Change in Poverty Profile Tajikistan

Data Source: 2007 TLSS and 2009 TLSS 1,500 households interviewed in 2007 were interviewed again in 2007

Poverty declined from 2007 to 2009, especially in urban areas

But extreme poverty did not change

Migrant transfers declined sharply from 2008 to 2009, but the 2009 level was similar to 2007

Urban consumption increased strongly from ‘07 to ‘09 for everyone except the poorest and the richest

Rural consumption increased strongly from ‘07 to ‘09 for the top half, but not among poorest

Despite these growth trends, vulnerability remains high: many non-poor became poor and vice versa.

Importance of income from own food production (green) reduced most among poor, while income from primary occupation (dark blue) increased

National Poverty Decline Masks Important Variation in Poverty Changes Across Oblasts and Across Household Types

Largest poverty decline Sogd and Dushanbe, but large increase GBAO

Large increase Khatlon and GBAO in extreme poverty

Majority of (extreme) poor no longer live in Sogd but live in Khatlon instead

Vulnerability and household characteristics: Well-educated households without children benefited the most from the decline in poverty rates, as did households who still had a migrant member

More educated people experienced decline in poverty

… least and most educated experienced increase in extreme poverty

Poverty decline concentrated among childless hhs, while hhs with many children experienced an increase.

… same for extreme poverty

Households with migrant(s) larger decline in poverty, especially rural

… same for extreme poverty, especially rural

Conclusion Poverty continues to decline, but extreme poverty not Rural growth was concentrated among the richest half Urban growth was more broad-based, but the very poor and rich did not benefit There is a high degree of vulnerability; many non-poor became poor and vice versa Change in the distribution of poverty across oblasts; more extreme poor now live in Khatlon than any other oblast Larger households with less educated household heads did not benefit from the economic growth and are particularly vulnerable