# **1. Introduction**

Three consecutive National Poverty Assessments (NPAs) conducted in Mozambique between 1998 and 2010 (MPD-DNEAP, 2010; MPF/IFPRI/PU, 2004; MPF/UEM/IFPRI, 1998) have provided a wealth of information on national poverty patterns and their changes over time. The most recently published NPA, based on the new Mozambique Household Budget Survey (IOF,<sup>2</sup> 2008/09) shows that while welfare levels have generally increased, poverty remains widespread. The total percentage of Mozambicans living below the poverty line (based on per capita consumption measured at the household level) was estimated at 54.7 percent, a slight and statistically insignificant increase from 54.1 percent observed in 2002/03, with a marginal rise in rural poverty (from 55.3 to 56.9 percent) offsetting a small decline in urban poverty (from 51.5 to 49.6 percent).

However, the poverty profile that emerged from the latest NPA (MPD-DNEAP,<sup>3</sup> 2010), which is computed using a consumption-based money metric as its measure of welfare, does not seem to be consistent with other poverty indicators, from child anthropometrics (see Azzarri et al., 2011) to asset ownership figures to measures of access to basic services and regional productivity estimates. These and other factors raise concerns about the robustness of the poverty statistics presented in the latest NPA, and the discrepancies in the data become even more striking at the provincial level.<sup>4</sup> In the most recent NPA, the rural Niassa and Cabo Delgado regions, historically considered poor according to a variety of indicators, recorded the lowest poverty rates in the country. By contrast, the country’s Southern provinces and urban areas registered very high poverty rates despite their traditionally superior nonmonetary poverty indicators (e.g. child malnutrition) and higher regional productivity.

Three types of error may have contributed to producing these counterintuitive results. First, measurement errors in expenditure data could be caused by consumption underreporting (especially consumption of household produce, which is common in rural areas) or by flaws in the survey questionnaires. Second, the methodology used to compute poverty lines<sup>5</sup> (PLs) differs from the standard used in many other developing countries, and methodological weaknesses might result in unexpected provincial patterns. Third, the interaction between consumption underreporting and the particular methodology used to compute the PLs could magnify inaccuracies in the data.

> 2 _Inquérito sobre Orçamento Familiar._

> 3 _Ministério de Planificação e Desenvolvimento – Direcção Nacional de Estudos e Análise de Políticas_ : Ministry of Planning and Development – National Directorate of Policy Studies and Analysis.

> 4 The Northern, Central and Southern regions are grouped according to the official country definition. _Northern_ includes the provinces of Niassa, Cabo Delgado and Nampula; _Central_ includes Tete, Zambezia, Manica and Sofala; and _Southern_ includes Gaza, Inhambane, Maputo Province, and Maputo City.  For an overview of Mozambican provinces, see Map 1 below.

> 5 All the three NPAs report a different poverty line, based on local prices and consumption patterns observed in the crosssectional rounds of, respectively, the IAF ( _Inquérito aos Agregados Familiares sobre Orçamento Familiar_ ) 1996/97, the IAF 2002/03 and the IOF 2008/09 survey, by grouping provinces and areas according to 13 locations: Niassa and Cabo Delgado, rural and urban; Nampula, rural and urban; Sofala and Zambezia, rural and urban; Manica and Tete, rural and urban; Gaza and Inhambane, rural and urban, Maputo Province, rural and urban, and Maputo City.

2