Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of population) in China was reported at 0 % in 2020, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. China - Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty line (% of population) - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on October of 2025.

China Population: Rural Poverty data was reported at 16.600 Person mn in 2018. This records a decrease from the previous number of 30.460 Person mn for 2017. China Population: Rural Poverty data is updated yearly, averaging 144.025 Person mn from Dec 1978 (Median) to 2018, with 16 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 770.390 Person mn in 1978 and a record low of 16.600 Person mn in 2018. China Population: Rural Poverty data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Bureau of Statistics. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Socio-Demographic – Table CN.GA: Population. The current rural poverty standard is annual income RMB2300 (2010's constant price) per person each year. 现行农村贫困标准为每人每年收入2300元(2010年不变价)。

Poverty rate at national poverty line of China plummeted by 100.00% from 0.6 % in 2019 to 0.0 % in 2020. Since the 43.05% drop in 2010, poverty rate at national poverty line sank by 100.00% in 2020. National poverty rate is the percentage of the population living below the national poverty line. National estimates are based on population-weighted subgroup estimates from household surveys.

Historical dataset showing China poverty rate by year from 1981 to 2021.

This statistic illustrates the number of rural residents in China living below the poverty line in selected years from 2000 to 2020. Since 2000, poverty in rural China has been constantly decreasing. In February 2021, the Chinese government announced that - based on the current definition of poverty - all residents in China have been relieved from extreme poverty.

China Proportion of Population Pushed Below the 60% Median Consumption Poverty Line By Out-of-Pocket Health Expenditure: % data was reported at 4.680 % in 2018. This records an increase from the previous number of 3.560 % for 2013. China Proportion of Population Pushed Below the 60% Median Consumption Poverty Line By Out-of-Pocket Health Expenditure: % data is updated yearly, averaging 3.560 % from Dec 1995 (Median) to 2018, with 5 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 4.680 % in 2018 and a record low of 1.110 % in 1995. China Proportion of Population Pushed Below the 60% Median Consumption Poverty Line By Out-of-Pocket Health Expenditure: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s China – Table CN.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. This indicator shows the fraction of a country’s population experiencing out-of-pocket health impoverishing expenditures, defined as expenditures without which the household they live in would have been above the 60% median consumption but because of the expenditures is below the poverty line. Out-of-pocket health expenditure is defined as any spending incurred by a household when any member uses a health good or service to receive any type of care (preventive, curative, rehabilitative, long-term or palliative care); provided by any type of provider; for any type of disease, illness or health condition; in any type of setting (outpatient, inpatient, at home).;Global Health Observatory. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023. (https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/financial-protection);Weighted average;This indicator is related to Sustainable Development Goal 3.8.2 [https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/].

China's progress in poverty reduction over the last 25 years is enviable. One cannot fail to be impressed by what this vast nation of 1.3 billion people has achieved in so little time. In terms of a wide range of indicators, the progress has been remarkable. Poverty in terms of income and consumption has been dramatically reduced. Progress has also been substantial in terms of human development indicators. Most of the millennium development goals have either already been achieved or the country is well on the way to achieving them. As a result of this progress, the country is now at a very different stage of development than it was at the dawn of the economic reforms at the beginning of the 1980s. China's poverty reduction performance has been even more striking. Between 1981 and 2004, the fraction of the population consuming below this poverty line fell from 65 percent to 10 percent, and the absolute number of poor fell from 652 million to 135 million, a decline of over half a billion people. The most rapid declines in poverty, in both the poverty rate and the number of poor, occurred during the 6th, 8th, and 10th plans. During the 7th plan period the number of poor actually rose, while in the 9th plan period, the poverty rate declined only marginally. But the pace of poverty reduction resumed between 2001 and 2004 and there are indications that during the first couple of years of the 11th plan poverty has continued to decline rapidly. The most recent official estimate of rural poverty in China for 2007 puts the number of poor at 14.79 million, or less than 2 percent of the rural population. While there is no official urban poverty line, estimates by others have found poverty levels in urban areas to be negligible using an urban poverty line that is comparable to the official poverty line for rural areas. These estimates thus suggest that only about 1 percent of China's population is currently in extreme poverty. Notwithstanding this tremendous success, the central thesis of this report is that the task of poverty reduction in many ways continues and in some respects has become more demanding.

0,5 (%) in 2016. Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $1.90 a day at 2011 international prices. As a result of revisions in PPP exchange rates, poverty rates for individual countries cannot be compared with poverty rates reported in earlier editions.

China Poverty Headcount Ratio at $2.15 a Day: 2017 PPP: % of Population data was reported at 0.000 % in 2021. This stayed constant from the previous number of 0.000 % for 2020. China Poverty Headcount Ratio at $2.15 a Day: 2017 PPP: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 8.300 % from Dec 1990 (Median) to 2021, with 19 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 72.000 % in 1990 and a record low of 0.000 % in 2021. China Poverty Headcount Ratio at $2.15 a Day: 2017 PPP: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s China – Table CN.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Poverty headcount ratio at $2.15 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $2.15 a day at 2017 purchasing power adjusted prices. As a result of revisions in PPP exchange rates, poverty rates for individual countries cannot be compared with poverty rates reported in earlier editions.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

China Poverty Headcount Ratio at $6.85 a Day: 2017 PPP: % of Population data was reported at 17.000 % in 2021. This records a decrease from the previous number of 24.800 % for 2020. China Poverty Headcount Ratio at $6.85 a Day: 2017 PPP: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 54.000 % from Dec 1990 (Median) to 2021, with 19 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 99.000 % in 1990 and a record low of 17.000 % in 2021. China Poverty Headcount Ratio at $6.85 a Day: 2017 PPP: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s China – Table CN.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Poverty headcount ratio at $6.85 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $6.85 a day at 2017 international prices.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

China Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 11.600 % in 2021. This records a decrease from the previous number of 11.900 % for 2020. China Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 15.100 % from Dec 1990 (Median) to 2021, with 19 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 19.500 % in 2010 and a record low of 8.900 % in 1990. China Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s China – Table CN.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The percentage of people in the population who live in households whose per capita income or consumption is below half of the median income or consumption per capita. The median is measured at 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the Poverty and Inequality Platform (http://www.pip.worldbank.org). For some countries, medians are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

The average for 2020 based on 54 countries was 19.31 percent. The highest value was in the Gambia: 53.4 percent and the lowest value was in China: 0 percent. The indicator is available from 2000 to 2023. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

In 2023, approximately 127.1 million people lived in Guangdong province in China. That same year, only about 3.65 million people lived in the sparsely populated highlands of Tibet. Regional differences in China China is the world’s most populous country, with an exceptional economic growth momentum. The country can be roughly divided into three regions: Western, Eastern, and Central China. Western China covers the most remote regions from the sea. It also has the highest proportion of minority population and the lowest levels of economic output. Eastern China, on the other hand, enjoys a high level of economic development and international corporations. Central China lags behind in comparison to the booming coastal regions. In order to accelerate the economic development of Western and Central Chinese regions, the PRC government has ramped up several incentive plans such as ‘Rise of Central China’ and ‘China Western Development’. Economic power of different provinces When observed individually, some provinces could stand an international comparison. Jiangxi province, for example, a medium-sized Chinese province, had a population size comparable to Argentina or Spain in 2023. That year, the GDP of Zhejiang, an eastern coastal province, even exceeded the economic output of the Netherlands. In terms of per capita annual income, the municipality of Shanghai reached a level close to that of the Czech Republik. Nevertheless, as shown by the Gini Index, China’s economic spur leaves millions of people in dust. Among the various kinds of economic inequality in China, regional or the so-called coast-inland disparity is one of the most significant. Posing as evidence for the rather large income gap in China, the poorest province Heilongjiang had a per capita income similar to that of Sri Lanka that year.

BackgroundYouth with disability contribute to a high burden of disease but are often neglected. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of disability and its association with poverty among Chinese youth aged 15–24 years.MethodsData were obtained from a nationally representative population-based cross-sectional survey in 2006 and its follow-up investigations from 2007 to 2013 in 31 provinces of mainland China. A total of 357 856 non-institutionalized youth at age of 15–24 years were investigated. Population weighted numbers and prevalence rates with 95% CI of various types and causes of disabilities for the overall youth were estimated where appropriate. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify the association between poverty and each type of and cause-specific disability.ResultsA weighted number of 3 633 838 youth were living with disability in China, with a prevalence rate of 19.7 per thousand Chinese youth. Youth living in poor households were 3.84 times more likely to be with disability than those living in affluent households (95% CI: 3.56–4.14). Associations were similar for most types of and cause-specific disabilities. Among youth with disability, those from poor households had less healthcare service use (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.61–0.82) than those from affluent households.ConclusionA significant number of Chinese youth were living with disability, and poverty is significant associated with the disability among youth. Investment in health and disability prevention are essential to the development of youth, as well as their families and communities.

China Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Bottom 40% of Population: 2017 PPP per day data was reported at 6.220 Intl $/Day in 2020. This records an increase from the previous number of 4.780 Intl $/Day for 2015. China Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Bottom 40% of Population: 2017 PPP per day data is updated yearly, averaging 5.500 Intl $/Day from Dec 2015 (Median) to 2020, with 2 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 6.220 Intl $/Day in 2020 and a record low of 4.780 Intl $/Day in 2015. China Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Bottom 40% of Population: 2017 PPP per day data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s China – Table CN.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Mean consumption or income per capita (2017 PPP $ per day) of the bottom 40%, used in calculating the growth rate in the welfare aggregate of the bottom 40% of the population in the income distribution in a country.;World Bank, Global Database of Shared Prosperity (GDSP) (http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/brief/global-database-of-shared-prosperity).;;The choice of consumption or income for a country is made according to which welfare aggregate is used to estimate extreme poverty in the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP). The practice adopted by the World Bank for estimating global and regional poverty is, in principle, to use per capita consumption expenditure as the welfare measure wherever available; and to use income as the welfare measure for countries for which consumption is unavailable. However, in some cases data on consumption may be available but are outdated or not shared with the World Bank for recent survey years. In these cases, if data on income are available, income is used. Whether data are for consumption or income per capita is noted in the footnotes. Because household surveys are infrequent in most countries and are not aligned across countries, comparisons across countries or over time should be made with a high degree of caution.

The effect of poverty level and income inequality in rural and urban areas.

This dataset provides information on key economic indicators, agricultural output and inputs, public investments, poverty, and various social indicators in China. Cross-section (29 provinces) and time-series (50 years from 1952 to 2001) data are included in this dataset.

The dataset consists of 50 variables altogether, including agricultural and nonagricultural GDP, agricultural labor, agricultural output, agricultural population, arable land, share of rural population with colleg e education, total telecommunication expenditures (rural and urban), draft animals, education expenditures, rural electricity consumption, total expenditures in electricity construction, fertilizer use in pure nutrients, rural illiteracy rate, machinery use, official rural poverty rates, rural education expenditures, agricultural research expenditures, road construction expenditures, rural telephones, etc.

In 2024, the average annual per capita disposable income of rural households in China was approximately 23,119 yuan, roughly 43 percent of the income of urban households. Although living standards in China’s rural areas have improved significantly over the past 20 years, the income gap between rural and urban households is still large. Income increase of China’s households From 2000 to 2020, disposable income per capita in China increased by around 700 percent. The fast-growing economy has inevitably led to the rapid income increase. Furthermore, inflation has been maintained at a lower rate in recent years compared to other countries. While the number of millionaires in China has increased, many of its population are still living in humble conditions. Consequently, the significant wealth gap between China’s rich and poor has become a social problem across the country. However, in recent years rural areas have been catching up and disposable income has been growing faster than in the cities. This development is also reflected in the Gini coefficient for China, which has decreased since 2008. Urbanization in China The urban population in China surpassed its rural population for the first time in 2011. In fact, the share of the population residing in urban areas is continuing to increase. This is not surprising considering remote, rural areas are among the poorest areas in China. Currently, poverty alleviation has been prioritized by the Chinese government. The measures that the government has taken are related to relocation and job placement. With the transformation and expansion of cities to accommodate the influx of city dwellers, neighboring rural areas are required for the development of infrastructure. Accordingly, land acquisition by the government has resulted in monetary gain by some rural households.

The effect of poverty level and income inequality on homicide.

Poverty is not only an economic problem but also a social problem, and there are certain limitations of objective poverty based on the population’s income. It does not reflect the residents’ true feelings regarding education opportunities, pension and medical security, and participation in decision-making. Researchers have studied it intensively in different objective dimensions of Chinese poverty, and little attention has been paid to subjective poverty. This study analyzes how public services supply, livelihood capital, and livelihood strategies affect subjective perceptions of poverty. The results show that public services supply, livelihood capital, and livelihood strategies significantly correlate with subjective poverty. Physical capital and social capital have the greatest effects on the occurrence of subjective poverty. The probability of subjective poverty decreases by 0.149 and 0.107 for each unit change in physical and social capital, respectively. What’s more, public services supply, physical capital, financial capital, and human capital affect the subjective poverty of urban and rural residents at different significance levels. It means that the formation of subjective poverty results from the superposition of multiple factors.