SlideServe
Menu
Préférences
© SlideServe · v2026

Poverty Trends in Tajikistan: Analysis of 2007-2009 TLSS Data Insights

tracen avatar
21 diapositives · 334 Views · Jul 19, 2014

This report analyzes poverty changes in Tajikistan from 2007 to 2009 based on the TLSS data, focusing on over 1,500 households. Key findings indicate a decline in poverty, particularly in urban areas, while extreme poverty levels remained static. Urban consumption improved across most demographics except for the poorest and richest, while rural growth benefited primarily the wealthier half. Notably, educational attainment and migration status influenced poverty outcomes, with larger, less educated households experiencing increased vulnerability. The shift in poverty distribution highlights Khatlon as the region with the highest prevalence of extreme poverty.

Poverty Trends in Tajikistan: Analysis of 2007-2009 TLSS Data Insights - slide 1
01 / 21Poverty Trends in Tajikistan: Analysis of 2007-2009 TLSS Data Insights
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

Poverty Trends in Tajikistan: Analysis of 2007-2009 TLSS Data Insights
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation
  1. Change in Poverty ProfileTajikistan 2007 - 2009

  2. Data Source:2007 TLSS and 2009 TLSS1,500 households interviewed in 2007 were interviewed again in 2007

  3. Poverty declined from 2007 to 2009, especially in urban areas

  4. But extreme poverty did not change

  5. Migrant transfers declined sharply from 2008 to 2009, but the 2009 level was similar to 2007

  6. Urban consumption increased strongly from ‘07 to ‘09 for everyone except the poorest and the richest

  7. Rural consumption increased strongly from ‘07 to ‘09 for the top half, but not among poorest

  8. Despite these growth trends, vulnerability remains high: many non-poor became poor and vice versa.

  9. Importance of income from own food production (green) reduced most among poor, while income from primary occupation (dark blue) increased

  10. National Poverty Decline Masks Important Variation in Poverty Changes Across Oblasts and Across Household Types

  11. Largest poverty decline Sogd and Dushanbe, but large increase GBAO

  12. Large increase Khatlon and GBAO in extreme poverty

  13. Majority of (extreme) poor no longer live in Sogd but live in Khatlon instead

  14. Vulnerability and household characteristics: Well-educated households without children benefited the most from the decline in poverty rates, as did households who still had a migrant member

  15. More educated people experienced decline in poverty

  16. … least and most educated experienced increase in extreme poverty

  17. Poverty decline concentrated among childless hhs, while hhs with many children experienced an increase.

  18. … same for extreme poverty

  19. Households with migrant(s) larger decline in poverty, especially rural

  20. … same for extreme poverty, especially rural

  21. Conclusion Poverty continues to decline, but extreme poverty not Rural growth was concentrated among the richest half Urban growth was more broad-based, but the very poor and rich did not benefit There is a high degree of vulnerability; many non-poor became poor and vice versa Change in the distribution of poverty across oblasts; more extreme poor now live in Khatlon than any other oblast Larger households with less educated household heads did not benefit from the economic growth and are particularly vulnerable