Table A1: Selected Economic and Poverty Indicators, by City



A PRELIMINARY DESK REVIEW of

URBAN POVERTY IN THE

EAST ASIA REGION:

with particular focus on

INDONESIA, THE PHILIPPINES,

AND VIETNAM

East Asia Urban Development Division

VOLUME 2: ANNEX TABLES

Final Draft

September, 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table A1: Selected Economic and Poverty Indicators, by City 91

Table A2: Comparative Education Indicators, by City 92

Table A3: Comparative Housing Sector Indicators, by City 93

Table A4: Infrastructure Service Indicators, by City 94

Table A5: Comparative Transport Indicators, by City 95

Table IN1: INDONESIA - Share of food expenditure in total household expenditure 96

Table IN2: INDONESIA - Household demographics by type of settlement and per capita expenditure deciles (distribution in a group) 97

Table IN3: INDONESIA - Educational level by type of locality and expenditure deciles 98

Table IN4: INDONESIA - School participation for children 6-14 years of age by size of locality and expenditure per capita deciles 99

Table IN5: INDONESIA - Literacy rate among respondents age 5 years and older by expenditure deciles and type of settlement 100

Table IN6: INDONESIA - Working status by size of locality, gender, and poverty status 101

Table IN7: INDONESIA - Employment status by size of locality, gender, and poverty status 102

Table IN8: INDONESIA - Housing by type of settlement and poverty status 103

Table IN9: INDONESIA - Housing characteristics by type of settlement and per capita expenditure deciles 104

Table IN9: INDONESIA - Housing characteristics by type of settlement and per capita expenditure deciles 105

Table IN10: INDONESIA - Source of drinking water by type of settlement and per capita expenditure deciles 106

Table IN11: INDONESIA - Drinking water by size of locality and poverty status 107

Table IN12: INDONESIA - Sanitation by type of settlement and per capita expenditure deciles 108

Table IN13: INDONESIA - Sanitation by size of locality and poverty status 109

Table PH1: PHILIPPINES – Household Characteristics By Decile, Rural/Urban 110

Table PH2: PHILIPPINES – Household Characteristics By Decile, Rural/Urban 111

Table PH3: PHILIPPINES – Employment Status, By Decile, Rural/Urban 112

Table PH4: MANILA – Employment Status, By Decile 113

Table PH5: PHILIPPINES – Tenure Status, By Decile, Rural/Urban 114

Table PH6: PHILIPPINES – Type Of Housing, By Decile, Rural/Urban 115

Table PH7: MANILA – Type Of Housing, By Decile, Rural/Urban 116

Table PH8: PHILIPPINES – Type Of Roof, By Decile, Rural/Urban 117

Table PH9: PHILIPPINES – Type Of Walls, By Decile, Rural/Urban 118

Table PH10: MANILA – Type Of Roof, By Decile 119

Table PH11: MANILA – Tenure Status, By Decile 120

Table PH12: PHILIPPINES – Source Of Water, By Decile, Rural/Urban 121

Table PH13: PHILIPPINES – Consumer Durables, By Poverty Status Rural/Urban 122

Table PH14: MANILA – Source Of Water, By Decile 123

Table PH15: PHILIPPINES – Source Of Water, By Poverty Status Rural/Urban 124

Table PH16: PHILIPPINES – Type Of Toilet, By Decile, Rural/Urban 125

Table PH17: PHILIPPINES – Type Of Toilet, By Poverty Status, Rural/Urban 126

Table PH18: MANILA – Type Of Toilet, By Decile 127

Table PH19: MANILA – Consumer Durables, By Decile 128

Table VN1: VIETNAM – Household Characteristics By Decile, Rural/Urban 129

Table VN2: VIETNAM – Household Characteristics, By Decile, Status, Rural/Urban 130

Table VN3: VIETNAM – Ethnicity, By Decile, Rural/Urban 131

Table VN4: Vietnam – Individual Characteristics, By Poverty Status, Rural/Urban 132

Table VN5: VIETNAM – Individual Characteristics, By Decile, Rural/Urban 133

Table VN6: VIETNAM – Health Status, By Poverty Status, Rural/Urban 134

Table VN7: VIETNAM – Smoking Behavior, By Poverty Status, Rural/Urban 135

Table VN8: VIETNAM – Type Of Housing, By Decile, Rural/Urban 136

Table VN9: VIETNAM – Type Of Housing, By Decile, Rural/Urban 137

Table VN10: VIETNAM – Type Of Housing, By Poverty Status, Rural/Urban 138

Table VN11: VIETNAM – Type Of Walls, By Decile, Rural/Urban 139

Table VN12: VIETNAM – Type Of Roof, By Decile, Rural/Urban 140

Table VN13: VIETNAM – Household Characteristics, By Poverty Status, Rural/Urban 141

Table VN14: VIETNAM – Type Of Lighting, By Decile, Rural/Urban 142

Table VN15: VIETNAM – Source Of Drinking Water, By Poverty, Status, Rural/Urban 143

Table VN16: VIETNAM – Source Of Drinking Water, By Decile, Rural/Urban 144

Table VN17: VIETNAM – Type Of Toilet, By Decile, Rural/Urban 145

Table VN18: VIETNAM – Type Of Toilet, By Poverty Status, Rural/Urban 146

Volume 2 – Annex Tables

Explanatory Note to Annex Tables IN1 through VN18

The following Annex Tables contain detailed data from the national household surveys for Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam as described in the main text.

All data are percentages.

Per capita expenditure deciles range from 1 (poorest) to 10 (richest).

The classification of Poor and Non-Poor households is based on poverty lines estimated by the surveys, separately for the rural and urban populations.

The tables show:

i) distribution within per capita expenditure deciles (column data for each set of variables add to 100 percent) or

ii) distribution across per capita expenditure deciles (row data for each variable add to 100 percent) for the rural and for urban household samples.

Table A1: Selected Economic and Poverty Indicators, by City

|Region |Country |City |Population |Average household |% Households below the |Unemployment |% of Total employed pop. in |Victims of homicide |

| | | |metropolitan area|income |locally-defined poverty line |(%) |the informal sector |/'000 |

| | | |(‘000) |(in $)a | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | |

|East Asia |Cambodia |Phnom Penh |999.8 |3,584 |16.4 |5.3 | |0.17 |

| |Indonesia |Bandung |1,806.4 | |2 |12 | |0.16 |

| | |Jakarta |9,489.4 |1,366 |6.6 |10 |30 |0 |

| | |Semarang |1,076.2 |756 |24.8 |10.2 | |0.02 |

| | |Surabaya |2,373.3 |1,167 |0.9 | |70.5 |0.01 |

| |Japan |Tokyo |25,130 | |0 |4.7 |0 | |

| |Lao PDR |Vientiane |562 |1,077 |19 |5.4 |15.4 | |

| |Malaysia |Penang | |3,193 |6.1 |3.2 | | |

| |Mongolia |Ulaanbaatar |627 |991 |30 |1.9 |29.7 |0.10 |

| |Myanmar |Yangon |3,691.9 |480 | |4.3 |14.4 | |

| |Philippines |Cebu |2,188.9 |490 | |11 | |0.24 |

| |Singapore |Singapore |3,163.5 |27,047 |4 | |8.8 |0.01 |

| |South Korea |Hanam |124 |19,933 |1.5 |8 | | |

| | |Pusan |3,843 |19,933 |2.1 |8.9 | |0.05 |

| | |Seoul |10,392 |23,500 |1.1 |7.8 | |0.04 |

| |Thailand |Bangkok |5,647 |8,521 |15.9 |4.7 |17 |0.80 |

| | |Chiang Mai |499 |3,384 |9.73 |4.4 |7.6 |0.15 |

| |Vietnam |Hanoi | | |2.1 |6 | | |

| | |Ho Chi Minh |5,063 | |10.6 |8.7 | |0.03 |

| | | | | | | | | |

|South Asia |Bangladesh |Dhaka |10,000 |1,920 |44.3 |4 |63 | |

| |India |Bangalore |4,472 b | |18.6 |50.3 |34.2 | |

| |Nepal |Pokhara | | |20 |23 | |0.11 |

| |Sri Lanka |Colombo |4,600 | |18 | |69 |20.4 |

| | | | | | | | | |

|Latin America |Argentina |Buenos Aires |2,996 |13,026 |4.4 | |10.3 | |

| |Ecuador |Guayaquil |2,317.4 |5,391 |48 |11.3 |53 |0.23 |

| |Peru |Lima |7,431 |3,179 | |15.4 | | |

| |Uruguay |Montevideo |1,669.5 |14,748 |15.4 |10.2 |31.3 |0.08 |

adata are preliminary; b1993 data

Source: UNCHS Global Urban Indicators Database 2 (1998 data).

World Development Indicators Database, 2000 and 2001, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Table A2: Comparative Education Indicators, by City

|Region |Country |City |Gross Enrollment Ratios |Literacy Rate |

| | | |Secondary |Secondary (male) |Literacy |Literacy (male) |

| | | |(female) | |(female) | |

| | | | | | | |

|East Asia |Cambodia |Phnom Penh |8.26 |12.66 |57 |79.5 |

| |Indonesia |Jakarta |95.7 | |97.3 |99.2 |

| | |Semarang |92.9 | |91.4 |97.5 |

| |Japan |Tokyo |100 |100 |100 |100 |

| |Lao PDR |Vientiane |54.9 |45.2 |78.9 |92.2 |

| |Malaysia |Penang | | |82 |91 |

| |Mongolia |Ulaanbaatar |74.2 |64.7 |97.1 |99.1 |

| |Myanmar |Yangon |57.7 |53.3 |88.7 |90.6 |

| |Singapore |Singapore |100 |100 |89.2 |96.8 |

| |South Korea |Hanam |99.9 |99.9 | | |

| | |Pusan |99.7 |99.8 | | |

| | |Seoul |99.9 |99.9 | | |

| |Thailand |Bangkok | | |95.1 |98.4 |

| | |Chiang Mai | | |90 |93 |

| |Vietnam |Hanoi | | |89 |95.1 |

| | |Ho Chi Minh | | |89.5 |95.1 |

| | | | | | | |

|South Asia |Bangladesh |Dhaka |62.3 |65.9 |60.3 |60.3 |

| |Nepal |Pokhara |35.4 |26.6 |42 |66.2 |

| | | | | | | |

|Latin America |Ecuador |Guayaquil |75.3 |68.6 |97.8 |98.2 |

| |Uruguay |Montevideo |100 |93.9 |98.3 |98.6 |

Source: UNCHS Global Urban Indicators Database 2 (1998 data).

Table A3: Comparative Housing Sector Indicators, by City

|Region |Country |City |Tenure Types |House |Rent-to-income |

| | | | |price-to-income |ratio |

| | | | |ratio |% |

| | | | |% | |

| | | |Formal ownership |Tenancy |Squatters |

| | | |% |% |% |

| | | | |water |

| | | | |private |train/tram |bus/minibus |bicycle/ |

| | | | |motorized |(%) |(%) |walking/ other |

| | | | |(%) | | |(%) |

| | | | | | | | |

|East Asia |Cambodia |Phnom Penh |45 |87.3 |0 |0.2 |12.5 |

| |Indonesia |Bandung |30 |82 | | | |

| | |Surabaya |35 |80 |0 |17.8 |2.2 |

| |Japan |Tokyo |45 | | | | |

| |Lao PDR |Vientiane |27 |41.8 |0 |2.1 |56.1 |

| |Malaysia |Penang |40 |42 |0 |55 |3 |

| |Mongolia |Ulaanbaatar |30 |10 |21 |59 |10 |

| |Myanmar |Yangon |45 |16.7 |3.7 |65 |14.7 |

| |Philippines |Cebu |35 | | | | |

| |Singapore |Singapore |30 |25.1 |14.5 |38.7 |21.7 |

| |South Korea |Pusan |42 |37.1 |6.6 |32.5 |23.8 |

| | |Seoul |60 |20.1 |32.3 |38.8 |8.8 |

| |Thailand |Bangkok |60 |58.7 |1 |27 |13.3 |

| | |Chiang Mai |30 |94.1 |0 |5 |0.9 |

| |Vietnam |Hanoi |30 |64.4 |0 |2 |33.6 |

| | |Ho Chi Minh |25 |74 |0 |2 |24 |

| | | | | | | | |

|South Asia |Bangladesh |Dhaka |45 |4.6 |0 |9.2 |86.2 |

| |India |Bangalore |30 |39.6 |0 |35.7 |24.7 |

| |Nepal |Pokhara |20 |11 |0 |14 |75 |

| |Sri Lanka |Colombo |25 |23.7 |8.1 |65 |3.2 |

| | | | | | | | |

|Latin America |Argentina |Buenos Aires |42 |33.5 |16.4 |42.2 | |

| |Ecuador |Guayaquil |45 |10.7 |0 |89.3 |0 |

| |Peru |Lima | |16.9 |0 |82.2 |0.9 |

| |Uruguay |Montevideo |45 |26.9 |0 |59.6 |13.5 |

Source: UNCHS Global Urban Indicators Database 2 (1998 data).

Table IN1: INDONESIA - Share of food expenditure in total household expenditure

| |Expenditure deciles |

|Type of Settlement | |

| |1 |2 |

| |Expenditure deciles |Total |Expenditure deciles |Total |

| |1 |2 |

| |Expenditure deciles |Total |Expenditure deciles |Total |

| |1 |2 |

| |Expenditure deciles |Total |Expenditure deciles |Total |

| |1 |2 |

| |1 |2 |

| |1 |2 |

| |1 |2 |3 |

|Type of settlement |  |  |56.7 |56.6 |56.7 |

|Rural |Female |Not working | | | |

| | |Working |43.3 |43.4 |43.3 |

| |Male |Not working |25.8 |27 |26.4 |

| | |Working |74.2 |73 |73.6 |

|Urban ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download