DRAFT

EPD INCOME DISTRIBUTION PROJECT

DATA ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

Jong-goo Park

Division Working Paper No. 1980-5August 1980

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

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

DATA ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

This paper evaluates Trinidad and Tobago's 1975/76 survey of

household budgets and estimates of income distribution derived

therefrom. Based on the evaluation, it adjusts the survey data

for under-reported income. The paper then derives a more repre-

sentative distribution of household income for Trinidad and

Tobago.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DATA DIVISION

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS DEPARTMENT

AUGUST 1980

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

II. The 1975/76 Household Budgetary Survey ..................... 1

III. Evaluation of the 1975/76 Household Bugetary Survey . . 3

IV. Data Adjustment and Estimation of Income Distribution . 7

V. Concluding Remarks ................. . . . . . . . ...... 14

Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

DRAFTJPark:prrAugust 21, 1980

DATA ON INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

I. Introduction

1. This paper evaluates Trinidad and Tobago's 1975/76 survey of house-

hold budgets and the estimates for household income distribution derived there-

from. It also discusses the survey's various shortcomings - the under-reporting

of income, the low rate of enumeration, the bias toward lower income households,

and the insufficient disaggregation of the published data.

2. National household budget surveys have been conducted in Trinidad

and Tobago for 1957/58, 1971/72, and 1975/76. Although designed primarily for

obtaining information on household expenditure patterns, these surveys also

provided data for estimating the size distribution of household income. A

World Bank mission used the survey data to estimate the country's distribution

of household income for the periods,1971/72 and 1975/76.-l Subsequently, these

estimates were published in the Bank's 1980 Social Indicators Data Sheets,

3. These and other estimates were based, however, on data that excluded

non-monetary income./ Moreover, there is no evidence that any attempt was made

to evaluate the quality of the household budget survey data before using them to

derive income distribution estimates.

II. The 1975/76 Household Budgetary Survey (HBS)

4. The 1975/76 HBS was the third national sample survey of household

budgets in Trinidad and Tobago. It was carried out by the country's Central

Statistical Office.

/1 Economic Position and Prospects of Trinidad and Tobago, World Bank ReportNo. 2218-TR, Vol. II: Statistical Appendix, December 19, 1978, pp. 182-87.

/2 Other estimates are found in Ahiram, E., "Distribution of Income in Trinidadand Tobago and Comparison with the Distribution of Income in Jamaica,"Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1966; and in Henry, R. M.,"A Note on Income Distribution and Poverty in Trinidad and Tobago," ILO WorldEmployment Programme Research Working Papers, WEP2-23/WP29, Geneva, Oct., 1975.

-2-

a. Coverage

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

b. Definitions

6. Private Household consists of one or more persons, related or unrelated

who occupy the same dwelling, sleep most n.ights in that dwelling, and share at

least one daily meal.

7. Household Income includes the money income of all household members

(before deductions for income tax and national insurance payments into pension

funds, etc.). Also counted as income are such transfers as retirement pensions

and gifts. Excluded are income in kind, imputed rents, and production consumed

by the producer.

c. Sample selection

8. The sample consisted of 2,992 households, or about 1.2% of all house-

holds in the country in 1975. The sample households were selected through a

two-stage, stratified sampling process, with the probability of selection

proportional to population size. The sampling frame was the same as that used

in the 1970 census, but with some modifications made for population changes and

new housing areas. The sample scheme was prepared so that each of the major

administrative areas would be adequately covered.

d. Survey methodology

9. The survey was conducted in two rounds. Each round lasted six months.

The first ran from mid-March 1975 to mid-September 1975, the second from the

beginning of October 1975 to the end of March 1976. Information was collected

partly by interview and partly by questionnaires filled out by the individual

household spenders.

/1 Spenders are those household members who are 18 years or more of age or whoare under 18 but working and not attending an educational institution full-time. Excluded are those persons at least sixty-five years of age who arenot heads of households.

-3-

e. Period of Reference

10. Income data were for either the previous month or the most recent

pay period.

III. Evaluation of the 1975/76 Household Budgetary Survey

a. Non-enumeration

11. Of the sample of 2,992 households, information was actually collected

for only 2,493 households,equal to a 16.7% rate of non-enumeration. No directly

relevant data are available for assessing with any precision the bias introduced

by this relatively high rate of non-enumeration. However, data on the distribu-

tion of sample households and of average household income by major administrative

areas do show that Port of Spain and St. George, which had relatively high

average household income in 1971/72, were under-represented in the effective

sample (i.e., the responding sample households), whereas Caroni and St. Patrick,

which had relatively low average household income, were over-represented -

(Table 1). This implies that the effective sample was biased toward the lower

income households, if the non-enumerated households were randomly distributed

throughout the different income classes in the various administrative areas.

b. Under-reporting of Income

12. Survey data show that average expenditures exceeded average incomes

for all but two income classes (Table 2). For the country as a whole, average

household expenditures exceeded average household incomes. This would mean

that the non-corporate private sector must have generated negative net savings,

a dubious state of affairs. Because there is no evidence for any systematic

upward bias in the expenditure data, the explanation for such an anomaly must

be that most sample households under-reported their incomes in the survey much

more than they overstated their expenditures.

-4-

Table 1: DISTRIBUTION OF SAZIPLE HOUSE-HOLDS (1975/76) AND AVERAGE HOUSEHOLDMONETARY INCOME BY ADMINISTRATIVIE AREAS (1971/72)

Distribution Distributionof Original of Enumer- Average Household

S-ample Responding ation Monetary IncomeAdministrative Househ?lds (A) House olcs (B) Biasl 2 in 197L/72

Areas 71 - (B-A) (TT 9/Month)/-!

Port ot Spain 8.2 7.4 -0.8 32±Z

San Fernando 4.4 4.5 0.1 346

St. George 37.9 36.9 -1.0 357

Caroni 10.8 12.1 1.3 217

Nariva/Mayaro 2.8 2.6 -0.2 158

St. Andrew/St. David 4.7 4.7 0.0 186

Victoria 15.9 15.9 0.0 252

St. Patrick 11.3 12.0 0.7 261

Tobago 4.0 3.8 -0.2 229

Trinidad & Tobago 100.0 100.0 291

/I Derived trom Household Budgetary Survey 1975/76, Report No.2, Republic of Trinidadand Tobago, Central Statistical Office, Port of Spain, November 1978,page xi, Table A.

/2 The negative (positive) figure indicates that the particular areas was under-(over-)represented in the effective sample.

/3 Derived from Household Budgetary Survey, Income and Expenditure Patterns, Rounds17 and 18, Trinidad and Tobago, Central Statistical Office, Port of Spain, July1974, Table 5, P. 142. Income data for 1971/72 (rather than for 1975/76) are usedhere because of their greater reliability, having been based on the recently com-pleted 1970 Census and given the higher level of response to the 1971/72 survey.

-5

Table 2: AVERAGE MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND EXPENDITURE

(April 1975 - March 1976)

Income Percentage Income (Y)J - Expendi-/aClass of ture (C) - C(TT$) households (TT$) (TT$) Y

0 - 49 9.1 60.5 196.1 3.24

50 - 99 7.1 115.2 205.2 1.78

100 - 199 12.2 191.9 339.0 1.77

200 - 299 14.8 307.5 493.4 1.60

300 - 499 24.1 - 459.9 582.1 1.27

500 - 699 12.3 675.4 800.9 1.19

700 - 899 8.2 915.9 1,114.4 1.22

900 - 1,099 4.7 1,162.0 1,189.9 1.02,z

1,100 - 1,299 2.5 1,382.7 1,344.2 0.97

1,300 - 1,499 1.8 1,610.7 1,724.7 1.07

1,500 + 3.2 2,412.6 2,024.5 0.84

Country 100.0 547.6 662.8 1.21

/a Imputed rents and production consumed by the producer are included.

Source: Household Budgetary Survey 1975/76, Bulletin No. 1-1977,Trinidad and Tobago, Central Statistical Office, Port of Spain,June 1977, Table 1B, p. 1; Household Budgetary Survey 1975/76,Report No. 2, Central Statistical Office, Fort of Spain, Nov.1978, Table 26, pp. 22-27.

-6-

13. Unfortunately, it was not possible to check the degree of overall

under-reporting of income by comparing total household income as derived from

the survey data with total household income as derived from national accounts

data. There was not sufficient information to derive the latter. However,

we did find that total household income as derived from the survey data was

equal to 54% of estimated private consumption expenditure in the national

accounts./ Even when such non-monetary incomes as imputed rents and home-grown

food are included, this proportion increases to only about 60%o./- This too

implies that the income figures derived from the survey data are very much

understated.

14. There is indirect evidence that the under-reporting of income is

particularly pronounced for households in the lowest income class (Table 2).

For these households, average expenditures were more than three times

average monetary incomes. Such high budget defitits could not have been

financed by these low income households. Once again, under-reporting of income

would appear to be the problem.

15. Households with a monetary income of at least TT$1,300 per month

accounted for 5% cf total sample households in 1975/76. On the other hand,

in the 1971/72 survey, households with a comparable income in real terms

(a monetary income of at least TT$700 per month in 1971/72 prices) accounted

/1 The private consumption expenditures in the national accounts of Trinidadand Tobago include some changes in inventories, estimated at about 20% ofthe total. See Table A-1 in the Appendix for the original HBS data.

/2 See Table 3 for information on both monetary and non-monetary income byincome classes, and Table A-2 for the HBS data adjusted to include non-monetary income.

-7-

for 9% of total households (Table A-7, Appendix). This would appear to imply

that the high income households were substantially under-represented in the

1975/76 survey.

IV. Data Adjustment and Estimation of Income Distribution

16. Relevant data, such as the functional distribution (wages, rent,

interest, entrepreneurial income) of national income and household income

distribution by household-head occupation were not available for us to

adequately assess, and then properly adjust for, the extent of under-reporting

of income. As a result, the assumptions we employed in our data adjustments

are in fact open to some crit*ism.

17. Because the published survey data on household incomes exclude non-

monetary income we added imputed rent from owner-occupied dwellings and the

value of home-grown, home-consumed food (both of which were reported as expendi-

ture items) to reported monetary income (Table 3). In addition, we assumed that

the average income of the lowest income class (i.e. that with an average monetary

income of less than TT$50 per month) was equal to that of the second lowest

income class. This was based on the fact that (i) the average expenditure of

the lowest income class (TT$196 per month) was close to that of the second lowest

income class (TT$205 per month) and that (ii) the average proportion of expendi-

tures on food to total expenditures of the lowest class was lower than that of

the second lowest (see Table A-3, Appendix).

/1 The 1971/72 survey is considered a fair representation because it was basedon the recently completed 1970 census and because its non-enumeration ratewas very low.

8-

Table 3 AVERAGE MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1975/76

AdjustedMonthly AverageMonetary Average MonthlyIncome Monetary Imputed/la Home-grown /La IncomeClass Income (A) Rents (B) Food (C) (A+B+C)

0 - 49 20.5 31.9 8.1 60.5

50 - 99 71.7 33.9 9.6 115.2

100 - 199 147.8 33.5 10.6 191.9

200 - 299 247.5 46.5 13.5 307.5

300 - 499 388.6 57.9 13.4 459.9

500 - 699 582.3 81.0 12.1 675.4

700 - 899 783.3 118.0 14.6 915.9

900 - 1,099 988.3 161.4 12.3 1,162.0

1,100 - 1,299 1,200.7 172.6 9.4 1,382.7

1,300 - 1,499 1,376.4 223.2 11.3 1,610.9

1,500 + 2,017.4 387.4 7.8 2,412.6

NationalAverage 457.5 78.2 11.9 547.6

/a Derived from HBS data on household expenditures. -

Source: Household Budgetary Survey 1975/76, Bulletin No.1, op. cit., Table 1B,p.1 and Household Budgetary Survey 1975/76, Report No.2, op. cit.,Table 26, pp. 22-27.

-9-

18. Almost all sample households under-reported their incomes in the

1975/76 survey. As a result, many higher income households were incorrectly

classified as lower income households in the published survey data. For those

households which reported incomes that were lower than expenditures we assumed

/1that their actual incomes were in fact equal to their expenditures-/ and we

reclassified these households into higher income classes. To do this, we

used data on the distribution of households cross-classified by income and

expenditure groups (Tables A-4 and A-5, Appendix). The share of the top income

class increased to 8%, which is comparable to that of the top income class in

1971/72 (see para. 15; Table 4).

19. We also estimated average household expenditures for each income

class by using the adjusted household distribution (by both incomes and

expenditures). Comparison of these estimated average household expenditures

with the average household incomes (as derived in para. 17) suggests that many

households in higher income classes actually had savings and that the private

non-corporate sector as a whole generated net savings in 1975/76 (Table 5).

20. Using the data as derived in paras. 17 and 18, we estimated the

distribution of adjusted household incomes for 1975/76 in TrLnidad and Tobago

/2(Table A-6, App,ndix). - From this estimate, we then derived income distribu-

tion by decile household groups (Table 6).

/1 In the cases of the lowest three income classes, reported expenditureswere assumed to be equal to actual incomes only for those households withreported expenditures more than double their income.

/2 Total household income as derived from the adjusted data used for thisestimate was 55% higher than that estimated from the original HBS data.

-10-

Table 4: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS, 1975/76

MonthlyMonetary Households as PercentageIncome of Total HouseholdsClass (TT$) Original/a Adjusted

0 - 99 16.2 10.7

100 - l99 12.2 12.7

200 - 299 14.8 11.9

300 - 499 24.1 21.5

500 - 699 12.3 13.0

700 - 899 8.2 9.1

900 - 1,099 4.7 6.5

1,100 - 1,299 2.5 3.7

1,300 - 1,499 1.8 2.8

1,500 + 3.2 8.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0

/a Derived from Household Budgetary Survey1975/76, Report No.2, op. cit., Table llAp. 11.

/b Derived from Household Budgetary Survey1975/76, Bulletin No. 1-1977, op. cit.,Table 3A, p.3.

Table 5: AVERAGE MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME ANDEXPENDITURE (ADJUSTED), 1975/76

Percentage of Avg. Monthly Avg. MonthlyTotal Household Household B

Households Income (TT$) Expenditure(TT$) A(A) (1)

10.7 115.2 123.6 1.07

12.7 191.9 237.2 1.24

11.9 307.5 308.1 1.00

21.5 459.9 424.5 0.92

13.0 675.4 625.5 0.93

9.1 915.9 821.8 0.90

6.5 1,162.0 1,007.8 0.87

3.7 1,382.7 1,170.1 0.85

2.8 1,610.7 1,409.2 0.87

8.1 2,412.6 1,921.4 0.80

100.0 709.7 631.3 0.89

/a Estimated from Table A -5 , by assuming the mid-point of each expendi-ture range as the average expenditure and then computing the weightedaverage expenditure for each income class, the weight being the number ofhouseholds distributed over different expenditure classes within theincome class.

- 12 -

Table 6.. HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN THETRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, 1975/76 (ADJUSTED)

Cumulative % Cumulative %of Households Household Income/a

10 1.6

20 4.2

30 8.0

40 13.3

50 19.8

60 27.2

70 36.7

80 50.0

90 68.2

(95) (83.1)

100 100.0

Gini Coefficient 0.447

/a Derived from Table A-3, Appendix,by linearinterpolation between two adjacent incomeclasses.

- 13 -

1/1

21. Our estimate showed slightly less income inequality (Table 7)- than

did the 1975/76 estimate of income distribution appearing in the Bank Social

Indicators Data Sheets. This can be explained partly by the fact that (i) the

income data used for our estimate included a non-monetary component, which

accounts for the somewhat higher proportion of total income received by low

income households and (ii) the reclassification of households reporting incomes

below expenditures shifted relatively more households in low income than high

income classes to higher income classes.

Table 7: INCOME INEQUALITY MEASURES FOR 1975/76

Income IncomeShare (%) Share (%)

of Lowest 20% of Highest 5%Data Source Gini Coefficient Income Group Income Group

Adjusted HBS Data 0.447 4.2 16.9

Original EBS Data 0.460 3.1 18.0(Social Indicators)

22. We reviewed briefly the national household survey conducted in 1971/72,

in order to examine the trends in income distribution pattern between then and

1975/76./2 We found that income in that earlier survey was also generally

/1 This comparison is not valid in the strict sense because of different incomeconcepts employed for the two estimates (total income vs. monetary income).

/2 The sample for the 1971/72 survey consisted of 2,826 households. Adequateinformation was obtained for 2,744 households, a 97% rate of enumeration.The sampling method, concepts, and definitions were the same as those inthe 1975/76 survey (see Household Budgetary Survey, Income and ExpenditurePatterns, HBS 1-2, Central Statistical Office, Port of Spain, July 1974).

- 14 -

under-reported.l- Using assumptions similar to those we used in adjusting the

1975/76 data (see paras. 17 and 18), we adjusted the published 1971/72 data on

average household income and household distribution by income and expenditure

groups. Then we derived estimates of 1971/72 household income distribution

(Tables A-8 and A-9 Appendix).

23. A comparison of the adjusted income distribution estimates for 1971/72

and 1975/76 shows that the income distribution pattern in the country had remained

virtually unchanged between the two periods (Table 8).

Table 8: INC0OE INEQUALITY MEASURES IN 1971/72 & 1975/76(ADJUSTED)

Income Share Income Share(%) of Lowest (%)of Highest20% Income 20% Income

Gini Group GroupYear Coefficient

1971/72 0.449 3.8 49.8

1915/76 0.447 4.2 50.0

V. Concluding Remarks

24. Despite its national coverage, the 1975/76 household survey, with

its emphasis on the pattern of household expenditures, did not provide a good

data base for deriving estimates of income distribution. In addition to

having a large under-reporting of income and a high non-enumeration of sample

households, the published survey data did not include such relevant disaggregated

/1 Total household income as derived from the 1971/72 survey data amounted toabout 70% of total private consumption as estimated from national accountdata. See Table A-7, Appendix, for the originally published data on the1971/72 survey.

- 15 -

data as household income distribution by urban and rural areas or income

distr-bution by household members. Therefore, it was not possible to check

the internal consistency of the survey data with respect to income distribu-

tion. Also, published data on household income did not show net income (after

deductions of income tax, national insurance, and pension contributions).

Furthermore, other relevant independent data sources (e.g., census and national

accounts data) do not provide the information needed for evaluating the survey

data. We, therefore, consider the income distribution estimates presented in

this.paper to be subject to an unknown margin of error.

-16-

Appendix

Table A-1: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD MONETARY INCOkDE, 1975/76(UNADJUSTED)

Monthly /aIncom L Households Household Income -(TT$) No. % Amount (TT$) %

- 4Y 228 9.1 4,b74 u.4

50 - 99 177 7.1 12,691 1.1

100 - 199 303 12.2 44,783 3.9

200 - 299 369 14.8 91,328 8.0

300 - 499 600 24.1 233,160 20.5

500 - 699 307 12.3 178,766 15.7

700 - 899 204 8.2 159,793 14.0

900 - 1,099 117 4.7 115,631 10.1

1,100 - 1,299 62 2.5 74,443 6.5

1,300 - 1,499 45 1.8 61,938 5.4

1,500 - 1,899 18 0.7 32,396 2.9

1,gQo + 36 1.4 88,430 7.8

TOTAL 2,493 100.0 1,140,615 100.0

/a Monetary income only.

Source: Household Budgetary Survey, 1975/76, Bulletin No.1 - 1977,Central Statistical Office, Port of Spain, June 1977, Table 1B, p.l.

-17-

Appendix

Table A-2: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1975/76(PARTIALLY ADJUSTED)/a

Monthly Monetary Households Household IncomeIncome Class (TT$) No. % Amount (TT$) %

0 - 49 228 921 13,794 1.0

50 - 99 177 7.1 20,390 1.5

100 - 199 303 12.2 58,146 4.3

200 - 299 369 14.8 113,468 8.3

300 - 499 600 24.1 275,940 20.2

500 - 699 307 12.3 207,348 15.2

700 - 899 204 8.2 186,844 13.7

900 - 1,099 117 4.7 135,954 9.9

1,100 - 1,299 62 2.5 85,727 6.3

1,300 - 1,499 45 1.8 72,491 5.3.

1,500 + 81 3.2 195,4421 14.3

TOTAL 2,493 100.0 1,365,522 100.0

Average Household Income (TT$) 547.6

Average Household Size (persons) 4.6

/a Includesalso imputed rents and the value of home-grown food.

Source: Household Budgetary Survey 1975/76, Bulletin No.1, op. cit.Table 1B, p.l., Household Budgetary Survey 1975/76, ReportNo.2, op. cit., Table 26, pp. 22-27.

Appendix

Table A-3: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE PATTERT, 1975/76

Percentage of Ex- Percentage ofMonthly Monetary Percentage of Ex- penditures on Drink Expenditures onIncome Class (TTS) penditures on food and Tobacco Accommodation

0 - 49 39.9 2.8 21.6

50 - 99 42.7 2.4 20.6

100 - 199 40.4 4.1 13.9

200 - 299 37.7 4.9 14.1

300 - 499 33.3 4.2 14.9

500 - 699 30.8 3.7 15.1

700 - 899 26.1 2.9 18.5

900 - 1,099 24.6 3.7 18.4

1,100 - 1,299 21.9 2.9 20.4

1,300 - 1,499 21.6 3.0 19.4

1,500 + 21.4 1.9 28.7

Source: Household Budgetary Survey 1975/76, Report No.2, Central Statistical Office,Port of Spain, Nov. 1978, Table 12, p. 16 and Table 26, pp. 22-27.

-19-

Table A-4: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY iMONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME ANDEXPENITURE GROUPS (UNADJUSTED) 1975/76

All Monthly incomat/Monthly household income Undcr S50- S100-1s20o- $300-1500- $700- i$900- fi,100-1 S1,300- S1:500-, 1,700-f S1,900expenditures goupS SSO $99 5199 $5299 $499 ;5699 $899 IS1.099 1,299 $1,499 51 699 1,899 land more..I . I . I -

",umber of households

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5' (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (I 1) (12) (13) (14)A Expenditre Groups 2,493 '28 177 303 369 600 307 204 117 62 45 27 18 36Under $ 50 96 49 18 13 7 7 2 - - - - - -

t 50- S 99 - 138 50 32 25 8 18 3 1 - I - - - -, 100-5 199 -- 299 5 160 74 48 43 10 1 2 - - 1 1 -$ 200- S 299 321 33 134 j613 67 81 26 7 3 - 1 - -S 300 - S 499 490 21 21 7) 124 164 51 24 9 4 - 2 - *

S 500-S 699 - 338 11 9 29 57 116 59 33 11 6 3 - 3 1S 700-t 899 -. 247 1 3 13 28 70 59 30 24 9 6 2 1 1S 900 - S1,099 .- 160 - - 9 9 50 32 32 13 9 4 1 - 1S1,100- S1.299 118 3 - - 8 25 28 22 13 9 3 3 1 311,300- S1,499 . 63 1 - - 1 13 10 12 12 4 4 3 1 2

Sl,500- 51,699 . 54 - - - 4 3 12 12 9 5 5 1 - 3S1,700- S1,899 . S51 - - 1 2 6 3 11 8 2 S 3 4 6S1,900 and more ... j118 - - 1 6 4 12 19 13 13 14 11 7 18

/a Monetary income

Source: Household Budgetary Survey 1975/76, Bulletin No.l - 1977,Port of Spain, June 1977, p. 3.

Table A-5: DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOMEAND EXPENDITURE GROUPS (ADJUSTED)'A, 1975/76

LaMonthly Monthly Household Income (monetary) Groups (TT$)/-Household -49 50- 100- 200- 300-. 500- 700- 900- 1,000- 1,300- 1,500+Expenditure 99 199 299 499 699 899 1,099 1,299 1,499Groups (TT$) (60.5) (115.2) (191.9) (307.5) (459.9) (675.4) (915.9) (1162.0) (1382.7) (1610.7) (2,412.6)

0 -49 49 18 13 7 7 2

50 -99 50 32 25 8 18 3 1 1

100 -199 119 74 48 .43 10 1 2 2

200 -299 135 67 81 26 7 3 1 10

300 -499. 70 166 164 51 24 9 4 2

500 - 699 222 59 33 11 6 3. 4

700 - 899 174 30 24 9 6 4

900 - 1,099 132 13 9 4 2

1,100 - 1,299 99 9 3 7

1,300 - 1,499 53 4 6

1,500 - 1,699 50 4

1,700 + 169

TOTAL 99 169 317 296 535 325 228 161 91 71 201

/a Derived from Table A-4,.

/b Figures in parentheses indicate average household income (both monetary and non-monetary) in each income class.

-21-

Appendix

Table A-6: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1975/76(ADJUSTED)

Monthly Average Households Household Income /aIncome (TT$) No. % Amount (TT$) %

115.2 268 10.8 30,874 1.8

191.9 317 12.7 60,832 3.4

307.5 296 11.9 91,020 5.1

459.9 535 21.5 246,046 13.9

675.4 325 13.0 219,505 12.4

915.9 228 9.1 208,825 11.8

1,162.0 161 6.5 187,082 10.6

,382.7 91 3.6 125,825 7.1

1,610.9 71 2.8 114,374 6.5

2,412.6 201 8.1 484,933 27.4

TOTALS 2,493 100.0 1,769,316 100.0

Average Household Income (TT$) 709.7

Average Household Size (persons) 4.6

/a Includes also imputed rents and value of home-grown food.

Source: See Tables 3 and 4 in the text.

-22-

Appendix

Table A-7: DISTRIT7UTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1971/72(UNADJUSTED)

Monthly Monetary. Households Household Income/aIncome Class (TT$) No. % Amount (TT$) %

0 - 19 167 6.1 1,770 0.2

20 - 49 247 9.0 8,309 1.0

50 - 99 336 12.2 24,151 3.0

100 - 199 630 23.0 95,022 11.9

200 - 299 488 17.8 117,577 14.7

300 - 499 481 17.5 184,430 23.1

500 - 699 151 5.5 88,432 11.1

700 - 899 99 3.6 77,727 9.8

900 - 1,099 52 1.9 50,929 6.4

1,100 - 1,299 26 1.0 30,442 3.8

1,300 - 1,499 23 0.8 31,538 4.0

1,500 + 44 1.6 87,022 11.0

TOTAL 2,744 100.0 797,349 100.0

Average Housenold Income (TT$/Month): 290.6

Average Household Size (persons) 4.6

/a Monetary income only.

Source: Household Budgetary Survey, Continuous Sample Survey ofPopulation. Publication No. 22, Central StatisticalOffice, Port of Spain, July 1974, Table 6.

-23-

Appendix

Table A-8: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1971/72(ADJUSTED)

Monthly Average Households Household Income/aIncome (TT$) No. % Amount (TT$) %

59.86 227 8.3 13,588 1.1

103.49 319 11.6 22,013 2.7

185.60 395 14.4 73,312 5.9

283.00 492 17.9 139,236 11.2

438.70 630 23.0 276,381 22.2

661.95 281 10.2 186,008 15.0

893.88 139 5.1 124,249 10.0

1,095.33 89 3.2 97,484 7.8

1,361.58 55 2.0 74,887 6.0

1,490.42 40 1.5 59,617 4.8

2,161.55 77 2.8 166,439 13.3

TOTAL 2,744 100.0 1,244,215 100.0

Average Household Income (TT$/Month): 453.4

Average Household Size (persons) 4.6

/a Includes imputed rents and home-grown food.

Source: Household Budgetary Survey, Continuous Sample Survey ofPopulation. Publication No.22, op. cit.

-24-

Appendix

Table A- 9: DISTRIBJTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME BYDECILE HOUSEHOLD GROUPS, 1971/72 (ADJUSTED)

Cumulative CumulativePercent of Percent ofHouseholds Househ7 ld

Income -

10 1.5

20 3.8

30 7.9

40 13.3

5Q 19.5

60 28.4

70 38.1

8Q 50.2

XC 67.1

(95).. (79.8)

100Q 100.0

Giri Coefficient: 0.449.

/a Derived from Table A- 8Ty linear interpolation of twoadjacent income classes.