Getting and Spending: Household Economy in Rural Burundi By
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Getting and Spending: Household Economy in Rural Burundi By Elizabeth Adelski and Nancy Rosen, with the assistance of Matthew Richard The Social Analysis of Policy Change in East Africa Project 1991 IDA Working Paper No. 89 This paper is produced b the Institute for Development Anthropology and reports on work supported by the Human Settlement and Natural Resources Systems Analysis (SARSA) Cooperative Agreement, No. DAN 1135-A-00-4068-00, at Clark University and the Institute for Development Anthropology, funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Science and Technology, Office of Rural and Institutional Development, Division of Rural and Regional Development. The views and interpretations in this publication are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Agency for International Development or to any individual acting on its behalf, nor to the Government of Burundi. Executive Summary This report presents the results of a survey of Burundi household economy. The survey was conducted by the Institute for Development Anthropology during July - September 1989, in twenty-four communes and six regional urban centers throughout the country. A total of 339 rural households were interviewed to collect baseline quantitative data on household income, expenditures and consumption in rural Burundi. In addition, 108 households in the capital city of Bujumbura were interviewed between September and October, 1989. The principal objective of the urban research was to determine salient urban income-earning strategies and the extent of economic linkages between rural and urban sectors. The primary purpose of the rural survey was to determine the structure and performance of the rural economy. Because rural households comprise most of Burundi's population, these data can be used for formulating policies appropriate for rural development. Furthermore, the acquisition of microlevel data on interhousehold variation in different geographical and social contexts, including Burundi's different ecolcgical regions, secondary urban centers and national border areas will facilitate analysis on the effects of changes in Burundi's national economic policies. The urban data reveal substantially higher incomes and welfare levels than rural households, but also indicate the prevalence of economic interaction between the rural and urban sectors. More than 25 percent of urban households farm actively, and farming is the predominant economic activity of Bujumbura women. Likewise, the research indicates that rural households engage in a variety of income-earning activities and that while agriculture is the prime economic activity for much of the population, nonfarm activities are nonetheless very important. Indeed, in terms of cash income, the nonfarm sector is actually a more significant source of revenue than agriculture. Men travel to do commerce and wage labor, while agriculture is the responsibility of women. Animal husbandry is a minor component of the rural economic system, oriented toward supplying local needs for food and cash rather than production for the urban market. Preliminary data indicate that the primary sources of income derived from agricultural production are sales of crops and processed agricultural products such as banana beer; the major nonagricultural sources of income are individual commercial enterprises, salaried work and wage labor. The data also reveals a striking contrast in the economic status of the richest and poorest income quartiles. Data indicates that the richest quartile of households earns approximately 80 percent of total income, while the poorest quartile accounts for only 2 percent. Average annual cash income among households in the richest quartile is more than 50 times greater than that of the poorest quartile. There is also i profound intrahousehold disparity in cash incomes and substantial interregional differentiation in economic condition; households in the Central Plateau earn and spend more than those in the rest of the country and the lowest incomes are found in the Transitional Zone, Bututsi region and Eastern Plains. Although Burundi's rural population is characterized as subsistence farmers, this research demonstrates that they are not economically autonomous but linked to the wider economic system to obtain the food and consumer goods necessary for daily life. People travel to regional urban centers and the national borders to obtain these goods and earn norey through trade and resale. Provisioning the rural household with food, drink and supplies such as fuel accounts for more than half of its annual expenditures; almost one-third of its cash is spent on nonagricultural necessities such as consumer goods, housing and education, and approximately one-fifth is invested in agricultural production. Thus, the rural economy is dynamic and heterogenous; rural households have developed diversified income bases to which agriculture makes an important but not solitary contribution. This report provides a wealth of data that can be utilized for monitoring the social and economic effects of Burundi's policy reforv program. As such, it represents the first stage of a data collection activity, which should be updated at intervals of two to three years. The report points to several critical indicators of household welfare -- including income, expenditure, and employment -- that could be used for monitoring purposes. At the regional level, future surveys also could demonstrate the impacts of policy changes on rural irban relations, wage labor markets, and agricultural market patterns. ii Acknowledgements This research is the result of seven months of teamwork. Pat Fleuret of REDSO/Nairobi has contributed his time above and beyond the call of duty throughout the project, including organizing the computer input and analysis. Peter Little of IDA provided important substantive support for the research and Vera Beers-Tyler of IDA provided administrative support. Katherine Warner of REDSO/Nairobi supervised most of the computer work and data analysis, which was a project unto itself. Matthew Richard and Samir Abzakh of IDA also assisted with data analysis. Larry Dominessy of USAID/Bujumbura organized resources and logistics throughout the entire project. A number of people at USAID/Bujumnura and the Small Farming Systems Research Project in Gitega deserve my thanks. Aster Kassa Moussie organized the logistics and finances of a team that was based in Gitega but traveled continuously; Menwouyellet Moussie provided the use of the SFSR office resources and personnel, and his knowledge of working in rural areas. Nancy Rosen supervised the fieldwork in Bujumbura with only a moment's notice, wrote part of the report and worked on the computer input. Jeffrey White's expertise with all aspects of computers and their operation was indispensable, as was his patience with the uninformed. Colleagues in other institutes who were knowledgeable about Burundi, Derk Bergen of ISABU and Luc D'Haese of FACAGRO, shared their time and experience and answered many questions about doing fieldwork in the country. Mulamba Ramazami drove me over hill and dale for three months with good humor and sound advice about working in rural Burundi, and Leopold Manisha was equally responsible. Laetitie Nizeye typed the survey questionnaire in Kirundi and made the stencil machines in Gitega work. Leonard Sagateye who worked as team leader and directed part of the fieldwork deserves great thanks. He was a tireless and meticulous supervisor as well as good company during three months of hard work. Vital Hakizimana and Robert Bakundukize worked long days helping Nancy Rosen and me organize the survey in Bujumbura, as well as interviewing. We thank all three of them and the rest of the team for their efforts throughout the fieldwork: Gaspard Ndayimirije, Judith Nduwayo, Salvator Ngayimbesha, Callixte Nzdbonimpa, Jean Damasane Sekamana, Dancilla Kayitasire and Renovat Nihimbazwe. The people throughout Burundi who offered as their hospitality and cooperated with the study deserve my greatest thanks. They organized our fieldwork and answered our innumerable questions, and made the experience an enjoyable one. iii Table of Contents Section I. Introduction and Organization of the Report . 1 Section II. Methodology ......... .................. 5 Section III. The Rural Household: Demography, Education, Housing and Material Possessions 10 1. Household Demography: Residents, Visitors and Migrants 2. Education 3. Housing and Material Possessions Section IV. Getting: Agricultural Production and Other Sources of Rural Income ... ........... 17 1. Principal Economic Activities 2. Men, Women and Work: Gender Roles 3. Land Ownership, Sales and Rentals 4. Agricultural Production and Income from Crop Sales 5. Income from Sales of Processed Agricultural Products and Agricultural Wage Labor 6. Livestock Ownership and Sales 7. Fishing, Artisanry and Salaried Jobs 8. Income Levels and Distribution Section V. Spending: Rural Investment in Agricultural Production and Other Activities . 39 1. The Cost of Renting-In and Buying Land 2. Expenditures on Agricultural Tools, Chemical Inputs and Labor 3. Expenditures on Food and Seed in the Second Season, February - June 1989 4. Expenditures on Livestock 5. The Cost of Housing, Education and Medical Care 6. The Cost of Consumer Goods and Social Occasions 7. Consumption Patterns and Expenditures on Food Section VI. The Rural Household: Annual Income and Expenditures . 51 1. Survey Results: Annual Household