CONSORTIUM FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESEARCH
AFRICA GROWTH INITIATIVE PROJECT
SOCIAL PROTECTION, POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT IN SENEGAL
November 2013
RESEARCH PAPER
Mbaye Diene
1
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................4
2. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE ................... 7
2.1 A brief history from 1960 to 2000 ........................................................................................................7
2.2. From the year 2000 .............................................................................................................................9
2.2.1 The socioeconomic situation .........................................................................................................9
2.2.2 The economic policies and performances .................................................................................. 10
3. THE PARADOX OF GROWTH AND RECENT STRATEGIES TO ALLEVIATE
POVERTY................................................................................................................................ 12
4. SOCIAL PROTECTION IN SENEGAL ............................................................................. 13
4.1 The government scheme ................................................................................................................... 15
4.2. The basic scheme for the private sector ........................................................................................... 16
4.3. The supplementary scheme for the private sector’s managers........................................................ 16
4.4 Social assistance ................................................................................................................................ 16
5. THE MEASURE OF VULNERABILITY ........................................................................... 17
5.1 Vulnerability to poverty ..................................................................................................................... 18
5.2 Conceptual framework ...................................................................................................................... 20
5.3 Applications ....................................................................................................................................... 21
6. OVERALL POVERTY AND VULNERABILITY IN SENEGAL..................................... 22
2
List of abbreviations
DFES: Direction of Forecast and Economic Studies
DESP: Document of Economic and Social Policy
FGT: Foster Greer Thorbecke Poverty Index
NASD: National Agency for Statistics and Demography
NRF: National Retirement Fund
NSSP: National Strategy for Social Protection (NSSP).
PRGF: Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility
PRSP: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
SHS I: Senegalese Household Survey, 1995
SHS II: Senegalese Household Survey, 2001
SPPS: Survey on the Perception of Poverty in Senegal
UNDP: United Nations Development Program
3
1. INTRODUCTION
Since 2001, Senegal has been ranked among the group of least developed countries (LDCs).
This coastal West African nation’s neighbors are five other countries: Gambia, Mauritania, Mali,
Guinea and Guinea-Bissau to the south. Since it . It has a 700-kilometer coastline, the country
has made seaside tourism a national priority and fishing and tourism become the two biggest
contributors to GDP.
Senegal has a gross national income (GNI) per capita of $1,070 in 2011 (World Bank, 2013;
see also UNDP, 2013). Its low development status is due primarily to its structurally quite weak
economy and lack of
the institutional and physical infrastructure. In the early years of
independence, part of that structural weakness could be attributed to political uncertainties.
However, since the mid-1980s, the country has engaged in political reforms that have deepened
its democratic system and brought about a significant level of stability. Yet, the country is
confronted with a series of economic and social problems that have forced the government to
continue to intervene. These problems include poverty, severe inequality in the distribution of
income and wealth, illegal immigration, climate change, large government budget deficits and
bureaucratic corruption.
Unfortunately, government intervention has not had a significant
positive overall impact on human development, as evidenced by Senegal’s 2011 rank of 155 out
of 187 countries in the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development
Index (UNDP, 2011: 144). In addition, the international business community has downgraded
Senegal’s overall business environment, placing Senegal at 157 out of 183 countries surveyed
(World Bank, 2012: 5). The same survey shows that Senegal has one of the least favorable
business environments in all of sub-Saharan Africa (World Bank, 2012: 5).
The structure of the Senegalese economy is not significantly different from those of its West
African neighbors, all of which are developing countries. It is marked by persistent poverty, a
very large informal sector, severely inadequate infrastructure, and high rates of unemployment,
especially among urban youth and rural inhabitants. Additionally, the private sector is relatively
underdeveloped and unable to create enough jobs for the many young people who are graduating
from the country’s relatively vibrant secondary and higher education systems. Due to various
structural problems in the economy, which include corruption, difficulties in accessing production
inputs, inadequate access to credit and bureaucratic rigidities, entrepreneurship is stunted, and, as
a result, fewer and fewer businesses are being created each year.
4
Besides economic problems, the people of Senegal also suffer from various social ills, which,
during the last several years, have been exacerbated by soaring global commodity prices,
especially for items that the country must import, such as oil. Senegal’s present socioeconomic
situation is mainly a result of rising oil prices, a sharp decline in migrant workers’ remittances
and the failure of the country to attract international development aid and foreign direct
investment.
In February 2012, Senegal successfully undertook peaceful regime change and a new liberal
regime came to power. Such a peaceful transfer of power strengthened the country’s democratic
credentials, and the Senegalese people expect that the new regime will put in place effective
policies to enhance investment (including that from foreign sources) and mainly promote job
creation. The new, more stable political environment should also enhance the inflow of foreign
investment. The new authorities, including the current President, are former members of the
political party that prevailed before. The actual President was even Prime Minister of the former
regime. So he probably does not object to most of the economic policies pursued by the former
regime, especially the poverty reduction policies.
Since Senegal gained independence from
France in 1960, the government has produced economic plans designed to ensure social stability
and enhance the country’s economic performance.
Although post-independence economic
planning has achieved some success in transforming the economy, there are still major
challenges, most of which can be found in the key sectors of agriculture and energy. In the
1970s, there were severe droughts throughout most of rural Senegal that had a significantly
negative impact on farm production. At the same time, government programs to support rural
agriculture were terminated as part of the government’s effort to liberalize the economy. The
government’s withdrawal of the many programs that were designed to support rural agricultural
populations created a situation that encouraged the mass exodus of young people from rural areas.
In addition, many farmers were no longer able to access critical inputs for production—the lack
of access to financial resources made it very difficult for farmers to purchase necessary
equipment, as well as inputs such as fertilizer. The net effect was a sector afflicted by declining
output and increased levels of poverty.
Concerning the energy sector, the National Electric Energy Company is still unable to provide
quality services to customers, primarily due to the obsolescence of its facilities, some of which
date back to the 1960s and are not able to meet the demands of a more modern, diversified and
5
complex economy effectively. The government of Senegal continues to subsidize what has failed
to evolve into a modern, well-managed and productive public utility.
Although the Senegalese economy is relatively diverse, it remains extremely vulnerable to
external influences, which include natural disasters, global price instability, and fluctuations in
foreign aid and direct investment flows.
The rural agricultural sector, which employs a
significant part of the country’s labor resources, is highly vulnerable to changes in global
commodity prices and variations in annual rainfall. In 2011, Senegal suffered a significant
reduction in agricultural production despite the fact that the sector had done quite well in 2010.
For example, the contribution of food crops to the GDP decreased from 6.1 percent in 2010 to
4.6 percent in 2011 and that of industrial agriculture fell from 2.5 percent in 2010 to 1.3 percent
in 2011 (NASD, 2011: 186).
This decline was due mainly to the sector’s inherent weaknesses, which include its total
dependence on rain-irrigated farming techniques and low rainfall during that time. In addition,
farmers faced significant reductions in inputs, primarily the seeds and equipment distributed to
them by various sources, including the government (DFES, 2012: 6). Today, there are calls from
many observers, including the international donor community, that the government of Senegal
develop and implement necessary policies to significantly improve productivity in the agricultural
sector.
The industry sector, which accounts for as much as 24 percent of the GDP, revolves around
the extraction and processing of phosphates; food processing; and the construction and cement
industries. The construction and cement industries are supported primarily by investments made
by Senegalese nationals living abroad and by the government. Many Senegalese living abroad are
heavily invested in the construction industry—they dominate the market for housing rentals.
They send money home to relatives who build houses that are then rented out to individuals and
businesses.
Remittances from these overseas Senegalese have become a very important
contributor to the country’s GDP. Senegal’s Direction of Forecast and Economic Studies (DFES)
estimates that remittances in 2011 and 2012 amounted to about 702.5 billion CFA francs and
737.7 billion CFA francs, respectively (DFES, 2012). A survey conducted by the Central Bank of
West African States (Banque Centrale des États de l’Afrique de l’Ouest—BCEAO) and the
National Agency for Statistics and Demography (Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la
Démographie) in 2011 on the remittances of migrants from the Dakar regions of Diourbel and
6
Louga showed that the remittances of migrants recorded in these three regions are estimated at
395.2 billion CFA francs and that 89.11 percent of this amount passed through the formal sector.
On the basis of statistics collected monthly from the banks, these three regions account for 56
percent of the remittances in Senegal (BCEAO, 2011: 35).
The secondary sector was very vibrant in 2011, thanks partly to improvements in the supply
of electricity, which came as a result of the “Takkal”1 plan and the revival of the company named
Chemical Industries of Senegal (CIS).
The industry of energy
is very important to the
Senegalese economy and is considered socially sensitive in the country because the frequent
power cuts often cause uprisings in the major cities of the country. Thus, a variety of welltargeted and special public policies have been implemented to help enhance the productivity and
effectiveness of the energy sector.
The objective of the paper is to study the role of social protection in Senegal. For this aim, we
primarily present the socio-demographic and the economic characteristics of the country.
Secondly, we present the role of growth in the attempt to alleviate poverty. Thirdly, after a
description of the formal social protection schemes existing in Senegal, we analyze and
decompose the vulnerability. The aim is to show how social protection can help reduce
households’ vulnerability.
2. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
An examination of the evolution of economic policies in Senegal shows that, between 1960
and 2012, the economy went through changes derived from various types of programs initiated by
the government in four phases.
2.1 A brief history from 1960 to 2000
From 1960 to 1980, the production of groundnuts (peanuts) was instrumental in improving the
living standards of the populations, notably rural women. In fact, income from the sale of
groundnuts was the main driving force behind improvements in other sectors of the economy.
During this phase, national planning was the country’s main instrument of economic policy.
1
“Takkal” means lightening in the local Wolof language. This plan has gained widespread support from Senegal’s development
partners and has contributed to the significant reduction of power cuts in the country.
7
From 1980 to 1990, Senegal was faced with new challenges, including natural disasters,
which forced the government to intervene directly in the economy, by investing, and creating
national companies. The government adopted a stabilization program and followed it with IMFmandated structural adjustment programs (SAPs). Implementation of the latter, however,
produced unexpected adverse social effects such as increases of income inequality and higher
rates of poverty, especially among rural inhabitants.
Social expenditures were drastically
reduced, Senegalese women successfully organized a march through the center of Dakar to
protest high prices, most of which were a direct result of the country’s decision to liberalize
markets and eliminate government subsidies, especially to the poor.
In terms of education, the implementation of structural adjustment programs in that period
largely caused deterioration in the quality of elementary education because of the significant
reduction of public investments in the sector. In fact, the quality of education declined so much
that many parents, particularly the well-to-do, abandoned public schools and registered their
children in private schools.
In terms of health, the reduction of government spending, especially on public hospitals and
clinics, seriously affected the functioning of national health facilities. Many of them lacked
equipment and drugs, forcing sick people to come to public hospitals with their own drugs. Child
mortality remained high, and diseases such as malaria, diarrhea and pneumonia became
pervasive, and tuberculosis continued to spread. Historically vulnerable groups—women, infants
and children—were the most affected by the deteriorating health conditions in the country.
The devaluation of the CFA franc in 1994, boosted competitiveness and growth in the economy.
The devaluation of the CFA franc was supported by the international donor community,
especially since this was followed by a dismantling of government price controls and subsidies.
However, the devaluation produced significant social upheaval as the price of many essential
goods, all of which were imported (e.g., milk, rice, fertilizer and machinery) increased
significantly. Nevertheless, the reform program significantly improved economic performance,
leading to growth rates in GDP that averaged more than 5 percent during the 1995-2004.
8
2.2. From the year 2000
Since 2000 significant changes appear to the country’s political economy. The ruling Socialist
Party (Parti socialiste) lost the presidential election to a new capitalist regime, which now faced a
host of enduring social challenges, such as poverty, inequality, illegal immigration and floods in
urban areas. During this phase, Senegal launched a series of budget and financial reform
programs. While trying to address the critical issues facing the nation, and despite the mixed
social and economic results, the authorities still aimed to turn Senegal into an emerging economy
within a 10-year period through the implementation of national and regional projects. However,
major problems and challenges including a weak private sector, lack of adequate infrastructure,
low competitiveness and the recurrence of external shocks (floods, droughts, fluctuating prices of
food and oil products and international economic and financial crises) constrained the execution
of these economic policies.
2.2.1 The socioeconomic situation
Since independence in 1960, Senegal’s population has grown significantly, which has been a
major concern for the country’s policymakers. Senegal’s population jumped from approximately
3 million inhabitants in 1960 to about 12.9 million in 2010,
2
representing an annual average
growth rate of 3 percent. Senegal’s present population is very young and mostly rural, with 64
percent of it under 25 years old and 57 percent living in rural areas. According to figures released
by the National Agency for Statistics and Demography (NASD), the current unemployment rate
of 49 percent among young people, most of whom have no access to basic education, is
especially worrying. A significant proportion of the unemployed are restless urban youth who are
likely to engage in illegal activities such as drug consumption.
Most of Senegal’s population is rural and suffers from relatively high illiteracy rates,
especially among women. However, rural-to-urban migration continues to increase. The nation’s
capital, Dakar, now accounts for about a quarter of the country’s population, representing some
3.4 million people. This population includes a large group of people coming not only from rural
areas, but also from countries of the sub-region, particularly Mali and Niger. While most of the
2
See NASD (2010).
9
men migrating to Dakar are looking for jobs, women usually come to the capital city to join their
families.
According to the Senegalese Households Survey II (SHS II) of 2002, the average age of
migrant men and women is 21.8 years and 22.6 years respectively. According to the same
survey, the proportion of youth in the total population has increased sharply, with 55.6 percent of
the population now consisting of people under 20 years of age. The country’s relatively high
population growth rate is expected to inevitably impact the social and economic life of the
country. With increased life expectancy and high population growth, the economy is likely to
have problems creating jobs for everyone who wants to work, as well as providing for the
healthcare needs of a much older population.
2.2.2 The economic policies and performances
As early as 2000, policymakers in Senegal became concerned with poverty alleviation and
launched a program called Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF), which ended in 2002.
It is worth to note that the Government of Senegal became concerned with poverty alleviation
very recently and was not in the period of 1990’s. In 2003, a new PRGF was signed for a threeyear period (2003-2005). The implementation of the programs of the second PRGF, significantly
increased Senegal’s economy and macroeconomic stability, as shown by the following indicators:
 Inflation: The government made significant progress in improving price stability. By the
end of the last PRGF, in 2005, the inflation rate had fallen to 2.2 percent from 2.61
percent in 2000. By 2003-2005, the inflation rate stood at 1.7 percent. It rose to 6 percent
between 2007 and 2008 because of the the international crisis of 2008, but it diminished
by 0.9 percent. Over the period 2000 to 2012, average inflation rate fell to only 2 percent
(DFES, 2011: 5).
 Economic Growth: The period 2000-2002 was marked by growth in real GDP of 2.8
percent. Between 2003-2005, real GDP grew at a rate of 6.1 percent, but fell to an
average annual rate of 3 percent during the 2006-2010 period. GDP was projected to
grow at a rate of 4 percent and 4.2 percent in 2011 and 2012 respectively (AfDB, et al.,
2012: 4).
 State Budget: In terms of public financial management, there have been significant
improvements in the tax system, as the tax base has significantly increased as in more
10
formal sector jobs. As a result, tax revenues increased from nearly 16.1 percent of GDP
in 2000 to 18.8 percent in 2010 and to respectively, 19.5 percent and 19.7 percent in 2011
and 2012, (AfDB et al., 2012: 6). Compared to their levels in 1994, budget revenues
tripled in 2011. During the period, 2000-2002, the budget deficit was approximately 12
percent of GDP. However, during the 2003-2005 fiscal years, the budget deficit had fallen
to only 6 percent of GDP. By 2010, it had fallen to below 5 percent. Public expenditures
rose sharply from 18.1 percent of GDP in 2000 to 28 percent in 2010 and 28.9 percent in
2012 (AfDB, et al., 2012: 6). Even if Senegal’s economic performances are related to the
government policies, it is important to remember that the country did also receive
significant assistance from the international community, notably, from its international
development partners. For example, in 2010 and 2011, Senegal received $1.016 billion
and $928 million net official development assistance from all donors—representing 2.3
percent and 2.08 percent, respectively, of all official aid flows to countries in sub-Saharan
Africa (World Bank, 2013: 117).
On the whole, most people in Senegal remain relatively poor despite the fact that the
proportion of poor people has been falling. It fell from 61.4 percent in 1995 to 48.5 percent in
2002 and to 40 percent in 2006, according to consecutive Senegalese Households Surveys I and II
(SHS I was completed in 1995 and SHS II in 2002), and the Survey on the Perception of Poverty
in Senegal (SPPS) of 2006. Importantly, the SPPS shows that 65 percent of the surveyed
households considered themselves as poor, while 23 percent of these poor households felt they
were very poor. In addition, 64 percent of households believed that poverty had worsened over
the past five years. Poverty is widespread in rural areas, where its rate varies between 72 percent
and 88 percent. In urban settings, it varies from 44 percent to 59 percent. This situation raises
questions about the effectiveness of the poverty reduction policies initiated and implemented so
far by the government of Senegal.
In conclusion, from the economic plan adopted in 1960 to the structural adjustment policies of the
1980s and 1990s to the new sets of policies developed from 2000 to reduce poverty and
accelerate economic growth, the country went through several economic and social hardships.
This led the former President Wade’s administration (from 200 to 2012) to re-examine their
approach to policy design and implementation. Specifically, the government adopted a more
participatory approach to public policy—opportunities were provided for stakeholders to provide
11
input into the development of policies and to take a more active role in implementation. Efforts
were made to streamline implementation methods and make them more efficient. Perhaps, more
important, is the fact that emphasis was also placed on reforming and generally improving
economic and political governance.
Currently, Senegal is embarking upon three major economic programs: (i) the development of
the third Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP III, from 2011 to 2015); (ii) the formulation of
the Document of Economic and Social Policy (DESP); and (iii) the formalization of the
prospective vision of Senegal in 2025 ( this one is different from “Vision 2025” of the East
African countries).
These policies include social safety nets. In this paper, we analyze
households’ economic characteristics and show how they explain, quite well, the vulnerability of
the many Senegalese households to various risks, including the probability of falling into poverty
and remaining there permanently, losing one’s job, and failing to secure reliable sources of food.
3. THE PARADOX OF GROWTH AND RECENT STRATEGIES TO ALLEVIATE
POVERTY
Growth in GDP during the period 1960-1995 was not enough to deal effectively with poverty
and the little public resources available were not allocated in an efficient and equitable manner
given the fact that during this period, the country was pervaded by relatively high rates of
bureaucratic corruption. Many Senegalese, especially the poor, came to see income distribution
as relatively unfair (Diene, 2005: 51).
The level of economic growth achieved so far in Senegal is still not enough to deal effectively
with the country’s multifarious development problems, the most important of which is poverty. In
addition, recent growth has been driven by sub-sectors (oil, fish processing, phosphates and
cement production as well as tourism and telecommunications) that currently are not able to
supply jobs for all of the country’s labor force. Both the primary and secondary sectors remain
seriously underdeveloped and still cannot compete globally in terms of quality and price. The low
levels of competitiveness in the domestic economy remain major obstacles to the creation of jobs
and the higher incomes that households need to improve their living conditions. In addition,
serious weaknesses in the export sector, such as the failure to diversify the export mix, continue
to adversely affect the potential for economic growth and, consequently, human development.
12
Macroeconomic instability has continued to affect the ability of many citizens to have access
to the critical resources (e.g., credit) that they need to engage in productive activities. The poor
are especially at risk because many of them do not own real property, which serves as the
traditional collateral for loans in many countries that have poorly developed financial systems. In
recent years, many organizations have attempted to remedy this situation by introducing the poor
to microcredit, which usually does not require the presentation of collateral by the borrower.
However, these micro-lending enterprises, the bulk of which operate in the informal sector, have
had difficulties securing enough money to meet the needs of demanders of credit.
Prevailing
uncertainty in the informal sector, the biggest employer of the poor,,especially with respect to
access to credit, continues to threaten efforts to help the poor improve their living conditions.
The economic growth in Senegal between 1995-2002 did not favor the poor—it did not occur
in areas, such as agriculture, that tend to employ a lot of the poor. The economy also continues to
suffer from lack of investment, especially in the sectors that employ the poor.
Both the
agricultural and industrial sectors remain weak and are unable to expand or diversify because
they are not attracting significant investment spending.
Although Senegal has recorded relatively good economic performance compared to other
countries of comparable size in sub-Saharan Africa, since 2000, it still remains a poor country
with important needs in terms of infrastructure and human development still remaining to be met.
The country remains one of the poorest countries in the world. As a result, in 2000, Senegal
initiated a participatory process for the creation of a poverty reduction strategy based on a fairer
redistribution of the proceeds from economic growth and the satisfaction of the poorest
population’s basic needs. A consensus has been reached
on the necessity to mobilize
policymakers, national stakeholders and development partners around the reduction of both
poverty and exclusion.
4. SOCIAL PROTECTION IN SENEGAL
Social protection is “public actions taken in response to levels of vulnerability, risk and
deprivation which are deemed socially unacceptable within a given polity or society,” (Norton,
Conway, Foster, 2001: 7). Social protection involves also private entities that aime to help
households and individuals who face
risks or cannot afford to pay some basic needs.
Consequently, the involvement of public and private organizations is the first criterion for
13
identifying social protection actions. But this definition of social protection as public and private
organization’s actions, does not take into account important information about individuals’
informal actions, such as migrant workers’ remittances and family solidarity, which are important
aspects of people’s lives in Senegal. Social protection applies to the following spheres:
 Health and medical care: Social protection covers all services used to preserve, establish
or improve people's health and ability to work, and satisfy their personal needs;
 Unemployment benefits: Social protection covers the benefits paid to individuals who
have lost their jobs because of sickness or any other involuntary reason;
 Retirement benefits: Social protection covers all services provided to people who have left
the labor market due to their retirement;
 Benefits of occupational accidents and diseases: Social protection covers compensation
for occupational accidents and diseases related to professional activities;
 Family benefits: Social protection covers support benefits for households to allow them to
defray their costs and meet the needs of their members;
 Maternity benefits: Social protection is provided during pregnancy and after delivery; and
 Disability benefits: Social protection includes any benefits provided to individuals who
are unable to secure paid-employment due to an accident or disease.
Generally, benefits for survivors are paid after the death of a protected person to the beneficiaries.
By extension, the following group of benefits can be added to the definition of social protection:
housing assistance, basic education, a system that helps individuals deal with social exclusion,
and social assistance.
In Senegal, unemployment and sickness benefits are not often taken into account in social
security programs, and the social security component is mainly funded by the formal sector.
Although those programs do not cover a great proportion of the population, their overall
contribution is relatively high. This is the reason why the government has initiated a social
protection program, called the National Strategy for Social Protection (NSSP) aiming that social
protection reaches as many people as persons possible. The main objective of the NSSP is the
adoption of a comprehensive, integrated and well-coordinated political vision on social protection
that will facilitate access to risk management instruments and to social protection systems for the
country’s most vulnerable groups. The implementation of the NSSP program will increase the
access of vulnerable groups to basic social services and economic opportunities in a fair and
14
sustainable manner. The government hopes that the NSSP will contribute to the attainment of the
following specific objectives: (i) expansion and diversification of the instruments of social
protection and risk management and (ii) the improvement of the capacity of the various sectors of
Senegalese society to respond to shocks and risks, especially the most vulnerable groups—
women, rural inhabitants and the urban poor.
The implementation of these objectives revolves around five priority intervention areas:

Improve access to basic services for vulnerable groups;

Increase access to risk management instruments and social protection systems;

Improve the targeting, monitoring and evaluation of actions aimed at vulnerable
groups;

Provide a legal, fair and adequate scheme to vulnerable groups to use to defend their
rights; and

Strengthen mechanisms for direct transfer of resources to vulnerable groups.
The NSSP is supposed to be integrated into the national strategies developed for the reduction of
poverty, such as the PRSP.
Pension plans have existed in Senegal since the colonial period.
However, since
independence, the government has introduced many reforms into the pension system and today,
the country has a mandatory pension system whose design is based on occupational pension
schemes.
The present pension system in Senegal consists of three schemes: The National
Retirement Fund (NRF), which serves the retirement needs of government officials; the
Senegalese Provident Retirement Institution, General Scheme (SPRI-GS), whose participation is
limited exclusively to private-sector workers; and the Supplementary Scheme for Managers
(SPRI-SSM), which is also a scheme for workers in the private sector.
4.1 The government scheme
The National Retirement Fund (NRF) is run by the Directorate of Pay, Pensions and
Annuities at the Economy and Finance Ministry. It pays retirement, disability and survivors’
benefits, as well as other benefits related to family allowances. NRF was created by Law No. 6135 of 15 June 1961 and covers the following categories of people:
 Officers of the civil service and agents of the Railway Board under former statutes;
15
 Judges;
 Regular staff of higher educational institutions;
 Firefighters;
 Customs and Police Officers;
 Military personnel of the Armed Forces and the Firefighters; and
 Widows and orphans of the above categories.
4.2. The basic scheme for the private sector
Private-sector employees are covered by a pension scheme managed by the Senegalese Provident
Retirement Institution (SPRI). Under the SPRI, retirees receive a payment based on contributions
made by them and their employers during the employee’s working life, after allowance is made
for the payment of management fees. The pensions of a given period are funded by the levy
imposed on the income earned during the same period. Hence, there exists a relationship between
the number of contributors and the number of recipients. In order to obtain a pension, one must
be at least 55 years old, have ceased work and recorded at least 400 retirement points. The
number of points is estimated by dividing the amount of the contributions by a reference wage.
This wage is set annually by the Directorate of the SPRI..
4.3. The supplementary scheme for the private sector’s managers
This pension plan is also managed by SPRI and it complements the basic scheme. It covers up to
three times the ceiling of the basic plan SPRI but many features are common to both systems. The
employers’ contributions are equal to 3.6 percent of their wages, and the employees’
contributions, represent 2.4 percent of their wages.
It is necessary to have contributed a
minimum of one year to be eligible for the benefits of the plan. In addition, as for the basic plan,
one must have completed at least 400 points to get the benefits.
4.4 Social assistance
Although there is a great lack of data on social protection in Senegal, recent information collected
from the Social Security Fund (SSF) by the National Agency for Statistics and Demography
16
(2010) can provide insight into the scope of social assistance in the country. The SSF is a private
structure providing public services to Senegalese people. It allows many people in Senegal to be
able to pay for their basic needs. It is composed of 14 branches, eight regional institutions, and
two centers for maternal and child health. Its expenditures in 2010 in different social sectors
were:
(i) Family benefits
Family benefits cover mainly prenatal and maternity expenses. The SSF paid out 9.814 billion
CFA francs - equivalent to 20 million USD - in 2010 (NASD, 2010), including 312.5 million
CFA francs for prenatal allowances and 878 million CFA francs for maternity benefits. In 2010,
there were 439,748 recipients of the SSF against 354,500 persons in 2006 and the main
beneficiaries of family benefits are dependent children.
(ii) Health and welfare benefits
Health and welfare benefits cover both public and private workers and uninsured persons. The
benefits are to be used for medical care, vaccinations, supplies of generic drugs and other medical
needs. In 2010, the number of beneficiaries rose to 17,186 from 16,213 in 2009. For this
program, uninsured persons represent 99 percent of beneficiaries in 2009 and 2010. The total
benefits paid out were 151.6 million CFA francs.
(iii) Pensions
In 2010, the number of pensioners and their heirs was 6,201 people, and they received 2.128
billion CFA francs. These amounts are fixed in advance and regularly paid during a given period.
5. THE MEASURE OF VULNERABILITY
Social protection measures can contribute to the alleviation of the various vulnerabilities that
individuals encounter on a daily basis and help improve the welfare of the poor, as well as
enhance economic growth. It is therefore useful to implement social protection policies that
promote better relief of poverty. To improve the impact of social protection measures on poverty,
it may be necessary to introduce or reinforce reforms, programs or mechanisms of public and
private provision of services.
The main objective is to show how the structural economic
characteristics of households can explain their vulnerability and their exposure to risk, which
justifies their need for protection. The specific objectives are as follows:
17
 First, identify the main sources of vulnerability for the population and, second, know the
population groups that are exposed to higher vulnerability;
 For these groups, examine the expected role of social protection, as well as sector-based
interventions and macroeconomic levels;
 Analyze the gaps that social protection coverage can fill in order to reduce higher
vulnerability and poverty; and
 Make policy recommendations.
5.1 Vulnerability to poverty
The measures of vulnerability to poverty are presented below. The analysis is based on the
permanent income hypothesis developed by Friedman (see, e.g., Lachaud, 2006: 18).
Households’ welfare is measured relative to the average inter-temporal living standard. The
household faces chronic deprivation when this welfare falls below the poverty line. Welfare can
change because of unfavorable and adverse shocks, and the risk of changes makes the household
vulnerable. Thus, the vulnerability of a household is the probability of poverty at time t1,
regardless of its level of welfare at time t0. Then, as shown in Chaudhuri, Jalan, and Suryahadi
(2002:5), the vulnerability of household h at time t can be expressed in terms of future
expenditures conditional on its characteristics:
(1)
where :
(i)
is the level of per capita expenditure of a household h at time t +1;
(ii) Xh, a set of observable socioeconomic characteristics of the household h;
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
a vector of parameters describing the state of the economy at time t +1;
, time-invariant unobservable effects at the household level;
, idiosyncratic shocks inherent to some factors, helping in the differentiation of the
household welfare
(vi) z is the poverty threshold.
It is worth mentioning that it is impossible to directly observe vulnerability: Only current
vulnerability with respect to future poverty can be assessed. Thus, the probability of poverty
depends not only on the household’s average expected expenditures, but also on the fluctuation of
18
the latter, measured by an inter-temporal variance. It is important to distinguish situations where
households are poor because of permanent low welfare from temporary deprivation. Despite the
scarcity of panel data, following Chaudhuri, Jalan, and Suryahadi (2002) and under certain
assumptions, the availability of cross-sectional data can allow the analysis of households’
vulnerability. The starting point of this option is the analytical expression of the determinants of
per capita expenditure for household h, summarized by the following equation:
(2)
where (i) lnch is the logarithm of the per capita expenditures, (ii) Xh, a set of observable
characteristics of the household h, (iii) α, a vector of parameters, and (iv) eh, a random term with
zero mean, capturing the idiosyncratic shocks that help to differentiate the standard of living of
households (Chaudhuri et al. 2002:7).
Equation 2 implies that the shocks related to the
expenditures for each household are identically and independently distributed in time. Thus, there
is the absence of the specific unobservable effects of households that may influence their
expenditure over time. This assumption is dictated by the cross-sectional nature of the available
data used. Using Chaudhuri et al.’s approach (2002:8), we consider that the variance of eh can be
explained by observable characteristics of households, and we use the simple functional form
expressed as follows:
(3)
Under these conditions, Chaudhuri et al. (2002:7) show that, following Amemiya (1977),
parameters can be estimated by generalized least squares (Feasible Generalized Least Squares—
FGLS) in three steps.
(4)
The distribution of the log of the expenditure is linked to the probability that a household with
characteristics Xh is poor, that is to say, the extent of the vulnerability of the group h. This is
formalized in this way (Chaudhuri. et al. (2002:8):
(5)
In which
is the cumulative density function associated with a normal distribution. For the
application, the variables included in the regressions are: household size (level and its square);
age of the head of household when it’s greater than 17 years; marital status (whether the head of
the household is single, married, divorced, polygamous, monogamous, widowed, etc.); a set of
19
dummies for whether the household head is illiterate, has attended primary school, secondary
school or tertiary education; whether the head of the household is a man; the location of the head
of household (Dakar, other urban areas, rural areas, etc.); whether he is actively occupied,
inactive or jobless; and whether he is a salaried worker in either public or private sector, selfemployed in agriculture, self-employed in non-agriculture sectors, etc.
5.2 Conceptual framework
Consider the period t (t = 1 or 2), selected between the years 1995, 2002 and 2006 (years of the
household surveys in Senegal). The density functions of the distribution of income in periods 1
and 2 are denoted by f1(y) and f2(y) and let
be the joint distribution of incomes and
households or individuals’ characteristics X.
Denoting by gt (y / X) the distribution of income conditional on X and C (X) the domain of values
of X, we can write:
(6)
The term H t(X) is the joint distribution of all the elements of X at time t. We can express the
passage from f1 (y) to f2 (y) through on the distributions gt (y / X) and Ht(X). We define this
counterfactual distribution:
(7)
It is the distribution that would be observed during period 1, if the distribution of income
conditional on characteristics X had been observed in period 2. This counterfactual distribution
can be calculated if we identify the distributions g1(y / x), g2 (y / x) and H1 (X).
By altering the joint distribution of socioeconomic characteristics, we can as well define the
counterfactual distribution as follows:
(8)
Note that the following equalities are true:
fg1,2(y) = fH2,1(y) and fH1,2(y) = fg2,1(y)
(9)
The decomposition of distributional changes (f2 (y) - f1 (y)) is:
f2(y) – f1(y) = [fg1,2(y) - f1(y)] + [ f2(y) – fg1,2(y)]
(10)
20
The first expression of the second member gives the temporal change of income explained by the
change of the conditional distribution on characteristics X. It shows how the distribution of
characteristics in period 1 could lead to a different distribution of income, if the distribution g
(y/x) were that of period 2. The second term is the effect of changes of the endowments that
occurred between periods 1 and 2.
It is possible to rewrite the equation (5) as:
f2(y) – f1(y) = [fg1,2(y) - f1(y)] + [ f2(y) – fH2,1(y)]
(11)
This gives a decomposition, which is valid for poverty indices.
We will apply this
methodology using decomposing the vector of characteristics in sub-categories. The advantage
of this decomposition is that it takes into account any distribution of living standards and features,
not only the distribution average.
More generally, this last decomposition formula can be
applied to any statistic defined on a distribution of living standards (income, expenses, etc.) and
any measure of inequality and poverty based on poverty thresholds (Bourguignon, et al. 2005).
5.3 Applications
We use the above-outlined theoretical approach for the links between the characteristics of heads
of households and poverty. At time t = 1 or 2, the income of the individual i is determined by:
(12)
The counterfactual income values between t = 1 and t = 2 are given by:
(13)
with i = 1, 2, …N1
These values are obtained by simulating the model (15) on the data available at time t = 1.
This shows what would be the income of individual i, if the returns on each characteristic were
those observed at time t = 2, rather than those observed at t = 1. The yields of the unobserved
characteristics contained in the residuals,
terms in the distribution of
, are constant. Counterfactual values of the error
are a bit trickier to build. To import the distribution of
residuals from time t = 2 to t = 1, we use the expression (Bourguignon et al. 2005):
(14)
for i = 1, 2, ... N1
21
Using these counterfactuals, we can find the estimators of the contribution (to total
redistributive change between t = 1 and t = 2) of the variation of the parameters Ω and the
distributions of residuals. The effect of changing the distribution of individual endowments X
corresponds to the complement of the previous two variations:
For the empirical analysis, we build an income generation model that allows for
distinguishing between the sources of changes in the distribution of income into three forces. The
first force is linked to the changes in the socio-demographic features of the households (named
the endowment effects or population effects).
It comprises of the changes in the socio-
demographic structure of the population as the area of residence, age and household composition.
The second one comes from the changes in the returns to factors of production (price effects),
comprising changes in the returns to factors of production, such as education and experience.
The third one comes from the changes of the occupational structure in the population
(occupational effects), in terms of wage work, self-employment, unemployment, inactivity,
private sector or public sector.
The data used come from the following recent surveys:
 The Senegalese Survey for Monitoring and Perception of Poverty (SSMP) in 2006 on
13,600 households (8,640 from cities and 4,960 from rural areas).
 The Senegalese Survey for Monitoring and Perception of Poverty (SSMP) in 2011 on
5,953 households.
The former is used to evaluate the impact of the socioeconomic characteristics on poverty, and
the latter is used to help in the assessment of high vulnerability.
6. OVERALL POVERTY AND VULNERABILITY IN SENEGAL
In Figure 1 we show changes of the aggregate distribution of vulnerability according to the
thresholds varying from 0 to 1.
The incidence of vulnerability is negatively linked to the
threshold, meaning that the proportion of the people who have a high probability of being poor
decreases with growth of the threshold.
22
Figure 1: Overall Vulnerability in Senegal
Sources: Calculations by the authors using the SSMP survey data of 2011
As stated in Chaudhuri et al. (2002:10), the choice of a vulnerability threshold is quite
arbitrary. For this reason we use three significant thresholds. First, we take the incidence of
poverty as the poverty rate represents the mean vulnerability level in the population. It helps us
measure the relative vulnerability. People who are relatively vulnerable have their probability
higher than this mean.
Finally, we consider people who are highly vulnerable when their
probability of poverty is greater than 75 percent. Note that the level of 50 percent is used in
Chaudhuri et al. (2002:11), and we tighten the constraint of high vulnerability.
Table 1 (see Appendices) shows that while 41.7 percent of the population is poor, 42.5
percent of it remains vulnerable. In other words, the proportion of vulnerable people who have a
probability of being poor in 2012 is greater than the poverty rate in Senegal.
We also see that 37.8 percent of the non-poor people are vulnerable, and, of them, 38.23
percent of them are relatively vulnerable and 22.3 percent are highly vulnerable. Thus their
probability of being poor in 2012 is higher than 75 percent.
More than half of the poor
households (58 percent) are vulnerable, and 42.1 percent of them are highly vulnerable.
In conclusion, the proportion of the vulnerable population is higher than the proportion of the
poor. Social protection programs for the reduction of vulnerability in the population may be
more urgent for the 42.1 percent of the population who are poor and highly vulnerable.
The poverty and vulnerability profiles in 2011 are presented i n T abl es 2 , 3 a nd 4 i n t he
23
ap pe ndi c es .
The estimates for the regions and selected demographic and community
characteristics are also presented. The decomposition by regions in Table 2 shows the average
distribution of vulnerability. It appears that high vulnerability is greater in the rural regions such
as Tambacounda, Kaffrine and Diourbel.
The capital, Dakar, is one of the cities where
vulnerability is not very high although the city has the greatest proportion of the population
shares. The spatial distributions of poverty and high vulnerability are tightly correlated, mainly
in urban settings where the population is concentrated.
This is the case in the regions of
Diourbel, Kaolack, Tambacounda and Kaffrine.
On the average, the southern regions (Kolda, Sedhiou and Ziguinchor) face lower
vulnerability than those of the north and center of Senegal. Table 3 shows that poverty and
vulnerability are more common in rural areas. The share in the population of rural households is
high (48.5 percent), but the proportions of vulnerable and high vulnerable people are too
disproportionate (respectively 64 and 70 percent) compared to that share. Less than 6 percent of
highly vulnerable populations live in the capital Dakar. The main explanation can be found in
family solidarity among people coming from the same village—these migrants form family or
ethnic communities within the city that serve as a form of social insurance against various
economic uncertainties.
With regard to the gender of the head of households, we can see that, on average, women
have a greater mean vulnerability than men. However, families headed by men are poorer and
more vulnerable than those headed by women: 69 percent versus 31 percent.
There are significant differences on poverty and vulnerability levels between people
depending on the marital status of the heads of household.
Not only are the married and
monogamous people the poorest and the most vulnerable (61.10% ), but they also represent the
greatest proportion of the population (52.71%). Single households are less vulnerable, though
they represent a very small portion of the total population of the country.
The households whose heads do not have a formal education are highly vulnerable and poor
in Senegal. This situation can be related to the fact that the low levels of human capital possessed
by these heads of household exclude them from access to jobs in the formal sector. In addition,,
because they are forced to exist primarily in the informal sector, they usually are not covered by
many public protection programs. The distribution of poverty and vulnerability among the
Senegalese people is then linked to the levels of education. People with university training and,
24
hence, significant human capital are disproportionately wealthier and less vulnerable than those
who have not been formally educated.
According to the area of activity, jobless people are on average, more vulnerable and poorer.
But some economically active people who have jobs may still be highly vulnerable, probably
because of the uncertainty surrounding the stability of their jobs. Besides, some inactive people,
such as retired workers, are not as poor as some economically active ones.
Depending on the sector in which the head of household is employed, we can see that people
working in the public sector are less vulnerable than workers in either the private or informal
sectors. However, independent farmers face both poverty and vulnerability more than any other
group in the country.
We now turn to the comparisons of the current incomes and their counterfactuals. The idea of the
counterfactual income is : what would be the household’s income in the period t1 if he kept the
same characteristics as those of the period t0?
Figure 2: Distribution of current incomes and estimated incomes
Density function
Percentage of
population
Sources: Calculations by the authors using the SSMP survey data of 2011
The density functions of living standards (the logarithm of the equivalent adult expenditure)
in 2006 and 2011 are plotted in Figure 2 with their respective counterfactuals. It appears that the
distribution of income is more unequal in 2006 than in 2011. The estimated income (named
EST_2006 in the graph) is obtained by using the coefficients of the regression of income on the
household characteristics, and applying them to the same characteristics in 2006. The same with
25
the variable EST-2011 estimated with the coefficients of 2006. The figure shows that if there
were no changes in the households’ characteristics from 2006 to 2011, inequality in the
distribution of income would be higher in 2011.
Figure 3: The FGT (Foster-Greer-Thorbecke) poverty index curves of current incomes and
estimated incomes
Poverty Index
Poverty Line
Sources: Calculations by the authors using the SSMP survey data of 2011
The Foster-Greer-Thorbecke curves are shown in Figure 3, where we plot the poverty
incidence with varying levels of poverty lines on the horizontal axis. Poverty is higher in 2006
than in 2011. It appears also that the counterfactual estimation of the income (EST_2006)
presents less poverty than the two other distributions. It means that if the characteristics in 2011
were the same as those in 2006, poverty would be more reduced in 2011.
In Table 5, we present the mean transfer necessary to compensate the difference between real
income in 2006 and the counterfactual income, according to different households’ characteristics.
The aim is to identify how, on average, a transfer can reduce poverty from the real situation in
2006 to a situation better than that of 2011. We take the average difference between the income
in 2006 and the counterfactual in the same year. There is more need for social intervention in
rural areas than in urban zones, on average. As we have previously shown, since households
headed by males are more vulnerable than those headed by females, it appears that the former
need more economic assistance.
Their average-income-transfer-need is approximately 0.49.
Households headed by widowed persons also need more transfers. Jobless persons need less
assistance than inactive persons or occupied active persons. This may be explained by the fact
that although social solidarity provides more benefits to inactive persons (children and the aged)
26
than to jobless people, the latter can seek work in the informal sector where they can have various
income sources.
We also see that obtaining a post-secondary education is a defense against vulnerability.
Households whose heads completed only a primary school education need more assistance.
Depending on the regions, it appears that Kolda, Diourbel, Tambacounda and the capital city,
Dakar, need more social transfers than the others.
7. CONCLUSION
As poverty is a hard-to-control phenomenon, individuals can fall in poverty at any time
because of their vulnerability. In this study, we identify the link between vulnerability and the
socio-economic characteristics of households in Senegal. The policy implications of this study
are that the Senegalese government should design and implement effective intervention programs
to minimize the exposure of various groups within the country to poverty, as well as make certain
that all Senegalese citizens are provided opportunities to accumulate the human capital they need
to reduce their chances of falling into poverty. Since vulnerability is the probability that a
household will become poor in the future, we use three thresholds as limits for this probability.
First, we take the incidence of poverty, as the poverty rate represents the mean vulnerability level
in the population. It helps us measure the relative vulnerability. We also consider the mean
vulnerability as a threshold which is compared to the probabilities of people who are deemed
vulnerable in average. Finally, the threshold of 75 percent lets identify people who are highly
vulnerable.
We measure vulnerability to poverty, and then estimate vulnerability using cross-sectional data
for 2011.
There are more vulnerable people than poor people in Senegal and the government must
double its efforts to help both categories of citizens. There is an urgent need to assist people who
are likely to fall into poverty, by social protection programs aimed at reducing their
vulnerability—these people live mainly in the southern regions and in the rural areas of the
country.
It is also useful to help people accumulate more human capital because education is an
important determinant of people’s vulnerability to various economic shocks. As the results of
this study show, less educated heads of household are highly more vulnerable than the formally
27
educated ones. Independent farmers in rural areas face both poverty and vulnerability, more than
any other socioeconomic group in the country and need assistance. Thus, government programs
should target these groups for support in an effort to help them minimize their chances of falling
into poverty.
28
REFERENCES
Amemiya, T. (1977), “The Maximum Likelihood and the Nonlinear Three-Stage Least Squares
Estimator in the General Nonlinear Simultaneous Equation Model,” Econometrica 45(4):
955-968.
AfDB (African Development Bank), OECD, Undp, Eca. (2012) “Senegal” in « Perspectives
Economiques en
Afrique : Promouvoir l’Emploi des Jeunes » Edition OCDE. France
BCEAO (Banque central des états de l’Afrique de l’ouest—Central Bank of West African States)
(2011), “Report on the Monetary Policy in WAEMU”. CBWAS, Avenue Abdoulaye FADIGA.
BP 3108. Dakar - Senegal.
Bourguignon, F., Ferreira, F. and Lustig, N. (2005) (eds.), The Microeconomics of Income
Distribution Dynamics in East Asia and Latin America (Washington, D.C.: World Bank).
Chaudhuri, S., Jalan, J. and Suryahadi, A. (2002), “Assessing Household Vulnerability to
Poverty: A Methodology and Estimates for Indonesia,” Discussion Paper No. 0102-52,
Department of Economics, Columbia University, New York:
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:112942
Diene, M. (2005), “La fiscalité indirecte et les inégalités de revenus au Sénégal,” Thèse de
doctorat d’état, Faculté des Sciences Economiques et de Gestion, Université Cheikh Anta
Diop (UCAD), Dakar, Senegal.
DFES (Direction of Forecast and Economic Studies) (2011), Financial and Economic Situation
in 2011 and Perspectives in 2012 (Dakar: DFES and the National Agency for Statistics and
Demography).
DFES (2012), Balance of Payments of Senegal (Dakar: DFES & NASD).
Lachaud, J.-P. (2006), “La croissance pro-pauvres au Burkina Faso: L’éviction partielle de
l’axiome d’anonymat en présence de données transversales,” Document de travail 126, Centre
d’économie du développement, Université Montesquieu-Bordeaux IV, France.
NASD (National Agency for Statistics and Demography) (2011), National Accounts Data, 20052011 Edition (Dakar: Government of Senegal).
NASD (2010): National Agency for Statistics and Demography, (Situation économique et sociale
du Sénégal. Edition 2010. Dakar
29
Norton, A.
Conway, T.
Foster, M.
(2001) Social Protection Concepts and Approaches:
Implications for Policy and Practice in International Development. WP. 143 Centre for Aid
and Public Expenditure. Overseas Development Institute. London.
UNDP (United Nations Development Program) (2011), Human Development Report, 2011 (New
York: Oxford University Press).
UNDP (2013), Human Development Report, 2013 (New York: Oxford University Press).
World Bank (2012), Doing Business 2012: Doing Business in a More Transparent World
(Washington, D.C.: World Bank).
World Bank (2013), African Development Indicators 2012/13 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank).
Acknowledgments: The author acknowledges Pr. Théophile T. Azomahou, from University of
Maastricht whose helpful comments help improve the paper.
30
APPENDICES
Table 1: Sources of Vulnerability in Senegal
Overall
Amongst
Amongst
Amongst
Amongst
the non-
the poor
the
the highly
vulnerable
vulnerable
poor
Fraction poor
0.4161
0.00
1.00
0.5210
Mean vulnerability
0.4248
0.3499
0.5300
0.5234
Fraction vulnerable
0.4638
0.3786
0.5834
1.00
Fraction relatively
0.4682
0.3823
0.5886
0.9907
Fraction highly
0.3088
0.2281
0.4219
0.6595
vulnerable
Sources:
Authors’ calculations using the SSMP survey data of 2011
vulnerable
31
0.5686
0.9039
1.00
0.00
1.00
Table 2: Distribution of poverty and vulnerability by regions
Population
Share of
share
poor
Share of
share of
Mean
vulnerable
highly
vulnerability
vulnerable
Regions
Dakar
10.06
4.36
8.47
6.42
35.01245
Ziguinchor
6.48
9.49
5.49
5.11
35.9986
Diourbel
7.56
6.86
7.36
8.27
43.31282
Saint-Louis
6.94
5.05
7.39
7.56
46.01953
Tambacounda
8.43
8.92
9.62
10.61
49.02045
Kaolack
7.51
9.08
8.0
8.22
43.89468
Thies
7.54
5.33
7.75
7.34
43.17503
Louga
7.12
3.23
6.78
6.04
39.41618
Fatick
6.75
8.36
6.96
6.96
42.75137
Kolda
6.52
8.92
5.42
5.66
36.99589
Matam
6.03
5.73
6.17
6.37
44.07534
Kaffrine
7.31
8.16
8.9
9.68
51.09296
Kedougou
4.8
6.9
4.92
4.52
42.18715
Sedhiou
6.94
9.61
6.78
7.24
42.4543
Sources: Authors’ calculations using the SSMP survey data of 2011
32
Table 3: Poverty and vulnerability within different segments of the population
Population
Share of
Share of
Share of
Mean
share
poor
vulnerable
highly
vulnerability
vulnerable
Areas
Dakar
9.05
4.16
7.71
5.71
35.34803
Other urban Areas
42.40
36.62
28.42
24.05
29.28229
Rural Areas
48.55
59.22
63.87
70.24
55.35328
Sex
Male
74.94
81.71
68.68
68.88
39.1787
Female
25.06
18.29
31.32
31.12
52.34334
Marital status
Married monogamous
52.71
52.16
57.95
61.10
47.08837
Married polygamous
31.43
34.03
31.04
29.00
40.69663
Single
2.91
2.10
2.01
2.07
29.66415
Widow
10.65
10.01
6.49
5.66
27.96989
Divorcee
2.30
1.70
2.51
2.18
44.50977
Sources: Authors calculations using the SSMP survey data of 2011
33
Table 4: Poverty and vulnerability within different segments of the population
Population
Share of
Share of
share of
Mean
share
poor
vulnerable
highly
vulnerability
vulnerable
Without education
69.17
62.27
80.95
86.69
49,92
Primary education
15.35
16.68
9.20
5.84
24,06
Secondary education
12.02
15.58
7.76
6.00
27,93
Tertiary education
3.46
5.47
2.08
1.47
26,09
Occupation
Occupied Active
78.92
78.36
80.30
81.28
42,93
Jobless
0.87
0.97
1.04
1.03
54,02
Inactive
20.21
20.67
18.66
17.68
40,21
Sector of
activity
Public sector
6.15
2.87
2.62
1.41
19,87
Private sector
7.71
5.77
8.54
6.37
45,33
Independent farmer
22.12
28.18
43.85
53.32
80,97
farmer
14.09
10.70
5.96
4.41
18,60
Other dependant
28.84
30.84
19.34
15.78
29,90
Jobless
21.08
21.64
19.70
18.72
40,79
Independent non-
Sources: Authors calculations using the SSMP survey data of 2011
Table 5: Mean transfer necessary to compensate the difference between actual and counterfactual
income
Areas
Regions
Dakar
0.3693079
Dakar
0.4812556
Other urban zones
0.2154456
Diourbel
0.4926989
Rural zones
0.7076229
Fatick
0.4810859
34
Gender
Kaolack
0.4754445
Male
0.4921629
Kolda
0.4981814
Female
0.4743074
Louga
0.4618572
Matam
0.4812046
Marital status
Married monogamous
0.4764527
Saint-Louis
0.4702735
Married polygamous
0.4863342
Tambacounda
0.4900141
Single
0.4713576
Thies
0.4632142
Widowed
0.4684898
Ziguinchor
0.4619211
Divorcee
0.4789237
Occupation
Level of Education
Without education
0.4214347
Occupied Active
0.6271253
Primary education
0.5294708
Jobless
0.3849538
Secondary education
0.3583651
Inactive
0.484036
Tertiary education
0.1658062
Sources: Authors’ calculations using the SSMP survey data of 2011
35