Finally, it concluded that poverty and inequality are mutually reinforcing, and that “inclusive” growth is the best way to address both of them simultaneously. In retrospect, it was unwise to concede that any growth process which improves the lot of the poor is “pro-poor”, because this conflates the definition of pro-poor growth with one of its indicators of success. Writers committed to PPG should also have avoided the degenerating debate with the mainstream about the quantitative implications of (disembedded) growth processes upon distribution and absolute poverty.