evolution of wellbeing
DESCRIPTION
Ethiopian Development Research Institue (EDRI) and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Seminar Series, March 30, 2011TRANSCRIPT
Evolution of Wellbeing in Ethiopia
By Ibrahim Worku Hassan
International Food Policy Research Institute-Ethiopian Strategy support Program II
March 30, 2011
Content
• Introduction• Literature • Data• Descriptive• Concluding Remark• Extensions
IntroductionMotivation• To complement what has been done by Alemayehu
and Kibrom (2010)• As an extension: it capture some salient futures of
the livelihood of the poor across different socio-economic group over time horizon
• To see whether there is an improvement in the living standard over time
Literature• Benerjee and Duflo (2006) made cross country comparison
on the wellbeing of rural and urban poor households• The authors describe sources of income and consumption
behaviors of the poor• Also focus on: what they call ‘apparent anomalous choices’
that the poor made* significant potion of the poor, both in Urban & Rural area,
own Land: Tanzania, India - Udaipur and Panama Television : Nicaragua, Panama, Indonesia, Cote d'Ivoire Radio: South Africa, Nicaragua, Peru * consumption observed irregularity in the consumption behavior of the
poor which is beyond expectation
Literature (Cont.)
• Alemayehu and Kibrom (2010) • Used national, quintile, urban and rural classification• Expenditure patterns : observed upward trend with
some fluctuation in real per capita expenditure, over time by household group and location;
• Calorie intake show slight decline
• * mixed result regarding consumption behavior
• Assets – radios, bicycles, mobile phones Show increment
• In this study: the analysis extends to poor non/poor classification for national and urban -rural clusters; It also includes some additional dimensions in each section
The DataThe data source is HICES and WMS surveys
which is collected by CSA for the periods• 1995/96,• 1999/00• 2004/05The data set is nationally representativeHICES and WMS together capture various
dimensions: from demographic to consumption and infrastructure and facilities…
Method
• Descriptive tables• Comparison is made • across groups * National * Rural and Urban Households * 5 quintiles of expenditure groups * Poor/non-poor-National classification (based on
quintiles of expenditure groups) * Poor/non-poor-Urban/Rural classification• over three survey
1) Household size• Average household size continually declines across the 5
expenditure quintile groups• the poorest section mean household size increases for
both urban and rural group• urban population mean hhsize declined for the remaining 4
quintiles, • rural people of the 3rd, 4th and 5th quintile group mean hh
size also show a declining pattern
1996 1999 2004 1996 1999 2004 1996 1999 2004 1996 1999 2004 1996 1999 2004Qi1 Qi2 Qi3 Qi4 Qi5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Average Household Size UrbanAverage Household Size Rural
2) Expenditure sharesA) Total Consumption• real per capita expenditure has shown ups and
downs over the survey periods; true even for the urban non-poor except for the top 5th quintile group
1996
1999
2004
1996
1999
2004
1996
1999
2004
1996
1999
2004
Urban Rural Urban RuralPoor Non-poor
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Real Per capita expenditure
Real Per capita expendi-ture
1996
1999
2004
1996
1999
2004
1996
1999
2004
1996
1999
2004
1996
1999
2004
qi1 qi2 qi3 qi4 qi5
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Real Per capita expenditure
Real Per capita expendi-ture
Expenditure share by Category
• Expenditure share for food consistently declined while non-food expenditure increased
• Expenditure on festivals, education, health, alcohol and tobacco accounts only about 5 over the period;
1996 1999 2004 1996 1999 2004 1996 1999 2004 1996 1999 2004Urban Rural Urban Rural
Poor Non-poor
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Non-FoodFestivalsEducationHealthAlcohol & TobaccoFood
Pattern of Expenditure shares of the four marginal commodities• Expenditure on education has increased in urban and rural
areas• In general, we can say that spending on festivals is also
increasing. • Expenditure share on health slightly declined for rural
population and urban poor.
ur1996 ur1999 ur2004 ru1996 ru1999 ru2004 ur1996 ur1999 ur2004 ru1996 ru1999 ru2004Urban Rural Urban Rural
Poor non-poor
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
Alcohol & TobaccoHealthEducationFestivals
Calorie intake
• Average daily calorie intake has increased for the rural poor and non-poor population
• The urban poor and non-poor faced a decline in their daily calorie intake for the period 1999 but improved in 2004.
• If we look at the recent 2004, even the poor straggle hard to meet the minimum average daily calorie requirement.
ur1996 ur1999 ur2004 ru1996 ru1999 ru2004 ur1996 ur1999 ur2004 ru1996 ru1999 ru2004Urban Rural Urban Rural
Poor Non-Poor
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Series1
Asset Ownership: Land and housing• More than 95 of rural hhds, poor/non-poor, claimed to have land and
housing• Whereas only around 60-50 report to have land or house in urban
areas • The proportion of hhds who claimed to have land has declined in
both urban and rural areas• No distinction b/n poor& non poor
Percentage of households who
own land
Own land Yes No
Poor Urban
1996 61.97 38.03
1999 54.83 45.17
2004 52.27 47.73
Rural
1996 96.63 3.37
1999 95.20 4.80
2004 97.30 2.70
Non-PoorUrban
1996 60.65 39.35
1999 58.12 41.88
2004 56.73 43.27
Rural
1996 97.32 2.68
1999 95.66 4.34
2004 96.80 3.20
ur19
96ur
1999
ur20
04ru
1996
ru19
99ru
2004
ur19
96ur
1999
ur20
04ru
1996
ru19
99ru
2004
urban rural urban ruralpoor non-poor
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
OthersRentFree of ChargeOwned
Asset: Summary• Tells us the profile of poor and non-poor across rural and urban household• Poor tend to own less of asset category one (Urban Assets) and ,in general, more of asset category two
(Rural asset) and vice versa
Urban/Rural Quintiles poor/non-poor_ nationalAsset category_1 National Urban Rural q1 q2 q3 q4 q1 poor non-poor
Radio 0.288 0.762 0.199 0.196 0.213 0.240 0.315 0.485 0.204 0.346Television 0.038 0.224 0.003 0.020 0.021 0.019 0.035 0.096 0.021 0.050Bicycle 0.011 0.051 0.003 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.012 0.027 0.006 0.015Sofa set 0.029 0.165 0.003 0.015 0.014 0.017 0.026 0.072 0.015 0.038Table and Chair 0.527 1.765 0.292 0.336 0.374 0.421 0.609 0.909 0.355 0.645Video deck 0.014 0.081 0.001 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.010 0.042 0.006 0.019Refrigerator 0.010 0.063 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.008 0.029 0.004 0.014Car 0.005 0.028 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.016 0.002 0.007Jewellery 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000Asset category_2
Cattle 0.949 0.204 1.121 0.990 1.044 1.074 0.965 0.685 1.016 0.904Sheep and goats 2.065 0.500 2.363 2.398 2.250 2.414 1.939 1.302 2.325 1.887Chicken/Poultry 2.453 0.723 2.782 2.855 2.600 2.659 2.383 1.743 2.730 2.263Plough animal 0.818 0.098 0.955 0.836 0.863 0.945 0.852 0.592 0.849 0.797Pack animal 0.112 0.022 0.129 0.098 0.112 0.130 0.122 0.097 0.105 0.117Equines 0.296 0.035 0.345 0.297 0.328 0.341 0.308 0.204 0.312 0.284Mofer and Kember 0.984 0.094 1.153 1.113 1.040 1.116 0.963 0.677 1.077 0.919plough 0.645 0.090 0.751 0.685 0.703 0.724 0.642 0.469 0.694 0.612Sickle 1.258 0.301 1.440 1.390 1.388 1.412 1.246 0.844 1.389 1.168
Source of Income
• Rural households mainly depend on agriculture• the urban poor and non-poor have lots of income generating
mechanism: urban agriculture as a source of income is also increasing Poor Non-Poor
Source of Income Urban Rural Urban Rural ur1996 ur1999 ur2004 ru1996 ru1999 ru2004 ur1996 ur1999 ur2004 ru1996 ru1999 ru2004
Agricultural enterprise 8.42 11.15 13.88 59.54 92.26 92.96 6.13 6.62 7.93 63.12 94.07 92.93
Household enterprise 39.14 28.43 30.64 9.10 1.76 3.50 36.91 26.22 31.62 9.61 1.57 3.26Remittance / Transfer government 31.06 4.60 7.20 10.32 0.36 1.10 41.40 7.71 7.18 10.36 0.28 1.03
Collected free (wood,Water, ...) 17.63 0.97 16.73 0.33 12.96 0.19 14.13 0.24Wages and salaries 3.75 37.21 31.12 4.13 2.75 1.19 2.59 42.35 41.46 2.66 2.37 1.64
Pension/social security 0.00 5.22 8.08 0.19 0.16 0.04 0.01 5.55 5.45 0.11 0.11 0.21Saving 0.33 0.00 0.46 0.03
Interests and royalties 0.16 0.02 0.04 0.05Dividends 0.34 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.18 0.05 0.00 0.07Rent 1.87 2.88 0.02 0.17 3.68 2.65 0.05 0.11Income from rent 0.15 0.18 0.02 0.17 0.15 0.08 0.03 0.11Sale of fixed assets 10.98 0.21 2.68 0.00 7.65 0.30 1.54 0.02Other current transfers 0.19 4.41 0.01 0.65 0.03 2.68 0.00 0.41
Ability to read and write
• In both urban and rural areas %age of households who can read and write has increased over the periods
1996 1999 2004 1996 1999 2004 1996 1999 2004 1996 1999 2004Urban Rural Urban Rural
Poor Non-Poor
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
no
yes
Ability to get 100 birr per week
• Percentage of household who can get 100birr during emergency across quintiles has increased
• But in 2004 those who respond positively declined for all quintile groups
qi1 qi2 qi3 qi4 qi5 qi1 qi2 qi3 qi4 qi51999 2004
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Yes No
Sources of Light and drinking water• Rural poor and non-poor dependence on kerosene has increased
over time while the urban counter part shifted to electricity• Rural poor and non-poor reliance on river, lake and pond declined
and sifted towards unprotected well/spring and public tap• While in urban areas there is a shift to use public tap than other
sources
ur1996
ur1999
ur2004
ru1996
ru1999
ru2004
ur1996
ur1999
ur2004
ru1996
ru1999
ru2004
Urba
nRu
ral
Urba
nRu
ral
Poor
Non-
Poor
0.00% 50.00% 100.00%
Kerosin
Electric _Private
Electric Shared
wood
Candle/Kerosin Lamp
Others/not stated
ur19
96
ur19
99
ur20
04
ru19
96
ru19
99
ru20
04
ur19
96
ur19
99
ur20
04
ru19
96
ru19
99
ru20
04
Urban Rural Urban RuralPoor Non-poor
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Own Tap
Public Tap
Protected well/spring
Unprotected well/spring
River, Lake, Pond
Others/Not Stated
Households perception in 2004• About 40 to 50% of households kept their status quo • 20-30% report that they did a little better• Roughly, 20-30% felt worse in food and overall living standard• Only few did much better ( less than 3% for all classification)
Living standard of %age of HH now compared with 12mn ago wrt...
clothing food overall
urban rural urban rural urban rural
poornon-poor poor
non-poor poor
non-poor poor
non-poor poor
non-poor poor
non-poor
Much worse 6.69 2.48 8.90 5.15 10.06 4.25 13.81 8.41 10.74 4.65 12.97 7.94Less worse 18.45 13.42 26.46 21.72 22.25 16.06 33.38 28.54 23.78 17.96 31.52 25.95Same 52.03 51.98 41.91 42.08 47.17 52.90 28.15 31.41 41.48 45.55 29.89 30.72A little better 21.64 29.50 21.13 29.64 19.15 23.94 23.21 29.41 22.54 29.07 23.92 33.43Much better 1.19 2.62 1.60 1.42 1.37 2.85 1.45 2.23 1.46 2.77 1.70 1.95
Distance to publicly provided facilities• %age of households who live at a distance less than 1km to publicly
provided facilities has increased
age of hhds with distance in kilometer to… Facility Year < 1 2-4 5-9- 10-14 15-19 20-99
Primary school1996 40.85 29.29 21.09 5.62 1.92 1.221999 34.27 42.60 18.45 3.31 0.97 0.392004 72.28 14.68 10.29 1.46 0.61 0.69
Secondary school1996 10.65 7.55 15.20 9.26 13.37 43.961999 8.69 11.63 16.46 13.64 12.41 37.172004 33.62 4.18 10.10 8.22 8.68 35.19
Food Market1996 25.53 20.71 31.94 10.28 7.31 4.221999 23.56 30.69 28.19 11.45 4.98 1.122004 58.30 10.47 18.82 6.97 2.03 3.41
Post office1996 12.28 6.41 18.00 12.25 15.41 35.651999 8.67 9.44 18.46 13.96 14.46 35.022004 34.25 3.71 11.33 7.02 9.16 34.53
All Weather road1996 1999 38.81 19.31 14.65 9.14 8.41 9.672004 68.26 6.46 7.91 2.81 4.47 10.10
Facilities by U/R classification• Access to facilities to rural
households significantly improved over these survey periods
• There is no significant variation across quintile groups
• Since the poor and non-poor are living side by side the distinction is not significant for such classification
age of household who live at a distance in
kilometer < 1 2-4 5-9- 10-14 15-19 20-99
Primary school
Urban1996 90.98 8.55 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.081999 77.94 20.84 1.08 0.03 0.01 0.102004 89.44 9.77 0.56 0.23 0.00 0.00
Rural1996 31.89 33.00 24.79 6.63 2.26 1.421999 27.64 45.91 21.09 3.80 1.12 0.442004 67.84 15.95 12.81 1.77 0.76 0.87
Secondary school
Urban1996 60.17 25.48 5.33 1.24 2.10 5.671999 47.90 38.21 8.00 0.13 1.36 4.402004 63.05 16.25 7.08 0.59 3.90 9.13
Rural1996 1.80 4.35 16.96 10.70 15.38 50.811999 2.74 7.60 17.74 15.69 14.08 42.142004 27.58 1.70 10.73 9.79 9.66 40.53
Food Market
Urban1996 84.73 11.02 3.94 0.28 0.03 0.001999 68.35 26.46 5.02 0.03 0.00 0.132004 86.48 10.79 2.41 0.20 0.08 0.05
Rural1996 14.95 22.44 36.95 12.07 8.61 4.981999 16.76 31.34 31.71 13.19 5.74 1.272004 51.35 10.39 22.87 8.65 2.51 4.24
Post Office
Urban1996 71.03 15.28 4.97 2.48 0.64 5.601999 52.83 31.24 6.85 0.87 1.38 6.832004 68.33 12.43 7.19 2.35 4.36 5.35
Rural1996 1.78 4.82 20.33 14.00 18.05 41.021999 1.97 6.14 20.22 15.95 16.44 39.292004 27.51 1.98 12.15 7.94 10.11 40.31
All Weather Road
Urban1996 1999 94.12 3.94 1.12 0.19 0.46 0.172004 96.26 1.74 0.17 0.17 0.01 1.65
Rural1996 1999 26.01 17.98 17.49 10.64 12.45 15.432004 56.43 5.49 10.16 5.33 3.96 18.63
Concluding Remark • Average household size has shown declining trend• Real per capita expenditure improved over the periods• Share of food consumption declined • Average daily calorie intake improved • Accessibility to facilities has improved• Expenditure on festivals and education has slightly
improved• Having land/house doesn’t guarantee a household form
being poor• According to 2004 survey, Most households, 40-50%,
maintained their status-quo, %age of and rural households who felt much worse are twice their urban counter parts
• On average, wellbeing has improved
Caveats
• Bench mark when a new HICES and WMS data are released and the comparison will make even more sense
• Requires regression analysis * Oaxaca Decomposition
Questions and Comments?
Thank You !!