2000) calls for a selective approach to
liberalization as a more appropriate method than rapid liberalization, highlighting the
importance of a country’s level of development and preparedness to take on the
challenges of subjecting local production units to foreign competition. While globalists
vehemently argue the case for globalization and growth and their positive impact on
poverty, anti-globalists still consider globalization as a tool and a new form for
perpetuating the interests of the rich countries at the expense of the poor. Yet others do
not fault globalization itself, but rather the unfair distribution of its fruits (Sen, 2001).
This does not make the life of policy makers any easier. A significant body of research
(Jenkins, 2004) does not support any simple generalization about the impacts of
globalization on poverty as these impacts are highly context specific, which should be
a warning to policy makers against generalized policy advice.
Globalization seems to be irreversible. Thus, the question that needs to be addressed
is how we can better govern this process to make it more inclusive and fairer than the
current state of affairs. That is, it is not globalization as a process that ought to be
rejected, but rather it is poor governance of globalization is what needs to be contested.
If managed properly and fairly for the benefit of all, globalization could be a remarkably
IJSE positive force. Naturally, this requires fundamental alteration of the global status quo,
35,4 starting with a genuine political commitment of the developing and developed countries
alike to conceive an improved global financial and economic landscape.
As many experiences in the past have shown, it is not such an impossible task for
the international community to act together in an effort to make available the resources
necessary to wage a war against a menace. For instance, the whole international
236 community has been galvanized to fight terrorism in the past few years. This is a
rightfully pursued cause. But had the same enthusiasm, commitment, and resources
been given to the fight against an equally abhorring global calamities, namely poverty
and inequality, the world would have been a much better place (Akoum, 2004). By
reducing, and hopefully eventually eliminating, abject poverty, the international
community increases the purchasing power of billions of people, thereby enlarging
markets and increasing global aggregate demand for goods and services. It is not just a
moral case; it is beneficial economically.
Data and methodological limitations facing researchers in this field imply that
country-specific case studies could prove better suited to help policy makers devise
poverty reduction policies. It is essential, too, to improve the accuracy and quality of
poverty data and refrain from using it as a tool to support preconceived ideas and
economic theories. Questioning the integrity of data collected by the World Bank, due
to political economy consideration, (Wade, 2004) calls for a coordinated world project to
get better data on poverty and inequality.

References
Akoum, I. (2004), Governance and Globalization: An Economic and Financial Approach, Union of
Arab Banks Publication, Lebanon, available at: www.uabonline.org
Aninat, E. (2002), “Surmounting the challenges of globalization”, Finance & Development, Vol. 39
No. 1, available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2002/03/aninat.htm
Berg, A. and Krueger, A. (2003), Trade, Growth, and Poverty: A Selective Survey, IMF Working
Paper series, WP/03/30.
Bird, G. (2004), “Growth, poverty and the IMF”, Journal of International Development, Vol. 16,
pp. 621-36.
Chen, S. and Ravallion, M. (2004), “How have the world’s poorest fared since the early 1980s?”,
Policy Research Working Paper 3341, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Deaton, A. (2002), “Is world poverty falling?”, Finance & Development, Vol. 39 No. 2.
Dollar, D. (2005), “Globalization, poverty, and inequality since 1980”, The World Bank Research
Observer, Vol. 20 No. 2.
Dollar, D. and Kraay, A. (2001), “Trade, growth, and poverty”, World Bank Policy Research,
Working Paper No. 2615.
IMF (2006), “IMF at a glance: a fact sheet”, August, available at: http://www.imf.org/external/np/
exr/facts/glance.htm
Jenkins, R. (2004), “Globalization, production, employment and poverty: debates and evidence”,
Journal of International Development, No. 16, pp. 1-12.
Khor, M. (2000), “Globalization and the south: some critical issues”, available at: http://www.
unctad.org/en/docs/dp_147.en.pdf
Klasen, S. (2005), “Economic growth and poverty reduction: measurement and policy issues”,
OECD Working Paper No. 246, September.
Köhler, H. (2002), “Investing in better globalization”, available at: http://www.imf.org/external/ Globalization,
np/speeches/2002/091902.htm
growth, and
Krueger, A. (2002), “Globalization in historical perspective”, available at: http://www.imf.org/
external/np/speeches/2002/081202.htm poverty
Masson, P. (2001), “Globalization: facts and figures”, IMF Policy Discussion Paper 01/4.
Milanovic, B. (2002), “True world income distribution, 1988 and 1993: first calculation based on
household survey alone”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 112, pp. 51-92. 237
Pogge, W. and Reddy, S. (2006), “Unknown: the extent, distribution and trend of global income
poverty”, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id ¼ 936772
Prasad, E., Rogoff, K., Wei, S. and Kose, M. (2003), “Effects of financial globalization on
developing countries: some empirical evidence”, IMF, available at: http://www.imf.org/
external/np/apd/seminars/2003/newdelhi/prasad.pdf (accessed March 17, 2003).
Ravallion, M. (2003), “The debate on globalization, poverty, and inequality: why measurement
matters”, World Bank Policy Research, Working Paper 3038. April.
Reddy, S. and Minoiu, C. (2006), “Has world poverty really fallen?”, available at: http://papers.
ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id ¼ 921153#PaperDownload
Rowthorn, R. and Kozul-Wright, R. (1998), “Globalization and economic convergence:
an assessment”, UNCTAD Discussion Paper No. 131, March.
Sen, A. (2001), “A world of extremes: ten theses on globalization”, Los Angeles Times,
July 17.
Stiglitz, J. (1999), “The world’s war on poverty has yet to be won”, The International Herald
Tribune, available at: http://www.iht.com/articles/1999/04/28/edstiglitz.t.php (accessed
28 April 1999).
Stiglitz, J. (2002), Globalization and its Discontents, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
UN General Assembly (1996), available at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/poverty/poverty.
htm#Bulletin:%20Eradication%20of%20Poverty
UNCTAD (2006), The Least Developed Countries Report 2006, United Nations Publications,
New York, NY.
UNDP (2005), Human Development Report 2005, Hoechstetter Printing Co., New York, NY.
United Nations (2005), Report on the World Social Situation 2005, United Nation’s Publications,
New York, NY.
Wade, R.H. (2004), “Is globalization reducing poverty and inequality?”, World Development,
Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 567-89.
Watkins, K. (2002), “Making globalization work for the poor”, Finance & Development, available
at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2002/03/watkins.htm
WHO (2006), Preventing Disease through Healthy Environments, available at: http://www.who.
int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/preventingdisease/en/
World Bank (2000), Poverty in an Age of Globalization, available at: http://www1.worldbank.org/
economicpolicy/globalization/documents/povertyglobalization.pdf
World Bank (2001), World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
World Bank (2002), Building Institutions for Markets, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
World Bank (2004), World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People,
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
IJSE WTO (2000), WTO news: 2000, press releases, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/
pres00_e/pr181_e.htm (accessed 13 June 2000).
35,4 WTO (2005), The WTO in Brief, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/
inbrief_e/inbr00_e.htm

Further reading
238 World Bank (1990), World Development Report 1990: Poverty, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.

About the author

Ibrahim F. Akoum holds a PhD and an MA in Public Policy and Political Economy (University of
Texas, Dallas), and MBA in Management Information Systems (University of Dallas). He is
Division Chief, Financial Markets Division, at the Arab Monetary Fund in the UAE. He has
20 years of professional experience in economic policy analysis and modeling, economic
development, capital markets, and academia. Previously, he worked at the World Bank in
Washington DC for nearly five years. He served as an economic advisor and consultant to
regional and international organizations. He was also adjunct Professor of Economics in the
USA. He has published books and articles in areas including development economics,
globalization, governance, and political economy. Ibrahim F. Akoum can be contacted at:
akoum2003@yahoo.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints