also evident in the CSSPA data for 1988/89, but the decline in the percentage of households growing cocoa in the 1988 in East Forest causes a decline in the survey regional sales index in 1988. In contrast, the sharp decline in the West Forest survey data in sales per capita among cocoa-growing households and also in the regional sales index between 1986 and 1987 is not at all evident in the CSSPA production data.

Another inconsistency between the survey and the CSSPA data concerns the distribution of production between the East and West Forest Regions. The survey data indicate that sales in East Forest far outstripped that in the West Forest, while the CSSPA data indicate that production in the West Forest was roughly equal to the East Forest in 1985 and then outstripped production in the East Forest. According to the survey data, cocoa sales per capita was roughly 36 percent higher in East Forest than in the West Forest in 1985. Since the population of East Forest was 66 percent higher than West Forest (based on the survey weights), overall cocoa production should have been 126 percent higher in East Forest than West Forest, extrapolating from the survey data. According to CSSPA data, however, cocoa production in East Forest equaled cocoa production in West Forest in 1984/85. The disparity between the survey and CSSPA data widens in 1988: according to the survey data, sales per capita in the East Forest were 91 percent higher than in the West Forest, with the East Forest having 53 percent more population. Thus, East Forest in principle would have produced 192 percent more cocoa than West Forest. The CSSPA regional production estimates, however, show that in 198 8/89 West Forest produced about 10 percent more cocoa than East Forest.

A sharp break in coffee sales in West Forest between 1986 and 1987 is also clearly apparent in the survey data (table 6). The CSSPA data confirm that there was a fall in coffee production in the West Forest between 1985/85 and 1988/89, though the decline is not as dramatic as the fall in the survey data.

One problem with trying to match up the survey data with the CSSPA data is that urban areas within the forest region are considered either as belonging to Abidjan or Other Cities regions for the purposes of the household surveys. The CSSPA production estimates do not distinguish between the rural and urban areas within the Forest and Savannah regions. Even if we assume however, that in 1985, all the cocoa produced in Other Cities is attributable to the West Forest region, sales per capita in the West Forest would still far slightly below that of the East Forest. The disparity between the two regions in terms of total cocoa production would still be large, due to the difference in population size. And in 1988, even with the assumption that all cocoa sold by the households classified as living in Other Cities is attributable to the West Forest, per capita production in the West Forest would still be substantially below that of the East Forest. However, some of the disparity between the survey and the CSSPA production figures could be due to the possibility that households living in the East Forest reporting sales of cocoa may have actually grown cocoa in the West Forest. However, even if this were the case, it would not explain why sales declined so dramatically in the West Forest between 1986 and 1987, and not in East Forest.

Thus, the sharp decline in cocoa and coffee production in the West Forest survey data between 1986 and 1987 do not seem to be completely consistent with the CSSPA production data. The decline in per capita expenditures and thus the increase in poverty in West Forest may therefore be overstated to some degree. Indeed, there does seem to have been some sampling bias in the survey data. Demery and Grootaert (1993) hypothesize that sampling bias accounts for the decline in household size observed 8