PHDR: Geographic Diversity of Poverty Professor Amani, ESRF

Poverty and Human Development Report

Geographic Diversity of Poverty

Summary of regional performance by single (PRSP) indicators

Frequency ranking among best/worst 5

Region Best Worst BalanceKilimanjaro 22 2 20DSM 15 4 11Tabora 14 6 8Mbeya 10 3 7Ruvuma 10 5 5Iringa 12 9 3Arusha 6 4 2Tanga 7 5 2Morogoro 6 5 1Mtwara 4 5 -1Singida 7 8 -1Kigoma 5 6 -1Mwanza 6 8 -2Mara 7 10 -3Dodoma 2 5 -3Shinyanga 6 9 -3Kagera 5 10 -5Lindi 5 12 -7Rukwa 3 10 -7Pwani 1 9 -8Source: PHDR, Repoa 2002

Note: This map is generated with the Tanzania Socio-economic Database (TSED), National Bureau of Statistics, 2002

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.

Dodoma

Arusha Kilimanjaro

Tanga

Morogoro

PwaniDar Es Salaam

Lindi

MtwaraRuvuma

IringaMbeya

Singida

Tabora

Rukwa

Kigoma

Shinyanga

Kagera

Mwanza

Mara

Best performing regions

Missing Data

Poor performing regionsModerately performing regions

Human Development Index by Region

HDI Rank Region HDI value1 Dar-es- 0.7342 Kilimanjaro 0.6033 Mbeya 0.5404 Arusha 0.5395 Iringa 0.5146 Ruvuma 0.5027 Mtwara 0.4888 Tabora 0.4869 Singida 0.468

10 Morogoro 0.46311 Pwani 0.44912 Tanga 0.44713 Mara 0.44714 Dodoma 0.42515 Kigoma 0.42016 Kagera 0.41617 Mwanza 0.41418 Lindi 0.40719 Shinyanga 0.39420 Rukwa 0.390

Source: PHDR, Repoa 2002

Dodoma

Arusha Kilimanjaro

Tanga

Morogoro

PwaniDar Es Salaam

Lindi

MtwaraRuvuma

IringaMbeya

Singida

Tabora

Rukwa

Kigoma

Shinyanga

Kagera

Mwanza

Mara

High HDI Medium HDILow HDI

Missing Data

Mainland HDI 0.482

Human Poverty Index by Region

HPI Rank Region HPI value1 DSM 21.42 Kilimanjaro 22.63 Mbeya 28.74 Arusha 29.75 Singida 30.36 Ruvuma 30.47 Morogoro 34.28 Kigoma 36.69 Mtwara 36.8

10 Iringa 37.411 Tabora 37.612 Dodoma 38.113 Rukwa 39.314 Mwanza 39.315 Mara 40.416 Tanga 40.717 Shinyanga 42.318 Pwani 44.919 Lindi 47.220 Kagera 50.9

Source: PHDR, Repoa 2002

Dodoma

Arusha Kilimanjaro

Tanga

Morogoro

PwaniDar Es Salaam

Lindi

MtwaraRuvuma

IringaMbeya

Singida

Tabora

Rukwa

Kigoma

Shinyanga

Kagera

Mwanza

Mara

High HPI Medium HPILow HPI

Missing Data

Mainland HPI 36.3

This presentation

Introduction Methodologies

Single indicator approach Human Development Index

(HDI) Human Poverty Index (HPI)

Concluding remarks

General Findings

IntroductionWhy 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

MethodologyChoice 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

To raise awareness and advocate on the overall regional status of human development in a country

Single Indicator Approach

Composite Index Approach

Methodology

Single Indicator Approach

Based on PRSP indicators Total of 28 indicators

from 4 clusters:

Performance by region and ranking included

• Income poverty• Human

capabilities• Survival• Nutrition

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

Single Indicator Approach

Analysis

• Interregional disparities

• Performance of a region on a range of indicators

• Identification of trends and patterns

Aru

sh

a

DS

M

Do

do

ma

Irin

ga

Kag

era

Kig

om

a

Basic needs poverty headcount ratio (%)

39 18 34 29 29 388 20 12 17 16 10

Rural Basic needs poverty headcount ratio (%)

43 n.a. 36 30 19 438 n.a. 12 17 19 7

Food poverty headcount (%)

25 7 13 10 18 217 20 13 17 10 9

Rural food poverty headcount (%)

28 n.a. 14 11 5 255 n.a. 13 16 19 7

TABLE 2: Income poverty indicators

General Findings

Analysis Interregi

onal disparities

Performance of a region on a range of indicators

Identification of trends and patterns

Single Indicator Approach

• 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 ApproachSummary of regional performance by single (PRSP) indicators

Frequency ranking among best/worst 5

Region Best Worst BalanceKilimanjaro 22 2 20DSM 15 4 11Tabora 14 6 8Mbeya 10 3 7Ruvuma 10 5 5Iringa 12 9 3Arusha 6 4 2Tanga 7 5 2Morogoro 6 5 1Mtwara 4 5 -1Singida 7 8 -1Kigoma 5 6 -1Mwanza 6 8 -2Mara 7 10 -3Dodoma 2 5 -3Shinyanga 6 9 -3Kagera 5 10 -5Lindi 5 12 -7Rukwa 3 10 -7Pwani 1 9 -8Source: PHDR, Repoa 2002

Note: This map is generated with the Tanzania Socio-economic Database (TSED), National Bureau of Statistics, 2002

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.

Dodoma

Arusha Kilimanjaro

Tanga

Morogoro

PwaniDar Es Salaam

Lindi

MtwaraRuvuma

IringaMbeya

Singida

Tabora

Rukwa

Kigoma

Shinyanga

Kagera

Mwanza

Mara

Best performing regions

Missing Data

Poor performing regionsModerately performing regions

General Findings

HDI rank

Life expectancy

at birth (years) 1988

Adult literacy

rate (% age15

and above) 2000

Combined primary,

secondary and

tertiary gross

enrolment ratio (%)

2000

Mean monthly consumption expenditure per capita (000 Tsh)

2000

Life expectancy

indexEducation

indexExpenditure

index

Human development index (HDI)

value1 Dar-es-Salaam 50 91 98.7 21.9 0.417 0.935 0.849 0.7342 Kilimanjaro 59 85 104.4 11.2 0.567 0.914 0.327 0.6033 Mbeya 47 79 99.7 12.6 0.367 0.858 0.395 0.5404 Arusha 57 78 84.1 10.3 0.533 0.800 0.283 0.5395 Iringa 45 81 102.5 11.2 0.333 0.881 0.327 0.5146 Ruvuma 49 84 89.4 9.6 0.400 0.857 0.249 0.5027 Mtwara 46 68 83.3 12.4 0.350 0.730 0.385 0.4888 Tabora 53 65 81.3 10.4 0.467 0.704 0.288 0.4869 Singida 55 71 94.5 6.9 0.500 0.788 0.117 0.46810 Morogoro 46 72 87.2 10.0 0.350 0.770 0.268 0.46311 Pwani 48 61 79.7 10.5 0.383 0.672 0.293 0.44912 Tanga 49 67 78.4 9.3 0.400 0.707 0.234 0.44713 Mara 47 76 88.7 8.0 0.367 0.802 0.171 0.44714 Dodoma 46 66 86.9 8.5 0.350 0.729 0.195 0.42515 Kigoma 48 71 80.1 7.3 0.383 0.740 0.137 0.42016 Kagera 45 64 80.5 9.0 0.333 0.694 0.220 0.41617 Mwanza 48 65 75.1 8.1 0.383 0.683 0.176 0.41418 Lindi 47 58 67.6 9.5 0.367 0.611 0.244 0.40719 Shinyanga 50 55 68.0 8.0 0.417 0.593 0.171 0.39420 Rukwa 45 68 83.2 6.7 0.333 0.730 0.107 0.390

TANZANIA 50 71 84.9 10.1 0.417 0.756 0.273 0.482

HumanDevelopmentIndex

Marked gap

between 1-2, 2-

rest

General Findings

Human Development IndexHuman Development Index by Region

HDI Rank Region HDI value1 Dar-es- 0.7342 Kilimanjaro 0.6033 Mbeya 0.5404 Arusha 0.5395 Iringa 0.5146 Ruvuma 0.5027 Mtwara 0.4888 Tabora 0.4869 Singida 0.468

10 Morogoro 0.46311 Pwani 0.44912 Tanga 0.44713 Mara 0.44714 Dodoma 0.42515 Kigoma 0.42016 Kagera 0.41617 Mwanza 0.41418 Lindi 0.40719 Shinyanga 0.39420 Rukwa 0.390

Source: PHDR, Repoa 2002

Dodoma

Arusha Kilimanjaro

Tanga

Morogoro

PwaniDar Es Salaam

Lindi

MtwaraRuvuma

IringaMbeya

Singida

Tabora

Rukwa

Kigoma

Shinyanga

Kagera

Mwanza

Mara

High HDI Medium HDILow HDI

Missing Data

Mainland HDI 0.482

General Findings

Human Poverty Index

HPI rank Region

Probability at birth of

not surviving to

age 40 1988

Adult illiteracy rate (% age 15

and above) 2000

Population without

access to safe water

2000

Underweight children

under age 5 (%) 1996 HPI value

1 Dar-es-Salaam 0.41 9.0 6.4 22.2 21.42 Kilimanjaro 0.31 15.0 22.7 21.0 22.63 Mbeya 0.42 21.0 25.1 20.8 28.74 Arusha 0.29 22.0 41.0 35.1 29.75 Singida 0.27 30.0 39.1 28.4 30.36 Ruvuma 0.37 16.0 46.9 29.4 30.47 Morogoro 0.46 29.0 29.6 25.5 34.28 Kigoma 0.47 29.0 24.2 43.1 36.69 Mtwara 0.36 33.0 47.0 35.6 36.8

10 Iringa 0.46 19.0 46.2 48.2 37.411 Tabora 0.33 35.0 75.4 14.2 37.612 Dodoma 0.46 34.0 34.5 34.2 38.113 Rukwa 0.48 32.0 45.5 30.5 39.314 Mwanza 0.46 35.0 46.9 27.0 39.315 Mara 0.58 24.0 59.4 18.9 40.416 Tanga 0.44 33.0 54.0 36.2 40.717 Shinyanga 0.38 45.0 60.1 27.8 42.318 Pwani 0.46 39.0 65.2 34.3 44.919 Lindi 0.39 42.0 80.0 41.4 47.220 Kagera 0.65 36.0 67.2 36.0 50.9

Tanzania Mainland 0.43 29.0 44.3 29.4 36.3

HumanPovertyIndex

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 by Region

HPI Rank Region HPI value1 DSM 21.42 Kilimanjaro 22.63 Mbeya 28.74 Arusha 29.75 Singida 30.36 Ruvuma 30.47 Morogoro 34.28 Kigoma 36.69 Mtwara 36.8

10 Iringa 37.411 Tabora 37.612 Dodoma 38.113 Rukwa 39.314 Mwanza 39.315 Mara 40.416 Tanga 40.717 Shinyanga 42.318 Pwani 44.919 Lindi 47.220 Kagera 50.9

Source: PHDR, Repoa 2002

Dodoma

Arusha Kilimanjaro

Tanga

Morogoro

PwaniDar Es Salaam

Lindi

MtwaraRuvuma

IringaMbeya

Singida

Tabora

Rukwa

Kigoma

Shinyanga

Kagera

Mwanza

Mara

High HPI Medium HPILow HPI

Missing Data

Mainland HPI 36.3

Human Poverty Index

General Findings

Inconsistencies when comparing HDI and HPI

1

20

10

HDI rank

HPI rank

18

13

Pwani (11)

Rukwa (20)

Caused by different indicators used in HDI and HPI

• 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