Abstract
Purpose
The institutional structures established by French and British colonists continue to shape the socio-economic landscape of sub-Saharan Africa, potentially contributing to the unequal distribution of child poverty. This study, therefore, has significant relevance as it aims to estimate child poverty disparities within the context of colonial origins in Francophone and Anglophone African countries.
Design/Methodology/Approach
This study utilised data from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) conducted between 2000 and 2019 involving 22 sub-Saharan African states. A rights-based framework was applied based on the SDG-updated Gordon et al. (2003) methodology to measure child poverty. We then compared child poverty disparities between colonial origins using one-way ANOVA tests and risk ratios to quantify the magnitude of these differences.
Findings
Critically high estimates of sanitation and housing poverty (above 70% prevalence) were observed in the two colonial settings. Children in Francophone states were 1.4 times (RR=1.4; 95% CI: 1.1-1.8) more likely to experience higher risks of low medical access, almost twice as likely to experience low vaccine uptake (risk ratios-RR=1.8; 95% CI: 1.2-2.8) or no formal education (RR=1.7; 95% CI: 1.1-2.5). All other dimensions were equal between colonial origins.
Originality
Despite similar household poverty levels in both colonial settings, Francophone states had lower access to health and education services than Anglophone states. These findings indicate deeper systemic issues that may be rooted in the historical governance styles of centralisation. More effective decentralisation of healthcare and education services in Francophone countries and improved government commitment to addressing household poverty throughout sub-Saharan Africa are imperative.
The institutional structures established by French and British colonists continue to shape the socio-economic landscape of sub-Saharan Africa, potentially contributing to the unequal distribution of child poverty. This study, therefore, has significant relevance as it aims to estimate child poverty disparities within the context of colonial origins in Francophone and Anglophone African countries.
Design/Methodology/Approach
This study utilised data from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) conducted between 2000 and 2019 involving 22 sub-Saharan African states. A rights-based framework was applied based on the SDG-updated Gordon et al. (2003) methodology to measure child poverty. We then compared child poverty disparities between colonial origins using one-way ANOVA tests and risk ratios to quantify the magnitude of these differences.
Findings
Critically high estimates of sanitation and housing poverty (above 70% prevalence) were observed in the two colonial settings. Children in Francophone states were 1.4 times (RR=1.4; 95% CI: 1.1-1.8) more likely to experience higher risks of low medical access, almost twice as likely to experience low vaccine uptake (risk ratios-RR=1.8; 95% CI: 1.2-2.8) or no formal education (RR=1.7; 95% CI: 1.1-2.5). All other dimensions were equal between colonial origins.
Originality
Despite similar household poverty levels in both colonial settings, Francophone states had lower access to health and education services than Anglophone states. These findings indicate deeper systemic issues that may be rooted in the historical governance styles of centralisation. More effective decentralisation of healthcare and education services in Francophone countries and improved government commitment to addressing household poverty throughout sub-Saharan Africa are imperative.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | International Journal of Health Governance |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 18 Nov 2024 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited.
Research Groups and Themes
- SPS Centre for the Study of Poverty and Social Justice
- Bristol Poverty Institute
- SPS Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences
Access to Document
- Full-text PDF (accepted manuscript)
This is the accepted author manuscript (AAM) of the article which has been made Open Access under the University of Bristol's Scholarly Works Policy. The final published version (Version of Record) can be found on the publisher's website. The copyright of any third-party content, such as images, remains with the copyright holder.