中国经济高速增长的亲贫困程度研究：1989-2009
|
摘要
改革开放以来,在允许一部分人先富起来的政策推动下,中国经济取得快速发展。经济发展使得绝对贫困发生率大为下降,然而,诸多研究表明,中国经济发展具有绝对贫困下降伴随相对贫困上升的特征,这意味着中国收入不平等的某种程度恶化,意味着中国仍有不少的人口没有充分享受经济发展带来的益处。另一方面,中国社会结构正经历大变迁,阶层开始分化,不同的阶层在收入、声望、权力等社会资源占有及分配上也有所不同。在中国经济高速增长背景下,各阶层的经济地位有无发生根本变化,分享经济增长成果程度有无不同,各阶层对资源占有是否存在不平等,仍然问题重重。因此,对经济增长是否亲贫困及其程度作出判定,以阶层视角研究经济增长的亲群性,具有重要的社会学意义。
本文在对1989-2009年中国贫困状况的动态变化认识基础上,采用非匿名性的方法,对中国亲贫困增长和亲群体增长进行测度与效应分解。利用截面回归和收入动态分布分析方法,对贫困与非贫困人口以及不同社会阶层之间收入水平和收入增长率的趋同进行研究。之后从人力资本、家庭财产、社会资本和自然资本等角度对影响中国亲贫困增长和亲群性增长的影响因素进行研究,进而对关键影响因素的不平等和机会不平等进行测度与分解,分析其家庭层面和群体层面的差异。主要研究内容和结论如下：
第一,通过对贫困理论、亲贫困增长理论和不平等理论的文献综述,指出贫困测度指标尽管不能满足所有公理性标准,但仍不失为一个可采纳的指标,并且贫困测度中的缺憾也相应地体现在亲贫困增长测度中。由于基尼系数度量上的优点,在交叉项贡献相对较小的情况下,采用基尼系数进行度量和分解较为合适。在交叉项比较严重的情况下,为了更明显分解出组内贡献和组间贡献,采用广义熵指数较为合适。
第二,对1989-2009年中国的动态贫困进行了评估,剖析了长期贫困和暂时贫困发生的程度和特征,并从长期和短期收入转移矩阵角度,分析穷人脱贫后经济地位的变迁。研究显示,中国贫困状况的变化更多地取决于农村的减贫程度,未来的脱贫工作在兼顾城镇贫困与农村贫困的同时,还需更为关注农村的长期贫困家庭。由于中国农村低收入家庭较多,农村贫困发生率对贫困线的提高更为敏感。农村家庭的长期贫困与暂时贫困比例均高于城镇,脱贫难度相对较大。短期内,位于贫困线附近的非贫困家庭更易陷入贫困,但长期看,不同收入水平的非贫困家庭陷入贫困的概率趋同。脱贫后的前两年为返贫高发年,其后返贫机率走低。长短期内,不同收入水平的贫困阶层都有机会进入社会收入顶层,但这种机会相对较小。
第三,基于非匿名性方法,依据动态贫困线,对亲贫困增长指数和减贫等值增长率两个指数进行改造,从全国、城乡两个层面对1989-2009年中国的亲贫困增长程度进行了测度与分解。结果发现,以相对贫困线为标准,1989-2009年这二十年,经济发展是低度亲富的,富人收入增速高于穷人。经济增长在城镇中表现出中度亲富增长特征,农村则呈现出低度亲富增长特征。城乡不同对象在分享经济增长益处方面存在一定差异,农村富人的经济增长受益程度低于城镇富人,城镇穷人的经济增长受益程度低于农村穷人,但不论在城镇还是在农村,经济增长都更有利于富人。绝对贫困下降,其中收入分配恶化和贫困线提高抵消了约一半的经济增长减贫效应；相对贫困上升,其中经济增长减贫效应基本上为贫困线提高所抵消。
第四,依据职业分层,对中国各社会阶层的收入增长情况进行了比较分析,通过构建亲群体增长率、群体增长曲线和亲群体增长指数,对中国经济增长中各阶层获益程度进行分析。研究发现,转型期内,国家与社会管理者、企业经营者和高级专业技术人员为最高受益阶层,一般专业技术人员和办事人员为中等受益阶层,个体工商户和产业工人为平受益阶层,商业服务人员、农业劳动者和城乡无业失业者为非受益阶层。
第五,在对省际之间空间相关性检验基础上,采取Barro简约回归方程和动态收入分布分析方法,对贫困人口与非贫困人口之间以及各阶层之间的收入水平和收入增长率绝对趋同进行研究。结果显示,以相对贫困线为贫困标准,绝对趋同检验表明,各省之间的人均收入和贫困发生率并没有呈现出绝对β收敛。省际贫困人口之间的收入水平为单峰趋同,省际富人之间的人均收入也呈单峰趋同。此外,中国社会阶层在收入水平上呈现俱乐部趋同现象,其中第一俱乐部为高收入俱乐部,包括国家与社会管理者、企业经营者、高级专业技术人员和个体工商户；第二俱乐部为中等收入俱乐部,包括一般专业技术工作者、办事人员、商业服务人员和产业工人；第三俱乐部为低收入俱乐部,包括农业劳动者和城乡无业(失业、半失业)者。
第六,以家庭财产、人力资本、社会资本和自然资本为主要影响因素,采用面板分位数回归和截面分位数回归模型相结合的方式,对家庭层面和个体层面收入增长的主要影响因素进行研究。研究显示,家庭收入增收影响因素方面,户主文化程度、户主年龄、家庭规模、家庭劳力文化水平、社会资本、家庭财产、自然环境以及公共物品对家庭增收具有显著影响,户主性别、户主婚姻状况无显著影响,劳动力数量、城乡分割只对中低收入家庭起显著影响。个体收入的增加与户主情况不具有显著联系,家庭规模只对中等收入家庭成员的增收有显著影响,城乡因素只对中低收入阶层增收有显著影响,家庭财产是家庭成员增收的有力支撑。文化程度、年龄对于个体增收具有显著影响,性别、婚姻只对中等收入群体的增收有显著影响,最具收益性的社会资本来自政府机关或事业单位。
第七,以贫困人口与非贫困人口以及不同社会阶层为对象,对人力资本、政治资本、自然资本和医疗保障的不公平程度进行度量与分解。在此基础上,对高等教育机会公平性、进入政府或事业单位工作机会公平性以及享受社会保障机会公平性进行研究。结果发现,家庭人力资本均衡性在增强,社会资本不平等程度在上升,医疗保障得到基本普及。高等教育机会不平等程度下降,进入政府或事业单位工作机会不平等程度有所增加,医疗保障机会不平等程度大为降低。
本文研究指出：第一,中国经济发展需要推行亲贫困增长战略。一揽子经济增长政策应以弱势群体为覆盖对象,切勿忽视经济增长中的收入分配,诸如与弱势群体自身密切相关的政府投资,应向弱势群体倾斜。第二,要实现非破坏性公平增长的经济发展目标。经济发展应是非破坏性的公平增长,这种公平若以结果来衡量,则要求包括收入水平等其他生活质量指标不存在不平等现象,并且制度的设计还要确保机会公平。第三,推进择业公平,消除阶层固化壁垒。通过城镇化消除城乡择业的不平等,通过高等教育普及实现人力资本均衡化,推进择业公平消除阶层固化。第四,实现家庭城镇化,消除自然环境不平等。城镇化的方向,必须以自然环境作为重要考量,而非简单的以农村来界定,优先对于自然环境恶劣的家庭进行整体搬迁。同时,城镇化需注重家庭生存能力和发展能力的培养,城镇化需要降低其生活成本,确保其有一定的收入来源,然后才能通过以时间换空间的方式,实现城镇化家庭生活状况的根本改观。第五,推进教育公平,提高家庭人力资本存量。中国教育不平等正从数量不平等向质量不平等转移,教育质量不平等十分严重。初中和高中教育质量的不平等已经传递到了优质高等教育机会的不平等,解决小学、初中和高中阶段的教育质量不平等已然十分迫切。第六,加强农村公共物品与准公共物品提供,推进公共资源均享。在加强农村公共物品与准公共物品提供的同时,必须强调合理规划、分类提供的原则,依据不同农村地区的经济发展水平,提供对当地经济发展更为有效的关键公共物品与准公共物品。
本文有可能在以下几个方面作了新探索：(1)从亲贫困增长视角研究中国经济增长的性质；(2)研究对象有所扩展,不仅局限于贫困与非贫困群体的亲贫困增长研究,还创新性地从社会阶层角度对经济增长的亲群性作了全新探索,拓宽了研究视野；(3)创新的提出了亲群体增长的测度与效应分解,主要包括群体增长曲线、亲群体增长指数及其效应分解。在收入增长因素研究中,采用了面板分位数回归与截面分位数回归相结合的方法,深入细致地刻画了不同因素对于不同收入水平增长影响的显著程度,克服了以往截面回归、分类回归和协整分析只对均值回归的局限性。
Since the reform and opening-up, Chinese economy has developed rapidly as a result of the policy which allows partial population to get well-off first. On the one hand, though economic development has substantially decreased the absolute poverty incidence, various researches show that Chinese economic development is characterized by the drop of absolute poverty and the rise of relative poverty, which suggests that Chinese income inequality is weakened to a certain degree and a huge Chinese population cannot fully enjoy the benefits created by economic development. On the other hand, Chinese social structure is undergoing a huge social change and commencing class differentiation, with different social stratums differing in the occupation and allocation of the social resources, such as income, prestige, and power. In the context of Chinese economic growth, all social stratums are exposed to a variety of problems, such as whether there is any fundamental change of economic status, any difference in sharing the achievements of economic growth, or any inequity of resources occupation. Therefore, it is of important sociological significance to judge the pro-poor nature and degree of economic growth and study the pro-group nature of economic growth from stratum perspective.
Based on the knowledge about the dynamic change of Chinese poverty during1989and2009, this paper measures pro-poor growth and pro-group growth in Chinese and decomposes the effect accordingly in a non-anonymous way. By means of cross-section regression and income dynamic distribution analysis, this paper studies the convergence of income level and growth rate between poverty population and non-poverty population as well as among different social stratums. Afterwards, this paper studies the influencing factors for pro-poor growth and pro-group growth in China from various angles, such as human capital, material capital, social capital and natural capital. Then, this paper measures and decomposes the inequity of key influencing factors and opportunity, as well as analyzes the difference on the family and group level. The main research contents and conclusions are as follows:
First, according to literature review of poverty theory, pro-poor growth theory and inequity theory, poverty measurement index is still adoptable though it cannot satisfy all axiomatic standards, and meanwhile, the defects of poverty measurement are also correspondingly embodied in the measurement of pro-poor growth. As a result of the measurement advantage, Gini coefficient is applicable to measurement and decomposition under the circumstance of small cross term contribution. In case of severe cross terms, Generalized Entropy index can be applied to decomposing contributions within groups and between groups more obviously.
Second, this paper has evaluated Chinese dynamic poverty during1989and2009, and analyzed the degree and characteristics of long-term poverty and temporary poverty. Additionally, from the perspective of long-term and short-term income transfer matrix, this paper analyzes the change of economic status of the poor who cast off poverty. The study shows that the change of poverty status in China is more reliant on rural poverty reduction degree. Thus, the future poverty-relief work shall focus not only on urban poverty and rural poverty, but also on long-term rural impoverished families. Owning to the large number of low-income families in Chinese villages, rural poverty incidence turns out to be more sensitive to poverty line. In the short run, non-poverty families neighboring to poverty line will be more vulnerable to poverty, whereas in the long run, non-poverty families at different income levels will face the convergence of poverty probability. The first two years after overcoming poverty achieve high poverty-returning rate, which will fall afterwards. In the short and long term, poverty classes at different income levels will be likely to achieve the highest income in the society. However, such probability is very small.
Third, based on non-anonymous method, this paper modifies pro-poor growth and poverty equivalent growth rate according to dynamic poverty line, as well as measures and decomposes China's pro-poor growth degree during1989and2009from the perspective of the whole country as well as cities and villages. The findings show that based on the standard of relative poverty line, economic growth was at a low degree of pro-rich during1989and2009, with the rich superior to the poor in income growth rate. In cities and towns, economic growth was characterized by medium pro-rich growth, while in villages, it was characterized by low degree of pro-rich growth. Different rural and urban objects varied in sharing the benefits of economic growth to a certain degree. Compared with urban rich people, rural rich people enjoyed fewer benefits of economic growth, while compared with rural poor people, urban poor people enjoyed fewer benefits of economic growth. However, economic growth was proved to be more favorable for the rich both in cities and in villages. For absolute poverty reduction, the worsening of income distribution and the rise of poverty line have offset half of the poverty reduction effect of economic growth. For relative poverty improvement, poverty reduction effect of economic growth was basically offset by the rise of poverty line.
Fourth, according to occupational stratification, this paper makes a comparative analysis on the income growth of all Chinese social stratums, as well as analyzes the benefit degree of all social stratums during China's economic growth through constructing pro-group growth rate, group growth curve and pro-group growth index. According to researches, in transformation period, the highest beneficial stratum consists of national and social manager, corporate operator, and senior technical professionals, with middle-level beneficial stratum constituted by ordinary technical professionals and clerks, low beneficial stratum by individual businesses and industrial workers, and non-beneficial stratum by business service personnel, agricultural laborers, and urban and rural unemployed people.
Fifth, based on the inter-provincial space correlation test, this paper studies the convergence of income level and growth rate between poverty population and non-poverty population as well as among different social stratums by means of Barro regression equation and dynamic income distribution analysis. According to the result, with relative poverty line as standard, absolute convergence test reveals that there is no absolute β convergence for per capita income and poverty incidence among all provinces. The income level of not only inter-provincial poverty population, but also of inter-provincial rich people displays unimodal convergence. Additionally, Chinese social stratum demonstrates club convergence at income level. The first club achieves high income, including national and social managers, enterprise operators, senior technical professionals, and individual businesses. The second club achieves middle income, including ordinary technical professionals, clerks, business service personnel, and industrial workers. The third club achieves low income, including agricultural laborers and urban unemployment people (the unemployed and the semi-unemployed).
Sixth, with family property, human capital, social capital and natural capital as major influencing factors, this paper integrates panel quantile regression with cross-section quantile regression to study the major factors that influence the growth of family and individual income. The study shows that family income growth is significantly influenced by householder's educational level, householder age, family size, household labor's educational level, social capital, family property, natural environment and public goods, but insignificantly influenced by householder gender, and householder's marital status. Besides, quantity of labor force and urban and rural division only exercise a significant influence on low-and middle-income families. Individual income growth is insignificantly related to householder condition, with family size only significantly influencing the income growth of middle-income family members, while urban and rural factors only significantly influencing income growth of middle-and low-income stratums. Meanwhile, family property is the strong support for income growth of family members. Educational level and age exert a significant influence on individual income growth, and besides, gender and marriage only significantly influence income growth of middle-income group, with the most profitable social capital contributed by governmental organs or public institutions.
Seventh, based on the objects of poverty population, non-poverty population and different social stratums, this paper measures and decomposes inequity of human capital, political capital, natural capital and medical security. On this basis, this paper studies the opportunity equity of receiving higher education, working in government or public institution, and enjoying social security. The findings show that household human capital increases its balance, with social capital raising its inequity degree and medical security basically popularized. Meanwhile, inequity degree of higher education opportunity decreases, with inequity degree of working opportunity in government or public institutions increasing, and that of medical security opportunity substantially declining.
According to the studies in this paper, first, Chinese economic development is required to carry out pro-poor growth strategy. Economic growth package policy shall cover vulnerable group, without ignoring income distribution in economic growth. For instance, government investment closely associated with vulnerable group shall lean towards vulnerable group. Second, it is necessary to achieve the economic development objective of non-destructive equitable growth. Economic development means non-destructive equitable growth. If such equity is measured by results, life quality indexes such as income level will be required to exclude inequity and system design should guarantee opportunity equity. Third, it is necessary to further employment equity so as to eliminate reinforced stratum barriers. Employment equity should be facilitated to remove stratum reinforcement by eliminating inequity of urban and rural employment, popularizing higher education, and balancing human capital. Fourth, household urbanization should be realized to remove inequity of natural environment. Urbanization must pay particular attention to natural environment, rather than simply adopt village as definition standard, and besides, it should give priority to the integral moving of families in hostile natural environment. Meanwhile, urbanization should highlight the cultivation of family's viability and development ability, ensure their income by reducing their living cost, and then fundamentally achieve urbanized family life by replacing space with time. Now, Chinese education is shifting quantity inequity to quality inequity, facing severe quality inequity. The inequity of junior and senior high school has developed into inequity of good-quality higher education opportunity, because of which it is an urgent task to remove the inequity of educational quality in elementary school as well as junior and senior schools. Sixth, rural public goods and quasi-public goods should be provided in larger quantity so as to promote the sharing of public resources. When offering a greater number of rural public goods and quasi-public goods, emphasis must be put on the principle of reasonable planning and classified offering. According to economic development level of different rural areas, the most effective and key public goods and quasi-public goods for local economic development should be offered.
This paper has made explorations in the following aspects. First, it studies the characteristics of China's economic growth from the perspective of pro-poor growth. Second, with the expansion of research objects, this paper not only studies pro-poor growth of poverty and non-poverty population, but also makes a new exploration on pro-group nature of economic growth innovatively from the angle of social stratum to expand research perspective. Third, this paper innovatively measures pro-group growth and conduct effect decomposition, mainly including group growth curve, pro-group growth index and its effect decomposition. In the study of income growth factors, this paper integrates panel quantile regression with cross-section quantile regression to deeply and meticulously depict the significance level of different factors' influence on different income growths, which has overcome the limitation that cross-section regression, categorical regression and co-integration analysis are only applied to mean regression.
本文在对1989-2009年中国贫困状况的动态变化认识基础上,采用非匿名性的方法,对中国亲贫困增长和亲群体增长进行测度与效应分解。利用截面回归和收入动态分布分析方法,对贫困与非贫困人口以及不同社会阶层之间收入水平和收入增长率的趋同进行研究。之后从人力资本、家庭财产、社会资本和自然资本等角度对影响中国亲贫困增长和亲群性增长的影响因素进行研究,进而对关键影响因素的不平等和机会不平等进行测度与分解,分析其家庭层面和群体层面的差异。主要研究内容和结论如下：
第一,通过对贫困理论、亲贫困增长理论和不平等理论的文献综述,指出贫困测度指标尽管不能满足所有公理性标准,但仍不失为一个可采纳的指标,并且贫困测度中的缺憾也相应地体现在亲贫困增长测度中。由于基尼系数度量上的优点,在交叉项贡献相对较小的情况下,采用基尼系数进行度量和分解较为合适。在交叉项比较严重的情况下,为了更明显分解出组内贡献和组间贡献,采用广义熵指数较为合适。
第二,对1989-2009年中国的动态贫困进行了评估,剖析了长期贫困和暂时贫困发生的程度和特征,并从长期和短期收入转移矩阵角度,分析穷人脱贫后经济地位的变迁。研究显示,中国贫困状况的变化更多地取决于农村的减贫程度,未来的脱贫工作在兼顾城镇贫困与农村贫困的同时,还需更为关注农村的长期贫困家庭。由于中国农村低收入家庭较多,农村贫困发生率对贫困线的提高更为敏感。农村家庭的长期贫困与暂时贫困比例均高于城镇,脱贫难度相对较大。短期内,位于贫困线附近的非贫困家庭更易陷入贫困,但长期看,不同收入水平的非贫困家庭陷入贫困的概率趋同。脱贫后的前两年为返贫高发年,其后返贫机率走低。长短期内,不同收入水平的贫困阶层都有机会进入社会收入顶层,但这种机会相对较小。
第三,基于非匿名性方法,依据动态贫困线,对亲贫困增长指数和减贫等值增长率两个指数进行改造,从全国、城乡两个层面对1989-2009年中国的亲贫困增长程度进行了测度与分解。结果发现,以相对贫困线为标准,1989-2009年这二十年,经济发展是低度亲富的,富人收入增速高于穷人。经济增长在城镇中表现出中度亲富增长特征,农村则呈现出低度亲富增长特征。城乡不同对象在分享经济增长益处方面存在一定差异,农村富人的经济增长受益程度低于城镇富人,城镇穷人的经济增长受益程度低于农村穷人,但不论在城镇还是在农村,经济增长都更有利于富人。绝对贫困下降,其中收入分配恶化和贫困线提高抵消了约一半的经济增长减贫效应；相对贫困上升,其中经济增长减贫效应基本上为贫困线提高所抵消。
第四,依据职业分层,对中国各社会阶层的收入增长情况进行了比较分析,通过构建亲群体增长率、群体增长曲线和亲群体增长指数,对中国经济增长中各阶层获益程度进行分析。研究发现,转型期内,国家与社会管理者、企业经营者和高级专业技术人员为最高受益阶层,一般专业技术人员和办事人员为中等受益阶层,个体工商户和产业工人为平受益阶层,商业服务人员、农业劳动者和城乡无业失业者为非受益阶层。
第五,在对省际之间空间相关性检验基础上,采取Barro简约回归方程和动态收入分布分析方法,对贫困人口与非贫困人口之间以及各阶层之间的收入水平和收入增长率绝对趋同进行研究。结果显示,以相对贫困线为贫困标准,绝对趋同检验表明,各省之间的人均收入和贫困发生率并没有呈现出绝对β收敛。省际贫困人口之间的收入水平为单峰趋同,省际富人之间的人均收入也呈单峰趋同。此外,中国社会阶层在收入水平上呈现俱乐部趋同现象,其中第一俱乐部为高收入俱乐部,包括国家与社会管理者、企业经营者、高级专业技术人员和个体工商户；第二俱乐部为中等收入俱乐部,包括一般专业技术工作者、办事人员、商业服务人员和产业工人；第三俱乐部为低收入俱乐部,包括农业劳动者和城乡无业(失业、半失业)者。
第六,以家庭财产、人力资本、社会资本和自然资本为主要影响因素,采用面板分位数回归和截面分位数回归模型相结合的方式,对家庭层面和个体层面收入增长的主要影响因素进行研究。研究显示,家庭收入增收影响因素方面,户主文化程度、户主年龄、家庭规模、家庭劳力文化水平、社会资本、家庭财产、自然环境以及公共物品对家庭增收具有显著影响,户主性别、户主婚姻状况无显著影响,劳动力数量、城乡分割只对中低收入家庭起显著影响。个体收入的增加与户主情况不具有显著联系,家庭规模只对中等收入家庭成员的增收有显著影响,城乡因素只对中低收入阶层增收有显著影响,家庭财产是家庭成员增收的有力支撑。文化程度、年龄对于个体增收具有显著影响,性别、婚姻只对中等收入群体的增收有显著影响,最具收益性的社会资本来自政府机关或事业单位。
第七,以贫困人口与非贫困人口以及不同社会阶层为对象,对人力资本、政治资本、自然资本和医疗保障的不公平程度进行度量与分解。在此基础上,对高等教育机会公平性、进入政府或事业单位工作机会公平性以及享受社会保障机会公平性进行研究。结果发现,家庭人力资本均衡性在增强,社会资本不平等程度在上升,医疗保障得到基本普及。高等教育机会不平等程度下降,进入政府或事业单位工作机会不平等程度有所增加,医疗保障机会不平等程度大为降低。
本文研究指出：第一,中国经济发展需要推行亲贫困增长战略。一揽子经济增长政策应以弱势群体为覆盖对象,切勿忽视经济增长中的收入分配,诸如与弱势群体自身密切相关的政府投资,应向弱势群体倾斜。第二,要实现非破坏性公平增长的经济发展目标。经济发展应是非破坏性的公平增长,这种公平若以结果来衡量,则要求包括收入水平等其他生活质量指标不存在不平等现象,并且制度的设计还要确保机会公平。第三,推进择业公平,消除阶层固化壁垒。通过城镇化消除城乡择业的不平等,通过高等教育普及实现人力资本均衡化,推进择业公平消除阶层固化。第四,实现家庭城镇化,消除自然环境不平等。城镇化的方向,必须以自然环境作为重要考量,而非简单的以农村来界定,优先对于自然环境恶劣的家庭进行整体搬迁。同时,城镇化需注重家庭生存能力和发展能力的培养,城镇化需要降低其生活成本,确保其有一定的收入来源,然后才能通过以时间换空间的方式,实现城镇化家庭生活状况的根本改观。第五,推进教育公平,提高家庭人力资本存量。中国教育不平等正从数量不平等向质量不平等转移,教育质量不平等十分严重。初中和高中教育质量的不平等已经传递到了优质高等教育机会的不平等,解决小学、初中和高中阶段的教育质量不平等已然十分迫切。第六,加强农村公共物品与准公共物品提供,推进公共资源均享。在加强农村公共物品与准公共物品提供的同时,必须强调合理规划、分类提供的原则,依据不同农村地区的经济发展水平,提供对当地经济发展更为有效的关键公共物品与准公共物品。
本文有可能在以下几个方面作了新探索：(1)从亲贫困增长视角研究中国经济增长的性质；(2)研究对象有所扩展,不仅局限于贫困与非贫困群体的亲贫困增长研究,还创新性地从社会阶层角度对经济增长的亲群性作了全新探索,拓宽了研究视野；(3)创新的提出了亲群体增长的测度与效应分解,主要包括群体增长曲线、亲群体增长指数及其效应分解。在收入增长因素研究中,采用了面板分位数回归与截面分位数回归相结合的方法,深入细致地刻画了不同因素对于不同收入水平增长影响的显著程度,克服了以往截面回归、分类回归和协整分析只对均值回归的局限性。
Since the reform and opening-up, Chinese economy has developed rapidly as a result of the policy which allows partial population to get well-off first. On the one hand, though economic development has substantially decreased the absolute poverty incidence, various researches show that Chinese economic development is characterized by the drop of absolute poverty and the rise of relative poverty, which suggests that Chinese income inequality is weakened to a certain degree and a huge Chinese population cannot fully enjoy the benefits created by economic development. On the other hand, Chinese social structure is undergoing a huge social change and commencing class differentiation, with different social stratums differing in the occupation and allocation of the social resources, such as income, prestige, and power. In the context of Chinese economic growth, all social stratums are exposed to a variety of problems, such as whether there is any fundamental change of economic status, any difference in sharing the achievements of economic growth, or any inequity of resources occupation. Therefore, it is of important sociological significance to judge the pro-poor nature and degree of economic growth and study the pro-group nature of economic growth from stratum perspective.
Based on the knowledge about the dynamic change of Chinese poverty during1989and2009, this paper measures pro-poor growth and pro-group growth in Chinese and decomposes the effect accordingly in a non-anonymous way. By means of cross-section regression and income dynamic distribution analysis, this paper studies the convergence of income level and growth rate between poverty population and non-poverty population as well as among different social stratums. Afterwards, this paper studies the influencing factors for pro-poor growth and pro-group growth in China from various angles, such as human capital, material capital, social capital and natural capital. Then, this paper measures and decomposes the inequity of key influencing factors and opportunity, as well as analyzes the difference on the family and group level. The main research contents and conclusions are as follows:
First, according to literature review of poverty theory, pro-poor growth theory and inequity theory, poverty measurement index is still adoptable though it cannot satisfy all axiomatic standards, and meanwhile, the defects of poverty measurement are also correspondingly embodied in the measurement of pro-poor growth. As a result of the measurement advantage, Gini coefficient is applicable to measurement and decomposition under the circumstance of small cross term contribution. In case of severe cross terms, Generalized Entropy index can be applied to decomposing contributions within groups and between groups more obviously.
Second, this paper has evaluated Chinese dynamic poverty during1989and2009, and analyzed the degree and characteristics of long-term poverty and temporary poverty. Additionally, from the perspective of long-term and short-term income transfer matrix, this paper analyzes the change of economic status of the poor who cast off poverty. The study shows that the change of poverty status in China is more reliant on rural poverty reduction degree. Thus, the future poverty-relief work shall focus not only on urban poverty and rural poverty, but also on long-term rural impoverished families. Owning to the large number of low-income families in Chinese villages, rural poverty incidence turns out to be more sensitive to poverty line. In the short run, non-poverty families neighboring to poverty line will be more vulnerable to poverty, whereas in the long run, non-poverty families at different income levels will face the convergence of poverty probability. The first two years after overcoming poverty achieve high poverty-returning rate, which will fall afterwards. In the short and long term, poverty classes at different income levels will be likely to achieve the highest income in the society. However, such probability is very small.
Third, based on non-anonymous method, this paper modifies pro-poor growth and poverty equivalent growth rate according to dynamic poverty line, as well as measures and decomposes China's pro-poor growth degree during1989and2009from the perspective of the whole country as well as cities and villages. The findings show that based on the standard of relative poverty line, economic growth was at a low degree of pro-rich during1989and2009, with the rich superior to the poor in income growth rate. In cities and towns, economic growth was characterized by medium pro-rich growth, while in villages, it was characterized by low degree of pro-rich growth. Different rural and urban objects varied in sharing the benefits of economic growth to a certain degree. Compared with urban rich people, rural rich people enjoyed fewer benefits of economic growth, while compared with rural poor people, urban poor people enjoyed fewer benefits of economic growth. However, economic growth was proved to be more favorable for the rich both in cities and in villages. For absolute poverty reduction, the worsening of income distribution and the rise of poverty line have offset half of the poverty reduction effect of economic growth. For relative poverty improvement, poverty reduction effect of economic growth was basically offset by the rise of poverty line.
Fourth, according to occupational stratification, this paper makes a comparative analysis on the income growth of all Chinese social stratums, as well as analyzes the benefit degree of all social stratums during China's economic growth through constructing pro-group growth rate, group growth curve and pro-group growth index. According to researches, in transformation period, the highest beneficial stratum consists of national and social manager, corporate operator, and senior technical professionals, with middle-level beneficial stratum constituted by ordinary technical professionals and clerks, low beneficial stratum by individual businesses and industrial workers, and non-beneficial stratum by business service personnel, agricultural laborers, and urban and rural unemployed people.
Fifth, based on the inter-provincial space correlation test, this paper studies the convergence of income level and growth rate between poverty population and non-poverty population as well as among different social stratums by means of Barro regression equation and dynamic income distribution analysis. According to the result, with relative poverty line as standard, absolute convergence test reveals that there is no absolute β convergence for per capita income and poverty incidence among all provinces. The income level of not only inter-provincial poverty population, but also of inter-provincial rich people displays unimodal convergence. Additionally, Chinese social stratum demonstrates club convergence at income level. The first club achieves high income, including national and social managers, enterprise operators, senior technical professionals, and individual businesses. The second club achieves middle income, including ordinary technical professionals, clerks, business service personnel, and industrial workers. The third club achieves low income, including agricultural laborers and urban unemployment people (the unemployed and the semi-unemployed).
Sixth, with family property, human capital, social capital and natural capital as major influencing factors, this paper integrates panel quantile regression with cross-section quantile regression to study the major factors that influence the growth of family and individual income. The study shows that family income growth is significantly influenced by householder's educational level, householder age, family size, household labor's educational level, social capital, family property, natural environment and public goods, but insignificantly influenced by householder gender, and householder's marital status. Besides, quantity of labor force and urban and rural division only exercise a significant influence on low-and middle-income families. Individual income growth is insignificantly related to householder condition, with family size only significantly influencing the income growth of middle-income family members, while urban and rural factors only significantly influencing income growth of middle-and low-income stratums. Meanwhile, family property is the strong support for income growth of family members. Educational level and age exert a significant influence on individual income growth, and besides, gender and marriage only significantly influence income growth of middle-income group, with the most profitable social capital contributed by governmental organs or public institutions.
Seventh, based on the objects of poverty population, non-poverty population and different social stratums, this paper measures and decomposes inequity of human capital, political capital, natural capital and medical security. On this basis, this paper studies the opportunity equity of receiving higher education, working in government or public institution, and enjoying social security. The findings show that household human capital increases its balance, with social capital raising its inequity degree and medical security basically popularized. Meanwhile, inequity degree of higher education opportunity decreases, with inequity degree of working opportunity in government or public institutions increasing, and that of medical security opportunity substantially declining.
According to the studies in this paper, first, Chinese economic development is required to carry out pro-poor growth strategy. Economic growth package policy shall cover vulnerable group, without ignoring income distribution in economic growth. For instance, government investment closely associated with vulnerable group shall lean towards vulnerable group. Second, it is necessary to achieve the economic development objective of non-destructive equitable growth. Economic development means non-destructive equitable growth. If such equity is measured by results, life quality indexes such as income level will be required to exclude inequity and system design should guarantee opportunity equity. Third, it is necessary to further employment equity so as to eliminate reinforced stratum barriers. Employment equity should be facilitated to remove stratum reinforcement by eliminating inequity of urban and rural employment, popularizing higher education, and balancing human capital. Fourth, household urbanization should be realized to remove inequity of natural environment. Urbanization must pay particular attention to natural environment, rather than simply adopt village as definition standard, and besides, it should give priority to the integral moving of families in hostile natural environment. Meanwhile, urbanization should highlight the cultivation of family's viability and development ability, ensure their income by reducing their living cost, and then fundamentally achieve urbanized family life by replacing space with time. Now, Chinese education is shifting quantity inequity to quality inequity, facing severe quality inequity. The inequity of junior and senior high school has developed into inequity of good-quality higher education opportunity, because of which it is an urgent task to remove the inequity of educational quality in elementary school as well as junior and senior schools. Sixth, rural public goods and quasi-public goods should be provided in larger quantity so as to promote the sharing of public resources. When offering a greater number of rural public goods and quasi-public goods, emphasis must be put on the principle of reasonable planning and classified offering. According to economic development level of different rural areas, the most effective and key public goods and quasi-public goods for local economic development should be offered.
This paper has made explorations in the following aspects. First, it studies the characteristics of China's economic growth from the perspective of pro-poor growth. Second, with the expansion of research objects, this paper not only studies pro-poor growth of poverty and non-poverty population, but also makes a new exploration on pro-group nature of economic growth innovatively from the angle of social stratum to expand research perspective. Third, this paper innovatively measures pro-group growth and conduct effect decomposition, mainly including group growth curve, pro-group growth index and its effect decomposition. In the study of income growth factors, this paper integrates panel quantile regression with cross-section quantile regression to deeply and meticulously depict the significance level of different factors' influence on different income growths, which has overcome the limitation that cross-section regression, categorical regression and co-integration analysis are only applied to mean regression.
引文
[1]Adam, R. H.,& Jane, J. H. Sources of income inequality and poverty in rural Pakistan. International Food Policy Research Institute Research Report 102. Washington DC:IFPRI,1995.
[2]Aghion, P., Caroli, E.,& Garcia-Penalosa, C. Inequality and economic growth: the perspectives of the new growth theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 1999,37(4),1615-1660.
[3]Amiel, Y. The subjective approach to the measurement of income inequality. In Silber J. (Ed.) Handbook on Income Inequality Measurement. Dewenter:Kluwer. 1999.
[4]Amiel, Y.,& Cowell, F. A. Distributional orderings and the transfer principle:a re-examination. Research on Economic Inequality,1998(8),195-215.
[5]Amiel, Y.,& Cowell, F. Thinking about inequality:personal judgement and income distribution. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1999.
[6]Anselin, L. Spatial econometrics:methods and models. London:Kluwer,1988.
[7]Arneson. R. Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare. Philosophical Studies, 1989,56(1),77-93.
[8]Atkinson, A. Bringing income distribution in from the cold. Economic Journal, 1997,107(3),297-321.
[9]Atkinson. A. On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 1970(2).244-263.
[10]Atkinson, A. On the measurement of poverty. Econometrica,1987,55(4), 749-764.
[11]Atkinson. A. Poverty in Britain and the reform of social security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1969.
[12]Atkinson. A. The Economics of inequality. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1983.
[13]Atkinson, A.,& Brandolini, A. Global world inequality:absolute, relative or intermediate. Presented at the 28th General conference of the International Association in Income and Wealth, Cork,Ireland. August 2004,22-28.
[14]Bain, K.,& Hicks. N. Building social capital and reaching out to excluded groups:the challenge of partnerships. Paper presented at CELAM meeting on The Struggle against Poverty towards the Turn of the Millennium, Washington DC,1998.
[15]Bane. M. J.,& Eillwood. D. T. Slipping into and out of poverty:the dynamics of spells. Journal of Human Resources.1986,21(1).1-23.
[16]Barro. R. Economic growth in a cross section of countries. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper,1990.
[17]Barro, R.,& Sala-i-Martin, X. Convergence. The Journal of Political Economy, 1992,100(2),223-251.
[18]Barro, R.,& Sala-i-Martin, X. Economic growth and convergence across the United States. NBER Working Paper,1990.
[19]Bashtannyk, D. M.,& Hyndman, R. J. Bandwidth selection for kernel conditional density estimation. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis,2001, 36(3),279-298.
[20]Baumol, W. Productivity growth, convergence, and welfare:what the long-run data show. American Economic Review,1986,76(12),1072-1085.
[21]Ben-David, D. Convergence clubs and subsistence economies. Journal of Development Economics,1998,55(1),155-171.
[22]Bhagwati, J. N. Poverty and public policy. World Development,1988,16 (5), 539-654.
[23]Bhattacharya, N.,& Mahalanobis, B. Regional disparity in household consumption in India. American Statistical Association Journal,1967,62(1), 143-161.
[24]Bourguignon, F. Decomposable income inequality measures. Econometrica, 1979,47(4),901-902.
[25]Bourguignon, F. The growth elasticity of poverty reduction. In Eicher, T.,& Turnovsky S. (Eds.), Inequality and growth. Cambridge:MIT Press,2003.
[26]Bourguignon, F.,& Chakravarty, S. Measurement of multidimensional poverty. Journal of Economic Inequality,2003(1),25-49.
[27]Bourguignon, F.,& Christian, M. Inequality among world citizens:1820-1992. American Economic Review,2002,92(4),727-744.
[28]Bourguignon, F., Ferreira, F. H.,& Menendez, M. Inequality of opportunity in Brazil. Review of Income Wealth,2007,53(4),585-618.
[29]Bruno, M., Ravallion, M.,& Squire, L. Equity and growth in developing countries:old and new perspectives on the policy issues. InTanzi V.,& Chu K. Income distribution and high-quality growth. Cambridge MIT Press,1998.
[30]Campa, M.,& Webb, R. Mobility and poverty dynamics in the 1990s. Paper presented at IDS/IFPRI workshop on poverty dynamics, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex,1999.
[31]Checchi, D., Ichino, A.,& Rustichini, A. More equal but less mobile? Education financing and intergenerational mobility in Italy and the US. Journal of Public Economics,1999,74(3),351-393.
[32]Chenery. H., Ahluwalia, M. S., Duloy, J. H., et al. Redistribution with growth: policies to improve income distribution in developing countries in the context of economic growth. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1974.
[33]Cliff, A.,& Ord, K. Testing for spatial autocorrelation among regression residual. Geographic Analysis,1972,4(3),267-284.
[34]Coleman, J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,1988,94(3),95-120.
[35]Cowell, F. A. Measurement of inequality, in Atkinson A. B.,& Bourguignon F. Handbook of Income Distribution, North Holland, Amsterdam,2000,87-166.
[36]Cowell. F. A. Measures of distributional change:an axiomatic approach. Review of Economic Studies,1985,52(1).135-151.
[37]Cowell, F. A. Measuring inequality. Oxford:Philip Allen,1977.
[38]Cowell, F. A. On the structure of additive inequality measures. Review of Economic Studies.1980,47(3),521-531.
[39]Cowell, F. A.,& Kuga, K. Additivity and the entropy concept:an axiomatic approach to inequality measurement. Journal of Economic Theory,1981,25(1). 131-143.
[40]Dalton, H. The measurement of the inequality of incomes. Economic Journal, 1920,30(9),348-361.
[41]Dasgupta, P., Sen, A.,& Starrett, D. Notes on the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory,1973,6(2),180-187.
[42]Dc Long, J. B. Productivity growth, convergence, and welfare:comment. The American Economic Review,1988,78(5).1138-1154.
[43]Donoho, D., Chen, S.,& Saunders, M. Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing,1998,20(1),33-61.
[44]Duclos. J.,& Wodon, Q. What is pro poor?. CIRPEE Working Paper.2004.
[45]Dworkin. Ronald. What is equality. Philosophy and Public Affairs.1981.10(4). 185-246.
[46]Easterly. W.,& Levine, R. What have we learned from a decade of empirical research on growth? It's not factor accumulation:stylized facts and growth models. The World Bank Economic Review.2001,15(2),177-219.
[47]Ebert, U. Measurement of inequality:an attempt at unifcation and generalization. Society Choice and Welfare,1988,5(2-3),147-169.
[48]Fei, J. C. H., Ranis, G.,& Kuo, S. W. Y. Growth and the family distribution of income by factor components. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1978,92(1), 17-53.
[49]Ferreira, F.,& Gignoix, J. The measurement of educational inequality: achievement and opportunity. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 2001.
[50]Fields, G..& Yoo. G. Falling labour income inequality in Korea's economic growth:patterns and underlying causes. Review of Income and Wealth,2000.46 (2).139-159.
[51]Filmer, D.,& Pritchett, L. H. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data or tears:an application to educational enrollments in states of india. Demography,2001,38(1),115-132.
[52]Fisher, G. M. The development and history of the poverty thresholds. Social Security Bulletin,1992,55(4),3-14.
[53]Foster, J. Absolute versus relative poverty. The American Economic Review, 1998,88(2),335-441.
[54]Foster, J.,& Shorrocks, A. Poverty orderings. Econometrica,1988,56 (1), 173-177.
[55]Foster, J., Greer J.,& Thorbecke, E. A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica,1984,52(3),761-765.
[56]Fuchs, V. Comment on measuring the size of the low-income population. in Soltow, L.(ed.) Six papers on the size dis-tribution of wealth and income. New York:National Bureau of Economic Research,1969,198-202.
[57]Fukuyama, F. Trust the social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York New York Free Press,1995.
[58]Gaiha, R.,& Deolaiker, A. B. Persistent, expected and innate poverty:estimates for semi-arid rural south India. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1993,17(4), 409-421.
[59]Galor, O. Convergence? Inferences from theoretical models. Economic Journal, 1996,106(5),1056-1069.
[60]Garfinkel, I.,& Haveman, R. Earnings capacity and the target efficiency of alternative transfer programs. The American Economic Review,1974,64 (2), 196-204.
[61]Gini, C. Variabilita e mutabilita. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,1913, 76(3),326-327.
[62]Goedhart, T., Halberstadt, V., Kapteyn, A., et al. The poverty line:concept and measurement. The Journal of Human Resources,1977,12(4),503-520.
[63]Grosse, M., Harttgen, K.,& Klasen, S. Measuring pro-poor progress toward the non-income millennium development goals. WIDER Research Paper,2006.
[64]Hall, R.,& Jones, C. Why do some countries produce so much more output per workers than others? Quarterly Journal of Economics,1999,114(1),83-116.
[65]Harrison, E.,& Seidl, C. Acceptance of distributional axioms:experimental findings. In Eichhorn W.(Ed.) Models and measurement of welfare and inequality. Berlin, Heidelberg:Springer-Verlag,1994,67-99.
[66]Hild, M.,& Voorhoeve, A. Equality of opportunity and opportunity dominance. Economics and Philosophy,2004,20(1),117-145.
[67]Hulme, D.,& Shepherd, A. Conceptualizing chronic poverty. World Development,2003,31(3),403-423.
[68]Jalan, J.,& Ravallion, M. Is transient poverty different? Evidence from rural China. Journal of Development Studies,2000,36 (6),82-99.
[69]Jalan, J.,& Ravallion, M. Transient poverty in postreform rural China. Journal of Comparative Economics,1998,26 (2),338-357.
[70]Kakwani, N. Issues in setting absolute poverty kines. Manila:Asian Development Bank.2003.
[71]Kakwani, N.,& Son, H. H. Pro-poor growth:Concepts and measurement with country case studies. The Pakistan Development Review,2003,42(4),417-444.
[72]Kakwani, Nanak, Pernia, E. What is pro-poor growth? Asian Development Review,2000,18(1),1-16.
[73]Kimenyi. Mwangi, S. Economic reforms and pro-poor growth:lessons for africa and other developing regions and economies in transition. University of Connecticut Working papers.2006.
[74]Klasen, S. Economic growth and poverty reduction:measurement issues using income and nonincome indicators. World Development.2008,36(3),420-445.
[75]Klasen, S. In search of the holy grail:how to achieve pro-poor growth. In Tungodden B.,& Stern N. (Eds.), Towards pro-poor policies. Proceedings from the ABCDE Europe conference, Washington, DC,2004,63-94.
[76]Klenow, P. J.,& Rodriguez-Clare, A. The neoclassical revival in growth economics:Has it gone too far? in Bernanke,B.,& Rotemberg, J. (Eds.) NBER Macroeconomics Annual. Cambridge:MIT Press,1997,73-103.
[77]Koenker, R. Quantile regression for longitudinal data. Journal of Multivariate Analysis,2004,91(1),74-89.
[78]Koenker, R.,& Bassett, G. S. Regression quantiles. Econometrica,1978,46(1), 33-50.
[79]Kraay. A. When is growth pro-poor? Cross-country evidence. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper,2004.
[80]Krishna, A.,& Shrader, E. Cross-cultural measures of social capital:a tool and results from India and Panama. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper.2000.
[81]Lamache, C. E. Quantile regression for panel data. Champaign:University of Illinois Press,2006.
[82]Lambert, P. J.,& Aronson, J. R. Inequality decomposition analysis and the Gini coefficient revisited. Economic Journal,1993,103(9),1221-1227.
[83]Lefranc, Arnaud, Pistolesi, N.,& Trannoy, A. Inequality of opportunities vs. inequality of outcomes:are western societies all alike?. The Review of Income and Wealth,2008,54(4),513-46.
[84]Li, H., Squire, L.,& Zou, H. Explaining international and intertemporal variations in income inequality. Economic Journal,1998,108(1),26-43.
[85]Litchfield. J. Inequality methods and tools. Unpublished manuscript. London School of Economics.1999.
[86]Loury, G. A dynamic theory of racial income differences, in Wallace, P. A.,& LeMund, A. (eds.) Women, Minorities, and Employment Discrimination. MA: Lexington books,1977.153-186.
[87]Mankiw, R. G., Romer, D.,& Weil, D. N. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1992,107(2),407-437.
[88]Mayshar, J., Yitzhaki, S. Dalton-improving indirect tax reform. The American Economic Review,1995,85 (4),793-807.
[89]McCulloch, N.,& Baulch, B. Simulating the impact of policy on chronic and transitory poverty in Rural Pakistan. Journal of Development Studies,2000, 36(6),100-130.
[90]McLachlan, G. J.,& David, P. Finite mixture models. New York:Wiley,2000.
[91]Mehta, A. K.,& Shah, A. Chronic poverty in india:overview study. CPRC Working Paper,2001.
[92]Michael, O.,& Stephen, J. Poverty in the EC:estimates for 1975,1980, and 1985.in Teekens R.,& Bernard M. S. (eds.) Analysing poverty in the European Community:Policy issues, research options, and data sources. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publi-cations of the European Communities,1990,187-212.
[93]Michael, R.,& Gugerty, M. K. Does economic growth reduce poverty?. Technical Paper, Harvard Institute for International Development, March 1997, 1-33.
[94]Molinas, V., Jose, R., Barros, R., et al. Do our children have chance?:The 2010 human opportunity report for latin america and the caribbean. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank,2010.
[95]Moran, P. A. P. A Test for the serial independence of residuals. Biometrika, 1950,37(2),178-181.
[96]Moran, P. A. P. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika,1950, 37(1),17-23.
[97]Morduch, J.,& Sicular, T. Rethinking inequality decomposition, with evidence from rural China. Economic Journal,2002,112 (1),93-106.
[98]Paes de Barros, R. Measuring inequality of opportunities in Latin America and the caribbean. Washington, D.C.:The World Bank,2009.
[99]Parente, S.,& Prescott, E. Barriers to riches, MIT Press:Cambridge MA,2000.
[100]Persson, T.,& Tabellini, G. Is inequality harmful to growth?. American Economic Review,1994,84(3),600-621.
[101]Pryer, J. The impact of adult ill-health on household income and nutrition in Khulna, Bangladesh. Environment and Urbanisation,1993,5(2),35-49.
[102]Putnam, R. The prosperous community:social capital and public life. The American Prospect,1993,13(4),35-42.
[103]Pyatt, G. On the interpretation and disaggregation of Gini coefficients. Economic Journal,1976,86(4),243-255.
[104]Pyatt, G., Chen, C. N.,& FEI, J. The distribution of income by factor components. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1980,95(11),451-473.
[105]Quah, D. Empirics for economic growth and convergence. European Economic Review,1996,40(6),1353-1375.
[106]Ramos, X.,& Van De Gaer, D. Empirical evidence on inequality of opportunity. Working Paper,2009.
[107]Ravallion, M. A poverty-inequality trade-off? Journal of Economic Inequality. 2005,3(2),169-181.
[108]Ravallion, M. Can high inequality developing countries escape absolute poverty?. Economics Letters,1997,56(1),51-57.
[109]Ravallion, M. Can high inequality developing countries escape absolute poverty?. Economics Letters,1997,56(1),51-57.
[110]Ravallion, M. Growth inequality and poverty:looking beyond averages. World Development,2001,29(11),1803-1815.
[111]Ravallion, M. Poverty lines in theory and practice[EB/OL]. http://econ. worldbank.org/external/default/main,2012-03-10.
[112]Ravallion, M. Poverty lines. in Larry Blume and Steven Durlauf (eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. London:Palgrave Macmillan,2008.
[113]Ravallion, M.,& Chen, S. What can new survey data tell us about recent changes in distribution and poverty?. World Bank Economic Review,1997, 11(2),357-382.
[114]Ravallion, M.,& Datt, G. Why has economic growth been more pro-poor in some states of India than others?. Journal of Development Economics.2002, 68(2).381-400.
[115]Ravallion. M.,& Shaohua. C. Measuring pro-poor growth. Economics Letters. 2003,78(1),93-99.
[116]Roemer. J. A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian planner. Philosophy and Public Affairs,1993.22(2),146-66.
[117]Roemer. J. E., Aaberge, R.. Colombino. U., et al. To what extent do fiscal regimes equalize opportunities for income acquisition among citizens?. Journal of Public Economics,2003.87(3),539-565.
[118]Roemer. J. Equality of opportunity. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1998.
[119]Scitovsky, T. The joyless economy. Oxford:Oxford University Press.1978.
[120]Seekings, J. Social stratification and inequality in south Africa at the end of apartheid. CSSR Working Paper,2003.
[121]Sen. A. On economic inequality. London:Oxford University Press,1973.
[122]Sen. A. Poverty:an ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica,1976, 44(2),219-231.
[123]Sen. A. Poverty:an ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica,1976, 44(3),219-231.
[124]Shorrocks, A. F. Inequality decomposition by factor components. Econometrica, 1982,50(1),193-211.
[125]Shorrocks, A. F. Inequality decomposition by population subgroups. Econometrica,1984,52(6),1369-1385.
[126]Shorrocks, A. F. The class of additive decomposable inequality measures. Econometrica,1980,48(3),613-625.
[127]Shorrocks, A. F.,& Foster, J. E. Transfer sensitive inequality measures. The Review of Economic Studies,1987,54(3),485-497.
[128]Shorrocks, A. F.,& Slottje, D. Approximating unanimity orderings:an application to Lorenz dominance. Journal of Economics,2002,9(1),91-118.
[129]Silverman, B. W. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. London: Chapman and Hall,1986.
[130]Solow, R. M. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1956,70(2),65-94.
[131]Son.,& Hwa, H. A note on pro-poor growth. Economics Letters,2004,82(3), 307-314.
[132]Tibshirani, R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B,1996,58(1),267-288.
[133]Timmer, P. How well do the poor connect to the growth process?. Mimeo. University of California, SanDiego,1997.
[134]Van Praag, B., J. Spit, H. Van de Stadt. A Comparison between the food ratio poverty line and the leyden poverty line. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1982,64(4),691-694.
[135]Walder, Andrew. Income determination and market opportunity in rural China, 1978-1996. Journal of Comparative Economics,2002,30(2),354-375.
[136]Watts, H. An economic definition of poverty. In Moynihan D.P. (ed.) On Understanding Poverty:Perspectives from the Social Sciences. New York: Basic Books,1968.
[137]World Bank. Introduction to poverty analysis. New York:The World Bank, 2005. http://siteresources. wordbank. org/PGLP/resources/povertyManual. pdf.
[138]World Bank. The world development index.Washington DC:The World Bank, 2007.
[139]World Bank. World development report:attacking poverty. New York:Oxford Univerty Press,2000.
[140]World Bank. World development report:poverty. New York:Oxford Univerty Press,1990.
[141]Zheng, B. Aggregate poverty measures. Journal of Economic Surveys,1997, 11(2),123-162.
[142]包晓霞.中国西北贫困地区农户的社会资本特征—基于400份农户问卷调查的初步分析.肃社会科学,2012(4),34-38.
[143]陈光金.中国农村贫困的程度、特征与影响因素分析.中国农村经济,2008(9),13-25.
[144]陈鸣.反贫困：还有很长的路要走.红旗文稿,2005(2),23-24.
[145]陈绍华.中国经济的增长和贫困的减少——1990-1999年的趋势研究.财经研究,2001(9),3-11.
[146]陈文超.消费视野下农民阶层结构的分析—基于一个村庄的研究.中国社会学学术年会论文,2006.
[147]池振合,杨宜勇.贫困线研究综述.经济理论与经济管理,2012(7),56-64.
[148]段华明.中国不发达地区农村社会的阶层结构.甘肃理论学刊,1990(5)71-74.
[149]段景辉,陈建宝.我国城乡家庭收入差异影响因素的分位数回归解析.经济学家,2009(9),46-53.
[150]段庆林.中国农民收入增长的影响因素研究.广东社会科学,2002(6),46-51.
[151]樊怀玉,郭志仪.贫困论：贫困与反贫困的理论与实践.北京：民族出版社,2002.
[152]冯素杰.论经济高速增长中的相对贫困.现代财经,2006(1),78-81.
[153]高梦滔,姚洋.农户收入差距的微观基础：物质资本还是人力资本?.经济研究,2006(12),71-80.
[154]高树兰.取消农业税后农民收入的现状分析与增收措施探讨.经济论坛,2007(6),116-]18.
[155]龚维斌.我国农民群体的分化及其走向.国家行政学院学报,2003(3),68-72.
[156]韩明谟.农村社会学.北京：北京大学出版社,2002.
[157]胡兵.经济增长、收入分配对农村贫困变动的影响.财经研究,2005(8),89-99.
[158]黄建伟,喻洁.失地农民关键自然资本的丧失、补偿及其对收入的影响研究—基于七省一市的实地调研.探索,2010(4),87-92.
[159]纪超.省域城乡收入差距的空间计量分析.农业经济,2010(9),13-15.
[160]纪宏,阮敬.基于收入分布的亲贫困增长测度及其分解.经济与管理研究,2007(8),38-43.
[161]康晓光.中国贫困反贫困理论.南宁：广西人民出版社,1995.
[162]李谷成,冯中朝和范丽霞.教育、健康与农民收入增长—来自转型期湖北省农村的证据.中国农村经济,2006(1),66-74.
[163]李敬强,徐会奇.收入来源与农村居民消费：基于面板数据的结论与启示.经济经纬,2009(6),107-110.
[164]李静,杨国涛和孟令杰.贫困线：理论、应用及争议.农业经济,2006(7),75-76.
[165]李炯.浙江居民收入差距特征及经济社会影响.中共浙江省委党校学报,2004(4),65-70.
[166]李瑞林,陈新.取消农业税后西部地区农民增收问题研究—来自云、贵、川300个农户的调查.农村经济,2009(8),47-51
[167]李树茁,杨绪松和任义科等.农民工的社会网络与职业阶层和收入：来自深圳调查的发现.当代经济科学,2007,29(1),25-33.
[168]李颖,王尤贵.基于收入来源的我国省际间农村居民收入差距变动分析.农村经济,2006(6),56-57.
[169]李佑静.社会各阶层收入差距及影响因素研究—对重庆市的调查分析.西部论坛,2010,20(6),33-39.
[170]林伯强.中国的经济增长、贫困减少与政策选择.经济研究,2003(12),15-25.
[171]林后春.当代中国农民阶级阶层分化研究综述.社会主义研究,1991(1),59-64.
[172]刘成斌.非农化视角下的浙江省农村社会分层.中国人口科学,2005(5),75-81.
[173]刘福成,我国农村居民贫困线的测定.农业经济问题,1998(5),52-45.
[174]刘国恩,Dow, W. H.,傅正鸿,Akin, J.中国的健康人力资本与收入增长.经济学(季刊),2004,4(1),101-118.
[175]刘建平.贫困线测定方法研究.山西财经大学学报,2003,25(4),60-62.
[176]刘林平,张春泥.农民工工资：人力资本、社会资本、企业制度还是社会环境?——珠江三角洲农民工工资的决定模型.社会学研究,2007(6)1-14.
[177]刘小锋.基于农户视角的农村公共产品需求研究—以福建省为例.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[178]陆学艺.当代中国社会阶层的分化与流动.江苏社会科学,2003(4),1-9.
[179]陆学艺.重新认识农民问题—十年来中国农民的变化.社会学研究,1989(6),1-14.
[180]骆祚炎.利用线性支出系统ELES测定贫困线.统计与决策,2006(9),25-28.
[181]马新文,冯睿.用扩展线性支出模型测量西安市贫困线研究.软科学,2005(6),11-13.
[182]皮拥军.OECD国家推进教育公平的典范—韩国和芬兰.比较教育研究,2007(2),6-10.
[183]任国强.人力资本对农民非农就业与非农收入的影响研究—基于天津的考察.南开经济研究,2004(3),3-10.
[184]尚卫平,姚智谋.多维贫困测度方法研究.财经研究,2005,31(12),88-94.
[185]申海.中国区域经济差距的收敛性分析.数量经济技术经济研究,1999,(8),55-57.
[186]沈坤荣,张璟.中国农村公共支出及其绩效分析—基于农民收入增长和城乡收入差距的经验研究.管理世界,2001(3),31-40.
[187]盛来运.农民收入增长格局的变动趋势分析.中国农村经济,2005(5)21-25.
[188]世界银行.1990年世界发展报告(中译本).北京：中国财政经济出版社,1990.
[189]宋元梁,肖卫东.中国城镇化发展与农民收入增长关系的动态计量经济分析.数量经济技术经济研究,2005(9),30-39.
[190]宋镇修.中国农村社会学.哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,1989.
[191]唐运舒,于彪.贫困线几种测量方法的实证比较.当代经济管理,2009,31(5),66-69.
[192]唐忠新.贫富分化的社会学研究.天津：天津人民出版社,1998.
[193]万广华,张茵.收入增长与不平等对我国贫困的影响.经济研究,2006(6),112-123.
[194]万广华.不平等的度量与分解.经济学(季刊),2008,8(1),347-368.
[195]万广华.解释中国农村区域间的收入不平等：一种基于回归方程的分解方法.经济研究,2004(8),117-127.
[196]万能,原新.1978年以来中国农民的阶层分化：回顾与反思.中国农村观察,2009(4),65-73.
[197]王凤.我国农民收入增长决定因素的经济学分析.经济学家,2005(5),66-71.
[198]王刘玉,高军.当代中国社会阶层分化现状及其走势.学术交流,2009(6),144-149.
[199]王生云.基于非匿名性的亲贫困增长测度.经济问题,2010(6),10-15.
[200]王生云.亲贫困增长测度研究述评.统计研究,2012(7),101-106.
[201]王生云.中国农村长期贫困程度、特征与影响因素.经济问题,2011(11),71-76.
[202]王小林,Sabina Alkire.中国多维贫困测量：估计和政策含义.中国农村经济,2009(12)，4-10,23.
[203]王卓.论中国城市化进程中的贫困问题.经济体制改革,2004(6),19-23.
[204]王祖详.中国农村贫困评估研究.管理世界,2006(3),71-77.
[205]温涛,王煜宇.农业贷款、财政支农投入对农民收入增长有效性研究.财经问题研究,2005(2),78-83.
[206]夏庆杰.中国城镇贫困的变化趋势和模式：1988-2002.经济研究,2007(9),96-111.
[207]肖富群.人力资本要素对农户收入影响的次序性——基于广西农村的调查数据.软科学,2010(6),101-105.
[208]肖文涛.我国社会转型期的城市贫困问题研究.社会学研究,1997(5),40-47.
[209]谢光国.制约农民收入增长的因素分析和对策.农业经济问题,2001(3),57-59.
[210]谢勇.基于人力资本和社会资本视角的农民工就业境况研究—以南京市为例.中国农村观察,2009(5),49-55.
[211]谢周亮.转型期我国个人收入差异的影响因素研究——基于人力资本和社会资本的分析.博士学位论文,南开大学,2009.
[212]邢鹂,樊胜根,罗小朋等.中国西部地区农村内部不平等状况研究—基于贵州住户调查数据的分析.经济学(季刊),2008,8(1),325-345.
[213]徐现祥,舒元.物质资本、人力资本与中国地区双峰趋同.世界经济,2005,(1),48-57.
[214]严振书,程元恒.八大社会阶层的划分及存在的结构性问题.中共四川省委党校学报,2010(1),97-100.
[215]杨灿明,郭慧芳和孙群力.我国农民收入来源构成的实证分析—兼论增加农民收入的对策.财贸经济,2007(2),74-78.
[216]杨云彦,石智雷.中国农村地区的家庭禀赋与外出务工劳动力回流.人口研究,2012(7),3-17.
[217]余芳东.世界银行推算的中国购买力平价结果及其问题.经济界,2008(4),27-32.
[218]岳昌君,刘燕萍.教育对不同群体收人的影响.北京大学教育评论,2006,4(2),85-92.
[219]岳希明,李实和王萍萍等.透视中国农村贫困.经济科学出版社,2007.
[220]张建华,陈立中.总量贫困测度研究述评.经济学(季刊),2006,5(3),675-694.
[221]张立冬.收入流动性与贫困的动态发展：基于中国农村的经验分析.农业经济问题,2009(6),73-80.
[222]张全红,张建华.中国农村贫困变动：1981-2005—基于不同贫困线标准和指数的对比分析.统计研究,2010(2),28-35.
[223]张全红.中国农村贫困变动：1981-2005.统计研究,2010,27(2),30-35.
[224]张宛丽.中国社会阶级阶层研究二十年.社会学研究,2000(1),24-39.
[225]张翼,薛进军.中国的阶层结构与收入不平等.甘肃社会科学,2009(1)1-6.
[226]周彬彬.向贫困挑战.北京：人民出版社,1991.
[227]周建华.我国农村贫困人口人力资本投资分析.财经问题研究,2011(7),122-128.
[228]周批改.改革以来农民分化研究的回顾与商榷.前沿,2002(11),153-156.
[229]周逸先,崔玉平.农村劳动力受教育与就业以及家庭收入的相关分析.中国农村经济,2001(4),60-67.
[230]周正,周旭亮.取消农业税对我国农民减负的实证研究.学术交流,2009(11),108-112.
[231]朱力.我国社会阶层结构演化的趋势.社会科学研究,2005(5),147-153.
[232]邹农俭.当代中国农村社会分层标准研究.南京师大学报(社会科学版),1999(3),19-23.
[233]邹薇,张芬.农村地区收入差异与人力资本积累.中国社会科学,2006,(2),67-79.
[2]Aghion, P., Caroli, E.,& Garcia-Penalosa, C. Inequality and economic growth: the perspectives of the new growth theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 1999,37(4),1615-1660.
[3]Amiel, Y. The subjective approach to the measurement of income inequality. In Silber J. (Ed.) Handbook on Income Inequality Measurement. Dewenter:Kluwer. 1999.
[4]Amiel, Y.,& Cowell, F. A. Distributional orderings and the transfer principle:a re-examination. Research on Economic Inequality,1998(8),195-215.
[5]Amiel, Y.,& Cowell, F. Thinking about inequality:personal judgement and income distribution. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1999.
[6]Anselin, L. Spatial econometrics:methods and models. London:Kluwer,1988.
[7]Arneson. R. Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare. Philosophical Studies, 1989,56(1),77-93.
[8]Atkinson, A. Bringing income distribution in from the cold. Economic Journal, 1997,107(3),297-321.
[9]Atkinson. A. On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 1970(2).244-263.
[10]Atkinson, A. On the measurement of poverty. Econometrica,1987,55(4), 749-764.
[11]Atkinson. A. Poverty in Britain and the reform of social security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1969.
[12]Atkinson. A. The Economics of inequality. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1983.
[13]Atkinson, A.,& Brandolini, A. Global world inequality:absolute, relative or intermediate. Presented at the 28th General conference of the International Association in Income and Wealth, Cork,Ireland. August 2004,22-28.
[14]Bain, K.,& Hicks. N. Building social capital and reaching out to excluded groups:the challenge of partnerships. Paper presented at CELAM meeting on The Struggle against Poverty towards the Turn of the Millennium, Washington DC,1998.
[15]Bane. M. J.,& Eillwood. D. T. Slipping into and out of poverty:the dynamics of spells. Journal of Human Resources.1986,21(1).1-23.
[16]Barro. R. Economic growth in a cross section of countries. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper,1990.
[17]Barro, R.,& Sala-i-Martin, X. Convergence. The Journal of Political Economy, 1992,100(2),223-251.
[18]Barro, R.,& Sala-i-Martin, X. Economic growth and convergence across the United States. NBER Working Paper,1990.
[19]Bashtannyk, D. M.,& Hyndman, R. J. Bandwidth selection for kernel conditional density estimation. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis,2001, 36(3),279-298.
[20]Baumol, W. Productivity growth, convergence, and welfare:what the long-run data show. American Economic Review,1986,76(12),1072-1085.
[21]Ben-David, D. Convergence clubs and subsistence economies. Journal of Development Economics,1998,55(1),155-171.
[22]Bhagwati, J. N. Poverty and public policy. World Development,1988,16 (5), 539-654.
[23]Bhattacharya, N.,& Mahalanobis, B. Regional disparity in household consumption in India. American Statistical Association Journal,1967,62(1), 143-161.
[24]Bourguignon, F. Decomposable income inequality measures. Econometrica, 1979,47(4),901-902.
[25]Bourguignon, F. The growth elasticity of poverty reduction. In Eicher, T.,& Turnovsky S. (Eds.), Inequality and growth. Cambridge:MIT Press,2003.
[26]Bourguignon, F.,& Chakravarty, S. Measurement of multidimensional poverty. Journal of Economic Inequality,2003(1),25-49.
[27]Bourguignon, F.,& Christian, M. Inequality among world citizens:1820-1992. American Economic Review,2002,92(4),727-744.
[28]Bourguignon, F., Ferreira, F. H.,& Menendez, M. Inequality of opportunity in Brazil. Review of Income Wealth,2007,53(4),585-618.
[29]Bruno, M., Ravallion, M.,& Squire, L. Equity and growth in developing countries:old and new perspectives on the policy issues. InTanzi V.,& Chu K. Income distribution and high-quality growth. Cambridge MIT Press,1998.
[30]Campa, M.,& Webb, R. Mobility and poverty dynamics in the 1990s. Paper presented at IDS/IFPRI workshop on poverty dynamics, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex,1999.
[31]Checchi, D., Ichino, A.,& Rustichini, A. More equal but less mobile? Education financing and intergenerational mobility in Italy and the US. Journal of Public Economics,1999,74(3),351-393.
[32]Chenery. H., Ahluwalia, M. S., Duloy, J. H., et al. Redistribution with growth: policies to improve income distribution in developing countries in the context of economic growth. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1974.
[33]Cliff, A.,& Ord, K. Testing for spatial autocorrelation among regression residual. Geographic Analysis,1972,4(3),267-284.
[34]Coleman, J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,1988,94(3),95-120.
[35]Cowell, F. A. Measurement of inequality, in Atkinson A. B.,& Bourguignon F. Handbook of Income Distribution, North Holland, Amsterdam,2000,87-166.
[36]Cowell. F. A. Measures of distributional change:an axiomatic approach. Review of Economic Studies,1985,52(1).135-151.
[37]Cowell, F. A. Measuring inequality. Oxford:Philip Allen,1977.
[38]Cowell, F. A. On the structure of additive inequality measures. Review of Economic Studies.1980,47(3),521-531.
[39]Cowell, F. A.,& Kuga, K. Additivity and the entropy concept:an axiomatic approach to inequality measurement. Journal of Economic Theory,1981,25(1). 131-143.
[40]Dalton, H. The measurement of the inequality of incomes. Economic Journal, 1920,30(9),348-361.
[41]Dasgupta, P., Sen, A.,& Starrett, D. Notes on the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory,1973,6(2),180-187.
[42]Dc Long, J. B. Productivity growth, convergence, and welfare:comment. The American Economic Review,1988,78(5).1138-1154.
[43]Donoho, D., Chen, S.,& Saunders, M. Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing,1998,20(1),33-61.
[44]Duclos. J.,& Wodon, Q. What is pro poor?. CIRPEE Working Paper.2004.
[45]Dworkin. Ronald. What is equality. Philosophy and Public Affairs.1981.10(4). 185-246.
[46]Easterly. W.,& Levine, R. What have we learned from a decade of empirical research on growth? It's not factor accumulation:stylized facts and growth models. The World Bank Economic Review.2001,15(2),177-219.
[47]Ebert, U. Measurement of inequality:an attempt at unifcation and generalization. Society Choice and Welfare,1988,5(2-3),147-169.
[48]Fei, J. C. H., Ranis, G.,& Kuo, S. W. Y. Growth and the family distribution of income by factor components. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1978,92(1), 17-53.
[49]Ferreira, F.,& Gignoix, J. The measurement of educational inequality: achievement and opportunity. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 2001.
[50]Fields, G..& Yoo. G. Falling labour income inequality in Korea's economic growth:patterns and underlying causes. Review of Income and Wealth,2000.46 (2).139-159.
[51]Filmer, D.,& Pritchett, L. H. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data or tears:an application to educational enrollments in states of india. Demography,2001,38(1),115-132.
[52]Fisher, G. M. The development and history of the poverty thresholds. Social Security Bulletin,1992,55(4),3-14.
[53]Foster, J. Absolute versus relative poverty. The American Economic Review, 1998,88(2),335-441.
[54]Foster, J.,& Shorrocks, A. Poverty orderings. Econometrica,1988,56 (1), 173-177.
[55]Foster, J., Greer J.,& Thorbecke, E. A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica,1984,52(3),761-765.
[56]Fuchs, V. Comment on measuring the size of the low-income population. in Soltow, L.(ed.) Six papers on the size dis-tribution of wealth and income. New York:National Bureau of Economic Research,1969,198-202.
[57]Fukuyama, F. Trust the social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York New York Free Press,1995.
[58]Gaiha, R.,& Deolaiker, A. B. Persistent, expected and innate poverty:estimates for semi-arid rural south India. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1993,17(4), 409-421.
[59]Galor, O. Convergence? Inferences from theoretical models. Economic Journal, 1996,106(5),1056-1069.
[60]Garfinkel, I.,& Haveman, R. Earnings capacity and the target efficiency of alternative transfer programs. The American Economic Review,1974,64 (2), 196-204.
[61]Gini, C. Variabilita e mutabilita. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,1913, 76(3),326-327.
[62]Goedhart, T., Halberstadt, V., Kapteyn, A., et al. The poverty line:concept and measurement. The Journal of Human Resources,1977,12(4),503-520.
[63]Grosse, M., Harttgen, K.,& Klasen, S. Measuring pro-poor progress toward the non-income millennium development goals. WIDER Research Paper,2006.
[64]Hall, R.,& Jones, C. Why do some countries produce so much more output per workers than others? Quarterly Journal of Economics,1999,114(1),83-116.
[65]Harrison, E.,& Seidl, C. Acceptance of distributional axioms:experimental findings. In Eichhorn W.(Ed.) Models and measurement of welfare and inequality. Berlin, Heidelberg:Springer-Verlag,1994,67-99.
[66]Hild, M.,& Voorhoeve, A. Equality of opportunity and opportunity dominance. Economics and Philosophy,2004,20(1),117-145.
[67]Hulme, D.,& Shepherd, A. Conceptualizing chronic poverty. World Development,2003,31(3),403-423.
[68]Jalan, J.,& Ravallion, M. Is transient poverty different? Evidence from rural China. Journal of Development Studies,2000,36 (6),82-99.
[69]Jalan, J.,& Ravallion, M. Transient poverty in postreform rural China. Journal of Comparative Economics,1998,26 (2),338-357.
[70]Kakwani, N. Issues in setting absolute poverty kines. Manila:Asian Development Bank.2003.
[71]Kakwani, N.,& Son, H. H. Pro-poor growth:Concepts and measurement with country case studies. The Pakistan Development Review,2003,42(4),417-444.
[72]Kakwani, Nanak, Pernia, E. What is pro-poor growth? Asian Development Review,2000,18(1),1-16.
[73]Kimenyi. Mwangi, S. Economic reforms and pro-poor growth:lessons for africa and other developing regions and economies in transition. University of Connecticut Working papers.2006.
[74]Klasen, S. Economic growth and poverty reduction:measurement issues using income and nonincome indicators. World Development.2008,36(3),420-445.
[75]Klasen, S. In search of the holy grail:how to achieve pro-poor growth. In Tungodden B.,& Stern N. (Eds.), Towards pro-poor policies. Proceedings from the ABCDE Europe conference, Washington, DC,2004,63-94.
[76]Klenow, P. J.,& Rodriguez-Clare, A. The neoclassical revival in growth economics:Has it gone too far? in Bernanke,B.,& Rotemberg, J. (Eds.) NBER Macroeconomics Annual. Cambridge:MIT Press,1997,73-103.
[77]Koenker, R. Quantile regression for longitudinal data. Journal of Multivariate Analysis,2004,91(1),74-89.
[78]Koenker, R.,& Bassett, G. S. Regression quantiles. Econometrica,1978,46(1), 33-50.
[79]Kraay. A. When is growth pro-poor? Cross-country evidence. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper,2004.
[80]Krishna, A.,& Shrader, E. Cross-cultural measures of social capital:a tool and results from India and Panama. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper.2000.
[81]Lamache, C. E. Quantile regression for panel data. Champaign:University of Illinois Press,2006.
[82]Lambert, P. J.,& Aronson, J. R. Inequality decomposition analysis and the Gini coefficient revisited. Economic Journal,1993,103(9),1221-1227.
[83]Lefranc, Arnaud, Pistolesi, N.,& Trannoy, A. Inequality of opportunities vs. inequality of outcomes:are western societies all alike?. The Review of Income and Wealth,2008,54(4),513-46.
[84]Li, H., Squire, L.,& Zou, H. Explaining international and intertemporal variations in income inequality. Economic Journal,1998,108(1),26-43.
[85]Litchfield. J. Inequality methods and tools. Unpublished manuscript. London School of Economics.1999.
[86]Loury, G. A dynamic theory of racial income differences, in Wallace, P. A.,& LeMund, A. (eds.) Women, Minorities, and Employment Discrimination. MA: Lexington books,1977.153-186.
[87]Mankiw, R. G., Romer, D.,& Weil, D. N. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1992,107(2),407-437.
[88]Mayshar, J., Yitzhaki, S. Dalton-improving indirect tax reform. The American Economic Review,1995,85 (4),793-807.
[89]McCulloch, N.,& Baulch, B. Simulating the impact of policy on chronic and transitory poverty in Rural Pakistan. Journal of Development Studies,2000, 36(6),100-130.
[90]McLachlan, G. J.,& David, P. Finite mixture models. New York:Wiley,2000.
[91]Mehta, A. K.,& Shah, A. Chronic poverty in india:overview study. CPRC Working Paper,2001.
[92]Michael, O.,& Stephen, J. Poverty in the EC:estimates for 1975,1980, and 1985.in Teekens R.,& Bernard M. S. (eds.) Analysing poverty in the European Community:Policy issues, research options, and data sources. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publi-cations of the European Communities,1990,187-212.
[93]Michael, R.,& Gugerty, M. K. Does economic growth reduce poverty?. Technical Paper, Harvard Institute for International Development, March 1997, 1-33.
[94]Molinas, V., Jose, R., Barros, R., et al. Do our children have chance?:The 2010 human opportunity report for latin america and the caribbean. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank,2010.
[95]Moran, P. A. P. A Test for the serial independence of residuals. Biometrika, 1950,37(2),178-181.
[96]Moran, P. A. P. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika,1950, 37(1),17-23.
[97]Morduch, J.,& Sicular, T. Rethinking inequality decomposition, with evidence from rural China. Economic Journal,2002,112 (1),93-106.
[98]Paes de Barros, R. Measuring inequality of opportunities in Latin America and the caribbean. Washington, D.C.:The World Bank,2009.
[99]Parente, S.,& Prescott, E. Barriers to riches, MIT Press:Cambridge MA,2000.
[100]Persson, T.,& Tabellini, G. Is inequality harmful to growth?. American Economic Review,1994,84(3),600-621.
[101]Pryer, J. The impact of adult ill-health on household income and nutrition in Khulna, Bangladesh. Environment and Urbanisation,1993,5(2),35-49.
[102]Putnam, R. The prosperous community:social capital and public life. The American Prospect,1993,13(4),35-42.
[103]Pyatt, G. On the interpretation and disaggregation of Gini coefficients. Economic Journal,1976,86(4),243-255.
[104]Pyatt, G., Chen, C. N.,& FEI, J. The distribution of income by factor components. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1980,95(11),451-473.
[105]Quah, D. Empirics for economic growth and convergence. European Economic Review,1996,40(6),1353-1375.
[106]Ramos, X.,& Van De Gaer, D. Empirical evidence on inequality of opportunity. Working Paper,2009.
[107]Ravallion, M. A poverty-inequality trade-off? Journal of Economic Inequality. 2005,3(2),169-181.
[108]Ravallion, M. Can high inequality developing countries escape absolute poverty?. Economics Letters,1997,56(1),51-57.
[109]Ravallion, M. Can high inequality developing countries escape absolute poverty?. Economics Letters,1997,56(1),51-57.
[110]Ravallion, M. Growth inequality and poverty:looking beyond averages. World Development,2001,29(11),1803-1815.
[111]Ravallion, M. Poverty lines in theory and practice[EB/OL]. http://econ. worldbank.org/external/default/main,2012-03-10.
[112]Ravallion, M. Poverty lines. in Larry Blume and Steven Durlauf (eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. London:Palgrave Macmillan,2008.
[113]Ravallion, M.,& Chen, S. What can new survey data tell us about recent changes in distribution and poverty?. World Bank Economic Review,1997, 11(2),357-382.
[114]Ravallion, M.,& Datt, G. Why has economic growth been more pro-poor in some states of India than others?. Journal of Development Economics.2002, 68(2).381-400.
[115]Ravallion. M.,& Shaohua. C. Measuring pro-poor growth. Economics Letters. 2003,78(1),93-99.
[116]Roemer. J. A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian planner. Philosophy and Public Affairs,1993.22(2),146-66.
[117]Roemer. J. E., Aaberge, R.. Colombino. U., et al. To what extent do fiscal regimes equalize opportunities for income acquisition among citizens?. Journal of Public Economics,2003.87(3),539-565.
[118]Roemer. J. Equality of opportunity. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1998.
[119]Scitovsky, T. The joyless economy. Oxford:Oxford University Press.1978.
[120]Seekings, J. Social stratification and inequality in south Africa at the end of apartheid. CSSR Working Paper,2003.
[121]Sen. A. On economic inequality. London:Oxford University Press,1973.
[122]Sen. A. Poverty:an ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica,1976, 44(2),219-231.
[123]Sen. A. Poverty:an ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica,1976, 44(3),219-231.
[124]Shorrocks, A. F. Inequality decomposition by factor components. Econometrica, 1982,50(1),193-211.
[125]Shorrocks, A. F. Inequality decomposition by population subgroups. Econometrica,1984,52(6),1369-1385.
[126]Shorrocks, A. F. The class of additive decomposable inequality measures. Econometrica,1980,48(3),613-625.
[127]Shorrocks, A. F.,& Foster, J. E. Transfer sensitive inequality measures. The Review of Economic Studies,1987,54(3),485-497.
[128]Shorrocks, A. F.,& Slottje, D. Approximating unanimity orderings:an application to Lorenz dominance. Journal of Economics,2002,9(1),91-118.
[129]Silverman, B. W. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. London: Chapman and Hall,1986.
[130]Solow, R. M. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1956,70(2),65-94.
[131]Son.,& Hwa, H. A note on pro-poor growth. Economics Letters,2004,82(3), 307-314.
[132]Tibshirani, R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B,1996,58(1),267-288.
[133]Timmer, P. How well do the poor connect to the growth process?. Mimeo. University of California, SanDiego,1997.
[134]Van Praag, B., J. Spit, H. Van de Stadt. A Comparison between the food ratio poverty line and the leyden poverty line. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1982,64(4),691-694.
[135]Walder, Andrew. Income determination and market opportunity in rural China, 1978-1996. Journal of Comparative Economics,2002,30(2),354-375.
[136]Watts, H. An economic definition of poverty. In Moynihan D.P. (ed.) On Understanding Poverty:Perspectives from the Social Sciences. New York: Basic Books,1968.
[137]World Bank. Introduction to poverty analysis. New York:The World Bank, 2005. http://siteresources. wordbank. org/PGLP/resources/povertyManual. pdf.
[138]World Bank. The world development index.Washington DC:The World Bank, 2007.
[139]World Bank. World development report:attacking poverty. New York:Oxford Univerty Press,2000.
[140]World Bank. World development report:poverty. New York:Oxford Univerty Press,1990.
[141]Zheng, B. Aggregate poverty measures. Journal of Economic Surveys,1997, 11(2),123-162.
[142]包晓霞.中国西北贫困地区农户的社会资本特征—基于400份农户问卷调查的初步分析.肃社会科学,2012(4),34-38.
[143]陈光金.中国农村贫困的程度、特征与影响因素分析.中国农村经济,2008(9),13-25.
[144]陈鸣.反贫困：还有很长的路要走.红旗文稿,2005(2),23-24.
[145]陈绍华.中国经济的增长和贫困的减少——1990-1999年的趋势研究.财经研究,2001(9),3-11.
[146]陈文超.消费视野下农民阶层结构的分析—基于一个村庄的研究.中国社会学学术年会论文,2006.
[147]池振合,杨宜勇.贫困线研究综述.经济理论与经济管理,2012(7),56-64.
[148]段华明.中国不发达地区农村社会的阶层结构.甘肃理论学刊,1990(5)71-74.
[149]段景辉,陈建宝.我国城乡家庭收入差异影响因素的分位数回归解析.经济学家,2009(9),46-53.
[150]段庆林.中国农民收入增长的影响因素研究.广东社会科学,2002(6),46-51.
[151]樊怀玉,郭志仪.贫困论：贫困与反贫困的理论与实践.北京：民族出版社,2002.
[152]冯素杰.论经济高速增长中的相对贫困.现代财经,2006(1),78-81.
[153]高梦滔,姚洋.农户收入差距的微观基础：物质资本还是人力资本?.经济研究,2006(12),71-80.
[154]高树兰.取消农业税后农民收入的现状分析与增收措施探讨.经济论坛,2007(6),116-]18.
[155]龚维斌.我国农民群体的分化及其走向.国家行政学院学报,2003(3),68-72.
[156]韩明谟.农村社会学.北京：北京大学出版社,2002.
[157]胡兵.经济增长、收入分配对农村贫困变动的影响.财经研究,2005(8),89-99.
[158]黄建伟,喻洁.失地农民关键自然资本的丧失、补偿及其对收入的影响研究—基于七省一市的实地调研.探索,2010(4),87-92.
[159]纪超.省域城乡收入差距的空间计量分析.农业经济,2010(9),13-15.
[160]纪宏,阮敬.基于收入分布的亲贫困增长测度及其分解.经济与管理研究,2007(8),38-43.
[161]康晓光.中国贫困反贫困理论.南宁：广西人民出版社,1995.
[162]李谷成,冯中朝和范丽霞.教育、健康与农民收入增长—来自转型期湖北省农村的证据.中国农村经济,2006(1),66-74.
[163]李敬强,徐会奇.收入来源与农村居民消费：基于面板数据的结论与启示.经济经纬,2009(6),107-110.
[164]李静,杨国涛和孟令杰.贫困线：理论、应用及争议.农业经济,2006(7),75-76.
[165]李炯.浙江居民收入差距特征及经济社会影响.中共浙江省委党校学报,2004(4),65-70.
[166]李瑞林,陈新.取消农业税后西部地区农民增收问题研究—来自云、贵、川300个农户的调查.农村经济,2009(8),47-51
[167]李树茁,杨绪松和任义科等.农民工的社会网络与职业阶层和收入：来自深圳调查的发现.当代经济科学,2007,29(1),25-33.
[168]李颖,王尤贵.基于收入来源的我国省际间农村居民收入差距变动分析.农村经济,2006(6),56-57.
[169]李佑静.社会各阶层收入差距及影响因素研究—对重庆市的调查分析.西部论坛,2010,20(6),33-39.
[170]林伯强.中国的经济增长、贫困减少与政策选择.经济研究,2003(12),15-25.
[171]林后春.当代中国农民阶级阶层分化研究综述.社会主义研究,1991(1),59-64.
[172]刘成斌.非农化视角下的浙江省农村社会分层.中国人口科学,2005(5),75-81.
[173]刘福成,我国农村居民贫困线的测定.农业经济问题,1998(5),52-45.
[174]刘国恩,Dow, W. H.,傅正鸿,Akin, J.中国的健康人力资本与收入增长.经济学(季刊),2004,4(1),101-118.
[175]刘建平.贫困线测定方法研究.山西财经大学学报,2003,25(4),60-62.
[176]刘林平,张春泥.农民工工资：人力资本、社会资本、企业制度还是社会环境?——珠江三角洲农民工工资的决定模型.社会学研究,2007(6)1-14.
[177]刘小锋.基于农户视角的农村公共产品需求研究—以福建省为例.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[178]陆学艺.当代中国社会阶层的分化与流动.江苏社会科学,2003(4),1-9.
[179]陆学艺.重新认识农民问题—十年来中国农民的变化.社会学研究,1989(6),1-14.
[180]骆祚炎.利用线性支出系统ELES测定贫困线.统计与决策,2006(9),25-28.
[181]马新文,冯睿.用扩展线性支出模型测量西安市贫困线研究.软科学,2005(6),11-13.
[182]皮拥军.OECD国家推进教育公平的典范—韩国和芬兰.比较教育研究,2007(2),6-10.
[183]任国强.人力资本对农民非农就业与非农收入的影响研究—基于天津的考察.南开经济研究,2004(3),3-10.
[184]尚卫平,姚智谋.多维贫困测度方法研究.财经研究,2005,31(12),88-94.
[185]申海.中国区域经济差距的收敛性分析.数量经济技术经济研究,1999,(8),55-57.
[186]沈坤荣,张璟.中国农村公共支出及其绩效分析—基于农民收入增长和城乡收入差距的经验研究.管理世界,2001(3),31-40.
[187]盛来运.农民收入增长格局的变动趋势分析.中国农村经济,2005(5)21-25.
[188]世界银行.1990年世界发展报告(中译本).北京：中国财政经济出版社,1990.
[189]宋元梁,肖卫东.中国城镇化发展与农民收入增长关系的动态计量经济分析.数量经济技术经济研究,2005(9),30-39.
[190]宋镇修.中国农村社会学.哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,1989.
[191]唐运舒,于彪.贫困线几种测量方法的实证比较.当代经济管理,2009,31(5),66-69.
[192]唐忠新.贫富分化的社会学研究.天津：天津人民出版社,1998.
[193]万广华,张茵.收入增长与不平等对我国贫困的影响.经济研究,2006(6),112-123.
[194]万广华.不平等的度量与分解.经济学(季刊),2008,8(1),347-368.
[195]万广华.解释中国农村区域间的收入不平等：一种基于回归方程的分解方法.经济研究,2004(8),117-127.
[196]万能,原新.1978年以来中国农民的阶层分化：回顾与反思.中国农村观察,2009(4),65-73.
[197]王凤.我国农民收入增长决定因素的经济学分析.经济学家,2005(5),66-71.
[198]王刘玉,高军.当代中国社会阶层分化现状及其走势.学术交流,2009(6),144-149.
[199]王生云.基于非匿名性的亲贫困增长测度.经济问题,2010(6),10-15.
[200]王生云.亲贫困增长测度研究述评.统计研究,2012(7),101-106.
[201]王生云.中国农村长期贫困程度、特征与影响因素.经济问题,2011(11),71-76.
[202]王小林,Sabina Alkire.中国多维贫困测量：估计和政策含义.中国农村经济,2009(12)，4-10,23.
[203]王卓.论中国城市化进程中的贫困问题.经济体制改革,2004(6),19-23.
[204]王祖详.中国农村贫困评估研究.管理世界,2006(3),71-77.
[205]温涛,王煜宇.农业贷款、财政支农投入对农民收入增长有效性研究.财经问题研究,2005(2),78-83.
[206]夏庆杰.中国城镇贫困的变化趋势和模式：1988-2002.经济研究,2007(9),96-111.
[207]肖富群.人力资本要素对农户收入影响的次序性——基于广西农村的调查数据.软科学,2010(6),101-105.
[208]肖文涛.我国社会转型期的城市贫困问题研究.社会学研究,1997(5),40-47.
[209]谢光国.制约农民收入增长的因素分析和对策.农业经济问题,2001(3),57-59.
[210]谢勇.基于人力资本和社会资本视角的农民工就业境况研究—以南京市为例.中国农村观察,2009(5),49-55.
[211]谢周亮.转型期我国个人收入差异的影响因素研究——基于人力资本和社会资本的分析.博士学位论文,南开大学,2009.
[212]邢鹂,樊胜根,罗小朋等.中国西部地区农村内部不平等状况研究—基于贵州住户调查数据的分析.经济学(季刊),2008,8(1),325-345.
[213]徐现祥,舒元.物质资本、人力资本与中国地区双峰趋同.世界经济,2005,(1),48-57.
[214]严振书,程元恒.八大社会阶层的划分及存在的结构性问题.中共四川省委党校学报,2010(1),97-100.
[215]杨灿明,郭慧芳和孙群力.我国农民收入来源构成的实证分析—兼论增加农民收入的对策.财贸经济,2007(2),74-78.
[216]杨云彦,石智雷.中国农村地区的家庭禀赋与外出务工劳动力回流.人口研究,2012(7),3-17.
[217]余芳东.世界银行推算的中国购买力平价结果及其问题.经济界,2008(4),27-32.
[218]岳昌君,刘燕萍.教育对不同群体收人的影响.北京大学教育评论,2006,4(2),85-92.
[219]岳希明,李实和王萍萍等.透视中国农村贫困.经济科学出版社,2007.
[220]张建华,陈立中.总量贫困测度研究述评.经济学(季刊),2006,5(3),675-694.
[221]张立冬.收入流动性与贫困的动态发展：基于中国农村的经验分析.农业经济问题,2009(6),73-80.
[222]张全红,张建华.中国农村贫困变动：1981-2005—基于不同贫困线标准和指数的对比分析.统计研究,2010(2),28-35.
[223]张全红.中国农村贫困变动：1981-2005.统计研究,2010,27(2),30-35.
[224]张宛丽.中国社会阶级阶层研究二十年.社会学研究,2000(1),24-39.
[225]张翼,薛进军.中国的阶层结构与收入不平等.甘肃社会科学,2009(1)1-6.
[226]周彬彬.向贫困挑战.北京：人民出版社,1991.
[227]周建华.我国农村贫困人口人力资本投资分析.财经问题研究,2011(7),122-128.
[228]周批改.改革以来农民分化研究的回顾与商榷.前沿,2002(11),153-156.
[229]周逸先,崔玉平.农村劳动力受教育与就业以及家庭收入的相关分析.中国农村经济,2001(4),60-67.
[230]周正,周旭亮.取消农业税对我国农民减负的实证研究.学术交流,2009(11),108-112.
[231]朱力.我国社会阶层结构演化的趋势.社会科学研究,2005(5),147-153.
[232]邹农俭.当代中国农村社会分层标准研究.南京师大学报(社会科学版),1999(3),19-23.
[233]邹薇,张芬.农村地区收入差异与人力资本积累.中国社会科学,2006,(2),67-79.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |