巴基斯坦穷人分类

Investment Rating - The report does not explicitly provide an investment rating for the industry Core Insights - Understanding the heterogeneity of poor households in Pakistan is crucial for identifying pathways out of poverty through targeted policy actions [4][12] - The analysis categorizes the bottom 40th consumption percentile of households (B40) into five distinct groups using non-parametric hierarchical cluster analysis [4][16] - The findings indicate that poverty is not uniform and varies significantly across different groups, necessitating differentiated policy interventions [12][16] Summary by Sections Introduction - Between 2001 and 2018, Pakistan experienced a 60% growth in household real consumption, leading to a decline in poverty from 64.3% to 21.9% [7] - Despite the overall decline in poverty, significant disparities remain across provinces and between urban and rural areas [8][10] Data and Methodology - The analysis utilizes data from the Household Integrated Economic Survey (HIES) 2018-19, covering 24,809 households [20][22] - A hierarchical clustering method is employed to identify distinct groups within the B40 based on various household characteristics [14][55] Results - Five meaningful clusters among the B40 households are identified: 1. Ultra-poor rural households relying on unskilled sharecropping and public safety nets [16][57] 2. Poor rural households engaged in agriculture as owner-cultivators [16][64] 3. Households in transition between agriculture and service provision [16][64] 4. Urban households with higher education and semi-skilled jobs in industry and services [16][64] 5. Poor households engaged in unskilled daily wage labor in construction and services [16][64] - The asset framework of shared prosperity is used to analyze the characteristics and constraints of each group [62][65] Group Characteristics - Group 1 consists of remote, rural, shock-prone households with low education and asset ownership [73][82] - Group 2 includes rural households involved in on-farm activities, showing better asset ownership and human capital compared to Group 1 [85][92] - Group 3 represents remittance-receiving households with low employment, often missing a working member who has migrated [93][95] - Group 4 comprises urban households with higher education and asset ownership, performing better than the national average [96]