International Journal of Social Economics

Emerald Article: Factors influencing income level of (agro-) pastoral

communities
Eneyew Adunga

Article information:
To cite this document: Eneyew Adunga, (2013),"Factors influencing income level of (agro-) pastoral communities", International
Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 40 Iss: 3 pp. 207 - 219
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03068291311291509
Downloaded on: 25-01-2013
References: This document contains references to 18 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by JIMMA UNIVERSITY
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0306-8293.htm

Factors influencing income level

of (agro-) pastoral communities

Factors
influencing
income level

Eneyew Adunga
Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia

207

Abstract
Purpose Most of the studies done on pastoralists in Ethiopia either rely on qualitative data or
mainly focus on descriptive analysis and thus lack rigorous econometric measures. As a result, very
little is known about the economics of household level activities in pastoral production systems. Thus,
the aim of this paper is to use analysis factors influencing household income among (agro-) pastoralists
of southern Ethiopia. This information therefore can contribute to more evidence-based decision
making occurring across pastoral areas and inform policy decisions regarding the design of income
generating strategies in pastoral areas.
Design/methodology/approach Multi stage sampling technique was followed to select
197 household heads. Descriptive statistics like mean, standard deviation and percentages were
used to explain the socioeconomic characteristics of respondents. The relationship between the
household income and the independent variables were estimated using multiple regression procedure.
Findings The finding shows that wealth and income are highly skewed; agro-pastoralists earned
two-fold more than pastoralists by virtue of their crop activity. The variables explaining the variations
in income level are family size, market distance, land size, education level and livelihood diversification
status. Households with larger family members, farm land, nearer to market centres, diversification
status and literate heads have earned larger income than their counterparts.
Practical implications Improving market access and developing marketing opportunities are
essential to (agro-) pastoralists to get the best value for their products; alongside the expansion of crop
cultivation and creation of alternative livelihood opportunities and access to education should be
emphasized.
Originality/value The paper presents an analysis of original survey conducted by the author from
December to January 2010/11.
Keywords Income, Pastoral, Multiple regressions, Ethiopia, South Omo, Agriculture
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
According to Swift (1988) pastoralists are households where more than 50 percent
household income/consumption is derived from livestock or livestock related activities,
either as a result of sales of livestock products or of direct consumption, and agro
pastoralists as deriving 25-50 percent income/consumption from livestock produce.
Pastoralism makes a significant contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) in many
East African countries. Pastoralists are the custodians of dryland environments,
providing services through good rangeland management including biodiversity
conservation, and wildlife tourism. Despite providing such value, pastoralist areas in
East African countries tend to have the highest incidence of poverty and the least
access to basic services compared with other areas (Oxfam, 2008).
In recent years the Government of Ethiopia has become more decentralized. Pastoral
rights are now protected in the constitution and pastoral issues are debated in
parliament. The positive statements in these policy documents are rarely translated
into actions and strategies that deliver on their promises (Gebru et al., 2004;

International Journal of Social

Economics
Vol. 40 No. 3, 2013
pp. 207-219
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0306-8293
DOI 10.1108/03068291311291509

IJSE
40,3

208

Odi, 2009; UN OCHA, 2007). Yet many policymakers in Ethiopia and also in other
countries still think that sedentarisation of pastoralists is the best way forward, and
that mobile pastoralism is backward and primitive and a cause for poverty and land
degradation. The restructuring of tenure arrangements in pastoral societies may be
seen as an aspect of the general process of marginalisation of pastoral society in
Ethiopia (Helland, 2006). Severe restrictions on the traditional mobile pastoral
production system resulting from inappropriate policies results in an increased
number of pastoralists unable to cope with and recover from drought and other shocks.
In this setting, pastoralists increasingly face poverty and hardship, especially given the
lack of alternative livelihood options (Odi, 2009).
Pastoralist livelihoods are increasingly under pressure and caught in a downward
spiral of resource depletion, and diminishing resilience against drought (UN OCHA,
2007); loss of livestock and shrinking rangelands; loss of traditional natural resources
(land, water, and forestry); break up of traditional governance; lack of market linkage,
education, public health, veterinary services, and water both for human and for
livestock and rural finance are the least developed (Pavanello, 2009; PFE, 2009);
frequent failure of rains, drought, flood, and poor extension support (Mohammed,
2004). More than 50 percent of the chronically drought affected population in Ethiopia
are from the pastoral areas. The frequency of drought recurrence is greater than before,
manifested once every two to three years and, at times, once every year, affecting either
big areas or small pockets. Although the degree and impact of the drought varies
across the pastoral groups, it remains a major cause of asset losses and resource
degradation leading to poverty. It also increases vulnerability of livestock to death and
equally threatens the pastoralists livelihoods (Beruk, 2004; PFE, 2002). Some argue
that it is not meteorological drought that makes the pastoralists more vulnerable;
rather, it is the increasing marginalisation of their drought-response mechanisms
especially the mobility of people and animals, are the main reason for this (Beruk, 2004;
Devereux, 2006; Oxfam, 2008; UN OCHA, 2006). There are also fears that pastoralists,
as purchasers of cereals on the market will be vulnerable to increasing world grain
prices (Morton, 2008).
Many of the studies of pastoralism and pastoral livelihoods have focused on natural
resource governance and management, looking at pastoral land tenure and land use
conflicts. These studies have been undertaken mainly to inform institutional analyses of
pastoralism and of common property resource management. Other studies have been
undertaken mainly by anthropologists, focusing on social and cultural changes and
challenges facing pastoralists. While several studies looking at livelihood diversification
have been carried out in some agro pastoral/pastoral systems (Kejela et al., 2005; Eyasu
and Feyera, 2010) few have been able to use quantitative measures of welfare like
income. Most of the studies done on pastoralists in Ethiopia relies on the qualitative data
and thus lack rigorous quantitative measures. As a result, very little is known about the
economics of household level activities in pastoral production systems. The most direct
measures of living standard is income. It can be seen as comprising claims on goods and
services by individuals or households. In other words, income permits people to obtain
goods and services. Statistics on household income can be approached from the
standpoint of its use for policy analysis as the best proxy for economic wellbeing of
individuals and households that is in terms of those receipts that contribute to
economic wellbeing of individuals by increasing their potential to consume or to save.

Unlike agriculturalists, pastoral households depend more on market transactions to

satisfy their subsistence needs; which demand cash on hand. There is no debate about
the usefulness of quantitative studies for proper policy reform. This study is aimed at
identifying the factors influencing the income level of the pastoral community using
regression. This information therefore can contribute to more evidence-based decision
making occurring across pastoral areas and inform policy decisions regarding the
design of income generating strategies in pastoral areas. Therefore, this study focuses
on the total households income as well as income by source, with particular interest as to
why some households make more money from certain activities than do others.

Factors
influencing
income level
209

Methodology
The study was conducted in southern Ethiopia South Omo. South Omo zone is one of the
most remote parts of southern Ethiopia, which is located at 4.438-6.468 north latitude and
35.79-36.06 south longitude. It covers an area of 22,000 square kilometers. The total
population of the zone is 582,223 of which 289,904 and 29, 2319 are male and female,
respectively, (BoFED, 2010; CSA, 2008). There are 16 ethnic compositions found in the
zone and each ethnic group has its own culture, reflected by their hairstyle, body
decoration, dressing, jewelry, religion and cultural ceremonies in the Zone (Figure 1).
A multistage sampling technique was used to select households for the study. From
the six pastoral and agro pastoral districts of southern region two were randomly
selected representing pastoral and agro pastoral areas. This was followed by the
selection of two peasant associations (PAs) from the selected districts. After wealth
ranking at each of the selected PAs 197 households were randomly selected using
proportional to size techniques. Survey data was collected between December (2010)
and January (2011) with a structured questionnaire which was developed based on the
study objectives and review of literature. In addition, qualitative data were collected
from focus group discussions held at each PAs. One of the focus groups comprises
men, women and young key informants. Data were analyzed with Statistical Packages
for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0 using descriptive statistics and regression
analysis.
Hamer and Bena Tsemay Woreda in SNNPR
N

BENA TSEMAY
Hamer and Bena Tsemay Woredas
HAMER

60

60

120 Kilometers
Y

BENA TSEMAY

HAMER

Figure 1.
Location of the study area

IJSE
40,3

210

Model specification
Multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis is a method for measuring effect of
predictors to explain the variation in the dependent variable. In this study, the
principal dependent variable is annual household income, which includes crop,
livestock and off farm incomes. The independent variables were identified from
previous studies and the nature of the study area. MLR model has been estimated to
determine the best linear combination of 197 head of household for predicting income
statuses by using enter method.
Dependent variable
Y b0 b1 x1 b2 x2 bn xn 1i

where:
Y

annual household income.

x1. . .xn predictor variables.

b0. . .b regression coefficients.
1i

random disturbance error.

Independent variables
X1 gender (1 male 0 female).
X2 education level (1 literate 0 illiterate).
X3 diversification status (1 high 0 low).
X4 age in years.
X5 household size in adult equivalent.
X6 land size in hectares.
X7 livestock size in tropical livestock unit (tlu).
X8 distance to market in km.
Results and discussion
Socioeconomic characteristics of respondents
Wealth status. Participatory wealth ranking is the way to capture differences in
standards of living as perceived by the community themselves, thus making it possible
to gain insight into relative social stratification. It was conducted to know the local
standard indicators of well being as used by the community members to establish the
relative socioeconomic position of households in the community. During participatory
wealth categorization key informants stated ownership of livestock is important signs
of living well. Livestock are considered as the principal form of material wellbeing,
serve as buffers against disasters, as longer-term prosperity, as capital for payments
for wives and serve as prestige. In addition to livestock ownership, most groups
stated the importance of land, and cultivation of crops as a good sign of wellbeing.
It can be said that most of the responses regarding wealth in the pastoral district were

about having large number of livestock, whereas in agro pastoral the differentiation
was based on both livestock and land ownership. Households those depend on relief
food aid were considered poor. The main food sources for households for different
wealth status differ in that the better off and middle wealth groups mainly depend
on milk and maize, while the very poor and poor families mainly depend on purchase
and food aid. The other distinguishing factor was women wear style. The wifes
or daughters of well off households have used to wear a cloth made up of fresh and
soft skins, they have neck, hand and foot bracelets, where as the poor wear
dry skin cloth. Well off women also used butter for their hair, but the poor only soil.
Socially, the better off household is respected and heard; whereas the poor is
marginalized and considered as disabled. However, the society has a way of
sharing wealth to the poor. Accordingly, a household who own more than 60 cattle,
80 shoat is considered better off, a household with up to 60 cattle is medium and
shout and with up to 20 cattle, and shout is poor. Thus, about 15.75, 38.58 and
45.1 percent households are poor, medium and better off, respectively. The results of
the wealth ranking suggest that the agro pastoral communities are poorer than
pastoral communities.
Demographic characteristics. About 34.5 percent of the sample households are
headed by females and the rest are headed by male. When we compare by wealth
position, out of the 31 better off households only three are headed by female. This
figure indicates that female headed households only cover 9.7 percent of the better off
households and the rest are head by males. The x 2 test showed that there is strong
relationship between gender of the household head and wealth status. Marital status of
sample household heads indicated that married, divorced, widowed and single
household heads accounted for about 69, 1.5, 27.9 and 1.5 percent, respectively. The
majority of the sample household heads were married (69.04 percent) followed by
widowed household heads (27.92 percent). From the total widowed household heads
36.67 percent were poor (Table I).
The average household size of the total sample households in adult equivalent (AE)
was 3.9 persons, with 1 and 13 being the minimum and the maximum household sizes,
respectively. When we compare the average household sizes between wellbeing
groups, the study revealed that the better off households have larger household size
than poor households. The possible explanation for this is that the better off
households have better chance for polygamy than the counterparts. The survey result
showed that the average dependency ratio for the sample households is 1.161 implying
that every 100 person within the economically active population groups supported not
only themselves but also additional 116 economically dependent persons with all basic
necessities. The mean dependency ratio is 1.0, 1.27, and 1.22 for poor, average and
better off households (Table I). Better off households were with large dependants than
the poor and less poor households.
Economic characteristics. Ownership rights are critical to securing a sustainable
livelihood and income, and the lack of these rights is one of the main sources of
economic insecurity. Access to education is generally limited in pastoral areas. The
average year of schooling for the total household heads is 1.4 (Table I), which is below
the primary level. From the total, 48.2 percent have zero years of schooling, i.e they
are illiterate. Moreover, spouses of all the sample households were found to be illiterate.
The better off households have the lowest school achievement (, one year of schooling)

Factors
influencing
income level
211

IJSE
40,3

212

Table I.
Socio economic
characteristics
of respondents

Better off
n
%
Gender
Male
Female
Marital status
Single
Married
Divorced
Widowed
Access to credit
Age
Family size in adult
Education in years
Land in hectare
Livestock in tlu
Distance to market

28
3
0
30
0
1
9
Mean
41.81
6.4
0.74
2.9
93.01
16.06

90.32
9.68
2.22
58.89
2.22
36.67
29.03
SD
9.4
2.55
1.03
1.7
116.85
9.63

Wealth status
Medium
n
%

Poor
n

Total
%

53
23

69.74
30.26

48
42

53.33
46.67

129
68

65.5
34.5

1
53
1
21
20
Mean
40.84
4.71
1.51
1.94
31.47
15.47

1.32
69.74
1.32
27.63
26.31
SD
9.9
1.68
1.78
1.23
37.16
8.14

2
53
2
33
25
Mean
37.53
3.95
1.45
1.58
6.97
15.28

2.22
58.89
2.22
36.67
27.78
SD
11.02
1.7
1.47
1.4
8.56
9.52

3
136
3
55
54
Mean
39.5
4.6
1.37
1.93
29.96
15.48

1.5
69
1.5
27.9
27.41
SD
10.5
2.0
1.56
1.45
59.36
8.99

than the poor and average households. This might be due to low cultural value for formal
education than traditional pastoralism as basic livelihoods.
In pastoral areas land is communal and free access of land is possible only after
receiving verbal permission from clan leaders. Land is the most important resource
contributing to pastoralism in the study area, and since land use pattern largely
determines the pattern of use of other resources, it is taken as a proxy for overall
resource use pattern such as grazing and forage lands under the control of a pastoral
household. Land put under cultivation has been considerably increasing over the last
ten years. The major cause of increase in the cropland is increased poverty due to death
of animals. The mean land owned by the sample households was 1.93 with SD of 1.45,
where the minimum and maximum land holding was 0.00 and 8.5 hectares per
household. The study showed that out of the total sample households only 4.6 percent
do not own livestock. The mean livestock holding in tropical livestock unit (tlu) for the
sample households is 29.96, where the minimum is 0.00 and the maximum is 425.7.
Better off households have more livestock than poor households. Accordingly, the
mean livestock holding in tlu was 93.01, 31.47, and 6.97 for the better off, average and
poor households, respectively, (Table I). This indicates that the better off households
own three and 13 folds of the average and poor households, respectively.
Access to credit and market is a bottleneck. Credit use by pastoral households is
uncommon in the study area. Membership in credit associations was also low with only
27.41 percent households accessed credit. The main reason which all households
provided for not using credit was fear of risk and lack of investment behavior. The mean
distance to the market place in kilometers for the sample households is found to be
15.6 km with a minimum of 6 km and a maximum of 35 km. The average for poor,
average and better off households is 15.28, 15.78, 16.06 km, respectively, (Table I), while
the better off households are far from market centers than the poor. Far market will
increase transaction costs, like transport costs and may hinder poor households from
participation. The market prospects are not very favourable for increasing the unit value

of pastoralists livestock; but there is some limited scope for this. Moreover, government
interventions in initiating pastoral cooperatives like that of agricultural cooperatives
were missing. In farming communities agricultural cooperatives were playing a leading
role to improve farmers access to credit and market. But, such organizations are
nonexistent or non functional in pastoral communities.
Sources of household income and expenditure pattern. In the survey, an attempt was
made to collect household income level by source for the last year prior to the survey
period to see whether there is a relationship between income level and socio economic
characteristics. Accordingly, income source of sampled households includes livestock
sale, livestock product sale, crop product sale, petty trade, daily wage, gift and
remittances. The mean income level of sampled households was found to be Birr 3,165.2
with standard deviation of 3,936.9 per household. The minimum and maximum annual
income was 0 and 22,900 Birr, respectively. In subsistence pastoral economy the very
poor households among (agro-) pastoralists were working for the better off; they were
herding and keeping the livestock of the rich and they gain in kind share (milk, food and
goats). They do not have direct access to sale or receive income nor employed in non
pastoral sectors, thus their annual was income nil. The mean income of poor, average
and better off households was 2,207.9, 3,522.2, 5,069.4 Birr, respectively, (Figure 2). This
study showed the misconception about African pastoralists do not sell their animals;
they prefer to hoard them, admire them and compose poems to them is untrue since
households are economically rational to sell their livestock when the need arises. The
major income source for the poor households was crop followed by off farm sources by
share. The bottom poor completely depend on off farm income sources as they could not
cultivate crops. The major off farm income source for the poor households is petty trade
(selling beverages, cheqa, beauty utensils and shoforo). Firewood selling is uncommon
by pastoralists of the study area. However, it is practiced by urban destitute in the area.
The better off households get significant amount of income from livestock sales and crop
sale. In the past, income from casual or agricultural labor is not common by all the
wellbeing groups, however now mainly the poor are beginning to engage in causal labor
in order to cope food shortage. There are different mechanisms of helping the poor
members of the community among the pastoral communities. The support ranges from
provision of milk and other foods to sustain the poor families to the contribution of heads
of cattle to restock the herd. The poor can go for herding for the well to do family and get

Factors
influencing
income level
213

Figure 2.
Mean income
per household

IJSE
40,3

214

basic needs. At the same time, he can be given a head of cattle to reestablish his herd.
The very poor totally depend on the support of the better offs and earn null. The income
discrepancy between the wellbeing groups is high. The better off households could
generate more than two folds of income the poor could earn.
The comparison of income by livelihood activity showed that the major income
source for pastoralists were livestock followed by off farm sectors, whereas agro
pastoralists income emanates from crop, livestock and off farm sources (Table II).
The overall earning of agro pastoralists was two folds of that of pastoralists. The main
discrepancy was in income from crop production. At the household level, many
pastoralists produce crops such as sorghum and maize on an opportunistic basis.
Although this cannot provide additional income, this is often a risky strategy given the
susceptibility of crops to rain failure. The implication was that diversification out of
livestock economy is the reality of many pastoralists. The value of own consumption
was highest for pastoralists than agro pastoralists.
The share of pastoralism/agro pastoralism, and off/nonfarm sectors accounts for
about 82.8 and 17.2 percent, respectively, (Table III). This figure is lower by half than
that for rural households in sub-Saharan Africa (Ellis, 2007). The most impressing figure
is that of petty trading (9.8 percent) on local drinks, beauty utensils and shoforo which
were mainly performed by women. This result leads to the understanding that there are
challenges which prevent pastoralists to insulate themselves from environmental and
economic shocks, trends and seasonality and improve livelihoods. Increasingly, many
pastoralists can no longer rely on livestock alone to provide them with a livelihood,

Pastoral

Table II.
Income earning by
livelihood activity (ETB)

Annual income by source

Mean

SD

Off farm income

Crop income
Livestock income
Annual income
Value of own consumption

265.4
11.8
1,707.2
1,926.0
7,683.1

529.5
75.4
2,306.6
2,302.5
13,255.7

Income source

Table III.
Share of income
by source

Pastoral/agro pastoral
Livestock
Crop
Sub total
Off/non farm
Remittance
Causal work (wage)
Petty trade
Hand crafts
Government aid
Sub total
Total

Agro pastoral
Mean
SD
526.4
2,731.0
1,090.1
4,229.0
6,400.4

2,522.2
3,079.9
1,916.0
4,681.2
6,255.0

Share of total cash income

40.1
42.7
82.8
0.41
1.36
9.8
0.30
5.4
17.2
100

yet other income-earning opportunities remain limited, as the growing number of

destitute ex-pastoralists shows.
The mean annual expenditure for poor, average and better off households was
769.20, 980.97, and 1,029.19 Birr, respectively. The value of own consumption for poor,
average and better off households was 3,581, 8,788, and 12,495 ETB, respectively,
(Table IV). Here the own production value of the better off households is four folds than
that of the poor households. The non food expenditure component indicated that; the
poor, average and better off households was 309.46, 477.05 and 993.48 birr,
respectively. From this data, the expenditure by better off households is three folds
than that of the poor. Proportion of expenditure on food commodity is higher as
compared to non food expenditure. Similarly, expenditure pattern across the livelihood
patterns indicated that food and total expenditure was highest for pastoralists whereas
non food expenditure of agro pastoralists was double of pastoralists.
Diversification status. Income diversification is a key for risk management and will
help vulnerable pastoral households to meet consumption, social and labor needs.
In this study, the share of livestock income in total household income is used to
measure level of diversification. Literature conforms that a household with more than
50 percent income share from livestock is considered to be a pastoralist (Swift, 1988),
while the other 50 percent is from diverse sources. Accordingly, a household with less
than 25 percent, between 26-75 percent and greater than 76 percent income share from
livestock is, respectively, grouped under highly, moderately and less diversified.
Figure 3 showed that 39.1, 18.27, and 42.64 percent households have, respectively,
highly, moderately and less diversified. This shows that all pastoral households have
diversified livelihoods although the level varies.

Factors
influencing
income level
215

Factors influencing income level

Multiple regression analysis was used to explore the determinants of income level.
There are basic assumptions in using linear regression. These assumptions include
that the relationship between the explanatory variables and the outcome variable has
to be linear; the individual data points of income for each of the explanatory variables
are normally distributed about the line of means; and the explanatory variables are
independent of each other. Existence of outliers and normality was checked for both
dependent and independent variables. About 14 responses were found to be outliers
for annual household income. Thus, the appropriate method to make it a unit larger or
smaller than last case that fits in the distribution was done to avoid normality
problems. Similarly, the six outliers for livestock ownership were corrected.
Household expenditure

Poor
Average
Better off
Total
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Food
769.2 1,038.5
981.0
858.8 1,029.2 1,064.2 891.9
975.7
Non food
309.5
396.7
477.1
581.0
993.5 1,314.3 481.8
721.2
Annual
4,608.8 3,458.3 10,220.7 14,367.4 14,385.1 9,151.1 8,312.2 10,525.2
Value of own consumption 3,581.4 3,021.0 8,788.5 14,083.1 12,495.2 8,335.8 6,992.9 10,102.3
Expenditure
Pastoral
Agro pastoral
Food
986.92 807.25 799.82 1,111.4
Non food
304.7
452.0
633.8
863.3
Total
1,291.6
967.6 1,478.4 1,463.6

Table IV.
Expenditure patterns by
wellbeing status (ETB)

IJSE
40,3

216

Figure 3.
Income diversification
by respondents

Thus, normality was not a severe problem for both dependent and independent
variables measured by skewness and kurtosis which approximately between 2 1 and
1 (Table VII). To test for multicollenearity among independent variables variance
inflation factor (VIF) and contingency coefficients were used for continuous and
discrete variables, respectively. Since none of the continuous variables have a VIF
greater than ten and the discrete variables have more than 0.75 contingency
coefficients; there are no apparent multicollinearity problems (Tables V and VI).
Table VII also showed that there are no problems of linearity among metric variables.
Results indicated that the coefficient of multiple determinations is (R 2 0.449)
and the adjusted multiple determination is (Adjusted R 2 0.425). Therefore,
about 42.5 percent of the variation in level of income is explained by all explanatory
variables. Based on the value of R 2, the regression equation model could be used
Unstandardized
coefficients
B
SE

Table V.
Multiple regression
results for determinants
of household income

(Constant)
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
R2
Adj R 2
F

719.266
226.765
1,114.448
1,264.358
2 0.669
395.919
2,383.615
3.699
2 115.229
0.449
0.425
18.821

1,336.309
468.829
439.178
508.168
21.277
108.944
783.937
3.557
22.647

Standardized
coefficients
b

Sig.

0.031
0.162
0.163
20.002
0.231
0.199
0.064
20.308

0.538
0.484
2.538
2.488
2 0.031
3.634
3.041
1.040
2 5.088

0.591
0.629
0.012 *
0.014 *
0.975
0.000 * *
0.003 * *
0.300
0.000 * *

p , 0.01

Note: Significant at less than *5 and * *1 percent probability levels

Collinearity
statistics
Tolerance
VIF
0.708
0.730
0.825
0.709
0.737
0.695
0.784
0.814

1.412
1.370
1.213
1.410
1.357
1.439
1.275
1.229

in making predictions of the factors affecting household income level. It can be

concluded that at least one of the predictors is useful for predicting household income
status. ANOVA test which assesses the overall significance of multiple regression
model was carried out (F 18.821; p , 0.01).Therefore, the model used is useful
and fit.
Of the total eight predictors, only five were found to be significant at the specified
tolerant level of 0.50 to explain the variation in household income level and all of the
hypothesized variables have possessed the expected sign except family size.
Although, the number of livestock holding was expected to significantly influence
income level it was not significant. This indicates that possession of large herd may
not guarantee household income enhancement unless the attitude of keeping livestock
for prestige and buffering against climate risk is changed. Land size, household size
positively and distance to market centre negatively at ( p , 0.01), education level and
diversification status at ( p , 0.05) had a highly significant impact on the total
income of households. This implies that for every one adult addition in the household
size there is an increase of 395.919 ETB in households conditional mean of income,
while one kilometer increment in market distance reduces household income by a
factor of 115.2. The higher the land holding size and level of education means the
greater the income level. This proves that education or attainment of human capital
and expansion of farming land were the factor that can reduce income inequality; this
result is similar with that of Radeny et al. (2006). Those households who have
diversified income sources into non pastoral livelihoods earned more income than
their counterparts. This is also evidence for the need for livelihood diversification
strategies in pastoral context.

Variables
X1
X2
X3

X1

X2

X3

1
0.193
0.053

1
0.473

Note: Significant at: *p , 0.05 and * *p , 0.01

Normality

Skewness
0.705
Kurtosis
0.825
Pearson correlation
Y
1.000
X4
20.144 * *
X5
0.307 * * *
X6
0.261 * * *
X7
0.018 *
X8
20.292 * * *

X4

X5

0.775
0.822

0.630
0.508

1.000
0.194 * * *
2 0.166 * * *
0.321 * * *
0.221 * * *

1.000
0.263
0.296 * * *
0.012

X6
0.901
0.179

1.000
2 0.020
0.099

X7
0.932
0.208

Factors
influencing
income level
217

Table VI.
Contingency coefficients
for dummy variables

X8
0.575
2 0.805

1.000
0.180 * * *

Note: Correlation is significant at: *p , 0.1, * *p , 0.05 and * * *p , 0.001 probability levels

1.000

Table VII.
Normality and linearity
test for metric variables

IJSE
40,3

218

Conclusion and recommendations

This study has analyzed the factors of household income level in pastoral and agro
pastoral areas of southern Ethiopia. The main aim of this study is to assess
households sources of income and examine the factors that affect variation in their
incomes. Results from this study indicate that almost all households have diverse
sources of income. Wealth in the study area is highly skewed. A multiple regression
analysis was carried out to assess factors that may explain the variation observed from
households income in the study areas. Accordingly, family size, distance to market,
land size, education level and diversification status were found to be significant in
explaining the variations in the level of household income.
In order to have improved pastoral and agro pastoral livelihoods and income the
government should enhance infrastructure development. Improving market access for
pastoral products and developing marketing opportunities are essential to the ability of
pastoralists to get the best value for their products. The fact that there were no
cooperatives initiatives in the study areas urge that special emphasis has to be given to
the formation of cooperative societies among the pastoralists in order to enhance their
market bargaining power. In addition, government should have a sound policy that will
make diverse portfolio of livelihoods more accessible to the households. For instance,
encouraging alternative economic activity using appropriate livestock products like
dairy-product processing, milk, hides and skin, fat processing which could improve the
income of the community. The focus of policy has to secure pastoral production systems
and strengthened as the core use of the arid and semi-arid land areas. Land reform to
enhance land access at household level is an important option in addressing inequalities
in income earning. Provision of education and skill training would be valuable areas of
intervention. In general, development agencies must take seriously the central economic
objective of income generation interventions in pastoral areas.
References
Beruk, Y. (2004), Food Security Situation in the Pastoral Areas of Ethiopia, Oxfam GB,
Addis Ababa.
BoFED (2010), Socio Economic Profile of South Omo Zone, BoFED, Addis Ababa.
CSA (2008), Central Statistical Authority Population Estimates, CSA, Addis Ababa.
Devereux, S. (2006), Vulnerable Livelihoods in Somali Region, IDS, Brighton.
Eyasu, E. and Feyera, A. (2010), Putting pastoralists on the policy agenda: land alienation in
Southern Ethiopia, key highlights in sustainable agriculture and natural resource
management.
Gebru, G., Desta, S. and Coppock, D.L. (Eds) (2004), Pastoralism in Ethiopia and the policy
environment: linking research, development actors, and decision-makers, Summary of
Proceedings. Meeting Held 15 August 2003, at the International Livestock Research
Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa.
Helland, J. (2006), Pastoral Land Tenure in Ethiopia Regime Foncier Pastoral en Ethiopie,
Michelsen Institute, Bergen.
Kejela, G., Bezabih, E. and Waktole, T. (2005), Livelihood diversification in Borana pastoral
communities of Ethiopia prospects and challenges.
Mohammed, M. (2004), A comparative study of pastoralist parliamentary groups: case study on
the pastoral affairs Standing Committee of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.

Odi (2009), Pastoralism, policies and practice in the horn and East Africa a review of current
trends, synthesis paper, Humanitarian Policy Group, London.
Oxfam (2008), Survival of the fittest, Oxfam Briefing Paper 116, August.
Pavanello, S. (2009), Pastoralists Vulnerability in the Horn of Africa: Exploring Political
Marginalization, Donors Policies, and Cross-border Issues Literature Review,
Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) Overseas Development Institute, London.
PFE (2002), Proposed pastoral development policy recommendations (submitted to the Ministry
of Federal Affairs, Ethiopia), Pastoralist Forum Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, July.
PFE (2009), Pastoralist perspectives of poverty reduction strategy program experiences and
lessons from Afar region of Ethiopia, Pastoralist Forum Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
Radeny, M., Nkedianye, D., Kristjanson, P. and Herrero, M. (2006), Livelihood choices and
returns among agro-pastoralists in southern Kenya, paper presented at an international
conference entitled Pastoralism and Poverty Reduction in East Africa: IRLI, 27-28 June.
Swift, J. (1988), Major Issues in Pastoral Development with Special Emphasis on Selected African
Countries, FAO, Rome.
UN OCHA (2006), Humanitarian Appeal Document for Ethiopia, UN OCHA, Addis Ababa,
January.
UN OCHA (2007), The Future of Pastoralism in Ethiopia, UN OCHA, Addis Ababa.
Corresponding author
Eneyew Adunga can be contacted at: adugna_e@yahoo.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Factors
influencing
income level
219