Poverty & Equity Global Practice Working Paper 145 ANALYSIS OF THE MISMATCH BETWEEN TANZANIA HOUSEHOLD BUDGET SURVEY AND NATIONAL PANEL SURVEY DATA IN POVERTY & INEQUALITY LEVELS AND TRENDS Nadia Belhaj Hassine Belghith Maria Adelaida Lopera Alvin Etang Ndip Wendy Karamba March 2018 Poverty & Equity Global Practice Working Paper 145 ABSTRACT This study carries out a thorough investigation of the potential sources of mismatch in poverty and inequality levels and trends between the Tanzania National Panel Survey and Household Budget Survey. The main findings of the study include the following. First, the difference in poverty levels between the Household Budget Survey and the National Panel Survey is essentially explained by the differences in the methods of estimating the poverty line. Second, the discrepancy in poverty trends can be mainly attributed to the difference in inter-year temporal price deflators, and, to a lesser extent, spatial price deflators. The use of the consumer price index for adjusting consumption variation across years would show a decline in poverty during the past five years for the Household Budget Survey and the National Panel Survey. Third, despite noticeable differences in the methods of household consumption data collection, the Household Budget Survey and National Panel Survey show close mean household consumption levels in the last rounds, when using the consumer price index to adjust for inter- year price variations. Mean household consumption levels in the Household Budget Survey 2011/12 and National Panel Survey 2010/11 are comparable, and the mean consumption level in the National Panel Survey 2012/13 is around 10 percent higher. The difference is driven by higher levels of aggregate and food consumption by the better-off groups in the National Panel Survey. Fourth, the mismatch in inequality trends and pro-poor growth patterns between the two surveys could not be resolved and is a subject for further analysis. This paper is a product of the Poverty and Equity Global Practice Group. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and contribute to development policy discussions around the world. The authors may be contacted at nbelghith@worldbank.org. The Poverty & Equity Global Practice Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. ‒ Poverty & Equity Global Practice Knowledge Management & Learning Team This paper is co-published with the World Bank Policy Research Working Papers. Analysis of the Mismatch between Tanzania Household Budget Survey and National Panel Survey Data in Poverty & Inequality Levels and Trends Nadia Belhaj Hassine Belghith, Maria Adelaida Lopera, Alvin Etang Ndip and Wendy Karamba1 Key words: Data collection, Survey, Poverty, Inequality JEL classification: C81, C83, I32, D63 1 Nadia Belhaj Hassine Belghith is a Senior Economist in the Poverty and Equity Global Practice of the World Bank; Alvin Etang is an Economist in the Poverty and Equity Global Practice of the World Bank; Wendy Karamba is an Economist in the Poverty and Equity Global Practice of the World Bank; Maria Adelaida Lopera is a PhD Candidate at University Laval, Quebec Canada. The authors wish to thank Isis Gaddis for providing support to finalize this work. I. Background and Main Objectives The official poverty figures announced by the Government of Tanzania in November 2013 revealed a decline in the basic needs poverty rate from around 34 percent to 28.2 percent between 2007 and 2012—this is the first significant decline the country has experienced during the last 20 years. This reduction in poverty has been confirmed in the recently published Poverty Assessment report for Mainland Tanzania. The report examined the recent trends in poverty and inequality and their determinants and explored the responsiveness of poverty reduction to economic growth using the Household Budget Survey (HBS) collected in 2011/12. The report shows that poverty dropped by approximately 1 percentage point per year between 2007 and 2011/12, and that inequality, measured by the Gini coefficient of real per capita monthly consumption, declined from around 39 to 36 during the same period. The report also found emerging signs of pro‐poor growth, despite a persistently high number of people living in poverty. However, the declining trend in poverty revealed by the HBS data is in contrast to the increasing trend that is observed using the National Panel Survey (NPS) data, which show an increase in poverty from 14.6 percent to 18.1 percent and subsequently to 21.2 percent between 2008/09, 2010/11 and 2012/13. The data also show a slight increase in inequality across the three rounds and do not support the pro‐poor growth pattern revealed by HBS data. Although HBS is the official source for official poverty numbers, this mismatch in poverty levels and trends between the two surveys is puzzling. The NPS is a national level longitudinal survey designed to collect data from the same households over time in an attempt to better track the progress of the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (MKUKUTA), understand the poverty dynamics and evaluate policy impacts. NPS is conducted every two years by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Four waves have been conducted for the periods 2008/09, 2010/11, 2012/13 and 2014/15. While the official poverty numbers are based on HBS data, NPS remains very important for policy analysis of poverty reduction due to the longitudinal nature of the data that makes it a particularly attractive survey for studying poverty dynamics and transitions. This study aims to carry out a thorough investigation of the potential sources of mismatch in poverty and inequality levels and trends between the NPS and HBS. The investigation will focus on the key candidate sources for the divergence between the two surveys. These include the methodological differences in the construction of the consumption aggregates and the estimation of the poverty lines, 2  the differences in the evaluation of temporal and spatial deflators, and the consistency of within‐ household spending and asset ownership trends with poverty trends. While these components will be the main focus of the report, other potential sources of divergence will also be examined, including the differences in survey design, methods of data capture (for example, diary versus recall), the length of the reference period, the number of consumption items and the degree of commodity details. II. Poverty, Inequality and Distributional Pattern of Growth in HBS and NPS: Actual Situation This section presents the levels and trends in poverty and inequality estimated using HBS 2007, HBS 2011/12 and the three NPS waves. Differences in the levels of poverty are expected across the surveys due to differences in survey collection methods and the methodological approaches used to measure poverty, i.e., the construction of the consumption aggregates, the price deflators applied, and the poverty line. All these issues are investigated in depth in section III. Meanwhile, this section also examines the differences in the Growth Incidence Curves (GIC) and pro‐poor growth patterns between the HBS and NPS surveys. A. Poverty trends As shown in Figure 1, the poverty rates estimated using the NPS data are significantly lower than the poverty rates measured using the HBS data. The NPS data also indicate an increasing trend in poverty between 2008 and 2013, while the HBS data reveal a declining trend between 2007 and 2012. 3    Figure 1: Levels and trends for poverty between HBS and NPS in Tanzania Mainland 40 34.4 Percentage of population below  35 the basic needs poverty line  30 28.2 25 21.2 20 18.1 14.6 15 10 5 0 HBS 2007 HBS 2011/12 NPS 2008/09 NPS 2010/11 NPS 2012/13 Source: HBS 2007 and 2011/12 and NPS 2008/09, 2010/11 and 2012/13. Discrepancies in poverty incidence and trends are observed at the regional level. As shown in Table 1, the poverty level in the rural areas that was estimated using the NPS data is two times lower than that estimated using the HBS data, while the poverty incidence in urban areas measured using NPS is over three times lower than that estimated using HBS. In addition, HBS suggests a decline in poverty in all regions, while NPS indicates a decline in poverty only in Dar es Salaam (and Zanzibar). Table 1: Poverty headcount by region (percent) HBS NPS HBS 2007 HBS 2011/12 NPS 2008/09 NPS 2010/11 NPS 2012/13 Tanzania N/A N/A 14.8 17.9 20.9 Tanzania Mainland 34.4 28.2 14.6 18.1 21.2 Rural 39.4 33.4 17.2 22.7 26.4 Urban 22.7 21.5 7.7 6.7 8.5 Dar es Salaam 14.1 4.0 1.0 1.4 0.6 Zanzibar N/A N/A 20.4 12.4 14.3 Source: HBS 2007 and 2011/12 and NPS 2008/09, 2010/11 and 2012/13. B. Inequality trends NPS and HBS data indicate important differences in inequality levels and trends. Although HBS 2007 and NPS 2008/09 show similar inequality levels with a Gini index of real per capita monthly 4    consumption estimated at around 38, the trend in inequality in subsequent years goes in opposing directions. HBS 2011/12 indicates a decline of inequality to around 36 while NPS 2010/11 suggests a stagnation of inequality and NPS 2012/13 indicates an increase in the Gini index to around 41. Figure 2: Levels and trends of inequality in Tanzania Mainland (Gini index of monthly real consumption per capita) 41 40.6 40 39 38.5 38.4 38.1 38 37 35.8 36 35 34 33 HBS 2007 HBS  2011/12 NPS 2008/09 NPS  2010/11 NPS  2012/13   Source: HBS 2007 and 2011/12 and NPS 2008/09, 2010/11 and 2012/13. At the regional level, both NPS and HBS reveal that inequality is higher in Dar es Salaam and secondary cities than in rural areas. HBS data suggest that the distribution of consumption equalized over time in all the regions, with the most substantial improvement occurring in the rural areas, as can be seen from the changing shape of the Lorenz curves in Figure 3. Much of the reduction in inequality seems to have been driven by an increase in the welfare share accruing to the poorest segment of the population, as the consumption share of the poorest quintile grew by more than 16 percent between 2007 and 2011/12, with an increase exceeding 20 percent in the rural areas. 5    Figure 3: Lorenz Curve and Inequality Coefficients by Region using HBS Lorenz Curve by Area Lorenz Curve by Area Tanzania 2007 Household Budget Survey Tanzania 2011-2012 Household Budget Survey 1 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 0 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Cumulative population proportion Cumulative population proportion Rural Other Urban Rural Other Urban Dar Essalam Line of perfect equality Dar Essalam Line of perfect equality 2007 2011/12 Gini p90/p10 Income shares Gini p90/p10 Income shares Low Top Low Top quintile quintile quintile quintile Mainland 38.5 5.2 6.6 45.7 35.8 4.4 7.7 44.1 Rural 35.5 4.7 7.3 43.3 29.9 3.5 9.0 39.1 Other 40.0 6.0 6.0 46.6 38.1 4.9 7.0 45.7 urban Dar es 40.1 5.6 6.4 47.3 36.0 4.4 7.7 44.4 Salaam Source: HBS 2007 and 2011/12. In contrast, NPS data suggest a deterioration of the distribution of welfare particularly in the rural areas where inequality seems to have significantly increased between 2008 and 2013. As shown in Figure 4, the increase in inequality seems to have been driven by a deterioration of the consumption share accruing to the poorest population groups, which declined by around 12 percent at the national level and by 11 percent in rural areas. The consumption share of the poor seems however to have improved in the urban sector, particularly in Dar es Salaam where it increased by over 20 percent. 6    Figure 4: Lorenz Curve and Inequality Coefficients by Region using NPS Lorenz Curve by Area Lorenz Curve by Area Lorenz Curve by Area Tanzania 2008-2009 National Panel Survey Tanzania 2010-2011 National Panel Survey Tanzania 2012-2013 National Panel Survey 1 1 1 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Cumulative population proportion Cumulative population proportion Cumulative population proportion Dar Essalam Other Urban Dar Essalam Other Urban Dar Essalam Other Urban Rural Line of perfect equality Rural Line of perfect equality Rural Line of perfect equality 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 Gini p90/p10 Income shares Gini p90/p10 Income shares Gini p90/p10 Income shares Low. Top Low Top Low Top quintile quintile quintile quintile quintile quintile Mainland 38.2 5.2 6.9 45.6 38.6 5.4 6.8 46.1 40.8 6.2 6.1 47.4 Rural 31.9 4.1 8.2 40.5 32.7 4.2 8.0 41.0 35.2 4.7 7.3 42.8 Other 36.4 5.3 6.6 43.8 36.2 4.9 7.3 43.5 36.1 5.1 6.9 43.3 urban Dar es 35.7 5.4 6.7 42.1 33.4 4.5 7.8 41.4 32.7 4.1 8.1 40.9 Salaam Source: NPS 2008/09, 2010/11 and 2012/13. C. Distributional pattern of growth Using changes in household consumption as the measure of growth, this section examines whether both NPS and HBS support the emerging signs of “pro‐poor” growth during the recent years. The Growth Incidence Curve (GIC) for HBS 2007–2011/12, which shows the percent change in average consumption for each percentile of the distribution, is downwardly sloped, indicating higher growth among the poorest (Figure 5). However, the pattern of real consumption growth using HBS differs from that using NPS as indicated by the upwardly sloped GIC for NPS 2008/09–2012/13 which suggests that the richer groups were the main beneficiaries of growth. 7    Figure 5: Growth Incidence Curves, HBS 2007–2011/12 and NPS 2008/09–2012/13 Growth incidence, Tanzania Mainland, 2007-11/12 Growth incidence NPS, Tanzania Mainland, 2008/09-12/13 10 0 8 -2 6 4 -4 2 -6 0 -2 -8 -4 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Growth rate by percentile Growth rate in mean Growth rate by percentile Growth rate in mean Source: HBS 2007 and 2011/12. Source: NPS 2008/09 and 2012/13. D. Comparison of HBS and NPS density functions To further explore the differences in expenditures between NPS and HBS, we plot the kernel density functions of consumption expenditure of both surveys in Figure 6.a and Figure 6.b. Figure 6.a compares the kernel density of log real monthly consumption expenditure per adult equivalent of HBS 2007and NPS 2008/09. The NPS 2008/09 density function is slightly to the right of the HBS 2007 density, indicating relatively higher consumption levels.2 Figure 6.b compares HBS 2011/12 density with NPS 2010/11 and NPS 2012/13 densities. There appears to be no significant difference between HBS 2011/12 and NPS 2012/13 densities, but NPS 2010/11 lies significantly to the left, indicating lower welfare levels.                                                                        2 Consumption levels have not been adjusted by temporal (between years) price differences. 8        Figure 6: Comparison of Kernel densities of Consumption Expenditure of HBS and NPS Figure 6.a: Comparison of HBS 2007 and NPS 2008/09 Figure 6.b: Comparison of HBS 2011/12, NPS 2010/11 and NPS 2012/13 .6 .6 .4 .4 D e n s ity D e n s ity .2 .2 0 0 6 8 10 12 14 16 6 8 10 12 14 16 ln(monthly expenditure per adult equivalent, real) ln(monthly expenditure per adult equivalent, real) HBS2 (2011/12) NPS2 (2010/11) HBS1 (2007) NPS1 (2008/09) NPS3 (2012/13) Source: HBS 2007 and 2011/12 and NPS 2008/09, 2010/11 and 2012/13. The differences between the HBS and NPS data sets in poverty and inequality levels and trends as well as in the distributional pattern of growth are puzzling and deserve an in‐depth investigation of the sources of such differences. The following sections will explore whether these discrepancies are due to differences in survey methods or to differences in the approaches used for the construction of the consumption aggregates, measurement of the poverty lines or estimation of the price deflators. We start by reviewing the survey methods, focusing on the method of data capture, length of reference period for reporting consumption and the level of commodity details. We then examine the approaches used to estimate poverty and consumption in both surveys and investigate how the estimates vary if the same approach is used in both data sets. III. Comparison of HBS and NPS Survey Methods The section reviews the differences between the HBS and NPS data sets in survey characteristics and methods of collecting consumption data. 9    A. Survey characteristics Table 2 presents some general characteristics of both surveys including the date and duration of the fieldwork, sample size, and total (weighted) estimated population. The HBS has a large sample size and is restricted to the mainland, while NPS has a smaller sample size but covers the Zanzibar archipelago. However, eliminating Zanzibar from the comparative analysis does not induce significant differences in the results. The sample sizes in both the HBS and NPS are considered large enough to give reasonably precise estimates of poverty at the national level and by geographic domain (rural, other urban, and Dar es Salaam). All surveys (the two rounds of the HBS and the three rounds of the NPS) relied on the 2002 Population and Housing Census to draw a sample of households (using the National Master Sampling Frame). However, in the HBS 2011/12 and the NPS 2012/13 ex‐post weight adjustments were conducted based on the 2012 Population and Housing Census. There appear to be important differences in the total weighted population size between the two surveys. HBS data show an increase of the total population size to from 38.3 million in 2007 to 42.3 million on the mainland in 2011/12 while NPS shows an increase from 35.4 in 2008/09 to 43.3 million in 2010/11 and then to 43.5 million in 2012/13. The 2012 Population and Housing Census showed that Tanzania had a population of 44.9 million, of which 43.6 million were on mainland Tanzania. This puts the HBS figures a little low relative to the estimated population figures from the census. While the increase of the population of approximately 25 percent shown by the NPS data appears to be an overestimate, adjusting the NPS weights using a linear interpolation of population between the 2002 and 2012 census and re‐scaling weights accordingly revealed only slight changes in the NPS poverty and inequality levels and no changes in the trends. This points to the need to further investigate this issue. Also, there may be concerns about the potential effect of attrition in the panel surveys since non‐ random attrition can cause the survey samples to become unrepresentative of the general population over time. However, the attrition rates of 3 percent in NPS 2010/11 and 4 percent in NPS 2012/13 are too low to significantly bias poverty and inequality estimates and to affect their trend. It should be noted that the NPS used propensity score matching to address attrition by compensating for the lost households. 10    The HBS and NPS data were collected over a period of approximately 12 months, which excludes seasonality as a potential source of the mismatch in poverty and inequality indicators. While the survey years are relatively close, the advent of the financial crisis in 2008 might have induced substantial changes in household consumption patterns that may have been captured by NPS 2008/09 and NPS 2010/11, which could explain the increase of poverty between the two rounds. Table 2: General survey characteristics HBS NPS 2007 2011/12 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 Survey design Field work period Start date 2007, month 1 2011, month 10 2008, month 9 2010, month 10 2012, month 10 End date 2007, month 12 2012, month 10 2009, month 10 2011, month 11 2013, month 11 Sample size: number of interviewed households Total 10,464 10,186 3,265 3,846 4,901* Rural 3,273 4,130 1,751 2,053 2,712 Urban 3,735 3,040 480 634 854 Dar es Salaam 3,456 3,016 555 626 746 Zanzibar 0 0 479 533 589 Sample attrition n.a. n.a. n.a. 3% 4% (panel) Estimated population size Estimated population 38,289,599 42,270,137 35,372,530 43,340,580 43,530,654 (Mainland) Estimated population 36,443,894 44,651,722 44,811,420 (including Zanzibar) *The increase in the sample is due to tracking and interviewing household members from split households. About 96 percent of NPS 2010/11 households were successfully found and interviewed in 2012/13. B. Consumption data collection methods Table 3 compares the methods of consumption data collection between HBS and NPS. The two surveys diverge in several aspects, which induce fundamental differences in survey design, explained below, that are difficult to adjust ex-post and will remain present when comparing the two surveys’ results. 11    Table 3: Comparison of the consumption data collection methods HBS NPS 2007 2011/12 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 Number of items 193 food items and 171 food items and 59 food items and 59 food items and 66 food items and around 250 non‐ over 300 non‐food 46 non‐food items 46 non‐food items 52 non‐food items food items items Food products1 Capture method Diary: 28 days Diary: 28 days Recall: 7 days Recall: 7 days Recall: 7 days Food consumed ‐ Diary: 28 days (an Recall: 7 days Recall: 7 days Recall: 7 days outside home additional diary (asked to all completed only by household adult household members) members) Valuation of Using the Using the ‐ ‐ Using prices paid consumption from own household's household's by households production estimate of the estimate of the that purchased monetary value of monetary value of similar food items the total quantity of the total quantity of in the same month food consumed food consumed and in the same region or stratum Distinguish between No (hence cannot Yes Yes Yes Yes expenditure and identify if a food consumption item that was purchased was actually consumed) Non‐Food Products and Services2 Clothing and footwear: # 33 70 ‐ ‐ 6 questions in recall Garments for men Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ Recall: 12 months Garments for women Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ Recall: 12 months Garments for children Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ Recall: 12 months and babies Other articles and ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ clothing accessories (caps, hats, turbans etc.) Material/Fabric for ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ ‐ clothing Footwear for men ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ Recall: 12 months Footwear for women ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ Recall: 12 months Footwear for children ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ Recall: 12 months and babies 12    Housing and utilities # questions in recall 3 52 ‐ ‐ ‐ Actual rent Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month Rental estimate for non‐ Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month ‐ ‐ Recall: 1 month renters Utilities (TANESCO, ‐ Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month phone, TV, waste, water, other) Energy for ‐ Recall: 3 months Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month heating/cooking Building maintenance Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month Housing equipment # questions in recall 6 41 ‐ ‐ ‐ Household durables Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ ‐ Furniture and Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months furnishings Small household Recall: 12 months Recall: 3 months ‐ ‐ ‐ appliances Expenditures on Recall: 12 months Recall: 1 month ‐ ‐ ‐ domestic workers Linen, bed clothes, etc. Recall: 12 months ‐ Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months Recall: 4 weeks Recall: 4 weeks Recall: 4 weeks (Households were (health costs (health costs (health costs Health expenditures asked about lumped together) lumped together) lumped together) medical care costs for women, men and children) # questions in recall 3 48 ‐ ‐ ‐ Pharmaceutical and ‐ Recall: 1 month ‐ ‐ ‐ other medical products Admissions to clinics, ‐ Recall: 1 month ‐ ‐ ‐ hospitals Out‐of‐hospital services, ‐ Recall: 1 month ‐ ‐ ‐ treatments Therapeutic appliances ‐ Recall: 1 month ‐ ‐ ‐ Recall: 12 months Recall: one week Recall: one week Recall: one week Transportation (lump sum (lump sum (lump sum (lump sum transportation transportation transportation transportation costs) costs) costs) costs) # questions in recall 1 24 1 1 1 New vehicles ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ ‐ 13    Second‐hand vehicles ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ ‐ Vehicle registration ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ ‐ Other expenses on ‐ Recall: 1 month ‐ ‐ ‐ vehicles (spare parts, fuel, parking) Public transport (road, ‐ Recall: 1 month ‐ ‐ ‐ railway, air, sea) Communication # questions in recall 1 5 2 2 2 Telephone, postage and Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month communication costs4 Recreation and culture # questions in recall 1 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ TV/DVD/Hi‐Fi/Cassette ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ ‐ equipment and books Other leisure (purchases, Recall: 12 months Recall: 3 months ‐ ‐ ‐ rentals, entrance fees) Education Recall: 12 months5 Recall: 12 Recall: 12 Recall: 12 months6 expenditures months6 months6 # questions in recall 2 27 ‐ ‐ ‐ Education related ‐ Recall: 3 months ‐ ‐ ‐ expenses excluding registration fees Formal registration fees ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ ‐ (private schools) Informal registration ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ ‐ fees (private schools) Formal registration fees ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ ‐ (public schools) Informal registration ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ ‐ fees (public schools) Recall: 12 months Recreation and Culture (lump sum) # questions in recall ‐ 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ Personal trips in ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ ‐ Tanzania Business trips in ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ ‐ Tanzania 14    Personal trips abroad ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ ‐ Business trips abroad ‐ Recall: 12 months ‐ ‐ ‐ Miscellaneous goods and services Miscellaneous other Recall: 12 months Recall: 1 month Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months Fees and use charges Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months Recall: 12 months Personal care Recall: 12 months Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month Recall: 1 month Notes: Number of households can differ slightly from official NBS publications. 1 Diaries in the HBS 2007 always started at the beginning of the month, while diaries in the HBS 2011/12 were staggered across the months. 2 The HBS 2007 and 2011/12 used the one‐month diary (the same one used for food) to collect data on non‐food expenditures during the implementation period of the diary. In addition, both surveys also contained a recall section. To avoid duplication of expenditures (under the diary and recall module) an effort was made in both years to exclude non‐ food items already recorded in the diary from the recall module. 3 In 2007, the questions were respectively phrased as follows: Clothing and footwear for men and boys 15+ years; clothing and footwear for women and girls 15+ years; and clothing for children under 15 years. 4 In HBS 2011/12, some communication costs such as landline and mobile phone charges were included under housing utilities. There some confusion in HBS 2007 between communications costs and purchase of communication equipment. 5 Households were asked to report the total expenditures for women’s education and for men’s education. 6 Households reported their expenditures on school fees, books and materials, uniforms, transport, extra tuition, other contributions, and the cost of meals. The main differences between the HBS and NPS in consumption data collection methods can be summarized as follows: i. “Recall” versus “Diary” method Both the HBS 2007 and 2011/12 used a 28‐day diary to collect data on food consumption. In 2007 the diary was administered for the whole month but at the analytical step this was adjusted to create expense values for 28 days. Diaries in the HBS 2007 always started at the beginning of the month, while diaries in the HBS 2011/12 were staggered across the months. In both surveys, each household member aged five years and above was asked to fill out a ‘booklet’ to record his/her daily transactions for consumption purposes, including consumption of own‐produced items. Enumerators were then instructed to transcribe the data from these booklets into the main diary form (every other day). However, in practice this might not have happened in this manner since enumerators were expected to have worked with one household member every other day to fill in the main diary form directly (rather than transcribing the information from the booklets). In contrast, the NPS uses a seven‐day recall method to collect data on food consumption, asking the head of the household or their spouse to recall how much they consumed of various food items in the past seven days. According to a study by Beegle et al. (2012), the diary method produces lower food and total consumption aggregates, higher poverty levels and lower inequality levels, though the 15    variations reported in the study are not as important as those observed between the HBS and NPS data sets. Food consumed outside the household is captured in the HBS through an additional diary filled in only by adult household members, while it is collected in the NPS by way of recall of the last seven days asked to all household members. The HBS 2007 does include the data on food consumed outside. Non‐food items were collected using both the diary and recall methods in the HBS, while in the NPS they were collected using the recall method only. To avoid the duplication of expenditures under the diary and recall module in the HBS, an effort was made in both years to exclude non‐food items already recorded in the diary from the recall module. In 2011/12, interviewers were asked to carefully check potential duplication between non‐food items reported in the recall and those recorded in the diary. Potential duplication was also carefully checked at the analytical stage during the evaluation of the welfare aggregates and poverty estimates. In the HBS 2007, interviewers were asked to “request details of irregular purchases of consumer durables and costs of other services during previous twelve months excluding the survey month”. Excluding the survey months from the recall most likely also intended to reduce double‐counting. Potential duplication was also checked at the analytical stage following the same procedure as in 2011/12. The HBS 2007 used a 12‐month recall period for the collection of non‐food items with the exception of rent, while the HBS 2011/12 used recall periods of 1, 3 and 12 months depending on the item (see Table 3). The NPS used a 12‐month recall for some non‐food items and recall periods of 1 and 4 weeks for others such as transportation, health and education. While changes in the recall period can affect the welfare and poverty estimates, the induced variations would not be expected to be as high as those observed above in Section II (see Beegle et al., 2012). ii. Evaluation of home‐produced food For many Tanzanians, particularly those living in the rural areas, most of their caloric intake comes from food that they produced themselves. The value of own‐produced food is difficult to evaluate as its market price cannot be directly observed. Different methods have been suggested in the literature to estimate own‐produced food values, each with its many pros and cons. In the HBS, the value of own–produced food is reported directly by the household. Respondents are asked to report a shilling value for all food consumed, whether it is purchased or produced at home. In the NPS, the valuation of own‐produced food is based on the prices paid by the household for similar items in the same geographic stratum. 16    iii. Degree of commodity details Another key difference between the two surveys arises from the degree of commodity details. The list of non‐food items collected in the HBS is more extensive than in the NPS. This is particularly true for HBS 2011/12 where households were provided a very detailed list of the items to be reported in the recall module. For example, HBS 2011/12 solicited information for over 300 non‐food items compared to the 52 non‐food items solicited in NPS 2012/13. According to Beegle et al. (2012), a more detailed commodity list is expected to lead to higher consumption aggregates and lower poverty levels, but the differences between HBS and NPS poverty measures is contrary to what should be expected as HBS poverty indicators are significantly higher than NPS indicators.   Further, it is worth noting that the HBS survey instruments have improved significantly over time, while there were no substantial changes in survey methods between the NPS waves except for a few additions in the questionnaire for the third round. Great attention is generally devoted to the supervision of the NPS. To ensure strict control over data quality during fieldwork, the NPS survey uses a smaller and more closely supervised group of enumerators. The survey uses mobile teams, each consisting of seven people (1 supervisor, 4 enumerators, 1 data entry operator and 1 driver). These mobile teams spend only a few days in each enumeration area or village. The HBS on the other hand, used locally recruited enumerators who resided in their respective survey areas year‐round (i.e. resident enumerators). The HBS 2007 faced some supervision issues, but this problem was adequately addressed in 2011/12. There also have been substantial changes in the HBS design which can be summarized as follows: Number of items and aggregation: The HBS 2011/12 captured food consumed outside the household which was not captured in the HBS 2007. The HBS 2011/12 also probed for a much larger number of non‐food items compared to the HBS 2007. For example, the HBS 2011/12 asked explicitly for expenditures on 70 different clothing items. In contrast, the HBS 2007 only probed for three broad categories of clothing (of males, females and children), though enumerators still recorded item‐ specific expenditures (using codes provided in a separate manual). The increase in the number of item categories in the HBS 2011/12 was expected to enhance the household’s recollection of expenditures and hence to increase measured consumption. However, at the same time, the HBS 2011/12 omitted certain non‐food categories that were included in the HBS 2007, which may 17    counteract the former effect of more non‐food consumption being captured by the HBS 2011/12.3 On the other hand, the HBS 2011/12 recall module appears to capture non‐food consumption more comprehensively than the HBS 2007 recall module. Diary‐recall reconciliation: Both the HBS 2007 and 2011/12 collected non‐food expenditures through the recall module as well as through the consumption diary.4 In 2007, the diary and recall module used the same item codes which allowed for comparisons in the reported expenditure for the same item across the recall and diary (though over a different time period). This comparison suggested that neither of the two sources alone captured non‐food expenditures comprehensively in 2007. In the HBS 2011/12, item codes in the diary did not correspond to the recall module and the latter grouped some of the items together that were recorded separately in the diary, which made a comparison of expenditures across the two sources more difficult. Recall periods: The HBS 2007 used a uniform 12‐month recall period for all non‐food related expenditures with the exception of rent, while the HBS 2011/12 used recall periods of 1, 3 and 12 months depending on the item. As stated above, the changes in the recall period can have effects on measured consumption and poverty. Survey supervision: There is evidence of improved supervision and survey implementation in the HBS 2011/12 compared to the HBS 2007. In particular, the HBS 2007 diary showed a strong pattern of respondent fatigue over time, as the number of transactions and measured consumption declined over the course of the diary. The HBS 2011/12 does not show such a trend, except for a drop from the first to the second day (see Figure 7), which suggests that efforts to improve the quality of data collection paid off.5                                                              3 For instance, the HBS 2011/12 did not ask for expenditures on personal care items, though enumerators could record such expenditures under ‘other personal articles’ or ‘other expenditures’ in an aggregated manner. Conversely, the HBS 2007 included ‘personal care items’ as a separate category and enumerators recorded all expenditures item‐by‐item. 4 This is despite efforts by the NBS to minimize overlap, see the discussion above and the Poverty Assessment for Mainland Tanzania for further details. 5 While the HBS 2007 started each diary at the beginning of the month, the HBS 2011/12 staggered the beginning of the diary across the month. This helped disentangle to what effect the pattern in HBS diary consumption was influenced by patterns over the course of the calendar month (e.g. related to pay days) or to enumerator fatigue. There is no strong pattern of declining consumption over the course of the calendar month, which suggests that this was not the reason for the decline in transactions in the HBS 2007. 18    Figure 7: Transactions by diary day – HBS 2007 and HBS 2011/12 Average number of transactions by diary day Average number of transactions by diary day HBS 2007 HBS 2011/12 average number of transactions per household average number of transactions per household 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728 Source: Household Budget Surveys 2007 and 2011/12.   The declining number of transactions and potential effect of under‐reporting of consumption captured in the diary in the HBS 2007 has been well documented by Dabalen et al. (forthcoming). The number of transactions, and thus consumption, not only decreases over the course of the diary month, but this decline becomes more severe over the course of the year as one compares month to month transactions (Figure 8), however, there is no evidence of such a trend in HBS 2011/12. Figure 8: Total Number of Daily Transactions in Mainland Tanzania (in millions) January 1st  June 1st  7 inmillions) 6 nsactions( 5 #ofdailytra 4 TotalTZ 3 0 100 200 300 400 1 is January 1st 2007 ; 365 is December 31st, 2007 Source: Dabalen et al. (2014) based on HBS 2007.   19    Since the decline in poverty between 2007 and 2011/12 using the HBS data may be due to the changes in the survey design, different imputation methods are used to address this issue and check whether the reduction in poverty is a reality. The different prediction approaches supported the decline in poverty between 2007 and 2011/12, although they revealed a slightly lower pace of poverty reduction, suggesting that the improvements of survey methods in the HBS are not the cause of the difference in poverty trends between HBS and NPS data. C. Comparison of household characteristics and asset ownership Table 4 compares the main household socio‐economic characteristics, asset ownership, and access to basic services between HBS and NPS. The comparison of the household sizes and number of dependents shows lower levels in HBS 2007 and NPS 2012/13 than in the other surveys. This suggests potential problems of under‐reporting and non‐compliance by the poor and/or changes in sample design. Both HBS and NPS show similar results and reveal improvements in asset ownership and access to basic services, consistent with a decline in poverty measured using HBS data.6 Table 4: Comparison of household characteristics and assets ownership HBS NPS 2007 2011/12 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 Demographic structure Mean adult equivalent of the household 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 Mean household size 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.1 4.9 Number of children (14 years and below) 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1 Dependency ratio (%) 43 43 47 44 42 Female‐headed households (%) 25 25 26 26 26 Ownership of assets Radio (%) 65.6 54.6 64.8 66.2 57.8 Television (%) 8.1 13.8 10.8 14.0 15.6                                                              6 Table 4 shows a decline in radio and bicycle ownership which is often largely driven by households’ acquisitions of substitute “upgraded” goods, such as televisions or motorbikes. The rise in television and motorbike ownership, coupled with the decline in radio and bicycle ownership, supports the notion that these goods are substitutes. See the Poverty Assessment for mainland Tanzania and Seff et al. (2014) for more details. 20    Cell phone (%) 24.3 55.8 40.8 58.2 71.2 Bicycle (%) 40.1 34.1 47.8 50.7 46.1 Motorbike (%) 3.1 3.9 2.4 4.8 6.2 Access to basic services Education Primary net enrolment ratio 84 78 83 80 76 15 29 23 28 29 Secondary net enrolment ratio (forms I–IV) Access to water, Sanitation and Electricity Proportion of households using protected water source ‐ 69 42 42 45 in the rainy season Proportion of households using protected water source 52 61 43 49 52 in the dry season* Proportion of households with any toilet facility 93 88** 90 87 87 Households with electricity (%) 10 15.7 11.5 13.0 18.5 Economic Activities, Land and Farm Implements Percentage of adult persons (15+ years) with ‐ 74 74 74 household farming as their main occupation * Previous HBS did not distinguish between dry and rainy seasons. ** HBS 2011/12 introduced the use of a show card to demonstrate different types of toilets. This may contribute to the different results. D. Aggregate consumption Table 5 compares the consumption aggregates per adult equivalent per month between NPS and HBS, as well as their distribution by quintile. All values are presented in nominal terms, real terms adjusted for the spatial and seasonal differences in the cost of living, and in real terms adjusted for the temporal price variations across survey years. Nominal values: are the weighted averages of consumption per adult equivalent in nominal terms. Real consumption values: are the weighted averages of real consumption per adult equivalent, where real consumption is estimated by adjusting nominal consumption with spatial deflators as well as temporal deflators within each survey year. The deflation uses the Fisher price index calculated from unit values of the survey data to adjust for cost of living differences between stratum (Dar es Salaam, other urban and rural) and quarters (a period of three consecutive months within each survey round). Note, while the adjustment involves a temporal element within the year, henceforth for conciseness, the deflator will be referred to as a “spatial price deflator”. Real consumption, temporally adjusted (survey price indicators): here real consumption is deflated by a temporal price deflator to adjust for inter‐year (between survey rounds) price variation. The temporal adjustment allows for comparisons of real values between survey years, where the real consumption values (above) are adjusted by the inter‐year Fisher price 21    index estimated using the surveys’ unit values. Real consumption, temporally adjusted (CPI): uses the Consumer Price Index (CPI) instead of the Fisher index to adjust for inter‐year price variations. Both the HBS and NPS used the Fisher price index to adjust for spatial and intra‐year differences in the cost of living. In the HBS, separate food and non‐food Fisher price indices are estimated based on unit values (value/quantity) from the survey data. The overall (food and non‐food) price deflator was computed using the weighted average of food and non‐food indices, where the weights were the average budget shares on total nominal food and non‐food consumption. Price indicators were calculated by geographic stratum and quarter. The NPS data used a similar method to adjust for spatial and intra‐year price differences, but the Fisher price index was based on food unit values only. Table 6 compares the values of the spatial price deflators by survey quarter and strata and shows no significant differences between HBS and NPS indicators. Both surveys show low variations in the spatial deflators across the quarters, but reveal important differences between the geographic regions, with Dar es Salaam being the most expensive area and the rural areas being the least expensive. A similar approach was used to adjust for inter‐year (between survey rounds) price variations, where HBS used a Fisher index based on food and non‐food unit values (weighted average of food and non‐ food Fisher indices) while NPS used a Fisher index based on food unit values only.7 The difference between both surveys in the inter‐year deflators seems to be important. The Fisher food price index between HBS 2007 and 2011/12 is estimated at 2.15 indicating an increase in food prices by over 100 percent and the Fisher weighted index is estimated at 1.9, revealing a price increase of around 90 percent. The NPS shows a much lower inflation rate with the Fisher food price index estimated at 1.21 between the first two rounds and at 1.34 between the last two rounds (taking NPS 2010/11 as the base year). To better understand the potential effect of the differences in (survey based) inflation rates on the consumption trends in HBS and NPS, we also use the CPI to adjust for inter‐year temporal price variations. Table 5 presents the average monthly per adult consumption levels as well as their distribution by quintiles. The reference period for calculating average household consumption levels was harmonized to 30.4 days for all surveys rounds.8 The base years in the HBS and NPS, when adjusting for inter‐year price variations using the survey                                                              7 In the HBS, food aggregates were deflated by the Fisher food indicator only. 8 The NPS values were recalculated using this new reference period to replace the original 28 days. 22    prices, are respectively HBS 2011/12 and NPS 2010/11. And the base year in the HBS and NPS, when adjusting for inter‐year price variations using the CPI, is HBS 2011/12. Table 5: Comparison of monthly consumption aggregates in Tanzania Mainland HBS NPS Variation Variation* 2007 2011/12 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 % % Mean monthly total consumption per adult equivalent Nominal consumption 32,579 63,153 94% 48,262 55,867 77,846 61% Real consumption 31,578 62,427 98% 49,251 56,578 78,134 59% Real consumption, temporally adjusted (survey price 59,997 62,427 4% 60,086 56,578 58,309 ‐3% indicators) Real consumption, temporally adjusted (CPI), base year HBS 52,419 62,427 19% 67,868 65,137 71,536 5% 2011/12 (a) Distribution by quintile of nominal consumption Poorest Quintile 10,826 24,478 126% 16,719 18,871 24309 45% 2nd Quintile 17,886 36,621 105% 26,148 30,358 39,769 52% 3rd Quintile 24,696 48,640 97% 35,506 41,735 56,475 59% 4th Quintile 34,980 66,722 91% 51,032 59,354 84,592 66% Richest Quintile 74,557 139,343 87% 111,942 129,285 184,304 65% (b) Distribution by quintile of real consumption Poorest Quintile 10,849 25,191 132% 17,995 20,205 25,346 41% 2nd Quintile 17,881 37,539 110% 28,079 31,974 41,356 47% 3rd Quintile 24,526 49,503 102% 37,907 43,679 58,419 54% 4th Quintile 34,127 66,656 95% 53,197 60,872 86,333 62% Richest Quintile 70,551 133,283 89% 109,161 126,361 179,594 65% (c) Distribution by quintile of real consumption adjusted by inter‐year price variation (using survey price indicators) Poorest Quintile 21,025 25,730 22% 21,953 20,205 18,915 ‐14% 2nd Quintile 34,503 38,058 10% 34,256 31,974 30,863 ‐10% 3rd Quintile 46,961 49,771 6% 46,247 43,679 43,596 ‐6% 4th Quintile 64,615 66,568 3% 64,901 60,872 64,428 ‐1% Richest Quintile 132,937 132,048 ‐1% 133,176 126,361 134,025 1% (d) Distribution by quintile of real consumption adjusted by inter‐year price variation (using the CPI), base year HBS 2011/12 for all surveys Poorest Quintile 18,347 25,730 40% 24,797 23,261 23,206 ‐6% 23    2nd Quintile 30,108 38,058 26% 38,693 36,811 37,864 ‐2% 3rd Quintile 40,980 49,771 21% 52,237 50,287 53,486 2% 4th Quintile 56,385 66,568 18% 73,307 70,080 79,042 8% Richest Quintile 116,005 132,048 14% 150,425 145,476 164,428 9% Mean monthly real food & non‐food consumption per adult equivalent, adjusted by inter‐year price variation (a) Food expenditure Deflator: Fisher food price index 2.15 1 1.22 1 1/1.34 (HBS and NPS respectively) National 35,972 35,311 ‐2% 41,290 38,560 42,276 2% Poorest Quintile 15,257 18,214 19% 16,186 14,862 15,307 ‐5% 2nd Quintile 24,484 25,823 5% 25,704 23,671 25,071 ‐2% 3rd Quintile 32,127 33,055 3% 34,471 32,074 34,314 0% 4th Quintile 41,578 40,891 ‐2% 46,635 43,563 48,500 4% Richest Quintile 66,440 58,585 ‐12% 83,474 78,756 88,247 6% Deflator: CPI, base year HBS 2011/12 National 27,740 35,311 27% 47,536 44,393 48,671 2% Poorest Quintile 11,766 18,214 55% 18,635 17,110 17,622 ‐5% 2nd Quintile 18,881 25,823 37% 29,592 27,252 28,864 ‐2% 3rd Quintile 24,775 33,055 33% 39,686 36,926 39,505 0% 4th Quintile 32,063 40,891 28% 53,689 50,153 55,837 4% Richest Quintile 51,236 58,585 14% 96,102 90,670 101,597 6% (b) Non‐food expenditure Deflator: Fisher food and non‐ food price index (HBS) and 1.9 1 1.22 1 1/1.34 Fisher food price index (NPS) National 28,624 27,183 ‐5% 17,661 18,016 19,861 12% Poorest Quintile 7,764 7,553 ‐3% 2,868 2,797 2,583 ‐10% 2nd Quintile 13,192 12,280 ‐7% 5,466 5,817 5,488 0% 3rd Quintile 18,959 16,749 ‐12% 9,134 9,780 9,647 6% 4th Quintile 28,399 25,749 ‐9% 16,722 17,862 19,234 15% Richest Quintile 74,841 73,611 ‐2% 54,272 53,863 62,436 15% Deflator: CPI, base year HBS 2011/12 National 24,978 27,183 9% 20,333 20,741 22,865 12% Poorest Quintile 6,775 7,553 11% 3,302 3,221 2,974 ‐10% 2nd Quintile 11,512 12,280 7% 6,293 6,697 6,318 0% 3rd Quintile 16,544 16,749 1% 10,516 11,260 11,107 6% 4th Quintile 24,782 25,749 4% 19,252 20,564 22,143 15% Richest Quintile 65,309 73,611 13% 62,482 62,011 71,880 15% Note: All values are in Tanzanian Shillings. * Variation rate between 2008/09 and 2012/13. 24    The comparison of the nominal mean household consumption values between HBS and NPS shows that consumption levels are higher in the NPS than in the HBS, particularly for the most recent rounds HBS 2011/12 and NPS 2012/13. However, when we look at the distribution by quintiles, we can see that NPS consumption levels are higher than HBS ones only for the better‐off groups, especially for the richest 20 percent where the difference exceeds 30 percent, while the consumption levels of the poorest 20 percent are equivalent between the two surveys. The same pattern is observed when comparing real household consumption values (adjusted by the spatial and seasonal deflator). The higher consumption values in the NPS should not be expected given that HBS probes for a larger number of consumption items and includes more commodities (such as clothing, restaurants, etc.). As most of the difference is coming from the significantly higher consumption level of the richest quintiles, we would expect either higher underreporting in the HBS or significant differences in the sampling between the two surveys. This point will be discussed below. When adjusting for inter‐year price variations using the survey price deflators, mean household consumption levels appear to be higher in the HBS 2011/12 than in NPS 2012/13. The difference seems to be due to much lower consumption levels of the poorest quintiles in the NPS than in the HBS. While there is almost no difference between HBS and NPS consumption levels of the richest population groups, the difference seems to be very important for the poorest groups attaining around 40 percent. Also, HBS shows an increase in mean household consumption levels over time, mainly driven by an increase of the consumption of the poorest groups, while NPS shows a decline in mean household consumption levels over time mainly driven by a reduction of the consumption of the poorest quintiles. As these figures are difficult to compare due to the differences in the inter‐year price deflators and base year, we also use the CPI to adjust for inter‐year price variations and take HBS 2011/12 as base year for all HBS and NPS rounds. This reduces the discrepancy between HBS and NPS mean household consumption levels and shows a similar upward trend in mean household consumption over time for both surveys. While we continue to observe a larger increase in mean household consumption in the HBS than in the NPS and a larger increase in consumption levels of the better off in the NPS compared to HBS, both surveys now display improvements over time of mean household welfare, particularly for the better‐off groups. The main differences that stand out can be summarized as follows: i) There is a decline in aggregate consumption as well as in food consumption between NPS 2008/09 and NPS 2010/11, no matter the inter‐year price deflator used. This can be 25    explained by the advent of the financial crisis and food price hikes in 2008 whose effects may have started to appear after 2009. The decline of food consumption levels while non‐food consumption remained stable lends support to this presumption. ii) There is a decline in overall consumption between NPS 2010/11 and NPS 2012/13 (using the survey inter‐year deflators) for the three poorest quintiles of the population, with the decline being more substantial for the poorest quintile. This decline seems to be driven by a reduction of food consumption accompanied by an even greater reduction of non‐food consumption. However, this decline vanishes when the CPI for inter‐year price adjustment is used, as we observe an increase in consumption levels of all population groups including for the poorest quintiles even though the improvements remain more substantial for the better‐off groups. iii) In contrast with NPS, the HBS data show a significant increase of the food and total consumption levels of the poorest segments of the population and a slight reduction of the food consumption levels for the richest group. iv) The comparison (between HBS and NPS) of the distribution of consumption across the different quintiles, adjusted by the CPI and taking HBS 2011/12 as base year, shows that total consumption and food consumption are significantly higher in NPS 2008/09 than in HBS 2007 for all population groups, particularly the poorest ones for whom aggregate and food consumption levels are respectively 35 percent and 70 percent higher in NPS 2008/09 than in HBS 2007. Non‐food consumption is however around 30 percent higher in the HBS. This could be explained by higher underreporting and fatigue due the 28‐day diary in the HBS, and thus underestimation of consumption in the 2007 round. This can be supported by the pattern of respondent fatigue in Figures 7 and 8. The problem seems to be mainly due to underreporting by the poor, as average household sizes and number of dependents in HBS 2007 are slightly lower than in the other HBS and NPS rounds.9 The data quality and underreporting problem seems to have improved with the higher supervision in HBS 2011/12. Table 5 shows close mean household consumption levels for HBS 2011/12 and NPS 2010/11 (when adjusted by the CPI and taking HBS 2011/12 as base year), but the mean consumption level in NPS 2012/13 is over 10 percent higher. The difference is driven by higher levels of aggregate and food consumption levels by the upper quintiles. While the consumption levels of the poorest groups are slightly higher in HBS 2011/12 than in the last two rounds of NPS, the aggregate and food consumption levels of the richest groups are                                                              9 This is based on the assumption that poor households have larger family size and higher number of dependents. 26    respectively 20 percent and 60 percent higher in NPS than in HBS. While one could suspect underreporting by the non‐poor in HBS 2011/12, this seems implausible when comparing the households’ characteristics (household size and number of dependents) between the HBS and NPS last rounds. However, the drop in household size and number of dependents in NPS 2012/13 compared to the previous rounds and the significant increase of the consumption levels of the richest quintiles point to the possibility of sample design/weighting and/or overestimation of consumption by the non‐poor in the last NPS round. v) To summarize, the divergence between HBS and NPS in the levels and distribution of consumption could be explained by: i) underestimation of consumption by the poor in HBS 2007. This might have led to an overestimation of the rate of poverty reduction in the HBS survey. But the overestimation is not expected to affect the poverty trend and the pro‐poor growth pattern given that the different methods to address the data comparability problems confirmed the decline in poverty and the emerging signs of pro‐poor growth; ii) changes in sample design or sample weighting in the last NPS round or overestimation of consumption by the non‐poor. The following sections will explore other potential sources of the mismatch between the two surveys. Table 6: Value of spatial price deflators by survey quarter and strata, HBS and NPS (Fisher price indices) Oct–Dec 2008 Jan–Mar 2009 Apr–Jun 2009 Jul–Sep 2009 Dar es Salaam 1.08 1.18 1.20 1.15 Other urban 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.04 NPS 2008/09 Rural 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.96 Oct–Dec 2010 Jan–Mar 2011 Apr–Jun 2011 Jul–Sep 2011 Dar es Salaam 1.05 1.11 1.17 1.18 Other urban 0.90 0.97 1.06 1.08 NPS 2010/11 Rural 0.87 0.86 0.98 1.02 Oct–Dec 2012 Jan–Mar 2013 Apr–Jun 2013 Jul–Sep 2013 Dar es Salaam 1.12 1.17 1.13 1.07 Other urban 0.99 1.04 1.02 0.93 NPS 2012/13 Rural 0.95 0.94 1.00 0.93 Jan–Mar 2007 Apr–Jun 2007 Jul–Sep 2007 Oct–Dec 2007 Dar es Salaam 1.19 1.18 1.25 1.34 Other urban 1.04 1.06 1.09 1.10 HBS 2007 Rural 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.04 Oct–Dec 2011 Jan–Mar 2012 Apr–Jun 2012 Jul–Sep 2012 Dar es Salaam 1.09 1.18 1.22 1.22 Other urban 1.00 1.03 1.02 1.06 HBS 2011/12 Rural 0.93 0.94 0.98 0.97 27    Table 7: Comparison of consumption aggregate methodologies HBS 2007 HBS 2011/12 NPS 2008/09 NPS 2010/11 NPS 2012/13 ‐ Food consumption based on the diary (with own produced goods ‐ Food consumption based on 7‐day recall (with own produced goods being valued at the being valued at the estimated monetary values provided by the price market for similar products in the same strata) households) Construction of the consumption ‐ Excluded: Rent and housing related expenditures, durable goods (neither expenditures nor ‐ HBS 2007 did not include food consumed outside the household use values) and non‐consumption expenditures ‐ Non‐food consumption from ‐ Non‐food consumption the diary and recall. For each mostly from recall module household and item, it is aggregate (except for 10‐day diary verified whether non‐food overlap and few other consumption is reported (i) selected items. See Collected expenditures on only in the recall, (ii) only in discussion in previous clothing and footwear but the diary, or (iii) in both Excluded expenditures on clothing and footwear section) excluded it from the reported sources ‐ Recall periods of 1, 3 and 12 consumption aggregate ‐ Recall for non‐food items months depending on the was 12 months item consumed ‐ Education, health, and ‐ Includes: Education, health, communication expenditure and communication added into the consumption expenditure aggregate Education expenses did not come from the Education section where Education expenses were included in household expenditures but they were collected questions were asked for each household member, they come from separately (Section C). Information is collected for each household member over 5 years old Form II which had a very detailed section specific for education with a recall period of 12 months (question 14 in 2008/09, question 28 in 2010/11 and expenditures, divided into private, public, formal, informal. Unlike the 2011/13). Total expenses were calculated by the numerator by adding up individual expenses. NPS, the structure of the questions was very similar to the other non‐ Notice that these expenses included some clothing (uniforms) and footwear (shoes). food items. Health expenditures were included in household total expenditures but they were collected Health expenses did not come from the Health section where separately. The NPS collected information for each household member over 12 years and old questions were asked for each household member. There was a (Section D). Some questions referred to the past four weeks, some to the past 12 months separate section with 15 questions for health expenditures. Unlike the (question 13 onwards) but they seemed properly harmonized in the do files. Health NPS, the structure of the questions was very similar to the other non‐ expenditures included expenses related to visits to the health practitioner, health treatments, food items. hospitalization and medications. There is a section for vehicle and a separate section for public Transport expenses included: Public transport (7 days recall), “petrol or diesel”, “motor vehicle transport expenses. service, repair, or parts”, “bicycle service, repair, or parts” (30 days recall). Communications included telephone landlines, mobile phones, Communication expenses had a 30‐day recall period (Section L). They included: “cellphone personal computers, satellite decoders. vouchers” and “phone, internet and postal services”. 28    Recreation and spare time section was much more complete, it Recreation expenditures were collected using a recall period of 12 months (Section M). It solicited information about: sport and camping equipment; swimming included: “sports and hobby equipment, musical instruments, toys” and “film, film processing, pools, gym, tennis courts expenditures; tickets to sporting shows, camera”. There were only two questions in this category and the reported values were low concerts, theater, museums, etc.; lottery tickets, photographic compared to the HBS. equipment, musical instruments, amusement items, etc. Detailed questions about the main dwelling expenditures included questions on: electric power; fixed telephones; mobile phones; TV Utility expenses included: matches (7 days recall), electricity, gas, water, charcoal, light bulbs subscriptions; internet subscriptions; water; common expenditures (30 days recall). such as lighting cleaning on primary and secondary buildings; gas, charcoal, kerosene, coal, and firewood. ‐ Household expenses had a 30‐day recall period and included: milling fees and grain; household cleaning products (dish soap); wages paid to servants; repairs to household and Miscellaneous non‐food expenditures included around 25 detailed personal items; carpet, rugs, drapes, curtains; linens, towels, sheets, blankets; mats for questions about furniture and furnishing, tools and appliances for sleeping or for drying maize flour; mosquito nets, mattresses; repairs to consumer durables. household maintenance, small electric household appliances, dishes, utensils and domestic workers. ‐ Miscellaneous non‐food expenditures had a 30‐day recall period and included: bar soap (body soap or clothes soap); laundry soap (powder); toothpaste, toothbrush; toilet paper; glycerin, Vaseline and skin creams; other personal products (shampoo, razor); insurance (health or auto); other costs not stated anywhere. The non‐food consumption did NOT include expenses incurred at restaurants (This is different There is a section on travel, holidays and hotels outside and inside from HBS). However, the NPS collected detailed information on food consumed outside the Tanzania and another one on restaurants. home (which included full dinner with a 7‐day recall period) in Section F. Alcohol expenditures included information from the non‐food question as well as from Section F (food outside household), which included beer, wine, or hard drinks consumed outside the household in the past 7 days. 29    E. Food consumption Table 8 presents average levels of food consumption per adult per month for different sub‐groups of food commodities. All values are presented in nominal terms, real terms adjusted for the spatial and seasonal differences in the cost of living, and for inter‐year price variations using the CPI and taking HBS 2011/12 and NPS 2010/11 as base periods for HBS and NPS, respectively. The number of food items is much higher in the HBS than in the NPS. The level of consumption expenditure seems to be higher on food items such as meat, milk and cheese, fruits, sugar, and coffee, tea and soft drinks in the NPS than in the HBS. Both surveys show similar trends in consumption on most items, except for bread and cereals, fish, milk, cheese and eggs, and vegetables, with the variations being much more important in the HBS than in the NPS. Table 8: Comparison of monthly food consumption by sub‐group in Tanzania Mainland HBS NPS Variation Variation Variation 2010/11– 2008/09–    2007 2011/12 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 % 2012/13 2012/13 % % Food consumption per adult equivalent, monthly Food consumption, 16,871 35,322 109% 33,499 37,854 52,620 39% 57% nominal Food consumption, 16,731 35,311 111% 34,496 38,560 53,160 38% 54% real Food consumption, 27,740 35,311 27% 41,290 38,560 42,276 10% 2% real, CPI Number of food 193 171 57 57 57 products Food groups, monthly per adult equivalent consumption, nominal Bread and cereals 6,249 13,502 116% 11,334 11,135 15,787 42% 39% Meat 1,886 2,721 44% 7,056 6,913 9,501 37% 35% Fish 1,303 2,403 84% 2,249 2,437 3,345 37% 49% Milk, cheese and eggs 460 1,144 149% 2,805 2,952 4,738 61% 69% Oils and fats 914 1,370 50% 1,358 1,602 1,814 13% 34% Fruit 910 983 8% 4,063 4,313 5,619 30% 38% Vegetables 3,436 7,086 106% 5,042 5,321 7,327 38% 45% Sugar, jam, honey & 984 1,002 2% 1,778 1,956 2,272 16% 28% chocolate Food products n.e.c. 168 255 52% 262 253 255 1% ‐3% Coffee, tea and cocoa 199 153 ‐23% 344 355 398 12% 16% Water, soft drinks, 363 226 ‐38% 2,098 2,363 3,423 45% 63% juices, etc. 30    Food groups, monthly per adult equivalent consumption, real Bread and cereals 6,232 13,653 119% 41% 36% 11,851 11,431 16,070 Meat 1,869 2,701 45% 7,297 7,120 9,650 36% 32% Fish 1,284 2,418 88% 2,295 2,502 3,396 36% 48% Milk, cheese and eggs 458 1,165 154% 2,929 3,031 4,828 59% 65% Oils and fats 900 1,363 51% 1,396 1,629 1,843 13% 32% Fruit 890 978 10% 4,239 4,465 5,715 28% 35% Vegetables 3,423 7,143 109% 5,238 5,474 7,464 36% 43% Sugar, jam, honey & 967 991 2% 1,821 1,991 2,294 15% 26% chocolate Food products n.e.c. 169 257 52% 273 260 257 ‐1% ‐6% Coffee, tea and cocoa 193 151 ‐22% 350 360 402 12% 15% Water, soft drinks, 346 222 ‐36% 2,069 2,356 3,358 43% 62% juices, etc. Food groups, monthly per adult equivalent consumption, real values in prices of the base year (CPI) Bread and cereals 10,333 13,653 32% 12% ‐10% 14,185 11,431 12,780 Meat 3,099 2,701 ‐13% 8,734 7,120 7,675 8% ‐12% Fish 2,129 2,418 14% 2,747 2,502 2,700 8% ‐2% Milk, cheese and eggs 759 1,165 53% 3,506 3,031 3,839 27% 10% Oils and fats 1,492 1,363 ‐9% 1,671 1,629 1,466 ‐10% ‐12% Fruit 1,476 978 ‐34% 5,074 4,465 4,545 2% ‐10% Vegetables 5,675 7,143 26% 6,269 5,474 5,936 8% ‐5% Sugar, jam, honey & 1,603 991 ‐38% 2,180 1,991 1,824 ‐8% ‐16% chocolate Food products n.e.c. 280 257 ‐8% 327 260 205 ‐21% ‐37% Coffee, tea and cocoa 320 151 ‐53% 419 360 320 ‐11% ‐24% Water, soft drinks, 574 222 ‐61% 2,477 2,356 2,670 13% 8% juices, etc. Figure 9 presents the shares of food groups in total food consumption. It shows that Tanzanians tend to consume bread and cereals the most, which make up about one‐third of food consumption. This is consistent across the HBS and NPS surveys. The second most consumed food group is vegetables for the HBS and meat for the NPS. 31    Figure 9: Average monthly food consumption shares by food group (percent) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Bread and Meat Fish Milk, Oils and Fruit Vegetables Sugar, jam, Food Coffee, tea Water, soft cereals cheese and fats honey & products and cocoa drinks, eggs chocolate n.e.c. juices, etc. HBS  2007 HBS  2011/12 NPS  2008/09 NPS  2010/11 NPS  2012/13    Note: All values are food shares by food group relative to the monthly per adult equivalent food consumption, nominal. Source: HBS 2007 and 2011/12 and NPS 2008/09, 2010/11 and 2012/13.   F. Non‐food consumption Table 9 shows non‐food consumption per adult per month as well as non‐food consumption separated by groups of goods and services. All values are presented in nominal terms, real terms, and adjusted for inter‐year price variation using the CPI. In general, non‐food expenditures are larger in the HBS compared to the NPS. Among the sources of these differences is the fact that the first two waves of NPS did not include “clothing and footwear”. NPS also does not include “restaurants and hotels”. Moreover, it is worth noting that the value of “housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels” in the HBS 2011/12 is almost 3 times larger than the value in the NPS 2010/11 and that the “recreation and culture” expenses are over 25 times larger in the HBS; however, expenses on education and miscellaneous items are around 3 times larger in the NPS. 32    Both surveys show similar trends in consumption at the sub‐aggregate levels, except for education and miscellaneous expenditures, but with the variations being much larger in the HBS. This can be partly explained by the changes in the survey design in the HBS. It is worth mentioning that when addressing the changes in the HBS design through imputation methods, we still observe a significant increase in the consumption of food and non‐food items. Table 9: Comparison of monthly non‐food consumption by sub‐group in Tanzania Mainland HBS NPS Variation Variation Variation 2010/11– 2008/09– 2007 2011/12 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 % 2012/13 2012/13 % % Non‐food consumption per adult equivalent, monthly Non‐food consumption, 15,707 27,831 77% 14,763 18,010 25,227 40% 71% nominal Non‐food consumption, 15,942 27,162 70% 14,755 18,016 24,974 39% 69% real Non‐food consumption, 26,432 27,162 3% 17,661 18,016 19,861 10% 12% real, inter‐year (CPI) Non‐food groups, monthly per adult equivalent consumption, nominal Alcohol, tobacco and 795 305 ‐62% 1,365 1,566 1,705 9% 25% narcotics Clothing and footwear 3,012 4,234 41% ‐ ‐ ‐ Housing, utilities and fuels 2,735 7,827 186% 1,819 2,665 3,711 39% 104% Household maintenance 1,897 1,224 ‐35% 1,019 1,118 1,437 29% 41% Health 646 1,977 206% 2,022 2,131 3,223 51% 59% Transport 1,629 4,804 195% 2,801 3,498 5,348 53% 91% Communication 886 3,647 312% 1,896 2,242 3,370 50% 78% Recreation and culture 822 1,510 84% 50 60 64 7% 29% Education 688 1,105 61% 2,159 2,907 3,814 31% 77% Restaurants and hotels 705 351 ‐50% ‐ ‐ ‐ Miscellaneous 1,890 846 ‐55% 1,632 1,826 2,556 40% 57% Non‐food groups, monthly per adult equivalent consumption, real Alcohol, tobacco and 815 309 ‐62% 1,411 1,611 1,729 7% 23% narcotics Clothing and footwear 3,064 4,180 36% ‐ ‐ ‐ Housing, utilities and fuels 2,783 7,687 176% 1,771 2,603 3,594 38% 103% Household maintenance 1,932 1,202 ‐38% 1,041 1,137 1,445 27% 39% Health 659 1,979 200% 2,082 2,179 3,234 48% 55% Transport 1,631 4,596 182% 2,765 3,479 5,272 52% 91% Communication 887 3,517 297% 1,857 2,213 3,329 50% 79% 33    Recreation and culture 844 1,471 74% 46 60 62 4% 34% Education 695 1,066 53% 2,134 2,887 3,763 30% 76% Restaurants and hotels 705 334 ‐53% ‐ ‐ ‐ Miscellaneous 1,928 821 ‐57% 1,648 1,850 2,546 38% 54% Non‐food groups, monthly per adult equivalent consumption, inter‐year deflators (CPI) Alcohol, tobacco and 1,359 309 ‐77% 1,688 1,611 1,375 ‐15% ‐19% narcotics Clothing and footwear 5,108 4,180 ‐18% ‐ ‐ ‐ Housing, utilities and fuels 4,639 7,687 66% 2,119 2,603 2,858 10% 35% Household maintenance 3,221 1,202 ‐63% 1,246 1,137 1,149 1% ‐8% Health 1,099 1,979 80% 2,492 2,179 2,572 18% 3% Transport 2,719 4,596 69% 3,310 3,479 4,193 21% 27% Communication 1,479 3,517 138% 2,223 2,213 2,648 20% 19% Recreation and culture 1,407 1,471 5% 55.32138 59.92502 49.3421 ‐18% ‐11% Education 1,159 1,066 ‐8% 2,554 2,887 2,992 4% 17% Restaurants and hotels 1,175 334 ‐72% ‐ ‐ ‐ Miscellaneous 3,214 821 ‐74% 1,973 1,850 2,025 9% 3%   IV. Comparison of NPS and HBS Methods for Poverty Line and Poverty Indicators Measurement This section examines the differences in the measurement of the poverty line and estimation of the poverty indicators between HBS and NPS. It also investigates the potential sources of differences in the inequality indicators. More specifically, the analysis re‐evaluates the poverty line of NPS using the methodology of the HBS 2011/12, to separate differences in the poverty indicators resulting from the estimation approach (that can be addressed) and those stemming from the survey methods and that are more difficult to adjust. We also estimate the poverty numbers using the US$1.90 international poverty line to explore how the levels and trends of poverty compare between the two surveys. We finally examine the potential sources of discrepancy between the two surveys in the consumption distribution patterns for NPS data and decomposition methods. A. Poverty line estimation The poverty line in the NPS is not directly comparable with the poverty line in the HBS due to the differences in the consumption measurement methods listed in the above sections as well as differences in the reference period, reference population, measurement of the cost per calorie and 34    adjustment for inter‐year price variations. Most of these differences affect the food line and are explained more in detail below. i. Food line Both the NPS 2010/11 and the HBS 2011/12 poverty lines are based on a food basket concept and correspondingly anchored in nutrition. The HBS 2011/12 food poverty line (TZS 26,085.5 per adult per month) is based on the cost of a food basket that delivers 2,200 calories per adult per day. The cost of buying 2,200 calories is derived from the food consumption patterns prevailing in a reference population—the 2nd to 5th decile of the distribution of total consumption per adult equivalent. Consumed quantities are converted into calories using the NBS’s calorie conversion factors and valued at national median prices (the same as the reference for the Fisher deflators).10 The NPS 2010/11 food line (TZS 18,718.7 per adult per 28 days) is based on a similar concept as the HBS, but differs from the latter in the following respects: 1) the reference period: the food line is based on real consumption per adult equivalent per 28 days while in the HBS it is based on 30.4 days; 2) the reference population group: the reference population is the whole population below the median of total household consumption per adult equivalent;11 and 3) the method of evaluation of the cost per calorie: NPS uses the median prices paid by the reference group instead of median national prices to evaluate the food line.12                                                              10 The food line in the HBS 2011/12 is estimated as follows: ∑ ∙ HBS daily food line ∑ ∙ 2,200 ∙ where qk is the total quantity of item k consumed in the reference population, p0k is the national median price of item k, qhk is the quantity of item k consumed by household h, and calk is the corresponding caloric conversion factor of each item established by the Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics. Median prices p0k are based on the most frequent unit of consumption for each item, with all units being converted to the most frequent unit when possible. If the household consumed the food item in a unit that does not have a metric conversion to the most frequent unit (e.g. piece to kg) the respective item is dropped. 11 The reference group in the NPS includes the bottom 50 percent of the population ranked in terms of real per adult equivalent consumption as opposed to nominal per adult equivalent consumption. Real consumption is obtained by adjusting the nominal consumption according to temporal and spatial cost‐of‐living differences. Temporal price differences are associated with seasonal differences (quarters), while spatial differences are associated with the location of a household (geographic stratum: Dar es Salaam, other urban, rural, Zanzibar). Consequently, households with the same level of nominal consumption per adult equivalent might have different levels of real consumption if they face different costs of living. ∑ ∙ 12 NPS daily food line ∙ 2,200; where pk is the median price of item k in the reference population, ∑ ∙ ⁄ is the average per adult equivalent consumption of item k, and ∙ ∑ is the total caloric consumption per adult equivalent by household. 35    Table 10 shows the food line per month as well as the extreme poverty headcount rates for the base years of the HBS and the NPS, namely HBS 2011/12 and NPS 2010/11. The first column presents the official food line from the HBS 2011/12, estimated at TZS 26,086 per adult per month (30.4 days) and the extreme poverty rate estimated at 9.7 percent. The second column shows in line (a) the original values for the NPS 2010/11 food line and extreme poverty rate, and in lines (b) to (d) the re‐ estimated values of the food line by adjusting the differences mentioned above individually. Line (e) shows the food line and extreme poverty rates resulting from all the adjustments when they are applied simultaneously. Table 10: Food poverty estimates in Tanzania Mainland HBS NPS 2011/12 2010/11 Food line based on 2,200Kcal/day (a) Original values 26,086 18,719 % individuals below food line 9.7 9.0 (b) Period of analysis (30.4 days) 20,334 % individuals below food line 9.0 (c) Reference group (20‐50%) 19,678 % individuals below food line 10.2 (d) Cost per calorie method 20,626 % individuals below food line 11.7 (e) Total adjustments 22,482 % individuals below food line 11.8 Note: in lines (b) and (e) the reference period for NPS is 30.4 days and in line (a), (c) and (d) the reference period is 28 days. Line (e) shows that using the HBS method to estimate the NPS food line leads to close values of both lines; however, the proportion of extreme poor population substantially increases to 11.8 percent in the NPS. ii. Comparison of the food poverty lines across the survey rounds Table 11 compares food line values across different rounds for the HBS and the NPS. Comparison over time involves adjusting for inter‐year variations in the cost of living. This table uses food Fisher price deflators based on survey unit values and the CPI to convert the food line in the base year to prices in the survey year and make it comparable across different rounds. According to the HBS report, food prices have increased by 115 percent between the HBS 2007 and the HBS 2011/12. The 36    food line in the HBS 2007 is obtained by dividing the HBS 2011/12 line by 2.15. The NPS survey report indicates that food prices increased by 22 percent between the NPS 2008/09 and the NPS 2010/11, and by 34 percent between the NPS 2010/11 and the NPS 2012/13.13 The food line in the NPS 2008/09 and in the NPS 2012/13 is obtained by dividing the adjusted NPS 2010/11 food line by 1.22 and by multiplying it by 1.34 respectively. These adjustments show an increase of extreme poverty rates across the different NPS rounds, while the HBS shows a decline in extreme poverty. When the food line is adjusted for inter‐year differences in the cost of living using the CPI, extreme poverty initially increases and then stagnates in 2012/13.  Table 11: Food line comparisons in Tanzania Mainland HBS NPS 2007 2011/12 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 (a) Survey‐specific food line in survey year 13,502 26,086 17,028 22,482 30,747 prices % individuals below the food poverty line 16.1 9.7 7.6 11.8 13.8 Adjusting for inter‐year variation in cost of living using survey‐based deflators (b) Base year food line in survey year prices 12,133 26,086 18,428 22,482 30,126 % individuals below the food poverty line 11.7 9.7 9.3 11.8 13.0 Food price index 2.15 1 1.22 1 0.75 Adjusting for inter‐year variation in cost of living using the CPI (c) Base year food line in survey year prices 15,737 26,086 18,783 22,482 28,271 % individuals below the food poverty line 23.3 9.7 9.6 11.8 10.7 CPI ratio 1.66 1 1.20 1 0.79 iii. Basic needs poverty line In both surveys, the non‐food component of the basic needs poverty line is based on average non‐ food consumption of households whose total consumption is close to the food poverty line. In the HBS 2011/12, the households in the reference group are those whose total consumption lies within the interval between the food line and 1.2 times the food line. These households devoted approximately 71.5 percent of their total consumption to food. Scaling up the food poverty line by this ratio delivers the basic needs poverty line of TZS 36,482 per adult per month and a basic needs poverty headcount of 28.2 percent. In the NPS, the original basic needs poverty line was measured by dividing the food line by the average proportion of total expenditures devoted to food for the bottom 25 percent of the population in the total distribution of consumption per adult equivalent.                                                              13 See Table 5 in the National Panel Survey 2012/13, pg. 10. 37    Table 12 presents the basic needs poverty line per month as well as the poverty headcount rates for the base year surveys HBS 2011/12 and NPS 2010/11. The first column presents the official basic poverty line from the HBS 2011/12 and the second column the NPS 2010/12 poverty line and headcount estimates. The first line shows the original NPS 2010/11 poverty line of TZS 23,933 and the basic need poverty headcount of 17.9 percent.14 The second line of the table presents the NPS 2010/11 basic needs line recalculated using the HBS 2011/12 method. The re‐estimated poverty line uses the adjusted food line in Table 10 (TZS 23,371) and the HBS 2011/12 methodology for calculating poverty. The basic needs line is measured by the ratio of the food line and the food share of adults whose total expenditures fall between the food line and 1.2 times above the food line. These adjustments in the food line and the reference group yield a poverty line of TZS 30,052 and a poverty headcount of 24.4 percent for the NPS 2010/11. Despite the remaining differences in the survey designs, using a comparable method for estimating the poverty line leads to a relatively closer poverty line and headcount estimates. Table 12: Basic needs poverty line in Tanzania Mainland HBS NPS 2011/12 2010/11 Poverty line (a) Original values 36,482 23,933 % individuals below the poverty line 28.2 17.9 (b) New poverty line (harmonized) 29,113 % individuals below the poverty line 24.4 Note: in line (a) the NPS estimates are using the reference period of 28 days and in line (b) the reference period is 30.4 days. iv. Comparison of the basic needs poverty lines across the survey rounds Table 13 compares the basic needs poverty line values across the different rounds for the HBS and the NPS and shows their respective poverty headcount rates. Naturally, time comparisons require adjusting real values for cost of living differences over time. This table uses various price deflators to convert statistics from a given survey into values comparable to a different survey.                                                              14 As the difference between the estimates incorporating Zanzibar and considering Mainland only is marginal, we included Zanzibar in the NPS calculations. 38    Table 13: Comparison of basic needs poverty estimates across the surveys rounds in Tanzania Mainland HBS NPS 2007 2011/12 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 (a) Survey‐specific poverty line in survey year 18,883 36,482 21,660 29,113 38,819 prices % individuals below the poverty line 33 28.2 15.2 24.4 24.8 (b) Base year poverty line in survey year 19,201 36,482 23,863 29,113 39,012 prices (survey deflators) % individuals below poverty line (survey 34.4 28.2 20.2 24.4 25.1 deflators) (c) Base year poverty line in survey year prices 22,004 36,482 24,323 29,113 36,609 (CPI) % individuals below poverty line (CPI) 42.7 28.2 21.5 24.4 22.4 (d) US$1.90 poverty line (expressed per 58 58 58 58 58 month) % individuals below the US$1.90 line 59.9 48.8 48.7 49.9 45.8 Note: the survey price indices in line (b) are respectively 1.9 for the HBS and 1.22 and 1.34 for the NPS. Line (a) uses the poverty line constructed for each survey round that is unadjusted for inter‐year price differences in cost of living. These poverty lines yield an increasing trend in poverty. Line (b) takes the poverty line constructed in the base year and uses the Fisher price indices constructed from survey unit values to adjust for inter‐year price variations. While the adjustment of the NPS poverty line seems to have helped attenuate the mismatch in poverty levels between the HBS and NPS, we still observe an upward poverty trend. While the NPS data show an increase from 20.2 percent in 2008/09 to 24.4 percent in 2010/11 and 25.1 percent in 2012/13, the HBS shows a decline in poverty from 34.4 percent to 28.2 percent between 2007 and 2011/12. In contrast, adjusting the poverty line for inter‐year price differences using the CPI rather than the survey unit values appears to partly resolve the discrepancy in poverty trends between the HBS and NPS. In line (c), the NPS indicates an increase in poverty from 21.5 percent in 2008/09 to 24.4 percent in 2010/11 and then a decline to 22.4 percent in 2012/13. We continue however to observe a slight increase in poverty between NPS 2008/09 and NPS 2012/13, while HBS data show a quite significant decline. We also continue to observe a significantly lower level of poverty in NPS 2008/09 compared to HBS 2007. 39    The comparison of the international poverty rates using the US$1.90 per capita per day (in 2011 PPP exchange rate) poverty line, in line (d), reveals an overall decline in poverty rates in both the HBS and NPS, even though the HBS shows a much greater decline in poverty and the NPS continues to show a slight increase in poverty between the first two rounds. It is worth noting that the estimation of the international poverty rates follows the Povcalnet method which does not adjust the consumption values for spatial cost of living differences and which seems to partly resolve the mismatch in poverty trends between the two surveys. Based on these findings, it seems that despite the differences between the HBS and NPS in survey design and methods of consumption data collection, the discrepancies in poverty levels and trends between both surveys are mainly resulting from the differences in: 1) the methods of calculation of food and basic needs poverty lines; 2) the inter‐year price deflators; and 3) to a lesser extent, the spatial price deflators. V. Comparison of Inequality and Distributional Patterns between HBS and NPS This section compares the inequality indicators between the HBS and NPS surveys and performs the unconditional quantile decomposition to examine the specific household attributes that contribute to the changes of consumption over time in both the HBS and the NPS. A. Inequality indicators As stated in the first section, HBS and NPS show different inequality trends, declining in the HBS and increasing across the NPS waves. The adjustments above are relevant for the poverty estimates only and cannot help in addressing the inequality discrepancies. Table 14 presents a more complete analysis that includes Gini indices of nominal and real per capita household consumption as well as the Palma index. The inequality trend in per capita nominal consumption does not change when measured with the Gini or the Palma index. However, the increasing trend in the NPS from 2008/09 to 2012/13 is more apparent when real values are used. Table 14: Gini index HBS NPS 2007 2011/12 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 Inequality 40    Gini ‐ per capita consumption, nominal 40.3 37.8 40.3 40.2 42.1 Gini ‐ per capita consumption, real 38.5 35.8 38.1 38.4 40.6 Palma ‐ per capita consumption, nominal 1. 9 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.1 Palma ‐ per capita consumption, real 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.9   B. Unconditional quantile decomposition This section investigates the basic factors that might explain the discrepancy in inequality (and pro‐ poor growth patterns) between the HBS and NPS surveys by performing the unconditional quantile regression decomposition technique. The method decomposes the changes in consumption over time into two components: one component that is due to improvements in personal characteristics or endowments (better education, increased ownership of land and other assets, access to employment opportunities, local infrastructure, and so forth) and one component attributable to changes in the returns to those characteristics (returns to education, land productivity, returns to business, and so forth). These components are then further decomposed to identify the specific attributes that contribute to the changes of consumption. The decomposition is applied at each decile group of the consumption distribution to understand the patterns of the changes for the different welfare groups.15 We start by examining the factors contributing to the variation of consumption between 2007 and 2011/12 using HBS data. The results are reported in Figure 10 and indicate that the increase of poor households’ consumption is due mainly to improvements in households’ endowments. Returns also improved but to a lesser extent and only for the 20 percent poorest groups. One can observe from Figure 10 an improvement of households’ endowments for all the population groups, but the improvements are more marked for the 30 percent poorest segments. The increase of the endowments is driven by a significant expansion of asset ownership, mainly transportation and communication means, and to a lesser extent agricultural land. Educational attainment of household heads has improved as well but less significantly. The access to local infrastructure has deteriorated in general, but access to local roads seems to have slightly improved                                                              15 The decomposition approach is based on the Recentered Influence Function and unconditional quantile regression method proposed by Firpo, Fortin and Lemieux (2009). See Appendix 4 of the Tanzania Mainland Poverty Assessment for more technical details on the approach. 41    for the poor. The decomposition indicates also a decline of households’ engagement in business activities, particularly among the poorest groups. The improvements of households’ endowments were coupled with an increase of the returns to those endowments, but only for the poorest quintile group. Except for the first two deciles, returns appear to have declined over time. But this decline masks divergent trends across the different attributes. As observed from the table in Figure 10, the gains from household businesses, essentially nonfarm activity, increased quite significantly between 2007 and 2011/12 particularly for the three bottom deciles. Returns to land seem also to have improved over time, though less significantly for the poor. The returns to community infrastructure also improved, indicating a higher positive influence of access to local markets and roads on needy households’ living standards. Large household size and number of children seem to be a continuing constraint on household well‐ being, although their negative impact appears to have diminished somewhat, as is apparent from the positive change in the returns to demographic structure. However, the observed improvements in the returns to some household attributes have been offset by a significant decline of the returns to assets followed by a decline of returns to education, inducing a loss of returns for the moderate poor and better‐off households. Figure 10: Returns Effect and Endowments Effects over Time, HBS 2007–2011 .3 Difference in log real per capita total expenditures .2 .1 0 -.1 -.2 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 Quantiles Confidence interval / endowment effect Confidence interval /returns effect Endowment effect Returns effect   Extreme poor Poor Middle class Richest Total 0.147*** 0.058*** 0.019* ‐0.076*** Endowments 0.075** 0.178*** 0.125*** 0.043 Demographic Structure ‐0.019*** ‐0.026*** ‐0.022*** ‐0.013*** 42    Education ‐0.001 0.003* 0.003** 0.011*** Wage work 0.001 0.002* 0 0 HH business ‐0.024*** ‐0.022*** ‐0.009*** ‐0.005 Assets 0.124*** 0.114*** 0.103*** 0.054*** Land 0.006* 0.005* 0.007** 0.011*** Access local markets ‐0.005** ‐0.004** ‐0.002** ‐0.002 Access local roads 0.037*** 0.052*** 0.028*** 0.005 Returns 0.072** ‐0.120*** ‐0.106*** ‐0.119*** Demographic Structure 0.255*** 0.064 0.025 0.216*** Education ‐0.186*** ‐0.017 ‐0.003 0.066* Wage work ‐0.003 0.010 0.001 0.012 HH business 0.123** 0.162*** 0.056 0.077 Assets ‐0.266*** ‐0.169*** ‐0.156*** ‐0.244*** Land 0.016 0.022** 0.019** 0.035** Access local markets 0.055*** 0.049*** 0.021** 0.030* Access local roads 0.011 0.045*** 0.011 ‐0.022 Note: Extreme poor are population groups in the bottom 10 percent of the distribution; the poor are in the third decile; middle class are in the fifth decile, and the richest are in the top decile. Source: HBS 2007 and 2011/12.  We also apply the unconditional quantile regression decomposition technique to analyze the factors contributing to the variation of consumption between 2008/09 and 2012/13 using NPS data. The results are presented in Figure 11. Similar to the HBS data, NPS reveals a quite significant improvement in household endowments over time; however, in contrast to the HBS results, the improvement of endowments is more marked for the richest population groups. We also observe a quite significant deterioration of returns, particularly for the poorest groups, that have offset the endowments’ improvements, inducing a decline in total consumption. It is important to note that in this decomposition procedure, consumption is adjusted by the (inter‐year) survey price deflators. The use of the CPI for adjusting consumption would have shown a less sharp decline in returns and a slight increase in overall consumption over time; however, the variations across the different deciles would have remained unchanged. As for HBS, the results in Figure 11 indicate that the increase of the endowments is driven by a significant expansion of asset ownership, mainly transportation and communication means. Educational attainment of household heads has improved as well but to a lesser extent. Access to local markets seems to have improved but only for better‐off households. The NPS findings also indicate a potential decline in households’ engagement in business activities, but the results are not significant. 43    As for HBS, NPS data indicate a decline in returns to households’ endowments, but contrary to HBS findings, the decline seems more marked for the poorest groups. Here again, this decline masks divergent trends across the different attributes. Returns to education and assets seem to have improved, while returns to access to markets appear to have declined. These results deserve further investigation and confirmation. Figure 11: Returns Effect and Endowments Effects over Time, NPS 2008/09–2012/13 Returns effects and endowment effects over time for Tanzania NPS 2008/09-2012/13 .4 Difference in log real per capita total expenditures .2 0 -.2 -.4 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 Quantiles Confidence interval / endowment effect Confidence interval /returns effect Endowment effect Returns effect   44    Extreme poor Poor Middle class Richest Total ‐0.144** ‐0.089** ‐0.057** 0.074** Endowments 0.066** 0.082*** 0.145*** 0.205*** Demographic Structure 0.014** 0.018*** 0.021*** 0.041*** Education 0.008** 0.002 0.009** 0.022*** Wage work ‐0.06** ‐0.037** ‐0.024** ‐0.026 HH business ‐0.062 ‐0.047* ‐0.031 ‐0.037 Assets 0.112*** 0.095*** 0.089*** 0.056*** Land ‐0.001 ‐0.001 ‐0.002 0.001 Access local markets ‐0.024 ‐0.012 0.023*** 0.081** Returns ‐0.209*** ‐0.17*** ‐0.203*** ‐0.13*** Demographic Structure ‐0.03 0.03 ‐0.147 ‐0.196 Education 0.12** ‐0.072* 0.016 0.025 Wage work ‐0.039** 0.001 0.009 ‐0.005 HH business ‐0.181** 0.071 0.105 0.019 Assets 0.064 0.078** 0.028 ‐0.014 Land 0.007 ‐0.001 0.006 ‐0.034** Access local markets ‐0.047 ‐0.028 0.046** ‐0.042 Note: Extreme poor are population groups in the bottom 10 percent of the distribution; the poor are in the third decile; middle class are in the fifth decile, and the richest are in the top decile. Source: NPS 2008/09 and 2012/13.  45    VI. Some Concluding Remarks This study attempts to investigate the underlying causes of the mismatch in poverty and inequality levels and trends between the NPS and HBS surveys. The analysis has focused on the key candidates for the divergence between the two surveys. These include the differences in methods of consumption data collection, methodological differences in the construction of the consumption aggregates and estimation of the poverty lines, adjustments for temporal and spatial price variations, and the consistency of within‐household spending and asset ownership trends with poverty trends. The main findings can be summarized as follows: I. Despite noticeable differences in the methods of household consumption data collection, both HBS and NPS show close consumption levels when using comparable inter‐year price deflators. The comparison of the levels and distribution of consumption between the two surveys, when adjusted by the CPI, shows that total consumption and food consumption are significantly higher in NPS 2008/09 than in HBS 2007 for all population groups, particularly the poorest ones for whom aggregate and food consumption levels are, respectively, 35 percent and 70 percent higher in NPS 2008/09 than in HBS 2007. However, the difference vanishes in the last rounds with mean household consumption levels in HBS 2011/12 and NPS 2010/11 being very close, and the mean consumption level in NPS 2012/13 being around 15 percent higher. The difference is driven by higher levels of aggregate and food consumption by the better‐off groups. The consumption levels of the poorest groups are slightly higher in HBS 2011/12 than in the last two rounds of NPS, but the aggregate and food consumption levels of the richest group are, respectively, 25 percent and 70 percent higher in NPS than in HBS. These differences could be explained by underestimation of consumption by the poor in HBS 2007 and sample weighting or overestimation of consumption by the non‐ poor in NPS 2012/13. II. The difference between HBS and NPS poverty levels is essentially explained by the differences in the methods of estimation of the poverty line. When comparable methods for estimating the poverty line are applied to both surveys, the poverty line and headcount estimates are relatively close in magnitude. III. The discrepancy in poverty trends can be mainly attributed to the difference in temporal price deflators and, to a lesser extent, spatial price deflators. The use of the CPI for adjusting 46    consumption variation over time would show a decline in poverty during the last five years for both HBS and NPS. However, the decline in poverty revealed by the HBS data would remain much higher than that observed with the NPS data. Given the greater degree of commodity detail in the consumption module that was added to the HBS 2011/12 questionnaire—which would suggest a better capture of consumption information—it is possible that the HBS under‐estimated consumption in 2007 and hence overestimated poverty then and its subsequent decline. Also, the increase in poverty between NPS 2008/09 and NPS 2010/11 continues to be observed and could potentially be explained by the financial crisis and international food price variations. IV. The mismatch in inequality trends between HBS and NPS could not be resolved. The analysis of the variation of consumption distribution over time using HBS and NPS data shows that both surveys indicate significant improvements in households’ endowments over time. However, while HBS reveals that endowments increased faster for the poorest groups, NPS shows that the richest groups experienced higher improvements in their endowments. Also, while HBS shows a slight increase in returns for the poorest groups, NPS reveals a deterioration. This might be partly driven by the inter‐year deflator but would need further investigation and confirmation. All these results point to the importance of examining the sampling design. Based on these findings, we would suggest the following recommendations: 1) Enhance closer collaboration inside NBS between the teams working on HBS data and those processing NPS surveys and harmonize the methodologies for the evaluation of the poverty lines and price indicators; 2) Attempt as much as possible to harmonize the HBS and NPS design, particularly the methods for household consumption data collection; 3) Examine further the sampling procedure and the potential differences resulting from sampling design. 4) Further explore the underlying causes of the divergence between both surveys in growth and distributional patterns. 47    References Beegle, K.G., De Weerdt, J., Friedman, A.J., and Gibson, C.J. (2012). Methods of household consumption measurement through surveys: Experimental results from Tanzania. Journal of Development Economics, 98: 3–18. Dabalen A., Etang A., Mungai R., Wambile A. And Wane W. (2016, pp 61‐89) “Is Poverty in Africa Overestimated because of Poor Data?” In Contemporary Issues in Development Economics (the International Economic Association Series, #13991), ed. Timothy Besley. Palgrave Macmillan UK. DOI: 10.1057/9781137529749. Firpo, S., Fortin, N. M., and Lemieux, T. (2009). Unconditional Quantile Regressions. Econometrica, 77 (3), 953–973. The World Bank (2015) “Tanzania Mainland Poverty Assessment” 48    Poverty & Equity Global Practice Working Papers (Since July 2014) The Poverty & Equity Global Practice Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. This series is co‐published with the World Bank Policy Research Working Papers (DECOS). It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and contribute to development policy discussions around the world. For the latest paper, visit our GP’s intranet at http://POVERTY. 1 Estimating poverty in the absence of consumption data: the case of Liberia Dabalen, A. L., Graham, E., Himelein, K., Mungai, R., September 2014 2 Female labor participation in the Arab world: some evidence from panel data in Morocco Barry, A. G., Guennouni, J., Verme, P., September 2014 3 Should income inequality be reduced and who should benefit? redistributive preferences in Europe and Central Asia Cojocaru, A., Diagne, M. F., November 2014 4 Rent imputation for welfare measurement: a review of methodologies and empirical findings Balcazar Salazar, C. F., Ceriani, L., Olivieri, S., Ranzani, M., November 2014 5 Can agricultural households farm their way out of poverty? Oseni, G., McGee, K., Dabalen, A., November 2014 6 Durable goods and poverty measurement Amendola, N., Vecchi, G., November 2014 7 Inequality stagnation in Latin America in the aftermath of the global financial crisis Cord, L., Barriga Cabanillas, O., Lucchetti, L., Rodriguez‐Castelan, C., Sousa, L. D., Valderrama, D. December 2014 8 Born with a silver spoon: inequality in educational achievement across the world Balcazar Salazar, C. F., Narayan, A., Tiwari, S., January 2015 Updated on March 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 1 9 Long‐run effects of democracy on income inequality: evidence from repeated cross‐sections Balcazar Salazar,C. F., January 2015 10 Living on the edge: vulnerability to poverty and public transfers in Mexico Ortiz‐Juarez, E., Rodriguez‐Castelan, C., De La Fuente, A., January 2015 11 Moldova: a story of upward economic mobility Davalos, M. E., Meyer, M., January 2015 12 Broken gears: the value added of higher education on teachers' academic achievement Balcazar Salazar, C. F., Nopo, H., January 2015 13 Can we measure resilience? a proposed method and evidence from countries in the Sahel Alfani, F., Dabalen, A. L., Fisker, P., Molini, V., January 2015 14 Vulnerability to malnutrition in the West African Sahel Alfani, F., Dabalen, A. L., Fisker, P., Molini, V., January 2015 15 Economic mobility in Europe and Central Asia: exploring patterns and uncovering puzzles Cancho, C., Davalos, M. E., Demarchi, G., Meyer, M., Sanchez Paramo, C., January 2015 16 Managing risk with insurance and savings: experimental evidence for male and female farm managers in the Sahel Delavallade, C., Dizon, F., Hill, R., Petraud, J. P., el., January 2015 17 Gone with the storm: rainfall shocks and household well‐being in Guatemala Baez, J. E., Lucchetti, L., Genoni, M. E., Salazar, M., January 2015 18 Handling the weather: insurance, savings, and credit in West Africa De Nicola, F., February 2015 19 The distributional impact of fiscal policy in South Africa Inchauste Comboni, M. G., Lustig, N., Maboshe, M., Purfield, C., Woolard, I., March 2015 20 Interviewer effects in subjective survey questions: evidence from Timor‐Leste Himelein, K., March 2015 21 No condition is permanent: middle class in Nigeria in the last decade Corral Rodas, P. A., Molini, V., Oseni, G. O., March 2015 22 An evaluation of the 2014 subsidy reforms in Morocco and a simulation of further reforms Verme, P., El Massnaoui, K., March 2015 Updated on March 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 2 23 The quest for subsidy reforms in Libya Araar, A., Choueiri, N., Verme, P., March 2015 24 The (non‐) effect of violence on education: evidence from the "war on drugs" in Mexico Márquez‐Padilla, F., Pérez‐Arce, F., Rodriguez Castelan, C., April 2015 25 “Missing girls” in the south Caucasus countries: trends, possible causes, and policy options Das Gupta, M., April 2015 26 Measuring inequality from top to bottom Diaz Bazan, T. V., April 2015 27 Are we confusing poverty with preferences? Van Den Boom, B., Halsema, A., Molini, V., April 2015 28 Socioeconomic impact of the crisis in north Mali on displaced people (Available in French) Etang Ndip, A., Hoogeveen, J. G., Lendorfer, J., June 2015 29 Data deprivation: another deprivation to end Serajuddin, U., Uematsu, H., Wieser, C., Yoshida, N., Dabalen, A., April 2015 30 The local socioeconomic effects of gold mining: evidence from Ghana Chuhan-Pole, P., Dabalen, A., Kotsadam, A., Sanoh, A., Tolonen, A.K., April 2015 31 Inequality of outcomes and inequality of opportunity in Tanzania Belghith, N. B. H., Zeufack, A. G., May 2015 32 How unfair is the inequality of wage earnings in Russia? estimates from panel data Tiwari, S., Lara Ibarra, G., Narayan, A., June 2015 33 Fertility transition in Turkey—who is most at risk of deciding against child arrival? Greulich, A., Dasre, A., Inan, C., June 2015 34 The socioeconomic impacts of energy reform in Tunisia: a simulation approach Cuesta Leiva, J. A., El Lahga, A., Lara Ibarra, G., June 2015 35 Energy subsidies reform in Jordan: welfare implications of different scenarios Atamanov, A., Jellema, J. R., Serajuddin, U., June 2015 36 How costly are labor gender gaps? estimates for the Balkans and Turkey Cuberes, D., Teignier, M., June 2015 37 Subjective well‐being across the lifespan in Europe and Central Asia Bauer, J. M., Munoz Boudet, A. M., Levin, V., Nie, P., Sousa‐Poza, A., July 2015 Updated on March 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 3 38 Lower bounds on inequality of opportunity and measurement error Balcazar Salazar, C. F., July 2015 39 A decade of declining earnings inequality in the Russian Federation Posadas, J., Calvo, P. A., Lopez‐Calva, L.‐F., August 2015 40 Gender gap in pay in the Russian Federation: twenty years later, still a concern Atencio, A., Posadas, J., August 2015 41 Job opportunities along the rural‐urban gradation and female labor force participation in India Chatterjee, U., Rama, M. G., Murgai, R., September 2015 42 Multidimensional poverty in Ethiopia: changes in overlapping deprivations Yigezu, B., Ambel, A. A., Mehta, P. A., September 2015 43 Are public libraries improving quality of education? when the provision of public goods is not enough Rodriguez Lesmes, P. A., Valderrama Gonzalez, D., Trujillo, J. D., September 2015 44 Understanding poverty reduction in Sri Lanka: evidence from 2002 to 2012/13 Inchauste Comboni, M. G., Ceriani, L., Olivieri, S. D., October 2015 45 A global count of the extreme poor in 2012: data issues, methodology and initial results Ferreira, F.H.G., Chen, S., Dabalen, A. L., Dikhanov, Y. M., Hamadeh, N., Jolliffe, D. M., Narayan, A., Prydz, E. B., Revenga, A. L., Sangraula, P., Serajuddin, U., Yoshida, N., October 2015 46 Exploring the sources of downward bias in measuring inequality of opportunity Lara Ibarra, G., Martinez Cruz, A. L., October 2015 47 Women’s police stations and domestic violence: evidence from Brazil Perova, E., Reynolds, S., November 2015 48 From demographic dividend to demographic burden? regional trends of population aging in Russia Matytsin, M., Moorty, L. M., Richter, K., November 2015 49 Hub‐periphery development pattern and inclusive growth: case study of Guangdong province Luo, X., Zhu, N., December 2015 50 Unpacking the MPI: a decomposition approach of changes in multidimensional poverty headcounts Rodriguez Castelan, C., Trujillo, J. D., Pérez Pérez, J. E., Valderrama, D., December 2015 51 The poverty effects of market concentration Rodriguez Castelan, C., December 2015 52 Can a small social pension promote labor force participation? evidence from the Colombia Mayor program Pfutze, T., Rodriguez Castelan, C., December 2015 Updated on March 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 4 53 Why so gloomy? perceptions of economic mobility in Europe and Central Asia Davalos, M. E., Cancho, C. A., Sanchez, C., December 2015 54 Tenure security premium in informal housing markets: a spatial hedonic analysis Nakamura, S., December 2015 55 Earnings premiums and penalties for self‐employment and informal employees around the world Newhouse, D. L., Mossaad, N., Gindling, T. H., January 2016 56 How equitable is access to finance in turkey? evidence from the latest global FINDEX Yang, J., Azevedo, J. P. W. D., Inan, O. K., January 2016 57 What are the impacts of Syrian refugees on host community welfare in Turkey? a subnational poverty analysis Yang, J., Azevedo, J. P. W. D., Inan, O. K., January 2016 58 Declining wages for college‐educated workers in Mexico: are younger or older cohorts hurt the most? Lustig, N., Campos‐Vazquez, R. M., Lopez‐Calva, L.‐F., January 2016 59 Sifting through the Data: labor markets in Haiti through a turbulent decade (2001‐2012) Rodella, A.‐S., Scot, T., February 2016 60 Drought and retribution: evidence from a large‐scale rainfall‐indexed insurance program in Mexico Fuchs Tarlovsky, Alan., Wolff, H., February 2016 61 Prices and welfare Verme, P., Araar, A., February 2016 62 Losing the gains of the past: the welfare and distributional impacts of the twin crises in Iraq 2014 Olivieri, S. D., Krishnan, N., February 2016 63 Growth, urbanization, and poverty reduction in India Ravallion, M., Murgai, R., Datt, G., February 2016 64 Why did poverty decline in India? a nonparametric decomposition exercise Murgai, R., Balcazar Salazar, C. F., Narayan, A., Desai, S., March 2016 65 Robustness of shared prosperity estimates: how different methodological choices matter Uematsu, H., Atamanov, A., Dewina, R., Nguyen, M. C., Azevedo, J. P. W. D., Wieser, C., Yoshida, N., March 2016 66 Is random forest a superior methodology for predicting poverty? an empirical assessment Stender, N., Pave Sohnesen, T., March 2016 67 When do gender wage differences emerge? a study of Azerbaijan's labor market Tiongson, E. H. R., Pastore, F., Sattar, S., March 2016 Updated on March 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 5 68 Second‐stage sampling for conflict areas: methods and implications Eckman, S., Murray, S., Himelein, K., Bauer, J., March 2016 69 Measuring poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean: methodological considerations when estimating an empirical regional poverty line Gasparini, L. C., April 2016 70 Looking back on two decades of poverty and well‐being in India Murgai, R., Narayan, A., April 2016 71 Is living in African cities expensive? Yamanaka, M., Dikhanov, Y. M., Rissanen, M. O., Harati, R., Nakamura, S., Lall, S. V., Hamadeh, N., Vigil Oliver, W., April 2016 72 Ageing and family solidarity in Europe: patterns and driving factors of intergenerational support Albertini, M., Sinha, N., May 2016 73 Crime and persistent punishment: a long‐run perspective on the links between violence and chronic poverty in Mexico Rodriguez Castelan, C., Martinez‐Cruz, A. L., Lucchetti, L. R., Valderrama Gonzalez, D., Castaneda Aguilar, R. A., Garriga, S., June 2016 74 Should I stay or should I go? internal migration and household welfare in Ghana Molini, V., Pavelesku, D., Ranzani, M., July 2016 75 Subsidy reforms in the Middle East and North Africa Region: a review Verme, P., July 2016 76 A comparative analysis of subsidy reforms in the Middle East and North Africa Region Verme, P., Araar, A., July 2016 77 All that glitters is not gold: polarization amid poverty reduction in Ghana Clementi, F., Molini, V., Schettino, F., July 2016 78 Vulnerability to Poverty in rural Malawi Mccarthy, N., Brubaker, J., De La Fuente, A., July 2016 79 The distributional impact of taxes and transfers in Poland Goraus Tanska, K. M., Inchauste Comboni, M. G., August 2016 80 Estimating poverty rates in target populations: an assessment of the simple poverty scorecard and alternative approaches Vinha, K., Rebolledo Dellepiane, M. A., Skoufias, E., Diamond, A., Gill, M., Xu, Y., August 2016 Updated on March 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 6 81 Synergies in child nutrition: interactions of food security, health and environment, and child care Skoufias, E., August 2016 82 Understanding the dynamics of labor income inequality in Latin America Rodriguez Castelan, C., Lustig, N., Valderrama, D., Lopez‐Calva, L.‐F., August 2016 83 Mobility and pathways to the middle class in Nepal Tiwari, S., Balcazar Salazar, C. F., Shidiq, A. R., September 2016 84 Constructing robust poverty trends in the Islamic Republic of Iran: 2008‐14 Salehi Isfahani, D., Atamanov, A., Mostafavi, M.‐H., Vishwanath, T., September 2016 85 Who are the poor in the developing world? Newhouse, D. L., Uematsu, H., Doan, D. T. T., Nguyen, M. C., Azevedo, J. P. W. D., Castaneda Aguilar, R. A., October 2016 86 New estimates of extreme poverty for children Newhouse, D. L., Suarez Becerra, P., Evans, M. C., October 2016 87 Shedding light: understanding energy efficiency and electricity reliability Carranza, E., Meeks, R., November 2016 88 Heterogeneous returns to income diversification: evidence from Nigeria Siwatu, G. O., Corral Rodas, P. A., Bertoni, E., Molini, V., November 2016 89 How liberal is Nepal's liberal grade promotion policy? Sharma, D., November 2016 90 Pro-growth equity: a policy framework for the twin goals Lopez-Calva, L. F., Rodriguez Castelan, C., November 2016 91 CPI bias and its implications for poverty reduction in Africa Dabalen, A. L., Gaddis, I., Nguyen, N. T. V., December 2016 92 Building an ex ante simulation model for estimating the capacity impact, benefit incidence, and cost effectiveness of child care subsidies: an application using provider‐level data from Turkey Aran, M. A., Munoz Boudet, A., Aktakke, N., December 2016 93 Vulnerability to drought and food price shocks: evidence from Ethiopia Porter, C., Hill, R., December 2016 94 Job quality and poverty in Latin America Rodriguez Castelan, C., Mann, C. R., Brummund, P., December 2016 95 With a little help: shocks, agricultural income, and welfare in Uganda Mejia‐Mantilla, C., Hill, R., January 2017 Updated on March 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 7 96 The impact of fiscal policy on inequality and poverty in Chile Martinez Aguilar, S. N., Fuchs Tarlovsky, A., Ortiz‐Juarez, E., Del Carmen Hasbun, G. E., January 2017 97 Conditionality as targeting? participation and distributional effects of conditional cash transfers Rodriguez Castelan, C., January 2017 98 How is the slowdown affecting households in Latin America and the Caribbean? Reyes, G. J., Calvo‐Gonzalez, O., Sousa, L. D. C., Castaneda Aguilar, R. A., Farfan Bertran, M. G., January 2017 99 Are tobacco taxes really regressive? evidence from Chile Fuchs Tarlovsky, A., Meneses, F. J., March 2017 100 Design of a multi‐stage stratified sample for poverty and welfare monitoring with multiple objectives: a Bangladesh case study Yanez Pagans, M., Roy, D., Yoshida, N., Ahmed, F., March 2017 101 For India's rural poor, growing towns matter more than growing cities Murgai, R., Ravallion, M., Datt, G., Gibson, J., March 2017 102 Leaving, staying, or coming back? migration decisions during the northern Mali conflict Hoogeveen, J. G., Sansone, D., Rossi, M., March 2017 103 Arithmetics and Politics of Domestic Resource Mobilization Bolch, K. B., Ceriani, L., Lopez‐Calva, L.‐F., April 2017 104 Can Public Works Programs Reduce Youth Crime? Evidence from Papua New Guinea’s Urban Youth Employment Project Oleksiy I., Darian N., David N., Sonya S., April 2017 105 Is Poverty in Africa Mostly Chronic or Transient? Evidence from Synthetic Panel Data Dang, H.‐A. H., Dabalen, A. L., April 2017 106 To Sew or Not to Sew? Assessing the Welfare Effects of the Garment Industry in Cambodia Mejía‐Mantilla, C., Woldemichael, M. T., May 2017 107 Perceptions of distributive justice in Latin America during a period of falling inequality Reyes, G. J., Gasparini, L. C., May 2017 108 How do women fare in rural non‐farm economy? Fuje, H. N., May 2017 109 Rural Non‐Farm Employment and Household Welfare: Evidence from Malawi Adjognon, G. S., Liverpool‐Tasie, S. L., De La Fuente, A., Benfica, R. M., May 2017 Updated on March 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 8 110 Multidimensional Poverty in the Philippines, 2004‐13: Do Choices for Weighting, Identification and Aggregation Matter? Datt, G., June 2017 111 But … what is the poverty rate today? testing poverty nowcasting methods in Latin America and the Caribbean Caruso, G. D., Lucchetti, L. R., Malasquez, E., Scot, T., Castaneda, R. A., June 2017 112 Estimating the Welfare Costs of Reforming the Iraq Public Distribution System: A Mixed Demand Approach Krishnan, N., Olivieri, S., Ramadan, R., June 2017 113 Beyond Income Poverty: Nonmonetary Dimensions of Poverty in Uganda Etang Ndip, A., Tsimpo, C., June 2017 114 Education and Health Services in Uganda: Quality of Inputs, User Satisfaction, and Community Welfare Levels Tsimpo Nkengne, C., Etang Ndip, A., Wodon, Q. T., June 2017 115 Rental Regulation and Its Consequences on Measures of Well‐Being in the Arab Republic of Egypt Lara Ibarra, G., Mendiratta, V., Vishwanath, T., July 2017 116 The Poverty Implications of Alternative Tax Reforms: Results from a Numerical Application to Pakistan Feltenstein, A., Mejia‐Mantilla, C., Newhouse, D. L., Sedrakyan, G., August 2017 117 Tracing Back the Weather Origins of Human Welfare: Evidence from Mozambique? Baez Ramirez, J. E., Caruso, G. D., Niu, C., August 2017 118 Many Faces of Deprivation: A multidimensional approach to poverty in Armenia Martirosova, D., Inan, O. K., Meyer, M., Sinha, N., August 2017 119 Natural Disaster Damage Indices Based on Remotely Sensed Data: An Application to Indonesia Skoufias, E., Strobl, E., Tveit, T. B., September 2017 120 The Distributional Impact of Taxes and Social Spending in Croatia Inchauste Comboni, M. G., Rubil, I., October 2017 121 Regressive or Progressive? The Effect of Tobacco Taxes in Ukraine Fuchs, A., Meneses, F. September 2017 122 Fiscal Incidence in Belarus: A Commitment to Equity Analysis Bornukova, K., Shymanovich, G., Chubrik, A., October 2017 Updated on March 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 9 123 Who escaped poverty and who was left behind? a non‐parametric approach to explore welfare dynamics using cross‐sections Lucchetti, L. R., October 2017 124 Learning the impact of financial education when take-up is low Lara Ibarra, G., Mckenzie, D. J., Ruiz Ortega, C., November 2017 125 Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Geographic Targeting of World Bank Projects to the Bottom 40 Percent Öhler, H., Negre, M., Smets, L., Massari, R., Bogetić, Z., November 2017 126 The impact of fiscal policy on inequality and poverty in Zambia De La Fuente, A., Rosales, M., Jellema, J. R., November 2017 127 The Whys of Social Exclusion: Insights from Behavioral Economics Hoff, K., Walsh, J. S., December 2017 128 Mission and the bottom line: performance incentives in a multi-goal organization Gine, X., Mansuri, G., Shrestha, S. A., December 2017 129 Mobile Infrastructure and Rural Business Enterprises Evidence from Sim Registration Mandate in Niger Annan, F., Sanoh, A., December 2017 130 Poverty from Space: Using High-Resolution Satellite Imagery for estimating Economic Well-Being Engstrom, R., Hersh, J., Newhouse, D., December 2017 131 Winners Never Quit, Quitters Never Grow: Using Text Mining to measure Policy Volatility and its Link with Long-Term Growth in Latin America Calvo-Gonzalez, O., Eizmendi, A., Reyes, G., January 2018 132 The Changing Way Governments talk about Poverty and Inequality: Evidence from two Centuries of Latin American Presidential Speeches Calvo-Gonzalez, O., Eizmendi, A., Reyes, G., January 2018 133 Tobacco Price Elasticity and Tax Progressivity In Moldova Fuchs, A., Meneses, F., February 2018 134 Informal Sector Heterogeneity and Income Inequality: Evidence from the Democratic Republic of Congo Adoho, F., Doumbia, D., February 2018 135 South Caucasus in Motion: Economic and Social Mobility in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia Tiwari, S., Cancho, C., Meyer, M., February 2018 Updated on March 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 10 136 Human Capital Outflows: Selection into Migration from the Northern Triangle Del Carmen, G., Sousa, L., February 2018 137 Urban Transport Infrastructure and Household Welfare: Evidence from Colombia Pfutze, T., Rodriguez-Castelan, C., Valderrama-Gonzalez, D., February 2018 138 Hit and Run? Income Shocks and School Dropouts in Latin America Cerutti, P., Crivellaro, E., Reyes, G., Sousa, L., February 2018 139 Decentralization and Redistribution Irrigation Reform in Pakistan’s Indus Basin Jacoby, H.G., Mansuri, G., Fatima, F., February 2018 140 Governing the Commons? Water and Power in Pakistan’s Indus Basin Jacoby, H.G., Mansuri, G., February 2018 141 The State of Jobs in Post-Conflict Areas of Sri Lanka Newhouse, D., Silwal, A. R., February 2018 142 “If it’s already tough, imagine for me…” A Qualitative Perspective on Youth Out of School and Out of Work in Brazil Machado, A.L., Muller, M., March 2018 143 The reallocation of district-level spending and natural disasters: evidence from Indonesia Skoufias, E., Strobl, E., Tveit, T. B., March 2018 144 Gender Differences in Poverty and Household Composition through the Life-cycle A Global Perspective Munoz, A. M., Buitrago, P., Leroy de la Briere, B., Newhouse, D., Rubiano, E., Scott, K., Suarez-Becerra, P., March 2018 145 Analysis of the Mismatch between Tanzania Household Budget Survey and National Panel Survey Data in Poverty & Inequality Levels and Trends Hassine Belghith, N.B., Lopera, M. A., Etang Ndip, A., Karamba, W., March 2018 For the latest and sortable directory, available on the Poverty & Equity GP intranet site. http://POVERTY WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/POVERTY Updated on March 2018 by POV GP KL Team | 11