ContentsPageForeword 3Acknowledgements 4Chapter 1 Introduction 5Chapter 2 Concepts, methods <strong>and</strong> data 112.1 Monetary <strong>in</strong>dicators <strong>of</strong> well-be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> poverty l<strong>in</strong>es 112.2 <strong>Poverty</strong> <strong>in</strong>cidence or headcount <strong>in</strong>dex 122.3 <strong>Poverty</strong> density measure 142.4 <strong>Poverty</strong> gap measure 162.5 The <strong>in</strong>equality measure, G<strong>in</strong>i coefficient 182.6 <strong>Poverty</strong> mapp<strong>in</strong>g methodology <strong>and</strong> the data 20Chapter 3 <strong>Distribution</strong> <strong>and</strong> evolution <strong>of</strong> poverty <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>equality<strong>in</strong> 1992–2002 233.1 <strong>Poverty</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>equality <strong>in</strong> Ug<strong>and</strong>a <strong>in</strong> 2002 233.2 <strong>Poverty</strong> <strong>in</strong> rural <strong>and</strong> urban areas, 2002 243.3 Summary <strong>of</strong> poverty estimates by region, 2002 263.4 Changes <strong>in</strong> poverty <strong>in</strong> 1992–2002: Key results 47Chapter 4 Mapp<strong>in</strong>g Various Dimensions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Poverty</strong> 554.1 Compar<strong>in</strong>g Expenditure-based metrics <strong>of</strong> <strong>Poverty</strong> witha Qualitative Measure Deprivation 554.2 Compar<strong>in</strong>g Expenditure-based metrics <strong>of</strong> <strong>Poverty</strong> <strong>and</strong>unsafe Dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g Water sources 61References 67Appendix 1 Expenditure-based small area estimation 69Tablesa) Ug<strong>and</strong>a Rural <strong>Poverty</strong> Rates by Sub-county 2002 72b) Ug<strong>and</strong>a Urban <strong>Poverty</strong> Rates by Sub-county 2002 90c) Ug<strong>and</strong>a Rural changes <strong>in</strong> <strong>Poverty</strong>, 1999 - 2002 94d) Ug<strong>and</strong>a Urban changes <strong>in</strong> <strong>Poverty</strong>, 1999 - 2002 972 <strong>Nature</strong>, distribution <strong>and</strong> evolution <strong>of</strong> poverty <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>equality <strong>in</strong> Ug<strong>and</strong>a, 1992 - 2002
ForewordThe 1992 <strong>and</strong> 1999 poverty maps for Ug<strong>and</strong>a have been available at UBOS <strong>and</strong> ILRI but only with povertylevels up to the county level. There has therefore been limited <strong>in</strong>formation on the status <strong>and</strong> changes <strong>in</strong>poverty at lower adm<strong>in</strong>istrative levels. Previously available national data could only provide <strong>in</strong>formationon poverty at the regional level with rural-urban disaggregation. This posed a major challenge <strong>in</strong> thedesign, implementation <strong>and</strong> evaluation <strong>of</strong> socio economic programs targeted towards the improvement<strong>of</strong> the welfare <strong>of</strong> the poor due to lack <strong>of</strong> reliable <strong>in</strong>formation about the welfare <strong>and</strong> changes to welfare<strong>of</strong> the Ug<strong>and</strong>an population at lower levels <strong>of</strong> adm<strong>in</strong>istration. Furthermore, the ability <strong>of</strong> the state toefficiently <strong>and</strong> effectively design, target, implement <strong>and</strong> evaluate decentralized budget allocations <strong>and</strong>pro-poor programs, relies heavily on good data <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation systems which have previously beenlack<strong>in</strong>g.This report presents <strong>in</strong>formation compiled by UBOS <strong>and</strong> ILRI us<strong>in</strong>g the most recent data from the NationalPopulation <strong>and</strong> Hous<strong>in</strong>g Census <strong>of</strong> 2002 <strong>and</strong> the National Household Survey <strong>of</strong> 2002/3 <strong>and</strong> exam<strong>in</strong>esthe changes <strong>in</strong> poverty over the period 1992-2002 as well as provid<strong>in</strong>g estimates <strong>of</strong> Ug<strong>and</strong>an poverty<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>equality at the district, county <strong>and</strong> sub-county levels. The new estimates <strong>of</strong> well-be<strong>in</strong>g presented<strong>in</strong> this report are based on statistical techniques that comb<strong>in</strong>e exist<strong>in</strong>g survey <strong>and</strong> census datasets.With<strong>in</strong> sub-counties, poverty <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>equality measures are computed for rural <strong>and</strong> urban communities.The report also demonstrates how poverty maps can be comb<strong>in</strong>ed with other <strong>in</strong>dicators <strong>of</strong> well-be<strong>in</strong>gsuch as access to water, possession <strong>of</strong> soap, sugar <strong>and</strong> cloth<strong>in</strong>g among others to better underst<strong>and</strong> thephenomenon <strong>of</strong> poverty.As this report shows, the government <strong>of</strong> Ug<strong>and</strong>a is committed to poverty reduction. <strong>Poverty</strong> has reduced<strong>in</strong> more than 80 percent <strong>of</strong> the rural sub-counties <strong>of</strong> Ug<strong>and</strong>a, though this reduction has been least <strong>in</strong> theNorthern region. This report provides critical <strong>in</strong>dicators for evidence-based pro-poor policy mak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong>key benchmarks for measur<strong>in</strong>g our progress. Indeed, the results provided <strong>in</strong> this report can be strongguide to monitor <strong>and</strong> evaluate our progress towards poverty reduction over the past decade. Moreover,the report goes a step beyond <strong>and</strong> demonstrates how <strong>in</strong>formation from different sectors <strong>of</strong> the economycan be used to effectively <strong>and</strong> efficiently target the poor.The Government <strong>of</strong> Ug<strong>and</strong>a had for many years, been allocat<strong>in</strong>g resources to districts <strong>and</strong> communitieswith limited empirical basis for the decisions to target for example <strong>in</strong>come disparity. Although thisdisbursement <strong>of</strong> funds was meant to reduce poverty <strong>and</strong> improve project implementation, there wasa risk <strong>of</strong> achiev<strong>in</strong>g limited success, partly due to the lack <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation. To that end, the poverty mapscould go a long way <strong>in</strong> help<strong>in</strong>g us make <strong>in</strong>formed decisions. There is also need for government planners<strong>and</strong> policy makers as well as development partners, to rely on empirical <strong>in</strong>dicators for target<strong>in</strong>g resources.These <strong>in</strong>dicators also constitute the basis for evaluation <strong>of</strong> the effectiveness <strong>and</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>terventionsover time. It is hoped that the poverty <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>equality estimates be<strong>in</strong>g presented <strong>in</strong> this report, <strong>and</strong>their changes over time, will provide a set <strong>of</strong> key statistics that will strengthen evidence-based decisionmak<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> facilitate pro-poor resource allocations down to the sub-county level. This report comes ata critical time when government is implement<strong>in</strong>g a sub-county level based approach to plann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong>development. I am confident that the report will contribute to improved target<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> poverty reduction<strong>in</strong>terventions <strong>and</strong> amelioration <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>equality <strong>in</strong> Ug<strong>and</strong>a.I wish to thank the research team <strong>and</strong> advisory committee for their excellent work. My s<strong>in</strong>cere thanks arealso extended to our development partners particularly the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank <strong>and</strong>the Department for International Development (DFID) for provid<strong>in</strong>g f<strong>in</strong>ancial <strong>and</strong> technical assistance<strong>in</strong> the preparation <strong>of</strong> this report.John B. Male-MukasaExecutive Director, Ug<strong>and</strong>a Bureau <strong>of</strong> Statistics<strong>Nature</strong>, distribution <strong>and</strong> evolution <strong>of</strong> poverty <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>equality <strong>in</strong> Ug<strong>and</strong>a, 1992 - 2002 3