Government concerns, the benefit cliff, and land use: A comparative study of rural impoverished and marginalised impoverished groups

Policymakers around the globe pursue welfare policies that combine equity and efficiency. In this context, the inequity of the benefit cliff and its suppressive effect on the workforce have become urgent issues. However, few studies have focused on marginalised impoverished (MI) groups (who are awkwardly situated and somewhat poor) or on the disparate effects of government concerns and the benefit cliff on land use across different low-income rural impoverished (RI) groups. In addition, few studies have examined subsequent changes in recipients’ land use after poverty alleviation policies end in China. To bridge this gap, we scrutinised how government concerns and the changes they undergo cause land use divergence between RI and MI groups based on the economic model of the labour supply and behavioural economics theory. We used data from rural households in 21 national-level impoverished counties to conduct an empirical investigation. Our results suggest that government concerns lead to divergence between the RI and MI groups, creating a benefit cliff of nearly 8000 yuan between them. Government concerns also have a significantly negative causal effect on land dependence and land use efficiency among RI groups for whom the benefit differential has a significantly negative effect on the share of land income. Further, an increase in the benefit differential has a stronger negative impact on land use for RI groups with lower per capita income. In terms of evolving government concerns, the land use efficiency of RI groups falls significantly after government concerns cease; meanwhile, among MI groups, land dependence drops significantly and land use efficiency rises significantly after government concerns begin. In light of this, we argue that the government should use recipients’ livelihood strategies as a reference point. This involves applying land elements to bridge gaps in government concerns for MI groups, guiding and nudging them, and integrating multi-channel policy support to ensure the initial velocity and acceleration of RI groups. Such efforts will help RI and MI groups to escape poverty and raise their income to strengthen their livelihood resilience and break the welfare curse. This study provides empirical support for the ‘cliff effect’ of government concerns, and the empirical findings can serve as a reference for promoting the precise allocation of resources for poverty relief and boosting the effectiveness of relative poverty governance.