-
Chapter 11 - Conclusions and Policy Implications
- Mkuki na Nyota Publishers
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Chapter 11 Conclusions and Policy Implications Flora Kessy, Andrew Shepherd and Lucy Scott Introduction Poverty has remained persistent in Tanzania, especially in rural areas. The National Bureau of Statistics in the 2007 Household Budget Survey identifies a worrying trend of households remaining clustered at or below the poverty line over time (2000–7); in other words, the majority of Tanzanians are stagnating in poverty, despite rapid economic growth which has remained above 6 per cent per annum.1 Results from the National Panel Survey 2008/09 are close to those in the 2007 Household Budget Survey. They show that poverty has remained unchanged in mainland Tanzania as a whole, with food poverty rising (insignificantly) from 16.6 per cent in 2007 to 17.4 per cent in 2008/09 and basic needs poverty from 33.6 to 34 per cent.2 Qualitative research findings from a subsample of National Bureau of Statistics and National Panel Survey households, as presented in this book, reveals similar results, with very few households moving out of poverty over the 1999–2009 period. Thus, the chapters presented in this book address the key policy question in Tanzania: why has modest economic growth not translated more rapidly into reduced poverty, especially in rural regions, where the majority of the poor still live? The chapters draw on new, largely qualitative data based on life histories, focus group discussions and key informant interviews across several regions (see Chapter 2), complemented by analysis of national household and panel survey datasets. Manifestation of vulnerability In the study areas, poor people’s vulnerability is manifested in the form of a limited number of meals per day (a measure of food insecurity) and several covariant and idiosyncratic shocks. The major covariant shocks identified include food price inflation; weather/climate-related shocks; agriculturerelated shocks such as crop pests and a lack of the necessary agricultural inputs including land; witchcraft; and the theft of agricultural produce while still on the farm (mentioned strongly in Newala). Property-stripping and propertygrabbing , alcoholism, old age, divorce, serial polygamy and selling labour on credit are major idiosyncratic shocks. 210 TRANSLATING GROWTH INTO POVERTY REDUCTION Vulnerability differs by groups of community members, with destitute and very poor people facing two types of vulnerability: reduced consumption and reduced production. While elderly and disabled people often lack the capacity to produce, alcoholics and people living in despair frequently lack entrepreneurial or development ambitions. Thus, addressing the vulnerability of poor community members requires different policy interventions based on the type and nature of the vulnerability. For instance, the elderly might need social assistance to smooth consumption, whereas the able-bodied destitute and very poor might also need social transfers to boost their productive capabilities. Number of meals per day Qualitative findings from the six research clusters produced a varied picture of experiences of hunger. In all cases, individuals and households in the poorest two categories (‘destitute’ and ‘very poor’) were likely to have difficulty ensuring sufficient food intake from day to day. With the exception of one cluster, where the majority of the households ate one meal per day, most households survive on two meals per day (although in one cluster the same number of households survive on two meals a day as on just one per day). While detailed information on the type of meals was not collected, during additional discussions it was apparent that sometimes this meal comprises just cassava stiff porridge and tea, maize porridge or sorghum/maize porridge. Destitute people might have one meal a day—boiled, with no salt or oil and which ‘doesn’t taste good’. The poor but not vulnerable group and the rich were said to consume diverse food, including ‘food from industry’, for example bread, soft and hard drinks and meals containing ‘delicacies’ such as milk and ‘delicious foods’. Being able to consume such foods placed these households in a higher well-being classification. On the basis of Participatory Poverty Assessments,3 it has been argued that the real concern of the poor is not their lack of income, consumption or assets, but rather insecurity, that is, the imminent likelihood, or actual experience, of a sudden sharp reduction in any one of these. Members of focus group discussions confirmed the insecurity facing the destitute and very poor in terms of being able to eat a certain amount of food each day and knowing where their next meal will come from. In contrast, for resilient households, the issue is not about how many meals...