2013年-世界发展银行全球_Burkina_Faso___Perceived_Shocks_Vulnerability_Food_Insecurity_and_Poverty_28页_1013kb

Summary of the Policy Note: Perceived Shocks, Vulnerability, Food Insecurity and Poverty in Burkina Faso

Core Content

This policy note analyzes the perceived shocks, vulnerability, food insecurity, and poverty in Burkina Faso, using data from the 2009 EICVM (Enquête Intégrale sur les Conditions de Vie des Menages) household survey. It explores how different types of shocks and socio-economic characteristics affect household vulnerability and poverty, and how these issues vary across regions and demographics.

Main Shocks and Their Impact

A. Background: Burkina Faso, A Country of Shocks?

• Economic Overview: Burkina Faso is a poor and vulnerable economy, with GDP per capita increasing by an average of 2% annually between 2000 and 2009, despite recurring shocks.
• Economic Sectors: The economy is dominated by the tertiary (services) and primary (agriculture) sectors.
• Poverty Incidence: In 2009/10, 46.7% of the population lived in poverty, with 52.8% in rural areas and 25.2% in urban areas.
• Key Shocks:
  • Consumer price increases: Identified as the main shock by 20.1% of households as the first issue, 23.0% as the second, and 26.1% as the third.
  • Health problems of household members: Second main shock, with 19.9% identified as the first issue, 16.6% as the second, and 12.4% as the third.
  • Famine and food shortage: Third main shock, with 14.2% as the first issue, 12.7% as the second, and 6.3% as the third.
  • Drought and insufficient rainfall: Fourth main shock, with 14.1% as the first issue, 10.5% as the second, and 9.2% as the third.

B. Regional and Demographic Distribution of Shocks

• Urban vs. Rural:
  • Urban households are more affected by price increases (40%).
  • Rural households are more vulnerable to health issues, drought, and famine (18% for drought and 16% for famine).
• Regional Differences:
  • The Centre region has the highest proportion of households affected by price increases (36%).
  • The Sahel region is most affected by drought and rain deficiency (28%).
  • The Est and Nord regions have the highest chronic poverty rates (over 50% of their populations).

C. Vulnerability Typology

• Four Vulnerability Groups:
  1. Chronic poor: Households whose current and predicted per capita consumption are below the poverty line.
  2. Transient poor: Households whose current consumption is below the poverty line but predicted to be above.
  3. Vulnerable non-poor: Households above the poverty line but with a high probability of falling into poverty.
  4. Non-vulnerable non-poor: Households above the poverty line with a low probability of falling into poverty.
• National Statistics:
  • 30.6% of the population is in chronic poverty.
  • 16.1% are transient poor.
  • 14.2% are vulnerable non-poor.
  • 39.1% are non-vulnerable non-poor.

D. Socioeconomic Characteristics Affecting Vulnerability

• Education Level:
  • Chronic poverty decreases significantly with higher education levels.
  • Households with heads having secondary or higher education have only 1.2% chronic poverty.
  • Vulnerable non-poor are relatively rare in highly educated households (1.3%).
• Household Size:
  • Larger households are more vulnerable.
  • Chronic poverty increases with household size: 19% for 5–6 members, 26% for 7–8 members, and 45% for 9 or more members.
• Employment Sector:
  • Chronic poverty is highest in the agricultural sector (37.3%).
  • Public sector households have the lowest chronic poverty rate (7.6%).
  • Private sector households have relatively fewer chronic poor (5%) compared to transient poor (15.6%).

Key Findings

• Vulnerability vs. Poverty: Vulnerability is slightly lower than poverty at the national level (44.8% vs. 46.7%).
• Future Prospects:
  • Five poorest regions (Nord, Est, Centre-Est, Sud-Ouest, and Plateau Central) are at risk of a 5% or more increase in poverty.
  • The Sahel and Centre-Nord regions have excellent prospects for poverty reduction.
• Demographic Disparities:
  • Rural areas have a higher proportion of chronic poor (36.7%) compared to urban areas (9%).
  • Female-headed households are less vulnerable than male-headed households (19.1% vs. 31.6% chronic poor).
  • Households with fewer members have lower vulnerability.

Conclusion

• Vulnerability and Poverty Dynamics: The analysis shows that shocks, especially price increases and health issues, significantly impact household vulnerability and poverty.
• Policy Implications: Understanding the distribution of shocks and the typology of vulnerability can inform targeted interventions to reduce poverty and improve resilience in vulnerable groups.

Figures and Tables

• Figure 1.1: Main shocks faced by households by place of residence.
• Figure 1.2: Regional distribution of shocks.
• Figure 1.3: Main shocks faced by poor and non-poor households.
• Figure 1.4: Regional distribution of vulnerability.
• Figure 1.5: Distribution of vulnerability according to education level.
• Figure 1.6: Distribution of vulnerability according to household size.
• Figure 1.7: Distribution of vulnerability according to employment sector.
• Figure 1.8: Differences between vulnerability and poverty incidences by regions.
• Table 1.1: Main shocks faced by households in 2009.
• Table 1.2: Typology of vulnerability in 2009.

Methodology

• Vulnerability Analysis: Based on the Chaudhuri methodology, which uses a three-step generalized least squares model to estimate consumption and vulnerability.
• Data Source: 2009 EICVM household survey, with the analysis focusing on probabilities of entry into and exit from poverty rather than actual flows.

This policy note provides a comprehensive understanding of the shocks and vulnerability landscape in Burkina Faso, highlighting the need for targeted policies to address these challenges.