1. 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

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

3. 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.

4. 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?

5. Pro-Poor Growth? (1) Macro economy
Indicators (annual average change %)
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

6. 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

7. Pro-Poor Growth? (3) Consumption poverty estimation

8. Pro-Poor Growth? (4) Consumption growth of the poor
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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. Defining Chronic Poverty (2) CP characteristics identified by the poor
Little or no land (2-3 acres: 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.

15. 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.

16. 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%

17. Robustness (1) Comparison of other indicators in 2004CP
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

18. Robustness (2) Comparison of other indicators in 2010CP
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

19. 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?

20. 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%

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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)

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