Growth vs. Poverty Reduction - A Useless Debate?

Dani Rodrik, Harvard professor and international economist, provides a compelling argument for why the growth vs. poverty reduction debate is a distraction from achieving greater global prosperity. Says Rodrik:

The policies that promote growth are probably not that different from those that target the poor directly, for the reasons just discussed. These policies are likely to vary considerably depending on institutional context, making it difficult to generalize. The debate on growth versus poverty reduction is a meaningless debate that diverts attention from the questions that should be our real focus: what works, how, and under what circumstances?

I think this is a useful way to look at the debate and to shift the focus to developing country policies that make a difference in equitable development. By no means should it be an absolute assumption that aid programs that are focused on growth will automatically reduce poverty, but I do think we need to start asking different questions -- questions beyond, is the over-riding mission of the MCA poverty reduction or growth? Rather, we should be able to see in MCA (and other aid programs) the links between the projects they fund, the government policies they aim to influence, and the measurable growth and poverty reduction impact they expect to achieve.