Poverty in Fiji

The 1996 Poverty Study in Fiji was a joint initiative of the Government and the United Nations Development Programme. The Report, published in April 1997, analyses current information about the extent and nature of poverty in Fiji. The purpose of the study is to understand the causes and consequences of this poverty in order to assist the Government and various non-government bodies to develop appropriate policies and programmes that will improve the conditions of the poor and the vulnerable, as stated by the Minister of Finance and Economic Development.

In seven chapters, the Report describes the pattern of income distribution in Fiji; analyses the incidence and trends of poverty; profiles the poorest households; discusses the processes of impoverishment; and analyses policies, strategies and programmes of poverty alleviation.

The study found that income is unevenly distributed between different parts of the country and between rural and urban places, as expected. Fiji is no longer a country of self-employed, self- sufficient farmers, though the subsistence sector is an important source of livelihood. The study showed that various ways of calculating the poverty line gave a fairly consistent estimate of about 25% of households in Fiji living in poverty. However, many households seem to have incomes close to the poverty line.

There has been a slight trend of increasing inequality in income since the late 1970s. Based on analysis of the 1990-1991 National Household Income and Expenditure Survey data, the Report shows that the bottom 20% of households received 5% of all income in Fiji while the top 20% received 50%. However, the slight closure of the gap between rural and urban incomes since the late 1970s shows the positive impact of government policies and programmes of regional and rural development. Significantly, there is a widening income gap within both urban and rural areas.

The poor of Fiji are not necessarily the subsistence villagers, the unemployed, or the lazy. Most poor households have someone in paid employment, but the jobs they have do not pay enough to keep them out of poverty. Many households do not have access to land and sea resources, and even for those that do, subsistence does not provide a good livelihood.

Poverty pervades all communities, Fijian, Indo-Fijian, and Others. The gap between the rich and the poor is increasing according to the Report. But much could be done to improve the situation with relatively little money, especially in housing.

During the 1990s, the Fiji Government had given renewed emphasis to poverty eradication and has put in place new programmes to assist poor and disadvantaged families. The study concluded that a three-pronged strategy for poverty eradication in Fiji would involve improving the productive capacity of the people; improving access to and the performance of social services; and increasing the capacity of community groups to work with and assist the poor.

Human Poverty Index

The UNDP Human Development Report 1997 introduces the Human Poverty Index (HPI) as a new means of evaluating development from a 'deprivational perspective', that is, poverty of lives and opportunities. The Report notes that 'if human development is about enlarging choices, poverty means that opportunities and choices most basic to human development are denied - to lead a long, healthy, creative life and to enjoy a decent standard of living, freedom, dignity, self-respect and the respect of others'. The HPI has been developed as an additional measure of poverty in developing countries, beyond the income indicator and the Human Development Index.

The HPI presented in the 1997 Human Development Report concentrates on the deprivation in three essential elements of life: longevity or life span, as represented by the percentage of people expected to die before age 40; knowledge, as measured by the percentage of adults who are illiterate; and a decent standard of living, as represented by a composite of three variables, namely the percentage of people with access to health services and safe water, and the percentage of malnourished children under five.

Estimates of the HPI, prepared for 78 developing countries having adequate data, reveal that in almost half of the countries covered the HPI value exceeds 34%, implying that about a third of their population suffer from human poverty. (Papua New Guinea, the only Pacific country included in the sample, has a HPI value of 32%)

Comparison of the HPI with income-based measures of poverty show that some countries have done better in reducing income poverty than human poverty, while other countries have done better in reducing human poverty than income poverty. Clearly, progress in reducing poverty in income and progress in reducing poverty in human choices and opportunities do not always move together.

Thus, in monitoring progress, the focus should not be on income poverty alone, but on indicators of human poverty as well, says the Report.