For Staff Use Only EPD INCOME DISTRIBUTION PROJECT DATA ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN SIERRA LEONE. Satish Kansal. Division Working Paper No.

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized EPD INCOME DISTRIBUTION PROJECT DATA ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN SIERRA LEONE Satish Kansal Division Working Paper No May 1982 Economic and Social Data Division Economic Analysis and Projections Department Economics and Research Staff The World Bank For Staff Use Only Division Working Papers report on work in progress and are circulated for Bank staff use to stimulate discussion and comment. The views and interpretations in a Working Paper are those of the author.

2 DATA ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN SIERRA LEONE (Summary) This paper evaluates Sierra Leone's Household Budget Survey, conducted during ,and the income distribution estimates derived therefrom. It then derives the adjusted estimates for and compares these with the estimates derived by Matlon, et al.(1979). I. Data Sources The basic data source for estimating the income distribution statistics for Sierra Leone is the Household Budget Survey conducted by the country's Central Statistical Office. The other source is the Household Budget Survey, conducted by the Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, in collaboration with the University of Sierra Leone. The survey was basically a rural household survey. However, it also collected data on urban household income as part of a study of rural-urban migration carried out in conjunction with the household survey. II. A Brief Description of the Survey The survey covered all households in the country. It was conducted during in urban areas and during 1969 in rural areas. For household income and expenditures, the previous month was used as the reference period. For certain items the data were collected for the past one year. The survey sample contained 3,331 households, constituting about 0.7 percent of total households in the country. Out of the total sample, 1,193 households were from urban and 2,138 from rural areas. A household was defined as a single person or group of persons living together who pool their resources to provide for food, clothing,

3 -2- housing and other living essentials. The survey report did not explicitly give the definition of household income. For income distribution purposes, household income covered-only monetary incomes. It excluded all non-monetary incomes received in-kind, home-produce consumption and the imputed rents of non-renter households. III. Evaluation of the Survey and Data Adjustments Although the survey sample included 1,193 urban and 2,138 rural households, the tabulated results were based on 912 urban and 1,768 rural households. This gave non-enumeration rates of 23 and 17 percent respectively in the two areas. We assumed that the distribution of enumerated sample households in each area was representative of that area. In the survey about 10 percent of urban and 9 percent of rural households had reported zero income. Many of these households, on the other hand, owned consumer durable goods like refrigerators, fans, sewing machines, etc. We distributed these households in the four lowest income groups as-their percentages owning durables were of the same order as those of these four income groups. The survey report gave only the distribution of households by monetary income classes and did not provide the corresponding distribution of household incomes. We estimated average incomes by using Mehran's Portable method which assumes Pareto distribution in each income interval. The average incomes so derived were only for monetary incomes and excluded all non-monetary incomes. The important exclusions were the consumption of own-produce and the imputed rents of non-renter households. We estimated average household nonmonetary incomes by utilizing the survey data on the distribution of household 4

4 -3- expenditures by income classes and added them to the monetary incomes in different income groups. IV. Derivation of Household Income Distribution The estimates of household income distribution as derived from the adjusted data are given in Tables 1 and 2. The original income distribution estimates, derived by the country's Central Statistical Office, are given in Table 3. The income inequalities implicit in the adjusted and original survey data are as follows: Household Income Inequality (Gini Ratio) Adjusted Original Urban Rural Combined The rural income inequality, based on the original survey data, was unrealistically high as it covered only monetary income. With adjustments for inclusion of non-monetary incomes and under-reported incomes, it was reduced from 0.60 to In urban areas too, the income inequality was considerably reduced -- from 0.52 to The World Bank's Social Indicator Data Sheets (SIDS), May 1981, gave income distribution data by selected percentiles of households. They seem to have been derived from the survey data without making any adjustments for non-monetary incomes. Table 4 compares the SIDS data on income distribution by selected percentiles of households with the similar data from the adjusted distribution.

5 -4- V. income Distribution Data in Matlon, et al. analyzed the survey data and worked out the rural and urban income distributions, ranking the households according to per capita/pe -onis-umer iftiomdd- -(Tabl'&'5).' Their estimates of income inequalities (Gini ratio) worked out to be 0.44 for urban and 0.38 for rural areas. They also derived a rural Gini ratio in which households were ranked accordinig to total household income. This showed a higher'inequality coefficient (0.41) as compared to the inequality when the ranking criterion was the per capita income (0.38). Assuming that the rural income inequality differential associated with two different ranking criteria is also applicable in urban areas, the urban household income ineq'uality as implied by Matlon, et al.'s estimate of urban inequality is around VI. Conclusion Due to various shortcomings in the survey and survey, their results are not strictly comparable. However, it may tentatively be observed that the income inequality showed a minor change between the two periods. While rural income inequality marginally declined from 0.44 to 0.41, the urban inequality slightly rose from 0.45 to 0.47 during to The data base of Sierra Leone's income distribution is relatively weak. Nevertheless, the adjusted income distribution data showed that the level of income inequality in Sierra Leone is of the same order as the inequality in other African countries. In 1976, the Central Statistical Office conducted a comprehensive household survey. With the availability of the survey results it is hoped that more reliable income distribution estimates will be available for a relatively recent period.

6 Source: Derived from Table 1., -5- Table 1: HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION, SIERRA LEONE, (Adjusted) Monthly household Urban Rural Combined income class % share of % share of % share of (Leones) Household Income Household Income Household Income above All classes Gini ratio Source: Derived from the adjusted survey data. Table 2: INCOME DISTRIBUTION BY DECILES OF HOUSEHOLDS, SIERRA LEONE, Cumulative Cumulative percentage share of income deciles of Urban Rural Combined households (95) (74.6) (73.1) (73.4)

7 Table 3: CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOME BY MONTHLY INCOME GROUPS, SIERRA LEONE,/a Urban Rural Urban a.nd Rurlal Monthly earnings Households Income Households Income Households i Income No income reported Less than 10 Leones Less than 20 Leones Less than 30 Leones Less than 40 Leones Less than 60 Leones Less than 80 Leones Less than 100 Leones Less than 200 Leones P3.9 All incomes Gini ratio /a Compiled from Household Budget Surveys, Source: National Accounts of Sierra Leone, to , Central Statistics Office, Freetown, Sierra Leone, June 1978 (p. 47). *,

8 -7- Table 4: INCOME DISTRIBUTION BY SELECTED PERCENTILES OF HOUSEHOLDS, SIERRA LEONE, Cumulative percent of households Percentage share of income SIDS.L/ Adjusted : Gini ratio / Income share of the lowest 60 percent of households is taken from the original source, UN Survey of Economic and Social Conditions in Africa, 1976, p

9 -8- Table 5: INCOME DISTRIBUTION BY DECILES OF HOUSEHOLDS SIERRA LEONE, Cumulative deciles of North Rural areas- South East Combined Urban- areas households Gini ratio /a Households were classified by average income per consumer unit. /b Households were classified by average per capita income. Source: Poor Rural Households, Technical Change and Income Distribution in Developing Countries, Two Case Studies from West Africa, by Peter Matlon, et al,, African Rural Economy Program, Working Paper No. 29, Michigan State University, Aichigan, August 1979.

10 LT... :x IpueddV * s-aueaea... suotisntu uod FA ZT...SL-~L6T ut e-4uc uot-2nqta-stq amo-alod 'A L...uom-Jnq,ajsFQ 8amoauj PToalsnOH jo uot.zumu sa a8tl pue squamisncpv qva 'tai... a.-ns 69-L96T aq4 go uot.lntvaa -III z uot:dt.iosse -39 V :AealnS iospng PTOqSsnoH.69-L96T 'II T... uoqonpoaz1ui -I SLNmLNOD AO MUEL

11 DATA ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN SIERRA LEONE I. Introduction This paper opens with an evaluation of the Household Budget Sutvey of , conducted by the Central Statistical Office of Sierra Leone, and the household income distribution statistics derived from it, addressing in part the survey's limitations. Subsequently, there is a discussion or the derivation of a relatively more representative household income distribution which was carried out by adjusting the survey data. The paper also contains an evaluation of the income distribution statistics that were derived from the Household Budget Survey conducted by the Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, in collaboration with the University of Sierra Leone a. Data Sources The data base for deriving household income distribution statistics in Sierra Leone, as in most African countries, is very weak. In Sierra Leone, the household income and expenditure survey is the major source of data for deriving a nationwide income distribution. However, in this survey, the data on household income, used to derive the distribution of households by income classes, were collected only for monetary income. Non-monetary income -- in kind, own-produce consumption and imputed rents of owner-occupied dwellings - were excluded. In a survey was conducted by Michigan State University. It was basically a rural household budget survey with a strong bias toward farm households - all rural households engaged primarily in trading activities

12 -2- were excluded. Although the survey covered both monetary as well as nonmonetary income, it excluded all transfer income. As part of a study of rural-urban migration that was carried out in conjunction with the household budget survey, data on urban household income were also collected. Thus, while the survey data on household income were not comprehensive in terms of household and income coverage, nonetheless they do give some idea of the level of inequality prevailing in mid-70s. In 1976 the, Central Statistical Office conducted another household budget survey. Unlike survey, it covered the monetary as well as nonmonetary income of households. The results of this survey, however, have not been available to the Bank, and as such it has not been possible to estimate the income distribution statistics for With the availability of the 1976 survey results in the near future, it should be possible to work dcat a household income distribution with a much sounder data base for a relatively recent year (1976). II Household Budget Survey a. Coverage The survey covered all households in the country. For the purpose of the survey, the country was divided into four administrative regions -- the Western area, the Northern province, the Eastern province and the Southern province.'/ In the Western area, the household budget survey was conducted during April January In the other three regions, urban 1/ The Western area has most of the urban population - the population in its rural zones accounts for only 7 percent of the total population. Thus in this paper the Western area is assumed to be wholly urban.

13 -3- and rural surveys were conducted during August - December 1968 and July January 1970, respectively. Thus the duration of the household survey was for urban areas and the latter half of 1969 for rural areas. b. Sample Design The survey followed a two-stage systematic sampling procedure using the 1963 population census as the sampling frame. In that census, the country had been divided into a number of small areas called Enumeration Areas. For the survey, the Enumeration Areas were selected as the first stage sampling unit, and all dwelling units in the selected Enumeration Areas were listed. In the second stage, dwelling units were selected following a systematic sampling, and all households in those dwelling units were interviewed on housing conditions. For the household budget survey, a proportion of these households were selected and interviewed. The household income and expenditure survey included 1,193 urban and 2,138 rural households in the sample. However, the total number of sample households used in the processing of the household budget survey results was 2,680 (912 in urban and 1,768 in rural areas), or about 0.6 percent of the total households in the country. c. Definitions A household was defined as a group of persons living together who pooled their income into a common fund to provide for food, clothing, housing and other living essentials. A single person living alone, independent of other households, constituted a separate househc'ld. The survey report did not explicitly define household income. For income distribution purposes, household income included only the monetary

14 -4- income received by household members. It excluded all non-monetary income -- in-kind, home-produced and consumed and imputed rents of owner-occupied dwellings., d. Reference Period and Survey Methodology The reference period for the household income and expenditure data was the month prior to the date of the survey. For certain items, data were collected for the past one year. Data were collected through interviews, with the enumerator filling out the questionnaire with the help of the head of the household and other household members. The figures were tabulated to show monthly average household income and expenditures. III. Evaluation of the Survey To derive household income distribution, the distribution of households and household income by different income groups must be available. In Sierra Leone, the survey reports gave only the distribution of households by different income classes and did not give the corresponding distribution of household incomes. In such a case, income distribution can be worked out by deriving average incomes, for example, by taking the mid-value of each income class or by assuming a theoretical distribution in each income interval. In this study, average income was estimated using Mehran's Portable method, which assumes a generalized Pareto distribution in each income interval.y Empirical studies in other developing countries have shown that Mehran's Portable method yields better estimates than does the mid-value method. 1/ Farhad Mehran, "Dealing with Grouped Income Distribution Data," WEP2-23/WP-20, ILO, Geneva, August 1975.

15 -5- a. Non-enumeration As noted, the tabulated results were based on 912 urban and 1768 rural households, resulting in non-enumeration rates of 23 and 17 percent respectively in the two areas. These high non-enumeration rates were reported to be the result of either vacant houses or a lack of cooperation by the households. No directly relevant data were available for assessing the bias introduced by these rates. Therefore, in this study, the distribution of enumerated sample households in each area was assumed to be representative of that area. b. Under-Coverage of Income As mentioned earlier, the survey reports gave the distribution of households by monetary income only. Non-monetary income was excluded from total household income, although households were classified in different income classes. The major non-monetary items to be excluded were the consumption of own-produce and the imputed rental income of non-renter households. Comparison of the survey estimates of average household income and expenditures showed that the former was considerably lower than the latter in both urban and rural areas: Urban Rural Average monthly household income (Leones) Average monthly household consumption expenditures (Leones) Income as percentage of expenditures This discrepancy of excess expenditures over income seems to be partly the result of the failure to cover non-monetary income and partly

16 -6- because of an under-reporting of household income by household members (see below). c. Under-Reporting of Income The survey data on the distribution of households by income groups showed that about 10 percent of urban and 9 percent of rural households reported zero income (Appendix Table A-1). The survey reports also gave the percentage of households in each income class which possessed various consumer durable goods. It was observed that many of the zero income households owned refrigerators, electric fans, sewing machines, etc., and that the percentages for their ownership of durables was on the same order as those in the four lower income groups (Appendix Table A-3). This suggests that the zero income households had under-reported their income and actually belonged to the four lower income classes. d. Comparison with National Accounts Data Strictly speaking, the survey estimates of total household income are not comparable with the national accounts estimate of total personal income, as the survey was conducted in in urban areas and in 1969 in rural areas, while the national accounts data referred to fiscal years (July through June). However, the comparison of the survey estimates of household income with the national accounts figures of personal income do give a broad idea of the level of income coverage in the survey!' (Table 1). 1/ The comparison will be affected by annual changos in the consumer price index and in personal income during It may not however, be too far off the mark as the changes in the price level were very small during this period (about 2 percent), and the figures of personal income approximately represented average income during

17 -7- Table 1: ESTIMATES OF AGGREGATE PERSONAL INCOME, SIERRA LEONE, (Millions of Leones) 1. Aggregate personal income (National AccountsIA Unadjusted aggregate household Ancome (Survey) Adjusted aggregate household income (Survey) as percentage of as percentage of ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ f18. 3.spretg /a This also includes the income of the private corporate sector, which, however, is likely to constitute a very small proportion of total private income. Source: Appendix Table A-4. The coverage of household income in the survey was about 59 percent of the national accounts figure for personal income. The low coverage was mainly the result of the exclusion of non-monetary income. With adjustments for the inclusion of that income (discussed in Section IV), the survey estimate of aggregate household income came to about 85 percent of the total income derived from the national accounts. IV. Data Adjustments and the Estimation of Household Income Distribution The survey reports did not give the estimates of households in the different areas of Sierra Leone. In this study, they were estimated by dividing the population figures (interpolated from the 1963 and 1974 population census data) with the average household size as shown in the

18 -8- different reports of the survey (Appendix Table A-5).1i The estimated number of households in the different areas, so derived, were then used to work out the combined income distribution in Sierra Leone. As mentioned earlier, about 10 percent of the urban and 9 percent of the rural households in the survey had reported zei'o income. This phenomenon indicated an under-reporting of income, as many of the households owned consumer durable goods. These groups were distributed equally among the first four lower income groups, given that the proportions of zero-income households owning dif-ferent du-rable goods -were-of- the-same order-of magnitude-as those of the four lower income groups. The survey data gave only the distribution of households by different income classes. Average household income in the different income classes was estimated using Mehran's Portable method, which assumes a Pareto distribution within each income intervals2/ However, the average incomes so derived were for monetary income only. The averages were therefore adjusted for the non-monetary income from imputed rents from non-renter households and own-produce consumption, utilizing survey data on the distribution of household expenditures by income classes. 1/ For rural areas the survey report gave average household size by three income classes. Here the average size for all rural households was worked out by taking their weighted average, tv. weights being the percentage of households in each class: above All classes Average size (estimated) % of households / The assumption that income distribution follows a Pareto distribution within each income interval in part takes care of the under-reporting of income by households.

19 -9- The survey reports gave the average rental value of non-renter households and the percentage of non-renter households to total households by income groups, separately, in rural and urban areas (Appendix Table A-6). These data were ut,ilized to estimate the average imputed rental income, which was added to the monetary income of the different income groups. The rural household survey report gave average household expenditures for food, of which about 80 percent was in-kind or home-produced 2. These were available for three broad income groups -- below 40 Leones, 40 to 100, and 100 and more. The average rural imputed income from own-produced consumption was estimated from the above data, assuming their percentage in total food expenditure as 90, 80 and 70 respectively for the three broad income groups. These figures were added to the monetary income in the different income groups. The adjusted average incomes used for deriving the income distributions are given in Appendex Table A-7. The household income distributions derived from the adjusted data are given in Appendix Table A-8. Tables 2 and 3 give the household income distribution by income classes and deciles of households, respectively, in Sierra Leone. The various adjustments resulted in a considerably reduced income inequality in both urban and rural areas. The Gini ratios implicit in the income distributions before and after the adjustments are as follows: 1/ The National accounts data for Sierra Leone showed that in about 75 percent of the total income in the agricultural sector was nonmonetary.

20 Table 2: HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION, SIERRA LEONE, (Adjusted) Monthly household Urban Rural Combined income class % share of % share of % share of (Leones) Household Income Household Income Household Income above All classes Gini ratio Source: Appendix Table A-8.. Table 3: INCOME DISTRIBUTION BY DECILES OF HOUSEHOLDS, SIERRA LEONE, Cumulative Cumulative percentage share of income deciles of Urban Rural Combined households (95) (74.6) (73.1) (73.4) Source: Derived from Table 2.

21 Urban Rural Unadjusted survey dat-a Adj,ist,e&.,s.urvey..dtab,,--.., The rural income inequality implicit in the original survey data was not only very high, it was about 15 percent higher than urban inequality. The adjusted survey data showed instead that rural income inequality was slightly lower than urban inequality. It would normally be expected that rural income inequality would be significantly lower than urban inequality. However, in Sierra Leone this may not be true because mining workers have relatively higher wages, and many come from rural areas and remit part of the income to their families in those areas. The World Bank's Social Indicators Data Sheets, 1981 (SIDS) gave Sierra Leone's income distribution data by selected percentiles of households. These were taken from the United Nations' Survey of Economic and Social Conditions in Africa, 1976 and referred to The UN report did not give the basic data source for the distribution, and they seem to have been derived from the household budget survey data without any adjustment for non-monetary income. The implicit income inequality measured by the Gini ratio in' the SIDS was 0.56 as compared to 0.45 in the adjusted data. Table 4 shows a comparison of the SIDS data on income distribution by selected percentiles of households with similar data from the adjusted distribution given in Table 3.

22 Table 4: INCOME DISTRIBUTION BY SELECTED PERCENTILES OF HOUSEHOLDS, SIERRA LEONE, Cumulative percent of households Percentage share of income SIDSA! Adjusted Gini ratio ' a/ The income share of the lowest 60 percent of the households was taken from the original source, UN Survey of Economic and Social Conditions in Africa, 1976, p. 75. V. Income Distribution Data in In , the Department of Agicultural Economics of Michigan State University conducted a household budget survey in collaboration with the University of Sierra Leone. The survey was basically a rural household budget survey, but urban household income data were also collected as part of a study of rural-urban migration being carried out in conjunction with the survey. The survey followed a two-stage stratified sampling procedure, using the Enumeration Areas of the 1963 census as the first stage unit and households within the selected Enumeration Areas as the second stage unit.

23 The number of sample households used when processing the survey results was 328 in rural and 322 in urban areas. The survey definition of household income covered both the monetary and non-monetary income of all household members. However, it excluded all transfer income in the form of remittances, gifts, etc. The rural survey was strongly biased toward farm households, as it systematically excluded all rural households primarily engaged in trading activities. Matlon./ analyzed the household income data and worked out the rural and urban income distributions by deciles of households, ranking the households according to average income per consumer unit in rural areas and according to per capita income in urban areas (Appendix Table A-9). Matlon's estimates of income inequality, as measured by the Gini ratio, worked out to be 0.44 for urban and 0.38 for rural areas. He also worked out the rural Gini ratio when households were ranked according to total household income. This showed a higher coc2ficient of income inequality (9.41) as compared to the inequality based on a ranking criterion of the per consumer unit income (0.38). His findings confirm the view that income inequality is generally lower when the households are ranked according to per capita (or per consumer unit) income rather than total household income. This result obtains because many households with high income and large size (but low per capita income) are 1/ Peter Matlon, et al. Poor Rural Households, Technical Change and Income Distribution in Developing Countries, Two Case Studies from West Africa, African Rural Economy Program, Working Paper No. 29, Michigan State University, Michican, August 1979.

24 - 14 classified in the lower per capita income classes. Similarly, many households with low income and small size (but high per capita income) are included in the higher per capita income classes. Thus the income shares of the lower decile households are increased, while those of the upper deciles are decreased, resulting in a lower income inequality. For urban areas, Matlon gave only the household income equality when households were ranked according to per capita income; he did not give income inequality when the ranking criterion was household income. Assuming that the rural income inequality differential under the two ranking criteria is also applicable in urban areas, urban inequality worked out at around 0.47 when households were ranked by household income. The household income inequality in Sierra Leone during and can be summarized as follows: Urban Rural VI. Conclusions This study evaluated Sierra Leone's Household Budget Survey data on household income and derived the adjusted income distribution statistics utilizing the survey data on expenditures. It also evaluated the Household Budget Survey data and income distribution statistics derived therefrom. Because of various shortcomings in the two surveys, their results were not strictly comparable. However, it may tentatively be observed that while rural income inequality declined marginally (from 0.44 to 0.41), urban inequality slightly rose from 0.45 to around 0.47 from to

25 The data base for household income distribution in Sierra Leone is relatively weak. Nevertheless, the adjusted income distribution data show that the level of income inequality is of the same order as the inequality in other African countries.- In 1976, Sierra Leone's Central Statistical Office conducted a comprehensive household survey. The results of this survey are not yet available. Once published, it is hoped that more reliable income distribution estimates will be available for a realtively recent period.

26 REFERENCES A Summary of the Findings of the Sierra Leone 1974 Population Census Analysis, UN Census Analysis Project, Central Statistical Office, Freetown, February Peter Matlon, et al., Poor Rural Households, Technical Change and Income Distribution in Developing Countries, Two Case Studies from West Africa, African Rural Economy Program, Working Paper No. 29, Michigan State Univ2rsity, Michigan, August Farhad Mehran, Dealing with Grouiped Income Distribution Data, WFP2--23/WP20, ILO, Geneva, August National Accounts of Sierra Leone, to , Central Statistical Office, Freetown, Sierra Leone, June Report on the Household Survey of the Western Area, November 1966 to January 1968, Central Statiistical Office, Freetown, Sierra Leone, July Report on the Household Survrey of the Northern Province, Urban Areas, March 1968 to January 1969, Central Statistical Office, Freetown, Sierra Leone, January Report on the Household Survey of the Southern Province, Urban Areas, March 1968 to January 1969, Central Statistical Office, Freetown, Sierra Leone, May Report on the Household Survey of the Eastern Province, Urban Areas, March 1968 to January 1969, Central Statistical Office, Freetown, Sierra Leone, October Report on the Household Survey of the Rural Areas of the Provinces, February 1969 to January 1970, Central Statistical Office, Freetown, Sierra Leone, May Sierra Leone, Prospects for Growth and Equity, Report No SL, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., July 31, Social Indicators Data Sheets, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., May National Accounts of Sierra Leone, to , Central Statistical Office, Freetown, Sierra Leone, June 1978.

27 /a Table A-1: CORULATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOME BY MONTHLY INCOME, SIERRA LEONE, Urban Rural Urban and Rural Monthly earnings Households Income Households Income Households. Income No income reported Less than 10 Leones Less than 20 Leones Less than 30 Leones Less than 40 Leones ! Less than 60 Leones H Less than 80 Leones : Less than 100 Leones Less than 20D Leones All incomes Gini ratio /a Compiled from the Household Budget Survey, P. Source: National Accounts of Sierra Leine, to , Central Statistical Office, Freetown, H Sierra Leone, June 1978, p. 47. DH,1'

28 Table A-2: HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION, SIERRA LEONE, (Partially adjusted)/a Urban Rural MIonthly household % of households % share income class Com- of income % of % share (Leones) West North South East bined (combined) household of income No income ! above All classes Average monthly household income /a Average incomes in different income classes were estimated using Mehran's Portable method..source: Different reports on the Household Survey of Income and Expenditures, Central Statistical Office, Freetown, Sierra Leone,

29 Table A-3: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS OWNING DURABLE GOODS, SIERRA LEONE, Monthly household Western Area (Urban) Northern Province (Urban) income class Refrige- Electric Sewing Gramo- Refrige- Sewing Gramo- Radio (Leones) rator fan machine phone rator machine phone No income reported ) ) ) ) above All classes Source: Different reports on. the Household Budget Survey, Central Statistical Office, Freetown, Sierra Leone,

30 Table A-3: PERCENTAGE OF IIOUSEIIOLDS OWNING DURABLE COODS, SIERRA LEONE, (CONT'D) Monthly houselhold Southern Province (Urban) Eastern Province (Urban). Rural areas inconm class Refrige- Electric Sewing Gramo- Refrige- Sewing Gramo- Radi Refrige- Electric Electric (Leones) rator iron machine phone rator machine phone rator iron fan No incomue reported a o above All classes Source: Different reports on the lhouselhold Budget Survey, Central Statlstical Office, Freetown, Sierra Leone, L..

31 Table A-4: ESTIMATES OF AGGREGATE PERSONAL INCONE, SIERRA LEONE, National Accounts (Millions of Leones) 1. Gross domestic product at market prices Private consumption expenditures Government consumption expenditures Domestic savings Government savings on current account Private savings (4-5) Personal income/a (2 + 6) Survey Data Unadjusted Unit Urban Rural Combined 8. Average annual household income Leones Average Household size Number Average annual per capita income (8. 9) Leones Population Millions , ,450.C; 12. Aggregate household Millions of income (10 x 11) Leones Adjusted 13. Average annual household income Leones Average annual per capita income (13 * 9) Leones Aggregate household Millions of income (14 x 11) Leones /a Includes private corporate income. Source: 1. National Accounts of Sierra Leone, to , Central Statistical Office, Freetown, Sierra Leone, 1971.

32 Table A-5: ESTIIATES OF POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS, SIERRA LEONE, (thousands) /a Household size- Households (estimated) (numbers) (estimated) Census Census Total Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Western Area /b Northern Area 898 1, Southern Area Eastern Area All Sierra Leone 2,181 2,735 2, , /a Derived from the Household Budget Survey data. /b Included in urban areas. Sources: 1. Sierra Leone, Prospects for Growth and Equity, Report No SL, The World Bank,, Washington, D.C., July A Summary of the Findings of the Sierra Leone 1974 Population Census Analysis, UN Census Analysis Project, Central Statistical Office, Freetown, February

33 Table A-6: AVERAGE MONTHLY IMPUTED RENTAL VALUE OF NON-RENTER HOUSEHOLDS, SIERRA LEONE, (in Leones) Monthly household Urban areas Rural income class Western Northern Southern Eastern real Area Province Province Province ars No income reported above % of non-renter households Source: Derived from different reports on the Household Budget Survey, Central Statistical Office, Freetown, Sierra Leone ( ).

34 Table A-7: ADJUSTED MONTHLY TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOMF,, SIERRA LEONE, (in Leones) Motl oshl.urban areas Rural Average Monthlyhousehold, Western- Northern--Southern- Eastern h-ousehold income monetary income Province Province Province Province areas (unadjusted) /a class above /a Derived using Mehran's Portable method, which assumes a generalized Pareto distribution within each income interval.

35 Table A-8: ADJUSTED HOUSEIIOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION, SIERRA LEONE, y household Urban areas Rural areas ome class Western areas Northern Province Southern Province Eastern Province All urban Leones) Household Income Household Income Household Incoame Household Income Household Income Household Income B r above lasses ratlo lold income (Leones) ted total houueholds 0) Derived from Appendix Tables A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-7. 4.

36 Table A-9: INCOME DISTRIBUTION BY DECILES OF HOUSEHOTLDS SIERRA LEONE, Cumulative Rural areas/ Urb art deciles of North South East Combined areas h ouseholds M O Gini ratio /a Households were classified by average income per consumer unit. /b Households were classified by average per capita income. Source: Peter Matlon, et al., Poor Rural Households, Technical Change and Income Distribution in DeVeloping Countries, Two Case Studies from West Africa, African Rural Economy Program, Working Paper No. 29, Michigan State University, Michigan, August I..,