1 / 24

Accounting for the Diversity of Rural Income Sources in Developing Countries: The Experience of t h e RIGA Project

Accounting for the Diversity of Rural Income Sources in Developing Countries: The Experience of t h e RIGA Project. Katia Covarrubias, Ana Paula de la O & Alberto Zezza ESA Wye City Group Meeting on Statistics on Rural Development and Agriculture Household Income Rome, June 11-12, 2009.

tia
Download Presentation

Accounting for the Diversity of Rural Income Sources in Developing Countries: The Experience of t h e RIGA Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Accounting for the Diversity of Rural Income Sources in Developing Countries: The Experience of the RIGA Project Katia Covarrubias, Ana Paula de la O & Alberto Zezza ESA Wye City Group Meeting on Statistics on Rural Development and Agriculture Household Income Rome, June 11-12, 2009

  2. The Rural Income Generating Activities Project • Database of 34 living standards surveys • Outputs: • Income Aggregates • Household Level Indicators • Access to capital • Demographic indicators • Additional analysis-specific indicators • Methodological Goal: Consistency and Comparability

  3. RIGA Data: 34Survey Countries • Africa • Ghana GLSS (1992, 1998*) • Kenya KIHBS (2005) • Madagascar EPM (1993, 2001) • Malawi IHS (2004*) • Nigeria (2004*) • Asia • Bangladesh IHS (2000*, 2005) • Cambodia SES (2004) • Indonesia FLS (1992, 2000*) • Nepal LSS (1996, 2003*) • Pakistan HIES (1991, 2001) • Vietnam LSS (1992, 1998*, 2002*) • Eastern Europe/Central Asia • Albania LSMS (2002, 2005*) • Bulgaria IHS (1995, 2001*) • Tajikistan LSMS (2003*, 2007) • Latin America • Bolivia EH (2005) • Ecuador ECV (1995*, 1998) • Guatemala ENCOVI (2000*, 2006) • Nicaragua EMNV (1998*,2001*) • Panama ENV (1997, 2003*) * Labor Data also Available at the Individual and Job Levels

  4. Income Aggregates: Defining Income Income must: • Occur regularly • Contribute to current economic well-being (available for current consumption) Income must not: • Arise from a reduction in current net-worth • Arise from an increase in household liabilities Source: ILO, Resolution I “Resolution concerning household income and expenditure statistics” Available from: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/download/res/hiestat.pdf

  5. Income Aggregates: Basic Characteristics • Household-level • Labor data also available at the Job and Individual levels • Annual • Wage income data: also for daily and monthly time frames • Net of costs • Purchases and sales of durables, investments and windfall gains excluded • Local currency units • Rural (and urban) • Outlier checks

  6. Issues and Lessons Learned Income Estimation

  7. Dependent Wage Income agricultural non-agricultural Independent Crop Livestock Self Employment Transfers public private Other Sources Components of Total Household Income

  8. Total Household Income Classifications Total Income: Agricultural: Agwge + Crop + Livestock Non-agricultural: Nonagwge + Selfemp + Transfers + Other On-farm: Crop + Livestock Off-farm: Agwage + Nonagwge + Selfemp + Transfers + Other Non-farm: Nonagwge + Selfemp

  9. Crop Agwage Livestock Transfer Other Nonagwage Selfemp Total Household Income Agricultural On-farm Off-farm Non-Agricultural Non-farm

  10. Dealing with Costs Issue: Dealing with investment/durables expenditures • Misclassification: bias total income • Example: raw materials purchases (Albania; Vietnam) Recommendations: • Clear classification of costs in survey instrument • Appropriate choice of reference periods and frequencies

  11. Gross versus Net Issue: Inconsistent reporting & estimation of gross/net income Recommendations: • In Qx: deductions and taxes should be asked about and reported • In income estimation: • Net: agricultural, self-employment and wage income • Gross: rental income and transfer income

  12. Issues and Lessons Learned Questionnaire Design

  13. Reference Periods Issue: Defining appropriate reference periods • Choice of Short v. Long • seasonal fluctuations • relevance to recall error • link to survey timing • phrasing of questions Recommendations: • Reference periods should reflect frequencyof Inc/Exp • Short: Regular or frequent sources (food exp, wages, etc.) • Long: Infrequent sources (business costs; ag inputs, etc.)

  14. Units & Coding Issue: Comparability and Standardization of Units and Coding • Variability of unit reporting • Lack of equivalence scales in data and documentation • Inconsistency in units and codification of items across survey modules • Agricultural Production and Food Expenditure modules Recommendations: YES to local unit reporting but: • Inclusion of equivalence scales • Consistency in codification within/across survey modules

  15. Lessons Learned From Key RIGA Results

  16. RIGA Results: Main Components of Rural Household Income

  17. On-farm income falls and Non-farm rises... ...with increasing per capita GDP levels.

  18. RIGA Results:Diversification of Rural Household Income Defining Specialization and Diversification: • Specialization >= 75% • Diversification <75% Influenced by survey timing and reference period: • seasonal diversification • individuals member diversification

  19. Rural income diversification is the trend

  20. On-farm specialization falls with PCGDP ...but Non-agricultural wage specialization rises.

  21. RIGA Results: Defining the Agricultural Household • “Rural” as “Agricultural” • lack of data to create comparable rural definition • urban agriculture • dwelling versus job location • diversity of rural economy • Thresholds of income • Non-zero (basic participation) • Higher cut-offs • Occupation of the household head

  22. RIGA Results: Sensitivity and Criteria in Agricultural Households Definition Source: Aksoy, et al. (2009)

  23. Summary and Conclusions • Estimation of Income • Various approaches for characterizing household income • Costs classification • Reporting of deductions/taxes relevant • Questionnaire Design: • Reference periods should reflect frequencyof income and expenditures • Need for equivalence scales/conversion factors • Unit and coding consistency within surveys. • Analysis: • Different definitions of agricultural household exist; generate differing characterization of results

  24. Thank You!Questions?

More Related