OPHIOxford Poverty & Human Development InitiativeDepartment of International DevelopmentQueen 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:

Year Total Household Included 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.

Table 1: Survey Year and Sample

http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/china

Figure 1: Survey Regions

Northeast: Liaoning; HeilongjiangEast: Shandong; Jiangsu

Center: Henan; Hubei; HunanWest: Guangxi; Guizhou

Variable & Cut-off

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

Table 2: Variables and cut-offs

Which K to be chosen?

Table 3: H and M0 with Different k (Equal Weight =1)

2000 2004

k H Mo 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 0.02 0.00 0.00

Which Unit to be analyzed?

Table 4: H and M0 with Different Unit Being Analyzed (2004)

Household As Unit Individual As Unit

k H M0 H M0

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 0.00 0.00 0.00

Poverty Dynamics in China by US$1/day measure

Figure 2: People living on less-than-US$1-per-day, 1990-2003 (%)

31. 529

16. 4 16. 117. 4

15. 4 14. 312. 9 11. 7

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1990 1993 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Source: UNESCAP (2005)

Compare M0 with Income Poverty

Figure 3: Compare M0 with Income Poverty

* Income poverty data are from Ravallion and Chen (2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004

Year

%

H PG SPG M0

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

Decompose Multidimensional Poverty by Dimensions

Figure 5: Contribution of individual dimension to M0

0. 00

5. 00

10. 00

15. 00

20. 00

25. 00

30. 00

35. 00

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004Year

%

I ncome Educati on Heal thWater Sani tati on El ectri ci ty

Compare Multidimensional Poverty across Regions

Table 5: Contribution to Total Multidimensional Poverty (k=3, %)

1991 1993 1997 2000 2004

Liangning 4.10 6.05 3.96 6.16

Heilongjiang 10.51 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

Mo

Rural 21.08 19.40 14.02 12.94 10.38

Urban 7.62 7.08 3.60 2.89 3.80

Contribution

Rural 84.94 85.74 89.09 90.50 84.56

Urban 15.06 14.26 10.91 9.50 15.44

Thank You For Your Attention!

yujiantuo@hotmail.com