4 Socio-Economic Profiles of Poverty Key Messages 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 28 Multidimensional poverty in Myanmar is concentrated among specific household profiles where income insecurity, labour conditions and exposure to shocks intersect and reinforce one another. Nearly half of households in the lowest income quintile are multidimensionally poor, and deprivation deepens sharply where low income coincides with insecure work, limited education and repeated shock exposure. (Households in Q1 show an MPI headcount of 52.2% and an score of 0.255, nearly fourfold higher than Q5 (MPI score 0.067). Labour insecurity is a central transmission channel of poverty, not just a correlate: households relying on casual labour show some of the highest poverty rates and intensities, reflecting irregular earnings, weak buffers and limited capacity to absorb shocks once livelihoods are disrupted (MPI headcount 48.5% and MPI score 0.228, among the highest across employment groups). Conflict exposure and migration are acute amplifiers: conflict-affected households record the highest poverty of any group (MPI headcount 56.5%, MPI score 0.271); migrant households are close behind (MPI headcount 50.2%, MPI score 0.241), with deprivation shaped by displacement, institutional barriers, documentation gaps and settlement instability. Education remains a key structural driver: households headed by individuals with no formal education or primary education record nearly identical headcounts (around 44%) and MPI scores (around 0.211), suggesting primary education alone provides little protective effect. Both groups face deprivation more than double that of highereducated households (MPI score 0.089). Health shocks act as an acute poverty trigger: households experiencing serious illness or accident record an MPI headcount of around 46.6 percent and a score of 0.220, reflecting how a single health event can rapidly deplete assets and income for households already operating with thin margins. Gender differences are expressed more in the depth of deprivation than in incidence: woman-headed households record a modestly lower headcount (31.0%) than man-headed households (33.0%), but higher deprivation intensity (47.2% versus 45.9%). The gaps are small, but the directional reversal is analytically meaningful: women who fall into poverty face deeper deprivation than their male-headed counterparts, a pattern consistent with the disproportionate care burdens and labourmarket constraints that limit recovery capacity for woman-headed households. LAYERS OF DEP RIVATION : Mu ltid im e n s io n a l Pov er t y i n M y a n m a r