Quality of Growth for Whom Quality of Growth for Whom? Do the Chronic Poor Enjoy Growth in Cambodia? AFD-IDS-JICA Project on Quality of Growth　 JICA-RI, 18 February 2014 Ippei Tsuruga, Deputy Assistant Chief Research Programme Division, JICA Research Institute Email: Tsuruga.Ippei@jica.go.jp

Pro-poor Growth Growth with poverty reduction Focus on how much poverty reduced. Does not matter whose poverty reduced.

Quality of Growth Growth with poverty & CP reduction Poverty Reduction Chronic Poverty Reduction Quality of Growth Focus on how much poverty reduced. Matter the remaining populations. Including those who are unable to escape poverty even with growth.

Research Question Do the Chronic Poor Enjoy Growth? To what extent does chronic poverty improve while economy grows and poverty decreases? What characteristics do the chronic poor have?

Pro-Poor Growth? (1) Macro economy Indicators (annual average change %) 2004-2010 GDP 8.47 GDP per capita 6.87 Sectoral Growth: Agriculture 5.97 Sectoral Growth: Manufacturing 6.24 Sectoral Growth: Industry 8.00 Sectoral Growth: Services 9.59 Inflation 7.79

Pro-Poor Growth? (2) Human development Indicators 2004 2010 Net primary enrolment (ages 6‐11) 75.98% 85.60% Net lower secondary enrolment (ages 12-14) 16.37% 30.80% Net upper secondary enrolment (ages 15-17) 8.53% 17.50% Ever attended school (ages 5+) 75.92% 81.70% Adult literacy (ages 15+) 69.78% 76.28% Mortality rate, neonatal (per 1,000 live births) 27.2 19.7 Mortality rate, infant (per 1,000 live births) 56.6 37.3 Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000 live births) 70.3 43.8

Pro-Poor Growth? (3) Consumption poverty estimation

Pro-Poor Growth? (4) Consumption growth of the poor 2004-2010 Other Urban Rural Phnom Penh Growth rate in mean (%) 1.05 7.23 6.31 at median (%) 11.05 9.81 7.86 of the Poor (%) 11.66 10.34 9.11

Pro-Poor Growth? (5) Yes Growth Poverty Economy: Improved Human Development: Improved Sectoral Growth: Equally grew Poverty Poverty headcount: Improved Poverty gap: Improved Poverty severity: Improved Poor Consumption: Improved

Methodology: CP Estimation Combining Qualitative & Quantitative Howe & McKay (2007) Define CP by the poor through PPA Map onto nationally representative household survey data Assess robustness and sensitivity using other poverty related indicators

Qualitative Data Participatory Poverty Assessment Period: October – December 2000 Participants: Poor people selected through geographical/community-based targeting Coverage: National 169 Focus group discussions, 154 villages in 70 communes in all 24 provinces and 15 urban areas Implementing Agency: Asian Development Bank

Quantitative Data Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey Period: 2004 & 2010 Sample size: 12,000 HHs & 3,600 HHs Coverage: National Implementing Agency: Ministry of Planning

Defining Chronic Poverty (1) 5 Livelihood ranks by the poor (Agrarians) # Local Language Description 1 Kror bamphot Toal Extremely poor No way out of their present situation 2 Kror Kror thomada Literally poor Typical poverty 3 Kror imom Kandal Reasonably poor Medium 4 Mathyum Average 5 Throuthear Neak leu Fully self-sufficient without any debts Living above poverty

Defining Chronic Poverty (2) CP characteristics identified by the poor Little or no land (2-3 acres: 0.8-1.2 ha) Perhaps 1 draft animal but no farming implements; Housing made of thatch in very poor condition; Few household utensils; Food shortages for up to 8 months; Reliance on natural resources for subsistence needs; Inability to repay or borrow additional amounts; No kinship support; and Large young families with 5-12 children.

Defining Chronic Poverty (3) Criteria selection to identify chronic poor Selection Policy Take as many definitions as possible Balance inclusion / exclusion error Availability of translatable quantitative data Selected Criteria Household main economic activity is agriculture Household owns agricultural land of 1.0 hectare or less Household owns 1 draft animal or none Household owns no high value farm implement Housing material (wall/roof) is thatch.

Result Chronic Poverty Estimation in Cambodia Domain 2004 2010 Other Urban 6.44% 1.98% Rural 11.53% 11.34% Phnom Penh 0.00% Cambodia 9.99% 9.27%

Robustness (1) Comparison of other indicators in 2004 CP Non-CP Difference T-value Net enrolment ratio (ages 6‐11) 65.43 74.57 9.14 5.53 Net enrolment ratio (ages 12-14) 4.52 10.56 6.04 5.37 Net enrolment ratio (ages 15-17) 2.43 3.83 1.40 1.49 Ever attended school (ages 5+) 61.33 72.69 11.37 14.94 Adult literacy (ages 15+) 50.66 64.71 14.07 14.68 Sick Frequency 19.99 18.15 -1.79 -3.05 Seek care during the survey period 13.2 11.69 -1.51 -3.04 Seek care when ill or injured 66.69 64.59 -2.10 -1.34 1st Quintile, Food 26.89 24.24 -2.65 -4.06 5th Quintile, Food 9.08 11.56 2.48 5.87 1st Quintile, Total 33.77 24.15 -9.62 -13.91 5th Quintile, Total 6.01 9.94 3.93 11.02

Robustness (2) Comparison of other indicators in 2010 CP Non-CP Difference T-value Net enrolment ratio (ages 6‐11) 87.47 82.36 -5.12 -1.83 Net enrolment ratio (ages 12-14) 8.82 27.58 18.76 4.87 Net enrolment ratio (ages 15-17) 2.69 12.19 9.49 3.97 Ever attended school (ages 5+) 68.50 78.38 9.88 6.26 Adult literacy (ages 15+) 56.93 71.77 14.84 7.46 Sick Frequency 23.26 18.5 -4.76 -3.54 Seek care during the survey period 19.91 16.17 -3.74 -2.96 Seek care when ill or injured 85.59 87.44 1.85 0.74 1st Quintile, Food 32.42 23.3 -9.12 -6.16 5th Quintile, Food 5.69 9.44 3.75 4.9 1st Quintile, Total 38.45 22.97 -15.48 -10.09 5th Quintile, Total 3.13 8.95 5.82 9.56

Sensitivity (1) There are some ambiguous criteria Land Ownership: 0.8ha to 1.2 ha Perhaps 1 draft animal: One or None No farming implements: What types? Housing Materials are Thatch: Wall? Roof?

Sensitivity (2) Further Analysis …. All combinations.. Cutoff Land Draft Animal Farm Implement Housing 2004 2010 1 1 ha One Low Only OR 11.53% 11.34% 2 AND 5.66% 4.38% 3 None 1.31% 0.15% 4 0.76% 0.08% 5 9.32% 8.95% 6 4.67% 3.61% 7 1.13% 8 0.66% 9 0.8 ha 9.53% 10.39% 10 4.61% 4.01% 11 1.11% 12 0.61% 13 7.75% 8.40% 14 3.84% 3.39% 15 1.00% 16 0.57%

Characteristics (1) Female-headed, Young, Smaller family… Indicators CP Non-CP Difference Household head: female (%) 31.96 17.72 14.24 Household head: elderly 65+ (%) 16.11 18.45 -2.34 Household head: ethnic minority (%) 4.10 4.78 -0.68 Household head: age 43.67 45.85 -2.18 Household member: age 24.55 26.84 -2.29 Household head: education year 3.05 4.03 -0.98 Household size 3.97 4.65

Characteristics (2) High child dependency, Labour constraint.. Indicators CP Non-CP Difference Dependency ratio (%) 85.29 73.48 11.81 Child dependency ratio 0-14 (%) 76.07 62.21 13.87 Aged dependency ratio 65+ (%) 9.22 11.27 -2.05 Household with 5 children+ (%) 2.27 1.54 0.73 No. of working age per households 2.91 -0.64 No. of children 0-14 per households 1.51 0.02 No. of elderly 65+ per households 0.16 0.22 -0.06

Conclusion / Limitation CP little improved though pro-poor growth was achieved. Cambodia achieved pro-poor growth but not quality of growth. Limitation It is not clear whether it is a matter of measurement between monetary & local definition. Other activities (e.g. CP in Industry/Service) Urban poverty (e.g. workers with low wage)

Policy Questions Can growth policies benefit the chronic poor? If not Do social policies support the chronic poor? Do targeted interventions properly capture them?