经济开放对我国城镇贫困的影响研究
|
摘要
我国自20世纪80年代开始举世瞩目的经济开放以来,城镇贫困的问题随着经济开放的深入迅速凸现并日益严峻。与农村贫困显著不同的是,城镇贫困更多的体现出冲击性,即受到经济开放的影响,经济体制急剧转轨,在城市中形成的以下岗职工和失业人员为主体的城市贫困群体。基于此,本文试图通过对开放经济条件下的城镇贫困的变动趋势的描述,结合理论和实践、定性分析和定量分析等方法,系统的研究经济开放对我国城镇贫困的影响。本文主要内容可概括为三个部分:
第一部分(即本文第二章)描述了开放经济条件下我国城镇贫困的变动趋势。首先在回顾我国的经济开放历程的基础上,利用主成分分析法来度量经济开放程度。我国自实施经济开放的政策后,我国经济逐步从封闭经济到开放经济甚至开放型经济演化,但我国的经济开放是不均衡发展的,东部地区与中西部地区之间开放程度存在差异,并且差异逐渐拉大。其次,本章从贫困识别、贫困总量测度、贫困人口的分布和致贫原因四个方面分别描述了在经济开放的环境下我国城镇贫困变所体现的新变动趋势。结果表明,在开放经济条件下,相对贫困线能够更好的识别城镇贫困人口,因此我国目前所使用的“低保线”标准不合适,应当选用参考相对贫困线制定的更高的标准。因为经济开放带来的经济增长有效的提高了城镇贫困居民的收入水平,但是收入分配的恶化降低了经济增长的减贫效应,我国在开放以后城镇绝对贫困的总量显著下降,但相对贫困人口逐步增加。同时,我国城镇贫困主要集中在失业人口和身体不健康人口两类人群,而且呈现出行业和地区特征。因而,导致城镇贫困的主要原因来源于两方面,即宏观方面的经济增长和收入分配等原因和微观方面的贫困人口的素质差异和就业等因素。
第二部分(本文第三章)从经济增长和收入分配视角分析了经济开放影响我国城镇贫困的影响,并发现存在“门槛效应”。本章首先利用协整的分析方法检验了经济开放与我国经济增长的关系,结果表明经济开放有利于我国的经济增长,但是各地区的影响不一致。接着本章分析了经济开放与我国收入分配的关系,表明经济开放将导致我国产业和企业之间、地区之间出现收入差距的扩大。因此,经济开放一方面带来我国经济高速增长,另一方面导致我国分配状况日益恶化时,其对我国城镇贫困的影响将受到经济增长和收入分配两个方面的共同作用。而本文分析济增长、收入分配对城镇贫困的影响后发现,尽管我国的经济增长在很大程度上缓解了我国城镇贫困,但收入分配的恶化严重的阻碍经济增长的减贫效果。这些分析使我们认识到经济开放对我国城镇贫困的影响是不确定的,受到经济开放的程度的影响,即存在“门槛效应”。本文从三个方面检验了“门槛效应”:(1)全国数据的协整检验结果表明,贸易自由化不利于城镇贫困,而FDI有利于城镇贫困,综合来看,经济开放有利于城镇贫困的减缓,而且经济开放对城镇贫困的影响受到经济开放程度的影响;(2)各省市时间序列数据的协整检验结果证实经济开放对城镇贫困的影响与经济开放程度高低有关,在经济开放程度较高的省市,经济开放有利于减缓城镇贫困;在经济开放程度较低的省市,经济开放不利于减缓城镇贫困;(3)各省市面板数据回归结果确认经济开放程度对城镇贫困的影响存在“门槛效应”,只有越过“门槛值”,经济开放才有利于减缓城镇贫困。
第三部分(本文第四章)分析了经济开放影响城镇贫困的就业和价格变动渠道。首先,经济开放对就业的影响是双面的,受到经济开放推动就业的出口产业部门的城镇贫困人口状况改善,而进口产业部门和被FDI挤出的相关产业部门贫困人口状况恶化。其次,经济开放通过对国内价格波动的影响贫困人口也是双面的,经济开放导致物价水平提高,那么贫困人口作为进口商品的净购买者则其福利效应降低,而作为出口商品的净生产者则其福利效应提高。第三,经济开放通过技术进步与技术扩散、要素流动、面对冲击的脆弱性以及相应制度影响城镇贫困人口的效应也是不确定的,在这些机制的作用下,城镇贫困人口有的收益,有的受损。
本文与以往研究最大的区别在于从开放经济的角度分析城镇贫困问题,重点从经济增长和收入分配角度和就业以及价格变动角度分析经济开放对城镇贫困的影响。研究结果显示经济开放对城镇贫困的影响存在“门槛效应”,因而,政府在制定政策时必须针对各省市不同的情况采取不同的措施,在东部地区应尽力发挥经济开放的减贫作用,而在中西部地区应当更注重收入分配的合理化。同时,从就业和价格变动角度看,经济开放对城镇贫困的影响存在不确定性。因此,政府应该尽力减少这些不确定性,减缓经济开放给城镇贫困带来的不利影响。
The problem of urban poverty has emerged quickly and becoming worse and worse, since China began its famous openness from 1980’s. Being very different from the rural poverty, it appears more vulnerability. The poor people, mainly people lost their jobs, appear in urban areas because of the influence from the reformation and openness of the economy. About this, this dissertation makes systemic study on the impact of economic openness on the urban poverty, with the methods of integrating theory with practice, qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis.
The study includes the following three sections:
Section I (Chapter 2) describes the trends of China’s urban poverty in the open economy condition. On the basis of the reviews of China’s opening processes, this paper firstly estimates the opening degree in China with the method of the principal component analysis. It shows that China has evolved step by step from a closed economy to an open economy. However, the opening developments are imbalanced, so that there has been gradually increasing differences of the opening degrees between the East and the West. Secondly, the trends of China’s urban poverty in the open economy condition are described by the poverty identifications, the aggregate poverty measurements, the distributions of the poor and the causes of poverty. It indicates that the relative poverty line will be better to indentify poverty in the open economy. So, the present minimum subsistence level is not appropriate and the government should raise the minimum subsistence level based on the relative poverty line. If the relative poverty line is chosen to indentify poverty, the aggregate poverty has benn increased notably since the economy opened, while it seems to decrease in the same time as the absolute poverty line is chosen to indentify poverty, because economic growth arisen by openness has increased income level of the urban poor effectively, but inequality of income distribution has reduced the poverty alleviation effect induced by growth. Moreover, the urban poverty presents concentrative that the poor are mostly the unemployed and the unhealthy people, and the poor gather in certain areas and industries. Therefore, economic growth and inequality of income distribution are the macro causes of the urban poverty, as well as the poor people’s quality differences and employments as micro causes.
Section II (Chapter 3) analyses the impact of economic openness on the urban poverty through the transmission mechanism of growth inequality–poverty channel, and discovers the“threshold effect”. At first, the linkage of the openness and the growth is tested by the way of co-integration analysis, and it demonstrates that the openness is good for economic growth in China, but the impacts are different from regions. Then, the paper analyses the linkage of the openness and the inequality, which shows that openness induces the income divergence between the industries and the areas. Because that on one hand, the openness promotes economic growth, and on the other hand, it worsens the inequality, whether the openness affects the urban poverty depends on the interaction between the economic growth and the inequality. Therefore, it is found out that although the economic growth alleviated the urban poverty to a great extent, the worsened inequality blocked the anti-poverty effects of the economic growth. Thus, the impact of the economic growth upon the urban poverty is of uncertainty, which is influenced by the opening degree. In other words, the“threshold effect”exists, which is tested from following three respects. (1) The co-integration analysis for the national data reveals that trade liberalization goes against the urban poverty while FDI favors the urban poverty. On the whole, openness is good for urban poverty reduction, which is influenced by the opening degree. (2) The co-integration analysis for the provincial data confirms that opening degree does really affect the results. In some provinces with higher opening degree, the openness will reduce the urban poverty distinctly, while in the other provinces with lower opening degree, the openness will block the urban poverty reduction. (3) The econometric regression with provincial panel data makes sure that the“threshold effect” does really exist. Only if the opening degree gets across the“threshold value”, the economic growth will alleviate the urban poverty.
Section III (Chapter 4) analyses the transmission mechanisms of the employment channel and the price fluctuation channel.First, the effects of openness on the employment are two-faced. The poor people’s conditions will be improved due to the raising employments promoted by the openness. However, the living conditions of the poor people who work in import sectors and the sectors affected by FDI crowding-out effects will be worsened. Second, the impact of the price fluctuation is also two-faced. Price level will increase by opening. Accordingly, whether the poor people, as consumer, actually gain or lose from openness depends on whether or not they are net buyer of tradable goods. Third, the other channels, as the technology channel, the factor mobility channel, the vulnerability channel and the institutions channel, are also uncertain. Some poor people become winner and the others become loser.
The most remarkable difference of this dissertation is that the problem of urban poverty is discussed as viewed from the openness, in which the impact of economic openness on the urban poverty is analysed through the growth inequality-poverty channel, the employment channal and the price fluctuation channel. It is found out that there has been“threshold effect”in the linkage of economic openness and the urban poverty. As a result, the government should exert the advantageous influence of economic openness on the urban poverty in the East, and reduce the inequality in the West. In addition, the impact of economic openness on the urban poverty is uncertain through the employment and price fluctuation channels, which suggests the government to restrain these uncertainties to alleviate the disadvantage impacts.
第一部分(即本文第二章)描述了开放经济条件下我国城镇贫困的变动趋势。首先在回顾我国的经济开放历程的基础上,利用主成分分析法来度量经济开放程度。我国自实施经济开放的政策后,我国经济逐步从封闭经济到开放经济甚至开放型经济演化,但我国的经济开放是不均衡发展的,东部地区与中西部地区之间开放程度存在差异,并且差异逐渐拉大。其次,本章从贫困识别、贫困总量测度、贫困人口的分布和致贫原因四个方面分别描述了在经济开放的环境下我国城镇贫困变所体现的新变动趋势。结果表明,在开放经济条件下,相对贫困线能够更好的识别城镇贫困人口,因此我国目前所使用的“低保线”标准不合适,应当选用参考相对贫困线制定的更高的标准。因为经济开放带来的经济增长有效的提高了城镇贫困居民的收入水平,但是收入分配的恶化降低了经济增长的减贫效应,我国在开放以后城镇绝对贫困的总量显著下降,但相对贫困人口逐步增加。同时,我国城镇贫困主要集中在失业人口和身体不健康人口两类人群,而且呈现出行业和地区特征。因而,导致城镇贫困的主要原因来源于两方面,即宏观方面的经济增长和收入分配等原因和微观方面的贫困人口的素质差异和就业等因素。
第二部分(本文第三章)从经济增长和收入分配视角分析了经济开放影响我国城镇贫困的影响,并发现存在“门槛效应”。本章首先利用协整的分析方法检验了经济开放与我国经济增长的关系,结果表明经济开放有利于我国的经济增长,但是各地区的影响不一致。接着本章分析了经济开放与我国收入分配的关系,表明经济开放将导致我国产业和企业之间、地区之间出现收入差距的扩大。因此,经济开放一方面带来我国经济高速增长,另一方面导致我国分配状况日益恶化时,其对我国城镇贫困的影响将受到经济增长和收入分配两个方面的共同作用。而本文分析济增长、收入分配对城镇贫困的影响后发现,尽管我国的经济增长在很大程度上缓解了我国城镇贫困,但收入分配的恶化严重的阻碍经济增长的减贫效果。这些分析使我们认识到经济开放对我国城镇贫困的影响是不确定的,受到经济开放的程度的影响,即存在“门槛效应”。本文从三个方面检验了“门槛效应”:(1)全国数据的协整检验结果表明,贸易自由化不利于城镇贫困,而FDI有利于城镇贫困,综合来看,经济开放有利于城镇贫困的减缓,而且经济开放对城镇贫困的影响受到经济开放程度的影响;(2)各省市时间序列数据的协整检验结果证实经济开放对城镇贫困的影响与经济开放程度高低有关,在经济开放程度较高的省市,经济开放有利于减缓城镇贫困;在经济开放程度较低的省市,经济开放不利于减缓城镇贫困;(3)各省市面板数据回归结果确认经济开放程度对城镇贫困的影响存在“门槛效应”,只有越过“门槛值”,经济开放才有利于减缓城镇贫困。
第三部分(本文第四章)分析了经济开放影响城镇贫困的就业和价格变动渠道。首先,经济开放对就业的影响是双面的,受到经济开放推动就业的出口产业部门的城镇贫困人口状况改善,而进口产业部门和被FDI挤出的相关产业部门贫困人口状况恶化。其次,经济开放通过对国内价格波动的影响贫困人口也是双面的,经济开放导致物价水平提高,那么贫困人口作为进口商品的净购买者则其福利效应降低,而作为出口商品的净生产者则其福利效应提高。第三,经济开放通过技术进步与技术扩散、要素流动、面对冲击的脆弱性以及相应制度影响城镇贫困人口的效应也是不确定的,在这些机制的作用下,城镇贫困人口有的收益,有的受损。
本文与以往研究最大的区别在于从开放经济的角度分析城镇贫困问题,重点从经济增长和收入分配角度和就业以及价格变动角度分析经济开放对城镇贫困的影响。研究结果显示经济开放对城镇贫困的影响存在“门槛效应”,因而,政府在制定政策时必须针对各省市不同的情况采取不同的措施,在东部地区应尽力发挥经济开放的减贫作用,而在中西部地区应当更注重收入分配的合理化。同时,从就业和价格变动角度看,经济开放对城镇贫困的影响存在不确定性。因此,政府应该尽力减少这些不确定性,减缓经济开放给城镇贫困带来的不利影响。
The problem of urban poverty has emerged quickly and becoming worse and worse, since China began its famous openness from 1980’s. Being very different from the rural poverty, it appears more vulnerability. The poor people, mainly people lost their jobs, appear in urban areas because of the influence from the reformation and openness of the economy. About this, this dissertation makes systemic study on the impact of economic openness on the urban poverty, with the methods of integrating theory with practice, qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis.
The study includes the following three sections:
Section I (Chapter 2) describes the trends of China’s urban poverty in the open economy condition. On the basis of the reviews of China’s opening processes, this paper firstly estimates the opening degree in China with the method of the principal component analysis. It shows that China has evolved step by step from a closed economy to an open economy. However, the opening developments are imbalanced, so that there has been gradually increasing differences of the opening degrees between the East and the West. Secondly, the trends of China’s urban poverty in the open economy condition are described by the poverty identifications, the aggregate poverty measurements, the distributions of the poor and the causes of poverty. It indicates that the relative poverty line will be better to indentify poverty in the open economy. So, the present minimum subsistence level is not appropriate and the government should raise the minimum subsistence level based on the relative poverty line. If the relative poverty line is chosen to indentify poverty, the aggregate poverty has benn increased notably since the economy opened, while it seems to decrease in the same time as the absolute poverty line is chosen to indentify poverty, because economic growth arisen by openness has increased income level of the urban poor effectively, but inequality of income distribution has reduced the poverty alleviation effect induced by growth. Moreover, the urban poverty presents concentrative that the poor are mostly the unemployed and the unhealthy people, and the poor gather in certain areas and industries. Therefore, economic growth and inequality of income distribution are the macro causes of the urban poverty, as well as the poor people’s quality differences and employments as micro causes.
Section II (Chapter 3) analyses the impact of economic openness on the urban poverty through the transmission mechanism of growth inequality–poverty channel, and discovers the“threshold effect”. At first, the linkage of the openness and the growth is tested by the way of co-integration analysis, and it demonstrates that the openness is good for economic growth in China, but the impacts are different from regions. Then, the paper analyses the linkage of the openness and the inequality, which shows that openness induces the income divergence between the industries and the areas. Because that on one hand, the openness promotes economic growth, and on the other hand, it worsens the inequality, whether the openness affects the urban poverty depends on the interaction between the economic growth and the inequality. Therefore, it is found out that although the economic growth alleviated the urban poverty to a great extent, the worsened inequality blocked the anti-poverty effects of the economic growth. Thus, the impact of the economic growth upon the urban poverty is of uncertainty, which is influenced by the opening degree. In other words, the“threshold effect”exists, which is tested from following three respects. (1) The co-integration analysis for the national data reveals that trade liberalization goes against the urban poverty while FDI favors the urban poverty. On the whole, openness is good for urban poverty reduction, which is influenced by the opening degree. (2) The co-integration analysis for the provincial data confirms that opening degree does really affect the results. In some provinces with higher opening degree, the openness will reduce the urban poverty distinctly, while in the other provinces with lower opening degree, the openness will block the urban poverty reduction. (3) The econometric regression with provincial panel data makes sure that the“threshold effect” does really exist. Only if the opening degree gets across the“threshold value”, the economic growth will alleviate the urban poverty.
Section III (Chapter 4) analyses the transmission mechanisms of the employment channel and the price fluctuation channel.First, the effects of openness on the employment are two-faced. The poor people’s conditions will be improved due to the raising employments promoted by the openness. However, the living conditions of the poor people who work in import sectors and the sectors affected by FDI crowding-out effects will be worsened. Second, the impact of the price fluctuation is also two-faced. Price level will increase by opening. Accordingly, whether the poor people, as consumer, actually gain or lose from openness depends on whether or not they are net buyer of tradable goods. Third, the other channels, as the technology channel, the factor mobility channel, the vulnerability channel and the institutions channel, are also uncertain. Some poor people become winner and the others become loser.
The most remarkable difference of this dissertation is that the problem of urban poverty is discussed as viewed from the openness, in which the impact of economic openness on the urban poverty is analysed through the growth inequality-poverty channel, the employment channal and the price fluctuation channel. It is found out that there has been“threshold effect”in the linkage of economic openness and the urban poverty. As a result, the government should exert the advantageous influence of economic openness on the urban poverty in the East, and reduce the inequality in the West. In addition, the impact of economic openness on the urban poverty is uncertain through the employment and price fluctuation channels, which suggests the government to restrain these uncertainties to alleviate the disadvantage impacts.
引文
1阿马蒂亚·森:《有关全球化的十个问题》,《国外社会科学文摘》,2001(9),pp.35.
[1] Aart Kraay.When is Growth Pro-poor? Cross-Country Evidence,Woldbank Workingpaper, 3225, 2004-2-25 http://www.worldbank.org.cn/Chinese/content/181d62640440.shtml
[2] Agenor P R. Does globalization hurt the poor, International Economics and economic policy, 2004,1(1): pp.21-51.
[3] Aisbett, Emma. Why are the Critics so Convinced that Globalization is Bad for the Poor?.NBER Working Paper w11066, 2004: pp.1-39.
[4] Aniceto C. Orbeta, Jr. .Globalization and Employment: The Impact of Trade on mployment Level and Structure in the Philippines. Philippine Institute for development studies discussion papers, February 2002.
[5] Ann Harrison, Margaret McMillan. On the links between globalization and poverty. J Econ Inequal,2007(5): pp.123–134.
[6] Berg. A., Krueger. A.. Lifting all boats: Why openness helps curb povertyJ.Finance & Development, 2002,9:pp.16.
[7] Beyer, Harald, Patricio Rohas, and Rodrigo Vergara. Trade Liberalization and Wage Inequality. Journal of Development Economics, 1999,6:pp.103–123.
[8] Bhagwati, J. & Srinivasan,T.N. Trade and Poverty in the Poor Countries.AEA Papers and Proceedings,2002,92(2): pp.180-183.
[9] Bhagwats, J., Srinivasan, T.N... Trade and poverty in poor countriesJ. American Economic Review, 92 ,2: pp.180–183.
[10] Bhalla, S. Crying Wolf on Poverty: or how the millennium development goal has already been reached. Institute for International Economics Working Paper No. 0403,2003: pp.1-27.
[11] Bigsten, A., Levin, J., Growth, Income Distribution, and Poverty: A Review,Working Paper in Economics No 32, Department of Economics Goteborg University, 2000
[12] Bourguignon, F.. The Poverty-Growth-Inequality Triangle. DRAFT Working Paper, 2004
[13] Bruno, Michael & Ravallion, Martin & Sqire, Lyn. Equity and growth in developing countries : old and new perspectives on the policy issues. Policy Research Working Paper Series 1563, The World Bank, 1996.
[14] Chen, S. & Ravallion, M. How Did the World's Poorest Fare in the 1990s? .World Bank Development Research Group Working Paper w2409, 2000: pp.1-21.
[15] Culpeper Roy. Approaches to Globalisation and Inequality within the International System.Paper prepared for UNRISD Project on Improving Knowledge on Social Development in International Organisation, September 2002: pp.1-41.
[16] Datt, G.. Computational Tools for Poverty Measurement and Analysis. FCND Discussion Paper No.50, 1998
[17] Davis, Don and Prachi Mishra. Stolper-Samuelson is Dead And Other Crimes of Both Theory and Data. Globalization and Poverty (Ann Harrison ed),Chicago: University of Chicago Press., 2007: pp.87-108.
[18] Deaton, A. Measuring Poverty in a Growing World (or measuring growth in a poor world). Review of Economics and Statistics,2005, 87 (1):1- pp.19.
[19] Dollar David and Aart Kraay. Trade, Growth and Poverty.The Economic Journal, 2004,114 (2): pp.22-49.
[20] Dollar, D., A., Kraay, Growth is good for the poor, Journal of Economic growth, 2002, 7, 3: 195-225
[21] Easterly, William. Globalization, Poverty, and All That: Factor Endowment versus Productivity Views. NBER Globalization Workshop, 2005: pp.1-60.
[22] Fischer, S. Globalization and Its Challenges. American Economic Review, 2003(93): pp.1-30.
[23] Foster, J., Greer, J., Thorbeche, E., A class of decomposable poverty measures, Econometrica, 1984, 52, 3: 761-766
[24] Giles, J., Park, A., Zhang, J.. What is China’s True Unemployment Rate?. China Economic Review, 2005, 16: 149—170
[25] Giovanni Andrea Cornia. Liberalization , Globalization and Income Distribution.WIDER working paper,March 1999: pp.1-18.
[26] Goldberg, Penny, and Nina Pavcnik. The Effects of the Colombia Trade Liberalization on Urban Poverty. NBER Working Paper No. W11081, 2004: pp.1-45.
[27] Graff, Geogory, David Roland-Holst and David Zilberman. Biotechnology and Poverty Reduction in Developing Countries. WIDER Research Paper no. 2005/27,2005: pp.1-21.
[28] Hanson, Gordon.Globalization, Labor Income, and Poverty in Mexico. NBER Working Paper w11027, 2004: pp.1-50.
[29] Heshmati, Almas. The Relationship between Income Inequality, Poverty, and Globalization. IZA Discussion Paper No. 2223,2006: pp.1-32.
[30] Hine,R. and Wright P. .Trade with Low Economies, Employment and Productivity in UK Manufacturing.The Economic Journal, 1998,108,(9):1500-1510. http://www.worldbank.org.cn/Chinese/content/691i63011330.shtml
[31] Humberto Lopez.Pro-Growth,Pro-poor:Is There a Tradeoff?Woldbank Workingpaper, 3378, 2004-8-19
[32] Irwin DA, Tervio M. Does trade raise income? Evidence from the twentieth century. Journal of International Economics, 2002,58: pp.1-18.
[33] Kalwij, Adriaan and Arjan Verschoor. A Decomposition of Poverty Trends across Regions: The Role of Variation in the Income and Inequality Elasticities of Poverty. WIDER Research Paper no. 2005/36, 2005: pp.1-18.
[34] Knight, J., Song, Lina., Economic growth ,economic reform, and rising equality inChina, in Riskin, Zhao, and Li, ed. China’retreat from inequality: income distribution and economic transition, New York: M.E. Shape, 2001, 84-122
[35] Kraay A., Dollar D.. Trade Growth and Poverty. The Economic Journal, 2004,12: pp22–49.
[36] Ligon, Ethan, Poverty and the Welfare Costs of Risk Associated with Globalization. World Development, 2006, 34(8): pp.1446-1457.
[37] Loungani,P. Inequality: ow you see it, now you don’t..Finance & Development ,September 2003: pp.22-23.
[38] Martin Ravallion. The Debate on Globalization, Poverty and Inequality:Why Measurement Matters.World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3038, April 2003: pp.1-26.
[39] Milanovic, Branko and Lyn Squire. Does Tariff Liberalization Increase Inequality? Some Empirical Evidence.NBER Working Paper w11046, 2005: pp.1-52.
[40] Montalbano, Pierluigi, Umberto Triulzi, Carlo Pietrobelli, and Alessandro Federici. Trade Openness and Vulnerability in Central and Eastern Europe.WIDER Research Paper 2005/43, 2005: pp.1-23.
[41] Prasad, Eswar S., Kenneth Rogoff, Shang-Jin Wei, and M. Ayhan Kose. Effects of Financial Globalization on Developing Countries: Some Empirical Evidence, IMF Occasional Papers No.220,2004: pp.1-72.
[42] Ravallion, M. and Datt, G., Growth and redistribution components of changes in poverty measures: a decompositions to Braizil and India in the 1980s, Journal of Development Economics, 1992, 38: 275-295
[43] Ravallion, M., Can high-inequality developing countries escape absolute poverty, Economics Letters, 1997, 56: 51-57
[44] Ravallion, M., Chen S., China’(uneven) progress against poverty, Policy Research Working Paper, 2004, 3408
[45] Ravallion, M., Chen, S., Measuring pro-poor growth, Economic Letters, 2003,78,1:93-99
[46] Ravallion, M., Growth, Inequality and Poverty: Looking Beyond Averages, World Development, 2001, 29: 1803—1815
[47] Rodrick, Dani. Trade, Social Insurance, and the Limits to Globalization.NBER Working Paper No. w5905,1997: pp.1-36.
[48] Sala-i-Martin, X. The World Distribution of Income (estimated from individual country distributions),NBER Working Paper No. 8933,2002: pp.1-68.
[49] Thomas, Duncan. Household Responses to the Financial Crises in Indonesia: Longitudinal Evidence on Poverty, Resources, and Well-Being, California Center for Population Research. On-Line Working Paper Series, No. CCPR-056-05,2005: pp.1-45.
[50] Wade, Robert . Globalization, Poverty and Income Distribution: does the liberal argument hold?. LSE Development Studies Institute Working Paper No. 02-33,July 2002:1-29.
[51] Winters, L.A., Trade, trade policy, and poverty: what are the links? World Economy, 2001, 25, 9: 1339-67
[52] World Bank. Globalization, growth, and poverty. The World Bank, 2002, Washington DC: pp.31-38.
[53] Xinping Guan.Poverty and Antipoverty Policies in Urban China[A]. Poverty Monitoring and Alleviation in East Asia[C].Tang,K. and Wong,C., editors, Nova Science Publishers, Inc,2003:15-37
[54] Zhao Jinhua. The Role of Information in Technology Adoption under Poverty.WIDER Research Paper no. 2005/41, 2005: pp.1-19.
[55]阿马蒂亚·森.有关全球化的十个问题.国外社会科学文摘,2001,9:pp.35.
[56]包群,许和连.贸易开放度与经济增长:理论及中国的经验研究.世界经济, 2003, 2: 10-18
[57]蔡昉,万广华主编.中国转轨时期收入差距与贫困[M].北京:社会科学文献出
[75]联合国跨国公司与投资司. 1994年世界投资报告.对外经济贸易出版社,1995年版。
[76]林伯强.中国的经济增长、贫困减少与政策选择.经济研究,2003,12pp.15—25.
[77]刘翔峰.论经济增长与增长的社会代价——以泰国为案例分析:[博士学位论文].中国社会科学院:2002.
[78]刘玉玫.经济全球化的量化研究.统计研究,2003,12:pp.13-17.
[79]罗良文.中国贸易深化的就业效应分析.中南财经政法大学学报,2003,5: pp.75-80.
[80]马从辉.开放经济条件下居民收入分配问题研究.北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[81]民政部“城镇贫困与反贫困研究小组”.中国城镇贫困状况与反贫困战略.中国民政,2001,8.
[82]任红艳.中国城镇居民收入差距适度性研究:[博士学位论文].首都经济贸易大学,2006.pp.52.
[83]苏勤,林炳耀.我国新城市贫困问题研究进展.中国软科学,2003,7:pp.19-25
[84]孙焱林.我国出口与经济增长的实证分析.国际贸易问题, 2000,2:pp.38-42.
[85]唐均.确定中国城镇贫困线方法的探讨.社会学研究,1997,2:pp.62-71.
[86]万广华,陆铭,陈钊.全球化与地区间收入差距——来自中国的证据[J].中国社会科学,2005(5):17—26
[87]万广华,张茵.收入增长与不平等对我国贫困的影响[J].经济研究,2006(6):112-123
[88]王传荣,安吉奎.国际贸易影响就业的路径分析.山东财政学院学报,2006(4): pp.40-43.
[89]魏众,B.古斯塔夫森.中国转型时期的贫困变动分析.经济研究,1998,11:pp.64-68.
[90]雄伟.试析我国对外贫易与劳动就业的相互影响.国际经贸探索,1999,3: pp.18-24.
[91]许启发.对外贸易与经济增长的相关分析.预测,2002,2:pp.14-18.
[92]俞会新,薛敬孝.中国贸易自由化对工业就业的影响.世界经济,2002, 10: pp.10-13.
[75]联合国跨国公司与投资司. 1994年世界投资报告.对外经济贸易出版社,1995年版。
[76]林伯强.中国的经济增长、贫困减少与政策选择.经济研究,2003,12pp.15—25.
[77]刘翔峰.论经济增长与增长的社会代价——以泰国为案例分析:[博士学位论文].中国社会科学院:2002.
[78]刘玉玫.经济全球化的量化研究.统计研究,2003,12:pp.13-17.
[79]罗良文.中国贸易深化的就业效应分析.中南财经政法大学学报,2003,5: pp.75-80.
[80]马从辉.开放经济条件下居民收入分配问题研究.北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[81]民政部“城镇贫困与反贫困研究小组”.中国城镇贫困状况与反贫困战略.中国民政,2001,8.
[82]任红艳.中国城镇居民收入差距适度性研究:[博士学位论文].首都经济贸易大学,2006.pp.52.
[83]苏勤,林炳耀.我国新城市贫困问题研究进展.中国软科学,2003,7:pp.19-25
[84]孙焱林.我国出口与经济增长的实证分析.国际贸易问题, 2000,2:pp.38-42.
[85]唐均.确定中国城镇贫困线方法的探讨.社会学研究,1997,2:pp.62-71.
[86]万广华,陆铭,陈钊.全球化与地区间收入差距——来自中国的证据[J].中国社会科学,2005(5):17—26
[87]万广华,张茵.收入增长与不平等对我国贫困的影响[J].经济研究,2006(6):112-123
[88]王传荣,安吉奎.国际贸易影响就业的路径分析.山东财政学院学报,2006(4): pp.40-43.
[89]魏众,B.古斯塔夫森.中国转型时期的贫困变动分析.经济研究,1998,11:pp.64-68.
[90]雄伟.试析我国对外贫易与劳动就业的相互影响.国际经贸探索,1999,3: pp.18-24.
[91]许启发.对外贸易与经济增长的相关分析.预测,2002,2:pp.14-18.
[92]俞会新,薛敬孝.中国贸易自由化对工业就业的影响.世界经济,2002, 10: pp.10-13.
[93]张全红.中国转型时期城镇反贫困政策评估:[博士学位论文].华中科技大学2007年
[94]赵伟,徐朝晖.测度中国省域经济“二重”开放.中国软科学,2005,8:pp.81-90.
[95]朱巍巍.构筑中国特色的城市反贫困体系---首届中国城市反贫困论坛观点综述.中国民政,2003,1:pp.25-28
[1] Aart Kraay.When is Growth Pro-poor? Cross-Country Evidence,Woldbank Workingpaper, 3225, 2004-2-25 http://www.worldbank.org.cn/Chinese/content/181d62640440.shtml
[2] Agenor P R. Does globalization hurt the poor, International Economics and economic policy, 2004,1(1): pp.21-51.
[3] Aisbett, Emma. Why are the Critics so Convinced that Globalization is Bad for the Poor?.NBER Working Paper w11066, 2004: pp.1-39.
[4] Aniceto C. Orbeta, Jr. .Globalization and Employment: The Impact of Trade on mployment Level and Structure in the Philippines. Philippine Institute for development studies discussion papers, February 2002.
[5] Ann Harrison, Margaret McMillan. On the links between globalization and poverty. J Econ Inequal,2007(5): pp.123–134.
[6] Berg. A., Krueger. A.. Lifting all boats: Why openness helps curb povertyJ.Finance & Development, 2002,9:pp.16.
[7] Beyer, Harald, Patricio Rohas, and Rodrigo Vergara. Trade Liberalization and Wage Inequality. Journal of Development Economics, 1999,6:pp.103–123.
[8] Bhagwati, J. & Srinivasan,T.N. Trade and Poverty in the Poor Countries.AEA Papers and Proceedings,2002,92(2): pp.180-183.
[9] Bhagwats, J., Srinivasan, T.N... Trade and poverty in poor countriesJ. American Economic Review, 92 ,2: pp.180–183.
[10] Bhalla, S. Crying Wolf on Poverty: or how the millennium development goal has already been reached. Institute for International Economics Working Paper No. 0403,2003: pp.1-27.
[11] Bigsten, A., Levin, J., Growth, Income Distribution, and Poverty: A Review,Working Paper in Economics No 32, Department of Economics Goteborg University, 2000
[12] Bourguignon, F.. The Poverty-Growth-Inequality Triangle. DRAFT Working Paper, 2004
[13] Bruno, Michael & Ravallion, Martin & Sqire, Lyn. Equity and growth in developing countries : old and new perspectives on the policy issues. Policy Research Working Paper Series 1563, The World Bank, 1996.
[14] Chen, S. & Ravallion, M. How Did the World's Poorest Fare in the 1990s? .World Bank Development Research Group Working Paper w2409, 2000: pp.1-21.
[15] Culpeper Roy. Approaches to Globalisation and Inequality within the International System.Paper prepared for UNRISD Project on Improving Knowledge on Social Development in International Organisation, September 2002: pp.1-41.
[16] Datt, G.. Computational Tools for Poverty Measurement and Analysis. FCND Discussion Paper No.50, 1998
[17] Davis, Don and Prachi Mishra. Stolper-Samuelson is Dead And Other Crimes of Both Theory and Data. Globalization and Poverty (Ann Harrison ed),Chicago: University of Chicago Press., 2007: pp.87-108.
[18] Deaton, A. Measuring Poverty in a Growing World (or measuring growth in a poor world). Review of Economics and Statistics,2005, 87 (1):1- pp.19.
[19] Dollar David and Aart Kraay. Trade, Growth and Poverty.The Economic Journal, 2004,114 (2): pp.22-49.
[20] Dollar, D., A., Kraay, Growth is good for the poor, Journal of Economic growth, 2002, 7, 3: 195-225
[21] Easterly, William. Globalization, Poverty, and All That: Factor Endowment versus Productivity Views. NBER Globalization Workshop, 2005: pp.1-60.
[22] Fischer, S. Globalization and Its Challenges. American Economic Review, 2003(93): pp.1-30.
[23] Foster, J., Greer, J., Thorbeche, E., A class of decomposable poverty measures, Econometrica, 1984, 52, 3: 761-766
[24] Giles, J., Park, A., Zhang, J.. What is China’s True Unemployment Rate?. China Economic Review, 2005, 16: 149—170
[25] Giovanni Andrea Cornia. Liberalization , Globalization and Income Distribution.WIDER working paper,March 1999: pp.1-18.
[26] Goldberg, Penny, and Nina Pavcnik. The Effects of the Colombia Trade Liberalization on Urban Poverty. NBER Working Paper No. W11081, 2004: pp.1-45.
[27] Graff, Geogory, David Roland-Holst and David Zilberman. Biotechnology and Poverty Reduction in Developing Countries. WIDER Research Paper no. 2005/27,2005: pp.1-21.
[28] Hanson, Gordon.Globalization, Labor Income, and Poverty in Mexico. NBER Working Paper w11027, 2004: pp.1-50.
[29] Heshmati, Almas. The Relationship between Income Inequality, Poverty, and Globalization. IZA Discussion Paper No. 2223,2006: pp.1-32.
[30] Hine,R. and Wright P. .Trade with Low Economies, Employment and Productivity in UK Manufacturing.The Economic Journal, 1998,108,(9):1500-1510. http://www.worldbank.org.cn/Chinese/content/691i63011330.shtml
[31] Humberto Lopez.Pro-Growth,Pro-poor:Is There a Tradeoff?Woldbank Workingpaper, 3378, 2004-8-19
[32] Irwin DA, Tervio M. Does trade raise income? Evidence from the twentieth century. Journal of International Economics, 2002,58: pp.1-18.
[33] Kalwij, Adriaan and Arjan Verschoor. A Decomposition of Poverty Trends across Regions: The Role of Variation in the Income and Inequality Elasticities of Poverty. WIDER Research Paper no. 2005/36, 2005: pp.1-18.
[34] Knight, J., Song, Lina., Economic growth ,economic reform, and rising equality inChina, in Riskin, Zhao, and Li, ed. China’retreat from inequality: income distribution and economic transition, New York: M.E. Shape, 2001, 84-122
[35] Kraay A., Dollar D.. Trade Growth and Poverty. The Economic Journal, 2004,12: pp22–49.
[36] Ligon, Ethan, Poverty and the Welfare Costs of Risk Associated with Globalization. World Development, 2006, 34(8): pp.1446-1457.
[37] Loungani,P. Inequality: ow you see it, now you don’t..Finance & Development ,September 2003: pp.22-23.
[38] Martin Ravallion. The Debate on Globalization, Poverty and Inequality:Why Measurement Matters.World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3038, April 2003: pp.1-26.
[39] Milanovic, Branko and Lyn Squire. Does Tariff Liberalization Increase Inequality? Some Empirical Evidence.NBER Working Paper w11046, 2005: pp.1-52.
[40] Montalbano, Pierluigi, Umberto Triulzi, Carlo Pietrobelli, and Alessandro Federici. Trade Openness and Vulnerability in Central and Eastern Europe.WIDER Research Paper 2005/43, 2005: pp.1-23.
[41] Prasad, Eswar S., Kenneth Rogoff, Shang-Jin Wei, and M. Ayhan Kose. Effects of Financial Globalization on Developing Countries: Some Empirical Evidence, IMF Occasional Papers No.220,2004: pp.1-72.
[42] Ravallion, M. and Datt, G., Growth and redistribution components of changes in poverty measures: a decompositions to Braizil and India in the 1980s, Journal of Development Economics, 1992, 38: 275-295
[43] Ravallion, M., Can high-inequality developing countries escape absolute poverty, Economics Letters, 1997, 56: 51-57
[44] Ravallion, M., Chen S., China’(uneven) progress against poverty, Policy Research Working Paper, 2004, 3408
[45] Ravallion, M., Chen, S., Measuring pro-poor growth, Economic Letters, 2003,78,1:93-99
[46] Ravallion, M., Growth, Inequality and Poverty: Looking Beyond Averages, World Development, 2001, 29: 1803—1815
[47] Rodrick, Dani. Trade, Social Insurance, and the Limits to Globalization.NBER Working Paper No. w5905,1997: pp.1-36.
[48] Sala-i-Martin, X. The World Distribution of Income (estimated from individual country distributions),NBER Working Paper No. 8933,2002: pp.1-68.
[49] Thomas, Duncan. Household Responses to the Financial Crises in Indonesia: Longitudinal Evidence on Poverty, Resources, and Well-Being, California Center for Population Research. On-Line Working Paper Series, No. CCPR-056-05,2005: pp.1-45.
[50] Wade, Robert . Globalization, Poverty and Income Distribution: does the liberal argument hold?. LSE Development Studies Institute Working Paper No. 02-33,July 2002:1-29.
[51] Winters, L.A., Trade, trade policy, and poverty: what are the links? World Economy, 2001, 25, 9: 1339-67
[52] World Bank. Globalization, growth, and poverty. The World Bank, 2002, Washington DC: pp.31-38.
[53] Xinping Guan.Poverty and Antipoverty Policies in Urban China[A]. Poverty Monitoring and Alleviation in East Asia[C].Tang,K. and Wong,C., editors, Nova Science Publishers, Inc,2003:15-37
[54] Zhao Jinhua. The Role of Information in Technology Adoption under Poverty.WIDER Research Paper no. 2005/41, 2005: pp.1-19.
[55]阿马蒂亚·森.有关全球化的十个问题.国外社会科学文摘,2001,9:pp.35.
[56]包群,许和连.贸易开放度与经济增长:理论及中国的经验研究.世界经济, 2003, 2: 10-18
[57]蔡昉,万广华主编.中国转轨时期收入差距与贫困[M].北京:社会科学文献出
[75]联合国跨国公司与投资司. 1994年世界投资报告.对外经济贸易出版社,1995年版。
[76]林伯强.中国的经济增长、贫困减少与政策选择.经济研究,2003,12pp.15—25.
[77]刘翔峰.论经济增长与增长的社会代价——以泰国为案例分析:[博士学位论文].中国社会科学院:2002.
[78]刘玉玫.经济全球化的量化研究.统计研究,2003,12:pp.13-17.
[79]罗良文.中国贸易深化的就业效应分析.中南财经政法大学学报,2003,5: pp.75-80.
[80]马从辉.开放经济条件下居民收入分配问题研究.北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[81]民政部“城镇贫困与反贫困研究小组”.中国城镇贫困状况与反贫困战略.中国民政,2001,8.
[82]任红艳.中国城镇居民收入差距适度性研究:[博士学位论文].首都经济贸易大学,2006.pp.52.
[83]苏勤,林炳耀.我国新城市贫困问题研究进展.中国软科学,2003,7:pp.19-25
[84]孙焱林.我国出口与经济增长的实证分析.国际贸易问题, 2000,2:pp.38-42.
[85]唐均.确定中国城镇贫困线方法的探讨.社会学研究,1997,2:pp.62-71.
[86]万广华,陆铭,陈钊.全球化与地区间收入差距——来自中国的证据[J].中国社会科学,2005(5):17—26
[87]万广华,张茵.收入增长与不平等对我国贫困的影响[J].经济研究,2006(6):112-123
[88]王传荣,安吉奎.国际贸易影响就业的路径分析.山东财政学院学报,2006(4): pp.40-43.
[89]魏众,B.古斯塔夫森.中国转型时期的贫困变动分析.经济研究,1998,11:pp.64-68.
[90]雄伟.试析我国对外贫易与劳动就业的相互影响.国际经贸探索,1999,3: pp.18-24.
[91]许启发.对外贸易与经济增长的相关分析.预测,2002,2:pp.14-18.
[92]俞会新,薛敬孝.中国贸易自由化对工业就业的影响.世界经济,2002, 10: pp.10-13.
[75]联合国跨国公司与投资司. 1994年世界投资报告.对外经济贸易出版社,1995年版。
[76]林伯强.中国的经济增长、贫困减少与政策选择.经济研究,2003,12pp.15—25.
[77]刘翔峰.论经济增长与增长的社会代价——以泰国为案例分析:[博士学位论文].中国社会科学院:2002.
[78]刘玉玫.经济全球化的量化研究.统计研究,2003,12:pp.13-17.
[79]罗良文.中国贸易深化的就业效应分析.中南财经政法大学学报,2003,5: pp.75-80.
[80]马从辉.开放经济条件下居民收入分配问题研究.北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[81]民政部“城镇贫困与反贫困研究小组”.中国城镇贫困状况与反贫困战略.中国民政,2001,8.
[82]任红艳.中国城镇居民收入差距适度性研究:[博士学位论文].首都经济贸易大学,2006.pp.52.
[83]苏勤,林炳耀.我国新城市贫困问题研究进展.中国软科学,2003,7:pp.19-25
[84]孙焱林.我国出口与经济增长的实证分析.国际贸易问题, 2000,2:pp.38-42.
[85]唐均.确定中国城镇贫困线方法的探讨.社会学研究,1997,2:pp.62-71.
[86]万广华,陆铭,陈钊.全球化与地区间收入差距——来自中国的证据[J].中国社会科学,2005(5):17—26
[87]万广华,张茵.收入增长与不平等对我国贫困的影响[J].经济研究,2006(6):112-123
[88]王传荣,安吉奎.国际贸易影响就业的路径分析.山东财政学院学报,2006(4): pp.40-43.
[89]魏众,B.古斯塔夫森.中国转型时期的贫困变动分析.经济研究,1998,11:pp.64-68.
[90]雄伟.试析我国对外贫易与劳动就业的相互影响.国际经贸探索,1999,3: pp.18-24.
[91]许启发.对外贸易与经济增长的相关分析.预测,2002,2:pp.14-18.
[92]俞会新,薛敬孝.中国贸易自由化对工业就业的影响.世界经济,2002, 10: pp.10-13.
[93]张全红.中国转型时期城镇反贫困政策评估:[博士学位论文].华中科技大学2007年
[94]赵伟,徐朝晖.测度中国省域经济“二重”开放.中国软科学,2005,8:pp.81-90.
[95]朱巍巍.构筑中国特色的城市反贫困体系---首届中国城市反贫困论坛观点综述.中国民政,2003,1:pp.25-28