Search

ABSTRACT China eradicated rural extreme poverty in 2020 after an 8‐year campaign that combined endogenous economic development involving local people with social assistance. Ethnographic research in a village in southwest China reports township officials, under‐resourced and pressed by higher tiers of government to meet the poverty‐eradication target, commissioning an entrepreneur as a policy‐broker. The latter established enterprises nominally to provide local employment, while seeking profitability from their investment. Prioritising poverty eradication over sustainability, government subsidies were employed to engineer income transfers lifting villagers out of poverty by the target date. Thereafter, transfers of income from the enterprises to impoverished people were at best irregular. The experience highlights the distorting effect of policy targets and the limits to endogenous development undertaken under time–pressure with villagers neither consulted nor benefiting from new employment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Various pro-cycling policies emerged around the world with the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. France experimented with a €50 bike repair subsidy. Our questionnaire survey (n = 7343) focuses on beneficiaries' sociological profiles. Despite its success in quantitative terms, the repair subsidy benefited more regular cyclists—who cycle daily—and people who are confident cycling in urban areas. Women were more likely to benefit than men, and people in low-income households more than those in high-income households. Because these populations are usually underrepresented among cyclists in France, the scheme may appear to have reduced inequities in cycling. However, the scheme could have reached out more to the low-income population who were largely unaware of it. This selectivity is partly explained by awareness of the subsidy, which is lower among the younger and the less educated part of the population. Our survey shows that the scheme is selective primarily because of its design. It would have been necessary to accompany it with measures specifically designed for vulnerable groups. • Bike repair subsidy has been successful in quantitative terms. • Bike repair subsidy mainly benefited regular, confident, and women cyclists. • Low-income cyclists benefited the most although they were poorly informed. • Access to information about subsidies is itself socially selective. • Although the scheme is based on equal treatment, it can hardly be considered fair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]