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 ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Poverty <strong>in</strong> <strong>Myanmar</strong> 22<br />
Agriculture,<br />
hunt<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
forestry<br />
Table 12: Sectoral c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong>s across S/R<br />
Manufactur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
C<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong><br />
Wholesale<br />
and retail<br />
trade <strong>in</strong>cl.<br />
repairs<br />
Transport,<br />
storage &<br />
communicati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Kach<strong>in</strong> 54.31 1.76 2.99 12.48 (-) 1.93 6.68<br />
Other<br />
community,<br />
social and<br />
pers<strong>on</strong>al<br />
services<br />
Kayah 49.34 (+) 6.58 (+) 7.24 15.79 (+) 9.21 (-) 2.63<br />
Kay<strong>in</strong> 51.60 1.74 4.36 16.72 (+) 7.56 7.85<br />
Ch<strong>in</strong> (+) 66.23 3.90 2.60 (-) 9.74 (-) 0.97 5.52<br />
Saga<strong>in</strong>g 59.75 3.16 3.82 12.19 2.79 3.63<br />
Tan<strong>in</strong>thayi (-) 36.40 2.49 5.12 15.79 4.39 6.29<br />
Bago (East) 53.71 5.43 (-) 2.10 16.94 5.43 4.10<br />
Bago (West) 64.00 2.58 3.32 15.11 2.83 (-) 2.21<br />
Magway 60.67 2.26 2.85 11.71 3.68 4.69<br />
Mandalay 43.70 (+) 8.34 5.00 17.10 5.38 7.23<br />
M<strong>on</strong> 45.21 3.72 (+) 7.05 19.95 5.05 5.98<br />
Rakh<strong>in</strong>e 41.06 1.81 2.47 16.98 5.11 (+) 13.52<br />
Yang<strong>on</strong> (-) 17.65 (+) 8.78 (+) 6.78 (+) 31.48 (+) 11.39 6.87<br />
Shan (South) 64.01 2.99 3.81 11.61 2.82 4.48<br />
Shan (North) (+) 64.92 2.40 4.92 11.80 5.25 (-) 2.84<br />
Shan (East) 73.14 (-) 1.73 3.29 11.61 2.77 (-) 2.08<br />
Ayeyarwady 48.68 3.15 2.96 16.63 4.54 (+) 10.14<br />
Total 50.97 4.03 4.01 15.90 4.77 6.29<br />
StDev 13.50413 2.253918 1.632549 4.97854 2.644386 2.987998<br />
Own account workers<br />
Overall, 22% of the household members –or <strong>on</strong>e pers<strong>on</strong> per household- work <strong>on</strong> own account<br />
(median: 16.7%). But 42.4% of the households are without any own account worker. Should each of<br />
the own account workers effectively run a different bus<strong>in</strong>ess and register it, <strong>Myanmar</strong>’s bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />
density rate would be 220 (220 bus<strong>in</strong>esses per 1000 populati<strong>on</strong>), which is about sevenfold the world<br />
average of around 30. This average takes however <strong>on</strong>ly registered bus<strong>in</strong>esses <strong>in</strong>to account, and the<br />
global <strong>in</strong>formal sector can be assumed to be at least double the formal sector <strong>in</strong> terms of numbers<br />
(i.e., a hypothetical density rate of about 90 to 100). Still, <strong>Myanmar</strong>’s bus<strong>in</strong>ess sector appears to be<br />
at least twice the global average. One can c<strong>on</strong>clude that the vast majority of <strong>Myanmar</strong>’s bus<strong>in</strong>esses<br />
are so called ‘necessity bus<strong>in</strong>esses’, which is a clear sign of <strong>poverty</strong> and lack of opportunity.<br />
The percentage of household members work<strong>in</strong>g <strong>on</strong> own account is not correlated with the<br />
household expenses. In fact, <strong>in</strong> the poorest expenditure qu<strong>in</strong>tile the share of own account workers is<br />
lower than <strong>in</strong> the other qu<strong>in</strong>tiles. The share of own account workers <strong>in</strong> rural areas is higher than <strong>in</strong><br />
urban areas, show<strong>in</strong>g also that employment is more difficult to obta<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> rural areas.<br />
Men and women headed households have <strong>on</strong> average similar shares of own-account workers, but<br />
the median for male headed is about 17%, it is 0% for female headed households. This shows a<br />
slightly more two poled distributi<strong>on</strong> of own-account workers am<strong>on</strong>g female headed households than