olga grigorieva and pavelgrigoriev - lse home€¦ · olga grigorieva and pavelgrigoriev max planck...

Olga Olga GrigorievaGrigorieva and and PavelPavel GrigorievGrigoriev

Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research,Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research,

Rostock, GermanyRostock, Germany

BSPS Conference 2008BSPS Conference 2008

Manchester, 10Manchester, 10--12 September12 September

E-mail: [email protected]

Do the official data indicating the improvement of

welfare of the population reflect the reality?

� Living arrangement of HH;

� Income and expenditures of HH;

� Poverty incidence.

� Index of living standards (ILS) computed by means of

the Principal Components Analysis;Principal Components Analysis;

�� Different approaches of poverty measurement (income Different approaches of poverty measurement (income

based, energybased, energy--intake based);intake based);

�� Equivalence scales.Equivalence scales.

Income and Expenditures of the Households sample survey

(IEHS), 2000-2007.

Composition of Households:

Single = 24.5%

HH with children = 37.5%

HH without children = 38%

Demographic Characteristics of HH, 2007

525281females

657557Place of residence: urban

352543rural

484819Share of: males

564164Average age of a head of HH, years

492762Average age, years

HH without

children

HH with

children

Single HH

Percentage Distribution of HH by Type of Housing;

2000 and 2007

2.3 3.70.4

32.1

61.5

Separate apartment

Separate house

Communal apartmentPart of house

Dormitory

59.430.1

0.5

4.75.3

2000 2007

Percentage Distribution of HH by Type of Housing; 2007

4.7 2.51

39.752.2

Separate apartment

Separate house

Communal apartmentPart of house

Dormitory

Single

6.2 9.2

0.3

22.361.9

5.2 2.10.2

33.459.1

HH with children

HH without children

6% in

2000

2% in

2000

Living Arrangements of HH

Per capita living space (sq.m):

Percent of HH Equiped with Selected Supplies

(2007)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Single HH HH with children HH without children

%

central heating hot water

bath or shower telephone

2000 2007

Single HH 47 50

HH with children 15 15

HH without children 32 26

Living Arrangement of HH (cont.)

Percent of Households Possessing Selected Durable Goods, Car and Land-Plot

(2007)

0

20

40

60

80

100


%

TV Fridge Washing machine Car Land-plot

Percent of Households Using Possessed Durables for 10 years and more (2007)

0

20

40

60

80

100


%

TV Fridge Washing machine Car

Index of Living Standards (ILS)

� Housing supplies: central heating, bath or shower, hot water and

telephone;

� Ownership of durable goods: TV, refrigerator, washing machine and car;

� Possessing of a land-plot;

� Per capita living space;

� Share of food expenditures in total custom expenditures.

The last two measures are included as a comparison with their median

levels.

Average value of ILS (2007):

Single HH= - 0.507

HH with children= 0.342

HH without children= - 0.010

The difference is manly caused by:

•presence of a car or washing

machine;

•size of living space and share of

food expenditures.

Composition of HH Income, 2007 (%)

53

8372

Wages and salaries

Pensions, grants and benefits

Receipts from sale of agricultural products

Other money receipts

12

9

78

1

29

5

65

1

Single HH

HH without children

HH with children

Composition of Consumer Expenditures of HH; 2000, 2007

6554

24 19

60

16

15 19 17

4 3 4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Single HH HH with

children

HH without

children

Alcohol

Paid services

Non-foods

Foodstuffs

38

1830 26

5142

293028

323

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Single HH HH with

children

HH without

children

2000 2007

Poverty Measurement: Official Approach

Poverty measurement in Belarus is based on the Law “On the

Subsistence Minimum” (1999). The poor are those with level of

income below the minimum subsistence level.

2 issues:

� Use of disposable resources as the indicator for poverty measurement;

� The composition of the minimum subsistence level (a set of material

goods and services necessary to meet minimum physiological and

social need of people).

is used in Belarus as a substitution of disposable resourcesAn indicator of

: It comprisesincome.

- total amount of money spend for consumption and savings,

- the value of consumed in-kind income obtained from the land plots,

- the value of in-kind subsidies and benefits.

Poverty Incidence, 2000-2007

Poverty Rates by HH Type; Belarus, 2000-2007

0

15

30

45

60


%

2000 2003 2005 2007

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2000

2003

2005

2007

%Single HH HH with children HH without children

Poverty Composition by HH Type;

Belarus, 2000-2007

In 2007, 36% of

HH had income

close to poverty

level.

21

44

23

36

40 31

42

1825

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Single With children Without children

1 -3 4 -9 10 -12

2000 2007

Distribution of HH by Number of Months

of Being Poor in a Year; 2000 and 2007 (%)

63 61

38

66

3035

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


1 -3 4 -9 10 -12

Poverty Incidence; 2000 and 2007

62

17

48

34

20

10

2

2430

52

94 6

108

64

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Official

approach

Based on

food

expenditures

Relative

poverty

Official

approach

Based on

food

expenditures

Relative

poverty

%


Relative poverty: poverty line = 60% of the median income

Based on food expenditures: poverty line = 60% of the food expenditures

out of total expenditures

2000 2007

Scaling of Poverty Indicators

2 types:

Engel model: based on the share of food expenditures. Scales are constructed using regression analysis where the dependence of the food expenditures is established on HH disposable resources and HH size. 4.25 persons and

more

2.74 persons

2.13 persons

1.52 persons

1.01 person

Equivalent

HH size,

Engel model

Actual HH

size

OECD equation:

Ne= 1 + (Na – 1) *0.7 + 0.5*Nc

where Ne – is the adjusted HH size

Na – is the number of adults in HH

Nc – is the number of children in HH

Headcount Poverty Indexes, 2007 (%)

2 2 2

10

2 2

4

1 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

Before adjustment After adjustment (Engel

model scales)

After adjustment (OECD

scales)

%


Consumption of Basic Foodstuffs; 2000 and 2007

(per capita quantity consumed per year; kg)

176

96

151

4457

17 11 15

134

78

129

71

39 3858

101108

39

0

40

80

120

160

200


kg

136

75

107

7156

78

2313 22

98

59

8567

119

67

101

4957

0

40

80

120

160

200


kg

Bread and bakery Meat products Fish products

Potatoes Vegetables Fruits

2000

2007

Chemical Composition and Caloric Value of Consumed

Products; 2000 and 2007 (per capita quantity consumed per day)

299

6995

255

445

155110

536

154111 90

69

353

13497

424

127127

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Protein Fats Carbohydrates Protein Fats Carbohydrates


Caloric Value, kcal 2000 2007

Single 3983 3616

HH with children 2286 2143

HH without children 3229 3002

2000 2007

Poverty Rates, 2007 (%)

Poverty lines:

Belorussian approach = 2470 kcal;

WHO approach = 2100 kcal.

16314

HH without

children

537210

HH with

children

8162Single HH

Food energy

intake approach

(WHO)

Food energy intake

approach

(Belorussian)

Income-based

approach

Concluding Remarks

Significant increase in poverty rates;

HH with children are affected at most.

Food-energy approach

Almost equal poverty rates for all HH typesScaling

Poverty is the highest among HH with childrenRelative poverty

Single HH have the highest poverty incidencePoverty based on share of

food expenditures

Decrease in poverty; HH with children are the most

vulnerable

Income-based poverty

On average, HH with children have better living

arrangements

Living arrangements

The income-based approach is not sufficient for the impartial assessment

of welfare and poverty among HH. So, a number of important aspects,

such as living arrangements, nutrition, etc., should be taken into account

for more realistic picture.

olga grigorieva and pavelgrigoriev - lse home€¦ · olga grigorieva and pavelgrigoriev max planck...

Documents