32949 v3 Monitoring Socio-Economic Conditions in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay PARAGUAY María Victoria Fazio * January 17, 2005 Abstract This report documents the socio-economic situation in Paraguay. The document is mainly based on a wide range of distributional, labor and social statistics computed from the microdata collected since 1995 by household surveys with national coverage: the Household ­ Workforce Survey (EH-MO) (1995), the Integrated Household Survey (EIH) (1997-1998 and 2000-2001) and the Permanent Household Survey (EPH) (1999 and 2002). Data has also been drawn from other sources and the existing literature. Paraguay is one of the poorest and most unequal countries in the region. The combination of sustained income inequality, stagnation and high population growth led to increasing poverty throughout the second half of the 1990s and the early 2000s. Keywords: poverty, inequality, education, labor, wages, employment, Paraguay. * E-mail: vifazio@way.com.ar. This document is part of the project "Monitoring the Socio-Economic Situation in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay", CEDLAS-The World Bank. CEDLAS team: Leonardo Gasparini (director), María Victoria Fazio, Paula Giovagnoli, Federico Gutiérrez, Georgina Pizzolitto, Leopoldo Tornarolli, Julieta Trías and Hernán Winkler. We are grateful to the very helpful comments of Jesko Hentschel, and seminar participants at The World Bank and UNLP. We would also like to thank the very valuable assistance provided by the DGEEC staff in Paraguay. 1. Introduction Paraguay stands out as one of the poorest Latin American countries, with high inequality in incomes, access to education, health and basic infrastructure services. In addition, there are large disparities in human development between rural and urban areas. Over the last decades, social and labor protection has been weak.1 Several assessments suggest that it is unlikely that Paraguay will be able to meet most of the Millennium Development Goals by the year 2015. One of the main constraints is that a large fraction of the work force is functionally illiterate due to low investment in education over decades. Paraguay is emerging from a prolonged period of political and economic instability. In 1989, Paraguayans recovered democracy after 35 years of dictatorship. However, the following years were characterized by political instability, including the assassination of the Vice President in 1999, the resignation of the then President, and a four-year interim presidency. In such political setting, Paraguay's economy was also characterized by volatility. While in the 1970s Paraguay had the second per capita growth rate in the region, in the 1980s per capita levels decreased at an annual rate of 0.1%. During the early 1990s, with the new democratic administration there were new attempts to implement structural, macroeconomic and market-oriented reforms. However, in the first half of the decade per capita GDP growth remained at the level it had in the 1980s. Moreover, since 1995 a combination of factors - both domestic and external - has led to economic recession and rising poverty. In 1995, Paraguay experienced a severe banking crisis, which lasted until 1998. From 1999 on, difficulties were exacerbated by external shocks from two Mercosur neighbors. First, Brazil's devaluations in 1999 and 2001 and then, Argentina's crisis in 2002 have further weakened Paraguay's economy, undermining prospects for growth and competitiveness, which were already vulnerable in a context of depression, fiscal deficits and structural fragilities. The political situation stabilized during 2003 with the election of a new president. Increased domestic confidence and more favorable external conditions gave economy a boost - GDP grew 2.6% during 2003. This document shows evidence on the socio-economic performance of Paraguay in the last decade. The report is mostly focused on the 1995-2002 period, and especially draws evidence from statistics based on microdata from the national household surveys which were collected over the period - the Household - Workforce Survey (EH-MO, 1995), the Integrated Household Survey (EIH, 1997-1998 and 2000-2001) and the Permanent Household Survey (EPH, 1999 and 2002). Unfortunately, fully comparable time series are not available to assess the evolution of poverty and inequality before 1995 in Paraguay, 1See for instance, World Bank (2003a), World Bank (2003b), and ILO(2003). 2 since household surveys were conducted mainly in the Asunción Metropolitan Area (AMA hereafter). All statistics presented in this report and computed by our team are available at and can be downloaded from www.depeco.econo.unlp.edu.ar/cedlas/monitoreo.htm. All indicators are updated as new information is released. The rest of the document is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the main sources of information used in this report. The following 8 sections show and analyze information on incomes, poverty, inequality, aggregate welfare, the labor market, education, housing and social services, and demographics. Section 11 presents a poverty profile, and section 12 closes with an assessment of the main findings and a discussion of the next steps of the project. 2. The Data The Household - Workforce Survey (EH-MO, 1995), the Integrated Household Survey (EIH, 1997-1998 and 2000-2001) and the Permanent Household Survey (EPH, 1999, 2002) are household surveys with national coverage that have allowed us to trace distributional, labor and social conditions in Paraguay since 1995. From 1983 to 1994, the Household - Workforce Survey was conducted annually only in the Asunción Metropolitan Area (AMA). In 1995, with the technical assistance of the World Bank, there was a significant reform in the EH-MO. Its geographic coverage was extended to rural and additional urban areas, and its thematic scope added more information on living standard conditions (education, housing, migration, demographics). In 1996, under the technical and financial support of the MECOVI program, the survey changed substantially in conceptual and methodological aspects. However, on that year the survey was carried out only in the AMA and the remaining urban areas. Since then, the EIH (1997-1998 and 2000-2001) and EPH (1999 and the recently available 2002 round) are the most relevant sources for the analysis of the living standards of the Paraguayan population. The EIH is carried out since 1997. The first EIH was conducted from July 1997 to August 1998 and the last one available covers the period from September 2000 to August 2001. The EPH is carried out from August to December by the General Directorate of Statistics and Census (DGEEC). The first two national EPH surveys were performed in 1999 and in 2002. Although the EPH 1996 did not cover rural areas, it was the first household survey that extended thematic coverage to household expenditures. From that standpoint, in the EIH (1997-1998) there were further improvements in the estimation of expenditures, which 3 allowed the construction of basic consumption baskets and poverty lines for different geographic regions. In this first round of the EIH there were also new sections on the incomes and expenditures of independent workers. This survey also included a unit on health for children under 5 years of age. Since the EIH was created, the DGEEC has also implemented a new methodology to aggregate total household income. This methodology mainly includes i) estimating misreported incomes with other reported information and ii) considering implicit rent from self-owned housing as part of total household income. With the exception of the EIH (1997-1998), which includes the departments of Boquerón and Alto Paraguay, all surveys considered include the same 15 departments. In the 2000-2001 round, new sections were included, namely on tourism, civil participation, other transactions of the household, adverse situations, security and extra-family violence, perceptions on basic services and child labor. Moreover, concerning sample size, the 2000- 2001 round of the EIH almost doubles the first one. The EPH (1999) has the same thematic coverage as the first EIH and only includes a new section on tourism. The recently available EPH (2002) has been modified in terms of the sampling selection based on the preceding census information gathered by the National Census on Population and Housing (CNPV, 2002). It also includes new sections on social capital, such as social nets, civil participation, charity, empowerment, political participation, access to information and social cohesion, which were financially supported by the World Bank. Unfortunately, since social protection has been weak for many years and a national strategy has only recently emerged, the surveys do not include information on specific social programs.2 The results of the EPH 2002 are not readily comparable with those of the previous surveys. The survey is based on a new frame, and it is known to have sampling problems, particularly in rural areas. Summarizing, the EH-MO (1995), the EIH (1997-1998 and 2000-2001) and the EPH (1999 and 2002) are not strictly comparable due to their variability in methodologies, reference periods, sampling and thematic coverage. Nonetheless, they are the most suitable data sources to monitor distributional, labor and social conditions in Paraguay. 3. Incomes Since in real values incomes are the arguments of poverty, inequality, polarization and welfare measures, before computing indicators of these distributional dimensions, in this section we present some basic statistics on real incomes. All nominal incomes have been 2National Strategy for Poverty Reduction, ENREPD(2002). For an exhaustive analysis on social protection in Paraguay, see World Bank (2003a). 4 deflated by the consumer price index of the month when incomes reported on the survey were earned. Table 3.1 shows real incomes by deciles in 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2002. Real income went up by 1.5% between 1995 and 1997. Then it fell 11% between 1997 and 1999 and 13.6% in the following three-year period. Overall, real income reported on the EPH fell 24.2% between 1995 and 2002. In the same period, per capita GDP declined 13%. Discrepancies with the National Accounts could arise from changes caused by under- reporting on the household surveys, or an overestimation in the GDP. They could also be the consequence of an increase in the share of sources such as capital income, benefits, and rents, which were not well-captured by household surveys. Table 3.1 suggests that over the 1995 ­ 2002 period all income deciles suffered losses in terms of real incomes. The growth incidence curves of Figure 3.1 present a more detailed picture of income change patterns. Each curve shows the proportional income change of each percentile in a given time period. It is interesting to notice that, except for the 1995- 1997 line, each curve shows a generalized decrease in real incomes for all percentiles. The Pen's parade curves in figure 3.2 present another view on the same facts. Each curve shows real income by percentiles. To make the figure clearer, the curves for different percentile groups are shown in panels B to D. In general, the order of the curves indicates falling real incomes. The income changes shown in the figures in this section suggest an increasing pattern for poverty and a decreasing trend for welfare. According to the figures, inequality declined after 1995, but recovered in recent years. The next three sections provide more evidence on these issues. 4. Poverty In this section, poverty is computed with the most widely used poverty lines and indicators to identify and aggregate the poor. The USD 1 a day and USD 2 a day at PPP prices are international poverty lines extensively used by the World Bank (see World Bank Indicators, 2004).3 Most Latin American countries, including Paraguay, compute official moderate and extreme poverty lines using the cost of a basic food basket and the Engel/Orshansky ratio of food expenditures.4 Table 4.1 shows the value of these monthly poverty lines in local currency units for the period 1995-2002 and for five different regions in the case of official poverty. Finally, another line considered is set at 50% of the median of the household per 3See the methodological document for details. 4See the methodological document, DGEEC (2003) and Robles (1999). 5 capita income distribution, which captures a relative rather than an absolute concept of poverty. For each poverty line, three poverty indicators are computed - the headcount ratio, the poverty gap, and the FGT (2).5 We also calculate the number of poor people by expanding the survey to all the population. Tables 4.2 to 4.6 present these poverty measures with alternative poverty lines. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 and Figure 4.1 show poverty estimates using poverty lines set at USD1 and USD2 a day for the whole country, and urban and rural areas separately. All three poverty measures for both lines (headcount ratio, FGT (1) and FGT (2)) show an increase in poverty between 1995 and 2002. There are large disparities in poverty between rural and urban areas.6 Tables 4.4 and 4.5 and Figure 4.2 show official poverty estimates. Although we could compute our own poverty estimates using the official methodology, it was not possible to apply this procedure to the income data available for 1995 and 1999.7 For this reason, we show the estimates published by DGEEC for the whole period under analysis.8 Table 4.4 shows changes in extreme poverty recorded over the period. The incidence of extreme poverty in Paraguay grew from 13.9% in 1995 to 21.7% in 2002. These changes imply that nearly 150,000 more individuals fell into extreme poverty between 1992 and 2001 and that around 347,700 new extremely poor people were recorded by 2002. As it has been already noticed, there is considerable heterogeneity in poverty between the urban and the rural population. Over the period, extreme poverty was more than 15 points higher in rural regions. This is so despite the fact that official poverty lines in urban areas more than duplicate rural official poverty lines, according to regional basic food basket estimates. In fact, Morley (2001) and the ENREPD (2002) argue that in Paraguay, poverty, and particularly extreme poverty, is predominantly a rural problem, since 8 out of 10 indigent people lived in rural areas by 2001. In 2002, as extreme poverty increased 5See Foster, Greer and Thornbecke (1984) for references. 6The large gaps between urban and rural poverty were also found in previous studies by Miranda (1982) and Sauma (1993). The authors analyse rural poverty in the 1980s and early 1990s using unique data since national household surveys with rural coverage were not available until 1995. 7 As stated above, national household surveys in Paraguay are not fully homogeneous yet. Among the different surveys there were methodological changes, re-sampling, and inclusion of different income sources. For instance, although the EIH (1997-1998 and 2000-2001) and the EPH (2002) allow estimating the corrected measure of disposable income used to compute official poverty, the EH-MO (1995) does not include certain income sources which are later included in other surveys. Besides, in the EPH (1999), the percentage of response of certain income components is relatively much lower. Indeed, most studies do not coincide with official estimates, despite their using the same methodology to compute poverty and inequality measures. The values obtained are usually higher than the officially published ones. Gonzalez (2001) and Indart (2000) survey the differences with official estimates found in the literature. 8As the FGT (1) and FGT (2) measures are not available from official sources, we estimated them from the household survey microdata, based on the official figures for the headcount ratio. 6 relatively more in urban areas, this ratio declined to 7 out of 10 people in extreme poverty. Moreover, according to ILO (2003), urban poverty is mostly due to rural poverty, since a large share of the poor population in urban areas are rural migrants searching for better opportunities. Figure 4.3 shows that extreme poverty is concentrated on rural areas, while moderate poverty is mostly represented by urban people. Over the total number of poor people, almost 29% are rural extreme poor, while 18% are urban extreme poor. The ENREPD (2002) also points out that rural extreme poverty is concentrated mainly on six departments in the Central and North regions of the country, far from Asunción. Between 1995 and 2001, extreme poverty in rural areas grew from 21.4% to 25.6%. By 2002, 31.1% of the rural population had difficulties to afford the cost of a basic food bundle. The incidence of extreme poverty also increased in urban areas from 6.8% to 7.1% between 1995 and 2001, and more than doubled to reach 14.6% in 2002. By 2003, there is preliminary evidence that extreme poverty declined around 1 point.9 The headcount ratio for the moderate poverty line also went up over the last half of the 1990s and the early 2000s, both in rural and urban areas (see Table 4.5 and Figure 4.2). National poverty incidence rose from 30.3% to 33.9% over the 1995-2001 period, while by 2002 the headcount ratio jumped to 46.4%.10 This means around 2.6 million Paraguayans living in income poverty conditions. The number of poor people rose by around half a million between 1995 and 2001 and by an even larger figure between 2001 and 2002. Preliminary estimates for 2003, a period of slight recovery in economic conditions, show that poverty decreased around 5 points. In the countryside, the incidence of poverty grew from 37.2% to 41.2% between 1995 and 2001 and to 50.5% in 2002. In urban areas poverty increased from 23.7% in 1995 to 27.6% in 2001, and reached 43.2% by 2002, which implies a relatively higher increase than in rural regions. Prospects for 2003 indicate a decline in rural and urban poverty of 7 and 3 points, respectively. According to the existing literature, the increase in total poverty between 1995 and 2001 was mainly driven by the economic recession.11 One of the explanations of the particularly huge increase in urban poverty experienced by 2002 is due to the fact that in this area poverty is more sensitive to current income changes than rural poverty (DGEEC, 2003). In this sense, Robles (1999) argues that, keeping income distribution constant, if per capita GDP declined 5%, then the percentage of urban poor would rise to 6.7% and rural poverty would reach 4.7%,. Another feasible reason for this relative poverty jump in urban areas 9 Between 2002 and 2003, this change may not be significant if the mentioned sampling variability problems of the EPH (2002) are considered. 10 Part of this large increase could have been due to re-sampling in the EPH (2002). Therefore, the level should be taken with caution and only as informative of the trend. See the methodological report (CEDLAS, 2004). 11 Some examples are the World Bank (2002), DGEEC (2003), ILO (2003), Robles (2000), and Morley (2001). 7 could also be the migration phenomenon of population moving from rural to urban regions searching for better opportunities. 12 Figure 4.4, which is drawn from official estimates, shows the poverty headcount ratio in the Asunción Metropolitan Area (AMA) from 1983 to 2002.13 Poverty substantially declined during the 1980s and in the first half of the 1990s. It started to climb in 1998, and in 2002 it reached similar levels to those recorded in the early 1990s. The last 10 years have been a "lost decade" in terms of poverty reduction in Paraguay. There is a wide dispersion of poverty estimates for Paraguay in the literature. ECLAC (2002) reports a headcount ratio of 61% around 2002. Using a methodology proposed by Londońo and Székely (2000) that sets a USD 2 a day poverty line and compares it with income measures adjusted by private consumption, Székely (2001) finds a headcount ratio of 52.1% in 1995 and 61% in 1999. Even when poverty is computed following the official methodology, differences with official estimates could arise from the way the DGEEC and different authors treat individuals with misreported information, and some income items.14 For instance, the DGEEC adds the implicit rent from self-owned housing to total household income, while some authors do not. These methodological issues are especially relevant for Paraguay, where national household surveys are far from being fully comparable. For instance, Lee, Mejía and Vos (1997) show that different conclusions on poverty trends in Paraguay can be reached depending on the information source used. ECLAC (2002) shows that in Paraguay, the percentage of households below the extreme poverty line almost doubles the average for 18 Latin American countries. Figure 4.5, which is based on data from ECLAC (2003) for around 1990, shows Paraguay as one of the five countries with the highest poverty rates in the region. Poverty in Paraguay has been considerably larger than in its Mercosur neighbors. Figure 4.6 presents evidence from Székely (2001). Using data for 1998, the author also ranks Paraguay as one of the six countries with the highest poverty rates along with Colombia, Bolivia, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras. Some countries (e.g. those in the European Union) use a relative rather than an absolute measure of poverty. According to this view, since social perceptions of poverty change as 12According to the World Bank (2002), between 1995 and 2001, around 140,000 people migrated from rural areas to urban areas, representing 6% of the urban population. 13Although the AMA is not fully representative of the poverty profile of the whole country, it is interesting to notice that national poverty followed a similar trend between 1995 and 2002. This suggests that looking at this conglomerate could be a good proxy of the path followed by national statistics. 14This fact is stressed by Lustig and Deutsch (1998), who argue that depending on the author's approach, the poverty and inequality estimates that correct under-reporting can have results that are several orders of magnitude different from and sometimes even opposite to uncorrected estimates, even if the same survey and poverty line are used. 8 the country develops and living standards go up, the poverty line should increase along with economic growth. Probably the most popular relative poverty line is 50% of median income. The relevant scenario to justify this kind of poverty measure does not apply to Paraguay, since the economy has been stagnant in the period under analysis. In contrast to official estimates, all poverty measures computed with the 50% median income line shown on Table 4.5 indicate that poverty did not increase between 1995 and 2001. In contrast, the table reports an increase in poverty indicators by 2002 that holds for both urban and rural areas. Figure 4.7 also documents this fact. Poverty implies difficulties beyond insufficient income to afford a basic basket of goods.15 This is particularly relevant in Paraguay, where many poor households lack access to basic health, education and infrastructure services. Given the availability of information for the countries in the region, we constructed a poverty indicator according to the characteristics of the dwelling, access to water, sanitation, education (of the household head and children) and dependency rates.16 Table 4.7 and Figure 4.8 suggest that poverty in basic needs slightly declined over the period, which is consistent with similar indicators available in the literature. Indicators of endowments or basic needs usually fall, driven by urbanization (which has a positive impact on both monetary and non-monetary indicators), households´ efforts to improve their dwellings over time and governments investments in water, sanitation and education, even in stagnant economies. 5. Inequality and Polarization Most comparative studies for Latin America coincide in characterizing Paraguay as one of the most unequal countries in the region (IADB, 1999, Székely, 2000, Masi, 2000, Morley and Vos, 1997, Gasparini, 2003). The evolution of the Gini coefficient over the distribution of household per capita income is depicted in Figure 5.1 for the Greater Asunción area, due to lack of national evidence until 1995. After a considerable fall in the late 1980s, inequality in Asunción increased in the early 1990s, reaching its highest historical level in 1994. After a drop from 1994 to 1997, inequality increased again and in 2001, it reached levels just slightly lower than those recorded for 1994. Morley and Vos (1997) find that the 15 Bourguignon (2003) discusses the need and the problem of going from income poverty to a multidimensional approach of endowments. Attanasio and Székely (eds.) (2001) show evidence of poverty as lack of certain assets for Latin American countries. 16 A person is defined as poor if she lives in a household that meets at least one of the following conditions: (i) 4 or more people per room, (ii) dwelling in a shantytown or other inadequate place, (iii) walls of estaqueo or adobe, (iv) unavailability of water in the lot, (v) unavailability of hygienic restroom, (vi) children aged 7 to 11 not attending school, (vii) household head without a primary education degree, (viii) household head with no more than a primary education degree, and more than 4 people per income earner. 9 evolution of the Gini coefficient reaches a maximum level in 1995.17 Our estimates from national household survey data also reveal a small decrease in the Gini coefficient from 1995 to 1999, but an increase by 2002 that almost reaches prevailing levels. In Table 5.1 we present our own estimates of the most tangible measures of inequality - the shares of each decile and some income ratios. These measures are computed over the distribution of household per capita income. The differences in shares between the bottom decile and the upper decile are considerably large compared to other countries in the region. For instance, in 2002, while the poorest 40% of the population received 9% of the total income, the richest 10% received 44%. Between mid 1995 and 2002, the income share of the poorest decile declined from 0.83% to 0.62%, and the income share of the richest decile also declined from 45.5% in 1995 to 44.4% in 2002. But the share of deciles 4 to 9 increased over the period. In contrast, the shares of the richest and the poorest deciles decreased. Between 2001 and 2002, the top three deciles gained participation against the poorest and middle-income deciles. Table 5.2 presents some inequality indices - the Gini coefficient, the Theil index, the coefficient of variation, the Atkinson index, and the generalized entropy index with different parameters. The Gini coefficient decreased from 0.572 in 1995 to 0.544 in 1999 and went back to 0.571 in 2002. According to the Gini, today inequality would be similar to that of the mid 1990s. Instead, all other indices are higher in 2002 than in 1995, suggesting a significant increase in inequality. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 report an extension of the analysis to the distribution of equivalized household income. Equivalized income takes into account the fact that food needs are different across age groups ­ leading to adjustments for adult equivalent scales ­ and that there are household economies of scale.18 The introduction of these adjustments does not imply significant changes in the assessments of the inequality results. Again, the Gini does not change between 1995 and 2002, while inequality measured by any other indicator goes up. On Tables 5.5 and 5.6, the distribution of a more restricted income variable is considered - the equivalized household labor monetary income. By focusing on labor income, capital income and transfers are ignored. Changes seem small without a clear pattern over time. Tables 5.7 and 5.8 assess the robustness of results by presenting the Gini coefficient over the distribution of several income variables. Each column considers different adult 17These authors report considerable differences with official estimates. Ignoring the procedure to adjust incomes applied by DGEEC, they find a Gini coefficient nearly 9 points higher than the official result for 1995. 18See Deaton and Zaidi (2003). 10 equivalent scales, restrict income to labor sources, consider total household income without adjusting for family size, and restrict the analysis to people in the same age bracket to control life-cycle factors. All the main results drawn from previous tables hold on Table 5.7 when these adjustments are made. Table 5.8 shows that inequality, measured by the Gini coefficient for the distribution of household per capita income, fell in urban and rural areas between 1995 and 1999. Similarly to the national statistics, the Gini also went up in both areas between 1999 and 2002.19 Inequality in rural areas is always higher than in urban areas. This fact is related to the concentration of land among rural inhabitants. Land is a key determinant of per capita farm income in rural areas (López and Thomas, 2000), and, according to the assessment of the World Bank (2002), Paraguay has one of the most unequal land distributions in Latin America. For instance, while two thirds of the farmers have less than 5% of the land, the top 1% of the farmers has two thirds of the land. This gap in land ownership has led to the organization of a peasant political force (campesinos) that demands access to land, among other claims. Table 5.9 suggests significant income gaps between urban and rural areas. Indart (2000) and Gonzalez (2000) argue that regional inequality is a distinctive phenomenon in Paraguay. According to Indart (2000), in 1999 rural families represented 73% of the total number of families in the two poorest deciles and only 13% in the richest decile. Polarization is a dimension of equity that has recently received attention in the literature. It refers to homogeneous clusters that antagonize each other. Table 5.10 shows the Wolfson (1994) and Esteban, Gradín and Ray (1999) indices of bipolarization. Polarization and inequality can go in different directions, as it was the case in Paraguay. Although the Gini coefficient decreased during the 1995-1999 period, polarization rose according to both indices. Conversely, all polarization indices fell between 1999 and 2002, while inequality increased at the national level. Nevertheless, neither of these changes seems statistically significant. 6. Aggregate Welfare Rather than just maximizing mean income, or minimizing poverty or inequality, in principle societies seek the maximization of aggregate welfare. Welfare is usually analyzed with the help of growth incidence curves, generalized Lorenz curves, Pen's parade curves and aggregate welfare functions. In section 3 we presented growth incidence curves and 19The recorded change in the Gini in rural areas in 2002 should be taken very cautiously. Part of that increase in inequality is probably the consequence of the sampling problems mentioned in section 2. 11 Pen's parade curves that suggest unambiguous welfare changes over the last half of the decade. The same conclusion arises from the generalized Lorenz curves in Figure 6.1. The curve for 2002 lies well below the corresponding curve for 1995. A welfare analysis was also performed in terms of abbreviated welfare functions (See Figure 6.2). Four functions were considered. The first one is represented by the average income of the population, and according to this value judgment inequality is irrelevant. The other functions do take inequality into account. These are the ones proposed by Sen (equal to the mean times 1 minus the Gini coefficient) and Atkinson (CES functions with two alternative parameters of inequality aversion).20 For this exercise, we take real per capita GDP from the National Accounts as the average income measure, and combine it with the inequality indices shown above.21 Given that most assessments of the performance of an economy are made by looking at per capita GDP, we use this variable and complement it with inequality indices from our study to obtain rough estimates of the value of aggregate welfare according to different value judgments.22 Between 1995 and 2002, GDP per capita went down 13%, reaching the lowest level in 20 years. Table 6.1 and Figure 6.2 show that aggregate welfare according to the Sen function also fell around 12.6%, while according to an Atkinson function with parameter 1 welfare fell even more (16.4%). According to the Atkinson (2) function, which captures a more Rawlsian value judgment, welfare declined 31% over the period under analysis. 7. The Labor Market This section summarizes the structure and changes of the labor market during Paraguay's economic downturn in the last half of the 1990s and early 2000s. Table 7.1 reports hourly wages, work hours and labor income for the working population. Real hourly wages (deflated by the CPI) decreased over the period. Between 1997 and 2002 the mean real wage declined 39%. Hours of work have also fallen - from 48.1 hours per week to 45.1 hours per week. Tables 7.2 to 7.4 present real hourly wages, work hours and real labor incomes by gender, age and education. An average male worker earns more than an average woman. In addition, men work more hours, which implies higher labor incomes. In 1997, men earned 25% more per hour than women, and worked 8% more hours per week. These gaps narrowed until 2001, but widened in 2002. 20See Lambert (1993) for technical details. 21The source for GDP figures is ECLAC (2004). 22See Gasparini and Sosa Escudero (2001) for a more complete justification of this kind of study. 12 Formal education has been shown to be very important as an income determinant. Although this fact is also true for Paraguay, returns to education do not appear to be as large as in other countries in the region, for example, in Argentina. Table 7.4 shows labor variables by educational groups. People are classified into low, middle and high education categories, according to their years of formal education.23 The gains from education decreased between 1997 and 2002. Skilled workers earned 4 times more per hour than those with incomplete high school or less in 1997. The gap narrowed to 2.6 by 2002. In turn, the hourly wage gap between the skilled and the semi-skilled declined from 2.4 to 2 over the period. Table 7.5 shows that real wages and labor income decreased for all types of workers, although the fall was more dramatic for the self-employed and for wage earners. The gap between salaried and self-employed workers widened in terms of both hourly wages and hours worked. While in 1997 the average real wage of a typical self-employed worker was similar to the hourly wage of a typical salaried worker, by 2002 it was only 70%. The real hourly wage gap between wage earners and entrepreneurs increased from 2.6 to 3 times over the period 1997-2002. Table 7.6 shows a more detailed assessment of the evolution of labor variables by labor groups. The decrease in real wages has been widespread. Table 7.7 shows labor variables across economic sectors. Falls in real wages have been proportionally larger for skilled services and manufacturing sectors. Since the early 2000s Asunción has been particularly affected in terms of the decline of real wages and labor income. (See Table 7.8). Table 7.9 divides total labor income into earnings of salaried workers, self-employed workers and employers. The share of the earnings of salaried workers has always been greater than 50%. The shares of these three labor income categories change across surveys, probably as a consequence of sample variability and changes in the questionnaires. Since labor income is the main income source in the economy, and it is easier to capture in household surveys, inequality in labor outcomes is the main source of inequality in household income. Table 7.10 records the Gini coefficient computed over the distribution of hourly wages. Wage inequality substantially increased during the period 1997-2002. When the analysis is restricted to geographical areas, gender or educational groups, results are very unstable. In order to analyze if the differences in hourly wages among workers are reinforced by the differences in work hours, Table 7.11 records the correlations between hours worked and hourly wages. Results suggest that correlations are negative and significant for all years. 23See the methodological notes for a description of the construction of these educational groups. 13 On Table 7.12 we compute wage gaps among three educational groups for prime age men. On Table 7.4 a slightly decreasing wage premium for skilled workers was observed within the group of all workers. On Table 7.12 the wage gaps in favor of the skilled also seem to have decreased between 1997 and 2002. To further assess the relationship between education and hourly wages, we run regressions of the logarithm of the hourly wage in the primary job on educational dummies and other control variables (age, age squared, regional dummies, and an urban/rural dummy) for men and women separately.24 Table 7.13 shows the results of these Mincer equations. For instance, in 2002 a male worker aged between 25 and 55 with a primary education degree on average earned 22% more than a similar worker without that degree. Having secondary school complete implied a wage increase of 50% over the earnings of a worker with only primary school - the marginal return of completing secondary school versus completing primary and not having started secondary school is 50%. The wage premium for a college education was another 70%. Between 1997 and 2002 the returns to primary school and the returns to secondary education increased, while the returns to college education went down. However, over time the large fluctuations recorded on Table 7.13 suggest that the returns are not estimated with precision. The Mincer equation is also informative on two interesting factors - the role of unobservable variables and the gender wage gap. The error term in the Mincer regression is usually interpreted as capturing the effect of factors that are unobservable in household surveys, like natural ability and contacts on hourly wages. An increase in the dispersion of this error term may reflect an increase in the returns to these unobservable factors in terms of hourly wages (Juhn et al. (1993)). Table 7.14 shows the standard deviation of the error term in each Mincer equation. The returns to unobservable factors have significantly risen in Paraguay since 1997. Table 7.15 shows basic statistics on labor force shares by gender, age, education and geographical area. Over the considered period, labor participation has been larger for males, for the group aged 26 to 40, and for the most skilled. According to available data, labor force participation was quite stable between 1997 and 2002. This fact is the result of the increasing participation of women, prime age people, unskilled workers and workers in rural areas. The employment rate in Paraguay fell around 1 point between 1997 and 2001. Again, this small change is the result of larger changes that compensated one another. Employment 24See Wodon (2000), and Duryea and Pages (2002) for estimates of returns to years of education in several Latin American countries. 14 grew for women, prime age people, unskilled workers and workers in rural areas. The fall in employment by 2002 has been mainly explained by the economic recession. As Table 7.17 shows, the share of unemployed adults increased 2 points between 1997 and 2001, and another 2 points by 2002. The proportion of unemployed people is greater in the groups of youngsters (16-25), semi-skilled workers, and workers in urban areas.25 Between 2001 and 2002, the latter group was particularly more affected in terms of unemployment. The analysis of unemployment spells gives more information on the well-being of the unemployed. The duration of unemployment, as reported at the moment when the surveys were collected, fell around 1 month between 1997 and 2001 and increased 2 months by 2002. (Table 7.18). This implies that, despite persistent unemployment has not been very significant on average, recession has exacerbated the spells, especially for the unskilled. According to Robles (2002), unemployment in Paraguay is mainly a short run situation since 70% of the unemployed reported a spell duration of about 3 months or less in the EIH (2000-2001). The author also argues this can be explained by the fact that the prevailing employment in the labor market is mainly generated by many occasional new micro firms that offer low quality jobs. Table 7.18 shows that the duration is higher for the most educated group. This can be explained by the fact that the less skilled tend to accept lower quality jobs. Moreover, as this kind of jobs generally lacks unemployment insurance, unprotected workers have more incentives to find a new job sooner. Tables 7.19 to 7.24 show the structure of employment in Paraguay. Although there are significantly more male than female workers employed, the gender gap in shares has been narrowing down. While in 1997 35% of the working population were women, in 2002 that share grew to almost 37%. Throughout the 1997-2002 period, the group of workers aged 41 to 64 gained participation in the labor market, while the share of the group aged between 26 and 40 decreased. Finally, the last three columns on Table 7.19 show the change in the educational structure of the working population in favor of the most skilled. According to the results on Table 7.20, the share of rural areas in total employment has increased by 2 points. Table 7.21 reports changes in the structure of employment by type of work. The workers with zero income and the self-employed have increased their participation. Employment in small firms also grew. Sizeable levels of informality have shaped Paraguay's economy. According to the assessment by ILO (2003), the labor market is characterized by a low compliance with laws 25It is argued in the literature that the minimum wage has been set high compared to other Latin American countries. For instance, according to Robles (2002) and to the poverty assessment of the World Bank (2002) for Paraguay, the fact that the minimum wage has been set high explains its adverse effects over the demand for younger workers. Angel-Urdinola and Wodon (2002) suggest that younger workers are much more likely to be affected by the minimum wage than older workers. 15 and regulations. The study also argues that informality is mainly the outcome of several factors such as inadequate or rigid laws for the development of firms and an ineffective system of incentives. In addition, informality has been exacerbated in the last half of the 1990s, since the economic downturn led workers to accept lower quality jobs. Table 7.22 presents the formal-informal structure of the labor market. Unfortunately, there is not a single definition of informality. Following Gasparini (2003), two definitions are implemented with the information available in the EH-MO, EIH and EPH. According to the first one, entrepreneurs, salaried workers in large firms and in the public sector, and self- employed professionals are considered formal workers. Considering the second definition, formal workers are those who have the right to receive pensions when they retire. According to the first definition, formality in the labor market has fallen. Instead, the share of salaried workers with social security has remained roughly unchanged. The sector structure of the economy has changed (see Tables 7.23 and 7.24). During the period 1997-2002 there was a significant increase in the share of primary activities and a 2 point increase in the participation of Education and Health. Child labor is a social issue of particular concern in Paraguay. Table 7.25 shows the proportion of working children between 10 and 14 years of age. In 2002, 24% of the children in the first equivalized household income quintile reported that they worked. The proportion of working children significantly declined in the richest quintile. UNICEF and ILO (2003) document that working children aged 10 to 17 amount to 241,945. Among them, 40% work in primary sector activities and 30% in unskilled jobs. According to the same study, child labor implies worse prospects for intergenerational poverty since 40% of the children aged between 10 and 17 are not enrolled in school. The last three tables in this section are aimed at assessing different dimensions of the quality of employment. Table 7.26 shows that the access to social security decreased for workers with low and medium education, and increased for skilled workers. Instead, the access to labor health insurance dropped for all the skills groups (see Table 7.27). Finally, Table 7.28 presents the percentage of unionized workers. Information on workers organizations was only included in the EIH collected between 2000 and 2001. The share of unionized workers is higher among unskilled workers. 8. Education In this section we assess the changes in the educational structure of the population. Although Paraguay has made progress in education, it still lags behind in terms of literacy, years of education and enrollment compared to other countries in the region. The rate of illiteracy has been reduced by half, and years of education among the population aged over 16 9 have doubled over the last two decades. From recent national household surveys we can trace the evolution of educational indicators in Paraguay.26 The proportion of high-educated people increased during the last half of the 1990s and the early 2000s (Table 8.1).27 While in 1995, 7.6% of adults aged 25 to 65 had more than 13 years of education, that share rose to 10.4% in 2001. The rise was higher for women than for men. Despite this increasing trend, it is worth noting that the proportion of skilled people is relatively low compared to the other countries in the region. Table 8.2 records average years of education by age and gender. Notice that years of education increased for all groups between 1995 and 2001. The gender gap in years of education in favor of men has remained quite stable for the working-age population (25 to 65). Information on Table 8.3 suggests that the gap in years of education between the rich and the poor has been stable. It is worth noting that national household surveys do not allow us to capture years of education in graduate programs, so the variable is truncated at 18 years. Presumably, if years of graduate education had been reported, the gap between the rich and the poor would have been higher than on Table 8.3. Table 8.4 shows people divided by age and household income quintiles. The widest gap in years of education between top and bottom quintiles corresponds to adults aged 31-50. The gap is somewhat narrower for younger and older people. Table 8.5 presents the gap in years of education between the rural and the urban population. The first column shows that despite the fact that the difference has been narrowing, there is still a gap of 2.5 years of education between the urban and the rural population. This gap becomes larger when only adults aged between 25 to 65 are considered. The difference remained stable around 3.5 years. There have been recent efforts to gather educational information from most countries in the world and to compute measures of inequality in access to education and education outcomes.28 Paraguay stands out as one of the most unequal countries in the region in terms of years of education. According to Table 8.6, educational Ginis remained quite stable over the period. Tables 8.7 and 8.8 show a rough measure of education - the self-reported literacy rate. Paraguay fares poorly compared to Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. However, there has been progress. While in 1995 16% of the population was illiterate, in 2002 that fraction fell to 26The EIH (2000-2001) is the first survey that includes the outcomes of an education reform that extended the number of years of primary education from 6 to 9. 27 However, by 2002 a curious decrease in the share of high-skilled is found. This change can be attributed to the sampling variability problems in the EPH (2002) that have already been mentioned. 28For instance, Thomas, Wang and Fan (2002) calculate Ginis over the distribution of years of education for 140 countries in the period 1960-2000. 17 9%. The greatest increase in literacy occurred in quintile 1. In only 7 years literacy rates climbed from 71% to 84%. In 1995, the gap in literacy rates between the first and the richest quintile was about 25 points. By 2002 the gap narrowed down to 13 points. Table 8.9 depicts literacy rates by area of residence and age groups. The gap between the rural and the urban population is around 10 points in favor of urban adults aged between 25 and 65, and 17 points for the elderly. Guaranteeing equality of access to formal education is one of the goals of most societies. Tables 8.10 and 8.11 show school enrollment rates by equivalized income quintiles. Attendance rates have sharply increased for children aged 3 to 5. While in 1995 one third of these children attended a kindergarten, in 2002 40% of them did. Attendance also increased for children in primary-school age, reaching 94% by 2002. Despite the economic downturn, which left more people impoverished, schooling was not affected by its negative consequences. By 2002, attendance decreased from 94% in the group aged 6 to 12 to 72% in the group aged 13 to 17. This is directly related to the fact that poor children who have to work tend to leave school early. In fact, half of the children between 12 and 15 years of age report that they are not attending school because of lack of resources. Another reason is early pregnancies. The lack of proximity of schools in rural areas is also cited as a reason for dropping out (World Bank, 2002). Nonetheless, school attendance increased over the crisis period. In terms of gender, girls are more prone to attend high school than boys. The increase in attendance of young people aged 18 to 23 has also been noticeable, although it has had a somewhat lower pace. Again, enrollment considerably decreases with age compared to other countries in the region. Attendance rates increased in the first four household income quintiles for children aged 3 to 5. The enrollment rates of children aged between 6 and 12 increased for all income quintiles and are more equal among quintiles than the attendance of other age groups. The rises in enrollment rates for youth aged between 13 and 17 were larger in poor quintiles. The gap in attendance rates between the rich and the poor narrowed for youths aged 18 to 23. In summary, it seems that educational disparities in terms of school attendance decreased in recent years. Table 8.12 presents enrollment rates by rural or urban location and by age groups. Attendance has increased for all age groups and areas. The increase was especially higher for children aged between 3 and 5 in rural areas. While in 1995 only 16% of rural children in that age group attended kindergarten, by 2002 the rate rose to 33%. Although this rate also increased for urban children of the same age, the gap between rural and urban substantially decreased from 30 points to 14 points. The regional gap in enrollments also decreased for children in primary school age. In fact, by 2002, 92% of the children aged between 6 and 12 in rural areas and 95% of the children aged between 6 and 12 in urban 18 areas were enrolled. For older groups, regional disparities are still important. In 2002, the attendance rate for children between 13 and 17 reached 60% in rural areas, while in urban areas the enrollment rate was 83%. For youth in college attendance age, the regional gap amounted to 15 points (18% of attendance in rural areas compared to 33% in urban areas). Educational Mobility In this section we follow the methodology developed in Andersen (2001) to provide estimates of educational mobility, i.e. the degree to which parental education and income determine a child's education. The dependent variable is the schooling gap, defined as the difference between (i) years of education that a child would have completed had she entered school at normal age and advanced one grade each year, and (ii) the actual years of education. In other words, the schooling gap measures years of missing education. The Educational Mobility Index (EMI) is defined as 1 minus the proportion of the variance of the school gap that is explained by family background. In an economy with low mobility, family background would be important and thus the index would be small.29 Table 8.13 shows the EMI for teenagers (aged 13 to 19) and young adults (aged 20 to 25). It seems that there has not been much improvement in educational mobility since 1995. 9. Housing and Social Services Housing is probably the main asset that most people own. Table 9.1 shows the share of families owning a house (the building and the lot) for each income quintile. Housing ownership is widespread along the income distribution. Actually, the share of poor people who reports that they own a dwelling is higher than the corresponding share for the rich. We will analyze the characteristics of the houses later in this section. Table 9.1 suggests that housing ownership remained quite stable between 1995 and 2002. The number of rooms in the house is smaller for poor families than for richer households. Since poor families are also larger in size, the number of people per room is considerably larger. The gap is about 2 more people per room in the poorest household, compared to the richest. The number of people per room was stable for all deciles, but slightly decreasing for the poorest. We have constructed an indicator of poor dwelling. This variable takes a value of 1 if the family lives in a shantytown, inquilinato, pensión, or other space not meant to be used as a house. By 2002 around 19% of the population lived in poor dwellings. This proportion is 8 points lower than in 1995. Between 2001 and 2002, the share of people living in poor 29For technical details see Andersen (2001). 19 dwellings in the first quintile decreased. However, the change is probably driven by the new design of the EPH questionnaire (2002). In any case, the level is significantly higher than the indicator for other countries in the region. Table 9.2 shows housing statistics by age groups. Housing ownership has remained rather constant for all age groups. Ownership and the number of rooms in the house increase with age. In contrast, the indicators of poor dwellings and people per room decrease with age. Between 1995 and 2002 the share of low-quality dwellings declined for all ages. It is interesting to notice the regional disparities among rural and urban households on Table 9.3. While the share of house ownership is greater for rural families, quality indicators (number of people per room and poor dwelling) reflect that urban families live in better quality houses. Over the period considered, house ownership was stable and quality indicators improved in both areas. Table 9.4 reflects that changes in housing ownership by education were similar to changes by income quintiles. For instance, ownership increased in those households with high- educated heads and decreased in households where heads were low-educated. Also, differences in ownership by education are similar to differences by income quintiles. Table 9.5 shows statistics on the access to some basic services - water, hygienic restrooms, sewerage, and electricity - by income strata.30 Gaps are large between upper and bottom income quintiles, which have very low coverage of basic services. Public sewerage and telephone are the services with less incidence for all quintiles. Increases in use were more widespread across quintiles for electricity.31 Instead, the improvement in telephone coverage was mainly restricted to the richest quintiles. Table 9.6 shows that although the increase in coverage has been widespread for the rural and the urban population, regional gaps still remain high. In rural areas, the coverage pattern almost mimics the pattern for the first income quintiles. While sewerage and telephone coverage is low in urban areas, in rural areas it is almost null. 30Water refers to the availability of a source of water in the house or lot. The variable restroom is equal to 1 when the household has a restroom with a toilet connected to the sewerage system or to a septic tank. The variable sewerage is 1 when the house is connected to a public sewerage system. The variable electricity includes all sources of electricity. 31The decline in water coverage levels in 2002 could be due to the fact that the question about water coverage was modified in the EPH (2002). 20 10. Demographics Resources available to each person depend on the number of people among whom total household resources are shared. The size and composition of the household are key determinants of an individual's economic well-being. Table 10.1 shows household size by residence area, by income quintiles and by education of the household head. Rural households tend to be larger than urban ones. Family size is also larger for poorer and less educated families. A similar phenomenon is observed on Table 10.2, which reports the number of children by quintile of parental income. Rural households have larger shares of children under 12 years of age. On the other hand, the number of children under 12 decreases with income share and education. There were no considerable changes in family size between 1995 and 2002. Paraguay has a high proportion of young population. In comparison to other Southern Cone countries, Paraguay's population has not suffered a significant aging process. By 2002, the mean age of the population was 25 years, 40% was under 15, and 3.5% were over 64. Mean age is almost two years higher in urban areas. On average, it increased one year over the last half of the 1990s (see Table 10.4). However, it is interesting to see heterogeneous changes across areas and quintiles again. While the mean age of the rural population increased 1.6 years, the mean age of the urban population increased 0.7 years. Between 1995 and 2002 the average age rose in all quintiles. Inequality is reinforced if marriages take place between people of similar income potential. Table 10.5 presents some simple linear correlations that suggest the existence of assortative mating in Paraguay.32 Men with more years of formal education tend to marry women with a similar educational background (column (i)). This is one of the factors that contribute to a positive correlation of hourly wages within couples shown on column (ii). According to these simple statistics, there are no signs of changes in the degree of assortative mating until 2001.. Finally, columns (iii) and (iv) show positive - though small - correlations in work hours, both considering and excluding people who do not work. 11. A Poverty Profile This section presents a poverty profile based on information from the latest available EPH conducted in 2002. A poverty profile gives a characterization of the poor population, often compared to the non-poor population. The poor population was identified using the 2USD a day and the official moderate poverty lines criteria. To make reading more fluent, in general we discuss the results for the USD2-a-day poverty line (columns (i) and (ii) on each 32See also Fernández, Guner and Knowles (2001). 21 table), except when a significant difference justifies discussing the alternative poverty definition. Table 11.1 shows some basic demographic characterization of the poor and non-poor populations. According to the USD2 poverty line, 37.26% of the total population is poor. The incidence of poverty is higher among the group of children under 15 (44%). Furthermore, almost half of the poor population (48.8%) consists of children aged under 15, while only 5.2% are people over 65. On average, age is higher in the non-poor group. It is 26.9 for the non-poor and falls to 23.2 for the poor. These patterns illustrate the relevance of the correlation of demographic factors with poverty. Poor households tend to be larger compared to the non-poor. While a typical non- poor household has 4 members, a typical poor household has 5.3. That gap is largely explained by the difference in children under 12. On average, there is 1.4 children in each non-poor family where the head is aged 25 to 45, while in poor households led by a prime age head there are 2.7 children Dependency rates (number of income earners per person) are also dramatically different - 0.23 in poor households and more than double in non-poor households (0.56). It is interesting to notice that the share of female-headed households is the same for the poor and the non-poor regardless of the poverty line used to define them. As it was already mentioned, there are important regional disparities in social conditions. While the incidence of poverty in rural areas is 54.5%, in urban areas it drops to 23.6% (compared to 43.2% using the official line). Table 11.2 shows that there is a difference in the regional distribution of the poor depending on the line used. According to the USD2 line, 64.6% of the poor are rural inhabitants, while using the official line, the proportion is reduced to 48%. As it was mentioned before, this is explained by the fact that the USD2 line is higher than the official poverty line defined for rural areas and lower than the poverty line for urban regions. More specifically, poverty is particularly high in the Resto rural region (56.3%, compared to a country average of 46.4%). While in Asunción the incidence amounts to 14% according to the USD2 line. In fact, only 3.4% of the poor live in Asunción and 61.8% are located in the Resto rural region. In Paraguay, reported housing ownership is widespread along the income distribution. Table 11.3 shows that the share of poor people who reports that they own a dwelling is higher than the corresponding share for the non-poor. The poor live in smaller houses of a worse quality and with fewer services. In an average poor household there are 2.65 people 22 per room, while in a non-poor household the value is 1.61. Furthermore, 33% of the poor population lives in shantytowns and other inadequate places, while just 5% have dwellings with walls of estaqueo and adobe. The access to water and sewerage is low compared to other countries, especially for the poor - 2.6% of the poor and 12% of the non-poor are connected to the public sewerage system. Only 47.5% of the poor report having water in their lots. Access to electricity is more widespread - 88.3% of the poor report that they have that service. The main difference with the non-poor appears to lie in access to hygienic restrooms. In fact, while 69% of the non-poor are connected to the sewerage system, the share drops to 28% for the poor. The poor have fewer years of formal education than the rest of the population for any age group. The educational gap is slightly wider for the [21,50] age group.33 These differences are shown in the second panel of Table 11.4. While 60% of non-poor adults are unskilled, that share rises to 90% for the poor. Skills are not very widespread among the non-poor. Only 11% of non-poor adults are skilled, while 7% of the poor are. The literacy rate is 5 points lower for the poor - 88% of those who are older than 10 report that they are able to read and write. That share rises to 93% for the non-poor. The last panel on Table 11.4 indicates that school attendance is more widespread for those children aged 6 to 12 (96% for the non-poor and 91% for the poor). The gap in attendance rates significantly increases in the secondary and tertiary levels. While the rate of attendance is 66% for the poor aged 13 to 17 and 19% for the 18-23 age group, it is 76% for the non-poor between 13 to 17 and 30% for those aged 18 to 23. The poor participate in the labor market in smaller rates than the non-poor. The gap is particularly large for women - while the rate for poor women is 45.6%, for the non-poor it is 68.5%. Moreover, the gap is also considerable between people aged 25 to 55. Employment is significantly higher for the non-poor, while unemployment is substantially larger for the poor. The unemployment rate of the poor is more than double the rate of the non-poor. That gap is wider for the elderly, while unemployment rates are similar for the poor and non-poor between 16 and 24 years of age. However, the unemployment spell of the non-poor is on average roughly higher than for the poor. Finally, Table 11.5 reports that child labor is high in Paraguay, especially among the poor. Around 2 out of 10 poor children aged 10 to 14 worked at least one hour in 2002. From Table 11.6 it can be inferred that the poor not only have more difficulties in finding a job, but even when they have one, they work fewer hours and get lower wages. On average 33Naturally, the gap is smaller for the [10, 20] age group, when the educational process is still not complete for many individuals, especially the non-poor. 23 a non-poor employed person works 6 hours a week more than a poor person. That gap is smaller for youngsters and larger for prime age women (11 hours). The hourly wage of a non-poor person is on average three times that of a poor worker. The gap is larger for the elderly and for male workers aged 25 to 55. Table 11.7 presents a characterization of the employment structure. Compared to the non- poor, the working poor are more prone to be self-employed unskilled workers, who were mostly affected by economic downturn. According to a definition of informality based on labor groups, almost 94% of the poor are informal workers, while 62.7% of the non-poor are in that category. Proportions are similar when informality is defined on the basis of access to social security. There is also evidence of some disparities in the sector structure of employment between the poor and the rest. Compared to the non-poor, the poor are relatively much more concentrated on primary labor activities, while non-poor are more prone to work in commerce, skilled services and education and health. The rest of the sectors have quite similar shares of poor and non-poor. Table 11.7 also shows substantial differences in the access to stable jobs with social security rights. The share of jobs with rights to pensions is 24 points higher for the non- poor. For instance, while 33% of the working non-poor report that they will have access to pensions when they retire, only 8% of the poor are entitled to that right. Table 11.8 summarizes mean income, and the income structure of the poor and the rest of the population. It is interesting to notice that inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient for the distribution of household per capita income, is much lower within the poor than within the non-poor (0.31 and 0.47 respectively). Also, the difference is not so large when the poor and the non-poor defined by the official line are compared. Finally, the table shows that, compared to the non-poor, the poor rely relatively more on income from self- employment and transfers. Table 11.9 shows the results of performing a simple simulation to characterize the difference in per capita income between a typical poor person and the rest. Panel B of the table indicates the per capita income of a typical poor if a particular variable (e.g. household size) takes the mean value for the non-poor. The actual per capita income of a typical poor person is G53,306.8 a month. If household size for the poor were the same as for the non-poor and other variables were kept constant, per capita income would grow to G68,423.5. Of course, this exercise is helpful just as a preliminary characterization of the differences between the poor and the non-poor. The poor have less per capita income than the rest because of several reasons. For instance, they have fewer income earners in the 24 household, lower non-labor income, and larger household size, but especially because they earn substantially less in the labor market. Table 11.10 shows that according to our indicator of household endowments, while 57% of the non-poor have deficiencies in at least one variable (water, education, housing, etc.), that share amounts to 89% in the case of the poor. Finally, Table 11.11 has been drawn from official data. In Paraguay, the DGEEC computes a basic needs indicator (NBI) based on primary school enrollment, housing characteristics, sanitation, household head education and dependency rates. Concerning the regional structure of this indicator, basic-needs poverty is higher in rural areas than in urban areas (around 20 points). The table shows gradual improvements in living standards. 12. An Assessment In contrast to the strong economic growth of the 1970s and part of the 1980s, Paraguay's economy was stagnant during the 1990s. GDP grew at a low pace over the decade, and the combination of domestic vulnerability and external shocks led to stagnation throughout the second half of the 1990s and the early 2000s. The economic downturn by the mid 1990s exacerbated social problems in a context of weak protection mechanisms for the most vulnerable. The outcome has been increasing poverty and sustained inequality. Stagnation in per capita income combined with inequality led to a fall in aggregate welfare in the last years. As a direct consequence of the recession, labor market conditions have become deteriorated. Unemployment and underemployment increased, men, the less skilled and young adults being the most affected groups. Although transition across educational levels is still difficult for many students, pre-school, primary school and secondary school attendance has increased, particularly in poor income strata. This does not seem to be the case for college, where inequality in the access to this educational level across quintiles has increased. Disparities are still considerably high in the housing markets in terms of access to basic services and the quality of dwellings. Finally, demographic variables have remained roughly constant over the period under analysis. 25 References Andersen, L. (2001). Social Mobility in Latin America: Links with Adolescent Schooling. IADB Research Network Working Paper #R-433. Angel-Urdinola, D. and Wodon, Q. (2002). Semiparametric Estimation of the Distributional Impact of Minimum Wages by Gender Group in Paraguay. Mimeo. World Bank Working paper. Attanasio, O. and Székely, M. (eds.) (2001). Portrait of the Poor. An Assets-based Approach. IADB. Bourguignon, F. (2003). From Income to Endowments: the Difficult Task of Expanding the Income Poverty Paradigm. Delta WP 2003-03. CEDLAS (2004). Poverty and Inequality in Paraguay. Methodological Issues and a Poverty Review. Working paper, CEDLAS. CEPAL (2002). Panorama social de América Latina, 2002. Santiago de Chile CEPAL (2003). BADEINSO. Santiago de Chile. DGEEC (2003). Pobreza en Paraguay. EPH 2002. Duryea, S. and Pagés, C. (2002). Human Capital Policies: What They Can and Cannot Do for Productivity and Poverty Reduction in Latin America. IADB Working Paper # 468. Esteban, J., Gradin, C. and Ray, D. (1999). Extension of a Measure of Polarization, with an Application to the Income Distribution of Five OECD Countries. Instituto de Estudios Economicos de Galicia Pedro Barrie de la Maza Working Papers Series 24. Fernández, R., Guner, N. and Knowles, J. (2001). Love and Money: a Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Household Sorting and Inequality. Mimeo. Foster, J., Greer, J. and Thorbecke, E. (1984). A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures. Econometrica 52, 761-776. Gasparini, L (2003). Empleo y protección social en América Latina. Un análisis sobre la base de encuestas de hogares. OIT. Gasparini, L. (2003). Different Lives: Inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean. Chapter 2 of Inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean: Breaking with History? The World Bank. 26 Gonzalez, E. (2001). Paraguay: Determinantes regionales en la inequidad de ingresos. żSon desiguales las regiones del país? Centro de Análisis y Difusión de la Economía Paraguaya. CADEP. ILO (2003). Paraguay: Empleo y protección social. Desafíos institucionales para reducir la pobreza. Santiago de Chile. Indart, G. (1999). Pobreza y distribución del ingreso en Paraguay. INDES-IADB Working Paper Juhn, C, Murphy, K. and Pierce, B. (1993). Wage Inequality and the Rise in Returns to Skill. Journal of Political Economy 101 (3), 410-442. Lambert, P. (1993). The Distribution and Redistribution of Income. Manchester University Press. Londońo, J. and Székely, M. (2000). Persistent Poverty and Excess Inequality: Latin America, 1970-1995. Journal of Applied Economics 3 (1). 93-134. Lustig, N. and Deutsche, R. (1998). The Inter-American Development Bank and Poverty Reduction: An Overview. No. Pov-101-R. Masi, F. (2000). La desigualdad de ingresos en el Paraguay y la familia . Economía y Sociedad, N°1, DGEEC. MECOVI (2002). Estadísticas recientes sobre pobreza. Miranda, A. (1982). Desarrollo y Pobreza en Paraguay. Rosslyn, VA: Inter-American Foundation and Comité de Iglesias. Morley, S. and Vos, R. (1997). Poverty and Dualistic Growth in Paraguay. IADB. Mimeo. Morley, S. (2001). Rural Poverty in Paraguay. Mimeo. Robles, M. (1999). Pobreza y distribución del ingreso en Paraguay, Encuesta Integrada de Hogares, 1997/1998. MECOVI-DGEEC Consultation Document. Robles, M. (2002). El empleo en Paraguay: evidencias de las encuestas de hogares. ENREPD Consultation Document, DGEEC. Sauma, P. (1993). La distribución del ingreso en el Paraguay. Universidad Nacional de Asunción. Departamento de Investigaciones Socioeconómicas. Secretaría de Acción Social (2002). Estrategia Nacional de Reducción de la Pobreza y la Desigualdad (ENREPD). 27 Sosa Escudero, W. and Gasparini, L. (2000). A Note on the Statistical Significance of Changes in Inequality. Económica XLVI (1). January-June. Székely, M. (2004). The 1990s in Latin America: Another Decade of Persistent Inequality, but with Somewhat Lower Poverty. Journal of Applied Economics. Thomas, V., Wang, Y. and Fan X. (2002). A New Dataset on Inequality in Education: Gini and Theil Indices of Schooling for 140 Countries, 1960-2000. Mimeo. UN (2003). Millennium Development Goals. Paraguay Report. Asunción. Wodon, Q. et al. (2000). Poverty and Policy in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank Technical Paper 467. Wolfson, M. (1994). When Inequalities Diverge. The American Economic Review. 84 (2), 353-358. World Bank (2003a). Paraguay: Defining a Strategy for the Social Protection Policy. The World Bank. World Bank (2003b). Country Assistance Strategy for the Republic of Paraguay. The World Bank. 28 Table 3.1 Real Income Paraguay, 1995-2002 1995 1997 1999 2001 2002 1 10,034.5 7,816.1 7,828.4 8,193.9 5,163.0 2 21,510.0 20,146.1 19,899.4 20,520.7 14,098.8 3 32,993.2 33,281.3 33,049.0 32,879.9 22,335.8 4 44,568.6 47,755.4 45,158.3 44,864.4 31,494.3 5 58,953.4 65,173.2 58,287.6 58,592.7 41,532.9 6 76,443.5 85,294.1 74,650.1 74,103.7 53,122.5 7 98,138.3 109,111.4 94,643.2 94,115.4 69,281.2 8 129,674.3 143,604.2 125,285.9 121,139.4 92,534.2 9 188,186.4 207,680.6 181,856.0 177,725.8 131,521.3 10 550,231.4 508,610.2 452,618.0 490,978.1 367,938.2 average 121,088.4 122,859.5 109,346.7 112,317.0 82,911.4 Proportional changes 1995-1997 1997-1999 1995-2001 1999-2001 1999-2002 2001-2002 1995-2002 1 -22.1 0.2 -18.3 4.7 -34.0 -37.0 -48.5 2 -6.3 -1.2 -4.6 3.1 -29.1 -31.3 -34.5 3 0.9 -0.7 -0.3 -0.5 -32.4 -32.1 -32.3 4 7.2 -5.4 0.7 -0.7 -30.3 -29.8 -29.3 5 10.6 -10.6 -0.6 0.5 -28.7 -29.1 -29.5 6 11.6 -12.5 -3.1 -0.7 -28.8 -28.3 -30.5 7 11.2 -13.3 -4.1 -0.6 -26.8 -26.4 -29.4 8 10.7 -12.8 -6.6 -3.3 -26.1 -23.6 -28.6 9 10.4 -12.4 -5.6 -2.3 -27.7 -26.0 -30.1 10 -7.6 -11.0 -10.8 8.5 -18.7 -25.1 -33.1 average 1.5 -11.0 -7.2 2.7 -24.2 -26.2 -31.5 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 29 Table 4.1 Monthly Poverty Lines in Local Currency International PL($percapita) Oficial PL($percapita) Oficial PL($percapita) USD1aday USD2aday Extreme Moderate (i) (ii) Asunción (iii) Central Urbano(iv) Central Rural (v) Restourbano(vi) RestoRural (vii) Asunción(viii) Central Urbano(ix) CentralRural (x) Restourbano(xi) RestoRural(xii) 1995 34,275.26 68,550.52 81,422.67 80,502.60 42,290.60 61,451.17 42,290.60 174,016.67 172,050.00 65,677.44 108,811.82 65,677.44 1997 39,597.07 79,194.15 96,192.10 95,105.10 49,682.40 72,192.03 49,682.40 204,332.50 202,122.40 77,157.00 127,830.70 77,157.00 1999 47,822.81 95,645.62 104,540.40 103,358.60 54,745.50 79,548.90 54,745.50 234,169.90 231,523.78 87,268.70 145,411.80 87,268.70 2001 55,738.14 111,476.28 122,017.00 120,662.00 63,026.00 91,581.00 63,026.00 269,694.00 266,967.00 100,151.00 166,762.00 100,151.00 2002 63,567.70 127,135.40 142,308.00 140,717.00 73,501.00 106,802.00 73,501.00 321,229.00 317,998.00 118,483.00 197,895.00 118,483.00 Ratios (Moderate Oficial/USD2) (viii)/(ii) (ix)/(ii) (x)/(ii) (xi)/(ii) (xii)/(ii) 1995 2.54 2.51 0.96 1.59 0.96 1997 2.58 2.55 0.97 1.61 0.97 1999 2.45 2.42 0.91 1.52 0.91 2001 2.42 2.39 0.90 1.50 0.90 2002 2.53 2.50 0.93 1.56 0.93 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS and DGEEC. Table 4.2 Poverty Paraguay, 1995-2002 USD 1 a Day Poverty Line National, Urban and Rural Nation Urban Rural Number of Headcount Poverty gap Number of Headcount Poverty gap Number of Headcount Poverty gap poor people FGT(0) FGT(1) FGT(2) poor people FGT(0) FGT(1) FGT(2) poor people FGT(0) FGT(1) FGT(2) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) 1995 452,076 9.4 3.9 2.4 65,475 2.7 1.3 1.0 386,601 16.3 6.6 3.9 1997 887,394 16.8 12.0 10.5 107,690 3.8 1.8 1.3 779,704 31.6 23.6 20.9 1999 853,131 15.5 12.1 11.1 80,003 2.7 2.2 2.0 773,128 30.1 23.6 21.5 2002 1,091,299 21.2 14.0 11.6 277,396 9.7 5.8 4.8 813,903 35.8 24.3 20.2 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Note: FGT (0) =headcount ratio, FGT (1) =poverty gap, FGT (2) =Foster, Greer and Thornbecke index with parameter 2. Table 4.3 Poverty Paraguay, 1995-2002 USD 2 a Day Poverty Line Nation Urban Rural Number of Headcount Poverty gap Number of HeadcountPoverty gap Number of HeadcountPoverty gap poor people FGT(0) FGT(1) FGT(2) poor people FGT(0) FGT(1) FGT(2) poor people FGT(0) FGT(1) FGT(2) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) 1995 1,055,647 21.9 9.9 6.0 197,087 8.0 3.3 2.0 858,560 36.2 16.8 10.2 1997 1,446,026 27.4 17.1 13.8 286,963 10.2 4.2 2.6 1,159,063 47.0 31.8 26.4 1999 1,302,310 23.6 16.1 13.5 196,613 6.7 3.5 2.6 1,105,697 43.0 30.6 26.1 2002 1,917,275 37.2 21.6 16.5 678,306 23.6 11.2 7.7 1,238,969 54.5 34.9 27.7 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Note: FGT (0) =headcount ratio, FGT (1) =poverty gap, FGT (2) =Foster, Greer and Thornbecke index with parameter 2. 30 Table 4.4 Poverty Paraguay, 1995-2002 Official Extreme Poverty Line National Urban Rural Number of Headcount Povertygap Number of Headcount Povertygap Number of Headcount Povertygap poor people FGT(0) FGT(1) FGT(2) poor people FGT(0) FGT(1) FGT(2) poor people FGT(0) FGT(1) FGT(2) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (vii) (viii) (x) (xi) (xii) 1995 736,700 13.9 5.7 3.3 397,818 6.8 2.5 1.4 338,882 21.4 9.8 5.7 1997 934,200 17.3 6.8 3.6 523,152 7.3 3.1 1.6 411,048 28.9 11.5 6.3 1999 868,000 15.5 6.6 3.8 486,080 6.1 2.2 1.1 381,920 26.5 12.1 7.2 2001 889,200 15.6 5.9 3.0 497,952 7.1 2.4 1.2 391,248 25.6 10.2 5.4 2002 1,236,900 21.7 8.5 4.5 692,664 14.6 4.9 2.4 544,236 31.1 13.0 7.3 Source: Based on DGEEC and microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Note: FGT (0) =headcount ratio, FGT (1) =poverty gap, FGT (2) =Foster, Greer and Thornbecke index with parameter 2. Table 4.5 Poverty Paraguay, 1995-2002 Official Moderate Poverty Line National Urban Rural Number of Headcount Poverty gap Number of Headcount Poverty gap Number of Headcount Poverty gap poor people FGT(0) FGT(1) FGT(2) poor people FGT(0) FGT(1) FGT(2) poor people FGT(0) FGT(1) FGT(2) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (vii) (viii) (x) (xi) (xii) 1995 1,605,900 30.3 11.6 6.1 867,186 23.7 11.6 6.1 738,714 37.2 23.3 14.6 1997 1,733,400 32.1 12.0 6.8 970,704 23.1 12.0 6.8 762,696 42.5 37.2 30.3 1999 1,887,200 33.7 14.1 8.0 1,056,832 26.7 8.9 4.3 830,368 42.0 20.2 12.4 2001 1,932,300 33.9 13.7 7.8 1,082,088 27.6 9.2 4.7 850,212 41.2 19.0 11.4 2002 2,644,800 46.4 18.8 10.6 1,481,088 43.2 15.3 7.8 1,163,712 50.5 23.2 14.1 Source: Based on DGEEC and microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Note: FGT (0) =headcount ratio, FGT (1) =poverty gap, FGT (2) =Foster, Greer and Thornbecke index with parameter 2. Table 4.6 Poverty Paraguay, 1995-2002 50 % Median Income Poverty Line National Urban Rural Headcount Poverty gap Headcount Poverty gap Headcount Poverty gap FGT(0) FGT(1) FGT(2) FGT(0) FGT(1) FGT(2) FGT(0) FGT(1) FGT(2) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (vii) (viii) (x) (xi) (xii) 1995 25.92 11.79 7.22 10.52 4.07 2.39 41.86 19.77 12.22 1997 30.57 18.98 14.99 12.44 5.33 3.25 51.17 34.48 28.34 1999 29.30 18.98 15.46 10.60 4.84 3.35 50.76 35.23 29.37 2001 25.64 12.30 8.04 12.05 4.71 2.89 41.28 21.05 13.98 2002 29.53 17.78 14.04 17.12 8.31 6.06 45.22 29.76 24.13 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Note: FGT (0) =headcount ratio, FGT (1) =poverty gap, FGT (2) =Foster, Greer and Thornbecke index with parameter 2. 31 Table 4.7 Poverty Paraguay, 1995-2002 Endowments Basic Needs Basic Needs + income National Urban Rural National Urban Rural (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) 1995 0.78 0.60 0.96 0.21 0.07 0.35 1997 0.69 0.49 0.92 0.26 0.09 0.46 1999 0.66 0.46 0.90 0.27 0.08 0.50 2001 0.69 0.49 0.92 0.21 0.08 0.36 2002 0.71 0.55 0.91 0.32 0.18 0.51 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 32 Table 5.1 Distribution of Household per Capita Income Share of Deciles and Income Ratios Paraguay, 1995-2002 Share of deciles Income ratios 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10/1 90/10 95/80 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) 1995 0.83 1.78 2.72 3.68 4.87 6.31 8.11 10.71 15.54 45.45 54.83 15.17 2.40 1997 0.64 1.64 2.71 3.89 5.30 6.94 8.88 11.69 16.91 41.40 64.97 18.30 2.17 1999 0.72 1.82 3.02 4.13 5.33 6.83 8.65 11.46 16.63 41.41 57.82 17.39 2.20 2001 0.73 1.83 2.93 4.00 5.21 6.60 8.38 10.79 15.82 43.72 59.92 16.18 2.26 2002 0.62 1.70 2.70 3.80 5.01 6.40 8.35 11.17 15.87 44.38 71.26 17.67 2.14 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 5.2 Distribution of Household per Capita Income Inequality Indices Paraguay, 1995-2002 Gini Theil CV A(.5) A(1) A(2) E(0) E(2) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) 1995 0.572 0.675 1.760 0.275 0.464 0.715 0.623 1.549 1997 0.551 0.589 1.553 0.257 0.463 0.789 0.623 1.206 1999 0.544 0.591 1.689 0.251 0.445 0.753 0.588 1.427 2001 0.558 0.690 2.413 0.269 0.461 0.808 0.618 2.910 2002 0.571 0.716 2.204 0.282 0.482 0.783 0.658 2.428 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). CV=coefficient of variation. A (e) refers to the Atkinson index with a CES function with parameter e. E (e) refers to the generalized entropy index with parameter e. E (1) =Theil. 33 Table 5.3 Distribution of Equivalized Household Income Share of Deciles and Income Ratios Paraguay, 1995-2002 Share of deciles Income ratios 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10/1 90/10 95/80 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) 1995 0.93 1.98 2.97 3.99 5.18 6.60 8.36 10.77 15.30 43.91 47.07 13.19 2.33 1997 0.72 1.83 2.98 4.20 5.65 7.21 9.15 11.64 16.77 39.86 55.47 16.34 2.15 1999 0.81 2.00 3.29 4.50 5.69 7.08 8.91 11.53 16.48 39.71 49.11 14.80 2.11 2001 0.84 2.03 3.19 4.36 5.56 6.98 8.67 11.08 15.78 41.52 49.71 13.71 2.18 2002 0.68 1.86 2.92 4.05 5.34 6.72 8.59 11.33 15.77 42.73 62.84 15.65 2.01 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Note 1: Column (xi) =income ratio between deciles 10 and 1; column (xii) =income ratio between percentiles 90 and 10, and column (xiii) =income ratio between percentiles 95 and 80. Table 5.4 Distribution of Equivalized Household Income Inequality Indices Paraguay, 1995-2002 Gini Theil CV A(.5) A(1) A(2) E(0) E(2) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) 1995 0.552 0.636 1.724 0.258 0.437 0.689 0.574 1.485 1997 0.531 0.540 1.428 0.239 0.436 0.763 0.572 1.019 1999 0.522 0.537 1.536 0.232 0.417 0.726 0.539 1.179 2001 0.534 0.628 2.272 0.248 0.430 0.779 0.562 2.581 2002 0.552 0.676 2.164 0.267 0.458 0.762 0.613 2.340 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). CV=coefficient of variation. A (e) refers to the Atkinson index with a CES function with parameter e. E (e) refers to the generalized entropy index with parameter e. E (1) =Theil. 34 Table 5.5 Distribution of Equivalized Household Labor Monetary Income Share of Deciles and Income Ratios Paraguay, 1995-2002 Share of deciles Income ratios 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10/1 90/10 95/80 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) 1995 1.29 2.64 3.67 4.64 5.70 6.96 8.51 10.77 15.31 40.50 31.26 9.82 2.27 1997 1.12 2.53 3.69 4.80 5.95 7.32 8.95 11.51 16.10 38.03 33.84 10.56 2.20 1999 1.55 3.05 4.01 4.87 5.99 7.37 8.94 11.44 15.60 37.18 24.01 7.77 2.02 2001 1.29 2.76 3.83 4.82 5.85 7.00 8.56 11.19 15.57 39.13 33.65 9.44 2.19 2002 1.15 2.52 3.72 4.85 5.98 7.45 9.21 11.71 15.36 38.05 33.03 9.96 1.93 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999) EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Note 1: Column (xi) =income ratio between deciles 10 and 1; column (xii) =income ratio between percentiles 90 and 10, and column (xiii) =income ratio between percentiles 95 and 80. Table 5.6 Distribution of Equivalized Household Labor Monetary Income Inequality Indices Paraguay, 1995-2002 Gini Theil CV A(.5) A(1) A(2) E(0) E(2) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) 1995 0.506 0.517 1.450 0.216 0.373 0.642 0.467 1.051 1997 0.494 0.467 1.301 0.204 0.365 0.629 0.454 0.846 1999 0.474 0.459 1.484 0.190 0.331 0.561 0.402 1.101 2001 0.509 0.549 1.807 0.222 0.381 0.646 0.479 1.633 2002 0.492 0.524 1.879 0.211 0.367 0.630 0.457 1.765 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). CV=coefficient of variation. A (e) refers to the Atkinson index with a CES function with parameter e. E (e) refers to the generalized entropy index with parameter e. E (1) =Theil. 35 Table 5.7 Distribution of Household Income Gini Coefficient Paraguay, 1995-2002 Per capita Equivalized Equivalized Equivalized Equivalized Equivalized Total Equivalized Equivalized Equivalized Equivalized income income income income income income household income A income A income A income A A B C D E income Age 0-10 Age 20-30 Age 40-50 Age 60-70 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) 1995 0.572 0.552 0.546 0.543 0.538 0.554 0.546 0.549 0.500 0.562 0.556 1997 0.551 0.531 0.524 0.523 0.517 0.533 0.522 0.540 0.480 0.554 0.548 1999 0.543 0.522 0.515 0.513 0.507 0.524 0.516 0.511 0.482 0.556 0.505 2001 0.558 0.534 0.525 0.523 0.516 0.536 0.530 0.509 0.516 0.523 0.591 2002 0.571 0.552 0.543 0.546 0.537 0.556 0.547 0.552 0.517 0.536 0.620 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999) EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Note: Equivalized income A: theta=0.9, alpha1=0.5 and alpha2=0.75; B: theta=0.75, alpha1=0.5 and alpha2=0.75; C: theta=0.9, alpha1=0.3 and alpha2=0.5, D: theta=0.75, alpha1=0.3 and alpha2=0.5; E: Amsterdam scale. Adult equivalent equal to 0.98 for men between 14 and 17, 0.9 for women over 14, 0.52 for children under 14, and 1 for the rest. Table 5.8 Distribution of Household Income Gini Coefficient Paraguay, 1995-2002 Per capita Per capita Equivalized Equivalized Per capita Per capita Per capita Per capita income income income income income income income income Only urban Only rural Only urban Only rural Only labor Only monetary Only labor Urban labor monetary monetary (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) 1995 0.523 0.570 0.506 0.547 0.598 0.572 0.561 0.517 1997 0.509 0.549 0.491 0.526 0.571 0.551 0.537 0.507 1999 0.498 0.568 0.476 0.547 0.562 0.543 0.532 0.491 2001 0.510 0.567 0.489 0.539 0.588 0.558 0.555 0.510 2002 0.520 0.627 0.498 0.613 0.581 0.571 0.566 0.508 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Note: Equivalized income A: theta=0.9, alpha1=0.5 and alpha2=0.75; B: theta=0.75, alpha1=0.5 and alpha2=0.75; C: theta=0.9, alpha1=0.3 and alpha2=0.5, D: theta=0.75, alpha1=0.3 and alpha2=0.5; E: Amsterdam scale. Adult equivalent equal to 0.98 for men between 14 and 17, 0.9 for women over 14, 0.52 for children under 14, and 1 for the rest. 36 Table 5.9 Distribution of Household per Capita Income Rural-Urban Ratios Paraguay, 1995-2002 Mean per capita income Ratio Population (survey) Ratio Total income Urban Rural urban/rural Urban Rural urb/rural ratio (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) 1995 390,918 178,932 2.18 2,437,994 2,346,776 1.04 2.27 1997 460,980 201,231 2.29 2,776,432 2,074,780 1.34 3.07 1999 458,514 225,797 2.03 2,896,044 2,101,344 1.38 2.80 2001 544,742 263,940 2.06 3,038,360 2,635,601 1.15 2.38 2002 440,413 276,877 1.59 2,773,323 1,992,811 1.39 2.21 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 5.10 Polarization EGR and Wolfson Indices of Bipolarization Paraguay, 1995-2002 Household per capita income Equivalized income EGR Wolfson EGR Wolfson (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 1995 0.196 0.474 0.184 0.442 1997 0.193 0.515 0.183 0.481 1999 0.204 0.535 0.188 0.495 2001 0.204 0.502 0.199 0.465 2002 0.200 0.515 0.193 0.476 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Note: EGR=Esteban, Gradin and Ray. Table 6.1 Aggregate Welfare Paraguay, 1995-2002 Mean income Sen Atk(1) Atk(2) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 1995 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1997 98.2 103.0 98.2 72.5 1999 92.6 98.8 95.8 80.1 2001 89.6 92.5 90.0 60.3 2002 87.4 87.7 84.5 66.5 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 37 Table 7.1 Wages, Hours and Labor Income In Guaraníes of 1990 Paraguay, 1997-2002 Wages Hours Labor income (i) (ii) (iii) 1997 1,680.5 48.06 263,961 1999 1,650.0 46.25 280,619 2001 1,297.4 45.56 203,791 2002 1,066.5 45.07 167,523 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.2 Wages, Hours and Labor Income By Gender In Guaraníes of 1990 Paraguay, 1997-2002 Wages Hours of work Labor income Female Male Female Male Female Male (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) 1997 1,660 2,087 45.9 49.6 241,717 342,130 1999 1,541 1,721 43.1 48.1 228,784 313,804 2001 1,446 1,608 41.5 48.1 198,303 287,090 2002 1,028 1,350 41.3 47.2 150,313 241,334 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.3 Wages, Hours and Labor Income By Age In Guaraníes of 1990 Paraguay, 1997-2002 Wages Hoursofwork Laborincome (16-25) (26-40) (41-64) (65+) (16-25) (26-40) (41-64) (65+) (16-25) (26-40) (41-64) (65+) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) 1997 1,269.8 2,059.2 2,502.7 1,493.2 47.8 50.1 48.4 41.3 214,243.2 357,707.6 354,875.8 187,182.5 1999 1,219.9 1,711.4 1,967.1 1,366.4 45.0 48.4 47.8 39.8 184,108.0 294,347.9 347,563.9 230,228.7 2001 1,100.2 1,735.1 1,798.5 1,183.4 45.3 48.6 46.8 37.8 171,992.2 293,173.6 299,233.0 152,432.0 2002 866.9 1,342.4 1,443.3 1,058.3 45.0 46.8 46.3 39.9 136,279.4 236,585.0 246,826.1 131,416.9 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 38 Table 7.4 Wages, Hours and Labor Income By Education In Guaraníes of 1990 Paraguay, 1997-2002 Wages Hours of work Labor income Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) 1997 1,222.7 2,082.9 5,026.1 47.8 49.3 45.7 204,635.7 375,129.4 776,209.6 1999 1,197.9 1,805.0 3,889.4 45.7 48.4 44.1 198,456.2 323,184.8 654,840.6 2001 1,044.1 1,849.5 3,857.7 44.9 47.9 44.1 166,308.3 316,798.5 627,187.1 2002 992.4 1,258.1 2,551.0 44.9 47.2 39.7 166,674.7 220,383.1 410,261.1 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.5 Wages, Hours and Labor Income By Type of Work In Guaraníes of 1990 Paraguay, 1997-2002 Wages Hours of work Labor income EntrepreneursWage earners Self-employed EntrepreneursWage earnersSelf-employed Zero income Entrepreneurs Wage earners Self-employed (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (xi) 1997 4,501.6 1,719.9 1,662.4 55.0 48.9 49.4 41.1 790,281.4 309,478.0 273,990.4 1999 4,042.2 1,617.5 1,274.9 52.6 47.5 45.4 40.9 772,002.6 281,198.3 199,426.5 2001 4,559.9 1,585.0 1,025.5 51.5 48.0 43.6 39.9 782,253.8 272,650.1 148,754.5 2002 3,779.7 1,274.9 879.3 50.7 47.9 43.1 41.0 679,857.5 226,939.3 130,074.0 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 39 Table 7.6 Wages, Hours and Labor Income By Labor Group In Guaraníes of 1990 Paraguay, 1997-2002 Wages Formal workers Informal workers Salaried workers Self-employed Salaried Self-employed Entrepreneurs Large firms Public sector professionals Small firms Unskilled (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) 1997 4,501.6 1,861.1 2,891.3 8,274.1 1,225.1 1,549.9 1999 4,042.2 1,854.7 2,725.6 5,817.9 1,067.5 1,203.0 2001 4,559.9 1,758.5 2,959.1 4,434.5 1,009.6 973.8 2002 3,779.7 1,480.0 2,092.5 2,447.8 902.9 844.4 Hours of work Formal workers Informal workers Salaried workers Self-employed Salaried Self-employed Workers with Entrepreneurs Large firms Public sector professionals Small firms Unskilled zero income (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) 1997 54.96 51.73 43.57 37.64 50.51 49.58 41.11 1999 52.65 50.55 43.63 41.85 47.61 45.42 40.88 2001 51.54 51.23 40.95 55.79 50.07 43.37 39.87 2002 50.66 50.94 40.14 40.54 48.78 43.12 41.03 Labor income Formal workers Informal workers Salaried workers Self-employed Salaried Self-employed Entrepreneurs Large firms Public sector professionals Small firms Unskilled (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (xvii) (xvii) (xix) 1997 790,281.4 361,525.1 476,691.8 937,595.6 218,829.3 262,702.8 1999 772,002.6 334,008.6 444,563.7 896,880.7 191,126.8 188,171.7 2001 782,253.8 322,340.0 466,439.0 783,476.7 179,480.9 139,123.7 2002 679,857.5 281,035.4 342,987.0 358,976.9 159,447.0 124,985.9 Source : Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.7 Wages, Hours and Labor Income By Sector In Guaraníes of 1990 Paraguay, 1997-2002 Wages Primary Industry Industry Utilities & Skilled Public Education & Domestic activities low tech high tech Construction Commerce transportation services administration Health servants (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) 1997 1,331.1 1,351.4 1,710.0 1,449.2 1,579.3 3,386.8 4,153.8 2,956.9 2,483.2 932.3 1999 1,229.1 1,341.2 1,606.5 1,490.3 1,478.0 2,306.8 2,402.1 2,681.2 2,647.2 872.8 2001 1,130.8 1,467.7 1,552.4 1,205.9 1,460.9 2,533.5 2,898.2 2,958.0 2,188.2 890.2 2002 1,192.2 928.8 1,186.4 951.4 972.2 1,906.7 1,954.6 2,006.7 1,629.8 678.9 Hours of work Primary Industry Industry Utilities & Skilled Public Education & Domestic activities low tech high tech Construction Commerce transportation services administration Health servants (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) 1997 24.6 45.0 49.7 49.8 53.6 54.1 46.2 44.9 41.6 45.4 1999 40.4 45.9 47.8 49.3 54.7 55.2 45.9 45.5 39.5 44.1 2001 38.9 44.7 50.1 51.3 54.4 54.2 45.1 47.1 39.0 44.3 2002 40.1 43.0 50.1 50.0 53.1 51.2 43.5 55.9 36.2 48.7 Labor income Primary Industry Industry Utilities & Skilled Public Education & Domestic activities low tech high tech Construction Commerce transportation services administration Health servants (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) 1997 161,903.7 247,049.9 334,296.5 294,927.7 321,926.6 529,880.3 607,070.6 453,802.2 374,640.9 151,187.7 1999 187,595.0 240,754.5 291,647.6 289,106.7 284,931.1 423,953.6 406,230.9 449,858.3 353,614.4 142,950.8 2001 151,948.8 231,471.3 297,094.1 249,400.9 270,788.9 461,584.2 488,148.7 482,726.0 308,068.6 138,085.5 2002 188,482.3 167,049.5 229,672.1 187,146.0 187,748.6 326,029.4 283,370.5 371,933.1 216,865.6 119,417.5 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 40 Table 7.8 Wages, Hours and Labor Income By Region In Guaraníes of 1990 Paraguay, 1997-2002 Wages Hours of work Labor income Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) 1997 1,520.5 2,022.2 45.2 49.0 213,573.5 350,871.3 1999 1,292.5 1,826.4 43.6 48.4 212,752.0 315,299.1 2001 1,194.3 1,789.4 43.0 47.7 182,700.6 302,150.2 2002 1,116.2 1,277.9 42.6 47.2 185,270.6 216,653.0 Wages Asunción Central Urbano Central Rural Resto Urbano Resto Rural (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 1997 2,497.9 1,673.0 1,256.2 1,662.3 983.7 1999 2,241.7 1,869.5 1,575.7 1,560.2 1,237.4 2001 2,233.0 1,716.1 1,129.4 1,629.0 1,209.4 2002 1,624.9 1,186.2 1,020.4 1,204.5 1,125.9 Hours of work Asunción Central Urbano Central Rural Resto Urbano Resto Rural (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 1997 45.9 48.3 46.7 51.4 44.7 1999 46.6 48.3 47.8 49.3 43.1 2001 46.5 48.5 48.8 47.7 42.0 2002 45.4 48.2 42.7 47.2 42.5 Labor income Asunción Central Urbano Central Rural Resto Urbano Resto Rural (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 1997 439,578.9 319,791.6 238,235.1 291,070.7 159,508.7 1999 379,549.3 312,526.5 295,077.3 282,155.5 197,567.1 2001 369,768.1 297,775.5 198,764.9 272,182.8 179,012.1 2002 258,945.6 214,343.2 184,525.3 199,989.2 185,344.2 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.9 Distribution of Labor Income Shares Paraguay, 1997-2002 Salaried Self- employed Entrepreneurs workers (i) (ii) (iii) 1997 55.6 26.1 18.3 1999 56.5 24.8 16.9 2001 53.5 25.5 20.0 2002 59.3 25.8 14.3 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 41 Table 7.10 Distribution of Wages (Primary Activity) Gini Coefficient Paraguay, 1997-2002 All workers Male workers aged 25-55 Male workers aged 25-55 All Only monetary Only monetary All Low edu Mid edu High edu Monetary Monetary Monetary urban and urban and urban salaried workers (i) (ii) (iii) 1997 0.502 0.502 0.517 0.490 0.352 0.461 0.477 0.490 0.509 0.455 1999 0.501 0.501 0.489 0.493 0.483 0.395 0.432 0.493 0.464 0.423 2001 0.561 0.561 0.531 0.568 0.513 0.532 0.452 0.568 0.516 0.460 2002 0.542 0.542 0.507 0.552 0.596 0.423 0.393 0.552 0.498 0.407 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.11 Correlations of Work Hours - Hourly Wages Paraguay, 1997-2002 All workers Urban salaried workers (i) (ii) 1997 -0.1588* -0.1707* 1999 -0.1424* -0.1886* 2001 -0.0829* -0.2254* 2002 -0.1533* -0.3127* Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.12 Ratio of Hourly Wages by Educational Group Prime-age males Paraguay, 1997-2002 High/Medium High/Low Medium/Low (i) (ii) (iii) 1997 2.17 4.00 1.84 1999 2.13 3.06 1.43 2001 1.94 3.85 1.99 2002 1.90 2.19 1.16 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 42 Table 7.13 Mincer Equation Estimated Coefficients of Educational Dummies Paraguay, 1997-2002 All workers Men Women Primary Secondary College Primary Secondary College (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) 1997 0.02 0.43 1.24 -0.13 0.46 0.91 1999 0.06 0.62 0.67 0.10 0.36 0.77 2001 0.28 0.46 0.59 0.12 0.37 1.13 2002 0.22 0.50 0.70 0.15 0.51 0.69 Urban salaried workers Men Women Primary Secondary College Primary Secondary College (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) 1997 0.04 0.63 0.97 0.17 0.56 0.68 1999 0.29 0.38 0.85 0.33 0.54 0.70 2001 0.15 0.43 1.06 -0.03 0.73 0.84 2002 0.10 0.49 0.67 0.08 0.46 0.56 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.14 Mincer Equation Dispersion in Unobservables and Gender Wage Gap Paraguay, 1997-2002 Dispersion in unobservables All workers Urban salaried Men Women Men Women (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 1997 0.63 0.73 0.61 0.51 1999 0.67 0.95 0.58 0.57 2001 0.85 1.08 0.66 0.61 2002 0.76 0.81 0.64 0.55 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.15 Share of Adults in the Labor Force Paraguay, 1997-2002 Gender Age Education Area Total Female Male (16-25) (26-40) (41-64) (65 +) Low Medium High Rural Urban (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii 1997 0.74 0.53 0.94 0.69 0.77 0.73 0.64 0.70 0.77 0.90 0.69 0.77 1999 0.73 0.55 0.92 0.65 0.78 0.73 0.66 0.71 0.75 0.86 0.71 0.74 2001 0.75 0.59 0.91 0.68 0.80 0.75 0.57 0.74 0.73 0.86 0.75 0.75 2002 0.75 0.58 0.93 0.71 0.79 0.75 0.65 0.74 0.76 0.84 0.75 0.75 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 43 Table 7.16 Share of Adults Employed Paraguay, 1997-2002 Gender Age Education Area Total Female Male (16-25) (26-40) (41-64) (65+) Low Medium High Rural Urban (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii 1997 0.70 0.50 0.90 0.62 0.74 0.71 0.64 0.67 0.72 0.86 0.67 0.72 1999 0.69 0.51 0.87 0.58 0.75 0.70 0.61 0.67 0.69 0.83 0.69 0.68 2001 0.69 0.54 0.85 0.58 0.75 0.72 0.55 0.70 0.65 0.81 0.71 0.68 2002 0.67 0.50 0.85 0.57 0.73 0.70 0.64 0.67 0.64 0.79 0.72 0.65 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.17 Share of Adults Unemployed Paraguay, 1997-2002 Gender Age Education Area Total Female Male (16-25) (26-40) (41-64) (65 +) Low Medium High Rural Urban (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii 1997 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.05 1999 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.06 2001 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.07 2002 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.11 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.18 Duration of Unemployment Paraguay, 1997-2002 Education Low Medium High Total (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 1997 2.53 5.86 7.53 4.13 1999 3.15 5.88 5.88 4.30 2001 1.94 3.87 6.05 3.10 2002 4.81 5.65 6.71 5.28 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.19 Gender, Age and Educational Structure of Employment Paraguay, 1997-2002 Gender Age Education Female Male (0-15) (16-25) (26-40) (41-64) (65 +) Low Medium High (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) 1997 35.3 64.7 7.4 25.0 34.7 28.4 4.5 68.9 23.2 8.0 1999 36.5 63.5 6.1 24.0 36.6 28.8 4.6 67.3 24.4 8.3 2001 38.2 61.8 7.0 24.7 33.7 29.7 4.9 66.8 23.4 9.8 2002 36.7 63.3 7.8 24.6 33.0 29.8 4.9 67.3 24.2 8.5 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 44 Table 7.20 Regional Structure of Employment Paraguay, 1997-2002 Area Region Rural Urban Asunción Central Urbano Central Rural Resto Urbano Resto Rural (i) (ii) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 1997 42.4 57.6 12.6 20.4 5.1 24.6 37.4 1999 44.9 55.1 12.5 19.1 4.5 23.5 40.4 2001 45.6 54.4 11.5 18.8 7.1 24.1 38.5 2002 44.8 55.2 10.8 20.8 3.2 23.6 41.7 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.21 Structure of Employment By Type of Work Paraguay, 1997-2002 Labor relationship Type of firm Entrepreneurs Wage earners Self-employed Zero income Large Small Public (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) 1997 7.04 57.50 29.97 5.49 27.49 61.38 11.13 1999 5.27 46.83 36.34 11.56 20.83 70.66 8.50 2001 5.80 44.92 37.10 12.18 19.48 72.74 7.78 2002 3.63 42.89 38.40 15.08 17.87 73.32 8.81 Labor category Salaried workers Self-employed Salaried Self-employedWorkers with Entrepreneurs Large firms Public sector professionals Small firms Unskilled zero income (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) 1997 7.82 25.41 11.13 0.56 16.27 32.72 6.10 1999 5.68 19.05 8.50 0.52 15.08 38.69 12.47 2001 6.31 16.97 7.78 0.60 15.32 39.76 13.25 2002 3.94 14.56 8.79 0.84 14.52 40.94 16.40 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.22 Structure of Employment By Formality Paraguay, 1997-2002 Definition 1 Definition 2 Formal Informal Formal Informal (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 1997 44.92 55.08 27.89 72.11 1999 33.76 66.24 26.76 73.24 2001 31.66 68.34 27.37 72.63 2002 28.14 71.86 26.23 73.77 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 45 Table 7.23 Structure of Employment By Sector Paraguay, 1997-2002 Sector Primary Industry Industry Utilities & Skilled Public Education & Domestic activities low tech high tech Construction Commerce transportation services administration Health servants (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) 1997 29.36 6.52 6.20 5.09 27.05 4.67 3.49 3.09 7.43 7.12 1999 31.05 6.68 5.84 5.32 24.31 4.89 3.62 3.36 7.97 6.96 2001 32.61 6.17 5.71 4.79 24.65 4.08 3.40 1.25 9.61 7.74 2002 35.40 5.55 4.80 4.62 23.61 4.12 3.51 1.33 9.99 7.06 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.24 Structure of Employment By Sector (CIIU -1 digit) Paraguay, 1997-2002 Sector (1 digit CIUU) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) 1997 28.98 0.16 0.16 12.62 0.63 5.05 21.59 2.93 4.00 0.73 1.29 3.06 3.17 2.37 6.19 7.07 1999 30.76 0.17 0.16 12.47 0.49 5.30 18.76 2.83 4.38 0.68 1.27 3.35 3.31 2.49 6.65 6.93 2001 32.98 0.13 0.00 12.06 0.47 4.87 22.26 2.76 3.67 0.87 2.58 1.27 3.49 0.18 4.54 7.86 2002 35.67 0.16 0.00 10.47 0.56 4.68 21.62 2.28 3.62 0.72 2.83 1.34 3.91 0.13 4.87 7.15 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.25 Child Labor By Equivalized Household Income Quintiles Paraguay, 1997-2002 Equivalized household income quintile 1 2 3 4 5 Average 1997 0.17 0.15 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.14 1999 0.20 0.11 0.12 0.05 0.09 0.12 2001 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.06 0.15 2002 0.24 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.10 0.18 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 46 Table 7.26 Right to Receive Social Security (Pensions) By Gender and Education Paraguay, 1997-2002 Gender Education Female Male All Low Mid High All (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) 1997 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.16 0.38 0.66 0.31 1999 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.14 0.35 0.66 0.29 2001 0.32 0.30 0.31 0.14 0.35 0.68 0.31 2002 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.13 0.31 0.70 0.29 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.27 Access to Labor Health Insurance By Gender and Education Paraguay, 1997-2001 Gender Education Female Male All Low Mid High All (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) 1997 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.21 0.39 0.59 0.33 1999 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.18 0.37 0.50 0.30 2001 0.29 0.27 0.28 0.16 0.31 0.56 0.28 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 7.28 Participation in Unions By Gender and Education Gender Education Female Male All Low Mid High All (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) 2001 0.69 0.71 0.70 0.75 0.64 0.70 0.70 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EIH (2000-2001). Table 8.1 Educational Structure Adults 25-65 Paraguay, 1995-2002 All Males Females Working males Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) 1995 73.76 18.61 7.63 72.11 20.17 7.72 75.39 17.07 7.54 71.05 20.97 7.99 1997 71.21 20.07 8.72 69.38 21.87 8.75 73.02 18.29 8.69 57.58 30.31 12.12 1999 69.64 21.82 8.54 67.95 23.79 8.26 71.29 19.89 8.82 62.10 28.03 9.87 2001 68.16 21.43 10.41 67.16 22.96 9.88 69.10 19.97 10.92 66.59 23.07 10.35 2002 69.21 21.83 8.96 69.10 22.49 8.41 69.32 21.17 9.51 66.53 24.26 9.21 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 47 Table 8.2 Years of Education By Age and Gender Paraguay, 1995-2002 (25-65) (10-20) (21-30) (31-40) (41-50) (51-60) Female Male All Female Male All Female Male All Female Male All Female Male All Female Male All 1995 6.00 6.36 6.18 5.78 5.41 5.59 7.55 7.59 7.57 6.61 6.89 6.75 5.59 5.99 5.79 4.23 4.78 4.49 1997 6.34 6.86 6.60 6.07 5.64 5.86 7.91 8.05 7.98 6.87 7.52 7.19 5.89 6.35 6.12 4.67 5.24 4.97 1999 6.58 7.00 6.79 6.11 5.77 5.94 8.13 8.32 8.22 7.25 7.59 7.42 5.93 6.59 6.28 4.98 5.39 5.19 2001 6.86 7.17 7.01 6.37 6.16 6.26 8.61 8.40 8.51 7.42 7.69 7.55 6.51 6.80 6.65 4.99 5.92 5.45 2002 6.87 7.00 6.93 6.69 6.31 6.50 8.74 8.23 8.49 7.47 7.66 7.57 6.30 6.65 6.48 5.47 5.60 5.54 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 8.3 Years of Education By Household Equivalized Income Quintiles Adults 25-65 Paraguay, 1995-2002 1 2 3 4 5 Average 1995 3.70 4.68 5.54 6.82 9.76 6.43 1997 3.65 4.50 5.93 7.20 10.70 6.83 1999 4.00 5.31 6.21 7.61 10.22 7.04 2001 4.11 4.90 6.04 7.48 10.82 7.03 2002 4.71 5.10 6.32 7.41 9.83 7.00 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 8.4 Years of Education By Age and Income Paraguay, 1995-2002 (10-20) (21-30) (31-40) 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 1995 4.26 4.82 5.38 5.96 6.98 5.38 4.91 5.71 6.59 8.16 10.35 7.64 3.93 5.16 6.33 7.62 10.62 1997 4.71 5.12 6.14 6.73 7.63 5.95 4.90 6.00 7.25 8.58 11.42 8.24 3.96 5.14 6.49 8.01 11.29 1999 4.90 5.53 6.11 6.63 7.70 6.06 5.49 6.69 7.36 9.11 11.63 8.44 4.51 6.05 6.91 8.54 10.98 2001 4.98 5.50 6.31 7.09 8.07 6.28 5.44 6.33 7.70 9.22 11.30 8.54 4.37 5.62 6.54 8.59 11.69 2002 5.90 6.13 6.53 7.06 7.41 6.53 6.30 7.05 8.16 9.12 11.08 8.68 5.37 5.77 6.73 8.21 10.13 (41-50) (51-60) (61+) 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 1995 3.46 4.39 5.15 6.42 9.48 6.11 2.56 3.54 3.65 4.68 8.17 4.74 2.12 2.48 2.91 3.45 6.42 1997 3.57 4.33 5.48 6.70 10.42 6.41 2.41 3.30 4.56 4.83 9.11 5.16 1.93 2.00 2.73 3.33 6.77 1999 3.58 4.69 5.65 6.93 10.12 6.44 3.07 3.53 4.68 5.66 8.29 5.38 2.28 2.68 3.31 4.07 6.73 2001 3.63 4.51 5.82 6.63 10.94 6.67 3.41 3.38 4.65 4.76 9.28 5.46 2.10 2.63 2.90 4.19 7.17 2002 4.37 4.98 6.25 6.66 9.23 6.52 3.63 3.47 4.51 5.82 8.77 5.51 2.67 3.19 3.35 4.14 6.76 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 48 Table 8.5 Years of Education By Area Paraguay, 1995-2002 All Adults (25-65) Male adults (25-65) Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) 1995 3.86 6.50 4.49 8.02 4.68 8.43 1997 3.99 6.62 4.57 8.07 4.77 8.48 1999 4.22 6.86 4.64 8.25 4.85 8.56 2001 4.47 7.21 4.92 8.54 5.13 8.83 2002 4.61 7.15 4.88 8.31 4.96 8.51 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 8.6 Gini Coefficient Years of Education By Age Paraguay, 1995-2002 Age (25-65) (10-20) (21-30) (31-40) (41-50) (51-60) (61+) 1995 0.36 0.29 0.28 0.33 0.37 0.42 0.50 1997 0.36 0.26 0.28 0.33 0.37 0.43 0.51 1999 0.35 0.27 0.28 0.31 0.36 0.41 0.48 2001 0.36 0.27 0.28 0.33 0.36 0.41 0.51 2002 0.34 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.34 0.40 0.49 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 8.7 Literacy By Age and Gender Paraguay, 1995-2002 (10-24) (25-65) (65 +) Female Male Mean Female Male Mean Female Male Mean 1995 0.89 0.86 0.88 0.81 0.86 0.84 0.48 0.55 0.51 1997 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.88 0.93 0.91 0.60 0.78 0.68 1999 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.88 0.92 0.90 0.63 0.77 0.69 2001 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.89 0.92 0.91 0.65 0.78 0.71 2002 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.92 0.91 0.58 0.73 0.65 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 49 Table 8.8 Literacy By Household Equivalized Income Quintiles Adults Aged 25 to 65 Paraguay, 1995-2002 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1995 0.68 0.79 0.83 0.89 0.95 0.84 1997 0.78 0.85 0.92 0.96 0.98 0.91 1999 0.78 0.88 0.91 0.96 0.98 0.91 2001 0.80 0.85 0.91 0.94 0.98 0.91 2002 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.94 0.97 0.91 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 8.9 Literacy By Area Adults Aged 25 to 65 Paraguay, 1995-2002 (10-24) (25-65) (65 +) Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) 1995 0.84 0.92 0.76 0.90 0.37 0.63 1997 0.95 0.98 0.85 0.94 0.61 0.75 1999 0.94 0.98 0.83 0.96 0.57 0.79 2001 0.93 0.98 0.85 0.95 0.62 0.78 2002 0.96 0.98 0.85 0.95 0.55 0.72 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 8.10 Enrollment Rates By Age and Gender Paraguay, 1995-2002 3 to 5 years-old 6 to 12 years-old 13 to 17 years-old 18 to 23 years-old Female Male Mean Female Male Mean Female Male Mean Female Male Mean 1995 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.59 0.63 0.61 0.24 0.21 0.22 1997 0.47 0.42 0.45 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.24 0.22 0.23 1999 0.46 0.42 0.44 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.72 0.70 0.71 0.30 0.28 0.29 2001 0.56 0.50 0.53 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.74 0.71 0.73 0.30 0.30 0.30 2002 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.31 0.24 0.28 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 50 Table 8.11 Enrollment Rates By Household Equivalized Income Quintiles Paraguay, 1995-2002 3 to 5 years-old 6 to 12 years-old 13 to 17 years-old 18 to 23 years old 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1995 0.09 0.16 0.37 0.38 0.60 0.286 0.84 0.90 0.89 0.91 0.962 0.89 0.49 0.54 0.67 0.687 0.81 0.63 0.10 0.18 0.179 0.24 0.37 0.23 1997 0.31 0.37 0.50 0.53 0.69 0.458 0.90 0.91 0.95 0.99 0.991 0.94 0.60 0.61 0.76 0.782 0.89 0.72 0.15 0.14 0.164 0.24 0.44 0.24 1999 0.36 0.45 0.46 0.55 0.63 0.467 0.90 0.94 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.95 0.60 0.67 0.75 0.848 0.93 0.75 0.13 0.25 0.214 0.30 0.55 0.30 2001 0.48 0.48 0.52 0.68 0.56 0.531 0.92 0.91 0.96 0.97 0.991 0.94 0.58 0.66 0.74 0.828 0.89 0.73 0.16 0.19 0.316 0.31 0.45 0.30 2002 0.39 0.38 0.35 0.49 0.55 0.424 0.90 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.966 0.94 0.66 0.70 0.75 0.792 0.79 0.73 0.21 0.22 0.28 0.28 0.43 0.29 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999) EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 8.12 Enrollment Rates By Age Group and Area Paraguay, 1995-2002 3 to 5 years-old 6 to 12 years-old 13 to 17 years-old 18 to 23 years-old Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban 1995 0.16 0.46 0.85 0.94 0.49 0.74 0.11 0.31 1997 0.34 0.55 0.92 0.95 0.57 0.79 0.12 0.30 1999 0.38 0.51 0.91 0.97 0.61 0.82 0.16 0.37 2001 0.48 0.58 0.92 0.97 0.61 0.83 0.17 0.39 2002 0.33 0.47 0.92 0.95 0.60 0.83 0.18 0.33 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 8.13 Educational Mobility By Age Group Paraguay, 1995-2002 13-19 20-25 (i) (ii) 1995 0.79 0.73 1997 0.83 0.79 1999 0.81 0.70 2001 0.80 0.75 2002 0.93 0.86 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 51 Table 9.1 Housing By Household Equivalized Income Quintiles Paraguay, 1995-2002 Ownership of housing Number of rooms Persons per room 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1995 0.89 0.85 0.80 0.77 0.72 0.80 2.21 2.45 2.75 3.05 3.85 2.96 3.29 2.65 2.15 1.71 1.12 1.94 1997 0.86 0.82 0.75 0.72 0.72 0.77 2.26 2.56 2.67 2.99 3.79 2.93 3.13 2.54 2.13 1.65 1.13 2.00 1999 0.89 0.85 0.78 0.80 0.75 0.81 2.42 2.59 2.72 3.06 3.77 2.97 3.02 2.36 2.01 1.64 1.11 1.94 2001 0.86 0.82 0.76 0.72 0.72 0.77 2.22 2.49 2.76 3.19 3.94 3.01 3.25 2.53 2.05 1.65 1.08 2.01 2002 0.89 0.84 0.79 0.74 0.72 0.79 2.58 2.65 2.93 3.20 3.82 3.12 2.87 2.43 2.10 1.71 1.12 1.94 Poor dwellings Low-quality materials 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1995 0.62 0.41 0.25 0.15 0.08 0.27 0.13 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.05 1997 0.57 0.34 0.22 0.14 0.07 0.24 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 1999 0.50 0.27 0.14 0.09 0.05 0.19 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03 2001 0.51 0.27 0.13 0.09 0.06 0.19 0.12 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.04 2002 0.36 0.27 0.14 0.12 0.08 0.18 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 9.2 Housing By Age Paraguay, 1995-2002 Ownership of housing Number of rooms Persons per room [16,25] [26,40] [41,64] [65+) Mean [16,25] [26,40] [41,64] [65+) Mean [16,25] [26,40] [41,64] [65+) Mean 1995 0.43 0.73 0.88 0.93 0.80 2.04 2.65 3.31 3.13 2.95 1.89 2.39 1.99 1.51 2.06 1997 0.36 0.70 0.86 0.93 0.77 2.02 2.55 3.20 3.18 2.88 1.86 2.40 2.05 1.54 2.09 1999 0.44 0.76 0.87 0.92 0.81 1.91 2.48 3.33 3.10 2.90 1.99 2.40 1.92 1.38 2.02 2001 0.36 0.67 0.85 0.92 0.77 1.97 2.48 3.38 3.39 2.99 1.86 2.49 1.90 1.32 2.01 2002 0.48 0.73 0.86 0.92 0.80 2.07 2.77 3.46 3.45 3.13 2.20 2.20 1.80 1.49 1.91 Poor dwellings Low-quality materials [16,25] [26,40] [41,64] [65+) Mean [16,25] [26,40] [41,64] [65+) Mean 1995 0.39 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.05 1997 0.39 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.27 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 1999 0.33 0.21 0.23 0.26 0.23 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 2001 0.34 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.20 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 2002 0.28 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 9.3 Housing By Area Paraguay, 1995-2002 Ownership of housing Number of rooms Persons per room Rural Urban Mean Rural Urban Mean Rural Urban Mean 1995 0.89 0.73 0.80 2.48 3.35 2.95 2.55 1.65 2.06 1997 0.86 0.71 0.77 2.43 3.21 2.88 2.60 1.70 2.09 1999 0.88 0.76 0.81 2.48 3.21 2.90 2.49 1.67 2.02 2001 0.83 0.72 0.77 2.50 3.37 2.99 2.51 1.64 2.02 2002 0.86 0.76 0.80 2.70 3.42 3.13 2.32 1.64 1.91 Poor dwellings Low-quality materials Rural Urban Mean Rural Urban Mean 1995 0.46 0.12 0.27 0.10 0.01 0.05 1997 0.45 0.14 0.27 0.07 0.01 0.03 1999 0.45 0.07 0.23 0.07 0.00 0.03 2001 0.33 0.10 0.20 0.08 0.01 0.04 2002 0.34 0.08 0.19 0.05 0.01 0.03 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 52 Table 9.4 Housing By Education of the Household Head Paraguay, 1995-2002 Ownership of housing Number of rooms Persons per room Low Middle High Mean Low Middle High Mean Low Middle High Mean 1995 0.84 0.69 0.67 0.80 2.70 3.53 3.81 2.89 2.28 1.48 1.24 2.10 1997 0.81 0.67 0.66 0.77 2.63 3.27 4.50 2.88 2.32 1.54 0.99 2.09 1999 0.84 0.76 0.70 0.81 2.70 3.18 4.28 2.90 2.22 1.61 1.07 2.02 2001 0.80 0.66 0.74 0.77 2.74 3.30 4.42 2.99 2.25 1.54 1.03 2.01 2002 0.83 0.70 0.75 0.80 2.90 3.36 4.88 3.13 2.10 1.57 1.04 1.92 Poor dwellings Low-quality materials Low Middle High Mean Low Middle High Mean 1995 0.33 0.10 0.06 0.28 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.05 1997 0.33 0.11 0.02 0.27 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.03 1999 0.30 0.06 0.03 0.23 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.03 2001 0.25 0.09 0.01 0.20 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.04 2002 0.23 0.09 0.03 0.19 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.03 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 9.5 Social Services By Household Equivalized Income Quintiles Paraguay, 1995-2002 Water Restrooms Sewerage 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1995 0.71 0.71 0.74 0.73 0.75 0.73 0.11 0.26 0.47 0.64 0.83 0.50 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.26 0.10 1997 0.75 0.84 0.88 0.93 0.98 0.89 0.11 0.33 0.56 0.72 0.89 0.57 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.24 0.09 1999 0.76 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.97 0.90 0.17 0.41 0.59 0.76 0.89 0.60 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.24 0.09 2001 0.78 0.88 0.93 0.95 0.98 0.91 0.16 0.29 0.55 0.76 0.90 0.57 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.12 0.26 0.10 2002 0.44 0.58 0.71 0.81 0.90 0.72 0.21 0.40 0.57 0.70 0.84 0.58 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.09 Electricity Telephone 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1995 0.44 0.64 0.80 0.89 0.96 0.78 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.12 0.39 0.14 1997 0.69 0.79 0.93 0.97 0.98 0.89 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.17 0.48 0.18 1999 0.74 0.89 0.93 0.97 0.97 0.91 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.21 0.07 2001 0.74 0.87 0.94 0.96 0.99 0.91 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.23 0.50 0.19 2002 0.81 0.88 0.93 0.96 0.98 0.92 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.12 0.33 0.14 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 9.6 Social Services By Area Paraguay, 1995-2002 Water Restrooms Sewerage Rural Urban Mean Rural Urban Mean Rural Urban Mean 1995 0.61 0.83 0.73 0.21 0.75 0.50 0.00 0.19 0.10 1997 0.75 0.97 0.88 0.23 0.76 0.53 0.00 0.14 0.08 1999 0.95 0.97 0.96 0.22 0.80 0.55 0.02 0.05 0.06 2001 0.81 0.98 0.91 0.27 0.80 0.57 0.00 0.18 0.10 2002 0.42 0.88 0.70 0.25 0.79 0.57 0.00 0.16 0.10 Electricity Telephone Rural Urban Mean Rural Urban Mean 1995 0.55 0.96 0.77 0.01 0.21 0.12 1997 0.72 0.98 0.86 0.02 0.29 0.17 1999 0.77 0.98 0.89 0.03 0.10 0.06 2001 0.82 0.98 0.91 0.02 0.33 0.19 2002 0.83 0.98 0.92 0.02 0.23 0.14 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 53 Table 10.1 Household Size Paraguay, 1995-2002 Area Equivalized income quintile Education of household head Rural Urban Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Low Medium High Mean 1995 4.90 4.31 4.58 5.73 5.16 4.73 4.32 3.59 4.59 4.75 4.10 3.86 4.58 1997 5.02 4.32 4.62 5.73 5.25 4.60 4.23 3.65 4.57 4.83 4.06 3.85 4.62 1999 4.93 4.28 4.56 5.74 4.95 4.59 4.29 3.59 4.52 4.75 4.07 3.96 4.56 2001 4.93 4.35 4.60 5.78 5.14 4.63 4.44 3.59 4.61 4.81 4.08 3.93 4.60 2002 4.80 4.24 4.47 5.65 5.26 4.87 4.35 3.44 4.58 4.64 4.09 4.06 4.49 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 10.2 Number of children Paraguay, 1995-2002 Area Parental income quintile Parental education Rural Urban Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Low Medium High Mean 1995 2.64 1.93 2.26 2.68 2.42 2.21 2.07 1.92 2.26 2.48 1.79 1.63 2.28 1997 2.69 1.85 2.20 2.82 2.27 1.95 1.82 1.85 2.14 2.48 1.68 1.52 2.20 1999 2.50 1.97 2.18 2.46 2.24 2.17 2.01 1.76 2.13 2.40 1.85 1.51 2.18 2001 2.55 1.78 2.12 2.65 2.16 2.25 1.85 1.67 2.12 2.39 1.63 1.49 2.12 2002 2.07 1.56 1.76 1.99 1.91 1.60 1.62 1.62 1.75 1.93 1.46 1.35 1.76 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 10.3 Dependency Rates Income Earners over Household Size Paraguay, 1995-2002 Area Equivalized income quintile Education of household head Rural Urban Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Low Medium High Mean 1995 0.32 0.52 0.42 0.32 0.41 0.46 0.55 0.65 0.50 0.48 0.52 0.57 0.49 1997 0.27 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.38 0.47 0.56 0.65 0.49 0.43 0.53 0.55 0.46 1999 0.34 0.50 0.43 0.29 0.38 0.45 0.53 0.66 0.48 0.41 0.50 0.52 0.43 2001 0.45 0.54 0.50 0.36 0.42 0.49 0.55 0.66 0.51 0.49 0.51 0.57 0.50 2002 0.34 0.44 0.40 0.31 0.39 0.43 0.50 0.66 0.48 0.38 0.46 0.50 0.40 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 10.4 Mean Age Paraguay, 1995-2002 Area Equivalized income quintile Rural Urban Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1995 23.05 25.45 24.28 21.44 22.67 24.03 25.51 28.22 24.37 1997 23.62 25.39 24.57 21.85 23.44 24.45 26.59 28.06 24.88 1999 23.69 25.41 24.61 22.37 22.96 24.27 25.79 28.69 24.82 2001 23.79 26.54 25.28 22.57 23.14 24.79 26.33 29.80 25.33 2002 24.69 26.16 25.52 23.50 24.06 24.98 25.73 28.78 25.41 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 54 Table 10.5 Correlation between Couples Paraguay, 1995-2002 Years of Hourly Hours education wages All Workers (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 1995 0.73 0.19 0.06 0.24 1997 0.75 0.16 0.26 0.25 1999 0.73 0.34 0.09 0.23 2001 0.72 0.29 0.09 0.19 2002 0.51 0.09 0.03 0.13 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 55 Table 11.1 Poverty Profile Demographics USD2 a day Official moderate Non-poor Poor Non-poor Poor (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Population share 62.8 37.3 53.6 46.4 Population share by age [0,15] 55.2 44.8 43.4 56.6 [16,25] 66.8 33.2 58.2 41.8 [26,40] 70.9 29.1 58.6 41.4 [41,64] 67.2 32.8 61.7 38.3 [65+] 64.0 36.0 67.5 32.5 Age distribution [0,15] 35.7 48.8 32.7 48.9 [16,25] 19.2 16.1 20.3 16.7 [26,40] 21.0 14.5 20.4 16.5 [41,64] 18.7 15.4 19.9 14.2 [65+] 5.5 5.2 6.7 3.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Mean age 26.9 23.2 28.4 22.1 Gender Share males 0.503 0.491 0.488 0.506 Household size and structure Family size 4.1 5.3 4.1 5.1 Children (<12) 1.4 2.7 1.4 2.2 Dependency rate 0.56 0.23 0.47 0.32 Female-headed hh. 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.25 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 56 Table 11.2 Poverty Profile Regions USD2 a day Official moderate Non-poor Poor Non-poor Poor (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Urban-rural Population share Rural 45.5 54.5 49.1 50.9 Urban 76.4 23.6 56.8 43.2 Distribution Rural 32.0 64.6 40.4 48.0 Urban 68.0 35.4 59.6 52.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Regions Population share Asunción 85.9 14.1 70.6 29.4 Central-Urbano 77.6 22.4 46.6 53.4 Central-Rural 68.2 31.8 66.4 33.6 Resto urbano 71.8 28.2 60.9 39.1 Resto-Rural 43.7 56.3 47.7 52.3 Distribution Asunción 12.2 3.4 12.2 5.8 Central-Urbano 27.6 13.4 19.4 25.5 Central-Rural 3.5 2.8 4.2 2.4 Resto urbano 28.1 18.6 28.0 20.6 Resto-Rural 28.5 61.8 36.2 45.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 11.3 Poverty Profile Housing USD2 a day Official moderate Non-poor Poor Non-poor Poor (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Home ownership 0.76 0.87 0.78 0.82 Number of rooms 3.28 2.64 3.39 2.58 Persons per room 1.61 2.65 1.55 2.56 Poor housing 0.13 0.33 0.13 0.30 Low-quality materials 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.05 Water 0.80 0.47 0.78 0.57 Hygienic restrooms 0.69 0.28 0.67 0.39 Sewerage 0.12 0.03 0.12 0.04 Electricity 0.95 0.83 0.94 0.87 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 57 Table 11.4 Poverty Profile Education USD 2 a day Official moderate Non-poor Poor Non-poor Poor (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Years of education Total 6.8 4.6 6.9 4.9 [10,20] 6.9 5.8 7.0 5.9 [21,30] 9.4 6.5 9.5 6.8 [31,40] 8.3 5.5 8.7 5.8 [41,50] 7.3 4.5 7.2 5.3 [51,60] 6.2 3.7 6.2 3.8 [61+] 4.6 2.8 4.5 2.8 Educational groups Adults Low 60.5 90.6 60.2 84.5 Medium 27.5 8.3 26.5 14.0 High 12.1 1.1 13.3 1.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Male adults Low 60.7 91.2 62.0 82.0 Medium 28.3 8.1 26.4 15.9 High 11.0 0.7 11.6 2.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Female adults Low 60.2 90.0 58.3 86.9 Medium 26.5 8.6 26.6 12.2 High 13.3 1.4 15.1 0.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Household heads Low 65.1 92.2 65.9 86.0 Medium 25.5 7.2 24.1 12.8 High 9.5 0.6 10.0 1.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Literacy rate 0.93 0.88 0.93 0.89 School attendance [3,5] 0.45 0.37 0.51 0.35 [6,12] 0.96 0.91 0.96 0.91 [13,17] 0.76 0.66 0.75 0.67 [18,23] 0.30 0.19 0.30 0.19 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 58 Table 11.5 Poverty Profile Employment USD 2 a day Official moderate Non-poor Poor Non-poor Poor (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) In the labor force Total 0.64 0.54 0.64 0.57 [16,24] 0.66 0.63 0.67 0.65 [25,55] 0.83 0.70 0.82 0.74 [56+] 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.48 Men [25,55] 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Women [25,55] 0.69 0.46 0.69 0.51 Employed Total 0.58 0.47 0.59 0.48 [16,24] 0.53 0.50 0.57 0.49 [25,55] 0.78 0.60 0.78 0.64 [56+] 0.48 0.45 0.48 0.45 Men [25,55] 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.85 Women [25,55] 0.63 0.38 0.64 0.42 Unemployment rate Total 0.10 0.14 0.08 0.15 [16,24] 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.25 [25,55] 0.06 0.13 0.05 0.13 [56+] 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.06 Men [25,55] 0.05 0.11 0.04 0.11 Women [25,55] 0.08 0.17 0.06 0.18 Unemployment spell 5.59 5.06 5.59 5.03 (months) Child labor 0.16 0.21 0.15 0.21 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 11.6 Poverty Profile Hours, Wages and Earnings USD 2 a day Official moderate Non-poor Poor Non-poor Poor (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Worked hours Total 46.591 40.689 46.4 42.9 [16,24] 44.468 43.098 45.6 44.2 [25,55] 48.578 41.631 48.2 44.6 [56+] 43.670 37.812 43.0 39.0 Men [25,55] 51.704 46.062 51.1 48.7 Women [25,55] 43.875 32.399 44.1 36.3 Hourly wages Total 6,338.80 2,312.04 6,721.59 2,758.56 [16,24] 4,181.78 1,841.74 4,292.57 2,295.56 [25,55] 6,879.28 2,652.24 7,574.88 3,115.01 [56+] 7,939.07 1,670.06 7,524.61 1,718.63 Men [25,55] 7,611.54 2,806.07 8,592.47 3,270.02 Women [25,55] 5,744.18 2,384.87 6,091.97 2,824.16 Earnings Total 1,103,942.00 263,182.40 1,163,814.00 398,918.50 [16,24] 636,171.10 261,456.70 681,133.40 345,462.50 [25,55] 1,249,862.00 286,159.40 1,371,033.00 452,523.40 [56+] 1,267,715.00 193,017.10 1,121,805.00 238,955.50 Men [25,55] 1,495,696.00 315,316.30 1,664,319.00 523,608.50 Women [25,55] 867,553.30 233,115.40 941,001.80 316,397.60 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 59 Table 11.7 Poverty Profile Employment Structure USD 2 a day Official moderate Non-poor Poor Non-poor Poor (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Labor relationship Entrepreneur 3.9 1.6 4.3 1.3 Salaried worker 48.0 12.4 49.0 22.0 Self-employed 30.6 44.3 30.4 39.6 Zero income 7.8 27.9 8.6 21.7 Unemployed 9.7 13.8 7.7 15.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Labor group Entrepreneurs 4.6 1.9 5.1 1.6 Salaried-large firms 19.6 2.9 19.0 7.6 Salaried-public sector 12.1 1.1 12.5 2.4 Self-employed professionals 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.4 Salaried-small firms 17.7 6.9 17.3 10.7 Self-employed unskilled 35.7 53.3 35.0 50.0 Zero income 9.3 33.7 10.1 27.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Formality (based on labor group) Formal 37.3 6.1 37.5 11.9 Informal 62.7 93.9 62.5 88.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Formality (based on social security rights) Formal 29.1 6.4 29.5 12.5 Informal 70.9 93.6 70.5 87.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sectors Primary activities 21.3 62.0 25.9 45.2 Industry-labor intensive 6.1 4.5 6.0 4.8 Industry-capital intensive 5.4 3.8 4.9 4.9 Construction 5.8 4.2 5.0 5.8 Commerce 29.0 12.6 26.0 19.5 Utilities & transportation 5.9 1.4 5.6 2.6 Skilled services 4.9 0.8 4.7 1.8 Public administration 1.7 0.2 1.9 0.3 Education & Health 12.1 4.9 11.5 6.9 Domestic servants 7.7 5.7 8.5 8.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Contract n.a n.a n.a n.a Permanent job n.a n.a n.a n.a Right to pensions 0.32 0.08 0.33 0.14 Labor health insurance n.a n.a n.a n.a Unionized n.a n.a n.a n.a Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 60 Table 11.8 Poverty Profile Income USD 2 a day Official moderate Non-poor Poor Non-poor Poor (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Household per capita income 517,473.8 53,322.9 476,625.5 138,622.6 Household total income 2,121,021.0 280,598.5 1,919,865.0 603,239.3 Gini per capita income 0.470 0.310 0.510 0.500 Individual income Labor 84.8 85.4 84.5 85.4 Non-labor 15.2 14.6 15.5 14.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Labor income Salaried work 59.5 56.7 59.5 58.7 Self-employment 23.3 40.6 25.3 40.6 Own firm 16.5 2.3 16.5 2.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Non-labor income Capital 15.3 3.8 15.3 3.8 Pensions 38.7 8.7 38.7 8.7 Transfers 46.0 87.6 46.0 87.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 11.9 Poverty Profile Simulations A. Household incomes and size Non-poor Poor (i) (ii) Household per capita income 517,473.80 53,306.80 Household total income 2,121,021.00 280,598.50 Household size 4.10 5.26 Individual labor income 1,103,942.00 263,182.40 Number of labor income earners 1.63 0.82 Household non-labor income 316,903.70 65,827.76 B. Simulations $ Poor's per capita income 53,306.85 Poor's per capita income with the non-poor's 1. Household size 68,423.47 2.Individual labor income 183,642.66 3.Number of labor income earners 94,162.02 4.Household non-labor income 101,013.73 5.Household total income 402,720.21 6.Household total income and size 516,922.58 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 61 Table 11.10 Poverty Profile NBI USD 2 a day Official moderate Non-poor Poor Non-poor Poor (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Poor as Lack of endowments 0.57 0.89 0.58 0.82 Lack of endowments and 0.00 0.89 0.13 0.53 income less than 2USD Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Table 11.11 NBI Official Estimates Paraguay, 1995-2001 1995 1997 1999 2001 Total Paraguay Housing 37,8 33,5 31,9 31,4 Sanitation 20,6 20,0 17,1 13,8 PrimarySchool enrollment 22,6 23,8 20,7 22,3 Dependency rates 5,6 11,8 10,7 8,2 At least 1 NBI 57,0 55,3 53,0 50,7 Urban Housing 24,9 21,6 21,5 20,5 Sanitation 29,0 25,1 21,9 18,5 PrimarySchool enrollment 16,3 16,6 11,0 15,0 Dependency rates 5,8 7,7 7,1 7,4 At least 1 NBI 47,5 44,7 42,3 41,3 Rural Housing 51,2 47,4 44,1 44,2 Sanitation 11,8 14,1 11,5 8,3 PrimarySchool enrollment 29,3 32,2 32,1 30,9 Dependency rates 5,4 16,6 14,8 9,2 At least 1 NBI 66,8 67,5 65,6 61,7 Source: DGEEC. 62 Figure 3.1 Growth Incidence Curves Household per Capita Income - Proportional Changes by Percentile Paraguay, 1995-2002 20 10 1995-1997 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -10 1997-1999 -20 1999-2002 -30 -40 1995-2002 -50 -60 -70 -80 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). 63 Figure 3.2 Pen Parade's Curves Paraguay, 1995-2002 A. All the distribution 2000000 1800000 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 1995 1997 1999 2001 2002 B. Percentiles 1 to 20 24000 2001 20000 1997 1995 1999 16000 12000 2002 8000 4000 0 0 5 10 15 20 C. Percentiles 1 to 40 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 0 10 20 30 40 1995 1997 1999 2001 2002 64 D. Percentiles 40 to 80 140000 120000 1995 2001 1997 100000 1999 80000 2002 60000 40000 20000 0 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 E. Percentiles 80 to 100 1995 1500000 1000000 1999 2001 500000 1997 2002 0 80 85 90 95 100 65 Figure 4.1 Poverty Paraguay, 1995-2002 USD 1 and USD 2 Lines National U$S1 a day 25.0 U$s2 a day 20.0 40.0 35.0 15.0 30.0 25.0 10.0 20.0 5.0 15.0 10.0 0.0 5.0 1995 1997 1999 2002 0.0 H PG FGT(2) 1995 1997 1999 2002 H PG FGT(2) Urban USD1 and USD2 a Day 12.0 25.0 10.0 20.0 8.0 15.0 6.0 10.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1995 1997 1999 2002 1995 1997 1999 2002 H PG FGT(2) H PG FGT(2) Rural USD1 and USD2 a Day 40.0 60.0 35.0 50.0 30.0 25.0 40.0 20.0 30.0 15.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 1995 1997 1999 2002 1995 1997 1999 2002 H PG FGT(2) H PG FGT(2) Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002) Note: H=headcount ratio, PG=poverty gap, FGT (2) =Foster, Greer and Thornbecke index with parameter 2. 66 Figure 4.2 Poverty Paraguay, 1995-2002 Official Poverty Lines National Moderate Official Poverty line Extreme Official Poverty line 50.0 25 45.0 40.0 20 35.0 30.0 15 25.0 20.0 10 15.0 10.0 5 5.0 - 0 1995 1997 1999 2001 2002 1995 1997 1999 2001 2002 H PG FGT(2) H PG FGT(2) Urban Moderate Official Poverty line Extreme Official Poverty line 16 50.0 45.0 14 40.0 12 35.0 10 30.0 25.0 8 20.0 6 15.0 10.0 4 5.0 2 - 0 1995 1997 1999 2001 2002 1995 1997 1999 2001 2002 H PG FGT(2) H PG FGT(2) Rural Moderate Official Poverty line Extreme Official Poverty line 60.0 35.0 50.0 30.0 25.0 40.0 20.0 30.0 15.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 - 0.0 1995 1997 1999 2001 2002 1995 1997 1999 2001 2002 H PG FGT(2) H PG FGT(2) Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002). Note: H=headcount ratio, PG=poverty gap, FGT (2) =Foster, Greer and Thornbecke index with parameter 2. 67 Figure 4.3 Proportion of Extreme and Moderate Poor By Area Paraguay, 2002 Rural extreme poor 35.1 28.9 Urban extreme poor Rural moderate 17.9 18.1 poor Urban moderate poor Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EPH (2002). Figure 4.4 Poverty Headcount Ratio Official Poverty Line AMA 1983-2002 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 Source: MECOVI (2001), DGEEC (2002) and WB (2003). 68 Figure 4.5 Poverty Headcount Ratio LAC countries Around 2002 and 1990 ECLAC Estimates Around 2002 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ay a el á m Ric lisa ain or iab rú aal ay aivil sa ugurU ats Chi ocxi anaP Br Mé naacnii aeluz Pe em Bo augar ur Co moD.R entgrA neeV adlvaSlE mlooC atuG guaraP ca Ni ndoH Around 1990 100 80 60 40 20 0 ain y a ua Ric entgrA ugrU ats naacnii el a á rú lis iab y aivil ala sa Chi uelz man coxi Pe ur Pa Mé Bra rodavl Bo em augar Co moD.R eneV Sa mlooC guaaraP El atuG ca Ni ndoH Figure 4.6 Poverty Headcount Ratio LAC countries Late 1990s, Early 2000s 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 y eli ua ani Ch nt ugrU aeluz r gerA neeV coxieM aciRats .R ur ay or sa Co nacniimoD aman aibmol ilza do aivil Br Pe Pa Co uacE guaraP Bo advlaSlE augarac ur Ni ndoH Source: Székely (2001). 69 Figure 4.7 Poverty Paraguay, 1995-2002 50% Median Poverty Line National 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 1995 1997 1999 2002 H PG FGT(2) Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002) Note: H=headcount ratio, PG=poverty gap, FGT (2) =Foster, Greer and Thornbecke index with parameter 2. Figure 4.8 Poverty Indicator Endowments Paraguay, 1995-2002 1.00 0.80 0.60 National (i) Urban (ii) 0.40 Rural (iii) 0.20 0.00 1995 1997 1999 2001 2002 Source: Calculations by CEDLAS based on microdata from the EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002) 70 Figure 5.1 Gini Coefficient Distribution of Equivalized Household Income AMA, 1983-2002 0.500 0.475 0.450 0.425 0.400 0.375 0.350 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 Source: Based on Robles (1999) and DGEEC (2003). 71 Figure 6.1 Generalized Lorenz Curves Paraguay, 1995-2002 140000 120000 100000 1995 80000 60000 40000 2002 20000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 6.2 Aggregate Welfare, 1995-2002 Inequality from Household Surveys and Mean Income from the National Accounts 110 100 90 80 70 60 1995 1997 1999 2001 2002 Per capita income Sen Atk(1) Atk(2) Source: Own estimates from EH-MO (1995), EIH (1997-1998), EPH (1999), EIH (2000-2001) and EPH (2002) and National Accounts. Note: Atk (e): CES welfare function with parameter e. 72