CHAPTER 6: A COMPARISON OF HOUSEHOLD SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS
6.1 Country Comparison over Time – Categorical Principal Component Analysis
102
103 included in the construction of the indices between the years. Therefore, direct comparisons of the SES scores were not entirely reliable and should not be given too much attention. In the discussion below the terms poor, rich and forms thereof are used loosely to describe differences in SES level: the estimated SES scores are relative to one another within each data set and give no indication of absolute levels of poverty or wealth.
Table 6.1: Cluster sizes (per cent of total sample) by country and year, based on the estimated household SES scores using the CATPCA index and k-means cluster analysis with five clusters
Note: Relative household wealth increases from cluster one to cluster five.
Source: Author‟s calculations
For three of the five countries of analysis, the results showed an increase in the per cent of households allocated to the lowest level of SES (cluster 1) from the earlier time period to the more recent period. For Kenya and Tanzania there was a decrease in the per cent of households allocated to the lowest SES level. The results also indicated that the per cent of households allocated to the group of highest SES level (cluster 5) decreased from the earlier time period to the more recent one for three of the five countries of analysis. For Kenya and Uganda, the per cent of households assigned to cluster five increased slightly.
The cluster containing the greatest per cent of households for the 2005 Egypt analysis was the third cluster, whereas for the 2008 analysis the largest cluster was the second cluster. This result suggests, along with the increase in the percentage of households allocated to the first cluster from 2005 to 2008, that there was a decrease in the SES level of households in Egypt between 2005 and 2008. This conclusion was reflected in a slight decrease in the maximum SES score between 2005 (18.77) and 2008 (18.1) and the lower mean SES score for the fifth cluster of the 2008 period. The minimum SES score increased from 2005 (-19.96) to 2008 (- 17.30) and the mean SES score of the first cluster was actually higher for the 2008 year. It could be concluded for Egypt that a greater per cent of the population was poorer in 2008
Country Year Total (%)
1 2 3 4 5
2005 8.3 24.0 34.7 22.5 10.5 100.0
2008 10.4 31.6 30.9 19.4 7.7 100.0
2003 43.3 30.9 14.1 7.6 4.1 100.0
2008 30.3 32.6 19.9 12.2 5.0 100.0
2001 57.4 28.7 7.8 3.9 2.2 100.0
2006 65.8 19.3 8.9 4.0 1.9 100.0
2000 43.2 30.5 16.0 7.5 2.8 100.0
2006 45.3 31.9 12.7 6.9 3.2 100.0
2004 61.8 21.2 10.0 4.6 2.4 100.0
2007 58.0 24.9 9.0 6.4 1.7 100.0
Egypt Kenya
Tanzania Uganda Mali
Cluster (%)
104 than in 2005, yet the poorest were better off in terms of SES. The differences in mean SES scores between the clusters were more similar for the 2008 analyses compared to the 2005 results, suggesting that the distribution of SES was more even in 2008 that in 2005. The conclusions drawn from the results assume that the household samples used in the analyses were a reliable reflection of the entire population.
For Kenya, there was a decrease in the percentage of households allocated to the first cluster and an increase in the number of households allocated to all the other clusters between 2003 and 2008. For the 2003 analysis, the largest percentage of households was allocated to the first cluster whereas for 2008 the largest cluster was the second one. The maximum SES score was higher for 2008 (23.14) than 2003 (20.42) and so was the mean SES score for the fifth cluster. However, the minimum SES score was lower for 2008 than 2005; similarly the mean SES score for the first cluster was lower for 2008 than 2005. For Kenya, it could be concluded that a lower percentage of the population was extremely poor in 2008 than in 2003, yet the poorest were worse off in 2008 as shown by the lower minimum SES score and lower mean SES score for cluster one for the 2008 year. The differences in the mean SES scores between clusters were more similar for the 2003 analysis suggesting that the distribution of SES across households was more even in 2003 than in 2008. There was a greater difference between the minimum and maximum SES scores for 2008 (32.92) than for 2005 (27.06), which implies a more unequal distribution of SES for 2008.
The results for Mali suggest there was an increase in extreme poverty between 2001 and 2006 as shown by the increase in the proportion of households allocated to the first cluster. The poorest were worse off as indicated by a lower minimum SES score as well as a lower mean SES score for the first cluster for 2006 compared to 2001. The per cent of households allocated to the fifth cluster decreased from 2001 (2.2 per cent) to 2006 (1.9 per cent), and the richest households appear to have been better off in 2006 than 2001 as both the mean SES score for the fifth cluster and the maximum SES score were higher in 2006 than in 2001.
The Ugandan results indicate an increase in extreme poverty between 2000 and 2006, although the change is slight – 43.2 per cent of the population fell into the first (relatively poorest) cluster for the 2000 period and 45.3 per cent for the 2006 period; there was also a slight decrease in mean SES score for the first cluster between 2000 (-4.28) and 2006 (-5.21).
Additionally, there was a small increase in the per cent of households assigned to the fifth
105 (relatively wealthiest) cluster between 2000 (2.8) and 2006 (3.2) and an increase in the mean SES score for the fifth cluster from 2000 (18.65) to 2006 (23.60). The differences in mean SES between clusters were more similar for the 2000 analysis, suggesting that household SES in Uganda was more evenly distributed in 2000 than in 2006.
For Tanzania, from 2004 to 2007, there was a decrease in the proportion of households allocated to the lowest level of SES as well as a decrease in the per cent of households falling into the relatively richest category. These changes were relatively small. The mean SES score for both the first (poorest) and fifth (wealthiest) clusters decreased slightly from 2004 to 2007 as did the minimum SES score for the total sample. From these observations it could be concluded that overall the level of SES decreased from 2004 to 2007 for households in Tanzania. The differences in mean SES score between the clusters were relatively alike for the two time periods, suggesting that the distribution of SES was similar in 2004 and 2007.
The discussion above demonstrates how the index of SES combined with k-means cluster analysis could be used to monitor changes in household SES status over time. This SES measurement tool, however, only gives an indication of adjustments in the proportion of households falling into the relative categories of SES over time and does not give any indication of the actual level of SES represented by the clusters. The estimated SES scores are relative and their values are not directly comparable between countries: the actual levels of SES represented by the clusters for one country are not necessarily the same for another and the scores do not indicate actual levels of poverty or wealth.