So urc e : WDI , 2013 1995: 70%, 1999/ 2000: 59%, 2005/ 6: 57%, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

So urc e : WDI , 2013

 1995: 70%, 1999/ 2000: 59%, 2005/ 6: 57%, 2010/ 11: 45%  I

ne q ua lity: pe a ke d a t 0.52 in 2005/ 6, the n do wn to 0.49

 “ha t tric k” o f ra pid g ro wth, sha rp po ve rty re duc tio n

a nd re duc e d ine q ua lity

 Wo rld Ba nk (2013): fe rtilize r e tc ., no n-

fa rm e mplo yme nt, so c ia l pro te c tio n o f po o re st, fe rtility de c line

 Bo o th a nd Go lo o b a -Mute b i (2012): “a

se t o f a rra ng e me nts fo r ma na g ing e c o no mic re nts in a c e ntra lize d wa y a nd de plo ying the m with a vie w to the lo ng te rm”

 Se rne e ls & Ve rpo o rte n (2013), Andre a &

Ve rpo o rte n (2013): po st-wa r c a tc h-up

 Gua riso e t a l. (2012); Aya le w e t a l. (2011)  Ba sing a e t a l. (2010)  Nkurunziza e t a l. (2012)  We sto ff (2013); K

a b a no e t a l. (2013) ; Muho za e t a l. (2013)

1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 genocide & civil war new inheritance law new constitution introduction 1994 with equal rights with gender quota PBFa, Imihigob (counter)insurgency for girls increase & free and family mandatory refugee crisis health budget mandatory planning health insurance 1994-1998 2002-2010 primary campaign education

 Do e s the re c e nt po ve rty a nd ine q ua lity

re duc tio n re pre se nt a true re ve rsa l o f a tre nd?

 Ho w c a n the da ta b e re c o nc ile d with

c o ntra sting finding s fro m q ua lita tive fie ldwo rk a t the lo c a l le ve l?

 Ca n e c o no mic g ro wth c o ntinue to o utpa c e

po pula tio n g ro wth?

 Ca n de ve lo pme nt in Rwa nda b e susta ine d if

the c o untry c o ntinue s to sc o re ve ry lo w o n vo ic e a nd a c c o unta b ility?

 Do e s the re c e nt po ve rty a nd ine q ua lity

re duc tio n re pre se nt a true re ve rsa l o f a tre nd?

› to ta l a nnua l ra infa ll in 2010 wa s 50% hig he r tha n in 2005; › po st-wa r b a se wa s ve ry lo w › c o sme tic upg ra ding o f rura l life

Housing / Durables 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Has electricity (%) 2.3 6.2 4.8 6.0 9.7 Radio (%) 32.3 35.2 45.8 58.2 62.6 Health 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Delivery at health care facility (%)c 26.3 25.7 29.7 53.7 78.3 Maternal mortality rated n.a. 1071 750 n.a. 476 Infant mortality 85 109 83 64 50 Under-5 mortality 151 196 152 103 76 All vaccinations (% children 12-23 months) 86.3 76.0 75.2 80.4 90.1 Households owns mosquito net (any type, %) n.a. 6.6 18.2 59.2 82.7 Education 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Mean years of education, men 15-65 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.6 Mean years of education, women 15-65 3.0 3.3 3.4 4.0 NAR Primary school, total 61.5 72.0 80.6 87.5 NAR Secondary school, total 5.7 4.9 4.0 14.4

Housing / Durables 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Has electricity (%) 2.3 6.2 4.8 6.0 9.7 Radio (%) 32.3 35.2 45.8 58.2 62.6 Health 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Delivery at health care facility (%)c 26.3 25.7 29.7 53.7 78.3 Maternal mortality rated n.a. 1071 750 n.a. 476 Infant mortality 85 109 83 64 50 Under-5 mortality 151 196 152 103 76 All vaccinations (% children 12-23 months) 86.3 76.0 75.2 80.4 90.1 Households owns mosquito net (any type, %) n.a. 6.6 18.2 59.2 82.7 Education 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Mean years of education, men 15-65 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.6 Mean years of education, women 15-65 3.0 3.3 3.4 4.0 NAR Primary school, total 61.5 72.0 80.6 87.5 NAR Secondary school, total 5.7 4.9 4.0 14.4

Housing / Durables 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Has electricity (%) 2.3 6.2 4.8 6.0 9.7 Radio (%) 32.3 35.2 45.8 58.2 62.6 Health 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Delivery at health care facility (%)c 26.3 25.7 29.7 53.7 78.3 Maternal mortality rated n.a. 1071 750 n.a. 476 Infant mortality 85 109 83 64 50 Under-5 mortality 151 196 152 103 76 All vaccinations (% children 12-23 months) 86.3 76.0 75.2 80.4 90.1 Households owns mosquito net (any type, %) n.a. 6.6 18.2 59.2 82.7 Education 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Mean years of education, men 15-65 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.6 Mean years of education, women 15-65 3.0 3.3 3.4 4.0 NAR Primary school, total 61.5 72.0 80.6 87.5 NAR Secondary school, total 5.7 4.9 4.0 14.4

Housing / Durables 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Has electricity (%) 2.3 6.2 4.8 6.0 9.7 Radio (%) 32.3 35.2 45.8 58.2 62.6 Health 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Delivery at health care facility (%)c 26.3 25.7 29.7 53.7 78.3 Maternal mortality rated n.a. 1071 750 n.a. 476 Infant mortality 85 109 83 64 50 Under-5 mortality 151 196 152 103 76 All vaccinations (% children 12-23 months) 86.3 76.0 75.2 80.4 90.1 Households owns mosquito net (any type, %) n.a. 6.6 18.2 59.2 82.7 Education 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Mean years of education, men 15-65 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.6 Mean years of education, women 15-65 3.0 3.3 3.4 4.0 NAR Primary school, total 61.5 72.0 80.6 87.5 NAR Secondary school, total 5.7 4.9 4.0 14.4

DHS survey round 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Use of contraceptiona Any method (%) 1.45 3.26 2.88 1.79 1.32 Any modern method (%) 1.53 6.19 3.72 1.78 1.29 Delivery at health care facility (%)b 2.11 3.97 3.36 1.62 1.28 Assistance of trained personnel (%) 1.95 3.08 2.44 1.65 1.40 All vaccinations (% children 12-23 months) 1.05 1.08 1.00 1.02 1.10 Households owns mosquito net (any type, %) n.a. 26.01 7.35 1.71 1.20 Net attendance ratioc Primary school, total 1.39 1.18 1.10 n.a. 1.19 Secondary school, total 4.86 12.88 24.24 n.a. 4.74 Ratio of indicator between top and bottom wealth quintile Notes: Own calculation on the basis of DHS data. a Among married women. b Of life births in the last three years preceding the survey. c The NAR for primary school is the percentage of the primary-school-age (7-12 years) population that is attending primary school. The NAR for secondary school is the percentage of the secondary-school age (13-18 years) population that is attending secondary school.

DHS survey round 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Use of contraceptiona Any method (%) 1.45 3.26 2.88 1.79 1.32 Any modern method (%) 1.53 6.19 3.72 1.78 1.29 Delivery at health care facility (%)b 2.11 3.97 3.36 1.62 1.28 Assistance of trained personnel (%) 1.95 3.08 2.44 1.65 1.40 All vaccinations (% children 12-23 months) 1.05 1.08 1.00 1.02 1.10 Households owns mosquito net (any type, %) n.a. 26.01 7.35 1.71 1.20 Net attendance ratioc Primary school, total 1.39 1.18 1.10 n.a. 1.19 Secondary school, total 4.86 12.88 24.24 n.a. 4.74 Ratio of indicator between top and bottom wealth quintile

DHS survey round 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Use of contraceptiona Any method (%) 1.45 3.26 2.88 1.79 1.32 Any modern method (%) 1.53 6.19 3.72 1.78 1.29 Delivery at health care facility (%)b 2.11 3.97 3.36 1.62 1.28 Assistance of trained personnel (%) 1.95 3.08 2.44 1.65 1.40 All vaccinations (% children 12-23 months) 1.05 1.08 1.00 1.02 1.10 Households owns mosquito net (any type, %) n.a. 26.01 7.35 1.71 1.20 Net attendance ratioc Primary school, total 1.39 1.18 1.10 n.a. 1.19 Secondary school, total 4.86 12.88 24.24 n.a. 4.74 Ratio of indicator between top and bottom wealth quintile

DHS survey round 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Use of contraceptiona Any method (%) 1.45 3.26 2.88 1.79 1.32 Any modern method (%) 1.53 6.19 3.72 1.78 1.29 Delivery at health care facility (%)b 2.11 3.97 3.36 1.62 1.28 Assistance of trained personnel (%) 1.95 3.08 2.44 1.65 1.40 All vaccinations (% children 12-23 months) 1.05 1.08 1.00 1.02 1.10 Households owns mosquito net (any type, %) n.a. 26.01 7.35 1.71 1.20 Net attendance ratioc Primary school, total 1.39 1.18 1.10 n.a. 1.19 Secondary school, total 4.86 12.88 24.24 n.a. 4.74 Ratio of indicator between top and bottom wealth quintile

In sum: DHS data indic ate s impr

• ve me nts in he alth and

e duc ation, And, in ge ne r al, a patte r n of c onve r ge nc e ac r

• ss we alth

quintile s … in line with the pove r ty and ine quality de c line r e c or de d in E ICV3

Health 1992 2000 2005 2007-8 2010 Delivery at health care facility (%)c 26.3 25.7 29.7 53.7 78.3 Maternal mortality rated n.a. 1071 750 n.a. 476

“while the se me a sure s a re de sig ne d to ma ke a sig nific a nt po rtio n o f rura l dwe lle rs “lo o k” le ss po o r, the y a re like ly to “b e a nd fe e l” a s po o r, o r e ve n po o re r, tha n b e fo re ” (I ng e la e re , 2011) “So c ia l e ng e ne e ring ”, “c o sme tic c ha ng e s”

Public ve r sus hidde n tr ansc r ipt?

In sum: DHS data indic ate s impr

• ve me nts in he alth and

e duc ation, And, in ge ne r al, a patte r n of c onve r ge nc e ac r

• ss we alth

quintile s … in line with the pove r ty and ine quality de c line r e c or de d in E ICV3 While some c hange s may be “c osme tic ”, the r e is also e vide nc e for r e al impr

• ve me nts in quality- of- life

me asur e s.

De te rmina nts:

 pub lic he a lth e xpe nditure (%) a lmo st do ub le d sinc e

2004

 2003: intro duc tio n fre e a nd ma nda to ry prima ry

e duc a tio n.

 a id flo ws inc re a se d sinc e 2004 to 2* prio r to the wa r  the wo rst fo rms o f c o rruptio n a re ke pt in c he c k  g o ve rnme nt te c hnic a lly c a pa b le to ma na g e pro g ra ms  pe rfo rma nc e -b a se d fina nc ing (PBF

) in he a lth c a re

 pe rfo rma nc e c o ntra c ts (imihig o )  o b lig a to ry mutua l he a lth insura nc e (2008)  e c o no mic g ro wth wa s b ro a d-b a se d

 Ho w c a n the da ta b e re c o nc ile d with

c o ntra sting finding s fro m q ua lita tive fie ldwo rk a t the lo c a l le ve l?

› la nd c o nso lida tio n, c ro p spe c ia liza tio n, imidug ug u (villa g iza tio n)

 Ho w c a n the da ta b e re c o nc ile d with

c o ntra sting finding s fro m q ua lita tive fie ldwo rk a t the lo c a l le ve l?

› la nd c o nso lida tio n, c ro p spe c ia liza tio n, villa g iza tio n

 One ma y still fe e l mo re po o r b e c a use

• f c o e rc ive me a sure s, a nd ra pid

so c ia l tra nsfo rma tio n whic h le a ds to winne rs a nd lo se rs (in a b so lute o r re la tive te rms).

2002 2008 Material welfare: income Annual household net income /ae (2011 prices, RWF)

54,614 60,725

Income composition Farm wage

7.0% 6.2%

Non-farm wage

7.2% 7.6%

Non-farm self

9.4% 10.1%

Farm self

60.0% 56.7%

Beer

7.2% 6.6%

Livestock

10.5% 12.6%

Material welfare: assets Land size (ares)

88.9 53.8

TLUa

1.0 1.1

Household composition Household size

4.9 5.2

Female headed (%)

49.6% 46.5%

Household member imprisoned (%)

7.4% 6.6%

Inequality Gini of net income /ae 0.56 0.55 Gini of land size

0.51 0.62

Gini of TLU 0.52 0.39 2002-2008 panel, N=241

1 2 3 4 5 1 14 12 13 6 4 28.6 24.5 26.5 12.2 8.2 2 9 14 9 10 5 19.2 29.8 19.2 21.3 10.6 3 13 8 8 13 7 26.5 16.3 16.3 26.5 14.3 4 8 8 9 8 15 16.7 16.7 18.8 16.7 31.3 5 5 6 9 11 17 10.4 12.5 18.8 22.9 35.4 Income quintiles in 2008 Income quintile s in 2002

Social categories Nr % Cum % Income / ae 08 Land 08 (ares) Livestock 08 (TLU) Female head 08 Income change 02-08 Umutindi nyakujya Those in abject poverty 7

2.9

2.9 28,200 17.4 0.2 0.71

• 63985

Umutindi The very poor 27

11.3

14.2 43,743 29.4 0.4 0.56

• 4348

Umukene The poor 88

36.8 51.1

45,511 42.9 0.8 0.51

• 27669

Umukene wifashije The resourceful poor 102 42.7 93.7 76,699 63.1 1.5 0.43 166648 Umukungu The food rich 14 5.9 99.6 82,637 124.5 2.3 0.07 63074 Umukire The money rich 1 0.4 100.0 85,215 115.0 4.0 1.00 144050

Umutindi nyakujya Umutindi Umukene Umukene wifashije Umukungu Umukire Umutindi nyakujya 6 1 85.7 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Umutindi 19 8 4 0.0 61.3 25.8 12.9 0.0 0.0 Umukene 1 4 70 27 1.0 3.9 68.6 26.5 0.0 0.0 Umukene wifashije 4 8 66 2 0.0 5.0 10.0 82.5 2.5 0.0 Umukungu 1 5 11 0.0 0.0 5.9 29.4 64.7 0.0 Umukire 1 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 Categories in 2008 Categories in 2002

 Ha ve yo u re c e ntly b e e n fe e ling

re a so na b ly ha ppy a ll thing s c o nside re d?

 Ha ri ub wo mu minsi ishize ya vub a a ha ,

wumva g a wishimye b iha g ije muri rusa ng e ?

Nr % Cum % Income / ae 08 Land 08 (ares) Livestock 08 (TLU) Female head 08 Income change 02-08 strongly disagree 29

11.6

11.6 77897

33.33

0.93

0.59 15146

disagree 52

20.8 32.4

47820

40.45

0.86

0.51 26078

agree 143 57.2 89.6 61961

62.92

1.24

0.46 69011

strongly agree 26 10.4 100 70134

81.47

1.39

0.19 183623

In sum:



L

• ts of upwar

d and downwar d mobility thr

• ugh inc ome

distr ibution



Muc h le ss soc ial mobility



Se lf- r e por te d pove r ty about 50% ; unhappine ss about 30%



Re lative inc ome c hange s r athe r than le ve ls impor tant for happine ss



L and c r uc ially impor tant for inc ome , inc ome mobility, soc ial c ate gor ie s, soc ial mobility and happine ss

 K

e y me ssa g e : the re ma y b e a misma tc h b e twe e n sub je c tive me a sure s o f we llb e ing a nd sta tic me a sure s o f ma te ria l we lfa re , e spe c ia lly in a c o nte xt o f ra pid tra nsfo rma tive c ha ng e s tha t le a d to winne rs a nd lo se rs (in re la tive te rms) a nd a ffe c t the tra ditio na l la nd-b a se d live liho o ds.

 Ra pid e c o no mic tra nsfo rma tio n:

› “tra nsfo rm a g ric ulture into a pro duc tive , hig h va lue , ma rke t o rie nte d se c to r, with fo rwa rd linka g e s to o the r se c to rs”  o k b ut…

 Ra pid e c o no mic tra nsfo rma tio n:

› “tra nsfo rm a g ric ulture into a pro duc tive , hig h va lue , ma rke t o rie nte d se c to r, with fo rwa rd linka g e s to o the r se c to rs”  o k b ut… › unlike ly tha t the pa c e o f tra nsfo rma tio n will slo w do wn; e ve n in a sc e na rio with lo w fe rtility  20 millio n b y 2050, 800 inha b ita nts pe r sq ua re km, 3* a s o n the e ve o f the g e no c ide .

 Grie va nc e s ma y b e hig he r if:

› c o e rc ive me a sure s

› to p-do wn de sig n a nd imple me nta tio n

 Ac hille s’ he e l o f the Rwa nda n

suc c e ss sto ry: ‘ vo ic e a nd a c c o unta b ility’ .

› se ve re a nd ha rdly c o nc e a le d po litic a l a nd so c ie ta l re pre ssio n in Rwa nda › (fue lling o f vio le nc e a c ro ss the b o rde r with Co ng o )

 a utho rita ria n a ppro a c h

› instrume nta l in b ring ing a b o ut tra nsfo rma tive c ha ng e s witho ut muc h o ve rt pro te st › da ng e r tha t a ny po sitive a c hie ve me nt this ma y yie ld will b e undo ne › c e rta inly if re la tive winne rs a nd lo se rs a lig n with a g ro up ide ntity

 Rig o ro us impa c t e va lua tio ns o f the diffe re nt

po lic ie s a nd e ve nts tha t ma y a c c o unt fo r the pro g re ss in he a lth a nd sc ho o ling

 A c a re ful study o f va rio us sub je c tive me a sure s

• f we ll-b e ing a nd the ir de te rmina nts

 A tho ro ug h a na lysis o f the diffe re nt a g ric ultura l

po lic ie s, a nd ho w the y a ffe c t la nd a nd inc o me ine q ua lity, a nd sub je c tive we ll-b e ing

 Re se a rc h a ime d a t inc re a sing a g ric ultura l

pro duc tivity o f ve ry sma ll la ndho lding s

 Re se a rc h o n the c a pa c ity o f the no n-fa rm

se c to r to a b so rb mo re la b o r, skille d a nd unskille d

1990 2002 2008 Material welfare: income Annual household net income /ae (2011 prices, RWF)

47,268 48,223 60,985

Income composition Farm wage

7.7% 8.7% 7.2%

Non-farm wage

2.0% 8.1% 6.8%

Non-farm self

6.9% 7.9% 10.2%

Farm self

69.9% 59.3% 55.0%

Beer

6.3% 8.1% 6.9%

Livestock

7.2% 9.3% 12.1%

Assets Land size (ares)

97.0 86.6 51.6

TLUa

1.0 0.9 1.1

Household composition Household size

5.4 5.1 5.3

Female headed (%)

17.0% 41.5% 40.3%

Household member imprisoned (%)

7.4% 6.3%

Inequality Gini of net income /ae

0.39 0.50 0.55

Gini of land size

0.44 0.52 0.61

Gini of TLU 0.48 0.53 0.39 1990-2002-2008 panel, N=176

0,61 in E I CV3; 0,57 in So uthe rn re g io n 0,55 in E I CV3; 0,58 in So uthe rn re g io n

1990 2002 2008 Material welfare: income Annual household net income /ae (2011 prices, RWF)

47,268 48,223 60,985

Income composition Farm wage

7.7% 8.7% 7.2%

Non-farm wage

2.0% 8.1% 6.8%

Non-farm self

6.9% 7.9% 10.2%

Farm self

69.9% 59.3% 55.0%

Beer

6.3% 8.1% 6.9%

Livestock

7.2% 9.3% 12.1%

Assets Land size (ares)

97.0 86.6 51.6

TLUa

1.0 0.9 1.1

Household composition Household size

5.4 5.1 5.3

Female headed (%)

17.0% 41.5% 40.3%

Household member imprisoned (%)

7.4% 6.3%

Inequality Gini of net income /ae

0.39 0.50 0.55

Gini of land size

0.44 0.52 0.61

Gini of TLU 0.48 0.53 0.39 1990-2002-2008 panel, N=176 2002 2008 Material welfare: income Annual household net income /ae (2011 prices, RWF)

54,614 60,725

Income composition Farm wage

7.0% 6.2%

Non-farm wage

7.2% 7.6%

Non-farm self

9.4% 10.1%

Farm self

60.0% 56.7%

Beer

7.2% 6.6%

Livestock

10.5% 12.6%

Material welfare: assets Land size (ares)

88.9 53.8

TLUa

1.0 1.1

Household composition Household size

4.9 5.2

Female headed (%)

49.6% 46.5%

Household member imprisoned (%)

7.4% 6.6%

Inequality Gini of net income /ae 0.56 0.55 Gini of land size

0.51 0.62

Gini of TLU 0.52 0.39 2002-2008 panel, N=241

 if po ve rty a nd ine q ua lity c a n b e furthe r

re duc e d in the c o untry’ s g ro wth pro c e ss, a nd re la tive winne rs a nd lo se rs do no t a lig n with a g ro up ide ntity, e c o no mic g rie va nc e s ma y b e ke pt in c he c k, pe rha ps suffic ie ntly so to c o unte rb a la nc e po litic a l g rie va nc e s.

 T

his is ho we ve r a da ng e ro us b e t, a nd the first-b e st wo uld pro b a b ly b e to a im a t a n impro ve me nt o f e c o no mic a s we ll a s g o ve rna nc e indic a to rs.