Fiscal implications for Rural-Urban Poverty of Pakistan
Keywords:
Fiscal policy, Rural-urban Poverty, Economic Growth,Abstract
In this study, we try to investigate the fiscal policy empirically inquiry for overall and rural- urban poverty for Pakistan. Fiscal policy has so many economic and social implications for every country of the world, including stable economic development, employment opportunities, and poverty evaluation among others. Generally, supply-side and demand-side fiscal policy tools are utilized to achieve economic and social improvement. The time-series data is employed from1980 to 2019. To test for both short-run and long-run relationships between fiscal variables and poverty, the Autoregressive distributed lag model (ARDL) is adopted. Pakistan is an important case study because of the emergence of dual rural agricultural traditional and urban modern industrial sectors. The empirical investigation shows that government expenditure and per capita growth have a negative and significant impact on an aggregate and rural-urban poverty. Inflation and public tax have a positive impact on all tiers of poverty.
References
Alauddin, T. &Biquees, R. (1981). Tax Progressivity in Pakistan. Pakistan Institute of Development Economics , Research Report Series No. 133
Arestis, P. & M. Sawyer (2003). “Reinventing Fiscal Policy”, Working Paper No. 381, The Levy Economic Institute of Bard College.
Arestis, P. & Sawyer, M. (2005). “Aggregate Demand, Conflict and Capacity in the 189 Inflationary Process”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29 (6), 959-974.
Arif, G. M., Iqbal, N., & Farooq, S. (2011). The persistence and transition of rural poverty in Pakistan: 1998-2004. Working Papers & Research Reports, 2011.
Atems B. (2015). Another look at tax policy and state economic growth: the long and short run of it, economic letters, 127(1), 64-67.
Barro, R. J. (1990). Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth.
Journal of Political Economics, 98(5), S103-S125.
Barro, R. J. (1991). Economic growth in a cross section of countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 407–473.
Benneth, O., (2007). Fiscal policy and poverty reduction: some policy options for Nigeria , African Economic Research Consortium, Aerc research Paper 164.
Besley, T., &Kanbur, R. (1988). Food subsidies and poverty alleviation. The Economic Journal, 98, 701– 719.
Bidani, B. & M. Ravallion. (1997), “Decomposing Social Indicators using Distributional Data”, Journal of Econometrics, 77(1), 125-139.
Bourguignon, F., & Fields, G. (1997). Discontinuous losses from poverty, generalized Pα
measures, and optimal transfers to the poor. Journal of Public Economics, 63(2), 155-175.
Bourguignon, F., & Fields, G. S. (1990). Poverty measures and anti-poverty policy. RecherchesÉconomiques de Louvain/Louvain Economic Review, 56(3-4) 409-427.
Dollar, D. &Kraay, A., (2002). Growth Is Good for the Poor, Journal of Economic Growth, 7(3), 195-225.
Farooq, S., & Ahmad, U. (2020). Economic Growth and Rural Poverty in Pakistan: A Panel Dataset Analysis. The European Journal of Development Research, 32, 1-23.
Ferede E. &Dahlby B. (2012). The impact of tax cuts on economic growth: Evidence from the Canadian provinces, National tax journal, 65(3), 563-594.
Foster, J., Greer, J., &Thorbecke, E. (1984). A class of decomposable poverty measures.
Econometrica, 52, 761–766.
Glewwe, P. (1992). Targeting assistance to the poor: Efficient allocation of transfers when household income is not observed. Journal of Development Economics, 38(2), 297-321.
Jouini, N., Lustig, N., Moummi, A., &Shimeles, A. (2018). Fiscal policy, income redistribution, and poverty reduction: Evidence from Tunisia. Review of Income and Wealth, 64, S225-S248.
Lewis, W.A. (1954),Econmic Development with unlimited supplies of labor.Manchester school, 139-191.
Lipton, M., &Ravallion, M. (1995). Poverty and policy. Handbook of development economics, 3, 2551-2657.
Lustig, N. (2016). Inequality and fiscal redistribution in middle income countries: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, Peru and South Africa. Journal of Globalization and Development, 7(1), 17–60.
Malik, M. H., &Saqib, N. (1985). Who bears the federal taxes in Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review, 24(3&4).
Mehmood, R., &Sadiq, S. (2010). The relationship between government expenditure and poverty: A cointegration analysis. Romanian Journal of Fiscal Policy, 1(1): 29–37.
Myles, D. (2000). Taxation and economic growth, fiscal studies, 21(1), 141-168.
Narayan, P.K. (2005). The saving and Investment Nexus for China: Evidence from Co integration Tests. Applied Economics, 37(1), 1979-1990.
Ojede, A. &Yamarik S. (2012). Tax policy and state economic growth: short and long run of it, Economics Letter, 116(2), 161-165.
Pesaran, M. H., Shin,Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16: 289–326.
Pesaran, M.H. & Y. Shin (1999). An Autoregressive Distributed Lag Modelling Approach to Cointegration Analysis. in Storm, S. (ed.) Econometrics and Economic Theory in the 20th Cntury. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rashid, A. & Kemal, A., (1997). Macroeconomic Policies and their impact on Poverty alleviation in Pakistan, The Pakistan Development Review, 36(1), 39-68.
Ravallion, M., &Datt, G. (1995). Is targeting through a work requirement efficient? Some evidence for rural India (No. archive-41). Monash University, Department of Economics.
Romer, D. (2001). Advanced Macroeconomics. Second Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Ali, S., Ahmad, K. &Shahid, M. (2020). Implications of Political Stability and Financial innovations forSectoral Economic Growth of Pakistan, Revista Amazonia Investiga, 9(34), 34-43.
Saint -Paul, G., &Verdier, T. (1993). Education, democracy and growth. Journal of development Economics, 42(2), 399-407.
Sawyer, M. C. (2008). Fiscal and monetary policies in developing economies: some considerations. University of Leeds, UK.
Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Stoilova D. (2017). Tax structure and economic growth: Evidence from the European Union,
ContaduriayAdministracion, 62(3), 1041-1057.
Xing J. (2012).Tax structure and growth: How robust is the empirical evidence, Economics Letters, 117(1), 379-382.
Zellner A. &Ngoie K. (2015). Evaluation of the effect of reduced personal and corporate tax rates on growth rates of the U.S economy, Econometric Reviews, 34(1), 56-81.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
