Main Analysis of the Poverty Situation in 2020

(Draft as at 2021.11.09)

10 November 2021

Commission on Poverty

Paper No. 2/2021-22

Main Analysis of the

Poverty Situation in 2020

Office of the Government Economist

Financial Secretary’s Office

Census and Statistics

Department

I. Main poverty situation and

its trend in 2020

II. Poverty situation analysed

by socio-economic

characteristic and age group

III. Key observations & outlook

2

Main analysis of the poverty situation in 2020 - Outline

https://www.povertyrelief.gov.hk/eng/archives.html

The full Report has been uploaded to CoP’s

website

Hong Kong Poverty Situation Report

2020

https://www.povertyrelief.gov.hk/eng/archives.html

3

I. Main poverty situation and its

trend in 2020

Main analytical framework of the poverty line in 2020

Major factors affecting poverty statistics

Poverty line thresholds

Key poverty statistics

Trends of poverty statistics and poverty alleviation effectiveness

Poverty alleviation effectiveness of individual selected measures

Main analytical framework of the poverty line in 20204

1. Relative poverty line

50% of median household income

before policy intervention

2. Policy intervention

3. Poverty statistics

Compare the data before and after

policy intervention:

Poverty indicators:

No. of poor households and the

size of the poor population

Poverty rate

Poverty gap Quantify the impact of policy

intervention in poverty alleviation(can be classified by different household or

individual characteristics)

Post-intervention household income

takes into account all selected

measures, which include three types

of policy intervention measures:

II. Non-recurrent cash measures(including one-off measures, such as extra social security payment, cash

payout of $10,000)

III. Means-tested in-kind benefits(mainly public rental housing)

I

III

II

Pre-intervention (purely theoretical

assumption) household income

Post-intervention (all selected

measures) household income

I. Recurrent cash measures(deducting taxes and including recurrent

cash measures like Comprehensive Social Security Assistance)

5.8 6.5

9.8

10.6

4.8 5.3

10.4 10.6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年 Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2020

0

Construction

Annual Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Overall *

Retail, accommodation andfood services

Import/export and wholesale trade

Percent (%)

(a) Unemployment rate by industry

Overall unemployment rates for quarterly are seasonally adjusted.General Household Survey, Census and Statistics Department.

Note: (*)Source:

-15.6 -7.0

-55.6

-60.9 -51.8 -67.1 -64.0 -62.6

18.5

-6.9

-21.8

-91.9-94.1

-113.4-88.2

-58.3

13.79.5

-14.0

-27.5-23.1

-31.9

-36.4

-17.5

19.548.2 74.3

-8.0

51.1

-9.1-40.6

-56.0

36.143.8

-17.1

-188.3

-117.9

-221.4-229.1

-194.4

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2017 2018 2019 2020 2020

Overall

(b) Employment by industry

Year-on-year change ('000)

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Annual Annual Annual Annual

Other sectorsConstructionRetail, accommodation and food servicesImport/export and wholesale trade

5

Major factors affecting poverty statistics in 20201. Macroeconomic situation: being affected by the global COVID-19 pandemic, the Hong Kong

economy experienced a severe recession in 2020, with the labour market deteriorated sharply. The

unemployment rate surged to 6.5% in the fourth quarter of 2020, the highest in 16 years. The annual

unemployment rate averaged at 5.8%, also substantially higher than that of 2.9% in 2019. Total

employment shrank significantly by 0.188 million (or 4.9%) in 2020 over 2019, the largest annual decline

on record. Specifically, the consumption- and tourism-related sectors saw a surge in unemployment rate

and a sharp decrease in employment under the severe disruption brought by the pandemic.

Quarterly overall unemployment rates are seasonally adjusted.

General Households Survey, Census and Statistics Department.

Note: (*)

Source:

46.826.6 13.2

-47.4

24.8

-42.7-70.4

-104.2

-10.7

17.1

-30.3

-141.0

-142.7

-178.7

-158.7 -90.2

36.1 43.8

-17.1

-188.3

-117.9

-221.4-229.1

-194.4

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2017 2018 2019 2020 2020

Higher-skilled

Lower-skilled

Overall

(d) Employment by occupation

Year-on-year change ('000)

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Annual Annual Annual Annual

5.8 6.5

3.6

4.2

6.6 6.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年

全年 Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2020

Overall*

Higher-skilled

Lower-skilled

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

(c) Unemployment rate by occupation

Percent (%)

Annual

Overall unemployment rates for quarterly are seasonally adjusted.General Household Survey, Census and Statistics Department.

Note: (*)Source:

6

Major factors affecting poverty statistics in 2020 (cont’d)1. Macroeconomic situation: the grassroots workers were particularly hard-hit.

Analysed by occupation, the unemployment rate of the lower-skilled workers rosenotably by 3.6 percentage points from 2019 to 6.6%. Employment of lower-skilledworkers also fell significantly by 0.141 million (or 6.2%).

Quarterly overall unemployment rates are seasonally adjusted.

General Household Survey, Census and Statistics Department.

Note: (*)

Source:

-5.6

-8.1

0.3

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Median household income of overallhouseholds

Median household income of households inthe lowest three decile groups

Composite consumer price index

Grassroots' household income

Overall household income

(f) Household income

Headline inflation

Year-on-year rate of change (%)

1.3

3.5

0.3

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Overall wages

Average employment earnings of full-timeemployees in the lowest three decile groupsComposite consumer price index

(e) Nominal wages and average employment earnings

Grassroots'employmentearnings

Headline inflation

Year-on-year rate of change (%)

Overall wages

Note: Excluding foreign domestic helpers.Sources: General Household Survey, Monthly Report on the Consumer Price Index, and Labour Earnings Survey,

Census and Statistics Department.

1. Macroeconomic situation: amid the austere economic and labour marketsituations, overall wages registered decelerated growth. In addition, manyfamilies experienced reductions in number of working members and workinghours, which visibly weighed on household income. For 2020 as a whole, themedian monthly household income plunged by 5.6% from a year earlier, and that ofthe grassroots households even fell by 8.1%.

7

Income figures exclude foreign domestic helpers.

General Household Survey, Monthly Report on the Consumer Price Index, and Labour Earnings Survey, Census and Statistics Department.

Major factors affecting poverty statistics in 2020 (cont’d)

Note:

Sources:

2. Structural factors: the structural trends of population ageing and dwindlinghousehold size continued, with rising numbers of singleton and doubletonhouseholds made up of retired elders with no employment income. This will exertcontinuous upward pressures on poverty statistics estimated based on householdincome.

8


1116 1090 1066 1048 1017 1002 1011 1000 1011 1012 1019 1019

4600 4651 4700 4736 4739 4749 4746 4728 4713 4709 4710 4688

817 836 858 892 931 974 1021 1067 1116 1164 1222 1297

12.5 12.7 13.0 13.4

13.9 14.5

15.1 15.7

16.3 16.9

17.6 18.5

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

8 000

9 000

10 000Elderly population (LHS)Population aged 18 to 64 (LHS)Child population (LHS)Proportion of elders in total population (RHS)

132 139 143 146 158 167 180 192 197 209 209 211

83 89 91 97

104 110

118 125 129

138 151 155

2.85 2.83

2.81 2.80 2.78

2.77 2.75

2.72 2.70

2.68 2.66 2.65

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80

2.90

3.00

Doubleton elderly households (RHS)

Singleton elderly households (RHS)

Average number of persons

0 0

Number of households ('000)

Average household size (LHS)

Percent (%)Population ('000)

(a) Population figures by age group

Note: Population figures refer to persons in domestic households, excluding foreign domestic helpers and the institutional population.

Source: General Household Survey, Census and Statistics Department.

(b) Average household size of overall households, number of singleton and doubleton elderly households

(40%) (40%) (27%) (31%) (39%) (42%) (37%) (39%) (41%) (37%) (37%) (27%)(25%) (23%)

(45%) (40%) (28%) (21%)(27%) (25%)

(24%)(31%)

(34%)

(53%)

(35%) (37%)

(28%) (29%)(33%) (37%)

(36%) (36%)(34%)

(32%)

(29%)

(20%)

2,100 2,200

3,200 3,100 2,900 2,900

3,300 3,300 3,500

4,100

4,500

6,600

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

-2.5 6.8 4.81.7 3.1 2.8 2.4 2.2 3.8 2.8

-1.7

-6.1-10-8-6-4-202468

10Annual change in real GDPPercent (%)

Note: ( ) Figures in parentheses denote the proportion of the relevant amount among selected policy intervention measures.Sources: General Household Survey and Quarterly Report on Gross Domestic Product, Census and Statistics Department.

“Scheme $6,000”

Additional two months of allowance of social security payments; one-off special subsidy for “School Textbook Assistance Scheme”

Caring and Sharing Scheme; additional two months of allowance of social security payments, WFA and WITS

All selected measuresNon-recurrent cash

Recurrent cash

In-kind benefits

($, per month)Cash Payout Scheme;Selected AEF measures

3. Government’s policies in poverty alleviation: the amount dedicated to relevant policy intervention

measures reached a record high – besides long-term commitments from recurrent cash policies, the

Government launched a series of one-off counter-cyclical measures in 2020 that were unprecedented

in scale and coverage. While these measures aimed to stabilise the macroeconomic and

employment conditions, they would also relieve the pressures on the grassroots’ livelihood.

9


Benefitted from the

$10,000 Cash Payout

Scheme and relevant

measures under

Anti-epidemic Fund

(AEF), the estimated

average amount of

transfer per

household went up

appreciably in 2020

Estimated average welfare transfer of all selected measures per household, 2009-2020

• The poverty lines of 1-person households to 4-person households and 6-person-and-abovehouseholds: decreased ranging from 1.8% to 5.0%.

• The poverty line of 5-person households declined notably by 9.5%: mainly attributable to thedrastic fall in the proportion of working households and a significant decrease in the proportion ofhouseholds with two employed members and above among working households.

10

Poverty line thresholds in 2020: recorded declines of varying degrees

Poverty lines by household size, 2009-2020

3,300 3,300 3,400 3,600 3,500 3,500 3,800 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,500 4,400

6,900 7,000 7,500 7,700

8,300 8,500 8,800 9,000 9,800 10,000 10,000

9,500 9,900 10,000

10,500 11,500

12,500 13,000 14,000

15,000 15,000

16,500 16,600 16,000

11,300 11,800

13,000

14,300

15,400 16,400

17,600 18,500

19,900

21,000 21,400

20,800

11,900 12,300

13,500

14,800

16,000

17,000

18,200 19,000

20,300

21,500

22,100

20,000

13,000 13,500

14,500

15,800

17,100

18,800 19,500

20,000

22,500 21,800 23,000

21,900

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

1-person 2-person 3-person 4-person 5-person 6-person+

($, per month)


Figures in parentheses refer to figures in 2019.

Recurrent cash measures include CSSA/SSA, WFA, etc.; non-recurrent cash measures include tax reduction and rates concessions, Cash

Payout Scheme, various benefits under AEF and other relief measures rolled out in light of the pandemic that can be included in the imputation,

offering additional payments of social security allowance, etc.; means-tested in-kind benefits include PRH, Kindergarten and Child Care Centre

Fee Remission Scheme, etc.


Pre-intervention (purely theoretical assumption)0.703 mn

(0.649 mn)

1.653 mn

(1.491 mn)

23.6%

(21.4%)

• In 2020, the size of the poor population and the poverty rate taking into account all selected measures

(recurrent cash + non-recurrent cash + in-kind benefits) were 0.554 million and 7.9% respectively (fell by

0.088 million and 1.3 percentage points over 2019).

All selected measures alleviated about 1.10 million persons out of poverty, reducing the poverty rate by

15.7 percentage points

(strengthened visibly by 3.5 percentage points from 12.2 percentage points in 2019)

Household income Poor households Poor population Poverty rate

Post-intervention (all selected measures)0.242 mn

(0.287 mn)

0.554 mn

(0.642 mn)

7.9%

(9.2%)

Poverty alleviation impact-0.461 mn

(-0.361 mn)

-1.099 mn

(-0.849 mn)

-15.7%pts

(-12.2%pts)

11

In response to the severe economic recession of Hong Kong in 2020 due to the blow of COVID-19

pandemic, the Government rolled out a large scale of one-off counter-cyclical measures. The poverty

indicators hence improved after policy intervention (all selected measures). But the pre-intervention

poverty situation of last year wouldstill deteriorate noticeably

Notes: ( )

Source:

1 348 1 322 1 295 1 312 1 336 1 325 1 345 1 352 1 3771 406

1 4911 653

644616

472524

564 593 586657 671

638 642554(9.9%)

(9.4%)

(7.1%)(7.8%) (8.4%) (8.8%) (8.6%)

(9.7%) (9.8%)(9.3%) (9.2%)

(7.9%)

(20.6%)(20.1%)(19.6%)(19.6%)(19.9%)(19.6%) (19.7%)(19.9%)(20.1%)(20.4%)

(21.4%)

(23.6%)

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Pre-intervention(purely theoretical

assumption)

Poor population ('000)

Post-intervention(all selected measures)

Figures in parentheses denote the corresponding poverty rates.General Household Survey, Census and Statistics Department.

Note: ( )Source:

Poor households ('000) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Pre-intervention (purely theoretical assumption) 541 536 530 541 555 555 570 582 594 613 649 703

Post-intervention

(all selected measures)253 246 194 216 233 250 250 284 287 276 287 242

12

Poor population and poverty rate, 2009-2020

Taking into account the impact of policy intervention of all selected measures: in

2020, the poverty rate fell by 1.3 percentage points to 7.9% over 2019, and the size

of the poor population decreased by 0.088 million to 0.554 million

The poverty alleviation impact of all selected measures was 15.7 percentage

points in 2020, strengthened substantially from 12.2 percentage points in the

preceding year

13

Poverty alleviation effectiveness of all selected measures, 2009-2020

704 706

823 789 772 731 759696 705

768849

1 099

10.7 10.712.5 11.8 11.5 10.8 11.1 10.2 10.3

11.112.2

15.7

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Scheme $6,000Caring and

Sharing Scheme

$10,000 Cash Payout Scheme

Reduction in

Poor population (LHS)

Poverty rate (RHS)

Reduction in

poor households ('000)2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

All selected measures 288 289 337 324 321 306 320 298 307 337 361 461

Recurrent cash 135 130 131 138 170 173 177 170 174 178 175 188

Additional two months of allowance


Reduction in poorpopulation ('000)

Reduction in poverty rate(Percentage point(s))

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

198 204182 185

4780

55 53 35 31 20 2655

267

580

937

155 184154

165

4670

48 5332 2916 23

393

442

261 266

849

1 099

2.82.9

2.6 2.7

0.61.1

0.7 0.80.5 0.40.2 0.40.7

3.8

8.3

13.4

2.22.6

2.2 2.4

0.61.0

0.6 0.8 0.4 0.40.2 0.3

5.6

6.3

3.7 3.8

12.2

15.7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 000

1 100

1 200

綜援長者

生活津貼

職津教育津貼傷殘津貼高齡津貼所有

現金項目

公屋所有選定

項目

2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020

Post-intervention(recurrent cash)

Post-intervention(recurrent + non-recurrent cash)

Post-intervention(in-kind: PRH)

Post-intervention(all selected measures)Reduction in

Population ('000) (Percentage point(s))

CSSA OALA WFAEducation benefits

OAADA Cash measures^

PRH All selected measures

Poor population (LHS)Poverty rate (RHS)

Cash payout&

Figures for 2019 included Caring and Sharing Scheme. Those for 2020 included Cash Payout Scheme and “One-off Allowance for New Arrivals from Low-income Families” Programme.Apart from the major recurrent / non-recurrent cash measures listed in the chart, cash measures also included Public Transport Fare Subsidy Scheme, measures under AEF and other relief measures rolled out in light of the pandemic that can be imputed in the framework (e.g. Special allowance for eligible WFA and SFA households), cash items under CCF, etc.General Household Survey, Census and Statistics Department.

Notes: (&)

(^)

Source:

Poverty alleviation effectiveness of selected measures, 2019-2020

14

The strengthening in impact of all selected policies was mainly attributable to the non-recurrent cash

measures (such as the $10,000 cash payout and the relevant measures under AEF). As for recurrent cash

measures, CSSA and education benefits recorded more noticeable increases in their poverty alleviation

impacts. The former largely reflected the increase in the number of CSSA recipients, and the latter was

due to the effect of Student Grant

15

II. Poverty situation analysed by

socio-economic characteristic and

age group

Key poverty statistics by socio-economic characteristic and age group

Poverty trend by age group

How economic recession affected the poverty situation in 2020

Quantitative decomposition of changes in the overall poverty rate

16

Annual decreases in post-intervention (all selected measures) poverty rates were observed in different age groups

and most of the selected socio-economic groups, illustrating the widespread impact of these short-term measures

that could broadly benefit various groups. The poverty rate of youth households still went up, partly attributable to

the fact that the group faced a deterioration in unemployment situation, and the lower proportion of youth

householdsbenefittingfrompolicy intervention

Source:

Poverty rate

(after intervention of all selected measures, %) Annual change in 2020

over 2019 (%pt(s))2019 2020

Overall 9.2 7.9 -1.3

Children aged below 18 9.3 8.4 -0.9

Persons aged 18 to 64 6.5 6.0 -0.5

Youths aged 18 to 29 5.2 4.8 -0.4

Elders aged 65 and above 19.7 14.5 -5.2

Economic groups

Working households 4.1 3.0 -1.1

Unemployed households 55.3 44.5 -10.8

Economically inactive households 40.4 33.2 -7.2

Social groups

CSSA households 15.0 8.3 -6.7

Elderly households 30.9 21.3 -9.6

Single-parent households 15.1 13.2 -1.9

Youth households 4.2 6.6 +2.4

Households with child(ren) 8.4 7.5 -0.9

New-arrival households 14.6 13.2 -1.4


Non-recurrent measures did help stabilise the poverty situation of children and

youths. Their poverty rates taking into account all selected measures showed

declines instead of increases, to 8.4% and 4.8% respectively

17

Poor population and poverty rate by age, 2009-2020

284265 257 254

242 236 235 229 234 235253

275

128 11891 95 97 100 98 101 113

99 95 86

25.424.3 24.1 24.2 23.7 23.5 23.2 23.0 23.1 23.3

24.927.0

11.510.98.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 9.7 10.1

11.29.8 9.3 8.4

(15)

(10)

(5)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

red-PP purple-PPred-rate purple-rate

(a) Children aged below 18

132 133 126 129 127 123 123 122 122 122 123144

58 5437 44 48 48 47 57 55 54 49 44

12.7 12.712.1 12.3 12.2 11.9 11.9 12.2 12.4 12.6 13.1

15.6

5.6 5.23.5

4.1 4.6 4.6 4.65.6 5.6 5.6 5.2 4.8

(10)

(5)

0

5

10

15

20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

(b) Youths aged 18 to 29

Poor population ('000) Poverty rate (%)

Pre-intervention(purely theoretical assumption)





698 680 660 671 675 652 651 645 648 654689

794

343 321 235 259 287 293 286 314 323 310 307 280

15.2 14.6 14.0 14.1 14.2 13.7 13.6 13.6 13.7 13.9 14.6

16.9

7.5 6.9 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.1 6.0 6.6 6.9 6.6 6.5 6.0

(20)

(15)

(10)

(5)

0

5

10

15

20

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

red-PP purple-PPred-rate purple-rate

366 377 378 388420 436 459

478 495 517549 584

173 177147 170 180 200 202

242 235 229 240188

44.8 45.1 44.1 43.5 44.9 44.6 44.8 44.8 44.4 44.4 44.9 45.0

21.121.217.1 19.119.3 20.419.7

22.7 21.119.719.714.5

(40)

(30)

(20)

(10)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

(d) Elders aged 65 and above

Poverty rate (%)Poor population ('000)

(c) Persons aged 18 to 64






18

Similarly, the poverty rates for persons aged 18 to 64 and elders aged 65

and above fell to 6.0% and 14.5% respectively

Poor population and poverty rate by age, 2009-2020

725 694 686 702 729 706 705 681 706 714 758

805

320 294 198 227 254 259 245 268 286 271 246

178

12.6 12.0 11.7 11.9 12.3 11.9 11.8 11.5 11.8 11.9

12.6 13.6

5.6 5.1

3.4 3.8 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.5 4.8 4.5 4.1 3.0

(8)

(6)

(4)

(2)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

2 000

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

red PP purple PP

red rate purple rate

104

84

67 61 60

54 50 54 53 52 56

134

6752

37 32 33 34 32 37 37 34 39

72

86.584.2 83.7 84.3 84.7

81.4 81.8 79.4 81.1 80.3 78.882.7

55.9 52.3

46.1 44.1 47.2

51.3 52.4 55.1 56.2

52.0 55.3

44.5

(10)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20




Poor population ('000) Poverty rate (%) Poor population ('000) Poverty rate (%)


(a) Working households (b) Unemployed households

19

Analysed by economic characteristic of households: the poverty rates of working and unemployed

households likewise showed declines. Yet, the negative impact of economic recession can still be

observed from their respective pre-intervention poverty indicators (particularly in unemployed

households)

Poor population and poverty rate by economic characteristic of

households, 2009-2020

175.2

(+67.2)

70.1

(+37.4)

2 026.2

(-21.1)

1 851.0

(-88.3)

1 600

1 650

1 700

1 750

1 800

1 850

1 900

1 950

2 000

2 050

2 100

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

0

Working households (RHS)Working households with employed members all being part-time / underemployed (LHS)Working households with at least onefull-time working member(s) (RHS)Unemployed households (LHS)

Number ofhouseholds ('000)

Number ofhouseholds ('000)

(a) Number of economically active households

None5.3

None8.6

1

49.5

1

51.7

2

35.1

2

31.7

3+

10.1

3+

8.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

(i.e. employed members all being part-time /

underemployed)

Proportion of households (%)

Number of full-time working member(s) in households

(b) The proportion of households with each number offull-time working members among all working households

[+3.4] [+2.1] [-3.4] [-2.1]

2020

2019

Figures in parentheses denote the annual change of number of households, calculated using unrounded figures.

Figures in square brackets denote the annual change in proportion of households in percentage point(s), calculated using unrounded figures.

Figures in curly brackets denote annual change of average number of working members per household, calculated using unrounded figures.


Notes: ( )

[ ]

{ }

Source:

As the employment situation deteriorated notably, the numbers of unemployed households and working

households with all employed members being part-timers or underemployed both increased significantly:

the number and proportion of working households with two and above full-time working members

declined visibly. The income of workinghouseholds wasseverely hard-hit

20

Number of overall economically active households and proportion of working

households by number of full-time working members

Average number

of working

members

per working

household

1.63

1.70

{-0.06}

82.7

[+3.9]

77.9

[+1.1]

13.6

[+1.0]

23.6

[+2.2]

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Unemployed households (LHS)

Economically inactive households (LHS)

Working households (RHS)

Overall (RHS)

(%) (%)

0 0

Working

households

47 400

29.3%

Unemployed

households

78 400

48.4%

Economically inactive

households

36 100

22.3%

Increase in pre-intervention (purely theoretical

assumption) poor population: 161 900

(b) Increase in pre-intervention (purely theoretical assumption) poor population

by economic characteristic of households

Economically active

households

125 800

77.7%

(a) Pre-intervention (purely theoretical assumption) poverty rate

Poverty statistics refer to statistics before policy intervention (purely theoretical assumption).

Figures in square brackets denote the annual change of poverty rate in percentage point(s), calculated using rounded figures.General Household Survey, Census and Statistics Department.

Notes:

[ ]

Source:

Further analysing the negative impacts of macroeconomic conditions on the poverty situation in 2020

based on the pre-intervention (purely theoretical assumption) situation: the visible increase in the overall

poverty rate was found to be driven mainly by a surge in the number of unemployed households and a

distinct rise in their poverty risk; nearly half of the increase in poor population were from unemployed

households

21

Pre-intervention (purely theoretical assumption) poverty rate and increase in poor population

by economic characteristic of households, 2020

+27 800

-16 000

+11 800

0 100 000 200 000 300 000

Part-time /underemployed

Full-time

Overall

2020

2019

(a) Annual change innumber of working poor persons

5,700

(+12.3)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Overall

Full-time

Part-time / underemployed

($)

9,600 (-7.2)

11,800 (-4.0)

(b) Average monthly employment earnings of working poor persons

Number of pre-intervention (purely theoretical assumption)working poor persons

Figures in parentheses denote the annual change (%) of average monthly employment earnings, calculated using unrounded figures.

Poverty statistics refer to statistics before policy intervention (purely theoretical assumption).


Notes: ( )

Source:

The number of pre-intervention (purely theoretical assumption) working poor persons also increased by 11 800: it

is evident that unemployment led to a decline in the average number of working members per

households. Besides, many of the family members, while still in employment, had to face working

hour cuts or even became underemployed. This also put pressures on their employment earnings

in consequence

22

Changes in the number of pre-intervention (purely theoretical assumption)

working poor persons and their employment earnings, 2020

111 118

79 85

43 74

55 53 30 25 10 14

54

224

376

557

98 108

71 83

42 65

48 53 27 24 8 13

256 283

216 216

511

628

1.8 2.0

1.3 1.4 0.7

1.3 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3

0.9

3.8

6.2

9.4

1.6 1.8 1.2 1.4 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.9

0.4 0.4 0.1 0.2

4.2 4.8

3.6 3.7

8.5

10.6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

綜援長者

生活津貼

職津教育津貼傷殘津貼高齡津貼所有

現金項目

公屋所有選定

項目

2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020

Post-intervention(recurrent cash)

Post-intervention(recurrent + non-recurrent cash)

Post-intervention(in-kind: PRH)

Post-intervention(all selected measures)Reduction in

Population ('000) (Percentage point(s))


CSSAOALA WFAEducation benefits

OAADA Cash measures^

PRH All selected measures

Cash payout&

Figures for 2019 included Caring and Sharing Scheme. Those for 2020 included Cash Payout Scheme and “One-off Allowance for New Arrivals from Low-income Families” Programme.Apart from the major recurrent / non-recurrent cash measures listed in the chart, cash measures also included Public Transport Fare Subsidy Scheme, measures under AEF and other relief measures rolled out in light of the pandemic that can be imputed in the framework (e.g. Special allowance for eligible WFA and SFA households), cash items under CCF, etc.General Household Survey, Census and Statistics Department.

Notes: (&)

(^)

Source:

23

Poverty alleviation effectiveness of selected measures on working households, 2019-2020

In face of the difficult employment conditions, the Government’s policy intervention measures played a

pivotal role in relieving the burden of working households. Taking into account policy intervention of all

selected measures, the poverty alleviation impact on working households increased to

10.6 percentage points. As such, the post-intervention (all selected measures) poverty rate of working

households showeda decline to 3.0% instead of an increase

0.06 0.080.08

0.080.16

0.17 0.18

-0.47 -0.11

0.77

1.98

-0.6

-0.3

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

2.1

2.4

2.7

4.42.8

-1.7 -6.1

2009-2010 2009-2011 2009-2012 2009-2013

Average annual change in real GDP

-0.37

0.12

-1.10

-3.50

-3.6

-3.2

-2.8

-2.4

-2.0

-1.6

-1.2

-0.8

-0.4

0.0

0.4

2009-2012 2012-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020

-0.7 0.3 -0.1 -1.3

@

Percent (%)

(Percentage point(s))

Average annual change in real GDP

(Percentage point(s))Average annual change in poverty alleviation impact of all selected measures

(in terms of change in poverty rate)

Average annual change in post-

intervention (all selected measures)

poverty rate:

Of which:

Population ageing

Dwindlinghousehold size

Economic factors (includingeconomic and labour marketperformance)

Structural factors

Change in poverty alleviation impact of all selected measures

24

It is broadly estimated that the macroeconomic factors pushed the pre-intervention (purely theoretical assumption) poverty

rate up bynearly2.0percentage points, far higher thanthat from the structural factors (around0.2percentage point). Yet, the

Government rolled out a huge package of counter-cyclical measures (poverty alleviation impact strengthened by 3.5

percentagepoints),morethanoffsettingthenegativeimpactsfromtheprevioustwofactors

Changes within ±0.05 percentage point. Such statistics are not shown.

Average annual changes in the poverty rate were computed based on rounded figures, while those for individual factors in the decomposition of

the poverty rate were computed based on unrounded figures. The sum of the latter may thus differ slightly from the total.

The change in pre-intervention (purely theoretical assumption) poverty rate (annual average) is decomposed into “economic factors” and

“structural factors”. These factors, together with the estimated change in the poverty alleviation impact of Government’s policy intervention during

the period, add up to the change in post-intervention (all selected measures) poverty rate.

General Household Survey and Quarterly Report on Gross Domestic Product, Census and Statistics Department.

Notes: (@)

Sources:

III. Key observations

1. Being affected by the global COVID-19 pandemic, the Hong Kong economy experienced a severe

recession in 2020. Should there be no timely policy intervention by the Government, it would be

inevitable to see a distinct deterioration in the poverty situation. In response to this major

challenge, the Government rolled out a huge package of non-recurrent measures last year to

stabilise the economy and relieve the pressure on the grassroots’ livelihood.

• After policy intervention of all selected policies, the overall poverty rate and the size of the poor

population fell markedly in 2020 over the preceding year. Annual decreases in the poverty rates

were observed in different age groups, genders, and most of the groups classified by household

characteristic, illustrating the widespread impact of the non-recurrent measures that could largely

benefit various groups.

• The poverty alleviation impact of all selected measures strengthened substantially by 3.5

percentage points over 2019 to 15.7 percentage points, mainly as a result of the non-recurrent

measures launched, such as the cash payout of $10,000 and the relevant measures under AEF

(individual effectiveness were 3.8 and 1.1 percentage points respectively). These relieved the

burden of the grassroots and effectively suppressed the surge in poverty rate that would have come

about during the economic downturn. Moreover, the recurrent cash (6.3 percentage points) and in-

kind measures (such as PRH: 3.8 percentage points) continued to play a role in alleviating poverty

and helping the disadvantaged.

2. The macroeconomic conditions could have significant impact on the local poverty situation

• An analysis based on the pre-intervention (purely theoretical assumptions) situation reveals that as

the labour market deteriorated sharply in 2020, the number of unemployed households surged, and

their poverty risk rose distinctly. These would have been the main factors behind the noticeable

deterioration in the overall poverty situation (had there been no timely policy intervention by the

Government). Significant job losses together with reductions in working hours and underemployment

also exacerbated the situation of working poor during the year. All these illustrate that

macroeconomic downturn could have a significant impact on the local poverty situation.

25

III. Outlook• Looking ahead, the poverty situation outlook hinges on the

development of the pandemic across the globe and the pace of

economic recovery in Hong Kong

• If the Hong Kong community can provide widespread support to the implementation of the

vaccination programme and anti-epidemic measures, it would lay a solid foundation for the

economy to swiftly return to the right track, and for the labour market to recover further. This

would help bring relief to the local poverty situation as well, in particular the working poverty

situation. But it should be noted that the performance of post-intervention (all selected

measures) poverty indicators might be affected by the scaling down of one-off measures

after economic recovery.

• The Chief Executive’s 2021 Policy Address delivered in October stated

clearly that it is necessary to continuously improve people’s livelihood

• The Government’s poverty alleviation strategies will focus on four areas in future:

Continue to lift needy elderly out of poverty by providing cash welfare (including merging the Normal and

Higher OALA in the second half of 2022, so that the more lenient asset limits of the Normal OALA will be

adopted across-the-board, and eligible applicants will receive payment at the Higher OALA rate);

Continue to develop our economy, provide training and retraining, encourage employment, and provide

financial support for working households with lower incomes (particularly those with children) through the

WFA Scheme;

Vigorously speed up PRH construction, build more transitional housing and provide cash allowances to

eligible households who have been waiting for PRH for more than three years; and

Strengthen the MPF retirement protection under the principle of shared responsibility.

26

Documents

Main Analysis of the Poverty Situation in 2020