associated with different income sources and portfolios of income sources, controlling for other characteristics of the household.<sup>14</sup> These results show that consumption is between 11 and 27 percent higher in urban areas, and 11-32 percent higher in rural areas for households that are engaged in non-farm self-employment, controlling for levels of education and household characteristics. The few households that have microenterprises show even greater effects (over 60 percent higher in Mozambique). What is surprising is that controlling for education, the marginal effect of HE earnings in urban areas is higher than the marginal effect of non-farm private sector wage employment, and only in Burkina Faso and Cameroon is the effect lower

**Table 3: Marginal effect of income sources on household consumption**

|||**Wage**<br>**farming**|**Family**<br>**farming**|**Household**<br>**Enterprise**|**Micro**<br>**Enterprise**|**Private**<br>**wage **|**Public**<br>**Wage **|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Urban|-0.37***|-0.31***|**-0.04**|0.26***|0.06*|0.23***|
|Burkina Faso||(0.10)|(0.05)|(0.04)|(0.04)|(0.03)|(0.05)|
||Rural|0.09|-0.36***|**0.01**|0.10***|0.18***|0.36***|
|||(0.10)|(0.06)|(0.02)|(0.03)|(0.05)|(0.10)|
||Urban|0.03|-0.22***|**0.11*****|0.30***|0.08***|0.32***|
|Cameroon||(0.18)|(0.04)|(0.03)|(0.05)|(0.03)|(0.04)|
||Rural|-0.09|-0.37***|**0.28*****|0.50***|0.37***|0.54***|
|||(0.10)|(0.05)|(0.04)|(0.10)|(0.06)|(0.06)|
||Urban|-0.13*|-0.00|**0.13*****|0.46***|0.07**|0.21***|
|Ghana||(0.08)|(0.03)|(0.03)|(0.05)|(0.03)|(0.04)|
||Rural|0.03|-0.07*|**0.11*****|0.39***|0.08**|0.17***|
|||(0.07)|(0.04)|(0.03)|(0.08)|(0.04)|(0.04)|
||Urban|-0.23***|-0.10***|**0.17*****|0.69***|0.08***|0.14***|
|Mozambique||(0.08)|(0.03)|(0.02)|(0.13)|(0.02)|(0.03)|
||Rural|-0.12**|-0.09|**0.15*****|0.61***|0.07*|0.30***|
|||(0.05)|(0.08)|(0.02)|(0.12)|(0.02)|(0.06)|
||Urban|-0.14*|-0.11**|**0.27*****|0.34**|_0.28***_|0.33***|
|Rd||(0.07)|(0.05)|(0.05)|(0.14)|(0.05)|(0.06)|
|wana|Rural|-0.08**|0.19***|**0.32*****|0.63***|0.05|0.29***|
|||(0.04)|(0.05)|(0.03)|(0.10)|(0.05)|(0.07)|
||Urban|-0.12|-0.15***|**0.12*****|0.26***|0.11***|0.27***|
|Uganda||(0.09)|(0.04)|(0.03)|(0.08)|(0.03)|(0.05)|
||Rural|-0.02|-0.08***|**0.16*****|0.24***|0.13***|0.27***|
|||(0.03)|(0.03)|(0.02)|(0.05)|(0.03)|(0.04)|

Source: see annex table 1. Notes: The table shows the regressions coefficient of interest in a regression of log consumption per capita on household demographics, level of education, and location of household, plus source of income in the household (shown). Standard errors are corrected for survey design. Household weights are not applied. For full regression results, see annex table 18 and 19.

than private sector nonfarm wage earnings in rural areas. The marginal effect of public sector wage earnings is almost always higher than private sector non-farm earnings wage or HE earnings, but sometimes lower than those for microenterprise earnings. Similar results have been shown for Viet Nam (Nguyen et al, 2011). _This result suggests that while NFEs may be the occupational choice of people excluded from wage income opportunities (either because of lack_

> 14 Regressing sources of income on (log of) consumption avoids potential problems of comparability in the measurement of earnings between different income sources. It may also control for the seasonality of earnings as consumption tends to b smoothed out over time.

26