Reflections of Pro-Poor Growth across Agro-Climatic Zones for Farming and Non-Farming Communities: Evidence from Punjab, Pakistan
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Data Description
2.2. Spatial Description of Pakistan and Its Agro-Climatic Zones
2.3. Poverty Measurement
2.4. Inequality Measurement
2.5. Decomposition of Poverty into Growth and Redistribution Components
2.6. Systematic Framework for the Assessment of the Poverty Equivalent Growth Rate (PEGR)
3. Results and Discussion
4. Conclusions
4.1. Policy Recommendations
4.2. Limitation of the Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Amin, A.; Liu, Y.; Yu, J.; Chandio, A.A.; Rasool, S.F.; Luo, J.; Zaman, S. How does energy poverty affect economic development? A panel data analysis of South Asian countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 31623–31635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandio, A.A.; Jiang, Y.; Abbas, Q.; Amin, A.; Mohsin, M. Does financial development enhance agricultural production in the long-run? Evidence from China. J. Public Aff. 2020, e2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumann, F. The Next Frontier—Human Development and the Anthropocene: UNDP Human Development Report 2020. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2021, 63, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haq, K. A measurement of inequality in urban personal income distribution in Pakistan. Pak. Dev. Rev. 1964, 4, 623–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tripathi, A. Socioeconomic backwardness and vulnerability to climate change: Evidence from Uttar Pradesh state in India. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 328–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamal, H. Poverty and Vulnerability Estimates: Pakistan, 2016-Research Report No. 99 2017; Social Policy and Development Centre: Karachi, Pakistan, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Nazli, H.; Whitney, E.; Mahrt, K. Poverty Trends in Pakistan; World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER): Helsinki, Finland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, A.U.; Saboor, A.; Hussain, A.; Sadiq, S.; Mohsin, A.Q. Poverty assessment as a multidimensional socio-economic concept: The case of the Rawalpindi region in Pakistan. Asia Pac. J. Soc. Work Dev. 2014, 24, 238–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Zaman, Q.U.; Zaman, S. A dynamical assessment of multidimensional poverty in agro-climatic zones: An evidence from Punjab Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 22944–22956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Government of Pakistan. Economic Survey of Pakistan; Economic Advisor’s Wing, Finance Division: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2020.
- Borowski, P.F.; Patuk, I. Environmental, social and economic factors in sustainable development with food, energy and eco-space aspect security. Present Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 15, 153–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kakwani, N.; Son, H.H.; Qureshi, S.K.; Arif, G. Pro-poor growth: Concepts and measurement with country case studies [with comments]. Pak. Dev. Rev. 2003, 42, 417–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zaman, K.; Khan, M.M.; Ahmad, M.; Shabir, M. The study of pro-poor growth and poverty reduction in Pakistan (1999–2006). Soc. Change 2012, 42, 249–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheema, A.R.; Sial, M.H. An assessment of pro-poor growth in Pakistan from 1993 to 2008. J. Res. Int. Bus. Manag. 2012, 2, 001–009. [Google Scholar]
- Simatele, D.; Binns, T.; Simatele, M. Sustaining livelihoods under a changing climate: The case of urban agriculture in Lusaka, Zambia. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2012, 55, 1175–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klasen, S. In search of the holy grail: How to achieve pro-poor growth? In Toward pro Poor Policies-Aid, Institutions, and Globalization; World Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; pp. 63–94. [Google Scholar]
- Ravallion, M. Pro-poor Growth: A Primer; Available at SSRN 610283; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Kakwani, N.; Son, H.H. Poverty equivalent growth rate. Rev. Income Wealth 2008, 54, 643–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Endalew, H.A.; Sen, S. Effects of climate shocks on Ethiopian rural households: An integrated livelihood vulnerability approach. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021, 64, 399–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kakwani, N. On measuring growth and inequality components of changes in poverty with application to Thailand. In Discussion Paper—University of New South Wales School of Economics; School of Economics, University of New South Wales: Sydney, Australia, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Bourguignon, F. The Poverty-Growth-Inequality Triangle; Working Paper; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Iradian, G. Inequality, Poverty, and Growth: Cross-Country Evidence; International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Anwar, T. Role of growth and inequality in explaining changes in poverty in Pakistan. Pak. Dev. Rev. 2010, 49, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ali, S.S.; Tahir, S.; Arif, G. Dynamics of growth, poverty, and inequality in Pakistan [with Comments]. Pak. Dev. Rev. 1999, 38, 837–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zaman, Q.; Zaman, S.; Hussain, M.; Amin, A.; Faiz Rasool, S. Situational analysis of public sector schools in rural areas of Southern Punjab, Pakistan. Eur. Online J. Nat. Soc. Sci. Proc. 2019, 8, 42–54. [Google Scholar]
- Li, H.; Squire, L.; Zou, H.f. Explaining international and intertemporal variations in income inequality. Econ. J. 1998, 108, 26–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forbes, K.J. A reassessment of the relationship between inequality and growth. Am. Econ. Rev. 2000, 90, 869–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ravallion, M.; Chen, S. Measuring pro-poor growth. Econ. Lett. 2003, 78, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dollar, D.; Kraay, A. Growth is Good for the Poor. J. Econ. Growth 2002, 7, 195–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Etana, D.; Snelder, D.J.; van Wesenbeeck, C.F.; de Cock Buning, T. Review of the effectiveness of smallholder farmers’ adaptation to climate change and variability in developing countries. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021, 65, 759–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuznets, S. Economic growth and income inequality. Am. Econ. Rev. 1955, 45, 1–28. [Google Scholar]
- Ahluwalia, M.S. Income distribution and development: Some stylized facts. Am. Econ. Rev. 1976, 66, 128–135. [Google Scholar]
- Alesina, A.; Rodrik, D. Distributive politics and economic growth. Q. J. Econ. 1994, 109, 465–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knowles, S. Inequality and economic growth: The empirical relationship reconsidered in the light of comparable data. J. Dev. Stud. 2005, 41, 135–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Y.; Amin, A.; Rasool, S.F.; Zaman, Q.U. The role of agriculture and foreign remittances in mitigating rural poverty: Empirical evidence from Pakistan. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 2020, 13, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kemal, A. Poverty in Pakistan: Trends and Causes towards Pro-Poor Growth Policies in Pakistan. UNDP Pak. 2003, 24. Available online: https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/pakistan_2003_en.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2022).
- Omer, M.; Jafri, S. Pro-poor growth in Pakistan: An assessment over the past four decades. South Asia Econ. J. 2008, 9, 51–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, I.; Barrientos, A.; Saboor, A.; Khan, A.U.; Nelson, J. A decade of sub-national pro-poor growth in Pakistan. Soc. Indic. Res. 2017, 133, 47–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCulloch, N.A.; Baulch, B.; Cherel-Robson, M. Poverty, Inequality and Growth in Zambia during the 1990s; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Son, H.H. A note on pro-poor growth. Econ. Lett. 2004, 82, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, I.; Barrientos, A.; Saboor, A. Pro-poor growth across different agro-climatic zones of rural Pakistan. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 52, 497–503. [Google Scholar]
- Government of Pakistan. Pakistan Economic Survey 2013–14 Pakistan; Ministry of Finance Islamabad: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2014.
- Khan, A.U.; Shah, A.H.; Iftikhar-ul-Husnain, M. Impact Of Climate Change On The Net Revenue Of Major Crop Growing Farmers In Pakistan: A Ricardian Approach. Clim. Change Econ. 2021, 12, 2150006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadiq, S.; Saboor, A.; Jamshaid, F.; Mohsin, A.Q.; Khalid, A. Assessment of Farmers’ Vulnerability to Climate Change in Agro-Climatic Zones of Pakistan: An Index Based Approach. Sarhad J. Agric. 2019, 35, 663–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- CPRSPD. Poverty indices based on PSLM 2005–06 data. In Methodology Background and Poverty Estimates for 2005–06; Centre for Poverty Reduction & Social Policy Development Planning Commission: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Foster, J.; Greer, J.; Thorbecke, E. A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 1984, 52, 761–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asad, M.A.; Ahmad, M. Growth and consumption inequality in Pakistan. Pak. Econ. Soc. Rev. 2011, 49, 69–89. [Google Scholar]
- Datt, G.; Ravallion, M. Growth and redistribution components of changes in poverty measures: A decomposition with applications to Brazil and India in the 1980s. J. Dev. Econ. 1992, 38, 275–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fambon, S. Poverty Changes in Cameroon over the 1996–2007 Period. Int. J. Sci. 2017, 6, 48–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kakwani, N.; Pernia, E.M. What is pro-poor growth? Asian Dev. Rev. 2000, 18, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Bhagwati, J.N. Poverty and public policy. World Dev. 1988, 16, 539–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bhagwati, J.N. Protectionism; Mit Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1988; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Jamal, H. Growth and Income Inequality Effects on Poverty: The Case of Pakistan (1988–2011); University Library of Munich: Munich, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Zone | Index | 2001–2002 | 2004–2005 | 2005–2006 | 2007–2008 | 2010–2011 | 2011–2012 | 2013–2014 | 2015–2016 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Farming Community | |||||||||
I | Po | 26.05 | 15.81 | 10.80 | 7.62 | 6.30 | 3.14 | 2.61 | 2.63 |
P1 | 5.11 | 2.53 | 1.77 | 1.10 | 0.86 | 0.24 | 0.37 | 0.30 | |
P2 | 1.521 | 0.629 | 0.471 | 0.266 | 0.181 | 0.026 | 0.100 | 0.078 | |
InEquality | 0.245 | 0.242 | 0.264 | 0.274 | 0.220 | 0.223 | 0.255 | 0.239 | |
II | Po | 35.71 | 24.50 | 17.45 | 8.33 | 9.41 | 4.07 | 3.40 | 5.17 |
P1 | 8.05 | 4.89 | 2.39 | 1.16 | 1.53 | 0.43 | 0.51 | 0.86 | |
P2 | 2.58 | 1.52 | 0.569 | 0.294 | 0.391 | 0.061 | 0.122 | 0.245 | |
InEquality | 0.246 | 30.35 | 0.258 | 0.273 | 0.270 | 0.222 | 0.221 | 0.284 | |
III | Po | 45.00 | 40.42 | 20.21 | 23.34 | 16.45 | 13.95 | 10.44 | 11.72 |
P1 | 10.07 | 12.25 | 4.16 | 3.75 | 2.68 | 1.85 | 1.51 | 1.25 | |
P2 | 3.166 | 5.27 | 1.351 | 0.971 | 0.715 | 0.417 | 0.389 | 0.251 | |
InEquality | 0.257 | 0.387 | 0.261 | 0.275 | 0.275 | 0.251 | 0.240 | 0.270 | |
IV | Po | 47.63 | 36.70 | 25.43 | 29.70 | 21.32 | 19.51 | 24.19 | 18.54 |
P1 | 13.36 | 10.40 | 4.27 | 6.35 | 3.44 | 2.67 | 4.59 | 2.94 | |
P2 | 5.160 | 4.180 | 1.055 | 1.861 | 0.775 | 0.581 | 1.250 | 0.685 | |
InEquality | 0.263 | 0.334 | 0.226 | 0.235 | 0.225 | 0.209 | 0.254 | 0.228 | |
V | Po | 18.77 | 3.08 | 4.59 | 1.94 | 4.45 | 3.16 | 2.15 | 1.265 |
P1 | 3.89 | 0.35 | 0.83 | 0.36 | 0.56 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.17 | |
P2 | 1.110 | 0.065 | 0.209 | 0.135 | 0.109 | 0.025 | 0.034 | 0.025 | |
InEquality | 0.285 | 0.260 | 0.231 | 0.234 | 0.239 | 0.226 | 0.258 | 0.256 | |
Non-Farming Community | |||||||||
I | Po | 47.56 | 20.04 | 25.78 | 11.75 | 10.48 | 9.88 | 4.81 | 11.86 |
P1 | 11.40 | 3.57 | 4.70 | 1.80 | 1.55 | 1.42 | 0.58 | 1.65 | |
P2 | 3.902 | 1.066 | 1.290 | 0.404 | 0.356 | 0.291 | 0.112 | 0.335 | |
InEquality | 0.256 | 0.222 | 0.230 | 0.268 | 0.231 | 0.227 | 0.240 | 0.245 | |
II | Po | 45.16 | 34.31 | 33.96 | 19.41 | 12.77 | 12.62 | 9.09 | 18.15 |
P1 | 10.91 | 7.33 | 5.83 | 3.27 | 2.02 | 1.54 | 0.93 | 3.23 | |
P2 | 3.810 | 2.36 | 1.506 | 0.939 | 0.490 | 0.345 | 0.165 | 0.858 | |
InEquality | 0.241 | 0.280 | 0.219 | 0.233 | 0.259 | 0.264 | 0.238 | 0.268 | |
III | Po | 60.60 | 42.28 | 30.30 | 35.30 | 23.50 | 22.22 | 22.00 | 17.03 |
P1 | 17.05 | 13.08 | 6.86 | 7.30 | 3.90 | 3.80 | 3.67 | 2.26 | |
P2 | 6.43 | 5.51 | 2.279 | 2.060 | 0.990 | 0.931 | 0.905 | 0.484 | |
InEquality | 0.244 | 0.358 | 0.281 | 0.243 | 0.232 | 0.233 | 0.244 | 0.225 | |
IV | Po | 49.73 | 34.59 | 32.74 | 37.40 | 30.69 | 35.77 | 28.81 | 21.80 |
P1 | 13.42 | 9.12 | 6.17 | 7.32 | 5.72 | 6.95 | 5.18 | 3.82 | |
P2 | 5.07 | 3.564 | 1.690 | 2.156 | 1.574 | 1.856 | 1.405 | 0.981 | |
InEquality | 0.272 | 0.311 | 0.228 | 0.276 | 0.252 | 0.225 | 0.268 | 0.243 | |
V | Po | 22.09 | 7.33 | 2.25 | 1.70 | 6.91 | 4.09 | 1.83 | 2.40 |
P1 | 4.43 | 0.50 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.76 | 0.58 | 0.122 | 0.30 | |
P2 | 1.31 | 0.053 | 0.045 | 0.006 | 0.185 | 0.155 | 0.009 | 0.100 | |
InEquality | 0.264 | 0.248 | 0.211 | 0.234 | 0.248 | 0.263 | 0.296 | 0.281 |
Zone | Index | Farming Communities | Non-Farming Communities | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
γ | φ* | γ* | γ | φ* | γ* | ||
I | Po | 47.57 | 1.106 | 52.66 | 48.71 | 1.042 | 50.75 |
P1 | 47.57 | 1.035 | 49.24 | 48.71 | 0.986 | 48.03 | |
P2 | 47.57 | 0.997 | 47.43 | 48.71 | 0.983 | 47.88 | |
II | Po | 56.86 | 1.053 | 59.89 | 36.66 | 1.001 | 36.70 |
P1 | 56.86 | 0.971 | 55.21 | 36.66 | 0.910 | 33.36 | |
P2 | 56.86 | 0.944 | 53.68 | 36.66 | 0.900 | 33.00 | |
III | Po | 55.04 | 0.917 | 50.47 | 53.54 | 1.062 | 56.85 |
P1 | 55.04 | 0.951 | 52.34 | 53.54 | 1.011 | 54.13 | |
P2 | 55.04 | 0.955 | 52.60 | 53.54 | 1.002 | 53.65 | |
IV | Po | 34.43 | 1.159 | 39.90 | 20.53 | 1.685 | 34.60 |
P1 | 34.43 | 1.115 | 38.40 | 20.53 | 1.344 | 27.60 | |
P2 | 34.43 | 1.074 | 36.98 | 20.53 | 1.249 | 25.64 | |
V | Po | 36.33 | 1.429 | 51.92 | 57.61 | 1.011 | 58.24 |
P1 | 36.33 | 1.122 | 40.76 | 57.61 | 0.995 | 57.32 | |
P2 | 36.33 | 1.039 | 37.75 | 57.61 | 0.957 | 55.13 |
Year | Sector | I | II | III | IV | V |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2001–2002 to 2004–2005 | Farming | 14.68 | 36.28 | 27.25 | 26.12 | 18.13 |
Non-farming | 21.01 | 20.38 | 48.16 | 23.28 | 27.57 | |
2004–2005 to 2005–2006 | Farming | 10.26 | –8.81 | 1.40 | –8.09 | –1.43 |
Non-farming | –4.17 | –11.44 | –1.29 | –12.46 | –0.11 | |
2005–2006 to 2007–2008 | Farming | 8.68 | 17.29 | –2.13 | –3.44 | 4.93 |
Non-farming | 31.05 | 20.87 | –13.46 | –2.46 | –0.87 | |
2007–2008 to 2010–2011 | Farming | –4.71 | 0.24 | 14.14 | 12.47 | –6.76 |
Non-farming | –10.56 | 12.13 | 13.21 | 8.27 | –1.11 | |
2010–2011 to 2011–2012 | Farming | 10.63 | 4.86 | –0.99 | 2.10 | 2.67 |
Non-farming | 4.70 | 2.57 | 2.90 | –8.92 | 10.07 | |
2011–2012 to 2013–2014 | Farming | 13.80 | 2.65 | 2.16 | 3.47 | 15.07 |
Non-farming | 15.85 | 2.23 | –0.27 | 16.27 | 15.58 | |
2013–2014 to 2015–2016 | Farming | –2.67 | 6.79 | 14.13 | 10.32 | 6.79 |
Non-farming | –2.02 | –2.20 | 14.21 | 8.53 | 5.65 |
Year | Sector | I | II | III | IV | V |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2001–2002 to 2004–2005 | Farming | Y (N) [N] | N (N) [N] | N (N) (N) | N (N) [N] | Y (Y) [Y] |
Non-farming | Y (Y) [Y] | N (N) [N] | Y (N) [N] | N (N) [N] | Y (Y) [Y] | |
2004–2005 to 2005–2006 | Farming | N (N) [N] | Y (Y) [Y] | Y (Y) [Y] | Y (Y) [Y] | N (N) [N] |
Non-farming | N (N) [N] | Y (Y) [Y] | Y (Y) [Y] | Y (Y) [Y] | Y (Y) [Y] | |
2005–2006 to 2007–2008 | Farming | N (N) [Y] | N (N) [N] | N (Y) [Y] | N (N) [N] | Y (Y) [Y] |
Non-farming | N (N) [N] | N (N) [N] | Y (Y) [Y] | N (N) [N] | Y (Y) [Y] | |
2007–2008 to 2010–2011 | Farming | Y (Y) [Y] | N (N) [N] | N (N) [N] | N (N) [N] | N (N) [N] |
Non-farming | Y (Y) [Y] | N (N) [N] | N (N) [N] | N (N) [N] | N (N) [N] | |
2010–2011 to 2011–2012 | Farming | Y (Y) [Y] | Y (Y) [Y] | Y (Y) [Y] | Y (Y) [Y] | Y (Y) [Y] |
Non-farming | N (N) [N] | N (N) [Y] | N (N) [N] | Y (Y) [Y] | N (N) [N] | |
2011–2012 to 2013–2014 | Farming | N (N) [N] | N (N) [N] | Y (Y) [N] | N (N) [N] | N (N) [N] |
Non-farming | N (N) [N] | Y (Y) [Y] | Y (Y) [Y] | N (N) [N] | Y (Y) [Y] | |
2013–2014 to 2015–2016 | Farming | Y (Y) [Y] | Y (N) [N] | N (Y) [Y] | Y (Y) [Y] | Y (Y) [Y] |
Non-farming | N (Y) [Y] | N (N) [N] | Y (Y) [Y] | Y (Y) [Y] | Y (N) (N) |
Farming Communities | Non-Farming Communities | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Zone | Index | ΔP | GC | RC | ΔP | GC | RC |
I | Po | −23.40 | −21.28 | −2.12 | −35.70 | −31.63 | −4.07 |
P1 | −4.81 | −4.31 | −0.50 | −9.74 | −8.47 | −1.27 | |
P2 | −1.44 | −1.22 | −0.22 | −3.57 | −3.02 | −0.55 | |
II | Po | −30.53 | −30.02 | −0.51 | −27.00 | −26.95 | −0.05 |
P1 | −7.20 | −6.95 | −0.25 | −7.68 | −7.71 | 0.03 | |
P2 | −2.34 | −2.25 | −0.09 | −2.95 | −2.86 | −0.09 | |
III | Po | −33.30 | −35.64 | 2.34 | −43.57 | −40.94 | −2.63 |
P1 | −8.81 | −9.28 | 0.47 | −14.80 | −13.08 | −1.72 | |
P2 | −2.91 | −3.11 | 0.20 | −5.94 | −5.03 | −0.90 | |
IV | Po | −29.09 | −27.63 | −1.46 | −27.93 | −19.61 | −8.32 |
P1 | −10.43 | −7.78 | −2.65 | −9.61 | −5.56 | −4.05 | |
P2 | −4.47 | −2.98 | −1.49 | −4.09 | −2.07 | −2.02 | |
V | Po | −17.50 | −11.82 | −5.68 | −19.70 | −17.09 | −2.61 |
P1 | −3.72 | −2.23 | −1.49 | −4.13 | −4.23 | −0.10 | |
P2 | −1.08 | −0.64 | −0.45 | −1.21 | −1.20 | −0.01 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Shah, A.H.; Khan, A.U.; Pan, L.; Amin, A.; Chandio, A.A. Reflections of Pro-Poor Growth across Agro-Climatic Zones for Farming and Non-Farming Communities: Evidence from Punjab, Pakistan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5516. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095516
Shah AH, Khan AU, Pan L, Amin A, Chandio AA. Reflections of Pro-Poor Growth across Agro-Climatic Zones for Farming and Non-Farming Communities: Evidence from Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(9):5516. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095516
Chicago/Turabian StyleShah, Aadil Hameed, Atta Ullah Khan, Liurong Pan, Asad Amin, and Abbas Ali Chandio. 2022. "Reflections of Pro-Poor Growth across Agro-Climatic Zones for Farming and Non-Farming Communities: Evidence from Punjab, Pakistan" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 9: 5516. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095516