The "hot at the top, cold at the bottom" phenomenon in poverty alleviation projects needs attention

Poverty alleviation projects are special poverty alleviation initiatives set up by the state for counties, townships and villages in poor areas. Their original intent is to use state funds as the "main" source and local finance as the "supplementary" source, and, in light of the actual conditions of truly poor areas, tailor projects that help the people in poor areas develop and prosper. In poor rural areas, especially townships and villages, in the past, whenever a poverty alleviation project appeared, most places would try every possible means to secure it, afraid of being left out. Now that poverty alleviation has entered a critical period, however, during visits to villages in some poor counties, the author found that, for various reasons, some poverty alleviation projects are offered to the grassroots but the grassroots no longer want to take them. The "hot at the top, cold at the bottom" phenomenon in poverty alleviation projects urgently needs attention.

There are mainly the following reasons why poverty alleviation projects are snubbed at the grassroots level:

First, "hollow villages" have few people, the collective economy is "empty-shelled," and it is difficult to secure matching funds. In rural areas today, young and middle-aged people go out to work, and some villages show a trend of becoming empty shells, while their own economic conditions are already not well-off. Poverty alleviation projects often adopt differential appropriations, and the village community where the project is located also needs to make up the remaining funds for projects such as solving the difficulties poor people in poor areas face in traveling and accessing drinking water through means such as villagers contributing labor and raising funds. But for some rural areas that are already poor, either they cannot produce the remaining funds, which directly prevents construction from starting, or they grit their teeth and start anyway, only to end up with a "half-finished project" because they cannot scrape together the money.

Second, the planning and design of poverty alleviation projects are not scientific enough and are out of touch with local realities. Some poverty alleviation projects are not planned or designed scientifically enough and do not conform to rural realities, drawing strong reactions from villagers. Village officials busy themselves running around for the project, while the ordinary people do not buy it, greatly dampening the enthusiasm of township and village officials.

Third, grassroots officials find it difficult to implement poverty alleviation projects; they can get them into their mouths but cannot swallow them. Land acquisition is the "dead knot" in many poverty alleviation projects. It involves the specific interests of villagers and very easily triggers all kinds of conflicts. For example, water conservancy project construction is originally a good thing. The cost of project materials and labor is paid by the finance department, but the land needs to be adjusted by the village itself. Because in some villages all land, including barren hills, has been contracted to farming households, there is no collective land available for adjustment, and with no source of compensation funds, it is very difficult to implement the project.

Fourth, poor people lack a sense of gain and are not active in participating. The reason some poverty alleviation projects are snubbed at the grassroots level is also related to the fact that poverty alleviation measures tailored to different people and households have not been fully put in place, the measures are not solid or detailed enough, and they lack targeting. Poor people receive few tangible benefits and have a weak sense of gain, so they deal with tasks "assigned" from above perfunctorily and their enthusiasm for participation is not high.

The "hot at the top, cold at the bottom" phenomenon in poverty alleviation projects does not mean that grassroots people have no needs, but rather that the work of the relevant departments is not on the right track. As a grassroots official frankly said: to change the face of poverty, we sincerely hope infrastructure can cover more poor villages. But some poverty alleviation projects nowadays lack in-depth investigation and demonstration and are divorced from local realities, so naturally it is difficult to win the support of ordinary people.

How can poverty alleviation projects become things poor people truly want to do and are willing to do? The author believes the following aspects need to be done well:

First, adjust and improve the fiscal input mechanism for poverty alleviation projects and raise the efficiency of fiscal input. Some poor areas already cannot make ends meet, so special fiscal poverty alleviation funds should be increased to reduce local pressure, let them put down their "burden," go into battle lightly, and focus their energy on implementing poverty alleviation projects. At the same time, factors such as rising labor and material costs must be considered, and the standard of fiscal subsidies for poverty alleviation projects should be appropriately raised to ensure the quality of poverty alleviation project works.

Second, strengthen the follow-up management of poverty alleviation projects to ensure they land and play a stable role. Once poverty alleviation projects have gone through layer upon layer of screening and are finalized, they must be implemented step by step. Because some poverty alleviation projects involve large investment and insufficient funds and may even take several years to complete, a method of "bundling" several years of poverty alleviation funds for use can be adopted to ensure the projects are completed smoothly.

Third, adapt measures to local conditions and improve the feasibility and precision of poverty alleviation projects. In the process of formulating poverty alleviation project plans, measures must be adapted to local conditions, and project plans and designs that conform to the actual conditions of poor areas must be scientifically formulated, truly tailored and effective. The voices of the people must be listened to carefully, villagers' opinions widely solicited, and the feasibility of projects increased.

Fourth, give local people more right to speak and participate. The principal role of people in poor areas in poverty alleviation projects must be brought into full play. Some poverty alleviation projects can be completed by local villagers themselves or with villagers' participation and assistance, while the government strengthens coordination and supervision, thereby mobilizing the enthusiasm and creativity of the people. Only in this way can we achieve twice the result with half the effort and truly realize the goal of targeted poverty alleviation.

Poverty alleviation projects are directly related to the implementation of poverty alleviation policies and to poor people escaping poverty and becoming well-off. Therefore, all localities need to attach great importance to them and make efforts in many aspects, including the fiscal input mechanism, policy support, scientific planning, strengthened management, and fully mobilizing farmers' enthusiasm, so as to avoid the spread of the "hot at the top, cold at the bottom" phenomenon.