When you or me confront 'certain Economic parameters' of the Chinese economy then there comes a Dengist proposition : ''Biding time, hiding capability'' that specifically justify the contemporary approaches adopted in the process of Economic structuralism. Or to say more : ''No matter what is the color of cat, whether it is black or white, who catches the mice first matters''. This holistically, as said above, are empirically functional (since so-called 1978 reforms) in the 'socialistic' mechanics of the so-called 'organic economy' of 'Mainland China'. However, I'm not being a Global McCarthyist against Keynesianist China whose economy is claimed to be 'unique' as officially asserted by the 'Top Chinese Bureaucrats' in the philosophical words of ''Socialist economy with Chinese characteristics'' but what immediately matters is the escalation of the inequitable and the income gap that is obviously causing income inequality within the ambit of China that may have illusioned the Global economy with its so-called good numbers. No doubt to claim that the standard of 'social capital' in China is comparatively better than the South Asian economies and even in the pursuit of establishing the '21st century as an Asian century' - - - China's contribution remains not only substantial but very significant. But to but to add a bitter fact I came to know that in 2006 there were 68,000 protests and in 2010 it were 72,000 protests in China. And in 2010, China funded by lending more than the World Bank. To endow, Corruption remains a major challenge to the Chinese economy that drains off the qualitative income required to fight 'absolute poverty' levels. To ensue, Government policies like One Child policy, Hukou system, etc constitute qualitative-less in the fight against 'relative poverty' levels. Applying the spectacles of Historicism, I precisely put down the four so-called modernizing schemes that were deliberately infused in by the Chinese Government to fight poverty since 1978 and they're as follows : - Rural Structural Revolution (1978-1985), - Massive Development-Oriented Programs (1986-1993), - 8-7 Assault on Poverty (1994-2000), - Development-Oriented Poverty Reduction Program (2001-2010). The above programs significantly wiped down the urban poverty but rural poverty hitherto pinches the desk of Chinese Top Public Policy planners. When China went red in 1949, Mao undertook Henry George's idea of land/agricultural reforms based on Marxist-Leninism principles that 'communed' but successfully failed. Therefore, the 'Democratic Consolidation of Spirits', 'The Great Leap Forward', 'The Cultural Revolution' all commenced under the Mao Zedong regime failed to wipe down the poverty levels but succeeded in wiping off millions of poor people. From my above preface, I prefer your reviews/debates on this topic. To assist, I accentuate crucial links/studies that present the official inputs as well as non-official information on the 'issue of Poverty and Poor people in China' :- Whether these are facts or fiction? http://www.china-mike.com/facts-about-china/facts-rich-poor-inequality/ I suppose Yes but No(?). Pakistan's Defense Forum have specifically under-rated the issue of asymmetries over Micro-Finance in China http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/151655-interesting-facts-about-poverty-china.html And I found out that it did not highlight certain steps undertaken by the Chinese Govt. to manage the micro-finances. I suppose its not a Western agenda(?) http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/category/topics/poverty-china Anyways, the subjective review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China has to pragmatically inform more on the subject that have the greatest 'causal effect' implications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China Moreover the Chinese economy, as claimed by Sino-Relativist, enjoys red rights and less of the blue rights but still are the red rights structurally manipulated by the Elite class in its Socialist economy? The Internet economy is rising 'peacefully' in Neo-Confucianist China despite of the horrible crackdowns but still I ratiocinate again that rural region is deprived of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China. On April 8, 2012. At an International Conference, I presented a paper on Housing Management in China where I brought out about those resident-less sky crappers that posit certain so-called infrastructural development in Shanghai and Beijing like cities. The paper titled as 'Asymmetric Housing Management in China' is posted below as a conclusion to this thread: âThe housing market problem in China is actually much, much more fundamental, much bigger than the housing market problem in the U.S. and U.K.", says Li Daokui, a professor at Tsinghua University and a member of the Chinese central bankâs monetary policy committee. Abstract Logically conclusive to proposition that the âState-controlled-Capitalist economyâ called as - China - on the knowledge and policy continuum is encountering one of the toughest challenge in the management of asymmetry options due to high level of Statism comprehension. In this context, this empirical paper will analytically highlight the various plight, predicament and tribulations encountered by housing arena that probably shells out the rosy picture by the Chinese government. The ever-morphing commercial skylines of Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen; the stories of buy-and-flip property speculators; the sometimes garish consumer culture of Chinaâs urban monied eliteâno doubt about it, the new opiate of the masses on the mainland is real estate. In roughly a decade or so, urban China has evolved from having a heavily subsidized system of government-owned housing to a free-wheeling, market-driven one with all the opportunities and inequalities that come with it. Chinese of a certain ageânow in their 40s or soâwho worked for government-owned enterprises in the late 1980s or early '90s, started out in their careers paying only a fraction of their earnings for housing. As economic reforms deepened in the mid-1990s, both Chinese President Jiang Zemin and Premier Zhu Rongji started to dismantle that system, which was pretty much history by 1998. A more market-driven China needed labor mobility, a dynamic private sector, and a housing market that better reflected demand. "To get rich is glorious" became the new mantra. Today, China is richer, and that's unquestionably a good thing. A huge wave of privatizations, mergers, and shutdowns within the once-sprawling state-owned corporate sector has cleared away a lot of deadwood. Home ownership in big cities such as Beijing and Shanghai is high by global standards. Yet China is also home to far more income inequality, environmental wreckage, and social unrest. Mainlanders lucky enough to have gotten into the housing market over the last decade are enjoying a sweet ride. Younger couples and rural transplants are having a tough time finding affordable housing. Such is the social backdrop to the current great economic debate over how best to handle Chinaâs overheated property market. Since April, Chinese President Hu Jintaoâs government has taken steps to cool things down. Beijing now requires bigger down payments on higher-end properties and has imposed sales and capital gains on speculative property transactions. Developers, meanwhile, face higher financing costs and penalties for hoarding land.