Understanding poverty in aceh during the tsunami and early reconstruction period
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 32

Understanding Poverty in Aceh During the Tsunami and Early Reconstruction Period PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 101 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Understanding Poverty in Aceh During the Tsunami and Early Reconstruction Period. Jed Friedman, Ellen Tan, Enrique Blanco Armas, Sukma Yuningsih, The World Bank. Overview. These are the preliminary results of the poverty assessment for Aceh – comments welcome!

Download Presentation

Understanding Poverty in Aceh During the Tsunami and Early Reconstruction Period

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Understanding poverty in aceh during the tsunami and early reconstruction period

Understanding Poverty in AcehDuring the Tsunami and Early Reconstruction Period

Jed Friedman,

Ellen Tan,

Enrique Blanco Armas,

Sukma Yuningsih,

The World Bank


Overview

Overview

  • These are the preliminary results of the poverty assessment for Aceh – comments welcome!

  • Aim: to deepen understanding of the poverty impacts of tsunami and reconstruction in Aceh

  • Overall, poverty in Aceh has increased slightly for both urban and rural areas from 2004 to 2005

  • Relatively larger increases in tsunami-affected and post-conflict areas than in less affected areas


Context

Context

  • The tragic 2004 Sumatran-Andaman earthquake and tsunami caused damage and loss, in both economic and human terms, of large proportions.

  • The global community, led by the Indonesian government, mobilized a reconstruction effort of unprecedented scale for a developing country.

  • Shortly after the tsunami, the Government of Indonesia and GAM reached an historic peace agreement.

  • The World Bank aims to assist the Government of Aceh in the formulation of a sustainable economic development strategy. This poverty assessment is the first study among several.


Approach

Approach

  • Individual and household welfare is multi-dimensional – e.g. income, wealth, health, “happiness”

  • Traditional economic analysis focuses on consumption as a summary measure of household resources

  • The focus here will be on consumption, but alternative dimensions – assets, health – will also be considered


Methods

Methods

  • Two principal data sources are employed:

    SUSENAS, a large scale socio-economic survey fielded annually by BPS – 10,200 in 2004 and 10,900 households in 2005.

    STAR, special purpose longitudinal survey that re-contacts a selection of 2004 SUSENAS households with an extensive questionnaire in 2005 – 5,300 households in total.


Methods cont

Methods (cont.)

  • SUSENAS records several key dimensions of socio-economic welfare: household composition, characteristics, and consumption as well as access to health and education services.

  • STAR records the identical information and supplements with it with a household record of tsunami and early reconstruction experiences.

  • SUSENAS is representative of the entire province, STAR only samples from tsunami affected districts – not everywhere in Aceh.


Methods cont1

Methods (cont.)

  • We start with poverty lines in 2004 that yield the BPS 2004 estimates of poverty.

  • For 2005, in order to provide a welfare consistent update to the poverty line we:

    • 1. determine a consumption bundle representative to the poor in urban and rural areas,

    • 2. apply these consumption weights to the monthly BPS urban price series.

  • Limitations of this approach: price changes are measured only in Banda Aceh and Lhokseumawe. To what extent are these changes accurate to the rest of the province?


Summary results

Summary results


Summary results1

Summary results

Note: *Only includes Kabupaten not Kota


2004 aceh poverty by district

2004 Aceh Poverty by District


2004 2005 change in poverty by district

2004-2005 change in poverty, by district


2005 aceh poverty by district

2005 Aceh Poverty by District


Summary results cont

Summary results (cont.)

  • A slight increase in poverty while the national and neighboring (Sumut) trends were declining.

  • Larger increases in tsunami- and post-conflict (rural) areas areas suggest particular vulnerability to changes (disaster; price increases) in those areas.

  • Are these findings robust to different reference levels of consumption welfare (i.e. different poverty lines)?


Cumulative distribution function for aceh

Cumulative Distribution Function for Aceh


Rural aceh

Rural Aceh


Urban aceh

Urban Aceh


Robustness of findings to choice of poverty line

Robustness of findings to choice of poverty line

  • Analysis of CDFs suggest that measured poverty level is particularly sensitive to choice of poverty line.

  • Poverty lines within a broad range would still find a small increase or no change in poverty, especially in rural areas.

  • Households that were relatively well-off in 2004 did even better, on average, in 2005, especially for urban areas.


Who were the poor in 2004

Who were the poor in 2004?


Who were the poor in 2004 relative odds

Who were the poor in 2004?- Relative Odds


Direct experience of tsunami for poor and non poor

Direct experience of tsunami for poor and non-poor

  • Direct tsunami experience was more common for the non-poor due to location at time of disaster. Among most heavily affected areas, little difference between poor and non-poor:

    OverallMost heavily damaged areas

    PoorNon-PoorPoorNon-Poor

    Mortality

    6.5% 10.7%19.3% 24.4%

    Heard the water

    28.5% 34.5%62.8% 63.7%

    Saw tsunami come ashore

    19.2% 23.6%47.5% 46.6%

    See people search for loved ones

    24.7% 28.5%51.2% 54.9%


Direct experience of tsunami for poor and non poor immediate aftermath

Direct experience of tsunami for poor and non-poor – immediate aftermath

  • At time of STAR interview, roughly equal numbers of poor and non-poor with similar aftermath experiences:

    OverallMost heavily damaged areas

    PoorNon-PoorPoorNon-Poor

    Living in temporary housing

    7.4% 8.4%18.2% 18.3%

    Reliant on aid-provided water

    5.9% 8.4%21.8% 21.4%

    Receipt of tsunami related aid from government

    43.7% 44.0%68.0% 65.3%

    Receipt of tsunami related aid from NGOs

    42.3% 40.5%70.3% 67.6%


Direct impacts of tsunami on poor and non poor asset loss

Direct impacts of tsunami on poor and non-poor – asset loss

Percentage of households experiencing property damage (conditional on ownership) in heavily damaged areas:

PoorNon-Poor

Housing:60%62%

Land:26%28%

Crops:51%64%

Livestock:48%65%

Household goods:64%61%

Transport:50%56%

Gold/Jewelry:46%53%

Damage rates range from:

15-30% in moderately affected areas

1-5% in unaffected areas

for both poor and non-poor


Direct impacts of tsunami mental health

Direct impacts of tsunami – mental health

  • We already looked at assets – tsunami impacts substantial regardless of poverty status

  • Now look at one dimension of health: post-traumatic stress - “Post Traumatic Stress Reaction Index” measured in STAR and varies from 0-21

  • Much higher level in damaged areas, but little difference between poor and non-poor within those areas

- Only 8% of individuals with high scores had received counseling


Who were the poor in 2005

Who were the poor in 2005?


Who were the poor in 2005 relative odds

Who were the poor in 2005?- Relative Odds


Relative odds in 2004 and 2005 cont

Relative Odds in 2004 and 2005 (cont.)


Relative odds in 2004 and 2005 cont1

Relative Odds in 2004 and 2005 (cont.)

Note: Only includes Kabupaten not Kota


Predictors of poverty transitions over 2004 5

Predictors of poverty transitions over 2004-5

  • The poor is not a static group – some people exited poverty over 2004-5 and slightly more people entered

  • What are the factors significantly associated with the transition out of poverty?

    • Small household sizes: an increase in one household member reduces the odds of escape by 32%

    • Education: an increase in one year of schooling for the household head increases the odds of escape by 10%

    • Productive assets: having a non-farm business increases the likelihood of escape by 100%

    • Disaster assistance: the receipt of government aid increases the likelihood of escape by 42%


Predictors of poverty transitions over 2004 5 cont

Predictors of poverty transitions over 2004-5 (cont.)

  • What are the factors significantly associated with protection from the transition into poverty?

    • Small households: an increase in one household member raises the odds of entry by 38%

    • Productive assets: having a non-farm business reduces the likelihood of entry by 50%, and one year of education by 10%

    • Crop diversification: Agricultural households that only grow rice are more vulnerable to entering poverty (30% more likely) while those that grow perennials and other crops are 32% less likely to enter poverty

    • Disaster assistance: the receipt of NGO aid reduces the likelihood of entering poverty by 23%


Concluding remarks

Concluding remarks

  • The slight rise in poverty masks a good deal of underlying heterogeneity

  • Most poor are rural and work in agriculture - the overall size of this group may have increased over the period

  • Both poor and non-poor in tsunami areas were seriously affected in a variety of dimensions

  • However the growth in urban areas under reconstruction has led to relatively faster income growth for the better-off (and most likely better educated)


Concluding remarks cont

Concluding remarks (cont.)

  • Tsunami aid appears to help poverty transitions but there are questions over targeting

  • Crop diversification and non-farm enterprises seem to be important for beneficial poverty transitions

  • Two vulnerable groups: the structurally poor (poor before tsunami) and the “shocked”, who suffered loss of private goods and assets however many retained key endowments.

  • Given limited public funds for poverty alleviation, what is the most efficient group to target?


Next steps

Next steps

  • Investigate possible other sources of local price information and discuss inclusion into the analysis

  • Investigate other dimensions of welfare, most importantly access to public services such as health and education


  • Login