**Table 3. Incidence and Intensity of Fiscal Losses in Niger, 2014**

||Weights||Decomposition of||Decomposition of|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**National level**||**0.332**||**0.014**||
|Poor|0.449|0.281|0.126|0.011|0.005|
|Non‐poor|0.551|0.373|0.205|0.017|0.010|
|_Gender of HH_||||||
|**Female**|**0.099**|**0.378**|**0.037**|**0.015**|**0.002**|
|Poor|0.314|0.388|0.122|0.013|0.004|
|Non‐poor|0.686|0.373|0.256|0.017|0.011|
|**Male**|**0.901**|**0.327**|**0.294**|**0.014**|**0.013**|
|Poor|0.463|0.273|0.127|0.010|0.005|
|Non‐poor|0.537|0.373|0.200|0.018|0.009|
|_Area of residence of HH_||||||
|**Urban**|**0.162**|**0.318**|**0.052**|**0.026**|**0.004**|
|Poor|0.089|0.099|0.009|0.004|0.000|
|Non‐poor|0.911|0.339|0.309|0.029|0.026|
|**Rural**|**0.838**|**0.334**|**0.280**|**0.012**|**0.010**|
|Poor|0.518|0.287|0.149|0.011|0.006|
|Non‐poor<br>Note<br>: The poverty status is d<br>line of 189,233.2 CFA francs|0.482<br>etermined|0.385<br>following|0.185<br>the prefiscal income|0.013<br>s and the|0.006<br>national poverty|

_Source:_ The authors.

Regarding the fiscal losses according to the gender of the head of household, we find that the proportion of individuals living in a female-headed household who were fiscal losers was greater than that of those living in a male-headed household, as measured by the indicator of the _incidence_ of fiscal losses. However, the mean relative fiscal loss is not much different in the two subpopulations as measured by the indicator of the _intensity_ of fiscal losses. While the incidence of fiscal losses in the subpopulation living in a female-headed household was higher for the prefiscal poor, the proportion of prefiscal nonpoor who were fiscally impoverished by the fiscal system was greater in the subpopulation living in a male-headed household. Yet, fiscal losses were more intense in the subpopulation of prefiscal nonpoor for both female and male-headed households.

The effects of fiscal impoverishment by area of residence show that the mean relative income loss due to the fiscal system was higher in urban areas, although in rural areas there was a greater percentage of the population who were fiscally impoverished. The prefiscal nonpoor were the most fiscally impoverished in both regions, given the incidence and intensity of their fiscal losses compared to those of the prefiscal poor.

Finally, the conclusion that the male-headed household subpopulation was fiscally more impoverished than the female-headed household subpopulation (following Higgins & Lustig) appears to be incomplete. In fact, the incidence and intensity of fiscal losses are higher for the subpopulation living in a female-headed household when the experience of everyone within the fiscal system is considered. Besides, when the situation of the prefiscal poor alone is considered, the conclusion remained unchanged: the incidence and intensity of fiscal losses are higher for the prefiscal poor living in a female-headed household. It turns out, therefore, that the current measure of fiscal impoverishment used in the literature is not accurately capturing the real extent to which people are fiscally impoverished, that is, the extent to which they are becoming poorer after the 15