||**Urban Population**<br>(% of Total)<br>2001|**Population in the Largest City**<br>(% of Urban Population)<br>2001|
|---|---|---|
|Poland|63|14|
|Slovak Republic|58|15|
|Slovenia|49|26|
|**Slavic**|70|13|
|Belarus|70|24|
|Russian Federation|73|8|
|Ukraine|68|7|
|Turkey (_not a transition country_)|66|21|
|**Income Group** (weighted averages)|||
|Low income|31|17|
|Middleincome|52|15|
|Low &middleincome|42|16|
|Europe & Central Asia|63|15|
|High income|78|17|

Source: World Development Indicators, 2003

# **1.3. A framework for viewing urban poverty**

This paper views poverty in both income and non-income dimensions, as established in _WDR 2000/01_ and as reflected in the World Bank-supported poverty assessments that provide much of the material for this report. In addition the analysis draws upon a framework for understanding urban poverty and vulnerability (the risk of falling into poverty) in terms of three characteristics that imply a relative (though not absolute) distinction with rural poverty.<sup>7</sup> First, the urban economy is highly monetized so that a steady source of cash income is critical and cash expenditures required to avoid poverty. Second, the relative density of urban settlement increases the risks and importance of environmental health and safety measures, many of which are infrastructure related. Third, urban communities are generally more mobile and changeable, and urban social networks more diverse, than is typical in rural areas. Poverty and vulnerability are closely linked to the degree of command of multiple assets and in the urban context, adequate access<sup>8</sup> to housing, infrastructure, energy services. Public transport is an important determinant of whether households can be sufficiently mobile to take advantage of the urban labor market and find employment, as well as a contributor to health, safety, and quality of life.

The present report focuses on recent developments in income/expenditure poverty and the status of infrastructure/energy/housing as particularly relevant to urban poverty. The social dimensions of poverty and empowerment are discussed more briefly, only because available information is particularly weak in this area. The analysis proceeds from the following hypotheses:

- a) Living standards vary significantly across urban areas--notably, between the capital city and “other urban” (secondary cities), the distinction possible from most of the available household survey databases.  These differences are often greater than those between overall urban and rural averages; therefore, to understand patterns of poverty it is necessary to spatially disaggregate the data.

> 7 _Moser, C., M. Gatehouse, and H. Garcia.  1996.  “Urban Poverty Research Sourcebook Module I:  Sub-City Level Household Survey.”  Urban Management Program Working Paper Series 5.  UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat)/World Bank, Washington. D.C.  ; World Bank.  2002.  A Sourcebook for Poverty Reduction Strategies.  Volume 2.  Washington, D.C._

> 8 _Adequate access here means having the facility to acquire and exchange assets in the land and housing market, such as by moving from one city or urban zone to another in response to opportunity.   Note that access to housing assets, in the sense of private home ownership, is not necessarily the purview of upper income groups because state-owned housing under socialism was often a perquisite and so rental housing is not necessarily inferior to privately-owned._

4