26 27 notes from economic lives of the poor banerjee

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Year Avg. monthly consumption per capita (In PPP$) LSMS GFHS Banerjee-DufloGlennerster Banerjee-DeatonDuflo IFLS MxFLS LSMS LSMS LSMS LSMS 1988 1995 2005 664.13 301.92 71.61 375 469 106 14% 18% 7% 1,411 910 1,030 49% 34% 56% 2004 43.12 482 47% 883 86% 2000 2002 2001 1991 1997 1996 142.84 167.97 117.34 48.01 359.73 133.38 320 959 333 1,573 123 185 4% 15% 6% 40% 2% 15% 2,106 2,698 1,322 3,632 439 485 26% 39% 28% 83% 6% 38% LSMS LSMS LSMS LSMS 1994 1993 1993 2001 151.88 291.33 50.85 64.42 297 413 1,184 662 7% 5% 35% 15% 821 1,641 2,941 2,426 20% 19% 73% 51% Country Cote d’Ivoire Guatemala India-Hyderabad India-Udaipur Indonesia Mexico Nicaragua Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Peru South Africa Tanzania Timor Leste $2.16 per person per day Number surveyed Percent of total surveyed HHs Number surveyed Percent of total surveyed HHs Sources: The Mexican Family Life Survey is documented in Rubalcava and Teruel (2004) and available at http://www.radix.uia.mx/ennvih/ . The LSMS are available from the World Bank LSMS project page. The IFLS and GFLS are available from the RAND FLS page http://www.rand.org/labor/FLS/ . The Udaipur data is available from www.povertyactionlab.org/data . The Hyderabad data is forthcoming on the same page. Notes: To compute the $1.08 and $2.16 poverty line for the countries in our sample, we use the 1993 consumption exchange rate provided by the World Bank (available at http://iresearch.worldbank.org/ PovcalNet/jsp/index.jsp ) multiplied by the ratio of the country’s Consumer Price Index to the U.S. Consumer Price Index between 1993 and the year the survey was carried out. To compute average consumption per capita and the proportion of households in poverty, observations are weighted using (survey weight household size). Standard Measurement Surveys (LSMS) conducted by the World Bank and the “Family Life Surveys” conducted by the Rand Corporation, all of which are publicly available. In addition, we also use two surveys that we conducted in India with our collaborators. The first was carried out in 2002 and 2003 in 100 hamlets of Udaipur District, Rajasthan (Banerjee, Deaton, and Duflo, 2004). Udaipur is one of the poorer districts of India, with a large tribal population and an unusually high level of female illiteracy. (At the time of the 1991 census, only 5 percent of women were literate in rural Udaipur.) Our second survey covered 2,000 households in “slums” (or informal neighborhoods) of Hyderabad, the capital of the state of Andhra Pradesh and one of the boomtowns of post-liberalization India (Banerjee, Duflo, Living arrangements of the poor Large families: 6-12 members; median 7-8 Median adults: 3 Young people < 18: 6 Far more younger than older people in developing countries relative to developed – higher mortality rates 26 Table 2 : Demographic table for the poor and the extremely poor households Average number per household girls 0-12 Living on less than $1 a day Rural Cote d'Ivoire 2.149157 Guatemala 1.796232 IndiaUdaipur 1.325726 Indonesia 0.9174603 Mexico 0.9 Nicaragua 1.597005 Pakistan 2.016568 Peru 1.562229 SouthAfrica 1.473795 Tanzania 1.447079 TimorLeste 1.376577 Urban Cote d'Ivoire 2.297182 India - Hyderabad 1.121212 Indonesia 0.9582009 Mexico 1.301199 Nicaragua 1.66856 Pakistan 1.976316 Peru 1.494865 SouthAfrica 1.550764 Tanzania 1.21222 TimorLeste 1.179673 Living on less than $2 a day Rural Cote d'Ivoire 1.983717 Guatemala 1.792295 India - UP/Bihar 0.6699485 IndiaUdaipur 1.075878 Indonesia 0.8259456 Mexico 1.016112 Nicaragua 1.331818 Pakistan 1.853165 Peru 1.32672 SouthAfrica 1.379225 Tanzania 1.289787 TimorLeste 1.139498 Urban Cote d'Ivoire 2.108609 India - Hyderabad 0.8324541 Indonesia 0.8485122 Mexico 1.128694 Nicaragua 1.420392 Pakistan 1.754959 Peru 1.330315 SouthAfrica 1.136331 Tanzania 1.162486 TimorLeste 1.146996 Female, Age: girls 13-18 women 21-50 women 51-older boys 0-12 boys 13-18 Male, Age men 21-50 men 51-older children per woman 0.7818763 0.544987 0.3672199 0.523725 0.5070693 0.5678074 0.585511 0.421786 0.6973492 0.4819979 0.386832 1.979564 1.311481 0.966805 1.304952 1.035307 1.07484 1.271537 1.017115 1.429532 1.069643 0.9851342 0.721778 0.2802738 0.2697096 0.437163 0.4321416 0.2315043 0.4109347 0.3058037 0.6129878 0.3744389 0.1902925 2.666122 1.729336 1.358921 0.8705046 0.853714 1.628777 2.088473 1.442208 1.66929 1.526861 1.310178 0.914795 0.4418486 0.3443983 0.4374299 0.5452123 0.76195 0.6692291 0.3533415 0.583054 0.4848362 0.3651149 1.175167 1.156533 0.9896265 1.371218 1.145439 0.9744686 1.367866 0.9837216 1.074615 0.8318779 0.8517124 0.5598547 0.352742 0.2385892 0.4232031 0.331505 0.3372386 0.43903 0.3200212 0.4891815 0.38776 0.247835 2.432494 3.498438 2.789124 2.032071 2.211015 3.078375 3.228408 2.961281 2.329741 2.722047 2.774989 0.778813 0.4742424 0.4653502 0.594942 0.5267447 0.6990231 0.6035883 0.4555098 0.5618973 0.4258459 2.337201 1.263636 1.564172 1.141251 1.195798 1.327084 1.225346 1.575343 1.017122 1.050646 0.6046988 0.2166667...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 02/26/2014 for the course ECON 541 at The University of British Columbia.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online