World Bank2013-08-082013-08-082001-01https://hdl.handle.net/10986/14958The study reviews the living standards in Turkmenistan, shaped by the Soviet legacy - whose income levels in 1989 were below the socially acceptable minimum -; by the economic decline throughout the 1990s, until recent economic resumption; and, by current approaches, and government policies. In an attempt to ensure good living standards, the country maintained one of the highest levels of subsidization of basic goods: water, gas, fuel, and social services, are mostly free. To some extent, the poor do benefit from these subsidies, but troubling issues reveal that: the costs of these non-targeted subsidies are not transparent, because they are paid by the providing agency, which in turn receives subsidized inputs. Nonetheless, real costs make it impossible to operate on a commercial basis, and, the non-payment system as it relates to maintenance and operation, has led to poor quality of services. But poverty alleviation implies much more than just subsidies, for measured in access to opportunity, it is seriously limited: few mechanisms exist for enabling the poor to benefit from most of the country's energy export earnings. Based on evidence that funding for social services represent transparent expenditures, and that subsidized commodities are disproportionately benefiting the wealthy, the potential for commercialization is undermined, unless services move to market pricing standards.en-USCC BY 3.0 IGOLIVING STANDARDS INDICATORSSUBSIDIZATIONPOVERTY INCIDENCESOCIALLY DISADVANTAGEDECONOMIC STAGNATIONGOVERNMENT POLICYLIVING CONDITIONSBASIC NEEDSSOCIAL SERVICESOPERATIONAL COSTSCOMMERCIALIZATIONPAYMENTS SYSTEMSQUALITY STANDARDSPOVERTY MITIGATIONPRICING STRATEGYMARKET COMPETITION ABSOLUTE INEQUALITYABSOLUTE POVERTYADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONSAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIONAGRICULTURAL SECTORANTHROPOMETRIC DATAAVERAGE AGEAVERAGE INCOMEBASIC EDUCATIONBUDGET ALLOCATIONSBUDGET PROCESSBUDGETARY PROCESSCRITICAL IMPORTANCEDEVELOPMENT INDICATORSDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMEECONOMIC ACTIVITYECONOMIC DECLINEECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTECONOMIC GROWTHEMPLOYMENT STATUSEQUAL DISTRIBUTIONEXPENDITURE QUINTILESFARMSFINANCIAL SITUATIONGINI COEFFICIENTGNPGROSS NATIONAL PRODUCTGROWTH RATEHEALTH CAREHEALTH INDICATORSHEALTH PROBLEMSHEALTH SECTORHEALTH STATUSHEALTH SURVEYHEALTH WORKERSHOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICSHOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURESHOUSEHOLD HEADHOUSEHOLD WELFAREHUMAN DEVELOPMENTHUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORTINCOMEINCOME INEQUALITYINCOME LEVELINCOME POVERTYINFANT MORTALITYINFORMAL ACTIVITIESINTERNATIONAL STANDARDSLABOR FORCELAND REFORMLIFE EXPECTANCYLIVING CONDITIONSLIVING STANDARDSLIVING STANDARDS MEASUREMENTLOCAL CURRENCYLOW INEQUALITYMEAN CONSUMPTIONMEAN EXPENDITUREMINIMUM WAGENATIONAL AVERAGENATIONAL LEVELNON-FARM EMPLOYMENTOILPER CAPITA INCOMEPOLICY CHOICESPOOR PEOPLEPOOR POPULATIONPOPULATION SHAREPOVERTY ALLEVIATIONPOVERTY INCREASEPOVERTY LEVELSPOVERTY LINEPOVERTY LINESPOVERTY MEASUREMENTPOVERTY RATEPOVERTY REDUCTIONPRIMARY SCHOOLPRIVATE SECTORPRO-POORPUBLIC INVESTMENTPUBLIC RESOURCESPUBLIC SPENDINGPURCHASING POWERPURCHASING POWER PARITYREFORM PROGRAMREGIONAL INEQUALITYREGIONAL POLICIESRELATIVE INCOMERELATIVE POVERTYREPRESENTATIVE SURVEYRESOURCE ALLOCATIONRURAL AREASRURAL ECONOMYRURAL INFRASTRUCTURERURAL PEOPLERURAL POORRURAL POPULATIONRURAL POVERTYSIGNIFICANT EFFECTSIGNIFICANT IMPACTSIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONSOCIAL DEVELOPMENTSOCIAL ENVIRONMENTSOCIAL RELATIONSHIPSSOCIAL SERVICESTECHNICAL ASSISTANCEUNEMPLOYMENTURBAN AREASURBAN POORURBAN POPULATIONURBAN POVERTYURBAN RESIDENTSWATER SUPPLYWorld Bank10.1596/14958