DRAFT

EPD INCOME DISTRIBUTION PROJECT

DATA ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN PANAMA

Jong-goo Park

Division Working Paper No.1981-3March 1981

Economic and Social Data DivisionEconomic Analysis and Projections DepartmentDevelopment Policy StaffThe World Bank

Division Working Papers report on work in progress and are circulated for

Bank staff use to stimulate discussion and comment. The views and inter-

pretations in a Working Paper are those of the author and may not be attri-

buted to the World Bank or its affiliated organizations.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

DATA ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN PANAMA

This paper contains an evaluation of the income distribution data

from a 1970 survey on household income in Panama. Under-reporting of

overall income in the survey was not very large. However, the survey

under-represented non-employees, particularly those in metropolitan

areas. Hence, the survey data on distribution of non-employee income

was adjusted, and a more representative distribution of income was

derived for the country.

Economic and Social Data DivisionEconomic Analysis and Projections Department

- March 1981

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Introduction .................................................... 1

II. The 1970 Special Survey on Household Income (EEIH) ............. 1

III. Evaluation of the 1970 EEIH .................................... 3

IV. Data Adjustment and Estimation of Income Distribution ............8

V. Concluding Remarks ............................................. 11

REFERENCES ..................................................... 12

APPENDIX TABLES ................................................ 13

DATA ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN PANAMA

I. Introduction

1. There have been three main sources of information on income

distribution in Panama. The World Bank Social Indicators Data Sheet for

Panama shows a suimmary of an estimate of Panama's income distribution by

household for 1970. This estimate was based on data on income distribution

for 1969 prepared by McLure, Jr.(1969) and updated by a Bank mission to the

country in 1973. The McLure data appear to have been derived from various

sources, including an annual survey of the labor force. As detailed background

materials for these data were not available, we could not assess their qniality.'i

2. The Direccion de Estadistica y Censo has been undertaking the annual

survey of the labor force since 1963. The Encuesta de Mano de Obra, however,

collects information only on income of employees holding a regular,

remunerated job.

3. The 1970 Encuesta Especial sobre Ingresos a Traves de los Hogares

CEEIH or Special Survey on Household Income) was the first nationwide sample

survey on household income in Panama. This paper evaluates the 1970 EEIH

data and, based on this, derives an estimate of the distribution of income by

household for 1970.

II. The 1970 Special Survey on Household Income (EEIH)

The 1970 EEIH was carried out by the Direccion.de Estadistica y

Censo, with technical assistance from the United Nations Development

- The report by the Bank mission noted that (a) "there was no recent householdincome survey in Panama" to provide data for the estimation of the country'sincome distribution, and Cb) the Bank mission's estimate of incomedistribution was "unsatisfactory." (See World Bank Report No. 275-PAN,Vol. II, November 13, 1973, pp. 40-41).

-2-

Programme. The main objective of the survey was to obtain information on

the pattern of income distribution in the country.

5. The survey covered all private households in the country, except

for those located in the Panama Canal Zone/l and in areas where access was

difficult and the interview costs would have been too high. The survey

sample contained 5,185 private households, about 2% of total households in

the country. Out of the total sample, 2,374 households were from metro-

politan areas - and 2,811 from the rest of the country. The sample house-

holds were selected in the following manner.

a. Metropolitan Areas

6 . In the cities of Panama and Colon, two strata were created: areas

with dwellings built before and built after the 1960 census respectively.

The primary sampling unit (PSU) in the first stratum was every other of the

areas that has been selected for the labor force survey. In the second

stratum, the PSUs were systematically selected from a list of clusters of

three dwellings built after the 1960 census, using one-half of the sampling

fraction used in the labor force survey. In the other metropolitan areas,

the PSUs were selected from the new census segments used to list population

and dwellings in 1970.

b. Rest of the Country

7. The 1970 ce~nsus was used as the sampling frame for the rest of the

country. The areas were divided into three strata: urban, rural and difficult

access. For the urban and rural strata, the PSUs were systematically selected

/1 People living in the Canal Zone are mostly foreigners.

/2 The metropolitan areas include the districts of Panama, Arraijan, La Chorrera,Capira and part of the Chepo district (i.e., Corregimiento Cabecera and Santa JCruz de Chinana) in the Province ofPanama and the districts of Colon, Charges,Portobelo and Santa Isabel in the Province of Colon. The population in themetropolican areas accounted for 41% of the country's population in 1970.

-3-

from a list of segments arranged in geographical order. No PSUs were selected

from the areas of difficult access. All households included in the selected

PSUs became sample households.

8. The sample households in the metropolitan areas were interviewed

durii,: the period January 15-30, 1971, those in the rest of the country during

the period February 8 - March 9, 1971. The reference period for information

on income was the calendar year 1970.

9. A household was defined as a single person or group of persons living

together under family conditions. Boarders, relatives, guests and domestic

workers permanently living in the household were included as household members.

People who normally were members of the household but were absent during part

of the reference period for work,study, medical care or vacation were included

as household members. /

10. Income was defined as gross income (without any deductions for direct

taxes and social security contributions) and included income both in cash and in

kind and transfers.

III. Evaluation of the 1970 EEIH

a. Sampling arnd Non-Sampling Error

11. As mentioned earlier, the 1970 census data were used as the sampling

frame for all areas other than the cities of Panama and Colon. Since the

census period coincided with the reference period of the 1970 EEIH, the sample

for the survey was considered appropriate. According to.the survey report,

sampling errors calculated for some statistics on income were relatively small.

The coefficient of variat-lon was calculated to be 4.2% foy the total household

/1 This implies that people staying in institutional households duringpart of calendar year 1970 were covered by the survey.

-4-

income and 4.3% for total factor income.

12. Information was collected for 4,460 households out of the total

sample of 5,185 which produced a relatively high rate (14%) of n:-t.--meration

(the non-enumeration rate was virtually the same for both the metropolitan

areas and the rest of the country).'l Because of a lack of relevant data,

it was not possible to assess the effects of non-enumeration on the survey

results. The sample of 4,460 households was, in any event, still relatively

large.

b. Bias in the Composition of the Sample

13. The EEIH survey report includes information on the composition of

the labor force by employees and non-employees. A comparison with the

results of the labor force survey suggests that the EEIH survey under-

represented non-employees, particularly those in non-agricultural sectors

in metropolitan areas (Table 1). Normally, the distribution of non-employees'

income is less equal than that of employees' income. If so, the under-coverage

of non-employees in the EEIH survey might have introduced a bias-toward more

equal distribution of income. The survey under-represented employees in the

agricultural sector but over-represented employees in the non-agricultural

sector. For the country as a whole, however, the survey coverage of employees

is almost complete. This can be explained by the fac?: that as in other

developing countries, laborers in the rural area often have multiple jobs,

and some of these laborers covered by the labor survey could have been working

in the non-agricultural sectors during the EEIH.

/1 In addition, information was collected from 16 households which wereselected from a special listing for "very high income" households.

/2 Non-employees refer to employers and the self-employed.

Table 1: EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR AND AREA, 1970

('000)

Metropolitan Areas Rest of the Country

Employees Non-employees/- Employees Non-employees/-

lb Non7 l Non7 l Non7 l Non-/Ag. Ag.-b All Ag./- Ag.- All Ag.1- Ag. All Ag.- Agr.- All

(A) EEIH- 9.8 168.0 177.8 10.1 27.5 37.6 36.1 60.8 96.9 .65.2 25.6 90.8

/e(B) Labor Stat./- 9.7 160.8 170.5 11.6 39.8 51.4 61.6 47.3 108.9 75.3 26.8 102.1

A/B 1.01 1.04 1.04 0.87 0.69 0.73 0.59 1.29 0.89 0.87 0.96 0.89

/a Includes the self-employed and employers.

/b Agricultural sector.

/c Non-Agricultural sector.

/d Encuesta Especial sobre Ingresos a Traves de Los Hogares: Ano 1970, Estadistica Panamena, ANO XXXIV, Suplemento, 1975,Cuadro 1, pp. 1-2.

/e Estadisticas del Trabajo, Ano 1970, Serie "O", Contraloria General de Republica, Direccion de

Estadistica y'bCenso, Cuadro 1z, p. 17.

4.

-6-

c. Under-Reporting of Income

14. The survey report shows that total household factor income

amounted to 678.5 million Balboas for an estimated population of 1.4

million in 1970./ This is 95% of the comparable aggregate income of

713.8 million Balboas derived from the national accounts (Table 2). This

suggests that the under-reporting of income in the survey was not a serious

problem.

15. When we examined the survey data on the average income of

employee and non-employee households, we found that the average income

of employee households was significantly higher than that of non-employee

households. This was true in both the metropolitan and non-metropolitan

areas and in both the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors. (Append-

ix Table A-1).

16. Panama's agricultural sector is characterized by the coexistence

of primitive farming of the slash-and-burn type arid well-developed commer-

cial farming. Over 40% of all farm families are subsistence farmers. On

the other hand, workers at commercial farms, who account for about half of

all agricultural wage workers, receive relatively high wages. For example,

in 1968 about 40% of- the rural households had an annual average income be-

low $500, while workers on banana plantations had an annual average income

of $1,600.L2 This largely explains the relatively higher average income

of employee households in.the agricultural sector.

/1 This population estimate is the same as the 1970 census figure. SeeAppendix, Tables A-2 and A-3, for the original survey data.

/2 Report on the Economy of Panama, V61. I, World Bank Report No. 275-PAN,November 13, 1973, p. 15.

-7-

Table 2: PERSONAL INCOME IN THE NATIONAL ACCOUNTS, 1970

(million Balboas)

1. National income (at factor cost) 840.8

2. Corporate savings after taxes 73.2

3. Direct taxes on private corporations 36.4

4. Government income from property and corporations(less interest on public debt) 17.4

5. Personal factor income (1-2-3-4) 713.8

5.1 Wages, salaries & prW-essional earnings/a 677.4

5.2 Other family and non-corporate income 36.4

/a Includes income of unincorporated firms.

Source: Controller General, the Government of Panama.

-8-

17. The average income of non-employee households in the metropolitan,

non-agricultural sector was much lower than that of employee households and

appears to be unrealistic (Appendix, Table A-1). Most probably, the survey

left out those income-earning household members from non-employee households

in non-agricultural sectors (see para.13).

IV. Data Adjustment and Estimation of Income Distribution

18. As mentioned earlier, the under-reporting of overall income in the

1970 EEIH was not very large. However, the survey's under-coverage of non-

employee (employer/self employed) households suggests that the survey data

on the distribution of household income may have some systematic bias. There

are no data, however, that provide information even for the average incomes

of the non-employee households which were not covered by the survey.

1. Table 1 (p. 5) suggests that the non-employee households in the

rest of the country which were not covered by the survey were mainly farm

households. The survey data on income distribution in the rest of the coun-

try show that the two lowest income classes have a relatively low ratio of

income earners to total household members. However, we normally expect

that in low-income households, more family members would be working to

supplement the income of the household head. We therefore assumed that those

non-employee income earners in the non-metropolitan areas who were left out

in the survey belonged to the two lowest income classes. Thus we distributed

these income earners into those two income classes in proportion to the distri-

bution of income earners already covered by the survey. Total income of the

two lowest income classes,were accordingly adjusted, based on the assumption

that the average incomes of the newly included income earners were equal to

the average factor income reported for the two lowest income classes (Appendix,

Table A-4).

-9-

20. Regarding the non-employee income earners in the metropo1itan

areas who were not covered by the survey, we assumed that the pattern of

their income distribution was the same as that for the non-employee income

earners who were covered by the survey. Thus we adjusted the survey data

on distribution of non-employee income for the metropolitan areas such that

the aggregate income of the newly included income earners (including those

mentioned in para. 19 above) plus the total factor income from the original

survey data was equal to the total personal income in the national accounts

(Appendix, Table A-5).

21. Using the adjusted data (paras. 19 and 20) and the survey data on

the distribution of employee income and transfer income, we estimated the

distribution of income by household for 1970 (Table 3 and Appendix Table A-8).

The distribution of income by decile household groups derived for the metro-

politan areas-and the rest of the country is shown in Appendix Tables A-9 and

A-10 respectively.

22. We compared these estimates of income distribution in Panama with

those derived from the unadjusted EEIH data and with that shown in the World

Bank Social Indicators Sheet for Panama. The Differences between the estimates

derived from the adjusted and unadjusted EEIH data were not very significant,

as only marginal adjustments had been made to the original EEIH data. On the

other hand, the differences between the estimates as derived in para 21 above

and those appearing in the Social Indicators Sheet were-quite significant.

Both estimates did, however, show a relatively high inequality in the distri-

bution of income (Table 42. Relevant data which can explein the differences

between the latter two estimates are not available (see para. 1).

I .',,

- 10 -

Table 3: INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN PANAMA, 1970

Cumulative % of Cumulative % o5Households Household Income -

10 0.7

20 2.0

30 4.0

40 7.2

50 11.9

60 18.2

70 26.6

80 38.2

90 55.8

95Lb 77.9/b

100 100.0T

Gini Coefficient 0.571

/a Household income before payment of direct taxand social security contribution.

/b Derived through linear interpolation.

4r

Table 4: INCOME INEQUALITY MEASURES BASED ON DIFFERENT ESTIMATES, 1970

Share (%) in Total Household IncomeLowest Lowest Highest Highest

Gini 20% of 40% of 20% of 5%O of

Data Source Coefficient Households Households Households Households

EEIH (Adjusted) 0.571 2.0 7.2 61.8 22.1

EEIH (Unadjusted) 0.569 1.8 7.0 61.3 21.7

Social Indicators Sheet 0.491 2.1 9.5 52.7 17.8

V. Concluding Remarks

23. We estimated the distribution of household income in Panama for 1970,

using data from the countryts first national household survey. We found that the in-

equality in income distribution by household in Panama is relatively high. Tnis may

reflect the dualistic structure of the country's economy (i.e., the coexistence of

a large number of subsistence farms and well-developed commercial farms and modern

service sectors). Further, income in the survey referred to gross household income

before payment of direct taxes. To the extent that the rate of direct tax is

progressive, the income distribution estimate derived from the survey data may

overstate income inequality.

24. The survey data used for the income distribution estimate appear to

be of good quality in getieral. However, the data on the income of non-employee

households may be less reliable. This would be mainly because the recall period for

the income questionnaire in the survey was one year, and it must have been difficult

for non-employee households to.recall their generally irregular yearly incomes.

4V

-12-

REFERENCES

1. Direccion de Estadistica y Censo,-Encuesta Especial Sobre Ingresosa Traves de los Hogares: Ano 1970, Estadistica PanamenaAno XXXIV, Suplemento, 1975.

2. , Estadistica Panamena, Series 0: Estadisticas delTrabajo (Encuesta de Mano de Obra), Ano 1970, 1972.

3. McLure, Jr., C.E., "The Distribution of Income and Tax Incidencein Panama, 1969," Paper No. 36, Program of DevelopmentStudies, Rice University, Houston, Texas, Winter 1969.

4. World Bank,-Report on the Economy of Panama, Vols. I, II, III and IV,Report No. 275-PAN, November 13, 1973.

5. , Social Indicators Data Sheets, August 1979.

-13-

APPENDIX TABLES

Table A-1: AVERAGE ANNUAL INCOME OF EMPLOYEES' AND NON-EMPLOYEES t

HOUSEHOLDS, 1970

(Balboas)

Metropolitan Rest of theAreas Country

Employees' Households 4,046 1,951

(Agricultural) (1,309) (1,528)

(Non-agricultural) (4,243) (2,238)

Non-Zmployees' Households 2,187 844

(Agricultural) ( 668) ( 562)

(Non-agricultural) (2,848) (2,027)

Source: Encuesta Especial sobre Ingresos a Traves de los Hogares:Ano 1970, Estadistica Panamena, Ano XXIV, Suplemento,1975, Cuadro 16, pp. 62-64.

-0

-14-

Table A-2: DISTPIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1970, UNADJUSTED

Average TotalHousehold-- No. of HouseholdIncome Household Households Household Factor Income(Balboas) Size ('000) Income \(000 Balboas) ('000 Balboas)

144 3.97 28.5 3,848 4,131

300 4.91 28.5 7,772 8,538

513 4.67 28.5 13,287 14,611

831 4.73 28.5 20,519 23,690

1,216 4.91 28.5 32,102 34,669

1,645 4.91 28.5 43,299 46,874

2,183 4.86 28.5 58,218 62,205

3,008 5.20 28.5 79,891 85,739

4,521 5.34 28.5 118,537 128,860

11,056 5.41 28.5 300,993 315,085

TOTAL 4.89 285.3 678,466 724,402

Source: Direccion de Estadistica y Censo, Encuesta Especial sobre Ingresos aTraves de los Hogares; Ano 1970, Estadistica Panamena, Ano XXXIV,Suplement6,- 1975, pp. 66-67.

. .S ,.

Table A-3: DISTRI3UTION OF HOUSEHOLD IDCO`4E 5Y 'STROPOLITAN AREAS AN,D THE REST OF THE COU3NETRY,

197U, UnADJUISrED('000 Balboas)

Decile Group of Pouseholds

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th TOTAL

I. MetroDolitan-AreasNo. of Hoioseholds ('000) 4.9 5.9 7.8 11.8 13.7 17.2 18.4 20.4 21.5 24.0 145.6

Household Size 3.53 4.41 3.84 3.62 4.38 4.35 4.54 4.93 5.19 5.39 4.64

Larners per H2ousehold 1.09 1.18 1.19 1.21 1.24 1.37 1.39 1.80 2.13 2.64 1.70

Compensation cf Employees 133 454 1,643 5,076 11,014 21,953 30,826 49,036 74,1l4 190,899 385,138

in Cash 130 444 1,604 4,849 10,417 20,743 29,150 46,347 70,121 178,797 362,602

:n Kind - 5 - 30 26 L5 65 166 118 1,036 1,462

~mlover 's Contrib5utionto Social Secnrit o 3 ' 39 197 571 1,195 l,S11 2,523 3,865 11,066 21,074

E-plover income 491 983 1,780 2,514 4,164 3,739 5,0u8 8,528 15,549 40,388 84,144

1; i48 465 916 1,652 3,112 2,472 3,900 5,615 9,178 18,3C1 45,7i58

'K Kind 343 518 864 862 1,052 1,267 2,108 2,914 6,371' 22, A7 38,386

e er; -.come - 8 30 60 17 133 125 70 348 29,561 30,352

-ransrer Incosme 97 386 654 2,092 1,579 2,547 2,956 3,839 7,656 12,255 34,061

TOTAL IJCOMM 721 1,831 4,107 9,742 16,774 28,372 39,915 61,473 97,657 273,103 533,695

I-. Rest of t;ie Countr;

No. of Households ('000) 23.7 22.6 20.7 16.7 14.8 11,4 0.2 8.2 7.0 4.4 139.7

Household Size 4.06 5.04 4.98 5.52 5.41 3.76 5.42 b.89 5.82 5.49 5.15

Earners per 'ousehold 1.13 1.24 1.41 1.60 1.49 1.71 1.91 ?.15 2.40 2.33 1.55

Compensation of Employees 286 1,288 3,324 6,4U1 11,122 11,575 13,834 16,232 20,426 23,833 108,321

in Cash 270 1,227 3,209 6,047 10,524 10.814 12,931 15,114 19,101 22,250 101,487

In Kind 16 56 80 160 42 259 235 221 128 144 1,341

-- plover' s Contributionto Social Security - 5 35 194 556 502 668 897 1,197 1,439 5,493

-:--=Ier income 2,92' 4,994 6,437 6,365 5,770 5,721 7,226 5,638 7,652 12,604' 65,329

-. Cash 801 1,645 2,983 3,264 3,363 3,133 4,485 3,114 4,361 10,'33 37,282

n .IKin 2,121 3,349 3,4-4 3,101 2,407 2,588 2,741 2,524 3,291 2,471 26, l

Property Income 14 44 74 103 15 179 200 386 458 3,709 5,1E2

Transfer income 188 380 670 1,079 989 1,027 1,030 2,009 2,667 1,836 11,875

TOTAL INCOE 3,410 6,706 10,505 13,948 17,896 18,502 22,290 24,265 31,203 41,982 190,707

Source: Encuesta Especial sobre Ingresos a Traves de lQs Fogares; Ano l97OQ Estadistica Panamena, Ano .EIV;

Suplemento, 1975, pp. 66-69.

Table A-4: ADJUSTMENT OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR INCOME EARNERS NOT COVERED IN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY

Total Total Factor Adjustments

Aver. Income Household No. of Income No. ofHousehold No. of Members Earners Earner Factor Income Per Income Farmer Income

Income Households per per Member Income Earners Income Earners ('000 Balboas)

(Balboas) ('000) Households Households Ratio ('000) ('000) Earner ('0O?

1 (2) (3) (4) (5=4t3) (6) (7=2x4) (8=6+7) (9) - (10=8x9)

144 23.7 4.06 1.13 0.278 3,222 26.8 174.2 4.94 860

i 297 22.6 5.04 1.24 0.246 6,326 28.0 5.16 899

507 20.7 4.98 1.41 0.283 9,835 29.2 336.8 - ' -

835 16.7 5.52 1.60 0.290 12,869 26.7 482.0 - -

1,209 14.8 5.41 1.49 0.275 16,907 22.1 765.0 -

1,623 11.4 5.76 1.71 0.297 17,475 19.5 896.2 - - C

2,185..., 10.2 5.42 1.91 0.352 21,260 19.5 1,090.3 -

2,959 8.2 5.89 2.15 0.365 22,256 17.6 1,264.5 -

4,458 7.0 5.82 2.40 0.412 28,536 16.8 1,698.6 -

9,541 4.4 5.49 2.33 0.424 40,146 10.3 3,897.7 -

TOTAL 139.7 5.15 1.55 0.301 178,832 216.5 826.0 10.1/- 1,759

/a The total ot 10.1 was distributed according to the distribution of total income earners for the first two income

classes in column 7.

/b Derived from Table 1 in the text.

Source: Encuesta Especial sobre Ingresos a Traves de los Ilogares: Ano 1970, Estadistica Panamena, Ano XXIV;Suplemento, 1975, pp. 68-69.

.

-17-

Table A-5: ADJUSTMENT OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR INCOMEEARNERS NOT COVERED IN METROPOLITAN AREAS

Aver. Adjustment toHousehold Non-Employee Income Non-Employee

Income Income(Balboa) Amount ('000 Balboas) % ('000 Balboas)

(1) (2) (3) (4=(3)x33,541)

147 491 0.4 134

310 991 0.9 302

527 1,810 1.6 537

826 2,574 2.2 738

1,224 4,181 3.6 1,207

1,650 3,872 3.4 1,140

2,169 6,133 5.4 1,811

3,013 8,598 7.5 2,516

4,542 15,897 13.9 4,662

11,379-- 69,949 61.1 20,494

TOTAL 114,496 100.0 33,541/a

/a Total personal income in the national accounts (713.8 million Balboas)minus total household income as derived from the unadjusted EEIHdata (678.5 million Balboas) minus the adjustment to the income ofnon-metropolitan households (1.76 million Balboas).

Source: Encuesta Especial Sobre Ingresos a Traves de los Hogares:Mo 1970, Estadistica Panamena, Ano =IV; SUDlemento, 1975, pp.66-7 7.

2.,,.

-18-

Table A-6: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1970, ADJUSTED,THE REST OF THE COUNTRY

Aver.Household Household Income

Income Households Amount(Balboas) No. % ('000 Balboas.)

180 23,700 17.0 4,270 2.2

337 22,600 16.2 7,605 4.0

507 20,700 14.8 10,505 5.5

835 16,700 11.9 13,948 7.2

1,209 14,800 10.6 17,896 9.3

1,623 11,400 8.2 18,502 9.6

2,185 10,200 7.3 22,290 11.6

2,959 8,200 5.9 24,265 12.6

4,458 7,000 5.0 31,203 16.2

9,541 4,400 3.1 41,982 21.8

TOTAL 139,700 100.0 192,466 100.0

Source: EEIH data, adjusted for under-reporting of income.

3

-19-

Table A-7: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1970, ADJUSTED,METROPOLITAN AREAS

Aver. Household Households Household IncomeIncome (Balboas) No. - Amount ('000 Balboas) %

174 4,900 3.4 855 0.1

362 5,900 4.0 2,133 0.4

595 7,800 5.4 4,644 0.8

888 11,800 8.1 10,480 1.8

1,312 13,700 9.4 17,981 3.2

1,716 17,200 11.8 29,512 5.2

2,268 18,400 12.6 41,726 7.4

3,137 20,400 14.0 63,989 11.3

4,759 , 21,500 14.8 102,319 18.0

12,233 - 24,000 16.5 293,597 51.8

TOTAL 145,600 100.0 567,236 100.0

Source: EEIH data, adjusted for under-reporting of income.

o ,.

-20-

Table A-8: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1970, ADJUSTED/-a

Average------------Household Households Household Income

Income - .Amount(Balboas) No. % ('000 Balboas) %

180 28,600 10.0 5,125 0.7

342 28,500 10.0 9,738 1.3

532 28,500 10.0 15,149 2.0

857 28,500 10.0 24,428 3.2

1,259 28,500 10.0 35,877 4.7

1,685 28,500 10.0 48,014 6.3

2,246 28,500 10.0 64,016 8.4

3,097 28,500 10.0 88,254 11.6

4,685 28,500 10.0 133,522 17.6

11,775 28,500 10.0 335,579 44.2

TOTAL 285,300 100.0 759,702 100.0

/a Derived from Tables A-6 and A-7.

1. S.

-21-

Table A-9: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY DECILE HOUSEHOLDGROUP, REST OF THE COUNTRY, 1970

Cumulative % Cumulative % of /aof Households Household Income -

10 1.3

20 2.9

30 5,4

40 8.7

50 12.9

60 19.0

70 27.8

80 39.9

90. 57.9-

(95) (72.0)

100 100.0

Gini Coefficient 0.561

/a Derived from Table A-6 'by linear interpolationbetween two adjacent income classes.

j ,S,.

-22-

Iable A-10: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY DECILE HOUSEHOLDGROUP, M4ETROPOLITAN AREAS, 1970

Cumulative % Cumulative % ofof Households Household Income a

10 0.9

20

30 6.2

40 10.6

50 16.1

60 23.2

70 31.8

80 43.9

90 68.6

(95) (84.3)

100 100O0

Gini Coefficient 0.498

/a Derived from Table A-7 by linear interpolation betweentwo adjacent income classes.

.s

--

Table A-li: DISTRIBUTION OF PER-CAPITA INCOIE BYHOUSEHOLD MEaBERS, 1970, UNADJUSTED /a

Average Household Members Household Incomeper-capita

Income Amount(Balboas) No ('000) % (1000 Balboas) %

28.1 184.7 13.2 5,197 0.7

69.3 159.3 11.4 11,046 1.5

123.1 156.8 1l2 19,289 2.6

191.8 158.7 11.4 30,440 4.1

280.0 150.5 10.8 42,134 5.7

387.6 141.4 10.1 54,788 7.5

553.1 130.5 9.4 72,195 9.8

794.3 118.6 8.5 94,174 12.8

1,196.9 99.8 7.2 119,396 16.3

3,044.8 94.1 6.8 286,364 39.0

TOTAL 1,394.4 100.0 735,023 100.0

/a Derived from Encuesta Especial Sobre Ingresos a Traves de Los Hogares:Ano 1970, Estadistica Panamena, Ano XXXIV, Suplemento, Cuadro 19,pp. 74-75.