FAN Sheng-gen,Emily EunYoung CHO

1 College of Economics and Management,China Agricultural University,Beijing 100083,P.R.China 2 International Food Policy Research Institute,Washington,D.C.20005,USA

Abstract The global community has committed,as the first priority of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),to end poverty in all its forms everywhere. While the decline of global poverty continues,progress has slowed and remains uneven through different parts of the world. To ensure that no one is left behind in China and beyond,research will be critical to inform paths out of poverty. In this regard,it is valuable to take stock of international experiences and the various pathways out of poverty with a focus on agriculture. Africa’s agricultural growth has been largely driven by land expansion and poverty reduction has been the slowest among all regions. South Asia agriculture has been led by diversification of smallholder agriculture and its poverty reduction impact has been large,but its future poverty reduction is limited by rural–urban migration and lack of formal jobs in urban centers. Social protection programs have been used by many Latin American countries as the region is more urbanized than any other developing regions. China’s agricultural and economic success was driven by agriculture-led reforms and rural development. These changes brought significantly higher incomes among rural residents,which accounted for highest initial levels of poverty and hunger,and in increased availability of food at affordable prices. Investments in nutrition,health,education,clean water,and good sanitation also complemented progress. The foremost lesson is that smallholder-led agriculture growth in land scarce countries often have the largest impact on poverty reduction. Secondly,nonfarm employment and rural–urban migration must follow once agricultural productivity has reached a certain level. However,premature exiting from agriculture can do more harm. Thirdly,even before large scale poverty reduction through sectoral and regional development is exhausted,social safety nets must be established to cover those who have not benefited from growth and development. Productive social safety nets have proven to be cost-effective in many countries. Urban poverty should also be part of the protection scheme when large proportion of rural population moves to cities.

Keywords:poverty,agriculture,food systems,sustainable development,agricultural transformation

1.lntroduction

The global community has committed to ending poverty in all its forms by 2030 everywhere as the first priority of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). China is even more ambitious by committing to end poverty in 2020.More than a billion fewer people were living in extreme poverty as of 2015 than in 1990 in the World (World Bank 2019). China alone lifted 790 million people out of extreme poverty (Fig.1).1In this article,we use two sources of poverty measures,one from the World Bank for cross country comparison purpose and the other from the National Statistics Bureau of China (in Section 4).Yet more than 700 million remain under the World Bank poverty line of 1.90 US$ per day in the world (Kou and Liu 2018). While the decline of global poverty continues,progress has slowed and remains uneven across different regions of the world. Countries with violent conflict and weak institutions face challenges in particular,and poor households are predominantly located in rural areas and engaging in agricultural production activities (World Bank 2018). Coupled with other major global challenges like climate change,persistent conflict and the recent COVID-19,we are not on track to eliminate poverty by 2030. Looking ahead,the world needs to grow,particularly in agriculture and in rural areas,at a much greater pace and more inclusively in order to achieve the poverty reduction goal.

Discussion of poverty reduction has largely focused on pro-poor growth and transfers. Pro-poor growth is defined as growth that benefits the poor and can help reduce poverty. Agricultural growth in particular is an important pathway for poverty reduction,especially poverty in rural areas (Fig.2). Evidence shows that agricultural growth induces income growth among 40% of the poorest. In addition to direct poverty reduction effects,agriculture has strong growth linkage effects on the rest of the economy(de Janvry and Sadoulet 2010). Transfers can include foreign aid and social programs,both short-term to address emergencies and longer-term to target poverty in certain groups within the population. Increasing social protection coverages through transfers have been a major effort of the World Bank,UN agencies and national governments for the past several years (Gentiliniet al.2018). Social protection through transfers to agriculture and rural areas by the socalled productive safety nets proves to be one of the most effective transfer programs.

To ensure that no one is left behind in China and beyond,research will be critical to inform paths out of poverty. In this regard,it is valuable to take stock of international experiences and the various pathways out of poverty with a focus on agriculture. In many regions,agriculture has played a key role in development and poverty reduction,especially alongside innovations and investments in technologies,infrastructure and institutions that have occurred over the last few decades. While agricultural growth across regions share some commonalities,differences in approaches and characteristics provide insight into the range of paths out of poverty.

2.Land expansion-led growth in Africa

Africa has experienced sustained agricultural growth following decades of stagnation,with 4.7% average annual growth from 2000 to 2018 (Fig.2). Poverty reduction in Africa also accelerated,particularly in the 21st century,declining from 55% in 1990 to 41% in 2015 (Fig.1)(World Bank 2019). African governments have prioritized agriculture in their development agenda and are investing greater proportions of their budgets from a growing national revenue base (Badianeet al.2020). Previously in 2003,African leaders committed to allocate 10% of their national budget to agriculture and to achieve 6% annual growth rate in agriculture. The Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Program (CAADP) has been tracking and monitoring this commitment. On average,African countries are still far away from their 10% budget commitment,but countries like Ethiopia and Rwanda have exceeded the target. It is in these countries that agriculture has grown faster,and poverty has been reduced more substantially.The private sector is investing more in agriculture as well.This has translated to farmer having greater access to and options in their seeds,fertilizers,and markets,which can also contribute to long-run dynamism in Africa’s agri-food systems.

However,poverty rates in Africa remain the highest of any region in the world,and recent progress has not been sufficient to significantly reduce the absolute numbers of poor. Africa is one of the fastest-urbanizing regions of the world. The urban share of the population increased from 31% in 2000 to 40% in 2018,an increase of more than 200 million people in less than 20 years (UN 2018). Both cities and rural towns continue to grow,with secondary cities and towns of less than 1 million inhabitants among the fastestgrowing urban areas. While Africa is seeing diversification of labor forces out of farming and to urban areas,many of them end up in informal sectors of manufacturing and services,providing gainful employment for some but close to poverty line wages for most others. There also has been heterogeneity among countries. Areas undergoing rapid population growth and urbanization without a broad-based,dynamic economic development,in agriculture or beyond,face major challenges. Referred to as “urbanization without industrialization”,many countries like Angola,Equatorial Guinea,or Zambia are experiencing growth driven by primary commodity exports like oil and mining,which contribute little to economic development of surrounding rural areas (Gollinet al.2016).

Fig.1 Poverty headcount ratio at 1.90 US$ a day (2011 PPP) (% of population). Source:World Bank (2019).

Fig.2 Agriculture,forestry,and fishing,value added (constant 2010 US$). Source:World Bank (2019).

In the agricultural sector,Africa’s growth in land productivity for the past several decades has been very slow and the small gain in labor productivity is mainly from land expansion. Yield growth contributed less than 20% of SSA’s total agricultural growth between 2000 and 2008 (Fuglie and Rada 2013). But rising population densities in Africa are making continued reliance on area expansion untenable for many African farmers (Badianeet al.2020). The land frontier has already been reached in many countries,causing farms to become subdivided,fragmented,and increasingly small. Smallholders have responded to shrinking farm sizes by more continuously cropping priority staple foods every year. Fallows are no longer seen much in densely populated areas,and for the overall Sub-Saharan Africa,fallowed land as a proportion of total farmland has declined steadily from 40% in 1960 to 15% in 2011 (Fuglie and Rada 2013). It will be difficult to sustain production growth through area expansion,putting more pressure on African farming systems to raise yields and the value of farm output per hectare and per labor unit.As a result,total factor productivity grown slowest among all regions (Table 1).

Area expansion is also accompanied by land degradation and declining soil fertility. Leveraging sustainable agricultural growth through increased land productivity will be key,as studies have found agriculture to be significantly effective in reducing poverty among the poorest populations,particularly in low-income and resource-rich countries including those in Sub-Saharan Africa (Christiaensenet al.2011). Yet there has been limited recognition of the challenges related to land constraints in Africa. Much of African national povertyreduction strategies and development plans do not feature measures to address the lack of access to land and effective use of unutilized land. Agricultural development strategies to address rural poverty and food insecurity in Africa will also require accounting for growing land constraints for its agrarian-based population (Jayneet al.2012).

Table 1 Land,labor and total factor productivity growth in agriculture by region

To ensure sustainable agricultural growth,increasing the value of farm output per unit of land and labor is needed.In this regard,addressing poor infrastructure and low technology adoption in the region will be essential. Studies have found Sub-Saharan Africa’s infrastructure performance to be at the bottom among developing regions,as many countries’ infrastructure lags in quantity,quality and universal access. In addition,while rapid technological advancements have great potential for growth and development,there is limited value unless farmers adopt and utilize appropriate technologies. The lack of assets -like land,education or equipment -poses barriers to technology adoption,meaning more consideration may need to be given to technologies that require few assets. Recognition also is needed by decision makers that technologies that build on assets which the poor farmers already have are more likely to be adopted (Muzariet al.2012).

Changes in the rural landscape of actors,institutions and the allocation of land resources have shown a disconnect between current land allocation policies and national goals of inclusive economic growth. Many country’s land policies are directly or indirectly supporting domestic and foreign investors’ access to land at medium-and large-scales,but constraining land access for rural households in densely populated areas through rural–rural migration. In addition,rural poverty is seen to be addressed solely by input subsidies for production of staple foods,cash transfers,and other forms of social protection and safety nets. Diversification into non-staple food production such as fruits,vegetables,and beans,and to the nonfarm sector,sustainable intensification,and productivity growth on existing lands are among some promising strategies. Nevertheless,implementation will require greater state support for public investments,including education,health and family planning,agricultural research and development,as well as strong farmer extension services (Jayneet al.2014).

3.Smallholder-led diversification in South Asia

South Asia has achieved remarkable success in poverty reduction. The Green Revolution in the 1970s and 1980s and agricultural diversification strategy since 1990s have been particularly noteworthy in their poverty reduction impact.

The green revolution,characterized by the adoption of high-yielding varieties,greater use of chemical fertilizer and improved irrigation,doubled crop yields in just over a few decades from the late 1960s to 1980s (Fanet al.1998). This in turn helped bring millions of poor people out of hunger and poverty (Fig.1). Agriculture continued to grow in the 1990s and in the new millennium (Fig.2). Technological innovations,ranging from the adoption of machines and chemicals to improved varieties,have been led by both the public and the private sector. Public support and institutional innovations expanded provisions of agricultural finance and insurance,and collective actions in milk production,improved food safety practices,and management of common resources including irrigation facilities and forests.Liberalization and regional integration have facilitated trade growth in agricultural commodities within the region,and have improved national resilience against food crisis(Takeshimaet al.2020). As Table 1 shows,land productivity has always grown faster than labor productivity,indicating farmers have been using high yielding varieties,fertilizers,irrigation,and labor to increase land productivity. Total factor productivity has grown positively since 1980s and has accelerated in more recent years.

Diversification is an important strategy in the region in increasing farmers’ income and reducing poverty. It has seen the steady decline of the share of cereals,and increasing shares for vegetables,and milk,in net production values (Takeshimaet al.2020). The trends in India,given its dominant size,largely represent these overall patterns.Birthalet al.(2015) found a strong positive relationship between household diversification to high value crops and poverty reduction in India. They further identified that access to technology,credit and infrastructure is crucial for smallholders to diversify. Strong evidence also indicates that household diversification improves diets and nutrition,particularly children and women in rural India (Daviset al.2019).

Smallholders have played a central role in driving diversification in South Asia. Rapid growth in milk production and consumption largely driven by smallholders in India is a great example of partnership between the government and smallholders. National Dairy Development Board of India (NDDB) established in 1965 was mandated to help India to increase dairy production by smallholders and dairy consumption by the poor. Small dairy farmers take their milk to a Village Society to be collected and transported to a District Union often in small shipments. To ensure quality,the farmers’ milk is tested for quality,in terms of fat content and impurities,at the village level. At the district level,the milk is pasteurized and refrigerated. Milk is sent from District Unions to State Federations in larger shipments in less than 6 hours,which is then packaged and distributed to customers. Considering the highly perishable nature of milk,the total time for milk from point of milking to packaging is less than 24 hours. Today,India has become the largest milk producer in the world (Cunningham 2009).

In Bangladesh,within crops diversification has been relatively limited. The share of cereals have remained around 60% throughout the past five decades,while the shares of higher-value crops have not changed significantly until very recently.2It is,however,important to note that,this indicator may not capture the important diversifications within each commodity group or crop.For example,Bangladesh has seen a gradual shift from cheap quality (coarse) rice to more expensive,higher-valued (medium and fine) rice over time (Minten et al.2013a).But diversification into fishery,and to some extent livestock,had an impact on both poverty reduction and nutritional improvement. Fishery today accounts for more than 20% of agricultural GDP. Rashidet al.(2019) shows that as the fishery sector grows,all house hold categories except for fish-farming households benefit from the decline in fish prices in the short-run.However,losses for fish-farming households is small and outweighed by the gains by most of the households.3It should be noted,however,that the short-run analysis only considers price changes on consumption and not on production.In the long-run,accounting for change in production,fish farmers gain the most,although all households gain to some degree.Aquaculture’s contribution to income growth between 2000 and 2010 is estimated to range from about 1 percentage point in the short-run (only price effects) to more than 2 percentage points in the long-run (both price and quantity effects). Poverty reduction is estimated to be 0.70 and 1.74 percent age points respectively. Aquaculture’s contribution to overall poverty reduction during this period was about 10%. Fish also provides proteins and micronutrients which is very much needed in Bangladesh as the high percentage of population in the country,particularly women and children,is suffering from micronutrients deficiency or so called hidden hunger.

Nepal has also seen a rapid shift from cereals and milk to vegetables and fruits,and to a lesser extent,spice. Rapid diversification was found to be associated with poverty reduction,particularly for women,low caste population and marginal land owners in Nepal (Thapaet al.2017). Pakistan,with historically low shares of cereals and higher shares of milk,meat,and fiber crops,has largely maintained the same level of agricultural diversification.

4.Social protection-led strategy in Latin America

Performance of Latin America’s agricultural sector was relatively strong over the last five to six decades,led by agricultural expansion in Brazil and agricultural macroeconomic stabilization and liberalization (Fig.2).Considering the region’s land abundance,land productivity continues to be an important priority. Both land and labor productivity have grown with modern technological advancements (Table 1). In addition,the region’s progress in poverty alleviation was supported by social protection programs,such as Mexico’s “Progresa” and Brazil’s “Bolsa Scola”.

For Brazil,the 1980s and early 1990s were marked by economic stagnation and hyperinflation,and inefficient social security systems did not reach the poor. From the mid-1990s,Brazil’s economy followed the general direction of the Washington consensus,focusing on macroeconomic stability,fiscal prudence,trade reform,and privatization of some state-owned enterprises. At the same time,Brazil’s strategy was unique in that the Washington Consensus approach was complemented by significant reforms to social security and assistance.

Various cash transfer programs played an important role in poverty reduction. Both noncontributory,unconditional transfers and Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs) were targeted to poor families. The CCTs were conditioned on their children remaining in school and obtaining basic health care,under various programs that were eventually consolidated to Bolsa Família. Public transfers account for more than 80% of non-labor income and 29% of household income. These include pensions and other contributory social security benefits,like Benefício de Prestação Continuada (for the elderly and disabled),and Bolsa Família. Bolsa Família reaches 11 million families,a large portion of Brazil’s 50 million poor population. Since 2001,the government increased the average amount of all transfers and broadened the coverage of these welltargeted programs,with their coverage increasing by nearly 10 percentage points from 2001 to 2007 to reach 17% of households.

Brazil’s experience indicates that reforming social policies to be more pro-poor can significantly aid poverty reduction,even during economic crises and stagnation.Macroeconomic and trade policies can also be pro-poor and can make a significant contribution to poverty reduction as positive externalities. Brazil’s trade liberalization contributed to the fall of the economy-wide skill-premium by 14.3%between 1988 and 1995,while the skill premium increased in other Latin American countries,as tariffs before liberalization were generally higher for unskilled labor-intensive industries in the region,but not so in Brazil. Brazil’s changes in relative prices caused by trade liberalization thus had an equalizing effect through responses in employment and occupational reallocation (Gasparini and Lustig 2011). Concurrently,policy reforms were implemented to aid the openness of short-term capital,though the impact of these reforms are more controversial (Nassif 2007). After 2000,Brazil saw accelerated decline in inequality in household per capita income,with the per capita income of the poorest 10%growing 7% annually from 2001 to 2007,at nearly three times the national average growth rate. Two thirds of this fall in extreme poverty can be attributed to reduced inequality.During the same period,the wage gaps between workers across skill levels,locations and sectors narrowed. Public transfers also rose both in terms of average benefit and coverage,and the real minimum wage was increased(Gasparini and Lustig 2011).

While the social protection-led strategy has proven to be successful,it will not be sustainable unless growth is more inclusive in both rural and urban areas. This will especially be the case considering that urbanization,along with the expansion of infrastructure and the growth of intermediate cities,the greater integration of rural and urban markets,and the increase in foreign investment in processing,retail,and food chains and restaurants,have led to the expansion and greater complexity of food systems in the region. Those food systems now represent important shares of value added and employment. Therefore,food systems in the region offer important possibilities for broad-based employment and inclusion for a variety of actors in rural and urban areas,including women,youth,and vulnerable ethnic groups. A critical consideration will be whether small and family farms can integrate into,and benefit from,expanding value chains.Further,food systems need to be analyzed not only from the point of view of opportunities for employment and inclusion but also to better understand the role they may play in the emerging challenges such as overweight and obesity,especially as food systems are at the center of a variety of economic,social,environmental,and health goals globally(Díaz-Bonilla and Piñeiro 2020).

5.Agriculture-led urbanization strategy in China

Chinese progress in poverty reduction can be divided into three distinct phases. Figs.1–4 depicts Chinese poverty rate,agricultural growth,share of agricultural GDP,and per capita GDP in comparison with other regions during these three phases. The first phase is marked by rapid growth due to the reform of the agriculture sector,including the introduction of the household production responsibility system and price/market reforms. The second phase is the development of rural enterprises and the third is rural–urban migration and urbanization (Fanet al.2002). The various government anti-poverty strategies were developed after 1986 to target poor regions,communities,and households(Chenet al.2018).

5.1.Agriculture-led reform

Per capita income in rural China was extremely low prior to the first phase agriculture led-reform that began in 1978.China was one of the poorest countries in the world. In 1978,770 million residents in rural China,over 97% of the rural population,lived below the poverty line,lacking access to sufficient food or income (NBSC 2018). This changed dramatically under initial rural reforms,whereby the state raised its procurement prices for agricultural products and reopened rural markets for farmers to trade produce from their private plots. After two years,the government decentralized agricultural production from communes to individual farms in 1981 with the household production responsibility system. By 1984,more than 99%of production units had adopted the system. Under this system,farmers could make production decisions based on market prices,given they fulfilled government procurement quotas for grains. Land was still owned by the collectives,but usage rights belonged to farmers. The government also began to reform the agricultural procurement system.While nearly all commodities were subject to various government procurement programs before 1984,the number of commodities within the government procurement system was gradually decreased from 113 to 38. As a result,production increased by more than 6.6% and productivity by 6.1% per year from 1979 to 1984 (Fanet al.2002). The income gains from this initial reform were shared widely enough to cut the number of the poor,hence the rate of poverty declined to 78.3% in 1985.

Fig.3 Agriculture,forestry,and fishing,value added (% of GDP). Source:World Bank (2019).

Fig.4 GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$). Source:World Bank (2019).

5.2.Development of rural nonfarm sector

The second phase is marked by the rapid development of the rural nonfarm sector. Employment in the nonfarm sector grew from 18% of total rural employment in 1985 to 29%in 1997. By 1997,rural enterprises accounted for over a quarter of national GDP,and GDP produced by rural industry in China was larger than the that of India’s industrial sector.Without development of the rural nonfarm sector,annual GDP growth in China from 1978 to 1995 would have been 2.4% lower per year (Fanet al.2002).

The rapid development of the rural nonfarm sector not only contributed to rapid national GDP growth,but also increased the average per capita income of the rural population. In 1997,more than 36% of rural income was from rural nonfarm activities,while rural income in 1978 was largely from agricultural production. These success showcased potential gains from the reform and created competitive pressure for urban sectors to follow suite.Without the successful reforms in agriculture and rapid development of the rural nonfarm sector,urban and industrial reforms and rapid growth would have been impossible.As a result,poverty has continued to fall to 49.8% in 2000(NBSC 2018).

5.3.Rural-urban migration

The third phase is marked by relaxed restrictions on rural–urban migration from 2000. Prior to 2000,various levels of governments imposed varying degrees of restrictions on migration. While the policy had begun to relax in practice after 1985,it was not until 2000 that the government formally removed most of restrictions. Today,there are almost 300 million rural migrants in cities across China,most of whom earn higher incomes and have been lifted out of poverty. de Brauw and Giles (2018) show that internal migration in China has generated large positive impacts on per capita consumption of households in migrantsending communities. These effects are also stronger for poorer households within villages. The greater ease of migration from villages of rural China is associated with reduced inequality within communities. The share of total income inequality accounted for by the rural–urban gap was 44% in 1995 but declined to 34% in 2013. While the literature has limited evidence due to data limitations and methodology shortfalls,a study of 100 villages over a 14-year period from 1997 to 2011 in China finds an inverse U-shaped pattern between migration and income inequality in migrant-sending communities. Contemporary migration seems to initially increase income inequality,but lagged migration has a strong income inequality-reducing effect in source villages (Haet al.2016). Another study finds that migration significantly improves income for all ethnic groups,although the returns to ethnic minority households tend to be less than that of Han households (Howell 2017).Similarly,Maet al.(2018) note that the Gini coefficient of flow income also shows an inverted U-shape,while the Gini coefficient of accumulated income has decreased over time under China’s economic reform and opening-up,with a time lag and fluctuation. It suggests that accumulated or flow income Gini coefficients decline continuously as urbanization progresses.

Further,increased migration is associated with greater accumulation of housing wealth and consumer durables,with more notable growth among poorer households within rural communities. Migration is associated with more investment in non-agricultural production activities,though these investments are concentrated among more higher income households within villages. Shifting labor allocation of the poor and promoting non-agricultural investment,allowing the expansion of migration has helped raise consumption in China’s rural areas. As a result,poverty has fallen to only 0.6% in 2019 (NBSC 2019).

5.4.Poverty reduction strategies and programs

The first formal national poverty alleviation program was formulated until 1986. As the first step,the central government designated 331 poor counties (roughly 16%of the total) based on per capita rural income. Funds from the central government for poverty alleviation as direct loans to poor farmers or to rural enterprises. By 1993,the designation of poor counties was adjusted based on changes in income and price indices and the raised poverty line,and the number of poor counties was adjusted to 592. Most of these counties are located in the border and mountainous areas of Yunnan,Sichuan,Guizhou,Shaanxi,Shanxi,Hebei,Inner Mongolia,and Gansu. The State Council also established the Leading Group for Economic Development in Poor Areas,bringing together more than 20 ministries together to tackle poverty comprehensively. In effect,it encompassed all the government agencies whose work was relevant to poverty alleviation,thus providing a mechanism both to influence the initiatives taken by the various ministries and to seek coordination and integration in poverty alleviation.

China’s overall poverty alleviation strategy was developed in three steps. Before 1984,social welfare and relief funds were main sources of subsidies for poor families. No formal strategy had been established to reduce the number of poor in rural areas. From 1984 to 1995,the government implemented “regional targeting” to alleviate poverty by developing regional or local economies. This strategy helped eliminate large-scale poverty,though with little benefit to the extremely poor in the poorest areas. The poor were thus increasingly concentrated in remote areas with limited access to roads and other infrastructure,creating challenges in benefiting from the development of the regional economy. After 1996,the government altered its strategy to one of targeting poor households directly.

In 2001,China introduced the second round of rural poverty alleviation efforts through theOutline for Poverty Alleviation and Development in Chinese Rural Areas(2001–2010),which emphasized the development-oriented poverty reduction strategy. This outline targeted 140 000 poor villages by promoting agricultural industrialization,and providing labor force training and transfers to nonfarm sectors and urban areas. China also began to establish a system of subsistence allowances in national villages to provide a living guarantee for farmers who were caught in extreme poverty due to lost labor capability or an accident(Chenet al.2018).

In 2011,the central government issued theOutline for Poverty Alleviation and Development in Chinese Rural Areas (2011–2020),which again substantially changed the rural poverty alleviation standard or poverty line from CNY 1 274 to 2 300 which is much higher than the World Bank poverty line at the time. It also introduced industrial poverty alleviation,special poverty alleviation and social poverty alleviation as the three basic methods to construct a new large structure for comprehensive strategy (Chenet al.2018). This new phase featured integrated rural and urban sustainable development,with policies to reduce the rural–urban poverty gap and enhance social protection for poor population.

Since 2014,China’s rural poverty alleviation has entered a new phase of “targeted poverty alleviation and precise poverty alleviation”. Its core feature is to precisely recognize the poverty-stricken households; conduct precise assistance on the basis of cause of poverty; conduct dynamic management according to the poverty alleviation target’s practical situation; and evaluate the effect of assistance on the poverty-stricken families in order to guarantee precision alleviation from poverty. China preliminarily constructed the comprehensive poverty alleviation methods,including the poverty alleviation through industrial development,poverty alleviation through employment,poverty alleviation through relocation,poverty alleviation through asset income,ecological protection for poverty alleviation and social protection for poverty alleviation. China has also started to implement new poverty alleviation methods,such as the solar power poverty alleviation,e-commerce poverty alleviation,and tourism poverty alleviation (Chenet al.2018).

6.Conclusion and policy recommendations

It is clear that more progress is needed in order to eliminate poverty by 2030. We have learnt from the past experiences and lessons. Despite of differences across economic systems and initial conditions,there have been several common paths that countries and regions have taken.

The foremost lesson is that smallholder-led agricultural growth in land-scarce countries often has the largest impact on poverty reduction. The smallholder-led agricultural growth also provides a foundation for the overall economy to take off. The Chinese reform that started in agriculture and helped millions of poor farmers to increase their efficiency,productivity and income is a strong prove. South Asia experienced the same path with both growth in yields as well as diversification to high value crops,livestock and fishery although the impact is not as large as it has been in China,partly due to the unequal distribution of land. Africa is still in an early stage in transforming its smallholder agriculture to benefit largest number of poor. Increasing land productivity and diversification to high value crops,livestock and fishery are equally important for both poverty reduction and nutrition improvement purposes in Africa.

Secondly,nonfarm employment and rural–urban migration must follow once agricultural productivity has reached a certain level. Figs.1,3 and 4 show a clear correlation among poverty rate,shares of agricultural GDP (and shares of labor in agriculture),and per capita GDP. However,pre-mature exiting from agriculture can do more harm. The African experience has clearly shown that without high agricultural productivity,premature migration to nonfarm and urban sectors compromises regional food security and nutrition,and rural migrants remain stuck in a poverty trap. Rural–urban migration works in reducing poverty only when nonfarm and urban sectors can provide decent jobs.

Thirdly,even before large scale poverty reduction through sectoral and regional development is exhausted,social safety nets must be established to cover those who have not benefited from growth and development. Productive social safety nets have proven to be cost-effective in many countries. Urban poverty should also be part of the protection scheme when large proportion of rural population moves to cities. Latin America’s experience in using various transfer programs in building human capital and in improving nutrition and health of poor could be shared more broadly with Asia and Africa.

Looking ahead,the regions can continue to share knowledge and learn from one another’s experiences in order to accelerate progress toward eliminating poverty by 2030. For Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia,further promoting smallholder growth through enhanced investment in agricultural research and development (R&D) and rural infrastructure will be important,especially from reprioritizing resources away from inefficient agricultural subsidies.For South Asia in particular,ensuring the availability and accessibility of decent employment opportunities in the nonfarm sector and urban area will be critical. These nonfarm and urban jobs must provide adequate income for rural migrants and their families in order for them to access healthy foods,good sanitation and housing,quality health care and education for their children. Latin America will need to continue to ensure macroeconomic stability,for example low inflation rate,proper value of foreign exchange rate and interest rate. All these will provide an enabling environment for agriculture to perform. At the same time,while the region’s social protection programs have been successful,ensuring that recipients of social protection eventually graduate and become self-sufficient will be necessary.

China will need to address the challenge of rising inequality in order to continue to make progress in poverty elimination. The Minimum Livelihood Guarantee Scheme,popularly known as Dibao,has been the government’s notable response with great potential to address the new challenges of social protection in a more market-based economy since 2007. While the program provided sufficient income to poor beneficiaries but did not translate to a substantial reduction in poverty headcount or gap (Golanet al.2017). More broadly,social protection programs overall will need to provide coverage to both rural and urban population,and support for rural migrants should be strengthened in particular.

Going beyond poverty,China is also facing a new challenge of increasing overweight and obesity which in turn has led to rapid increase of noncommunicable chronicle diseases such as cardiovascular diseases,diabetes,and cancers. On the other hand,climate change and depletion and degradation of natural resources have severely affected agriculture and food production and will pose even greater challenge in the future. In this regard,shaping agriculture and food system to deliver both human and planetary health will be important.

Finally,as China’s urbanization has reached to a plateau and rural areas have been ignored for some time,rural revitalization could be a great opportunity to provide income,employment and livelihoods for rural residents as well as returned migrants. Investments and policies are needed to integrate rural and urban areas together,to improve business enabling environment,to fix the environmental degradation,and to enhance local governance and capacity in rural areas deserve more attention.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71661147001).

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.