THE SOCIOECONOMIC DETERMINANTS OF HOUSEHOLD POVERTY STATUS IN A LOW-INCOME SETTLEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA

Öz

Poverty means different things to different people. There are many different approaches to defining poverty but the basic needs approach is commonly applied, particularly in developing countries where a bigger majority of the people struggle to attain a predetermined minimum level of income to satisfy their basic needs. In this study a survey questionnaire was used to collect data from a sample of 300 households in Bophelong township in Gauteng province during the second half of 2013. The aim of this article is to evaluate the impact that certain household and individual characteristics (size of the household, gender of the head of the household, etc.) can have in determining the poverty status of a household. A binary logistic regression was used to analyse the data. The results show that the education level of the head of the household, his/her employment status and age were inversely related to poverty status. Improvements in the education level and increases in the age of the head of the household were found to decrease the probability of a household being categorised as poor. Households in which the head of the household is employed have a lower probability of being categorised as poor

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Economic growth, employment, poverty reduction strategies, poverty studies

Kaynakça

1. Akanbi, O.A. 2015. “Structural and institutional determinants of poverty in sub
2. Saharan African countries”. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 122–141. Aliber, M. 2003. “Chronic poverty in South Africa: Incidence, causes and policies”. World Development, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 473–490.
3. Alkire, S. & Santos, M.E. 2010. "Acute multidimensional poverty: A new index for developing countries", United Nations development programme human development report office background paper, no. 2010/11.
4. Barker, F.S. 1995. The South African labour market: Critical issues for reconciliation. 2nd ed. Durban: Sigma Press.
5. Dubihlela, D. 2012. An analysis of the poor’s demand patterns during rising prices: the case of Bophelong. Vanderbijlpark: NWU. (Thesis – PhD).
6. Hagenaar, A. & De Vos, K. 1988. “The definition and measurement of poverty”.
7. Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 211–221. Mohanty, M. 2003. Squatters, vulnerability and adaptability of urban poor in a small island developing state: The context of Fiji islands. [Online] Available: http://www.hss.adelaide.edu.au [Accessed 25 July 2014].
8. Slabbert, T.J.C. & Sekhampu, T.J. 2009. Bophelong: A socio-economic and environmental analysis. Vanderbijlpark: Vaal Research Group.

9. Stats SA (Statistics South Africa). 2006. South Africa – Income and expenditure survey 2005/6. Pretoria: Stats SA.
10. Stats SA. 2008/9. Poverty profile of South Africa: Application of the poverty line on LCS 2008/2009. Pretoria: Stats SA.
11. Stats SA. 2010. South Africa – Income and expenditure survey, 2010–2011. Pretoria: Stats SA.
12. Stats SA. 2013. Quarterly labour force survey: Quarter 4, 2013. Pretoria: Stats SA
13. Todaro, M.P. & Smith, S.G. 2003. Economic development. 8 ed. New York: Pearson.
14. Todaro, M.P. & Smith, S.G. 2011. Economic development. 11th ed. New York: Pearson.
15. World Bank. 2001. Poverty manual. Washington: World Bank Institute.
16. World Bank. 2005. Poverty manual. Washington: World Bank Institute.
17. You, J., Wang, S., & Roope, L. 2014. Multi-dimensional Intertemporal Poverty in
18. Rural China. University of Oxford, Department of Economics, Economics Series Working Papers: WPS/2014-36