1. Main results of 2016 Household Socio-Economic Survey
NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF MONGOLIA
Poverty profile
Main results of 2016 Household Socio-Economic Survey
Mrs. S. Bolormaa, Statistician
Population and Social Statistics Department

2. Contents 1. Understanding poverty 2. Poverty profile 3. Poverty trends
4. Household income and consumption
5. Impact of safety net

3. 1. Understanding POVERTY

4. What is POVERTY ? Understanding and definition of poverty
It is pronounced deprivation in well-being
Poverty includes:
Low level of income
Poor health
Low level of education
Poor intellectual and physical capacity
Poor nutrition
Limited access to goods and services
Limited access to infrastructure
Limited freedom of religious and political expression

5. Measuring POVERTY Understanding and definition of poverty
Defining welfare measures
Define relevant welfare measure
Monetary-consumption
Select a poverty line – that is a threshold below which a given household or individual will be classified as poor
Poverty line
Select a poverty indicator– which is used for reporting for the population as a whole or for a population sub-group only
Poverty main indicators
Measuring POVERTY

6. What is POVERTY LINE? Understanding and definition of poverty
Minimum level of expenditures or income at which a person’s healthy and active life, food energy, goods and services required
Low consumption
High consumption
Poverty line
Poor
Non- poor

7. 2. Poverty profile

8. Poverty profile

9. Poverty lines can be food and non-food
Poverty profile
Poverty lines can be food and non-food

10. Poverty profile As of 2016, Mongolia had a population of 3.1 million
29.6% or thousand persons are poor

11. Poverty profile Poverty main indicators, national average and by area
2010
2012
2014
2016
Changes / /
Poverty headcount
National average
38.8
27.4
21.6
29.6
8.0
Urban
33.2
23.3
18.8
27.1
8.3
Rural
49.0
35.4
26.4
34.9
8.5
Poverty gap
11.5
7.1
5.2
7.7
2.5
9.4
6.2
4.9
7.2
2.3
15.2
8.8
5.8
3.0
Poverty severity
4.6
2.7
1.9
2.9
1.0
3.7
2.4
2.8
0.9
6.4
3.2
2.0
1.2

12. Poverty profile Poverty main indicators by region 2014 2016
2014
2016
Өөрчлөлт / /
Poverty headcount
Western
26.0
36.0
10.0
Khangai
25.3
33.6
8.3
Central
22.2
26.8
4.6
Eastern
31.4
43.9
12.5
Ulaanbaatar
16.4
24.8
8.4
Poverty gap
5.3
9.7
4.4
5.4
8.2
2.8
5.5
7.0
1.5
8.6
3.9
4.5
6.4
1.9
Poverty severity
1.7
3.7
2.0
2.9
1.2
2.1
2.7
0.6
3.3
4.8
2.5
0.8

13. Poverty profile Poverty main indicators by location 2014 2016
2014
2016
Changes / /
Poverty headcount
Ulaanbaatar
16.4
24.8
8.4
Aimag centers
23.8
31.8
8.0
Sum centers
24.7
32.3
7.6
Countryside
27.9
38.0
10.1
Poverty gap
4.5
6.4
1.9
5.8
8.8
3.0
5.7
8.5
2.8
6.0
9.2
3.2
Poverty severity
1.7
2.5
0.8
2.1
3.4
1.3
2.0
1.2

14. Poverty profile
Poverty headcount by aimag in 2016

15. Poverty profile Poor population 2014 2016 Changes
2014
2016
Changes
Population, thousand persons
Poor, thousand persons
Total
634.0
907.5
273.5
Urban
367.8
563.8
196.0
Rural
986.2
260.1
986.7
343.7
83.6
Region
Western
376.7
98.1
393.6
150.1
52.0
Khangai
567.4
143.5
585.7
189.6
46.1
Central
475.9
105.8
492.0
127.6
21.8
Eastern
203.4
63.9
211.4
97.1
33.2
Ulaanbaatar
215.9
343.1
127.2
Location
Aimag centers
637.3
151.7
696.1
220.7
69.0
Sum centers
372.9
92.0
537.5
173.4
81.4
Countryside
613.2
171.2
449.2
170.4
-0.8

16. Poverty profile Inequality National average Urban Rural Region Western
GINI coefficient
2014
2016
National average
0.32
Urban
0.33
Rural
0.28
0.30
Region
Western
Khangai
0.29
Central
0.31
Eastern
Ulaanbaatar
0.34
Location
Aimag centers
Sum centers
Countryside
0.27

17. Poverty profile Monthly average per capita consumption, tugrugs
Monthly average per capita consumption
Changes
/ /
2014
2016
National average
-11.9
Urban
-14.1
Rural
-8.8
Region
Western
-14.7
Khangai
-8.6
Central
-6.5
Eastern
-17.5
Ulaanbaatar
-14.3
Location
Aimag centers
-13.6
Sum centers
-8.7
Countryside
-10.2

18. Monthly consumption of NON-POOR, 2016
Poverty profile
Monthly consumption of NON-POOR, 2016

19. Monthly consumption of POOR, 2016
Poverty profile
Monthly consumption of POOR, 2016

20. Poverty profile
Monthly average per capita consumption, by main categories of consumption, urban and rural, 2016

21. Monthly average per capita consumption,
Poverty profile
Monthly average per capita consumption,
by household deciles

22. Poverty profile Poverty main indicators by age of head of household
Poverty by household size
More than 8
Poverty headcount
Main poverty indicators by highest educational level completed by household head
Poverty gap
Poverty severity
Primary
None
Lower secondary
Technical and professional
Master
Complete secondary
Vocational
Diploma
Bachelor’s

23. Poverty profile Main poverty indicators,
by labor force participation of household head
National average
Employed
Unemployed
Outside the labour force
Total
Agriculture
Industry
Services
Poverty headcount
29.6
27.6
39.1
31.7
19.8
48.7
30.6
(0.7)
(1.3)
(0.8)
(2.2)
(1.2)
Poverty gap
7.7
6.8
10.0
8.5
4.3
15.4
(0.2)
(0.5)
(0.9)
Poverty severity
2.9
2.4
3.6
3.2
1.4
6.5
3.4
(0.1)
- Standard errors are included in brackets. 

24. 3. Poverty trends

25. Poverty distribution curve
Poverty trends
Poverty trends
Poverty distribution curve
Poverty line
Per capita consumption (Thousand of Tugrug per month)
Source: HSES 2014 and HSES 2016
Cumulative share of population
Poverty headcount (%)
National Urban Rural
Poverty declined significantly during , but increased between

26. Poverty trends
Many households were just above the poverty line in 2014, however number of households below poverty line increased in Rise in poverty has been led by uniform decrease in consumption.
Poverty line

27. Poverty trends
Poverty growth was higher in Eastern region and lower in Ulaanbaatar

28. Poverty trends
Urban poverty remains stable
2016

29. Poverty trends
Poverty rate by source of income, type of housing, gender and education of household head

30. Decomposition of poverty changes into growth and inequality components
What is the effect of the growth in mean consumption and the increase in consumption inequality on poverty?
Change in poverty:
- growth of consumption is generally associated with reduction of poverty
- rise in inequality could be expected to increase poverty
Growth component
- real mean consumption had changed
- no change in relative inequalities
Inequality component
- relative inequalities had changed
- no change in real mean consumption

31. Decomposition of poverty changes into growth and inequality components
Between 2014 and 2016 :
Poverty
Headcount
Gap
Severity
National
Change in poverty
8.0
2.5
1.0
Growth component
7.3
2.3
Inequality component
0.7
0.2
0.0
Urban
8.3
0.9
7.8
1.1
0.5
-0.2
Rural
8.5
3.0
1.2
6.6
2.0
0.8
0.4
If inequality had not changed, the poverty would have increased by 7.3 points due to decrease in consumption. If average consumption had not changed, the poverty would have increased by 0.7 points due to increase in inequality component. Because of these two factors the poverty growth is 8.0 points.

32. 4. HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND CONSUMPTION

33. Household income and consumption

34. Decomposition of poverty changes by growth in income sources
Household income and consumption
Decomposition of poverty changes by growth in income sources

35. 5. IMPACT OF SOCIAL PROTECTION AND ASSISTANCE

36. Social protection coverage
Impact of social protection and assistance
Social protection coverage
Household
Population
Total
89.4
94.3
Social protection and assistance
87.4
93.4
Retirement pensions
29.2
24.6
Maternity, new born and postnatal nursing mothers benefit
8.9
12.1
Disability pension
11.3
13.0
Survivor pension
2.1
2.4
Child money*
63.9
79.4
Other
26.2
30.0
*- Members of households receiving Child Money are included child money beneficiaries

37. Social protection coverage and distribution
Impact of social protection and assistance
Social protection coverage and distribution
Total
Poor
Non-poor
2014
2016
Direct and indirect beneficiaries
Social protection programs
93.2
93.4
98.4
98.6
91.8
91.3
Child money
76.5
79.4
18.7
94.2
25.9
73.2
Retirement pension
22.3
24.2
16.7
19.3
23.8
26.3

38. Social protection coverage and distribution by quintile, 2016
Impact of social protection and assistance
Social protection coverage and distribution by quintile, 2016

39. Average per capita social protection benefits
Impact of social protection and assistance
Average per capita social protection benefits
2014
2016
Thousand tugrugs

40. Distribution of social protection beneficiaries
Impact of safety net
Distribution of social protection benefits
Distribution of social protection beneficiaries
2016 он
Poor
Non-poor
As of 2016, 31% of social protection beneficiaries were poor and remaining 69% non poor.
As of 2016, 20% of social protection program benefits were distributed to poor and remaining 80% to non-poor.

41. Share in consumption, national average, 2016
Impact of safety net
Share in consumption, national average, 2016
Share of social protection program benefits, pensions and remittances

42. Per capita share of social protection benefits, 2016
Impact of safety net
Per capita share of social protection benefits, 2016
Share social protection benefits, pensions and remittances in consumption is higher among poor than non-poor.

43. Impact of social protection programs
Impact of social protection and assistance
Impact of social protection programs
Poverty headcount
Poverty gap
Poverty severity
2014
2016
National average
21.6
29.6
5.2
7.7
1.9
2.9
All social protection
36.7
47.1
14.4
21.2
8.5
13.7
Child money
24.6
33.3
6.6
9.6
2.7
4.0
Disability pensions
23.8
32.5
9.7
2.8
4.3

44. Impact of social protection programs in reduction of inequality
Impact of social protection and assistance
Impact of social protection programs in
reduction of inequality
GINI coefficient
Teil indices
2014
2016
National average
0.320
0.323
0.186
0.190
All social protection
0.386
0.414
0.272
0.315
Child money
0.332
0.337
0.199
0.205
Disability pensions
0.331
0.338
0.198
0.207

45. Impact of social protection and assistance
Overlapping in benefits and pensions
Number of benefits
Хүлээн авсан
тэтгэмжийн тоо

46. Cost and benefit correlation, 2016
Impact of social protection and assistance
Cost and benefit correlation, 2016
Poverty gap estimation during transition /million tugrugs/
Poverty gap
/mln tugrugs/
Difference /mln tugrugs/ (dPG)
Monthly spent monetary value /mln tugrugs/ (X)
Cost and benefit (dPG0/X)
All social protection
93,613.7
34,130.2
59,483.4
144,280.8
0.41
Child money
42,261.6
8,131.4
19,590.9
0.42
Disability pension
42,955.4
8,825.2
19,174.1
0.46
As of 2016, Mongolia needs 34.1 billion tugrugs for poverty eradication. If all kinds of social protection programs would have not applied, this amount would increase to 93.6 billion tugrugs.
Monthly the social protection programs have contributed 59.5 billion tugrugs for decreasing the poverty gap. Monthly the population has received billion tugrugs from social welfare programs. Correlation of poverty gap reduction cost per 1 tugrug is 0.41, meaning poverty gap is reduced by 0.4 tugrugs for every 1 tugrug spent.

47. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
Government Building 3
Baga Toiruu-44
Ulaanbaatar-20а, Мongolia Tel: (976) Fax: (976)
Website: