Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Inequality
Growth
and Poverty in an Era of Liberalization and Globalization$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Giovanni Andrea Cornia

Print publication date: 2004

Print ISBN-13: 9780199271412

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: August 2004

DOI: 10.1093/0199271410.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 17 October 2019

Rural and Urban Income Inequality and Poverty: Does Convergence between Sectors Offset Divergence within Them?

Rural and Urban Income Inequality and Poverty: Does Convergence between Sectors Offset Divergence within Them?

Chapter:
(p.112) 5 Rural and Urban Income Inequality and Poverty: Does Convergence between Sectors Offset Divergence within Them?
Source:
Inequality Growth and Poverty in an Era of Liberalization and Globalization
Author(s):

Robert Eastwood

Michael Lipton

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/0199271410.003.0005

Explores recent trends in developing and transitional economies in rural–urban, rural, and urban inequality of income and poverty risk, and the offsetting trends in inequality hypothesis (OTI), which claims that, underlying the overall inequality trend, there has been a tendency for rising intrasectoral inequality to be offset by falling rural–urban inequality. The data reviewed in the chapter refute OTI with the possible, partial exception of Latin America: first, the data show no overall tendency for within‐country rural–urban inequality to increase or decrease since the 1980s; second, while modest national and regional tendencies exist, they do not, on the whole, offset trends in overall inequality. Urban–rural ratios of both mean consumption and poverty risk have commonly either risen or fallen alongside total inequality, or even been trendless. Changing urban–rural ratios of poverty or per‐person consumption need not imply changing urban bias; they may be caused by exogenous changes in relative returns to urban activities, plus entry or exit barriers, although rural‐urban inequality trends in ‘human development’ indicators (literacy, longevity, etc.) do suggest rising urban bias. The chapter is arranged in three sections: Introduction and Summary; Rural–Urban and Intrasectoral Contributions to Changes in the Overall Inequality of Consumption or Income—an econometric analysis; and Changing Rural–Urban Poverty Ratios and ‘Urban Bias’.

Keywords:   consumption inequality, convergence, developing countries, developing economies, divergence, econometric analysis, income inequality, inequality, intrasectoral inequality, offsetting trends in inequality hypothesis, poverty, rural–urban consumption ratios, rural–urban inequality, Rural–Urban Poverty Ratios, rural–urban ratios, transitional countries, transitional economies, urban bias

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 .