2009年-世界发展银行全球_Hashemite_Kingdom_of_Jordan_-_Poverty_Update___Main_Report_39页_637kb

报告摘要

Jordan Poverty Update - Volume I: Main Report Summary

Core Content

This report, produced jointly by the Jordanian Department of Statistics (DOS) and the World Bank, updates the official poverty line in Jordan based on the 2006 Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES). It also analyzes poverty trends, the disparity between statistical data and public perception, and the impact of fuel subsidies and their removal on different income groups.

Main Goals

Update the official Jordanian poverty line using 2006 HIES data.
Describe recent poverty trends.
Understand the discrepancy between statistical analysis and popular perceptions of poverty.
Provide preliminary information on the distributional impact of fuel subsidies and compensating measures.

Key Findings

2006 Poverty Line

The 2006 poverty line was set at JD 46.3 per person per month (or JD 278 per family of six).
This line is based on the minimum acceptable level of consumption, including both food and non-food items.
The food budget was JD 19.9 per person per month, derived from caloric requirements and average costs.
The non-food budget was JD 26.4 per person per month, based on the spending of those at the poverty line on non-food items.

Poverty Incidence and Characteristics

In 2006, 13% of the population was below the poverty line.
Mafraq had the highest poverty rate, while Amman had the lowest.
Despite lower poverty incidence, Amman had the largest number of poor people due to its high population density.
Poverty is shallow, with many people just above or below the line, and many moving in and out of poverty.
The poorest households have a higher dependency ratio (children to adults ratio of 0.9 vs. 0.6 in non-poor households).
Poor individuals have lower education levels (52% with less than basic education) and lower employment rates (26% of poor adults are employed vs. 36% of non-poor adults).

Welfare Trends

The national poverty rate fell between 2002 and 2006, contradicting popular belief that it had increased or remained constant.
Expenditures grew significantly (9.5% real increase), while incomes grew only slightly (3.6% real increase).
Income before transfers grew even slower (1.5% real increase), suggesting a decline in real wages.
Consumption outpaced production, and savings remained negative, indicating unsustainable growth patterns.

Official Poverty Line vs. Popular Perceptions

Popular perceptions of poverty often focus on income, whereas official data uses expenditure to define poverty.
The poverty line is relatively low, and people may perceive it as higher, possibly including the lower middle class.
The lower middle class (quintile 2) has lower income growth compared to the poorest quintile (quintile 1), which is not reflected in public perception.

Compensating Measures for Fuel Subsidy Elimination

In February 2008, the government nearly eliminated fuel subsidies, introducing compensating measures.
Wealthier households received a disproportionate share of subsidy benefits, indicating regressive effects.
Compensating measures are more progressive than subsidies, targeting the lower and middle classes.
However, targeting inefficiencies made these measures costly and reduced their benefits to the budget.
NAF (National Aid Fund) is the most progressive measure, but it only reaches less than 15% of the bottom quintile.
One-time transfers (e.g., dahm al mahroukat) are slightly progressive but suffer from leakage to non-poor individuals.
Government salary increases are neither progressive nor regressive, as they target middle-class employees.

Conclusion

The sustainability of current welfare trends is crucial, especially as Jordanians face similar economic conditions to 2006.
Labor income is the most important and sustainable source of income growth.
Employment and productivity must be central to any strategy for improving the welfare of the population.

Key Information

Poverty is not evenly distributed across Jordan, with rural areas having higher poverty rates than urban ones.
The poverty line is based on consumption and not on a specific spending pattern.
Income before transfers is stagnant, while expenditures are rising, suggesting a decline in real income.
The lower middle class is often the focus of public perception, even though they are not the poorest.
Fuel subsidies were regressive, but compensating measures are more targeted and progressive.
The cost of eliminating poverty is indicative, and targeting inefficiencies reduce the effectiveness of compensatory policies.

Figures and Tables

Figure I.1: Poverty Rate (Percentage of the population who are poor, 2006)
Figure I.2: Share of poor Jordanians living in each governorate 2006
Figure I.3: A large part of the population is just above the poverty line
Figure II.1: Governorate poverty incidence rankings 2002 and 2006
Figure III.1: Growth in average household expenditure and average household income, 2002 to 2006
Figure III.2: Macroeconomic data on consumption, savings and remittances as share of GDP (2006)
Figure III.3: Expenditure growth (real per capita increase, 2002-2006)
Figure III.4: Income growth (real per capita increase, 2002-2006)
Figure III.5: Sources of Income (2006)
Figure III.6: Growth in total labor income
Figure III.7: Growth in employee income
Figure III.8: Growth in self-employment/employer income
Figure III.9: Growth in total rent and property income and building rent
Figure III.10: Percentage of population owning a home for their own use
Figure III.11: Percent of population owning a building they rent out for profit
Figure III.12: Growth in profit and interest income
Figure III.13: Growth in total transfer income
Figure III.14: Growth in components of transfers: NAF
Figure III.15: Growth in components of transfers: pensions and remittances
Figure III.16: Growth in components of transfers: government (other) and transfers from other households
Table I.1: Poverty Line: JDs per month (2006)
Table I.2: Poverty incidence and poverty depth coincide closely (2006)
Table I.3: Indicative cost of eliminating poverty (2006)
Table II.1: The Twenty Sub-districts with Highest Poverty Incidence in 2006
Table IV.1: February 2008 Fuel Price Increases
Table IV.2: March 2008 Electricity Price Increases (for households)
Table IV.3: Compensating measures

Boxes

Box I.1: Describes the average weekly diet of a family at the poverty line, showing the minimal consumption of food items.
Box III.1: Clarifies the difference between poor households and those headed by government employees, highlighting the misconception in public perception.

This report emphasizes the importance of targeting policies effectively and reducing leakage in social assistance programs to ensure equitable welfare improvements.

展开完整摘要