In 2025, nearly 11.7 percent of the world population in extreme poverty, with the poverty threshold at 2.15 U.S. dollars a day, lived in Nigeria. Moreover, the Democratic Republic of the Congo accounted for around 11.7 percent of the global population in extreme poverty. Other African nations with a large poor population were Tanzania, Mozambique, and Madagascar. Poverty levels remain high despite the forecast decline Poverty is a widespread issue across Africa. Around 429 million people on the continent were living below the extreme poverty line of 2.15 U.S. dollars a day in 2024. Since the continent had approximately 1.4 billion inhabitants, roughly a third of Africa’s population was in extreme poverty that year. Mozambique, Malawi, Central African Republic, and Niger had Africa’s highest extreme poverty rates based on the 2.15 U.S. dollars per day extreme poverty indicator (updated from 1.90 U.S. dollars in September 2022). Although the levels of poverty on the continent are forecast to decrease in the coming years, Africa will remain the poorest region compared to the rest of the world. Prevalence of poverty and malnutrition across Africa Multiple factors are linked to increased poverty. Regions with critical situations of employment, education, health, nutrition, war, and conflict usually have larger poor populations. Consequently, poverty tends to be more prevalent in least-developed and developing countries worldwide. For similar reasons, rural households also face higher poverty levels. In 2024, the extreme poverty rate in Africa stood at around 45 percent among the rural population, compared to seven percent in urban areas. Together with poverty, malnutrition is also widespread in Africa. Limited access to food leads to low health conditions, increasing the poverty risk. At the same time, poverty can determine inadequate nutrition. Almost 38.3 percent of the global undernourished population lived in Africa in 2022.

As of 2024, around **** million people in South Africa are living in extreme poverty, with the poverty threshold at **** U.S. dollars daily. This means that ******* more people were pushed into poverty compared to 2023. Moreover, the headcount was forecast to increase in the coming years. By 2030, over **** million South Africans will live on a maximum of **** U.S. dollars per day. Who is considered poor domestically? Poverty is measured using several matrices. For example, local authorities tend to rely on the national poverty line, assessed based on consumer price indices (CPI) of a basket of goods of food and non-food components. In 2023, the domestic poverty line in South Africa stood at ***** South African rand per month (around ***** U.S. dollars per month). According to a survey, social inequality and poverty worried a significant share of the South African respondents. As of September 2024, some ** percent of the respondents reported that they were worried about the state of poverty and unequal income distribution in the country.   Eastern Cape residents received more grants South Africa’s labor market has struggled to absorb the country’s population. In 2023, almost a third of the economically active population was unemployed. Local authorities employ relief assistance and social grants in an attempt to reduce poverty and assist poor individuals. In 2023, almost ** percent of South African households received state support, with the majority share benefiting in the Eastern Cape.

Abstract

South African policymakers are endeavouring to ensure that the poor have better access to financial services. However, a lack of understanding of the financial needs of poor households impedes a broad strategy to attend to this need. The Financial Diaries study addresses this knowledge gap by examining financial management in rural and urban households. The study is a year-long household survey based on fortnightly interviews in Diepsloot (Gauteng), Langa (Western Cape) and Lugangeni (Eastern Cape). In total, 160 households were involved in this pioneering study which promises to offer important insights into how poor people manage their money as well as the context in which poor people make financial decisions. The study paints a rich picture of the texture of financial markets in townships, highlighting the prevalence of informal financial products, the role of survivalist business and the contribution made by social grants. The Financial Diaries dataset includes highly detailed, daily cash flow data on income, expenditure and financial flows on both a household and individual basis.

Geographic coverage

Langa in Cape Town, Diepsloot in Johannesburg and Lugangeni, a rural village in the Eastern Cape.

Analysis unit

Households and individuals

Universe

The survey covered households in the three geographic areas.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

To create the sampling frame for the Financial Diaries, the researchers echoed the method used in the Rutherford (2002) and Ruthven (2002), a participatory wealth ranking (PWR). Within South Africa, the participatory wealth ranking method is used by the Small Enterprise Foundation (SEF), a prominent NGO microlender based in the rural Limpopo Province. Simanowitz (1999) compared the PWR method to the Visual Indicator of Poverty (VIP) and found that the VIP test was seen to be at best 70% consistent with the PWR tests. At times one third of the list of households that were defined as the poorest by the VIP test was actually some of the richest according to the PWR. The PWR method was also implicitly assessed in van der Ruit, May and Roberts (2001) by comparing it to the Principle Components Analysis (PCA) used by CGAP as a means to assess client poverty. They found that three quarters of those defined as poor by the PCA were also defined as poor by the PWR. We closely followed the SEF manual to conduct our wealth rankings, and consulted with SEF on adapting the method to urban areas.

The first step is to consult with community leaders and ask how they would divide their community. Within each type of areas, representative neighbourhoods of about 100 households each were randomly chosen. Townships in South Africa are organised by street - with each street or zone having its own street committee. The street committees are meant to know everyone on their street and to serve as stewards of all activity within the street. Each street committee in each area was invited to a central meeting and asked to map their area and give a roster of household names. Following the mapping, each area was visited and the maps and rosters were checked by going door to door with the street committee.

Two references groups were then selected from the street committee and senior members of the community with between four and eight people in each reference group. Each reference group was first asked to indicate how they define a poor household versus those that are well off. This discussion had a dual purpose. First, it relayed information about what each community believes is rich or poor. Second, it started the reference group thinking about which households belong under which heading.

Following this discussion, each reference group then ranked each household in the neighbourhood according to their perceived wealth. The SEF methodology of wealth ranking is de-normalised in that reference groups are invited to put households into as many different wealth piles as they feel in appropriate. Only households that are known by both reference groups were kept in the sample.

The SEF guidelines were used to assign a score to each household in a particular pile. The scores were created by dividing 100 by the number of piles multiplied by the level of the pile. This means that if the poorest pile was number 1, then every household in the pile was assigned a score of 100, representing 100% poverty. If the wealthiest pile was pile number 6, then every household in that pile received a score of 16.7 and every household in pile 5 received a score of 33.3. An average score for both reference groups was taken for the distribution.

One way of assessing how good the results are is to analyse how consistent the rankings were between the two reference groups. According to the SEF methodology, a result is consistent if the scores between the two reference groups have no more than a 25 points difference. A result is inconsistent if the difference between the scores is between 26 and 50 points while a result is unreliable is the difference between the scores is above 50 points. SEF uses both consistent and inconsistent rankings, as long as they use the average across two reference groups - this would mean that 91% of the sample could be used. However, because only used two reference groups were used, only the consistent household for the final sample selection was considered.

To test this further,the number of times that the reference groups put a household in the exact same category was counted. The extent of agreement at either end of the wealth spectrum between the two reference groups was also assessed. This result would be unbiased by how many categories the reference groups put households into.

Following the example used in India and Bangladesh, the sample was divided into three different wealth categories depending on the household's overall score. Making a distinction between three different categories of wealth allowed the following of a similar ranking of wealth to Bangladesh and India, but also it kept the sample from being over-stratified. A sample of 60 households each was then drawn randomly from each area. To draw the sample based on a proportion representation of each wealth ranking within the population would likely leave the sample lacking in wealthier households of some rankings to draw conclusions. Therefore the researchers drew equally from each ranking.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

In 2023, the international poverty (based on 2017 purchasing power parities (PPPs)) and the lower-income poverty rate (3.65 U.S. dollars in 2017 PPP), was highest for Mozambique within the Southern Africa region, with 74.7 percent and 88.7 percent, respectively. However, the upper middle-income poverty rate was highest for Zambia, at 93 percent.

South Africa ZA: Income Share Held by Lowest 20% data was reported at 2.400 % in 2014. This records a decrease from the previous number of 2.500 % for 2010. South Africa ZA: Income Share Held by Lowest 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 2.600 % from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2014, with 7 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 3.100 % in 2000 and a record low of 2.400 % in 2014. South Africa ZA: Income Share Held by Lowest 20% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s South Africa – Table ZA.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles. Percentage shares by quintile may not sum to 100 because of rounding.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

Abstract

The Project for Statistics on Living standards and Development was a countrywide World Bank sponsored Living Standards Measurement Survey. It covered approximately 9000 households, drawn from a representative sample of South African households. The fieldwork was undertaken during the nine months leading up to the country's first democratic elections at the end of April 1994. The purpose of the survey was to collect data on the conditions under which South Africans live in order to provide policymakers with the data necessary for development planning. This data would aid the implementation of goals such as those outlined in the Government of National Unity's Reconstruction and Development Programme.

Geographic coverage

The survey had national coverage

Analysis unit

Households and individuals

Universe

The survey covered all household members. Individuals in hospitals, old age homes, hotels and hostels of educational institutions were not included in the sample. Migrant labour hostels were included. In addition to those that turned up in the selected ESDs, a sample of three hostels was chosen from a national list provided by the Human Sciences Research Council and within each of these hostels a representative sample was drawn for the households in ESDs.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The main instrument used in the survey was a comprehensive household questionnaire. This questionnaire covered a wide range of topics but was not intended to provide exhaustive coverage of any single subject. In other words, it was an integrated questionnaire aimed at capturing different aspects of living standards. The topics covered included demographics, household services, household expenditure, educational status and expenditure, remittances and marital maintenance, land access and use, employment and income, health status and expenditure and anthropometry (children under the age of six were weighed and their heights measured). This questionnaire was available to households in two languages, namely English and Afrikaans. In addition, interviewers had in their possession a translation in the dominant African language/s of the region.

In addition to the detailed household questionnaire, a community questionnaire was administered in each cluster of the sample. The purpose of this questionnaire was to elicit information on the facilities available to the community in each cluster. Questions related primarily to the provision of education, health and recreational facilities. Furthermore there was a detailed section for the prices of a range of commodities from two retail sources in or near the cluster: a formal source such as a supermarket and a less formal one such as the "corner cafe" or a "spaza". The purpose of this latter section was to obtain a measure of regional price variation both by region and by retail source. These prices were obtained by the interviewer. For the questions relating to the provision of facilities, respondents were "prominent" members of the community such as school principals, priests and chiefs.

A literacy assessment module (LAM) was administered to two respondents in each household, (a household member 13-18 years old and a one between 18 and 50) to assess literacy levels.

Data appraisal

The data collected in clusters 217 and 218 are highly unreliable and have therefore been removed from the dataset currently available on the portal. Researchers who have downloaded the data in the past should download version 2.0 of the dataset to ensure they have the corrected data. Version 2.0 of the dataset excludes two clusters from both the 1993 and 1998 samples. During follow-up field research for the KwaZulu-Natal Income Dynamics Study (KIDS) in May 2001 it was discovered that all 39 household interviews in clusters 217 and 218 had been fabricated in both 1993 and 1998. These households have been dropped in the updated release of the data. In addition, cluster 206 is now coded as urban as this was incorrectly coded as rural in the first release of the data. Note: Weights calculated by the World Bank and provided with the original data are NOT updated to reflect these changes.

As of 2024, an individual living in South Africa with less than 1,109 South African rand (roughly 62.14 U.S. dollars) per month was considered poor. Furthermore, individuals having 796 South African rand (approximately 44.60 U.S. dollars) a month available for food were living below the poverty line according to South African national standards. Absolute poverty National poverty lines are affected by changes in the patterns of household consumers and fluctuations in prices of services and goods. They are calculated based on the consumer price indices (CPI) of both food and non-food items separately. The national poverty line is not the only applicable threshold. For instance,13.2 million people in South Africa were living under 2.15 U.S. dollars, which is the international absolute poverty threshold defined by the World Bank. Most unequal in the globe A prominent aspect of South Africa’s poverty is related to extreme income inequality. The country has the highest income Gini index globally at 63 percent as of 2023. One of the crucial obstacles to combating poverty and inequality in the country is linked to job availability. In fact, youth unemployment was as high as 49.14 percent in 2023.

The index provides the only comprehensive measure available for non-income poverty, which has become a critical underpinning of the SDGs. Critically the MPI comprises variables that are already reported under the Demographic Health Surveys (DHS) and Multi-Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) The resources subnational multidimensional poverty data from the data tables published by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI), University of Oxford. The global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) measures multidimensional poverty in over 100 developing countries, using internationally comparable datasets and is updated annually. The measure captures the severe deprivations that each person faces at the same time using information from 10 indicators, which are grouped into three equally weighted dimensions: health, education, and living standards. The global MPI methodology is detailed in Alkire, Kanagaratnam & Suppa (2023)

South Africa ZA: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data was reported at 68.200 % in 2014. This records a decrease from the previous number of 68.900 % for 2010. South Africa ZA: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 68.200 % from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2014, with 7 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 71.000 % in 2005 and a record low of 62.700 % in 2000. South Africa ZA: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s South Africa – Table ZA.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles. Percentage shares by quintile may not sum to 100 because of rounding.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

BackgroundOf the total 56 million deaths worldwide during 2012, 38 million (68%) were due to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), particularly cardiovascular diseases (17.5 million deaths) cancers (8.2 million) which represents46.2% and 21.7% of NCD deaths, respectively). Nearly 80 percent of the global CVD deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Some of the major CVDs such as ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke and CVD risk conditions, namely, hypertension and dyslipidaemia share common modifiable risk factors including smoking, unhealthy diets, harmful use of alcohol and physical inactivity. The CVDs are now putting a heavy strain of the health systems at both national and local levels, which have previously largely focused on infectious diseases and appalling maternal and child health. We set out to estimate district-level co-occurrence of two cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), namely, ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke; and two major risk conditions for CVD, namely, hypertension and dyslipidaemia in South Africa.MethodThe analyses were based on adults health collected as part of the 2012 South African National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (SANHANES). We used joint disease mapping models to estimate and map the spatial distributions of risks of hypertension, self-report of ischaemic heart disease (IHD), stroke and dyslipidaemia at the district level in South Africa. The analyses were adjusted for known individual social demographic and lifestyle factors, household and district level poverty measurements using binary spatial models.ResultsThe estimated prevalence of IHD, stroke, hypertension and dyslipidaemia revealed high inequality at the district level (median value (range): 5.4 (0–17.8%); 1.7 (0–18.2%); 32.0 (12.5–48.2%) and 52.2 (0–71.7%), respectively). The adjusted risks of stroke, hypertension and IHD were mostly high in districts in the South-Eastern parts of the country, while that of dyslipidaemia, was high in Central and top North-Eastern corridor of the country.ConclusionsThe study has confirmed common modifiable risk factors of two cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), namely, ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke; and two major risk conditions for CVD, namely, hypertension and dyslipidaemia. Accordingly, an integrated intervention approach addressing cardiovascular diseases and associated risk factors and conditions would be more cost effective and provide stronger impacts than individual tailored interventions only. Findings of excess district-level variations in the CVDs and their risk factor profiles might be useful for developing effective public health policies and interventions aimed at reducing behavioural risk factors including harmful use of alcohol, physical inactivity and high salt intake.

This dataset consists of the individual-level survey data (from the South African Social Attitudes Survey 2009) plus linked area-level data concerning exposure to socio-economic inequality and neighbourhood poverty rates. These data have been anonymised by rounding the area-level variables and replacing the area-level identifier codes with new unique identifiers to ensure respondent confidentiality. This project is a collaboration between researchers from the Centre for the Analysis of South African Social Policy (CASASP) at the University of Oxford and the South African Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC). The main aim of the project is to investigate whether citizens' attitudes to inequality in South Africa are associated with their experience of inequality at the local level. Analyses will be undertaken using two currently under-utilised micro-datasets in South Africa. Attitudinal perspectives on inequality will be explored using the nationally representative South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS). The unequal spatial distribution of poverty and deprivation will be explored using the South African Indices of Multiple Deprivation (SAIMD) which are derived from the 2001 Census and the 2007 Community Survey (CS 2007). The analysis of these microdata will be used to gain a better appreciation of the spatial patterns of poverty, deprivation and inequality, the nature and distribution of attitudes to economic inequality and redistribution, and importantly the relationship between them. The project will also build quantitative data analysis skills among social researchers in South Africa. The findings will be used to promote discussion about policies and programmatic interventions to address deprivation, poverty and inequality.

Historical dataset showing South Africa poverty rate by year from 1993 to 2014.

South Africa ZA: Income Share Held by Lowest 10% data was reported at 0.900 % in 2014. This stayed constant from the previous number of 0.900 % for 2010. South Africa ZA: Income Share Held by Lowest 10% data is updated yearly, averaging 1.000 % from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2014, with 7 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.300 % in 2000 and a record low of 0.900 % in 2014. South Africa ZA: Income Share Held by Lowest 10% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s South Africa – Table ZA.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

Overlaying the number of marginality dimensions with percentage of people living below 1.25$/day. This map is included in a global study on mapping marginality focusing on Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The Dimensions of Marginality are based on different data sources representing different spheres of life. The poverty dataset used in this study is based on calculations by Harvest Choice. The underlying Marginality map is based on the approach on Marginality Mapping (http://www.zef.de/fileadmin/webfiles/downloads/zef_wp/wp88.pdf). The respective map can be found here: https://daten.zef.de/#/metadata/ae4ae68c-cea3-44e7-8199-1c2ae04abb88 Quality/Lineage: Poverty Data was provided and generated by Harvest Choice GIS lab. Marginality hotspots are based on the approach by Graw, V. using five dimensions of marginality. In ArcGIS thresholds were defined based on percentages and overlapping dimensions. Using raster data this data was reclassified and overlayed to build a new classification with regard to the here presented purpose. This approach is similar to the overlap over marginality and poverty mass except this map shows percentage of poverty instead of number of poor people. Purpose: This map was created in the MARGIP project to identify the marginalized and poor by highlighting those areas where the "spheres of life" have a low performance. Those areas where multiple "low performance indicators" did overlap got the highest attention for further research.

South Africa ZA: Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data was reported at 55.500 % in 2014. This records an increase from the previous number of 53.200 % for 2010. South Africa ZA: Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 58.800 % from Dec 2005 (Median) to 2014, with 4 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 66.600 % in 2005 and a record low of 53.200 % in 2010. South Africa ZA: Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s South Africa – Table ZA.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. National poverty headcount ratio is the percentage of the population living below the national poverty lines. National estimates are based on population-weighted subgroup estimates from household surveys.; ; World Bank, Global Poverty Working Group. Data are compiled from official government sources or are computed by World Bank staff using national (i.e. country–specific) poverty lines.; ; This series only includes estimates that to the best of our knowledge are reasonably comparable over time for a country. Due to differences in estimation methodologies and poverty lines, estimates should not be compared across countries.

Abstract

South African policymakers are endeavouring to ensure that the poor have better access to financial services. However, a lack of understanding of the financial needs of poor households impedes a broad strategy to attend to this need.
The Financial Diaries study addresses this knowledge gap by examining financial management in rural and urban households. The study is a year-long household survey based on fortnightly interviews in Diepsloot (Gauteng), Langa (Western Cape) and Lugangeni (Eastern Cape). In total, 160 households were involved in this pioneering study which promises to offer important insights into how poor people manage their money as well as the context in which poor people make financial decisions. The study paints a rich picture of the texture of financial markets in townships, highlighting the prevalence of informal financial products, the role of survivalist business and the contribution made by social grants. The Financial Diaries dataset includes highly detailed, daily cash flow data on income, expenditure and financial flows on both a household and individual basis.

Geographic coverage

Langa in Cape Town, Diepsloot in Johannesburg and Lugangeni, a rural village in the Eastern Cape

Analysis unit

Units of analysis in the Financial Diaries Study 2003-2004 include households and individuals

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

To create the sampling frame for the Financial Diaries, the researchers echoed the method used in the Rutherford (2002) and Ruthven (2002), a participatory wealth ranking (PWR). Within South Africa, the participatory wealth ranking method is used by the Small Enterprise Foundation (SEF), a prominent NGO microlender based in the rural Limpopo Province. Simanowitz (1999) compared the PWR method to the Visual Indicator of Poverty (VIP) and found that the VIP test was seen to be at best 70% consistent with the PWR tests. At times one third of the list of households that were defined as the poorest by the VIP test was actually some of the richest according to the PWR. The PWR method was also implicitly assessed in van der Ruit, May and Roberts (2001) by comparing it to the Principle Components Analysis (PCA) used by CGAP as a means to assess client poverty. They found that three quarters of those defined as poor by the PCA were also defined as poor by the PWR. We closely followed the SEF manual to conduct our wealth rankings, and consulted with SEF on adapting the method to urban areas.

The first step is to consult with community leaders and ask how they would divide their community. Within each type of areas, representative neighbourhoods of about 100 households each were randomly chosen. Townships in South Africa are organised by street - with each street or zone having its own street committee. The street committees are meant to know everyone on their street and to serve as stewards of all activity within the street. Each street committee in each area was invited to a central meeting and asked to map their area and give a roster of household names. Following the mapping, each area was visited and the maps and rosters were checked by going door to door with the street committee.

Two references groups were then selected from the street committee and senior members of the community with between four and eight people in each reference group. Each reference group was first asked to indicate how they define a poor household versus those that are well off. This discussion had a dual purpose. First, it relayed information about what each community believes is rich or poor. Second, it started the reference group thinking about which households belong under which heading.

Following this discussion, each reference group then ranked each household in the neighbourhood according to their perceived wealth. The SEF methodology of wealth ranking is de-normalised in that reference groups are invited to put households into as many different wealth piles as they feel in appropriate. Only households that are known by both reference groups were kept in the sample.

The SEF guidelines were used to assign a score to each household in a particular pile. The scores were created by dividing 100 by the number of piles multiplied by the level of the pile. This means that if the poorest pile was number 1, then every household in the pile was assigned a score of 100, representing 100% poverty. If the wealthiest pile was pile number 6, then every household in that pile received a score of 16.7 and every household in pile 5 received a score of 33.3. An average score for both reference groups was taken for the distribution.

One way of assessing how good the results are is to analyse how consistent the rankings were between the two reference groups. According to the SEF methodology, a result is consistent if the scores between the two reference groups have no more than a 25 points difference. A result is inconsistent if the difference between the scores is between 26 and 50 points while a result is unreliable is the difference between the scores is above 50 points. SEF uses both consistent and inconsistent rankings, as long as they use the average across two reference groups - this would mean that 91% of the sample could be used. However, because only used two reference groups were used, only the consistent household for the final sample selection was considered.

To test this further,the number of times that the reference groups put a household in the exact same category was counted. The extent of agreement at either end of the wealth spectrum between the two reference groups was also assessed. This result would be unbiased by how many categories the reference groups put households into.

Following the example used in India and Bangladesh, the sample was divided into three different wealth categories depending on the household's overall score. Making a distinction between three different categories of wealth allowed the following of a similar ranking of wealth to Bangladesh and India, but also it kept the sample from being over-stratified. A sample of 60 households each was then drawn randomly from each area. To draw the sample based on a proportion representation of each wealth ranking within the population would likely leave the sample lacking in wealthier households of some rankings to draw conclusions. Therefore the researchers drew equally from each ranking.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

This research explores how the lived relationships between alcohol control (as a debate, field of study, policies and practices), poverty and development in South Africa (SA) are manifested among Cape Town's (CT) poorest residents. While SA's urgent alcohol control debate is principally cast as a matter of public health, it also broaches concerns over urban and social development, poverty alleviation, security and post-apartheid social policy. This research therefore focuses on the practices and consequences of drinking as a platform from which to develop a renewed approach to the contemporary politics of the developing city. Drawing on policy analysis, health survey data, stakeholder interviews counterposed with in-depth interviews and small group meetings across four case study townships and informal settlements in CT, the project examines how the lived experiences of drinking are understood and taken up in the policymaking process. By this means, it also interrogates the conditions under which these practices become "problematic". The projects thus aims to contribute to prescient debates in development studies, geography, urban studies and public health; and provide a qualitative body of research to the ongoing popular and policy debate on alcohol and its relationship to broader urban concerns in CT, SA and beyond Interviews Focus Groups Ethnography Particpatory research Participant Observation Secondary data analysis - narrative and discourse analysis Media analysis Descriptive statistics Policy analysis

Abstract

South Africa's first Living Conditions Survey (LCS) was conducted by Statistics South Africa over a period of one year between 13 October 2014 and 25 October 2015. The main aim of this survey is to provide data that will contribute to a better understanding of living conditions and poverty in South Africa for monitoring levels of poverty over time. Data was collected from 27 527 households across the country. The survey used a combination of the diary and recall methods. Households were asked to record their daily acquisitions in diaries provided by Statistics SA for a period of a month. The survey also employed a household questionnaire to collect data on household expenditure, subjective poverty, and income.

Geographic coverage

The survey had national coverage.

Analysis unit

Households and individuals

Universe

The sample for the survey included all domestic households, holiday homes and all households in workers' residences, such as mining hostels and dormitories for workers, but excludes institutions such as hospitals, prisons, old-age homes, student hostels, and dormitories for scholars, boarding houses, hotels, lodges and guesthouses.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The Living Conditions Survey 2014-2015 sample was based on the LCS 2008-2009 master sample of 3 080 PSUs. However, there were 40 PSUs with no DU sample, thus the sample of 30 818 DUs was selected from only 3 040 PSUs. Amongst the PSUs with no DU sample, 25 PSUs were non-respondent because 19 PSUs were not captured on the dwelling frame, and 6 PSUs had an insufficient DU count. The remaining 15 PSUs were vacant and therefore out-of-scope. Among the PSUs with a DU sample, 2 974 PSUs were respondent, 50 PSUs were non-respondent and 16 PSUs were out-of-scope. The scope of the Master Sample (MS) is national coverage of all households in South Africa. It was designed to cover all households living in private dwelling units and workers living in workers' quarters in the country.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The Living Conditions Survey 2014-2015 used three data collection instruments, namely a household questionnaire, a weekly diary, and the summary questionnaire. The household questionnaire was a booklet of questions administered to respondents during the course of the survey month. The weekly diary was a booklet that was left with the responding household to track all acquisitions made by the household during the survey month. The household (after being trained by the Interviewer) was responsible for recording all their daily acquisitions, as well as information about where they purchased the item and the purpose of the item. A household completed a different diary for each of the four weeks of the survey month. Interviewers then assigned codes for the classification of individual consumption according to purpose (COICOP) to items recorded in the weekly diary, using a code list provided to them.

Data appraisal

Anthropometric data collected during the survey are not included in the dataset.

Nearly 7 of 10 Somalis live in poverty, making Somalia one of the poorest countries in Sub-saharan Africa. About 69 percent of the population lived in poverty in 2017 as compared to 71 percent in 2019. Somalia has the sixth highest poverty rate in the region, only after the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Madagascar, Burundi and South Sudan. Poverty incidence is lower in other urban areas, excluding Mogadishu, compared to nomadic households, IDPs in settlements, and those in rural areas and Mogadishu. Nearly half of the population is not even able to meet the average consumption of food items, confirming the dire living standards of most Somalis.

Abstract

The Community Survey (CS) is a nationally representative, large-scale household survey which was conducted from February to March 2007. The Community Survey is designed to provide information on the trends and levels of demographic and socio-economic data, such as population size and distribution; the extent of poor households; access to facilities and services, and the levels of employment/unemployment at national, provincial and municipality level. The data can be used to assist government and the private sector in the planning, evaluation and monitoring of programmes and policies. The information collected can also be used to assess the impact of socio-economic policies and provide an indication as to how far the country has gone in its strides to eradicate poverty.

Censuses 1996 and 2001 are the only all-inclusive censuses that Statistics South Africa has thus far conducted under the new democratic dispensation. Demographic and socio-economic data were collected and the results have enabled government and all other users of this information to make informed decisions. When cabinet took a decision that Stats SA should not conduct a census in 2006, it created a gap in information or data between Census 2001 and the next Census scheduled to be carried out in 2011. A decision was therefore taken to carry out the Community Survey in 2007.

The main objectives of the survey were: · To provide estimates at lower geographical levels than existing household surveys; · To build human, management and logistical capacities for Census 2011; and · To provide inputs into the preparation of the mid-year population projections.

The wider project strategic theme is to provide relevant statistical information that meets user needs and aspirations. Some of the main topics that are covered by the survey include demography, migration, disability and social grants, educational levels, employment and economic activities.

Geographic coverage

The survey covered the whole of South Africa, including all nine provinces as well as the four settlement types - urban-formal, urban-informal, rural-formal (commercial farms) and rural-informal (tribal areas).

Analysis unit

Households

Universe

The Community Survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents) in South Africa. The survey excluded collective living quarters (institutions) and some households in EAs classified as recreational areas or institutions. However, an approximation of the out-of-scope population was made from the 2001 Census and added to the final estimates of the CS 2007 results.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sample Design

The sampling procedure that was adopted for the CS was a two-stage stratified random sampling process. Stage one involved the selection of enumeration areas, and stage tow was the selection of dwelling units.

Since the data are required for each local municipality, each municipality was considered as an explicit stratum. The stratification is done for those municipalities classified as category B municipalities (local municipalities) and category A municipalities (metropolitan areas) as proclaimed at the time of Census 2001. However, the newly proclaimed boundaries as well as any other higher level of geography such as province or district municipality, were considered as any other domain variable based on their link to the smallest geographic unit - the enumeration area.

The Frame

The Census 2001 enumeration areas were used because they give a full geographic coverage of the country without any overlap. Although changes in settlement type, growth or movement of people have occurred, the enumeration areas assisted in getting a spatial comparison over time. Out of 80 787 enumeration areas countrywide, 79 466 were considered in the frame. A total of 1 321 enumeration areas were excluded (919 covering institutions and 402 recreational areas).

On the second level, the listing exercise yielded the dwelling frame which facilitated the selection of dwellings to be visited. The dwelling unit is a structure or part of a structure or group of structures occupied or meant to be occupied by one or more households. Some of these structures may be vacant and/or under construction, but can be lived in at the time of the survey. A dwelling unit may also be within collective living quarters where applicable (examples of each are a house, a group of huts, a flat, hostels, etc.).

The Community Survey universe at the second-level frame is dependent on whether the different structures are classified as dwelling units (DUs) or not. Structures where people stay/live were listed and classified as dwelling units. However, there are special cases of collective living quarters that were also included in the CS frame. These are religious institutions such as convents or monasteries, and guesthouses where people stay for an extended period (more than a month). Student residences - based on how long people have stayed (more than a month) - and old-age homes not similar to hospitals (where people are living in a communal set-up) were treated the same as hostels, thereby listing either the bed or room. In addition, any other family staying in separate quarters within the premises of an institution (like wardens' quarters, military family quarters, teachers' quarters and medical staff quarters) were considered as part of the CS frame. The inclusion of such group quarters in the frame is based on the living circumstances within these structures. Members are independent of each other with the exception that they sleep under one roof.

The remaining group quarters were excluded from the CS frame because they are difficult to access and have no stable composition. Excluded dwelling types were prisons, hotels, hospitals, military barracks, etc. This is in addition to the exclusion on first level of the enumeration areas (EAs) classified as institutions (military bases) or recreational areas (national parks).

The Selection of Enumeration Areas (EAs)

The EAs within each municipality were ordered by geographic type and EA type. The selection was done by using systematic random sampling. The criteria used were as follows: In municipalities with fewer than 30 EAs, all EAs were automatically selected. In municipalities with 30 or more EAs, the sample selection used a fixed proportion of 19% of all sampled EAs. However, if the selected EAs in a municipality were less than 30 EAs, the sample in the municipality was increased to 30 EAs.

The Selection of Dwelling Units

The second level of the frame required a full re-listing of dwelling units. The listing exercise was undertaken before the selection of DUs. The adopted listing methodology ensured that the listing route was determined by the lister. Thisapproach facilitated the serpentine selection of dwelling units. The listing exercise provided a complete list of dwelling units in the selected EAs. Only those structures that were classified as dwelling units were considered for selection, whether vacant or occupied. This exercise yielded a total of 2 511 314 dwelling units.

The selection of the dwelling units was also based on a fixed proportion of 10% of the total listed dwellings in an EA. A constraint was imposed on small-size EAs where, if the listed dwelling units were less than 10 dwellings, the selection was increased to 10 dwelling units. All households within the selected dwelling units were covered. There was no replacement of refusals, vacant dwellings or non-contacts owing to their impact on the probability of selection.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Consultation on Questionnaire Design Ten stakeholder workshops were held across the country during August and September 2004. Approximately 367 stakeholders, predominantly from national, provincial and local government departments, as well as from research and educational institutions, attended. The workshops aimed to achieve two objectives, namely to better understand the type of information stakeholders need to meet their objectives, and to consider the proposed data items to be included in future household surveys. The output from this process was a set of data items relating to a specific, defined focus area and outcomes that culminated with the data collection instrument (see Annexure B for all the data items).

Questionnaire Design The design of the CS questionnaire was household-based and intended to collect information on 10 people. It was developed in line with the household-based survey questionnaires conducted by Stats SA. The questions were based on the data items generated out of the consultation process described above. Both the design and questionnaire layout were pre-tested in October 2005 and adjustments were made for the pilot in February 2006. Further adjustments were done after the pilot results had been finalised.

Cleaning operations

Editing The automated cleaning was implemented based on an editing rules specification defined with reference to the approved questionnaire. Most of the editing rules were categorised into structural edits looking into the relationship between different record type, the minimum processability rules that removed false positive readings or noise, the logical editing that determine the inconsistency between fields of the same statistical unit, and the inferential editing that search similarities across the domain. The edit specifications document for the structural, population, mortality and housing edits was developed by a team of Stats SA subject-matter specialists, demographers, and programmers. The process was successfully