Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

A la recherche de l’insaisissable dynamique de pauvreté au Burkina Faso. Une nouvelle évidence empirique

Contents:

Author Info

  • Jean-Pierre Lachaud

    ()
    (GED, Université Montesquieu-Bordeaux IV)

Abstract

La recherche contribue au débat relatif à la dynamique de pauvreté au Burkina Faso au cours de la période 1994-2003, et présente de nouvelles évidences empiriques en termes monétaire et non monétaire. En premier lieu, le débat quant à l’appréhension de la dynamique de pauvreté suggère de multiples questionnements : (i) la légitimité d’une approche macro-économique de la pauvreté par rapport à une investigation micro-économique est théoriquement et empiriquement non fondée ; (ii) la robustesse des comparaisons de bien- être dans le temps demeure ambivalente, et l’éventualité d’une compensation des effets dus à la variation de la méthodologie du questionnaire – moment des enquêtes, période de référence et variation des produits – sur l’indicateur de bien-être n’est pas assurée ; (iii) la révision des lignes de pauvreté est un processus risqué, dans la mesure où les informations disponibles sont insuffisantes pour construire des seuils de pauvreté rigoureusement fondés sur la méthode du coût des besoins de base, et de nouvelles approches montrent à la fois une baisse et une hausse de la pauvreté monétaire entre 1994 et 2003 ; (iv) le recours aux indicateurs non monétaires partiels, pour justifier telle ou telle dynamique de pauvreté monétaire, est une option incertaine, et peut même être contre-productif – par exemple, le constat du déclin simultané du ratio de pauvreté et du taux de scolarisation en milieu rural questionne la cohérence de la dynamique des indicateurs. En deuxième lieu, ces questionnements conduisent à tester la dynamique des privations en utilisant un ensemble d’indicateurs non monétaires des ménages : la possession d’actifs physiques au niveau des familles, l’ampleur du capital humain en termes d’éducation, relatif au chef de ménage et aux membres du groupe, et les ressources sociales appréhendées par les envois de fonds nationaux et étrangers. Dans ce contexte, deux approches sont mises en oeuvre : l’une fondée sur une analyse en composantes principales non linéaire, l’autre par rapport une mesure micro-multidimensionnelle de la pauvreté en termes des capacités. La principale conclusion qui se dégage de la recherche est une légère augmentation – voire une relative stabilité – des mesures cardinales de la pauvreté au cours de la période 1994-2003. En outre, les mesures ordinales de la pauvreté non monétaire, issues de l’indice de l’analyse en composantes principales, mettent en lumière une dynamique en U renversé de cette dernière : la pauvreté globale non monétaire est supérieure en 2003 par rapport à 1994, mais le niveau de 1998 est plus élevé que celui de 1994. Ces résultats recoupent, en grande partie, ceux qui ont été obtenus lors de l’appréhension de la dynamique de pauvreté monétaire, fondée sur les nouvelles estimations des lignes de pauvreté, à l’aide de la méthode non paramétrique du coût des besoins de base. Ainsi, les approches non monétaires de la pauvreté ne confirment pas le déclin de cette dernière en termes monétaire entre 1994 et 2003, suggéré par de récentes études, et il est troublant de constater une quasi-similitude des résultats des approches monétaires et non monétaires sur une aussi longue période. The study contributes to the debate relating the quest for poverty dynamics in Burkina Faso between 1994 and 2003, and presents new empirical evidences in monetary and non-monetary terms. Firstly, the debate relating to poverty dynamics suggests several questioning: (i) the legitimacy of a macro-economic approach of poverty compared to a micro-economic investigation is theoretically and empirically unjustified; (ii) the robustness of comparisons of welfare between surveys remains ambivalent, and the possibility of compensation of the effects owing to the changes in methodology of questionnaires – time of the investigations, recall period and variation of products – on the welfare indicator is uncertain; (iii) the revision of poverty lines is a risked process, insofar as information available is insufficient to build poverty lines rigorously based on the cost-of- basic-needs method, and new approaches show at the same time a reduction and an increase in monetary poverty between 1994 and 2003; (iv) the recourse to partial non-monetary indicators to justify the dynamics of monetary poverty is a dubious option, and can even be counter-productive – for example, the report of a simultaneous decline of poverty and schooling in rural areas questions the coherence of the dynamics of indicators. Secondly, this questioning encourages to test the dynamics of deprivations based on the availability of households’ assets: possession of physical assets by the families, importance of human capital in terms of education, and social resources specified by national and foreign remittances. In this context, two approaches are implemented: one based on a nonlinear principals components analysis, the other on a micro-multidimensional measurement of poverty in terms of capabilities. The main conclusion which emanates from research is a small increase – even relative stability – in cardinal measurements of poverty between 1994 and 2003. Moreover, ordinal measurements of non-monetary poverty related to the index of principal components analysis, suggest a U-shaped dynamics: the global poverty is higher in 2003 compared to 1994, but the level of 1998 is higher than that of 1994.These results agree, mainly, with those which were obtained by the apprehension of the monetary dynamics of poverty, based on new estimates of poverty lines, using a non-parametric approach of the cost-of-basic-needs method. Thus, non-monetary measures of poverty do not confirm the decline of the latter in monetary terms between 1994 and 2003, suggested by recent studies, and it is disconcerting to note a quasi-similarity of results of approaches over such a long period. (Full text in french)

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://ged.u-bordeaux4.fr/ceddt117.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Groupe d'Economie du Développement de l'Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV in its series Documents de travail with number 117.

as in new window
Length: 36 pages
Date of creation: Oct 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:mon:ceddtr:117

Contact details of provider:

Related research

Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Michael Grimm & Isabel Günther, 2005. "Growth and Poverty in Burkina Faso: A Reassessment of the Paradox," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 482, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
  2. Angus Deaton & Valerie Kozel, 2005. "Data and Dogma: The Great Indian Poverty Debate," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 20(2), pages 177-199.
  3. Sen, Amartya K, 1976. "Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to Measurement," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(2), pages 219-31, March.
  4. Camelia Minoiu & Sanjay G. Reddy, 2008. "Chinese Poverty: Assessing The Impact Of Alternative Assumptions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 54(4), pages 572-596, December.
  5. Duclos, Jean-Yves & Sahn, David & Younger, Stephen D., 2001. "Robust Multidimensional Poverty Comparisons," Cahiers de recherche 0115, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
  6. Jenkins, Stephen P & Lambert, Peter J, 1997. "Three 'I's of Poverty Curves, with an Analysis of UK Poverty Trends," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 317-27, July.
  7. Ravallion, Martin & Shaohua Chen, 2004. "China's (uneven) progress against poverty," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3408, The World Bank.
  8. Fofack, Hippolyte & Monga, Celestin & Tuluy, Hasan, 2001. "Household welfare and poverty dynamics in Burkina Faso : empirical evidence from household surveys," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2590, The World Bank.
  9. Foster, James E & Shorrocks, Anthony F, 1991. "Subgroup Consistent Poverty Indices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 687-709, May.
  10. Sahn, David E. & Stifel, David C., 2000. "Poverty Comparisons Over Time and Across Countries in Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(12), pages 2123-2155, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Kaminski, Jonathan, 2011. "Subjective Wealth, Policy Change, and Political Opinions: Evidence from the Cotton Reform in Burkina Faso," Discussion Papers 119531, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of Agricultural Economics and Management.
  2. Kaminski, Jonathan & Headey, Derek & Bernard, Tanguy, 2009. "Institutional reform in the Burkinabè cotton sector and its impacts on incomes and food security: 1996-2006," IFPRI discussion papers 920, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  3. Nouve, Kofi & Bambio, Yiriyibin & Kabore, Samuel & Wodon, Quentin, 2010. "Risque et mesures de la pauvreté rurale au Burkina Faso
    [Risk and Measures of Rural Poverty in Burkina Faso]
    ," MPRA Paper 34374, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  4. Kaminski, Jonathan & Headey, Derek & Bernard, Tanguy, 2011. "The Burkinabè Cotton Story 1992-2007: Sustainable Success or Sub-Saharan Mirage?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1460-1475, August.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mon:ceddtr:117. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.