Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(2016),"Financial development and poverty reduction: panel data analysis of South Asian countries",
International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 43 Iss 4 pp. 400-416 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJSE-04-2014-0069
(2016),"Islamic social business to alleviate poverty and social inequality", International Journal of
Social Economics, Vol. 43 Iss 6 pp. 573-592 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-06-2014-0129
(2016),"The difference between Partners and Strangers designs in public goods experiments",
International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 43 Iss 6 pp. 554-572 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJSE-09-2014-0188
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:332610 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
IJSE
43,6
Public expenditure, economic
growth and poverty alleviation
Ritwik Sasmal
604 Department of Economics, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany, and
Joydeb Sasmal
Received 11 August 2014 Department of Economics with Rural Development, Vidyasagar University,
Revised 5 January 2015
23 February 2015
Midnapore, India
13 March 2015
Accepted 15 March 2015
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of public expenditure on economic
growth and poverty alleviation in developing countries like India. If poverty and inequality are high,
the government may resort to distributive policies at the cost of long-term growth. The distributive
policies and poverty alleviation measures fail to achieve success due to lack of good governance, lack of
proper targeting and problems in the implementation of such schemes. On the other hand, if the nature
Int J of Social Economics 2016.43:604-618.
of public expenditure is such that it enhances per capita income, it will help reduce poverty.
Design/methodology/approach After analytical digression and construction of hypotheses panel
regression has been done using state-level data in the Indian context to empirically verify the above
propositions. Both Fixed effects and Random effects models have been used for this purpose.
Findings The results show that in states where ratio of public expenditure on the development of
infrastructure such as road, irrigation, power, transport and communication is higher, per capita
income is also higher and incidence of poverty is lower indicating that economic growth is important
for poverty alleviation and development of infrastructure is necessary for growth.
Originality/value This study demonstrates how public policy and public finance can be used as
instruments for removal of poverty.
Keywords Productivity, Poverty alleviation, Distributive politics, Infrastructure development,
Public expenditure, Social sector
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Poverty is one of the major problems in the developing countries like India although it
is declining over time due to economic growth and as result of various poverty
alleviation measures. In 1950s and 1960s, poverty in India was very acute and around
60 percent of the population were poor during that time (Datt, 1998). Poverty of the
country has been estimated by different scholars at different points of time. Since there
are methodological differences the estimates of poverty at different points of time may
not be fully comparable. Nevertheless, poverty has declined over time with economic
growth. According to the Tendulkar methodology, poverty in India in 1993-1994 was
45.3 percent (Ahluwalia, 2011) and it has come down to 21.92 percent in 2011-2012
(Government of India, 2013). The incidence of poverty differs between urban and rural
areas and across states within the country. Poverty is higher in rural areas as compared
to urban areas of India. In 1993-1994, rural poverty in the country was 36.66 percent
International Journal of Social The earlier draft of this paper was presented at 49th Annual Conference of The Indian
Economics Econometric Society at Patna University, India. The authors are indebted to the participants of
Vol. 43 No. 6, 2016
pp. 604-618 the Conference for their valuable comments on this paper. The authors are also indebted to
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0306-8293
the anonymous referees for valuable comments on this paper. The authors are benefitted from
DOI 10.1108/IJSE-08-2014-0161 the help of R.N. Bhattacharya, Sugata Marjit, Debasis Mondal and Pinaki Das.
whereas in urban areas, it was 30.51 percent (Datt, 1998). In 2011-2012, these figures Economic
have declined to 25.70 and 13.70 percent, respectively (Government of India, 2013). growth and
The incidence of poverty also varies across states in the country. In the year 2004-2005
poverty was higher in the states like Bihar (54.4 percent), Orissa (57.2 percent), Madhya
poverty
Pradesh (48.6 percent) and Uttar Pradesh (40.9 percent) and it was much less in the states alleviation
like Jammu and Kashmir (13.2 percent), Kerala (19.7 percent), Punjab (20.9 percent) and
Himachal Pradesh (22.9 percent) (Ahluwalia, 2011). Now, it needs to be investigated how 605
economic growth has helped reduction of poverty in the states of India.
The concept of poverty has been defined in various ways. Sen (1981) has examined
the concept and measurement of poverty from alternative angles. He states that the
specification of certain consumption norms or of a poverty line may do part of the job.
The poor are those whose consumption standards fall short of the norms or whose
incomes lie below that line. In the definition of poverty based on biological approach,
total earnings are insufficient to obtain the necessities for the maintenance of bare
physical efficiency. However, the biological approach, like almost every procedure in
the subsistence-level definition of poverty has been challenged. Side by side, in many
cases in the analysis of poverty, the concept of relative deprivation has been fruitfully
used. The view that poverty is a value judgment has recently been presented
Int J of Social Economics 2016.43:604-618.
through education, extension and training. However, some of these effects are better
achieved by civil society than government. The collective action of civil society
improves the efficiency of public expenditure. The analysis of Collier (1998) shows that
there should be a significant effect of interactions between public expenditure and the
capacity of civil society to organize collective actions. So far as the effect of social
capital on poverty is concerned it is argued that growth will reduce poverty. The poor
has a lower opportunity cost of time and a lower stock of physical and financial capital.
Since social interaction is time intensive and social capital can often substitute for
private physical capital, the poor may choose to rely more on social capital. Here also,
generation of knowledge externalities and reduction of opportunism and greater
amount of trust may help growth as well as reduction of poverty.
Wallis et al. (2004) have examined the link between social capital and economic
performance. They note that World Bank acknowledges social capital as a useful tool for
poverty reduction. Social capital has the features of social organization such as trust,
norms, values, attitudes, solidarity, cooperation and networks that can improve the
efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions. A stable and effective
institutional environment may reinforce the cohesiveness of civil society. Social capital is
important for better economic outcome. In addition to physical and human capitals, social
capital has a direct productivity effect in production process. Social capital may have an
indirect effect via human capital accumulation through greater investment in public
education system, greater community participation in the management of schools and
greater access to informal credit for the poor. The study further mentions that social
capital may facilitate the management of common property, and provision of public
goods, increase investment and reduce social costs of crime, corruption and other
non-cooperative conduct. So far as effectiveness of governance is concerned the paper
notes that institutions of local governance play important role in the development of
complementarities between governmental and civil social capital. The institutions of local
governance may affect not just the overall level of public participation in policy making
but also the distribution of opportunities among different social groups.
Adjasi and Osei (2007) have examined the nature and correlates of poverty in Ghana.
The study has run an ordinary least squares and a probit regression to determine the
correlates of poverty. The major findings are: first, a household is less likely to be poor if Economic
the head of the family is educated and the household is urban based; second, households growth and
with heads employed in the clerical, sales and services and agricultural sectors are more
likely to be poor compared with those employed in the administrative and managerial
poverty
sectors; third, larger households and female headed households are poor; and fourth, alleviation
owning or operating a business as well as benefitting from remittances from abroad
improve the welfare status of households. The authors have suggested that specific 607
anti-poverty programs need to be well targeted, implemented and monitored at poverty
prone areas and groups. Upkere and Slabbert (2009) have shown that increase in
inequality and poverty can be attributed to globalization. The analysis shows that
unemployment is a cause of growing inequality and poverty and unemployment can be
attributed to the global logic of competitive profit-making management techniques of
outsourcing, downsizing and widespread automation. The work has expressed the view
that globalization has provided an opportunity for labor exploitation and shown that the
rate of global poverty has increased owing to global inequality.
In the discussion of public expenditure, economic growth and poverty alleviation
corruption has great relevance. The impact of corruption on income inequality and
poverty has been examined by Gupta et al. (2002). The study finds that corruption
Int J of Social Economics 2016.43:604-618.
reduces economic growth and increases poverty. It states that government officials
may use their authority for private gain in designing and implementing public policies
and corruption distorts the governments role in resource allocation. Corruption
affects not only macro variables like investment, growth, foreign investment but also
income distribution. It reduces the social services available to the poor. The empirical
literature has overlooked the distributional consequences of corruption although rich
or well-connected people typically use bribes to be the first in line for a rationed
government good or service. The impact of corruption on income distribution is also a
function of the governments involvement in allocating and financing scarce goods and
services. The analysis shows that corruption can affect income inequality and poverty
through various channels like overall growth, biased tax system, poor targeting of
social programs and education and human capital formation. Corruption can also affect
poverty by siphoning of funds from poverty alleviation programs. The literature
suggests that corruption slows down reduction of poverty by reducing growth and
increasing inequality. In a related study, Mauro (1995) has shown a negative impact of
corruption on investment and economic growth.
Ahmad et al. (2012) have explained how corruption hinders economic growth. They
also suggest that corruption may counteract government failure and promote economic
growth in some cases. Corruption can affect resource allocation in two ways: it can
change private investors assessment of the relative merits of various investments; and
corruption can result in misallocation of resources. The paper has cited the empirical
literature of negative correlation between the level of corruption and economic growth.
It has shown that weak institutions, political instability and inefficient bureaucracy are
detrimental to economic growth. The relationship between corruption and economic
growth has been tested using panel data from 71 countries. The exercise has tested the
hypothesis that in case of non-linear specification a moderate level of corruption
positively affects real GDP while a high level of corruption is detrimental to growth.
The other hypothesis it has tested is that better institutional quality tends to be positively
related to economic growth. Both hypotheses have been accepted. Corruption modifies
government goals and diverts resources from public purposes to private ones.
Furthermore, government corruption may also discourage private investment by raising
IJSE the cost of public administration. However, if the government has produced a package of
43,6 pervasive and inefficient regulations, then corruption may help circumvent these
regulations at a low cost.
A number of welfare and distributive measures have been taken both at the national
and state levels in India and huge funds are being spent by the government every year
for reduction of poverty. The volume and nature of public spending are different in
608 different states. The effectiveness of government expenditure in enhancing
productivity and reducing poverty largely depends on where the money is spent and
how efficiently the funds are utilized. The literature on public expenditure and
economic growth suggests that if inequality in the society is high, there will be demand
for larger government and greater redistribution and higher distributive spending will
adversely affect economic growth (Meltzer and Richard, 1981; Alesina and Rodrik,
1994; Persson and Tabellini, 1994). Imposition of higher taxes for raising funds for
distributive purposes may create disincentives to investment for capital accumulation
and human skill formation. Thus growth may be slowed down by redistributive
policies and slow growth will have its adverse effect on poverty. The size and
composition of public expenditure are therefore important for economic growth and
poverty alleviation. The common wisdom suggests that if public fund is used for
Int J of Social Economics 2016.43:604-618.
and allowances and interest payment on public debt. The capital expenditure, on the
other hand, basically means investment for long-term growth. The development of
infrastructure includes irrigation, power, roads, transport and communication. The social
sector development includes health, education, social security, nutrition, sanitation, etc.
It needs to be mentioned that revenue expenditure includes both developmental and
non-developmental components whereas capital expenditure includes mainly
developmental heads. The basic hypotheses of this study are:
(1) public expenditure for development of infrastructure is important for economic
growth and poverty alleviation;
(2) economic growth is very important for reduction of poverty; and
(3) expenditure for social sector development may be helpful for economic growth.
Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh where per capita income is
low, the incidence of poverty is high giving an indication that growth is important for
reduction of poverty.
Table III shows the percentage share of public expenditure of the states on various
heads. It reveals that expenditure on social services (ESS) is more than 50 percent of
total expenditure on an average for most of the states and the percentage has not
changed much over the period from 1990-1991 to 2005-2006. But the share of capital
expenditure (CE) and the ratio of expenditure on infrastructure (EINF) have increased
over the years. In states like Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra
which have performed better in increasing per capita income and reducing poverty, the
share of expenditure on infrastructure is higher. It establishes that development of
infrastructure is important for rapid economic growth and reduction of poverty. Here
infrastructure includes Irrigation, Power, Transport and Communication. The ESS
covers a wide variety of heads like health, education, family welfare, sanitation,
nutrition and welfare schemes.
The results in Table IV show that there is positive relationship between inf
and pcnsdp and it is statistically significant. Similar relationship also exists between
pcnsdp and ss. That means, expenditures on infrastructure and social services both
increase per capita income although the effect of infrastructure is much stronger.
It establishes that development of infrastructure is very important for economic growth
and increase of per capita income. The effects of re and ce on state per capita income
have been found to be insignificant. Actually they have been taken in regression in
aggregate form which includes many non-productive and non-developmental
components. If we could take them in more disaggregated form, some components
might have emerged as growth promoting factors. Anyway, the results suggest that
the nature of public expenditure is important for economic growth.
The results in Table V strongly establishes our hypothesis that growth is necessary
for poverty alleviation. The regression coefficient is negative and it is statistically
significant implying that increase in per capita income reduces poverty. Both R2 and F
statistic are very high. The results are consistent with the figures in Tables I and II
which show that in the states where per capita income is higher, poverty ratio is
lower. It confirms the importance of economic growth in the reduction of poverty.
The policy implication of this result is that economic growth can act as a driving force
Exp. variable Coefficients t P >|t| R2 Prob>F F (21, 62) test
Economic
that all u_i=0 growth and
Fixed effects within regression poverty
Constant 53,608.38 0.26 0.794 0.14 0.000 3.71 alleviation
re 61,373.95 0.30 0.766
ce 41,167.80 0.20 0.841
inf 38,984.71 3.00* 0.004 613
ss 19,126.50 1.96* 0.054
Exp. variable Coefficients Z R2 Wald 2(1) Prob>2
Random effects GLS regression
Constant 69,864.52 0.34 0.12 21.90
re 71,146.62 0.36 0.0002
ce 60,467.58 0.30 Table IV.
inf 44,735.49 4.53* Panel regression of
ss 13,317.22 1.48 per capita net state
Exp. variable Coefficients Difference 2 (1) Prob>2 domestic product (at
FE RE constant prices),
pcnsdp on share of
Hausman test
Int J of Social Economics 2016.43:604-618.
revenue expenditure
re 61,373.95 74,146.62 12,772.67 57.01 0.000 (re), capital
ce 41,167.80 60,467.58 19,299.78 expenditure (ce),
inf 38,984.71 44,735.49 5,750.77 expenditure on
ss 19,126.50 13,317.22 5,809.28 infrastructure (inf)
Notes: dependent variable = pcnsdp; explanatory variable = re, ce, inf, ss; number of groups and expenditure on
(state) = 22; number of observations = 88; time period (T ) = 4. *Significant at 5 percent level and social services (ss) in
Hausman test accepts FE model total expenditure
Prob>2
Random effects GLS regression
Constant 52.47071 16.83* 0.71 80.87 0.000
pcnsdp 0.0014657 8.99* 0.000 0.000
Exp. variable Coefficients Difference 2 (1) Prob>2
(bB)
FE (b) RE (B) Table V.
Hausman test 0.03 Panel regression of
pcnsdp 0.001475 0.0014657 9.29e06 0.86 poverty on
Notes: Dependent variable = poverty ratio (H-C ); explanatory variable = pcnsdp; number of Groups per capita net
(state) = 15; number of observations = 45; time period (T ) = 3. *Significant at 5 percent level (Hausman state domestic
test accepts Random effect model) product (pcnsdp)
IJSE in reducing poverty. It is also clear from the econometric analysis that the nature of
43,6 public expenditure is important for both economic growth and poverty alleviation.
The latest development in Indian states reveals that in rapidly growing states like
Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Punjab where poverty
has declined significantly, per capita income is very high compared to the states like
Assam, Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh where poverty is still very
614 high (see Table II). According to the Economic Survey 2014-2015, Government of India,
per capita net state domestic product (at current prices, 2004-2005 series) in Gujarat,
Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Punjab in 2012-2013 are
Rupees 96,976, 103,991, 98,628, 78,958, 88,527 and 84,526, respectively against Rupees
40,475, 27,202, 49,241, 44,989 and 33,616, respectively in Assam, Bihar, Orissa,
Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. It clearly demonstrates that economic growth and
increase in per capita income have significant impact on poverty reduction. It may be
further argued that public investment in the development of infrastructure has an
important role in enhancing per capita income and reduction of poverty. The budgetary
allocations for the development of infrastructure remained very high in Gujarat,
Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh in 2009-2010 and they were 31, 32, 17
and 44 percent, respectively in total development expenditure of the above states.
Int J of Social Economics 2016.43:604-618.
In further reference, it may be mentioned here that to fulfill the target growth rate
of GDP at 8-8.5 percent in the country Union Budget 2015-2016 of the Government of
India has allocated additional Rupees 70,000 crore over the previous year for
investment in infrastructure. This also strengthens our conclusion that growth is very
important for reduction of poverty and for economic growth public investment for
infrastructure has a big role.
In Table V, the regression accepts the Random effects model. That means, state-
specific random factors are not correlated with the explanatory variable pcnsdp.
To explain this result and to get an idea whether there is any spill-over effect of
neighborhood states on poverty or cross-sectional dependence among the states with
respect to poverty, we have regressed poverty (POVT) on pcnsdp and state dummies in
a panel format using the equation:
where S1, S2, , S14 are state dummies of 14 states (except West Bengal) representing
the state-specific random factors not included in the regression and s are individual
effects of the state dummies. The results presented in Table VI show that state
dummies are significant for the states like Bihar (S3), Gujarat (S4), Jammu and Kashmir
(S5), Karnataka (S6), Kerala (S7), Madhya Pradesh (S8), Maharashtra (S9) and Orissa
(S10). Interestingly, while the coefficients for the states like Jammu and Kashmir and
Kerala are negative, for other states the coefficients are positive. This may be explained
by the fact that Kerala is the number one state in literacy and human capital formation
in the country and Jammu and Kashmir is a highly subsidized state. So, the state-
specific factors reduce poverty. On the other hand, Bihar, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh
are very backward states in many respects. So, here state-specific factors increase
poverty. Gujarat, Maharashtra and Karnataka are rapidly growing states and higher
per capita income reduces poverty in these states. But there may be some state-specific
factors which actually increase poverty. It may be noted here that R2 has improved
after the inclusion of state dummies in the regression implying that poverty is better
explained if the state dummies are included in addition to pcnsdp. Therefore the
Coefficients t-statistic p-value
Economic
growth and
Intercept 50.489 16.014 0.000 poverty
S1 1.704 0.568 0.574
S2 0.951 0.289 0.774 alleviation
S3 12.156 3.256 0.003
S4 7.152 2.001 0.055
S5 21.049 5.957 0.000 615
S6 6.362 1.831 0.077
S7 9.949 2.868 0.008
S8 6.683 1.898 0.068
S9 15.657 4.252 0.000
S10 14.478 4.060 0.000
S11 4.575 1.285 0.209
S12 2.362 0.676 0.504
S13 3.006 0.574 0.570 Table VI.
S14 2.091 0.579 0.567 Least squares state
pcnsdp 0.001 8.538 0.000 dummy variables
Notes: R2 0.923; Adj. R2 0.883; F 23.199 (0.000); D-W 2.295; number of observations 45 estimation of poverty
Int J of Social Economics 2016.43:604-618.
acceptance of Random effects model in Table V is explained by the argument that if the
state-specific factors were included in the regression as additional controls, it is very
likely that the Fixed effects model would be accepted and in that case, state-specific
random factors will be related with the explanatory variable pcsndp.
The regression in Table VII captures the direct effect of various components of
public expenditure on poverty reduction in the states of India. Only the expenditure on
infrastructure is found to have negative and significant effect on poverty. This is
consistent with the figures in Table III. It is now clear that expenditure for development
of infrastructure is important for both economic growth and poverty alleviation. On the
other hand, the effect of government spending for social services on poverty is found to
be insignificant in Table VII. The ESS can reduce poverty only if the schemes are
properly implemented and the benefits of welfare programs reach the target groups.
But for successful implementation of social welfare schemes, good governance,
effective administration and proper targeting are needed. Unfortunately, these are
lacking in many cases. Another point to note here is that the effect of social sector
development on poverty is realized only in the long-run. Since we have taken data on
poverty for a short span of time, possibly, the effect of public expenditure for social
services on poverty might not has been reflected in the results. The results would have
been different, if time span was increased. The policy implication of these results is that
measures for promoting economic growth will be more effective in poverty alleviation
than the distributive measures for the poor.
Panel regression of
poverty on the share Hausman test
of revenue re 129.0865 222.3286 93.2420 26.52 0.000
expenditure (re), ce 153.6118 238.7398 85.1279
capital expenditure inf 74.8709 90.6358 15.7649
(ce), expenditure on ss 38.7330 26.6456 12.0874
infrastructure (inf) Notes: Dependent variable = poverty; explanatory variable = re, ce, inf, ss; number of groups
and expenditure on (state) = 15; number of observations = 45; time period (T ) = 3. *Significant at 5 percent level and
social services (ss) Hausman test accepts FE
In the states like Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Punjab
in India where poverty has declined significantly in the recent years, per capita income is
very high and it strengthens our conclusion that economic growth has significant impact
on poverty alleviation. The public expenditure on infrastructure has been found to have
positive impact on per capita income and negative impact on poverty implying that
development of infrastructure is important for both economic growth and reduction of
poverty. In 2015-2016 Union Budget, the government of India has laid high priority on
infrastructure to reach the target rate of high GDP growth. It is also found that in some
states of India like Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, etc. where per capita income is
high and poverty has declined significantly, a big share of annual budget has been
allocated on the development of infrastructure. This reinforces our finding that public
expenditure for infrastructure has a big role in economic growth and poverty alleviation.
ESS like health, education, family welfare and social security is also helpful for economic
growth but the effect of infrastructure on growth is much stronger. Thus the policy
implication of this study is that economic growth is very important for poverty
alleviation and for economic growth and poverty alleviation greater share of public
expenditure needs to be spent on the development of infrastructure. The study has,
however, the limitation that it is based on the estimates of poverty not measured by any
single methodology at different points of time. So, the measures of poverty over time are
not fully comparable. Another limitation is that the factors other than per capita income
could not be incorporated as controls for explaining poverty in the states of India.
Similarly in explaining the growth of per capita income, there are many other Economic
determining factors in addition to public expenditure on infrastructure. But due to growth and
non-availability of suitable data, they could not be included in the regression analysis of
the present study. So, further research may be pursued in these directions, to have a more
poverty
comprehensive study. alleviation
References 617
Adjasi, C.K.D. and Osei, K.A. (2007), Poverty profile and correlates of poverty in Ghana,
International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 449-471.
Ahluwalia, M.S. (2011), Prospects and policy changes in the twelfth plan, Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol. 46 No. 21, pp. 88-105.
Ahmad, E., Aman Ullah, M. and Arfeen, M.I. (2012), Does corruption affect economic growth?,
Latin American Journal of Economics, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 277-305.
Alesina, A. and Rodrik, D. (1994), Redistributive politics and economic growth, Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 465-490.
Banerjee, A.V. and Newman, A.F. (1993), Occupational choice and the process of development,
Int J of Social Economics 2016.43:604-618.
Corresponding author
Joydeb Sasmal can be contacted at: joydebsasmal@yahoo.co.in
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com