tuesday, december 08, 2015 investment priorities for cutting hunger and poverty in asia shenggen fan
TRANSCRIPT
Friday, April 21, 2023
Investment Priorities for Cutting Hunger and Poverty in Asia
Shenggen Fan
Page 2
Outline of the Presentation
• How Asian countries have been spending• How spending has contributed to growth and
poverty reduction• Way forward• Lessons
Page 3
Share of Agriculture Spending in Total Budget
Page 4
Share of Agricultural Spending in AgGDP
Page 5
Government Spending and Poverty
Agricultural Production
Other Exogenous Variables -Population Growth -Agroecological Conditions -Urban Growth -Macro and Trade Policies -Asset (Land) Distribution
Poverty
Food Prices
Wages Nonfarm Employment/migration
Finance -Political -Economic -Governance
Total Government Spending
Allocation: Education/Health, Infrastructure/technology, Targeted Programs
Spending Outcome: Education/Health, Infrastructure, Technology
Efficacy -Governance
Non-farm Production
Targeted Programs
Page 6
Effects of Government Spending, India
Returns in Rupee No. of Poor ReducedPer Rupee Per Million RupeeSpending Spending
R&D 13.45 84.5Irrigation 1.36 9.7Roads 5.31 123.8Education 1.39 41Power 0.26 3.8Soil and Water Conservation 0.96 22.6Health 0.84 25.5Anti-poverty Programs 1.09 17.8
Page 7
Coastal Central Western Average
Returns to total rural GDP yuan per yuan expenditure
R&D 5.54 6.63 10.19 6.75
Irrigation 1.62 1.11 2.13 1.45
Roads 8.34 6.90 3.39 6.57
Education 11.98 8.72 4.76 8.96
Electricity 3.78 2.82 1.63 2.89
Telephone 4.09 4.60 3.81 4.22
Returns to poverty reduction no. of poor reduced per 10,000 yuan expenditure
R&D 3.72 12.96 24.03 10.74
Irrigation 1.08 2.16 5.02 2.31
Roads 2.68 8.38 10.03 6.63
Education 5.03 13.90 18.93 11.88
Electricity 2.04 5.71 7.78 4.85
Telephone 1.99 8.10 13.94 6.17
Poverty loan 3.70 3.57 2.40 3.03
Effects of Government Spending, China
Page 8
Investment Northeast North Central South Thailand Cost-Benefit Ratio (Bhat/Bhat) Agricultural R&D n.a n.a. n.a. n.a. 12.62 Irrigation 0.76 1.11 0.55 0.62 0.71 Roads 1.23 1.23 0.44 1.24 0.86 Education 1.26 2.92 2.89 2.51 2.12 Electricity 8.66 8.04 2.59 5.48 4.89 Phone n.s. n.s n.s n.s n.s No. of Poor Reduced per Million Bhat Agricultural R&D n.a n.a n.a n.a 138.10 Irrigation 21.05 5.22 1.74 4.53 7.69 Roads 3.94.09 67.43 15.88 106.08 107.23 Education 34.74 13.71 9.08 18.53 22.75 Electricity 1,253.02 198.57 42.79 211.99 276.07 Phone n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s
Effects of Government Spending, Thailand
Page 9
Effects of Government Spending, Vietnam Agricultural
R&D Irrigation Roads Education
Dong Per Dong Spending
The Whole Country 12.22 0.42 3.01 2.06
Northern Uplands 0.21 1.87 0.95Red River Delta 0.4 3.26 2.08North Central 0.22 3.27 1.01Central Coast 0.21 2.44 1.23Highlands 0.28 3.09 1.97Southeast 1.33 3.3 4.66Mekong River Delta 0.37 3.4 2.08
Number of Poor Reduced per Billion Dong
The Whole Country 338.96 12.93 132.34 76.4
Northern Uplands 12.03 153.04 65.6Red River Delta 7.93 91.38 49.4North Central 14.9 311.57 81.28Central Coast 12.99 215.58 92.31Highlands 8.37 130.54 70.14Southeast 27.85 98.64 117.64Mekong River Delta 5.68 74.14 38.24
Page 10
Investment and Poverty Reduction: Summary
China India Thailand Vietnam
Ranking of Returns in Agricultural ProductionAgricultural R&D 1 1 1 1Irrigation 5 4 5 4Education 2 3 3 3Roads 3 2 4 2Telecommunications 4Electricity 6 8 2Health 7Soil and Water Conservation 6Anti-Poverty Programs 5
Ranking of Returns in Poverty ReductionAgricultural R&D 2 2 2 1Irrigation 6 7 5 4Education 1 3 4 3Roads 3 1 3 2Telecommunications 5Electricity 4 8 1Health 6Soil and Water Conservation 5Anti-Poverty Programs 7 4
Page 11
Way Forward
• Public investment needs better targeted for achieving maximized growth and poverty reduction.
• Agricultural research, rural infrastructure and education are the three most effective public spending items in promoting agricultural growth and poverty reduction.
• More investments in many less-developed areas not only offer the largest poverty reduction per unit of spending, but also lead to the highest economic returns.
Page 12
Way Forward
• It is often the low grade/low cost types of infrastructure that may have highest pay off per unit of investment in growth and poverty reduction.
• Increased investment on irrigation should be replaced by increasing efficiency of the current public irrigation system.
• More efforts are needed to improve targeting and efficiency of anti-poverty programs
Page 13
Lesson: “One-Size-Fits-All” does not work
• Different spending priorities are needed in different stages of development.
• In the first phase, strategy should focus on reducing widespread poverty through broad based economic growth which reaches agricultural sector and rural areas.
• In subsequent phase, more direct attention is needed to concentrate on lagging regions, as well as on poverty at the community and household levels.
• Social protection spending becomes important when poor is concentrated to certain populaiton groups and easy to identify.
Page 14
• Many Asian countries are still in the first phase. These countries include Myanmar, Nepal, Laos, and Cambodia.
• Investments in support of economic growth remain central to reduction of their mass poverty.
• Governments have the central responsibilities of forging a well-sequenced and coherent growth strategy, and of determining which public investment priorities are required.
• Public investment in infrastructure and agriculture are the main areas needing attention.
Lesson “One-Size-Fits-All” does not work
Page 15
• China, Vietnam and Thailand have favored a sectoral and regional targeting approach to deal with rising inequalities such as with employment actions but has recently expanded to more household and community targeted programs.
• India, on the other hand, has concentrated on targeting specific sections of the population and has involved a large set of actors including NGOs and civil society, and recently expanded employment programs. The experience of India shows that the use of variety of targeted programs directed to specific sections of the poor can help improve targeting compared with the broader income- or area-based approaches.
Lesson: “One-Size-Fits-All” does not work