1. Evolution of Wellbeing in Ethiopia By Ibrahim Worku Hassan International Food Policy Research Institute-Ethiopian Strategy support Program II March 30, 2011
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
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.
10.
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
