Multidimensional poverty is concentrated where socio-economic vulnerabilities overlap and reinforce one another. Households in the lowest income quintiles, those relying on casual labour and those headed by individuals with limited or no formal education face the highest poverty incidence and intensity. Migrant households, half of whom are conflict-induced, experience particularly acute deprivation reflecting institutional barriers, such as documentation gaps, informal settlement and weak social networks, alongside income insecurity. Gender differences are visible in depth rather than incidence: woman-headed households record a modestly lower poverty headcount than manheaded households but higher deprivation intensity among those who are poor, a directional reversal consistent with independent evidence on food security. This pattern points to the importance of interventions that address the severity of deprivation, not only its prevalence. The composition of poverty matters as much as its prevalence. Nationally, health and living standards account for over four-fifths of the MPI, with education contributing to less than one fifth, indicating that deficits in housing, sanitation, water access and healthcare, rather than schooling per se, are the binding constraints on household well-being. This does not diminish education's importance: because human-capital deficits accumulate and persist across generations, education investment remains essential for breaking the cycle of poverty in the longer term, even where it is not the most immediate lever for reducing current MPI scores. At the national level this composition is stable, but it shifts across contexts: in states/regions where survival-related deprivations dominate (Rakhine, Kayah, Chin, Kachin and Ayeyarwady), health and living standards together dominate the index and education's share is compressed; in others, such as Sagaing, Mon, Mandalay and Nay Pyi Taw, education's share is comparatively higher, marking a shift toward human-capital constraints. At the household level, the bottom two income quintiles display nearly identical dimensional structures, with the same combined health and living-standards share described above, meaning that income shifts the level of poverty across the distribution without shifting its dimensional structure: the structural deprivation trap can only be broken through simultaneous investment in basic services, living conditions and human capital. Reducing poverty requires more than raising incomes. Taken together, the findings suggest that multidimensional poverty in Myanmar is not simply a household income problem. In some areas, poverty is primarily driven by conflict, displacement and service disruption; in others by long-standing deficits in education, livelihoods and living standards; and in still others by high levels of vulnerability that remain masked by relatively favourable local conditions. The implication is that poverty reduction requires a combination of household support, strengthened community systems, more resilient local economies and greater capacity to withstand and recover from shocks. Where contextual factors dominate, strengthening local service delivery, community institutions and social cohesion becomes as important as addressing household-level deprivation. Where structural factors dominate, investments in human capital, livelihoods and economic opportunities become increasingly important. Community resilience, local economic recovery and effective local institutions are critical pathways out of poverty. Households do not experience shocks in isolation. Conflict, economic disruption, climate hazards and service failures interact through local systems, markets and institutions. The strongest poverty reductions are therefore likely to emerge where interventions simultaneously strengthen community capacities, expand economic opportunities, improve access to essential services and build resilience to future shocks. 48 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