The third round of the Myanmar Household Welfare Survey (MHWS), a nationally and regionally representative phone survey, was implemented between July and August 2022. It followed from a second round that was conducted between April and June 2022 and a first round that was carried out between December 2021 and February 2022. This report discusses the findings from the third round related to shocks, coping strategies, and income poverty. During the third round of data collection, the security situation in Myanmar continued to decline. Increasingly, households felt insecure in their communities, as reported by 21 percent of rural households and 25 percent of urban households, an increase compared to previous rounds. This is because crime and violence continued to increase, affecting 10 and 8 percent of communities, respectively. Further, 6 percent of households were directly affected, either through violence against a household member, robbery, or appropriation and/or destruction of their assets. Households also continued to earn less income. In July and August of 2022, 46 percent of households reported lower income compared to the previous year. Disruptions in banking, internet, and electricity also negatively impact household wellbeing and livelihoods. Further, households struggled to receive medical services. Finally, while school attendance recovered, it was still under 50 percent in some states/regions. Eighty-two percent of households used at least one coping strategy to meet daily needs during the month prior to the third-round survey. The three most common coping strategies used were spending savings, reducing non-food expenditure, and reducing food expenditure. Further, some households exhausted some or all of their coping strategies. Finally, income poverty increased during the third round; 62 percent of households were income poor. Casual wage earning and asset poor households were particularly vulnerable. Compared to the other states/regions, households in Kayah and Chin were the most vulnerable. They were more likely to be impacted by conflict, have income loss, and be income poor. Households in Rakhine, Kachin, and Tanintharyi were also vulnerable; more than 70 percent of households in those regions were income poor.

The fourth round of the Myanmar Household Welfare Survey (MHWS), a nationally and regionally representative phone survey, was implemented between October and December 2022. It follows from three rounds that were carried out quarterly beginning in December 2021. This report discusses the findings from the fourth round related to shocks, coping strategies, and income poverty. The security situation in Myanmar continued to deteriorate during the fourth-round recall period. Increasingly, households felt insecure in their communities, as reported by 22 percent of rural households and 27 percent of urban households, an increase compared to the previous rounds. This is because crime and violence continued to increase, affecting 12 and 8 percent of communities, respectively. Further, 8 percent of households were directly affected, either through violence against a household member, robbery, or appropriation and/or destruction of their assets. Households faced multiple disruptions besides insecurity. Disruptions in banking, internet, and electricity also negatively affected household wellbeing and livelihoods. Further, households struggled to receive medical services. Finally, while school attendance recovered, it was still under 70 percent in some states/regions. Eighty-four percent of households used at least one coping strategy to meet daily needs during the month prior to the fourth-round survey. The three most common coping strategies used were spending savings, reducing non-food expenditure, and reducing food expenditure. This has been consistent across rounds. Further, some households exhausted some or all of their coping strategies. Remittances were the only factor inversely associated with households’ probability of having lower income compared to last year, being income poor, and using coping strategies. In R4 income-based poverty increased by 30 percent compared to R1 (15 percentage points) and 7 percent compared to R3 (4 percentage points). Sixty-six percent of the population was income poor. The rise in income poverty between R3 and R4 was largely attributable to changes in urban poverty. Casual wage-earning households, both farm and non-farm, had the highest levels of income poverty. Compared to the other states/regions, households in Kayah, Chin, and Sagaing were the most vulnerable. They were more likely to be impacted by conflict, have income loss, and be income poor. Despite reporting comparatively less conflict, households in Rakhine were also vulnerable; nearly 80 percent of households in Rakhine were income poor and many were mortgaging/selling assets to cope.

Remittances are a critical source of household income in Myanmar and are significantly associated with positive welfare outcomes. In 2022, 33 percent of the households surveyed in the Myanmar Household Welfare Survey (MHWS) received remittances at least once in the twelve-month period. Remittances made up 7 percent of the average monthly per capita income of households in 2022. Among households that received remittances, 40 percent of their average monthly per capita income was from remittances. Considerably more households received remittances in 2022, compared to 2017, the last year for which there is nationally representative data (World Bank 2017). Despite the increase in the number of households receiving remittances, compared to 2017, the income share from remittances has decreased for all households. Even with internal lockdowns and border closures because of the COVID-19 pandemic, remittance senders migrated internally in 2020 and 2021. As a result, domestic remittance flows appear to have increased steadily since 2012. International remittance flows, on the other hand, decreased substantially during the first two years of the pandemic. They are now increasing rapidly. In 2022, households in Rakhine, Chin, Mon, and Kayin received the most remittances of the states/regions. Households in Chin, Kayin, Tanintharyi, and Mon received a greater percentage of remittances from international senders rather than domestic senders. Most international remittance flows were from Thailand, Malaysia, and China. Households in Kachin, Ayeyarwady, and Mandalay received the most remittances from domestic senders. Most domestic remittance flows were from Yangon, Mandalay, and Shan. Receiving remittances has a positive and significant association with improved welfare outcomes. Households that receive remittances are less likely to have lower income compared with last year and more likely to have a better food consumption score and a higher dietary diversity score. Households who receive remittances use fewer coping strategies. Finally, households who receive remittances are more likely to have an improved house made of brick, brick/wood, or semi-pucca.

This paper provides evidence on the extent and characteristics of migration in Myanmar between December 2021 and June 2022. We use data from three rounds of the Myanmar Household Welfare Survey (MHWS), a nationally and regionally representative phone survey, to analyze migration patterns in Myanmar. The data highlights a complex situation, where there is both new migration, that is driven by conflict, and more traditional migration, that is driven by a search for better employment both within Myanmar and abroad. We find that approximately 3.6 million individuals or 6.5 percent of the population of Myanmar moved over the 6-month study period. Between December 2021 and June 2022 fleeing direct conflict was the primary driver of migration for as many as 604 thousand individuals. During the same period, approximately 2 million individuals moved in search of a job for themselves or a family member. Finally, Chin, Yangon, and Rakhine had the highest rates of migration.

The fifth round of the Myanmar Household Welfare Survey (MHWS), a nationally and regionally representative phone survey, was implemented between March and June 2023. It follows from four rounds that were carried out quarterly beginning in December 2021. This report discusses the findings from the fifth round related to livelihoods, shocks, asset and income poverty, and coping strategies.

Myanmar has endured multiple crises in recent years — including COVID-19, global price instability, the 2021 coup, and widespread conflict — that have disrupted and even reversed a decade of economic development. Household welfare has declined severely, with more than 3 million people displaced and many more affected by high food price inflation and worsening diets. Yet Myanmar’s agrifood production and exports have proved surprisingly resilient. Myanmar’s Agrifood System: Historical Development, Recent Shocks, Future Opportunities provides critical analyses and insights into the agrifood system’s evolution, current state, and future potential. This work fills an important knowledge gap for one of Southeast Asia’s major agricultural economies — one largely closed to empirical research for many years. It is the culmination of a decade of rigorous empirical research on Myanmar’s agrifood system, including through the recent crises. Written by IFPRI researchers and colleagues from Michigan State University, the book’s insights can serve as a to guide immediate humanitarian assistance and inform future growth strategies, once a sustainable resolution to the current crisis is found that ensures lasting peace and good governance.

This Research Note presents the results from an assessment of farm commercialization in Myanmar after the dry season of 2022. The results are based on data from a phone survey – the Myanmar Agriculture Performance Survey (MAPS) – that was conducted with 5,021 crop farmers in all states/regions of the country in Q3 of 2022. This note assesses the perceived security situation of crop farmers, agricultural input availability and prices, prices of major crops at the farm level, changes in income from crop sales, and overall crop marketing challenges.

This study analyzes household migration, including paths, causes, challenges, and post-migration outcomes in Myanmar between February 2021 and July 2023 using the Myanmar Household Welfare Survey and the Myanmar Migration Assessment. During this period, we find that approximately ten percent of households in Myanmar migrated as a household or family unit. While nearly 40 percent of migration was urban-to-urban, a quarter was rural-to-rural, a quarter was rural-to-urban, and ten percent was urban-to-rural. Employment was the primary driver of household migration, with 54 percent of households citing it as their main reason for relocating. Other motivations included the desire to escape conflict and improve physical security (15 percent), to help family (12 percent), and for marriage (eight percent). In regions characterized by high conflict, such as Kayah, Chin, and Sagaing, a significant number of migrating households relocated due to conflict (70, 47, and 37 percent, respectively). Further, because of under-sampling of conflict areas, the number of migrants who moved due to conflict may be significantly higher. Households from high conflict regions often moved more than once before reaching their current destination. Decisions on where to migrate were significantly influenced by perceptions of employment opportunities (35 percent) and safety considerations (34 percent). Finding the money to migrate was challenging for most households. Sixty-two percent of households relied on savings to finance migration, while 14 percent of households relied on assistance from relatives. The study also analyzes post-migration outcomes. House ownership decreased significantly after migration from 65 percent to 28 percent. Instead, dwellings were either rented (34 percent) or stayed in for free (32 percent). Further, post-migration income sources changed. There was a significant increase in non-farm wage income and income from remittances and donations after the move. Almost two thirds of households reported improved safety and security conditions after the move. About half of the interviewed households felt that they had better opportunities to earn an income after moving. Nevertheless, access to furniture, clothing, and cooking materials decreased for a third of the households (35, 27, and 29 percent, respectively). Moreover, there were notable disparities between households migrating due to conflict and households who moved for other reasons, including less access to income, furniture, clothing, and cooking materials after the move for households displaced due to conflict.

Rice is an extremely important product for farmers’ livelihoods and for food security in Myanmar. Rice is the main staple, accounting for 51 and 62 percent of urban and rural calories consumed, respectively, making it crucial for food security in the country.1 Large international changes in commodity markets and twin local crises – COVID-19 and political problems due to the military take-over – have raised doubts on the performance of the agricultural sector overall and the rice sector in particular. The assessment on farmers’ rice productivity during the dry season of 2022 presented in this research note is based on data from the Myanmar Agriculture Performance Survey (MAPS) that was conducted with 678 rice producers, spread over all states/regions of the country, over the period August 2022 – September 2022. Detailed questions were asked to farmers about their background, input use and input prices, farm management practices, rice output and output prices, and natural and other shocks during the dry season of 2021 and 2022.2 This research note presents the results from that assessment.

The sixth round of the Myanmar Household Welfare Survey (MHWS), a nationally and regionally representative phone survey, was implemented between the end of August and November 2023. It follows five rounds that were carried out since the beginning of December 2021. This report discusses the findings from the sixth round related to livelihoods and welfare dynamics. The main findings are the following: Nationally, median real household income per adult equivalent declined by 15 percent between late 2022 and late 2023, indicating that the purchasing power of household income declined substantially over the previous year. Between late 2022 and late 2023, median real income per adult equivalent earned from farm wages increased slightly while real income earned from all other sources stagnated or declined. In late 2023, 13 percent of households had at least one jobless household member who in the three months before the survey spent at least one month seeking income generating work without finding it. The share of households with an unemployed member decreases by asset class (15 percent in asset poor households compared to 8 percent in asset rich households). Four percent of households had a child aged 5–11 who was employed at least one hour in any week in the three months before the survey and 8 percent of households had a child aged 12–14 who was employed at least 14 hours in any week during that period. Between late 2022 and 2023, there has been an overall reduction in household engagement in income earning activities. Except for other income sources (e.g., rent, remittances, and other forms of assistance), the share of households engaged in each income generating activity either declined or increased by a small, statistically insignificant amount. In every state/region, income poverty reached a new high in the period of August–November 2023 compared to all previous MHWS rounds in the last two years. Adjusted in accordance with food inflation, the poverty line increased by 35 percent between late 2022 and late 2023. A failure of nominal income to keep pace with this large jump in the poverty line led to an increase in the percentage of the population living in income-poor households by 17 percent from 62 percent in February–June 2023 to 72 in August–November 2023. Casual wage earning households continue to be the poorest livelihood group with income poverty rates of 90 and 84 percent in farm and non-farm wage earning households, respectively. Nonetheless, income poverty rose to 63 and 67 percent in households whose primary livelihoods are non-farm salary work and non-farm businesses—23 and 17 percent higher than a similar period in the previous year. Finally, over the same period, income poverty increased by 11 percent in farm households to 69 percent. Remittance income is an important stabilizing force. There are only a few factors helping households stay out of poverty, including earning income from salaried employment, migrating with the whole household, and receiving remittances. Individuals living in remittance receiving households are about 22 percentage points less poor compared to individuals in non-remittance receiving households. Households mainly reliant on ‘other’ forms of income, particularly remittances, are the most resilient livelihood group with poverty rates not changing between late 2022 and late 2023. In late 2023, households in Chin, Kayah, Rakhine, Sagaing, and Tanintharyi struggled most of all regions/states with income poverty, unemployment, and challenges to earning income. During that period, poverty headcounts were 93 percent in Chin, 87 percent in Kayah; and around 80 percent in Rakhine, Sagaing, and Tanintharyi. In Kayah, 49 percent of households reported a loss of employment in June–November 2023, while in Tanintharyi 39 percent of households reported a loss of employment. Further, nearly 30 percent of households in Kayah had an unemployed member—more than double the national average. Chin and Rakhine also had a large share of households with unemployed members. Finally, households in Chin were nearly twice as likely as other parts of the country to have employed children—children aged 5–11 were employed in 7 percent of households and children aged 12–14 were employed in 15 percent of households.