农村最低生活保障制度分配效果与瞄准效率研究
|
摘要
农村最低生活保障作为一项权力基准型的社会保护项目,其目标是构建一个综合性的社会保护体系,覆盖农村低收入群体。在农村最低生活保障制度的运行中,评估农村最低生活保障制度的分配效果,检验农村最低生活保障制度的瞄准效率,为解决农村最低收入群体的贫困问题和改善农村收入分配状况提供一种思路,为农村最低生活保障制度的进一步发展提供支持,为政府进一步修订和完善以及更好地执行农村最低生活保障制度提供参考。
从中国农村低收入群体的贫困与社会福利缺失的思考出发,解读西方经济学家关于社会福利效用与分配的理论思想时,可以发现,社会福利具有效用。国家通过收入转移制度介入国民收入再分配,改变不同阶层、不同社会成员之间的收入分配状况,或补偿社会变革中某些社会成员遭受的福利损失,从而提高低收入阶层的福利水平,进而提高社会平均边际消费倾向,并增加整个社会的福利水平。然而,由于社会福利概念内涵的抽象性和外延的模糊性,同时也由于政府大规模地承担起了促进社会福利的责任,许多政府部门共同承担着某种社会福利的功能,已经很难把社会福利作为一种制度实体来考察。那么,在“社会福利”和“社会政策”的研究领域中,究竟什么样的社会干预政策能够用来更准确地表达对福利缺失的农村低收入群体提供帮助所作的制度安排以及更好地实施对这些特定群体的帮助?研究中,引入了“社会保护”这一政策框架。社会保护政策安排是专门针对一个国家或社会的贫困群体、弱势群体和边缘化群体;其理论依据是人力资本投资理论、生命周期理论以及社会风险管理理论等;其政策目标是为了减少贫困和促进社会公正。于是,衡量某项社会保护政策的实施效果如何,就可以从贫困的减少和社会公平状况的改善加以评价。由于社会保护政策对于最低收入群体的帮助是通过收入转移,以现金或实物的形式进行给付。这样,就有可能对转移效果进行定量研究。
最低生活保障制度是世界上绝大多数市场经济国家普遍实行的旨在保护最低收入群体基本生存权利的一项不可或缺的社会救助制度,同时也是政府调节社会分配、减少贫困、实现社会公平的一种手段,因而被誉为社会最低收入群体的最后一道“保护网”。这项制度具有选择性、目标性和弥补性等特征。这些特征都属于对救助资源供给的一种限制,表达的是供给的条件以及给付的限度。其中,选择性是相对于普享性的一种福利模式,在选择性福利模式下,需要确定与瞄准目标人群,必然会有目标性的存在,同时,制度在实施中对于目标人群的收入转移具有弥补性。它们的区别在于:选择性属于制度设计层面,而目标性和弥补性则更多属于制度实施层面。
中国农村最低生活保障制度的建立,在救助思想上突破了原有的剩余型救助,逐渐向制度型救助模式转变,是一项重大的制度创新。由于该项制度尚处于探索实践阶段,各地农村最低生活保障的制度设计和实施方案是结合各自的实际情况和工作思路展开,因而在筹资主体、保障标准等方面形成了各具特色的保障模式。在福建省9个设区市4类不同经济社会发展程度区域,选取20个县(市、区)进行专题调研。结果表明:福建省农村最低生活保障制度在资金筹集、保障标准、受益资格、组织管理、配套措施等运行机制方面具有创新之处。其筹资模式的特点之一在于省级财政直接进入筹资领域,建立了农村最低生活保障资金专项补助制度;特点之二在于筹资主体不包括村级社区组织。若干农村地区的调研结果表明,除少数发达地区外,村级社区组织基本上没有能力为农村最低生活保障提供稳定的配套资金。国际社会政策发展经验也显示,社区的优势在于服务递送而非出资。
为探究农村最低生活保障制度对农村贫困的减少和收入分配状况的改善是否具有、具有多大的作用。基于Lorenz曲线的General Quadratic模型和Beta模型,采用1990-2006年《中国统计年鉴》和《福建统计年鉴》的农村居民人均收入和收入分组的面板数据,运用世界银行POVCAL软件,测度农村家庭收入中未包含最低生活保障转移收入的贫困和收入分配状况。以中国农村绝对贫困线和每人每日1$国际标准贫困线为基准测度FGT指数,结果表明:1990-2006年中国和福建省农村的H、PG和SPG指数均呈现整体性下降的趋势,但变动具有复杂性。1990-1993年开发式扶贫阶段,中国农村贫困发生率H指数年平均分别下降48.33%、94.67%,福建省也分别下降了29.0%、42.67%;1994-2000年扶贫攻坚阶段,H指数继续保持下降趋势,中国农村年平均分别下降53.71%、87.83%,福建省也分别下降14.5%、64.0%,PG和SPG指数均下降,但波动性变化明显;2001-2006年全面建设小康阶段,H、PG和SPG指数保持着持续下降的趋势,且变动比较稳定,农村最低收入人口数量表现出刚性的稳定。同时,测度结果发现,以每人每日1$的国际贫困线作为中国农村的贫困标准线,同样可以取得很好的反贫困效果,并没有显示出过高的贫困指数值。因此,适宜将其确定为中国农村的绝对贫困标准,避免由于过低的贫困线标准而将部分最低收入人口排除在政府救助目标之外。
以农村人均收入40%和50%为相对低收入标准为基准测度FGT指数,结果显示:1990-2006年H指数波动性上升明显,PG、SPG指数基本保持缓慢上升的态势,表现出与绝对低收入标准线的测度结果相反方向的变动趋势。中国农村的测度结果表明,随着各年相对低收入标准线较明显的提高,GINI系数的上升,FGT指数变动总体呈上升趋势。反映出农村相对低收入人口数量的增加、低收入群体平均福利缺失的拉大以及低收入人口之间收入分配差距的扩大。相对贫困在很大程度上是由于收入差距拉大的结果。
在对农村低收入群体的贫困和收入分配状况测度的基础上,为进一步探明经济增长和收入分配等宏观层面的影响因素与贫困指数之间的定量关系和内在联系,同样基于LORENZ曲线方法,运用POVCAL软件,采用1990-2006年中国和福建省农村居民收入分组数据,构建经济增长、收入分配与贫困指数之间的分析框架进行实证研究。结果表明:1990-2006年中国和福建省农村经济增长贫困弹性(εα)值均小于0,表明随着经济增长,人均收入水平提高,贫困指数下降,经济增长减少了低收入人口规模及其贫困状况;1990-2006年中国和福建省农村收入分配贫困弹性(θα)值均大于0,表明当人均收入水平一定时,随着GINI系数的上升,贫困指数呈上升变动趋势;1990-2006年中国和福建省农村收入分配-经济增长贫困弹性交互效应(λα)值均大于0,表明随着经济的增长、GINI系数的上升,收入分配差距的扩大对贫困的减少存在着更为重要的影响力。要继续减少贫困,就不能仅仅只依靠经济增长,收入分配政策的调整至关重要。反过来,收入分配状况的改善也可以为经济增长创造一个更好的社会环境,通过经济增长和收入分配政策的理想结合,更好地减少绝对贫困与相对贫困。
由于农村贫困性质的变化,对于农村贫困问题的关注也更加转向农户生计水平的微观层面。根据福建省20个县(市、区)539个农户的实地调研数据,通过Logistic回归模型,从户主特征、家庭状况、社区特征等3个方面对农户贫困的影响因素进行实证分析。结果表明,家庭类型、家庭劳动力状况、家庭成员健康状况、是否参加专业技能培训、是否参加非农化活动、是否为村干部、人均拥有园地面积等变量对农户贫困具有显著性影响。而大多数社区特征变量对农户贫困不具有显著性,显示农户贫困已不具有显著的区域性特征,生计层面的微观因素是农户致贫的决定性影响因素。
为评估农村最低生活保障制度的分配效果。以福建省为例,在已测得农村最低生活保障转移前的贫困和收入分配状况的基础上,运用GQ模型和β模型,测度转移后的贫困和收入分配状况,对转移前、后的FGT指数和GINI系数以及MLD指数进行比较,评估自2004年全面实施以来福建省农村最低生活保障制度的宏观分配效果。基于理论分析、国际文献和实践经验等3个方面,提出了2个研究假设。采用2004-2007年《福建统计年鉴》的农村居民收入分组数据,在农村居民最低收入组中加入最低生活保障转移收入这一核心变量,评估农村最低生活保障制度的分配效果,并对2个研究假设加以验证。
测算结果显示:在中国农村绝对贫困线下,福建省在农村最低生活保障制度实施后,2004-2007年的FGT指数为零,最低生活保障转移支出的贫困减少效果达到100%。从理论上讲,当政府规定的最低生活保障标准超过贫困线时,贫困指数应该为零,模型的计算结果与理论分析相一致。这表明当政府规定的保障标准远远超出贫困线时,可以消除短期贫困。结果显示:在每人每日1$的国际标准贫困线下,福建省农村最低生活保障制度的贫困减少效果依然显著。2004-2007年的H指数减少效果分别为84.12%、86.12%、87.89%和95.32%,PG指数减少效果分别为95.00%、95.49%、95.34%和95.65%,SPG指数的减少效果均为100%。说明农村最低生活保障制度的实施显著地减少了农村最低收入人口数量,在一定程度上弥补了最低收入家庭的整体福利缺失,并极大地缩小保障标准线下的最低收入家庭之间的收入分配差距。
结果显示:农村最低生活保障制度的实施对于农村相对贫困的减少具有一定的效果。在农村居民人均纯收入40%的相对低收入标准线下,2004-2007年的H指数减少效果分别为16.46%、17.81%、19.26%和22.89%, PG指数减少效果分别为33.24%、33.56%、33.74%和37.22%,SPG指数减少效果分别为47.14%、47.34%、47.59%和49.18%;在人均纯收入50%的相对低收入标准线下,2004-2007年H指数减少效果分别为10.76%、12.01%、12.10%和14.68%,PG指数减少效果分别为17.16%、17.36%、17.69%和20.17%,SPG指数减少效果分别为29.67%、29.96%、30.59%和32.57%。以上分析可以得出:福建省农村最低生活保障制度的实施,在目前的经济发展水平和保障水平条件下,对于农村相对贫困的减少具有一定的作用。
结果显示:农村最低生活保障制度具有些微改善农村内部收入分配状况的效果,但其效果还非常有限。2004-2007年反映农村整体收入分配状况的GINI系数减少效果分别为1.54%、1.31%、0.96%和2.30%,平均减少效果仅为1.53%。这说明在农村整体经济发展水平迅速提高的情况下,有限的保障资金投入还难以明显地改善农村整体的收入分配状况。当引入MLD指数解释低收入群体收入与平均收入之间的收入差距的变化时,结果表明:农村最低生活保障制度实施后,农村最低收入组的均值与各收入组均值之间的相对距离有一定程度的缩小,且具有收敛趋势。福建省农村最低生活保障制度的实证结果证明2个研究假设成立。
为检验农村最低生活保障制度的瞄准效率。以福建省为例,在实地调研的基础上,运用调研数据就农户对于农村最低生活保障制度的认知度和认同感进行描述性统计分析。同时,借鉴G.Dellaportas的保障转移目标家庭瞄准效率研究方法和W.Beckerman社会保障转移救助效率模型,通过挤出率、漏损率、垂直支出效率、溢出率等反映农村最低生活保障制度在实施中对于目标家庭瞄准的准确性、瞄准的收入缺口、给付的公平性和实际的救助效果。
受访农户的描述性统计分析结果表明:总体上看,不论是目标家庭抑或是非目标家庭对于农村最低生活保障制度都具有较高程度认知度和认同感。相比较而言,目标家庭对于农村最低生活保障制度有更高的认知度和关注度、对于受益资格评估执行主体以及自己是否被纳入保障对象更为敏感、对于保障对象是否得到准确瞄准有着更好的判断或有着更高的期望、对于目前确定的保障标准有更高的满意度。这些都说明制度对于目标家庭更具有吸引力,制度的实施以及所确定的保障标准对于目标家庭具有作用,并产生一定的满足感。结果同时也显示保障资金的分配存在着复杂性,目标家庭对于保障资金的公平、合理分配要求更为强烈。
结果显示:在制度执行中,目标家庭与获得保障的家庭这两个子集并不完全吻合,表明制度执行中对目标家庭的瞄准存在着偏离。其中,挤出率(UR)为8.11%,漏损率(LR)为4.42%。瞄准的总偏离率为12.53%。从调研结果看,UR在经济发展水平相对较低的地区往往更高,而LR往往发生在经济发展水平相对较高的地区。由于制度需要惠及目标家庭,因而UR应该引起政策制定者和执行者更大的关注。因此,进一步努力方向就是进行制度微调,制度微调的核心在于适当提高保障标准和相应扩大覆盖面。
目标家庭在获得给付后,产生了较好的救助效果。90%以上的目标家庭保障了基本生活需要,有12.61%的目标家庭获得给付后摆脱了贫困。调研数据显示,2007年获得保障的目标家庭年人均基本生活消费支出增加额约占当年年人均补差额的56.37%。获得保障的目标家庭消费倾向很高,农村最低生活保障制度对于拉动农村最低收入家庭消费需求增长的作用十分明显。
为进一步提高农村最低生活保障制度的瞄准效率。从农户生计资产的视角出发,在5大生计资产中,分别选择若干具有代表性的指标,进行指标赋值、标准化处理、权重分配,构建农户生计资产量化指标体系,测算能够反映农户特别是低收入农户贫困程度的生计资产数值。根据生计资产总值进行位序排列,确定农村最低生活保障制度的目标家庭。应用结果表明农户生计资产量化分析方法可以对低收入农户进行准确的排序,并可以作为目标家庭获得给付金额的重要依据。
As an entitlement program, the rural minimum living standard security system (RMLSSS) desirable goal was to construct a comprehensive social relief system for the further covering low-income groups in rural areas. For the sake of providing a thought to solve their poverty and improve rural income distribution, supporting to further develop, revise and improve, as well as better implementation of RMLSSS, this research addressed to evaluate its distributive effectiveness and verify its targeting efficiency in the operation of RMLSSS.
Considering the rural low-income groups’poverty and social welfare missing, to interpret the Western economists’theoretical thoughts about social welfare effectiveness and distribution, it could be found: social welfare had effectiveness. Specifically, the country intervened in the field of national redistribution through income transfer system, to change income distribution in different classes and different members of society, or compensating for some members suffered welfare losses in social changes, and thus improving their welfare, and then increasing social average marginal propensity to consume, aggrandizing social welfare as a whole. However, not only abstract connotation and ambiguous extension of social welfare, but also governments were to assume the responsibility to promote social welfare in a large scale.
Many governments’departments shared some social welfare’functions, it was too difficult to regard social welfare as an institutional entity. Then, in the research field of“social welfare”and“social policy”, what kind of social intervention policy could be used to more accurately express the system for the rural low-income groups? How to assist them better? The research introduced the policy framework of“social protection”(SP). SP was specific to poverty groups, disadvantaged and marginalized groups in a country or a society, it was based on investment in human capital theory, the life-cycle theory, and social risk management theory, its policy objectives was seeking to reduce poverty and promote social justice. Thus, the policy effectiveness of SP could be evaluated from the poverty reduction and social equity. Because of SP assisting the lowest-income groups through income transfers in cash or in kind, in this way, there were likely to go along the quantitative research.
MLSSS was not only an indispensable social relief system to protect basic right of life for the lowest-income groups in the vast majority of market economy countries, but also an instrument which the government regulated social distribution, reduced poverty and achieved social equity, so was known as a final“safety net”for them. It was of selectivity, targeted and prosthesis. These features constrained on the supply of assistant resource, expressing the conditions of supply and payment limits. Among them, the selectivity was relative to the universalism, in the selective welfare model, it was needed to confirm and target specific groups, so it was bound to associate with targeting, at the same time, the income transferred to targeting groups needed prosthesis. Their different was: selectivity belonged to design level, while targeted and prosthesis belonged to executive level.
With the establishment of Chinese RMLSSS, it had been an important institutional innovation which made a breakthrough in original residual model, gradually to institutional model. Because it was still at the stage of exploration and practice, the design and implementation of program were combined with their actual situations and developing thoughts, so there were formed various patterns at the main fund-raising and security standards in various regions. The research had selected twenty counties (cities, districts) to carry out special investigation in Fujian province. The results showed: RMLSSS of Fujian province had some innovations in operating mechanism, including fund-raising, security standards, benefit eligibility, organizational management and complementary measures, etc. One of the financial models was that the provincial finance had been directly assessed to financial field, set up special funds for RMLSSS; the second was the financing main excluding village level. The research results showed that village-level communities could not afford stable matching funds, with the exception of a small number of developed areas. This was consistent with international social development experience that the communities had advantages in being of services rather than funding.
To explore whether RMLSSS can reduce poverty and improve. Based on General Quadratic & Beta models of Lorenz curve, adopted panel data of per capital and income grouping in China Statistical Annals and Fujian Statistical Annals from 1990 to 2006, using the World Bank POVCAL software, measuring poverty and income distribution before transferred income of RMLSSS. As the two benchmarks of Chinese rural absolute poverty and international standard poverty with $1 per person per day measured FGT indices, the results revealed: H, PG and SPG indices presented overall downward trends in the rural areas of China and Fujian province, but changes with the complexity. Specifically, in the phase of development and poverty alleviation from 1990 to 1993, H index in rural China fell on average 48.33% & 94.67%, it also decreased on average 29.0% & 42.67% respectively in rural Fujian province; in the phase of fortified alleviation poverty from 1994 to 2000, H index continued to maintain the downward trend, it decreased on average 53.71% & 87.83% in China’s rural areas, it also dropped on average 14.5% & 64.0% in Fujian province, both PG and SPG fell, but volatility of changes were apparent; in the building a well-off stage from 2001 to 2006, H, PG and SPG indices maintained a continuous downward trend, and changed in relatively stable, population of the rural lowest-income demonstrated rigid stability. Meanwhile, under the benchmark of international standard poverty with $1 per person per day, a good result in anti-poverty could be found, no showing too high value of poverty indices. Therefore it would be appropriate to be identified as absolute poverty line in China’s rural areas, to avoid too low standard to include some low-income people in government aid objectives.
According to the relative low-income benchmark with 40% & 50% of rural per capital income, the results revealed: H index significantly fluctuant increased, both PG and SPG indices remained slow upward trends, quite contrary to the absolute poverty line from 1990 to 2006. The results in China’s rural areas indicated that FGT indices had been changed in overall upward trends with relative low-income standard improving and GINI coefficient increasing. This reflected that the population of relative low-income aggrandized, their average welfare loss extended and the gap of income distribution between them expanded.
Based on measure of poverty and income distribution of the rural low-income groups, to further explore quantitative relationships and internal relations between economic growth as well as income distribution and poverty indices, the fore-mentioned method was used to construct an analytical framework between them. The results demonstrated: the poverty elasticities with respect to economic growth (εα) were below zero from 1990 to 2006, showing that economic growth lessened population of low-income and alleviated their poverty situation; the poverty elasticities with respect to income distribution (θα) were above zero from 1990 to 2006, showing poverty indices fluctuated upward along with rising GINI coefficient; the interactive effects of poverty elasticity (λα) were all above zero from 1990 to 2006, showing income distribution gap played more important role on poverty. To continue to reduce poverty, it should not only rely on economic growth, adjustment of the income distribution policy were very essential. In turn, the improvement of income distribution could create a better social environment for economic growth, the perfect combination between economic growth and income distribution would be better to reduce absolute and relative poverty.
Because of changing of rural poverty character, it was more concerned about rural household livelihoods at the micro level. According to the survey data from 20 counties (cities, districts) of 539 rural families in Fujian province, the research carried out an empirical analysis of impact factors from characteristics of household head, family status and community characteristics through Logistic regression model. The results manifested that those variables had significant impacts on rural household poverty, including family type, family labor force status, family members of health status, whether to participate in professional skills training, whether to participate in non-agricultural activities, whether for village cadres, field per capita, etc. However, most variables of community characteristics were not significant, indicating farmer poverty no having an obvious regional feature, the household livelihoods of the micro-level factors were decisive.
To evaluate the distributive effectiveness of RMLSSS, the research regarded Fujian province as an example, based on measured situations of rural poverty and income distribution pre- transfers of RMLSS, used the GQ &βmodels to measure rural poverty and income distribution post- transfers, compared pre-transfers with post-transfers in FGT indices, GINI coefficient and MLD index, to assess the distributive effectiveness of the macro since 2004 in rural areas in Fujian province. Based on theoretical analysis, international literature and practical experience, two research hypotheses were proposed, utilized packet data of per capital and income grouping of rural residents in Fujian Statistical Annals from 2004 to 2007, added the core variance of RMLSS income transfers in the lowest-income group, to validate the two research hypotheses.
Measured results showed that: under the absolute poverty line in rural China, FGT indices were zero after RMLSSS in Fujian province from 2004 to 2007. From this point of view, poverty reduce effects achieved 100%. In theory, if the government provided for the minimum living standard above poverty line, poverty indices should be zero, the model calculation results were consistent with the theoretical analysis. This demonstrated that when the government had provided protection standard far beyond the poverty line, it could eliminate the short-term poverty. Simultaneously, the results showed: under the international standard poverty line with $1 per person per day, the effects of reduce poverty were still significant. The reduce effects of H index were 84.12%, 86.12%, 87.89% and 95.32% from 2004 to 2007, at the same time, PG index were 95.00%, 95.49%, 95.34%和95.65% respectively, SPG index were all 100% in the effects of reduce poverty. These demonstrated that RMLSSS could significantly reduce the rural lowest-income population, make up the overall well-being missing on the lowest-income families to a certain extent, and substantially narrow income distribution gaps among them under security benchmark.
The results revealed that: RMLSSS had some certain effects on the reduction of relative poverty in rural areas. Under the relative low-income benchmark with 40% of rural per capital income, the effects on poverty reduction of H index were 16.46%, 17.81%, 19.26% and 22.89% from 2004 to 2007, while the effects of PG index were 33.24%, 33.56%, 33.74% and 37.22%, and the effects of SPG index were 47.14%, 47.34%, 47.59% and 49.18% respectively in the poverty reduction; at the same time, under the relative low-income benchmark with 50% of rural per capital income, the effects on poverty reduction of H index were 10.76%, 12.01%, 12.10% and 14.68% from 2004 to 2007, while the effects of PG index were 17.16%, 17.36%, 17.69% and 20.17%, and the effects of the SPG index were 29.67%, 29.96%, 30.59% and 32.57% respectively in the poverty reduction. The conclusion could be drawn: RMLSSS had played a certain role on rural relative poverty reduction at the current economic development and security standard level in Fujian province.
The results indicated that: even if it was very limited, RMLSSS had a slight effect on improving rural income distribution. The reducing effect of rural GINI coefficient were 1.54%, 1.31%, 0.96% and 2.30% respectively from 2004 to 2007, with average only 1.53%. This reflected that the limited capital investment was difficult to obviously improve the overall rural income distribution in the circumstances of rural economic development rapidly rising. When the MLD index was introduced to explain the changes gap between the low group’s income and average income, it could be found: the mean relative gap was narrowing in a degree between the lowest-income and each income group, and with the convergent trend after the implementation of RMLSSS. The empirical results supported the two research hypotheses.
To examine the targeting efficiency of RMLSSS, firstly, based on investigation in Fujian province, the research used survey data to descriptive statistical analysis on cognition and identity; secondly, the research used under-coverage ratio (UR), leakage ratio (LR), vertical expenditure efficiency and spillover ratio, which were draw on the experience of Prof. G. Dellaportas’research method and W. Beckerman model, to inspect targeting accuracy, targeting income gap, payment equity and the actual effects of relief at the implementation of RMLSSS.
The descriptive statistical analysis of respondents manifested: on the whole, regardless of the targeting and non-targeting households had quite high cognition and identity. By contrast, the targeting households had a higher degree of cognition and identity, they were more sensitive to main body of beneficial eligibility and be protected object, had the better judgements or the higher expectations on the accurately target problem, had a higher degree of satisfaction with security standard. All those demonstrated that RMLSSS were more attractive to targeting households, and getting a satisfying reaction. The results also revealed that the distributions of the guaranteed allowances were complex, the targeting households demanded for equitably and reasonable distributed ever shrilled.
The results revealed that there were mismatch between targeting household and protected households in the implementation of RMLSSS, the deviations were in esse. These included: UR was 8.11%, LR was 4.42%, and the total deviations were 12.53%. According to the investigation results, UR was often higher at a relatively low level of economic development areas, while LR incurred on the contrary. In view of RMLSSS necessary to benefit targeting households, UR should be a greater concern to policymakers and administers. Therefore, the further efforts would be system“fine-tuning”—the core should lie in appropriate increasing security standard and correspondent extending its coverage.
The better relief effects had been achieved by obtained benefit. More than 90% of the targeting households had guaranteed their basic needs, there were 12.61% had gotten away from the poverty after payments. Data in the investigation displayed that the increased amount of the per capita consumption expenses had been about 56.37%, which paid for them in 2007. They had high propensity to consume. RMLSSS had a positive effect on driving consumption demand growth.
In order to further improve targeting efficiency of RMLSSS. From the perspective of the livelihood assets of the rural households, the research selected a number of representative indicators in five categories assets, to setup quantitative indices system through indicators assignment, standardized treatment and weight distribution, then calculate quantitative value of livelihood assets, which reflected the extend of the poverty in low-income households. According to the total value to rank order that would determine the targeting households of RMLSSS. The application in practice demonstrated that the method could carry out accurate sequencing for the low-income farmers, and be used as an important basis for payments for the targeting households.
从中国农村低收入群体的贫困与社会福利缺失的思考出发,解读西方经济学家关于社会福利效用与分配的理论思想时,可以发现,社会福利具有效用。国家通过收入转移制度介入国民收入再分配,改变不同阶层、不同社会成员之间的收入分配状况,或补偿社会变革中某些社会成员遭受的福利损失,从而提高低收入阶层的福利水平,进而提高社会平均边际消费倾向,并增加整个社会的福利水平。然而,由于社会福利概念内涵的抽象性和外延的模糊性,同时也由于政府大规模地承担起了促进社会福利的责任,许多政府部门共同承担着某种社会福利的功能,已经很难把社会福利作为一种制度实体来考察。那么,在“社会福利”和“社会政策”的研究领域中,究竟什么样的社会干预政策能够用来更准确地表达对福利缺失的农村低收入群体提供帮助所作的制度安排以及更好地实施对这些特定群体的帮助?研究中,引入了“社会保护”这一政策框架。社会保护政策安排是专门针对一个国家或社会的贫困群体、弱势群体和边缘化群体;其理论依据是人力资本投资理论、生命周期理论以及社会风险管理理论等;其政策目标是为了减少贫困和促进社会公正。于是,衡量某项社会保护政策的实施效果如何,就可以从贫困的减少和社会公平状况的改善加以评价。由于社会保护政策对于最低收入群体的帮助是通过收入转移,以现金或实物的形式进行给付。这样,就有可能对转移效果进行定量研究。
最低生活保障制度是世界上绝大多数市场经济国家普遍实行的旨在保护最低收入群体基本生存权利的一项不可或缺的社会救助制度,同时也是政府调节社会分配、减少贫困、实现社会公平的一种手段,因而被誉为社会最低收入群体的最后一道“保护网”。这项制度具有选择性、目标性和弥补性等特征。这些特征都属于对救助资源供给的一种限制,表达的是供给的条件以及给付的限度。其中,选择性是相对于普享性的一种福利模式,在选择性福利模式下,需要确定与瞄准目标人群,必然会有目标性的存在,同时,制度在实施中对于目标人群的收入转移具有弥补性。它们的区别在于:选择性属于制度设计层面,而目标性和弥补性则更多属于制度实施层面。
中国农村最低生活保障制度的建立,在救助思想上突破了原有的剩余型救助,逐渐向制度型救助模式转变,是一项重大的制度创新。由于该项制度尚处于探索实践阶段,各地农村最低生活保障的制度设计和实施方案是结合各自的实际情况和工作思路展开,因而在筹资主体、保障标准等方面形成了各具特色的保障模式。在福建省9个设区市4类不同经济社会发展程度区域,选取20个县(市、区)进行专题调研。结果表明:福建省农村最低生活保障制度在资金筹集、保障标准、受益资格、组织管理、配套措施等运行机制方面具有创新之处。其筹资模式的特点之一在于省级财政直接进入筹资领域,建立了农村最低生活保障资金专项补助制度;特点之二在于筹资主体不包括村级社区组织。若干农村地区的调研结果表明,除少数发达地区外,村级社区组织基本上没有能力为农村最低生活保障提供稳定的配套资金。国际社会政策发展经验也显示,社区的优势在于服务递送而非出资。
为探究农村最低生活保障制度对农村贫困的减少和收入分配状况的改善是否具有、具有多大的作用。基于Lorenz曲线的General Quadratic模型和Beta模型,采用1990-2006年《中国统计年鉴》和《福建统计年鉴》的农村居民人均收入和收入分组的面板数据,运用世界银行POVCAL软件,测度农村家庭收入中未包含最低生活保障转移收入的贫困和收入分配状况。以中国农村绝对贫困线和每人每日1$国际标准贫困线为基准测度FGT指数,结果表明:1990-2006年中国和福建省农村的H、PG和SPG指数均呈现整体性下降的趋势,但变动具有复杂性。1990-1993年开发式扶贫阶段,中国农村贫困发生率H指数年平均分别下降48.33%、94.67%,福建省也分别下降了29.0%、42.67%;1994-2000年扶贫攻坚阶段,H指数继续保持下降趋势,中国农村年平均分别下降53.71%、87.83%,福建省也分别下降14.5%、64.0%,PG和SPG指数均下降,但波动性变化明显;2001-2006年全面建设小康阶段,H、PG和SPG指数保持着持续下降的趋势,且变动比较稳定,农村最低收入人口数量表现出刚性的稳定。同时,测度结果发现,以每人每日1$的国际贫困线作为中国农村的贫困标准线,同样可以取得很好的反贫困效果,并没有显示出过高的贫困指数值。因此,适宜将其确定为中国农村的绝对贫困标准,避免由于过低的贫困线标准而将部分最低收入人口排除在政府救助目标之外。
以农村人均收入40%和50%为相对低收入标准为基准测度FGT指数,结果显示:1990-2006年H指数波动性上升明显,PG、SPG指数基本保持缓慢上升的态势,表现出与绝对低收入标准线的测度结果相反方向的变动趋势。中国农村的测度结果表明,随着各年相对低收入标准线较明显的提高,GINI系数的上升,FGT指数变动总体呈上升趋势。反映出农村相对低收入人口数量的增加、低收入群体平均福利缺失的拉大以及低收入人口之间收入分配差距的扩大。相对贫困在很大程度上是由于收入差距拉大的结果。
在对农村低收入群体的贫困和收入分配状况测度的基础上,为进一步探明经济增长和收入分配等宏观层面的影响因素与贫困指数之间的定量关系和内在联系,同样基于LORENZ曲线方法,运用POVCAL软件,采用1990-2006年中国和福建省农村居民收入分组数据,构建经济增长、收入分配与贫困指数之间的分析框架进行实证研究。结果表明:1990-2006年中国和福建省农村经济增长贫困弹性(εα)值均小于0,表明随着经济增长,人均收入水平提高,贫困指数下降,经济增长减少了低收入人口规模及其贫困状况;1990-2006年中国和福建省农村收入分配贫困弹性(θα)值均大于0,表明当人均收入水平一定时,随着GINI系数的上升,贫困指数呈上升变动趋势;1990-2006年中国和福建省农村收入分配-经济增长贫困弹性交互效应(λα)值均大于0,表明随着经济的增长、GINI系数的上升,收入分配差距的扩大对贫困的减少存在着更为重要的影响力。要继续减少贫困,就不能仅仅只依靠经济增长,收入分配政策的调整至关重要。反过来,收入分配状况的改善也可以为经济增长创造一个更好的社会环境,通过经济增长和收入分配政策的理想结合,更好地减少绝对贫困与相对贫困。
由于农村贫困性质的变化,对于农村贫困问题的关注也更加转向农户生计水平的微观层面。根据福建省20个县(市、区)539个农户的实地调研数据,通过Logistic回归模型,从户主特征、家庭状况、社区特征等3个方面对农户贫困的影响因素进行实证分析。结果表明,家庭类型、家庭劳动力状况、家庭成员健康状况、是否参加专业技能培训、是否参加非农化活动、是否为村干部、人均拥有园地面积等变量对农户贫困具有显著性影响。而大多数社区特征变量对农户贫困不具有显著性,显示农户贫困已不具有显著的区域性特征,生计层面的微观因素是农户致贫的决定性影响因素。
为评估农村最低生活保障制度的分配效果。以福建省为例,在已测得农村最低生活保障转移前的贫困和收入分配状况的基础上,运用GQ模型和β模型,测度转移后的贫困和收入分配状况,对转移前、后的FGT指数和GINI系数以及MLD指数进行比较,评估自2004年全面实施以来福建省农村最低生活保障制度的宏观分配效果。基于理论分析、国际文献和实践经验等3个方面,提出了2个研究假设。采用2004-2007年《福建统计年鉴》的农村居民收入分组数据,在农村居民最低收入组中加入最低生活保障转移收入这一核心变量,评估农村最低生活保障制度的分配效果,并对2个研究假设加以验证。
测算结果显示:在中国农村绝对贫困线下,福建省在农村最低生活保障制度实施后,2004-2007年的FGT指数为零,最低生活保障转移支出的贫困减少效果达到100%。从理论上讲,当政府规定的最低生活保障标准超过贫困线时,贫困指数应该为零,模型的计算结果与理论分析相一致。这表明当政府规定的保障标准远远超出贫困线时,可以消除短期贫困。结果显示:在每人每日1$的国际标准贫困线下,福建省农村最低生活保障制度的贫困减少效果依然显著。2004-2007年的H指数减少效果分别为84.12%、86.12%、87.89%和95.32%,PG指数减少效果分别为95.00%、95.49%、95.34%和95.65%,SPG指数的减少效果均为100%。说明农村最低生活保障制度的实施显著地减少了农村最低收入人口数量,在一定程度上弥补了最低收入家庭的整体福利缺失,并极大地缩小保障标准线下的最低收入家庭之间的收入分配差距。
结果显示:农村最低生活保障制度的实施对于农村相对贫困的减少具有一定的效果。在农村居民人均纯收入40%的相对低收入标准线下,2004-2007年的H指数减少效果分别为16.46%、17.81%、19.26%和22.89%, PG指数减少效果分别为33.24%、33.56%、33.74%和37.22%,SPG指数减少效果分别为47.14%、47.34%、47.59%和49.18%;在人均纯收入50%的相对低收入标准线下,2004-2007年H指数减少效果分别为10.76%、12.01%、12.10%和14.68%,PG指数减少效果分别为17.16%、17.36%、17.69%和20.17%,SPG指数减少效果分别为29.67%、29.96%、30.59%和32.57%。以上分析可以得出:福建省农村最低生活保障制度的实施,在目前的经济发展水平和保障水平条件下,对于农村相对贫困的减少具有一定的作用。
结果显示:农村最低生活保障制度具有些微改善农村内部收入分配状况的效果,但其效果还非常有限。2004-2007年反映农村整体收入分配状况的GINI系数减少效果分别为1.54%、1.31%、0.96%和2.30%,平均减少效果仅为1.53%。这说明在农村整体经济发展水平迅速提高的情况下,有限的保障资金投入还难以明显地改善农村整体的收入分配状况。当引入MLD指数解释低收入群体收入与平均收入之间的收入差距的变化时,结果表明:农村最低生活保障制度实施后,农村最低收入组的均值与各收入组均值之间的相对距离有一定程度的缩小,且具有收敛趋势。福建省农村最低生活保障制度的实证结果证明2个研究假设成立。
为检验农村最低生活保障制度的瞄准效率。以福建省为例,在实地调研的基础上,运用调研数据就农户对于农村最低生活保障制度的认知度和认同感进行描述性统计分析。同时,借鉴G.Dellaportas的保障转移目标家庭瞄准效率研究方法和W.Beckerman社会保障转移救助效率模型,通过挤出率、漏损率、垂直支出效率、溢出率等反映农村最低生活保障制度在实施中对于目标家庭瞄准的准确性、瞄准的收入缺口、给付的公平性和实际的救助效果。
受访农户的描述性统计分析结果表明:总体上看,不论是目标家庭抑或是非目标家庭对于农村最低生活保障制度都具有较高程度认知度和认同感。相比较而言,目标家庭对于农村最低生活保障制度有更高的认知度和关注度、对于受益资格评估执行主体以及自己是否被纳入保障对象更为敏感、对于保障对象是否得到准确瞄准有着更好的判断或有着更高的期望、对于目前确定的保障标准有更高的满意度。这些都说明制度对于目标家庭更具有吸引力,制度的实施以及所确定的保障标准对于目标家庭具有作用,并产生一定的满足感。结果同时也显示保障资金的分配存在着复杂性,目标家庭对于保障资金的公平、合理分配要求更为强烈。
结果显示:在制度执行中,目标家庭与获得保障的家庭这两个子集并不完全吻合,表明制度执行中对目标家庭的瞄准存在着偏离。其中,挤出率(UR)为8.11%,漏损率(LR)为4.42%。瞄准的总偏离率为12.53%。从调研结果看,UR在经济发展水平相对较低的地区往往更高,而LR往往发生在经济发展水平相对较高的地区。由于制度需要惠及目标家庭,因而UR应该引起政策制定者和执行者更大的关注。因此,进一步努力方向就是进行制度微调,制度微调的核心在于适当提高保障标准和相应扩大覆盖面。
目标家庭在获得给付后,产生了较好的救助效果。90%以上的目标家庭保障了基本生活需要,有12.61%的目标家庭获得给付后摆脱了贫困。调研数据显示,2007年获得保障的目标家庭年人均基本生活消费支出增加额约占当年年人均补差额的56.37%。获得保障的目标家庭消费倾向很高,农村最低生活保障制度对于拉动农村最低收入家庭消费需求增长的作用十分明显。
为进一步提高农村最低生活保障制度的瞄准效率。从农户生计资产的视角出发,在5大生计资产中,分别选择若干具有代表性的指标,进行指标赋值、标准化处理、权重分配,构建农户生计资产量化指标体系,测算能够反映农户特别是低收入农户贫困程度的生计资产数值。根据生计资产总值进行位序排列,确定农村最低生活保障制度的目标家庭。应用结果表明农户生计资产量化分析方法可以对低收入农户进行准确的排序,并可以作为目标家庭获得给付金额的重要依据。
As an entitlement program, the rural minimum living standard security system (RMLSSS) desirable goal was to construct a comprehensive social relief system for the further covering low-income groups in rural areas. For the sake of providing a thought to solve their poverty and improve rural income distribution, supporting to further develop, revise and improve, as well as better implementation of RMLSSS, this research addressed to evaluate its distributive effectiveness and verify its targeting efficiency in the operation of RMLSSS.
Considering the rural low-income groups’poverty and social welfare missing, to interpret the Western economists’theoretical thoughts about social welfare effectiveness and distribution, it could be found: social welfare had effectiveness. Specifically, the country intervened in the field of national redistribution through income transfer system, to change income distribution in different classes and different members of society, or compensating for some members suffered welfare losses in social changes, and thus improving their welfare, and then increasing social average marginal propensity to consume, aggrandizing social welfare as a whole. However, not only abstract connotation and ambiguous extension of social welfare, but also governments were to assume the responsibility to promote social welfare in a large scale.
Many governments’departments shared some social welfare’functions, it was too difficult to regard social welfare as an institutional entity. Then, in the research field of“social welfare”and“social policy”, what kind of social intervention policy could be used to more accurately express the system for the rural low-income groups? How to assist them better? The research introduced the policy framework of“social protection”(SP). SP was specific to poverty groups, disadvantaged and marginalized groups in a country or a society, it was based on investment in human capital theory, the life-cycle theory, and social risk management theory, its policy objectives was seeking to reduce poverty and promote social justice. Thus, the policy effectiveness of SP could be evaluated from the poverty reduction and social equity. Because of SP assisting the lowest-income groups through income transfers in cash or in kind, in this way, there were likely to go along the quantitative research.
MLSSS was not only an indispensable social relief system to protect basic right of life for the lowest-income groups in the vast majority of market economy countries, but also an instrument which the government regulated social distribution, reduced poverty and achieved social equity, so was known as a final“safety net”for them. It was of selectivity, targeted and prosthesis. These features constrained on the supply of assistant resource, expressing the conditions of supply and payment limits. Among them, the selectivity was relative to the universalism, in the selective welfare model, it was needed to confirm and target specific groups, so it was bound to associate with targeting, at the same time, the income transferred to targeting groups needed prosthesis. Their different was: selectivity belonged to design level, while targeted and prosthesis belonged to executive level.
With the establishment of Chinese RMLSSS, it had been an important institutional innovation which made a breakthrough in original residual model, gradually to institutional model. Because it was still at the stage of exploration and practice, the design and implementation of program were combined with their actual situations and developing thoughts, so there were formed various patterns at the main fund-raising and security standards in various regions. The research had selected twenty counties (cities, districts) to carry out special investigation in Fujian province. The results showed: RMLSSS of Fujian province had some innovations in operating mechanism, including fund-raising, security standards, benefit eligibility, organizational management and complementary measures, etc. One of the financial models was that the provincial finance had been directly assessed to financial field, set up special funds for RMLSSS; the second was the financing main excluding village level. The research results showed that village-level communities could not afford stable matching funds, with the exception of a small number of developed areas. This was consistent with international social development experience that the communities had advantages in being of services rather than funding.
To explore whether RMLSSS can reduce poverty and improve. Based on General Quadratic & Beta models of Lorenz curve, adopted panel data of per capital and income grouping in China Statistical Annals and Fujian Statistical Annals from 1990 to 2006, using the World Bank POVCAL software, measuring poverty and income distribution before transferred income of RMLSSS. As the two benchmarks of Chinese rural absolute poverty and international standard poverty with $1 per person per day measured FGT indices, the results revealed: H, PG and SPG indices presented overall downward trends in the rural areas of China and Fujian province, but changes with the complexity. Specifically, in the phase of development and poverty alleviation from 1990 to 1993, H index in rural China fell on average 48.33% & 94.67%, it also decreased on average 29.0% & 42.67% respectively in rural Fujian province; in the phase of fortified alleviation poverty from 1994 to 2000, H index continued to maintain the downward trend, it decreased on average 53.71% & 87.83% in China’s rural areas, it also dropped on average 14.5% & 64.0% in Fujian province, both PG and SPG fell, but volatility of changes were apparent; in the building a well-off stage from 2001 to 2006, H, PG and SPG indices maintained a continuous downward trend, and changed in relatively stable, population of the rural lowest-income demonstrated rigid stability. Meanwhile, under the benchmark of international standard poverty with $1 per person per day, a good result in anti-poverty could be found, no showing too high value of poverty indices. Therefore it would be appropriate to be identified as absolute poverty line in China’s rural areas, to avoid too low standard to include some low-income people in government aid objectives.
According to the relative low-income benchmark with 40% & 50% of rural per capital income, the results revealed: H index significantly fluctuant increased, both PG and SPG indices remained slow upward trends, quite contrary to the absolute poverty line from 1990 to 2006. The results in China’s rural areas indicated that FGT indices had been changed in overall upward trends with relative low-income standard improving and GINI coefficient increasing. This reflected that the population of relative low-income aggrandized, their average welfare loss extended and the gap of income distribution between them expanded.
Based on measure of poverty and income distribution of the rural low-income groups, to further explore quantitative relationships and internal relations between economic growth as well as income distribution and poverty indices, the fore-mentioned method was used to construct an analytical framework between them. The results demonstrated: the poverty elasticities with respect to economic growth (εα) were below zero from 1990 to 2006, showing that economic growth lessened population of low-income and alleviated their poverty situation; the poverty elasticities with respect to income distribution (θα) were above zero from 1990 to 2006, showing poverty indices fluctuated upward along with rising GINI coefficient; the interactive effects of poverty elasticity (λα) were all above zero from 1990 to 2006, showing income distribution gap played more important role on poverty. To continue to reduce poverty, it should not only rely on economic growth, adjustment of the income distribution policy were very essential. In turn, the improvement of income distribution could create a better social environment for economic growth, the perfect combination between economic growth and income distribution would be better to reduce absolute and relative poverty.
Because of changing of rural poverty character, it was more concerned about rural household livelihoods at the micro level. According to the survey data from 20 counties (cities, districts) of 539 rural families in Fujian province, the research carried out an empirical analysis of impact factors from characteristics of household head, family status and community characteristics through Logistic regression model. The results manifested that those variables had significant impacts on rural household poverty, including family type, family labor force status, family members of health status, whether to participate in professional skills training, whether to participate in non-agricultural activities, whether for village cadres, field per capita, etc. However, most variables of community characteristics were not significant, indicating farmer poverty no having an obvious regional feature, the household livelihoods of the micro-level factors were decisive.
To evaluate the distributive effectiveness of RMLSSS, the research regarded Fujian province as an example, based on measured situations of rural poverty and income distribution pre- transfers of RMLSS, used the GQ &βmodels to measure rural poverty and income distribution post- transfers, compared pre-transfers with post-transfers in FGT indices, GINI coefficient and MLD index, to assess the distributive effectiveness of the macro since 2004 in rural areas in Fujian province. Based on theoretical analysis, international literature and practical experience, two research hypotheses were proposed, utilized packet data of per capital and income grouping of rural residents in Fujian Statistical Annals from 2004 to 2007, added the core variance of RMLSS income transfers in the lowest-income group, to validate the two research hypotheses.
Measured results showed that: under the absolute poverty line in rural China, FGT indices were zero after RMLSSS in Fujian province from 2004 to 2007. From this point of view, poverty reduce effects achieved 100%. In theory, if the government provided for the minimum living standard above poverty line, poverty indices should be zero, the model calculation results were consistent with the theoretical analysis. This demonstrated that when the government had provided protection standard far beyond the poverty line, it could eliminate the short-term poverty. Simultaneously, the results showed: under the international standard poverty line with $1 per person per day, the effects of reduce poverty were still significant. The reduce effects of H index were 84.12%, 86.12%, 87.89% and 95.32% from 2004 to 2007, at the same time, PG index were 95.00%, 95.49%, 95.34%和95.65% respectively, SPG index were all 100% in the effects of reduce poverty. These demonstrated that RMLSSS could significantly reduce the rural lowest-income population, make up the overall well-being missing on the lowest-income families to a certain extent, and substantially narrow income distribution gaps among them under security benchmark.
The results revealed that: RMLSSS had some certain effects on the reduction of relative poverty in rural areas. Under the relative low-income benchmark with 40% of rural per capital income, the effects on poverty reduction of H index were 16.46%, 17.81%, 19.26% and 22.89% from 2004 to 2007, while the effects of PG index were 33.24%, 33.56%, 33.74% and 37.22%, and the effects of SPG index were 47.14%, 47.34%, 47.59% and 49.18% respectively in the poverty reduction; at the same time, under the relative low-income benchmark with 50% of rural per capital income, the effects on poverty reduction of H index were 10.76%, 12.01%, 12.10% and 14.68% from 2004 to 2007, while the effects of PG index were 17.16%, 17.36%, 17.69% and 20.17%, and the effects of the SPG index were 29.67%, 29.96%, 30.59% and 32.57% respectively in the poverty reduction. The conclusion could be drawn: RMLSSS had played a certain role on rural relative poverty reduction at the current economic development and security standard level in Fujian province.
The results indicated that: even if it was very limited, RMLSSS had a slight effect on improving rural income distribution. The reducing effect of rural GINI coefficient were 1.54%, 1.31%, 0.96% and 2.30% respectively from 2004 to 2007, with average only 1.53%. This reflected that the limited capital investment was difficult to obviously improve the overall rural income distribution in the circumstances of rural economic development rapidly rising. When the MLD index was introduced to explain the changes gap between the low group’s income and average income, it could be found: the mean relative gap was narrowing in a degree between the lowest-income and each income group, and with the convergent trend after the implementation of RMLSSS. The empirical results supported the two research hypotheses.
To examine the targeting efficiency of RMLSSS, firstly, based on investigation in Fujian province, the research used survey data to descriptive statistical analysis on cognition and identity; secondly, the research used under-coverage ratio (UR), leakage ratio (LR), vertical expenditure efficiency and spillover ratio, which were draw on the experience of Prof. G. Dellaportas’research method and W. Beckerman model, to inspect targeting accuracy, targeting income gap, payment equity and the actual effects of relief at the implementation of RMLSSS.
The descriptive statistical analysis of respondents manifested: on the whole, regardless of the targeting and non-targeting households had quite high cognition and identity. By contrast, the targeting households had a higher degree of cognition and identity, they were more sensitive to main body of beneficial eligibility and be protected object, had the better judgements or the higher expectations on the accurately target problem, had a higher degree of satisfaction with security standard. All those demonstrated that RMLSSS were more attractive to targeting households, and getting a satisfying reaction. The results also revealed that the distributions of the guaranteed allowances were complex, the targeting households demanded for equitably and reasonable distributed ever shrilled.
The results revealed that there were mismatch between targeting household and protected households in the implementation of RMLSSS, the deviations were in esse. These included: UR was 8.11%, LR was 4.42%, and the total deviations were 12.53%. According to the investigation results, UR was often higher at a relatively low level of economic development areas, while LR incurred on the contrary. In view of RMLSSS necessary to benefit targeting households, UR should be a greater concern to policymakers and administers. Therefore, the further efforts would be system“fine-tuning”—the core should lie in appropriate increasing security standard and correspondent extending its coverage.
The better relief effects had been achieved by obtained benefit. More than 90% of the targeting households had guaranteed their basic needs, there were 12.61% had gotten away from the poverty after payments. Data in the investigation displayed that the increased amount of the per capita consumption expenses had been about 56.37%, which paid for them in 2007. They had high propensity to consume. RMLSSS had a positive effect on driving consumption demand growth.
In order to further improve targeting efficiency of RMLSSS. From the perspective of the livelihood assets of the rural households, the research selected a number of representative indicators in five categories assets, to setup quantitative indices system through indicators assignment, standardized treatment and weight distribution, then calculate quantitative value of livelihood assets, which reflected the extend of the poverty in low-income households. According to the total value to rank order that would determine the targeting households of RMLSSS. The application in practice demonstrated that the method could carry out accurate sequencing for the low-income farmers, and be used as an important basis for payments for the targeting households.
引文
[1]郑传芳.党的十七大的重大贡献[J].福建农林大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008,11(1):1-8.
[2]郑传芳.科学发展观的形成与发展[J].福建教育学院学报,2004,(10):1-10.
[3]郑传芳.改革开放是发展中国特色社会主义的强大动力[N].福建日报,2007-11-06(010).
[4]郑传芳.建国初期的困难与中共决策[J].党史资料与研究,1987,(5):47-48.
[5]蔡昉,陈凡,张车伟.政府开发式扶贫资金政策与投资效率[J].中国青年政治学院学报, 2001, 20(2):60-66.
[6]蔡昉,都阳.建立农村“低保”制度的条件已经成熟[J].中国党政干部论坛,2004,(7):17-18,27.
[7]蔡昉.构建公平分配的增长模式[N].文汇版,2005-11-02(01).
[8]曹子坚,刘亚桥,张森.扶贫战略的“效率”陷阱及其对策[J].甘肃社会科学,2002,(6):110-112.
[9]陈凡,杨越.中国扶贫资金投入对缓解贫困的作用[J].农业技术经济,2003,(6):1-5.
[10]陈光金.中国农村贫困的程度、特征与影响因素分析[J].中国农村经济,2008,(9):13-25,34.
[11]陈立中,张建华.经济增长、收入分配与减贫进程间的动态联系[J].中国人口科学,2007,(1):53-59.
[12]陈良瑾.中国社会工作百科全书[M].北京:中国社会出版社,1994.
[13]陈绍华,王燕.中国经济的增长和贫困的减少--1990-1999年的趋势研究[J].财经研究,2001,(9):3-11.
[14]邓大松,刘昌平.新农村社会保障体系研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2007.
[15]都阳,蔡昉.中国农村贫困性质的变化与扶贫战略调整[J].中国农村观察,2005,(5):2-9,22.
[16]杜晓山,孙若梅.中国小额信贷的实践和政策思考[J].财贸经济, 2000,(7):32-37.
[17]多吉才让.中国最低生活保障制度研究与实践[M].北京:人民出版社,2001.
[18]樊胜根, C.K.Connie.中国的道路发展、经济增长和减少贫困[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2006, (3).
[19]樊胜根,张林秀,张晓波.经济增长、地区差距与贫困--中国农村公共投资研究[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2002.
[20]福建年鉴[G].福州:福建人民出版社,1998.1999.2000.
[21]高颍,李善同.基于CGE模型对中国基础设施建设的减贫效应分析[J].数量经济技术经济研究, 2006,(6):14-24.
[22]顾昕,范酉庆,高梦滔.中国城乡社会救助筹资水平的公平性[J].国家行政学院学报,2007,(1):28-32.
[23]顾昕,高梦滔.社会安全网的编织--福建农村最低生活保障制度的覆盖面与服务递送[J].贵州师范大学学报(社会科学版),2006,(6):63-68.
[24]顾昕,高梦滔.中国社会救助体系中的目标定位问题[J].学习与实践,2007,(4):5-11
[25]顾昕,降薇,张秀兰.社会安全网的再编织:农村五保供养工作的困境与转型[J].公共管理评论, 2006,2:73-86.
[26]郭庆海.新世纪农业经济研究热点问题追踪[J].吉林农业大学学报,2002,24(4):1-7.
[27]郭亚军,郑少锋.中国农村居民收入与消费支出的长期均衡分析[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2007, 71(5):33-37.
[28]国家统计局.中国统计年鉴-2006[M]北京:中国统计出版社,2007.
[29]国家统计局农村社会经济调查司.中国农村贫困监测报告--2006 [R].北京:中国统计出版社,2006.
[30]国家统计局农村社会经济调查司.中国农村统计年鉴--2006[M].北京:中国统计出版社,2006.
[31]国家统计局农村社会经济调查司.中国农村住户调查年鉴--2006[M].北京:中国统计出版社,2006.
[32]国家统计局农调队.中国农村贫困监测报告[R].北京:中国统计出版社,2001.
[33]郝书辰,董西明.新时期农村社会保障制度研究[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2008.
[34]胡兵,胡宝娣,赖景生.经济增长、收入分配对农村贫困变动的影响[J].财经研究,2005,(8):89-99.
[35]黄季,马恒运,罗泽尔.中国的扶贫问题和政策[J].改革,1998,(4):72-83.
[36]黄家骅.福建省农村社会保障供求关系研究[J].福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,131(2):54-60.
[37]建国初期社会救济文献选载.党的文献[J].2000,76(4):13-21.
[38]孔祥智,钟真,原梅生.乡村旅游业对农户生计的影响分析--以山西三个景区为例[J].经济问题, 2008,(1):119-123.
[39]李斌,李小云,左停.农村发展中的生计途径研究与实践[J].农业技术经济,2004,(4):10-16.
[40]李航.我国转型期弱势群体社会风险管理探析[M].成都:西南财经大学出版社,2007.
[41]李实,赵人伟,张平.中国经济转型与收入分配变动[J].经济研究,1998,(4):42-51.
[42]李实,佐藤宏.经济转型的代价:中国城市失业、贫困、收入差距的经验分析[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[43]李实.对基尼系数估算与分解的进一步说明--对陈宗胜教授评论的再答复[J].经济研究, 2002,(5):84-87.
[44]李实.对收入分配研究中几个问题的进一步说明--对陈宗胜教授评论的答复[J].经济研究, 2000,(7):72-76.
[45]李实.收入分配与和谐社会[J].中国人口科学,2007,(5):8-11.
[46]李文,汪三贵.中央扶贫资金的分配及影响因素分析[J].中国农村观察, 2004,(8):44-48.
[47]李周.生态敏感地带与贫困地区的相关性分析[J].农村经济与社会,1994,(5):49-56.
[48]李含琳,韩坚.中国扶贫资金来源结构及使用方式研究[J].农业经济问题,1998,(4):6-10.
[49]李琳一,李小云.浅析发展学视角下的农户生计资产[J].农村经济,2007(10):1-4.
[50]李小云,董强,刘启明等.农村最低生活保障政策实施过程及瞄准分析[J].农业经济问题, 2006,(11):29-33.
[51]李小云,董强,饶小龙等.农户脆弱性分析方法及其本土化应用[J].中国农村经济,2007,(4):32-39.
[52]李小云,李周,唐丽霞等.参与式贫困指数的开发与验证[J].中国农村观察,2005,(3):39-46.
[53]李小云,唐立霞,张雪梅.我国财政扶贫资金投入机制分析[J].农业经济问题,2007,(10):77-82.
[54]李小云,张雪梅,唐立霞.当前中国农村的贫困问题[J].中国农业大学学报,2005,10(4):67-74.
[55]李小云,张雪梅,唐立霞等.中国财政扶贫资金的瞄准与偏离[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2006.
[56]李小云,张雪梅,唐丽霞.当前中国农村的贫困问题[J].中国农业大学学报,2005,10(4):67-74.
[57]林伯强.中国的经济增长、贫困减少与政策选择[J].经济研究, 2003,(12):15-25.
[58]林闽钢.中国农村贫困标准的调适研究[J].中国农村研究,1994,(2):56.
[59]刘坚.新阶段扶贫开发的成就与挑战--中国农村扶贫开发纲要(2001-2010)中期评估报告[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2006.
[60]刘伯龙,竺乾威,程惕洁等.当代中国农村公共政策研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2005.
[61]刘涤源,谭崇台.当代西方经济学说(下)[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1994.
[62]刘晓昀,辛贤,毛学峰.贫困地区农村基础设施投资对农户收入和支出的影响[J].中国农村观察, 2003,(1):31-36,80.
[63]刘志英.社会保障与贫富差距研究[M].北京:中国劳动社会保障出版社,2006.
[64]M. G. Roberts,杨国安.可持续发展研究方法国际进展--脆弱性分析方法与可持续方法比较[J].地理科学进展,2003,22(1):11-21.
[65]马静,霍学喜,刘天军.简论推进财政支农资金整合的模式选择--对陕西五县(区)财政支农资金整合的调查与思考[J].商业研究,2007,367(11):192-105.
[66]牛建高,杨秋林.区域开发扶贫主攻目标选择效果的实证分析[J].农业技术经济,1998,(3):22-25.
[67]尚晓援.中国社会安全网的现状及政策选择[J].战略与管理,2001,(6):1-11.
[68]尚晓援.中国社会保护体制改革研究[M].北京:中国劳动社会保障出版社,2007.
[69]孙少茹,郑少锋,石峰.财政资金投入结构和理性选择分析[J].安徽农业科学,2006,34(7):1491-1493.
[70]唐钧,沙琳,任振兴.中国城市贫困与反贫困报告[M] .北京:华夏出版社,2003.
[71]童万亨.福建省全面实施农村最低生活保障制度的调查与思考[J].农业经济问题, 2005,(1):37-41.
[72]汪立鑫.经济制度变迁的政治经济学[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2006.
[73]汪三贵, A. Park, S. Chaudhuri, G. Datt.中国新时期农村扶贫与村级贫困瞄准[J].管理世界,2007,(1)56-64.
[74]汪三贵,李文,李芸.我国扶贫资金投向及效果分析[J].农业技术经济, 2004,(5):45-49.
[75]汪三贵,李周,任燕顺.中国的“八七扶贫攻坚计划”:国家战略及其影响.上海扶贫大会—大规模减贫案例研究,2004,(3).
[76]汪三贵,王姮,王萍萍.中国农村贫困家庭的识别[J].农业技术经济,2007,(1):20-31.
[77]汪三贵.反贫困与政府干预[J].农业经济问题,1994,(3):44-49.
[78]王宁,姜凡.各地区城市最低生活保障制度运行有效性分析[J].统计与决策,2007,(3):83-85.
[79]王长银.英国反贫困政策与落后地区开发[J].经济开发论坛,1998,(7):45.
[80]王济川,郭志刚.Logistic回归模型--方法与应用[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2001.
[81]王有捐.对城市居民最低生活保障政策执行情况的评价[J].民政统计信息,2006,(10).
[82]王雨林,黄祖辉.影响转型期中国农村贫困变动率指标的因素的分解研究[J].中国人口科学, 2005,(1):50-58.
[83]魏勇,俞文华.中国转轨时期居民收入差距、贫困与增长问题的研究[J].经济科学,2004,(1):5-16.
[84]吴国宝.对中国扶贫战略的简评[J].中国农村经济, 1996,(4):26-30.
[85]谢涛.建国初期社会救助体系的构建与评析[J].当代中国史研究,2006,13(3):28-34.
[86]徐月宾,刘凤芹,张秀兰.中国农村反贫困政策的反思[J].中国社会科学,2007,(3):40-53.
[87]岳希明,李实,王萍萍.透视中国农村贫困[J].北京:经济科学出版社,2007.
[88]张建华,陈立中.总量贫困测度研究述评[J].经济学(季刊),2006,5(3):675-694.
[89]张金辉,张衔,邓翔等.中国西部农村人力资本投资与农民增收问题研究[M].成都:西南财经大学出版社,2005.
[90]张俊悟,李志文,张国庆.扶贫0资金存在的种种问题[J].中国审计,1998,(8):35.
[91]张新伟.扶贫资金低效性与市场化反贫困思路探寻[J].中国农村经济,1999,(2):52-57.
[92]张艳荣.甘肃省扶贫资金的生态经济效益分析[J].农业经济问题,2002,(9):31-33.
[93]赵冬缓,兰徐民.我国测贫指标体系及其量化研究[J].中国农村经济,1994,(3):45.
[94]赵人伟.对我国收入分配改革的若干思考[J].经济学动态,2002,(9):35-40.
[95]中国发展研究基金会.在发展中消除贫困[M].北京:中国发展出版社,2007.
[96]中华人民共和国民政部.中国民政统计年鉴--2007[M].北京:中国统计出版社,2007.
[97]朱玲.试论社会安全网[J].中国人口科学,1999,(3):11-17.
[98]朱乾宇.政府扶贫资金投入方式与扶贫绩效的多元回归分析[J].中央财经大学学报,2004,(7):11-15.
[99]左停,徐秀丽,齐顾波.构筑农村社会安全网:缓解农村贫困的战略性制度创新[J].中国农村经济, 2004,(12):53-58.
[100]World Bank. Introduction to Poverty Analysis [J]. World Bank, New York, 2005. http :/ / siteresources. wordbank. org/ PGLP/ resources/ povertyManual . pdf .
[101]吴桂英,周来.实话实说浙江农村低保[EB/OL].[2008-05-18]. http://www.ilib.cn/A-zclw20030411.html
[102]中广网.福建农村最低生活保障制度向深层次推进[EB/OL].[2008-05-18]. http://www.cnradio.com.cn/2004news/society/200702/t20070215_504402731.html
[103]中国新闻网.福建农村居民最低生活保障制度为中国提供经验[EB/OL].[2008-05-18]. http://news.sohu.com/20070118/n247694550.shtml
[104]阿马蒂亚·森.评估不平等和贫困的概念性挑战[J].经济学(季刊), 2003, 2 (2):257 -270.
[105]阿马蒂亚·森(任赜,于真译).以自由看待发展[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[106]米尔顿·弗里德曼(胡雪峰,武玉宁译).弗里德曼文萃[M]北京:北京经济学院出版社,2001.
[107]纳列什·辛格,乔纳森·吉尔曼.让生计可持续[J].国际社会科学(中文版),2000,(4):123-129.
[108]约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯(高鸿业译).就业、利息和货币通论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1988.
[109]詹姆斯.C.斯科特著(程立显,刘建等译).农民的道义经济学:东南亚的反叛与生存[M].南京:译林出版社,2001.
[110] A. B. Atkinson, A. k. Maynard & C.G.Trinder. National Assistance and Low Incomes in 1950[J]. Social Policy & Administration,1981,15(1):19-31.
[111] A. B. Garcia, V. Gruat. Social Protection:A Life Cycle Continuum Investment for Social Justice, Poverty Reduction and Development[M]. Geneva:Social Protection Sector, ILO,2003.
[112] A. Barrientos, D. Hulme & K. Moore. Social Protection for the Poorest:Taking a Broader View[J]. UNDP,2006.
[113] A. Park, S. Wang & G. Wu. Regional Poverty Targeting in China[J]. Journal of Public Economics, 2002,86(1): 123-153.
[114] A. Sen. Issues in the Measurement of Poverty [J]. Scandinavian Journal of Economics,1979,81(2): 285 -307.
[115] A. Sen. Poverty : An Ordinal Approach to Measurement[J]. Econometrica ,1976,44,219 -231.
[116] A. Shorrocks. Revisiting the Sen Poverty Index [J]. Econometrica,1995,63:1225 -1230.
[117] Adelman, Irma & T. M. Cynthra.Economic Growth and Social Equity in Developing Countries[M]. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press,1973.
[118] Asian Development Bank. Poverty Profile of People’s Republic of China. Manila: Asian Development Bank,2004.
[119] B. Arne, S. Abebe. Can Africa Reduce Poverty by Half by 2015? [J]. Development Policy Review,2007, 25 (2): 147-166.
[120] B. S. Rowntree, G.. R. Lavers. Poverty and the Welfare State[M], London: Longmans,1951.
[121] C. D. Neubourg, J. Castonguay & K. Roelen. Social Safety Nets and Targeted Social Assistance: Lessons from the European Experience[M]. Washington, DC, The World Bank Briefing Book,2003.
[122] C. Heady, T. Mitrakos & P. Tsakloglou. The Distributional Impact of Social Transfers in the European Union: Evidence from the ECHP[J]. Fiscal Studies,2001,22(4):547-565.
[123] D. Dolla, A. Kraay. Growth is good for the poor[J]. Journal of Economic Growth,2002,7(3):195-225.
[124] D. Mitchell, A. H. Natsem & F. Gruen. Targeting Welfare [J]. the Economic Record,1994, 70(210):315-340.
[125] D. Thon. A Note on A Troublesome Axiom for Poverty Indices [J]. Economic Journal,1983,93:199 -200.
[126] D. Thon. On Measuring Poverty [J]. Review of Income and Wealth,1979,25:429 -440.
[127] DID. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Department for International Development.2000.
[128] E. Skoufias. PROGRESA and its Impacts on the Human Capital and Welfare of Households in Rural Mexico:A Synthesis of the Results of an Evaluation by IFPRI. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2001,(10).
[129] E. Worrall, V. Wiseman & K. Hanson. Targeting Subsidies for Insecticide Treated Mosquito Nets. Health Economics and Financing Programme Working Paper, London: The School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,2003.
[130] F. Ellis. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Development Countries[M]. Londan:Oxford University Press,2000.
[131] G. Dellaportas. The Effectiveness of Public Assistance Payments (1970-80) in Reducing Poverty Reconsidered: The‘Safety Net’Was Still Very Leaky in 1980, But Less and More Working Poor May Have Been Aided [J]. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology,1986,45(1):1-8.
[132] G. Dellaportas. The Effectiveness of Public Assistance Payments in Reducing Poverty[J]. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology,1980,39(2):113-121.
[133] I. Scoones. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods:A Framework for Analysis. IDS,Working Paper,No,72.1998.
[134] IFPRI. Sistema de evaluacion de la fase piloto de la Red de Protección Social de Nicaragua: Evaluación de impacto . Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2002.
[135] J. A. Maluccio. Education and Child Labor: Experimental Evidence from a Nicaraguan Conditional Cash Transfer Program. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2005.
[136] J. Behrman, J. Hoddinott. An Evaluation of the Impact of PROGRESA on Pre-school Child Height. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000.
[137] J. Foster, A. Shorrocks . Subgroup Consistent Poverty Indices[J]. Economtrica,1991,59:687 -709.
[138] J. Foster, A. Shorrocks. Poverty Orderings[J]. Econometrica,1988,56:173 -177.
[139] J. Foster, J. Greer & E. Thorbecke. A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures [J]. Econometrica,1984,52:761 -766.
[140] J. Foster. On Economic Poverty: A Survey of Aggregate Measures[J]. Advances in Econometrics,1985,3: 215 -251.
[141] J. Hoddinott, E. Skoufias & R. Washburn. The Impact of PROGRESA on Consumption. washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000,(9).
[142] J. Hoddinott. Conditional Cash Transfer Programs. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000.
[143] J. Midgley. Social Welfare in Global Context[M]. London:Sage,1997.
[144] J. Villasenor, B. Arnold. Eliptical Lorenz Curves[J].Journal of Econometrics,1989,40(2): 327-338.
[145] K. H?lsch, M. Kraus. European Schemes of Social Assistance: an Empirical Analysis of Set-ups and Distributive Impacts[J]. International Journal of Social Welfare,2006,(5):50-62.
[146] K. Sharp. Measuring Destitution: Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches in the Analysis of Survey Data[C]. IDS Working Paper 217, 2003.
[147] L. B. Rawlings, G. M. Rubio.Evaluating the Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs. Washington, DC, The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 3119,2003,(8).
[148] L. B. Rawlings. A new Approach to Social Assistance: Latin America’s Experience with Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes[J]. International Social Security Review,2005,58( 2-3):133-161.
[149] L. Beveridge. Social Insurance and Allied Sevices[R]. London:HMSO,1942:21-23.
[150] L. Richardson, J. L.Grand. Outsider and Insider Expertise: the Response of Residents of Deprived Neighbourhoods to an Academic Definition of Social Exclusion[J]. Social Policy and Administration, 2002,36(5):496-516.
[151] M. Adato, B.dela Brière & D. Mindek, A. Quisumbing. The Impact of PROGRESA on Women’s Status and Intrahousehold Relations. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute, 2000,(7).
[152] M. Adato. The Impact of PROGRESA on Community Social Relationships. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000,(9).
[153] M. B. Arsenio, F. Nobuhiko. Growth,Inequality and Polities Revisited: A Developing Country Case[J]. Economics Letter,2003,79:53-58.
[154] M. Wang. Emerging Urban Poverty and Effects of the Dibao Program on Alleviating Poverty in China[J]. China & World Economy,2007,15(2):74-88.
[155] Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. Financial Circumstances of Retirement pensioners [R]. London: HMSO,1966.
[156] N. Kakwani. Note on A New Measure of Poverty[J]. Econometrica,1981, 49:525-526.
[157] N. Kakwani. On A Class of Poverty Measures[J]. Econometrica,1980,48:437-446.
[158] N. Takayama. Poverty, Income Inequality and Their Measures:Professor Sen’s Axiomatic Approach Reconsidered[J]. Econometrica ,1979,47:747 -759.
[159] NASW. Encyclopedia of Social Work[M]. Washington D.C: NASW Press,1999.
[160] O.Tomson. The Economic Development-Income Inequality Nexus Further Evidence on Kuznets’U-Curve Hypothesis[J]. American Journal of Economics and Sociology,1995,54(2):217-229.
[161] P. H. Rossi, H. E. Freeman & M. W. Lipsey. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach[M]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,1999.
[162] P. J. Gertler. The Impact of PROGRESA on Health . Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000.
[163] P. Spicker. Targeting, Residual Welfare and Related Concepts: Modes of Operation in Public Policy. Public Administration,2005,83(2):345-365.
[164] P. Townsend. Poverty in the United Kingdom[M], Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK,1979,(3):73.
[165] Q. Huang, D. Dawe, S. Rozelle & J. Huang. Irrigation, Poverty and Inequality in Rural China[J]. the Austrialian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics,2005,(49):159-175.
[166] R. Castel. The Road to Disaffiliation: Insecure Work and Vulnerable Relationships[J]. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,2000,24(3):519-535.
[167] R. Chambers, G. Conway. Sustainable Livelihoods:Practical Concepts for the 21st Century.IDS Discussion Paper,No.296.1992.
[168] R. Gaiha, K. Imai & P. D. Kaushik. On the Targeting and Cost-Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty Program in Rural India. Development and Change,2001,31:309-342.
[169] R. H. DeFina, K. Thanawala. International Evidence on the Impact of Transfers and Taxes on Alternative Poverty Indexes. Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series No. 325.
[170] R. Kanbur. Fifty Years of Regional Inequality in China: A Journal Through Revolution, Reform and Openness[J]. CEPR Discussion Paper,2001.
[171] S. Allegrezza , G. Heinrich & D. Jesuit. Poverty and Income Inequality in Luxemburg and the GrandeRégion in Comparative Perspective [J]. Socio-Economic Review,2004,(2):263-283.
[172] S. Chen, M. Ravallion. Absolute Poverty Measures for the Developing World, 1981-2004. Washington, DC, the world bank,2007,(5).
[173] S. Chen, M. Ravallion. How Have the World’s Poorest Fared since the Early 1980s[J]. The World Bank Research Observer,2004,19(2):141-169.
[174] S. Devereur, R. S. Wheeler. Transformative Social Protection[J]. Brighton:Institute of Development Studies Working Paper 232,2004.
[175] S. Kuznets. Economic Growth and Income Inguality[J].The American Economic Review,1955,(45):1-28.
[176] S. Parker, E. Skoufias. The impact of PROGRESA on work, leisure, and time allocation. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000,(10).
[177] S. Peter, B. Bruce. Monitoring Trends in Poverty and Income Distribution: Data, Methodology and Measurement[J]. The Economic Record,2006,82(258):341–364.
[178] S. Sunarto, A. Suryahadi & W. Widyanti.Designs and Implementation of Indonesian Social Safety Net Programs[J],The Developing Economies,XL-1,2002(5):3-31.
[179] T. Burchardt, J. L. Grand & D. Piachaud. Social Exclusion in Britian 1991-1995[J]. Social Policy and Administration,1999,33(3):227-245.
[180] T. Callan, B. Nolan. Concepts of Poverty and the Poverty Line [J]. Journal of Economic Surveys, 1991,5(3): 243-261.
[181] T. P. Schultz. Impact of PROGRESA on School Attendance Rates in the Sampled Population. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000a.
[182] T. P. Schultz. The impact of PROGRESA on School Enrollments. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000b
[183] W. Beckerman, S. Clark. Poverty and Social Security in Britain since 1961[M]. Londan:Oxford University Press,1982.
[184] W. Beckerman. The Impact of Income Maintenance Payments on Poverty in Britain 1975[J]. Economic Journal,1979,(6):261-279.
[185] W. D. Cole, J. Utting. The Economic Circumstances of Old People[M]. Welwyn: Codicote Press,1962.
[186] Y. T. Yap, G. Sedlacek & P. Orazem. Limiting child labor through behavior-based income transfers: An experimental evaluation of the PETI program in rural Brazil.Washington, DC, World Bank,2001.
[2]郑传芳.科学发展观的形成与发展[J].福建教育学院学报,2004,(10):1-10.
[3]郑传芳.改革开放是发展中国特色社会主义的强大动力[N].福建日报,2007-11-06(010).
[4]郑传芳.建国初期的困难与中共决策[J].党史资料与研究,1987,(5):47-48.
[5]蔡昉,陈凡,张车伟.政府开发式扶贫资金政策与投资效率[J].中国青年政治学院学报, 2001, 20(2):60-66.
[6]蔡昉,都阳.建立农村“低保”制度的条件已经成熟[J].中国党政干部论坛,2004,(7):17-18,27.
[7]蔡昉.构建公平分配的增长模式[N].文汇版,2005-11-02(01).
[8]曹子坚,刘亚桥,张森.扶贫战略的“效率”陷阱及其对策[J].甘肃社会科学,2002,(6):110-112.
[9]陈凡,杨越.中国扶贫资金投入对缓解贫困的作用[J].农业技术经济,2003,(6):1-5.
[10]陈光金.中国农村贫困的程度、特征与影响因素分析[J].中国农村经济,2008,(9):13-25,34.
[11]陈立中,张建华.经济增长、收入分配与减贫进程间的动态联系[J].中国人口科学,2007,(1):53-59.
[12]陈良瑾.中国社会工作百科全书[M].北京:中国社会出版社,1994.
[13]陈绍华,王燕.中国经济的增长和贫困的减少--1990-1999年的趋势研究[J].财经研究,2001,(9):3-11.
[14]邓大松,刘昌平.新农村社会保障体系研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2007.
[15]都阳,蔡昉.中国农村贫困性质的变化与扶贫战略调整[J].中国农村观察,2005,(5):2-9,22.
[16]杜晓山,孙若梅.中国小额信贷的实践和政策思考[J].财贸经济, 2000,(7):32-37.
[17]多吉才让.中国最低生活保障制度研究与实践[M].北京:人民出版社,2001.
[18]樊胜根, C.K.Connie.中国的道路发展、经济增长和减少贫困[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2006, (3).
[19]樊胜根,张林秀,张晓波.经济增长、地区差距与贫困--中国农村公共投资研究[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2002.
[20]福建年鉴[G].福州:福建人民出版社,1998.1999.2000.
[21]高颍,李善同.基于CGE模型对中国基础设施建设的减贫效应分析[J].数量经济技术经济研究, 2006,(6):14-24.
[22]顾昕,范酉庆,高梦滔.中国城乡社会救助筹资水平的公平性[J].国家行政学院学报,2007,(1):28-32.
[23]顾昕,高梦滔.社会安全网的编织--福建农村最低生活保障制度的覆盖面与服务递送[J].贵州师范大学学报(社会科学版),2006,(6):63-68.
[24]顾昕,高梦滔.中国社会救助体系中的目标定位问题[J].学习与实践,2007,(4):5-11
[25]顾昕,降薇,张秀兰.社会安全网的再编织:农村五保供养工作的困境与转型[J].公共管理评论, 2006,2:73-86.
[26]郭庆海.新世纪农业经济研究热点问题追踪[J].吉林农业大学学报,2002,24(4):1-7.
[27]郭亚军,郑少锋.中国农村居民收入与消费支出的长期均衡分析[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2007, 71(5):33-37.
[28]国家统计局.中国统计年鉴-2006[M]北京:中国统计出版社,2007.
[29]国家统计局农村社会经济调查司.中国农村贫困监测报告--2006 [R].北京:中国统计出版社,2006.
[30]国家统计局农村社会经济调查司.中国农村统计年鉴--2006[M].北京:中国统计出版社,2006.
[31]国家统计局农村社会经济调查司.中国农村住户调查年鉴--2006[M].北京:中国统计出版社,2006.
[32]国家统计局农调队.中国农村贫困监测报告[R].北京:中国统计出版社,2001.
[33]郝书辰,董西明.新时期农村社会保障制度研究[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2008.
[34]胡兵,胡宝娣,赖景生.经济增长、收入分配对农村贫困变动的影响[J].财经研究,2005,(8):89-99.
[35]黄季,马恒运,罗泽尔.中国的扶贫问题和政策[J].改革,1998,(4):72-83.
[36]黄家骅.福建省农村社会保障供求关系研究[J].福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,131(2):54-60.
[37]建国初期社会救济文献选载.党的文献[J].2000,76(4):13-21.
[38]孔祥智,钟真,原梅生.乡村旅游业对农户生计的影响分析--以山西三个景区为例[J].经济问题, 2008,(1):119-123.
[39]李斌,李小云,左停.农村发展中的生计途径研究与实践[J].农业技术经济,2004,(4):10-16.
[40]李航.我国转型期弱势群体社会风险管理探析[M].成都:西南财经大学出版社,2007.
[41]李实,赵人伟,张平.中国经济转型与收入分配变动[J].经济研究,1998,(4):42-51.
[42]李实,佐藤宏.经济转型的代价:中国城市失业、贫困、收入差距的经验分析[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[43]李实.对基尼系数估算与分解的进一步说明--对陈宗胜教授评论的再答复[J].经济研究, 2002,(5):84-87.
[44]李实.对收入分配研究中几个问题的进一步说明--对陈宗胜教授评论的答复[J].经济研究, 2000,(7):72-76.
[45]李实.收入分配与和谐社会[J].中国人口科学,2007,(5):8-11.
[46]李文,汪三贵.中央扶贫资金的分配及影响因素分析[J].中国农村观察, 2004,(8):44-48.
[47]李周.生态敏感地带与贫困地区的相关性分析[J].农村经济与社会,1994,(5):49-56.
[48]李含琳,韩坚.中国扶贫资金来源结构及使用方式研究[J].农业经济问题,1998,(4):6-10.
[49]李琳一,李小云.浅析发展学视角下的农户生计资产[J].农村经济,2007(10):1-4.
[50]李小云,董强,刘启明等.农村最低生活保障政策实施过程及瞄准分析[J].农业经济问题, 2006,(11):29-33.
[51]李小云,董强,饶小龙等.农户脆弱性分析方法及其本土化应用[J].中国农村经济,2007,(4):32-39.
[52]李小云,李周,唐丽霞等.参与式贫困指数的开发与验证[J].中国农村观察,2005,(3):39-46.
[53]李小云,唐立霞,张雪梅.我国财政扶贫资金投入机制分析[J].农业经济问题,2007,(10):77-82.
[54]李小云,张雪梅,唐立霞.当前中国农村的贫困问题[J].中国农业大学学报,2005,10(4):67-74.
[55]李小云,张雪梅,唐立霞等.中国财政扶贫资金的瞄准与偏离[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2006.
[56]李小云,张雪梅,唐丽霞.当前中国农村的贫困问题[J].中国农业大学学报,2005,10(4):67-74.
[57]林伯强.中国的经济增长、贫困减少与政策选择[J].经济研究, 2003,(12):15-25.
[58]林闽钢.中国农村贫困标准的调适研究[J].中国农村研究,1994,(2):56.
[59]刘坚.新阶段扶贫开发的成就与挑战--中国农村扶贫开发纲要(2001-2010)中期评估报告[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2006.
[60]刘伯龙,竺乾威,程惕洁等.当代中国农村公共政策研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2005.
[61]刘涤源,谭崇台.当代西方经济学说(下)[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1994.
[62]刘晓昀,辛贤,毛学峰.贫困地区农村基础设施投资对农户收入和支出的影响[J].中国农村观察, 2003,(1):31-36,80.
[63]刘志英.社会保障与贫富差距研究[M].北京:中国劳动社会保障出版社,2006.
[64]M. G. Roberts,杨国安.可持续发展研究方法国际进展--脆弱性分析方法与可持续方法比较[J].地理科学进展,2003,22(1):11-21.
[65]马静,霍学喜,刘天军.简论推进财政支农资金整合的模式选择--对陕西五县(区)财政支农资金整合的调查与思考[J].商业研究,2007,367(11):192-105.
[66]牛建高,杨秋林.区域开发扶贫主攻目标选择效果的实证分析[J].农业技术经济,1998,(3):22-25.
[67]尚晓援.中国社会安全网的现状及政策选择[J].战略与管理,2001,(6):1-11.
[68]尚晓援.中国社会保护体制改革研究[M].北京:中国劳动社会保障出版社,2007.
[69]孙少茹,郑少锋,石峰.财政资金投入结构和理性选择分析[J].安徽农业科学,2006,34(7):1491-1493.
[70]唐钧,沙琳,任振兴.中国城市贫困与反贫困报告[M] .北京:华夏出版社,2003.
[71]童万亨.福建省全面实施农村最低生活保障制度的调查与思考[J].农业经济问题, 2005,(1):37-41.
[72]汪立鑫.经济制度变迁的政治经济学[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2006.
[73]汪三贵, A. Park, S. Chaudhuri, G. Datt.中国新时期农村扶贫与村级贫困瞄准[J].管理世界,2007,(1)56-64.
[74]汪三贵,李文,李芸.我国扶贫资金投向及效果分析[J].农业技术经济, 2004,(5):45-49.
[75]汪三贵,李周,任燕顺.中国的“八七扶贫攻坚计划”:国家战略及其影响.上海扶贫大会—大规模减贫案例研究,2004,(3).
[76]汪三贵,王姮,王萍萍.中国农村贫困家庭的识别[J].农业技术经济,2007,(1):20-31.
[77]汪三贵.反贫困与政府干预[J].农业经济问题,1994,(3):44-49.
[78]王宁,姜凡.各地区城市最低生活保障制度运行有效性分析[J].统计与决策,2007,(3):83-85.
[79]王长银.英国反贫困政策与落后地区开发[J].经济开发论坛,1998,(7):45.
[80]王济川,郭志刚.Logistic回归模型--方法与应用[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2001.
[81]王有捐.对城市居民最低生活保障政策执行情况的评价[J].民政统计信息,2006,(10).
[82]王雨林,黄祖辉.影响转型期中国农村贫困变动率指标的因素的分解研究[J].中国人口科学, 2005,(1):50-58.
[83]魏勇,俞文华.中国转轨时期居民收入差距、贫困与增长问题的研究[J].经济科学,2004,(1):5-16.
[84]吴国宝.对中国扶贫战略的简评[J].中国农村经济, 1996,(4):26-30.
[85]谢涛.建国初期社会救助体系的构建与评析[J].当代中国史研究,2006,13(3):28-34.
[86]徐月宾,刘凤芹,张秀兰.中国农村反贫困政策的反思[J].中国社会科学,2007,(3):40-53.
[87]岳希明,李实,王萍萍.透视中国农村贫困[J].北京:经济科学出版社,2007.
[88]张建华,陈立中.总量贫困测度研究述评[J].经济学(季刊),2006,5(3):675-694.
[89]张金辉,张衔,邓翔等.中国西部农村人力资本投资与农民增收问题研究[M].成都:西南财经大学出版社,2005.
[90]张俊悟,李志文,张国庆.扶贫0资金存在的种种问题[J].中国审计,1998,(8):35.
[91]张新伟.扶贫资金低效性与市场化反贫困思路探寻[J].中国农村经济,1999,(2):52-57.
[92]张艳荣.甘肃省扶贫资金的生态经济效益分析[J].农业经济问题,2002,(9):31-33.
[93]赵冬缓,兰徐民.我国测贫指标体系及其量化研究[J].中国农村经济,1994,(3):45.
[94]赵人伟.对我国收入分配改革的若干思考[J].经济学动态,2002,(9):35-40.
[95]中国发展研究基金会.在发展中消除贫困[M].北京:中国发展出版社,2007.
[96]中华人民共和国民政部.中国民政统计年鉴--2007[M].北京:中国统计出版社,2007.
[97]朱玲.试论社会安全网[J].中国人口科学,1999,(3):11-17.
[98]朱乾宇.政府扶贫资金投入方式与扶贫绩效的多元回归分析[J].中央财经大学学报,2004,(7):11-15.
[99]左停,徐秀丽,齐顾波.构筑农村社会安全网:缓解农村贫困的战略性制度创新[J].中国农村经济, 2004,(12):53-58.
[100]World Bank. Introduction to Poverty Analysis [J]. World Bank, New York, 2005. http :/ / siteresources. wordbank. org/ PGLP/ resources/ povertyManual . pdf .
[101]吴桂英,周来.实话实说浙江农村低保[EB/OL].[2008-05-18]. http://www.ilib.cn/A-zclw20030411.html
[102]中广网.福建农村最低生活保障制度向深层次推进[EB/OL].[2008-05-18]. http://www.cnradio.com.cn/2004news/society/200702/t20070215_504402731.html
[103]中国新闻网.福建农村居民最低生活保障制度为中国提供经验[EB/OL].[2008-05-18]. http://news.sohu.com/20070118/n247694550.shtml
[104]阿马蒂亚·森.评估不平等和贫困的概念性挑战[J].经济学(季刊), 2003, 2 (2):257 -270.
[105]阿马蒂亚·森(任赜,于真译).以自由看待发展[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[106]米尔顿·弗里德曼(胡雪峰,武玉宁译).弗里德曼文萃[M]北京:北京经济学院出版社,2001.
[107]纳列什·辛格,乔纳森·吉尔曼.让生计可持续[J].国际社会科学(中文版),2000,(4):123-129.
[108]约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯(高鸿业译).就业、利息和货币通论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1988.
[109]詹姆斯.C.斯科特著(程立显,刘建等译).农民的道义经济学:东南亚的反叛与生存[M].南京:译林出版社,2001.
[110] A. B. Atkinson, A. k. Maynard & C.G.Trinder. National Assistance and Low Incomes in 1950[J]. Social Policy & Administration,1981,15(1):19-31.
[111] A. B. Garcia, V. Gruat. Social Protection:A Life Cycle Continuum Investment for Social Justice, Poverty Reduction and Development[M]. Geneva:Social Protection Sector, ILO,2003.
[112] A. Barrientos, D. Hulme & K. Moore. Social Protection for the Poorest:Taking a Broader View[J]. UNDP,2006.
[113] A. Park, S. Wang & G. Wu. Regional Poverty Targeting in China[J]. Journal of Public Economics, 2002,86(1): 123-153.
[114] A. Sen. Issues in the Measurement of Poverty [J]. Scandinavian Journal of Economics,1979,81(2): 285 -307.
[115] A. Sen. Poverty : An Ordinal Approach to Measurement[J]. Econometrica ,1976,44,219 -231.
[116] A. Shorrocks. Revisiting the Sen Poverty Index [J]. Econometrica,1995,63:1225 -1230.
[117] Adelman, Irma & T. M. Cynthra.Economic Growth and Social Equity in Developing Countries[M]. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press,1973.
[118] Asian Development Bank. Poverty Profile of People’s Republic of China. Manila: Asian Development Bank,2004.
[119] B. Arne, S. Abebe. Can Africa Reduce Poverty by Half by 2015? [J]. Development Policy Review,2007, 25 (2): 147-166.
[120] B. S. Rowntree, G.. R. Lavers. Poverty and the Welfare State[M], London: Longmans,1951.
[121] C. D. Neubourg, J. Castonguay & K. Roelen. Social Safety Nets and Targeted Social Assistance: Lessons from the European Experience[M]. Washington, DC, The World Bank Briefing Book,2003.
[122] C. Heady, T. Mitrakos & P. Tsakloglou. The Distributional Impact of Social Transfers in the European Union: Evidence from the ECHP[J]. Fiscal Studies,2001,22(4):547-565.
[123] D. Dolla, A. Kraay. Growth is good for the poor[J]. Journal of Economic Growth,2002,7(3):195-225.
[124] D. Mitchell, A. H. Natsem & F. Gruen. Targeting Welfare [J]. the Economic Record,1994, 70(210):315-340.
[125] D. Thon. A Note on A Troublesome Axiom for Poverty Indices [J]. Economic Journal,1983,93:199 -200.
[126] D. Thon. On Measuring Poverty [J]. Review of Income and Wealth,1979,25:429 -440.
[127] DID. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Department for International Development.2000.
[128] E. Skoufias. PROGRESA and its Impacts on the Human Capital and Welfare of Households in Rural Mexico:A Synthesis of the Results of an Evaluation by IFPRI. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2001,(10).
[129] E. Worrall, V. Wiseman & K. Hanson. Targeting Subsidies for Insecticide Treated Mosquito Nets. Health Economics and Financing Programme Working Paper, London: The School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,2003.
[130] F. Ellis. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Development Countries[M]. Londan:Oxford University Press,2000.
[131] G. Dellaportas. The Effectiveness of Public Assistance Payments (1970-80) in Reducing Poverty Reconsidered: The‘Safety Net’Was Still Very Leaky in 1980, But Less and More Working Poor May Have Been Aided [J]. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology,1986,45(1):1-8.
[132] G. Dellaportas. The Effectiveness of Public Assistance Payments in Reducing Poverty[J]. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology,1980,39(2):113-121.
[133] I. Scoones. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods:A Framework for Analysis. IDS,Working Paper,No,72.1998.
[134] IFPRI. Sistema de evaluacion de la fase piloto de la Red de Protección Social de Nicaragua: Evaluación de impacto . Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2002.
[135] J. A. Maluccio. Education and Child Labor: Experimental Evidence from a Nicaraguan Conditional Cash Transfer Program. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2005.
[136] J. Behrman, J. Hoddinott. An Evaluation of the Impact of PROGRESA on Pre-school Child Height. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000.
[137] J. Foster, A. Shorrocks . Subgroup Consistent Poverty Indices[J]. Economtrica,1991,59:687 -709.
[138] J. Foster, A. Shorrocks. Poverty Orderings[J]. Econometrica,1988,56:173 -177.
[139] J. Foster, J. Greer & E. Thorbecke. A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures [J]. Econometrica,1984,52:761 -766.
[140] J. Foster. On Economic Poverty: A Survey of Aggregate Measures[J]. Advances in Econometrics,1985,3: 215 -251.
[141] J. Hoddinott, E. Skoufias & R. Washburn. The Impact of PROGRESA on Consumption. washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000,(9).
[142] J. Hoddinott. Conditional Cash Transfer Programs. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000.
[143] J. Midgley. Social Welfare in Global Context[M]. London:Sage,1997.
[144] J. Villasenor, B. Arnold. Eliptical Lorenz Curves[J].Journal of Econometrics,1989,40(2): 327-338.
[145] K. H?lsch, M. Kraus. European Schemes of Social Assistance: an Empirical Analysis of Set-ups and Distributive Impacts[J]. International Journal of Social Welfare,2006,(5):50-62.
[146] K. Sharp. Measuring Destitution: Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches in the Analysis of Survey Data[C]. IDS Working Paper 217, 2003.
[147] L. B. Rawlings, G. M. Rubio.Evaluating the Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs. Washington, DC, The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 3119,2003,(8).
[148] L. B. Rawlings. A new Approach to Social Assistance: Latin America’s Experience with Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes[J]. International Social Security Review,2005,58( 2-3):133-161.
[149] L. Beveridge. Social Insurance and Allied Sevices[R]. London:HMSO,1942:21-23.
[150] L. Richardson, J. L.Grand. Outsider and Insider Expertise: the Response of Residents of Deprived Neighbourhoods to an Academic Definition of Social Exclusion[J]. Social Policy and Administration, 2002,36(5):496-516.
[151] M. Adato, B.dela Brière & D. Mindek, A. Quisumbing. The Impact of PROGRESA on Women’s Status and Intrahousehold Relations. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute, 2000,(7).
[152] M. Adato. The Impact of PROGRESA on Community Social Relationships. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000,(9).
[153] M. B. Arsenio, F. Nobuhiko. Growth,Inequality and Polities Revisited: A Developing Country Case[J]. Economics Letter,2003,79:53-58.
[154] M. Wang. Emerging Urban Poverty and Effects of the Dibao Program on Alleviating Poverty in China[J]. China & World Economy,2007,15(2):74-88.
[155] Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. Financial Circumstances of Retirement pensioners [R]. London: HMSO,1966.
[156] N. Kakwani. Note on A New Measure of Poverty[J]. Econometrica,1981, 49:525-526.
[157] N. Kakwani. On A Class of Poverty Measures[J]. Econometrica,1980,48:437-446.
[158] N. Takayama. Poverty, Income Inequality and Their Measures:Professor Sen’s Axiomatic Approach Reconsidered[J]. Econometrica ,1979,47:747 -759.
[159] NASW. Encyclopedia of Social Work[M]. Washington D.C: NASW Press,1999.
[160] O.Tomson. The Economic Development-Income Inequality Nexus Further Evidence on Kuznets’U-Curve Hypothesis[J]. American Journal of Economics and Sociology,1995,54(2):217-229.
[161] P. H. Rossi, H. E. Freeman & M. W. Lipsey. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach[M]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,1999.
[162] P. J. Gertler. The Impact of PROGRESA on Health . Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000.
[163] P. Spicker. Targeting, Residual Welfare and Related Concepts: Modes of Operation in Public Policy. Public Administration,2005,83(2):345-365.
[164] P. Townsend. Poverty in the United Kingdom[M], Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK,1979,(3):73.
[165] Q. Huang, D. Dawe, S. Rozelle & J. Huang. Irrigation, Poverty and Inequality in Rural China[J]. the Austrialian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics,2005,(49):159-175.
[166] R. Castel. The Road to Disaffiliation: Insecure Work and Vulnerable Relationships[J]. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,2000,24(3):519-535.
[167] R. Chambers, G. Conway. Sustainable Livelihoods:Practical Concepts for the 21st Century.IDS Discussion Paper,No.296.1992.
[168] R. Gaiha, K. Imai & P. D. Kaushik. On the Targeting and Cost-Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty Program in Rural India. Development and Change,2001,31:309-342.
[169] R. H. DeFina, K. Thanawala. International Evidence on the Impact of Transfers and Taxes on Alternative Poverty Indexes. Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series No. 325.
[170] R. Kanbur. Fifty Years of Regional Inequality in China: A Journal Through Revolution, Reform and Openness[J]. CEPR Discussion Paper,2001.
[171] S. Allegrezza , G. Heinrich & D. Jesuit. Poverty and Income Inequality in Luxemburg and the GrandeRégion in Comparative Perspective [J]. Socio-Economic Review,2004,(2):263-283.
[172] S. Chen, M. Ravallion. Absolute Poverty Measures for the Developing World, 1981-2004. Washington, DC, the world bank,2007,(5).
[173] S. Chen, M. Ravallion. How Have the World’s Poorest Fared since the Early 1980s[J]. The World Bank Research Observer,2004,19(2):141-169.
[174] S. Devereur, R. S. Wheeler. Transformative Social Protection[J]. Brighton:Institute of Development Studies Working Paper 232,2004.
[175] S. Kuznets. Economic Growth and Income Inguality[J].The American Economic Review,1955,(45):1-28.
[176] S. Parker, E. Skoufias. The impact of PROGRESA on work, leisure, and time allocation. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000,(10).
[177] S. Peter, B. Bruce. Monitoring Trends in Poverty and Income Distribution: Data, Methodology and Measurement[J]. The Economic Record,2006,82(258):341–364.
[178] S. Sunarto, A. Suryahadi & W. Widyanti.Designs and Implementation of Indonesian Social Safety Net Programs[J],The Developing Economies,XL-1,2002(5):3-31.
[179] T. Burchardt, J. L. Grand & D. Piachaud. Social Exclusion in Britian 1991-1995[J]. Social Policy and Administration,1999,33(3):227-245.
[180] T. Callan, B. Nolan. Concepts of Poverty and the Poverty Line [J]. Journal of Economic Surveys, 1991,5(3): 243-261.
[181] T. P. Schultz. Impact of PROGRESA on School Attendance Rates in the Sampled Population. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000a.
[182] T. P. Schultz. The impact of PROGRESA on School Enrollments. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute,2000b
[183] W. Beckerman, S. Clark. Poverty and Social Security in Britain since 1961[M]. Londan:Oxford University Press,1982.
[184] W. Beckerman. The Impact of Income Maintenance Payments on Poverty in Britain 1975[J]. Economic Journal,1979,(6):261-279.
[185] W. D. Cole, J. Utting. The Economic Circumstances of Old People[M]. Welwyn: Codicote Press,1962.
[186] Y. T. Yap, G. Sedlacek & P. Orazem. Limiting child labor through behavior-based income transfers: An experimental evaluation of the PETI program in rural Brazil.Washington, DC, World Bank,2001.