Bassole, LeandreEssama-Nssah, B.Paul, Saumik2012-03-192012-03-192010-11-01https://hdl.handle.net/10986/3945This paper presents counterfactual decompositions based on both the Shapley method and a generalization of the Oaxaca-Blinder approach to identify proximate factors that might explain differences in the distribution of economic welfare in Cameroon in 1996-2007. In particular, the analysis uses re-centered influence function regressions to link the growth incidence curve for 2001-2007 to household characteristics and account for heterogeneity of impact across quantiles in terms of the composition (or endowment) effect and structural (or price) effect. The analysis finds that the level of the growth incidence curve is explained by the endowment effect while its shape is driven by the price effect. Observed gains at the bottom of the distribution are due to returns to endowments. The rest of the gains are accounted for by the composition effect. Further decomposition of these effects shows that the composition effect is determined mainly by household demographics while the structural effect is shaped by the sector of employment and geography. Finally, analysis of the rural-urban gap in living standards shows that, for the poorest households in both sectors, differences in household characteristics matter more than the returns to those characteristics. The opposite is true for better-off households.CC BY 3.0 IGOADVERSE EFFECTSAGGREGATE POVERTYAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENTAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTSAGRICULTURAL SECTORANNUAL GROWTHANNUAL GROWTH RATEAVERAGE GROWTHAVERAGE GROWTH RATEAVERAGE INCOMECHANGES IN POVERTYCOMMUNITY ASSETSCOMPETITIVENESSCOUNTERFACTUALDATA ISSUESDEBTDEBT RELIEFDECOMPOSABLE POVERTYDECOMPOSABLE POVERTY MEASURESDECOMPOSITION TECHNIQUESDENSITY FUNCTIONDEPENDENT VARIABLEDEVALUATIONDEVELOPMENT EFFORTSDEVELOPMENT POLICYDEVELOPMENT REPORTDEVELOPMENT STRATEGYDISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONECONOMIC ACTIVITYECONOMIC GROWTHECONOMICSEMPIRICAL RESULTSEMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIESESTIMATED COEFFICIENTSEXCHANGE RATEEXPECTED VALUEEXPECTED VALUESEXPORT MARKETSEXPORT PRICE INDEXEXPORTSFEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDSFOOD CROPSGDPGINI COEFFICIENTGINI INDEXGNPGROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCTGROWTH COMPONENTGROWTH EFFECTGROWTH EPISODEGROWTH PROCESSGROWTH PROSPECTSGROWTH RATESHEADCOUNT POVERTYHOUSEHOLD COMPOSITIONHOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICSHOUSEHOLD HEADHOUSEHOLD LEVEL DATAHOUSEHOLD SURVEYHOUSEHOLD SURVEYSHOUSEHOLD WELFAREHUMAN CAPITALINCIDENCE OF POVERTYINCOMEINCOME DISTRIBUTIONINCOME EFFECTINCOME GROWTHINCOME GROWTH RATEINCOME INEQUALITYINCOME SHAREINCREASING INEQUALITYINEQUALITYINEQUALITY EFFECTLABOR FORCELAND OWNERSHIPLIVING STANDARDSLORENZ CURVEMACROECONOMIC STABILITYMARGINAL EFFECTMEAN GROWTHMEAN INCOMEMULTIPLIER EFFECTSNATIONAL POVERTYNEGATIVE SIGNPER CAPITA EXPENDITUREPER CAPITA INCOMEPOLICY REFORMSPOLICY RESEARCHPOLITICAL STABILITYPOORPOOR COUNTRIESPOOR INFRASTRUCTUREPOOR PEOPLEPOPULATION SHAREPOVERTY ANALYSISPOVERTY GAPPOVERTY IMPACTPOVERTY INCIDENCEPOVERTY INDICESPOVERTY LEVELSPOVERTY LINEPOVERTY MEASUREPOVERTY MEASURESPOVERTY OUTCOMESPOVERTY RATESPOVERTY REDUCTIONPOVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGYPOVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY PAPERPUBLIC INVESTMENTPUBLIC POLICYPUBLIC SECTORPUBLIC SPENDINGREAL GDPREAL INCOMEREDUCTION IN POVERTYREGIONAL DIFFERENCESREGIONAL DISPARITYREGIONAL DISTRIBUTIONREGIONAL DISTRIBUTIONSREGIONAL DUMMIESREGIONAL INEQUALITYREGIONAL LEVELREGIONAL POVERTYREGRESSION ANALYSISRELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONRELATIVE INEQUALITYRURALRURAL AREARURAL AREASRURAL COUNTERPARTSRURAL DIFFERENCESRURAL INEQUALITYRURAL MARKETSRURAL POVERTYRURAL SECTORSCALE EFFECTSCHOOLINGSIGNIFICANT IMPACTSMALLHOLDER AGRICULTURESQUARED POVERTY GAPSTRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENTSUBSISTENCETRADE SHOCKSURBAN AREASURBAN POVERTYURBAN REGIONWELFARE INDICATORWELFARE LEVELWorld Bank10.1596/1813-9450-5464