Measuring “High-Quality Development” and Progress Toward “Common Prosperity” in China

Abstract In 2017, the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China introduced the concept of “high-quality development” to shift China’s focus from high-speed growth to a more inclusive concept. In August 2021, the Chinese leadership emphasized “common prosperity” as an essential goal for modernization. However, measuring “common prosperity” in the context of “high-quality development” is challenging and requires reliable and practical indicators. Apart from income, such indicators should include other important aspects of human well-being and they should be easy to calculate and interpret. To this end, we build on recent research and use Lifetime Income (LI), Inequality-Adjusted Lifetime Income (ILI), Healthy Lifetime Income (HLI), and Inequality-Adjusted Healthy Lifetime Income (IHLI) for the first time to assess China’s performance. We calculate the four indicators for China for the period 1990 to 2019 at a national level and employ the ILI indicator at a provincial level for the years 1998, 2008, and 2018. In addition, we calculate the LI indicator for all 31 of Mainland China’s provinces for the years 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020. Compared with other indicators such as the Human Development Index, the measures we use: (i) take into account health and equality as important components of well-being; (ii) have a mathematically defined unit of measurement that allows for a straightforward interpretation; (iii) do not depend on arbitrary weights; (iv) are able to capture tradeoffs that follow directly from their definitions; (v) are not mathematically bounded from above; and (vi) come with limited data requirements. We show that progress towards “common prosperity” was remarkable from 1990 to 2020, but there is still substantial inequality across Chinese provinces. Finally, we discuss several policy measures that could foster “common prosperity”.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Social Indicators Research
Published
2025-04-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-025-03577-y
Citations
4
Primary Topic
China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
34.09

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Measuring “High-Quality Development” and Progress Toward “Common Prosperity” in China

Junlai Zhang, Klaus Prettner, Simiao Chen
4 citations
Social Indicators Research
China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
34.09
article

Measuring “High-Quality Development” and Progress Toward “Common Prosperity” in China

Junlai Zhang, Klaus Prettner, Simiao Chen
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Abstract In 2017, the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China introduced the concept of “high-quality development” to shift China’s focus from high-speed growth to a more inclusive concept. In August 2021, the Chinese leadership emphasized “common prosperity” as an essential goal for modernization. However, measuring “common prosperity” in the context of “high-quality development” is challenging and requires reliable and practical indicators. Apart from income, such indicators should include other important aspects of human well-being and they should be easy to calculate and interpret. To this end, we build on recent research and use Lifetime Income (LI), Inequality-Adjusted Lifetime Income (ILI), Healthy Lifetime Income (HLI), and Inequality-Adjusted Healthy Lifetime Income (IHLI) for the first time to assess China’s performance. We calculate the four indicators for China for the period 1990 to 2019 at a national level and employ the ILI indicator at a provincial level for the years 1998, 2008, and 2018. In addition, we calculate the LI indicator for all 31 of Mainland China’s provinces for the years 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020. Compared with other indicators such as the Human Development Index, the measures we use: (i) take into account health and equality as important components of well-being; (ii) have a mathematically defined unit of measurement that allows for a straightforward interpretation; (iii) do not depend on arbitrary weights; (iv) are able to capture tradeoffs that follow directly from their definitions; (v) are not mathematically bounded from above; and (vi) come with limited data requirements. We show that progress towards “common prosperity” was remarkable from 1990 to 2020, but there is still substantial inequality across Chinese provinces. Finally, we discuss several policy measures that could foster “common prosperity”.

Social Indicators ResearchVol. 179(1)
Vienna University of Economics and Business (AT), Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN), Heidelberg University (DE), Peking Union Medical College Hospital (CN), University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
Österreichische Agentur für Internationale Mobilität und Kooperation in Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung, Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
34.09
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.