Mapping the spatial deprivation of Pakistan.

Jamal, Haroon ; Khan, Amir Jahan ; Toor, Imran Ashraf 等

Geographical targeting may be a viable way to allocate resources for poverty alleviation in developing countries. Efficiency can be increased, and leakages to the non-poor reduced substantially, by targeting needy areas. A national and regional database of substantial poverty maps or deprivation indices are not readily available in Pakistan. Further, existing activities of poverty alleviation are carried out on ad hoc basis in the absence of identified pockets of poverty. This paper presents indices of multiple deprivations based on the 1998 Population and Housing Census data. Possible applications of this exercise include identifying areas of need, making decisions on regional and sectoral priorities, facilitating targeted public interventions through special poverty alleviation programmes, understanding the relationship between poverty and its causes, and helping federal and provincial governments in determining financial awards.

1. INTRODUCTION

Macroeconomic constraints on public spending have made it all the more important that scarce resources must be spent effectively, and with the greatest incidence and impact on the poor. Targeting social and development programmes involves making distinctions between the 'deserving' and 'non-deserving' population.

Geographical targeting is appealing because it is comparatively simple to administer. Different parts of the country--regions, provinces, divisions, and districts are ranked by some measure of deprivation. This measure could be income-based poverty, or more commonly, an indicator of education, health, and access to other basic services or living standards. Resources are then allocated in an inverse proportion to average welfare, so that the poor regions receive higher per capita transfers than the rich ones. Alternatively, rich areas can be excluded from the special programmes altogether.

As part of its poverty alleviation strategy, the Government of Pakistan has developed a number of safety-net programmes that seek to expand access to or improve the quality of basic services and thereby the welfare of people. These programmes have explicitly stated reaching the poor as a prime objective. However, to date there has been little analysis on the monitoring of whether these objectives are actually being met. The mechanism of allocating special funds for poverty alleviation among various provinces, regions, or districts for identifying or targeting the poor is not yet clear.

The debate also attempts to include the criterion of backwardness in determining the national and provincial financial awards. This requires a national and regional database of poverty maps or deprivation indices, which are not yet available in Pakistan.

This paper provides to the planners district-wise poverty or deprivation indices, based on the Population and Housing Census data of 1998. A possible application of this exercise includes identifying areas of need, making decisions on regional priorities, targeting interventions and resources, and understanding the relationships between infrastructure, resource availability, and poverty.

2. SECTORAL COVERAGE

The indices are based on the premise that multiple deprivations are made up of separate dimensions or 'sectors' of deprivation. These sectors reflect different aspects of deprivation. Each sector is made up of a number of indicators, which cover aspects of this deprivation as comprehensively as possible. However, the selection of indicators is purely based on the data availability in the Population and Housing Census, 1998. No other published or unpublished information is used in the analysis to make the exercise less disputable or debatable so far as the data source is concerned. This approach makes some sectors less representative, but is preferred in order to avoid any reservations regarding the quality of data. The selected sectors and indicators in constructing indices of multiple deprivations are described below, while a schematic view of indicators is furnished in Table 1. All sectoral indices and the Index of Multiple Deprivations are also constructed separately for urban and rural areas.

2.1. Education Deprivation

Deprivation in the education sector is represented by current and future levels of deprivation. Two measures, adult illiteracy and children out of school, are included in the sector. The UNDP incorporates the inverse of these two measures to construct the Human Development Index (HDI).

Literacy in the 1998 Census is defined as the "ability of a person to read a newspaper or write a simple letter in any language". Illiteracy is measured in terms of ratio and computed as a percentage of illiterate persons among the population aged 10 years and above. Children between the ages of 5 to 9, who are not attending school, are taken to compute out-of-school children at the primary level. The gender disparity is incorporated taking these measures separately for male and female' population.

2.2. Health Deprivation

The most widely used indicator of health deprivation is the Infant Mortality Rate (IMR). The rate is computed on the basis of three years' average death of children before age 1. Although the Census provides information necessary to compute IMR, yet this is only for one year. Therefore, a comparable IMR could not be computed from the Census information. Another important health output indicator is life expectancy or deprivation in longevity, which is measured as the percentage of people not expected to survive to age 40. The Census provides no information of this health-related aspect either. Therefore, no indicator of health deprivation is included in the analysis due to the absence of required information.

2.3. Deprivation in Housing Quality

The sector identifies people living in unsatisfactory and inadequate housing structures. It is represented by a series of indicators. The house structure is treated as inadequate if un-baked bricks, kacha, wood, or bamboo are used in the construction of a wall or roof. Two indicators are used to measure housing congestion: percentage of households with one room and persons per room. Percentage of households which are lacking essential facilities such as kitchen, bathroom, and toilet are included in the deprivation index. Non-ownership of house and, in the extreme case, homelessness are also added to the deprivation list.

2.4. Deprivation in Residential Services

Access to basic utilities is an important aspect of people's everyday life. Deprivation for this sector includes households with no electricity, households using wood or kerosene oil as cooking fuel, and households with no inside water availability.

2.5. Employment Deprivation

'Employment deprived' are defined as those not working but looking for work and laid off. To capture the disguised employment, a proxy is used which considers the proportion of labour force in the non-manufacturing sector.

3. METHODOLOGY FOR COMBINING INDICATORS

At stage 1, indicators in each sector were combined to create Sectoral Indices. Except person per room, all the indicators fore-mentioned are simple rates (percentage of the population affected by the type of deprivation) and may easily be combined. Person per room is standardised with the minimum and maximum. Instead of assigning equal weight to each indicator in a particular sector, Principal Component Technique of Factor Analysis is used to generate weights. This statistical procedure assigns the greatest weight to those variables which have the greatest variance (or dispersion). Therefore, indicators with the lowest level of inequality will have the lowest weight. These derived weights are presented in the Appendix. After assigning these weights, four sectoral indices are computed and then ranked in order to compare deprivation levels across districts and provinces.

Once four sectoral indices have been calculated, an overall Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is derived. Having considered various options, it is decided to employ the criteria used by the UNDP in deriving the Human Poverty Index (HPI).

The following formula is used to derive the IMD.

IMD = [[1/4 x { [(E).sup.[alpha]] + [(HQ).sup.[alpha]] + [(HS).sup.[alpha]] + [(L).sup.[alpha]] } ].sup.1/[alpha]]

Where;

IMD = Index of Multiple Deprivation

E = Index of Education Deprivation

HQ = Index of Deprivation in Housing Quality

HS = Index of Deprivation in Housing Services

L = Index of Deprivation in Employment

[alpha] = 3

The value of [alpha] has an important impact on the value of the index. If [alpha]=l, the IMD is the average of its four sectors. As [alpha] rises, greater weight is assigned to the sector in which there is most deprivation. Following the UNDP, the value of [alpha] is set at 3 to give additional but not overwhelming weight to the area of greater deprivation. This gives an elasticity of substitution of 1/3 between any two indices and places weight on those dimensions in which deprivation is larger. The technical detail is provided in the UNDP Human Development Report (1997).

All these indices are nationally ranked. However, for ease of interpretation and comparison, these rank orders are re-ranked provincially, assigning the rank of I to the most deprived district (with the highest value of deprivation index in the province).

4. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

Detailed district ranking and indices are furnished in the Appendix. This section summarises the major finding of the study. Classifying the districts in terms of high, medium, and low deprivation on the basis of one-third national population in each of the categories provides a useful basis for analysis. High deprivation refers to the one-third national population residing in the most deprived areas (highest magnitudes of the Index of Multiple Deprivation).

Table 2 gives information regarding the distribution of deprived population across provinces. According to the table, of the persons residing in high deprivation, 18 million belong to Punjab, 9 million each to the NWFP and Sindh, and 6 million to Balochistan. On the other extreme, about 27 and 13 million persons residing in low-level deprivation belong to the Punjab and Sindh provinces. The percentage of population living at low deprivation level in the NWFP and Balochistan is 2 and 1 percent respectively.

Table 3 provides distribution of national population by high, medium, and low deprivation levels across provinces. However, while the overall distribution is interesting, it is the distribution by rural and urban areas that is more meaningful for policy purposes.

Balochistan emerges as the most deprived province with over 89 percent of rural population residing in high deprivation districts. The proportion of its rural population residing in low deprivation districts is a minor 4 percent. In the urban areas, the province has a dismal state of development. The entire urban population is resident in high deprivation districts and the province share in low as well as medium deprivation districts is zero. Quetta, the provincial capital, does not even qualify for medium deprivation status.

Similarly, in Sindh, only 3 percent of the rural provincial population resides in low deprivation districts. The extent of the rural-urban inequality in Sindh is stark. While 49 percent of the rural population resides in high deprivation areas, 63 percent of the urban population resides in low deprivation areas. In fact, urban Sindh stands out as the least deprived in the country. Incidentally, this population is largely concentrated in Karachi. It needs to be noted as well that over one-fourth of Sindh's urban population resides in high deprivation districts. This specifies the development gap between Karachi and other urban centres in the province.

The NWFP appears to be at an intermediate stage of development. Over a quarter of rural population of the province is resident in low deprivation districts, and almost half (48 percent) is resident in medium deprivation districts. The urban development situation is not as positive. Sixty percent of its urban population resides in high deprivation districts, and no part of its urban population resides in low deprivation areas.

Punjab is the only province where nearly half (47 percent) of its rural population resides in low deprivation districts. Punjab's position, however, is not as enviable with respect to urban areas, where 23 percent of its urban population resides in low deprivation districts.

Table 4 through Table 7 present the standing of districts in various deprivation categories. Districts are listed in order of magnitude of the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation, from high to low in each deprivation category.

In Punjab province, the most deprived districts include, Rajanpur, Muzaffargarh, D.G. Khan, Layyah, Lodhran, Bhakkar, Pakpattan, Rahim Yar Khan, Bahawalpur, and Jhang. Districts like Attock, Toba Tek Singh, Gujrat, Faisalabad, Gujranwala, Rawalpindi, Sialkot, and Lahore have a combined share of 37 percent of Punjab's total population, but these are on the other extreme.

In Sindh, districts of Tharparkar, Thatta, Badin, Jacobabad, Ghotki, Mirpurkhas, Sanghar, and Shikarpur belong to high deprivation level and represent 31 percent of that province's population. Relatively better districts, consisting of medium level of deprivation, include Dadu, Khairpur, Nawabshah, Naushero Feroz, Larkana, and Sukkar. The districts in the low level of deprivation include Hyderabad and Karachi. The share of these districts in the province's population is about 42 percent.

Districts like Swabi, Laki Marwat, Bannu, Kohat, Mardan, Nowshera, Abbotabad, and Haripur are in the category of medium level of deprivation. These districts comprise 38 percent of the NWFP population. About 51 percent of the population of the province resides in high deprivation areas of Kohistan, Shangla, Batagram, Upper Dir, Buner, Hangu, Chitral, Tank, D. I. Khan, Lower Dir, Swat, Mansehra, Karak, Charsadda, and Malakand districts. The remaining 11 percent of the population resides in Peshawar, which is in the low deprivation category.

Except for the districts of Quetta and Ziarat, all districts of Balochistan are in the lowest category of high level of deprivation. These districts contain 88 percent of the population share of the province.

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Geographical targeting may be a viable way to allocate resources for poverty alleviation in developing countries. Efficiency can be increased, and leakages to the non-poor substantially reduced, by targeting needy areas. A national and regional database of substantial poverty maps or deprivation indices are not readily available in Pakistan. Current poverty alleviation activities are ad hoc measures in the absence of identified pockets of poverty.

The main purpose of this study is to describe the overall picture of multiple deprivation, based on the combined education, health, housing quality, housing services, and employment sectoral indices. The overall Index of Multiple Deprivation can be used to make inter-district, intra-provincial and inter-provincial comparisons of populations that are deprived with respect to the indicators chosen for this analysis.

Maximum possible deprivation indicators have been derived from the Population and Housing Census report of districts. The UNDP methodology for constructing the Human Poverty Index is used in developing the multiple deprivation indices.

Possible applications of this exercise include identifying areas of need, making decisions on regional and sectoral priorities, facilitating targeted public interventions through special poverty alleviation programmes, understanding the relationship between poverty and its causes, and helping the federal and provincial governments in determining financial awards.

Appendices

Table A1
Overall Deprivation Rank Orders--Punjab

 Provincial Rank Order National Rank Order
 1 =Least Deprived 1=Least Deprived
Districts 34=Most Deprived 100=Most Deprived

Attock 9 13
Bahawalnagar 24 43
Bahawalpur 26 49
Bhakkar 29 61
Chakwal 14 19
D.G. Khan 32 72
Faisalabad 5 6
Gujranwala 4 5
Gujrat 6 8
Hafizabad 15 22
Jhang 25 46
Jhelum 7 10
Kasur 16 23
Khanewal 23 41
Khushab 19 32
Lahore 1 2
Layyah 31 68
Lodhran 30 65
M.B.Din 12 17
Mianwali 22 36
Multan 13 18
Muzaffargarh 33 73
Narowal 11 16
Okara 20 33
Pakpattan 28 54
R.Y. Khan 27 53
Rajanpur 34 82
Rawalpindi 3 4
Sahiwal 18 30
Sargodha 17 25
Sheikhupura 10 14
Sialkot 2 3
T.T. Singh 8 11
Vehari 21 34

 Deprivation
Districts Index

Attock 53.75
Bahawalnagar 64.14
Bahawalpur 65.27
Bhakkar 67.91
Chakwal 56.89
D.G. Khan 70.64
Faisalabad 45.58
Gujranwala 45.06
Gujrat 46.47
Hafizabad 58.13
Jhang 64.62
Jhelum 51.32
Kasur 58.32
Khanewal 63.95
Khushab 61.53
Lahore 34.34
Layyah 69.14
Lodhran 68.92
M.B.Din 55.62
Mianwali 62.32
Multan 56.78
Muzaffargarh 70.75
Narowal 54.87
Okara 61.99
Pakpattan 65.99
R.Y. Khan 65.97
Rajanpur 74.78
Rawalpindi 41.03
Sahiwal 61.31
Sargodha 59.32
Sheikhupura 53.85
Sialkot 40.32
T.T. Singh 52.82
Vehari 62.09

Table A2
Rural Deprivation Rank Orders--Punjab

 Provincial Rank Order National Rank Order
 1=Least Deprived 1=Least Deprived
Districts 34=Most Deprived 100=Most Deprived

Attock 13 16
Bahawalnagar 23 44
Bahawalpur 31 64
Bhakkar 27 55
Chakwal 11 14
D.G. Khan 33 77
Faisalabad 7 9
Gujranwala 4 5
Gujrat 2 3
Hafizabad 14 20
Jhang 25 51
Jhelum 6 8
Kasur 16 24
Khanewal 22 42
Khushab 18 29
Lahore 3 4
Layyah 29 61
Lodhran 28 60
M. B. Din 10 13
Mianwali 17 27
Multan 24 46
Muzaffargarh 32 72
Narowal 8 10
Okara 21 36
Pakpattan 26 53
R.Y. Khan 30 63
Rajanpur 34 86
Rawalpindi 9 12
Sahiwal 19 31
Sargodha 15 23
Sheikhupura 12 15
Sialkot 1 2
T.T. Singh 5 7
Vehari 20 34

 Deprivation
Districts Index

Attock 59.81
Bahawalnagar 68.53
Bahawalpur 73.31
Bhakkar 70.89
Chakwal 58.93
D.G. Khan 76.40
Faisalabad 56.76
Gujranwala 55.12
Gujrat 53.01
Hafizabad 61.84
Jhang 69.99
Jhelum 56.52
Kasur 64.43
Khanewal 68.28
Khushab 64.96
Lahore 53.66
Layyah 72.24
Lodhran 72.11
M. B. Din 58.92
Mianwali 64.82
Multan 68.99
Muzaffargarh 75.46
Narowal 57.20
Okara 66.80
Pakpattan 70.54
R.Y. Khan 72.64
Rajanpur 79.66
Rawalpindi 58.49
Sahiwal 65.30
Sargodha 64.20
Sheikhupura 59.68
Sialkot 47.46
T.T. Singh 56.02
Vehari 66.04

Table A3
Urban Deprivation Rank Orders--Punjab

 Provincial Rank Order National Rank Order
 1=Least Deprived 1=Least Deprived
Districts 34=Most Deprived 95=Most Deprived

Attock 6 7
Bahawalnagar 23 36
Bahwalpur 25 43
Bhakkar 32 66
Chakwal 13 19
D.G. Khan 16 23
Faisalabad 3 4
Gujranwala 8 10
Gujrat 2 3
Hafizabad 19 30
Jhang 22 34
Jhelum 11 14
Kasur 12 15
Khanewal 26 45
Khushab 27 49
Lahore 5 6
Layyah 31 62
Lodhran 33 67
M.B.Din 18 28
Mianwali 30 60
Multan 14 21
Muzaffargarh 28 51
Narowal 7 8
Okara 24 37
Pakpattan 29 53
R.Y. Khan 20 32
Rajanpur 34 75
Rawalpindi 4 5
Sahiwal 17 27
Sargodha 21 33
Sheikhupura 9 11
Sialkot 1 2
T.T. Singh 10 12
Vehari 15 22

 Deprivation
Districts Index

Attock 32.75
Bahawalnagar 45.13
Bahwalpur 46.90
Bhakkar 52.42
Chakwal 41.90
D.G. Khan 42.82
Faisalabad 29.24
Gujranwala 37.08
Gujrat 28.72
Hafizabad 44.02
Jhang 44.83
Jhelum 38.46
Kasur 38.93
Khanewal 47.16
Khushab 48.55
Lahore 31.38
Layyah 51.91
Lodhran 52.71
M.B.Din 43.73
Mianwali 50.99
Multan 42.09
Muzaffargarh 48.80
Narowal 36.43
Okara 45.41
Pakpattan 49.54
R.Y. Khan 44.46
Rajanpur 54.67
Rawalpindi 30.08
Sahiwal 43.60
Sargodha 44.69
Sheikhupura 37.28
Sialkot 24.39
T.T. Singh 37.92
Vehari 42.40

Table A4
Overall Deprivation Rank Orders-Sindh

 Provincial Rank Order National Rank Order
 1=Least Deprived 1=Least Deprived
Districts 16=Most Deprived 100--Most Deprived

Badin 14 76
Dadu 8 39
Ghotki 12 59
Hyderabad 2 12
Jacobabad 13 63
Karachi 1 1
Khairpur 7 38
Larkana 4 27
Mirpurkhas 11 52
Naushero Feroz 5 28
Nawabshah 6 29
Sanghar 10 47
Shikarpur 9 44
Sukkur 3 21
Tharparkar 16 84
Thatta 15 78

 Deprivation
Districts Index

Badin 71.56
Dadu 63.12
Ghotki 67.70
Hyderabad 53.20
Jacobabad 68.16
Karachi 24.59
Khairpur 62.59
Larkana 59.92
Mirpurkhas 65.79
Naushero Feroz 60.39
Nawabshah 60.44
Sanghar 64.64
Shikarpur 64.19
Sukkur 57.99
Tharparkar 75.44
Thatta 72.74

Table A5
Rural Deprivation Rank Orders--Sindh

 Provincial Rank Order National Rank Order
 1=Least Deprived 1=Least Deprived
Districts 16--Most Deprived 100--Most Deprived

Badin 16 79
Dadu 5 41
Ghotki 12 68
Hyderabad 7 48
Jacobabad 13 73
Karachi 1 1
Khairpur 4 40
Larkana 3 35
Mirpurkhas 11 65
Naushero Feroz 2 28
Nawabshah 8 50
Sanghar 10 59
Shikarpur 9 52
Sukkur 6 47
Tharparkar 14 75
Thatta 15 76

 Deprivation
Districts Index

Badin 76.92
Dadu 68.20
Ghotki 73.99
Hyderabad 69.42
Jacobabad 75.50
Karachi 42.36
Khairpur 68.06
Larkana 66.60
Mirpurkhas 73.72
Naushero Feroz 64.92
Nawabshah 69.64
Sanghar 72.05
Shikarpur 70.10
Sukkur 69.32
Tharparkar 76.29
Thatta 76.39

Table A6
Urban Deprivation Rank Orders--Sindh

 Provincial Rank Order National Rank Order
 1=Least Deprived 1=Least Deprived
Districts 16=Most Deprived 95=Most Deprived

Badin 16 59
Dadu 11 48
Ghotki 5 25
Hyderabad 2 9
Jacobabad 15 57
Karachi 1 1
Khairpur 12 52
Larkana 9 42
Mirpurkhas 6 31
Naushero Feroz 7 39
Nawabshah 3 13
Sanghar 4 17
Shikarpur 10 47
Sukkur 8 41
Tharparkar 13 54
Thatta 14 55

 Deprivation
Districts Index

Badin 50.71
Dadu 48.32
Ghotki 43.41
Hyderabad 36.49
Jacobabad 50.06
Karachi 23.64
Khairpur 49.38
Larkana 46.76
Mirpurkhas 44.06
Naushero Feroz 46.02
Nawabshah 38.16
Sanghar 40.94
Shikarpur 48.20
Sukkur 46.44
Tharparkar 49.65
Thatta 49.67

Table A7
Overall Deprivation Rank Orders--NWFP

 Provincial Rank Order National Rank Order
 1 =Least Deprived 1=Least Deprived Deprivation
Districts 24=Most Deprived 100--Most Deprived Index

Abbotabad 3 20 57.54
Bannu 7 37 62.44
Batagram 22 90 77.96
Buner 20 69 69.25
Charsadda 11 50 65.65
Chitral 18 66 69.02
D.I.Khan 16 62 68.06
Hangu 19 67 69.04
Haripur 2 15 54.53
Karak 12 51 65.66
Kohat 6 35 62.14
Kohistan 24 99 82.96
Laki Marwat 8 40 63.55
Lower Dir 15 57 66.94
Malakand 10 45 64.28
Mansehra 13 55 66.07
Mardan 5 31 61.37
Nowshera 4 24 58.79
Peshawar 1 9 50.78
Shangla 23 91 78.59
Swabi 9 42 64.10
Swat 14 56 66.32
Tank 17 64 68.48
Upper Dir 21 81 74.64

Table A8
Rural Deprivation Rank Orders--NWFP

 Provincial Rank Order National Rank Order
 1 =Least Deprived 1=Least Deprived Deprivation
Districts 24=Most Deprived 100=Most Deprived Index

Abbotabad 3 19 61.75
Bannu 5 22 63.81
Batagram 22 84 78.28
Buner 15 49 69.58
Charsadda 13 43 68.37
Chitral 18 57 71.11
D.I.Khan 20 62 72.50
Hangu 19 58 71.38
Haripur 1 11 57.34
Karak 12 39 68.03
Kohat 17 56 71.00
Kohistan 24 96 83.46
Laki Marwat 7 26 64.54
Lower Dir 10 37 67.41
Malakand 6 25 64.43
Mansehra 11 38 67.79
Mardan 8 30 65.04
Nowshera 2 18 61.60
Peshawar 4 21 63.53
Shangla 23 85 78.87
Swabi 9 33 65.68
Swat 14 45 68.85
Tank 16 54 70.77
Upper Dir 21 74 75.56

Table A9
Urban Deprivation Rank Orders--NWFP

 Provincial Rank Order National Rank Order
 1=Least Deprived 1=Least Deprived Deprivation
Districts 20=Most Deprived 95=Most Deprived Index

Abbotabad 6 38 45.81
Bannu 8 56 50.02
Batagram -- -- --
Buner -- -- --
Charsadda 13 70 53.93
Chitral 9 58 50.09
D.I.Khan 3 20 42.09
Hangu 19 85 59.92
Haripur 2 18 41.23
Karak 15 76 55.59
Kohat 5 29 43.93
Kohistan -- -- --
Laki Marwat 14 72 54.11
Lower Dir 18 81 57.55
Malakand 20 89 63.12
Mansehra 4 24 43.32
Mardan 7 50 48.74
Nowshera 11 64 52.10
Peshawar 1 16 39.01
Shangla -- -- --
Swabi 16 78 56.53
Swat 10 61 51.12
Tank 17 80 57.35
Upper Dir 12 65 52.34

Table A10
Overall Deprivation Rank Orders--Balochistan

 Provincial Rank Order National Rank Order
 1=Least Deprived 1=Least Deprived
Districts 26=Most Deprived 100--Most Deprived

Awaran 23 96
Barkhan 17 88
Bolan 13 83
Chagai 11 79
Dera Bugti 18 89
Gawadar 5 60
Jafarabad 9 75
Jhal Magsi 21 94
Kalat 7 71
Kech 6 70
Kharan 25 98
Khuzdar 19 92
Killa Abdullah 14 85
Killa Saifullah 15 86
Kohlu 24 97
Lasbela 10 77
Loralai 8 74
Mastung 12 80
Musa Khel 26 100
Nasirabad 16 87
Panjgur 20 93
Pishin 3 48
Quetta 1 7
Sibi 4 58
Zhob 22 95
Ziarat 2 26

 Deprivation
Districts Index

Awaran 80.44
Barkhan 76.69
Bolan 75.03
Chagai 72.81
Dera Bugti 77.72
Gawadar 67.80
Jafarabad 71.37
Jhal Magsi 79.25
Kalat 70.52
Kech 69.46
Kharan 82.91
Khuzdar 78.95
Killa Abdullah 76.09
Killa Saifullah 76.20
Kohlu 81.58
Lasbela 71.60
Loralai 70.77
Mastung 73.48
Musa Khel 89.06
Nasirabad 76.66
Panjgur 79.21
Pishin 65.14
Quetta 46.00
Sibi 67.20
Zhob 79.28
Ziarat 59.80

Table A11
Rural Deprivation Rank Orders--Balochistan

 Provincial Rank Order National Rank Order
 1=Least Deprived 1=1-east Deprived
Districts 26=Most Deprived 100=Most Deprived

Awaran 20 93
Barkhan 13 83
Bolan 11 81
Chagai 9 78
Dera Bugti 19 92
Gawadar 14 87
Jafarabad 6 69
Jhal Magsi 18 91
Kalat 7 70
Kech 8 71
Kharan 25 99
Khuzdar 22 95
Killa Abdullah 10 80
Killa Saifullah 15 88
Kohlu 24 98
Lasbela 21 94
Loralai 4 66
Mastung 12 82
Musa Khel 26 100
Nasirabad 16 89
Panjgur 17 90
Pishin 3 32
Quetta 1 6
Sibi 5 67
Zhob 23 97
Ziarat 2 17

 Deprivation
Districts Index

Awaran 81.36
Barkhan 78.18
Bolan 77.45
Chagai 76.50
Dera Bugti 80.66
Gawadar 79.74
Jafarabad 74.08
Jhal Magsi 80.61
Kalat 74.10
Kech 74.34
Kharan 87.03
Khuzdar 83.33
Killa Abdullah 77.23
Killa Saifullah 79.86
Kohlu 83.99
Lasbela 81.39
Loralai 73.74
Mastung 77.48
Musa Khel 90.52
Nasirabad 80.22
Panjgur 80.48
Pishin 65.31
Quetta 55.58
Sibi 73.87
Zhob 83.57
Ziarat 60.12

Table A12
Urban Deprivation Rank Orders--Balochistan

 Provincial Rank Order National Rank Order
 1=Least Deprived 1=Least Deprived
Districts 25=Most Deprived 95=Most Deprived

Awaran -- --
Barkhan 13 79
Bolan 17 86
Chagai 9 71
Dera Bugti 16 84
Gawadar 14 82
Jafarabad 15 83
Jhal Magsi 19 88
Kalat 2 35
Kech 5 46
Kharan 21 91
Khuzdar 22 92
Killa Abdullah 24 94
Killa Saifullah 6 63
Kohlu 12 77
Lasbela 8 69
Loralai 3 40
Mastung 7 68
Musa Khel 25 95
Nasirabad 18 87
Panjgur 23 93
Pishin 20 90
Quetta 1 26
Sibi 11 74
Zhob 4 44
Ziarat 10 73

 Deprivation
Districts Index

Awaran --
Barkhan 56.82
Bolan 61.42
Chagai 54.11
Dera Bugti 59.54
Gawadar 57.82
Jafarabad 58.51
Jhal Magsi 63.08
Kalat 45.08
Kech 47.92
Kharan 65.52
Khuzdar 66.93
Killa Abdullah 70.73
Killa Saifullah 52.04
Kohlu 55.90
Lasbela 53.75
Loralai 46.22
Mastung 53.60
Musa Khel 78.54
Nasirabad 62.19
Panjgur 69.91
Pishin 64.41
Quetta 43.42
Sibi 54.41
Zhob 47.15
Ziarat 54.36

Table A13
Factor Analysis Generated Weights

Deprivation Indicators Overall Rural Urban

Education
 Out of School Children (5-9 Years)--Male 0.26 0.26 0.25
 Out of School Children (5-9 Years)--Female 0.26 0.26 0.27
 Illiteracy Rate (10 years and above)--Male 0.23 0.23 0.22
 Illiteracy Rate (10 years and 0.25 0.25 0.27
 above)--Female
Housing Quality
 Inadequate Material Used in Wall 0.14 0.15 0.15
 Inadequate Material Used in Roof 0.14 0.06 0.17
 Persons Per Room 0.04 0.11 0.03
 Housing Units with One Room 0.05 0.16 0.02
 Percentage of Homeless Population 0.03 0.03 0.08
 Percentage of Non-owners Households 0.11 0.02 0.10
 Household with No Kitchen Facility 0.18 0.18 0.15
 Households with No Bathroom Facility 0.18 0.18 0.16
 Households with No Latrine Facility 0.13 0.12 0.12
Housing Services
 Un-electrified Households 0.28 0.27 0.41
 Households Not Using Cooking Gas 0.35 0.33 0.25
 Households with No Inside Piped
 Water Connection 0.37 0.40 0.34
Employment
 Unemployment Rate (15-65 Years) 0.50 0.50 0.50
 Employed Labour Force in Non-
 manufacturing Sectors 0.50 0.50 0.50

Authors' Note: The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the SPDC.

Haroon Jamal, Amir Jahan Khan, Imran Ashraf Toor, and Naveed Amir are respectively Principal Economist and Research Officers at the Social Policy and Development Centre (SPDC), Karachi.

Table 1
Variables Used to Represent Sectoral Deprivations

Education
 Illiteracy Rate (10 Years and above)--Female
 Illiteracy Rate (10 Years and above)--Male
 Out of School Children (5-9 Years)--Female
 Out of School Children (5-9 Years)--Male

Housing Quality and Congestion
 Percentage of Non-owner Households
 Percentage of Homeless Population
 Inadequate Material Used in Roof
 Inadequate Material Used in Wall
 Households with No Bathroom Facility
 Household with No Kitchen Facility
 Households with No Latrine Facility
 Housing Units with One Room
 Persons Per Room.

Residential Housing Services
 Un-electrified Households
 Households Not Using Cooking Gas
 Households with No Inside Piped Water Connection
Employment
 Unemployment Rate (15-65 Years).
 Employed Labour Force in Non-manufacturing Sectors

Source: Pakistan Population and Housing Census (1998).

Table 2
Population Distribution according to the Level of
Deprivation-Overall (Million Persons)

 Deprivation Level

 High Middle Low Total

Punjab 18.42 28.08 27.12 73.62
Sindh 9.46 8.23 12.75 30.44
NWFP 9.05 6.66 2.02 17.74
Balochistan 5.77 0.03 0.76 6.57
Pakistan 42.71 43.01 42.64 128.36

Table 3
Shares in Multiple Deprivation
(% of Provincial Population Residing in)

 Deprivation Level

 High Medium Low
All Areas
 Punjab 25 38 37
 Sindh 31 27 42
 NWFP 51 38 11
 Balochistan 88 1 11
Rural Areas
 Punjab 26 27 47
 Sindh 49 48 3
 NWFP 25 48 27
 Balochistan 89 7 4
Urban Areas
 Punjab 30 47 23
 Sindh 23 14 63
 NWFP 60 40 0
 Balochistan 100 0 0

Table 4
District Position in Overall Deprivation Level-Punjab
 Deprivation Level

 High Medium Low
 Population Share
 25% 38% 37%

Rajanpur Bahawalnagar Attock
Muzaffargarh Khanewal Toba Tek Singh
D.G. Khan Mianwali Jhelum
Layyah Vehari Gujrat
Lodhran Okara Faisalabad
Bhakkar Khushab Gujranwala
Pakpattan Sahiwal Rawalpindi
Rahim Yar Khan Sargodha Sialkot
Bahawalpur Kasur Lahore
Jhang Hafizabad
 Chakwal
 Multan
 Mandi Bahau Din
 Narowal
 Sheikhupura

Note: In each category, districts are fisted according to the
magnitude of the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation in the
descending order.

Table 5
District Position in Overall Deprivation Level-Sindh

 Deprivation Level

 High Medium Low
 Population Share
 31% 27% 42%

Tharparkar Dadu Hyderabad
Thatta Khairpur Karachi
Badin Nawabshah
Jacobabad Naushero Feroz
Ghotki Larkana
Mirpurkhas Sukkur
Sanghar
Shikarpur

Note. In each category, districts are listed according to the
magnitude of the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation in the
descending order.

Table 6
District Position in Overall Deprivation Level-NWFP
 Deprivation Level

 High Medium Low
 Population Share

 51% 38% 11%

Kohistan Swabi Peshawar
Shangla Laki Marwat
Batagram Bannu
Upper Dir Kohat
Buner Mardan
Hangu Nowshera
Chitral Abbotabad
Tank Haripur
D.I.Khan
Lower Dir
Swat
Mansehra
Karak
Charsadda
Malakand

Note: In each category, districts are listed according to the
magnitude of the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation in the
descending order.

Table 7
District Position in Overall Deprivation Level-Balochistan

 Deprivation Level

High Medium Low
 Population Share
88% 1% 11%

Musa Khel Ziarat Quetta
Kharan
Kohlu
Awaran
Zhob
Jhal Magsi
Panjgur
Khuzdar
Dera Bugti
Barkhan
Nasirabad
Killa Saifullah
Killa Abdullah
Bolan
Mastung
Chagai
Lasbela
Jafarabad
Loralai
Kalat
Kech
Gawadar
Sibi
Pishin

Note: In each category, districts are listed according to the
magnitude of the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation in the
descending order.