perkins - poverty reduction in china
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Perkins - Poverty Reduction in China
1/14
The Macro-Economics of Poverty Reduction in China
By
Dwight H. Perkins
Harvard University
Presentation to the International Workshop onChallenges to Poverty Reduction in Chinas New
Development Stage
Beijing, February 25, 2011
-
7/31/2019 Perkins - Poverty Reduction in China
2/14
Outine of Presentation
This talk will attempt to make three points:
(1) That China has unusually low household consumption as a share of GDP and toavoid large scale unemployment of labor and other resources a large expendituregap needs to be filled by an unusually large rate of investment (or othergovernment expenditure) much of which must be done directly or indirectly bygovernment. This is both a problem but it is also an opportunity.
(2) I then will illustrate alternative anti poverty programs that could be used to help
fill this gap (my main point is simply that even very large anti-poverty programswill still leave a large gap that can be filled with infrastructure investments of thekind now being pursued.
(1) The first example will be a large income subsidy to the bottom 20 percent ofthe rural together with urban poor at the same poverty level.
(2) The second example will be a program to provide urban housing to theentire floating population of migrants.
(3) The purpose of these exercises is to make one simple pointChina canafford to spend a very large amount of money on anti-poverty programsorto put it differently, Chinas government has to spend huge amounts ofmoney on something in order to keep the growth rate up and it makes senseto spend more of this huge sum on programs that address poverty issues.
-
7/31/2019 Perkins - Poverty Reduction in China
3/14
Figure 2: China GDP Breakdown
(Expenditure Calculation) (in %)
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Total Consumption
Household Consumption
Investment
Trade Surplus
-
7/31/2019 Perkins - Poverty Reduction in China
4/14
Figure 3: Consumption as Share of
GDP (in %)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
PPP GDP
per
capita
854 1414.55 1812 2970 4075 6482 8500 10000 11500 13000 14500
China
Japan
Korea
Taipei, China
-
7/31/2019 Perkins - Poverty Reduction in China
5/14
The Aggregate Demand Gap: Problem or Opportunity
The consequences of this unusual structure of GDP on the expenditureside is that Chinas government expenditure must fill the gap betweenwhat profit oriented businesses would invest on their own and theamount of investment or government consumption that will achieve thefull employment of resources.
In practice so far this has involved very large expenditure on infrastructure(roads, railroads, airports, water conservancy, etc.), but there are otherkinds of investment that could also fill this gap if the government chose touse the investment money that way (e.g. migrant housing).
The money could also go to increase health insurance, to cover more ofthe costs of urban education for the poor, and for direct subsidies for thepoorall of these expenditures would help maintain full employment.
As the data in the next table make clear the amount of money availablefor these uses is very large (I do not have access to the detailedinvestment data so the table is my estimate and subject to error).
-
7/31/2019 Perkins - Poverty Reduction in China
6/14
GDP Expenditure Breakdown
Y = CHH + CG + IM + IG + (X
M)
-
7/31/2019 Perkins - Poverty Reduction in China
7/14
Table 1
Breakdown of Chinese GDP in 2009
BillionRMB %
CHH Consumption (households) 12112.99 35.1
CG Consumption (government) 4439.69 12.9
IM Investment (market driven) 8125.2 23.5
IG Investment (public infrastructure) 8321.15 24.1
(X-M) Export Surplus 1503.33 4.4
GDP (total) 34502.36 100
-
7/31/2019 Perkins - Poverty Reduction in China
8/14
Table 2
Rising Capital Output Ratio
GDCF/GDP GDP growth rate K/O ratio
(%) (%)
1978-1979 37.15 9.65 3.85
1980s 35.17 9.69 3.63
1990s 37.76 9.96 3.79
2000-2007 39.83 10.5 4.25
2008-2009 45.8 9.37 4.89
-
7/31/2019 Perkins - Poverty Reduction in China
9/14
A Program to Raise All Rural Incomes to Over US$2.00/day
This simulation is deliberately designed to be extremely large and nodoubt larger than anything the government is likely to consider at thisstage of development. My point is that even such a large program wouldbe affordable in the sense that the government has to spend far morethan this anyway simply to keep the growth rate up.
I am ignoring the many problems connected with implementing such aprogram (e.g. it is very difficult to measure incomes of the poor and thusto target such an expenditure to those for whom it is intended (examplefrom Sri Lanka), there is an issue of how to pay this out so that it doesntencourage people work less, giving the money to local cadres to distributeto the needy will promote corruption by some of them, and there are
financing issues as to who should pay, etc.) These subsidies could take many different forms (e.g. pensions for the
elderly, aid to poor children, or simple equivalents to the US EarnedIncome Credit.
-
7/31/2019 Perkins - Poverty Reduction in China
10/14
The Estimate Cost of this Income Subsidy
Raising all rural incomes to RMB3000/year (roughly equivalent
to US$2.00 per day) = RMB 218.6 Billion/year (roughly 71.8%
of Chinas rural population is already at this level or higher).
Raising urban incomes to RMB4500/year to take into account
the higher cost of urban living = RMB341 billion/year (roughly
75% of urban households are at or above this level already).
Total annual expenditure on this program = RMB560
billion/year or about 1/16th of the government expenditure
program that is needed to maintain high growth and fullemployment of resources.
-
7/31/2019 Perkins - Poverty Reduction in China
11/14
Table 3
Rural and Urban Low Incomes (per capita)
Rural
rural income RMB 100-800 2.21% US$0.22/day
800-1700 7.40% US$0.68/day
1700/3000 18.57% US$1.29/day
3000/5000 28.02% US$2.19/day
over 5000 43.80% US$2.74/day
Urban
urban lowest 10% 1981.15502 US$1.09/day
next 10% 2031.88854 US$1.11/day
next 20% 4319.73684 US$2.37/day
population
Subsidy rural population to RMB3000/yr 712.9 x.282x1088= 218.55 billion
Subsidy urban population to RMB4500/yr 621.9 x.25x2015= 341.4 billion
Total subsidy
RMB559.95
billion
-
7/31/2019 Perkins - Poverty Reduction in China
12/14
Providing Housing for Rural Migrants
The argument about why this would be desirable is compelling(children would be raised by their parents not their grandparents,education in urban schools will be better and more appropriate forthese childrens future than rural education, reduce sexuallytransmitted diseases, etc.).
Similar programs were also a source of stability in Singapore andHong Kong and were done at a time when the income per capita ofthese two cities was lower than what it is in China today.
I have done two calculations. One that funds all migrant familieswith housing equivalent to what is now called economically
affordable housing (80 square meters at RMB2134/sq. meter) The second assumes a more modest apartment of 40/sq meters
and only covers half of the floating population. I further assumethat both programs would be implemented over a ten year period.
-
7/31/2019 Perkins - Poverty Reduction in China
13/14
Table 4
Migrant Housing Expenditure Estimate
Funding all migrants
Funding half of floating
population
Sq meters/family 80 40
Price/square meter (in RMB) 2134 2134
Family apartments (millions) 100 50
Total cost z(billion RMB) 17072 4268
Cost per year over 10 years
(billion RMB) 1707.2 426.8
-
7/31/2019 Perkins - Poverty Reduction in China
14/14
Financing These Programs
The initial response of financial officials will be that they dont have themoney to do this, and this is true given the current sources of revenue andthe current expenditure priorities (e.g. the massive infrastructureconstruction programs).
But my main point throughout is that these large government investmentprograms were made necessary in part simply to maintain a high growth
rate. These anti poverty programs would also contribute to a high growthrate and would reduce poverty and inequality.
It will be desirable to finance these government programs (including theexisting ones) in more creative ways than in the past whatever the moneyis spent on. The shareholding enterprises controlled by the state shouldpay large dividends, long term bonds with appropriate interest rates
should provided for some of the housing costs and the migrantsthemselves can pay part of the cost by purchasing their apartments overtime at subsidized rates. Property taxes and other sources of localrevenue should be increased, but one cannot simply turn these tasks overto local governments, etc.