The Poverty Alleviation Paradox: The Government Pours in Money, but Farmers Sink Deeper into Losses

In a certain area in western China, a rabbit-breeding craze once sprang up to help people escape poverty. The government pooled funds of various kinds to support it, and at its peak the rabbit population approached 400,000. But market conditions changed drastically, and in just 5 years the industry scale shrank to fewer than 70,000 rabbits. Many farming households lost everything and could not recover for years.

Why did a prosperity-building project that the government invested heavily in to help the people turn into an “industry that hurts the people”? Local officials reflected that industry cultivation focused only on the production stage, while deep processing, marketing, market information early warning and other links in the industry chain were severely “missing from the curriculum.” The result was that the more input, the greater the output, and the higher the risk. Farmers increased production without increasing income, and instead were dragged down by it.

It never rains but it pours. A certain national-level key county for poverty alleviation and development had also tasted similar bitter fruit. The county once encouraged farmers to grow Chinese goldthread (Coptis chinensis), and at its peak the planting area approached 40,000 mu, with an annual output of more than 10,000 tons. Although the industry had begun to take shape, because there was no deep processing or brand building, the Chinese goldthread raw material was bought up by outside companies and sold under their own brands. In addition, prices for Chinese goldthread fluctuated sharply in recent years, so the impoverished households growing it did not benefit much.

⟦NL> “Poverty alleviation through industry is an important lever for farmers to get rich and move toward a moderately prosperous life. If resources cannot be integrated, scientific planning carried out, and a competitive industry chain built, rushing projects into operation blindly may backfire.” a local agricultural official said.

“‘In the first year everyone rushes in, in the next year everyone disperses.’ The government invested a lot of money, but no results can be seen.” While the reporter was stationed in a poverty-stricken village, the village Party branch secretary said that over the past 10-plus years, county and township officials came to plan industrial development and successively launched no fewer than 7 industries, including kiwifruit, citrus, high-mountain vegetables and live pigs, but whatever they did lost money, and the farmers were all afraid.

“Farmers have to do it even if they don't want to”

One important reason why projects meant to enrich farmers became an “industry that hurts the people” is that the government is accustomed to administrative dominance and ignores the wishes of the masses and the role of the market. For example, in a certain place, during “whole-village poverty eradication,” it was rigidly stipulated that 70% of funds had to be used for industrial development, with the remaining 30% for infrastructure construction. The reporter's interviews found that the government required most funds to be used for industry because it believed rural infrastructure had already improved greatly, and that farmers had not yet become rich because industry had not kept up.

“This rigid requirement to divide up funds seems right, but in reality it does not fit local conditions.” Some grassroots officials said that in some poverty-stricken areas, roads, water conservancy and other infrastructure remain the key factors constraining regional development and increases in farmers' incomes. Without infrastructure, there is no talking about industrial development.

At the same time, many farmers are also unwilling to develop industry. There are three reasons for this. First, judging from past industrial development, the results were not very good, and farmers see no hope of getting rich. Second, the knowledge level and qualities of farmers in poverty-stricken villages cannot meet the requirements of industrial development. Third, poverty-stricken areas are mostly remote and have seen large outflows of population, so industrial development lacks labor, talent and capital, making it very difficult.

“Developing industry ‘looks beautiful,’ but in fact it is extremely difficult. Right now rural areas are made up of the ‘386199 force’ [left-behind women, children and the elderly], the land consists of ‘chicken-coop plots and palm-sized fields,’ and financial services are still not in place. Poverty-stricken villages have high mountains, steep slopes and poor soil, and the villages are empty too; of 10 households, 6 or 7 have left.” A grassroots official said that the government requires most of the money to be spent on industry, and everyone racked their brains but still did not know what to do. In the end, industry was not developed, and infrastructure was not improved either.

Some officials said that because higher-level departments rigidly set the flow of poverty alleviation funds, “you can only go east, not west; farmers have to do it even if they don't want to, and some just put on a superficial show.”

Is “seedlings to the household and seeds to the household” really targeted poverty alleviation?

Under the traditional approach to poverty alleviation, although resources reached poverty-stricken townships and villages, the people who ultimately obtained those resources might not be the households most in need of help. This easily led to the problem of “helping the strong but not the weak, assisting the rich but not the poor.” Therefore, in recent years, targeted poverty alleviation reaching people and households was put on the agenda. But in some places, although it was said that there were new ideas for poverty alleviation, the methods were still the old ones. Poverty alleviation resources appeared to reach individuals, but the results were poor, and it was still “fake kung fu.”

While interviewing at the grassroots, the reporter learned this story: a certain poverty-stricken village implemented a measure to bring industry to households, distributing “one seedling and one seed” (walnut seedlings and vegetable seeds) free to impoverished households, and the village also printed planting technical guidance for farmers to develop industry. Farmers did not buy into this kind of household-based poverty alleviation. The “one seedling and one seed” were taken home and mostly tossed aside. A 74-year-old farmer said he had high blood pressure and coronary heart disease, and after swinging a hoe just a couple of times he got tired, so how could he have the strength to do the special agriculture arranged from above!

Poverty alleviation that “helps the strong but finds it hard to help the weak” drew criticism from impoverished people, and some places then went to the other extreme: the use of poverty alleviation funds catered to feelings and was divided equally among everyone. In a certain poverty-stricken village during “whole-village poverty eradication,” 500 mu of konjac was planned, with a one-time subsidy of 200 yuan per mu. Because only growing konjac could earn the subsidy, that year the scale did indeed rise. But after the village shed its poverty cap, the poverty alleviation subsidy money was gone, and the farmers' enthusiasm was gone too. Now the konjac planting area is less than 100 mu.

The village's officials later reflected: “In grassroots work, stress is placed on holding a bowl of water level. Equal division seems fair, but the poverty alleviation effect is discounted. Farmers have only a bit more than 1 mu of land per person, and the subsidy is sprinkled over each person's head like pepper powder. Everyone wants to get it, and they rush in all at once, but there is no real enthusiasm, and in the long run it won't have much effect.” (Half-Month Talk reporter Li Song)

Further Reading:

Observation of Targeted Poverty Alleviation in the Dashi Mountain Area of Guangxi

General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out while participating in the deliberation of the Guangxi delegation during this year's National Two Sessions that poverty alleviation must be grasped firmly, accurately and fully, targeted poverty alleviation must be adhered to, the timetable must be reversed, detailed accounts must be calculated well, and not a single ethnic minority or region may be left behind.

By the end of last year, Guangxi still had more than 5.3 million poor people. At present, only 5 years remain before building a moderately prosperous society in all respects. Time is tight and the task is heavy. How poverty-stricken areas, especially the “hard bone” areas for poverty alleviation and development, can renew their concepts, transform their models and achieve leapfrog development is a major test facing Party committees and governments at all levels. Half-Month Talk reporters recently went to the concentrated contiguous extremely poverty-stricken area of rocky desertification in Guangxi for in-depth field research, seeking paths and methods for escaping poverty among grassroots officials and people.

In the fight against poverty, the key is cultivating the capacity for “blood-making”

At present, the remaining “hard bones” in the fight against poverty are all concentrated in areas with harsh living conditions, where one place's soil and water can hardly support its people. At present, working away from home is still the main source of income for local poor farmers.

Through interviews in several poverty-stricken natural hamlets in 3 national key counties for poverty alleviation and development in Guangxi -- Dahua, Huanjiang and Tiandeng -- the reporter learned that more than half the villagers in each hamlet work away from home year-round. These villagers rely on working away from home to support their parents and raise their children, and many farmers have even built multi-story houses.

Ou Jianzheng, a Zhuang villager from Ke'ai Village, Da'an Township, Huanjiang County, works in Guangdong year-round. He said the children of migrant workers find it very hard to enter local public schools, and the various fees for private schools are too high, costing more than 5,200 yuan per semester. Last year, he transferred his child back to a public school in Huanjiang county town. There was no tuition, and the book fee for one semester was more than 70 yuan and the breakfast fee was 300 yuan.

Ban Gaoyin, a villager from Nongfa Village, Guhe Township, Dahua County, also works in the cable industry in Guangdong, and only returns home once a year during Spring Festival to visit relatives. He told the reporter that he very much wants to bring his child to Guangdong to live and study, but the cost is too high and unaffordable.

Grassroots officials in the Dashi Mountain area of Guangxi said that working away from home is the most effective way for local farmers to escape poverty, and they hope Party committees and governments in the places receiving migrant labor will provide more help for their work, lives and children's schooling, so they can work with peace of mind.

All parts of Guangxi have consistently held various forms of training courses for migrant workers to improve their employability. But some migrant workers reported that some training was not very practical and wasted time. They suggested that local governments should, on the one hand, clearly understand migrant workers' employment training needs and target them accordingly; on the other hand, they can learn from successful practices elsewhere and carry out targeted training around some new employment channels and methods.

At the same time, some officials in the Dashi Mountain area said that Party committees and governments in poverty-stricken areas should support and guide more labor-intensive industries to land and take root in their counties. Huang Rongbiao, secretary of the Huanjiang County Party Committee, introduced that Huanjiang was listed last year as a World Natural Heritage site, and this year the county Party committee and county government will vigorously promote tourism-based poverty alleviation, driving more poor farmers to join the tourism industry and escape poverty and become well-off.

In addition to helping farmers realize the dream of “returning home for employment” and “employment at the doorstep,” the locality also promotes farmers' “entrepreneurial dream.”

While the reporter visited villages and households in the Dashi Mountain area of Guangxi for research, from time to time one or several beautiful multi-story buildings could be seen appearing in some poverty-stricken villages. These were all built by farmers who had gone out from the village, started businesses and become rich. Against the backdrop of the national strategy of “mass entrepreneurship and innovation,” enabling poor farmers to become rich through entrepreneurship should also become an important measure in the fight against poverty.

At present, the Dashi Mountain area of Guangxi is taking measures to encourage poor farmers to start businesses. Tiandeng County has a large number of farmers going to major cities such as Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou to open Guilin rice noodle shops, embarking on the road to moderate prosperity. This year the county Party committee and county government plan to train poor farmers to open Guilin rice noodle shops, so that they can go all over the country to start businesses and become rich.