Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Evolution of wellbeing
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Evolution of wellbeing


Published on

Ethiopian Development Research Institue (EDRI) and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Seminar Series, March 30, 2011

Ethiopian Development Research Institue (EDRI) and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Seminar Series, March 30, 2011

Published in: Education

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Evolution of Wellbeing in Ethiopia
    Ibrahim Worku Hassan
    International Food Policy Research Institute-Ethiopian Strategy support Program II
    March 30, 2011
  • 2. Content
    Concluding Remark
  • 3. Introduction
    • Motivation
    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
  • 4. 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
  • 5. 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;
    • 6. Calorie intake show slight decline
    • 7. * mixed result regarding consumption behavior
    • 8. 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
  • 9. The Data
    • The data source is HICES and WMS surveys which is collected by CSA for the periods
    • The data set is nationally representative
    • 10. HICES 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
    three survey
  • 11. 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
  • 12. 2) Expenditure shares
    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
  • 13. 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;
  • 14. 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.
  • 15. 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.
  • 16. 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
  • 17. 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
  • 18. 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
  • 19. Ability to read and write
    In both urban and rural areas %age of households who can read and write has increased over the periods
  • 20. 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
  • 21. 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
  • 22. 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)
  • 23. Distance to publicly provided facilities
    %age of households who live at a distance less than 1km to publicly provided facilities has increased
  • 24. 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
  • 25. 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
  • 26. 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
  • 27. Questions and Comments?
    Thank You !!