A lively debate followed the release of two IPC One Pagers that contrasted Ravallion’s and Kakwani’s definitions of ‘pro-poor growth’. According to Ravallion (World Bank), ‘pro-poor growth’ is any growth in mean income that benefits poor people – a definition Kakwani (IPC) finds wanting as it would encompass the vast majority of growth episodes so long as poverty decreases, which it typically does. He proposes instead that growth is pro-poor if it benefits the poor proportionally more than the non-poor. In the exchange that followed, it became clear that what is considered ‘pro-poor’ depends, in part, on the choice of standards for gauging the distributional impact of a growth episode. (...)