"While the incidence of extreme poverty in China fell dramatically over 1980-2001, progress was uneven over time and across provinces. Rural areas accounted for the bulk of the gains to the poor, though migration to urban areas helped. The pattern of growth mattered. Rural economic growth was far more important to national poverty reduction than urban economic growth. Agriculture played a far more important role than the secondary or tertiary sources of GDP. Rising inequality within the rural sector greatly slowed poverty reduction. Provinces starting with relatively high inequality saw slower progress against poverty, due both to lower growth and a lower growth elasticity of poverty reduction. Taxation of farmers and inflation hurt the poor. External trade had little short-term impact. This paper a product of the Poverty Team, Development Research Group is part of a larger effort in the group to understand the causes of country success in poverty reduction"--World Bank web site.

While the incidence of extreme poverty in China fell dramatically over 1980-2001, progress was uneven over time and across provinces. Rural areas accounted for the bulk of the gains to the poor, though migration to urban areas helped. The pattern of growth mattered. Rural economic growth was far more important to national poverty reduction than urban economic growth. Agriculture played a far more important role than the secondary or tertiary sources of gross domestic product (GDP). Rising inequality within the rural sector greatly slowed poverty reduction. Provinces starting with relatively high inequality saw slower progress against poverty, due both to lower growth and a lower growth elasticity of poverty reduction. Taxation of farmers and inflation hurt the poor. External trade had little short-term impact.

While the incidence of extreme poverty in China fell dramatically over 1980-2001, progress was uneven over time and across provinces. Rural areas accounted for the bulk of the gains to the poor, though migration to urban areas helped. The pattern of growth mattered. Rural economic growth was far more important to national poverty reduction than urban economic growth. Agriculture played a far more important role than the secondary or tertiary sources of GDP. Rising inequality within the rural sector greatly slowed poverty reduction. Provinces starting with relatively high inequality saw slower progress against poverty, due both to lower growth and a lower growth elasticity of poverty reduction. Taxation of farmers and inflation hurt the poor. External trade had little short-term impact.This paper - a product of the Poverty Team, Development Research Group - is part of a larger effort in the group to understand the causes of country success in poverty reduction.

Abstract: The paper examines the ways in which recent economic growth has been uneven in China and India and what this has meant for inequality and poverty. Drawing on analyses based on existing household survey data and aggregate data from official sources, the authors show that growth has indeed been uneven-geographically, sectorally, and at the household level-and that this has meant uneven progress against poverty, less poverty reduction than might have been achieved had growth been more balanced, and an increase in income inequality. The paper then examines why growth was uneven and why this should be of concern. The discussion is structured around the idea that there are both "good" and "bad" inequalities-drivers and dimensions of inequality and uneven growth that are good or bad in terms of what they imply for both equity and long-term growth and development. The authors argue that the development paths of both China and India have been influenced by, and have generated, both types of inequalities and that while good inequalities-most notably those that reflect the role of economic incentives-have been critical to the growth experience thus far, there is a risk that bad inequalities-those that prevent individuals from connecting to markets and limit investment and accumulation of human capital and physical capital-may undermine the sustainability of growth in the coming years. The authors argue that policies are needed that preserve the good inequalities-continued incentives for innovation and investment-but reduce the scope for bad ones, notably through investments in human capital and rural infrastructure that help the poor connect to markets.

Abstract: In 2005, China participated for the first time in the International Comparison Program (ICP), which collects primary data across countries on the prices for an internationally comparable list of goods and services. This paper examines the implications of the new Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) rate (derived by the ICP) for China's poverty rate (by international standards) and how it has changed over time. We provide estimates with and without adjustment for a likely sampling bias in the ICP data. Using an international poverty line of USD 1.25 at 2005 PPP, we find a substantially higher poverty rate for China than past estimates, with about 15% of the population living in consumption poverty, implying about 130 million more poor by this standard. The income poverty rate in 2005 is 10%, implying about 65 million more people living in poverty. However, the new ICP data suggest an even larger reduction in the number of poor since 1981.

The paper examines the ways in which recent economic growth has been uneven in China and India and what this has meant for inequality and poverty. Drawing on analyses based on existing household survey data and aggregate data from official sources, the authors show that growth has indeed been uneven-geographically, sectorally, and at the household level-and that this has meant uneven progress against poverty, less poverty reduction than might have been achieved had growth been more balanced, and an increase in income inequality. The paper then examines why growth was uneven and why this should be of concern. The discussion is structured around the idea that there are both "good" and "bad" inequalities-drivers and dimensions of inequality and uneven growth that are good or bad in terms of what they imply for both equity and long-term growth and development. The authors argue that the development paths of both China and India have been influenced by, and have generated, both types of inequalities and that while good inequalities-most notably those that reflect the role of economic incentives-have been critical to the growth experience thus far, there is a risk that bad inequalities-those that prevent individuals from connecting to markets and limit investment and accumulation of human capital and physical capital-may undermine the sustainability of growth in the coming years. The authors argue that policies are needed that preserve the good inequalities-continued incentives for innovation and investment-but reduce the scope for bad ones, notably through investments in human capital and rural infrastructure that help the poor connect to markets.

The paper examines the ways in which recent economic growth has been uneven in China and India and what this has meant for inequality and poverty. Drawing on analyses based on existing household survey data and aggregate data from official sources, the authors show that growth has indeed been uneven - geographically, sectorally, and at the household level - and that this has meant uneven progress against poverty, less poverty reduction than might have been achieved had growth been more balanced, and an increase in income inequality. The paper then examines why growth was uneven and why this should be of concern. The discussion is structured around the idea that there are both good and bad inequalities - drivers and dimensions of inequality and uneven growth that are good or bad in terms of what they imply for both equity and long-term growth and development. The authors argue that the development paths of both China and India have been influenced by, and have generated, both types of inequalities and that while good inequalities - most notably those that reflect the role of economic incentives - have been critical to the growth experience thus far, there is a risk that bad inequalities - those that prevent individuals from connecting to markets and limit investment and accumulation of human capital and physical capital - may undermine the sustainability of growth in the coming years. The authors argue that policies are needed that preserve the good inequalities - continued incentives for innovation and investment - but reduce the scope for bad ones, notably through investments in human capital and rural infrastructure that help the poor connect to markets.