Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05

    • In another study on Indonesia Balisacan and Pernia used disa

    2018-10-30

    In another study on Indonesia, Balisacan and Pernia (2002), used disaggregated panel data for 285 districts from 1993 to 1999. They noticed the significant importance of roads on the average poor people performance. Following the same research line, Dercon and Krishnan (1998) used data collected from rural Ethiopia in 1989, 1994 and 1995 to evaluate determinant factors of changes in poverty levels and detected that families with higher human capital and better road access presented lower poverty levels. In Peru, Torero et al. (2001) analyzed the significance of infrastructure (drinking water, sewage system, electricity and telephone) on poverty in the years 1985, 1991, 1994 and 1996. Obtained results showed that having a telephone line contributed to reduce urban poverty more than other infrastructure services, although this type of infrastructure has no significant effects in rural areas. In another Peru study on the fak inhibitor of poverty through time and its determinants from 1997 to 1999, Herrera and Roubaud (2002) demonstrated that access to public infrastructure services significantly reduces the probabilities of falling into “permanent” poverty. Besides, in the case of families that have always been poor, the access to these services increases their chances of leaving poverty. Fan et al. (2002) analyzed the effects of different types of public expenses on economic growth and rural poverty in Chinese and Vietnamese provinces, finding that public expenses on rural roads have a big impact on poverty incidence. The research showed that poor families living in rural municipalities with paved roads have 67% more chances of overcoming poverty than those living in communities without this kind of infrastructure. Confirming these empirical evidences on the relation between poverty and infrastructure, Warr (2005) proved that in the years 1997/1998 and 2002/2003, the reduction of rural poverty in Laos was attributed to the improvements in road accesses. The methodology of static and dynamic panel data is used in a study carried out by Seetanah et al. (2009) to measure the relevance of infrastructure on urban poverty in a 20-country sample collected between 1980 and 2005. Government expenses on roads and communications are applied as an infrastructure proxy. In both models, they discovered that transports and communications are efficient instruments to combat poverty in urban areas. Applying the Granger Causality Test, they identified a reverse causality between poverty and infrastructure. In a study carried out in 91 countries including Brazil, Rajkumar and Swaroop (2008) used a cross-section data on government expenditures on health and education in 1990, 1997 and 2003, verifying the existence of a reverse causality between poverty and health infrastructure. They corroborated that when a government faces a situation of poverty and health deterioration among its citizens, or even in critical education situations, the State tends to increase expenses in these areas. Another study that used public expenses as infrastructure proxy for 25 Indonesian provinces from 1976 to 1996 was developed by the Asian Development Bank and the Resources Center for Economic Development (1999). The study proved that the reduction in poverty rates was the result of investments in roads, health, agriculture, education, sciences and technology. By applying panel data models (fixed and random effects) to reflect the impact of different infrastructure types (access to water, sewage system, electricity and telephone) on domestic expenses in Peru for the 2007–2010 period, Aparicio et al. (2011) verified a differentiated and significant impact of infrastructure on the reduction of transient and chronic poverty, depending on the geographical area (urban or rural), the sex and the family head. A study of 73 Philippines provinces developed by Balisacan (1999) with data from 1988 to 1997 showed that changes in access to electricity were strong and positively correlated to the reduction in poverty levels. Another research developed in the Philippines by Balisacan and Pernia (2002) in the eighties and nineties corroborated that electricity positively affected the income of the poor.