2000年-世界发展银行全球_The_Republic_of_Latvia___Poverty_Assessment_Volume_2_120页_7mb

Latvia Poverty Assessment Summary (Volume 2)

Core Content

This report provides a detailed analysis of poverty in Latvia during the fiscal years 1997/98, placing it within the broader context of macroeconomic developments and the country's transition from a planned to a market economy. It also examines the labor market, social transfers, and the effectiveness of social assistance in reducing poverty. The report is part of a World Bank initiative to support Latvia in developing an effective poverty reduction strategy.

Main Views

• Economic Transition: Latvia faced significant challenges during its transition to a market economy, including an inefficient economic structure and a shrinking FSU market. However, it has shown strong recovery since 1994, with GDP per capita increasing significantly.
• Poverty Reduction Strategy: The report emphasizes the need for a poverty reduction strategy that not only addresses the current welfare of the poor but also creates opportunities for them to improve their economic and social conditions.
• Poverty Measurement: The report discusses the use of household consumption as a measure of living standards and introduces three poverty indices: incidence, depth, and severity, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of poverty.
• Regional Inequality: There are significant regional differences in poverty levels, with rural areas and certain regions like Latgale being more impoverished than urban areas such as Riga.
• Labor Market and Social Assistance: The labor market and social assistance systems are key components in understanding and addressing poverty, with the report highlighting the need for reform and better targeting of assistance.

Key Information

Poverty in the Context of Macro Developments

• Latvia's transition to a market economy has been marked by initial economic contraction, followed by recovery since 1994.
• GDP per capita in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms was 27% of the EU average in 1997.
• To bridge the income gap with the EU, Latvia needs to achieve an average annual GDP growth of about 4% for 32 years.
• Sustained growth requires improvements in the labor market, reduction of bureaucracy, better targeting of social safety net expenditures, and a stable macroeconomic environment.

Measuring Living Standards

• Household Consumption: The primary measure of living standards is monthly per capita household consumption, which accounts for both cash and in-kind expenditures, as well as home production and gifts.
• Adjustments: Consumption data were adjusted using the CPI to October 1997 prices, and the study compares the 1996 and 1997/98 data.
• Regional Differences: In 1997/98, the average household consumption in Riga was 41% higher than in rural areas.

Measuring Poverty

• Poverty Line: There is no official poverty line in Latvia, but a poverty line of 28 LVL per person per month was used, based on the crisis minimum basket (MCB).
• Three Poverty Indices:
  • Incidence (P0): The percentage of individuals living below the poverty line.
  • Depth (P1): The average shortfall of consumption relative to the poverty line.
  • Severity (P2): A more weighted measure of poverty that emphasizes the welfare levels of very poor households.
• Economies of Scale: Three different measures of equivalent consumption (θ = 1, 0.8, 0.6) were used to assess the impact of economies of scale on poverty profiles.

Poverty Profile and Regional Analysis

• Poverty Rates by Location:
  • Riga: 10.8% (P0), 3.2% (P1), 1.4% (P2) with θ = 1.
  • Other Urban: 19.5% (P0), 5.3% (P1), 2.2% (P2) with θ = 1.
  • Rural: 28.5% (P0), 8.3% (P1), 3.6% (P2) with θ = 1.
  • National Average: 19.4% (P0), 5.5% (P1), 2.4% (P2) with θ = 1.
• Regional Poverty Rates:
  • Riga Region: 12.6% (P0), 3.5% (P1), 1.5% (P2) with θ = 1.
  • Latgale: 30% (P0), 8.0% (P1), 3.8% (P2) with θ = 1.
  • Kurzeme: 24.5% (P0), 8.0% (P1), 3.8% (P2) with θ = 1.
  • Vidzeme: 24.1% (P0), 6.9% (P1), 2.9% (P2) with θ = 1.
  • Zemgale: Close to the national average.
• Gini Coefficient: In 1997/98, the Gini coefficient for per capita consumption was 0.34, indicating a marginal increase in inequality since 1995.
• Poverty Gap: The overall poverty gap was 5.5%, which is relatively small compared to other transition countries, but deeper in rural areas.

Social Transfers and Social Assistance

• Social Assistance Programs: The report discusses the incidence and performance of social assistance in Latvia, comparing it to other transition countries.
• Coverage and Targeting: Some poor households do not receive social assistance, often due to administrative barriers or lack of awareness.
• Regional Inequality in Social Assistance: There are disparities in the distribution of social assistance across regions, with rural areas receiving less support.
• Policy Recommendations: The report suggests reforms to improve the targeting and efficiency of social assistance, enhance local government capacity, and address regional disparities.

Conclusion

The report highlights that while Latvia has made significant progress in its economic transition, poverty remains a challenge, particularly in rural and less developed regions. The use of multiple poverty indices and the consideration of economies of scale provide a nuanced understanding of poverty dynamics. A comprehensive and targeted poverty reduction strategy is essential to ensure sustainable economic growth and equitable social development.