Abstract: Doing a good job in identifying poverty alleviation products is the key to continuously promoting the export of agricultural products from villages to cities and even carrying out long-term consumption assistance. The high recognition standards require poverty alleviation enterprises to undertake a relatively higher level of poverty alleviation responsibility. Although it can force innovative enterprises to actively improve product quality, it also increases the supply of poverty alleviation products. If poverty alleviation enterprises lack innovation capabilities, it is easy to trigger the stagnation of poverty alleviation products. Therefore, the setting of criteria for identifying poverty alleviation products faces a dilemma of incentivizing innovation and preventing unsold products. Based on the independently constructed poverty alleviation product identification standard setting model, this paper analyzes the four common strategies and corresponding optimization strategies. The findings show that, firstly, all the four common strategies will cause losses to the local total revenue. A single low standard cannot stimulate innovation, and a single high standard will bring the risk of unsold products, while the high sales rewards and rigid price limits will lead to low selling prices of agricultural products. Secondly, the four optimized strategies of selective high sales rewards, selective revenue sharing, selective price cutting, and selective innovation subsidies can all motivate high performers to choose high standards and carry out innovation, and they can guide low performers to choose low standards to eliminate the risk of unsold products, ultimately achieving the maximization of local total revenue. Due to the differences in implementation requirements, decision-making intervals, and welfare effects among the four optimization strategies, the policy makers need to comprehensively consider such factors as the local innovation capabilities, the demand price elasticity of poverty alleviation products, farmers’ income, and fiscal burden.

Key words: slow sale of agricultural products, innovation incentivizing, identification of poverty-alleviating product, innovation of poverty-alleviating enterprises, policy design