Poverty incidence and poverty profiling
61
Households headed by a disabled person are also somewhat more likely to be poor, but the effect is small. The correlation is likely to work again through labour force participation and employment, as the likelihood that disabled
persons participate on the labour market is only half of that of non-disabled persons see Section 8.5.3.
With regard to labour characteristics of the head of household, Table 6.3 indicates that those who are unemployed
are significantly 14 percent more likely to be poor than households with employed heads. Somewhat surprisingly, households with inactive heads report the lowest incidence of poverty. A possible explanation could be that these
concern elderly heads who reside with younger generations who can provide for sufficient household income. The table also clearly shows large variation across industries in which the household head is working. If households have heads
working in sectors that require extended levels of education – such as communication, public administration, health and education – the likelihood of securing adequate provisions is significantly higher than when heads work in the large
agricultural sector and in construction, manufacturing, and mining and quarrying.
Table 6.3 Percentage poor households, by a activity status of household head and b Industry of working household head
a. Activity status Share poor
b. Industry Share poor
Employed 32.9
Transportcommunication 22.3
Unemployed 37.5
Public administration 24.0
Inactive 29.5
Health 25.5
Total 32.8
Trade 28.5
Education 29.9
Other services 33.0
Agriculture and livestock 35.5
Construction 35.9
Manufacturing 38.4
Mining and quarrying 49.1
6.5.3 Characteristics of household members
Apart from the attributes of the head of household, specific characteristics of other household members may also be linked to poverty. There are some 266 thousand households in Afghanistan in which at least 1.2 million children
perform child labour.
6
Usually, child labour is performed in view of pressing needs to supplement household income. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that households with at least one child engaged in child labour are significantly more
often poor than those without child labour Figure 6.7. The effect of having one or more disabled household members
is visible in the graph, but very small. The relation between poverty and migration is a complex one, and one of which the direction of causality is not immediately
evident. No effect is found for households with or without members who left to live somewhere else, mostly for work- related reasons. However, a substantial difference in the proportion poor is shown between households that have one
or more seasonal migrants 38 percent and households with no seasonal migrants 32 percent. This effect can readily be interpreted in the sense that seasonal migration provides a coping strategy to many vulnerable and poor households.
Additional analysis is required to further explore the interaction between poverty and migration.
_________________________________________________________
6
For a definition of and information on child labour, see Section 4.4 of this report.
Poverty incidence and poverty profiling
62
Figure 6.7 Percentage of poor households, by selected attributes of household members
Looking into the difference in children’s educational attendance between poor and non-poor households would also give an indication of the relative educational disadvantage of poor children, as well as of their potential to break the
reproduction of poverty. As indicated in Table 6.4, net primary enrolment in poor households is somewhat lower than that
in non-poor households, reflecting a moderate disadvantage for poor children. Apparently, the primary education system, which is likely to have recently improved coverage see chapter 7, is not very discriminative for poverty. However, the
chance that poor children continue to secondary education is significantly lower than that of the non-poor: the respective net secondary enrolment ratios of 13 and 18 percent indicate that children from non-poor households have a 40 percent
larger chance of attending secondary education. The earlier mentioned correlation between poverty and educational attainment of the head of household suggests that secondary school attainment – and more particularly high school
attainment – is likely to provide opportunities to escape from poverty.
7
Table 6.4 Net enrolment ratios, by household poverty status, and by education level
Education level Net enrolment ratio
Poor households Non-poor households
All households Primary school
50 53
52 Secondary school
13 18
16
_________________________________________________________
7
Again, reverse causality is also plausible: children from richer households are more likely to attend secondary education.
6.5.4 Access to land and services
In view of the finding that the majority of households is engaged in any type of farming Section 5.2, access to land is a key factor for Afghan livelihoods. Poverty is intricately related to access to land and the various arrangements that
provide access. Thus, as indicated in Figure 6.8, the lowest proportion of poor households 26 percent is found among
those that own land and the highest 42 percent among those that do not own land themselves, but have access only through renting, sharecropping or mortgaging land. The combination category of households that own land and cultivate
land on the basis of these other arrangements takes an intermediate position.
Figure 6.8 Percentage of poor households, by access to land and selected services
These figures could suggest that land ownership, even more than access to land, is a barrier against the risk of falling to poverty. However, it could also be that poverty is a barrier to acquiring land, thereby reverse the line of causality.
Households without access have a higher risk of being poor than households owning land, but a smaller likelihood than those relying on other arrangements to cultivate land. This group also includes households that are engaged in other
economic activities to provide a living.
With regard to the correlations between poverty and access to the services presented in Figure 6.8, it is more evident that generally access can be considered the dependent variable, although richer households also tend to live in locations
with better service provision.
Nationally, 27 percent of the population has access to improved drinking water, 5 percent has access to improved sanitation, and 42 percent has access to any source of electricity see Section 9.3. To the extent that poverty is indeed
a determinant of these levels of access, there is considerable effect on the access to any of the services, but particularly on access to improved sanitation.
Poverty incidence and poverty profiling
63
