Poverty Rates in 2004 and 2011 at Village Development Committees and Municipalities

Basan Shrestha, Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Expert

basan_shrestha@yahoo.com, basanshrestha70@gmail.com

The Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targeted to halve the poverty rate from 42 percent in 1990 to 21 percent by 2015. Nepal made a remarkable progress in reducing poverty. The Nepal Living Standards Survey (NLSS) 2011 revealed that on average 25.2 percent people lived below the national poverty line that decreased from 30.8 percent in 2004. However, the poverty rates did not drop in all Village Development Committees (VDCs) and municipalities (MPs). Thus, the policy makers, planners and development practitioners are contested that people from all corners feel improved well-being status.

The NLSS 2011 defines the poverty rate as the percent of people below the national poverty line of rupees 19,261 per capita annual consumption. The Small Area Estimation of Poverty reports 2013 and 2006, using data from the NLSS 2011 and 2004 and the Population Census 2011 and 2001 estimated the poverty rates of 976 sub-districts (Ilaka) that constituted 3,926 VDCs and MPs located in 75 districts of all five regions including – 1,215 VDCs and MPs of 19 central districts, 907 VDCs and MPs of 16 eastern districts, 876 VDCs and MPs of 16 western districts, 539 VDCs and MPs of 15 mid-western districts and 389 VDCs and  MPs of nine far-western districts. An Ilaka constituted an average of 4.3 VDCs. A MP was considered as one single Ilaka. Thus, the poverty rates of VDCs within an Ilaka and MPs in 2004 and 2011 were compared to find out the change. This analysis considers that the poverty rate at Ilaka level represents the poverty rates of VDCs therein.

The development interventions had positive impact on the poverty reduction. Centre was most heterogeneous that had both extremely well-off and impoverished VDCs in both periods. The gap between the most well-off and impoverished VDCs/ MPs narrowed in 2011 than in 2004. Gonggabu VDC in Kathmandu district of centre and Imadol VDC in Lalitpur district of centre had the lowest poverty rates of 1.2 percent and 0.5 percent respectively in 2004 and 2011. Kankada and Raksirang VDCs of Makawanpur district in centre continued to be most impoverished with the highest poverty rates of 82.1 and 72.8 percent respectively in 2004 and 2011.

The second richest VDCs were from centre in both periods- two VDCs (Fulbari and Sibanagar) of Chitwan district in 2004 and Katunje VDC of Bhaktapur and Tikathali VDC of Lalitpur districts from centre in 2011.

Seven VDCs (Balting, Banakhu Chor, Bhimkhori, Budhakhani, Foksingtar, Ghartichhap and Gokule) from Kavrepalanchowk district of centre and three VDCs (Jair, Kalika and Shree Nagar) in Humla district of mid-west were second poorest in 2004 and 2011 respectively.

Pokhara Sub-metropolitan city in Kaski district of west and three VDCs (Gothatar, Mahankal and Mulpani) in Kathmandu district of centre were third richest in 2004 and 2011 respectively. The third poorest VDCs/ MPs were from west in both periods - six VDCs (Bharatipur, Bulingtar, Dadajheri Tadi, Jaubari, Kotathar and Upallo Arkhale) of Nawalparasi district in 2004 and seven VDCs (Bihi, Chhekampar, Chumchet, Lho, Prok, Samagaun and Sirdibas) of Gorkha district in 2011.

The west had the greatest impact of development interventions. Three quarter VDCs/ MPs improved their well-being status by dropping their poverty rates from 2004 to 2011. Nine tenth VDCs/ MPs from west dropped the poverty rates, followed by VDCs/ MPs from mid-west. However, three VDCs (Ahale, Mahabharat and Vedetar) of Dhankuta district in east had the highest decline in the poverty rate by 50.5 percentage points from 65.7 percent in 2004 to 15.2 percent in 2011. The third poorest six VDCs in 2004 of Nawalparasi district from west also improved their well-being status considerably by decreasing the poverty rate by 42.7 percentage points from 72.4 percent in 2004 to 29.7 percent in 2011. Unlike, the third richest VDC/ MP in 2004 of Kaski district from west thinly improved the well-being status by decreasing the poverty rate only by 0.3 percentage point from 1.6 percent in 2004 to 1.3 percent in 2011.

The far-west was most impoverished. One quarter VDCs/ MPs were impoverished in 2011 than in 2004 by increasing their poverty rates. Three fifth VDCs/ MPs from the far-west increased the poverty rates, followed by VDCs/ MPs in the east. However, two VDCs (Chhonhup and Lomanthang) in Mustang district of west had the highest increase in the poverty rate by 36.7 percentage points from 28.8 percent in 2004 to 65.5 percent in 2011. The richest VDC in 2004 of Kathmandu district from centre also impoverished by increasing the poverty rate by 1.2 percentage points from 1.2 percent in 2004 to 2.4 percent in 2011. The second richest two VDCs in 2004 of Chitwan district from centre also increased the poverty rate by 0.9 percent from 1.5 percent in 2004 to 2.4 percent in 2011.

Hetauda MP in Makawanpur district of centre was the only MP of all VDCs/ MPs that neither improved the well-being status nor impoverished, with the equal poverty rate of 6.6 percent, lower than the national level and did not change in both periods.

The development interventions had the positive impact on the poverty reduction in another way as well. The proportion of VDCs/ MPs that had the poverty rates higher than the national average rate of 30.8 percent decreased from two third in 2004 to half in 2011 that had the national average rate of 25.2 percent. However, most of them continued to remain poor. Three fifth VDCs/ MPs that had the poverty rates higher than the national average rate in 2004 continued to have higher rates than the national average rate in 2011 as well. Far-west had lowest impact. Nine tenth VDCs/ MPs from far-west continued to have higher rates than the national average rate in 2011, followed by mid-west.

Those changes in the poverty rates of VDCs/ MPs could give some insights to the planners and policy makers such as Poor Household Support Coordination Board to give priority to some regions, districts and VDCs/ MPs than others to provide support to the poor households.