2003年-世界发展银行全球_Romania___Poverty_Assessment_Volume_1_Main_Report_78页_5mb

Romania Poverty Assessment Summary

Core Content

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of poverty in Romania between 1995 and 2002, focusing on the evolution of poverty, its relationship with economic growth, labor market dynamics, and the effectiveness of social protection programs. It also outlines policy recommendations for reducing poverty in the context of Romania's transition to a market economy and its preparation for EU accession.

Main Findings

Poverty Trends Over Time

• Poverty has declined significantly since 2000, primarily due to economic growth.
• Severe poverty (defined as insufficient means to purchase a minimum caloric intake) has declined much less than overall poverty.
• Projections suggest that maintaining a 5% annual GDP per capita growth rate could reduce poverty by almost half by 2007, from 29% in 2002 to about 15%.
• Even at a lower growth rate of 2.5%, poverty would fall by a quarter to around 21%.

Economic Growth and Poverty

• Economic growth is strongly associated with poverty reduction.
• Growth incidence curves show that growth benefits have been unevenly distributed.
• Rural areas and certain vulnerable groups have not benefited as much from growth.
• Economic growth is crucial for achieving the Millennium Development Goals related to poverty.

Who Are the Poor?

• Key correlates of poverty include household size, Roma ethnicity, low education, unemployment, and rural residence.
• Roma are over-represented in severe poverty, with 3 out of 5 Roma in severe poverty.
• Targeting poor communities rather than explicitly targeting Roma may be more effective in reducing poverty and avoiding further marginalization.

Poverty and Unemployment

• Unemployment is strongly linked to poverty, with 45% of unemployed adults aged 15-64 being poor.
• Informal sector employment is also associated with poverty, with 56% of self-employed adults in agriculture being poor.
• Unemployment is particularly prevalent among the Roma, young people, and vocational school graduates.
• Older people are less likely to be unemployed but may face more severe consequences.

Transitions in and Out of Poverty

• Poverty is largely transient, with many households moving in and out.
• Households headed by self-employed individuals and farmers are more likely to be chronically poor.
• The analysis is based on 1995-97 panel data, with similar trends expected for later years.

Education, Health, and Poverty

• Better education is associated with higher income and lower poverty.
• Poor children are less likely to be in school compared to non-poor children.
• Poor individuals have less access to health services and insurance.
• Education and health are key determinants of employment and wages, with significant implications for future poverty levels.

Social Protection Programs and Poverty

• Romania allocates about 10% of GDP to social protection programs.
• Approximately 87% of the population receives at least one social protection transfer.
• The Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) program has strong targeting performance, transferring 62% of benefits to the poorest quintile.
• However, MIG covers only 12% of the poorest 20% of the population due to its scale.
• Expanding MIG could be strongly pro-poor, and could be funded by rationalizing other poorly targeted programs like child allowances.

Private Transfers and Poverty

• Almost all households (97%) participate in informal inter-household transfers.
• These transfers make up 18% of household income and are largely income neutral.
• Public transfers are more important for poverty alleviation than private formal transfers, which are not particularly pro-poor.

Urban/Rural Differences in Transfers

• Urban and rural poor differ in public and private transfers.
• Rural areas have higher informal flows and community contributions.
• MIG assistance is lower in rural and poorer localities, possibly due to political influence and lower revenue.
• Benefits are also found to be lower in ethnically diverse localities.

Main Conclusions

1. Economic Growth as a Poverty Reduction Tool
   Economic growth is central to poverty reduction in Romania. With a consistent 5% GDP per capita growth, poverty could be halved by 2007.

2. Labor Market Dynamics

   • Labor market regulations have become more rigid, which may hinder economic growth.
   • High payroll taxes (52% of gross wages) contribute to high unemployment and informal employment.
   • Unemployment benefits, tied to the minimum wage, may have limited impact due to labor market inflexibility.

3. Rural Poverty and Agricultural Sector

   • The rural poor have not benefited as much from economic growth.
   • Increasing non-farm employment and improving productivity on small and medium farms are crucial for rural poverty reduction.
   • Support for these farms includes reducing land fragmentation, improving agricultural extension, marketing infrastructure, and land transaction environments.

4. Social Protection and Targeting

   • Social protection programs are significant, with MIG showing strong targeting performance.
   • Expanding MIG and improving targeting of other programs could enhance poverty reduction.
   • Private transfers are not particularly pro-poor, suggesting the need for incentives to improve their targeting.

5. Challenges and Policy Implications

   • Romania's current economic growth is uncertain and needs to be sustained.
   • Corruption and an uncompetitive business environment are major challenges.
   • Education and health investments are essential to break the poverty trap and ensure long-term growth.
   • Strengthening the administration of social assistance and improving the business environment are critical for poverty reduction.

Key Information

• Currency: Romanian LEI (ROL), 1 LEI = 0.0003 US$
• Data Sources: Labor Force Survey (LFS), household surveys, and other official data.
• Programs: Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG), child allowances, and various social assistance programs.
• Targets: The MIG program targets the poorest quintile with 62% of benefits reaching them.
• Growth Projections: With 5% annual GDP per capita growth, poverty could be reduced by almost half by 2007.
• Poverty Rate: 29% of the population in 2002.
• Social Protection Coverage: 87% of the population receives at least one social protection transfer.
• Informal Transfers: 18% of household income, largely income neutral.
• Unemployment and Poverty: 45% of unemployed adults aged 15-64 are poor; 56% of self-employed in agriculture are poor.
• Rural vs. Urban: Rural areas have higher informal employment and lower access to public services, particularly MIG assistance.
• Education and Health: Poor individuals and children face significant barriers in accessing education and health services, which are key to employment and long-term economic growth.

Policy Recommendations

• Stimulate Economic Growth: Focus on maintaining and increasing GDP per capita growth to reduce poverty.
• Improve Labor Market Flexibility: Reduce payroll taxes and streamline labor market regulations to promote employment.
• Enhance Social Protection: Expand the MIG program and improve targeting efficiency of other social protection programs.
• Support Rural Development: Increase non-farm employment opportunities and improve productivity in agriculture.
• Invest in Education and Health: Prioritize investments in education and health to break the poverty trap and ensure long-term growth.
• Strengthen Institutional Capacity: Improve the administration and targeting of social assistance programs.
• Encourage Formal Private Transfers: Provide incentives for formal private organizations to better target the poor.