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.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- solutions to problems in chapter 1
- instructor pages
- table a1 selected economic and poverty indicators by city
- emanuel pleitez stanford university
- restrictedcode
- econnections where did all the money go
- multiple choice questions
- lecture 1 introduction to macroeconomics
- economic applications in disaster research
Related searches
- zip code list by city and state
- human poverty index by country
- poverty rates by country 2019
- world poverty statistics by country
- us poverty level by year
- virginia poverty rates by county
- world poverty rates by year
- us poverty rate by year
- poverty rate by year chart
- poverty level by state
- poverty rates by country
- poverty statistics by race