https://joom.ag/X5je policy brief-psia-uzbekistan-eng_3 | Seite 20

Addressing Urban Poverty in Uzbekistan in the Context of the Economic Crisis
was 3.7%, it was much higher, at 6.5%, during 2004-07. Thus, identifying the
urban areas where poverty has been unresponsive to growth should be a high
priority. A starting-point for an analysis of this could be a limited disaggregation
of the data for urban households from the Household Budget Survey.
B. Regional Trends in Poverty within Uzbekistan
Why has the pace of reduction in urban poverty slowed? And why
is rural poverty still so widespread? Some clues are contained in the
results of a UNDP-supported household survey of 1,500 households
that was conducted in 2005 in six districts in the Namangan Region
and the Republic of Karakalpakstan (Tahlil Center 2006).
The results suggest that urban poverty might be more endemic than
previously assumed, particularly in small urban towns and settlements.
The results also document why the rural economy is offering so few
economic opportunities.
Setting a daily caloric consumption of 2,100 kcal as the poverty
line (the same as that used by the government’s Household Budget
Survey), the survey found that the incidence of district-level poverty
varied between a low of 27.7% and a high of 34.4%, with the average
across the six districts being 31.7%. The nationwide average for the
same year for the Household Budget Survey was 25.8%.
In two of the districts, poverty was higher in urban areas (rayon
central towns and urban-type villages) than in rural areas. In Shumanay
district in Karakalpakstan, for instance, the incidence of urban poverty
was 48.2%, whilethe incidence of rural poverty incidence was 30.7%.
Across the six districts, urban poverty varied substantially but averaged
32.3%. Rural poverty was more uniform, but, at 31.8%, averaged
slightly less.
Since these partial results cannot be regarded as representative
of national conditions, it is difficult to draw relevant conclusions. But
they do suggest that urban poverty might be more widespread than
commonly assumed, especially in smaller urban settlements.
In rural areas in the sample area, the survey shows that poverty
tended to be higher among households that did not own their own
plot or households that had workers who relied on recruitment for
seasonal agricultural labour. Households with members hired by
private farms tended to have higher income even though such farms
were scarce in the six districts. Income from micro-enterprises, which
is usually derived from selling agricultural products or handicrafts, was
low and erratic for most households.
Poverty was closely correlated with the size of a family’s plot of
land. The land holding of many households was only a small ‘garden
plot.’ Though the productivity of such plots was high, their produce
was used predominantly for household consumption. In some of the
In rural areas,
poverty tended to
be higher among
households that
did not own their
own private plot
or households
that had workers
who relied on
recruitment
for seasonal
agricultural
labour
Urban poverty
might be more
endemic than
previously
assumed,
particularly in
small urban
towns and
settlements
19