IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mon/ceddtr/85.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Les déterminants de l'inégalité du bien-être au Burkina Faso : une décomposition de régression

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Pierre Lachaud

    (Groupe d'Economie du Développement Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV)

Abstract

Entre 1994-95 et 1998, l'inégalité des dépenses par tête des ménages urbains a augmenté de 6,9 et 27,7 pour cent, respectivement, pour les indices de Gini et de Theil, alors que dans le milieu rural, les mêmes indicateurs d'inégalité du niveau de vie ont décliné, respectivement, de 6,8 et 15,4 pour cent. Dans ce contexte, l'appréhension des facteurs de l'inégalité des ressources monétaires des ménages, fondée sur une décomposition de régression au cours de la période 1994-98, conduit à deux conclusions – issues principalement du modèle logarithmique. Premièrement, en ce qui concerne les sources du niveau de l'inégalité du bien-être, dans le milieu rural, la prééminence de la démographie des ménages, de l'instruction et du statut du travail du chef de famille, et, dans une moindre mesure, du type de ménages et du taux d'emploi dans ces derniers, est mise en évidence. Dans les agglomérations, la configuration des sources de l'inégalité du niveau de vie présente des similitudes. Ainsi, en1998, 38,2 pour cent de l'inégalité du niveau de vie sont expliqués par la dimension des familles et l'instruction du chef de ménage, une proportion rehaussée de 13,2 points de pourcentage, comparativement à 1994-95. Mais, ce résultat contraste avec la situation qui prévaut en milieu rural puisque, dans ce dernier, la démographie des ménages et l'instruction du chef de famille n'expliquent que 18,8 pour cent de l'inégalité des dépenses. De ce fait, dans les villes, la part de l'inégalité du bien-être des ménages expliquée par les autres facteurs est relativement réduite, même si le statut d'agriculteur de rente ou de subsistance du chef de ménage, ainsi que la proportion de personnes employées par famille, constituent aussi des facteurs d'inégalité du niveau de vie. Deuxièmement, l'examen des déterminants de la dynamique de l'inégalité du bien-être entre 1994-95 et 1998 appelle deux commentaires. Tout d'abord, dans le milieu rural, deux facteurs ont fortement contribué positivement à réduire l'inégalité du niveau de vie des ménages : l'accès à l'instruction du chef de ménage et des autres membres du groupe, et le taux d'emploi par ménage – auxquels il faut ajouter l'impact, plus modeste, du statut du travail et de la localisation spatiale. Ensuite, dans les villes, l'instruction du chef de ménage et la démographie des familles sont les deux facteurs qui ont le plus influencé l'accroissement de l'inégalité du bien-être. A cet égard, comme dans le secteur rural, l'accès à l'enseignement supérieur pour le chef de ménage contribue à réduire l'inégalité du niveau de vie, alors que l'inverse prévaut pour l'instruction secondaire. En outre, la dimension du ménage est source d'augmentation de l'inégalité des ressources des ménages dans les zones urbaines, tout comme dans les campagnes où elle a freiné la baisse de l'inégalité. En définitive, tant dans le milieu rural que dans les villes, le rôle du capital humain – au-delà du niveau d'instruction primaire – et des facteurs démographiques quant à l'explication du niveau et de la variation de l'inégalité du bien-être monétaire est mis en relief, une conclusion logique compte tenu du faible taux d'alphabétisation dans le pays. Néanmoins, le taux d'emploi des ménages et la nature des statuts du travail, surtout en milieu rural, influencent les disparités de niveau de vie. Dans ces conditions, rehausser l'investissement en capital humain pourrait concourir à réduire les inégalités de bien-être, directement en augmentant le rendement des différents actifs disponibles, et indirectement en améliorant l'accès au marché du travail et en réduisant la fécondité. Between 1994-95 and 1998, the expenditure per capita inequality of the urban households increased by 6,9 and 27,7 percent, respectively, for the indices of Gini and Theil, whereas in the rural areas, the same indicators of welfare inequality declined, respectively, of 6,8 and 15,4 percent. In this context, the apprehension of the factors of the inequality of the households monetary resources, based on a decomposition of regressions during the period 1994-98, suggests two conclusions, mainly from the logarithmic model. Firstly, with regard to the sources of the level of welfare inequality, in the rural areas, the preeminence of the household demography, the instruction and the labour statute of the household head, and, to a lesser extent, type of households and employment rate by family, is highlighted. In the cities, the configuration of the sources of the welfare inequality is rather similar. Thus, in 1998, 38,2 percent of the inequality of the standard of living are explained by the families size and the instruction of the household head, an increased proportion of 13,2 points of percentage, compared to 1994-95. But, this result contrasts with the situation which prevails in the rural sector since, in this last, the household demography and the instruction of the family head explain only 18,8 percent of the expenditure inequality. So, in the cities, the share of the welfare inequality of the households explained by the other factors is relatively reduced, even if the statute of farmer of the household head, as well as the proportion of people employed in the households, constitute also factors of welfare inequality. Secondly, the examination of the determinants of the dynamics of welfare inequality between 1994-95 and 1998 suggests two observations. First of all, in the rural areas, two factors contributed strongly positively to reduce the households welfare inequality: the access to the instruction of the household head and other members of the group, and the employment rate by household, for which it is necessary to add the more modest impact of the labour statute and the spatial localization. Then, in the cities, the instruction of the household head and the families demography are the two factors which have the most influenced the increase in the welfare inequality. In this respect, as in the rural sector, the access to higher education for the household head contributes to reduce the welfare inequality, whereas the reverse prevails for the secondary education. Moreover, the household size increases the inequality of the urban household resources, just like in the rural areas where it slowed down the fall of the inequality. Thus, in the rural areas and the cities, the role of the human capital – beyond the primary educational level –, and of the demographic factors, as for the explanation of the level and the variation of the inequality of the monetary welfare, is highlighted, a logical conclusion taking into account the low literacy rate in the country. Nevertheless, the employment rate by household and the nature of the labour statutes, especially in rural areas, influence the welfare inequality. Under these conditions, an increase in human capital investment could contribute to reduce the welfare inequality, directly by increasing the return of the various available assets, and indirectly by improving the access to the labour market and reducing the fertility rate. (Full text in French)

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Pierre Lachaud, 2003. "Les déterminants de l'inégalité du bien-être au Burkina Faso : une décomposition de régression," Documents de travail 85, Groupe d'Economie du Développement de l'Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV.
  • Handle: RePEc:mon:ceddtr:85
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shorrocks, A F, 1980. "The Class of Additively Decomposable Inequality Measures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(3), pages 613-625, April.
    2. Martin Ravallion & Shaohua Chen, 1999. "When Economic Reform is Faster Then Statistical Reform: Measuring and Explaining Income Inequality in Rural China," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(1), pages 33-56, February.
    3. repec:bla:revinw:v:37:y:1991:i:3:p:313-29 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Guanghua Wan, 2002. "Regression-based Inequality Decomposition: Pitfalls and a Solution Procedure," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2002-101, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    5. Quentin Wodon, 2000. "Microdeterminants of consumption, poverty, growth, and inequality in Bangladesh," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(10), pages 1337-1352.
    6. Atkinson, A B, 1997. "Bringing Income Distribution in from the Cold," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(441), pages 297-321, March.
    7. repec:bla:revinw:v:47:y:2001:i:2:p:139-63 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Kanbur, Ravi & Lustig, Nora, 1999. "Why is Inequality Back on the Agenda?," Working Papers 127690, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    9. Coulombe, Harold & Mckay, Andrew, 1996. "Modeling determinants of poverty in Mauritania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1015-1031, June.
    10. Goerlich Gisbert, Francisco J., 2001. "On factor decomposition of cross-country income inequality: some extensions and qualifications," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 303-309, March.
    11. Jean-Pierre Lachaud, 1996. "Pauvreté,vulnérabilité et marché du travail au Burkina Faso," Série de recherche 02, Groupe d'Economie du Développement de l'Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV.
    12. repec:bla:revinw:v:46:y:2000:i:2:p:139-59 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Gary S. Fields & Gyeongjoon Yoo, 2000. "Falling Labor Income Inequality In Korea'S Economic Growth: Patterns And Underlying Causes," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 46(2), pages 139-159, June.
    14. Shlomo Yitzhaki & Robert I. Lerman, 1991. "Income Stratification And Income Inequality," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 37(3), pages 313-329, September.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Jean-Pierre Lachaud, 2005. "Crise ivoirienne, envois de fonds et pauvreté au Burkina Faso," Revue Tiers-Monde, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 651-673.
    2. 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.

    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. Jean-Pierre Lachaud, 2005. "Crise ivoirienne, envois de fonds et pauvreté au Burkina Faso," Revue Tiers-Monde, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 651-673.
    2. Jabłoński Łukasz, 2019. "Inequality in Economics: The Concept, Perception, Types, and Driving Forces," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 27(1), pages 17-43, March.
    3. Ferreira,Francisco H. G., 2022. "The Analysis of Inequality in the Bretton Woods Institutions," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10149, The World Bank.
    4. Guanghua Wan & Zhangyue Zhou, 2005. "Income Inequality in Rural China: Regression‐based Decomposition Using Household Data," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 107-120, February.
    5. Heshmati, Almas, 2004. "A Review of Decomposition of Income Inequality," IZA Discussion Papers 1221, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Jean-Pierre Lachaud, 2003. "La dynamique de l'inégalité de la malnutrition des enfants en Afrique. Une analyse comparative fondée sur une décomposition de régression," Documents de travail 86, Groupe d'Economie du Développement de l'Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV.
    7. Benjamin Roberts, 2014. "Your Place or Mine? Beliefs About Inequality and Redress Preferences in South Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 1167-1190, September.
    8. Kanbur, Ravi & Zhang, Xiaobo, 2001. "Fifty Years Of Regional Inequality In China: A Journey Through Revolution, Reform And Openness," Working Papers 7236, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    9. Magne Mogstad, 2007. "Measuring Income Inequality under Restricted Interpersonal Comparability," Discussion Papers 498, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    10. Stephen P. Jenkins & John Micklewright, 2007. "New Directions in the Analysis of Inequality and Poverty," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 700, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    11. Lorena Remuzgo & Jose Maria Sarabia, 2015. "A general factorial decomposition of the second Theil index of inequality with applications in environmental economics," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(2), pages 1369-1378.
    12. Miguel SzEkely & Marianne Hilgert, 2007. "What's Behind the Inequality We Measure? An Investigation Using Latin American Data," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 197-217.
    13. Catalina Amuedo-Dorantes, 2005. "Work Contracts and Earnings Inequality: The Case of Chile," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 589-616.
    14. Martin FOURNIER, 1999. "Décomposition de l'inégalité de revenu par source : méthode des rangs et application au cas de Taiwan version anglaise : "Inequality Decomposition by factor Component: a "rank correlation&qu," Working Papers 199920, CERDI.
    15. Martin Fournier, 2000. "Inequality Decomposition by Factor Component: A New Approach Illustrated on the Taiwanese Case," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1288, Econometric Society.
    16. Jon Olaskoaga-Larrauri & Ricardo Alaez-Aller & Eneko Arrospide-Zabala, 2011. "Determinant factors in the convergence of welfare effort in OECD countries: a decomposition of the Theil indices," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(13), pages 1263-1266.
    17. Marco Ranaldi, 2016. "On the Measurement of Functional Income Distribution," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 16051, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    18. Xiaoyun Liu & Terry Sicular, 2009. "Nonagricultural Employment Determinants and Income Inequality Decomposition," Chinese Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(4), pages 29-43, July.
    19. Mussard, Stéphane & Pi Alperin, Maria Noel, 2011. "Poverty growth in Scandinavian countries: A Sen multi-decomposition," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 2842-2853.
    20. Omoniyi B Alimi & David C Maré & Jacques Poot, 2020. "The effects of immigration and skills on urban income inequality in New Zealand: two decomposition approaches," RF Berlin - CReAM Discussion Paper Series 2023, Rockwool Foundation Berlin (RF Berlin) - Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O15 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Economic Development: Human Resources; Human Development; Income Distribution; Migration
    • C43 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Index Numbers and Aggregation

    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:mon:ceddtr:85. 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: the person in charge The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask the person in charge to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.