# **Table A.8. Predicted Poverty Rates Based on Imputation, from NPS 2019/20 to TA 1 using 2019/20 Poverty Line, Tanzania (percentage)**

|<br>**Method**|||||**TA 1**<br>|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**Model 1**|**Model 2**|**Model 3**|**Model 4**|**Model 5**|**Model 6**|**Model 7**|**Model 8**|**Model 9**|
|1) Normal linear reression model|**15.9**|**17.0**<sup>**a**</sup>|**17.9**<sup>**a**</sup>|13.8|**16.2**<sup>**a**</sup>|**14.7**|**17.0**<sup>**a**</sup>|**17.7**<sup>**a**</sup>|**18.5**<sup>**a**</sup>|
|g|(1.9)|(2.0)|(2.0)|(1.9)|(2.0)|(1.9)|(2.0)|(2.0)|(2.0)|
|2) Empirical distribution of the error|**15.8**<sup>**a**</sup>|**16.7**<sup>**a**</sup>|**18.1**<sup>**a**</sup>|13.1|**16.0**<sup>**a**</sup>|**14.5**|**16.7**<sup>**a**</sup>|**17.5**<sup>**a**</sup>|**18.6**<sup>**a**</sup>|
|terms|(1.9)|(2.0)|(2.0)|(1.9)|(1.9)|(1.9)|(2.0)|(2.0)|(2.0)|
|_Control variables_||||||||||
|Food expenditures|||Y|||||||
|Non-food expenditures||||Y||||||
|Furnishings and household expenses|||||Y|||||
|Health expenditures||||||Y||||
|Education expenditures|||||||Y|||
|Utilities: water, kerosene, lighting||||||||Y|Y|
|Household assets & house characteristics||Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y||
|Demographics & employment|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|
|R<sup>2</sup>|0.39|0.54|0.90|0.67|0.55|0.56|0.54|0.54|0.43|
|N1(base survey)|1,179|1,179|1,179|1,179|1,179|1,179|1,179|1,179|1,179|
|N2(target survey)|711|711|711|711|711|711|711|711|711|
|**True poverty rate in TA 1**|||||17.7|||||
|<br>**Note**: The standard errors in parentheses are<br>normal linear regression model with the theore<br>employ cluster random effects. The imputed p<br>The true poverty rate for TA 1 is the estimate<br>with the annual WB deflator. The estimates sh<br>|adjusted for<br>tical distribu<br>overty rates f<br>directly obtai<br>own in bold<br>|complex surv<br>tion of the er<br>or TA 1 use t<br>ned using the<br>or with an “a<br>|ey design.<br>ror terms an<br>he estimate<br>consumpti<br>” respective|All estimates<br>d Method 2 u<br>d parameters<br>on data in TA<br>ly fall within|(1.9)<br>are obtaine<br>ses the empi<br>based on the<br>1 and the po<br>the 95% CI|d with the po<br>rical distribu<br>2019/20 dat<br>verty line in<br>or one stand|pulation wei<br>tion of the er<br>a. 1000 simu<br>NPS 2019/2<br>ard error of t|ghts. Metho<br>ror terms. B<br>lations are im<br>0 deflated to<br>he true pove|d 1 uses the<br>oth methods<br>plemented.<br>2022 prices<br>rty rate. The|

**Note** : The standard errors in parentheses are adjusted for complex survey design. All estimates are obtained with the population weights. Method 1 uses the normal linear regression model with the theoretical distribution of the error terms and Method 2 uses the empirical distribution of the error terms. Both methods employ cluster random effects. The imputed poverty rates for TA 1 use the estimated parameters based on the 2019/20 data. 1000 simulations are implemented. The true poverty rate for TA 1 is the estimate directly obtained using the consumption data in TA1 and the poverty line in NPS 2019/20 deflated to 2022 prices with the annual WB deflator. The estimates shown in bold or with an “a” respectively fall within the 95% CI or one standard error of the true poverty rate. The underlying regression results are provided in Appendix A, Table A.5.

52