الفهرس 
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 157 |  |  |
| | | from | 157 | | |
Abstract
Definitions of poverty vary depending on different conceptual perspectives, and the ultimate purpose for defining the poor. Lacking a globally accepted definition of poverty, and who the poor are, is a hurdle to efforts for alleviating poverty. Also, the question where the poor are represents another challenge to the efforts for poverty alleviation. Targeting the poor is not an easy task, since the definitions of poverty are elusive and vague.
The significance of this study lies in the fact that it presents an alternative approach to measuring poverty. It adopts a set of interrelated research questions that deals with the operational linkages between deprivation and per capita share as dependent variables measuring poverty, on one hand; and explanatory variables measuring attributes of households and housing conditions, on the other. The research addresses three interrelated research questions:
1) Who are the poor?
2) where they live? and
3) Why are they poor?
The research methodology uses geo-referenced data and statistical techniques to estimate urban poverty indicators, and assess the suitability of GIS analysis for poverty targeting. This research tackles how to identify the most physically deprived areas in a metropolis and its region. It attempts to adopt quantitative research methods of inquiry, based on theoretical study. The analysis is used to estimate association between deprivation concepts and advanced multivariate statistical techniques. The estimated discrimination functions portray the causal relationships. The research uses information available on the most basic GIS layers to produce maps reflecting various sorts of physical deprivation at basic administrative units. These maps provide policy-makers with a tool that enables zooming on the most deprived zones that are most likely to be obscured as a result of relying on aggregate data on the level of the Governorate. Theoretical study explores the main methodologies and approaches for measuring poverty. Most studies address a wide range of issues based on three schools:
1) Subjective vs. objective poverty.
2) poverty as a natural or social phenomenon and the 3) positivist vs. normative approaches. Reviewing literature highlights the comparison of the four main approaches to address poverty and its related facets. These include Monetary Approach, Capability Approach, Social Exclusion Approach and finally Participatory Approach. Concluding that conceptualization, definitions and measurement have important implications for targeting the poor and for policy-making, from an empirical standpoint, there is a considerable lack of robustness of inference among the different approaches to poverty, which means that targeting according to one type of poverty will involve serious targeting errors in relation to other types. Moreover, definitions also have different implications for targeting. While a monetary approach suggests a focus on increasing money incomes (by economic growth, or redistribution), a capability approach tends to lead to more emphasis on the public goods provision. Social exclusion draws attention to the need to break down exclusionary factors, for example, by redistribution and anti-discrimination policies. Thus, the conceptual awareness underlying different practices, and particularly in the case of the monetary poverty dominating paradigm, is deemed necessary when adopting them. Furthermore, it is suggested that the identification and targeting of the poor should be more widely adopted with combined methods, taking into account the concerns for a poverty broad characterization. Measuring poverty depends on both the conceptual framework and the ultimate purpose of defining the poor. The research elaborates the conceptual model which reflects the factors governing urban poverty. This conceptual model is a set of null hypotheses based on premises deduced from the theoretical study. It is based on the different relations between the causes and effects of poverty. It explains variations in urban deprivations using economic, social, environmental and institutional factors, and illustrates the relationships linking urban poverty to the explanatory factors. The classical deductive method is adopted in constructing this conceptual model. The empirical analysis uses independent variables to measure the set of interrelated factors that explain the relationships governing urban poverty. The use of formal secondary data makes comparisons possible and research’s bias negligible. GCR is used as the case study to empirically verify the validity of the conceptual model for various reasons: It is a region with extended history and a diverse economic base. Besides, it includes both urban and rural settlements and reflects their pertinent characteristics. GCR has a significant industrial base, as well.
The study attempts to provide empirical evidences in support of the conceptual model using data of the Government of Egypt. The empirical analysis constructs an Area-based Physical Deprivation Index (APDI) in form of discriminate and principal component scores. Principal component scores are used to eliminate possibility of multi-co-linearity running the risk of losing the possibility of deeper understanding of which variable really affects the dependent variable. Thus, understanding the principal component and regression analysis is within the results of the correlation analyses presented earlier. These scores are used to produce different groups of layers of GIS maps.
The research uses the results of the 2006 census for GCR, characteristics of population and housing conditions. Districts (qism and markaz) of GCR are the units of analysis. The research uses the available information from the Human Development Reports (HDRs) for Egyptian Governorates. In addition to using real per capita GDP as reported in the HDRs, the research uses Deprivation Index (Sivakumar 2010) (DI) calculated for the Governorate of Cairo1 in 2008 as another measure of poverty. The different 79 districts of the five governorates that form GCR were divided into three unequal groups: formal urban, informal urban (squatter and slum areas) and rural districts.
Results affirm the possibility of using geo-statistical techniques for poverty mapping, and the suitability of GIS analysis for poverty targeting. At the district level, DI of GCR as reported by HDR (2006), and spatial variables that are associated with poverty generate digital layers of deprivation. The results spatially indicate deprived districts. Poverty maps of GCR are the results of spatial correlation analysis and geographic determinants of poverty attempting to construct an Area-based Physical Deprivation Index (APDI). It results from information analyzed to produce two different groups of GIS layers for GCR. The first group is layers of surface objects. It includes, roads, the Nile, administrative layers that show the administrative boundaries of each administrative unit of analysis, whether qism or markaz, in 1Governorate of Cairo consists of 43 districts, Cairo, Giza, 6th of October, Qalyubia and Helwan. This step includes both urban and rural areas of GCR in the analysis. The second group of layers is about data collected from 2006 census and results of the statistical analyses. The research concludes that three main categories of poor could be identified. First are those with university degrees who do not have the skills to compete for jobs available on the market. Second are the blue collar workers in need for improved social and physical infrastructures. The third group is the ultra-poor populations of GCR. They live in informal urban areas and rural settlements. They lack access to physical and social infrastructures in both quantitative and qualitative terms. They live in poor housing conditions experiencing high rates of crowding and lacking privacy. They suffer from diseases and violence manifested in the form of crime, and psychiatric and/or sexual abuse. For them, elections are seasons for making a living, but not an opportunity to be properly represented in the processes of decision-making. Adopting principles of good governance and enlightening the poor are the means to empower them to be in-charge of their destiny. Participation should not be viewed as an end, rather a means for democracy in action. The poor populations of Greater Cairo Region (GCR) are those living in informal urban areas and rural settlements. Poor housing exists because poor people exist. Poor households do not have their private facilities, such as kitchen, bathroom, etc. They experience high rates of over-crowding, which might explain a number of social ills and violence in the form of crime, psychiatric and/or sexual abuse. At large, they pay more for less quality services, which the existing physical and social infrastructures can avail (Edgar 1969). They are not able to meet ends because of their limited income, despite achieving an overall average growth rate of five to seven percent per annum—probably indicating an idle trickle-down mechanism for an equitable distribution of wealth. Consequently, the research recommended that: 1) the definition of poverty should be revised to reflect a more near realistic picture of the circumstances of the nation’s households and changes over time. It should comprise a set of consistent and statistically defensible variables that measures household resources; social services; accessibility to infrastructure; environmental changes and institutional circumference, in order to determine who is in or out of poverty. 2) The research recommends the adoption of Small-Area Estimation Approach (SAEA) for generating smaller geographic area poverty statistics.3) Also, it recommends improving the coverage of non-income dimensions of poverty in order to be better tracked. 4) The official poverty measures should continue to be derived on multi-dimensional annual basis.