The determinants of household poverty: the case of berehet woreda, amhara regional state, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of variable specification

Variable	Code	Type	Measurement	Expected sign
Poverty line	Pline	Dummy	=1 if poor, 0 otherwise
Sex	SX	Dummy	=1 if male, 0 otherwise	±
Age	AG	Continuous	In years	-
Family size	FS	Continuous	In number	±
Education status	Edu01	Dummy	Illiterate	-
	Edu02	Dummy	Grade 1–8	+
	Edu03	Dummy	Grade 9–12	+
	Edu04	Dummy	Above grade 12	+
Marital status	MStus	Dummy	=1 if married, 0 otherwise	±
Access to credit	ATCS	Dummy	=1 if have access, 0 otherwise	-
Livestock ownership	TLU	Continuous	Amounts of livestock owned	+
Total expenditure	TE	Continuous	Total money spent to cover family consumption in birr	-
Per capita expenditure	PCE	Continuous	Total expenditure divided by family size in birr
Dependency ratio	Depen	continuous	Dependents divide by total family size	+

Table 2. Descriptive statistics on categorical variables

Variable	Category	Poverty Status		Total (n = 384)	Pearson Chi2 (df)	P-value
		Poor (n1 = 170	Non-Poor (n2 = 214)
Sex	Male	138(35.94)	143(37.24)	281(73.18)	9.9449(1)	0.002***
	Female	32(8.33)	71(18.49)	103(26.82)
Residence	Rural	103(26.82)	51(13.28)	154(40.10)	53.2859(1)	0.000***
	Urban	67(17.45)	163(42.45)	230(59.90)
Marital Status	Married	127(33.07)	129(33.59)	256(66.67)	8.8717(1)	0.003***
	Non-married	43(11.20)	85(22.14)	128(33.33)
Education Status	Illiterate	82(21.35)	43(11.20)	125(32.55)	60.3363(3)	0.000***
	1–8 grade	59(15.36)	55(14.32)	114(29.69)
	9–12 grade	11(2.86)	40(10.42)	51(13.28)
	>12 grade	18(4.69)	76(19.79)	94(24.48)
Religion	Orthodox	132(34.38)	179(46.61)	311(80.99)	2.2136(1)	0.137
	Muslim	38(9.90)	35(9.11)	73(19.01)
Access to Credit	Have access	65(16.93)	52(13.54)	117(30.47)	8.6854(1)	0.003***
	Have no access	105(27.34)	162(42.19)	267(69.53)

Note: *** and ** indicate statistical significance at 1% and 5% respectively.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics on continuous variables

Variable	Poverty Status		Total (n = 384)	Difference	P-value
	Poor (n1 = 170	Non-Poor (n2 = 214)
Age	42.57(1.08)	34.12(0.88)	37.86(0.72)	8.45(1.39)	0.0000***
Family Size	5.12(0.15)	2.89(0.09)	3.88(0.10)	2.23(0.17)	0.0000***
Total Expenditure	19,285.83(665.67)	23,917.76(436.69)	21,867.17(399.36)	4631.92(769.39)	0.0000***
Per Capital Expenditure	6104.27(106.43)	12,631(286.42)	9741.91(234.70)	6527.35(335.14)	0.0000***
TLU	2.20(0.07)	5.55(0.34)	4.07(0.21)	3.35(0.39)	0.0000***
Dependency Ratio	2.34(0.13)	0.79(0.07)	1.47(0.08)	1.55(0.14)	0.0000***

Note: *** and ** indicate statistical significance at 1% and 5% respectively.

Table 4. Foster-Greer-Thorbecke poverty indices, FGT (a)

Observation	a =0	a = 1	a = 2
All	0.443	0.122	0.046
Subgroup by area of residence
By residence	a =0	a = 1	a = 2
Urban	0.29130	0.05768	0.01807
Rural	0.66883	0.21907	0.08709

Table 5. Result from the logit model

Variable	$\frac{\mathrm{\partial }y}{\mathrm{\partial }x}$	Std. Err.	z	P>|z|
AG	−0.0002	.002	−0.06	0.949
HSX	0.108	.076	1.43	0.152
Rlgn	0.116	.071	1.63	0.103
MRG	−0.079	.086	−0.92	0.358
ATCS	0.154	.082	1.89	0.050**
Resid	−0.343	.077	−4.47	0.000***
Educ02	−0.148	.073	−2.04	0.042**
Educ03	−0.247	.060	−4.08	0.000***
Educ04	−0.296	.065	−4.56	0.000***
Depen	0.160*	.031	5.13	0.000***
TLU	−0.128	.016	−8.07	0.000***

Note: ***, ** and * indicate statistical significance at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively.

Data availability statement

The data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.