Why do some community become poor
while others become rich? A case study of
Nepal
Gyanesh Lama, PhD
Assistant Professor, Department of Social Work Education
California State University, Fresno
April 25, 2014
1
Why this study?
 Motivation: North (1990): Why do some countries
become rich while others become poor?
 A question of development and social justice
2
Indigenous Poverty
 Globally, indigenous peoples are the poorest of the poor:
--30% of the world’s extremely poor
--72% make less than $1 a day
--99% make less $2 a day
 An indigenous child can expect to die:
--20 years earlier in Australia
--13 years earlier in Guatemala
--11 years earlier in New Zealand
 Determinants of indigenous poverty are currently
unknown
3
As a case study of Nepal
 40% of the population of Nepal lives below poverty
(ILO, 2000).
 70% of Nepal’s population are indigenous peoples
(Leslie et al, 2010).
4
Context: Nepal
Tibet/China
Tibet/China
India
India
3 Eco-zones, 5 Dev. Regions, 75 Districts, and 3913 VDCs
5
Demography
Migrants from India during Muslim Invasion
Caste People
(Khas)
Native of the Himalayas: self-governed< 1770
Indigenous Peoples
(Aadibasi Janajati)
32%
Brahmin
Rai
Tamang
Limbu
Sherpa
Magar
Gurung
Tharu
Thakali
Newar
Others (50+)
68%
Chertri 1 (pure blood)
Chetri 2 (mixed blood)
Untouchable (Dalits)
Malla
Effect
Language: Khas
Language: each group has distinct languages
Religion: Hindu
Religion: Buddhist and local religions
7
Research questions
1. Are some ethnic/caste groups in Nepal at significantly
higher risk of poverty than others?
2. How much of the variation in poverty among these
groups can be explained by variation in education,
health, and occupation?
8
Research questions
3. How much of the variation in poverty is due to the
variation in geography?
4. To what extent do the differences in individual level
characteristics and geographic characteristics explain the
differences in the risk of poverty between various
ethnic/caste groups?
9
Institutions: Caste System
Nepal’s 1st Constitution: Muluki Ain 1854
 Division of people:
1. Those who wear holy cord
2. Non-enslavable
3. Enslavable
4. Impure but touchable
5. Untouchable
(Amended Constitution of Nepal 1990 abolished caste discrimination, but still widely practiced)
10
Theoretical model
Institution/Structure
Community/Group
Individual/family
WELL-BEING
Geo-Integration
(CAPACITY)
Health
Institutions
Wealth
Education
Equality
11
Method: Research Design
Mixed method
1. Quantitative Analyses: Multilevel Multivariate
(Pooled Method)
2. Geographic Information System (GIS)
2. Ethnography: Indigenous peoples of Nubri valley
in the Himalayas
12
Method: Quantitative
1. Cross-sectional survey design
2. Data and sample
Secondary data from Demographic and Health Survey
(DHS Measures)
Nationally representative sample of households (N
=7659), women (N = 9836) and men (N = 4045)
Data collected from 260 different geographic clusters,
representing geographic communities in which sample
population reside
13
Method: Measures
Wealth Index is a relative measure of poverty.
Poor = the bottom 40% on the wealth distribution
(rationale: Nepal’s poverty rate is around 42% in
2000).
Probability of being poor is the probability of
belonging to bottom 40% on Wealth Index.
In absolute term, poor = very little land, live in
rudimentary housing condition, have few livestock,
no bank accounts.
14
Results: Sample characteristics
Parameters
Indigenous groups:
Tamang
Magar
Tharu
Rai-Limbu
Newar
Gurung
Other Ethnic Groups
Caste groups:
Dalit (Low-caste)
Chetri
Brahmin
Poor
Weighted %
253
302
381
234
110
56
593
51.41
48.99
44.67
37.81
20.62
25.76
33.5
698
1001
307
52.44
43.64
19.36
X2=495.66, p<.001
15
Results: Multivariate Analyses:
Predicting Poverty
Parameters*
Odds Ratio
Model 2
Model 1
Model 3
Model 4
Tamang
Rai-Limbu
Magar
Tharu
Newar
Gurung
Other Ethnic Groups
4.03
3.60
3.07
2.73
1.12
1.07
1.88
2.81
3.61
1.93
1.50
1.11
0.98
1.41
3.91
3.59
2.85
2.52
1.53
1.06
3.81
8.05
7.22
5.92
5.25
3.15
2.20
7.94
Dalit (Low-caste)
Chetri
*Reference group: Brahmin
4.53
2.96
2.89
2.13
4.07
1.64
3.85
1.55
M1: Demographics
M2: M1+ Productivity Characteristics
M3: M2 + Geography
M4: M3+ Institution
16
Results: Multivariate Analyses:
Predicting Poverty
Odds Ratio
Parameter*
Tamang
Magar
Tharu Rai-Limbu
No education
6.51 **
8.3 ** 6.06 **
Primary education
2.91
4.59
4.80 *
Secondary education
1.86
1.48
3.39
3.89 **
1.68
0.956
Brahmin
10.21****
7.26****
2.45*
*Reference group: Post-secondary education
17
Results: GIS analysis of people and poverty
Lama-dissertation
12/19/2011
18
Results: GIS analysis of people and poverty
Lama-dissertation
12/19/2011
19
Results: GIS analysis of people and poverty
Lama-dissertation
12/19/2011
20
Results: discrimination in education
Village chief:
“There was a Bahun [Brahmin] teacher in this village. He used to
demand the pupil to bring chicken eggs so they can receive a pencil.
One pupil went home and stole the eggs from his parents. When all
the chicken eggs were gone, he still did not get the pencil. The teacher
kept on demanding to bring more eggs, or he would fail the pupil. The
child went home and squeezed the chicken– hoping the egg would pop
out. The chicken died. Parents found out what happened. They beat
the kid, and from that day on, they stopped sending the kid to school.”
21
Preparing field for barley sowing– Prok village
23
Summary
Lack of Self-Governance appears to be a key factor
that drives indigenous peoples to poverty
Education system discourages indigenous peoples
from accessing higher education
 Indigenous language was prohibited in public
schools.
 Education system appears to be designed to domesticate
indigenous peoples
Health system discourages indigenous peoples from
accessing healthcare services.
 Indigenous health knowledge and healing system are devaluated
 Ethnic mismatch between providers and clients
24
Summary
Geographic isolation of indigenous villages appear to
be systematic
 geographic proximity with caste group appear to be a risk
factor.
Sources of indigenous poverty appear to be different
from the caste poverty.
 Indigenous poverty was largely driven by institutional
factors
 Caste poverty was largely driven by individual factors
25
Conclusion
 Institutions should protect the property rights of the
indigenous peoples, promote indigenous education
system and health system
 When each ethnic and caste group develops its own
villages in their own ways, the country as a whole will
be developed and the wealth of the nation will grow
 Only unbiased institutions can guarantee to all people
the capacity to “living well”
26
Implications and future direction
Theory development:
 Theories on group level poverty is underdeveloped.
 Current responses to poverty has been one of policy:
--Outcome of theories that focus on behaviors of the
poor.
 Limits to policy response to poverty.
 Institutional Design framework may offer a viable
alternative, but much remains to be done to test its
validity.
27
Research interests
 Expand the application of concepts and method of this study to
other populations:
-- Poverty rate in Fresno is as high as 30%, particularly among
minorities.
-- Replicate the study on Asian Americans, Native American,
Hispanic, African American in Fresno area.
28
Research interests
Mapping Poverty and Disparity in the
Central Valley
29
Lama-dissertation
12/19/2011
30
Lama-dissertation
12/19/2011
31
Lama-dissertation
12/19/2011
32
33
12/19/2011
Lama-dissertation
34
Four Universal Facts about Poverty
1. Poverty exists
2. Poverty has causes
3. Poverty can be solved
4. The solutions to poverty
35
Poverty Exists
 What is poverty?
 Poverty has been defined in various ways, and considerable
disagreement exists among the scholars over its definition
and measures (Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 1994).
 Poverty as Deprivation: insufficiency in food, housing,
clothing, medical care, and other items required to
maintain a decent standard of living.
 Poverty as Lack of Capability
 Poverty as Hardship
 Other definitions of Poverty
 Relative vs. Absolute Poverty
36
Poverty Exists
37
Causes of Poverty
 Individual vs. Structural Causes
 Individual explanation
 Individual deficiency
 Lack of motivation
 Wrong life choice
 Structural explanation
 No level playing field
 Exploitation
 Discrimination
38
Poverty can be solved
39
Current Approach
 Public Assistance:
 Medicaid
 SNAP /Food Stamp/CalFresh
 Housing Voucher (Section 8)
 TANF etc.
 War on Poverty
40
Eight Ways to Solve Poverty
1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Housing
4. Health
5. Security
6. Education
7. Opportunity
8. Innovation
Survival
Quality
Prosperity
41
Social Innovation
 The Middle Class
 Social Doctors
 Rights based approach
 Micro Finance
 Grahmin Bank
 Asset Development
 IDA
 FDA
 YouthSave
42
8. CONCEPTUAL
“Living
– Well”. PROBLEM: Poverty
Indigenous conceptual model of ‘ living-well’
Geo-Society
Well-being
Wealth
Wisdom
/Education
Health
Adopted from Lama (2012) Global Poverty—Local Problem: Institutional Determinants of Poverty Among Indigenous Peoples of Nepal.
Doctoral Dissertation, Washington University.
Questions & Discussions
Gyanesh Lama, PhD
Assistant Professor, Department of Social Work Education
California State University, Fresno
glama@wustl.edu
Thank you!
44
VIII: RESULTS
Geo-statistical Analyses (GIS)
Lama-dissertation
12/19/2011
45
VIII: RESULTS
Geo-statistical Analyses (GIS)
Lama-dissertation
12/19/2011
46
VIII: RESULTS
Geo-statistical Analyses (GIS)
Lama-dissertation
12/19/2011
47
VIII: RESULTS
Geo-statistical Analyses (GIS)
Lama-dissertation
12/19/2011
48