The Myanmar Agrifood Program for Strategy and Analysis Key Indicator Dashboard (MAPSA - KID) provides updates on key indicators on household welfare and agricultural performance in Myanmar to monitor the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, political instability, and other global shocks.
The economic disruptions caused by the dual crises of the COVID-19 pandemic and political instability have resulted in unprecedented challenges for the people of Myanmar. At the same time, critical information necessary for targeting scarce resources to the benefit of the most vulnerable population is limited. In light of these knowledge gaps, the Myanmar Agriculture Policy Support Activity is implementing the Myanmar Household Welfare Survey (MHWS) and the Myanmar Agricultural Performance Survey (MAPS) to track household and individual welfare, agricultural production, and economic activities representative at the national, urban/rural, and state/region levels.
MAPSA-KID serves as a monitor of key household welfare and agricultural performance trends in Myanmar. The indicators are representative at the national, urban/rural, and state/region levels. The current indicators represent data collected from the first four rounds of the MHWS conducted between December 2021 and December 2022. Data from these rounds are publicly available.
| Round | Dates | Sample Size | Dataset |
| 1 | Dec 17, 2021 – Feb 13, 2022 | 12,100 | Download Data |
| 2 | Apr 7, 2022 – Jun 24, 2022 | 12,142 | Download Data |
| 3 | Jul 8, 2022 – Aug 10, 2022 | 12,128 | Download Data |
| 4 | Oct 12, 2022 – Dec 30, 2022 | 12,924 | Download Data |
For more information or to share your comments, please contact IFPRI-Myanmar@cgiar.org.
Deleted:
Deleted:
Indicator Definitions
| %HH Negatively Affected by Violence | Percentage of households that were negatively affected by violence in the last 3 months |
| %HH who Feel Physical Insecurity | Percentage of households that describe their overall physical security as insecure in their area |
| %HH by Food Consumption Category |
The Food Consumption Category (FCG) categorizes households based on their “Food consumption score” (FCS). FCS is calculated using the frequency of consumption of different food groups consumed by a household during the 7 days before the survey. There are standard weights for each of the food groups that comprise the food consumption score. Categories |
| %HH by Household Hunger Scale (Categories) |
The Household Hunger Scale is a categorical measure of households' food deprivation, derived from the Household Hunger Score. Categories Source: Household Hunger Scale (HHS): Indicator Definition and Measurement Guide |
| %HH Receiving Assistance | Percentage of households that received gifts, donations, pensions or assistance in the last 3 months |
| %HH Receiving Remittances | Percentage of households that received remittances in the last 3 months |
| %HH Reduced Food Expenditures to Cope with Lack of Food or Money | Percentage of household who reduced food expenditures to cope with a lack of food or money |
| %HH Reduced Non-Food Expenditures to Cope with Lack of Food or Money |
Percentage of households who reduced non-food expenditures to cope with a lack of food or money |
| %HH Reduced Health-related Expenditures to Cope with Lack of Food or Money | Percentage of household who reduced health-related expenditures to cope with a lack of food or money |
| %Individuals who are Asset Poor | Individuals with less than 3 out of the ten following assets: flush toilet, improved water source (piped into house or bottled water), improved housing (semi-pucca, bungalow/brick, apartment/condominium), grid-based electricity (not solar), rice cooker, fridge, TV, wardrobe, car/motorcycle/tuk-tuk and working computer/laptop/iPad.
Source: Poverty Measurement by Phone |
| %Individuals who are Income Poor |
Individuals with a daily income per adult equivalent less than the total (food+nonfood) poverty line. The poverty line is temporally and spatially updated from the 2017 to provide rural and urban poverty lines for each state/region. At the national level the total (food+nonfood) poverty line is 2,234 kyat per adult equivalent per day. Source: Poverty Measurement by Phone |
| %HH with No Income or Employment | Percentages of households that did not have any income or employment in the last 30 days |
Data
The Myanmar Household Welfare Survey is a nationwide phone panel consisting of 12,100 households. The survey intends to monitor household and individual welfare through a range of different indicators including wealth, livelihoods, food insecurity, diet quality, health shocks, and coping strategies. A novel sampling strategy in combination with the development of household and population weights allows for estimates that are nationally, regionally, and urban/rural representative.
The Myanmar Agriculture Performance Survey (MAPS) is conducted on a sub-sample of 5,465 farming households in Myanmar focused on their agricultural activities. MAPS asks farmers detailed questions on their background, input use and input prices, farm management practices, rice output and output prices, and natural and other shocks during the monsoon of 2020 and 2021. A weighting factor was calculated building on the method used for the MHWS to assure representativeness at the state/region level assure that crop farmers are representative of the farming population at the national, urban/rural, and state/region levels.
For more information on the sampling design and weighting of this survey, please see Phone surveillance, from scratch: Novel sample design of the nationally representative Myanmar Household Welfare Survey (MHWS).
Relevant Publications
Two assessments are published for each round of the Myanmar Household Welfare Survey:
This work was undertaken as part of the Feed the Future Myanmar Agrifood Program for Strategy and Analysis (MAPSA) led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in partnership with Michigan State University (MSU). This study was made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency of International Development (USAID), under the terms of Award No. AID-482-IO-21-000x. Additional funding support for this study was provided by the Livelihoods and Food Security Fund (LIFT).
