Anti-Poverty Programmes and Livelihood Sustainability: Comparative Evidence from Herder Households in Northern Tibet, China

Anti-Poverty Programmes (APPs) are closely linked to rural livelihoods, yet comparative evidence on how participants and non-participants differ in livelihood-capital composition and income-generation patterns remains limited in ecologically fragile pastoral regions. This study draws on a cross-sectional household survey conducted in Northern Tibet in July 2020, covering 696 households—including 225 APP participants and 471 non-participants. Using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and the entropy weight method, we construct multidimensional livelihood-capital indices (human, social, natural, physical, and financial capital) and compare the two groups. We further apply Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regressions to examine factors associated with per capita net income. The results reveal substantial heterogeneity in livelihood capital and income across both groups. APP participants exhibit higher human-capital scores, largely driven by a higher share of skills training, whereas they show disadvantages in physical and financial capital relative to non-participants. Natural capital shows no statistically significant difference between the two groups under the local grassland contracting regime. Significant differences are observed and identified in certain dimensions of social capital. Regression results suggest that income is positively associated with skills training, contracted grassland endowment, and fixed assets, with skills training showing the strongest association. For participants, herd size and labour capacity are not statistically significant correlates of income; for non-participants, larger herds and greater labour capacity are associated with lower income. Taken together, the findings indicate that APP participation is associated with stronger capability-related capital (notably training) alongside persistent constraints in productive assets and financial capacity. Policy implications include improving the relevance and quality of training, strengthening cooperative governance and market linkages, and designing complementary packages that connect skills, inclusive finance, and productive asset accumulation. Given the cross-sectional design and administratively targeted certification of programme participation, the results should be interpreted as context-specific associations rather than strict causal effects.