Chapter 3: How to Interpret ADePT Results
Table 3.19: Headcount Ratio by Employment Category percent Poverty headcount ratio
Distribution of the poor
Distribution of population
2003
2006
Change
2003
2006
Change
2003
2006
Change
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Self-employed Agriculture Industry Trade Transport Other services
29.4 20.5 23.8 19.2 20.7
28.2 32.2 22.1 28.9 27.8
−1.3 11.7 −1.6 9.7 7.2
23.2 0.4 2.5 0.4 0.7
20.2 0.5 1.8 0.7 0.9
−3.0 0.1 −0.7 0.3 0.2
23.6 0.5 3.2 0.7 1.0
22.2 0.5 2.5 0.7 1.0
−1.4 −0.1 −0.7 0.1 −0.0
Employed Industry Trade Transport Government Education Health care Other Unemployed Inactive Total
21.3 19.5 21.1 18.9 19.1 16.7 23.1 37.3 32.9 29.9
24.7 24.1 28.2 17.8 17.4 19.1 24.9 40.3 33.7 31.0
3.4 4.6 7.1 −1.1 −1.7 2.5 1.8 3.1 0.8 1.0
1.5 1.1 0.7 1.4 2.1 0.6 2.9 8.9 53.6 100.0
1.6 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.7 0.7 3.1 10.8 55.1 100.0
0.0 0.1 0.1 −0.3 −0.3 0.1 0.2 1.9 1.5 n.a.
2.1 1.6 0.9 2.2 3.3 1.1 3.7 7.2 48.8 100.0
2.0 1.5 0.9 1.8 3.1 1.2 3.8 8.3 50.7 100.0
−0.2 −0.2 −0.1 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.1 1.1 1.8 n.a.
Employment Poverty line = GEL 75.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Source: Based on ADePT Poverty and Inequality modules using Integrated Household Survey of Georgia 2003 and 2006. Note: n.a. = not applicable.
We find that 29.4 percent [1,A] of people engaged in the agricultural sector are poor in 2003. In other words, the headcount ratio for this population subgroup (with a household head employed in the agricultural sector) is 29.4 percent. The headcount ratio for the same population subgroup (with a household head in the agricultural sector) fell to 28.2 percent in 2006 [1,B]. Thus, a 1.3 percentage point decrease [1,C] occurred in the headcount ratio between the two years. We see that the headcount ratio among members in the other services sector increased by 7.2 percentage points [5,C], from 20.7 percent [5,A] to 27.8 percent [5,B]. This headcount ratio increase from 2003 to 2006 is found in other sectors, such as employed industry [6,C], trade [7,C], and transport [8,C]. Of all people who are poor in Georgia in 2003, 23.2 percent [1,D] are employed in agriculture. We find that the share of all poor employed in agriculture fell to 20.2 percent in 2006 [1,E]. This represents a decrease of 3.0 percentage points [1,F]. Contrast those results with the figures for the unemployed population subgroup. Clearly, the poverty headcount ratio among this group in 2003
189