Removing the anonymity axiom in assessing pro-poor growth

156 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Measuring Pro-Poor Growth in Non-Income Dimensions (2008, background): “Additionally, for the two-dimensional view of the conditional NIGIC it is even more crucial to keep in mind that we do not consider the same households and that the trends of social indicators of the income-poor have nothing of a panel character (Grimm 2005).”
Non-anonymous growth incidence curves, income mobility and social welfare dominance (2010, methodology): “Under which circumstances, is it possible to say that a growth episode or its GIC is "better" than another, and what is the meaning of such a statement? Answers to that question have been provided by Ravallion and Chen (2003) and Son (2004).”
Global Income Distribution: From the Fall of the Berlin Wall to the Great Recession (2013, unknown): “Quasi-nonanonymous Growth Incidence Curves In order to identify the winners and losers, we ﬁrst consider “income mobility proﬁles” (van Kerm 2009), or “nonanonymous growth incidence curves” (Grimm 2007; Bourguignon 2011).”