[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-325632-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-325632-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","growth-and-poverty-revisited","Growth and Poverty Revisited","","Growth in the 1960s was strongly associated with poverty reduction, but that relationship weakened in the decades that followed. The text explains that the post-1960s economy experienced multiple shocks, with poverty becoming less responsive to short-term expansions. It reviews why the strong correlation between real GDP growth and poverty relief broke down, considering demographic shifts and government transfer policy changes. It also examines consumption-based poverty measures and the role of widening wage and income inequality.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/growth-and-poverty-revisited/325632/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/growth-and-poverty-revisited/325632.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Asher","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",16,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"How did poverty change alongside GDP growth in the 1960s, according to the text?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"From 1960 to 1969, real GDP grew at an average annual rate of about 4.1%, while the share of people in poverty declined at an annualized 5.9%.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why is poverty less responsive in the decade after the 1960s?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The text points to a weaker relationship because the years after the 1960s included multiple business cycles, negative growth, and rapid increases in inflation and unemployment, making poverty less responsive to short and sequential economic turns.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What explanations are proposed for the breakdown in the link between output growth and poverty reduction?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The text discusses demographic shifts, policy changes in government transfers, and increased wage and income inequality, and it also considers an alternative view using consumption-based poverty definitions.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},325632,1790218075,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":97,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},687197207639,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","# Growth and Poverty Revisited\n\nby Elizabeth T.Powers  \nIn the 1960s,economic growth seemedto be the tonic for poverty.From 1960 to1969,real gross domestic product(GDP)grew at a 4.1 percent average annualrate,while the percentage of all personsin poverty declined at an annualized 5.9percent.Had the 1960s'relationshipbetween real GDP growth and povertyreduction been maintained,the share ofall Americans in poverty,or the “povertyrate,\"would have been only 8.2 percentby 1992.The actual 1992 poverty rate,however,was nearly twice as large.  \nA significantly weaker relationshipbetween poverty relief and aggregategrowth in the decade following the 1960sis understandable.In contrast to the longuninterrupted expansion of the 1960s,economist Rebecca Blank notes that“...the thirteen years between 1970 and1982 contained four business cycles,.five years of negative GNP growth,and arapid increase in both inflation andunemployment.It is perhaps not surpris-ing that poverty is less responsive toshort and sequential upturns and down-turns in the economy.\"2  \nWhat is surprising is the apparent lack ofprogress against poverty throughout the1980s.In a decade that featured one ofthe longest peacetime economic expan-sions in U.S.history,the share ofall per-sons in poverty actually rose moderately.It appears that the benefits of robust eco-nomic growth “\"trickled down”to thepoor in declining measure.  \nApril 15,1995  \nA more formal economic analysis seemsto confirm these simple findings.Duringhe 1960s,a l percent increase in theannual growth of real GDP was typicallyaccompanied by a 0.4 percentage-pointreduction in the poverty rate(see table  \n1).In the 1970s,however,the effect ofGDP growth on poverty reduction wasslightly more than half that amount,andthis weaker relationship persistedthroughout the 1980s.  \nWhat caused the formerly strong correla-tion between output growth and povertyreduction to break down?Economistshave offered several plausible explana-tions,including demographic shifts,pol-icy changes,and increased wage andincome inequality.This Economic Com-mentary explores each of these notions,then considersan altermative view:Whenpoverty is defined based not on annualincome but on what is actually consumedin a year,there is no discermible break inthe “\"trickle-down”mechanism.  \n## ■ Why a Breakdown?\n\nDemographics  \nA significant demographic shift thatmight have affected income povertyrates in the 1970s and 1980s was thesurge in divorce and out-of-wedlockbirths.Because female-headed house-holds typically have the highest povertyrates o all family types,growth in thispopulation translates strongly intopoverty growth.By 1989,slightly morethan halfof all poor families wereheaded by a single woman.The shifttoward more female-headed households  \nOfficial poverty rates remained stub-bornly high throughout the 1980sdespite a prolonged expansion.Much has been made of this appar-ent breakdown in the poor's share ofeconomic gains.But when poverty ismeasured based on consumptionrather than on annual income,a dif-ferent picture emerges.Comparinggrowth in various macroeconomicindicators with changes in consump-tion poverty rates reveals no changein the“trickle-down”mechanism inthe 1980s.  \nwas largely completed by the late 1970s,however,leaving us without an explana-tion for the persistence of poverty ratesin the 1980s.  \nSingle women with children may also beless responsive to changes in overalllabor market conditions.The “feminiza-tion”of poverty would thus tend to implythat the growth solution to poverty is be-coming increasingly inappropriate.How-ever,while the share of female-headedhouseholds in poverty was increasingduring the 1960s and 1970s,the repre-sentation of the elderly—a group that iseven less responsive to labor-marketchanges—was in dramatic decline,par-tially mitigating this effect.Still,the pro-portion of the poor accounted for bythese two groups rose from slightly morethan 30 percent to nearly 50 percen from1959 to 1969,and has hovered","cbCaipJocChJCJsz","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipJocChJCJsz","pdf",1275538,"English","# Why a Breakdown?\n## Demographics\n## Government Transfers\n## Widening Wage and Income Inequality","[{\"question\":\"How did poverty change alongside GDP growth in the 1960s, according to the text?\",\"answer\":\"From 1960 to 1969, real GDP grew at an average annual rate of about 4.1%, while the share of people in poverty declined at an annualized 5.9%.\"},{\"question\":\"Why is poverty less responsive in the decade after the 1960s?\",\"answer\":\"The text points to a weaker relationship because the years after the 1960s included multiple business cycles, negative growth, and rapid increases in inflation and unemployment, making poverty less responsive to short and sequential economic turns.\"},{\"question\":\"What explanations are proposed for the breakdown in the link between output growth and poverty reduction?\",\"answer\":\"The text discusses demographic shifts, policy changes in government transfers, and increased wage and income inequality, and it also considers an alternative view using consumption-based poverty definitions.\"}]","Growth and Poverty Revisited | PDF",1789971014,13]