The Effect of Economic Openness on Improving the Life of the Poor in Iran

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• mona tasan ¹
• khosrow piraee ²
• masoud nonejad ³
• abas abdoshahi ⁴

¹ Ph.D. Student, Department of 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

⁴ Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources of Khuzestan

Abstract

Poverty reduction is one of the main goals of policies pursued by governments. 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 policies. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of Openness on pro poor growth during the period of 1982-2015. For this purpose, we estimate this relation by using ARDL method with time series data. The result shows that the openness of the economy has led to the improvement of the situation of the poor, due to the introduction of technology, increased productivity, more efficient resource allocation and promotion of innovation. So it is suggested that, the government pursue the removal of barriers of free trade and membership of the WTO. Although the success in this field is to create appropriate infrastructures and institutions.

Keywords

• ProPoor Growth
• Openness of the economy
• Auto Regressive Distributed Lag (ARDL)

20.1001.1.20086407.1400.13.1.6.5

---

References

Ades, A. & Di Tela, R. (1999). Rents, Competition, and Corruption. American Economic Review, 89(4): 982-993.

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

- Baghery, F. & Kavand, H. (2008). Economic Growth Effect on Poverty and Inequality in Iran (1996-2005). Journal of Social Welfare, 7(28):173-190. (In Persian)

- Bannister, G. J. & 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. Working Paper 30/2003. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.

- Dollar, D. & Kraay, A. (2000). Growth is Good for the Poor. World Bank, Development Research Group.

- Glewwe, P. & Hall, G. (1998). Are Some Groups More Vulnerable To Macroeconomic Shocks Than Others? Hypothesis Tests Based on Panel Data From Peru. Journal of Development Economics, 56(1): 181-206.

- Goldberg, P. & Pavcnik, N. (2004). Trade, inequality, and poverty: What do we know? Evidence from recent trade liberalization episodes in developing countries. Working Paper 10593. NBER.

- Grossman, G. M. & Helpman, E. (1994). Endogenous Innovation in the Theory of Growth. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1): 23-44.

- Gugerty, M. K. & Roemer, M. (1997). Does Economic Growth Reduce Poverty? CAER II Discussion Paper 50. Harvard Institute for International Development.

- Kakwani, N. & Pernia, E. M. (2000). What is Pro Poor Growth? Asian Development Review, 18: 1-16.

- Mahmoudi, V. (2004). Devising, A. new Methodology for poverty change decomposition into Growth Effect and Redistributional Effect. Journal of Economic Research, 63: 165-186. (In Persian)

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

- McCulloch, N. Robson, M. & Boulch, B. (2000). Growth, Inequality and Poverty in Mauritania: 1987-1996. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies. (IDS Working Paper.)

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

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

- Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., (1995). An Autoregressive Distributed Lag Modelling Approach to Cointegration Analysis," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 9514, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.

- Pesaran, M. H. Shin, Y. & Smith, R.J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics. 16 (3): 289-326.

- Petkov, B. (2008). The Labor Market and Output in the UK– does Okun’s Law Still Stand? Discussion Papers: Bagarska Narodna Banka, 69.

- 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.

- Piraee, K. & Ghana’atian, A. (2006). Economic Growth Impact on Poverty and Inequality in Iran: Pro Poor Growth index Measurement. Journal of Economic Research in Iran, 8(29): 113-141. (In Persian)

- Ravallion, M. & Datt, G. (1999). When is growth pro-poor. Evidence from the Diverse Experiences of India’s States. Policy Research Working Papers. World Bank. Wps. 2263.

- Ravallion, M. & Chen, S. (2003). Measuring Pro-poor Growth. Economic Letters.78(1): 93–99.

- 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): 177-207.

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

- Winters, L. A. Mcculoch, N. & Mckay, A. (2004). Trade Liberalization and Poverty: The Evidence So Far. Journal of Economic Literature, XLII: 72-115.