REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIANATIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
Namibia Poverty Mapping
Macroeconomic Planning Department
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIANATIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
Namibia Poverty Mapping
Macroeconomic Planning Department
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation2
National Planning CommissionGovernment Office ParkLuther StreetPrivate Bag 13356WindhoekTel.: +264 61 283 4111Website: www.npc.gov.na
Republic of Namibia
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ......................................................................................................................8
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................9
1.1 About Namibia and Overview of Development Challenges .......................................9
1.2 Understanding Poverty ..............................................................................................9
1.3 IntroductiontoPovertyMappinginNamibia ..........................................................10
2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................11
3 POVERTY PATTERNS AND TRENDS ....................................................................................12
3.1 RegionalPovertyPatternsandTrends .....................................................................12
3.2 ConstituencyPovertyPatternsandTrends ..............................................................17
3.2.1 Overview of constituency poverty patterns and profiles ............................17
3.2.2 Zambezi region ...........................................................................................18
3.3.3 Erongo region .............................................................................................21
3.3.4 Hardap region ............................................................................................24
3.3.5 Karas region ...............................................................................................26
3.3.6 Kavango region ..........................................................................................28
3.3.7 Khomas region ............................................................................................31
3.3.8 Kunene region ............................................................................................34
3.3.9 Ohangwena region .....................................................................................36
3.3.10 Omaheke region .........................................................................................38
3.3.11 Omusati region ...........................................................................................40
3.3.12 Oshana region ............................................................................................43
3.3.13 Oshikoto region ..........................................................................................46
3.3.14 Otjozondjupa region ...................................................................................48
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS ........................................................................51
4.1 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................51
4.2 PolicyRecommendations .........................................................................................52
References ....................................................................................................................53
Annex 1: Detailed Headcount Poverty using the Upper Poverty Line 2001 - 2011 ...54 Annex2: TechnicalNotes ..........................................................................................59
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: TrendsinPovertyHeadcountRate,2001-2011(upperboundpovertyline) .........12
Table 2: TrendsinPovertyHeadcountRate,2001-2011(lowerboundpovertyline) .........16
Table 3: Proportionofconstituencieswithmorethan30%and50%ofthe populationclassifiedaspoor(upperboundpovertyline),2011 ..........................18
Table 4: ZambeziRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (upperboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................19
Table 5: Zambezi Region Poverty Headcount Rate Scores and Values (lowerboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................20
Table 6: Erongo Region PovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (upperboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................21
Table 7: Erongo Region PovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (lowerboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................23
Table 8: HardapRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (upperboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................24
Table 9: HardapRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (lowerboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................26
Table 10: KarasRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (upperboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................26
Table 11: KarasRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (lowerboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................28
Table 12: KavangoRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (upperboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................29
Table 13: KavangoRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (lowerboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................30
Table 14: KhomasRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (upperboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................31
Table 15: KhomasRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (lowerboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................33
Table 16: KuneneRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (upperboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................34
Table 17: KuneneRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (lowerboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................36
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 5
Table 18: OhangwenaRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (upperboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................36
Table 19: OhangwenaRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (lowerboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................38
Table 20: OmahekeRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (upperboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................39
Table 21: OmahekeRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (lowerboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................40
Table 22: OmusatiRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (upperboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................41
Table 23: OmusatiRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (lowerboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................43
Table 24: OshanaRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (upperboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................43
Table 25: OshanaRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (lowerboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................45
Table 26: OshikotoRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (upperboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................46
Table 27: OshikotoRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (lowerboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................48
Table 28: OtjozondjupaRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (upperboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................49
Table 29: OtjozondjupaRegionPovertyHeadcountRateScoresandValues,2001-2011 (upperboundpovertyline) .....................................................................................50
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation6
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1: NamibiaPovertyHeadcountRate,2011(upperboundpovertyline) ................... 13
Map 2: ChangeinNamibiaPovertyHeadcountRate,2011-2001 (upperboundpovertyline,percentagepoints) ..................................................... 15
Map 3: Zambezi Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 19
Map 4: ZambeziRegionChangeinPovertyHeadcountRate,2001-2011 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 20
Map 5: Erongo Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 22
Map 6: ErongoRegionChangeinPovertyHeadcountRate,2011-2001 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 23
Map 7: Hardap Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 25
Map 8: HardapRegionChangeinPovertyHeadcountRate,2011-2001 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 25
Map 9: Karas Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 27
Map 10: KarasRegionChangeinPovertyHeadcountRate,2011-2001 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 27
Map 11: Kavango Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 29
Map 12: KavangoRegionChangeinPovertyHeadcountRate,2011-2001 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 30
Map 13: Khomas Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 32
Map 14: KhomasRegionChangeinPovertyHeadcountRate,2011-2001 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 33
Map 15: Kunene Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 35
Map 16: KuneneRegionChangeinPovertyHeadcountRate,2011-2001 (upperboundpovertyline). .................................................................................. 35
Map 17: Ohangwena Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 37
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 7
Map 18: OhangwenaRegionChangeinPovertyHeadcountRate,2011-2001 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 38
Map 19: Omaheke Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 39
Map 20: OmahekeRegionChangeinPovertyHeadcountRate,2011-2001 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 40
Map 21: OmusatiRegionPovertyHeadcountRatein2011 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 41
Map 22: OmusatiRegionChangeinPovertyHeadcountRate,2011-2001 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 42
Map 23: Oshana Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 44
Map 24: OshanaRegionChangeinPovertyHeadcountRate,2011-2001 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 45
Map 25: Oshikoto Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 46
Map 26: OshikotoRegionChangeinPovertyHeadcountRate,2011-2001 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 47
Map 27: Otjozondjupa Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 49
Map 28: OtjozondjupaRegionChangeinPovertyHeadcountRate,2011-2001 (upperboundpovertyline) ................................................................................... 50
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: NationalPovertyHeadcountShares,2011(upperboundpovertyline) 17
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation8
PREFACE
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 9
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 About Namibia and Overview of Development Challenges
Namibiahasapopulationof2113077people,57percentofwhom live in ruralareas.Overthe2001to2011period,thepopulationgrowthratedeclinedfrom2.6percentperannumto1.4percent,whilethefertilityratedeclinedfrom4.1childrenperwomanto3.6childrenperwoman.Namibia is classified as an uppermiddle income country,with an estimated annualGrossNationalIncome(GNI)percapitaofUS$5693.Sixtyfivepercentofthetotalpopulationfallswithintheagecategory15yearsandabove.Ofthese,71percentcomprisethelabourforce,withtheunemploymentrateestimatedat29.6percentofthetotallabourforce.
Sinceindependence,theGovernmentoftheRepublicofNamibiahasconsistentlyformulatedpolicies and programmes to address developmental challenges. The current fourth NationalDevelopmentPlan(NDP4)outlinesthedevelopmentobjectivesandpriorityprogrammestobeimplementedover thefiscal period 2012/13 to 2016/17. The threeoverarching goals of theNDP4aretoachievehighandsustainedeconomicgrowth,employmentcreation,andincreasedincomeequality.TheGovernmentisalsocommittedtoachievingtheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDGs)andotherinternationaldevelopmentgoalsandobjectives,suchastheSustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDGs)currentlyunderdiscussionsattheintergovernmentallevel.
Acoreobjectiveofthenationalpolicyformulationandplanningprocess,andconsonancewiththeaspirationofachievingtheMDGs,iseradicationofpoverty.In1998,theGovernmentadoptedthePovertyReductionStrategyanditsActionPlan,whilemorerecentlyin2012,theNationalRuralDevelopmentPolicywasalsoadopted.Theaimofthispolicyistopromotesystematicandcoordinated development planning, and respond to the plethora of development challengesfacing rural populations. The central objective of the Rural Development Policy, which wasdeveloped in furtheranceof theDecentralisationPolicy, is topromoteservicedeliverywithinthedecentralisedlevelsofgovernance–regionsandconstituencies.Todriveeconomicgrowthand, importantly, create jobs and thus address poverty, the Government has prioritised theagricultural,education,healthandhousingsectorsforpublicinvestmentssinceindependence.
1.2 Understanding Poverty
Povertyisamultidimensionalconceptrelatingtoalackofresourceswithwhichtoacquireasetofbasicgoodsandservices.Conceptually,povertycanbeviewedasastateofdeprivationandcanbedefinedinbothabsoluteandrelativeterms.Absolutepovertycanbeseenastheinabilitytoaffordcertainbasicgoodsandservices.Delineationofthoselivinginabsolutepoverty,therefore,aims to determine the number of people living below a certain income threshold or the number ofhouseholdsunabletoaffordbasicgoodsandservices. Ineverycountry,thepoverty line issettomeasurepovertyinaccordancewiththeexpectationofthecostofmeetingbasichumanneeds.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation10
Relativepoverty,ontheotherhand,referstoastandardoflivingthatisdefinedintermsoftheexpectationsofthewidersocietyinwhichanindividuallives,andisacomparativemeasureofpoverty.Thusanindividualmaybenon-poorinabsolutetermsbutmaystillbeconsideredpoorrelativetoothermembersofhisorhersociety.
Thepovertylinesbasedonthesamplesurveywerederivedusingtheabsolutepovertymeasure,basedontheestimatesofcostofbasicneedsasadoptedbyNamibiaStatisticsAgency(thenCensusBureauofStatistics)in2004.Atwostageestimationprocesswasadoptedforderivingthispovertyline.First,estimatesofthecostofbasicfoodneeds,thatis,thecostofanutritionalbasketoffoodconsideredminimalforthehealthysurvivalofatypicalhousehold,wasusedtodefinealowerboundor‘severe’povertyline.Second,anestimateofthevalueofabundleofnon-food items consistent with the spending of the poor was added to the lower bound or food poverty/severepovertytodeterminetheupperboundpovertyline.
Thus,povertyisdefinedasthepercentageofpeopleinaspecificareawhoseannualperadultequivalentconsumptionisbelowthepovertyline.In2003/2004thepovertylinesofannualisedperadultequivalentexpenditurewere:lowerbound-N$2217.72andupperbound-N$3149.40.In 2010 the poverty line of annualised per adult equivalent expenditure, after adjusting forinflation,were:lowerbound-N$3330.48andupperbound-N$4535.52.Whentheannualperadultequivalentconsumptionisbelowtheupperboundpovertyline,anindividualisconsideredtobepoor,andwhenitisbelowthelowerboundpovertylinetheindividualisconsideredtobeseverelypoor.Thepovertyheadcount(incidenceofpoverty)istheproportionofthepopulationwhoseconsumptionisbelowthepovertyline.
1.3 Introduction to Poverty Mapping in Namibia
The present report presents the results of povertymapping inNamibia. Povertymapping isconsidered importantbecause itprovidesadetaileddescriptionof thespatialdistributionoftrends inpovertyat regionalandconstituency levels. This report combines the2003/04and2009/10NamibiaHouseholdIncomeandExpenditureSurvey(NHIES)data,andthe2001and2011NamibiaPopulationandHousingCensusdata,with theobjectiveofestimatingpovertylevelsforthethirteenregionsand107constituenciesofNamibia.Inthepast,povertyestimateshave been done using the NHIES data alone.
However,duetothelowstatisticalpowerresultingfromthesmallsamplesizeassociatedwithsuch surveys (approximately 10 000 households only), it has not been possible to estimatepovertymeasuresatconstituencylevelinNamibiaandearlierestimateshaveonlybeendoneatregionallevels.UsingeconometrictechniquesthatcombinetheNHIESandCensusdata,thestudyprovidespovertymeasuresatregionalandconstituencylevelsattwotimepoints–2001and2011–theyearsinwhichNamibiaHousingandPopulationCensuseswereconducted.Thustheresultsarebasedontheentirepopulationwithoutasamplebias.Themajorlimitationofthestudy,however,isthattheestimationprocessisbasedonthegeneralisedassumptionthatcharacteristicsofpoorindividualsorhouseholdsinthesamplesurvey(NHIES)definethepoorindividualsand/orhouseholdsintheentirepopulation.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 11
Thestudycoversthethirteenregionsand107constituentsthatwere inexistencebeforetherecent boundary reviews by the Delimitation Commission. These are the geographic areasthat formed the basis of both the surveys and censuses. For consistency in the applicationand interpretation of data, and especially in order to avoid any possiblemisapplication andmisinterpretationofdata,itwasdeemednecessarytoanalyseandpresentdataonthebasisofthe boundaries that existed during the surveys and censuses.
Thepurposeofthisexerciseistoprovideanadditionalbodyofdataandinformationonpovertydynamics inNamibia. The added value of the present exercise is that the analysis has beenundertakenandresultspresentedformuchsmallergeographicunits–constituencies.Althoughan attempthasbeenmade to identify thepossible causesof andexplanations for observedpovertytrends,thisisbynomeansexhaustiveandfurtheranalysiswillberequiredtodeepentheunderstandingofthecausesofpoverty inNamibiaatnational,regionalandconstituencylevels.Afterthisintroduction,Section2describesthemethodologyappliedinthisstudy,Section3elaboratesonthefindingsofthestudy,whileSection4drawssomeconclusionsandpolicyrecommendations.
2 METHODOLOGY
ThisreportpresentstheincidenceofpovertyinNamibiaattheconstituencylevel.Ideallythisshouldbedoneusingasingledataset.However,todosowouldrequireadatasetthatnotonlycontainsenoughhouseholdinformation,butalsohasenoughobservationsforeachconstituencyto allow for the accurate measurement of poverty at a local level. No such dataset currently existsinNamibia.Infact,veryfewcountriesintheworldhavedetailedhouseholdsurveyswithsuchlargesamplesthataccurateestimatesofpovertycanbedeterminedforgeographicareaswithsmallpopulations.
Instead the report combines two sources of data: the Namibia Household Income and ExpenditureSurvey(NHIES)andtheNamibiaPopulationandHousingCensus.The2003/04and2009/10NHIESdatasetscontainaccurateincomeandexpendituredata,buttoofewhouseholdsare sampled in each constituency for poverty estimates at constituency level. The 2001 and2011Censusescontainnoincomeorexpendituredata,buthaveampleobservations.SincetheCensusdoesnotcontainanyexpenditureinformation,theperadultexpenditurelevelforeachhouseholdwasestimatedusingapovertymappingmodel.Amoretechnicalexplanationofthemethodology followed isprovided for specialist readers in theAnnex2,while theparagraphbelow provides a broad overview.
ThemodelfollowstheimputationapproachofElbersetal.(2003).Theseauthorssuggest,first,choosing a set of household characteristics found in both datasets. Next, using the smallerdatasetthathasaccurateexpendituredata(theNHIESinthiscase),itispossibletoderivetherelationshipbetweenthechosensetofhouseholdcharacteristicsandhouseholdexpenditure.ThisrelationshipcanbeusedtopredicttheexpectedlevelofexpenditureforeachhouseholdintheCensus,sincethesamesetofhouseholdcharacteristicsispresentintheCensus.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation12
Not every household with the same characteristics will have exactly the same expenditurelevel.Forthatreason,themodelalsogeneratesasetofexpecteddeviationsfromtheaveragethrough a Monte Carlo process that also considers that households in the same survey cluster aresomewhatmorealikethanotherhouseholds.Averagepovertyratesarethenestimatedforeachconstituency.
3 POVERTY PATTERNS AND TRENDS
Inthissection,theresultsofthepovertymappingexercisearepresented.Foreachregion,themajordefiningcharacteristics intermsofgeographicarea,populationsizeanddensity,majorphysicalfeatures,andresourceendowmentsareoutlined.Thisisfollowedbyadiscussionofthespatialdistributionofpovertytrendsoverthe2001to2011period.Pooreducationliesattherootofmuchofthepoverty,thusthereportoftenreferstotheeducationsituationindifferentareas.People’smovementswithinandbetweenregionsareoftendrivenbyeconomicopportunities,thereforepopulationgrowthisdiscussed.Furthermore,povertyiscloselylinkedtootherformsofdeprivation,makingserviceprovisionamajorfactorinaddressingpoverty.
3.1 Regional Poverty Patterns and Trends
AscanbeseenfromTable1,Namibiaregisteredageneraldeclineintheincidenceofpovertyof11percentagepointsoverthe2001to2011period,withthenationalincidenceofpovertydeclining from 37.9 percent to 26.9 percent over this period. Currently about 568 418 people areestimatedtobepoor.Thisindicatesatotalnumberof125277fewerpeoplelivinginpovertyat the end of this period of ten years than would have been the case if the poverty rate had remained unchanged.
ThegreatestdeclineswereregisteredinthenorthernregionsofOhangwena,Omusati,Kuneneand Oshikoto, as well the eastern region of Omaheke. However, two regions (Zambezi andKhomas)registeredincreasesof7.2percentagepointsand1.2percentagepoints,respectively.In2011,outofthethirteenregions,sevenregions(Otjozondjupa,Oshikoto,Omusati,Ohangwena,Kunene,ZambeziandKavango)hadpovertyincidencesthatwereabovethenationalrateof26.9percent.Thesedeviationsfromthegeneraldeclinewillbediscussedinmoredetaillaterinthisreport.
Table 1: Trends in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
RegionPoverty Headcount Rate
2001 2011 ChangeZambezi 32.0 39.3 7.2Erongo 9.3 6.3 -3.0Hardap 20.4 17.2 -3.2Karas 18.0 14.5 -3.4Kavango 57.9 53.2 -4.8
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 13
Khomas 3.4 4.6 1.2Kunene 53.7 38.9 -14.8Ohangwena 62.8 35.3 -27.5Omaheke 41.6 26.2 -15.5Omusati 50.9 28.6 -22.2Oshana 28.3 21.1 -7.1Oshikoto 57.3 42.6 -14.7Otjozondjupa 30.4 27.5 -2.9Namibia 37.9 26.9 -11.0
Map1,below,givesthespatialdistributionoftheincidenceofpovertybyregionin2011.Itcanbeseenthatinboth2011and2001,Ohangwena,Kunene,Zambezi,OshikotoandKavangohadmorethanonethirdoftheirpopulationclassifiedaspoor.PovertyinNamibiastillbearsadistinctruralface,withthepoorestregionsbeingthoseinwhichthemajorityofthepopulationlivesinruralareas.Theregionswiththelowestincidencesofpoverty(KhomasandErongo)havelargelyurbanpopulationsandaretheeconomichubsofthecountry,withrelativelymoreemploymentopportunities.
Although,asinZambeziregion,thepovertyincidenceinKhomasincreasedbetween2001and2011,theregionstillhasthelowestincidenceofpovertywithonly5percentofitspopulationlivingbelow thepoverty line. Erongo, Karas,Hardap andOshana also reported low levels ofpoverty.KhomasregionishometoWindhoek,thepoliticalandeconomiccapitalofthecountry.ErongoregionnotonlyhasmostoftheexistingminesbutalsoborderstheAtlanticOceanwhichproducesfish,amajorexportcommodityforNamibia.ThisregionalsohastheNamibDesert,animportanttouristdestination.Indeedin2011theregionrecordedthesecondhighesttouristarrivalsinthecountry,withabout345000visitors.
Map 1: Namibia Poverty Headcount Rate, 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation14
Although therewasageneraldecline in the incidenceofpovertyat thenational level, thereweremarkeddifferencesintherecordedchangesintheincidenceofpovertyacrosstheregions(seeMap2).AscanbeseenfromTable1above,in2001thepoorestregionwasOhangwenafollowedbyKavango,Oshikoto,KuneneandOmusati,withmore thanhalfof thepopulationbeingclassifiedaspoorintheseregions.By2011,however,thesituationhadchangedwithonlyKavango(at53percent)havingmorethanhalfofitspopulationclassifiedaspoor.Thiswidely-baseddeclineinpovertyisareflectionofimportanteconomic,socialandpolicyprogressthathasbeenmade,andisthemostnotabletrendbetweenthetwocensusyears.
Intermsofregionalranking,thesituationhaschanged,withKavangobeingthepoorestregionfollowedbyOshikoto,Zambezi,KuneneandOhangwena.Importantly,Omusatiregionhadfallenoutofthefivehighestpovertyheadcountrateregions,whileZambezihadjoinedthisgroup.Overthe2001to2011period,Omusatiregionexperiencedareductionof22percentagepointsintheincidenceofpoverty,fromahighof51percentin2001toalowof29percentin2011.AccordingtotheTownCouncilauthorities,thisremarkableprogresscanbeattributedtoincreasedprivateinvestmentduringtheperiod,asexemplifiedbyrapidgrowthofshoppingcomplexesandotherbusinessactivitiesinthetownofOutapiafteritsproclamationasatownwithanautonomousTownCouncilin2002.Theincreaseinbusinessactivitiesledtojobcreationandavailabilityofcriticalservicesinthearea.
ThedeclineinthepovertyheadcountratewasnotlimitedtoOmusatiregion,however.Theratedeclined in nearly all regions,withOhangwena, KuneneandOshikoto andOmaheke regionsregisteringthegreatestdeclines.Forinstance,Ohangwenaregion,whichwasthepoorestregionin2001,recordedaremarkablereductioninthepovertyheadcountrateof28percentagepointsduring the period under consideration. According to the Ohangwena Regional Council, thisisattributable to increasedeconomicactivity in that region,stimulatedbypublicandprivateinvestments which boosted the regional economy.
Inaddition, thepastdecadehaswitnessed the successful completionofmany infrastructureprojects, including road networks, sanitation in rural areas and the construction of publicinfrastructure–schools,earlychildhooddevelopmentcentres,shoppingcomplexes,smallandmedium enterprise (SME) parks and health facilities. The region has also benefitted from asuccessfulroll-outofantiretroviraltherapy(ART),aswellascross-bordertradewithneighbouringAngola,mainlycarriedoutthroughthebordertownofOshikango.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 15
Map 2: Namibia Change in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2011 - 2001 (upper bound poverty line, percentage points)
Two regions (Zambezi and Khomas) recorded increases in the incidence of poverty over the2001to2011period,withtheincidenceofpovertyintheseregionsincreasingby7.3percentand1.2percent,respectively.AlthoughKhomaswastheleastpoorregionatboththe2001and2011timepoints,itspovertylevelsincreasedslightlybetweenthesetwopoints.Thiscouldbeattributedtothehighrateofruraltourbanmigration,withmostofthemigrantsbeingyoungpeoplefromother,oftenmuchpoorer,regions.ThepopulationofKhomasincreasedbyalmost92000orabout37percentoverthedecade,morethantwicetheNamibianrateofpopulationgrowth. For most young migrants, Khomas region, especially Windhoek, is their preferreddestination.Many,however,areillequippedforthejobmarketandenduplivingindeplorableconditionswithoutjobs.
While in 2001 the incidence of poverty in the Zambezi region was comparable to that inOtjozondjupa, by 2011 the situation in these two regions had changed drastically, with theincidence of poverty in Otjozondjupa having declined by about 3 percentage points while it hadincreasedinZambeziby7percentagepoints.Indeedby2011,theincidenceofpovertyinZambeziwascomparabletothereportedpovertyincidenceinOhangwenaandOshikoto,whilein 2001 poverty headcount in Zambezi had been just under half that in Ohangwena and Oshikoto regions.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation16
WhilethenorthernregionsandOmahekeregionintheeastregisteredsignificantreductionsintheincidenceofpoverty,mostoftheregionsinthecentralandsouthernpartsofthecountrydidnotregistersimilardeclinesinthepovertyheadcountoverthe2001to2011period.Thiscouldbebecauseitisusuallydifficulttofurtherreduceanalreadylowlevelofpoverty.Theseregionshavehugeeconomicpotentialintheagriculturalandextractivesectors.
Mostof theexistingminesare located inErongoandKaras,whileOtjozondjupa,HardapandKarasarecharacterisedbylargecommercialfarms,whichformthebasisofNamibia’sagriculturalexportstoexternalmarketssuchastheEuropeanUnion.However,thereisuntappedpotentialinvalueaddition,especiallyindiamondpolishingandprocessingofagriculturalproducts,tocreatejobs,spureconomicgrowthandultimatelyleadtopovertyreduction.
Table 2: Trends in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (lower bound poverty line)
RegionPoverty Headcount Rate
2001 2011 ChangeZambezi 17.3 22.8 5.4
Erongo 4.4 2.4 -1.9
Hardap 10.5 7.8 -2.7
Karas 9.2 6.7 -2.6
Kavango 39.4 34.4 -5.0
Khomas 1.0 1.6 0.6
Kunene 37.5 24.8 -12.7
Ohangwena 40.7 18.6 -22.2
Omaheke 26.3 13.5 -12.8
Omusati 31.6 14.1 -17.5
Oshana 15.1 10.1 -5.0
Oshikoto 38.8 26.5 -12.1
Otjozondjupa 17.9 14.9 -3.0
Namibia 23.8 15.0 -8.8
Figure1,illustratesthecontributionofeachregiontotheoverallpovertyofthecountry.Kavangoregion,withapopulationshareof11percentandapovertyheadcount rateof53.2percentaccounts for 21percentof total poverty inNamibia. The Figure indicates that 15percentofall thepoor live inOhangwena,and14percentand12percent respectively inOshikotoandOmusatiregions.Only2percentofthetotalpoorliveinErongo,HardapandKarasregionseach.Similarly,KhomasandOmahekeregionsaccountforthreepercentofthetotalpooreach.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 17
Figure 1: National poverty headcount shares, 2011 (upper-bound poverty line)
3.2 Constituency Poverty Patterns and Trends
3.2.1 Overview of constituency poverty patterns and profiles
Regional poverty aggregates, as presented above, often mask wide intraregional variations.Beyondtheregions, thereexistwidevariations in reportedpoverty incidenceacross the107constituenciesofNamibia.While,at the regional level, thehighest incidenceofpovertywasreportedinKavangoregion(53percent),atconstituencylevel,thehighestincidenceofpovertywas reported in Epupa constituency in Kunene region, with 69 percent of the populationclassifiedaspoor,while the lowest incidencewasreported inWindhoekEastconstituency inKhomasregion,withonly0.1percentofthepopulationbeingclassifiedaspoor.
Therearealsowidevariationsinthereductioninthepovertyheadcountrateoverthe2001to2011periodacrossthe107constituencies.Thebiggestreduction,intermsofpercentagepoints,wasregisteredinthenorthernregionsofOhangwenaandOmusati,whilethebiggestincreasewas in the north-eastern Zambezi region. Eenhana, Endola, Engela, Okongo and OngengaconstituenciesinOhangwenaregionandOshikukuconstituencyinOmusatiregionallregistereda reduction in thepovertyheadcount rateofmore than30percentagepoints,whileKatimaMuliloUrbanandKongolaconstituenciesinZambeziregionregisteredanincreaseofmorethan10 percentage points over the 2001 to 2011 period.
In2011,sixofthethirteenregionshadoneormoreoftheirconstituencieswheremorethan50 percent of the population was classified as poor, while nine regions had one or moreconstituencies inwhichmorethan30percentof thepopulationwasclassifiedaspoor.Table3showstheproportionofconstituencieswith30or50percentofthepopulationclassifiedaspoor.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation18
Table 3: Proportion of constituencies with more than 30% and 50% of the population classified as poor (upper bound poverty line), 20111
Regions % of constituencies with at least 30% of population poor
% of constituencies with at least 50 % of population poor
Zambezi 83 33
Kavango 89 78
Kunene 50 17
Ohangwena 82 1
Omaheke 43 0
Omusati 33 0
Oshana 40 0
Oshikoto 90 30
Otjzondjupa 43 14
3.2.2 Zambezi region
Zambeziregion(formerlyCaprivi),withalandareaof14528km2andatotalpopulationof90596,liesinthenorth-easternpartofNamibia,borderingBotswana,Zimbabwe,ZambiaandAngola.ItalsobordersKavangoregionintheeast.Givenitsgeographiclocation,theregionisanimportantlogistical centre and serves as the gateway to the SouthernAfricaDevelopment Community(SADC)region.Thepopulationis69percentrural.Theregionreceivesanaverageannualrainfallof about 735mm. It is home to threeperennial rivers – Kwando, Chobe and Zambezi.Giventhe nature of the terrain and soil types, however, these rivers often causeflooding inmanypartsoftheregion.Zambeziregionalsohasmanynationalparkswithabundantwildlife.Thusitpossesseshugepotentialintheagricultural,tourism,andtransportandlogisticssectorsaskeydrivers of economic growth and development.
In2001,povertyincidenceinZambeziwasestimatedat32percent,withnosingleconstituencyhavingmorethanhalfofitspopulationlivinginpoverty.By2011,theregionalpovertyincidencehadincreasedby7.2percentagepoints.Thismeansthatin2011,10060morepeoplewerelivinginpoverty,whilethenumberofnon-poorhadincreasedbyjust710people.PovertyishighestinKongolaandSibbindaconstituenciesat58percentand55percent,respectively,andlowestinKatimaMuliloUrbanatonly17percent.
Intermsofpercentagechange,however,thehighestincrease,of11percentagepoints,intheincidenceofpovertyoverthe2001to2011periodwasrecordedinKatimaMuliloUrbanandKongolaconstituencies.Despiteitslowpovertyrate,KatimaMuliloUrbancontributedaboutonethird(34percent)oftheincreaseinpoverty,withanincreaseof3425poorpeople,whileLinyatiaccountsfor19percent,KatimaMuliloRural15percentandSibbinda14percentoftheincrease.
1Theregionsnotlistedhere(Erongo,Hardap,KarasandKhomas)hadnoconstituencieswith30percentormoreofthepopulationclassifiedaspoor.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 19
Table 4: Zambezi Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Zambezi Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Kabbe 42.2 3 49.1 4 7.0
Katima Mulilo Rural 38.3 5 43.0 5 4.7
Katima Mulilo Urban 6.4 6 17.2 6 10.8
Kongola 47.4 1 58.1 1 10.7
Linyanti 41.2 4 49.4 3 8.1
Sibbinda 45.8 2 55.0 2 9.2
Regional rate 32.1 39.3 7.2
Map3presentscolour-codedpovertylevels,withthedarkercolourindicatinghigherincidenceofpoverty.Asisevidentfromthemap,thetwopoorestconstituenciesareKongolaandSibbinda.The populations in these constituencies are largely rural, eking a living from subsistenceagriculture(livestockrearingandcropfarming).Theyalsorelyheavilyonsocialtransfers,mainlyintheformofoldagepension.Withonly1.1percentofthepeopleaged15yearsandabovehavingneverattendedschool,educationalattainmentinZambeziregionisrelativelyhigh.
Theliteracyrateforthepopulationaged15yearsandaboveisestimatedat84percent,whilethe youth literacy rate is estimated at 93 percent. Notwithstanding the good educationalattainment,more than one third (38 percent) of the economically active population (labourforce) is unemployed. With the exception of Sibbinda, with an estimated unemploymentrateof29percent,morethanhalfoftheeconomicallyactivepopulationisunemployedinallconstituencies. The agriculture sector is themain employer in the region, accounting for 42percentofemployment. It isfollowedcloselybythepublicsectorat22percent.Thetourismsectorcontributesonlyabout3percentoftheemployedpopulation.
About14percentofhouseholdsuseelectricityforcooking,whilearoundonethird(32percent)useitfor lighting.About73percentofthepopulationhasaccesstosafewater. InKabbeandKatimaMuliloRural,only25and55percent, respectively,ofhouseholdshaveaccess to safedrinkingwaterbut,intherestoftheconstituencies,morethanthreequarters(75percent)ofthe households have access to safe drinking water.
Map 3: Zambezi Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation20
Map 4, shows the changes in poverty incidence between 2001 and 2011. Although povertyincreased inallconstituenciesduringthisperiod, themap indicatesthatKongolaandKatimaMulilo Urban registered increases of more than 10 percentage points in poverty headcount.
Map 4: Zambezi Region Change in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
In2011,theincidenceofseverepovertywasestimatedat23percent,representinganincreaseof5percentagepointsfromthe2001figureof17percentand8percentagepointsabovethenationalaverageof15percent.Aswithpovertylevels,theincidenceofseverepovertyishighestinKongolaandSibbinda,withmorethanonethirdofthepopulationbeingseverelypoorintheseconstituencies.KatimaMuliloUrbanhasthelowestincidenceofseverepovertyat7percent.
Thepovertyliterature(e.g.Cage,2009)arguesthatsecurityandpoliticalstabilityarefundamentaltoeconomicgrowth,employmentcreationandpovertyreduction.Zambeziregionexperiencedpolitical instability in 1999 which had a negative impact on investment by both local andinternationalinvestors.In2001,about83percentofthelabourforcewasemployedcomparedto62percentin2011.Thisindicates,thatoverthisperiod,instabilitydiscouragedinvestmentwithnegative impactsonemploymentcreationandpovertyreduction.Furthermore,politicalinstability as one of themigration push factors, could have led to the higher outmigrationexperiencedbetween1991and2011,aminimalpopulationincreasefrom90422to90596overaperiodoftwentyyears.Thistendstoincreasepovertyasitismostlytheeconomicallyactivewho migrate.
Table 5: Zambezi Region Poverty Headcount Rate Scores and Values, 2001 - 2011 (lower bound poverty line)
Zambezi Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Kabbe 23.6 3 29.3 4 5.7
Katima Mulilo Rural 20.9 5 24.7 5 3.8
Katima Mulilo Urban 2.0 6 7.2 6 5.3
Kongola 29.3 1 36.6 1 7.4
Linyanti 22.2 4 29.6 3 7.3
Sibbinda 25.1 2 35.6 2 10.5
Regional rate 17.3 22.8 5.4
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 21
3.3.3 Erongo region
ErongoisthesecondmosturbanisedregioninNamibiaafterKhomas,with87percentoftheinhabitants living inurbanareas. The regionhas a total land areaof 63586 km2 accountingfor7.7percentofthecountry’slandsurface.Theregion,whichborderstheAtlanticOcean,isamajortouristdestinationandishometoWalvisBayharbour,thelargestportinthecountryandanimportantgatewaytomanySADCcountriessuchasAngola,Botswana,theDemocraticRepublicofCongo,ZambiaandZimbabwe.ThusErongohasgreatpotentialtobeanimportanttransportandlogisticalhubfortheSADCregion.Othermajoreconomicactivitiesintheregionincludetourism,mining,fishingandmanufacturing.
Overthe2001to2011period,therewasathreepercentagepointreductioninpovertyinErongoregion. Fouroutof the sevenconstituencies inErongo recordeddeclines in the incidenceofpovertyoverthisperiod.Thelargestdecline,of18percentagepoints,wasrecordedinDauresconstituency.About1659fewerpeoplearepoorthanin2011.Thispositivechangecouldbeattributedtosmallminingandconservancyactivitiesintheconstituency.DespitethedeclineinpovertyinDauresconstituency,itstillhasthehighestincidenceofpoverty,at20percentofthepopulation,althoughthenumberofpeoplelivinginpovertyonlyamountsto2281people.
Three constituencies recorded increases in the incidence of poverty, the largest being 2percentagepointsrecordedinOmaruruconstituencywhere317morepeoplearepoorthanin2001,whilethenumberofnon-poorpeopleincreasedby1104.Erongoregionhasexperiencedrapidpopulationgrowthoverthepasttenyears,withthepopulationgrowingatanaveragerateof3.4percentperannum,twopercentagepointsabovethenationalaverageof1.4percent.Indeedtwooftheconstituencies,SwakopmundandWalvisBayRural,registeredapopulationgrowthrateof5percentperannumoverthe2001to2011period.EducationallevelsinErongoarehigh,withliteracyrateforthoseaged15yearsandaboveestimatedat97percent,asalmosteveryoneintheregionhasattainedsomeformaleducation.
Table 6: Erongo Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Erongo Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Arandis 5.4 4 6.3 4 0.9
Daures 38.3 1 20.1 1 -18.2
Karibib 16.9 2 15.4 2 -1.5
Omaruru 9.6 3 11.7 3 2.1
Swakopmund 4.4 5 3.6 6 -0.8
Walvis Bay Rural 3.4 6 3.7 5 0.2
Walvis Bay Urban 3.4 6 2.4 7 -1.0
Regional rate 9.3 6.3 -3.0
Themainsourceofincomefortheregionissalariesandwages,at73percent.Dauresconstituencyistheonlyexceptiontothispattern,with28percentofhouseholdsinthisconstituencycitingsalariesandwagesastheirmainsourceofincomewhileaboutaquarter(24percent)indicatedsubsistencefarmingandthesameproportionoldagepensionsastheirmainsourceofincome.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation22
About79percentofthose15yearsandaboveareintheeconomicallyactivecategory,withtheunemploymentratewithinthisgroupestimatedtobe30percent.Themainemployersarethefishing,miningandmanufacturingsectors,eachofwhichaccountsformorethan10percentoftotalemployment.Thetourismsectorcontributesonlyabout5percentoftotalemploymentinthe region.
Although Erongo has the second lowest poverty headcount in the country, Map 5, below,illustratesthatthepovertyheadcountisstillhighinDaures,KaribibandOmaruruconstituencies.AccesstoelectricityinErongoishigh,with76percentofhouseholdsusingelectricityforcooking,althoughinDauresconstituencyonly13percentofhouseholdsdoso.Accesstosafewaterisestimatedat96percent.HereagainDaureslagsbehind,withonly65percenthavingaccesstosafe water.
Map 5: Erongo Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Map6showschangesinpovertylevelsoverthe2001to2011period.ThemapindicatesthatthegreatestdeclineinthepovertyheadcountratewasregisteredinDauresconstituency,whiletheincidenceofpovertyinOmaruruconstituencyincreasedbytwopercentagepoints.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 23
Map 6: Erongo Region Change in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
At 2 percent, the region registered a very low incidence of severe poverty. This is a twopercentagepointreduction inthe incidenceofseverepovertyoverthe2001to2011period,i.e.theseverepovertyrate,whichwasalreadyextremelylowin2001,halved.Aswasthecasewiththeincidenceofpoverty,althoughDauresconstituencyregisteredthegreatestdeclineintheincidenceofseverepovertyof13percentagepoints,theconstituencystillhasthehighestincidenceofseverepoverty,at9percent.Againaswiththepovertyheadcountrate,DauresisfollowedcloselybyKaribibconstituencyat7percent.
Table 7: Erongo Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (lower bound poverty line)
Erongo Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Arandis 1.6 4 2.1 4 0.5
Daures 22.5 1 9.4 1 -13.1
Karibib 8.5 2 7.2 2 -1.3
Omaruru 4.1 3 4.5 3 0.4
Swakopmund 1.4 5 1.1 5 -0.3
Walvis Bay Rural 1.0 6 1.0 6 0.0
Walvis Bay Urban 1.0 7 0.7 7 -0.3
Regional rate 4.4 2.4 -1.9
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation24
3.3.4 Hardap region
Hardapisoneofthesouthernregionsofthecountry.ItborderstheAtlanticOceantothewestandBotswanatotheeast,andcoversatotallandareaof109659km2.Withatotalpopulationof79705,theregionisoneoftheleastdenselypopulatedareasofNamibia,withapopulationdensityof0.7peoplepersquarekilometre.Sixtypercentofthepopulationlivesinurbanareas.HardapisoneofthedriestregionsinNamibia,withanaveragerainfallrangingbetween71and91mm,comparedtothenationalaveragelevelof800mm.NaukluftParkandFishRiverGrandCanyon(thesecondlargestcanyonintheworld)aremajortouristattractionsintheregion.
At the regional level, the incidence of poverty is estimated at 17 percent (13 675 people),havingdeclinedby3percentagepointsbetween2001and2011.PovertyishighestinGibeon,RehobothRuralandMarientalRuralconstituencies,withnearlyaquarterofthepopulationintheseconstituenciesclassifiedasbeingpoor,andlowestinRehobothUrbanWest,wheretheincidenceofpovertyisestimatedat4percent.
Over the2001 to2011period the incidenceof povertydeclined inGibeon,MarientalRural,RehobothUrbanWestandRehobothRuralconstituencies,whileMarientalUrbanandRehobothUrbanEastrecordedmarginalincreases,with408moreand813morepeoplerespectivelylivinginpoverty.Notwithstandingthemarginalincreaseinthenumbersofpoorpeople,thenumberofnon-poorpeopleinthesetwoconstituenciesincreasedby2040and4331respectively.Overthepast tenyears, theregionexperiencedpopulationgrowthof1.5percent,with theurbanpopulation growing by 4.3 percent,while the rural areas experienced a negative populationgrowth of 1.5 percent.
Table 8: Hardap Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Hardap Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Gibeon 30.2 1 24.8 1 -5.4
Mariental Rural 27.5 2 23.3 3 -4.3
Mariental Urban 15.4 4 15.6 4 0.2
Rehoboth Rural 27.1 3 24.2 2 -2.9
Rehoboth Urban East 13.0 5 13.8 5 0.8
Rehoboth Urban 9.0 6 4.0 6 -5.0
Regional rate 20.4 17.2 -3.2
Map7showsthe incidenceofpoverty in theconstituenciesofHardapregion.The incidenceofpoverty is highest inGibeon, at 25percent, and lowest inRehobothUrban, at 4percent.Generally,theregionhasahighlevelofeducationalattainment,withaliteracyrateof96percentandonly10percentofthepeopleaged15yearsandabovehavingneverattendedschool.Themajorityof thosewhohaveneverattended school are concentrated in thepoorerand ruralconstituencies ofMariental Rural and Gibeon. Agriculture, construction, and wholesale andretailtradearethemaineconomicactivities,employingabouthalfoftheeconomicallyactivepopulation.Miningaccountsforonly2percent,whilemanufacturingandtourismaccountforabout 4 percent of employment in the region.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 25
Map 7: Hardap Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Map8illustrateschangesinpovertylevelsoverthelasttenyears.ThemapshowsthatthehighestreductionwasregisteredinGibeonconstituencyfollowedbyMarientalRuralconstituency.
Map 8: Hardap Region Change in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Fromahighof11percent in2001,anestimatedeight8percentoftheHardappopulation iscurrentlyclassifiedasbeingseverelypoor,adeclineof3percentagepoints.GibeonandRehobothRuralconstituencieshavemorethan10percentoftheirpopulationsclassifiedasseverelypoor.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation26
Table 9: Hardap Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (lower bound poverty line)
Hardap Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Gibeon 17.3 1 12.1 2 -5.2
Mariental Rural 15.0 2 11.0 3 -4.0
Mariental Urban 7.1 4 6.6 4 -0.5
Rehoboth Rural 14.9 3 12.6 1 -2.3
Rehoboth Urban East 5.1 5 5.4 5 0.3
Rehoboth Urban West 3.9 6 1.3 6 -2.6
Regional rate 10.5 7.8 -2.7
3.3.5 Karas region
Karas region is the driest and southernmost region of Namibia. It covers a total land area of 161 086 km2,whichrepresents19.6percentofthecountry’s landsurface.Withapopulationof77421,theregionaccountsforanestimated3.8percentofthenationalpopulation.Karasis characterised by low rainfall, high evaporation rates and sparse vegetation. The region is,however,endowedwithplenteousnaturalresources,suchasalluvialgold,diamonds,ironandzinc,andishometothecountry’slargestminingactivities.TheregionisalsoendowedwiththeperennialOranjeRiveralongtheborderwithSouthAfricaandNauteDamwhichofferspotentialfor irrigated agriculture.
PovertyincidenceinKarasregionisestimatedat14percent(11226people),havingdecreasedby3.4percentagepointsoverthepasttenyears.ThegreatestchangewasregisteredinBersebaconstituency,wheretheincidenceofpovertydeclinedby11percentagepointsoverthe2001to2011period.Bersebais,however,stilltheconstituencywiththehighestincidenceofpovertyintheregion,with27percentofthepopulationclassifiedasbeingpoor(2880people).PovertyhasalsodeclinedinOranjemund,LuderitzandKeetmanshoopRuralconstituencies.
Table 10: Karas Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Karas Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Berseba 38.5 1 27.2 1 -11.3
Karasburg 21.6 3 20.8 3 -0.8
Keetmanshoop Rural 25.8 2 23.0 2 -2.8
Keetmanshoop Urban 9.8 4 9.9 4 0.1
Luderitz 9.7 5 7.0 5 -2.7
Oranjemund 7.6 6 2.9 6 -4.7
Regional rate 18.0 14.5 -3.4
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 27
AsshowninMap9,Berseba,KeetmanshoopRuralandKarasburgconstituencieshavemorethan20percentoftheirpopulationclassifiedaspoor.Aseducationisknowntohaveanamelioratingimpactonpoverty, it isnotsurprisingthatthefirst twoof theseconstituencies,BersebaandKeetmanshopRural,havethehighestpercentageofpeoplewithnoformaleducationat9percentand8percent,respectively.Incontrast,theregionasawholehasaliteracyrateof97percentwithonly5percentofthepopulationhavingneverbeentoschool.Anestimated68percentofthepopulationiseconomicallyactive.
UnemploymentishighestinBersebaandKarasburg,at38percentand29percent,respectively.Agriculture,miningandconstructionarethemainemployers,whilemanufacturingandtourismaccountfor,respectively,6percentand3percentoftotalemployment.Theregionhasapotentialforgreenscheme(irrigation)projects,whichcouldhaveapovertyreducingimpact,especiallyinKarasburg,KeetmashoopRuralandBersebaconstituencies.
Map 9: Karas Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Map 10: Karas Region Change in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation28
Map 10, above, illustrates the reduction in poverty levels over the past ten years. Themapshowsthatoverthe2001to2011period,thelargestdeclineinthepovertyheadcountratewasrecordedinBersebaandOranjemundconstituencies.ThedeclineinthepovertyrateinBersebais especially welcome given its high poverty incidence.
About7percentoftheKaraspopulationisestimatedtobeseverelypoor,havingdeclinedby2.6percentagepointsfrom9.2percent in2001.Similartothepatternforpoverty levels, theincidenceofseverepovertyishighestinBerseba,at14percent,andlowestinOranjemund,atless than 1 percent.
Table 11: Karas Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (lower bound poverty line)
Karas Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Berseba 23.2 1 13.8 1 -9.4
Karasburg 11.0 3 9.9 3 -1.1
Keetmanshoop Rural 14.4 2 11.2 2 -3.2
Keetmanshoop Urban 3.6 5 3.8 4 0.1
Luderitz 4.0 4 2.6 5 -1.4
Oranjemund 3.4 6 0.9 6 -2.5
Regional rate 9.2 6.7 -2.6
3.3.6 Kavango region Kavango is the fourth most populous region in the country with a population of 223 352,accountingfor11percentofthetotalnationalpopulation.Between2001and2011,theregionalpopulationgrewby1percentperannum,thatis,moreslowlythanthenationalrate.Theregionhasapopulationdensityof4.6peopleperkm2.ThemainhydrologicalfeatureoftheKavangoregionistheOkavangoRiver,whichpresentshugepotentialforirrigationandartisanalfishing.Thepastdecadehaswitnessedanincreaseininvestmentingreenschemeprojects,mainlyalongtheOkavango, leadingto increasedagriculturalproductionandproductivity intheregion.Anestimated71percentofthepopulationlivesinruralareas.Theregionrecordedanetoutflowofmigrants both between 1996 and 2001 and between 2001 and 2011.
In2011,Kavangoregionhadthehighestincidenceofpovertyofallregionsat,53percent(118823people),representingadeclineof5percentagepointsfromthe2001figureof58percent.WiththeexceptionofRunduUrbanconstituency,allconstituenciesinKavangoregionhavepovertyincidenceabovethenationalaverageof27percent.ThehighestpovertywasreportedinKapakoconstituency(63percentor16891people),whilethelowestincidencewasreportedinRunduUrban(19percent).Kahenge,Kapako,MashareandMpunguconstituenciesallhave60percentormoreoftheirpopulationclassifiedaspoor.
Intermsofchangesintheincidenceofpovertyovertime,thegreatestdeclinewasreportedinMashare,NdiyonaandRunduUrbanconstituencies,which recorded reductionsof14.7,12.8and11.8percentagepoints,respectivelybetween2001and2011.Overthe2001to2011period,thepovertyheadcountratedeclinedinalloftheconstituencies,withtheexceptionofKahengeand Kapako. Kapako recorded an increase of about 7 percentage points in poverty headcount.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 29
Table 12: Kavango Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upperbound poverty line)
Kavango Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Kahenge 60.3 6 60.6 2 0.3
Kapako 55.8 7 62.6 1 6.8
Mashare 75.3 1 60.5 3 -14.8
Mpungu 60.8 5 60.3 4 -0.6
Mukwe 65.2 3 58.2 5 -7.0
Ndiyona 69.3 2 56.6 6 -12.7
Rundu Rural West 46.8 8 45.1 8 -1.7
Rundu Urban 30.3 9 18.6 9 -11.8
Rundu Rural East 61.5 4 56.3 7 -5.2
Regional rate 57.9 53.2 -4.8
Map 11, below, shows that, with the exception of Rundu Urban and Rundu Rural Westconstituencies,inalltheconstituenciesinKavangoregionmorethanhalfofthepopulationispoor.Althoughtheliteracyrateishigh,at79percent,18percentofthepopulation6yearsandabovehaveneverenteredformaleducationwhilemorethanonethird(35percent)of thoseaged15yearsandabovehavenotcompletedprimaryeducation.About61percentofthoseaged15yearsandaboveareintheeconomicallyactivecategory.However,onlyhalfareemployed,resultinginanunemploymentrateof50percent.
The agricultural sector is themain source of employment, accounting for 60 percent of theemploymentintheregion.UnemploymentishighestinRunduRuralEast,KapakoandMashareconstituencies.Subsistencefarmingisthemainsourceofincome,involving43percentofthehouseholds in the region. The only exception to this is RunduRuralWest andRunduUrbanconstituencieswhere39percentand55percent,respectively,ofthepopulationcitedsalaryandwages as the main source of income.
Map 11: Kavango Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation30
Map12indicatesareductioninpovertylevelsovertheperiodoftenyears(from2001to2011).ThemapindicatesthatthegreatestdeclineinpovertyoccurredinMashare,NdiyonaandMukweconstituencies.
Map 12: Kavango Region Change in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Morethanonethird(34.4percent)ofthepopulationinKavangoregionisseverelypoor.Theincidenceofseverepovertyreducedbyfivepercentagepointsoveradecade,withthegreatestdecline registered inMashare and Ndiyona constituencies. The incidence of severe povertyincreased in Kapako by 7 percentage points. Targeted poverty interventions are required toreduce poverty levels.
Table 13: Kavango Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (lower bound poverty line)
Kavango Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Kahenge 41.7 5 39.7 4 -2.1
Kapako 36.0 7 42.5 1 6.5
Mashare 56.3 1 40.5 3 -15.8
Mpungu 42.5 4 40.6 2 -1.9
Mukwe 46.4 3 39.1 5 -7.3
Ndiyona 50.9 2 35.5 7 -15.4
Rundu Rural West 29.2 8 27.4 8 -1.7
Rundu Urban 15.9 9 8.5 9 -7.4
Rundu Rural East 40.1 6 36.6 6 -3.4
Regional rate 39.4 34.4 -5.0
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 31
3.3.7 Khomas region
KhomasRegionishometoWindhoek,thecommercialhubandcapitalofthecountry.Theregionhas a populationof 342 141 accounting for about 16.2 percent of the total population. TheregionispredominantlyurbanandsixoutofthesevenconstituenciesareurbanconstituencieslocatedinWindhoek.Theregionisanetrecipientofmigrantsfromotherpartsofthecountryduetoitsstrongeconomicpullaswellasthepushfactors(povertyandunemployment)presentin some rural parts of the country.
Table14indicatesmixedresultswithregardtoreductionintheincidenceofpoverty,withfourout of the ten constituencies having registered increases,while six constituencies registereddeclines in the poverty headcount rate over the 2001 to 2011 period.Windhoek Rural andKatuturaCentralregisteredthe largestdeclines inpoverty incidence. Withpoverty incidenceof5percent(15738people),KhomasistheleastpoorregioninNamibia.Notwithstandingthisrelativelylowpovertylevel,thereexistwidevariationsbetweenthetenconstituenciesoftheregion,withthosecharacterisedbyinformalsettlementsrecordinghigherlevelsofpoverty.WhilethereisvirtuallynopovertyincidenceinWindhoekEastconstituency(0.1percentincidence),inTobiasHainyekotheincidenceofpovertystandsat10percent,andinbothMosesGaroebandWindhoekRural,povertystandsat8percent.Overall,therewasa1percentagepointincreaseinpovertyinKhomasoverthe2001to2011period,meaningthat7230morepeoplearelivingin poverty than in 2001.
Table 14: Khomas Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Khomas Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Tobias Hainyeko 4.8 3 9.6 1 4.8
Katutura Central 6.2 2 4.0 6 -2.2
Katutura East 4.5 4 4.1 5 -0.4
Khomasdal North 1.6 7 2.4 7 0.7
Soweto 2.9 6 2.1 8 -0.8
Samora Machel 3.3 5 4.3 4 0.9
Windhoek East 0.2 10 0.1 10 -0.1
Windhoek Rural 11.3 1 7.7 3 -3.6
Windhoek West 0.5 9 0.4 9 -0.2
Moses Garoeb 1.4 8 8.4 2 7.0
Regional rate 3.4 4.6 1.2
TherelativelyhighincidenceofpovertyinTobiasHainyekoandMosesGaroebconstituenciescanbeattributedtorapidpopulationgrowthduetoaninflowofmigrants.Whiletheregionhadapopulationgrowthof3percentperannumoverthe2001to2011period,MosesGaroeb,SamoraMachelandKhomasdalNorthconstituencieshadpopulationgrowthratesof5percentorhigher.Itisnoteworthythatmostofthemigrantsintotheseconstituencieslackthenecessaryskillsandeducationtobeeasilyabsorbed inthe jobmarket, leadingtohighratesofunemployment intheseconstituencies.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation32
Anestimated74percentofthepopulationage15yearsandaboveiseconomicallyactive,withunemployment estimated at 21 percent. Unemployment is highest inMoses Garoeb, at 30percentof the labour force, followedbyTobiasHainyeko (29percent), andKatuturaCentral,KatuturaEastandSamoraMachel(allat28percent).
Map 13, below, depicts spatial patterns of poverty in Khomas at the 2011 time point. Theeducation level in Khomas is very high,with the literacy rate estimated at 97 percentwhileanestimated5percentofthepopulationhasneverattendedschool.WindhoekRural,TobiasHainyekoandMosesGaroebconstituencieshavehigherproportionsofpeoplewhohaveneverattendedschool,at13percent,9percentand7percent,respectively.
Map 13: Khomas Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
AsstatedaboveandshowninMap14below,thelargestincreaseintheincidenceofpovertywasrecordedinMosesGaroebandTobiasHainyekoconstituencies.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 33
Map 14: Khomas Region Change in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Theincidenceofseverepovertyisestimatedatanextremelylow1.6percent,indicatingthatinthisurbansettingevenmostoftheunemployedareabletoavoidpoverty,andparticularlyseverepoverty.SeverepovertyisfoundinTobiasHainyeko,MosesGaroebandWindhoekRural.IthasactuallyincreasedinbothTobiasHainyekoandMosesGaroebby2and3percentagepointsrespectively,whileithasdeclinedinWindhoekruralbyabout1.6percentagepoints.AddressingthemigrationpushfactorsanddecentralisationcouldhelpreducepovertyinKhomasregion.
Table 15: Khomas Region Poverty Headcount Rate Scores and Values, 2001 - 2011 (lower bound poverty line)
Khomas Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Tobias Hainyeko 1.4 3 3.6 1 2.1
Katutura Central 1.6 2 1.1 6 -0.5
Katutura East 0.9 4 1.2 5 0.3
Khomasdal North 0.4 7 0.7 7 0.3
Soweto 0.9 4 0.5 8 -0.4
Samora Machel 0.7 6 1.3 4 0.6
Windhoek East 0.0 10 0.0 10 0.0
Windhoek Rural 4.5 1 2.9 3 -1.6
Windhoek West 0.1 8 0.1 9 0.0
Moses/Garoëb 0.2 8 3.0 2 2.9
Regional rate 1.0 1.6 0.6
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation34
3.3.8 Kunene region
Kunene region derives its name from the Kunene River, which formsNamibia’s borderwithAngolaandisthesecondlargestriverinthecountry.Theregionischaracterisedbyrockyandbaremountains.KunenereceiveslowandunreliablerainfallandtheclimateisgreatlyinfluencedbytheSouthAtlanticandBenguelacurrents.Nomadicpastoralismisthemaineconomicactivityasthepotentialforirrigatedagricultureremainslargelyuntapped.TheregionishometooneofNamibia’smajorinternationaltouristattractions,theEpupafalls.Ithasapopulationof86856people of whom 74 percent live in rural areas.
In 2011, Kunene region,with a headcount poverty rate of 39 percent (33 787 people),wasthefourthpoorestregioninthecountryafterKavango,OshikotoandZambezi.Between2001and2011, theregionregistereda15percentagepoint reduction in the incidenceofpoverty.Reductions were registered in all the constituencies, with the highest reductions being inSesfontein(29percentagepoints),followedbyOpuwo(21percentagepoints)andKamanjab(17percentagepoints).
Table 16: Kunene Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Kunene Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Epupa 76.8 1 69.2 1 -7.7
Kamanjab 37.0 4 19.9 4 -17.1
Khorixas 34.3 5 18.8 5 -15.5
Opuwo 65.2 3 44.1 2 -21.1
Outjo 22.7 6 18.0 6 -4.7
Sesfontein 69.0 2 40.0 3 -29.0
Regional rate 53.7 38.9 -14.8
Despiteregisteringareductionintheincidenceofpovertyof8percentagepoints,Epupa,withpovertyheadcountof69percent,isstillthepoorestconstituencyinKunene.ItisfollowedbyOpuwo(44percent)andSesfontein(40percent).ThisisshowninMap15,below.Thepopulationoftheregiongrewby2.3percentperannum,withEpupaandOutjoconstituenciesregisteringthehighestgrowthratesat3percentand3.1percent,respectively.Theregionhasaliteracyrateof65percent,whilemorethanonethird(36percent)ofpeopleaged6yearsandabovehaveneverattendedschool.Epupa(68percent)andOpuwo(42percent)havethehighestratesofpeoplewhohaveneverattendedschool.
Theeconomicallyactivepopulationisestimatedat67percentofthepopulation.Ofthese,36percent are unemployed.More than half (56 percent) of the employed population is in theagriculturalsector,withtourismandmanufacturingaccountingforabout4.2and4.3percent,respectively, of employment in the region. Apart from Outjo, Kamanjab and Sesfontein, allconstituenciesinKuneneregiondependonsubsistencefarmingastheirmainsourceofincome.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 35
Map 15: Kunene Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Map 16 illustrates the changes in poverty incidence over the 2001 to 2011 period. As can be seenfromthemap,withtheexceptionofEpupa(8percentagepoints)andOutjo(5percentagepoints), all constituencies registered a poverty reductionofmore than15percentagepointsbetween 2001 and 2011.
Map 16: Kunene Region Change in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation36
Despiteareductionof13percentagepointsbetween2001and2011,anestimatedonequarteroftheKunenepopulationisstillclassifiedasseverelypoor. InEpupaconstituency,morethanhalf(51percent)ofthepopulationisclassifiedasseverelypoor,whilealmostathird(28percent)of thepopulation inOpuwo is severelypoor.The regionhas thepotential to reducepovertythroughagriculture,tourismandlogistics.
Table 17: Kunene Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (lower bound poverty line)
Kunene Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Epupa 56.5 1 50.9 1 -5.6
Kamanjab 21.4 4 9.5 4 -12
Khorixas 20.6 5 8.8 5 -11.7
Opuwo 49.2 2 28.2 2 -21.1
Outjo 10.9 6 8.4 6 -2.5
Sesfontein 48.8 3 23.7 3 -25.1
Regional rate 37.5 24.8 -12.7
3.3.9 Ohangwena region
Ohangwena region borders Cunene Province in Angola to the north and Kavango,Oshikoto,OshanaandOmusatiregionsinNamibia.Theregionhasapopulationof245446,whichis11.6percentofthenationalpopulation.At23peoplepersquarekilometre,theregionhasthehighestpopulationdensityinthecountry.Anestimated90percentofthepopulationlivesinruralareas.Between2001and2011,theregionregisteredthegreatestdeclineintheincidenceofpoverty,from63percentto35percent.Asaresult,56783fewerpeoplearelivinginpovertythanwasthe case in 2001.
Thedeclineinpovertyincidencewasobservedinallthe11constituencies.WiththeexceptionofOndombeconstituencywhere the incidenceofpovertydeclinedby11percentagepoints,allconstituenciesinOhangwenaexperiencedapovertyreductionofmorethan20percentagepoints,withthehighestreductionof34percentagepoints(8290people),beingregisteredinEndolaconstituency.Thisdeclinenotwithstanding,Ohangwenaremainsamongthefivepoorestregions in the country.
Table 18: Ohangwena Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Ohangwena Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Eenhana 62.6 6 31.1 8 -31.4
Endola 62.0 7 27.7 10 -34.2
Engela 59.2 8 26.0 11 -33.2
Epembe 72.2 3 48.4 2 -23.8
Ohangwena 57.8 10 29.9 9 -27.9
Okongo 73.7 2 41.0 3 -32.7
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 37
Omundaungilo 76.1 1 51.8 1 -24.3
Ondobe 51.0 11 39.8 5 -11.2
Ongenga 65.3 4 32.3 6 -33.0
Oshikango 58.9 9 31.6 7 -27.2
Omulonga 63.1 5 40.4 4 -22.7
Regional rate 62.8 35.3 -27.5
FromTable18,above,andMap17,below,itcanbeseenthattheincidenceofpovertyishighestinOmundaungiloat52percent,followedbyEpembeat48percent,Okongoat41percent,andOmulongaandOndobeeachataround40percent.Overthepastdecade,theregionexperienceda population growth of about 0.7 percent per annum.Ohangwena has a literacy rate of 86percent,while14percentof thoseaged6yearsandabovehaveneverattendedschool.Thepoorer constituencies have high proportions of people who have never attended school –Omundaungilo (19.4percent),Okongo(17.3percent),Epembe(16.4percent),andOmulongaandOndobe(15.2percent).
Theeconomicallyactivepopulationisestimatedat49percentoftheregionalpopulationand43percentoftheseareunemployed.Theagriculturalsector isthemainemployerwithmorethan half (51 percent) of the employed population engaged in this sector. It is followed bythepublic sectorandwholesaleandtrade.Tourismandmanufacturingsectorsaccount for4percentand3percentoftheemployed,respectively,whileconstructionaccountsfor5percentofemployment.Accesstosafewaterisestimatedat56percentofthepopulation.Again,thepoorerconstituencieshave lowerpercentagesofpopulationwithanestimated22percentofthepopulationinOmundaungiloconstituencyhasaccesstosafewater,withthecorrespondingfigures for Epembe, Omulonga and Ondobe being 23 percent, 44 percent and 43 percent,respectively.
Map 17: Ohangwena Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Map18, illustrates thereduction inpoverty incidence for theperiod2001to2011.With theexceptionofOndobe,alltheconstituenciesinOhangwenaregionregisteredreductionsintheincidence of poverty of more than 20 percentage points.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation38
Map 18: Ohangwena Region Change in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Table19presentstheincidenceofseverepoorindividualsinOhangwenaregion.Thetableshowsthattheincidenceofseverepovertyreducedsignificantlyby22percentagepointsoverthe2001to2011period.TheincidenceofseverepovertyishighestinOmundaungilo,at31percent,andlowestinEngela,at12percent.
Table 19: Ohangwena Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (lower bound poverty line)
Ohangwena Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Eenhana 38.3 9 15.7 8 -22.7
Endola 39.1 8 12.9 10 -26.2
Engela 39.6 6 12.1 11 -27.5
Epembe 48.3 3 28.4 2 -19.9
Ohangwena 37.0 10 15.1 9 -22.0
Okongo 51.8 1 22.5 3 -29.2
Omundaungilo 51.4 2 31.3 1 -20.2
Ondobe 33.5 11 21.3 5 -12.2
Ongenga 43.1 4 16.7 6 -26.4
Oshikango 36.7 5 15.9 7 -20.8
Omulonga 39.2 7 22.1 4 -17.2
Regional rate 40.7 18.6 -22.2
3.3.10 Omaheke region
Omahekeregion,withapopulationof71233people,liesinthecentraleasternpartofNamibia.ItbordersBotswanatotheeastandtheHardap,KhomasandOtjozondjuparegions.TheTrans-Kalaharihighway,which linksNamibiawithBotswana, SouthAfricaandZimbabwe, traversestheregion,thuspresentingopportunitiesfortransportandlogistics,andrelatedactivities.Theregion iswell known for its largecommercial cattle ranches.Anestimated30percentof thepopulationlivesinurbanareas.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 39
Fromahighof42percent in2001, the incidenceofpovertydeclined to26percent (18663people)in2011,a16percentagepointreduction.Overthe2001to2011period,theincidenceofpovertydeclinedinallconstituenciesexceptGobabis.ThegreatestdeclinewasregisteredinAminius(23percentagepoints),followedbyOtjinene(22percentagepoints)andEpukiroandOtjombinde(21percentagepointseach).Otjombindeconstituencyhasthehighestincidenceofpoverty,at37percent,whileGobabishasthelowestat17percent.
Table 20: Omaheke Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Omaheke Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Aminius 50.9 4 28.4 4 -22.5
Gobabis 16.9 7 17.1 7 0.2
Kalahari 44.9 5 27.1 5 -17.8
Otjinene 55.1 2 33.2 2 -21.9
Otjombinde 57.0 1 36.3 1 -20.7
Steinhausen 35.5 6 26.1 6 -9.4
Epukiro 52.5 3 31.2 3 -21.2
Regional rate 41.6 26.2 -15.5
Map19showsthespatialdistributionofpoverty incidenceinOmaheke.Poverty ishighest inOtjombinde and lowest in Gobabis, the region’s commercial and administrative capital. Theregionrecordedapopulationgrowthrateof0.5percentperannumoverthe2001to2011period,withGobabisconstituencyrecording3.3percentperannum.Omahekehasaliteracyrateof73percent,while25percenthasneverattainedformaleducation.Morethan30percentof thepopulationaged6yearsandaboveinKalahari,OtjombindeandSteinhausenhadneverenteredformaleducation.Theeconomicallyactivepopulationisestimatedat65percent,40percentofwhichisunemployed.About45percentoftheemployedpopulationisintheagriculturesector.Tourismaccountsfor5percentoftheemployedpopulationintheregion,whilemanufacturingandlogisticseachaccountfor2percent.Constructionisakeysector,yieldingabout7percentoftheregion’semployment.
Map 19: Omaheke Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation40
Map 20 shows that, with the exception of Gobabis, all constituencies registered significantreductionsintheincidenceofpovertyoverthe2001to2011period.
Map 20: Omaheke Region Change in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Between2001and2011,theproportionofseverelypoorindividualsintheregionwasreducedbyalmosthalf.Fromahighof26percentin2001,theproportionofthoseclassifiedasbeingseverelypoorstoodat14percentin2011.In2011,Otjombindeconstituencyhadthehighestincidenceofseverepoverty,at21percent.ItisfollowedbyOtjineneandEpukiroconstituencies.
Table 21: Omaheke Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (lower bound poverty line)
Omaheke Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Aminius 35.2 3 14.7 4 -20.5
Gobabis 8.4 7 7.6 7 -0.8
Kalahari 28.6 5 13.6 5 -15.0
Otjinene 35.5 2 18.0 2 -17.5
Otjombinde 37.4 1 21.2 1 -16.2
Steinhausen 21.8 6 13.0 6 -8.8
Epukiro 31.1 4 17.3 3 -13.8
Regional rate 26.3 13.5 -12.8
3.3.11 Omusati regionOmusati region borders Angola in the north and also the Kunene, Ohangwena and Oshanaregions of Namibia. It has a total area of 26 573 km2.Withapopulationof243166,or11.5percentofthenationalpopulation,theregionhasapopulationdensityof9.2personspersquarekilometre,makingitoneofthemostdenselypopulatedregionsofNamibia.Theregioniswellknown for its Mopani trees and mopaniworms.Anestimated95percentofthepopulationlivesin rural areas and the people of the region are mainly engaged in mixed farming.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 41
Overthe2001to2011period,theregionregistereda22percentagepointreductioninpovertyincidence,withallconstituenciesshowingsignificantpovertyreductions.Thecurrentpovertyheadcountisestimatedat28.6percent(69545people;46935fewerthanin2001).Nineofthetwelveconstituenciesregisteredpovertyreductionsofmorethan20percentagepointsandonlyEtayihadareductionoflessthan10percentagepoints.ThehighestreductionwasregisteredinOshikukuconstituency(32percentagepoints),followedbyOutapiandTsandi(28percentagepoints).
Table 22: Omusati Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Omusati Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank ChangeOshikuku 49.3 8 17.0 12 -32.3Elim 48.1 9 23.5 11 -24.5Ogongo 47.2 10 25.5 10 -21.8Okahao 52.3 5 26.1 9 -26.2Tsandi 53.9 4 26.3 8 -27.6Outapi 55.4 2 27.2 7 -28.2Anamulenge 54.0 3 27.5 6 -26.5Ruacana 51.6 6 28.0 5 -23.5Otamanzi 46.7 11 30.3 4 -16.4Etayi 40.7 12 30.9 3 -9.8Onesi 51.0 7 34.6 2 -16.4Okalongo 59.0 1 36.0 1 -22.9Regional rate 50.9 28.6 -22.2
FromTable22,above,andasshowninMap21,below,in2011thehighestincidenceofpovertywasrecordedinOkalongo(36percent),whilethelowestpovertyincidenceofpovertywasinOshikukuconstituency(17percent).Overthe2001to2011period,thepopulationoftheregiongrewataslowaverageof0.6percentperannum,withonlyOutapi(1.6percent)andRuacana(2.8percent)constituenciesregisteringpopulationgrowthratesofmorethan1percent.
Map 21: Omusati Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation42
Omusatiregion’sliteracyrateisestimatedat88percent,whileanestimated10percentofthepopulationhasneverattainedformaleducation.Ruacana(20percent)andOnesi(15percent)have the highest proportion of people with no formal education. The economically activepopulationisestimatedat49percent.Ofthese,42percentareunemployed.About50percentof the employed population is in the agricultural sector, while manufacturing, tourism andlogisticsemploy2percenteach.Construction,andwholesaleandretailtradearealsoimportantsectorsaccountingfor4.4and3.6percentoftheregion’semployment,respectively.Thepoorerconstituencies ofOkalongo, Etayi andOntamazi have old age pensions as theirmain sourceofincome,whileinOnesi,subsistencefarmingisthemainsourceofincome.Anestimated52percentofthehouseholdshaveaccesstosafedrinkingwaterbutinOtamanzi,oneofthepoorestconstituencies,only25percentofhouseholdshavethisaccess.
Map22showsthatwiththeexceptionofEtayi(9.8percent),Otamanzi(16percent)andOnesi(16percent),allconstituenciesrecordedpovertyreductionsofmorethan20percentagepointsoverthe2001to2011period.TherecentproclamationofformervillagesinOutapi,Oshikuku,OkahaoandRuacanaconstituenciesastownsandtheattendantinvestmentinpublicservicescouldpartlyexplainthereductioninpovertynotedintheseconstituencies.
Map 22: Omusati Region Change in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Table23showsthattheincidenceofseverepovertyisestimatedat14percent,havingdeclinedby a remarkable 18 percentage points between 2001 and 2011. Okalongo and Onesi are the two constituencieswiththehighestincidenceofseverepoverty,at19percent.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 43
Table 23: Omusati Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (lower bound poverty line)
Omusati Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank ChangeOkalongo 39.8 1 18.7 1 -21.1Outapi 36.1 2 13.2 7 -22.9Onesi 33.9 3 18.6 2 -15.3Elim 33.0 4 10.7 11 -22.4Okahao 32.4 5 12.4 8 -20.0Tsandi 32.3 6 12.2 9 -20.1Anamulenge 32.3 7 13.6 6 -18.7Ruacana 30.4 8 14.6 5 -15.8Oshikuku 29.3 9 7.5 12 -21.8Ogongo 27.0 10 11.7 10 -15.3Otamanzi 26.5 11 14.7 4 -11.8Etayi 23.9 12 15.3 3 -8.7Regional rate 31.6 14.1 -17.5
3.3.12 Oshana regionOshanaisoneofthethreeregionswhichdoesnothaveaninternationalboundary.ItisborderedbyOmusati,Kunene,OshikotoandOhangwenaregions.In2011,Oshanahadapopulationof176674,accountingfor8.4percentofthenationalpopulation.Intermsofgeographicsize,thisisthesmallestofthethirteenregions,coveringatotalof8653km2.Oshanaregionhasapopulationdensityof20.4personspersquarekilometre.Overthe2001to2011period,thepopulationoftheregiongrewby0.9percentperannum.ThemostlyurbanconstituenciesofOngwendiva,OndangwaandOshakatiEastregisteredgrowthratesof2.4percent,1.5percentand1.2percentperannum,respectively.TheOshakati-Ongwediva-Ondangwacomplexhasexperiencedarapidrateofurbanisationandan influxofpeople fromotherpartsof thecountry.Together thesetownsformanimportantcommercialhub,providingemploymentopportunitiesforpeopleinnorthern Namibia. Table 24: Oshana Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Oshana Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank ChangeOngwediva 22.8 8 14.4 10 -8.4Oshakati East 19.0 9 14.9 9 -4.1Oshakati West 13.5 10 15.6 8 2.1Ondangwa 26.6 7 18.1 7 -8.5Uuvudhiya 42.6 3 24.1 6 -18.5Okatana 41.9 4 27.4 5 -14.5Ompundja 42.7 2 30.2 4 -12.5Okatyali 49.1 1 32.7 3 -16.3Okaku 38.2 5 33.2 2 -5.0Uukwiyu 36.0 6 36.0 1 0.1Regional rate 28.3 21.1 -7.1
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation44
In2011,theincidenceofpovertyintheregionwasestimatedat21percent(37278people),havingdeclinedby7percentagepointsfromthe2001figure.UukwiyuisthepoorestconstituencyinOshana,withanestimated36percentofthepeopleclassifiedaspoor.ItisfollowedcloselybyOkakuandOkatyali,wheretheincidenceofpovertyis33percent.PovertyincidenceislowestinOngwendiva,at14percent.Thegreatestreductionintheincidenceofpovertyoverthe2001to2011periodwasrecordedinUuvudhiya(19percentagepoints),Okatyali(16percentagepoints),Okatana(15percentagepoints)andOmpundja(13percentagepoints),whileOkaku(5percentagepoints)recordedtheleastprogressinreducingpoverty.PovertyincreasedinOshakatiWestby2percentage points over the same period.
From Map 23 it can be seen that poverty is highest in Ukwiyu and lowest in the mainly urban constituenciesofOngwendiva,OshakatiWestandOshakatiEast.
Map 23: Oshana Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Map24showsthatthegreatestdeclineinpovertyoccuredinUuvidhiya,OkatyaliandOkatanaconstituencies,asdiscussedabove.Theregionhasaliteracyrateof96percent,whileanestimated6percentofthepopulationhasneverattendedschool.Theeconomicallyactivepopulationisestimatedat61percentofthepopulation,ofwhich37percentareunemployed.Theagriculturalsector employs 26 percent of the employed population, while manufacturing, tourism andlogisticsemploy3.9percent,3.5percentand3.9percentof theworkforce, respectively.Theconstructionsectoremploys6.3percentoftheregion’slabourforce.Okatana,OkatyaliandOkakuhaveunemploymentratesofmorethan30percent.Salariesandwages(40percent)andoldagepensions(19percent)arethemainsourcesof incomefortheregiongenerally,whileoldagepensionsalonearetheleadingincomesourceinOkaku(41percent)andOmpundja(44percent).
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 45
Map 24: Oshana Region Change in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
In2011,theincidenceofseverelypoorindividualswasestimatedat10percent,adeclineof5percentagepointsfrom15percentin2001.Uukwiyuconstituencyhasthehighestincidenceofseverepoverty,at19percent,followedbyOkaku,OmpundjaandOkatyaliconstituencies. Table 25: Oshana Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (lower bound poverty line)
Oshana Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Oshakati West 6.2 10 6.8 8 0.6
Oshakati East 10.4 9 6.5 9 -3.9
Ongwediva 12.6 8 6.3 10 -6.3
Ondangwa 13.6 7 8.4 7 -5.2
Uukwiyu 18.2 6 18.8 1 0.6
Okaku 21.7 5 16.9 2 -4.8
Okatana 22.5 4 13.7 5 -8.9
Uuvudhiya 22.6 3 12.2 6 -10.4
Okatyali 26.2 2 15.9 4 -10.3
Ompundja 26.2 1 16.7 3 -9.4
Regional rate 15.1 10.1 -5.0
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation46
3.3.13 Oshikoto region
OshikotoregionishometoEtoshaNationalPark,whichisoneofthemajortouristattractionsinNamibiaandSouthernAfrica.Theregionhasapopulationof181973,ofwhichthevastmajority(87percent)livesinruralareas.In2011,theincidenceofpovertyintheregionwas43percent(77 520 people), representing a 15 percentage point reduction from the 2001 figure of 57percent.ThepoorestconstituencyintheregionisOkankolo,with63percentofthepopulationclassifiedaspoor.ItisfollowedbyEengodi(55percent)andOnyaanya(50percent).TheleastpoorconstituencyisTsumebwhereanestimated19percentofthepopulationisclassifiedaspoor.Overthe2001to2011period,thegreatestdeclineinpoverty,of23percentagepoints,wasrecordedinOnayenaconstituency.Thiswasfollowedbya21percentagepointreductioninOmunteleconstituencyand20percentagepointsinOniipaconstituency.
Table 26: Oshikoto Region Poverty Headcount, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Oshikoto Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Tsumeb 18.8 10 18.5 10 -0.3
Olukonda 48.5 9 31.5 9 -17.0
Oniipa 52.4 8 32.6 8 -19.9
Onayena 62.1 5 39.2 7 -22.8
Guinas 54.1 7 43.9 6 -10.3
Omuthiyagwiipundi 61.2 6 44.8 5 -16.5
Omuntele 66.9 3 46.1 4 -20.9
Onyaanya 62.2 4 50.4 3 -11.8
Eengodi 69.1 2 54.7 2 -14.5
Okankolo 71.7 1 62.9 1 -8.8
Regional rate 57.3 42.6 -14.7
Map 25: Oshikoto Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 47
AscanbeseenfromTable26andMap25,above,withtheexceptionofTsumeb,allconstituencieshave poverty levels higher than 30 percent and many are considerably higher. Between 2001 and 2011thepopulationof theregiongrewby1.2percentperannumalthoughtheurbanareasrecordedahighergrowthrateof4.6percentperannum.EengodiandTsumebconstituenciesgrewby3.6and2.9percentperannum,respectively,whileOnkankolo,thepoorestconstituency,hadapopulationgrowthrateof1.9percent.Theregionhasaliteracyrateof88percent,withabout12percentofthepopulationaged6yearsandabovehavingneverattendedschool. InGuinasconstituency,withapovertyheadcountof44percent,morethanonethird(37percent)ofpeoplehaveneverattainedformaleducation.ThisisfollowedbyEengodi(20percent)andOkankolo(18percent).
The economically active portion of the population is estimated at 57 percent. Of these, 40percentareunemployed.Theagriculturalsectoremploys49percentoftheworkingpopulation,whilemanufacturing,tourismandlogisticsaccountfor3percent,2.6percentand2.7percentofemployment,respectively.Otherimportantsectorsprovidingjobsareconstruction(4.7percent),wholesale and retail trade (5 percent), and mining (2.5 percent). Unemployment is highestinOmuthiyaqwiipundi andOnayena constituencies, at 43percentof the labour force.Accessto safedrinkingwater is estimated tobe70percent for the regionbut varies greatly acrossconstituencies.Onlyanestimatedonethird(33.3percent)ofthehouseholdsinOnkankolo,thepoorestconstituencyintheregion,haveaccesstosafedrinkingwater,withthecorrespondingfigureforOnayenabeing39percent.Inthesecondpoorestconstituency,Eengodi,morethanhalf (57percent)ofhouseholdshaveaccesstosafewater.Whileabout11and20percentofhouseholdsintheregionuseelectricityforcookingandlightningrespectively,inOkankolo,only2and3percentofhouseholds,respectively,doso.
Map26 confirms that, over the2001 to2011period, all constituencies recordeddeclines inpovertyheadcountrate,albeitinvaryingdegrees,withthegreatestreductionsbeingrecordedinOnayenaandtheleastinTsumebconstituency.
Map 26: Oshikoto Region Change in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation48
Table27presentstheincidenceofseverepovertyinOshikotoregion,andchangesbetween2001and2011.Anestimated27percentofthepopulation isseverelypoor.WiththeexceptionofTsumeb,alltheconstituenciesinOshikotoregistereddeclinesintheincidenceofseverepoverty,withOnayenaandOniiparegisteringthegreatestdeclines.Despitea10percentreductionintheincidenceofseverepovertybetween2001and2011,Okankoloconstituencystillhasmorethan40percentofitspopulationlivinginextremepoverty.
Table 27: Oshikoto Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (lower bound poverty line)
Oshikoto Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Tsumeb 8.9 10 9.0 10 0.1
Olukonda 28.6 9 17.3 9 -11.3
Oniipa 35.3 7 18.6 8 -16.7
Onayena 41.8 6 23.0 7 -18.8
Guinas 34.4 8 27.2 6 -7.3
Omuthiyagwiipundi 41.9 5 28.1 5 -13.8
Omuntele 43.7 3 28.6 4 -15.1
Onyaanya 43.2 4 32.3 3 -10.9
Eengodi 47.9 2 36.2 2 -11.7
Okankolo 54.0 1 43.8 1 -10.2
Regional rate 38.6 26.5 -12.1
3.3.14 Otjozondjupa regionOtjozondjupa region has a surface area of 105 185km2,accountingfor12.8percentofthelandareaofNamibia,andishometo6.8percentofthepopulation.Theregionislargelysemi-aridwithannualrainfallrangingfrom300to600mm,andlikeOmahekeregion,itischaracterisedbylargecommercialranches.Otjozondjupaisdividedintosixconstituencies-Grootfontein,Otavi,Otjiwarongo,Omatako,Okakarara,OkahandjaandTsumkwe.ThecentraltownofOtjiwarongoservesastheadministrativeheadquartersoftheregion.TheregionishometoOhorongocementfactory and B2 gold mine.
Between2001and2011,thepopulationgrewatanaveragerateof0.6percentperannum.Overthepastdecadetheregionhasexperiencedrapidurbanization,with54percentofthepopulationcurrentlylivinginurbanareas,comparedto41percentin2001.Theregionhasarelativelyyoungpopulation,withanestimated36percentof thepopulationbeingunder15yearsofage.Anestimated83percentofthepopulationisliterate.Ninetyfivepercentofhouseholdshaveaccesstosafedrinkingwaterand56percentuseelectricityforlighting.
AlthoughOtjozondjuparegionisknownforitspotentialforlargescalecommercialfarms,themainsourceofincomeissalaryandwages(60percent),withagriculture,businessandpensionsjointlyconstitutingthemainsourceof incomefor10percentofthepopulation.Seventytwopercentofthepopulationiseconomicallyactiveandofthese,37percentisunemployed.At27.5percent(39573),thepovertyheadcountrateisslightlyabovethenationalaverage,whiletherateofseverepovertyisestimatedat14.9percent.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 49
Poverty ishighest inmostly rural constituenciescharacterisedbysubsistence farming.At the2011timepoint,Tsumkwewasthepoorestconstituency,withapovertyheadcountrateof65percent,representingamarginaldecreaseof1percentagepointfrom2001,whiletheleastpoorconstituencyisOtjiwarongowithapovertyheadcountrateof17percent.Tsumkweconstituencyalsohasthelowestliteracyrate,at58percent,withmorethanonethird(36percent)ofpeopleaged15 years and abovehavingnever attended school. The labour force is estimated at 69percentofthepopulationandmorethanhalf(52percent)ofthisgroupisunemployed. Table 28: Otjozondjupa Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Otjozondjupa Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Grootfontein 23.7 5 23.8 5 0.0
Okahandja 20.8 6 18.7 6 -2.1
Okakarara 49.7 1 37.2 2 -12.5
Omatako 27.4 3 28.6 4 1.2
Otavi 25.9 4 32.1 3 6.2
Otjiwarongo 16.8 7 16.5 7 -0.3
Tsumkwe 65.7 1 64.6 1 -1.2
Regional rate 30.4 27.5 -2.9
Map 27: Otjozondjupa Region Poverty Headcount Rate in 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Between 2001 and 2011 the poverty headcount rate in the region declined by 3 percentage points,withOkakararaconstituencyexperiencingthehighestreductionof13percentagepoints.However,notall constituencies registereda reduction inpoverty,asOtaviandOmatakohadincreasesof6percentand1percent,respectively.Accesstowaterisestimatedat92percentofthepopulationwhileanestimated51percentofthepopulationuseselectricityforlighting.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation50
Map 28: Otjozondjupa Region Change in Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (upper bound poverty line)
Thechangesintheincidenceofseverepovertymirrorcloselythoseofpoverty,withTsumkweconstituency having the highest proportion of severe poverty (45 percent) and Okakararaconstituencyexperiencing thehighest reduction in severepoverty. The incidenceof severelypoorhouseholdsinOtjozondjuparegionisestimatedat15percent,areductionof3percentagepointsfromthe2001figure.
Table 29: Otjozondjupa Region Poverty Headcount Rate, 2001 - 2011 (lower bound poverty line)
Otjozondjupa Region 2001 Rank 2011 Rank Change
Grootfontein 13.6 4 11.6 5 -2.0
Okahandja 9.4 6 8.4 6 -1.0
Okakarara 33.5 2 21.9 2 -11.7
Omatako 15.4 3 15.2 4 -0.3
Otavi 13.1 5 17.0 3 3.9
Otjiwarongo 7.5 7 7.1 7 -0.4
Tsumkwe 45.9 1 44.9 1 -1.0
Regional rate 17.9 14.9 -3.0
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 51
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Conclusions
PovertyinNamibiahasdeclinedoveradecadeonaggregate.Atthenationallevel,therewasadeclineof11percentagepointsinthepovertyheadcountoverthe2001to2011period,withthegreatestdeclinesbeingregisteredinthenorthernregionsofOhangwena,Omusati,KuneneandOshikoto,aswellastheeasternregionofOmaheke.However,thedeclineinpovertyheadcountwasnotuniformacross thethirteenregionsof thecountry.Whileelevenoutof thethirteenregionsreporteddeclinesinthepovertyheadcount,tworegions(ZambeziandKhomas)recordedincreases in the incidence of poverty over the same period.
At the constituency level, the biggest percentage point reduction in the poverty headcountwasregisteredinthenorthernregionsofOhangwenaandOmusati,whilethebiggestincreaseoccurredinthenorth-easternZambeziregion.Eenhana,Endola,Engela,OkongoandOngengaconstituenciesinOhangwenaregionandOshikukuconstituencyinOmusatiregionallregisteredareductioninpovertyheadcountofmorethan30percentagepoints,whileKatimaMuliloUrbanandKongolaconstituencies inZambezi regionhadan increase inpovertyheadcountofmorethan 10 percentage points over this period. Theincidenceofseverepovertyinthecountrydeclinedby9percentagepointsoverthe2001to2011period.However,whileseverepovertydeclinedinelevenoutofthethirteenregions,two regions (Zambezi and Khomas) recorded increases in the severe poverty incidence. Attheconstituencylevel,thegreatestdecline,intermsofpercentagepoints,intheincidenceofseverepovertywasrecordedinOkongoconstituencyinOhangwenaregion,followedbyEngela,OngengaandEndolaconstituencies inOhangwenaregion,aswellasSesfonteinconstituencyinKunene.Alloftheseregisteredreductionsofmorethan25percentagepoints.Ontheotherhand,thegreatestincreaseintheincidenceofseverepoverty,of7percentagepointsorhigher,wasregisteredinSibbinda,LinyantiandKongola,allinZambeziregion,aswellasinKapakoinKavango region.
Overthepastdecade,povertyinNamibiacontinuedtoexhibitanurban-ruraldivide.Thesevenpoorestregions–Kavango,Oshikoto,Zambezi,Kunene,Ohangwena,OmusatiandOtjozondjupa–hadpovertyincidencesabovethenationalaverageof26.9percent.Theseareregionswherethemajorityoftheirpopulationlivesinruralareas,whilethelesspoorregionsofKhomasandErongo,theeconomichubsofthecountrywithrelativelymoreemploymentopportunities,havelargelyurbanpopulations.
In2011,KavangowasthepoorestregioninthecountryandKhomaswastheleastpoorregion,whileEpupawas thepoorest constituency in thecountry,andWindhoekEast the leastpoorconstituency.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation52
4.2 Policy Recommendations
Thefollowingpolicyrecommendationsaredrawnfromthefindingsofthisstudy:
• Having located where the poor are, there is a need for targeted interventions in termsresourceallocation,public/privateinvestmentandservicedelivery.
• The widely acknowledged negative relationship between education and poverty clearlyexists inNamibia. Therefore, it is important that, as a long term strategy, investment ineducationisusedtoreducepoverty.However,shorttermservicedeliveryisalsocrucialforpovertyreduction.Thiswillhavetheeffectofalsoaddressingmigrationwhichhasbeenanincreasing contributor to poverty in urban areas.
• Nationalpoliciesandanationalagendaforpovertyreductionneedtobelocalisedinorderto make a notable impact.
• Itisalsoimportanttogainabetterunderstandingofthesectors,programmesandprojects,aswellastheinstitutionalfactorsdrivingthereportedreductionsinthepovertyheadcount.Thus,furtherresearchtoidentifythefactorsdrivingpovertyreductionisrecommended.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 53
REFERENCES
1. Dobson,A. J. (2002)An Introduction to Generalized Linear Models, SecondEdition,BocaRaton,London,NewYork,WashingtonDC:ChapmanHall.
2. CentralBureauofStatistics(2008)A Review of Poverty and Inequality in Namibia,Windhoek:CentralBureauofStatistics,NationalPlanningCommission.
3. Elbers, C., J. O. Lanjouw and P. Lanjouw (2003) ‘Micro-level estimation of poverty andinequality’,Econometrica,71:355-364.
4. National Planning Commission (2012) Fourth National Development Plan, Windhoek,Namibia.
5. NationalPlanningCommission(2004)Namibia Vision 2030,PolicyFrameworkforLong-TermNationalDevelopment,Windhoek,Namibia.
6. Namibia Statistics Agency (2012) Namibia 2011 Population and Housing Census Report, Windhoek,Namibia.
7. Namibia Statistics Agency (2012) Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2009/2010,Windhoek,Namibia.
8. Namibia StatisticsAgency (2014)Namibia 2011 Population and Housing Census Regional Profiles,Basicanalysiswithhighlights,Windhoek,Namibia.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation54
Anne
x 1:
Det
aile
d Po
vert
y He
adco
unt u
sing
the
Upp
er P
over
ty L
ine
2001
and
201
1
Regi
on an
d Co
nstit
uenc
y20
0120
11Ch
ange
Pove
rty
Rate
Popu
latio
nPo
orPo
verty
Ra
tePo
pulat
ion
Poor
Pove
rty
Rate
Popu
latio
nPo
orNo
n-po
or
Zam
bezi
32.0
79 82
6 25
544
39.3
90 59
6 35
604
7.310
770
10 06
0 71
0 Ka
bbe
42.2
14 96
2 6 3
14
49.1
14 51
8 7 1
28
6.9-4
44
814
-1 25
8 Ka
tima M
ulilo
Rura
l38
.314
566
5 579
43
.016
399
7 052
4.7
13
1 473
-1
460
Katim
a Muli
lo Ur
ban
6.422
704
1 453
17
.228
362
4 878
10
.85 6
58
3 425
2 2
33
Kong
ola47
.44 4
19
2 095
58
.15 6
58
3 287
10
.7-
1 193
-1
193
Linya
nti41
.213
985
5 762
49
.415
477
7 646
8.2
1 492
1 8
84
-392
Si
bbind
a45
.89 1
90
4 209
55
.010
182
5 600
9.2
992
1 391
-3
99
Eron
go9.3
107 6
63
10 01
3 6.3
150 8
09
9 501
-3
.043
146
-512
43
658
Aran
dis5.4
7 590
41
0 6.3
10 09
3 63
6 0.9
2 503
22
6 2 2
77
Daur
es38
.310
289
3 941
20
.111
350
2 281
-1
8.21 0
61
-1 65
9 2 7
20
Karib
ib16
.912
084
2 042
15
.413
320
2 051
-1
.51 2
36
9 1 2
27
Omar
uru
9.67 1
56
687
11.7
8 577
1 0
04
2.11 4
21
317
1 104
Sw
akop
mund
4.426
310
1 158
3.6
44 72
5 1 6
10
-0.8
18 41
5 45
2 17
963
Walv
is Ba
y Rur
al3.4
16 29
3 55
4 3.7
26 91
6 99
6 0.3
10 62
3 44
2 10
181
Walv
is Ba
y Urb
an3.4
27 94
1 95
0 2.4
35 82
8 86
0 -1
.07 8
87
-90
7 977
Ha
rdap
20.4
68 24
9 13
923
17.2
79 50
7 13
675
-3.2
11 25
8 -2
48
11 50
6 Gi
beon
30.2
11 54
1 3 4
85
24.8
12 12
2 3 0
06
-5.4
581
-479
1 0
60
Marie
ntal R
ural
27.5
13 94
6 3 8
35
23.3
15 30
8 3 5
67
-4.2
1 362
-2
68
1 630
Ma
rienta
l Urb
an15
.413
109
2 019
15
.615
557
2 427
0.2
2 448
40
8 2 0
40
Reho
both
Rura
l27
.17 5
24
2 039
24
.27 2
88
1 764
-2
.9-2
36
-275
39
Re
hobo
th Ur
ban E
ast
13.0
12 89
1 1 6
76
13.8
18 03
5 2 4
89
0.85 1
44
813
4 331
Re
hobo
th Ur
ban W
est
9.09 2
38
831
4.011
197
448
-5.0
1 959
-3
84
2 343
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 55
Kara
s18
.069
329
12 47
9 14
.577
421
11 22
6 -3
.58 0
92
-1 25
3 9 3
45
Berse
ba38
.59 0
64
3 490
27
.210
589
2 880
-11
.31 5
25
-609
2 1
34
Kara
sbur
g21
.615
758
3 404
20
.816
470
3 426
-0
.871
2 22
69
0 Ke
etman
shoo
p Rur
al25
.86 3
99
1 651
23
.07 2
19
1 660
-2
.882
0 9
811
Keetm
ansh
oop U
rban
9.815
777
1 546
9.9
19 44
7 1 9
25
0.13 6
70
379
3 291
Lu
deritz
9.714
542
1 411
7.0
13 85
9 97
0 -2
.7-6
83
-440
-2
43
Oran
jemun
d7.6
7 789
59
2 2.9
9 837
28
5 -4
.72 0
48
-307
2 3
55
Kava
ngo
57.9
202 6
94
117 3
60
53.2
223 3
52
118 8
23
-4.7
20 65
8 1 4
63
19 19
5 Ka
heng
e60
.330
903
18 63
5 60
.629
799
18 05
8 0.3
-1 10
4 -5
76
-528
Ka
pako
55.8
26 26
3 14
655
62.6
26 98
3 16
891
6.872
0 2 2
37
-1 51
7 Ma
shar
e75
.316
007
12 05
3 60
.515
688
9 491
-1
4.8-3
19
-2 56
2 2 2
43
Mpun
gu60
.818
660
11 34
5 60
.320
787
12 53
5 -0
.52 1
27
1 189
93
8 Mu
kwe
65.2
27 25
0 17
767
58.2
27 69
0 16
116
-7.0
440
-1 65
1 2 0
91
Ndiyo
na69
.319
565
13 55
9 56
.620
633
11 67
8 -1
2.71 0
68
-1 88
0 2 9
48
Rund
u Rur
al W
est
46.8
26 62
3 12
460
45.1
38 28
1 17
265
-1.7
11 65
8 4 8
05
6 853
Ru
ndu U
rban
30.3
19 17
3 5 8
09
18.6
20 95
3 3 8
97
-11.7
1 780
-1
912
3 692
Ru
ndu R
ural
East
61.5
18 25
0 11
224
56.3
22 53
8 12
689
-5.2
4 28
8 1 4
65
2 823
Kh
omas
3.425
0 262
8 5
09
4.634
2 141
15
738
1.291
879
7 230
84
649
Tobia
s Hain
yeko
4.834
348
1 649
9.6
45 91
2 4 4
08
4.811
564
2 759
8 8
05
Katut
ura C
entra
l6.2
21 24
3 1 3
17
4.024
608
984
-2.2
3 365
-3
33
3 698
Ka
tutur
a Eas
t4.5
17 74
5 79
9 4.1
18 50
1 75
9 -0
.475
6 -4
0 79
6 Kh
omas
dal N
orth
1.627
950
447
2.443
921
1 054
0.8
15 97
1 60
7 15
364
Sowe
to2.9
13 86
5 40
2 2.1
15 12
1 31
8 -0
.81 2
56
-85
1 341
Sa
mora
Mac
hel
3.329
382
970
4.350
110
2 155
1.0
20 72
8 1 1
85
19 54
3 W
indho
ek E
ast
0.217
674
35
0.122
712
23
-0.1
5 038
-1
3 5 0
51
Wind
hoek
Rur
al11
.320
212
2 284
7.7
22 25
4 1 7
14
-3.6
2 042
-5
70
2 612
W
indho
ek W
est
0.542
201
211
0.453
438
214
-0.1
11 23
7 3
11 23
4 Mo
ses/G
aroë
b1.4
25 64
2 35
9 8.4
45 56
4 3 8
27
7.019
922
3 468
16
454
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation56
Kune
ne53
.768
735
36 91
1 38
.986
856
33 78
7 -1
4.818
121
-3 12
4 21
245
Epup
a76
.813
129
10 08
3 69
.217
696
12 24
6 -7
.64 5
67
2 163
2 4
04
Kama
njab
37.0
6 454
2 3
88
19.9
8 441
1 6
80
-17.1
1 987
-7
08
2 695
Kh
orixa
s34
.311
501
3 945
18
.812
566
2 362
-1
5.51 0
65
-1 58
2 2 6
47
Opuw
o65
.220
892
13 62
2 44
.127
272
12 02
7 -2
1.16 3
80
-1 59
5 7 9
75
Outjo
22.7
9 154
2 0
78
18.0
12 44
7 2 2
40
-4.7
3 293
16
3 3 1
30
Sesfo
ntein
69.0
7 605
5 2
47
40.0
8 434
3 3
74
-29
829
-1 87
4 2 7
03
Ohan
gwen
a62
.822
8 384
14
3 425
35
.324
5 446
86
642
-27.5
17 06
2 -5
6 783
73
845
Eenh
ana
62.6
18 69
0 11
700
31.1
21 08
9 6
559
-31.5
2 399
-5
141
7 540
En
dola
62.0
24 80
4 15
378
27.7
25 59
1 7 0
89
-34.3
787
-8 29
0 9 0
77
Enge
la59
.221
832
12 92
5 26
.024
271
6 310
-3
3.22 4
39
-6 61
4 9 0
53
Epem
be72
.214
860
10 72
9 48
.416
229
7 855
-2
3.81 3
69
-2 87
4 4 2
43
Ohan
gwen
a57
.817
887
10 33
9 29
.917
468
5 223
-2
7.9-4
19
-5 11
6 4 6
97
Okon
go73
.721
551
15 88
3 41
.025
698
10 53
6 -3
2.74 1
47
-5 34
7 9 4
94
Omun
daun
gilo
76.1
8 115
6 1
76
51.8
7 855
4 0
69
-24.3
-260
-2
107
1 847
On
dobe
51.0
22 25
3 11
349
39.8
23 95
4 9 5
34
-11.2
1 701
-1
815
3 516
On
geng
a65
.321
706
14 17
4 32
.322
075
7 130
-3
3.036
9 -7
044
7 413
Os
hikan
go58
.9 25
221
14 85
5 31
.628
635
9 049
-2
7.33 4
14
-5 80
7 9 2
21
Omulo
nga
63.1
31 46
5 19
854
40.4
32 58
1 13
163
-22.7
1 116
-6
692
7 808
Om
ahek
e41
.668
039
28 30
4 26
.271
233
18 66
3 -1
5.43 1
94
-9 64
1 12
835
Amini
us50
.912
392
6 308
28
.412
306
3 495
-2
2.5-8
6 -2
813
2 727
Go
babis
16.9
15 11
9 2 5
55
17.1
20 99
3 3 5
90
0.25 8
74
1 035
4 8
39
Kalah
ari
44.9
9 443
4 2
40
27.1
7 611
2 0
63
-17.8
-1 83
2 -2
177
345
Otjin
ene
55.1
7 790
4 2
92
33.2
7 306
2 4
26
-21.9
-484
-1
867
1 383
Ot
jombin
de57
.06 5
60
3 739
36
.36 8
51
2 487
-2
0.729
1 -1
252
1 543
St
einha
usen
35.5
9 600
3 4
08
26.1
10 06
0 2 6
26
-9.4
460
-782
1 2
42
Epuk
iro52
.57 1
35
3 746
31
.26 1
06
1 905
-2
1.3-1
029
-1 84
1 81
2
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 57
Omus
ati
50.9
228 8
42
116 4
81
28.6
243 1
66
69 54
5 -2
2.314
324
-46 9
35
61 25
9 An
amule
nge
54.0
12 61
7 6 8
13
27.5
13 41
0 3 6
88
-26.5
793
-3 12
5 3 9
18
Elim
48.1
10 85
0 5 2
19
23.5
11 40
6 2 6
80
-24.6
556
-2 53
8 3 0
94
Etay
i40
.735
130
14 29
8 30
.935
101
10 84
6 -9
.8-2
9 -3
452
3 423
Og
ongo
47.2
19 61
1 9 2
56
25.5
19 54
6 4 9
84
-21.7
-65
-4 27
2 4 2
07
Okah
ao52
.317
751
9 284
26
.117
548
4 580
-2
6.2-2
03
-4 70
4 4 5
01
Okalo
ngo
59.0
28 71
9 16
944
36.0
30 60
9 11
019
-23.0
1 890
-5
925
7 815
On
esi
51.0
12 99
5 6 6
27
34.6
13 14
9 4 5
50
-16.4
154
-2 07
8 2 2
32
Oshik
uku
49.3
8 299
4 0
91
17.0
9 093
1 5
46
-32.3
794
-2 54
6 3 3
40
Outap
i55
.431
496
17 44
9 27
.236
934
10 04
6 -2
8.25 4
38
-7 40
3 12
841
Ruac
ana
51.6
11 20
4 5 7
81
28.0
14 85
7 4 1
60
-23.6
3 653
-1
621
5 274
Ts
andi
53.9
27 04
9 14
579
26.3
28 01
8 7 3
69
-27.6
969
-7 21
1 8 1
80
Otam
anzi
46.7
13 12
1 6 1
28
30.3
13 49
5 4 0
89
-16.4
374
-2 03
9 2 4
13
Osha
na28
.316
1 916
45
822
21.1
176 6
74
37 27
8 -7
.214
758
-8 54
4 23
302
Okak
u38
.220
354
7 775
33
.219
007
6 310
-5
.0-1
347
-1 46
5 11
8 Ok
atana
41.9
15 35
2 6 4
32
27.4
14 80
1 4 0
55
-14.5
-551
-2
377
1 826
Ok
atyali
49.1
2 812
1 3
81
32.7
3 187
1 0
42
-16.4
375
-339
71
4 Om
pund
ja42
.74 4
48
1 899
30
.24 6
59
1 407
-1
2.521
1 -4
92
703
Onda
ngwa
26.6
31 69
4 8 4
31
18.1
36 84
6 6 6
69
-8.5
5 152
-1
761
6 913
On
gwed
iva22
.826
700
6 088
14
.434
065
4 905
-8
.47 3
65
-1 18
2 8 5
47
Osha
kati E
ast
19,0
24 26
9 4 6
11
14.9
27 22
7 4 0
57
-4.1
2 958
-5
54
3 512
Os
haka
ti Wes
t13
.519
862
2 681
15
.620
676
3 225
2.1
814
544
270
Uukw
iyu36
.012
047
4 337
36
.012
092
4 353
0
45
16
29
Uuvu
dhiya
42.6
4 378
1 8
65
24.1
4 114
99
1 -1
8.5-2
64
-874
61
0
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation58
Oshi
koto
57.3
161 0
07
92 25
7 42
.618
1 973
77
520
-14.7
20 96
6 -1
4 737
35
703
Eeng
odi
69.1
15 21
7 10
515
54.7
21 73
2 11
887
-14.4
6 515
1 3
72
5 143
Gu
inas
54.1
9 033
4 8
87
43.9
10 73
0 4 7
10
-10.2
1 697
-1
76
1 873
Ok
anko
lo71
.713
065
9 368
62
.915
831
9 958
-8
.82 7
66
590
2 176
Ol
ukon
da48
.59 2
26
4 475
31
.59 5
59
3 011
-1
7.033
3 -1
464
1 797
Om
untel
e66
.915
160
10 14
2 46
.116
865
7 775
-2
0.81 7
05
-2 36
7 4 0
72
Omuth
iyagw
iipun
di61
.223
674
14 48
8 44
.826
183
11 73
0 -1
6.42 5
09
-2 75
9 5 2
68
Onay
ena
62.1
15 45
9 9 6
00
39.2
15 39
2 6 0
34
-22.9
-67
-3 56
6 3 4
99
Oniip
a52
.424
730
12 95
9 32
.624
939
8 130
-1
9.820
9 -4
828
5 037
On
yaan
ya62
.220
536
12 77
3 50
.420
902
10 53
5 -11
.836
6 -2
239
2 605
Ts
umeb
18.8
14 90
7 2 8
03
18.5
19 84
0 3 6
70
-0.3
4 933
86
8 4 0
65
Otjo
zond
jupa
30.4
135 3
84
41 15
7 27
.514
3 903
39
573
-2.9
8 519
-1
583
10 10
2 Gr
ootfo
ntein
23.7
23 79
3 5 6
39
23.8
24 87
8 5 9
21
0.11 0
85
282
803
Okah
andja
20.8
18 07
1 3 7
59
18.7
24 45
1 4 5
72
-2.1
6 380
81
4 5 5
66
Okak
arar
a49
.721
820
10 84
5 37
.222
747
8 462
-1
2.592
7 -2
383
3 310
Om
atako
27.4
26 90
8 7 3
73
28.6
17 61
9 5 0
39
1.2-9
289
-2 33
4 -6
955
Otav
i25
.912
378
3 206
32
.112
488
4 009
6.2
110
803
-693
Ot
jiwar
ongo
16.8
23 41
2 3 9
33
16.5
31 81
3 5 2
49
-0.3
8 401
1 3
16
7 085
Ts
umkw
e65
.79 0
02
5 914
64
.69 9
07
6 400
-1
.190
5 48
6 41
9 Na
mib
ia37
.91 8
30 33
0 69
3 695
26
.92 1
13 07
7 56
8 418
-11
.028
2 747
-1
25 27
7 40
8 024
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 59
Annex 2: Technical Notes
Foreachperiod,therewasonedatasetavailable,theNHIES,withquiteaccurate incomeandexpenditure data, but with a limited (stratified and clustered) sample. Conversely, there isanotherdataset,theCensus,withnoincomeorexpendituredata,butwithamuchlargerandmorerepresentativesample. Following theapproachofElbersetal. (2003), theanalysis reportedhereused theNHIES topredicttherelationshipbetweenasetofobservablesandincome,andthenusedthisrelationshipto impute the likely per adult equivalent income for each household in the Census using the samesetofobservables.Oncethesevalueswereimputed,thepovertylevelsforeachhouseholdineachconstituencywereaggregated.(Notethatthetermincomeisusedthroughoutbut,asitisregardedasbettermeasuredinadevelopingcountrycontext,itwasexpenditure that was modeledandestimated.)
Throughout itwasassumedthat loggedhousehold incomecanbemodeledastheestimatedlogged household income plus an error component.
Ifitisassumedthatthisrelationshipholdsfortheentirepopulationandthatthequestionsofinterestarecomparablebetweensurveys,thenthismodelcanbeusedtopredictthe loggedconsumption in theCensus.Suppose itwasbelieved that itwouldbepossible toadequatelypredict consumption using only three predictors, the education level of household head,whetherthehousehasacar,andhouseholdsize.Thentherelationshipbetweenthesethreevariablesandhouseholdconsumption(shownintheregressionbelow)canbeusedtopredicttheexpectedlevelofconsumptionforeachhouseholdintheCensus,sinceinformationonallthreeoftheseattributesisavailableintheCensusaswell.
Coef seEducation 0.069*** 43.286Household Size -0.130*** -55.001Car 1.133*** 59.650Constant 6.724*** 371.311Adjusted R2 0.553note:***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.1
Thisexampleignorestwoimportantissues,whichwillnowbediscussedbriefly.50
Annex 2: Technical Notes
For each period, there was one dataset available, the NHIES, with quite accurate income and expenditure data, but with a limited (stratified and clustered) sample. Conversely, there is another dataset, the Census, with no income or expenditure data, but with a much larger and more representative sample. Following the approach of Elbers et al. (2003), the analysis reported here used the NHIES to predict the relationship between a set of observables and income, and then used this relationship to impute the likely per adult equivalent income for each household in the Census using the same set of observables. Once these values were imputed, the poverty levels for each household in each constituency were aggregated. (Note that the term income is used throughout but, as it is regarded as better measured in a developing country context, it was expenditure that was modeled and estimated.) Throughout it was assumed that logged household income can be modeled as the estimated logged household income plus an error component.
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑌𝑌!! =𝐸𝐸 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑌𝑌!!|𝑋𝑋!! + 𝑢𝑢!!
𝑦𝑦!! = 𝐸𝐸 𝑦𝑦!!|𝑋𝑋!! + 𝑢𝑢!!
where 𝑐𝑐 is the subscript for cluster, ℎ is the subscript for the household within the cluster 𝑌𝑌!! is the per capita expenditure of household h in cluster c, 𝑋𝑋!!is the household characteristics for household h in cluster c and 𝑢𝑢!! is the error. If it is assumed that this relationship holds for the entire population and that the questions of interest are comparable between surveys, then this model can be used to predict the logged consumption in the Census. Suppose it was believed that it would be possible to adequately predict consumption using only three predictors, the education level of household head, whether the house has a car, and household size. Then the relationship between these three variables and household consumption (shown in the regression below) can be used to predict the expected level of consumption for each household in the Census, since information on all three of these attributes is available in the Census as well.
Coef se Education 0.069*** 43.286 Household Size -‐0.130*** -‐55.001 Car 1.133*** 59.650 Constant 6.724*** 371.311 Adjusted R2 0.553 note: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
This example ignores two important issues, which will now be discussed briefly.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation60
1. Not every household will earn exactly what they are predicted to earn
While the regressionmodelmightdowell inpredicting theunderlying relationshipbetweenobservablesandexpectedincome,itmightnotdowell inpredictingtheexpectedincomeforeach household individually. Using the predicted values of this regression unchanged assumes thateveryonewhohasthesamesetofobservableswillallhaveexactlythesameincome,whichisobviouslynotthecase.ThisisapparentwhenthedistributionofactualincomeintheNHIESiscomparedtothedistributionofthefittedvaluesinthesamedataset(seebelow).Thefittedvaluesfollowanarrowerdistributionthantheactualincomevalues.
Toaddressthisconcern,themodel incorporatedMonteCarlosimulations.Inthesecondpartofthemodeling,onethousanditerationswererun,eachtimedrawingastochasticerrortermforeveryhousehold.Theaveragepovertyrateisthenestimatedoveralltheiterations,foreachregion,constituencyandforthepopulationasawhole.Thismethodhelpstoaccountforthestochastictermthatwouldotherwisehavebeenignored.
2. Households within clusters are somewhat alike
Usually the outcomes of are considered to be independent of one another. This is unlikelytobetruewhenmeasurementsaretakenfromrelatedsubjects.InthecaseoftheNHIES,forinstance,theprimarysamplingunits(orclusters)representhouseholdsthatarefromthesameneighborhood.Oneusuallyfindsthatthesehouseholdsarefairlysimilar,notonlywithregardtoobservables,butalsowithregardtoattributesthatmaynothavebeenrecordedinthesurvey.Ignoringthiswithin-areacorrelationwouldproducemisleadingresults.
AccordingtoDobson(2002),thestandarddeviationofthemeandifferencesinincomesbetweentwoareaswillbeunderestimatediftheobservationswhicharecorrelatedareassumedtobeindependent.Forinstance,supposeitwasdesiredtocomparetheheightofwomenfromtwodifferentcountries,butwomenfromspecificcitiesonlywereselectedinbothcountries.Whilethemean differencewould still be unbiased, the standard deviation of themean differencebetween two countries would be overestimated if the observations that are correlated areassumedtobeindependent,sincethedatawouldhaverecordedtoolittleoftheactualvariationin each country.
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
4 6 8 10 12x
actual values fitted values
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 61
TheGLSmodelsmakeitpossibletocontrolforthiswithin-areacorrelation.ThisaddedflexibilitycomesatacostthoughsincetheGLSmethodismuchmorecomplexandtime-consumingthantheconventionalOLSmodel.Unfortunately,hastobeestimatedfromthedatabyaniterativeprocess since it is not known - FGLS.
52
Decomposing the Error
Unlike conventional models, it was not assumed that the errors are independent of one another. Allowance was made for the errors to be correlated within clusters. The error will consist of two components: the location effect (or cluster component) 𝜂𝜂! which will capture the intra-‐cluster correlation, and the idiosyncratic effect 𝜀𝜀!!.
𝑢𝑢!! = 𝜂𝜂! + 𝜀𝜀!!
where 𝜂𝜂! is the cluster component/location effect and 𝜀𝜀!! is the household component.
The GLS-variance covariance matrix, Ω, will look as follows:
Ω =
𝜎𝜎!!! + 𝜎𝜎!! 𝜎𝜎!!
!
𝜎𝜎!!! 𝜎𝜎!!
! + 𝜎𝜎!!0 00 0
0 00 0
𝜎𝜎!!! + 𝜎𝜎!! 𝜎𝜎!!
!
𝜎𝜎!!! 𝜎𝜎!!
! + 𝜎𝜎!!
The GLS models make it possible to control for this within-‐area correlation. This added flexibility comes at a cost though since the GLS method is much more complex and time-‐consuming than the conventional OLS model. Unfortunately, Ω has to be estimated from the data by an iterative process since it is not known -‐ FGLS.
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation62
NOTES
National Planning Commission | Namibia Index of Multiple Deprivation 63
NOTES
National Planning CommissionGovernment Office ParkLuther StreetPrivate Bag 13356WindhoekTel.: +264 61 283 4111Website: www.npc.gov.na
Republic of Namibia
ISBN: 978-99945-0-085-7