2002年-世界发展银行全球_Georgia___Poverty_Update_83页_5mb

Georgia Poverty Update Summary

Core Content

This report provides an analysis of poverty trends in Georgia from 1997 to 2000, focusing on the relationship between economic growth, government policies, and poverty reduction. It highlights the challenges faced by the poor and the government's role in addressing them.

Main Points

Economic Growth and Poverty

• Economic growth in Georgia began in 1995, with high GDP growth rates in 1996 and 1997, but this growth did not translate into a reduction in poverty.
• Poverty increased unambiguously between 1997 and 2000, across all poverty lines and definitions.
• The increase was not monotonic, with most of the rise occurring in 1998 and 1999, followed by stabilization in 2000.
• Poverty incidence, depth, and severity increased significantly, with severity showing the highest increase.

Poverty Trends by Group

• Urban vs Rural: Rural areas experienced a worsening in poverty conditions, with the former advantage of rural over urban residents disappearing.
• Children vs Elderly: Children, especially from large families, had the highest poverty risk by 2000.
• Employed vs Inactive/Unemployed: The poor were more affected by unemployment and underemployment.
• Workless Households vs Working Poor: Workless households faced greater poverty risks than the working poor.

Macroeconomic Instability and Inequality

• Macroeconomic instability and inequality increased, pushing poverty up.
• The increase in inequality was primarily due to macroeconomic instability.
• The poor were disproportionately affected by economic shocks, leading to a decline in consumption and increased vulnerability.

Non-Income Dimensions of Poverty

• Education: Access to education declined, and the quality of education was low.
• Health and Nutrition: The poor faced limited access to health services and poor nutrition.
• Social Exclusion: The poor were more socially excluded.
• Gender and Powerlessness: Women and children were particularly vulnerable due to lack of power and resources.

Key Findings

Why Has Economic Growth Not Lowered Poverty?

• GDP growth was insufficient to improve welfare.
• Growth was uneven, concentrated in a few sectors, and lacked redistribution mechanisms.
• Inequality increased, which exacerbated poverty.

Who Benefited and Who Lost?

• The 1998-99 crisis hit those who had benefited from the previous growth period, such as self-employed and private sector workers.
• Children and the most vulnerable groups were the worst affected.

Government Actions and Outcomes

• The government created a foundation for a market economy, but did little to directly assist the poor.
• Accumulation of arrears in pensions and social expenditures worsened the situation.
• The social protection system had limited fiscal capacity and poor targeting, leading to leakage to non-poor groups.

Poverty Reduction Strategy

• The report advocates five key elements for an anti-poverty strategy:
  1. Sustained GDP growth leading to increased per capita consumption.
  2. Improved government capacity to redistribute income through taxation and expenditure policies.
  3. Creation of incentives to formalize income-generating opportunities and promote private employment outside of agriculture.
  4. Protection of existing poverty-focused transfers with improved targeting and gradual increase in the level of transfers to one percent of GDP.
  5. Selected targeted regional interventions to address deep pockets of poverty.

Challenges and Priorities

Key Challenges

• Macroeconomic Stability and Private Sector Development: Needed to ensure growth benefits reach the poor.
• Public Sector Governance and Strengthening Government Finances: Required to improve redistribution capacity.
• Protecting Human Capital: Essential to prevent the deterioration of education and health.
• Empowering the Poor: Involving the poor in decision-making and improving their access to resources.

Methodology and Data

• The report uses data from the Survey of Georgian Households (SGHH) and multiple poverty lines.
• The official poverty line is based on a normative basket and CPI data, while the recommended poverty line uses actual consumption patterns and survey prices.
• The methodology for poverty monitoring is inconsistent and needs improvement.

Conclusion

• The government's performance in implementing anti-poverty measures was inadequate due to slow revenue growth and continued quasi-fiscal subsidies.
• The report emphasizes the need for a comprehensive and participatory Poverty Reduction and Economic Growth Program (PREGP).
• It highlights the importance of addressing both poverty and inequality in setting poverty reduction targets and monitoring progress.
• The report calls for sustained growth, improved targeting of social assistance, and the development of a consistent poverty monitoring system.