4_6035064590075692496(1)

AMBO UNIVERSITY WOLISO CAMPUS
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
DETERMINANTS OF URBAN HOUSEHOLD POVERTY: A
CASE OF TULU BOLO TOWN
A Research thesis Submitted to Department of Economics as Partial Fulfillment for the

Requirement of Bachelor of Arts (BA) Degree in Economics
Prepared By:
Name Id.No.
1. Lemi Taye…………………… 042/08
2. Hailu Wolditsadik…………….035/08
3. Mohammed Ali………………..050/08
4. Tajudin Yusuf………………...056/08
5. Darartu Chalchisa……………..079/07
Advisor: Dr. Mekonnen Bersisa (PhD.)

JUNE, 2018
WOLISO, ETHIOPIA
APPROVAL SHEET
Signature Date
Advisor: Dr. Mekonnen B (PhD.) ______________ _____________
Examiner:______________ _____________ ______________
Name of Investigators Signature Date
Lemi Taye __________ ______________
Hailu Wolditsadik __________ ______________
Mohammed Ali __________ ______________
Tajudin Yusuf __________ ______________
Derartu Chalchisa __________ ______________
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and for most, we would like thanks the almighty God for blessing invaluable gift for health
and protection to us throughout our education. Had not been the will of God, nothing would have
been possible for us.
Secondly, we thank very much indebted acknowledgment to our advisor Dr. Mekonnen Bersisa
for his encouragement, genuine guidance and excellent cooperation, which enable us to
accomplish this investigation on time.
Thirdly, our deepest gratitude also goes to our family for their initiation and moral support as
well as financial support us in the time of education.
ii
ACRONYMS
APL Above poverty line

BPL Below poverty line
CSA Central Statistical Agency
FGT Foster Greer Thorbecke
MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
UNDP United Nation Development Program
WFP World Food Program
WB World Bank
WPAP World Poverty Alleviation Program
WPP World Poverty Program
Contents
iii
APPROVAL SHEET……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.............................................................................................................................ii
ACRONYMS.............................................................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………iv
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………………………………vi
CHAPTER ONE..........................................................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background of the Study.......................................................................................................................1
1.2. Statement of the Problem..................................................................................................................2
1.3. Objective of the Study......................................................................................................................4
1.3.1. General Objective of the Study..................................................................................................4
1.3.2. Specific Objective of the Study.................................................................................................4
1.4. Scope of the Study............................................................................................................................4
1.5. Limitation of the Study.....................................................................................................................5
1.7. Organization of the Study.................................................................................................................5
CHAPTER TWO............................................................................................................................................6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................................................................................................6
2.1.1. Definition of Poverty and Its Concept...........................................................................................6
2.1.2. Dimension of Poverty....................................................................................................................9
2.1.5. Measurement of Poverty..........................................................................................................12
2.2. Empirical Literature........................................................................................................................15
2.2.1. International Evidence.............................................................................................................15
2.2.2. Local Evidence........................................................................................................................15
CHAPTER THREE...................................................................................................................................16
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................17
3.1. Description of the Study Area.........................................................................................................17
3.2. Data Type and Source.....................................................................................................................17
3.4. Method of data Collection..............................................................................................................18
3.5. Method of Data Analysis................................................................................................................18
3.6. Model Specification........................................................................................................................19
CHAPTER FOUR.....................................................................................................................................23
iv
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................................................................23
4.1.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents...............................................................................23
4.1.2. Institutional factors..................................................................................................................25
Institutional factors basically include access to credit and Educational level....................................25
4.2.1. Poverty and Age of Household Head.......................................................................................32
4.2.2. Poverty and Marital Status of Household Head.......................................................................33
4.2.3. Poverty and Occupational Status of Household Head..............................................................33
4.2.4. Poverty and Household Head Access to Credit........................................................................34
4.2.5. Poverty and Educational Attainment Household Heads...........................................................35
4.5 Econometric analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………38
CHAPTER FIVE.......................................................................................................................................43
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION.........................................................................................43
5.1. Conclusion......................................................................................................................................43
5.2. Recommendation............................................................................................................................45
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................47
Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….49
v
ABSTRACT
Poverty is the state of being unable to get the minimum requirement for survive or it is the
condition where people’s basic needs for foods, clothing and shelter are not being met, implying
that any individual who does not get enough food security, house and a right cloth are living
under poverty line. In Ethiopia urban poverty is long lasting problem and significantly affects
some people in the Urban. The objective of this study was to examine the determinant of urban
household poverty in case of Tulu Bolo town. The sources we used in the study came from
primary data. Data were collected through close ended questionnaires: the household head of
randomly select household and descriptive statistics and econometrics modeling was employed
to analyze the data. A Logistic regression model was employed and estimated based on the
primary data. Poverty status of a household was used as a dependent variable and a set of
demographic and socioeconomic variables were used as the explanatory parameters. The
explanatory variable such as sex of household head, age of household head, employment status
of household, family size, house tenure, education level and access to credit were determine
household poverty of the study areas. This research provides important information about
poverty in the urban and serves as a future reference for the researcher who wishes like to study
the poverty status in Tulu Bolo. So this study is significant and can be considered a basis for
future research study in the urban areas.
Key Words: Poverty, Logit, Tulu Bollo Town
vi
CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study

Poverty is a multidimensional problem that affects society in different ways. It is characterized
by reducing the welfare of households in public through lacking quality of life. Poverty is the
inability of getting choice and opportunities, violation of human dignity and lack of capacity to
participate effectively in a society. It means not having enough to feed and basic need, not access
having social service and low rate of capital formation. So that has not capabilities to gets
necessary materials for their lives (Todaro, 2011).
Poverty is not only lacking financial resources or income. It is indicated by inadequate social
services like poor health, education quality, and provision of infrastructure and availability of
clean water. Poverty is also associated with low levels of capital formation, inability or
unwillingness to work, high rate of disruptive or disorderly behavior and improvidence. While
this attributes have often been found to exist with poverty, their inclusions in definition of
poverty would tend to be obscure the relationship between them and inability to provide for
one’s basic needs. Therefore, it is true that the effects of poverty are harmful to both individual
and society (UNDP, 2013)
According to the Unite Nation Development Program Ethiopia is one of the world poorest
countries. So that it’s population is affected by many problem. As the reports of human
development stated out of the Ethiopian population more than 80% of population gets less than
two US dollar per day (UNDP, 2008). Thus the poverty in Ethiopia is not reflected by single
phenomena. The poverty experienced in Ethiopia is multidimensional and reflect in, among other
thing, low life expectancy at birth, high adult illiterate rate, lack of adequate access to water
source and suitable sanitation. Urban poverty in Ethiopia is also a known and long lasting
problem due to the fact that it affects significant portion of urban population. Based on the
national poverty line of the 2013, about 26% of the urban population is absolutely poor level.
The poverty level among the household is also differ in the rural and urban. Although it is more
difficult in rural areas, in urban also there is income inequality. It implies, the distribution of
income in household may be quite unequal urban. Urban poor are quite diverse in the problem
they face. In almost condition item of low personal income, poor personal consumption, lack of
1
portable water and sanitation house, transportation, infrastructure and communication are also
some related with poverty. Robinson (2011) stated that a strategy in eradicating poverty among
the urban households in business sector does not only aim at increasing the income level, but
also increasing overall number of entrepreneurs in a country. Robinson also revealed that urban
poor households must be aided not only in terms of business capital, but also in terms of
motivational and skill oriented training that inculcates entrepreneurship values to be utilized in
commencing socio-economic developments that illustrates the importance of entrepreneurship
oriented human development. In addition to household difference, income earned by female and
male may not be equal. The recorded female-male sex ratio in countries like china so much
below their expected values that hundred million girls and women are said to be “missing” the
favor that shown toward boys in part reflects the fact that men have perceived to have a greater
potential for contributing financially to family survival (Todaro, 2011).
According to Tulu Bolo town, Finance and Economic Development Office report 2009, in the
town the income of the households of this city indicates the poverty level in the town. This report
shows that many of the peoples of the city earned less than two US dollar per day similar to the
overall population of Ethiopia. Even many population (more than 20,000) peoples live in this
urban; there is only one hospital, one health station of government and five private clinics and
few provision of infrastructure in the town. So, the study was intended to know the determinants
of poverty in the study area.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Ethiopia is one of the under developed countries in which much of its population are lived in
abject poverty and from its population that reach over 87 million now (WPP, 2012), 33 million
people are living in absolute poverty. This refers to poverty is one of the serious problems that
affect human being in Ethiopia. Thus, it needs a much attention in order to eradicate it and
overcome the problem of poverty in both urban and rural areas of Ethiopia. Some year’s age
studies concentrated on rural areas, but this study focuses on urban area by emphasizing specific
area particularly Tulu Bolo town. This paper examines poverty in using non-monetary indicators
of welfare. Previous researcher does considered consumption as a measure of welfare (Tesfaye,
2013). But consumption only is not indicator of poverty level since there are many factors. Some
selected non-monetary indicators are also examined. Because of consumption as a monetary
2
measure of welfare, it may not appropriately reflect deprivation on non-monetary dimension of
life. The non-monetary indicators of welfare considered household subjective perceptions of
welfare, selected household characteristics and level of education. This paper also analysis
poverty level with emphasis on distinguish between poor household and a distinction paramount
for designing appropriate policies to combat poverty.
According to World Poverty Program, Ethiopia is among the bottom of the least developed
countries and poverty is widely spread and multifaceted. So that28% of population is life under
the poverty line. Poverty is prevalent both in rural and urban areas with coverage of 47% and
43% of the population respectively. It implies, in Ethiopia rural population more affected and not
met basic needs for survival than urban areas people.
Urban poor are quite diverse in the problem they face. Indicating that based on the level of
income earned, they faced almost condition like poor personal consumption, lack of clean water
and sanitation house, transportation, infrastructure and communication those related with
poverty. The Urban poor are suffer from the problem arises because of vicious poverty and
results the wealth of people not isolated from the negative effect of poverty; they are more likely
to suffer from serious consequences. On the urban areas about 44% of populations are living
under poverty line.
Poverty also affect peoples of different characteristics in different ways as they play role have
different needed and face different constraints in the society. It is most likely that household in
extreme poverty different from the average and rich household in many distinct ways, such as in
demographic behaviors and socioeconomic conditions. A proper understanding of these
associated factors is a key to policies and practical steps that government can take into alleviate
poverty and promote sustainable growth in the country (Todaro, 2011). Some previous
researcher (Esabulew, 2006 and (Keneni, 2017) were studied on determinants of urban poverty
by considering variables such as education, employment, age and family size of household. But
in this study the researchers adds two other factors that determine poverty: access to credit and
household head sex and so that the researchers tried to identify the effect of them on poverty
status in the urban specifically in Tulu Bolo town.
In Tulu Bolo city, urban peoples affected by different socio-economic problems such as lacking
3
good health centre, access to clean water, asphalt road and generally face low quality and
quantity of services in the town.
Depending on the mentioned above problem this study addressed the following research
questions.
• What is poverty status of urban household in Tulu Bolo city?

• How do the education level, age, sex and access to credit of household affect likelihood
of being poor in urban?
• Do the household size, marital status and occupational status of household head affect the
likelihood of being poor in urban?
• What are the possible solutions to poverty in the study area?
1.3. Objective of the Study
1.3.1. General Objective of the Study
The general objective of the study is to analysis the determinants of urban household poverty in
Ethiopian, particularly in the case of Tulu Bolo town.
1.3.2. Specific Objective of the Study
• To examine the poverty status of urban household in Study area.

• To depict the effect of socio economic factors on the poverty status of urban household in
the town.
• To draw possible solution and policy implications.
1.4. Scope of the Study
Since it requires allocating sufficient budget and time to conduct the study on the overall effect
of poverty, the study focused on determinants of poverty in urban household specifically in Tulu
Bolo town to conduct manageable and feasible study.
4
1.5. Limitation of the Study
We passed in different problems while conducting this research. It includes lack of knowledge or
experiences of the researchers in conducting the research and its process and limitation of time
since it needs much time to get details information on poverty status.
1.6. Significance of the Study

The significance of this study is to provide vital information about poverty in the urban and
serves future reference for the researcher who wishes like to study the poverty status in Tulu
Bolo town. Since the characteristics of poverty in least developed countries are
multidimensional, reduction effort requires multi faced intervention raises from deep knowledge
and awareness. So this study is significant and can be considered a basis for future research study
in the urban areas.
1.7. Organization of the Study
The research is organized into five chapters. The first chapter contains background of the study,
statement of the problem, objective of the study, significance of the study, scope of the study,
limitation of the study and organization of the study. The second chapter contains the general
literature review of the study. Chapter three contains methodology of the study. Chapter four
contains result and discussion. Chapter five contains conclusion and recommendation.
5
CHAPTER TWO
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Theoretical Literature Review
2.1.1. Definition of Poverty and Its Concept
Literature on the definition of poverty provides many definition of poverty. Based on different
definitions, different implications on the incidence of poverty and policy analysis have been
drawn.
The word poverty comes from French word “poverte” from Latin paupertas; from pauper which
means poor while in English poverty. There is several definition of poverty depending on context
of situation. But broadly poverty is the condition where people basic needs for foods, clothing
and shelter are not being met. It also, about having not enough money to basic needs including
food, cloth and shelter. That means poverty is more than just not having enough money.
The World Bank Organization describes poverty as hunger, lack of shelter, being sick and not
being able to see doctor, not having access to school and not know how to read, not having a job,
a fear for future and living one a day at a time (Word Bank, 2005).
Poverty is situations where people could not have ability to purchase or to gate access necessary
thing in life. So far, general consensus on the definition of poverty, it can vary from place to
place depending on the social, economic and cultural environment as well as on the stage of
development of a society. But broadly poverty can be defined as not having enough to eat, low
life expectancy, high rate of infant mortality, low educational opportunities, lack of access to
clean water, inadequate health care, unfit housing and lack of active participation on the decision
making process (Schubert, 2004).
Since poverty can vary from place to place depending on socioeconomic and environmental as
well as stage of development, the nature of poverty residing in urban and rural area is apparent.
For this poverty found in urban area is including factors of urban society, urban economic and
urban political system that give rise to poverty found in there. Thus urban poverty is often
discussed in conjunction with special inequality of living standard. Both urban poverty and
6
special inequality are global phenomenon but like poverty in general, there are higher rate of
urban poverty in developing countries (R.Murgai, 2005).
A standard basic economic approach views household income are reflecting the assets of
household has command over and the returns it can earn on this. Income poverty therefore
reflects inadequate level of one or both of these. Asset ownership and returns are therefore of key
importance, but a likelihood approach is one important way of generalizing this approach to a
broader understanding of poverty. In particular this represents a more dynamic approach which is
a particular relevance here (Ellis, 2000).
According to the likelihood frame works a household’s likelihood strategy and so its level of
wellbeing depend on the asset it has access to classically financial, human, natural, physical and
social capital; the factor that mediate their access for instance gender relation or how market is
operation and contextual factor such as micro policies or shocks. Both local factor and wider
regional, national and global factors can be important influences of living condition (Ellis, 2012).
Poverty is the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possession or money. Poverty
may be absolute (destitute poverty) and relative poverty.
Absolute Poverty
Absolute poverty refers to one who lacks basic needs, which commonly includes clean and fresh
water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter. About 17 billion people are estimate
d to live in absolute poverty today (World Bank, 2012).
Relative Poverty
Relative poverty is the lack of usual or socially acceptable level of resource of income compares
with other with in society or country. For most of history poverty had been mostly accepted as
inevitable as traditional model of production we insufficient to give an entire population
comfortable standard of living. In addition relative poverty occurs when people do not enjoy a
certain minimum level of living standard as determined by government and enjoy by the bulk of
the population that they vary from country to country, sometimes within the same country
relative poverty occurs everywhere, is said to be increasing and may never be educated. After the
7
industrial revolution mass of production in factories made wealth increasingly more in expensive
and accessible. Of more important is the modernization of agricultural such as fertilizers increase
the production in order to provide enough yields to feed the population. People who practice
asceticism intentionally are in poverty.
Today, poverty reduction is major goal and issue for many international organizations, such as
united nation and World Bank. Majority of world poverty countries today are in Africa, of course
some African countries such as South Africa and Egypt are not quite as poor as other like Angola
and Ethiopia and through in recent year’s absolute poverty in Africa as shown them slight falls.
Africa income levels have actually been dropping relative to the rest of the world.
Analysis of poverty over time affords mainly analytical possibilities. First regardless of when or
how often we survey households, we can identify those households that are more likely to remain
poor or to escape it. For instance: examination of the characteristics of household moving out of
or falling in to poverty. A finding along those lines can improve the effectiveness of policies
aimed at finding long term poverty. Second, the welfare path of along which households moves
and why they do so becomes clearer (Haddad and Ahmed, 2005). Third, by the studying the
welfare trajectory of household over time, we can assess the welfare impact of recent growth
strategies adopted by developing countries (Decron, 2006).
According to the estimation of World Bank 2008, 1.29 billion people were living in absolute
poverty; of this about 400 million people in absolute poverty live in India and 173 million people
live in China. In terms of percentage of regional population, Sub Saharan Africa at 47 percent
had highest incidence of absolute poverty 2008. Poverty is observed all part of the world
including the developed countries.
Development policies that increase the productivity different between men and women are likely
to worse earning disparity as well as further women’s economic status within the household.
Since government programs to alleviate poverty work almost exclusively with men, they tend to
exacerbate these inequalities. In urban area training programs to increase earning potential and
formal sector employment are generally limited to men, studies have shown that development
efforts can actually increase women’s work load while at the same time reducing the share of
household resources over which they exercise control. Consequently women’s and their
8
dependent remain the most economically vulnerable groups in developing countries (Todaro,
2011).
Poverty is wide spread and multi faced in Ethiopia measured mainly in terms of food
consumption, set at a minimum nutrition requirement of 2200 calories for adult per day, and also
including non-food consumption requirement, an estimate of 2011/12 shows that 29.2 percent of
population were below poverty line. Urban area account for only 25.7 percent of Ethiopian
population, but also have a high rate of incidence of poverty. Unlike finding elsewhere in the
developing world, urban and rural poverty in Ethiopia is not dramatically different from each
other. Depending on the methodology adopted and data analyzed, the estimated urban over all
poverty and food poverty is range from 33 percent to 50 percent (Kediri, 2005).
2.1.2. Dimension of Poverty
Income Poverty
Income poverty happens when household take less than $US 2 per day. This means people will
not having enough food or medicine and they have poor clothes and houses. It also not access to
money and other assets.
Non-Income Poverty
Non-income poverty happen when may have a little bit of money otherwise the quality of their
life are not good. They do not have access to affordable social and physical services such as
schooling, health care, medicine, safe water, good sanitation, good transport and they may not
feel safe in their home either because they cannot trust.
Income and poverty study could use either income or consumption to determine level of poverty.
The use of consumption is often justified as better than income as indicator of long term welfare
and it is often believe that to be either to collect and thus to generate measurement error.
However some analysis using both income and consumption do not find consumption to be
clearly superior to income as an indicator of long term economic welfare (Dalton and Field, 2002
and 2003).
9
2.1.3 Poverty Lines
Being the complexities of poverty concept and its definition, the fundamental question that arises
in the analysis of poverty is the derivation of poverty line. In the derivation of poverty line
different scholars use different methods. Poverty line in simple term is a line that delineates the
poor from the non-poor. So that construction of poverty line has pivotal role in identifying them.
2.1.4. Setting Poverty Lines
After defining the poverty line, the next step that needs to be clear in the analysis of poverty is to
identify whether an individual is poor or not, to distinguish the poor from the non-poor. For this
purpose, poverty line plays a crucial role in quantifying the various indicators of well-being into
a single index. Although the choice of poverty line is always arbitrary (World Bank, 2000), the
common argument is that there is a minimum level of consumption of goods and services below
which it is difficult to sustain our life.
To build up the poverty lines two methods can be employed: the first is to directly use current
consumption of goods and services as an indicator of well-being. This requires identification of
the minimum bundles of goods and services, which an individual has to consume. In this case,
the bundle serves as a border line between the poor and non-poor. The second method uses
income as a parameter to identify an individual as poor or non-poor. This necessitates specifying
minimum income that enables an individual to achieve consumption of minimum bundle of
goods and services defined by the minimum socially acceptable level. Various methods have
been employed in constructing poverty lines. The most popular methods, however, are the Cost
of Basic Needs (CBN) and Food Energy Intake (FEI) as cited in (World Bank, 2005).
Cost of Basic Needs Approach (CBN)
To implement this method Ravallion and Bidani (1994) employ two stages: first determining the
food consumption bundle just adequate to meet the required food energy requirements and
second adding to this cost an allowance for non-food needs. The food consumed is then valued at
the prevailing price to obtain the food poverty line. The allowance for basic non-food
consumption is again anchored on the consumption pattern of the poor. Two problems may arise.
One is variation in estimating food components (minimum required nutrition level) across
10
regions and ethnic group. The second is estimating the non-food components of the poverty line
since there are no objective criteria on which to base the satisfaction. In any case, the basic needs
approach is the most widely used approach to setting poverty line in developed countries.
Food Energy Intake Approach (FEI)
This approach locates the poverty line as the income or consumption expenditure level just
adequate to meet a predetermined food energy intake to an individual. The level of FEI, very
much, depends upon, preference, activity, age and sex of an individual. After taking these
differences into account and the costs of attaining predetermined FEI, the poverty line can be
constructed. This could be obtained by finding the consumption expenditure or income level at
which the person attains the food energy level (Ravallion and Bidani, 1994). Most analysts argue
that consumption will be a better indicator of well-being for the following reasons. First,
consumption is a better indicator of well-being due to the question of access, and availability of
goods and services apart from the issue of income needed to get those goods and services.
Second, consumption may be measured better than income. Consumption or expenditure may
also better reflect household’s actual standard of living and ability to meet basic needs. Thus,
consumption expenditures indicate not only command of goods and services but also access to
credit markets and savings in times of lower or even negative income level (Couldouel, et al,
2004).
However, the relative merits of using one methods of the poverty-lines over the others and the
vice versa is still debatable. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Some argue that the
poverty of the third world cannot be studied through poverty lines like in subjective criteria.
Those who support this argument cite the very low level of income and the subsistence nature of
economies in these countries as a major reason for the likely inaccurate results of such a
measurement. On the other hand, others argue that poverty cannot be meaningfully quantified in
excessively narrow and lean objective criteria (World Bank 2005). The fact that the concept,
definition and setting of poverty lines are controversial invites one to look deep into how one can
measure poverty. After setting the poverty line the next step is the measurement of poverty
11
2.1.5. Measurement of Poverty
The most appropriate method of measuring poverty is by survey in which representative sample
are asked for answer the question through the multidimensional poverty in areas. A person is
considered to as a poor either income or calories intake below some minimum level that
represents basic needs in each society. This is called poverty line, like less than $2US per day or
2500 calories intake. The poverty line is not the same in everywhere because it is a relatively to
what is the norm in particular country.
2.1.5.1. Poverty Ratio or Head Count Ratio
This measure estimates the percentage of population below a specified poverty line on the basis
of consumption or income. The measure tries to demarcate the poor from the non-poor on the
basis of the predetermined income threshold. Since the unit of analysis in this measure is an
individual, the poverty rate is called Poverty Head Count Index as ratio implies the number of
poor people to the total population (Makoka and Kaplan, 2005). Mathematically, the poverty rate
is given as;
N q
1 1 N
P 0= ∑
N i =1
I ( y i ¿ ¿ z )=
N
∑ 1= Np … … … … … ..… … … … … … .(1)¿
i=1
Where, N = Total Population

I(.) = An indicator function taking the value of 1 (poor) if the bracketed
expression is true, and 0 (non-poor) otherwise
Yi = Welfare indicator e.g. per capita income or expenditure
Z = Poverty line
Np = Number of poor in the population
However, this measure is not free from major limitations that signify its defect rather than its
simplicity. First, it does not indicate the various levels of poverty within the groups of poor; i.e.
it is insensitive to income/expenditure distribution within the groups of poor or, in other words,
the depth of poverty. Second, the welfare aspect of individuals is not captured in this measure for
both individuals found below and above poverty line. Third, the measure ignores the degree of
poorness among individuals who are below poverty line i.e. those who are marginally poor and
12
definitely poor are treated equally as a poor. Per capita income ranking and supplementing it
with other social indicators is still a better one.
2.1.5.2. Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) Index
The FGT index is the other widely used measure of poverty in many empirical works which
enables to calculate three indexes; poverty head count index, poverty gap index and poverty
severity index (squared poverty gap index). The index categorizes the poor into better poor,
medium poor and the poorest of the poor. Accordingly, it indicates how sensitive the index is
when there is transfer of income from one category to another category. As of (MOFED, 2012;
Makoka and Kaplan, 2005; Greeley, 1994), FGT - Foster–Greer–Thorbecke (1984) class of
poverty measures can be computed by the following expression;
q α
1 z − yi
Pα = ∑ ( ) … … … … … . … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..(2)
N i=1 z
Where α equals 0, 1, and 2, P equals head-count ratio, poverty-gap ratio, and poverty severity
measure respectively.
Z=poverty line
n=total number of households
q=total number of poor household
yi=total expenditure of household
Pα=measure of poverty
On the basis of the weight attached to the severity of poverty α (poverty aversion parameter) -
FGT index can be decomposed in to the three indexes in which the index is built on (MoFED,
2012). In this regard, the condition of poverty depends on the weight attached to α in FGT index:
1) Assuming that α = 0, no weight is given to the severity of poverty. In this case the
q
formula will be reduced to P0 = , percentage of poor households (Head Count Ratio).
N
13
2) Assuming α = 1, which means that equal weight is given to the severity of poverty among
all poor households. Summing the numerator gives the poverty gap and dividing this by Z
expresses the figure as a ratio/index and results in the Poverty Gap Index.
3) Giving more weight to the severity of poverty among the poorest households is
equivalent to assuming α> 1. A common in the poverty index is to set α = 2, yielding the
severely poor groups among the poor groups.
By this index, the incidence, depth and severity of poverty can be identified.
2.1.5.3. Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index (MPI)
UNDP Human Development Report of 1996 introduced the Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index to
fill the gaps that are inherent in the aforementioned poverty measures. It is a composite measure
set in the capability and human development space, drawing on the several important
perspectives that have enriched our understanding of poverty. In this framework, poverty is the
deprivation side of human development – the denial of basic choices and opportunities to lead a
long, healthy, creative and free life; to enjoy a decent standard of living; and to participate in the
life of the community including political freedom and cultural choices (Alkire and Santos, 2010;
Fukuda-Parr, 2006).
This measure unlike other measures tries to capture as many indicators in each dimensions in
which poverty is going to be assessed. Alkire and Santos (2010) presented 10 indicators in their
study to measure poverty that are bunched in three dimentions: education (P 1), health (P2) and
standard of living (P3). On the basis of these indicators they computed MPI as;
1
MPI i=[ ( P1 + P2 + P3 ) ] … … … … … … … … .… … … … … … … … … ..(3)
3 i
Since, the measure moves from the unidimensional space of income (or consumption) to a
multidimensional space it does not apprehend it self to make wrong decision about the position
of an individual whether he/she is deprived on not. Unlike the unidimensional poverty measures
which use single indicators to tell the poverty status of individuals, MPI use several indicators at
the same time to enrich on a relatively accurate poverty status. On the other, MPI moves from
means towards ends i.e. it employees more direct indicators of poverty. There are plenty of
14
poverty measures like Human Poverty Index, Gini Coefficient, Lorenth Curve, Physical Quality
of Life Index and etc.
2.2. Empirical Literature
2.2.1. International Evidence
Alleviating of poverty remains one of the key challenges in many different countries of the
world. Jalan and Ravalli (2006) used data of 5854 household in South West China over 2000-
2005 to test whether transient poverty is determined similarly to chronic poverty line. Household
experienced transient poverty, if they had been observed to be poor at least once in the available
data and had time mean consumption above the poverty line. They defined chronic poverty as
having time mean consumption below the poverty line.
The study also found that the determinant of chronic poverty differ from those of transient
poverty. Household size, particularly the number of male age 15-64 years; household head
characteristics such as education and occupation, agricultural and livestock are important factors
in chronic poverty, but are not significant of transient poverty. The study noted further that the
asset approach provided more reasonable result than a consumption approach on the key
determinant of transient and chronic poverty. There is a significant literature on poverty
dynamics in other developing countries.
Haddad and Ahmed (2006) applied quintiles regression of two period panel data of 347 in Egypt
to identify the cause of chronic and transient poverty. They categorized household that are real
consumption per capita below the poverty line in both period as chronic poor and household
below the poverty line in one of the two years as transient poverty poor.
2.2.2. Local Evidence
Kediri and McKay (2004) examined chronic poverty in urban Ethiopia using panel data on 1500
households collected during 1999-2003. Defining the chronically poor as household with real
total expenditure per adult per month below the poverty line in all four years and the transient
poverty are those below the poverty line in one or two of the years, they found more transiently
poor than chronically poor household. The Ethiopian governments 2005/06 household income
15
and consumption expenditure survey is the most extensive survey available on the extent of
poverty. It indicated that the incidence of poverty is lower in urban compared to rural areas with
the poverty head count ratio of 35.1 percent and 39.3 percent respectively.
Ethiopia, in urban area head poverty is higher for female headed household than for male headed
households for 2010/11 which is similar to that of 2000/01 and 2005/06. This difference is
statistically significant. In rural area incidence of poverty is higher for male headed household
which is also statistically significant for 2010/11, but not for previous years. One would expect
that female headed households would have higher poverty incidence in both rural and urban
areas, because women in Ethiopia tend to have completed less schooling and may have lower
capital. No decline for severity of poverty for either group. The rural urban difference, rural areas
follow the national level pattern in which poverty incidence decline for both group but, the depth
of poverty decline only for male headed households and no decline was observed for severity of
poverty. For urban areas, male and female headed household poverty decline on both observed
incidence and depth. However the severity of poverty did show small increase though this is not
statistically significant (Development and poverty in Ethiopia, 2000/01-2010/11).
The above discussion provided about the information of poverty situation in urban Ethiopia and
part of other countries in the world. An important thing here is that, the above discussion is given
some insight to the study of poverty situation in urban area.
16
CHAPTER THREE
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Description of the Study Area
Tulu Bollo town was established in 1929 E.C in Oromia region SouthWest Shewa Zone and got
this name by the king of Abba Jifar. Specifically, it is lying between 8 016-9056 N latitude and
37005-38046 E longitude and far from Addis Ababa about 80km. It was bounded In the West by
Woliso, East by Ilu district, North by Dawo woreda and in the South by Sedan-Soddo woreda.
According to the CSA 2007 population and housing census, the total population of Tulu Bollo
district is 99,295, where 77,401 or 77.95% are rural and 21,894 or 22.05% are urban. More over
the out of total estimated population of Tulu Bollo town 21, 894 people, out of whom 10,905 or
49.81%are male and 10,989 or 50.19 % are female. Peoples of this town perform different
economic activities such as trade, agriculture, employed to government work and non-
government officials. There are also different ethnic society including Oromo, Gurage, Amara,
Kambata, Silte, Tigre, Gedo and Hadiyya living in the town.
3.2. Data Type and Source
The study was relied on both primary and secondary data sources. To get the primary data, the
researchers are preparing a sample survey on socio-economic information from sample
population in Tulu Bolo town. But secondary data were collected from key employer’s official,
central statistical agency and reported document of Tulu Bolo town.
3.3. Sample Technique and Sample Size

There are two urban kebele in Tulu Bollo town that consists of 21,894 populations, from this
2,798 are households. In this study the researchers selected both kebeles. Then, the total
household of 01 kebele is 1435 and that of 02 kebeleis 1363.We gave equal chance of being to
select sample from each of two kebele based on Yamane formula of 1967, the level of sample
size is computed as following formula.
17
N
n= Where, n = sample size
1+ N ( e ) 2
N= target population
e = level of precision at 9%
The researcher used this formula to get the required sample size as follows
n=2798/1+2798(9 %)2=118.23=118are sample ¿ ¿
So, the researchers allocated the sample size proportionally among the two selected kebeles as
the following formula.
¿ 01 kebele , n 1= ( NN1 + N 3) n=( 1435

2798 )
118=60.52=61
¿ 02 kebele , n 2=( + N 3 )n=(

2798 )
N3 1363
118=57.4=57
N
A total sample size of n1 +n 2 which,n=61+57=118was selected. The sample was selected using
random sampling technique.
3.4. Method of data Collection
To analysis determinant of urban household poverty in Tulu Bolo town, the study used primary
data. The primary data were collected using open ended and close ended questionnaires which
clearly prepared and translated into Afaan Oromo in order to easily understandable by
respondents.
3.5. Method of Data Analysis
This study was using both descriptive and econometric methods of data analysis. Descriptive
method was used to examine the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the
respondents. Moreover, the econometrics method were be used to examine determinants of
poverty. For this study the researchers use logistic regression so as to examine the determinants
of poverty in urban and also used simple descriptive statistics and table to identify the level of
poverty in the study area.
Descriptive statistics used to summarize the data on household demographic and socio economic
18
characteristics. It is also possible to show poverty by looking the percentage of sample
respondent who are below the poverty line. Household are classified as poor or non-poor in
relations to their level of income and expenditure. But not only income and expenditure is
sufficient information to investigate the poverty status of the study area, it is a multidimensional.
To do this software package of STATA, SPSS and MS/EXCEL were used to carry out the
computation
3.6. Model Specification
The Foster–Greer–Thorbecke (FGT) index is one of the widely used measures of poverty in
many empirical works which enables to calculate three indexes; poverty head count index,
poverty gap index and poverty severity index (squared poverty gap index). The index categorizes
the poor into better poor, medium poor and the poorest of the poor. Accordingly, it indicates how
sensitive the index is when there is transfer of income from one category to another category. As
of (MOFED, 2012; Makoka and Kaplan, 2005; Greeley, 1994), FGT - Foster–Greer–Thorbecke
(1984) class of poverty measures can be computed by the following expression;
q α
1 z − yi
Pα = ∑
N i=1
(
z
) … … … … … . … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..( 4)
Where α equals 0, 1, and 2
P equals head-count ratio, poverty-gap ratio, and poverty severity measure

respectively.
Z=poverty line
N=total number of households
q=total number of poor household
yi=total expenditure of household
Pα=measure of poverty
19
On the basis of the weight attached to the severity of poverty α (poverty aversion parameter) -
FGT index can be decomposed in to the three indexes in which the index is built on (MoFED,
2012). In this regard, the condition of poverty depends on the weight attached to α in FGT index:
1) Assuming that α = 0, no weight is given to the severity of poverty. In this case the
q
formula will be reduced to P0 = , percentage of poor households (Head Count Ratio).
N
2) Assuming α = 1, which means that equal weight is given to the severity of poverty among
all poor households. Summing the numerator gives the poverty gap and dividing this by Z
expresses the figure as a ratio/index and results in the Poverty Gap Index.
3) Giving more weight to the severity of poverty among the poorest households is
equivalent to assuming α> 1. A common in the poverty index is to set α = 2, yielding the
severely poor groups among the poor groups.
By this index, the incidence, depth and severity of poverty can be identified.
Logistic regression is an approach to prediction the probability that an individual/household will

be poor. In this study it is employed to predicting a dichotomous outcome. For analysis the
poverty, researchers were employed status of households based on the income they earned per
day. According to World Bank 2008, a person who earns less than 1.25 dollar per day is
considered as poor and non-poor otherwise. It takes a value one (1) if a household is poor or zero
otherwise. This probability is given as;
SESi=f ( sex , mrst , hh ¿ empst , age , accr hhh ) … … … … … … … … … … ..(5)
Where,
SESi=Socioeconomic Status of household i.
Sex = Sex of the household head
mrst = Marital status of the household head
hhsize=household family size
empst = Employment status of the household head
Age = Age of the household head
Accr=access to credit of household
20
The explanatory variables that affect the socio-economic status of the respondents are expressed
both in qualitatively and quantitatively. Where the dependent variable is dichotomous, many
studies show that Probit and Logit model are appropriate. Since the Logit model is simpler in
estimation than probit model (Aldrich and Nelson, 1984), Logit model is preferred to the probit
model for this study. Therefore, Following Gujarati (1992), the Logit distributional function is
specifies as:
−Z i
Pi=1 /(1+e )… … … … … . … … . … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..(6)
Where,
Zi¿ β 0 + β 1 sex 1i + β 2 mr st 2i + β 3 hh ¿¿ 3 i+ β 4 empst 4 i + β 5 age 5 i+ ε . … … … … … .(7)¿
1
Pi= −¿¿
1+e ¿
Where,
Pi = Probability of improvement in SES in relation with the explanatory variables
EZi= Irrational number to the power of Zi
Zi= A function of n explanatory variables
β’s = Parameters
ε = Error/Stochastic term
i = Individuals/Respondents in the study in which i =1, 2, 3. . . n = 118
Now if we obtain the natural log we get:
Li =ln[(Pi/(1− Pi)]= Zi
= β 0 + β 1 sex 1 i+ β 2 mrst 2 i + β 3 hhsize3 i + β 4 empst 4 i+ β5 age 5 i ... … .(9)
Where L is log odds-ratio.
21
Table 3.1: Description of variable and expected sign in the model
Name of the variable Type of the Description Expect relationship with

variable dependent variable
The probability of being Probability Poor if poverty status is
poor (Dependent variable) 1 and not if poverty
status is 0
Sex of household head Dummy 1 for male and 0 for Female headed household
female are relatively more expose
to poverty than male
headed households
Education level of Continuous Years of education As the level of education
household head were be considered increases the probability of
being poor reduces
Family size Continuous Continuous As family size increase, the
probability of being poor
increase
Employment Status Discrete 1 for unemployed and 0 As the employment status
otherwise increase, the probability of
being poor reduces
Age of household head Continuous Continuous Age was positively related
with income. Hence, as the
age of household head
increases the probability of
being poor reduces
Marital status Discrete 1 for single, widowed, As the widowed and
divorced and 0 divorced increases, the
otherwise probability of being poor
increases
Access to credit Dummy 1 for those who have Access to credit is expected
access and 0 for not to reduces the probability
having access of being poor
Housing tenure Dummy 1 for those who have Increasing in having of
house and 0 otherwise house results reduction the
probability of being poor
22
CHAPTER FOUR
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In order to analyze the collected data, the researchers used both descriptive and econometrics
method to identify the determinant and level of significance of household poverty in Tulu Bolo
town. In this research the use of descriptive analysis is to identify the main features of household
in the city administration and help us to measure the prevalence rate of poverty in the city. But
the econometrics analysis help us to measure the significance level of household’s characteristics
in determining the likelihood of being poor in the city and logistic regression result to determine
the poverty status of the town.
Accordingly the researchers used Foster Greer Thorbecke (FGT) for measuring magnitude of
poverty in the study area which enables to calculate three indexes: head count ratio index (P0),
poverty Gap index (p1) and poverty severity index (squared poverty gap index) (p 2) and logit
model is employed in order to estimate the probability of the household being poor.
The researchers used income of the household in order to classify the respondents in to poor and
non-poor. To identify the poor households in Tulu Bolo town the following steps are used.
Step1: Dividing household income to the numbers household family size which is income per
month/ household family size
Step 2: since each month have 30 days, the results of above division again divided to 30 days.
Then, the actual income of each members of family earned per day is identified from this
calculation. Accordingly a person who earns less than 1.25 dollar per day is considered as poor
and takes value 1 and who earns more than 1.25 dollar is non poor with taking value 0.
23
4.1. Results of Descriptive Statistics
4.1.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
The demographic factors specifically include age, family size, marital status and sex. Table 1and
2 below visualizes the summary statistics results of these factors in the study area.
Table 1: Features of respondent by sex and Age
Gender of the household head Frequency Percentage

Female 49 41.53%
Male 69 58.47%
Total 118 100%
Household Age
Age group Frequency Percentage
Below 14 0 0%
15-25 30 25.424%
26-35 38 32.20%
36-45 24 20.339%
46-55 18 15.254%
56-65 3 2.5424%
Above 65 5 4.237%
Total 118 100%
Source: Own Survey, 2018
From the table above, 58.47% of the respondents are male headed household and 41.53% are
female headed households. This indicates that more household in the city are male headed
households.
This table also implies most of the respondent’s age is fall between 26-35 years with content of
32.20%, 15-26 years with 25.524% and that of 36-45 years with 20.339%. It implies majority of
the household are worker age or active economic participant class.
24
Table 2 Characteristics of respondent by marital status and family size
Marital status of the household head Frequency Percentage

Married 75 63.56%
Widowed 11 9.32%
Divorced 2 1.69%
Single 30 25.42%
Total 118 100%
Family size (number) Frequenc percentage
y
1-3 52 44.068%
4-6 51 43.22%
7 and above 15 12.712%
Total 118 100%
Source: Own Survey, Questionnaire 2018
From above table, according to analyze of data most of the household in the city are married as
compared to widowed, divorced and single. This means that 63.56% of the household in the city
are married household in relative to single, widowed and divorced respectively.
From the same table, most of the household has 1-3 family with 44.068% and that of having 3-6
family size is 43.22% from the total respondents and 12.712% have seven and more than seven
family size. As a general, majority of the household have large family size.
4.1.2. Institutional factors.
Institutional factors basically include access to credit and Educational level .
4.1.2.1 Household Head access to Credit
Table 3: Features of respondent by access to credit
Household head access to credit Frequency Percentage

Yes 42 35.59
No 76 64.41
Total 118 100
Source: Own survey, Questionnaire 2018
On the above Table 3, more of household head in the city had not access to credit. The
percentage of household head used to access to credit in the city is only 35.59%, while the
25
percentage of household not access is 64.41%. This implies that most of the household head in
the study area not access to credit.
4.1.2.2 Educational Level of household Head
Figures 4.1 Educational status of Household by pie chart
14.41% 17.8%
18.64%
21.19%
27.97%
Degree &above Diploma

Primary School Secondary school
Illiterate
As indicated on above pictures, most of household head in the city are attended primary school
by covering 27.97% and the next is diploma by 21.19%. This shows some improvement in
26
education in the town although around 14.41% of household are illiterate which implies the
existence of education gap to some peoples in this town so that it needs improvement.
4.1.3. Occupational Status of Employees
Figures 4.2 Occupational status of respondent by Pie chart
3.39%
19.49%
21.19%
31.36% 24.58%
NGO employee Private employee

Government employee Self-employee
Unemployed
As indicated above pictures, most of the household of the city are self-employed by constituting
31.36% and government employed with 24.58%. On the other hand, around 19.49% of
respondents are unemployed in the town. That means their working activities are not constant or
27
regular work or wage worker, so they are unemployed household. From this table, only 3.39% of
household are NGO employed. It indicated the needs of employment creation in this town for
unemployed people.
4.1.4 Characteristics of respondents by some indicators of living.
Table 4 features of household by accessing to clean water, electricity and good sanitation
access to clean water Frequency Percentage

Yes 75 63.56%
No 43 36.44%
Total 118 100%
Getting enough electricity Frequency Percentage
Yes 34 28.81%
No 84 71.19%
Total 118 100%
Having good sanitation toilet Frequency Percentage
Yes 100 84.75%
No 18 15.25%
Total 118 100%
As seen from this table, majority of the population are getting clean water from pipe water,
although it does not meet the demand of water for all households in the town. In percentage,
around 63.56% have clean water and it implies improvement of water supply even though,
36.44% of respondents are not getting clean water which needs improvement in this town.
From the same table, when come to availability of enough electricity, most of household are not
getting enough electricity and so that there is lack of electricity in the town as a general. It shows
28
that around 71.19% of the respondents not get much electricity which indicates shortage of
electric power so that it needs improvement of it from the concerned body.
In addition, the table indicated that improvement of good sanitation toilet in the town.
Accordingly, 84.75% of the household have good sanitation and only 15.25% are not so that it
needs awareness to those have not good sanitation toilet.
4.1.5 Characteristics of Respondents by Asset They Own.
Table 5: Features of respondents by durable asset they own.
Having TV Frequency Percentage

Yes 89 75.42%
No 29 24.58%
Total 118 100%
Having Refrigerator Frequency Percentage
Yes 19 15.38%
No 99 84.62%
Total 118 100%
Having car Frequency Percentage
Yes 4 3.39%
No 114 96.61%
Total 118 100%
Having motor Frequency Percentage
Yes 10 8.47%
No 108 91.53%
Total 118 100%
29
Having Bicycle Frequency Percentage
Yes 22 18.64
No 96 81.36
Total 118 100%
As summarizes on table 5, greater number or 75.42% percentage of the households have TV and
so that they are access to information. On the other hand, majority of the respondents have not
refrigerator with 84.62%. The table also shows almost all of the respondents have not a car and
by percentage around 96.61% of the household. In addition it indicates, most the respondents
have not own motor which represent around 91.53%. Finally, the table shows, out of the total
respondents, 81.36% of the household have not bicycle. Thus, the table indicated that majority of
the respondents have TV and on the other hand majority of the households have not durable asset
like car, motor, refrigerator and bicycle.
Table 6: Housing Tenure of Respondents
Having house Frequency Percentage

Yes 55 46.61%
No 63 53.39%
Total 118 100%
From this table, most of the household are not have a house as indicated in the above table. It
implies that 53.39% are lived in rented and government house and only 46.61 respondents have
their own house. As a general, most of the household have not a house in the study area.
4.1.6 Characteristics of Respondents by dependent and independent Family.
Table 7: Features of respondents by independent family
Independent family Frequency Percentage

0 8 6.78%
1 44 37.29%
2 34 28.81%
3 17 14.41%
4 9 7.63%
30
5 3 2.54%
6 3 2.54%
Total 118 100%
As shown on the above table, majority of the household has only one independent family and the
remains are dependent. In percentage, 37.29% of the respondents have one independent and
followed by two independent families with 28.81%. It indicates most of the household families
are non-productive.
Table 8: Characteristics of respondents with number of dependent family
Dependent family frequency percentage

0-1 48 40.68%
2-3 52 44.07%
3-5 17 14.41%
6 1 0.85%
Total 118 100%
The table 8 above Summarizes, 44.07% of the household has 2-3 dependent families out of
his/her total families and 40.68% of respondents have 0-1 dependent families. As a general, the
table implies majority of the households characterized by having greater dependent families
which results increase of poverty in this town.
4.1.7 Expenditures of Respondents
Table 9: Expenditures of household
Expenditure of household per Frequency Percentage

month(in Birr)
Below 1000 41 34.746%
1001-2000 39 33.05%
2001-3000 23 19.492%
3001-4000 4 3.3898%
Above 4000 11 9.322%
Total 118 100%
31
Information in the above table shows, out 118 respondents 34.746% consumed less than one
thousand birr in per month and 33.05% of households are consumed between 1001-2000 birr per
month. This indicates consumption which is one indicator of living is very low in this town.
4.2. Poverty in the City
Table 10: Poverty and household head gender in the city
Poverty Line Gender of household head Total

Male% Female%
APL 34.740 11.017 45.763%
BPL 23.73 30.508 54.237%
Total 58.47 41.53 100%
According to above table 11, about 54.237% of household in the city are below poverty line, in
which 23.73% are male headed household and 30.508% are female headed households.
Therefore more of the female heads are poorer than male headed household. This implies that
female headed households more affected by poverty than male headed households. It also
indicates that the prevalence of poverty is skewed toward female headed households than male
headed one.
4.2.1. Poverty and Age of Household Head
Table 11: Poverty and age of households head in the city
Age group Poverty line Total
32
APL% BPL%
Below 14 0 0 0
15-25 12.71 12.71 25.42
25-35 17.796 14.407 32.203
36-45 8.474 11.86 20.339
46-55 5.084 10.16 15.25
56-65 0 2.54 2.54
Above 65 1.69 2.54 4.23
Total 45.763 54.237 100
As observed from table 11 above, household whose age 15-25, 26-35, 35-46 are 12.71%,
17.796%, and 8.474% are above poverty line respectively. Especially households whose age is
between 25-35 years are more important crucial to reduce poverty in the city as compared to
others. Therefore households whose are found to be in middle aged group are better off in the
sense that they have abilities in order to escape from poverty.
4.2.2. Poverty and Marital Status of Household Head
Table 12: Poverty and Marital status of household head
Poverty line Marital Status of Household Head Total

Married % Widowed % Divorced% Single%
single
APL 34.7 3 0 7 45.763
BPL 28 5.9 1.6 20 54.237
Total 62.7 8.9 1.6 27 100
According to the indicated in the table 12, 45.763% of household are above poverty line. This
implies that most of household in the city are above poverty line although 54.237 of household
are below poverty line. It is also indicated that married household are lesser probability of being
poor than single, widowed and divorced. Therefore, the marital status characteristics of
household heads determine the probability of being poorness of household in the city.
33
4.2.3. Poverty and Occupational Status of Household Head
Table 13: Poverty and occupational status of household head
Poverty Occupational status Total

line Government Self Private NGO,s Unemployed%
Employee % Employee% Employee Employee%
%
APL 18.64 15.25 6.779 1.69 3.389 45.7
BPL 5.93 16 14.4068 1.69 16 54.3
Total 24.57 31.25 21.186 3.38 19.389 100
According to shown on the table 13 above, most of government employee in the city are above
poverty line when compare to unemployed households. This means that from government
employee 18.64% of household are above poverty line as while compared to unemployed
household only 3.389% are above poverty line. Generally, from all employed household, 45.7%
are above poverty line with compare to unemployed household only 3.389 above poverty line but
16% are below poverty line.
4.2.4. Poverty and Household Head Access to Credit
Table 14: Poverty and household head used access to credit
Poverty line Household head use access to credit Total

Use access to Credit % Not access to Credit %
APL 28.8135 16.949 45.7
BPL 6.7797 47.458 54.3
Total 35.593 64.407 100
As seen in the table 14 above, most of household who are access to credit in the city are above
poverty line. That means 28.8135% household head that access to credit are above poverty line
while only 16.949% of household heads who not access to credit are above poverty line. But
households who access to credit and who not access to credit are 6.7797% and 47.458% live
34
below poverty line respectively. So, household who access to credit have better off in that lesser
into the probability of being poor decreases.
4.2.5. Poverty and Educational Attainment Household Heads
Table 15: Poverty and educational attainment of household head
Educational level of the head Poverty line Total

APL % BPL %
Illiterate 0.85 13.559 14.4
Primary 7.62 20.339 27.966
Secondary 10.16 8.475 18.644
Diploma 13.56 7.627 21.187
Degree and above 13.56 4.237 17.797
Total 45.7 54.3 100
As indicated in table 15 above, the prevalence of poverty is different according to their

educational attainment of the household head. Household head whose educational level is
primary are more likely to be lived below poverty line than attained in secondary, diploma and
degree and above. On the other hand most of illiterate households (13.559%) are below poverty
line due to their weakness of decision making. Therefore households acquired higher education
has observed to play a crucial role in alleviating the poverty status of the household heads in the
35
city. This implies that, as educational level of household head increases, household decision
making ability also increases and the probability to being poor decreases.
4.3 Subjective poverty in the city
Table16: Subjective poverty
Do you believe you are poor? Frequency Percentage

Yes 79 66.95%
No 39 33.05%
Total 118 100%
Source: Own survey, questionnaire 2018
Information on the above table summarizes, subjective poverty in the city which is the
perception of individuals considering themselves as poor or not. Accordingly, 66.95% of
households poor and 33.05% of respondents said are non-poor. This implies that majority of the
households in the town are poor.
4.4 Descriptive statistics of Continuous variables of the model
Table 17: Descriptive statistics of Continuous variables of the model

Variable Observation Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
family size 118 3.855932 2.299295 1 10
36
Household age 118 35.86441 13.04687 16 75
Education level 118 9.237288 5.913447 0 21
Monthly 118 1966.441 1431.625 100 7000

expenditure
4.5 Results of FGT Indexes

4.5.1 Head Count Ratio (P0)
Poverty index : FGT index
Household size: Education
Group variable: Household sex
Parameter alpha: 0.00
Group Estimate STE LB UB Poverty line
Female 0.398148 0.080875 0.237979 0.558318 1412.56
Male 0.288732 0.056651 0.176537 0.400928 1412.56
Average 0.336000 0.045700 0.245494 0.426506 1412.56
Source: Own estimation, survey 2018
The above table shows, without considering severity of poverty, 39.8% of females are incident to
poverty while 28.87% of males are also incident to poverty. But in comparison to male headed
household, that of female headed are more affected by poverty as the result above indicated. As
the general, 33.6% of respondents are poor.
4.5.2 Poverty Gap indexes (P1)
37
Female 0.141915 0.034374 0.073839 0.209991 1412.56
Male 0.115787 0.027919 0.060495 0.171079 1412.56
Average 0.127074 0.022882 0.081757 0.172392 1412.56
Source: own estimation, survey 2018
As summarizes in the above table, giving equal weight to the severity of poverty among poor
household, poverty gap of the study area is 12.7%.This table also implies that female headed
household is more exposed to poverty than male headed household.
4.5.3 Poverty Severity Indexes (P2)
Female 0.063454 0.021934 0.020015 0.106892 1412.56
Male 0.053575 0.018136 0.017657 0.089492 1412.56
Average 0.057842 0.015650 0.026848 0.088837 1412.56
Source: own estimation, survey 2018
Information on the above table showed, the severity of poverty in the town is 5.7% which is
indicates severely poor among the poorest groups and again, it indicates female headed are
severely affected by poverty in the town with 6.3%.
38
4.6 Econometric Analysis
4.6.1 Results of Logit Model
In addition to above qualitative and quantitative investigation of identifying the determinant of

urban household poverty, we have also applied binary choice econometric regression model,
specifically logit regression model employed. In this model, dummy variable of economic status
(poor and non-poor) was taken as a dependent variable (where poor = 1 and non-poor = 0). The
major determinant variable factors which are expected to influence the living condition of the
people in the study area were taken as predictors of the model.
Result of the logit regression is presented in the upcoming Table that shows the total number of
observations used for this analysis is 118 household. As indicating in the table, the LR chi 2 is
114.83, Where the Prob> chi2 = 0.000 indicating that the variables in the model are jointly
significant to influence the dependent variable. The Pseudo R 2 = 70.56% implying the model fits
well to the extent that more than percent of the variation in the outcome variable is explained by
the variable in our model.
Logistic regression Number of obs = 118
LR chi2(9) = 114.83
Prob> chi2 = 0.0000
Log likelihood = -23.953523 Pseudo R2 = 0.7056
Poverty status Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
hhsex -7.607545 1.881686 -4.04 0.000* -11.29558 -3.919508
mrst -2.765242 1.305497 -2.12 0.034** -5.323969 -.2065147
hhsize .087374 .4153731 2.62 0.009* .2732575 1.90149
Empst -.6508434 1.29235 -0.50 0.615 -3.183803 1.882116
Hhage -.1273935 .052459 -2.43 0.015** -.2302113 -.0245757
accr -5.068346 1.522222 -3.33 0.001* -8.051846 -2.084846
edlvhh -1.001576 .3759732 -2.66 0.008* -1.73847 -.2646818
39
havinghouse -2.88995 1.009544 -2.86 0.004* -4.86862 -.9112792
monthlyexpe -.0002056 .0001071 -1.92 0.0558** -.0004156 4.36e-06
_cons 14.06185 3.833209 3.67 0.000 6.548899 21.5748
Source: Own Estimation Result, 2018 asterisks*, **and*** significant at 1, 5 and 10 %

respectively.
Marginal effects after logit
y =Pr(poverty status) (predict)
= .76626581
Variables dy/dx Std. Err . z P>|z| [ 95% C.I. ] X
hhsex* -.8742408 .06762 -12.93 0.000 -1.00678 -.7417 .584746
mrst* -.5248595 .22293 -2.35 0.019 -.961785 -.087934 .398305
hhfsize .1947514 .07247 2.69 0.007 .052706 .336797 4.72034
Empst* -.1116878 .21058 -0.53 0.596 -.524423 .301047 .618644
hhage -.0228165 .00903 -2.53 0.012 -.040515 -.005118 41.4576
accr* -.8069018 .12699 -6.35 0.000 -1.0558 -.558001 .440678
Education -.1793847 .07666 -2.34 0.019 -.329643 -.029127 2.11864
40
havinghous* -.389899 .13677 -2.85 0.004 -.65796 -.121838 .686441
month expe -.0000368 .00002 -2.16 0.031 -.00007 -3.3e-06 2110.85
(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1
Source: Own Estimation Result, 2018
Examination of the above Logit estimates demonstrates that the variables that are positively
correlated with the probability of being poor are only family size. The variables that are
negatively correlated with the probability of being poor are sex, age, marital status, education,
employment status, having house, access to credit and expenditures.
As seen from the fifth column of the above table, out of a total of 9 predictor variables, 5 of
them: sex, family size, educational level, access to credit, and having house are significantly
affect households falling into poverty at 99% confidence level and 3 of the nine predictors:
marital status, age and expenditures are affect households falling into poverty at 95% confidence
level.
The positive value coefficients of family size indicate that as family size increases, the household
fall into poverty also raised. Hence, high family size is positively associated with poverty in Tulu
Bolo town.
On the other hand the negative value of the coefficients of sex, marital status, age, education,
employment status, having house, and expenditures indicates that as the value of these variables
increases, the household is less likely to fall into poverty.
Sex: The probability of being poor is 87 times greater for female headed household than that of
male headed household at 1% level of significant. This implies those female headed households
are more affected by poverty than male headed in the study area. The reasons is that the female
household head is more exposed to poverty than that of male headed household is, most of the
female worked on the low income position, daily wage work, working in house and preparing of
food for family
Marital status: The probability of being poor is 52 times greater for single, divorced and
widowed as compared to married at 5% level of significant. It indicates that married person is
more escape from poverty than others due to the fact that, married have greater motivation to
work since, he/she is responsible man.
Family size: Holding other independent variables constant, as the number of household family
size increased by one people, the probability of being poor increases by a factor of 0.19.This
shows that as the number of household size increases the probability of being poor also
increases.
41
Age: As the age of the household increase by one year, at ceteris paribus, the chance to falling
into poverty decreases by a factor of 0.023, keeping other response variables constant. As the age
increases, people flourish by knowledge and made try to invent or ideally create something.
Additionally as the age increases, people get additional knowledge from their environment, from
person and attending formal education which makes them a good decision and it help them to
reduce poverty.
Access to credit: As indicated in the table, the probability of being poor is 81 times greater for
household who not used access to credit at 1% level of significance. Using access to credit is one
of the way that escaping from poverty through investing cash flow from credit association. The
cash that the household credit and invested is may generate some output and profit. Then the
household would pay back the principal with interest and made profitable at the end of the day.
That means the household who use access to credit is improve their living standard through
borrowing capital and invest it to generate revenue.
Education Level: As the education level of the household are go up by one level, the chance to
being poor fall down by a factor of 0.18, keeping other predictor variables constant. It indicates
that education has significant role in reduction of poverty in the study area.
House Tenure: The probability to being poor is 39 times greater for household not having house
as compared to those have a house. This implies that household those lived in rented and
government house is more affected by poverty in Tulu Bolo town than house tenure.
Expenditure: Ceteris paribus, the increase of household expenditure by one birr decreased the
chance of being poor by a factor of 0.000368.
Shortly, from the above table only family size is positively correlated with poverty which implies
as the family size increase poverty is also raised while variables such as sex, marital status, age,
employment, education, house tenure, access to credit and expenditures are negatively associated
with poverty and implies that increase of one them decrease the chance to household fall into
poverty. Besides, out of the nine variables predictor only one (employment status) is
insignificant whiles eight of the nine: sex, age, marital status, family size, access to credit,
educational status, housing tenure and expenditures are statistically significant.
42
CHAPTER FIVE
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION
5.1. Conclusion
This paper examines the determinant of household poverty and also demonstrated and emphasize
incidence of poverty in the Tulu Bolo town. The determinants of poverty in this area include
demographic and socio economic of household head, such as educational level, household access
to credit, family size, marital status of household head, occupational status, age, sex, house
tenure of household head and expenditures of household. Besides, in the descriptive part:
variables such as access to clean water, getting enough electricity, good sanitation toilet,
independent and dependent out of family size, having durable goods like television, car, motor,
refrigerator, bicycle are clearly implied what poverty is look like in the town. The major finding
of this paper includes; the sex, age, marital status, education, access to credit, house tenure and
43
occupational status of household is inversely related to the poverty status of urban household. As
indicated above, as one of these variables increased by unit, the probability of being poor is
reduced for each of them by some percent. For instance, as the age of household increase by one
year, probability of being poor decreased by 2.28 percent. That means as the age of household
increases it developed by knowledge and skill to make decision and understand ways of reduce
poverty.
On the other hand, only family size is a predictor variable positively associated with poverty. As
seen from above, the increase of family size by one person raised the chance to being poor by
19.47 percent.
Access to credit is the other significant variable to influence the probability of impoverishment.
As indicated in the table, the probability of being poor is reduced by 80 times the household who
used access to credit than that of the household could not use to access to credit at 1% level of
significant. This implies that the household who use access to credit is escaping from poverty
through investing the cash flows borrowing from the credit association by increasing their
income.
As indicated in the analyzed data, majority of female headed household are exposed to poverty
than male headed households. Thus, female headed household are more affected by poverty than
male headed in the study area. Most of household in the city are male headed household
58.474% in comparison that of female headed household 41.526%. In terms of age, as the age of
household increases by a year, the probability of being poor decreases. According to collected
data analyzed middle age household head had better chance of escaping from poverty due to had
better skill and knowledge to reduce poverty. Poverty in terms of occupational status of
household head, unemployed people is highly affected by poverty than employed. Size of family
is important to show poverty in the city because, most household having large family size are
highly affected by poverty. In addition, education level of household is the most significant
factor to indicate poverty in the study area, due to the fact that increasing educational attainment
of household reduced poverty because of strength the household decision making.
FGT indexes referred, the incidence of poverty is spreading among the surveyed households,
0.336 the head count ratio, 0.12 poverty gap, and 0.0578 as the severity index in the town calls
44
for urgent interventions aimed at curbing the fate of the poor. One way of doing this is studying
the determinants of urban poverty by informing concerned parties as the factors are important in
fighting against poverty. Without the clear identification of the factors that account for the
continuous improvement of life in the town, it is really difficult to come up with concrete
solutions. As urban poverty, per see, is a multitude of interrelated factors-a cause being a
consequence simultaneously, critical identification of the variables is important. However,
because it is difficult to bring panaceas or remedies for the whole problems over right
prioritization of the variables is of paramount importance.
Logistic regression results are shown that demographic features of household head are
statistically significant in explaining urban household poverty in the study area except
occupational status.
5.2. Recommendation
Based on qualitative and quantitative data gathered from Tulu Bolo town administration
concerned with household head and the results of the study, the following main policies should
be under taken to reduce poverty activities in the city.
 Female headed households are more likely faced poverty than male headed household in
the town. Therefore, a body of administrative city should be undertaken to improve the
living standard of female headed household in order to escape from poverty affirmative
action. In another ways, increasing education enrolment of female is one ways of
empowering women in this town which help them to make better decision.
 Create job and employment opportunities for the jobless segment of the society there by
increasing their income. In addition, since this town is suitable for investment,
encouraging the private sector and enhancing investment in manufacturing industries is
believed to be one means of increasing employment opportunities and increasing income
45
to the individuals.
 Empower the poor through providing the selective training depending on researches that
identified the job opportunities and facilitate startup capital through financial institutions
and credit association as well as to monitor and evaluate cooperatives and individuals.
 To capacitate the unemployed people giving focus to those under poverty line especially
women and youth through providing different trainings , organizing the jobless in small
scale enterprises and facilitate access to credit services and startup capital that help them
involve in different income generating activities.
 The educational attainment of the head of the household is found to be the most important
factor associated with urban poverty clearly suggests ways of focusing on the value of
education. Adequate education is central in addressing incidence of poverty and the main
means of reducing poverty in this town.
 Household size was positively and significantly correlated with poverty in Tulu Bolo as
the study depicted. This has a clear implication for the residents of the town in that
households with large size will fall into the hardcore sections of poverty easily than those
who have not. Thus, in order to minimize such effects, family planning and/or education
of couples is provided by the concerned bodies. In this regard the city administration must
initiate the town's health service to play a crucial role.
There is also some role and responsibilities of city administrations in poverty reduction that
believed to have significant contribution because of that institution are the closest to local
problem. Hence, it is essential to define the role and responsibilities of administrative institutions
and other stakeholders and their interaction while dealing with the poverty reduction practice in
line with the policy objectives and goals.
The roles and responsibilities of local authorities in poverty reduction efforts with comparison to
the higher level authorities include;
i. Identifying poverty types and its nature, prepare a plan to curve poverty in line with the
national strategy and in administration context.
ii. Providing loan and credit services.
46
iii. Facilitating and organizing micro-small scale groups.
iv. Organize and lead the local based micro enterprises and women union and providing
conductive environmental enabling them attain higher level of wealth status.
v. Providing land for investing purposes.
vi. Giving selective training depending on researches that identified the job opportunities
and facilitates startup capital through financial institutions as well as to monitor and
evaluate cooperatives and individuals.
This roles and responsibilities of the local institutions are expected to enhance the effective and
efficiency of the poverty reduction activity provided that they are appropriately and genuinely.
REFERENCES
Aldrich and Nelson 1984 Linear probability, logit and probit model: SAGE Publications,
University of Minnesota and Iowa
Coudouel, A., Jesko, Hentschel, S. and Wodon, Q. T. 2002 Poverty Measurement and Analysis.
In: PRSP source book, World Bank, Washington DC.
Dalton, R. and Fiel, W. 2002/2003 the analysis of household survey: A micro econometric
approach to development policy, The John Hopkins University Press, USA.
Decron.S. 2006 Economic reform, growth and the poor; Evidence from rural Ethiopia, Journal of
Development Economics
Dercon.S. 2006 Growth and shocks, Evidence from rural Ethiopia, mimeo center for the study of
African Economics, University of Oxford.
Ellis. F. 2000 Rural livelihood and diversity in developing countries, Oxford University Press.
47
Ellis. F. 2012 Economic Difference, Social Divisiveness and Targeting; Journal Development
Study
Finance of map of the world 2012
Fukuda-Parr, S. 2006 The Human Poverty Index: A Multidimensional Measure the New School
University.
Greeley, M. 1994 Measurement of Poverty and Poverty of Measurement Institute of

Development Studies, IDS Bulletin 25.2, 1994
Gujarati1992 Essentials of Econometrics, abridged version of Basic Econometrics
New York: McGraw-Hill
Haddad, Lawrence and Ahmed 2005, Chronic and transitory poverty; Evidence from Egypt,
1998-2000 journals of development studies
Jalan.J and Ravallion.m 2006 Evidence from rural China: Journal of development studies,
Poverty journal 2011, United Nation World food program.
James A. Robinson 2002 The origins of power, propensity and poverty; Why nations fail
Kedir.A and A.mckay 2005 chronic poverty in urban Ethiopia; panel data evidence paper
prepared for international conference on staying poor; chronic poverty and
development, hosted by institute of development policy and management, University
of Manchester.
Makoka, D. and Kaplan, M. 2005 Poverty and Vulnerability; Term Paper, Interdisciplinary
Course International Doctoral Studies Program.
Michael Todaro 2011 Economic Development 11th edition, New York University and population
council, Stephen C. Smith, Washington University
Ministry of finance and economic development report, June, 2013 Development and poverty in
Ethiopia 2000/1-2010/11
48
MoFED 2012 Ethiopia’s Progress towards Eradicating Poverty: An Interim Report on Poverty
Analysis Study 2010/11, Development Planning and Research Directorate
Ranis, G. Stewart, F. and Samman, E. 2006 Human Development: Beyond the HDI, Queen
Elizabeth House Oxford University.
R. Murgai, 2005 Urban Development Policy and Poverty Reduction in Behrman, Development
Economics, vol. 49 No. 50.
Schubert. R 2004 poverty in developing countries’ its definition, extent and implications,
Economics vol.49 No.50
Unite Nation Development Program 1996 Economic Growth and Human Development: Human
Development Report 1996, New York
United Nation Development Program 2008 what is Poverty? Concepts and Measures:
international Poverty Center Poverty in Focus, pp: 12 – 14.
United Nation Development Program 2013 Monetary and non-monetary indicators of poverty
are poorly correlated in many developing countries, World Development, vol.
28:2123-2125.
World Bank 2001 World Development Report 2000/01: Attacking Poverty. Oxford University
Press
World Bank 2002Development and Poverty Profile of Ethiopia: Addis Ababa.
World Bank 2005 Introduction to Poverty Analysis, [Online], World Bank Institute, Available
from: http://www.worldbank.org/. Accessed on January 05, 2011
World Bank 2008 World Development Indicators; Poverty data, Washington DC
World Bank 2012 Progress against Extreme Poverty, Washington DC
APPENDIX
49
Questionnaire:
Dear Respondents,
We are under graduate students at Ambo University Woliso Campus, School of Business and
Economics, Department of Economics. Currently we are conducting a research in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for BA degree in Economics. The planned study is entitled as
‘Determinant of urban household poverty in case of Tulu Bolo Town’. The purpose of the
questionnaires is purely for academic case and the information provided by you will be kept in
most secrecy. The research is going to be carried out on your responses and other relevant data
that could support it. We kindly asking your co-operation to provide us a sincere response to the
question listed below. You can tick the option that you choose or write your answer on the blank
space provided. Space is placed at the end of the questionnaire for you to add further information
or explanation. All fact you provide will be reported in aggregate form and your response will
remain anonymous.
Instruction:
 No need of writing your name.

 Please try to fill all the questions.
 Indicate your answer by ticking (√) where necessary.
 Fill your answer on blank space whenever possible.
General information
1) Sex; Male Female
2) Age (in years) _____
3) Educational level; Illiterate Primary Secondary Diploma
Degree and above (in years if possible) ____
4) Marital status; Married Widowed Divorced Single
5) Family size----------
6) Do you have your own house; Yes No
50
7) Depending on question number six above; if your answer is No, where do you live in?
Rented house Government house
8) Have you ever used a credit? Yes No
9) Depending on the question number eight if your answer is yes, for what purpose did you
take the loan?_______________________________
10) Depending on question number nine, if you took for trade, are you got profit from
credit?
Yes No
11) What is your employment status; Government employee Private employee
NGOs employee Unemployed Self employee
12) Do you any in your family school age child who is not attending kindergarten school in
years of 1-5? Yes No
13) Do you any in your family who died before the age of 5? Yes No
14) Do you have gets clean water? Yes No
15) Do you have electricity power? Yes No
16) Do you have adequate sanitation of toilet? Yes No
17) Do you have? Television Refrigerator Car motor Bicycle
18) How many times you eat food in the day? Greater than 3 less than 3
19) Do you have saving account from Bank to save some portion of your income? Yes
No
20) How many of your family members are economically active? ____
21) How many of family members are dependent on the household? _____
51
22) What is your monthly income?_______
23) What is your monthly expenditure?________
24) How much do you spend on food in a month? _____
25) How much do you spend for the nonfood item in month? _____
26) As you thinking about yourself, do you think you are poor? Yes No
27) If you have any additional idea, please write on this

blank__________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
With Best Regards!
52

4_6035064590075692496(1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4_6035064590075692496(1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4_6035064590075692496(1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMBO UNIVERSITY WOLISO CAMPUS

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

DETERMINANTS OF URBAN HOUSEHOLD POVERTY: A

CASE OF TULU BOLO TOWN

A Research thesis Submitted to Department of Economics as Partial Fulfillment for the

1. Lemi Taye…………………… 042/08

Advisor: Dr. Mekonnen Bersisa (PhD.)

Advisor: Dr. Mekonnen B (PhD.) ______________ _____________

Examiner:______________ _____________ ______________

Name of Investigators Signature Date

Lemi Taye __________ ______________

Hailu Wolditsadik __________ ______________

Mohammed Ali __________ ______________

Tajudin Yusuf __________ ______________

Derartu Chalchisa __________ ______________

APL Above poverty line

Key Words: Poverty, Logit, Tulu Bollo Town

1.1 Background of the Study

1.2. Statement of the Problem

• What is poverty status of urban household in Tulu Bolo city?

1.3. Objective of the Study

1.3.1. General Objective of the Study

1.3.2. Specific Objective of the Study

• To examine the poverty status of urban household in Study area.

1.4. Scope of the Study

1.6. Significance of the Study

1.7. Organization of the Study

2.1. Theoretical Literature Review

2.1.1. Definition of Poverty and Its Concept

d to live in absolute poverty today (World Bank, 2012).

2.1.2. Dimension of Poverty

2.1.4. Setting Poverty Lines

Cost of Basic Needs Approach (CBN)

Food Energy Intake Approach (FEI)

2.1.5.1. Poverty Ratio or Head Count Ratio

Where, N = Total Population

2.1.5.2. Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) Index

n=total number of households

q=total number of poor household

yi=total expenditure of household

2.1.5.3. Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index (MPI)

2.2. Empirical Literature

2.2.1. International Evidence

2.2.2. Local Evidence

3.1. Description of the Study Area

3.2. Data Type and Source

3.3. Sample Technique and Sample Size

¿ 01 kebele , n 1= ( NN1 + N 3) n=( 1435

¿ 02 kebele , n 2=( + N 3 )n=(

3.4. Method of data Collection

3.5. Method of Data Analysis

3.6. Model Specification

Where α equals 0, 1, and 2

P equals head-count ratio, poverty-gap ratio, and poverty severity measure

N=total number of households

q=total number of poor household

yi=total expenditure of household

Logistic regression is an approach to prediction the probability that an individual/household will

SESi=f ( sex , mrst , hh ¿ empst , age , accr hhh ) … … … … … … … … … … ..(5)

Accr=access to credit of household

Advisor: Dr. Mekonnen B (PhD.) __ _

Examiner:________ _ ________

Lemi Taye ____

Hailu Wolditsadik ____

Mohammed Ali ____

Tajudin Yusuf ____

Derartu Chalchisa ____