Socioeconomic Empowerment and Rural Household Poverty in Pakistan: A Case Study of Bahawalpur Division
Thesis submitted in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of “Masters of Philosophy in Economics”
BY
Muhammad Abrar-ul-Haq Roll No: 25 Session 2011-2013 Department of Economics
Supervised By: Dr. Rana Ejaz Ali Khan Department of Economics
In the name of Allah the Most Merciful the Most Beneficent
Dedication TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page No.
Chapter No. 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Types of Poverty 2
1.1.1 Absolute Poverty 2
1.1.2 Relative Poverty 3
1.1.3 Participatory Poverty 4
1.2 History of Poverty in Pakistan 5
1.2.1 Poverty Trends in Pakistan 5
1.2.2 Rural Poverty Trends in Southern Punjab 7
1.3 Socio Economic Empowerment 9
1.4 Relationship between Socio Economic Empowerment and Poverty 10
1.5 Introduction to Bahawalpur Division 10
1.6 Objective of the Study 11
1.7 Significance of the Study 11
1.8 Scheme of the Study 12
Chapter No. 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 13
Chapter No. 3
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 29
3.1 Poverty Estimation 30 3.2 Poverty Indices 31
3.2.1 Headcount Index 31
3.2.2 Poverty Gap Index 32
3.2.3 Squared Poverty Gap Index (Poverty Severity) 32
3.2.4 Sen Index 33
3.2.5 The Sen-Shorrocks-Thon Index 34
3.2.6 The Watts Index 35
3.2.7 Time Taken to Exit 35
3.2.8 Other Measures 36
3.3 Socioeconomic Empowerment 37
3.4 Determinants of Poverty 38
3.4.1 Socioeconomic Empowerment 38
3.4.2 Agriculture Occupation 38
3.4.3 Experience of Agriculture Occupation 38
3.4.4 Remittances 39
3.4.5 Female- Male Ratio 39
3.4.6 Employment Ratio 40
3.4.7 Household Size 40
3.4.8 Sewerage System 40
3.4.9 Gender of Household Head 40
3.4.10 Household Accessories 41
3.4.11 Assets and Property 41
3.4.12 Average Education of Household 41
3.4.13 Income of Household 41
3.4.14 Services Occupation of Head of Household 42 3.4.15 Shelter 42
3.4.16 Live Stock 42
3.4.17 Health with in Household 42
3.4.18 Access to Infrastructure 43
3.4.19 Dependency Ratio 43
3.4.20 Religion 43
Chapter No. 4
DATA AND METHODOLOGY 44
4.1 Dimensions of the Study 44
4.1.1 Research Question 44
4.1.2 Study Area 44
4.1.3 Study Period 45
4.1.4 Data Collection 45
4.2 Estimation and Procedures 46
4.3 Poverty Line 46
4.4 Household Poverty 47
4.5 Participatory Poverty 47
4.6 Socio-economic Empowerment Index 48
4.6.1 Indicator Variables 48
4.6.2 Shelter 48
4.6.3 Education 49
4.6.4 Assets and Property 49
4.6.5 Live Stock 50
4.6.6 Health with in Household 50 4.6.7 Gender of Household Head 50
4.6.8 Household Accessories 50
4.6.9 Access to Infrastructure 51
4.7 Construction of Index 51
4.8 Household Poverty 59
4.8.1 Model 1 59
4.9 Selection of Variables 60
4.9.1 Socio-economic Empowerment 60
4.9.2 Agriculture Occupation 60
4.9.3 Experience of Agriculture 60
4.9.4 Remittances 61
4.9.5 Female- Male Ratio 61
4.9.6 Employment Ratio 61
4.9.7 Household Size 62
4.9.8 Sewerage System 62
4.10 Participatory Poverty 62
4.10.1 Model 2 63
4.11 Selection of variables 64
4.11.1 Gender of Household Head 64
4.11.2 Household Accessories 64
4.11.3 Assets and Property 64
4.11.4 Average Education of Household 65
4.11.5 Agriculture Occupation of Household Head 65
4.11.6 Income of Household 65
4.11.7 Services Occupation of Household Head 66 Chapter No. 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 68
5.1 Descriptive Analysis 68
5.2 Econometrics analysis of Household poverty 82
5.2.1 Discussion 84
5.3 Econometrics Analysis of Participatory Poverty 86
5.3.1 Discussion 87
Chapter No. 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 90
REFERENCES 94
ANNEXURE TABLES
Title Page No.
1.1 Headcount Measure (% below Poverty Line) for Pakistan— 1992-93 to 2004-05 6 1.2 Trends of Rural Poverty in Southern Punjab 8 4.1 Description Data of Policy Variables 51 4.2 Eigenvalues of the Correlation Matrix of Socio-economic Empowerment Policy Variables 53 4.3 Extraction values of socioeconomic Empowerment Policy Variables 55
4.4 Socioeconomic Empowerment Index 57
4.5 Description of Variables 67
5.1 Incidence of Household Poverty in Sample 68
5.2 Incidence of Participatory Poverty in Sample 68
5.3 Education Level of the Household Head and Incidence of Poverty 69
5.4 Average Education of the Household and Incidence of Poverty 71
5.5 Household Size and Incidence of Poverty 72
5.6 Remittances and Incidence of Poverty 73
5.7 Agriculture Occupation and Incidence of Poverty 73
5.8 Employment Ratio and Household Poverty 74
5.9 Number of Children and Household Poverty 75
5.10 Number of Females in House and Household Poverty 76
5.11 Number of Males in House and Household Poverty 77
5.12 Separate Kitchen in House and Household Poverty 78
5.13 Availability of Water Supply for House and Household Poverty 79 5.14 Sanitation System in House and Household Poverty 79
5.15 Electricity in House and Household Poverty 80
5.16 Access to Announce Price of Government of Inputs
and Household Poverty 80
5.17 Access to Sport Price of Government of Agriculture Output and Household Poverty 81 5.18 Access to School and Household Poverty 81
5.19 Regression Estimates with Incidence of Poverty as Dependent
Variables 83
5.20 Regression Estimates with Participatory Poverty as Dependent
Variables 86
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Poverty has many dimensions, like malnourishment, hunger, economic exploitation, no shelter, violence, no decision making in political system, poor living condition, and no facility for school and uncertainty of tomorrow, etc. Powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom is another name of poverty. Poverty has many types varying from place to place and time to time and it has been portrayed in various manners. Poverty is the “incapability to maintain a minimum living standard anticipated with respect to basic consumption needs or some amount of income required for satisfying them (World Bank (2006).
The problem of poverty has been for a long time at the core of development struggles between the states of the world. It is a central attention on the millennium development goals; the first of the eight goals which is to half the amount of the world’s residents living under $1.25 per day (United Nations, 2010). Poverty is a multidimensional concept and has been viewed in different ways by many scholars.
However, what appears to be a common view is that poverty exists when one is unable to satisfy some certain basic requirements. Of course, the subject of “basic needs or requirements” is also debatable. However, irrespective of how poverty is conceived, poverty analysis begins with the recognition of basic needs, what constitutes these basic requirements as well as the notion of deprivation. Although it is considered as the outcome of the interrelationship between the socio-political and actions that eventually result into human deprivation and deterioration in the living conditions of the people. It is considered the lack of access to basic necessities such as food, water, housing and clothing, as well as the inaccessibility to the social, cultural and means necessary to guarantee, productivity, social reproduction, and everyday life
1 of the society (The World Bank, 2000). The poor do not have access to adequate education and are unable to meet their basic needs in health and other necessities
(Akerele, et al., 2012).
What seems to be an ordinary interpretation is that poverty occurs when one is not able to assure a number of certain basic requirements but poverty is not only the name of hunger, if people has no access to basic infrastructure of government and do not participate in social or local decisions of community, those people are also called poor because of their poor participation. That kind of poverty may be called participatory poverty.
People are excluded when they are not part of the networks which support most people in ordinary life – social networks, community and local infrastructure. Poverty is a very broad and wide concept: it includes not only hunger and shelter, but problems of social-local relationships, access to basic infrastructure of government and failures in social protection.
1.1 Types of Poverty
Poverty is usually divided into two groups, absolute or intense poverty and relative poverty.
1.1.1 Absolute Poverty
Absolute poverty is when people do not have the basic necessities for survival. For example, they may be starving, lack clean water, proper housing, sufficient clothing or medicines and be struggling to stay alive.
But it was argued that a conventional money-metric poverty line analysis may be inadequate to capture a range of significant dimensions of deprivation. A single
2 poverty line exercise captures a picture in time according to the consumption measure. In the absence of other complementary quantitative or qualitative exercises it does not capture dynamic dimensions of change over time – together with cyclic variations in access to food, health condition, income etc. and vulnerability to shocks of different kinds and the negative impacts of long-term trends.
1.1.2 Relative Poverty
Relative poverty is when some people’s life and income is worse than the general standard of living in the country or region in which they live that they are struggle to live a normal life and to participate in common economic, social and cultural activities. What this means will vary from one country to another, depending on the standard of living of the majority. Relative line is not fixed over the domain of poverty comparisons. Poverty line is related to average income or consumption in a country/region of reference. This line in relation to the average standard of living of a particular society at a certain time changes with the average earnings of the households. This approach may show a reduction in poverty when people’s income may be falling all around. The following examples will illustrate relative poverty lines. The official poverty rate in the early 1990s was close to 15 percent in the United
States of America and also close to 15 percent in the much poorer country-Indonesia.
Many of those counted as poor in the U.S. would be considered to be restfully well- off by Indonesian standards. Amongst OECD/EU nations, the poverty line is often set at 50 percent of the average income in the state or at 50 percent of the common income. Relative lines are often used in rich countries.
Zaidi (1992) smeared the idea of relative deprivation in defining households or individuals as poor when they absent some commodity or uniform rate of consumption that are commonly used in state. Zaidi (1992) using HIES 1984/85 data,
3 describes the comparative poverty line of 75 percent of the national usual expenditure.
He was misled into using OECD same scale to account for the dissimilar requirements between household followers. The similar scale cannot be used because the magnitude of the household in developing nations is great and the food expenses account for a larger amount of total expenditure. By using 255 (PK RUPEE) as poverty line and income base line of 276 (PK RUPEE) he found that, at the countrywide, about 39 percent of all household were poor. Poverty in together Punjab and Baluchistan was greater than the other remaining two provinces of Pakistan. It was more marked in the first, where more than 60 percent of the total poor households lived. The study, supposing insignificant variance in the cost of living between the provinces used the similar poverty line for all provinces. This looks to be an idealistic assumption that a consumption design in the four provinces of Pakistan was differerent. Most of the existing literature on the topic of Pakistan is either limited in scope or suffers from various methodological flaws. Like most early studies are based on HIES data gathered and used largely arbitrary poverty lines to estimate the incidence of poverty.
Some studies such as Ercelawn (1990) drew the poverty indicators including non-food items.
1.1.3 Participatory Poverty
A common view of poverty is that when one is unable to satisfy some certain basic necessities but poverty is not only the name of hunger, if people has no access to basic utilities provided by government and cannot participate in social or local decisions of community, they are poor because of their poor participation. That kind of poverty is called participatory poverty. They are excluded as they are not part of the networks which support most people in ordinary life, social networks, community and local
4 infrastructure. Poverty is a very broad and wide concept. It includes not only hunger and shelter, but problems of social relationships, access to basic infrastructure of government and failures in social protection.
In practice, the participatory poverty is a three-fold phenomenon. The first is participation in social decisions making. The second is access to basic infrastructure of government and third one is relation with local governance. All of them impact a person’s economic and social life.
1.2 History of Poverty in Pakistan
With the brief global importance of the issue of poverty, we now come to the experience of Pakistan.
1.2.1 Poverty Trends in Pakistan
There is an ample evidence that poverty, which increased in 1960s declined rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s has returned back in the 1990s and again it has some declining trend in 2000s (Amjad and Kemal,1997; Arif, et al., 2001; and Government of
Pakistan, 2006). Moreover, it is difficult to explain the declining trends in poverty as shown by World Bank (2000), through macro-level factors such as demographic dynamics that affect the labor force and dependency ratio, employment levels, real wage rates, workers’ remittances, assets ownership and access, and inflationary impact on food availability. Nevertheless the bulk of poverty exists in Pakistan but more than that in remote areas.
Poverty estimates implied by recent studies are reported in Table 1. There appears to be a general consensus that absolute poverty increased during the 1990s. However, increase was more rapid in rural areas compared to the urban areas. According to
World Bank (2002), urban poverty rose from 20.8 percent in 1992-93 to 24.2 percent
5 in 1998-99, whereas the rural poverty increased from 27.2 percent to 35.4 percent during the same period. In the subsequent period, rural poverty deteriorated 1 sharply, while urban poverty increased marginally. The rise in absolute poverty in the 1990s was mainly attributable to the low economic growth, which declined to 4 percent in the 1990s from a growth trajectory of 6 percent per annum in the1980s.
Table 1.1 Headcount Measure (% below Poverty Line) for Pakistan—1992-93 to 2004-05
Planning Planning
World Bank Commission Anwar and Commission/
FBS Qureshi CRPRID (2001) (2002) (2003) (2003) (2006)
Overall
1992-93 26.6 25.7 – – –
1993-94 29.3 28.6 – – –
1998-99 32.2 32.6 30.6 30.4 –
2001-02 – – 32.1 35.6 34.5
2004-05 – – – – 23.9*
2006-07 21.78 - - - -
2007-08 21.04 - - - -
2008-09 27.00 - - - -
2009-10 29.00 - - - -
Rural
1992-93 29.9 27.7 – – –
1993-94 34.7 33.4 – – –
1998-99 36.3 35.4 34.6 32.1 –
2001-02 – – 38.9 41.0 39.3
2004-05 – – – – 22.7*
Urban
1992-93 20.7 20.8 – – –
1993-94 16.3 17.2 – – –
1998-99 22.4 24.2 20.9 26.39 –
2001-02 – – 22.6 26.47 22.7
2004-05 – – – – 14.9*
Source: Various studies cited above.
More recently poverty as measured by the official methodology declined considerably
1 Planning Commission (2003) have also arrived more or less at the same conclusion. * Planning Commission/CRPRID (2006), based on inflation (CPI) adjusted official poverty line of Rs 878.64 in 2004-05.
6 by 10.56 percent from 34.5 percent to 23.9 percent between 2001-02 and 2004-05 (see
Table 1). The decline was more noticeable in rural poverty, which declined from 39.3 percent to 22.7 percent between 2001-02 and 2004-05. However, a controversy in poverty assessment rose when World Bank (2006) contradicted the official poverty estimates for 2004-05 during the validation exercise. According to the World Bank
(2006), official poverty estimates are based on inflation adjusted poverty line of Rs
878 per capita per month in 2004-05 that seems to have been underestimated due to lower changes in prices indicated by Consumer Price Index compared to the price index derived from the household survey prices. CPI suggest an inflation rate of 21.46 percent, the household survey based price index— Tornqvist price index (TPI) yield a much higher inflation rate of 29.6 percent. World Bank (2006) thus strongly recommended the use of TPI for adjustment in poverty line for inflation and arrived at poverty headcount of 29.2 percent in 2004-05.
1.2.2 Rural Poverty Trends in Southern Punjab
Approximately 67.5 percent population of Pakistan has residing in the rural areas. As poverty in Pakistan is largely a rural phenomenon. Punjab reports almost 56 percent of the country’s population. Approximately 36 percent of the rural population is poor, which is the second highest in the provinces of Pakistan. However, lower Punjab shows the level of poverty (40 percent) not significantly lesser than in rural NWFP and Baluchistan (FBS, 2002). It is also documented in the report of the International
Fund for Agricultural Development (2001) on rural poverty that is extra complex and chronic in rural areas of southern Punjab, Pakistan. Multan, Bahawalpur and Dera
Ghazi Khan Districts form the southern Punjab. Profile designs and tendencies of poverty have been sound recognized by the Federal Bureau of Statistics in the report
7 on the valuation of poverty in the 1990s. An significant feature of this report is to examine the condition of poverty in three different regions of Punjab. Assessments of poverty measures in dissimilar years (based on FBS, BRDP and Chudhary, 2009) are exposed in Table 2. Procedures the occurrence of poverty and others are greater because of Cholistan is the area where the infrastructure and other socioeconomic variables and demographic are poor than others.
Table 1.2 Trends of Rural Poverty in Southern Punjab
Incidence of Severity of Years Poverty Poverty Gap Poverty 1992-93 33.24 6.46 1.84 (HIES)* (10.49) (1.68) (0.39) 1993-94 41.08 8.69 2.66 (HIES)* (29.27) (6.33) (2.36) 1996-97 32.87 5.97 1.65 (HIES)* (21.44) (3.04) (0.68) 1998-99 39.74 9.21 3.11 (PIHS)* (29.31) (4.76) (1.14) 1999-2000 73.00 ------(BRDP) ** 2002-2003 69.64 31.6 17.9 (Chaudhry, 2003)** 2005-2006 54.00 ------(BRDP)** 2005-2006 55.00 ------(Chaudhry, 2009) ** Sources: * Federal Bureau of Statistics (2002) ** Figures are estimated based on the sample from only Bahawalpur region. Note: Figures in parentheses are of the upper Punjab.
The results in Table 2 demonstrate that the occurrence of poverty, gap of poverty and harshness of poverty increased during the 1990s and after that there is downward trend. The data also indicates that rural poverty is reduced by approximately 19 percent (73 percent to 54 percent) in the areas of BRDP. The results in table recommend that poverty decreased by 69.64 percent to 55 percent. Lastly, it is concluded that poverty is improved in parts of the region, including Bahawalpur
Cholistan because of government strategies and the action of BRDP(2006).
8
1.3 Socioeconomic Empowerment
Empowerment is associated with the word command. In English, the idea leans on its unique importance of investment with authorized power consent to act for some exact objective or reason. The fresh meaning of the idea includes general references to command that develops and is acquired. Citizens are managing to achieve extra power over their lives, moreover by themselves or with the help of others. The form to be empowered relates to what are both a method and a result—to the effort to find a relative level of capability to pressure the world (Staples, 1990).
Community empowerment is not stated that the practice of developing the logic of independence and self-confidence, separately and together make change for community interaction, institutions and treaties that eliminate the poor and remain in poverty. Private empowerment, and their ability to hold others to account, is strongly influenced by their personal property (such as land, housing, livestock, investments) and the capacity of all types: human (such as physical fitness and education), community (for example, social belonging, a sense of identity management relations) and psychological (self-confidence, assurance, capacity view and hope for a healthier future). More important are the property of others and combined capabilities, such as voting, society, representation and identity.
Economic empowerment is the counterpart to enable the poor to think beyond daily snapshots of endurance and exercise greater control over their natural wealth and both lifestyle choices. It allows households to make personal decisions to invest in health
9 and education, and captivating risks to increase their income. There is also evidence that several economic empowerments can make the commitment stronger vulnerable groups in decision making. For example, microfinance programs have been exposed to empower women in the household and the market. The facts also suggest that economic empower is often no problem "converted" in social position or improvement of decision-making.
1.4 Relationship between Socioeconomic Empowerment and Poverty
Reduction of rural poverty in the context of economic and social growth was high on the agenda of the state in all countries around Asia and the pacific state during the second half of the twentieth century. To achieve this goal, a number of development models have been tested. These range from import substitution market-oriented state- based models of export promotion, attention paid to agriculture infrastructure models and the trickle-down approach to programs aimed openly. Many other policies, such as effective land reform, the development of irrigation and drainage, subsidized inputs and credit facilities, the development of human capital and major health care and education have also been pursued to achieve sustainable economic and social development. As a result, the incidence of poverty has declined over the period of the
1980s and 1990s, but with rapid changes across the area. So there is a negative relationship between socio economic empowerment and poverty.
1.5 Introduction of Bahawalpur Division
In the current study we investigate the determinants of socioeconomic empowerment which affect the rural household poverty in Pakistan. For this purpose we take a case study of division Bahawalpur, Punjab province, Pakistan. Pakistan is one of the developing countries of the world. Pakistan has five provinces: Punjab, Sindh, Khyber
10
Pukhtoonkhwa, Balochistan and Gillgat Baltistan. In Punjab province Bahawalpur division is an administrative division. Bahawalpur is located in the southeast of
Punjab province. Bahawalpur division is further divided into district and tehsil levels.
There are three districts in Bahawalpur division namely; Bahawalpur, Bahawalnagar and Raheem Yar khan. These districts are further divided into tehsil level.
Bahawalpur district has five main tehsils: Ahmed-pur-Sharkiya, Bahawalpur,
Hasilpur, Khair-pur-Tamiwali and Yazman. Bahawalnagar district has five main tehsils: Chishtian, Fort Abbas, Haroonabad, Minchinabad and Bahawalnagar. And the third district Raheem Yar Khan has also four tehsils: Kherpur, Liaqatpur, Raheem Yar
Khan ansd Sadiqabad.
1.6 Objectives of the Study
The study is designed to meet the following objectives:
• To calculate the socio-economic empowerment of rural household and examine its impact on household poverty in Bahawalpur Division.
• To identify the determinants of rural household poverty in the study area.
• To explore the key factors which affect the participatory poverty of rural households in Bahawalpur division.
• To suggest policy measures for enhancing socio economics empowerment of households that can help in reducing poverty of both types; household and participatory.
1.7 Significance of the Study
Poverty is a crucial and most debatable issue of developing economies like Pakistan.
A wide range of empirical studies are available on the causes, types, determinants and
11 poverty reducing strategies as of Amjad and Kemal (1997. In Pakistan many studies have been conducted on determinants of rural and household poverty for example
Malik (2006), Chudhary (2009) and Sathiabama (2010). Pakistan is a struggling developing economy facing a lot of macroeconomic problems like poverty, energy crisis, high inflation, unemployment, budget and trade deficits, ever mounting public debt, internal and external conflicts, terrorism and political instability. This entire phenomenon is leading to intensify the issue of poor incomes by enhancing the income inequality and number of people living below poverty line especially in rural areas of Pakistan. The data consistently shows that poverty is considerably higher in rural as compared to urban areas 2. A Punjab province account for almost 56 percent of the country’s population and 36 percent of its rural population is poor, which is the second highest in provinces of Pakistan. Moreover, poverty is more severe (40 percent) in the lower Punjab than the other parts (PIHS, 2002). Division Bahawalpur is the part of Southern Punjab, and poverty ratio is relatively high in Southern Punjab than central or upper Punjab. Studies on the poverty issue of this region has focused on determinants, causes etc 3. So the study is important because it will identify determinants of the socioeconomic empowerment of the households of this region by constructing an index of socio-economic empowerment and also will add to the existing literature by exploring the factors which affects the household poverty of this region and the element of participatory poverty which was yet unexplored by researchers.
2 Chudhary (2009) 3 Sabir (2004) 12
1.8 Scheme of the Study
The first chapter is introduction. In this chapter relationship between socioeconomic empowerment and poverty, and trends of poverty in Pakistan has been discussed. The second chapter is review of literature. The third chapter is conceptual framework, in this chapter theories related to poverty is discussed. The fourth chapter is data source and methodology. The fifth chapter is empirical result and discussion and the last chapter is about conclusion and policy recommendation.
13
Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
The current study empirically estimated socioeconomic empowerment of rural household and examined its impact on household poverty in Bahawalpur region, furthermore the factors of household poverty and participatory poverty were investigated with innovative econometric techniques i.e. binary logit model and ordered logit model.
The empirical analysis of the study was based on first hand data. Multi stage random sampling technique was adopted for data collection. Data was collected through a household survey from rural areas of Bahawalpur and Bahawalnagar district, Punjab province, Pakistan. A detailed questionnaire was developed to collect data which cover the maximum socioeconomic empowerment and demographic characteristics and community characteristic of the rural households. In this way, 600 questionnaires were completed by household survey of 600 households from sixteen villages of Bahawalpur division for sample size.
The study investigated a number of factors leading towards poverty alleviation in
Pakistan. In this research work thirty eight variables were used for the generation of socioeconomic empowerment index and eight variables were included to identify the factors of rural household poverty. Principal component method is used for deriving
94 weights for the policy variables. Higher value of Socio-economic empowerment Index shows that higher the socio-economic empowerment and vice versa.
Poverty level in the area under study was determined by using the Pakistan’s national poverty line which was 1390 per capita monthly expenditures. In our analysis 127 household were observed living below the poverty line out of total sample 600 which depicts 21.2 percent poverty level of the area under study and 473 household which depicts 78.8 percent household were observed as non-poor. Participatory poverty in the area under study was determined by adding the values of four dictums variables participation in punchiat, relation with local governess, access to sport price of government, access to announce price of government. It was observed that there were
108 household which depicts 18.0 percent out of total sample were moderate poor, 105 household which depict 17.5 percent out of total sample were poor and 310 household out of total sample which depicts 51.77 percent were poorest.
Empirical results proved that socioeconomic empowerment reduces the household poverty. The study revealed that foreign remittances of the skilled and unskilled pakistanis, who are working overseas, have played an enviable role in reducing the chances of rural household poverty in the country. Study significantly accepts the general belief that an increase in male female ratio of household causes reduction in households’ poverty. It means that birth of female babies should not be accepted with affectionate and that female must not be provided an equal opportunity to actively participate in economic life. In current analysis employment ratio does not significantly affect the incidence of
95 household poverty but the study proved the negative relationship between employment ratio and household poverty. Head of household who have 0nly agriculture occupation reduce the probability of being poor. The study proved the negative relationship among the experience of agriculture and incidence of household poverty but these results are statistically insignificant in current analysis. Household size proved positive relationship with household poverty. Poverty and sewerage system has found negative relationship with household poverty.
In current study, the reducing factors of participatory poverty of the household were property and assert, accessories of household, gender of head of household, agriculture occupation, average education of household, household income and services occupation.
6.2 Policy Recommendations
We recommend that government should develop those polices which enhance the socioeconomic empowerment of rural households. Furthermore, strongly recommended to policy makers to increase opportunities for the households such as education, vocational training, health facilities, infrastructural development and redistribution of resources from haves to have not’s . These opportunities, if provided to the young people, produce significant results in raising the standard of living by reducing chances of poverty in the country. The literacy rate and level of education should be a priority to alleviate participatory poverty. The education of the household would go a long way in alleviating poverty. Basic democratic system would be implemented and the punchiat system would strengthen. The implementation of offered prices by the government may
96 increase the participation. Immigration of Pakistani skilled workers is generally considered as brain drain. In the end, we strongly recommend better survey of Pakistani society by impartial sources with more extensive coverage and many more variables listed in the safety net. These policy options can successfully work in the long run provided that implementation of these policies is consistently pursued.
97