MEKELLE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

ANALYSIS OF POVERTY DIMENSIONS OF URBAN HOUSEHOLDS (A CASE OF MEKELLE

CITY, TIGRAY, ETHIOPIA)

A THESIS SUBMITED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT IN

PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMNTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

BY:

TATASHA TAKAYE KASITO

ADVISOR: ASMACHEW MESFIN (ASSISTANCE PROFESSOR)

CO-ADVISOR: ADEM MOHAMMED (ASSISTANT PROFESSOR)

MEKELLE, ETHIOPIA

JUNE, 2017
 Declaration

This is to certify that this thesis entitled Analysis of Poverty Dimensions of Urban
Households: A Case of Mekelle City, Tigray, Ethiopia; submitted to Mekelle university
College of Business and Economics through the Department of Management for the award of
the degree of Master of Arts in Development Studies done by Mr. Tatasha Takaye Kasito is a
original work done by him under my guidance. The content embodied in this paper has not been
offered and presented for the award of any other degree, diploma, fellowship or other similar
titles, of any other University to the best of my knowledge.

Name of Student: Tatasha Takaye Kasito Signature________________

Advisor: Asmachew Mesfin (Assistant Prof.) Signature________________

Co-advisor: Adem Mohammed Signature________________

Date: June/ 2017

Place: Mekelle University

i
 Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my advisors and thesis overseers, both, Asmachew Mesfin (Assistant
Professor) and Adem Mohammed (Assistant Professor) for teaching me to be a passionate
educationalist, a rigorous scholar and a wholehearted servant to the demands of life in academia.
Their responsiveness to detail, respect for their students and darling of the act are characters I
can only hope to take with me as I move on to the next stage of my career. Asmachew and Adem
have made it possible for me to complete this thesis and secure a tenure track job as a masters
graduate, even in the face of the substantial personal time obstacles weve all faced during the
time. For that and for everything they have done for me and taught me, I am everlastingly
appreciative. At the end of the day, Asmachew and Adem are the kind of scholars, we should all
desire to be. I know I will.

In addition, I must be indebted an enormous debt of gratitude to other staff members of

management department: Dr. Bihon Kasa, Abadi Afera (Assistant Professor), Adonay Haftu
(Assistant Professor), and Filmon. Their encouragement, moral support, and casual and/or
eternal asking of the progress of my work have helped this paper come to fruition.

From the bottom of my heart, I would also like to thank Wolaita Sodo Univerty in general and
the faculty of Business and Economics and Department of Public Administration and
Development management in particular for all of their support throughout my two years in the
Development Studies graduate program at Mekelle University.

I would also like to thank my family and friends for all of their passionate help in completing
this work as they did throughout my life. In particular, I want to acknowledge my mother,
Fantaye Qorayo, who never ever annoyed even at the time I gave annoying ooze and flatulence
and still never annoyed given I am far from her, rather, eternally and perpetually delivering
love and adoration; provided master courage to complete my education at high momentum.
Thank you also to my Dad, Takaye Kasito Karata; my uncles, Tesfaye Kurtane, Kapino Kortolo
and Elias Kaftile; my friend, Kutile Kurkuro, and dorm comrades, Zewnegel G/Mariam, Aregawi
G/Medhin, Haftom Halafi, Hagos Mebrahtom and Meresa Tesfay, Debasi Gidey for their
unwavering support. Finally, I would like to thank my cohort members and fellow MA students
for joining me on this journey.

ii
 Table of Content
Declaration ....................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Content ............................................................................................................................ iii
Acronym ........................................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background of the Study .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................. 5
1.3 Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 8
1.1.1 General Question ...................................................................................................... 8
1.1.2 Specific Questions .................................................................................................... 8
1.4 Research Objectives ......................................................................................................... 8
1.1.3 General Research Objective ...................................................................................... 9
1.1.4 Specific Research Objectives .................................................................................... 9
1.5 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................. 9
1.6 Scope of the Study.......................................................................................................... 10
1.7 Limitation of the Study .................................................................................................. 10
1.8 Organization of the Paper ............................................................................................... 11
Chapter Two.................................................................................................................................. 12
Related Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 12
1.9 Definitions and Concepts of Poverty ............................................................................. 12
1.10 Urban Poverty ................................................................................................................ 13
1.11 Measurement and Indicators of Poverty......................................................................... 14
1.12 Construction of Multidimensional Poverty Index .......................................................... 17
1.1.5 Cutoff level in each dimension ............................................................................... 19
1.1.6 Poverty cutoff.......................................................................................................... 20
1.1.7 Censoring ................................................................................................................ 20
1.1.8 Incidence and Intensity ........................................................................................... 21

iii
 1.1.9 Multidimensional Poverty Index............................................................................. 22
1.1.10 Indicators and Dimensions Contribution to the Overall MPI ................................. 22
1.1.11 Interpretation of MPI and its Components.............................................................. 22
1.1.12 Vulnerability and Severity ...................................................................................... 23
1.13 Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................. 24
Chapter Three................................................................................................................................ 25
Research Methodology ................................................................................................................. 25
1.14 Description of the Study Area ........................................................................................ 25
1.15 Research Strategies and Design ..................................................................................... 27
1.1.13 Research Strategy.................................................................................................... 27
1.1.14 Research Design...................................................................................................... 27
1.16 Data Types and Sources ................................................................................................. 29
1.17 Target Population and Sampling .................................................................................... 29
1.1.15 Target Population .................................................................................................... 29
1.1.16 Sample Size............................................................................................................. 29
1.1.17 Area Sampling ........................................................................................................ 31
1.1.18 Sample distribution ................................................................................................. 31
1.18 Data Collection Tools and Procedures ........................................................................... 32
1.19 Data Processing and Methods of Analysis ..................................................................... 32
Chapter Four ................................................................................................................................. 34
Results and Discussions ................................................................................................................ 34
1.20 Demographic Characteristics of Households ................................................................. 34
1.1.19 Household Population by Age, Sex, and Sub Cities of Residence ......................... 34
1.1.20 Household Characteristics by Employment, Size, Marital Status and Headship ... 43
1.21 Descriptive Analysis of Non-Monetary Poverty ............................................................ 51
1.1.21 Education Dimension .............................................................................................. 52
1.1.22 Health Dimension ................................................................................................... 58
1.1.23 Living Standard Dimension .................................................................................... 62
1.22 Construction of Multidimensional Poverty Index .......................................................... 75
1.1.24 Demonstrated MPI Computation: Sub City of Quiha ............................................. 75
1.1.25 Contribution to MPI by Indicators and dimensions ................................................ 80

iv
 1.23 MPI and its Components for the Whole Mekelle City and its Sub Cities ...................... 84
1.24 Indicator and Dimension Percentage Contribution to Overall MPI ............................... 88
Chapter Five .................................................................................................................................. 91
1.25 Summary and Conclusion .............................................................................................. 91
1.26 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 96
Reference ...................................................................................................................................... 99
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 100

v
 Acronym

ADBGAfrican Development Bank Group

AURI.Africa Urban Research Initiative

EEAEthiopian Economic Association

MoFED...Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

MPI.Multidimensional Poverty Index

PPP..Purchasing Power Parity

UN...United Nation

UNDP.United Nation Development Program

UNFAO..United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

UNICEF..United Nations International Childrens Emergency Fund

WB..World Bank

WHES.World Health Education Service

WHO...World Health Organization

vi
 List of Tables

Table 1 The Dimensions, Indicators, Deprivation Thresholds and Weights of MPI .................. 18
Table 2 Population Data.............................................................................................................. 26
Table 3 Main divisions and Sub Divisions of the survey Questions .......................................... 28
Table 4 Household Population by Age, Sex, and Sub Cities of Residence ................................ 35
Table 5 Household Characteristics by Marital Status, Size, Headship and Employment .......... 44
Table 6 Household deprivation Status in Adult years of Schooling ........................................... 55
Table 7 Household Deprivation Status in Child School Attendance .......................................... 57
Table 8 Households Experienced Death of Children Under Five............................................... 59
Table 9 Households Experienced Maternal Death...................................................................... 61
Table 10 Main Construction Material for Floor of Household Dwelling ..................................... 64
Table 11 Households Deprivation Status in Flooring ................................................................. 65
Table 12 Problems of the Household Dwelling ........................................................................... 66
Table 13 Sanitation Status of the Households ............................................................................. 67
Table 14 Household Access and Source of Drinking Water ........................................................ 69
Table 15 Household Main Source of energy ................................................................................ 71
Table 16 Household Access to electricity..................................................................................... 72
Table 17 Households Asset Possession ........................................................................................ 74
Table 18 MPI the City and each Sub City ................................................................................... 86
Table 19 Percentage Contribution of Dimensions and Indicators to overall City MPI ................ 89
Table 20 Summary of Deprivation Rates...................................................................................... 92
Table 21 Ranking of MPI Scores by Sub City and Dimensional ad Indicator Contribution ........ 93

vii
 List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 24
Figure 2 Mekelle city map ........................................................................................................... 26
Figure 3 Z-value indication .......................................................................................................... 30
Figure 4 Elders (>65) Economic Characteristics ........................................................................ 37
Figure 5 Age Range of Children with Corresponding Constituents ............................................ 38
Figure 6 Children Schooling in Numbers .................................................................................... 39
Figure 7 Proportion of Productive and Dependent Age Groups in the Households Surveyed .. 40
Figure 8 Sex Composition of the Households Surveyed ............................................................. 42
Figure 9 Number of Households Represented from each Sub city ............................................. 43
Figure 10 Employment Status of the households population ...................................................... 47
Figure 11 Employment Status of the households population .......Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 12 Household Size ............................................................................................................. 49
Figure 13 Marital status of the population in the total households ............................................... 50

viii
Abstract

ix
 Chapter One: Introduction
1.1. Background of the Study

As stated by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), 2006, poverty is
being short of or the failure to achieve, a socially acceptable standard of livelihood. It is where
individuals are deficient in command over economic possessions, face potential failure to
participate in a society and destitute of very basic (food, shelter) necessities for living. Poverty
also covers multifaceted alienations; choice, self-esteem and social insertion. As pointed out by
United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 2010, people are deemed to be in poverty when
they are deprived of income dimension and other dimensions needed to obtain the state of affairs
of life; the diets, material goods, health, facilities, standards, knowledge and services that allow
them to play the roles, meet the obligations and participate in the relationships and customs of
their society.

Poverty is a global worry and a hard test to world development. The United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organizations projection for three years (2014-2016) revealed that about 795
million people out of the 7.3 billion people in the world or one in nine were anguish from
unceasing undernourishment. Accordingly, virtually 1/2 of the worlds inhabitants; more than 3
billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. The same projection indicated that more than 1.3
billion people live in severe poverty; less than $1.25 a day, whereas 1 billion children universally
are living in deficiency. According to United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund
(UNICEF 2015), 22,000 children pass away each day due to poverty; 805 million people
worldwide do not have as much as necessary food to eat and more than 750 million people are
deficient intolerable access to clean drinking water. It has also publicized that avoidable diseases
like diarrhea and pneumonia win the lives of 2 million children a year that are too poor to afford
appropriate treatment. The report of the same agency in 2014 revealed, one-fourth of the world
population lives devoid of electricity-approximately 1.6 billion people. Plus, every day, 59
million primary school age children are unable to attend school because of poverty, poor health
and conflict.

1
Nevertheless, the history and the statistics of the burden of poverty was proved by all actors of
the field as is unequally spread amongst the areas of the world, among nations, and among the
zones and groups of the people. Peter Townsend (2013), a prominent researcher on poverty in
focus stated in his article a growing number of people in developing countries in broad and
their urban cores in specific face many socioeconomic challenges and multi-form of deprivation
or various magnitudes of poverty. Specifically, he stated, Africa, compared to other continents,
in both absolute and relative poverty is severe and increased significantly five times more than
the number for Latin America, and two fold that for South Asia. Urban Africans are less
prospective to live in multidimensional poverty than rural Africans, but are more likely to be
vulnerable to poverty. According to the Afro barometer (2014/15), virtually (47%) of urban
Africans say their living conditions as fairly bad or very bad. Over 15 of urban Africans
were affirmed, being deprived of an adequate amount of food. Over of urban Africans
reported being were destitute of cooking fuel and medical care. The most reported deficiency for
urban Africans was access to water, with 28% reporting a lack of access to clean water.

The African Development Bank Groups (ADBG) report for the years 2014/15 shown Sub-
Saharan Africa was the zone with the largest number of starving people in the continent. It also
mentioned the progress being underway that in recent decades, Sub-Saharan Africa has been
among the fastest growing regions in the world. For that reason urban poverty intensity in sub-
Saharan Africa was thrown down by 16% (from 34% to 18%) between 1996 and 2012.
Notwithstanding this improvement, the groups report stated that due to urban population
growth, the figure of urban poor remained the same. Moreover, UN Food and Agriculture
Organization estimation for three years (2014-16) shown that 133 million urban people in sub-
Saharan Africa are either famished or malnourished.

Ethiopia, as a sub-Saharan African country for long is mired in poverty. Though the recent report
by the World Bank (WB), (2012), as cited by Asmamaw indicated that poverty in Ethiopia is
down by 33% since 2000, the country is still struggling in the territory of poverty with some
substantive efforts to free itself from extreme shocks of poverty. This might seem an astonishing
achievement provided; in 2000 Ethiopia had one of the maximum poverty rates in the world,
with 56 percent of the population living on less than US$1.25 PPP a day. Thus, though WB
underlined the achievement as a success, it keep on stressing that Ethiopians in both rural and

2
urban areas are suffering from the lack of basic needs of life such as food, clothing, housing, and
health care, schooling, safe and healthy environment. This is a blatant truth. The Africa Urban
Research Initiative (AURI) (2014), outlined a urban populations status in its report stating that
in Ethiopia though the mainstream of the population lives in rural areas; even then, with natural
population growth, high ruralurban migration and numerous other reasons, urbanization is
taking place at a higher rate than ever before. Urban poverty has, thus, been intensified by the
increase in population that is beyond what the urban economy can support. Of the estimated total
urban population of about 16 million, virtually 5.96 million live in a state of poverty.

However, the level of poverty varies throughout urban centers in Ethiopia as it is true for other
countries subject to diverse factors behind. The exact level, intensity, severity and other aspects
of the poverty of the cities can only be determined by deploying measures that can be expressed
either in qualitative or quantitative terms (Schmidt, 2009). But the task of doing so is more than
complex because urban poverty is multidimensional, thus understanding it presents a number of
challenges. Alkire (2010), in his monograph about multidimensional poverty index stated that
understanding urban poverty presents a set of issues distinct from general poverty analysis. It
involves different reasons to be carefully measured which present a panacea if handled properly
and otherwise led to further hell if a shred of mistake committed. He handpicked four basic
reasons to measure urban poverty on multidimensional base from among many. First, to keep the
poor on the plan; if poverty was not measured, it would be easy to overlook the poor. Second,
one needs to be able to sort the poor if one is to be able to target interventions that aim to reduce
or alleviate poverty. Third, to monitor and evaluate project schemes and policy interventions
those are geared towards the poor. And finally, to evaluate the success of institutions whose goal
is to help the poor.

Therefore, how we measure poverty can significantly impact how we come to recognize,
scrutinize, and create strategies to influence it. For this reason, measurement methodologies can
be of tremendous practical importance. Poverty can be measured either in unidimensional
poverty or multidimensional poverty style (James, 2011). Unidimensional procedures can be
pragmatic when a well-defined single-dimensional resource variable, such as income, has been

3
nominated as the basis for poverty evaluation. The multidimensional poverty index is an
extensive concept that reflects the overlapping deprivations that an individual or a household
experience. It was in 2003 that interest in measuring poverty in relation to multidimensional
poverty took a turning point. Since then a non-universalized attempts have been underway
throughout the world by scholars of the field to measure poverty in its multidimensional aspects.
In 2010 Alkire & Santos constructed a new multidimensional poverty index that is currently
being operational at national and world wide level as a poverty measurement tool.

The multidimensional poverty index is a measure of acute multidimensional poverty. It reflects

deprivations in education through health outcomes to living standards of the people. The MPI
reveals a different pattern of poverty than unidimensional poverty measures, as it brightens
deprivations directly. The Alkire and Santos developed MPI have three magnitudes: health,
education, and standard of living. These are measured using 10 indicators. Education includes
two indicators; Years of Schooling and Child Enrolment. Health constitutes two indicators; Child
Mortality and Nutrition. Standard of Living takes account of six indicators such as Electricity,
Drinking water, Sanitation, Flooring, Cooking Fuel and Assets.
Mekelle City as a city residing in Ethiopia, Sub-Saharan country by no means could be strange to
the anomalies of poverty.

Hence has come through the analysis of poverty status of the study area taking the
multidimensional poverty index (2010) approach developed by Alkire & Santos as a guide. The
constituent dimensions were thoroughly analyzed in relation to their respective indicators, the
incidence and intensity of the poverty was examined, multidimensional poverty index was
determined and the poverty dimension to which the study area is quit susceptible is has been
identified through determination of percentage contribution of each dimension and its respective
indicators to the overall MPI.

4
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Understanding the position of the poor is immediate important research issue. It helps to identify
the disadvantaged from the better off which in turn allows a meaningful intervention to curb
poverty (Theophile, 2014). Poverty is characterized by scantiness or lack of productive means to
fulfill basic needs such as water, housing, schooling, clothing, health and food (Asmamaw,
2013). The character of poverty in Ethiopia could be attributed to many facets, such as low living
standard, poor health and human development (Schmidt, 2009). The World Banks definition of
poverty, 2001, specifies that poverty is ...a noticeable deprivation of well-being related to acute
deficiency in material, income or consumption, levels of education and health, susceptibility and
exposure to risk and noiselessness and powerlessness. This definition best labels the nature of
poverty in the Ethiopian context. By any standard, the bulk of both rural and urban people in
Ethiopia are amid the poorest in the world (Ayalneh, 2008).

Though rates of urbanization in Ethiopia are quite low paralleled to other countries; urbanization
is taking place, and as Ethiopia urbanizes, poverty converts more urban (Schmidt, 2009). Poverty
appears to persist in large sections of the urban society with little optimism for a substantial
improvement of the living conditions of the urban poor in the near future. Urban poverty is a
multidimensional and embraces deficits from different dimensions as living standard, health and
education (Ibid). According to Elasa (2011), two-third of the urban population in Ethiopia
agonizes from some form of non-monetary deprivation related to their living conditions. Due to
the poverty cycle children in urban centers were inept to gain access to schooling, and large
numbers from among those who have had the opportunity dropout before getting the basic skills.
Moreover, health status in urban spaces is poor, even when seen to other low-income countrys
urban centers including those in sub-Saharan Africa. The urban population suffers from a huge
load of potentially preventable diseases such as HIV, acute respiratory infections and diarrhea
diseases. The health indicators are generally meagre, though advances are being observed since
recent past (Ibid).

5
Therefore, a person may feel pain from deprivation of indicators of health, education and living
standard either separately or simultaneously. And so, emphasizing on one factor alone, such as
income or other, is not enough to capture the true authenticity of poverty especially given the
urban status of Ethiopian level. Rather Multidimensional poverty measures and analysis need to
be used to create a more complete picture. The MP measure expose who is poor and in what way
they are poor; the range of different disadvantages they experience as well as providing a
headline measure of poverty (Alkire and Santos, 2010). Multidimensional measures can be
fragmented down to reveal the poverty status and magnitudes in different areas of a given
country (Ibid).

The consolidation of the poverty into such a comprehensive dimensional bases at national level
in Ethiopia so far seems considered only by international organizations like WB, UNDP and
other gigantic international centers for their own purposes. Undeniably interiors like Ethiopian
Economic Association (EEA) and other government agencies like Ministry of Finance and
Economic Development (MoFED) casually shed light on the poverty statuses in such instances
but still incompleteness subsists. That is why it is quite scarcely to find a dimensionally
comprehensive poverty data for regions, cities or localities. Rather usually, poverty measures in
monetary term (inadequacy of consumption or income) were taken as a poverty clarification.
Even most academic researchers lean to such approaches of welfare measurements,
consumption, expenditures, income and others to delineate poverty. Therefore, commonly the
existent poverty data for the country, regions, cities, localities exhibits a financial deprivation of
the people. There is no doubt that poverty status differs for urban centers throughout the country
and even the regions. The extent of the disparity is down to different variables subject to both
abundance and shortage.

Mekelle, City of Tigray Region, ordinarily dubbed Northern Star City upon receiving its own
share from the recent achievement of the Ethiopias pleasing economic growth is sallying
towards an improvement at its level. The basic infrastructures, such as roads, water, electricity,
transport etc. are all improving in relative terms at an unprecedented pace. Nevertheless
Poverty remains a common malaise of the urban society in different dimensions; education,
health and living standard. The 2015/16 annual education reports of the city revealed as many

6
students drop out before finishing school. For instance, Grade 1-8 drop out report of city in that
particular year indicated a total of 481 students left out their education (both from private and
public schools). These could be attributed to different reasons, may include the difficulty of
getting to school and the cost of schooling. Health problems are also evident in the city as reports
of the year 2015/16 revealed a total of 311 adults and 38 children were found stunted, plus
relatively low 31 child mortality. Utility services in liaison with water supply, housing and
electricity sectors are all below bar. The present daily water production capacity of the boreholes
for instance is 24000m3, while the estimated daily demand as reported by the city water supply
service office is 43000m3.

Researches were undertaken in the city that addressed questions who are the poor? How deep
and sever is poverty in Mekelle city? What are the basic and immediate (proximate) determinates
of poverty? What does welfare inequality of the city inhabitations looks like? Dawit Adhanom
has done a poverty analysis research in the city in 2012; came through the analysis of the poverty
in the city in connection with monthly consumption expenditure. Ataklit Mamo was another
researcher who studied determinants of poverty in the city back 2014 in relation to gender
differentiated households which again connoted with finance at the center. The researcher
reasons here that, they both failed short of demonstrating the actual multidimensionality nature
of the hell; poverty in the city in that only income, welfare or consumption measurements and
contracted reference of analysis were applied.

Nevertheless, at this juncture the researcher remained keen on the statement that Money lacks
oomph to precisely exhibit the gloom of this destitution; poverty. And so, has deployed
multidimensional poverty examination and measure towards the poverty status of the sampled
households in the city. This study therefore has determinedly positioned multidimensional
poverty analysis and measurements to delineate the actual manifestation and level of poverty in
the study area, Mekelle city.

7
1.3. Research Questions
The research questions section sets in bold the basic question that had been addressed in the
study within the predetermined objectives and delimitations. Therefore, the study has addressed
the following general and particular questions that are addressed in this paper.

1.3.1. General Question

How the three educational, health and education dimensions of poverty appear in Mekelle
City in view of the notion of multidimensional non-monetary poverty measurement?

1.3.2. Specific Questions

1. How the magnitude and the rate of indicators of education, health and the living standard
dimension of poverty looks in the study area currently?
2. At what level the prevalence and the strength of multidimensional poverty in the study
area exists?
3. How much is the multidimensional poverty index of the study area?
4. What is the proportion of the households vulnerable to poverty?
5. What is the proportion of households in severe poverty?
6. How much do each dimension contributed to the overall multidimensional poverty index
of the city?
7. Which dimensions have a whopping contribution to the MPI?
8. How much each indicator has contributed to the overall MPI?
9. Which indicators across the dimensions considered has immensely contributed to the
overall MPI?
10. To which dimension and indicator do the study is highly disposed?

1.4. Research Objectives

In the above sections, problem statement and research questions, the rationale and the aim of the
thesis has been established. The objectives hereunder provides an accurate description of the
specific actions taken to reach the aims held in the first place; multidimensional poverty analysis.

8
1.4.1. General Research Objective

The main objective of the study is to analyze and measure the poverty dimensions of urban
households in Mekelle city.

1.4.2. Specific Research Objectives

2. To descriptively analyze education, health and the living standard dimension of poverty
with their respective identified indicators.
3. To determine the incidence and intensity of the multidimensional poverty.
4. To determine the multidimensional poverty index of the study area.
5. To determine the proportion of the poverty vulnerable and in sever poverty households in
the study area
6. To determine the contribution of each dimension and corresponding indicators to the
overall MPI thereby identify the indicators and dimensions to which the study area is
highly exposed.

1.5. Significance of the Study

The study has intensely staved into the poverty scrutiny in the study area. It has involved an
outright analysis and measurement of the determined but multiple aspects that constitute poverty.
Given this flavor, the study has incorporated three fundamental dimensions and ten indicators to
capture the complexity of poverty in Mekelle and will well inform potential policies to relieve
poverty, in case interest arises. The reason here is the study has found a variety of relevant
information on poverty of the study area and as more policy-relevant information is available on
poverty; the better-equipped policy makers will be to reduce it. It will contribute to the hoarded
body of knowledge around the subject of the study. The multidimensional poverty index
composition is the new fashion in that prior approach of poverty assessment and measurements
focus on a particular dimension and/or indicator of poverty. Therefore, this study will help
researchers in the field to take lessons in relation to how to capture the multifaceted story of
poverty into the study. Furthermore, it is beyond doubt that the study has helped a lot and will

9
keep on helping the researcher to advance the very ability of how to undertake research at higher
levels.

1.6. Scope of the Study

The research was undertaken within the determined conceptual, geographical, and
methodological margins so that control over the study within the budget and time availability has
been realized. Poverty is a complex human phenomenon associated with unacceptably low
standard of living. It has multiple dimensions and indicators that would have been studied
exclusively or concurrently. But in this study merely three dimensions with corresponding 10
indicators were taken for the analysis and measurement of the poverty in the study area. Poverty
assessment or measurement could be done worldwide, continental, national, regional or local
level. The lock for either wideness or narrowness of the coverage totally depends on the inputs
available to do the research as time and budget as well as other resources. This study has covered
only Mekelle city in Tigray Region; Ethiopia, given the inputs available to the researcher.

Scope had been also fixed for the research design, sample technique & size, data source, & data
collection tools as outlined in greater in the methodology part. From among several possible
research designs the study has employed descriptive research design wherein survey was
employed to collect cross-sectional base data. To draw representative sects (ketena) of the city
for the study and to draw sample households from the each sub-citys sampled keena in the city a
specific sampling techniques and formulae were utilized. Accordingly, judgmental and, simple
random sampling and systematic were applied down the line from non-probability and
probability sampling technique respectively. Primary data was obtained from the city residents
through survey questionnaire.

1.7. Limitation of the Study

Though the research has considered the three basic dimensions of poverty with corresponding
specific indicators; the indicators are not a perfect revelation of the abyss so called poverty. For
instance, it has not distinguished the differences within households (such as who may make use
of the bicycle. Education considered only inputs such as enrolling or attending elementary
schooling, not outputs such as being able to read. Thus, the proxies were imperfect. The result of
the study must only denote to the Mekelle city in Tigray for the year 2016/17; couldnt be
referred to other places elsewhere and backward or forward year term. Moreover, Cross-sectional

10
data used in the study, compared to time series data, hasnt allowed looking into the dynamism of the
in and out state of the poverty over time, so as to understand the dynamics of poverty beyond the
simple description of single period.

1.8. Organization of the Paper

The paper is organized into five chapters. Chapter one constitutes the introductions, which
incorporates the background, statement of the problem, questions, objectives, significances, the
scope, delimitation and limitation of the study. Review of the theoretical and empirical literature
relevant to the topic, concept and measure of poverty, as well as operational definitions of some
key concepts are set in Chapter two. Chapter three defines the research methodology thereon
includes a brief description of the study area, sampling, data collection tools and procedures and
data processing and analysis. Chapter four present reports on the results of the study along with
discussions; and finally, a summary of the major findings, conclusion and recommendation are
presented in Chapter five.

11
 Chapter Two

Related Literature Review

2.1. Definitions and Concepts of Poverty
Generally, poverty is defined as an inability to access resources in order to enjoy a minimal or
acceptable living. This is in line with Black (2002) that poverty is defined as an inability to
afford an adequate standard of consumption. On the other hand, Mat Zin (2011) describes that
poverty is concerned with the case and generic theories of poverty. According to case theories of
poverty, individuals who are unable to support themselves and to afford the basic needs without
the assistance are considered living in poverty. For instance, older people, handicapped people,
drug addicts and mentally ill persons are included among case-poverty. According to common
theories of poverty, poverty in explained by macro-economic problems such as inadequate
employment opportunities, low demand and low national income (less developed country).

United Nation (UN) defined poverty as a denial of choices and opportunities, which is a
desecration of human dignity. In other words, it is suggested that people are poor due to
deficiency of the basic capacity to participate effectively in society. For instance, any person who
is not having enough resources to feed a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not having
the land on which to grow ones food or a job to receive ones living and not having access to
credit.

United Nations Development Program describes poverty as a human condition described by

sustained or chronic deprivation of the resources, capabilities, choices, security and power
necessary for the enjoyment of an adequate standard of living and other civil, cultural, economic,
political and social rights. Meanwhile, the World Bank (2011) put forward that poverty includes
low incomes, the inability to acquire basic goods and services necessary for survival, low levels
of health and education, poor access to clean water and sanitation, inadequate physical security,
lack of voice and insufficient capacity and opportunity to better ones life.

In Malaysia, for instance the definition of hardcore poverty is whereby a household income is
half of the poverty line or less. The poverty line is the selected minimum level of income or
consumption, which any household income dropped below the minimum level, is considered as

12
poor. In other words, the critical threshold point represents the minimum acceptable income or
consumption level at which individuals are able to achieve a minimum standard of living to
preserve health and well-being.

The definition of minimum standard is referred to the purchasing power parity (PPP) of those
surveyed. However, the measurement to maintain the minimum acceptable standards of living
normally is different from country to country. The notion of absolute poverty and hardcore
poverty is used in the implementation of poverty eradication programs (Mat Zin, 2011).

2.2. Urban Poverty

The measurement and analysis of poverty and inequality is critical for understanding the peoples
state of well-being and factors determining their poverty situations. The results of the analysis
are to be used to inform policy making so that it could be used in designing appropriate policy
interventions and for assessing effectiveness of on-going policies and strategies of a country.
Todays experiences of worldwide urbanization are as dramatic in their revolutionary
implications for the history of civilization as were the earlier agricultural and industrial
revolutions. In more developed countries urbanization accompanied and was the consequence of
industrialization and economic development. However, in least developed countries, Africa and
Latin America, urbanization have occurred primarily as a result of industrial and economic
growth and in many countries, it has occurred primarily as a result of rising and unrealistic
expectations of rural people who have flocked to the cities seeking to escape the misery of life
(Stanley D.B., etal., 2003).
As a result of urbanization, the population residing in urban areas has increased from time to
time with growth rate in least developed countries outweighing that of the developed world. The
worlds urban population reached 2.9 billion in 2000 and is expected to increase to 5 billion by
2030. Whereas 40percent of the world population lived in urban areas in 1950 that percentage
increased to 47percent by 2000 and will increase further to 60percent by 2030 (Stanley D.B.,
etal.,2003).
Rising population levels in urban areas are exerting increasing pressure on the labor market,
housing, and social capital in cities. By 2025 more than half of the Sub-Saharan Africa
population is expected to live in urban areas. Already 45percent of national populations in West
Africa are urban-based (Ursula G., 2006).

13
In African cities populations have expanded in the absence of industrialization and national
economic growth. The basic needs of urban dwellers (food, water, sanitation, health and
security) can extend beyond the citys product and service supply, reflecting economic
constraints, lack of settlement organization and inadequate political governance.

Urban poverty is associated with heterogeneous economic and social factors. The heterogeneity
of poverty in urban locations could be attributed to the higher monetization of economies in such
localities. Therefore, urban poverty is defined at an individual level rather than communal level.
Thus, poverty in this manner is usually expressed in terms of occupation, income, and
consumption and employment category (Esubalew, 2006).

2.3. Measurement and Indicators of Poverty

According to the existing literature on the subject Yohannes (1996), poverty is said to exist in
a given society when one or more persons do not attain a level of material wellbeing deemed
to constitute a reasonable minimum by standard of that society. As a result, according to the
same source, the starting point in any poverty study is the question of how one measures or
assesses wellbeing and based on that at what level of measured wellbeing one classify that a
person is poor or non-poor. Similarly, (Elisa, 2008) indicated that there is a controversy in
measuring poverty, which arises from its complexity and multifaceted nature. Regarding the
measurement of poverty, two approaches were debated amongst economists in terms of
objective and subjective measures (Erik, 2003) and the welfarist and non-welfarist measures
(Ravallion, 1992).

Poverty can be measured at national, regional, community and household/individual levels.

Poverty at national or regional levels is often the reflection of poverty at the household levels.
Despite the problems existed in its measurement, a number of alternative measurements are
used in the development literatures (Lipton and et al., 1977). As a result, by different
measurements of poverty, absolute and relative poverty are commonly used to signify the
status of the individuals and households as poor and non-poor by using a poverty line. The
poverty line is a cut-off line that reveals the living standard below which a person is classified
as poor (World Bank, 1993). Absolute poverty level is the one which is fixed in terms of the

14
living standard being used, and fixed over the entire domain of poverty comparison
(Ravallion, 1992)

Currently there are three main methods of setting the poverty line, i.e. the Cost of Basic Needs
(CBN) and the Food-Energy-Intake (FEI), and Direct Caloric methods. The CBN approach
has the advantage of ensuring consistency (treating individuals with the same living standards
equally) while the FEI approach has the advantage of specificity reflecting better the actual
food consumption behavior of individuals around the caloric threshold given their tastes,
preferences and relative prices. The same source indicated that Ravallion and Bidani (1994)
and Ravallion (1998) have cogently argued that in order to make valid welfare comparisons
the reference basket (bundle) yielding the caloric threshold should remain constant (Aline and
et al, 2007).

The monetary poverty line at any point in time is then obtained by multiplying the constant
quantitative reference basket by the variable price vector to obtain poverty line at current
(nominal) prices and then deflating it by an appropriate price index (often the consumer price
index, CPI) to express the line in real terms. That is, using such approaches international
agencies and individual countries have endeavored to set the poverty line in terms of the
resources needed to purchase the necessities of life. According to Fields (2002) cited by Fredu
(2008) confirms that although there are difficult issues in determining scientifically what
exactly are the necessities of life, poverty lines determined in this way are nonetheless better
than the arbitrary reference lines used elsewhere.

The other point regarding poverty line is which line to use in defining the poor and non-poor.
According to Fields (2002) cited by Fredu Nega contentious issue is whether there should be a
single poverty line for all of the developing countries or whether each country should use its
own specific line. Internationally comparable poverty lines have been proposed by the World
Bank in the 1990 World Development Report. The lower figure (USD 275 per capita per year,
termed extreme poverty) corresponds to a poverty line for India (converting local currencies
to dollars using 1985 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) rates), while the relatively higher figure
(USD 350 per year, termed poverty) falls in the middle of a range of countries including

15
Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, and Tanzania. While there are obvious
advantages of using an internationally comparable standard, there is also a strong objection:
some countries have their own well established poverty lines and do not take kindly to the
World Bank telling them that they have more poverty than they themselves say they have.
Fields (2002) cited by Fredu further asserted that in individual countries where there are well
established poverty lines the national poverty lines have to be respected.
On the other hand, though still widely used, the head count ratio is an unsatisfactory measure
of poverty for two important reasons. First, it says nothing about how far below the poverty
line the income of the average poor person is the poverty gap. The head count ratio and the
poverty gap can easily move in opposite directions. For instance, a study by (Khan, 1977 cited
in Ravallion, 1992) for Bangladesh showed that the proportion of the population living below
the poverty line had declined; yet the remaining poor were, on average, poorer the poverty
gap had increased. Second, a poverty measure should decrease if the poorest receive a transfer
from the moderately poor (Sen, 1981). Neither the head count ratio nor the poverty gap does
so. Therefore, (Foster, Greer, and Thorbecke, 1984) introduced a class of poverty measures
that have the desirable properties of additive decomposability and transferability. The Foster,
Greer, and Thorbecke (FGT) class of poverty measures, which includes the head count,
poverty gap and poverty severity are most commonly applied.

Similarly, poverty can be approached through methods other than through estimates of
income and expenditure. The question of access to public goods and services, for example,
can only really be pinpointed usefully by means of social indicators, which are difficult to
quantify. A number of essential parameters (life expectancy at birth, infantile and maternal
mortality, for example) are also well-being indicators and affect monetary comparisons (Sen,
1992; Lipton and Gaag, 1977; David, 1994). However, as Lipton & Gaag, (1993) discussed it;
there is therefore neither standard profile of the worlds poor nor any one solution to the
problem of poverty. The situations vary enormously from one region to another and even
within different sections of the population in the same country. The main challenge in
measuring poverty in the world is to find the right combination of approaches for the
individual country (David, 1994). An analysis of the quantitative factors determining poverty
is not usually enough to establish the guidelines for cooperation policies.

16
According to Ravallion (1992), it is important to identify the poor and desirable to measure
the intensity of their poverty. Thus, the measurement of poverty involves two distinct
problems: (1) specification of the poverty line, the income level below which one is
considered to be poor, and (2) construction of an index to measure the intensity of poverty
suffered by those whose income is below that line. Since the publication of Sen's (1976)
article on the axiomatic approach to the measurement of poverty, several indices of poverty
have been developed.

2.4. Construction of Multidimensional Poverty Index

The concept of multidimensional poverty has risen to prominence among researchers and
policymakers. The compelling writings of Amartya Sen, participatory poverty exercises in many
countries, and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) till 2015 all drew attention to the
multiple deprivations suffered by many of the poor and the interconnections between these
deprivations. A key task for research has been to develop a coherent framework for measuring
multidimensional poverty that builds on the techniques developed to measure unidimensional
(monetary) poverty and that can be applied to data on other dimensions which finally ends up in
index (MPI) construction for the World, Country, region etc.

The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) detects multiple deficiencies at the household and
individual level in health, education and standard of living. It uses micro data from household
surveys, and unlike the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (HDI) all the indicators
needed to construct the measure must come from the same survey. Each household is classified
as poor or non-poor depending on the number of deprivations it experiences. These data are then
aggregated into the national, regional, community, district, urban, rural or any measure of
poverty. The MPI reflects both the prevalence (incidence) of multidimensional deprivation, and
its intensity; how many deprivations people experience at the same time. It can be used to
generate a comprehensive picture of people living in poverty, and allows comparisons both
across countries, regions and the world and within countries by ethnic group, urban or rural
location, as well as other key household and community characteristics. The MPI offers a
valuable complement to income-based poverty measures.

Therefore, MPI identifies overlapping deprivations at the household level across the same three
dimensions as the Human Development Index (health, education and living standards) and shows

17
the proportion of poor people and the average number of deprivations each poor person
experiences at the same time.

Table 2.1 The Dimensions, Indicators, Deprivation Thresholds and Weights of MPI

Dimensions Indicators Deprivation Cutoffs (Deprived if...) Relative

Weights
Years of schooling No household member has completed eight
Education years of schooling 1/6
Child school Any school-aged child is not attending
attendance school 1/6
Health Maternal Death death of female household member during
pregnancy, during delivery and after delivery 1/6
within the specified time period, past 12
months
Child death Any child has died in the household
1/6
Living Electricity The household has no own electricity wire
Standard direct from the city grid 1/18
Improved sanitation The household has no sanitation facility;
toilet 1/18
Safe source drinking The households source of drinking water is
water not safe; other than piped water, public tap, 1/18
borehole or pump, protected well, protected
spring or rainwater
Flooring The household has a dirty earth, sand or
dung floor 1/18
Cooking fuel The household cooks with dung, wood or
charcoal 1/18
Assets The household does not own more than one
radio, TV, telephone, motorbike, or bicycle, 1/18
similar vehicle

18
 2.4.1. Cutoff level in each dimension
We denote each deprivation cutoff of indicators in all dimensions, by . The deprivation
cutoffs of indicators of each dimension, are summarized by vector such that

= =

The weight of for cutoff of each indicator in education and health is 0.165 while for cutoff of
each living standard indicator equals 0.055 while for each dimension must equal 0.33.

The get the overall weight of the multidimensional poverty index; the deprivation value of all
dimensions, D, is then summed up, such that:

= =1 Or = =1

The deprivation index of each household is calculated by taking a weighted sum of the number
of deprivations, so that the overall deprivation index of each household in all dimensions lies
between 0 and 1. A household, which is not deprived in any indicator, receives a score of equal
to 0.

The above equation could be breakdown as follows:

= 1 + 2 + 3

Where represent the summation of weight for indicators of education dimensions

stands for the summation of weight of indicators of health dimensions and stands for
the summation of weight of indicators of living standard dimensions respectively. According to
the values attached to each dimension in the above table above each of them counts for 0.33
which yields a value of 1 for altogether. The computation of multidimensional poverty for a
household thus is represented as:

= = =

Thus

19
 = . + . + . =

2.4.2. Poverty cutoff

The poverty cutoff is the share of (weighted) deprivations a household need to have in order to
be identified multidimensional poor. We will denote it by . A household is identified as poor

if it has the overall deprivation score, higher than or equal to or . and none-poor

otherwise. Thus

Where (0, ] and might comprise deprivation cutoff from more than one dimensions; for
instance a household might be deprived if child was died and no household members has
completed eight years of schooling; cutoffs for health and education indicators respectively.
Therefore since indicators of health and education have a cutoff weight of 0.165, each summed
up together they equals 0.33 which is the minimum weight to be considered multidimensional
poor. It could also be greater than 0.33 depending upon the indicators in which the household
deprived.

For concreteness a household is said if it is deprived in three living standard indicators and when
there is a school-aged child not attending school. Each indicator of living standard weighs 0.055,
thus three indicators contribute 0.165 which then added to 0.165 weights of not-school attending
child and yield 0.33; enough to be considered multidimensional poor.

2.4.3. Censoring
For those households whose deprivation score is below minimum poverty cutoff, even if it
is non-zero, this is replaced by zero; this is what we call censoring in poverty measurement. To
differentiate between the original deprivation scores from the censored one we use for the
censored deprivation score the notation (). Hence if , then () = , but if <
then () = . Thus, () represents the censored deprivation score of the poor, reflects only
the deprived poor household.

Before censoring the poverty score yield of the households is only the raw poverty data that
simply reveals voluntary and involuntary deprivations of the households. Censoring comes into
play thus to identify the probably voluntary deprivation and the probably obliged deprivations

20
that poor households are those who are caught in the trap of deprivations equals or surpasses the
poverty cutoff. The probably voluntary deprivations will be given 0 score to avoid them
included in the computation of the multidimensional poverty index. Once the raw poverty
generated and described then attention would be directed to the censor-filtered poverty data that
only includes the deprivation scores of the righteously poor deemed households in relation to the
poverty cutoffs.

2.4.4. Incidence and Intensity

After censoring it means the righteously poor households are known and this underlies the
central subject of the study. Given the true multidimensional poor households number, next is to
compute the multidimensional poverty index for them. Before doing so components of the
multidimensional poverty index calculation should be determined. These components are
incidence of the multidimensional poor in the considered population and the corresponding
average proportion of deprivations from the total considered deprivations for the poor. Clearly
put is below:

The proportion or the incidence of households (within a given total households) that experiences
multiple deprivations. Thus is the proportion of households that are poor according to the
(those deprived in at least one third of the weighted indicators).
The intensity of their deprivations, the average proportion of (weighted) deprivations they
experience. This is the average number of deprivations poor households experience at the same
time.

Properly the first component is called multidimensional headcount ratio ()

() = Here is the number of households that are

multidimensional poor after censoring and is the total households (including

multidimensional poor and probably voluntarily deprived poor as well as none deprived
households).

The second component is called the intensity (or breadth) of poverty ()

()
=

21
Here () is the censored deprivation (all the deprivation scores equal or above 0.33) score of
the MP household

is the total number of people who are multidimensional poor after censoring.

The point here is the gross value of the censored deprivation score of each multidimensional
poor household is summed up and divided to the total number households that are
multidimensional poor after censoring.

2.4.5. Multidimensional Poverty Index

The multidimensional poverty index would therefore be the product of both () (). Thus:

= It is also called adjusted incidence Ratio ()

2.4.6. Indicators and Dimensions Contribution to the Overall MPI

Once the MPI computed then next is to determine the contribution of each dimension to the
overall MPI. This would help to identify the dimension to which the study area is more
susceptible. The steps are first the contribution of all indicators in each dimension is computed
followed by summation of the each dimensions indicators contribution to yield dimensional
contribution. The formulae is as follows

C(K)

Contribution of an indicator to MPI= where is the number of poor in

that indicator; is the total number of households considered in the survey place. () is the
censored weight for the indicator in question. Stands for the overall weight of the
multidimensional poverty index for the study unity (city or sub city); the deprivation value of all
dimensions; .

Contribution of dimension to MPI= = where, as expressed above = stands for the

summation of the deprivation cutoffs of all indicators of each dimension, and stands for
the overall weight of the multidimensional poverty index of the study place (city or sub city in
our case); the deprivation value of all dimensions, .

2.4.7. Interpretation of MPI and its Components

Multidimensional incidence ratio () represents people who are multidimensional poor with
from the society under consideration. They are disadvantaged at least either

22
a) All the indicators of a distinct dimension or

b) A mix across dimensions such as existence of died child in the household, poor source of
drinking water, a dirty floor and un-improved sanitation.

According to the MPI, this means that they are in severe poverty. Crisply put represents the
share of the households that are multidimensional poor.

The intensity of poverty () represents the percentage of the weighed indicators in which on
average people are multidimensional poor. Thus it is the average deprivation score of the
multidimensional poor people.

The represents the share of the households that is multidimensional poor adjusted by the
intensity of the deprivation suffered. This adjustment is necessary because if we only look at
we merely know that a given percentage of the population is poor. But are they all equally poor?
Are they deprived in 100 per cent of all the considered deprivations? Most likely they would not.
The average poor household rather would be deprived of some weighted indicators; this is
intensity. These are called weighted indicators, because to create the deprivation score for all
dimensions, each deprivation indicator is entered according to its relative weight (see the
weights as described in the table above).
The proportion of poor is adjusted by the intensity of poverty, and that is why Alkire and
Foster (2007, 2011) call , the Adjusted incidence Ratio. For instance if there was a society
with per cent poor households, and all of them were deprived in all the indicators, then A
would be ", and thus the would equal . Alternatively, if there was a society where
per cent of people were poor, then would be equal to .

2.4.8. Vulnerability and Severity

By considering the deprivation score of the households, the proportion of households vulnerable
(at risk) to poverty and the proportion of households at sever poverty can be determined.
According to multidimensional poverty break down analysis, households recorded deprivation
score ranging from 20% to 32.9% are dubbed as poverty vulnerable households. While those
households recorded deprivation score equal to or greater than 50% are classified as in-sever
poverty households. The exact proportion of either vulnerable or at severity households the

23
number of households with the specified deprivation score is to be divided by the total number of
the households considered. Specifically:

= To determine proportion vulnerable households;

Where denotes the number of households with deprivation score ranging from 20% to 32.9%
and denotes total households considered and

= To determine the proportion of in-sever poverty

households.

2.5. Conceptual Framework

Figure 2.2 Conceptual Framework

24
 Chapter Three

Research Methodology
3.1. Description of the Study Area
Mekelle is the capital city of the Tigray Region which is found about 778 KMs from Addis
Ababa, capital city of Ethiopia. It is positioned between 130 32 North Latitude and 390 28 East
Longitude (Mekelle city municipality, 2006). The city is one of the largest cities in the country
and is accessible through air and highway transport. According to Mekelle City municipality data
(2017), Mekele city has a population of 313,447 from which 52.4% are males while 47.6%. As
capital city of the region, Mekelle is where ethnically diversified people live. Regarding religion,
92.68% of the population is Orthodox Christians, 6.03% Muslims, 0.76% Protestants, 0.41%
Catholics, and 0.13% other religions. The city lies between 2,150 to 2270 meters above sea level.
This elevation puts the city under the category of weina dega type of agro climatic zone (ibid).
With the same information, the city is classified under flat to rolling formation, experiences mild
climatic condition with annual average maximum temperature of 24.10C and annual average
minimum temperature of 11.110C. The city has an annual average rainfall of 618.3mm/Year of
which the substantial amount falls on July and August, characterized by erratic, unreliable and
uneven distribution (Mekelle city municipality, 2006).

As outlined below in table 3.1, administratively, Mekelle is divided into seven sub-cities; each
sub city is further sub-divided into Ketenas (localities). The sub-cities have different population
size, and number of ketenas; while the population size and/or household number per ketene is
more or less similar.

25
Table 3.1 Population Data

No Name of Sub City Amount Total

Male Female
1 Ayder 28519 21345 49864
2 Adihaki 20033 17224 37257
3 Hadnet 29752 32426 62178
4 Hawelti 30893 28426 59319
5 KedamayWoyane 19324 17212 36536
6 Quiha 18258 16260 34518
7 Semen 17468 16307 33775
Total 164,247 149,200 313,447
Source: Mekelle City Mayor Office March 28, 2017 not include the new kebeles around the
Mekelle City

Figure 3.1. Mekelle city map

26
 3.2. Research Strategies and Design
3.2.1. Research Strategy
The study has adopted the mix of both qualitative and quantitative approaches in the face
descriptive analysis of the non-monetary poverty and construction of the multidimensional
poverty index. The quantification of the deprivation value weights was applied to produce an
index of the multidimensional poverty in the study. This was made possible with the application
of the carefully worked out quantitative formulae developed by Alkire and Santos (2010).
Though the mathematical connotation of the formulae has been sluggish off, it doesnt defy the
quantitative fashion of the approach.

The use of the mix of these research approaches has been justified by the recognition of the fact
that every method in each approach has its limitations and that the use of both methods could be
complementary to each other.

3.2.2. Research Design

The study has used a descriptive research design to obtain information concerning the current
status of the poverty and to describe "what exists" with respect to dimensions and indicators of
poverty considered in the study. This design has been used as a pre-cursor to the construction of
the multidimensional poverty index to caste an analytical overview; giving valuable pointers as
to what the indicators and dimensions are worth from deprivation and non-deprivation
perspective setting in percentage statistics. Therefore, Descriptive approach was preferred due to
the inherent nature of the study that envisioned demonstrating and articulating the status quo of
the households poverty in the study area. Down the line, the survey has been administered to
draw cross-sectional data regarding poverty from the sampled households.

27
The survey was designed in adherence to the dimensions and indicators therein. The survey
questions (refer in the appendix section) were organized on the following divisions:

Table 3.2 Main divisions and Sub Divisions of the survey Questions

Main Division Sub-divisions Remark

Socio-demographic Sex
characteristics Age
Marital status
Employment
Household size
Household head
Education Child Education
Years of schooling
Health Child mortality
Maternal death
Living standards Access to electricity
Sanitation
Source of drinking water
Flooring
Cooking Fuel
Asset possession

Therefore, provided these divisions cross-sectional data has been collected thereon. The survey
has covered a selected portion of the households from which the findings were drawn and then
comprehended. Survey was opted that it deemed to best allow for obtaining sufficient data from
representative samples of the households at reasonable cost and on time.

28
 3.3. Data Types and Sources

A qualitative data of binary and nominal flavor was collected and used given the milieu of the
study. Quantitative data salvaged from the qualitative data was used used in an accompanying
fashion; in the analytical part to describe the full picture of the poverty of households.
Both primary and secondary data sources were deployed in the study. The primary sources of the
study were the sampled households from Mekelle city across sub cities and ketenas. A variety of
secondary data sources were used for the study. These include internet sources, books, past
researches, published journals, and various documents of the Mekelle city administration.

3.4. Target Population and Sampling

3.4.1. Target Population
The study casted light on the poverty status of the Mekelle City wherein households in the city
made the population composition.

3.4.2. Sample Size

With the citywide coverage of the study; constituting all households of the Mekelle city for data
collection proved practically not possible; time consuming and expensive. Only part of the
households has been used to draw inferences about the households was considered for data
collection.

The computation of the sample size was based on the confidence interval; constructed at a
confidence level of 95% such that the researcher is confident that if the same population is
sampled on numerous occasions and interval estimates are made on each occasion, the resulting
intervals would support the true population parameter in approximately 95% of the cases. From
the z-value table a 95% confidence interval for the standard normal distribution, then, is the
interval (-1.96, 1.96), since 95% of the area under the curve falls within this interval.

29
Figure 3.2 Z-value indications
95% of the area under the normal distribution lies within 1.96 standard normal deviations of the
mean

The Z score shows us how many standard deviations will go away from the mean of a
distribution. No sample will be perfect, so deciding how much error to allow comes into play.
The confidence interval above determines how much higher or lower than the population mean
you are willing to let your sample mean fall. Thus the margin of error, assumed here is 5%.

The urban poverty headcount index of 0.257 = , computed in 2011, MoFED, (2012) was
taken. This is because there are no specifically maintained data for Mekelle city poverty
headcount ratio. Value was resulted from the past national survey of the urban households. The
value of the past survey is used here only to determine the sample proportion from the City.
For different reasons non-response rate, of 10% considered in the sample
Having all those inputs above the sample size is determined using the minimum sample size
formulae of Fowler (2001) cited in Gebriel etal (2012). Accordingly the calculated sample size
yields 322 as follows.

2 [ (1 )]
= + ()
2

1.962 [0.257 (1 0.257)]

= + ()
0.052

= 293 + 293(10%)

= 322

30
 3.4.3. Area Sampling

Non-Probability and probability sampling technique was employed to draw representative

precincts of the city from which samples have been selected for the study. At the first step, all
seven administrative sub-cities (Adi-haki, Hawelti, Semen, Kedemay weyane, Aider, Hadnet and
Quiha) were taken indeed with intent. The reason behind the judgement was to track the study
all over the city and caste light on the poverty status of the households in generic term across the
city. Therefore, the study in that way has canonized itself to implicate the city as whole in
liaison to the issue under study. At the second step, as the sub-cities further categorized into
Ketenas; from the total ketenas within each sub city three ketenas were selected randomly. To
that end, each ketena was assigned a unique number. The numbers were thoroughly mixed and
placed in a vessel and wagged. Then, without eyeing, the researcher has selected three Ketenas
from the total available to each sub city.

The application of these sampling techniques was justified by their relative significance in
yielding unbiased selection of the city sects included in the study. Thus, there was no room for
researcher bias while selecting the Ketenas given the prescriptive results of the methods to be
applied.

3.4.4. Sample distribution

Given the whopping number of the households in the city taking sample proportional to number
of households in each sub city appears to be expensive and to be protracted in time perspective.
Thus, the total number of the samples, 322, as determined above in formulae, was purposely
divided equally to each sub city. Accordingly, 46 households were taken from each sub city as
participants of the study. Though, the representation could be sluggish, at least each city has been
touched to be generalized in the interpretation of the study results.

In each sub city, it was only from the randomly selected ketenas that the sub-city allocated 46
households were drawn. Two ketenas from each sub city were accorded 15 households while one
ketena was accorded 16 households; totally 46. Towards that end, the house number of the
resident households in each ketena was taken from their administrative unit. Using the house
number, systematic random sampling has been adopted to draw the study participant households
from each ketena.

31
 3.5. Data Collection Tools and Procedures
To collect the data from the household a standardized and structured survey questionnaire was
used as a principal tool. The structured questionnaire was preferred to assist in maintaining
uniformity of the questions for all respondents. Provided the structured survey questions
interview has been conducted face-to-face with the respondents at the place of residence. The
reason for adopting this tool was to increase the response rate of the respondents. The
interviewer can increase response rate by stimulating interest in the survey and reassuring the
respondent of any concerns he or she might have regarding: the confidentiality of the data, the
purpose of the survey, what is expected of the respondent during the interview, how long the
interview will take, how the survey findings will be used, etc.

The questions were prepared in a closed-end form, so that responses were easily filtered which
has assisted in interpretation of data from relatively large numbers of respondents of the study.

Data collectors were recruited to collect the data; considering their educational level (at least
high school complete) and local language proficiency to comprehend English-prepared
questions. They were passionately trained on how to approach the respondents and collect the
data. The questionnaire was pretested to learn both the performance of the already trained
enumerators and the appropriateness of the questions.

3.6. Data Processing and Methods of Analysis

Manual data processing was used that the data collected was edited, coded and classified. Both
field and in house editing was applied. Field editing involved examining the data collected in
questionnaires/schedules to detect errors and omissions and ensure that they are corrected. The
schedule filled up by the enumerator with illegible writings, circling and the like have been
fixed. These were rectified by the enumerator on the field soon after the enumeration. In-house
editing was used that once the whole data collection was completed; a final and a thorough
checkup was made. This was done by the researcher after getting all questionnaire schedules
from the enumerators. Obvious errors were then corrected.

Once editing has been finalized the data was sorted and arranged for all the dimensions and
indicators of the poverty considered. This was accompanied with assigning codes to data
collected for each dimension and indicator. Then data was made-ready for entry and

32
subsequently entered in to a computer system for analysis. To that end, SPSS (Statistical package
for Social Science), version 20 has been used.

Basically the analysis and presentation of the study has established both qualitative and
quantitative aspects. For the first specific objective of the study descriptive statistics of
percentage countenance was used to present the data collected in a more meaningful way.

For the rest, five specific objectives (2-6) of the study in relation to the multidimensional poverty
index manipulation a quantitative analysis of its level has been adopted using the Alkire and
Santos (2010) method of measuring multidimensional poverty. Thus, deprivation profiles were
analyzed to identify who is poor, and then used to construct a multidimensional index of poverty
(MPI) for Mekelle City. Also the poverty dimension to which the study area is most susceptible
was titled.

33
 Chapter Four

Results and Discussions

4.1. Demographic Characteristics of Households
4.1.1. Household Population by Age, Sex, and Sub Cities of Residence

A household is a collective unit containing of a person living alone or a group of persons who:
(1) slumber in the same housing unit and (2) have a common mode for the preparation and
consumption of food. In most cases, a household embroils individual who are connected by
kinship ties, like parents and their children. In some cases, several generations of family ties are
epitomized in one household; furthermore, even more detached relatives are members of the
household (Mohammed, 1991)

Thus, in this study, in addition to the original family members, household helpers, boarders and
non-relatives were considered as members of the household if they sleep in the same housing
unit, have common arrangements for the preparation and consumption of food and do not usually
go home to their families at least once a week. A person who shares a housing unit with a
household, but who cooks his/her meals distinctly or consumes his/her food away was not
considered a member of the household he/she shares the housing unit with.

Subsequently, looking at household composition from angles of age and sex proved a necessity,
one to pose light on the age variation propensity in the household; second to comprehend male-
female make up in the households. Literally, the age of an individual in the household can either
be independent age group or productive or working age group. Those individual cartels that
make up a dependent age group category are those who are at child or elderly stage of
development. This group is economically dead crew with a grim slight exception of elders who
earn pension and other elderly protection from other sources. The productive age group
comprises the active working class who shoulders the dependent age allusions in the households.
They are entitled with an onus to protect and grow up the elderly and the children respectively.

34
 The households sub city of residence has been included just to indicate the study participant
household representation from each sub city.

Table 1.1 Household Population by Age, Sex, and Sub Cities of Residence

Gender composition of the

Frequency %ge Household Residence
households
Frequency %ge
Age Ranges Sub City Frequency %ge
Male 834 52.39
0-6 189 11.87 Adi Haki 46 14.286
7-14 267 16.77 K/ Weyane 46 14.286
15-18 165 10.36 Hawlti 46 14.286
19-26 279 17.53 Quiha 46 14.286
Female 758 47.61
27-40 381 23.93 Ayeder 46 14.286
41-65 213 13.38 Semen 46 14.286
>65 98 6.16 Hadnet 46 14.286
Total 1592 100
*Dependency 1592 100 322 100
9:7
Ratio
Source: Own Survey, 2016/17

*The age dependency ratio represents the ratio of the population of intermediate age (19 65);
working age to the combined child population (0-18) and aged population (65+).

4.1.1.1. Age Composition of the Households

The age composition of the household is a crunch subject as to contemplate the living status of
any household under consideration. Other things remain constant; the household that comprises a
sufficient number of individuals in the working age has an upper hand of affording lives than the
one that constitutes predominantly dependent beings; elders and children. Elders who were either
primarily jobless or retired from their profession become economically in general and financially
in particular dead that their fate falls on the earning capacity of the working allusions in the
household. Though those elders retired from their professions appears to get pension payments or
provided funds from provident fund maintained, it has been demonstrated in the findings of

35
different research works across different countries that these payments dont help or help only
meagerly, if any. A comparative study by Weinber on elders living status in Philippines has
confirmed that pension earning elders, especially those whose household members rely on the
pension payment for living suffer a lot than the elders who were primarily non-professional job
holders in the informal sector. In Nigeria too, a study of Eight revealed it is the job retired elders
and getting pension payment over time who suffers from the elevating living cost in the country.
This could be ascribed to the fact that pension emoluments in most developing countries across
the world are made haphazardly without taking into consideration the economic set up in the
country. Consequently, the retirees paid insufficiently and an opportunity to be involved in post-
retirement jobs as counseling hardly found in developing countries due to a plethora of reasons.

In this study elder dubbed people were those who are in the age beyond 65 years, the years of
retirement from official works. So, 98 (6.16%) of the household population covered under the
study were elders of the aforementioned age. Most of the elders were learnt that, they are
dependent on the earning capacity of others in the household. The reasons for that can be
attributed to different factors such as meager educational attainment, failure to own business to
generate income, no prior formal employment to at least get pension at that old age, inability to
take advantage of the post retirement self-employment, illiteracy and others.

36
Figure 4.1 Elders (>65) Economic Characteristics

Source: Own Survey, 2017

*Employment: Denotes only formal engagement in public, private and NGO organizations

The same way, children have nothing to deliver in curbing living challenges, rather, as a matter
of fact they add fuel to the challenges. As the number of children in the household increases over
time, the household livelihood affording capacity diminishes unless an adjacent income
generating efforts has been adopted. Edwardo in his study across parts in urban Brazil (Rio
Verde, Luziania, Novo Gamma, and Trindade) indicated that, there is an inverse relationship
between standard of living and the number of children in the household. The studies were
conducted distinctly whereas all confirmed the premise of an inverse relation between the two.

Table 4.1 above shows the age composition of the households included in the study wherein 621
(39 %) household population are within the age range of children (0-18). That means on average
virtually two children exist per households given 322 total households participated in the study.
This number of children per household in the study area justify the neediness of the economic
muscle to battle the counter need of the development process of the children. That in turn causes
a multitude of challenge, especially for poor named households, thereby stunting even the future
hope of the children themselves. Worse than bad, the majority of the children were in the age

37
category of an outright dependency. The number of children in the age range of 0-14 together
count of 456 children. Children in this age category hardly involve in a supportive ventures to
ease family burden; their fate and cost of living totally rests on the back of their family thereby
pose an economical sense of heavy burden.

Nevertheless, children in the age category above 14 dont guarantee an automatic family support
involvement in jobs, rather; there is a possibility to happen that way in some cases. In
coincidences wherein children of either under age 14 or above participate in some adventures to
support families it is not a for the grant benefit of the family. Reasonably, it happens in most
cases at the future expense of the child or children involved. It hampers the proper development,
trail back the educational path, causes physical disorder, poses psychological syndrome etc.
from among many negatively connoted impacts.

Therefore, regardless of their age category or as to whether they support or not support their
family any children aged descendants are taken as family dependent allusions. Likewise, their
involvement in income generating venture further exacerbates their future deprivation.

Figure 4.2 Age Range of Children with Corresponding Constituents

165
189
Children in the age range
between: 0-6 years
Children in the age range
between: 7-14 years
Children in the age range
between: 15-18 years

267

Source: Own Survey, 2017

In other words, children in the age range between 0-18 are in one way or the other way depends
on the earning capacity of the working household members. Although, it has never been lost that

38
some of these child age cartels might participate in different works to support family this doesnt
obliterate the fact of their dependence on their family. It was revealed in the study that other than
the pre-school or school ineligible children virtually all pre-school or school aged children were
in education. It had been found that it is only in 7 (seven) households that school aged children
(taken together 7 children, one from each household) were not attending school while the rest
355 school age children are all attending school. This witness what it might take to have children
in the household; an excessive cost of all sorts seems to exist at all aspects of living. This can be
partly explained by the ever increasing cost of education if it is a private school and a whopping
cost of facilities such as student uniform and stationary though it might only be in public school.
This is without mentioning other aspects of living that without doubt possess difficulty of their
own right.

Figure 4.3 Children Schooling in Numbers

58

School ineligible Ineligible

201 Preschool attending

355 School attending

Source: Own Survey, 2017

All things considered, it means that 6.16% (Older people) and 39% (Children), altogether,
virtually 45% of the household population are dependent on the rest almost 55% household
populations. This is without mentioning that from the 54.84% household population, though their
age lies in working age (above 18) there might be a plethora of factors that could act against
working ability. Nevertheless, the dependency ratio of adult to children/elders was found 9:7,
meaning every 9 working age take care of 7 dependents.

39
Productive age of allusions in the household is not an end if itself to support the family built.
Rather, several factors step up in place to determine the effectiveness of the work group and
thereby pattern of life of the family due to the existence of productive people in the household.
The health status, employment rank, earning capacity, education level, living environment,
family size etc. are among other factors that can have a say on the extent and the degree of
importance of the work group to the overall household economic position. Contingent upon the
healthiness and malicious magnitude of these factors the existence of the working age in the
family can either be a further plight or relief in terms overall living conditions of the household.
Therefore, it is not an automatic guarantee for the family with a large number of working age
class individuals to lead a virtuous life over the household in opposite position. To say something
about it, it requires further analysis of the aforementioned factors. So the age dependency ratio of
9 to 7, above, doesnt guarantee anything positive or negative. Let us keep on considering other
sections of the study in this chapter to make a point from that perspective.

Figure 4.4 The Proportion of Productive and Dependent Age Groups in the Households Surveyed

45%
Dependent Age Group
Productive Group
55%

Source: Own Survey, 2017

4.1.1.2. Sex Composition of the Households

An analysis of sex composition also matters in the household due to uncountable reasons from
among work participation, decision influence, earning capacity, and various social and economic
phenomena wherein gender has a central role with a clear cut differential between female and
male. It is not the equivocal concept of equality emerged since recent times in developing

40
countries that defines the role of sex in the household, rather it is the long built social values and
attachments to sex that still defines the protagonist in the household. Male is considered the
leading element in the household as it is true in all dimensions of governance and administration
at administrative units of World and/or a given country. William J. Qualls in his short essay
entitled to change sex roles: its impact upon family noted that in most part of the world male is
the mark of strength, industriousness, hero, and all capable. Taking an overtime evolved value
in our country, the males significance in the household is invaluable. Thus, the abundance of
male members in the household is taken as a regard and buoyancy. In other words, economically
males have an upper hand over their counterparts; females due to within reason.

On the other hand, there are outright extremely feminist cartels that oppose sex prejudice
chauvinism of patriarchal extremists who support male-controlled view. Yet, there are
rationalists who occupy the middle territory between the two extremist views.

Nevertheless, the economic, social and political significance of the male is the well pronounced
matter in the study area. Other things remain constant; the economic value attached to males in
Ethiopia in general and the study area in particular is a blatant subject of admission of male
dominance. So let us come to a conclusion in advance that the abundance of male people in the
household pays off than female dominated household. Then let us take a forward step to look at
the sex composition of households considered in this study and make inference out of it.

The figure below demonstrates that the households of the study comprise 834 and 758 males and
females respectively. Accordingly males outnumber females in the study households. It can be
taken as a positive coincidence to have a majority male population. This can be justified by the
social values attached to males, employment structures in favor of males, and other adventures
all in the pioneer of males. The construction works and its emolument differential for male and
female, the formal private sector employment, pay off informal sector jobs etc. all traces how
it appears to be a triumphant to have a male descendent in the household within the working age
class. Females also play an invaluable role in maintaining the livelihood of the household
through engagement in various endeavors from domestic ventures through high standard formal
employments to rare ownership of businesses. The tragedy is that the economic and social
rewards for the efforts of females are hardly coming into sight. This is in spite of the fact that

41
Male and females in the household both share the plight of the cost of living and exerts the effort
on their own right.

Figure 4.5 Sex Composition of the Households Surveyed

840

834
820

800

780 Male
Female
760
758
740

720
Male Female

Source: Own Survey, 2017

To capture the true picture of this male dominance with a meaningful inference idiosyncratic
comparative study of male and female economic role could prove essential. To that end, the
males age class, employment position, health status, family role, and the number of males in the
household etc. against similar elements of the female must be meticulously scrutinized.

4.1.1.3. Households Representation from each Sub City

The households covered in this study were drawn from all the seven sub cities of Mekelle city.
Given the total households of the study, which is 322, an equivalent representation of 46
households was taken from each sub city.

42
Figure 4.6 Number of Households Represented from each Sub city
350 322
300

250

200

150 Number of Households

represented
100
46 46 46 46 46 46 46
50

4.1.2. Household Characteristics of Employment, Size, Marital Status

and Headship
The livelihood of the households hinges on the economic value brought by its constituent
members. The earning capacity of the members of the households determines the living
standards of the household, which in turn depend on the employment status. Employment
opportunities can come to individuals from different sectors involving a multitude of adventures
ranging from formal ventures in the public and private field to informal arena. The dynamics of
the emolument of being employed in a given sector also have a say on the meaning of
employment to a given households living standard. Provided the social value evolved over time,
the payments for an employee differs on gender bias wherein men are favored relative to women.
Informal public employment high positions also come scarcely for women, despite some
progresses since recent past. Moreover, the social set up by itself also stunts the work pool,
especially in terms of self-employment for women. This poses a differently negative connotation
for the household wherein female serves as a head. Nevertheless, whoever heads the household;
whether it is male or female, and regardless of the amount of income yielded by the employed
household members, the size of the household draws attention. The total number of the members
in the household determines the accommodation capacity of the income generated by the active
age class of the households. Finally, but exactly not the least factor is the household members,
marital status; it has an implication for family size, dependency ratio and thereon living standard

43
 of the household. The following table showcases the data on the mentioned factors followed by
analytical pieces to make sense out of the data obtained.

Table 4.2 Household Characteristics by Marital Status, Size, Headship and Employment

Headship
Employ-

Marital
H/hold

Status
Ment

Size
Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency
Percent

Percent

Percent

Percent
Employed Size
(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)
(sector below) 761 47.8 2 40 12.42 Married 707 44.41 Male 258 80.12

Formal public 209 27.47 3 52 16.15 Single 801 50.31 Female 64 19.88
Self employed 193 25.36 4 63 19.57 Widowed 40 2.51
Informal sector 198 26.01 5 44 13.66 Divorced 44 2.77
Working unpaid 101 13.27 6 39 12.11
family work
Domestic skills, 60 7.89 8 39 12.11
washing, cooking
Total 761 100
Unemployed 831 52.2 >=8 45 13.98
Total 1592 100 322 100 1592 100 322 100
Em. To Uem. R. 7.61:8.31
Source: Own Survey, 2017

Em. To Uem. R. = Employed to Unemployed Ratio

4.1.2.1. Employment Status of the households population

There is the heated debate about living standard between and/or among scholars of the economic
arena. This is so because in most part of the world, especially in developing countries;
households hardly realize a meaningful living standard from the upturn claimed economic
progresses in their respective countries. The connection between the two in most cases appeared
as diminutive and slack to make sense of the veracity of decent living. There are scholars who

44
defy the claimed progress in developing countries on the base of the lack of sustainability of the
economic foundation in terms of employment creation. John Gutura, a Dutch economist argued

Higher real incomes require higher productivity growth, which has been a missing piece of
the developing countrys economy despite an achieved progress. This necessitates the level of
workforce abilities to be higher, facilitated by a demand driven education system that brings
work-ready candidates for employment which is critical to increasing productivity and real
incomes in the longer term.

The point is that, employment as a robust income generation and thereby driving force of the
livelihood of the household must be reinforced and consolidated in a sustainable manner. The
table above demonstrates a total of 761 people employed across different adventures ranging
from the formal public sector to the domestic service provision. The public sector, the informal
sector and self-drive private sector took the leading share of employment with 27.47%, 26.01%,
and 25.36% respectively. Unpaid family works and domestic skills likewise encompass a
meaningful number of employees; 13.27% and 7.89 respectively.

Yet, there are other scholars cartel, who assert that a mere employment is not a guarantee for the
way out of poverty. The ground rationale of these scholars lies in the sector of employment and
the financial emolument and returns involved therein. For instance, it has been estimated by
the International Labour Organization (ILO) that 40% of workers across the world are poor, not
earning enough to keep their families above the $2 a day poverty line. It has been also
demonstrated in India that most of the persistently poor are wage recipients in formal
employment, because their jobs are apprehensive and low paid and offer no chance to hoard
wealth to escape risks. Researchers in Africa and other developing world have found evidence to
recommend growth in manufacturing and services have good impact on employment. They
found GDP growth in employment in agriculture to be limited in some industrially thriving,
developing African countries such as Ghana, Nigeria, and Mauritius and indeed many others but
that value-added growth had a relatively larger impact.

Therefore, an employment needs to be interpreted beyond a mere contact with jobs anywhere.
First, sustainability side should be seen as to whether or not the jobs of the workers are secure.
Thus, the whopping number of employed people indicated in the above table cannot be taken for

45
grant as a triumph without considering sustainability perspective. To that end, the employment
sustainability of the employed people needs another separately managed study to draw points of
inference based on accurate and reliable data. Second, the payment due to the workers must be
critically seen to make sense of the employment characteristics of the population in the study.
Predictably, an employment in public offices, domestic service provision, and family works pays
off a little when it comes to the situation of our country.

From the table above, it is shown that a relatively large number of people are unemployed, 831
individuals. This number as it has been raised in other section includes the dependent age group
of children and elderly. But even when filtered the number of unemployed people above appears
to include people from the working class; adds fuel to already inordinate active-dependent ratio
yielded in the preceding section. In other words, the employed individuals are positioned in an
obligatory onus of carrying the unemployed ones. As it is shown in the table, the employed to
unemployed ratio is 7.61:8.31 which suggest that virtually 8 employed people take care of
virtually equivalent number of unemployed, 8. This might seem a good coincidence, but the job
security, the earning capacity, the sector of employment etc. are left out with their say on the
overall pattern. Again, to draw the full picture further deep rooted analysis needs to be
undertaken considering all these variables and indeed others variables in close sight.

46
Figure 4.71 Employment Status of the households population

employed in Formal
209 public
Self employed

193 employed in Informal

sector

831 Working unpaid family

work
198
Domestic skills, washing,
cooking
101
60 Unemployed

Source: Own Survey, 2017

Figure 4.8 Dependency Ratio of Employed to Unemployed Household Population

7.61 Employed

8.31 Unemployed

Source: Own Survey, 2017

47
 4.1.2.2. Sizes of Households
The size of the household is a subject of great significance not only for a given country, region or
district as a whole, but also for the well-being and the health of the individual, the family and the
community. Negativity has been uttered about the leaning of family sizes and its propensity for a
probable world population outburst which could lead to poor developing countries into further
poverty and helpless misery; Traditional views of womens role in society make it problematic
for them to contribute to population control. The belief still continues among most women,
particularly illiterates that the most imperative role for a woman is to have as numerous children
as one can continue to bear any number of children.

In the study as showcased in the above table more than 50% of the households constitute size of
5 and/or more. The 20013 UN census bureau has measured the average household size countries
of the four regions of the developing world. Variances among regions are comparatively small,
with the average size oscillating from a high of 5.6 in the Near East/North Africa to a low of 4.8
in Latin America, and midway values for Asia (5.1) and sub-Saharan Africa (5.3). In general,
then, country-level average household sizes bunch legitimately tightly around their regional
means proximate to 5 members per household.

In other words, virtually 38% of the households examined sets above the average size discovered
by the Unite Nations census bureau, which is above 5 members. Not far from the average limit
19.57 households constituted 4 members. Nevertheless, the exact economic implication of the
size discovered, though, lies above the conventional average cannot be taken either positively or
negatively unless the meaningful idiosyncratic study on its own right undertaken specifically to
shed light thereon. But other things remain constant, household of large size face difficulty in
terms of the provision of food, education, health and nutrition including others. It had been
demonstrated also that 28.57% of the examined households constitutes households members
below of 2 and 3 combined. Yet again, this relatively small size cannot be inferred either
negatively or positively without considering other factors. Literally, other things remain constant,
small household size is considered on the grounds of the ability to adequately cater for the needs
of the household.

48
 Figure 4.9 The size and the frequency and percentage share of the sizes in the total households

70
63
60
52
50 45
44
40 39 39
40
Frequency
30 Percent (%)
19.57
20 16.15
12.42 13.66 12.11 12.11 13.98

10

0
2 3 4 5 6 8 >=8

Source: Own Survey, 2017

4.1.2.3. Marital Status of the Households Population

Table 4.2 indicates that 49.69 percent of the populations has ever married (married, divorced,
and widowed) whilst 50.31 percent have never married. The marital status of the household
members can have a multifaceted implication to the overall household make up. It implicates the
size of the household, the productive-dependency ratio, and work efficiency of the female
member of the household (Mother), cost of living and quality of life among others.

Nevertheless, the pattern of the marriage can have an outright say on the pattern of its effect on
the household living arrangement. The marriage lines accompanied with separation and divorce
usually represents negative connotation from the point of view of different perspectives. Even
led by uncontrollable natural forces of death being widowed embodies negation towards the
wellbeing of the household. Study in Uganda by Kute S. Shane revealed that divorced and
widowed laden households usually drawn in to crisis of quarrel, sentiment, disputes, spite and
frustration that in turn the entire household set up and eventually lead to disintegration.

To make a clear cut effect of the marital status of the household members on the aforementioned
variables further deep-rooted analysis might be required.

49
Figure 4.10 Marital status of the population in the total households
900
801
800
707
700

600

500
Frequency
400
Percent (%)
300

200

100 44.41 50.31 40 44

2.51 2.77
0
Married Single Widowed Divorced

Source: Own Survey, 2017

4.1.2.4. Household Headship

Household head is defined as the spearhead of the household who takes the front line in the
pecking order of the household organization. As the matter of fact, usually male appears to be
leader in the household whereby decisions mainly down to the knowledge of the male, usually
father or grandfather. Females step up as household leaders in instance they are widowed,
divorced, separated and in some cases when coincidences brought leadership role for single
female in the household. Therefore, it happens rarely for women to be leaders in the households
especially in the social set up that has been evolved over time in the society of Ethiopian
typology in spite of an indispensable differential across ethnicities.

The mere male or female leadership possession in the household might not be an automatic
indication of eithers dominance. But considering different factors in circumstances and living
environments it usually comes in advantage for household lead by males relative to female led
households. There are studied that advocate this view after their findings in favor of male
leadership in household. A study conducted by Barala H. Sassiul in Ghana set that male headed
households are well privileged than female headed households across different region of the
country. The study ascribed this evidence to different factors as age of the leader in the
household, education level, employment feature, marriage status, physical competence and
number of household members led by females against that of males. The same finding flavor had

50
been realized in Kenya where Gutura G. Guyna in his study recognized the male leadership
privilege over female leadership again attributable to multitude of reasons.

In this study it was ascertained, as it is set in the above table that the lion share of the households
covered in the study was under male leadership. Accordingly, 258 (80.12%) households are led
by their male constituent while 64 (19.88%) households are led by females. To inference either
negative or positive conclusion from the male and female household leadership in the study area
further idiosyncratic independent study deserves to be managed in supplement with different
variables to make contrasting analysis. Nevertheless, by considering different factors in the
living status of the study society it might appear imperative and estimable to come to the
conclusion that male headed household might enjoy best of living, keeping other things
unchanged.

4.2. Descriptive Analysis of Non-Monetary Poverty

This section provides a descriptive analysis of non-monetary poverty of the households covered
in Mekelle City. The analysis is focused on the three dimensions of Education, health and
standard of living, and the corresponding ten indicators of the Multi-dimensional poverty index
(MPI). For each dimension, the analysis is set to include the MPI indicators related to the
dimension as well as widely where possible to cover other aspects of deprivation connected to
the dimension in consideration. Survey has been employed to collect a household status data
based on which the poverty position of the household was studied.

Dimensions and indicators of multidimensional poverty to be examined by descriptive

statistics

Education

Years of Schooling
Child School attendance

Health

Child Mortality:
Maternal Death

Standard of Living

Electricity

51
Drinking water
Sanitation
Flooring
Cooking Fuel
Assets: radio, TV, telephone, motorbike, or bicycle
For the first placed specific objective of the study these above specified dimensions and the
corresponding indicators of poverty will be diagnostically captured descriptively for the
households in the study area.

4.2.1. Education Dimension

Education has been recognized as the most significant contrivance in providing people with the
rudimentary skills, knowledge and the aptitude to improve their eminence of life at all levels of
development (Angoff, 1989). More than a few studies exist to suggest that other than
productivity and income, education effects positively on household well-being in terms of better
health and nutritional status, and improved life expectancy (Knowles, 2005). According to
Collins (2001), the mechanism of the relationship between education and household health
outcome is that education can help determine both the level 0f knowledge about how to combat
diseases as well as the mode of transmission, and thereby producing better health outcomes in
terms of preventive measures. In this study, as already noted, two indicators on education are
applied to compute MPI: number of completed years of schooling by adult household members,
and whether children are attending school.

This section provides descriptive analysis of the study households deprivation in the two
indicators of the education dimension. In the latter section, the same dimension with its
indicators will be valued and analyzed in the construction of the multidimensional poverty index.

4.2.1.1. Adults Primary school Completion (Years of

Schooling)
In the study as it is shown in the table 4.3, the 58.39% of the households of the study are
deprived in adults years of schooling; elementary school completion. In other words, from
among total of 322 households considered in the study there are 188 households that constituted

52
adult individuals with most completed grades below elementary education ceiling grade that is
Grade-8.

The Citys average, however, covers dangerous deprivation in years of schooling by adult
household members in three sub cities; Semen, Ayder and Kedamay weyane with household
proportion of 65.22%, 63.04 and 60.87 deprived in the indicator respectively. While Adi Haki
and Quiha shares a lowest proportion of deprived households in the indicator under
consideration.

The table also demonstrates that 41.61% of the households are not deprived in the adult school
completion. Adi Haki and Quiha constitute majority non-deprived households in this indicator
with 47.83 proportions each. Therefore, the majority of the households examined are deprived in
this indicator.

Over the years several indicators in the educational sector have exposed a consistent progress in
school attendance and completion in Ethiopia (MoE, 2015). This seems paradox to the study
finding but have a scapegoat justification as it is adult education and adults might be aged;
lacked education access in the previous periods of precarious deprivations. Indeed, examination
of the levels of literacy may have shown consistent improvement overtime. This proves the fact
that more and more household members are participating in the educational system. The
coincidence is that the better educated the adults in the household, the better the living directives
of the household under consideration. There are more than few research evidences that support
the decent life of the household with educated personalities. The comparative study by James W.
Qulama in Democratic Republic of Congo came through weighing the living status of the
households with educated adults against households with illiterate adults. Accordingly, the study
has demonstrated that households with adults who at least completed elementary school (grade
1-6 by the school arrangement of the country) showed good progress in connection with
technology adoption in urban agriculture, market oriented adventures, educating their siblings,
keeping households house hygiene and utilizing family planning. The researcher concludes by
the impression that, other things remaining intact, all these improved inclination of the educated
household all but well trickle down to the decent households living set up.

53
In multidimensional poverty analysis a household is considered as deprived when the most
educated adult(s) individual in the household who hasnt completed elementary education (Grade
-8 in our country). Adult years of schooling act as the proxy for the level of knowledge and
understanding of household members. Therefore, in terms of deprivation cut-off for this indicator
the multidimensional poverty requires that at least one person in the household has completed
eight (8) years of schooling. Here it is essential to remind that because of the nature of the
multidimensional poverty index indicators, someone existing in a household where is one
member with eight years of education is considered non-deprived, even though he/she may not
be educated.

As it has been raised before, these households with adults completed primary education may or
may not lead decent life than their counterpart household wherein there is/are adult(s) without
elementary education exists. It was recognized by the developers of the measure of
multidimensional poverty; Alkire and Fostre that the indicators in the dimensions of the
multidimensional poverty measure are imperfect proxy measures. In other words, the implication
of the indicators is not an automatic interpretation of the preeminence of the non-deprived
household over the deprived household nor does it yields an exact level of cut of the household,
for instance the reading and writing ability of the individuals educated in the household.

54
Table 4.3 Household deprivation Status in Adult years of Schooling

Adult Primary School

Completion
Sub Cities deprivation Status
Total
Not deprived Deprived No of
H/holds
No of households 22 24 46
Adi Haki
%of total households 47.83 52.17 100

K/Weyane No of households 18 28 46
%of total households 39.13 60.87 100

Hawlti No of households 19 27 46
%of total households 41.3 58.7 100

Quiha No of households 22 24 46
%of total households 47.83 52.17 100

Ayder No of households 17 29 46
%of total households 36.96 63.04 100

Semen No of households 16 30 46
%of total households 34.78 65.22 100

Hadnet No of households 20 26 46
%of total households 43.48 56.52 100

All Sub Cities No of households 134 188 322

%of total households 41.61 58.39 100
Source: Own Survey

Therefore, the whopping percentage of the deprived households in the study area in the years of
adult education only denotes educational attainment of the adults in the household thereby
leading to deprivation label to the household. It doesnt represent any other underwhelming or
extraordinary achievement of the households involved in other aspects of living. To claim either
side a critical comparative or correlational study of its own typology proves necessary. Yet, one
can make reference from genuine position into the feature of living of the less educated

55
household taking into account the status of the similar households in ones community and
neighbor.

The same way, though formal critical analysis must be required, in normative sense one can
consider the living arrangement of the households to postulate the pro of the educated persons
laden household over the educated persons deficiency household.

4.2.1.2. Child School Attendance

Under the education dimension as it has been raised earlier, two indicators that complement each
other are used to analyze multidimensional poverty of the households: number of completed
years of schooling of the adult household members, and the other assesses whether children are
attending school.

The table below indicates that across Mekelle city from among the study households 97.83% of
total households verified that they have children attending school so that is they are not deprived
in children taking part in the education system. Insignificant differences exist between the city
average and most sub cities. Adi Haki, Ayder and Semen are the three sub cities that recorded an
absolute achievement of 100% child school attendance, greater than the city average, wherein
97.83 % households are non-deprived. Two sub cities, Kedamy Weyane and Quiha recorded
children school attendance exactly equal to the city average of 97.3%, while it is only two sub
cities, Hawlti and Hadnet that trails behind the city average with record of 93.48% and 95.65%
respectively. In other words, these two sub cities, Hawlti and Hadnet constitute a relatively high
deprivation in children school attendance with 6.52% and 4.35% deprivation rate respectively.
The deprivation pattern across three sub cities, Adi Haki, Ayder and Semen are null that no
household deprived in the indicator. The city wide average deprivation in children school
attendance only counts for the deprivation proportion of 2.17 % of the total households. Two sub
cities, Quiha and Kedamay Weyane equals the city average deprivation rate, 2.17%.

Nevertheless, the same as the years of schooling, the child school attendance indicator is the
imperfect proxy; it doesnt capture the quality of schooling and the level of knowledge or skills
attained. Yet, the two indicators of the household education provide the closest feasible
approximation to levels of education for household members. In terms of deprivation cut-off for
this indictor, the multidimensional poverty index requires that all children of school age are

56
attending school. Therefore, the household is dubbed deprived in this indicator when there is a
school aged child(ren) who doesnt attend school. In other words, someone living in a household
where there is at least one child not attending school is considered deprived in this indicator even
though he/she may have completed education. Households with no school aged children are
considered non-deprived on this indicator.

Table 4.4 Household Deprivation Status in Child School Attendance

Household Child School

Attendance
Deprivation Status
Sub Cities Total
Not deprived Deprived No of
H/holds
No of households 46 0 46
Adi Haki
% of total households 100 0 100
K/Weyane No of households 45 1 46
% of total households 97.83 2.17 100
Hawlti No of households 43 3 46
%of total households 93.48 6.52 100
Quiha No of households 45 1 46
% of total households 97.83 2.17 100
Ayder No of households 46 0 46
% of total households 100 0 100
Semen No of households 46 0 46
% of total households 100 0 100
Hadnet No of households 44 2 46
% of total households 95.65 4.35 100
All S.ities No of households 315 7 322
% of total households 97.83 2.17 100
Source: Own Survey

57
The deprivation rate found in the indicator under question can be something cheerful given the
small proportion of the households deprived. Though children school attendance is not
something that immediately pays off for a particular household, its implication for the potential
well-being of the country in general and the household in particular appears positive. It creates
possibility for enlightened generation capable of realizing the very potential of the household and
the country thereby enables improvement in living status of themselves and the household.

4.2.2. Health Dimension

The health status of the people defines their quality of life, level of productivity and longevity
and this is directly connected to the general state of development of a country (Kurase, 2000).
The fundamental determinants of health status are the maternal mortality and death of children
under five. The status of these two susceptible group, women and children, of country or a region
gives a good hint of the health of the general population an overall general state of development.

Therefore, these two indicators, child mortality (death of under-5 years old in a household during
the past 12 months) and maternal mortality (death of female household member while pregnant,
during delivery or after delivery) were considered in the survey for this study. In the
multidimensional poverty index household members are taken to be deprived if there has been at
least one child death (under-5 years) in the household during the past 12 months. The second
indicator considers a household as deprived if there is at least one female died pregnant, during
delivery or after delivery in the past 12 months. Deprivation and non-deprivation in the
indicators of health dimension thus were assigned accordingly with the premises of MPI.

4.2.2.1. Under Age Five Child Death

Under-5 mortality is the broad indicator of social development and the health status of the
population, and children in particular (Guracho, 2003). In essence, its evaluation provides
information on the impact of intervention on health and general standard of living.

58
Table 4.5 Households Experienced Death of Children under Five

No of households As of % of
Total Household experienced the death Total HH
Total 322 5 1.55
Adi Haki 46 2 4.35
K/Weyane 46 0 0
Hawlti 46 2 4.35
Quiha 46 1 2.17
Ayder 46 0 0
Semen 46 0 0
Hadnet 46 0 0
The Occurrence
of the Death
Frequency Percent
Born Died 2 40
During Birth 3 60
After Birth 0 0
Total 5 100
Reasons Tipped
Financial shortage for medical
service 0 0
Inadequate health care service 3 60
Inability to access health service 2 40
Acute infection 0 0
Total 5 100
Source: Own Survey, 2017

It is demonstrated in the above table that a total of five (5) households representing about 1.55%
of the total households surveyed in Mekelle City experienced under-5 deaths in the 12 months
preceding the census. However, this city average is masked by marked differences by sub city. In
Adi Haki and Hawlti, the recorded figure is more than double of the city average and in Quiha
stood at 2.17% households. While households represented the rest sub cities have never
experienced child mortality within the specified time period.

59
It had been also found that from among the households agonized from deceased children the
death occurred at the time of birth for 3 (60%) households while 2 (40%) of the child death
experienced households face the fatality before carriage. The fate of any individual from life
perspective lies between two margins of rationale that is early death and superannuation or living
too much. The case for the child mortality takes the former one in such a way that the children
passes away without anywhere realizing their potential. This might be attributed to different
factors such as acute infections beyond medical treatment, familys penniless economic position,
inadequate health service in place, and inability to access health service among many others. In
the study it is revealed that 60% of the sustained death was due to inadequate health service in
place. In adequate health service might not automatically denote lack of health service but refer
to some inconvenience on the way of medical service provision that has been perceived by the
serviced people compliantly as inadequacy. The rest 40% child deaths sustained were proved to
be due to the inability to access health services. This time, health service providing medical
institutions both public and private are in multitude but inaccessibility might occur not because
of complications from the side of medical institutions rather, down to the glitches with the
service seekers themselves.

All in all, considering the number of the households covered in the study against the number of
the under-5 child death sustained it seems an enchantment though it is essentially difficult to
claim the loss of five children is something of simplicity. Yet, it appears to reward the efforts of
the interventionist actors in the arena of health to curb child mortality with an utmost
commitment and conspicuous achievement.

4.2.2.2. Maternal Death

Countrywide maternal death has been eternally and perpetually reported reduced over the recent
periods especially in the past ten years in Ethiopia. Efforts have been made under the several
mid-term national development policy agendas to advance access to quality maternal and
reproductive health amenities: familiarizing certificate midwifery training and ensuring
midwifery service across communities, providing wide-ranging emergency obstetric care at
Kebele level; providing rudimentary emergency obstetrics care at all health centers, scaling up
community and municipal case management and establishing high rapid impact delivery and
instituting essential newborn care.

60
Table 4.6 Households Experienced Maternal Death

Total No of households As of % of
Household experienced the death Total HH
Total 322 2 0.62
Adi Haki 46 1 2.17
K/Weyane 46 0 0
Hawlti 46 0 0
Quiha 46 1 2.17
Ayder 46 0 0
Semen 46 0 0
Hadnet 46 0 0
The Occurrence of the death
Frequency Percent
During pregnancy 0 0
During Delivery 0 0
After delivery 2 100
Total 2 100
Reasons Tipped
Frequency Percent
Inability to access sufficient medical
treatment due to shortage of money
1 50
Traditional treatments 1 50
No health service nearby 0 0
Total 2 100
Source: Own Survey, 2017

The table above provides information on the proportion of households reported the death of
female household member during pregnancy, during delivery and after delivery within the
specified time period, the past 12 months. While citywide, about 0.62% of the households
reported death of female member after delivery; it was almost three folds, 2.17% in the case of
Adi Haki and Ayder sub city, the only sub cities that experienced maternal death from among the
seven sub cities. Maternal death can be triggered by plethora of factors such as economic
disadvantage, absence to make medical follow up, traditional treatments, and nearby inexistence
of health service providing institutions from among others. In the study it was revealed that

61
economic disadvantage and traditional treatment has contributed equivalently, 50% to the
sustained maternal death in the city.

All in all, considering the number of the households covered in the study against the number of
the maternal death sustained it seems an enchantment though it is essentially difficult to claim
the loss of two mothers is something of minimalism. Yet, it appears to reward the efforts of the
interventionist actors in the arena of health to curb child mortality with an utmost commitment
and conspicuous achievement.

4.2.3. Living Standard Dimension

The standard of living dimension uses six indicators, there o which were standard MDG
indicators that are related to health and living standards, and which particularly affect women:
clean drinking water, improved sanitation and the use of clean cooking fuel. The justification for
these indicators is adequately presented in the MDG literature. It also includes three non-MDG
indicators; electricity, flooring materials and household assets.

On household assets, Alkire and Santos (2010) defines these to include radio, television,
telephone, bicycle and motorbike. Households are classified as poor if they do not own more
than one of these assets (i.e. radio, television, telephone, bicycle and motorbike).

The other key indicators for standard of living in MP analysis are as follows:

Drinking water: A household has access to clean drinking water if the water sources any of the
following types: piped water, public tap, borehole or pump, protected well, protected spring or
rainwater. If a household fails to satisfy these conditions, then it is considered deprived in access
in access to water.
Improved sanitation: A household is considered to have access to improved sanitation if it has
some type of flush toilet or pit latrine, or ventilated improved pit.
Electricity: A household is considered deprived if it does not have access or their own direct
wiring connection to electricity.
Flooring: A household is considered deprived in flooring material if is made of earth, mud or
dung and stone.
Cooking fuel: If the main source of cooking fuel for the household is wood or charcoal or crop
residue, or saw dust or animal waste, the household is considered deprived in cooking fuel.

62
 4.2.3.1. Flooring Materials
House is one of the rudimentary needs of human life. The type of house and housing condition
are influenced by local atmosphere or accessibility of construction materials locally and the level
of development. So there are variances in type of houses in different ecological zones and
development regions. On the other hand, the impact of development efforts is revealed in
housing condition of people in the area. The word housing means the household or family
accommodation in dwelling units, its structure type and facilities such as electricity, drinking
water, cooking fuel, toilet, etc. (Karmacharya & Sangraula, 1998). So, it is the main indicator of
human wellbeing and level of development.

The housing standard of the households is an important aspect in the analysis of poverty of the
country, region or community. Quality habitation staves to implicate the overall living status of a
given household. One hand, it denotes a financial surplus from the basic consumption
requirement of the household. Literally, fulfillment of the basic requirement in the household is
considered as an ecstasy that it assists in realizing individuals sense of esteem. On the top of
that, if quality residence dwelling maintained in the household sustained basic needs then all the
goods come down the line. On the other hand, quality habitation has a positive implication for
the health status of the household which in turn determines members productivity,
consciousness and sagacity among others.

Paradoxically, poor housing has a plethora implication of negation against the living standard of
the entire household. It signifies the odious financial position of the household to the extent of
abhorrent shelter possession. In other words, there are scarce reasons of voluntary deprivation in
sheltering for a given household unless it is an acute economic deprivation. It deteriorates self-
esteem of the household constituents, begs other destitutions as well as wanes health status of the
households members. In-school individuals in the households also suffer from lack appropriate
studying room thereby subject to school indolence.

63
Table 4.7 Main Construction Material for Floor of Household Dwelling

All Sub Adi

Material Cities Haki K/Weyane Hawlti Quiha Ayder Semen Hadnet
Earth/sand 53.1 36.96 28.26 65.22 58.7 67.39 50 65.22
Stone or Mud-dang 9.63 0 0 0 17.39 8.7 26.09 15.22
Ceramic tile 16.77 34.78 26.09 17.39 10.87 6.52 15.22 6.52
Ceramic Carpet 18.01 23.91 39.13 17.39 10.87 15.22 6.52 13.04
Wood Planks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Others (cement) 2.49 4.35 6.52 0 2.17 2.17 2.17 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: Own Survey

The quality and destitution of the household dwelling can be expounded in terms of the material
that makes up the floor of the house. Quality dwelling is the one its floor is made up of the
ceramic tile, ceramic carpet, marble tiles, concrete/cement terrazzo tiles and vinyl tiles. Poor
dwelling on the other hand, its floor is made up of earth, mud, sand, stone, mud-dung mixed and
wood planks or any material of these classes.

In this study the analysis of deprivation of housing for MPI is on the quality of floor material of
the dwelling. But as it would be seen afterwards other subjects such as problems with the
dwelling and the contentment of the household with house possessed can also be analyzed to
delineate the deprivation of the household in housing. This is for the reason that these indicators
provide pointers about the standard of living or the living situation of the occupants.

Flooring: A household is considered deprived in flooring material if is made of earth, mud or

dung, and stone.

64
Table 4.82 Households Deprivation Status in Flooring

Household's Deprivation Status in

Flooring
Not
Deprived
deprived Total HH
No of households 29 17 46
Adi Haki
% of total households 63.04 36.96 100
K/Weyane No of households 33 13 46
% of total households 71.74 28.26 100
Hawlti No of households 16 30 46
% of total households 34.78 65.22 100
Quiha No of households 11 35 46
% of total households 23.91 76.09 100
Ayder No of households 11 35 46
% of total households 23.91 76.09 100
Semen No of households 11 35 46
% of total households 23.91 76.09 100
Hadnet No of households 9 37 46
% of total households 19.57 80.43 100
All S.Cities No of households 120 202 322
% of total households
37.27 62.73 100
Source: Own Survey, 2017

We defined poor housing as a household dwelling with earth, mud or dung floor. The table
shows combined together 62.73% of the examined households were deprived in this indicator. In
other words, across Mekelle City 62.73 % of the examined households recorded that they had
earth or mud as the material used for the construction of their dwelling. This proportion,
however, varies across sub cities with least recorded in the Kedamy Weyane and Adi Haki;
28.6% and 36.96% respectively, while the highest of over 75% in the four sub cities of Quiha
(76.09), Ayder (76.09), Semen (76.09) and Hadnet (80.43). Hawlti occupies an intermediate
position, yet it surpassed the deprivation average of the City as a whole with record of 65.22% of
the households deprived in housing.

65
In addition to the low standard of the housing floors, the deprivation of the households in
housing can be further delineated in terms of impediments in liaison with the poorly built
dwelling. As it is true for most cities, the concern in relation to housing space that can attribute
to different factors prevails in the study area. It is indicated in the table blow 172(53.41%)
households across the city recorded space restriction as the major problem of their housing. The
substandard housing of different households is accompanied with subsequent manifestation of
the same such as porous ceiling, decayed appearance, darkness, and dampness among others. It
was found in the study thus damp walls, floors and foundation; leaky roof, darkness were
counted as dwelling problems by 16.15, 9.32% and 7.14% respectively. Mold appearance and
rots in window frame share insignificant record in the makeup of housing problems. From the
examined total households it is only small proportion, 11.5% households that recorded no
problem with their dwelling.

Table 4.9 Problems of the Household Dwelling

Problems with Residence houses

Problems Frequency Percentage
Shortage of space 172 53.41
Leaky roof 30 9.32
Mold 4 1.24
Too dark 23 7.14
Rot in window frame 4 1.24
Damp wall, floors,
or foundations 52 16.15
No Problem 37 11.5
Total 322 100

Household Contentment with Residence

House
Frequency Percentage
Highly satisfied 40 12.4
Very satisfied 49 15.2
Fairly satisfied 172 53.4
Highly dissatisfied 18 5.6
Dissatisfied 19 5.9
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 24 7.5
Total 322 100

66
 Source: Own Survey, 2017

The contentment level of the households was also been examined wherein majority of the
households, 53.4% retorted fair contentment with their residence dwelling. The data on the
contentment virtually comply with the finding in the flooring deprivation section. It is true that a
mere deprivation doesnt deteriorate contentment with the dwelling or result in an outright
dissatisfaction. Accordingly, deprivation equivalent proportion of households contentment with
the dwelling, 64.9% dynamites among fairly satisfied, highly dissatisfied and dissatisfied. The
rest varies among highly satisfied, very satisfied and neither neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

4.2.3.2. Sanitation
Table 4.10 Sanitation Status of the Households
Type of the toilet facility of the
households
All Adi
Type regions Haki K/weyane Hawlti Quiha Ayder Semen Hadnet
No facility(bush/beach/field) 13.7 4.35 21.74 19.57 10.87 4.35 21.74 13.04
Pit latrine with slab 65.2 71.73 58.7 60.87 69.56 73.9 56.52 65.22
Public toilet 11.5 10.87 6.52 15.22 19.57 6.52 6.52 15.22
Ventilated improved latrine 6.8 8.7 10.87 2.17 0 13.1 10.87 2.17
Bucket/pan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pit latrine without slab/open
pit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 2.8 4.35 2.17 2.17 0 2.17 4.35 4.35
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: Own Survey

If a household owns their own toilets that could be within the house or boundary of the house
then such households are considered as households having toilet facilities. When the households
do not have their own toilet and household members use either open places or public toilets then
such households are considered as households having no toilet facilities. Toilet facility is
classified into two groups as modern with flush system and ordinary. If it is possible to clean
human excreta by bucketing water (either using machine or manually) and is connected to
drainage or septic tank, then the toilet is called to be modern with flush system. On the other

67
hand, if it is not possible to clean human excreta by drizzling water and is not connected to
sewage or septic tank, then the toilet is said to be ordinary.

According to multidimensional poverty index: A household is considered to deprived in

sanitation if it do not have any toilet facilities and therefore defecate in bush, beach and open
field.

The above table reveals that from the households examined across Mekelle city a limited
proportion of households, 13.7% do not have any toilet facilities and therefore defecate in bush,
beach and open field; an act often described as free range. But relatively it is extremely high
in two sub cities, Kedamy Weyane (21.74%) and Semen (21.74%) households. The two sub
cities also fall in the use of all other types of toilet facilities.

68
 4.2.3.3. Access and Source of Drinking water
Access to drinking means the getting hold of drinking water in the course of households day to
day live. Not all sort of water qualifies for drink and this makes the drinking water access
crucial in poverty analysis. An access of drinking water by households in a given settlement in
turn poses light on health, productivity, education etc. either directly or indirectly.

Table 4.11 Household Access and Source of Drinking Water

Access to
drinking water
All
Sub Adi
Cities Haki K/Weyane Hawlti Quiha Ayder Semen Hadnet
Easy 30.4 26.09 17.39 34.78 43.48 30.4 39.13 21.74
Difficult 57.5 63.04 69.57 54.35 45.65 56.5 47.83 65.22
Neither difficult or easy 12.1 10.87 13.04 10.87 10.87 13.1 13.04 13.04
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Main Source of drinking
water
All
Sub Adi
Cities Haki K/Weyane Hawlti Quiha Ayder Semen Hadnet
Pipe-borne inside dwelling 43.8 28.26 63.04 30.43 56.52 52.17 34.78 41.3
Pipe-borne outside
dwelling 38.81 56.52 21.74 52.17 26.09 30.43 47.83 36.96
Tanker supply 6.52 0 0 13.05 13.05 6.53 2.17 10.87
Standpipe/public tape 4.35 8.7 8.7 0 0 4.35 4.35 4.35
Bottled water 1.86 4.35 4.35 0 0 4.35 0 0
Sachet water 4.66 2.17 2.17 4.35 4.35 2.17 10.87 6.52
Unprotected spring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100.01 100 100 100
Source: Own Survey, 2017

It was revealed in the study that access to drinking water is difficult for majority of the
households examined, 57.5% of the total households examined have countered difficulty of
access to drinking water. Across sub cities it is households from Adi Haki and K/Weyane that
suffers a lot in that perspective both have been represented by more than 60% households facing
difficulty.

69
Source of Drinking Water means refers to the place from which households lure water for
drinking. Water source may vary from place to place and by periods. However, data was
collected on the basis of water source from where most of the time water was collected.

According to multidimensional poverty index delineation:

Drinking water: A household has access to clean drinking water if the water sources any of the
following types: piped water, public tap, borehole or pump, protected well, protected spring or
rainwater. If a household fails to satisfy these conditions and bottled water and sachet water
appears to be its source of drinking water, then it is considered deprived in access in access to
water.

Overall as it is shown in table above, 43.8% households from the total examined in Mekelle is
served by Pipe-borne inside dwelling. The second common source of drinking water is Pipe-
borne outside dwelling (38.81) followed by Tanker supply (6.52%), Standpipe/public tape
(4.66%), Sachet water (4.35%) ad Bottled water (1.8%). Therefore, the households that drive
drinking water from sachet and bottle, altogether 6.52% households are deprived in indicator of
source of drinking water. The rate of deprivation in this indicator has no significant difference
across the sub cities in the city.

4.2.3.4. Main Cooking Fuel

There are enormous variations in the level of consumption and the types of fuels used. While a
precise breakdown is difficult, the main use of energy in households in developing countries is
for cooking, followed by heating and lighting. Households generally use a combination of energy
sources for cooking that can be categorized as traditional (such as dung, agricultural residues and
fuelwood), intermediate (such as charcoal and kerosene) or modern (biogas, ethanol gel, plant
oils, and electricity) (Kayastha, 2002).

70
Table 4.12 Household Main Source of energy

Main cooking Fuel

All Sub Adi
Fuel Type Cities Haki K/Weyane Hawlti Quiha Ayder Semen Hadnet
None/no
cooking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
wood 11.49 0 6.52 15.22 21.74 4.35 21.74 10.87
Electricity 39.44 56.53 43.48 34.78 21.74 50 28.26 41.3
Kerosene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Charcoal 45.03 41.3 50 43.48 47.82 45.65 39.13 47.83
Crop residue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Saw dust 4.4 2.17 0 6.52 8.7 0 2.17 0
Animal waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
other 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.7 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: Own Survey

Table 4.12 shows the main cooking fuel by sub city and for the entire city. it reveals that
electricity and charcoal, to some extent woo, are the main source of cooking fuel or households
examined in Mekelle. Citywide these two cooking fuel sources (electricity and charcoal) are used
in about 84.47% households. However, similar to other indicators, the distribution across sub
cities is not uniform. Electricity is relatively extensively used as a means of cooking in sub cities
of Adi Haki and Ayder, while the reverse is true for charcoal. About 4.4% households are using
saw dust as the main source of cooking fuel in the city.

Table 4.12 also reveals that 11.49% of the exmined households in Mekelle City used wood as
their main source of coking fuel. However, this citywide average is only exceeded by three sub
cities; Quiha (21.74%), Semen (21.74%) and Hawlti (15.22%).

According to multidimensional poverty index delineation:

Cooking fuel: If the main source of cooking fuel for the household is wood or charcoal or crop
residue, or saw dust or animal waste, the household is considered deprived in cooking fuel.
Therefore, wood, charcoal and saw dust combined together, 60.92 % households from the total
households examined in the city are deprived in this indicator.

71
 4.2.3.5. Access to electricity
Despite significant improvements in access to electricity over the last few decades, in several
sub-Saharan African countries the vast majority of population remains unconnected even today
(WB, 2015). The mere access to electricity is necessary but not sufficient for decent service of
electricity acquisition for a household. The indirect connection to electricity bears the otherwise
undeserved extra cost for households thereby exacerbating the cost living.

Table 13 Household Access to electricity

Household's electricity access deprivation
status
Total No of
Sub Cities Not deprived Deprived HH
Adi Haki No. of households 34 12 46
% of total household 73.91 26.09 100
K/Weyane No. of households 33 13 46
% of total household 71.74 28.26 100
Hawlti No. of households 29 17 46
% of total household 63.04 36.96 100
Quiha No. of households 11 35 46
% of total household 23.91 76.09 100
Ayder No. of households 27 19 46
% of total household 58.7 41.3 100
Semen No. of households 10 36 46
% of total household 21.74 78.26 100
Hadnet No. of households 16 30 46
% of total household 34.78 65.22 100
All regions No. of households 160 162 322
% of total household 49.69 50.31 100
Electricity access
Frequency %ge
yes 310 96.27
No 12 3.73
Total 322 100
Source: Own Survey

Table 4.13 indicates that about 96.27% of the examined households somewhat have access to
electricity. The issue come when it is seen the proportion of the households that are connected
directly to the city electricity grid. From that perspective it is 49.69% of the households that
have direct connection to the city grid.

According to multidimensional poverty index delineation:

72
Electricity: A household is considered deprived if it does not have access or their own direct
electricity wiring connection to main grid.
in other words per the MPI indicator on electricity, almost 50.31% households in Mekelle from
the total considered households can be described as deprived in electricity as they are not
connected to the city grid.

4.2.3.6. Asset Possession

The stock of assets possessed by a household allows a longer-term perspective of economic
safekeeping in way that is not likely using income or consumption data. Asset collections reflect
both past and future income-generation prospects through their support to livelihood choices, and
the potential for participating in financial markets, generating rents, interests on savings, and
returns from business. The features of assets can impact the experience of poverty in more than a
few ways. Assets also provide a safety net during times of economic calamities, through their
sale or trade in to cope with an income shortfall. There is rising recognition that the masterpiece
of the asset basket can be a powerful force in mediating the experience of poverty. Households
with few or no productive possessions are typically more susceptible to long term or chronic
poverty than households that own some level of these assets but experience income fluctuations
(Carter and Barrett, 2006).

73
Table 14 Households Asset Possession

TV Bicycle Motorcycle Telephone Radio

Total
Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No
All Sub
69.3 30.7 100 28.26 71.74 100 10.56 89.44 100 95.03 4.97 100 47.83 52.17 100
Cities
Adi Haki 60.87 39.13 100 10.87 89.13 100 6.52 93.48 100 100 0 100 23.91 76.09 100
K/Weyane 78.26 21.74 100 6.52 93.48 100 21.74 78.26 100 100 0 100 71.74 28.26 100
Hawlti 93.48 6.52 100 15.22 84.7 100 15.22 8478 100 100 0 100 32.6 67.4 100
Quiha 45.65 54.35 100 50 50 100 0 100 100 91.3 8.7 100 63.04 36.96 100
Ayder 82.6 17.4 100 28.26 71.74 100 8.7 91.3 100 95.65 4.35 100 54.35 45.65 100
Semen 56.52 43.48 100 45.65 54.35 100 10.87 89.13 100 84.78 15.22 100 41.3 58.7 100
Hadnet 67.39 32.61 100 41.3 58.7 100 10.87 89.13 100 93.48 6.52 100 47.83 52.17 100
Possession of more than one of the mentioned assets
Yes No Total
All
Sub Cities 82.6 17.4 100
Adi Haki 82.6 17.4 100
K/Weyane 65.22 34.78 100
Hawlti 100 0 100
Quiha 84.78 15.22 100
Ayder 86.96 13.04 100
Semen 76.09 23.91 100
Hadnet 82.6 17.4 100
Source: Own Survey

74
In multidimensional poverty index:

On household assets, Alkire and Santos (2010) defines these to include radio, television,
telephone, bicycle and motorbike. Households are classified as poor if they do not own more
than one of these assets (i.e. radio, television, telephone, bicycle and motorbike).

Table 4.14 shows majority of the households examine in Mekelle city owns one more than one
of the considered assets. It is 82.6% proportion of the total households included in the study that
possessed more than one asset considered in the living standard dimension. Across sub cities it is
the same trend that majority of the household possessed assets to the extent of non-deprivation
while it is only in Kedamy Weyane and Semen sub cities that below city average possession has
been recorded. Nevertheless, the deprivation rate in asset possession is meager; only count for
17.4% for the whole city of Mekelle.

4.3. Construction of Multidimensional Poverty Index

The second to fifth place specific objectives of the study are in relation to the construction of
multidimensional poverty index. Thus, in this section the operation of the multidimensional
poverty index and related computations are delineated in detail for the study area.

4.3.1. Demonstrated MPI Computation: Sub City of Quiha

This section provides the calculation of the above mentioned poverty measurements; incidence,
intensity, MPI, proportion of vulnerable households, and in-sever poverty households.
Subsequently, percentage contribution of each indicator and dimension to the overall MPI is
determined. The detail calculation is done for a single sub city data only to exemplify the
process. The whole city and the rest sub citys calculation have been done the same way from the
data attached in appendix part towards the end of the paper. Therefore, the calculation is done for
single sub city, Quiha as follows from the data in the deprivation matrix developed for the city
below.

75
 Dimensional Deprivation Matrix for the Study Households to construct MPI
(Quiha)

Dimensions and their corresponding indicators

Education
Health dimension Living Standard Dimension
Dimension UnC C(k)
Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Total Total
Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-3 Ind-4 Ind-5 Ind-6
UnC C(k) UnC C(k) UnC C(k)
>1
CE AE CD MD Elec Sanit. DW Floor Cook
Asset
W 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055
H/H
1 1 1 0.33 0.33 1 1 0.33 0.33 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.99 0.99
2 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
3 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
4 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
5 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
6 0 1 0.165 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
7 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
8 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
9 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
10 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
11 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
12 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
13 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
14 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
15 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
16 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
17 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
18 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
19 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33

76
20 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
21 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
22 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
23 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
24 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.165 0
26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.165 0
27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.165 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.165 0
29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.165 0
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.165 0
31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.165 0
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.165 0
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.165 0
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.165 0
35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.165 0
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CE=Child education AE=Adult Education CD=child death MD=Maternal death C(k)=censored UnC=uncensored Ind=indicator W=weight DW=Water

77
 4.3.1.1. Poverty Incidence ()
As it has been eternally mentioned poverty incidence refers to the proportion of households that
are multidimensional poor (MP) from the total households surveyed. In other words, it is a
proportion or the incidence of households (within a given total households) that experiences
multiple deprivations. According to the multidimensional poor households are those
recorded deprivation score of equal to or greater than 0.33; at least one third of the weighted
indicators.
From the matrix above thus it 24 households that recorded deprivation score of greater than or
equal to 0.33 from the total 46 households surveyed in the sub city. By applying the above
formula:

() = Here is the number of households that are multidimensional poor after censoring and

is the total households (including multidimensional poor and probably voluntarily deprived
poor as well as none deprived households).

We can now determine the poverty incidence in the sub city

24
() = = 0.5217 or 52.17% in other words it means from the total 46 households
46

examine 52.17% are MP.

4.3.1.2. Poverty Intensity()

The intensity of deprivations is the average proportion of (weighted) deprivations they
experience. It is the average number of deprivations poor households experience at the same
time. The 24 multidimensional poor households have recorded a respective score in all weighted
indicators. Therefore, these deprivation scores are to be summed up and divided by the MP
households to yield the intensity. By applying the formula:

()
=

Here () is the censored deprivation (all the deprivation scores equal or above 0.33) score of
the MP household

is the total number of people who are multidimensional poor after censoring.

78
Now we can determine the poverty intensity in the sub city

0.99 + 0.495 + 3(0.44) + 2(0.385) + 17(0.33) 9.185

= =
24 24

=0.3827

In other words the average proportion of (weighted) deprivations the MP households experience
is0.3827.

4.3.1.3. Multidimensional Poverty Index

The multidimensional poverty index would therefore be the product of both () (). Thus:

= It is also called adjusted incidence Ratio ()

= 0.3827 0.5217

=0.1997

4.3.1.4. Poverty Vulnerable households

According to multidimensional poverty break down analysis, households recorded deprivation
score ranging from 20% to 32.9% are dubbed as poverty vulnerable households. So, from the
deprivation matrix above, there is no household with deprivation score in the mentioned interval
of percentage. To yield the formula is

= 100 Where denotes the number of households with

deprivation score ranging from 20% to 32.9% and denotes total households considered.

By applying this vulnerability computation formula that is the exact number of households with
the specified deprivation score divided by the total number of the households considered we can
determine vulnerability.

= 100

0
= =0 In other words there is no household vulnerable to
46

poverty from the 46 households examined from the Quiha sub city.

79
 4.3.1.5. In-sever poverty Households
According to multidimensional poverty break down analysis, households recorded deprivation
score equal to or greater than 50% are classified as in-sever poverty households. So, from the
deprivation matrix, there is 1 (one) household with deprivation score in the mentioned interval of
percentage. To yield the formula is

= 100 Where the numbers of households with

deprivation score greater than or equals to 50% and denotes total households considered.

By applying this severity computation formula that is the exact number of households with the
specified deprivation score divided by the total number of the households considered we can
determine severity.

= 100

1
= = 0.021774 In other words 2.17% households are in sever
46

poverty from the 46 households examined from the Quiha sub city.

4.3.2. Contribution to MPI by Indicators and dimensions

Once the MPI computed then next is to determine the contribution of each indicator and
dimension to the overall MPI. This would help to identify the dimension to which the study area
is more susceptible. The overall weight of the MPI of the sub city under consideration, Quiha, as
it is yielded in the above calculation is 0.1997. Next is to determine how much each indicator
and dimension has contributed to this MPI, 0.1997 for the sub city. Dont forget it is the data in
the deprivation matrix that still governs our steps. It is figured as follows:

4.3.2.1. Indicator Contribution

C(K)

Contribution of an indicator Child school attendance to MPI= 100

1
0.165
= 46 100
0.1997
=1.8%

80

C(K)

Contribution of an indicator Adult years of schooling to MPI= 100

24
0.165
= 46 100
0.1997
=43.1%

C(K)

Contribution of an indicator child death to MPI= 100

1
0.165
= 46 100
0.1997
=1.8%

C(K)

Contribution of an indicator maternal death to MPI= 100

1
0.165
= 46 100
0.1997
=1.8%

C(K)

Contribution of an indicator access to electricity to MPI= 100

24
0.055
= 46 100
0.1997
=14.37%

C(K)

Contribution of an indicator sanitation to MPI= 100

5
0.055
= 46 100
0.1997
=3%

81

C(K)

Contribution of an indicator source of drinking water to MPI= 100

2
0.055
= 46 100
0.1997
=1.2%

C(K)

Contribution of an indicator flooring to MPI= 100

24
0.055
= 46 100
0.1997
=14.37%

C(K)

Contribution of an indicator cooking fuel to MPI= 100

24
0.055
= 46 100
0.1997
=14.37%

C(K)

Contribution of an indicator asset possession to MPI= 100

7
0.055
= 46 100
0.1997
=4.19%

The contribution of each indicator to the overall MPI, 0.1997 for Quiha sub city is as calculated
above, and in generic rule the total contribution of all indicators must sum to 100% which is true
in our case.

4.3.2.2. Dimensional contribution

Now it is an easy task in that the above calculated indicator contribution is to be categorized in
their respective dimension; education, health and living standard. Subsequently recorded

82
contribution of indicators in each dimension is to be summed to yield the each dimensions
percentage contribution to the overall MPI. Accordingly:

Contribution of education dimension to MPI= =

= . % + . % =44.9%

Contribution of health dimension to MPI= =

= . % + . %% =3,6%

Contribution of living standard dimension to MPI= =

= . % + % + . % + . % + . % + . % =51.5

Therefore, the above calculation procedures manifest the steps taken to compute the poverty
incidence, intensity, MPI, proportion of vulnerable households, and in-sever poverty households
as well as the percentage contribution of each indicator and dimension to the overall MPI. Since
the above calculation is just for single sub city; Quiha, the calculation for the rest sub cities and
for the whole city has been done the same way from their respective deprivation matrix (see
appendix section).

The comprehensive result of the poverty incidence, intensity, MPI, proportion of vulnerable
households, and in-sever poverty households across sub cities and Mekelle as well as the
percentage contribution of each indicator and dimension to the overall MPI is presented in the
subsequent section in table 16 and table 17 respectively.

83
 4.4. MPI and its Components for the Whole Mekelle City and its
Sub Cities
As earlier noted, the MPI is the product of two components; the proportion of the households
who are MP (incidence) and the average proportion of weighted indicators in which the MP
households ae deprived (intensity) (Alkire an Santos 2010). The table presents the MPI for the
whole Mekelle City and 7 (seven) sub cities, and the MPI components. Based on MPI and its
components, other calculations such as the proportion of the households vulnerable (or at risk) to
poverty (including sever poverty), number of MP households and the overall ranking of sub
cities of Mekelle city are established in the following table 16.

It presented in the table below that from the considered 322 households across sub cities in
Mekelle city the proportion of multidimensional poor was attested 162 (50.31%) households.
Specifically, it is 162 households that recorded the deprivation score of 0.33 across dimensions
and indicators considered. From the multidimensional poor households the rate of deprivation
score is different across households, thus leading to an adjective sever poverty for some
households depending on their deprivation score. According to multidimensional poverty index
delineators, the household that recorded a deprivation score greater or equals to 50% is said in
sever poverty household. Hence, it is 2.2% households from the total considered that lies in sever
poverty in Mekelle City.

The rest 160 (49.69) households are not multidimensional poor because their score record was
appeared below the minimum value threshold to be dubbed multidimensional poor, thus, less
than 0.33. This does not mean that, these 162 are not absolutely non-poor. Rather, in relative
discourse they are in good position in their deprivation records. According to multidimensional
poverty index delineators though a household didnt qualified to be called multidimensional poor
it could be in vulnerable position to poverty. It has been clearly stated in Alkire and Fostre, 2011
multidimensional poverty index directives that a household is said vulnerable to poverty when it
has recorded 20%-32.9% deprivation score. In view of that, 8.8% households are vulnerable to
poverty though they recorded deprivation score less than MP minimum threshold, 0.33%
deprivation score.

The spillover effect of the above two components, incidence and intensity makes up MPI for the
city in general. It is the product of these two components that yield the MI of the city. As a

84
result, the whole city multidimensional poverty index was calculated to 0.1938. In other words,
when the incidence of the poverty is adjusted to intensity in the city, the adjusted poverty
incidence proved 0.1938.

85
Table 4.15 MPI the City and each Sub City
Multidimensional
Poverty Households
Intensity of Households Households
Incidence: Households deprivation vulnerable (or at in sever
Number
in multidimensional among poor risk) to poverty poverty
Household(HH) of HH
poverty (H)-% (A)-Average % (intensity (intensity
MP
City and Sub households of weighted MPI Range between higher than MPI
cities deprivation 0 to 1 20%-32.9% 50%) Rank
Mekelle 50.31 38.53 0.1938 8.8 2.2 322 162 -
Adi Haki 26.09 43.08 0.1124 17.39 2.17 46 12 7
Kedamay Weyane 28.26 46.54 0.1315 28.26 4.35 46 13 6
Hawlti 36.96 41.41 0.1516 21.74 6.52 46 17 4
Quiha 52.17 38.27 0.1997 0 21.74 46 24 2
Ayder 41.30 36.18 0.1494 23.91 0 46 19 5
Semen 41.30 40.53 0.1674 21.74 0 46 19 3
Hadnet 56.52 38.71 0.2188 0 4.35 46 26 1

Source: own Survey, 2017

86
Per the MPI as it is presented in the table 4.16 above, Adi Haki Sub City has the least MPI score
of 0.1124, far below the City average of 0.1937. The sub city also has the least MPI incidence of
26.09, which is also lower than the city MPI incidence of 50.31%. However, a closer observation
of the average proportion of the proportion of weighted indicators in which the MPI-poor
persons in the Adi Haki sub city are deprive (intensity) of 43.08% is not significantly different
from other sub cities which have higher MPI poverty incidence. Rather, with exception of
Kedamay Weyane sub city the rest sub cities and even the whole Mekelle city poverty intensity
is below that of Adi Haki sub city. Therefore, in terms of intensity it is the most impoverished
sub city while based on the MPI it has been identified as the most developed sub city.

Not unpredictably, the two sub cities; Hadnet (56.52%) and Quiha (52.17%) have the highest
MPI poverty incidence, higher than city record. MPI incidence is also high to some extent Ayder
and Semen, both recorded 41.30% and limited in Kedamy Weyane (28.26%) and Hawlti
(36.96%).

Interestingly, while MPI poverty incidence appears to be extremely high for both Hadnet and
Quiha sub cities, the average intensity of deprivations between these sub cities and the rest of the
sub cities in Mekelle is marginal or not significant (see table 4.16). In other words, higher MPI
incidence does not necessarily correlate with higher average intensity. For instance, in table 4.16
while sub cities such as Adi Haki, Kedamya Weyane, and Hawlti, tend to have relatively lower
MPI incidence, the average intensity of deprivation tends to be high. Moreover, for sub city,
Semen, a few percentage points separate the MPI incidence and the average intensity of
deprivation.

The non-correlation between the MPI poverty incidence and the average intensity of the
deprivation raises questions regarding poverty intervention and targeting. This suggests that there
may be different pathways to approaching poverty reduction in Mekelle city. For sub cities such
as Adi Haki and Kedamy Weyane with relatively low incidence of poverty and but higher levels
of deprivation, interventions may not need to focus on reducing the number of the poor but rather
the average deprivation. In this direction, the intervention may require focusing on specific
dimensions of deprivation. The opposite approach may be required in Hadnet, Quiha, and to
some extent in Ayder, and Semen and Hawlti where the incidence of poverty is higher. In these

87
sub cities, the high level of incidence of poverty requires comprehensive effort towards reducing
the higher proportion of the total poor population.

Based on the MPI the sub cities in the city were ranked wherein Haneti, Quiha, Semen, Hawlti,
Ayder, Kedamy Weyane and Adi Haki is the ascending order of the ranks. Therefore, this rank
shows the adjusted incidence for intensity position of each sub city.

4.5. Indicator and Dimension Percentage Contribution to Overall

MPI
Table 4.17 represents the contribution of the three dimensions of the MPI (education, health and
living standard) and the selected ten indicators to overall city MPI, which is 0.1938.

This is very useful for understanding the major causes of poverty in Mekelle City, and across sub
cities. Table 4.17 reveals that across Mekelle the largest contributors to poverty are dimensions
of education and living standards. Health plays a very minor role as its contribution is less than
2% of the total contribution to overall poverty. In generic talking, for all sub cities and the city
itself, living standard appears to be the largest contributor accounting for over 50% except for
Hawlti where it has contributed below 50%.

Again, table 4.17 provides information on the specific contribution of both ten indicators to the
overall poverty both citywide and across sub cities. Thus, taking individually deprivation of each
indicator across dimensions, no adult household member not completing 8 years of schooling is
the single largest contributor to overall poverty. Citywide it is 42.83% but interestingly higher in
the two sub cities, Ayder (45.5%) and Quiha (43.1%), more than the city average. It is a little
trail behind the city average in Hadnet (42.62), Semen (40.72%) and Hawlti (40%) sub cities.

88
 Table 4.16 Percentage Contribution of Dimensions and Indicators to overall City MPI

Table 4.16:

Percentage contribution of
deprivation of each dimension
MPI to MPI Percentage contribution of each indicator to MPI
City and
Sub City Education Health Living standards
Source
Years Child of
Living of school Child Maternal drinking
Education Health Standard Schooling attendance death death Electricity Sanitation water Flooring Cooking >1 Asset
% % % % % % % % % % % % %
Mekelle 0.1938 44.68 1.85 53.47 42.83 1.85 1.32 0.53 14.27 3.88 1.85 14.27 14.27 4.93
A/Haki 0.1124 39.28 9.58 51.14 38.29 0 6.38 3.2 12.77 1.13 3.2 12.77 12.77 8.5
K/Weyane 0.1315 39 0 61 36 3 0 0 12 10 3 12 12 12
Hawlti 0.1516 47 4.7 48.3 40 7 4.7 0 13.23 7 1.6 13.23 13.23 0
Quiha 0.1997 44.9 3.6 51.5 43.1 1.8 1.8 1.8 14.37 3 1.2 14.37 14.37 4.19
Ayder 0.1494 45.6 0 54.4 45.5 0 0 0 15.2 1.6 2.4 15.2 15.2 4.8
Semen 0.1674 40.72 0 59.28 40.72 0 0 0 13.57 7.4 3.57 13.57 13.57 7.86
Hadnet 0.2188 45.9 0 54.1 42.62 3.2 0 0 14.21 5.46 1.64 14.21 14.21 4.37

Source: own Survey, 2017

89
Beyond the indicator of no adult household member not completing 8 years of schooling, three
indicators under living standard such as access to electricity, cooking fuel and flooring contribute
moderately to overall city poverty (see table 4.17 above). The contribution of these indicators,
there is no much difference in terms of the contribution to the overall poverty across the sub-
cities.

90
 Chapter Five
Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1. Summary and Conclusion
This study has applied non-monetary poverty measurement, namely, the multidimensional
poverty index (MPI). The analysis of the data obtained from the study households has been done
from two outlooks. The first analysis part focused on the mere descriptive and expounding
delineation of the deprivation and non-deprivation status of the households examined across
indicators embodied in each dimension of the poverty.

The second analysis part was further classified into two; the first aimed at the construction of
MPI for Mekelle City based on the data obtained from the study households. To that end, the
incidence of the households that are multidimensional poor and intensity of the deprivations
experienced (i.e., average proportion of weighted indicators in which the MP-poor households
are deprived) were determined. The calculation of the incidence and intensity of deprivation was
carried out using the MPI methodology as commanded by Alkire and Fostre (2007, 2011) and
Alkire and Santos (2010). Subsequently, based on the MPI result of households poverty
vulnerable and in-sever poverty households were identified in percentage proportion from the
total households considered. The second, the percentage contribution of each indicator across all
dimensions and that of each dimension to the overall MI has been computed.

Using ten indicators drawn from three dimensions (education, health and living standards) at
both analysis parts the findings are Summarized and synchronously concluded as follows:

Both the descriptive analysis of the poverty and the multidimensional poverty index components
has proved deprivation status of the households complementarily. The deprivation status in the
descriptive discussion has been set for each indictor in percentage unit across sub cities and the
city as a whole while in MPI analysis the deprivation status of the households was set in
percentage contribution of each indicator and dimension to MPI. Therefore, it has been
ascertained that there is a complementary deprivation results at both analytical positions.

91
Acute deprivation has been ascertained in living standard indicators, education and health
dimensions in that order. From among the five indicators of poverty in living standard
dimensions three indicators (improved dwelling floor, improved cooking fuel and access to
electricity) have showed a deprivation record of greater than 50%. The other indicators in living
standard dimension and the rest dimensions have relatively recorded deprivation far less than the
aforementioned indicators of living standard except years of schooling in education dimension.
The education dimension with its two indicators has its greater deprivation rate in adult
household members years of schooling, 58.39%. The deprivation record of the indicators of the
health dimension appeared marginal; child death and maternal death account for 1.55% and
0.62% deprivation rate respectively.

Table 5.1 Summary of Deprivation Rates

Summary of deprivation Rates of

Households in Mekelle
Deprivation status
Not deprived Deprived Total
Dimensions and indicators
Education:
Household elementary school
41.61 58.39
completion 100
Child school attendance 97.83 2.17 100

Health:
Death of child 98.45 1.55 100
Maternal death 99.38 0.62 100

Standard of living:
Improved Dwelling floor 37.27 62.73 100
Improved toilet facility 86.3 13.7 100
Access to good drinking water 93.48 6.52 100
Improved cooking fuel 39.08 60.92 100
Access to electricity 49.69 50.31 100
More than one asset possession 82.6 17.4 100
Source: Own Survey

Based on the data drawn from the households of the study in the city the multidimensional
poverty index was calculated to be 0.1938. The ceiling of the index is 1 that represents absolute

92
deprivation of households in all indicators and/or dimensions while the bottom surface of the
index is 0 that represents non-deprivation status of the households in all indicators and/or
dimensions. That said, the index record of Mekelle city, 0.1938 in relative speech represents
moderate deprivation of the households examined across indicators and/or dimensions. This can
be witnessed by visualization the propinquity of 0.1938 to 0 (represents non-deprivation) than to
1 (that represents deprivation).
Provided the MPI computed for the city and each sub city in the city comparison has been made
among sub cities based on their MPI value. The MPI and the rank of each sub city are indicated
in the table below.

Table 5.2 Ranking of MPI Scores by Sub City and Dimensional ad Indicator Contribution

Sub City Citywide and Per Sub City MPI

MPI Rank
Adi Haki 0.1124 7
Kedamay
0.1315 6
Weyane
Hawlti 0.1516 4
Quiha 0.1997 2
Ayder 0.1494 5
Semen 0.1674 3
Hadnet 0.2188 1
Mekelle City 0.1938
Contribution to Overall MPI by Dimensions and Major Contributor Indicators in each
Dimension
Contribution Main Contributor Indicator in the
Dimension
Rate Dimension Contribution Rate
Education 44.68 Years of schooling 42.83
Health 1.85 Child Death 1.32
Living
Standard 53.47 Electricity 14.37
Floor 14.37
Cooking Fuel 14.37
Source; Own Survey

Dimensional and indicator contribution to the MPI has also revealed the dominance of living
standard dimensions deprivation of the households examined in the city. This fosters the above
mentioned percentage deprivation dominance of the living standard and its indicators in the city.

93
From the point of view of contribution to MPI, the five indicators of the living standard
dimension altogether contributed 53.47% to the MPI. Education dimension stood second in that
perspective with contribution record of 44.68% while the health dimensions impact has been
demonstrated insignificant, only 1.85% contribution rate. When it is seen on indicator bases
distinctively, it is the years of schooling indicator in education dimension that is leading the way
of contribution to the overall MPI, with contribution proportion of 42.83%. In the second rank, it
is the three living standard indicators (improved dwelling floor, improved cooking fuel and
access to electricity) that have contributed a lot, 14.37% each of them. The rest six indicators
combined together have brought only contribution of 14.06% to the overall MPI.
The deprivation rate of the households in the three indicators of living standard dimension
(improved dwelling floor, improved cooking fuel and access to electricity) was distant greater
than that of the years of schooling indicator of the education dimension. As it is mentioned
above, these three indicators of the living standard have showed above 50% deprivation rate
while it is only 58.39% for the years of schooling indicator. But when it comes to contribution to
the overall multidimensional poverty index the opposite is true; years of schooling have
contributed a lot than the three indicators. This is ascribed to the differential in the indicators
weight across dimension at time of computing contribution rate wherein years of schooling has
received weight of 0.165 and living standard indicators have received weight of 0.055.
Down the line towards establishing multidimensional poverty index poverty incidence and the
intensity of the poverty have been determined. It is these two components that made up the
multidimensional poverty index computed. It has been found that there is no correlation the
poverty incidence and the intensity of poverty across the sub cities in the city. In other words,
higher MPI incidence does not necessarily correlate with higher average intensity.
The study area is therefore susceptible to the poverty dimension of living standard provided that
the dimension has relatively recorded higher deprivation rate across its indicators and also has
recorded a whopping cumulative contribution rate (53.47%) to the overall MPI of the city.
Education dimension has relatively lower on average deprivation rate across its indicators and
also has a lower cumulative contribution to the overall MPI. Health dimension has a meager
record from all perspectives. On indicator base, it is again the living standard indicators that have
substantial deprivation rate wherein improved dwelling floor, improved cooking fuel and access
to electricity leading the line with more than 50% deprivation rate. The education dimension

94
indicator; years of schooling, unignorably has a deprivation of proportion 58.39%. It is when
indicators are seen from contribution to overall MPI that the education dimension, years of
schooling step up to take the leading line of poverty on indicator base in the study area with
deprivation rate of 58.39%. On indicator base it is the adult illiteracy that represents
susceptibility of the study area with deprivation rate and contribution rate of 58.39% and 42.83%
respectively. Therefore, specifically the study area is mainly susceptible to the indicators of years
of schooling, improved dwelling floor, improved cooking fuel and access to electricity.

95
 5.2. Recommendations
The study has come through the investigative courses of expounding the position of the
scrutinized households in poverty status considering education, health and living standard
dimensions. Thus, the study has exposed a propagative picture of the poverty in the study area as
per the determined specific objectives. Depending on the findings the researcher therefore made
the following recommendation points from different angles.

The non-correlation between the poverty incidence and poverty intensity as it is concluded in this
study advances the policy interrogations regarding different paths to approaching poverty
reduction. In other words, in city spaces where multidimensional poverty was proved low
incidental but high average deprivation intensity the focus should not be on reducing the number
of poor rather the reduction in of acute deprivation indicators appear righteous. Paradoxically,
city spaces where poverty incidences appeared high but average deprivation was attested low, the
poverty reduction direction should be on downsizing the number of poor.
The acute deprivation of the adult members of the households is something that must draw
policy attention to mold an acceptable path to real development and shove away poverty.
Therefore, policy schemes to educate adults must be pioneered. Given the abundance of the
human capital to establish basic adult education in the city there must be an idiosyncratic adult
education policy platform to forge learning opportunities for equipping adults with literacy and
basic skills; for continuing training and professional development, and for active citizenship,
through what is variously known as community, popular or liberal education. Adult education
and learning to be established must provide a variety of learning ways and flexible learning
chances, including second opportunity programs to make up for lack of initial schooling,
including for persons who have never been to school, early school leavers and drop outs. To that
end, specific policy frameworks such as inclusion, age margin, training levels etc. must be
established.
There is a pronounced deficiency in liaison to connectivity to the city grid of electricity. This on
one hand might indicate illegal electricity networking and theft, which is caused by the limited
capability of households to pay or, for those living in informal settlements, their disqualification
to be connected, and which is accounted as distribution losses. Upon in ability to connect directly
to the city grid, households connect from neighbors and neighbors usually charge a very
exorbitant unregulated price that adds fuel into the wound; further exacerbates cost of living

96
thereby deepening the root of poverty. Therefore, there is a need for legalizing existing directly
connected consumers and connecting households without previous access require support from
the relevant government authority. Moreover, there must be instances of introducing reward and
penalty systems to diminish electricity theft which creates an artificial deficiency in this
indicator. Notwithstanding, illegal connections mentioned, service gaps in establishing direct
grid connection must be addressed.
Provided a whooping household deprivation of modern energy source of cooking fuel different
implications can be drawn ranging from in-house health status to environmental and climate
affects through deforestation back in rural place to transport wood and charcoal to the city.
Therefore, effective, comprehensive policies need to be established that focuses the forms of
energy used by the poor for cooking, lighting and address any gap thereon rather than
concentrate on provision of electricity alone as an end in itself. The Government agencies could
increase provision of training programs to advance skills and expertise in the area of upgraded
stoves and to educate people about the health risks of indoor air pollution by emissions from
wood and charcoal or saw dust usage. The municipality can also support cleaner cooking by
developing citywide databases which include information on the households to be served,
potential fuels, stoves, the infrastructure and potential providers, together with cost analyses and
estimates of the ability and willingness to pay, as a function of income. Long-term commitments
are desirable from development associates to scale up energy investments, transfer knowledge
and install financing instruments which will leverage private capital.
The deprivation in improved flooring material requires upgrade in the economic capacity of the
households. Creating job opportunity and forging a clear cut policy framework thereon is
something that could well pay off the effort the curb the problem. Alongside this panacea a long-
term credit arrangement is a necessity to enable households to draw loans and improve their
dwellings. Building materials manufacturing plants also need to be encouraged through different
subsidy schemes to avail the market.
The MPI will have a tremendous practical potential for tracking poverty status in Ethiopia at
national level. As indicated in the study, the ten indicators used are directly linked to global
measure of multidimensional poverty. To find the true position of Ethiopia in global poverty
status these global complying measurement dimensions and indicators should be deployed on the
course of conducting poverty analysis in the country. This study represents a one-off MPI

97
delineation of Mekelle city based on the data from only meager number of households that in
other words by no means makes a national sense of poverty. It is suggested that potential
researchers of the field should undertake researches based on national data complying with the
data for global measure of multidimensional poverty.

98
Reference

99
 Appendices
Appendix-I Questionnaire

Mekelle University

College Business and Economics

Department of Management

Program of Development Studies (Post Graduate)

Dear Respondents,

I am Tatasha Takaye Kasito, a grauate student at Mekelle University, College of Business and
Economics. Curently, I am conducting a research study entitled Analysis of the Poverty
Dimensions of Urban Households: A Case of Mekelle City in partial fulfillment of the
Master Degree in Development Studies. You as esteemed inhabitant of Mekelle City have been
nominated to participate in this research survey.

The questionnaire is intended to gather information about poverty dimensions only for academic
purposes. I can assure you that any information that you provide in this questionnaire will be
kept confidential. Your genuine response is of high importance for the outcome of this study. I
would like to appreciate you for answering all questions; it will most probably take 10 minutes.

Thank you in advance for devoting your precious time in answering the questions

100
No Household Roster

Interviewer Interviewer: please tell me the first letter of the name of each person who usually lives here; start with the head
instruction of the household. In case the first letter of the name of the two or more persons in the household, resemble make
its first letter plus second, thirdletter.

Member-1 MB-2 MB-3 MB-4 MB-5 MB-6 MB-7 MB-8

Name (1st letter)

Gender Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male

(Mark )
Female Female
Female Female Female Female Female Female

Age 0-6
(Mark )
7-14
15-18
19-26
27-40
41-65
>65
Relationship to HH Head
(Mark ) Wife
Son/daughter

Father/mother

Mother/father
in law

Sister/brother

Sister/brother in
law

Grand parent

Servant
other
relative

Marital status Married

(Mark ) Widowed
Divorced
Separated
Never married

101
 Employment Unemployed
(Mark ) Employed
informal sector
Employed
formal sector
(public)
Employed
formal sector
(private)
Self-employed.
Unpaid family
work
Pension
receiver
Domestic skill
(cooking,
washing etc.)
Apparent/traine
es
Trade/business
Occupation Professional/tec
(Mark ) hnical
Administrative/
managerial
Clerical
Sales worker
Supervision/For
man/skilled
worker
Unskilled
productive
worker
Other support
service
Interviewer Checkpoint: Following questions on adult education is for members above 18 years old.
1

102
 Education What is What is the What is the What is the What is the What is the What is the What is the
(Adult) the highest highest level highest highest level highest highest level highest level
(Mark ) highest level of of school level of of school level of of school of school
level of school (Name) has school (Name) has school (Name) has (Name) has
school (Name) has attended (Name) has attended (Name) has attended attended
(Name) attended attended attended
has
attended What is the What is the What is the What is the
What is the highest What is the highest grade What is the highest highest
highest grade highest (name) highest grade grade
What is grade (name) grade completed at grade (name) (name)
the (name) completed at (name) that level (name) completed at completed at
highest completed that level completed completed that level that level
grade at that level at that level at that
(name) level
completed
at that
level

Interviewer Checkpoint: Following questions on school attendance is for household members of age 3-18 years old.
Education Did (name) Did (name) Did (name) Did (name) Did (name) Did (name) Did (name) Did
(Child) attend school attend attend attend attend school attend attend school (name)
or pre-school school or school or school or or pre-school school or or pre-school attend
at any time pre-school pre-school pre-school at any time pre-school at any time school or
at any time at any time at any time at any time pre-school
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes at any time
Yes Yes Yes
No No No No No
No No No

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A

2 Interviewer checkpoints: Following questions are on indicators of Living standard of the household (Mark )
MPI Indicators Questions
Electricity Does your house have an access to electricity?
Yes

No
If your answer is yes, is it your own metered electricity?
Yes

No
Sanitation What kind of toilet facility does members of your household use?
No facility(bush/beach/field)
Pit latrine with slab
Public toilet
Ventilated improved latrine
Bucket/pan
Sanitation: sharing Pit latrine without slab/open pit
facility Other.
Source of Safe how do you rate access to safe drinking water?
drinking water Easy

103
 Difficult
Neither difficult or easy
Distance to water Which one is the source of drinking water?
Pipe-borne inside dwelling

Pipe-borne outside dwelling

Tanker supply

Standpipe/public tape

Bottled water

Sachet water

Unprotected spring
Flooring What makes up the material for the dwelling floor?
Earth/sand

Stone or mud-dung

Wood planks

Ceramic tiles

Ceramic carpet

Wood planks

Others, specify
How satisfied are you with this accommodation?
Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Slightly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied
Do you have any of the following problems with your accommodation?

Shortage of space

Too dark, not enough light

Lack of adequate heating facilities

Leaky roof

Damp walls, floors, foundations, etc.

Rot in window frames or floors

Mould

104
 No place to sit outside, e.g. a terrace or garden

Other specify.

Has your health problems or the health problems of anyone in your

Household been caused/made worse by housing situation?
Yes

No
Coking fuel What type of fuel does your household mainly use cooking?
None/no cooking

wood

Electricity

Kerosene

Charcoal

Crop residue

Saw dust
Animal waste
Gas
Other.
Assets Does your household have?: (Mark )

Television
Yes

No
Bicycle
Yes
No

Motorbike
Yes
No

Telephone
Yes

No

Radio
Yes
No
3 Interviewer checkpoint: Following questions are on health indicators of the household. (Mark )

105
 Child death Has a child (ren) under age of 5 years, died ever in the household?
Yes

No

If your answer for question number above is yes, when does the child died?
Born died

During birth

After birth
What is/are the reason(s) for the death in case it could have been prevented?
Financial shortage

Inadequate health care service

Inability to access health service

10 Maternal death Had your household encountered death of mother?
Yes

No
If your answer for question above is yes when dis she died?
During pregnancey

During delivery

After delivery

Which among the following makes the best reason for the death?

Occurred though utmost medical treatment accessed

Inability to access sufficient medical treatment due to shortage of finance

No medical treatment accessed at all

Died after traditional treatments

106
Appendix_II-
A Dimensional Deprivation Matrix for the Study Households to Construct
MPI (Whole City-Mekelle)

Dimensions and their corresponding indicators

Education
Health dimension Living Standard Dimension
Dimension UnC C
Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Total Total
Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-3 Ind-4 Ind-5 Ind-6
UnC C UnC C UnC C
>1
CE AE CD MD Elec Sanit. DW Floor Cook
Asset
W 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055
H/H
1 1 1 0.33 0.33 1 1 0.33 0.33 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.99 0.99
2 1 1 0.33 0.33 1 1 0.33 0.33 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.99 0.99
3 1 1 0.33 0.33 1 0 0.165 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.825 0.825
4 1 1 0.33 0.33 1 0 0.165 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.825 0.825
5 1 1 0.33 0.33 1 0 0.165 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.825 0.825
6 1 1 0.33 0.33 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.66 0.66
7 1 1 0.33 0.33 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.66 0.66
8 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
9 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
10 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
11 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
12 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
13 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
14 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
15 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
16 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495

107
17 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
18 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
19 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
20 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
21 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
22 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
23 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
24 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
25 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
26 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
27 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
28 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
29 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
30 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
31 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
32 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
33 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
34 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
35 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
36 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
37 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
38 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
39 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
40 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
41 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
42 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
43 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
44 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
45 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385

108
46 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
47 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0.385 0.385
48 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
49 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
50 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
51 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
52 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
53 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
54 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
55 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
56 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
57 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
58 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
59 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
60 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
61 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
62 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
63 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
64 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
65 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
66 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
67 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
68 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
69 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
70 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
71 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0.33 0.33
72 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
73 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
74 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33

109
75 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
76 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
77 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
78 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
79 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
80 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
81 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
82 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
83 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
84 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
85 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
86 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
87 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
88 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
89 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
90 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
91 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
92 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
93 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
94 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
95 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
96 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
97 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
98 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
99 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
100 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
101 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
102 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
103 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33

110
104 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
105 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
106 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
107 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
108 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
109 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
110 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
111 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
112 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
113 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
114 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
115 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
116 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
117 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
118 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
119 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
120 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
121 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
122 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
123 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
124 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
125 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
126 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
127 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
128 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
129 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
130 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
131 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
132 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33

111
133 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
134 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
135 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
136 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
137 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
138 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
139 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
140 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
141 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
142 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
143 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
144 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
145 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
146 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
147 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
148 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
149 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
150 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
151 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
152 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
153 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
154 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
155 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
156 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
157 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
158 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
159 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
160 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
161 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33

112
162 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
163 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
164 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
165 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
166 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
167 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
168 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
169 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
170 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
171 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
172 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
173 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
174 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
175 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
176 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
177 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
178 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
179 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
180 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
181 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
182 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
183 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
184 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
185 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
186 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
187 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
188 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.11 0
190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.11 0

113
191 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.11 0
192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
193 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
194 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
195 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
197 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
198 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
202 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
212 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
214 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
215 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
216 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
217 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
218 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

114
220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
221 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
223 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
224 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
226 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
227 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
228 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
229 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
231 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
232 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
233 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
234 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
236 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
238 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
239 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
243 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
244 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
247 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

115
249 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
251 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
252 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
254 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
255 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
256 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
257 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
258 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
259 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
261 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
262 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
264 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
267 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
272 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
273 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
274 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
276 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
277 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

116
278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
279 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
281 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
283 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
285 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
287 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
289 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
291 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
292 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
295 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
296 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
297 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
298 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
299 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
302 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
303 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
304 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
306 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

117
307 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
308 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
309 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
311 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
312 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
314 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
316 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
317 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
319 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
320 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
321 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
322 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

118
Appendix-II-
B Dimensional Deprivation Matrix for the Study Households to construct
MPI(Adi Haki)

Dimensions and their corresponding indicators

Education
Health dimension Living Standard Dimension
Dimension UnC C
Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Total Total
Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-3 Ind-4 Ind-5 Ind-6
UnC C UnC C UnC C
>1
CE AE CD MD Elec Sanit. DW Floor Cook
Asset
W 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055
H/H
1 0 1 0.165 0 1 1 0.33 0.33 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.825 0.825
2 0 1 0.165 0 1 0 0.165 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.66 0.66
3 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
4 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
5 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
0
6 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
7 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
8 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
9 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
10 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
11 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
12 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
13 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
14 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
15 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
16 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0

119
17 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
18 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
19 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
20 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
21 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.165 0
22 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.165 0
23 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.165 0
24 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.165 0
25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

120
46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix-II-
C Dimensional Deprivation Matrix for the Study Households to construct MPI
(Kedamay weyane)

Dimensions and their corresponding indicators

Education
Health dimension Living Standard Dimension
Dimension UnC C
Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Total Total
Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-3 Ind-4 Ind-5 Ind-6
UnC C UnC C UnC C
>1
CE AE CD MD Elec Sanit. DW Floor Cook
Asset
W 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055
H/H
1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.66 0.66
2 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.66
3 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
4 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
5 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
0
6 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
7 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
8 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
9 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
10 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
11 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
12 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
13 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
14 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.11 0 0.275 0
15 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.11 0 0.275 0

121
16 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.11 0 0.275 0
17 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
18 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
19 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
20 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
21 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
22 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
23 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
24 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
25 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
26 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
27 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.165 0
28 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.165 0
29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

122
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix-II-
D Dimensional Deprivation Matrix for the Study Households to construct MPI
(Hawlti)

Dimensions and their corresponding indicators

Education
Health dimension Living Standard Dimension
Dimension UnC C
Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Total Total
Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-3 Ind-4 Ind-5 Ind-6
UnC C UnC C UnC C
>1
CE AE CD MD Elec Sanit. DW Floor Cook
Asset
W 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055
H/H
1 1 1 0.33 0.33 1 0 0.165 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.275 0 0.77 0.77
2 1 1 0.33 0.33 1 0 0.165 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.275 0 0.77 0.77
3 1 1 0.33 0.33 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.22 0 0.55 0.55
4 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
5 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
0
6 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
7 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
8 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
9 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
10 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
11 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
12 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
13 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
14 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33

123
15 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
16 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
17 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
18 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
19 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
20 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
21 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
22 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
23 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
24 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
25 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
26 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
27 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.165 0
29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.11 0
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.11 0
31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

124
44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix-II-
E Dimensional Deprivation Matrix for the Study Households to construct MPI
(Ayder)

Dimensions and their corresponding indicators

Education
Health dimension Living Standard Dimension
Dimension UnC C
Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Total Total
Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-3 Ind-4 Ind-5 Ind-6
UnC C UnC C UnC C
>1
CE AE CD MD Elec Sanit. DW Floor Cook
Asset
W 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055
H/H
1 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
2 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
3 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
4 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
5 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
0
6 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
7 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
8 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
9 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
10 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
11 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
12 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
13 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33

125
14 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
15 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
16 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
17 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
18 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
19 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
20 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
21 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
22 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
23 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
24 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
25 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
26 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
27 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
28 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
29 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.22 0
31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

126
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix-II-
F Dimensional Deprivation Matrix for the Study Households to construct MPI
(Semen)

Dimensions and their corresponding indicators

Education
Health dimension Living Standard Dimension
Dimension UnC C
Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Total Total
Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-3 Ind-4 Ind-5 Ind-6
UnC C UnC C UnC C
>1
CE AE CD MD Elec Sanit. DW Floor Cook
Asset
W 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055
H/H
1 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
2 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
3 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
4 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
5 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
0
6 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
7 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
8 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
9 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
10 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
11 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
12 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33

127
13 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
14 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
15 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
16 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
17 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
18 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
19 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
20 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0
21 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0
22 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0
23 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0
24 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0
25 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0
26 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0
27 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0
28 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0
29 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0
30 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.11 0 0.275 0
31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.11 0 0.11 0
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.11 0 0.11 0
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.11 0 0.11 0
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.11 0 0.11 0
35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.11 0 0.11 0
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

128
42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix-II-
G Dimensional Deprivation Matrix for the Study Households to construct MPI
(Hadnet)

Dimensions and their corresponding indicators

Education
Health dimension Living Standard Dimension
Dimension UnC C
Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Total Total
Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-1 Ind-2 Ind-3 Ind-4 Ind-5 Ind-6
UnC C UnC C UnC C
>1
CE AE CD MD Elec Sanit. DW Floor Cook
Asset
W 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055
H/H
1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.66 0.66
2 1 1 0.33 0.33 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.66 0.66
3 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.33 0.33 0.495 0.495
4 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
5 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
0
6 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
7 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
8 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.275 0 0.44 0.44
9 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
10 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.22 0 0.385 0.385
11 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33

129
12 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
13 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
14 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
15 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
16 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
17 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
18 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
19 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
20 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
21 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
22 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
23 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
24 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
25 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
26 0 1 0.165 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.33 0.33
27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0.165 0 0.165 0
28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.11 0 0.11 0
29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.11 0 0.11 0
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.11 0 0.11 0
31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.055 0 0.055 0
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

130
41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

131