In this paper, the impact of alternative development strategies on growth andpoverty is assessed in an economywide framework, using Egypt as a case study. Theanalysis is guided by the following question: By pursuing a development strategydifferent from the one actually pursued since the late 1970s, could Egypt’s governmentsignificantly have improved the status of its poor? To address this question, a dynamic,recursive, Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model is used to simulate Egypt’seconomy for the period 1979-1997. The model is built around a Social AccountingMatrix (SAM) for 1979. The base scenario incorporates Egypt’s evolving policy regimeand changes in Egypt’s external environment, including a gradual transition toward aneconomy with less government involvement. The other scenarios differ in terms of tradepolicies, domestic incentives, asset distribution, and the pattern of domestic productivitygrowth.The results indicate that pro-poor redistribution of land and human capital assetscould have been a particularly effective tool had Egypt prioritized more strongly toimprove the welfare of the poor and reduce inequalities. Such policies could have beenimplemented without any noticeable negative impact on growth or aggregate welfare.The results also suggest that, for Egypt, there was no contradiction between more rapidgrowth, largely a function of more rapid productivity growth, and improved welfare forthe poor. The impact of more rapid reduction of price distortions, induced by taxes andsubsidies, is small but positive in terms of aggregate growth. The effects of introducingbiases in favor of specific sectors may be stronger and depend on the specific context,including the nature of economic linkages and, with regard to the policies analyzed in thispaper, on the ease with which it is possible to raise productivity growth, reducetransactions costs, and get improved access to export markets. The present analysisconfirms the finding of earlier analyses that, compared to pro-manufacturing policies,pro-agricultural policies have a more positive impact on household welfare in general andthe poor in particular. There is a significant synergy between a pro-agricultural shift inproductivity growth, improved market access for agricultural exports, and reducedtransactions costs in foreign trade.