![Page 1: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy
Illustrations
![Page 2: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Focus of the Discussion:
• Framework: Kuznets’: explain inequality in terms of inter-sectoral disparities & intra-sectoral inequalities
• Final outcome measures:– Income generation:
• Sectoral perspective at the macro as well as disaggregate regional (district) level
– Income distribution • Proxy: consumption distribution - macro (state),
regional and district levels by rural/urban sectors
2
![Page 3: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Inequality Measures & Welfare Judgments
• Inequality measures have implicit normative judgments about inequality and the relative importance to be assigned to different parts of the income distribution.
• Some measures are clearly unattractive:– Range: measures the distance between the poorest and richest; is y
unaffected by changes in the distribution of income between these two extremes.
![Page 4: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Simpler (statistical) measures
• (normalised) Range
• Relative mean deviation• (Shows percentage of total income that would need to be transferred to make all incomes are the same.)
• Coefficient of variation = standard deviation/mean
• 75-25 gap, 90-10 gap
n
i
i mynm 1
||1
2
1
![Page 5: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Inequality measurement: Some attractive axioms• Pigou-Dalton Condition (principle of transfers): a transfer
from a poorer person to a richer person, ceteris paribus, must cause an increase in inequality.– Range does not satisfy this property.
• Scale-neutrality: Inequality should remain invariant with respect to scalar transformation of incomes. – Variance does not satisfy this is property.
• Anonymity: Inequality measure should remain invariant with respect to any permutation.
![Page 6: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Gini coeficient• Gini coeficient: The proportion of the total area under the Lorenz curve.
• Discrete version:
• Interpretation: Gini of “X” means that the expected difference in income btw. 2 randomly selected persons is 60% of overall mean income.
• Restrictive:• -- The welfare impact of a transfer of income only depends on “relative rankings” –
e.g., a transfer from the richest to the billionth richest household counts as much as one from the billionth poorest to the poorest.
)...2(11
1 212 nnyyyynn
G
![Page 7: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
The Atkinson class of inequality measures
• Atkinson (1970) introduces the notion of ‘equally distributed equivalent’ income, YEDE.
• YEDE represents the level of income per head which, if equally shared, would generate the same level of social welfare as the observed distribution.
• A measure of inequality is given by: IA = 1- (YEDE/μ)
![Page 8: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
The Atkinson class of inequality measures
• A low value of YEDE relative to μ implies that if incomes were equally distributed the same level of social welfare could be achieved with much lower average income.; IA would be large.
• Everything hinges on the degree of inequality aversion in the social welfare function.
• With no aversion, there is no welfare gain from edistribution so YEDE is equal to μ and IA = 0.
![Page 9: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
The Atkinson class of inequality measures
• Atkinson proposes the following form for his inequality measure:
1
1
1)(1 ii
iA f
Y
YI
![Page 10: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Atkinson’s measure
• This is just an iso-elastic social welfare function defined over income (not utility) with parameter e, normalised by average income
e
i
ei
y
yA
1
11
)(1
![Page 11: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
The Atkinson class of inequality measures
• A key role here is played by the distributional parameter ε. In calculating IA you need to explicitly specify a value for ε.
• When ε=0 there is no social concern about inequality and so IA = 0 (even if the distribution is “objectively” unequal).
• When ε=∞ there is infinite weight to the poorer members of the population (“Rawls”)
![Page 12: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Inequality measurement and normative judgements• Coefficient of variation:
– Attaches equal weights to all income levels– No less arbitrary than other judgments.
• Standard deviation of logarithms:– Is more sensitive to transfers in the lower income
brackets.• Bottom line: The degree of inequality cannot
in general be measured without introducing social judgments.
![Page 13: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Theil’s Entropy Index
Formally, an index I(Y) is Theil decomposable if:
Ni
i
HH iYIiweNmeimIYIN
1
)(),...,()(1
Theil’s Entropy Index:
Ni
i
ii
y
y
y
y
NNYT
1
)log(log
1)(
Where Yi is a the vector of incomes of the Hi members of subgroup i, there are N subgroups, and mieHi is an Hi long vector of the average income (mi) in subgroup i. The terms wi terms are subgroup weights.
![Page 14: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Recommendations• No inequality measure is purely ‘statistical’: each embodies
judgements about inequality at different points on the income scale.
• To explore the robustness of conclusions:• Option 1: measure inequality using a variety of inequality
measures (not just Gini).• Option 2: employ the Atkinson measure with multiple values
of ε.• Option 3: look directly at Lorenz Curves, apply Stochastic
Dominance results.
![Page 15: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
The Lorenz Curve• To compare inequality in two distributions:
– Plot the % share of total income received by the poorest nth percentile population in the population, in turn for each n and each consumption distribution.
– The greater the area between the Lorenz curve and the hypotenuse the greater is inequality.
• Second Order Stochastic Dominance (Atkinson 1970):– If Lorenz curves for two distributions do not intersect, then they can
be ranked irrespective of which measure of inequality is the focus of attention.
– If the Lorenz curves intersect, different summary measures of inequality can be found that will rank the distributions differently.
![Page 16: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Inequality Measures
• Shortcomings of GDP can be addressed in part by considering inequality
• Common measures of inequality– Distribution of Y by Decile or Quintile
![Page 17: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Income Distribution by Decile Group: Mexico, 1992
DECILE INCOME SHARE(%)
I 1.3II 2.4III 3.2IV 4.2V 5.1VI 6.4VII 8.3VIII 11.0IX 16.1X 42.1
![Page 18: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Inequality Measures
• Shortcomings of GDP can be addressed in part by considering inequality
• Common measures of inequality– Distribution of Y by Decile or Quintile– Gini Coefficient
• most commonly used summary statistic for inequality
![Page 19: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Gini Coefficient
Cumulative Income Share
Cumulative Population Share (poorest to riches)
0
100
100
Lorenz Curve
![Page 20: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Gini Coefficient
Cumulative Income Share
Cumulative Population Share
0
100
100
Lorenz Curve 1 Lorenz Curve 2
![Page 21: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Gini Coefficient
Cumulative Income Share
Cumulative Population Share
0
100
100
Lorenz Curve
A
B
Gini = A / A + B
![Page 22: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Gini Coefficient
• Gini varies from 0 - 1• Higher Ginis represent higher inequality• The Gini is only a summary statistic, it doesn’t
tell us what is happening over the whole distribution
![Page 23: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Inequality Measures
• Shortcomings of GDP can be addressed in part by considering inequality
• Common measures of inequality– Distribution of Y by Decile or Quintile– Gini Coefficient
• most commonly used summary statistic for inequality
– Functional distribution of income
![Page 24: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Inequality: Policy Instrument
• Illustrate How Policy Strategies are made Little Realizing that the Very Framework used does not permit such an Approach
• Illustrate How Wrong Inferences are drawn on Empirical Estimates of Inequality, which finally form the basis for theoretically implausible Strategies for Poverty Reduction
![Page 25: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
DOES SPECIFICATION MATTER?
• CHOICE OF STRATEGIES
• ESIMATES OF MAGNITUDES
• EVALUATION OF POLICY CONSEQUENCES
• ILLUSTRATED WITH REFERENCE TO THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE ON POLICIES FOR POVERTY REDUCTION, ESTIMATES & EVALUATION
![Page 26: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
CHOICE OF DEVT STRATEGIES
• GROWTH WITH REDISTRIBUTION
• FORMULATED AND PURSUED INDEPENDENTLY
• BASED ON THE PREMISES OF SEPARABILITY AND INDEPENDENCE
• EXAMPLES: FIFTH & SIXTH FIVE YEAR PLANS
![Page 27: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
INDIAN SIXTH PLAN STRATEGY
• RURAL INDIA:• BASE YEAR (BY): 1979-80• BY POVERTY 50.70 % • TERMINAL YEAR (TY): 1984-85• REDUE TY POVERTY TO 40.47 % BY GROTH (15.44 %) • FURTHER DOWN TO 30 % BY REDISTRIBUTION (BY
REDUCING INEQUALITY FROM 0.305 TO 0.222)
![Page 28: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
INDIAN SIXTH PLAN STRATEGY
• URBAN INDIA:• BASE YEAR (BY): 1979-80• BY POVERTY 40.31 % • TERMINAL YEAR (TY): 1984-85• REDUE TY POVERTY TO 33.71 % BY GROTH (11.32 %) • FURTHER DOWN TO 30 % BY REDISTRIBUTION (BY
REDUCING INEQUALITY FROM 0.335 TO 0.305)
![Page 29: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Base Year
Terminal Year: 1984-85
HCR (%)
Growth (%)
HCR (%)
Inequality change (%)
HCR (%)
Rural India
50.7 15.4 40.5 -27.4 30
Urban India
40.3 11.3 33.7 -8.8 30
Growth with Redistribution
![Page 30: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
HOW VALID ARE THE PREMISES?
• THE STRATEGIES ARE NEITHER SEPARABLE NOR INDEPENDENT
• GROWTH WILL REDUCE POVERTY
• AT AN INCREASING RATE IF HCR < 50%
• AT A DECREASING RATE IF HCR > 50%
• MAXIMUM IF HCR = 50%
![Page 31: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
RELATION BETWEEN GROWTH & POVERTY
P*
ln x*
1/2
![Page 32: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
AN INCREASE IN INEQUALITY WILL:
• INCREASE POVERTY AT A DECREASING RATE IF HCR < 50%
• DECREASE POVERTY AT AN INCREASING RATE IF HCR > 50%
• NEUTRAL WHEN HCR = 50%
![Page 33: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
RELATION BETWEEN INEQUALITY & POVERTY
0
1/2
1
P*
For ln x* <
For ln x* >
![Page 34: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
GROWTH vs. REDISTRIBUTION
• GROWTH ALWAYS REDUCES POVERTY
• PACE OF REDUCION VARIES BETWEEN LEVELS OF DEVT.
• REDISTRIBUTION REDUCES POVERTY ONLY WHEN THE SIZE OF THE CAKE ITSELF IS LARGE ENOUGH & POVERTY < 50%
![Page 35: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
What are the Bases for Indian Devt. Strategy?
• GROWTH & REDUCTION IN INEQUALITY• INEQUALITY, AS MEASURED BY LORENZ RATIO,
DECLINED AT THE RATE OF 0.38 % PER ANNUM IN RURAL INDIA DURING 1960-61 AND 1977-78
• INEQUALITY DECLINED AT THE RATE OF 0.59% PER ANNUM IN URBAN INDIA DURING THE SAME PERIOD
![Page 36: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Lorenz ratios (at current prices)Year Rural Urban1960-61 0.3205 0.34771961-621962-63 0.313 0.53661963-64 0.2974 0.35961964-65 0.2936 0.34921965-66 0.2972 0.33851966-67 0.2934 0.33681967-68 0.2908 0.33241968-69 0.3051 0.32921969-70 0.2928 0.34031970-71 0.2831 0.32651971-721972-73 0.2993 0.3411973-74 0.2758 0.30131974-751975-761976-771977-78 0.3053 0.3349
![Page 37: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
T R E NDS IN INE QA U L IT Y IN IND IA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Y ear
Rural
Urban
![Page 38: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
How Valid are the Estimates?
• ESTIMATES ARE BASED ON THE NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY (NSS) DATA ON CONSUMER EXPENDITURE
• NSS DATA ARE AVAILABLE ONLY IN GROUP FORM, THAT IS, IN THE FORM OF SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION ACROSS MONTHLY EXPENDITURE CLASSES
• LORENZ RATIOS ARE ESTIMATED USING THE TRAPEZOIDAL RULE
![Page 39: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Lorenz Ratio
k
iiiii QQPPLR
111 ))((1
![Page 40: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Limitations:
• UNDERESTIMATES THE CONVEXITY OF THE LORENZ CURVE;• IN OTHER WORDS, IGNORES INEQUALITY WITHIN EACH
EXPENDITURE CLAS• HENCE, UNDERESTIMATES THE EXTENT OF INEQUALITY• THE EXTENT OF UNDERESTIMATION INCREASES WITH THE
WIDTH OF THE CLAS INTERVAL
![Page 41: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
NSS Monthly Per Capita Expenditure (PCE) Classes
Expenditure Class Population (%) PCE(Rs)
< 8
8 – 11
11 – 13
13 – 15
15 – 18
18 – 21
21 – 24
24 – 28
28 –34
34 - 43
43 – 55
55 –75
> &5
![Page 42: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Consumption Distribution: Metros 91961/62 & 1970/71)
Expenditure Class 1961/62 1970/71
< 8 - (-) - (-)
8 – 11 0.89 (0.18) - (-)
11 – 13 1.21 (0.31) 0.24 (0.04)
13 – 15 1.44 (0.43) - (-)
15 – 18 5.79 (1.99) 1.09 (0.27)
18 – 21 6.24 (2.53) 2.41 (0.70)
21 – 24 8.16 (3.86) 1.77 (0.60)
24 – 28 8.79 (4.82) 6.55 (2.50)
28 –34 12.55 (8.02) 7.38 (3.43)
34 - 43 13.15 (10.36) 17.55 (9.88)
43 – 55 14.31 (14.47) 13.61 (9.52)
55 –75 12.30 (16.36) 18.27 (17.91)
> &5 15.17 (36.67) 31.13 (55.15)
![Page 43: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Lorenz Curve: Indian Metros 1961/62 (current unadjusted)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Series1
Series2
![Page 44: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Lorenz Curve: Indian Metros 1970/71 (Current unadjusted)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Series1
Series2
![Page 45: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Estimates of Lorenz Ratios: All India )(current: unadjusted)
Year Rural Urban Metros1961-62 31.36 35.7 34.51962-631963-64 29.7 36 34.11964-65 29.1 34.9 34.71965-66 29.7 33.9 33.11966-67 29.3 33.7 31.11967-68 29.1 33.2 29.91968-69 30.5 32.9 30.11969-70 29.3 34 30.21970-71 20.3 32.7 291971-72 1972-73 29.9 34.1 35.71973-74 27.6 30.1 34.61974-751975-761976-771977-78 34 34.6 NA
![Page 46: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Estimates of Lorenz Ratio: All India (Current; unadgusted)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78
Y ear
Loren
z Rati
o (%)
Rural
Urban
Metros
![Page 47: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Estimates of Lorenz Ratios: All India)( adjusted & onstant)+B7
Year Rural Urban Metros1961-62 31.6 36.2 36.71962-631963-64 30.2 36.9 36.91964-65 30.9 37.1 39.91965-66 31.2 36.2 381966-67 31.4 37.1 37.91967-68 32 38 38.41968-69 32.9 36.6 38.11969-70 31.8 38.5 40.71970-71 30.4 37.3 40.11971-721972-73 32.4 37.8 401973-74 30.5 34.4 39.71974-751975-761976-771977-78 35.2 36 NA
![Page 48: Income Inequality: Measures, Estimates and Policy Illustrations](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032517/56649c925503460f9494cb9a/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
ESTIMATES OF LORENZ RATIO: ALL-INDIA (CONSTANT; ADJUSTED)
0
5
1 0
1 5
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 961 -
62
1 962-
63
1 963-
64
1 964-
65
1 965-
66
1 966-
67
1 967-
68
1 968-
69
1 969-
70
1 970-
71
1 971 -
72
1 972-
73
1 973-
74
1 974-
75
1 975-
76
1 976-
77
1 977-
78
Y ear
Lore
nz R
atio
(%) Rur al
Ur ban
Metr os