Etudes par pays volume 2, PDF, 346 p., 1,4 Mo - Femise

11873_2002 Study D2: Poverty, Informal Sector, Health and Labour
legalization solves all the problems of immigrants, but it makes them equal
at least in the eyes of the law, giving them the opportunity to have social
insurance, better paid jobs and working conditions, in other words, a first
serious step for their integration into the Greek society and the sense of
belonging and not being always on the run.
Several studies confirm the a priori positive association of economic growth
with poverty reduction. This connection varies among countries according
to income inequality. In countries of low income inequality, ‘’growth is
twice as effective in reducing poverty as in countries with high inequality’’
(Lusting and Stern, 2000, p.3). And inversely, reducing inequalities in
people’s assets, including land and education, can improve efficiency and
growth, while reforms bringing down inflation and raising growth are good
for the poor (ibid. p.4). These authors also suggest that the containment of
bureaucracy and corruption encourages private investment. Pursuing
policies that benefit small firms and small producers makes market work
better for the poor (ibid.). Other writers maintain as a general corollary that
growth benefits the poor and poverty reduction is good for growth. In
general, policies such as investment in primary education; rural
infrastructure; health and nutrition that increase the income of the poor tend
to enhance the productive capacity of the whole economy, boosting the
incomes of all groups (Rodrik, 2000, p.8). This seems to fit the case of
Greece. The NAP for social inclusion, highlights the strong correlation
between poor health and poverty and exclusion. An EU-wide survey found
that of people below the poverty line, 13 per cent had bad health as against 9
per cent of people above the poverty line.
On the controversial issue of the connection between globalization and
poverty, Berg and Krueger (2002), discussing cross-country evidence and
reviewing some of the vast microeconomic literature on the effects of trade
liberalization on income distribution, reached the conclusion that ‘’there is
no systematic relationship between openness and the income of the poorest,
beyond the positive effect of openness on overall growth’’ (p.18). The
income of the poor is growing one-for -one with average income. They note,
however, that in some countries the poor do better than average and in
others worse than average. It has been argued that corruption is higher in
countries where domestic firms are sheltered from foreign competition,
while trade liberalization ‘’combats the corruption that flourishes wherever
there is too much red tape and protectionism’’ (Sutherland, 2002).
A report of the ‘’Transparency International’’, called ‘’World Barometer of
Corruption’’ concludes that, generally, ‘’the poor suffer more seriously and
FONDAZIONE CENSIS
164