7.0 Lesson learnt and recommendations.7.1 Lessons Learnt (a) Gender Analysis macro-economic frameworks and PRSP sectors Macro economic management is noble but may not necessarily benefit men and women equally. Controlling inflation is good for the poor majority of who are women. However, excluding the unpaid work of women from the national accounts leading to an underestimation of the real economy and therefore undue control of the money supply is detrimental to overall public expenditure -that is supposed to address distributional concerns. This then negates the whole objective of "protecting the poor." A competitive exchange rate is good as long as the products that are marketed internationally include outputs of both men and women. Competitive interest rates in the formal banking institutions would be welcome if both men and women had access to these services. Segmentation in the labour market means varying impacts of the macroeconomic framework on men and women. There is need for data to conduct a gender analysis of the macroeconomic framework. * A macro-economic framework with a constrained budget leads to inadequate provision of the economic infrastructure and support services, as well as the social services that are the responsibility of the state. * Inadequate funding of sectors has adverse effects mainly on the poor communities and households that cannot ensure own provision. * It is useful to establish the effects of inadequate funding of public services on individuals. However, this can only be ascertained if there is detailed gender disaggregated data (GDD) on access and use of public services. This report does not establish the impact of limited sectoral funding on women, men, boys and girls because of lack of GDD. * A sectoral analysis of the PRSP sectors reveals the inequalities and informs the choice of strategies for poverty reduction among men and women; as well as the national budgeting process Advocacy message Countries should generate the relevant data as well develop the technical expertise for gender analysis of the PRSP sectors in general and the macro-economic frameworks in particular. For the macroeconomic analysis inferences can be made even in the absence of gender disaggregated data. (b) Processes of gender mainstreaming within PRSPs * Gender mainstreaming must be spearheaded and coordinated from the top. It is critical, therefore to strengthen capacities of the national machineries. * Ensuring that poverty reduction and growth are equitable requires pro-active attention and well targeted focus * Involvement of gender advocates in the PRSP is critical to ensure gender mainstreaming into the PSRP process. There is need to have a critical mass of advocates (from strategic institutions) for effective advocacy. The team has to constantly interface with the PRSP process by continuously reviewing and commenting on documentation, as well as having dialogue sessions with the various stakeholders. * The involvement of gender advocates must be prepared for by having research and data for policy debates; as well as application tools like guidelines or checklists. Of importance is the macroeconomic analysis that is usually omitted. * Gender issues are numerous and it is important to prioritize those issues that will deliver most for gender equality * The involvement of gender advocates must not stop at the PRSP formulation but engages with implementation processes: the budget, as well as monitoring and evaluation. The Rwanda case used the checklist to develop activities that would ensure that there is this follow up beyond the PRSP document, in terms of data to be generated and the technical expertise required. * Gender mainstreaming is a process that is likely to take time to deliver any tangible results. There is need for commitment and persistence. Any small achievement must be appreciated and built upon for higher results. * Gender analysis that is not backed by empirical evidence will have limited influence on the policy makers * Mainstreaming gender in the PRSP must be supported by the requisite budgetary allocations to the areas that address gender concerns Advocacy Messages Gender mainstreaming is a lengthy process that calls for commitment and well-targeted focus. The process must be coordinated from the top, and well resourced with technical expertise, GDD, and country specific gender studies. The exercise of gender mainstreaming must go beyond production of gender responsive documents to actual implementation of strategies geared towards addressing the concerns. These have to be followed through by the gender advocates. 5.2 Recommendations National statistical offices and sectoral information management systems (MIS) need to endeavour to provide Gender Disaggregated Data. Effective gender analysis for policy influence must be backed by data. There is need to invest in gender research to generate country specific evidence, even for gender issues that are "known". Counties must build capacity of gender analysts to ensure effective gender mainstreaming. This should entail having strong national machinery for coordination. The governments should adequately budget for the national machineries as well as the capacity building activities. The task of ensuring effective gender mainstreaming should not be left to the national machineries alone. There is need for a critical mass of gender analysts and advocates based in different institutions for complementing each other. For decentralized governance, the local government participation would be desirable. The gender advocates must be committed persons to champion this long term process. The process of gender mainstreaming must go beyond producing gender responsive PRSPs to actual implementation of programmes that address the issues noted. This should be facilitated by including gender responsive performance indicators in the PRSP indicators. ANNEXES Annex I Useful definitions and concepts Budget This is a plan of financial operation that consists of an estimate of proposed expenditures for a financial year and the proposed means of financing them. A budget can also be understood as a statement of resource allocation and a tool that helps to communicate goals, coordinate actions and provide benchmarks for measuring performance throughout the financial year. Fiscal Policy This is a deliberate change in the level, composition or timing of government expenditures or equally any change in the burden, structure or frequency of the tax regime. Gender This refers to socially and culturally defined roles, attributes, and privileges of females and males. There exist biological differences between women and men but different societies in the world interpret and engineer the innate (God-made) differences into a set of social expectations about behaviours, activities, rights, power, and resources they have. The differences in activities of women and men often change with time, space or technology but there are also interesting similarities for instance caring for the young within a family is almost universally a female role and that of national defense is predominantly for men. Gender Disaggregated Data Information relating to qualitative and quantitative aspects of gender inequalities. This information, which includes sex disaggregated data, is especially useful during gender analysis where it is easier to note the inequalities as well as assess the impact of interventions. Gender and Equity Budgeting This considers not only the different needs and interests of women, men, boys and girls, but also the differences among various socio-economic groups and regions. For example, it takes into account the differences in needs and interests of rural and urban, rich and poor, young and old, and those with disabilities and those without. Gender equality It may be understood in three dimensions: equality before and under the law; equality of opportunity in economic, political, social and other fields; and equality in dignity (internal worth) of the person between women and men. Gender Issue This is a statistical or social indicator of inequality between males and females arising from discrimination and/or marginalization within society. These are problems of wide concern relating to equality of women and men in any social or economic role. Gender Mainstreaming A strategy to ensure that gender analysis is used to incorporate men and women's needs, constraints and potentials into all development policies and strategies in all stages of policy/programme design. Gender Roles This involves allocation of certain tasks predominantly to women and others to men, although both may do some. The roles are differently evaluated and rewarded. Gender roles unlike sex roles are not universal but are socially constructed and change with time and situations. Gender Relations These are the social relations between women and men that depend on the roles ascribed to them by society. These relations are expressed in different ways, places and times. Gender Responsive Aware of gender concepts, disparities or concerns and their causes, and takes concrete action to address and overcome gender based inequalities. Macro-economics This is the study of the relationships between broad economic aggregates seeking to explain the changes in those aggregates through time. It attempts to understand and relate the key variables which govern the performance of the economy as a whole. Macro-economic policy Assesses the behaviour of the economy as a whole and seeks ways in which its aggregate performance might be improved. Monetary policy This is any conscious action undertaken by the monetary authorities to change the quantity, availability or cost (interest rate) of money. Money stock This includes all coins and notes in circulation plus savings with banking institutions (that can easily be converted into cash). Velocity This is the efficiency with which the existing money stock is being utilized. Annex II Gender Profiles
(a) Egypt
Indicator Female Male
Health
Immunization (BCG, DPT, Polio, Measles)
Maternal Mortality rate 71.7 2005
Access to piped water
Infant mortality rate
Population growth rate
Pregnant women with prenatal care 70.5% 2005
Births attended by health personnel 67.6% 2005
Empowerment
Gender Empowerment Measure 0.266
Women in Parliament (% of total) 2% 2003
Legislative and managerial posts 25.9% 2003
Professional and technical staff 33.5% 2004
Labour force participation
Unemployment rate 25.1% 2006 7.1% 2006
Unpaid workers 46.8% 2005 12.5% 2005
Agricultural labour force 75% 47%
Education
Literacy rates 56.2% 2004
Indicator Total
Health
Immunization (BCG, DPT, Polio, Measles) 93%
Maternal Mortality rate
Access to piped water 91.3% 2004
Infant mortality rate 22.4 2004
Population growth rate 1.9%
Pregnant women with prenatal care
Births attended by health personnel
Empowerment
Gender Empowerment Measure
Women in Parliament (% of total)
Legislative and managerial posts
Professional and technical staff
Labour force participation
Unemployment rate 9% 2006
Unpaid workers
Agricultural labour force 30.4%
Education
Literacy rates 65.7% 2004
(b) Uganda
Source
Indicator Data (1)
HUMAN ASSETS: CAPABILITY Female year Male year
Health
Life Expectancy at Birth 42 2000 42 2000 1
Crude Birth Rate (per 1,000 people) 44.9 (2006) 17
Infant Mortality Rate
(per 1,000 live births) 76 (2006) 18
Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000
live births) richest quintile 63 (1995) 2
Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000
live births) poorest quintile 109 (1995) 2
Under 5 mortality rate (%) 137 (2006) 18
Total Fertility Rate
(births per woman) 6.7 2006 18
Total Fertility Rate (births per
woman) richest quintile 5 1995 9
Total Fertility Rate (births per
woman) poorest quintile 7 1995 9
Adolescent Fertility Rate (births
per 1,000 women aged 15-19 204 2000 9
Maternal Mortality Ratio
(per 100,000 live births) 435 2006 18
Risk of unintended pregnancy
(% of married women aged 15-19) 29 2000 9
Contraceptive Prevalence
(% women aged 15-49) 23.7 2006 18
Births Attended by Skilled
Health Staff (% of Total) 46 2006 18
Morbidity (%) 30 26 2000 10
Wasted children (%) 4.5 2006 6.1 2006 17
Stunted children (%) 30.3 2006 34.1 2006 17
Education
Adult Literacy Rate (15+) 63 2003 77 2003 514
Young adult illiteracy rate
(15-25 years old) 27 2001 14 2001 1
Net Primary Enrolment Rate
(% of age group) 93 2006 90.4 2006 16
Primary 7 completion rate 42 2006 55 2006 16
Gross primary enrolment rate
(% of age group) 146 2000 162 2000 9
Gross secondary enrolment rate
(% of age group) 13 2000 20 2000 9
Completion rate for senior 4 22 2004 28 2004 16
Share of Tertiary Enrolments
gross (%) 1 2000 3 2000 9
HIV/AIDS
Adult HIV Prevalence
(% of age group 15-49) 6.4 (2005) 15
Females % of infected
adults population 55 1999 4
HIV Prevalence Rate in
Young People (15-24) 8 2000 4 2000 9
Adults (15-49) Living with HIV/AIDS 510,000 (2001) 4
Women Attending Antenatal Clinics in
major urban areas (% infected) 11 2000 4
Women Attending Antenatal Clinics
outside major urban areas
(% infected) 10 2000 4
Female Sex Workers / Male
STD patients in major
urban areas (% infected) 28 2000 4
ECONOMIC ASSETS: OPPORTUNITY
Labour Force Participation
Adult economic activity rate 79 2000 88 2000 8
Agricultural Labour Force % of total
female/malelabour force 79 2002 63.5 2002 9, 14
Industry Labour Force % of total
female/male labour force 6 2000 7 2000 9
Services Labour Force % of total
female/male labour force 3 2000 12 2000 9
* Daily agricultural wages (shs) 940 1,030 1997 11
Gender Intensity of Production
Agriculture labour force
(% female-male) 75 1997 25 1997 6
Industry labour force
(% female-male) 15 1997 85 1997 6
Services labour force
(% female-male) 32 1997 68 1997 6
Informal Sector employment
(% female-male) 50.6 1997 49.4 1997 6
PHYSICAL ASSETS: SECURITY
Access to improved drinking water
source (%) 51 (2005) 1, 14
Access to improved drinking water
source (%) Rural 61 (2005) 1, 14
Access to improved drinking water
source (%) Urban 70 (2005) 1, 14
Access to improved sanitation (%) 57 (2005) 1, 14
Access to improved sanitation (%)
Rural 58 (2005) 1, 14
Access to improved sanitation (%)
Urban 96 (2005) 1
Traditional energy use (%) 90 (1997) 1
Average hours worked per day 16 8 2002 12-
Land Ownership (%) 8 --
Access to Financial Services
(MFIs) (%) 69 31 2002 13
SOCIAL ASSETS: EMPOWERMENT
Representation in Parliament,
2006 (%) 29.8 2006 8
Representation in Cabinet, 2006 (%) 28 2006 7
Representation at Ministerial Level 14 2006 8
Household Headship (%) 27 2002 73 2002 3, 14
1 Sources: 1 GDF/WDI, 2 WDI 2001, 3 Human Welfare Indicators, 4
UNAIDS, 5 UNHS 2002/3, 6 Standardized Data Files, 7 IPU, 8
UNDP-Human Development Report, 9 gender statistics 10: UNHS 2000;
11: UNHS 199712 UNHS 2002/03--Mid Term Report; 13: Micro and small
Scale enterprise policy Unit, 2002/3;14: 2002 Housing and
Population Census; 15: HIV/AIDS Sero-Behavioural Survey 2004-05;
16. ESSAPR, 2006; 17 UDHS, 2006; 18 State of Uganda Population
Report 2007.
(c) Zambia
Female Male Total
Health
Maternal Mortality rate 729 2002
Infant Mortality 110 2000
Under five mortality 162 2000
Stunting in under fives 47% 2000
Underweight among under fives 28% 2000
HIV Prevalence 18% 13% 16%
Malaria Incidence per 1,000 394 2000
Empowerment
Women in Parliament (% of total) 16% 2006 84% 2006
Cabinet Ministers 24% 2004 76% 2004
Directors 23% 2004 77% 2003
District Commissioners 16% 2004 84% 2004
Labour force participation
Labour force participation rates 60% 2004 67% 2004 64% 2004
Informal sector employment 90% 2003 10% 2003 83% 2003
Formal employment 22% 2003 78% 2003 17% 2003
Agricultural labour force 76% 2004 63% 2004 69% 2004
Education
Net primary enrolment ratio 76 2001
Literacy rates 66% 2003 76% 2003
Gross enrolment grades 1-7 86% 2004 93% 2004
Completion rates 66% 2004 78% 2004
Poverty Status
Households below poverty line 71% 2004 66% 2004 68% 2004
Having at least 3 meals per day 36% 2004 45% 2004 43% 2004
Households using firewood for
cooking 56% 2004
Annex III Individuals Consulted (1) Egypt 1. Heba EL Laithy-Poverty Expert and Responsible for several PRS 2. Ghada Waly-UNDP Expert 3. Sherine Shawarby-World Bank Senior Economist 4. Hania Sholkany-Research Professor 5. Maha El Adawy UNDP 6. Madiha El Safty Professor of Sociology 7. Samir Radwan--IL 8. Hanaa Kheir El Din-Professor of Economics 9. Heba Handoussa HDR Principal Investigator (2) Uganda Contributed to gender analysis of macro-economic framework. Dr. Joanne Bosworth, Social Development Advisor DIFD--Kampala Office Ms Harriet Akullu, Action Aid International-Uganda Mr. Moses Kabanda, Finance Officer--Macro-department; Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development Contributed to the assessment of implementation of gender commitments in the PRSP Ms Mary Bitekerezo, Social Development Advisor--World Bank--Kampala Office Ms Catherine G. Kanabahita, Social Development Advisor, The Royal Netherlands Embassy-Uganda Ms Rosette Sayson Meya, Social Development Advisor, The European Union--Kampala Ms Femina Acuba, Social Scientist and Gender Focal Point, Department for Water Development--Uganda Ms Rita Sonko, Gender Officer-Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development Ms Edith Mwanje, Chairperson--Council for Economic Empowerment of Women (CEEWA-U) Ms Angella Basaasira, Research Assistant--Poverty Monitoring and Analysis Unit, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development Mr. Michael Wangusa, Programme Officer--Oxfam Great Britain-Uganda Office Mr. Moses Kiiza, Programme Officer-CEEWA-U Annex IV Statistical Tables
Annex Table E1: Distribution of Unemployed (15-64)
according to educational status, Region and Gender
Urban
Male Female Total
Hundreds % Hundreds % Hundreds %
Illiterate 224 3.5% 17 0.3% 241 2.0%
Read& Write 192 3.0% 16 0.3% 208 1.7%
Less than 362 5.7% 55 0.9% 417 3.4%
Intermediate
Intermediate 2999 47.3% 3251 55.0% 6250 51.0%
Intermediate 481 7.6% 476 8.1% 957 7.8%
and Less than
University
University 2076 32.8% 2096 35.5% 4172 34.1%
and above
Total 6334 100.0% 5911 100.0% 12245 100.0%
Rural
Male Female Total
Hundreds % Hundreds % Hundreds %
Illiterate 91 1.6% 16 0.2% 107 0.9%
Read& Write 57 1.0% 18 0.3% 75 0.6%
Less than 96 1.7% 57 0.9% 153 1.2%
Intermediate
Intermediate 3871 69.0% 5020 75.6% 8891 72.6%
Intermediate 261 4.7% 371 5.6% 632 5.2%
and Less than
University
University 1234 22.0% 1160 17.5% 2394 19.5%
and above
Total 5610 100.0% 6642 100.0% 12252 100.0%
Egypt
Male Female Total
Hundreds % Hundreds % Hundreds %
Illiterate 315 2.6% 33 0.3% 348 1.4%
Read& Write 248 2.1% 35 0.3% 283 1.2%
Less than 458 3.8% 112 0.9% 570 2.3%
Intermediate
Intermediate 6870 57.5% 8271 65.9% 15141 61.8%
Intermediate 742 6.2% 848 6.8% 1590 6.5%
and Less than
University
University 3309 27.7% 3256 25.9% 6565 26.8%
and above
Total 11942 100.0% 2555 100.0% 24497 100.0%
Source: CAPMAS (2006) Labour Force Sample Survey 2005
Annex Table E2: Distribution of Unemployed
(15-64) according to Age, Region and Gender
Urban
Male Female Total
Hundreds % Hundreds Hundreds %
15- 1249 19.7% 1008 17.0% 2257 18.4%
20- 3037 48.0% 2985 50.5% 6022 49.2%
25- 1521 24.0% 1318 22.3% 2839 23.2%
30- 404 6.4% 588 9.9% 992 8.1%
40- 100 1.6% 14 0.2% 114 0.9%
50- 22 0.3% 0 0.0% 22 0.2%
60-64 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total 6333 100.0% 5913 100.0% 12246 100.0%
Rural
Male Female Total
Hundreds % Hundreds % Hundreds %
15- 1715 30.6% 1954 29.4% 3669 29.9%
20- 2706 48.2% 2972 44.7% 5678 46.3%
25- 951 16.9% 1231 18.5% 2182 17.8%
30- 201 3.6% 469 7.1% 670 5.5%
40- 32 0.6% 18 0.3% 50 0.4%
50- 8 0.1% 0 0.0% 8 10.0%
60-64 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total 5612 100.0% 6643 100.0% 12255 100.0%
Egypt
Male Female Total
Hundreds % Hundreds % Hundreds %
15- 2963 24.8% 2962 23.6% 5925 24.2%
20- 5743 48.1% 5957 47.4% 11700 47.8%
25- 2472 20.7% 2549 20.3% 5021 20.5%
30- 605 5.1% 1056 8.4% 1661 6.8%
40- 132 1.1% 32 0.3% 164 0.7%
50- 30 0.3% 0 0.0% 30 10.0%
60-64 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total 11945 100.0% 12555 100.0% 24500 100.0%
Source: CAPMAS (2006) Labour Force Sample Survey 2005
Annex Table E3a: Distribution of Working Individuals (15-64)
according to work status, occupation and gender (All Egypt)
Male
Work
Status Paid Work Employer
Economic
Activity Hundreds % Hundreds %
Agriculture &
hunting 11330 11.68% 16179 59.86%
Fisher 437 0.45% 226 0.84%
Mining &
quarrying 262 0.27% 10 0.04%
Manufacturing 16656 17.17% 2263 8.37%
Electric, gas&
water 2263 2.33% 2 0.01%
Construction 12084 12.46% 1493 5.52%
Wholesale & retail
trade & repair 7331 7.56% 4251 15.73%
Hotels &
restaurant 2640 2.72% 631 2.33%
Transportation,
communications &
storage 8886 9.16% 672 2.49%
Financial
mediation 1288 1.33% 0 0.00%
Real estate &
business services 1866 1.92% 763 2.82%
Public Admin.&
defense 14427 14.87% 18 0.07%
Education 11277 11.63% 6.21 0.02%
Health &social
work 2314 2.39% 101 0.37%
Community, social
& personal services 3300 3.40% 342 1.27%
Domestic personal
services 396 0.41% 21 0.08%
International,
national
organizations
&foreign
embassies 27 0.03% 0 0.00%
Total 96989 100.00% 27028 100.00%
Male
Work Family worker
Status Self Employed (unpaid)
Economic
Activity Hundreds % Hundreds %
Agriculture & 78.68
hunting 2744 14.74% 10460
2.26
Fisher 604 3.24% 301
Mining & 0.00
quarrying 0 0.00% 0
4.18
Manufacturing 1302 6.99% 556
Electric, gas& 0.00
water 6 0.03% 0
1.67
Construction 2548 13.69% 222
Wholesale & retail 9.38
trade & repair 6690 35.93% 1247
Hotels & 1.03
restaurant 167 0.90% 137
Transportation,
communications & 1.82
storage 2965 15.93% 242
Financial 0.00
mediation 2 0.01% 0
Real estate & 0.22
business services 812 4.36% 29
Public Admin.& 0.05
defense 16 0.09% 6
0.02
Education 31 0.17% 2
Health &social 0.03
work 25 0.13% 4
Community, social 0.58
& personal services 626 3.36% 77
Domestic personal 0.05
services 12 0.06% 6
International,
national
organizations
&foreign 0.00
embassies 0 0.00% 0
100.00
Total 18617 100.00% 13294 0%
Source: CAPMAS (2006) Labour Force Sample Survey 2005
Annex Table E3b: Distribution of Working Individuals (15-64)
according to work status, occupation and gender (All Egypt)
Female
Work Status Paid Work Employer
Economic
Activity Hundreds % Hundreds %
Agriculture &
hunting 709 3.72% 1061 75.14%
Fisher 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Mining &
quarrying 15 0.08% 0 0.00%
Manufacturing 1278 6.70% 28 1.98%
Electric, gas&
water 182 0.95% 0 0.00%
Construction 131 0.69% 0 0.00%
Wholesale &
retail trade &
repair 733 3.85% 213 15.08%
Hotels &
restaurant 53 0.28% 12 0.85%
Transportation,
communications
& storage 448 2.35% 9 0.64%
Financial
mediation 402 2.11% 0 0.00%
Real estate &
business services 440 2.31% 35 2.48%
Public Admin.&
defense 4026 21.12% 2 0.14%
Education 7725 40.53% 3 0.21%
Health &social
work 2546 13.36% 36 2.55%
Community,
social &personal
services 259 1.36% 10 0.71%
Domestic
personal
services 84 0.44% 4 0.28%
International,
national
organizations
&foreign
embassies 8 0.04% 0 0.00%
Total 19062 100.00 1412 100.00
Female
Family worker
Work Status Self Employed (unpaid)
Economic
Activity Hundreds % Hundreds %
Agriculture &
hunting 4224 81.06% 11441 96.92%
Fisher 0 0.00% 9 0.08%
Mining &
quarrying 0 0.00% 2 0.02%
Manufacturing 127 2.44% 87
Electric, gas&
water 0 0.00% 0 0.74%
Construction 10 0.19% 10 0.00%
Wholesale &
retail trade &
repair 735 14.10% 214 0.08%
Hotels &
restaurant 10 0.19% 16 1.81%
Transportation,
communications
& storage 0 0.00% 7 0.14%
Financial
mediation 0 0.00% 0 0.06%
Real estate &
business services 53 1.02% 6 0.00%
Public Admin.&
defense 0 0.00% 0 0.05%
Education 12 0.23% 6 0.00%
Health &social
work 6 0.12% 2 0.05%
Community,
social &personal
services 28 0.54% 4 0.02%
Domestic
personal
services 2 0.04% 0 0.03%
International,
national
organizations
&foreign
embassies 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total 5211 100.00 11805 100.00%
Source: CAPMAS--2006 Labour Force Sample Survey 2005
Annex Table E4: Distribution of Working Individuals (15-64)
according to Sector; Gender, and Region
Urban
Male Female
Sector Hundreds % Hundreds %
Government 16007 24.3% 9426 66.5%
Public 4743 7.2% 556 3.9%
Private (inside) 25386 38.5% 2702 19.1%
Private (outside) 18765 28.5% 1319 9.3%
Investment 700 1.1% 115 0.8%
Others including
foreign &
cooperative 294 0.4% 54 0.4%
Total 65895 100.0% 14172 100.0%
Rural
Male Female
Sector Hundreds % Hundreds %
Government
Public 19443 21.6% 5000 21.4%
Private (inside) 3256 3.6% 184 0.8%
Private (outside) 13871 15.4% 1310 5.6%
Investment 52862 58.7% 16746 71.8%
Others including 407 0.5% 29 0.1%
foreign &
cooperative 194 0.2% 48 0.2%
Total 90033 100.0% 23317 100.0%
Egypt
Male Female
Sector Hundreds % Hundreds %
Government 35450 22.7% 14426 38.5%
Public 7999 5.1% 740 2.0%
Private (inside) 39257 25.2% 4012 10.7%
Private (outside) 71627 45.9% 18065 48.2%
Investment 1107 0.7% 145 0.4%
Others including
foreign &
cooperative 488 0.3% 103 0.3%
Total 155928 100.0% 37491 100.0%
Urban
Total
Sector Hundreds %
Government 25433 31.8%
Public 5299 6.6%
Private (inside) 28088 35.1%
Private (outside) 20084 25.1%
Investment 815 1.0%
Others including
foreign &
cooperative 348 0.4%
Total 80067 100.0%
Rural
Total
Sector Hundreds %
Government 24443 21.6%
Public 3440 3.0%
Private (inside) 15181 13.4%
Private (outside) 69608 61.4%
Investment 436 0.4%
Others including
foreign &
cooperative 242 0.2%
Total 1113350 100.0%
Egypt
Total
Sector Hundreds %
Government 49876 25.8%
Public 8739 4.5%
Private (inside) 43269 22.4%
Private (outside) 89692 46.4%
Investment 1252 0.6%
Others including
foreign &
cooperative 591 0.3%
Total 193419 100.0%
Source: CAPMAS (2006) Labour Force Sample Survey 2005
Annex Table E5: Distribution of Unemployed (15-64) according to
educational status, Region and Gender
Urban
Male Female
Hundreds % Hundreds %
Illiterate 224 3.5% 17 0.3%
Read & Write 192 3.0% 16 0.3%
Less than
Intermediate 362 5.7% 55 0.9%
Intermediate 2999 47.3% 3251 55.0%
Intermediate and
Less than
University 481 7.6% 476 8.1%
University and
above 2076 32.8% 2096 35.5%
total 6334 100.0% 5911 100.0%
Rural
Male Female
Hundreds % Hundreds %
Illiterate 91 1.6% 16 0.2%
Read & Write 57 1.0% 18 0.3%
Less than
Intermediate 96 1.7% 57 0.9%
Intermediate 3871 69.0% 5020 75.6%
Intermediate and
Less than
University 261 4.7% 371 5.6%
University and
above 1234 22.0% 1160 17.5%
total 5610 100.0% 6642 100.0%
Egypt
Male Female
Hundreds % Hundreds %
Illiterate 315 2.6% 33 0.3%
Read & Write 248 2.1% 35 0.3%
Less than
Intermediate 458 3.8% 112 0.9%
Intermediate 6870 57.5% 8271 65.9%
Intermediate and
Less than
University 742 6.2% 848 6.8%
University and
above 3309 27.7% 3256 25.9%
total 11942 100.0% 12555 100.0%
Urban
Total
Hundreds %
Illiterate 241 2.0%
Read & Write 208 1.7%
Less than
Intermediate 417 3.4%
Intermediate 6250 51.0%
Intermediate and
Less than
University 957 7.8%
University and
above 4172 34.1%
total 12245 100.0%
Rural
Total
Hundreds %
Illiterate 107 0.9%
Read & Write 75 0.6%
Less than
Intermediate 153 1.2%
Intermediate 8891 72.6%
Intermediate and
Less than
University 632 5.2%
University and
above 2394 19.5%
total 12252 100.0%
Egypt
Total
Hundreds %
Illiterate 348 1.4%
Read & Write 283 1.2%
Less than
Intermediate 570 2.3%
Intermediate 15141 61.8%
Intermediate and
Less than
University 1590 6.5%
University and
above 6565 26.8%
total 24497 100.0%
Source: CAPMAS (2006) Labour Force Sample Survey 2005
Annex Table E6: Additional budget for EHDR vision/MDG programs
sorted by type of funding, 2005 to 2015
Grants for
poverty Long-term
and loanable
employment funds
Cost Cost
L.E. L.E.
Program Billion Program Billion
Poverty 1.1, 30.4
1.2,
1.3, 1.4
Basic 2.2, 0.64
education 2.24
Health
Social 4.1 8.7
security
Small and 5.1, 0.96
medium 5.2, 5.6
enterprises
Agriculture 6.1 5.2
6.2, 6.3
Sanitation 7.1 8.0 7.1, 20.1
& water 7.8,
7.10
Housing & 8.1, 8.5 58.8
area
development
The vision
and
strategy
unit
Subtotal 47.1 85.7
by type of
funding
Capacity
building
for Human
service resource
delivery development
Cost Cost
L.E. L.E.
Program Billion Program Billion
Poverty
Basic
education
Health 3.1, 3.2 23.8
Social
security
Small and
medium
enterprises
Agriculture
Sanitation
& water
Housing &
area
development
The vision 9.1 0.06
and
strategy
unit
Subtotal 8.80 40.2
by type of
funding
Total
L.E.
Billion
Poverty 30.4
Basic 24.2
education
Health 23.8
Social 8.7
security
Small and 1.12
medium
enterprises
Agriculture 5.2
Sanitation 29.5
& water
Housing & 58.8
area
development
The vision 0.06
and
strategy
unit
Subtotal 181.0
by type of
funding
Annex Table U1: Occupation Type by sex and, Region
Annex Table U1: Occupation Type by sex and
Region
Region
Central Western Northern Eastern
Men
Professional 4.9% 5.1% 4.7% 4.9%
Admin 0.7% 0.1% 0.7% 0.7%
Clerical 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
Sales 5.6% 5.8% 5.4% 5.4%
Service 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9%
Crop 50.6% 50.5% 50.5% 50.2%
Livestock 3.2% 3.0% 3.9% 3.2%
Poultry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Forestry 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8%
Transport 4.3% 4.0% 3.9% 4.1%
Unskilled 3.7% 4.6% 4.6% 4.8%
Other 22.6% 22.7% 22.2% 22.5%
Women
Professional 1.8% 1.9% 1.5% 1.7%
Admin 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
Clerical 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%
Sales 5.3% 4.7% 3.8% 5.1%
Service 0.5% 0.1% 1.1% 1.3%
Crop 61.8% 63.3% 63.9% 61.3%
Livestock 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2%
Poultry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Forestry 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Transport 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6%
Unskilled 1.3% 1.1% 1.2% 1.3%
Other 26.7% 26.4% 25.7% 26.8%
Annex Table U2: Assets--Disaggregated by Gender and Marital
Status of Household
Poverty Dynamics and Assets Levels at 1992 and Asset Changes
(1992-1999)
Chronic Moving Out of
Poor Poverty
ASSETS MHH WHH MHH WHH
Asset Quantities--All
Households
Number of chickens
at 1992 1.93 1.82 1.73 1.26
Number of cows 1992 0.94 0.45 1.05 0.71
Number of pigs 1992 0.79 0.30 0.87 0.53
Number of goats 1992 1.84 1.58 1.55 1.37
Asset Changes--All
Areas
Increase in Land Area 27.1 -14.3 85.8 46.3
Average Land Area
Increases 0.77 -0.31 2.41 1.17
Increase in Chicken
Numbers 71.5 27.5 194.9 228.9
Average Increase in
Number of Chickens 1.38 0.50 3.38 2.88
Average increase in
Number of Cows -0.08 -0.30 -0.04 0.04
Calculations based on IHS/UNHS 1992/99 Panel
Moving Into Never In
Poverty Poverty
ASSETS MHH WHH MHH WHH
Asset Quantities--All
Households
Number of chickens
at 1992 1.57 1.07 1.75 1.42
Number of cows 1992 1.01 1.03 1.05 0.88
Number of pigs 1992 0.64 1.00 0.72 0.76
Number of goats 1992 1.55 0.63 1.73 1.01
Asset Changes--All
Areas
Increase in Land Area 6.3 -33.3 124.3 -3.7
Average Land Area
Increases 0.16 -0.75 3.53 -0.09
Increase in Chicken
Numbers 8.4 52.2 111.4 376.1
Average Increase in
Number of Chickens 0.13 0.56 1.95 5.34
Average increase in
Number of Cows -0.17 -0.25 0.69 -0.02
Calculations based on IHS/UNHS 1992/99 Panel
NOTE:--Gender of household head based on 1992 IHS
Annex Table U3: Assets--Disoggregated by Gender of Household
Head and Region
Region/Rural or
Urban
Variable Central Western Northern Eastern
MHH
Amount of land at 1999 6.50 4.05 4.34 3.32
Number of cows 1999 1.44 1.41 1.17 0.78
Number of chickens at 3.77 2.79 3.52 3.28
1999
Number of goats 1999 0.59 1.63 3.22 1.08
Agricultural Land Owned 3.59 4.42 3.71 2.60
2002/3
Cultivated Land 2002/3 1.90 1.23 1.73 1.36
WHH
Amount of land at 1999 1.93 3.13 2.62 2.43
Number of cows 1999 0.37 0.90 0.69 0.38
Number of chickens at 2.35 1.67 2.72 2.16
1999
Agricultural Land Owned 1.60 1.83 3.64 1.87
2002/3
Cultivated Land 2002/3 0.87 1.25 1.19 1.36
Variable Rural Urban
MHH
Amount of land at 1999 4.16 3.40
Number of cows 1999 1.48 1.03
Number of chickens at 3.05 1.27
1999
Number of goats 1999 1.74 1.00
Agricultural Land Owned 4.26 2.41
2002/3
Cultivated Land 2002/3 2.46 1.22
WHH
Amount of land at 1999 3.60 1.58
Number of cows 1999 0.97 0.74
Number of chickens at 1.94 9.77
1999
Agricultural Land Owned 2.53 1.77
2002/3
Cultivated Land 2002/3 1.64 0.67
Source UNHS 1999/00 & 2002/3
Table 12.9A Payments for service and satisfaction of patients for 3
major categories of health services at government facilities last
12 months-for patients admitted and not admitted, and by region
Consul Not Total patient respondents 383 497
tation admitted
Pct paying for service * 29.5% 31.4%
Pct satisfied with service * 80.7% 80.7%
Change in quality Improved 58.9% 62.4%
since 2000 * Same 32.7% 29.7%
Worsened 8.4% 7.9%
Admitted Total patient respondents 89 134
Pct paying for service * 47.0% 55.3%
Pct satisfied with service * 90.6% 81.0%
Change in quality Improved 65.9% 61.3%
since 2000 * Same 30.0% 26.8%
Worsened 4.1% 11.9%
Drugs Not Total patient respondents 902 1,215
admitted Pct paying for service * 34.0% 42.0%
Pct satisfied with service * 83.2% 83.6%
Change in quality Improved 60.5% 63.2%
since 2000 * Same 32.5% 27.2%
Worsened 7.0% 9.7%
Admitted Total patient respondents 224 283
Pct paying for service * 42.9% 59.1%
Pct satisfied with service * 78.9% 81.4%
Change in quality Improved 59.4% 66.9%
since 2000 * Same 30.8% 23.3%
Worsened 9.8% 9.8%
Immun Not Total patient respondents 568 940
ization admitted Pct paying for service * 7.2% 4.8%
Pct satisfied with service * 94.8% 96.3%
Change in quality Improved 62.9% 72.2%
since 2000 * Same 32.8% 24.3%
Worsened 4.3% 3.5%
Admitted Total patient respondents 75 123
Pct paying for service * 7.5% 11.3%
Pct satisfied with service * 94.2% 96.6%
Change in quality Improved 72.4% 74.5%
since 2000 * Same 17.1% 23.8%
Worsened 10.5% 1.8%
Consul Not Total patient respondents 487 459
tation admitted
Pct paying for service * 18.4% 11.2%
Pct satisfied with service * 74.9% 80.4%
Change in quality Improved 41.8% 58.6%
since 2000 * Same 36.3% 31.9%
Worsened 21.9% 9.4%
Admitted Total patient respondents 122 119
Pct paying for service * 23.8% 23.4%
Pct satisfied with service * 68.9% 80.5%
Change in quality Improved 43.0% 64.1%
since 2000 * Same 34.7% 25.5%
Worsened 22.3% 10.3%
Drugs Not Total patient respondents 1,088 1,189
admitted Pct paying for service * 19.7% 16.0%
Pct satisfied with service * 70.5% 80.9%
Change in quality Improved 46.2% 63.6%
since 2000 * Same 36.7% 30.4%
Worsened 17.1% 6.0%
Admitted Total patient respondents 279 274
Pct paying for service * 35.7% 33.6%
Pct satisfied with service * 71.4% 80.8%
Change in quality Improved 44.5% 59.6%
since 2000 * Same 35.4% 33.8%
Worsened 20.1% 6.6%
Immun Not Total patient respondents 678 714
ization admitted Pct paying for service * 3.0% 2.4%
Pct satisfied with service * 92.7% 96.1%
Change in quality Improved 57.5% 72.4%
since 2000 * Same 36.8% 25.6%
Worsened 5.7% 2.0%
Admitted Total patient respondents 84 88
Pct paying for service * 1.8% 10.8%
Pct satisfied with service * 96.7% 93.1%
Change in quality Improved 65.1% 73.1%
since 2000 * Same 29.9% 24.3%
Worsened 5.0% 2.6%
Consul Not Total patient respondents 1,826
tation admitted
Pct paying for service * 22.6%
Pct satisfied with service * 79.1%
Change in quality Improved 55.3%
since 2000 * Same 32.7%
Worsened 12.0%
Admitted Total patient respondents 464
Pct paying for service * 37.1%
Pct satisfied with service * 79.7%
Change in quality Improved 58.1%
since 2000 * Same 29.2%
Worsened 12.7%
Drugs Not Total patient respondents 4,394
admitted Pct paying for service * 28.6%
Pct satisfied with service * 79.7%
Change in quality Improved 58.5%
since 2000 * Same 31.5%
Worsened 9.9%
Admitted Total patient respondents 1,060
Pct paying for service * 43.3%
Pct satisfied with service * 78.3%
Change in quality Improved 58.0%
since 2000 * Same 30.5%
Worsened 11.5%
Immun Not Total patient respondents 2,900
ization admitted Pct paying for service * 4.4%
Pct satisfied with service * 95.1%
Change in quality Improved 66.9%
since 2000 * Same 29.2%
Worsened 3.9%
Admitted Total patient respondents 370
Pct paying for service * 8.2%
Pct satisfied with service * 95.3%
Change in quality Improved 71.6%
since 2000 * Same 24.1%
Worsened 4.4%
NSDS 2004 Household Survey Question 3.3. Patients that received
service from govt. hospitals or facilities last 12 months.
Counts of patients unweighted. All percentages are weighted column
percentages.
The questionnaire allowed up to 1 response per service
category per household.
Table 1.3.8. Crop extension services required and received
by area cultivated and by main activity, sex and education
of the head of household
Total households 2658 2528 1099 3957
indicating a
requirement 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Once a month 61.5% 57.3% 56.5% 60.4%
or more
Other frequency 38.5% 42.7% 43.5% 39.6%
Frequency of crop Did receive 11.6% 16.2% 24.0% 14.1%
extension service some visits
visits
Once a month 4.0% 5.3% 10.7% 5.4%
or more
Other 7.5% 10.7% 12.8% 8.6%
frequency
Total households 2880 5523 1230 1945
indicating a
requirement 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Once a month 57.6% 59.4% 59.2% 58.3%
or more
Other frequency 42.4% 40.6% 40.8% 41.7%
Frequency of crop Did receive 17.1% 15.4% 14.8% 11.3%
extension service some visits
visits
Once a month 6.2% 6.1% 4.0% 3.6%
or more
Other 10.7% 9.1% 10.8% 7.6%
frequency
Total households 2399 2336 6837
indicating a
requirement 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Once a month 61.1% 58.7% 59.2%
or more
Other frequency 38.9% 41.3% 40.8%
Frequency of crop Did receive 14.0% 19.6% 15.4%
extension service some visits
visits
Once a month 5.8% 7.0% 5.7%
or more
Other 8.0% 12.3% 9.5%
frequency
Questions 6.4.3, 6.6.2 and 6.6.5. Weighted percentages, unweighted
counts of households Because of missing answers, respondents in
columns do not add up horizontally to Total.
Annex Table U6: Reasons for dropping out by sex
Reason for dropping out 1999/00
Male Female Total
Cost 61 49 56
Sickness or calamity in family 7 12 10
Completed a desired level 5 0 3
Domestic work 4 4 4
Needed to work 2 4 3
Transport 2 2 2
Pregnancy -- 10 5
Other reasons 18 18 18
Total 100 100 100
Reason for dropping out 2002/03
Male Female Total
Cost 65 62 63
Sickness or calamity in family 8 4 6
Completed a desired level 4 4 4
Domestic work 2 2 2
Needed to work 4 1 3
Transport 0 0 0
Pregnancy -- 9 5
Other reasons 11 10 10
Total 100 100 100
Source: Uganda Bureau of Statistics
Annex Table U7: Sectoral Shares Integrated Expenditures
(% Budget estimates)
Sector 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03
Security 8.2 8.2 8.6
Roads and Works 12.3 12.4 11.2
Agriculture 4.0 4.8 5.2
Education 17.5 18.3 14.2
Health 9.8 11.2 11.2
Water and Sanitation 5.2 3.8 8.1
Law and Order 3.9 4.8 4.8
Accountability 0.7 0.8 0.7
Economic Functions 12.5 12.9 19.3
Public Sector Management 10.8 4.8 4.8
Administration 10.8 12.4 7.3
Interest payments due 4.2 5.5 4.8
Total (excl unallocated) 100 100 100
Sector 2003/04 2004/05
Security 9.7 11
Roads and Works 9.0 11.9
Agriculture 4.0 3.4
Education 13.9 18.3
Health 11.6 11.3
Water and Sanitation 6.9 3.3
Law and Order 4.5 5.2
Accountability 7.0 6.1
Economic Functions 15.8 9.3
Public Sector Management 4.7 5.2
Administration 6.1 7.3
Interest payments due 6.7 7.7
Total (excl unallocated) 100 100
Source: Poverty Status Report 2005
Annex Table Z1: Labour Force Participation Rates Among Persons
Aged 12 years and above by Sex, Rural/Urban Stratum and Province,
Zambia 2004
Both Sexes Male Females
All Zambia 64 67 60 6,696,391
Rural/Urban
Rural 70 69 70 3,954,673
Urban 55 63 47 2,741,718
Central 64 67 60 670,712
Copperbelt 55 64 46 1,053,901
Eastern 71 70 71 882,452
Luapula 72 71 73 513,840
Lusaka 56 66 47 983,142
Northern 70 70 71 840,205
North 63 62 64 398,884
Western
Southern 62 66 59 827,082
Western 66 66 66 526,173
Source: LCMS 2004
Annex Table Z2: Percentage distribution of employed persons aged
12 Years and above by Industry, Rural/Urban and Sex, Zambia
Type of Industry Total
Both Male Female
Sexes
All Zambia 10 10 100
0 0
Agric, forest & 69 63 76
fisheries
Min& Quarry 2 3 0
Manufacturing 4 5 3
Electricity 0 1 0
gas, water
Construction 1 3 0
Trade, 10 9 11
wholesale,
distribution
Hotels & 1 1 1
restaurants
Transport & 2 3 1
communication
Finance, 1 2 1
insurance &
real estate
Community, 9 11 7
social &
personal
services
Not stated 0 0
Type of Industry Rural
Both Male Female
Sexes
All Zambia 10 10 100
0 0
Agric, forest & 92 89 94
fisheries
Min& Quarry 0 1 0
Manufacturing 1 2 1
Electricity 0 0 0
gas, water
Construction 0 1 0
Trade, 2 2 2
wholesale,
distribution
Hotels & 0 0 0
restaurants
Transport & 0 1 0
communication
Finance, 0 0 0
insurance &
real estate
Community, 3 4 2
social &
personal
services
Not stated 0 0
Type of Industry Urban Total No. of
employed
Both Male Female
sexes
All Zambia 10 10 100 395,461
0 0 2
Agric, forest & 20 16 25 274,252
fisheries
Min& Quarry 4 6 1 62,601
Manufacturing 9 10 7 145,785
Electricity 1 2 1 18,219
gas, water
Construction 4 6 0 57,588
Trade, 28 22 35 400,134
wholesale,
distribution
Hotels & 2 2 2 32,874
restaurants
Transport & 6 8 2 83,343
communication
Finance, 4 4 3 50,568
insurance &
real estate
Community, 23 23 23 360,864
social &
personal
services
Not stated 0 0 116
Source LCMS 2004
Annex Table Z3: Percentage Distribution of employed persons aged 12
years and above by Occupation Rural/Urban and Sex Zambia, 2004
Type of Total Rural
occupation
Both Male Female Both Male Female
Sexes Sexes
All Zambia 100 100 100 100 100 100
Administrative, 1 1 0 0 0 0
managerial,
professional, 5 6 4 2 3 1
technical
and related
Clerical & 1 1 1 0 0 0
related
service
Sales 8 7 10 2 2 2
Agric, 69 63 76 92 89 94
forestry,
fisheries
Production 9 14 4 3 4 1
& related
Type of Urban Total No.
occupation Of
employed
persons
Both Male Female
Sexes
All Zambia 100 100 100 3,954,612
Administrative, 2 2 1 23,225
managerial,
professional, 13 13 12 212,481
technical
and related
Clerical & 4 3 4 51,491
related
service
Sales 23 16 33 324,801
Agric, 20 16 25 2,736,501
forestry,
fisheries
Production 23 32 11 361,774
& related
Sources LCMS 2004
Annex Table Z4: Enrolment in Basic Schools (Grades 1-9) by Gender
and Provice 2004
Male Female % (Female)
Central 142,058 133,897 48.5
Copperbelt 221,156 221,485 50
Eastern 142,374 132,280 48.2
Luapula 105,057 91,521 46.6
Lusaka 142,414 146,472 50.7
N. Western 81,435 72,569 47.1
Northern 196,426 146,472 46.1
Southern 182,402 171,543 48.5
Western 88,845 82,472 48.1
Total 1,302,167 1,220,211 48.4
Total Provincial
Total
National
Total
Central 275,955 10.9
Copperbelt 442,641 17.5
Eastern 274,654 10.9
Luapula 196,578 7.8
Lusaka 288,886 11.5
N. Western 154,004 6.1
Northern 364,398 14.4
Southern 353,945 14
Western 171,317 6.8
Total 2,552,378 100
Source: Ministry of Education
Annex Table Z5: High School (Glade, 10-12) Enrolments by Gender and
Province in 2004
Male Female % (F) Total % of Total
Central 8,123 6,411 44.1 14,534 9.1
Copperbelt 24,061 22,259 48.1 46,320 29.1
Eastern 8,147 5,290 39.4 13,437 8.4
Luapula 5,309 3,561 40.1 8,870 5.6
Lusaka 12,897 11,957 48.1 24,854 15.6
N.Western 5,646 3,779 40.1 9,425 5.9
Northern 9,488 5,832 38.1 15,320 9.6
Southern 9,790 7,403 43.1 17,193 10.8
Western 5,469 3,917 41.7 9,386 5.9
National 88,930 70,409 44.2 159,339 100.0
Source: Ministry of Education
Annex Table Z6: Teachers in high schools by gender and province
2003-2004
2003 2004 2004
Province Total Total Male Female Not stated
Central 717 656 492 201 3
Copperbelt 2368 2221 1343 860 18
Eastern 797 792 581 209 2
Luapula 356 474 416 58 0
Lusaka 1162 534 349 182 3
North Western 301 353 281 72 0
Northern 703 405 279 124 2
Southern 977 860 597 260 3
Western 499 387 295 91 1
National 7,880 6,682 4,593 2,057 32
Source Ministry of Education
Annex Table Z7: Sector shares of the PRSP Budget, 2002-2004
Sector Cost ($) Share of total
budget (%)
Roads 229,000,000 19.1
Health 200,150,000 16.7
Agriculture 173,000,000 14.4
Education 147,500,000 12.3
Energy 114,000,000 9.5
HIV/AIDS 94,600,000 7.9
Tourism 58,700,000 4.9
Water and Sanitation 42,400,000 3.5
Macroeconomic 38,200,000 3.2
Reforms/Institutions
Governance 27,000,000 2.3
Mining 26,600,000 2.2
Transport 22,000,000 1.8
Industry 12,500,000 1.0
Social Safety Net 9,000,000 0.8
Environment 3,000,000 0.3
Monitoring and 1,500,000 0.1
Evaluation/Statistics
Gender 976,000 0.1
Total 1,200,126,000 100.0
Source: Seshemani. V. 2002
Annex Table Z8: Allocations and Releases as percentage of
discretionary budget, 2003 and 2004
2003 2004
In Billions of Kwacha
Sector Budget Releases Budget Releases
Education 524.80 668 818 841.9
Health 392 419 365.3 426.6
Water and Sanitation 23.2 16 34.5 22.6
Other 16.5 43 84 80.5
Total 957.0 1,164 1,302.5 1,371.6
As percentage of discretionary budget
Education 18.7 19.7 21.7 22.7
Health 14.0 12.0 9.7 11.5
Water and Sanitation 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.6
Other 0.6 1.2 2.2 2.2
Total 34.1 33.4 34.5 36.9
2,803.0 3,483.2 3,775.5 3,714.4
Source: Economic Report 2004
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion