DRAFT

EPD INCONE DISTRIBUTION PROJECT

DATA ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN NEPAL

Satish Kansal

Division Working Paper No. 1981-2March 1981

Economic and Social Data DivisionEconomic Analysis and Projections DepartmentDevelopment Policy StaffThe World Bank

Division Working Papers report on work in progress and are circulatedfor Bank staff use to stimulate discussion and comment. The views andinterpretations in a Working Paper are those of the author and may notbe attributed to the World Bank or its affiliated organizations.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

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 andConsuamption: A Brief Description ..................... 2

III. The 1976-77 HOusehold Survey: An Evaluation .............. 4

IV. Data Adjustment and Derivation of New IncomeDistribution 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 ruralareas and 932 for urban areas. Village panchayats and urban panchayatswere defined as rural and urban areas, respectively. A "panchayat" isthe smallest local administration unit.

2/ The National Planning Commission estimated the number of households in1976-77 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, asthey are considered household members but not family members. This, however, #is not a serious problem as domestic servants are employed only by few urbanhouseholds.

-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 householdswere 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 familyworkers 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 accordingto 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 1976-771/ Gross Domestic Product at market prices 17,280 Rs. mill.

a. less depreciation 767b. less indirect taxes 1,025

Net Domestic Product at factor costs 15,488

a. less govt. income from property and enterprises 77b. less savings of the corporate sector about 30c. less corporate taxes about 40d. 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 householdincome (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 isproportionately 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

UrbanKathmandu 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 rentedhouses " neg. 11.7 13.8 25.5 25.5

3. Households in own orfree houses " 2,167.0 33.3 55.2 88.5 2,255.5

4. Annual imputed rentper household Rupees 385.0 1,800.0 600.0 - -

5. Total imputed rentalincome (= 3 x 4) Rs.mill. 834.3 59.9 33.1 93.0 927.3

6. Average imputed rentper household Rupees 407.0

Source: Report on National Accounts Project, National Planning CommissionSecretariat, Nepal, August 1979.

Table 4: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF ROOMSAND BY INCOME LEVELS AND THE IMPUTED RENT FOR EACH INCOME CLASS

AverageIncome 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 differentincome 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 Incomeof 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 addingthe 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 Patternsin Nepal, 1976-77, Summary Report, Volume IV, National PlanningCommission, 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 CountryStudy, December, 1979.

- 14 - APPENDIX TABLES

Table Al: NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS AND AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME FROM AGRICULTUREAND NON-AGRICULTURE SOURCES BY DIFFERENT FARM CATEGORIES, RURAL

NEPAL, 1976-77

NumberFarm 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 Patternsin Nepal, 1976-77. National Planning Commission, Nepal, Sept. 1978.

- 15 -

Table A2t DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS, AVERAGE INCOME PER HOUSEHOLD,AND SHAREOF INCOME BY DIFFERENT INCOME CLASSES, RURAL NEPAL, 1976-77

AnnualAnnual 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 Patternsin Nepal, 1976-77. National Planning Commission, Nepal, Sept. 1978.

- 16 -

Table A3: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS, AVERAGE INCOME PER HOUSEHOLD AND SHAREOF INCOME-.BY DIFFERENT INCOME CLASSES, URBAN NEPAL, 1976-77

AnnualAnnual income Sample households average Share of incomeclasses (Rs.) Numbers % household % Cum. %

income (Rs.)(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1. below 500 3 0.32 3 3 V1 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 theincome class following Mehran's Portable Method, "Dealing with groupedincome distribution data"by Farhad Mehran, ILO, Geneva, WEP 2-23/WP 20,August 1975.

Source: A Survey of Employment. Income Distribution and Consumption Patternsin 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-Incomeclasses (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 ADJUSTEDAVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY INCOME LEVELS, RURAL NEPAL, 1976-77

AdjustedAnnual Sample households Average Share of IncomeIncome 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 ADJUSTEDAVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY INCOME LEVELS, URBAN NEPAL, 1976-77

AdjustedAnnual -Sample households Average Share of IncomeIncome 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 INCOMELEVELS, 1976-77

(Rural and Urban Combined)

Annual income Households Share of IncomeClasses(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.