脫貧攻堅對中國社會救助（低保）的影響

Abstract

1990年代以來，最低生活保障制度（低保）是中國社會救助不可或缺的基石，與貧困問題的治理密切相關。過去文獻利用地方分權理論、地方官僚與地方財務能力，社會抗爭或集體行為等因素，來解釋中國各地方低保的分配和公平性。與此同時，早期中國社會福利相關研究多半指出，中國政府以城市為核心，卻邊緣化偏鄉農村的政策偏誤慣俗。其中，以往中國政府的貧困治理多半僅惠及城鎮，卻忽視農村同樣嚴峻的貧困問題。有鑒於2015年中國政府宣佈以消除農村貧困為目標的脫貧攻堅運動全面成功，貧困人口大幅降低，該運動對於邊陲省份、尤其是農村地區居民社會福利的作用，仍不明確。 此脈絡下，本研究旨在通過評估低保政策變化，來檢視脫貧攻堅作為中國政府所推動的農村貧困治理運動，對於中國地方社會福利發展的影響。本研究採用中國政府發布的低保數據，利用多期差異中差異（DiD）和三重差異（DDD）兩種方法進行實證分析。研究結果顯示，脫貧攻堅期間及之後，施行脫貧的省份城鎮低保覆蓋率減少，而農村地區低保覆蓋率則增加。值得注意的是，施行脫貧攻堅的中西部省份在運動期間與之後，低保門檻明顯落後於未進行脫貧攻堅的沿海富裕省份。另外，脫貧攻堅省份的城鎮低保線，成長幅度也明顯高於農村。也就是說，經歷脫貧攻堅的省份農村地區低保可及性有所提升，但是低保領受者總體福利水平卻相對下降。亦即，縱使脫貧攻堅運動有效降低總體貧困情形，卻可能亦同時擴大現有的地區和城鄉不平等。透過觀察脫貧攻堅運動對於地方社會救助政策施行的影響，本研究認為中國政府以城鎮為導向的治理慣俗，以及其導致的地方和城鄉差距，至今依然有強烈影響力。換句話說，以消除貧困與社會融合為目標的脫貧攻堅，實際上尚未完全成功。

Since the late 1990s, Dibao has been the cornerstone of China's social assistance system, closely linked to poverty issues. Previous literature has utilized decentralization theory, local budgets, bureaucracy, trade openness, and social unrest to explain the distribution and fairness of Dibao. Moreover, earlier studies highlighted an urban bias within the social assistance system, primarily targeting urban poverty while neglecting rural poverty. Although the Targeted Poverty Alleviation (TPA) campaign launched in 2015 was officially declared successful, leading to a significant reduction in the overall number of Dibao recipients, refer as the impoverished population, its effects on social welfare accessibility in underdeveloped regions remain a subject of debate, underscoring the need for more comprehensive research in this area. In this context, this study aims to examine the impact of the TPA campaign on local social welfare development by evaluating Dibao policy. This research employs multiple period difference-in-differences (DiD) and difference-in-difference-in-differences (DDD) approaches, utilizing data collected from the Chinese government. The primary empirical results demonstrate that during and after the TPA campaign, the coverage of Dibao recipients decreased in urban areas while increasing in rural areas within the treated regions. Notably, Dibao thresholds in underprivileged areas significantly lag behind those in more prosperous regions during and after the TPA campaign, especially in rural regions. These findings support our central argument that while the TPA campaign may have alleviated overall poverty, it has also reinforced pre-existing regional and urban-rural inequalities. Based on empirical evidence, this research suggests that China's urban-oriented governance remains profoundly entrenched and perpetuated. The social integration goals of the TPA campaign are yet to be fully achieved.