evaluating brazil social progress under stiglitz-sen …... composition the sarkozy commission...
TRANSCRIPT
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr
CPS e EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
wwwfgvbrcps
1mcnerifgvbr
Evaluating Brazil Social Progress underStiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations
httpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
Composition the Sarkozy Commission
(Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social
Progress)
Joseph E STIGLITZ Chair Columbia University
Amartya SEN Chair Adviser Harvard University
Jean-Paul FITOUSSI Coordinator of the Commission IEP
Other Members
Crescimento Inclusivo Sustentaacutevel
Percebido pelas Pessoas
Relatoacuterio Stiglitz-Senhttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
Recomendaccedilotildees
bull Enfatizar renda e consumo na perspectiva das
famiacutelias (natildeo apenas o PIB per capita) Quanto cresceu
bull Medidas de Distribuiccedilatildeo Eacute Inclusivo
bull Estoques de Riqueza (Meio Ambiente) Eacute Sustentaacutevel
bull Medidas Subjetivas de Bem-Estar Eacute Percebido
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Crescimento de Renda Per Capita PNAD X PIB
Fonte CPSFGV e IBGE Deflacionado pelo INPC centrado no final do mecircs
Entre 2003 e 2009 a renda cresce 18 pontos de porcentagem ao ano
a mais pela PNAD do que pelo PIB Se trocarmos PIB pela da
PNAD entre 2003 e 2010 a goleada aplicada pelos chineses cai
de 10X4 para 8X6
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Where is Brazil compared to other Brics and the United States (in ventiles year 2005)
USA
China
Brazil
Russia
India
110
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
pe
rce
ntile
of w
orld
in
co
me
dis
trib
utio
n
1 5 10 15 20country ventile
Source Milatovic (2011)
06091
05902
05828
05957
05367 05448
05209
0519
2001 2011 jan12
45
55
65
75
Co
efi
cie
nte
de G
ini
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Ano
Efeito China Efeito Chiacutendia
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE Langoni 1973 e Branko Milovic (Banco Mundial)
Desigualdade de Renda Per Capita 1950 a 2012
Brasil
Mundo
Desigualdade Mundial 1950-2009Diferentes Abordagens
Conceito 2
Conceito 1
Concept 3
45
55
65
75
Co
efi
cie
nte
de
Gin
i
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010year
Efeito China Efeito Chiacutendia
Fonte Milotovic (2011)
Income Distribution Dynamics
Rates of Changes Per Year
Evolution 2000s Circa 2007
20 Less 20 Richest
Brazil 630 170
India 1 280
China 850 15
South Africa 580 760
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
A taxa de crescimento dos 20 mais ricos eacute inferior a de todos os
BRICS e a dos 20 mais pobres superior a todos os BRICS
menos a China
Variaccedilatildeo do Iacutendice de Gini
Ameacuterica Latina (17 paises) entre 2000 e 2007
Fonte Lopez-Calva and Lusting (2010)) wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Iacutendice de Gini natildeo ponderado para Ameacuterica Latina (21 paises)
Fonte Gasparini et al (2010) - CEDLAS
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Aleacutem da tradicional convergecircncia de rendas meacutedias entre
paiacuteses e da convergecircncia de desigualdade dentro dos
paiacuteses
Variation of Per Capita Average Income per Income Deciles(20092001)
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Richer
Per Capita Familiar Income (R$) by State of the FederationIncome Variation 2001 a 2009 - Income Levels in 2009
Menos de 10
de 10 a 20
de 20 a 30
de 30 a 40
Mais de 40
Aumento Acumulado da RendaFamiliar Per Capita - 2001-2009
Renda Per Capita Meacutedia 2009
22672 - 60915
60915 - 99158
99158 - 137401
137401 - 175644
175644 - 213887
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNADIBGE
Higher income increases on excluded groups
ndashNortheast (42 X 16 Southeast)
ndash States -Maranhatildeo (46 X 72 +Satildeo Paulo)
ndashRural Areas (49 X 16 metro cities)
ndashFavelas 416
ndashFemales (38 X Males 16)
ndashBlacks (43 X Whites 21) Mullatos 48
ndashIlliterate (0 years 47 X 12 or + years -17)
ndashHH Heads 0 years (54 X 12 or + years -9)
Falling Inequality 2001 to 2009
Recent Evolution
Source CPSFGV from the PMEIBGE microdata
Chronicle of the Crisis (until January 2012)bull The european crisis hasnrsquot reached the pocket of the
Brazilians in the basis
bull Growth of per capita household income of 27 in 12 meses matching with the growth from 2002 to 2008 and superior to the 0 producted in 2009 as a result of the 2008 crisis and the -457 from the asian crisis
bull In 12 months ended in January 2012 poverty falls 79 three times faster than the UN Millenium Goal
bull In the 12 months ended in January 2012 the Gini falls at a 21 rate almost twice faster than the one from the first years of the last decade which became known as the period of the fall of inequality ensuring a fall in poverty
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Composition the Sarkozy Commission
(Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social
Progress)
Joseph E STIGLITZ Chair Columbia University
Amartya SEN Chair Adviser Harvard University
Jean-Paul FITOUSSI Coordinator of the Commission IEP
Other Members
Crescimento Inclusivo Sustentaacutevel
Percebido pelas Pessoas
Relatoacuterio Stiglitz-Senhttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
Recomendaccedilotildees
bull Enfatizar renda e consumo na perspectiva das
famiacutelias (natildeo apenas o PIB per capita) Quanto cresceu
bull Medidas de Distribuiccedilatildeo Eacute Inclusivo
bull Estoques de Riqueza (Meio Ambiente) Eacute Sustentaacutevel
bull Medidas Subjetivas de Bem-Estar Eacute Percebido
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Crescimento de Renda Per Capita PNAD X PIB
Fonte CPSFGV e IBGE Deflacionado pelo INPC centrado no final do mecircs
Entre 2003 e 2009 a renda cresce 18 pontos de porcentagem ao ano
a mais pela PNAD do que pelo PIB Se trocarmos PIB pela da
PNAD entre 2003 e 2010 a goleada aplicada pelos chineses cai
de 10X4 para 8X6
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Where is Brazil compared to other Brics and the United States (in ventiles year 2005)
USA
China
Brazil
Russia
India
110
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
pe
rce
ntile
of w
orld
in
co
me
dis
trib
utio
n
1 5 10 15 20country ventile
Source Milatovic (2011)
06091
05902
05828
05957
05367 05448
05209
0519
2001 2011 jan12
45
55
65
75
Co
efi
cie
nte
de G
ini
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Ano
Efeito China Efeito Chiacutendia
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE Langoni 1973 e Branko Milovic (Banco Mundial)
Desigualdade de Renda Per Capita 1950 a 2012
Brasil
Mundo
Desigualdade Mundial 1950-2009Diferentes Abordagens
Conceito 2
Conceito 1
Concept 3
45
55
65
75
Co
efi
cie
nte
de
Gin
i
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010year
Efeito China Efeito Chiacutendia
Fonte Milotovic (2011)
Income Distribution Dynamics
Rates of Changes Per Year
Evolution 2000s Circa 2007
20 Less 20 Richest
Brazil 630 170
India 1 280
China 850 15
South Africa 580 760
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
A taxa de crescimento dos 20 mais ricos eacute inferior a de todos os
BRICS e a dos 20 mais pobres superior a todos os BRICS
menos a China
Variaccedilatildeo do Iacutendice de Gini
Ameacuterica Latina (17 paises) entre 2000 e 2007
Fonte Lopez-Calva and Lusting (2010)) wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Iacutendice de Gini natildeo ponderado para Ameacuterica Latina (21 paises)
Fonte Gasparini et al (2010) - CEDLAS
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Aleacutem da tradicional convergecircncia de rendas meacutedias entre
paiacuteses e da convergecircncia de desigualdade dentro dos
paiacuteses
Variation of Per Capita Average Income per Income Deciles(20092001)
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Richer
Per Capita Familiar Income (R$) by State of the FederationIncome Variation 2001 a 2009 - Income Levels in 2009
Menos de 10
de 10 a 20
de 20 a 30
de 30 a 40
Mais de 40
Aumento Acumulado da RendaFamiliar Per Capita - 2001-2009
Renda Per Capita Meacutedia 2009
22672 - 60915
60915 - 99158
99158 - 137401
137401 - 175644
175644 - 213887
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNADIBGE
Higher income increases on excluded groups
ndashNortheast (42 X 16 Southeast)
ndash States -Maranhatildeo (46 X 72 +Satildeo Paulo)
ndashRural Areas (49 X 16 metro cities)
ndashFavelas 416
ndashFemales (38 X Males 16)
ndashBlacks (43 X Whites 21) Mullatos 48
ndashIlliterate (0 years 47 X 12 or + years -17)
ndashHH Heads 0 years (54 X 12 or + years -9)
Falling Inequality 2001 to 2009
Recent Evolution
Source CPSFGV from the PMEIBGE microdata
Chronicle of the Crisis (until January 2012)bull The european crisis hasnrsquot reached the pocket of the
Brazilians in the basis
bull Growth of per capita household income of 27 in 12 meses matching with the growth from 2002 to 2008 and superior to the 0 producted in 2009 as a result of the 2008 crisis and the -457 from the asian crisis
bull In 12 months ended in January 2012 poverty falls 79 three times faster than the UN Millenium Goal
bull In the 12 months ended in January 2012 the Gini falls at a 21 rate almost twice faster than the one from the first years of the last decade which became known as the period of the fall of inequality ensuring a fall in poverty
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Crescimento Inclusivo Sustentaacutevel
Percebido pelas Pessoas
Relatoacuterio Stiglitz-Senhttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
Recomendaccedilotildees
bull Enfatizar renda e consumo na perspectiva das
famiacutelias (natildeo apenas o PIB per capita) Quanto cresceu
bull Medidas de Distribuiccedilatildeo Eacute Inclusivo
bull Estoques de Riqueza (Meio Ambiente) Eacute Sustentaacutevel
bull Medidas Subjetivas de Bem-Estar Eacute Percebido
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Crescimento de Renda Per Capita PNAD X PIB
Fonte CPSFGV e IBGE Deflacionado pelo INPC centrado no final do mecircs
Entre 2003 e 2009 a renda cresce 18 pontos de porcentagem ao ano
a mais pela PNAD do que pelo PIB Se trocarmos PIB pela da
PNAD entre 2003 e 2010 a goleada aplicada pelos chineses cai
de 10X4 para 8X6
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Where is Brazil compared to other Brics and the United States (in ventiles year 2005)
USA
China
Brazil
Russia
India
110
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
pe
rce
ntile
of w
orld
in
co
me
dis
trib
utio
n
1 5 10 15 20country ventile
Source Milatovic (2011)
06091
05902
05828
05957
05367 05448
05209
0519
2001 2011 jan12
45
55
65
75
Co
efi
cie
nte
de G
ini
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Ano
Efeito China Efeito Chiacutendia
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE Langoni 1973 e Branko Milovic (Banco Mundial)
Desigualdade de Renda Per Capita 1950 a 2012
Brasil
Mundo
Desigualdade Mundial 1950-2009Diferentes Abordagens
Conceito 2
Conceito 1
Concept 3
45
55
65
75
Co
efi
cie
nte
de
Gin
i
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010year
Efeito China Efeito Chiacutendia
Fonte Milotovic (2011)
Income Distribution Dynamics
Rates of Changes Per Year
Evolution 2000s Circa 2007
20 Less 20 Richest
Brazil 630 170
India 1 280
China 850 15
South Africa 580 760
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
A taxa de crescimento dos 20 mais ricos eacute inferior a de todos os
BRICS e a dos 20 mais pobres superior a todos os BRICS
menos a China
Variaccedilatildeo do Iacutendice de Gini
Ameacuterica Latina (17 paises) entre 2000 e 2007
Fonte Lopez-Calva and Lusting (2010)) wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Iacutendice de Gini natildeo ponderado para Ameacuterica Latina (21 paises)
Fonte Gasparini et al (2010) - CEDLAS
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Aleacutem da tradicional convergecircncia de rendas meacutedias entre
paiacuteses e da convergecircncia de desigualdade dentro dos
paiacuteses
Variation of Per Capita Average Income per Income Deciles(20092001)
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Richer
Per Capita Familiar Income (R$) by State of the FederationIncome Variation 2001 a 2009 - Income Levels in 2009
Menos de 10
de 10 a 20
de 20 a 30
de 30 a 40
Mais de 40
Aumento Acumulado da RendaFamiliar Per Capita - 2001-2009
Renda Per Capita Meacutedia 2009
22672 - 60915
60915 - 99158
99158 - 137401
137401 - 175644
175644 - 213887
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNADIBGE
Higher income increases on excluded groups
ndashNortheast (42 X 16 Southeast)
ndash States -Maranhatildeo (46 X 72 +Satildeo Paulo)
ndashRural Areas (49 X 16 metro cities)
ndashFavelas 416
ndashFemales (38 X Males 16)
ndashBlacks (43 X Whites 21) Mullatos 48
ndashIlliterate (0 years 47 X 12 or + years -17)
ndashHH Heads 0 years (54 X 12 or + years -9)
Falling Inequality 2001 to 2009
Recent Evolution
Source CPSFGV from the PMEIBGE microdata
Chronicle of the Crisis (until January 2012)bull The european crisis hasnrsquot reached the pocket of the
Brazilians in the basis
bull Growth of per capita household income of 27 in 12 meses matching with the growth from 2002 to 2008 and superior to the 0 producted in 2009 as a result of the 2008 crisis and the -457 from the asian crisis
bull In 12 months ended in January 2012 poverty falls 79 three times faster than the UN Millenium Goal
bull In the 12 months ended in January 2012 the Gini falls at a 21 rate almost twice faster than the one from the first years of the last decade which became known as the period of the fall of inequality ensuring a fall in poverty
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Crescimento de Renda Per Capita PNAD X PIB
Fonte CPSFGV e IBGE Deflacionado pelo INPC centrado no final do mecircs
Entre 2003 e 2009 a renda cresce 18 pontos de porcentagem ao ano
a mais pela PNAD do que pelo PIB Se trocarmos PIB pela da
PNAD entre 2003 e 2010 a goleada aplicada pelos chineses cai
de 10X4 para 8X6
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Where is Brazil compared to other Brics and the United States (in ventiles year 2005)
USA
China
Brazil
Russia
India
110
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
pe
rce
ntile
of w
orld
in
co
me
dis
trib
utio
n
1 5 10 15 20country ventile
Source Milatovic (2011)
06091
05902
05828
05957
05367 05448
05209
0519
2001 2011 jan12
45
55
65
75
Co
efi
cie
nte
de G
ini
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Ano
Efeito China Efeito Chiacutendia
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE Langoni 1973 e Branko Milovic (Banco Mundial)
Desigualdade de Renda Per Capita 1950 a 2012
Brasil
Mundo
Desigualdade Mundial 1950-2009Diferentes Abordagens
Conceito 2
Conceito 1
Concept 3
45
55
65
75
Co
efi
cie
nte
de
Gin
i
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010year
Efeito China Efeito Chiacutendia
Fonte Milotovic (2011)
Income Distribution Dynamics
Rates of Changes Per Year
Evolution 2000s Circa 2007
20 Less 20 Richest
Brazil 630 170
India 1 280
China 850 15
South Africa 580 760
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
A taxa de crescimento dos 20 mais ricos eacute inferior a de todos os
BRICS e a dos 20 mais pobres superior a todos os BRICS
menos a China
Variaccedilatildeo do Iacutendice de Gini
Ameacuterica Latina (17 paises) entre 2000 e 2007
Fonte Lopez-Calva and Lusting (2010)) wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Iacutendice de Gini natildeo ponderado para Ameacuterica Latina (21 paises)
Fonte Gasparini et al (2010) - CEDLAS
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Aleacutem da tradicional convergecircncia de rendas meacutedias entre
paiacuteses e da convergecircncia de desigualdade dentro dos
paiacuteses
Variation of Per Capita Average Income per Income Deciles(20092001)
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Richer
Per Capita Familiar Income (R$) by State of the FederationIncome Variation 2001 a 2009 - Income Levels in 2009
Menos de 10
de 10 a 20
de 20 a 30
de 30 a 40
Mais de 40
Aumento Acumulado da RendaFamiliar Per Capita - 2001-2009
Renda Per Capita Meacutedia 2009
22672 - 60915
60915 - 99158
99158 - 137401
137401 - 175644
175644 - 213887
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNADIBGE
Higher income increases on excluded groups
ndashNortheast (42 X 16 Southeast)
ndash States -Maranhatildeo (46 X 72 +Satildeo Paulo)
ndashRural Areas (49 X 16 metro cities)
ndashFavelas 416
ndashFemales (38 X Males 16)
ndashBlacks (43 X Whites 21) Mullatos 48
ndashIlliterate (0 years 47 X 12 or + years -17)
ndashHH Heads 0 years (54 X 12 or + years -9)
Falling Inequality 2001 to 2009
Recent Evolution
Source CPSFGV from the PMEIBGE microdata
Chronicle of the Crisis (until January 2012)bull The european crisis hasnrsquot reached the pocket of the
Brazilians in the basis
bull Growth of per capita household income of 27 in 12 meses matching with the growth from 2002 to 2008 and superior to the 0 producted in 2009 as a result of the 2008 crisis and the -457 from the asian crisis
bull In 12 months ended in January 2012 poverty falls 79 three times faster than the UN Millenium Goal
bull In the 12 months ended in January 2012 the Gini falls at a 21 rate almost twice faster than the one from the first years of the last decade which became known as the period of the fall of inequality ensuring a fall in poverty
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Where is Brazil compared to other Brics and the United States (in ventiles year 2005)
USA
China
Brazil
Russia
India
110
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
pe
rce
ntile
of w
orld
in
co
me
dis
trib
utio
n
1 5 10 15 20country ventile
Source Milatovic (2011)
06091
05902
05828
05957
05367 05448
05209
0519
2001 2011 jan12
45
55
65
75
Co
efi
cie
nte
de G
ini
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Ano
Efeito China Efeito Chiacutendia
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE Langoni 1973 e Branko Milovic (Banco Mundial)
Desigualdade de Renda Per Capita 1950 a 2012
Brasil
Mundo
Desigualdade Mundial 1950-2009Diferentes Abordagens
Conceito 2
Conceito 1
Concept 3
45
55
65
75
Co
efi
cie
nte
de
Gin
i
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010year
Efeito China Efeito Chiacutendia
Fonte Milotovic (2011)
Income Distribution Dynamics
Rates of Changes Per Year
Evolution 2000s Circa 2007
20 Less 20 Richest
Brazil 630 170
India 1 280
China 850 15
South Africa 580 760
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
A taxa de crescimento dos 20 mais ricos eacute inferior a de todos os
BRICS e a dos 20 mais pobres superior a todos os BRICS
menos a China
Variaccedilatildeo do Iacutendice de Gini
Ameacuterica Latina (17 paises) entre 2000 e 2007
Fonte Lopez-Calva and Lusting (2010)) wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Iacutendice de Gini natildeo ponderado para Ameacuterica Latina (21 paises)
Fonte Gasparini et al (2010) - CEDLAS
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Aleacutem da tradicional convergecircncia de rendas meacutedias entre
paiacuteses e da convergecircncia de desigualdade dentro dos
paiacuteses
Variation of Per Capita Average Income per Income Deciles(20092001)
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Richer
Per Capita Familiar Income (R$) by State of the FederationIncome Variation 2001 a 2009 - Income Levels in 2009
Menos de 10
de 10 a 20
de 20 a 30
de 30 a 40
Mais de 40
Aumento Acumulado da RendaFamiliar Per Capita - 2001-2009
Renda Per Capita Meacutedia 2009
22672 - 60915
60915 - 99158
99158 - 137401
137401 - 175644
175644 - 213887
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNADIBGE
Higher income increases on excluded groups
ndashNortheast (42 X 16 Southeast)
ndash States -Maranhatildeo (46 X 72 +Satildeo Paulo)
ndashRural Areas (49 X 16 metro cities)
ndashFavelas 416
ndashFemales (38 X Males 16)
ndashBlacks (43 X Whites 21) Mullatos 48
ndashIlliterate (0 years 47 X 12 or + years -17)
ndashHH Heads 0 years (54 X 12 or + years -9)
Falling Inequality 2001 to 2009
Recent Evolution
Source CPSFGV from the PMEIBGE microdata
Chronicle of the Crisis (until January 2012)bull The european crisis hasnrsquot reached the pocket of the
Brazilians in the basis
bull Growth of per capita household income of 27 in 12 meses matching with the growth from 2002 to 2008 and superior to the 0 producted in 2009 as a result of the 2008 crisis and the -457 from the asian crisis
bull In 12 months ended in January 2012 poverty falls 79 three times faster than the UN Millenium Goal
bull In the 12 months ended in January 2012 the Gini falls at a 21 rate almost twice faster than the one from the first years of the last decade which became known as the period of the fall of inequality ensuring a fall in poverty
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
06091
05902
05828
05957
05367 05448
05209
0519
2001 2011 jan12
45
55
65
75
Co
efi
cie
nte
de G
ini
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Ano
Efeito China Efeito Chiacutendia
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE Langoni 1973 e Branko Milovic (Banco Mundial)
Desigualdade de Renda Per Capita 1950 a 2012
Brasil
Mundo
Desigualdade Mundial 1950-2009Diferentes Abordagens
Conceito 2
Conceito 1
Concept 3
45
55
65
75
Co
efi
cie
nte
de
Gin
i
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010year
Efeito China Efeito Chiacutendia
Fonte Milotovic (2011)
Income Distribution Dynamics
Rates of Changes Per Year
Evolution 2000s Circa 2007
20 Less 20 Richest
Brazil 630 170
India 1 280
China 850 15
South Africa 580 760
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
A taxa de crescimento dos 20 mais ricos eacute inferior a de todos os
BRICS e a dos 20 mais pobres superior a todos os BRICS
menos a China
Variaccedilatildeo do Iacutendice de Gini
Ameacuterica Latina (17 paises) entre 2000 e 2007
Fonte Lopez-Calva and Lusting (2010)) wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Iacutendice de Gini natildeo ponderado para Ameacuterica Latina (21 paises)
Fonte Gasparini et al (2010) - CEDLAS
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Aleacutem da tradicional convergecircncia de rendas meacutedias entre
paiacuteses e da convergecircncia de desigualdade dentro dos
paiacuteses
Variation of Per Capita Average Income per Income Deciles(20092001)
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Richer
Per Capita Familiar Income (R$) by State of the FederationIncome Variation 2001 a 2009 - Income Levels in 2009
Menos de 10
de 10 a 20
de 20 a 30
de 30 a 40
Mais de 40
Aumento Acumulado da RendaFamiliar Per Capita - 2001-2009
Renda Per Capita Meacutedia 2009
22672 - 60915
60915 - 99158
99158 - 137401
137401 - 175644
175644 - 213887
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNADIBGE
Higher income increases on excluded groups
ndashNortheast (42 X 16 Southeast)
ndash States -Maranhatildeo (46 X 72 +Satildeo Paulo)
ndashRural Areas (49 X 16 metro cities)
ndashFavelas 416
ndashFemales (38 X Males 16)
ndashBlacks (43 X Whites 21) Mullatos 48
ndashIlliterate (0 years 47 X 12 or + years -17)
ndashHH Heads 0 years (54 X 12 or + years -9)
Falling Inequality 2001 to 2009
Recent Evolution
Source CPSFGV from the PMEIBGE microdata
Chronicle of the Crisis (until January 2012)bull The european crisis hasnrsquot reached the pocket of the
Brazilians in the basis
bull Growth of per capita household income of 27 in 12 meses matching with the growth from 2002 to 2008 and superior to the 0 producted in 2009 as a result of the 2008 crisis and the -457 from the asian crisis
bull In 12 months ended in January 2012 poverty falls 79 three times faster than the UN Millenium Goal
bull In the 12 months ended in January 2012 the Gini falls at a 21 rate almost twice faster than the one from the first years of the last decade which became known as the period of the fall of inequality ensuring a fall in poverty
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Desigualdade Mundial 1950-2009Diferentes Abordagens
Conceito 2
Conceito 1
Concept 3
45
55
65
75
Co
efi
cie
nte
de
Gin
i
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010year
Efeito China Efeito Chiacutendia
Fonte Milotovic (2011)
Income Distribution Dynamics
Rates of Changes Per Year
Evolution 2000s Circa 2007
20 Less 20 Richest
Brazil 630 170
India 1 280
China 850 15
South Africa 580 760
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
A taxa de crescimento dos 20 mais ricos eacute inferior a de todos os
BRICS e a dos 20 mais pobres superior a todos os BRICS
menos a China
Variaccedilatildeo do Iacutendice de Gini
Ameacuterica Latina (17 paises) entre 2000 e 2007
Fonte Lopez-Calva and Lusting (2010)) wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Iacutendice de Gini natildeo ponderado para Ameacuterica Latina (21 paises)
Fonte Gasparini et al (2010) - CEDLAS
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Aleacutem da tradicional convergecircncia de rendas meacutedias entre
paiacuteses e da convergecircncia de desigualdade dentro dos
paiacuteses
Variation of Per Capita Average Income per Income Deciles(20092001)
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Richer
Per Capita Familiar Income (R$) by State of the FederationIncome Variation 2001 a 2009 - Income Levels in 2009
Menos de 10
de 10 a 20
de 20 a 30
de 30 a 40
Mais de 40
Aumento Acumulado da RendaFamiliar Per Capita - 2001-2009
Renda Per Capita Meacutedia 2009
22672 - 60915
60915 - 99158
99158 - 137401
137401 - 175644
175644 - 213887
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNADIBGE
Higher income increases on excluded groups
ndashNortheast (42 X 16 Southeast)
ndash States -Maranhatildeo (46 X 72 +Satildeo Paulo)
ndashRural Areas (49 X 16 metro cities)
ndashFavelas 416
ndashFemales (38 X Males 16)
ndashBlacks (43 X Whites 21) Mullatos 48
ndashIlliterate (0 years 47 X 12 or + years -17)
ndashHH Heads 0 years (54 X 12 or + years -9)
Falling Inequality 2001 to 2009
Recent Evolution
Source CPSFGV from the PMEIBGE microdata
Chronicle of the Crisis (until January 2012)bull The european crisis hasnrsquot reached the pocket of the
Brazilians in the basis
bull Growth of per capita household income of 27 in 12 meses matching with the growth from 2002 to 2008 and superior to the 0 producted in 2009 as a result of the 2008 crisis and the -457 from the asian crisis
bull In 12 months ended in January 2012 poverty falls 79 three times faster than the UN Millenium Goal
bull In the 12 months ended in January 2012 the Gini falls at a 21 rate almost twice faster than the one from the first years of the last decade which became known as the period of the fall of inequality ensuring a fall in poverty
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Income Distribution Dynamics
Rates of Changes Per Year
Evolution 2000s Circa 2007
20 Less 20 Richest
Brazil 630 170
India 1 280
China 850 15
South Africa 580 760
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
A taxa de crescimento dos 20 mais ricos eacute inferior a de todos os
BRICS e a dos 20 mais pobres superior a todos os BRICS
menos a China
Variaccedilatildeo do Iacutendice de Gini
Ameacuterica Latina (17 paises) entre 2000 e 2007
Fonte Lopez-Calva and Lusting (2010)) wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Iacutendice de Gini natildeo ponderado para Ameacuterica Latina (21 paises)
Fonte Gasparini et al (2010) - CEDLAS
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Aleacutem da tradicional convergecircncia de rendas meacutedias entre
paiacuteses e da convergecircncia de desigualdade dentro dos
paiacuteses
Variation of Per Capita Average Income per Income Deciles(20092001)
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Richer
Per Capita Familiar Income (R$) by State of the FederationIncome Variation 2001 a 2009 - Income Levels in 2009
Menos de 10
de 10 a 20
de 20 a 30
de 30 a 40
Mais de 40
Aumento Acumulado da RendaFamiliar Per Capita - 2001-2009
Renda Per Capita Meacutedia 2009
22672 - 60915
60915 - 99158
99158 - 137401
137401 - 175644
175644 - 213887
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNADIBGE
Higher income increases on excluded groups
ndashNortheast (42 X 16 Southeast)
ndash States -Maranhatildeo (46 X 72 +Satildeo Paulo)
ndashRural Areas (49 X 16 metro cities)
ndashFavelas 416
ndashFemales (38 X Males 16)
ndashBlacks (43 X Whites 21) Mullatos 48
ndashIlliterate (0 years 47 X 12 or + years -17)
ndashHH Heads 0 years (54 X 12 or + years -9)
Falling Inequality 2001 to 2009
Recent Evolution
Source CPSFGV from the PMEIBGE microdata
Chronicle of the Crisis (until January 2012)bull The european crisis hasnrsquot reached the pocket of the
Brazilians in the basis
bull Growth of per capita household income of 27 in 12 meses matching with the growth from 2002 to 2008 and superior to the 0 producted in 2009 as a result of the 2008 crisis and the -457 from the asian crisis
bull In 12 months ended in January 2012 poverty falls 79 three times faster than the UN Millenium Goal
bull In the 12 months ended in January 2012 the Gini falls at a 21 rate almost twice faster than the one from the first years of the last decade which became known as the period of the fall of inequality ensuring a fall in poverty
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Variaccedilatildeo do Iacutendice de Gini
Ameacuterica Latina (17 paises) entre 2000 e 2007
Fonte Lopez-Calva and Lusting (2010)) wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Iacutendice de Gini natildeo ponderado para Ameacuterica Latina (21 paises)
Fonte Gasparini et al (2010) - CEDLAS
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Aleacutem da tradicional convergecircncia de rendas meacutedias entre
paiacuteses e da convergecircncia de desigualdade dentro dos
paiacuteses
Variation of Per Capita Average Income per Income Deciles(20092001)
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Richer
Per Capita Familiar Income (R$) by State of the FederationIncome Variation 2001 a 2009 - Income Levels in 2009
Menos de 10
de 10 a 20
de 20 a 30
de 30 a 40
Mais de 40
Aumento Acumulado da RendaFamiliar Per Capita - 2001-2009
Renda Per Capita Meacutedia 2009
22672 - 60915
60915 - 99158
99158 - 137401
137401 - 175644
175644 - 213887
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNADIBGE
Higher income increases on excluded groups
ndashNortheast (42 X 16 Southeast)
ndash States -Maranhatildeo (46 X 72 +Satildeo Paulo)
ndashRural Areas (49 X 16 metro cities)
ndashFavelas 416
ndashFemales (38 X Males 16)
ndashBlacks (43 X Whites 21) Mullatos 48
ndashIlliterate (0 years 47 X 12 or + years -17)
ndashHH Heads 0 years (54 X 12 or + years -9)
Falling Inequality 2001 to 2009
Recent Evolution
Source CPSFGV from the PMEIBGE microdata
Chronicle of the Crisis (until January 2012)bull The european crisis hasnrsquot reached the pocket of the
Brazilians in the basis
bull Growth of per capita household income of 27 in 12 meses matching with the growth from 2002 to 2008 and superior to the 0 producted in 2009 as a result of the 2008 crisis and the -457 from the asian crisis
bull In 12 months ended in January 2012 poverty falls 79 three times faster than the UN Millenium Goal
bull In the 12 months ended in January 2012 the Gini falls at a 21 rate almost twice faster than the one from the first years of the last decade which became known as the period of the fall of inequality ensuring a fall in poverty
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Iacutendice de Gini natildeo ponderado para Ameacuterica Latina (21 paises)
Fonte Gasparini et al (2010) - CEDLAS
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Aleacutem da tradicional convergecircncia de rendas meacutedias entre
paiacuteses e da convergecircncia de desigualdade dentro dos
paiacuteses
Variation of Per Capita Average Income per Income Deciles(20092001)
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Richer
Per Capita Familiar Income (R$) by State of the FederationIncome Variation 2001 a 2009 - Income Levels in 2009
Menos de 10
de 10 a 20
de 20 a 30
de 30 a 40
Mais de 40
Aumento Acumulado da RendaFamiliar Per Capita - 2001-2009
Renda Per Capita Meacutedia 2009
22672 - 60915
60915 - 99158
99158 - 137401
137401 - 175644
175644 - 213887
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNADIBGE
Higher income increases on excluded groups
ndashNortheast (42 X 16 Southeast)
ndash States -Maranhatildeo (46 X 72 +Satildeo Paulo)
ndashRural Areas (49 X 16 metro cities)
ndashFavelas 416
ndashFemales (38 X Males 16)
ndashBlacks (43 X Whites 21) Mullatos 48
ndashIlliterate (0 years 47 X 12 or + years -17)
ndashHH Heads 0 years (54 X 12 or + years -9)
Falling Inequality 2001 to 2009
Recent Evolution
Source CPSFGV from the PMEIBGE microdata
Chronicle of the Crisis (until January 2012)bull The european crisis hasnrsquot reached the pocket of the
Brazilians in the basis
bull Growth of per capita household income of 27 in 12 meses matching with the growth from 2002 to 2008 and superior to the 0 producted in 2009 as a result of the 2008 crisis and the -457 from the asian crisis
bull In 12 months ended in January 2012 poverty falls 79 three times faster than the UN Millenium Goal
bull In the 12 months ended in January 2012 the Gini falls at a 21 rate almost twice faster than the one from the first years of the last decade which became known as the period of the fall of inequality ensuring a fall in poverty
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Variation of Per Capita Average Income per Income Deciles(20092001)
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Richer
Per Capita Familiar Income (R$) by State of the FederationIncome Variation 2001 a 2009 - Income Levels in 2009
Menos de 10
de 10 a 20
de 20 a 30
de 30 a 40
Mais de 40
Aumento Acumulado da RendaFamiliar Per Capita - 2001-2009
Renda Per Capita Meacutedia 2009
22672 - 60915
60915 - 99158
99158 - 137401
137401 - 175644
175644 - 213887
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNADIBGE
Higher income increases on excluded groups
ndashNortheast (42 X 16 Southeast)
ndash States -Maranhatildeo (46 X 72 +Satildeo Paulo)
ndashRural Areas (49 X 16 metro cities)
ndashFavelas 416
ndashFemales (38 X Males 16)
ndashBlacks (43 X Whites 21) Mullatos 48
ndashIlliterate (0 years 47 X 12 or + years -17)
ndashHH Heads 0 years (54 X 12 or + years -9)
Falling Inequality 2001 to 2009
Recent Evolution
Source CPSFGV from the PMEIBGE microdata
Chronicle of the Crisis (until January 2012)bull The european crisis hasnrsquot reached the pocket of the
Brazilians in the basis
bull Growth of per capita household income of 27 in 12 meses matching with the growth from 2002 to 2008 and superior to the 0 producted in 2009 as a result of the 2008 crisis and the -457 from the asian crisis
bull In 12 months ended in January 2012 poverty falls 79 three times faster than the UN Millenium Goal
bull In the 12 months ended in January 2012 the Gini falls at a 21 rate almost twice faster than the one from the first years of the last decade which became known as the period of the fall of inequality ensuring a fall in poverty
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Per Capita Familiar Income (R$) by State of the FederationIncome Variation 2001 a 2009 - Income Levels in 2009
Menos de 10
de 10 a 20
de 20 a 30
de 30 a 40
Mais de 40
Aumento Acumulado da RendaFamiliar Per Capita - 2001-2009
Renda Per Capita Meacutedia 2009
22672 - 60915
60915 - 99158
99158 - 137401
137401 - 175644
175644 - 213887
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNADIBGE
Higher income increases on excluded groups
ndashNortheast (42 X 16 Southeast)
ndash States -Maranhatildeo (46 X 72 +Satildeo Paulo)
ndashRural Areas (49 X 16 metro cities)
ndashFavelas 416
ndashFemales (38 X Males 16)
ndashBlacks (43 X Whites 21) Mullatos 48
ndashIlliterate (0 years 47 X 12 or + years -17)
ndashHH Heads 0 years (54 X 12 or + years -9)
Falling Inequality 2001 to 2009
Recent Evolution
Source CPSFGV from the PMEIBGE microdata
Chronicle of the Crisis (until January 2012)bull The european crisis hasnrsquot reached the pocket of the
Brazilians in the basis
bull Growth of per capita household income of 27 in 12 meses matching with the growth from 2002 to 2008 and superior to the 0 producted in 2009 as a result of the 2008 crisis and the -457 from the asian crisis
bull In 12 months ended in January 2012 poverty falls 79 three times faster than the UN Millenium Goal
bull In the 12 months ended in January 2012 the Gini falls at a 21 rate almost twice faster than the one from the first years of the last decade which became known as the period of the fall of inequality ensuring a fall in poverty
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Higher income increases on excluded groups
ndashNortheast (42 X 16 Southeast)
ndash States -Maranhatildeo (46 X 72 +Satildeo Paulo)
ndashRural Areas (49 X 16 metro cities)
ndashFavelas 416
ndashFemales (38 X Males 16)
ndashBlacks (43 X Whites 21) Mullatos 48
ndashIlliterate (0 years 47 X 12 or + years -17)
ndashHH Heads 0 years (54 X 12 or + years -9)
Falling Inequality 2001 to 2009
Recent Evolution
Source CPSFGV from the PMEIBGE microdata
Chronicle of the Crisis (until January 2012)bull The european crisis hasnrsquot reached the pocket of the
Brazilians in the basis
bull Growth of per capita household income of 27 in 12 meses matching with the growth from 2002 to 2008 and superior to the 0 producted in 2009 as a result of the 2008 crisis and the -457 from the asian crisis
bull In 12 months ended in January 2012 poverty falls 79 three times faster than the UN Millenium Goal
bull In the 12 months ended in January 2012 the Gini falls at a 21 rate almost twice faster than the one from the first years of the last decade which became known as the period of the fall of inequality ensuring a fall in poverty
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Recent Evolution
Source CPSFGV from the PMEIBGE microdata
Chronicle of the Crisis (until January 2012)bull The european crisis hasnrsquot reached the pocket of the
Brazilians in the basis
bull Growth of per capita household income of 27 in 12 meses matching with the growth from 2002 to 2008 and superior to the 0 producted in 2009 as a result of the 2008 crisis and the -457 from the asian crisis
bull In 12 months ended in January 2012 poverty falls 79 three times faster than the UN Millenium Goal
bull In the 12 months ended in January 2012 the Gini falls at a 21 rate almost twice faster than the one from the first years of the last decade which became known as the period of the fall of inequality ensuring a fall in poverty
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Chronicle of the Crisis (until January 2012)bull The european crisis hasnrsquot reached the pocket of the
Brazilians in the basis
bull Growth of per capita household income of 27 in 12 meses matching with the growth from 2002 to 2008 and superior to the 0 producted in 2009 as a result of the 2008 crisis and the -457 from the asian crisis
bull In 12 months ended in January 2012 poverty falls 79 three times faster than the UN Millenium Goal
bull In the 12 months ended in January 2012 the Gini falls at a 21 rate almost twice faster than the one from the first years of the last decade which became known as the period of the fall of inequality ensuring a fall in poverty
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados da PNAD PME e Censo IBGE e Langoni 1973
Visatildeo de Longo Prazo Desigualdade
A Desigualdade acabou de chegar ao miacutenimo da seacuterie histoacuterica (desde 1960) Esta mudanccedila
reverteu os aumentos das deacutecadas de 60 (grande) 70 e 80
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Inequality in the Decade
bull PME shows that inequality fell not only betweenevery PNADs but at the extremes of the decade
bull Accumulated growth rate in the last decade1003 for 10 richest and 6793 to 50poorest
bull Growth rate of the 50 poorest was 577 higherthan the richest 10
bull Lowest Level in recorded history but it is still a very high level of inequality (ie it may fall)
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Poverty Changes
Poverty fell
bull 673 since the Real Stabilization plan (1994)
bull 5064 in the Lula Era between December 2002and December 2010
bull This point needs to be emphasized because thefirst Millennium Development Goal is to reducepoverty about 50 in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015)
bull Brazil did 25 years in 8
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Rural ampTotal Poverty (P2) Evolution
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Rural-Urban Differentials (Dif in Dif)Mincer Type Income Per Capita Equation
Ln Y = g0 + g1Year + g2Rural + g3RurYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and Metro
Controled for Gender Age Race HH Head Education Migration amp State
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
Intercept 65561815 167599 lt0001
Rural -08814773 -11817 lt0001
Urbana -02781590 -5398 lt0001
ANO 2009 01011460 1947 lt0001
Rural 2009 01386051 1367 lt0001
Urbana 2009 00742849 1090 lt0001
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Estimated Regression Coefficients
Parameter Estimate t Value Pr gt |t|
EDUCA 0 TO 3 -15661492 -20486 lt0001
EDUCA 4 TO 7 -14352210 -18536 lt0001
EDUCA 8 TO 12 -10193033 -13397 lt0001
EDUCA 0 to 3 2009 04021384 4158 lt0001
EDUCA 4 to 7 2009 02548667 2588 lt0001
EDUCA 8 to 12 2009 01474745 1555 lt0001
EUCATION Differentials (Dif in Dif Estimator)Mincer Type Income Individual Equation Ln Y =
g0 + g1Year + g2EDU + g3EDUYear + Other Controls
Omitted Interaction Categories 2001 and EDUCA 12 or more
Controled for Gender Race Slums RuralUrban amp State
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
ECONOMIC CLASS MARKERS - ORDER OF ENTRY IN THE MODEL1 Number of Bathroons per capita
2 Telephones (acombinations between landlne cell etc)
3 Spouses education
4 Type of family
5 Head Household contributes to social security private pension
6 Washing machine
7 of bedrooms per capita
8 Headrsquos education
9 position on the spouse s job
10 school attendance of child(7 to 14 years)
11 school attendance of child (0 a 6 anos)
12 HH headrsquos job
13 Computer
14 Refrigerator
15 school attendance of child (15 a 17 anos)
16 type of home (own lease and financing)
17 Syndicalized Head
18 Freezer
19 of bedrooms per capita
20 Sewage
21 Radio
23 number of residents
24 Television
25 Garbage colected
26 age that the head started to work
27 number of rooms
28 share of labor income
Source CPSFGV based on microdata from PNADIBGE
Is it Sustainable
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Simulador de Renda Is it Sustainable
httpwww3fgvbribrecpsNCMSIM_PNAD_anos_RENDATOTrenda-enghtm`
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Is it Sustainable
The synthetic indicator of potential consumption power increased by 226 between 2003 and 2009 while the index of income generation raised 312 Difference of 38 in favor of the production side
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Present Satisfaction x Real GDP per capita
Brazil Denmark
2
y = 1E-04x + 44338
R2 = 06499
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Real GDP per capita
Italy
Togo
Present Life Satisfaction X Per Capita GDP PPP
Does money bring Happiness
Source Gallup World Poll ndash IADB project
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Life Today (2009)
28 - 3844
3844 - 4888
4888 - 5932
5932 - 6976
6976 - 802
No Data
Mapa Mundi de Felicidade Presente em 2009
Fonte CPSFGV a partir dos microdados do Gallup World Poll (Projeto Bid)wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Felicidade Presente 2009
Brasil
Russia China
India
Africa do Sul wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
BRICS Ranking de Indice de Felicidade Futura
Felicidade Em 2014 Em 2004 Em 2009
Paiacutes em 5 anos Haacute 5 anos Hoje
Lugar no Ranking 144 Paises
1 Brazil 87 6 7
46 South Africa 72 46 52
92 China 64 35 45
119 Russian Federation 6 51 52
128 India 57 45 45
Fonte CPSFGV a partir do Gallup World Poll 2009
wwwfgvbrcpsbrics
Felicidade Presente ndashSegundo o Gallup World Poll o
grau de satisfaccedilatildeo com a vida a meacutedia do Brasil em
2009 era 87 numa escala de 0 a 10 Superamos os
demais Aacutefrica do Sul (52) Ruacutessia (52) China (45) e
India (45) Mais do que isso o Brasil eacute o uacutenico dos
BRICS que melhora no ranking mundial de felicidade
saindo do 22ordm lugar em 2006 para 17ordm em 2009 entre
144 paiacuteses
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
12 Recommendations of Sarkozy Commission (1) More Detailed
1 When evaluating material well-being look at income and consumption rather than
production
2 Emphasize the household perspective
3 Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth
4 Give more prominence to the distribution of income consumption and wealth
5 Broaden income measures to non-market activities
6 Quality of life depends on peoplersquos objective conditions and capabilities Steps should
be taken to improve measures of peoplersquos health education personal activities and
environmental conditions In particular substantial effort should be devoted to
developing and implementing robust reliable measures of social connections political
voice and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction
7 Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a
comprehensive way
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
12 Recommendations of CMEPSP (Sarkozy) Commission (2)
8 Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life
domains for each person and this information should be used when designing policies
in various fields
9 Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions allowing the construction of different indexes
10 Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
peoplersquos quality of life Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture
peoplersquos life evaluations hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey
11 Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are
interpretable as variations of some underlying ldquostocksrdquo A monetary index of
sustainability has its place in such a dashboard but under the current state of the art it
should remain essentially focused on economic aspects of sustainability
12 The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators In particular there is a need for a clear indicator of
our proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated with
climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks)
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Stiglitz-Sen Report Recomendations Shorthttpwwwstiglitz-sen-fitoussifrdocumentsrapport_anglaispdf
To Emphasize
bull Household Flows (not only GDP)
bull Stocks of Wealth (in particular the Environment)
bull Distribution of Resources
bull Subjective Measures of Well-being
mcnerifgvbr
Marcelo Nerimarcelonerifgvbr 55-21-37996887
CPS amp EPGE Fundaccedilatildeo Getulio Vargas
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class
Learn more about the Center for Social Policies researches at wwwfgvbrcps
New Middle Class