Welfare and distributional impacts of price shocks in Malawi: a non-parametric approach
Welfare and distributional impacts of price shocks in Malawi: a non-parametric approach
复制标题
马拉维价格冲击的福利和分配影响：非参数方法
作者：
Rui Benfica
这项分析使用补偿性变化和净效益比率的措施来评估价格上涨对马拉维农村和城市地区不同财富群体的短期影响。补偿性变化分析表明，从总体上看，农村和城市家庭都受到了最近价格上涨的影响，但城市地区受到的影响更为严重。城市地区相对富裕的家庭比最贫穷的家庭的福利损失要大得多，而在农村地区，不同财富群体之间的差异不大。农村地区粮食消费支出的损失（特别是以谷物为主）更大。在这两个地区，最贫穷的家庭承受着粮食价格上涨的最沉重负担。非食品项目的情况则相反，城市家庭的负面影响更大，在这两个地区，相对富裕的家庭负担更重。考虑到消费中的替代效应，家庭作出调整，不再购买较昂贵的物品，城市的福利损失和贫困发生率大幅减少，但农村地区的情况并非如此。在每一种情况下，女户主家庭受到的不利影响最大。成果转化为具体的政策和方案建议，具体说明了可补偿受最不利影响群体的替代预算方案。净效益比率分析将供应方面的因素考虑在内，它发现，假设“没有工资效应”，食品价格翻一番将使城市地区的真实的收入减少约三分之一，农村地区减少不到五分之一，每个地区最贫穷的人遭受的损失最大。这反映出农村地区从事生产和销售的家庭比城市地区多。假设工资对价格上涨的反应，我们发现，在城市地区，不利影响的减少更强烈，这是一个更活跃的工资劳动力市场的反映，在这些地区，工资调整有助于最大限度地减少价格冲击的负面影响。这一分析表明，政策的方向应该是支持家庭生计，加强社会保障干预，包括直接现金转移和劳动密集型公共工程方案，以有效保护和补偿家庭因价格冲击而遭受的福利损失。为了能够捕捉到一般均衡和价格冲击的长期影响及其调整，建议今后的研究应将联合收割机局部均衡方法与一般均衡框架相结合。
This analysis used measures of Compensating Variation and Net Benefit Ratio to assess the short-run effects of higher prices on different wealth groups in rural and urban areas of Malawi. Compensating Variation analysis indicated that in aggregate terms, both rural and urban households had suffered with the recent price increases, but urban areas were more severely impacted. Relatively better-off households in urban areas had much larger welfare losses than the poorest, while in rural areas there was not much difference across wealth groups. Losses in expenditure on food consumption (particularly dominated by cereals and grains) were higher in rural areas. In both areas, the poorest households carried the heaviest burden of the food price increases. The opposite result was found for non-food items, where negative effects were stronger among urban households and, in both areas, the relatively better-off carried a heavier burden. Accounting for substitution effects in consumption, with households adjusting away from more expensive items, resulted in a significant reduction in welfare losses and poverty incidence in urban, but not in rural areas. In each scenario, female-headed households experienced the most adverse impacts. Results were translated into tangible policy and programmatic recommendations, specifying alternative budget scenarios which could compensate the most adversely affected groups. Net Benefit Ratio Analysis, which brings in supply side considerations, found that, assuming “no wage effects”, doubling the price of food would reduce real income by about a third in urban areas, and by less that a fifth in rural areas, with the poorest in each area suffering the most. This is a reflection of the fact that there are relatively more households that produce and sell in rural areas than in urban areas. Assuming a wage response to price increases, we find that the adverse effects were reduced more strongly in urban areas, which is a reflection of a more active wage labor market in those areas, where wage adjustments help to minimize the negative effects of price shocks. This analysis suggested that policies should be oriented towards supporting household livelihoods by strengthening social protection interventions, including direct cash transfers and labor intensive public works programs, to effectively protect and compensate households for welfare losses that result from price shocks. In order to be able to capture general equilibrium and long-term effects of price shocks and adjustment to them, it is recommended that future research should combine partial equilibrium methods with a general equilibrium framework.