Multidimensional Poverty in South Africa in 2001 16

Development Southern Africa
ISSN: 0376-835X (Print) 1470-3637 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cdsa20
Multidimensional poverty in South Africa in 2001–

16
Tina Fransman & Derek Yu
To cite this article: Tina Fransman & Derek Yu (2019) Multidimensional poverty in South Africa
in 2001–16, Development Southern Africa, 36:1, 50-79, DOI: 10.1080/0376835X.2018.1469971
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2018.1469971
Published online: 07 May 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7727
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 8 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdsa20
DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA
2019, VOL. 36, NO. 1, 50–79
https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2018.1469971
Multidimensional poverty in South Africa in 2001–16

Tina Fransman and Derek Yu
Department of Economics, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study uses the Census 2001 and 2011 as well as Community Multidimensional poverty;
Survey 2007 and 2016 data to derive a multidimensional poverty multidimensional poverty
index in South Africa for each year, before assessing the changes index; South Africa
in non-money-metric, multidimensional poverty over time. Both
JEL
the incidence and intensity of multidimensional poverty J30; J32
decreased continuously, and these declines were more rapid than
that of money-metric poverty. The decrease in multidimensional
poverty between 2001 and 2016 was most rapid for female
Africans residing in rural areas in Eastern Cape and KwaZulu–Natal
provinces. Multidimensional poverty was most serious in
numerous district councils in these two provinces, despite the fact
that poverty decline was also most rapid in these district councils.
The results of the multidimensional poverty index decomposition
indicated that Africans contributed more than 95% to
multidimensional poverty, while unemployment, years of
schooling and disability were the three indicators contributing
most to poverty.
1. Introduction
Since the advent of democracy, one of the key objectives of the South African government
has been the reduction of poverty, disparities and imbalances stemming from the Apart-
heid regime. Several large-scale economic programmes were implemented,1 specifically
aiming at the achievement of various economic goals, such as more rapid economic
growth and job creation, improved service delivery, and alleviation of poverty and inequal-
ity. With regard to poverty, it is important to accurately identify the most deprived areas
and effectively target these areas by implementing appropriate poverty-reduction strat-
egies. Hence, numerous approaches have arisen to derive the extent of poverty and
profile of the poor.
Poverty can be measured objectively or subjectively. For the latter, an individual
assesses whether or not they feel poor relative to a reference group (Ravallion, 1992,
1998; Statistics South Africa (StatsSA), 2012:8), and this may or may not involve a
poverty line. For example, a person declares the income level he/she considers to be
CONTACT Derek Yu dyu@uwc.ac.za

1
These programmes include the Reconstruction and Development Program, Growth, Employment and Redistribution,
Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative of South Africa and the more recent New Growth Path and National Develop-
ment Plan.
© 2018 Government Technical Advisory Centre (GTAC)
DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 51
minimal to make ends meet (this amount may differ amongst respondents), and if his/her
income is below this self-rated poverty line, he/she is identified as poor. Alternatively, the
person self-assesses whether his/her income or overall welfare is below the average level of
the people living in the same area. A person could also declare on a scale of, for instance, 0
(very dissatisfied) to 10 (very satisfied), how he/she feels about his/her life as a whole, and
the person is distinguished as poor if his/her life satisfaction level is below a particular
level, such as the midpoint of 5.2
Objective money-metric poverty can be measured with an either absolute or relative
approach. The absolute approach entails the use of a poverty line, which represents the
required income level to purchase a basket of essential items for survival (cost of basic
needs method) or the level at which a person’s food energy intake is enough to meet a pre-
determined food energy requirements, like 2100 calories per day (energy intake method)
(Ravallion, 1998:10; Haughton & Khandker, 2009:49–50). Relative money-metric poverty
involves the identification of the poorest (e.g. 20% or 40%) segment of the population
using a relative poverty line, or setting a poverty line at a certain percentage of the
mean or median per capita income (Govendor et al., 2006:9).
In South Africa, there has been an abundance of empirical studies on money-metric
poverty since the early 1990s using numerous datasets, ranging from the Income and
Expenditure Surveys (Simkins, 2004; Hoogeveen & Özler, 2006; Yu, 2008), Census and
Community Surveys (CSs) (Leibbrandt et al., 2006; Yu, 2009) and All Media Products
Survey (Van der Berg et al., 2005, 2007), to the National Income Dynamics Study (Yu,
2013), October Household Surveys and General Household Surveys (GHSs) (Posel &
Rogan, 2012). In general, these studies found that money-metric poverty increased in
the 1990s until 2000, before a downward trend took place.
The money-metric approach, while focusing on the low income or expenditure level
when identifying the poor, does not capture ‘the multiple aspects that constitute
poverty’ (StatsSA, 2014:2), as poverty involves numerous non-money-metric dimensions,
such as health and educational deprivation, physical and social isolation, lack of asset pos-
session and access to services, feeling of vulnerability, powerlessness and helplessness
(Woolard & Leibbrandt, 1999:3; World Bank, 2000:18; Philip & Rayhan, 2004:1). Further-
more, numerous factors influence the reliability and comparability of money-metric
poverty estimates, such as recall bias (respondents may not remember income earned
long time ago), telescoping (respondents include income or consumption events before
the reference period), whether income is captured in exact amounts or intervals, the
number of intervals and width of each interval, and the presence of a high proportion
of households with unspecified or zero income.3
Given these drawbacks of the money-metric approach and the multidimensional nature
of poverty, South African studies on non-money-metric, multidimensional poverty have
increasingly emerged in the 2000s and early 2010s using statistical techniques (such as
principal components analysis, multiple correspondence analysis and factor analysis, as
well as the totally fuzzy and relative (TFR) approach) to derive a non-income welfare
index. Nonetheless, one serious shortcoming of these studies is that the analysis is
2
For more detailed discussion of subjective poverty measures, refer to Govendor et al. (2006) and Jansen et al. (2015).
3
Refer to Yu (2016) for a more detailed discussion.
52 T. FRANSMAN AND D. YU
mainly confined to two groups of non-money-metric indicators, namely access to public

services and ownership of private assets.
In recent years, the multidimensional poverty index (MPI) approach introduced by
Alkire & Foster (2011a) has evolved in the international literature. This approach ‘assesses
the simultaneous or joint deprivations poor people or households experience in a set of
indicators’ (Alkire & Foster, 2011a:17). The MPI comprises two measures, namely
poverty incidence and poverty intensity; the former means the percentage of population
classified as multidimensionally poor (poverty headcount ratio), while the latter represents
the proportion of average deprivation experienced by the poor (Santos & Alkire, 2011:34).
An added advantage of this approach is that the index could be decomposed by
sub-groups (such as gender and race) and indicators, to identify the key sub-groups
and indicators that contribute most to deprivation.
The MPI approach is still a relatively new method in South Africa, as indicated
by the presence of few studies applying this method to examine poverty. This may be
due to the fact that this approach is more data hungry, covering a broader range of
non-money-metric indicators. In fact, only one local study (StatsSA, 2014) derived
comprehensive MPI poverty trends over time (2001–2011) by creating a South African
Multidimensional Poverty Index (SAMPI), but numerous shortcomings are associated
with the SAMPI approach on the selection of indicators and deprivation cut-off threshold
of each indicator.
Therefore, this study aims to address these shortcomings to derive an improved, revised
version of the SAMPI, before exploring the levels and trends of MPI poverty in South
Africa in 2001–2016. MPI poverty is examined by gender, race and geographical units,
with specific focus on what happened by province and district councils (DC). A wide
range of non-money-metric indicators are considered when deriving the multidimen-
sional deprivation score instead of restricting to private asset ownership and access to
public services. The empirical analysis allows for the establishment of the main contribu-
tors to poverty in the South African context and a comparison to be made between multi-
dimensional poverty and money-metric poverty. This approach can be viewed as a tool to
identify the most vulnerable people, leading to the formation of better poverty-reduction
policy as well as better allocation of resources to alleviate poverty.
2. Literature review
For the recent local empirical studies examining multidimensional, non-money-metric
poverty, some researchers have adopted the methods mentioned in Section 1, namely
factor analysis (Bhorat et al., 2006; Bhorat et al., 2007; Bhorat & Van der Westhuizen,
2013; Bhorat et al., 2014), multiple correspondence analysis (Adams et al., 2015; Ntsalaze
& Ikhide, 2016), principal components analysis (Nieftagodien & Van der Berg, 2007;
Schiel, 2012; Bhorat et al., 2015) and the TFR approach (Ngwane et al., 2001; Qizilbash,
2002; Burger et al., 2017). A composite welfare index was constructed by considering
household access to public services (e.g. fuel source, water source, sanitation facility)
and ownership of private assets (e.g. television, fridge, telephone). These studies found
a downward trend in non-money-metric poverty since 1993; this finding is not surprising,
given the government’s ongoing effort to improve the provision of free basic services since
the economic transition (Bhorat & Van der Westhuizen 2013:1). Also, there were still
significant backlogs in the bottom income deciles, especially for African- and female-
headed households.
Some studies adopted methods other than the above-mentioned statistical methods and
included additional non-money-metric indicators to examine multidimensional poverty
more comprehensively. First, six studies used the MPI method. Frame et al. (2016)
focused on youths of 15–24 years while Omotoso and Koch concentrated on children
of 0–17 years. Rogan (2016) examined gendered poverty while Mushongera et al.
(2017) focused on Gauteng municipalities. Finn et al. (2013) carried out a general study
examining MPI poverty by race, province and area type using the 1993 PSLSD and
2010/2011 National Income Dynamics Study data. StatsSA (2014) is the most inclusive
MPI poverty study by province and municipality using the 2001 and 2011 census data.
In general, these studies found that MPI poverty declined.
Few studies adopted alternative approaches to examine non-money-metric multidi-
mensional poverty. Hirschowitz (2000), using an interim scoring approach,4 derived the
household infrastructure and household circumstance indices to examine poverty using
Census 1996 data, and found that Northern Cape and Eastern Cape were the least and
most deprived provinces, respectively. StatsSA (2013) adopted the Bristol method5 to
derive the severe poverty and less severe poverty indices with the 2008/2009 Living
Conditions Survey data, and found that Western Cape was least deprived while the
opposite took place in Eastern Cape and Limpopo. The 2017 StatsSA study, analysing
the 2016 CS data, adopted the Van der Walt and Haarhoff composite index approach6
to derive infrastructure quality index and reliability index to examine poverty by
municipality.
Noble et al. (2006), using the Census 2001 data, derived five indices (one from each
deprivation domain: income, employment, education, health and living environment)
by province, before aggregating these indices (20% equal weight to each index) into a pro-
vincial index of multiple deprivation with the aid of standardisation and exponential dis-
tribution (refer to Noble et al. (2006:29–31) for detailed explanation) to identify the most
deprived municipalities. The later studies by Noble et al. (2010) as well as Noble & Wright
(2013), using the same data, adopted a similar approach to derive the index of multiple
deprivation, but the former study focused on the Eastern Cape while the latter study exam-
ined the former homeland areas.
Noble et al. (2006, 2010), Noble & Wright (2013), Burger et al. (2017), Mushongera
et al. (2017) and StatsSA (2014, 2017) are rare studies that examined multidimensional
poverty by smaller geographical areas. Of these studies, StatsSA (2014) and Burger et al.
(2017) derived multidimensional poverty trends over time. Nonetheless, there are draw-
backs to these two studies: it is not possible to decompose the index to identify the sub-
groups and indicators that contribute most to deprivation with the TFR approach
adopted in Burger et al. (2017)7; for StatsSA (2014), there is much room for improvement
on the choice of the indicators and deprivation cut-off points of some indicators (see
Section 3).
4
For detailed explanation of this approach, refer to Hirschowitz (2000:76–79).
5
For more information on the Bristol method, refer to Gordon et al. (2003).
6
Van der Walt & Haarhoff (2004) provide a thorough explanation of this composite index approach.
7
This is also the main drawback of the other statistical approaches mentioned in Section 2.
None of the existing local studies examined multidimensional poverty trends by DCs or
included the most recently available CS 2016 data. Finally, not all of these studies included
labour market activities as an indicator for deriving the multidimensional poverty index.
As the persistently high unemployment rate (26.6% in the fourth quarter of 2018) is one of
the major causes of poverty, it is imperative to include this dimension.
3. Methodology and data

3.1. Methodology
The global MPI approach was introduced in 2011 by Alkire and Foster for the purpose of
measuring acute poverty across countries. This approach is relatively simpler compared
with other highly statistical approaches and highly flexible in terms of the inclusion of
dimensions and indicators. The global MPI comprises three dimensions: health, education
and living standard. Each dimension is broken down into m indicators in total: the health
dimension consists of nutrition and child morality; the education dimension accounts for
years of schooling and school attendance; and the living standard dimension includes
cooking fuel, water, sanitation, electricity, floor material and asset ownership (Santos &
Alkire, 2011:5–6).
A two-step, ‘dual cut-off’ approach is involved to derive the MPI index (Alkire & Foster,
2011b: 296). Linked to each indicator is a certain minimum level of satisfaction which is
referred to as the deprivation cut-off point, denoted as zi. A person i is deprived if his/her
achievement in this indicator, xi, is below the cut-off, that is, if xi < zi, the dummy variable
Ii, equals 1; if xi ≥ z i, Ii equals zero. Next, the indicators’ weights are chosen, and these
weights sum to 1 ( m i=1 wi = 1). Each dimension carries an equal weight of one-third,
and an equal weighing scheme is also applied to the indicators within each dimension.
The deprivation score ci is calculated as m i=1 wi Ii . This score ranges between zero and one.
Next, a specific cut-off point, k, represents the share of weighted deprivations that a
person must have to be considered as multidimensionally poor. Somebody is considered
poor if ci ≥ k. In the MPI, k = 1/3, meaning that the person’s deprivation must be at least a
third of the weighted indicators to be identified as MPI poor. Furthermore, ci(k), the cen-
sored deprivation score, is derived as follows: if ci ≥ k, ci(k) = ci; if ci < k, ci(k) = 0 (Santos &
Alkire, 2011:11).
The MPI reflects both the proportion of the population that is multidimensionally poor
(H, the poverty headcount ratio) and the average proportion of weighted deprivation the
person experiences (A, the intensity of poverty). In equation terms, H = q/n, where q and n
represent
n the number of multidimensionally poor and the total population respectively;
A= i=1 ci (k) /q , which indicates the fraction of the m indicators in which the multi-
dimensionally poor individual is deprived. The MPI is calculated as the product of H
and A. Assuming two areas to have the same H, the area with higher A is associated
with a higher MPI. That is, if the poor are deprived in an additional dimension, the
MPI will increase even though H is unchanged. This is one of key strengths of MPI com-
pared with other statistical approaches.
The MPI indexcan be decomposed by population sub-groups or indicators. The coun-
j
try’s MPI equals i=1 (ni /n) × MPIi , where j represents the total number of sub-groups
(for example, j = 4 for race and j = 9 for province), (ni /n) is the population share of the ith
Table 1. Dimensions, indicators, deprivation cut-offs and weights for the MPI.
Weighting Weighting
Dimension Indicator Deprivation cut-off scheme (I) scheme (II)
Education [A] Years of If no household member aged 15 years or 3.5/28 3/18
schooling above has completed 7 years of schooling
[B] School If at least one child between the ages of 7–15 3.5/28 3/18
attendance years is not attending an educational
institution
Health [C] Child mortality If at least one child aged 0–4 years has passed 3.5/28 3/18
away in the past year
[D] Disability If at least one household member is disabled 3.5/28 3/18
Standard of [E] Fuel for cooking Using paraffin/wood/coal/dung/other/none 1/28 1/18
living [F] Water There is no piped water in the dwelling or on 1/28 1/18
stand
[G] Sanitation type No access to a flush toilet 1/28 1/18
[H] Dwelling type Living in an informal shack/traditional dwelling/ 1/28 1/18
caravan/tent/other
[I] Refuse removal Refuse is removed less than once a week or 1/28 1/18
frequency there is no concrete refuse removal system
[J] Asset ownership Does not own more than one of the following: 1/28 1/18
radio, television, fridge, computer, landline
phone, cellular phone
[K] Overcrowding More than two people per room 1/28 N/A
Economic [L] Unemployment All household members aged 15 to 65 years are 7/28 N/A
activity unemployed (narrow definition)
Source: Adapted from Santos & Alkire, 2011:6.
sub-group, and MPIi is the MPI of this sub-group. The contribution of the ith sub-group
to the overall MPI is derived as((ni /n) ×
MPI i /MPIcountry ). The MPI of the country could
8
also be decomposed as: MPIcountry = m i=1 wi × CHi , where CHi is the censored head-
count ratio of the ith indicator.9 The contribution of the ith indicator to the overall
MPI is denoted as (wi × CHi /MPIcountry ).
There were already numerous adaptations that had been made to the global MPI in
terms of the indicators chosen and respective cut-off points of the indicators to develop
the StatsSA SAMPI, but this study makes further adaptations to construct an improved
version of the SAMPI. These adaptations are influenced by the Millennium Development
Goals (United Nations, 2008), the South African poverty context, the commonly chosen
indicators in recent empirical studies and the availability of data in the four datasets
used for the study.
Table 1 shows that, in the education dimension, as in the global MPI and StatsSA
approaches, years of schooling and school attendance are the two indicators. Nonetheless,
for the former indicator, the years of completed education threshold is changed from five
to seven years for this study. Illiteracy usually refers to an educational level representing
less than seven years of formal schooling (Barker, 2008:223), and this is more applicable
to the South African context as it makes reference to all individuals who did not complete
Grade 7.10
8
In the event where the contribution of poverty by a particular sub-group greatly exceeds its population share, it implies a
very unequal distribution of poverty, for example, where females account for only 40% of the total population but con-
tribute 90% to the multidimensional poverty of the country.
9
This means that someone is only included as part of the poor in an indicator if both of these two conditions are met: xi < zi
and ci ≥ 1/3.
10
Noble et al. (2006, 2010) and Noble & Wright (2013) also used Grade 7 as the threshold.
In the global MPI, the health dimension includes child mortality and nutrition, with the
latter indicator involving the body mass index. Unfortunately, both Census and CS did not
capture information on height and weight, and asked nothing about malnutrition, hunger
or food security. While StatsSA (2014) included child mortality as the only indicator of the
health dimension, disability is introduced in this study as the second indicator.11 Disability
is included because it is associated with lower living standard and a greater likelihood of
marginalisation and discrimination, through its adverse impact on human capital
formation opportunities in childhood, employment opportunities and productivity in
adulthood, and access to appropriate transportation and social participation (Schultz &
Tansel, 1997; Elwan, 1999; World Health Organisation and World Bank, 2011; Mitra
et al., 2013).
The deprivation cut-off of this indicator is the presence of at least one disabled house-
hold member. In each dataset, the disabled is defined as follows:
. 2001 and 2007 – the respondent was asked in 2001 if he/she suffers serious sight,
hearing, communication, physical, intellectual and emotional disabilities that prevent
his/her full participation in life activities. The same questions were asked in 2007
except that the word ‘serious’ was removed. If the respondent’s answer is ‘yes’ to at
least one type of disability, he/she is defined as disabled.
. 2011 and 2016 – the respondent was asked if he/she (A) has no difficulty, (B) has some
difficulty, (C) has a lot of difficulty, (D) cannot do at all, (E), do not know or (F) cannot
be determined, with regard to seeing, hearing, communication, walking/climbing,
remembering/concentrating and self-care. If the respondent’s answer is either (C) or
(D) to at least one activity, he/she is identified as disabled.
For the living standard dimension, some alternations have been made to the thresholds of
each indicator. As in StatsSA (2014), stricter cut-off points are used for water (no piped
water in the dwelling or in stand) and sanitation (no ﬂush toilet), compared with the orig-
inal cut-off points of the global MPI, to be in line with the longer-term goals of the Recon-
struction and Development Program. In contrast, while StatsSA (2014) included all three
fuel indicators (cooking, heating and lighting), we revert back to the global MPI method-
ology by only including the cooking fuel indicator, to avoid the unnecessary increase in
overall importance of fuel in the weighting.
The floor type and electricity access (only captured in 2011 and 2016 respectively) indi-
cators are excluded from the MPI approach, but are replaced by dwelling type, overcrowd-
ing and refuse removal frequency indicators. The respective cut-off points for these
indicators are as follows: residing at formal dwellings (same as StatsSA 2014); more
than two persons per room (as adopted in Mushongera et al. 2017; Omotoso & Koch
2017); less than once a week or no concrete refuse removal system (same as Adams
et al. 2015). Finally, asset ownership only takes television, landline telephone, cellular tele-
phone, fridge, computer and radio into consideration as they are the only asset variables
asked across all four datasets.
11
Disability was also included in recent local (Frame et al., 2016; Omotoso & Koch 2017) and international (e.g. Suppa, 2015;
Hanandita & Tampubolon, 2016; Martinez Jr & Perales, 2017) studies.
Economic activity is the fourth dimension as in some local MPI studies (Statistics SA,
2014; Frame et al., 2016; Mushongera et al., 2017; Omotoso & Koch, 2017), with
unemployment being the indicator: if all working-age members of the household are
unemployed under the narrow definition, this household is deprived.
3.2. Data
Four StatsSA datasets are used: a 10% sample of Census 2001 and 2011, CS 2007 and 2016.
These data provide ample information on demographics, educational attainment, economic
activities, asset ownership, access to household goods and services, and income in bands.
Nonetheless, some data limitations exist. First, it is impossible to include Census 1996
data as only landline telephone and cellular telephone information was captured as far as
private asset ownership is concerned (Table A1). The second issue relates to the matching
of the various DCs across the datasets, as some DCs were separated while others were inte-
grated over the years. However, this problem can be solved, as shown in Table A2. The
second limitation relates to the absence of the area type variable in CS 2007.
One serious drawback is the non-availability of the 2016 CS data on labour market
activities, even though the information was captured. Also, the question on the number
of rooms in the dwelling was not asked in 2016. Hence, the MPI is conducted twice
(see Table 1): (I) including all 12 indicators to conduct the analysis for 2001, 2007 and
2011; and (II) including the first 10 indicators to conduct the analysis for all four years.
Finally, information on income, despite being asked in CS 2016, was not released by
StatsSA. Hence, comparison between MPI poverty and money-metric poverty is not
possible for 2016.
4. Empirical findings
4.1. Extent of deprivation per indicator
Figure 1 illustrates that there was generally a continuous downward trend in the pro-
portion of deprived population for all 12 indicators, except disability: its proportion
went down in 2007 and increased in 2011 before decreasing again in 2016. This
unusual trend may be attributed to the inconsistent questionnaire design. In 2016, there
was still as high as 39.5% and 41.3% of the population not having their refuse removed
at least once a week and with no access to a flush toilet, respectively. Only less than 1%
of the population was deprived in the child mortality indicator in 2016, while the depri-
vation proportion was as low as 2.5% and 5.4% in the school attendance and years of
schooling indicators.
Tables A3 and A4 indicate that greater deprivation was experienced by individuals from
female-headed households. Also, deprivation per indicator was considerably higher for
rural residents. The deprivation proportions were the highest for the Africans but
lowest for the whites. Furthermore, Gauteng and the Western Cape were the least deprived
provinces while the Eastern Cape, Limpopo and the North West were most deprived.
Finally, the decline of the deprivation proportions between 2001 and 2016 was greater
for Africans, females, rural residents and those staying in the above-mentioned three
provinces.
Figure 1. Proportion (%) of population deprived in each indicator. Source: Authors’ calculations using
the Census 2001, CS 2007, Census 2011 and CS 2016 data.
Note: the 2016 deprivation proportions of indicators [K] (overcrowding) and [L] (unemployment) are not available.
Tables A5 and A6 examine the proportion of the deprived population in each indicator
by DC in 2001 and 2016, respectively. These proportions were high in the Eastern Cape
and KwaZulu–Natal DCs (e.g. Alfred Nzo, Harry Gwala, OR Tambo and uMzinyathi)
but low in the Western Cape and Gauteng DCs (e.g. Cape Winelands, City of Cape
Town, City of Johannesburg and West Coast).
4.2. MPI by sub-groups

The MPI estimates by gender, race, area type and province are shown in Tables 2 and A7.
For the overall population, a downward trend of MPI took place under both weighting
schemes, with the decline being relatively more rapid between 2001 and 2007. Also,
poverty headcount estimates decreased more rapidly compared with poverty intensity
estimates.
Table A7 shows that MPI poverty was more severe amongst those coming from female-
headed households, but the gap between the male MPI and female MPI narrowed over the
years. MPI was the highest for the Africans, followed by coloureds, Indians and whites.
The decline of MPI was most rapid for the Africans while the white MPI stagnated.
MPI was higher for rural residents as expected, even though a more drastic reduction
of MPI poverty also occurred to them. Table 2 indicates that a downward trend of MPI
poverty took place across all provinces, with Western Cape and Gauteng boasting the
lowest MPI estimates while the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu–Natal and Limpopo had the
highest estimates.
Comparing Tables A8 and A9, despite minor changes in the MPI ranking of the DCs
before and after including the labour dimension, Cape Winelands, City of Cape Town,
Table 2. Multidimensional poverty by province, 2001–2016.
2001 2007 2011 2016
H A MPI H A MPI H A MPI H A MPI
Weighting scheme (I)
Western Cape 0.0437 0.4312 0.0189 0.0171 0.4154 0.0071 0.0227 0.4119 0.0094
Eastern Cape 0.2992∗ 0.4223∗ 0.1263∗ 0.1486∗ 0.4021∗ 0.0598∗ 0.1407∗ 0.4009∗ 0.0564∗
Northern Cape 0.0971∗ 0.4269∗ 0.0414∗ 0.0587∗ 0.4172∗ 0.0245∗ 0.0673∗ 0.4139∗ 0.0279∗
Free State 0.1434∗ 0.4309 0.0618∗ 0.0520∗ 0.4117∗ 0.0214∗ 0.0517∗ 0.4155∗ 0.0215∗
KwaZulu–Natal 0.2225∗ 0.4257∗ 0.0947∗ 0.1053∗ 0.4013∗ 0.0422∗ 0.0938∗ 0.4012∗ 0.0376∗
North West 0.1777∗ 0.4481∗ 0.0796∗ 0.0895∗ 0.4168 0.0373∗ 0.0839∗ 0.4169∗ 0.0350∗
Gauteng 0.0679∗ 0.4324 0.0294∗ 0.0329∗ 0.4197∗ 0.0138∗ 0.0326∗ 0.4179∗ 0.0136∗
Mpumalanga 0.1574∗ 0.4246∗ 0.0668∗ 0.0694∗ 0.4089∗ 0.0284∗ 0.0629∗ 0.4113 0.0259∗
Limpopo 0.1911∗ 0.4276∗ 0.0817∗ 0.0875∗ 0.4114∗ 0.0360∗ 0.0876∗ 0.4151∗ 0.0364∗
Weighting scheme (II)
Western Cape 0.0716 0.4082 0.0292 0.0334 0.3795 0.0127 0.0371 0.3808 0.0141 0.0218 0.3683 0.0080
Eastern Cape 0.5007∗ 0.4569∗ 0.2288∗ 0.3315∗ 0.4222∗ 0.1399∗ 0.2940∗ 0.4248∗ 0.1249∗ 0.2103∗ 0.4096∗ 0.0861∗

Northern Cape 0.1923∗ 0.4342∗ 0.0835∗ 0.1303∗ 0.4155∗ 0.0541∗ 0.1695∗ 0.4098∗ 0.0695∗ 0.1148∗ 0.3901∗ 0.0448∗
Free State 0.2676∗ 0.4237∗ 0.1134∗ 0.0992∗ 0.4039∗ 0.0401∗ 0.0960∗ 0.4001∗ 0.0384∗ 0.0600∗ 0.3827∗ 0.0230∗
KwaZulu–Natal 0.3873∗ 0.4508∗ 0.1746∗ 0.2462∗ 0.4178∗ 0.1029∗ 0.2229∗ 0.4148∗ 0.0925∗ 0.1598∗ 0.4005∗ 0.0640∗
North West 0.3351∗ 0.4481∗ 0.1502∗ 0.1859∗ 0.4175∗ 0.0776∗ 0.2029∗ 0.4079∗ 0.0828∗ 0.1363∗ 0.3911∗ 0.0533∗
Gauteng 0.0927∗ 0.4047 0.0375∗ 0.0576∗ 0.3880∗ 0.0223∗ 0.0470∗ 0.3895∗ 0.0183∗ 0.0435∗ 0.3782∗ 0.0165∗
Mpumalanga 0.3250∗ 0.4319∗ 0.1404∗ 0.1573∗ 0.4033∗ 0.0634∗ 0.1587∗ 0.3947∗ 0.0627∗ 0.1133∗ 0.3847∗ 0.0436∗
Limpopo 0.3913∗ 0.4329∗ 0.1694∗ 0.2018∗ 0.4026∗ 0.0813∗ 0.2497∗ 0.3888∗ 0.0971∗ 0.1620∗ 0.3848∗ 0.0623∗
Source: Authors’ calculations using the Census 2001, CS 2007, Census 2011 and CS 2016 data.
∗
The value is statistically significant compared with that of the reference province category (Western Cape) at α = 5%.
59
Table 3. The 10 district councils with the greatest absolute decline in MPI.
District council MPI in 2001 MPI in 2011 Decrease MPI Rank in 2011
OR Tambo 0.1931 0.0857 0.1075 50
uMzinyathi 0.1745 0.0726 0.1019 49
uMkhanyakude 0.1575 0.0579 0.0995 45
Zululand 0.1405 0.0451 0.0954 36
Alfred Nzo 0.1706 0.0913 0.0794 51
Joe Gqabi 0.1392 0.0626 0.0766 46
Harry Gwala 0.1434 0.0668 0.0766 48
Chris Hani 0.1379 0.0627 0.0752 47
Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati 0.1204 0.0495 0.0709 41
uThukela 0.1181 0.0472 0.0709 39
District council MPI in 2001 MPI in 2016 Decrease MPI Rank in 2016
OR Tambo 0.3502 0.1484 0.2018 50
uMzinyathi 0.3203 0.1301 0.1902 49
uMkhanyakude 0.2980 0.1091 0.1888 46
Zululand 0.2736 0.0995 0.1741 43
Joe Gqabi 0.2597 0.0878 0.1719 41
Chris Hani 0.2566 0.0941 0.1625 42
Alfred Nzo 0.3277 0.1724 0.1553 51
King Cetshwayo 0.2323 0.0787 0.1537 37
uThukela 0.2281 0.0850 0.1432 39
iLembe 0.2293 0.0876 0.1417 40
City of Johannesburg, Overberg and West Coast are associated with the lowest MPIs. In
contrast, Alfred Nzo, Harry Gwala, OR Tambo, uMkhanyakude and uMzinyathi are
amongst the DCs with the highest MPIs. Table 3 shows that the DCs with the highest
MPIs are also the ones enjoying the greatest absolute decline in the estimates under
both weighting schemes. These results suggest that resources were allocated to the right
DCs to improve the non-income welfare of the poorest of the poor.12
4.3. MPI decomposition

Table A11 shows that, regardless of which weighting scheme was adopted, the relative con-
tribution by individuals from female-headed households was more dominant. Moreover,
even though the African population represented about 80% of the population, their MPI
contribution to poverty exceeded 95%. The relative contribution of the rural population
(about two-thirds) greatly exceeded its population share (40%). Lastly, KwaZulu–Natal
and Eastern Cape were the provinces with the first and second largest MPI contributions;
they accounted for about 50% share of MPI poverty (see Figures 2 and 3), despite only
accounting for about one-third of the population.
Table 4 shows that, using weighting scheme (I), unemployment was the indicator con-
tributing most to MPI, followed by years of schooling and disability. Using weighting
scheme (II), disability and years of schooling contributed most to MPI poverty, with
their respective shares being 24% and 13% in 2016 (Frame et al. (2016:18) and Rogan
12
Table A10 shows the MPI results by municipality. Since the geographical demarcation of municipalities has changed dras-
tically during the 15-year period, this study rather focuses on MPI poverty by DC.
Figure 2. MPI decomposition (%) by province using weighting scheme (I), 2001–2011. Source: Authors’
calculations using the Census 2001, CS 2007 and Census 2011 data.
Figure 3. MPI decomposition (%) by province using weighting scheme (II), 2001–2016. Source: Authors’
calculations using the Census 2001, CS 2007, Census 2011 and CS 2016 data.
62
T. FRANSMAN AND D. YU
Table 4. MPI decomposition (%) by indicator, 2001–2011.
Weighting scheme (I) Weighting scheme (II)
Contribution to MPI Contribution to MPI
Dimension Indicator Contribution to total weight 2001 2007 2011 Contribution to total weight 2001 2007 2011 2016
Education [A] Years of schooling 0.1250 14.35 12.49 10.51 0.1667 14.99 13.74 12.59 13.28
[B] School attendance 0.1250 7.12 6.13 4.03 0.1667 6.99 6.76 4.61 5.33
Health [C] Child mortality 0.1250 0.75 1.58 0.08 0.1667 0.80 1.76 0.09 0.80
[D] Disability 0.1250 12.15 10.00 16.40 0.1667 15.41 14.36 25.25 23.60
[E] Fuel for cooking 0.0357 7.54 7.22 6.14 0.0556 11.21 11.11 9.43 7.78
[F] Water 0.0357 6.94 7.00 6.65 0.0556 10.32 10.85 10.50 10.97
[G] Sanitation type 0.0357 7.62 8.00 7.73 0.0556 11.73 12.63 12.77 12.98
Standard of living [H] Dwelling type 0.0357 5.86 6.23 5.40 0.0556 8.26 9.18 7.25 7.83
[I] Refuse removal 0.0357 7.07 7.45 7.21 0.0556 11.15 12.09 12.30 12.73
[J] Asset ownership 0.0357 6.62 5.11 3.99 0.0556 9.13 7.52 5.22 4.71
[K] Overcrowding 0.0357 3.32 3.49 3.24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Economic activity [L] Unemployment 0.2500 20.65 25.31 28.62 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Table 5. MPI in each population quintile using weighting scheme (I), 2001–2011.
2001 2007 2011 Absolute
change,
Income quintile H A MPI H A MPI H A MPI 2001–2011
Quintile 1 0.2817 0.4251 0.1197 0.1338 0.4142 0.0554 0.1318 0.4145 0.0546 0.0651
Quintile 2 0.2446 0.4303 0.1053 0.1090 0.4045 0.0441 0.1002 0.4029 0.0404 0.0649
Quintile 3 0.1664 0.4252 0.0708 0.0812 0.4047 0.0328 0.0675 0.4058 0.0274 0.0434
Quintile 4 0.0885 0.4248 0.0376 0.0417 0.3998 0.0167 0.0442 0.4043 0.0179 0.0197
Quintile 5 0.0253 0.4229 0.0107 0.0101 0.3992 0.0040 0.0065 0.3980 0.0026 0.0081
All 0.1663 0.4268 0.0710 0.0759 0.4073 0.0309 0.0707 0.4080 0.0288 0.0422
Income poverty 0.5462 0.4267 0.4424 0.1037
headcount ratio
Source: Own calculations using the Census 2001, CS 2007 and Census 2011 data.
(2016:999) rather found years of schooling and nutrition as the respective indicator with
the greatest contribution to MPI). Sanitation has the third highest contribution to MPI
(nearly 13% in 2016), and this is not surprising, given the findings in Figure 1.
Child mortality contributed least to MPI poverty (as also found by StatsSA (2014:10)).
This finding contradicts the results of Finn et al. (2013:10–11) and Rogan (2016:999), but
it may be attributed to the way the data was captured: in censuses and CSs, the respondents
were asked if any household member had passed away in the past year, but in the datasets
used by Finn et al. and Rogan, the respondents were asked about the death of household
members regardless of when it took place (these two studies used 20 years as the
threshold).
4.4. MPI poverty vs income poverty

The final part of the empirical analysis compares MPI with income poverty. The absolute
lower bound poverty line was derived by StatsSA (2015:11) as R501 per capita per month
in 2011 February–March prices (equivalent to R689 in 2016 December prices, using Stats-
SA’s latest CPI series; StatsSA, 2017), using the IES 2010/2011 consumption basket. The
original Census and CS income data is problematic to some extent, with a high proportion
of households reporting zero or unspecified income – 37% in 2001, 19% in 2007 and 29%
in 2011. Hence, the income amounts for these households were imputed with the aid of
sequential regression multiple imputation (SRMI).13
Table 5 shows that MPI poverty prevalence declined across all income quintiles, but the
decrease in absolute terms was the greatest in the two poorest quintiles. Money-metric
poverty decreased between 2001 and 2007 before a negligent increase took place in
2011. The latter increase was also found by Yu (2016:156).
Figure 4 shows that the proportion of population defined as both MPI and income poor
decreased continuously. Upon examining these ‘poorest of the poor’, they were predomi-
nantly female African rural residents in Eastern Cape, KwaZulu–Natal and Limpopo.
Finally, the last four columns of Table A8 compare MPI and income poverty by DC in
2011 and the rankings of the DCs from the two approaches are highly correlated – the
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was 0.9039 (it was 0.9732 in 2001 and 0.8980 in
2007).
13
For detailed explanation of this approach, see Raghunathan et al. (2001), Lacerda et al. (2008) and Yu (2009).
Figure 4. Proportion (%) of population in each poverty status category. Source: Authors’ calculations
using the Census 2001, CS 2007 and Census 2011 data.
5. Conclusion
This study examined multidimensional poverty in South Africa in 2001–2016 with the
MPI approach. This is the first local MPI study by DC and the first poverty study to
include the CS 2016 data for analysis. Numerous adaptions were made to the original
global MPI and StatsSA’s SAMPI to cater for the South African poverty context to
create an improved local version of the MPI. The empirical findings indicated a continu-
ous and significant decline in MPI poverty, with this decline mainly driven by large
reductions in the poverty headcount, whereas only a slight decrease in the intensity of
poverty took place. Unemployment, years of schooling and disability were the top
drivers of MPI poverty.
Regarding the results at DC level, the DCs with the lowest MPIs were concentrated in
Western Cape (such as Cape Winelands, City of Cape Town, Overberg and West Coast),
whereas the DCs associated with the highest MPIs were mainly located in Eastern Cape
(e.g. Alfred Nzo and OR Tambo) and KwaZulu–Natal (Harry Gwala, uMkhanyakude
and uMzinyathi). Furthermore, the DCs with the highest MPIs enjoyed the greatest absol-
ute decline in the indices under both weighting schemes, and there was a strong corre-
lation between MPI and income poverty.
Even though the empirical findings generally are in line with what was found by most
recent local studies on multidimensional poverty and this study adds to the existing litera-
ture by comprehensively examining MPI poverty at DC level with an improved version of
SAMPI, there is still room for improving the SAMPI further. First, assuming it is a difficult
task to collect information on height and weight, it remains crucial for StatSA (in the next
round of Census or CS) to capture more information on the health dimension so that a
wider range of indicators can be included, such as food hunger, food security (e.g. whether
the size of the meals was cut, meals were skipped or a smaller variety of foods were eaten)
and visits to health institutions (e.g. whether any household members did not consult a
health worker despite being ill). Currently such information is captured comprehensively
in the GHS.
For the living standard dimension, four separate groups of asset ownership indicators
may be included: (1) household operation assets such as fridge, stove and washing
machine; (2) communication assets such as telephone, computer and internet connection
(this was adopted by the 2017 Mushongera et al. study); (3) transport assets such as motor
vehicles and motorcycles; and (4) financial assets such as bank account, provident fund
and informal savings like stokvel (at present, such information is captured by the GHS).
One may consider adding a second indicator to the economic activity dimension,
namely the proportion of working-age population who did not seek work owing to
illness, disability, lack of available transport or no money to pay for transport as these
reasons relate to deprivation. This indicator was included by Noble et al. (2006, 2010)
and Noble & Wright (2013), albeit they only considered the illness and disability reasons.
It was mentioned in Section 1 that poverty is associated with physical and social iso-
lation, as well as feelings of vulnerability, powerlessness and helplessness, yet the global
MPI, StatsSA MPI and this study did not consider these dimensions. For the physical iso-
lation indicators, some were asked for the first time in CS 2016 (e.g. time taken to the place
of work, distance of the main water source from the dwelling) but others were never asked
in both Census and CS (e.g. distance to the nearest accessible telephone, time needed to get
to the health institution that the household normally visits). Information on social iso-
lation (such as attendance at a health club or religious group, as well as attending
parties with families and friends) is thoroughly captured by the All Media Products
Survey but hardly in the StatsSA datasets. Therefore, StatsSA may consider including a
detailed section on isolation so that a fifth dimension can be added to the SAMPI.
Finally, whilst questions on crime experience, perception of safety, and interruption of
water and electricity supply were asked for the first time in CS 2016, questions on other
indicators relating to vulnerability, powerlessness and helplessness should also be asked
(e.g. home security system, community crime watch unit, life cover policy, disease or
death of livestock and crop failure), before this dimension can also be added to
improve the construction of the SAMPI further.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Adams, C, Gallant, R, Jansen, A & Yu, D, 2015. Public assets and services delivery in South Africa: is
it really a success? Development Southern Africa 32(6), 697–710.
Alkire, S & Foster, J, 2011a. Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of
Public Economics 95(7-8), 476–487.
Alkire, S & Foster, J, 2011b. Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty
measurement. Journal of Economic Inequality 9(2), 289–314.
Barker, F, 2008. The South African labour market: theory and practice. Revised 5th edn. Van Schaik
Publishers, Pretoria.
Bhorat, H, Naidoo, P & Van der Westhuizen, C, 2006. Shifts in non-income welfare in South Africa:
1993–2004. DPRU Working Paper 06/108. Development Policy Research Unit, University of
Cape Town, Rondebosch.
Bhorat, H, Stanwix, B & Yu, D, 2015. Non-income welfare and inclusive growth in South Africa.
Africa Growth Initiative Working Paper 18. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
Bhorat, H & Van der Westhuizen, C, 2013. Non-monetary dimensions of well-being in
South Africa, 1993–2004: a post-apartheid dividend? Development Southern Africa 30(3),
295–314.
Bhorat, H, Van der Westhuizen, C & Goga, S, 2007. Welfare shifts in the post-apartheid
South Africa: a comprehensive measurement of changes. DPRU Working Paper 07/128.
Development Policy Research Unit, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch.
Bhorat, H, Van der Westhuizen, C & Yu, D, 2014. The silent success: delivery of public assets since
democracy. DPRU Working Paper 201403. Development Policy Research Unit, University of
Cape Town, Rondebosch.
Burger, R, Van der Berg, S, Van der Walt, SJ & Yu, D, 2017. The long walk: considering the
enduring spatial and racial dimensions of deprivation two decades after the fall of Apartheid.
Social Indicators Research 130(3), 1101–1123.
Elwan, A, 1999. Poverty and disability: a survey of the literature. World Bank Working Paper 21315.
The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Finn, A, Leibbrandt, M & Woolard, I, 2013. What happened to multidimensional poverty in South
Africa between 1993 and 2010? SALDRU Working Papers 99/2012. Southern African Labour
and Development Research Unit: University of Cape Town, Rondebosch.
Frame, E, De Lannoy, A & Leibbrandt, M, 2016. Measuring multidimensional poverty among youth
in South Africa at the sub-national level. SALDRU Working Paper Series Number 169. Southern
Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch.
Gordon, D, Nandy, S, Pantazis, C., Pemberton, S & Townsend, P, 2003. The distribution of child
poverty in the developing world. University of Bristol, Bristol.
Govendor, P, Kambaran, N, Patchett, N, Ruddle, A, Torr, G & Van Zyl, N, 2006. Poverty and
inequality in South Africa and the world. Actuarial Society of South Africa, Cape Town.
Hanandita, W & Tampubolon, G, 2016. Multidimensional poverty in Indonesia: trend over the last
decade (2003–2013). Social Indicators Research 128(2), 559–587.
Haughton, J & Khandker, SR, 2009. Handbook on poverty and inequality. The World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Hirschowitz, R, 2000. Measuring poverty in South Africa. Statistics South Africa, Pretoria.
Hoogeveen, JG & Özler, B, 2006. Poverty and inequality in post-apartheid South Africa: 1995–2000.
In Bhorat, H & Kanbur, R (Eds), Poverty and policy in post-apartheid South Africa. Human
Sciences Research Council, Cape Town, 59–94.
Jansen, A, Moses, M, Mujuta, S & Yu, D, 2015. Measurements and determinants of multifaceted
poverty in South Africa. Development Southern Africa 32(5), 151–169.
Lacerda, M, Ardington, C & Leibbrandt, M, 2008. Sequential regression multiple imputation for
incomplete multivariate data using Markov chain Monte Carlo. SALDRU Working Papers 13/
2008. Southern African Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town,
Rondebosch.
Leibbrandt, M, Poswell, L, Naidoo, P & Welch, M, 2006. Measuring recent changes in South African
inequality and poverty using 1996 and 2001 Census data. In Bhorat, H & Kanbur, R (Eds),
Poverty and policy in post-apartheid South Africa. Human Sciences Research Council, Cape
Town, 95–142.
Martinez, Jr, A & Perales, F, 2017. The dynamics of multidimensional poverty in contemporary
Australia. Social Indicators Research 130(2), 479–496.
Mitra, S, Posarac, A & Vick, B, 2013. Disability and poverty in developing countries: a multidimen-
sional study. World Development 41(1), 1–18.
Mushongera, D, Zikhali, P & Ngwenya, P, 2017. A multidimensional poverty index for Gauteng
province, South Africa: evidence from quality of life survey data. Social Indicators Research
130(1), 277–303.
Ngwane, AK, Yadavalli, VSS & Steffens, FE, 2001. Poverty in South Africa in 1995 – a totally fuzzy
and relative approach. Studies in Economics and Econometrics 25(1), 77–87.
Nieftagodien, S. & Van der Berg, S, 2007. Consumption patterns and the black middle class: The
role of assets. Stellenbosch Economic Working Papers 02/07. Stellenbosch University,
Stellenbosch.
Noble, M, Babita, M, Barnes, H, Dibben, C, Magasela, W, Noble, S, Ntshongwana, P, Phillips, H,
Rama, S, Roberts, B, Wright, G & Zungu, S, 2006. The provincial indices of multiple deprivation
for South Africa 2001. Centre for the Analysis of South African Social Policy, Department of
Social Policy and Social Work, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Noble, M, Barnes, H, Wright, G & Roberts, B, 2010. Small area indices of multiple deprivation in
South Africa. Social Indicators Research 95(2), 281–297.
Noble, M & Wright, G, 2013. Using indicators of multiple deprivation to demonstrate the spatial
legacy of apartheid in South Africa. Social Indicators Research 112(1), 187–201.
Ntsalaze1, L & Ikhide, S, 2016. Rethinking dimensions: the South African multidimensional poverty
index. Social Indicators Research. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s11205-016-1473-4
Accessed 13 November 2017.
Omotoso, KO & Koch, S, 2017. Exploring child poverty and inequality in post-apartheid South
Africa: a multidimensional perspective. Working Paper 2017–18. University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
Philip, D & Rayhan, I, 2004. Vulnerability and poverty: what are the causes and how are they
related? Centre for Development Research, University of Bonn, Bonn.
Posel, D & Rogan, M, 2012. Gendered trends in poverty in the post-apartheid period, 1997–2006.
Development Southern Africa 29(1), 97–113.
Qizilbash, M, 2002. A note on the measurement of poverty and vulnerability in the South African
context. Journal of International Development 14(6), 757–772.
Raghunathan, TE, Lepkowski, JM, Van Hoewyk, J & Solenberger, P, 2001. A multivariate technique
for multiply imputing missing values using a sequence of regression models. Survey
Methodology 27(1), 85–95.
Ravallion, M, 1992. Poverty comparisons: a guide to concepts and methods. Living Standards
Measurement Study Working Paper No. 88. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Ravallion, M, 1998. Poverty lines in theory and practice. Living Standards Measurement Study
Working Paper No. 133. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Rogan, M, 2016. Gender and multidimensional poverty in South Africa: applying the global multi-
dimensional poverty index (MPI). Social Indicators Research 126(3), 987–1006.
Santos, ME & Alkire, S, 2011. Training material for producing national human development
reports: the multidimensional poverty Index (MPI). http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/MPI_TrainingMaterial_23Nov2011.pdf Assessed 13 June 2017.
Schiel, R, 2012. Money metric versus non-money metric measures of well-being. Unpublished
Honours long essay. School of Economics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch.
Schultz, PT & Tansel, A, 1997. Wage and labor supply effects of illness in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana:
instrumental variable estimates for days disabled. Journal of Development Economics 53(2),
251–286.
Simkins, C, 2004. What happened to the distribution of income in South Africa between 1995 and
2001? Unpublished paper. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. http://www.sarpn.
org/documents/d0001062/P1175-simkins_Nov2004.pdf Accessed 12 July 2017.
Statistics South Africa, 2012. Subjective poverty in South Africa: findings of the living conditions
survey 2008/2009. Statistics South Africa, Pretoria.
Statistics South Africa, 2013. Men, women and children: findings of the living conditions survey
2008/2009. Statistics South Africa, Pretoria.
Statistics South Africa, 2014. The South African MPI: creating a multidimensional poverty index
using census data. Statistics South Africa, Pretoria.
Statistics South Africa, 2015. Methodological report on rebasing of national poverty lines and devel-
opment of pilot provincial poverty lines: technical report. Statistics South Africa, Pretoria.
Statistics South Africa, 2017. CPI headline index numbers (Dec 2016 = 100). Statistics South Africa,
Pretoria. http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0141/CPIHistory.pdf Accessed 17 July 2017.
Suppa, N, 2015. Towards a multidimensional poverty index for Germany. OPHI Working Paper
No. 98. Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHI), University of Oxford, Oxford.
United Nations, 2008. Official list of MDG indicators. https://www.hgpi.org/handout/ Official%
20list%20of%20MDG%20indicators.pdf Accessed 15 November 2017.
Van der Berg, S, Burger, R, Burger, R, Louw, M & Yu, D, 2005. Trends in poverty and inequality
since the political transition. Stellenbosch Economic Working Papers: 1/2005. Stellenbosch
University, Stellenbosch.
Van der Berg, S, Burger, R, Burger, R, Louw, M & Yu, D, 2007. A series of national accounts-con-
sistent estimates of poverty and inequality in South Africa. Stellenbosch Economic Working
Papers: 09/07. Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch.
Van der Walt, T & Haarhoff, J, 2004. Service delivery indices for municipal water supply. www.
waterinfo.co.za/literature/files/080.pdf Accessed 13 November 2017.
Woolard, I & Leibbrandt, M, 1999. Measuring poverty in South Africa. DPRU Working Paper No.
99/33. Development Policy Research Unit, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch.
World Bank, 2000. World development report 2000/2001: attacking poverty. The World Bank,
Washington, DC.
World Health Organisation and World Bank, 2011. World report on disability. World Health
Organisation, Geneva.
Yu, D, 2008. The comparability on Income and Expenditure Surveys 1995, 2000 and 2005/2006.
Stellenbosch Economic Working Papers: 11/2008. Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch.
Yu, D, 2009. The comparability of Census 1996, Census 2001 and Community Survey 2007.
Stellenbosch Economic Working Papers: 21/09. Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch University.
Yu, D, 2013. Poverty and inequality estimates of National Income Dynamics Study revisited.
Stellenbosch University Economic Working Paper: WP05/2013. Stellenbosch University,
Stellenbosch.
Yu, D, 2016. Factors influencing the comparability of poverty estimates across household surveys.
Development Southern Africa 33(2), 145–165.
Appendix 1
Table A1. Available information relating to the MPI indicators in the Censuses and Community Surveys,
1996–2016.
Census Census CS Census CS
1996 2001 2007 2011 2016
Education
Education year ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Education attendance ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Labour market status
Labour narrow ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ #
Labour broad ✓ ✓ #
Work status (Employee/employer) ✓ ✓ ✓

Occupation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ #
Industry ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ #
Formal/informal sector ✓ ✓ #
Hours worked past week ✓

Health
Mortality ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Disability ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Public assets and services
Dwelling type ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Number of rooms ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Roof material ✓
Floor material ✓
Water source ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Sanitation facility ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Access to electricity ✓
Fuel source for cooking ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Fuel source for heating ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Fuel source for lighting ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Refuse removal frequency ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Private assets
Landline telephone ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Cellular telephone ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Fridge ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Stove ✓ ✓
Washing machine ✓ ✓
Computer ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Vacuum cleaner ✓ ✓
TV ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Satellite dish ✓ ✓
Car ✓ ✓
Radio ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Internet ✓ ✓ ✓
Post box ✓ ✓
Social grant
Receipt of each type of social grant ✓ ✓
#
All of the labour market-related data is not released by Statistics South Africa, despite the information being captured.
Table A2. Comparability of district councils across censuses and community surveys.
Province Census 2001 CS 2007 Census 2011 CS 2016
Eastern Cape Alfred Nzo Alfred Nzo Alfred Nzo Alfred Nzo
KwaZulu–Natal Amajuba Amajuba Amajuba Amajuba
Eastern Cape Amatole Amatole Amatholea Amatholea
Buffalo Citya Buffalo Citya
North West Bojanala Bojanala Bojanala Bojanala
Western Cape Boland Boland Boland Cape Winelands
Limpopo Capricorn Capricorn Capricorn Capricorn
Western Cape Central Karoo Central Karoo Central Karoo Central Karoo
Eastern Cape Chris Hani Chris Hani Chris Hani Chris Hani
Western Cape City of Cape Town City of Cape Town City of Cape Town City of Cape Town
Gauteng Johannesburg Johannesburg City of Johannesburg City of Johannesburg
Gauteng City of Tshwaneb City of Tshwaneb City of Tshwane City of Tshwane
Metswedingb Metswedingb
North West Southern Southern Dr Kenneth Kaunda Dr Kenneth Kaunda
North West Bophirima Bophirima Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati
Western Cape Eden Eden Eden Eden
Mpumalanga Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni
Gauteng East Rand East Rand Ekurhuleni Ekurhuleni
KwaZulu–Natal Durban Durban eThekwini eThekwini
Free State Northern Free State Northern Free State Fezile Dabi Fezile Dabi
Northern Cape Frances Baard Frances Baard Frances Baard Frances Baard
Mpumalanga Govan Mbeki Govan Mbeki Gert Sibande Gert Sibande
KwaZulu–Natal Sisonke Sisonke Sisonke Harry Gwala
KwaZulu–Natal iLembe iLembe iLembe iLembe
Eastern Cape Ukhahlamba Ukhahlamba Ukhahlamba Joe Gqabi
Northern Cape Kgalagadi Kgalagadi John Taolo Gaetsewe John Taolo Gaetsewe
KwaZulu–Natal Uthungulu Uthungulu Uthungulu King Cetshwayo
Free State Lejweleputswa Lejweleputswa Lejweleputswa Lejweleputswa
Free State Motheo Motheo Mangaung Mangaung
c
Limpopo Mopani Mopani Mopani Mopani
c
Bohlabela
Northern Cape Namakwa Namakwa Namakwa Namakwa
Eastern Cape Port Elizabeth Port Elizabeth Nelson Mandela Bay Nelson Mandela Bay
North West Central Central Ngaka Modiri Molema Ngaka Modiri Molema
Mpumalanga Nkangala Nkangala Nkangala Nkangala
Eastern Cape OR Tambo OR Tambo OR Tambo OR Tambo
Western Cape Overberg Overberg Overberg Overberg
Northern Cape Karoo Karoo Pixley ka Seme Pixley ka Seme
Eastern Cape Cacadu Cacadu Cacadu Sarah Baartman
Gauteng Sedibeng Sedibeng Sedibeng Sedibeng
Limpopo Sekhukhune Cross Greater Sekhukhune Greater Sekhukhune Sekhukhune
Free State Thabo Mofutsanyana Thabo Mofutsanyana Thabo Mofutsanyana Thabo Mofutsanyana
KwaZulu–Natal Ugu Ugu Ugu Ugu
KwaZulu–Natal uMgungundlovu uMgungundlovu uMgungundlovu uMgungundlovu
KwaZulu–Natal uMkhanyakude uMkhanyakude uMkhanyakude uMkhanyakude
KwaZulu–Natal uMzinyathi uMzinyathi uMzinyathi uMzinyathi
KwaZulu–Natal Uthukela Uthukela Uthukela Uthukela
Limpopo Vhembe Vhembe Vhembe Vhembe
Limpopo Waterberg Waterberg Waterberg Waterberg
Western Cape West Coast West Coast West Coast West Coast
Gauteng West Rand West Rand West Rand West Rand
Free State Xhariep Xhariep Xhariep Xhariep
Northern Cape Siyanda Siyanda Siyanda ZF Mgcawu
KwaZulu–Natal Zululand Zululand Zululand Zululand
a
In the 2011 and 2016 data, Amathole and Buffalo City are integrated into one district council, Amathole, for consistent
comparison with 2001 and 2007.
b
In the 2001 and 2007 data, City of Tshwane and Metsweding are integrated into one district council, City of Tshwane, for
consistent comparison with 2011 and 2016.
c
In the 2001 data, Mopani and Bohlabela are integrated into one district council, Mopani, for consistent comparison with
2007, 2011 and 2016.
Table A3. Proportion of population (%) deprived in each indicator by gender, race and area type, 2001–2016.
Male Female Urban Rural
2001 2007 2011 2016 2001 2007 2011 2016 2001 2007 2011 2016 2001 2007 2011 2016
[A] 12.68 7.66 6.61 5.22 15.20 8.05 7.26 5.64 7.77 N/A 4.33 3.82 21.61 N/A 11.22 8.51
[B] 6.06 4.07 2.49 2.09 7.71 5.05 3.36 3.03 4.57 N/A 2.47 2.24 9.68 N/A 3.57 3.06
[C] 0.61 0.76 0.04 0.25 0.97 1.31 0.06 0.41 0.51 N/A 0.04 0.22 1.11 N/A 0.08 0.52
[D] 16.51 9.20 17.56 12.03 20.30 11.78 24.07 17.64 14.81 N/A 16.95 12.87 22.59 N/A 26.38 17.95
[E] 42.67 29.44 20.75 12.94 57.45 41.67 28.89 17.94 27.49 N/A 9.94 6.42 77.44 N/A 48.73 32.37
[F] 36.27 28.30 23.98 22.85 49.50 40.74 33.86 30.52 17.54 N/A 9.90 9.13 74.05 N/A 59.56 59.90
[G] 46.11 40.12 37.44 33.95 61.17 56.41 51.18 46.18 22.68 N/A 15.26 13.32 91.84 N/A 91.29 90.59
[H] 28.99 26.37 19.95 18.37 36.30 31.60 22.88 21.07 22.39 N/A 15.63 14.42 45.01 N/A 30.75 29.69
[I] 43.74 38.43 36.52 36.74 56.74 51.78 48.31 46.70 13.73 N/A 12.02 16.44 95.89 N/A 91.96 89.67
[J] 30.35 14.60 10.23 7.10 42.23 20.65 13.06 8.12 22.30 N/A 7.81 5.76 52.91 N/A 17.70 11.08
[K] 19.69 19.19 13.52 N/A 24.90 24.48 18.25 N/A 18.66 N/A 12.80 N/A 26.34 N/A 20.40 N/A
[L] 6.83 4.12 4.99 N/A 9.01 6.38 6.56 N/A 8.22 N/A 5.84 N/A 7.24 N/A 5.43 N/A
African Coloured Indian White
2001 2007 2011 2016 2001 2007 2011 2016 2001 2007 2011 2016 2001 2007 2011 2016
[A] 16.34 9.08 7.98 5.94 8.08 5.91 4.31 3.57 1.93 1.99 1.98 3.22 0.78 0.81 0.90 2.15
[B] 7.58 4.72 3.02 2.59 6.29 5.81 3.67 3.45 2.77 2.97 2.25 1.95 1.64 1.93 0.95 0.87

[C] 0.94 1.21 0.06 0.37 0.27 0.31 0.03 0.20 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.05
[D] 19.68 10.95 21.96 14.99 15.71 10.84 21.52 15.24 12.01 10.32 11.72 12.24 9.50 4.66 8.67 10.12
[E] 60.55 43.08 29.90 18.18 12.60 5.83 4.98 2.83 1.19 1.18 1.39 0.58 0.87 0.32 1.05 0.29
[F] 51.38 41.44 34.90 31.03 9.90 5.11 4.90 3.93 4.51 1.80 1.90 1.63 4.49 3.32 1.28 6.34
[G] 64.73 58.38 53.35 47.29 14.56 9.01 10.35 6.53 2.11 1.78 2.55 1.80 1.35 0.50 1.00 0.68
[H] 39.30 35.06 25.48 22.97 9.34 7.70 8.49 7.27 2.68 1.97 2.35 1.66 1.86 1.24 1.36 0.86
[I] 59.61 53.35 49.97 47.52 14.45 11.36 11.47 10.84 3.13 3.37 3.86 9.77 9.59 8.64 9.82 14.77
[J] 42.61 20.69 13.52 8.60 18.85 8.62 7.12 4.78 2.14 1.19 1.13 1.27 1.17 0.43 0.52 0.89
[K] 25.17 24.63 17.90 N/A 20.82 20.27 14.07 N/A 3.83 4.71 2.30 N/A 0.99 1.09 0.61 N/A
[L] 9.33 6.05 6.69 N/A 3.34 2.58 2.97 N/A 1.25 1.05 1.15 N/A 0.73 0.56 0.74 N/A
71
72
T. FRANSMAN AND D. YU
Table A4. Proportion of population (%) deprived in each indicator by province, 2001–2016.
Western Cape Eastern Cape Northern Cape Free State KwaZulu–Natal
2001 2007 2011 2016 2001 2007 2011 2016 2001 2007 2011 2016 2001 2007 2011 2016 2001 2007 2011 2016
[A] 6.21 4.20 3.38 2.96 20.41 11.22 10.37 8.09 17.76 11.44 10.06 6.72 14.38 8.88 7.30 5.78 15.02 7.84 7.34 5.11
[B] 4.81 4.47 2.71 2.65 9.26 5.44 3.33 2.76 7.06 5.62 3.81 3.38 5.29 2.44 2.22 1.91 9.45 6.00 4.78 3.57
[C] 0.21 0.26 0.01 0.12 0.84 1.06 0.06 0.35 0.62 0.83 0.07 0.43 0.84 0.97 0.06 0.30 1.27 1.75 0.08 0.43
[D] 13.70 7.82 16.66 11.91 21.94 13.98 24.67 17.40 18.32 12.04 30.36 20.01 21.32 11.97 25.63 18.88 19.96 13.13 21.96 17.82
[E] 15.85 6.11 4.38 1.98 71.60 55.34 35.81 20.83 32.75 18.24 14.40 9.27 50.46 23.19 11.59 6.24 54.00 41.91 31.94 19.11
[F] 13.11 7.97 9.29 9.10 66.33 60.47 53.81 49.77 16.87 20.12 21.70 22.52 28.85 12.33 10.18 8.91 56.39 46.20 39.52 36.80
[G] 12.20 6.90 8.92 5.57 70.65 65.91 60.15 55.12 32.80 33.68 34.04 31.18 55.73 42.68 33.53 28.28 65.04 63.07 60.99 59.98
[H] 16.73 14.47 15.72 14.57 51.85 48.46 39.17 35.72 15.55 16.20 16.12 15.43 32.66 25.74 18.17 15.98 43.16 42.43 30.12 29.43
[I] 11.63 9.40 9.44 11.75 66.99 66.85 62.30 60.04 27.37 28.18 33.95 37.82 42.88 25.51 28.72 30.28 58.87 57.08 55.35 58.65
[J] 17.76 7.98 6.71 4.21 55.32 31.38 20.35 14.07 33.77 17.98 14.18 10.76 34.12 14.75 8.56 5.71 41.40 20.74 14.45 8.96
[K] 19.41 22.55 13.49 N/A 28.65 25.04 25.02 N/A 23.95 22.46 15.30 N/A 20.94 17.25 10.69 N/A 24.01 24.95 21.19 N/A
[L] 4.58 3.05 4.05 N/A 8.38 5.42 5.78 N/A 5.62 4.26 4.36 N/A 9.00 6.45 6.71 N/A 7.96 4.47 4.95 N/A
North West Gauteng Mpumalanga Limpopo South Africa
2001 2007 2011 2016 2001 2007 2011 2016 2001 2007 2011 2016 2001 2007 2011 2016 2001 2007 2011 2016
[A] 17.19 12.88 11.19 7.64 7.10 4.77 3.76 3.76 15.82 8.44 7.93 5.98 16.62 8.65 8.16 7.71 13.80 7.83 6.90 5.41
[B] 8.81 4.69 3.11 2.68 3.79 3.57 1.81 1.87 6.15 3.58 2.46 2.67 5.47 3.71 1.71 1.84 6.80 4.49 2.88 2.52
[C] 0.84 1.19 0.08 0.53 0.43 0.57 0.02 0.21 1.09 1.33 0.05 0.42 0.62 0.77 0.05 0.40 0.77 1.00 0.05 0.32
[D] 20.95 10.89 25.15 15.75 11.97 6.16 13.61 11.39 20.69 10.41 20.56 14.52 19.62 9.71 23.99 12.96 18.20 10.32 20.46 14.59
[E] 54.08 34.65 21.88 13.01 23.49 15.95 10.56 7.87 60.67 46.98 31.45 20.74 76.43 63.39 53.55 40.11 49.25 34.72 24.38 15.22
[F] 48.97 38.73 31.37 36.71 14.63 11.61 8.65 8.38 42.15 32.77 28.94 26.56 63.86 59.09 49.98 52.63 42.16 33.67 28.39 26.35
[G] 67.65 57.72 55.75 53.00 16.85 15.69 13.04 12.38 65.66 64.48 60.79 57.56 87.31 84.74 82.32 80.41 52.81 47.16 43.57 39.54
[H] 25.78 27.64 21.03 18.95 22.89 22.42 16.43 15.38 28.96 19.80 14.16 13.49 26.15 14.56 8.43 10.02 32.24 28.63 21.26 19.60
[I] 65.46 48.84 52.71 44.86 14.65 13.99 10.67 14.90 65.00 63.23 61.31 62.80 88.55 85.33 82.12 80.64 49.52 44.20 41.78 41.29
[J] 33.62 17.65 13.00 8.60 20.53 10.38 7.31 6.05 33.31 13.34 8.90 5.89 45.30 19.62 11.72 6.86 35.64 17.21 11.49 7.57
[K] 20.25 21.68 14.13 N/A 17.57 18.60 12.79 N/A 18.38 17.96 9.67 N/A 23.46 19.61 10.88 N/A 22.01 21.48 15.63 N/A
[L] 7.71 5.67 5.84 N/A 8.88 5.75 6.27 N/A 7.08 5.04 5.90 N/A 7.87 5.72 6.85 N/A 7.79 5.10 5.69 N/A
Table A5. Proportion of population (%) deprived in each indicator by district council, 2001.
District council [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H] [I] [J] [K] [L]
Alfred Nzo 24.4 9.2 1.4 24.8 91.8 92.8 97.9 75.8 97.5 71.0 26.4 8.7
Amajuba 9.2 8.1 1.4 26.9 54.8 53.6 56.8 23.1 49.0 30.6 24.3 8.8
Amathole & Buffalo City 16.4 6.8 0.4 20.3 71.1 65.9 66.6 49.2 63.4 50.2 29.2 9.9
Bojanala 13.0 6.0 0.6 15.9 49.7 48.8 75.5 31.3 74.7 29.2 17.6 8.3
Cape Winelands 9.4 5.8 0.2 17.1 14.3 12.0 12.9 13.5 28.4 22.1 23.4 2.5
Capricorn 13.0 4.4 0.6 19.6 70.4 59.4 85.1 15.8 85.5 42.8 22.2 7.3
Central Karoo 15.6 8.9 0.3 26.6 30.9 5.5 13.2 3.7 17.3 31.8 24.5 5.3
Chris Hani 24.6 8.8 0.7 27.4 79.2 70.4 79.5 49.2 75.7 58.4 32.2 7.5
City of Cape Town 4.0 4.2 0.2 12.5 15.0 13.4 10.5 18.8 4.6 14.5 17.5 5.4
City of Johannesburg 6.5 3.7 0.4 11.8 17.1 13.9 14.1 19.5 7.7 19.2 21.0 9.2
City of Tshwane 6.5 3.7 0.4 11.3 28.8 20.4 31.2 23.9 24.7 18.2 12.3 6.4
Dr Kenneth Kaunda 15.3 7.1 0.9 19.9 47.9 21.6 37.1 31.8 23.0 29.8 17.0 7.4
Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati 28.8 14.6 1.2 29.8 66.6 65.7 77.4 20.7 74.3 46.3 27.1 6.3
Eden 10.1 5.7 0.2 16.8 22.7 15.7 19.6 16.0 17.9 24.6 22.8 4.1
Ehlanzeni 18.7 6.8 1.0 18.9 54.9 50.2 78.4 19.2 77.2 38.2 24.9 6.6
Ekurhuleni 7.6 4.0 0.5 11.9 31.2 15.7 15.2 26.5 10.2 23.6 17.2 10.4
eThekwini 7.3 5.6 0.7 13.8 25.2 29.6 38.1 26.4 18.0 23.4 20.7 9.0
Fezile Dabi 13.4 4.4 0.8 21.5 47.9 15.1 38.3 27.6 36.7 28.8 13.3 8.2
Frances Baard 15.6 6.2 0.6 22.1 36.0 16.0 26.4 17.7 25.7 28.5 21.5 6.8
Gert Sibande 17.0 7.2 1.7 22.1 73.2 42.9 55.1 46.8 52.3 38.7 15.9 7.3
Harry Gwala 21.9 11.4 1.1 21.9 83.8 68.7 79.6 68.0 82.0 67.5 28.3 9.4
iLembe 18.6 10.6 1.5 21.4 61.9 71.6 80.3 57.9 81.6 49.8 26.9 6.7
Joe Gqabi 25.3 10.0 0.9 26.0 82.7 74.2 87.5 41.5 78.1 65.0 36.7 7.5
John Taolo Gaetsewe 24.0 10.1 1.5 26.9 63.8 75.9 81.2 27.4 83.7 46.8 26.2 4.8
King Cetshwayo 18.2 12.5 1.6 20.4 63.2 70.7 81.5 53.5 83.6 49.6 28.3 7.0
Lejweleputswa 16.0 6.4 1.0 19.6 50.1 27.5 53.9 37.1 29.8 36.4 21.2 10.5
Mangaung 11.6 4.2 0.6 19.4 37.7 29.1 53.3 26.2 41.9 28.3 24.3 8.1
Mopani 20.6 6.9 0.7 19.1 78.9 63.3 88.9 28.7 90.2 44.2 23.8 8.2
Namakwa 12.7 3.4 0.3 16.9 17.1 12.0 39.2 9.2 21.7 30.7 20.9 5.1
Nelson Mandela Bay 5.5 4.8 0.2 16.3 30.4 16.8 17.0 21.1 12.3 25.4 16.0 9.2
Ngaka Modiri Molema 21.8 13.0 1.0 25.6 59.0 60.5 77.1 18.1 80.1 38.0 24.5 6.9
Nkangala 12.4 4.7 0.6 20.9 53.2 30.3 58.9 23.2 61.4 24.6 14.8 7.4
OR Tambo 29.7 14.7 1.7 22.6 89.7 93.5 94.3 75.0 95.0 74.2 34.7 7.5
Overberg 10.1 5.6 0.2 11.4 16.4 13.3 15.3 15.2 21.9 22.0 19.7 4.0
Pixley ka Seme 25.5 10.5 0.9 16.9 37.5 17.9 47.7 13.9 26.3 37.9 27.6 6.1
Sarah Baartman 16.8 8.3 0.3 21.4 46.6 24.7 51.2 22.9 29.9 35.3 21.4 5.9
Sedibeng 8.0 3.7 0.5 16.5 20.4 11.2 15.6 17.3 51.0 21.6 14.7 9.7
Sekhukhune 16.4 5.5 0.6 22.3 81.4 81.7 95.9 22.2 95.8 48.9 21.9 6.8
Thabo Mofutsanyana 14.2 5.1 1.0 24.2 63.8 40.2 74.9 40.7 61.8 39.5 21.3 9.2
Ugu 20.7 11.3 1.4 21.7 70.0 82.6 83.3 50.7 86.6 51.4 28.5 6.4
uMgungundlovu 12.0 7.2 1.1 17.4 45.9 39.6 60.2 40.6 60.7 35.8 16.6 8.7
uMkhanyakude 25.1 17.2 1.5 23.9 83.2 88.3 92.2 56.3 96.3 61.0 33.6 6.4
uMzinyathi 31.1 15.2 1.5 22.5 83.6 82.6 85.0 65.7 86.8 67.2 25.2 7.4
Uthukela 16.7 10.4 2.0 25.9 72.8 69.8 78.9 51.8 77.3 45.7 21.3 8.4
Vhembe 14.3 3.7 0.4 18.3 80.0 60.1 89.7 37.0 91.2 45.9 23.8 9.3
Waterberg 18.4 7.6 0.8 20.5 65.3 53.7 69.5 23.4 74.1 42.3 25.7 6.1
West Coast 11.2 6.2 0.3 12.5 12.6 9.4 14.0 7.9 28.7 24.5 23.8 2.1
West Rand 11.4 5.5 0.7 12.9 32.9 18.1 23.9 28.8 21.3 26.5 20.4 9.0
Xhariep 25.8 9.4 0.5 23.8 56.4 17.9 31.4 18.3 31.0 42.5 24.7 7.4
ZF Mgcawu 15.8 7.4 0.7 16.7 30.4 19.3 30.2 15.4 34.2 39.0 27.3 4.3
Zululand 20.0 11.7 2.2 29.6 78.8 76.9 85.9 54.9 85.3 57.4 27.5 6.6
Source: Authors’ calculations using the Census 2001 data.
Table A6. Proportion of population (%) deprived in each indicator by district council, 2016.
District council [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H] [I] [J] [K]a [L]a
Alfred Nzo 10.1 2.6 0.8 23.5 49.8 85.7 95.9 58.9 95.4 27.7 30.6 5.0
Amajuba 3.0 3.1 0.5 17.5 13.4 12.6 50.3 17.0 50.8 6.0 19.6 5.4
Amathole 7.1 2.1 0.2 15.9 17.3 49.5 51.5 35.4 61.5 12.5 27.9 6.4
Bojanala 6.0 2.2 0.4 12.5 12.3 34.3 61.1 25.5 40.5 7.3 12.2 6.5
Cape Winelands 3.5 4.8 0.1 11.9 3.4 10.3 3.5 15.5 16.5 5.4 15.7 2.3
Capricorn 7.3 1.8 0.3 12.2 22.7 36.3 73.8 6.1 73.6 5.4 8.9 6.9
Central Karoo 5.8 3.6 0.5 20.7 5.1 4.0 2.6 1.2 6.9 8.6 17.3 4.3
Chris Hani 12.5 3.8 0.3 17.6 12.8 54.1 64.4 42.7 71.5 11.6 31.3 5.6
City of Cape Town 2.4 2.2 0.1 11.0 1.2 9.6 6.0 15.3 10.8 3.4 12.1 4.6
City of Johannesburg 3.4 1.9 0.2 10.7 6.2 6.1 8.4 15.1 12.8 5.9 15.2 6.0
City of Tshwane 3.7 1.9 0.2 10.8 6.8 9.7 21.6 15.4 20.7 4.5 9.1 5.4
Dr Kenneth Kaunda 7.1 2.3 0.4 16.2 8.6 8.4 10.3 12.4 18.9 6.9 10.7 6.0
Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati 11.9 3.6 1.1 23.8 16.7 60.6 63.1 9.0 66.4 12.1 18.0 5.1
Eden 4.1 2.6 0.2 14.4 3.7 6.9 6.2 12.5 10.3 5.2 15.9 4.1
Ehlanzeni 7.0 3.0 0.4 13.4 18.1 39.9 80.7 6.5 80.3 3.8 9.9 6.6
Ekurhuleni 4.0 1.7 0.2 12.1 10.8 9.2 10.5 15.6 12.4 7.7 13.1 7.3
eThekwini 3.5 3.3 0.2 15.1 4.5 13.8 29.7 17.9 24.2 4.7 15.7 6.0
Fezile Dabi 6.4 2.3 0.3 17.6 6.0 6.0 18.2 13.4 16.5 6.3 6.7 7.3
Frances Baard 5.0 2.6 0.2 15.8 5.7 11.4 15.1 14.8 28.8 8.8 12.8 5.4
Gert Sibande 5.8 2.6 0.6 16.4 28.4 16.9 34.2 21.5 47.4 7.7 10.7 5.5
Harry Gwala 9.8 3.4 0.7 17.7 43.0 68.2 82.3 61.7 79.8 18.7 22.8 4.5
iLembe 6.0 2.5 0.5 19.2 23.0 61.0 78.7 27.4 72.1 13.4 24.5 4.5
Joe Gqabi 10.4 2.9 0.2 14.0 21.4 55.0 67.3 31.1 66.8 18.9 24.6 5.8
John Taolo Gaetsewe 7.9 3.6 0.6 25.9 18.2 64.2 72.1 16.7 78.7 11.6 17.3 4.0
King Cetshwayo 5.7 4.1 0.3 19.7 20.3 33.8 75.7 32.9 78.5 7.3 29.9 4.1
Lejweleputswa 4.8 1.9 0.4 19.5 4.7 6.6 16.6 16.4 26.7 5.7 11.4 7.6
Mangaung 5.3 1.7 0.2 18.2 3.6 8.9 32.8 12.1 21.3 4.4 11.5 5.6
Mopani 9.2 1.5 0.3 11.6 51.3 55.6 85.4 8.8 85.5 6.5 11.0 6.8
Namakwa 5.3 2.9 0.1 23.8 4.0 4.2 18.5 4.4 14.4 7.5 13.4 3.4
Nelson Mandela Bay 2.7 2.2 0.1 13.6 4.0 5.9 6.2 6.8 14.8 4.3 8.8 7.1
Ngaka Modiri Molema 9.1 3.4 0.7 17.6 16.2 53.2 68.1 16.8 64.1 10.8 18.3 5.0
Nkangala 4.9 2.4 0.3 14.3 17.8 17.8 47.8 15.6 53.6 7.0 8.5 5.3
OR Tambo 11.2 3.7 0.6 20.1 34.4 84.4 92.5 59.0 93.4 20.0 33.2 4.7
Overberg 5.0 2.9 0.2 12.6 3.5 9.3 4.0 15.3 12.3 4.9 13.6 3.1
Pixley ka Seme 11.0 4.0 0.4 22.5 8.0 10.9 18.9 10.4 23.8 12.4 17.6 4.6
Sarah Baartman 7.2 2.6 0.2 17.8 6.1 13.7 17.3 11.5 14.9 8.5 13.1 4.6
Sedibeng 4.0 2.1 0.2 13.1 4.7 6.3 7.5 11.6 12.3 4.5 9.6 6.8
Sekhukhune 7.2 2.4 0.5 15.8 35.4 68.4 94.2 11.2 92.4 8.2 10.0 8.1
Thabo Mofutsanyana 5.8 1.7 0.3 19.8 10.5 13.3 44.2 22.0 52.2 5.9 11.7 6.9
Ugu 6.7 4.7 0.4 21.3 23.4 69.6 80.3 42.3 84.2 13.4 22.2 4.5
uMgungundlovu 3.9 3.9 0.5 14.5 9.8 20.8 56.4 24.8 61.9 6.2 14.2 5.2
uMkhanyakude 6.9 4.4 0.3 17.1 51.9 72.5 93.9 31.6 97.5 17.7 30.6 4.1
uMzinyathi 11.0 3.8 0.7 20.0 42.1 65.4 82.8 55.0 84.3 16.3 28.2 3.8
Uthukela 4.3 3.6 1.1 21.4 29.2 49.9 75.4 32.8 73.7 8.6 23.3 4.4
Vhembe 7.9 1.7 0.3 11.7 57.6 60.6 84.3 13.1 85.7 6.3 13.3 6.5
Waterberg 6.3 1.9 0.6 14.7 26.6 36.9 54.4 11.6 56.6 9.1 11.0 5.4
West Coast 3.8 2.9 0.1 14.5 2.6 6.4 6.2 11.1 13.9 7.2 18.5 2.9
West Rand 4.8 2.0 0.3 12.8 13.0 15.9 14.2 20.1 18.6 7.5 15.6 6.6
Xhariep 11.1 2.0 0.2 19.2 5.9 7.4 12.4 11.6 29.9 9.5 11.7 5.9
ZF Mgcawu 5.3 4.2 0.8 16.4 8.6 12.2 27.4 24.4 29.4 13.2 16.4 3.3
Zululand 5.3 3.5 0.6 24.3 27.1 53.2 84.5 43.2 82.5 10.5 26.7 3.8
Source: Authors’ calculations using the Census 2011 and CS 2016 data.
a
As the 2016 results on overcrowding and unemployment are not available, the 2011 results are shown instead.
Table A7. Multidimensional poverty by gender, race and area type, 2001–2016.
2001 2007 2011 2016
H A MPI H A MPI H A MPI H A MPI
Gender Male 0.1392 0.4265 0.0594 0.0621 0.4065 0.0252 0.0570 0.4081 0.0233 N/A
Female 0.2003∗ 0.4271 0.0855∗ 0.0940∗ 0.4080∗ 0.0384∗ 0.0876∗ 0.4079 0.0357∗
Race African 0.2052 0.4271 0.0876 0.0935 0.4073 0.0381 0.0861 0.4079 0.0351
Coloured 0.0381** 0.4174** 0.0159** 0.0177** 0.4102** 0.0072** 0.0208** 0.4106** 0.0085**
Indian 0.0033** 0.3987** 0.0013** 0.0035** 0.3889 **
0.0013** 0.0043** 0.4092** 0.0018**
White 0.0017** 0.4047** 0.0007** 0.0012** 0.4145 **
0.0005** 0.0013** 0.3984** 0.0005**
Area type Urban 0.0783 0.4354 0.0341 N/A N/A N/A 0.0351 0.4163 0.0146
Rural 0.2805*** 0.4238*** 0.1189*** N/A N/A N/A 0.1307*** 0.4043*** 0.0528***
All 0.1663 0.4268 0.0710 0.0759 0.4073 0.0309 0.0707 0.4080 0.0288
Gender Male 0.2512 0.4403 0.1106 0.1401 0.4135 0.0579 0.1292 0.4050 0.0523 0.0863 0.3908 0.0337
Female 0.3502∗ 0.4440∗ 0.1555∗ 0.2015∗ 0.4113∗ 0.0829∗ 0.1937∗ 0.4092∗ 0.0792∗ 0.1310∗ 0.3961∗ 0.0519∗
Race African 0.3619 0.4431 0.1603 0.2043 0.4130 0.0844 0.1921 0.4078 0.0783 0.1261 0.3944 0.0497
0.0838** 0.4181** 0.0350** 0.0456** 0.3939** 0.0180** 0.0483** 0.3946** 0.0190** 0.0279** 0.3798** 0.0106**

Coloured
Indian 0.0128** 0.3657** 0.0047** 0.0129** 0.3690** 0.0048** 0.0119** 0.3755** 0.0045** 0.0117** 0.3544** 0.0042**
White 0.0050** 0.3734** 0.0019** 0.0041** 0.3760** 0.0015** 0.0041** 0.3660** 0.0015** 0.0057** 0.3460** 0.0020**
Area type Urban 0.1138 0.4155 0.0473 N/A N/A N/A 0.0542 0.3935 0.0213 0.0411 0.3790 0.0156
Rural 0.5304*** 0.4497*** 0.2385*** N/A N/A N/A 0.3328*** 0.4111*** 0.1368*** 0.2344*** 0.3988*** 0.0935***
All 0.2952 0.4422 0.1306 0.1666 0.4124 0.0687 0.1580 0.4073 0.0643 0.1067 0.3938 0.0420
∗
The value is statistically significant compared with that of the reference gender category (male) at α = 5%.
**The value is statistically significant compared with that of the reference race category (African) at α = 5%.
***The value is statistically significant compared with that of the reference area type category (urban) at α = 5%.
75
Table A8. MPI and income poverty by district council using weighting scheme (I), 2001–2011.
2001 2007 2011
District council MPI Rank MPI Rank MPI Rank Income poverty Rank
Alfred Nzo 0.1706 49 0.0703 45 0.0913 51 0.7213 50
Amajuba 0.0753 29 0.0292 26 0.0264 25 0.5891 38
Amathole 0.1104 37 0.0579 39 0.0534 43 0.5343 29
Bojanala 0.0619 24 0.0255 24 0.0277 28 0.3641 13
Cape Winelands 0.0154 2 0.0042 1 0.0064 2 0.2855 6
Capricorn 0.0666 25 0.0302 29 0.0292 31 0.5461 31
Central Karoo 0.0233 6 0.0072 4 0.0122 7 0.4099 16
Chris Hani 0.1379 44 0.0757 46 0.0627 47 0.6084 41
City of Cape Town 0.0194 3 0.0080 6 0.0096 5 0.2853 5
City of Johannesburg 0.0256 8 0.0110 8 0.0096 4 0.2630 3
City of Tshwane 0.0292 9 0.0151 13 0.0133 8 0.2620 2
Dr Kenneth Kaunda 0.0539 21 0.0245 23 0.0193 17 0.4388 21
Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati 0.1204 42 0.0537 36 0.0495 41 0.6067 40
Eden 0.0240 7 0.0068 3 0.0135 9 0.3420 10
Ehlanzeni 0.0723 28 0.0295 28 0.0290 30 0.5484 32
Ekurhuleni 0.0349 12 0.0147 12 0.0169 13 0.2948 7
eThekwini 0.0438 16 0.0175 15 0.0171 14 0.3646 14
Fezile Dabi 0.0451 17 1.1202 51 0.0190 16 0.4543 23
Frances Baard 0.0435 15 0.0221 18 0.0264 24 0.4361 20
Gert Sibande 0.0800 32 0.3191 50 0.0283 29 0.4855 26
Harry Gwala 0.1434 47 0.0689 43 0.0668 48 0.6603 46
iLembe 0.1122 39 0.0546 37 0.0459 37 0.5634 35
Joe Gqabi 0.1392 45 0.0799 47 0.0626 46 0.6032 39
John Taolo Gaetsewe 0.1118 38 0.0475 35 0.0483 40 0.5400 30
King Cetshwayo 0.1159 40 0.0459 33 0.0471 38 0.5859 37
Lejweleputswa 0.0680 26 0.0202 17 0.0215 20 0.4690 25
Mangaung 0.0506 19 0.0170 14 0.0173 15 0.3627 12
Mopani 0.0925 35 0.0378 32 0.0390 34 0.6202 43
Namakwa 0.0199 4 0.0080 7 0.0113 6 0.3209 9
Nelson Mandela Bay 0.0335 11 0.0141 11 0.0153 11 0.4112 17
Ngaka Modiri Molema 0.1005 36 0.0606 42 0.0529 42 0.5622 34
Nkangala 0.0507 20 0.0240 22 0.0197 18 0.4156 18
OR Tambo 0.1931 51 0.0839 48 0.0857 50 0.7105 49
Overberg 0.0204 5 0.0073 5 0.0090 3 0.2728 4
Pixley ka Seme 0.0548 22 0.0235 20 0.0247 23 0.4453 22
Sarah Baartman 0.0460 18 0.0132 9 0.0160 12 0.4214 19
Sedibeng 0.0328 10 0.0136 10 0.0136 10 0.3599 11
Sekhukhune 0.0810 33 0.0465 34 0.0447 35 0.6422 44
Thabo Mofutsanyana 0.0777 31 0.0335 30 0.0268 26 0.5496 33
Ugu 0.1245 43 0.0700 44 0.0570 44 0.5827 36
uMgungundlovu 0.0694 27 0.0294 27 0.0294 32 0.4558 24
uMkhanyakude 0.1575 48 0.0604 41 0.0579 45 0.7252 51
uMzinyathi 0.1745 50 0.0860 49 0.0726 49 0.7057 48
Uthukela 0.1181 41 0.0570 38 0.0472 39 0.6540 45
Vhembe 0.0839 34 0.0356 31 0.0384 33 0.6164 42
Waterberg 0.0763 30 0.0265 25 0.0271 27 0.4876 27
West Coast 0.0101 1 0.0044 2 0.0057 1 0.2455 1
West Rand 0.0426 14 0.0223 19 0.0235 22 0.3032 8
Xhariep 0.0594 23 0.0237 21 0.0233 21 0.4983 28
ZF Mgcawu 0.0376 13 0.0200 16 0.0201 19 0.3732 15
Zululand 0.1405 46 0.0591 40 0.0451 36 0.7054 47
Source: Authors’ calculations using the Census 2011, CS 2007 and Census 2011 data.
Table A9. MPI by district council using weighting scheme (II), 2001–2016.
2001 2007 2011 2016
District council MPI Rank MPI Rank MPI Rank MPI Rank
Alfred Nzo 0.3277 50 0.1762 48 0.2120 51 0.1724 51
Amajuba 0.1374 27 0.0704 30 0.0639 27 0.0330 23
Amathole 0.1951 36 0.1263 38 0.1151 35 0.0725 35
Bojanala 0.1221 25 0.0559 24 0.0591 26 0.0393 27
Cape Winelands 0.0382 5 0.0176 5 0.0159 4 0.0084 2
Capricorn 0.1409 28 0.0671 29 0.0773 31 0.0439 29
Central Karoo 0.0600 13 0.0208 8 0.0261 11 0.0139 9
Chris Hani 0.2566 44 0.1587 44 0.1410 42 0.0941 42
City of Cape Town 0.0229 1 0.0107 2 0.0114 2 0.0071 1
City of Johannesburg 0.0279 2 0.0139 4 0.0100 1 0.0120 6
City of Tshwane 0.0502 10 0.0330 15 0.0225 9 0.0168 11
Dr Kenneth Kaunda 0.0979 19 0.0449 20 0.0366 18 0.0243 18
Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati 0.2355 42 0.1278 40 0.1434 43 0.1045 44
Eden 0.0467 9 0.0198 6 0.0249 10 0.0095 3
Ehlanzeni 0.1493 29 0.0663 28 0.0707 29 0.0476 31
Ekurhuleni 0.0429 7 0.0224 12 0.0220 8 0.0212 16
eThekwini 0.0586 12 0.0288 13 0.0262 12 0.0191 14
Fezile Dabi 0.0834 17 0.0222 11 0.0319 15 0.0150 10
Frances Baard 0.0812 16 0.0413 19 0.0490 22 0.0258 19
Gert Sibande 0.1635 32 0.0740 31 0.0694 28 0.0463 30
Harry Gwala 0.2714 46 0.1900 49 0.1770 48 0.1298 48
iLembe 0.2293 39 0.1394 41 0.1187 37 0.0876 40
Joe Gqabi 0.2597 45 0.1671 47 0.1467 44 0.0878 41
John Taolo Gaetsewe 0.2314 40 0.1196 37 0.1492 45 0.1084 45
King Cetshwayo 0.2323 41 0.1265 39 0.1156 36 0.0787 37
Lejweleputswa 0.1171 23 0.0366 18 0.0336 16 0.0197 15
Mangaung 0.0896 18 0.0293 14 0.0287 13 0.0183 13
Mopani 0.1857 34 0.0884 34 0.1040 34 0.0683 34
Namakwa 0.0530 11 0.0199 7 0.0290 14 0.0175 12
Nelson Mandela Bay 0.0421 6 0.0214 10 0.0194 7 0.0103 5
Ngaka Modiri Molema 0.1985 37 0.1196 36 0.1295 40 0.0790 38
Nkangala 0.1077 22 0.0511 23 0.0467 21 0.0364 26
OR Tambo 0.3502 51 0.2210 51 0.1966 50 0.1484 50
Overberg 0.0351 4 0.0132 3 0.0181 6 0.0121 7
Pixley ka Seme 0.1054 21 0.0477 22 0.0543 24 0.0331 24
Sarah Baartman 0.1014 20 0.0338 16 0.0389 19 0.0240 17
Sedibeng 0.0443 8 0.0209 9 0.0162 5 0.0128 8
Sekhukhune 0.1868 35 0.1031 35 0.1210 38 0.0776 36
Thabo Mofutsanyana 0.1504 30 0.0633 27 0.0549 25 0.0354 25
Ugu 0.2464 43 0.1561 43 0.1500 46 0.1142 47
uMgungundlovu 0.1312 26 0.0742 32 0.0749 30 0.0407 28
uMkhanyakude 0.2980 48 0.1635 46 0.1597 47 0.1091 46
uMzinyathi 0.3203 49 0.1990 50 0.1799 49 0.1301 49
Uthukela 0.2281 38 0.1468 42 0.1255 39 0.0850 39
Vhembe 0.1674 33 0.0796 33 0.0990 33 0.0659 33
Waterberg 0.1616 31 0.0617 26 0.0790 32 0.0550 32
West Coast 0.0350 3 0.0103 1 0.0157 3 0.0098 4
West Rand 0.0642 14 0.0339 17 0.0363 17 0.0263 20
Xhariep 0.1204 24 0.0586 25 0.0453 20 0.0269 21
ZF Mgcawu 0.0806 15 0.0461 21 0.0526 23 0.0270 22
Zululand 0.2736 47 0.1621 45 0.1322 41 0.0995 43
Table A10. The 10 least and 10 most deprived municipalities in 2011 (using weighting scheme (I)) and
2016 (using weighting scheme (II)).
10 municipalities with the lowest MPI 10 municipalities with the highest MPI
Municipality Province H A MPI Municipality Province H A MPI
Census 2011 (using weighting scheme (I))
Laingsburg Western Cape 0.0087 0.4176 0.0036 Ntabankulu Eastern Cape 0.2910 0.3892 0.1132
Saldanha Bay Western Cape 0.0093 0.3969 0.0037 Mbhashe Eastern Cape 0.2819 0.3924 0.1106
Bergrivier Western Cape 0.0099 0.3788 0.0038 Engcobo Eastern Cape 0.2699 0.4002 0.1080
Cape Agulhas Western Cape 0.0102 0.3993 0.0041 Mbizana Eastern Cape 0.2677 0.3958 0.1060
Swartland Western Cape 0.0114 0.4054 0.0046 Msinga KwaZulu–Natal 0.2666 0.3952 0.1054
Hessequa Western Cape 0.0126 0.3966 0.0050 Intsika Yethu Eastern Cape 0.2592 0.4003 0.1038
Witzenberg Western Cape 0.0126 0.4108 0.0052 Port St Johns Eastern Cape 0.2606 0.3930 0.1024
Drakenstein Western Cape 0.0128 0.4078 0.0052 Vulamehlo KwaZulu–Natal 0.2517 0.3968 0.0999
Nama Khoi Northern Cape 0.0132 0.4029 0.0053 Ngquza Hill Eastern Cape 0.2469 0.4035 0.0996
Langeberg Western Cape 0.0155 0.4066 0.0063 Nyandeni Eastern Cape 0.2481 0.3906 0.0969
CS 2016 (using weighting scheme (II))
Bergrivier Western Cape 0.0070 0.3635 0.0025 Ntabankulu Eastern Cape 0.5137 0.4140 0.2127
Swartland Western Cape 0.0129 0.3499 0.0045 Port St Johns Eastern Cape 0.4589 0.4578 0.2101
Drakenstein Western Cape 0.0162 0.3485 0.0056 Umzumbe KwaZulu–Natal 0.4642 0.4271 0.1983
Overstrand Western Cape 0.0153 0.3822 0.0059 Mbizana Eastern Cape 0.4706 0.4196 0.1974
Mossel Bay Western Cape 0.0167 0.3714 0.0062 Joe Morolong Northern Cape 0.4795 0.3989 0.1913
City of Cape Town Western Cape 0.0194 0.3673 0.0071 Msinga KwaZulu–Natal 0.4552 0.4173 0.1900
Witzenberg Western Cape 0.0202 0.3672 0.0074 Ratlou North West 0.4482 0.4072 0.1825
Knysna Western Cape 0.0202 0.3669 0.0074 Ubuhlebezwe KwaZulu–Natal 0.4184 0.4176 0.1747
Bitou Western Cape 0.0216 0.3546 0.0077 Engcobo Eastern Cape 0.3904 0.4285 0.1673
George Western Cape 0.0212 0.3724 0.0079 Mbhashe Eastern Cape 0.3885 0.4205 0.1634
Source: Authors’ calculations using the Census 2011 and CS 2016 data.
Table A11. MPI decomposition (%) by gender, race, area type and province, 2001–2016.
MPI contribution – weighting
Population share scheme (I) MPI contribution – weighting scheme (II)
2001 2007 2011 2016 2001 2007 2011 2001 2007 2011 2016
Gender Male 55.53 56.82 55.37 54.33 46.42 46.41 44.69 47.03 47.92 45.03 43.59
Female 44.47 43.18 44.63 45.67 53.57 53.59 55.31 52.96 52.08 54.97 56.41
Race African 79.30 79.31 79.53 82.27 97.87 97.75 96.87 97.38 97.40 96.82 97.35
Coloured 8.91 8.45 8.80 8.30 1.99 1.98 2.60 2.39 2.21 2.60 2.09
Indian 2.63 2.54 2.50 2.09 0.05 0.11 0.15 0.09 0.18 0.17 0.21
White 9.16 9.7 8.75 7.33 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.22 0.21 0.35
Area type Urban 56.44 N/A 62.76 66.07 27.08 N/A 31.77 20.43 N/A 20.81 24.51
Rural 43.56 N/A 37.24 33.93 72.92 N/A 68.23 79.56 N/A 79.19 75.48
Western Cape 9.93 10.60 11.18 11.23 2.64 2.44 3.63 2.22 1.95 2.45 2.14
Eastern Cape 14.55 13.49 12.60 10.52 25.89 26.08 24.64 25.50 27.48 24.46 21.56
Northern Cape 1.83 2.13 2.21 2.31 1.07 1.69 2.13 1.17 1.68 2.39 2.46

Free State 6.21 5.70 5.53 5.50 5.40 3.95 4.12 5.39 3.32 3.30 3.00
Province KwaZulu–Natal 20.91 20.82 19.48 18.28 27.89 28.46 25.43 27.96 31.18 27.99 27.84
North West 8.19 6.67 6.96 7.34 9.18 8.05 8.44 9.42 7.54 8.95 9.31
Gauteng 19.73 22.32 23.54 26.85 8.16 9.98 11.11 5.67 7.26 6.69 10.52
Mpumalanga 6.89 7.79 7.76 7.86 6.49 7.15 6.96 7.41 7.19 7.56 8.15
Limpopo 11.76 10.47 10.74 10.13 13.54 12.19 13.54 15.26 12.39 16.21 15.02
79

Multidimensional Poverty in South Africa in 2001 16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multidimensional Poverty in South Africa in 2001 16

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multidimensional Poverty in South Africa in 2001 16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development Southern Africa

ISSN: 0376-835X (Print) 1470-3637 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cdsa20

Multidimensional poverty in South Africa in 2001–

Tina Fransman & Derek Yu

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2018.1469971

Published online: 07 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7727

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Multidimensional poverty in South Africa in 2001–16

CONTACT Derek Yu dyu@uwc.ac.za

mainly confined to two groups of non-money-metric indicators, namely access to public

3. Methodology and data

4.2. MPI by sub-groups

DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA

4.3. MPI decomposition

4.4. MPI poverty vs income poverty

Work status (Employee/employer) ✓ ✓ ✓

Hours worked past week ✓

DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA

DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA

DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA

You might also like