The article addresses the problem of social dimension measurement of for regional development. Authors’ discus approaches of definition of social dimension. There is some discord how social dimension could be understood in more broader or narrowed sense and how it is characterized in international and national social policy documents. Authors focus attention on contiguity of social dimension and social security. The measurement of social dimension demands multidimensional approach. The authors use theoretical analysis and document analysis, as well as analysis of statistical data on key elements of social dimension of regional development (differences of employment rate; GINI coefficient, and the number of people at risk-of-poverty threshold). The main conclusions are that social dimension is more or less covered in development planning documents, but the progress indicators are inadequate. Especially disparities in social dimension of regional development are formally addressed and closer analysis of key indicators shows necessity to elaborate both – policy instruments as well as policy progress measurement.

The study examined livelihoods and wealth distribution among farm households in western Kenya. Stratified random sampling was used to select 252 households from eight districts. Focus group discussions were used to collect complementary community-level data. Results indicate that average household size was seven persons. The cropping system was over 70% mixed. Agriculture was the main source of livelihoods. Labour was mainly allocated to crop enterprises, with household heads allocating > 50% of their labour to it. Maize (Zea mays) and common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) were the most important staple/traded food crops. Poultry, followed by cattle dominated livestock enterprises. Few households diversified into small businesses, employment and artisan to enhance livelihoods. Despite this, 5 – 95% of people remained food insecure. Lack of cash and limited land access were the most important factors constraining agricultural development. Although, most households preferred selling produce in markets where prices were better, many not only sold produce but purchased inputs from nearest towns due to high costs of accessing better price markets. Wealth inequality among households was very high, with household wealth Gini-coefficient of 0.52 and per capita wealth Gini-coefficient of 0.55, calling for better interventions targeting to reach most vulnerable/marginal groups and create all-inclusive opportunities.