Read on Twitter
Anyways starting a thread on Chinese poverty stats that I'll try to work on throughout the day
Dengists and other social fascists commonly used China's reduction in poverty as a means of rehabilitating the state (because like I talked about earlier reduced poverty is a lot of good points in the minds of a left developmentalist)
There are several things to consider when evaluating China's transformation of poverty. First is the goal that China set for itself. As early as 2015, Xi promised to eliminate poverty in the country by 2020
This is a promise that has featured prominently in the news (as perusing the state media outlets will see the front pages are largely taken up by propagandistic show poverty reduction campaigns)
This is especially important as the CCP's popular support is highly dependent on a few things, starring nationalistic sentiment & economic development at the top. Poverty reduction is a prominent aspect of helping Garner support for the CCP, so it's one of the focuses
of the regime.
anyways, to continue.
it is exceptionally clear that china has not achieved this goal of "eliminating poverty by 2020". it's 2020 and despite the erroneous claims of those like @.ProletariatRis1, there are still people in poverty.
it is exceptionally clear that china has not achieved this goal of "eliminating poverty by 2020". it's 2020 and despite the erroneous claims of those like @.ProletariatRis1, there are still people in poverty.
even in the province with the best poverty alleviation (Jiangsu), there are still (allegedly only) 17 people in poverty https://www.sixthtone.com/ht_news/1005056/chinese-province-lifts-all-but-17-people-out-of-poverty%2C-authorities-claim https://twitter.com/CadeDoesSchist/status/1248940352461037570?s=20
the thing about statistics is that they're the product of the state, and as such are very difficult to trust.
for example, chinese state statistics on unemployment have been shown to vastly underestimate the true rate ( https://www.nber.org/papers/w21460 ), and there is some evidence for similar phenomenon re: GDP* ( https://www.nber.org/papers/w25754 , https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41294-019-00086-z, https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2189245/chinas-gdp-growth-could-be-half-reported-number-says-us)
*re GDP, this is a very difficult question. calculating GDP stats in the first place is a mess (which is why there have been huge debates over india's growth statistics https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/publications/faculty-working-papers/india-gdp-overestimate)
see here: http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/609/2/20180700_fix_nitzan_bichler_real_gdp_rwer.pdf
see here: http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/609/2/20180700_fix_nitzan_bichler_real_gdp_rwer.pdf
measuring GDP is HARD (and as @pp0196 says re: older economies, it's mostly bullshit). so there are arguments any which way re: China's GDP. but see here for a modern perspective on chinese econ #s https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Busting-Chinas-Numbers-Understanding-Consultants/dp/1137353198 and here http://weai.columbia.edu/making-it-count-statistics-and-statecraft-in-the-early-peoples-republic-of-china/ for a historical one
also re: GDP, more literature on the question http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/350051528721174623/Nightlights.pdf
anyways, back to poverty. chinese poverty statistics (like ALL poverty statistics - https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=893159 ) are a mess. alternative assumptions can influence the changes in poverty ( https://static.squarespace.com/static/51b8d8a3e4b012fbeaff36db/53066dfde4b043fee9afb678/53066dfde4b043fee9afb67a/1341937806073/71Chinese%20Poverty%20with%20Camelia%20M..pdf) and it is clear that poverty reduction (in the statistical
sense that the World Bank and state institutions use) does not always mean improved quality of life. indeed, the poverty gains have not been met with adequate increases in metrics like life expectancy ( https://static.squarespace.com/static/51b8d8a3e4b012fbeaff36db/53066dfde4b043fee9afb678/53066dfde4b043fee9afb67c/1276236343347/8DeathinChinaNLR45.pdf) and nutritional intake actually 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥
𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 with the poverty declines of the 1990s ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/592838?seq=1). this is why radical economists have sought to expand the concept of poverty beyond the neoliberal "did you earn 17 dollars a day" (cf Sen http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Sen-1979_Equality-of-What.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/sen/publications/commodities-and-capabilities
and Nussbaum https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/creating-capabilities-the-human-development-approach-2/)
recent polemics on this include Jason Hicks critiques of World Bank development statistics ( https://www.academia.edu/21593862/The_True_Extent_of_Global_Poverty_and_Hunger_Questioning_the_Good_News_Narrative_of_the_Millennium_Development_Goals) and Andrew Fischer's fantastic new book ( https://www.zedbooks.net/shop/book/poverty-as-ideology/ - i really highly recommend you read the whole thing)
recent polemics on this include Jason Hicks critiques of World Bank development statistics ( https://www.academia.edu/21593862/The_True_Extent_of_Global_Poverty_and_Hunger_Questioning_the_Good_News_Narrative_of_the_Millennium_Development_Goals) and Andrew Fischer's fantastic new book ( https://www.zedbooks.net/shop/book/poverty-as-ideology/ - i really highly recommend you read the whole thing)
call for another understanding of development and poverty itself.
anyways back to china in particular.
i put literally zero faith in china's modern poverty statistics. the first issue we should note is that the definition of "poverty" that China uses means that someone in poverty earns less than $1 a day, while someone that is *not*
i put literally zero faith in china's modern poverty statistics. the first issue we should note is that the definition of "poverty" that China uses means that someone in poverty earns less than $1 a day, while someone that is *not*
in poverty earns more than $1 a day. clearly $1 a day is NOT enough to survive ( https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1180103657301389313). the World Banks uses a global poverty line of $1.90 per day. that's equally ridiculous, but what is more appalling is that China as a UMIC
SHOULD be using a poverty line that is about $5.5 dollars per day ( https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/richer-array-international-poverty-lines), but instead not only goes below that but below the EXTREME POVERTY line that the World Bank uses globally.
so to claim that china is 'eradicating' poverty only makes sense if you think that $1 a day is a meaningful poverty line (it objectively is not).
now we have to move to the question of WHAT has caused the 'decline' in bourgeois poverty. poverty (as defined in bourgeois political economy) has a number of (but still limited compared to a meaningful poverty concept) related factors, changing any of which can change
the prevalence of poverty. questions of WHAT exactly caused the poverty decline are of importance here.
there are several plausible factors here
1) institutions ( …https://history-culture-society-workshop.sociology.fas.harvard.edu/files/history-culture-society-workshop/files/acemoglu_slides.pdf)
2) economic growth ( https://sci-hub.tw/10.1093/qje/qjw003 argues that national accounts
there are several plausible factors here
1) institutions ( …https://history-culture-society-workshop.sociology.fas.harvard.edu/files/history-culture-society-workshop/files/acemoglu_slides.pdf)
2) economic growth ( https://sci-hub.tw/10.1093/qje/qjw003 argues that national accounts
offer better estimations of poverty rates than other methods, implying that econ. growth explains poverty)
3) welfare systems (the dibao) ( http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/954398.shtml)
4) the chinese regime's targeted poverty alleviation policies and programmes
3) welfare systems (the dibao) ( http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/954398.shtml)
4) the chinese regime's targeted poverty alleviation policies and programmes
each of them have their issues,
1) Yuen Yuen Ang argues that China's poverty reduction isn't explicable in the purely institutional way that Acemoglu et al. forward ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Escaped-Poverty-Cornell-Studies-Political/dp/1501700200)
2) while economic growth may seem almost inevitably explanatory here
1) Yuen Yuen Ang argues that China's poverty reduction isn't explicable in the purely institutional way that Acemoglu et al. forward ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Escaped-Poverty-Cornell-Studies-Political/dp/1501700200)
2) while economic growth may seem almost inevitably explanatory here
it is not a necessity that economic growth leads to a reduction in poverty - it is certainly *logically* possible that extreme inequity of the distribution of economic growth could have occurred, so we need to look beyond merely the fact that china's economy grew.
3) China's welfare systems are actually pretty poorly designed and allocated - most of the money doesn't go to the extremely impoverished that require it, but to the middle class citizens. ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X15306975 https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/chinae/v15y2007i2p74-88.html https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17525098.2013.840660?journalCode=rcsw20
4) this is a plausible mechanism, and one we will have to examine in further detail later on
now it is important to contextualize the poverty decline in a broader political economic and global perspective.
bar the claims of revisionist "Marxist"-"Leninists" (e.g. Marcyites), it is not poverty reduction that constitutes socialism. the capitalist mode of production
bar the claims of revisionist "Marxist"-"Leninists" (e.g. Marcyites), it is not poverty reduction that constitutes socialism. the capitalist mode of production
has been recognized by Marx, Engels and Lenin as one of the things that *itself* already develops the productive forces, alongside the superstructural effects like poverty reduction. poverty reduction happens under the capitalist mode of production as a means of satisfying
the population
(indeed one of marx's greatest accomplishments was showing how capitalism self-reproduces - labour-power is sold at a price [i.e. the wage] that permits the physiological reproduction of the worker) [see also capital volumes 16-22 re: standards of living]
![(indeed one of marx's greatest accomplishments was showing how capitalism self-reproduces - labour-power is sold at a price [i.e. the wage] that permits the physiological reproduction of the worker) [see also capital volumes 16-22 re: standards of living]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXrYpanXYAU2-2t.png "(indeed one of marx's greatest accomplishments was showing how capitalism self-reproduces - labour-power is sold at a price [i.e. the wage] that permits the physiological reproduction of the worker) [see also capital volumes 16-22 re: standards of living]")
![(indeed one of marx's greatest accomplishments was showing how capitalism self-reproduces - labour-power is sold at a price [i.e. the wage] that permits the physiological reproduction of the worker) [see also capital volumes 16-22 re: standards of living]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXrYpanXQAICe9A.png "(indeed one of marx's greatest accomplishments was showing how capitalism self-reproduces - labour-power is sold at a price [i.e. the wage] that permits the physiological reproduction of the worker) [see also capital volumes 16-22 re: standards of living]")
and historically, the development of capitalist relations has been associated with a decrease in poverty and an increase in physical standards of living (e.g. life expectancy, nutritional intake, height, etc). that in no way means that the capitalist mode of production is good
or that it should be preserved - indeed, it is only the mistake of left developmentalism to see these things as falling into the "good box" for "good points" -> "support!!!"
we should put chinese poverty reductions into a broader regional context as well. east asia in general has experienced drastic increases in economic development, life expectancy, rapid decreases in poverty: all over the region. it happened in south korea from the 1950s (i.e.
the korean war) until the 1980s. most of this development occurred under a fascist regime which massacred the populace. similar things happened in Japan - a massive increase in educational attainment, economic growth and reduction of poverty, coinciding with particular social
geopolitical and economic developments.
finally we have to return to #4 on the explanatory mechanisms for China's poverty reduction: the particular poverty programs that the regime uses. there are two schematas that we can use to characterize the regime's policy tools
gao qin gives three methods: social assistance like the dibao, which we will discuss in a little more detail below, economic development (e.g. gdp growth) and targeted poverty alleviation
other scholars have said the hallmarks include targeted alleviation, marketization and
other scholars have said the hallmarks include targeted alleviation, marketization and
urbanization and resettlement.
the dibao is very similar to the welfare regimes in Western countries: it is means-tested
it's also important to realize where it came from in the first place. the dibao started in 1993 in Shanghai in light of the privatization of the state-owned enterprises.
it's also important to realize where it came from in the first place. the dibao started in 1993 in Shanghai in light of the privatization of the state-owned enterprises.
many people lost their jobs and then lacked a livelihood, so the dibao was introduced as a bare minimum amount for sustenance. the government was worried about people *protesting*, about *backlash* - THAT is why the dibao was introduced. to prevent the deterioration of social
stability (sound familiar?)
more on the dibao:
the means testing is extreme. to the point where the state spends time and resources investigating whether households are "hiding" wealth from the government in order to illegitimately get benefits (sound familiar?)
http://www.tianjinwe.com/tianjin/jsbb/201603/t20160319_972011.html
the means testing is extreme. to the point where the state spends time and resources investigating whether households are "hiding" wealth from the government in order to illegitimately get benefits (sound familiar?)
http://www.tianjinwe.com/tianjin/jsbb/201603/t20160319_972011.html
this elaborate social system has similarly absurd consequences as those in Amerika/Europe ( http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-SCRK200906004.htm) and is poorly targeted ( https://www.wiego.org/publications/urban-dibao-program-china-targeting-and-its-effect-the-indian-journal-labour-economics).
anyways, let's move on to the second prong for reducing poverty, the broader campaign of economic development. as described earlier, development of productive forces and increases in production are not uncharacteristic of capitalist regimes, in fact they are an inevitable result
of the capitalist mode of production. indeed, it is China's policies of vastly increasing its embeddedness into global trade networks, the special economic zones, and financialization that characterize its neoliberal aspects toward capitalist development, while there are
also left developmentalist characteristics of the regime (e.g. its maintenance of some state owned enterprises, close public-private sector links, and a bureaucracy of rules and regulations). the "economic development" that china is engaging in is not at all contradictory
or inimical toward the global capitalist system - it is precisely the bourgeois academy who has collaborated with the PRC to produce its current economic policies ( https://www.amazon.com/Unlikely-Partners-Chinese-Reformers-Economists/dp/0674971132)
indeed, China's current economic governance system is almost identical to what social democrats like Matt Stoller *want* to implement (but given the political context, they decry its instantiation).
this policy of policy reduction *BY GDP GROWTH* is part of the imperatives that capitalism has to abide by ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/23600344?seq=1, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13563467.2013.866081, http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~grepicky/eow/articles/56567595.pdf, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/JEI0021-3624460404), imperatives that are not compatible with life on this planet
this policy of 'economic development', as in other countries, has been associated with an *increase* in relative poverty ( https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-019-02155-3), increase in income inequality (higher than the fucking US https://www.pnas.org/content/111/19/6928.short), etc.
and the final of the three main prongs is the targeted poverty reduction. this is where the state (typically performed by regional governments) identifies people under the poverty line and attempts to specifically give those households cash transfers etc to move them above
the poverty line. this form of 'targeted poverty alleviation' / 'precision poverty' reform has been quite socially deleterious and ineffective. indeed, the campaign goes so far as to put posters on the front of houses with the name, assets, income of the individuals in the house
this targeted poverty alleviation does not really "alleviate" poverty, but only ameliorates it in a statistical sense. as pointed out here https://www.socialism.org.tw/2020/03/19/02020319cnpoor/, 'precision poverty elimination' does not truly eliminate poverty, but rather it transforms
old messy, disorderly poverty into modern bright poverty.
"精準扶貧沒有消滅貧困，它只是把古老的、髒亂無序的貧困變成了現代的、光鮮亮麗的貧困"
moreover, a big part of china's "targeted" poverty reduction campaign is the aim to completely remove the last remnants of the peasant
"精準扶貧沒有消滅貧困，它只是把古老的、髒亂無序的貧困變成了現代的、光鮮亮麗的貧困"
moreover, a big part of china's "targeted" poverty reduction campaign is the aim to completely remove the last remnants of the peasant
economy and integrate rural farmers into the capitalist market economy thus falling right into the critiques that Hickel et al point out about the value of non-market goods ( https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/6/14/a-response-to-noah-smith-about-global-poverty).
this is exactly why when you look closer at the poverty statistics, the "poverty reduction" claims turn out to be farces. rather than transformative social justice campaigns that truly liberate and improve communities, targeted poverty moves people above that statistical line.
(source https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/china-steps-up-the-war-on-poverty-but-is-it-winning-20171016-gz1q2v)
if the cash transfers are removed, then people will fall right back into poverty. this is not a sustainable development approach, but a bourgeois statistical fetish.
if the cash transfers are removed, then people will fall right back into poverty. this is not a sustainable development approach, but a bourgeois statistical fetish.
indeed, this approach to poverty 'reduction' has been praised by the bourgeois World Bank and bourgeois economists all across the world 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐲 because it mirrors the approach 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 want to be instantiated.
http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/1016/c90000-9280249.html
http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/1016/c90000-9280249.html
china's mobilization of people to literally *work to alleviate poverty* has lead to dire results. as pointed out in the article above ( https://www.socialism.org.tw/2020/03/19/02020319cnpoor/), Wu Huayan's death was not the result, per se, of her own poverty, but of her working *so hard to reduce poverty*.
the chinese state has transferred portions of the responsibility for reducing poverty its citizens, to the point where the workers *work themselves to death*
we've moved through the three prongs of poverty alleviation that Gao Qin identified, but there are other more specific measures that the state employs to 'reduce'/'alleviate' poverty. these include marketization and resettlement.
we'll start with the resettlement programs. the resettlement programmes of china actually very closely resembles the racist chauvinist programmes of FDR's "New Deal", particularly the Resettlement Administration ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resettlement_Administration) and one proposed by the
World Bank ( https://www.fmreview.org/development-induced-displacement/downing). these resettlement programmes, while nominally voluntary ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0197397517301601) move rural citizens to nearby newly built towns in an attempt to increase their integration into the urban ecosystem and market economy, as well
as direct their labour to more 'productive' activities.
(the logic behind the progamme is very similar to the chauvinist 'Moving to Opportunity' programmes others have highlighted as having poor underlying logic - https://twitter.com/Arrianna_Planey/status/1159796858308497408)
(the logic behind the progamme is very similar to the chauvinist 'Moving to Opportunity' programmes others have highlighted as having poor underlying logic - https://twitter.com/Arrianna_Planey/status/1159796858308497408)
the consequences of resettlement are also significant, as debts and expenditures increase ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320238582_The_impact_on_rural_livelihoods_and_ecosystem_services_of_a_major_relocation_and_settlement_program_A_case_in_Shaanxi_China
anyways, this project of urbanization is exactly one that occurs during the process of the development of capitalist relations of production, and their intensification via the centralization of capitals ( http://www.marxistreview.asia/the-abolition-of-distinction-between-city-and-village-life/, https://libcom.org/library/human-species-earths-crust-amadeo-bordiga).
capitalism creates urbanized slums and new forms of social relations in cities rather than the previously largely rural environment ( https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/urbanisation-not-natural-or-inevitable-its-being-inflicted-upon-us-forces-capitalism-900, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4494995?seq=1)
