公共支出与经济型贫困之间的关系

I. Introduction引言

贫困地区由于自然，历史和地理条件是很难依靠自身的发展摆脱贫困，政府的干预是必不可少的。中国政府早在1986年开了一个大规模开发式扶贫之旅，并界定其专门针对国家级贫困县的扶贫。在贫困地区的一般政府公共开支，公共开支，有特殊的贫困削减公共开支，我们可以说，政府的公共支出在该地区的经济发展中的贫困和贫困上已经发挥了重要作用，中国的放缓农村扶贫开发工作的成果,不可磨灭。但在21世纪，贫困人口，减少政府的公共开支是增加贫困人均公共支出的上升贫困状况，成本变得越来越高，这日益成为一个棘手的问题。

Poverty-stricken areas due to natural, historical and geographical conditions is difficult to rely on their own development out of poverty, government intervention is indispensable. Chinese government early in 1986 opened a large-scale development-oriented poverty reduction journey, and delineate its national poverty counties specifically aimed at poverty alleviation. In the poverty-stricken areas in addition to the general government public expenditure public expenditure, there special poverty reduction in public spending, we can say the government's public spending on poverty and poverty in the region's economic development has played a major role in slowing of China's achievements in rural poverty work can not not. But the 21st century, the population in poverty, diminishing the government's public spending is increasing poverty per capita public spending is rising poverty conditions, there was a poor higher costs, diminishing marginal efficiency of investment in poverty alleviation, poverty alleviation effect of increasing not significant, more difficult issues such as poverty mitigation. How to improve the government's direction and structure of public expenditure, improve the government marginal rate of investment, better play to the government's public spending to promote economic growth and poverty reduction role as the current urgent problem.

很少有从经济学的角度来研究对贫困地区的扶持作用，只有黄罗斯葛兰特和Rozelle（1997）的研究，是有关公共投资（主要是R＆D投资）对中国的贡献农作物的生长。

Few studies have public investment from the government perspective on Chinese government public spending on economic growth and poverty. Huang, Rosegrant and Rozelle (1997) study of public investment (mainly R & D investment) on the Chinese contribution to the growth of crops. Fan et al. (2000) [1] and Lin Bo (2005) [2] are obtained by contacting equation analysis of Chinese government's public investment (R & D, education, roads, electricity, etc.) to economic development rate of return and poverty reduction effects are recognized public investment in education to help the poor best, followed by agriculture R & D investment, and analysis, east, west three different regions of the impact of public investment in the respective difference. Liu Zhi poor (2007) [3] on the fate of the Chinese government is pro-poor public spending empirical study, concluded that: The Government's science, education and social assistance for the poor has been tilted, but the relative lack of social security, the poor get more quick and agricultural services, but the long-term nature of public services get fewer subsidies to the rich, special services and support to the poor.#p#分页标题#e#

作为政府扶贫资金向贫困地区特殊的公共支出，传统上由三个部分组成。财政扶贫资金主要由财政安排专项扶贫办负责开发的预算资金，支持贫困地区的经济发展;由国家资助，贴息贷款是农业银行发放贷款，以支持经济发展贫困地区以工代赈预留发展和改革委员会中央政府给予农民的方式来鼓励他们积极参与当地基础设施，改善贫困地区的基础设施，并帮助农民增加收入。

As a government anti-poverty funds to poor areas of special public spending, traditionally consists of three parts. FINANCIAL AID funded mainly by the development of the Poverty Alleviation Office responsible for special financial arrangements are budget funds to support economic development in poverty-stricken areas; subsidized loans subsidized by the state is responsible for issuing the Agricultural Bank for loans to support economic development in poor areas; FFW the central government earmarked by the Development and Reform Commission to grant farmers a way to encourage their participation in local infrastructure to improve infrastructure in poor areas and help farmers increase their income.  

 

Reforestation subsidy as the current implementation of a major project to benefit farmers, China's poverty monitoring report which also serves as the capital of a poverty statistics. Our country is in 1999 started a pilot Grain for Green Project, Grain farmers to make direct payment for food and living allowance. 2007 in order to consolidate the results already achieved Grain, Grain farmers to solve the long-term livelihood issues, the establishment of special funds to consolidate the achievements of converting farmland. Reforestation Project Central special subsidies benefit farmers hundreds of millions, not only improve the ecological environment have become an important source of income poor households, poor areas can also change the mode of development.

 

his study by anti-poverty funds invested by the four components: financial poverty development funds, food for work, subsidized loans, forest subsidies. Currently a lot of research for the conduct and effectiveness of anti-poverty funds to invest, ZHU Qian Yu (2003) on China's poverty alleviation funds for performance analysis, Wang Sangui, etc. (2004), Liu Dongmei (2001) and so the effect on poverty alleviation funds invested empirical research.
 

This empirical analysis through econometric model between farmers and government 2002-2008 different investment to economic growth and poverty rates change, simulate different government contribution rate of public spending, hoping next public spending on government structure and direction of the adjustment has been Help.

 

We focus on economic growth, poverty-stricken counties to represent the per capita net income of farmers, the model in the form of production function using segmented by double logarithmic linear regression model OLS expenditure categories contribution to economic growth. Logarithmic to better reflect the percentage change in the relationship between variables, but there is some cross easily between multiple variables of linear problems, logarithmic can reduce the possibility of serial correlation.#p#分页标题#e#

Theoretical models: rural per capita net income = F (poor farmers per capita government spending, general government public spending per capita of farmers, farmers 'per capita raised production costs, farmers' own production conditions, where the village infrastructure and other conditions)

 

Government expenditure on poverty alleviation in poor areas important public expenditure, in order to better analyze the performance of pro-poor spending, according to invest will be divided into input agriculture, investment in other industries, investment in infrastructure, investment in science, education and other aspects into five categories ; constitute types into financial poverty by development funds, work-relief funds, subsidized loans and grants Grain four categories.

 

 

Model 1:模型1

+ Β4ln (jsds) + β5ln (xzqy) + β6ln (xjssf) + ε where, income for farmers per capita net income, fpzj pro-poor growth per capita funding, ygdz per capita work-relief funds, txdk subsidized loans per capita, tghl as Reforestation per capita grants, czznzc per capita fiscal expenditure on agriculture, czkjzc of per capita spending on technology, czjyzc per capita expenditure on education, nmzc raised for farmers per capita expenditure, nyfpzj poor agricultural per capita expenditure, qthyfpzj per capita in other industries poverty spending, jcssfpzj poor infrastructure per capita spending, kjwwfpzj science, education and poverty reduction expenditure per capita, qtfpzj other poor per capita expenditure, nynyzc raised agricultural expenditure per capita for farmers, nygyzc raised industrial expenditure per capita for farmers, nmdscyzc for farmers per capita from raise the tertiary industry expenditures, gdmj for farmers per capita arable land area, hjrk for farmers household population, hjldl for farmers household labor, wcwg for farmers and migrant proportion of the workforce, zxpx had received skills training for the labor proportion, td is powered village proportion, tdh proportion of village phone, tl is the proportion of the village path, jsds village is capable of receiving television programs proportion, xzqy Village number of township enterprises, xjssf as is the proportion of new technology demonstration village.

 

II.MAINBODY正文

 

We focus on the change in poverty poverty poverty rate in the county is represented by a linear regression model OLS expenditure categories for the contribution of the poverty rate.

 

Theoretical models: the poverty rate = F (poor government spending, government spending general public, non-governmental poverty spending, farmers raised production costs, farmers own production conditions, poverty-stricken areas of natural and infrastructure conditions)

 

Where H is the poverty rate, fpzj for the poor development funds, ygdz as food for work, txdk as subsidized loans, tghl of returning farmland to forest subsidies, czznzc of fiscal expenditure on agriculture, czkjzc for the financial technology spending, czjyzc of fiscal expenditure on education, nyfpzj poverty expenditures for agriculture, qthyfpzj poverty expenditures for other industries, jcssfpzj for infrastructure pro-poor spending, kjwwfpzj of science, education and poverty reduction expenditures, qtfpzj for other pro-poor expenditures, fzfpzj non-governmental anti-poverty spending, nmzc for farmers raised spending, nynyzc agricultural expenditure for farmers raised, nygyzc industrial spending for farmers raised, nmdscyzc for farmers raised the tertiary industry expenditures, gdmj for farmers per capita arable land area, hjrk for farmers household population, hjldl for farmers household labor, wcwg for farmers accounting for the proportion of migrant labor, zxpx had received skills training for the labor force proportion, cjfp as participated in the proportion of poor farmers, td proportion to electrify villages, tdh is the proportion of the village phone, tl is the proportion of the village path, jsds order to Village proportion receiving television programs, xzqy Village number of township enterprises, xjssf as is the proportion of new technology demonstration village.#p#分页标题#e#

 

Data from China Statistical Publishing House of the calendar year, "China Rural Poverty Monitoring Report", the selected section of the sequence and mixed data through Eview5.0 statistical software for regression analysis. Since China Poverty Monitoring Report was launched in 2000 after a lot of data in 2002 only after statistical norms, so we selected data is key counties 2002-2008 poverty related data. Because the sample is small, fitting results may differ from actual have some bias, but I hope that empirical results also partly reflects the 21st century, the government's public spending on the poor areas of economic development and poverty mitigation some new situations. Here we use the analysis of economic growth in key counties for poverty-stricken rural residents per capita net income to reflect the poverty rate in key counties with poverty rates of poverty and low-income sum to reflect the proportion of the population. Because then put on public spending does not necessarily have immediate effect, so we also had no significant effect when the one-year lag variables look at its effects, such as ln (ygdz) (-1) indicates one-year lag FFW (see Table 1).
 

Model 1 adjusted R2 value larger than the model fitting described good results. The coefficients of the explanatory variables is indicative promote farmers' per capita net income increase, is that we want to see results. Government spending from the classification see poverty, pro-poor development funds to promote farmers 'per capita income increased 99% confidence level for each 1% increase in pro-poor development funds can significantly increase farmers' per capita income increased 0.9289%. The FFW and subsidized loans after one year lag are statistically significant, the per capita income of farmers but did not play a role in promoting the improvement, it may be because FFW diminishing the quantity of investment in recent years, and to work on behalf of Relief is not necessary for the needs of farmers to provide their public infrastructure. Cai Fang, etc. (2001) [4] that the FFW project "Relief" is becoming increasingly weak demand from the local population, reduced to general infrastructure, so the key counties for poverty-stricken farmers per capita incomes but counterproductive . Subsidized loans may also be because of poor targeting, there is no real benefit poor farmers, so the per capita income of farmers increased also played a negative role. Reforestation special subsidy due to the direct payment to farmers, so the promotion of farmers per capita net income increase was significantly positively correlated. Table 1

 

Source: The author has been calculated finishing derived.

From the point of view toward poverty reduction spending, investment in agriculture and the secondary and tertiary industries poverty alleviation expenditure per capita net income of farmers increase was a significant positive correlation, the best investment in agriculture, increased by 1 per cent of agricultural investment in poverty alleviation can bring per capita net income of farmers increased 1.3017%, investment in infrastructure investment lagged one year after the income of the farmers are still not significant, which may be due to poor infrastructure still does not meet the real needs of farmers. In the 90% confidence level investment in technological culture, health poor spending lagged significantly after one year brings substantial increase in per capita income of farmers.#p#分页标题#e#

 

General government public spending, whether it is expenditure on agriculture or education and technology expenditures have contributed to increase the per capita income of farmers, and are positively correlated. Which the government's spending on education increased farmers' income the most significant, followed by agriculture and science and technology expenditures.

 

Farmers raised production expenditures per capita income of farmers with a significant positive correlation. Look from the farmer's own production conditions, and more able to increase revenue per capita arable land, population will reduce revenue, but in the statistical tests were not very significant. The average increase in labor can significantly improve the income of farmers. Increase the proportion of migrant labor can increase farmers' income, did not pass statistical tests, and have received professional training in the proportion of the labor force at the 95% confidence level increases can significantly improve the income of farmers. This shows that the rural labor export alone does not improve farmers' income, we must strengthen professional and technical training for farmers to enable them to benefit.

Farmers living conditions from the village to see, infrastructure can improve the income of farmers, but not statistically significant. This may be because in recent years, rural infrastructure such as electricity, access, telephone, a television in the village has a high proportion (about 90% basically), rural infrastructure construction has achieved great results, so the development of the increase farmers' income now is not so significant. At 95% confidence level village on the number of township enterprises to improve farmers' income is significant, because the village township enterprises to expand revenue streams, leading farmers to non-agricultural income. The village is agriculture and animal husbandry, such as new

 

Technology demonstration village, then the villagers' income will be increased, but not statistically significant (Table 2).

Model 2 adjusted R2 values ​​inside each larger than the model fitting description of good results, the coefficient is negative description of the explanatory variables contributed to the decline in poverty rates is that we want to see.

 

Government's poverty reduction expenditures from the classification perspective, pro-poor development funding at the 95% confidence level to promote the rate of decline in poverty and significant negative correlation, each 1% increase in investment can promote pro-poor growth poverty rate fell 0.5798%, the effect is very obvious. The FFW and subsidized loans are not expected to play a role in promoting poverty rate has dropped. FFW lag a year later, and promote the poverty rate has dropped, but the statistical test is still not significant. Subsidized loans in the 99-year lag. The confidence level for the poverty rate is significantly positively correlated, indicating that subsidized loans increased but to promote poverty rates rise. This may be because the nature of banks' risk aversion crowding out effect on the formation of poor farmers, so that the funds should play a role in reducing poverty as targeted deviation resulting in greater injustice, they became accomplices of increasing poverty. Reforestation of special subsidies to promote poverty rate decreased, but not statistically significant.#p#分页标题#e#

Government expenditures increased from poor to invest in perspective, poverty alleviation invest in various fields have contributed to the decline in the poverty rate. Among them, invest in science, education and poverty reduction expenditures lagged one year after the most significant decline in the poverty rate, followed by poor government spending on agriculture and other sectors of government on poverty reduction expenditures. Poor infrastructure spending lagged promote poverty rate after one year although decreased, but not statistically significant statistical test.

 

Non-governmental anti-poverty spending, significantly reducing the poverty rate. Non-governmental anti-poverty funds are mainly including the use of foreign capital and other poverty alleviation funds.

 

General government non-poor public spending have contributed to poverty reduction. Among them, the government expenditure on education lagged one year after a decline in the poverty rate for the most significant, followed by spending on technology lagged poverty rate after one year was also significantly negatively correlated, then the government's agricultural spending significantly promote poverty rates decline.

 

Farmers raised production costs are also significantly promote poverty rates decline. Look from the farmer's own production conditions, an increase of arable land can promote poverty rate declined but statistical test was not significant, the average population increased significantly promote the poverty rate rose, the average increase in the labor force significantly reduces the poverty rate. Migrant labor force to increase the proportion of the decline in the poverty rate to promote the role, but not statistically significant, possibly because of the poor more than the proportion of migrant workers and the poor migrant workers no advantage. Received professional training of the labor force the proportion of the poor rate of decline counterproductive but not significantly, possibly with the poor to participate in professional training proportion is not high on (2007 National Farmers participated in professional training accounted for 23.4%, while the poor counties only 10% , so the poverty rate did not change significantly). Surprisingly, farmers participated in the proportion of poverty alleviation projects on poverty rate has dropped also counterproductive, but did not pass statistical tests. This may be because poverty alleviation projects in recent years participated in the proportion of farmers is declining, it could really benefit from the poor to the poverty alleviation was not involved in the project.

 

From the village farmers living conditions look to improve rural infrastructure to promote the poverty rate has dropped, but not statistically significant, possibly because of rural infrastructure has been greatly improved and developed to relatively small impact on poverty. Village number of township enterprises in the 90% confidence level can significantly reduce the incidence of poverty. New agricultural technology demonstration village can reduce the proportion of the poverty rate, but not statistically significant.#p#分页标题#e#

Fourth, the conclusions and policy recommendations
 

III.CONCLUSION结论
 

(1) to strengthen efforts in public spending in poor areas加强贫困地区的公共支出力度

 

From Model 1 and Model 2 can be seen: whether for economic growth or poverty reduction, the government should continue to increase the intensity of public spending in poor areas, and only strong government intervention and guide the parties to jointly promote investment, in order to better faster to help poverty-stricken areas of poverty. Government public investment is guaranteed access to basic public services, poor farmers to improve their ability and opportunity to develop the prerequisites.

 

(2) to change the government to invest in public spending转变政府投资的公共开支

 

Government's public spending, whether general or special poverty reduction expenditures, from looking to invest in education and should continue to increase input into agriculture. From the previous model we found that public expenditure on education to economic growth and poverty mitigation are the most significant contribution that education is really improving farmers the most effective way of human capital is the driving force of economic growth and poverty reduction in the core. With particular emphasis on the government to increase public investment in education, not only to continue to increase the popularity of compulsory education efforts to reduce the burden on their children to school for farmers to reduce the possibility of intergenerational poverty, but also for farmers, particularly poor farmers more professional skills training, in order to provide effective transfer of rural surplus labor force possible. In addition to education expenditures, in order to promote economic growth and reduce poverty, the government should continue to increase public investment in agriculture. Agriculture, after all, the survival of the poor areas, agriculture is still the main income for many poor farmers' way. Agriculture, natural vulnerability requires government actively involved in the agricultural subsidies, raise the purchase price of agricultural products and so very important.

 

(3) poor performance of timely adjustment according to the structure of public expenditure及时调整根据公共支出结构

 

Government special poverty reduction expenditure by classification must constitute more development funds to invest in poverty alleviation. Looking at the results from the empirical model, only the pro-poor development funds for economic growth and poverty reduction were significantly effective, FFW and subsidized loans both for increasing farmers' income or poverty reduction are ineffective. But now our country's financial discount or spending the bulk of the poor, in 2002 accounted for 49% of all anti-poverty funds, diminishing to 2007 is also accounted for 29%. FFW is the smallest proportion, remaining at about 20%, by 2007 dropped to about 15%. Poverty development funds is increasing every year, accounting for 22 percent from 2002 to 2007 has increased the development of accounting for around 31%. Grain subsidies increased from around 11% in 2002 to 2007. 26%. According poor performance analysis, the future will continue to increase financial investment in pro-poor development funds to increase their share. Subsidized loans for poor performance was the highlight of the worst spending, bank risk aversion characteristics make most of the subsidized loans are not paid to farmers to invest more industrial enterprises, crowding out effect on farmers make to economic growth and poverty reduction have played to adverse effects. Be sure to subsidized loans for the current reforms should increase the release of micro-credit, so that farmers truly become beneficiaries of financial discount. FFW must also reform and development up to now no special requirements for disadvantaged groups to arrange the project objectives become more general alienation of public works, so the mitigation of poverty was not significant, can not really meet the needs of farmers, naturally, can not increase farmers' income and promote economic development. Reforestation grants as a non-traditional anti-poverty funds, although not directly used for poverty alleviation, but due to benefit large, can not only improve the ecological environment, but more importantly is to change the mode of development of many poor areas, poor areas to promote increase farmers' income. Therefore, it should continue to focus on returning farmland to forest subsidies, optimize the use of it to play a greater role.#p#分页标题#e#

 

To play a guiding role in the government's public expenditure to promote broad participation of all sectors of society, such as the government can increase the purchase of agricultural subsidies, to encourage and guide farmers to increase production inputs raised to play the enthusiasm of farmers to promote their incomes. At the same time, we must recognize that farmers are weak, but also on the government's anti-poverty more active involvement and support. Future to continue to make good use of non-governmental anti-poverty spending, want to NGO's and international agencies in China to play a better role in poverty alleviation and create conditions. Government has to the development of township enterprises to provide more tax, financial support, because development of township enterprises to increase rural non-farm employment for the opportunity to promote their incomes and poverty mitigation is important.

 

In short, the government-led poverty alleviation and development banner, poverty-stricken areas has undergone enormous changes, in order to further improve the quality of life of poor people in the region to reduce poverty, the government must also continue to increase public spending investment, and through the government's public Expenditure orientation, timely adjustment of the structure to guide and encourage more social forces to participate to achieve the end of poverty.