Pakistan PDF

European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences
ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 15 (2009)

© EuroJournals, Inc. 2009
http://www.eurojournals.com/EJEFAS.htm
The Impact of Gender Inequality in Education on Rural Poverty

in Pakistan: An Empirical Analysis
Imran Sharif Chaudhry

Associate professor, Department of Economics Bahauddin Zakariya University
Multan, Pakistan
E-mail: imranchaudhry@bzu.edu.pk
Saeed ur Rahman
PhD Scholar, Department of Economics Bahauddin Zakariya University
Multan Pakistan
E-mail: saeedurrahman16@yahoo.com
Abstract
The main purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of gender inequality in
education on rural poverty in Pakistan using Logit regression analysis on primary data sets.
It is concluded that gender inequality in education has adverse impact on rural poverty. The
empirical findings suggest that female-male enrolment ratio, female-male literacy ratio,
Female-male ratio of total years of schooling, female- male ratio of earners and education
of household head have significant negative impact on rural poverty. The results indicate
that household size and female-male ratio (members) have strong positive association with
the probability of poverty. The inverse relation between variables of gender inequality in
education and rural poverty suggests that education provides more employment
opportunities and rejects poverty in developing countries like Pakistan.
Keywords: Gender Inequality, Education, Rural Poverty, Logit Regression Modeling,

Pakistan
1. Introduction
Gender refers to socially constructed roles and responsibilities of women and men. The difference in
roles and responsibilities among women and men stems from our families, societies and culture. The
concept of gender includes our expectations about the characteristics, attitudes and behaviors of
women and men, and is vital in facilitating gender analysis. The different roles, rights and resources
that both the genders have in society are important determinants of the nature and scope of their
inequality and poverty. Inequality in access to resources between women and men is most common in
poor and developing countries. Gender inequality refers to inequality in conditions among women and
men for realizing their full human rights.
The status of women in Pakistan is somehow different from that of western countries. Gender is
one of the organizing principles of Pakistan's society. Home has been defined as a women legitimate
ideological and physical space where she performs her procreative role as a mother and wife while a
man dominates the world outside the home and performs his productive role as a breadwinner. Men
and women are conceptually divided into two separate worlds. The household resources are allocated
in the favour of sons due to their productive role. Male members of the family are given better
education and are equipped with skills to compete for resources in public arena, while female members
175 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences - Issue 15 (2009)
are imparted domestic skills to be good mothers and wives. They are given limited opportunities to
create choices for themselves in order to change the realities of their lives. Therefore, strong gender
disparities exist in educational attainment between rural and urban areas and among the provinces
(ADB, 2002).
Education is the most important instrument for human resource development. It has become a
universal human right and an important component of opportunities and empowerment of women. A
large number of empirical studies find that increase in women's education boosts their wages and that
returns to education for women are frequently larger than that of men. There are many empirical
evidences that, increase in female education improves human development outcomes such as child
survival, health and schooling (World Bank 2001, Schultz 2002, Strauss and Thomas 1995, King and
Hill, 1993, World Bank 2007). Klasen (2002) explored that lower female education had a negative
impact on economic growth as it lowered the average level of human capital. According to Knowles et
al (2002), in developing countries female education reduces fertility, infant mortality and increases
children's education.
Gender Inequalities in education exist in almost all poor countries and among the poor within
these countries. There has been a considerable increase in gender inequality in education in low income
countries over the last three decades (World Bank, 2001). Gender inequality is now considered as an
essential concept for the analysis and alleviation of poverty because of its adverse impacts on a number
of valuable development goals. Girl's access to education is influenced by poverty in various ways.
Recent evidence from West Africa suggests that Poverty has much contribution in gender inequality in
access to education (Okoijie, 1998; Okoijie, 2002; Appleton, 1996; Atolagbe, 1999).
Pakistan also exhibits considerable gender inequality in education. Strong gender disparities
exist in rural and urban areas and among the provinces. Pakistan is a patriarchal society where women
suffer all sorts of discrimination, resulting in low social, economic and political status in the society.
According to UNDP (1998), Gender gap is increasing in all social sectors of Pakistan. Pakistan ranks
120 in 146 countries in terms of Gender-related Development index, and in terms of Gender
Empowerment Measurement Ranking, it ranks 92 in 94 countries. Gender inequality in education can
be measured by many ways. Gross and net enrollment rates and completion and drop out rates are the
ways to identify the gender inequality in education. Pakistan aims to achieve Millennium Development
Goals and also aims to eliminate gender disparity at all levels of education by the year 2015. Pakistan
has made insufficient progress to decrease the gender gap in education. Elimination of gender disparity
at levels of education requires massive financial support to build educational and other infrastructure to
ensure the goal achievement.
There are many studies on gender inequality and its causes, effects and consequences. There is
a much literature available at national and international level on gender inequality in education and its
impacts and consequences. The review of some selected studies is as follows:
Siddique (1998) explored the gender issues in poverty alleviation in Bangladesh. The study
concludes that alleviation of poverty is not possible without empowering women. Reduction in women
poverty is possible by educating them. Empirical evidences confirm that inverse correlation exists
between the number of children born by women and level of education of these women. Educated
women are health conscious. He concluded that the level of women participation in education,
employment and other socio-economic and political activities was also very low. Vocational education
for women should be given top priority to alleviate poverty.
According to Arif et al. (1999), primary education is an important element of human capital and
plays an important role in economic growth and development of a country. Author determines the
impact of poverty on primary school enrolment in Pakistan and also analyzes the gender gap in
enrolment at primary level. Secondary data used in this study was taken from Pakistan Socio-
Economic Survey (PSES) of 1999. By using poverty line of Rs.705 per capita per month (based on cost
of basic needs), author examined the effect of poverty on primary school enrolment. Finally, by using
Logit technique, author concluded that the effect of poverty on male and female enrolment was alike
but this was not the case with income. The boy's enrolment in school was not influenced by income
while girl's chances of attending school depended on the availability of additional financial resources.
They also found out that primary school enrolment was very low about 49 percent in rural areas as
compared to 72 percent in urban areas and the more interesting thing was that the negative effect of
poverty on primary enrolment of girls in rural areas was greater than the urban areas.
Stromquist (2001) discussed poverty and its implications for education in Latin America. The
study examines aspects of national and international policy processes and gender educational
disparities in society. Author explained that policies adopted by Latin American government were
gender blind but the problem of gender access to school and attainment of education was still present.
Poverty exists in Latin America especially in rural areas because of some permanent local factors.
According to Castello and Domenech (2002), human capital inequality has negative effect on
economic growth. They used the data from the studies of Barro and Lee (1994), the data provided the
information about the school education attainment and average years of schooling. In that study the
attainment level was distributed in Quintiles, and a Gini co-efficient of capital inequality was
calculated. The findings show that change in indicators of human capital inequality is greater across the
countries than within the countries. The findings suggest that Inequality in education is due to the low
investment rate and low per capita income. Per capita income and the rate of human capital
accumulation were used as a yard stick to measure the economic growth.
Okojie (2002) has examined the linkages between gender of household, education and poverty
of household in Nigeria and used the data of National Consumer Expenditure Survey (NCES) of 1980,
1985, 1992 and 1996. Author has used FGT index to measure the headcount ratio, depth and severity
of poverty. He found out that in 1985 poverty was higher in male-headed households as compared to
female-headed households; in 1996 poverty was same in both male and female-headed households. In
1992 poverty was higher in female headed households than male-headed households. Results also
showed that the female-headed households experienced lower poverty but inequality was higher among
them. In Nigeria, education, rural-urban residence, household size and main economic activities have
major influence on welfare of households. Results of multivariate analysis showed that poverty in
female-headed households was greater than male-headed households, and with high level of education,
the probability of households being poor was decreased. Author suggests that majority of poverty
alleviation programs does not target the women and there is need to mainstream women into poverty
alleviation programs.
The higher earnings are associated with higher level of education. Nasir (2002) explored the
impact of human capital variables on the earnings of regular wage employees. The source of data is
Pakistan Integrated Household Survey 1995-96 which provides information on completed year of
schooling. Human capital model developed by Mincer (1974) and Becker (1964) was employed in that
study. The estimates reveal that for each additional year of schooling qualification there is
approximately 8 percent return for wage earner. Co-efficient of experience shows an increment for
both male and female workers for each additional year spent in the labor market. The effects of literacy
and numeracy skills are found less for female workers and greater and significant for male workers.
Male workers receive 10 percent higher wages than female workers for their skills. Female workers get
only 3 percent returns. The earnings of female workers are less than the male workers because of the
lack of experience and education.
Ahmad et al (2005) explored the relationship between inequality in the access to secondary
education and poverty in Bangladesh. In their analysis of household data from 60 villages, they
confirmed that inequality in the access to education existed at post primary level. The Marginal return
for upper secondary and primary level of education was found higher than for lower secondary
education. Poverty and low education have positive but weak effect on children/women ratio and
school participation rates are affected by the household’s income status and also by the education level
of father and mother. Majority of the poor are living in rural areas. It is confirmed in the regression
analysis that the poor in the rural areas have low income, low education, high fertility and low
investment in education. The most important result of this study is that poverty has negative impact on
the education of the poor.
Gender inequality in education directly and significantly affects economic growth. Chaudhry
(2007) investigated the impact of gender inequality in education on economic growth in Pakistan. The
secondary source of time series data drawn from various issues has been used. In his regression
analysis, he estimated a set of regressions which shows a moderate explanatory power. The variables,
overall literacy rate, enrolment ratio, ratio of literate female to male have positive and significant
impact on economic growth. It was found that gender inequality in initial education reduces economic
growth. The results in this study are consistent with those of Klasen (2002).
Klasen and Lamanna (2008) explored the impact of gender inequality in education and
employment on economic growth. They used cross-country and panel regression for growth, pioneered
by Barro (1991) and also used by others later on. They investigated a recent data of a large period from
1960 to 2000. They focused on long run economic growth. Their estimation strategy in this paper is
same as Klasen (2002). A number of regressors were included in that study which affected the
economic growth. They concluded that gender inequality in education and employment reduced
economic growth. The purpose of the paper was to update the findings by using an updated and
extended data of a long period.
Chaudhry (2009) investigated factors affecting rural poverty in Southern Punjab (Pakistan). He
concluded that alleviation of poverty is possible by lowering the household size and dependency ratio,
improving education, increasing female labor participation. He employed Logit regression models and
used primary source of data from the project area of Asian Development Bank for estimation. Results
indicate that as dependency level and household size increase the probability of being poor increases
too. Education has the significant inverse relationship with poverty because it provides employment
opportunities and rejects poverty.
The present study is different from all the above studies on Gender inequality in education and
its impact on poverty. The major objective of the present study is to analyze the impact of gender
inequality in education on rural poverty in Pakistan. The paper is organized as follows; Section II
briefly presents the profile of gender dimensions of education and poverty in Pakistan. Section III
describes the data and methodological issues. Section IV explains the results and discussion. Finally,
conclusions and policy implications are discussed in Section V.
II. Gender Dimensions of Education and Poverty in Pakistan

There are countless issues of education in Pakistan including low level of investment, cultural
constraints, poverty, gender and regional inequalities in budgetary allocation to education, low
enrollment rates due to poor condition of public schools, high population growth producing more
illiterates and poor, lack of implementation of educational policies. Violence against women, class
discrimination, poverty, lack of educational facilities, and various parallel education systems in
government and private education are the major emerging issues which should be dealt with
curriculum reforms and effective educational policies.
Over the period 2001-07 significant improvement took place in literacy across the genders and
regions. Overall literacy rate of population of age 10 years and above was increased from 45% in 2000-
01 to 53% in 2004-05 and 55% in 2006-07. Overall male literacy rate was increased from 58% in
2000-01 to 53% in 2004-05 and it was further increased to 55% in 2006-07. Overall female literacy
rate was only 32% in 2000-01. There was 8% increase in female literacy rate in 2004-05 as compared
to 2000-01. In 2006-07 the overall female literacy rate of 42% was obtained. In Urban areas of
Pakistan literacy rate was 64% in 2000-01, 71% in 2004-05 and 72% in 2006-07, while in rural areas
literacy rate was only 36% in 2000-01, 44% in 2004-05 and 45% in 2006-07. And adult literacy rate
was also simultaneously improved during this period. The adult literacy rate of population 15 years and
older was 52% in 2006-07. Female literacy rate was 38% and 65% males were literate in 2006-07
According to education Statistics 2007, there are 231289 institutions in the country out of
which 164579 are public and 81103 are private Out of these 231289 institutions (25% are for boys, 21
percent for girls and 53 percent fall in the category of mixed institutions. There are 34843200 students
enrolled and 1307541 teachers employed in these institutions. Education in Pakistan has and still
suffers from countless issues including poverty, cultural constraints and low level of public spending
etc. In every educational policy Government has set the target to achieve Universal Primary Education
(UPE), but the target is not achieved yet. Net Primary enrolment rate was 42% in 2000-01.It was
increased to 52% in 2004-05 and 57% in 2006-07. Gender gaps in rural primary education are higher
than in urban areas. Female-male enrolment at primary stage in urban and rural Pakistan is shown in
graph below. The number of enrolled female and male in millions are given against various years.
Primary enrolment in Urban by Gender
Source: Pakistan Education Statistics (various issues), SDPI (2008)
Primary enrolment in Rural by Gender
According to Pakistan Education Statistics 2006-07 the Net Enrollment Rate (NER) of the
middle stage (Age 10-12) was18 percent and Gross Enrollment Rate (GER) was 51percent in 2006-07.
The GER has increased slightly over the period. Gender gaps are higher in rural areas. The major
emphasis is given on strengthening foundations of first and second languages, mathematics, science,
and developing understandings of family, health, nutrition, environment and community. Female- male
enrollment at middle is shown in graph below. It is obvious from the graph that gender inequality in
middle enrolment is greater in rural areas as compared to urban areas of Pakistan.
Middle Enrolment in Urban by Gender
Middle Enrolment in Rural by Gender

The Gross Enrollment Rate (GER) at secondary stage in 2006-07 was 48% and the net
enrollment at matric level (13-14 years) was 10 percent in 2006-07. Rates of return from secondary
education are higher than from primary education. Gender disparities at secondary stage are also much
higher in rural areas as compared to urban areas as shown in graph below.
Secondary enrolment in Urban by Gender

Secondary enrolment in Rural by Gender
According to Academy of Educational Planning and Management (AEPAM), female

enrollment was found higher in 2006-07 with GPI index of value 1.9 and 11.23 million females were
enrolled at primary schools as compared to 5.8 million males. However, GPI for middle and high class
fell to 0.70. At the national level GPI for youth literacy (15-24 years) is 0.72. There was a sharp
increase in GPI for primary enrolment during 2002-03 to 2006-07 periods. (Pakistan Economic Survey,
2007-08).
Gender Parity Index (2006-07)
Source: Pakistan Education Statistics, 2007
Literacy Rates (10 Years and Older) of Rural by Provinces
Source: Pakistan Economic Survey (Various issues), SDPI (2008)
The above graph shows the highest literacy rate at 48 percent among females of rural areas of
Punjab and the lowest literacy rate at 22 percent among females of rural Balochistan in 2006-07. The
literacy rate among males in rural Punjab, Sindh and NWFP is the same i.e. 67 percent. The lowest
literacy rate at 58% prevails among males in rural Balochistan.
Poverty has emerged as a core issue and a central challenge for development to the Government
of Pakistan. There was a declining trend in poverty in Pakistan in the 1970s and 1980s.This declining
trend was reversed in the 1990s.The incidence of poverty was increased from 22-26.6 percent in
FY1991-1993 and 32.2-35 percent in FY1999 (Asian Development Bank, 2002). Different studies
show that poverty in rural areas of Pakistan is much greater than urban areas. Jamal and Ghaus Pasha
(2000), and Qureshi and Arif (2001) estimated that poverty head count measure was 32 percent in rural
areas and 27 percent in urban areas. Incidence of poverty was15 percent in urban areas nearly half of
the poverty estimates 28 percent of rural areas (World Bank, 2004-05). The incidence of poverty
reached 13 percent in urban which is less than half of poverty incidence of 27 percent in rural areas.
The population of Pakistan is about 160 million and GDP per capita is 925 US Dollars. Nearly
40 million people are still living below the national poverty line. The incidence of poverty is higher
among women as compared to men in Pakistan. The female labor force participation rate is low as
compared to male participation rate. There is lesser women participation in earning activity as
compared to men. In 1996-97 total participation rate was 28.7% out of which 47.0% are males and 9
percent are females. In 2005-06 the participation rate was increased from 28.7% to 32.2% out of which
50.3% are males and only 13.3% are females. Female have lack of resources and access to income
earning activities in Pakistan (Labor Force Survey, Various issues).
Majority of the females are earning less monthly income as compared to males in both urban
and rural areas of Pakistan. There are 14.4% employees having less than 1500 rupees, among them
46.2% employees are females and 9.5% are males in Pakistan. In urban areas 10.8% earners (34.0%
females and 7.5% males) have monthly income less than 1500 rupees and in rural areas 17.5% earners
(55.2% females and 11.2% males) have income less than 1500 rupees. There are 46.3% earners (24.0%
females and49.7% males) having monthly income 4000 rupees and above in Pakistan. In urban Areas
55.6% employees (37.7 females and 58.1% males) have monthly income more than 4000 rupees.
Similarly in Rural areas 38.3% employees (13.9% females and 42.3% males) are earning monthly
income more than 4000 rupees. Majority of the female in rural and urban areas of Pakistan belongs to
low income groups. So, there is a clear indication that feminization of poverty or gender Inequality
exists in both urban and rural areas of Pakistan.
III. Data and Methodological Issues

Data can be classified as primary, secondary and tertiary. The core of any research work depends upon
the data collection, analysis of and interpretation of the results. The empirical analysis of this study is
based on primary source of data collected through a household survey from the villages of Muzaffar
Garh district of Punjab Province of Pakistan. The survey is based on simple random sampling and
stratified random sampling techniques. Information was collected from the household head and other
family members from 10 villages of three tehsils (Muzaffar Garh, Ali Pur and Jatoi) of District
Muzaffar Garh. The format of the household survey questionnaire has covered various household's
village specific and socio economic characteristics and information were collected through interview of
the selected informants and direct questioning of household head and other members of target
population. The survey was conducted in the months of November-December, 2008.
District Muzaffar Garh is situated in the south of Punjab province of Pakistan. It is situated
between the two rivers, Indus and Chenab. It forms a strip between these two rivers. The District is
bounded on the south by Bahawalpur and Rahimyar Khan, on the east by Multan across the river
Chanab. On the west by Dera ghazi khan across the river Indus and on the north newly created district
Layyah is situated. Muzaffar Garh District comprises of four tehsils namely Muzaffar Garh, Ali pur,
Kot Addu and Jatoi. The area of the district is 8249 square kilometers and the population is almost 2.8
million. The rural areas are mostly characterized by scattered population. The overall literacy rate of
population age 15 and above is 33 percent, out of which 46.22 percent males and 19.06 percent
females. The overall literacy rate among the rural population of age 10 years and above is 31 percent
(47 % male and 14 % females). Muzaffar Garh ranks 34 in 35 districts of Punjab province in terms of
overall male-female literacy rate (Planning & Development, 2003-04).
As far as methodological issues are concerned, we considered official poverty line of Rs.944.47
per adult equivalent per month in 2005-06. This poverty line is updated by making CPI inflation
general index for the year 2007-08 and is resulted as Rs. 1140.05. This is also called an official poverty
line as developed by the planning commission, government of Pakistan. In this study, we have
calculated the incidence of poverty by the well known method of Head Count Ratio. The empirical
analysis of the impact of gender inequality in education on rural poverty is carried out by employing
Logit Model. In a Logit Regression Model, the explained or endogenous variable is a categorical or
dummy variable with 1 if household is poor and 0 if the household is non poor. The present study
considered some significant quantitative explanatory variables. The list of the selected variables for
Logit model analysis is given below in table 1.
Table 1: List of Variables for Logit Model Analysis of the Impact of Gender Inequality in Education on
Rural Poverty
Variable Description of Variables

Explained Variable
= 1If household is poor
POV
= 0 If household is non-poor
Explanatory Variables
HSZ Size of the Household
Gender of Household head
GHH =1 if household head is male
=0 if female
= 1 If household head is literate
EDHH
= 0 If household is illiterate
AGHH Age of household head in years
FMRM Female-male ratio (member)
FMLR Female-male literacy ratio
FMER Female-male enrollment ratio of age 6-10years
FMEE Female-Male enrollment ratio of age 11-21years
FMTS Female-male ratio of total number of years of schooling of population,10 years and above
FMTSC Female-male ratio of total number of years of schooling of population, 25 years and above
FMRE Female-male ratio of earners
DTS Distance to school from a household in kilometers
= 1 If household has any physical asset
ASST
= 0 if household has no asset
LHOL Land holding per household (area in acres)
Our hypothesis is that female-male literacy ratio (FMLR), Female-male enrolment ratio of age
6-10 years (FMER), female-male enrolment ratio of age 11-21years (FMEE), female-male ratio of total
years of schooling of population age 10 years and above (FMTS), female-male ratio of total years of
education of population age 25 years and above (FMTSC), education of household head (EDHH), age
of household head (AGHH) and female-male ratio of earners (FMRE) have negative or inverse impact
on poverty. Female-male ratio of members (FMRM) and household size (HSZ) have positive impact
on poverty based theory and literature.
IV. Results and Discussions

We have discussed earlier that gender inequality in education and poverty is wide spread in the rural
areas as compared to urban areas of Pakistan. Gender inequality is a universal phenomena but its form
varies across countries. This study is based on the primary source of data. We have carried out
descriptive, correlative and empirical analysis of data. The descriptive statistics of variables are given
below in table 2: The first column shows the list of variables. The number of observations, values of
mean and standard deviations are placed in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th column respectively.
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Selected Variables
Variables Mean St. Dev

Age of household head 40.821 10.974
Gender of household head 0.9602 0.1960
Education of household head 0.5473 0.4990
Household size 5.483 1.995
Female-male ratio (members) 1.0060 0.6728
Female-male literacy ratio 0.633 1.794
Female-male enrollment ratio of age 6-10 years 0.2923 0.4631
Female-male enrollment ratio of age 11-21 years 0.3578 0.5269
Female-male ratio of earners 0.1915 0.3720
Female-male ratio of total years of schooling of population of age 10 years and above 0.3497 0.5739
Female-male ratio of total number of years of schooling of population, 25 years and above 0.2323 0.4196
Distance to school from a household in kilometers 2.896 3.474
Asset Holding 0.3284 0.4708
Land holding per household (area in acres) 3.30 14.77
Poverty 0.4677 0.5002
We have also carried out correlation analysis of primary source of data. The primary objective
of the correlation analysis is to measure the strength or degree of linear association between the two
variables. However these two variables are assumed to be random. There is exact linear relationship
between the variables; almost all the correlation coefficients have expected positive or negative signs
and the correlation between the variables is not much higher. The correlation coefficients are given
below in the table 3:
Table 3: Results of Pearson Correlation Coefficients of Selected Variables
AGHH GHH EDHH HSZ FMRM FMLR FMER FMEE

GHH -0.143
EDHH -0.189 0.224
HSZ 0.453 0.164 0.035
FMRM -0.073 -0.219 0.170 -0.038
FMLR 0.080 0.072 0.034 -0.030 0.007
FMER 0.125 0.129 0.246 0.281 0.014 0.157
FMEE 0.164 0.139 0.231 0.094 0.027 0.128 0.228
FMRE 0.220 0.071 0.162 0.115 -0.006 0.082 0.253 0.485
FMTS 0.117 0.124 0.236 0.175 0.002 0.220 0.269 0.494
FMTSC 0.156 0.113 0.333 0.293 0.084 0.087 0.399 0.411
DTS 0.131 0.108 0.114 0.093 -0.048 0.019 0.040 0.354
ASST 0.160 0.088 0.232 0.065 -0.045 0.105 0.435 0.547
LHOL 0.113 0.021 0.144 0.102 0.056 0.038 0.208 0.370
POV -0.056 -0.115 -0.329 0.108 0.112 -0.227 -0.437 -0.524
FMRE FMTS FMTSC DTS ASST LHOL
FMTS 0.166
FMTSC 0.321 0.179
DTS 0.083 0.182 0.189
ASST 0.412 0.335 0.337 0.209
LHOL 0.124 0.208 0.155 0.473 0.302
POV -0.379 -0.360 0.267 -0.108 -0.592 -0.198
In our empirical analysis the dependent variable is poverty which is a categorical or dummy
variable, that's why we have used Logit Regression Model to analyze the impact of gender inequality
in education on rural poverty. The estimates of the Logit Model are given below in table 2.
Table 4: Estimates of the Logit Model Analysis of the Impact of Gender Inequality in Education on Rural
Poverty
Explanatory Variables Coefficient Z-statistics Odds ratio

Constant -2.404** -2.08 -
HSZ 0.5044* 3.83 1.66
FMRM 1.0072* 2.81 2.72
FMEE -2.5540* -3.56 0.08
FMER -2.7236* -3.70 0.07
FMLR -1.1964*** -1.65 0.30
EDHH -1.1094** -2.24 0.33
GHH -1.1424 1.16 0.13
Number of Observations = 201, Log likelihood = -69.696
Test that all slopes are zero: G = 138.411, DF = 7, P-Value = 0.000
Notes: * Indicates that coefficients are significant at the 1 percent level.
** Indicates that the coefficients are significant at the 5 percent level.
*** Indicates that the coefficients are significant at the 10 percent level.
The results in table 4, suggest that the coefficients on HSZ, HMRM, FMEE, FMER, FMLR and
EDHH are significant at 1percent to 10 percent level and have signs in accordance with our hypothesis.
The coefficient of GHH has the expected sign but is not significant variable.
Household size is significant and having positive impact on poverty. The higher the household
size, the higher the probability of being poor. Female-male ratio of member or sex ratio is significant at
10 percent confidence level with an odd ratio of more than 1 which confirms the positive relation with
the probability of being poor. As females in rural areas are work evader because of customs and
religious norms that's why the increase in female-male ratio of member in a household represents lower
ratio of female-male earner.
Female-male enrolment ratio of population of age 11-21 years (FMEE), Female-male

enrolment ratio of population of age 6-10 years (FMER), female-male literacy ratio (FMLR) and
education of household head (EDHH) have significant negative impact on poverty. These variables
with expected signs are suggesting that with the increase in female-male enrolment ratio of population
of age 6-10 years, female-male enrolment ratio of population of age 11-21 years and female-male
literacy ratio, the probability of a household poverty decreases. The literate household heads also have
very low probability of being poor.
Poverty

Constant -1.3697*** -1.86 -
HSZ 0.4155* 3.51 1.52
FMRM 0.7791** 2.2 2.18
FMTS -1.9203* -3.47 0,15
DTS 0.1493 1.29 1.16
ASST -3.5058* -4.68 0.03
LHOL -0.2376*** -1.63 0.79
EDHH -1.2938** -3.01 0.27
Table 5 represents that the coefficients of HSZ, FMRM, FMTS, ASST, LHOL and EDHH have
expected signs and are significant variables. The coefficient of DTS has expected positive sign but not
significant variable. Female-male ratio of total years of schooling or ratio of total years of educational
qualification of female-male population of age 10 years and above (FMTS) has significant negative
impact on poverty. Incidence of poverty declines with the increase in ratio of years of education. It is
suggested that the increase in the ratio in a household will result in the reduction of poverty of that.
Land holding (LHOL) and asset holding (ASST) also possess negative coefficient sign and are
significant variables indicating inverse relation with poverty with the odds ratio of 0.79 and 0.27
respectively. The household in rural areas having any physical asset or land holding are not poor. More
over if the household head is literate he can utilize his resources in a best way and rejects poverty.
Poverty
Constant 2.323** 2.01 -
AGHH -0.05715** -2.98 0.94
GHH -1.4115 -1.53 0.24
EDHH -1.3463* -3.75 0.26
FMTSC -1.4917** -2.88 0.22
DTS 0.02553 -0.42 0.97
HSZ 0.4259* 3.82 1.53
The Estimates of the Logit Model indicates that GHH and DTS are not significant variables
although these variables have correct or expected sign. Female-male ratio of total years of school
qualification of population 25 years and above (FMTSC) is significant at 10 percent level of
confidence and has expected negative sign. The negative coefficient sign of variable, FMTSC indicates
that higher ratio of total years of schooling lowers the probability of poverty. Age of household head
(AGHH) is also a significant variable but showing inverse relation with poverty. The negative sign of
AGHH indicates that with the increase in age of household head the probability of poverty of the
household will decrease. HSZ has also significant impact on dependent variable.
Poverty

Constant 1.0829* 2.82 -
FMLR -2.1609* -4.38 0.12
FMRM 0.8276*** 2.58 2.29
FMRE -1.6108** -2.05 0.2
EDHH -0.7818*** -1.88 0.46
FMER -1.5153* -2.64 0.22
The Logit estimates in the above table indicate that female-male ratio of earner or worker
(FMRE) has significant negative impact on poverty. FMRE is the ratio of number of female and male
workers to numbers of adult female and male in a household. It has the inverse relation with
probability of being rural poor at 5 percent level of significance. FMER, EDHH, FMLR and FMRM
have also expected sign and significant impact on poverty. The odds ratios are also included in all the
above tables for the explanation of the impact of a unit change in an explanatory variable on the odds
of being poor. Odds ratio is the ratio of the probability of being poor over the probability of being non
poor.
V. Conclusion and Policy Implications

Keeping in view the importance of issue of gender inequality in education, the present study has
attempted to analyze the impact of gender inequality in education on rural poverty in Pakistan by using
cross-sectional data and Logit regression analysis. The main findings of the empirical analysis of cross-
sectional data are as follows.
i. Gender Inequality in education has significant impact on rural poverty. Female-male enrolment
ratio, female male literacy ratio, female-male ratio of total years of schooling of population,
education of household head, female-male ratio of earners, age of household head, asset
holding and land holding are significant variable having negative impact on the probability of
being rural poor.
ii. Household size and female-male ratio of members or sex ratio have strong positive relation
with the rural poverty and the large presence of these variables increase the probability of being
poor.
It is concluded that the incidence of poverty is higher in households with lesser number of
enrolled or literate females, low educational qualification of females, greater number of females, low or
no female participation in earning activity, illiterate household head and large household size. Poverty
is also influenced by physical asset and landholding. These findings of the study suggest the
importance of a set of policies helpful for poverty alleviation and sustainable development. The policy
implications are as follows.
i. Since female literacy is important for poverty alleviation, female education can be increased
with the help of private education sector.
ii. There is a need to increase the public expenditures on female education in order to achieve
gender equity at all levels.
iii. Promotion of Self employment opportunities for women at regional level may be helpful to
reduce the levels of poverty.
iv. In order to control over population, there is need to re-address population policies.
v. Government should adopt sustainable development strategies for the improvement of socio-
economic status of educated women.
vi. For the elimination of gender inequality in education at all levels and to achieve the
Millennium Development Goals, there is an ardent need to develop education and other
infrastructural facilities without gender bias.
References
1] Ahmad, A., Hossain, H., Mahabub and L., Manik (2005), "Inequality in the Access to
Secondary Education and Rural Poverty in Bangladesh: An Analysis of Household and School
Level Data", Paper presented at the Workshop on Equity and Development in South Asia
organized by the World bank in 2004, New Dehli, India.
2] Arif, G.M., Saqib, U.S., and G.M. Zahid (1999), "Poverty, Gender, and Primary School
Enrolment in Pakistan", The Pakistan Development Review, Volume. 38. No.4, pp. 979-992
3] Asian Development Bank and office of Environment and Social Development (2000), "Women
in Pakistan: Country briefing Paper", July, 2002
4] Castella, A. and Domanech, R. (2002), "Human Capital Inequality and Economic Growth:
Some New Evidence", The Economic Journal, Vol.112, No.478, Conference paper, (Mar., 2002
5] Chaudhry, I.S. (2007), "Impact of Gender Inequality in Education on Economic Growth: An
Empirical Evidence from Pakistan", The Pakistan Horizon Vol.60, No.4, 2007
6] Chaudhry, I.S. (2009), " Poverty Alleviation in Southern Punjab (Pakistan): An Empirical
Evidence from the Project Area of Asian Development Bank", International Research journal of
Finance and Economics, issue.23, (2009)
7] Government of Pakistan (2006-07), Pakistan Economic Survey, Finance Division, Islamabad,
Various Issues
8] Government of Pakistan, Pakistan Education Statistics 2005-06
9] Government of Pakistan, Population Household integrated Survey 2001-02
10] Government of Pakistan, "Pakistan: Country Gender Profile", Sustainable Development Policy
Institute Islamabad, Pakistan
11] Jamal, Haroon and Aisha, Ghaus-Pasha (2000), "Alarming Level of Poverty in Pakistan", the
News International, Monday, March 20, 2000
12] Japan Bank for International Cooperation (2007), "Poverty profile: Islamic Republic of
Pakistan
13] Klasen, Stephan (1999). “Does Gender Inequality Reduce Growth and development? Evidence
from Cross-Country Regressions”, Policy Research Report On Gender and Development
Working Paper Series, No. 7. Development Research Group /PREMN, the World Bank
14] Klasen, Stephan (2002). Low Schooling for Girls, Slower Growth for All? Cross-Country
Evidence on the Effect of Gender Inequality in Education on Economic Development”, The
World Bank Economic Review 16(3): 345-373.
15] Klasen,S. and Lamanna, F. (2008), " The Impact of Gender Inequality in Education and
Employment on Economic Growth in Development Countries: Updates and Extentions
16] Knowles, Stephen, Paula K. Lorgelly, and P. Dorian Owen (2002) “Are EducationalGender
Gaps a Brake on Economic Development? Some Cross-Country Empirical Evidence”, Oxford
Economic Papers, 54(1): 118-149.
17] Nasir, M.Z. (2002), "Returns to Human Capital in Pakistan: A Gender Disaggregated
Analysis", The Pakistan Development Review, Vol.41.No.1 (spring 2002) pp.1-28
18] Okojie, C.E.E. (2002), "Gender and Education as Determinants of Household Poverty in
Nigeria", Discussion paper presented at Wider Development Conference
19] Qurashi, Sarfraz K., and G.M. Arif (2001), "Profile of Rural Poverty in Pakistan", The Pakistan
Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad, (MIMAP Technical Report No.2).
20] Schultz, T. Paul. 2002. “Why governments should invest more to educate girls.” World
Development 30(2): 207-225.
21] Siddique, M.A.B. (1998), "Gender issues in poverty alleviation: a case study of Bangladesh",
International Journal of Social Economics, Vol.25 No.6/7/8,1998, pp.1095-1111, MCB
University press
22] Stromquist, N.P. (2001), "What poverty Does to Girls' Education: the intersection of class,
gender and policy in Latin America", Compare, Vol.31, No.1, 2001"
23] UNDP (1998), Poverty Report, Islamabad, Pakistan
24] UNDP (1998), "Statement on Gender in Pakistan"
25] World Bank.2001, Engendering development: Through gender equality in rights, resources, and
voice. New York: Oxford University Press.
26] World Bank, Engendering Development: through gender equality in rights, resources, and voice
27] World Bank 2007, "Gender inequality, poverty and economic growth"
28] World Bank policy research report, Washington, D.C. and New York: World Bank and Oxford
University Press, 2001

Pakistan PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Pakistan PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences

ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 15 (2009)

The Impact of Gender Inequality in Education on Rural Poverty

Imran Sharif Chaudhry

Keywords: Gender Inequality, Education, Rural Poverty, Logit Regression Modeling,

II. Gender Dimensions of Education and Poverty in Pakistan

Primary enrolment in Urban by Gender

Source: Pakistan Education Statistics (various issues), SDPI (2008)

Primary enrolment in Rural by Gender

Source: Pakistan Education Statistics (various issues), SDPI (2008)

Source: Pakistan Education Statistics (various issues), SDPI (2008)

Middle Enrolment in Rural by Gender

Source: Pakistan Education Statistics (various issues), SDPI (2008)

Secondary enrolment in Urban by Gender

Source: Pakistan Education Statistics (various issues), SDPI (2008)

Source: Pakistan Education Statistics (various issues), SDPI (2008)

According to Academy of Educational Planning and Management (AEPAM), female

Source: Pakistan Education Statistics, 2007

Literacy Rates (10 Years and Older) of Rural by Provinces

Source: Pakistan Economic Survey (Various issues), SDPI (2008)

III. Data and Methodological Issues

Variable Description of Variables

IV. Results and Discussions

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Selected Variables

Variables Mean St. Dev

AGHH GHH EDHH HSZ FMRM FMLR FMER FMEE

Explanatory Variables Coefficient Z-statistics Odds ratio

Female-male enrolment ratio of population of age 11-21 years (FMEE), Female-male

Explanatory Variables Coefficient Z-statistics Odds ratio

Explanatory Variables Coefficient Z-statistics Odds ratio

V. Conclusion and Policy Implications

S-ar putea să vă placă și