1 / 28

Measuring Consumption and Poverty in Zambia

Measuring Consumption and Poverty in Zambia. GSS methodology conference, 27 June 2012. Presentation summary. Why a poverty trend needed to be developed retrospectively in Zambia LCMS 2010 fieldwork delays lead to problems Adjustments to 2010 data to ensure comparability

brenna
Télécharger la présentation

Measuring Consumption and Poverty in Zambia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Measuring Consumption and Poverty in Zambia GSS methodology conference, 27 June 2012

  2. Presentation summary • Why a poverty trend needed to be developed retrospectively in Zambia • LCMS 2010 fieldwork delays lead to problems • Adjustments to 2010 data to ensure comparability • Political environment – Lessons?

  3. Zambia consumption surveys 1996-2006 • Living Conditions Monitoring Surveys (LCMS) 1996, 1998, 2004, 2006 • Conducted over 2 – 4 months • Consumption data collected in a one time HH interview • LCMS 2002/3 • Longitudinal survey • Diary method • In field for 12-15 months

  4. Zambia consumption surveys 1996-2006 • Differences in survey design: • Questionnaires • Sample size and selection • Dates for data collection • Differences in analysis methods • Poverty lines • Consumption aggregate • Thus no comparable trend available

  5. Questionnaire differences 1996-2006 • Differences in lists of food items (e.g . ‘other vegetables’, poultry) • Significant differences in maize and maize products • Use of different recall periods (2 weeks, 4 weeks, 1 month, 12 months)

  6. Questionnaire differences 1996-2006 • Some surveys included quantities and values of own production, allowing prices to be generated. • Others had seperatecommunity price questionnaires

  7. Differences in sample size and sample selection • Sample selection of SEAs based on 2000 census sample frame - consistent over surveys • Sample size varies from 6,000 to 20,000 households • Sample of households per strata within SEAs selected by supervisors or enumerators

  8. Zambia poverty lines 1996-2006 Decline in the poverty line btw 2004 and 2006 shows that the methodology of updating the poverty line changed over time. (CPI Food inflation 2004-2006 = 20%) 8

  9. Developing methodology to establish the poverty trend, retrospectively • Reviewed questionnaires and available data for 1996, 1998, 2004 and 2006 • Developed a new method that could be applied to data 1996-2006 • New food basket based on consumption shares on each food item for HHs in 5th and 6thdeciles (2006)

  10. Developing methodology to establish the poverty trend, retrospectively • Valued food basket for each year using item specific CPI indices (avoiding differences in CPI structure over time) • Derived overall poverty line based on non food share of HHs in 5th and 6th deciles • Developed a consistent consumption aggregate based on best practice and available data across surveys

  11. Comparison of overall poverty lines ('000 Kwacha), 1996 - 2006

  12. New Poverty trend – Zambia 1996-2006

  13. LCMS2010

  14. LCMS 2010 • CSO required that the LCMS 2010 serve two purposes: 1. To monitor poverty trends 2006 – 2010 2. Develop separate urban and rural poverty lines. • Lessons learned from previous surveys - Questionnaire had more specific consumption items listed

  15. LCMS 2010: Continuing poverty trend • Developed a ‘Narrow’ consumption aggregate, strictly excluding all items NOT in the 2006 LCMS • Included items likely to be under ‘other’ categories in 2006

  16. LCMS 2010 ‘Other’ categories excluded • Own production/’receipt from other sources’ of other vegetables, fruits and own poultry these were ‘accidentally’ crossed out in 2004 and 2006 questionnaires • ‘Narrow’ consumption aggregate therefore excludes these items

  17. LCMS 2010: A key difference • Problem: LCMS field work was delayed by 2 months • Rainy season (access) • Lean season • 2010 data showed a large increase in poverty when trends (2009) methodology applied

  18. Attempts to deal with ensuring comparability in analysis • Adjustment (i): Use Dec./Nov. 2009 prices to evaluate the food poverty line • Argument: Fieldwork was 2 months later than the 2006 survey period, Prices in the period January to March were slightly higher than Nov-Dec .

  19. Adjustments to deal with comparability in analysis • Adjustment (ii): Reduce the food share of the overall poverty line • Argument: Households have a lower non-food consumption in the period January to April (lean period) than from Nov. to Dec. • LCMS 2002/03 show that the non-food share in the period Jan. to April is indeed lower than in the period Nov.-Dec. • The non-food share of the total poverty line in 2010 was lowered by 3 percentage points, from 41.5% to 38.5% (was reviewed with 1.5% and 3% reductions) • However the LCMS 2002/03 report shows lower poverty in Q1

  20. Adjustments to deal with comparability in analysis • Adjustment (iii) Take out the price increase for imported rice from the pricing of the poverty line • Argument: Between 2006 and 2010 the national median price for local rice increased roughly by the factor 2.14, for imported rice by the factor 4.17.

  21. Adjustments to deal with comparability in analysis • Adjustment (iv): Use an extended consumption aggregate • Consultants requested to create an ‘extended’ consumption aggregate, to include own-produced and items received of other vegetables, fruits and poultry • Comparing item specific budget shares over time reveals that own produced ‘other vegetables’ are extremely important consumption items.

  22. Adjustments to deal with comparability Adj. (iv) – extended cons. agg. • Share (of total consumption) of other vegetables was 1.7% in 2006 and 2% in 2010 – under the narrow consumption aggregate (inc. only purchases) • Share of ‘other vegetables’ in ‘extended’ consumption aggregate (2010) is 11% • This indicates that the narrow 2010 consumption aggregate is actually more comparable to the 2006 aggregate.

  23. Adjustment (iv): outcome • When ‘Extended’ aggregate is used to generate poverty headcount, results …………………… • Poorer quintiles gained against the overall trend of a decline in real consumption (own produced vegetables, fruits and poultry are of much greater relevance to poorer quintiles) • Significant discomfort with this adjustment

  24. Further revisions made by CSO • Spatial price differences removed • Remittances sent added to HH consumption aggregate • Consumption aggregate for 2010 includes all food items (e.g. ‘other own production’)

  25. Effects of adjustments on poverty headcount

  26. Political situation • CSO senior management change half way through survey (temporary promotion) • GRZ preparing for election and CSO under pressure to show reduction in poverty • Clear steer for ST that poverty must have fallen (argument anecdotal) • President announces fall in poverty before final numbers agreed

  27. Lesson learning • Survey had on-going evaluation – Paper available • Summary of lessons learned in brief paper • Political lessons • Management lessons • Technical lessons

  28. Thank you!

More Related