Evolution of wellbeing


Published on

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

No notes for slide

Evolution of wellbeing

  1. 1. Evolution of Wellbeing in Ethiopia <br />By <br />Ibrahim Worku Hassan<br />International Food Policy Research Institute-Ethiopian Strategy support Program II<br />March 30, 2011<br />
  2. 2. Content<br />Introduction<br />Literature <br />Data<br />Descriptive<br />Concluding Remark<br />Extensions<br />
  3. 3. Introduction<br /><ul><li>Motivation</li></ul>To complement what has been done by Alemayehu and Kibrom (2010)<br />As an extension: it capture some salient futures of the livelihood of the poor across different socio-economic group over time horizon <br />To see whether there is an improvement in the living standard over time<br />
  4. 4. Literature<br />Benerjee and Duflo (2006) made cross country comparison on the wellbeing of rural and urban poor households<br />The authors describe sources of income and consumption behaviors of the poor<br />Also focus on: what they call ‘apparent anomalous choices’ that the poor made<br />* significant potion of the poor, both in Urban & Rural area, own<br /> Land: Tanzania, India - Udaipur and Panama <br /> Television : Nicaragua, Panama, Indonesia, Cote d'Ivoire<br /> Radio: South Africa, Nicaragua, Peru<br /> * consumption<br /> observed irregularity in the consumption behavior of the poor which is beyond expectation <br />
  5. 5. Literature (Cont.) <br />Alemayehu and Kibrom (2010) <br />Used national, quintile, urban and rural classification<br /><ul><li>Expenditure patterns : observed upward trend with some fluctuation in real per capita expenditure, over time by household group and location;
  6. 6. Calorie intake show slight decline
  7. 7. * mixed result regarding consumption behavior
  8. 8. Assets – radios, bicycles, mobile phones Show increment </li></ul>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<br />
  9. 9. The Data<br /><ul><li>The data source is HICES and WMS surveys which is collected by CSA for the periods</li></ul>1995/96,<br /> 1999/00<br />2004/05<br /><ul><li>The data set is nationally representative
  10. 10. HICES and WMS together capture various dimensions: from demographic to consumption and infrastructure and facilities… </li></li></ul><li>Method<br />Descriptive tables<br />Comparison is made <br />across groups<br /> * National<br /> * Rural and Urban Households<br /> * 5 quintiles of expenditure groups<br /> * Poor/non-poor-National classification (based on quintiles of expenditure groups)<br /> * Poor/non-poor-Urban/Rural classification<br />over <br /> three survey<br />
  11. 11. 1) Household size<br />Average household size continually declines across the 5 expenditure quintile groups<br />the poorest section mean household size increases for both urban and rural group<br />urban population mean hhsize declined for the remaining 4 quintiles, <br />rural people of the 3rd, 4th and 5th quintile group mean hh size also show a declining pattern <br />
  12. 12. 2) Expenditure shares<br />Total Consumption<br />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<br />
  13. 13. Expenditure share by Category <br />Expenditure share for food consistently declined while non-food expenditure increased<br />Expenditure on festivals, education, health, alcohol and tobacco accounts only about 5 over the period;<br />
  14. 14. Pattern of Expenditure shares of the four marginal commodities<br />Expenditure on education has increased in urban and rural areas<br />In general, we can say that spending on festivals is also increasing. <br />Expenditure share on health slightly declined for rural population and urban poor.<br />
  15. 15. Calorie intake<br />Average daily calorie intake has increased for the rural poor and non-poor population<br />The urban poor and non-poor faced a decline in their daily calorie intake for the period 1999 but improved in 2004. <br />If we look at the recent 2004, even the poor straggle hard to meet the minimum average daily calorie requirement.<br />
  16. 16. Asset Ownership: Land and housing<br />More than 95 of rural hhds, poor/non-poor, claimed to have land and housing<br />Whereas only around 60-50 report to have land or house in urban areas <br />The proportion of hhds who claimed to have land has declined in both urban and rural areas<br />No distinction b/n poor& non poor<br />
  17. 17. Asset: Summary<br />Tells us the profile of poor and non-poor across rural and urban household<br />Poor tend to own less of asset category one (Urban Assets) and ,in general, more of asset category two (Rural asset) and vice versa <br />
  18. 18. Source of Income<br />Rural households mainly depend on agriculture<br /> the urban poor and non-poor have lots of income generating mechanism: urban agriculture as a source of income is also increasing <br />
  19. 19. Ability to read and write<br />In both urban and rural areas %age of households who can read and write has increased over the periods<br />
  20. 20. Ability to get 100 birr per week<br />Percentage of household who can get 100birr during emergency across quintiles has increased <br />But in 2004 those who respond positively declined for all quintile groups<br />
  21. 21. Sources of Light and drinking water<br />Rural poor and non-poor dependence on kerosene has increased over time while the urban counter part shifted to electricity<br />Rural poor and non-poor reliance on river, lake and pond declined and sifted towards unprotected well/spring and public tap<br />While in urban areas there is a shift to use public tap than other sources<br />
  22. 22. Households perception in 2004<br />About 40 to 50% of households kept their status quo <br />20-30% report that they did a little better<br />Roughly, 20-30% felt worse in food and overall living standard<br />Only few did much better ( less than 3% for all classification)<br />
  23. 23. Distance to publicly provided facilities<br /> %age of households who live at a distance less than 1km to publicly provided facilities has increased<br />
  24. 24. Facilities by U/R classification<br />Access to facilities to rural households significantly improved over these survey periods<br />There is no significant variation across quintile groups <br />Since the poor and non-poor are living side by side the distinction is not significant for such classification <br />
  25. 25. Concluding Remark <br />Average household size has shown declining trend<br />Real per capita expenditure improved over the periods<br />Share of food consumption declined <br />Average daily calorie intake improved <br />Accessibility to facilities has improved<br />Expenditure on festivals and education has slightly improved<br />Having land/house doesn’t guarantee a household form being poor<br />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<br />On average, wellbeing has improved <br />
  26. 26. Caveats<br />Bench mark when a new HICES and WMS data are released and the comparison will make even more sense <br />Requires regression analysis<br /> * Oaxaca Decomposition<br />
  27. 27. Questions and Comments? <br /> Thank You !!<br />