Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad

Poverty and Natural Resource Management in Pakistan

Author(s): Muhammad Irfan
Source: The Pakistan Development Review, Vol. 46, No. 4, Papers and Proceedings PARTS I and
II Twenty-third Annual General Meeting and Conference of the Pakistan Society of
Development Economists Islamabad, March 12-14, 2008 (Winter 2007), pp. 691-708
Published by: Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41261190 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 22:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Pakistan Development Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
©ThePakistanDevelopment Review
46 : 4 PartII (Winter2007) pp. 691-708

Povertyand NaturalResource
Managementin Pakistan
Muhammad Irfan

Pakistan is a countryof contrasts,with diversifiedrelief having majestic high

mountainranges snow-coveredpeaks, eternalglaciers, and the inter-mountain valleys in
the north.Irrigatedplains in the Indus basin contrastwithstarkdesertsand rugged rocky
plateaus in southwest Balochistan. The countryis arid and semi-arid with substantial
variationin temperaturedependingupon the topographyand characterisedby continental
type of climate. Over the years since independence the naturalresources of the country
(land and water) have been harnessedwhich in turnmade it possible to feed the growing
population which more than quadrupled during the past sixty years. Constructionof
Tarbela and Mangia Dam facilitated the growth of irrigatedagricultureand led the
croppingintensityto peak. Sectors otherthan the agriculturealso developed because of
the backward and forwardlinkage of the agriculturalgrowththerebyhaving an economy
diversifiedand much less dependenton agriculture.
There are however concerns raised with respect to the costs and practices of the
past developmentin termsof environmentaldegradation,resource misuse and depletion.
One fourthof the country'sland area, suitable forintensiveagriculturesuffersfromwind
and water erosion, salinity/sodicity,water logging, floodingand loss of organic matter.
Deforestationhas taken its toll as the accelerated surfaceerosion is shorteningthe life of
Tarbela and Mangia reservoirs,which provide waterfor90 percentof the food and fibre
productionin the country. Over-exploitationand misuse of rangelandsextendingover a
vast area are seriouslyconstraininglivestock production,therebyadversely affectingthe
livelihood of pastoral communities. The mangrove areas are under increased
environmentalstress.
Overexploitationand misuse of the resources by the population in the contextof
the development has not been fullyreckoned by the researchersas well as the policy
makers.Given the factthathealthyecosystemsproduce the requirementsforlife which in
turnhighlightthe crucial linkages between the society and eco-systems. The complex
relationshipsbetween managementof natural sources and survival strategyof poor are
not fullyexamined and investigatedin Pakistan. This is despite the fact that poor rely
moreon naturalresourcesthanthe rich. Unfortunately few, if any,researchendeavour in
Pakistan has been conducted to unravel the nexus between the poverty and natural

MuhammadIrfanis Professorof Economicsat the International Instituteof Islamic Economics,

International
IslamicUniversity,
Islamabad.
Author'sNote: The authoris thankful
to the Asian DevelopmentBank forits generousfundingto
completethisstudy.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
692 MuhammadIrfan

resourcemanagement. This is not to suggestthatthe environmental degradationand

threatened is
biodiversity glossed over. In fact it is the opposite wherein relevant
organisationsand ministriesare continuously assessing thesechanges. What needs to be
highlighted is that the poverty reduction and resource management have not been
examinedin an interdependent framework of environment, development and population
growth.This in turnwouldhave led to mounting of variouscase studiesfocusingupon
theseinterlinkages. Exclusive focus of the developmentagenda on attainingthe UN
MillenniumDevelopmentGoals as well as ensuingWB PovertyReductionStrategy
Papers tendedto relegatethe importance of the examinationof cruciallinksbetween
resourcesmanagement, environment and povertyreductionto the secondaryposition
whereinmonitoring and estimation of povertylevelsas well as thesafetynetsto address
thecasualtiesof growthin thecontextof globalisationappearsto have been accorded
forresearchandevaluationexercisesas wellas datacollection.
priority
In thisexercisean effort is made thoughin a limitedway because of thelack of
requisitedata to fillthisvoid. Povertylevels and trendsforthecountryand therural
urbanregionsare describedin the firstsectionof thisreport,whichis followedby a
discussionoftheoveralleconomicgrowth (GDP) anditsdistribution to discernitsimpact
on povertysituation. The relationship betweentheutilisation of majornaturalresources
of thecountry thelandwater,poverty is studiedin thethirdsectionwhereinthemapping
of povertyto different agroclimatic zones is attempted. Sourcesof incomeby poverty
statuscontrolling the othervariablesare discussedin the fourthsection.The role of
in povertyreduction
agricultural is also assesseddiscerning thepovertylevelsin thefifth
section.The finalsectionroundsup thediscussionas wellas offerssomesuggestions for
datacollectionto sharpenourunderstanding abouttheinterlinkages betweenpoverty and
resourcemanagement.

I. POVERTY PROFILE
Multidimensional of povertydefies a neat demarcation.Oftenseveral but
not separable meanings can be attributedto povertywhich essentially should
encompass totalityof deprivationexperienced by an individual or group of
individuals.Encyclopaediaof Social Sciences forinstance,suggeststhatdefinition
of
poverty is convention specific and distinguishesbetween Social Poverty and
Pauperism.The formerincludes economic inequalityor propertyincomes etc in
additionto social inequalitysuch as dependenceor exploitationwhile Pauperism
denotesones inabilityto maintainat the level conventionallyregardedas minimal.
Pauperism has been the focus of researchersin Pakistan and elsewhere in the
developingworld, whereineffortshave been made to quantifythe poverty,thus
defined,usingessentiallyarbitrary povertylinesor normswithapplicationof varying
procedures forestimation. the
During past varietyof procedureswereused. Planning
Commissionof Pakistanhoweverin 1998-99 suggestedan officialpovertyline in
termsof minimumcaloric requirementper adult (2350 per day) and the needed
expenditureof Rs 670 per personforthatyear.Despite the need to demonstrate the
relevance of this caloric requirementthe constructedpovertyline can facilitate
monitoring thepovertylevels in thecountrywhichhas assumedimportancegiventhe
global emphasison MDGs and Social SafetyNets.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and NaturalResourceManagement
Poverty 693

Thereis almosta consensusthatin an historical perspectivePakistanwas successful

in reducing povertyover thedecades since independence. Absolute poverty, Head Count
ratiobasedon caloricintake, declinedfrom46.5 percent in 1969-70to 17 percentin 1987-
88. Since thenthereversalhas takenplace till2001 whenit rose to 34 percent.Recent
research exercisesfortheperiodsince2002 aresuggestive of improvement, according tothe
Government - around10 percent pointdeclinein poverty incidence,whichis contested by
independent researchers includingthe WB which claim thatpoverty level may have
declinedfrom34 percent in2001 to29 percent in2004-05 Itis extremely difficult
tooffer a
firmconclusionabout the currentpoverty levels in Pakistan but theofficialclaim of 10
percentpointdeclineduringthethreeyearsperiodmustbe supported by otherindicators
suchas sharpriseinrealwages,massivereduction intheinequality andunemployment rates.
The generalimpression as well as our findings is thatthesevariablesfailto supportthe
official
claim.
For the periodsince 1998 threedifferent estimatesare presentedin Appendix
Tables 1, 2, and 3. Alongwiththeofficialestimateswhichsuggesta 10 percentpoint
declinein thepoverty from34 percentin 2001-02to 23 percentin 2004-05,theestimates
fromtheWorldBank whichuses Surveybased priceindexrathertheofficialCPI and
Jamal(2007) whoestimatesCalorieConsumption Function(CCF) andprovidesa longer
timetrend,howeverindicatethatthepovertyin thelatteryeardeclinedto 30 percent.
Jamalalso suggestthattherural/urban gap in thepovertylevel has narrowed, in other
wordspovertydeclinewas largerin ruralareas thanin urbanareas,theresultdifferent
thantheothertwoexercises.Juxtaposition ofthesethreestudiesis suggestive of at besta
stagnation of the povertylevels witha quantumjump in 2001-02 because of drought
particularly in Sindhprovinceand thenreversalsin thepovertytrendto 1998-99levels
also in thesame province.The officialclaimof drasticcurtailment in povertylevels in
2004-05to 24 percentmeritsfurther It
scrutiny. may be added thataround 10 percentof
thehouseholdslie withinthe rangeof ±5 percentof the povertyline, hence a minor
changein the povertyline, inflationary adjustment and data protocolprocedurescan
generate substantial intheestimated
variations incidenceofpoverty.

Regionaland ProvincialPovertyIncidence
Invariablyall theresearchexerciseson estimationof povertyconcurthatpoverty
levelsare higherin ruralareasthanin theurban(see Tables 1, 2 and 3). Giventhatthe
ruralpopulationaccountsfortwo thirdsof thetotal,majority of thepoor live in rural
Pakistanandpoverty is a ruralphenomenon.Accordingto theofficialestimatesthehead
countratioof poor in ruralareas is almostdoubleof theurbanareas in 2004-05. The
WorldBankstudysuggestsalso similarmagnitudes of theruralurbangap,thoughJamal
differson thegap betweenurbanand ruralareas.These researchexercisessuggestthat
poverty is predominantly a ruralphenomenon becausetwo-thirdsof thepopulationslive
inruralareas.

ProvincialPovertyProfile
Fourprovinces, whichalso coincideswith
mostlydefinedon thebasis of ethnicity
resourceendowments
natural ThusPunjaband Sindhprovinces
oftenclassifythecountry.
haverichagricultural
resourcebaseas wellas botharemoredevelopedcompared toresource

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
694 MuhammadIrfan

poorandlessdevelopedprovinces ofNWFP andBalochistan. Theprovincial povertypicture

is depictedinAppendix Table4. Application ofcareis counseledintheinterpretation
ofdata
because theHIES data are notregardedas representative at thelevel of province.Two
estimates,one fromtheWorldBankandtheotherbyAnwar(2006) provided inthetableare
indicativeof thefindings thatin generalpoverty incidenceat theprovinciallevelstendto
fluctuate.WhileBalochistanwas least poor in 1998-99,a statusacquiredby Punjabin
2001-02andSindhin2004-05.Further classification
intermsofurbanandruralareastends
to suggestthattheurbanSindhemergedto be theleastpoorforall thethreeyearsunder
study.A closerperusalofthetablealso indicates thatimprovement in poverty situation
was
mostlyconfined to Sindhprovinceduring2001-02to 2004-05,theotherprovinces did not
sharethisgainrather thesituationinBalochistanprovinceworsened during thesameperiod.

PovertyIncidenceat DisaggregatedLevels
To a largeextentthedichotomy of urbanand ruralareasfailsto reckonwiththe
continuum obtainedat ground.Ruralareasareintegrated withnearbyurbancentres because
of boththefactorand productmarket Similar
interdependence. interlinkages existbetween
smalltownsand majorurbancentres.In otherwords,neither theurbanareasnortherural
areasarehomogenous units.Urbanareasincludemajortownsandsmalltowns.Based on
householdlevel (raw data) one findsthatthemajorurbancentres(classifiedby Federal
Bureauof Statistics as selfrepresentingbecauseof largepopulation sizes andtheprovincial
capitals)are in a very comfortable situationwhere the poverty incidence (usingofficial
poverty line)in 2004-05 was 9.7 In
only percent. contrast theotherurbanareaswerecloser
to ruralareaswherethepercentages of poorwere22.1 percent and28 percent respectively.
Withintheruralareasnon-farm populationwas worsthitbyregistering 34 percent pooras
compared to 23 percentof thepopulation of farm households. In terms of the provincial
comparison substantial differential
persistswherein majorurbancentresof Sindhappearto
be leastpoor(6.2 percent)comparedto 20.6 percentof NWFP. In an overallcomparison,
NWFP can be regardedas the mostpoor (see AppendixTable 5). Major urbanareas
particularlyin SindhandPunjabprovinces weretheoneswhichexperienced industrial
and
commercialdevelopment, hence a lower level of povertyis plausible.The above
disaggregated descriptionof povertyincidenceis indicative
of theclose similarity between
ruralareasand smallurbanareas.The latterappearsto be theextension of theformer with
mushroom growth oflessproductiveinformal sectorenterprises.

II. GDP GROWTH AND POVERTY

Admittedly, overalleconomicgrowthhas a directbearingon povertylevel in a
country,however, Pakistan'sexperiencereflects
a dissonancebetweenthesetwoforsome
the For
periodsduring pastsixtyyears. example,highgrowth periodof 1960sis associated
witha declinein povertyonlyin urbanareas.In ruralareas,thepoverty situationworsened.
Duringthenextdecade,GDP growthratewas lowerthanthepreviousone butlevel of
povertydeclinedthoughtheevidenceis sketchy. During1980s,one findsa straightforward
andexpectedrelationshipbetweenGDP growth rateandpoverty levelswherein thepoverty
situation
improved whilethe economyregistereda remarkable growth Duringthe1990s
rate.
thepovertysituationworsened,being24.9 percent in 1992/3
to 32.1 in 2001,becauseoflow
and erraticgrowthprofile,in additionto othersocio-economic and politicalfactors.The

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and NaturalResourceManagement
Poverty 595

declinein GDP growthcontinuedtill2003, a periodassociated withstrictimplementation of

Stabilisationand StructuralAdjustmentProgramme. Since 2003 theeconomyappears to have
a turnaroundby registering roughly6 percentGDP growthrateduringthepastfiveyears.
A perusal of researchstudies conductedover the years reflectsthatin addition to
growththere were some importantdeterminants of povertysituation.For instance,high
growthrateof 1960s failedto reflectany improvement in thepovertysituationin ruralareas
because of the evictionof tenantsand rise in landlessness[Man and Amjad (1984)]. In the
wake of subdued economic performanceof the early 1970s, a decline in the povertylevel
was made possible throughescalationin thepublic sectoremploymentand a massive rise in
public sectorexpenditure[Zaidi (1995)]. Similarly,Middle East emigrationand returnflow
of remittances had a positiveinfluenceon GDP growthas well as povertytill late 1980s. In
other words, Pakistan's experience suggests a very close link between employment
generation,remittancesand tightlabourmarketand poverty.To theextentthe improvement
in povertysituationduring1970 and 1980s occurredbecause of the policies and measures
resulting in huge budget deficits and mounting indebtedness,these represent inter-
generationalpovertyshift,wherein futuregenerationshave had to pay back what was
borrowedforsustainingas well as inflating theconsumptionlevel of currentgeneration.
The slippage of the economy into debt traparound late 1980s and reductionin the
foreignaid due to PresslerAmendment,in factput a halt to the past practiceswhereinthe
entiredevelopmentexpenditureand occasionallythecurrentexpenditureused to be financed
by internaland externalborrowing.In orderto rectifythe internaland externalimbalances
throughcurtailingexpenditure,raising revenues and better export performanceunder
IMF/WorldBank reformpackages, the economy was subjected to a discipline. Pakistan
agreed to implementvarious structuraladjustmentand stabilisationprogrammes.It is in
this context that four programmes beginning with 1987-88 were signed by the
Governmentof Pakistan for implementation.With the exception of the last 1999-2003,
there were implementation lapses. Pakistan has been successful in attaining
macroeconomicstabilityby implementingSAP during1999 to 2003 thoughat the.costof
subdued economic performance,squeeze of the developmentexpenditureand worsening
poverty which was also compounded by the erratic weather conditions adversely
affectingthe growthin agriculture,the major sectorof theeconomy.
The deteriorationof the poverty conditions in the country in the context of
StructuralAdjustmentProgrammesduringthe firstfive years of the currentregime was
due to a number of factors which explain poor economic performanceas well as
worseningpovertysituationin the countrytill 2003.. For instance,decline in the GDP
growthrate has been attributedto low level of investmentand lack of effectivedemand
occasioned by the squeeze entailed by massive reductionin the public sectorexpenditure
to address the problemof budget deficit.Furthermorethe failureof the state to bringthe
rich into tax net rendered the taxation structureregressive wherein the poor were
subjected to a disproportionateburden. Similarly,the withdrawalof input subsidies in
agriculturesectoralong withprovisionof internationalprices to producersbenefitedonly
those who had marketedsurplus in the agriculturesector which also explains the failure
of growthin agricultureduring1990s to have a positive influenceon the povertyin rural
areas. Parenthicallyit may be added thatthe growthrate in agricultureis alleged to be an
overestimatefor 1990s.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
696 MuhammadIrfan

In additionthe inequalityin the economyincreasedwhereinthe Gini index

rose from0.26 to 0.30 accordingto Federal Bureau of Statisticsduring1997-98 to
2001-02 (see AppendixTable No. 6). A decompositionexercisesuggeststhatgrowth
effectfor1998-99to 2001-02 in factadded to povertywhileredistribution effectwas
negative.For recentsub-period2001-02 to 2004-05, it was the redistribution effect
whichwas positiveand added to povertylevels whilegrowtheffectwas negative(see
AppendixTable 7).
The conjunctiveinfluenceof tariffrationalisation, financialsectorreformand
privatisation led to closure of factories and downsizing which in turnresultedinto
substantialjob losses.It maybe addedthatpoverty relatedexpenditure ofthegovernment
drasticallyreducedas a percentage of GDP duringthedecade of 1990s till2003 thereby
crucifying the poor at the alterof macrostabilisation. The labourmarketoutcomeas
indexedby risingunemployment rate and stagnantor decliningreal wages also an
offshoot ofthesemeasures,further compounded thesituation.
Whilsttheabove modeof analysisprovidesexplanation forrisein povertyduring
1990s and till 2001-02 thereis also a need to disentanglethe effectof structural
adjustment fromtheinherent limitationof theoveralldispensation of thecountry.Failure
of investment to rise,thebasic factorwhichexplainslow growth, can be attributedto the
inconsistency of thepoliciesalong withlaw and ordersituationand misgovernance but
cannotbe regardedas the off-shoot of the structural adjustment program.Similarly,
massivereduction in publicsectorexpenditure during1990-2003is morea failureof the
stateto generate resourcesbecauseoftheparticular compositional specificsofthesociety
than an effectof the transitionof the economyunder the structuraladjustment.
Obviously,thereis a needto mountmoreinvestigative pursuits witha viewto understand
thegivenconstellation of thepowerbrokersin thecountry and theirimpacton thepoor,
throughthe choices they make. The influence,which the corruptionand related
governance problembearuponpoverty andinequality arenotexploredas yet.
Turnaround of theeconomyduringtherecentsub period(2003-2006) spurredby
domesticdemandescalationwhereinthegovernment patronised theautomobileindustry
ignoring theattendant costsofcongestion, environmental degradation and worstof all the
conspicuousconsumption as well as risingimportbill.The GDP growthof 6 percentper
annumhas beenregistered whichmayhave led to thedeclinein povertyand littlebitof
unemployment too, but income inequalities havenotonlypersisted butincreased.Inflow
of funds fromabroad due to geo-politicalfactorsand remittancesfacilitatedthe
government to expandpublicsectorspendingthereby havingpositiveeffecton poverty
situationsince2003.
Shorttermprospectsof thesustainability of theGDP growthare notbright.The
high inflation rate, widening current account deficits,sluggishexportperformance,
besidesfailureof theregimeto increasetax to GDP ratioand nationalsavingsare the
worrisomefactors.Studies conducted in the Growth Diagnostic Frameworkof
Haussemanidentify thelackof governance as majorconstraint to future growth[Qayyum
(2007)]. Studieswhichoptedneoclassicalgrowthaccountingtendto allude to the low
domesticsavinga majorbottleneck to futuregrowth[Din (2007)]. It mayalso be added
herethatTotal FactorProductivity (TFP) reflecting theefficiency of thegrowthprocess
appear to have declined over the decades.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and NaturalResourceManagement
Poverty 697

An intriguing factof thehistoryis thatPakistanwas successfulin reducingthe

poverty level during periodswhenthecountry
the receivedmassivefundsfromabroad
(1960s, 1980s and 2000-2006). It is also nota coincidencethatduringtheseperiodsthe
country was underthenondemocratic In otherwordswhatever
dispensation. thepoverty
alleviationoccurredwas not indigenousand hardlyenmeshedwiththe dynamicsof
growth,distribution and resourcemanagement issues a characteristicof self reliant
growth strategy. If one were to the
ignore highgrowth episodes of 1960s associated with
cold war,1980s an era of Afghanwarand since9/11waron terror, thenaturalgrowth
rateofPakistan'seconomyworksaroundto 3 to 4 percentperannumhardlykeepingup
pace withpopulationgrowth. Fundsfromabroadsupplemented thelow domesticsaving
and permitted high level of investment needed forhighergrowthrate.Also duringthese
highgrowthepisodes, PSDP as fraction of GDP rose to have a positiveinfluenceon
poverty situation.

III. POVERTY AND NATURAL RESOURCES INTERLINKAGES-

STUDY OF AGRO-CLIMATIC ZONES
In orderto discernsomewhatthe connectivity betweenpovertyreductionand
naturalresourcemanagement, poverty incidence and sourcesof incomeof thepoor by
agroclimatic zonesarediscussedin thissection.Pakistanbeingendowedwithdiversified
reliefexhibitsvaryingcroppingpattern dependingon wateravailability and typeof the
soil. Mountainousareas of NWFP, Balochistanand some partsof Punjab are generally
consideredas non-irrigated areas,wherecropslike wheatand maize are grown.In the
irrigatedareasin thenorthern Punjabgenerally basmatirice,wheatcombination is opted.
In SouthernPunjab and partsof Sindhcotton/wheat rotationis practiced.In southern
Sindh,exclusivelyIrririce is grown.Similarly,sugaris exclusivelygrownin some
irrigatedareaswherewateravailability permits.The extentto whichthespreadanddepth
of povertyvaries withthe different crops which embodydifferential mix of natural
resourcesis providedin theAppendixTable 8 whereinPunjaband Sindhprovincesare
dividedintoagroclimatic zones whereasBalochistanand NWFP are treatedas distinct
units.Povertyincidenceon thebasis of 2004-05HIES separately workedout forurban
and ruralareasin each zone are suggestive of an interesting resultthattheagriculturally
richzones like wheatcottonPunjaband Sindhappearto be poorerthantheremaining
areasintheseprovinces. Rankingson thebasisofpoverty incidenceputstheBarani(non-
irrigated)Punjab at the top registering only 7 percentof the populationbeing poor
whereasthoseresidingin wheat/cotton zones of Punjaband Sindhexhibited33 percent
and 23 percentpoverty.These findingsare similarto a previousstudyconductedby
Malik(2005) using2001-02data.
Urban-ruralpovertyincidence in different zones finds a close association
rendering homogeneity to zonal classification
in thePunjabprovincebutexhibitswide
disparitiesin Sindhwhereruralareasofa givenzone happento be muchpoorerthantheir
urbancounterparts.lt may be notedthatPakistaniagriculture reflectsa coexistenceof
peasantproprietorship in baraniand northernPunjab and feudalisticstructuretypifiedin
Southern Punjab and Sindh. The distribution
of land is skewed
substantially with overall
Gini coefficient being0.66. Accordingto Agricultural Census 2000 only aroundone-
thirds oftheruralhouseholdsownedlandwithmostofthem(61 percent)havinglandless

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
598 MuhammadIrfan

than5 acres. On the otherhand,two percentof the householdsat the top owned 30
percentof land.Andthislandinequality getstranslatedintoincomeinequality andhigher
levelof povertyamongthesharecroppers and tenantsamongthefarmpopulationin an
otherwise richagriculturalregionsof Punjaband Sindh.WhilstBalochistanand NWFP
accountfor 18 percentand BaraniPunjab accountsfor6 percentof totalpopulation,
nearlythree-fourth of thepopulationresidein areashavingirrigated In those
agriculture.
areas wherethefeudalisticstructure persistsaccounting forover 25 percent of therural
population failto getout of povertybecause themajor share of is
output appropriated by
landlordsas returnsto landareover50 percent.
Barani or non-irrigatedPunjab whichyieldedthe lowestlevels of povertyhas
benefited fromdiversedevelopments whichled thisarea to relativeprosperity. Priorto
independence the BritishEmpireprovidedmilitary and otherjobs disproportionately to
thisregion.This was the beginningof the road to relativeprosperity in theseareas
becausetheempirealso builthospitals, schoolsandinitiated otherdevelopment activities.
This low level of povertyof non-irrigated Punjab is also associatedwithlowerfamily
sizes and betterhumancapitalassets. Furthermore, becauseof thelocationof capitalof
country Islamabad, headquartersof all the threebranches of ArmedForces and hostof
otherindustrial the
activities, area is well developedthoughnot havingvast irrigated
lands.

Farm vs. Non-farmPopulation

Withinruralareas,thedistinctionbetweenfarmand nonfarm getsblurredbecause
factorand productmarketsare interlinked. In the ruralPakistannonfarmpopulation
appearsto be muchpoorerthanthefarmpopulation.While 36 percentof thenonfarm
populationaccordingto HIES 2004-05 is poor thecorresponding percentageforfarm
populationis 22. In urbansegmentsof thezones,however,theincidenceof povertyon
farmpopulationis higherthanon thenon-farm. The reasonsare obviousbecause in the
urban areas the non-farmpopulationis bettereducatedand skilled than the farm
population(see AppendixTable 9).

IV. SOURCES OF INCOME

Investigatingthedependenceof ruralas well as urbanpoor on different income
sourcesallude to theimportance of variousfactorsbearingupon thepovertyoutcome.
Accordingto theHouseholdIntegrated EconomicSurvey2004-05,wagesand salariesare
thesinglelargestsourcesof incomeaccounting for30 percentof thetotalincome.This is
followedby otheractivitieswhich presumablycompriseof enterpriseincome and
accountfor24 percentof thetotal.Cropand livestockproducttogether occupythethird
positionin thisrankingyielding20 percentof thetotalhouseholdincome.The shareof
livestockincomein totalincomeis muchless thanwhatis suggestedbyNationalIncome
Accounts,presumablythe latteris overestimated as suspectedby some researchers
8
[Malik (2005)]. Nearly percent of household income is accountedby domesticand
foreignremittances.Sources of incomedifferacrossrural/urban divide,by agroclimatic
zonesandby landsize classifications.For instance,wageincomeis 23 percentof totalin
ruralareas as comparedto 38 percentin urbanareas. Similarly,crop and livestock
incomeaccountsfor32 percentof totalhouseholdincomein ruralareas in contrastit

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and NaturalResourceManagement
Poverty 699

worksoutto 3 percentin urbanareas.Remittances constituteof9 percentof totalincome

in ruralareasas comparedto 6 percentin urbanareas.Starkdifferences existin theshare
ofotherincomepresumably theenterpriseincomebeing31 percentin urbanareasand 17
percentinruralareas.
Sourcesof incomecontrolling foragroclimatic zones is indicativeof thefactthat
theleastpoorzone (BaraniPunjab)and NWFP derivesubstantial portionof theincome
fromdomesticand foreignremittances 12
being percent and 13 percentrespectively.In
contrast thedependenceof thesezones is theloweston cropand livestock(9 percentof
the total).Wages as a sourceof incomeare also above averagein thesezones (see
AppendixTable 10). Crop and livestockincomeaccountsfor31 percentor moreof the
householdincome in cottonwheatPunjab and Sindh,low intensity Punjab and in
Balochistan.Non-farm incomeaccountsfor20 percenthouseholdincomein nearlyall
theregionswithnationalaveragebeing26 percent.In termsof poor/non-poor dividethe
dependenceof pooron wage incomeis higherthanthenon-poor, particularlyin Barani
areas,cottonwheatPunjabandSindhas wellas inNWFP andBalochistan.
In termsof landsize classification theroleof wagesis largeramongthelandless
and graduallydeclinesas one moves up the land size (see AppendixTable 11). The
remittances accountfor12 percentf thehouseholdincomeforsmalllandholder(1-2.5
acres) therebythesedeclineto 5 percentforthe largesize landholders(25 acres and
above) Crop and livestockincomeacquiressignificance forall thecategoriesof 5 acre
and above whereit accountsforover40 percenton theaverageand over57 percentfor
thelargestland size (25 acres and above). Interestingly, the shareof the nonfarm (or
enterprise) income is the 33 for
highest percent landlessto be followedby smallholders
(1-2.5 acres)22 percent. Fortheremaining landholderstheenterprise incomeaccounts
forless than15 percentofthetotal.
Clearly,theroleof different sourcesin thehouseholdincomedepictthesurvival
strategy of the population in rural areas. Ex-village and off-farm labour market
participation a
representsresponse to lower level of cropand livestockincomeeitherdue
to paucityof thelandresourcesor landconcentration amongthefewhandsas is thecase
in SouthernPunjab and Sindh rural.Non-farm(or enterprise)emergesto be more
importantfor landless and small holders who supplementtheir income through
engagement mostlyin low productivityinformal sector.

V. ROLE OF AGRICULTURAL GROWTH

Notwithstanding thefactthatthecontributionof agriculture
to GDP is around20
thetotality
percent, of theimpactof thegrowthin agriculturesectoris immense.This is
becauseof itsbackwardandforward linkageseffect.
Eventoday,70 percentofPakistan's
exportsare based on agricultural
produce and nearlytwo-thirds of the populationis
or on
directly indirectlydependent agriculture. Large scale surfaceirrigationwas
undertaken in the 19thcentury and subsequentmajorprojectslike Tarbelaand Mangia
Dam werecompletedafterindependence. Sincethenthedevelopments takingplace in the
sectorprovideda strongfoundation
agriculture to thedevelopment of theeconomy.Real
GDP growthin agriculture was thehighestin 1960-70(4.8 percent).Thenagainduring
1980-2000,thegrowthwas rangingbetween4 to 4.4 percent.Since the year2000, it
declinedto 3.5 percent.During the more recentperiod of 1998 to 2004-05, the

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
700 Muhammad
Irfan

agriculturalgrowthin percapitatermsafteradjustingtheofficialpopulationgrowthrate
[WorldBank (2007)] was negative(-1 percent).This to a largeextentexplainstheweak
linkbetweenpovertylevelsand agricultural growth, becausethelatterwas notsufficient
as well as it has been erraticexhibitingyear-wise The sectordependsto a
fluctuation.
largeextenton the production of majorcropslike wheatand cotton.The latterbeing
producedin Southern Punjaband Sindhwherelanddistribution is highlyskewedthereby
one getsan anomalousfindings thatagriculturally richzones are associatedwithhighest
levelsofpoverty.
Agricultural growthduringtheperiodof GreenRevolution(1970 to 1980) was
mostlyinputbased (seeds, fertiliser and water). Since theearly1990s,thetotalfactor
in
productivity crop sub-sector appears to have remainedstagnantor declined.
Deterioration in waterand soil qualitysince 1990s is also reported.In orderto achieve
perceptible growthin thefarmsector,measuresare neededto addressthedecliningsoil
fertility manypartsof thecountry.
in Accordingto theWorldBank (2007) study,around
Rs 70 billionper yearor 6.8 percentof agricultural GDP is lostdue to soil degradation
attributable in wateruse. It is also imperative
to inefficiency to diversify and venture into
high value crops wherever appropriate. Research on high value crop such as oilseeds,
vegetables,fruitsand livestockis desperatelyneeded.It may be added thatlivestock
production will have a majorimpacton povertyalleviationbecause it is moreevenly
distributed thanthe crop income.Improvement in waterdeliveryhas to be accorded
priority.
Efforts
madein thepastto redistribute thelandthrough landreforms almostfailed.
Now theland reforms have been officiallybanished.Negativeimplications of insecure
for
tenancyarrangement production can be addressed but politicalfeasibilityis not
certain,thoughproductivity gains accordingto some studiesare of the orderof 18
percentifsmallfarm sharecropper resultsfroma shiftto rentfixedtenancy.Efficiency of
land marketsand securityof tenancycan be improvedthroughimprovement of land
of sale andpurchaseoflandin an overallcontextof limitedarable
recordsandfacilitation
land.

Rural Non-farmEconomy
Preciseestimateof thenumberof ruralnon-farm enterprisehaveneverbeenmade
though a recentWorld Bank studyputs it around3.8 million.
Almost two-fifths of the
ruralpopulationis engagedas self-employed or wage earnerin thenon-farm enterprise
sector.Whilemostof theself-employed in tradesector,wageemployment is foundin the
construction
andtransport sectors.Around30 percentoftheaveragehouseholdincomein
ruralareasoriginatesin thissub-sector.
Mostoftheseenterprises in ruralareas,in nearby
small towns, are familybased. These enterprisessimply are reflectiveof low
and less skillednatureof thebusiness.These so called informal
productivity activitiesto
a largeextentare recyclingwages.Accordingto WorldBank studymedianvalue added
per workerwas Rs 18,000 in ruralareas and Rs 27,000 small townenterprises. Poor
and lack of access to credithas been identified
infrastructure as major constraint to
growth.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and NaturalResourceManagement
Poverty 70 1

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

The foregoing reviewis suggestiveof thefactthatdespitesome progressmade
the
during very recent period,poverty levelstendedto increasesince 1987-88and nearly
30 percentofthepopulationis belowthepoverty line.Povertyis mostlyconfinedto rural
areas whereinnon-farm populationemergesto be poorerthanthe farmpopulation.
Withinurbanareasthemajorcitiesare betterplaced withmuchless povertyincidence
thantheothersmallerurbancities.In factthelatterare closerto theruralareas in this
comparison.
Wages and salariescontribute themajorsourceof incometo be followedby the
non-farm enterprise income.Cropandlivestockoccupythethirdpositionthoughitvaries
bydifferent zonesandby socioeconomicgroupof thepopulation. Poor tendto relymore
on wage incomethanon othersources.A closer scrutinyof the spread of poverty
incidenceacross variousagro-climatic zones is suggestiveof the top positionbeing
occupiedby the least endowed zone of non-irrigated(Barani)Punjab,whilethe worst
conditions emergefortheagriculturally richzones of Wheat-Cotton producingzones of
Southern PunjabandSindh.Theseanomalousfindings can be explainedin termsof other
developmentalactivitiesfor Barani Punjab as well as major urban areas wherein
industrialandcommercial strideshavebeenmadein thepastas wellas present.Skewed
landdistribution whereinthemajority of incomeis appropriated bylandlordsreflectsthe
worstpoverty situation in therichagricultural zonesof southern PunjabandSindh.
Agricultural growth overtheyearshas beenresponsible forreducingpovertyboth
directlyas well as indirectly through development in other branches of the economy.
Agriculture sector a
experienced respectablegrowth rate during the greenrevolution
whichwas mostlyinputbased.Duringthelastdecadeor so theagriculture sectorsuffered
fromyear- wise erraticfluctuations due to droughts as well as emergenceof theproblem
ofsoil fertilitygenerally attributed to inefficiencyin theuse ofwater.
Thereis a needto reiterate thatPakistanis stilla naturalresourcebased economy.
The agriculture sectoris a primary employer and mostimportant contributor
to economic
surplus and the principalsourceof itsforeignexchange.Millionsof families,especially
thosethatarepoorand landless,dependon livestockformuchof theirfoodand income.
Agriculture contributed around67 percentof Pakistan'sforeignexchangeearnings -
mostof whichwas associatedwiththesale ofcottontextilesthoughagriculture's shareof
GDP hasdeclinedto 21 percent butitstillaccountsfor43.4 percentoftotalemployment,
while65.9 percentofthepopulation is dependent on agricultural production.
Although less than5 percentofPakistanhas forestcover,forests playa numberof
important roles,regulating the flow of waterthroughthe Indus River System(1RS),
reducingerosionand thebuild-upof sedimentbehinddam. Forestprovidesa sourceof
wood for construction, cookingand a wide rangeof otherproductsand createsan
important habitat for rare andendangered floraandfauna,providing medicinalplantsand
important grazing areas for livestock. Rangelandswhichcoveran estimated37.5 percent
of Pakistan'sland area will grow increasingly important over time as the country
attempts to developnew areasto producefoodand createotherproductsforitsgrowing
population.
It is imperative to emphasisethatseriousenvironmental damagesand stresseson
naturalresourcehave been experienced.A 1997 World Bank studyestimatedthat

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
702 MuhammadIrfan

environmental damageannuallycostsPakistantheequivalentof US$ 1.8 billion,owing

to higherhealthexpenditures, reducedlabourproductivity, and a wide rangeof other
and
explicit implicit costs.Pakistan's natural resource sector is underintensestress.The
forestsectoris severelydamaged,fisheries need majorremediation, agriculturalland is
increasingly becomingwater-logged, salineand fragmented whilegroundwater supplies
in places like Balochistanare runningout. The glaciersin the northern mountainsof
Pakistanare beginning to meltdue to globalwarmingand agriculture will eithergreatly
diminish orrequiremajoradjustments.
Population growthand poor managementhave reduced per capita water
availabilityfrom53,000 cubic metersto 1,200cubicmeters.Logginghas contributed to
the world'ssecond highestdeforestation rateand extensivesoil erosion.Each day the
IndusRiveradds an estimated 500 thousandtonsof sediment to theTarbelaDam, which
has reduceditslifespanby 22 percentand its waterholdingcapacityby 16 percent.The
irrigationsystemcontributesmillionsof tons of salt to the surrounding farmland.
Approximately 6.8 millionhectaresor aroundone-thirds of croppedarea in Pakistanare
impactedby salinity.The irrigation systemalso has wreckedhavocon thedeltaregion's
ecologicalbalance.An examination ofthechangesinthecroppingpattern consistentwith
water availabilityappears overdue. Possibilitiesof substituting drip/sprinklingthe
currentlyflood irrigationsystem has to be assessed.It is in this contextthe suggestion
thatuser chargesmay be crop specificto reflectwaterscarcitymeritsconsideration.
There is a desperateneed to change the water use practicesgiven the political
ofconstruction
infeasibility of largedams,albeitwithlimitedlifespan.
Very littleif any has beendiscussedaboutthenexusbetweenthenaturalresource
management and povertyreductionexceptthe mappingof povertywithagroclimatic
zones. Because of the emphasisupon monitoring the MDGs whereinthe focus of
researchers as well as data gathering exercisehas beenon estimating thepoverty. Below
fewsuggestions aremadeto initiatesomeexerciseto unravelthisnexusinPakistan.

(1) It is well-knownthatpoor rely much on naturalresourcesparticularly

underthe community ownershipsuch as forests,sea and riverwater.The
extentto whichtheseare misusedand exploitedneeds to be investigated
withparticularreferenceto propertyrightskeepingin view the survival
strategyof thepoor.
(2) Withinagricultureinefficient use of water is noticed with the ensuing
and worsening
salinity/sodicity soil conditions. to examinethe
It is imperative
extentto whichpoverty is thecause oreffectofthesedevelopments.
(3) Differentialaccess to irrigationwateris widespread.How muchpoorare at a
disadvantageous position needs to be documented.
(4) Relationbetweenemigration and thereturn flowof remittances and theland
use patternneeds to be reckonedparticularly in NWFP and otherhigh
emigration areas.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and NaturalResourceManagement
Poverty 703

APPENDIX

AppendixTable 1
ComparisonofPoverty Based on theOfficialPoverty
Estimates, Line,
1998-99,2000-01and 2004-05
1998-99 2000-01 2004-05 Difference
( 1)-(3) Difference(2)-(3)
Region Щ £} Q) (£ (3}
Urban 20.9 22.69 14.94 5.96 7.15
Rural 34.6 39.26 28.13 6.47 11.13
Overall 306 3446 23JH 6M 1052
Source: Haque andArif(2007).

AppendixTable 2
PovertyEstimatesin Pakistan,1998-99, 2001-02 and 2004-05
1998-99 2001-02 2004-05
Poverty National 30.0 34.4 29.2
Headcount Urban 21.0 22.8 19.1
Rate Rural 33.8 39.1 34.0
National 6.3 7.0 6.1
PovertyGap Urban 4.3 4.6 3.9
Rural 7.1 8.0 7.2
Squared Nation 2.0 2.1 2.0
PovertyGap Urban 1.3 1.4 1.2
Rural 2J. 2Л 23
Source: WorldBank(2007).

AppendixTable 3
Trendsin Poverty
Incidence
(PercentageofPopulationLivingBelowthePovertyLine)
1987-88 1996-97 1998-99 2001-02 2004-05
Pakistan 23 28 30 33 30
(2.4%) (3.6%) (3.3%) (-3.0%)
Urban 19 25 25 30 28
(3.5%) (0%) (6.7%) (-2.2%)
Rural 26 30 32 35 31
(1.7%) (3.3 %) (3.1 %) (-3.8 %)
Source: Jamal(2007).
Note: AGR frompreviousperiodaregivenin parenthesis.

AppendixTable 4
IncidenceofPoverty
byRural/Urban
Overall ___ RuralAreas
1998-99 2000-01 2004-05 1998-99 2000-01 2004-05 1998-99 2000-01 2004-05
WorldBank (2006d)
Punjab 29.8 30.7 29.5 23.7 23.0 21.2 32.2 33.8 33.4
Sindh 26.2 37.5 22.4 15.3 207 13.8 34.5 48.3 28.9
NWFP 408 42.3 39.3 26.1 30.0 26.1 43.3 44.4 41.9
Balochistan 22.1 37.2 32.9 25.2 27.4 21.5 21.6 39.3 35.8
Anwar(2006)
Punjab 31.6 32.2 29.7 24.2 23.2 206 34.6 35.8 33.9
Sindh 26.0 35.3 22.4 15.6 20.1 14.3 34.0 45.0 28.4
NWFP 41.3 41.3 38.9 27.1 29.0 26.5 43.7 43.4 41.4
Balochistan 21.6 35.5 33.1 22.9 26.2. 22.4 21.3 37.5 35.9

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
704 MuhammadIrfan

AppendixTable 5
PovertyIncidencebyProvinceand Region2004-05(Poor %)
Urban Areas Rural Areas Overall
Total MajorUrbanCentres Other Total Farm Non-farm Total
Pakistan 14.9 9.7 22.1 28.1 23.1 34.2 23.9
Punjab 16.3 11.8 21.0 28.0 19.8 36.6 24.3
Sindh 11.0 6.2 24.6 23.7 24.0 23.2 18.3
NWFP 21.9 20.7 22.5 34.1 32.0 37.0 32.1
Balochistan 18.5 74 25.6 28.8 223 36.5 26.7
Source: Based on HouseholdData Tabulation,HIES 2004-05.

AppendixTable 6
byRegionsand Overall-I 992-93to 2001-02
GiniCoefficient
Year FBS (2001) WorldBank(2002) Anwar(2005)
Overall
1992-93 0.2680 0.276 0.3937
1993-94 0.2709 0.276 0.3864
1998-99 0.3019 0.296 0.4187
2001-02 - - 0.4129
Rural Areas
1992-93 0.2389 0.252 0.3668
1993-94 0.2345 0.246 0.3647
1998-99 0.2521 0.251 0.3796
2001-02 - - 0.3762
UrbanAreas
1992-93 0.3170 0.316 0.3970
1993-94 0.3070 0.302 0.3685
1998-99 0.3596 0.353 0.4510
2001-02 - - 0.4615

AppendixTable 7
forPakistanbyRegionsbetween
ofPoverty
Decomposition
2001-02to2004-05and 1998-99to2001-02
Growth Redistribution Residual TotalChangein Poverty
1998-99to 2001-02
Pakistan 5.66 -2.05 -0.22 3.83
Urban 4.58 -1.82 0.99 1.77
Rural 6.12 -2.23 -0.7 4.59
2001-02to 2004-05
Pakistan -12.48 1.42 -0.5 10.56
Urban -8.06 1.18 0.91 7.79
Rural -14.29 2.2 -0.93 11.16
1998-99to 2004-05
Pakistan -5.90 -0.18 0.61 6.69
Urban -4.54 -1.42 0.02 5.98
Rural (Ш 094 6M
-6£7
Source:Anwar(2006).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and NaturalResourceManagement
Poverty 705

AppendixTable 8
HeadcountbyAgroclimatic
Poverty Zone2004-05
(%)
Urban Rural Pakistan
Rice WheatPunjab 11.00 20.39 16.09
MixedPunjab 21.25 29.60 26.90
Cotton-WheatPunjab 20.27 36.54 33.02
Low Intensity
Punjab 34.94 29.47 30.34
BaraniPunjab 7.66 7.20 7.38
CottonWheatSindh 18.29 24.36 22.51
Rice- OtherSindh 8.43 23.09 15.82
NWFP 21.88 34.13 32.11
Balochistan 18.46 28.76 26.65
Total 1A94 28ЛЗ 23.94
Source:Based on HouseholdLevel Data Tabulation.

AppendixTable 9
Estimation byFarmvs.Non-farm
ofPoverty HouseholdbyAgro-climatic
Zone
Urban Rural Pakistan
Farm Non-farm Farm Non-farm Farm Non-farm
Rice-Wheat Punjab 4.20 11.33 11.10 28.54 16.09 83.91
MixedPunjab 8.66 22.32 21.03 37.06 26.90 73.10
Cotton-Wheat Punjab 4.56 22.25 29.17 44.00 33.02 66.98
Low IntensityPunjab 41.51 33.39 21.08 45.11 30.34 69.66
BaraniPunjab - 8.21 2.04 14.55 7.38 92.62
CottonwheatSind 27.80 17.47 24.12 24.65 22.51 77.49
Rice-OtherSind 18.45 8.07 23.85 21.83 15.82 84.18
NWFP 15.55 22.64 32.01 36.97 32.11 67.89
Balochistan 25.76 17.75 22.30 36.52 26.65 73.35
Total 14.90 85.10 28.10 78.90 23.94 76.06
Source:Based on HouseholdLevelTabulationofHIES 2004-05.

AppendixTable 10
SourcesofIncomebyPoverty
Status2004-05(Percentages)
Remittance Non
Wages/ Foreign+ Crop Livestock farm Rental Sale of Other Total
Salaries Pak Income Income Income Income PropertyIncome Income
Urban Extremely Poor 55.04 0.19 0.00 1.68 27.44 0.00 0.00 15.65 100.00
Ultra-poor 39.22 4.64 2.93 0.95 38.87 0.00 0.04 13.36 100.00
Poor 45.44 3.03 3.08 1.26 33.03 0.36 0.04 13.75 100.00
Quasi Non-poor 40.17 4.01 2.67 0.89 37.12 0.52 0.05 14.57 100.00
Non-poor 33.00 6.23 4.00 0.92 33.91 2.10 2.02 17.82 100.00
Total 37.07 5.08 3.46 0.97 34.77 1.34 1.12 16.19 100.00
Rural ExtremelyPoor 26.87 4.40 15.25 11.49 22.00 0.00 0.00 19.99 100.00
Ultra-poor 33.39 6.14 15.21 6.81 23.18 0.03 0.46 14.79 100.00
Poor 28.48 7.83 21.01 7.83 20.91 0.09 0.96 12.89 100.00
Quasi Non-poor 22.37 8.85 26.43 8.55 19.91 0.40 0.80 12.69 100.00
Nonpoor 15.30 11.58 32.22 6.97 16.80 0.79 1.58 14.77 100.00
Total 23.07 9.08 25.58 7.84 19.59 0.38 1.04 13.44 100.00
Pakistan ExtremelyPoor 31.14 3.76 12.94 10.00 22.83 0.00 0.00 19.33 100.00
Ultra-poor 34.95 5.74 11.92 5.24 27.38 0.02 0.35 14.41 100.00
Poor 32.94 6.57 16.30 6.10 24.10 0.16 0.72 13.11 100.00
Quasi Non-poor 28.99 7.05 17.59 5.70 26.31 0.44 0.52 13.39 100.00
Non-poor 26.19 8.29 14.85 3.24 27.33 1.59 1.85 16.65 100.00
Total 29.13 7.34 16.00 4.86 26.16 0.80 1.07 14.63 100.00
Source: Based on HouseholdLevel datatabulation.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
706 MuhammadIrfan

AppendixTable 11
SourcesofIncomebyLand Size - 2004-05 (Percentages)
Wages/ Crop Livestock Non-farmRental Sale of Other
Land Category Salaries RemittanceIncome Income Income Income propertyIncome Total
No land 37.11 7^21 1% 2Л6 33.23 Ш Õ79 15.53 100
1-2.5 28.42 12.26 17.52 6.62 22.13 0.27 0.19 12.59 100
2.5-5 21.71 8.34 28.24 8.23 14.98 0.34 3.87 14.28 100
5-7.5 13.86 8.31 34.97 8.82 18.08 0.10 0.17 15.69 100
7.5-12.5 16.17 9.48 35.84 9.29 15.36 0.24 1.34 12.29 100
12.5-25 17.21 9.25 32.91 9.97 14.16 0.43 2.82 13.26 100
25-hi 10.87 5.59 47.55 10.32 11.46 0.55 0.93 12.72 100
Total 29.13 7.34 16.00 4.86 26.16 0.80 1.07 14.63 100
Source: Based on HouseholdLevel HIES 2004-05Data Tabulation.

AppendixTable 12
Numberof Yearsto GetoutofPovertybyGrowthand EquityScenarios
Low Intermediate High
Poverty Growth Growth Growth
Equitable Poverty
Extreme 70 24 15
Moderate 29 10 6
HighlyInequitablePoverty
Extreme 139 47 29
Moderate 58 20 12
ModeratelyInequitablePoverty
Extreme 93 32 19
Moderate 39 13 8
Source:Weissand Khan(2006).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and NaturalResourceManagement
Poverty 707

AppendixTable 13
ofZonesin TermsofDistricts
Distribution
AgroclimaticZones Districts
1. Rice/WheatPunjab Sialkot
Gujrat
Gujranwala
Sheikhupura
Lahore
Kasur
Narowal
Mandi Bahauddin
Hafízabad
2. Mixed Punjab Sargodha
Khushab
Jhang
Faisalabad
Toba Тек Singh
Okara
3. Cotton/WheatPunjab Sahiwal
Bahawalnagar
Bahawalpur
Rahim Yar Khan
Multan
Vehari
Lodhran
Khanewal
Pakpattan
4. Low IntensityPunjab D. G. Khan
Rajanpur
Muzaffargarh
Leiah
Mianwali
Bhakkar
5. Barani Punjab Atttock
Jhclum
Rawalpindi
Islamabad
Chakwal
6. Cotton/WheatSindh Sukkur
Khairpur
Nawabshah
Hyderabad
Thaiparker
Nousheroferoz
Ghotki
Umerkot
Mirpurkhas
Sangbar
7. Rice OtherSindh Jacobbabad
Larkana
Dadu
Thatta
Badin
Shikarpur
Karachi
8. NWFP Swat
Dir
Chitral
Buner
Charsada
Noshera
Peshawar
Kohat
Karak
Tank

Abbottabad
Haripur
Batagram
Kohistan
Mardan
Swabi
Bannu
Lakkimarwat
Shangla
Malakand Agency
Hangu
D.I. Khan
9. Balochistan Quetta Division
Sibi Division
Kalat Division
Makran Division
Zhob Division
Nasirabad Division (Excluding Nasirabad District)

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
708 MuhammadIrfan

REFERENCES
Anwar,Talat (2006) Poverty, Growthand Inequalityin Pakistan.Paperpresentedat the
23rdAnnualGeneralMeetingofPakistanSocietyof Development Economics,PIDE,
December2006.
Din, Musleh-ud(2007) An Analysisof Pakistan'sGrowthExperience1983-84-1987-88
and 2002-03 to 2005-06. PakistanPovertyAssessmentUpdate. (BackgroundPaper
Series- ADB Pakistan.)
Haque, NadeemUl and G. M. Arif(2007) Understanding Povertyand Social Outcomes
in Pakistan. A Study preparedfor DFID. Pakistan Instituteof Development
Economics,Islamabad.June.
Irfan,M. and R. Amjad (1984) Povertyin RuralPakistanIn A. R. Khan and Eddy Lee
(eds.) PovertyinRuralAsia. DLO,AsianEmployment Programme.
Jamal,Haroon(2007) UpdatingPovertyand InequalityEstimates:2005, PANAROMA:
Social PolicyandDevelopment Centre(SPDC), Karachi(Mimeographed.)
Malik,Sohail J.(2005) AgriculturalGrowthand RuralPoverty - A Reviewof Evidence.
AsianDevelopment Bank,PRM Islamabad.(Working PaperNo. 7.)
Qayyum, Abdul,et al (2007) GrowthDiagnosticsin Pakistan.(PIDE WorkingPaperNo.
47.)
Weiss, Johnand Haider A. Khan (2006) PovertyStrategiesin Asia: A GrowthPlus
Approach.A Jointpublication forADB Institute
andEdwardElgarPublishing.
World Bank (2006a) Pakistan'sGrowthand Competitiveness. Washington, DC. The
WorldBank.(ReportNo.3499- PK.)
WorldBank(2006b) Summary ofKeyFindingsand Recommendations. WorldBank.
World Bank (2007) Pakistan PromotingRural Growthand PovertyReduction -
SustainableDevelopment Unit.SouthAsia Region,WorldBank.
Zaidi,S. Akbar(2005) Issues inPakistan'sEconomy.Karachi:OxfordUniversity Press.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:18:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions