2004年-世界发展银行全球_Living_Standards_and_Poverty_in_Moldova_38页_1mb

Summary of LIVING STANDARDS AND POVERTY IN MOLDOVA

Core Content

This document provides an analysis of poverty and living standards in Moldova from 1997 to 2002, highlighting the economic and social dynamics that have influenced these indicators. It emphasizes the use of expenditure-based measures to assess poverty, discusses the limitations of income-based measures, and explores international comparisons and non-income indicators of well-being.

Main Points

Poverty Trends and Economic Context

• Poverty Rates: Moldova has consistently had high poverty rates, averaging 60% from 1997 to 2002.
• Economic Volatility: The country experienced significant economic fluctuations, including a GDP decline of over 65% from 1990 to 2000, largely due to its vulnerability to the Russian economic crisis.
• Poverty Recovery: Poverty rates began to decline from 2000 to 2001 and returned to 1997 levels by 2002, indicating that economic recovery played a key role in poverty reduction.
• Poverty Gap and Severity: The poverty gap (the average shortfall of the poor from the poverty line) and poverty severity (how far the poor are from the line) also showed similar trends, peaking in 1997-1999 and then declining.
• Extreme Poverty: Extreme poverty rates (those below a lower threshold) remained high, with over 38% of the population in extreme poverty by 2002.

Measurement of Poverty

• Expenditure-Based Measure: The report uses a cost-of-basic-needs approach to define the poverty line, based on a minimum basket of 2,100 calories per person per month.
• Income vs. Expenditure: Income is not a reliable measure for poverty in Moldova due to the informal economy, lack of formal income records, and the significant role of agriculture in household income.
• Equivalence Scales: Adjustments for household size and composition are necessary, but no single scale is universally accepted. The report discusses the impact of different scales on poverty estimates.

International Comparisons

• Relative to Other ECA Countries: Moldova is among the poorest in the Eastern Europe and Central Asia region, with poverty rates exceeding those of most other countries.
• Poverty Lines: Using international poverty lines such as $1, $2.15, and $4.30 per day, Moldova's poverty rates are significantly higher than those of other countries.
• PPP Conversion: The poverty lines are converted using 1996 purchasing power parity (PPP) factors adjusted for inflation.

Non-Income Based Indicators of Poverty

• Housing and Infrastructure: While ownership and access to electricity are nearly universal, access to piped water and sewage systems is much lower in rural areas.
• Health Indicators: Despite economic challenges, health indicators such as maternal mortality have improved, but infant and under-5 mortality rates remain relatively high.
• Living Conditions: Self-assessed living conditions have remained stable, with over half of households reporting satisfaction, though poor households are more likely to be dissatisfied.
• Migration and Child Well-being: The report notes an increase in the number of children not living with their mothers, indicating social challenges, though the data is limited in capturing migration patterns.

Key Information

• Poverty Headcount (1997-2002):

  • 1997: 47.4%
  • 1998: 61.6%
  • 1999: 71.2%
  • 2000: 70.6%
  • 2001: 62.4%
  • 2002: 48.5%

• Extreme Poverty Headcount (1997-2002):

  • 1997: 37.5%
  • 1998: 51.7%
  • 1999: 61.3%
  • 2000: 60.9%
  • 2001: 52.0%
  • 2002: 37.8%

• Gini Coefficient (1997-2002):

  • 1997: 0.35
  • 1998: 0.37
  • 1999: 0.35
  • 2000: 0.34
  • 2001: 0.36
  • 2002: 0.34

• Poverty by Location:

  • Small towns consistently had the highest poverty rates.
  • Rural areas also had high poverty rates, though they saw some improvement over time.
  • Large cities had lower poverty rates, with significant declines in 2001-2002.

• Poverty by Household Composition:

  • Larger households, especially those with many children and elderly, are more likely to be in poverty.
  • Households with higher education levels (excluding vocational training) still have substantial poverty rates.
  • Children have higher poverty rates (59%) than adults (46%) and older adults (42%).

• Poverty by Gender:

  • Households headed by males had slightly higher poverty rates than those headed by females, possibly due to factors such as household composition and pension income.

Recommendations

• Monitoring Poverty: The report recommends using a variety of indicators to monitor poverty and living standards, as monetary measures alone may not fully capture the multidimensional nature of poverty.
• Equivalence Scales: It suggests that the choice of equivalence scale should be robust and that different scales should be tested to ensure accurate poverty profiling.
• Data Collection: Improved data collection and updating are needed to better understand migration patterns and their impact on poverty and well-being.