View/Open - Sokoine University of Agriculture

not being able to tend to own income themselves, and thus more reluctant to admit tohaving received some assistance from a relative or family member. Regardless ofwealth group, a few households had received some money from a family member orrelative in the past year, and the amount given was also the same. However, as seen intable 9.6 the households that received significantly more remittance are the less poorhouseholds. This can be because less poor households can afford to educate theirchildren, whereas the children will get better jobs in distant locations.The only slight difference we found in terms of remittance and location was that mostof them were located in Masugu. This can be explained by its closeness to town, andincome opportunities for family members, but still, though, the amount wasinsignificant.7.5.6 Perceptions on livelihood outcomesAs stated earlier, since the difference between those with the least income and thosewith the highest was quite substantial we were interested in finding out theirperception of their level of income, and whether or not they felt it was enough tocover their households‟ needs. In total only 28% answered that the income they hadwas sufficient. A curious fact is that out of all the wealth groups the ones, which feltthe most that their income was not enough was the less poor, with 46% answeringthis. When asked to compare their situation to other households in the village morethan half considered themselves about average in terms of their wellbeing ascompared to others, however 30% answered they considered themselves worse off.Compared to five years ago in total as much as 40% felt they were better off now, themost satisfied ones coming from Lunenzi (61%) whereas 47% in Masugu felt theywere now worse off. 52% in Masugu also felt that today they don‟t have enoughincome to support their households needs.203