OPHI Oxford Poverty Human Development Initiative Department

OPHI Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative Department of International Development Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford www. ophi. org. uk Multidimensional Poverty in China: 1991 -2004 Jiantuo Yu 16 June 2008

• Content – Sample description – Methodology, variables & cut-offs – Preliminary findings on China’s multidimensional poverty • Main purpose of the present research: – Apply the new poverty measurement methodology in the China context and compare the results with income poverty – Investigate multidimensional poverty dynamics in China – Decompose multidimensional poverty by dimensions – Compare multidimensional poverty status across regions and between rural and urban

China: Dataset Data Source: China Health and Nutrition Survey: Table 1: Survey Year and Sample Year Total Household Included Individual 1991 3618 3519 14571 1993 3447 3279 13344 1997 3875 3499 13378 2000 4403 4132 14726 2004 4387 4165 13796 * Those samples without full information for analysis have been excluded out. http: //www. cpc. unc. edu/projects/china

Figure 1: Survey Regions Northeast: Liaoning; Heilongjiang East: Shandong; Jiangsu Center: Henan; Hubei; Hunan West: Guangxi; Guizhou

Variable & Cut-off Table 2: Variables and cut-offs Variable Poverty Threshold Income Household per capita income < China’s national poverty line Education Mean adult education year < 5 years BMI At least one adult’s BMI < 18. 5 Tapped Water No access to tapped water in-house or in -yard Sanitation Without water-flushing toilet Electricity No access to electricity

Which K to be chosen? Table 3: H and M 0 with Different k (Equal Weight =1) 2000 2004 k H Mo k =1 75. 77 24. 48 70. 97 21. 88 k =2 48. 38 19. 91 41. 78 17. 02 k =3 17. 81 9. 72 15. 29 8. 19 k =4 4. 38 3. 01 2. 93 2. 01 k =5 0. 51 0. 43 0. 34 0. 28 k =6 0. 02 0. 00

Which Unit to be analyzed? Table 4: H and M 0 with Different Unit Being Analyzed (2004) Household As Unit Individual As Unit k H M 0 k =1 70. 97 21. 88 72. 73 22. 60 k =2 41. 78 17. 02 43. 11 17. 66 k =3 15. 29 8. 19 16. 19 8. 69 k =4 2. 93 2. 01 3. 20 2. 19 k =5 0. 34 0. 28 0. 35 0. 29 k =6 0. 00

Poverty Dynamics in China by US$1/day measure Figure 2: People living on less-than-US$1 -per-day, 1990 -2003 (%) Source: UNESCAP (2005)

Compare M 0 with Income Poverty Figure 3: Compare M 0 with Income Poverty * Income poverty data are from Ravallion and Chen (2004)

Poverty Dynamics in China : 1991 -2004 Figure 4: Trends of headcount deprivation in individual dimension

Decompose Multidimensional Poverty by Dimensions Figure 5: Contribution of individual dimension to M 0

Compare Multidimensional Poverty across Regions Table 5: Contribution to Total Multidimensional Poverty (k=3, %) 1991 Liangning 1993 4. 10 6. 05 2000 2004 3. 96 6. 16 10. 51 Heilongjiang 1997 11. 91 11. 48 Jiangsu 12. 89 13. 83 7. 65 5. 04 5. 37 Shandong 13. 27 11. 67 14. 67 11. 56 11. 38 Henan 15. 29 14. 98 18. 16 16. 08 19. 49 Hubei 15. 12 15. 11 17. 49 13. 22 16. 66 Hunan 11. 07 9. 94 6. 66 7. 37 4. 15 Guangxi 11. 50 11. 32 8. 45 7. 89 10. 02 Guizhou 16. 77 17. 10 16. 41 11. 25 15. 29

Compare Multidimensional Poverty Between Rural and Urban Table 7: Mo and Poverty Contribution of Rural and Urban China (K=3, %) 1991 1993 1997 2000 2004 Rural 21. 08 19. 40 14. 02 12. 94 10. 38 Urban 7. 62 7. 08 3. 60 2. 89 3. 80 Rural 84. 94 85. 74 89. 09 90. 50 84. 56 Urban 15. 06 14. 26 10. 91 9. 50 15. 44 Mo Contribution

Thank You For Your Attention! yujiantuo@hotmail. com