Rethinking Poverty and Inequality Measurement in Arab Countries

  • 1,698 views
Uploaded on

Présentation de Khalid Abu Ismail, Conseiller en pauvreté et macroéconomie, Bureau régional du PNUD Caire, Egypte, à la Conférence Internationale d'Experts sur la mesure et les approches politiques …

Présentation de Khalid Abu Ismail, Conseiller en pauvreté et macroéconomie, Bureau régional du PNUD Caire, Egypte, à la Conférence Internationale d'Experts sur la mesure et les approches politiques pour améliorer l'équité pour les nouvelles générations dans la région MENA à Rabat, Maroc du 22 au 23 mai 2012.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,698
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Human Development Index (HDI): A composite index measuring average achievement in three basic dimensions of human development—a long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living. See Technical note 1 for details on how the HDI is calculated.Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI): Human Development Index (HDI) value adjusted for inequalities in the three basic dimensions of human development. See Technical note 2 for details on how the IHDI is calculated.Overall loss: The loss in potential human development due to inequality, calculated as the percentage difference between the HDI and the IHDI.Sub-Saharan Africa suffers the highest inequality in health, while South Asia and Arab States have considerable losses due to unequal distribution in education. Latin America and the Caribbean suffers the largest loss of any region due to inequality in income (39.3%).
  • Yemen is included in the regional averages starting 1989

Transcript

  • 1. RETHINKING POVERTY ANDINEQUALITY MEASUREMENT INARAB COUNTRIESKhalid Abu-IsmailMeasurement and Policy Approaches to Enhance Equity for the NewGenerations in the Middle East and North Africa, UNICEF,Rabat 22 - 23 May 1
  • 2. Outline of Presentation1. Rethinking Money Metric Poverty Measurement2. The Paradox of Growth and Inequality in Arab countries3. Other facets of inequality4. Conclusions 2
  • 3. 1. Money-Metric PovertyStories 3
  • 4. Typology of Poverty lines Money-Metric Poverty Lines National Poverty Lines International Poverty Lines (Household Specific) (Based on 2005 PPP)Food Poverty Lower Poverty Upper Fixed Variable Line Line Poverty Line ($1.25, $2.00, etc) (PL varies with income) 4
  • 5. Conventional storylineon Arab poverty basedon $1.25 poverty lineLowest poverty incidence world-wideFast poverty reduction since 1990 implying region is on track to halve extreme poverty by 2015. 5
  • 6. 6Population living below $1.25 (2005 PPP), DevelopingRegions, 1990-2009 (%) 1990-2000 2000-2009 70 59 60 47 50 50 38 40 40 35 30 24 20 17 9 10 6 4 4 2 5 0 CIS AC DR SA EA & P E& SSA LA & C
  • 7. Story changes with higher poverty linesArab region is most sensitive to choiceof PL among developing regions. 7
  • 8. Highest % change among Developing Regions whenmoving from $1.25 to higher PLs (2000-2010) $1.25 $2 $2.75 % Change from $1.25 to $2.00 % Change from $2.25 to $2.75 % Change in Poverty rate poverty100 450% 90 87 84 400% 80 74 74 350% 70 60 300% 60 57 50 250% 50 46 40 40 40 200% 40 19 150% 30 24 17 20 100% 20 12 12 10 4 6 5 50% 2 0 0% 8 AC EA & P E & CIS LA & C SA SSA DR
  • 9. Poverty rates for Arab Countries and Developing Regions acrossa range of poverty lines (in 2005 PPP based on most recentsurveys) World East Asia & PacificP0 (%) Europe & Central Asia Latin America & Caribbean South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa100 Arab Countries 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 0.2 0.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.0 6.4 6.8 7.2 7.6 8.4 8.8 9.2 9.6 1.6 8.0 1 1.25 10.0 9
  • 10. Problems with international PLsProblems in equalizing purchasing parityacross countries.IPLs are not household specific and don’t takeinto account familysize, location, demographic composition orlocal prices. 10
  • 11. Why not resort to National Poverty Lines?Headcount poverty rates (P0) based on NPLs for DevelopingRegions, 1990-2000 and 2000-2009 1997 2008 % Change Change 45 50% 40 40 37 45% 36 35 40% 31 31 35% 30 27 30% 25 23 20 25% 20 18 20% 15 13 15% 10 9 10 10% 5 5% 0 0% AC EAP LAC SAS SSA DR 11
  • 12. 12Problem: Countries set NPLdifferently but most apply the LPLSolution: Back to the stylized factson ratio of the NPL to PCEIn poorest countries it will be 0.8-1In richest developing countries it willbe less than 0.2-0.4
  • 13. 13Log PCE and actual ratio of NPL to PCE (A) and PCE and NPL/PCErearranged in descending order (from richest to poorest) (B) NPL to PCE and PCE Rearranging countries according to their PCE Log pce PL/PCE log PCE PL/PCE 3 3 BRA2009 BRA2009 2.5 MEX2008 2.5 JOR2006 TUR2005 EGY2009 MEX2008 TUN2000 JOR2006 CHN-MAR2007 SYR2007 U2005 COM2004 SYR2007 EGY2009 DJI2002 TUN2000 DJI2002 2 CHN- IDN-U2009 IRQ2007 DZA1995 YEM2005 2 IRQ2007 CHN-R2005 MAR2007 R2005 HTI2001 CHN- IND-R2005 IDN-R2009 U2005 MRT2000 IND-U2005 IND-R2005 1.5 IDN-U2009 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 0
  • 14. 14If majority of countries get their NPLs right then a simple regression can overcome problems of overshooting (Brazil) and undershooting (China). Ln GDP versus Poverty Line per capita per month654321 y = -2E-05x2 + 0.010x + 3.067 R² = 0.7410 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
  • 15. National poverty lines and UNDP estimated (RPL) poverty lines (2005 PPP per capita per day) for Developing countries by expenditure groups, 1990-2000 and 2000-2009 PCE per capita per month NPL per day RPL per day NPL/PCE RPL/PCE Low Income Countries (average per capita expenditure below 60 dollars per month) 1990-1999 47 0.9 1.13 0.59 0.73 2000-2009 49 1.1 1.15 0.65 0.71 Lower Middle Income Countries (average per capita expenditure from 60 to 100 dollars per month) 1990-1999 77.7 1.1 1.5 0.44 0.58 2000-2009 70.2 0.9 1.4 0.4 0.6 Middle Income Countries (average per capita expenditure from 100 to 150 dollars per month) 1990-1999 114 2.3 2 0.6 0.52 2000-2009 109.6 1.8 1.9 0.49 0.52 Upper Middle Income Countries (average per capita expenditure from 150 to 200 dollars per month) 1990-1999 165.8 3 2.7 0.55 0.5 2000-2009 163.2 0.9 2.7 0.17 0.5 High Income Countries (average per capita expenditure above 200 dollars per month) 1990-1999 239.2 3.8 3.7 0.48 0.47 2000-2009 308.2 4 4.1 0.39 0.41 15
  • 16. National poverty lines and UNDP estimated regression based poverty lines (RPL) (2005 PPP per capita per day) for Developing Regions and Arab Sub-regions, 1990-2000 and 2000-2009 PCE per capita NPL per day RPL per day NPL/PCE RPL/PCE per month Sub-Saharan Africa (11)1990-1999 48 1.2 1.1 0.73 0.722000-2009 58.8 1.3 1.3 0.65 0.66 South Asia (6)1990-1999 48.9 1.1 1.2 0.69 0.712000-2009 55.2 1.1 1.2 0.59 0.67 East Asia and Pacific (9)1990-1999 59.6 0.8 1.3 0.4 0.652000-2009 102.4 0.8 1.8 0.24 0.54 Arab Countries (8)1990-1999 117.9 1.9 2 0.49 0.522000-2009 130 2.1 2.2 0.5 0.51 Europe and Central Asia (9)1990-1999 167 3.2 2.7 0.59 0.52000-2009 257.2 3.3 3.8 0.39 0.45 Latin America and the Caribbean (16)1990-1999 254.3 3.9 3.9 0.47 0.462000-2009 323.2 4.3 4.2 0.41 0.39 Developing Regions (59)1990-1999 87.1 1.5 1.6 0.52 0.572000-2009 121.1 1.5 2 0.39 0.5 16
  • 17. National poverty lines and UNDP estimated poverty lines (2005 PPP per capita per day) for Arab countries, 2000-20094.0 NPL UNDP RPL3.53.02.52.01.51.00.50.0 Djibouti Mauritania Yemen Morocco Tunisia Egypt Jordan Syria (2002) (2000) (2005) (2007) (2000) (2009) (2006) (2007) 17
  • 18. Results: Arab Poverty still lower than expected for expenditure per capita UNDP Estimated Poverty rates and per capita Expenditure (in 2005 PPP based on most recent surveys) 74 BDI Eastern Europe and CIS Arab Countries 64 Latin America & Carib. MWI East Asia & MDG ZMBNPL Sub-Saharan Africa Pacific 54 MOZ BFA UGA South Asia SSA ETH KHM COL HND BOL 44 BGD CMR NIC PHL SASINDGHA KEN ECU 34 LAO TJK MRT DR SLVDOM PER DJI IDN YEM LKA VNM GUY VEN JAM LAC BRA MEX PAN EAP TUR 24 PAK MNG CHN MAR TUN CRI KAZ JOR EGY AZE BGR ECA RUS AC 14 ROM SYR UKR CHL 4 BLR-50 -6 50 150 250 350 450 550 18
  • 19. But far more than in the $1.25 and slowpoverty reduction since 1990s Estimates Based on World Bank Poverty Lines UNDP Estimates $1.25 $2.00 $2.75 NPL RPL Headcount Poverty Rate (%) in 2000-2009 and rank Arab Countries 3.9 2 19 3 40 3 19.1 3 21.5 2 East Asia & Pacific 16.9 4 39.5 4 57.1 4 5.6 1 28.1 3 Europe & Central Asia 1.7 1 5.6 1 11.7 1 14.7 2 20.3 1 Latin America & Caribbean 5.5 3 12.3 2 19.6 2 34.1 5 32.4 4 South Asia 40.3 5 73.9 6 87.5 6 28.4 4 37 5 Sub-Saharan Africa 49.8 6 73.6 5 84.1 5 45.8 6 47.3 6 Developing Regions 23.6 46.4 60.5 19.7 31.8 Poverty Change (%) from 1990-1999 Arab Countries -35.7 4 -24.3 4 -12.4 4 -14.4 5 -8 5 East Asia & Pacific -55.1 1 -40.8 2 -30 3 -49.1 2 -21.8 2 Europe & Central Asia -50.5 2 -59.1 1 -56.1 1 -55.2 1 -11.1 4 Latin America & Caribbean -41.6 3 -39.5 3 -35.1 2 -20.4 4 -22.7 1 South Asia -14.3 6 -7.1 6 -3.8 6 -23.1 3 -6.1 6 Sub-Saharan Africa -16.3 5 -7.7 5 -5.1 5 -13.5 6 -12.5 3 Developing Regions -32.3 -23.4 -17.9 -26.9 -14.4 19
  • 20. 2. The StableGini Paradox 20
  • 21. Inequality in expenditure for Developing Regions (Ginicoefficient), 1990-1999 and 2000-200960 1990s 2000s 55.3 52.650 43.4 42.9 42.2 41.6 40.540 35.8 36.4 35.2 34.7 32.5 33.2 31.2302010 0 Arab East Asia & Eastern Latin America South Asia Sub-Saharan Developing Countries Pacific Europe and & Caribbean Africa Regions CIS 21
  • 22. Arab countries ranked according to level of income andinequality in expenditure (Gini coefficient), 1990-2009 Middle income/low inequality Low income/high inequalitySyria 1997 34.0 Djibouti 1996 36.8 2004 35.8 2002 40.0 2007 32.0 Comoros 2004 64.3Egypt 1991 32.0 2005 32.1 2009 30.1 Middle income/medium inequality Low income/medium inequalityJordan 1992 43.4 Yemen 1996 33.4 1997 36.4 2006 37.7 2002 38.9 Mauritania 1995 37.3 2006 37.7 2000 39.0Lebanon 2004 36.0Algeria 1998 40.0 1995 35.3 Middle income/high inequality High income/medium inequalityTunisia 1995 41.7 UAE 2007 38.8 2000 40.8 Kuwait 1999 36.0Morocco 1991 39.2 1998 39.5 2007 40.9 Arab Region 1990s 35.2 High income/high inequality 2000s 34.7 Oman 2000 39.9 22
  • 23. Story thus far:1.High GDP growth driven byPrivate Consumption on thedemand side and services sector.2. Low poverty reduction and3. Stagnating inequality.Does this make sense ? 23
  • 24. Large and rising gap between Household Consumption Expenditure from household surveys (HCE) and national income accounts (HCE*) (in 2005 PPP), 1990-2000 and 2000-2009 ∆ HCE HCE* ∆ ∆ HCE*/ HCE* HCE/HC HCE/HC ∆ HCE HCE 1990s 2000 1990 Gini HCE ∆ 2000s E* 1990s E* 2000s (%) s s (%) * (%) HCE (%)Djibouti 150.5 93.5 90.6 119.5 1.66 0.78 0.01 -0.076 0.05 -0.62Mauritania 78.7 88.3 98.8 97.3 0.80 0.91 0.01 0.029 0.00 -0.13Yemen 82.6 84.0 128.5 110.1 0.64 0.76 0.02 0.002 -0.02 -8.89Morocco 155.4 161.4 150.1 181.1 1.04 0.89 0.00 0.002 0.01 4.99Tunisia 151.3 182.4 213.6 278.0 0.71 0.66 0.00 0.019 0.03 1.41Egypt 100.9 121.1 219.2 312.8 0.46 0.39 0.00 0.010 0.02 1.96Jordan 151.6 210.1 231.3 315.2 0.66 0.67 0.00 0.037 0.03 0.95Syria 129.8 125.5 200.3 212.3 0.65 0.59 -0.01 -0.003 0.01 -1.73 24
  • 25. This large and rising gap may partly explain slow poverty reduction in Arab countries and South Asia HCE HCE HCE* HCE* HCE/ HCE/ ∆ Gini ∆ ∆ ∆ 1990s 2000s 1990s 2000s HCE* HCE* (%) HCE HCE* HCE*/ 1990s 2000s (%) (%) ∆ HCE (%) AC 117.9 130.0 189.4 247.1 0.62 0.53 -0.01 0.102 0.30 2.99EA&P 59.5 102.4 88.2 141.8 0.67 0.72 0.10 0.719 0.61 0.84E&CIS 167.0 257.2 280.7 440.6 0.59 0.58 0.00 0.540 0.57 1.05LA&C 254.3 323.2 415.0 505.2 0.61 0.64 -0.05 0.271 0.22 0.80 SA 48.9 55.2 77.4 110.0 0.63 0.50 0.06 0.130 0.42 3.25SSA 48.0 58.8 52.4 61.3 0.91 0.96 -0.02 0.226 0.17 0.75 DR 87.1 121.0 137.0 192.7 0.64 0.63 0.00 0.390 0.41 1.04 25
  • 26. Conclusion: Relative to other regions,inequality in expenditure is probably more underestimated in Acs: HIESs did not capture theexpenditure of the very rich 26
  • 27. 3. Other facetsof inequality inArab countries 27
  • 28. Inequality in Human Development 28
  • 29. Components of HumanDevelopment Index 29
  • 30. Disparities in HDI and HDI Progress 1970-2010Using 1970 as the base year, the region appears to have done well inhuman development but the rate of progress on human developmentslowed down noticeably since 1990 and large disparities betweencountries HDI HDI Non- GDP Non- GDP improve Country Improve Income Growth Income Growth ment Name ment HDI rank rank HDI rank rank Rank Rank 1970-2010 1990-2010 1 Oman 1 19 15 7 40 5 KSA 3 111 18 2 108 7 Tunisia 6 20 14 12 21 9 Algeria 5 100 30 19 98 10 Morocco 14 42 12 10 43 13 Libya 4 132 41 18 114 17 Egypt 25 39 21 28 32 19 UAE 24 38 103 88 118 34 Bahrain 21 104 94 93 67 43 Jordan 26 87 51 53 44 58 Qatar 73 121 104 104 58 67 Sudan 121 72 22 118 9 68 Kuwait 48 131 61 59 50 94 Lebanon 89 92 29 54 8 122 Djibouti 117 133 100 109 130 30
  • 31. HDI versus GNI per capita• Despite differences in level of income and human development almost all Arab countries still lag behind other regions in terms of human development 1.0 Hybrid HDI 0.9 Kuwait Bahrain 0.8 LAC Libya UAEQatar Tunisia KSA Jordan Algeria 0.7 EAP ECA Egypt AC 0.6 DR SAS Morocco . 0.5 Sudan 0.4 SSA Djibouti 0.3 0.2 0.1 Log GNI per capita 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 31
  • 32. HDI and IHDI 32
  • 33. • Under perfect equality Computation of IHDI the IHDI is equal to the HDI, but falls below the HDI when inequality rises.• In this sense, the IHDI is the actual level of human development (taking into account inequality), while the HDI can be viewed as an index of the potential human development that could be achieved if there is no inequality. 33
  • 34. HDI IHDI Overall loss in IHDI (%) 0.80 40.00.90 40 0.70 35.00.80 350.70 0.60 30.0 300.60 0.50 25.0 250.50 0.40 20.0 200.40 0.30 15.0 150.30 0.20 10.0 100.20 0.10 5.00.10 5 0.00 0.0 SSA ECA EAP World LAC SAS AS0.00 0 Saudi… Leban… Moro… Opt. Libya Kuwait Bahrain UAE Djibouti Jordan Qatar Yemen Syria Egypt Algeria Tunisia Oman Sudan* Iraq
  • 35. IHDI Components for Arab States vs. other regionsArab States have considerable losses due to unequal distribution in education but problems with the income/expenditure estimates. Inequality-adjusted life Inequality-adjusted Inequality-adjusted expectancy index Education index income index Value Loss(%) Value Loss (%) Value Loss (%) 0.800 45.0 0.800 45.0 0.700 45.0 0.700 40.0 40.0 40.0 0.700 0.600 35.0 35.0 35.0 0.600 0.600 0.500 30.0 30.0 30.0 0.500 0.500 25.0 25.0 0.400 25.0 0.400 0.400 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.300 0.300 0.300 15.0 15.0 15.0 0.200 0.200 10.0 0.200 10.0 10.0 0.100 5.0 0.100 0.100 5.0 5.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 SSA SAS SAS SSA LAC AS AS LAC ECA EAP World ECA EAP World 35
  • 36. IHDI Components for Arab StatesWithin ACs losses in education are highest in Morocco, Djibouti and YemenInequality-adjusted life Inequality-adjusted Inequality-adjustedexpectancy index Education index income index Value Loss(%) Value Loss (%) Value Loss (%)0.90 40 0.600 60.0 0.600 35.00.80 35 0.500 30.0 0.500 50.00.70 30 25.00.60 0.400 40.0 0.400 250.50 20.0 20 0.300 30.0 0.3000.40 15 15.00.30 0.200 20.0 0.200 10 10.00.20 5 0.100 10.0 0.1000.10 5.00.00 0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 Lebanon Syria Morocco Djibouti Yemen Jordan Tunisia Egypt Arab States 36
  • 37. Inequality betweenregions andincome/wealth groups 37
  • 38. High rural-urban disparities in money-metric poverty- Egypt in particular Urban Rural Headcount Poverty Headcount Poverty Ratio of Rural to Urban Index (%} Gap (%) Index (%} Gap (%) Headcount PovertyEgypt (2000) 9.2 1.7 22.1 3.9 2.4Egypt (2009) 10.1 28.9 2.9 Jordan (1997) 19.7 4.8 27.0 7.2 1.4 Jordan (2002) 12.9 2.9 18.7 4.7 1.4 Syria (1997) 12.6 2.3 16.0 3.5 1.3 Syria (2004) 8.7 1.5 14.3 2.6 1.5 Yemen (1998) 32.3 8.7 42.5 13.1 1.3 Yemen (2006) 20.7 4.5 40.1 10.6 1.9Algeria (1995) 9.0 19.0 2.1Algeria (2000) 10.3 14.7 1.4Tunisia (1990) 3.3 0.7 14.8 3.2 4.5Tunisia (2000) 1.7 8.3 4.9Morocco (1990) 7.6 1.5 18.0 3.8 2.4Morocco (2007) 4.8 14.5 3.0 38
  • 39. Rural-urban divide: HPI and P0 Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Yemen 24 National Average HPI 2007 National Average HPI 1997 High P0 and Low HPI High P0 and HPI UBN (%) National Average CnR 22 70 High UBN and Low P0 High UBN and High P0 Akkar/M inieh- 20 Bent Jbeil/M arjaay oun/Hasbay y a Dennieh T Cn NER* 60 R2 = 0.42 18 50 Nabatieh Jezzine/Saida TR S outh 16 T NER* T R* Sour North SR NER CnU T NER Hermel/Baalbek 40P0 14 NEU T National Average P0 1997 Nabatieh City Bekaa Shouf/Aley SR* Trip oly City TU 12 T* National Average P0 2007 30 Baabda CsU TS T S* West Bekaa/Rashay y a National Average SU SU* NEU* Koura/Zgharta/Batroun/Bsharre 10 T U* T Cs Zahle CsR 20 Mount Lebanon CnR* CsR* 8 T Cn* Keserwan/Jbeil CnU* T Cs* Beirut City 10 M aten 6 CsU* Low UBN and High P0 P0 (%) Low UBN and Low P0 Low P0 and HPI High HPI and Low P0 0 4 4 9 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 HPI40HPI Low P0 and High P0 and 80 HPI Low P0 and High P035 75 Fayoum National Bani Suef 70 Reymah Hajjah Sohag30 Menia Al-Jawf National Kafr el Beheira Assiut 65 Saadah Al-Mahweet Qena Dhamar Amran Sheikh 6025 Laheg Sharkia Mareb Al-Baida Total 55 Al-Hodeidah Abyan Dakahlia luxor Giza National Taiz20 Matrouh QualiobiaMenoufia Nort. 50 Ibb All Yemen Al-Daleh Shabwah Garbeyya Ismailia Aswan 4515 Alexandria Damietta 40 Cairo Al-Maharah Suez Said Port National10 South Sinai Red Sea 35 New Valley 30 Hadramout 5 25 20 0 Low P0 and High P0 and Income poverty Low P0 and High P0 and 15 39 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Income Poverty (%)
  • 40. MPI for rural and urban regions and highest andlowest expenditure quintiles for :Egypt, Morocco, Syria and Yemen (2006-2009) Region/ MPI H A quintile Total 0.05 0.11 0.41 (2009) o (2007) (2007) (2006) Egypt Morocc Syria Yemen Rural/Urban 2.6 2.5 1 Q1/Q5 3.9 3.3 1.2 Total 0.04 0.1 0.4 Rural/Urban 7.5 7.1 1.02 Q1/Q5 12.2 12.2 0.96 Total 0.03 0.07 0.38 Rural/Urban 4.6 4.4 1.1 Q1/Q5 1.7 1.6 1 Total 0.27 0.54 0.51 Rural/Urban 1.7 1.5 1.1 Q1/Q5 1.9 1.7 1.2 40
  • 41. High inequality in Under Five Mortality Rates, Delivery Assistance by a Skilled Health Personnel and Antenatal Care Visits for Egypt and Yemen in particular Under five mortality Delivery by a Skilled Antenatal Care Visits rates Health Personnel Poorest Richest Poorest Richest Poorest Richest 140 120 120 120Rate per 1,000 live births % of ANC (1 or more visits) 100 100 100 80 80 80 60 60 60 40 40 40 20 20 20 0 0 0 Jordan OPT Sudan Egypt Yemen Syria Jordan Algeria OPT Sudan Tunisia Djibuti Yemen Egypt Syria Iraq Tunisia Algeria Jordan OPT Iraq Djibouti Sudan Syria Yemen Egypt 41
  • 42. Concluding Remarks 42
  • 43. Measurement issues:• At the international level, current poverty measurement is very misleading.• At the national level, influenced by politics. Also there are good reasons why we should not rely on the actual food basket of the poor (Ravallion/WB method).• Need to better harmonize surveys and improve methodology (even for NPL).• Women and children not captured in HIES so focus on human deprivation indicators.• Surveys excluding the rich. 43
  • 44. Observations from HIEs on Children in Poverty• Little difference in poverty measures FHH and MHH but Households headed by divorced or separated women and widows with more than three children are over-represented among the poor.• The risk to illiteracy of children, living in poor female headed households, is the highest.• Poverty pushes children to work. Girls are kept at home to do domestic work, while boys go to work to help their poor families.• Child labor in rural Yemen is worst at nearly 10 percent of poor boys (aged 6-14 years). 44
  • 45. Policy conclusions• Target poor FHHs with children. FHHs are more vulnerable in Acs since they rely less on wages or own account production. Social protection programs and transfers are thus key to FHH.• No doubt poverty and inequality need to be addressed within a broader set of influencing policies that aim to establish the Arab Developmental State Model. 45