Second Peter Townsend Memorial Conference , Measuring poverty : The State of Art, Bristol 22-23 January 2011

1. Poverty Measurement in West AfricaReport on the multidimensional analysis of poverty using the permanent Survey on Living Conditions (EPCV) 2008 MauritaniaMadior FALL Second Peter Townsend MemorialConference, Measuringpoverty: The State of Art, Bristol 22-23 January 2011

2. Motivation • Focus on the multidimensionality of poverty • Complement the poverty profile prepared by the NSO • Articulation with the CSLP II by identifying the key factors influencing poverty

3. Presentation Outline I. Introduction  II. Background and economic developments between 2000 - 2008 III. Indicators of Poverty IV. Analysis of Determinants and correlations of different indicators V. Role of economic growth and spatial amenities on poverty VI. Conclusion: Lessons and Policy

4. I. Introduction • Spatial disparity of poverty • Poverty is not evenly distributed on Mauritanian territory: there are on average poverty rates vary according to regions (wilaya). Through various measures of poverty, we will initially highlight the multidimensional aspect and secondly to analyze the determinants of these different facets. • The effects of location characteristics on poverty • Exceeded monetary poverty alone • Can the same factors identify the different forms of poverty? • What slopes stand out for the fight against poverty?

5. II. Background and economic developments between 2000 - 2008 1. Demography : • One of the characteristics of Mauritania is the big size of the territory (1,030,000 km2) coupled with a low population density about 3 inhabitants per km2 in 2008. • In 2007 life expectancy is 56.6 years with a difference by gender, 58.5 years for women against 54.7 years for men. Espérance de vie : 56,6 ans en 2007 • Like the global movement of reduced fertility rates, one of Mauritania has decreased from 5.7 children per woman for the period 1990 to 1995 to 4.5 between 2005 and 2010 • the Mauritanian population is almost equally distributed by gender (50.1% women and 49.9 for men)

6. II. Background (cont) • Population almost young

7. II. Background (cont) • Mauritania's population is very unequally distributed across the country. Around 27% of the population live in Nouakchott. 27% de la population à Nouakchott

8. II. Background (cont.) • 2. Education • The NSO's report on the poverty profile of 2008 has established the literacy rate to 61.5% for persons aged 15 years or older, what makes a change of 4% over 2004. Again there is a difference between men and women fairly pronounced (70.3 for men and 54.4 for women). • Comparing the wilayas there are significant differences, it increases from 27.3% to 81% • The gross literacy rate (GLR) increased from 76.7% in 2004 to 90.9% in 2008.

9. II. Background (cont.) • 3. Economy • Mauritania has a steady annual growth rate since 2004 of 2.4%. The macroeconomic variables that characterize the country are:- An annual inflation rate between 2005 and 2008 ranking between 9% and 4% according to the fluctuations in prices of food and energy. We note in recent times a tendency of the decrease of the rate of inflation.- The main exports are fish, iron and oil- In 2008, GDP per capita is estimated at 286 720.6 UM (around U.S. $ 1185).

10. II. Background (cont.) • 4. labor market • The labor force represents 52.4% of the total population estimated in 2008 to 3.1 million people. The level of activity rate for men is significantly higher than women (respectively 74.6% and 34.4%), it is estimated at 52.2% overall • The unemployment rate decrease slightly between 2004 (32.5%) and 2008(31.2%), it is comparable to the average rate for countries of the sub-region. One characteristic is that it affects many more young people and women.

11. III. Indicators of Poverty • four poverty indicators: • Monetary poverty: for the comparability requirements and the study of the dynamics of poverty the definition used by the NSO to settle poverty profiles in 2004 and 2008 was chosen • Living conditions poverty • Subjective or budgetary problems poverty • Potential poverty

12. III. Indicators of Poverty(CONT.) • 1. The monetary poverty • Using per capita expenditure at the household level, we define a poverty threshold

13. III. Indicators of Poverty (CONT.) • 2.The living conditions poverty The living conditions poverty is based on a set of 8 items (these different items satisfy the axioms of frequency and consensus, see. Appendix 3). These items essentially concern the comfort and the state of the household dwellings. The table below gives the distribution of these items for Mauritanian households.

14. III. Indicators of Poverty(CONT.)

15. III. Indicators of Poverty(Cont.) • 3. The subjective or budgetary difficulties poverty The score of "subjective" poverty uses 9 items collecting the opinions of individuals about the difficulties they face in meeting some basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter or medical care. Add to this their judgments with respect to economic developments in their household to see their community.

16. III. Indicators of Poverty(cont.)

17. III. Indicators of Poverty(Cont.) • 4. The potentialpoverty To measure poverty in potentiality, we use a set of questions from the questionnaire part of the unified basic indicators of well-being (CWIQ). The central idea in this approach is to assess the potential of households through the presence of disabling factors to provide opportunities for households to access at a level of well-being satisfactory

18. III. Indicators of Poverty(Cont.)

19. III. Indicators of Poverty(Cont.) • The poverty rate in living conditions, in budgetary difficulties and in potential From the various groups of items were isolated approximately the same proportion of households which are worse off in all three dimensions.

20. III. Indicators of Poverty(Cont.) • large differences in poverty rates between regions

21. III. Indicators of Poverty(Cont.) • Wilayas have different characteristics in terms of the ranges of different forms of poverty. Thus we come to classify them into five distinct groups. • In group 1 are found two different wilayas where poverty rates are above national averages namely Gorgol and Tagant. The wilayaGorgol also has another feature which is to have a hard core relatively large compared to the other regions (19.1% against 4.7% on average). A special feature of this group is the relative weakness of the inequality with the Gini coefficient of 0.31 and 0.32 respectively against 0.38 for the entire population. The combination of these features demonstrates the presence of very diffuse forms of poverty, more than elsewhere. • Group 2 consists of the following wilayas: HodhCharghi, HodhGharbi, AssabaBrakna and Guidimagha. Unlike the wilaya of group 1, the incidence of poverty in budgetary difficulties is lower than for all the country (47.4%). In this group we observe a very pronounced inequality around the national average. • Only the wilayaAdrar is in Group 3 which has the feature of presenting only the impacts on monetary poverty and budgetary difficulties beyond the national averages. Inequality is also high. • Group 4 includes the following wilayas: Trarza, Nouadhibou and Nouakchott TirisZemmour. Only poverty of budgetary difficulties has an incidence higher than the average. This is combined with lower inequality compared with groups 2 and 3. • Finally the Group 5, where all poverty rates are below national averages, has only one wilayaInchirie, with relatively low inequality

22. IV. Analysis of Determinants and correlations of different indicators • Low correlations between different dimensions of poverty

23. IV. Analysis of Determinants and correlations of different indicators (cont) • Another result of the multidimensional approach is that only 16.2% of households do not know any form of poverty and that nearly a third of households are affected by only one form of poverty. And like several studies conducted in countries with quite different economic development the hard core ie households who combine all dimensions of poverty affects about 5% of the total (see Fall et al 1997, 2005).

24. IV. Analysis of Determinants and correlations of different indicators (cont)

25. IV. Analysis of Determinants and correlations of different indicators (cont) • Family structure and poverty • Single person and couples without children are exposed in different ways depending on the dimension of poverty considered. AS they have a fairly high risk of being exposed to poverty in living conditions, as they have a quite high probability of being non-poor monetarily. Regarding the budgetary difficulties and potential poverties it appears that family structure is rather neutral for these risks. As for the hard core of poverty to be in an extended family contributes greatly to the impoverishment of individuals living in these households

26. IV. Analysis of Determinants and correlations of different indicators (cont) • Age effect The effect of age in relation to poverty is very mixed in the manner that it is. All things being equal, there are two different profiles. The first concerns monetary poverty, budgetary difficulties poverty and the hardcore, for these various facets the probability of being poor increases at first to decline in mid-life cycle (reversed u-curve). In the case of living conditions and potential poverty, we observe the opposite phenomenon ie a decreased of the poverty risk at the early life cycle and then an increased of poverty risk (u-curve). This can be explained by the fact that the last two forms of poverty are very high at the beginning of the life cycle and then decreased gradually as the integration into working life and at least increasing again at higher ages

27. IV. Analysis of Determinants and correlations of different indicators (cont) • Gender and poverty Belonging to a household headed by a woman exposed much more to monetary and living conditions poverty compared to individuals living in households headed by a man. On the other side gender has no specific effect on the budgetary difficulties, potential poverty and the hard core.

28. IV. Analysis of Determinants and correlations of different indicators (cont) • Role of marital status The single status preserves a little from different forms of poverty and more from monetary poverty compared to other marital configurations. We can highlight some opposition on the effect on one hand the status of polygamy and on the other hand the divorced and widowed status on monetary and living conditions poverty. Indeed polygamists have a higher risk of being monetary poor and significantly less risk of being poor in living conditions. It is the opposite phenomenon among divorced or widowed. Much of this finding is explained by family size, large in polygamous and less among divorced or widowed.

29. IV. Analysis of Determinants and correlations of different indicators (cont) • Low level of education contributes to poverty By analyzing the specific effects of household characteristics, the education level plays a major role if not the most important among the factors influencing the different risks of poverty. Thus we observe that the higher is the education level the decrease of poverty risk is important. This decrease is very significant when the household head reaches the elementary level and it is growing dramatically with higher education levels.

30. IV. Analysis of Determinants and correlations of different indicators (cont) • The influence of the activity sector Paradoxically it was only on potential poverty in which the proper effect of the activity sector is not observed (except for private sector employees) • The role of rurality Living in rural areas, contributes to have a very high risk of poverty, with the exception of the budgetary difficulties poverty, this is due to a prevalence of productive assets (cattle, cooperative ...) that can potentially preserve to poverty. It is on the bad living conditions that the specific effect of rurality is the strongest, which highlights the gap in terms of household equipment between the urban households better off than those in rural areas.

31. IV. Analysis of Determinants and correlations of different indicators (cont) • Link between the level of resources and poverty in living conditions in budgetary difficulties and in potential Of these three dimensions of poverty only in the living conditions one is greatly affected by the level of household resources. More household resources are low the higher the probability of being poor in terms of living conditions rises, which means that a household must first meet its current expenses before improving their living conditions. For the budgetary difficulties poverty only the expenditure of the quintile higher (20% of households that spend more), decrease the probability of being poor in this dimension. Finally the level of household wealth has no proper effect on poverty of potential.

32. IV. Analysis of Determinants and correlations of different indicators (cont) • Role of amenities and the economic environment on the different forms of poverty A high unemployment rate will have contrasting effects on the different forms of poverty. Although it increases the probability of being poor in budgetary difficulties and in potential, as its impact on monetary or living conditions poverty is weak. For the last two forms of poverty (monetary and living conditions), the large share of household resources pulling in the informal sector leads to reduce the role of unemployment which is not the case for the first two forms (budgetary difficulties and potentials).

33. IV. Analysis of Determinants and correlations of different indicators (cont) • Role of amenities and the economic environment on the different forms of poverty (cont) • The local growth rate mainly affects the probability of being poor in budgetary difficulties, in potential and belonging to the hard core • The role of inequality is also mixed; it acts positively on the probability of being monetary and living conditions poor and also being a membership of the hard core

34. IV. Analysis of Determinants and correlations of different indicators (cont) • Role of amenities and the economic environment on the different forms of poverty (cont) • The rate of community facilities has a strong impact on overall poverty. Very clearly the higher the rate of infrastructure equipment, the higher the risk of poverty among households in the community decrease. In other words, an equipment rate higher than the national average reduces the poverty rates.

35. V. Role of economic growth and spatial amenities on poverty (cont) • Local context and combination of different forms of poverty • There is a very specific effect of local growth rate on patterns of poverty. And that growth more impact on monetary and living conditions poverties because it greatly reduces the risk of poverty in all combinations where these two forms of poverty appear. • The inequality at local level influence in a contrasting ways the poverty risks. Just as a strong inequality greatly increases the probability of being poor in the combinations containing the budgetary difficulties, as it reduces poverties including the potential one. • The fact that a locality has a rate of infrastructure equipment above the national average, other things being equal, decreases strongly dramatically the risk of poverty, especially in combination with potential. However, this effect remains highly significant with other types of combinations. • The equipment in health facility has a positive impact on the risk of poverty regardless of the dimension envisaged, so that this positive impact remains even for the hard core.

36. VI. Conclusion: Lessons and public policies • The strong independent effect of the local growth rate on poverty primarily on monetary and living conditions poverty shows that the fight against poverty requires more research sustained growth and that it must touch all the territory otherwise the differences we found during the analysis is likely to persist. • The exercise has been carried out shows the role of development of amenities in the fight against poverty. A public policy recommendation would be to make a major effort on infrastructure (health, economic, education, safety ...). Among these various facilities, those of health and education appear to be most crucial. Note that these two fields are the subject of major indicators of the MDGs

37. Thank you for your attention