DRAFT EPD INCONE DISTRIBUTION PROJECT DATA ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN NEPAL Satish Kansal Division Working Paper No. 1981-2 March 1981 Economic and Social Data Division Economic Analysis and Projections Department Development Policy Staff The World Bank Division Working Papers report on work in progress and are circulated for Bank staff use to stimulate discussion and comment. The views and interpretations in a Working Paper are those of the author and may not be attributed to the World Bank or its affiliated organizations. DATA ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN NEPAL This paper evaluates the 1976-77 household Slarvey of Employment, Income Distribution, and Consumption Patterns in Nepal and the estimates of income distribution derived therefrom. Based on this evaluation it then adjusts the survey data for under-coverage of income and derives a more representative distribution of household income. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DATA DIVISION ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS DEPARTMENT MARCH 1981 4e TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction .............................................. 1 II. The 1976-77 Household Survey of Employment, Income and Consuamption: A Brief Description ..................... 2 III. The 1976-77 HOusehold Survey: An Evaluation .............. 4 IV. Data Adjustment and Derivation of New Income Distribution Estimates .................7 7 V. Concluding Remarks ........................................ 12 References ............................................... 13 Appendix Tables .......................................... 14 DATA ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN NEPAL I. Introduction Nepal, one of the poorest countries in the world, does not have a long tradition of household income and expenditure surveys. Its Central Bureau of Statistics conducted the nation's first household budget survey in 1961-62, in a part of the Kathmandu district. This was a pilot survey to test the possibilities of obtaining household budget data; its findings have never been published. In 1973-75 the Nepal Rashtra Bank (the central bank of Nepal) undertook an urban household buidget survey, primarily to determine the expend- iture patterns of households in urban areas and development centers, to help derive expenditure weighits for the construction of consumer price indices. The survey also collected data on household income and living conditions. However, because the income estimates lacked a sufficiently reliable standard for the classification of households by income levels, the reports used total consumption expenditure to estimate income distribution. Moreover, as the survey referred only to urban areas, which cover about 5 percent of total households in Nepal, its results cannot be considered representative of the country as a whole. In early 1977, Nepal's National Planning Commission conducted the first nationwide Survey of Employment, Income Distribution, and Consumption Patterns in Nepal, for the period 1976-77. This paper evaluates that survey and the estimates for household income distribution derived therefrom. It also discusses the survey's various shortcomings and, with them in mind, adjusts its estimates of household income distribution. . .. .... -2- II. The 1976-77 Household Survey of Employment, Income, and Consumption: A Brief Description The National Planning Commission carried out the survey with a view to providing a sound data base for identifying pockets of unemploy- ment and underemployment, those areas affected by low levels of income and consumption, and the concentration of income. a. Coverage The survey sample covered private households, excluding institu- tional households. b. Sample Selection The sample consisted of 4,037 rural households and 932 urban house- holds.L/ The sampling fractions were 0.19% and 0.82% for rural and urban areas, respectively.Z/ Sample households were selected through a three-stage stratified random sampling process, the first stage being the districts, the second stage the village and town panchayats, and the third stage the households within the selected town and village panchayats. The sample was designed to represent each of the development regions as well as the specific geo- graphical parts (mountains, hills, and tarai).3/ 1/ The effective sample size for income distribution was 3,664 for rural areas and 932 for urban areas. Village panchayats and urban panchayats were defined as rural and urban areas, respectively. A "panchayat" is the smallest local administration unit. 2/ The National Planning Commission estimated the number of households in 1976-77 at 2.167 million in rural Nepal and 0.114 million in urban Nepal. 3/ Nepal is divided into four development regions: Eastern, Central, Western, and Far-Western. -3- c. Definition of Household and Income For the purposes of the survey, a "household" is a group of persons, related or unrelated, who live together and generally share a common kitchen. A single person is treated as a household if he/she maintains a kitchen. A "family" is a group of persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption and that generally share a common kitchen. While the survey data on income refer to family members, consumption expenditure data refer to household members. Family income includes earnings in cash and kind of all family members (before income tax deductions). It also includes transfers such as retirement pensions, regular contributions received by family members, and gifts. It excludes the imputed rents of owner-occupied and free houses and the imputed value of the free collection of domestic materials (mainly fuelwood).L/ Household consumption expenditure is the sum of all expenditures incurred or imputed on various items from own produce, purchased, borrowed, or received free of charge. It includes the imputed value of freely collected domestic materials (like fuelwood). However, it is not clear from the report whether or not'the imputed rent from owner occupied and free houses is included. d. Survey Methodology and Reference Period The survey was conducted between March 24 and July 22, 1977. Data were collected through interviews, during which the enumerator filled out the questionnaire with the help of the head of the household and other household members. The reference period was one year: April 16, 1976 to April 15, 1977 for rural areas and July 16, 1976 to July 15, 1977 for urban areas. 1/ Survey figures on income do not include the income of domestic servants, as they are considered household members but not family members. This, however, # is not a serious problem as domestic servants are employed only by few urban households. -4- III. The 1976-77 Household Survey: An Evaluation a. Non-enumeration Non-enumeration was negligible, as data were collected from 4,969 sample households (4,037 rural and 932 urban), almost identical in size to the planned sample of 4,980 households (4,040 rural and 940 urban). However, in the survey report, rural income distribution is based on information from 3,664 households (giving a 9.2% non-utilization rate for rural areas), apparently omitting those households where the heads of households reported no occupation (primarily aged persons living mainly on transfer incomes). It seems that the 373 households were left out erroneously. In urban areas, income distribution is based on informaticn from all 932 sample households although about 9.5% of these heads of households reported no occupation. We have adjusted the rural income distribution for the omission of the 373 rural households and have worked out an adjusted distribution for all 4,037 rural households. (Details are given in Section IV.) b. Reference Period The survey was conducted during March 24 to July 22, 1977, using as the reference period the agricultural year (April 16, 1976 to April 15, 1977) for rural areas and the fiscal year (July 16, 1976 to July 15, 1977) for urban areas. This means that those households interviewed in the earlier part of the survey period must have estimated their income for that period falling beyond the date of survey. Strictly speaking, this should give an imprecise estimate of household income. Nonetheless, the survey should actually give fairly reliable income figures for rural areas, where agriculture is the major source of income, because it was conducted after the harvesting period.l/ 1/ According to the 1976-77 survey, about 86 percent of rural households were engaged in agriculture activity. -5- In urban areas reported income figures should also be fairly accurate because, according to 1971 census,- about one-third of the urban economically active population was engaged in agriculture and about 70% of economically active non-agriculture persons were salary and wage earners. Thus, altogether, 81% of.the economically active urban population were- engaged in agriculture activity or were salary and wage earners. It would thus be possible to get reliable household annual income figures for them even if a small part of reference period fell beyond the date of survey. Table 1 gives the distribution of the economically active urban population by employment status. Table 1: DISTRIBUTION OF ECONOMICALLY ACTIVE URBAN POPULATION BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS (1971 CENSUS) Agriculture Non-agriculture Total (Numbers M (%) (Numbers ) (%) (Numbers ) (%) Employer 249 0.2 968 0.7 1,217 0.9 Employee 6,537 4.5 69,200 47.9 75,737 52.4 Self employed 38,325 26.5 25,207 17.4 63,532 43.9 Unpaid family workers 2,372 1.6 1,742 1.2 4,114 2.8 Total 47,483 32.8 97,117 67.2 144,600 100.0 1/ The 1976-77 surveydoes not give the distribution of households according to the employment status of the head of the household. -6- c. Income coverage The survey definition of household income refers to earnings in cash and kind and current transfer income accruing to all present family members;-but excludes imputed income from owner-occupied houses and the free collection of domestic materials (mainly fuelwood). We have adjusted the survey income figures for these exclusions. This adjusted income works out to be about 11% hi,gher than the survey estimates. (Details are given in Section IV.) We have compared the total household income as estimated from the survey data (after adjusting for under-coverage) with the same aggre- gate derived from national accounts and government budget data. Unfortunately, because the national accounts data were scanty, it was not possible to USE them-to deri-ve.a precise-figure for household income. However, tentative estimates show that private household income in 1976-77 was about 15,500- million rupees (Rs.)-/ The adjusted estimate of total household income worked out to be Rs. 15,125 million, with the two figures for income differing by only 2.4 percent (Table 2). This suggests that under reporting of income in the survey was not significant. Year 1976-77 1/ Gross Domestic Product at market prices 17,280 Rs. mill. a. less depreciation 767 b. less indirect taxes 1,025 Net Domestic Product at factor costs 15,488 a. less govt. income from property and enterprises 77 b. less savings of the corporate sector about 30 c. less corporate taxes about 40 d. plus govt. transfers to private households about 150 -7- Table 2: SURVEY ESTIMATE OF AGGREGATE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1976-77 Rural Urban Combined Average household income (Rs.) 5,569 12,711 Estimated number of households (thousands) 2,167 114 - Estimated total household income (Rs. mill.) 12,068 1,449 13,517 Imputed rent and fuelwood (Rs. mill.) - - 1,608 Adjusted total household income (Rs. mill.) - - 15,125 National accounts estimate of household income (Rs. mill.) 15,500 The adjusted survey figure for household income might still be a marginal understatement as we have adjusted for only the imputed value of freely collected fuelwood (within the larger category of freely collected domestic materials). However, for all practical purposes, the adjusted household income distribution should be representative of Nepal.-l IV. Data Adjustment and Derivation of New Income Distribution Estimates As was pointed out above, the rural income distribution of the survey is derived from the income data of 3,664 households, although the average household income is based on all 4,037 rural sample households. The excluded 373 rural households appear to have been those where the head of the household did not report an occupation. The survey report also gives the distribution of the sample's rural households by farm category together with the average household income for each category (Appendix Table 1). 1/ The implicit assumption is that the unadjusted under-reported income is proportionately distributed over the different income classes. -8- The sample includes 418 landless households, with an average income of Rs. 4,956 (of which Rs. 4,690 were from non-agriculture sources). We have assumed that the 373 households omitted from the rural income distributi-on belong to this category, with its average income of Rs. 4,956. We distri- buted them between the two income classes with average incomes Rs. 4,500 and Rs. 6,500 yielding an overall average income for the 373 households equal to that of the landless housenolds included in the survey. The second adjustment we made on the imputed rental income (excluded in the survey). We have estimated it at Rs. 927 million for all of Nepal, or Rs. 407 per household (Tab'e 3). To distribute it over the different income levels, we used the survey estimates of the average number of rooms occupied by the households in the different income classes. Survey data on housing are available only for. kural households for few income classes. We used the available data on rural housing conditions for all of Nepal because rural households account for 90% of the total imputed rent and for 95% of the total households in Nepal (Table 4). Finally, we made a third adjustment for the imputed value of freely collected fuelwood by family members. According to the National Planning Commission, the average annual household expenditure on fuel and light was Rs. 373, of which Rs. 298 was the imputed value (80%) of the freely collected fuelwood. We added Rs. 298 to each of the income classes, assuming that the free collection of fuel is more prevalent in the lower income classes than in the higher income classes, although the total expenditure on fuel and light (imputed plus actual) of upper income households was much higher. Table 3: IMPUTED RENTAL INCOME, 1976-77 Urban Kathmandu Other Unit Rural Valley areas Total Combined 1. No. of households 1000 2,167.0 45.0 69.0 114.0 2,281.0 2. Households in rented houses " neg. 11.7 13.8 25.5 25.5 3. Households in own or free houses " 2,167.0 33.3 55.2 88.5 2,255.5 4. Annual imputed rent per household Rupees 385.0 1,800.0 600.0 - - 5. Total imputed rental income (= 3 x 4) Rs.mill. 834.3 59.9 33.1 93.0 927.3 6. Average imputed rent per household Rupees 407.0 Source: Report on National Accounts Project, National Planning Commission Secretariat, Nepal, August 1979. Table 4: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF ROOMS AND BY INCOME LEVELS AND THE IMPUTED RENT FOR EACH INCOME CLASS Average Income Levels No. of Up to 2,500 2,500-15,000 15,000 & above Rooms Up to two rooms 85.0 68.3 49.0 1.50 Three rooms or more 15.0 31.7 51.0 4.75 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 2.52 % of households by different income levels 13.14 77.03 9.83 100 Average number of rooms 1.99 2.53 3.15 2.52 Imputed rent per household (Rs.) 321 408 508 407 Source: 1976-77 Survey. - 10 - Table 5 gives the adjusted figures for shares of income by dec4.es of households for rural, urban, and combined areas for 1976-77. Income dis- tribution for all of Nepal was derived by combining rural and urban distribu- tions in proportion to their total number of estimated households.L/ -'-'*---Tab1le_5:- INCOME DISTRIBUTION, 1976-77 (ADJUSTED) Cummulative % Cummulative % Thare of Income of households Rural Urban Combined 10 1.79 1.96 1.76 20 4.60 4.83 4.57 30 7.96 8.46 7.97 40 12.69 12.92 12.59 50 17.94 18.80 17.81 60 24.48 25.02 24.28 70 31.82 32.39 31.78 80 41.03 42.80 40.77 90 53.45 57.36 53.51 100 100.00 100.00 100.00 Gini Ratio 0.53 0.49 0.53 Table 6 gives the unadjusted shares of income by deciles of households, derived from the original data in the survey report. The distribution of house- holds and of income by income levels are given in Appendix Tables A2 to A4 for unadjusted survey data and in Tables A5 to A7 after the adjustments had been made. A comparison of Tables 5 and 6 shows that the Gini ratio for the adjusted distribution of Nepal has declined to 0.53,as compared to 0.57 for the original distribution. The share of income of the lowest 20 percent of house- holds has increased from 3.1% to 4.6%; for the top 10 percent income share it has declined from 50.7% to 46.5%. A/ In the survey report the combined income distribution is derived by adding the rural and urban sample households, thus giving more weight to urban areas. Table 6: INCOME DISTRIBUTION, 1976-77 (UNADJUSTED) Cummulative % of house- Cummulative % share of income hold Rural Urban Combined 10 1.02 1.52 .99 20 2.97 3.95 3.08 30 5.69 7.16 5.68 40 9.37 11.27 9.40 50 13.52 16.89 13.67 60 18.97 22.87 19.13 70 26.09 30.06 26.85 80 34.92 40.51 35.52 90 48.34 55.32 49.34 100 100.00 100.00 100.00 Gini Ratio 0.58 0.52 0.57 Source: National PLanning Commission, Nepal. - 12 - V. Concluding Remarks We have estimated household income distribution in Nepal for 1976-77 using the country's first nationwide household survey. Results show that'riural intoeom ineqianity- is'considerably higher than its urban counterpart. This may be the result, in part, of the highly unequal dis- tribution of agricultural landholdings and, in part, of the nature 'of the classification of the urban-rural areas. Some of the village panchayats (12 in the 1971 census) that are included in rural areas have a population of more than ten thousand. In fact, their population is more than that of some of the town panchayats (included in the urban areas) with well developed market centers. Thus, so-called rural Nepal is a mixture of rural and urban areas; the rural income inequality should not be viewed as an indicator for rural households in the true sense. The above' distiribution of household income seems to be the first available estimate for Nepal, because the World Bank Social Indicators Data Sheets and Shail Jai'n's'study on Size Distribution of Income do not give figures for Nepal. As such, it is not possible to compare the above- mentioned distribution with any other similar distribution. 4i - 13 - REFERENCES 1. A Survey of Employment, Income Distribution and Consumption Patterns in Nepal, 1976-77, Summary Report, Volume IV, National Planning Commission, Nepal, Sept. 1978. 2. Report on National Accounts Project, National Planning Commission, Nepal, August 1979. 3. Population Census, 1971, Abstracts, 1975, National Planning Commission, Nepal, 1975. 4. Statistical Abstracts, Figures and Facts about Taxation since 1959, Ministry of Finance, Department of Taxation, Nepal, 1980. 5. Nepal, Development Performance and Prospects, A World Bank Country Study, December, 1979. - 14 - APPENDIX TABLES Table Al: NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS AND AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AND NON-AGRICULTURE SOURCES BY DIFFERENT FARM CATEGORIES, RURAL NEPAL, 1976-77 Number Farm of- Annual Average Household Income in Rupees Category households Total Agriculture Non-Agriculture (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1. Landless 418 4,956 266 4,690 2. Marginal (IR) 222 3,518 1,824 1,694 3. (UNIR) 819; 4,876 2,493 2,?33 4. Small (IR) 305 5,706 4,177 1,529 5. i (UNIR) 956 4,909 3,574 1,335 6. Medium (IR) 221 8,647 6,805 1,842 7. " (UNIR) 581 5,866 4,584 1,282 8. Large (IR) 136 10,158 8,227 1,931 9. it (UNIR) 379 6,597 5,144 1,453 10. Total 4,037 5,569 3,588 1,981 IR = Irrigated UNIR = Unirrigated Source: A Survey of Employment, Income Distribution and Consumption Patterns in Nepal, 1976-77. National Planning Commission, Nepal, Sept. 1978. - 15 - Table A2t DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS, AVERAGE INCOME PER HOUSEHOLD,AND SHARE OF INCOME BY DIFFERENT INCOME CLASSES, RURAL NEPAL, 1976-77 Annual Annual income Sample households average Share of income classes (Rs.) Numbers % household % Cum. % income(Rs.) .(1) (2), (3) (-4)- (5) (6) 1. below 500 132 3.60 33311 0.16 0.16 2. 500 - 1,500 - 441 12.04 - 1,000 - 1.63 1.79 3. 1,500 - 2,500 634 17.30 2,000 4.70 6.49 4. 2,500 - 3,500 597 16.30 3,000 6.64 13.13 5. 3,500 - 4,000 265 7.23 3,750 3.68 16.81 6. 4,000 - 5,000 359 9.80 4,500 5.99 22.80 7. 5,000 - 8,000 553 15.09 6,500 13.32 36.12 8. 8,000 - 10,000 189 5.16 9,000 6.31 42.43 9. 10,000 - 15,000 180 4.91 12,500 8.34 50.77 10. 15,000 - 25,000 115 3.14 20,000 8.53 59.30 11. 25,000 - 40,000 89 2.43 32,500 10.72 70.02 12. 40,000 - 75,000 78 2.13 57,500 16.63 86.65 13. 75,000 and above 32 0.87 112,500 13.35 100.00 14. All classes 3,664 100.00 100.00 /1 Average household income is taken to be two-thirds of the upper limit of the income class, following Mehran's Portable method, "Dealing with grouped income distribution data" by Farhad Mehran, ILO, Geneva. WEP 2-23/WP 20. August 1975. Source: A Survey of Employment, Income Distribution and Consumption Patterns in Nepal, 1976-77. National Planning Commission, Nepal, Sept. 1978. - 16 - Table A3: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS, AVERAGE INCOME PER HOUSEHOLD AND SHARE OF INCOME-.BY DIFFERENT INCOME CLASSES, URBAN NEPAL, 1976-77 Annual Annual income Sample households average Share of income classes (Rs.) Numbers % household % Cum. % income (Rs.) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1. below 500 3 0.32 33V1 0.01 0.01 2. 500 - 1,500 28 3.00 1,000 0.28 0.29 3. 1,500 - 2,500 95 10.19 2,000 1.87 2.16 4. 2,500 - 3,500 92 9.87 3,000 2.72 4.88 5. 3,500 - 4,000 67 7.19 3,750 2.48 7.36 6. 4,000 - 5,000 106 11.37 4,500 4.71 12.07 7. 5,000 - 8,000 212 22.75 6,500 13.60 25.67 8. 8,000 - 10,000 80 8.58 9,000 7.10 32.77 9. 10,000 - 15,000 111 11.91 12,500 13.69 46.46 10. 15,000 - 25,000 75 8.05 20,000 14.80 61.26 11. 25,000 - 40,000 31 3.33 32,500 9.93 71.19 12. 40,000 - 75,000 16 1.72 57,500 9.08 80.27 13. 75,000 and above 16 1.72 125,000 19.73 100.00 14. All classes 932 100.00 100.00 /1 Average household income is taken to be two-thirds of the upper limit of the income class following Mehran's Portable Method, "Dealing with grouped income distribution data"by Farhad Mehran, ILO, Geneva, WEP 2-23/WP 20, August 1975. Source: A Survey of Employment. Income Distribution and Consumption Patterns in Nepal, 1976-77. National Planning Commission, Nepal, Sept. 1978. . . . .I- - - - - - - - --. - 17 - Table A4: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND SHARE OF INCOME BY DIFFERENT INCOME CLASSES, 1976-77 (Rural and Urban Combined) Annual income Sample households Share of-Income classes (Rs.) Numbers % % Cum. % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1. below 500 135 2.94 0.12 0.12 2. 500 - 1,500 469 10.21 1.26 1.38 3. 1,500 - 2,500 729 15.86 3.93 5.31 4. 2,500 - 3,500 689 14.99 5.57 10.88 5. 3,500 - 4,000 332 7.22 3.36 14.24 6. 4,000 - 5,000 465 10.12 5.64 19.88 7. 5,000 - 8,000 765 16.65 13.40 33.28 8. 8,000 - 10,000 269 5.85 6.52 39.80 9. 10,000 - 15,000 291 6.33 9.80 49.60 10. 15,000 - 25,000 190 4.13 10.24 59.84 11. 25,000 - 40,000 120 2.61 10.51 70.35 12. 40,000 - 75,000 94 2.05 14.56 84.91 13. 75,000 and above 48 1.04 15.09 100.00 14. All classes 4,596 100.00 100.00 Source: Derived from Tables 2 and 3. - 18 - Table A5: ADJUSTED DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOME AND ADJUSTED AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY INCOME LEVELS, RURAL NEPAL, 1976-77 Adjusted Annual Sample households Average Share of Income Income Number h household S Cum.% Classes (Rs.) income (Rs.) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1. Below 500 132 3.27 952 .40 .40 2. 500 - 1,500 441 10.92 1,619 2.26 2.66 3. 1,500 - 2,500 634 15.71 2,619 5.25 7.91 4. 2,500 - 3,500 597 14.79 3,706 7.00 14.91 5. 3,500 - 4,000 265 6.56 4,456 3.74 18.65 6. 4,000 - 5,000 647 16.03 5,206 10.66 29.31 7. 5,000 - 8,000 638 15.80 7,206 14.55 43.86 8. 8,000 - 10,000 189 4.68 9,706 5.80 49.66 9. 10,000 - 15,000 180 4.46 13,206 7.52 57.18 10. 15,000 - 25,000 115 2.85 20,806 7.57 64.75 11. 25,000 - 40,000 89 2.21 33,306 9.38 74.13 12. 40,000 - 75,000 78 1.93 58,306 14.39 88.52 13. 75,000 and above 32 .79 113,306 11.47 100.00 14. All classes 4,037 100.00 100.00 Source: Derived from Table A2 after adjustments. 4V - 19 - Table A6: ADJUSTED DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOME AND ADJUSTED AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY INCOME LEVELS, URBAN NEPAL, 1976-77 Adjusted Annual -Sample households Average Share of Income Income Number % household % Cum.% Classes(Rs.) income (Rs.) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1. Below 500 3 .32 952 .03 .03 2. 500 - 1,500 28 3.00 1,619 .42 .45 3. 1,500 - 2,500 95 10.19 2,619 2.30 2.75 4. 2,500 - 3,500 92 9.87 3,706 3.16 5.91 5. 3,500 - 4,000 67 7.19 4,456 2.77 8.68 6. 4,000 - 5,000 106 11.37 5,206 5.11 13.79 7. 5,000 - 8,000 212 22.75 7,206 14.15 27.94 8. 8,000 - 10,000 80 8.58 9,706 7.19 35.13 9. 10,000 - 15,000 111 11.91 13,206 13.58 48.71 10. 15,000 - 25,000 75 8.05 20,806 14.45 63.16 11. 25,000 - 40,000 31 3.33 33,306 9.56 72.72 12. 40,000 - 75,000 16 1.72 58,306 8.64 81.36 13. 75,000 and above 16 1.72 125,806 18.64 100.00 14. All classes 932 100.00 100.00 Source: Derived from Table A3 after adjustments. . t ...~gS0F'..... 4. .a,A.;>.W,P ........ .WS.#Z.R~'fii..i ....................'f: ... 2tI i. .. ..,I ...4- .. . E S - i L & t ( X A . 1 f . t 9 t ' f a d . t t . t ..§ - 20 - Table A7: ADJUSTED DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOME BY INCOME LEVELS, 1976-77 (Rural and Urban Combined) Annual income Households Share of Income Classes(Rs.) %%. Cum.% (1) (2) (3) (4) 1. Below 500 3.12 .37 .37 2. 500 - 1,500 10.53 2.13 2.50 3. 1,500 - 2,500 15.43 5.04 7.54 4. 2,500 - 3,500 14.54 6.72 14.26 5. 3,500 - 4,000 6.60 3.67 17.93 6. 4,000 - 5,000 15.79 10.26 28.19 7. 5,000 - 8,000 16.15 14.52 42.71 8. 8,000 - 10,000 4.87 5.91 48.62 9. 10,000 - 15,000 4.83 7.95 56.57 10. 15,000 - 25,000 3.11 8.07 64.64 11. 25,000 - 40,000 2.26 9.39 74.03 12. 40,000 - 75,000 1.92 13.98 88.01 13. 75,00 and above .84 11.99 100.00 14. All classes 100.00 100.00 Source: Derived from Tables A5 and A6.