IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/povpop/v14y2022i2p166-183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Different dimensions of decentralization and rural–urban poverty in Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Shahid
  • Khalil Ahmad
  • Rukhsana Kalim

Abstract

The process of decentralization plays a vital role to enhance the welfare of society through the provision of public goods and services. This study investigates the impact of different dimensions of decentralization on rural–urban poverty and total poverty for Pakistan. For empirical analysis, this study uses time‐series data covering the period from 1980 to 2018. The auto‐regressive distributive lag model bounds testing cointegration method is used for long‐run estimation and error correction dynamic for short‐run movements of variables. The results show that fiscal and administrative decentralization are more beneficial for overall and rural–urban poverty reduction. The surprising results of political decentralization increases poverty overall in the case of Pakistan. For poverty reduction, the government should try to reduce the political concentration of elite groups in Pakistan. Moreover, to curtail poverty, government policy should be focused on effective strategies to address inflation and development of GDP per capita growth. 权力下放过程通过提供公共物品和服务,在提高社会福利一事中发挥着至关重要的作用。本研究调查了权力下放的不同维度对巴基斯坦城乡贫困和总体贫困的影响。对于实证分析,本研究使用1980年至2018年间的时间序列数据。自回归分布滞后模型(ARDL)边界检验协整方法用于对变量的短期变化进行长期估计和误差校正动态。结果表明,财政分权和行政分权更有利于整体减贫和城乡减贫。出乎意料的是,政治分权从总体上增加了巴基斯坦的贫困情况。在减贫方面,政府应努力降低巴基斯坦精英群体的政治集中度。此外,为了减少贫困,政府政策应重点关注用于应对通货膨胀和人均GDP增长的有效战略。 El proceso de descentralización juega un papel vital para mejorar el bienestar de la sociedad a través de la provisión de bienes y servicios públicos. Este estudio investiga el impacto de diferentes dimensiones de la descentralización en la pobreza rural‐urbana y la pobreza total en Pakistán. Para el análisis empírico, este estudio utiliza datos de series de tiempo que cubren el período de 1980 a 2018. El método de cointegración de prueba de límites del modelo de rezago distributivo autorregresivo (ARDL) se usa para la estimación a largo plazo y la dinámica de corrección de errores para el corto plazo. movimientos de variables. Los resultados muestran que la descentralización fiscal y administrativa son más beneficiosas para la reducción de la pobreza general y rural‐urbana. Los sorprendentes resultados de la descentralización política aumentan la pobreza en general en el caso de Pakistán. Para la reducción de la pobreza, el gobierno debería tratar de reducir la concentración política de grupos de élite en Pakistán. Además, para reducir la pobreza, la política del gobierno debe centrarse en estrategias efectivas para abordar la inflación y el desarrollo del crecimiento del PIB per cápita.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Shahid & Khalil Ahmad & Rukhsana Kalim, 2022. "Different dimensions of decentralization and rural–urban poverty in Pakistan," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 166-183, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:povpop:v:14:y:2022:i:2:p:166-183
    DOI: 10.1002/pop4.338
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/pop4.338
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/pop4.338?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Roberto Ezcurra, 2011. "Is fiscal decentralization harmful for economic growth? Evidence from the OECD countries," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 619-643, July.
    2. Shahid, Muhammad & Kalim, Rukhsana, 2021. "Empirical Implications of Decentralization Dimensions and the Role of Political Institutions in the Economic Growth of Pakistan," Empirical Economic Review, Department of Economics and Statistics, Dr Hassan Murad School of Management, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, vol. 4(1), pages 52-80.
    3. Brennan,Geoffrey & Buchanan,James M., 2006. "The Power to Tax," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521027922, October.
    4. Susan Steiner, 2005. "Decentralisation and Poverty Reduction: A Conceptual Framework for the Economic Impact," Public Economics 0508006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. M. Hashem Pesaran & Yongcheol Shin & Richard J. Smith, 2001. "Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(3), pages 289-326.
    6. S.M. Naseem, 1973. "Mass Poverty in Pakistan. Some Preliminary Findings," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 12(4), pages 317-360.
    7. Faguet, Jean-Paul, 2004. "Does decentralization increase government responsiveness to local needs?: Evidence from Bolivia," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 867-893, March.
    8. M. Shaukat Ali, 1995. "Poverty Assessment: Pakistan's Case," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 34(1), pages 43-54.
    9. Abdul Wasay, 1977. "An Urban Poverty Line Estimate," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 16(1), pages 49-57.
    10. Sohail j. Malik, 1992. "Rural Poverty in Pakistan: Some Recent Evidence," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 31(4), pages 975-995.
    11. Imran Sharif Chaudhry & Shahnawaz Malik & Abo ul Hassan, 2009. "The Impact of Socioeconomic and Demographic Variables on Poverty: A Village Study," Lahore Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, The Lahore School of Economics, vol. 14(1), pages 39-68, Jan-Jun.
    12. David Slater, 1989. "Territorial Power and the Peripheral State: The Issue of Decentralization," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 20(3), pages 501-531, July.
    13. Jamal, Haroon, 2018. "Smoothing Sporadic Poverty and Inequality Estimates: Pakistan, 1985-2016," MPRA Paper 91834, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Besley, Timothy & Coate, Stephen, 2003. "Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: a political economy approach," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(12), pages 2611-2637, December.
    15. Sajjad Ali Khan, 2021. "Decentralization and the Limits to Service Delivery: Evidence From Northern Pakistan," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440219, February.
    16. Sehrish Shahzad & Bushra Yasmin, 2016. "Does Fiscal Decentralisation Matter for Poverty and Income Inequality in Pakistan?," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 55(4), pages 781-802.
    17. Sadia Hussain & Shafei Moiz Hali & Riaz Ahmad & Sumera Iqbal & Hamza Iftikhar, 2021. "Fiscal decentralization and poverty alleviation: A case study of Pakistan," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 139-154, June.
    18. Blair, Harry, 2000. "Participation and Accountability at the Periphery: Democratic Local Governance in Six Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 21-39, January.
    19. Joel Samoff, 1990. "Decentralization: The Politics of Interventionism," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 21(3), pages 513-530, July.
    20. Rashid Amjad & A.R. Kemal, 1997. "Macroeconomic Policies and their Impact on Poverty Alleviation in Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 36(1), pages 39-68.
    21. West, Loraine A & Wong, Christine P W, 1995. "Fiscal Decentralization and Growing Regional Disparities in Rural China: Some Evidence in the Provision of Social Services," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 11(4), pages 70-84, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jorge Martinez-Vazquez & Santiago Lago-Peñas & Agnese Sacchi, 2017. "The Impact Of Fiscal Decentralization: A Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1095-1129, September.
    2. Andrea Filippetti & Giovanni Cerulli, 2018. "Are local public services better delivered in more autonomous regions? Evidence from European regions using a dose‐response approach," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 97(3), pages 801-826, August.
    3. Sarah Flèche, 2015. "Distaste for Centralization: Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment in Switzerland," CEP Discussion Papers dp1383, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    4. Reingewertz, Yaniv, 2014. "Fiscal Decentralization - a Survey of the Empirical Literature," MPRA Paper 59889, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Faguet, Jean-Paul, 2014. "Decentralization and Governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 2-13.
    6. Faguet, Jean-Paul & Sánchez, Fabio, 2008. "Decentralization's Effects on Educational Outcomes in Bolivia and Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1294-1316, July.
    7. Faguet, Jean-Paul & Ali, Zulfiqar, 2009. "Making Reform Work: Institutions, Dispositions, and the Improving Health of Bangladesh," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 208-218, January.
    8. Astghik Mavisakalyan, 2013. "Development Priorities in an Emerging Decentralized Economy: The Case of Armenia’s Local Development Programs," Transition Studies Review, Springer;Central Eastern European University Network (CEEUN), vol. 20(1), pages 105-118, April.
    9. Mauro, Luciano & Pigliaru, Francesco & Carmeci, Gaetano, 2018. "Decentralization and growth: Do informal institutions and rule of law matter?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 873-902.
    10. Najam, Zaira, 2020. "The Sensitivity of Poverty Trends to Dimensionality and Distribution Sensitivity in Poverty Measures - District Level Analysis for Pakistan," MPRA Paper 102383, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. S. M. Naseem, 2012. "A Review Of Studies On Poverty In Pakistan: Origin, Evolution, Thematic Content And Future Directions," PIDE Books, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, number 2012:1 edited by Rashid Amjad, October.
    12. Grégoire ROTA-GRAZIOSI & Emilie CALDEIRA, 2014. "La décentralisation dans les pays en développement : une revue de la littérature - Decentralization in developing countries: A literature review," Working Papers 201411, CERDI.
    13. Boadway, Robin & Tremblay, Jean-François, 2012. "Reassessment of the Tiebout model," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(11), pages 1063-1078.
    14. Chowdhury, Shyamnal & Yamauchi, Futoshi & Dewina, Reno, 2009. "Governance decentralization and local infrastructure provision in Indonesia:," IFPRI discussion papers 902, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    15. Rowland, Allison M., 2001. "Population as a Determinant of Local Outcomes under Decentralization: Illustrations from Small Municipalities in Bolivia and Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 1373-1389, August.
    16. Marceau, Nicolas, 2008. "La concurrence entre gouvernements est-elle bénéfique?," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 84(4), pages 365-390, Décembre.
    17. Thushyanthan Baskaran & Lars P. Feld & Jan Schnellenbach, 2014. "Fiscal Federalism, Decentralization and Economic Growth: Survey and Meta-Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 4985, CESifo.
    18. Aleh Mazol, 2015. "Local self-governance in the Republic of Belarus," BEROC Policy Paper Series 22, Belarusian Economic Research and Outreach Center (BEROC).
    19. Yushkov, Andrey, 2015. "Fiscal decentralization and regional economic growth: Theory, empirics, and the Russian experience," Russian Journal of Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(4), pages 404-418.
    20. Lara, Carlos Icaza & Pezzini, Mario & Villarreal, Roberto & Garcilazo, Enrique & Davies, Andrew, 2009. "Institutional Reform:Improving the Effectiveness of Policy Delivery," MPRA Paper 16567, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:povpop:v:14:y:2022:i:2:p:166-183. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1944-2858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.