تأثیر اجرای هدفمندی یارانه‌ها بر فقر و ناپایداری اقتصاد خانوار روستایی در ایران (مطالعه موردی: روستاهای شهرستان نیشابور)
محورهای موضوعی : فصلنامه علمی برنامه ریزی منطقه ای
مجید جمزه‌ئی
1
(دانشجوی دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی روستایی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.)
علی‌اکبر عنابستانی
2
(استاد گروه جغرافیای انسانی و آمایش، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.)
جعفر جوان
3
(استادگروه جغرافیا، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.)
کلید واژه: ایران, فقر, هدفمندی یارانه ها, ناپایداری اقتصاد خانوار روستایی,
چکیده مقاله :
اجرای سیاست هدفمندسازی یارانه‌ها در ایران ازجمله اقداماتی است که با هدف کاهش فقر، کاهش فاصله طبقاتی بین دهک‌های مختلف جامعه و به ویژه ارتقای شاخص‌های اقتصادی در مناطق روستایی انجام‌شده است. تحقیق پیش رو با هدف ارزیابی آثار هدفمندسازی یارانه‌ها بر فقر و ناپایداری اقتصاد خانوارهای روستاهایی انجام‌گرفته است. این تحقیق از نوع بنیادی اکتشافی و روش انجام پژوهش توصیفی تحلیلی است. داده‌های موردنیاز از دو طریق میدانی و اسنادی جمع‌آوری‌شده‌اند. در این تحقیق ، ابتدا شاخص‌های تحقیق طی دو دوره 6 ساله پیش از هدفمندی یارانه‌ها (1389-1384) و دوره 6 ساله پس از هدفمندی یارانه‌ها ( 1395-1390) در سطح تمام روستاهای کشور موردبررسی قرارگرفته و میانگین هر شاخص در دوره پیش و پس از هدفمندی یارانه‌ها مقایسه شده و سپس نتایج به‌دست‌آمده از این بخش، با بررسی‌های حاصل از پژوهش میدانی در نمونه موردمطالعه مقایسه شده است. نمونه آماری این تحقیق شامل 22 روستا از روستاهای شهرستان نیشابور، با استفاده از فرمول کوکران به‌عنوان نمونه به روش تصادفی سیستماتیک انتخاب شدند. نتایج این تحقیق نشان داد که اجرای طرح هدفمندی یارانه‌ها، در طی سال‌های 90، 91 و 92 نرخ تورم روستایی به ترتیب 37.2 ، 32.3 و 37 درصد بوده که در طی این دوره حتی بالاتر از تورم شهری بوده است. همچنین این طرح باعث تغییر در ترکیب هزینه‌های خانوار، تغییر در ترکیب هزینه‌های خوراکی خانوار و هزینه‌های غیرخوراکی خانوار شده است. اما اجرای این طرح به دلیل نرخ بالای بهره‌مندی خانوار از طرح درنهایت باعث افزایش درآمد خانوار شده و نیز باعث ایجاد منبع درآمدی جدید برای خانوار روستایی شده است.
Implementing subsidies targeting policy in Iran is one of the measures aimed at reducing poverty, reducing the class gap between different deciles of society and especially improving economic indicators in rural areas. The present study aimed to evaluate the effects of subsidizing targeting on poverty and instability of rural households. This research is a fundamental exploratory and descriptive-analytical research. The required data were collected through both field and document methods. In this study, first, the research indices in two 6-year periods, before subsidizing targeting (2005-2010) and 6-year period after subsidizing targeting (2011-2016), were studied in all villages of the country and the average of each The index was compared before and after the targeting of subsidies and then the results of this section were compared with those of field research in the sample studied. The statistical sample of this study consisted of 22 villages of Neyshabur villages were selected by systematic random sampling using Cochran formula. The results of the study showed that the implementation of targeted subsidies has, in the first place, raised inflation rates and in some years even surpassed rural inflation over urban inflation. It has also led to changes in the composition of household expenditures, changes in the composition of household food expenditures and non-food household expenditures. But the implementation of the plan, because of the high rate of household benefit from the project, ultimately increased household income and also created a new source of income for rural households. But the implementation of the plan, because of the high rate of household benefit from the project, ultimately increased household income and also created a new source of income for rural households.
Extended abstract
1- Introduction
After the implementation of the targeted subsidy plan, one of the strata concerned, the villagers, was announced. As far as the history of this research is concerned, wherever the government emphasizes the need to reduce the number of subsidy recipients, villagers, nomads, people covered by support institutions such as the Relief and Welfare Committee, pensioners and retirees have always been exempted from this rule. Over time, the effects of this plan became apparent at various levels of the rural economy. In September 2013, the Statistics Center of Iran reported that inflation in rural areas had surpassed urban inflation for the first time. 41.4% of rural inflation versus 39% of urban inflation is what some have called unprecedented in recent years, and some have compared it to inflation in 1952-56. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the goals of this great economic plan, which is to reduce poverty, with the results of its implementation. Based on this, the present study has been conducted in order to answer this question: What effect has the implementation of the targeted subsidy plan had on the distribution of poverty and the economy of rural households?
2- Methodology
In this study, in order to investigate the impact of the implementation of targeted subsidies law on poverty and instability of rural households, first the research indicators using data of household expenditure and income plan data during two periods of 6 years before targeted subsidies (2005-2009) and 6 years after Subsidy targeting (2011-2016) has been studied at the level of all villages in the country and the average of each index in the pre- and post-subsidy period has been compared and then the results obtained from this section have been compared with field research in the sample. . The statistical population in the field survey of 22 villages is among the total villages with more than 20 households in Neishabour county and were randomly selected.
3- Result & Discussion
The findings of this study on the growth index of rural inflation and its predominance of urban inflation (increased inflation in the transportation sector, food, non-food costs, water and electricity and gas, agriculture and production), indicate that in the national dimension, The inflation rate curve has become steep after the targeted subsidies and has been completely to the detriment of the villagers. Regarding the index of change in the composition of household expenses, the results of this study indicate a significant change in the rural household economy after the targeted implementation of subsidies. Thus, the non-food expenditures of rural households in the case study case, with a small difference compared to food expenditures, constitute a larger volume of annual household expenditures. Regarding the index of change in the composition of household food expenditures, although the food expenditures of rural households in the country constitute a larger volume of total household expenditures, the food basket of rural households has become simpler and less economical after the implementation of targeted subsidies law. In the case model section, the results show that the weight classification of food consumption in the household food expenditure portfolio is consistent with the findings of the whole country in the period after the targeted subsidies. The findings of this study in the Index of Non-Food Costs of the Household Index show that we have seen an increase in Kurdish spending in all non-food consumption groups. This is consistent with the findings of a case study.
The average income for the six-year period after targeted subsidies for a rural household has increased by 63.14 percent. Targeting subsidies across the country. Regarding the household interest rate index of the project, the results show that, first of all, the total number of rural subsidized people has decreased from 22 million in 2009 to 19 million in 2016, which is due to the decrease in population in rural areas. Secondly, in total, during the seven years of cash subsidy deposit, 25% of the total amount of subsidy deposit has been the share of rural households. Regarding the index of creating a new source of income in rural households, in 2011, about 29% of the income of a rural household was provided through cash subsidies. This effect has become less and less in the following years, until finally in 2016, about 11% of the household income was cash subsidies. Also, on average, in the 5-year period before the targeted subsidies, about 16 percent of a rural household's income was provided through targeted subsidies. However, the results of a case study show that cash subsidies account for about 6.1% of their annual income.
4-Conclusion
Based on the above and in response to the research question (What effect has the implementation of the targeted subsidy plan had on the distribution of poverty and the economy of rural households?), It has been concluded that after the targeted implementation of subsidies for 4 indicators in the macro dimension of rural villages And in the case of a case in point, the situation has worsened, but in the case of two indicators, we have seen an improvement. Also, the results of a survey on an index indicate that the results do not match in the national dimension and the case study. Finally, it should be noted that the distribution of subsidies in cash and in the same way for all villages does not meet the basic objectives of the plan. Therefore, even if there is an insistence on the distribution of subsidies in cash, it is suggested that the government increase subsidies for low-income and high-income deciles. Paying public subsidies and then investing in manufacturing sectors can stimulate production and improve the employment rate. In the field of research, due to the spread of poverty and inequality in rural areas, it is suggested that the issue of poverty and its effects and its causes and consequences be once again considered by researchers in rural studies.
1- Ahmadi, A. & Mojaradi, Gh. (2016). [Investigating the economic and social effects of the law on targeted subsidies on the quality of life of rural households in Urmia]. Quarterly Journal of Agricultural Extension and Education Research, 9(9), 53-54.
2- Ali Madadi, A., Nazari, A., Moradi, A. & Ghaffari, R. (2016). [The effects of targeted subsidy plan on rural household consumption pattern with sustainable livelihood approach in Kalat and Binalood counties]. Journal of Space Economics and Rural Development, (16), 99-120.
3- Azizpour, F., Javan, F. & Hajipour, M. (2017). [The Role of Structural Modification Policies in the Transformation of Rural Economy in Rezvanshahr District]. Journal of Human Geographical Research, 51(1), 159-175
4- Balie, J., Tuyishime, C. & Bruno Henry, D. F. (2018). [Income and welfare effects of input subsidies across representative agricultural households of rural Rwanda]. Conference of International Conference of Agricultural Economists (ICAE), At Vancouver, Canada.
5- Behdad, S. & Nomani, F. (1999). [Class and work in Iran]. Tehran: Agah Publication.
6- Behkish, M. M. (2005). [Iran's economy in the context of globalization]. thirth edition, Tehran: Ney Publishing.
7- Breisinger, C., Engelke, W. & Ecker, O. (2012). [Leveraging fuel subsidy reform for transition in Yemen]. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
8- Central Bank of Iran. (2017). [The average retail price of some foodstuffs in 2010, General Management of Economic Statistics]. Retrieved (2019.8.2) from: https: //www.cbi.ir/simplelist/6973. aspx
9- Dadgar, Y. (1999). [A brief look at the third social development plan of the Islamic Republic of Iran]. Quarterly Journal of Seminary & University, (19), 53-76.
10- Dorward, A. & Chirwa, E. (2013). [Impac ts of the Farm Input Subsidy Programme in Malawi: Informal Rural Economy Modelling], Working Paper 067 FAC, Further information about this series of Working Papers at: www. future-agricultures.org, pp 142
11- Gangopadhyay, S., Ramaswami, B., & Wadhwa, W. (2005). [Reducing subsidies on household fuels in India: how will it affect the poor?]. Energy Policy, 33(18), 2326-2336.
12- Ghasemi, M, Abdollahi, S, Khakshur Amanabad, H, (2014), [Analysis of the effects of the first stage of targeted subsidies plan on rural households (Case study: Binalood city)], Journal of Rural Research and Planning, 3(6), 117-130
13- Hedaia, M., Nosair, R. & Yoon, S. (2016). Impact of The Energy Subsidy removal in 2014 on the all income groups and poverty in Egypt, See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304014198
14- Holton, C. (2012). [What are the effects of fossil-fuel subsidies on growth, the environment, and inequality? This Dissertation is presented in part fulfilment of the requirement for the completion of an MSc in Applied Economics in the School of Economics], University of Nottingham. The work is the sole responsibility of the candidate.
15- Iranian Statistic center. (2017). [Food and non-food expenses of rural households in 2005-2016]. Tehran: ISC Publication.
16- Jalalian, H. & Pashazadeh A. (2014). [Economic and social effects of cash subsidies on rural communities (Case study: Azadloo district of Garmi city)], Journal of Planning Studies of Human Resources, 9(28), 103-121.
17- Khane Mellat News Agency. (2019). Implementation of subsidy targeting plan in Iran. Retrieved (2019/8/2) from: https://www.icana.ir/Fa/
18- Li, S. (2014). [Poverty Reduction and Effects of Pro‐poor Policies in Rural China]. China & World Economy, 22(2), 22-41.
19- Maljou, M. (2007). Political economy the rise of the ninth government. Dialogue Quarterly, (49), 9-40.
20- Mohammadi Yeganeh, B., Farahani, H. & Abbasi, J. (2016). [Effective effects of subsidies on production structures in rural areas of Zanjan County], Journal of Space Economy & Rural Development, 6(19), 177-193.
21- Momeni, F, (2007), Iran's Economy during Structural Modification, First Edition, Naghshnegar Tehran Publications
22- Moran, E. F. (1996). [Goals and Indices of Development: An Anthropological Perspective. Transforming Societies], Transforming Anthropology, 211-240.
23- Mousavinik, S.H., Abdollahi, M.R., Khoshkalam, M. (2014). [An Analysis of Government Report on Why Inflationary Stagnation and Its Occurrence Occurrences], Parliamentary Research Center, Office of Economic Studies, Retrieved on (2019.8.2) from: http://rc.majlis.ir/en/report/show/896731
24- Nourollahi, E, Ghasemi, M., & Noghani, M. (2015). [The purposeful effectiveness of subsidies on the quality of life of villagers, Case of villages in Ahmadabad district of Mashhad], Quarterly Journal of Space Economics and Rural Development, 6(3), 57-80.
25- Parvin, S & Zaidi, R (2001). [The Effect of Poverty Reduction and Income Distribution Policies (Case Study: Policies of Iran's First Economic, Social and Cultural Development Program)], Journal of Economic Research, 36(58), 113-146.
26- Riahi, V. & Sultanabadi, M. (2019). [The Economic Effects of Targeted Subsidies on Livelihoods of Rural Families in Khoshab County], Quarterly Journal of Space Economics and Rural Development, 7(1), 77-105.
27- Shahnazi, R., Shahsavar, M.R. & Mobasheri, M.H. (2014). [Distribution of income of household welfare before and after targeted subsidies in Fars province]. Social Welfare Magazine, (54), 167-199.
28- Shargh News Paper. (2017). [Implementation of subsidy targeting plan in Iran]. retrieved (2017/1/17) from: http://sharghdaily.com/fa/main/page.
29- Smith, D. M. (1977). [Human Geography: A Welfare Approach]. New York: St.
30- Sojasi Qeidari, H, (2016), [Analysis of the effects of cash subsidies on improving the quality of life of rural households (Case study: Sheering villages)], Majlis Quarterly and Strategy, 23(85), 107-124
31- Subsidy Targeting Organization. (2017). [Status of cash subsidies for rural households]. Retrieved (2019/10/2) from: http://www.hadafmandi.ir/
32- Tashkini, A. (2014). A Study of Targeted Effects of Subsidies on Iran's Agricultural Sector, Journal of Applied Economics, 1(2), 67-69.
33- Toulabi Nejad, M., Farahani, H. & Pirayesh, R. (2013). [Analysis of the effects of targeted subsidies on empowerment and welfare of rural households (Case study: Jaydshahr village Poldakhtar)], M.Sc. Thesis, Zanjan University, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Geography Department.
34- UNDP. (2013). [Cash subsidies in Turkey have boosted inflation in rural areas]. Retrieved on 2019/7/11 from: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/14/hdr2013_en_complete.pdf.
35- Website of the Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. (2017). [On the resources and uses of the Targeted Subsidies Law, the Research Center of the Assembly], Reports section, retrieved (2019/8/2) from: https://rc.majlis.ir/ fa / law / show / 789036.
36- Website of the Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, (2009). [The Law on Targeting Subsidies, the Research Center of the Assembly], Law Section, Retrieved (2019/8/2) from: https://rc.majlis.ir/en/law / show / 789036.
37- Website of the Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, (2009). [About the sources and purposes of targeted subsidies], expert reports, the Research Center of the Assembly, the Office of Public Economic Studies, retrieved (2019.8.2) from: https: // rc.majlis.ir / fa / report / show / 1016955.
38- World Economy Newspaper. (2011). [Jahangiri's account of the subsidy scheme. Dunya Eqtesad Newspaper], No. 2044, April 6, p. Retrieved on 2019/5/11 from: https://donya-e-eqtesad.com/159552/3.
39- Yari Hesar, A, Parishan, M. & Heidari Sarban, V. (2017). [Evaluation of the effects of targeted subsidies on the sustainability of rural economic indicators (Case study: Sardabeh district, Ardabil city)]. Rural Research Quarterly, 8(3), 536-553.
40- Ziaei, M. (2002). [Subsidy Distribution System and Urban Development in Iranians], Journal of Geographical Research, (42), 197-207.
_||_