CIFOR-ICRAF aborda retos y oportunidades locales y, al mismo tiempo, ofrece soluciones a los problemas globales relacionados con los bosques, los paisajes, las personas y el planeta.

Aportamos evidencia empírica y soluciones prácticas para transformar el uso de la tierra y la producción de alimentos: conservando y restaurando ecosistemas, respondiendo a las crisis globales del clima, la malnutrición, la pérdida de biodiversidad y la desertificación. En resumen, mejorando la vida de las personas.

CIFOR-ICRAF produce cada año más de 750 publicaciones sobre agroforestería, bosques y cambio climático, restauración de paisajes, derechos, políticas forestales y mucho más, y en varios idiomas. .

CIFOR-ICRAF aborda retos y oportunidades locales y, al mismo tiempo, ofrece soluciones a los problemas globales relacionados con los bosques, los paisajes, las personas y el planeta.

Aportamos evidencia empírica y soluciones prácticas para transformar el uso de la tierra y la producción de alimentos: conservando y restaurando ecosistemas, respondiendo a las crisis globales del clima, la malnutrición, la pérdida de biodiversidad y la desertificación. En resumen, mejorando la vida de las personas.

CIFOR–ICRAF publishes over 750 publications every year on agroforestry, forests and climate change, landscape restoration, rights, forest policy and much more – in multiple languages.

CIFOR–ICRAF addresses local challenges and opportunities while providing solutions to global problems for forests, landscapes, people and the planet.

We deliver actionable evidence and solutions to transform how land is used and how food is produced: conserving and restoring ecosystems, responding to the global climate, malnutrition, biodiversity and desertification crises. In short, improving people’s lives.

Who is poor in China? A comparison of alternative approaches to poverty assessment in rural Yunnan

Exportar la cita

Despite widespread recognition of the multidimensionality of poverty among social scientists and policymakers, the monetary approach still dominates poverty assessment. However, it is possible that different poverty assessment methodologies identify dissimilar households as poor, leading to disparate policies for poverty reduction. This empirical research applies four approaches to poverty identification to the same population of rural households in Wuding County, Yunnan Province, PRC. These approaches include China's official poverty identification method, participatory poverty assessment (PPA), the monetary approach to poverty assessment, and use of multidimensional poverty indicators (MDI). This study discovered that these four approaches generate different aggregate poverty incidences, identifying different households with distinctly different characteristics as poor. Each approach evaluates different aspects and dimensions, highlighting some characteristics while concealing others. There is very little overlap among the poor households identified by each methodology. This has implications at the conceptual, methodological, and policy levels. The conceptual understanding of poverty should be broadened to include multidimensional and multidisciplinary socioeconomic indicators. Multiple approaches must be applied in order to avoid marginalising some aspects of poverty. Poverty reduction strategies should shift from promoting short-term income-generating activities to a broader combination of strategies that address the inter-linked structural causes of poverty.

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066151003595242
Puntuación Altmetric:
Dimensiones Recuento de citas:

    Año de publicación

    2010

    Autores

    Caizhen L

    Idioma

    English

    Palabras clave

    poverty, rural areas, socioeconomic

    Geográfico

    China

Publicaciones relacionadas