Households Poverty and Livelihoods Nexus in Small Towns of East Gojjam, Amhara Region, Ethiopia
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2017-03
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Addis Ababa University
Abstract
Poverty in Ethiopia is one of the pressing problems catching the attention of the government,
development practitioners and researchers for more than two decades and will draw the
attentions in the years to come. This study aims to explore the extent of poverty and examine the
link between poverty and livelihoods of households in small towns of East Gojjam guided by
sustainable livelihoods framework. The study was based on quantitative and qualitative data
generated from both primary and secondary sources. The sample for the survey was selected
using two-stage sampling technique. In the first stage, the study towns was selected purposively
based on set criterion and in the second stage, 328 households were selected using simple
random sampling technique after the sample size was statistically determined. In contrast, in this
stage key informants and group discussants were selected purposively. Questionnaire survey was
used to generate mainly quantitative data and key informant interview, group discussion and
observation were employed to generate qualitative data from the selected primary sources. Thus,
both quantitative and qualitative methods of data analyses were employed for the study.
Descriptive statistics such as percentages and mean and inferential statistics such as chi-square
test, independent t-test, one way ANOVA and logistic regression were employed to analyze the
quantitative data. In addition, indices for the multidimensional poverty and livelihood security
were constructed. Direct quotation, paraphrasing and pattern matching were used to analyse the
qualitative data. The study, therefore, found that the incidences of consumption and
multidimensional poverty were 37% and 55% respectively. The chi-square test shows the
absence of significant differences among the incidences of poverty of the study towns though the
percentages show some differences. Both the poor and the non-poor households were deprived of
the productive assets though the poor were more deprived. The chi-square tests and t-tests
confirmed that these differences in the asset possessions between the poor and the non-poor were
statistically significant. About 9 out of 10 households were self-employed, 70% of the businesses
were non-licensed and the place of work for 30% of the businesses was residential house and
compound. The study also found that the livelihoods of about half (50%) of the households was
improved due to largely better profit from their businesses and the livelihood of 20% of the
households was decreased due to shocks. Households pursue a living from agricultural land
(32%), grazing land (25%), cooking energy (33%), quarrying site and social assets from the
rural areas. Agriculture was the primary source of income for significant proportion of the poor.
The study also found that over a third (35%) of the households were insecure in their livelihood.
More proportion of households was insecure in economic dimension followed by housing, but a
few was insecure in food dimension. The livelihood of households who were employed in private
organization (80%), casual labourer (62%) and beggars (60%) were more insecure than the
others who engaged in other livelihood activities. Household size, monthly income, housing
crowdedness, radio/television possession, livestock, credit and the interaction of municipality and population were found statistically significant determinants of poverty. In order to reduce poverty and improve livelihood security, the federal and regional governments should design small towns targeted poverty reduction programmes and trainings on skills of various kind and reengineering low price but high quality housing materials should be some of the top priorities in these towns. Furthermore, the local businessperson should involve in the establishment of agro-processing industries rather than migrating to the larger towns. This will help to improve employment opportunities in these towns.
Key words: Small Towns, Poverty, Livelihoods, Assets and Livelihood Insecurity
Description
Keywords
Small Towns, Poverty, Livelihoods, Assets and Livelihood Insecurity