英语论文网

, so we selected data is key counties 2002-2008 poverty related data. Because the sample is small, fitting results may differ from actual have some bias, but I hope that empirical results also partly reflects the 21st century, the government's public spending on the poor areas of economic development and poverty mitigation some new situations. Here we use the analysis of economic growth in key counties for poverty-stricken rural residents per capita net income to reflect the poverty rate in key counties with poverty rates of poverty and low-income sum to reflect the proportion of the population. Because then put on public spending does not necessarily have immediate effect, so we also had no significant effect when the one-year lag variables look at its effects, such as ln (ygdz) (-1) indicates one-year lag FFW (see Table 1).
 
Model 1 adjusted R2 value larger than the model fitting described good results. The coefficients of the explanatory variables is indicative promote farmers' per capita net income increase, is that we want to see results. Government spending from the classification see poverty, pro-poor development funds to promote farmers 'per capita income increased 99% confidence level for each 1% increase in pro-poor development funds can significantly increase farmers' per capita income increased 0.9289%. The FFW and subsidized loans after one year lag are statistically significant, the per capita income of farmers but did not play a role in promoting the improvement, it may be because FFW diminishing the quantity of investment in recent years, and to work on behalf of Relief is not necessary for the needs of farmers to provide their public infrastructure. Cai Fang, etc. (2001) [4] that the FFW project "Relief" is becoming increasingly weak demand from the local population, reduced to general infrastructure, so the key counties for poverty-stricken farmers per capita incomes but counterproductive . Subsidized loans may also be because of poor targeting, there is no real benefit poor farmers, so the per capita income of farmers increased also played a negative role. Reforestation special subsidy due to the direct payment to farmers, so the promotion of farmers per capita net income increase was significantly positively correlated. Table 1
  
Source: The author has been calculated finishing derived.
 
From the point of view toward poverty reduction spending, investment in agriculture and the secondary and tertiary industries poverty alleviation expenditure per capita net income of farmers increase was a significant positive correlation, the best investment in agriculture, increased by 1 per cent of agricultural investment in poverty alleviation can bring per capita net income of farmers increased 1.3017%, investment in infrastructure investment lagged one year after the income of the farmers are still not significant, which may be due to poor infrastructure still does not meet the real needs of farmers. In the 90% confidence level investment in technological culture, health poor spending lagged significantly after one year brings substantial increase in per capita income of farmers.
  
General government public spending, whether it is expenditure on agriculture or education and technology expenditures have contributed to increase the per capita income of farmers, and are positively correlated. Which the government's spending on educa本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。