Addis
Abeba
Phone
251-1-647 0806
The
size and the dynamics of a population at a given time and social space has
geo-political, economic and social significance. In the context of development,
it is of vital importance on both the demand and the supply side of sustainable
human development to enhance human welfare and expand the frontiers of
choice. The article on which this
abstract is based emerged from two major studies consisting of over 1,000
households in rural
The analytical categories, in both the Ugandan and the Ethiopian studies, have very similar consumer labour ratio [CU/LU] suggesting an across the board balancing decision between the level of consumers and potential labour providers in the household economy. At the micro-level, there is a positive relationship between family size, acreage cultivated and socio-economic status. When the size of holdings are adjusted for consumer and labour units, that is when the holding sizes are divided by consumer labour ratio, however, the differences in holdings between the different analytical categories in both Ethiopia and Uganda disappear. Taking the size of holdings as a proxy for output, family size expressed in labour unit is the independent variable suggesting decisions by farm households balancing the size of consumers, workers and holding sizes.
Given the
state of very slow technological change in agriculture, high mortality rates on
the one hand and constricted labour supply [partly of the very low
participation of male labour in Uganda and migration in the study area in
Ethiopia], in the supposedly 'labour surplus' economies, at the micro-level,
peasants households appear to make rational decisions about the size of their
families. However, in the light of stagnant growth of the per capital incomes
and high growth rates of population at the macro-level, family planning
policies need to balance the micro decisions with the macro outcomes.
Following
the Second World War, capitalist western economies experienced rapid economic
growth and concomitant falling population growth rates raising affluence to the
middle and upper classes. On the other hand, given the vast population size of
By in
large,
Given the low
and in some cases negative growth of per capital incomes in parlance with high
population growth in post-independent
natural
resource degradation, a potential accelerator of poverty and conservation
measures to mitigate them have been at work.
For
In the context of development studies, the profile of labour is
important both on the supply and demand side of the rural economy. Labour is
important both as a critical input and as a target for growing without poverty[2]. Analysis of its dynamics, quantity, skills,
age and sex composition together with its social division of tasks are
important to appraise its potential and actual productivity. The ratio between
workers and others who are dependent on the economically active population
together with the state of the art of production determine the per capita
available for consumption and investment.
One of the strategies for growing without poverty in the medium and the
long term is an understanding of and a positive and voluntary intervention in
the realm of population dynamics. At a micro level, the interface of relative
poverty with population, education,
social assets and incomes and their variations between socio-economic
groups, natural resource space, male/female and young/old households will
hopefully shed some light on the debate and their policy implications for
population policy to grow without poverty.
The report here are culled from village studies in
2.0
2.1
Demographic Profile
The total
population of 1854[4] in 355 households was almost equally
divided between the sexes against a national average of 50.8:49.2 in favour of
males. The average household size of
5.5 is higher than the 4.8 national rural average for
Overall, there is one adult per two people in the young and old age group. Among the poor, even when the lower % age of those in the young age is compensated for by the elderly category, their dependency ratio is significantly lower than the average and better off households. Similarly poorer villages have a lower dependency ratio partly reflecting the smaller family size among the poor. Due to the presence of more of elderly and to some extent children, female headed households have a significantly higher dependency ratio compared to the male headed ones.
Contrary to the popular assertion of African
households made up of extended families,
most live in nuclear families. 6% of the total
are one person households making up
1% of the total population.[6] 41% of the households have less or equal to 4
members but
with only 22% of the population. The mode
household size is 6 which on its own makes
up 15% of the households. Household size of 6 is
also the median for the total population.
Those with 10 and more people, mostly found in
better off and average households make
up 6% of the households but 13% of the
population.
The
average family size of 7.9 and 5.9 in the better off and average households
exceed those of the poorer ones by 80% and 35% respectively. At an average of
4.4 persons per household, poor households in the studied villages have 20%
less people than the
The
relatively economically better off central and western regions have a higher
average household size with as many as 25% living in households of more than 8
people. Unlike post-agrarian societies, where the economic, sociological,
spatial and age cycle better offs have less family size compared to the
relatively poor, the converse appears to be the case in rural
Depending on the age and to some extent the
sex composition, households of the same size could vary in their consumption
demand and supply of labour. One way to standardize these differentials is via
a comparison of the head count household size on the one hand and where
individuals are weighted into units for consumption demand [Consumer Unit - CU]
and labour supply [Labour Unit - LU] on the other[7]. On
average, three out four household members constitute full consumer units. As
was exemplified in the dependency ratio earlier, only one out of two make up a potential[8]
worker. Although district and therefore regions, villages, socio-economic
groupings, male and female headed, young and old households may have varying
household sizes, and therefore of consumer and labour units, all have very similar consumer labour ratio
[CU/LU] suggesting an across the board balancing decision between the consumers
and potential labour providers in the household economy.
2.2 Education
Together
with age and family size, another important attribute of a population is its
educational levels. Apart from its economic benefits in terms of employment and
more openness for innovations and increased productivity, it could be an
important input in family planning. Of
the total population of over 5 years, 20% reported to have had no education
including pre-primary literacy. This
means that about 80% of the population[9] has some form of education with the
level breaking down into primary school level 64%, secondary 10% and above
secondary 2%. By far the largest
proportion had primary level education no doubt enhanced by Universal Primary
Education [UPE][10]
programme of the Ugandan government for the young age group. Although the
proportion of illiterates in poor households is higher at 26% [against 20% for
all], perhaps due to UPE, the primary level enrolment rate of their children is
at par with the other socio-economic groups.
However,
the poor appear to lose out decisively beyond the primary level. Whereas the
proportion of post-primary education levels is 21% and 15% respectively for the
better off and the average households, the corresponding rate in the poor
households is only 10%. Variation between groups is even more pronounced
between villages at all levels of educational attainment. Reflecting their
historical disadvantages, female headed households have lower levels of
education at all levels. Except at post-secondary level, there is no
significant difference between young and old households. Since a substantial
portion of the current [during the period of the study] young adult households
were of school age during the civil wars in the country when most schools were
not functioning or if they did with skeletal services, they have more
illiterate household heads. At primary and secondary levels, however, which
include most of their children, they are at par with the older household
groupings. Those with larger family size
are not only economically better off, but also significantly more and better
educated.[11]
2.3 Land and Livestock
Next to
labour, the most important resource determining the well being of a rural
community is land including its quality, quantity, access and the terms of its
use. While most of the rural poor in Asia, Latin America and parts of Africa
are high rent paying small plot cultivators and/or agricultural labourers, an
overwhelming majority of the studied households cultivate own holdings. Of
those responding to the household questionnaire, none mentioned land as a
binding constraint. This is understandable as evidenced from low land rents in
most parts of the country[12]. Of the
325 households who reported to cultivate [or dig in the local translation], 94%
owned, 5% rented and 1.0% leased .Nearly 60 % of the holdings[13] are less than 2 acres [under a
hectare] while as much as 84 % are below 5 acres.
A statistically
significant difference in the size of holdings exists only between
socio-economic groupings. While as much
as 69% of the holdings by poor households are less than 2 acres, the
corresponding ratio for better off households is only 35%. By contrast, 46% of
the holdings of better off households are more than 5 acres with 27% of their
total being more than 10 acres. Among the poor households, only 8% are greater
than 5 acres and 2% more than 10 acres. The average holding size of 7.3 acres
among better off households is more than 3 times that of the 2.3 acres by poor
households.
As the
socio-economic groupings are fairly distributed between poor and better off
villages, although there is some difference in the size of holdings in favour
of the better off villages, it is not statistically significant. There is no
difference in holdings between male and female headed households. On the
average, older households have 65% more holding than their younger
counterparts. The above limited indicators of differentiation by socio-economic
status, region and life cycle inferred from the distribution of holdings,
however, is significantly reduced when controlled for household size implying a
direct relationship between household and cultivated land size. Given that land is almost a free resource in
most parts of the studied villages, it appears that household size is the
independent variable explaining size of holding under cultivation and therefore
of total output.[14]
The
consumer unit per capita holdings of better off households is only 29% higher
than for all households and 43% more than that of the poor. There is no
difference between the poor and average households. That between the poor and
the rich villages is almost the same. At regional level, except for the East
where there is a general scarcity of land pushing the per capita holdings
lower, differences are also minimal. Given the very limited rate of labour
hired even by the better of households and the similarity of crops grown and
farming technology employed, the level of differentiation based on holdings are
minimal. Such differentiations appear to arise from the number of livestock
units.
Livestock serve many economic and social
functions in the rural household economy. Meat
and milk provide subsistence and streams of
incomes for consumption and/or sale. The
livestock themselves are stores of value serving
as savings. Since feeding and care
increase
their temporal value, they are the most important
avenues of investments comparable to
urban dwellings by the middle classes. Finally,
they serve as stand by liquid assets which
can be disposed off if and when critical demand
for cash arises. Given the constricted
labour supply for arable farming, the
availability of land and more productive varieties of
animals, livestock farming offer an important
focal point in the drive towards the
modernization of agriculture.
In the
studied villages, apart from goats, more than 80% of the households have no
ruminant livestock[15]. A good
beginning is the relatively reasonable number of lactating cows with a mean
ownership of 2 by the few who have them. Among such households, about 1/4 of
the livestock ownership reported are of improved varieties. 20% of those with
lactating cows had more than 5 indicating the germination of the seeds of
commercial dairy farming in rural
2.4 Awareness and Adoption of Family Planning Methods
Given that the volume of output is a
function of the size of labour units, to track the probable trend in population
dynamic in the future, it is important to gauge the awareness and attitudes to
methods of family planning. A relatively
high, 66% of the households in the 7 districts, are aware of family planning
methods. There is a clear difference
between social groups about both awareness and applications. Awareness
decreases from 69% among the better off and the average to 61% by the poor and
from 70% in better off villages to 63% in the poor villages. As might be
expected, the central region, closest to
However,
awareness does not seem to be operationalized into actual family planning since
those who reported to have adopted family planning methods are a meagre 19% of
the studied households or only 29% of those who are aware. The corresponding
rates of application as a percentage of awareness by socio-economic grouping
are 22%, 20% and 17% among the better off, the average and the poor
respectively. From the sketchy data available on the adoption of family
planning practices, the better off appear to use family planning methods more
than the average and poor
households. Slightly more of male headed and old households are aware while the
young ones have a slight edge when it applying the methods.
Of the 147
household heads who recalled their first year of awareness, 23 predate it to
1990 with 3 as early as 1960. As in awareness about extension, over 80%
reported to have become aware in the last 5 years. It is interesting to note
that given the cultural sensitive nature of some of the family planning
methods, the major sources of the awareness are informal channels such as
neighbours and friends [61%], churches [14%] and radio [13%]. The more formal
and person to person channels for the dissemination of such information,
clinics and hospitals, stand at a poor fourth [11%]. The use of the channels
are equally distributed between different social groups.
Respondents
were first asked to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of having large
family and polygamy which have direct bearings on the size of households. To
assess attitudes and to draw inferences about future population dynamics, the
households were requested to spell out
the advantages and disadvantages of large family size. Of those who responded
[155], over 1/4 said that there was no advantage at all. Proportionately more
of the better off and average households, better off villages, the Northern and
Western region said so. When asked about their preferences of family size and
the related choice between polygamy and monogamy as conjugal relationships,
only 2% upheld traditional values when they said polygamy was a better option.
On the disadvantages of large families, 59% said that they were difficult to maintain and feed, problems of payment of school fees [14%] and generate high expectations [2%]. Among the social factors, conflict/hatred [17%] and the difficulty of meeting social requirements [50%] were cited. The better off did not at all consider earning social respect from large family size. Despite their higher levels of welfare, they emphasized the economic disadvantages of a larger family size.
Although
at low percentage levels, relatively more poor households put high value on
large family size as a source of labour and for its traditional role as a
source of respect. Better off households, villages and the Eastern region are
more emphatic about the outright disadvantages. Problems of fees figure more
prominently in the poor villages and the Western region. Female headed
households are more averse to large family size for its economic and social costs. There is no
significant difference between old and young households. Of the 137 households
who responded to the question, on balance as to which was the chosen strategy
between a small and a large family size, 82% preferred small family size and
only 11% opted for large family with no significant difference between the
social groups. Better off villages & the Central Region pronouncedly
preferred smaller family size.
On a related question about the advantages of polygamy, of the 134 households who responded, about 59% said there was no advantage in polygamy; 16% said it supplied more labour and 6% said it was good culture. Again the aversion was more forcefully expressed by better off households and villages and the more urbanized central region. The disadvantages cited were, source of conflict [46%], problem of caring for the wives and the family [33%]. When they were asked to choose between the polygamy and monogamy, an overwhelming majority [91%] preferred monogamy. Just over half of the 310 respondents said that they had held these views for sometime now.[16]
3.0
3.1 The Demographic Profile
The three main bases of the economy are labour, land and remittance from migration. Both land and migration can be made effective source of livelihood through labour.
The 300 sample households from which the data was collected are located in 24 villages. Although equal number of households were sampled, as shown in the following table, Kueter Gedra has by far the largest population size with the highest number of households and people per village. Its average household size of 6.7 persons is higher than the average of 5.4 persons by 24%.
|
|
Village |
Population |
X HHS |
% of Population |
|
Gece |
9 |
491 |
4.9 |
31 |
|
Ambussie |
9 |
450 |
4.5 |
28 |
|
Kueter
Gedra |
6 |
669 |
6.7 |
42 |
|
Total |
24 |
1610 |
5.4 |
101 |
|
XHHS = Mean Household size |
|
|
|
|
Overall, 11, 29 and 60 percent the households are under better off, average and poor socio-economic status respectively[18]. Nearly 40% of the households have 1-4; 59%, 5-10 and 1% >10 people. As in the Ugandan study, the larger the family size, the higher the socio-economic status of the household. Thus, whereas 79% of the better off households have family size of 5-10, the corresponding size for the average and poor households is 63% and 54%. Family size of 1-4 persons make up only 18% for the better off, 35% and 46% respectively for the average and the poor. Nearly 2/3 of the households are headed by over 40 years olds and 14% by over 60 year olds. 70% are male and 30% female headed households.
There is a significant difference in the share of female headed households between the three forest communities ranging from only 13% in Kueter Gedra rising to 41% in Gece. Proportionately, more of the older and male headed households are in the better off and less in the poor category. Among the three forest villages, although Kueter Gedra has the highest density of population, it also has the highest number of better offs and the least proportion of poor households[19]. Whereas 55% of the total population and 60% of all the households live in poor households, for Kueter Gedra, it is slightly less than half.
|
|
Better
off |
Average |
Poor |
Total |
|
||||
|
No |
% |
No |
% |
No |
% |
No |
% |
|
|
|
Gece |
54 |
11.1 |
139 |
28.6 |
293 |
60.3 |
486 |
100 |
|
|
Ambussie |
5 |
1.1 |
185 |
41.7 |
254 |
57.2 |
444 |
100 |
|
|
Kueter
Gedera |
158 |
23.6 |
177 |
26.5 |
334 |
49.9 |
669 |
100 |
|
|
Total |
217 |
13.6 |
501 |
31.3 |
881 |
55.1 |
1599 |
100 |
|
Female headed households make up 30% but proportionately more of them [35%] belong to the poorer households. Where better off households make up 11% of all the
sample, only 3.5% of the female headed ones fall in this category. By contrast, while the 60% of the households are under poor category, the equivalent for female headed households is 73%. Female headed households have smaller family size with an average of only 2/3 [3.9 persons] of the male headed ones [6.0]. Again as in the Ugandan case, female headed households are therefore slightly poorer, smaller in size and less educated[20].
3.2 Education
Of the total population of above 5 years of age, nearly half are
illiterate [cf only 20% for