Poverty alleviation in Asia: future directions in measurement, monitoring, and impact evaluation

ABSTRACT

This essay introduces a special issue focusing on poverty alleviation in Asia. We argue that expanding the conceptualization and measurement of poverty and using a variety of methodologies to study poverty issues can help inform more effective, sustainable policy solutions in Asia and globally. Drawing on a set of new empirical studies across various Asian countries and regions, we suggest several concrete directions in monitoring poverty trends and dynamics, evaluating the effectiveness of poverty alleviation policies and programs, and proposing new policy solutions to address poverty in Asia and beyond.

KEYWORDS:

• Poverty
• poverty alleviation
• social policy
• impact evaluation
• Asia

Introduction

The United Nations’ 2030 Agenda states that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions is a global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development (United Nations, 2015). With its increasing influence in the world and inherent diversity within the region, Asia plays an important role in realizing the global poverty eradication goal. Furthermore, the abundant anti-poverty experiences and lessons gained in this continent over the past decades could become a valuable source of learning in cross-border policy. Entitled ‘Poverty Alleviation in Asia’, this special issue presents six new empirical studies covering several Asian countries and regions to advance scholarly understanding on different aspects of poverty and strategies to alleviate it. Drawing on this collection of empirical work, this introductory essay argues that expanding the conceptualization and measurement of poverty and using a variety of methodologies to study poverty alleviation can help inform more effective, sustainable social policy solutions in Asia and globally.

The next section of this introductory essay provides a brief overview of poverty and poverty alleviation strategies in Asia within global and regional contexts. It then introduces a set of empirical studies that provide new evidence on poverty alleviation in specific countries and regions within Asia as well as cross-jurisdictional comparisons. The essay concludes by suggesting future directions in poverty measurement, monitoring, impact evaluation, and policy responses in poverty alleviation in Asia and beyond.

Poverty and poverty alleviation in Asia: contexts, trends, and strategies

As the world’s largest and most populous continent, Asia currently is home to 60% of the world’s population and 30% of its land area, with the highest population growth rate of all continents (World Population Review, 2021). Asia is also the fastest growing economic region and is currently the largest continental economy as measured by total gross domestic product (GDP). However, within this region, economic development is unequal: the total GDP of East Asia is close to those of North America and Europe, while in South, Southeast, and Central Asia, the GDP remains much smaller (International Monetary Fund, 2021).

Asia has made the greatest contribution of all continents to the world’s poverty alleviation in the 20^th century, but the poverty reduction progress within Asia has been highly uneven. Figure 1 illustrates changes in world and regional poverty rates from 1990 to 2019, based on the World Bank $1.9 per person per day poverty line using 2011 purchasing power parity (PPP). Figure 1 shows that the speed of poverty reduction in East and South Asia both surpassed that of global poverty reduction, indicated by the steeper slope of the East and South Asian lines compared to the global average. The poverty reduction progress in East Asia was significant in all regions, with the poverty rate plummeting from the highest (60.9%) among all regions in 1990 to the lowest (1.0%) in 2019. Poverty reduction in South Asia was also significant, with the rate declining from 49.1% in 1990 to 15.2% in 2014 (the latest year with available data), although the reduction was much slower than that of East Asia.

Figure 1. Trends in poverty rates at the US$1.90/day poverty line by region, 1990–2019.

Source: Compiled by authors based on data from the World Bank (2020).Note: Lined-up poverty rates for South Asia are not reported for 1997–2001 and after 2014 because survey data coverage is too low.

There also exists substantial heterogeneity within East and South Asian regions. Figure 2 presents the poverty rates for these two regions and selected countries within each region, based on the $1.9 per person per day poverty line using 2011 PPP (and for the most recent years when data are available). Within East Asia, China registered the lowest poverty rate of 0.5% (in 2016) and Papua New Guinea had the highest rate of 38.0% (in 2009). In between, the poverty rate ranged from 3.6% (Indonesia in 2018) and 7.6% (the Philippines in 2015), to 21.2% (Laos in 2012) and 25.1% (Solomon Islands in 2013). Within South Asia, Pakistan had the lowest poverty rate of 4.0% (in 2015) and India had the highest rate of 22.5% (in 2011). Bangladesh (14.5% in 2016) and Nepal (15.0% in 2010) had poverty rates that fell within the range.

Figure 2. Poverty rates of selected regions and countries based on the $1.9 per person/day poverty line.

Source: Compiled by authors based on data from the World Bank (2020).

Asia’s poverty alleviation strategy has been three-pronged, striving to integrate economic development, social safety nets, and targeted initiatives to address poverty. First and foremost, the rising tide of economic growth has lifted large proportions of the Asian population out of poverty. Much of this continent’s poverty reduction progress has been driven by rapid and sustained economic development over the last three decades. Between1990 and 2019, the annual GDP growth rate averaged 4.8% in East Asia and the Pacific, and 5.9% in South Asia, significantly higher than in the United States (2.5%) and Europe (1.8%). Within Asia, some countries performed better than others, leading to greater poverty reduction progress. During this period, the annual GDP growth rate averaged 9.3% in China, 6.3% in India, 4.6% in the Philippines, and 4.2% in Pakistan (World Bank, 2021). This rapid and sustained economic growth over three decades increased the economic resources and living standards of many Asian populations and alleviated poverty substantially.

Second, alongside economic growth, social safety nets have played an important role in supporting the livelihood, employment, and human development of poor populations in Asia. Social assistance programs include both cash and in-kind transfers, some of which are means-tested while others are social pensions. To alleviate poverty, many Asian countries introduced and expanded their flagship social safety-net programs, such as the unconditional cash transfer programmeDibao (Minimum Livelihood Guarantee) in China and the conditional cash transfer Pantawid Pamilyang Program in the Philippines (4Ps). Public works that condition participation in community projects or activities are a popular type of social safety-net programs in South Asia. For example, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (MGNREG) program in India is one such social safety-net program that combines cash or in-kind transfers with employment support. These programs have alleviated poverty to different extents across Asia. Using the $1.9 per person per day poverty line, based on 2011 PPP and the latest available national household survey data, the World Bank (2018) estimated that these welfare programs had reduced the poverty rate by 4.11% in Bangladesh (in 2010), 11.54% in Pakistan (in 2013), 16.60% in China (in 2013), 19.10% in the Philippines (in 2015), and 45.02% in Indonesia (in 2015).

In addition to economic development and institutionalized welfare programs, some Asian countries launched targeted initiatives to meet specific poverty alleviation goals within a set timeframe. The most notable example is China’s targeted poverty eradication initiative, launched in 2013 with the goal of eliminating extreme rural poverty by 2020. The government combined a series of strategies, including infrastructure building, commerce promotion, employment support, East-West paired assistance, and cash transfers to provide targeted resources and measures to swiftly alleviate poverty in identified poor localities and households. On 23 November 2020, the Chinese government announced that this initiative had achieved its goals and had successfully moved 93.48 million rural residents in 832 poverty-stricken counties out of absolute poverty (Li et al., in press).

Poverty alleviation in Asia: new evidence from this special issue

Building on the growing body of literature examining poverty alleviation experiences in Asia, this special issue includes six empirical papers that provide new evidence on poverty alleviation in this region. Three of the articles are country or region specific, focusing on Taiwan, India, and South Korea. The other three are comparative in nature and examine more countries and regions, including Southeast Asia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mainland China, and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR). Using a variety of data sources and methodologies, this collection of studies points to new directions in poverty measurement, monitoring, impact evaluation, and governance for the future.

In the first article, Li (2022) draws from the Low-income and Middle-income Family Living Condition Survey 2018 to profile the magnitude, demographic characteristics, and working conditions of the working poor in Taiwan. The author defines the working poor as those who are employed (full, part-time, temporary, or seasonal work) but live in a poor household. The detailed descriptive data reveal that about 70% of the working poor in Taiwan work full-time with long working hours but low wages. Despite a series of social policy programs intended to meet the needs of the working poor, there still exist significant gaps, resulting in the persistent phenomenon of the working poor in Taiwan. The author argues that the strict criteria used in the poverty screening process need to be modified to allow more working poor to be eligible for social assistance benefits. Regarded as a post-industrial phenomenon, the problems encountered by the working poor are increasingly observed in East Asian industrialized societies, but the social policy paradigm has not yet been adapted to such societal change (Cheung et al., 2019; Goishi, 2011). This first article of this special issue offers new evidence in the identification of the working poor in a high-income society and highlights the need for more inclusive social policy intervention. In light of the turbulence of the labour market brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic, the phenomenon of the working poor is likely to increase, affecting numerous households. Estimates suggest that the pandemic may lead to a significant increase in global poverty, potentially wiping out at least a decade of poverty reduction (Sumner et al., 2020). In the face of this grave situation, we encourage more policy studies to examine the intermediate and long-term impacts of the pandemic on the working poor, particularly in newly industrialized societies where a robust social protection system is not yet in place (He et al., 2022).

The second article of this special issue is a study on India. Sanger et al. (2022) focus on the burden of out-of-pocket health expenditure and its impoverishment effect in India. Using nationally representative surveys on health and morbidity conducted by the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) in 2014, the authors found that although the overall incidence and intensity of out-of-pocket health expenditure was concentrated among the richer consumption groups, poor consumption groups suffered from a disproportionately high out-of-pocket burden in outpatient care. The authors also report that around 8% of the Indian population fell below the poverty line as a result of out-of-pocket health expenditure. Rural populations, Muslims, Scheduled Castes, and casual and agricultural labour were most affected and more likely to be impoverished. To the best of the guest-editors’ knowledge, this article is one of the few empirical studies examining the impoverishment effect of health expenses in the South Asian context where the challenges of poverty reduction remain severe. The high prevalence of poverty in these countries has mainly focused scholarly attention in the past decades on the income-poor effect. This study highlights the importance of considering the effect of medical impoverishment not only in scholarly research but also in social policy interventions. While financial protection mechanisms including social health insurance and increasing fiscal commitment are necessary, lessons from China suggest that reducing medical impoverishment requires additional measures (Yip & Hsiao, 2009; Zhang et al., 2017). Success hinges on concerted reforms on the design of health financing arrangements and a scientific provider payment system capable of balancing financial protection, cost containment, and quality of care.

Using the 2015 Korean Welfare Panel Study data and a regression discontinuity design, the third article by Han and Gao (2022) examines the effect of participation in South Korea’s principal social assistance program, the National Basic Livelihood Security System (NBLSS) on family consumption patterns, with a focus on spending in social investment. The authors find that NBLSS participation was associated with increased educational expenditure, particularly in households with an elementary or junior-high school student. However, participation was associated with reduced medical expenditure in households with seniors, those with chronic disease, or a physical disability. This was probably due to the in-kind health services received by these families in addition to the NBLSS cash transfers. These nuanced findings suggest important lessons for addressing poverty in South Korea and other countries. Poverty investigation and evaluation should focus on its impact on social investment. Spending on education and health care, two core aspects of social investment, enables low-income families to develop and sustain human capital and enhances their capacity to escape the poverty trap and its intergenerational transmission. This lesson is important across societal settings and urban-rural divisions. Furthermore, social assistance programs in each country should be considered and evaluated as a comprehensive system rather than separately because various cash and in-kind benefits and their impacts are interlinked. This powerful article reveals that in-kind health services received by low-income families, particularly those with serious medical needs, have helped to alleviate their reliance on cash transfers.

The fourth article of this special issue examines a specific form of poverty – energy poverty – in Southeast Asia. Access to affordable energy constitutes a cause of poverty in many low-income countries and also impedes poverty alleviation efforts (Pachauri et al., 2004; Sambodo & Novandra, 2019). Shyu (2022) reviews the improvement of access to electricity in Southeast Asia and suggests the policy implications of enhancing access to combat energy poverty. Considering both ‘energy access’ and ‘energy affordability’ in energy poverty, the author argues that securing reliable, adequate, and affordable access to electricity at household level is integral in meeting basic human needs. Rapid urbanization and government efforts have been the main driving forces in the substantial improvement of access to electricity made in the past 20 years in Southeast Asia. However, as of 2020, about 45 million people in this region suffered from energy poverty in their access to electricity. Echoing other recent findings on global energy poverty (Churchill et al., 2021), the author argues that national governments need to play a more active role in launching domestic policy interventions and international cooperation to resolve this problem. There are sobering implications as energy deprivation in this era of globalization amidst the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic could further exacerbate existing inequalities, leading to a deterioration in the living conditions and capabilities of communities already suffering from poverty and material hardship. Addressing energy poverty demands effort in social policy as well as political will and effective governance at various governmental levels. Regional and international collaboration is essential in combating energy poverty.

The fifth article of this special issue, written by Khwaja (2022), offers a comparative evaluation of community-based programs in Pakistan and Afghanistan, two low-income countries in Asia. Integrating a variety of methods including content analysis, social network analysis, archival research, and field interviews, the author examines and compares the efficacy of two community-driven development programs supported by the World Bank in the two countries. Findings from this study reveal the critical importance of both structural conditions and social capital in the success of externally led development programs. On one hand, perceived security and access related to government functioning and bureaucracy impact program efficacy. On the other hand, more time spent with communities and greater frequency of interaction with community members builds trust and enhances program efficacy. The author argues the importance of sustainable, localized, community-based programs to address poverty and other challenges in ‘fragile spaces’ such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Scholars and practitioners have recognized that the success of poverty alleviation programs do not rely on investment alone, but also on good governance (Grindle, 2004; Lakshman, 2003). Unfortunately, the governance aspect of anti-poverty policies does not often receive sufficient attention in practice, resulting in diminished cost-effectiveness and unsatisfactory outcomes of development programs. This article complements the rest of this special issue by highlighting the importance of community engagement, empowerment, and trust-building in alleviating poverty in low-income societies with limited governance capacity and efficiency.

The last article of this issue is a comparative study of Hong Kong and Mainland China. In this study, Chan et al. (2022) compare the negative impacts of the stigma of poverty on welfare recipients in both societies. Analysing data collected from two random sampling surveys, this study finds that welfare recipients in both Mainland China and Hong Kong experience high levels of stigma and negative impacts. Path analysis results reveal that welfare stigma directly impacted negative affect in Mainland China. However, in Hong Kong, the impact of stigma on negative affect was indirect, through social interaction and self-rated health. Based on these findings, the authors suggest that the means-testing procedure of welfare programs in Mainland China should be simplified to reduce stigma. In Hong Kong, in addition to simplifying the means-testing procedure, self-support and mutual assistance group activities as well as medical support services should be provided to improve welfare recipients’ social interaction and general health. The stigmatizing effect of both poverty and welfare receipt have been well documented in the literature (Baumberg, 2016; Sutton et al., 2014). Recent studies have found similar effects in Chinese societies with a traditional culture of self-reliance (Li & Walker, 2018; Wong & Lou, 2010). Empirical evidence has revealed the adverse psychological impact of stigma on low-income individuals (Huo et al., 2020; Qi & Wu, 2018). This article moves the scholarly debate further by offering implications for policy in reducing the stigmatizing effect through modifying means-testing arrangements.

Future directions in poverty measurement, monitoring, and impact evaluation

This set of new empirical studies on poverty alleviation in Asia offers important and timely implications for future directions in poverty measurement, monitoring, and impact evaluation in Asia and beyond. Specifically, these include: 1) expanding poverty definition and measurement for poverty identification and monitoring purposes, and 2) enhancing the diversity and methodological rigour of anti-poverty impact evaluation.

Expansion of definition and measurement in poverty identification and monitoring

First, poverty definition and measurement should be expanded and applied in poverty identification and monitoring. Poverty is traditionally and predominantly measured by income, but other definitions and dimensions of poverty are important to help researchers and policymakers gain a fuller, more accurate understanding of poverty and to devise policy solutions accordingly. Within monetary measurements of poverty, consumption and assets are increasingly being considered in empirical research and policy solutions, in addition to using income measures. In this special issue, the article on India focuses on out-of-pocket health expenditure while the article on South Korea examines family consumption, particularly spending on education and health care. The former reveals the impoverishing impact of out-of-pocket health expenditure while the latter highlights the effect of cash and in-kind benefits on meeting different types of consumption needs. Together, these articles illustrate the importance of going beyond the concept of income-poor to understand poverty and family economic well-being.

In addition to monetary measurements, multidimensional measures of poverty are equally (and sometimes more) important than monetary measures, particularly in less developed rural settings. Goal 1.2 of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals is to reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women, and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions by 2030 (United Nations, 2015). Recent research on child poverty in China reveals that child multidimensional poverty is much more widespread and severe than income poverty, particularly in rural areas (Gao & Wang, 2021; Gao et al., 2021). In this special issue, the article on energy poverty in Southeast Asia focuses on one important dimension of capability and material well-being – access to electricity – and documents both its progress and daunting challenges.

Both monetary and multidimensional poverty measures are primarily objective measures. However, poverty can be highly subjective and experiential. To fully capture the subjective experiences of poverty, it is important to consider subjective definitions and measures, such as perceived living standards and social class, feelings of living with stigma, fear, and marginalization, and the right to make decisions for one’s own life and community. In this issue, the article comparing Mainland China and Hong Kong focuses on stigma and negative affect. The article comparing Pakistan and Afghanistan concentrates on community engagement and governance and also examines perceived safety and access, as well as relationship building and trust as potential measures of poverty. More subjective measures of poverty can be explored and empirically tested in country and regional settings as well as in a comparative fashion.

Enhancement of the diversity and rigour of poverty impact evaluation methodology

The study of poverty is challenging, and anti-poverty policies are difficult to design, implement, and evaluate. Therefore, it is important to use a range of rigorous research methodologies to better understand the causes and consequences of poverty as well as the effectiveness of anti-poverty policies in different contexts and from comparative perspectives. Using rigorous qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods designed to study poverty and provide impact evaluations can provide informative social policy lessons.

It is crucial to strengthen the measurement of poverty and evaluation of anti-poverty policies and programs by using large-scale survey data and quantitative methods that enable the approximation of causality. As mentioned earlier, most articles in this special issue use random sampling survey data to provide representative descriptive results and to estimate the effects of poverty or policy interventions. In particular, the article on South Korea uses regression discontinuity design, a quasi-experimental method, to approximate causality and reach rigorous conclusions of policy effect. The article comparing Mainland China and Hong Kong uses path analysis to investigate the relationship pathways between welfare stigma and negative affect, highlighting potential ways of intervention.

Furthermore, the studies of qualitative and mixed methods offer valuable insight into the lived experiences and local dynamics of poverty and the effectiveness of anti-poverty policies and programs. The article comparing Pakistan and Afghanistan uses multiple qualitative methods to provide an in-depth investigation into community-based programs and to check corroboration of information from different sources. The article on energy poverty in Southeast Asia draws on a variety of archival and administrative data sources to provide a review and trend analysis for the region. The field of poverty research would benefit from more studies using mixed methods to gain breadth and depth in understanding the issue of poverty and the effectiveness of anti-poverty policies.

It is also vital to enhance data availability for studying poverty and its policy solutions, such as compatible data that can be used for conducting cross-national or cross-regional comparative research. In this special issue, the comparable data of welfare recipients and other low-income families enabled the comparative study between Mainland China and Hong Kong. Such comparative studies made possible by comparative data are required in advancing Asian and global poverty alleviation research.

In conclusion, poverty research in the future needs to adopt expanded definitions and measurements in poverty identification and monitoring. Poverty research will benefit from a variety of rigorous methods to gauge poverty and evaluate the effectiveness of policy solutions in a thorough and accurate fashion. Comparative poverty research can benefit the global anti-poverty agenda, both within Asia and globally. It is important that anti-poverty policies are sustainable and adopt a human rights and social justice perspective so as to be aware of those who are identified as poor, according to what standards, and by whom. Anti-poverty policies should be grounded in local communities but should also draw on lessons learned through cross-national, regional, and global comparisons.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Yumeng Fan and Hanna Wang for their capable research assistance.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Qin Gao

Qin Gao is Professor of Social Policy and Social Work at Columbia University School of Social Work and Director of Columbia University’s China Center for Social Policy. Dr. Gao’s research focuses on the Chinese welfare state in transition; welfare, work, and poverty in China; social protection for rural-to-urban migrants in China and Asian American immigrants; and cross-national comparative social policies and programs. Dr. Gao's work has been supported by multiple national and international funding sources such as the National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Social Science Fund of China, UNICEF, and the World Bank.

Alex Jingwei He

Alex Jingwei He is Associate Head and Associate Professor of the Department of Asian and Policy Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong. He specializes in health policy and governance, social policy reforms, and policy process theories with a particular focus on East Asia. He has published extensively in leading international journals such as Public Administration Review, Social Science and Medicine, China Quarterly, and Health Policy, among many others.