Transcript Poverty and Human Development Report Geographic Diversity

Poverty and Human
Development Report
Geographic Diversity of Poverty
Summary of regional performance by single (PRSP) indicators
Human Development Index by Region
Frequency ranking among best/worst 5
Mara
Kagera
Mwanza
Shinyanga
Kilimanjaro
Arusha
Kigoma
Tanga
Tabora
Singida
Dodoma
Morogoro
Rukwa
Dar Es Salaam
Pwani
Region Best
Kilimanjaro 22
DSM
15
Tabora
14
Mbeya
10
Ruvuma
10
Iringa
12
Arusha
6
Tanga
7
Morogoro
6
Mtwara
4
Singida
7
Kigoma
5
Mwanza
6
Mara
7
Dodoma
2
Shinyanga
6
Kagera
5
Lindi
5
Rukwa
3
Pwani
1
Worst
2
4
6
3
5
9
4
5
5
5
8
6
8
10
5
9
10
12
10
9
Balance
20
11
8
7
5
3
2
2
1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-3
-3
-3
-5
-7
-7
-8
Human Poverty Index by Region
Mainland HDI 0.482
Mara
Kagera
Mwanza
Shinyanga
Arusha
Kilimanjaro
Kigoma
Tanga
Tabora
Singida
Dodoma
Source: PHDR, Repoa 2002
Morogoro
Rukwa
Dar Es Salaam
Pwani
Mbeya
HDI Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Region
HDI value
Dar-es0.734
Kilimanjaro
0.603
Mbeya
0.540
Arusha
0.539
Iringa
0.514
Ruvuma
0.502
Mtwara
0.488
Tabora
0.486
Singida
0.468
Morogoro
0.463
Pwani
0.449
Tanga
0.447
Mara
0.447
Dodoma
0.425
Kigoma
0.420
Kagera
0.416
Mwanza
0.414
Lindi
0.407
Shinyanga
0.394
Rukwa
0.390
Mainland HPI 36.3
Mara
Kagera
Mwanza
Shinyanga
Arusha
Kilimanjaro
Kigoma
Tanga
Tabora
Singida
Dodoma
Source: PHDR, Repoa 2002
Morogoro
Rukwa
Dar Es Salaam
Pwani
Iringa
Mbeya
Iringa
Mbeya
Lindi
Iringa
Lindi
Best performing regions
Moderately performing regions
Poor performing regions
Lindi
Ruvuma
Mtwara
Missing Data
High HDI
Medium HDI
Low HDI
Missing Data
Ruvuma
Mtwara
High HPI
Medium HPI
Low HPI
Note : The boundaries and the names shown and the designations used on these maps do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.
Note: This map is generated with the Tanzania Socio-economic Database (TSED), National Bureau of Statistics, 2002
PHDR: Geographic Diversity of Poverty
Missing Data
Ruvuma
Mtwara
HPI Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Region
HPI value
DSM
21.4
Kilimanjaro
22.6
Mbeya
28.7
Arusha
29.7
Singida
30.3
Ruvuma
30.4
Morogoro
34.2
Kigoma
36.6
Mtwara
36.8
Iringa
37.4
Tabora
37.6
Dodoma
38.1
Rukwa
39.3
Mwanza
39.3
Mara
40.4
Tanga
40.7
Shinyanga
42.3
Pwani
44.9
Lindi
47.2
Kagera
50.9
Source: PHDR, Repoa 2002
This presentation
 Introduction
 Methodologies
General Findings
 Single indicator approach
 Human Development Index (HDI)
 Human Poverty Index (HPI)
 Concluding remarks
Introduction
Why analysis of poverty
status at sub-national level?
Increased awareness among
stakeholders on sub-national
differences
Contribution to better focused
more effective policies and
strategies
Guidance to resource allocation
of resources to local
authorities, contributing to
improved planning at that level
Methodology
Choice of methodology to assess
regional differences in status of
poverty depends on purpose of the
assessment
To inform planning,
policy or
strategy
development
within a sector
Single
Indicator
Approach
To raise awareness
and advocate on
the overall
regional status
of human
development in
a country
Composite
Index
Approach
Methodology
Single Indicator
Approach
Based on PRSP indicators
Total of 28 indicators from 4
clusters:
•
•
•
•
Income poverty
Human capabilities
Survival
Nutrition
Performance by region and
ranking included
Methodology
Human Development Index
(HDI)
• Summary measure of human
development
• It measures average (regional)
achievements in three basic
dimensions of human development
• A long and healthy life (life
expectancy at birth)
• Knowledge (adult literacy rate,
gross enrolment rate)
• A decent standard of living
(GDP per capita PPP)
Methodology
Human Development Index
(HDI)
PHDR: consumption expenditure
(CE)per capita used in stead of
GDP per capita PPP.
 Data more reliable and more recent
 CE direct measure of standard of
living and reflects the situation at
household level better than GDP
Methodology
Human Poverty Index (HPI)
 Summary measure of deprivation in
three basic dimensions of human
development
• Lack of a long and healthy
life. Vulnerability to death at early
age (probability of not surviving
beyond 40 yrs)
• Lack of knowledge. Exclusion
from learning(adult illiteracy )
• Lack of a decent standard of
living (population not using safe
water, percentage of children <5
who are underweight)
General Findings
TABLE 2: Income poverty
indicators
Kigoma
Kagera
Iringa
Dodoma
• Interregional
disparities
• Performance
of a region on
a range of
indicators
• Identification
of trends and
patterns
DSM
Analysis
Arusha
Single Indicator Approach
Basic needs poverty headcount ratio (
39 18 34 29 29 38
8
20 12 17 16 10
Rural Basic needs poverty headcount
43 n.a. 36 30 19 43
8
n.a. 12 17 19 7
Food poverty headcount (%)
25 7
13 10 18 21
7
20 13 17 10 9
Rural food poverty headcount (%)
28 n.a. 14 11 5
25
5
n.a. 13 16 19 7
General Findings
Single Indicator Approach
Analysis
 Interregio
nal
disparities
 Performan
ce of a
region on
a range of
indicators
 Identificati
on of
trends and
patterns
• PNER Tanzania
57%
• Kilimanjaro
80.5%
• Lindi
43%
Iringa
• Among best 5
on 12
indicators
• Among worst 5
on 9 indicators
• Dar es Salaam and
Kilimanjaro region
consistently among
best 5 for PRSP
indicators
• Pwani, Lindi, Rukwa
consistently among
worst 5 for PRSP
indicators
General Findings
Single Indicator Approach
Summary of regional performance by single (PRSP) indicators
Frequency ranking among best/worst 5
Mara
Kagera
Mwanza
Shinyanga
Kilimanjaro
Arusha
Kigoma
Tanga
Tabora
Singida
Dodoma
Morogoro
Rukwa
Dar Es Salaam
Pwani
Mbeya
Iringa
Lindi
Best performing regions
Moderately performing regions
Poor performing regions
Ruvuma
Mtwara
Missing Data
Note : The boundaries and the names shown and the designations used on these maps do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.
Note: This map is generated with the Tanzania Socio-economic Database (TSED), National Bureau of Statistics, 2002
Region Best
Kilimanjaro 22
DSM
15
Tabora
14
Mbeya
10
Ruvuma
10
Iringa
12
Arusha
6
Tanga
7
Morogoro
6
Mtwara
4
Singida
7
Kigoma
5
Mwanza
6
Mara
7
Dodoma
2
Shinyanga
6
Kagera
5
Lindi
5
Rukwa
3
Pwani
1
Source: PHDR, Repoa 2002
Worst
2
4
6
3
5
9
4
5
5
5
8
6
8
10
5
9
10
12
10
9
Balance
20
11
8
7
5
3
2
2
1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-3
-3
-3
-5
-7
-7
-8
General Findings
Human
Development
Index
Adult
literacy
Life
rate
expectancy (% age15
at birth
and
(years) above)
1988
2000
HDI rank
1 Dar-es-Salaam
50
91
2 Kilimanjaro
59
85
3 Mbeya
47
79
4 Arusha
57
78
5 Iringa
45
81
6 Ruvuma
49
84
7 Mtwara
46
68
8 Tabora
53
65
9 Singida
55
71
10 Morogoro
46
72
11 Pwani
48
61
12 Tanga
49
67
13 Mara
47
76
14 Dodoma
46
66
15 Kigoma
48
71
16 Kagera
45
64
17 Mwanza
48
65
18 Lindi
47
58
19 Shinyanga
50
55
20 Rukwa
45
68
TANZANIA
50
71
Marked
gap
Combined
primary,
secondary
bet
and Mean monthly
wee
tertiary consumption
n
gross expenditure
Human
1-2, 2- development
enrolment per capita
Life
ratio (%) (000 Tsh) expectancy Education Expenditure
rest index (HDI)
2000
2000
index
index
index
value
21.9
0.849
0.734
98.7
0.417
0.935
11.2
0.327
0.603
104.4
0.567
0.914
12.6
0.395
0.540
99.7
0.367
0.858
10.3
0.283
0.539
84.1
0.533
0.800
11.2
0.327
0.514
102.5
0.333
0.881
9.6
0.249
0.502
89.4
0.400
0.857
12.4
0.385
0.488
83.3
0.350
0.730
10.4
0.288
0.486
81.3
0.467
0.704
6.9
0.117
0.468
94.5
0.500
0.788
10.0
0.268
0.463
87.2
0.350
0.770
10.5
0.293
0.449
79.7
0.383
0.672
9.3
0.234
0.447
78.4
0.400
0.707
8.0
0.171
0.447
88.7
0.367
0.802
8.5
0.195
0.425
86.9
0.350
0.729
7.3
0.137
0.420
80.1
0.383
0.740
9.0
0.220
0.416
80.5
0.333
0.694
8.1
0.176
0.414
75.1
0.383
0.683
9.5
0.244
0.407
67.6
0.367
0.611
8.0
0.171
0.394
68.0
0.417
0.593
6.7
0.107
0.390
83.2
0.333
0.730
84.9
10.1
0.417
0.756
0.273
0.482
General Findings
Human Development Index
Human Development Index by Region
Mainland HDI 0.482
Mara
Kagera
Mwanza
Shinyanga
Arusha
Kilimanjaro
Kigoma
Tanga
Tabora
Singida
Dodoma
Morogoro
Rukwa
Dar Es Salaam
Pwani
Mbeya
Iringa
Lindi
High HDI
Medium HDI
Low HDI
Missing Data
Ruvuma
Mtwara
HDI Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Region
HDI value
Dar-es0.734
Kilimanjaro
0.603
Mbeya
0.540
Arusha
0.539
Iringa
0.514
Ruvuma
0.502
Mtwara
0.488
Tabora
0.486
Singida
0.468
Morogoro
0.463
Pwani
0.449
Tanga
0.447
Mara
0.447
Dodoma
0.425
Kigoma
0.420
Kagera
0.416
Mwanza
0.414
Lindi
0.407
Shinyanga
0.394
Rukwa
0.390
Source: PHDR, Repoa 2002
General Findings
Human Poverty Index
Adult
Probability illiteracy
at birth of rate (%
not
age 15
surviving to and
age 40
above)
1988
2000
HPI rank Region
1 Dar-es-Salaam
0.41
9.0
2 Kilimanjaro
0.31
15.0
3 Mbeya
0.42
21.0
4 Arusha
0.29
22.0
5 Singida
0.27
30.0
6 Ruvuma
0.37
16.0
7 Morogoro
0.46
29.0
8 Kigoma
0.47
29.0
9 Mtwara
0.36
33.0
10 Iringa
0.46
19.0
11 Tabora
0.33
35.0
12 Dodoma
0.46
34.0
13 Rukwa
0.48
32.0
14 Mwanza
0.46
35.0
15 Mara
0.58
24.0
16 Tanga
0.44
33.0
17 Shinyanga
0.38
45.0
18 Pwani
0.46
39.0
19 Lindi
0.39
42.0
20 Kagera
0.65
36.0
Tanzania Mainland
0.43
29.0
Human
Poverty
Index
Population
without Underweight
access to children
safe water under age 5
2000
(%) 1996 HPI value
22.2
6.4
21.4
21.0
22.7
22.6
20.8
25.1
28.7
35.1
41.0
29.7
28.4
39.1
30.3
29.4
46.9
30.4
25.5
29.6
34.2
43.1
24.2
36.6
35.6
47.0
36.8
48.2
46.2
37.4
14.2
75.4
37.6
34.2
34.5
38.1
30.5
45.5
39.3
27.0
46.9
39.3
18.9
59.4
40.4
36.2
54.0
40.7
27.8
60.1
42.3
34.3
65.2
44.9
41.4
80.0
47.2
36.0
67.2
50.9
29.4
44.3
36.3
Marked gap
between
Kilimanjaro and
Mbeya
Regardless of
Methodology
Dar es Salaam,
Kilimanjaro,
Mbeya and Ruvuma
consistently at top
end of
the ranking
Lindi and Shinyanga
consistently at
bottom end
of ranking
General Findings
Human Poverty Index
Human Poverty Index by Region
Mainland HPI 36.3
Mara
Kagera
Mwanza
Shinyanga
Arusha
Kilimanjaro
Kigoma
Tanga
Tabora
Singida
Dodoma
Morogoro
Rukwa
Dar Es Salaam
Pwani
Mbeya
Iringa
Lindi
High HPI
Medium HPI
Low HPI
Missing Data
Ruvuma
Mtwara
HPI Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Region
HPI value
DSM
21.4
Kilimanjaro
22.6
Mbeya
28.7
Arusha
29.7
Singida
30.3
Ruvuma
30.4
Morogoro
34.2
Kigoma
36.6
Mtwara
36.8
Iringa
37.4
Tabora
37.6
Dodoma
38.1
Rukwa
39.3
Mwanza
39.3
Mara
40.4
Tanga
40.7
Shinyanga
42.3
Pwani
44.9
Lindi
47.2
Kagera
50.9
Source: PHDR, Repoa 2002
General Findings
Inconsistencies when comparing
HDI and HPI
1
HDI
rank
HPI
rank
Caused by different
indicators used in
HDI and HPI
•
1
0
Pwani
(11)
1
3
•
2
0
Rukwa
(20)
1
8
Absence of
expenditure
component in HPI
improves Rukwa’s
ranking, but has a
negative effect on
Pwani’s Ranking
Introducing access to
safe water in the
equasion for HPI has
a negative effect on
the ranking of Pwani.
Concluding remarks
 This analysis provides further evidence on
diversity of poverty in Tanzania
 A national perspective alone obscures
details important for informed decision
making on poverty reduction
 The methodologies used reveal both
similarities in regional performance as well
as differences
 No single methodology will provide all
answers
 More in depth analysis required focusing
on WHY some regions perform better
than others
 Future work may also include sub-regional
analysis, using census data and poverty
mapping