Who is being left behind in Asia? - 60 years of impact · Who is being left behind in Asia? 5...

Who is being left behind in Asia? An illustration in Bangladesh and VietnamTanvi Bhatkal with Chiara Mariotti

Report

2016

Overseas Development Institute203 Blackfriars RoadLondon SE1 8NJ

Tel. +44 (0) 20 7922 0300 Fax. +44 (0) 20 7922 0399 E-mail: [email protected]

www.odi.org www.odi.org/facebook www.odi.org/twitter

Readers are encouraged to reproduce material from ODI Reports for their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. As copyright holder, ODI requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. For online use, we ask readers to link to the original resource on the ODI website. The views presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of ODI.

© Overseas Development Institute 2016. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Licence (CC BY-NC 3.0).

ISSN: 2052-7209

Cover photo: A market in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Photo by Scott Bleggi/Bread for the World Institute

Who is being left behind in Asia? 3

Contents

Key messages 6

Acknowledgements 7

Acronyms 8

Introduction 9

Diversity and marginalisation in Bangladesh 11

Monetary poverty 12

Access to basic services 15

Education and health 17

A narrowing gap? Discussion of inequality in Bangladesh 21

Ethnicity and marginalisation in Vietnam 24

Monetary poverty 25

Access to basic services 27

Education and health 29

Mind the gap: discussion of Vietnam’s results 34

Conclusion 37

References 38

Appendix 1: Methodological note 41

Appendix 2: List of indicators 42

Appendix 3: Upper poverty line in Bangladesh, 2005 and 2010 (local currency: taka) 43

List of tables, figures and boxes

Tables

Table 1: Population by groups (%) 12

Table 2: Distribution of disability by age group, 2010 (%) 13

Table 3: Share of household consumption expenditure by quintile, 2005 and 2010 (%) 13

Table 4: Poverty rate by place of residence, 2005 and 2010 (%) 13

Table 5: Poverty rate by gender of household head and location, 2005 and 2010 (%) 14

Table 6: Sanitation coverage by gender of household head and location, 2005 and 2010 (%) 15

Table 7: Electricity coverage by location and gender of household head, 2005 and 2010 (%) 17

Table 9: Population by groups (%) 25

Table 10: Share of households in the lowest wealth quintile by ethnic group, 2006 and 2011 (%) 26

Table 11: Share of households belonging to lowest wealth quintile, by region, 2006 and 2011 (%) 26

Table 12: Education poverty, by ethnicity and gender, 2006 and 2011 (%) 30

Table 13: Child deaths by region, 2006 and 2011 (%) 31

Table 14: Evolution of gaps, 2006-2011 34

Figures

Figure 1: Likelihood of being poor by gender of household head, 2005 and 2010 (%) 14

Figure 2: Poverty rate by disability status and age of household head, 2010 14

Figure 3: Likelihood of having improved sanitation by gender of household head, 2005 and 2010 (%) 15

Figure 4: Likelihood of improved sanitation by religion for de jure female-headed households, 2005 and 2010 (%) 16

Figure 5: Likelihood of having electricity by gender of household head and age, 2005 and 2010 (%) 17

Figure 6: Likelihood of owning a mobile phone by disability status and age of household head, 2010 (%) 18

Figure 7: Literacy rate by age group and gender, 2005 and 2010 18

Figure 8: Likelihood of being literate by gender and location, 2005 and 2010 (%) 18

Figure 9: Likelihood of being literate by gender and disability, 2010 (%) 19

4 ODI Report


Figure 10: Share of children (0-5 years) with measles vaccine by religion and gender, 2005 and 2010 (%) 19

Figure 11: Likelihood of giving birth with a skilled birth attendant by gender of household head and location, 2005 and

2010 (%) 20

Figure 12: Likelihood of being in the lowest wealth quintile for ethnic minorities, by region, 2006 and 2011 (%) 27

Figure 13: Access to improved drinking water source, by region and ethnic group, 2006 and 2011 27

Figure 14: Likelihood of access to improved drinking water source, by ethnicity and location, 2006 and 2011 (%) 28

Figure 15: Likelihood of improved sanitation, by ethnicity and region, 2006 and 2011 (%) 28

Figure 16: Likelihood of using clean fuel by ethnicity, 2006 and 2011 (%) 29

Figure 17: Likelihood of using clean fuel, by ethnicity and region, 2006 and 2011 (%) 29

Figure 18: Likelihood of having less than four years of schooling, by ethnicity, 2006 and 2011 (%) 30

Figure 19: Likelihood of child death, by ethnicity, 2006 and 2011 (%) 31

Figure 20: Likelihood of child death, by region and ethnicity, 2006 and 2011 (%) 32

Figure 21: Likelihood of child receiving measles vaccine, by ethnicity, 2006 and 2011 (%) 32

Figure 22: Antenatal care coverage, by ethnicity and location, 2006 and 2011 33

Figure 23: Likelihood of receiving antenatal care, by ethnicity and wealth quintile, 2006 and 2011 (%) 33

Boxes

Box 1: A note on the methodology 10

Box 2: Improvements in gender-based inequalities in Bangladesh 22

Box 3: Inclusion of people with disabilities in Cambodia 23

Box 4: Regions and ethnic groups in Vietnam 24

Box 5: Affirmative action and indigenous rights in Nepal 35

Box 6: Two-pronged approach to reducing ethnic and regional inequality in China 36

Key messages • TheSustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDGs)statethat

progressmustleavenoonebehind.Thispaperisoneofaseriesofpaperssettingoutthefirststepalongtheroadinimplementingthisagenda–thatofidentifyingmarginalisedcommunities.

• UsinghouseholdsurveydataforBangladeshandVietnam,thispaperidentifiesthegapsforsomemarginalisedgroupsinachievinganumberofoutcomesrelatedtokeySDGtargets.

• InBangladesh,householdsheadedbywomenthatarewidowed,separatedornevermarriedfaredworseonarangeofoutcomescomparedwiththeircounterpartsheadedbymenormarriedwomen;however,thereweresizeableimprovementsovertime.Whiletheprobabilityofbeingpoorforde jure female-headedhouseholdswas1.9timesthatofde facto female-headedhouseholdsin2005,thishaddeclinedto1.5timesin2010.

• Householdsheadedbyolderpeoplealsohavelowerlevelsofaccesstoinfrastructureandsocialservicesinsomeinstances,particularlythoseheadedbyolderwomenthatarewidowed,separatedornevermarried.Progressonreducingthegapsforthesehouseholdswasmoremixed.Basedondatafor2010,householdswithdisabledmembersalsofareworseonarangeofoutcomes.Thisgroupdeservesattentionwhenimplementingpoliciesto‘leavenoonebehind’.

• EthnicityandregionarekeymarkersofsocialexclusioninVietnam.Ethnicminoritiescontinuetounderperformcomparedwiththeethnicmajority.In2006,theprobabilityofbeinginthebottomwealthquintileforhouseholdsheadedbyanethnicminoritywas3.2timesthatofthemajoritygroupcounterpart,whichincreasedto3.5by2011.

6 ODI Report


AcknowledgementsTheauthorsaregratefulforhelpfuldiscussionswithandcommentsfromcolleaguesEmmaSamman,ElizabethStuart,MariaQuattri,LauraRodriguez-TakeuchiandClaireMelamed(allODI).TheyarealsothankfulforcommentsfromAndrewShepherd(ODI),JoseManuelRoche(SavetheChildren)andKatsushiImai(UniversityofManchester).ThanksalsotoBinayakSen(BangladeshInstituteofDevelopmentStudies),BobBaulch(RMIT

InternationalUniversityVietnam)andKeetieRoelen(IDS)forlendingustheirtimeandsharingtheirknowledgewithus.Thispaperisanoutputofthefollowingprojects:‘Buildingapost-2015sustainabledevelopmentagreement’and‘Effectiveinternationaldevelopmentactionbeyond2015’.Detailsofcurrentfundersoftheprojectcanbefoundonline.Theusualdisclaimersapply.

AcronymsADB Asian Development Bank

CDC Center for Disease Control

CPAN Chronic Poverty Advisory Network

CDPO Cambodian Disabled People’s Organisation

ESCAP UN Economic Commission for Asia and the Pacific

HIES Household Income and Expenditure Survey

LNOB Leave No One Behind

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey

PPP Purchasing Power Parity

RMG Ready-Made Garments

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

UN United Nations

UNDP UN Development Programme

UNICEF UN Children’s Fund

VASS Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences

WDI World Development Indicators

WHO World Health Organization

8 ODI Report


Introduction

Overthepast15years,countriesinAsiaandthePacific1havemadesignificantprogresstowardsmeetingtheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDGs).Theproportionofpeoplelivinginextremepoverty–definedasthoselivingon$1.25adayorless–fellfrom53%in1990to14%in2012,andisprojectedtoreach12%in2015(ESCAPetal.,2015).Inaddition,theproportionofpeoplewithoutaccesstosafedrinkingwaterhasfallenbythreequarters,from28%to7%.Theregionhasalsomaderemarkableadvancesineducation,withnearlyallprimary-agedchildrennowcompletingschoolandgenderparityatalleducationallevels(ibid.).

South-EastAsiahasbeenthemostsuccessfulsub-region,notablyachievingthreetargetsmissedbytheregionoverall:childnutrition,sanitationandantenatalcare(ESCAPetal.,2015).SouthAsiahasalsomadeconsiderableprogress,meetingtheMDGtargetsofhalvingextremepoverty,ensuringuniversalenrolmentinprimaryschoolanditscompletion,andhalvingtheshareofpeoplewithoutaccesstosafedrinkingwater.

However,suchaveragesconcealdifferenceswithinandacrosscountries,whichareoftenquitesignificantandindicateanextensiveunfinishedagenda.Inequalityisagrowingconcern.Althoughtheregionhasexperiencedrapideconomicgrowthoverthepast15years,itsbenefitshavebeendistributedunequally.TheGinicoefficient2forAsiaasawholeincreasedfrom33.5inthe1990sto37.5(ESCAP,2013)–althoughitremainsmoreequalthanAfricaorLatinAmerica.

Withincountries,considerabledisparitiespersistbetweenurbanandruralareas,menandwomenandethnic,languageandcastegroups(ESCAPetal.,2013).Group-basedinequalitiesemergenotonlyinincometermsbutalsoinvariousaspectsofdevelopment,suchaseducation,housingandaccesstoservices.Theseinequalitiesplayoutthroughthesystematicexclusionofsomegroupsandasmultipleformsofdeprivationoverlapandreinforceoneanother.TheMDGexperiencedemonstratesitisinadequatemerelytostatethatthetargetmustbemetbyallwhilefocusingonaggregates(Kabeer,2011;Melamed,2012;UNSystemTaskTeam,2011):goingforward,countriesneedtofocusonimprovingthelivesofthosemostinneed.

Recognisingthatnotallgroupshavebenefitedfromprogress,thecommitmentto‘leavenoonebehind’(LNOB)hasbeenakeyfeatureofthediscussionsaroundtheSustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDGs).ThefinalSDGoutcomedocumentmakesnumerousreferencestotheconcept,andalsostatesthat‘weemphasizetheresponsibilitiesofallStates…torespect,protectandpromotehumanrightsandfundamentalfreedomsforall,withoutdistinctionofanykindastorace,colour,sex,language,religion,politicalorotheropinion,nationalorsocialorigin,property,birth,disabilityorotherstatus’(UN,2015).Goal10oftheSDGsisto‘reduceinequalitywithinandamongcountries’withatargettotheeffectthat,by2030,allcountriesshould‘empowerandpromotethesocial,economicandpoliticalinclusionofall,irrespectiveofage,sex,disability,race,ethnicity,origin,religionoreconomicorotherstatus’.

Yet,whattheLNOBprinciplemeansinpracticeremainsunclear(SavetheChildren,2015).Andthereisamorefundamentalproblemstill:governmentsdonotalwaysknowwhothemostmarginalisedare,wheretheyliveandthereforewhattheyneed,becauseofdatagaps(Stuartetal.,2015).Melamed(2015)hasproposedthat,asthefirststepinimplementingthisagenda,countriescommittoidentifythegroupsbeingleftfurthestbehindbyprogressondifferentgoalsintheircountrieswithinthefirstthreeyearsofanewagreement.GovernmentcouldthereaftershareexperiencesandmakecommitmentstoimplementpoliciestoaddressthevulnerabilitiesmarginalisedpeoplefaceataglobalLNOBsummit.

Thispaperisoneinaseriesofthreeregionalbriefingsthataimstocarryoutthisexerciseofidentifyingmarginalisedgroups.Init,weexamineinequalitiesthroughagrouplenstoaidinidentifyingwhoisbeingleftbehind,animportantfirststepinaddressingimpedimentstotheirprogress.Usinghouseholdsurveydatafortwolowermiddle-incomecountriesfromdifferentsub-regionsinAsia(BangladeshandVietnam),weidentifysomeofthegroupsbeingleftbehindandbyhowmuchtheirperformanceislagging,acrosssomekeydevelopmentareas.Wealsoexamineandrevealtrendsingroup-basedinequalityovertime.

Thisbriefingis,ofcourse,intendedtobeillustrativeratherthanexhaustive.Whilethehouseholdsurveysused

1 AspertheUNdefinition,AsiaPacificincludesEastandNorth-EastAsia,South-EastAsia,SouthAsia,NorthandCentralAsiaandthePacific.

2 TheGiniindexmeasurestheextenttowhichthedistributionofincome(orconsumptionexpenditure)withinaneconomydeviatesfromaperfectlyequaldistribution,withavalueof0representingperfectequalityand100implyingperfectinequality.

containawealthofinformation,theyalsohavecertainlimitationsinidentifyingwhichgroupshavebeenleftfurthestbehind(Box1).

Wefocusoninequalitiesassociatedwithgender,disabilitystatusandageinBangladesh,andonethnicandregionaldisparitiesinVietnam.Thegroupswelookat

arethoseidentifiedintheliteratureonleversofinequalityinthesecountriesandareidentifiedwithintheSDGsasbeingoftenleftbehind.Weidentifytheextentofthesegroup-basedinequalities,aswellashowtheseinequalitiesintersectwitheachother.

10 ODI Report

Box 1: A note on data and methodology

TheanalysispresentedhereisbasedontheanalysisoftheBangladeshHouseholdIncomeandExpenditureSurvey(HIES)for2005and2010conductedbytheBangladeshBureauofStatistics,andtheVietnamMultipleIndicatorClusterSurvey(MICS)for2006and2011conductedbytheUNChildren’sFund(UNICEF)andtheVietnamNationalStatisticsOffice.InBangladesh,thefocusisoninequalitiesbasedongender,ageanddisabilitystatus.InVietnamitisonethnicandregionaldisparities.

Thesurveyscontainawealthofvaluableinformationbutalsosuffersomelimitationsofidentifyingthemostmarginalisedandthedimensionsinwhichtheyexperiencedeprivation.Someoftheseapplytohouseholdsurveysmoregenerally.Forexample,itisestimatedthathouseholdsurveysmayexcludeasmanyas350millionpeople:bydesign,samplingframestendtoexcludethehomeless,peopleininstitutionsandmobile,nomadicorpastoralistpopulations;inpractice,theyalsotendtounderrepresentpeoplelivinginurbanslums,dangerousplacesandfragileortransienthouseholds(Carr-Hill,2013).Householdsurveysalsotypicallydonotcapturetheintra-householddistributionofresources.

InBangladesh,the2010HIESincludedthecorequestionnairefromtheWashingtonGrouponDisabilityStatistics(CenterforDiseaseControl,2006).Onestrengthisitsidentificationofpersonswithdisabilitiesbytype,althoughthisisavailableonlyfor2010.However,asitsfocusisonincomeandexpenditure,thesurveyincludesonlylimitedinformationonkeysocialdevelopmentoutcomessuchashealthandnutrition.

TheVietnamMICSsampleincludesdataonsomeofthemajorethnicgroupsbutdoesnotallowforidentifyingdifferencesbetweenmorethan35indigenousgroupsinthecountryasthesegroupsarerelativelysmallinsize.Inaddition,forthoseethnicgroupsthatareuniquelyidentified,thesamplesizesofthesepopulationsareverylimitedandsothesehavebeenaggregatedinthedataanalysis.

Withtheselimitationsinmind,theanalysisinthispaperaimstoidentifytheextentofgroup-basedinequalitiesinBangladeshandVietnam.IndicatorswereselectedfromacrossarangeofoutcomesthatcanbeillustrativeofkeySDGareas(seeAppendix2foracompletelistoftheindicatorsusedineachcountryandtheirmeasurement).AlthoughtheSDGsalsocoverissuesbeyondthese,datainthesurveyswereinsufficienttolookcomprehensivelyatalltheindicatorsfeaturedintheSDGs.

Weprovidedescriptivestatisticsontheextentandtrendsindisparities.Wethenestimatethedifferencegroupcharacteristicsmake–aloneandinconjunction–totheprobabilityofexperiencingacertainoutcomeconditionalonthecharacteristicsofapersonorhousehold.Thisisdonethrougharegressionmodelforabinary(yes/no)dependentvariable(detailsofmethodologyusedinAppendix1).Theresultsarereportedintermsofthepredictedprobability–theprobabilityofhavingacertainoutcomeforhouseholdsorpeoplebelongingtocertaingroupsorattheintersectionoftwogroups–afterholdingarangeofotherfactorsconstant.Theadvantageofthisapproach,comparedwithamoresimpledescriptionofaverageoutcomesfordifferentgroups,isitallowsforisolatingtheeffectoffactorsfromthatoftheothercharacteristicsthatmayinfluenceoutcomes.Forinstance,toestimatethedifferencebeingmaleorfemalemakestobeingliterate,thelikelihoodoftheoutcomeisfirstcalculatedforallindividualsasiftheywerefemaleandthenrepeatedbutthistimeasifallindividualsweremale.Thedifferencebetweenabasecategory(female)andmales,inthiscase,canthenbecalculated.


Diversity and marginalisation in Bangladesh

Bangladeshistheworld’seighthmostpopulouscountry.Withapopulationofnearly160millionpeoplespreadoveralandmassof130,000km2,itisoneofthemostdenselypopulatedcountries(WorldBank,WorldDevelopmentIndicators(WDI)).

AfterseparatingfromPakistanin1971,Bangladeshexperiencedfamine,recurrentdisastersandaprotractedperiodofauthoritarianrule.However,ithasmaderemarkableprogressonawiderangeofoutcomesoverthepasttwodecades.Withsteadyeconomicgrowth,Bangladeshrecentlygraduatedfrombeingalow-toalower-middleincomecountry(WorldBank,2015).Theshareofthepopulationlivingonlessthan$1.25adayremainshigh,butithasdeclinedsignificantlyfrom70%in1991to59%in2000andto43%in2010(WDI).Inaddition,humandevelopmentoutcomeshaveprogressedmarkedly–includingchildmortalityandunder-nutrition,maternalmortality,andgenderparityinprimaryandsecondaryeducation(BangladeshPlanningCommission,2013;CPAN,2014).

Notwithstandingthisprogress,itisimportanttoexaminetheremaininggaps.Thissectionillustrates3levelsandtrendsofgroup-basedinequalitiesinacountrycontextofsignificantprogressbutcontinuingpoverty.Welookspecificallyatinequalitiesrelatedtogender,ageanddisabilitystatus,4andhowtheseinequalitiesoverlap.Inaddition,weexaminegapsbasedonlocationandreligion.Giventhelargenumberofcombinationsinvolvedinexamininginequalitiesbasedonthedifferentgroupsandtheirintersections,wediscussselectedgroup-basedinequalitiesandtheirintersectionsinthissection.

Table1showsthecompositionofthepopulationin2005and2010asreportedintheBangladeshHIES.Theshareofpeoplelivinginurbanareasincreased

slightlybetween2005and2010.TheregionsofDhakaandChittagong–whichcontainthetwobiggestcities–containedabouthalfthenationalpopulation.

Whiledemographiccharacteristicsremainedfairlyconstantbetween2005and2010,anexceptionwastheshareoffemale-headedhouseholds,whichincreasedovertheperiod.Wedistinguishbetweentwotypesoffemale-headedhouseholds:thoseheadedbywidows,womenseparatedfrompartners,orthosenevermarried–likelytobede jure(legalandcustomary)headsoftheirhouseholds–whichaccountedfor6.7%ofhouseholdsin2005and8.1%ofhouseholdsin2010.Thesecond,headedbymarriedwomenwhosehusbandsliveaway,forinstancehavingmigratedforwork,aregenerallyde factoheads(husbandsmaycontributetoincomeanddecision-making).Theshareofthesehouseholdsnearlydoubledoverfiveyearsto5.8%in2010.Forconvenience,werefertothesetwotypesasde jure andde facto female-headedhouseholds,respectively.Thewidedifferencesbetweenthetwogroupssuggestitisnotenoughtoknowthegenderofthehouseholdhead,asthedifferencesinthelivedexperienceofthesewomenmakesadifferenceandillustratestheimportanceofsurveysaskingmoregranularquestions.

Themajorityofhouseholds–over80%inbothyears–hadheadswhowereunder60yearsofage.However,theshareofhouseholdswitholderheadsincreasedbetween2005and2010,forbothhouseholdheadsbetween60and79yearsandthoseover80years.

In2010,about9%ofpeopleinBangladeshreportedadisability.Ofthosewithdisabilities,thevastmajority–overfourinfive–hadamoderate,asopposedtosevere,disability.Incidenceofdisabilitywashigheramongolderpeople(Table2):comparedwiththepopulationaverageof9%ofpeoplehavingadisability,thissharewasaboutathird

3 Alltablesandfiguresarebasedontheauthor’scalculationsbasedonHIES2005and2010unlessotherwisestated.

4 TheBangladeshHIESincludesthecoremoduleendorsedbytheWashingtonGrouponDisabilityStatistics.Thisincludesquestionsrelatingtovision,hearing,walkingorclimbing,rememberingorconcentrating,self-careandspeakingorcommunicating,anddistinguishestheirseverity.Whilethesequestionsstillmisscertainsubpopulations,suchasthosewithmentalhealthconditions,theygeneratearecognisablegroupthatencompassesamajorityofpeoplewithdisabilities.Additionally,questionsidentifypeoplewithconditionsseriousenoughtolimittheabilitytocareforthemselves,andchallengesremembering,concentratingandcommunicatinghelpidentifypeoplewithpsychologicalandmentaldisabilities.

amongpeoplebetween60and69years–andprogressivelyincreasedtoabouttwo-thirdsamongpeopleover90years.

Overall,whilemanyoftheinequalitiesthissectionexploresarelikelytooccurindependently(e.g.thereisnostrongrelationshipbetweenbeinginafemale-headedhouseholdandbeingdisabled),insomeinstancesgroup-basedcharacteristicsmayberelated,asinthecaseofageanddisability.

Itisalsoworthmentioningendogeneityconsiderations.Forinstance,whilelocationaffectspovertystatusoraccesstoservices,equallythelatteraffectsplaceofresidencethroughmigrationovertime.Similarly,disabilitymaybebothacauseandaconsequenceofpoverty.Ontheotherhand,genderandreligionaremoreexogenous.Whileimportanttokeepinmind,thisdiscussionisbeyondthescopeandintentofthispaper,whichwillfocusonassociationsratherthancausation.

Monetary poverty

Key message

• Theprobabilityofbeingpoorwasthehighestfordejurefemale-headedhouseholds.By2010,theyrecordedconsiderableimprovements.Whiletheprobabilityofbeingpoorformembersofdejurefemale-headedhouseholdswas1.9timesthatofdefactofemale-headedhouseholdsin2005,thisdeclinedto1.5timesin2010.

InBangladesh,averageincomehasbeenrisingandpovertyhasfallen.TheGinicoefficientfellfrom0.39in2005to0.35in2010.Thisimprovementresultedfromrisingconsumptionamongallfourlowerquintilescoupledwithafallintheshareofthetopquintile.Whilethebottomquintileaccountedfor7%oftotalconsumptionin2005,thisincreasedto8%in2010(Table3).Theshareofthe

5 Bangladeshhastwopovertylines–alower(extremepoor)andupper(poor)povertyline–eachofwhichisdifferentiatedbyregionandseparatelyforurbanandruralareas.SeeAppendix3forelaborationonpovertylinesused.Theshareofpoorbasedon$1.25was43.3%in2010(WorldDevelopmentIndicators)comparedwith31.6%attheupperpovertyline.

12 ODI Report

Table 1: Population by groups (%)

Category Group 2005 2010

Place of residence Rural 75.3 73.7

Urban 24.7 26.3

Region Barisal 6.4 6.3

Chittagong 19.3 19.0

Dhaka 32.2 32.8

Khulna 11.7 11.9

Rajshahi** 24.0 23.8

Sylhet 6.3 6.2

Household head (% of households)

Male headed households 89.8 86.1

De jure female headed households 6.7 8.1

De facto female headed households (married women) 3.5 5.8

Household head under 60 years 81.2 82.1

Household head 60-79 years 15.5 16.2

Household head 80 years and above 1.3 1.7

Disability* No disability 91

Moderate disability 7.5

Severe disability 1.5

Total sample size IndividualsHouseholds

48,97710,080

55,55912,240

Notes: * The analysis includes three categories for the ‘disability’ variables: (i) no disability; (ii) moderate disability; and (iii) severe disability.

The disabilities included are challenges in vision, hearing and walking or climbing; remembering or concentrating and speaking or communicat-

ing; and self-care (e.g. bathing). ** This analysis combines the region of Rangpur, which was formed out of Rajshahi in 2010 and was therefore

counted as Rajshahi in 2005, to maintain consistency.


topquintilefellbyabout7percentagepoints,fromnearly46%tolessthan40%overthisperiod.Inturn,povertyhasfallendramatically.Between2005and2010alone,thepovertyrateatthenational‘upper’povertyline5(usingpercapitahouseholdconsumption)declinedfrom40%to32%.

Povertyratesdifferbylocation:about46%ofpeopleinruralareaswerepoorcomparedwith21%inurbanareasin2005.Thereductioninpovertyoverthenextfiveyearswasdrivenbychangesinruralareas(Table4)–thepovertyheadcountratiofellover10percentagepointsinruralareaswhereastheurbanpovertyratestayedroughlyconstant.Householdcompositionwasalsoassociatedwithpoverty.Ourdatasetdoesnotprovideinformationonthedistributionofresourceswithinhouseholds,soweexaminedifferencesinpovertybasedoncharacteristicsofhouseholdmembersandtheheadofthehousehold.

Inboth2005and2010,incidenceofpovertywasloweramongpeoplebelongingtofemale-headedhouseholdsthan

inmale-headedhouseholdsonaverage.However,de jureandde facto female-headedhouseholdsdiffersignificantly(Table5).Thepovertyratewasroughlythesameforpeopleinmale-headedhouseholdsandde jure female-headedhouseholdsandinlinewiththeoverallpovertyrateinbothyears.Incontrast,onlyabout20%ofpeoplebelongingtode facto female-headedhouseholdswerepoorinbothyears.Theseincludehouseholdswhereanadultmanhasmigratedandmayberemittingmoneytothefamily,whichcouldcontributetolowerincidenceofpoverty.

However,thereweredifferencesbetweenurbanandruralareas.Inruralareas,thedifferenceinincidenceofpovertybetweenmale-headedandde jure female-headedhouseholdswasnotstatisticallysignificantinbothyears.Incontrast,in2005,incidenceofpovertywashigheramongde jure female-headedhouseholds,26%comparedwith20%amongmale-headedhouseholds.However,by2010de jure female-headedhouseholdshadcaughtup.

Table 3: Share of household consumption expenditure by quintile, 2005 and 2010 (%)

Income quintile (20%)

Share of households 2005 2010 Difference

Expenditure share Cumulative share Expenditure share Cumulative share (percentage points)

1 20 6.9 6.9 8.1 8.1 1.2

2 20 10.8 17.7 12.5 20.6 1.7

3 20 14.8 32.5 16.6 37.2 1.8

4 20 21.0 53.6 23.3 60.5 2.2

5 20 46.4 100.0 39.5 100.0 -6.9

Table 4: Poverty rate by place of residence, 2005 and 2010 (%)

Year Rural Urban Total

Share 95% Confidence interval Share 95% Confidence interval Share 95% Confidence interval

2005 45.9 LB 45.4 UB 46.5 20.5 LB 19.9 UB 21.0 39.7 LB 39.3 UB 40.1

2010 35.1 LB 33.0 UB 37.2 21.7 LB 19.2 UB 24.5 31.6 LB 29.9 UB 33.3

Change -10.8 1.2 -8.1

Note: LB=lower bound, and UB=upper bound of the estimate

Table 2: Distribution of disability by age group, 2010 (%)

Disability status Age

10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99

No disability 97 97 92 85 76 66 50 35 33

Moderate disability 2 3 7 14 21 29 39 44 42

Severe disability 1 1 1 1 3 6 11 21 25

Itisusefultolookatthelikelihoodofbeingpoorholdingothercharacteristicsconstantinordertoisolatetheeffectofspecificcharacteristics.FollowingthemethodologyinBox1,theprobabilityofbeingpoorwasthehighestforde jure female-headedhouseholdsin2005andlowestforde facto female-headedhouseholdsinboth2005and2010(Figure1).However,overthefiveyears,de jure female-headedhouseholds(andmale-headedhouseholds)recordedconsiderableimprovements.Asaresult,thegapintheprobabilityofbeingpoorbetweenpeopleinde jure andde facto female-headedhouseholdsreducedby8percentagepoints.Whiletheprobabilityofbeingpoorformembersofde jure female-headedhouseholdswas1.9timesthatofde facto female-headedhouseholdsin2005,thisdeclinedto1.5timesin2010.

In2010,somedifferencesinpovertyratewereassociatedwithwhetherahouseholdhadoneormorememberswithdisabilities.Thepovertyratewashigheramongpeopleinhouseholdswithatleastonedisabledmember,particularlywheretheheadwasmorethan80yearsold(Figure2).Incidencewasslightlyhigheramongthosewithseveredisabilities.However,whencontrolling

forothercharacteristics,thereisnosignificantdifferenceinlikelihoodsbetweenthesegroups.

14 ODI Report

Table 5: Poverty rate by gender of household head and location, 2005 and 2010 (%)

Location Household head 2005 2010

Share 95% Confidence interval Share 95% Confidence interval

Rural Male 47 LB 46 UB 48 36 LB 34 UB 38

De jure female 43 LB 40 UB 46 32 LB 28 UB 37

De facto female 20 LB 18 UB 23 23 LB 18 UB 28

Urban Male 20 LB 20 UB 21 22 LB 20 UB 25



Total Male 40 LB 40 UB 41 32 LB 31 UB 34




Figure 1: Likelihood of being poor by household head’s gender, 2005 and 2010 (%)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

De facto female De jure female Male

-2006

-2011

Figure 2: Poverty rate by disability status and age of household head, 2010

10% 30% 40%20%0%Poverty

Severe disability

Moderate disability

No disability

80+

60-79

Under 60

80+

60-79

Under 60

80+

60-79

Under 60


Access to basic services

Key messages

• Amongmale-headedhouseholds,MuslimandHinduhouseholdswereabout12percentagepointsmorelikelytohavesanitationthantheotherminorityreligionsin2005,whichincreasedto20percentagepointsby2010.Theywere1.3timesaslikelytohavesanitationthanthelatterin2005comparedto1.7timesin2010.

• De facto female-headedhouseholdsbelongingtotheMuslimmajoritywere2.3timesaslikelyasde jure female-headedhouseholdsofreligiousminoritiestohavesanitationin2005.Thisratioincreasedconsiderably,to2.8,in2010.

• Electricitycoverageamongde jure female-headedhouseholdswassignificantlylowerthanamongde facto female-headedandmale-headedhouseholdsinbothruralandurbanareas:34%ofruraland85%ofurbande jure female-headedhouseholdshadelectricityin2010.

AccesstoimprovedsourcesofdrinkingwaterwashighinBangladesh–withcoverageexceeding95%inboth2005and2010.Differencesassociatedwithlivinginurbanorruralareasorwiththecharacteristicsofthehouseholdhead,thedisabilitystatusofhouseholdmembersorevenconsumptionquintilewereveryfew.Coverageexceeded90%inallregions.Althoughtheremaybedifferencesinqualityofwater,duetodatalimitationsandforbrevity,thissectionfocusesonotherindicatorsofbasicservices.Onlyabouthalfofhouseholdshadaccesstoimprovedsanitationinboth2005and2010.Asmaybeexpected,thereisawealtheffect:in2010,one-thirdofhouseholdsinthebottomquintilebenefitedfromimprovedsanitationcomparedwith82%inthetopquintile.

Inaddition,urbanhouseholdsfaredmuchbetterthantheirruralcounterparts.About43%ofruralhouseholdsusedimprovedsanitationfacilitiesin2010comparedwith

69%ofurbanhouseholds.However,worryingly,coverageinurbanareasdeterioratedoverthefive-yearperiodby11percentagepoints,whileitimprovedslightly,by2percentagepoints,inruralareas.

Therewerealsovariationsassociatedwithcharacteristicsofthehouseholdhead(Table6).In2010,amongde jure female-headedhouseholds,onlyaboutathirdofruralandtwo-thirdsofurbanhouseholdshadimprovedsanitationaccess.Incomparison,41%and58%ofmale-headedhouseholds,and77%and74%ofde factofemale-headedhouseholdsinruralandurbanareas,respectively,hadimprovedsanitation.Inequalityincoveragedeclinedbetween2005and2010inbothruralandurbanareas.

Thelikelihoodofhavingimprovedsanitationfacilitieswaslowestamongde jurefemale-headedhouseholds(Figure3).Onaverage,thesewere13percentagepointslesslikelythande facto female-headedhouseholdsand8percentagepointslesslikelythanmale-headedhouseholdstohaveimprovedsanitationin2010.Between2005and2010,thegapbetweende jure female-headedhouseholdsandde facto female-headedhouseholdsreducedby5

Table 6: Sanitation coverage by gender of household head and location, 2005 and 2010 (%)

Household head 2005 2010 Change

Share 95% Confidence interval Share 95% Confidence interval (Percentage points)

Rural

Male 41.3 LB 40.1 UB 42.6 41.4 LB 38.6 UB 44.1 0.0

De jure female 31.7 LB 27.4 UB 36.0 35.1 LB 30.8 UB 39.5 3.4

De facto female 65.6 LB 59.5 UB 71.6 58.4 LB 52.8 UB 64.1 -7.2

Urban

Male 81.2 LB 79.9 UB 82.4 77.0 LB 73.2 UB 80.7 -4.2

De jure female 70.2 LB 63.4 UB 77.1 65.9 LB 56.9 UB 75.0 -4.3

De facto female 87.1 LB 80.1 UB 94.0 73.6 LB 60.2 UB 87.0 -13.4


Figure 3: Likelihood of having improved sanitation by gender of household head, 2005 and 2010 (%)

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010

Male De jure female De facto female

percentagepoints.Inrelativeterms,inequalityreducedslightlyasde facto female-headedhouseholdswere1.4timesaslikelyasde jure female-headedhouseholdstohaveimprovedsanitationin2005and1.3timesin2010.Notallfemale-headedhouseholdsfaredthesame.Forinstance,religionwasassociatedwithconsiderablevariations(Figure4).Overall,religiousminorities–mainlyBuddhistsandChristians(1%ofpopulation)–werelesslikelytohaveimprovedsanitationthantheMuslimmajority(88%ofpopulation)andHindus(11%ofpoulation).However,inequalitybetweenHindusandMuslimscomparedwithotherreligiousminoritiesincreased.Forinstance,amongmale-headedhouseholds,MuslimandHindureligiousgroupswereabout12percentagepointsmorelikelytohavesanitationthantheotherminoritiesin2005,andthisincreasedtoover20percentagepointsby2010.Inrelativeterms,theywere1.3timesaslikelytohavesanitationin2005comparedwithabout1.7timesin2010.

Similartrendsexistbasedongenderofhouseholdheadforallreligiousgroups.De jure female-headedhouseholdsamongthereligiousminoritiesfaredworst.Forinstance,de facto female-headedhouseholdsbelongingtotheMuslimmajoritywere2.3timesaslikelyasde jure female-headedhouseholdsofreligiousminoritiestohavesanitationin2005.Thisratioincreasedconsiderablyto2.8in2010.

Inthecaseofelectricity,coverageimprovedconsiderably.About44%ofhouseholdshadelectricityin2005andthissharehadincreasedto55%by2010.Patternsofinequalityinelectricitycoverageweresimilartomanyofthoseinimprovedsanitationacrossquintiles,locationandreligion,althoughinequalitieswerestarkerforelectricity.Forinstance,onlyaboutaquarterofhouseholds

inthepoorestquintilehadelectricitycomparedwith85%ofhouseholdsintherichestquintilein2010.Coveragewasmuchhigherinurbanareas,where90%ofhouseholdshadelectricity–aboutdoublethatinruralareas.

Electricitycoverageamongde jure female-headedhouseholdswassignificantlylowerthanamongde facto female-headedandmale-headedhouseholdsinbothruralandurbanareas:34%ofruraland85%ofurbande jure female-headedhouseholdshadelectricityin2010(Table7).However,thesituationimprovedovertime.Whilecoverageforde facto female-headedhouseholdswas31percentagepointsmorethanforde jure female-headedhouseholdsinruralareasin2005,thegapdeclinedto25percentagepointsin2010.Forurbanareas,ithaddeclinedfrom17to11percentagepoints.Thegapalsofellinrelativeterms:coverageamongde facto female-headedhouseholdsdeclinedfrom2.4timesthatamongde jure female-headedhouseholdsto1.7times.Householdsheadedbyolderpeople–particularlyolderde jure female-headedhouseholds–hadalowerprobabilityofelectricityaccess(Figure5).In2005,amonghouseholdswheretheheadwas80yearsorabove,probabilityofhavingelectricityforde facto female-headedhouseholdswas20percentagepointshigherthanforde jure female-headedhouseholds–or1.6timesashigh.By2010,thisgaphaddeclinedinabsoluteandrelativeterms:theprobabilitywas1.3timesthatofde jure female-headedhouseholds,or15percentagepoints.Notonlythegapbasedongenderofhouseholdheaddeclinedbutalsothedisparitybetweenyoungerandolderhouseholdheads.Forinstance,forde jure female-headedhouseholdswiththeheadunder60were1.2timesaslikelytohaveelectricityin2005,thedifferencewasstatisticallyinsignificantin2010.

16 ODI Report

Figure 4: Likelihood of improved sanitation by religion for de jure female-headed households, 2005 and 2010 (%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Muslim Hindu Others Muslim Hindu Others Muslim Hindu Others


2005 2010


Finally,accesstocommunicationservicesisalsoimportant.Mobilephonepenetrationhasincreasedexponentially:whileonlyabout11%ofhouseholdsreportingowningamobilephonein2005thishadincreasedto64%in2010.However,thelikelihoodofowningaphoneisinfluencedbyvariousfactors.Therewereconsiderabledifferencesbasedondisabilitystatusandage.Thelikelihoodofhavingaccesstomobilephoneslowestamonghouseholdswheretheheadisover80yearsin2010(Figure6).Thegapbetweenthebestperforminggroup–householdswherenomemberhasadisabilityandthehouseholdheadisunder60years–andthegroupthatfaredworst–householdswithatleastonememberwithaseveredisabilityandwherethehouseholdheadwas80yearsofabove–was26percentagepoints.Householdsintheformergroupwere1.6timesaslikelytohaveamobilephoneasthoseinthelatter.

Education and health

Key messages

• Womeninruralareasfaredconsiderablyworsethantheirurbancounterpartsoneducation.However,theprobabilityofbeingliterateincreasedthemostamongruralwomen.

• Theprobabilityofgivingbirthinthepresenceofaskilledbirthattendantwaslowestinde jure female-headedhouseholdsin2005,buttheymadethelargestimprovements.

EducationalattainmentinBangladeshimprovedbetween2005and2010.Improvementsinliteracywererecordedforallagegroupsforbothmenandwomen.Theliteracyrate6increasedfrom49%in2005to56%in2010amongfemalesandfrom57%to63%amongmales,resultingina

6 Thiswascalculatedforpeoplesevenyearsandabove,withapersonidentifiedasliterateiftheycouldreadaletter.

Table 7: Electricity coverage by location and gender of household head, 2005 and 2010 (%)

Household head Location 2005 2010


Male Rural 31 30 32 42 39 45

Urban 84 82 85 90 88 92

De jure female Rural 23 19 26 34 29 39

Urban 67 60 74 85 80 89

De facto female Rural 54 47 60 59 52 65

Urban 84 78 90 96 93 98

Figure 5: Likelihood of having electricity by household head’s gender and age, 2005 and 2010 (%)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Less than 60 60 to 79 80 andabove




2005 2010

1percentagepointdeclineinthegendergap.Thegapshave,perhapsexpectedly,fallenfasterforyoungerpeople(Figure7).Womeninruralareasfaredconsiderablyworsethantheirurbancounterparts:ruralwomenwere11percentagepointslesslikelytobeliteratethanurbanwomenin2005.However,thedifferencedeclinedto6percentagepointsin

2010.Inturn,probabilityofbeingliterateincreasedthemostamongruralwomen(Figure8):from49%to56%comparedwith59%to62%forurbanwomenandfrom57%to64%forruralmen.Disabilitystatusisalsoassociatedwitheducationoutcomes.Theliteracyrateforpeopleinhouseholdswhereatleastonememberhasamoderatedisabilityisatleastashighasamonghouseholdswherenomemberssufferfromanydisability(thedifferencesarenotstatisticallysignificant).However,perhapsexpectedly,thistrendisreversedinthecaseofseveredisabilities(Figure9).TheHIESdoesnotcontaininformationonnutritionalstatusandchildormaternalmortality.However,itincludesdataonaccesstohealthcare;thissectionexploresdifferencesinimmunisationcoverageandpresenceofaskilledhealthprofessionalduringchildbirth.

Ouranalysisusesthemeaslesvaccineasanindicatorofaccesstochildhealthcare,followingtheMDGindicator7(althoughweexaminecoverageforchildrenunderfiveyears),andasmeaslesistheleadingcauseofchild

18 ODI Report

Figure 6: Likelihood of owning a mobile phone by disability status and age of household head, 2010 (%)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

No disability Moderatedisability

Severedisability


Severedisability


Severedisability

Less than 60 60 to 79 80 and above

Figure 7: Literacy rate by age group and gender, 2005 and 2010

Figure 8: Likelihood of being literate by gender and location, 2005 and 2010 (%)


mortalityamongvaccine-preventablechildhooddiseases(WHO,n.d.).Immunisationcoverage-i.e.,theshareofchildrenunderfiveyearswhoreceivedameaslesvaccinerecordedanimpressiveincrease,from74%in2005to87%in2010.Thedisparitybetweenboysandgirlswasnegligibleinbothyears.

In2005,71%ofruralchildrenwerevaccinatedcomparedwith78%ofurbanchildren.However,thisdisparitywasallbuteliminatedascoverageimprovedin2010toreach87%ofchildreninruralareasand88%inurbanareas.

Gapsbetweenreligionshaveemerged.In2005,coveragewasover70%forbothgirlsandboysirrespectiveof

religion;allgroupshadprogressedby2010buttodifferentextents(Figure10).Childrenfromminorityreligionswere7percentagepointslesslikelytobeimmunisedcomparedwithMuslimchildren(statisticallyinsignificantdifference)andabout10percentagepointslesslikelytobeimmunisedthanHinduchildren,thelargestreligiousminority(statisticallysignificantdifference).

Coverageofhealthcarefacilitiesforchildbirthhasincreased,thoughitremainslowoverall:821%ofwomenwhohadchildrenreportedhavinggivenbirthinthepresenceofaskilledhealthprofessional(doctor,nurseortrainedmidwife)in2005,andthisfigurehadincreasedto

7TheindicatorforimmunisationofchildrenintheMDGsis‘Proportionof1year-oldchildrenimmunizedagainstmeasles’,sinceitslevelofcoverageislikelytorepresentcoverageforotherantigens(BCG,DPTandpolio),andthesearegivenbeforethemeaslesimmunisation.

8 Owingtodatalimitations,thisindicatoriscalculatedbasedonresponsesgivenbywomenofreproductiveage(15to44years),irrespectiveoftheyearinwhichtheygavebirth.

Figure 9: Likelihood of being literate by gender and disability, 2010 (%)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

No disability Moderate disability Severe disability No disability Moderate disability Severe disability

Female Male

Figure 10: Likelihood of children (0-5 years) having measles vaccine by religion and gender, 2005 and 2010 (%)

25%by2010.Theshareofwomenwithaccesstohealthcareprofessionalswaslargerinurbanareas(38%)thaninruralareas(20%).Thelowcoverageindicatesunder-investmentinmaternalhealthoverall.

De jure female-headedhouseholdsfaredtheworstin2005.Theprobabilityofgivingbirthinthepresenceofaskilledbirthattendantinthesehouseholdswas15%inruralareasand32%inurbanareas,comparedwith25%and46%forde facto female-headedhouseholds(Figure

11).However,de jure female-headedhouseholdsmadethelargestimprovementsby2010,reducingthedisparities:theprobabilityofgivingbirthinthepresenceofaskilledattendanthadincreasedby58%inruralareasand40%inurbanareas.Theincreaseforde facto female-headedhouseholds,incontrast,was10%and7%,respectively.Thissuggestsservicesaremakinganefforttoreachouttopeoplepreviouslyexcluded,and/orsocialandinstitutionalchangesarehavinganeffect.

20 ODI Report

Figure 11: Likelihood of giving birth with a skilled birth attendant by household head gender and location, 2005 and 2010 (%)


A narrowing gap? Discussion of inequality in Bangladesh

ThedataanalysisusingBangladesh’sHIESdemonstratesthegapsinvariousindicatorsofwellbeingacrossafewgroup-basedcharacteristics.Whileevidentlyvariousgroup-basedcharacteristicsareassociatedwithhigherlevelsofdeprivationcomparedwiththepopulationaverage(e.g.religion,location)thisanalysishasfocusedongender,ageanddisabilitystatus.

Forgender,welookatfemale-headedhouseholdsandtheindividualoutcomesofgirlsandwomencomparedwithmen.Improvementsareevidentbetween2005and2010intermsofadecliningdisadvantageforde jure female-headedhouseholds.Thegapbetweende jure female-headedhouseholdsandtheothers,notablyde facto female-headedhouseholds–whichfarebestonmostoutcomes–hasdeclined.Thegapsintermsofpovertyandaccesstoserviceshasreduceddramatically,tellingastoryofprogress.Whilede jure female-headedhouseholdscontinuetofareworsethanothertypesofhouseholds,theanalysisreflectssomeconcretegainsinrelativeandabsoluteterms.Similarly,gapsinliteracybetweenmenandwomenhavefallenforallagegroups.Thegainsmadebywomenandde jure female-headedhouseholdsonthewiderangeofoutcomesreflectwiderimprovementsintermsofreducinggender-basedinequalitiesinBangladesh(Box2).

Itisworthnotingthatthisprogresshasoccurredinacontextwherethesharesofbothde jure female-headedandde facto female-headedhouseholdsinthepopulationincreasedmarkedly.Theincreaseintheformerisindicativeofchangingsocialnormswhereasthatinthelatterpointstomigrationpatternsinthecountry.

Apartfromgender-baseddifferences–whichhavebeendeclining–householdsheadedbyoldermembersshowlowerlevelsofaccesstobasicservicesthanothers.Yettheanalysisfoundthat,ascoveragehasincreasedoverall,thegapshavereduced–suchasinthecaseofelectricity.However,thesegroupshavelaggedbehindinmanyrespects.Forinstance,whilemobilephonepenetrationincreasedmanytimesoverbetween2005and2010,ownershipremainslowestamonghouseholdsheadedbyolderpeople.

Thewiderliteratureshowsthathouseholdswitholderheadsormemberstendtobepoorerthanotherhouseholds(MassetandWhite,2004).WhilethishasnotbeenfoundinBangladesh,thismayowetotheselectionbias(lifeexpectancymaybehigheramongthewealthierhouseholds).Nonetheless,goingforward,ageingisaspecificconcernfortheLNOBagendainallcountries.Thisisinparticularbecausetheglobalpopulationisageing:peopleaged60yearsandaboveaccountfor11%oftheglobalpopulation,andisexpectedtoincreaseto22%by2050(SammanandRodriguez-Takeuchi,2013).Thelargestincreaseinpopulationamongtheelderlyisexpectedindevelopingcountries,whichwouldhaveseriousimplicationsforpeopleandalsoforsocialpolicy.

Inaddition,disabilityandoldageareoftenassociatedwithevendeeperdeprivations.Overall,householdshavingamemberwithadisability–particularlyaseveredisability–werefoundtobeassociatedwithlowerwellbeing.Astheanalysisreveals,peoplewithseveredisabilitiesarelesslikelytobeliterate.Inaddition,householdswithdisabledmemberwerefoundtohavehigherincidenceofpoverty,particularlywhereanolderpersonwastheheadofthehousehold.Theyalsohaveloweraccesstobasicservices,suchascommunicationtechnology.However,itmustnotedthatpeoplewithdisabilitiesarenotahomogenousgroup,andtheimpactofdisabilityonwellbeingoftendifferssignificantlydependingonitsnatureandextentaswellasthepresenceofsocialpolicies(Mitraetal.,2013).

WhiledisabilitywasrelativelyneglectedintheMDGs,itisimportanttheSDGsmeasureprogressfordisabledpeople,whooftenfareworseonmanyoutcomes.Somecountrieshavealreadyimplementedseveralpoliciesthataimtoincludepeoplewithdisabilities(see,e.g.,Box3)butthesehavemetwithvaryingdegreesofsuccess.Goingforward,itiskeythatthesepoliciesaremainstreamedandawarenesscreatedtoensuretheirimplementation.

Yetthesefindingsmaybeanunderestimateowingtochallengesinidentifyingalldisabledpeople.TheWashingtonGroupcorequestionnaireisbelievedtoprovideoneofthemorecomprehensivewaysofidentifying

disability,buttheavailabledataarelikelytoexcludethesubstantialshareofthepopulationwithmentalillness(althoughmeasuringcognitivedisabilitiescapturessomeofthis).Mentalhealthinparticularremainslargelyignored;despitebeingaconsiderablecontributortotheglobal

burdenofdisease,littledataexisttounderstandtheextentofmentalillnessandhowmentalhealthisrelatedtootherdeprivations(SammanandRodriguez-Takeuchi2013).

22 ODI Report

Box 2: Improvements in gender-based inequalities in Bangladesh

Untilafewdecadesago,Bangladeshexhibitednumerousmanifestationsofgenderinequalityandpatriarchyandhadoneofthemostadversesexratiosintheworld,ascharacterisedbythephenomenonof‘missingwomen’(Sen,1989).Therewasalsoevidenceofintra-householdgenderdifferences,withgenderdiscriminationinfooddistribution,feedingpracticesanduseofhealthservices,particularlyamongchildrenandtheelderly(Chenetal.,1981).

Owingtopatrilocalpost‐maritalresidencepatterns,wherebydaughtersleavetheirparentalhometolivewiththeirhusbandandhiskin,parentalinvestmentingirlswasoftenlowandwidelycomparedwith‘wateringtheneighbour’stree’ashouseholdswouldnotreapanybenefitsofinvestingindaughterswhowouldthenmarryandleavethehousehold(Kabeer,1985;Kaur,2007).Strictcontrolsoverwomen’smobilitymeanttheywerelargelyconfinedtounpaiddomesticwork(Huqetal.,2012).This,inturn,ledtoahighdependencyofwomenonmenforbothprovisionandprotectionthroughouttheirlives,andcontributedtoastrongcultureof‘sonpreference’.However,morerecently,thissonpreferenceappearstohavediminished(ibid.)andgenderdifferentialsinmortalityhavegraduallydeclined.

Althoughthestatusofwomenandgirlsremainslowinsomeaspects(Hossain,2012),Bangladeshiscitedasasuccessfulexampleofthepromotionofgenderequalitysincethe1990s.Bangladeshhasachievedgenderparityinprimaryandsecondaryeducationatthenationallevel(BangladeshPlanningCommission,2013).

Thispositivedevelopmenthasoccurredasaresultofsomespecificpublicinterventionsfocusingongirlstudents,suchasstipendsandexemptionoftuitionfeesforgirlsinruralareasandthestipendschemeforgirlsatthesecondarylevel.

Thecountryhasmadesignificantprogressinachievinggenderequalityandfemaleempowerment.Althoughwageemploymentforwomenisstilllow,withonlyoneoutofeveryfivewomenworkinginwageemploymentinthenon-agriculturalsector(BangladeshPlanningCommission,2013),theirsituationhasimprovedovertime.

About60%oftheincreaseinwomen’spaidworkduringthe2000swasconcentratedinurbanareas,ofwhichabouthalfwasinthemanufacturingsector.Theready-madegarments(RMG)manufacturingsectorhasplayedacrucialrole.Inaddition,RMGemploymenthasincreasinglybeenasourceofpowerforwomen,sinceincomeshelpincreasetheirbargainingpowerwithinthehousehold,andbecauseofthecollectiveeffectsonwomen’scitizenshipandpoliticalagency.

Anotherpathwaytowomen’sempowermenthasbeenmicrocredit,inwhichthescaleofBangladeshiwomen’scollectiveparticipationhasbeenunprecedented(Hossain,2012).Althoughtheacademicevidenceonthebenefitsofmicrofinancehasbeenmixed,ithasbeenfoundtoimprovewomen’scontroloverresourcesanddomesticbargainingpower(GoetzandSenGupta,1996;Kabeer,1999).Microfinanceprogrammesforwomenhaveexpandedrapidlysincethe1990sandareaprominentinstrumentofBangladesh’sstrategyforaddressingpovertyandvulnerability.


Box 3: Inclusion of people with disabilities in CambodiaAsapost-conflictcountry,Cambodiaissubjecttoanumberofriskfactorsrelatedtohighprevalenceof

disability,includingphysicalandpsychosocialimpairments.Thegovernmenthasdemonstratedcommitmenttoimprovingthelivesofpeoplewithdisability:thecountrynowhasarangeofgoodpoliciesondisability:

• TheAnti-PersonnelMineBanTreaty,signedin1999; • ThePolicyonEducationforChildrenwithDisabilities(2008)anditsMasterPlan(2009); • TheLawonProtectionandPromotionoftheRightsofPeoplewithDisabilities(2009); • TheNationalPlanofActionforPersonswithDisabilities,includinglandmine/explosiveremnantsofwarsurvivors(2009)andaNationalDisabilityCoordinationCommitteetosupportitsimplementation;

• TheConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities,ratifiedin2012; • The2014-2018NationalStrategicDevelopmentPlan.

However,implementationhasbeenmorechallenging.Forinstance,littlehasbeendoneinpracticetoremovethebarrierspeoplewithdisabilitiesfaceinaccessingpublicplaces,publicservicesandinformation.Streetsusuallydonothavepavementsandmostpublicbuildingsdonothaveaccessibleentrances.Voterregistrationofficesandpollingstationsareoftenlocatedininaccessiblelocations.Mosthealthcentresareincitiesandprovincialtowns,whicharedifficulttoreachfordisabledpeopleinruralareas,andmosthealthcareprovidersstilldonothaveadequatetrainingonhowtocommunicate,treatandbetterservepatientswithdisabilities.

Mostchildrenwithdisabilitiesarestillpreventedfromattendingschoolbysocialdiscrimination,physicalbarriersandlackofteacherswithappropriatetraining.ThePolicyonEducationforChildrenwithDisabilitiesfocusesonlyonthosewithphysicaldisabilities,neglectingtheneedsofchildrenwithintellectualandpsychosocialdisabilities.Littlehasbeendonesofartoadvancetheinclusionofchildrenwithvisual,hearingandintellectual/cognitivedisabilityinmainstreamschools.Youngpeoplewithdisabilitieshaveverylittlechancetobeinvolvedinvocationaltraining,whichiscompoundedbythefactthatmostliveinruralareas.

Whilethecountry’spolicyframework–andthepresenceofadisability-focusedcivilsociety–constitutesasolidstartingpointtoaddresstherightsandneedsofpeoplewithdisabilities,therealchallengeliesinactualimplementationoftheframeworkaswellasbettercoordinationofthevariousactorsoperatinginthearea.

Ethnicity and marginalisation in Vietnam

Untilthe1980s,Vietnamwasanimpoverishedcountry,emergingfromdecadesofwarthathadresultedindamagetoinfrastructure,lossoflifeandtheinjuryordisplacementofmillions(Rama,2008).However,in1986,VietnaminitiatedaseriesofeconomicandpoliticalreformsknownastheDoi Moiwhichbegantointegratethecountryintotheglobaleconomy.

Sincethen,Vietnamhasmadesubstantialprogressonmanyfronts;afterbeingaleast-developedcountryin1990Vietnamisnowalower-middleincomecountry.Severaldifferentpovertylinesareincommonusagethere,andallshowdramaticandsustaineddecreasesinpovertyoverthepast25years.Thecountryhasallbuteliminatedextremepoverty;theshareofpeoplelivingonlessthan$1.25aday(in2005purchasingpowerparity(PPP))hasdeclineddramatically,from64%in1993to21%in2006andfurtherto2%in2012(WorldBankPovcalNet).

Vietnamhasalsomadesignificantprogressinachievinguniversalprimaryeducationandeliminatinggenderinequalityinenrolment.Theunder-fivemortalityratereducedto23per1,000livebirthsin2012,makingVietnamoneofthecountrieswiththelowestchildmortalityratesamongAssociationofSouth-EastAsianNationscountries(MinistryofPlanningandInvestment,2013).

Notwithstandingoverallprogress,gapsremainandaggregateachievementsobscurethevaryingtrajectoriesofdifferentgroupswithinthecountry.IncomeinequalityinVietnamismodestbyinternationalstandards:theGinicoefficientwas0.36in2012(WDI).However, Vietnam isanethnicallydiversecountry markedbyconsiderableethnicinequalities(Box4).Deprivationalsohasastrongspatialbias,withthehighestpovertyratesintheuplandareasoftheNorthernMountainsandCentralHighlands,wheremanyoftheethnicminoritieslive.Thissectionillustrates9someofthepersistinginequalitiesbyfocusingonregionalandethnicdisparitiesinhumandevelopmentoutcomes,howtheyoverlapandhowtheyhavechangedovertime.

Today,theKinharelocatedinallregions.However,untilquiterecently,theKinhandminoritycommunitieswereoftenseparatedbyphysicaldistances;theformerprimarilyoccupiedlowlandandcoastallandsandthelatterlivedinthehighlands(WorldBank,2009).AfterthereunificationofNorthandSouthVietnamin1976,thegovernmentsetupmanyagriculturalcooperatives,statefarmsandforestenterprisesinhighlandareas.ThisalongwithotherpoliciesencouragedlargenumbersofKinhtomovetotheminority-dominatedhighlands(Hardy,2003).TheDoiMoireformsopenedupopportunities

9 Allnumbers,tablesandfiguresinthissectionarebasedonVietnam’sMICSsurveyfor2006and2011unlessotherwisestated.

24 ODI Report

Box 4: Regions and ethnic groups in Vietnam

Vietnamisadiversecountrywithasizeablepopulationofethnicminorities.Themajorityethnicgroup,theKinh,constitute86%ofthepopulation.Inaddition,thegovernmentofficiallyrecognises53ethnicminoritygroups.Thesegroupsvaryvastlyinsize.Thelargest,theTay,hadover1.6millionmembers,whilethesmallest,theODu,hadlessthan400asof2009(ibid.).Thesevenlargestminoritygroups–theTay,Thai,Muong,Khmer,Hoa,NungandHmong–togetherrepresent10%ofthepopulation.

Eachgrouphasitsownlanguage,lifestyleandculturalheritage.ThelanguagesmostusebelongtooneofthefivelanguagefamiliesofSouth-EastAsiaandareconsideredpartofthehistoricalandculturaltraditionthatspreadsfromsouthoftheYangtzetotheislandsofSouth-EastAsia.

Someoftheminoritygroups(e.g.TayandThai)predateVietnamesesettlements,whileothers–suchastheHanhi,LahuandLolo–migratedasrecentlyasthe17thto19thcenturies(Dangetal.,2000).Ethnicminoritiesaregeographicallyconcentratedincertainregionsofthecountry(Table8).About80%ofpeoplebelongingtominoritygroups–includinglargesharesoftheTay,Thai,Muong,NungandHmong–liveintheNorthernMidlandsandMountainAreaswhichborderChina,andtheCentralHighlandsthatborderLaosandCambodia.Otherregionsalsohavesomeminoritypopulations.Forinstance,manyethnicminorities–particularlytheKhmerandHoaorChinese–liveintheMekongRiverDelta.


inplantations,particularlycoffeeexports,whichwereprofitable.Withtheliftingofhouseholdregistrationrequirements,migrationtothehighlandsincreasedandtheKinharenowdominantinmanypreviouslyminorityareas.

Thedifferentminoritiesvarytremendouslyintermsofassimilationandeconomicstatus.Nonetheless,inthepresentanalysis,52oftheminorityethnicgroupsareclassifiedtogetheras‘ethnicminorities’.ThisisbecausetheMICSdataonlydisaggregatecertainethnicgroups(Kinhandthesevenlargestminoritygroupsin2011);evenamongthese,smallsamplesizesmakeitdifficulttoobtainstatisticallysignificantresults.Inaddition,despitedifferencesbetweenminoritygroups,thereisacommonthreadofdisadvantagetheyallface–andthispaperseekstoexaminehowthishasevolved.

Oneoftheethnicgroups,theHoa,isnotclassifiedasanethnicminoritybutrathercountedalongwiththeKinh.AlthoughbydefinitiononlytheKinhcanbeconsideredanethnicmajority,theHoaarenotusuallyconsideredaminorityowingtotheirhighculturalassimilationwiththeKinhandsincetheyareamongthewealthiestethnicgroups(Dang,2010).Consequently,followingvandeWalleandGunewardena(2000),weclassifytheKinhandHoacollectivelyasthe‘majority’group(seealsoDang,2010;ImaiandGaiha,2007).

Table9outlinesthecompositionofthepopulationin2006and2011asreportedintheMICS.Theurbanisationrateincreasedfrom25%in2006to30%in2011.Regionally,thepopulationshareofthelowestpopulated

regions–theCentralHighlands(4%in2006and6%in2011)andtheNorthernMidlandsandMountains(15%in2006and17%in2011)–increasedthemost.Incomparison,theshareofpeoplelivingintheRedRiverDelta(whereHanoiislocated),NorthCentralandCentralCoastal,theSouth-East(whichcontainsHoChiMinhCity)andtheMekongRiverDeltaremainedfairlystableordeclinedslightly.Intermsofethnicgroups,theproportionofmajorityethnicgroups(consistingoftheKinhandHoaminority)inthepopulationincreasedby2percentagepoints–from86%to88%between2006and2011.

Monetary poverty

Key messages

• In2006,theprobabilityofbeinginthebottomquintileforhouseholdsheadedbyanethnicminorityinVietnamwas3.2thatofthemajoritygroupcounterpart,whichincreasedto3.5by2011.

TheMICSdoesnotincludeinformationonincomeorexpenditure,and,asaresult,doesnotdoesnotlenditselftoestimatingincomeorconsumptionpovertyrates.However,householdsareclassifiedintowealthquintilesbasedonassetownershipandothercharacteristics.10Thissectionexaminestrendsinpoverty–inthiscase,though,arelativemeasureofbeinginthebottomquintileofthewealthindex.

10 Householdwererankedaccordingtoawealthscorebasedontheownershipofconsumergoods,dwellingcharacteristics,waterandsanitationandothercharacteristics.Thescoreiscomputedusingprincipalcomponentsanalysis.Theyweresubsequentlydividedintofivequintiles.Thewealthindexisassumedtocaptureunderlyinglong-termwealthbutdoesnotprovideinformationoncurrentincomeorexpenditurelevels.

Table 9: Population by groups (%)

Category Group 2006 2011

Place of residence Rural 74.8 70.5

Urban 25.2 29.5

Region Red River Delta 22.2 21.1

Northern Midlands and Mountains 14.9 16.5

North Central and Central Coastal 22.2 21.5

Central Highlands 3.9 5.8

South-East 16.0 16.1

Mekong River Delta 20.7 19.2

Gender Male 49.3 49.0

Female 50.7 51.0

Ethnicity Majority (Kinh and Hoa) 86.0 87.9

Minority 14.0 12.1

Total sample size IndividualsHouseholds 8,356

44,82011,612

Usingthismeasure,thepovertyratewasroughlythesameasVietnam’spovertyrateattheinternationalextremepovertyline($1.25PPP)of21%in2006(WDI).Withsignificantsubsequentpovertyreduction,therelativemeasureofthebottom20%ismuchhigherthantheabsolutepovertyrateof4%in2011(ibid.).

Povertyisconcentratedamongtheethnicminorities(Table10).In2006,about71%ofethnicminorityhouseholdswereinthebottomwealthquintilecomparedwithonly13%ofthemajoritygroup.By2011,therewasslightimprovement,thoughthechangewasnotstatisticallysignificant.

Controllingforotherfactors,11theprobabilityofahouseholdbelongingtothebottomquintilewasmuchhigherforethnicminoritiesthanforthemajority–46%comparedwith14%fortheethnicmajorityin2006.In2011,theseshareswere53%and15%,respectively,withthegapincreasingfrom32to37percentagepoints.In2006,theprobabilityofbeinginthebottomquintileforhouseholdsheadedbyanethnicminoritywas3.2timesthatofthemajoritygroupcounterpart,andthisratioincreasedto3.5by2011.Asaresult,thedifferencebetweentheethnicmajorityandminoritywidenedinbothabsoluteandrelativeterms.

Povertyisalsospatiallyconcentrated.Regionally,inboth2006and2011,theRedRiverDeltaandtheSouth-East–wherethetwolargestcitiesarelocated–hadthe

lowestsharesofthoselivinginthebottomwealthquintile(Table11).TheNorthernMidlandsandMountains,NorthCentralandCentralCoastal,andtheMekongRiverDelta–whicharehometomanyoftheethnicminorities–haveasignificantlylargershareofthepoor.However,theshareofhouseholdsinthebottomquintilelivingintheNorthernMidlandsandMountainsandtheCentralHighlandsdeclinedsubstantially–byatleast10percentagepoints.Moreover,thereareconsiderableintra-groupdisparities,withregionaldifferencesamongethnicminorities.MinoritiesintheRedRiverDeltaandtheSouth-Eastarelesslikelytobeinthebottomquintilethanthoseintherestofthecountry,whenusingthemethodologyinBox1(Figure12).EthnicminoritiesintheRedRiverDeltahadalessthan20%chanceofbeinginthebottomquintile,andlivingintheSouth-Eastwasassociatedwitha35%probability.Ontheotherhand,theprobabilityofbeinginthebottomquintilewasabout70%forminoritiesintheNorthernMidlandsandMountains,NorthCentralandCentralCoastal,theCentralHighlandsandtheMekongRiverDelta.In2011,ethnicminoritieslivinginNorthCentralandCentralCoastalwerenearlytwiceaslikelytobeinthebottomquintileasthoseintheSouth-East.

11 RegressionanalysisforVietnamcontrolsforwealthquintile(exceptwherethisisthedependentvariable),ethnicgroup,subnationalregion,religionandlocation(urban/rural).Intheindividual-levelanalysis,therespondent’sgenderandageareaddedasadditionalcontrols.

26 ODI Report

Table 10: Share of households in the lowest wealth quintile by ethnic group, 2006 and 2001 (%)

Ethnic minority Ethnic majority


2006 70.9 LB 60.8 UB 79.3 12.9 LB 10.0 UB 16.5

2011 68.3 LB 61.6 UB 74.4 14.6 LB 13.1 UB 16.2


Table 11: Share of households belonging to lowest wealth quintile, by region, 2006 and 2011 (%)

Region 2006 2011 Change

Share 95% Confidence interval Share 95% Confidence interval (percentage points)

Red River Delta 1.6 LB 0.3 UB 2.9 7.0 LB 4.9 UB 9.0 5.4

Northern Midlands and Mountains 51.2 LB 34.7 UB 67.7 41.2 LB 33.8 UB 48.5 -10.0

North Central and Central Coastal 21.7 LB 14.9 UB 28.4 25.3 LB 20.4 UB 30.2 3.6

Central Highlands 40.2 LB 27.8 UB 52.7 25.7 LB 20.3 UB 31.2 -14.5

South-East 4.2 LB 1.9 UB 6.5 3.2 LB 1.9 UB 4.5 -0.9

Mekong River Delta 27.1 LB 19.1 UB 35.1 24.6 LB 20.4 UB 28.9 -2.5



Access to basic services

Key messages

• Accesstoimprovedsanitationfacilitiesincreasedfrom65%in2006to79%in2011;despiteimprovementsforbothgroupsaccessremainedlowerforethnicminorityhouseholds.Thedeclinewasnotuniforminallpartsofthecountry;theethnicgapmorethanhalvedintheRedRiverDeltabutthedeclinewasmuchlowerinotherregions.

• In2006,theprobabilityofusingacleanfuelwasaboutathirdforboththeethnicmajorityandminoritygroups;however,by2011themajoritygrouphadprogressedfaster.

CoverageofbasicservicesisnearlyuniversalinVietnam.In2011,94%ofhouseholdshadaccesstoimproveddrinkingwatersourcesandsanitationand99%hadelectricity.

Coverageofimproveddrinkingwatersourcesimprovedfrom90%in2006to94%ofhouseholdsin2011.Itincreasedfrom92%to96%amongtheethnicmajoritypopulation,whereasitremainedroughlyconstantatabout73%inbothyearsfortheethnicminoritygroups.

Yetthereweredisparitiesbasedonethnicityinsomeregions:forinstance,minoritygroupshadconsiderablyloweraccesstoimproveddrinkingwatersourcesinNorthCentralandCentralCoastal,theNorthernMidlandsandMountains,andtheCentralHighlandsthantheirmajoritycounterparts.ButtherewasanimprovementamongminoritiesintheCentralHighlands,wherecoverageincreasedby13percentagepoints,from62%to74%.Ontheotherhand,coveragedeterioratedforethnicminoritiesintheNorthernMidlandsandMountains,andNorthCentralandCentralCoastalAreawhileitremainedfairlyconstantfortheethnicmajority,leadingtoincreasedinequality(Figure13).AccessincreasedsignificantlyintheMekongRiverDelta–althoughthiswasgreaterforethnicminorities,

Figure 12: Likelihood of being in the lowest wealth quintile for ethnic minorities, by region, 2006 and 2011 (%)

Figure 13: Access to improved drinking water source, by region and ethnic group, 2005 and 2011

amongwhomitincreasedfrom75%to99%comparedwiththemajority,forwhomitincreasedfrom79%to94%.Theprobabilityofhavingaccesstoanimproveddrinkingwatersourcewas91%in2006and95%in2011forethnicmajorityhouseholds,comparedwith83%and87%,respectively,fortheethnicminoritygroups(althoughtheincreasewasnotstatisticallysignificantfortheminorities).Thegapbetweenthemajorityandminorityremainedroughlyconstantinbothabsoluteandrelativeterms.

Disaggregatingbylocation,probabilityofcoveragewas91%fortheethnicmajoritycomparedwith73%forethnicminoritiesinruralareas,and95%comparedwith82%,respectively,inurbanareasin2006.Between2006and2011,inequalitybetweentheethnicmajorityandminoritygroupsincreasedinbothabsoluteandrelativetermsinruralareasbutdeclinedinurbanareas,whereminorities‘caughtup’withtheethnicmajority(Figure14).In2006,ruralethnicminorityhouseholdswere18percentagepointslesslikelytoaccessimproveddrinkingwatersourcesthantheirmajoritycounterparts;withareductionincoverageamongethnicminoritiesin2011,thisgapincreasedto27percentagepoints.Accesstoimprovedsanitationfacilitiesincreasedrapidlybetween2006and2011–from65%to79%,withimprovementsforboththeethnicmajoritygroupandminoritygroups.However,aswithdrinkingwatercoverage,accesstosanitationremainedlowerforethnicminorityhouseholdscomparedwiththeKinhandHoa.Theprobabilityofhavingimprovedsanitationincreasedfrom68%to81%fortheethnicmajorityandfrom53%to70%forminoritygroups.Asaresult,inabsoluteterms,thegapdeclinedfrom15to12percentagepoints.Similarly,therewasasmalldeclineinrelativeterms-themajority

were1.3timesaslikelytohaveimprovedsanitationin2006,andthisdeclinedto1.2timesin2011.

Thedeclinewasnotuniforminallpartsofthecountry(Figure15).TheethnicgapmorethanhalvedintheRedRiverDelta(ethnicmajorityhouseholdswere3.1timesaslikelytohavesanitationasminorityethnicitiesin2006,whichdeclinedto1.4in2011).Thedeclineintheethnicgapwasmuchlowerinotherregions.IntheSouth-EastandMekongRiverDelta,thegapbetweentheethnicmajorityandminoritiesincreasedinabsoluteterms,by2and12percentagepoints,respectively,althoughitdeclinedinrelativeterms.Overall,accesstoelectricityisalmostuniversalinVietnam,andtheshareofhouseholdswithelectricityaccessincreasedfrom97%in2006to99%in2011.Electricitycoveragereachedatleast90%forallsubnationalregions,withlittlevariationacrossruralandurbanareas.Inequalityinaccessbetweenethnicgroupsalsodeclinedsharplybetween2006and2011.Theshareofhouseholdsfromminorityethnicgroupswithelectricityimprovedby

28 ODI Report

Figure 14: Likelihood of having access to improved drinking water source, by ethnicity and location, 2006 and 2011 (%)

00.20.40.60.8

11.2

Rural Urban Rural Urban

Ethnic majority Ethnic minority

2006 2011

Figure 15: Likelihood of improved sanitation, by ethnicity and region, 2006 and 2011 (%)


12percentagepoints,from84%to96%,whileitwasover99%fortheethnicmajorityinbothyears.

Despitehighelectricitycoverage,fewerhouseholdsusedcleanfuelstocook,withmanystillrelyingonsolidfuelssuchascoalorwood.Further,variationsacrossethnicgroupsincreasedbetween2006and2011.In2006,theprobabilityofusingacleanfuelwasaboutathirdforboththeethnicmajorityandminoritygroups;however,by2011themajoritygrouphadprogressedfaster,creatinga6percentagepointdifference(Figure16).Theprobabilityofusingcleanfuelincreasedto54%fortheethnicmajoritybutonlyto48%forminoritygroups.

Disaggregatingbyregion,theabsolutegapbetweentheethnicmajorityandminoritygroupsincreasedbetween2006and2011forallregions(Figure17).TheincreasewasthegreatestinNorthCentralandCentralCoastalArea,wherethegapbetweentheethnicmajorityandminoritygroupsincreasedfrom30to46percentagepoints.However,relativeinequalityfellinallregions:ethnicmajorityhouseholdswere5.9timesmorelikelytousecleanfuelsthanminoritiesinNorthCentralandCentralCoastalAreain2006andthisdeclinedto4.9in2011.Thecorrespondingfigureswere6.2and4.8,respectively,intheNorthernMidlandsandMountains.

Education and health

Key messages

• Theprobabilityofbeingineducationpovertyfortheethnicmajorityhalvedbetween2006and2011–from8%to4%.Ethnicminoritiesprogressedmuchfaster,almostcatchingupwiththemajority,astheprobabilityofhavinglessthanfouryearsofschoolingdeclinedfrom17%to6%.Astheseratesapproachzero,theabsolutedifferencedeclinedbuttherewasalsoprogress

inrelativeterms:ethnicminoritieswere2.1timesaslikelyastheirmajoritycounterpartstobeeducationpoorin2006,whichdeclinedto1.7timesby2011.

• Theethnicgapintermsofchildmortalityandimmunisationcoverageremainedunchangedinabsoluteterms.Infact,inrelativetermsthegapbetweenethnicminoritiesandtheKinhandHoamajoritywidenedontheformerandremainedconstantinthelatter.

Vietnamhasmadesignificantprogressinexpandingaccesstoprimaryeducation.By2011,onlyabout2%ofthepopulationbetween20and25yearsofagehadbeentoschoolforlessthantwoyears(extremeeducationpoverty),andafurther2%hadtwoormorebutlessthanfouryearsofeducation(moderateeducationpoverty).However,thislowaggregaterateofdeprivationconcealsvariationsacrossgroups(Table12).In2011,ethnicminoritygroupsexperiencedtwicetherateofeducationpoverty(lessthanfouryearsofschooling)asthemajoritygroupforbothmalesandfemales–althoughtherewereimprovementsforbothgroups.Givenlowlevelsofdeprivationineducation,wecombinebothtypesofeducationpovertyintheprobabilityanalysis.Evenaftercontrollingforotherfactors,theprobabilityofapersonhavinglessthanfouryearsofschoolingdiffers

Figure 16: Likelihood of using clean fuel by ethnicity, 2006 and 2011 (%)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Ethnic majority Ethnic minority

Figure 17: Likelihood of using clean fuel, by ethnicity and region, 2006 and 2011 (%)

basedontheirethnicity.Fortheethnicmajoritygroup,ithalvedbetween2006and2011–from8%to4%.Ethnicminoritiesmadeprogressedmuchfaster,almostcatchingupwiththemajority,astheprobabilityofhavinglessthanfouryearsofschoolingdeclinedfrom17%to6%overthesameperiod(Figure18).Astheseratesapproachzero,theabsolutedifferencehasdeclined.However,therelativedifferencehasalsodeclinedovertheyears:ethnicminoritieswere2.1timesaslikelyastheirmajoritycounterpartstobeeducationpoorin2006,whichdeclinedto1.7timesby2011.

Aswithaccesstoeducation,improvementswerealsorecordedinhealthandaccesstohealthcareservicesbetween2006and2011.Yetdisparitiesexist.Poorinfrastructureandbasicamenitiesinareaswhereethnicminoritygroupsliveaswellastheperceptionofpoorqualitycareoftenpreventswomenfromethnicminoritygroupsfromusinghealthfacilities(SavetheChildren,2015).Inaddition,minoritygroupsareoftenlessawareofgovernmenthealthprogrammes,whichisexacerbatedbydiscriminatoryattitudesandlanguagebarriers(ibid.).

Onchildhealthoutcomes,althoughtheMICSdoesnotcontaininformationonchildmortalitydirectly,itaskshouseholdsiftheyhaveachildwhowasbornalivebut

diedlater,12whichisusedhereasamodifiedmeasureofchildmortalitytoindicategapsinchildhealth.

Onaverage,in2006,6%ofwomenagedbetween15and49yearswhohadevergivenbirthreportedexperiencingthedeathofachild;thissharehaddeclinedto5%in2011.Thissharewashigherinruralareas,at7%in2006and5%in2011,comparedwithurbanareas,wheretheshareswere3%inbothyears.

ChildmortalitywashighestintheRedRiverDelta,theNorthernMidlandsandMountains,NorthCentralandCentralCoastalArea,andtheCentralHighlandsin2006(Table13).TherewasasignificantdeclineintheRedRiverDelta,wherethemortalityratemorethanhalved.

Theprobability13ofahouseholdhavingachildwhodiedwashigherforminoritygroupsthantheethnicmajority(Figure19).Thedisparityremainedconstantinabsoluteterms–withtheprobabilityofhavingachilddeathinthehousehold3percentagepointshigherforethnicminoritiesthanforthemajority.However,inrelativeterms,inequalityincreasedslightly:forethnicminorities,probabilityofchilddeathwas1.5timesthatoftheethnicmajorityin2006,whichincreasedto1.8timesin2011.

Thisdisparityexistsinallregionsofthecountry.Inabsoluteterms,theethnicgapremainedroughlyunchangedinallregions(Figure20).However,thereweredifferencesinrelativegaps,whichincreasedinmostpartsofthecountry.Thelikelihoodofexperiencingthedeathofachildamongethnicminorityhouseholdsrangedbetween1.7and1.8timesthatfortheethnicmajorityin2006,andthisnumberincreasedtoabout2.2timesin2011inmostregions.Similarinequalitiesarereflectedinaccesstohealthcarefacilities–measuredhereintermsofimmunisationagainstmeaslesforchildrenunderfiveyearsandwomenobtainingantenatalcarefromatrainedperson.

In2006,86%ofchildrenunderfiveyearswereimmunisedagainstmeasles;thissharehadincreasedto

12 Althoughthismeasuredoesnot,inreality,onlycapturechildren(i.e.thechildcouldhavediedbeyondtheageoffive)orcauseofdeath(e.g.thedeathcouldbecausedbynon-healthfactors,suchasanaccident).

13 Inadditiontotheothercovariates,theanalysisofchildmortalityalsocontrolsfortheageofthemother.

30 ODI Report

Table 12: Education poverty, by ethnicity and gender, 2006 and 2011 (%)

Year Ethnic majority Ethnic minority


Moderate education poverty 2006 1.7 LB 1.1 UB 2.5 4.6 LB 3.1 UB 6.9

2011 3.1 LB 2.3 UB 4.1 6.2 LB 4.3 UB 8.9

Extreme education poverty 2006 1.9 LB 1.4 UB 2.5 2.5 LB 1.3 UB 4.5

2011 0.8 LB 0.4 UB 1.4 1.8 LB 0.9 UB 3.6


Figure 18: Likelihood of having less than four years of schooling, by ethnicity, 2006 and 2011 (%)


90%in2011.In2006,coveragewas85%inruralareascomparedwith92%inurbanareas,althoughthedisparitywaseliminatedin2011,whencoveragewasabout90%inboth.Expectedly,considerableethnicdisparitiesexist:coverageforchildrenfromminorityethnicgroups(about84%)was7percentagepointslessthanforthemajority(91%)in2011.Thiswasanimprovementover2006,whencoverageforminoritieswas76%andthatforthemajoritywas89%,a13percentagepointdifference.

Yet,whencontrollingforothercharacteristics,thegapisunchanged.Thelikelihoodthatachildwasimmunisedwas

91%fortheethnicmajorityand84%forethnicminoritiesin2011(Figure21).Inabsoluteterms,theinequalitybetweentheethnicgroupsremainedunchanged–withanapproximately6percentagepointgapinprobabilityinbothyears.Therelativegapswasalsofairlystable,aschildrenfromethnicmajorityhouseholdshad1.1timesthechanceofbeingvaccinatedasminoritiesinboth2006and2011.BasicmaternalhealthcarecoverageisnearlyuniversalinVietnam.Amongthewomenwhohathadgivenbirthintheprevioustwoyears,nearlyallinurbanareashadreceivedantenatalcarefromadoctor,nurseortrainedmidwife.Coveragewasmarkedlyloweramongethnicminoritiesinruralareas(Figure22).Thegapbetweenminoritiesinurbanandruralareasdeclinedfrom35percentagepointsin2006to22percentagepointsin2011–butitremainedlarge.

Theprobabilityofhavingantenatalcarefromaskilledprofessionalincreasedfrom85%in2006to89%in2011forethnicminorities.Incomparison,theprobabilitywasroughlyconstantatabout96%forethnicmajoritywomen.Therefore,whiletherewasadeclineinabsoluteterms–indicatingashifttowardsuniversalcoverage–thegapremainedunchangedinrelativeterms.

Table 13: Child deaths by region, 2006 and 2011 (%)

Year 2006 2011 Change

Red River Delta Share 7 3.2 -3.8

95% Confidence interval LB 5.5 LB 2.2

UB 8.6 UB 4.3

Northern Midlands and Mountains Share 7 6.8 -0.1


UB 8.5 UB 8.4

North Central and Central Coastal Share 7.4 5.4 -2


UB 8.9 UB 7

Central Highlands Share 6.4 5.7 -0.7


UB 7.6 UB 6.9

South- East Share 3.8 2.7 -1.1


UB 5.5 UB 3.6

Mekong River Delta Share 5.8 4.3 -1.4


UB 7.1 UB 5.4


Figure 19: Likelihood of child death, by ethnicity, 2006 and 2011 (%)

Povertyanddisparitiesinwealthamplifyethnicinequalitiesinaccesstomaternalhealthcare(Figure23).Althoughtheethnicgapinthelikelihoodofaccessingantenatalcarewaseliminatedforthoseinthetopwealthquintile(11percentagepointsin2006,decliningto4percentagepointsin2011),inequalityremainslargeforpoorergroups.Forinstance,amonghouseholdsinthebottomquintile,thedisparitybetweentheethnicmajorityandminoritygroupswas34percentagepointsin2006,whichdeclinedto24percentagepointsin2011.

32 ODI Report

Figure 20: Likelihood of child death, by region and ethnicity, 2006 and 2011 (%)

Figure 21: Likelihood of child receiving measles vaccine, by ethnicity, 2006 and 2011 (%)


Figure 22: Antenatal care coverage, by ethnicity and location, 2006 and 2011

Figure 23: Likelihood of receiving antenatal care, by ethnicity and wealth quintile, 2006 and 2011 (%)

Mind the gap: discussion of Vietnam results

TheanalysisintheprevioussectionusingVietnam’sMICShighlightsthepersistenceofahighlevelofinequalityandthesocialexclusionofethnicminoritiesinVietnam.

Despiteoverallimprovements,bothabsoluteandrelativedisparitiesbetweenethnicminoritiesandthemajorityKinh(andHoa)remainhighinVietnam.Further,insomeinstances–forinstancerelativepoverty,accesstocleanfuelandchilddeaths–thelevelofinequalityhasincreasedasthemajoritygrouphasprogressedfasterthantheminority,particularlyinruralareasandlessdevelopedregions.

Theinequalitiesethnicminoritiesexperienceareoverlappingandmutuallyenforcing.Theyoftenstartinearlylifewithpoorhealthandnutrition,andcontinueandintensifyinlaterlife(expertinterview–BobBaulch,10August2015).Theexistenceofpersistinggapsbetweenthemajority(KinhandHoa)andminoritygroupsisechoedinthewiderliterature,whichdiscussessomeofthefactorsthathaveimpededthereductionofdisparities.

Languageisabarrier,asethnicminorities’inabilitytospeakVietnamesehasbeenidentifiedasanimpedimenttoeconomicintegrationandaccessingjusticeunderlandlawsandotherpolicies.Ruralethnicminorityhouseholds

withpoorVietnameselanguageabilityhavebeenfoundtobe1.9timesmorelikelytobepoorthanotherminorityhouseholds,and7.9timesmorelikelytobepoorthanKinhandHoalivinginruralareas(Baulchetal.,2010).LackofVietnameselanguageskillshavebeenhavebeenfoundtoprofoundlyimpactethnicminorities–inparticularethnicminoritywomen–intermsofaccessingemployment(OxfamandActionAid,2008),governmentservices,engaginginmarkets(WorldBank,2009)andreceivingsocialtransfers.Anotherfactorisdisparitiesinlandholdings.EthnicminoritiesinVietnamheavilydependonfarming,and,whiletheyhavelargerlandholdingsthanKinhhouseholds,theytendtohavelessproductive(irrigated)cropland.Instead,theyoftenhavetractsofforestlandorunirrigatedcroplandthatyieldsjustonecropayear(Kabeer,2010).Incomparison,themajorityethnicgrouparemorelikelytoownirrigatedandperennialcroplandwithhigheroutput.

Inaddition,geographicallocation seemstoreinforceethnicinequalitiesinVietnam.Ethnicminoritiesmusttravelfurthertogettoaschoolormarketplace,whichpartlyexplainswhyeducationandhealthoutcomesremainlower

34 ODI Report

Table 14: Evolution of gaps, 2006-2011

Indicator Absolute gap (percentage points) Relative gap (ratio)

Direction of change 2006 2011 Direction of change 2006 2011

Poverty 32 37 3.2 3.5

Household services

Water 8 8 1.1 1.1

Sanitation 15 12 1.3 1.2

Clean fuel 0 6 1 1.1

Education 9 2 2.1 1.7

Health

Child mortality 3 3 1.5 1.8

Vaccine 6 6 1.1 1.1

Antenatal care 11 8 1.1 1.1


amongethnicminoritygroups.Astheanalysisdescribes,ethnicdisadvantagevariesbylocation,withminoritieslivinginthelowlandsfaringbetterthanthoseinthehighlands.Inparticular,ethnicminoritygroupsintheNorthernMountains,theCentralHighlandsandtheSouthandNorthCentralCoastsremaininextremepoverty(Kabeer,2010).

Thegovernment,recognisingtheextentofethnicandregionaldisparity,hasovertimeintroducedseveralpoliciesintendedtobenefitthesegroups.Thesehavetargetedcertainregionswhereminorityethnicgroupslive,buttheyhaveoftenmetwithchallengesthathavelimitedtheireffectiveness.Concernshavebeenexpressedthatthesenumerousprogrammesmaybeoverlapping,andtheirimplementationmaynotbeadequatelysupervisedtobenefitthemostmarginalisedgroups(WorldBank,2009).Forinstance,withgeographicallytargetedpolicies,facilitiessuchasschoolsareoftenlocatedinthecommunecentre,whereethnicKinhin-migrantsaremorelikelytobenefit(expertinterview-KeetieRoelan,5August2015).Similarly,governmentpoliciestoprovidefreeirrigationinruralareashavewidenedtheethnicgap(Baulchetal.,2010).Thisisbecauseethnicminoritiestypicallyfarminuplandfields,whereitisdifficulttoprovideirrigation,andtheirneedshaveremainedunmet;ontheotherhand,thepolicyhasbenefitedfarmersfromtheKinhethnicmajority,whousuallyfarminlowerfieldsandinthedeltas.Thissuggestspoliciesdesignedtoaddressregionalinequalities–whichareindeedsignificant–areinsufficientwithouttackingothersourcesofinequality,suchasthosebasedonethnicidentity.Variouscountrieshaveaimedtotackletheseissuesusingaffirmativeactionpolicies(e.g.Box5forNepal)orthroughacombinationofaffirmativeactionandregionaldevelopmentplans(e.g.Box6forChina).

EthnicminoritiesinVietnamhavealsobeenknowntohavealowerlevelofgeographicalmobilitywithinthecountrycomparedwiththeKinh.Asdiscussedearlier,governmentmigrationprogrammeshaveencouragedtheKinhtomovetothehighlands.Whilemuchmigrationinmorerecentyearshasbeenspontaneousandnotdirectedbythegovernment,povertyinurbanareasisheavilyconcentratedamongrecentmigrants,particularlythosewithoutpermitstoliveinthecities,whoareexcludedfromaccessingcertainbenefitsandpublicservices(ADBetal.,2004).

Finally,whileregionaldifferencesreflectethnicdisparities,locationdoesnotseemtofullyexplainthedifferencesinoutcomesbetweenethnicgroups.Intheanalysisabove,evenaftercontrollingforsubnationalregion,wideethnicgapsprevailed–inotherwords,evenwithinthelessdevelopedregions,theKinhandHoamajoritywerebetteroffthantheminorityethnicgroups.Differencesincharacteristicsaccountedforjustbetweenone-thirdandahalfofthetotalethnicgapinpercapitaexpenditure,whilemorethanhalfofthegapisattributedtodifferencesinreturns tocharacteristics(Baulchetal.,2010).LowerreturnsforethnicminoritygroupsthanfortheKinh-Hoamayowetounobservedfactors(e.g.differencesinqualityofeducation)orunequaltreatment,includingdiscrimination.Forinstance,migrantsfromethnicminoritiesearnhalfasmuchasthosefromtheKinhmajority,andarefarlesslikelytohaveaworkcontract(Kabeer,2010).Finally,whilepeoplefromethnicminoritiesareabletoescapepoverty,thisoftenhappensinsuchawaythattheyareco-optedintothesystemanddonotretaintheirculturalidentities(Mcelwee,2004).

Box 5: Affirmative action and indigenous rights in Nepal

Nepalischaracterisedbyhighcasteandethnicinequalitieswithamarkedgeographicdimension,withthecontiguousMid-WesternandFar-WesternHillsandMountainsandtheEasternandCentralTerailagging(UNDP,2014).Ofthefourmajorcasteandethnicgroups,DalitsandMuslimshavetraditionallyexperiencedhigherlevelsofpovertyandlowerlevelsofhumandevelopment.However,therearesignsinequality–inbothincomeandotherdimensionsofwellbeing–maybedeclining(PazAraucoetal.,2014;UNDP,2104).Significantadvanceshavealsobeenrealisedinpoliticalrepresentationandparticipation.

FollowingthesigningoftheComprehensivePeaceAgreementin2006,NepalintroducedanInterimConstitutiontomanagetheNepaliconstitutionaltransformationprocessfromamonarchytoafederalrepublic.ThisintroducedmeasurestoimprovesocialjusticeandinstitutionalisedproportionalinclusionofMadhesis,Dalits,Janajatisandwomeninallorgansofthestateandestablishedthefundamentalrightagainstracialdiscriminationanduntouchability(PazAraucoetal.,2014;Thapa,2013).

TheprincipleofproportionalrepresentationwasfirstappliedfortheelectionoftheConstituentAssembly:politicalpartieswererequiredtoincludeintheircandidatelistsMadhesi(31%),Dalits(13%),oppressedandindigenoustribes(38%)andbackwardregions(4%).Womenhadtoconstitute50%ofeachofthesegroupsandatleastonethirdoftheoverallnumberofcandidatesnominated(PazAraucoetal.,2014;Thapa,2013).TheproportionalsystemhasmanagedtosignificantlyincreasethepresenceofwomenandDalitsintheparliament,butpoliticalrepresentationofethnicgroupsisstillunequal,especiallyattheleadershiplevel.

FollowingtheInterimConstitution,aThree-YearInterimPlanoutlinedmeasurestooperationalisetheConstitution.Positivediscriminationwasputinpracticebyreserving45%ofseatsinthecivilservice,policeandarmyformarginalisedgroups.Between2007/08and2011/12,althoughthe45%targetwasnotachieved,thepresenceofnewstafffromspecialgroupsincreasedfrom22%to33%(Panth,2013).

36 ODI Report

Box 6: Two-pronged approach to reducing ethnic and regional inequality in China

Around8.5%ofChina’spopulationbelongto55ethnicminoritygroupsconcentratedintheWesternandborderregions(BhallaandLuo,2013).In2009,over54%ofthoseclassifiedaspoorlivedinethnicminorityareas(Chaudry,2013).Ethnicminoritiesaredisproportionatelypoor:inruralareas,ethnicminoritiesare1.5to2timesmorelikelytobepoorthantheirHan(majority)counterpart(HannumandWang,2012).Spatialdisadvantagesandspecificdiscriminationscompoundthehigherpovertyexperiencedbyethnicminorities.Chinahaspursuedatwofoldapproachtoreduceethnicinequalitythrough(i)regionaltargetingofassistanceandinvestments,and(ii)affirmativeactionmeasures(Zang,2015).

RegionaltargetinghasbeenakeyfeatureofChina’spovertyalleviationstrategy:governmentpovertyreductionfundsaretargetedatdefinedregions,withcountiesastheunitforstatepovertyreductioninvestments(Wang,2004).Abouthalfofthe592countiesofficiallydesignatedaskeyrecipientsofstatefinancialaidareinminorityareas(Zang,2015).ThecentralgovernmenthasalsoarrangedspecialfundssuchastheEthnicMinorityDevelopmentFundtoaddressspecificproblemsfacingminorityareas.Additionally,economicbenefitshaveaccruedtominorityregionsthroughtaxexemptions(onagriculture,manufacturing,andcommerce)anddiscountedinterestonloansfortheconstructionoftradenetworks(ibid.).

AsecondstrategyhasfocusedonaffirmativeactionprogrammestoimproveopportunitiesforminoritygroupsinbothHan-andminority-regions.Thesepoliciesincludeeasieraccesstoeducation,employmentandpoliticalofficeexemptionsfromfamilyplanning,andspecialtaxbreaks(Zang,2105).Sincethelate1970s,specialsubsidieswereprovidedtominoritystudents,twelvenationalethnicminorityeducationalinstitutesandonenationalethnicminorityuniversitywereestablished,andaffirmativeactionpoliciesformatriculationintocollegesanduniversitieswereintroduced(HannumandWang,2012;Chaudry,2013).

ThetwostrategieshaveaidedeconomicdevelopmentandimprovementsinlivingconditionsintheWesternregions.TheGDPofminorityareasgrewbyabout10%annuallyfrom1994to2003;andpercapitanetincomeofruralresidentsgrew2.3times(Zang,2015).Inturn,thenumberofimpoverishedethnicminoritypeopledeclinedfrom40millionto7.7millionbetween1985and2008(InformationOfficeoftheStateCouncilofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,2009).Ineducation,by2009,686outof699countiesinminorityregionsachievedthenationalgoalof9-yearsofcompulsoryeducation.

Despiteabsoluteimprovements,therelativedisadvantageexperiencedbyethnicminoritieshasincreasedinrecentlastdecades,mainlyduetofastereconomicgrowthincoastalareas.Between1989and2004,coastalincomestripledwhileincomesinhinterlandprovincesonlydoubled(Gohetal,2009).Miningandethnictourismarethemainsourcesofgrowth,buthavebenefittedmainlytheHanmajorityandcentralgovernment.Ethnicminoritiescontinuetofacedifficultaccesstosocialservices,especiallyemployment,pensionandhealthinsurance(HannumandWang,2012).Theequalopportunitypolicyhashadmixedresults;ethnicminoritieshaveloweraccesstowageemploymentandearnlesswhenemployed(Chaudry,2013),duetolocation,discriminationinthelabourmarket,andasaffirmativeactionlegislationonlyappliestothepublicsector(whoseimportancehasbeendeclining).

TheChineseexperienceshowsthatethnicgroupscanachievesubstantialabsoluteimprovementsinhumandevelopmentwhilealsobeingleftbehindinrelativeterms.Itsuggeststhataddressingthedisadvantagescreatedbyentrenchedethnicandregionalinequalitiesrequiresanapproachthatcombinesregionaltargeting(tocreateanenvironmentthatgeneratesopportunitiesforall)withtargetingofgroupsandindividuals(toensuretheirspecificcharacteristicsdonotpreventthemfromcapturingopportunities).SuchatwoprongedapproachhashadimportantpositiveeffectsinChinathoughithasnotbeensufficienttoreduceregionalinequality.


Conclusion

AnimportantlessonfromtheMDGshasbeenthataveragesandaggregateprogressconcealdifferenceswithinandacrosscountries,whichareoftensignificant.TheSDGagreementhasplacedastrongemphasisonadvancingthemostmarginalisedgroups,ortheLNOBprinciple.TheLNOBprinciplemeansensuringeveryindividualachievesthefullpackageofrightsandopportunities.Thishighlightstheneedtoidentifyandreduceinequalitiesbothacrosscountriesandwithinthem.

Yet,whiletheSDGsandtheLNOBprinciplewillbeagreedatthegloballevel,theirsuccesswilldependoneffectiveimplementationatthenationalandsubnationallevel.CountriesacrossAsia,andindeedglobally,havebeengrapplingwithgroup-basedinequalitiesandpoliciesinthe

regiontodateandhavehadvaryinglevelsofsuccess.Ascountriesaroundtheworldreflectonhowtoapplythisprinciple,theexperiencesofothercountrieswithsimilargroup-basedinequalitiescanpointoutsomeofthepoliciespossibleandthebarriersthatneedtobeaddressedtoeffectivelyreachthemostmarginalisedpeople.

InAsia,itisencouraginginthatsomecountrieshaverealisedimportantimprovementsformarginalisedgroups–inparticularwithadeclineingender-basedinequalitiesinBangladesh–butdeepinequalitiespersist.InVietnam,ethnicminoritiesinlessdevelopedregionscontinuetobedisadvantagedandhaveseenfewimprovements.Goingforward,suchinequalitiesneedtobehighlightedandtackledascentraltotheglobaldevelopmentagenda.

ReferencesAsianDevelopmentBank(ADB)(2013)’SectorAssessment(Summary):SocialProtection’.(accessedon6thAugust,2015)Astbury,JillandFareenWalji(2013)‘TripleJeopardy:Gender-basedviolenceandhumanrightsviolationsexperiencedby

womenwithdisabilitiesinCambodia’,AusAIDResearchWorkingPaper1,January2013.BangladeshPlanningCommission(2013).TheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals:BangladeshProgressReport2012.Baulch,B.,etal.(2010).EthnicMinorityPovertyinVietnam.ChronicPovertyResearchCentreWorkingPaperNo.169.Baulch,B.,H.Pham,andB.Reilly2008b.IncreasingdisadvantageandtheethnicgapinruralVietnam,1993-2004.

SussexUK:InstituteofDevelopmentStudies(http://www.ids.ac.uk/go/research-teams/vulnerability-team/projects-and-outputs/ethnic-minority-development-in-vietnam

Bhalla,A.S.andD.Luo(2013)PovertyandExclusionofMinoritiesinChinaandIndia.ThePalgraveMacmillanBhattacharya,D.(2015).PresentationattheLeavingnoonebehind:Tacklinginequalitiesinthepost-2015development

agendaevent.NewYork,19March2015.Carr-Hill,R.(2013)‘Missingmillionsandmeasuringdevelopmentprogress’,WorldDevelopment46:30-44.CDPO(2013)‘AstakeholdersreportpreparedbyDisabledPeopleOrganizations(DPOs)inCambodia’.Universal

PeriodicReview(UPR18).PhnomPenh,May2013.CenterforDiseaseControlandPrevention,2006Chaudry,P.(2013)‘EthnicMinorityDevelopmentinChinaandASEANcountries’.Paperpresentedatthe6thChina-

ASEANForumonSocialDevelopmentandPovertyReduction,2012.UnitedNationalDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP),ChinaOffice.Availableat:http://www.cn.undp.org/content/china/en/home/library/south-south-cooperation/ethnic-minority-development-in-china-and-asean-countries.html

Chen,LincolnC.,EmdadulHuq,andStand’Souza.“SexbiasinthefamilyallocationoffoodandhealthcareinruralBangladesh.” Populationanddevelopmentreview (1981):55-70.

ChronicPovertyAdvisoryNetwork(2014).Asurprisingturnaround?RethinkinglessonsintacklingchronicandextremepovertyinBangladesh.CPRCNationalPolicyBrief:Bangladesh.

Dang,H-A.(2010).AWideningPovertyGapforEthnicMinorities.InHall,G.andH-APatrinoseds.IndigenousPeoples,PovertyandDevelopment.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Dang,NghiemVan,ChuThaiSonandLeHung(2000).EthnicMinoritiesinVietnam.Hanoi,Vietnam:TheGioiPublishers.Dava,S.,R.Jhabvala,S.K.Mehta,G.Standing(2015)BasicIncome.ATransformativePolicyforIndia.London,New

York:BloomsburyAcademic.ESCAP,ADB,andUNDP(2013).Technology,financeandstatisticsforsustainabledevelopmentinAsiaandthePacificFukuda-Parr,S.,Greenstein,J.andStewart,D.(2013)‘HowShouldMDGSuccessandFailureBeJudged:FasterProgress

orAchievingtheTargets’.WorldDevelopment,Vol41:19-30.Gazdar,H(2011)SocialprotectioninPakistan:Inthemidstofaparadigmshift?CSPResearchReport13,January2011.Goetz,AMandRSenGupta(1996):‘WhoTakestheCredit?Gender,PowerandControloverLoanUseinRuralCredit

ProgrammesinBangladesh’,WorldDevelopment,Vol24(1):45-63.Goh,Chor-ching;Luo,Xubei;&Zhu,Nong.(2009). ChinaEconomicReview, 20(3), 485-496.Groce,N.,Kembhavi,G.,Wirz,S.,Lang,R.Trani,J-F.,Kett,M.(2011)Povertyanddisability–acriticalreviewof

theliteratureinLowandMiddleIncomeCountries.WorkingPaperSeries,(16).London:UCLLeonardCheshireDisabilityandInclusiveDevelopmentCentre.

Hall,G.H.andH.A.Patrinos.(2012)IntroductionandConclusionin‘IndigenousPeoples,PovertyandDevelopment’.EditedbyGilletteH.HallandH.A.Patrinos.CambridgeUniversityPress.

HandicapInternationalFrance(2009).’DisabilityfactsinCambodia’.BriefingPaper,March2009,HandicapInternationalHannum,E.andM.Wang.(2012).China:ACaseStudyinRapidPovertyReduction.In‘IndigenousPeoples,Povertyand

Development’.EditedbyGilletteH.HallandH.A.Patrinos.CambridgeUniversityPressHardy,Andrew.“Statevisions,migrantdecisions:populationmovementssincetheendoftheVietnamWar.” Postwar

Vietnam:Dynamicsofatransformingsociety (2003):107-138.Hossain,N.(2012).Women’sEmpowermentRevisited:FromIndividualtoCollectivePoweramongtheExportSector

WorkersofBangladesh.InstituteofDevelopmentStudiesWorkingPaperVol2012No389.ILO(2009)’InclusionofpeoplewithdisabilitiesinCambodia’.FactSheet,Geneva:InternationalLabourOrganisationILO(2013)CambodiaLabourForceandChildLabourSurvey2012:LabourForceReport.InternationalLabour

Organization,ILOInternationalProgrammeontheEliminationofChildLabour(IPEC),NationalInstituteofStatistics(NIS).PhonmPenh:ILO,2013.

Imai,K.andR.Gaiha.(2007).Poverty,inequalityandethnicminoritiesinVietnam.TheSchoolofEconomicsDiscussionPaperSeries0719,Economics,TheUniversityofManchester.

38 ODI Report

InformationOfficeoftheStateCouncilofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,2009‘China’sEthnicPolicyandCommonProsperityandDevelopmentofAllEthnicGroups’September27,2009,Beijing.

InnovativeDevelopmentStrategies(IDS)(2009)‘SummaryReport-RapidAssessmentSurveyoftheBenazirIncomeSupportProgram’.September28,2009,TheWorldBank

Kabeer,N(1999):‘FromFeministInsightstoanAnalyticalFramework:AnInstitutionalPerspectiveonGenderInequality’inInstitutions,RelationsandOutcomes:AFrameworkandCaseStudiesforGenderAwarePlanning,KaliforWomen,NewDelhiandZedPress,London.

Kabeer,N.(1985).‘DowomengainfromHighFertility’,inAfsharH(ed.)Women,WorkandIdeologyintheThirdWorld,London:TavistockPress.

Kabeer,N.(2010).CantheMDGsprovideapathwaytosocialjustice?Thechallengeofintersectinginequalities.InstituteofDevelopmentStudiesandMDGAchievementFunds.

Kenny,C.andSumner,A.(2011)‘MoreMoneyorMoreDevelopment:WhatHavetheMDGsAchieved?’WorkingPaper278.Washington,DC:CGD.

Knowles,JC(2005).Health,VulnerabilityandPovertyinCambodia:Analysisofthe2005CambodiaSocio-EconomicSurvey.PhnomPen,Cambodia:theWorldBank

Masset,E.andWhite,H.(2004).ArechronicallypoorpeoplebeingleftoutofprogresstowardstheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals?Aquantitativeanalysisofolderpeople,disabledpeopleandorphans.JournalofHumanDevelopment5(2),pp.279-297.

McElwee,P.(2004).BecomingsocialistorbecomingKinh?GovernmentpoliciesforethnicminoritiesinthesocialistrepublicofVietNam.InDuncan,C.eds.CivilisingtheMargins:SoutheastAsianGovernmentPoliciesFortheDevelopmentofMinorities.182-213.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress

McLaughlin,DanielDanielElizabethWickeri(2012).SpecialReport,MentalHealthandHumanRightsinCambodia.LeitnerCentreforInternationalLawandJustice

Melamad,C.(2012).‘Puttinginequalityinthepost-2015picture’London:ODIMelamed,Claire(2015).‘Leavingnoonebehind:howtheSDGscanbringaboutrealchange’.London:Overseas

DevelopmentInstitutePanth,Rabilal,(2013)‘NijamatiSewaPrabeshmaArakshanAbhyasleDekhayekoSanket’(TrendsShownbythePractice

ofReservationsinCivilService),NijamatiSevaPatrika(CivilServiceJournal),34:1,JanuaryPazArauco,V.,Gazdar,H.,Hevia-Pacheco,P.,Kabeer,N.,Lenhardt,A.,Masood,S.Q.,Naqvi,H.,Nayak,N.,Norton,

A.,Sabharwal,N.S.,Scalise,E.,Shepherd,A.,Thapa,D.,Thorat,S.,HienTran,D.,Vergara-Camus,L.,Woldehanna,T.,Mariotti,C.(2014)Strengtheningsocialjusticetoaddressintersectinginequalitiespost-2015.ODIReport.London:OverseasDevelopmentInstitute.

Rama,M.(2008)MakingDifficultChoices:VietnaminTransition.Washington,DC:WorldBankRodriguezTakeuchi,L.andSamman,E.(2015)PatternsofprogressontheMDGsandimplicationsfortarget-setting

post-2015DevelopmentProgressReport.London:OverseasDevelopmentInstitute.Samman,E.(2015).‘WhyandhowacountrylensmattersfortheSDGs’.London:OverseasDevelopmentInstitute.Samman,E.andL.Rodriguez-Takeuchi(2013).Oldage,disabilityandmentalhealth:dataissuesforapost-2015

framework.Backgroundnote.London:OverseasDevelopmentInstitute.Sen,Amartya.“Women’ssurvivalasadevelopmentproblem.” BulletinoftheAmericanAcademyofArtsand

Sciences (1989):14-29.SEWABharat(2014)‘ALittleMore,HowMuchItis…’PilotingBasicIncomeTransfersinMadhyaPradesh,India’.

SEWABharatwiththesupportofUNICEF,IndiaOffice.Sida(2012).“DisabilityRightsinCambodia.”PhnomPenh:SidaThapa,Deepak(2013)‘AddressingIntersectingInequalitiesinaPost-ConflictNepal’Background

paperforthereportStrengtheningsocialjusticetoaddressintersectinginequalitiespost-2015,availableathttp://www.chronicpovertynetwork.org/resources/2015/2/24/strengthening-social-justice-to-address-intersecting-inequalities-post-2015

UN(2015).‘TransformingOurWorld:The2030AgendaforSustainableDevelopment’.UN(n.a.)‘DisabilityRightsInitiativeCambodia.JointPorgrammeDocument’.ParticipatingUNorganizations:

UNDP,UNICEFandWHOUNESCAP(2013).EconomicandSocialSurveyofAsiaandthePacific2013:Forward-lookingMacroeconomicPolicies

forInclusiveandSustainableDevelopment.SalesNo.E.13.II.F.2.UNESCAP(2013).EconomicandSocialSurveyofAsiaandthePacific2013:Forward-lookingMacroeconomicPolicies

forInclusiveandSustainableDevelopment.SalesNo.E.13.II.F.2.UNESCAP,ADBandUNDP(2015).‘Makingithappen:Technology,financeandstatisticsforsustainabledevelopment’.

AsiaPacificRegionalMDGReportReport2014/15.

Leaving no one behind in Asia 39

UNSystemTaskTeamonthePost-2015UNDevelopmentAgenda(2012).‘Addressinginequalities:Theheartofthepost-2015agendaandthefuturewewantforall’ECE,ESCAP,UNDESA,UNICEF,UNRISD,UNWomen.

UNDP(2014)NepalHumanDevelopmentReport2014.BeyondGeographyUnlockingHumanPotential.UnitedNationDevelopmentProgram(UNDP)andGovernmentofNepal,NationalPlanningCommission

UNESCAP(2012)‘DisabilityataGlance2012.StrengtheningtheevidencebaseinAsiaandthePacific’.Bangkok,Thailand:EconomicandSocialCommissionforAsiaandthePacific.

UnitedNations(2013).‘ANewGlobalPartnership:EradicatePovertyandTransformEconomiesthroughSustainableDevelopment’.TheReportoftheHigh-LevelPanelofEminentPersonsonthePost-2015DevelopmentAgenda.NewYork:UnitedNations.

UnitedNations(2015).Transformingourworld:the20130agendasustainabledevelopment.vandeWalle,D.P.andGunewardena,D.(2000)SourcesofEthnicInequalityinVietnam.JournalofDevelopment

Economics,Vol.65,No.1,Pp.177-207,May2001.Wang,Sangui.2004.“PovertyTargetinginthePeople’sRepublicofChina.”Tokyo:AsianDevelopmentBankInstitute

DiscussionPaperNo.4,Retrieved4/24,2009(http://www.adbi.org/files/2004.01.04.dp004.poverty.china.pdf).WorldBank(2009).CountrySocialAnalysis:EthnicityandDevelopmentinVietnam.Accessedfromhttp://siteresources.

worldbank.org/INTEAPREGTOPSOCDEV/Resources/499760ESW0Whit1C10VietnamSummary1LR.pdfWorldBank(2012)‘TowardsanIntegratedNationalSafetyNetSystem’.Islamabad;DepartmentforInternationalDevelopment.WorldBank(2015).WBUpdateSays10CountriesMoveUpinIncomeBracket.Pressrelease(July1,2015).Available

athttp://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/07/01/new-world-bank-update-shows-bangladesh-kenya-myanmar-and-tajikistan-as-middle-income-while-south-sudan-falls-back-to-low-income

WorldBank,WDI.WorldDevelopmentIndicators.Xinhua(2010)‘ethnicMinoritiesEnjoyEqualRightsinChina’,26September2010,availableathttp://news.xinhuanet.

com/english2010/china/2010-09/26/c_13530003.htmZang,Xiaowei(2015)EthnicityinChina:ACriticalIntroduction.PolityPress

40 ODI Report

Appendix 1: Methodological noteThequantitativeapproachisbasedonlogitregressions.Outcomesarepresentedincategories,oftenbinary(yes/no).Abasemodelregressestheoutcomeofinterest(e.g.accesstoelectricity)ongroups.InBangladesh,thecovariatesusedareplaceofresidence,subnationalregion,religion,genderofhouseholdhead,agecategoryofhouseholdheadandexpenditurequintile.Inaddition,disabilitystatuswasincludedinthe2010analysis.InVietnam,thegroupsusedwereethnicity,placeofresidence,subnationalregion,religionandwealthquintile.

Whentheoutcomesareatanindividualratherthanahouseholdlevel,asinthecaseofyearsofeducation,afifthgroup,gender,isaddedandtheregressionsandacontrolfortheageoftheindividualisalsoincluded.Aninteractionmodel,withaninteractionoftwoofthegroups,isaddedtotheregression.Theresultsdiscussionsarebasedonthesemodels.

Theresultsarereportedintermsofpredictedprobabilities(marginaleffects)forthedifferentgroupcategoriesandselectedgroupintersections.TheseprobabilitiesarecomputedasAverageAdjustedPredictionsandasAdjustedPredictionsatRepresentativevalues

(asopposedtoAdjustedPredictionsattheMeans).Thisisbecausethemeansofcategoriesrarelyhaveastraightforwardinterpretation(e.g.an‘averageperson’49%femaleor30%urban).Forexample,toestimatetheaverageadjustedpredictionofgender,thepersonisforamomenttreatedasthoughtheywerefemale,regardlessoftheperson’sactualgender,leavingallothervariablevaluesattheiractualvalues.Theprobabilityof,say,havingbeingliterateiscalculatedforthepersonandthenaveragedacrossallindividuals.

Thesameisrepeatedforallthecategoriesandgroupsandthedifferencebetweenabasecategoryandeachoftheothersispresentedforcomparison(e.g.,inthecaseofethnicity,thebasecategoryistheethnicmajority,thustheresultsarepresentedasthedifferenceinprobabilitybetweenbelongingtothemajorityandtheminorityethnicgroups).

Sincetheseaveragescanstillobscuredifferencesacrosscases,andtheactualeffectofethnicityalsovarieswithothercharacteristicsofapersonsuchaswheretheylive,ortheirgender,adjustedpredictionsatrepresentativevaluesareestimatedforselectedgroupsandintersectionsofinterest.


Appendix 2: List of indicators TheindicatorswereselectedtoreflectawidevarietyofoutcomesandcovertheindicatorscoveredintheMDGsandlikelytofeatureintheSDGstotheextentpossible.Dataavailabilityinthehouseholdsurveys(HIESandMICS)guidedindicatorselection.Thetablesbelowexplaintheindicatorsusedintheanalysisinthepaper.

42 ODI Report

Bangladesh

Indicator Measurement

Monetary poverty Share of people in households where the per capita expenditure is less than the national upper poverty line for the location they reside in.

Access to clean water Households where the main source of drinking water was piped water or a tubewell.

Access to sanitation Households that have a sanitary latrine or a pacca (concrete) water seal or pit latrine.

Access to electricity Households that have an electricity connection.

Mobile phone ownership Households that report owning a mobile phone.

Literacy Individuals that can read a letter.

Measles vaccine Children under 5 years of age that have received the measles vaccine.

Skilled birth attendant Women of reproductive age (15 to 44 years), irrespective of the year in which they gave birth, that gave birth in the presence of a doctor, nurse of trained mid-wife.

Vietnam

Indicator Measurement

Monetary poverty Share of households in the bottom wealth quintile.

Access to clean water Households with connection to piped water into the dwelling, compound or yard, to neighbour, or using a public tap or standpipe, protected well, protected spring, rainwater collection, or bottled water.

Access to sanitation Households using the following sanitation types: flush to pipe sewer system, septic tank, or pit, or unknown place; ventilated, improved pit latrine, pit latrine with slab; or composting toilet.

Access to electricity Households that report having access to electricity.

Access to clean fuel Households using electricity, liquefied petroleum gas, natural gas, biogas, or kerosene for cooking.

Education poverty Individuals between 20 and 25 years old with less than 2 (extreme) or 4 (moderate) completed years of education.

Child death Women of reproductive age that responded that they have had a child that was born alive but died later.

Measles vaccine Children under 5 years of age that received the measles vaccine.

Antenatal care Women of reproductive age that gave birth in the past two years that received antenatal care from a doctor, nurse, midwife or elementary nurse/midwife.


Appendix 3: Upper poverty line in Bangladesh, 2005 and 2010 (local currency: taka)

Region Sector 2005 2010

Barisal Rural 926 1485

Municipal 951 1963

Chittagong Rural 951 1687

Municipal 963 1825

SMA 1171 1876

Dhaka Rural 842 1497

Municipal 890 1793

SMA 1018 2038

Khulna Rural 743 1435

Municipal 825 1680

SMA 938 1639

Rajshahi Rural 766 1487

Municipal 857 1585

SMA 857 1556

Sylhet Rural 822 1311

Municipal 1020 1558

Source: World Bank (2013)

ODI is the UK’s leading independent think tank on international development and humanitarian issues.

Readers are encouraged to reproduce material from ODI Reports for their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. As copyright holder, ODI requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. For online use, we ask readers to link to the original resource on the ODI website. The views presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of ODI.© Overseas Development Institute 2016. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Licence (CC BY-NC 3.0).ISSN: 2052-7209

All ODI Reports are available from www.odi.org

Cover photo: A market in Dhaka, Bangladesh

Overseas Development Institute203 Blackfriars Road London SE1 8NJTel +44 (0)20 7922 0300 Fax +44 (0)20 7922 0399

odi.org

Who is being left behind in Asia? - 60 years of impact · Who is being left behind in Asia? 5...

Documents

Transcript of Who is being left behind in Asia? - 60 years of impact · Who is being left behind in Asia? 5...