19.10.2014 Views

A regional perspective on poverty in Myanmar - United Nations ...

A regional perspective on poverty in Myanmar - United Nations ...

A regional perspective on poverty in Myanmar - United Nations ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Poverty <strong>in</strong> <strong>Myanmar</strong> 10<br />

Table 1: Actual average PPI by S/R and adjusted overall and food <strong>poverty</strong> l<strong>in</strong>es<br />

Average<br />

PPI<br />

Revised <strong>poverty</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e<br />

Revised food<br />

<strong>poverty</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e<br />

<strong>Myanmar</strong> 1,0 376151 274990<br />

Kach<strong>in</strong> 1,1 341956 249991<br />

Kayah 0,97 387785 283495<br />

Kay<strong>in</strong> 1,09 345093 252284<br />

Ch<strong>in</strong> 1,01 372427 272267<br />

Saga<strong>in</strong>g 0,98 383828 280602<br />

Tan<strong>in</strong>thayi 1,05 358239 261895<br />

Bago (East) 0,97 387785 283495<br />

Bago (West) 0,92 408860 298902<br />

Magway 0,96 391824 286448<br />

Mandalay 0,99 379951 277768<br />

M<strong>on</strong> 1,09 345093 252284<br />

Rakh<strong>in</strong>e 0,83 453195 331313<br />

Yang<strong>on</strong> 1,06 354860 259425<br />

Shan (South) 1,04 361684 264413<br />

Shan (North) 1,1 341956 249991<br />

Shan (East) 1,14 329957 241219<br />

Ayeyarwady 0,94 400161 292543<br />

Note: These PPI adjusted <strong>poverty</strong> l<strong>in</strong>es do not reflect variati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> baskets<br />

and are therefore <strong>on</strong>ly to be seen as rough approximati<strong>on</strong>s<br />

In all S/R but Kach<strong>in</strong>, Kay<strong>in</strong>, M<strong>on</strong>, Shan and Tan<strong>in</strong>thayi, the de facto <strong>poverty</strong> gap experienced by the<br />

households is more severe than the calculated. The additi<strong>on</strong>al gap makes <strong>in</strong> average about 8% for<br />

those S/R where it is higher, with Rakh<strong>in</strong>e (almost 21%) and Bago West (almost 13%) suffer<strong>in</strong>g the by<br />

far highest discrepancies.<br />

Poverty and ethnicity<br />

There are no significant variati<strong>on</strong>s between the expected and the actual <strong>poverty</strong> rate of ethnicities.<br />

As the IHLCS does not ask for the ethnic background of the resp<strong>on</strong>dents, the ma<strong>in</strong> language spoken<br />

was used as proxi for ethnicity. As expected, the median <strong>poverty</strong> gap is highest for the Ch<strong>in</strong> speak<strong>in</strong>g<br />

and lowest for the Kayah speak<strong>in</strong>g people. For those S/R, where the mother t<strong>on</strong>gue spoken is an<br />

<strong>in</strong>dicator for the S/R, the rank<strong>in</strong>g rema<strong>in</strong>s however roughly the same between S/R and mother<br />

t<strong>on</strong>gue. Only the Kay<strong>in</strong> people do appear to be somewhat poorer as people than the average of the<br />

Kay<strong>in</strong> state. The sample is however too small to analyse further. Should the populati<strong>on</strong> census still be<br />

valid it appears as if the survey underrepresented the Kay<strong>in</strong> and the H<strong>in</strong>di/other Indian and foreign<br />

languages, and overrepresented the other <strong>in</strong>digenous languages.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!