2001年-世界发展银行全球_A_Profile_of_Living_Standards_in_Turkmenistan_45页_2mb

Summary of "A Profile of Living Standards in Turkmenistan"

Core Content

This report provides an in-depth analysis of living standards in Turkmenistan, focusing on poverty levels, employment opportunities, the rural economy, and access to basic social services such as education and health. It also discusses the government's approach to poverty alleviation and the challenges associated with it.

Main Points

1. Historical Background

• Turkmenistan benefited from the Soviet system, with a per capita income of about $3,450 in 1991 and close to 100% adult literacy.
• Despite these benefits, living standards were not high, and poverty existed even before the Soviet Union's dissolution.
• Life expectancy in Turkmenistan was the lowest in the Soviet Union, at 66 years, and infant mortality was among the highest.
• Following independence, Turkmenistan experienced a severe economic decline, with the economy shrinking to about half of its 1991 level by 1998.
• The government implemented extensive subsidies to protect living standards, which helped reduce the absolute poverty rate to 7% in 1998 using the World Bank's $2.15 PPP per day poverty line.
• Economic recovery began in 1998, with real GDP growth of 5% and accelerated to 16% in 1999, but the future remains uncertain.

2. Living Standards

Absolute and Relative Levels of Poverty

• The World Bank uses the $2.15 PPP per day line to measure absolute poverty, which indicates that only 7% of Turkmenistan's population was below this line in 1998.
• Using the official minimum wage of Manat 80,000, the Turkmenmillihasabat estimated that 58% of the population had incomes below this threshold.
• The government later reported that only 1% of the population had incomes below 50% of the median per capita income.
• Relative poverty is measured using income or consumption thresholds, such as 50% of mean consumption, and can vary significantly depending on the chosen standard.
• The report highlights that poverty rates can increase from 29% to 45% depending on the definition used, indicating a thin cushion between the poor and non-poor.

Location and Characteristics of the Poor

• Poverty is more pronounced in rural areas, particularly in Dashkovuz, where about 53% of the rural population and 41% of the urban population were below the 50% mean consumption line.
• The poorest 20% of the population are mostly concentrated in rural areas, with high child dependency ratios and limited access to infrastructure such as piped water.
• The poorest households have about 0.5 rooms per person and 12.2 square meters of living space per person, compared to the richest who have 0.8 rooms and 15.5 square meters.
• The Gini coefficient in Turkmenistan was 41% in 1998, indicating relatively high income inequality compared to international standards, but not the highest among FSU countries.

3. Employment Opportunities

• The unemployed in Turkmenistan are characterized by limited access to formal employment and a high proportion of informal activities.
• The transition from the Soviet system has had mixed effects on employment and living standards.
• Unemployment, especially among the youth, remains a significant issue.
• Agricultural workers are still constrained by administrative regulations, despite ongoing land reform efforts.
• There are few mechanisms for the poor to benefit from the country's energy exports, which are a major source of revenue.

4. Rural Economy and Living Standards

• The rural economy is heavily dependent on agriculture, with irrigation and water access being critical factors.
• The lack of investment in infrastructure and maintenance has led to poor service quality in rural areas.
• Rural poverty is more persistent and severe due to limited access to water and other essential services.
• There is a need for improved rural infrastructure and better water supplies and sanitation.

5. Basic Social Services: Education

• Preschool education is relatively well-developed, but there are concerns about the quality of general education.
• Enrollment rates in both preschool and higher education are declining, which may indicate a lack of investment in the education sector.
• The report suggests that the quality of education is a key factor in human development and poverty reduction.

6. Basic Social Services: Health

• Major health problems include high infant mortality and low life expectancy.
• The health system is under-resourced and poorly maintained, leading to low quality of services.
• Basic medicines are often unavailable, and water supplies are of poor quality.
• Despite some improvements in health status, there are concerns about the long-term sustainability of these gains.

7. Paying for Services to the Poor

• The government provides extensive subsidies for basic goods and social services, which are not well targeted.
• These subsidies are costly and not transparent, often involving complex and opaque financial mechanisms.
• The lack of targeted support means that the benefits may disproportionately go to better-off households.
• The report emphasizes the need for a more transparent and efficient budget process to ensure sustainable support for the poor.

Key Information

• Poverty Measurement: The report discusses both absolute and relative poverty lines, highlighting the sensitivity of poverty estimates to the chosen criteria.
• Economic Recovery: Although Turkmenistan has seen economic growth since 1998, it remains narrow and fragile.
• Government Policies: The government's reliance on subsidies is a major factor in maintaining living standards, but these policies are unsustainable and inefficient.
• Regional Disparities: There is significant inequality between urban and rural areas, with Ashgabat being much more prosperous than other regions.
• Future Challenges: The report calls for institutional reforms, improved governance, and a more targeted approach to poverty alleviation and service delivery.

Conclusion

The report concludes that while Turkmenistan has made progress in reducing absolute poverty, the living standards of many remain inadequate. The government's approach, based on large and untargeted subsidies, is not sustainable and may be exacerbating inequality. There is a need for more transparent and efficient resource allocation, improved access to opportunities, and better quality social services to ensure long-term improvements in living standards.