2015年-世界发展银行全球_How_the_Crisis_Changed_the_Pace_of_Poverty_Reduction_and_Shared_Prosperity___Armenia_Poverty_Assessment_27页_638kb

Armenia Poverty Assessment Summary

Core Content

This report provides an analysis of Armenia's poverty reduction and shared prosperity trends since the 2009 economic crisis. It highlights how the recovery has affected consumption growth, inequality, and poverty levels, with a focus on both macroeconomic and microeconomic factors influencing these changes.

Main Points

Economic Recovery and Growth

• After the 2009 crisis, Armenia's economy slowly resumed growth, but it has not reached pre-crisis levels.
• Real GDP growth averaged 7.2 percent in 2012, then slowed to 3.5 percent in 2013 and 3.4 percent in 2014.
• The structure of GDP shifted from industry to services, with services becoming a dominant sector.
• Growth in 2010-13 was driven by trade, information and communication, finance, insurance, food service, and recreation.
• Agricultural growth reached 8 percent in 2013, supported by state assistance programs.

Household Consumption and Poverty

• Consumption growth after 2009 was less pro-poor than before the crisis.
• The bottom 40 percent of the population experienced slower consumption growth, with an average of 1.14 percent compared to 3.50 percent for the whole population.
• The shared prosperity indicator, which measures the growth of the bottom 40 percent, shows that the least well-off have not benefited as much as others during the post-crisis recovery.
• Poverty rates remained above pre-crisis levels, with 32 percent of the population living below the national poverty line in 2013, up from 26 percent in 2008.
• Between 2012 and 2013, poverty reduction stalled, and the poverty gap remained high.

Inequality Trends

• Inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, increased after the crisis.
• The Gini coefficient for consumption went from 24.2 in 2008 to 27 in 2013.
• Income inequality is higher than consumption inequality, with the Gini coefficient for income reaching 37.2 in 2013.

Social Transfers and Fiscal Policy

• Social spending, particularly pensions and the Family Benefit Program (FBP), increased significantly.
• Pensions, especially contributory pensions, had a major redistributive effect, though they are not targeted.
• Taxes, especially indirect taxes, disproportionately affect poorer households, offsetting the poverty-reducing effects of social transfers.
• Fiscal policy has been more pro-poor than in Latin American countries, but the overall effect is limited due to the high tax burden on the poor.

Regional and Demographic Poverty Patterns

• Poverty rates vary across regions and demographics.
• Urban areas outside Yerevan and four specific regions have higher poverty rates than the national average.
• The poverty rate in 2013 ranged from 21.0 percent in Vayots Dzor to 45.9 percent in Shirak.
• Sjunik marz, a mining hub, had one of the lowest poverty rates at 25 percent.
• Demographically, the probability of being poor is higher among females, older households, and those with lower education levels.

Poverty Dynamics and Multidimensional Poverty

• Between 2010 and 2013, 41.5 percent of households changed their poverty status.
• 16.5 percent of non-poor households in 2010 became poor in 2013, while 25 percent of the poor in 2010 moved out of poverty by 2013.
• 10 percent of the population remained persistently poor.
• A pilot multidimensional poverty index (MPI) identified that 7.62 percent of the population was both multi-dimensionally and consumption poor in 2013.
• Other groups, such as those multi-dimensionally poor but above the poverty line, and those not multi-dimensionally poor but still poor, also exist, highlighting the complexity of poverty in Armenia.

Key Information

• Poverty Rate: 32% in 2013, up from 26% in 2008.
• GDP Growth: Average 4.3% from 2010-13, but less pro-poor than pre-crisis.
• Remittances: Increased to 21% of GDP in 2013, but declined sharply due to Russia's economic downturn.
• Social Transfers: Pensions and FBP increased, but the effect on poverty is limited by taxation.
• Regional Poverty: Varies significantly, with some regions experiencing higher poverty rates than others.
• Multidimensional Poverty: The MPI highlights the complexity of poverty beyond income, including education, health, and employment.

Conclusion

The post-2009 economic recovery in Armenia has not been as effective in reducing poverty as before the crisis. While the economy has grown, the growth has been less pro-poor, and inequality has increased. Social transfers have played a role in poverty reduction, but the overall impact is constrained by the high tax burden on lower-income households. Understanding these trends is essential for designing more effective poverty reduction strategies. The new poverty map being developed will provide insights into regional disparities and help in the geographic targeting of development initiatives.