College of Economics & Management, NAU 我国农村贫困的变化与扶贫政策取向 Changing Situation of Rural Poverty and Orientation of Rural Poverty Reduction Policy in China 苗齐 钟甫宁  Miao Qi and Zhong Funing 南京农业大学经济管理学院 College of Economics & Management, NAU 2006年5月23－24日 May 23-24, 2006

成就和挑战 Achievement and Challenges 1978-2005年贫困发生率从30.7%下降到2.5% (2.5亿减少到2365万) Poverty incidence reduced from 30.7% to 2.5% between 1978 and 2005 (250 millions down to 23.65 millions) 贫困群体依然庞大;消除贫困难度加大;贫困群体弱势地位突出 Still a large number of the poor; poverty eradication more difficult; disadvantageous position prominent ----刘坚 Liu Jian

提纲 Outline 一、贫困测度及其对扶贫政策的影响 Measurement and Its Impact 二、中国农村扶贫政策及其效果 Poverty Reduction in Rural China 三、对农村扶贫政策的讨论和建议 Discussions and Suggestions

I. 贫困测度及其影响 Measurement and Its Impact 1.1 测度方法 Measurements 贫困发生率 Poverty Incidence 贫困深度指数 Poverty Depth 贫困强度指数 Poverty Severity

I. 贫困测度及其影响 Measurement and Its Impact 1.2 不同测度的结果 Different Effects with Measurements 图1　收入分布变化对贫困测度的影响 Figure 1 Impact of Changing Income Distribution on Poverty Measuring Population % Poverty line Per capita income 50% of poverty line 60% of poverty line Income distribution curve 1 Income distribution curve 2 40% 50%

I. 贫困测度及其影响 Measurement and Its Impact 1.2 不同测度的结果 Different Effects with Measurements 扶贫以前 扶贫以后 变化 Before After Change 贫困发生率 Poverty Incidence 0.5 0.4 -20% 贫困深度指数 Poverty Depth 0.25 0.2 -20% 贫困强度指数 Poverty Severity 0.0833 0.0533 -36%

I. 贫困测度及其影响 Measurement and Its Impact 1.3 政策选择（I、II） Policy Options（I & II） 图2　不同政策选择对贫困测度的影响（一） Figure 2 Impact of Different Policy Options on Poverty Measuring (I) Population % Poverty line 50% of poverty line 68% of poverty line Income distribution curve Policy option 1 32% 50% Policy option 2 Per capita income

I. 贫困测度及其影响 Measurement and Its Impact 1.3 政策选择（III、IV） Policy Options（III & IV） 图3　不同政策选择对贫困测度的影响（二） Figure 2 Impact of Different Policy Options on Poverty Measuring (II) Population % Poverty line Per capita income 50% poverty 80% poverty Income distribution curve 30% 50% 20% A B C D E G F SDEF indicates option 3, public resources allocated to the less poor; SBGC indicates option 4, public resources allocated to the most poor

I. 贫困测度及其影响 Measurement and Its Impact 1.4 不同选择的结果 Outcomes of Different Options Table 1 Effects of Different Poverty Reduction Policies Standard Comparison value Policy option 1 Policy option 2 Policy option 3 Policy option 4 Δ% P1 0.4 0.32 -20 0.5 +25 0.2 -50 P2 0.25 +20 0.16 +100 P3 0.053 0.13 +145 0.0341 -32 0.208 +293 0.029 -45

II. 中国扶贫政策及其效果 Poverty Reduction and Effects in China 2.1 贫困状况的变化 Changing Poverty Status 表2　不同年份与收入组别的人口比重（元，%） Table 2 Proportion of Population in Different Income Groups (Yuan, %) 1985年 1990年 1995年 2000年 2004年 收入(元) 比重(%) <61 0.3 <34 0.21 <32 0.31 <30 0.4 <100 0.95 61-121 1.78 34-69 0.36 32-64 0.20 30-61 0.13 69-103 0.78 64-96 0.43 61-91 103-137 1.47 96-127 0.69 91-121 100-200 11.2 121-182 6.56 137-172 2.3 127-159 1.01 121-151 0.53 159-191 1.37 151-182 0.85 200-300 25.64 182-242 12.04 172-275 9.54 191-255 4.44 2.43 注：1985年农村居民消费价格指数＝100。 1985 rural consumer price index = 100

II. 中国扶贫政策及其效果 Poverty Reduction and Effects in China 2.2 对效果的不同评价 Different Assessments 图4　1985年以来我国农村不同收入组人口比重的变化 Figure 4 Changing Income Distribution of the Poor

II. 中国扶贫政策及其效果 Poverty Reduction and Effects in China 2.2 对效果的不同评价 Different Assessments 表3　1985年以来我国农村扶贫效果的评价 Table 3 Effects of Poverty reduction in China since 1985 1985 2004 P1 13.69% 3.41% P2 27.66% 33.95% P3 11.77% 86.78%

II. 中国扶贫政策及其效果 Poverty Reduction and Effects in China 2.3 对效果的不同评价 Different Assessments 中国的实际情况很接近第一种政策选择的结果，即贫困发生率大幅度下降，但剩余贫困人口的平均收入反而减少，同时贫困人口内部收入差距明显扩大 The actual situation in China is very close to the outcome of Policy Option 1, i.e., while the poverty incidence decreases dramatically, the poverty depth is deepening and the poverty severity is getting much worse.

III. 对中国农村扶贫政策的讨论与建议 Discussions and Suggestions 3.1 关于贫困线的标准 Poverty Line 不能简单划定全国统一的人均收入标准，必须考虑： 1、地区差别，如维持基本生存必需的食品和非食品消费结构、价格水平； 2、家庭差别，如家庭规模和年龄、性别结构；财产数量和种类； 3、贫困原因，如长期贫困还是收入偶然低于贫困线 A nationwide per capita income level is not a good indicator of poverty, must consider: Regional difference, i.e. the amount and composition of basic food and non-food required, and price level; Household difference, i.e., the size of the household and the age and gender structure; the amount and types of property; Causes of poverty, i.e., persistent or by chance

III. 对中国农村扶贫政策的讨论与建议 Discussions and Suggestions 3.2 关于贫困线的水平 Level of Poverty Line 法定贫困线的确定需要考虑预算约束和政策目标。如果预算不能大幅度增加，同时又以贫困发生率的下降速度作为考核扶贫政策的标准，贫困线定得越高，最贫困的人口越容易被忽略。 Setting the official poverty line should take into consideration the budget constraint and the criteria in evaluation of poverty reduction policy. If budget is given, and the decline of poverty incidence is the only criteria in evaluation, the higher the official poverty line is set, the more likely that the poorest is being neglected.

III. 对中国农村扶贫政策的讨论与建议 Discussions and Suggestions 3.3 关于扶贫政策的考核 Evaluation of Poverty Reduction Policy 不能单纯考核贫困发生率，必须同时考核贫困深度和贫困强度指标，确保最贫困人口作为扶贫工作的重点目标 Poverty reduction policy should not be evaluated by poverty incidence alone; poverty depth and poverty severity indices must be used in evaluation, in order to guarantee that the poorest population is always the central focus of poverty reduction policy and measures.

谢谢各位!