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.
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. Types of Cost in Inductive Concept Learning
3. Voting by Committees under Constraints
4. Public infrastructure capital, scale economies and returns to variety
5. The name is absent
6. Synthesis and biological activity of α-galactosyl ceramide KRN7000 and galactosyl (α1→2) galactosyl ceramide
7. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE ECONOMETRIC PACKAGES: AN APPLICATION TO ITALIAN DEPOSIT INTEREST RATES
8. CONSUMER PERCEPTION ON ALTERNATIVE POULTRY
9. An alternative way to model merit good arguments
10. An Attempt to 2