93858 v3 POVERTY, INCLUSION THE UNFULFILLED PROMISE OF AND OIL AND GROWTH WELFARE IN IRAQ 2007 – 2012 ANNEXES AND REFERENCES Annexes 1. Conflict, Growth and Development ............................................................................................................... 5 2. Poverty, Shared Prosperity and Subjective Well-Being in Iraq ....................................................................... 7 Measuring poverty in Iraq .............................................................................................................................. 7 3. Poverty in Human Capital ........................................................................................................................... 21 4. Conflict, Revival and Neglected: Understanding Spatial Disparities in Welfare ............................................ 23 Methodology: Decomposing welfare differences......................................................................................... 42 Comparing Living Standards within and between Regions .............................................................................. 43 Decompositions Within and Between Regions ................................................................................................ 45 5. Understanding the Drivers of Poverty Reduction ........................................................................................ 47 Decomposing the changes in poverty a la Barros et al (2006)....................................................................... 47 Measuring the contributions to poverty reduction ....................................................................................... 49 6. The Growth-Employment Nexus................................................................................................................. 55 7. The Labor Market for the Poor: The Rural-Urban divide .............................................................................. 60 8. Transfers, Safety Nets and Poverty ..............................................................................................................71 9. Policy Implications: Learning from the past to build a better future ............................................................ 84 Isopoverty curves: Methodology ................................................................................................................. 84 References 1. Conflict, Growth and Development ...............................................................................................................................85 2. Poverty, Shared Prosperity and Subjective Well-Being in Iraq ....................................................................................... 86 3. Poverty in Human Capital ............................................................................................................................................. 86 4. Conflict, Revival and Neglect: Understanding Spatial Disparities in Welfare ................................................................... 87 5. Understanding the Drivers of Poverty Reduction .......................................................................................................... 88 6. The Growth-Employment Nexus .................................................................................................................................. 89 7. The Labor Market for the Poor: The Rural-Urban divide ................................................................................................ 89 8. Transfers, Safety Nets and Poverty ............................................................................................................................... 90 9. Policy Implications: Learning from the past to build a better future ............................................................................... 90 LIST OF TABLES Table A 1. 1: Quantifying the effect of violence and development efforts on growth: I ........................................... 5 Table A 1. 2: Quantifying the effect of violence and development efforts on growth: II .......................................... 6 Table A 2.1: Poverty by Governorates (Regional poverty lines) ............................................................................. 11 Table A 2.2: Poverty by Governorates (National poverty line) .............................................................................. 12 Table A 2.3: Mean characteristics of the poor and non-poor, all Iraq, 2007 and 2012 ............................................. 13 Table A 2.4: Correlates of consumption expenditure, 2007 and 2012 .................................................................... 14 Table A 2.5: Probability of being poor, marginal effects of different characteristics, 2007 and 2012 ..................... 16 Table A 2.6: Mean characteristics of the poor, the bottom 40 and the top 60, 2007 and 2012 ............................... 18 Table A 2.7: Probability of being in the bottom 40, marginal effects of characteristics, 2007 and 2012 ................. 19 Table A 3.1: Household with a stunted child (women aged 12-49), Marginal effects of characteristics .................. 21 Table A 3.2: Completing primary school (individuals aged 12-25), Marginal effects of characteristics ................... 22 Table A 4.1: Correlates of per capita consumption, Kurdistan ............................................................................... 23 Table A 4.2: Correlates of per capita consumption, Baghdad ............................................................................... 24 Table A 4.3: Correlates of per capita consumption, North .................................................................................... 25 Table A 4.4: Correlates of per capita consumption, Centre ................................................................................... 27 Table A 4.5: Correlates of per capita consumption, South .................................................................................... 28 Table A 4.6 : Probability of being poor, Kurdistan ................................................................................................ 29 Table A 4.7: Probability of being poor, Baghdad ................................................................................................... 31 Table A 4.8: Probability of being poor, North ....................................................................................................... 32 Table A 4.9: Probability of being poor, Centre ...................................................................................................... 33 Table A 4.10: Probability of being poor, South ..................................................................................................... 34 Table A 4.11: Probability of belonging to the bottom 40, Kurdistan ...................................................................... 36 Table A 4.12: Probability of belonging to the bottom 40, Baghdad........................................................................37 Table A 4.13: Probability of belonging to the bottom 40, North ........................................................................... 38 Table A 4.14: Probability of belonging to the bottom 40, Centre .......................................................................... 39 Table A 4.15: Probability of belonging to the bottom 40, South ........................................................................... 41 Table A 5. 1: Contribution to poverty reduction – Total Iraq.................................................................................. 53 Table A 5. 2: Contribution to poverty reduction – by selected Governorates ......................................................... 54 Table A 6.1: Average Marginal Effects for Young individual (15 to 24 years old) .................................................... 55 Table A 6.2: Average Marginal Effects for Single Women (25 to 64 years old) ...................................................... 56 Table A 6.3: Average Marginal Effects for Married Women (25 to 64 years old) .................................................... 57 Table A 6.4: Average Marginal Effects for Men (25 to 64 years old) ...................................................................... 59 Table A 7.1 Mean characteristics of the poor and non-poor, in urban and rural Iraq, 2007 and 2012 ...................... 60 Table A 7.2: Correlates of consumption expenditure, Urban-Rural, 2007 and 2012 ............................................... 61 Table A 7.3: Probability of being poor, marginal effects of characteristics, Urban-Rural, 2007 and 2012 ............... 63 Table A 7.4: Rural poverty across different types of households, governorate ...................................................... 65 Table A 7.5: Rural poverty across different types of households, governorate (Changes relative to 2007) ............. 65 Table A 7.6a: Multinomial logit: Individual sector of employment , 2007 .............................................................. 66 Table A 7.6b: Multinomial logit: Individual sector of employment , 2012 .............................................................. 67 Table A 7.7a:Multinomial logit: Household occupation type, rural 2007 ................................................................ 69 Table A 7.7b:Multinomial logit: Household occupation type, rural 2012 ................................................................ 70 Table A 8. 1: International remittances ..................................................................................................................71 Table A 8. 2: Domestic remittances ...................................................................................................................... 72 Table A 8. 3: Zakat ................................................................................................................................................73 Table A 8. 4:Pensions ........................................................................................................................................... 74 Table A 8. 5: Social protection .............................................................................................................................. 75 Table A 8. 6: Rations (1)........................................................................................................................................ 76 Table A 8. 7: Rations (2), 2012 ............................................................................................................................... 77 Table A 8. 8: Marginal effects of being poor or in the Bottom 40 percent ............................................................. 79 Table A 8. 9: Governorate estimates, various poverty measures, 2012 ................................................................. 80 Table A 8. 10: Determinants of subjective poverty and dissatisfaction - 2012 ....................................................... 80 Table A 8. 11: Generating weights of different dimensions of subjective poverty and dissatisfaction .................... 82 Table A 8. 12: Subjective poverty weights ............................................................................................................ 83 Table A 8. 13: Life satisfaction weights ................................................................................................................. 83 LIST OF FIGURES Figure A 1: Spatial variations in consumption across Iraq ....................................................................................... 9 Figure A 2: Regional non-food allowances incorporate differences in consumption across regions ..................... 10 LIST OF BOXES BOX 1: Decomposition of Consumption per Capita .............................................................................................. 48 BOX 2 Barros et al. (2006) Methodology .............................................................................................................. 50 BOX 3 Proposed Methodology along One Possible Path ...................................................................................... 52 Annexes 1. Conflict, Growth and Development Table A 1. 1: Quantifying the effect of violence and development efforts on growth: I (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Log difference in mean night time lights (annual growth rate) Mean district night time -0.0173 -0.0342* -0.014 -0.0643*** -0.0159 -0.0358* -0.0157 -0.0654*** -0.023 lights (log) (-1.03) (-1.80) (-1.03) (-2.75) (-0.88) (-1.75) (-0.99) (-2.73) (-1.30) Average civilian casualties in -0.0435*** -0.0284** -0.0476*** -0.0571** -0.0357*** -0.0304*** -0.0517*** -0.0334*** the district per month (IBC) (-4.54) (-2.25) (-3.14) (-2.40) (-3.05) (-2.97) (-5.19) (-3.23) Number of reconstruction 0.0738*** 0.0580*** 0.0642*** 0.0667*** 0.0841*** 0.0758*** 0.0613*** 0.0803*** projects (log) (4.30) (3.39) (3.94) (4.12) (3.90) (4.52) (2.64) (3.89) -0.0175 North * IBC (-0.34) -0.0217*** Centre * IBC (-2.99) -0.00999 South * IBC (-0.83) 0.00249 Fractionalization * IBC (0.15) Mean district night time 0.0111* lights (log) * IBC (1.67) % agricultural land in district 0.042 * IBC (0.91) North * Number of 0.0857*** reconstruction projects (log) (3.45) Centre * Number of 0.0720*** reconstruction projects (log) (3.77) South * Number of 0.0912*** reconstruction projects (log) (5.23) Fractionalization * Number -0.0504* of reconstruction projects (log) (-1.91) Mean district night time 0.0164** lights (log) * Number of reconstruction projects (log) (2.08) % agricultural land in district -0.0528 * Number of reconstruction projects (log) (-1.24) Constant 0.191*** 0.178*** 0.162*** 0.229*** 0.189*** 0.198*** 0.168*** 0.258*** 0.182*** (6.97) (5.71) (6.03) (6.29) (6.05) (6.12) (5.86) (7.13) (6.35) N 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 Hansen's P value 0.0192 0.00461 0.000419 0.00714 0.00549 0.000495 0.00138 0.0886 0.0118 Arellano Bond AR 1 p value 9.68E-08 5.14E-08 8.81E-08 8.22E-08 0.000000145 6.96E-08 9.71E-08 5.82E-08 0.000000104 Arellano Bond AR 1 p value 0.462 0.326 0.385 0.409 0.507 0.478 0.381 0.541 0.413 Number of instruments 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Note: t statistics in parentheses * p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01 Source: Authors’ estimations based on IHSES 2012 Table A 1. 2: Quantifying the effect of violence and development efforts on growth: II (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Log difference in mean night time lights (annual growth rate) Mean district night time -0.0557* -0.0917** -0.0296 -0.0998*** -0.0562 -0.0980** -0.054 -0.0807*** -0.0536 lights (log) (-1.78) (-2.47) (-0.92) (-3.18) (-1.61) (-2.54) (-1.60) (-2.75) (-1.62) % of populated area within 0.261*** 0.255** 0.103 0.158 0.264** 0.309** 0.216* 0.227** 0.246** a district that has cellphone coverage (2.68) (2.33) (0.98) (1.41) (2.26) (2.53) (1.91) (2.26) (2.45) Average civilian casualties -0.0308*** -0.0228* -0.0574*** -0.0390** -0.0169 -0.0154 -0.0364*** -0.0288*** in the district per month (IBC) (-3.24) (-1.76) (-3.33) (-2.22) (-1.23) (-1.14) (-3.16) (-2.69) Number of reconstruction 0.0510*** 0.0498*** 0.0516*** 0.0417*** 0.0540*** 0.0646*** 0.0535** 0.0494*** projects (log) (4.38) (3.54) (4.39) (3.46) (4.28) (3.45) (2.05) (3.22) -0.0201* Centre * IBC (-1.99) -0.00491 South * IBC (-0.28) 0.00452 Fractionalization * IBC (0.21) Mean district night time 0.0158** lights (log) * IBC (2.32) % agricultural land in 0.0208 district * IBC (0.73) Centre * Number of 0.0428** reconstruction projects (log) (2.48) South * Number of 0.0752*** reconstruction projects (log) (4.11) Fractionalization * Number -0.0623* of reconstruction projects (log) (-1.84) Mean district night time 0.0046 lights (log) * Number of reconstruction projects (0.47) (log) % agricultural land in 0.00906 district * Number of reconstruction projects (0.26) (log) Constant 0.221*** 0.251*** 0.179*** 0.302*** 0.226*** 0.248*** 0.185*** 0.268*** 0.215*** (6.33) (5.70) (4.26) (6.49) (7.07) (5.53) (4.16) (5.59) (5.99) N 441 441 441 441 441 441 441 441 441 Hansen's P value 0.285 0.0986 0.0256 0.157 0.21 0.186 0.103 0.287 0.152 Arellano Bond AR 1 p value 0.000001 0.00000153 0.00000372 0.000000986 0.00000101 0.000000631 0.00000246 0.00000153 0.00000141 Arellano Bond AR 1 p value 0.399 0.319 0.321 0.31 0.431 0.543 0.405 0.373 0.376 Number of instruments 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Note: t statistics in parentheses * p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01 Source: Authors’ estimations based on IHSES 2012 2. Poverty, Shared Prosperity and Subjective Well-Being in Iraq Measuring poverty in Iraq1 There are two broad classes of methodologies for estimating a poverty line: a “relative” and “absolute” approach. The “relative” poverty line is defined in terms of some percentage cut-off point in a welfare distribution, such as the bottom three deciles of the distribution of per capita total consumption expenditure. The “absolute” poverty line is explicitly fixed at a specific welfare level. Based on the discussions following IHSES 2007, Iraq has chosen the “absolute” poverty line approach, and this line is based on the Cost of Basic Needs approach (CBN). The CBN approach as applied in Iraq defines the poverty line as the level of expenditure that allows the households to spend just enough on food to meet a certain caloric threshold, and just enough to meet basic non-food needs. The total poverty line is therefore calculated by adding up a food poverty line and a non-food poverty line. The food poverty line in Iraq was fixed at a level equivalent to the expenditures needed to meet a minimal nutritional intake of 2337 calories per person per day (a threshold agreed upon in 2009). In Iraq, the food poverty line is defined in the following way: I. Households are ranked by real per-capita total consumption expenditure and those in the in the 2nd and 3rd deciles are chosen as the reference group; II. All food items for which information on expenditure, quantity and estimated calorie value are available are selected; III. The aggregates of food expenditures and calorie intakes in the reference group are calculated; IV. The cost per calorie is derived by dividing the total expenditures divided by the associated calories, for the reference group. The national food poverty line is defined at ID 50,473.26 per person per month in 2012, based on the approach described above. This food poverty line obtained has to be translated into a poverty line that also incorporates the expenditure required to attain basic non-food needs. The accepted best practice methodology under the CBN methodology is to anchor the relevant nonfood expenditures that constitute basic needs to the food poverty line. The “lower bound” of the non-food poverty line is therefore defined as the average per capita non-food expenditure of households whose per capita total expenditure is close to the food poverty line . The “upper bound” is defined as the average per-capita non-food expenditure of households whose per-capita food expenditure is close to the food poverty line. In the case of Iraq, the average of the lower and upper bounds was used to set the non-food allowance. Thus, the total poverty line for Iraq is the sum of the food poverty line and the corresponding non-food allowance. 1 Further details of the methodology see World Bank (2013) 7 Important improvements in terms of measuring consumption expenditure and adjustments for price differences across time and space were implemented in 2012 and made consistent with 2007 data. i. An appropriately defined consumption expenditure or welfare aggregate The consumption aggregate used as the basis for measuring poverty in Iraq consists of the following elements (these same elements were included for 2007 data): Food (including rations) ; Liquor and tobacco; Rents and housing expenditures; Durables; Education; Transport; Recreation; Communication; Utilities; Clothing; Household goods; and Other. All these elements were valued according to the same methodology applied in 2007 with the exceptions of two elements – estimating the consumption flow from durable goods, and the valuation of rations. In these two cases, improvements in survey design or in methodology necessitated the adoption of a different, improved strategy for estimating expenditures, which were also incorporated in revised aggregates for 2007. ii. Adjustments for price differences across space and time Prices vary across space and time, and it is important to adjust consumption accordingly to ensure comparability. These temporal price adjustments take two forms: (a) adjusting for differences in prices in survey months within a particular year, to make consumption expenditures measured in May comparable with expenditures measured in December for instance; (b) adjusting for differences in prices across survey years, to make 2012 consumption expenditures comparable to those measured in 2007, for instance. Spatial price adjustment is critical especially where there are important differences in prices for food and non-food items across urban and rural areas and in different governorates. The previous methodology adopted a Fisher price index formula based on survey-based prices or unit values. One significant improvement that is now possible with the new survey in 2012 is the use of the CPI for temporal adjustments (as is common practice across the world) because of significant improvements in CPI methodology in Iraq. Another enhancement is the use of the Paasche price index for spatial adjustment of prices to address what is an increasing reality in Iraq- significant differences in prices faced by households across different parts of the country. iii. National versus Regional poverty lines One important trend that has become increasingly important in Iraq over the last six years is the significant differences in consumption patterns, in particular non-food consumption, across different regions of Iraq. Spatial price adjustments can only take into account the effect of differing prices faced by households who live in different regions. This still leaves the issue of differences in the pattern of consumption itself, i.e., the items that are typically consumed by households. The figure below plots the variation in the expenditure shares of basic needs- food, housing, and clothing- as well as the degree of urbanization, across Iraq, after taking into account spatial price differences. 8 Figure A 1: Spatial variations in consumption across Iraq % rural % housing Rest of Iraq Baghdad % clothing Kurdistan % food 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Ravallion and Bidani (1994) highlight the approach to be followed to allow for differences in the basic non-food goods needed to achieve the same standard of living in the various sectors or regions. The non-food allowance, i.e., the identification of the upper and lower bounds used to define the magnitude of the non-food allowance be calculated separately by each region. Many countries currently implement this strategy to better account for spatial differences: countries that allow the non-food allowance to vary spatially include Indonesia, Egypt, Argentina, Bolivia, Afghanistan, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, Tanzania, Peru and Uruguay. To account for these increasingly important differences in consumption expenditure across space in terms of non-food items- for instance, clothing and shelter – we allow the regional non-food allowances to vary by three regions in Iraq – Baghdad, Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq. This implies that for a given national food poverty line, for each region, the corresponding non-food allowances are defined according to the distribution of consumption within that particular region. This approach takes into account that in certain regions in Iraq, households spend more on certain basic non-food needs, such as clothing, housing costs (rents), transportation, etc. In more urbanized regions, such as Kurdistan and Baghdad, the implied non-food allowance calculated at a regional level is higher than what would have been obtained at a national level (figure A.2). This implies that the cost of basic non-food items, such as clothing and shelter, which are faced by the reference food-poor household in these regions, is higher than the national average. In contrast, for the Rest of Iraq, there is very little difference between the two approaches in determining where the poverty line is fixed. 9 Figure A 2: Regional non-food allowances incorporate differences in consumption across regions Kurdistan Baghdad .008 .006 Food Single National Region National Food Single National Region National .006 .004 Density Density .004 .002 .002 0 0 0 100 200 300 50 100 150 200 250 300 per capita expenditure (defl. paasche) per capita expenditure (defl. paasche) kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 9.4399 kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 11.3530 Rest of Iraq .008 Food Region National Single National .006 Density .004 .002 0 0 100 200 300 per capita expenditure (defl. paasche) kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 7.8436 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 10 Table A 2.1: Poverty by Governorates (Regional poverty lines) Poverty Distribution of the Distribution of Headcount Rate Poor Population 2007 2012 Change 2007 2012 Change 2007 2012 Change Urban/Rural Urban 17.4 14.8 -2.5 52.4 51.2 -1.2 71.2 68.4 -2.8 Rural 38.9 30.6 -8.3 47.6 48.8 1.2 28.8 31.6 2.8 Governorate Duhouk 27.3 20.9 -6.4 3.4 3.6 0.2 2.9 3.4 0.4 Nineveh 20.5 31.9 11.4 8.1 15.7 7.6 9.4 9.8 0.4 Suleimaniya 7.6 7.4 -0.1 1.7 2.1 0.4 5.3 5.7 0.4 Karkouk 9.5 8.2 -1.3 1.5 1.7 0.2 3.8 4.2 0.4 Erbil 12.3 12.2 -0.1 2.4 3.0 0.5 4.7 4.9 0.2 Diyala 32.6 18.0 -14.6 6.1 3.9 -2.2 4.4 4.3 -0.1 Al-Anbar 26.4 13.7 -12.7 5.3 3.2 -2.1 4.8 4.7 -0.1 Baghdad 19.3 18.0 -1.3 19.2 19.3 0.1 23.4 21.2 -2.2 Babil 32.2 12.8 -19.4 7.1 3.5 -3.6 5.2 5.5 0.3 Kerbala 33.6 10.6 -23.1 4.3 1.7 -2.6 3.0 3.2 0.2 Wasit 32.6 23.7 -8.9 4.9 4.3 -0.5 3.5 3.6 0.1 Salahuddin 38.2 13.9 -24.3 6.3 3.0 -3.3 3.9 4.2 0.3 Al-Najaf 16.6 9.6 -7.0 2.6 1.9 -0.7 3.7 3.8 0.2 Al-Qadisiya 30.5 41.3 10.8 4.4 7.1 2.7 3.4 3.4 0.0 Al-Muthanna 43.5 48.4 4.9 3.9 5.3 1.3 2.1 2.2 0.0 Thi-Qar 27.7 36.8 9.1 6.6 10.2 3.7 5.6 5.5 -0.1 Missan 24.5 38.2 13.6 3.2 5.6 2.4 3.1 2.9 -0.2 Basrah 26.8 12.7 -14.1 8.9 4.9 -4.1 7.8 7.6 -0.3 Total 23.6 19.8 -3.7 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 11 Table A 2.2: Poverty by Governorates (National poverty line) Poverty Distribution of the Distribution of Headcount Rate Poor Population 2007 2012 Change 2007 2012 Change 2007 2012 Change Urban/Rural Urban 15.7 13.5 -2.2 49.8 48.7 -1.1 71.2 68.4 -2.8 Rural 39.0 30.7 -8.3 50.2 51.3 1.1 28.8 31.6 2.8 Governorate Duhouk 8.8 5.8 -3.0 1.2 1.0 -0.1 2.9 3.4 0.4 Nineveh 22.6 34.5 11.9 9.4 17.9 8.5 9.4 9.8 0.4 Suleimaniya 2.8 2.0 -0.8 0.7 0.6 -0.1 5.3 5.7 0.4 Karkouk 11.2 9.1 -2.1 1.9 2.0 0.1 3.8 4.2 0.4 Erbil 3.1 3.6 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.3 4.7 4.9 0.2 Diyala 34.4 20.5 -13.9 6.8 4.7 -2.1 4.4 4.3 -0.1 Al-Anbar 28.1 15.4 -12.7 6.0 3.8 -2.2 4.8 4.7 -0.1 Baghdad 12.6 12.0 -0.6 13.2 13.5 0.3 23.4 21.2 -2.2 Babil 35.7 14.5 -21.2 8.3 4.2 -4.1 5.2 5.5 0.3 Kerbala 36.0 12.4 -23.6 4.8 2.1 -2.7 3.0 3.2 0.2 Wasit 34.4 26.1 -8.3 5.4 5.0 -0.4 3.5 3.6 0.1 Salahuddin 40.9 16.6 -24.3 7.1 3.7 -3.4 3.9 4.2 0.3 Al-Najaf 20.4 10.8 -9.6 3.3 2.2 -1.1 3.7 3.8 0.2 Al-Qadisiya 35.1 44.1 9.0 5.3 7.9 2.6 3.4 3.4 0.0 Al-Muthanna 46.2 52.5 6.4 4.4 6.0 1.6 2.1 2.2 0.0 Thi-Qar 30.4 40.9 10.5 7.6 11.9 4.3 5.6 5.5 -0.1 Missan 27.1 42.3 15.2 3.8 6.5 2.8 3.1 2.9 -0.2 Basrah 29.2 14.9 -14.4 10.2 6.0 -4.3 7.8 7.6 -0.3 Total 22.4 18.9 -3.5 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 12 Table A 2.3: Mean characteristics of the poor and non-poor, all Iraq, 2007 and 2012 2007 2012 Poor Non Poor Poor Non Poor Urban 0.52 0.77 0.51 0.73 Household size 10.92 7.92 10.58 7.88 Household size squared 138.63 77.74 131.61 78.06 Number of children age 0-6 years 2.58 1.52 2.63 1.64 Number of children age 7-17 years 3.29 2.12 3.39 2.07 Number of elderly 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40 Number of working age males employed 1.83 1.57 1.60 1.52 Age of head of household 47.62 47.49 46.39 47.95 Household head age squared 2451.35 2436.74 2320.12 2474.12 Male household head 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.90 Dummy = 1 if head of hh born elsewhere 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.13 Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.04 0.06 0.26 0.32 # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.05 0.05 1.35 1.33 Non employed head 0.31 0.29 0.31 0.28 Head employed in agriculture and fishing 0.17 0.08 0.12 0.06 Head employed in mining and quarrying 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 Head employed in manufacturing 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.07 Head employed in electricity, gas and water supply 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 Head employed in construction 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.06 Head employed in commerce and retail 0.09 0.14 0.07 0.13 Head employed in transport, storage and communication 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.10 Head employed in financial, insurance and professional 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.11 Head employed in public administration, health and education 0.09 0.15 0.07 0.12 Head employed in other sector/services 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 Illiterate 0.30 0.21 0.34 0.20 Incomplete primary 0.15 0.10 0.18 0.14 Complete primary 0.28 0.27 0.30 0.28 Intermediate 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.11 Secondary 0.07 0.10 0.04 0.09 Higher secondary 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.08 Tertiary 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.09 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 13 Table A 2.4: Correlates of consumption expenditure, 2007 and 2012 Log per capita real expenditure 2007 2012 Urban household 0.14** 0.072** [0.007] [0.006] Log of household size -1.063** -1.21** [0.034] [0.029] Log of household size squared 0.185** 0.212** [0.010] [0.009] Number of children aged 0-6 years -0.038** -0.036** [0.003] [0.002] Number of children aged 7-17 years -0.029** -0.035** [0.002] [0.002] Number of elderly 0.024** 0.016** [0.006] [0.005] Number of working age males employed 0.025** 0.037** [0.003] [0.003] Age of the head of household 0.004** 0.011** [0.001] [0.001] Household head age squared 0 0** [0.000] [0.000] Male household head -0.063** -0.047** [0.011] [0.009] Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere 0.043** -0.033** [0.010] [0.008] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.076** 0.015 [0.013] [0.008] # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.022** 0.003 [0.007] [0.001] Sector of employment: Agriculture 0.031** 0.006 [0.012] [0.011] Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying 0.058* 0.087** [0.027] [0.027] Sector of employment: Manufacturing 0.045** 0.045** [0.014] [0.011] Sector of employment: Utilities 0.046* 0.052** [0.023] [0.018] Sector of employment: Construction -0.039** -0.071** [0.013] [0.011] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail 0.109** 0.102** [0.010] [0.009] Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication 0.057** 0.019 [0.011] [0.010]* Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services 0.12** 0.062** [0.013] [0.010] Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education 0.048** 0.073** [0.011] [0.010] Sector of employment: Other 0.031 -0.012 [0.016] [0.014] Incomplete primary 0.056** 0.068** [0.010] [0.008] Complete primary 0.109** 0.105** [0.008] [0.007] 14 Intermediate 0.173** 0.178** [0.011] [0.009] Secondary 0.222** 0.27** [0.012] [0.010] Higher secondary 0.25** 0.299** [0.013] [0.011] Tertiary 0.389** 0.42** [0.013] [0.011] Governorate: Duhouk 0.334** 0.328** [0.017] [0.014] Governorate: Nineveh 0.059** -0.131** [0.011] [0.009] Governorate: Sulaimaniya 0.542** 0.347** [0.013] [0.012] Governorate: Kirkuk 0.11** 0.139** [0.015] [0.013] Governorate: Erbil 0.461** 0.313** [0.014] [0.012] Governorate: Diyala -0.281** -0.089** [0.015] [0.013] Governorate: Anbar -0.127** 0.066** [0.014] [0.012] Governorate: Babylon -0.053** 0.073** [0.014] [0.011] Governorate: Karbala -0.115** -0.038** [0.017] [0.014] Governorate: Wasit -0.052** -0.031* [0.016] [0.013] Governorate: Salahadin -0.166** 0.072** [0.015] [0.013] Governorate: Najaf 0.087** 0.186** [0.015] [0.013] Governorate: Qadisiya -0.027 -0.294** [0.016] [0.014] Governorate: Muthanna -0.072** -0.266** [0.020] [0.017] Governorate: Thi Qar -0.023 -0.222** [0.013] [0.011] Governorate: Missan 0.001 -0.206** [0.017] [0.015] Governorate: Basra -0.087** 0.031** [0.012] [0.010] Constant 6.057** 6.18** [0.046] [0.041] 2 R 0.49 0.51 N 17,513 24,945 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 15 Table A 2.5: Probability of being poor, marginal effects of different characteristics, 2007 and 2012 Marginal probability effects: Partial effects of each explanatory variable (evaluated at mean values) on the probability that a 2007 2012 household is poor Urban household -0.108*** -0.0478*** (0.0104) (0.00794) Log of household size 0.0617*** 0.0465*** (0.00589) (0.00456) Log of household size squared -0.00193*** -0.00165*** (0.000216) (0.000145) Number of children aged 0-6 years 0.0361*** 0.0321*** (0.00558) (0.00410) Number of children aged 7-17 years 0.0281*** 0.0322*** (0.00477) (0.00359) Number of elderly -0.0298*** -0.00802 (0.0113) (0.00804) Number of working age males employed -0.0186** -0.0232*** (0.00781) (0.00556) Age of the head of household -0.00458* -0.00194 (0.00248) (0.00171) Household head age squared 3.38e-05 -1.67e-07 (2.50e-05) (1.70e-05) Male household head 0.0288 0.0583*** (0.0250) (0.0168) Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere -0.0370 0.0181 (0.0231) (0.0137) Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.0343 -0.0222 (0.0210) (0.0154) # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.0183 0.000785 (0.0193) (0.00326) Sector of employment: Agriculture 0.00965 -0.00583 (0.0203) (0.0169) Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying -0.0414 -0.0756*** (0.0501) (0.0279) Sector of employment: Manufacturing 0.0540 -0.0340* (0.0427) (0.0182) Sector of employment: Utilities -0.0800** 0.00575 (0.0323) (0.0317) Sector of employment: Construction 0.0447* 0.0671*** (0.0269) (0.0206) Sector of employment: Commerce and retail -0.0358* -0.0700*** (0.0217) (0.0142) Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication -0.0284 -0.0118 (0.0224) (0.0172) Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services -0.0587 -0.0462*** (0.0436) (0.0151) Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education -0.0376* -0.0591*** (0.0195) (0.0148) Sector of employment: Other 0.00434 -0.0110 (0.0277) (0.0191) Incomplete primary -0.0184 -0.0593*** (0.0225) (0.0108) Complete primary -0.0658*** -0.0836*** (0.0170) (0.00992) Intermediate -0.126*** -0.125*** (0.0232) (0.0155) 16 Secondary -0.0982*** -0.158*** (0.0334) (0.0172) Higher secondary -0.154*** -0.162*** (0.0258) (0.0198) Tertiary -0.177*** -0.240*** (0.0251) (0.0216) Governorate: Duhouk -0.0492* -0.0653*** (0.0281) (0.0166) Governorate: Nineveh -0.161*** 0.0183 (0.0295) (0.0169) Governorate: Sulaimaniya -0.221*** -0.0856*** (0.0298) (0.0155) Governorate: Kirkuk -0.199*** -0.172*** (0.0379) (0.0277) Governorate: Erbil -0.163*** -0.0541*** (0.0283) (0.0170) Governorate: Diyala 0.102*** -0.0234 (0.0282) (0.0161) Governorate: Anbar -0.0192 -0.151*** (0.0270) (0.0190) Governorate: Babylon -0.0548* -0.140*** (0.0295) (0.0191) Governorate: Karbala 0.0335 -0.111*** (0.0443) (0.0256) Governorate: Wasit -0.0136 -0.0488*** (0.0255) (0.0177) Governorate: Salahadin 0.0559** -0.134*** (0.0258) (0.0164) Governorate: Najaf -0.163*** -0.175*** (0.0385) (0.0231) Governorate: Qadisiya -0.0739*** 0.0904*** (0.0277) (0.0154) Governorate: Muthanna -0.0267 0.0800*** (0.0252) (0.0176) Governorate: Thi Qar -0.0949*** 0.0618*** (0.0273) (0.0148) Governorate: Missan -0.103*** 0.0322* (0.0309) (0.0169) Governorate: Basra -0.0400 -0.117*** (0.0304) (0.0188) N 17,513 24,945 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 17 Table A 2.6: Mean characteristics of the poor, the bottom 40 and the top 60, 2007 and 2012 National 2007 2012 Bottom Bottom Top Poor Top 60 Poor 40 40 60 Urban 0.52 0.59 0.79 0.51 0.58 0.76 Household size 10.92 10.35 7.48 10.58 10.11 7.28 Household size squared 138.63 127.79 68.29 131.61 123.31 65.58 Number of children age 0-6 years 2.58 2.35 1.38 2.63 2.48 1.41 Number of children age 7-17 years 3.29 3.08 1.95 3.39 3.07 1.84 Number of elderly 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.4 0.40 0.40 Number of working age males employed 1.83 1.80 1.52 1.6 1.62 1.48 Age of head of household 47.62 47.75 47.37 46.39 46.76 48.23 2451.3 2428.0 2320.1 2500.0 Household head age squared 2458.40 2358.93 5 4 2 5 Male household head 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.92 0.91 0.90 Dummy = 1 if head of hh born elsewhere 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.12 Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.26 0.28 0.32 # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 0.05 0.05 0.05 1.35 1.36 1.32 months Head not employed 0.31 0.33 0.27 0.32 0.31 0.27 Head employed in agriculture and fishing 0.17 0.15 0.07 0.12 0.10 0.05 Head employed in mining and quarrying 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0.00 0.01 Head employed in manufacturing 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.07 Head employed in electricity, gas and water supply 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Head employed in construction 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.12 0.10 0.05 Head employed in commerce and retail 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.07 0.10 0.14 Head employed in transport, storage and communication 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.10 Head employed in financial, insurance and professional 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.11 Head employed in public administration, health and 0.09 0.10 0.16 0.07 0.08 0.14 education Head employed in other sector/services 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 Illiterate 0.32 0.33 0.23 0.24 0.30 0.18 Incomplete primary 0.18 0.13 0.10 0.29 0.17 0.13 Complete primary 0.28 0.30 0.25 0.3 0.32 0.26 Intermediate 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.09 0.12 Secondary 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.10 Higher secondary 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.09 Tertiary 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.11 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 18 Table A 2.7: Probability of being in the bottom 40, marginal effects of characteristics, 2007 and 2012 Marginal probability effects: Partial effects of each explanatory Iraq variable (evaluated at mean values) on the probability that a 2007 2012 household is in the bottom 40 Urban -0.129*** -0.0658*** (0.0143) (0.0125) Household size 0.0606*** 0.0864*** (0.00727) (0.00770) Household size squared -0.00173*** -0.00278*** (0.000226) (0.000299) Number of children age 0-6 years 0.0534*** 0.0639*** (0.00751) (0.00650) Number of children age 7-17 years 0.0478*** 0.0584*** (0.00686) (0.00555) Number of elderly -0.0303* -0.0191 (0.0173) (0.0130) Number of working age males employed -0.0176* -0.0429*** (0.0104) (0.00861) Age of head of household 0.000290 -0.00729*** (0.00346) (0.00268) Household head age squared -2.50e-05 3.41e-05 (3.55e-05) (2.67e-05) Male household head 0.0573* 0.0859*** (0.0331) (0.0266) Dummy = 1 if head of hh born elsewhere -0.0554* 0.0640*** (0.0313) (0.0213) Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.0606** -0.00719 (0.0303) (0.0302) # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.0167 -0.00587 (0.0255) (0.00712) Head employed in agriculture and fishing -0.0183 -0.0426 (0.0279) (0.0301) Head employed in mining and quarrying -0.0150 -0.160*** (0.0935) (0.0587) Head employed in manufacturing -0.0680 -0.0559** (0.0425) (0.0281) Head employed in electricity, gas and water supply -0.126** -0.0446 (0.0510) (0.0401) Head employed in construction 0.0542 0.0757*** (0.0425) (0.0282) Head employed in commerce and retail -0.137*** -0.109*** (0.0288) (0.0235) Head employed in transport, storage and communication -0.0772** -0.0441* (0.0329) (0.0249) Head employed in financial, insurance and professional -0.162*** -0.0896*** (0.0492) (0.0240) Head employed in public administration, health and education -0.0764*** -0.108*** (0.0288) (0.0244) Head employed in other sector/services -0.0667* 0.0164 (0.0361) (0.0319) Incomplete primary -0.0530* -0.107*** (0.0281) (0.0187) Complete primary -0.0866*** -0.116*** (0.0256) (0.0163) Intermediate -0.186*** -0.213*** (0.0328) (0.0226) Secondary -0.224*** -0.294*** 19 (0.0391) (0.0243) Higher secondary -0.300*** -0.303*** (0.0320) (0.0264) Tertiary -0.334*** -0.420*** (0.0324) (0.0296) Governorate: Duhouk -0.114*** -0.121*** (0.0363) (0.0258) Governorate: Nineveh -0.202*** -0.00955 (0.0364) (0.0271) Governorate: Sulaimaniya -0.330*** -0.167*** (0.036) (0.0243) Governorate: Kirkuk -0.271*** -0.284*** (0.0392) (0.0382) Governorate: Erbil -0.256*** -0.114*** (0.0349) (0.0273) Governorate: Diyala 0.101*** -0.0258 (0.0386) (0.0253) Governorate: Anbar -0.015 -0.281*** (0.0335) (0.0273) Governorate: Babylon -0.0454 -0.233*** (0.0353) (0.0273) Governorate: Karbala 0.0172 -0.120*** (0.0518) (0.0376) Governorate: Wasit -0.0948*** -0.127*** (0.0345) (0.0275) Governorate: Salahadin 0.0196 -0.222*** (0.0347) (0.0234) Governorate: Najaf -0.193*** -0.380*** (0.0446) (0.0342) Governorate: Qadisiya -0.111*** 0.166*** (0.0362) (0.0261) Governorate: Muthanna -0.0697** 0.153*** (0.034) (0.0294) Governorate: Thi Qar -0.0992*** 0.106*** (0.0342) (0.0251) Governorate: Missan -0.0957** 0.0495* (0.0409) (0.0272) Governorate: Basra -0.0181 -0.218*** (0.0446) (0.0282) N 17,513 24,945 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 20 3. Poverty in Human Capital Table A 3.1: Household with a stunted child (women aged 12-49), Marginal effects of characteristics Household with a stunted child Urban household -0.0523*** (0.0153) Size of the Household 0.00393 (0.00243) Mother’s education: Incomplete primary -0.0124 (0.0200) Mother’s education: Complete primary -0.0122 (0.0212) Mother’s education: Intermediate -0.00593 (0.0315) Mother’s education: Secondary -0.0513 (0.0440) Mother’s education: Higher Secondary -0.0113 (0.0411) Mother’s education: Tertiary 0.0559 (0.0461) Employed head of household 0.0290 (0.0684) Head of household out of the labor force -0.0119 (0.0724) 2nd consumption quintile 0.00335 (0.0219) 3rd consumption quintile -0.0211 (0.0228) 4th consumption quintile -0.0527** (0.0241) 5th consumption quintile -0.103*** (0.0286) Division: Baghdad 0.176*** (0.0283) Division: North 0.113*** (0.0260) Division: Centre 0.0610** (0.0238) Division: South 0.204*** (0.0249) Mother’s age: 12-23 0.117*** (0.0254) Mother’s age: 24-30 0.0723*** (0.0162) Food rations (1,000 ID/person/month) 0.00247 (0.00579) Calorie intake from RATIONS (Kilocalories/person/day) -1.58e-05 (3.80e-05) N 10,929 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2012 21 Table A 3.2: Completing primary school (individuals aged 12-25), Marginal effects of characteristics Completed primary school (ages 12-25) Urban household 0.085** (11.64) Mother’s education: Intermediate/Secondary 0.204** (25.24) Mother’s education: Higher Secondary/Tertiary 0.279** (27.36) Father’s education: Intermediate/Secondary 0.147** (17.74) Father’s education: Higher Secondary/Tertiary 0.257** (29.77) Employed head of household 0.048 (1.21) Head of household out of the labor force 0.101** (2.84) Female -0.142** (5.87) 2nd consumption quintile 0.056** (3.85) 3rd consumption quintile 0.094** (6.56) 4th consumption quintile 0.136** (9.10) 5th consumption quintile 0.142** (8.45) Female in 2nd consumption quintile 0.023 (1.11) Female in 3rd consumption quintile 0.037 (1.78) Female in 4th consumption quintile 0.028 (1.20) Female in 5th consumption quintile 0.077** (3.27) Division: Baghdad -0.214** (8.90) Division: North -0.214** (9.72) Division: Centre -0.191** (10.31) Division: South -0.171** (8.62) Female in Baghdad 0.075** (2.93) Female in the North 0.006 (0.22) Female in the Centre 0.017 (0.79) Female in the South -0.042 (1.72) N 41,316 Note: t statistics in parentheses * p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01 Source: Authors’ estimations based on IHSES 2012 22 4. Conflict, Revival and Neglected: Understanding Spatial Disparities in Welfare Table A 4.1: Correlates of per capita consumption, Kurdistan Kurdistan Log per capita real expenditure 2007 2012 Urban household 0.205** 0.098** [0.020] [0.013] Log of household size -0.737** -0.96** [0.087] [0.054] Log of household size squared 0.143** 0.201** [0.027] [0.018] Number of children aged 0-6 years -0.086** -0.065** [0.008] [0.006] Number of children aged 7-17 years -0.057** -0.078** [0.007] [0.005] Number of elderly -0.003 -0.012 [0.016] [0.010] Number of working age males employed 0.006 0.033** [0.010] [0.007] Age of the head of household 0.007 0.026** [0.004] [0.003] Household head age squared 0 0** [0.000] [0.000] Male household head -0.035 0.01 [0.030] [0.020] Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere -0.045 -0.057** [0.025] [0.016] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.057** 0.008 [0.021] [0.014] # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.025 -0.006* [0.017] [0.003] Sector of employment: Agriculture -0.024 -0.045* [0.035] [0.022] Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying -0.111 0.025 [0.125] [0.121] Sector of employment: Manufacturing 0.063 -0.055* [0.048] [0.025] Sector of employment: Utilities -0.044 -0.112** [0.064] [0.038] Sector of employment: Construction -0.098** -0.122** [0.033] [0.024] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail 0.125** 0.091** [0.031] [0.020] Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication 0.062 -0.009 [0.034] [0.022] Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services 0.027 -0.032 [0.039] [0.020] Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education -0.112** -0.069** [0.030] [0.021] Sector of employment: Other -0.015 -0.089** [0.033] [0.029] Incomplete primary 0.126** 0.066** [0.022] [0.014] Complete primary 0.133** 0.111** [0.022] [0.014] 23 Intermediate 0.253** 0.175** [0.034] [0.020] Secondary 0.286** 0.306** [0.032] [0.022] Higher secondary 0.363** 0.279** [0.039] [0.022] Tertiary 0.646** 0.367** [0.041] [0.024] Sulaimaniya 0.155** 0.031* [0.021] [0.014] Erbil 0.1** -0.013 [0.020] [0.014] Constant 6.021** 5.919** [0.116] [0.075] 2 R 0.45 0.38 N 2796 6555 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 4.2: Correlates of per capita consumption, Baghdad Baghdad Log per capita real expenditure 2007 2012 Urban household -0.019 0.108** [0.039] [0.025] Log of household size -1.31** -1.069** [0.120] [0.095] Log of household size squared 0.252** 0.141** [0.035] [0.030] Number of children aged 0-6 years -0.016 -0.035** [0.010] [0.009] Number of children aged 7-17 years -0.024** -0.023** [0.008] [0.007] Number of elderly 0.006 0.042** [0.020] [0.016] Number of working age males employed 0.014 0.045** [0.012] [0.011] Age of the head of household 0.003 -0.001 [0.005] [0.004] Household head age squared 0 0 [0.000] [0.000] Male household head -0.109** -0.081** [0.031] [0.026] Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere 0.11** 0.034 [0.025] [0.026] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.021 -0.119** [0.049] [0.031] # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.015 0.021** [0.016] [0.005] Sector of employment: Agriculture 0.174** 0.133** [0.065] [0.050] Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying 0.205 -0.046 [0.130] [0.128] Sector of employment: Manufacturing 0.038 0.068* [0.043] [0.034] Sector of employment: Utilities 0.031 0.108 [0.074] [0.067] 24 Sector of employment: Construction 0.024 -0.041 [0.044] [0.035] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail 0.089** 0.172** [0.033] [0.028] Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication 0.113** -0.018 [0.037] [0.029] Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services 0.111** 0.041 [0.041] [0.031] Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education 0.129** 0.054 [0.037] [0.033] Sector of employment: Other 0.112* 0.01 [0.053] [0.046] Incomplete primary -0.023 0.097** [0.042] [0.029] Complete primary 0.118** 0.115** [0.030] [0.026] Intermediate 0.126** 0.168** [0.035] [0.029] Secondary 0.183** 0.301** [0.038] [0.032] Higher secondary 0.18** 0.278** [0.045] [0.037] Tertiary 0.445** 0.416** [0.042] [0.032] Constant 6.43** 6.368** [0.157] [0.137] 2 R 0.32 0.5 N 1585 2132 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 4.3: Correlates of per capita consumption, North North Log per capita real expenditure 2007 2012 Urban household 0.068** 0.061** [0.016] [0.013] Log of household size -1.168** -1.35** [0.096] [0.072] Log of household size squared 0.211** 0.255** [0.027] [0.021] Number of children aged 0-6 years -0.053** -0.035** [0.007] [0.005] Number of children aged 7-17 years -0.023** -0.025** [0.006] [0.005] Number of elderly 0.031* 0.003 [0.015] [0.012] Number of working age males employed 0.007 0.045** [0.008] [0.008] Age of the head of household 0.006 0.007* [0.004] [0.003] Household head age squared 0 0 [0.000] [0.000] Male household head 0.019 0.053* [0.027] [0.026] Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere 0.035 -0.041 [0.029] [0.024] 25 Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.12* 0.125** [0.048] [0.027] # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.003 -0.003 [0.043] [0.004] Sector of employment: Agriculture 0.039 0.064* [0.025] [0.026] Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying 0.13 0.144* [0.085] [0.067] Sector of employment: Manufacturing 0.033 0.004 [0.035] [0.028] Sector of employment: Utilities 0.084 -0.097 [0.068] [0.057] Sector of employment: Construction -0.127** -0.097** [0.033] [0.030] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail 0.054* 0.022 [0.026] [0.023] Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication -0.017 -0.002 [0.030] [0.024] Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services 0.093** 0.07** [0.031] [0.026] Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education 0.028 0.059* [0.026] [0.026] Sector of employment: Other -0.038 -0.008 [0.041] [0.030] Incomplete primary 0.037 0.027 [0.025] [0.021] Complete primary 0.047* 0.052** [0.021] [0.018] Intermediate 0.082** 0.151** [0.025] [0.024] Secondary 0.151** 0.211** [0.030] [0.028] Higher secondary 0.196** 0.25** [0.031] [0.028] Tertiary 0.243** 0.415** [0.030] [0.027] Nineveh 0.24** -0.198** [0.018] [0.016] Kirkuk 0.297** 0.072** [0.020] [0.019] Constant 6.024** 6.365** [0.125] [0.101] 2 R 0.39 0.39 N 2859 4379 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 26 Table A 4.4: Correlates of per capita consumption, Centre Centre Log per capita real expenditure 2007 2012 Urban household 0.218** 0.024* [0.011] [0.010] Log of household size -1.059** -1.224** [0.055] [0.061] Log of household size squared 0.154** 0.222** [0.017] [0.018] Number of children aged 0-6 years -0.022** -0.036** [0.004] [0.005] Number of children aged 7-17 years -0.019** -0.039** [0.004] [0.004] Number of elderly 0.068** 0.037** [0.010] [0.010] Number of working age males employed 0.063** 0.029** [0.006] [0.006] Age of the head of household 0.009** 0.015** [0.002] [0.002] Household head age squared 0* 0** [0.000] [0.000] Male household head -0.029 -0.036* [0.020] [0.018] Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere -0.057** -0.029 [0.017] [0.016] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.149** 0.037* [0.023] [0.019] # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.012 -0.001 [0.018] [0.003] Sector of employment: Agriculture 0.038* -0.049* [0.018] [0.020] Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying 0.005 -0.073 [0.081] [0.075] Sector of employment: Manufacturing 0.073** 0.056* [0.024] [0.022] Sector of employment: Utilities 0.085 0.072* [0.045] [0.037] Sector of employment: Construction -0.038 -0.072** [0.022] [0.021] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail 0.137** 0.108** [0.018] [0.018] Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication 0.066** 0.045* [0.020] [0.019] Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services 0.167** 0.091** [0.021] [0.018] Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education 0.078** 0.094** [0.018] [0.019] Sector of employment: Other 0.006 -0.022 [0.036] [0.028] Incomplete primary 0.076** 0.079** [0.018] [0.016] Complete primary 0.1** 0.098** [0.015] [0.014] Intermediate 0.213** 0.182** [0.020] [0.018] Secondary 0.25** 0.27** [0.019] [0.019] 27 Higher secondary 0.257** 0.29** [0.021] [0.020] Tertiary 0.338** 0.384** [0.021] [0.021] Diyla -0.323** -0.281** [0.018] [0.016] Anbar -0.186** -0.13** [0.017] [0.016] Babylon -0.113** -0.118** [0.017] [0.015] Karbala -0.168** -0.226** [0.019] [0.017] Wasit -0.12** -0.219** [0.018] [0.017] Constant 5.914** 6.29** [0.079] [0.084] 2 R 0.45 0.4 N 5574 6356 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 4.5: Correlates of per capita consumption, South South Log per capita real expenditure 2007 2012 Urban household 0.139** 0.118** [0.011] [0.011] Log of household size -1.006** -1.381** [0.065] [0.074] Log of household size squared 0.158** 0.25** [0.018] [0.021] Number of children aged 0-6 years -0.035** -0.036** [0.005] [0.005] Number of children aged 7-17 years -0.027** -0.045** [0.004] [0.004] Number of elderly 0.003 -0.019 [0.009] [0.010] Number of working age males employed 0.023** 0.03** [0.006] [0.007] Age of the head of household 0 0.007** [0.002] [0.002] Household head age squared 0 0 [0.000] [0.000] Male household head -0.035 -0.097** [0.021] [0.019] Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere 0.057* 0.001 [0.026] [0.018] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.167** 0.047** [0.032] [0.014] # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.035 -0.007* [0.028] [0.003] Sector of employment: Agriculture -0.027 -0.046* [0.019] [0.022] Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying 0.026 0.138** [0.029] [0.034] Sector of employment: Manufacturing 0.033 0.096** [0.023] [0.022] 28 Sector of employment: Utilities 0.039 0.148** [0.034] [0.030] Sector of employment: Construction -0.026 -0.059** [0.021] [0.021] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail 0.098** 0.08** [0.019] [0.019] Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication 0.015 0.058** [0.020] [0.020] Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services 0.141** 0.101** [0.026] [0.022] Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education 0.046* 0.133** [0.019] [0.019] Sector of employment: Other 0.043 -0.004 [0.036] [0.031] Incomplete primary 0.044** 0.084** [0.017] [0.016] Complete primary 0.106** 0.153** [0.015] [0.014] Intermediate 0.228** 0.225** [0.019] [0.019] Secondary 0.242** 0.262** [0.021] [0.022] Higher secondary 0.258** 0.369** [0.022] [0.021] Tertiary 0.363** 0.509** [0.025] [0.024] Qadisiya 0.06** -0.306** [0.015] [0.015] Muthanna 0.026 -0.253** [0.018] [0.018] Thi Qar 0.059** -0.235** [0.013] [0.013] Missan 0.077** -0.208** [0.016] [0.016] Constant 6.058** 6.461** [0.084] [0.094] 2 R 0.46 0.53 N 4699 5523 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 4.6 : Probability of being poor, Kurdistan Marginal probability effects: Partial effects of each explanatory variable Kurdistan (evaluated at mean values) on the probability that a household is poor 2007 2012 Urban household -0.128** -0.047** [0.019] [0.014] Log of household size 0.02* 0.016 [0.010] [0.009] Log of household size squared -0.001* -0.001 [0.000] [0.000] Number of children aged 0-6 years 0.036** 0.027** [0.006] [0.006] Number of children aged 7-17 years 0.025** 0.027** [0.006] [0.005] Number of elderly 0.013 -0.001 [0.013] [0.012] 29 Number of working age males employed -0.004 -0.012 [0.009] [0.007] Age of the head of household 0.002 -0.005* [0.003] [0.003] Household head age squared 0 0 [0.000] [0.000] Male household head 0.033 0.027 [0.017] [0.015] Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere 0.029 0.034* [0.025] [0.017] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.011 0 [0.018] [0.013] # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.004 0.002 [0.013] [0.003] Sector of employment: Agriculture -0.01 0.048 [0.023] [0.026] Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying 0.213 -0.04 [0.192] [0.047] Sector of employment: Manufacturing -0.022 0.032 [0.032] [0.029] Sector of employment: Utilities -0.05* 0.068 [0.021] [0.048] Sector of employment: Construction 0.021 0.064* [0.030] [0.031] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail -0.055** -0.013 [0.017] [0.019] Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication -0.041* 0.015 [0.018] [0.023] Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services -0.025 0.016 [0.025] [0.019] Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education -0.013 0.03 [0.021] [0.023] Sector of employment: Other -0.038* 0.071 [0.018] [0.039] Incomplete primary -0.028* -0.035** [0.013] [0.010] Complete primary -0.045** -0.05** [0.013] [0.010] Intermediate -0.063** -0.051** [0.012] [0.013] Secondary -0.051** -0.072** [0.015] [0.007] Higher secondary -0.061** -0.079** [0.013] [0.006] Tertiary -0.076** -0.08** [0.009] [0.006] Sulaimaniya -0.082** -0.025* [0.013] [0.011] Erbil -0.054** 0.004 [0.012] [0.012] Observations 2,796 6,555 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 30 Table A 4.7: Probability of being poor, Baghdad Marginal probability effects: Partial effects of each explanatory variable Baghdad (evaluated at mean values) on the probability that a household is poor 2007 2012 Urban household 0.008 -0.043 [0.034] [0.026] Log of household size 0.124** 0.056** [0.019] [0.013] Log of household size squared -0.005** -0.002** [0.001] [0.001] Number of children aged 0-6 years 0.015 0.028* [0.013] [0.011] Number of children aged 7-17 years 0.02 0.025** [0.010] [0.009] Number of elderly -0.04 -0.029 [0.027] [0.019] Number of working age males employed -0.005 -0.026* [0.016] [0.013] Age of the head of household -0.012* 0.003 [0.006] [0.005] Household head age squared 0 0 [0.000] [0.000] Male household head 0.02 0.074** [0.045] [0.021] Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere -0.054 -0.036 [0.028] [0.027] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.015 0.068 [0.064] [0.050] # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.023 -0.006 [0.020] [0.007] Sector of employment: Agriculture -0.084 -0.046 [0.044] [0.028] Sector of employment: Manufacturing 0.07 -0.041 [0.070] [0.028] Sector of employment: Utilities -0.072 0.129 [0.063] [0.093] Sector of employment: Construction -0.02 0.082 [0.054] [0.053] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail 0.017 -0.082** [0.048] [0.018] Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication -0.054 0.003 [0.039] [0.032] Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services -0.006 -0.049* [0.077] [0.023] Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education -0.07 -0.06* [0.041] [0.025] Sector of employment: Other -0.045 -0.022 [0.047] [0.034] Incomplete primary 0.034 -0.077** [0.062] [0.022] Complete primary -0.064 -0.09** [0.043] [0.024] Intermediate -0.066 -0.102** [0.045] [0.019] Secondary -0.015 -0.125** [0.066] [0.012] Higher secondary -0.083 -0.092** [0.043] [0.016] 31 Tertiary -0.121** -0.124** [0.028] [0.013] Observations 1,576 2,127 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 4.8: Probability of being poor, North Marginal probability effects: Partial effects of each explanatory variable North (evaluated at mean values) on the probability that a household is poor 2007 2012 Urban household -0.061* -0.062* [0.028] [0.024] Log of household size 0.072** 0.054** [0.015] [0.010] Log of household size squared -0.002** -0.002** [0.001] [0.000] Number of children aged 0-6 years 0.039** 0.027** [0.011] [0.010] Number of children aged 7-17 years 0.008 0.026** [0.010] [0.009] Number of elderly -0.042 -0.004 [0.026] [0.021] Number of working age males employed -0.011 -0.039** [0.016] [0.014] Age of the head of household -0.005 -0.003 [0.006] [0.004] Household head age squared 0 0 [0.000] [0.000] Male household head -0.046 -0.003 [0.052] [0.041] Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere -0.035 -0.023 [0.050] [0.045] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.058 -0.129** [0.059] [0.032] # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.099 0.016 [0.069] [0.008] Sector of employment: Agriculture 0.014 -0.033 [0.046] [0.030] Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying 0.047 [0.104] Sector of employment: Manufacturing 0.018 0.01 [0.057] [0.056] Sector of employment: Utilities 0.093 [0.119] Sector of employment: Construction 0.158* 0.098 [0.069] [0.060] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail 0.038 -0.03 [0.048] [0.039] Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication 0.091 -0.003 [0.061] [0.042] Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services -0.003 -0.051 [0.066] [0.037] Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education 0.032 -0.051 [0.048] [0.035] Sector of employment: Other 0.172* -0.037 [0.088] [0.039] Incomplete primary -0.051 -0.007 32 [0.035] [0.031] Complete primary -0.043 -0.062* [0.036] [0.028] Intermediate -0.078* -0.094** [0.031] [0.029] Secondary -0.123** -0.054 [0.025] [0.043] Higher secondary -0.132** -0.093** [0.025] [0.036] Tertiary -0.102** -0.135** [0.031] [0.025] Nineveh -0.215** 0.162** [0.025] [0.023] Kirkuk -0.193** -0.037 [0.017] [0.026] Observations 2,791 4,379 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 4.9: Probability of being poor, Centre Marginal probability effects: Partial effects of each explanatory variable (evaluated at Centre mean values) on the probability that a household is poor 2007 2012 Urban household -0.188 -0.003 [0.023]** [0.011] Log of household size 0.076 0.023 [0.010]** [0.006]** Log of household size squared -0.002 -0.001 [0.000]** [0.000]** Number of children aged 0-6 years 0.045 0.028 [0.011]** [0.006]** Number of children aged 7-17 years 0.038 0.029 [0.009]** [0.005]** Number of elderly -0.053 -0.02 [0.021]* [0.012] Number of working age males employed -0.065 -0.021 [0.012]** [0.007]** Age of the head of household -0.002 -0.005 [0.005] [0.003] Household head age squared 0 0 [0.000] [0.000] Male household head 0.009 0.035 [0.053] [0.017]* Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere 0.054 0.053 [0.051] [0.024]* Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.132 -0.018 [0.030]** [0.021] # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.02 -0.001 [0.029] [0.004] Sector of employment: Agriculture -0.019 0.009 [0.033] [0.021] Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying -0.065 -0.075 [0.092] [0.031]* Sector of employment: Manufacturing 0.018 -0.024 [0.050] [0.022] Sector of employment: Utilities -0.065 -0.031 [0.063] [0.032] 33 Sector of employment: Construction 0.023 0.002 [0.053] [0.022] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail -0.113 -0.054 [0.034]** [0.015]** Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication -0.071 -0.023 [0.039] [0.019] Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services -0.146 -0.03 [0.028]** [0.018] Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education -0.103 -0.058 [0.031]** [0.015]** Sector of employment: Other 0.02 -0.024 [0.050] [0.021] Incomplete primary -0.067 -0.046 [0.035] [0.013]** Complete primary -0.058 -0.072 [0.034] [0.013]** Intermediate -0.152 -0.089 [0.026]** [0.009]** Secondary -0.145 -0.09 [0.027]** [0.010]** Higher secondary -0.143 -0.097 [0.032]** [0.009]** Tertiary -0.161 -0.101 [0.026]** [0.008]** Diyala 0.334 0.166 [0.053]** [0.031]** Anbar 0.176 0.032 [0.049]** [0.022] Babylon 0.114 0.038 [0.050]* [0.023] Karbala 0.245 0.048 [0.071]** [0.029] Wasit 0.188 0.133 [0.048]** [0.030]** Observations 5,574 6,356 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 4.10: Probability of being poor, South Marginal probability effects: Partial effects of each explanatory variable (evaluated at South mean values) on the probability that a household is poor 2007 2012 Urban household -0.142 -0.119 [0.022]** [0.019]** Log of household size 0.082 0.07 [0.011]** [0.011]** Log of household size squared -0.002 -0.003 [0.000]** [0.000]** Number of children aged 0-6 years 0.031 0.049 [0.010]** [0.009]** Number of children aged 7-17 years 0.029 0.062 [0.008]** [0.008]** Number of elderly -0.008 0.043 [0.021] [0.020]* Number of working age males employed -0.015 -0.014 [0.017] [0.013] Age of the head of household -0.005 0 34 [0.004] [0.004] Household head age squared 0 0 [0.000] [0.000] Male household head 0.041 0.066 [0.040] [0.028]* Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere -0.051 -0.017 [0.047] [0.041] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.065 -0.083 [0.052] [0.026]** # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.01 0.013 [0.043] [0.006]* Sector of employment: Agriculture 0.099 0.045 [0.041]* [0.040] Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying 0.006 -0.129 [0.078] [0.041]** Sector of employment: Manufacturing 0.13 -0.084 [0.106] [0.032]** Sector of employment: Utilities -0.044 -0.109 [0.051] [0.038]** Sector of employment: Construction 0.114 0.102 [0.051]* [0.045]* Sector of employment: Commerce and retail -0.031 -0.107 [0.037] [0.030]** Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication 0.035 -0.026 [0.041] [0.035] Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services -0.15 -0.071 [0.031]** [0.036]* Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education 0.013 -0.093 [0.037] [0.030]** Sector of employment: Other 0.022 0.032 [0.068] [0.050] Incomplete primary -0.031 -0.094 [0.036] [0.025]** Complete primary -0.093 -0.152 [0.027]** [0.023]** Intermediate -0.151 -0.159 [0.024]** [0.021]** Secondary -0.141 -0.161 [0.027]** [0.022]** Higher secondary -0.15 -0.188 [0.026]** [0.018]** Tertiary -0.152 -0.24 [0.030]** [0.012]** Qadisiya -0.039 0.331 [0.029] [0.035]** Muthanna 0.002 0.3 [0.030] [0.039]** Thi Qar -0.052 0.26 [0.027] [0.032]** Missan -0.057 0.207 [0.029]* [0.036]** Observations 4,699 5,523 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 35 Table A 4.11: Probability of belonging to the bottom 40, Kurdistan Marginal probability effects: Partial effects of each explanatory variable Kurdistan (evaluated at mean values) on the probability that a household belongs to the bottom 40 2007 2012 Urban household -0.215 -0.115 [0.028]** [0.027]** Log of household size 0.074 0.072 [0.020]** [0.020]** Log of household size squared -0.003 -0.003 [0.001]** [0.001]** Number of children aged 0-6 years 0.105 0.072 [0.015]** [0.014]** Number of children aged 7-17 years 0.072 0.078 [0.011]** [0.011]** Number of elderly 0.026 0.02 [0.027] [0.026] Number of working age males employed 0.011 -0.024 [0.018] [0.017] Age of the head of household -0.01 -0.023 [0.006] [0.006]** Household head age squared 0 0 [0.000] [0.000]** Male household head 0.06 -0.029 [0.050] [0.047] Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere 0.098 0.06 [0.043]* [0.035] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.006 -0.05 [0.034] [0.034] # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.005 0.011 [0.029] [0.007] Sector of employment: Agriculture 0.072 0.047 [0.058] [0.050] Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying 0.37 0.063 [0.109]** [0.176] Sector of employment: Manufacturing -0.071 0.039 [0.083] [0.057] Sector of employment: Utilities 0.072 0.09 [0.107] [0.082] Sector of employment: Construction 0.116 0.14 [0.059] [0.056]* Sector of employment: Commerce and retail -0.157 -0.041 [0.047]** [0.049] Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication -0.011 0.038 [0.057] [0.057] Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services -0.058 0.056 [0.064] [0.047] Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education 0.111 0.076 [0.052]* [0.049] Sector of employment: Other -0.027 0.081 [0.057] [0.062] Incomplete primary -0.123 -0.084 [0.031]** [0.031]** Complete primary -0.099 -0.161 [0.036]** [0.031]** Intermediate -0.198 -0.167 [0.043]** [0.039]** Secondary -0.214 -0.27 [0.040]** [0.029]** 36 Higher secondary -0.29 -0.229 [0.034]** [0.039]** Tertiary -0.336 -0.285 [0.026]** [0.038]** Sulaimaniya -0.167 -0.064 [0.030]** [0.028]* Erbil -0.09 0.002 [0.029]** [0.030] Observations 2,796 6,555 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 4.12: Probability of belonging to the bottom 40, Baghdad Marginal probability effects: Partial effects of each explanatory variable Baghdad (evaluated at mean values) on the probability that a household belongs to the bottom 40 2007 2012 Urban household -0.006 -0.112 [0.052] [0.043]** Log of household size 0.215 0.171 [0.030]** [0.025]** Log of household size squared -0.009 -0.005 [0.001]** [0.001]** Number of children aged 0-6 years 0.017 0.062 [0.022] [0.019]** Number of children aged 7-17 years 0.037 0.03 [0.018]* [0.016] Number of elderly 0.019 -0.093 [0.039] [0.036]** Number of working age males employed -0.017 -0.066 [0.025] [0.024]** Age of the head of household 0.01 0.005 [0.010] [0.008] Household head age squared 0 0 [0.000] [0.000] Male household head 0.086 0.16 [0.062] [0.052]** Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere -0.133 -0.018 [0.049]** [0.055] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.056 0.178 [0.111] [0.079]* # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.007 -0.02 [0.034] [0.015] Sector of employment: Agriculture -0.261 -0.16 [0.054]** [0.070]* Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying 0.174 [0.274] Sector of employment: Manufacturing -0.095 -0.044 [0.076] [0.069] Sector of employment: Utilities -0.097 -0.065 [0.107] [0.111] Sector of employment: Construction -0.039 0.04 [0.119] [0.075] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail -0.149 -0.126 [0.059]* [0.052]* Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication -0.235 0.012 [0.059]** [0.058] 37 Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services -0.148 -0.077 [0.090] [0.053] Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education -0.21 -0.103 [0.062]** [0.065] Sector of employment: Other -0.186 0.032 [0.071]** [0.085] Incomplete primary -0.036 -0.242 [0.076] [0.051]** Complete primary -0.084 -0.21 [0.066] [0.059]** Intermediate -0.136 -0.304 [0.071] [0.045]** Secondary -0.132 -0.344 [0.088] [0.035]** Higher secondary -0.26 -0.3 [0.058]** [0.040]** Tertiary -0.352 -0.357 [0.038]** [0.033]** Observations 1,576 2,132 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 4.13: Probability of belonging to the bottom 40, North Marginal probability effects: Partial effects of each explanatory variable North (evaluated at mean values) on the probability that a household belongs to the bottom 40 2007 2012 Urban household -0.065 -0.061 [0.035] [0.030]* Log of household size 0.102 0.058 [0.018]** [0.013]** Log of household size squared -0.003 -0.002 [0.001]** [0.000]** Number of children aged 0-6 years 0.068 0.064 [0.016]** [0.014]** Number of children aged 7-17 years 0.022 0.05 [0.013] [0.012]** Number of elderly -0.067 0.016 [0.034]* [0.031] Number of working age males employed -0.014 -0.055 [0.020] [0.019]** Age of the head of household -0.004 -0.004 [0.009] [0.006] Household head age squared 0 0 [0.000] [0.000] Male household head -0.048 0.006 [0.059] [0.056] Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere -0.049 0.053 [0.067] [0.055] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.121 -0.16 [0.091] [0.062]** # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.061 0.011 [0.089] [0.012] Sector of employment: Agriculture -0.011 -0.153 [0.062] [0.040]** Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying -0.292 -0.089 [0.074]** [0.121] 38 Sector of employment: Manufacturing -0.057 0.013 [0.073] [0.072] Sector of employment: Utilities -0.227 0.116 [0.093]* [0.122] Sector of employment: Construction 0.21 0.1 [0.070]** [0.074] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail -0.032 -0.079 [0.059] [0.052] Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication 0.058 -0.043 [0.070] [0.056] Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services -0.145 -0.113 [0.074]* [0.057]* Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education -0.019 -0.101 [0.059] [0.049]* Sector of employment: Other 0.111 -0.094 [0.088] [0.055] Incomplete primary -0.106 -0.062 [0.052]* [0.043] Complete primary -0.073 -0.09 [0.048] [0.042]* Intermediate -0.122 -0.173 [0.050]* [0.048]** Secondary -0.189 -0.193 [0.049]** [0.050]** Higher secondary -0.285 -0.237 [0.037]** [0.050]** Tertiary -0.148 -0.309 [0.056]** [0.036]** Nineveh -0.235 0.19 [0.033]** [0.028]** Kirkuk -0.271 -0.09 [0.027]** [0.034]** Observations 2,859 4,379 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 4.14: Probability of belonging to the bottom 40, Centre Marginal probability effects: Partial effects of each explanatory variable Centre (evaluated at mean values) on the probability that a household belongs to the bottom 40 2007 2012 Urban household -0.195 -0.014 [0.026]** [0.020] Log of household size 0.081 0.077 [0.010]** [0.010]** Log of household size squared -0.002 -0.003 [0.000]** [0.000]** Number of children aged 0-6 years 0.047 0.062 [0.013]** [0.010]** Number of children aged 7-17 years 0.037 0.065 [0.011]** [0.008]** Number of elderly -0.061 -0.026 [0.024]* [0.022] Number of working age males employed -0.087 -0.039 [0.014]** [0.013]** Age of the head of household -0.003 -0.011 [0.005] [0.005]* 39 Household head age squared 0 0 [0.000] [0.000] Male household head 0.049 0.067 [0.053] [0.035] Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere 0.044 0.027 [0.050] [0.034] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.135 -0.043 [0.061]* [0.039] # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.029 0.002 [0.041] [0.007] Sector of employment: Agriculture 0.034 0.056 [0.042] [0.042] Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying 0.161 -0.013 [0.133] [0.123] Sector of employment: Manufacturing 0.023 -0.085 [0.053] [0.039]* Sector of employment: Utilities 0.078 -0.105 [0.076] [0.065] Sector of employment: Construction 0.118 0.068 [0.058]* [0.044] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail -0.078 -0.133 [0.048] [0.035]** Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication -0.001 -0.086 [0.052] [0.039]* Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services -0.172 -0.128 [0.044]** [0.036]** Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education -0.086 -0.121 [0.043]* [0.035]** Sector of employment: Other 0.094 0.007 [0.059] [0.055] Incomplete primary -0.11 -0.047 [0.048]* [0.035] Complete primary -0.12 -0.087 [0.044]** [0.034]* Intermediate -0.21 -0.16 [0.039]** [0.036]** Secondary -0.236 -0.238 [0.037]** [0.031]** Higher secondary -0.236 -0.214 [0.041]** [0.033]** Tertiary -0.274 -0.307 [0.034]** [0.025]** Diyala 0.279 0.313 [0.049]** [0.035]** Anbar 0.177 0.126 [0.045]** [0.035]** Babylon 0.122 0.151 [0.049]* [0.035]** Karbala 0.159 0.286 [0.061]** [0.043]** Wasit 0.081 0.238 [0.046] [0.036]** Observations 5,574 6,356 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 40 Table A 4.15: Probability of belonging to the bottom 40, South Marginal probability effects: Partial effects of each explanatory variable South (evaluated at mean values) on the probability that a household belongs to the bottom 40 2007 2012 Urban household -0.121 -0.12 [0.026]** [0.023]** Log of household size 0.109 0.094 [0.013]** [0.013]** Log of household size squared -0.003 -0.003 [0.000]** [0.000]** Number of children aged 0-6 years 0.037 0.056 [0.012]** [0.011]** Number of children aged 7-17 years 0.035 0.069 [0.010]** [0.010]** Number of elderly -0.027 0.025 [0.025] [0.024] Number of working age males employed -0.013 -0.021 [0.022] [0.016] Age of the head of household -0.003 0 [0.005] [0.005] Household head age squared 0 0 [0.000] [0.000] Male household head -0.02 0.129 [0.080] [0.035]** Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere -0.096 -0.028 [0.054] [0.052] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.146 -0.065 [0.060]* [0.033] # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.04 0.009 [0.059] [0.007] Sector of employment: Agriculture 0.117 0.022 [0.046]* [0.047] Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying 0.135 -0.217 [0.152] [0.051]** Sector of employment: Manufacturing 0.048 -0.114 [0.097] [0.045]* Sector of employment: Utilities -0.041 -0.104 [0.065] [0.060] Sector of employment: Construction 0.16 0.088 [0.054]** [0.051] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail -0.077 -0.114 [0.043] [0.043]** Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication 0.03 -0.018 [0.050] [0.046] Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services -0.13 -0.082 [0.049]** [0.046] Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education 0.008 -0.124 [0.045] [0.039]** Sector of employment: Other -0.071 0.026 [0.072] [0.060] Incomplete primary -0.069 -0.118 [0.044] [0.034]** Complete primary -0.145 -0.195 [0.035]** [0.032]** Intermediate -0.265 -0.246 [0.031]** [0.029]** Secondary -0.234 -0.263 [0.035]** [0.028]** 41 Higher secondary -0.249 -0.285 [0.034]** [0.024]** Tertiary -0.304 -0.357 [0.030]** [0.017]** Qadisiya -0.057 0.367 [0.038] [0.033]** Muthanna -0.013 0.342 [0.039] [0.036]** Thi Qar -0.067 0.296 [0.033]* [0.033]** Missan -0.099 0.248 [0.035]** [0.035]** Observations 4,699 5,523 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Methodology: Decomposing welfare differences 1. The welfare measure For consistency with other studies in the field (Ravallion and Wodon, 1999; Skoufias and Katayama, 2011) the welfare measure used in this section of the report is the welfare ratio. The welfare ratio is the ratio of the household’s expenditure to the contemporaneous poverty line in the region of residence of the household. 2 Specifically, (, , ) ℎ(, , ) = (, ) where W(j,r,t) denotes the welfare ratio of household j in region r, in year t where t = 2007 and 2012, PCE(j,r,t) denotes nominal per capita expenditures of household j in region r, in year t, and PL(r,t) is the poverty line in region r in year t. In calculating the welfare ratio, we use the officially estimated poverty lines. The welfare ratio as defined is a number that measures the standard of living as a multiple of the poverty line, i.e. 0 < < 1 ℎ (, , ) ∈ (0, ∞) = { = 1 ℎ > 1 ℎ 2. The decomposition method We employ the Oaxaca-Blinder methodology to explore differences in mean welfare in urban and rural areas within and between two geographic areas or regions (Ravallion and Wodon, 1999). The Oaxaca- 2 The welfare ratio and its theoretical properties is discussed by Blackorby and Donaldson (1987). More practical applications of the welfare ratio in the measurement of poverty can be found in Ravallion (1998) and Deaton and Zaidi (2002). 42 Blinder decomposition allows us to estimate the relative contributions of differences in household characteristics and returns to these characteristics in accounting for differences in living standards. Comparing Living Standards within and between Regions The various determinants of welfare can be classified into two broad groups: (i) a set of “covariates” that summarize the portable or non-geographic attributes of the household, such as age, level of education, demographic composition, denoted by the vector ; and (ii) and a set of structural parameters that summarize the marginal effects or “returns” of these household attributes, denoted by the constant term and the parameter vector . Specifically the set of covariates summarized by the vector , consists of variables characterizing the demographic composition of the household: number of infants, teenagers, adults, elderly in household, whether the head of household is married without spouse, single without spouse, married, with spouse; if household head is male, age of household head, and age squared; binary variables identifying the education level of the household head and spouse: primary incomplete; primary complete, low secondary, upper secondary and superior; and economic sector of employment (i.e. Agriculture & fishing, Mining & quarrying, Manufacturing, Utilities, Construction, Commerce, Transport, storage & communication, Financial, insurance & professional, Public administration and Other services). Given any two locations A and B, we assume that logarithm of the welfare measure in each region, denoted here by , can be summarized by the linear regression: = + , and (1) = + (2) where is a random disturbance term with the usual properties for summarizing the influence of all other factors on the standard of living including individual effort.3 In this specification, the “returns” to characteristics summarize the influence of a variety of factors on the standard of living in different regions. Basic infrastructure, ease of access to markets and other basic services are some of the most important of these factors. In addition, returns to characteristics are also affected by the role of institutions, social customs and other cultural factors that are typically too difficult to quantify. 3 Agglomeration effects are likely to influence both the ′ and the coefficients . 43 Based on the specification above, and given that estimated regression lines always cross through the mean values of the sample, the mean difference in the standard of living between regions A and B can then be expressed as: ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ − ̅̅̅̅̅̅ − ̅̅̅̅ = ̅̅̅ (3) where the bar over the relevant variables denotes the sample mean values of the respective variables, and including the assumption that ( ) = 0, for = {, }. After adding and subtracting the term ̅̅̅ we can express the difference above as: − ̅̅̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ − ̅̅̅̅ = ̅̅̅ − ̅̅̅ → ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ − ̅̅̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅ = ( ̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅ − ) + ( − ) or ̅̅̅̅̅ ) = (∆ ∆( ̅̅̅ ̅ ) + (∆) (4) Alternatively, if one were to add and subtract the term ̅̅̅̅ , the difference in (3) could be expressed as: ̅̅̅̅̅ ) = (∆ ∆( ̅̅̅̅ ̅ ) + (∆) (5) Both expressions (4) and (5) imply that the differential in the mean welfare ratios between regions A and B can be decomposed into two components: one that consists of the differences in average characteristics summarized by the term ∆ ̅ and another due to the differences in the coefficients or returns to characteristics in different regions summarized by the term ∆. This is the decomposition method first proposed by Oaxaca (1973) and Blinder (1973). The decompositions given by expressions (4) and (5) are equally valid. The only difference between them lies in how the differences in the characteristics ∆̅ and the differences in coefficients ∆ are ̅ are weighted by the returns of the weighted. In expression (4) the differences in the characteristics ∆ characteristics in region B, whereas the differences in the returns ∆ are weighted by the average 44 characteristics of households in region A. In contrast, in expression (5) the differences in the ̅ are weighted by the returns of the characteristics in region A, whereas the characteristics ∆ differences in the returns ∆ are weighted by the average characteristics of households in region B. Since the original decomposition by Oaxaca, numerous papers have extended the method by proposing ̅ and the differences in returns ∆ (e.g. alternative weights for the differences in the characteristics ∆ 4 Reimers, 1983, Cotton, 1988, and Neumark, 1988). We follow Jann (2008) and use a weighted average of the coefficients and a weighted average of the characteristics, as follows: ̅̅̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅ − = ( − )[ + ( − ̅̅̅ ) ] + ( − )[( − ) + ] (6) where W is a matrix of relative weights given to the coefficients of Group A and I is the identity matrix. This is equivalent to using the coefficients from a pooled model over both groups as the reference coefficients (Jann, 2008). The use and interpretation of the decomposition method discussed above involves a number of caveats. For a start, these decompositions are simple descriptive tools that provide a useful way of summarizing the role of endowments and returns in explaining existing welfare differentials. For this reason, we refrain from attributing causality to either endowments or returns in the welfare differences between or within regions. Our specification intentionally excludes infrastructure and access to basic services. The influence of infrastructure as well as other omitted variables is captured by default by the estimated coefficients of the portable characteristics of the household. As the formula for omitted variable bias suggests, the estimated coefficients of the household characteristics can be considered to include the direct effect of the omitted variables (such as infrastructure, local institutions and other household variables possible correlated with the location of the household) on welfare and their correlation with the included household characteristics. The decomposition formula in equation (6) holds only at the mean of the two regions being compared. The findings obtained from the decompositions at the mean may or may not hold at other deciles of the distribution of welfare. The decomposition results may be biased because of the presence of selection bias. To the extent there is free internal migration within and between different regions, the current place of residence may not be exogenous. Decompositions Within and Between Regions The bulk of our analysis consists of estimating equations (1) and (2) for the pair of areas or regions. For example, the within-region comparisons of the standard of living typically consists of estimating equation (1) based on household data from the urban areas in that region and equation (2) based on household data the rural areas of the same region. Between region comparison in the same country involves a number of comparisons, since the comparison could be performed between an urban area in 4 In our study, the decompositions employed are done using the Stata command “Oaxaca” written by Ben Jann (2008). 45 region A and a rural area in region B or an urban area in region B, and so on. To keep the number of comparisons to a manageable level, the comparisons between regions are limited to between the urban areas of the two different regions and between the rural areas of two different regions. Thus, for between-region comparisons of urban areas, equation (1) is estimated for the urban areas of region A and equation (2) is estimated separately for the urban areas of region B. An analogous approach is used in comparing and decomposing the differences in the standard of living between rural areas of region A and B. Having estimates of equations (1) and (2) for any two areas or regions of interest, we then use the simple decomposition of the differential based on: ∆ = ∆ + ∆ (7) Equation (7) simply states that the differential in living standards ∆ can be decomposed into a component due to differences in endowments, ∆, and a component due to differences in returns, ∆. Equation (7) allows one also estimate the fraction of the differential that is due to differences in endowments, ∆⁄∆ , versus differences in returns, ∆⁄∆ . As will become more apparent below, the ratios reported can occasionally be quite large positive or negative numbers. Typically, the fraction of the differential due to differences in endowments ∆⁄∆ is a positive magnitude, and its size is driven by the size of the numerator relative to the denominator. For example, in explaining differences in the log welfare ratio between urban and rural areas, it is typically the case that the welfare ratio is higher in the urban areas than the rural areas, i.e., ∆ > 0, and the average value of the vector of characteristics in the urban areas is higher than in rural areas, i.e., ∆ > 0. In cases where the differences in characteristics are large and the differences in living standards are small, the reported ratio ∆⁄∆ can be well over 100 percent. Given that the sum of the two ratios as to equal to 1 (or 100 percent), in cases where ∆⁄∆ is over 100 percent, the fraction of the differential due to differences in returns ∆⁄∆ is by default a large negative number. 46 5. Understanding the Drivers of Poverty Reduction This annex is divided into two sections: the first one describes briefly from a theoretical viewpoint the equation used for modelling the welfare aggregate. We applied a similar model in the case of Iraq. The second part, explains how the decomposition method works and how to measure changes in any distributional indicator such as poverty headcount or Gini. It is worth mentioned that this Annex is based on Chapter 2 of Inchauste, G. and others (2014) “Understanding Changes in Poverty”. Decomposing the changes in poverty a la Barros et al (2006) In order to decompose the contribution of each factor to poverty reduction, we need a framework that allows us to measure the contribution of each factor to the total change in poverty. We begin by following Barros et al. (2006), and model household per capita income as: ℎ 1 = = ∑ =1 (1) Income per capita is the sum of each individual’s income; it depends on the number of household members, n. If we recognize that only individuals older than 15 contribute to family income, income per capita depends on the number of adults in the family, , so income per capita can be written as: 1 = ( ∑ =1 ) (2) Income per adult includes labor income, , and non-labor income, ; non-labor income includes public social transfers, pensions, remittances, and other private transfers: 1 1 = ( ∑ ∈ + ∑ ∈ ) (3) Finally, not all adults in the household are occupied and household labor income per capita depends on the income of employed adults. Therefore we can decompose the labor income per occupied adult as: 1 1 = [ ( ∑ ∈ ) + ∑ ∈ ] (4) where is the number of occupied adults. Note that official poverty rates in some countries are calculated on the basis of household income. In these cases, equation (5) is sufficient to decompose the contribution of demographic factors, labor income, and non-labor income to observed poverty reduction. However, most countries measure the distribution of welfare, and poverty in particular using household consumption. Therefore, we modify the Barros et al. (2006) approach by mapping consumption to income. In particular, we refer to the 47 household consumption identity in (1). Combining (1) and (5) above, we can express household consumption per capita as: 1 1 = ℎ [ [ ( ∑ ∈ ) + ∑ ∈ ]] (5) With this framework, whether countries measure welfare by per capita household income or consumption, we can separate the demographic, labor, and non-labor components discussed earlier. In addition, we can separate the contribution of changes in consumption patterns over time in poverty reduction. The determinants of per capita consumption are summarized in box 1. BOX 1: Decomposition of Consumption per Capita Source: Inchauste, G. and others (2014) 48 Measuring the contributions to poverty reduction Let F(.) be the cumulative density function of the distribution of welfare. Since poverty rates depend on F (.), then we can decompose household consumption in each household by the factors in equation (6). As a result, any poverty measure can be written as a function of each of these components. Therefore the contribution of each component towards changes in poverty or distribution can be expressed as a function of these indicators in the initial and end periods. Following Barros et al. (2006), we can then simulate the distribution of welfare by changing each of these components one at a time, to calculate their contribution to the observed changes in poverty. In particular, let be a measure of poverty, inequality or any other distributional statistic. Then, this measure will be a function of the cumulative density function, F (.), which in turn depends on each of the factors above: = ( ( (ℎ , , , , ))) , (6) where 1 = ∑ ∈ and 1 = ∑ ∈ Given that the distribution of per capita consumption for period 0 and period 1 are known, we can construct counterfactual distributions for period 1 by substituting the observed level of the indicators in period 0, one at a time. For each counterfactual distribution, we can compute the poverty measures, and interpret those counterfactuals as the poverty that would have prevailed in the absence of a change in that indicator. For example, to see the impact of the change in the share of occupied adults, we can compute ϑ ̂ , where we substitute the value of no observed in period 0 to the observed distribution in nA period 1. We can then compute: ̂ ̂ = ( ( (ℎ , , , , ))) (7) such that the contribution of the share of occupied adults is the difference between the observed ϑ in period 1 and the estimated counterfactual, ϑ ̂ . Similarly, each of the other components in the consumption per capita distribution in period 1 can be substituted by their values in period 0 so that their contribution to changes in poverty can be computed. 49 Since we do not have panel data, we do not observe period 1 households in period 0. Therefore, we use a rank-preserving transformation to assign first-period characteristics to the second period. This method uses an idea first proposed by Juhn, Murphy, and Pierce (1993), who decomposed changes in wages by running Mincer-type Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regressions that make it possible to decompose labor income inequality, using any measure of inequality, in three parts. The first are quantity effects, which refers to the distribution of observable workers’ characteristics, such as education and labor market experience, and are included as regressors in the equation. The second are price effects, which captures changes in returns to observed characteristics through the regression’s coefficients. The third is the regression residual (unobservables), which reflect changes in inequality within education and experience groups. While counterfactuals for the quantity effects can be created by assigning the mean observable characteristic from one period to the other, and the counterfactual for the price effects can be created by substituting regression coefficients from one period to another, to complete that analysis, the authors needed to assign a value to the residuals in each period. So they created a counterfactual by ordering households by their earnings in each period, and then taking the average residual value in each quantile from the first period and assigning it to all households in the same quantile in the second period. BOX 2 Barros et al. (2006) Methodology 1. nA no L NL Initial poverty rate ϑ0 = Φ (F (Ypc ( , , yPO , yPA ))) n nA 2. ̂ Contribution of the interaction between share of adults ̂ ( 1 = ( ( ̂ ))) , ̂ and income per adult is 1 − 0 3. ̂ ̂ Contribution of share of household adults is ̂ − 1 ̂ ( = ( ( , ))) 4. ̂ ̂ Contribution of the interaction between labor and non- ̂ 2 = ( ( ( , , , ))) ̂ ̂ labor income is 2 − . 5. ̂ ̂ Contribution of non-labor income is ̂ − 1 . ̂ = ( ( ( , , , ))) 6. ̂ ̂ Contribution of the interaction between labor income ̂ 3 = ( ( ( , , , ))) ̂ ̂ and the share of occupied adults is 3 − . 7. ̂ ̂ Contribution of the share of occupied adults is − ̂ = ( ( ( , , , ))) ̂ 3 . 8. Final poverty rate, . The contribution of labor = ( ( ( , , , ))) income, ̂ , is calculated as a residual: − 3 . In this case, instead of running a Mincer model, we create counterfactuals by ordering households by their total household income, and then taking the average value of each characteristic in equation (5) for each quantile in period 0 and assigning it to each household in that same quantile in period 1. For example, if we are decomposing the effect of labor income, we order households into quantiles by their observed total household income in periods 0 and 1. Then for every quantile in period 1, we replace the 50 period 1 labor income with the average labor income in period 0 from households that were in the same quantile. Barros et al. (2006) compute each counterfactual simulation in a nested fashion (box 2). They identify the contribution that interactions between variables have in poverty reduction by first computing the joint impact of a subset of variables, and then subtracting the marginal impact of each variable, one at a time. For instance, in step 2 in table 1, they first compute the joint impact of inserting both the share of adults and the income per adult from the first period into the distribution of the second period. They then compute the impact of changing only the share of adults, and take the difference of these two simulations to approximate the marginal impact that changing the share of adults had on the distribution. However, in step 4, instead of computing the impact of income per adult on its own, they compute the impact of changing both the labor and non-labor income per adult. This is done because, in principle, the sum of labor and non-labor income should be equivalent to changing total income per adult. The results of these two simulations are different, however, and the simulation of labor income is not done explicitly, but rather ends up being a “residual” in step 8 to ensure that the cumul ative effect adds up to the total distributional change. We modify the procedure in three ways: (1) we focus on consumption as a measure of welfare; (2) we compute a cumulative counterfactual distribution by adding one variable at a time; and (3) we compute Shapley-Shorrocks estimates of each component. First, the focus on consumption is because most developing countries use a consumption aggregate to measure poverty. Second, in contrast to the Barros et al. (2006) approach, this method does not separately identify the contribution of the interaction between variables in the observed distributional changes; doing so is partial at best, given that changing any variable can potentially affect all other variables. Instead, the impact of changes in each variable and its interactions with all other variables is calculated as the difference between the cumulative counterfactuals. Box 3 shows an example for one possible path, taking into account the fact that non-labor income is made up of pensions, transfers, capital income, and other income. The third methodological change is to address the fact that this methodology suffers from path- dependence, as much of the micro-decomposition literature does. In other words, the order in which the cumulative effects are calculated matters.5 One of the major contributions of this paper is that we apply the best known remedy for path-dependence, which is to calculate the decomposition across all possible paths, and then take the average between them following the method proposed by Azevedo, Nguyen, and Sanfelice (2012).6 This involves calculating the cumulative decomposition in every possible order, and then averaging the results for each component. Because we have eight variables, this adds up to 40,320 potential decomposition paths (the result of 8!). The average effect for each variable is also known as the Shapley-Shorrocks estimate of each component.7 5 Path-dependence is common in the micro-decomposition literature. See Essama-Nssah 2012, Fortin et al. 2011, and Ferreira 2012 for recent reviews of the literature. 6 A Stata ado file by Azevedo, Sanfelice, and Nguyen implements this approach. To download it, within Stata type: “ssc install adecomp” 7 See Shapley 1953 and Shorrocks 1999. 51 There is one remaining caveat to this approach: The counterfactual income distributions on which these decompositions rely suffer from equilibrium-inconsistency. Because we are modifying only one element at a time, the counterfactuals are not the result of an economic equilibrium, but rather a fictitious exercise in which we assume that we can in fact modify one factor at a time and keep everything else constant. BOX 3 Proposed Methodology along One Possible Path 1 Initial poverty rate 0 = ( ( (ℎ , , , , ))) 2. Contribution of share of household ̂ ̂ ̂ 1 = ( ( (ℎ , , , , ))) adults is 1 − 0 3. Contribution of the share of ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂2 = ( ( (ℎ , , , , ))) occupied adults is 2 − 1 4. ̂ Contribution of pensions is ̂ 3 − 2 ̂ ̂ ̂ ℎ ̂3 = ( ( (ℎ , , , , , , , ))) 5. ̂ Contribution of transfers is ̂ 4 − 3 ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ℎ ̂4 = ( ( (ℎ , , , , , , , ))) 6. Contribution of capital income is ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ℎ ̂ ̂ ̂5 = ( ( (ℎ , , , , , , , ))) 5 − 4 7. Contribution of other non-labor ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂6 = ( ( (ℎ , , , , , ℎ , , ))) income is 6 − 5 8. Contribution of labor income is ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂7 = ( ( (ℎ , , , , , ℎ , , ))) 7 − 6 9. Contribution of consumption- ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ ̂8 = ( ( ( ̂ ℎ, , , , , ℎ , , ))) income ratio is 8 − 7 10. Final poverty rate. Contribution of = ( ( (ℎ , , , , ))) ̂ unexplained is ̂ − 8 52 Table A 5. 1: Contribution to poverty reduction – Total Iraq % FGT0 FGT1 FGT2 Head count Gap Severity Initial period 23.6 4.7 1.5 Final period 19.8 4.2 1.3 Total change -3.74 -0.51 -0.13 Consumption-to-income ratio 0.405 0.337 0.194 -10.9 -66.6 -150.4 Adult population 1.023 0.854 0.546 -27.4 -168.8 -423.3 Labor income (earnings+employment) -4.737 -1.671 -0.857 127.1 330.2 664.3 Non-labor Income 0.964 0.398 0.197 -25.9 -78.7 -152.7 Imputed rent -1.382 -0.424 -0.21 37.1 83.8 162.8 Total Change -3.727 -0.506 -0.129 100.0 100.0 100.8 Consumption-to-income ratio 1.15 0.62 0.36 -30.6 -111.2 -211.2 Adult population 1.40 0.84 0.48 -37.4 -148.8 -285.2 Occupation share 0.08 0.14 0.06 -2.1 -24.1 -36.1 Labor income -5.45 -2.08 -1.08 145.6 369.9 636.7 Pension -0.71 -0.28 -0.15 18.9 49.4 88.8 Ration 1.60 0.76 0.44 -42.8 -134.9 -262.7 Other public transfers -0.29 -0.09 -0.05 7.7 15.2 26.6 Capital -0.03 0.03 0.02 0.7 -5.0 -12.4 Other Private transfers -0.49 -0.19 -0.10 13.2 33.5 61.5 Imputed rent -1.01 -0.32 -0.16 26.9 56.1 93.5 Total Change -3.74 -0.56 -0.17 100.0 100.0 99.4 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 53 Table A 5. 2: Contribution to poverty reduction – by selected Governorates North Central South Iraq Duhouk Central Central Rest Ninevah Salahuddin Basra 1 2 South Change in FGT0 -3.74 -6.35 11.41 -24.30 -13.61 -14.81 9.89 -14.12 Consumption-to- income ratio -10.9 -75.1 65.4 52.6 2.2 48.1 48.8 28.7 Adult population -27.4 0.4 13.4 5.6 6.0 0.3 21.2 -4.5 Earnings+employment 127.1 142.3 -20.0 18.2 74.3 25.9 -15.4 47.6 Non-labor Income -25.9 38.4 22.5 5.6 3.4 5.7 41.3 17.1 Imputed rent 37.1 -6.0 18.6 17.6 14.1 20.0 4.1 11.0 Total Change 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Consumption-to- income ratio -30.6 -101.8 60.8 37.3 -4.2 35.7 42.2 22.3 Adult population -37.4 6.6 5.3 -4.7 -13.0 -4.4 16.3 0.3 Occupation share -2.1 30.2 15.2 -0.1 10.4 -3.5 15.2 -4.7 Labor income 145.6 134.5 -51.7 22.8 65.8 21.6 -40.3 31.0 Pension 18.9 25.5 5.1 13.7 13.4 13.0 2.8 7.8 Ration -42.8 -27.6 27.9 2.3 -0.3 -3.0 29.8 1.0 Other public transfers 7.7 33.2 10.7 8.1 7.6 9.8 10.3 15.7 Capital 0.7 5.6 9.9 6.2 7.5 10.4 12.4 9.4 Other Private transfers 13.2 15.1 5.7 6.4 9.6 12.4 13.2 14.2 Imputed rent 26.9 -21.2 11.2 8.2 3.1 8.0 -2.0 2.9 Total Change 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Notes: Include only those divisions with significant change in poverty reduction. Central 1 = Diyala and Anbar; Central 2 = Kerbala, Wasit, Najaf, and Babil and Rest South: Qadisiya, Muthanna, Thi-Qar and Missan.“Capital” includes all incomes from property such as rent from land, non-residential buildings, equipments, shares and profits, interests, among others; “Other public transfers” refers to social protection network compensation and other public transfers in cash and in kind; and “Other private transfers” refers to domes tic and international remittances, zakat and other private transfers in cash and in kind. Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 54 6. The Growth-Employment Nexus Table A 6.1: Average Marginal Effects for Young individual (15 to 24 years old) VARIABLES 2007 2012 Age 0.0464*** 0.0269** (0.0143) (0.0124) Age squared -0.000897** -0.000388 (0.000363) (0.000311) Nr. children < 6 years old -0.00780** -0.00263 (0.00320) (0.00245) Nr. children >6 and <12 0.00181 0.00410* (0.00276) (0.00212) Elderly 0.00746 -0.00823 (0.00773) (0.00677) Other disable 0.00314 0.00768*** (0.00233) (0.00189) Other member in public job -0.0168*** -0.0253*** (0.00565) (0.00482) Baghdad -0.0332 -0.0172 (0.0237) (0.0130) North -0.0902*** -0.0472*** (0.0240) (0.0115) Centre -0.0458* -0.0148 (0.0251) (0.0111) South -0.0199 0.00273 (0.0260) (0.0136) Urban -0.0195*** -0.0181*** (0.00570) (0.00443) Head age 0.00144 0.000623 (0.00124) (0.00104) Head age squared -1.83e-05 -8.54e-06 (1.22e-05) (1.03e-05) Per capita income (*) -0.0211*** -0.00621* (0.00441) (0.00331) Incomplete primary 0.0390*** 0.0147** (0.00870) (0.00600) Complete primary 0.0327*** 0.0205*** (0.00809) (0.00575) Intermediate 0.0209* -0.00315 (0.0117) (0.00897) Secondary 0.0894*** 0.0609*** (0.0216) (0.0196) Higher Secondary 0.275*** 0.194*** (0.0255) (0.0241) Tertiary 0.214*** 0.178*** (0.0340) (0.0309) Disable -0.0880*** -0.121*** (0.0127) (0.00985) Public employment rate -0.521*** -0.425*** (0.0485) (0.0438) Governorate welfare (**) 0.00637 0.0804*** (0.0287) (0.0199) Hhead complete prim & low second -0.0203*** -0.0127*** (0.00610) (0.00489) Hhead higher second & tertiary -0.0291** 0.01000 (0.0133) (0.0110) Labor supply (***) -0.265** 0.324* (0.118) (0.192) 55 Male 0.676*** 0.711*** (0.00575) (0.00488) Observations 16950 21944 Notes: (*) Per capita income excluding labor income of the individual in logarithm (**) Mean consumption per capita by governorate in logarithm Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 6.2: Average Marginal Effects for Single Women (25 to 64 years old) Low educated High educated 2007 2012 2007 2012 Age 0.00348 0.00452 0.0605*** 0.0591*** (0.00392) (0.00310) (0.0107) (0.0116) Age squared -5.37e-05 -4.15e-05 -0.000685*** -0.000661*** (4.65e-05) (3.63e-05) (0.000137) (0.000146) Nr. children < 6 years old -0.00467 0.00278 -0.0269 -0.0191 (0.00560) (0.00416) (0.0174) (0.0254) Nr. children >6 and <12 -0.00126 -0.000687 -0.0250 0.00121 (0.00587) (0.00453) (0.0212) (0.0233) Elderly 0.0172 -0.00175 0.0459 0.00864 (0.0109) (0.00939) (0.0308) (0.0333) Other disable 0.00504 -0.00424 -0.0130 -0.00692 (0.00417) (0.00392) (0.0113) (0.0130) Baghdad -0.0263 -0.0402* -0.296*** -0.150** (0.0492) (0.0228) (0.0653) (0.0737) North -0.0719 -0.0163 -0.227*** -0.0500 (0.0455) (0.0210) (0.0750) (0.0749) Centre -0.0428 -0.0270 -0.248*** -0.169** (0.0501) (0.0198) (0.0777) (0.0694) South -0.0179 0.00543 -0.204** -0.0858 (0.0546) (0.0292) (0.0822) (0.0863) Urban -0.0612*** -0.0396*** -0.0364 0.0408 (0.0106) (0.00859) (0.0387) (0.0400) Per capita income (*) -0.0157* -0.00758 -0.0394* -0.00980 (0.00903) (0.00641) (0.0204) (0.0253) Other woman working 0.117*** 0.142*** 0.0204 0.101*** (0.0102) (0.00870) (0.0247) (0.0295) Other member in public job -0.0188* -0.00601 0.0380 0.0378 (0.0112) (0.00890) (0.0242) (0.0286) Incomplete primary 0.0197 0.00773 (0.0157) (0.0114) Complete primary 0.0298* 0.0308** (0.0153) (0.0122) Secondary 0.177*** 0.220*** (0.0402) (0.0531) Higher Secondary 0.533*** 0.501*** (0.0340) (0.0379) Tertiary 0.588*** 0.569*** (0.0329) (0.0359) Disable 0.00167 -0.0264*** -0.0969* -0.0679 (0.0159) (0.00952) (0.0527) (0.0530) Public employment rate -0.306*** -0.398*** -0.0795 -0.662** (0.100) (0.0764) (0.214) (0.296) Governorate welfare (**) 0.0554 0.150*** 0.0644 0.00793 (0.0535) (0.0331) (0.131) (0.136) Head age -0.00461** -0.00495*** 0.00717 0.000523 (0.00196) (0.00152) (0.00588) (0.00712) 56 Head age squared 4.15e-05** 4.89e-05*** -6.60e-05 -1.87e-06 (1.91e-05) (1.45e-05) (5.74e-05) (6.59e-05) Head complete prim & low second -0.00424 -0.00464 0.0167 -0.0397 (0.0127) (0.00991) (0.0307) (0.0330) Head higher second & tertiary -0.0225 -0.0459*** 0.0732* -0.00541 (0.0189) (0.0136) (0.0391) (0.0411) Labor supply (***) 0.0361 0.399 -0.185 -0.265 (0.273) (0.373) (0.537) (1.164) Observations 2913 4417 1169 984 Notes: (*) Per capita income excluding labor income of the individual in logarithm (**) Mean consumption per capita by governorate in logarithm (***) Governorate Activity rate Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 6.3: Average Marginal Effects for Married Women (25 to 64 years old) Low educated High educated VARIABLES 2007 2012 2007 2012 Age 0.0148*** 0.0110*** 0.0444*** 0.0472*** (0.00245) (0.00184) (0.00729) (0.00713) Age squared -0.000177*** -0.000127*** -0.000516*** -0.000514*** (2.92e-05) (2.12e-05) (8.88e-05) (8.72e-05) Nr. children < 6 years old 0.00373* 0.000368 -0.0134** 0.00508 (0.00206) (0.00164) (0.00667) (0.00661) Nr. children >6 and <12 -0.000849 0.00254 -0.0133* -0.0237*** (0.00211) (0.00158) (0.00696) (0.00692) Elderly 8.07e-05 0.00150 -0.0378* -0.0325* (0.00598) (0.00496) (0.0205) (0.0188) Other disable -0.00474** -0.00162 -0.0109 -0.0240*** (0.00225) (0.00186) (0.00757) (0.00773) Baghdad -0.0670** -0.0377*** -0.207*** -0.279*** (0.0271) (0.0121) (0.0445) (0.0370) North -0.106*** -0.0598*** -0.169*** -0.149*** (0.0265) (0.0102) (0.0466) (0.0369) Centre -0.0736*** -0.0572*** -0.158*** -0.208*** (0.0284) (0.00998) (0.0459) (0.0349) South -0.0618** -0.00886 -0.101** -0.163*** (0.0297) (0.0150) (0.0470) (0.0415) Urban -0.0712*** -0.0661*** 0.00770 -0.0312* (0.00502) (0.00399) (0.0200) (0.0165) Husband age 0.00110 0.000914 -0.000161 0.000402 (0.00142) (0.00111) (0.00535) (0.00465) Husband age squared -7.34e-06 -1.36e-06 2.29e-05 -3.13e-06 (1.47e-05) (1.11e-05) (5.87e-05) (5.04e-05) Per capita income (*) -0.0155*** -0.0227*** -0.0164 -0.0176 (0.00399) (0.00300) (0.0106) (0.0112) Other woman employed 0.110*** 0.125*** 0.0642*** 0.0133 (0.00608) (0.00538) (0.0217) (0.0234) Other member in public job -0.0180*** -0.0173*** 0.0439*** 0.0276** (0.00518) (0.00405) (0.0131) (0.0137) Incomplete primary 0.00658 -0.00379 (0.00671) (0.00514) Complete primary 0.0132* 0.00186 (0.00703) (0.00557) Secondary 0.185*** 0.105*** (0.0164) (0.0166) 57 Higher Secondary 0.558*** 0.543*** (0.0176) (0.0172) Tertiary 0.583*** 0.539*** (0.0221) (0.0230) Disable -0.00859 -0.00714 0.0198 -0.000545 (0.00633) (0.00465) (0.0218) (0.0190) Husband complete prim & low second -0.00401 -0.00116 0.0493 0.0132 (0.00584) (0.00424) (0.0366) (0.0288) Husband higher second & tertiary -0.0191** -0.0112 0.0498 0.0241 (0.00962) (0.00837) (0.0368) (0.0293) Public employment rate -0.325*** -0.412*** -0.227** -0.162 (0.0451) (0.0358) (0.0999) (0.132) Governorate welfare (**) 0.0231 0.153*** 0.0110 0.0860 (0.0239) (0.0159) (0.0602) (0.0565) Labor supply (***) -0.0935 0.316* -0.368 -1.414*** (0.113) (0.172) (0.258) (0.531) Observations 11565 19186 3899 3826 Notes: (*) Per capita income excluding labor income of the individual in logarithm (**) Mean consumption per capita by governorate in logarithm (***) Governorate Activity rate Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 58 Table A 6.4: Average Marginal Effects for Men (25 to 64 years old) 2007 2012 Age 0.0127*** 0.0111*** (0.00180) (0.00156) Age squared -0.000231*** -0.000217*** (2.03e-05) (1.73e-05) Nr. children < 6 years old 0.00115 -0.00209 (0.00246) (0.00199) Nr. children >6 and <12 -0.00152 -0.00347* (0.00230) (0.00185) Elderly -0.000856 -0.00729 (0.00580) (0.00503) Other disable 0.00366 0.00675*** (0.00227) (0.00197) Baghdad -0.0108 -0.0211* (0.0174) (0.0108) North -0.0517*** -0.0513*** (0.0183) (0.00989) Centre -0.0168 -0.0307*** (0.0185) (0.00925) South 0.0231 -0.00110 (0.0181) (0.0109) Urban 0.0216*** 0.0292*** (0.00493) (0.00389) Per capita income (*) -0.0381*** -0.0329*** (0.00341) (0.00270) Other member in public job 0.0130** 0.00544 (0.00581) (0.00549) Disable -0.104*** -0.100*** (0.00663) (0.00533) Public employment rate -0.432*** -0.287*** (0.0370) (0.0396) Governorate welfare (**) 0.102*** 0.153*** (0.0227) (0.0180) Labor supply (***) 0.222** -0.0903 (0.0991) (0.165) Household Head 0.104*** 0.108*** (0.00774) (0.00745) Married 0.0418*** 0.0755*** (0.0118) (0.0146) Prim. Complete + Intermediate 0.0231*** 0.0327*** (0.00574) (0.00455) Secondary and above 0.0627*** 0.0939*** (0.00661) (0.00521) Observations 20659 27703 Notes: (*) Per capita income excluding labor income of the individual in logarithm (**) Mean consumption per capita by governorate in logarithm (***) Governorate Activity rate Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 59 7. The Labor Market for the Poor: The Rural-Urban divide Table A 7.1 Mean characteristics of the poor and non-poor, in urban and rural Iraq, 2007 and 2012 2007 2012 Urban Rural Urban Rural Poor Non Poor Poor Non Poor Poor Non Poor Poor Non Poor Household size 10.55 7.72 11.33 8.59 10.21 7.36 10.98 9.25 Household size squared 126.7 72.8 151.8 94.2 120.6 66.0 143.2 110.2 Number of children age 0-6 years 2.42 1.43 2.76 1.83 2.48 1.45 2.80 2.15 Number of children age 7-17 years 3.00 1.97 3.62 2.62 3.11 1.85 3.69 2.67 Number of elderly 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.39 Number of working age males employed 1.90 1.58 1.76 1.52 1.63 1.48 1.56 1.64 Age of head of household 47.87 48.05 47.35 45.63 46.60 48.55 46.18 46.36 Household head age squared 2471 2488 2430 2264 2325 2528 2315 2332 Male household head 0.90 0.89 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.89 0.94 0.93 Dummy = 1 if head of hh born elsewhere 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.17 0.15 0.05 0.07 Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.33 0.35 0.19 0.22 # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.06 1.70 1.42 0.99 1.10 Head employed in agriculture and fishing 0.03 0.02 0.33 0.27 0.03 0.02 0.21 0.17 Head employed in mining and quarrying 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Head employed in manufacturing 0.10 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.05 Head employed in electricity, gas and water supply 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 Head employed in construction 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.14 0.06 0.11 0.06 Head employed in commerce and retail 0.15 0.16 0.03 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.05 0.07 Head employed in transport, storage and communication 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.08 Head employed in financial, insurance and professional 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.11 Head employed in public administration, health and education 0.08 0.15 0.10 0.15 0.06 0.12 0.08 0.12 Head employed in other sector/services 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.26 0.19 0.33 0.26 0.30 0.19 0.36 0.26 Illiterate 0.15 0.10 0.14 0.13 0.20 0.13 0.19 0.15 Incomplete primary 0.32 0.26 0.30 0.29 0.32 0.26 0.30 0.32 Complete primary 0.10 0.14 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.08 Intermediate 0.10 0.11 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.07 Secondary 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.06 Higher secondary 0.03 0.11 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.07 Tertiary Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 60 Table A 7.2: Correlates of consumption expenditure, Urban-Rural, 2007 and 2012 Urban Rural Log per capita real expenditure 2007 2012 2007 2012 Log of household size -1.047** -1.059** -1.059** -1.227** [0.041] [0.037] [0.061] [0.052] Log of household size squared 0.186** 0.164** 0.169** 0.241** [0.012] [0.011] [0.018] [0.015] Number of children aged 0-6 years -0.042** -0.041** -0.026** -0.036** [0.003] [0.003] [0.004] [0.003] Number of children aged 7-17 years -0.036** -0.041** -0.015** -0.035** [0.003] [0.003] [0.004] [0.003] Number of elderly 0.019** 0.018** 0.036** 0.01 [0.007] [0.006] [0.010] [0.008] Number of working age males employed 0.024** 0.038** 0.035** 0.035** [0.004] [0.004] [0.006] [0.005] Age of the head of household 0.006** 0.013** 0 0.004* [0.002] [0.002] [0.002] [0.002] Household head age squared 0 0** 0 0 [0.000] [0.000] [0.000] [0.000] Male household head -0.09** -0.052** 0.043 -0.028 [0.012] [0.011] [0.022] [0.017] Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere 0.043** -0.036** 0.051 0.004 [0.010] [0.009] [0.027] [0.017] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.09** 0.001 0.018 0.043** [0.015] [0.010] [0.025] [0.016] # Household members who lived elsewhere for at -0.038** 0.006** 0.042** -0.001 least 6 months [0.008] [0.002] [0.016] [0.003] Sector of employment: Agriculture -0.022 0.067** 0.036* -0.004 [0.024] [0.023] [0.015] [0.013] Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying 0.041 0.103** 0.197** 0.046 [0.030] [0.032] [0.065] [0.050] Sector of employment: Manufacturing 0.045** 0.027* 0.083** 0.111** [0.015] [0.013] [0.030] [0.021] Sector of employment: Utilities 0.057* 0.01 0.014 0.148** [0.026] [0.024] [0.046] [0.029] Sector of employment: Construction -0.023 -0.057** -0.085** -0.087** [0.015] [0.014] [0.023] [0.018] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail 0.111** 0.101** 0.137** 0.097** [0.012] [0.011] [0.024] [0.018] Sector of employment: Transport, storage and 0.063** 0.01 0.043* 0.049** communication [0.013] [0.012] [0.021] [0.017] Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and 0.13** 0.047** 0.101** 0.096** professional services [0.015] [0.012] [0.027] [0.017] Sector of employment: Public administration, health 0.05** 0.072** 0.048* 0.088** and education [0.013] [0.012] [0.019] [0.017] Sector of employment: Other 0.048** -0.03 -0.014 0.022 [0.018] [0.017] [0.035] [0.023] Incomplete primary 0.037** 0.079** 0.062** 0.042** [0.013] [0.010] [0.017] [0.013] Complete primary 0.119** 0.107** 0.051** 0.085** [0.010] [0.009] [0.015] [0.011] Intermediate 0.183** 0.182** 0.124** 0.158** [0.013] [0.011] [0.020] [0.016] Secondary 0.225** 0.284** 0.171** 0.21** 61 [0.013] [0.013] [0.023] [0.018] Higher secondary 0.262** 0.319** 0.166** 0.191** [0.015] [0.013] [0.024] [0.020] Tertiary 0.428** 0.436** 0.185** 0.326** [0.015] [0.013] [0.025] [0.020] Governorate: Duhouk 0.395** 0.347** 0.032 0.297** [0.020] [0.017] [0.036] [0.027] Governorate: Nineveh 0.002 -0.132** -0.02 -0.107** [0.013] [0.012] [0.024] [0.017] Governorate: Sulaimaniya 0.578** 0.333** 0.28** 0.394** [0.015] [0.014] [0.033] [0.027] Governorate: Kirkuk 0.106** 0.1** 0 0.205** [0.017] [0.015] [0.032] [0.023] Governorate: Erbil 0.501** 0.322** 0.181** 0.25** [0.015] [0.014] [0.035] [0.028] Governorate: Diyala -0.247** -0.144** -0.449** -0.007 [0.020] [0.018] [0.026] [0.020] Governorate: Anbar -0.049** 0.045** -0.379** 0.106** [0.017] [0.017] [0.027] [0.019] Governorate: Babylon -0.009 0.079** -0.265** 0.087** [0.018] [0.016] [0.026] [0.018] Governorate: Karbala -0.109** -0.087** -0.247** 0.075** [0.019] [0.017] [0.035] [0.025] Governorate: Wasit 0.017 -0.063** -0.347** 0.024 [0.019] [0.017] [0.031] [0.022] Governorate: Salahadin -0.111** 0.039* -0.359** 0.118** [0.021] [0.018] [0.027] [0.020] Governorate: Najaf 0.104** 0.223** -0.1** 0.126** [0.018] [0.016] [0.033] [0.024] Governorate: Qadisiya 0.025 -0.234** -0.267** -0.35** [0.020] [0.018] [0.030] [0.022] Governorate: Muthanna 0.082** -0.257** -0.401** -0.28** [0.027] [0.025] [0.033] [0.024] Governorate: Thi Qar 0.004 -0.162** -0.216** -0.299** [0.016] [0.014] [0.027] [0.020] Governorate: Missan 0.004 -0.132** -0.15** -0.344** [0.021] [0.018] [0.031] [0.027] Governorate: Basra -0.081** 0.024* -0.194** 0.105** [0.013] [0.012] [0.029] [0.022] Constant 6.129** 6.096** 6.306** 6.247** [0.054] [0.052] [0.086] [0.070] 2 R 0.47 0.52 0.41 0.39 N 12,069 14,836 5,444 10,109 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 62 Table A 7.3: Probability of being poor, marginal effects of characteristics, Urban-Rural, 2007 and 2012 Marginal probability effects: Partial effects of each explanatory variable Urban Rural (evaluated at mean values) on the probability that a household is poor 2007 2012 2007 2012 Log of household size 0.059 0.044 0.086 0.044 [0.007]** [0.005]** [0.011]** [0.008]** Log of household size squared -0.002 -0.001 -0.002 -0.002 [0.000]** [0.000]** [0.000]** [0.000]** Number of children aged 0-6 years 0.031 0.022 0.039 0.051 [0.006]** [0.004]** [0.010]** [0.009]** Number of children aged 7-17 years 0.027 0.023 0.022 0.049 [0.005]** [0.004]** [0.009]* [0.007]** Number of elderly -0.028 -0.004 -0.025 -0.018 [0.012]* [0.008] [0.023] [0.016] Number of working age males employed -0.015 -0.02 -0.032 -0.028 [0.008] [0.006]** [0.015]* [0.011]* Age of the head of household -0.006 -0.002 0 -0.001 [0.003]* [0.002] [0.005] [0.003] Household head age squared 0 0 0 0 [0.000] [0.000] [0.000] [0.000] Male household head 0.036 0.034 -0.036 0.085 [0.020] [0.012]** [0.053] [0.026]** Dummy = 1 if head of household born elsewhere -0.025 0.02 -0.065 -0.03 [0.017] [0.014] [0.050] [0.031] Household head lived elsewhere for at least 6 months -0.012 -0.014 -0.049 -0.04 [0.019] [0.013] [0.041] [0.027] # Household members who lived elsewhere for at least 6 months 0.027 0 -0.129 0.001 [0.015] [0.003] [0.038]** [0.005] Sector of employment: Agriculture 0.07 0.005 -0.019 -0.015 [0.036] [0.031] [0.033] [0.024] Sector of employment: Mining and Quarrying -0.002 -0.055 -0.307 -0.077 [0.048] [0.015]** [0.040]** [0.081] Sector of employment: Manufacturing 0.045 -0.014 0.03 -0.083 [0.041] [0.015] [0.065] [0.034]* Sector of employment: Utilities -0.073 0.052 -0.043 -0.108 [0.024]** [0.035] [0.070] [0.041]** Sector of employment: Construction 0.026 0.059 0.094 0.046 [0.027] [0.023]* [0.046]* [0.032] Sector of employment: Commerce and retail -0.023 -0.047 -0.143 -0.08 [0.018] [0.010]** [0.044]** [0.034]* Sector of employment: Transport, storage and communication -0.03 0 -0.008 -0.043 [0.020] [0.016] [0.044] [0.031] Sector of employment: Finance, insurance and professional services -0.036 -0.022 -0.156 -0.092 [0.034] [0.013] [0.054]** [0.026]** Sector of employment: Public administration, health and education -0.037 -0.034 -0.026 -0.11 [0.017]* [0.012]** [0.042] [0.027]** Sector of employment: Other -0.02 0.002 0.098 -0.042 [0.022] [0.018] [0.070] [0.033] Incomplete primary -0.009 -0.044 -0.06 -0.063 [0.021] [0.009]** [0.034] [0.020]** Complete primary -0.054 -0.064 -0.059 -0.119 [0.016]** [0.009]** [0.034] [0.020]** Intermediate -0.085 -0.075 -0.121 -0.145 [0.015]** [0.007]** [0.038]** [0.022]** Secondary -0.06 -0.084 -0.154 -0.151 [0.021]** [0.006]** [0.038]** [0.025]** Higher secondary -0.085 -0.082 -0.176 -0.151 [0.013]** [0.006]** [0.041]** [0.036]** 63 Tertiary -0.099 -0.097 -0.171 -0.217 [0.011]** [0.005]** [0.041]** [0.020]** Governorate: Duhouk -0.062 -0.048 0.262 -0.051 [0.015]** [0.009]** [0.057]** [0.035] Governorate: Nineveh -0.062 0.01 -0.118 0.023 [0.016]** [0.018] [0.049]* [0.038] Governorate: Sulaimaniya -0.115 -0.044 -0.022 -0.146 [0.008]** [0.009]** [0.054] [0.024]** Governorate: Kirkuk -0.096 -0.067 -0.109 -0.206 [0.011]** [0.010]** [0.081] [0.024]** Governorate: Erbil -0.101 -0.039 0.086 -0.035 [0.010]** [0.010]** [0.058] [0.041] Governorate: Diyala 0.073 0.005 0.357 -0.07 [0.030]* [0.017] [0.055]** [0.030]* Governorate: Anbar -0.063 -0.068 0.277 -0.184 [0.016]** [0.007]** [0.052]** [0.023]** Governorate: Babylon -0.065 -0.056 0.161 -0.185 [0.017]** [0.009]** [0.061]** [0.023]** Governorate: Karbala 0.042 -0.04 0.138 -0.189 [0.049] [0.014]** [0.056]* [0.025]** Governorate: Wasit -0.046 -0.013 0.29 -0.107 [0.017]** [0.015] [0.053]** [0.029]** Governorate: Salahadin 0.007 -0.062 0.319 -0.169 [0.028] [0.007]** [0.051]** [0.021]** Governorate: Najaf -0.092 -0.077 -0.031 -0.179 [0.015]** [0.006]** [0.055] [0.026]** Governorate: Qadisiya -0.073 0.058 0.168 0.192 [0.014]** [0.022]* [0.056]** [0.043]** Governorate: Muthanna -0.079 0.053 0.303 0.163 [0.012]** [0.025]* [0.053]** [0.048]** Governorate: Thi Qar -0.065 0.021 0.051 0.16 [0.015]** [0.017] [0.055] [0.042]** Governorate: Missan -0.074 -0.019 0.069 0.225 [0.015]** [0.014] [0.059] [0.044]** Governorate: Basra -0.034 -0.062 0.089 -0.16 [0.022] [0.008]** [0.060] [0.026]** N 12,069 14,836 5,444 10,109 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 64 Table A 7.4: Rural poverty across different types of households, governorate 8 Headcount poverty rates, 2012 Non-agricultural Agricultural household Diversified household Non-employed ANBAR 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.33 NAJAF 0.13 0.17 0.31 0.09 SULAIMANIYA 0.09 0.18 0.12 KERBELA 0.10 0.18 ERBIL 0.25 0.18 0.37 0.29 KIRKUK 0.18 0.19 0.08 BABYLON 0.12 0.21 0.18 0.28 SALAHADIN 0.16 0.25 0.18 0.14 DIYALA 0.21 0.33 0.33 0.21 WASIT 0.30 0.37 0.23 0.35 NAINAWA 0.44 0.38 0.28 0.49 DUHOK 0.30 0.42 0.36 BAGHDAD 0.30 0.44 0.34 0.30 BASRAH 0.15 0.51 0.20 0.32 QADISIYA 0.53 0.71 0.53 0.75 MAYSAN 0.69 0.78 0.57 0.66 THI-QAR 0.52 0.79 0.59 0.53 MUTHANNA 0.60 0.81 0.55 0.60 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2012 Table A 7.5: Rural poverty across different types of households, governorate (Changes relative to 2007) Percentage point change in headcount Non-agricultural Agricultural Diversified Non-employed Rural rates (2012 relative to 2007) households households households households households BASRAH -15.58 14.22 -58.81 -4.39 -16.9 SALAH AL-DEEN -30.25 -19.05 -54.98 -46.93 -33.6 WASIT -10.82 -21.07 -48.67 -52.35 -26.9 ANBAR -17.44 -33.38 -44.96 -28.9 BABYLON -17.25 -37.75 -39.85 -32.7 KIRKUK 9.62 8.59 -39.35 -2.5 DUHOK -16.63 2.89 -28.37 -15.1 KERBELA -27.95 -26.62 -25.4 DIYALA -10.91 -38.33 -25.38 -44.17 -20.1 MUTHANNA -13.79 15.01 -17.56 -16.70 -11.3 SULAIMANIYA -9.43 -6.64 -9.94 -9.9 NAJAF -5.82 -14.27 -3.42 -10.2 QADISIYA 7.65 17.74 -0.73 17.12 5.2 ERBIL -4.48 -12.81 5.04 -4.5 NAINAWA 14.91 12.88 11.04 30.06 16.7 MAYSAN 38.56 31.16 16.28 34.4 BAGHDAD 6.34 20.75 15.5 THI-QAR 6.64 38.81 24.69 9.13 15.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 8 Poverty rates are not reported for governorates with less than 30 survey observations in a category 65 Table A 7.6a: Multinomial logit: Individual sector of employment , 2007 Financial, Public Transport, insurance Employed individuals, rural Commerc administrati Manufacturi Constructi storage and and Other Iraq, 2007 (Relative to e and on, health ng on communicat professio services agriculture and fishing) retail and ion nal education services Household size 0.895 1 0.883 0.979 1.158 1.094 1.048 [0.067] [0.045] [0.062] [0.056] [0.079]* [0.049]* [0.105] Household size squared 1.004 1.002 1.004 1.006 1.003 1.003 1 [0.002] [0.001]* [0.002]* [0.002]** [0.002]* [0.001]** [0.004] Number of children age 0-6 years 0.927 0.807 0.904 0.811 0.672 0.738 0.687 [0.086] [0.039]** [0.063] [0.044]** [0.048]** [0.034]** [0.059]** Number of children age 7-17 0.917 0.794 0.908 0.844 0.798 0.731 0.853 years [0.092] [0.032]** [0.049] [0.041]** [0.049]** [0.028]** [0.055]* Number of elderly 0.942 0.784 0.631 0.667 0.649 0.852 0.893 [0.137] [0.062]** [0.074]** [0.081]** [0.094]** [0.073] [0.146] Number of working age males 0.858 1.069 1.055 0.788 0.62 0.719 0.911 employed [0.103] [0.067] [0.101] [0.061]** [0.057]** [0.043]** [0.091] Age 1.138 1.196 1.097 1.371 1.265 1.238 1.175 [0.043]** [0.029]** [0.028]** [0.046]** [0.059]** [0.027]** [0.044]** Age squared 0.999 0.997 0.999 0.996 0.997 0.997 0.998 [0.001]** [0.000]** [0.000]** [0.000]** [0.001]** [0.000]** [0.000]** Male 3.83 23.188 5.512 56.333 4.192 4.847 16.286 [1.341]** [6.373]** [1.863]** [31.419]** [1.308]** [0.739]** [6.251]** Head of household 0.519 0.812 0.537 0.574 0.712 0.872 0.666 [0.154]* [0.139] [0.154]* [0.124]* [0.184] [0.161] [0.218] Spouse of head of household 0.209 0.317 0.257 0.29 0.26 0.927 0.207 [0.113]** [0.147]* [0.138]* [0.267] [0.149]* [0.207] [0.170] Incomplete primary 1.893 1.004 1.557 1.087 1.069 1.665 1.314 [0.521]* [0.133] [0.339]* [0.215] [0.399] [0.239]** [0.320] Complete primary 2.554 0.966 1.868 1.938 1.78 2.57 1.475 [0.665]** [0.117] [0.346]** [0.344]** [0.604] [0.350]** [0.364] Intermediate 4.135 1.113 3.226 2.529 2.75 3.627 1.138 [1.250]** [0.212] [0.715]** [0.541]** [1.040]** [0.671]** [0.349] Secondary 8.496 1.063 4.631 2.17 3.189 6.576 1.585 [2.600]** [0.230] [1.171]** [0.541]** [1.284]** [1.246]** [0.575] Higher secondary 13.981 0.907 7.848 4.201 5.015 25.885 3.519 [6.431]** [0.311] [2.922]** [1.382]** [2.204]** [5.840]** [3.137] Tertiary 8.667 0.953 2.886 1.823 4.347 17.368 1.531 [3.605]** [0.353] [1.299]* [0.692] [2.373]** [4.488]** [0.776] Per capita land area 0.947 0.983 0.735 0.919 0.844 1.024 0.892 [0.054] [0.027] [0.097]* [0.055] [0.071]* [0.021] [0.051]* Per capita cultivable area 1.024 0.771 0.894 0.832 1.021 0.672 0.913 [0.064] [0.062]** [0.202] [0.088] [0.157] [0.058]** [0.065] Per capita public transfers 0.975 0.999 1.006 1 0.98 0.985 0.987 [0.008]** [0.005] [0.005] [0.007] [0.007]** [0.005]** [0.008] Per capita private transfers 0.991 0.998 1 1.005 1.009 1.004 0.994 [0.006] [0.003] [0.004] [0.002]* [0.002]** [0.002]* [0.007] 66 Division: North 2.691 1.529 1.07 1.178 1.328 0.4 0.52 [0.978]** [0.275]* [0.278] [0.278] [0.467] [0.070]** [0.143]* Division: Centre 2.749 1.185 1.084 1.225 1.859 0.353 0.191 [0.915]** [0.205] [0.263] [0.243] [0.641] [0.053]** [0.055]** Division: South 5.017 2.023 1.063 1.72 1.423 0.441 0.424 [1.596]** [0.311]** [0.230] [0.335]** [0.428] [0.066]** [0.137]** Interaction: North* Per capita 0.606 0.605 0.72 0.81 0.83 0.946 0.682 cultivated area [0.151]* [0.100]** [0.242] [0.114] [0.156] [0.112] [0.158] Interaction: Centre* Per capita 0.213 0.447 0.21 0.491 0.438 0.535 0.334 cultivated area [0.094]** [0.101]** [0.110]** [0.097]** [0.118]** [0.078]** [0.134]** Interaction: South* Per capita 0.235 0.769 0.904 0.502 0.783 0.817 0.011 cultivated area [0.115]** [0.100]* [0.259] [0.114]** [0.181] [0.127] [0.018]** Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007 Table A 7.7b: Multinomial logit: Individual sector of employment , 2012 Employed Financial, Public individuals, rural Transport, insurance administrat Commerce Other Iraq, 2012 (Relative Manufacturing Construction storage and and ion, health and retail services to agriculture and communication professional and fishing) services education Household size 0.9* 0.831** 0.866** 0.997 0.951 0.973 0.954 [0.046] [0.035] [0.038] [0.044] [0.040] [0.043] [0.046] Household size 1 1.004** 1.001 1.001 1.002 1.001 1.003 squared [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001]* Number of children 1.002 1.036 1.094 0.937 0.963 0.982 0.952 age 0-6 years [0.054] [0.047] [0.052] [0.047] [0.042] [0.052] [0.054] Number of children 0.974 0.968 1.021 0.891** 0.879** 0.846** 0.797 age 7-17 years [0.043] [0.036] [0.043] [0.039] [0.034] [0.037] [0.038]** Number of elderly 0.971 1.029 0.925 0.775** 0.919 0.829* 0.668 [0.100] [0.077] [0.086] [0.076] [0.075] [0.073] [0.088]** Number of working age males 1.081 1.132* 1.095 0.916 1.022 0.955 0.813 employed [0.068] [0.061] [0.069] [0.063] [0.060] [0.060] [0.061]** Age 1.09** 1.162** 1.056** 1.284** 1.199** 1.299** 1.078 [0.026] [0.024] [0.021] [0.031] [0.027] [0.032] [0.033]* Age squared 0.999** 0.998** 0.999* 0.997** 0.998** 0.997** 0.999 [0.000] [0.000] [0.000] [0.000] [0.000] [0.000] [0.000] Male 5.392** 105.289** 7.299** 120.275** 21.802** 5.719** 9.609** [1.389] [43.326] [1.803] [71.972] [5.244] [1.453] [2.367] Head of household 0.668 0.471** 0.681** 0.816 0.668** 0.56** 0.58** [0.145] [0.071] [0.122] [0.166] [0.115] [0.108] [0.116] Spouse of head of 0.831 0.237 1.107 0.819 1.71 0.791 0.792 household [0.326] [0.161]* [0.356] [0.582] [0.601] [0.273] [0.336] Incomplete primary 1.371* 1.007 1.409** 1.407* 1.174 1.351 1.021 [0.208] [0.111] [0.228 [0.223] [0.149] [0.221] [0.176] Complete primary 1.629** 1.279* 1.488** 1.535** 1.632** 3.055** 1.529** [0.229] [0.126] [0.219] [0.216] [0.189] [0.436] [0.237] Intermediate 1.522* 1.24 1.87** 1.427 1.7** 3.807** 0.849 67 [0.296] [0.188] [0.358] [0.283] [0.293] [0.669] [0.203] Secondary 3.296** 0.737 1.286 1.124 1.469* 4.653** 2.693** [0.665] [0.144] [0.314] [0.259] [0.281] [0.923] [0.722] Higher secondary 6.688** 1.304 5.003** 2.729** 2.882** 33.401** 5.908** [1.863] [0.403] [1.498] [0.927] [0.799] [8.115] [1.667] Tertiary 4.27** 0.612 3.448** 1.014 2.956** 30.17** 5.558** [1.244] [0.188] [1.090] [0.328] [0.717] [6.819] [1.528] Per capita land area 0.935 0.782* 0.545** 0.918 0.855* 0.931 0.638* [0.044] [0.084] [0.096] [0.051] [0.061] [0.045] [0.129] Per capita cultivable 0.685** 0.96 1.701** 0.896 0.851 0.72** 1.277 area [0.094] [0.122] [0.318] [0.130] [0.082] [0.055] [0.282] Per capita public 1 0.995 1.008** 1.001 1 0.995 0.999 transfers [0.004] [0.003] [0.002] [0.003] [0.002] [0.003] [0.004] Per capita private 1.001 1.001 1.001 0.987** 0.989** 0.995 0.99* transfers [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.005] [0.003] [0.003] [0.005] Division: North 1.09 1.462 1.683** 1.197 0.523** 0.584** 3.28** [0.255] [0.294] [0.327] [0.262] [0.079] [0.094] [0.716] Division: Centre 1.386 2.403** 1.937** 1.656* 1.032 0.62** 1.531 [0.296] [0.404] [0.336] [0.327] [0.139] [0.089] [0.376] Division: South 1.975** 3.168** 1.638* 1.208 0.53** 0.933 1.863** [0.439] [0.652] [0.332] [0.256] [0.082] [0.148] [0.437] Interaction: North* Per capita cultivated 0.933 1.275* 0.745* 1.014 0.992 1.061 0.897 area [0.164] [0.144] [0.093] [0.144] [0.096] [0.095] [0.130] Interaction: Centre* Per capita cultivated 0.318** 0.369** 0.295** 0.505** 0.319** 0.434** 0.854 area [0.104] [0.072] [0.085] [0.112] [0.106] [0.101] [0.356] Interaction: South* Per capita cultivated 1.182 0.843 0.671 0.71 0.51* 0.509* 0.626 area [0.241] [0.425] [0.193] [0.203] [0.151] [0.156] [0.280] Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2012 68 Table A 7.8a:Multinomial logit: Household occupation type, rural 2007 Non- Non- Diversified Rural households (Relative to agricultural households), 2007 agricultural employed household household household Household size 1.195 1.183 0.709 [0.066]** [0.073]** [0.204] Household size squared 1.001 1 1.032 [0.001] [0.001] [0.016]* Number of children age 0-6 years 0.682 0.744 0.734 [0.044]** [0.052]** [0.130] Number of children age 7-17 years 0.724 0.836 0.757 [0.042]** [0.049]** [0.108] Number of elderly 0.694 0.927 0.507 [0.092]** [0.117] [0.158]* Number of working age males employed 1.03 2.041 0 [0.099] [0.189]** [0.000]* Age 0.926 0.955 0.958 [0.027]** [0.032] [0.077] Age squared 1.001 1 1 [0.000]** [0.000] [0.001] Male household head 0.8 0.902 3.614 [0.197] [0.255] [1.927]* Incomplete primary 1.565 0.887 1.014 [0.288]* [0.190] [0.483] Complete primary 2.345 1.102 1.473 [0.388]** [0.227] [0.824] Intermediate 4.32 1.494 13.273 [0.988]** [0.455] [10.553]** Secondary 5.94 1.531 2.181 [1.765]** [0.533] [1.597] Higher secondary 6.692 4.869 2.076 [1.861]** [1.936]** [1.494] Tertiary 8.757 2.917 4.279 [5.401]** [1.349]* [3.638] Per capita land area 0.957 0.948 0.882 [0.039] [0.022]* [0.074] Per capita cultivable area 0.685 0.969 0.934 [0.072]** [0.044] [0.141] Per capita public transfers 0.983 0.988 0.987 [0.004]** [0.006] [0.006]* Per capita private transfers 1.006 1.001 1.01 [0.003] [0.002] [0.005]* Division: North 0.831 0.576 2.128 [0.191] [0.143]* [1.160] Division: Centre 0.726 0.706 0.675 [0.142] [0.173] [0.305] Division: South 0.812 0.987 1.313 [0.154] [0.207] [0.596] Interaction: North* Per capita cultivated area 0.58 0.869 0.899 [0.208] [0.065] [0.138] Interaction: Centre* Per capita cultivated area 0.061 0.754 0.563 [0.034]** [0.087]* [0.293] Interaction: South* Per capita cultivated area 0.327 0.97 0.579 [0.128]** [0.065] [0.155]* Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007 69 Table A 7.9b:Multinomial logit: Household occupation type, rural 2012 Non-agricultural Diversified Non-employed Rural households (Relative to agricultural households), 2012 household household household Household size 0.897* 0.977 0.841 [0.042] [0.053] [0.104] Household size squared 1.004** 1.001 1.005 [0.001] [0.001] [0.003] Number of children age 0-6 years 0.988 1.01 1.115 [0.051] [0.064] [0.160] Number of children age 7-17 years 0.861** 0.953 1.017 [0.036] [0.049] [0.110] Number of elderly 0.872 1.063 1.008 [0.083] [0.124] [0.237] Number of working age males employed 1.602** 2.695** 0* [0.139] [0.247] [0.000] Age 0.988 0.992 0.887* [0.020] [0.026] [0.050] Age squared 1 1 1.001 [0.000] [0.000] [0.000] Male household head 0.842 0.89 1.234 [0.173] [0.250] [0.428] Incomplete primary 1.55** 1.429* 1.304 [0.216] [0.259] [0.460] Complete primary 1.947** 1.575** 1.283 [0.232] [0.250] [0.469] Intermediate 2.558** 1.515 5.3** [0.492] [0.397] [2.858] Secondary 2.426** 1.267 1.783 [0.503] [0.393] [1.158] Higher secondary 5.321** 2.489* 2.031 [1.552] [0.997] [1.596] Tertiary 11.071** 7.691** 2.518 [4.070] [3.090] [2.374] Per capita land area 0.779* 0.959 0.97 [0.079] [0.023] [0.064] Per capita cultivable area 0.933 0.961 0.991 [0.137] [0.040] [0.098] Per capita public transfers 1.001 0.998 1.018** [0.001] [0.003] [0.004] Per capita private transfers 1 0.998 1.008 [0.000] [0.003] [0.005] Division: North 1.002 0.342** 12.726** [0.168] [0.061] [5.286] Division: Centre 1.121 0.437** 8.059** [0.222] [0.081] [3.307] Division: South 1.322 0.323** 4.989** [0.246] [0.063] [2.047] Interaction: North* Per capita cultivated area 0.695 1.092** 0.934 [0.154] [0.037] [0.077] Interaction: Centre* Per capita cultivated area 0.246* 0.952 0.511** [0.169] [0.095] [0.109] Interaction: South* Per capita cultivated area 0.151* 1.015 0.673* [0.117] [0.060] [0.125] Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2012 70 8. Transfers, Safety Nets and Poverty Table A 8. 1: International remittances Whether household receives Log per capita international international remittances remittances 2007 2012 2007 2012 Dependency ratio -0.0152 0.00305 0.164 -0.275 (0.0130) (0.00415) (0.447) (0.552) Household size: 5-8 0.00230 -0.00249 -0.453*** -0.306 (0.00483) (0.00210) (0.173) (0.287) Household size: 9-12 0.0121 -0.00534* -0.645*** -0.284 (0.00870) (0.00284) (0.243) (0.356) Household size: 13-16 -0.0185** -0.00421 -0.0687 -1.573*** (0.00925) (0.00373) (0.381) (0.605) Household size: 17-20 -0.00708 -0.00608 0.461 0.0514 (0.0181) (0.00516) (0.402) (0.702) Household size: >20 0.0197 0.00862 -3.008*** -0.228 (0.0351) (0.00955) (0.469) (0.773) Female head 0.0614** 0.00510 0.0300 0.759* (0.0281) (0.00462) (0.304) (0.421) Head employed in the private sector 0.00509 0.00297 0.115 0.417 (0.00496) (0.00225) (0.182) (0.282) Head not employed 0.0174** 0.00448* 0.764*** 1.063*** (0.00765) (0.00257) (0.229) (0.335) Education: Illiterate -0.0362*** -0.00123 -0.0612 -0.639 (0.0101) (0.00309) (0.314) (0.544) Education: Incomplete primary -0.0308*** 0.00428 -0.282 -0.0911 (0.0101) (0.00424) (0.316) (0.533) Education: Primary -0.00567 0.00219 -0.159 -0.463 (0.0116) (0.00293) (0.277) (0.503) Education: Intermediate -0.0231** -0.00198 -0.0859 -0.268 (0.0104) (0.00314) (0.297) (0.595) Education: Secondary -0.00470 -0.000669 0.214 -0.0151 (0.0122) (0.00379) (0.296) (0.610) Education: Higher Secondary 0.00686 0.00171 0.280 -0.430 (0.0135) (0.00377) (0.353) (0.548) Rural household -0.00480 -0.00498*** -0.114 0.513* (0.00438) (0.00159) (0.184) (0.261) Baghdad -0.0355*** -0.0279*** 0.263 0.398 (0.00683) (0.00297) (0.225) (0.451) North -0.0449*** -0.00762*** -0.360 0.340 (0.00663) (0.00238) (0.241) (0.292) Centre -0.0519*** -0.0176*** 0.765*** -0.653* (0.00614) (0.00245) (0.215) (0.387) South -0.0372*** -0.00969*** 0.358 0.762** (0.00595) (0.00216) (0.231) (0.342) Consumption Quintile 1 (poorest) -0.0233*** -0.0114*** -1.206*** -0.921 (0.00846) (0.00333) (0.341) (0.589) Consumption Quintile 2 -0.0331*** -0.00918*** -1.411*** -0.625 (0.00664) (0.00318) (0.264) (0.388) Consumption Quintile 3 -0.0123 -0.00893*** -1.395*** -0.733* (0.0100) (0.00295) (0.221) (0.390) Consumption Quintile 4 -0.0180*** -0.00652** -0.587*** -0.105 (0.00658) (0.00290) (0.214) (0.279) Widow in household -0.0262*** 0.00150 -0.227 -0.142 (0.00915) (0.00277) (0.233) (0.310) Eligible pensioner in household 0.00526 0.00269 -0.174 -0.400 (0.00530) (0.00209) (0.182) (0.279) 71 Constant 2.271*** 2.186*** (0.352) (0.513) Observations 16,909 24,936 751 494 R-squared 0.248 0.225 Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 8. 2: Domestic remittances Whether household receives domestic remittances Log per capita domestic remittances 2007 2012 2007 2012 Dependency ratio 0.146*** 0.169*** 0.334* 0.266 (0.0309) (0.0281) (0.181) (0.168) Household size: 5-8 -0.0895*** -0.0822*** -0.742*** -0.744*** (0.0136) (0.0131) (0.0786) (0.0761) Household size: 9-12 -0.108*** -0.115*** -1.330*** -1.184*** (0.0201) (0.0167) (0.129) (0.0991) Household size: 13-16 -0.203*** -0.136*** -1.399*** -1.250*** (0.0254) (0.0239) (0.161) (0.158) Household size: 17-20 -0.186*** -0.168*** -1.678*** -1.922*** (0.0343) (0.0342) (0.280) (0.206) Household size: >20 -0.236*** -0.0935 -3.324*** -1.390*** (0.0761) (0.102) (0.436) (0.326) Female head 0.0988*** 0.0624*** 0.255** 0.482*** (0.0284) (0.0226) (0.125) (0.106) Head employed in the private sector 0.00464 0.0540*** 0.0765 0.213*** (0.0126) (0.0118) (0.0788) (0.0749) Head not employed 0.0683*** 0.106*** 0.439*** 0.695*** (0.0181) (0.0151) (0.0986) (0.0941) Education: Illiterate 0.0116 0.0946*** 0.0577 0.272* (0.0237) (0.0211) (0.162) (0.144) Education: Incomplete primary 0.0169 0.0726*** 0.171 0.180 (0.0241) (0.0218) (0.165) (0.147) Education: Primary 0.00842 0.0542*** 0.00386 0.431*** (0.0218) (0.0192) (0.150) (0.136) Education: Intermediate -0.00286 0.0508** 0.320** 0.271* (0.0231) (0.0231) (0.156) (0.154) Education: Secondary -0.0117 0.0338 0.0545 0.262 (0.0232) (0.0230) (0.158) (0.161) Education: Higher Secondary 0.00326 0.0259 0.0192 0.197 (0.0243) (0.0233) (0.167) (0.158) Rural household 0.000552 -0.0382*** -0.115 -0.0235 (0.0114) (0.00984) (0.0710) (0.0601) Baghdad -0.134*** 0.0134 0.783*** 0.179* (0.0194) (0.0164) (0.137) (0.0997) North -0.0895*** -0.0192 0.689*** 0.451*** (0.0157) (0.0171) (0.118) (0.103) Centre 0.123*** 0.0681*** 0.440*** 0.285*** (0.0154) (0.0138) (0.103) (0.0831) South -0.0786*** -0.0870*** 1.240*** 0.723*** (0.0153) (0.0153) (0.121) (0.0959) Consumption Quintile 1 (poorest) 0.0199 7.96e-05 -0.375*** -0.742*** (0.0184) (0.0189) (0.132) (0.113) Consumption Quintile 2 0.0321* -0.00565 -0.294** -0.582*** (0.0175) (0.0172) (0.118) (0.105) 72 Consumption Quintile 3 0.0310* 0.0187 -0.325** -0.358*** (0.0186) (0.0163) (0.129) (0.0989) Consumption Quintile 4 0.0169 0.00455 -0.237** -0.355*** (0.0135) (0.0149) (0.0973) (0.0889) Widow in household -0.0134 0.00789 -0.0549 -0.0156 (0.0185) (0.0159) (0.108) (0.0886) Eligible pensioner in household -0.0123 -0.0457*** -0.114 -0.0721 (0.0141) (0.0130) (0.0807) (0.0789) Constant 1.585*** 1.666*** (0.158) (0.161) Observations 16,909 24,936 4,652 7,607 R-squared 0.211 0.166 Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 8. 3: Zakat Whether household receives zakat Log per capita zakat receipts 2007 2012 2007 2012 Dependency ratio 0.00480*** 0.00462** -0.158 -0.242 (0.00183) (0.00206) (0.641) (0.373) Household size: 5-8 -0.000982 0.00174* -0.886*** -0.397** (0.000693) (0.000960) (0.244) (0.189) Household size: 9-12 -0.00358*** 0.000390 -1.376*** -0.993*** (0.00108) (0.00109) (0.396) (0.230) Household size: 13-16 -0.00565*** 0.00233* -2.020*** -1.128*** (0.00215) (0.00142) (0.522) (0.264) Household size: 17-20 0.00366 -0.00212 0.137 -1.327*** (0.00338) (0.00244) (0.366) (0.458) Household size: >20 -2.37e-05 0.00407 0.214 0.458** (0.000737) (0.00268) (0.289) (0.227) Female head 0.00249*** 0.00129* 0.384 0.333** (0.000922) (0.000739) (0.302) (0.146) Head employed in the private sector 0.00150 0.00171 -0.371 0.626*** (0.000981) (0.00113) (0.554) (0.198) Head not employed 0.000318 0.00600*** -0.859 -1.254** (0.000802) (0.00139) (0.548) (0.535) Education: Illiterate 0.00128 0.00475*** -0.213 -1.340** (0.000831) (0.00145) (0.480) (0.532) Education: Incomplete primary 0.00164 0.00299*** 0.0843 -1.111** (0.00157) (0.000936) (0.539) (0.547) Education: Primary -0.000207 0.00223* 0.480 -0.949 (0.000755) (0.00122) (0.588) (0.608) Education: Intermediate 0.000835 0.00388** -0.212 -0.557 (0.00113) (0.00196) (0.506) (0.538) Education: Secondary 0.000230 -0.000236 -0.290 -0.527 (0.000627) (0.000616) (0.229) (0.607) Education: Higher Secondary -0.00843*** -0.000271 0.974** 0.0240 (0.00166) (0.000665) (0.394) (0.135) Rural household -0.000882 -0.0189*** 0.213 -1.198*** (0.000770) (0.00209) (0.332) (0.273) Baghdad -0.00445*** -0.00953*** 0.131 -0.681*** (0.00126) (0.00169) (0.312) (0.210) North -0.00783*** -0.0130*** -0.0499 -0.221 (0.00188) (0.00193) (0.629) (0.233) Centre 0.00347** -0.0211*** -0.172 -0.369 (0.00144) (0.00271) (0.403) (0.426) 73 South 0.00211** 0.00820*** 0.117 -0.0529 (0.000877) (0.00235) (0.375) (0.221) Consumption Quintile 1 (poorest) 0.00188* 0.00316*** -0.223 -0.175 (0.000964) (0.00114) (0.296) (0.215) Consumption Quintile 2 0.00116* 0.00166** -0.125 0.132 (0.000609) (0.000773) (0.312) (0.188) Consumption Quintile 3 0.000697 0.000648 0.240 0.0175 (0.00133) (0.000602) (0.322) (0.187) Consumption Quintile 4 -0.000220 0.00134 -0.0515 -0.109 (0.000858) (0.00123) (0.280) (0.196) Widow in household -0.000965 1.300** 0.0139 (0.00107) (0.628) (0.168) Eligible pensioner in household 2.018*** (0.551) Observations 16,551 24,868 155 694 R-squared 0.315 0.236 Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 8. 4:Pensions Whether household receives pension Log per capita pension 2007 2012 2007 2012 Dependency ratio -0.171*** -0.127*** -0.185 -0.271** (0.0350) (0.0253) (0.119) (0.114) Household size: 5-8 0.0369** 0.0203* -0.524*** -0.653*** (0.0150) (0.0122) (0.0558) (0.0452) Household size: 9-12 0.0779*** 0.0326** -0.965*** -1.057*** (0.0195) (0.0156) (0.0641) (0.0547) Household size: 13-16 0.0923*** 0.0522** -1.268*** -1.420*** (0.0258) (0.0227) (0.0892) (0.0792) Household size: 17-20 0.117*** 0.0415 -1.479*** -1.905*** (0.0346) (0.0271) (0.108) (0.210) Household size: >20 -0.0450 -0.0298 -1.919*** -2.076*** (0.0745) (0.0619) (0.166) (0.0984) Female head -0.0337 -0.0365** -0.0500 -0.0651 (0.0255) (0.0163) (0.0698) (0.0524) Head employed in the private sector 0.133*** 0.165*** 0.106* 0.219*** (0.0156) (0.0127) (0.0593) (0.0544) Head not employed 0.363*** 0.378*** 0.283*** 0.313*** (0.0184) (0.0144) (0.0580) (0.0568) Education: Illiterate -0.163*** -0.149*** -0.354*** -0.454*** (0.0269) (0.0235) (0.0799) (0.0643) Education: Incomplete primary -0.110*** -0.109*** -0.246*** -0.389*** (0.0276) (0.0248) (0.0806) (0.0683) Education: Primary -0.0710*** -0.0618*** -0.284*** -0.408*** (0.0260) (0.0237) (0.0692) (0.0720) Education: Intermediate -0.0332 -0.0235 -0.277*** -0.303*** (0.0283) (0.0280) (0.0845) (0.0612) Education: Secondary -0.0265 -0.0157 -0.109 -0.195*** (0.0282) (0.0294) (0.0800) (0.0752) Education: Higher Secondary -0.0488* -0.00152 0.108 -0.147* (0.0288) (0.0281) (0.0813) (0.0866) Rural household -0.0687*** -0.0475*** -0.00318 0.0116 (0.0119) (0.00939) (0.0381) (0.0394) Baghdad -0.0897*** -0.118*** 0.513*** -0.0280 (0.0215) (0.0154) (0.0729) (0.0528) 74 North -0.0256 -0.0884*** 0.431*** -0.0590 (0.0175) (0.0160) (0.0659) (0.0545) Centre -0.0305* -0.0657*** 0.419*** -0.0558 (0.0163) (0.0133) (0.0684) (0.0479) South -0.0596*** -0.0939*** 0.417*** -0.172** (0.0167) (0.0144) (0.0705) (0.0681) Consumption Quintile 1 (poorest) -0.0695*** -0.0693*** -0.152** -0.140* (0.0191) (0.0170) (0.0657) (0.0780) Consumption Quintile 2 -0.0212 -0.0405** -0.186*** -0.0506 (0.0228) (0.0165) (0.0622) (0.0660) Consumption Quintile 3 -0.0151 -0.0237 -0.193*** -0.192*** (0.0197) (0.0156) (0.0534) (0.0602) Consumption Quintile 4 0.0113 -0.00710 -0.0849* -0.0589 (0.0156) (0.0150) (0.0514) (0.0471) Widow in household 0.116*** 0.136*** -0.206*** 0.0359 (0.0166) (0.0127) (0.0418) (0.0430) Eligible pensioner in household 0.227*** 0.212*** 0.125** 0.00769 (0.0151) (0.0118) (0.0513) (0.0470) Constant 3.249*** 4.184*** (0.112) (0.0978) Observations 16,909 24,936 4,084 5,642 R-squared 0.329 0.371 Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 8. 5: Social protection Whether household receives social Log per capita social protection protection 2007 2012 2007 2012 Dependency ratio -9.09e-05 -0.0396*** 0.565** 0.00802 (0.00804) (0.0141) (0.272) (0.121) Household size: 5-8 -0.00214 0.0173** -0.885*** -0.630*** (0.00374) (0.00734) (0.148) (0.0617) Household size: 9-12 -0.0102** 0.0251*** -1.200*** -0.898*** (0.00423) (0.00913) (0.163) (0.0678) Household size: 13-16 0.00236 0.0150 -1.412*** -1.181*** (0.00694) (0.0110) (0.171) (0.0778) Household size: 17-20 -0.000805 0.0382** -2.080*** -1.635*** (0.00650) (0.0164) (0.280) (0.0953) Household size: >20 0.0256 0.0227 -2.199*** -1.423*** (0.0182) (0.0285) (0.237) (0.234) Female head -0.00204 -0.0196*** 0.220 0.0197 (0.00503) (0.00758) (0.168) (0.0734) Head employed in the private sector 0.0109*** 0.0447*** 0.499*** 0.190*** (0.00344) (0.00678) (0.158) (0.0681) Head not employed 0.0173*** 0.0537*** 0.259 0.260*** (0.00462) (0.00802) (0.167) (0.0727) Education: Illiterate 0.0146*** 0.0699*** 0.522 0.377** (0.00310) (0.00899) (0.339) (0.166) Education: Incomplete primary 0.0230*** 0.0579*** 0.365 0.357** (0.00742) (0.00983) (0.336) (0.168) Education: Primary 0.0183*** 0.0346*** 0.600* 0.378** (0.00345) (0.00757) (0.333) (0.166) Education: Intermediate 0.0171*** 0.0223** 0.814** 0.311* (0.00476) (0.00901) (0.350) (0.170) Education: Secondary 0.00707** 0.0290*** 0.267 0.222 75 (0.00288) (0.0105) (0.360) (0.172) Education: Higher Secondary 0.00680* 0.0205* 0.157 0.124 (0.00351) (0.0111) (0.418) (0.194) Rural household -0.000187 -0.00393 0.115 -0.0453 (0.00238) (0.00489) (0.110) (0.0408) Baghdad 0.0409*** -0.0507*** 2.769*** 0.290*** (0.00726) (0.00847) (0.686) (0.0976) North 0.0358*** -0.0206** 2.505*** 0.0886 (0.00705) (0.00852) (0.690) (0.0837) Centre 0.0475*** -0.0102 2.527*** 0.278*** (0.00650) (0.00675) (0.682) (0.0653) South 0.0466*** -0.0238*** 2.759*** 0.285*** (0.00614) (0.00733) (0.682) (0.0727) Consumption Quintile 1 (poorest) 0.00838 0.0402*** -0.577*** -0.206** (0.00510) (0.00915) (0.205) (0.0951) Consumption Quintile 2 0.00717 0.0406*** -0.448** -0.204** (0.00488) (0.00869) (0.195) (0.0864) Consumption Quintile 3 0.00796 0.0261*** -0.389** -0.175** (0.00537) (0.00750) (0.173) (0.0839) Consumption Quintile 4 0.00398 0.0154** -0.282* -0.109 (0.00401) (0.00650) (0.167) (0.0889) Widow in household 0.0106*** 0.0620*** 0.0641 0.0971** (0.00389) (0.00684) (0.112) (0.0478) Eligible pensioner in household 0.00212 0.0122* -0.00650 -0.237*** (0.00407) (0.00656) (0.112) (0.0457) Constant -0.547 2.425*** (0.766) (0.178) Observations 16,909 24,936 530 2,046 R-squared 0.425 0.362 Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 8. 6: Rations (1) Log per capita ration receipts (HH size) 2007 2012 Dependency ratio -0.00610 -0.0134 (0.0165) (0.0158) Household size: 5-8 -0.00431 -0.0457*** (0.00782) (0.00820) Household size: 9-12 -0.0348*** -0.0723*** (0.0101) (0.00977) Household size: 13-16 -0.0601*** -0.0916*** (0.0152) (0.0140) Household size: 17-20 -0.0813*** -0.0824*** (0.0190) (0.0191) Household size: >20 -0.0990** -0.0325 (0.0406) (0.0271) Female head -0.000285 -0.0314** (0.0136) (0.0133) Head employed in the private sector -0.00759 0.0106 (0.00668) (0.00664) Head not employed 0.00329 0.0209** (0.00849) (0.00874) Education: Illiterate 0.0604*** 0.0809*** (0.0123) (0.0141) Education: Incomplete primary 0.0294** 0.0807*** (0.0137) (0.0141) 76 Education: Primary 0.0439*** 0.0687*** (0.0110) (0.0131) Education: Intermediate 0.0424*** 0.0447*** (0.0121) (0.0151) Education: Secondary 0.0281** 0.0464*** (0.0116) (0.0148) Education: Higher Secondary 0.0274** 0.0466*** (0.0132) (0.0157) Rural household 0.0581*** 0.0634*** (0.00652) (0.00585) Baghdad 0.258*** 0.396*** (0.00972) (0.00995) North 0.148*** 0.366*** (0.00946) (0.00976) Centre 0.246*** 0.397*** (0.00953) (0.00835) South 0.248*** 0.516*** (0.00850) (0.00886) Consumption Quintile 1 (poorest) 0.0335*** -0.0485*** (0.0110) (0.0108) Consumption Quintile 2 0.0370*** -0.0151 (0.00964) (0.00993) Consumption Quintile 3 -0.00279 -0.00780 (0.00945) (0.00930) Consumption Quintile 4 0.00928 -0.0227** (0.00827) (0.00915) Widow in household -0.000593 0.00876 (0.0101) (0.00938) Eligible pensioner in household -0.00630 0.000945 (0.00841) (0.00745) Constant 2.208*** 1.776*** (0.0140) (0.0155) Observations 16,817 24,578 R-squared 0.139 0.267 Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 Table A 8. 7: Rations (2), 2012 VARIABLES Ration size = household size With interactions Dependency ratio 0.0162 0.0144 (0.0153) (0.0152) Female head -0.0383** -0.0393*** (0.0152) (0.0151) Head employed in the private sector 0.00274 0.00259 (0.00588) (0.00587) Head not employed 0.00639 0.00667 (0.00821) (0.00820) Education: Illiterate 0.0748*** 0.0733*** (0.0120) (0.0120) Education: Incomplete primary 0.0788*** 0.0764*** (0.0121) (0.0120) Education: Primary 0.0634*** 0.0619*** (0.0113) (0.0112) Education: Intermediate 0.0593*** 0.0578*** (0.0128) (0.0128) Education: Secondary 0.0372*** 0.0366*** 77 (0.0138) (0.0137) Education: Higher Secondary 0.0238* 0.0239* (0.0136) (0.0136) Rural household 0.0541*** 0.0545*** (0.00543) (0.00541) Baghdad 0.429*** 0.428*** (0.00936) (0.00940) North 0.380*** 0.379*** (0.00935) (0.00935) Centre 0.422*** 0.420*** (0.00765) (0.00772) South 0.524*** 0.524*** (0.00784) (0.00782) Size <=8 -0.0343*** -0.132* (0.00770) (0.0724) Size <=12 -0.0364*** -0.298*** (0.00934) (0.0837) Size <=16 -0.0542*** -0.333*** (0.0135) (0.108) Size <=24 -0.0496** -0.297 (0.0221) (0.212) Size >24 -0.0837** -0.283 (0.0415) (0.484) Widow in household 0.0214** 0.0229** (0.0103) (0.0102) Eligible pensioner in household -0.00404 -0.00457 (0.00701) (0.00699) lnpcep 0.0238*** -0.00241 (0.00702) (0.0124) 8.ration_size#c.lnpcep 0.0179 (0.0144) 12.ration_size#c.lnpcep 0.0534*** (0.0173) 16.ration_size#c.lnpcep 0.0578** (0.0233) 24.ration_size#c.lnpcep 0.0509 (0.0473) 51.ration_size#c.lnpcep 0.0404 (0.113) Constant 1.642*** 1.782*** (0.0436) (0.0687) Observations 17,216 17,216 R-squared 0.385 0.387 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2012 78 Table A 8. 8: Marginal effects of being poor or in the Bottom 40 percent VARIABLES Poor 2007 Poor 2012 2007 Bottom40 2012 Bottom40 Dependency ratio 0.309*** 0.324*** 0.379*** 0.506*** (0.0337) (0.0202) (0.0371) (0.0267) Household size: 5-8 0.166*** 0.149*** 0.241*** 0.240*** (0.0201) (0.0151) (0.0214) (0.0176) Household size: 9-12 0.314*** 0.274*** 0.428*** 0.422*** (0.0215) (0.0160) (0.0232) (0.0193) Household size: 13-16 0.398*** 0.309*** 0.508*** 0.464*** (0.0309) (0.0195) (0.0317) (0.0248) Household size: 17-20 0.399*** 0.267*** 0.487*** 0.455*** (0.0329) (0.0279) (0.0372) (0.0374) Household size: >20 0.254*** 0.253*** 0.497*** 0.553*** (0.0703) (0.0604) (0.0851) (0.0675) Female head -0.0318 -0.0532*** -0.0217 -0.0819*** (0.0215) (0.0134) (0.0277) (0.0188) Head employed in the private sector 0.0152 0.0397*** 0.0149 0.0565*** (0.0220) (0.00956) (0.0236) (0.0125) Head not employed 0.0400* 0.0512*** 0.0402 0.0884*** (0.0237) (0.0127) (0.0260) (0.0170) Education: Illiterate 0.154*** 0.202*** 0.214*** 0.288*** (0.0212) (0.0136) (0.0235) (0.0178) Education: Incomplete primary 0.135*** 0.136*** 0.203*** 0.205*** (0.0286) (0.0133) (0.0285) (0.0183) Education: Primary 0.0956*** 0.110*** 0.145*** 0.194*** (0.0166) (0.0106) (0.0184) (0.0153) Education: Intermediate 0.0413** 0.0740*** 0.0819*** 0.128*** (0.0183) (0.0144) (0.0210) (0.0198) Education: Secondary 0.0676* 0.0425*** 0.0900** 0.0686*** (0.0387) (0.0125) (0.0415) (0.0181) Education: Higher Secondary 0.0141 0.0390*** 0.0182 0.0608*** (0.0196) (0.0139) (0.0205) (0.0187) Rural household 0.140*** 0.0862*** 0.149*** 0.0980*** (0.0129) (0.00860) (0.0134) (0.0106) Baghdad 0.111*** 0.111*** 0.293*** 0.330*** (0.0264) (0.0150) (0.0331) (0.0217) North 0.0214 0.0615*** 0.317*** 0.350*** (0.0181) (0.0146) (0.0228) (0.0195) Centre 0.109*** -0.00235 0.408*** 0.287*** (0.0171) (0.0125) (0.0213) (0.0176) South 0.0716*** 0.139*** 0.392*** 0.468*** (0.0176) (0.0127) (0.0220) (0.0183) Household receives pensions -0.0547*** -0.0355*** -0.0552*** -0.0311** (0.0145) (0.0100) (0.0166) (0.0137) Household receives soc protection transfers 0.00129 0.0125 0.0100 0.0436** (0.0276) (0.0129) (0.0333) (0.0183) Household receives international remittances -0.0702** -0.0792*** -0.116*** -0.131*** (0.0311) (0.0295) (0.0346) (0.0392) Household receives domestic remittances -0.00628 0.00104 0.00819 -0.00953 (0.0132) (0.00850) (0.0146) (0.0114) Household receives zakat 0.149*** 0.0970*** 0.143*** 0.159*** (0.0448) (0.0210) (0.0543) (0.0306) Log per capita ration receipts 0.0547** -0.0605*** 0.104*** -0.0733*** (0.0232) (0.0142) (0.0263) (0.0192) Observations 16,817 24,578 16,817 24,578 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 79 Table A 8. 9: Governorate estimates, various poverty measures, 2012 Consumption CBN (Absolute poverty line) Subjective Satisfaction MIQ Average SULAIMANIYA 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.06 KERBELA 0.11 0.17 0.15 0.03 0.12 KIRKUK 0.08 0.12 0.11 0.16 0.12 ERBIL 0.12 0.24 0.14 0.06 0.14 DUHOK 0.21 0.14 0.10 0.11 0.14 BABYLON 0.13 0.22 0.10 0.16 0.16 DIYALA 0.18 0.21 0.09 0.19 0.17 SALAHADIN 0.14 0.21 0.20 0.15 0.18 NAINAWA 0.32 0.24 0.13 0.11 0.20 WASIT 0.24 0.30 0.09 0.30 0.23 BASRAH 0.13 0.31 0.25 0.28 0.24 NAJAF 0.10 0.31 0.21 0.40 0.25 ANBAR 0.14 0.34 0.29 0.30 0.27 THI-QAR 0.37 0.29 0.25 0.21 0.28 BAGHDAD 0.18 0.30 0.36 0.33 0.29 MUTHANNA 0.48 0.29 0.14 0.27 0.30 MAYSAN 0.38 0.36 0.21 0.38 0.33 QADISIYA 0.41 0.50 0.24 0.31 0.36 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2012 Table A 8. 10: Determinants of subjective poverty and dissatisfaction - 2012 Subjective poverty Life satisfaction (=1 if poor or very poor) (=1 if dissatisfied) Household size: 5-8 -0.119*** -0.0126* (0.00772) (0.00753) Household size: 9-12 -0.185*** -0.0438*** (0.0102) (0.00983) Household size: 13-16 -0.195*** -0.0199 (0.0143) (0.0135) Household size: 17-24 -0.207*** 0.00761 (0.0186) (0.0182) Household size: >=25 -0.240*** 0.109*** (0.0343) (0.0306) Number of children age 0-6 years -0.00403** -0.0108*** (0.00187) (0.00177) Number of children age 7-17 years 0.00128 -0.000542 (0.00161) (0.00150) Number of elderly -0.0310*** -0.0213*** (0.00329) (0.00328) Female -0.0302*** -0.0185*** (0.00537) (0.00523) Non employed individual 0.0869*** 0.0382*** (0.00656) (0.00683) Individual employed in the private sector 0.110*** 0.0515*** (0.00705) (0.00713) Illiterate 0.232*** 0.106*** (0.00827) (0.00904) 80 Incomplete primary 0.171*** 0.0626*** (0.00872) (0.00928) Primary 0.141*** 0.0697*** (0.00780) (0.00877) Intermediate 0.101*** 0.0463*** (0.00878) (0.00966) Secondary 0.0517*** 0.0227** (0.00857) (0.00981) Higher secondary 0.0172* 0.0105 (0.00987) (0.0114) Rural household 0.00411 0.00408 (0.00416) (0.00389) Baghdad 0.111*** 0.232*** (0.00818) (0.00785) North -0.0391*** 0.0198** (0.00822) (0.00777) Centre 0.0624*** 0.0496*** (0.00676) (0.00657) South 0.0791*** 0.110*** (0.00714) (0.00688) Consumption quintile 1 (Poorest) 0.416*** 0.105*** (0.00810) (0.00800) Consumption quintile 2 0.250*** 0.0749*** (0.00698) (0.00744) Consumption quintile 3 0.162*** 0.0290*** (0.00598) (0.00674) Consumption quintile 4 0.0717*** 0.0134** (0.00508) (0.00646) Number of working age males employed -0.0398*** -0.0132*** (0.00245) (0.00236) Dummy = 1 if head of hh born elsewhere 0.0644*** 0.0249*** (0.00651) (0.00636) Forcibly displaced 0.0121 0.0373*** (0.00872) (0.00865) Observations 100,220 99,838 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 81 Table A 8. 11: Generating weights of different dimensions of subjective poverty and dissatisfaction Subjective Poverty Satisfaction VARIABLES (1) (2) Illiterate & Incomplete primary 0.230*** 0.0867*** (0.00908) (0.00799) Complete primary - Complete Lower secondary 0.144*** 0.0556*** (0.00903) (0.00782) Non employed individual 0.0826*** 0.0367*** (0.00746) (0.00681) Private sector employment 0.119*** 0.0610*** (0.00807) (0.00751) Lower than average share of working age men employed 0.0251*** 0.00567 (0.00436) (0.00421) Forcibly displaced 0.0236*** 0.0447*** (0.00886) (0.00864) Head of household born elsewhere 0.0500*** 0.0223*** (0.00647) (0.00625) Dummy =1 if household pcep < MIQ 0.0874*** 0.127*** (0.00543) (0.00513) Quintile 1 (poorest) 0.269*** 0.0127* (0.00781) (0.00741) Quintile 2 0.175*** 0.0196*** (0.00754) (0.00698) Quintile 3 0.124*** -0.00692 (0.00746) (0.00694) Quintile 4 0.0610*** -0.00485 (0.00772) (0.00697) Kurdistan 0.0343*** (0.00796) Baghdad 0.131*** 0.204*** (0.00796) (0.00777) Centre 0.0734*** 0.0312*** (0.00638) (0.00655) South 0.102*** 0.0992*** (0.00662) (0.00691) North 0.0255*** (0.00766) Observations 100,349 99,967 Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2007-2012 82 Table A 8. 12: Subjective poverty weights Subjective poverty Normalized Coefficients (Significant) weights Illiterate and incomplete primary (relative to Higher secondary and Tertiary) 0.23 13.28 Education Complete primary and lower secondary (relative to Higher secondary and Tertiary) 0.144 8.32 Non employed (relative to Public sector employment) 0.0826 4.77 Private sector job (relative to Public sector Employment employment) 0.119 6.87 Lower than average share of working age men employed 0.0251 1.45 Displacement and Forcibly displaced 0.0236 1.36 migration Head of household born elsewhere 0.05 2.89 Dummy =1 if household pcep < MIQ 0.0874 5.05 Consumption and Quintile 1 (poorest) (relative to Quintile 5) 0.269 15.54 minimum income Quintile 2 (relative to Quintile 5) 0.175 10.11 poverty Quintile 3 (relative to Quintile 5) 0.124 7.16 Quintile 4 (relative to Quintile 5) 0.061 3.52 Kurdistan (relative to the North) 0.0343 1.98 Baghdad (relative to the North) 0.131 7.57 Space North (relative to the North) 0.00 Centre (relative to the North) 0.0734 4.24 South (relative to the North) 0.102 5.89 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2012 Table A 8. 13: Life satisfaction weights Life Satisfaction Normalized weights Illiterate and incomplete primary (relative to Higher secondary 0.0867 10.49 and Tertiary) Complete primary and lower secondary (relative to Higher 0.0556 6.73 secondary and Tertiary) Non employed (relative to Public sector employment) 0.0367 4.44 Private sector job (relative to Public sector employment) 0.061 7.38 Lower than average share of working age men employed 0.00 Forcibly displaced 0.0447 5.41 Head of household born elsewhere 0.0223 2.70 Dummy =1 if household pcep < MIQ 0.127 15.37 Quintile 1 (poorest) (relative to Quintile 5) 0.0127 1.54 Quintile 2 (relative to Quintile 5) 0.0196 2.37 Quintile 3 (relative to Quintile 5) 0.00 Quintile 4 (relative to Quintile 5) 0.00 Kurdistan (relative to Kurdistan) 0.00 Baghdad (relative to Kurdistan) 0.204 24.69 North (relative to Kurdistan) 0.0255 3.09 Centre (relative to Kurdistan) 0.0312 3.78 South (relative to Kurdistan) 0.0992 12.01 Source: Authors’ calculations, IHSES 2012 83 9. Policy Implications: Learning from the past to build a better future Isopoverty curves: Methodology We model growth by multiplying household consumption by a constant, thus assuming neutral growth. This exercise tell us at what rate household consumption should grow, with an unchanged Lorenz curve, to meet a given poverty target. Note that the growth channel in these micro- simulations may also imply some redistribution dimension. We assume neutral growth, and so that incomes from all sources are multiplied by the same factor. We model two alternative distributive polices. In the first, we tax all consumption at the same rate and allocate the revenues in equal amounts per capita.9 It can be shown that the fall in the Gini coefficient after this exercise is similar to the tax rate. This simple redistributive policy, although not targeted to the poor, is not far from those fiscal systems where taxes are approximately proportional and public expenditures per capita do not substantially vary with consumption.10 Another way to reduce poverty is by transfers from the non-poor people to the poor people. The targeted transfers minimize the fiscal cost of a given level of poverty reduction, as measured by the headcount ratio. Only the poor people who are closer to the poverty line receive the transfer (i.e. those that need a smaller transfer to escape out of poverty), and they receive only the minimum amount needed to reach the poverty line. Although this policy is probably undesirable (as the very poorest do not receive transfers), and difficult to implement (as it is perfectly targeted, with transfers depending on consumption), it is theoretically interesting as a lower bound for the fiscal effort to meet the poverty goal. It is important to stress that the simulation of counterfactual income distributions through the mechanisms described above is a simple arithmetic exercise.11 There is no guarantee that it would be consistent either with (i) household behavior and (ii) a general equilibrium of the markets in the economy. 9 See ECLAC (2002) and Ferreira and Leite (2003) 10 Several countries in LAC are examples of this kind 11 See Ferreira and Leite (2003) 84 References 1. Conflict, Growth and Development Abadie, A. and Gardeazabal, J. (2003) “The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque country”, American Economic Review, 93(1), pp113-132 Ahrens, A. (2013) “Understanding conflict in Africa: The role of economic shocks and spill-over effects”, mimeo Berman, E., Shapiro, J. and J. Felter (2011) “Can hearts and minds be bought? The economics of counterinsurgency in Iraq”, Journal of Political Economy, 119(4), pp766-819 Dreze, J. and Gazdar H. (1992) “Hunger and Poverty in Iraq, 1991”, World Development Vol 20, No 7,pp 921-945 Elvidge, Christopher C, Feng-Chi Hsu, Kimberly E. Baugh, and Tilottama Ghosh. (2013) “National Trends in Satellite Observed Lighting: 1992-2012” In Global Urban Monitoring and Assessment Through Earth Observation, edited by O. Weng: CRC Press ESOC database http://esoc.princeton.edu/subfiles/codebook-iraq-civil-war-dataset-v3 (accessed 2014-05-06). Fritz, Steffen, Liangzhi You, Andriy Bun, Linda See, Ian McCallum, Christian Schill, Christoph Perger, Junguo Liu, Matt Hansen, and Michael Obersteiner. (2011) Cropland for sub-Saharan Africa: A synergistic approach using five land cover data sets. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 38 (4):n/a-n/a Henderson, V., Storeygard, A. and D. Weil (2012), Measuring economic growth from outer space, American Economic Review, 102(2), pp994-1028 Iraq Body Count, (2013) May estimates (www.iraqbodycount.org) Landscan can be found at: http://web.ornl.gov/sci/landscan/landscan_documentation.shtml (accessed 2014-05-12) Miguel, E., Satyanath, S. and E. Sergenti (2004), Economic shocks and civil conflict: An instrumental variables approach, Journal of Political Economy, 112(4), pp725-753 Murdoch, J. and Sandler (2002), Economic growth, civil wars, and spatial spillovers, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(1), pp91-110 NOAA DMPS-OLS (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Defense Meteorological Satellite Program) Shapiro, J. and Weidmann, N. (2011) Is the Phone Mightier than the Sword? Cell Phones and Insurgent Violence in Iraq. Working paper, Princeton University. World Bank (2011). World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security and Development. Washington, DC, World Bank. World Bank (2012). World Development Indicators 2012. Washington DC, World Bank 85 Zhu, Z., Jian Bi, Yaozhong Pan, Sangram Ganguly, Alessandro Anav, Liang Xu, Arindam Samanta, Shilong Piao, Ramakrishna Nemani, and Ranga Myneni (2013) Global Data Sets of Vegetation Leaf Area Index (LAI)3g and Fraction of Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FPAR) 3g Derived from Global Inventory Modeling and Mapping Studies (GIMMS) Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI3g) for the Period 1981 to 2011. Remote Sensing 5 (2):927-948. 2. Poverty, Shared Prosperity and Subjective Well-Being in Iraq Iraqi magazine for research on markets and social protection 2009, University of Baghdad, Social Protection Networks in Iraq and the effect on consumer protection, See page 116 for the numbers of families benefiting from the social protection scheme based on region http://www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&aId=1782 Ravallion, M. and Bidani, B. (1994) “How robust is a poverty profile?”, The World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 8, No 1: 75-102, World Bank, Washington, DC. Ravallion, Martin (1996). Issues in Measuring and Modeling Poverty, The Economic Journal, 106 (438), 1328–1343. World Bank (2013), Poverty in Iraq 2007-2013, Methodological Note, Washington DC. 3. Poverty in Human Capital Alderman, H., Hoddinott, J. and Kinsey, B (2006) “Long Term Consequences of Early Childhood Malnutrition” Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 58, Issue 3, pp. 450-474. Center on the Developing Child (2010) “The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood”, Harvard University. Francesconi, M. (2008) “Adult Outcomes for Children of Teenage Mothers” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 110(1), pages 93-117, 03. Geronimus, A. T. (1992) “The weathering hypothesis and the health of African-American women and infants: Evidence and speculations” Ethnicity and Disease, 2, 207–221. Glewwe, P., Jacoby, H., and King. E. (2001) “Early Childhood Nutrition and Academic Achievement: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Journal of Public Economics 81, no. 3:345–68 Hoddinott, J., Maluccio , J.A., Behrman, J., Flores, R and Martorell, R. (2008) “Effect of a nutrition intervention during early childhood on economic productivity in Guatemalan adults ”. The Lancet - 2 (Vol. 371, Issue 9610, Pages 411-416 ) Kreisel, W (2001) Health situation in Iraq. ” At the hearing “Iraq and the International Community” of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, World Health Organization, European Union, Brussels www.who.int/disasters/repo/6386.doc Levine, J.A., Pollack, H. and Comfort, M. (2001) Academic and Behavioral Outcomes Among the Children of Young Mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, Volume 63, Issue 2, pages 355–369. Martorell, R. (1997) Under-nutrition during pregnancy and early childhood and its consequences for cognitive and behavioral development. In Early child development: Investing in our children’s future, ed. M. E. Young, 39–83. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 86 Paes de Barros, R., Ferreira, F., Molinas Vega, J and Saavedra Chanduvi, J., (2009) Measuring Inequality of Opportunities in Latin America and the Caribbean, World Bank, Washington, DC. Rao, K., Balakrishna, N. Arlappa ,N., Laxmaiah, A. and Brahmam, G.N.V. (2010) Diet and Nutritional Status of Women in India, Journal of Human Ecology, 29(3): 165-170 Super, Ch., Herrera, M. G., and Mora, J. (1990) “Long-Term Effects of Food Supplementation and Psychosocial Intervention on the Physical Growth of Colombian Infants at Risk of Malnutrition ” Child Development, Vol. 61, No. 1 , pp. 29-49 UNICEF (2014) Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) World Bank (2006) “World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development”; Washington, DC, World Bank. World Bank (2012). World Development Indicators 2012. Washington DC, World Bank World Bank (2008) Africa’s Future, Africa’s Challenge Early Childhood Care and Development in Sub- Saharan Africa World Health Organization (2007) “The Lancet child development in developing countries series”, The Lancet, Vol 369. World Health Organization (2013). Global Database on Child growth and Malnutrition http://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/database/en/ 4. Conflict, Revival and Neglect: Understanding Spatial Disparities in Welfare Cotton, J. 1988. “On the Decomposition of Wage Differentials.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 70: pp. 236-243. ILO (1982) “Resolution concerning statistics of the economically active population, employment, unemployment and underemployment, adopted by the Thirteenth International Conference of Labour Statisticians”, October Iraq Body Count, (2013) May estimates (www.iraqbodycount.org) Jann, B. (2008), “A Stata implementation of the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition,” Stata Journal, Vol. 8 No 4. Neumark, D. (1988). “Employers’ Discriminatory Behavior and the Estimation of Wage Discrimination,” Journal of Human Resources 23: pp. 279-295. Oaxaca, R. and Ransom, R. (1994). “On Discrimination and the Decomposition of Wage Differentials,” Journal of Econometrics, vol. 61. pp. 2-21. Oaxaca, R. (1973). “Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets,” International Economic Review, vol. 14, pp. 693-709. Ravallion, M., and Q. Wodon. (1999). “Poor Areas, or Only Poor People?” Journal of Regional Science, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 689-711. Reimers, C. W. (1993). “Labor Market Discrimination against Hispanic and Black Men.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 65(4), pp. 570-579. 87 Skoufias, E., and Katayama, R. (2011). “The Sources of Welfare Disparities Between and Within Regions of Brazil: Evidence from the 2002-03 Household Budget Survey (POF),” Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 11, No. 5 (September), pp. 897-918. Skoufias, E., and Olivieri, S. (2013). “Geographic disparities in well-being and fiscal expenditures in Thailand: 2000 vs 2009,” Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, Vol. 18, Issue. 3, pp. 359-381. Skoufias, E., and Olivieri, S. (2013). “Sources of spatial welfare disparities in Indonesia: Household endowments or returns?,” Journal of Asian Economics, Vol. 29, pp. 62-79. UNHCR (2014), Population Statistics Reference Database, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, year 2013; retrieved 29 July United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2014), Statistical Online Population Database, UN (http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a013eb06.html) World Bank (2012). World Development Indicators 2012. Washington DC, World Bank World Bank. (2009). World Development Report 2009: “Reshaping Economic Geography”, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. World Food Program (2007) Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis: Iraq 5. Understanding the Drivers of Poverty Reduction Azevedo, J.P., Inchauste, G., Olivieri, S., Saavedra, J. and Winkler, H. (2013) “Is Labor Income Responsible for Poverty Reduction? A Decomposition Approach.” Policy Research Working Paper 6414, World Bank, Washington, DC. Azevedo, J.P., Essama-Nssah, B., Inchauste, G., and Olivieri, S. (2014). “A Simple Approach to Understanding Changes in Poverty and Inequality” in “Understanding Changes in Poverty” Inchauste, G., Azevedo, J.P., Essama-Nssah, B., Olivieri, Sergio, Van Nguyen, T., Saavedra- Chanduvi, J., and Winkler, H., Direction in Development: Poverty, The World Bank Group, Washington DC. Azevedo, J.P., Cong Nguyen, M. and Sanfelice,V. (2012). “Adecomp: Stata Module to Estimate Shapley Decomposition by Components of a Welfare Measure.” Statistical Software Components S457562, Boston College Department of Economics. Barros, R.P, Mirela de Carvalho, Samuel Franco, and Rosane Mendoça. (2006). “Uma Análise das Principais Causas da Queda Recente na Desigualdade de Renda Brasileira.” Revista Econômica 8 (1): 117–47. Essama-Nssah, B. (2012). “Identification of Sources of Variation in Poverty Outcomes.” Policy Research Working Paper 5954, World Bank, Washington, DC. Fortin, N., T. Lemieux, and S. Firpo. (2011). “Decomposition Methods in Economics.” In Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 4A, edited by Orley Ashenfelter and David Card, 1–102. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland. Ferreira, F. H. G. (2012). “Distributions in Motion: Economic Growth, Inequality, and Poverty Dynamics.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Poverty, edited by Philip N. Jefferson, 427–62. New York: Oxford University Press. 88 Inchauste, G., Azevedo, J.P., Essama-Nssah, B., Olivieri, Sergio, Van Nguyen, T., Saavedra-Chanduvi, J., and Winkler, H., (2014). “Understanding Changes in Poverty” Direction in Development: Poverty, The World Bank Group, Washington DC Shapley, L. S. (1953). “A Value for n-Person Games.” In Contributions to the Theory of Games, Vol. 2, edited by H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker, 307–17. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Shorrocks, A. F. (1999) 2013. “Decomposition Procedures for Distributional Analysis: A Unified Framework Based on Shapley Value.” Journal of Economic Inequality 11 (1): 1–28. doi: 10.1007/s10888-011-9214-z. 6. The Growth-Employment Nexus Asaad, R (2013) “Making Sense of Arab Labor Markets: The Enduring Legacy of Dualism”, IZA Discussion paper No 7573, Bonn. Nopo, H. (2008) “Matching as a tool to decompose wage gaps”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, May, 90(2): 290-299. World Bank (2012) “IRAQ: Investment Climate Assessment” Washington, DC. World Bank (2012) Iraq Enterprise Survey, Washington, DC. World Bank (2013) “Opening doors: Gender Equality and Development in the Middle East and North Africa” Washington, DC. World Bank. 2013. “Jobs for Shared Prosperity: Time for Action in the Middle East and North Africa” Washington, DC. 7. The Labor Market for the Poor: The Rural-Urban divide World Bank (1974) “Current Economic Position and Prospects of Iraq”, Report No. 419a-lRQ, Washington, DC. World Bank FAO Agriculture Sector Note, 2011 Fritz, Steffen, Liangzhi You, Andriy Bun, Linda See, Ian McCallum, Christian Schill, Christoph Perger, Junguo Liu, Matt Hansen, and Michael Obersteiner. (2011) Cropland for sub-Saharan Africa: A synergistic approach using five land cover data sets. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 38 (4):n/a-n/a Zhu, Z., Jian Bi, Yaozhong Pan, Sangram Ganguly, Alessandro Anav, Liang Xu, Arindam Samanta, Shilong Piao, Ramakrishna Nemani, and Ranga Myneni (2013) Global Data Sets of Vegetation Leaf Area Index (LAI)3g and Fraction of Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FPAR) 3g Derived from Global Inventory Modeling and Mapping Studies (GIMMS) Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI3g) for the Period 1981 to 2011. Remote Sensing 5 (2):927-948. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7073/m1/1/high_res_d/RS21516_2003May13.pdf 89 8. Transfers, Safety Nets and Poverty Ahmed, A, Bouis, H., Gutner, T. and Lofgren, H. (2001) “The Egyptian Food Subsidy System. Structure, Performance, and Options for Reform” Research Report 119, international Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Deaton, A. (1997) “The analysis of Household Surveys. A Microeconometric Approach to Development Policy”, World Bank, Washington, DC. Deaton, A. and Muellbauer, J. (1980), Economics and consumer behavior, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Moschini, G. C. and Rizzi, P.L. (2007) “Deriving a flexible mixed demand system: The normalized Quadratic Model”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89 (4), 1034-1045. Ramadan, R., and Thomas, A. (2011) “Evaluating the impact of reforming the food subsidy program in Egypt: A Mixed Demand approach”. Food Policy 01/2011; 36(5):637-645. DOI:10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.06.006 Ramadan, R., Krishnan, N. and Olivieri, S. (2014), Re-thinking the Iraq Public Distribution System: A Mixed Demand Approach, mimeo World Bank (2013), Poverty in Iraq 2007-2013, Methodological Note, Washington DC. 9. Policy Implications: Learning from the past to build a better future Devarajan, S and Giugale, M (2013), The Case for Direct Transfers of Resource Revenues in Africa, Centre for Global Development, Working Paper 333, July ECLAC (2002), Meeting the Millennium Poverty Reduction Targets in Latin America and the Caribbean, Santiago, Chile. Ferreira, F. and Leite, P. (2003) Policy Options for Meeting the Millennium Development Goals in Brazil, Can Micro-simulations Helps?, Policy Research Working Paper 2975, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank (2012) Investment Climate Assessment – Iraq, Washington DC World Bank (2012) Rents to Riches? The Political Economy of Natural-Resource Led Development. Washington DC World Bank (2013) “Public Expenditure Review: Towards more efficient spending for better services delivery in Iraq”, Washington DC 90