Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T15:11:07.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Poverty Reduction in Urban China: The Impact of Cash Transfers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2014

Alfred M. Wu
Affiliation:
Department of Asian and Policy Studies, The Hong Kong Institute of Education E-mail: wumuluan@ied.edu.hk
M. Ramesh
Affiliation:
Department of Asian and Policy Studies, The Hong Kong Institute of Education E-mail: mramesh@nus.edu.sg
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The extent to which social protection programmes in general, and targeted programmes in particular, actually alleviate poverty has been a central issue in development debates for decades. The objective of this article is to contribute to the debate by empirically examining the poverty-alleviation effects of one of the largest targeted programmes in the world: the Minimum Living Standard Assistance (MLSA) or Dibao in China. Using newly available data on MLSA spending and a unique panel survey dataset covering the 1993 to 2009 period, this research investigates the impact of the MLSA on poverty alleviation. The analyses using fixed-effects and random-effects logit models and hierarchical liner models offer insights that go beyond the existing studies on the subject. Findings from the study confirm that targeted social protection programmes are an effective tool for reducing poverty.

Information

Type
Themed Section on Managing Social Change and Social Policy in Greater China: Welfare Regimes in Transition?
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 
Figure 0

Table 1 Poverty lines, Income per person per month, PPP CNY, 1993–2009

Figure 1

Table 2 Poverty headcount ratio by year, 1993–2009

Figure 2

Figure 1. Poverty headcount ratio, 1993–2009 Source: authors’ calculations.

Figure 3

Table 3 Poverty headcount ratio, poverty line 1, by region

Figure 4

Table 4 MLSA spending as a percentage of GDP and per capita, per year, 2000–09

Figure 5

Table 5 Fixed-effects and random-effects logit models on poverty status

Figure 6

Table 6 Hierarchical linear models on poverty status