Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Understanding Poverty$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee, Roland Bénabou, and Dilip Mookherjee

Print publication date: 2006

Print ISBN-13: 9780195305197

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2006

DOI: 10.1093/0195305191.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 23 October 2017

Poverty Persistence and Design of Antipoverty Policies

Poverty Persistence and Design of Antipoverty Policies

Chapter:
(p.231) 15 Poverty Persistence and Design of Antipoverty Policies
Source:
Understanding Poverty
Author(s):

Dilip Mookherjee

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/0195305191.003.0015

This essay argues that economists have ignored a crucial dimension of poverty: its intrinsically dynamic characteristic of being locked into a low-level trap of asset (or capability) deprivation, resulting in exclusion from social and economic life on a par with the rest of society. Long-term poverty is fundamentally self-perpetuating. Hence, poverty alleviation in the long run must address incentives for the poor to acquire capabilities and assets that will enable them (or their children) to escape poverty in the future. In the Mirrlees model, for instance, the income-earning capability of every household is exogenously given, hence the root causes of current poverty are not addressed. A dynamic extension of this framework would be needed to include investment decisions by households, which would affect the evolution of their future abilities. Such a framework more directly addresses some of the general public concerns concerning the tendency of comprehensive welfare systems to breed long-term dependence. At the same time, the argument for superiority of cash over in-kind transfers ceases to be valid, even within the conventional utilitarian framework where consumer “rationality” is not questioned.

Keywords:   social insurance policy, welfare policy, inequality, exclusion

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .