Inclusive growth (INCL_GRTH) is a process through which economic opportunities are available for all segments of society without any discrimination between rich and poor. The aim of this study is to find how socio-economic factors affect poverty and how we may achieve INCL_GRTH and reduce poverty in a country like Pakistan. The study has used a poverty headcount ratio as a proxy for INCL_GRTH while the number of income and non-income poverty factors, including, per capita GDP, FDI inflows, agriculture value added, health expenditures, income inequality and education expenditures are highlighted as explanatory factors. The results show that poverty is substantially reduced by increasing education expenditures and FDI inflows. The pro-poor growth estimates have confirmed that except agriculture value added, the remaining factors show anti-poor growth in a country, while agriculture value added gives marginal benefits to the poor as compared to the non-poor between the two time periods studied, that is 1980 and 2016.
AkinyemiA., MagarethL., & OluwafemiE. (2019). Poverty and inequality in Nigeria: Implications for inclusive growth. Nile Journal of Business and Economics, 4(9), 30–51.
2.
AliM., NishatM., & AnwarT. (2009). Do foreign inflows benefit Pakistani poor? [with Comments]. The Pakistan Development Review, 48(4), 715–738.
3.
ArabiyatT. S., MdanatM., & SamawiG. (2020). Trade openness, inclusive growth, and inequality: Evidence from Jordan. The Journal of Developing Areas, 54(1). https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2020.0008
4.
AshrafiS., BehbudiD., Vaez MahdaviM. R., & PanahiH. (2019). The triangular relationship between poverty, inequality and growth in Iran during the development plans. Social Welfare Quarterly, 18(71), 9–46.
5.
AsonguS. A., & OdhiamboN. M. (2020). Governance, CO2 emissions and inclusive human development in sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 38(1), 18–36.
6.
BhattacharyaG., & HaldarS. K. (2017). Social sector development and inclusive growth in India—An empirical analysis. Indian Journal of Regional Science, 49(2), 1–14.
7.
BourguignonF. (2004). The poverty-growth-inequality triangle. Paper presented at the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, 4 February.
8.
DollarD., KleinebergT., & KraayA. (2016). Growth still is good for the poor. European Economic Review, 81, 68–85.
9.
DollarD., & KraayA. (2002). Growth is good for the poor. Journal of Economic Growth, 7(3), 195–225.
10.
DorwardA., KyddJ., MorrisonJ., & UreyI. (2004). A policy agenda for pro-poor agricultural growth. World Development, 32(1), 73–89.
11.
DoumbiaD. (2019). The quest for pro-poor and inclusive growth: The role of governance. Applied Economics, 51(16), 1762–1783.
12.
GhanemH. (2015). Agriculture and rural development for inclusive growth and food security in Morocco. Brookings Global Working Paper Series. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Agriculture_WEB_Revised.pdf
13.
GottretP., GuptaV., SparkesS., TandonA., MoranV., & BermanP. (2009). Protecting pro-poor health services during financial crises: Lessons from experience. Advances in Health Economics and Health Service Research, 21, 23–53.
14.
HassanS. A., ZamanK., & GulS. (2015). The relationship between growth-inequality-poverty triangle and environmental degradation: Unveiling the reality. Arab Economic and Business Journal, 10(1), 57–71.
15.
KakwaniN., NeriM. C., & SonH. H. (2010). Linkages between pro-poor growth, social programs and labor market: The recent Brazilian experience. World Development, 38(6), 881–894.
16.
KakwaniN., & PerniaE. (2000). What is pro-poor growth. Asian Development Review, 16(1), 1–22
17.
KakwaniN., & SonH. (2002). Pro-poor growth: Concept, measurement, and application [Unpublished mimeo]. University of New South Wales.
18.
KhanH. U. R., KhanA., ZamanK., NabiA. A., HishanS. S., & IslamT. (2017). Gender discrimination in education, health, and labour market: A voice for equality. Quality & Quantity, 51, 2245–2266.
19.
KhanH. U. R., NassaniA. A., AldakhilA. M., AbroM. M. Q., IslamT., & ZamanK. (2019a). Pro-poor growth and sustainable development framework: Evidence from two step GMM estimator. Journal of Cleaner Production, 206, 767–784.
20.
KhanM., SaboorA., & AhmadT. (2020). An empirical analysis of monetary and multidimensional poverty: Evidence from a household survey in Pakistan. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, 30(2), 1–16.
21.
KhanH. U. R., ZamanK., YousafS. U., ShoukryA. M., GaniS., & SharkawyM. A. (2019b). Socio-economic and environmental factors influenced pro-poor growth process: New development triangle. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(28), 29157–29172.
22.
KlasenS. (2008). Economic growth and poverty reduction: Measurement issues using income and non-income indicators. World Development, 36(3), 420–445.
23.
KlasenS., & ReimersM. (2017). Looking at pro-poor growth from an agricultural perspective. World Development, 90, 147–168.
24.
LiuY., AminA., RasoolS. F., & ZamanQ. U. (2020). The role of agriculture and foreign remittances in mitigating rural poverty: Empirical evidence from Pakistan. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 13, 13–26.
25.
McCullochN., & BaulchB. (2000). Simulating the impact of policy upon chronic and transitory poverty in rural Pakistan. The Journal of Development Studies, 36(6), 100–130.
26.
MichálekA., & VýbošťokJ. (2019). Economic growth, inequality and poverty in the EU. Social Indicators Research, 141(2), 611–630.
ShaheenK., ZamanK., MushtaqH., AinQ., NazA., BibiA., AkhterI., BibiN., & KousarR. (2017). Simultaneous equations modeling for terrorism, poverty, and economic growth: Evidence from Pakistan. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 7(5), 233–244.
29.
World Bank (2016). World development indicators. World Bank.
30.
World Economic Forum (2017). The inclusive growth and development report 2017: Insight report. World Economic Forum, Geneva. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Forum_IncGrwth_2017.pdf
31.
YoungA. O. (2019). Does reduction in inequality of income distribution matter for poverty reduction? Evidence from Nigeria’s poverty trends. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 172, 48–72.
32.
ZamanK. (2015). Measurement issues of income and non-income welfare indicators: Assessment of Pakistan’s pro-poor growth. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 5(3), 802–811.
33.
ZamanK. (2016a). Poverty intensive curve: A new form of pro-poor growth index. Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal, 2(3), 1–2.
34.
ZamanK. (2016b). Examination of non-linear dynamics in pro-poor growth framework: A case study of Pakistan. International Journal of Economics and Empirical, Research (IJEER), 4(4), 207–211.
35.
ZamanK., Al-GhazaliB. M., KhanA., RosmanA. S. B., SriyantoS., HishanS. S., & BakarZ. A. (2019). Pooled mean group estimation for growth, inequality, and poverty triangle: Evidence from 124 countries. Journal of Poverty, 24(3), 1–19.
36.
ZamanK., AshrafS., SajjadF., SaleemS., & RajaU. M. (2015b). Quality versus quantity in health care and educational reforms: Combating poverty. Quality & Quantity, 49(1), 267–293.
37.
ZamanK., & KhiljiB. A. (2014a). Sectoral decomposition of changes in Pakistan’s poverty: The new interface. Journal of Poverty, 18(4), 453–476.
38.
ZamanK., & KhiljiB. A. (2014b). A note on pro-poor social expenditures. Quality & Quantity, 48(4), 2121–2154.
39.
ZamanK., & ShahI. A. (2016). Income inequality, investment, public expenditures and economic growth: The case of Pakistan. International Journal of Economics and Empirical, Research (IJEER), 4(2), 112–123.
40.
ZamanK., ShahI. A., & NaseemI. (2015a). Estimating working poverty in Pakistan evidence from national, rural and urban population. Journal Transition Studies Review, 22(2), 69–78.
41.
ZamanK., & ShamsuddinS. (2018). Linear and non-linear relationships between growth, inequality, and poverty in a panel of Latin America and the Caribbean countries: A new evidence of pro-poor growth. Social Indicators Research, 136(2), 595–619.
