350 likes | 485 Views
Poverty in Malawi from the Second Integrated Household Survey. October 2005. Key Messages. High number of absolute poor Rural poverty is significantly higher No change in poverty rate since 1998 Rural areas do worse on non-income dimensions of poverty Urban poor is non-negligible.
E N D
Poverty in Malawi from the Second Integrated Household Survey October 2005
Key Messages • High number of absolute poor • Rural poverty is significantly higher • No change in poverty rate since 1998 • Rural areas do worse on non-income dimensions of poverty • Urban poor is non-negligible
Introduction • The NSO wishes to conduct a comprehensive socio-economic survey in every 5 years • The first such survey was the first Integrated Household Survey (IHS1) in 1997/8 • The second is the IHS2, conducted between March 2004-March 2005
IHS2 • Two main types of questionnaires were used: • Household questionnaire • Administered to 11,280 households • Community questionnaire • Administered to 564 communities across the country • Statistical Abstract: basic tabulations and analysis of the IHS2
IHS2 Goals • Provide data for • detailed analysis of the profile of poverty in Malawi • MPRS indicators (where applicable) • MDG indicators (where applicable)
Defining Poverty in Malawi • Malawi Kwacha per person per year needed to obtain a minimum level of living: (1) enough food to reach a specific amount of calories, and (2) a level of non food goods and services • This definition is used to: • identify persons deemed “poor” • make comparisons across locations &/or household types
Defining Poverty in Malawi • Poor : below MK16,165 per person per year (1,347 MK per person per month) • Ultra poor: below 10,029 MK per person per year (836 MK per person per month)
Poverty Comparisons: IHS1 & IHS2 • The IHS2 estimate of 52.4% poverty rate should not be compare to the 65.3% estimate in IHS1 since survey instruments & methods were revised and improved. • Comparable poverty estimates from IHS1 were estimated (using regression models to impute expenditure per capita based on comparably measured household characteristics).
In Conclusion: Key Messages • High number of absolute poor • Rural poverty is significantly higher • No change in poverty rate since 1998 • Rural areas do worse on non-income dimensions of poverty • Urban poor is non-negligible