selected poverty relevant indicators
TRANSCRIPT
Ministry ofPlanning and Finance
selectedpovertyrelevantindicatorsDecember 2017
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Table of Contents1. Introduction 3 2. Trends in Poverty and Living Standards 7 Poverty Line 8 Poverty Headcount Rate 9 Food Poverty Headcount Rate 10 Poverty Trend (2004/5-2015) 11 Vulnerability to Poverty 12 Poverty Gap and Poverty Severity Index 13 Inequality 14
3. Selected Indicators from the Poverty Profile 15 Average Household Size 16 Dependency Ratio 17 Female Headed Households 18 Type of Dwelling 19 Dwelling Ownership 20 Access to Quality Housing: Roof, Wall and Floor 21 Access to Safe Drinking Water Source 23 Distance to Drinking Water Source 24 Access to Improved Sanitation Facility 25 Access to Electricity 26 Access to Electricity by Source 27 Consumption Shares 28 Food Expenditures 29
Calories Intake 30 Adult Literacy Rate 31 Education Attainment of Adults (aged 25-64) 32 Education Attainment by Age Group 33 Net Total Enrollment Rate - Primary 34 Net Total Enrollment Rate - Secondary 35 Ownership of Selected Assets 36 Access to Land by Farmers 37 Access to Formal Medical Care 38 Household Health Expenditures 39 Purposes of Loan 40 Access to a Bank Account 41 Labor Force Participation Rate (last 7 days) 42 Unemployment Rate (last 7 days) 43 Hours worked (last 7 days) 44 Household Income source by sector 45 Working sector of Main Employment 46
References 47
Introduction
This indicators booklet accompanies Part Two of the 2015 Poverty Assessment jointly conducted by the Ministry of Planning and Finance (MOPF) and the World Bank (WB) (2017b). The booklet presents a summary of the key poverty trend and profile indicators that are found in the longer report.
This assessment focuses on analysis conducted using the Myanmar Poverty and Living Conditions Survey (MPLCS), enumerated in 2015. Poverty has previously been estimated using data from the Integrated Household Living Conditions Assessments, conducted in 2004/05 (IHLCA-I) and 2009/10 (IHLCA-II). Using this earlier data, poverty in Myanmar has been estimated using two different approaches. These approaches are discussed in detail in Part One of the joint Poverty Assessment.
The assessment jointly conducted by the Ministry of Planning and Finance and the World Bank produced two reports. The first report, Part One (MOPF and WB, 2017a), put forward trends in poverty over time using the two poverty estimation methodologies previously used in Myanmar. The first report also made the recommendation to revise and rebase the poverty methodology to reflect the needs of the poor using data from the MPLCS in 2015. Updates to a country’s welfare aggregate and poverty line are recommended approximately every ten years to reflect changes in living conditions that occur as a country gets richer (such as a shift in the basket of goods from food to non-food goods) and to reflect changes in survey and poverty estimation methodology.
Part Two of the Poverty Assessment (MOPF and WB, 2017b), puts forward a revised and rebased poverty estimate and method to reflect the needs of Myanmar’s poor in 2015. The results and
4
deeper analysis emerging from the revised poverty measurement exercise are presented in the Part Two report and related technical analysis is found in the accompanying technical report (MOPF and WB, 2017c).
The analysis emerging from the MPLCS is focused on the national, urban/rural and agro-ecological zone level. The MPLCS used the 2014 Population and Housing Census to draw its sample. Based on its sampling strategy, the MPLCS cannot be used at the state and region level. The following agro-ecological zones can be examined using the MPLCS survey:
- Hills and Mountainous Zone: covering Chin, Kachin, Kayah, Kayin, Shan
- Coastal Zone: covering Rakhine and Taninthayi- Delta Zone: covering Ayeyarwady, Bago, Mon, Yangon- Dry Zone: covering Mandalay, Magwe, Nay Pyi Taw,
Sagaing
5
6
Trends in Poverty
and Living Standards
7
Per adult equivalent Per capita
Poverty Line 1303 1241
Food Poverty Line 850 805
Median expenditures 1644 1575
Median food expenditures 953 917
Note: all values are spatially deflated and in January 2015 kyat.
Poverty Line
The table below shows the new poverty line based on the 2015 Myanmar Poverty and Living Conditions Survey, used in this report. An individual in Myanmar is considered to be poor if he or she lived in a household with consumption per adult equivalent per day of 1303 kyat or less, or 1241 kyat in per capita terms. The food poverty line is set at 850 kyat per adult equivalent per day, or 805 kyat in per capita terms.
Poverty line and welfare measureTable 2.1
8
Pove
rty
Hea
dcou
nt (p
erce
nt)
0
10
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
32.1
14.5
38.840.0
32.126.2
43.9
20
30
40
50
60
Note: The whiskers in the figure show 95% confidence intervals. The poverty headcount rate gives the proportion of the population living below the poverty line.
Poverty Headcount Rate
In 2015, 32.1 percent of the population of Myanmar lived in poverty—their total expenditure per adult equivalent was less than the poverty line. Poverty in rural areas is substantially higher than that in urban areas. In rural areas, 38.8 percent of the population is estimated to be poor, compared to 14.5 percent of those living in urban areas.
Poverty Headcount RateFigure 2.1
9
Food Poverty Headcount Rate
Ten percent of the population of Myanmar are food poor, which means that their total consumption expenditures are not sufficient to cover their food needs. Food poverty captures a form of extreme deprivation, where even the most basic of food needs are not met. Rates of food poverty are substantially higher in rural areas than in urban.
Food Poverty Headcount RateFigure 2.2
Food
Pov
erty
Hea
dcou
nt (p
erce
nt)
0
5
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
9.8
2.7
12.5
15.9
7.4 6.910
15
20
25
30 19.1
10
Note: The whiskers in the figure show 95% confidence intervals. The food poverty headcount rate gives the proportion of the population living below the food poverty line.
Pove
rty
Hea
dcou
nt (p
erce
nt)
0
10
20
30
40
2004/05
Union Urban Rural
2009/10 2015
50
60
32.2
48.2
53.948.5
42.4
38.8
32.1
14.5
24.8
Poverty Trends (2004/5-2015)
Poverty is estimated to have declined from 48.2 percent in 2004/05 to 42.4 percent in 2009/10 and 32.1 percent in 2015. The more rapid decline in urban poverty relative to rural is mirrored in sectoral growth figures, which show a more rapid rate of growth in manufacturing and services than in the agricultural sector over the same period. (World Bank, 2016).
Estimated Poverty TrendsFigure 2.3
11
Nea
r Poo
r (<1
.2* p
over
ty li
ne)
0
10
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
20
30
40
50
70
6046.0
23.8
54.5 53.044.7 41.7
56.6
Note: Percent of the population who live under 1.2* poverty line
The Poor and Near-Poor
The near-poor are the individuals who are not poor but whose consumption patterns place them near the poverty line – they live in households consuming 1.2 times the poverty line. Although the fraction of poor and near-poor individuals has declined over time, from 61.9 percent in 2004/05 to 46 percent in 2015, the high fraction of the population living under the near-poor line signals substantial vulnerability to poverty.
Vulnerable to PoorFigure 2.4
12
Note: Poverty gap reflects the depth of poverty by providing the mean shortfall or distance from the poverty line of those who are poor. The poverty gap squared reflects the severity of poverty by placing more weight on those who are further away from the poverty line.
Poverty Gap and Poverty Severity Index
The poverty gap index captures the depth of poverty as a percentage of shortfall from the poverty line. The poverty severity index is the square of the poverty gap; it puts more weight on individuals who are further away from the poverty line.
The figure indicates households in rural areas, the Hills and Mountains and Coastal areas live, on average, further below the poverty line.
Poverty Gap Poverty Gap Squared
Pove
rty
Gap
and
Sev
erity
0
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
5
10
15
20
8.4
3.3 2.80.9
10.6
4.2
12.1
5.1
7.3
2.4
6.4
2.4
14.4
6.6
Poverty Gap and Poverty SeverityFigure 2.5
13
Union Urban Rural
Gini 35.0 38.6 28.3
Theil-0 20.7 25.0 13.4
Theil-1 25.9 32.3 13.9
Share bottom 20% 7.5 6.6 9.0
90/10 4.1 4.6 3.5
90/50 2.1 2.3 1.9
50/10 1.9 2.0 1.9
Inequality
The gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of welfare of individuals or households deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Gini index of zero represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies perfect inequality. The theil index, and ratios of outcomes of people at different percentiles of the outcome distribution also capture inequality in relative terms.
Measures of Inequality, 2015Table 2.2
14
Selected Indicators
from the Poverty
Profile
15
Average Household Size
The demographic structure of a household is closely associated with poverty. Due to the limited scope for economies of scale seen in Myanmar, a larger average household size (with a higher share of children within these larger households) has been found to accompany or to be associated with poverty.
4.5 4.6 4.5
5.5
4.2
5.74.8
4.3 4.23.7
4.7 4.5 4.4 4.9
Aver
age
Hou
seho
ld s
ize
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Average Household SizeFigure 3.1
16
Age Dependency Ratio (Elderly) Age Dependency Ratio (Young)
5746
61
71
51
73
6455
4839
59 55 5565
depe
nden
cy ra
tio
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
40
20
60
80
Dependency Ratio
The dependency ratio is the ratio of dependents (people younger than 15 years and older than 64) to the population of working-age (age 15-64). Data are shown as the proportion of dependents per 100 working-age people.
The figure shows poorer and rural households have substantially higher shares of dependents relative to the working age population.
Dependency RatiosFigure 3.2
17
Perc
ent o
f hou
seho
lds
head
ed b
y w
omen
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
5
10
20
30
18
23
1617 19 17 18 17
2419 18 18 1917
Percent of female headed householdsFigure 3.3
Female Headed Households
The proportion of households headed by women is similar among poor households and the general population. There does not appear to be a significant relationship between the gender of household head and the economic welfare of the household.
18
Type of DwellingFigure 3.4
Solid Semi-solid Temporary
Perc
ent o
f ind
ivid
uals
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
20
40
80
60
100
Type of Dwelling
Dwellings are divided into three categories: (i) solid; (ii) semi-solid; and (iii) temporary. Solid dwellings include condominiums, apartments, and brick houses. Semi-solid include semi-pacca, wooden and bamboo houses. Temporary houses are huts that need to be rebuilt within one to three years. One third of individuals living in households in the top quintile live in solid dwelling but the majority of individuals live in semi-solid or temporary primitive dwellings.
19
Perc
ent o
f ind
ivid
uals
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
40
20
60
80
100 90
76
95 91 89 93 9188 90 87
95 9286
90
Dwelling Ownership
The overall ownership of dwellings in Myanmar is high – 90 percent of individuals live in owned dwelling. Individuals in urban areas are more likely to live in rented houses or apartments therefore the dwelling ownership rate is substantially lower in urban than in rural areas.
Live in Owned DwellingFigure 3.5
20
Thatch/leaf/bamboo Corrugate sheet/tile/brick/concrete
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
40
20
60
80
100
Access to Quality Housing: Roof, Wall and Floor
Geographic variation in housing is substantial, partly reflecting climatic variation. Households in coastal areas are more likely to have houses constructed with walls, or roofs made of dhani, theke, bamboo or leaves while those in hilly and mountainous areas are the most likely to have more resilient housing materials.
Type of RoofFigure 3.6
21
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
20
40
80
60
100
Thatch/leaf/bamboo Tile/brick/concreteWood
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
20
40
80
60
100
Bamboo/earth Tile/brickWood
Type of floorFigure 3.8
Type of wallsFigure 3.7
22
Access to Safe Drinking Water Source
The definition of safe drinking water source includes public tap and water system into drawling, tube well, protected well and spring, bottled water, and rain water.
Access to a safe drinking water source varies substantially across Myanmar. Individuals living in the Dry Zone have the highest access to safe water while half of individuals in Coastal areas live in households that rely on surface water in the dry season.
Perc
ent o
f ind
ivid
uals
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
20
40
80
60
100
6985
63 6172
5667 69 70
79 7082
6352
Access to safe drinking water (dry season)Figure 3.9
23
Min
utes
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
2
4
6
10
12
8
14
6.2
3.0
7.48.4
5.5
9.3
6.7 6.5 5.9
3.8
6.0 5.5 6.1
9.7
Distance to Drinking Water Source
The time taken to fetch drinking water varies substantially by location and across urban and rural areas. In urban areas, nearly three quarters of households report having their drinking water source in their dwelling compared to over a third of rural residents. The time travelled to water sources is highest in Coastal areas. Nearly half of households in Coastal areas have a 10 minute or more roundtrip to fetch water.
Average time to drinking water source (dry season)Figure 3.10
24
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
20
40
80
60
10082
97
76 6988
67 81 8588 96
8189
82
57
Access to Improved Sanitation Facility
The figure shows the fraction of individuals living in households with improved toilet facilities, which includes flush toilet and improved pit latrine.
One in four individuals in the rural areas lacks access to an improved toilet facility while universal access to sanitation is almost satisfied in urban areas.
Access to Improved Toilet facilityFigure 3.11
25
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
20
40
80
60
10078 70 69
83 87 9297
8892
83
55
90
Access to Electricity
Access to electricity signals the share of individuals living in households with access to electricity from any source, which includes public grid, communal or private grid, solar home system, rechargeable battery, mills and generator.
Urban dwellers, both richer and poorer, have a source of electricity while one in five individuals living in rural areas (21.7 percent) has no electricity access at all.
Access to ElectricityFigure 3.12
26
8498
Public Grid
Rechargeable
Communal or Private Grid
Other
Solar Home System
No Electricity
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
20 33
85
13 1640
1323 34
4064
28 33 40
5
40
60
80
100
Access to Electricity by Type of Source
Outside of urban areas, access to electricity through the public grid is limited and both the rich and the poor need to find alternative sources of electricity. While 85 percent of the population reported electricity from the public grid in urban areas, only 12.6 percent of rural residents cite the public grid as their main electricity source.
Access to Electricity by Type of SourceFigure 3.13
27
Food Non-Food Education Durables Use Value Housing
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
20
40
60
80
100
59
1818
18 181919 19
2118 1820
17 17 17
4664 64 56 66 62 62 59 46
5956 60
63
Consumption Shares
The figure shows the share of total consumption expenditures by item category. Expenditures on food account for the majority of the welfare aggregate for most households. Food accounts for over half of consumption expenditures for individuals living in the bottom 80 percent of households.
Share of consumption by itemFigure 3.14
28
Rice, pulses and nuts Meat, Diary and Eggs Fish and SeafoodVegetables, roots, fruits Food away from home Oils and FatsSpices and other
Food
exp
endi
ture
per
day
(kya
t)
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Food Expenditures
The figure shows average daily food expenditures in per-adult equivalent terms by item. Individuals who live in bottom quintile (Q1) households spend on average 538 kyat per adult equivalent per day day on food, compared to 1814 kyat among those in the top quintile (Q5). Dietary diversity is lower in rural areas than in urban. Households in rural areas spend more on rice and pulses and less on meat, dairy, fish and eggs than those in urban areas.
Average food expenditures (per adult equivalent)Figure 3.15
29
Calo
ries
per d
ay
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
500
1000
2000
2500
1500
30002463
2097
2604
2050
2659
19592292
25092726
2831
22552509
25072512
Calorie Intake
The low food expenditures in the bottom quintile (Q1) are mirrored in calorie consumption. Within households in Q1, individuals consume an average of 1959 calories per adult equivalent per day, compared to an average of 2463 calories nationally. The lowest calorie consumption occurs in the Hills and Mountains area, where individuals consume an average of 2255 calories a day.
Average calories intake (per day)Figure 3.16
30
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
20
40
80
60
100 8896
84 8191
8087 90 91 97
7890 93
78
Adult Literacy Rate
The figure shows the fraction of individuals aged 15 or above who can read and write in any language. The overall literacy rate in Myanmar is high – 88 percent at the national level. It should be noted that literacy is self-reported and not tested, therefore this indicator likely captures an upper-bound of functional literacy in Myanmar.
Adult Literacy rate (aged 15+)Figure 3.17
31
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
20
40
60
100
80
None Less than primary Primary
Secondary Tertiary Monastic
Education Attainment of Adults (aged 25-64)
Education attainment varies substantially across areas and by consumption quintiles. More than half of adults aged 25 to 64 in the bottom consumption quintile (Q1) did not complete primary-level education while nearly 30 percent of adults at top quintile households (Q5) entered into tertiary level education. The lowest education attainment was observed in the Hills and Mountains and Coastal areas.
Completed Education level of Adults (aged 25-64)Figure 3.18
32
No formal education Monastic Lower Primary (Gr 1-3)
Upper Primary (Gr 4-5) Middle School Finished Middle School
Finished High School Higher Education
0%25-2920-24 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-59 60+
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
7%1%8%
25%
18%16%
28%
9%4%8% 9%
2%
12%
32%
16%14%
34%
17%
3%
10% 11%
5%
14%
34%
16%13%
33%
12%
8%
14% 17%
11%
11%
33%
13%9%
22%
9%
22%
26%
Education Attainment by Age Group
There has been a substantial rise in grade completion over generations. Older generations were less likely to attend school and, for those who did go to school, they completed fewer years of education. Among those who were 60 years of age and above in 2015, nearly half (47 percent) reported not having completed any formal education compared to 12 percent for those aged 20 to 24 years.
Completed Education level by Age Group Figure 3.19
33
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
20
40
80
60
100 93 95 96 95 96 96 96 92 97 92
Net Total Enrollment Rate - Primary
The net total primary enrollment captured whether children aged between 5 and 9 years on June 1st 2014 were enrolled in primary school or above during the 2014-15 school year. Net total enrollment in primary school is high in Myanmar—93 percent on average, an increase from the 88 percent net enrollment rate estimated in 2009/10.
Net Total Enrollment Rate - PrimaryFigure 3.20
34
92 88 87 86
Perc
ent
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
20
40
80
60
100
55
74
4940
65
39
5462
6776
58 6153 47
Net Total Enrollment Rate - Secondary
Secondary school net total enrollment is substantially lower than primary. 55 percent of children aged between 10 and 16 years on June 1st 2014 were enrolled in secondary education or above. There are pronounced differences in secondary school enrollment between urban and rural areas as well as between children in the bottom consumption quintile (Q1) and those in richer households.
Net Total Enrollment Rate - SecondaryFigure 3.21
35
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
0
20
40
80
60
100
4250
52
42
8384
413740
29 2946
5961
25 2435
35 4345
47
45
5759
54
7980
37
2024
Motorbike Mobile phoneTV
Ownership of Selected Assets
The figure shows ownership rates of selected households assets – motorbike, TV and mobile phones. The estimates show the fraction of the population who live in a household reporting these assets.
Poor households report lower ownership of motorbikes, TVs and mobile phones than better off households. Asset ownership is also substantially higher in urban areas.
Ownership of Motorbike, TV and Mobile phoneFigure 3.22
36
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
20
40
60
100
80
Cultivator owns land Landless Cultivator
84
16 15 16 2312
2516 14 11 9
239
16 19
8584 77 88
76 85 86 89 9277
91 84 81
Access to Land by Farmers
Landless cultivators are those who engaged in agricultural activity but not own any agricultural land. Land is the most important factor for agricultural production. The greater the land available to a household, the more farm income they can generate. Farmers in poor households are less likely to own land, but are more likely to rent land in and cultivate smaller plots.
Land-owned and Landless CultivatorsFigure 3.23
37
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
20
40
60
80
10074 78 72 68 76 66 72 77 77 70 67
80 7875
Access to Formal Medical Care
The figure shows the fraction of sick people who accessed formal medical care. When getting sick, poor individuals are less likely to seek formal medical treatment compared to non-poor individuals.
% of Sick People Who Accessed Formal Medical CareFigure 3.24
38
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
In-patient Out-patient Medicine Transport
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
Household Health Expenditures
Poorer households face a dramatically lower capacity to finance health care. This pattern holds across poverty status, the quintile of the household consumption expenditure distribution, and the location of the household.
Average annual household health expenditures (kyat)Figure 3.25
39
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
Investment Consumption Others
38
5872
5569
5471 64 59 47 46 55 58 57
68
2442
2743
25 33 39 48 50 4038 40 28
Perc
ent
0
20
40
80
60
100
Purposes of Loan
The figure shows the main use of a loan by a household. Investment loans include those used for business startups and agriculture. Consumption loans include those used for health care, education, home improvement, and food. Poorer households tend to use loan for consumption purposes but non-poor households are more likely to use loan for investment.
Type of Loan Usage at HouseholdsFigure 3.26
40
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Hill
s &
Mou
ntai
n
Dry
Zon
e
Del
ta
Coas
tal
0
10
20
30
40
1618
15
11
18
10 11
15 17
30
10 11
15 17
Access to Bank Account
The figure shows the fraction of individuals at households who have access to formal banking.
Only 10 percent in the bottom quintile have a bank account while nearly 30 percent of those in the top expenditure quintile have a bank account open.
Individuals with access to bank accountFigure 3.27
41
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Mal
e
Fem
ale
0
20
40
60
80
63.0 62.3 63.3 62.3 63.3 61.9 62.6 63.5 63.1 64.2
77.2
51.4
Labor Force Participation Rate (last 7 days)
The labor force consists of those individuals of working age (aged 15 and above) who are employed or who are unemployed and actively seeking work. The labor force participation rate is the fraction of labor force to the total working-age population.
While Myanmar’s labor force participation rate is close to the regional average in South East Asia, there is a notable gap in participation across men and women.
Labor Force Participation RateFigure 3.28
42
Perc
ent
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-Poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Mal
e
Fem
ale
0
1
2
3
1.5
2.1
1.3 1.51.7 1.7
1.5 1.61.2
1.8
1.2
Unemployment Rate (last 7 days)
Labour questions were asked using a 7-day recall period. The unemployed are those who were without work during the 7-day period but who were: (i) available for work in the next two weeks and (iii) seeking work, during the four weeks prior to the survey.
Unemployment rates based on the 7-day recall were relatively low. This reflects limited efforts to search for work, potentially due to the seasonal nature of work.
Unemployment rateFigure 3.29
43
1.8
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Mal
e
Fem
ale
0-19 hrs 20-40 hrs 40-44 hrs 44-60 hrs 60+ hrs
Perc
ent
0
20
40
80
60
100
Hours worked (last 7 days)
This figure shows the share of workers working a given number of hours. Although labor force participation rates in Myanmar are high, Myanmar’s workforce is not being used at maximum capacity and is under-utilized. The rates of underemployment - the fraction of those who worked under 44 hours per week - exceeds 40 percent across all consumption quintiles.
Hours worked in last 7 daysFigure 3.30
44
Uni
on
Urb
an
Rura
l
Poor
Non
-poo
r
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Both agriculture and non-agriculture
Only non-agriculture
Only agriculture
Perc
ent
0
20
40
80
60
100
273
36 3723
40 36 32 23 12
57332422153718157732
4120
49 44 40 46 42 43 4431
Household Income Source by Sector
Agriculture remains the most important sector of work in Myanmar. 27 percent of households are engaged solely in agriculture. A further 41 percent are engaged in agriculture alongside non-agricultural income sources. The share of households conducting only agriculture decreases across the expenditure distribution.
Households income source by sectorFigure 3.31
45
Sector of Main Employment
Employment in the non-agricultural sector is higher among better off households. Non-agricultural and urban employment is dominated by retail trade – much of which appears to consist of small and micro-enterprises. Employment in manufacturing remains limited – only 6 percent of total working population.
46
Union Urban Rural Poor NonPoor Male Female
Agriculture, forestry, fishing 53.1 8.1 69.9 66.7 47.5 55.0 50.7
Mining and quarrying 1.7 1.3 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.8 0.5
Manufacturing 6.2 10.3 4.7 6.2 6.3 4.7 8.1
Electricity, gas, water supply, waste management
0.6 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.4
Construction 5.2 7.9 4.3 5.7 5.0 8.7 1.2
Wholesale and retail trade 16.9 33.6 10.7 10.7 19.5 10.7 24.3
Transportation and storage 4.6 9.8 2.6 3.7 5.0 8.0 0.6
Hospitality, communication, finance, real estate
3.1 8.3 1.1 0.9 4.0 2.3 4.0
Professional/sci. Activities 1.4 2.7 0.9 0.7 1.7 1.4 1.3
Administrative, public admin 1.0 3.1 0.2 0.1 1.4 1.3 0.7
Educ., health, social work 3.2 6.1 2.1 1.3 4.0 1.6 5.2
Arts, entertainment 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1
Other 2.7 6.8 1.1 1.7 3.1 2.5 2.9
Working sector of main employment (last 12 months) Table 3.1
47
48
ReferencesMinistry of National Planning and Economic Development, IDEA, UNDP and UNOPS. 2007. “Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey in Myanmar: Poverty Profile.” June 2007
Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development, UNDP and IDEA. 2010a. “Integrated Household Living Conditions Assessment Survey 2009 - 2010 Technical Report.” February 2010
Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development, UNDP and IDEA. 2011b. “Integrated Household Living Conditions Assessment Survey 2009 - 2010 Technical Report.” June 2011
Ministry of Planning and Finance and World Bank. 2017a. “An Analysis of Poverty in Myanmar, Part One: Trends between 2004/05 and 2015.”
Ministry of Planning and Finance and World Bank. 2017b. “An Analysis of Poverty in Myanmar, Part Two: Poverty Profile.”
Ministry of Planning and Finance and World Bank. 2017c. “Myanmar Poverty and Living Conditions Survey: Technical Poverty Estimate Report.”
The World Bank MyanmarNo 57, Pyay Road, (Corner of Shwe Hinthar Road)61/2 Mile, Hlaing Township, Yangon, Republic of the Union of Myanmarwww.worldbank.org/myanmarwww.facebook.com/ [email protected]