2014年-世界发展银行全球_Face_of_Poverty_in_Madagascar___Poverty_Gender_and_Inequality_Assessment_194页_7mb

Summary of the Poverty, Gender and Inequality Assessment in Madagascar

Core Content

This report, titled Face of Poverty in Madagascar: Poverty, Gender and Inequality Assessment, presents an in-depth analysis of poverty trends, its correlates, and the impact of inequality in Madagascar from 2001 to 2010. The findings are based on three rounds of the Enquête Périodique auprès des Ménages (EPM) household surveys conducted by the Madagascar National Institute of Statistics (INSTAT) and are supported by data from the World Development Indicators (WDI) and other statistical sources.

Main Findings

Poverty Trends

• Poverty Headcount: Poverty in Madagascar remained high and did not decrease between 2001 and 2005, increasing from 71% to 75%. It slightly increased to 75.3% by 2010, close to the official estimate.
• Extreme Poverty: Approximately 60% of the population was extremely poor in 2010, with about 13 million people living on less than 2100 calories a day.
• Rural-Urban Divide: Rural poverty is significantly higher than urban poverty. In 2010, about 86% of the poor lived in rural areas, and rural areas consistently had higher poverty rates compared to urban areas.
• Poverty Gap: The poverty gap, which measures the shortfall of resources for all poor households, decreased from 36% to 34% between 2001 and 2010. The squared poverty gap, a measure of poverty severity, fell from 22% to 19%.
• Regional Poverty: Poverty incidence varied significantly across regions. The most deprived regions had the highest poverty rates, while the least deprived had the lowest. The rural-urban gap in poverty rates narrowed slightly, but remained substantial.

Inequality Trends

• Gini Coefficient: Madagascar's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, was in the mid-40s range in 2010, indicating moderate inequality compared to other Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries.
• Reduction in Inequality: Despite an increase in the number of poor people, overall inequality decreased between 2001 and 2010. This was driven by both within-group and between-group inequality factors, including labor sector reallocation, education premium, and regional composition.
• Sector Shift: A shift towards agriculture in the early part of the decade helped reduce inequality, even though poverty remained widespread.

Non-Income Dimensions of Poverty

• Consumption Basket Changes: The composition of the consumption basket shifted, with a rise in cheaper food items and a decrease in more expensive ones.
• Asset Ownership: Asset ownership is a key indicator of material deprivation and welfare development. Poor households had lower asset ownership, particularly in rural areas.
• Basic Services Access: Access to basic services like electricity, safe dwelling, and water was low among poor populations, especially in rural areas.

Gender and Poverty

• Female-Headed Households: Female-headed households (FHHs) had a higher incidence of extreme poverty compared to male-headed households (MHHs), despite similar absolute poverty rates.
• Earnings Disparity: Women's earnings were generally lower than men's, even when controlling for other factors. This highlights the gender gap in income and economic opportunities.
• Education and Employment: Women were less likely to be employed and had lower educational attainment, which affected their economic outcomes and vulnerability to poverty.

Regional and Spatial Analysis

• Provincial and Regional Variations: Poverty incidence varied across provinces and regions. The largest regions contributed significantly to overall inequality.
• Population Density and Poverty: Poverty rates were found to decrease with higher population density, suggesting that access to services and economic opportunities improved in more densely populated areas.

Economic and Social Indicators

• Economic Growth and Employment: Economic growth did not translate into significant employment generation, and the total factor productivity (TFP) remained low. The growth in GDP per capita was modest and not evenly distributed.
• Education and Health: Access to education and health care was limited, especially in rural areas. Literacy rates were low, and the distribution of education services was uneven. Health care costs and lack of access to formal care services contributed to the burden on poor households.

Key Information

Data Sources

• The analysis is based on EPM surveys, INSTAT data, and international indicators such as WDI.
• The methodology used to estimate poverty lines and poverty incidence differs from official methods, which may affect the interpretation of results.

Policy Implications

• The report emphasizes the need for policies that address the structural and spatial dimensions of poverty.
• It highlights the importance of improving access to education, health care, and basic services, especially in rural areas.
• Gender-specific policies are necessary to address the disparities faced by female-headed households.

Conclusion

• Madagascar has experienced a "lost decade" in terms of poverty reduction, with poverty and extreme poverty rates remaining alarmingly high.
• While inequality has decreased, the persistence of high poverty rates, especially in rural areas, underscores the need for targeted interventions.
• The report serves as a descriptive analysis of poverty and inequality, providing insights that can inform future policy and development strategies.

Summary of Key Figures and Tables

• Figure 1: Poverty and inequality trends in Madagascar.
• Figure 2: International comparison of poverty and inequality.
• Figure 3: Age-Gender Pyramid for 2010.
• Table 1: Summary of major economic shocks in Madagascar from 2000 to 2012.
• Table 3: Poverty headcount and gap for 2001, 2005, and 2010.
• Table 4: International comparisons of poverty headcounts and gaps.
• Table 5: Growth in consumption per capita from 2001 to 2010.
• Table 6: Inequality indices for 2001, 2005, and 2010.
• Table 7 and 8: Poverty decomposition between 2001-2005 and 2005-2010.
• Table 9: Demographic characteristics of households.
• Table 10: Regression results on consumption and poverty.
• Table 11: Regression results on education and poverty.
• Table 12: Occupation and education.
• Table 13: Population and employment indicators from 2001 to 2010.
• Table 14: Poverty incidence by sector.
• Table 15: Availability of education services by type and level.
• Table 16: Characteristics of primary education services.
• Table 17 to 22: Enrollment and drop-out rates, access to services, and education outcomes.
• Table B.1 to B.53: Detailed statistics and decompositions for poverty, education, health, and other socio-economic indicators.
• Table C.1 to C.9: Poverty decomposition by location, region, and time periods.

Methodology and Tools

• ADePT Software: Used to produce most of the outputs and maps in the report.
• Poverty Line Estimation: The report uses a revised methodology to estimate poverty lines, which may differ from official estimates.
• Decomposition Analysis: Used to break down changes in poverty and inequality across different dimensions, such as region, gender, and household size.

Acknowledgements

• The report was led by Alain D’Hoore and Victor Sulla, with significant contributions from various researchers, statisticians, and institutions.
• INSTAT and the World Bank provided essential data and support.
• The analysis was conducted in partnership with CREAM (Centre de Recherche, d'Etude et d'Appui à l'Analyse Economique à Madagascar) and other international experts.