Pro-poor growth is often advocated but seldom defined. Some proposed
definitions and associated measures are reviewed in this paper. Much of
this literature stresses the importance of reducing economic inequality.
A basic source of confusion is whether inequality reduction is desired as
a means for reducing poverty or as an end in itself. This paper argues that
if it is the former, as is usually said, the pro-poor growth literature tends
to overstate the importance of reducing inequality, or avoiding an increase.
Growth that is most effective at reducing poverty does not necessarily
coincide with growth that reduces inequality. This literature is overly
pre-occupied with statistical evaluation of the outcomes of economic
events, based on changes in the distribution of household incomes or
expenditures. What is most needed is solidly based empirical research on
the manner and extent to which alternative growth strategies influence
the rate of poverty reduction.