The Economist this week has an interesting leader (subscription) on the challenges that the CPC will face in dealing with the problems of rural poverty in China. They have done a very simple bit of math that illustrates the problem nicely:
Beyond recognising the problem (China's prime minister, Wen Jiabao, called it a “deep-seated conflict” that “cannot be ignored”), this week's congress approved a 15% increase in the money earmarked for agricultural development, rural services and the like. But even though the amount to be spent has now risen to 340 billion yuan ($42 billion), or 8.9% of the entire budget, China's vastness makes it trivial. Some 800m people still live in the countryside, so the new spending amounts to less than an additional $7 a year each.

What more could the central government do? Most obviously, it could introduce a proper system of land rights. If that remains an ideological bridge too far, for the time being at least, it could at least fund its provinces adequately, which would mean that the poorer, more rural ones could afford to treat farmers better. That would involve inter-province transfers at a much higher rate than now.

Finally, it could do a lot more to encourage efficient government by provincial and local governments. A big part of the problem is that these lower tiers of government are run incompetently. The reason is hardly a mystery. With a press that is muzzled (and, if anything, getting tamer, thanks to a media crackdown directed from the very top), officials are in no sense accountable to the people whose lives they control.
The emphasis is mine. The point is theirs. For perspective, while the incremental spend is another $7 per head per year, the total spend is now about $52 per person per year. While any money spent on agricultural and rural development can help --assuming it is used wisely, well targeted, and not simply siphoned away into the great red hole-- it can never amount to much spread among nearly a billion people. The solutions, The Economist suggests, are a bit more radical. A government that is more directly accountable to people who are living in rural poverty, and a media that is freer to report on the incompetent and corrupt local governments that hinder development. But that, of course, seems unlikely.

Even in rural China, an extra 56RMB per head is only going to take you so far.

Other interesting NPC week reading:
BusinessWeek also discusses China's rural development.
The New York Times has a fascinating article on the current wave of bao xian study sessions designed to reinforce party ideology.
Dishuiguanyin with the positive outlook on the New Socialist Countryside.