Poverty profile: Technical notes and statistics
Report No. 27192-AM
Armenia: Poverty Assessment
(In Three Volumes) Volume III: Technical Notes and Statistics
November, 2003
Human Development Sector Unit
Europe and Central Asia Region
Document of the World Bank
| |
FISCAL YEAR
January 1 - December 31
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
Currency Unit = Armenian Dram
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Metric System
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
|CIS – Commonwealth of Independent States |FSU – Former Soviet Union |
|ECA – Europe and Central Asia |EPEAS - Education, Poverty, and Economic |
|FPB – Family Poverty Benefit |Activity Survey |
|GDP – Gross Domestic Product |AHDS – Armenia Health and Demographic |
|ILSC – Integrated Living Conditions Survey |Survey |
|PRSP – Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper |MOH – Ministry of Health |
|WB – World Bank |IMR – Infant Mortality Rate |
| |MMR – Maternal Mortality Rate |
| | |
| | |
|Vice President: |Shigeo Katsu, ECAVP |
|Country Director: |Donna Dowsett-Coirolo, ECCU3 |
|Sector Director: |Annette Dixon , ECSHD |
|Sector Manager: |Michal Rutkowski, ECSHD |
|Team Leader: |Aleksandra Posarac, ECSHD |
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5
Annex I: Poverty profile 7
(i) Household data sources and their comparability 7
(ii) Definition of consumption and poverty lines 8
(iii) Poverty profile – descriptive statistics 11
(iv) Poverty regressions 25
Annex II: Non-Income dimensions of poverty 34
A. Education: technical notes and statistics 34
B. Living conditions: statistics 39
Annex III: Demographics, migration and labor market 41
(i) Labor market indicators between LFS and LSLC 2001 41
(ii) Statistical tables 42
Annex IV: Social protection 44
(i) Proxy-means targeting in Armenia 44
(ii) Statistical information 48
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Armenia Poverty Assessments is a collective effort of a team lead by Aleksandra Posarac (ECSHD) assisted by Edmundo Murrugarra (ECSHD). The multi-sectoral team comprised: Lev Freinkman (macroeconomic developments), Julia Bucknell and Villiam Sutton (rural developments), Hellen Shahriari (subjective aspects of poverty), Dilnara Isamiddinova, and María Eugenia Bonilla Chacín (education), all from the World Bank, and consultants Gorana Krsitc (poverty profile, labor market), Paulette Castel (rural developments, private transfers), Stefania Rodica Cnobloch (health), Artsvi Khachatryan (macroeconomic developments) and Hjalte Sederlof. Following a series of team discussions and consultations with the client, this Report was put together by Aleksandra Posarac and Hjalte Sederlof. A number of people contributed by commenting on various drafts and generously providing information: Mark Lundell, Ellen Hamilton, Julian Lampietti, Susanna Hyrapetyan, Peter Nicholas, Mansoora Rashid, Toomas Palu, Toby Linden, and Jan Rutkowski. The team owes a special gratitude to the National Statistical Service of Armenia, as well as UNICEF and UNDP Offices in Armenia for cooperation and generous sharing of information.
Annex I: Poverty profile
(i) Household data sources and their comparability
The poverty profile is based on the latest available data set for Armenia, Integrated Living Conditions Survey (ILCS) conducted throughout year 2001. The sample size included 4,037 households. The questionnaire comprises sections on household composition (including limited information on labor market status), housing conditions, migration and transfers between households, education, health, agriculture, savings and borrowing, and social assistance. It includes also a diary of expenditures and consumption during last 30 days and a section on annual consumption. The survey provides the basis for comparison of poverty measurements with the 1998/99 estimates which were based on ILCS carried out in the period between July 1998 and June 1999. Previous comparisons of poverty indicators between 1996 and 1998/99 were limited due to differences in the welfare measure available for poverty analysis and time period of the survey.[1]
Table I.A.1 provides information on sample size, period of the survey, sampling frame and design, and questionnaire design of the two latest surveys that are used for poverty comparisons between 1998/99 and 2001. Given that both surveys were carried over a 12-month period, seasonal fluctuations will not affect comparisons of poverty measurement results. The main drawback of both surveys is the sampling frame, which is based on the Armenian households’ addresses data base complied in 1996 by the National Statistical Service. Because of intense internal and external migration, the sample is believed to be outdated.[2] The ILSC 2001 sample design was affected by new sampling strategies across urban, rural areas and the capital city of Yerevan. In addition, we found that urban areas were over-represented in the 2001 ILCS data. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the urban/rural structure was not changed significantly in between the two surveys. This is corroborated by the results of the Educational Survey conducted by the UNDP in 2001, which revealed very similar structure of urban and rural areas (Table I.A.2). Therefore, poverty estimates for 2001 used urban/rural structure from 1998/99 ILCS data.
Table I.A.1: Armenia: Integrated Living Conditions Survey
| |ILCS 1998/99 |ILCS 2001 |
|Sample size |3,600 households |4,037 households |
|Survey period |July 1998 - June 1999 |January 2001 – December 2001 |
|Sampling frame |1996 data base on households’ addresses |1996 data base on households’ addresses |
|Sampling design |representative at urban/rural levels |representative at Yerevan/other urban/rural levels |
|Questionnaire design|- all information for constructing consumption |- all information for constructing consumption aggregate |
| |aggregate exist; |exist; |
| |- a module on employment exists; |- a module on employment does not exist; |
| |- a separate module for self-employed. |- a separate module for self-employed does not exist; |
The 2001 survey contains all information necessary for constructing consumption aggregate comparable with consumption aggregate used in 1998/99 poverty analysis (World Bank, 2002a). While the questionnaire was kept relatively similar in both surveys, some differences between some modules are observed. In contrast to 1998/99 ILCS, the 2001 round has limited information necessary for imputation of the rental value of housing in constructing the consumption aggregate. Also, information on the employment status of individuals is limited in 2001 round (with no module on self-employment household members), which might affect comparison of poverty by employment categories between the two surveys. Given the fact that the new Labor Force Survey (LFS) in Armenia was conducted in 2001 with the six-month rotation along with the ILCS, further insight into relationship between poverty and labor market can be provided using the latest available LFS data.
Table I.A.2: Urban-rural structure by data source
| |ILSC |Education Survey |
| |99/98 2001 |2001 |
|Urban |60.56% |67.90% |58.07% |
|Rural |39.44% |32.10% |41.93% |
Source: ILCS 1998/99, 2001 and UNDP APEAS 2001.
In order to achieve comparability in income aggregate between 1998/99 and 2001, we re-calculated household income for 1998/99. In the latest survey, data on labor earnings and on income from self-employment were only available from the dairy, because the separate modules on employment and self-employment do not exist like in 1998/99. Therefore, both sources of labor income were re-computed for 1998/99 and were based on the information from the diary. Two other income sources re-estimated for 1998/99 were remittances and government transfers. Although detailed module on transfers between households (internal and external) exists in both surveys, we noticed considerable difference in the reported amount of remittances between the separate module and a diary. Surprisingly, amounts from the diary appeared higher by around a third in 1998/99 and by around a half in 2001 and much closer to the official estimates for remittances. This is the reason why remittances from the 1998/99 survey were re-computed, as they were initially based on the information from the module on transfers between households. Finally, we make government transfers comparable between two surveys using the same reference period for the reported amounts of transfers.[3]
(ii) Definition of consumption and poverty lines
The consumption aggregate: The consumption aggregate was estimated for the first time in Armenia using the 1998/99 Integrated Living Conditions Survey. This study uses the same definition of welfare measure as adopted for the 1998/99 Armenia Poverty Update (World Bank 2002a). The only difference between consumption aggregate in 1998/99 and in 2001 is dwelling rental value which was not imputed in the 2001 consumption aggregate due to a small number of observations of households who paid rent.[4] Thus, for the purpose of comparisons of poverty measures, consumption aggregate for 1998/99 was re-calculated excluding the imputed rental value of dwellings.
The components of the consumption aggregate for 2001 are: (1) value of food and non-food consumption which also includes consumption from home production, aid received from humanitarian organizations and other sources; and (2) rental value of durable goods. The non-food consumption comprises the following categories: clothing and shoes, household goods, transportation, utilities, education, health, and the rental value of durable goods.[5]
Given the fact that the 2001 ILCS was carried out throughout the year, the value of consumption from different quarters in 2001 was adjusted for inflation over the observed period. This price adjustment which also takes into account urban/rural price differences was applied for food consumption due to different food price changes between rural and urban areas. Since the National Statistical Service of Armenia does not distinguish between urban and rural food prices, the survey data were used for price adjustment over time and across regions for food items. Food consumption is expressed in the 2001 Autumn-urban price levels. Factors for price adjustments of food consumption are reported in Table I.A.3.[6] The non-food consumption is adjusted for inflation, however, using the official Consumer Price Index for appropriate non-food expenditure sub-groups provided by the National Statistical Service.[7] Total consumption aggregate was expressed in 2001 autumn price levels.
|Table I.A.3: Factors for price adjustment of food consumption |
|(multiplied by 100) |
| | |Urban | | |Rural | |
| Quarter, 2001 |Laspeyres |Paasche |Fischer | Laspeyres |Paasche |Fischer |
| January-March |94.4 |92.7 |93.6 |97.6 |91.0 |94.2 |
| April-June |98.0 |94.8 |96.4 |98.0 |106.1 |102.0 |
| July-September |103.0 |102.6 |102.8 |100.1 |101.8 |101.0 |
| October – December |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |108.4 |108.8 |108.6 |
| | | | | | | |
|Implicit annual inflation |-5.6% |-7.3% |-6.4% |-10.0% |-16.4% |-13.3% |
|(Survey data) | | | | | | |
|Source: ILSC 2001. |
|Note: Factors convert food expenditures into amounts comparable with urban areas during the last Survey quarter (October |
|- December 2001). Food consumption values from different households were multiplied by these factors for the |
|corresponding poverty analysis. |
Equivalence scales: The consumption aggregate is standardized by the number of adult equivalent members which are based on equivalence scales and size economies. Total consumption was divided by adjusted per-equivalent consumption suggested by Deaton and Zaidi (1999)[8] where typical national household is not affected by changes in ( and ( parameters.[9] The estimates of equivalence scales ((=0.68) and scale economies ((=0.75) estimated and applied in 1998/99 poverty assessment were used, hence avoiding changes in poverty indicators due to changes in those parameters. Typical Armenian household is a five-member household with three adults and two children.
Poverty lines: The 2001 poverty lines are based on re-estimated 1998/99 poverty lines. The food poverty line was estimated for the first time using the 1998/99 Survey data and it was based on food-energy intake method. This method finds the level of equivalent household expenditures that is associated with the household attaining the minimum recommended energy intake from food consumption. The cost of 2,100 calories consumption food basket is estimated at 8,730 drams per adult equivalent per month (291 dram per adult equivalent per day), which was used as 1998/99 extreme poverty line. This line is then adjusted for inflation over the period Spring 1999 - Autumn 2001 using the official CPI for food provided by Armenia National Statistical Service and expressed in Autumn 2001 values, thus obtaining 2001 extreme (food) poverty line. The real value of food poverty line for 2001 declined relative to 1998/99 because of the negative food inflation between these two periods. It was estimated at 7,979 drams per adult equivalent per month (table below).
Table I.A.4: Armenia: Poverty lines in 1998/99 and 2001, in drams
| |Original 1998/99|Re-estimated 1998/99|2001 |
|Extreme (food) poverty line |8,730 |8,730 |7,979 |
|Complete poverty line |12,306 |12,276 |11,221 |
Source: World Bank 2002a; ILCS 1998/99 and 2001.
In order to obtain complete poverty line for 2001, which comprises food poverty line and non-food allowance, first we re-estimated 1998/99 complete poverty line, or more precisely, its non-food component. Non-food allowance for 1998/99 complete poverty line was estimated using the Food Expenditure Method (World Bank, 2002a). According to this method, the non-food share is estimated as the non-food share of those households whose food consumption is around the food line. Namely, non-food share in total consumption in 1998/99 was re-estimated due to the fact that original consumption aggregate for 1998/99 was also re-estimated in order to exclude imputed rental value of dwelling. These adjustments were necessary for the purpose of comparisons of poverty measures between 1998/99 and 2001. The new share of non-food consumption was estimated at 28.9 percent of the total minimum consumption. Thus, the re-estimated value of complete poverty line for 1998/99 was 12,276 drams per adult equivalent per month. Assuming unchanged structure of poverty line in 1998/99 (non-food share of 28.9 percent), we obtained a complete poverty line for 2001 of 420 drams per adult equivalent per day or 11,221 drams per month.
Comparing poverty between 1998/99 and 2001: Poverty indicators for 2001 cannot be directly compared with the previous 1998/99 poverty estimates. The main reason for this limitation lies in the fact that the original consumption aggregate for 1998/99 reported in Armenia Poverty Update (World Bank, 2002a) included imputed rental value of dwelling in contrast to the consumption aggregate for 2001. The imputation of rental value of housing in the 2001 consumption aggregate was not possible due to a small number of households that paid rent. Therefore, consumption aggregate and complete poverty line for 1998/99 were re-estimated to exclude imputed rental value of dwelling and new poverty estimates for 1998/99 were obtained. There are no significant differences between original and re-estimated 1998/99 poverty indicators.[10]
(iii) Poverty profile – descriptive statistics
|Table I.B.1: Armenia Poverty Indicators 1998/99 |
|(standard errors in parenthesis) |
| |Extreme (Food) Poverty Line |Complete Poverty Line |
| |(8,730 drams) |(12,306 drams) |
| |Incidence |Gap |Severity |Incidence |Gap |Severity |
| |(P0) |(P1) |(P2) |(P0) |(P1) |(P2) |
|Total |25.4% |5.5% |1.8% |53.7% |15.5% |6.1% |
| |(0.81) |(0.23) |(0.10) |(0.92) |(0.36) |(0.19) |
|Urban |31.2% |7.0% |2.3% |60.4% |18.4% |7.6% |
| |(1.11) |(0.33) |(0.14) |(1.14) |(0.49) |(0.27) |
|Rural |17.7% |3.4% |1.1% |44.8% |11.6% |4.2% |
| |(1.14) |(0.30) |(0.13) |(1.46) |(0.51) |(0.26) |
|Source: Armenia Poverty Update (World Bank, 2002a). |
|Note: Consumption aggregate includes imputed rental value of dwelling. |
|Table I.B.2: Armenia Poverty Indicators in 98/99 and 2001 |
|(standard errors in parenthesis) |
| |Extreme (Food) Poverty Line |Complete Poverty Line |
| |(8,730 drams in 98/99) |(12,276 drams in 98/99) |
| |(7,979 drams in 2001) |(11,221 drams in 2001) |
| |Incidence |Gap |Severity |Incidence |Gap |Severity |
| |(P0) |(P1) |(P2) |(P0) |(P1) |(P2) |
|Total | | | | | | |
| |26.8% |6.0% |2.0% |54.8% |16.2% |6.5% |
|98/99 | | | | | | |
| |(1.94) |(0.53) |(0.21) |(2.26) |(0.96) |(0.48) |
| |20.3% |4.7% |1.6% |48.3% |13.2% |5.2% |
|2001 | | | | | | |
| |(1.42) |(0.38) |(0.16) |(2.38) |(0.74) |(0.35) |
|Urban | | | | | | |
| 98/99 |32.9% |7.8% |2.6% |61.4% |19.3% |8.1% |
| |(2.25) |(0.66) |(0.28) |(2.55) |(1.13) |(0.59) |
| 2001 |21.9% |5.0% |1.7% |48.5% |13.7% |5.5% |
| |(1.60) |(0.36) |(0.15) |(2.90) |(0.82) |(0.35) |
|Rural | | | | | | |
| 98/99 |18.7% |3.7% |1.2% |46.1% |12.1% |4.5% |
| |(2.45) |(0.54) |(0.21) |(3.08) |(1.18) |(0.54) |
|2001 |17.0% |4.0% |1.5% |47.9% |12.1% |4.6% |
| |(3.04) |(0.83) |(0.34) |(4.29) |(1.61) |(0.77) |
|Note: Consumption aggregate does not include imputed rental value of dwelling. Poverty indicators for 2001 are based on 2001 |
|urban/rural structure. Standard errors computed with PSU adjustments. |
|Source: ILCS 1998/99 and 2001. |
Figure I.B.1. Rural and Urban Cumulative Consumption Distribution in Armenia, 2001
[pic]
Log per adult equivalent consumption
Note: The higher line refers to rural and lower to urban cumulative consumption distribution.
Source: ILCS 2001.
|Table I.B.3: Poverty and extreme poverty incidence by regions in 98/99 and 2001 |
|(standard errors in parenthesis) |
| |Extreme poverty |Poverty incidence, % |
| |incidence, % | |
| |98/99 |2001 |98/99 |2001 |
|Aragatzotn |27.0 |23.0 |57.5 |60.5 |
| |(3.50) |(2.32) |(3.72) |(2.06) |
|Ararat |17.8 |9.2 |51.3 |39.1 |
| |(2.31) |(2.00) |(3.05) |(4.18) |
|Armavir |13.7 |22.2 |37.3 |52.9 |
| |(1.89) |(4.92) |(2.76) |(5.21) |
|Gegharkunik |14.6 |25.3 |45.7 |57.9 |
| |(2.41) |(9.79) |(3.31) |(14.5) |
|Lori |35.9 |22.8 |62.6 |55.3 |
| |(2.95) |(3.41) |(2.93) |(3.17) |
|Kotayk |32.1 |17.9 |60.8 |40.7 |
| |(2.94) |(5.22) |(3.06) |(10.50) |
|Shirak |43.0 |20.6 |78.2 |52.9 |
| |(2.91) |(5.40) |(2.33) |(12.31) |
|Syunik |27.3 |2.3 |51.6 |16.5 |
| |(3.78) |(1.19) |(4.09) |(4.66) |
|Vayots Dzor |16.0 |21.6 |34.7 |52.7 |
| |(4.78) |(10.4) |(5.90) |(9.55) |
|Tavush |14.9 |43.9 |28.0 |70.5 |
| |(3.79) |(1.30) |(4.58) |(1.27) |
|Yerevan |30.7 |20.2 |57.7 |44.7 |
| |(1.60) |(0.00) |(1.66) |(0.00) |
|Other urban |34.9 |23.4 |64.8 |52.0 |
| |(1.58) |(2.58) |(1.55) |(4.07) |
|Rural |18.7% |17.0 |46.1% |47.9 |
| |(1.16) |(3.04) |(1.46) |(4.29) |
|Total |26.8 |20.3 |54.8 |48.3 |
| |(0.82) |(1.42) |(0.92) |(2.38) |
|Source: ILSC 1998/99 and 2001. |
|Note: Consumption aggregate does not include imputed rental value of dwelling. Poverty indicators |
|for 2001 are based on 2001 urban/rural structure. Standard errors computed with PSU adjustments. |
|Table I.B.4: Age Groups by Quintiles in 2001, in % |
| |Poorest |2 |3 |4 |5 |Total |
|Composition of quintiles by age groups |
|Children 0-5 |7.5 |6.6 |7.2 |6.5 |5.9 |6.7 |
|Aged 6-14 |14.3 |17.0 |16.2 |16.9 |18.0 |16.5 |
|Aged 15-18 |8.8 |8.2 |7.8 |8.1 |8.7 |8.3 |
|Aged 19-25 |14.4 |11.8 |11.9 |12.0 |10.6 |12.1 |
|Aged 26-45 |27.7 |28.6 |28.8 |28.5 |29.4 |28.6 |
|Aged 46-60 |12.7 |11.8 |13.4 |14.1 |15.3 |13.5 |
|Aged 61+ |14.6 |16.0 |14.6 |13.8 |12.2 |14.2 |
|Total |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |
|Composition of age groups by quintiles |
|Children 0-5 |22.6 |19.4 |21.2 |19.4 |17.5 |100.0 |
|Aged 6-14 |17.7 |20.4 |19.5 |20.5 |21.9 |100.0 |
|Aged 15-18 |21.5 |19.4 |18.7 |19.4 |20.9 |100.0 |
|Aged 19-25 |24.2 |19.2 |19.4 |19.6 |17.5 |100.0 |
|Aged 26-45 |19.7 |19.8 |20.0 |19.9 |20.7 |100.0 |
|Aged 46-60 |19.2 |17.4 |19.7 |20.9 |22.8 |100.0 |
|Aged 61+ |20.9 |22.2 |20.3 |19.4 |17.2 |100.0 |
|Total |20.3 |19.8 |19.8 |20.0 |20.1 |100.0 |
Source: ILCS 2001.
|Table I.B.5: Household size by quintiles in 2001, in % |
| |Poorest |2 |3 |4 |5 |Total |
|Composition of quintiles by household size |
|Number of household members |
|1 |10.1 |6.5 |8.3 |12.4 |11.7 |9.9 |
|2 |11.2 |13.5 |13.9 |13.2 |12.7 |12.9 |
|3 |13.3 |12.6 |13.1 |13.5 |14.4 |13.4 |
|4 |20.0 |22.7 |23.2 |21.6 |25.0 |22.5 |
|5 |21.2 |20.7 |20.7 |20.5 |19.1 |20.4 |
|6 |11.4 |15.1 |11.9 |11.7 |10.7 |12.1 |
|7 or more |12.8 |8.9 |9.0 |7.0 |6.5 |8.8 |
|Total |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |
|Composition of household size by quintiles |
|Number of household members |
|1 |20.1 |12.5 |16.5 |26.1 |24.8 |100.0 |
|2 |16.9 |20.0 |21.1 |21.3 |20.7 |100.0 |
|3 |19.4 |17.9 |19.2 |20.9 |22.6 |100.0 |
|4 |17.4 |19.1 |20.2 |19.9 |23.3 |100.0 |
|5 |20.3 |19.3 |19.9 |20.9 |19.7 |100.0 |
|6 |18.4 |23.7 |19.2 |20.0 |18.6 |100.0 |
|7 or more |28.5 |19.2 |20.1 |16.7 |15.5 |100.0 |
|Total |19.5 |19.0 |19.6 |20.8 |21.0 |100.0 |
Source: ILCS 2001.
|Table I.B.6: Poverty by education of the household head in 98/99 and 2001 |
| |Extreme poverty incidence, % |Poverty incidence, % |
| |98/99 |2001 |98/99 |2001 |
|Primary |32.6 |29.3 |61.1 |60.4 |
|Incomplete Secondary |33.2 |25.3 |62.1 |59.6 |
|Complete Secondary |28.6 |22.8 |57.0 |53.6 |
|Technical |23.6 |17.1 |52.4 |43.0 |
|Higher Education |17.0 |10.9 |41.9 |32.8 |
|Total |26.8 |20.0 |54.8 |48.3 |
|Source: ICLS 98/99 and 2001. |
|Table I.B.7: Education of the household head by quintiles in 2001, in % |
| |Poorest |2 |3 |4 |5 |Total |
|Composition of quintiles by education of the household head |
|Primary |12.5 |8.6 |9.7 |8.8 |5.2 |8.9 |
|Incomplete Secondary |16.5 |16.4 |13.2 |9.9 |8.7 |12.8 |
|Complete Secondary |35.4 |34.9 |30.6 |30.3 |24.3 |31.0 |
|Technical |24.0 |24.7 |27.9 |28.2 |26.9 |26.4 |
|Higher Education |11.7 |15.4 |18.5 |22.8 |35.0 |20.9 |
|Total |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |
|Composition of education of the household head by quintiles |
|Primary |27.5 |18.3 |21.4 |20.6 |12.2 |100.0 |
|Incomplete Secondary |25.1 |24.3 |20.3 |16.0 |14.3 |100.0 |
|Complete Secondary |22.3 |21.4 |19.4 |20.3 |16.5 |100.0 |
|Technical |17.8 |17.9 |20.8 |22.2 |21.4 |100.0 |
|Higher Education |10.9 |14.0 |17.4 |22.6 |35.1 |100.0 |
|Total |19.5 |19.0 |19.6 |20.8 |21.0 |100.0 |
Source: ILCS 2001.
|Table I.B.8: Poverty by labor force participation of the household head; 1998/99 and 2001 |
| |Extreme poverty incidence, % |Poverty incidence, % |
| |98/99 |2001 |98/99 |2001 |
|Non-participants |34.8 |24.3 |63.8 |54.2 |
|Seasonally unemployed |10.1 |… |39.1 |… |
|Unemployed |39.2 |32.1 |66.2 |62.9 |
|Salaried worker |19.6 |14.0 |46.6 |37.1 |
|Self-employed |19.1 |12.3 |47.1 |43.2 |
|Other employment |19.8 |15.5 |48.1 |38.3 |
|Total |26.8 |20.0 |54.8 |48.3 |
|Source: ICLS 98/99 and 2001. |
|Table I.B.9: Composition of Quintiles by Labor Force Participation in Armenia, in % (population over 16) |
| |Poorest |2 |3 |4 |5 |Total |
|All |
|Participants |53.7 |57.0 |57.1 |58.1 |59.3 |57.1 |
| Unemployed |28.2 |20.9 |19.0 |13.6 |10.8 |18.4 |
| Salaried worker |16.5 |20.8 |21.1 |28.2 |34.2 |24.2 |
| Self-employed |8.5 |15.1 |16.7 |15.7 |13.4 |13.9 |
| Other employment |0.5 |0.4 |0.3 |0.5 |0.9 |0.5 |
|Non-participants |46.3 |43.0 |42.9 |41.9 |40.7 |42.9 |
| Pensioners |23.2 |22.1 |21.4 |19.2 |15.2 |20.2 |
| Students |5.0 |5.4 |6.0 |7.2 |11.2 |7.0 |
| Other non-part. |18.1 |15.5 |15.4 |15.5 |14.4 |15.8 |
|Total |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |
|Yerevan |
|Participants |57.9 |56.4 |57.6 |59.0 |60.5 |58.5 |
| Unemployed |32.2 |25.2 |22.8 |19.9 |13.2 |21.9 |
| Salaried worker |20.0 |25.2 |26.2 |31.0 |38.5 |29.0 |
| Self-employed |5.2 |5.9 |8.4 |7.9 |7.7 |7.0 |
| Other employment |0.5 |0.2 |0.2 |0.3 |1.2 |0.5 |
|Non-participants |42.1 |43.6 |42.4 |41.0 |39.5 |41.5 |
| Pensioners |23.3 |25.5 |23.9 |20.6 |13.5 |20.6 |
| Students |4.1 |5.3 |5.8 |8.1 |11.8 |7.4 |
| Other non-part. |14.7 |12.7 |12.8 |12.3 |14.2 |13.5 |
|Total |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |
|Other urban |
|Participants | 54.3 | 57.6 | 56.2 | 55.7 | 58.8 |56.3 |
| Unemployed | 33.3 | 28.3 | 22.8 | 14.2 | 12.5 |22.9 |
| Salaried worker | 15.4 | 21.8 | 23.9 | 31.9 | 38.6 |25.4 |
| Self-employed | 5.2 | 7.2 | 9.4 | 8.7 | 7.2 |7.6 |
| Other employment | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 0.5 |0.4 |
|Non-participants | 45.7 | 42.4 | 43.8 | 44.3 | 41.2 |43.7 |
| Pensioners | 24.0 | 21.8 | 21.1 | 19.7 | 15.6 |20.8 |
| Students | 5.2 | 6.7 | 6.6 | 8.1 | 13.0 |7.6 |
| Other non-part. | 16.5 | 14.0 | 16.1 | 16.6 | 12.5 |15.4 |
|Total |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |
|Rural |
|Participants |47.4 |57.0 |57.8 |60.1 |57.7 |56.4 |
| Unemployed |15.4 |9.5 |11.7 |7.0 |5.8 |9.7 |
| Salaried worker |13.7 |16.0 |13.9 |21.2 |24.5 |17.9 |
| Self-employed |17.8 |30.9 |31.6 |31.5 |26.6 |28.2 |
| Other employment | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.8 |0.6 |
|Non-participants | 52.6 | 43.0 | 42.2 | 39.9 | 42.3 |43.6 |
| Pensioners | 21.7 | 19.5 | 19.8 | 17.4 | 17.2 |19.0 |
| Students | 5.9 | 4.3 | 5.7 | 5.3 | 8.7 | 5.9 |
| Other non-part. | 25.0 | 19.3 | 16.7 | 17.1 | 16.3 | 18.7 |
|Total |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |
Notes: Quintiles defined as per adult equivalent consumption quintiles.
Source: ILCS 2001.
|Table I.B.10: Labor Force Participation in Armenia by Quintiles, in % |
|(population over 16) |
| |Poorest |2 |3 |4 |5 |Total |
|All |
|Participants |18.7 |19.6 |20.1 |20.5 |21.2 |100.0 |
| Unemployed |30.4 |22.1 |20.7 |14.9 |11.9 |100.0 |
| Salaried worker |13.5 |16.8 |17.5 |23.5 |28.8 |100.0 |
| Self-employed |12.2 |21.3 |24.1 |22.8 |19.6 |100.0 |
| Other employment |18.6 |13.6 |11.9 |20.3 |35.6 |100.0 |
|Non-participants |21.4 |19.6 |20.0 |19.7 |19.3 |100.0 |
| Pensioners |22.8 |21.4 |21.3 |19.2 |15.3 |100.0 |
| Students |14.3 |15.2 |17.3 |20.8 |32.5 |100.0 |
| Other non-part. |22.8 |19.2 |19.5 |19.8 |18.6 |100.0 |
|Total |19.9 |19.6 |20.0 |20.2 |20.4 |100.0 |
|Yerevan |
|Participants |19.9 |16.9 |16.8 |18.1 |28.3 |100.0 |
| Unemployed |29.5 |20.1 |17.7 |16.2 |16.5 |100.0 |
| Salaried worker |13.9 |15.2 |15.4 |19.2 |36.3 |100.0 |
| Self-employed |14.8 |14.8 |20.5 |20.1 |29.9 |100.0 |
| Other employment |20.0 |5.0 |5.0 |10.0 |60.0 |100.0 |
|Non-participants |20.4 |18.4 |17.4 |17.8 |26.0 |100.0 |
| Pensioners |22.7 |21.7 |19.7 |17.9 |17.9 |100.0 |
| Students |11.1 |12.5 |13.3 |19.7 |43.4 |100.0 |
| Other non-part. |21.9 |16.6 |16.2 |16.4 |28.9 |100.0 |
|Total |20.1 |17.5 |17.1 |18.0 |27.4 |100.0 |
|Other urban |
|Participants |21.8 |20.1 |21.3 |21.8 |15.0 |100.0 |
| Unemployed |32.9 |24.3 |21.3 |13.7 |7.9 |100.0 |
| Salaried worker |13.7 |16.8 |20.0 |27.7 |21.8 |100.0 |
| Self-employed |15.7 |18.6 |26.5 |25.5 |13.7 |100.0 |
| Other employment |22.2 |16.7 |5.6 |38.9 |16.7 |100.0 |
|Non-participants |23.7 |19.0 |21.4 |22.4 |13.6 |100.0 |
| Pensioners |26.1 |20.5 |21.6 |20.9 |10.8 |100.0 |
| Students |15.7 |17.3 |18.6 |23.5 |24.8 |100.0 |
| Other non-part. |24.3 |17.8 |22.3 |23.8 |11.7 |100.0 |
|Total |22.6 |19.6 |21.3 |22.0 |14.4 |100.0 |
|Rural | | | | | | |
|Participants |13.9 |21.9 |22.3 |21.7 |20.3 |100.0 |
| Unemployed |26.1 |21.3 |26.1 |14.7 |11.8 |100.0 |
| Salaried worker |12.6 |19.3 |16.8 |24.1 |27.1 |100.0 |
| Self-employed |10.4 |23.8 |24.4 |22.8 |18.7 |100.0 |
| Other employment |14.3 |19.0 |23.8 |14.3 |28.6 |100.0 |
|Non-participants |19.9 |21.4 |21.0 |18.6 |19.2 |100.0 |
| Pensioners |18.8 |22.1 |22.6 |18.6 |17.9 |100.0 |
| Students |16.4 |15.5 |20.7 |18.3 |29.1 |100.0 |
| Other non-part. |22.1 |22.4 |19.4 |18.7 |17.3 |100.0 |
|Total |16.5 |21.6 |21.7 |20.4 |19.8 |100.0 |
Notes: Quintiles defined as per adult equivalent consumption quintiles.
Source: ILCS 2001.
|Table I.B.11: Consumption Components in Armenia by Quintiles in 98/99 |
|(drams per month, Spring 1999 prices) |
| |Poorest |2 |3 |4 |5 |Total |
|All Households |
|Food | 4,428 | 6,408 | 8,112 | 10,169 | 14,318 | 8,726 |
|Clothing and shoes | 46 | 69 | 245 | 554 | 2,064 | 603 |
|Household goods | 133 | 200 | 289 | 388 | 1,075 | 421 |
|Transportation | 63 | 145 | 187 | 308 | 1,323 | 410 |
|Utilities | 203 | 346 | 420 | 557 | 1,174 | 544 |
|Health | 80 | 144 | 211 | 457 | 3,108 | 811 |
|Education | 244 | 403 | 641 | 902 | 1,848 | 814 |
|Rental value of durables | 1,086 | 1,395 | 1,571 | 1,778 | 2,147 | 1,600 |
|Average | 6,282 | 9,112 | 11,677 | 15,114 | 27,058 | 13,928 |
|Yerevan Households |
|Food | 4,135 | 5,878 | 7,339 | 9,141 | 12,661 | 7,855 |
|Clothing and shoes | 41 | 67| 222 | 447 | 2,194 | 627 |
|Household goods | 120 | 190 | 277 | 482 | 1,497 | 532 |
|Transportation | 170 | 341 | 419 | 633 | 2,066 | 753 |
|Utilities | 379 | 633 | 848 | 990 | 1,807 | 942 |
|Health | 67 | 166 | 223 | 454 | 3,192 | 876 |
|Education | 253 | 320 | 569 | 812 | 1,599 | 721 |
|Rental value of durables | 1,135 | 1,513 | 1,788 | 1,945 | 2,422 | 1,763 |
|Average | 6,300 | 9,108 | 11,683 | 14,904 | 27,439 | 14,069 |
|Other Urban Households |
|Food | 4,364 | 6,227 | 7,959 | 9,714 | 12,792 | 7,542 |
|Clothing and shoes | 54| 101 | 318 | 802 | 2,672 | 592 |
|Household goods | 155 | 245 | 353 | 461 | 1,359 | 427 |
|Transportation | 15| 76| 93| 154 | 1,059 | 206 |
|Utilities | 155 | 337 | 395 | 594 | 1,183 | 454 |
|Health | 91| 155 | 230 | 415 | 3,076 | 583 |
|Education | 245 | 473 | 701 | 1,096 | 2,763 | 867 |
|Rental value of durables | 1,144 | 1,490 | 1,656 | 1,837 | 2,246 | 1,589 |
|Average | 6,223 | 9,104 | 11,704 | 15,073 | 27,150 | 12,260 |
|Rural Households |
|Food | 4,906 | 7,018 | 8,796 | 10,951 | 16,071 | 10,309 |
|Clothing and shoes | 40 | 42 | 199 | 474 | 1,721 | 594 |
|Household goods | 112 | 169 | 245 | 300 | 673 | 334 |
|Transportation | 11 | 41 | 99| 225 | 938 | 315 |
|Utilities | 66 | 113 | 136 | 311 | 747 | 317 |
|Health | 76 | 116 | 187 | 481 | 3,065 | 943 |
|Education | 231 | 412 | 642 | 844 | 1,628 | 842 |
|Rental value of durables | 922 | 1,209 | 1,345 | 1,660 | 1,921 | 1,486 |
|Average | 6,364 | 9,120 | 11,650 | 15,245 | 26,764 | 15,140 |
Notes: Consumption measured per adult equivalent. Quintiles defined as per adult equivalent consumption quintiles.
Source: ILCS 1998/99.
|Table I.B.12: Consumption Components in Armenia by Quintiles in 2001 |
|(drams per month, Spring 1999 prices) |
| |Poorest |2 |3 |4 |5 |Total |
|All Households |
|Food | 4,064 | 5,575 | 6,551 | 8,021 | 11,531 | 7,231 |
|Clothing and shoes | 84 | 158 | 396 | 584 | 2,017 | 668 |
|Household goods | 142 | 227 | 305 | 439 | 1,163 | 466 |
|Transportation | 86 | 118 | 191 | 318 | 1,280 | 411 |
|Utilities | 298 | 458 | 591 | 761 | 1,463 | 727 |
|Health | 81 | 142 | 255 | 350 | 1,833 | 549 |
|Education | 214 | 408 | 500 | 807 | 2,160 | 838 |
|Rental value of durables | 1,192 | 2,159 | 2,755 | 3,246 | 3,596 | 2,618 |
|Average | 6,162 | 9,246 | 11,543 | 14,525 | 25,042 | 13,506 |
|Yerevan Households |
|Food | 3,458 | 4,633 | 5,667 | 6,909 | 10,877 | 6,785 |
|Clothing and shoes | 42 | 81 | 180 | 356 | 2,134 | 730 |
|Household goods | 172 | 256 | 329 | 505 | 1,333 | 606 |
|Transportation | 190 | 256 | 437 | 736 | 2,000 | 861 |
|Utilities | 447 | 732 | 800 | 1,036 | 1,896 | 1,078 |
|Health | 107 | 229 | 459 | 484 | 2,195 | 856 |
|Education | 253 | 535 | 653 | 1,305 | 2,727 | 1,268 |
|Rental value of durables | 1,372 | 2,479 | 3,006 | 3,216 | 3,589 | 2,809 |
|Average | 6,040 | 9,202 | 11,533 | 14,547 | 26,750 | 14,993 |
|Other Urban Households |
|Food | 4,164 | 5,584 | 6,563 | 7,947 | 10,984 | 6,852 |
|Clothing and shoes | 86 | 156 | 384 | 608 | 2,051 | 588 |
|Household goods | 119 | 210 | 302 | 401 | 1,004 | 377 |
|Transportation | 44 | 70 | 111 | 220 | 880 | 235 |
|Utilities | 240 | 383 | 612 | 749 | 1,126 | 597 |
|Health | 66 | 131 | 176 | 305 | 1,288 | 348 |
|Education | 248 | 462 | 523 | 771 | 1,890 | 722 |
|Rental value of durables | 1,304 | 2,277 | 2,862 | 3,443 | 3,921 | 2,702 |
|Average | 6,271 | 9,274 | 11,535 | 14,445 | 23,144 | 12,422 |
|Rural Households |
|Food | 4,428 | 6,119 | 7,058 | 8,701 | 12,571 | 7,860 |
|Clothing and shoes | 113 | 204 | 531 | 690 | 1,874 | 691 |
|Household goods | 145 | 224 | 293 | 435 | 1,096 | 442 |
|Transportation | 51 | 74 | 112 | 169 | 814 | 244 |
|Utilities | 245 | 358 | 450 | 618 | 1,249 | 590 |
|Health | 76 | 99 | 201 | 314 | 1,830 | 503 |
|Education | 148 | 292 | 392 | 560 | 1,762 | 635 |
|Rental value of durables | 931 | 1,880 | 2,520 | 3,095 | 3,384 | 2,414 |
|Average | 6,137 | 9,250 | 11,557 | 14,580 | 24,581 | 13,379 |
Notes: Consumption measured per adult equivalent. Consumption values expressed in Fall 2001 prices were divided by CPI between Spring 1999 and Fall 2001 (99.2) in order to obtain consumption in Spring 1999 prices. Quintiles defined as per adult equivalent consumption quintiles.
Source: ILCS 2001.
|Table I.B.13: Composition of Quintiles by Consumption Components in Armenia in 2001 |
|(drams per month, Spring 1999 prices) |
| |Poorest |2 |3 |4 |5 |Total |
|All Households |
|Food |66.0 |60.3 |56.7 |55.2 |46.0 |53.5 |
|Clothing and shoes |1.4 |1.7 |3.4 |4.0 |8.1 |4.9 |
|Household goods |2.3 |2.5 |2.6 |3.0 |4.6 |3.4 |
|Transportation |1.4 |1.3 |1.7 |2.2 |5.1 |3.0 |
|Utilities |4.8 |5.0 |5.1 |5.2 |5.8 |5.4 |
|Health |1.3 |1.5 |2.2 |2.4 |7.3 |4.1 |
|Education |3.5 |4.4 |4.3 |5.6 |8.6 |6.2 |
|Rental value of durables |19.4 |23.4 |23.9 |22.3 |14.4 |19.4 |
|Average |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |
|Yerevan Households |
|Food |57.2 |50.3 |49.1 |47.5 |40.7 |45.3 |
|Clothing and shoes |0.7 |0.9 |1.6 |2.4 |8.0 |4.9 |
|Household goods |2.8 |2.8 |2.9 |3.5 |5.0 |4.0 |
|Transportation |3.1 |2.8 |3.8 |5.1 |7.5 |5.7 |
|Utilities |7.4 |8.0 |6.9 |7.1 |7.1 |7.2 |
|Health |1.8 |2.5 |4.0 |3.3 |8.2 |5.7 |
|Education |4.2 |5.8 |5.7 |9.0 |10.2 |8.5 |
|Rental value of durables |22.7 |26.9 |26.1 |22.1 |13.4 |18.7 |
|Average |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |
|Other Urban Households |
|Food |66.4 |60.2 |56.9 |55.0 |47.5 |55.2 |
|Clothing and shoes |1.4 |1.7 |3.3 |4.2 |8.9 |4.7 |
|Household goods |1.9 |2.3 |2.6 |2.8 |4.3 |3.0 |
|Transportation |0.7 |0.8 |1.0 |1.5 |3.8 |1.9 |
|Utilities |3.8 |4.1 |5.3 |5.2 |4.9 |4.8 |
|Health |1.1 |1.4 |1.5 |2.1 |5.6 |2.8 |
|Education |4.0 |5.0 |4.5 |5.3 |8.2 |5.8 |
|Rental value of durables |20.8 |24.6 |24.8 |23.8 |16.9 |21.8 |
|Average |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |
|Rural Households |
|Food |72.1 |66.2 |61.1 |59.7 |51.1 |58.7 |
|Clothing and shoes |1.8 |2.2 |4.6 |4.7 |7.6 |5.2 |
|Household goods |2.4 |2.4 |2.5 |3.0 |4.5 |3.3 |
|Transportation |0.8 |0.8 |1.0 |1.2 |3.3 |1.8 |
|Utilities |4.0 |3.9 |3.9 |4.2 |5.1 |4.4 |
|Health |1.2 |1.1 |1.7 |2.2 |7.4 |3.8 |
|Education |2.4 |3.2 |3.4 |3.8 |7.2 |4.7 |
|Rental value of durables |15.2 |20.3 |21.8 |21.2 |13.8 |18.0 |
|Average |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |
Notes: Consumption measured per adult equivalent. Quintiles defined as per adult equivalent consumption quintiles.
Source: ILCS 2001.
|Table I.B.14: Consumption Components in Armenia by Quintiles in 2001 |
|(drams per month, Spring 1999 prices) |
| |Poorest |2 |3 |4 |5 |Total |
|All Households |
|Food |11.4 |15.6 |18.3 |22.4 |32.3 |100.0 |
|Clothing and shoes |2.6 |4.9 |12.2 |18.0 |62.3 |100.0 |
|Household goods |6.2 |10.0 |13.4 |19.3 |51.1 |100.0 |
|Transportation |4.3 |5.9 |9.6 |16.0 |64.2 |100.0 |
|Utilities |8.4 |12.8 |16.5 |21.3 |41.0 |100.0 |
|Health |3.0 |5.3 |9.6 |13.2 |68.9 |100.0 |
|Education |5.2 |10.0 |12.2 |19.7 |52.8 |100.0 |
|Rental value of durables |9.2 |16.7 |21.3 |25.1 |27.8 |100.0 |
|Average |9.3 |13.9 |17.4 |21.8 |37.6 |100.0 |
|Yerevan Households |
|Food |11.0 |14.7 |18.0 |21.9 |34.5 |100.0 |
|Clothing and shoes |1.5 |2.9 |6.5 |12.7 |76.4 |100.0 |
|Household goods |6.6 |9.9 |12.7 |19.5 |51.4 |100.0 |
|Transportation |5.2 |7.1 |12.1 |20.3 |55.3 |100.0 |
|Utilities |9.1 |14.9 |16.3 |21.1 |38.6 |100.0 |
|Health |3.1 |6.6 |13.2 |13.9 |63.2 |100.0 |
|Education |4.6 |9.8 |11.9 |23.8 |49.8 |100.0 |
|Rental value of durables |10.0 |18.1 |22.0 |23.5 |26.3 |100.0 |
|Average |8.9 |13.5 |16.9 |21.4 |39.3 |100.0 |
|Other Urban Households |
|Food |11.8 |15.8 |18.6 |22.6 |31.2 |100.0 |
|Clothing and shoes |2.6 |4.7 |11.7 |18.5 |62.4 |100.0 |
|Household goods |5.8 |10.3 |14.8 |19.7 |49.3 |100.0 |
|Transportation |3.3 |5.3 |8.4 |16.6 |66.4 |100.0 |
|Utilities |7.7 |12.3 |19.7 |24.1 |36.2 |100.0 |
|Health |3.4 |6.7 |9.0 |15.5 |65.5 |100.0 |
|Education |6.4 |11.9 |13.4 |19.8 |48.5 |100.0 |
|Rental value of durables |9.4 |16.5 |20.7 |24.9 |28.4 |100.0 |
|Average |9.7 |14.3 |17.8 |22.3 |35.8 |100.0 |
|Rural Households |
|Food |11.4 |15.7 |18.2 |22.4 |32.3 |100.0 |
|Clothing and shoes |3.3 |6.0 |15.6 |20.2 |54.9 |100.0 |
|Household goods |6.6 |10.2 |13.4 |19.8 |50.0 |100.0 |
|Transportation |4.2 |6.1 |9.2 |13.8 |66.7 |100.0 |
|Utilities |8.4 |12.3 |15.4 |21.2 |42.8 |100.0 |
|Health |3.0 |3.9 |8.0 |12.4 |72.7 |100.0 |
|Education |4.7 |9.3 |12.4 |17.7 |55.9 |100.0 |
|Rental value of durables |7.9 |15.9 |21.3 |26.2 |28.7 |100.0 |
|Average |9.3 |14.0 |17.5 |22.1 |37.2 |100.0 |
Notes: Consumption measured per adult equivalent. Quintiles defined as per adult equivalent consumption quintiles.
Source: ILCS 2001.
|Table I.B.15: Average Household Income Sources in Armenia by Quintiles in 98/99 |
|(drams per month, Spring 1999 prices) |
|Sources |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |Total |
|All Households |
|Labor earnings | 5,695 | 10,751 | 12,079 | 17,688 | 20,558 | 13,408 |
|Self-employment | 1,201 | 2,546 | 9,213 | 5,491 | 17,500 | 7,271 |
|Farm Income | 3,868 | 7,483 | 10,936 | 13,548 | 20,011 | 11,235 |
|Remittances | 3,081 | 4,393 | 6,771 | 6,228 | 12,596 | 6,657 |
|Transfers | 3,698 | 4,068 | 3,082 | 2,981 | 2,504 | 3,262 |
| Pensions | 2,312 | 2,954 | 2,335 | 2,205 | 1,725 | 2,305 |
| Other transfers | 1,386 | 1,113 | 747 | 776 | 778 | 957 |
|Assets sold | 180 | 262 | 98 | 392 | 203 | 226 |
|Total | 18,441 | 30,682 | 42,523 | 47,454 | 74,051 | 42,866 |
|Yerevan |
|Labor earnings | 11,007 | 18,263 | 22,581 | 32,732 | 38,745 | 24,583 |
|Self-employment | 1,898 | 6,063 | 7,511 | 4,802 | 33,335 | 11,316 |
|Farm Income | 155 | 259 | 329 | 562 | 426 | 339 |
|Remittances | 3,933 | 6,573 | 9,706 | 12,176 | 18,709 | 10,270 |
|Transfers | 4,305 | 3,669 | 3,674 | 4,098 | 2,944 | 3,713 |
| Pensions | 3,186 | 2,743 | 2,962 | 3,171 | 2,094 | 2,805 |
| Other transfers | 1,119 | 926 | 713 | 927 | 850 | 908 |
|Assets sold | 145 | 101 | 103 | 1,439 | 448 | 413 |
|Total | 22,027 | 35,272 | 44,217 | 59,917 | 96,225 | 51,940 |
|Other Urban Households |
|Labor earnings | 4,844 | 11,773 | 13,211 | 28,649 | 21,698 | 14,327 |
|Self-employment | 920 | 1,458 | 15,648 | 3,540 | 14,470 | 6,433 |
|Farm Income | 567 | 1,055 | 2,610 | 4,281 | 4,266 | 2,222 |
|Remittances | 3,429 | 5,917 | 8,579 | 9,455 | 22,407 | 8,581 |
|Transfers | 3,838 | 5,353 | 3,379 | 2,859 | 2,731 | 3,748 |
| Pensions | 2,178 | 3,550 | 2,170 | 1,835 | 1,325 | 2,295 |
| Other transfers | 1,660 | 1,803 | 1,208 | 1,024 | 1,406 | 1,453 |
|Assets sold | 303 | 683 | 135 | 90| 244 | 303 |
|Total | 15,105 | 29,452 | 44,132 | 49,132 | 66,445 | 36,870 |
|Rural Households |
|Labor earnings | 538 | 3,492 | 3,597 | 3,909 | 7,902 | 4,340 |
|Self-employment | 821 | 553 | 5,010 | 6,912 | 8,177 | 4,913 |
|Farm Income | 14,306 | 19,348 | 25,555 | 25,335 | 39,763 | 26,478 |
|Remittances | 1,407 | 1,185 | 3,144 | 1,384 | 4,367 | 2,442 |
|Transfers | 2,695 | 3,251 | 2,408 | 2,468 | 2,113 | 2,541 |
| Pensions | 1,455 | 2,598 | 2,025 | 1,906 | 1,647 | 1,939 |
| Other transfers | 1,239 | 653 | 383 | 562 | 466 | 603 |
|Assets sold | 9| 21| 64 | 13| 21| 26|
|Total | 19,805 | 27,913 | 39,953 | 40,073 | 62,412 | 40,821 |
Notes: Quintiles defined as per adult equivalent consumption quintiles.
Source: ILCS 2001.
|Table I.B.16: Average Household Income Sources in Armenia by Quintiles in 2001, |
|(drams per month, Spring 1999 prices) |
|Sources |Poorest |2 |3 |4 |5 |Total |
|All Households |
|Labor earnings | 7,081 | 8,772 | 10,851 | 15,138 | 28,249 | 14,282 |
|Self-employment | 1,195 | 2,815 | 6,977 | 4,808 | 11,870 | 5,646 |
|Farm Income | 4,149 | 8,166 | 10,058 | 12,243 | 15,139 | 10,090 |
|Remittances | 3,614 | 8,152 | 5,115 | 8,235 | 13,023 | 7,723 |
|Transfers | 4,644 | 4,436 | 3,953 | 3,779 | 3,669 | 4,082 |
| Pensions | 3,047 | 2,940 | 2,803 | 2,790 | 3,038 | 2,922 |
| Other transfers | 1,597 | 1,496 | 1,150 | 989| 631| 1,159 |
|Assets sold | 190| | 143| 119| 241| 157|
| | |88 | | | | |
|Total | 20,873 | 32,429 | 37,099 | 44,321 | 72,191 | 41,981 |
|Yerevan Households |
|Labor earnings | 9,852 | 14,100 | 14,515 | 24,879 | 49,340 | 25,415 |
|Self-employment | 2,209 | 5,273 | 7,218 | 7,401 | 11,538 | 7,210 |
|Farm Income | 701| 928| 1,636 | 1,479 | 1,702 | 1,328 |
|Remittances | 3,967 | 4,195 | 9,105 | 7,631 | 15,091 | 8,752 |
|Transfers | 4,968 | 4,904 | 4,569 | 3,815 | 3,372 | 4,225 |
| Pensions | 3,591 | 3,766 | 3,453 | 3,113 | 2,919 | 3,319 |
| Other transfers | 1,376 | 1,138 | 1,116 | 702| 454| 906|
|Assets sold | 209| | 198| 147| 372| 224|
| | |97 | | | | |
|Total | 21,905 | 29,496 | 37,242 | 45,352 | 81,415 | 47,154 |
|Other Urban Households |
|Labor earnings | 7,123 | 10,010 | 11,756 | 18,419 | 22,122 | 13,566 |
|Self-employment | 1,233 | 2,850 | 6,487 | 4,278 | 11,711 | 4,982 |
|Farm Income | 2,134 | 3,509 | 4,367 | 7,488 | 8,418 | 5,065 |
|Remittances | 4,156 | 13,832 | 4,175 | 6,186 | 9,208 | 7,266 |
|Transfers | 5,118 | 4,969 | 4,234 | 4,290 | 3,475 | 4,459 |
| Pensions | 3,146 | 2,688 | 2,867 | 2,987 | 2,655 | 2,887 |
| Other transfers | 1,972 | 2,281 | 1,367 | 1,303 | 820| 1,572 |
|Assets sold | 310| 129| | 184| 169| 179|
| | | |87 | | | |
|Total | 20,074 | 35,299 | 31,106 | 40,844 | 55,102 | 35,516 |
|Rural Households |
|Labor earnings | 4,859 | 4,731 | 7,961 | 6,948 | 10,716 | 7,087 |
|Self-employment | 356| 1,359 | 7,236 | 3,807 | 12,318 | 5,101 |
|Farm Income | 9,020 | 15,920 | 19,647 | 22,244 | 33,473 | 20,368 |
|Remittances | 2,754 | 6,127 | 3,537 | 10,294 | 13,472 | 7,380 |
|Transfers | 3,881 | 3,759 | 3,362 | 3,328 | 4,105 | 3,670 |
| Pensions | 2,513 | 2,652 | 2,369 | 2,444 | 3,419 | 2,674 |
| Other transfers | 1,368 | 1,107 | 993| 885| 687| 996|
|Assets sold | | | 157| | 154| |
| |48 |52 | |48 | |92 |
|Total | 20,918 | 31,948 | 41,900 | 46,669 | 74,239 | 43,698 |
Notes: Quintiles defined as per adult equivalent consumption quintiles. Income values expressed in Fall 2001 prices were divided by CPI between Spring 1999 and Fall 2001 (99.2) in order to obtain income in Spring 1999 prices.
Source: ILCS 2001.
|Table I.B.17: Household Income Sources in Armenia by Quintiles in 2001, in % |
| |Poorest |2 |3 |4 |5 |Total |
|All Households |
|Labor earnings |10.1 |12.5 |15.5 |21.6 |40.3 |100.0 |
|Self-employment |4.3 |10.2 |25.2 |17.4 |42.9 |100.0 |
|Farm Income |8.3 |16.4 |20.2 |24.6 |30.4 |100.0 |
|Remittances |9.5 |21.4 |13.4 |21.6 |34.1 |100.0 |
|Transfers |22.7 |21.7 |19.3 |18.4 |17.9 |100.0 |
| Pensions |20.8 |20.1 |19.2 |19.1 |20.8 |100.0 |
| Other transfers |27.2 |25.5 |19.6 |16.9 |10.8 |100.0 |
|Assets sold |24.4 |11.3 |18.4 |15.2 |30.8 |100.0 |
|Average |10.1 |15.7 |17.9 |21.4 |34.9 |100.0 |
|Yerevan Households |
|Labor earnings |8.7 |12.5 |12.9 |22.1 |43.8 |100.0 |
|Self-employment |6.6 |15.7 |21.5 |22.0 |34.3 |100.0 |
|Farm Income |10.9 |14.4 |25.4 |22.9 |26.4 |100.0 |
|Remittances |9.9 |10.5 |22.8 |19.1 |37.7 |100.0 |
|Transfers |23.0 |22.7 |21.1 |17.6 |15.6 |100.0 |
| Pensions |21.3 |22.4 |20.5 |18.5 |17.3 |100.0 |
| Other transfers |28.8 |23.8 |23.3 |14.7 |9.5 |100.0 |
|Assets sold |20.4 |9.5 |19.4 |14.4 |36.4 |100.0 |
|Average |10.2 |13.7 |17.3 |21.1 |37.8 |100.0 |
|Other Urban Households |
|Labor earnings |10.3 |14.4 |16.9 |26.5 |31.9 |100.0 |
|Self-employment |4.6 |10.7 |24.4 |16.1 |44.1 |100.0 |
|Farm Income |8.2 |13.5 |16.9 |28.9 |32.5 |100.0 |
|Remittances |11.1 |36.8 |11.1 |16.5 |24.5 |100.0 |
|Transfers |23.2 |22.5 |19.2 |19.4 |15.7 |100.0 |
| Pensions |21.9 |18.7 |20.0 |20.8 |18.5 |100.0 |
| Other transfers |25.5 |29.5 |17.7 |16.8 |10.6 |100.0 |
|Assets sold |35.2 |14.6 |9.9 |21.0 |19.2 |100.0 |
|Average |11.0 |19.3 |17.1 |22.4 |30.2 |100.0 |
|Rural Households |
|Labor earnings |13.8 |13.4 |22.6 |19.7 |30.4 |100.0 |
|Self-employment |1.4 |5.4 |28.9 |15.2 |49.1 |100.0 |
|Farm Income |9.0 |15.9 |19.6 |22.2 |33.4 |100.0 |
|Remittances |7.6 |16.9 |9.8 |28.4 |37.2 |100.0 |
|Transfers |21.1 |20.4 |18.2 |18.1 |22.3 |100.0 |
| Pensions |18.8 |19.8 |17.7 |18.2 |25.5 |100.0 |
| Other transfers |27.1 |22.0 |19.7 |17.6 |13.6 |100.0 |
|Assets sold |10.4 |11.3 |34.2 |10.5 |33.5 |100.0 |
|Average |9.7 |14.8 |19.4 |21.6 |34.4 |100.0 |
Notes: Quintiles defined as per adult equivalent consumption quintiles.
Source: ILCS 2001.
(iv) Poverty regressions
|Table I.C.1: Differential effects of determinants of ln(consumption) |
|(estimated coefficients and standard errors for quantile regressions) |
| |10% | |25% | |50% | |75% | |90% | |
|Fraction age 0-5 |
| |10% | |25% | |50% | |75% | |90% | |
| |-0.101 |(0.052) |* |-0.149 |(0.049) |** |
|Gegharkunik | | | | | | |
| | | |F( 34, |2138) |= |34.14 |
| | | |Prob > F | |= |0 |
| | | |R-squared | |= |0.3363 |
|lnpaex |Coef. |Std. Err. |t |P>t |[95% Conf. |Interval] |
|sage5 |-0.352 |0.156 |-2.260 |0.024 |-0.657 |-0.047 |
|sage17 |-0.062 |0.088 |-0.700 |0.481 |-0.235 |0.111 |
|sage60 |-0.193 |0.083 |-2.320 |0.020 |-0.357 |-0.030 |
|Urban |0.182 |0.061 |2.970 |0.003 |0.062 |0.301 |
|Hhsize |-0.006 |0.010 |-0.590 |0.557 |-0.026 |0.014 |
|hdsingle |-0.011 |0.139 |-0.080 |0.936 |-0.283 |0.261 |
|Hdage |-0.002 |0.002 |-0.670 |0.503 |-0.007 |0.003 |
|Hsage |-0.001 |0.002 |-0.540 |0.589 |-0.006 |0.003 |
|Hdedu2 |0.032 |0.043 |0.740 |0.458 |-0.053 |0.117 |
|Hdedu3 |0.293 |0.051 |5.790 |0.000 |0.194 |0.392 |
|Hsedu2 |-0.037 |0.060 |-0.630 |0.529 |-0.154 |0.079 |
|Pempl |0.568 |0.096 |5.920 |0.000 |0.380 |0.756 |
|hdempl |0.249 |0.265 |0.940 |0.347 |-0.270 |0.768 |
|hdsempl |0.177 |0.264 |0.670 |0.504 |-0.341 |0.694 |
|hdunemp |-0.009 |0.265 |-0.030 |0.973 |-0.528 |0.510 |
|hdeother |0.102 |0.273 |0.370 |0.708 |-0.433 |0.637 |
|hdpensi |0.211 |0.266 |0.790 |0.427 |-0.310 |0.733 |
|hsempl |0.199 |0.160 |1.240 |0.214 |-0.115 |0.512 |
|hsunemp |0.058 |0.157 |0.370 |0.711 |-0.249 |0.365 |
|hseother |0.186 |0.161 |1.150 |0.248 |-0.130 |0.501 |
|hspensi |0.156 |0.179 |0.880 |0.382 |-0.194 |0.507 |
|K1 |-0.189 |0.035 |-5.340 |0.000 |-0.259 |-0.120 |
|Hdage_m |0.043 |0.012 |3.690 |0.000 |0.020 |0.066 |
|Hhsize_m |0.053 |0.084 |0.630 |0.527 |-0.111 |0.217 |
|Aragatzotn |-0.161 |0.096 |-1.670 |0.094 |-0.349 |0.027 |
|Kotayk |0.194 |0.090 |2.140 |0.033 |0.016 |0.371 |
|Gegharkunik |0.219 |0.094 |2.330 |0.020 |0.035 |0.403 |
|Tavush |0.158 |0.104 |1.510 |0.131 |-0.047 |0.362 |
|Lori |-0.413 |0.090 |-4.610 |0.000 |-0.588 |-0.237 |
|Shirak |-0.500 |0.076 |-6.610 |0.000 |-0.649 |-0.352 |
|Ararat |-0.347 |0.063 |-5.480 |0.000 |-0.471 |-0.223 |
|Armavir |-0.397 |0.081 |-4.910 |0.000 |-0.556 |-0.239 |
|Syunik |-0.029 |0.078 |-0.380 |0.706 |-0.183 |0.124 |
|Vayots Dzor |0.017 |0.096 |0.180 |0.861 |-0.171 |0.204 |
|_cons |-0.840 |0.888 |-0.950 |0.344 |-2.580 |0.901 |
As can be observed in the regression, consumption is correlated with household demographic characteristics such as the share of children under five, and the share of older adults. Both variables significantly decrease household consumption. Among the variables with a significantly positive correlation with consumption are: the education of the household head, a variable indicating whether or not the head is employed, and the variable indicating whether or not the household is in a urban area.
Correlates of secondary school enrollment
Girls 15-16 years old
| | | | | |Number of Obs. |326 |
| | | | | |LR chi2(22) | |44.8 |
| | | | | |Prob > chi2 | |0.0028 |
| | | | | |Pseudo R2 | |0.2376 |
| | | | | |Data | |ISLC 2001 |
|enroll |dF/dx |Std. Err. |Z |P>|z| |x-bar |[ 95% |C.I. ] |
|lnpce17 |0.027 |0.021 |1.300 |0.195 |9.341 |-0.015 |0.070 |
|hedu2* |-0.007 |0.031 |-0.240 |0.809 |0.301 |-0.068 |0.053 |
|hedu3* |-0.010 |0.033 |-0.320 |0.752 |0.288 |-0.075 |0.055 |
|hedu4* |-0.019 |0.043 |-0.500 |0.614 |0.183 |-0.103 |0.065 |
|hsingle* |-0.015 |0.034 |-0.490 |0.623 |0.211 |-0.082 |0.052 |
|hage |0.001 |0.001 |0.770 |0.439 |50.698 |-0.002 |0.004 |
|sage5 |0.021 |0.149 |0.140 |0.890 |0.033 |-0.271 |0.312 |
|sage614 |0.182 |0.123 |1.560 |0.118 |0.153 |-0.059 |0.422 |
|sage1518 |0.091 |0.129 |0.720 |0.474 |0.295 |-0.163 |0.344 |
|sage1925 |0.017 |0.109 |0.150 |0.878 |0.059 |-0.197 |0.230 |
|sage60 |-0.007 |0.130 |-0.060 |0.956 |0.078 |-0.262 |0.248 |
|hhsize |-0.025 |0.010 |-2.830 |0.005 |5.356 |-0.044 |-0.005 |
|age |-0.088 |0.023 |-3.740 |0.000 |15.466 |-0.133 |-0.043 |
|urban* |-0.022 |0.022 |-0.970 |0.333 |0.584 |-0.066 |0.021 |
|marz2* |-0.081 |0.076 |-1.460 |0.144 |0.131 |-0.231 |0.069 |
|marz3* |-0.022 |0.048 |-0.540 |0.589 |0.132 |-0.116 |0.071 |
|marz4* |-0.005 |0.051 |-0.100 |0.917 |0.077 |-0.105 |0.095 |
|marz5* |-0.025 |0.047 |-0.610 |0.539 |0.118 |-0.118 |0.068 |
|marz6* |-0.090 |0.086 |-1.510 |0.131 |0.067 |-0.260 |0.079 |
|marz7* |0.029 |0.021 |0.940 |0.346 |0.116 |-0.012 |0.071 |
|marz8* |-0.203 |0.177 |-1.870 |0.061 |0.031 |-0.549 |0.144 |
|marz10* |0.012 |0.033 |0.310 |0.753 |0.087 |-0.052 |0.076 |
|obs. P |0.9156846 | | | | | | |
|pred. P |0.9654301 |(at x-bar) | | | | | |
Boys 15-16 years old
| | | | | |Number of Obs. |331 |
| | | | | |LR chi2(22) | |54 |
| | | | | |Prob > chi2 | |0.0004 |
| | | | | |Pseudo R2 | |0.1833 |
| | | | | |Data | |ISLC 2001 |
|enroll |dF/dx |Std. Err. |z |P>|z| |x-bar |[ 95% |C.I. ] |
|lnpce17 |0.106 |0.041 |2.560 |0.011 |9.355 |0.027 |0.186 |
|hedu2* |0.064 |0.045 |1.330 |0.185 |0.326 |-0.025 |0.153 |
|hedu3* |0.109 |0.043 |2.210 |0.027 |0.303 |0.025 |0.193 |
|hedu4* |0.096 |0.041 |1.780 |0.076 |0.183 |0.015 |0.177 |
|hsingle* |-0.059 |0.075 |-0.850 |0.398 |0.206 |-0.206 |0.089 |
|hage |-0.001 |0.003 |-0.230 |0.820 |49.319 |-0.007 |0.005 |
|sage5 |0.640 |0.466 |1.370 |0.171 |0.014 |-0.272 |1.553 |
|sage614 |0.062 |0.256 |0.240 |0.808 |0.146 |-0.440 |0.564 |
|sage1518 |0.034 |0.283 |0.120 |0.906 |0.299 |-0.522 |0.589 |
|sage1925 |0.012 |0.245 |0.050 |0.960 |0.070 |-0.467 |0.492 |
|sage60 |0.383 |0.333 |1.140 |0.254 |0.067 |-0.271 |1.036 |
|hhsize |-0.011 |0.018 |-0.580 |0.560 |5.008 |-0.047 |0.025 |
|age |-0.119 |0.037 |-3.190 |0.001 |15.457 |-0.191 |-0.047 |
|urban* |0.023 |0.046 |0.500 |0.616 |0.541 |-0.068 |0.114 |
|marz1* |0.009 |0.101 |0.090 |0.930 |0.053 |-0.189 |0.208 |
|marz2* |-0.013 |0.095 |-0.140 |0.891 |0.099 |-0.198 |0.173 |
|marz3* |-0.050 |0.099 |-0.550 |0.582 |0.106 |-0.244 |0.144 |
|marz4* |-0.223 |0.135 |-2.050 |0.040 |0.089 |-0.489 |0.042 |
|marz5* |-0.090 |0.096 |-1.070 |0.285 |0.122 |-0.278 |0.099 |
|marz6* |-0.025 |0.103 |-0.260 |0.798 |0.071 |-0.227 |0.177 |
|marz7* |-0.020 |0.088 |-0.240 |0.808 |0.102 |-0.192 |0.152 |
|marz8* |-0.022 |0.130 |-0.180 |0.856 |0.054 |-0.277 |0.233 |
|marz9* |-0.112 |0.147 |-0.910 |0.362 |0.039 |-0.401 |0.176 |
|marz10* |-0.248 |0.169 |-1.860 |0.063 |0.051 |-0.579 |0.083 |
|obs. P |0.837 | | | | | | |
|pred. P |0.883 |(at x-bar) | | | | | |
(iii) Statistical data
Table II.A.1: Armenia: Schools, teachers and classrooms across marzes
| |Number of |student/ |Enrollment per |student/ |
| |schools |teacher |class |teacher grade10 |
|Total |1407 |10 |20 |8 |
|Aragatsotn |121 |9 |18 |7 |
|Ararat |111 |11 |22 |9 |
|Armavir |124 |11 |21 |10 |
|Gegharkunik |128 |10 |20 |7 |
|Kotayk |120 |12 |22 |8 |
|Lori |169 |11 |21 |9 |
|Shirak |179 |8 |18 |7 |
|Syunik |118 |9 |14 |5 |
|Tavush |82 |9 |18 |7 |
|Vayots Dzor |51 |9 |18 |7 |
|Yerevan |204 |10 |21 |6 |
|Source: NSS and calculations based on data from the Education Management Information System |
|(MOE). |
|Note: Data from EMIS include boarding schools as well. |
|Table II.A.2 : Armenia: Net enrollment in education by age and consumption quintiles 1998/99 |
| |Poorest |II |III |IV |Richest |Total |
| |
|Table II.A.3 : Armenia: Net enrollment in education by age and consumption quintiles 2001 |
| |Poorest |II |III |IV |Richest |Total |
| |
B. Living conditions: statistics
|Table II.B.1: Housing characteristics in Armenia (% of individuals by dwelling type) |
| |Consumption-ranked quintiles |Total |
| |q1 |q2 |q3 |q4 |q5 | |
|Yerevan | | | | | | |
|House |33.0% |34.9% |32.8% |30.8% |27.4% |31.4% |
|Apartment |66.1% |64.5% |67.2% |69.2% |72.5% |68.3% |
|Other |0.9% |0.5% |0.0% |0.0% |0.1% |0.3% |
|Urban | | | | | | |
|House |39.4% |36.5% |37.0% |47.1% |41.0% |40.2% |
|Apartment |55.4% |60.2% |60.9% |51.1% |56.2% |56.7% |
|Other |5.3% |3.3% |2.1% |1.7% |2.8% |3.1% |
|Rural | | | | | | |
|House |75.9% |87.6% |82.1% |83.1% |83.0% |82.6% |
|Apartment |18.2% |8.2% |11.9% |11.7% |13.1% |12.4% |
|Other |5.9% |4.2% |6.0% |5.2% |3.8% |5.0% |
|Total | | | | | | |
|House |47.4% |54.5% |52.1% |54.4% |48.4% |51.3% |
|Apartment |48.6% |42.6% |45.0% |43.2% |49.6% |45.8% |
|Other |4.1% |2.9% |2.9% |2.4% |2.0% |2.8% |
|Source: ILSC 2001. |
|Table II.B.2: Ownership of dwelling in Armenia (% of individuals in owned dwelling) |
| |Consumption-ranked quintiles |Total |
| |q1 |q2 |q3 |q4 |q5 | |
|Yerevan |94.1% |92.5% |92.9% |96.3% |92.5% |93.6% |
|Urban |86.0% |90.7% |90.5% |93.9% |90.1% |90.2% |
|Rural |93.3% |93.5% |93.1% |95.1% |95.4% |94.1% |
|Total |90.6% |92.2% |92.1% |95.0% |92.8% |92.5% |
|Source: ILSC 2001. |
|Table II.B.3: Dwelling conditions, self-reported (% of individuals) |
| |Consumption-ranked quintiles |Total |
| |q1 |q2 |q3 |q4 |q5 | |
|Yerevan | | | | | | |
| Very good |1.4 |0.4 |0.6 |0.0 |1.5 |0.9 |
| Good |4.1 |2.2 |2.8 |4.7 |6.5 |4.3 |
| Normal |26.3 |39.9 |44.4 |44.7 |59.4 |44.1 |
| Not so good |30.1 |38.1 |27.7 |30.7 |21.6 |28.9 |
| Bad |38.2 |19.4 |24.5 |19.9 |11.1 |21.9 |
|Other urban areas | | | | | | |
| Very good |0.5 |0.4 |0.8 |1.4 |2.7 |1.1 |
| Good |2.3 |3.4 |4.9 |10.4 |13.2 |6.4 |
| Normal |24.9 |38.1 |40.9 |41.1 |43.1 |36.9 |
| Not so good |38.6 |40.1 |40.9 |32.0 |31.3 |36.9 |
| Bad |33.8 |18.1 |12.5 |15.0 |9.7 |18.7 |
|Rural areas | | | | | | |
| Very good |0.0 |0.0 |0.5 |1.3 |1.9 |0.7 |
| Good |2.9 |3.2 |7.3 |7.4 |11.3 |6.5 |
| Normal |23.5 |33.8 |40.2 |46.5 |48.5 |38.8 |
| Not so good |45.3 |45.4 |35.3 |28.2 |31.8 |37.1 |
| Bad |28.3 |17.7 |16.7 |16.5 |6.4 |16.9 |
|Source: ILSC 2001. |
|Table II.B.4: Overcrowding in Armenia: number of people per bedroom (% of individuals) |
| |Consumption-ranked quintiles |Total |
| |q1 |q2 |Q3 |q4 |q5 | |
|Yerevan | | | | | | |
| 1 or less |10.1 |12.9 |15.7 |12.2 |16.5 |13.7 |
| 2 or less |45.4 |50.1 |49.7 |57.9 |58.4 |52.8 |
| 3 or less |24.0 |31.7 |21.2 |20.3 |17.8 |22.5 |
| More than 3 |20.6 |5.3 |13.4 |9.5 |7.4 |11.1 |
|Urban | | | | | | |
| 1 or less |14.3 |16.9 |18.7 |27.5 |24.4 |20.0 |
| 2 or less |50.7 |52.7 |62.1 |55.5 |58.0 |55.6 |
| 3 or less |25.6 |21.2 |15.4 |12.5 |12.2 |17.9 |
| More than 3 |9.4 |9.1 |3.8 |4.5 |5.4 |6.6 |
|Rural | | | | | | |
| 1 or less |23.3 |21.0 |26.9 |33.5 |29.8 |26.9 |
| 2 or less |51.9 |62.5 |53.8 |55.7 |54.7 |55.9 |
| 3 or less |12.2 |11.8 |16.4 |7.8 |13.9 |12.5 |
| More than 3 |12.6 |4.7 |2.9 |3.0 |1.6 |4.7 |
|Total | | | | | | |
| 1 or less |15.4 |17.2 |20.8 |25.1 |22.7 |20.3 |
| 2 or less |49.3 |55.5 |55.8 |56.3 |57.1 |54.8 |
| 3 or less |21.4 |20.8 |17.3 |13.2 |15.2 |17.6 |
| More than 3 |13.8 |6.4 |6.0 |5.4 |5.0 |7.4 |
|Source: ILSC 2001. |
|Table II.B.5: Location of water tap (% of individuals) |
| |Consumption-ranked quintiles |Total |
| |q1 |q2 |q3 |q4 |q5 | |
|Yerevan | | | | | | |
| Indoor |90.7 |93.2 |96.0 |97.2 |97.0 |94.9 |
| In yard |9.3 |6.8 |3.6 |2.8 |2.4 |4.8 |
| In street |0.0 |0.0 |0.5 |0.0 |0.6 |0.3 |
|Other urban | | | | | | |
| Indoor |89.4 |86.2 |86.2 |80.9 |83.7 |85.3 |
| In yard |7.7 |13.2 |12.9 |17.2 |15.4 |13.2 |
| In street |2.9 |0.7 |1.0 |1.9 |0.9 |1.5 |
|Rural areas | | | | | | |
| Indoor |49.9 |39.6 |40.3 |39.5 |52.8 |44.2 |
| In yard |46.5 |52.2 |51.3 |56.4 |41.9 |49.8 |
| In street |3.6 |8.2 |8.3 |4.1 |5.4 |6.0 |
|Source: ILSC 2001. |
Annex III: Demographics, migration and labor market
(i) Labor market indicators between LFS and LSLC 2001
As we are particularly interested in the regional differences of the labor market opportunities between 1999 and 2001, we use the 2001 LFS data for comparisons with the 1999 ILCS, given very limited information on that issue in the 2001 ILCS. The main reason for such decision is the fact that both surveys have comparable labor market modules which allow us to monitor changes in the labor market activity over the two years using the ILO definition. The same quarters (second and fourth) were used in both surveys, in order to overcome the seasonality problem. This means that we re-computed participation and unemployment rates and other labor market figures reported in the APU (World Bank, 2002a) to obtain corresponding measures for the second and fourth quarter together.
In those two periods, the LFS is undertaken along with the ILCS, so that the same households can be observed in both surveys. About 75% of the households from the LFS were matched with the households of the corresponding quarters in the 2001 ILCS. However, the LFS data have some drawbacks. Firstly, there is no information on labor market earnings which can provide some insight into relationship between labor market performance and poverty (wage differences between ownership sectors, branches, farm and non-farm activities in rural areas etc). Secondly, it is not possible to match individuals from the 2001 LFS with the 2001 ILCS which has information on labor earnings, due to limited information on individuals that can be used in the matching process. Hence, we may have only indirect observations about categories of labor force participants who benefited from economic growth (based on the 2001 ILCS). However, we can use the LFS data to verify our measures of labor market activity and its composition provided by the 2001 ILCS (see section 2.2). Thirdly, there is no information on braches of economy in the 2001 LFS, so that we can only observe farmers according to their place of work (farm, land).
Table III.A.1 Participation rates by regions using the ILCS and LFS 1999-2001, in %
| |1999 ILCS | |2001 ILCS | |2001 LFS |
| |Q1-Q4 |Q1-Q4 |Q2 |Q4 |Q2 |Q4 |
|Urban |50.5 |57.4 |55.9 |58.1 |58.5 |57.6 |
| Yerevan |48.3 |58.5 |58.6 |59.0 |62.7 |59.4 |
| Other urban |52.6 |56.3 |53.5 |57.3 |55.9 |56.0 |
|Rural |70.1 |56.4 |59.4 |54.8 |66.1 |56.9 |
|Total |58.4 |57.0 |57.2 |56.8 |61.1 |57.4 |
Source: ICLS 2001 and LFS 2001.
Tables III.B.1 and III.B.2 report basic labor market indicators (participation and unemployment rates) using the ILCS for 1998/99 and 2001, and the LFS for 2001. Due to seasonality problem, we only compare corresponding quarters between ILCS and LFS for 2001.
Table III.A.1 Participation rates by regions using the ILCS and LFS 1999-2001, in %
| |1999 ILCS | |2001 ILCS | |2001 LFS |
| |Q1-Q4 |Q1-Q4 |Q2 |Q4 |Q2 |Q4 |
|Urban |42.8 |39.1 |37.2 |39.0 |36.5 |36.4 |
| Yerevan |44.4 |37.5 |35.5 |35.4 |35.2 |29.8 |
| Other urban |41.3 |40.6 |38.3 |42.6 |37.7 |42.7 |
|Rural |5.2 |17.2 |13.8 |21.9 |23.3 |23.6 |
|Total |24.4 |30.7 |28.1 |32.6 |32.0 |32.4 |
Source: ICLS 2001 and LFS 2001.
Overall participation rate and unemployment rate are the same for the fourth quarter using both surveys, while differences appear in the second quarter. Looking across regions, the differences in participation and unemployment rate are slightly larger. We expected greater discrepancies between those two data sets, primarily because participation and unemployment rates in the ILCS are based on self-reporting of respondents while the LFS allow us to use standard ILO definition, which corresponds to the actual situation in the labor market.
(ii) Statistical tables
|Table III.B.1 Migration transition for internal migrants (out of 388 cases) |
|Origin |Destination |Total |
| |Yerevan |Other towns |Rural | |
|Yerevan |3.1 |11.1 |6.7 |20.9 |
|Other towns |9.5 |24.0 |9.8 |43.3 |
|Rural |5.7 |19.8 |10.3 |35.8 |
| |18.3 |54.9 |26.8 |100.0 |
|Source: ISLC 2001. |
Table III.B.2: Armenia: Characteristics of the unemployed in 1998/99 (total unemployed =100%)
| |Total |Urban |Yerevan |Other urban |Rural |
|Male |55.0 |55.3 |51.9 |58.9 |53.1 |
|Schooling | | | | | |
|Primary |0.7 |0.8 |0.3 |1.3 |0.0 |
|Incomplete Secondary |8.6 |8.7 |9.5 |7.8 |7.4 |
|Complete Secondary |43.0 |42.5 |36.9 |48.6 |46.9 |
|Complete Technical |29.9 |29.0 |29.4 |28.5 |37.0 |
|Higher Education |17.9 |19.1 |23.9 |13.8 |8.6 |
|Age | | | | | |
| 16-18 |4.7 |4.5 |3.2 |6.0 |6.2 |
| 19-25 |19.0 |18.5 |17.0 |20.1 |23.5 |
| 26-35 |24.6 |24.6 |22.8 |26.6 |24.7 |
| 36-45 |30.4 |29.1 |31.1 |27.0 |40.7 |
| 46-55 |15.5 |16.8 |19.9 |13.5 |4.9 |
| 55+ |5.8 |6.5 |6.1 |6.9 |0.0 |
Source:ILCS 2001 (Q2 and Q4).
Table III.B.3: Armenia: Composition of working age population (over 16) by education in 1998/99 and 2001
| |Primary |Incomp. |Complete |Complete |Higher education|Total |
| | |secondary |secondary |technical | | |
|1998/99 | | | | | | |
|Non-participants |12.1 |17.2 |33.2 |17.7 |19.8 |100.0 |
|Unemployed |0.7 |8.7 |43.2 |29.7 |17.7 |100.0 |
|Salaried workers |1.5 |4.1 |24.0 |30.7 |39.7 |100.0 |
|Self-employed |7.8 |16.7 |51.7 |17.6 |6.1 |100.0 |
|Other employment |6.1 |6.1 |21.2 |15.2 |51.5 |100.0 |
|Total working age population |7.3 |13.2 |37.4 |21.9 |20.2 |100.0 |
|2001 | | | | | | |
|Non-participants |4.7 |13.2 |44.8 |21.5 |15.8 |100.0 |
|Unemployed |1.2 |7.6 |46.4 |26.7 |18.1 |100.0 |
|Salaried workers |0.5 |3.6 |23.5 |35.1 |37.3 |100.0 |
|Self-employed |3.9 |8.8 |43.3 |31.1 |13.0 |100.0 |
|Other employment |2.0 |16.3 |49.0 |28.6 |4.1 |100.0 |
|Total working age population |2.8 |9.0 |39.2 |27.4 |21.6 |100.0 |
Source: ICLS 1998/99 (Q2 and Q4) and LFS 2001 (Q2 and Q4).
Table III.B.4: Armenia: Education by categories of the working age population (over 16) in 1998/99 and 2001
| |Primary |Incomplete |Complete |Complete technical |Higher |Total |
| | |Secondary |secondary | |education | |
|1998/99 | | | | | | |
|Non-participants |67.3 |52.8 |36.1 |32.9 |39.9 |40.7 |
|Unemployed |1.3 |9.3 |16.2 |19.0 |12.3 |14.0 |
|Salaried workers |4.0 |6.1 |12.6 |27.5 |38.6 |19.6 |
|Self-employed |26.9 |31.6 |34.7 |20.2 |7.6 |25.1 |
|Other employment |0.5 |0.3 |0.3 |0.4 |1.5 |0.6 |
|Total |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |
|2001 | | | | | | |
|Non-participants |69.7 |59.6 |46.7 |32.0 |29.9 |40.8 |
|Unemployed |8.1 |16.0 |22.6 |18.6 |16.0 |19.1 |
|Salaried workers |5.1 |10.8 |16.4 |35.1 |47.1 |27.4 |
|Self-employed |16.2 |11.1 |12.6 |12.9 |6.8 |11.4 |
|Other employment |1.0 |2.5 |1.7 |1.4 |0.3 |1.4 |
|Total |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |
Source: ICLS 1998/99 (Q2 and Q4) and LFS 2001 (Q2 and Q4).
Annex IV: Social protection
(i) Proxy-means targeting in Armenia
Background: Proxy means-testing targeting in Armenia builds on the experience acquired through the humanitarian aid distribution. Humanitarian aid started flowing into Armenia in 1988, after the catastrophic earthquake. It continued intensely through the initial years of transition. It is estimated that in 1993, when the economic crisis bottomed out, approximately 80 percent of the population was surviving on humanitarian assistance. With economic stabilization and recovery, the flow of humanitarian aid started to dry out; by the end of the 1990s it became almost insignificant from the household consumption point of view (Integrated Living Conditions Survey - ILCS 2001).
Early on, humanitarian assistance was distributed on a priority bases to individuals or families belonging to certain categories of the population that were considered the most needy. Those included disabled, orphans, children of single parents, single mothers, single pensioners, households comprising only pensioners, pensioners supporting children below 18 years of age, families with three and more children and families with children under two years of age. Gradually, a more sophisticated approach to targeting was introduced. By 1994, (i) a computerized data base with standardized information requirements documenting households’ social and economic status was developed; (ii) a proxy means-tested targeting mechanism, where households were ranked based on a single-index formula, was introduced. A formula, developed by the Armenian experts, included not only old indicators (socio-economic categories), but also additional household-level indicators that were strongly correlated with poverty; and (iii) a nation-wide network of territorial centers for social services that were processing applications and distributing humanitarian assistance was established.
Social assistance system reform: During the 1997-98 period, Armenian Government was working on the reform of the social assistance system. The major component of the reform was consolidation of 26 small, uncoordinated categorical benefits in cash paid to individuals into a single monthly cash benefit that would be targeted at the most needy families (the family benefit). Various targeting options were considered, including using a regression calculated from the 1996 Household Budget Survey. However, consumption correlates were not sufficiently strong and the Government decided to target the new family benefit using somewhat adjusted proxy means-testing targeting mechanism developed for humanitarian assistance distribution. The new system was introduced in January 1999.
The proxy means-testing formula:[13] The formula consists of the following variables:
- social category of each of the family members, or individual “social risk” (Pk) and related average “social risk” for the family (Pm);
- number of the family members not capable of working (Pc);
- place of residence (Pr);
- housing situation (Ph);
- car ownership (Pa);
- private business (Pb);
- the document issued by respective territorial center for social services verifying the social and economic situation of the applicant family (Pf) and its eligibility for the benefit (“eligible” and “not eligible”);
- family income (Pi).
The score of the family need (P) is calculated using the following formula:
P = Pm * Pc * Pr * Ph * Pa * Pb * Pf * Pi
(a) Socio-economic category of each of the family members (individual social risk)—Pk and related average “social risk” for the family (Pm). This is the most important element in calculating the score of the family need.
Each family member is screened for a certain social category, e.g. for whether she/he belongs to a certain category of “social risk”. Each category brings a certain number of points. The number reflects the assumed level of need of each category. The list of categories and corresponding number of points is presented in the following table.
| |Social category |Points |
|1 |Biological orphan (no parents) |50 |
|2 |First category disabled |48 |
|3 |Child invalid (up to 16) |45 |
|4 |Biological orphan (one parent deceased) |43 |
|5 |Second category disabled |39 |
|6 |Pensioner (75+) |39 |
|7 |Single pensioner |36 |
|8 |Child below 2 year of age |35 |
|9 |Pensioner |34 |
|10 |Child 2-18 |33 |
|11 |Pregnant women (20+ weeks) |30 |
|12 |Third category disabled (below pension age) |28 |
|13 |Unemployed |27 |
|14 |Single mother child |26 |
|15 |Child of divorced parents |26 |
|16 |Public university student |22 |
|17 |No social category 20 |20 |
In cases where one person belongs to several social categories, a weighted average is calculated. The weights are as follows: for the category with the highest number of points 1.0; for the second highest 0.3 and for the third and all the rest 0.1. For instance, a person can be a 17-year old child (category 10), with divorced parents (category 15), a student (category 16) and a third category disabled (category 12). Her/his individual social category (or “social risk”) score is calculated in the following way:
Pk(ind) = P10 + 0.3*P12 + 0.1*(P15+P16) = 33+0.3*28+0.1(26+22) = 46.2
The average “social risk” score for a family is calculated as arithmetic mean of the family members scores.
(b) Number of family members not capable of working (Pc). The value of this factor is calculated in the following way: Pc = 1.0 + 0.02*m, where m is the number of the family members incapable of working, namely children up to 16, women over 63, men over 65 and first and second category disabled.
(c) Place of residence (Pr). For most of the settlements in Armenia, the value of this factor is one. However, there is a list of 173 settlements (in the earthquake zone and border territories) for which the coefficient ranges between 1.03 and 1.05.
(d) Housing situation (Ph). Housing situation is classified into 6 categories with the following coefficients: “domik” (temporary shelter such as a carriage, a barrack, etc., in particular in the earthquake zone) – 1.2; homeless – 1.07; unsafe dwelling – 1.05; collective center – 1.03; other – 1.02; permanent dwelling – 1.
(e) Filter variables (0 or 1). The following factors are used as filters: a car ownership (Pa), private business (Pb), and a document issued by respective territorial center for social services verifying the social and economic situation of the applicant family and its eligibility for the benefit (Pf). Their value can be either 1 or 0. Obviously, 0 for any of the three (the family has a car and uses it, the family or its members are running private business and the social services center has assessed the family as ineligible for the benefit) eliminates the family from the list of beneficiaries.
(f) Family income. The family income coefficient is calculated using the following formula:
Pi = 1.2 – 0.04*((Sj/m*M) (j=1...n)
Where n is the number of the household members, sj is the income of the j-th household member, m is the number of the present household members, and M is the minimum wage (regulated by the Government). The income includes wages and salaries, income from self-employment, pensions, stipends and unemployment compensation. Income from farming is estimated based on cadastral income, while income from cattle breeding is estimated separately using a methodology regulated by the Government.
The qualifying score: The score that qualifies the household for the benefit is 36.01.[14] It has remained unchanged since the family benefit was introduced.
The poverty family benefit: The household that qualifies for the benefit is awarded the benefit for the period of 12 months. In order to continue receiving the benefit, the household has to apply for the benefit again and go through the same eligibility testing procedure. The household is obliged to report any changes in its economic and social situation to the respective territorial center for social services. A failure to do so, or any fraud in order to get the benefit leads to the benefit suspension and consequent prosecution.
The benefit consists of a basic amount (paid to each eligible family) plus a supplement. From January 1999 till end 2001 the basic benefit was 3,500 drams per month. The supplement was given to each family member and amounted to 1,300 drams per month. Hence, the family of four whose score was at the minimum of 36.01 points would receive 8,700 drams per month. As of beginning of 2002, the benefit amount calculation was changed, so that the base benefit is 4,000 drams and only children below 18 are awarded a supplement—currently 1,500 drams per child per month. Due to this change most of the recipient families experienced a decrease in the benefit amount. For instance, a family of four members, but no children would receive 4,000 drams instead of 8,700 drams. A family of four (two adults two children) would receive 7,000 drams (instead of 8,700 drams). As of July 2003, the supplement per child is to be increased to 2,000 drams.
Changes in the poverty family benefit introduced since 1999: As of July 2000, the “family benefit” became “poverty family benefit”. The change was motivated by hopes that adding the word “poverty” would contribute to self-targeting/screening behavior of the Armenian population.
Also, territorial center for social services are not any more responsible for issuing the document that would verify the social and economic situation of the applicant family and its eligibility for the benefit. Instead, a Local Social Protection Council was established. It consists of 5 local self-government representatives responsible for the social sectors in a self-government and 5 representatives of the non-government organizations. By issuing the opinion on each household’s eligibility for the poverty family benefit, the council is actually supervising the decision making process in the territorial centers for social services. Since the inception of the councils the public discontent concerning the benefit award process has decreased substantially. The council is also given the authority to allocate 5 percent of the family poverty benefit budget for a given local self-government to beneficiaries who do not qualify for the benefit, but are found to be needy. They are awarded a single benefit (currently 4,000 drams).
Implementation and administration arrangements: The benefit is regulated and supervised by the Ministry of Social Security. Direct administration (receipt of applications and eligibility assessment, including the field visits) is performed by 55 territorial centers for social services, which are established, funded and directly report to the local administration. The centers which employ about 500 people cover entire Armenia. The benefit administration is computerized, with the centralized data base managed by the Ministry of Social Security. The data base is linked to other data bases relevant for cross-checking of the economic and social situation of the applicant families (electricity consumption, telephone bills, customs records, the list of pensioners, etc.).
The draft of the final list of recipient families is prepared monthly by the centralized data base and sent to the territorial centers for final decision. However, as noted above, local social protection councils play a very important role in the decision making process as well.
The benefit is delivered to the beneficiaries through the post offices.
As of beginning of 2002, in order to make the territorial centers for social assistance more accountable for management of the poverty family benefit budget, each center is allocated fixed yearly benefit budget. The allocations were decided based on the 2001 data, as well as estimates of the demand for the benefit on the territory covered by each respective center. If there are savings due to better targeting of the benefit, the center may decide to include new beneficiaries or the council may award a one-time benefit to more families that are assessed to be extremely poor (based on the field visit) but formally do not qualify for the benefit.
All appeals are addressed to the respective local social protection council. If a client is not satisfied, he can appeal to the court. Often, clients complain directly to the Ministry.
The Ministry of Social Security has put substantial efforts into improving the family poverty benefit administration, including provision of clear guidelines (that are promptly adjusted to reflect any changes in the benefit administration procedures), developing and improving management information system, training of the benefit administrators in the territorial centers for social assistance, and continuous monitoring and supervision. Particularly important is that the Policy Analysis and Development Unit in the Ministry of Social Security employs highly qualified staff capable of designing a household survey type research, as well as conducting sophisticated econometric analysis of household surveys data. This is extremely important for the assessment of the poverty benefit targeting efficiency and effectiveness and further development of the targeting mechanism. The Ministry also pays attention to informing the public on any changes in the benefit.
(ii) Statistical information
|Table IV.B.1: Expenditures on social transfers in Armenia 1999-2003 |
| |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002 |2003 | |
|Total expenditures in bill drams |
|Pensions |32.17 |34.10 |39.11 |43.25 |48.46 | |
| Labor pensions |26.47 |26.24 |29.77 |32.97 |36.86 | |
| Social pensions |1.93 |1.91 |2.01 |1.98 |2.00 | |
| Military and special pensions |3.77 |5.95 |7.33 |8.30 |9.59 | |
|Unemployment compensation |1.07 |0.44 |0.25 |0.69 |0.36 | |
|Maternity leave compensation |0.37 |0.38 |0.44 |0.51 |0.32 | |
|Sick-leave compensation |0.43 |0.37 |0.38 |0.44 |0.34 | |
|Child care allowance |0.00 |0.28 |0.28 |0.21 |0.25 | |
|Newborn allowance |0.14 |0.15 |0.15 |0.15 |0.14 | |
|Poverty family benefit |21.08 |17.72 |16.85 |14.85 |13.23 | |
|TOTAL |55.25 |53.43 |57.45 |60.10 |63.10 | |
|Structure: total = 100% |
|Pensions |58.2 |63.8 |68.1 |72.0 |76.8 | |
| Labor pensions |47.9 |49.1 |51.8 |54.9 |58.4 | |
| Social pensions |3.5 |3.6 |3.5 |3.3 |3.2 | |
| Military and special pensions |6.8 |11.1 |12.8 |13.8 |15.2 | |
|Unemployment compensation |1.9 |0.8 |0.4 |1.2 |0.6 | |
|Maternity leave compensation |0.7 |0.7 |0.8 |0.8 |0.5 | |
|Sick-leave compensation |0.8 |0.7 |0.7 |0.7 |0.5 | |
|Child care allowance |0.0 |0.5 |0.5 |0.3 |0.4 | |
|Newborn allowance |0.2 |0.3 |0.3 |0.3 |0.2 | |
|Poverty family benefit |38.1 |33.2 |29.3 |24.7 |21.0 | |
|TOTAL |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 |100.0 | |
|GDP shares (%) |
|Pensions |3.26 |3.31 |3.33 |3.19 |3.25 | |
| Labor pensions |2.68 |2.54 |2.53 |2.43 |2.47 | |
| Social pensions |0.20 |0.18 |0.17 |0.15 |0.13 | |
| Military and special pensions |0.38 |0.58 |0.62 |0.61 |0.64 | |
|Unemployment compensation |0.11 |0.04 |0.02 |0.05 |0.02 | |
|Maternity leave compensation |0.04 |0.04 |0.04 |0.04 |0.02 | |
|Sick-leave compensation |0.04 |0.04 |0.03 |0.03 |0.02 | |
|Child care allowance |0.00 |0.03 |0.02 |0.02 |0.02 | |
|Newborn allowance |0.01 |0.01 |0.01 |0.01 |0.01 | |
|Poverty family benefit |2.14 |1.72 |1.43 |1.09 |0.89 | |
|TOTAL |5.60 |5.18 |4.89 |4.43 |4.23 | |
|Memo item: GDP (current, in bill drams) |987 |1031 |1175 |1357 |1493 | |
|Public transfers in real terms: 1999=100 |
|Pensions |32.17 |34.38 |38.27 |41.84 | | |
| Labor pensions |26.47 |26.45 |29.13 |31.89 | | |
| Social pensions |1.93 |1.92 |1.97 |1.91 | | |
| Military and special pensions |3.77 |6.00 |7.17 |8.03 | | |
|Unemployment compensation |1.07 |0.44 |0.25 |0.67 | | |
|Maternity leave compensation |0.37 |0.38 |0.43 |0.49 | | |
|Sick-leave compensation |0.43 |0.38 |0.37 |0.42 | | |
|Child care allowance |0.00 |0.29 |0.28 |0.20 | | |
|Newborn allowance |0.14 |0.15 |0.15 |0.15 | | |
|Poverty family benefit |21.10 |17.86 |16.48 |14.36 | | |
|TOTAL |55.28 |53.87 |56.22 |58.13 | | |
|Memo item: CPI (199=100) |100 |99.18 |102.19 |103.38 | | |
Source: Ministry of Social Security of Armenia and State Social Insurance Fund of Armenia.
Notes: Poverty benefit spending for 2002 comprises 12.252 billion drams for 2002 and 2.598 bill drams for payment of two months of arrears from 2001. Data for 2003 refer to planned budget. Labor pensions comprise old-age, disability and survivor's pensions based on the mandatory social insurance. Social pensions are regular monthly payment to the elderly who do not qualify for a labor pension, orphans, and disabled since childhood. As of January 1993, social pensions are financed by the Government budget, previously by the social insurance budget. Military pensions comprise pensions to officers, as well as pensions to soldiers and their families. Special pensions are awarded by GOA under special legislation (for former presidents, etc.). Military and special pensions are financed by the Government budget. Unemployment compensation, maternity leave compensation and sick-leave compensation are financed from the social insurance contributions. Only employed are entitled. Child care allowance and newborn allowance are financed by the Government budget and administered by the social insurance administration. Poverty family benefit is financed by the Government budget and administered by territorial centers for social services under the guidance and supervision of the Ministry of Social Security.
|Table IV.B.2: Social transfers in Armenia: recipients, and average nominal and real benefits |
| |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002 |2003 |
|Number of recipients |
|Pensions |568169 |560082 |550976 |543646 |559976 |
| Labor pensions |509769 |501711 |491723 |485446 |491723 |
| Social pensions |47451 |46687 |47312 |46675 |47312 |
| Military and special pensions |23073 |22829 |21870 |20978 |21870 |
|Unemployment compensation |26525 |15633 |6602 |5402 |8000 |
|Maternity leave compensation (days) |1038700 |1056900 |926800 |895845 |675900 |
|Sick-leave compensation (days) |560400 |535900 |548100 |622800 |351900 |
|Child care allowance |0 |10490 |9226 |7721 |9400 |
|Newborn allowance |26200 |24500 |25674 |25707 |24000 |
|Poverty family benefit | | | | | |
| Regular monthly benefit (as of January 1) | | | | | |
| Number of families |211555 |199456 |174800 |149603 |141218 |
| Number of individuals |657071 |667879 |598616 |532014 |505560 |
| Single benefit | | | | | |
| Number of families |66980 |11797 |15917 |10140 |14889 |
| Number of individuals |289711 |44935 |54139 |30544 |39456 |
|Note: Military pensions without officers. | | | | | |
|Average monthly benefit |
|Pensions | | | | | |
| Labor pensions |4328 |4357 |5046 |5660 |6248 |
| Social pensions |3394 |3403 |3542 |3527 |3522 |
| Military and special pensions |6278 |7018 |8942 |10156 |10567 |
|Unemployment compensation |2990 |3169 |3302 |3231 |3705 |
|Maternity leave compensation (daily average) |356 |355 |470 |567 |880 |
|Sick-leave compensation (daily average) |761 |699 |684 |704 |508 |
|Child care allowance |0 |2256 |2262 |2241 |2251 |
|Newborn allowance |5252 |5900 |5900 |5900 |5900 |
|Poverty family benefit (per household) | | | | | |
| Regular monthly benefit |7193 |7196 |7712 |6554 |7099 |
| Single benefit |3500 |3500 |3500 |4000 |4000 |
|Memo item: average wage (drams per month) |18530 |21001 |23987 |25255 | |
|Notes: Data for 2003 are planned amounts. Military pensions refer only to soldiers (not officers). |
|Average monthly benefit – real; 1990=100 |
|Pensions | | | | | |
| Labor pensions |4328 |4393 |4938 |5475 | |
| Social pensions |3394 |3431 |3466 |3412 | |
| Military and special pensions |6278 |7076 |8750 |9824 | |
|Unemployment compensation |2990 |3195 |3231 |3125 | |
|Maternity leave compensation (daily average) |356 |358 |460 |548 | |
|Sick-leave compensation (daily average) |761 |705 |669 |681 | |
|Child care allowance |0 |2275 |2214 |2168 | |
|Newborn allowance |5252 |5949 |5774 |5707 | |
|Poverty family benefit | | | | | |
| Families (January 1) |7400 |7255 |7547 |6340 | |
|Memo item: CPI |100 |99.18 |102.19 |103.38 | |
|Memo item: average wage (drams per month) |18530 |21175 |23473 |24429 | |
|Note: Military pensions without officers’ pensions. |
|Source: Ministry of Social Security and State Social Insurance Fund. |
|Table IV.B.3: The family poverty benefit recipients by socio-economic category |
| |1/1/1999 |1/1/2000 |1/1/2001 |1/1/2002 |1/1/2003 |
| | | | | | |
|Disabled (1st category) |7,776 |7,729 |7,243 |6,737 |6,609 |
|Disabled (2nd category) |32,320 |34,999 |30,845 |28,663 |28,651 |
|Disabled (3rd category) |3,928 |4,704 |4,116 |3,656 |3,982 |
|Invalids since childhood (below 16) |5,257 |5,607 |4,993 |4,555 |4,361 |
|Child under 2 |13,028 |14,603 |12,535 |10,714 |9,617 |
|Child 2-18 |249,681 |255,713 |237,689 |217,670 |208,249 |
|Child with one parent deceased |31,286 |34,938 |34,133 |33,427 |32,137 |
|Single-parent child |12,943 |14,585 |14,780 |14,762 |14,930 |
|Divorced parents' child |14,047 |14,162 |13,610 |13,253 |12,841 |
|Child with both parents deceased |1,043 |1,204 |1,091 |1,023 |943 |
|Pregnant women (20+ weeks) |72 |297 |251 |259 |183 |
|Unemployed |14,168 |24,862 |24,178 |22,392 |21,244 |
|Pensioner (under 75 years) |139,656 |120,526 |98,999 |70,932 |66,723 |
|Single pensioner |18,340 |16,751 |16,454 |14,939 |15,157 |
|Pensioner (over 75 years) |30,396 |47,806 |25,717 |25,253 |26,929 |
|Source: Ministry of Social Security of Armenia |
|Table IV.B.4: Armenia: Poverty reduction and alleviation impact of pensions |
| |Mean |Standard Error |95 percent Confidence |Change in poverty indicators |
| | | |Interval |(percentage points) |
|Poverty incidence |
|Post-pensions rate |48.3 |2.4 |43.4 |53.2 |0.0 |
|Pre-pensions rates depending on the percent of pensions substituted by other households resources |
|75 percent |49.9 |2.4 |45.1 |54.8 |+1.6 |
|50 percent |51.3 |2.4 |46.5 |56.1 |+3.0 |
|25 percent |52.2 |2.4 |47.4 |57.0 |+3.9 |
|0 percent |52.9 |2.3 |48.2 |57.6 |+4.6 |
|Extreme poverty incidence |
|Post-pensions rate |19.9 |1.5 |16.9 |23.0 |0.0 |
|Pre-pensions rates depending on the percent of pensions substituted by other households resources |
|75 percent |21.0 |1.6 |17.9 |24.1 |+1.1 |
|50 percent |22.3 |1.6 |19.0 |25.5 |+2.3 |
|25 percent |23.9 |1.6 |20.7 |27.2 |+4.0 |
|0 percent |25.1 |1.7 |21.8 |28.5 |+5.2 |
|Poverty shortfall (P1/P0) |
|Post-pensions shortfall |27.0 |0.9 |25.3 |28.7 |0.0 |
|Pre-pensions poverty shortfall (P1/P0) depending on the percent of pensions substituted by other households resources |
|75 percent |27.5 |0.9 |25.8 |29.3 |+0.5 |
|50 percent |28.4 |0.9 |26.6 |30.1 |+1.3 |
|25 percent |29.5 |0.9 |27.6 |31.4 |+2.5 |
|0 percent |30.8 |1.0 |28.9 |32.7 |+3.8 |
|Severity |
|Post-pensions severity |10.7 |0.6 |9.5 |11.8 |0.0 |
|Pre-pensions severity of poverty depending on the percent of pensions substituted by other households resources |
|75 percent |11.1 |0.6 |9.9 |12.3 |+0.4 |
|50 percent |11.7 |0.6 |10.5 |13.0 |+1.1 |
|25 percent |12.7 |0.7 |11.3 |14.0 |+2.0 |
|0 percent |13.9 |0.7 |12.4 |15.3 |+3.2 |
|Source: ILCS 2001 |
|Table IV.B.5: Armenia: Poverty reduction and alleviation impact of social assistance |
| |Mean |Standard Error |95 percent Confidence |Change in poverty indicators |
| | | |Interval |(percentage points) |
|Poverty incidence |
|Post-social assistance rate |48.3 |2.4 |43.4 |53.2 |0.0 |
|Pre-social assistance rates depending on the percent of social assistance substituted by other households resources |
|75 percent |48.9 |2.4 |44.0 |53.8 |++0.6 |
|50 percent |49.5 |2.5 |44.6 |54.5 |+1.2 |
|25 percent |49.8 |2.5 |44.8 |54.9 |+1.5 |
|0 percent |50.3 |2.5 |45.2 |55.3 |+2.0 |
|Extreme poverty incidence |
|Post-social assistance rate |19.9 |1.5 |16.9 |23.0 |0.0 |
|Pre-social assistance rates depending on the percent of social assistance substituted by other households resources |
|75 percent |20.6 |1.5 |17.5 |23.7 |+0.7 |
|50 percent |21.3 |1.6 |18.1 |24.5 |+1.3 |
|25 percent |21.9 |1.6 |18.6 |25.1 |+1.9 |
|0 percent |22.5 |1.7 |19.2 |25.8 |+2.5 |
|Poverty shortfall (P1/P0) |
|Post-social ass. shortfall |27.0 |0.9 |25.3 |28.7 |0.0 |
|Pre-social assistance poverty shortfall 27.8(P1/P0) depending on the percent of assistance substi29.5tuted by other households resources |
|75 percent |27.4 |0.8 |26.8 |29.1 |+0.4 |
|50 percent |27.8 |0.8 |26.2 |29.5 |+0.8 |
|25 percent |28.5 |0.8 |25.7 |30.1 |+1.5 |
|0 percent |29.1 |0.8 |27.4 |30.7 |+2.0 |
|Severity |
|Post-social assist. severity |10.7 |0.6 |9.5 |11.8 |0.0 |
|Pre-social assistance severity of poverty depending on the percent of assistance substituted by other households resources |
|75 percent |11.0 |0.6 |9.8 |12.2 |+0.3 |
|50 percent |11.4 |0.6 |10.2 |12.5 |+0.7 |
|25 percent |11.9 |0.6 |10.7 |13.1 |+1.3 |
|0 percent |12.5 |0.6 |11.3 |13.8 |+1.9 |
|Source: ILCS 2001 |
Table IV.B.6: Determinants of social assistance
Probit estimates Number of obs = 4037
LR chi2(34) = 460.01
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
Log likelihood = -1421.7951 Pseudo R2 = 0.1392
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
socass | dF/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| x-bar [ 95% C.I. ]
---------+--------------------------------------------------------------------
sage02 | .3099883 .0943644 3.28 0.001 .01941 .125037 .494939
sage25 | .341662 .0716792 4.75 0.000 .035263 .201173 .482151
sage510 | .2663926 .0582446 4.56 0.000 .078139 .152235 .38055
sage1015 | .319749 .0531182 6.00 0.000 .101858 .215639 .423859
sage1518 | .2287723 .0539159 4.23 0.000 .083334 .123099 .334446
sage1925 | -.0393263 .0563158 -0.70 0.485 .120901 -.149703 .071051
sage2645 | -.1360278 .0401665 -3.38 0.001 .286533 -.214753 -.057303
sage61 | .1992699 .0364543 5.44 0.000 .142173 .127821 .270719
lhhsz | .0121314 .0186719 0.65 0.516 1.52098 -.024465 .048728
hdage | -.000501 .0006353 -0.79 0.430 53.8236 -.001746 .000744
hdfemale | .0740712 .0128732 5.75 0.000 .211195 .04884 .099302
hdedseci*| .0055305 .0204528 0.27 0.784 .130416 -.034556 .045617
hdedsecc*| -.0130369 .0184629 -0.69 0.487 .316737 -.049224 .02315
hdedtehn*| -.0035414 .0197399 -0.18 0.858 .266445 -.042231 .035148
hdedhigh | -.0107075 .0215953 -0.50 0.620 .190649 -.053034 .031619
slfp1 | .0594815 .014862 4.01 0.000 .25764 .030352 .08861
slfp3 | .0169785 .015406 1.10 0.270 .256342 -.013217 .047174
slfp4 | .1616022 .0531043 3.04 0.002 .008547 .05752 .265685
owncar*| -.0575987 .0111257 -4.56 0.000 .234963 -.079405 -.035793
tmplodg*| .1809419 .0524268 4.41 0.000 .020371 .078187 .283696
oth*| -.0503567 .0355346 -1.11 0.268 .010486 -.120003 .01929
slndown | -.0303542 .0140694 -2.16 0.031 .483412 -.05793 -.002779
lpce17 | -.0332898 .0114722 -2.90 0.004 9.35868 -.055775 -.010805
urban*| .0030286 .0144478 0.21 0.834 .597398 -.025289 .031346
marz1*| -.0131145 .0275838 -0.46 0.649 .045924 -.067178 .040949
marz2*| .0789821 .0274536 3.31 0.001 .117906 .025174 .13279
marz3*| .0005943 .0206926 0.03 0.977 .105323 -.039962 .041151
marz4*| -.0745407 .0157718 -3.27 0.001 .076518 -.105453 -.043629
marz5*| .119875 .0264636 5.44 0.000 .107008 .068007 .171743
marz6*| .0523898 .0292945 2.01 0.045 .060845 -.005026 .109806
marz7*| .0952648 .0265956 4.23 0.000 .084935 .043138 .147391
marz8*| .1285077 .0427975 3.69 0.000 .043092 .044626 .212389
marz9*| -.0169396 .0344904 -0.46 0.644 .023185 -.08454 .05066
marz10*| .1864651 .0398986 5.92 0.000 .052255 .108265 .264665
---------+--------------------------------------------------------------------
obs. P | .1423267
pred. P | .1084254 (at x-bar)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) dF/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1
z and P>|z| are the test of the underlying coefficient being 0
wb56473
C:\Documents and Settings\wb56473\My Documents\ARMENIA\QAG\AMPA_Volume3_ANNEX.doc
02/25/2006 6:41:00 PM
-----------------------
[1] For further details on comparability between 1996 and 1998/99 see Armenia Poverty Update (World Bank, 2002a).
[2] However, it is the only available sampling frame. The SDS is currently developing a new data base of households’ addresses based on the latest 2001 Census.
[3] Although some reported amounts of transfers (pensions and other transfers) refer to different time period (one day, one week, one month or periodically), we find that all reported figures are actually on monthly basis.
[4] In the 2001 ILCS, there is no question on rent payment in advance (before the start of the survey month) like in the 1998/99 Survey, which may extend the size of the sub-sample. The sub-sample of households who paid rent amounted to only 3 percent, which was a very small sample size for estimating hedonistic rental equations.
[5] For detailed explanation of consumption aggregate and its components see Armenia Poverty Update (World Bank, 2002a).
[6]Fisher CPI index was used to make consumption comparable at the Autumn-urban price levels. While Fisher index based on survey data on food shows that annual inflation was –6.4% in urban areas and –13.3% in rural areas, the official overall CPI index for the same period amounted to 97 and CPI for food amounted to 94.1.
[7] For discussion of methodology used see Armenia Poverty Update (World Bank, 2002a).
[8] They argued that per adult equivalent consumption measure overestimates total consumption in all household types except in single-adult households.
[9] For further description of equivalence scales and size economies used see Armenia Poverty Update (World Bank, 2002a).
[10] Table A2.2 in Annex II reports poverty measurements in 2001 using the structure of urban and rural areas from the 2001 ILCS.
[11] This section borrows heavily from Berryman et al. 2002
[12] UNDP, 2002. Education, Poverty, and Economic Activity in Armenia. Report prepared by: A. Mizakhanyan, H. Minasyan, Y. Suvaryan, R. Yeganyan, N. Shahnazaryan and N. Jrbashyan. Yerevan.
[13] Based on the various documents of the Armenian Ministry of Social Security.
[14] In 1999, electricity tariff in Armenia was increased significantly. Given that the poverty family benefit was introduced at the same time, the Government decided not to introduce any additional benefit. However, in order to cushion any potential social dissatisfaction, households whose “score of need” was between 33.7 and 36 points were awarded a monthly compensation of 1,450 dram for a period of one year (till the end of 1999).
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
Related searches
- expository sermon notes and outlines
- world history notes and powerpoints
- igcse chemistry notes and worksheets
- technical approach and methodology
- probability and statistics problem solver
- probability and statistics answers pdf
- probability and statistics tutorial pdf
- probability and statistics degroot and schervish
- microbiology notes and study guides
- bsf notes and questions
- aicpa technical questions and answers
- combined science notes and questions