国家级贫困县“帽子”的“棘轮效应”——基于全国2073个区县的实证研究

The “Ratchet Effect” of National Poverty County's Title——An Empirical Study Based on a Sample of 2 073 Counties

文章利用内地31省(直辖市、自治区)2 073个区县数据,分析了国家级贫困县"帽子"或身份的路径依赖现象。研究发现,影响最新扶贫重点县、集中连片特困县和双重贫困县择定的因素有所差异,但其共同因素包括八七扶贫重点县身份、农民人均纯收入、人均GDP、乡村从业人数以及革命老区身份。无论控制其他影响因素与否,国家级贫困县"帽子"均存在显著的"棘轮效应"。在其他条件不变情况下,全国有八七扶贫重点县身份的候选县入选最新扶贫重点县、集中连片特困县及双重贫困县的概率比普通县分别高39%、14%、12.5%;而且此种效应区域差异明显,相比其他地区,革命老区、民族地区、边疆地区、西部地区和山区地带国家级贫困县"帽子"的棘轮效应更大。其主要原因是经济利益争夺与政治考量,部分国家级贫困县仍处于深度贫困之中,还有不少国家级贫困县徘徊在脆弱性或不稳定脱贫边缘,以及国家级贫困县调整周期过长、缺乏动态评估体系和退出机制。

Based on 2 073 districts data across 31 provinces （municipalities or autonomous regions） in mainland, this pa- per analyzes the path-dependence of the title or identity of national level poor county. The result shows that the determinants of the latest national level poor county, concentrated destitute county and dual poor county are not exactly the same, but their common influence factors include the identity of eight-seven national level poor county, per capita net income of farm- ers, GDP per capita in county, the number of employees in rural areas and the identity of old revolutionary base area. Re- gardless of control other factors or not, the title of national level poor county had significant ＂ratchet effect＂, which means the former national poverty counties have the higher possibility to become the new ones. Specifically, with other conditions unchanged, the probabilities of candidate counties that had the title of eight-seven national level poor county are 39% , 12.5% ,14% higher than ordinary counties to be selected in the list of the latest national level poor county, concentrated destitute county or dual poor county. What＇ s more, this kind of effect has obvious regional differences. The identity of na- tional level poor county＇ s ratchet effects in old revolutionary base area, minority area, border area, western region and mountainous area are greater than in other types regions. There are mainly four reasons for the existence of ratchet effect： firstly for economic and political considerations; secondly, some of former national level poor counties were still in deep poverty, thirdly, also many in vulnerability or unstable poverty alleviation; fourthly, the period adjustment of national level poor county was too long, and there was no dynamic assessment system and exit mechanism.