CHINA: AN EVALUATION OF WORLD BANK ASSISTANCEBox 3.1China’s Poverty in InternationalPerspectiveWhile there is broad agreement on the tremendous progressChina has made in reducing poverty, estimates of the remainingproblem depend critically on how poverty is defined. UsingChina’s official poverty line (an income level equivalent to 66cents per day), the number of poor people has declined from 250million (26 percent) of the population in 1978 to fewer than 30 million(2.3 percent) in 2001. Using <strong>World</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> figures based on adollar-per-day consumption level in PPP terms, the number ofpoor has declined from an estimated 490 million (51 percent) in1978 to about 205 million (16.1 percent) in 2000.China has a relatively high proportion of poor people comparedwith other countries at similar income level. Based onthe most widely used poverty line of a dollar per day consumptionin PPP terms, China ranked fourth among countrieswith annual per capita PPP income between US$2,500 andUS$4,500 in 1999 (see table below). Comparisons of povertyamong countries are sensitive to definitions, however—especiallyto the poverty line used to divide, somewhat arbitrarily,the poor from the non-poor. The China household saving rateis high even in low-income households, making the comparisonbased on levels of consumption less meaningful. Using incomerather than consumption, only 9.8 percent of thepopulation would have been below the dollar-per-day povertyline in 1999. Moreover, the PPP comparison is based on averageconsumption, whereas to compare poverty levels acrosscountries, it ought to be based on the consumption basket oflow-income households. The main conclusion to be drawn isnot that poverty is relatively high or low, but that a large proportionof the population is close to the poverty line, howeverdefined.Comparison of Poverty among Selected CountriesPer capita PPP incomePercentage in povertyCountry (US$) (measured by $1 per day consumption)El Salvador 4,260 26.9Turkmenistan 3,340 20.9Paraguay 4,380 19.5China 3,550 18.5Peru 4,480 15.5Guatemala 3,630 10.0Indonesia 2,660 7.7Sri Lanka 3,230 6.6Jamaica 3,390 3.2Egypt 3,460 3.1Ukraine 3,360 2.9Jordan 3,880
PROGRESS ON DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVESUntil the late 1990s, China’s poverty strategywas to push for the fastest possible growth,combined with targeted regional developmentinterventions. Could China have done more toreduce poverty faster? Or would such attemptshave simply reduced growth without affectingpoverty? The recent changes in strategysuggest that the government thinks it couldhave done better. It is now recognized thatpoverty is not just a rural phenomenon andthat rural poverty is not just concentrated inremote areas. Vulnerability is also recognizedas a serious problem, though many requiredreforms (housing, pensions, social assistancefor the poor and unemployed) need furtherdevelopment and more secure funding, andothers (such as health finance reform) havescarcely begun. Similarly, the importance ofmigration in spreading the benefits of growthand helping to create a more sustainablebalance between population and resources infragile areas is now recognized, but migrantsstill face restrictions and discrimination. Whatis perhaps still not sufficiently recognized isthat the regressive fiscal system offsets many ofthe benefits of targeted interventions. 26The <strong>Bank</strong> has made a substantial contributionto China’s evolving poverty reductionstrategy through its AAA, poverty monitoring,and projects. The main strength of the <strong>Bank</strong>program has been the close integration ofthese three instruments.AAA and Poverty MonitoringThe <strong>Bank</strong>’s ESW and research on poverty havebeen influential both inside and outside China.Two studies of rural poverty (<strong>World</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> 1992and <strong>World</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> 2000) provided an overview ofpoverty issues and sensible strategy proposalson targeting and the need for a multi-sectorapproach to rural development. Combinedwith an international conference cosponsoredby the <strong>Bank</strong> in 2000, 27 these reports helpedinfluence the reorientation of governmentstrategy in the 10-year plan for povertyreduction adopted in 2001. Research by the<strong>Bank</strong>’s Development Economics Research<strong>Group</strong> (DECRG) on the determinants andmeasurement of poverty has also influencedboth scholarly and policy views. 28 Both thesector reports and research papers are widelycited in the literature. DECRG has also workedclosely with China’s Bureau of Statistics,providing training and advice on defining andmeasuring poverty and on the design of thehousehold survey and other monitoring activities.One gap in the <strong>Bank</strong>’s poverty work hasbeen the neglect of studies on urban poverty(although the <strong>Bank</strong> has been involved inanalyzing pension reform and other vulnerabilityissues, as discussed in the previous section).But a report by the Asian Development <strong>Bank</strong>(ADB 2002) has filled this gap admirably, and itmakes sense to build on this division of labor,rather than to duplicate efforts. One highpriorityarea would be a study of labor marketissues, including the informal sector and linksbetween rural and urban areas.Poverty LendingLending for poverty-related projects, asmeasured by “poverty-targeted intervention”(PTI) lending, has been relatively low—under15 percent of total lending in China, comparedwith 56 percent in India. 29 However, the shareof PTI lending may be a misleading measure ofsupport for poverty reduction for severalreasons: non-PTI projects (such as highwaysthat integrate remote markets) may be morebeneficial to the poor than direct interventions;projects may have poverty components, but stillnot qualify for PTI classification; and finally, the<strong>Bank</strong>’s impact will largely depend on providingreplicable examples of best practices, given thesmall share of <strong>Bank</strong> lending in total investment.In fact, the <strong>Bank</strong>’s direct poverty lendingthrough integrated rural development projectshas provided a replicable model for targetedintervention. The Southwest Poverty Project, inparticular, has introduced new concepts andpractices that have benefited not only projectparticipants but also the government’s owntargeted interventions and practices (see box3.2). Nevertheless, the share of poverty-relatedprojects in the lending program has probablybeen less than optimal for demonstrationpurposes, and PTI lending has virtuallydisappeared following the loss of IDA.19