The fifth round of the Myanmar Household Welfare Survey (MHWS), a nationally and regionally representative phone survey, was implemented between March and June 2023. It follows from four rounds that were carried out quarterly beginning in December 2021. This report discusses the findings from the fifth round related to livelihoods, shocks, asset and income poverty, and coping strategies.
The security situation in Myanmar continued to deteriorate during the fifth-round recall period, which spanned from January to June 2023. Households felt insecure in their communities, as reported by 21 percent of households in both rural and urban areas, an increase compared to the previous year. This is because crime and violence continued to increase, affecting 18 and 10 percent of communities, respectively. Further, 7 percent of households were directly affected by violence, either through violence against a household member, robbery, or appropriation and/or destruction of their assets.
Households faced multiple shocks besides insecurity. Disruptions to the internet and electricity also negatively affected household wellbeing and livelihoods. Further, households struggled to receive medical services. Finally, while school attendance recovered compared to the previous year, it declined compared to the last quarter of 2022 and was still under 70 percent in some states/regions.
In R5 income-based poverty increased by 9 percent compared to R2 (+5 percentage points) and declined by 6 percent compared to R4 (-4 percentage points). Sixty-one percent of the population was income poor. The fall in income poverty between R4 and R5 was largely attributable to rising income outpacing a relatively low rate of food inflation at the beginning of 2023 – 8 percent increase in food prices between R4 and R5. Casual wage-earning households, both farm and non-farm, had the highest levels of income poverty. Remittances, assistance from family and/or friends, and salaried income were the primary factors inversely associated with households’ probability of being income-poor, whereas remittances, non-farm business income and larger household sizes were inversely associated with asset poverty.
Seventy-one percent of households used at least one coping strategy to meet daily needs during the month prior to the fifth-round survey. The three most common coping strategies used were spending savings, reducing non-food expenditure, and reducing food expenditure. This has been consistent across rounds. Further, some households exhausted some or all their coping strategies.
Compared to the other states/regions, households in Kayah and Chin were the most vulnerable, though our survey struggled to capture some of the most conflict-affected areas, especially in Sagaing. Households in Kayah and Chin were more likely to be impacted by conflict, have income loss, and be income poor. Despite reporting comparatively less conflict, households in Rakhine were also vulnerable; 72 percent of households in Rakhine were income poor and many were mortgaging/selling assets to cope. Further, because most households in Rakhine were surveyed in early May, the welfare indicators for Rakhine do not capture the disastrous effects of cyclone Mocha.
You can view the full publication here.
