Households Income Poverty and Inequalities in Tanzania: Analysis of Empirical Evidence of Methodological Challenges

Lusambo Lp
{"title":"Households Income Poverty and Inequalities in Tanzania: Analysis of Empirical Evidence of Methodological Challenges","authors":"Lusambo Lp","doi":"10.4172/2157-7625.1000183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The overarching objective of this study was to assess poverty situation in Tanzania using a multitude of approach so as to provide empirical evidence of conceptual and methodological challenges encountered in poverty analysis studies. Specifically, the study strove to: (1) analyse the poverty situation in the study sites, (2) assess income inequality in study sites, and (3) determine the method that could be commonly employed to measure poverty , with a view to improve consistency in poverty statistics. A sample of 568 respondent households was involved in the study. Data was collected through household questionnaire, key informant interview, focus group discussion and researcher’s direct observations. Collected data was analysed using statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft excel computer programmes. Different poverty lines have provided different results regarding the number of households which are poor. Relative poverty line of 40% of the median income gave the lowest value of poverty in the study area, while the ethical poverty line provided the highest rate of poverty. Accordingly, it was found that using selected poverty lines: overall, 29.3% - 98.2% of households are poor. In rural areas, 24.5% - 96.8% of households are poor. In peri-urban areas, it was found that 20% to 100% (depending on the poverty line used) were poor, while in urban areas the poverty rate was found to be between 37.1% to 99%. Using weighted geometric mean of relative and absolute poverty lines (ρ = 0.7) at relative poverty line of 50% of median income and absolute poverty line of US$ 1-a-day (2005PPP): Overall, 53.5% of households are poor, and poverty rates in rural, peri-urban and urban areas are 55%, 53% and 46% respectively. The findings revealed further that the poverty gap ratio and severity ratio are highest in urban areas (0.35 and 0.29 respectively), medium in rural area (0.33 and 0.24 respectively) and minimum in peri-urban area (0.29 and 0.20 respectively). Household income inequality in the study area is high (Gini Coefficient = 0.773), with variations in the strata as follows: rural areas (Gini Coefficient = 0.821); peri-urban areas (Gini Coefficient = 0.574); and urban areas (Gini Coefficient = 0.717). Inter-strata inequality index in the study area (depending on the method used) ranged between 0.158 – 0.172, while inter-regional inequality index ranged between 0.004 and 0.116. Some recommendations have been put forward: Firstly, in the determination of poverty rates (head counts) the appropriate yardstick to be used is weighted geometric mean of relative and absolute poverty lines (ρ = 0.7) at relative poverty line of 50% of median income and absolute poverty line of US$ 1-a-day (2005PPP). Secondly, in the determination of household income inequality, Gini Coefficient should be used. Thirdly, the Hoover coefficient (Robin Hood Index) is a more appropriate metric for regional and inter-strata inequality.","PeriodicalId":15637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ecosystem & Ecography","volume":"444 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ecosystem & Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7625.1000183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

The overarching objective of this study was to assess poverty situation in Tanzania using a multitude of approach so as to provide empirical evidence of conceptual and methodological challenges encountered in poverty analysis studies. Specifically, the study strove to: (1) analyse the poverty situation in the study sites, (2) assess income inequality in study sites, and (3) determine the method that could be commonly employed to measure poverty , with a view to improve consistency in poverty statistics. A sample of 568 respondent households was involved in the study. Data was collected through household questionnaire, key informant interview, focus group discussion and researcher’s direct observations. Collected data was analysed using statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft excel computer programmes. Different poverty lines have provided different results regarding the number of households which are poor. Relative poverty line of 40% of the median income gave the lowest value of poverty in the study area, while the ethical poverty line provided the highest rate of poverty. Accordingly, it was found that using selected poverty lines: overall, 29.3% - 98.2% of households are poor. In rural areas, 24.5% - 96.8% of households are poor. In peri-urban areas, it was found that 20% to 100% (depending on the poverty line used) were poor, while in urban areas the poverty rate was found to be between 37.1% to 99%. Using weighted geometric mean of relative and absolute poverty lines (ρ = 0.7) at relative poverty line of 50% of median income and absolute poverty line of US$ 1-a-day (2005PPP): Overall, 53.5% of households are poor, and poverty rates in rural, peri-urban and urban areas are 55%, 53% and 46% respectively. The findings revealed further that the poverty gap ratio and severity ratio are highest in urban areas (0.35 and 0.29 respectively), medium in rural area (0.33 and 0.24 respectively) and minimum in peri-urban area (0.29 and 0.20 respectively). Household income inequality in the study area is high (Gini Coefficient = 0.773), with variations in the strata as follows: rural areas (Gini Coefficient = 0.821); peri-urban areas (Gini Coefficient = 0.574); and urban areas (Gini Coefficient = 0.717). Inter-strata inequality index in the study area (depending on the method used) ranged between 0.158 – 0.172, while inter-regional inequality index ranged between 0.004 and 0.116. Some recommendations have been put forward: Firstly, in the determination of poverty rates (head counts) the appropriate yardstick to be used is weighted geometric mean of relative and absolute poverty lines (ρ = 0.7) at relative poverty line of 50% of median income and absolute poverty line of US$ 1-a-day (2005PPP). Secondly, in the determination of household income inequality, Gini Coefficient should be used. Thirdly, the Hoover coefficient (Robin Hood Index) is a more appropriate metric for regional and inter-strata inequality.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
坦桑尼亚的家庭收入、贫困和不平等:方法挑战的经验证据分析
这项研究的首要目标是利用多种方法评估坦桑尼亚的贫穷情况,以便提供贫穷分析研究中遇到的概念和方法挑战的经验证据。具体而言,本研究力求:(1)分析研究地点的贫困状况;(2)评估研究地点的收入不平等;(3)确定可普遍用于衡量贫困的方法,以期提高贫困统计数据的一致性。568个受访家庭参与了这项研究。采用入户问卷、关键信息人访谈、焦点小组讨论和研究者直接观察等方式收集数据。收集到的数据使用社会科学统计软件包(SPSS)和Microsoft excel计算机程序进行分析。不同的贫困线对贫困家庭的数量提供了不同的结果。相对贫困线为收入中位数的40%,贫困率最低,而伦理贫困线为贫困率最高。因此,使用选定的贫困线发现:总体而言,29.3% - 98.2%的家庭处于贫困状态。在农村地区,24.5% - 96.8%的家庭处于贫困状态。在城郊地区,发现20%至100%(取决于所使用的贫困线)是穷人,而在城市地区,贫困率发现在37.1%至99%之间。使用相对贫困线和绝对贫困线的加权几何平均值(ρ = 0.7),相对贫困线为收入中位数的50%,绝对贫困线为每天1美元(2005购买力平价):总体而言,53.5%的家庭处于贫困状态,农村、城郊和城市地区的贫困率分别为55%、53%和46%。研究结果进一步表明,城市地区的贫困差距比和严重程度比最高(分别为0.35和0.29),农村地区中等(分别为0.33和0.24),城郊地区最低(分别为0.29和0.20)。研究区家庭收入不平等程度较高(基尼系数= 0.773),各阶层差异如下:农村地区(基尼系数= 0.821);城郊地区(基尼系数= 0.574);城市地区(基尼系数= 0.717)。研究区不同方法的层间不平等指数在0.158 ~ 0.172之间,区域间不平等指数在0.004 ~ 0.116之间。提出了一些建议:首先,在确定贫困率(人数)时,适当的衡量标准是相对贫困线和绝对贫困线的加权几何平均值(ρ = 0.7),相对贫困线为收入中位数的50%,绝对贫困线为每天1美元(2005购买力平价)。其次,在确定家庭收入不平等时,应该使用基尼系数。第三,胡佛系数(罗宾汉指数)是衡量地区和阶层间不平等的更合适的指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Status of Camel Feed Resources, and Its Management in Ethiopia Somali Region The Impact of Variant Local Involvement in Community Based Ecotourism: A Conceptual Framework Approach Physical Concepts and Ecosystem Ecology: A Revival? Complete genome sequence of Alkalitalea saponilacus, an anaerobic haloalkaliphilic bacterium capable of secreting halostable xylanase Critically Analyse the Different Approaches of Eco Health, One Health, Planetary Health and Political Economy and Political Ecology of Global Health to Analyse Current Challenges in the Anthropocene
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1