Table 4: Mean household characteristics across urban versus rural areas in 16 SSA countries

|||**Ofcial **|**defnition**||**DOU**|||**D**|**B**||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||All<br>(1)|Urban<br>(2)|Rural<br>(3)|Urban <br>center <br>(4)|Urban<br> cluster <br>(5)|Rural <br>(6)|Core <br>(7)|Suburb <br>(8)|Town <br>(9)|Rural<br>(10)|
|**Demographic:**|||||||||||
|Household size|6.55|6.18|6.71|6.31|6.41|6.67|6.52|6.11|7.07|6.59|
|Age of household head|40.31|42.51|39.30|43.29|41.00|39.04|41.40|34.81|43.60|41.46|
|Household head is male|0.78|0.73|0.81|0.73|0.76|0.81|0.75|0.79|0.81|0.80|
|**Education (of household head):**|||||||||||
|No education|0.37|0.20|0.45|0.18|0.29|0.47|0.26|0.40|0.51|0.40|
|Primary complete or incomplete|0.39|0.33|0.42|0.31|0.44|0.40|0.34|0.45|0.34|0.44|
|Secondary complete or incomplete|0.18|0.33|0.11|0.35|0.20|0.11|0.28|0.12|0.14|0.13|
|Tertiary complete or incomplete|0.06|0.15|0.02|0.16|0.07|0.02|0.12|0.04|0.02|0.03|
|**Employment (of household head):**|||||||||||
|Not in labor force|0.12|0.13|0.11|0.14|0.11|0.11|0.12|0.11|0.10|0.13|
|Unemployed|0.03|0.04|0.02|0.05|0.02|0.02|0.04|0.02|0.02|0.03|
|Employed in Agriculture|0.52|0.14|0.71|0.07|0.48|0.70|0.26|0.66|0.70|0.65|
|Employed in Industry|0.08|0.14|0.05|0.15|0.09|0.05|0.12|0.06|0.05|0.05|
|Employed in Services|0.26|0.55|0.12|0.58|0.30|0.13|0.46|0.16|0.13|0.15|
|**Access to basic services**|||||||||||
|Improved water|0.69|0.84|0.62|0.88|0.75|0.61|0.82|0.63|0.63|0.60|
|Improved sanitation facility|0.24|0.40|0.17|0.46|0.27|0.16|0.37|0.15|0.20|0.19|
|Access to electricity|0.48|0.82|0.32|0.85|0.53|0.33|0.69|0.36|0.39|0.34|

Source: International Urban Poverty Database. Note: WorldPop 250m is used for the DOU and DB methods.

find that the gaps in household characteristics between urban cores and other areas are narrower. On several indicators, people in rural towns appear to be worse off compared to those in other rural areas. Specifically, compared to other rural areas, households in rural towns have lower education levels and are more likely to work in agriculture.

Using our microdata approach, we can also analyze the profile of the extreme poor based on location. The comparison of characteristics of poor households across DOU classifications (columns 2 to 5 in Table A2 in Appendix A) reveals some distinct features. For instance, the urban poor tend to have higher levels of education compared to the rural poor. Approximately 29 percent of poor household heads in urban areas have not completed any education, compared to 49 percent among rural poor households. Employment patterns also differ significantly between urban and rural areas. While the majority of poor rural household heads work in agriculture, around half of the poor heads in urban centers are employed in the industry and service sectors. Notably, there are also differences between urban centers and urban clusters. For example, about 61 percent of the poor household heads in urban clusters still work in the agriculture sector, compared to 19 percent in urban centers. In terms of access to basic services, it is not surprising that the rural poor are the most deprived group. The urban poor households have improved access to water at a similar level to non-poor households. However, their access to improved sanitation is extremely low, with only around 32 percent having access even in urban centers. Access to electricity is also limited among the poor households in urban clusters (29 percent). In the case of the DB classifications (columns 6 to 10), the characteristics of the poor present similar results between urban and rural areas. However, it is worth noting that towns appear less educated, with more agricultural workers, and less access to basic services than rural areas.

# **5.2 Poverty incidence**

_Are poverty rates lower in urban than in rural areas?_ The comparisons of poverty rates across different types of geographic area in 16 SSA countries (Figure 4) reveal that poverty rates tend to be lower in denser areas, regardless of the global 14