IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ctw/wpaper/05094.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring Recent Changes in South African Inequality and Poverty using 1996 and 2001 Census Data

Author

Listed:
  • Murray Leibbrandt
  • Laura Poswell
  • Pranushka Naidoo
  • Matthew Welch
  • Ingrid Woolard

    (University of Cape Town)

Abstract

The paper analyses poverty and inequality changes in South Africa for the period 1996 to 2001 using Census data. To gain a broader picture of well-being in South Africa, both income-based and access-based measurement approaches are employed. At the national level, findings from the income-based approach show that inequality has unambiguously increased from 1996 to 2001. As regards population group inequality, within-group inequality has increased; while between-group inequality has decreased (inequality has also increased in each province and across the rural/urban divide). The poverty analysis reveals that poverty has worsened in the nation, particularly for Africans. Provincially, the Eastern Cape and Limpopo have the highest poverty rates while the Western Cape and Gauteng have the lowest poverty rates. Poverty differs across the urban-rural divide with rural areas being relatively worse off than urban areas. However, due to the large extent of rural-urban migration, the proportion of the poor in rural areas is declining. The access-based approach focuses on type of dwelling, access to water, energy for lighting, energy for cooking, sanitation and refuse removal. The data reveal significant improvements in these access measures between 1996 and 2001. The proportion of households occupying traditional dwellings has decreased while the proportion of households occupying formal dwellings has risen slightly (approximately two-thirds of households occupy formal dwellings). Access to basic services has improved, especially with regard to access to electricity for lighting and access to telephones. On a provincial level, Limpopo and the Eastern Cape display the poorest performance in terms of access to basic services. The paper concludes by contrasting the measured changes in well-being that emerge from the income and access approaches. While income measures show worsening well-being via increases in income poverty and inequality, access measures show that well-being in South Africa has improved in a number of important dimensions.

Suggested Citation

  • Murray Leibbrandt & Laura Poswell & Pranushka Naidoo & Matthew Welch & Ingrid Woolard, 2005. "Measuring Recent Changes in South African Inequality and Poverty using 1996 and 2001 Census Data," Working Papers 05094, University of Cape Town, Development Policy Research Unit.
    • Handle: RePEc:ctw:wpaper:05094
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/11427/7369
    File Function: First version, 2005
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles Blackorby & David Donaldson & Maria Auersperg, 1981. "A New Procedure for the Measurement of Inequality within and among Population Subgroups," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 14(4), pages 665-685, November.
    2. Jenkins, Stephen P, 1997. "Trends in Real Income in Britain: A Microeconomic Analysis," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 483-500.
    3. World Bank, 2003. "World Development Indicators 2003," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 13920, December.
    4. Shorrocks, Anthony F, 1984. "Inequality Decomposition by Population Subgroups," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(6), pages 1369-1385, November.
    5. Atkinson, Anthony B., 1970. "On the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 244-263, September.
    6. Amartya Sen, 1976. "Real National Income," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 43(1), pages 19-39.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. P. Jenkins, Stephen & A. Cowell, Frank, 2000. "Estimating welfare indices: household weights and sample design," ISER Working Paper Series 2000-23, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    2. Tugce, Cuhadaroglu, 2013. "My Group Beats Your Group: Evaluating Non-Income Inequalities," SIRE Discussion Papers 2013-49, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    3. Casilda Lasso de la Vega & Ana Urrutia, 2008. "The ‘Extended’ Atkinson family: The class of multiplicatively decomposable inequality measures, and some new graphical procedures for analysts," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 6(2), pages 211-225, June.
    4. Mª Casilda Lasso de la Vega & Ana Marta Urrutia, 2003. "A new factorial decomposition for the atkinson measure," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(29), pages 1-12.
    5. Satya Chakravarty, 2001. "The Variance as a subgroup decomposable measure of inequality," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 79-95, January.
    6. Ruiz-Castillo, Javier, 1994. "A complete model for welfare analysis," UC3M Working papers. Economics 2907, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    7. Foster, James E. & Shneyerov, Artyom A., 2000. "Path Independent Inequality Measures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 199-222, April.
    8. Ebert U., 1996. "Income inequality and differences in household size," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 57-58, February.
    9. Palestini, Arsen & Pignataro, Giuseppe, 2016. "A graph-based approach to inequality assessment," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 455(C), pages 65-78.
    10. A. Palestini & G. Pignataro, 2013. "A multi-factor inequality approach to a transfer scheme: the case of Common Agricultural Policy," Working Papers wp891, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    11. Julián Alfredo Fernández-Niño & Betty Soledad Manrique-Espinoza & Ietza Bojorquez-Chapela & Aarón Salinas-Rodríguez, 2014. "Income Inequality, Socioeconomic Deprivation and Depressive Symptoms among Older Adults in Mexico," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-8, September.
    12. Giuseppe Pignataro, 2010. "Measuring equality of opportunity by Shapley value," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(1), pages 786-798.
    13. Judith Clarke & Nilanjana Roy, 2012. "On statistical inference for inequality measures calculated from complex survey data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 499-524, October.
    14. Tugce Cuhadaroglu, 2013. "My Group Beats Your Group: Evaluating Non-Income Inequalities," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201308, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews.
    15. Francesco Devicienti & Andrea Borgarello, 2001. "Trends in the Italian Earnings Distribution, 1985-1996," LABORatorio R. Revelli Working Papers Series 2, LABORatorio R. Revelli, Centre for Employment Studies.
    16. Chakravarty, Satya R. & Silber, Jacques, 2007. "A generalized index of employment segregation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 185-195, March.
    17. Buhong Zheng, 2021. "Stochastic dominance and decomposable measures of inequality and poverty," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 23(2), pages 228-247, April.
    18. Dehejia Vivek H. & Voia Marcel C., 2012. "International Income Comparisons and Social Welfare: Methodology, Analysis, and Implications," Journal of Globalization and Development, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-24, June.
    19. Michael P. Keane & Eswar S. Prasad, 2002. "Inequality, Transfers, And Growth: New Evidence From The Economic Transition In Poland," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(2), pages 324-341, May.
    20. Andonie, Costel & Kuzmics, Christoph & Rogers, Brian W., 2019. "Efficiency-based measures of inequality," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 60-69.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    South Africa: poverty; well-being; inequality; Census data; income-based and access-based measurement;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A1 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ctw:wpaper:05094. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Waseema Petersen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dpuctza.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.