Ms. Wandinecia Tariang

Views:
 
Category: Entertainment
     
 

Presentation Description

Poverty and Inequality in the Matrilineal Society of Meghalaya in the North-Eastern Region of India

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Engaging citizen, sustaining service del:

Engaging citizen, sustaining service del Rahmi Yetri Kasri and Paulus Wirutomo School of Environmental Science and Department of Sociology, U niversity of Indonesia Poverty and Inequality in the Matrilineal Society of Meghalaya in the North-Eastern Region of India Wandinecia Tariang North-Eastern Hill University, India

Poverty and Inequality in the Matrilineal Society of Meghalaya in the North-Eastern Region of India :

Poverty and Inequality in the Matrilineal Society of Meghalaya in the North-Eastern Region of India Wandinecia Tariang North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, India and Eugene D. Thomas North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, India

Slide3:

Poverty is a multidimensional concept which encompasses: material deprivation or monetary poverty - lack of income and access to resources and productive assets. That is, it goes beyond the traditional monetary measures of money. nutritional poverty – measured through stunted or wasted growth in children educational poverty – measured by the number of literates and those who received formal schooling lack of key capabilities and have a feeling of insecurity, low confidence, a sense of powerless ness and lack of enjoyment of democratic and human rights.

Slide4:

The incorporation of gender issues into poverty analysis has changed the poverty discourse in recent times There is increasing debate on the relationship between gender and poverty, particularly so in targeting the female-headed households in the pursuit of poverty reduction.

Slide5:

Feminisation of Poverty A situation where there is large category of women belonging to the poor population Originated in the United States in the 1970s with the female-headed households recognised as the fastest growing type of family structure Linked to the fast rising number of female-headed households among the low-income women. The linkage was drawn from the notion that women-headed households constitute a disproportionate number of poor and experience a greater magnitude of poverty than the male counterparts

Slide6:

Concept and Nature of Female-headship Female-headed families are generally comprised of women and dependent children elderly women who could be widowed, separated or divorced with no dependents . young women who could be either divorced or never married but with dependent children . The female household head could also be a ‘de facto’ or a ‘de jure’ head . A ‘de facto’ female head has been defined as ‘one where the male partner is temporarily absent due to migration on account of employment, but who still plays an active role in supporting and maintaining the household through remittances A ‘de jure’ female head is ‘one where there is absence of a permanent male partner’. De jure female heads may include widows, divorced or separated women or the never married or unmarried women .

Matrilineal Society of Meghalaya:

Matrilineal Society of Meghalaya Meghalaya is one of the few surviving matrilineal communities in the world. The state consists of three major indigenous tribal groups – - the Khasis - the Jaintias - the Garos These three indigenous tribal groups follow a strong matrilineal kinship system and are known to have one of the strongest matrilineal systems in the world. Women in a Khasi matrilineal society enjoy high degree of status and autonomy and have a greater degree of mobility compared to other scheduled tribe women and also women in patriarchal society Yet women in Meghalaya face more precarious and insecure conditions than their male counterparts.

Slide8:

Area of Study and Sample Design The study makes an empirical enquiry into the incidence of poverty in female-headed households vis-à-vis the male-headed households in the rural areas of East Khasi Hills District of Meghalaya based upon both primary as well as secondary data source . For our primary survey – all 8 CD Blocks in the district; 2 villages randomly from each of the CD blocks - 16 villages. A sample of 20 households was purposively chosen from each village - total of 320 households. 1 st survey conducted in 2006; 2 nd survey conducted in 2010. Secondary source of data - Census Reports, NSSO and National Family Health Survey studies among others sources to get the required information necessary for the study.

Slide9:

Poverty Measures To derive the poverty incidence and inequality in female-headed households, we made use of the three measurement tools – Head Count Ratio (H ) Poverty Gap Ratio (PGR ) Gini coefficient

Slide10:

Head Count Ratio (H) - simplest of all poverty measures - takes into account the number of poor as a proportion of the total population. It is denoted as: H=q/n ; where, q is the number of poor persons and n is the total population. The head count ratio clearly measures the incidence of poverty in a population .

Slide11:

Poverty Gap Ratio (PGR) - closely linked to the depth of poverty, which measures how far below the poverty line the consumption levels of the poor are. It, therefore, tells us the resources required to bring all the poor to the poverty line. It is denoted as: g = [(z-m) / z] H The measure g will help to provide information about the intensity of poverty if all the poor are assured to have exactly the same income, which is less than the poverty line. Yet it can be said to be an improvement on the Head Count ratio as it takes into consideration not only the number of poor but also looks at the depth of how poor the poor are.

Slide12:

Gini Coefficient (G) - most widely used measure of inequality of distribution of income . The Gini coefficient is a ratio with values between 0 and 1. Here, ‘0’ corresponds to perfect income equality, that is, everyone has the same income and ‘1’ corresponds to perfect income inequality, that is, one person has all the income, while everyone else has zero income. The Gini coefficient: G = 1-∑ ( X k – X k-1 ) ( Y k + Y k-1 ) where, X k is the cumulated proportion of the population variable, for k = 0,……,n, with X 0 = 0, X n = 1, Y k is the cumulated proportion of the income variable, For k = 0,…..,n, with Y 0 = 0, Y n = 1.

Slide13:

Poverty Line and Income Classes Poverty line was taken as Rs.1840 in 2006 survey as set by Planning Commission for rural areas in 2005-06. Households were categorized into 5 income groups: Non-poor - having monthly income above Rs.1840. Poor – monthly income between Rs . 1381 - Rs . 1840. Poorer – monthly income between Rs . 921 - Rs.1380. Poorest – monthly income between Rs . 461 - Rs . 920. Destitute - monthly income between Re.0-Rs.460. Poverty line was taken as Rs.3364 in 2010 survey as set by Planning Commission for rural areas in 2009-10. Households were categorized into 5 income groups: Non-poor - having monthly income above Rs.3364. Poor – monthly income between Rs.2524-3364. Poorer – monthly income between Rs.1683-2523 Poorest – monthly income between Rs.842-1682 Destitute - monthly income between Re.0-Rs.841.

Table 1: Household Distribution across Villages, 2006 and 2010:

Table 1: Household Distribution across Villages, 2006 and 2010 Villages Male-headed Households Female-headed Households Total Households 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 Ur-Masi-U-Joh 16 (80) 16 (80) 4 (20) 4 (20) 20 (100) 20 (100) Lamlyer 8 (40) 8 (40) 12 (60) 12 (60) 20 (100) 20 (100) Nongsawlia 15 (75) 15 (75) 5 (25) 5 (25) 20 (100) 20 (100) Maw-Ki-Syiem 12 (60) 12 (60) 8 (40) 8 (40) 20 (100) 20 (100) Mawripih-A 15 (75) 15 (75) 5 (25) 5 (25) 20 (100) 20 (100) Jabar Lumtop Jaud 16 (80) 16 (80) 4 (20) 4 (20) 20 (100) 20 (100) Tyrsad 9 (45) 9 (45) 11 (55) 11 (55) 20 (100) 20 (100) Nongdom Mawria 11 (55) 11 (55) 9 (45) 9 (45) 20 (100) 20 (100) Kharang 10 (50) 10 (50) 10 (50) 10 (50) 20 (100) 20 (100) Laitkyrhong 8 (40) 8 (40) 12 (60) 12 (60) 20 (100) 20 (100) Iewmawiong 15 (75) 15 (75) 5 (25) 5 (25) 20 (100) 20 (100) Umthli 10 (50) 10 (50) 10 (50) 10 (50) 20 (100) 20 (100) Wahlyngkhat 9 (45) 9 (45) 11 (55) 11 (55) 20 (100) 20 (100) Lyngkyrdem 15 (75) 15 (75) 5 (25) 5 (25) 20 (100) 20 (100) Syllai-U-Lor 10 (50) 10 (50) 10 (50) 10 (50) 20 (100) 20 (100) Madan-Iing-Syiem 9 (45) 9 (45) 11 (55) 11 (55) 20 (100) 20 (100) Total 188 (58.7) 188 (58.7) 132 (41.3) 132 (41.3) 320 (100) 320 (100)

Slide15:

The number of female-headed households was much less compared to male-headed households in both rounds of survey in 2006 and 2010. 59 per cent of the households were male-headed and 41 per cent of the households were female-headed. Only five out of the sixteen villages had more female-headed households.

Table 2: Distribution of Poor Households across Villages - 2006 and 2010:

Table 2: Distribution of Poor Households across Villages - 2006 and 2010 Villages Total Male-headed Households Poor Male-headed Households Total Female-headed Households Poor Female-headed Households Total Households Total Poor Households 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 Ur-Masi-U-Joh 16 16 8(50.0) 10(62.5) 4 4 2(50.0) 2(50.0) 20 20 10(50.0) 12(60.0) Lamlyer 8 8 3(37.5) 2(25.0) 12 12 7(58.3) 8(66.7) 20 20 10(50.0) 10(50.0) Nongsawlia 15 15 6(40.0) 6(40.0) 5 5 4(80.0) 2(40.0) 20 20 10(50.0) 8(40.0) Maw-Ki-Syiem 12 12 4(33.3) 5(41.7) 8 8 4(50.0) 4(50.0) 20 20 8(40.0) 9(45.0) Mawripih-A 15 15 6(40.0) 6(40.0) 5 5 2(40.0) 2(40.0) 20 20 8(40.0) 8(40.0) Jabar Lumtop Jaud 16 16 7(43.7) 8(50.0) 4 4 1(25.0) 2(50.0) 20 20 8(40.0) 10(50.0) Tyrsad 9 9 5(55.5) 3(33.3) 11 11 6(54.5) 7(63.6) 20 20 11(55.0) 10(50.0) Nongdom Mawria 11 11 6(54.5) 4(36.4) 9 9 5(55.5) 4(44.4) 20 20 11(55.0) 8(40.0) Kharang 10 10 4(40.0) 5(50.0) 10 10 4(40.0) 3(30.0) 20 20 8(40.0) 8(40.0) Laitkyrhong 8 8 1(12.5) 3(37.5) 12 12 7(58.3) 5(41.7) 20 20 8(40.0) 8(40.0) Iewmawiong 15 15 9(60.0) 7(46.7) 5 5 2(40.0) 3(60.0) 20 20 11(55.0) 10(50.0) Umthli 10 10 5(50.0) 4(40.0) 10 10 6(60.0) 5(50.0) 20 20 11(55.0) 9(45.0) Wahlyngkhat 9 9 4(44.4) 3(33.3) 11 11 6(54.5) 6(54.5) 20 20 10(50.0) 9(45.0) Lyngkyrdem 15 15 7(46.6) 8(53.3) 5 5 2(40.0) 3(60.0) 20 20 9(45.0) 11(55.0) Syllai-U-Lor 10 10 5(50.0) 3(30.0) 10 10 5(50.0) 5(50.0) 20 20 10(50.0) 8(40.0) Madan-Iing-Syiem 9 9 4(44.4) 3(33.3) 11 11 5(45.4) 4(36.4) 20 20 9(45.0) 7(35.0) Total 188 188 84 (44.7) 80 (42.6) 132 132 68 (51.5) 65 (49.2) 320 320 152 (47.5) 145 (45.3)

Slide17:

The distribution of the households was more biased towards the male-headed households in both years. About 50 per cent or more of the female-headed households fell below the poverty line in both years. The number of poor male-headed households decreased from 2006 to 2010 (45 per cent to 43 per cent). Across different income groups over the two survey periods, there was a rise in the proportion of male-headed households in the ‘Poor’ and ‘Poorer’ income categories. The number of poor female-headed households decreased from 2006 to 2010 (from 52 per cent to 49 per cent).

Table 3: Distribution of Households across Income Groups, 2006 and 2010:

Table 3 : Distribution of Households across Income Groups, 2006 and 2010 Villages Non-Poor Poor Poorer Poorest Destitute Total 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 & 2010 Ur-Masi-U-Joh 10(50) 8(40) 8(40) 9(45) 2(10) 3(15) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Lamlyer 10(50) 10(50) 9(45) 10(50) 1(5) 0(0) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Nongsawlia 10(50) 12(60) 6(30) 7(35) 4(20) 1(5) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Maw-Ki-Syiem 12(60) 11(55) 4(20) 6(30) 4(20) 3(15) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Mawripih-A 12(60) 12(60) 8(40) 8(40) 0(0) 0(0) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Jabar Lumtop 12(60) 10(50) 7(35) 8(40) 1(5) 2(10) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Tyrsad 9(45) 10(50) 9(45) 5(25) 2(10) 5(25) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Nongdom Mawria 9(45) 12(60) 9(45) 7(35) 2(10) 1(5) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Kharang 12(60) 12(60) 6(30) 7(35) 2(10) 1(5) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Laitkyrhong 12(60) 12(60) 6(30) 6(30) 2(10) 2(10) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Iewmawiong 9(45) 10(50) 11(55) 8(40) 0(0) 2(10) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Umthli 9(45) 11(55) 10(50) 6(30) 1(5) 3(15) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Wahlyngkhat 10(50) 11(55) 9(45) 8(40) 1(5) 1(5) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Lyngkyrdem 11(55) 9(45) 8(40) 11(55) 1(5) 0(0) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Syllai-U-Lor 10(50) 12(60) 9(45) 5(25) 1(5) 3(15) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Madan-Iing-Syiem 11(55) 13(65) 7(35) 4(20) 2(10) 3(15) 0 0 0 0 20(100) Total 168 (52.5) 175 (54.7) 126 (39.4) 115 (35.9) 26 (8.1) 30 (9.4) 0 0 0 0 320 (100)

Slide19:

The number of poor households decreased in 2010 from 2006. The number of households in the ‘non-poor’ income category over the two periods of survey in 2006 and 2010 increased from 53 per cent to 55 per cent. Among the poor households, majority belonged to the ‘poor’ income group which lay closer to the poverty line (39 per cent in 2006 and 36 per cent in 2010). The number of poor also decreased during the period. There were no ‘poorest’ or ‘destitute’ households over the two periods.

Slide20:

Comparative Analysis of Poverty and Inequality

Table 4: Head Count Ratio of Households, 2006 and 2010 :

Table 4 : Head Count Ratio of Households, 2006 and 2010 Villages Male-headed Female-headed Village Level 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 Ur-Masi-U-Joh 50.00 62.55 50.00 50.00 50.00 60.00 Lamlyer 37.50 25.00 58.33 66.70 50.00 50.00 Nongsawlia 40.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 50.00 40.00 Maw-Ki-Syiem 33.33 41.70 50.00 50.00 40.00 45.00 Mawripih-A 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Jabar Lumtop Jaud 43.75 50.00 25.00 50.00 40.00 50.00 Tyrsad 55.56 33.30 54.55 63.60 55.00 50.00 Nongdom Mawria 54.55 36.40 55.56 44.40 55.00 40.00 Kharang 40.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 Laitkyrhong 12.50 37.50 58.33 41.70 40.00 40.00 Iewmawiong 60.00 46.70 40.00 60.00 55.00 50.00 Umthli 50.00 40.00 60.00 50.00 55.00 45.00 Wahlyngkhat 44.44 33.33 54.55 54.50 50.00 45.00 Lyngkyrdem 46.67 53.33 40.00 60.00 45.00 55.00 Syllai-U-Lor 50.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 40.00 Madan-Iing-Syiem 44.44 33.33 45.45 36.40 45.00 35.00 East Khasi Hills 43.92 40.81 50.11 46.08 47.50 45.31

Slide22:

The Head Count Ratio decreased from 2006 to 2010 in 7 villages, remained constant in 4 villages and increased in 5 villages for female-headed households . The Head Count Ratio increased from 2006 to 2010 in 6 villages, remained constant in 2 villages HHs and decreased in 8 villages for male-headed households . The economic situation among the female-headed households was found, by and large, to be worse off over the two periods, than that of male-headed households.

Table 5: Village-wise Poverty Gap Ratio of Households, 2006 and 2010 :

Table 5 : Village-wise Poverty Gap Ratio of Households, 2006 and 2010 Villages Male-headed Female-headed Village Level 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 Ur-Masi-U-Joh 1.05 0.09 1.09 0.21 1.06 0.12 Lamlyer 0.31 0.10 6.95 0.94 3.74 0.51 Nongsawlia 0.59 0.64 8.91 0.17 1.95 0.52 Maw-Ki-Syiem 0.75 0.09 2.28 0.58 1.27 0.27 Mawripih-A 1.01 0.25 1.96 0.76 1.25 0.37 Jabar Lumtop Jaud 1.25 0.16 0.88 0.58 1.20 0.25 Tyrsad 1.27 0.08 2.18 2.84 1.78 1.29 Nongdom Mawria 1.51 0.69 5.80 0.48 3.42 0.61 Kharang 0.87 0.36 2.28 0.04 1.58 0.17 Laitkyrhong 0.14 0.57 5.59 0.84 2.48 0.73 Iewmawiong 0.43 0.06 3.04 0.28 1.35 1.18 Umthli 1.90 0.05 4.16 1.69 2.95 0.79 Wahlyngkhat 2.98 0.25 1.86 0.05 2.45 0.17 Lyngkyrdem 2.32 0.06 1.30 1.50 2.04 0.39 Syllai-U-Lor 1.09 0.93 0.54 0.06 0.82 0.64 Madan-Iing-Syiem 2.76 0.30 1.10 1.38 1.86 0.87

Slide24:

The Poverty Gap Ratio (PGR) among the female-headed households declined in 13 villages from 2006 to 2010 and increased only in 3 villages. The PGR among the male-headed households declined in 14 villages from 2006 to 2010, while it increased in 2 villages. For female-headed HHs, the highest PGR was 8.91% (Nongsawlia) in 2006, and 2.84% (Tyrsad) in 2010. For male-headed HHs, the highest PGR was 2.98% (Wahlyngkhat) in 2006, and 0.93% (Syllai-U-Lor) in 2010. The PGR for all villages for all HHs never crossed 10%, indicating that poverty was not that severe in these two periods. However, the severity of poverty was more prominent among the female-headed households.

Table 6: Gini Coefficient of Households, 2006 and 2010:

Table 6: Gini Coefficient of Households, 2006 and 2010 Villages Male-headed Female-headed Village Level 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 Ur-Masi-U-Joh 0.102 0.162 0.006 0.003 0.059 0.115 Lamlyer 0.028 0.135 0.132 0.075 0.109 0.084 Nongsawlia 0.014 0.023 0.117 0.112 0.033 0.049 Maw-Ki-Syiem 0.007 0.078 0.018 0.142 0.046 0.017 Mawripih-A 0.113 0.064 0.073 0.071 0.101 0.043 Jabar Lumtop Jaud 0.084 0.092 0.027 0.001 0.020 0.058 Tyrsad 0.037 0.064 0.129 0.024 0.024 0.022 Nongdom Mawria 0.089 0.140 0.058 0.033 0.068 0.059 Kharang 0.062 0.064 0.062 0.077 0.021 0.034 Laitkyrhong 0.046 0.067 0.070 0.028 0.103 0.035 Iewmawiong 0.036 0.069 0.001 0.095 0.050 0.079 Umthli 0.062 0.061 0.018 0.086 0.025 0.087 Wahlyngkhat 0.040 0.090 0.020 0.044 0.026 0.016 Lyngkyrdem 0.043 0.053 0.019 0.039 0.086 0.030 Syllai-U-Lor 0.137 0.041 0.166 0.187 0.028 0.095 Madan-Iing-Syiem 0.016 0.134 0.015 0.024 0.022 0.049

Slide26:

The highest index of the Gini Coefficient for female-headed HHs was 0.17 in 2006 and 0.19 in 2010 (both in Syllai-U-Lor). The highest index of the Gini Coefficient for male-headed HHs was 0.14 (Syllai-U-Lor) in 2006 and 0.16 in 2010 (Ur-masi-u-joh). Among the villages , the variations in the Gini Coefficient for both male- and female-headed HHS in both survey periods were significant . The difference between two these parameters in 2006 and 2010 is observed to be quite high among male-headed households (e.g. Ur- Masi -U- Joh village - 0.10 in 2006 and 0.16 in 2010, Lamlyer village - 0.03 in 2006 and 0.13 in 2010, Madan-Iing Syiem village - 0.02 in 2006 and 0.13 in 2010). The same is also true for female-headed HHS. This can be attributed mainly to the irregular type of activity or work undertaken by the household heads. The Gini Coefficient increased in 8 villages and increased in 8 other villages among female-headed households over time. The Gini Coefficient increased in 13 villages among male-headed households, indicating a tendency for greater inequality through time.

Table 7: Percentage of Poor Male-headed Households across Income Group, 2006 and 2010:

Table 7: Percentage of Poor Male-headed Households across Income Group, 2006 and 2010 Village Poor Poorer Poorest Destitute 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 Ur-Masi-U-Joh 75.00 70.00 25.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lamlyer 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nongsawlia 50.00 83.33 50.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maw-Ki-Syiem 50.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mawripih-A 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jabar Lumtop Jaud 85.71 87.50 14.29 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tyrsad 80.00 66.67 20.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nongdom Mawria 83.33 100.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kharang 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Laitkyrhong 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Iewmawiong 100.00 71.43 0.00 28.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Umthli 80.00 75.00 20.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wahlyngkhat 75.00 66.67 25.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lyngkyrdem 85.71 100.00 14.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Syllai-U-Lor 80.00 33.33 20.00 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Madan-Iing-Syiem 75.00 66.67 25.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Slide28:

Most of the poor male-headed households were in the ‘poor’ income group. In all the villages, the ‘poor’ category accounted for not less than 50 per cent of all households in both years except in Syllai-U-Lor village which had 33.33 per cent of its poor households in the ‘poor’ income group. The poor male-headed households were marginally below the poverty line indicating that poverty among them was not that severe in the district

Table 8: Percentage of Poor Female-headed Households across Income Group, 2006 and 2010:

Table 8: Percentage of Poor Female-headed Households across Income Group, 2006 and 2010 Village Poor Poorer Poorest Destitute 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 Ur-Masi-U-Joh 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lamlyer 85.71 100.00 14.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nongsawlia 75.00 100.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maw-Ki-Syiem 50.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mawripih-A 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jabar Lumtop Jaud 100.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tyrsad 83.33 42.86 16.67 57.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nongdom Mawria 80.00 75.00 20.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kharang 50.00 66.67 50.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Laitkyrhong 71.43 60.00 28.57 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Iewmawiong 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Umthli 100.00 60.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wahlyngkhat 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 Lyngkyrdem 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Syllai-U-Lor 100.00 80.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Madan-Iing-Syiem 80.00 50.00 20.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Slide30:

There were more poor female-headed households in the ‘poor’ income category than there were poor male-headed households. Here too the remaining poor households were in the ‘poorer’ income category. The poor female-headed households were marginally below the poverty line indicating that they too were not in deep or extreme poverty. None of the poor households were in the further most two income categories ‘poorest’ and ‘destitute’ income groups over the two periods.

Slide31:

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON POVERTY and INEQUALITY

Slide32:

50 per cent or more of the female-headed households were below the poverty line in both years. The number of poor male-headed households increased from 2006 to 2010 while the number of poor female-headed households decreased in the same period as is also reflected in the HCR across villages. Poverty was not that severe in these two periods as all the poor were in the first two income groups nearer the poverty line and the PGR did not cross 10 per cent. However, the severity of poverty was more prominent among the female-headed households. Both male- and female headed HHs became better off, if not crossing the poverty line, in 2010 from 2006 as is indicated by the PGR. The inequality in income among the poor was not that pronounced in both the male- and female headed HHs as is indicated by the Gini Coefficient, the highest being 0.19.

THANK YOU:

THANK YOU

authorStream Live Help