From consumption to context: assessing poverty and inequality across diverse socio-ecological systems in Ghana

TL;DR

This study explores how poverty and inequality in Ghana vary based on local social and ecological contexts, showing that traditional measures like consumption may not fully capture well-being in all areas.

Contribution

The paper introduces a novel national-scale analysis of poverty and inequality using a social-ecological systems framework and a full census dataset.

Findings

Consumption distributions differ significantly across social-ecological systems (SES) in Ghana.

Correlations between consumption and well-being are weaker in less-developed SES like rangelands and wildlands.

Inequality in non-monetary measures of living standards increases in SES with lower population density and infrastructure.

Abstract

Local social and ecological contexts influence the experience of poverty and inequality in a number of ways that include shaping livelihood opportunities and determining the available infrastructure, services and environmental resources, as well as people’s capacity to use them. The metrics used to define poverty and inequality function to guide local and international development policy but how these interact with the local ecological contexts is not well explored. We use a social-ecological systems (SES) lens to empirically examine how context relates to various measures of human well-being at a national scale in Ghana. Using a novel dataset constructed from the 100% Ghanian Census, we examine poverty and inequality at a fine population level across and within multiple dimensions of well-being. First, we describe how well-being varies within different Ghanian SES contexts. Second, we ask whether monetary consumption acts a good indicator for well-being across these contexts. Third, we examine measures of inequality in various metrics across SES types. We find consumption distributions differ across SES types and are markedly distinct from regional distributions based on political boundaries. Rates of improved well-being are positively correlated with consumption levels in all SES types, but correlations are weaker in less-developed contexts like, rangelands and wildlands. Finally, while consumption inequality is quite consistent across SES types, inequality in other measures of living standards (housing, water, sanitation, etc) increases dramatically in SES types as population density and infrastructural development decreases. We advocate that SES types should be recognized as distinct contexts in which actions to mitigate poverty and inequality should better incorporate the challenges unique to each.

Figures