ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK

ASSESSMENT OF LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES OF URBAN POOR IN

IMPROVERISHED NEIGHBORHOOD IN JIGJIGA TOWN; THE CASE OF 04 & 08
KEBELE POOR NEIGBORHOOD

PREPARED BY:

MOHAMED IBRAHIM MOHAMED

SSR/0824/10

ADVISOR: DR ASHANEDI

DECEMBER, 2020
Contents

Tittle page no.

Chapter one

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………....1

1.1 background of the study……………………………………………………………………..1

1.2 statement of the problem…………………………………………………………………….5

1.3 Researchquestions……………………………………………………………….…………5

1.4 objectives of the study……………………………………………………………...………6

1.4.1 General objective......................................................................................................…...6

1.4.2 Specific objective…………………………………………………………………..……..6

1.4.3 Significance of the study……………………………………………………………...….6

1.5 Scope/ delimitation of the study…………………………………………………………...6

1.6, Limitation of the study…………………………………………………………………….7

CHAPTER TWO

2.1 LITERATURE
REVIEW………………………………………………………………………..…………….8

2.1 CONCEPT OF LIVEDLIHOOD STRATEGIES……………………………..………..8

2.2. LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES OF THE URBAN POOR………………………………8

2.3. URBAN LIVELIHOODS AND POLICY…………………….………………………..10

2.4, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK……………………………..………………………..10

2.5. THEORIES OF URBAN POVERTY………………………………….……………..14

2.5.1. URBAN ECOLOGICAL THEORY ………………………………………….……14

2.5.2. CULTURE OF POVERTY……………………………………….………………..14

Chapter three
Research
methods…………………………………………………………………………………....15

3.2 Description of the study area………………………………………………………….15

3.2 Demographics…………………………………………..……………………………..15

3.3 Research design…………………………………………………………….………….16

3.4 sources of data………………………………………………………………………….16

3.5 Methods of data collection……………………………………………..……………….16

3.6 Sampling size and sampling technique……………………………………..…………..17

3.6.1 Sampling population……………………………………………………..…………17

3.6.2 Sampling method………………………………………………………..…………..17

3.6.3 Sampling size………………………………………………………..………………..18

3.7 Data presentation and analysis………………………………………………………….18

3.8 Ethical consideration…………………………………………………………………….18

CHAPTER FOUR

4. Data presentation and analyses……………………………………………….…………..19

4.1. socio-economic structures of the respondents…………………………………………19

4.2 social capital of the urban poor………………………………………….……………..28

4.3 Livelihood strategy of the urban poor……………………………..……………………..33

CHAPTER FIVE

5 FINDING………………………………………………………………………………..35

5.1 Economic status of the urban poor……………………………………………….. ……35

5.1.2. Assets and social capital of the urban poor…………………………………………….35

5.1.3. The livelihood of the urban poor ……………………………………………..……….35

5.1.4. Shocks, and ways of coping with shocks ………………………………………………37

5.1.5. Who are the poor?.................................................................................................,,.........38

5.1.6. Criteria to call a household as poor …………………………………………………….38

5.1.7. Activities prevails dominently among the urban poor……………………….…….38

5.1.8. Problems associated with the livelihood...................................................................39

5.1.9. Supports provided by government and other bodies……………………………….39

5.1.9.1. Supports from the government…………………………………………...………39

5.1.9.2. Supports from ngos…………………………..……………………..……………40

5.1.10. Challenges associated with the livelihood of the urban poor………………….….40

CHAPTER SIX

6.1. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………42

References

Appendix I

Appendix II

Appendix III
Acknowledgement

First and foremost I wish to thank almighty Allah for the healthy, finance, intellect and
everything he gave me every time and specially while writing this study. Thanks to Allah.

My deepest gratitude is to my advisor, DR ASHANEFI HOGOS, assistant professor adisababa

university college of social science ,school of social work REALY I have been amazingly
fortunate to have an advisor who gave me the guidance to recover when my steps faltered.. His
patience and support helped me overcome many crisis situations and finish this study. I hope that
one day I will become as good as an advisor to my students as DR ASHANEFI has been to me.

Most importantly, none of this would have been possible without the love and patience of my
family. My immediate family, to whom this study is dedicated to, has been a constant source of
love, concern, support and strength to years of my educational career. I would like to express my
heartfelt gratitude to my brother ABDIWELI IBRAHIM who aided and encouraged me
throughout this endeavor.
 Abstract

Urban poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon. The urban poor live many deprivations, and

their daily challenges may include:

 Limited access to employment opportunities and income,

 Inadequate and insecure housing and services,

 Violent and unhealthy environments,

 Little or no social protection mechanisms, and

 Limited access to adequate health and education opportunities.

But urban poverty is not just a collection of characteristics; it’s also a dynamic condition of

vulnerability or susceptibility to risks. The main objective of this study was to assess the

livelihood strategy of the urban poor in impoverished neighborhood of Jig-jiga town in case of

04& 08 kebele. To make this study successful, triangulation method was applied and data

collection techniques like household survey, observation, focus group discussion, and in-depth

interview was used. Purposive sampling technique was used to select 50 samples. The study is

organized in to six chapters. Chapter one is all about introducing the study, chapter two deals

with review of related literatures. The third chapter explains the methodology employed during

the study. Chapter four focuses on data presenting and analyzing. Finding part of the study

revealed at chapter five of the study. The last chapter concludes the whole essence of the study.

This study has revealed that majority of the respondents diversify their income by engaging in

different activities like; street vending and construction work and daily laborer can be

mentioned.
ACRONYMS

HCE- Highly compensated employee

CSA- Central Statistical Agency

DFID- Department for International Development

ETB- Ethiopia Birr

FGD- Focus Group Discussion

GDP- Gross Domestic Product

MoFED- Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

NGO- Non-Governmental Organization

PIPs-Policies, Institutions, and Procedures

UN- United Nations

USD- United State Dollar

Chapter one

Introduction

In today’s increasingly global and interconnected world, over half of the world’s population (54
per cent) lives in urban areas although there is still substantial variability in the levels of
urbanization across countries. The coming decades will bring further profound changes to the
size and spatial distribution of the global population (.World urbanization prospects:2 the 2014
edition) The continuing urbanization and overall growth of the world’s population is projected to
add 2.5 billion people to the urban population by 2050, with nearly 90 per cent of the increase
concentrated in Asia and Africa. At the same time, the proportion of the world’s population
living in urban areas is expected to increase, reaching 66 per cent by 2050 (World urbanization
prospects: 2 the 2014 edition.)

As the world is rapidly experiencing urbanization, it argues that as urbanization is increasing so

also the incidence of urban poverty is increasing in depth and intensity in cities of most
developing countries including Ethiopia. Ethiopia is now among the most rapidly urbanizing
countries in the world (U N estimation) Ethiopia urban population will triple between 210 and
240 (World Bank World Development Report (WDR) 2009,)

Over the last 10 years, Ethiopia has achieved an overall reduction in poverty levels as well as
food insecurity. Nonetheless, poverty and food insecurity remain a big challenge. Over 30% of
the population is below the food poverty line, unable to afford the minimum caloric intake for a
healthy and active life in both urban and rural areas (Ethiopia C FSVA: 7)

According to HCE data more than one in four Ethiopians (28%) fell below the food poverty line
(29% in rural and 21% in urban), meaning more than one in three Ethiopians spent less on food
than is required to consume the minimum level of calories for a healthy, active life. At regional
level, Afar and Somali had the highest prevalence of households below the poverty line with
28% and 25% respectively. Somali region had experienced shocks and majority reported worse
food access (2011 DHS: 7)
Previously done findings explain that overall 50% of households in Jigjiga and 25% of
households in Gode were asset poor.

Therefore the purpose of this study will be the assessment of livelihood strategies of urban poor
in Jigjiga town.

1.2 statement of the problem

Ethiopia has indicated rapid increase in urban population and simultaneously measures have
been taken to reduce urban poverty, but still there are a lot of people suffering the impact of
poverty in both rural and urban areas (CIA world fact book 2014:39).

With GDP of about 31.15 USD Ethiopia achieved one of the most rapidly growing economies in
the world, the available evidence paints a admiral picture with regard to living conditions of
urban in Ethiopia, although two third 2/3 of urban population suffer from some form of non-
monetary deprivations related to their living conditions ( i.e either they lack access to improved
water supply, improved sanitation or live in overcrowding dwellings (world bank :2013:9)

As far as my knowledge is concerned there are few researches conducted in urban poor in Somali
region. The researches I came through focus on the role of urban municipality decentralization
in reducing urban poverty in the towns of Jigjiga and Gode but these researches failed to mention
anything related the livelihood strategies of urban poor although it focus on urban poverty.

Therefore, this study will fill the gaps that those previous researches fail to address. Hence, this
study focuses on the determinants of urban poverty in 04 and 08 kebeles of Jijiga city of
Ethiopian Somali regional state.

The study will include both men and women headed households and families to cover the aspects
of livelihood strategies

1.3 Research questions

The study was pursued answers for the following questions.

1. What are the relationship between poverty and social variables like age, sex, gender etc.?
 2. Who are considered as poor in the study area and on what are the defining characteristics
of the poor
3. What kind of livelihood strategy prevails dominantly in the study area?

1.4 objectives of the study

1.4.1 General objective

The main objective of the study is the assessment of the livelihood strategy of urban poor in
impoverished neighborhood of jigjiga town in specific to 04 and 08 kebeles.

1.4.2 Specific objectives

In order to answer the research questions the following specific objectives were addressed

 To assess the relationship between poverty and social variables

 To determine the leading livelihood strategies by the poor households
 To examine the social relationships of the urban poor.

1.4.3Significance of the study

This study, shade a light on the livelihood of urban poor households, helps fill the gap in the

study of urban poverty literature. Especially for those who need to conduct further investigation

on the same topic.Hence, the community and the intuitions may benefit from this study. It may

also call the attention of regional and local planner’s decision makers regarding the study area in

particular and related area in general. Furthermore, the result of the study can serve as a base for

further researcher in the area as well as in other areas in the site.

1.5 Scope/ delimitation of the study

The study was conducted in Somali regional state of Ethiopia specifically in Jigjiga city.
Accordingly, the issue of urban poverty is complex and it exist almost anywhere in the world and
it is difficult to explore all of its causes and consequences in jigjiga town. Hence, the scope of
this study is contained in 04 and 08 kebeles in order to assess the livelihood strategies of urban
poverty in impoverished neighborhood of jigjiga town

1.6, Limitation of the study

This study is limited in scope since it is done only at one neighborhood. On the other hand it was

hard and impossible to conclude the study to whole urban poor because the researcher has used

methods which give less attention to representativeness.These are the two weakness of the study
CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 CONCEPT OF LIVEDLIHOOD STRATEGIES

These are planned activities that men and women undertake to build their livelihoods. They

usually include a range of activities designed to build asset bases and access to goods and

services for consumption. Livelihood strategies include a coping strategies designed to respond

to shocks in the short term, and adaptive strategies designed to improve circumstances in the

long term. Livelihood strategies are determined by assets and opportunities available for women

and men. (Which are in turn affected by PIPs, and changes in the vulnerability context) as well

as by the choices and preferences of women and men (J. Farrington et al.2002).

2.2. LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES OF THE URBAN POOR

According to Scoones (1998), Farrington et al, (1999) and De satge (2002), livelihoodstrategies

of the poor are determined by the range of assets available to them to pursue different activities

that would enable them to secure a sustainable livelihood. However, the poor are highly

influenced by their vulnerability, shocks, overall trends and seasonal variations. In addition,

structures such as the role of government and the private sector and processes such as

institutional, policy and cultural factors, which people face, also determine options for choice of

livelihood strategies.

Khan (2003) explains the role of formal and informal institutions in livelihood strategies of the

poor. He argues that formal institutions, both governmental and non-governmental, neglect the
poor. The poor are usually unaware of their rights to benefit from institutions and as such largely

depend on informal institutions could also affect the poor negatively neglecting them or

exercising power to control their resources.

According to Salah (1985), Beal Kanji (1999), Khan (2003) and Hossain (2005), the urban poor

are mostly engaged in self-managed low paid jobs in the urban informal sector to cope with

urban life. A very small proportion of them are also engaged in low paying employment in

government and non-governmental organizations. In the informal sector, the urban poor are

mostly engaged in activities like street vending and selling, construction work, driving and

transport work, factory work and personal work facing physical, mental and sexual harassment at

their work places. Widespread and persistent lack of employment opportunities and physical

illness are common among the urban poor (Salah 1985, Katapa 1993).

The urban poor diversify their income sources, put more family members in to the work force,

increase their family size, reside in low cost housing, lease land and rent houses, depend on

utility services from informal sources and use kinship as social capital in order to sustain

themselves with the low income that they earn from informal activities. Those who migrate from

rural areas keep their rural ties as they rely on supports from their relatives and friends in times

of need. Mutual supports through participation in community based organizations are also

essential for the urban poor to mitigate their economic and social crises (Beal and Kanji 1999,

Khan 003, and Hossain 2005).

 2.3. URBAN LIVELIHOODS AND POLICY

In assessing policy approaches to reducing urban poverty and promoting urban livelihoods, a

useful place to start is with the debates on the impact of structural adjustment. Significant

research was undertaken in this area, which examined the impact at the household level and gave

particular emphasis to the negative social effects on urban populations (Chant, 1996; Elson,

1991; Gonzales da la Rocha, 1991; Onimode, 1989; Wood Ward, 1992).

Urban population were seen to more affected by structural adjustment because in general, they

were more integrated in to cash and wage economies and more dependent on food and other

social sector subsides which were lifted. Retrenchment packages, specially, where largely

directed to urban workers who had lost jobs, sometimes defined as ‘’new poor’’- rural

populations were meant to benefit from the lifting of producer price controls in agriculture and

by trade liberalization. However, a research in countries with structural adjustment programs has

integrated this general assumption that urban populations have been worse affected, certainly the

situation is variable. For example, in countries in Africa small rural farmers have been adversely

affected by the rise and the withdrawal of the state in marketing (Evans and McKay, 1997).

2.4, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The conceptual framework for this study is taken from the sustainable livelihood framework
(sustainable livelihoods framework (DFID)).This framework looks at the different factors that
contribute to people’s livelihood strategies, it draws on a holistic understandings of livelihood,
and as such, goes far beyond defining poverty only in terms of the absence of income and
consumption and includes the absences of other capabilities such as the social and natural
capitals required to meet these needs (DFID, 1999; Farrington et al 1999; Neefjes 2000, Destge
2002).
The fact that the framework can be applied at different levels from the individual to community
to the nation at large is identified as one of its advantage (De satge 2002), the framework is also
advantageous for its wider perspective in the analysis of poverty and livelihoods where both
economic and non-economic factors are included. Its holistic approach and the proper and
participatory techniques applied have been identified as highly beneficial for policy formulations
and planning and management of development programs (Scoones 1998; De Satge 2002).
However, the framework has been criticized for not addressing important issues (Scoones 1998)
for instance; it has been criticized for not considering structural constraints that perpetuate
poverty by giving more emphasis to the assets and capabilities of the poor, and for overlooking
efforts for equitable distribution of resources (De Satge 2002). The framework has been
criticized for not providing clear explanation of how conflict over access to resources affects
choice of livelihoods and the means to address it (Farrington et al, 1999).

THE CORE OF SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS APPROACHES

. VULNERABILITY: - This refers to the insecurity of well-being of individuals or communities

in the face of individuals or communities in the face of changing environment. The changes
could be in the forms of sudden shocks, long term trends or seasonal cycles. The extent of
vulnerability relates both to the resilience resisting and recovering from external threats.

. ASSETS: - These refer to the resources on which people draw to carry out their livelihood
strategies. These resources include different forms of capitals, financial, human, social, physical,
natural and political capital. People may not always possess the assets they use. They have
different extent of access to and control over these assets. In the sustainable livelihood approach,
the issue of access and how access can be improved is significant.

. POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND PROCESSES (PIPs):- These are the broad range social,
political, economic and environmental factors determining people choice and shaping
livelihoods, they determine access to various types of assets.

. LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES: -These refer to planned activities people undertake to build

their livelihoods. Include under livelihood strategies are coping strategies to respond to shocks in
short-term and adaptive strategies to improve circumstances in the long term.
. LIVELIHOOD OUT COMES: - These are the results of people’s livelihood strategies and
feedback into the vulnerability context and asset based. While successful strategies help build
asset bases. Poor livelihood deplete asset bases and increases vulnerability (DFID; 2001).

The following chart will clearly explain the relationships of aspects of livelihood framework

Source; Sustainable livelihoods framework (DFID 2001)

This figure explains the livelihood assets as

1) Vulnerability context describes the external uncontrollable factors that influence

people’s assets and livelihood opportunities.
 Shocks:- environmental conflict related
 Trends:- resources technology
 Seasonality:- price, fluctuations, employment opportunities
2) Livelihood assets five categories necessary for the pursuit of positive livelihood
outcomes:
 Human capital:- the amount and quality of knowledge and labor available in a
household
  Natural capital: - the quality and quantity of natural resources, ranging from fisheries to
air quality.
 Financial:- capital savings and regular inflows of money.
 Physical capital:-the infrastructure, tools, and equipment used for increasing
productivity.
 Social capital:- social resources including networks for cooperation mutual trust, and
support.

These elements of framework utilizes a pentagon to describe livelihood assets, with each point
assigned to a particular type of asset so that the shape of the pentagon changes as stores of
certain type increase. When addressing this component of the framework humanitarian and
development agencies should pay attention to two considerations in particular.

3) Policies institutions processes: refer to the organizations that create and enforce
legislation, provide the necessary requirements for acquiring and capitalizing upon
assets (e.g. private suppliers of materials for building shelters), manage natural
resources and provide other services crucial for gaining access to assets, exchanging
them, and benefiting from their use.
4) Livelihood strategies: concern the individual’s available and implemented options
for pursuing livelihood goals. The greater the diversity of livelihood strategies, the
higher the household’s resilience to the socks, trends, and seasonality conditions
within the vulnerability context.
5) Livelihood outcomes: refer to the outputs of livelihood strategies. Achievements
may include higher income, greater wellbeing (e.g. self-esteem, physical security,
political empowerment), reduced vulnerability, greater food security and/or improved
environmental sustainability.

This study does not attempt to explore and interpret in great depth all aspects of the sustainable

livelihoods framework as applied for few neighborhoods in the study area. It is restricted to four

aspects of the framework that determine the choice of livelihood strategies, shocks, assets, and

outcomes of the neighborhoods. Nevertheless, it is useful to provide a brief overview of the key

element of the framework and how they are interrelated.

 2.5. THEORIES OF URBAN POVERTY

2.5.1. URBAN ECOLOGICAL THEORY

This theory was dominant in the united states in the early 1900s, analyzed cities through a human
lens and saw poor urban neighborhoods as transitional and functional zones of larger urban
metropolises; places where new immigrant groups would pass through for a temporary period of
time (Park and Burgess, 1925), other ecological theorists examined the disorganized nature of
cities and the negative effects of social disorganization in certain poor neighborhoods (Wirth,
1938; Saw and McKay, 1942). The traditional urban ecological perspective has been denounced
for not recognizing the permanent nature of many poor black neighborhoods and for ignoring
Factors other than market factors that can shape the movement of groups and land use (Sampson
and More noff, 1997).

2.5.2. CULTURE OF POVERTY

Suggest that the norms and behaviors of the poor can be distinguished as a sub-culture of the
larger society and characterized by distinct way of life, including an atypical world view and low
aspirations (Lewis, 1968, Moynihan, 1965). This culture was said to be perpetuate itself from
generation to generation. The culture of poverty thesis has been criticized for being too
deterministic, blaming the victims, and diverting attention away from the structural causes of
poverty (Murray, 1984). So I will apply for this study a multi-causal sociological theory to
explain poverty.
Chapter three

Research methods

3.1 Description of the study area

Jijiga is one of the woredas in the Somali Region of Ethiopia. Part of the fafen Zone, Jijiga is
bordered on the south by KebriBeyah, on the southwest by Gursum, on the southeast by
Ajersagora, on the north by the Shinile Zone, and on the northeast by Awbere. The average
elevation in this woreda is 1803 meters above sea level. The only perennial rivers in this woreda
are the Fafen and the Jerer. As of 2008, Jijiga has 80 kilometers of asphalt road and 60
kilometers of all-weather gravel road; about 34.1% of the total population has access to drinking
water. The Karamara hills to the west of the city of Jijiga were thoroughly mined during the
Ogaden War, and there are still dangerous areas which have been marked off limits. Prior to the
2004 October referendum, which established the disputed boundary between the Oromia and
Somali Regions, a large section in the north of this woreda became the Chinaksenworeda, which
was transferred to the Oromia Region.

3.2 Demographics

Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia
(CSA), this woreda /district has a total population of 277,560, of whom 149,292 are men
and 128,268 women. While 125,876 or 45.35% are urban inhabitants, a further 6,956 or
2.51% are pastoralists. 91.41% of the population said they were Muslim, and 6.97% were
Orthodox Christian. This woreda is primarily inhabited by the geri and small number of
Bartire, [yabaree]. Most population in jigjiga are geri and new camers (ogaden people)
and other Ethiopian ethnic groups as Amara, oromo and gurage Tigre are the major
comers this district.
The 1997 national census reported a total population for this woreda of 269,096, of whom
138,483 were men and 130,613 were women; 73,548 or 27.33% of its population were
urban dwellers. The largest ethnic group reported in Jijiga was the Somali 138,483
(99.9%).
3.3 Research design

The study was employed a cross sectional study design with regard to the study
population and time investigation. For this study both qualitative and quantitative
approaches were used. The quantitative approach was used to produce quantitative
information of the issue under study (quantitative data was analyzed through descriptive
statistical techniques like percentage, average and frequency by using table). On the other
hand qualitative approach was intended to produce and explain for qualitative
information.

3.4 sources of data

The data for this study was both primary and secondary sources. The primary data was
collected through questioner tool, interview and focus group discussion. The secondary
source was collected from journals, official reports, periodicals, and archived literature.

Data collection instruments.

As a data collection instrument, this study was used survey questionnaires, interview
guides and interview schedules. The questioner was both open ended and close ended
questioner. It was prepared and distributed to the respondents that enable the researcher
to succeed.
Interview: - the researcher used structured interview guideline and will interview
household and family heads, kebele officials’ city administration officials for the purpose
of collecting relevant information.

3.5 Methods of data collection

All the following data collection methods were employed during data collection time.

A) Household survey method

Household survey method was used to collect information on the nature of the
household’s assets, livelihood strategies, nature of shocks and stresses and livelihood
outcomes. Via this questioner it will be filled in face to face manner by the respondents
and will be administered by the researcher.
B) Observation method
Observation was one of the data collection methods which will be employed by the
researcher to gather information. This method was employed to obtain information
like:- working environment, conditions of housing, proximity to public service, and to
observe the overall environment of the poor neighborhood.
C) In-depth interview
The guideline for the interview was prepared by the researcher early before the
interview. The guiding questioner was prepared in line with the objectives of the
study and appropriate bodies will be interviewed.
D) Focus group discussion
As mentioned above this study was conducted for triangulating different methods. As
part of data collection FGD was conducted 8 people together in the combination of
the two kebele. For whom 4 of them were female whereas the other 4 were males.
This method also has a supportive role to the study by generating further information
from the participants.

3.6 Sampling size and sampling technique

3.6.1 Sampling population
The subjects of the study were households in poor neighborhood who resides in
Jigjiga town specifically 04 and 08 kebeles. The study included both men and
women headed households.
3.6.2 Sampling method
In order to achieve the purpose of the study the researcher applied purposive
sampling technique to find jigjiga neighborhoods of 04 and 08 kebeles. This is
because it is believed that this method helped the researcher to easily identify poor
urban neighbor in Jigjiga town by making simple physical observation.. The
respondents were purposively selected by the researcher by observing the housing
condition/situation and the working environment of their day to day life and their
residential places, after selecting some respondents purposively snow ball sampling
technique was used to identify poor households with similar living conditions.
 3.6.3 Sampling size
An important decision has been taken while selecting a sampling technique.
Appropriate sample size depends on various factors relating to the subject under
investigation including time, cost and degree of accuracy.For the purpose of this
study the researcher selected 25 households from each kebele. Both men and women
headed households were included in the study. The following reasons were
forwarded for the selection of the small size households.
The neighborhood had large number of households and the researcher didn’t have that
much financial capacity to cope up with collecting information for the large numbers
of households.
3.7 Data presentation and analysis
Qualitative data was analyzed through comparison, judgment, discussion and
interpretation, whereas quantitative data was analyzed through descriptive
statistical techniques like percentage, average and frequency by using table.
3.8 Ethical consideration

Permission was secured from Jigjiga University, College of Social Science and Humanity,

Department of Sociology before the field work. The study was done by respecting the

respondent’s dignity and maintaining their privacy. Informants were also assured that the

confidentiality of the information they provide will be kept and they were told that it will not be

used for any other purpose excerpt as an input for this study. In addition, the purpose of the

study was explained to the respondents to get acquainted to their response.

 CHAPTER FOUR

4. DATAPRESENTATION AND ANALYSES

This chapter deals with data analyses and presentation. The data which were obtained from

different sources will be analyzed and interpreted under this chapter. Quantitative data were

analyzed using scientific calculator by counting the frequency of the responses. On the other

hand, qualitative data were analyzed descriptively by reflecting the essence of the responses

provided by the informants. The following section of the study will clearly present and analysis

the data

4.1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRUCTURES OF THE RESPONDENTS

Table 4.1 sex distribution of the respondents

Sex Frequency(F) Percentage (%)

Male 31 62
Female 19 38
Total 50 100
(Source: own survey, 2016)

The study was sex inclusive. Accordingly both males and females were sampled to participate in

the study. As it is indicated in table 4.1, out of 50 respondents 31(62%) were male, whereas the

remaining 19(38%) respondents were female participants.

Based on the relationship between sex and income generating I came through that men have

higher percentage for income generating of the household because they are engaged different
activities that need human power/labor like buildings, carrying, and those go inline which

women cannot do that much.

Table 4.2 Age structure of the respondents

Age Frequency(F) Percent (%)

15-20 4 8
21-25 5 10
26-30 14 28
31-35 3 6
36-40 9 18
41-45 1 2
46-50 8 16
51-55 3 6
56-60 2 4
Above 61 1 2
Total 50 100
(Source: own survey, 2016)

Table 4.2 shows the age distribution of the respondents. as illustrated above on the table,4(8%)

of the respondents age were in between 15-20. whereas the respondents whom their age was

between 21-25 were 5(10%).14(28%) of the respondents age fall to 26-30 age interval. the

respondents whom their age was 31-35 have accounted only 6%. around 18% of the respondents

were in between 36-40 years age interval. the age interval between 41-45, 46-50, 51-55, 56-60,

and above 60 have accounted 2, 16, 6, 4, and respectively.

According to this data ages between 51-60 and above are less income generators compared to

those productive ages of 21-50 who are the most income generators of the households and 15-20

ages are engaged small activities like shoeshine, car washing, selling of small materials like gum,

ice cream and etc.

Table 4.3 Ethnic background of the respondents

 Ethnicity Frequency(F) Percent (%)
Somali 31 62
Amara 8 16
Oromo 4 8
Other 7 14
Total 50 100
(Source:own survey, 2016)

As it is clearly stated on table 4.3, the study area is a home for diverse ethnic groups. Among

others, Somali have the lion share with percentage of 62%. 16% of the respondents were

Amhara. And Oromo has accounted 8%. The remaining 14 % of the respondents were from other

ethnic backgrounds including: Gurage, tigre, andDebub.

Based on the ethnicity and income initiating the Oromo, Debub, and Amhara ethnic groups are

preferred for buildings compared to Somali laborers because as the respondents pointed out those

ethnic groups apart from Somali laborers work a lower wage per day and even contract that’s

why they are mostly preferred on one hand and slaughtering of livestock is preferred for a

Somali sub clan called gabooye because they are known for their skill of slaughtering.

Pie-chart 4.1 Religious affiliation of the respondents

 religious affiliation
2%
13%

4%
Orthododx
protestant
Muslim
others

81%

(Source: survey, 2016)

As illustrated above on the pie-chart, the respondents were from different religious backgrounds.

81% of the respondents were Muslims, where as 17% wereorthodox Christian and protestant by

accounting 13% and 4%. The remaining 2% of the respondents have identified themselves as the

followers of other religions like Waqqeffana.

According the religion and the respondents i have not overcome any difference in income

generating of the household.

Table 4.4 Educational status of the respondents

 Educational status frequency(f) Percentage%
Can't read and write 13 26
Can read and write 25 50
High school grade 7 14
College diploma 3 6
Others 2 4
Total 50 100
(Source: survey, 2016)

As indicated on the table, they respondents have variations in their educational status. The

response rate have revealed that out of 50 respondents 25(50%) have at least attended primary

school and they are capable to read and write. On the other hand 13(26%) of respondents can't

read and write. Only 7(14%) of respondents have attended and completed their high school

education.6% of the respondents have passed high school education and have attended schools at

college level, so they have identified themselves as diploma certificate holder. The remaining

4% of the respondents have attended other educations like religious and vocational educations.

Mastery/literacy is not enough to generate the income of the household because as they clarified

there is no opportunities for them mostly although those who are diploma holders have some

engagements compared to those who don’t have.

Table 4.5 Employment status of the respondents

Employment status Frequency(f) Percent (%)

Un-employed 12 24
Self employed 26 52
Civil servant 8 16
Other 4 8
Total 50 100
 (Source: own survey, 2016)

As it can be clearly seen from the above table, 24% of the respondents do not have their own

work which means that they are unemployed. On the other hand 52% of the respondents are self-

employed that indicate as they have their own job. Only 16% of the respondents are hired at

different governmental organizations at lower levels, like; guard, janitor, secretory, and others.

The remaining 8% have identified themselves at the category of other employment status; they

were of basically daily laborers, construction workers, retailers, and others

Table 4.6 Marital status of the respondents

Marital status Frequency(f) Percent (%)

Single 18 36
Married 19 38
Divorced 7 14
Widowed 6 12
Total 50 100
(Source: own survey, 2016)

table 4.6 indicate that out of 50 respondents 18(36%) of them are still not married. whereas 38%

out of the entire respondents have joined the world of marriage. on the other hand even though

they have married before, 14% of the respondents have dropout of their marriage life and they

are now single. lastly 12% of the respondents have lost their husband due to death and are not

still remarried.

Pie-chart 4.2 Respondents who own children

 own children

Yes
No

(Source: own survey, 2016)As it is illustrated above on the pie chart, 60% of the respondents have

at least one child, whereas the remaining 40% of the respondents do not have children yet. The

following table will clearly show the no of children owned by those respondents who answered

as they have child.

Table 4.7 Number of children owned by respondents

Number of children Frequency(F) Percent (%)

No child 20 40
1-3 18 36
4-6 8 16
Above 6 4 8
Total 50 100
(Source: survey, 2016)
Table 4.7; indicate that 36% of the respondents have an average 1-3 Childs.16% of the

respondents do have 4-6 children at their homes. The remaining 8 percent of the respondents

have above 6 children within their family.

Table 4.8 Condition of family headship

Family headship Frequency(F) Percent (%)

Female headed 14 28
Male headed 26 52
Child headed 1 2
Other 9 18
Total 50 100
(Source: own survey, 2016)

The table shows that 28% of families are ruled and administered by women. Whereas the

majority of the families that account 52% are under male leadership. The remaining 28% of the

family have other options family headship. This category which belongs to other headship

includes families headed by both men and women.

Table 4.9 Estimated Average family incomes

Monthly income Frequency(F) Percent (%)

Below 500 ETB 12 24
501-1000 ETB 20 40
1001-1500 ETB 8 16
Above 1501 10 20
Total 50 100
(Source: own survey, 2016)

As it can be observed from the table 24% of the respondents earn below 500 ETB .20(40%) of

the respondents have an average income of 501-1000ETB. 16% of respondents earn 1001-

1500ETB monthly. it is only 20% of the respondents who are comparatively better at money they

receive by earning 1501ETB and above per month.

 4.2 SOCIAL CAPITAL OF THE URBAN POOR

Table 4.10 Respondents place of origin and time they in neighborhood

Response Frequency (F) Percent (%)

place of origin Jig-jiga 24 48
Out of Jig-jiga 26 52
Total 50 100
time lived at neighborhood 1-5 15 30
6-10 12 24
11-15 6 12
16-20 2 4
Above 20 15 30
Total 50 100
(Source: own survey, 2016)

The table above show the place of origin and time lived at the neighborhood by the respondents.

As illustrated above on the table 52% of the respondents have migrated from nearby rural areas

as well as from different regions of the country to the neighborhood. It is only 48% which were

born in Jig-jiga town. 30% of the respondents are recent immigrants and only lived in the

neighborhood for 5 years and below. Those who have lived for 6-10 years in the neighborhood

accounted 24%. On the other hand 30% of the respondents have made their live in the

neighborhood for more than 20 years.12% and 4% respondents have lived for 11-15 and 16-20

years respectively at the neighborhood.

Table 4.11 Social networking

 Response Frequency (F) Percent (%)
Have friend at neighborhood Yes 49 98
No 1 2
Total 50 100
Have relative at Yes 35 70
No 15 30
neighborhood Total 50 100
(Source: own survey, 2016)

As shown on the table, the respondents have at least friends at their neighborhood.98% of the

respondents have friends at the neighborhood, where as the remaining 2% preferred to have their

friend from other neighborhoods. On the other side, 70% respondents have their relatives nearby

their house and neighborhood. The remaining 30% are immigrants who have migrated to the

neighborhood without any relative networking.

Table 4.12 Relationships, trust ship, and social cohesion at neighborhood

Response Frequency (F) Percent (%)

With whom do you have strong Family members 15 30
Close friends 16 32
relationship Neighbors 5 10
Kebele officials 1 2
More than one 13 6
Total 50 100

Do you trust each other with Yes 44 88

No 6 12
your neighbor Total 50 100
Level of social cohesion Very strong 19 38
strong 13 26
Moderate 16 32
Weak 2 4
Very weak 0 0
Total 50 100
(Source: own survey, 2016)
Table 4.12 discuss the relationships which the respondents have with different peoples, the trust

ship the respondents have with other neighbors and the level of social cohesion that the

respondents have with rest of the community members. As per to this study, 32% of the urban

poor have given priority to their close friends and they do have strong relationship with them.

Following relating with the close friends, 30% also have strong bond with their family members.

Whereas 26% have created strong relation with more than one category, 10% and 2% of the

respondents have strong relationship with their neighbors and with kebele officials respectively.

The kind of relationship which the urban poor have is considered as horizontal kind of relation.

This kind of relationship is the kind of relation which can be formed between the people who

live under the same strata and the same class. The other thing shown on the above table is that

the level of the cohesion that the urban poor do have with their society. 38% respondents have

very strong social cohesion and bond with their society. Strong cohesion is also prevalent among

26% of the respondents. 32% respondents have moderate social cohesion. Only 2% respondents

have broken and weak social cohesion. Generally, the bond which exist among urban poor is

similar with that have existed among traditional (pre-industrial) society and can be termed as

mechanical solidarity.

Bar-graph 4.1 Assets for the urban poor

 types of asset
60
50
40
30
20
percent

10
0
ce on n d rs
for ic ati utio lan the
t o
or so sti
lab as in
d cial
hoo en
bo
r fin
h
eg
ni

(Source:own survey, 2016)

Bar-graph 4.1, explains the type of asset which the urban poor own. Urban poor are asset less,

but the urban poor have their labor force as asset. According to this survey 54% of the urban

poor are the owner of labor force. 16% 0f the respondents have considered neighborhood

associations as opportunity and asset. The other 12% have access to financial institutions and

they have taken this institution as asset. Only 10% of the respondents have land where as the

remaining 8 of the respondents are endowed with other assets.

Bar- graph 4.2 levels of participation in public affairs

 70

60

50

40
pencet

30
level of participation
20

10

0
high medium low
level of participation

(Source: own survey, 2016)

The above bar graph indicates the level of participation of the urban poor at public affairs. 64%

of them are aware of public events and their participation is medium. On the other hand 18% of

the urban poor know what public affairs and they highly participate. Only 18% have low

participation on the public affairs.

4.3 Livelihood strategy of the urban poor

 Table 4.13 leading livelihood

Livelihood strategy Frequency (F) Percent (%)

Street vending and selling 12 24
Tea and coffee 5 10
Daily worker 7 14
Construction work 3 6
Sale of local drinks 4 8
Wood work 3 6
Urban farming 0 0
Animal raring 3 6
Other 13 26
Total 50 100
(Source: own survey, 2016)

The above table clearly explains types of livelihood strategy which urban poor prefer

frequently.24% of the poor are street venders. Daily labor work is second dominant job for the

urban poor; it is a bred wining activity for 14% of them. Tea and coffee serve as livelihood

strategy for 10% of the poor. Selling of local drinks is the fourth leading activity which make

live for 8% of the urban poor. Wood work and animal raring contribute 6% each to the livelihood

of the urban poor. The remaining 26% of the urban poor engage in other activities like; petty

trade, government employ at lower class (guard), barber shop, shoe shine and lottery work.

Bar-graph 4.3 kinds of support given from the government to the poor
 types of support
80
70
60
50
40
30 types of support
20
10
0
ial ca
l rt ca
l
enc hni p po hni
fin c su c
te te
no d
an
ic al
en
fin

(Source:own survey, 2016)

Bar graph 4.3 indicates the types of support that the government gives the urban poor. Most the

respondents have recognized that as there is no support from the government.it is 74%

respondents who responded as there is no any kind of supports provided for the urban poor.14%

received financial support from the government. On the other hand 6% received technical

support from the government. 4% get both financial and financial support from the government.

The remaining 2% have received other types of supports from the government authorities.

CHAPTER FIVE

5. FINDING

This chapter mainly focuses on discussing the findings of the study. The collected data were

analyzed and interpreted in the previous chapter. The following part of this study discusses the
socio economic background of the poor. Leading livelihood strategies pursued by poor families,

demographic and socio economic factors that determine their choice of livelihood strategies and

discuss assets of poor household.

5.1Economic status of the urban poor

Poor people are among groups which can consider as the disadvantaged in the community. These

people hold the lower class status in their society because they lack different things in their life.

Poor people have many characteristics in common even though their personal qualities and

perceptions differ from each other’s. Even though 50% of the urban poor can read and write,

52% of them are self-employed as well as 24% do not have any job. This shows that being able

to read and write is not only sufficient to engage in high skill requiring works. The study has

shown that 64% of the urban poor earn below 1000 ETB. Yet, there are high income self-

employed jobs available for everybody; this research has shown that the urban poor engage in

low income earning self-employed works in informal sector.

5.1.2. Assets and social capital of the urban poor

The study has revealed that, Jig-jiga poor neighborhood is a home for more than 5 ethnic groups.

52% of its residents have migrated from different parts of Ethiopia to the neighborhood.

According to sample survey conducted in the neighborhood 70% of the dwellers have at least

lived for more than 6 years at the neighborhood. The urban poor have strong networking with

their relatives and friends. This study has indicated that 98% and 70% have friends as well as

relatives at the neighborhood respectively. Most of the urban poor keep their relationship strong.

32% arrange the relationship with their close friend, where as 35% give high attention to their

family members and their neighbors. This shows that the poor have horizontal types of
relationship. They rely for support in times of crises and difficulties on these people whom they

are related with. Even though the urban poor do give priority to their friends and family members

88% trust each other with other neighborhood dwellers. Only 2% have weaker social cohesion

with the society among urban poor. Generally, among other capitals, the urban poor are endowed

with plenty of social capital.

5.1.3. The livelihood of the urban poor

This study has revealed that most of the urban poor do have works identified as best for them.

Most of the poor engage in labor demanding self-employed jobs. This is substantiated by this

study as 54% of the urban poor are asset less and they are only endowed with labor force. 24% of

the urban poor make their life by vending and selling different fruits, grain and other edible

goods on the street, 20%of them engage in labor demanding activities like construction work and

daily labors. Most of females engage in selling of local drinks, which also contribute 8% to the

livelihood strategies for the urban poor. The work which are considered as better for the urban

poor are; tea and coffee, and wood work. These activities are the livelihood for 13% of the urban

poor. The remaining 26% are engaged in other activities like; lottery work, guard in

governmental offices, traditional transport service provision and government employee, selling

of chat, petty trade, shoeshine and barbershop. For most, they engage in the work only to earn

their daily bread and they don’t get anything to save. According to this study many of the urban

poor do not have an option to penetrate in to other works. But, they belief as they can earn more

profit to feed their family from their work. Some of the activities like sale of local drinks, and

petty trade, have customers from the urban class and the poor can afford it easily. For those

people who are engage in this activity, it is by their choice and even they do it with great
Knowledge. Even though much of the work are not satisfying, activities like wood work can be

taken as easy and comfortable as they are done at home quarters, and Jig-jiga is comfortable for

wood work.

5.1.4.SHOCKS, AND WAYS OF COPING WITH SHOCKS AND DIFFICULITIES

AMONG THE URBAN POOR

Even though most of the urban poor do not yet identified future shocks which can directly or

indirectly affect their livelihood some have raised fears like: competitions with other suppliers,

increase in age and deteriorating of health condition, increment in house rent expense, shortage

of financial supply, seasonal fluctuations, lack of working environment, and change of

governmental policies. Urban poor also have their own strategies to cope up with difficulties.

All most all of the urban poor use their social capital during this time. As explained above on this

study the urban poor have strong relationship with their family members, friends, and neighbors

as well as with other members of the community. They do this mainly to get support from those

peoples in the time of crises. Most of them take loan from others especially from their neighbors

and they pay it back, and others change their job in order to diversify their income.

5.1.5. Who are the poor?

According to Jig-jia 04 kebele chairman, “The poor are people with low living conditions and

people who cannot afford different services. This people especially live a hand to mouth life.

They don’t have enough income to feed and support their family and children.”
5.1.6. Criteria to call a household as poor

The following criteria are among those the kebele set to call a household as poor

HOUSING CONDITION-poor household are people living in poor house and old as

well as decayed houses. These households even sometimes do not have houses and they

live near the street. People who live on the street mostly built their shanty houses from

old closes and other thrown materials.

LEVEL OF AFFORDING SERVICES- the kebele label households as poor when they

are un-able to afford some services. The most important service set as criteria is health.

People who cannot afford health service when they are sick

The third criteria is that people who cannot work and change their life.

5.1.7. ACTIVITIES PREVAILS DOMINENTLY AMONG THE URBAN POOR

• The urban poor are mainly engage in the following activities according to kebele

chairmen.

Street vending and selling; this is among the major activities pursued by the

urban poor living at Jig-jiga neighborhood. The second dominant activity is that,

they take goods from other peoples and they try to make profit from goods they

have taken. After they sell it, they return back what they have taken. Others

engage in making and cocking injira, tea or coffe at someone house in which they

are paid salary or they may do it at their home, where they sell for their customer

and other consumers. Some of them engage in begging. This people engaging in

begging activity include; elders, children, women, and others.

5.1.8. PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIVELIHOOD OF THE DISADVANTAGED

PEOPLE

These peoples face many problems. Among others, when they receive some goods from

people to make profit, there are moments when they fail to do so, at this time they may

get in conflict with the people they have received goods from. Even those who are street

venders sell goods which can be expired easily so, they may lose the money they have

invested. Street venders also face health problem since their working environment is not

secure and comfortable.

5.1.9. SUPPORTS PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENT AND OTHER BODIES

There are many supports provided for the poor as well as by non-governmental organizations

according to the kebele chairmen.

5.1.9.1. SUPPORTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT

As per to Jig-jiga town, there is free medical services for poor people. The kebele write letter of

recognition to Karama hospital that the person is poor, then the hospital to be the beneficiary of

free health service.

Jig-jiga town micro-finance office also organizes poor people in association to start their own

business. Whereas Jigjigatown women affairs arrange loan free of interest rate for the poor. The

poor are not trusted by financial institutions, so, the kebele take the guarantee of the poor people

those the kebele recognize at their kebele to be trusted by credit institutions. Most of the poor do

not like to take loan from credit institution, because they believe that they cannot pay it back.

This is mainly due to; lack of awareness and self-confidence as they are capable of doing
something effectively. There are some urban poor who have taken loan and become successful,

so, they have returned the loan that they have taken, but for most it is hard to return the money

back to credit institutions.

At kebele level, by cooperating with religious institutions they fix decayed houses for poor and

incapable households. The kebele also cooperatively work with Jig-jiga city administration to

give land for the poor who desire to build house.

5.1.9.2.SUPPORTS FROM NGOs

As mentioned by the interviewee poor people do not have capacity to educate their children. So,

the kebele collaboratively work with NGOs. The organizations mainly support students whose

parents are poor by providing them with educational logistics like- school uniform, bag, exercise

book, Pen and other important materials.

5.1.10. CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIVELIHOOD OF THE URBAN

POOR.

There are enormous of challenges associated with the livelihood of the poor. According to the

finding of this study, many of the urban poor do not have save, comfortable, and enough working

environment. This is one of the most pressing problems for the urban poor those who are

engaged in some specific works. From those works, street vending is one of the most challenging

activities. When vending on the street, there are many things which street venders encounter. The

activity is among those which can be done day and night as well as at summer or spring times.

These features of the activity make it difficult for those who are engaged in street vending. At

spring time there is dust and hard sun light with warm weather condition, on the other hand, at

summer time there is rain with coldest weather condition. These seasonal fluctuations with its
occasions have effect on the health of the urban poor. Due to this and other reasons the urban

poor are vulnerable to diseases like tuberculosis, trachoma, common cold and other related

infectious diseases.

The other challenges faced by the urban poor is that, they do have small and narrow working

environment. This prevents them to expand their business. For those who engage in activities

requiring house, they are affected by high house rent expenses since they do not have their own

house. Expanding business is not only a matter of house rent expense; rather it is of shortage of

financial support (capital) too. Others face problems related to lose of profit. This happen due to

the characteristics of the goods they are trading. They mostly supply goods which can easily be

expired.

CHAPTER SIX

6.1. CONCLUSION

According to this study the majority of urban poor earn their living by engaging in different

livelihood activities in the informal sector. The most commonly used strategies, however, are

street vending for female and construction work and daily labor for male. Age, marital status,
and numbers of children are the major demographic factors that determine the livelihood of the

urban poor. In addition, socio-economic factors such as access to different resources that include

financial, social, human, physical, and natural capital play major roles in the livelihood of the

urban poor. Even though the urban poor are lack other types of capitals, they are full of social

capital which play important roles in their life.

REFRENCES

Greene, Richard .1991. Poverty Concentration Measures and the Urban Underclass.
Economic Geography, Vol. 67, No. 3, July, pp 240-252.

Van Golde, Jacco.1998. Spatial Segmentation of Large Urban Labour markets: Cultures of
Segregation among the Urban Poor? Paper presented at the 38th European Conference
of the Regional Science Association. Vienna.
Da Fonseca Feitosa, Flávia and Wissmann, Anna.2006. Social-mix policy approaches to
Urban segregation in Europe and the United States.ZentrumfürEntwicklungsforschung
Center for Development Research, Universität Bonn.

UN-Habitat.2002. Secure Tenure, Slums and Global Sample of Cities. Expert Group
Meeting on Urban Indicators. Nairobi, Kenya.

Montgomery, Mark and Paul C. Hewett.2004. Urban Poverty and Health in Developing
Countries: Household and Neighborhood Effects. Mimeo.

Khan, Z. A.2003.Living on the Boundary: Institutional Influences on the Livelihoods of the

Extreme Poor, Research Reports 1, the Livelihoods of the Extreme Poor (LEP) Study, Impact
Monitoring and Evaluation Cell (IMEC), PROSHIKA: A Centre for Human Development,
Dhaka, Bangladesh, [Online]. Available from: http://www.livelihoods.org/lessons/
docs/LEP_FemaleHhlds.doc [August 14, 2006].

Katapa, R. S.1993. Time Used by Female Heads of Households in Urban Tanzania, University of
Dar es Salaam, Department of Statistics, Dar es salaam, Tanzania.

DFID.1999. Sustainable Livelihood Guidance Sheet, [Online]. Available from:

http://www.livelihoods.org [14th March 2006].

MOFED.2002. Sustainable development and poverty reduction program, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

De Satgè, S.2002. Learning about Livelihoods: Insights from Southern Africa, Oxfam, Oxford.

Salah, S.1985. Peripheral Urbanism and the Sudan: Exploitation in Political Economy of the
Wage Labour Market in Greater Khartoum, Unpublished Ph.D. theses, The University of Hull.

Hossain, S.2005. Poverty, Household Strategies and Coping with Urban Live: Examining
‘Livelihood Framework’ in Dhaka City, Bangladesh, Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology, Vol. 2,
No. 1. http://www.odi.org.uk/rpeg/research/migration/reports/Deshingkar2004c. Pdf [August 14,
2006].
Beall, J. and Kanji, N.1999.Households Livelihoods and Urban Poverty, Urban Governance,
Partnership and Poverty, Theme Paper 3, [Online].Retrieved from:
http://www.livelihoods.org/cf/search/ show record.cfm? ID=68 [10th August 2006].

Chant, S.2003. Female Headship and the Feminization of Poverty: Facts, Fictions and Forwarded
Strategies, [Online]. Available from: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/genderInstitute/pdf/
femaleHouseholdHeadship.pdf [25th May 2005].

Neefjes, K.2000. Environment and Livelihoods: Strategies for Sustainability, [Online]. Available
from: www.livelihoods.com [29th June 2006].

Scoones, I.1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis, IDS Working Paper
72, [Online]. Retrieved from: http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/wp72pdf [14th June 2006].

Geer, Scott and Ann Lennarson G, Eds, Neighborhood and Ghetto; The local area in large-scale
society.New York; basic books.1974.

Keller, Suzane.1968. The urban neighborhood; a sociological perspective, New York; random
house,

Tegegn Gebre-Egziabher.2010. Livelihood and urban poverty reduction in Ethiopia; Addis

Ababa,

Metasebia Solomon.2009. Determinants of livelihood strategies of urban women; the case of

female house hold heads in Wolenchiti town, Ethiopia,

NarayanSatry, Ann R.pebly2002. Neighborhood definitions and the spatial dimension of daily
life in Los Angeles, MichelaZonta,.

Journal of sociology and social welfare, June, 2005, volume xxxII, November 2.
 JIGJIGA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

First of all I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to meet with you and
introduce you myself. I am student here in Jijiga University I study sociology department
and it is the final year of my study and graduate in coming months, with the help and
 support of my wonderful advisor and dean of my college. So dear respondents I request
the willingness and confidentiality of your responses please

Dear respondents: - the purpose of this questionnaire is to collect necessary data from
concerned bodies on livelihood strategy of urban poor in impoverished neighborhood in JIgjiga
neighborhood, for the partial fulfillment of the requirement for BA degree in sociology. Your
information will be kept confidential and will not be used for other purpose. So, you are kindly
asked for assistance and respond to the following questions freely. Thank you…

Instruction: - please make “X” mark for close ended questions and write down
your answer shortly on provided space for open ended questions.

I. Questions related to socio-economic background of the respondents.

1. Sex

A. Male B. Female

2. Age:____________

3. ethnicity:

A) Somali

B) Oromo

C) Amara

D) Tigre

E) Gurage

F) other(specify) _________

2) Religious affiliation:

A. Muslim

B. Orthodox
C. Protestant

D. other (specify) __________

3) Educational status:

A. can’t read and write

B. high school grade

C. Can read and write

D. college diploma

E. Other (specify) ________________

4) Employment status:

A. unemployed

B. self-employed

C. civil servant

D. Other (specify) ___________________

5) marital status:

A. single

B. married

C. divorced

D. widowed

E. Separated

F. others_____________________

6) Do you have children?

A. Yes
 B. No

7) If your answer is “yes” for question 5, how many?

A. 1-3

B. 4-6

C. above 6

8) Condition of the family:

A. female headed

B. male headed

C. child headed

D. other(specify) ____________________

9) What is your status in the family:

A. child

B. parent

C. Household

D. other (specify) ______________

10) How much is your monthly income?

A. Below 500 ETB

B. 1001-1500 ETB

C. 501-1000 ETB

D. above 1501 ETB

II. Questions related to social capital of the urban poor.

11) Place of origin?

 A. Jijiga

B. Out of jijiga

12) If your answer is “out of jigjiga” for question 11, from where you originated?

(specify) ___________________

13) Time lived in neighborhood?:

A. 1-5

B. 6-10

C. 11-15

D. 16-20

E. above 20 years

14) Do you have friend in neighborhood?

A. Yes

B. No

15) Do you have relative in neighborhood?

A. Yes

B. No

16) With whom do you have strong relationship?

A. Family member/s

B. close friends

C. neighbor/s

D. hagbad /idir chairmen

E. kebele officials
 F. other (specify) ____________________________________

17) Do you trust each other with other neighborhood dwellers?

A. Yes

B. No

18) What do social cohesion you have with other neighbors looks like?

A. Very strong

B. strong

C. moderate

D. weak

E. Very weak

19) What asset do you have?

A. Labor force

B. financial

C. Neighborhood associations

D. land

E. Other (specify) _______________________________

20) Level of participation in public affairs?

A. High

B. medium

C. low

III. Questions related to livelihood strategy of the urban poor

21) What is your livelihood strategy?

 A. Tea and coffee C. daily laborer

B. Street vending & selling D. sale of local drinks

D. Construction work

E. wood work F. animal raring

F. urban farming

G. other (specify) _______________________________

22) What are challenges associated with activity you are now engaged in?

A. High House rent expenses

B. shortage of financial supply

C. Shortage of raw material support

D. small working environment

Other (specify) __________________________________________________

23) What strategies do you use to cope up with difficulties?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

____

24) What do you think will affect your livelihood in the future?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

____

25) What kind of support do you receive from government?

A. Financial support
 B. no support

C. Technical support

D. others (specify) _________________________

26) If you have further comments or recommendations regarding the overall parts of the

interview please specify

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______

JIGJIGA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

Dear informants: - the purpose of this interview is to collect necessary data from concerned

bodies on livelihood strategy of urban poor in impoverished neighborhood in Jijiga

neighborhood, for the partial fulfillment of BA degree in sociology. Your information will be

kept confidential and will not be used for other purpose. So, you are kindly asked for assistance

and respond to the following questions freely. Thank you in advance.

Interview guideline

Background of the interviewee

1. Sex:

A. Male B. female

B. Age : ________________

Interview questions

C. Who are considered as poor in your kebele?

D. What are the criteria to call a household poor in your kebele?

E. What kind of livelihood strategy prevails dominantly?

F. What kinds of supports are provided for poor people by government or other bodies?

G. What government policies do say concerning poor people; especially urban poor?
 JIGJIGA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

OBSERVATION CHECKLIST

s/n Events to be observed levels Remark

o 1 2 3 4
1 Housing conditions

New but narrow(small)

 Old and decayed

Cooking kitchen

Toilet
2 Working environment

Have enough space

Does not have enough

space

Hazardous

Safe

3 Access to public services

Water

Health center
 School

Transport

1, low 2, medium 3, high 4, very high