Authors
Dr. Sajjad Ahmad Jan
Coordinator & Senior Research Fellow, DIL
Mr. Inam Ullah
Research Associate, DIL
PhD Scholar, Department of Economics
Dr. Fahim Nawaz
Coordinator & Senior Research Fellow, DIL
Mr. Bilal Yaqub
Research Associate, DIL
Executive Summary
This report provides a comprehensive examination of multidimensional household deprivation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) from 2004–05 to 2019–20.
The analysis identifies a two-phase development trajectory: an initial improvement followed by a reversal.
Deprivation declined from 50.7 percent to 32.2 percent but later increased to 42.7 percent.
The findings indicate that development gains were not sustained and highlight a disconnect between infrastructure improvements and human development outcomes.
Key Messages
- Development in KP improved for more than a decade, but those gains were not sustained.
- The period after 2015 shows a clear reversal in multidimensional deprivation.
- Infrastructure-related indicators improved, but human development indicators—especially education—deteriorated sharply.
- Inequality across districts remained high, indicating uneven development outcomes.
- The findings point to the need for inclusive, region-specific, and sustainable policy responses.
Indicator | Earlier Phase | Later Phase |
Overall deprivation | 50.7% → 32.2% | 42.7% by 2019–20 |
Education | Improved initially | Sharp deterioration |
Electricity | Continuous improvement | Continued improvement |
1. Introduction
Multidimensional deprivation represents a complex and evolving phenomenon in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), where improvements in average living conditions coexist with persistent disparities and structural weaknesses. While aggregate indicators may suggest a general improvement in welfare over time, a closer examination reveals that these gains have not been uniformly distributed across districts, nor have they been sustained over time.
The province of KP is characterized by significant heterogeneity in geographic, economic, and institutional conditions. On one end of the spectrum are relatively developed urban and semi-urban districts with better infrastructure, stronger institutional presence, and improved access to services. On the other end are remote, mountainous, and historically marginalized districts—including merged districts—that face structural constraints such as limited accessibility, weak service delivery, and low levels of human development.
Understanding deprivation in such a context requires moving beyond simple averages and examining the temporal evolution of deprivation, the distribution of deprivation across districts, and the underlying drivers that shape these patterns. In particular, it is essential to assess whether improvements in average deprivation reflect genuine and sustainable development or whether they mask underlying fragilities and inequalities.
This study focuses specifically on the temporal dimension of deprivation, identifying how deprivation has evolved over time and whether the observed changes represent sustained progress or temporary gains. A key contribution of this analysis is the identification of a two-phase development pattern, which provides a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics of deprivation in KP.
The central argument emerging from this analysis is that KP has experienced significant improvement, but not structurally sustained development. While deprivation declined during an extended period, this progress was not maintained, and a subsequent reversal indicates the presence of underlying vulnerabilities. This finding challenges the assumption that development is a linear and cumulative process and instead highlights the importance of examining the stability and inclusiveness of development gains.
Methodology
2.1 Data Source
This study utilizes secondary data obtained from the Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement (PSLM) surveys, conducted by the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. The PSLM is a nationally representative household survey that provides detailed information on education, health, housing conditions, and access to basic services.
The analysis covers multiple survey rounds spanning the period from 2004–05 to 2019–20, allowing for the examination of temporal changes in deprivation at the district level. The use of repeated cross-sectional data enables the identification of long-term trends as well as short-term fluctuations in multidimensional deprivation.
2.2 Unit of Analysis
The primary unit of analysis in this study is the district. Household-level data from PSLM are aggregated to construct district-level deprivation measures.
This approach allows for:
2.3 Selection of Indicators
The education dimension captures Years of Schooling, Children Attending School, and Quality of Education. A household is considered deprived in Years of Schooling if any member of household above 10 years of age has not completed five years of schooling. It is deprived in Children Attending School if any child aged 6 to 11 is not attending school. It is deprived in Quality of Education if any child is not attending school because of the non-availability of enough teachers, long school distance, high expenses, the absence of male or female teachers, lack of essential facilities, or substandard schooling.
The living standards dimension captures access to Improved Drinking Water, Improved Sanitation, Wall Material, Overcrowding (defined here as four or more individuals per room), Electricity, Improved Fuel, and Asset Ownership. For each district and year, the deprivation percentage represents the weighted share of households classified as deprived under the relevant indicator.
3. Indicator-Level Analysis
While the trend analysis provides a clear overview of the temporal evolution of deprivation, it does not reveal the underlying sectoral drivers of change. To fully understand the nature of both improvement and subsequent deterioration, it is essential to examine deprivation at the indicator level. This allows for a more nuanced interpretation of which dimensions contributed to progress and which dimensions were responsible for the reversal observed after 2015.
The indicator-level analysis reveals a complex and non-uniform pattern. During the first phase (2004–2015), improvements were observed across most indicators, suggesting broad-based development. However, in the second phase (2015–2020), several key indicators deteriorated sharply, while others continued to improve. This divergence across indicators forms one of the central analytical insights of the study.
3.1 Education Indicators
Education represents a critical dimension of deprivation and plays a central role in shaping long-term welfare outcomes. The analysis of education indicators reveals both improvement and severe deterioration over time.
3.1.1 Child School Attendance
Child school deprivation declined significantly from 38.5 percent in 2004–05 to 24.5 percent in 2014–15. This indicates a substantial improvement in school enrollment and access to education. The reduction suggests that policy interventions aimed at increasing enrollment, improving accessibility, and enhancing awareness may have been effective during this period.
However, despite this improvement, the persistence of deprivation indicates that access remained incomplete, particularly in more disadvantaged districts.
3.1.2 Education Quality
Education quality also improved during the first phase, with deprivation declining from 40.5 percent to approximately 29 percent. This suggests improvements in school infrastructure, teacher availability, and educational facilities. However, the relatively smaller magnitude of improvement compared to school attendance indicates that quality remained a constraint.
This divergence between access and quality highlights a structural issue in the education system, where increasing enrollment does not necessarily translate into improvements in learning outcomes.
3.1.3 Educational Attainment (More than Five Years of Schooling)
Educational attainment showed only limited improvement during the first phase, suggesting that while more children were attending school, completion rates remained low. This reflects persistent issues such as dropout rates, economic constraints, and limited continuity in education.
3.2 Education Crisis in the Second Phase
A striking and highly significant finding emerges in the second phase. Educational deprivation increased dramatically, with deprivation in educational attainment rising from 20.4 percent to 96.1 percent, and education quality deprivation increasing from 29.4 percent to 57.6 percent.
This sharp increase represents a severe deterioration and constitutes one of the most critical findings of the study. The magnitude of the increase—particularly the value of 96.1 percent—raises important concerns regarding the reliability and interpretation of the data.
Several possible explanations may account for this result. These include changes in measurement methodology, stricter definitions of deprivation, inclusion of previously excluded and highly deprived merged districts, or the occurrence of structural shocks affecting education systems. Regardless of the exact cause, the observed pattern indicates a breakdown in educational outcomes in the later period.
This finding must therefore be interpreted with caution, but it nonetheless highlights a critical vulnerability in the human development dimension.
3.3 Basic Services
3.3.1 Water Access
Water deprivation declined from 38.4 percent in 2004–05 to 30.6 percent in 2014–15, and continued to improve modestly thereafter. This indicates a gradual but consistent expansion in access to safe water, reflecting improvements in infrastructure and service delivery.
3.3.2 Sanitation
Sanitation represents one of the most dramatic cases of both improvement and reversal. Deprivation declined sharply from 65.2 percent in 2004–05 to 28.0 percent in 2014–15, indicating a major expansion in sanitation facilities and improved service delivery.
However, this progress was not sustained. By 2019–20, sanitation deprivation increased again to 60.6 percent. This sharp reversal suggests that sanitation improvements were not structurally embedded and may have been affected by maintenance issues, service deterioration, or inclusion of highly deprived regions.
3.3.3 Electricity
Electricity deprivation declined steadily from 11.7 percent in 2004–05 to 5.8 percent in 2014–15 and further to 3.35 percent in 2019–20. This consistent improvement indicates that electricity access expanded continuously, even during the period when overall deprivation increased.
This suggests that infrastructure development in electricity was sustained and relatively resilient.
3.3.4 Fuel
Fuel deprivation remained persistently high throughout the period, declining only marginally from around 80 percent to 73.8 percent. This indicates that a large proportion of households continue to rely on traditional fuels, reflecting structural energy poverty.
3.4 Housing Conditions
3.4.1 Wall Quality
Wall deprivation declined significantly from 61.3 percent to 18.9 percent, indicating substantial improvements in housing quality. This reflects long-term improvements in living standards and housing construction.
3.4.2 Overcrowding
Overcrowding declined gradually from 38.7 percent to 30.2 percent and continued to improve thereafter. This suggests incremental improvements in housing space and living conditions.
3.5 Integrated Indicator-Level Interpretation
The combined analysis of indicators reveals a critical structural pattern. During the first phase, improvements were broad-based, affecting education, services, and housing simultaneously. However, in the second phase, the pattern diverged.
While infrastructure-related indicators such as electricity and water continued to improve, human development indicators—particularly education—deteriorated sharply. This leads to a central analytical conclusion:
This disconnect highlights a fundamental imbalance in the development process and suggests that sectoral progress was not well integrated.
4. Inter-District Inequality
4.1 Evolution of Inequality
The inter-district deprivation gap provides a clear measure of inequality across regions. The gap evolved as follows
Table: Inter-District Deprivation Gap
Year | Gap (Percentage Points) |
2004–05 | 31.3 |
2010–11 | 28.0 |
2012–13 | 41.5 |
2019–20 | 39.1 |
4.2 Interpretation
The data show that inequality remained high throughout the period and increased significantly in later years. Although there was a temporary reduction in inequality around 2010–11, this was followed by a sharp increase.
This indicates that development gains were unevenly distributed across districts. While some districts experienced significant improvements, others lagged behind.
5. Spatial Pattern of Deprivation
5.1 Core–Periphery Structure
The spatial distribution of deprivation reveals a clear core–periphery pattern.
- Most Deprived District: Orakzai, Kohistan, Torghar, Shangla, and Upper Dir exhibit the highest levels of deprivation. These districts are characterized by geographic isolation, mountainous terrain, and limited access to services.
- Least Deprived Districts: Peshawar, Abbottabad, Haripur, Nowshera, and Mardan exhibit relatively low deprivation. These districts benefit from better infrastructure, stronger institutional presence, and improved connectivity.
5.2 Magnitude of Spatial Inequality
The gap between the most deprived and least deprived districts is approximately 34 percentage points, indicating a substantial disparity. In many cases, deprivation levels in the most deprived districts are more than double those in the least deprived districts.
5.3 Interpretation
This pattern is not random but reflects structural factors such as geography, infrastructure, and institutional capacity. It indicates that deprivation in KP is spatially concentrated and structurally determined.
6. District-Level Dynamics
The district-level analysis reveals that while most districts experienced improvements, the magnitude of change varied significantly. Some districts such as Malakand and Charsadda showed substantial improvements, while others such as Kohistan and Bannu experienced minimal progress. Hangu stands out as a case of deterioration.
This uneven pattern indicates that development has been heterogeneous and influenced by district-specific conditions.
7. Drivers of Deprivation
The analysis identifies education failure, poor sanitation and water access, energy poverty, and low asset ownership as the primary drivers of deprivation. Housing conditions, while important, are relatively less significant compared to these factors.
8. Policy Implications
The findings suggest that uniform policy approaches are insufficient. Instead, region-specific and targeted interventions are required. Priority should be given to improving education systems, expanding basic services, addressing energy poverty, and strengthening district-level planning.
9. Conclusion
The analysis demonstrates that while multidimensional deprivation in KP declined during a prolonged period, these gains were not sustained. Inequality remained high, spatial disparities persisted, and development gains proved fragile.
The central conclusion is that development in KP has been characterized by improvement without inclusion and progress without sustainability. Future policy must therefore focus on achieving inclusive, region-specific, and sustainable development.
References
Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2011). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 476–487.
Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2014). Measuring acute poverty in the developing world. World Development, 59, 251–274.
Bourguignon, F. (2004). The poverty-growth-inequality triangle.
Government of Pakistan. (2016). Multidimensional Poverty in Pakistan.
Ravallion, M. (2016). The Economics of Poverty.
Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom.
UNDP. (2010). Human Development Report.
UNDP. (2020). Human Development Report.
World Bank. (2018). Poverty and Shared Prosperity.
Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. PSLM Surveys (various years).