Introduction

Economic indicators are crucial to the analysis of firearm proliferation as there tends to be a strong link between financial well-being, of which they are illustrative, and the propensity to own a firearm and the level of exposure to crime. This link, though not directly causal but rather based on an interactive complex, usually indicates that the poorer one's financial situation the greater the exposure to crime and the greater the likelihood of firearm ownership. This relationship will be explored in more depth in the final section of this report.

There is a tendency for respondents to dampen their financial situation in surveys of this type, particularly when conducted in a largely rural area. That is, respondents will tend to present their financial situation as being worse than in reality it is. The reason for this dampening tendency is unknown. One possible explanation is that respondents may identify the survey as being a precursor to, and determinant of, the provision of assistance to the area, and therefore, they are keen to present a worse situation so as to influence the delivery of this assistance, i.e. ensure that it comes to their area and is as substantial as possible.

There are five indicators that will be considered in this section. Loosely speaking, these are divided into those that measure the current financial standing of the household, those that provide an indication of the financial situation to come (leading indicators), and finally, those that provide a picture of the past financial situation (lagging indicators). The lagging indicators are the last to change when a financial situation changes.

The level of access to productive resources (such as land, livestock and household assets) also provides insights into the financial standing of respondents across the sample regions. When the level of access to productive resources is compared with other indicators a more in-depth understanding of the nature and extent of firearm proliferation can be obtained.

Analysis of results

Of the five economic indicators measured in this section, the most basic measure of the economic status of the region was that relating to the frequency of going hungry. The mean score for this indicator was substantially higher than for the other indicators (indicating that households go hungry seldom/never). This would imply that although the people of Tanzania are finding it more difficult to meet their household needs and are spending more time worrying about their financial situation, they are in fact still able to meet their basic need commitments. The rising levels of worry about financial conditions and the strain in meeting household needs are leading indicators, pointing to the start of an economic downturn in certain regions.

Two indicators that closely mirrored each other (in terms of mean score) were those of the ability to meet the household's financial needs and the frequency of worrying about the household's financial needs, where the mean scores indicated a general perception of a worsening or tightening economic situation within households. As was previously stated, these are lead indicators and thus provide a projection of future developments. Consequently, it can be concluded that the following regions are starting to experience an economically worsening situation: Kagera, Kigoma, Mbeya, Morogoro and Tanga.

However, although there is evidence of an economic downturn in some of the regions, in none of the regions were people frequently going hungry (besides perhaps in Dar es Salaam). This can be explained by the level of subsistence farming in Tanzania, which means that despite the extremely low levels of income and the apparent worsening economic situation, many Tanzanians are still able to adequately feed themselves and their families. In this regard, the level of land ownership for farming suggests that subsistence farming is less diffuse than previously thought.

Leading economic indicators

Two economic indicators were used to provide an illustration of the impending household financial situation; namely the frequency of worrying about the household money situation and the ability to meet the household needs.

The frequency of worrying about the household financial situation provided an accurate reflection of the current economic standing of the household. Respondents from Kagera (52%) and Tanga (51%) most frequently worried about their household's financial situation.

Table 17: Frequency of worrying about financial situation (percentage)

	Arusha	Dar es Salaam	Kagera	Kigoma	Kilimanjaro	Mbeya	Morogoro	Mwanza	Pwani	Ruvuma	Tanga	Zanzibar
Always/often	13	33	52	44	24	10	28	22	30	41	51	29
Sometimes	14	29	20	15	18	31	36	24	33	21	24	20
Seldom/never	74	38	29	42	58	59	37	55	38	38	24	51
Mean	3.70	2.94	2.52	2.68	3.29	3.64	3.00	.0.9	2.94	2.77	2.41	3.07
n =	79	454	236	240	236	239	226	373	160	222	239	162
Key for mean score: 1 = Maximum agreement (Always/often) < > 5 = Minimum agreement (Seldom/never)

Respondents were asked to indicate whether meeting their family needs was more or less difficult than before. The respondents from Tanga (91%) and Morogoro (76%) were finding it more difficult to meet their family needs, as were, to a slightly lesser extent, respondents from Kagera, Kigoma and Mbeya.

What was interesting was that in some regions the respondents were actually finding it easier to meet the household needs. The respondents from Pwani, Arusha and Kilimanjaro were amongst those that found this to be the case.

Table 18: Ability to meet family needs (percentage)

	Arusha	Dar es Salaam	Kagera	Kigoma	Kilimanjaro	Mbeya	Morogoro	Mwanza	Pwani	Ruvuma	Tanga	Zanzibar
More difficult	23	42	64	59	10	62	76	46	36	51	91	52
Same as before	32	19	21	8	15	24	3	37	9	27	3	13
Less difficult	46	40	15	33	75	14	21	17	55	22	6	35
Mean	3.22	2.89	2.29	2.30	3.70	2.14	1.89	2.59	3.24	2.53	1.84	2.78
n =	79	455	229	237	234	236	223	349	160	214	230	161
Key for mean score: 1 = Maximum agreement (More difficult) < > 5 = Minimum agreement (Less difficult)

Current economic indicators

The frequency of going hungry provides an accurate indication of the household's current economic situation.

The predominantly urban region of Dar es Salaam, in which the city of Dar es Salaam is located, was the area in which respondents most frequently went hungry. It was found that 17% of these respondents 'always/often' went hungry, while a further 19% of these respondents 'sometimes' went hungry. Similarly, the respondents from Zanzibar frequently went hungry. Other regions of concern in terms of frequency of going hungry were, in descending order: Mwanza, Ruvuma, Kagera and Arusha.

In some regions members of the household seldom went hungry. These regions included Mbeya, Kilimanjaro, Tanga, Kigoma and Morogoro.

Table 19: Frequency of going hungry (percentage)

	Arusha	Dar es Salaam	Kagera	Kigoma	Kilimanjaro	Mbeya	Morogoro	Mwanza	Pwani	Ruvuma	Tanga	Zanzibar
Always/often	4	17	8	1	3	1	4	5	1	5	3	11
Sometimes	9	19	5	6	2	2	1	13	7	10	2	11
Seldom/never	87	64	87	93	95	97	94	82	92	85	95	79
Mean	4.13	3.75	4.22	4.28	4.37	4.62	4.50	4.13	4.23	4.26	4.42	3.99
n =	78	454	240	240	237	237	228	371	159	222	237	161
Key for mean score: 1 = Maximum agreement (Always/often) < > 5 = Minimum agreement (Seldom/never)

Lagging economic indicators

The relative well-being of other community members were used as lagging economic indicators.

Relative well-being of community members

The respondents were asked to make an assessment of the relative financial well-being of the other community members in their area. In some districts (notably Arusha, Pwani, Zanzibar and Mbeya) the majority of respondents felt that other members of the community were better off than they were. While only in Tanga did a majority (53%) think that others were worse off. In Dar es Salaam, Kagera and Kilimanjaro over 40% of respondents in each of these regions also felt that other members of the community were worse off than they were.

Table 20: Relatively financial well-being of community members (percentage)

	Arusha	Dar es Salaam	Kagera	Kigoma	Kilimanjaro	Mbeya	Morogoro	Mwanza	Pwani	Ruvuma	Tanga	Zanzibar
Better off	77	30	43	23	45	59	50	27	71	38	41	64
Same as before	18	26	10	39	15	20	12	39	18	23	5	17
Worse off	5	44	47	38	40	21	38	34	11	39	54	18
Mean	2.24	3.21	3.08	3.21	3.00	2.53	2.83	3.09	2.37	3.07	3.29	2.56
n =	79	448	240	239	235	239	227	374	160	221	240	162
Key for mean score: 1 = Maximum amount of time (More time) < > 3 = Minimum amount of time (Less time)

Access to productive resources

Access to land

For a country perceived as largely agricultural, with high levels of both subsistence and commercial farming, it was surprising that such a significant proportion of the sample did not have access to land for farm crops. The regions of least access to land for farm crops included Dar es Salaam (where 62% of the respondents had no access to land), Zanzibar (68%) and Kigoma (57%). By far the greatest access to land was found in Pwani where 85% of respondents farmed land. Of those respondents who indicated they had access to land, in the majority of regions more people had their own land by title deed than used tribal land or owned land with no title deed. Notable exceptions to this were Kilimanjaro and Mwanza where an almost identical percentage of respondents had access to land through possession of title deeds or farmed on tribal land. In Tanga and Arusha a slightly larger proportion of respondents indicated that they had access to tribal land than held title deeds.

Table 21: Type of access to land for farm crops (percentages)

	Arusha	Dar es Salaam	Kagera	Kigoma	Kilimanjaro	Mbeya	Morogoro	Mwanza	Pwani	Ruvuma	Tanga	Zanzibar
No access to land	42	62	35	57	39	43	45	49	15	50	28	68
Yes, own land (title deed)	23	22	54	36	30	23	31	19	63	35	31	28
Yes, access to tribal land	25	13	10	5	29	17	13	19	21	10	33	2
Yes, own land (no title deed)	10	3	1	2	2	17	11	13	1	5	9	2

Household livestock ownership

As an integral part of the rural way of life in Tanzania, the level of livestock ownership provides a useful economic indicator. The survey sought to identify the levels of ownership of different types of livestock. It was hoped that this information, when compared to trends in firearm ownership, might throw some light on the nature of firearm proliferation. The proportion of the households that had livestock provided an indication of the level of livestock ownership.

What is immediately apparent is that levels of livestock ownership varied greatly from region to region. Overall livestock ownership appeared to be highest in Arusha while Pwani seemed to have the lowest levels of ownership, having only significant levels of poultry possession. Of specific animals, perhaps unsurprisingly, levels of camel and horse/donkey ownership were low across all regions. Arusha had the highest levels of cattle (63% of households), pig (76% of households) and sheep (29% of households) ownership.

The average number of livestock per household is a fair indicator of the well-being of the households. Comparing average household livestock ownership, it was found that the respondents from Mwanza, Arusha, Kilimanjaro and Kagera were best off while the worst off regions were Ruvuma, Morogoro, Dar es Salaam and Kigoma.

Table 22: Level of household livestock owned by region (percentage yes)

	Arusha	Dar es Salaam	Kagera	Kigoma	Kilimanjaro	Mbeya	Morogoro	Mwanza	Pwani	Ruvuma	Tanga	Zanzibar
Camel	0	1	0	0	1	1	5	1	1	2	1	1
Cattle	62	20	48	30	50	47	17	47	6	21	44	20
Goat	44	14	44	45	41	33	18	42	8	35	29	15
Horse/donkey	43	7	13	12	16	40	12	5	1	26	9	1
Pig	43	7	13	12	16	40	12	5	1	26	9	1
Poultry	76	42	60	60	55	57	50	56	69	44	79	57
Sheep	29	8	8	12	21	15	11	26	1	11	9	0

Table 23: Average number of livestock owned by region

	Arusha	Dar es Salaam	Kagera	Kigoma	Kilimanjaro	Mbeya	Morogoro	Mwanza	Pwani	Ruvuma	Tanga	Zanzibar
Camel	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Cattle	6	1	6	1	5	2	0	7	1	1	2	1
Goat	6	1	3	3	3	2	1	5	1	2	3	1
Horse/donkey	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pig	7	1	0	1	1	2	0	0	0	1	1	1
Poultry	35	12	5	5	8	12	5	10	9	5	13	10
Sheep	3	0	0	0	1	0	0	2	0	0	0	0

Household asset ownership

Home ownership