We consider an asset-based alternative to the standard use of expenditures in defining well-being and poverty. Our motivation is to see if there exist simpler and less demanding ways to collect data to measure economic welfare and rank households. This is particularly important in poor regions where there is limited capacity to collect consumption, expenditure and price data. We evaluate an index derived from a factor analysis on household assets using multipurpose surveys from several countries. We find that the asset index is a valid predictor of a crucial manifestation of poverty-child health and nutrition. Indicators of relative measurement error show that the asset index is measured as a proxy for long-term wealth with less error than expenditures. Analysts may thus prefer to use the asset index as an explanatory variable or as a means of mapping economic welfare to other living standards and capabilities such as health and nutrition. Copyright 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd..

No abstract

In this paper we examine the relative importance of rural versus urban areas in terms of monetary poverty and seven other related living standards indicators. We present the levels of urban-rural differences for several African countries for which we have data and find that living standards in rural areas lag far behind those in urban areas. Then we examine the relative and absolute rates of change for urban and rural areas and find no overall evidence of declining differences in the gaps between urban and rural living standards. Finally, we conduct urban-rural decompositions of inequality, examining the within versus between (urban and rural) group inequality for asset inequality, education inequality, and health (height) inequality.

Increasing adoption of modern inputs remains one of the best hopes for greater agricultural production in developing countries. Based on unique data from northwestern Ethiopia, this study examines the "last mile(s)"-from the input distribution center to the farmer-in the chemical fertilizer and improved seed distribution system. We find that increasing transaction and transportation costs over a 35 km distance, along a route mainly accessible to only foot traffic, lead to a 50% increase of the price of chemical fertilizer and to a 75% reduction in its use. Farmers who live about 10 km from the distribution center face per unit transaction and transportation costs as high as the costs needed to bring the fertilizer from the international port to the input distribution center (about 1,000 km). Tackling the "last mile(s)" costs should thus be a priority to improve modern input adoption and use in these settings.JEL classifications: O13, Q13, Q18

No abstract