4 Several points are evident from the national account data. First, during the period between the household surveys (taken as 1993-2001), cumulative growth in per capita GDP was only 6.1%, despite the sustained gains during the final years of the period. This is because the country faced substantial declines in per capita output at the beginning of the period. Second, output in the urban sector grew slightly more rapidly than in the rural sector over the full span of the period, and at the end of the period, urban growth substantially outpaced rural growth. Third, year-to-year growth rates in household consumption per capita differed from those for GDP per capita, but overall growth in household per capita consumption for the period was just slightly greater, at 8.3%.

**Table 2: Growth Data from National Accounts**

|**Year**|**GDP**<br>**Growth**<br>**Rate**|**Per**<br>**Capita**<br>**GDP**<br>**Growth**|**Per Capita**<br>**Rural**<br>**Growth**<br>**(monetary**<br>**+ non-**<br>**monetary**<br>**agriculture)**|**Per Capita**<br>**Urban**<br>**Growth (all**<br>**non-**<br>**agriculture)**|**Hhold.**<br>**Cons.**<br>**as**<br>**Fraction**<br>**of GDP**|**Implicit**<br>**GDP**<br>**Price**<br>**Deflator**|**Growth**<br>**Rate of**<br>**Per**<br>**Capita**<br>**Hhold.**<br>**Cons.**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|1990|6.2%|3.3%|||0.90|0.62||
|1991|2.8%|-0.1%|0.7%|-0.9%|0.90|0.79|-1.0%|
|1992|1.8%|-1.1%|-1.7%|-0.5%|0.89|1|-2.0%|
|1993|0.4%|-2.5%|0.2%|-5.0%|0.90|1.26|-1.3%|
|1994|1.4%|-1.5%|-0.8%|-2.2%|0.91|1.64|-0.4%|
|1995|3.6%|0.7%|2.9%|-1.6%|0.91|2.08|0.3%|
|1996|4.2%|1.3%|1.0%|1.6%|0.91|2.46|1.4%|
|1997|3.3%|0.4%|-0.5%|1.3%|0.93|2.96|2.5%|
|1998|4.0%|1.1%|-1.0%|3.2%|0.96|3.40|4.6%|
|1999|4.7%|1.8%|1.2%|2.4%|0.95|3.79|0.8%|
|2000|4.9%|2.0%|0.5%|3.4%|0.91|4.05|-2.6%|
|2001|5.7%|2.8%|2.6%|3.1%|0.91|4.36|2.9%|
|2002|6.2%|3.3%|2.1%|4.4%|0.87|4.65|-0.9%|
|1993-2001:||||||||
|Average<br>growth rate|3.6%|0.7%|0.7%|0.7%|||0.9%|
|Cumulative|37.1%|6.1%|6.2%|6.0%|||8.3%|
|change||||||||

Source: _Economic Survey 2002, United Republic of Tanzania_ Notes: This paper examines growth between the years 1992 and 2001, which is calculated as the cumulative effect of growth rates for the years 1993-2001. GDP growth figures are taken from Table 4A, p.16. Per capita GDP growth rates were calculated by subtracting 2.9%, the average population growth rate between the 1988 and 2002 censuses. Household consumption as a fraction of GDP was calculated from figures in Table 2B, using GDP at factor cost prices. The implicit GDP price deflator was calculated by dividing nominal GDP at factor cost prices (Table 2B) by GDP in 1992 prices (Table 3).

Separate rural and urban per capita growth rates were calculated using the growth rate and economic composition figures by sector and the national rate of population increase (this latter assumption is relaxed in Section 5.4). Because rural non-agricultural output is not separately identified in the national accounts, the rural GDP growth rate figures are based on the agriculture sector alone (monetary and non-monetary) and do not include growth in the non-agricultural sector. A substantial fraction of income in the rural area is earned from non-farm sources. According to the HBS report (Table 9.2), the principal sources of rural income are: 60.4% from agriculture, 17.8% from non-farm self employment, 8.3% from employment, and 12.8% from transfers and other receipts. During the period of study, growth in the nonagricultural sector exceeded growth in the agricultural sector but only by 0.1% point so that rural growth may be only slightly underestimated.