原文：

　　During the period of its 10th five-year plan (2002-03 to 2006-07), India achieved impressive economic growth. Less impressive, however, was the extent to which that growth translated into poverty reduction and human development gains. By the mid-2000s, India still had 302 million people living below the poverty line, a malnutrition rate of 46 percent among children under four, and the highest number of illiterate people in the world. Furthermore, growth has been accompanied by rising inequality, and economic and human development achievement varies widely across states. As such, in developing the 11th five-year plan, the Government committed itself to a dual objective: increasing the pace of economic growth and making it more inclusive.

　　In October 2009, as the mid-point evaluation of the 11th five-year plan was taking place, the Gujarat Institute of Development Research held a national convention in Ahmedabad to discuss progress in realising inclusive growth. This policy brief draws on the papers presented at the conference and focuses on the three themes addressed at the convention: agriculture; employment; and governance.

　　Achieving inclusive growth: challenges and options

　　Agriculture

　　More than 60 percent of India’s workers are engaged in agriculture and related activities, giving the agriculture sector tremendous potential to impact poverty rates. This potential has been relatively unrealised in recent years, partly because agricultural productivity, which is key to the quantity and quality of employment in the sector, has grown very slowly. Declining productivity has left the agriculture sector unable to absorb surplus rural labour, and has kept agricultural wage rates low. Furthermore, even where agricultural productivity is rising, such as in Gujarat, it does not seem to have a poverty-reducing effect.

　　Challenges and options

　　Realising agriculture’s potential to contribute to inclusive growth will require a focus on productivity, with productivity increases expected to raise income levels for farm workers. The benefits of improved agricultural productivity should then spill over into the rural non-farm sector, particularly when accompanied by investments in rural infrastructure.

　　Lack of access to water, due to the vast exploitation of ground water during the green revolution, compounded by increasing industrial and household demand, poses a major challenge for the future sustainability of the sector. For example, at least 30 percent of the country’s irrigation potential remains unexploited – a promising area for future investment – and the use of watershed development in dry and semi-arid regions could have beneficial effects.3 In the case of Orissa, a state well-endowed with water resources but hindered by poor irrigation infrastructure, there is a need to find innovative ways to expand reliable irrigation systems. For example, Orissa’s state government has implemented a new water policy. The policy establishes Water User Associations (WUAs) that are charged with operation and maintenance (O&M) of infrastructure, and also provides for increased water tariffs and O&M financing. Early experience suggests that this partnership can work well if WUAs receive sufficient capacity development support and are provided with well-functioning infrastructure.

　　Though India has a reasonably advanced public and private seed sector, ‘Indian agriculture has not witnessed any major breakthrough in seed technology since the High Yield variety seeds of the Green revolution’.5 The ‘Gene Revolution’, which enabled production of genetically modified crops, has the potential to create crop seeds that ‘significantly outperform’6 earlier varieties. However, these seeds are often unaffordable to small farmers and most farmers are not aware of new seed technology. Developing better seeds, ensuring their affordability, and making farmers aware of their benefits, are therefore crucial to improved agricultural productivity.

　　Contract farming arrangements and agricultural value chains also have a poverty-reducing potential. Studies show that (a) food retail chain farmers tend to have higher profits than non-food retail chain farmers, and (b) large-scale farmers with significant asset bases tend to have greatest access to these chains.7 This was confirmed by an analysis of the ‘Reliance Fresh’ fresh food retail chain in Gujarat: in an area where two percent of farmers are large holders and 27 percent are marginal holders, 21 percent of the farmers associated with Reliance Fresh were large holders, while none were marginal holders.8 Studies analysing rice seed and Gherkin cultivation in Southern India report similar results.

　　In other areas, the incorporation of poor people into value chains has yielded significant results. For instance, female household workers are often able to access international and domestic garment embellishment chains,10 and there is evidence that smallholders were able to reap significant profits in the tea industry in West Bengal.

　　Employment

　　India’s employment performance has been fairly disappointing, especially in the context of a growing working-age population. Most notably, growth in the secondary and tertiary sectors is failing to create jobs, threfore limiting the poverty reduction effects of growth.12 Where employment has been created, it has tended to be informal ‘self-employment’, either by own-account or unpaid family workers. Even in the formal sector, there is a trend toward shorter contracts and more casual arrangements.13 Furthermore, the global financial crisis resulted in substantial income declines in the informal economy, limited commercial credit availability, and significantly reduced demand for Indian exports, leading to job losses in the formal sector. For example, as early as November 2008, more than 300,000 jobs had been lost in the gems and jewelry sector alone.

　　Challenges and options

　　Employment generation could make a tremendous contribution to more inclusive growth if the poor were able to access higher-reward jobs in the manufacturing and service sectors, or to engage more productively in the informal sector. This would require higher skill levels among workers and increased demand for labour on the part of potential employers. Though Government has few relevant policy levers with which to influence private sector demand, there is potential for the establishment of appropriate skills-training programs. In the 11th five-year plan, the Government commits itself to increasing the number of industrial training institutes and centres – 500 of which will become ‘Centres of Excellence’ linked to industry – by a factor of ten. The Government will provide skills training relevant to both industry and service and agriculture and rural employment, and plans to increase the skilled portion of the workforce from its current five percent to 50 percent.

　　The Government can also create employment opportunities for the most vulnerable, as it has done through the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA). The NREGA guarantees a minimum of 100 days of employment to rural households, and relies on self-selection as a targeting mechanism. This scheme is particularly appropriate in the context of the increased vulnerability in the wake of the financial crisis. The successes of NREGA should not be understated: in 2007-08, 1,437 million person-days of employment were created in 330 districts. This can be compared to the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (NREGA’s predecessor) and the National Food for Work Programme: implemented in every district, these programmes produced 1,116 million person days15.

　　However, the NREG programme has been criticised on a number of points, especially regarding high costs and ‘leakages’. Looking at the experience of NREG in West Bengal, it appears that there is insufficient capacity among the Panchayati Raj Institutions charged with implementing the program; lower-than-required participation of women; delayed payments; and inadequate information dissemination, which can result in low demand for NREG employment.16 If the program is to fully realise its inclusive-growth potential, a key challenge for government will be to address these issues.

　　Governance

　　Despite the 10th five-year plan’s focus on achieving good governance, a number of issues remain to be addressed. In particular, there is a disconnect between the elite and the poor, a leadership deficit, and a technocratic model of governance that is led by higher-earning classes and shaped by their particular experience and views.17 There are widespread protests to these failings, both among those who accept the general structure of the system but would like greater inclusion, and among those who reject the system entirely, such as the Naxalites.

　　Challenges and options

　　To date, the Government’s reaction to widespread demands for greater transparency and inclusivity has involved increasing bureaucratisation and, in some cases, reliance on security services. This has particularly been the case with regards to the Naxalite movement. A more effective and sustainable approach would be to take steps to bridge the gap between the elite technocrats and the poor, who are in large part passive recipients of Government policy, and to improve the information flow between the two groups. To do so, the Government could build on a number of recent initiatives, including certain forms of e-governance, social audits, media watch, and ‘judiciary for good governance’.

　　A deeper, more complete shift to a rights-based approach (RBA) to poverty reduction, if properly designed and implemented, could go a long way toward achieving governance and poverty-reduction goals and promoting inclusive growth. The experience with the recently-established Forest Right Act (FRA) offers an instructive lesson in RBA implementation. The FRA was designed to grant members of tribal groups legal rights to land that they have been using for years, and upon which their livelihoods depend.

　　In Andhra Pradesh, some progress has been made with respect to the implementation of the FRA, but the act has faced a number of operational difficulties.18 Chief among these is inadequate awareness on the part of potential beneficiaries. Surveys suggest that villagers are often unable to attend relevant meetings because they are otherwise engaged in daily activities and because the meetings are held too far away (at Panchayat level rather than Hamlet level). As a result, potential claimants lack crucial information related to the eligibility of claims, the deadlines for submitting claim forms, and the appropriate means of obtaining the necessary proof to submit claims. As noted above, participation in NREG programmes has also been hindered by lack of awareness. This suggests that the success of a rights-based approach will depend in large part on the extent to which targeted beneficiaries are aware of their rights and understand how to claim them.

　　Conclusion

　　India is facing significant challenges in its effort to achieve more inclusive economic growth. These include low productivity growth in agriculture, economic growth that has failed to translate into employment creation and a system of governance that does give sufficient voice to the poor and marginalised. In the agricultural sector, tackling these obstacles will require innovation in the agriculture and economic arenas, particularly with regard to seed development, irrigation systems, contract farming, skills training, and measures to increase the inclusivity and transparency of government. In particular, a move towards a rights-based approach to poverty reduction holds considerable promise, but needs to be accompanied by efforts to ensure that members of the targeted population understand their rights and are able to claim them.

　　譯文：

　　印度在第十個(gè)五年計(jì)劃期間(2002-03至2006-07)實(shí)現(xiàn)了令人矚目的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長。但是在將經(jīng)濟(jì)增長轉(zhuǎn)化為減貧效果和人道發(fā)展成果方面，印度交出的答卷卻成績平平。截止2000年年中，印度仍有3020萬人生活在貧困線以下，四歲以下兒童營養(yǎng)不足率高達(dá)46%，印度的文盲人數(shù)高居世界首位。 并且，經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長還拉大了社會差距，印度各邦間的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長和人道發(fā)展水平相差懸殊。因此，在制定第十一個(gè)五年計(jì)劃時(shí)，印度政府表示將努力實(shí)現(xiàn)雙重目標(biāo)，即在加快經(jīng)濟(jì)增速的同時(shí)擴(kuò)大經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的惠及面，讓更多人享受到經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的成果。

　　第十一個(gè)五年計(jì)劃的中期評估于2009年10月舉行，與此同時(shí)，古吉拉特發(fā)展研究學(xué)院在艾哈邁達(dá)巴德召開了一次全國性會議，探討印度在實(shí)現(xiàn)普惠型經(jīng)濟(jì)增長方面所取得的進(jìn)展。與會者在該次會議上所提出的報(bào)告內(nèi)容，為本政策概要所采納，本政策概要將重點(diǎn)論述該次會議所探討的三項(xiàng)主題：農(nóng)業(yè)、就業(yè)、治理。

　　實(shí)現(xiàn)普惠型增長：挑戰(zhàn)與選擇

　　農(nóng)業(yè)

　　由于百分之六十以上的印度工人從事農(nóng)業(yè)以及與農(nóng)業(yè)相關(guān)的活動，因此，農(nóng)業(yè)部門在幫助降低貧困率方面具有巨大潛力。但相對而言，最近幾年里這一潛力并未能得到實(shí)現(xiàn)。部分原因在于，農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)率的提高速度非常緩慢，而農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)率對于農(nóng)業(yè)部門就業(yè)的數(shù)量和質(zhì)量起到關(guān)鍵性作用。農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)率下降，導(dǎo)致農(nóng)業(yè)部門無法吸收農(nóng)村剩余勞動力，農(nóng)業(yè)工人的工資水平因此一直處于較低水平。此外，即使在一些農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)率獲得提高的地區(qū)，例如古吉拉特，農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)率的提高似乎也并未產(chǎn)生減少貧困的效果。

　　挑戰(zhàn)與選擇

　　要實(shí)現(xiàn)農(nóng)業(yè)部門的潛力，讓農(nóng)業(yè)部門為普惠型增長做出貢獻(xiàn)，就需要強(qiáng)調(diào)生產(chǎn)率的作用，因?yàn)樯a(chǎn)率的增長將提高農(nóng)場工人的收入水平。農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)率增長所帶來的成效還會溢出到農(nóng)村地區(qū)的非農(nóng)場部門，如果同期再對農(nóng)村基礎(chǔ)建設(shè)進(jìn)行投入，則這種溢出效果將更加為明顯。印度在綠色革命期間利用了大量地下水資源，由此導(dǎo)致供水緊缺，與此同時(shí)，工業(yè)和家庭用水需求卻日趨增長，為農(nóng)業(yè)部門未來可持續(xù)發(fā)展提出重大挑戰(zhàn)。例如，印度至少百分之三十以上的水利潛能尚未得到開發(fā)(這將是未來一個(gè)很有前途的投資領(lǐng)域)，在干旱和半干旱地區(qū)建造分水嶺，將會顯現(xiàn)出良好的成效。以奧利沙邦為例，雖然該邦具有豐富的水利資源，但薄弱的水利基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施卻阻礙了當(dāng)?shù)氐陌l(fā)展，當(dāng)?shù)匦枰獙ふ倚路椒▉頂U(kuò)建一批質(zhì)量過關(guān)的水利系統(tǒng)。例如，奧利沙邦政府已實(shí)施了一項(xiàng)全新的水利政策。根據(jù)該政策規(guī)定，奧利沙邦將設(shè)立多個(gè)水用戶協(xié)會(簡稱WUA)，水用戶協(xié)會負(fù)有運(yùn)營和維護(hù)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的責(zé)任，同時(shí)，該政策還對水費(fèi)價(jià)格的提高以及基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的運(yùn)營維護(hù)做出規(guī)定。先前經(jīng)驗(yàn)顯示，如果 水用戶協(xié)會(簡稱WUA)能夠在產(chǎn)能開發(fā)方面獲得足夠的支持，并且能夠獲得完善的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，這樣的合作將會進(jìn)展順利。

　　雖然印度擁有較為發(fā)達(dá)的公有和私有種子部門，但自從綠色革命推出高產(chǎn)種子品種之后，印度農(nóng)業(yè)在種子技術(shù)領(lǐng)域未有任何重大突破?；蚋锩鼘?shí)現(xiàn)了轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的生產(chǎn)，有望制造出顯著超越原有種子品種的作物種子。但這些種子常常超出小型農(nóng)場主的購買力，并且絕大多數(shù)農(nóng)民并不了解新型種子技術(shù)。因此，開發(fā)質(zhì)量更優(yōu)的、價(jià)格可為農(nóng)民所承受的種子，幫助農(nóng)民了解種子的優(yōu)勢，將對農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)率的提高起到關(guān)鍵性作用。

　　與此同時(shí)，訂單農(nóng)業(yè)和農(nóng)業(yè)價(jià)值鏈同樣有望幫助降低貧困率。調(diào)查顯示，(1)處于食品零售鏈上的農(nóng)民，其所獲得的利潤，往往高于處于食品零售鏈之外的農(nóng)民，(2)擁有雄厚資產(chǎn)基礎(chǔ)的大型農(nóng)場主，往往最有機(jī)會接觸到食品零售鏈。研究人員分析了古吉拉特的一個(gè)名為Reliance Fresh生鮮食品零售鏈，分析結(jié)果印證了上述觀點(diǎn)：在古吉拉特農(nóng)民中，百分之二為大地主，百分之二十七為擁有零星土地的小農(nóng)，但在于Reliance Fresh生鮮食品零售鏈有往來的農(nóng)民眾，百分之二十一為大地主，沒有一個(gè)小農(nóng)。研究人員在對印度南部的大米種子以及小黃瓜種植的展開調(diào)查后，也得出類似的結(jié)論。

　　在其他地區(qū)，把貧困人群納入價(jià)值鏈中的做法，也取得顯著成效。例如，很多家庭婦女有機(jī)會與為國際國內(nèi)服裝飾品生產(chǎn)鏈條工作，有證據(jù)顯示，小農(nóng)能夠從西孟加拉邦的茶葉產(chǎn)業(yè)獲得不菲的利潤。

　　就業(yè)

　　印度在就業(yè)方面的表現(xiàn)一直令人失望，而適齡工作人口的日益增長愈發(fā)加劇了這一情形。最明顯的問題是第二產(chǎn)業(yè)和第三產(chǎn)業(yè)的增長未能制造出更多的工作崗位，因而抑制了增長所帶來的減貧效應(yīng)。而增長所創(chuàng)造的工作崗位，多為個(gè)體經(jīng)營者或無報(bào)酬家屬工從事的非正規(guī)自謀職業(yè)。即使在正規(guī)部門，就業(yè)機(jī)會也開始向短期合同或者更加臨時(shí)的合作方向發(fā)展。不僅如此，全球金融危機(jī)致使非正規(guī)部門收入下降，限制商業(yè)信貸的發(fā)放數(shù)額，大大降低印度出口產(chǎn)品的市場需求，導(dǎo)致正規(guī)部門工作崗位的流失。例如，2008年11月初，僅珠寶業(yè)一個(gè)部門就減少了三十萬個(gè)工作崗位。

　　挑戰(zhàn)與選擇

　　如果貧困人群能在制造業(yè)或服務(wù)業(yè)獲得高薪工作，或者能在非正規(guī)部門實(shí)現(xiàn)更高的生產(chǎn)率，那么，創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會對于擴(kuò)大經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的惠及面，將起到巨大的推動作用。 要創(chuàng)造更多就業(yè)機(jī)會，工人的技能水平需要得到提高，而潛在雇主對勞動力的需求也需進(jìn)一步增加。雖然印度政府基本上沒有相應(yīng)政策工具來提高私有部門的需求，但在未來有望舉辦適當(dāng)?shù)募寄芘嘤?xùn)活動。在 第十一個(gè)五年計(jì)劃中，政府承諾將把工業(yè)培訓(xùn)學(xué)院及中心的數(shù)量提高到原有數(shù)量的10倍，其中500所工業(yè)培訓(xùn)學(xué)院將成為與產(chǎn)業(yè)掛鉤的頂尖技術(shù)中心。政府將提供與工業(yè)、服務(wù)業(yè)、農(nóng)業(yè)和農(nóng)村就業(yè)相關(guān)的各種培訓(xùn)，并計(jì)劃將勞動人口中掌握技能的人數(shù)比例從現(xiàn)有的百分之五提高至百分之五十。

　　不僅如此，政府還能夠?yàn)樽顬槿鮿莸娜藗儎?chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會，印度政府已經(jīng)通過《國家農(nóng)村就業(yè)保障法案》為農(nóng)村弱勢群體創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會?！秶肄r(nóng)村就業(yè)保障法案》保障農(nóng)村家庭至少獲得100天就業(yè)上崗時(shí)間，該法案通過自選擇機(jī)制確定幫扶對象。在金融危機(jī)剛剛結(jié)束之際，農(nóng)村就業(yè)狀況雪上加霜，此時(shí)推出這一計(jì)劃尤為恰當(dāng)?！秶肄r(nóng)村就業(yè)保障法案》取得的了不可低估的成績：在2007-2008年期間，330個(gè)縣共創(chuàng)造了14.37億個(gè)工作日。 我們可將這一數(shù)據(jù)與Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana 計(jì)劃 (《國家農(nóng)村就業(yè)保障法案》的前身)以及《全國以工換糧計(jì)劃》進(jìn)行比較， 上述兩項(xiàng)計(jì)劃在印度每個(gè)縣實(shí)行，共創(chuàng)造11.16億個(gè)工作日。

　　不過，《國家農(nóng)村就業(yè)保障法案》在不少問題上也遭到批評，該項(xiàng)計(jì)劃的高成本和實(shí)施中的泄損更是遭到指責(zé)。 回顧《國家農(nóng)村就業(yè)保障法案》在西孟加拉邦的實(shí)施過程，從表面看，負(fù)責(zé)實(shí)施計(jì)劃的各所潘查亞特(Panchayati Raj)機(jī)構(gòu)普遍存在產(chǎn)能不足的問題，計(jì)劃參與者中的女性比例低于指標(biāo)要求，薪資支付存在拖延現(xiàn)象，與此同時(shí)，信息傳播不夠充分，而這有可能降低人們對《國家農(nóng)村就業(yè)保障法案》就業(yè)機(jī)會的需求。要充分實(shí)現(xiàn)《國家農(nóng)村就業(yè)保障法案》促進(jìn)普惠型增長的作用，政府所面臨的一個(gè)關(guān)鍵挑戰(zhàn)便是為上述問題找到解決方案。

　　治理

　　雖然印度早在第十個(gè)五年計(jì)劃中已經(jīng)強(qiáng)調(diào)了實(shí)現(xiàn)良好治理的重要性，但目前印度仍然存在一系列有待解決的問題。精英與貧民之間出現(xiàn)斷層，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人才匱乏不足，在技術(shù)精英治理模式下，高收入階層占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位，高收入階層的經(jīng)驗(yàn)與觀點(diǎn)決定治理走向，這些都是目前存在的突出問題。 這些不足之處受到人們的廣泛抗議，抗議之聲不僅來自那些大致接受體制狀況但要求擴(kuò)大經(jīng)濟(jì)增長惠及面的人們，也來自那些徹底排斥體制的人們，如納薩爾派成員。

　　挑戰(zhàn)與選擇

　　面對人們普遍提出的提高透明度、擴(kuò)大惠及面的要求，到目前為止，印度政府所做出的應(yīng)對包括，加強(qiáng)官僚化管理，并在某些情況下訴諸治安力量。特別在納薩爾派運(yùn)動中，情況尤其如此。對于政府而言，采取措施，縮小技術(shù)精英統(tǒng)治階層與窮人之間的差距(絕大多數(shù)窮人其實(shí)都是政府政策的被動接受者)，促進(jìn)這兩個(gè)群體之間的信息流通，才是更為有效的可持續(xù)應(yīng)對方法。在此過程中，政府可借助于新近推出的一些行動計(jì)劃，例如某些形式的電子政府、社會審計(jì)、媒體觀察、以及加強(qiáng)司法改善治理等等。

　　如果印度政府能夠更加深入、全面地將其減貧模式轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)閺臋?quán)利出發(fā)的減貧模式，并且 從權(quán)利出發(fā)的減貧模式本身設(shè)計(jì)合理，并得到有效的實(shí)施， 那么這種減貧模式的轉(zhuǎn)變將能發(fā)揮長效作用，幫助實(shí)現(xiàn)治理和減貧目標(biāo)，促進(jìn)惠及型增長。近期制定的《林權(quán)法》的有關(guān)實(shí)踐，就從權(quán)利出發(fā)的減貧模式的實(shí)施，上了啟發(fā)性的一課。印度政府制定《林權(quán)法》的目的在于，對于部落群體成員使用多年并且賴以謀生的土地，政府將向他們授予該些土地的法律權(quán)力。 在安得拉邦，《林權(quán)法》的實(shí)施已取得一定進(jìn)展，但該法案仍然存在一些操作上的難題。其中一個(gè)主要問題在于法案的潛在受益者對于法案缺乏足夠的認(rèn)識。 調(diào)查顯示，由于村民需要從事其他日?；顒?，并且開會地點(diǎn)過于遙遠(yuǎn)(會議通常為村務(wù)委員會一級會議，而非小村一級會議)，村民常常無法出席有關(guān)會議。因此，潛在申請人往往缺乏有關(guān)申請資格、申請表遞交期限、通過何種適當(dāng)途徑獲取遞交申請所需的必要證據(jù)等事項(xiàng)的關(guān)鍵信息。如前所述，認(rèn)識的缺乏同樣也阻礙了人們對于 國家農(nóng)村就業(yè)保障計(jì)劃的參與。 這說明，從權(quán)利出發(fā)的減貧模式是否能夠成功，在很大程度上取決于受益對象是否認(rèn)識到自身的權(quán)利，是否了解如何去主張實(shí)現(xiàn)這些權(quán)利。

　　結(jié)論

　　為實(shí)現(xiàn)更加普惠型的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長，印度正為此付出努力，也遇到了一系列重大問題。這些問題包括農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)率增長緩慢、經(jīng)濟(jì)增長未能創(chuàng)造出更多就業(yè)機(jī)會、治理體制未能充分傾聽窮人和弱勢群體的聲音。在農(nóng)業(yè)部門，解決這些問題需要在農(nóng)業(yè)和經(jīng)濟(jì)領(lǐng)域引進(jìn)革新，尤其是以下方面：種子制造、水利系統(tǒng)、合約農(nóng)業(yè)、技能培訓(xùn)、以及如何采取措施提高政府政策惠及面和透明度。特別需要強(qiáng)調(diào)的是，政府如能將減貧模式轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)閺臋?quán)利出發(fā)的減貧模式，將大大促進(jìn)未來減貧工作，但在轉(zhuǎn)向從權(quán)利出發(fā)的減貧模式時(shí)，政府還需要努力確保扶貧對象理解自身權(quán)利，并且能夠主張這些權(quán)利。