THE WORKING POOR IN THE CARIBBEAN

Transcription

1 STATISTICAL REPORT ON THE WORKING POOR IN THE CARIBBEAN by the Labour Market and Poverty Studies Unit Department of Economics The University of the West Indies St. Augustine, Trinidad & Tobago 30 April 2006 ILO Subregional Office for the Caribbean i

2 International Labour Organization 2006 Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation, application should be made to the Publications Bureau (Rights and Permissions), International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland. The International Labour Office welcomes such applications. Libraries, institutions and other users registered in the United Kingdom with the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP [Fax: (+44) (0) ; cla@cla.co.uk], in the United States with the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA [Fax: (+1) (978) ; info@copyright.com] or in other countries with associated Reproduction Rights Organizations, may make photocopies in accordance with the licences issued to them for this purpose. Labour Market and Poverty Studies Unit, University of the West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago Statistical Report on the working poor in the Caribbean International Labour Office, Port of Spain, 2006 The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers. The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office of the opinions expressed in them. Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval. ii

3 Table of Contents Acknowledgements... iv 1. Introduction Project Objective Methodological and Definitional Issues... 2 THE WORKING POOR?...2 THE DATA SETS Incidence, Intensity and Structure of Poverty amongst Households... 8 INCIDENCE AND INTENSITY...8 STRUCTURE OF POOR HOUSEHOLDS...9 CHILD TO WOMAN RATIOS The Working Poor: How Many and Who Are They? HOW PREVALENT ARE THEY?...17 BOTH MEN AND WOMEN ARE AMONG THE WORKING POOR In Which Age Group Are They? What Jobs Do They Hold and in which Sectors? ECONOMIC ACTIVITY...21 OCCUPATION...22 TYPE OF WORKER How Many Hours Are They Working? Education Conclusions References Statistical Appendices THE BAHAMAS...30 BARBADOS...39 DOMINICA...56 GRENADA JAMAICA ST. KITTS AND NEVIS TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO iii

4 Acknowledgements This report was commissioned and sponsored by the International Labour Organization (ILO) Subregional Office. The researchers acknowledge and thank the Subregional Office. Particular mention needs to be made of Mr. Reynold Simons Senior Specialist, Employment and Labour Market Policies who coordinated the project, and the administrative staff at the ILO who provided support for the exercise. The report could not have been completed without their assistance and ongoing comments/feedback on conceptual issues and the draft report. The report benefited from the collaboration of a number of individuals, agencies and government statistical offices. Special thanks are due to the various national statistical offices, the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) and the Ministry of Planning and Development in Trinidad and Tobago for facilitating access to data sets. The statistical appendices for The Bahamas, Barbados, Guyana and Jamaica were compiled by contributing country analysts who were engaged by the ILO. Special thanks are due to them: Mrs. Leona Wilson (The Bahamas); Mr. Victor Browne (Barbados); Dr. John Appiah Mensah (Guyana); and Mrs. Carol Watson Williams (Jamaica). Finally, we thank the core members of the Labour Market and Poverty Studies Unit who worked on this document. Our sincerest appreciation goes out to Professor Karl Theodore the Coordinator of the Labour Market and Poverty Studies Unit for his insightful comments throughout the conduct of this exercise. The Unit also thanks Dr. Ewan Scott Assistant Coordinator of the Unit, lead author and principal investigator on this project. We acknowledge and thank Dr. Althea La Foucade for her invaluable contributions. We also thank the Secretariat and administrative staff of the Health Economics Unit (HEU) for all the support they so willingly provided on numerous occasions. iv

5 SUMMARY REPORT 1. Introduction It is almost axiomatic to say that the basic purpose of an economic system is to provide adequately for the members of the society in which the economy is sited. With this in mind, the concept of the working poor should be an oxymoron since work is about the joint provision of output and income. What the reality to which this report points therefore suggests, is that the economic systems of the Caribbean region remain severely challenged. The fact is that the working poor are not a mere abstraction of intellectual interest; they represent a group of persons in the society who, in more ways than one, may be falling through those cracks which represent the failure of the economic system. The value of the present report is therefore twofold. Firstly, it seeks to promote a better understanding of the profile and the living conditions of a substantial cohort of the population, and secondly, to facilitate the unraveling of the processes which produce poverty among households with definite links to the labour force. 2. Project Objective This project was undertaken as a background research paper to inform the Caribbean Employment Forum (CEF) which is being organized by the ILO Subregional Office and which is scheduled for the fourth quarter of The objective of this exercise is the production of a summary statistical report on the working poor covering selected Caribbean countries: The Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Trinidad and Tobago. The intention is that the report will provide the basis for the identification of critical issues facing employed persons, the labour market in general and the working poor in particular. 1

6 SUMMARY REPORT 3. Methodological and Definitional Issues The Working Poor? The working poor are those who work and who belong to poor households. More specifically, the working poor are defined as individuals engaged in either paid or self employment who belong to households with an adult equivalent per capita household expenditure (or income) that falls below a specified poverty line. 1 For the purposes of this study, the individual is the basis for establishing the working and not working classification; and the household is the basis for establishing the poor and nonpoor classification. With reference to the individual, the working status is limited to those who were employed during a specific reference period, either in paid, unpaid or self-employment and excludes the economically inactive and unemployed. With reference to poor households, the classification is based on adult equivalent per capita household expenditure that is below the poverty line. The following stepwise procedure was used for identifying poor households: 1. Determination of the total consumption expenditure (total income in the case of Barbados) for each household for the period under review weekly, monthly or quarterly as per survey; 2. Conversion of total consumption expenditure to daily equivalence (i.e. per day); 3. Determination of the household size in adult equivalence. This was achieved for each household by applying the relevant adult equivalence weight to each member of the household and then summing. The adult equivalence scale that was applied is that used by the World Bank, 2 as follows: adult 3 male (1), adult female (0.83), year olds (0.83), 5-9 year olds (0.7), 1-4 years (0.50), children under 4 years old (0.2); 1 "The Working Poor: Guidelines fro Statistical Analysis." An unpublished methodological working document used to ensure that all participating statistical agencies used the same conceptual and methodological approach and produced the same tables from the available micro data files. 2 M. Lipton: Poverty, undernutrition and hunger, World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 597 (The World Bank, Washington, DC, 1983). 3 For purposes of these weights, individuals 15 and over are classified as adults. 2

7 SUMMARY REPORT 4. Estimation of the adult equivalent per capita household expenditure by dividing daily consumption expenditure (from step 2) by the household size (from step 3); 5. Conversion of the adult equivalent per capita household expenditure into constant 2000 US$ using Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) as currency converters. 4, 5 The adult equivalent per capita household expenditure (aepche) figure was first adjusted for inflation to 2000 constant local currency. This was done using the following formula: aepche (2000) = aepche (survey year) * (CPI2000/CPI survey year). The PPPs for The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Guyana, St. Kitts and Nevis and Trinidad and Tobago are displayed below in table 1: COUNTRY PPP Table 1 Country PPPs POVERTY LINE LOCAL CURRENCY Bahamas, the ,861 (2001) 7.68 Barbados ,503 (1997) Dominica ,400 (2002) 7.51 Grenada (1999) 5.10 Guyana ,668 (1999) 6.26 St. Kitts and Nevis , (1999/2000) 6.53 Trinidad &Tobago , (1997) 5.07 NATIONAL POVERTY LINE IN US$ PPP PER DAY (2000 CONSTANT ) 4. A household was then deemed to be poor if the PPP converted adult equivalent per capita household expenditure (from step 5) was below the poverty line of US$1, US$2, or the National Poverty Line (which was also converted into 2000 constant PPP US$). 4 Purchasing power parity (PPP) is the number of currency units required to buy goods equivalent to what can be bought with one unit of the base country. Official exchange rates give a poor measure of relative price levels in different countries, especially countries at very different levels of development. Part of the difference results from trade barriers and transport costs, but a much greater part from different prices of non-traded items. In particular, labour-intensive services tend to be cheaper in poor countries, meaning that comparisons based on official exchange rates tend to exaggerate the differences in incomes between rich and poor countries the more so, the poorer the country. Using detailed information from price surveys, analysts have constructed purchasing power parity exchange rates which provide a more accurate picture of relative incomes in different countries. 5 The figures for each country are obtainable from the Penn World Table via the URL and following the instructions. 3

8 SUMMARY REPORT The Data Sets Microdata sets for Dominica, Grenada and St. Kitts and Nevis were obtained from the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB). The Trinidad and Tobago data set was accessed from the Ministry of Planning and Development. Country consultants/counterparts in The Bahamas, Barbados and Guyana worked through the various national statistical offices to access the data sets and produce the requisite estimates. In the case of Jamaica, the country counterpart accessed the microdata files via the Statistical Institute of Jamaica (STATIN) and the UWI/SALISES databank. The most recent, appropriate and accessible data sets were used. All of the data sets are based on representative samples. The questionnaires included questions on variables that are likely to be of interest with regard to poverty status. These included: age and gender; ethnicity; educational attainment; health status; employment characteristics; household characteristics heads of household (male or female); housing and ownership of assets. Table 2 provides a summary view of the source surveys and years for which estimates were derived. Further details for a selection of the countries are given in the text immediately following the table. Table 2 Summary of Survey Information COUNTRY SURVEY YEAR SAMPLE SIZE Households Individuals Bahamas, The SLC 2001 Barbados a LFS 1998; 2001; Dominica SLC Grenada SLC Guyana LCS 1999 Jamaica a SLC; LFS 1999; 2001; 2003 St. Kitts and Nevis SLC 1999/ Trinidad and Tobago* SLC LFS: labour force survey *: after cleaning a: unless otherwise stated the analyses are based on the 2004 for Barbados and 2003 for Jamaica. *: In the case of Trinidad and Tobago, the research was executed using the SLC 1997 data set. Field work has been completed for a 2005 SLC. However, at the time of writing, the researchers did not have access to the 2005 microdata set. 4

9 SUMMARY REPORT The Dominica SLC The Survey of Living Conditions in Dominica was executed in The data were collected from a systematic sample survey of the population. The sample frame was the 2001 census from which one in every ten occupied households in May 2001 was drawn for every second Enumeration District (ED) which amounted to 50 per cent or 150 EDs being sampled. Therefore, the original sample size was 1,182 households or approximately 5 per cent of a household population of 24,000. However, given a response rate of 86 per cent, valid questionnaires were received, generating a sample size of 4 per cent. Refer to table 3. Table 3 Geographic Distribution of Sample: Dominica Sample Census Hholds Hholds (1) (2) Sample size (1/2) % Roseau 212 4, Rest of St. George 57 1, St. John (excl. Portsmouth) 47 1, Portsmouth St. Peter St. Joseph 92 2, St. Paul 98 2, St. Luke St. Mark St. Patrick 100 2, St. David 92 1, St. Andrew 162 3, , Source: Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica, Country Poverty Assessment Final Report Volume 1 of 2: Main Report. Caribbean Development Bank. p. 6 The Grenada SLC A Survey of Living Conditions was conducted in Grenada in 1998 as one instrument of data collection for the Poverty Assessment Report. For this survey a two-stage stratified, systematic random sample selection approach was used. This generated an expected sample size of 6.5 per cent. This translated into an expected sample size of 1,443 households; however with an average response rate of approximately 74 per cent, the actual number sampled was 1,121 households or 4,061 individuals. 6 Vacant and closed dwellings are excluded. If these are included, the response rate will be 80 per cent. 5

10 SUMMARY REPORT The sample frame was divided into nine domains from which households were selected and information extracted. Refer to table 4. Table 4 Geographic Distribution of Sample Parish Expected Actual Response Rate (%) No of Households St. George s Town St. George s North St. George s South St. John s St. Mark s St. Patrick s St. Andrew s St. David s Carriacou Source: Kairi Consultants Ltd. Poverty Assessment Report: Grenada. Volume 2 of 2, Appendices. September 1999, p. 22 The Guyana LCS For the 1999 Guyana Living Conditions Survey (LCS), 219 enumeration districts (EDs) were selected from a sample frame based on the ten administrative regions in the country used in the 1991 population census. The sample size aimed at was ten households each from the 219 EDs. They were allocated between urban/rural areas in proportion to their respective population. Of the total, 64 per cent (141) were in the rural areas and 36 per cent (78) in the urban areas. The St. Kitts and Nevis SLC The Survey of Living Conditions in St. Kitts and Nevis was done for the period and constituted a random sample survey of the population. The actual sample size for St. Kitts was 8.5 per cent and for Nevis, 5 per cent. This amounted to 752 households or 2,346 individuals in St. Kitts and 148 households or 416 individuals in Nevis. The sample frame is representative of the population of St. Kitts and Nevis as it draws from all geographical and socioeconomical 6

11 SUMMARY REPORT strata of the islands. A sample was selected from each of the nine parishes of St. Kitts and five in Nevis. Refer to table 5. Table 5 Geographic Distribution of Sample: St Kitts and Nevis PARISH (ST. SAMPLE NO. PARISH (NEVIS) SAMPLE NO. KITTS) St. George 901 St. Paul s 27 St. Paul s 122 St. John 117 St. John 308 St. George 133 St. Anne 153 St. Thomas 67 St. Thomas 142 St. James 72 St. Mary 275 St. Peter 216 Christ Church 152 Trinity Kairi Consultants Ltd., 2001, pp. 80 and

12 SUMMARY REPORT 4. Incidence, Intensity and Structure of Poverty amongst Households Incidence and Intensity Cross-country analyses show poverty levels ranging from 0 per cent to 8.36 per cent of households at US$1 and US$2 per day for the countries shown in table 6. Dominica, Grenada and Guyana are the only countries registering poor households at or below US$1 per day while The Bahamas and Barbados are the only countries with no household living in poverty at US$2 per day poverty lines. Only one household was poor at US$1 per day in St. Kitts and Nevis. However, when we base the estimates on the derived national poverty lines we observe poverty rates ranging from 2.7 per cent of households in The Bahamas to per cent in Dominica. Details are provided in table 6 and the situation is depicted in figure 1. Table 6 Incidence of Poverty Among Households and Persons Percentage of Households Poor Poor US$1 US$ 2 NPL US$1 US$ 2 NPL Bahamas, The Barbados n.a n.a Dominica Grenada St. Kitts and Nevis Trinidad and Tobago Percentage of Persons Bahamas, The na na Barbados Dominica Grenada Jamaica na na na na St. Kitts and Nevis Trinidad and Tobago NPL: National Poverty Line = zero or negligible a: 2004 b: 2003 na: not available/estimated as part of this particular project. 8

13 SUMMARY REPORT Figure 1 Poor Households (Percentage) 25 % Bahamas Barbados Dominica Grenada St. Kitts & Nevis Trinidad &Tobago US$1 US$2 NPL Structure of Poor Households The structure of poor versus non-poor households is consistent with a priori expectations. Poor households tend to be larger and to have fewer employed members. Barbados is the lone exception. The results suggest a positive relationship between household size and poverty in The Bahamas, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis and Trinidad and Tobago. Figure 2 illustrates. With the exception of The Bahamas and St. Kitts and Nevis, households with heads who lived with their partners (married or otherwise) tend to have more members regardless of poverty status, that is, poor/non-poor. In the case of The Bahamas and St. Kitts and Nevis, poor, singlefemale headed households were likely to have more members. Refer to figure 2 for details. 9

14 SUMMARY REPORT Figure 2 Mean Household Size by Head Type Generally speaking, households are more likely to have one or two employed persons. However, there are some noteworthy exceptions. The most striking among these would be the case of poor households in Barbados where per cent reportedly have no employed members. In 10

15 SUMMARY REPORT Jamaica, 36 per cent of poor households have two employed members. Refer to table 7 below. In all cases, without exception, households with heads who lived with their partners had the highest mean number of employed persons in both the non-poor category and the poor category Refer to figures 3 5. Table 7 Distribution of Number of Employed Persons in Households (NPL) No. of Working The Bahamas Barbados Dominica Jamaica St. Kitts and Nevis Persons Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor The results in table 7 are interesting. Because of the traditional assumption of a strong link between poverty and unemployment in the Caribbean, we would have expected to see fewer employed workers in poor households. For four of the five countries on which data were presented, there is a strong similarity between poor and non-poor households. When we consider households with three or fewer workers we find that in Dominica 98.3 per cent of non-poor households were in this group, while the number for poor households was 98.7 per cent. For Jamaica the figures were 97.5 per cent and 96.3 per cent, respectively. The widest gap was in The Bahamas where we had 94.3 per cent of non-poor households having three or less workers, while only 67 per cent of poor households had this number of workers. 11

16 SUMMARY REPORT Of course, these results are consistent with an earnings distribution skewed in favour of non-poor households but it may also be a reflection of another finding of the report, namely the fewer hours worked by poor households. Figure 3 Mean Number of Employed Persons by Poverty Status by Head Type 12

17 SUMMARY REPORT Figure 4 Distribution of Employed Persons in Poor Households (NPL) Percentage of Households St. Kitts & Nevis Jamaica Dominica Barbados Bahamas Figure 5 Distribution of Employed in Poor Households (NPL) Percentage of Households St. Kitts & Nevis Jamaica Dominica Barbados Bahamas Child to Woman Ratios Child to woman ratios for different types of households for both the poor and the non-poor are displayed in figure 6. 7 As for the child dependency ratio, across countries and for all head types, the child to woman ratio is higher in poor households than in non-poor households. Except for 7 The child to woman ratio is defined as number of children divided by the number of working age females. 13

18 SUMMARY REPORT Grenada, single-male headed households that are poor have the highest child to woman ratio (as expected, given the calculation of the ratio). Poor single-female headed households have the second highest child to woman ratio for four of the six countries displayed; the exceptions are Dominica and Grenada. Figure 7 shows the child dependency ratios for different types of households for both the poor and the non-poor. 8 Across countries, child dependency is higher in poor households than in nonpoor households, regardless of the head type. With the exception of Dominica and Grenada, poor households that are headed by single females have the highest child dependency ratios. For Dominica and Grenada, it is poor households headed by couples that have the highest child dependency ratio. Single-male headed households that are non-poor are those that have the lowest child dependency ratios. The results for the child to woman ratio and the child dependency ratio together suggest that the number of children in a household or the fertility of women has a strong and significant effect on the poverty status of households. 8 The child dependency ratio is defined as number of children divided by number of working-age adults. 14

19 SUMMARY REPORT Figure 6 Child to Woman Ratio by Head Type by Poverty Status 15

20 SUMMARY REPORT Figure 7 Child Dependency Ratio by Head Type by Poverty Status: Selected Countries 16

21 SUMMARY REPORT 5. The Working Poor: How Many and Who Are They? How Prevalent Are They? The findings suggest that a significant number of employed persons are poor. The Bahamas and Barbados stand out as anomalies with 2.44 per cent and 3.74 per cent of poor employed persons respectively. An estimated 21.5 per cent of the employed population in Dominica were poor. The corresponding estimates for Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago were 18.8 per cent and per cent respectively. The data also show that 12 per cent of workers in St. Kitts and Nevis were poor with a corresponding per cent in Grenada and per cent in Guyana. Figure 8 Working Poor as a Percentage of All Workers: National Poverty Line % Bahamas Barbados St. Kitts & Nevis Trinidad & Tobago Jamaica Grenada Dominica Guyana Both Men and Women Are Among the Working Poor however, males dominate the working poor in the sample(s) being considered. Exceptions are St. Kitts and Nevis and Barbados. Refer to figure 9. The finding of male dominance among the working poor is particularly striking for Dominica and Trinidad and Tobago. Men account for per cent of the 21.5 per cent of workers who are poor in Dominica. In Trinidad and Tobago, working poor men comprise per cent of the employed population compared to 17

22 SUMMARY REPORT their female working poor counterparts who amount to just about 3.69 per cent of the employed. Further details are provided in figure 9. Figure 9 Male/Female Composition of Working Poor: National Poverty Line Countries Trinidad & Tobago St. Kitts & Nevis Jamaica Dominica Barbados Bahamas % Composition Female Male One may be tempted to conclude that this is not entirely surprising given that men dominate the employed population. However, this picture is further reinforced when we delve deeper into the intra-sex composition of the working poor/non-poor as illustrated in figure

23 SUMMARY REPORT Figure 10 Percentage of Employed Males and Employed Females Who Are Poor Trinidad & Tobago St. Kitts & Nevis Countries Jamaica Dominica Barbados Bahamas % Composition Female Male In both Dominica and Trinidad and Tobago, we observe a higher percentage of employed males who are poor (22.47 per cent and per cent respectively) compared with employed females who are poor (19.85 per cent and per cent respectively). This may not be entirely surprising given past observations of the changing dynamics including educational attainment across males and females in Trinidad and Tobago. However, there is clearly need for further analysis which goes beyond the purview of this brief synopsis. 6. In Which Age Group Are They? The working poor are clustered in the 25 to 44 age group. In all countries, the largest concentration of working poor is found in the 25 to 44 age group with this group accounting for 55.9 per cent of the working poor in Dominica, 49.7 per cent in Trinidad and Tobago and 40.7 per cent in Jamaica. However, this is not entirely surprising. This age group dominates the employed population as a whole and also accounts for the lion s share of the non-poor employed persons. Figures 11 and 12 illustrate for a selection of countries. 19

24 SUMMARY REPORT Figure 11 Age Distribution of Working Poor (%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Dominica St. Kitts & Nevis Trinidad & Tobago Figure 12 Age Distribution of Working Poor (%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Dominica St. Kitts & Nevis Trinidad & Tobago

25 SUMMARY REPORT 7. What Jobs Do They Hold and in which Sectors? Economic Activity The working poor are spread across all industries, but the data suggest that they are mostly found in four sectors agriculture, community and social services, construction, and the wholesale/retail sales sectors. A percentage breakdown of the kinds of economic activities pursued by the poor and the non-poor for selected countries is presented in figure 13. Figure 13 For all the countries presented, a larger percentage of the working poor are found in the agricultural sector as compared with the non-poor; for Dominica and Jamaica, the percentage ratio of poor to non-poor in the agricultural sector is 35:23 and 39:22 respectively. A similar situation is also evident for the construction industry with the exceptions of Barbados and St. Kitts. Although community and social services account for a large percentage of the working poor, in most cases this percentage is a bit smaller than for the non-poor. 21

26 SUMMARY REPORT Occupation Most of the working poor are found in elementary and agricultural occupations. Figure 14 shows that across countries, the percentage of the working poor in elementary occupations ranges from 57 per cent in The Bahamas to 19 per cent in St. Kitts and in all cases, this percentage is significantly higher as compared to the non-poor. A similar structure is also evident for agricultural occupations with this category accounting for 34 per cent of the working poor in Jamaica. Figure 14 22

27 SUMMARY REPORT Occupation by Gender A closer look at the occupations of the working poor via gender analysis reveals that working poor males dominate in agricultural occupations while their female counterparts are more dominant in services and shop sales and also in clerical occupations. Figure 15 Type of Worker For a selected number of countries, the structure of the type of worker is compared between the working poor and the non-poor in figure 16. The chart suggests that with the exception of Grenada, privately paid employees constitute a larger proportion of the working poor as compared to the non-poor. The opposite is true for government employees they are smaller in proportion among the working poor than among the non-poor. Own-account workers show no clear pattern in the comparison the relative proportion among the working poor is larger in 23

28 SUMMARY REPORT some countries and not in others. This category, however, is the largest among the working poor of Jamaica. Figure How Many Hours Are They Working? As may be expected, the working poor work fewer hours than their non-poor counterparts. The number of hours worked weekly by poverty status is charted for selected countries in figure 17. The comparison suggests that a small proportion of the non-poor work long hours (in excess of 50) but this proportion is large relative to that of the working poor. For Dominica, Jamaica and Trinidad, the proportion of the working poor that work 32 hours or less is larger than for the nonpoor. Together, these results suggest that the working poor spend less time working than the non-poor. 24

29 SUMMARY REPORT Figure Education Figure 18 gives a cross-country comparison of the level of education of the working poor versus the non-poor. It is evident that the working poor have lower levels of education in all cases the proportion of workers with primary or lower level education is much higher for the working poor than for the non-poor, while only a small proportion of the working poor has tertiary level education. 25

30 SUMMARY REPORT Figure 18 Notes: Barbados 2001 data. Vocational and Technical education grouped as Secondary ; College grouped as Tertiary. 10. Conclusions The aim of the study was partly to test the validity of traditional assumptions made about the poor and partly to learn new things about a particular group of households in the society. On this score the study confirms a few standard assumptions: poor households are larger than non-poor households and the dependency and child/woman ratios are higher among poor households. It also confirmed that there were more persons with lower levels of education in poor households and poor people tended to work in areas of the economy where lower skill levels were required. Among the things we learnt from the study were that the numbers are relatively large in some countries and that in terms of the number of workers per household there was little or no difference between poor and non-poor households. 26

31 SUMMARY REPORT These findings point to a need for further analysis. We need to know more about how the labour market determines access and availability of quality jobs. We also need to know how households respond to human capital acquisition in a job scarcity context where both employment eligibility and reward may reflect the influence of less formal criteria. Further, we will need to monitor the alignment of the system of education and training with the operation of the labour market. Finally, we need to determine the extent to which the findings of the study point to a better understanding of those factors which would cause the number of working poor in the different countries to trend downwards. 27

32 SUMMARY REPORT References Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica 2003: Country Poverty Assessment Final Report, Volume 1 of 2: Main Report. Caribbean Development Bank, Barbados. Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica 2003: Country Poverty Assessment Final Report, Volume 2 of 2: Appendices. Caribbean Development Bank, Barbados. Kairi Consultants Ltd.: St. Kitts and Nevis Poverty Assessment Report, Caribbean Development Bank, Barbados. Lipton, M.: Poverty, undernutrition and hunger. World Bank Staff Working Paper no The World Bank, Washington DC,

33 STATISTICAL APPENDICES STATISTICAL APPENDICES 29

34 STATISTICAL APPENDIX: BAHAMAS THE BAHAMAS 30

35 STATISTICAL APPENDIX: BAHAMAS Poor and Poor Households (2001) Distribution of Households (%) Urban/ Rural Status Poor Non poor Observations All Bahamas Urban Rural Distribution of No. of persons employed by household by poverty status (2001) No. of Employed Members Poor Poor All Households >= Observations Distribution of No. of jobs held by employed individuals by poverty status (2001) No. of Jobs Held Working Poor Working Poor All Employed Persons >= Observations

36 STATISTICAL APPENDIX: BAHAMAS Demographic Composition of Poor & Poor Households: All Bahamas (2001) Table 1 All Households 1. Male Child (0-14) Female Child (0-14) Adult Male (15-64) Adult Female (15-64) Old Child-Dependency Ratio ((1+2)/(3+4)X1000)) Child-Woman Ratio (Per 1000) Mean Household Size # of members employed Observations (households) Table 2 Married/ common-law couple 1. Male Child (0-14) Female Child (0-14) Adult Male (15-64) Adult Female (15-64) Old Child-Dependency Ratio ((1+2)/(3+4)X1000)) Child-Woman Ratio (Per 1000) Mean Household Size # of members employed Observations (households) Table 3 Single Male-Head 1. Male Child (0-14) Female Child (0-14) Adult Male (15-64) Adult Female (15-64) Old Child-Dependency Ratio ((1+2)/(3+4)X1000)) Child-Woman Ratio (Per 1000) Mean Household Size # of members employed Observations (households)

37 STATISTICAL APPENDIX: BAHAMAS Table 4 Single Female-Head 1. Male Child (0-14) Female Child (0-14) Adult Male (15-64) Adult Female (15-64) Old Child-Dependency Ratio ((1+2)/(3+4)X1000)) Child-Woman Ratio (Per 1000) Mean Household Size # of members employed Observations (households) Employed Worker-Population Ratios by Gender, Poverty Status Gender All Bahamas Urban Rural Nonpoor Poor Poor poor Poor poor Males Females Observations Distribution of the Working Poor by Gender, Employment and Marital Status: 2001 Table 1 Employment Status All Bahamas Urban Rural Male Female Male Female Male Female Employee- Government/ Government Corporation Employee- Private Self-employed Unpaid Family Worker Marital Status Married Common-law Divorced Separated Widowed Never Married Observations

38 STATISTICAL APPENDIX: BAHAMAS Distribution of Hours Worked of the Working Poor by Gender, and Urban/ Rural Status: All Bahamas, 2001 Hours Worked All Bahamas Urban Rural Male Female Male Female Male Female Observations Per 1000 Distribution of Employed Workers in Poor and Poor Households by Gender, Broad Economic Activity (2001) Table 1 - All Bahamas Urban Rural Economic Activity Nonpoor Poor Poor poor Poor poor Agriculture, Hunting, Forestry & Fishing Mining, Quarrying, Electricity, Gas & Water Manufacturing Construction Wholesale & Retail Hotels & Restaurants Transport, Storage & Communication Financing, Insurance, Real Estate & Other Business Services Community, Social & Personal Services Observations

39 STATISTICAL APPENDIX: BAHAMAS Table 2 Males All Bahamas Urban Rural Economic Activity Nonpoor Poor Poor poor Poor poor Agriculture, Hunting, Forestry & Fishing Mining, Quarrying, Electricity, Gas & Water Manufacturing Construction Wholesale & Retail Hotels & Restaurants Transport, Storage & Communication Financing, Insurance, Real Estate & Other Business Services Community, Social & Personal Services Observations Table 3- Females All Bahamas Urban Rural Economic Activity Nonpoor Poor Poor poor Poor poor Agriculture, Hunting, Forestry & Fishing Mining, Quarrying, Electricity, Gas & Water Manufacturing Construction Wholesale & Retail Hotels & Restaurants Transport, Storage & Communication Financing, Insurance, Real Estate & Other Business Services Community, Social & Personal Services Observations

40 STATISTICAL APPENDIX: BAHAMAS Per 1000 Distribution of Employed Workers in Poor and Poor Households by Gender, Major Occupational Group (2001) Table 1 - All Bahamas Urban Rural Occupation Nonpoor Poor Poor poor Poor poor Legislators, Senior Officials & Managers Professionals Technicians & Associate Professionals Clerks Service Workers and Shop and Market Sales Workers Skilled Agricultural & Fishery Workers Craft & Related Trade Workers Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers Elementary Occupations Observations Table 2 Males All Bahamas Urban Rural Occupation Nonpoor Poor Poor poor Poor poor Legislators, Senior Officials & Managers Professionals Technicians & Associate Professionals Clerks Service Workers and Shop and Market Sales Workers Skilled Agricultural & Fishery Workers Craft & Related Trade Workers Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers Elementary Occupations Observations

41 STATISTICAL APPENDIX: BAHAMAS Table 3 Females All Bahamas Urban Rural Occupation Nonpoor Poor Poor poor Poor poor Legislators, Senior Officials & Managers Professionals Technicians & Associate Professionals Clerks Service Workers and Shop and Market Sales Workers Skilled Agricultural & Fishery Workers Craft & Related Trade Workers Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers Elementary Occupations Observations Percentage Distribution of Employed Workers in Poor and Poor Households by Highest Level of Education completed, by Gender and Year, All Bahamas, 2001 Highest Level of All Households Poor Households Non poor Households Education Completed Male Female Male Female Male Female No schooling Primary School High School College/ University Technical/ Vocational Observations

42 STATISTICAL APPENDIX: BAHAMAS Poverty-Prevalence rates of Employed Workers by Urban/ Rural Status, Type of Worker and their Share in Employed Work Force and the Working Poor Table 1 All Bahamas Distribution of Employed Persons (%) Observations Distribution of Working Poor (%) Worker Non Poor Poor Employee-Government/ Government Corporation Employee- Private , Self Employed Unpaid Family Worker Not Stated , Urban Distribution of Distribution of Employed Persons (%) Observations Working Poor (%) Worker Non Poor Poor Employee-Government/ Government Corporation Employee- Private , Self Employed Unpaid Family Worker Not Stated , Table 3 - Rural Distribution of Employed Persons (%) Observations Distribution of Working Poor (%) Worker Non Poor Poor Employee-Government/ Government Corporation Employee- Private Self Employed Unpaid Family Worker Not Stated ,

43 STATISTICAL APPENDIX: BARBADOS BARBADOS Notes to tables Poor - Households below national Poverty Line (i.e. US$ per day: at 2000) - all Responding Households with Income Data * - 1st visits only to households # - Includes unpaid family workers, Apprentices, Not stated. 39

44 STATISTICAL APPENDIX: BARBADOS Distribution of Households by Poverty Status, Parish and Gender Parish Status * Male Female Male Female Male Female St Michael Poor Christ Church Poor St George Poor St Philip Poor St John Poor St James Poor St Thomas Poor St Joseph Poor St Andrew Poor St Peter Poor St Lucy Poor Table Poor

45 STATISTICAL APPENDIX: BARBADOS Distribution of Households by Poverty Status and Parish (Revised) (Using households with available Income data) Parish Status No. of Households % of Parish * * St Michael Poor % 17.6% 13.9% Christ Church Poor % 12.6% 9.0% St George Poor % 15.2% 9.3% St Philip Poor % 12.4% 8.5% St John Poor % 14.6% 12.3% St James Poor % 11.4% 6.1% St Thomas Poor % 14.5% 8.1% St Joseph Poor % 15.3% 16.8% St Andrew Poor % 22.4% 9.0% St Peter Poor % 10.0% 7.1% St Lucy Poor % 17.5% 14.7% Table Poor % 14.9% 10.7%

46 STATISTICAL APPENDIX: BARBADOS No. of Employed Members Poor and Poor Households Status Year: * poor Poor Sub Missing income data No. of Employed Members in Households by Poverty Status * Nonpoopoor Poor Poor Nonpoor Poor >= Observations % of households with employed members No. of * Employed Members >= % 100% 100% 42

47 STATISTICAL APPENDIX: BARBADOS Distribution of Employed Workers by Jobs held & Poverty Status Jobs Held household poverty status (Revised) Not in poor household in poor household Table No. % No. % No. % Year or more jobs job 5, , Not stated Table 5, , Year or more jobs job 8, , Not stated Table 8, ,

48 STATISTICAL APPENDIX: BARBADOS No. of Households by Poverty Status & Households Composition (1998) Classified by Households < US$13.84 Non poor households Poor households Table No. of Households No. % No. % No. % Married Male Head 1, , Married Female Head Single Male Head 1, , Single Female Head 1, , Table 5, , Classified by Households < US$13.84 Non poor households Poor households Table No. of Households No. % No. % No. % Married Male Head 1, , Married Female Head Single Male Head 1, , Single Female Head 1, , Table 5, , Classified by Households < US$13.84 Non poor households Poor households Table No. of Households No. % No. % No. % Married Male Head , Married Female Head Single Male Head , Single Female Head , Table ,