Republic of Guinea

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.creatorWorld Bank Group
dc.date2016-07-20T19:42:09Z
dc.date2016-07-20T19:42:09Z
dc.date2016-05
dc.date.accessioned2026-07-01T00:43:39Z
dc.descriptionThe Ebola pandemic has been one of the most virulent pandemics in modern times. By the end of 2015, the epidemic had cost the lives of more than 11,300 people in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, including more than 500 frontline health care workers. After good growth performance between 2011 and 2013, Guinea’s economy has suffered a number of setbacks, including the Ebola crisis and a sharp drop in new investment in the mining sector. As part of the international effort to understand and manage the Ebola crisis and to obtain microeconomic data, the World Bank partnered with Guinea’s National Institute of Statistics (INS) to conduct a mobile phone survey to measure the socioeconomic impact of Ebola on households, following in the footsteps of similar mobile surveys conducted in Liberia and Sierra Leone in 2015. The study finds that the pandemic had ripple effects on the economic fabric and that the economic effects of Ebola have outlasted the epidemiological ones. In addition to the great loss of life, the epidemic has caused great damage to the countries’ economies. As part of the international response, the World Bank Group has significantly financed the Ebola-affected countries. Guinea was significantly affected by the Ebola pandemic, jeopardizing some of the gains in macroeconomic stability and poverty reduction during the last few years. The survey was conducted in all provinces of Guinea, with 60 percent of the respondents residing in the areas strongly affected by Ebola. Using newly collected data through a mobile phone survey, this study analyzes the socioeconomic impact of Ebola on households in Guinea. The survey shows that all parts of Guinea were economically affected by Ebola, with greater impacts in the southeast and the areas around Conakry. It is interesting to note that a quarter of respondents in the severely affected areas reported experiencing proven cases of Ebola in their neighborhood or village. In relation to agriculture, it is found that Ebola did not negatively affect agricultural production and food price. Another surprising finding is that despite Ebola and risk of contamination, households that needed treatment for malaria and diarrhea still visited a health facility, whereas a significant proportion of households reduced their attendance of health facilities. Income loss for rural households was much more related to difficulties in selling their production, than to lower agricultural production or lower food prices. However, Ebola has had a larger effect on urban employment, as illustrated by the increase in the urban unemployment rate. On the other hand, due to Ebola, children dropped out of school, and households adopted coping strategies by reducing their food consumption and selling key assets.
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.formattext/plain
dc.identifierhttp://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2016/05/26443853/
dc.identifierhttps://hdl.handle.net/10986/24724
dc.identifier10.1596/24724
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/123456789/409976
dc.languageEnglish
dc.languageen_US
dc.publisherWorld Bank, Washington, DC
dc.rightsCC BY 3.0 IGO
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/
dc.rightsWorld Bank
dc.subjectPER CAPITA CONSUMPTION
dc.subjectBIRTH
dc.subjectCOMMUNITIES
dc.subjectPOVERTY POVERTY
dc.subjectRISKS
dc.subjectHOUSEHOLD SIZE
dc.subjectHOUSEHOLD SURVEY
dc.subjectTREATMENT
dc.subjectPOVERTY LINE
dc.subjectECONOMIC GROWTH
dc.subjectPEOPLE
dc.subjectEBOLA VIRUS
dc.subjectFOOD CONSUMPTION
dc.subjectINCOME
dc.subjectPREVENTION
dc.subjectPOVERTY RATES
dc.subjectAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
dc.subjectADMINISTRATIVE REGIONS
dc.subjectCOUNTERFACTUAL
dc.subjectSERVICES
dc.subjectHEALTH CARE
dc.subjectHOUSING
dc.subjectPREVALENCE
dc.subjectNEIGHBORHOOD
dc.subjectRURAL INCOMES
dc.subjectEFFECTS
dc.subjectHEALTH
dc.subjectPOOR PEOPLE
dc.subjectEPIDEMIC
dc.subjectEATING HABITS
dc.subjectPROJECTS
dc.subjectPROJECT
dc.subjectNEIGHBORHOODS
dc.subjectVIRUS INFECTION
dc.subjectNATIONAL LEVEL
dc.subjectCAPITA CONSUMPTION
dc.subjectMEASURES
dc.subjectDANGERS
dc.subjectPUBLIC HEALTH
dc.subjectSAFETY NETS
dc.subjectPOVERTY REDUCTION
dc.subjectCONTAGION
dc.subjectKNOWLEDGE
dc.subjectMACROECONOMIC STABILITY
dc.subjectCOST EFFECTIVENESS
dc.subjectLABOR MARKET
dc.subjectPOPULATION CENSUS
dc.subjectRURAL HOUSEHOLDS
dc.subjectTRAINING
dc.subjectLIFE
dc.subjectPATIENTS
dc.subjectDWELLING
dc.subjectPOVERTY GAP
dc.subjectMOBILITY
dc.subjectPOVERTY INCIDENCE
dc.subjectMIGRATION
dc.subjectTRANSFERS
dc.subjectINHABITANTS
dc.subjectNATURAL DISASTERS
dc.subjectOBSERVATION
dc.subjectVIOLENCE
dc.subjectINDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS
dc.subjectMARKETS
dc.subjectPOOR INDIVIDUALS
dc.subjectEXPLANATORY VARIABLES
dc.subjectAVERAGE PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION
dc.subjectDISASTERS
dc.subjectHOUSEHOLD SURVEYS
dc.subjectEMERGENCY RESPONSE
dc.subjectFARMERS
dc.subjectMIGRANTS
dc.subjectINTERVIEW
dc.subjectEPIDEMICS
dc.subjectCASH TRANSFERS
dc.subjectMORTALITY
dc.subjectDESIGN
dc.subjectDISEASE OUTBREAKS
dc.subjectUNEMPLOYMENT
dc.subjectDIET
dc.subjectHOUSEHOLD LEVEL
dc.subjectSOCIAL SAFETY NETS
dc.subjectFOOD SECURITY
dc.subjectWORKERS
dc.subjectAGED
dc.subjectPANDEMICS
dc.subjectPARTICIPATION
dc.subjectRURAL AREA
dc.subjectGENDER
dc.subjectDIARRHEA
dc.subjectOCCUPATION
dc.subjectURBAN AREAS
dc.subjectHOUSEHOLD
dc.subjectAGRICULTURAL SECTOR
dc.subjectSTD
dc.subjectEMPLOYMENT STATUS
dc.subjectMEDICAL SUPPLIES
dc.subjectSTRESS
dc.subjectMALNUTRITION
dc.subjectRURAL
dc.subjectREFUGEES
dc.subjectMARKET
dc.subjectWORKSHOPS
dc.subjectMALARIA
dc.subjectPOVERTY SEVERITY
dc.subjectQUALITY CONTROL
dc.subjectQUALITY OF LIFE
dc.subjectINTERNET
dc.subjectSEX
dc.subjectVIRUS
dc.subjectCHILDREN
dc.subjectPOVERTY SITUATION
dc.subjectFOOD INTAKE
dc.subjectDISEASE
dc.subjectCLINICS
dc.subjectWORKING CONDITIONS
dc.subjectTRADITIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS
dc.subjectHOUSEHOLDS
dc.subjectRURAL AREAS
dc.subjectPOVERTY
dc.subjectPOOR FARMERS
dc.subjectINFECTION
dc.subjectALL
dc.subjectFACILITIES
dc.subjectLIVING CONDITIONS
dc.subjectRESEARCH METHODS
dc.subjectHOUSEHOLD WELFARE
dc.subjectINTERVENTIONS
dc.subjectPOVERTY RATE
dc.subjectCOMMUNITY
dc.subjectPOOR
dc.subjectSTRATEGY
dc.subjectFAMILIES
dc.subjectEBOLA
dc.subjectFOOD PRICES
dc.subjectHOSPITALS
dc.subjectLABOR MARKETS
dc.subjectILLNESSES
dc.subjectSAFETY
dc.subjectFEMALE
dc.subjectIMPLEMENTATION
dc.subjectCONTAMINATION
dc.subjectINEQUALITY
dc.subjectPOOR HOUSEHOLDS
dc.titleRepublic of Guinea
dc.titleSocioeconomic Impact of Ebola Using Mobile Phone Survey
dc.typeReport
dc.typeRapport
dc.typeInforme

Archivos

Colecciones

AgroKnow