households fell into poverty. Thus the risk of entering poverty is only around 1% in
presence of a programme.
|
Table 1: Movement in and out o |
f poverty. | ||||
|
Status now 2006 |
Total | ||||
|
Poor |
Non-poor | ||||
|
Status |
Poor |
Count |
99^^ |
67- |
166- |
|
% of Total |
24.8 |
16.8 |
41.5 | ||
|
Non-poor |
Count |
3^ |
23Γ^ |
234^ | |
|
% of Total |
0.8- |
57.8 |
58.5 | ||
|
Total |
Count |
102- |
298^^ |
400 | |
|
% of Total |
25.5 |
74.5 |
100.0 | ||
Chi-square = 174.08 with 1 df (sig. 0.00).
Off-diagonal entries add up 17.6% with 16.8% moving upward and 0.8% downward.
The downward movement is considerably less than overall transition measured by
quantitative poverty in developing countries (Baulch and Hoddinott 2000)9.
Statistically, before-after poverty situation is significantly different.
Downward mobility is in fact nil among the households which remained active in the
programme until 2006 (Table 2). This surely indicates a positive contribution of the
programme toward poverty reduction.
Table 2: Movement in and out of poverty by beneficiary status.
|
Participation |
Poverty status___________________ |
Status now 2006 |
Total | ||
|
Poor |
Non-poor |
Poor | |||
|
Active |
Status |
Poor Count % of Total |
33 16.8 |
47 23.9 |
80 40.6 |
|
Non-poor Count % of Total |
0 _____________.0 |
117 59.4 |
117 59.4 | ||
|
Total Count % of Total |
33 16.8 |
164 83.2 |
197 100.0 | ||
|
Dropout |
Status |
Poor Count % of Total |
66 32.5 |
20 _________9.9 |
86 42.4 |
|
Non-poor Count % of Total |
3 1.5 |
114 56.2 |
117 57.6 | ||
|
Total Count % of Total |
69 34.0 |
134 66.0 |
203 100.0 | ||
4. Livelihood strategies and welfare
Although poultry enterprise alone is being provided with support, households pursue
heterogeneous livelihood strategies. Mean level of income share from poultry was
9 Self-assessed poverty and income/consumption poverty are not directly comparable.