|N.E Nigeria|0.158|0.190|-0.032*****|0.082|0.068|0.015|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Somalia|0.353|0.263|0.090|0.211|0.185|0.026|
|South Sudan|0.227|0.399|-0.172|0.194|0.161|0.033|
|Sudan|0.269|0.233|0.036|0.092|0.055|0.037|
|**H (%)**<br>|||||||
|Ethiopia|64.2|38.5|25.7*******|15.0|11.2|3.8|
|N.E Nigeria|25.9|33.5|-7.6|14.3|12.1|2.1|
|Somalia|55.8|44.8|11.0|33.9|29.3|4.6|
|South Sudan|37.5|67.0|-29.5|31.2|25.3|5.9|
|Sudan|45.7|40.2|5.5|15.3|10.5|4.7|
|**A(%)**|||||||
|Ethiopia|61.0|61.7|-0.7|56.9|57.8|-0.9|
|N.E Nigeria|61.0|56.8|4.2*****|57.4|55.4|2.0|
|Somalia|63.3|58.7|4.5*****|62.3|63.2|-0.9|
|South Sudan|60.5|59.5|1.0|62.1|63.6|-1.6|
|Sudan|58.9|58.0|0.9|60.3|52.3|8.0*******|

Source: Authors’ calculations based on data from the High Frequency Surveys of Ethiopia (2017), Nigeria (2018), Somalia (2017), South Sudan (2017) and Sudan (2017). De facto - female-headed households whose head is a married female to a husband in the household or working away from the family. De jure - female-headed households whose head is a female widow, divorced or unmarried woman. H is the incidence of multidimensional poverty; A is the intensity of multidimensional poverty and MPI=H*A. Asterisks indicate statistical significance at 1% ***, 5% ** and 10% * levels.

We find differences, with _de facto_ female-headed households being worse off in Ethiopia and _de jure_ being worse off in Nigeria. In Ethiopia, refugee individuals in _de facto_ female-headed households (MPI of 0.392) are significantly more likely to be poor than _de jure_ female-headed households (MPI of 0.238). Looking at the incidence of poverty, there is a 25.7 percentage points difference among female heads, with 64.2% of those in _de facto_ and 38.5% of those in _de jure_ households being MPI poor among Ethiopian refugees. In contrast, the results in Nigeria suggest that individuals in _de facto_ female-headed IDP households are less likely to be poor compared to _de jure_ female-headed IDP households, although the difference is only significant at the 10% level. For non-displaced households, we find no significant differences in poverty between _de facto_ and _de jure_ female heads across the five countries. In South Sudan, _de jure_ IDP households have a higher MPI and incidence of poverty compared to _de facto_ and although the difference is large, it is not statistically significant due to the small sample size.

Next, we turn to an analysis by earning profiles. Although women are increasingly able to access labor markets, households that mostly depend on women’s contribution may be more likely to fall into poverty. Gender norms, wage gaps, and their disproportional presence in lower-paying occupations are among the factors driving this result. Following Hanmer et al (2021), we classify households according to the number and gender of the income contributors. A household member can contribute to the family income through paid employment, selfemployment, farm-business work, trade, remittances or aid. Based on this definition, we classify households in seven mutually exclusive categories: no earners; dependent on remittances only; single earner (male or female); multiple earners (majority female, equal contribution or majority male).

Table 8 shows the disaggregation of poverty headcount ratios by earnings profile and displacement status, highlighting that households without income contributors are more likely to be poor compared to other types of families, regardless of the country. Among IDPs, households with a single female earner also emerge as vulnerable. For example, in Sudan, while 24