Skip to Main Navigation

Azerbaijan - Poverty assessment (Vol. 2) : Field study (英语)

Results from household surveys, a community questionnaire, and a social assessment taken from 1995 to 1996, complemented by official studies and studies done by UN organizations and non-governmental organizations, provide the basis for this Poverty Assessment for Azerbaijan. The report first examines the extent and nature of poverty using the Azerbaijan Survey of Living Conditions. Chapter 2 discusses macroeconomic developments in 1989-96 while Chapter 3 discusses the macroeconomic outlook, particularly as it will be influenced by the expansion of petroleum production. Chapter 4 discusses Azerbaijan's system of social protection, including both pensions and targeted programs of assistance to vulnerable groups. The situation of one important vulnerable group, internally displaced persons, is treated separately in Chapter 5. The role of social services, education and health, in the poverty reduction strategy is the subject of Chapters 6 and 7. Chapter 8 summarizes the report's recommendations, which could become part of a "National Strategy for Poverty Reduction." The three government policy areas which, when taken together, could provide the basis for this strategy are: broad-based and labor-intensive economic growth; social protection programs which provide transfers to support vulnerable groups; and social services in health and education. Related areas which could contribute to poverty alleviation are: privatizing housing and eliminating state and enterprise housing subsidies; effectively transferring social assets and responsibilities from enterprises to local authorities-particularly those related to health and education; developing a private social insurance system to complement a government pension system; and encouraging voluntary organization to participate in meeting social needs.


  • 文件日期


  • 文件类型


  • 报告号


  • 卷号


  • Total Volume(s)


  • 国家


  • 地区


  • 发布日期


  • 文件名称

    Field study

  • 关键词

    economies of scale in consumption;regional price;headcount measure of poverty;representative household survey data;per capita food expenditure;national household survey data;education and the poor;poor household;share of income;household income;Proxy Means Tests;social protection system;wage income;consumption aggregate;household expenditure;focus group interview;household welfare;social assistance;food basket;targeted social assistance;household poverty line;incidence of poverty;flow of service;food poverty line;types of expenditure;indicators of poverty;incidence of benefits;housing allowance scheme;living in poverty;minimum consumption basket;family and friends;income from sale;price of energy;population at large;per capita expenditure;social protection policy;formal sector wage;structure of expenditures;eligibility for assistance;types of good;per capita cost;determinants of poverty;social support network;allocation of resource;measure of inequality;terms of policy;term of ownership;level of rent;social assistance system;proposals for reform;size of population;income on food;correlates of poverty;perception of poverty;household survey result;aggregate of consumption;social assistance payments;cost of provision;amount of land;absence from school;characteristics of poor;income for household;per capita basis;types of property;extended family support;social assistance scheme;household consumption;regional poverty;housing cost;economic zone;compensation payment;coverage rate;target social;household composition;social institution;severe poverty;living standard;rural area;communal services;field work;energy price;household economy;measurement error;energy bill;inclusion error;household characteristic;determining eligibility;rental value;take-up rate;gender composition;Poverty measures;sensitivity analysis;individual poverty;community questionnaire;regional dimension;social group;relative weight;educational personnel;community knowledge;residential gas;food share;coping mechanism;means testing;opportunity cost;land holding;administrative capacity;Labor Market;energy company;consumer durable;average household;energy cost;household size;food price;working age;welfare indicator;measuring poverty;relative price;administrative cost;Coping Mechanisms;community survey;lifeline rate;household asset;children in families;measure of use;Land Ownership;targeted program;daily calorie;household head;social housing;nutritional analysis;luxury items;income generation;standard deviation;adequate care;minimum share;children of ages;social status;agricultural worker;medical personnel;usage charge;unit price;population group;electricity provision;tax revenue;participation rate;productive sector;budgetary impact;indirect impact;enterprise profitability;household fuel;international standard;expatriate consultants;individual household;individual assessment;temporary housing;gross income;household saving;poverty gap;income household;representative measure;occupational category;regional food;community interview;local condition;geographical coverage;local state;household clusters;household questionnaire;local economy;survey instrument;budgetary constraint;public good;dramatic change;Public Goods;beneficiary selection;individual welfare;regional concentration;informal sector;present prices;exclusion error;income stream;wholesale price;important policy;retail price;replacement cost;labor income;medical university;constrained resource;community decision;bottom quintile;local elite;informal support;accurate information;monitoring program;national poverty;gender difference;inequality measure;social structure;targeted subsidy;Durable goods;allocation mechanism;high share;average share;rental market;computer programming;residential energy;income support;urban bias;independent assessment;nutritional value;implicit subsidy;local knowledge;heavily dependent;farming activity;housing service;state agency;broad assessment;cultural aspects;social program;housing price