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

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

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!