Urban Poverty in East Asia

East Asia Urban Working Paper Series
Urban Poverty in East Asia

a review of Indonesia,
the Philippines, and Vietnam
September 2003
Working Paper No. 11
Urban Sector Development Unit
East Asia Infrastructure Department
The World Bank
Acronyms
ADB Asian Development Bank
BPS Badan Pusat Statistik
DHS Demographic and Health Surveys
EAP East Asia and Pacific
FIES Family Income and Expenditure Survey
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GRP Gross Regional Product
IN Indonesia
LSMS Living Standards Measurement Surveys
LSS Living Standards Survey
PA Poverty Assessment
PH Philippines
PPA Participatory Poverty Assessment
PRA Participatory Rapid Appraisal
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
NGO Non-governmental Organization
SUSENAS National Socioeconomic Survey
SWRS Social Weather Report Survey
TA Technical Annex
UIP Urban Indicators Program
UN United Nations
UNCHS United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat)
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
VLSS Vietnam Living Standards Survey
VN Vietnam
WDI World Development Indicators
WDR World Development Report
WUP World Urbanization Prospects
Table of Contents
Acronyms
Foreword
Acknowledgments
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
PART ONE: THE CONTEXT OF URBAN POVERTY 1

A. Purpose and Approach of this Review 1
B. Trends in Urban Demographics 1
The Urban Transition 1
The Sizes and Growth of EAP Urban Areas 4
Migration and Urban Growth Rates 6
C. The Urban Economic Context 7

Changing Economic Activities 7
Increased Concentration in Peri-Urban Areas 9
Susceptibility to Macroeconomic Shocks 9
D. Implications of Demographic and Economic Changes for Urban Poverty 11

Associations among Urban Growth, Poverty, and Total Poverty 11
The Relationship between Migration and Poverty 13
EAP Trends in the Incidence of Poverty, and Urban Poverty, in Particular 14
Implications of Urban Development for Reducing Poverty 16
PART TWO: AN ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE INFORMATION 19

A. A Conceptual Framework for Urban Poverty 19
B. Methodological Issues in Quantitative Assessments of Urban Poverty 21
Limitations of National Household (Living Standards) Surveys 21
C. Demographic Profile of the Urban Poor 23

Age, gender, household size and composition 24
Migration Status 24
D. Labor and Human Capital Assets 25

Education Status 25
Health Status 25
Employment Status and Types of Work 27
E. Physical Assets: Housing, Land and Infrastructure 29

Housing and Land Tenure 29
Electricity and Durable Consumer Assets 31
Water supply 31
Sanitation 33
Transport 35
F. Insecurity and Urban Poverty 36

Insecurity of Home and Place 36
Personal Insecurity 37
Financial Insecurity 37
G. Empowerment, Social Capital and Urban Poverty 38
Relations with Government 38
Social Networks among the Urban Poor 39
PART THREE: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY, INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT,

AND RESEARCH 41
A. Summary: Urban Poverty in the EAP Region 41
B. Policy and Institutional Implications of Urban Poverty 43
C. Suggested Priorities for Research into Urban Poverty in the Region 45
REFERENCES 47
ANNEXES 51
LIST OF TABLES
Table I.1. Total Urban and Rural Populations, East Asia and Pacific Region 2
Table I.2. Historic and Recent Trends in Urbanization: East Asia and Other Countries Compared 2
Table 1.3. Comparative Structural Indicators of Urbanization, by Country and Subgroups 3
Table I.4. Standard Measures of Income (Expenditure) Poverty in Rural and Urban Areas 14
of the Philippines and Vietnam, 1985, 1991, 1998
Table I.5. Indonesia: Comparisons of Rural and Urban Poverty Incidence Derived 15
with Different Measurement Methods
Table I.6. Cumulative distribution function of per capita expenditure, by type of settlement (Indonesia) 15
Table II.1. Health Indicators by Urban-Rural Residence 26
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I.1. Trends in rates of urbanization: Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam 4
Figure I.2. Comparison of urban growth in the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam 4
Figure I.3. Differences in City size patterns between the East Asian subregions, 5
as compared to other developing countries
Figure I.4. Increase in the urban share of the total poverty in East Asian countries, 12
1990-2000 and projections to 2030
Figure II.1. Indonesia – Urban Household Demographics: Female-headed Households, 24
Elderly Households and Large Families, by per Capita Expenditure Deciles
Figure II.2. Philippines – Urban household demographics: Female Headship and Elderly Headship, 24
by per Capita Expenditure Deciles
Figure II.3 Vietnam – Urban Housing: Types of Temporary structures used, 29
by per capita expenditure deciles
Figure II.4 Indonesia – Urban housing status: Private ownership, rent, lease and “other,” 30
by per capita expenditure decile.
Figure II.5. Philippines and Manila – Urban Housing Quality, by per Capita Expenditure Deciles 30
Figure II.6. Vietnam – Urban sources of drinking water, by per capita expenditure deciles 32
Figure II.7. Philippines – Urban access to “own faucet” rises with per capita expenditure status 32
Figure II.8. Indonesia – Urban sanitation (final disposal): Septic tank use and unsafe methods, 33
by per capita expenditure decile
Figure II.9. Vietnam – Urban type of toilet: by per capita expenditure decile 34
A review of Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam
Foreword
The East Asia and Pacific Region is experiencing an urban transition of breathtaking
scale. Between 2000 and 2030, the urban population will increase by half a billion
people, almost doubling the current level to a total of 1.2 billion, and the growth rate
of the urban population is likely to be 130 percent of the Region’s total population
growth.
As the Region is urbanizing, so too, to a considerable extent, is poverty. Urban areas
offer greater opportunities for work, lower unit costs of service provision, and access
to new ideas and social exchange. The urban transition is therefore a key element in
the process of increasing income and welfare for the country as a whole. But countries
facing rapid urban growth confront rising demands for housing, land and urban services,
which local governments and related institutions are often ill-prepared to meet. Official
policies have often denied recognition to urban migrants as legitimate claimants for
city services. At the same time, urban residents are particularly vulnerable to
macroeconomic shocks that affect demand for their labor and raise prices for essential
goods and services. They are also vulnerable to environmental and public health
hazards that arise when dense settlements are not well managed. The individuals
least able to compete in the face of such constraints are the poor.
The present study was motivated by the fact that the nature and dimensions of urban
poverty in the East Asia and Pacific Region have not heretofore been subjected to
much direct or systematic analysis, either quantitative or qualitative. Discussions of
overall poverty in the Region have tended to gloss over its urban manifestations, while
urban operations suffer from the lack of a strong grounding in relevant poverty
knowledge. Poverty surveys and analyses in the Region have examined urban poverty
to a very limited extent and without sufficient detail to permit conclusions about the
factors that define and affect it.
This review is a first attempt to analyze available quantitative and qualitative information
on urban poverty across three large countries in the Region—Indonesia, the Philippines
and Vietnam. It aims to draw out observations and issues concerning the substance of
urban poverty in these three countries as well as the methodologies of urban poverty
analysis. The analysis is based on a review of existing literature and household survey
data. It is useful not only for what it reveals but also for what it cannot reveal due to
the limited data on urban poverty that currently exists, and the methodologies used
which often fail to capture the complex and variegated nature of urban living. It is
therefore an important contribution to our knowledge on poverty. As a preliminary
analysis, it lays the groundwork for determining priorities for further work – for both
operations and research – on urban poverty in the Region.
Christian Delvoie
Sector Director, Infrastructure Department
East Asia and Pacific Region
Acknowledgments
The study was Task Managed by Aniruddha Dasgupta, under the overall guidance of
Keshav Varma. Michael Lokshin and Vijayendra Rao carried out the analysis of urban
data from the living standards surveys for the three focus countries. Christine Kessides
drafted the main report and Vijayendra Rao drafted Annex 1. Shareen Joshi contributed
to the literature review and background data collection. Laura de Brular and Barbara
Gregory helped to prepare the graphics and tables. The document was edited by
Dorothy Silvers. Bobbie Brown, Anne Harrison, Vernetta Hitch, and Socorro Manila
helped with document production. The cover design and layout was done by InfoKreasi
Ltd in Jakarta. Rumana Huque was in charge of supervising the editing and publication
of the document.
The work has benefited from the comments of Peer Reviewers Judy Baker, Marianne
Fay, Jesko Hentschel, and Kinnon Scott; from written comments from Bhuvan Bhatnagar,
Edward Dotson, Teresa Ho, Tamar Manuelyan Atinc, Menno Prasad Pradhan, Rob
Swinkels and Carolyn Turk; and from views expressed by participants at a World Bank
review meeting on October 17, 2001, chaired by Homi Kharas. The Executive Summary
was presented to participants including 11 mayors and other officials from Indonesia,
the Philippines and Vietnam, as well as from Cambodia, China, and Mongolia at an
Urban Poverty Learning Workshop held in Singapore from June 10-11, 2002.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study reviews available quantitative and qualitative information on urban poverty Purpose and
issues and trends in the East Asia and Pacific (EAP) Region, with particular focus on Approach of the
Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The effort is motivated by a concern that Study
much of the poverty analysis undertaken in the Region does not adequately represent
the urban realities there, and by the conviction that a strong grounding in relevant, in-
depth knowledge about poverty could improve the effectiveness of urban operations.
The aim of this preliminary assessment is to reach a fuller and more accurate
understanding of the evolution of urban poverty in the Region and especially in those
three large countries, in order to inform both the Bank’s research and its operations,
and to enhance our dialogues with local and national clients on strategies to reduce
poverty.
The review is a desk study—that is, it is limited to material accessible to the World
Bank in Washington, drawing mainly on reports of field work and other published and
unpublished papers. The empirical analysis focuses on the household poverty surveys
and Bank-sponsored “poverty assessments”, which are the principal data sources used
by the Bank and by the national governments in designing poverty-related activities.
The study focuses on Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam because each has carried
out a recent Bank-assisted exercise in poverty assessment and has had an active dialogue
with the Bank on urban strategy and operations. The report identifies certain
shortcomings and gaps in conventional poverty measurement and recommends future
refinements and priorities.
The urban population of the East Asia and Pacific Region will almost double between Part One:
2000 and 2030, from 665 million to 1.2 billion. The annual rate of increase in the last The Context of
25 years (3.75 percent) is exceeded only by that in Sub-Saharan Africa. Over the next Urban Poverty
generation, the urban increment alone will account for 130 percent of the total
population growth in the Region, because of the absolute decline in rural populations. Trends in Urban
Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are at distinctly different points in their urban
Demographics
transitions. According to the official indicator of urbanization, the Philippines appears
in the upper-middle rank, Indonesia in the middle rank, and Vietnam in the low rank
among countries of the Region. However, in many countries of the Region the
measurement of what is “urban” is distorted by omission of the extensive peri-urban
areas that are in fact the fastest growing areas.
Urban growth results from a combination of natural increase in the urban population,
net migration from other areas of the country, and reclassification of rural areas as
urban. Rural-to-urban migration appears to be the major factor explaining urban growth
in the least urbanized countries (e.g., Vietnam), but becomes much less important
than natural increase and reclassification in more urbanized areas (e.g., in the
Philippines).
Countries undergoing rapid urban growth, whether due to natural increase or to in-
migration, confront rising demands for housing, land, and urban services. The urban
residents least able to compete for such constrained supplies are the poor. Their plight
has been exacerbated by a distinctive phenomenon in Southeast Asia: migration not
i
into the city cores, but rather into peri-urban areas (beyond and not necessarily adjoining
the city boundaries) that have recently attracted much investment. The exclusion of
these peri-residents from local government jurisdictions means that the households
lack access to social services and are at greater risk of poverty even in the midst of a
relatively strong local economy. The transition countries in the region, notably China
and Vietnam, have strictly controlled rights to reside in the major cities (although
China no longer enforces the policy strictly). Such measures exacerbate hardships for
migrants who may remain illegal “unregistered” residents for years.
The absolute size of urban areas in EAP is dramatic. The population of cities in the
Region with over one million residents will increase by half, from 330 million to
almost 500 million, between 2000 and 2015; similarly, that of “mega cities” (over 10
million) will increase from about 80 to 120 million. In Eastern Asian countries,
population is more evenly spread across city-size categories than is typical in the
developing world, although with cities of 1-5 million residents slightly dominant. The
populations in Southeastern Asia, however, are heavily clustered in cities of under
500,000 residents, and also more concentrated in the mega cities than is typical in
other developing countries. The Southeastern Asia subregion is thus especially
challenged to manage the very high growth rates in the largest cities.
Size of cities is not in itself a development issue, but size together with rapid growth
clearly present a serious challenge. The key to residents’ welfare lies with the city’s
capacities, both financial and managerial, to ensure essential services and to prevent
or counteract crippling land costs and negative externalities: traffic congestion, pollution
and crime. Such problems tend to worsen as cities grow and they burden the poor
disproportionately. Unlike higher-income groups, the poor lack the resources to find
alternative services and protection, or to negotiate with authorities and service providers.
The Urban Economic Simultaneously with the urban transition, the Region is undergoing a structural
Context transformation of its economy. These changes can be seen best within a broad spatial
perspective encompassing not only the “city proper” but entire city-regions. As
economic development changes through shifts in production and employment from
largely rural agriculture to largely urban industry and services, the transformation extends
into hinterland areas before they are officially classified as urban. To find cheaper
land, traditional manufacturing shifts outward from the large cities on to smaller cities.
However, the more information- and technology-intensive industry and services remain
in the central cities and metro areas (and also extend into some new periurban areas),
because their needs for skills, infrastructure and amenities are more important
considerations than land costs.
For many unskilled workers and for most of the poor, the main sources of income are
in the small-scale and “informal sector”, where employment is related to infrastructure
and other services, construction, trade and small-scale manufacturing, and urban
agriculture. Those sources of employment exploit the multiplier effects of the registered
“formal” economy.
In rural areas too, such diverse economic activities are increasingly important. Non-
farm employment there generally benefits from proximity to urban areas (as does
agricultural production) because of access to markets, information, and infrastructure.
To reap the potential productivity advantages of large urban labor markets, the extent
to which the framework of economic policies and the business environment offer
incentives for investment and private enterprise is clearly important. The Region’s
macroeconomic-financial crisis of the late 1990s demonstrated that although urban
Executive Summary ii
areas generate economic activity, they also are vulnerable to ripple-through effects of
cyclical and other macroeconomic shocks—effects that are particularly hard on those
living at the margin of poverty.
One result of extended periurban development in the Region is that the central cities
no longer offer a wide range of formal sector jobs across skill levels and in both
manufacturing and services. Manufacturing is moving outside the city limits;
consequently “high end,” modern services and the informal sector’s very low-end
production and services are left as the officially recognized urban economy. Thus, the
urban poor may have less occupational mobility within the cities than has been available
to urban residents in other countries. Policies to ensure a well-integrated internal
labor market (with ease of migration and internal mobility) are called for if spatial
segmentation of population and of jobs is to be avoided. The peri-urbanization
phenomenon also calls for realistic policies of urban management that integrate the
outer zones with the cities and provide them with adequate urban services.
In both the Philippines and Vietnam, consumption, or expenditures, poverty has The Urbanization of
declined over the 1990s for both urban and rural populations, whether measured by Poverty: Incidence
headcount or as depth of poverty. Urban poverty headcounts cited in the recent and Problematic
poverty assessments (16 percent of the urban population in Indonesia, 12 percent in Elements
the Philippines and 9 percent in Vietnam) remain well below those for rural areas.
However, measurements of urban poverty are subject to certain important caveats.
Correcting for the omission of unregistered migrants, for example, could raise the
urban poverty headcount in Vietnam to perhaps 15 percent. For Indonesia, differences
in the measurement methodologies have an enormous impact on the ratios of poverty
headcounts between rural and urban populations. Moreover, the low but improving
indicator of poverty depth there implies that the urban population is close to the
poverty line. Therefore, changes in estimations of this line—as well as actual adverse
events that cause income shocks—can have a large (whether statistical or real) impact
on the risks of individuals falling into poverty.
For all three focus countries, economic inequality is higher in urban than in rural
areas. In the Philippines and Vietnam, urban inequality is worsening. Intra-urban
inequality in those countries is also evident from much of the data on access to basic
services and on status across housing, land tenure, water and sanitation, and transport.
Possibly reflecting the limitations of official measurements of poverty as well as attesting
to real inequalities, the urban population in the Philippines rate their own poverty
status well above official estimates, and above self-ratings by rural respondents.
As measured by the conventional consumption (expenditure) measures of poverty, the
urban poor as a proportion of the total poor populations of developing countries,
including those in the EAP Region, are projected to increase significantly. Conservative
assumptions would indicate that in 2025, urban poverty would average about 40 percent
of total poverty in the overall Region, up from about 25 percent in 1998 (Hentschel
and Bump, 1999). The urban share of populations in poverty could range from over
half (Indonesia and the Philippines) to less than a fifth in China and Vietnam—although
predictions for China, especially, vary greatly according to presumed poverty income
thresholds and definitions of “urban” population.
It is not a simple task to predict how the trends in urbanization and economic activity
in the EAP countries will affect the magnitude and proportions of poverty in urban
places. In theory, as the share of the total population that is urban increases, that
should reduce the total poverty in a country over the medium term, because urbanization
is highly correlated with rising national income, greater market depth, and other
development indicators. In those terms, increasing urbanization would be expected
iii
to mean rising incomes for the urban residents and for in-migrants to the cities. Over
time, too, urbanization should benefit the remaining rural population, by relieving
pressure on rural land, enlarging markets for rural goods, and building up savings for
public and private transfers to rural areas. However, the pace of income growth in
urban and in rural areas does not necessarily remove the income inequalities between
them. Indeed, the urban-rural gap may widen for a time, especially with respect to
rural areas that are intrinsically under-resourced in natural or human capital, if
governments do not introduce effective transfer policies and foster well-integrated
financial markets.
Although it is sometimes thought that rural-urban migration simply shifts poverty from
rural to urban areas, in-migrants to cities are not necessarily motivated by poverty nor
languishing among the poor there. How government policy and the incumbent
population treat the migrants is critical in determining their welfare and how well they
integrate into city life.
Despite the expectation for rising urbanization to reduce both total and urban poverty
over the medium term, the transitional processes—the influx of migrants, as well as
other changes that create new demands on cities for services, jobs, housing, and
infrastructure can create hardship for many urban residents in the short term. Even
with good conventional urban management, cities may confront a more deep-seated
phenomenon: poverty that is more a manifestation of fundamental social, political,
and institutional divisions, now heightened by the context of urban growth. Such
problems are revealed where:
• there are deep divisions between social groups (e.g., “legal” and “nonlegal”
residents);
• certain settlements within the city are spatially segregated from others, leaving
residents burdened with many persistent disadvantages, including risk of eviction
and social stigma;
• many residents have little or no normal political voice, or access to legal redress;
or
• certain vulnerable groups are insufficiently protected by social networks and
other institutions.
To change such structural determinants of poverty requires more than simply efforts to
improve incomes; fundamental reforms in governance, both local and national, would
be necessary. There are thus possibilities that in urban areas, poverty could both be
created faster and be resolved faster, according to the determinants involved and how
they are managed.
The Role of Urban It is of interest to this review to identify factors associated with, or contributing to, the
Development in Region’s increases or decreases in overall poverty (and of course, in urban poverty in
Reducing Rural, particular). Causation of change and its implications for poverty strategies are not
Urban and easy to identify. In all three countries, the agricultural population has the highest
Nationwide Poverty incidence of poverty and the highest share of the total poor. For the Philippines and
Vietnam, poverty assessments conclude that given the continuing preponderance of
the poor in agriculture, better performance of this sector is crucial to alleviate poverty
impacts, but so is a structural shift of population out of agriculture into activities with
higher productivity. The key questions are then: in what locations do high productivity
activities (including high-value agriculture) take place, and what are the conditions
that best support them?
Within all three countries, the regions with the highest incidences of poverty are often
remote from population centers, and are those that depend on agriculture yet have
Executive Summary iv
relatively poor natural resources. By virtue of their locations, such regions have less
access to the economies of agglomeration, which are based on proximity to markets
for goods and labor, to infrastructure that reduces production costs, and to networks
for exchange of information and technology. Even within rural areas of Vietnam, for
example, both nonfarm employment and agricultural activities benefit in peripheral
areas close to sources of urban demand; their living standards are higher and there is
less poverty. The urban characteristic of relatively dense and larger-scale settlement
also permits activities with high fixed costs (increasing returns to scale) to be provided
more efficiently—activities such as secondary and tertiary education and health services,
and network infrastructure. In short, the common observation that more urbanized
regions (e.g., the Red River Delta, the South East and the Mekong Delta in Vietnam)
have lower incidences of poverty should not be attributed simply to chance or unfair
policy advantage. Their advantage may arise from intrinsic elements of the general
urban context that enable growth and poverty-reducing activities at lower cost and
with higher returns than would be possible in a general rural context. The advantages
hold not only for public investment in infrastructure, for example, but also for much
private investment, which derives productivity advantages from the physical proximity
of other producers, workers, consumers and suppliers.
Nothing about the theory of agglomeration economies guarantees that population
concentration alone will achieve economic growth or reduce poverty. What is critical
is how well producers and workers are able to respond to the opportunities that urban
marketplaces offer. The management of urban growth in the EAP countries will therefore
matter greatly not only for the poor within the cities, but even more for the contribution
urban areas can make to the economy and to the prospects for reducing poverty in the
rural areas. Similarly, it will be important for strategies for reducing national and rural
poverty to draw on the potential of urban agglomerations to enhance productivity.
That is acknowledged quite explicitly in the poverty assessments for Vietnam and the
Philippines, and in the latest national plan for China. The national poverty strategies
in countries of the Region should incorporate two indispensable elements: i) policies
and investments that strengthen the opportunities and abilities of the rural population
to shift to activities allowing higher returns, and/or to move to locations offering greater
opportunity; and ii) programs to help cities and towns become more effective in
providing jobs and services.
The present review uses a broad definition of poverty reflecting several dimensions: Part Two:
opportunity and capability, security, and empowerment (WDR 2000/01). Three An Analysis of
particular aspects of urban life directly affect how poverty is manifested (Moser, Quantitative and
Gatehouse and Garcia, 1996): Qualitative
• the characteristic reliance on cash income for all necessities (monetization);
Information
• environmental hazards, stemming in particular from the relative density of urban
Methodological
habitation; Approach and Issues
• social fragmentation or “churning.” Although urban social networks can be
strong and highly functional, they differ from those in rural areas. The larger turnover
and the absence of many of the social and especially, familial support structures
common in rural areas can contribute to urban social stress.
To incorporate the dynamic and contextual elements of urban poverty, it is also
necessary to take into account the vulnerability to risks associated with poverty, and
v
the corresponding importance of the various assets, both formal and informal—labor,
human capital, natural capital, physical productive assets, household relations, and
social capital—that determine households’ ability to manage risks (Moser, 1998).
Evidence of how the poor cope with risks reveals that, although they draw on a wide
range of such assets as best they can in response to shocks and crises, often they also
cut back expenditures for food and other basic necessities. Urban populations face a
high covariance of risks to the household when jobs or other sources of income
disappear, because obtaining essential services requires cash; they face risks to the
neighborhood community as well, of forced evictions when tenure is insecure.
For the study, the databases of the living standards surveys for Indonesia, the Philippines
and Vietnam were broken down to extract the responses from the urban and the rural
population samples.1 Respondents were classified according to expenditure deciles
and in some cases, according to poor and nonpoor groupings and their survey responses
were compared accordingly.
These (and most) living standards surveys limit the picture they can convey about
urban poverty for several methodological reasons:
• They may fail to capture fully the mixed sources of many households’ livelihoods,
drawn from both rural and urban activities and assets regardless of where they live.
• The samples are typically too small to permit disaggregation among and within
urban areas (i.e. different cities cannot be compared, nor can neighborhoods within
cities.)
• Given the rapid changes in urban population, the sampling frames may be outdated.
• The survey instruments are often insensitive to the particularities of urban life.
More discussion of the last two points is found below.
Quantitative and Despite the caveats above, some preliminary observations can be made from the survey
Qualitative Findings data, supplemented by limited review of qualitative studies in the three focus countries.
Reviewed The following analysis identifies both what can and what cannot be known from those
sources.
Characteristics of the • The data from the living standards survey reveal that the poor and poorest among
income-poor and their the urban populations of Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam are not the usually
locations expected “vulnerable groups” (i.e. not female-headed households or the elderly),
but they do include large families.2 Private transfers of urban origin may be a key
to the “vulnerable groups” avoiding poverty.
• The migrants surveyed are not shown to be less well off than longtime residents.
However, a major shortcoming of the Vietnam survey is its failure to capture the
nonregistered migrants who suffer official exclusion from services and benefits.
• Although in general, indicators improve with the increasing size of settlements,
the largest urban areas (Manila and Jakarta) are not necessarily the most favored.
For example, with respect to water and sanitation in Jakarta, the poor there are
worse off than those in smaller settlements.
1) For the Philippines, the 1997 Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) dataset contains information about 38,000 households in 81 provinces and 16 regions; 47
percent of the total sample are urban households. For Vietnam, the 1998 Household Living Standards Survey (VLSS) was used, containing 6000 households of which
1730 (29 percent) are urban. The Indonesia poverty assessment is based on the SUSENAS 1999 dataset of 205,700 households (approximately 800,000 individuals), 31
percent of which are urban. Each survey provides for comparison of income and non-income characteristics across per capita expenditure deciles and across poor/non-
poor groupings; it also breaks down the characteristics within each decile or grouping. Poverty lines are established separately in the surveys by region and by rural and
urban zones.
2) The finding that larger households have higher poverty risk was not checked against alternative assumptions about economies of scale in household consumption.
Executive Summary vi
• The housing status of the urban poor is marked by a high degree of crowding and Housing, physical
by tenure insecurity, or the risk of forced eviction. A large quality differential in assets and services
housing exists across urban income groups, although in the Philippines housing
conditions are surprisingly poor even for the urban middle class.
• Although, overall access to education, health facilities, water and sanitation is
predictably higher in urban than in rural areas, it would require a breakdown of
effective access and quality of service, and of outcomes —across income groups
and zones of the city, and among urban localities—to determine accurately the
welfare status of different groups in either absolute or relative terms. Such
disaggregations are not feasible from most of the survey databases.
• Sources of water supply and quality of sanitation are highly divergent across urban
income groups. In Jakarta and Manila, the poor are more likely than the rich to pay
for water. The large proportion of the urban poor without basic sanitation or safe
waste disposal in Vietnam and Jakarta poses major health risks for them and for the
entire city populations.
• Historically, the high density of East Asian cities has enabled use of nonmotorized
transport and walking, but with urban growth, that is changing. The mobility and
access of the poor are affected by problems in public transport, increased traffic
congestion and accidents, ground level pollution, and transport-related crime,
although these factors were not captured by the survey data sets.
• The unemployed identified in the surveys are not always also among the urban Observations
poor. The survey instruments are not well suited to capture the vagaries of urban Concerning Earning
Status and
earnings patterns, especially in the informal sector. Capabilities
• The information available makes clear the large disparities in educational attainment
among the urban population. In the urban setting, moreover, the intermediate
levels of education do not necessarily translate into higher incomes.
• Health status in urban areas is worsened by behaviors, multiple stresses and
environmental risks. In the Philippines, infant and child mortality are higher for
the urban poor than for the rural poor. Studies elsewhere of variations in health
outcomes have shown them to vary even more across zones of the same city.
However, the available living standards surveys for this study’s focus countries do
not permit such an analysis. The surveys reveal malnutrition and hunger in some
urban areas of the Philippines and Vietnam. Although risky behaviors, disaster-
prone living conditions, incidence of crime, violence and HIV-AIDS, and traffic
accidents are likely to affect mortality and morbidity in urban areas, especially
among the poor, those factors are not covered in the surveys reviewed.
• The urban poor face a covariance of threats to their personal, financial and communal Characteristics
security stemming from uncertain housing tenure, macroeconomic shocks (both to Affecting
their earnings and to prices), crime, and other social pathologies such as drug use. Empowerment and
Security
• Usually, the poor must rely on private financial transfers rather than public transfers
to mitigate their financial risks.
• Despite their physical proximity to seats of political power, the urban poor report
having little influence on policies or programs affecting them, unless they
organize. Generally the urban poor perceive themselves to be excluded by
government, yet highly vulnerable to individual instances of official corruption.
• The urban poor have many complex social networks which serve many functions:
of social integration, mutual support, labor market facilitation, and collective action
to obtain services and housing. It is this highly diversified social capital, rather
than formal relations with government agencies, that helps the urban poor to manage.
vii
A Key Distinction Some urban poverty can be viewed as resulting from a temporary mismatch between
and Its Implications the supply and demand for jobs and for services, especially when rapid in-migration
for Policy and occurs. If institutions are both responsive and efficient, they can reduce such gaps by
Programs providing more resources for services and by removing specific bottlenecks such as
undue regulatory barriers. But in the three focus countries viewed here, and arguably
in many others, much of the poverty appears due to deepseated political and institutional
factors that shut certain groups out from the opportunities and protections that others
can expect from either markets or from the government. The empirical finding of
deep and pervasive inequalities in the urban areas suggests that the fundamental roots
of poverty reside in the structures of governance.
To relieve the other type of poverty—which may be characterized as waiting in a
queue that moves by fair, well-known and accepted rules—governments and external
donors can accelerate the “queue” by applying more financial resources and by
identifying and establishing measures to accelerate supply, such as support for private
sector participation; also, by providing information, they can strengthen the expression
of demand for services. Such processes depend on government attention to policy
reform and improved investment in infrastructure, and to private sector development.
Thus, appropriate government efforts remain a priority in the Region, in particular,
attention to reducing regulatory or other disincentives to providing services to low-
income residents. Another high priority should be encouraging municipalities to change
polices that obstruct land development, and to undertake flexible urban planning that
can steer such development so as to forestall slums appearing concomitantly with
population growth.
To get at the deeper problems that disempower the urban poor and keep them from
taking advantage of improved opportunities, it is necessary to act more directly on
underlying institutional issues. The insecurities of housing and land tenure, livelihood
insecurity and physical insecurity that plague low-income urban residents call for new
policies and programs that will strengthen residents’ legal protections and their rights
for housing and land tenure, reduce official corruption and arbitrary acts, and foster
the communities’ own social capital. Community-driven programs to upgrade slum
neighborhoods, which improve a wide range of physical and communal services through
the residents’ own actions, would reduce many sources of vulnerability. Such programs’
success, however, requires local and national governments to support them as part of
an evident commitment to better governance that recognizes the residents as full citizens
with rights and responsibilities, rather than simply tolerating the programs as isolated
actions. Also necessary would be raising the capacity of local governments to function
more responsively, transparently and accountably in their basic responsibilities, and
perhaps even to establish participatory strategic planning of their funding allocations
and other activities. Broad benefits to the urban poor would flow from such a
transformation of the relationship between the local government and citizens.
The urban transition and the potential economies of agglomeration can raise productivity
for both rural and urban residents, but only in the presence of certain basic mechanisms:
a well integrated internal market for labor and goods, with ease of movement and
good information flows, and low production costs due to shared infrastructure. Reforms
of policies and programs to make urban economies function efficiently, and thus raise
their returns to private investment, would be of value to the nation as a whole.
Such policies and programs would, for example:
• welcome internal migration—certainly, remove residence restrictions where they
linger, and facilitate urban-rural remittances as a major source of private transfers;
Executive Summary viii

• favor efficient domestic markets for goods and services and aid them by improving
transport and telecommunications; and
• correct distortions or missing segments in the financial markets, in particular by
enabling credit and banking services for the poor.
Greater attention to reforming the housing and land markets and to improving urban
transport in the Region is crucial. The widespread inadequacies in housing and transport,
which affect many urban residents but especially burden the poor, should be among
the most urgent concerns of governments and of the Bank because those failures weaken
the very heart of the urban economy, which is a fluid labor market.
Finally, the findings on urban poverty and inequality argue for developing more detailed
information on impacts and targeting within the urban population. Nationally
representative household surveys cannot provide the necessary spatial disaggregation.
What are needed are special purpose surveys capable of producing panel data. Similarly,
analysis of public expenditures should go beyond aggregate attributions simply to
rural or urban beneficiaries, to more accurately identify the distributional reach within
each urban population and urban area.
The present analysis raises important points about the accustomed methods of empirical Suggested Priorities
research on poverty, the living standards surveys, as being ill-suited to the context of for Research on
urban poverty, and therefore unlikely to delineate accurately its nature and the relevant Urban Poverty in the
distinctions with respect to rural poverty. The most serious problems are likely to EAP Region
stem from the fact that the research methodology, which has been developed and
applied most extensively in rural settings and reflects rural notions of life, carries a
bias inherent in the sampling design and survey instruments that works against an
accurate representation of the urban poor.
For one thing, because urban populations constantly change so that homes often contain
several families, and because unregistered urban in-migrants are not counted, the
decennial census-based urban sampling frames quickly become nonrepresentative.
They are especially likely to miss those who are transient or without a fixed address.
Although techniques to ensure more accurate sampling are known, they are not always
applied.
Another difficulty is that because the national survey instruments and methods are
typically designed for rural households, work, and living conditions, they usually are
not adapted adequately to capture the complexities of urban livelihoods and social
relationships, or the multi-spatial nature of households rooted in both urban and rural
life. It is necessary to combine qualitative and quantitative methods and information
sources to overcome both these limitations. Alternative approaches to sampling and
to survey design should be tested and applied.
Given better methods of obtaining a more complete and accurate picture of urban
poverty, a number of specific issues and questions should be explored. The preceding
review suggests some highly relevant research topics:
• The effects of interspatial mobility (migration and multi-spatial livelihoods) on
poverty in both rural and urban areas. This research would look at circular and
temporary rural-to-urban migration as well as at longer-term movement, and would
examine both the role of private financial transfers and the mechanisms by which
rural migrants become integrated into the urban society and economy.
• The dynamics of informal employment in urban areas—the quality of livelihoods
and the patterns of occupational mobility—in the context of policies and institutions.
ix
• How social networks among the urban poor help members cope with poverty and
its various dimensions (these networks often include links with rural residents).
• A disaggregated analysis of health outcomes by zones within some major cities
and comparisons among different cities with different sizes, growth rates, and degrees
of service provision, to map health-related poverty in more geographic and socio-
economic detail than is now known.
• Evaluation of how of specific interventions or packages of interventions, such as
neighborhood infrastructure improvements and tenure security, affect the well-
being of low-income residents. The role of social capital and how it affects or is
affected by residents’ participation in such interventions would be a further research
question.
Executive Summary x
PART ONE:
THE CONTEXT OF URBAN POVERTY
1.1 The present work aims to begin filling gaps in the Bank’s understanding of Purpose and
urban poverty in East Asia by a desk review, surveying as much as possible of the Approach of this
quantitative and qualitative work that is currently available and extracting urban data Review
from the poverty surveys, to arrive at implications for policy research and external
assistance. Given resource and time constraints, the study is focused on three countries—
Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam—because each has carried out a recent Bank-
assisted exercise in poverty assessment, and has had an active dialogue with the Bank
on urban strategy and operations. The review looks at the three countries and some
selected evidence on others to illustrate urban poverty developments within East Asia
and the Pacific, but does not generalize to the entire Region.
1.2 The present study is therefore a preliminary effort to extend our knowledge on
the extent and nature of urban poverty in the three countries, the apparent contributing
or associated factors, and the possible approaches with which country policies and
donor assistance might tackle poverty problems. Where it can help to clarify the
distinctive nature of urban poverty, the study compares and contrasts the findings on
poverty in urban areas with those for rural areas. Such comparisons can illuminate
similarities and differences in policy or operational assistance for different spatial
contexts, and identify potential synergies in urban and rural efforts to reduce poverty.
By design, therefore, the study raises more questions and hypotheses than conclusive
answers, thereby suggesting directions for future work.
1.3 The remainder of this section briefly outlines the demographic and economic
context of urban development and the overall pattern of urban and total poverty in
East Asia and the Pacific (readers familiar with the Regional background may want to
skip this section). Section II begins with a conceptual framework to view urban poverty,
and some methodological issues. It then reviews the empirical evidence from surveys
in the three focus countries, supplemented where possible by qualitative studies and
illustrations from other countries in the Region, to gain a preliminary picture of urban
poverty in its several dimensions. Section III recapitulates the main elements of urban
poverty that have emerged from this evidence and outlines some priorities for policy
and program responses and for future research.
1.4 The urban population of the East Asia and Pacific will almost double between Trends in Urban
2000 and 2030, from 665 million to 1.2 billion, according to the UN (Table I.1). The Demographics
urban increase alone will account for more than the total net increase in national
populations, because of the absolute decline in the population counted as rural. The Urban
1.5 A comparison of the East Asia and Pacific Regions’ rate of urbanization with
Transition
that of the other developing countries is presented in Table I.2.
1.6 Table I.2 shows that the East Asia and Pacific Region has urbanized more rapidly
over the past 25 years than have the developing countries overall; it has also far exceeded
1
Table I.1. Total Urban and R ur
Rur al P
ural opula
Popula tions
tions,,
opulations
the pace of the currently developed
East Asia and P acif
Pacif ic R
acific egion*
Re countries when they passed through a
similar stage of their urbanization in
EAP Region 2000 (million) 2030 (million) Increase (million) %increase
the 1900-25 period. The developing
Total Population 1877.0 2301.9 424.9 22.6
Urban Population 664.8 1230.1 565.3 85.0
countries have urbanized with much
Rural Population 1212.5 1071.8 (-140.7) (-11.6) higher overall population growth than
Urban/Total 35.4% 53.4% the industrial countries had. This has
* The East Asia and Pacific (EAP) Region combines Southeastern Asia and been particularly true in EAP, which
Eastern Asia, less Japan. It excludes Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia. has had 3.75 percent annual growth
Source: UN, World Urbanization Prospects (WUP), 1999 Revision. of the urban population over the past
25 years, a pace exceeded only by Sub-
Saharan Africa. That rate is projected to decline sharply over the next period along
with falling population growth overall, but the urban increment will account for a
historically unprecedented 130 percent of total population growth over the next
generation (more than making up for rural population declines).
Ta ble I.2. Historic and Recent Tr ends in Urbaniza

Recent tion:
Urbanization:
East Asia and Other Countries Compar
Compared ed
Developed Countries All Developing Countries East Asia and Pacific Region
Year 1900-1925 1975-2000 2000-2025 1975-2000 2000-2025
Share urban (%),
26-40 27-40 40-53 20-35 35-51
beginning-end of period
Urban pop growth
90 140 82 151 75
over 25-year period (%)
Growth Rate (% p.a.)
Urban 2.57 3.56 2.43 3.75 2.25
Rural 0.05 1.12 0.20 0.60 -0.32
Total 0.87 1.92 1.23 1.45 0.74
Contribution of urban
96 62 92 71 130
to total pop growth (%)
Country data developed from Brockerhoff and Brennon, 1998; Other data UN, WUP 1999 Revision.
All averages weighted by population.
1.7 From the viewpoint of this study, it is noteworthy that Vietnam, Indonesia and
the Philippines are at distinctly different points in their urban transition (defined here
as urbanization, the shift in population share from rural to urban areas). Table I.3
presents the countries of the East Asia Region (excluding the small Pacific islands)
grouped by level of urbanization.
1.8 Table I.3 shows the Philippines at upper-middle rank, Indonesia in the middle
rank, and Vietnam in the low rank of urbanization. For the most part, these urbanization
rankings correlate with levels of economic development according to the well-known
log-linear relationship, although there are clear anomalies in the Region: Mongolia is
highly urbanized for its per capita income and economic structure, and Thailand appears
very much less so.3 Indonesia is still at the steep slope of its urbanization curve, with
relatively high annual increase in the rate of change of urbanization, while Vietnam is
just heading into this phase, and the Philippines’ pace of urbanization is starting to
taper off (Figure I.1). All three countries have urban growth (i.e. annual increase of the
urban population) of around 3 percent per annum, with Vietnam’s poised to accelerate
in the coming decade (Figure I.2).
3) Mongolia is similar in this respect to many other countries in transition from Soviet-style socialism. Thailand followed deliberate decentralization policies through its
national plans for many years. Vietnam's early urbanization trend was influenced by war up to the early 1970s, then was curbed sharply by policies of rural resettlement
into "new economic zones" through the early 1980s and by urban residency controls.
P ART ONE
The Context of Urban Poverty 2
Ta ble 1.3. Compar
Comparaati
tivve Str uctur
Structur
uctural tor
Indicator
al Indica torss of Urbanization,
Urbanization,
by Countr
Country y and Subg
Subgrroups
Primary
Rate:
Population Gross National % Average
Income* Value Added, Annual Growth
% Growth in Largest City % of GDP**
# Urban Rate as% per capita** of Output**
Pop., of Urban National Avg. Ann.
% Urban millions Pop. Urban Pop. $ Growth Rate Agric Mfg Services Agric Mfg Services
Current Level
2000 2030 2000 2030 2000-05 2000 1999 1997-98 1999 1999 1999 1990-99 1990-99 1990-99
of Urbanization
High
Republic of Korea 81.9 90.5 38.4 47.9 2.67 26 8,490 -7.5 5 32 51 2.1 7.1 5.8
Medium
Mongolia 63.5 76.0 1.7 2.9 2.28 .. 390 1.9 32 .. 39 3.1 .. 1.3
Philippines 58.6 73.8 44.5 84.1 3.14 25 1,050 -2.1 18 21 52 1.4 2.9 4.0
Malaysia 57.4 72.7 12.8 23.7 2.83 10 3,390 -8.0 11 32 43 0.2 9.7 8.0
Lower Medium
Indonesia 40.9 63.5 86.8 179.9 3.57 13 600 -18.0 19 25 37 2.3 7.6 4.0
China 32.1 50.3 410.0 752.1 2.34 3 780 6.4 18 38 33 4.3 13.9 9.2
Myanmar 27.7 46.6 12.6 28.0 2.86 33 .. .. 60 7 31 4.9 6.7 6.6
Low
Laos 23.5 42.6 1.3 4.5 4.87 .. 290 1.4 53 17 25 4.6 12.6 6.5
Vietnam 19.7 33.7 15.7 38.0 2.86 30 370 4.3 25 18 40 4.9 .. 8.1
Thailand 21.6 39.1 13.3 29.0 2.19 56 2,010 -8.6 10 32 50 2.5 6.7 4.4
Cambodia 15.9 31.9 1.8 5.5 4.16 51 260 -2.3 51 6 35 2.1 8.2 6.9
3
Papua New Guinea 17.4 33.0 0.8 2.6 4.01 .. 810 0.0 30 8 24 4.4 6.3 3.3
Regional Averages
Eastern Asia 38.5 54.6 571.7 933.0 1.90
Southeastern Asia 37.2 55.9 192.7 397.4 3.17
Total EAP Region 10 1,010 -2.6 14 33 41 3.3 10.2 6.5
Group Averages
More Developed 76.0 83.5 903.0 1,009.8 0.50 17 26,440 0.9 .. .. .. .. .. ..
Less Developed 39.9 56.2 1,942.1 3,879.6 2.70 16 1,980 -1.3 10 25 54 2.0 6.3 3.7
Least Developed 26.0 44.5 167.4 527.2 4.49 18 420 1.8 26 19 44 2.5 2.7 4.7
Source: Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat,
World Urbanization Prospects: The 1999 Revision. Part 1: Urban and Rural Areas (POP/DB/WUP/Rev.1999/1), data set in digital form.
World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) 2000 and 2001.
Figur
Figuree I.1. Tr ends in rra
a tes of urbaniza tion:
urbanization: Figur
Figuree I.2. Comparison of urban g grr owth
Indonesia, Philippines
Philippines,, and V ietnam in the Philippines
Philippines,, Indonesia, V ietnam
Trend in Urban Population Shares Trend in Growth Rate of Urban Population

6
80
Philippines
60 Indonesia
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
40
Vietnam Vietnam
2 Indonesia
20 Philippines
0
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 1950-55 1965-70 1980-55 1995-00 2010-15
Urban population as a percentage of total population Average annual rate of change of the urban population
Source: Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs Source: Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs
of the United Nations Secretariat, World Urbanization Prospects: of the United Nations Secretariat, World Urbanization Prospects: The
The 1999 Revision. Part 1: Urban and Rural Areas (POP/DB/WUP/ 1999 Revision. Part 1: Urban and Rural Areas (POP/DB/WUP/
Rev.1999/1), data set in digital form. World Bank, World Rev.1999/1), data set in digital form.
Development Indicators (WDI) 2000 and 2001.
1.9 Characterizations of “urban” populations of course depend on the definitions

used and thus can differ across countries and even in the same country over time. 4 For
example, China reset its urban threshold, causing a discontinuous jump in registered
urban growth for 1985-90.5 Vietnam counts an area as urban if a settlement has at least
4,000 residents and at least 60 percent of the population is engaged in nonagricultural
activities—a rather conservative definition that gives added weight to rural areas.6 In
many countries, especially in East Asia, a major factor obscuring the measurement of
urbanization is the failure to count peri-urban areas as urban (see discussion further
below). UN data record Thailand’s population as only 22 percent urban in 2000,
while official government statistics report that proportion as 30 percent; the Thai
planning ministry (NESDB) acknowledges that a more accurate figure, taking account
of peri-urban settlement, would be about 40 percent.7
1.10 Households often depend on very diverse economic livelihoods, combining
agriculture, manufacturing, commerce and other services, either in their residential
location (urban or rural), through seasonal or other temporal migration, and/or through
an extended family “portfolio” of economic activities in which different family members
engage across different locations. Hence, to fully understand the economic
circumstances and prospects of the poor, whether counted as urban or as rural, it is
necessary to have a disaggregated picture of their livelihoods and their interactions
outside their main geographic areas.
The Sizes and 1.11 As countries go through the urban transition inevitable with development, the
Growth of EAP rate of growth of the urban population has particular relevance to urban poverty.
Urban Areas Urban growth results from a combination of natural increase in the urban population,
net migration from other areas of the country, and reclassification of rural areas as
4) Most countries follow a UN or other standard statistical convention to define residents as urban (or rural) if more (or less) than a threshold level live in a single agglomeration.
Besides population concentration, urban definition may take account of criteria such as sectoral shares of employment, "contiguous built-up area", and administrative
designation.
5) In China, a place needs about 50,000 residents to qualify as urban, compared to 10,000 in the Canadian or U.S. definition. The Chinese urbanization level would be well
over 50 percent if the latter threshold were used.
6) Campbell (2001), p. 19.
7) Communication with Dr. Douglas Webster (Stanford University), July 2001.
P ART ONE
urban. Countries undergoing rapid urban growth, whether due to natural increase or
to in-migration, confront rising demands for housing, land, and urban services. The
urban residents least able to compete for such constrained supplies are the poor.
1.12 The absolute size of EAP urban areas is dramatic. The population of cities in the
Region with over one million residents will increase by half, from 330 million to
almost 500 million, between 2000 and 2015; similarly, that of “mega cities” (over 10
million) will increase from about 80 to 120 million. Whereas in 1950 only three of the
world’s 30 largest cities were in the developing countries of East Asia, and they were
all in China (averaging 3.9 million residents each), by 2015 there will be seven there:
Bangkok, Jakarta, Metro Manila, and Seoul along with the original Beijing, Shanghai
and Tianjin (averaging 17.1 million residents each) (UN, 2000).
1.13 But size of cities is not in itself a development issue—big is not per se bad, and
there is evidence that large urban areas, when well managed, are more spatially efficient
than smaller ones (Prud’homme 1994). The key to residents’ welfare lies with the
city’s capacity, both financial and managerial, to ensure essential services and to prevent
or counteract crippling land costs and negative externalities: such as traffic congestion,
pollution and crime. Such problems are often associated with large cities and they
burden the poor disproportionately. In most developing as well as in developed
countries, about half of the urban population resides in cities of less than half a million
residents, and another quarter in cities of the 1-5 million range (Figure I.3). Growth
rates are quite dispersed across the size ranges but tend to be highest in cities of over
1 million. However, the city size distributions, for both Eastern Asia and Southeastern
Asia, are quite distinct from these international tendencies, although in different ways.
The Eastern Asian countries show population more spread across the size categories,
but with cities of 1-5 million slightly dominant. Southeastern Asia, by contrast, has
population heavily clustered
in the below-500,000 Figur
Figure eFigur
I.3. e
FigureDifI.3.
Difff er ences
Dif
Difffer
erences ences
in Cityinsiz
erences City
size e pa siz
tter
patter
size e ns
tterns pa tter
patterbetw
tterns nseen
between betw the
between een Eastthe Asian
East
category; but it also has subr
subre e gions
Asian, as
gions, subr
subrecompar
e gions
compared
gions, ed
, astocompar
other de
compared edveloping
dev to other countriesde
dev veloping countries
relatively more in the 10-
Growth & Shares of Urban Populations in City-size Categories, Four Country Groupings
million-plus range than is
2000
the case in other countries.
2015
The Southeastern Asia
subregion thus faces a
special challenge: managing
very high growth that is
continuing in the largest
70
cities. 60
Southeastern
% of Urban Population
1.14 Research on a large 50 Asia
sample of cities of different 40 Eastern Asia

30
size categories across all Least Developed
20 Countries
developing regions has
10
revealed that the combined Less Developed Countries
0
effects of city size and high Fewer than
500,000
500,000 -
1 million
1-5
million
5 - 10
million
10
million +
growth rates raise infant City Size Categories (Number of Residents)
mortality rates, which are an
Source: Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World
indicator of residents’ basic Urbanization Prospects: The 1999 Revision. Part 2: Urban Agglomerations (POP/DB/WUP/Rev.1999/2/F16), data set
welfare. At city growth rates in digital form. According to the UN WUP, Eastern Asia comprises China, Hong Kong, DPR Korea, Japan, Macau,
slightly over 3 percent per Mongolia and the Republic of Korea. Southeastern Asia comprises Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia,
annum, effects (odds ratios) East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
on infant mortality are no
5
worse for agglomerations above 1.5 million than for cities in the 750,000-1.5 million
size range. However, the negative effects increase considerably with higher growth
rates for each city size range.8 Where such urban growth is occurring, policies must
manage its challenges by improving local government functions so that they protect
and promote the welfare of the residents, especially the poor.
1.15 Another important structural urban characteristic is the concentration of the
urban population in one dominant (“primate”) city, or a very few cities. The EAP
Region has an average rate of urban primacy lower than that in other developing
countries, but also a very wide range, from China at 3 percent to Thailand at 56
percent (Table I.3). Recent international research has shown that urban concentration
is related to economic efficiency (Henderson, 1999). The evidence suggests a “best”
degree of national urban concentration that increases sharply as income rises up to a
threshold for per capita income (about $5000 in purchasing power parity), then declines
modestly. The study also shows that the “best” degree of urban concentration declines
with country scale. Of the East Asian countries studied, Korea and Thailand appear in
the Henderson analysis to have “excessive” urban concentration (at least according to
their official urban statistics), Malaysia’s is below the estimated optimum for its income
level, and China’s is about right, given its size. It is also likely from this analysis that
the Philippines is nearing an excessive concentration in Metro Manila. The study author
concludes that the economic costs of concentration rates that exceed or fall far short of
the estimated best level are considerable, in terms of forgone economic growth. The
factors affecting primacy are complex: history, openness to trade, degree of fiscal
(de)centralization, and extent of interregional transport infrastructure. The research
finds that greater road density significantly reduces urban concentration, an effect that
rises with national income. What is of interest for the present review is the confirmation
that although the process of urbanization (agglomeration of economic activities,
population and markets) promotes economic growth, imbalances in a country’s urban
development have high costs. Ensuring that cities and towns throughout the country
are well managed and are integrated in subregions should be a deliberate element of
strategies to accomplish poverty reduction as well as national growth.
Migration and 1.16 The significance of internal migration for urban growth is difficult to assess
Urban Growth accurately because in census data, migration is not distinguishable from the
Rates reclassification of formerly rural areas as urban. However, it can safely be said that for
countries at relatively low levels of urbanization, rural-to-urban migration is the
dominant factor in cities’ growth, but that at higher levels of urbanization and of
income (up to a threshold of about US$4,000 (1985 prices)), internal natural increase
in the cities is the main source of growth (Lucas, 1999). For example, rural-to-urban
migration is seen as explaining the bulk of the urban population growth in Vietnam
(Lim et al., 2000), which is in an early stage of urban transition.9 In an analysis of 26
developing countries in the 1980s, net migration plus reclassification explained 40
percent of urban population growth; however, in a broader sample of 46 developing
countries over 1960-1990, the average contribution of migration and reclassification
appeared highest in East and Southeast Asia.10
8) Brockerhoff and Brennan (1998), p. 1-40. Conclusions apply to a sample including East Asian cities, although results for the latter are not separately identified.
9) A 1985 cross-country study found the contribution to urban population growth of net migration plus reclassification to be about 61 percent for Thailand, 55 percent for
Indonesia, and 40 percent for the Philippines--consistent with their relative levels of urbanization. (Ogawa, 1985, cited in Shareen Joshi, 2001.)
10) Ibid. In China, the number of towns more than quadrupled during 1982-90 because of reclassification. In Indonesia, net rural-urban migration is estimated to account for
25-30 percent of urban population growth, with 30-35 percent attributed to reclassification of settlements and the remaining 40-45 percent due to natural increase
(Wegelin, 2001, p. 4).
P ART ONE
1.17 Internal migration tends to have diverse patterns (including rural-rural and urban-
urban) as development proceeds. Even some urban-rural migration is observed, at
least temporarily, in times of macroeconomic crisis such as East Asia experienced in
1998-99. A distinctive phenomenon in Southeast Asia in recent years has been migration
not to the city cores, but rather to peri-urban areas (zones beyond and not necessarily
adjacent to city boundaries), as they have attracted much new investment. As already
noted, the increased population of a peri-urban area is not necessarily counted as
urban in the censuses. Furthermore, the fact that the residents fall outside local
government jurisdictions means that they lack access to social services and are at
greater risk of poverty even in the midst of a relatively strong local economy.
1.18 The transition countries in the region, notably China and Vietnam, have pursued
policies in the past of strictly controlling rights to reside in the major cities. In Vietnam,
as discussed below, such measures restricting access to employment and services have
exacerbated hardships for poor migrants, who remain illegal “unregistered” residents
for many years. In China, the household registration system, created in the early 1950s
to limit residency and employment in cities, is now being relaxed in some provinces,
and some flexibility in enforcement appears in parts of Vietnam.
1.19 Considerable flows of international migration, as well, go to the peri-urban and
urban areas of East Asia. Burmese workers migrate to Thailand, and Indonesian and
Philippino workers to Malaysia and Singapore. These migrants, an increasing share of
whom are women,11 often suffer the lowest legal and social status, and the worst living
conditions (Webster, 2001).
1.20 As has been documented in many countries, urban areas, especially large cities, The Urban
contribute more than their population share to the national economy. For example, Economic Context
the three major cities of Vietnam (Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi and Haiphong), with a
combined official population of 12 percent of the national total in 1990, produced 19 Changing
percent of the gross domestic product; by 1995, with their population share largely Economic Activities
unchanged, these cities generated nearly 30 percent of the national output. With their
surrounding provinces, the Mekong and Red River Deltas included, the combined
city-regions produce more than 70 percent of the national output with half the national
population.12
1.21 Taking the broader regions surrounding urban centers into account is important,
because though economic development proceeds through shifts in production and
employment from largely rural agriculture to largely urban industry and services, those
shifts go on, as well, in hinterland areas before they are officially classified as urban.
To find cheaper land, traditional manufacturing shifts outwards from the large cities or
to smaller cities. However, the more information- and technology-intensive industry
and services remain in the central cities and metro areas, or new peri-urban areas,
because their needs for skilled labor, infrastructure and amenities are more important
considerations than land costs. For many unskilled workers and for most of the poor,
11) Females such as domestic servants in Malaysia (mainly from Indonesia) now outnumber males among official overseas migrant workers, although males still dominate the
larger population of illegal and undocumented workers (Hugo, 2000, cited in Joshi, May 2001).
12) Campbell, op. cit., p. 21. Recently the Southeast Region alongside Ho Chi Minh City has demonstrated dynamic enterprise development and structural economic
transformation more dramatic than that of the Mekong Delta; compared to the Mekong Delta, the Southeast accounts for a much larger share of private sector employment
(especially manufacturing). (Comments by Carolyn Turk and Rob Swinkels, World Bank Hanoi office)
7
the small scale and “informal sector”, with informal infrastructure and other services,
construction, trade and small scale manufacturing, and urban agriculture, is the main
source of income. That sector exploits the multiplier effects of the registered “formal”
economy.
1.22 Similarly diverse economic activities are important in rural areas. For example,
among villages of Thai Binh province in Vietnam (Red River delta), 52-64 percent of
income is earned in services and small businesses.13 Such “nonfarm employment”
generally benefits from proximity to urban areas (as does agricultural production)
because of access to markets, information, and infrastructure.14 In addition, many studies
show that migration of workers into both formal and informal urban activities is more
common from regions relatively near the migrant’s destination. In short, migration
behavior weakens with distance,15 which further suggests that an urban economy’s
domestic influence should be considered beyond the official city boundaries.
1.23 What are the most vibrantly growing economic activities in the focus countries,
and how do these relate to the urban demographics? In Vietnam, growth in output and
employment was much stronger in industry, and especially in services, than in
agriculture during 1993-98, as would be expected in its early stage of structural
transformation. Ironically, employment growth in “nonfarm” activities was higher in
rural areas of Vietnam than in urban ones.16 The incomplete state of reforms (doi moi)
may have meant that private sector commerce and manufacturing in urban areas
remained relatively more constrained.17 Vietnam’s rate of growth for wage employment
(considered in the Vietnam Poverty Assessment as synonymous with “formal sector”)
was only half of what Indonesia achieved in the first half of the 1990s after it embarked
on similar reforms.18 Of course, wage jobs and reported unemployment affect a relatively
small share of the labor force even in urban areas of Vietnam. There is a strong duality
in the labor force (i.e. little employment moves from the informal to the formal
economy), possibly more than is found in the Region’s more fully market-oriented
countries, because in Vietnam formal private enterprises are relatively underdeveloped.
Job growth has been most dramatic in the labor-intensive light manufacturing, largely
export-oriented, in the main cities especially for young female workers, many of whom
are migrants.19 An example is shoe production in and around Haiphong and Ho Chi
Minh City.
1.24 In the Philippines there has been little additional shift in employment from
agriculture to industry and services since the mid-1980s. Although the labor productivity
(output per worker) of industry is about five times that of agriculture and about twice
that for services, labor productivity has deteriorated in industry and stagnated in the
other sectors since 1984, with a decline in capital intensity.20 Therefore, though there
is considerable scope for such sectoral shifts in employment to gain more income, it
may not happen without better economic management.
13) Survey of 45,000 families from 1999 agricultural publication, cited in Ibid., p. 19.
14) See Chapter 5 of 2003 World Development Report: Sustainable Development in a Dynamic Economy. (The World Bank and Oxford University Press, 2002).
15) Lucas, op. cit., updated at presentation at World Bank, March 2000.
16) Vietnam: Attacking Poverty, tables 3.1 and 3.2.
17) However, the differential between urban and rural incomes continues to increase because the urban-to-rural productivity differential is high and growing (from a ratio of 2.4
in 1986 to 4.2 in 1998), due to the rising ratio in nonagricultural-to-agricultural productivity (from 4.4 to 7.3), and the ratio of informal sector productivity to primary sector
productivity (from 4.0 to 4.5) over the same period. Jean-Marie Cour, 2001.
18) NGO Poverty Working Group, 2000, p. 47. (Hereafter referred to as "Vietnam Poverty Assessment").
19) Campbell, op. cit.
20) Philippines Poverty Assessment, Vol. II, Chapter 2, Fig. 2.13.
P ART ONE
1.25 In East Asia, industrial relocation and new investment are most apparent in the Increased
“extended urban regions” (peri-urban areas) outside major cities. This spatial trend will Concentration in
account for 40 percent of urban population growth in the Region over the next 20-25 Peri-Urban Areas
years—specifically, 53 percent of that in the extended Bangkok region, 70 percent in
Jakarta’s extended urban region, and about 40-60 percent in major Chinese cities.21 Peri-
urban areas can be defined by their underlying process characteristics: that is, they
demonstrate an ongoing shift from an agricultural to a manufacturing-dominated economy,
a corresponding change in employment structure, rapid population growth and
urbanization, and changing spatial development with rising land costs. These peri-urban
areas are becoming home to most large manufacturing investment and to foreign direct
investment, locating in industrial estates with large perimeter structures and infrastructure
networks along with access to a major city for higher level services. Their workers are
not commuters but residents, often migrants from other urban areas and including both
highly qualified and less skilled workers as well as migrants from rural areas, all drawn
by both the core formal sector jobs and by the spin-off demand for other services (see
Box I.1).
1.26 A result of this pattern of peri-urban development is that in the cities proper, a
wide range of formal sector jobs across skill levels appear in services, but not in
manufacturing, since the manufacturing is increasingly moving outside the city limits.
Thus, “high end” modern services and very low-end, informal production and services
are remaining as the officially recognized urban economy. An implication is that the
urban poor may have less occupational mobility within the cities than has been available
to urban residents in other countries at other times (e.g. in the U.S or Europe during the
20th century). To avoid spatial segmentation of population and of jobs, therefore, policies
to ensure a well-integrated internal labor market, at the minimum, are essential. Workers
should be able to migrate within the country without administrative restrictions and
should have physical mobility (which depends further on land tenure, housing, and
urban and inter-urban transport). The peri-urbanization phenomenon also calls for realistic
urban management policies that integrate the outer zones with the cities and provide
adequate urban services for them.
1.27 In East Asia, the urban economies and their residents have been particularly Susceptibility to
vulnerable to macroeconomic shocks such as the financial crisis of 1997-98. That impact Macroeconomic
hit urban areas through price increases for imported goods and food products (the latter Shocks
due also to coinciding effects of El Nino); job losses initially in the high-end services
such as finance and construction; and consequent reductions in demand for other urban
outputs and services such as transportation, hotels and restaurants, entertainment, domestic
help, etc. Thus, losses in real earnings affected the poorer workers more as second-order
effects, while higher income earners experienced the initial job cuts more directly.
1.28 In Indonesia, the financial crisis was estimated to affect the urban economy and
especially the largest cities more than it did the rural sector, with urban-based GDP
declining in 1998 by 18 percent, versus 14 percent for the entire economy.22 During
1997-1998, urban households reduced real spending on food by 28 percent, as compared
to 8 percent reduction for rural households.23 While all regions of Indonesia experienced
an increase in the incidence of poverty between February 1996 and February 1999, the
relative increase was much higher in urban areas than in rural areas: the urban poverty
rate rose by 126 percent, almost double the increase in rural areas.24 Similarly, the urban
21) Webster, op cit., p. 1.

22) Wegelin, op. cit, p. 8.
23) Ibid., p. 108.
24) Pradhan et al., 2000.
9
Box I.1 W h y East Asia sho
Box ws little rrela
shows ela tionship
elationship
betw een urbaniza
between tion and industrializa
urbanization tion
industrialization
Urbanization and Industrialization by Country
Source: Population Division of
60 the Department of Economic and
CHN ALG Social Affairs of the United
50
PNG MLY KOR. Rep. Nations Secretariat, World
Industry, Value added
THL IND
40
VNM MRC MGL JPN SGP Urbanization Prospects: The 1999
(% of GDP, 1999)
PNG GER
30 BFO TUN BZL LBN Revision. Part 1: Urban and Rural
IDA CDI PHL PNG UK
20 LAO GHN NTH Areas (POP/DB/WUP/Rev.1999/
CAM HKG 1), data set in digital form. World
10 MYR Bank, World Development
0 Indicators (WDI) 2001.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90
East Asia Pacific Countries % Urban Population
Non-EAP Countries (2000)
There is a well-known linear relationship between urbanization levels and per capita income, which
represents the robust correlation between economic development and increasing shares of urban
population both across countries and over time. Since the process of economic development involves
a shift of output and employment from agriculture towards industry and then later services, there is a
less straightforward relationship between urbanization and industrialization. Rich countries of Europe,
and even Japan, have shed industry, so their industrialization levels are declining even though they are
already highly urbanized. But it would be expected that countries in the low-to-middle range of
urbanization have correspondingly rising levels of industrialization.
In the East Asian Region, however, industrialization appears to rise very sharply at low levels of
urbanization as measured in official statistics. As the figure shows, China, Thailand, Indonesia and
Malaysia are now the foundries of the world, the Manchesters of the 21st century. In every one of these
countries (though perhaps less pronounced in Indonesia), industry is not locating in cities but in peri-
urban areas. Yet, in many cases, e.g., Thailand and China, these places are not being defined officially
as urban.
The other factor skewing the urbanization-industrialization relationship across the East Asian region is
the widespread practice of urban de-industrialization. For example, virtually every Chinese city (right
down to the cities of 800,000 and smaller such as Kunming) has a policy, which has been very successfully
implemented in almost all cases, to deindustrialize the city (even without the policy, as seen in Southeast
Asia and other market economies, the market would have done the same thing in China over time).
Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur, and dozens of other Southeast Asian cities have similar policies, which
have been implemented successfully, that are reinforcing market forces. The result is that officially
non-urban areas such as Thailand’s Eastern Seaboard (the industrial heartland of Southeast Asia) and
Chinese peri-urban zones, especially in the Lower Yangtze and Lower Pearl River regions, have regional
economies with manufacturing GRP shares of 60-70 percent (the highest in the world), while cities
such as the Bangkok Metropolitan Area have manufacturing shares of under 30 percent and falling.
Meanwhile, the share of services in cities (measured in terms of GRP) such as Bangkok is over 50
percent and rising. In summary, urbanization in East Asia is increasingly highly correlated with service
activities (the more developed the country, the more higher-level services predominate), and increasingly
inversely correlated with industrial activities which market forces and national and local policies are
moving out of cities.
Of course, the above has enormous implications in terms of poverty. Many of the jobs accessible to
rural-urban migrants and those with modest education (high school or less) are found outside, but
within 200 kms of, the city limits. The cities themselves are often less effective mechanisms for providing
such individuals a foothold on the economic ladder as they offer mainly either very high end jobs or
very low (often informal sector) jobs (the city proper of Shanghai epitomizes this duality). The cities of
the Region are increasingly lacking the equivalent of the solid blue collar jobs that helped so many
urban and migrant households in North America to get ahead.
Source: Dr. Douglas Webster, Stanford University and the Asia-Pacific Research Center
P ART ONE
indices of poverty headcount, poverty gap, and poverty severity in Indonesia increased
by 152 percent, 184 percent, and 202 percent, respectively, between 1996-99, well
over twice the rural increases.25
1.29 In the Philippines, the labor market shock of job or earnings loss was found to
have had a more negative impact on relatively commercially-developed communities
(in effect, those with more urban characteristics). The Philippines poverty assessment
(PA) did not analyze survey data on the effects of the crisis separately for urban and for
rural households, but concluded that “the labor market shock affected the relatively
better-off wage earners more severely, while the impact of the drought from El Nino
was heavier on the relatively poorer agriculture-based households”.26 However, since
many urban poor are not earning wages but are subject to second-order reductions in
the demand for their labor, and since they are vulnerable to inflation due to both the
drought and macro/financial instability, it is highly likely that the urban poor were
harshly affected.
1.30 The macroeconomic-financial crisis in 1997/98 sharply worsened income poverty
in other countries of the Region as well, notably in Korea and Thailand. In Indonesia,
poverty has since declined, although not recovering entirely to pre-crisis levels by
2000.27 The Region’s economic crisis demonstrated that urban areas, though generators
of economic activity, are also subject to ripple-through effects of cyclical and other
macroeconomic shocks. The urban economies as a whole can sometimes spring back
fairly rapidly from shocks but the setback may be more serious and lasting for residents
living at the margin of poverty.
1.31 How the trends in urbanization and economic activity in the EAP countries will Implications of
affect the magnitudes and proportions of urban poverty is not simple to predict. A Demographic
higher growth in the share of the total population that is urban would be expected to and Economic
associate over time with reduction in a country’s total poverty, since urbanization is Changes for
highly correlated with increasing national income and other development indicators. Urban Poverty
That correlation has several explanations.
• Labor productivity is in general higher for secondary and tertiary activities, which
Associations
predominate in the urbanized economy, than for primary production.
among Urban
Growth, Poverty,
• The agglomeration economies associated with the concentration of population and and Total Poverty
economic activity in urban areas permit more efficient use of labor, land and capital—
i.e. with higher returns.
• The resulting urban economic growth generates revenues that can be used for
equalizing transfers.
1.32 Increasing urbanization can thus increase incomes for the urban residents; for
migrants from other regions to the cities; and for the rural areas themselves, by relieving
pressure on rural land and providing savings for public and private transfers. However,
the pace of income growth in urban and rural areas does not necessarily remove the
income inequalities between them. Indeed, the urban-rural gap may widen in the
medium term, especially for rural areas that are intrinsically under-resourced in natural
or human capital, or if governments do not carry out effective transfer policies.
25) Suryahadi, Sumarto, Suharso and Pritchett (2000), Table 8.

26) Philippines PA, Vol. II, Chapter 5, p. 99.
27) WDR 2000/01, p. 26.
11
1.33 Although, over time, increasing urbanization should reduce both total and urban
poverty, the processes of the transition—an influx of migrants and other factors creating
new demands on cities for services, jobs, housing, infrastructure, etc.—can increase
hardships for some residents in the short- to medium-term. Urban growth itself creates
a challenge to manage what could be considered “frictional” poverty—that is, it poses
the transitional task of settling in new arrivals or integrating residents at the expanding
borders of the urban area. That category of poverty can be corrected as fast as those
demands can be met, but that depends on the size of the backlog and the pace of new
growth. Since the numbers are so large of both backlog and new residents, cities and
countries need to find new strategies, adapting flexible approaches such as allocating
service delivery to public-private partnerships; liberalizing conditions for private
enterprise and business development; facilitating the private sector’s development of
housing, land and infrastructure; and encouraging private enterprise in other ways as
well, as the best way to deal with these growing demands.
1.34 Even with good conventional urban management, however, cities may face a
more deep-seated phenomenon of “structural” poverty: a manifestation of social,
political, and institutional disparities that are exacerbated and made newly apparent
under the pressures of high urban growth. Such problems, evident even in rich cities,
emerge where there are deep divisions between social groups, such as that between
“legal” and “nonlegal” residents; where certain settlements within the city are spatially
segregated, leaving those residents to deal with persistent disadvantages including the
risk of eviction; where many people lack access to normal political expression, and
voice and legal redress are out of reach or at best weak; and where vulnerable groups
are insufficiently protected by social networks and other institutions. These structural
determinants of poverty require fundamental reforms in governance, both locally and
nationally, that go beyond simply adding financial resources.
1.35 It follows that both the ways in which poverty is generated in urban areas and
the ways of alleviating it depend on the nature of the poverty and how institutions
respond to it. Definitions of urban poverty and their detailed application to the focus
countries are discussed below.
1.36 In terms of the conventional income or
Figur
Figuree I.4. Incr ease in the urban shar
Increase share e of the
total po
povver ty in East Asian countries
erty countries,, consumption (expenditure) measures of poverty, and
1990-2000 and pr ojections to 2030
projections with due caveats about estimations and projections,
Urban Share of Poverty (%)
it is fair to say that in developing countries, including
0.6 those of the EAP Region, the share of urban within
Indonesia
the total poor population will increase significantly
0.5
Philippines
with their rising urbanization. Ravaillion (2000) shows
0.4
that, under reasonable theoretical assumptions and
Cambodia
after testing with data on 39 developing countries,
0.3 the urban share of the total number of poor is seen to
Lao PDR
be a strictly increasing and convex function of the
0.2 China
urban share of the total population. That is, as a
Vietnam
0.1 country urbanizes, urban poverty rises relative to the
national mean, and the poor urbanize faster than the
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 population as a whole. The cross-country data suggest
that the urban share of the total poor population would
Source: Population projections from UN, WUP, 1999 Revision. Urban and rural poverty reach 50 percent by 2035, when the urban share of
headcount rates are for the latest year available from World Bank, WDI 2000. Projection
assumes that the ratio of urban to rural headcount rates remains the population reaches 60 percent. This simple
unchanged from the base year. analysis implies that as countries urbanize (at least
up to some threshold), the share of the urban poor
will increase both within the urban population and
within the population at large.
P ART ONE
1.37 Hentschel and Bump (1999), starting from UN urbanization projections and
current estimates of the incidence of rural and urban poverty for each Region, project
the share of total poor living in urban areas by 2025 according to three possible
assumptions: that the ratio of urban to rural poverty headcounts remains the same as in
1998 (base case), or that the ratio increases (deemed least likely), or that it decreases.
The range thus obtained for the entire East Asia Region indicates that the urban share
of total poverty would reach 35 to 50 percent in 2025, with a midpoint of 40 percent,
in contrast to about 25 percent in 1998. A similar projection for six East Asian countries,
taking just the base case (no change in the current ratio of urban and rural poverty
headcounts, shows that by 2030 urban areas would account for more than half of the
total poor in Indonesia and the Philippines, for 35 percent in Cambodia, but still for
less than a fifth in China and Vietnam (Figure I.4). Thus there is ample evidence for the
present analysis that rising income poverty in urban areas is a secular trend that merits
serious attention from policy makers and other stakeholders, including the Bank.
Moreover, beyond the income measurement of poverty, the vulnerability of much of
the urban population, who live near the poverty line, in both material and nonmaterial
terms, is a further cause for concern. That is discussed in Part Two.
1.38 Despite the common belief that migrants to cities remain at the margin of the The Relationship
urban labor force for a long time, that generalization is not valid for EAP, or elsewhere. between
Observations from many developing countries have revealed that migrants, whether Migration and
from other urban areas as is often the case, or from rural areas, initially earn less than Poverty
comparable natives of the city and may make their start in the informal sector, but that
the earnings gap tends to close within a few years and can even reverse. Migrants are
typically well informed through informal networks about the labor market at their
destination, although the networks by their nature are not available to all potential
candidates for migration; limited information and lack of facilitating social connections
undoubtedly constrain some would-be migrants.28
1.39 Individuals move to urban areas both for economic hopes of better living
conditions and earnings and for other reasons (marriage, schooling, to rejoin family).
In Indonesia, on average across all regions only 40 percent of migrants from rural to
urban areas report seeking employment as their main reason.29 A survey of migrants to
Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam found that slightly over half of males and only a third of
females reported moving for economic reasons; those respondents tended to come
from the poorer provinces. The migrants who reported non-economic motivations
moved from the nearby Mekong Delta and Southeast regions and had strong family
networks. Other research on migrants in Vietnam, however, has found that employment
and economic factors influence interprovincial migration at least indirectly, since the
volume of net migration is larger to the more urbanized and industrialized areas. 30
1.40 How government policy and the receiving population treat the migrants is critical
to their welfare and their ability to integrate with city life. The Vietnam Poverty Assessment
finds that “while most of the migrants to urban areas fare well and add to the prosperity
the plight of a particular group of poor migrants was highlighted. These are migrants to
urban areas who have not secured permanent registration. This group of the urban poor
face difficulties in accessing public services and may also be socially marginalized” (p.
vii). Although controls have recently been relaxed, it still can take a migrant a decade to
move from “category 4” (illegal, without residency papers) to “category 2 or 1” (with
28) Lucas, op. cit.; de Haan (2000).

29) Wegelin, Table A.7. from SUPAS census, 1995.
30) Dang et al., 1997 and Anh et al, 1996, cited in Phan, 2001.
13
full urban citizenship).31 Even if they acquire a decent livelihood, migrants can have
very poor living standards , to the extent that they settle in peripheral slum zones with
no basic services or secure housing tenure, whether because labor-intensive
manufacturing is relocating there to flee high land costs in the city or because the
central areas lack affordable housing.
EAP Trends in the 1.41 In the 1987-98 period, the East Asia and Pacific Region had by far the most
Incidence of dramatic reduction in the numbers and percentages of poor people, as measured by
Poverty, and the international income poverty threshold of $1/day, among all regions of the
Urban Poverty, in developing world. Only the Middle-East and the North Africa Region also showed
Particular declines. The share of the population living on less than $1/day fell from 26.6 percent
in 1987 to 15.3 percent in 1998 (excluding China, from 23.9 to 11.3 percent)—a drop
of fully one-third, or 139 million persons (of
Ta b le I.4. Standar
Standard d Measur
Measureses of Income whom 90 million were in China). Even relative
(Expenditur
(Expenditure) e) P
Poover ty in R
erty ur al and Urban Ar
ural
Rur eas
Areas
income poverty (share of population living on
of the Philippines and V ietnam, 1985, 1991, 1997
less than one-third of average national
THE PHILIPPINES 1985 1991 1997 consumption) fell in the EAP Region over the
Total Population period, from 33 percent to 19.6 percent
Poverty Incidence (%) 40.9 34.3 25.1 (excluding China, from 45 to 25 percent).32
Depth (%) 13.2 10.6 6.4
Inequality (Gini) 0.412 0.428 0.427 1.42 For most of the Region countries, poverty
Rural reduction accompanied economic growth,
Poverty Incidence (%) 53.1 48.6 36.4 though with different degrees of elasticity in
Depth (%) 17.8 15.6 9.8 responsiveness of poverty to changes in income.
Inequality (Gini) .352 .359 .352 From about the mid-1980s to mid-1990s, China
Urban led the Region in economic growth but with
Poverty Incidence (%) 21.7 20.1 11.9 relatively little reduction in poverty, because
Depth (%) 5.9 5.7 2.6 inequality grew. Relative to other countries in
Inequality (Gini) 0.410 0.421 0.425
the region, poverty reduction in the Philippines
VIETNAM 1993 1998
was also somewhat low for its economic growth.
In Vietnam poverty could have been reduced
Total Population more if the benefits of economic growth had
Poverty Incidence (%) 58.0 37.0
Depth (%) 18.50 9.50
been spread more evenly between urban and
Inequality (Theil Index) 0.177 0.201 rural areas. Thailand demonstrated particularly
Gini 0.33 0.35 high elasticity in poverty reduction, followed
Rural by Indonesia and Malaysia.33 Such differences
Poverty Incidence (%) 66.0 45.0 reflect the degree to which each country’s
Depth (%) 21.50 11.60 growth was “pro-poor.” However, changes in
Inequality (Theil Index) 0.128 0.126 inequality are not strongly correlated with
Urban overall growth in EAP or elsewhere.
Poverty Incidence (%) 25.0 9.0
Depth (%) 6.40 1.70 1.43 In both the Philippines and Vietnam,
Inequality (Theil Index) 0.187 0.197 income, or expenditures, poverty 34 declined
Source: The Philippines Poverty Assessment, Tables 4 and 6, Volume I, Main over the 1990s for both urban and rural
Report; Vietnam Attacking Poverty, Figures 1, 2 and 1.3, pages 12-13 populations, whether measured as basic
Note: “Depth” of poverty refers to distance below the respective poverty line. For headcount or as depth of poverty (Table I.4).35
both Gini and Theil indices, increasing value indicates greater inequality
31) J-M. Cour, 2001.

32) WDR 2000/2001, Tables 1.1 and 1.2.
33) WDR 2000/01, Figure 3.4. Largely similar comparisons emerge from the Philippines PA, Volume 1, Figure 1, and from Vietnam PA, Table 6.3.
34) Termed the "current consumption expenditures deficit," the most common quantified definition of poverty. Pradhan, op. cit. Sometimes referred to simply as "income
poverty" or "expenditure or comsumption poverty" these terms are used interchangeably here.
35) These poverty rates cited in the Bank's PA for the Philippines are substantially below the official estimates (e.g., 36.8 percent in 1997, compared to 25.1 percent in the
Table above), due to higher official poverty lines. (Philippines PA, Chapter 1).
P ART ONE
1.44 Urban poverty continues to be well below Ta b le I.5. Indonesia: Comparisons of R ur

Rur al
ural
that of rural. However, measurements of urban and Urban P over
Po ty Incidence Deri
erty Derivved with
poverty are subject to important caveats, as Dif
Difff er ent Measur
erent ement Methods
Measurement
discussed further in Part Two. The Vietnam Poverty Incidence, February 1999
sampling frame is believed to have excluded Indonesia Iterative Method BPS Method
those migrants without permanent residency % %
permits, and hence left out those who are likely Total Population 27.1 23.6
the poorest. It is estimated that correcting for Rural 34.1 25.9
this oversight could raise the urban poverty Urban 16.3 20.0
Urban Head Count as % Rural 47.8 77.2
headcount from 9 to possibly 15 percent.36 For
Indonesia, differences in the measurements used Source: Pradhan, et al. (2000), Table 2. See paper for explanation of methods. The
Indonesia Poverty Assessment (World Bank, September 2000 draft) uses the
according to assumptions about consumption
“iterative” method estimates. BPS method is that of Badan Pusat Statistik, Jakarta.
baskets and poverty lines have an enormous
impact on the ratios of the poverty headcount
between rural and urban populations (Table I.5).
1.45 These statistical and survey issues underscore the point that differences in measured
income or expenditure poverty between rural and urban areas “are possibly as much an
artifact of method and assumptions as they are a finding of ‘fact’—the poverty line is
higher because it is assumed to be higher”, 37 and should not be interpreted too
dogmatically. Then, too, the low and improving “depth” indicator of poverty, which
identifies the distance below the poverty line, though favorable, means that the population
is close to the poverty line, so changes in estimations about this line—as well as actual
adverse events harming incomes—can have large (whether statistical or real) consequences
for the numbers of individuals categorized as poor.
1.46 For China, for example, many analysts question using the $1/day international
standard of absolute poverty as irrelevant to urban poverty because of the much higher
living costs in cities. By that measure, only 1.7 percent of the urban population (5 million
people) was poor in 1998. Raising the threshold to $1.50/day yields an urban poverty
headcount rate of 10.1 percent, more than a five-fold increase (31 million people); and
$2.00/day implies a 24.4 percent headcount rate, or 75 million poor people.38
1.47 Inequality is shown to be higher in urban than in rural areas for all three countries.
For example, Gini coefficients were 0.266 for the rural population and 0.328 for the
urban in Indonesia in 1999 (see Table I.6), and 1.4 for the Philippines and Vietnam.
1.48 In Indonesia, inequality declined by about the same degree for urban and for rural
households between the pre-crisis (1996) and post-crisis (1999) periods, but still left urban
Ginis consistently higher than rural.39 In the Philippines and Vietnam, urban inequality as
shown in Table I.4 is worsening, a pattern found in many other developing countries as
well. Analysis in Vietnam
indicates that the national
Ta b le I.6. Cum ula
Cumula ti
ulati
tivve distrib ution function
distribution
increase in inequality is due of per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpenditure e, b y type of settlement (Indonesia)
by
primarily to a growing rural-
Urban – by Size of Settlement
urban gap in incomes,
Gini Rural <250K 250-499K 500-999K 1M-2M >2M All Urban
outweighing diverging
trends in inequality for the Total Population 0.2662 0.3014 0.3257 0.3448 0.3168 0.3367 0.3282
rural and the urban settings. Lowest quintile 0.1366 0.1304 0.1294 0.1576 0.1622 0.1688 0.1453
Source: SUSENAS 1999 household survey.
36) Vietnam PA, Box 1.4. The annual urban household surveys in China also exclude the "floating population" (undocumented urban residents) who are counted instead
among the rural population.
37) Pradhan et al., op. cit., p. 16.
38) The ADB has used both $2 and $3/day as poverty lines for measuring urban poverty in China according to Fan et al. (2001).
39) Suryahadi et al, March 2000, Table 9.
15
Implications of 1.49 An important question for this review is what factors are associated with, or
Urban contribute to, increases or decreases in overall poverty, and especially in urban poverty.
Development for The poverty assessments for the three focus countries analyze the regional and sectoral
Reducing Poverty breakdown of poverty trends, providing insights into the urban and rural phenomena;
however, none of those reports explores urban poverty directly, nor the links between
rural and urban livelihoods. Causality of change and implications for poverty strategies
are not easy to identify.
1.50 Certain observations are worth making. In all three countries, the agricultural
population has the highest incidence of poverty and the highest share of the total poor.
Only Vietnam reduced poverty relatively more in the agricultural than in other sectors.
That achievement reflected higher agricultural productivity, which relieves poverty
significantly because a large share of the population depends on agriculture, and also
weak employment growth in the industrial sector.40 In the Philippines, from 1985 to
1997, poverty reduction was much faster in the nonagricultural activities of industry
and services than in agriculture, and the occupational distribution shifted towards
those sectors where poverty was rapidly declining. The shift was not large enough,
however, to change the occupational composition of the poor. Both the Philippines
and the Vietnam poverty assessments conclude that given the continuing preponderance
of the poor in agriculture, better growth there is crucial to relieve poverty, along with
a structural shift of population from agriculture to activities with higher productivity.
1.51 The key questions are then: In what locations do the high productivity activities
(including high-value agriculture) take place? What conditions best support them? The
regional breakdowns of poverty and growth in the focus countries show, first, how
sharp and durable the spatial variations are. The Philippines PA, for example, notes
that “there is no strong evidence for convergence of poverty levels” among Philippine
provinces between 1988 and 1997.41 In all three countries, the regions with highest
poverty incidence tend to remain those that are remote from population centers, and
especially those that have relatively poor natural resources but depend on agricultural
activities.42 The remoteness of the less well-off regions means less access to the
economies of agglomeration, which arise from producers’ proximity to markets for
goods and labor, to infrastructure reducing production costs, and to networks for
exchange of information and technology. The fact that the more urbanized regions
such as the Red River Delta and the South East in Vietnam have lower poverty incidence
probably reflects the benefits of agglomeration economies in terms of higher and more
rapidly increasing productivity, creating conditions that reduce poverty.
1.52 Although causality with respect to the functioning of these agglomeration
economies and poverty reduction within their areas of reach cannot be empirically
demonstrated at least by the present study, there is ample evidence of association.
Both nonfarm employment, which as noted in the Vietnam PA is critical to reduce
poverty, and high value crop and livestock agriculture require a buoyant source of
demand. The PA reports note, for example, that high-value agriculture is more successful
closer to urban sources of demand. Market impetus is important to poverty reduction;
the liberalization of internal trade is cited in the Indonesia PA as contributing to pro-
poor growth there. The Vietnam Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP)
points out that rural living standards have improved most in the peripheries of cities
and towns. Similarly, a poverty mapping analysis has shown that rural poverty is less
40) Vietnam PA, Table 3.7 on rural income sources. There has been much less growth of labor-intensive industry in Vietnam than in other more liberalized industrializing
countries of the EAP region; the lack of industrial employment growth is attributed to the still small and immature formal private sector (p. 60).
41) Philippines PA, Vol. I, Main Report, para. 25.
42) See Chapter 4 in 2003 WDR.
P ART ONE
prevalent or less severe in the provinces closest to the major urban centers. Even in the
poorest provinces, the urban areas have poverty headcounts lower than those in
neighboring rural zones; and the more prosperous provinces, e.g., in the South East,
now have a relatively small rural-urban poverty gap, indicating economic spillovers.
Education is also most strongly related to income in the two urban regions with major
cities (Red River Delta and the South East), suggesting that the returns from education
rise with the opportunities for nonfarm employment.43
1.53 Such differences are often assumed to show that urban areas simply enjoy
favorable policy and political environments, endowing them with more than their
share of tax revenues and public investment, high wage protection, favorable prices,
and a stronger overall safety net. While countries have maintained some such policies
at times (e.g., the “iron rice bowl” policies of China up to the 1980s), it is surely a leap
of faith to assume that the better urban performance in so many circumstances, even
in the more urban parts of rural areas, is explained by a deliberate policy carried out
effectively. There are elements of the generic urban context that give some growth-
promoting and poverty-reducing measures lower costs and higher returns than they
would have in the generic rural context. Besides being true of public investment in
major infrastructure with its high fixed costs and increasing returns to scale, it is also
true of much private investment, for which the physical concentration of workers,
consumers and suppliers as well as other producers in spatial proximity provides a
notable economic advantage.44
1.54 Nothing about the theory of agglomeration economies however, guarantees
that population concentration alone will spur economic growth or reduce poverty.
What matters is how well producers and workers can respond to the opportunities in
urban marketplaces. Therefore, when unnecessary regulatory constraints impede
entrepreneurial action; when excessive or unpredictable taxation raises risks to
investment; or when weak governance and inefficient urban management fail to deliver
the services demanded, urban growth in itself will not fulfill the promise of economic
improvement for any but a few people. In such circumstances, increasing urbanization
does less than it could for the country’s development. People still come hopefully to
the cities, but encounter undue obstacles to improving their incomes and living
conditions. Private investment then focuses on the surest quick return and on low-risk
activities. Moreover, public resources are then unlikely to be allocated to the areas
with the most potential for broad-based growth.
1.55 How well urban growth will be managed in the EAP countries will matter greatly
not only for levels of urban poverty, but even more for how much the urban areas
contribute to the growth of the overall economy, and hence to the prospects for reducing
rural poverty. Correspondingly, strategies to reduce national and rural poverty should
draw on the dynamics of economic agglomeration. The Vietnam and the Philippines
poverty assessments acknowledge that quite explicitly. The latest national plan for China
incorporates the urban transition as a strategy to combat poverty in China’s western
regions, which have missed out on economic growth. The Vietnam PA presents growth of
rural nonfarm employment as well as of urban employment as two elements of an integrated
43) Minot and Baulch, p. 9.

44) An example is industrial promotion policies. Experience in Malaysia, Taiwan, Korea and the Philippines demonstrates that industrial estates (which are often government
funded) are most successful when located in major ports, regional centers or near a natural resource base. Estates intended to facilitate rural development in isolated
locations lacking market potential have generally not been sustainable. (Jones (1988), cited in Joshi, June 2001). The preferences of investors to cluster in close physical
proximity, for both economic reasons and to ease their access to government and to services, is also discussed in Webster, op. cit.
17
approach to regional development. The priority for developing nonfarm production to
diversify and raise rural incomes will require more public investment in rural areas.
Such investment should be planned in a broad spatial vision, considering where non-
farm production can best be connected to upstream and downstream markets. Policies
and investments that enable the rural population to shift to higher return activities and/
or to move to locations with better opportunities, and those that increase the
effectiveness of cities and towns in providing jobs and services, should all be integral
to the national poverty strategies in countries of the Region.
P ART ONE
PART TWO:
AN ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE
AND QUALITATIVE INFORMATION
2.1 It is now widely accepted internationally that an understanding of poverty must A Conceptual
look beyond traditional definitions based on income, expenditure or consumption. Framework for
WDR 2000/01 expressed the consensus that poverty has all the following dimensions: Urban Poverty
lack of opportunity (including access to markets and assets, and to the conditions that
affect returns on assets); low capabilities, constrained by limited health, nutrition and
education; a state of insecurity arising from habitual exposure to risk and income
shocks, whether as an individual/household or as part of a larger group; and
disempowerment because of social or political barriers. These dimensions are equally
relevant to urban and to rural poverty, but the manifestations differ with the spatial
context. In the urban setting, markets and productive assets (such as infrastructure) are
often more available than in rural areas, but institutional failures can nevertheless
hinder effective access by the urban poor. For example, in a large city, lack of public
transport can prevent them from traveling from the only residential areas they can
afford to job locations; services such as piped water supply, though nominally provided,
may be of such low quality and reliability that they have to seek their own supply at
higher cost. And though urban residents live closer to government agencies, that does
not ensure the urban poor a political voice. In fact, the proximity can subject them to
frequent instances of police harassment and the costs of corruption.
2.2 Three particular aspects of urban life directly affect how poverty is manifested:45
• “Commoditization”—cash income is required for food, housing, transportation and
other essential goods/services.
• Environmental hazard due to negative externalities—the relative density of urban
settlement means that behaviors and environmental sanitation have immediate and
widespread effects on human health and the amenities of public space. Asian cities
have the highest density (inhabitants per hectare) in the world.
• Social fragmentation—by their nature, urban areas consist of a mix and churning of
population that is particularly intense, even when natural growth or internal migration
is relatively slow. The social implications of this characteristic are complex. That is,
the constant transformations of the urban population can break down traditional
social patterns and networks, but also create and reinforce different ones. Nonetheless,
it is likely that the sources of social support in cities are subject to stronger forces of
change and stress than are those in rural areas, which partly explains different urban
rates of crime, substance abuse, and other social pathologies.
2.3 To better incorporate these contextual characteristics and the dynamic nature of
poverty, some urban poverty research has used an “asset vulnerability” framework (Moser,
1998). This concept captures the view of poverty as a state of heightened risk—people
45) Moser et al., 1996 ; Moser, 1998. Commoditization is Moser's term, but " monetization " may be a more accurate way of conveying her point that urban livelihoods depend
on cash income and expenditure for essential goods and services (e.g., self-provision of food, water, housing, transport, and so on is less an option than for the rural
population). In some countries, this may be only a distinction of degree as compared to rural poverty.
19
move in and out of poverty according to their exposure to hazards and shocks. Their
ability to cope and adapt depends on using multiple assets: labor; human capital
(qualified by health and education status); productive assets including housing, which
in the urban context is often the location of informal employment as well as a source
of rental income; household relations, enabling mutual reliance for pooling income
and shared consumption; and social capital, demonstrated as reciprocity and trust
between households. Other analysts may describe or group the relevant assets somewhat
differently, but those are the main components. In the rural context, natural capital
would obviously be included. De Soto (2000) emphasizes the importance of informal
assets held by the poor, and the benefits to them once these assets can be collateralized
and used to generate liquidity.
2.4 A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods of inquiry can assess the
poor’s effective stock of assets and how they manage them, for example, to cope with
macroeconomic crisis. Such analyses are cited below. Their findings show that, faced
with economic stresses, the urban poor cut back expenditures, frequently by reducing
or substituting their food (often 60 percent or more of total household expenditures 46).
They also mobilize all possible assets—increasing work by family members including
children, using the home as a source of income, and drawing more on extended family
support and on community networks (e.g., for informal credit). Qualitative studies of
poor households show how their liabilities as well as their assets affect their capacities
to cope. Important liabilities include not only debt, but social obligations such as
sending money to rural relatives.47
2.5 Focusing on the assets of the poor and their vulnerability to risk highlights aspects
peculiar to the urban context and relevant distinctions from the rural context. For
example, the rural population faces a high covariance of risks from the climate and
from livestock and crop diseases that can undermine an entire farming community.
The urban population, too, suffers covariance at the household and community levels,
but with different characteristics. Their need for cash for all essentials means that the
loss of income threatens their consumption of food, as well as use of education,
healthcare and transport. The resulting struggle with numerous dimensions of welfare
may lead them into debt. The threat of eviction from illegal housing or “slum”
settlements and forced resettlement is a shared risk in low-income communities—risk
of an event devastating to their incomes, sense of security and social networks.
2.6 While the “asset vulnerability” perspective lends itself well to qualitative studies
of poverty, vulnerability in income terms can be measured quantitatively as “the standard
deviation of intertemporal changes in expenditures”, thus capturing the notion of
variability or transient states of poverty. Applying this measure to expenditures data
from Indonesian surveys shows that while headcounts of poverty and of income
vulnerability are higher for rural than for urban respondents, the ratio of the “income
vulnerable” to the “poor” is substantially higher for the urban population (3.67 vs.
2.05), and similarly higher for individuals occupied in trade and services than for
those in agriculture (averaging 3.33 vs. 1.95). The finding indicates that even where
the incidence of poverty is not a major problem for an urban population at one point
in time, that condition is highly unstable because the expenditures of urban informal
sector workers such as petty traders and scavengers are so variable.48
46) The Indonesian living standards survey reveals that among the three lowest expenditure deciles in urban areas, at minimum 60 percent of household expenditure is
devoted to food; the shares rise by decreasing size of settlement to 75 percent for the poorest urban decile in towns, which is close to the share for the rural poor. The high
shares the rural population devote to food (even 66 percent by the richest decile) may indicate that there are fewer claims on household expenditure in rural areas, while
the urban population has more requirements (and options) to spend on housing, transport, education, health care, and other goods/services. See Annex Table IN1.
47) Craig et al., op. cit.
48) Pritchett et al., 2000. Figures cited are from the mini-Susenas; the same pattern was found in a 100-village survey that included small urban areas.
PART TWO
An Analysis of Quantitative 20
and Qualitative Information
2.7 The inequality, vulnerability and multiple dimensions of poverty enter into
individuals’ own assessments of whether they are poor. The Philippines has conducted
surveys of self-rated poverty that place poverty incidence at more than twice the official
estimates for 1997-99 reported in Table I.4. There is also a very high urban-rural
differential in these self-ratings, 2 to 5 times higher than the cost of living differential
implied by the official or basic-needs poverty lines. Urban respondents judged poverty
incidence to be 55 percent, as against 70 percent reported by the rural respondents
(compare to the measured headcount noted above at 12 percent urban versus 37 percent
rural).49 These self-ratings may reflect higher expectations by urban residents conscious
of stark inequalities in welfare. They also suggest, however, that the official poverty
measurements fail to recognize the full measure of absolute hardships of urban poverty.
2.8 The next section reviews some of the quantitative and qualitative findings on
urban poverty in the focus countries and on the sorts of assets that matter in avoiding
or coping with poverty. Since the empirical analysis of the survey databases breaks
down respondents by consumption-poverty status shown as per capita expenditure
deciles, the discussion does not include a separate quantitative evaluation of the survey
samples according to other non-income dimensions of poverty such as education,
health or housing status.
2.9 The present report analyzed the poverty survey databases used for the Bank’s Methodological
poverty assessments in Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam, to extract information Issues in
about the urban population and the urban poor in particular. For the Philippines, the Quantitative
1997 Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) dataset contains information about Assessments of
38,000 households in 81 provinces and 16 regions; 47 percent of the total sample are Urban Poverty
urban households. For Vietnam, the 1998 Household Living Standards Survey (VLSS)
was used, containing 6,000 households of which 1,730 (29 percent) are urban. The
Indonesia poverty assessment is based on the SUSENAS 1999 dataset of 205,700
households (approximately 800,000 individuals), 31 percent of which are urban. Each
survey permits both relative comparison of income and non-income characteristics
across per capita expenditure deciles, and absolute measures of the poor versus non-
poor population based on separate poverty lines established for the surveys by region
and by rural and urban zones.
2.10 Several caveats about these surveys also apply to most other nationwide living Limitations of
standards surveys (LSS) of similar type. The caveats imply that the LSS cannot be used National
to cover all the dimensions and population breakdowns that would be needed to Household (Living
accurately assess urban poverty, and that additional special-purpose surveys may be Standards)
required. Surveys
2.11 Spatial attribution. The surveys distinguish between rural and urban settlement
according to the countries’ own conventions, with the usual problems inherent in
defining this boundary. The main practical problem is that households are therefore
classified as wholly urban or wholly rural, without accounting for multi-spatial
households or mutual dependencies among them.
2.12 Cost of living and consumption differences. An underlying issue for surveys of
this type is how well the price adjustments and consumption baskets differentiate between
49) Philippines PA, Chapter 2.
21
the actual cost of living and costs of avoiding poverty among the different settlements,
and especially between large cities and smaller urban or rural areas. For example, the
urban poverty line is based on cost-of-living estimates in the more urbanized regions,
which probably underestimates the costs in major cities.
2.13 Aggregation. Although the databases for the three countries contain a good
proportional coverage of urban households, the absolute sizes of the surveys are either
too small, or the data are otherwise unable to be broken down, to produce representative
samples for different sizes of urban areas, or even in most cases for specific cities. The
Philippine survey provides a representative look at Metro Manila, but the data do not
permit comparisons with other distinct urban areas. A poverty mapping exercise done
with the VLSS and the subsequent 1999 Population and Housing Census provided
considerable regional differentiation, but only the combined Hanoi/Ho Chi Minh City
on the one hand, and other urban areas as a group can be broken out. 50 For the present
study, the Indonesia LSS data were subjected to an approximate disaggregation by size
of locality.51 Even this very limited analysis reveals that Metro Manila has worse living
conditions for the poor than do other regions, and that larger cities in Indonesia have
higher levels of inequality (Gini coefficient for lowest quintile rising from 0.130 to
0.169 from small to large settlement size categories, with Jakarta being the most
unequal—see Table I.6).
2.14 Locational detail within urban areas also cannot be obtained from any of these
surveys as typically designed. That is a serious omission, since analysis elsewhere
indicates that living standards can vary greatly across neighborhoods of the same city.52
A participatory poverty assessment carried out in Ho Chi Minh City as part of the
national Poverty Assessment confirmed that this largest city in the wealthiest region
has pockets of severe poverty.
2.15 These and similar income- or- expenditure-based poverty surveys that are derived
from rural research can have two other shortcomings from the urban perspective,
those of the sampling design and the survey instrument (questionnaire) itself (see Annex
1). Both the sampling and the survey problems tend to understate the extent of urban
poverty and not capture its complexities well. Although design techniques exist to
correct for these problems, they are not always applied.
2.16 Outmoded sampling design. Poverty estimates are usually calculated from
surveys of large nationally representative samples whose sampling frames are based
on decennial censuses. In other words, the samples assume that populations are stable
over a ten-year period. In rural areas this is normally not a problem, since rural
populations tend to be quite stable. Samples drawn from censuses collected every ten
years are unbiased and representative for rural populations.
2.17 The urban situation is quite different, however. Urban populations, particularly
the urban poor, have high levels of mobility, poorly defined property rights, and fluid
family and social structures. The poorest of the poor tend to be squatters living in
temporary settlements that are subject to demolition, with ill-defined addresses and a
high probability of changes in residence, and even homelessness. Thus, the poorest
50) Minot and Baulch, op cit., p. 7. The census did not permit distinguishing between "other cities" and towns. A Chow test suggests that Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City differ
significantly from other urban areas.
51) The breakdown by size of locality in Indonesia was calculated using household weights from the survey. For each district were calculated the actual number of the
households in the district and then, using the urban/rural variable, the size of the urban locality. The problem with this approach is that it can categorize some households
incorrectly if there are many small towns in the region; in that case, such households would be considered as if they were from a larger city. The category for largest city
(2 million plus population) refers unequivocally to Jakarta.
52) See references in the section on Health, e.g., in Sao Paulo (Brazil), poverty incidence in some parts of the city is more than 40 times higher than in the richest
neighborhood (ranging from 1.7 to 77 percent). In Cali (Colombia), a quarter of the poor are concentrated in one of the 20 communes of the city (Danny Leipziger and
Marianne Fay, Presentation to LCR Corporate Day, April 23, 20001).
PART TWO
and especially new migrants are particularly mobile. The problem is compounded in
those countries where residents must be “registered”. New migrants there are
automatically excluded from the urban census and from the samples based upon them,
unless special provision is made to capture them. Furthermore, urban homes often
have several families living in them, both because migrants may be sheltered by existing
residents and because young households “nest” within extended families for economic
reasons. Census-based sampling frames are consequently out of date almost the moment
that they are tabulated, and surveys based on them, unless adequately corrected and
updated to reflect current residential patterns, are very likely to miss the poorest among
the urban poor and to underestimate the extent of urban poverty.
2.18 Inappropriate survey design. A further shortcoming of many living standards
surveys concerns the questionnaire instruments, which are typically geared to
agricultural activities and village lifestyles, but less well designed to capture the
particularities of urban life. The risks and insecurities that the urban poor face, especially
regarding property rights for housing and employment, have been noted here. The
nature of urban occupations, especially the functioning of the informal economy, often
is not captured by national surveys, whose questions on income and occupation tend
to be based on agricultural and salaried categories. Urban social relationships can be
characterized by unconventional connections peculiar to urban communities, where
individuals from diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds live together. Among the
poor, networks are often directed at finding income opportunities and are part of
social protection strategies. At the same time, the urban population and especially
migrants are heavily interconnected with rural families and communities. Survey
instruments should be both more sensitive to the complexities of the urban experience
and more capable of capturing the rural-urban inter-linkages at the household level.
That can be done by including modules on non-farm businesses in the surveys, and by
using both quantitative with qualitative methods of inquiry. Combining different
techniques such as participatory poverty assessments, focus groups, etc., is especially
useful for diagnostic purposes and to test the relevance of a formal survey.
2.19 Having duly noted these qualifications, a preliminary picture from the survey
data on the urban poor in the three focus countries is summarized below, supplemented
by more textured information from other studies drawing on focus groups and case
study interviews. City-specific data from other sources (e.g., UNCHS (Habitat) Urban
Indicators Program) are included where available, and some relevant indicators are
summarized in Annex 1, Tables A1-A5. The findings are presented according to the
main asset categories: labor resources and quality of human capital, housing and
infrastructure (physical capital), security, social capital and empowerment.
2.20 The country-specific tables referred to below can be found in the Annex 2 of
this Report.
2.21 There is not a strong difference in the age composition of rural and urban Demographic
households in the three countries. In both types of localities, larger families tend to be Profile of the
poorer and clustered in the lowest expenditure decile. Nor is there a significant spatial Urban Poor
difference in these countries in the size structure of families (Figure II.1). 53
53) Note that this finding of more poverty among larger families did not correct for different assumptions about possible economies
of scale in household consumption.
23
Age, gender, 2.22 For Indonesia, household headship by a single parent is more common among
household size the urban poor than it is in rural areas. The elderly are not especially poor in either
and composition type of location, nor are female-headed households (Table IN2).
2.23 In the Philippines, female headship is more an urban than a rural phenomenon
(18 percent of urban households vs. 12 percent of rural), but female-headed households
and the elderly are over-represented among the higher
Figure II.1. Indonesia – Urban Household
Figure
Demo
Demoggraphics: F emale-headed Households
Female-headed Households,,
deciles in both areas (Figure II.2 and Tables PH1,2).
Elder
Elderlly Households and Large F
Larg amilies
amilies,,
Families 2.24 On average, urban households in Vietnam are
by per Capita Expenditur
Capita e Deciles
Expenditure
smaller and have fewer children than rural households
25 do, across all deciles. Female-headed households, as
20
well as the elderly, are also more common in urban
areas and are not particularly poor (Table VN1),
15
although they do represent a larger share of the urban
Percent
10 poor than of the rural poor(Table VN2). Only in

5 Vietnam did the survey include ethnicity. Ethnic
groups other than native Vietnamese (Kinh) are almost
0
Poorest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Richest nonexistent in the urban population, especially the
Per capita expenditure urban poor. Either the other groups do not migrate,
Female headed household Elderly Family with 3+ children
or they have not been enumerated in the survey (see
Table VN3).54
Source: Table IN2
Migration Status 2.25 Migration status is usually captured in living standards surveys through questions
on place of origin or length of residency. In the Vietnam survey (the only one asking
about that topic), 63.7 percent of all urban respondents said they were born in their
current locality, as did 74 percent of the urban poor (Table VN4). Those figures confirm
that the long-standing residents surveyed are not
Figur
Figure e II.2. Philippines – Urban household necessarily much better off than the migrants (or at
demo
demog graphics: F emale Headship and Elder
Female Elderlly least, than those with legal status who were
Headship
Headship,, b y per Ca
by pita Expenditur
Capita Expenditure e Deciles
enumerated). Many may be worse off, although a true
30
comparison is not possible because unregistered
25
migrants are not covered. This tentative interpretation
20
is consistent with many other migration studies
showing that migrants do eventually do as well as or
Percent
15
better than the native residents. The unregistered
10
migrants, however, are not officially entitled to social
5
services or formal employment, cannot register the births
0
Poorest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Richest of their children or enter them into regular public school,
Per capita expenditure
and have virtually no legal identity55 (Lim et al, 2000) .
Female head of household Age of head of household 65+
Such unregistered migrants are estimated to number 1.5-
2.5 million in Vietnam cities, and between 10-50 percent
Source: Table PH1
of them are poor.56
54) The Hoa (Chinese) are the only significant urban ethnic minority in Vietnam.
55) However, there are several categories of registration which confer different levels of access to services; access can also vary by ward and by availability of ward funds.
Children of unregistered migrants may attend evening literacy classes if not the regular schools, and relaxed enforcement of restrictions is seen in some cases.
56) Vietnam PA, Box 1.4.
PART TWO
2.26 Access to schooling and educational attainment are usually reported to be higher Labor and Human
for urban than for rural populations because in denser settlements, it is easier to provide Capital Assets
education, since per capita fixed costs are lower. That holds true for the three country
databases. Differentials in education status can also reflect the influx to the urban Education Status
areas of the better educated among the rural population. In Indonesia, urban households
are on average better educated than rural ones, although urban areas are characterized
by sharper differences in educational level between the rich and the poor. The proportion
of individuals who did not complete primary school education is almost four times
higher among the urban poor than among the urban rich, compared to only a two-fold
difference in rural areas (Table IN3). Rates of school participation and literacy are
highest in Jakarta and lowest in rural areas, but do not decline uniformly with declining
settlement size. Illiteracy is more concentrated among the lowest decile in several of
the city size categories than it is in rural areas (Tables IN4,5).
2.27 In Vietnam, the urban poor do have much higher literacy rates than their rural
counterparts: 75 percent of individuals in the lowest expenditure decile in urban areas
can read, versus 49 percent of their rural counterparts. Although the urban poor are
better educated than the rural poor, the differences in education levels among urban
income deciles are more dramatic than the rural/urban differences among the poor
(Tables VN1,5). In the country overall, the education of the household head is related
to per capita expenditure, but not closely. Households whose head has completed
primary or lower secondary education do not have much higher expenditures than
those whose head has not done so. However, higher levels of education are associated
with significantly higher earnings. These findings are true both in the major cities
(Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh) and in other urban areas. Families with unskilled heads are
clearly the worst off. The education of the spouse is a better predictor of household
expenditure in urban than in rural areas, suggesting that perhaps members have more
attractive earning options in the cities.57
2.28 The Philippines LSS does not provide education or literacy data. School- related
expenditures can be considerable for the urban poor and are often sacrificed as a
coping strategy (e.g., 12 percent of the lowest decile in the Philippines reported
removing children from school, at least temporarily, during the recent crisis compared
to 6 percent for the total population58). Many households, though, strive to protect
their children’s schooling for longer-term advancement. The economic returns to
education would be expected to be higher in urban areas, where the labor market is
larger and better able to absorb and reward workers for each level of attainment,
especially at the higher levels. However, actual employment experience does not
always match the theory because of differences in individuals’ own expectations, and
because of macro- or microeconomic factors, even in the large urban areas, that impede
labor utilization (this review does not cover labor market issues, which can be quite
important in explaining poverty).
2.29 Although indicators of access to health facilities are normally better for urban Health Status
than for rural populations, as would be expected given the greater ease of servicing
denser, more accessible settlements, the actual health outcomes may not show the
same differential, because many factors intervene including environmental health and
sanitation (discussed further below), and behaviors. Averages for the reported availability
of facilities or services for urban or rural aggregates can mask issues of effective access
(e.g., lack of transport) and quality, especially for the poor. Studies that have broken
down the data on both health care and health outcomes within urban areas (e.g., in slum
57) Minot and Baulch, p. 9.

58) Philippines PA, Table 5.8.
25
Ta b le II.1 Health Indica tor
Indicator
torss b
byy Urban-Rur
Urban-Rur al R
ural esidence
Residence
neighborhoods)
have often found
Indonesia 1997 results that are no
Indicators URBAN Income Quintiles RURAL Income Quintiles more favorable, and
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest sometimes much
Infant Mortality Rate (46.5) 75.3 3.3 34.9 25.6 78.9 55.5 54.0 42.2 18.5 worse, than those in
Under-5 Mortality Rate (102.3) 112.8 456.5 44.7 31.3 109.1 72.8 73.5 56.0 24.6 rural areas.59 Health
problems such as
Philippines 1998 low nutrition and
Indicators URBAN Income Quintiles RURAL Income Quintiles mental illnesses
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
related to economic
Infant Mortality Rate 49.7 40.1 37.6 24.8 17.7 48.7 38.7 28.4 25.1 (35.5)
and life stresses are
Under-5 Mortality Rate 70.5 62.9 57.9 33.2 26.9 81.2 59.2 38.8 33.7 (39.8) growing in urban
Infant Mortality Rate: Deaths under age 12 months per thousand births areas, among the
Under-5 Mortality Rate: Deaths under 5 years per thousand births poor in particular.60
Source: Demographic and Health Surveys. 2.30 The national
Figures in parenthesis indicate large sampling errors due to small number of cases.
Demographic and
Health Surveys
(DHS)61 in Indonesia and the Philippines (Table II.1) reveal that the infant mortality
rate and the under-5 mortality rate of the second poorest income quintile are significantly
higher in urban than in rural areas of Indonesia; the same is true in the Philippines,
even at the middle quintile. This disparity in mortality outcomes may reflect higher
environmental health risks in cities. The DHS surveys also show surprisingly lower
immunization coverage for measles and diptheria/polio/tetanus in urban areas than in
rural for most quintiles in the Philippines. A similar situation is found for contraceptive
use in Indonesia. The findings indicate that an urban advantage in access to services
does not always exist and cannot be taken for granted.
2.31 The Philippines Poverty Assessment also found that while health indicators vary
predictably by income status, the rural/urban differences are small, and both infant
and child mortality are somewhat worse for urban than for rural populations at the
lower quintiles. Access to medically trained personnel is better in urban areas, and
immunization rates show a slight advantage for the poorest urban residents, but health
outcomes are not commensurate.62 Fees for health care, as for education in the
Philippines create a significant strain on urban households. Survey data on the poor in
Naga City found that 68 percent of respondents described health and sanitation as a
problem for them, greater than the percent citing housing (57 percent). 63
Noncommunicable diseases (cardiovascular, cancers, asthma) and traumatic injury
are reportedly on the rise among the urban poor, possibly from increased effects of
pollution, as well as the pressures of urban survival.64
59) E.g., a spatially disaggregated study of morbidity and mortality across zones of Accra (Ghana) and Sao Paulo (Brazil) found that age adjusted death rates are up to three
times higher in the most disadvantaged areas of each city compared to those with the best socio-environmental conditions. The death rate differential applies to both
diseases of childhood and those of adulthood, and to multiple categories (infectious, respiratory and circulatory) of illness, as well as (in Sao Paulo) to external causes
such as traffic accidents and mortality (Stephens et al.1997).
60) "Demographic and health surveys from eleven developing countries show that the ratio of stunting prevalence between poorer vs. wealthier quintiles is greater within
urban than within rural areas, and that intra-urban differences between socio-economic groups are greater than urban/rural differences. Urban poor households have
worse nutritional status than rural poor households do, contributing to greater ill-health related to nutrition. Malnourishment, hunger, dietary problems (and ill health) often
coexist in urban populations." (UNCHS (Habitat), 2001a, p. 108, citing study from Popkin, 1999.)
61) The DHS urban sample sizes for Vietnam were too small to permit a similar analysis.
62) The Philippines PA, Figure 8.
63) Ateneo Social Science Research Center, 1998, cited in Racelis, 2000.
64) Racelis, 2000.
PART TWO
2.32 Health outcomes, especially for young children, may also reflect difficulties in
affording food and undernutrition, which became most apparent during the financial
crisis.65 The Philippines Social Weather Report Survey in June 1999 found that 20
percent of the extremely poor in urban areas reported hunger in the last three months,
and 11 percent said they felt hunger “always”. Across all urban areas except Luzon,
19-40 percent of respondents had gone hungry “often”.66 In Vietnam as of 1994, over
one million (9 percent) of the total urban population could not meet the basic
requirement of 2100 calories daily. About one-fourth of the children who were found
to be malnourished live in the major cities such as Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi.67
2.33 The living standards survey data examined for this report do not permit within-
city disaggregation of the urban samples. Health indicators are included only for Vietnam
and Indonesia. The Indonesian data show virtually no pattern in 16 categories of health
complaints across deciles or settlement sizes. For Vietnam, the urban population overall
reported a lower incidence of sickness (38 percent) than did their rural counterparts
(43 percent); however, the urban poor were sick more often than the rural poor were
(46 versus 42 percent incidence) (Table VN6). The urban population engages in
damaging behavior (smoking) at a higher rate than the rural population does, and the
poor more than the nonpoor; in fact, the share of poor urban females who smoke (83
percent) rivals that of the men68 (Table VN7). The urban poor spend almost as much on
health care as the nonpoor do, even though the poor would be expected to rely more
on free public services. Both groups spend proportions of their income on health care
than are double that of the rural population (Table VN4). Sexually transmitted diseases,
including HIV-AIDS, are increasing rapidly in urban areas, in particular among sex
workers in Ho Chi Minh City.69 The higher prevalence of HIV-AIDS in large urban
areas as compared with smaller urban and rural areas is apparent in many countries.70
2.34 Employment status as reported in the surveys is not very indicative of the actual Employment
situation of the urban population, for reasons discussed earlier—e.g., questions asking Status and Types
“have job/no job” are not very relevant to the fluid informal economy. As would be of Work
expected, unemployment is reported as higher in urban areas than it is in rural areas.
However, employment status alone is neither a good predictor of income nor a useful
criterion for targeting poverty in any of the three countries.
2.35 In the Philippines, reported unemployment of the household head is twice as
high in urban as in rural areas, although this may imply that urban residents have
higher expectations of what constitutes a “job”, namely a formal-sector or regular
activity. The lower deciles report unemployment much less frequently than do the
better-off households, whether urban or rural—presumably because the poor cannot
afford to remain inactive (Table PH3).
2.36 However, in Indonesia by contrast, the urban poor report consistently higher
rates of “Not working” than the nonpoor do, and the same pattern appears for the
question about officially defined unemployment, across all urban size categories. The
share of women claiming to not work is almost twice that of men in all settlements,
including rural ones—which is curious, considering that female-headed households
are not particularly poor, as noted earlier (Table IN6). Since women do not more often
65) International research elsewhere has found that malnutrition in the poorest areas of cities often rivals that found in rural areas. Ruel et al. (1999), pp.1891-1905.
66) Social Weather Report Survey, June 2-16 1999, cited in Racelis, 2000.
67) Lim et al., citing a UNDP report of 1998.
68) Poverty experts in the Bank's Resident Mission in Vietnam dispute the validity of the survey finding of smoking prevalence among women.
69) Lim et al., 2000
70) UNCHS (Habitat), 2001a, p. 107.
27
claim to be officially unemployed, it is possible that women do not consider their
types of work to be formally recognized as such (Table IN7). It is also possible that
many of the relatively well-off, female-headed households consist of single women
migrants, for example, those with jobs in the new manufacturing industries. In Vietnam,
female unemployment rates for 1993-98 have remained about two-thirds those of
men.71
2.37 The unemployment rate is reported to be slightly higher in Metro Manila than
in other urban areas of the Philippines; 21 percent of household heads in Manila claim
to be unemployed versus a 19 percent overall urban average (Table PH4). Similarly in
Indonesia, the unemployment rate tends to increase, for both poor and nonpoor, with
increasing settlement size. In the largest urban category (2 million-plus residents—
essentially Jakarta), 12.6 percent of the poor males and 10 percent of poor females
claim to be unemployed (officially), compared to 8.5 and 6.7 percent, respectively, in
the urban areas with less than 250,000 population (Table IN7). These results for what
are by far the largest cities of these two countries are somewhat surprising, in that
demand for all types of workers should be the strongest there; however, the influx of
aspiring workers to these metropoles, and their expectations for formal sector
employment, also may be greater.
2.38 To get a fuller and perhaps more accurate picture of the urban poor, more
information is needed about underemployment (defined as “employment that doesn’t
pay enough to meet the basic needs, so workers must search for additional sources of
income”72), and about work in the informal sector. In the newly developing peri-urban
zones of the Philippines, Thailand and other East Asian countries, poverty is associated
with the “the working poor” for whom jobs are abundant but do not provide enough
earnings to cover the cost of living.73 In both Indonesia and the Philippines, estimates
of underemployment from national labor force surveys showed an increase in the
numbers and shares of workers, particularly in manufacturing, who were on the job
less than full time, during and after the macroeconomic crisis—a trend that may have
pushed some marginal earners to seek informal sector work, or even to fall below the
poverty line.74 Among poor households, individuals working longer hours are a reflection
of underemployment. In times of crisis households mobilize more family members,
especially secondary school age children.75 In Vietnam, 33 percent of the urban
employed worked over 50 hours/week in 1998, and 17 percent over 60 hours, in
contrast to 20 and 9 percent, respectively, of the rural labor force. 76 Thus simply
comparing urban household earnings to rural can overestimate the hourly pay
differential.
2.39 The informal economy, which is said to employ 60-80 percent of the working
poor in most developing countries, represents a wide range of activities and degrees of
productivity. Earnings from petty trade in urban areas, such as sidewalk sales of prepared
foods, in-home piecework, domestic service, or rental of housing space, can fluctuate
greatly and tend to be reduced by general economic declines.
2.40 The participants in informal sector employment lack the basic protections of
formal jobs, but even worse, they are often vulnerable to official harassment and
71) Vietnam PA, Table 3.6.

72) Esguerra et al., 2000.
73) Webster, op cit., p. 50.
74) Islam et al.., 2000.
75) Thomas, 2001, cited in Shareen Joshi literature review #3.
76) Vietnam Poverty Assessment, Table 3.5.
PART TWO
intrusive regulations that undermine legitimate work. In Vietnam, for example, a recent
decree has made it illegal for street vendors to hold a fixed place on the pavements,
under threat of confiscation of their wares, that adds to the instability of their business.
Similarly, cyclo drivers have been banned from the main streets of Ho Chi Minh City
and some of the main routes in Hanoi, which cuts into their market.77 In the Philippines,
informal urban labor is less organized than poor labor in rural areas has traditionally
been, and so it has not made effective claims for social protection.
2.41 Housing for the urban poor represents not merely shelter, but also a workplace Physical Assets:
and a source of rental income. In a well functioning real estate market, households Housing, Land
can choose where they wish to live by balancing values such as convenience of access and
to jobs and services against other amenities such as living space, and trade-off transport Infrastructure
costs against housing costs. But in the cities of many developing countries, including
those of East Asia, poor households especially are faced with only housing choices Housing and Land
that leave them with low welfare. They must often accept living in a location that Tenure
provides access to their employment possibilities, but has little tenure security and
unsafe environmental conditions, so that their health, their financial assets, and their
earnings are put at risk. Furthermore, the costs of such housing can still be substantial,
especially when the associated nonmonetary
costs (necessity for purchasing or self-provision Figur
Figuree II.3 V ietnam – Urban Housing: Types of
Tempor
emporarar y str uctur
structur es used, b
uctures byy per ca pita
capita
of alternative infrastructure services, absence of e xpenditur
xpendituree deciles
public transport, exposure to pollution, etc.) are
50
taken into account.
40
2.42 The living standards survey data for
Percent
30
Vietnam generally confirm that the quality of
housing for the urban poor is low, and only 20
modestly better than that of the rural poor. 10
Almost half of the urban poor live in temporary 0

Poorest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Richest
housing, versus 10.6 percent of the urban non- Per capita expenditure
poor and 38 percent of the rural poor (Table Temporary house Walls of leaves/branches Roof of straw/leaves
VN10). Housing for the urban poor comes in a
wide range of qualities, with half of the lowest Note: “Other” types not graphed
Source: Table VN8, VN11 and VN12
decile reporting brick or stone walls, but 17
percent having only leaves or branches (Table
VN11). Roofs are similarly varied—half have tile
or iron, but 20 percent only straw or leaves
(Figure II.3 and Table VN12).
2.43 Urban housing offers more space per person than rural housing does, which is
not generally expected given the higher land costs in cities. But the urban poor have
the least space: 8.85 m2/person, compared to 11.4 for the rural poor (Table VN13).
Nonregistered migrants are not included in this sample, and the quality of their housing
would probably lower the urban averages. Participatory poverty assessments in Ho
Chi Minh City and Haiphong found that certain locations for housing, in particular
sites in areas scheduled for clearance or off main alleys and so farther from commercial
activity, are considered a sign of poverty status.78
77) Lim et al., 2000.

78) Vietnam PA p. 10; Luan et al., 1999.
29
Figur
Figuree II.4 Indonesia – Urban housing sta tus:
status: 2.44 As with Vietnam, the survey instrument
Pri
Privvate o wner
owner ship
ship,, rrent,
wnership ent, lease and “other
“other,,” b
byy per for Indonesia is not very sensitive to the kinds
ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree decile
decile.. of housing status and characteristics that would
be most meaningful in the urban context. In
Indonesia the share of the population in all
deciles owning their houses is predictably much
greater, and renting/leasing much less, in rural
than in urban areas (Figure II.4), Table IN9).
2.45 The share of the urban poor in “free”
housing (presumably squatters) is 6.4 percent
(5.4 percent of the nonpoor), although even
some of the 77 percent of the urban poor who
own their housing and some of the 14 percent
who rent or lease may lack secure tenure (Table
IN8). The share of the lowest expenditure decile
Source: Table IN9 in “free” housing is highest in settlements of
500,000-1 million (9 percent). Rural housing has
Figur
Figuree II.5. Philippines and Manila – Urban Housing slightly more space than urban housing has,
Quality
Quality,, b
byy per Ca pita Expenditur
Capita Expendituree Deciles which holds true for the poor as well: 34.5
percent of the urban poor have less than 40 m2
floor area, compared to 29.4 percent of the rural
poor (Table IN8). Surprisingly, the urban poor
have larger houses than the urban nonpoor do;
however, the differential in quality across urban
income groups is considerable (e.g., 9 percent
of the poorest decile have bamboo walls
compared to 0.7 percent of the richest), and is
more pronounced than it is for rural housing
(Table IN9).
2.46 In the Philippines, about half of the
lowest urban expenditure decile own their
houses and lots, which is close to the urban
Note: Other “light” building materials not graphed average of 60 percent (Table PH5). The poor
Source: Table PH6, PH7, PH8 and PH9 report a wide diversity of formal and informal
(“with charge”/“without charge”) housing
arrangements, although actual tenure status is difficult to determine from the survey
instrument. The proportion of households that live in the lowest quality houses
(“improvised”) is five times as high among urban as among rural households. Almost
10 percent of the poorest urban decile live in such housing (21 percent in Manila),
compared to 2.7 percent as the urban average (Figure II.5, Tables PH6,7).
2.47 The use of salvaged building materials for roof and walls is much more prevalent
among the poorest urban decile than it is for any other groups, but is also quite prevalent
among the lower-middle income groups in urban areas, indicating possibly a poorly
functioning construction market (Tables PH8,9). The share of the poorest decile living
in houses of salvaged materials is almost twice as high in Manila as in all urban areas.
Ownership is not usual for all income groups; only 40 percent of the poorest decile in
Manila report full ownership of house and lot (Tables PH10, 11). As acknowledged in
the Philippines Poverty Assessment, housing is a problem for the population as a
whole. The prevalence of illegally occupied housing is highest for those in the middle
of the income distribution and occurs even among the wealthy. That situation reflects
PART TWO
fundamental problems in the housing market, possibly including corruption and bad
regulation, which burden the urban poor the most.79
2.48 The Philippine living standards survey reveals that electricity is almost twice as Electricity and
available “in their building” in urban as in rural areas (90 vs. 52 percent), and even 71 Durable Consumer
percent of the poorest urban decile have such access (Table PH12). Rural access varies Assets
much more sharply with income distribution, doubtless reflecting the costs and difficulty
of connecting more remote and often poorer rural areas or the costs of acquiring
private generators, compared to the low unit costs of providing networked service in
denser settlements. Electrification is universal for all income groups in Manila (Table
PH14). Reliability, or frequency of outages, is not measured in the survey data. Partly
because of differences in service, the urban poor report more ownership of electrical
appliances than do the rural poor, but not very frequent ownership outside Manila of
any appliances but radios (which are widely available to all income groups in both
areas) and television (owned by a third of the urban poor) (Table PH13 and PH19).
2.49 Vietnam has a higher rate of electrification than the Philippines, both for the
total rural population (71 percent) and for the lowest urban decile (94 percent), despite
a much lower per capita electricity consumption (Table VN14). In Vietnam television
ownership is one of the strongest predictors of per capita expenditure in both urban
and rural areas, and radio ownership somewhat less so. Vietnam has a higher ownership
of television (battery-operated Chinese-made) than of radios, even in rural areas, and
higher than that in the Philippines.80 Electricity is not available to low-income residents
to use for heat or cooking. They mostly use coal or wood, both of which can contribute
to health risks from indoor (and outdoor) air pollution.81
2.50 Access to safe, reliable water and sanitation is particularly important in urban Water supply
areas, where the density of settlement limits the availability of water from private
wells, further raising the public health risks from unsanitary disposal of liquid and
solid waste. The poor often reside in low-lying areas prone to flooding and so are
particularly vulnerable to water-borne diseases. Thus, even while urban access to water
is usually reported to be higher than for rural populations, there remain serious problems
with its service reliability, quality, and affordability for many poor urban residents.
Unfortunately, the available living standards surveys do not delve into these questions.
2.51 Data from the Indonesian living standards survey confirm that a higher share of
urban households than of rural use tap water (46.6 percent versus 11 percent) and that
rural households are more likely to use such unprotected water sources as springs,
rivers, and, rain water (Table IN10). Half of all urban dwellers, and 42 percent of the
urban poor purchase water, compared to only 15 percent of the rural population,
reflecting the fact that in urban areas, water access requires a cash outlay. More urban
households have “private” drinking water facilities (house or yard taps)—66 percent,
as compared to 48 percent for rural—and even 55 percent of the urban poor do so.
These gross comparisons of rural and urban areas are not surprising. However, what
is less evident from traditional poverty analyses is that the inequalities in sources of
79) Philippines PA, Chap. 1.

80) In rural and urban areas, respectively, the 1999 Population and Housing Census found that 46% and 76% of households owned TVs, and 42% and 56% owned radios.
(Minot and Baulch, p. 19).
81) Luan, Mai and Anh, op. cit., p. 66. Pollution from various sources, but in particular, from household and industrial energy consumption, is reflected in concentrations of total
suspended particulates (micrograms per cubic meter) averaging from 200 to well over 500 in a large sample of Chinese cities, 271 in Jakarta, 223 in Bangkok and 200 in
Manila, but below 100 in reporting cities of Korea and Malaysia and below 50 in many OECD cities. World Bank, WDI, 1995 data.
31
Figur
Figuree II.6. V ietnam – Urban sour ces of drinking
sources drinking water are sharper between
water
ter,, by per ca
by pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree deciles
deciles.. urban poor and urban rich than
between the rural poor and rich. For
example, in rural areas, twice as
many poor as rich drink from
unprotected water sources; but, the
urban poor are five times more
likely than the urban rich to use
unprotected wells and to rely on
public (communal) drinking water
facilities. In the largest urban area
(Jakarta), the poor are even more
likely than the rich to purchase
water (Table IN11). As other studies
have documented in cities in
Indonesia and elsewhere in the
developing world, the poor tend to
Source: Table VN16 pay higher unit prices and also
higher shares of their income for
water than do the rich, and they also
Figur
Figuree II.7. Philippines – Urban access to “o wn
“own consume much smaller quantities
f aucet” rises with per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree sta tus
status and less safe quality water. 82
Moreover, the nonpoor in Jakarta
have, overall, less satisfactory
sources of water supply than do their
counterparts in smaller urban
settlements, despite Jakarta’s capital
city status. The failures in the water
sector have widespread impacts on
all groups, but especially on the
city’s poor.
2.52 In Vietnam there are sharp
disparities in water sources between
rural and urban areas, with rural
Note: “Other water sources not graphed residents having negligible use of
Source: Table PH12 tapwater whereas, on average, 53
percent of urban residents use it.
However, the disparities across urban income groups are deep here as well. Only 16
percent of the urban poor have an indoor or outdoor tap, as compared to 57 percent of
the nonpoor, and 64 percent of the urban poor rely on informal sources (hand-dug
well, rainwater, surface water, or other), as compared to 25 percent of the nonpoor
(Table VN15). The inequalities are even sharper, of course, across the extremes of the
urban expenditure distribution (Figure II.6 and Table VN16).
2.53 In the Philippines the inequalities in use of different water sources are not very
great between urban and rural households overall, apart from “own faucet,” which
clearly is more an urban asset, used by 37 percent of urban residents versus 7 percent
of rural (Table PH15). However, again, large gaps appear across the urban expenditure
distribution: e.g., 66 percent of the rich have private taps, versus 11.5 percent of the
poorest group (Table PH12, Figure II.7).
82) Hardoy, Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 2001
PART TWO
2.54 Shared facilities and Figur

Figuree II.8. Indonesia – Urban sanita tion (f
sanitation inal disposal):
(final
unprotected sources are used by 75 Se ptic tank use and unsaf
Septic e methods
unsafe methods,, b
byy per ca pita
capita
percent of the urban poor, but by only e xpenditur
xpenditure e decile
decile..
41 percent of the urban nonpoor (Table
PH15). The most striking feature in
Manila is that all residents rely on
“peddlers”, twice as much as do
residents in other cities (10.3 percent
versus 5.3 percent), and the poorest
four times as much (20.6 percent of
the bottom decile). Faucet water is
modestly more available to the poor
in Manila, but one would expect that
this major city would have much more
formal water provision even for the
poor than other urban areas have
(Table PH14). It is possible that even
the poor find the quality and reliability Source: Table IN12
of Manila’s formal water supplies
inadequate, and turn instead to
peddlers.
2.55 In Indonesia the form of toilet facility (private or shared) does not vary greatly Sanitation
between rural and urban, or even across the expenditure deciles, except that public
facilities in urban areas are used almost exclusively by the poorest deciles (Table
IN12). Squatter toilets are clearly the type preferred by the better-off population in
both urban and rural areas, and even by 60 percent of the urban poor. Dry latrines are
an alternative for the poor (used by 16 percent of the poorest versus 2 percent of the
rich in urban areas). The use of squatter and throne toilets by the poor is more common
in the larger urban areas (Table IN13). Safe waste disposal using septic tanks is twice
as available in urban as in rural areas (73 percent versus 32 percent). An alarming
percentage (40 percent) of those in the bottom third of the urban expenditure distribution
Box II.1 T he costs of inadequa

Box te sanita
inadequate tion
sanitation
in Indonesian cities
Indonesia has one of the lowest rates of urban sewerage coverage in Asia. This causes widespread
contamination of surface and ground waters all across the country. As a result there have been repeated
local epidemics of gastrointestinal infections, and high incidence of typhoid (Foley, Soedjarwo, and
Pollard, 2001). Economic losses attributed to inadequate sewerage are conservatively estimated at US
$4.7 billion per year, and 2.4% of 1997 GDP—roughly equivalent to US $12/household/month (Asian
Development Bank, 1999). The low coverage is partly a result of the Government of Indonesia policy,
which assigns the responsibility for sanitation to households (World Bank, 1993). This policy—which
is a result of the poor past performance of large centralized sewer systems—has inhibited the evolution
of effective local governmental institutions for the planning, implementing and operating of sewer
systems. Currently, 73% of urban households have on-site sanitation through septic tanks. The partially-
treated, or untreated, effluent from these facilities typically flows into soils, open drains, or directly into
water bodies. Proper disposal of human waste, either sewage or sullage, is a rare exception. Given the
scale of the problem, interest in neighborhood or community-based sewer systems is increasing. One
of the more recent successes of the latter approach in Malang, Indonesia, is summarized in Foley,
Soedjarwo, and Pollard, 2001.
Source: Joshi, 2001
33
rely on discharge to an open field, a ground hole or water bodies, risking contamination
of the surface and groundwater in dense urban areas (Figure II.8) (See Box II.1). Even
in Jakarta, 30.3 percent of the poor discharge their waste directly into water bodies
(Table IN13). Government statistics confirm that in DKI Jakarta, the water sources of
30 percent of households surveyed are within six meters of a source of contamination
such as a sewage discharge outlet.83
2.56 In Vietnam, the highest
Figur
Figuree II.9. V ietnam – Urban type of toilet:
by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree decile form of sanitation (flush toilet with
septic tank) is, predictably,
overwhelmingly more available in
urban than in rural areas (62 percent
versus 4 percent), but only 26 percent
of the poorest urban decile have this
facility (Tables VN17, 18). Overall,
half or more of poor households do
not have a protected toilet facility. The
poorest urban residents report less
availability of a “simple toilet” than
rural population residents do, and a
disturbing 31 percent of the poorest
report have no toilet at all (Figure II.9).
2.57 Though this figure of 31
percent is equivalent to that for the
Source: Table VN17
poorest rural decile, its environmental
health implications can be much
worse in denser settlements. The gradient of access to sanitation facilities across the
expenditure deciles in urban areas is much steeper than the gradient in rural areas—
another element of the serious overall urban inequality in services that is evident even
without taking the situation of nonregistered migrants into account.
2.58 In the Philippines the urban poor are better served with toilet facilities than are
the rural poor, but certainly not adequately served in terms of environmental health.
Only about half (52 percent) of the poorest urban decile have use of a water-sealed
toilet, and 33 percent use an open pit, pile or “no toilet” (Table PH16). Again, the
disparity in access to different types of toilet is wider in urban than in rural areas:
while twice more rural poor than nonpoor use an open pit or no toilet, the ratio in
urban areas is 4-to-1 (Table PH17). In Manila, the poorest group has considerably
better access to water-sealed or closed-pit toilets, and relies less on unsafe disposal,
than is the case in other urban areas (Table PH18).
2.59 The living standards surveys do not investigate solid waste disposal, but in
urban areas it also is a serious environmental health hazard.84 Typically not more than
half of household trash is collected; one random sample survey in kampungs of Indonesia
found that only a quarter of poor households have such service.85 What trash is collected,
often by informal private agents, is usually dumped in unprotected sites, including
drains and canals, rather than in regulated landfills. Otherwise, it is burned, adding to
ground-level air pollution. The dire waste disposal situation in Manila became
international news in July 2000 when a literal mountain of refuse in the city’s largest
83) Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS), Environmental Statistics of Indonesia, BPS Catalogue 2202, Jakarta. Cited in ADB Urban Chapter, p. 12.
84) Hardoy, Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 2001
85) Lindfield and Lanyon (2000), cited in Wegelin, 2000, p. 12.
PART TWO
dumpsite (Payatas) collapsed on squatters’ houses, killing dozens of people.86 Untreated

or toxic industrial waste is often dumped, unregulated, in urban areas, and the poor
often live in or near the dump areas.
2.60 Motorization is increasing rapidly in East Asian cities. They vary greatly in their Transport
efforts to manage transport modes so as to balance the demands from economic and
demographic growth, residents’ rising expectations about travel, and transport’s
environmental costs. Experience across the world has shown that inadequate policy
attention to public transport, land and housing policies that discourage in-fill
development, and unrestrained use of motor vehicles contribute to geographic spread
of urban areas, often extending the distances between where people live and where
they work. In low-income cities of East Asia, a legacy of high density, mixed-use urban
form based on nonmotorized transport, buses and “jitneys” is generally hospitable to
the needs of their poor residents. But this land use pattern is changing, as public and
private investment favors motor vehicles. Commutes lengthen and urban congestion
intensifies. Access and mobility are worsened for the poor especially.87 Another problem
is that the high density of Asian cities means that even at existing levels of motorization,
polluting emissions are very high per hectare with local hazards particularly severe for
the urban poor, who are least able to protect themselves.
2.61 According to the UN Habitat’s Urban Indicators Program (UIP) database,88 the
Asia/Pacific cities’ residents, on average, take longer to reach work (42 minutes) than
do urban residents in any other region, because they use nonmotorized transport
(walking and bicycles), for 23 percent of work trips—higher use than in any other
region but Africa.89 In cities of Indochina and Mongolia where urban growth is still
light, travel times to work remain relatively low (30 minutes). Most East Asian cities
have travel times similar to those of South Asian and Latin American cities (Annex 2,
Table A5). Bangkok’s average time, however, at 60 minutes, may foreshadow the
future for many cities; Metro Manila’s average travel speed of 10 km/hour is only
slightly faster than that of Bangkok. Private motorized transport already accounts for
well over half of the travel in some Indonesian, Thai and Vietnamese cities. Public
transport is the dominant mode in Singapore, Seoul, Ulaan Baatar, Penang, and Yangon
(Myanmar). Walking and bicycles, along with other nonmotorized modes, are major
forms of travel in some countries, especially in China, but the sheer size, geographic
spread, and congestion of many Asian cities make these modes both impractical and
dangerous as long-term solutions, even for the poor. In major urban areas of Vietnam,
motorcycles have overtaken both bicycle and public transport use, accounting for 80
percent of central area traffic in Ho Chi Minh City. Their dominance adds to congestion
and compromises both road safety and the environment.90
2.62 Lower-income groups are the main users of public transport and nonmotorized
alternatives. In Metro Manila, where socio-economic class is strongly associated with
forms of transport, over 80 percent of the poor and poorest strata depend on public
transit for work trips.91 According to the living standards survey examined here, half of
the richest decile in Manila own a motor vehicle or motorcycle, but only one percent
of the poorest do; for all urban areas the ratio of motor ownership between nonpoor
86) Washington Post, July 11, 2000.

87) Barter, 1998.
88) UN-Habitat Global Urban Indicators Database, 1998
89) UNCHS, 2001b, p. 43. Regional averages should be taken with caution because the UIP database does not contain a representative sample of cities.
90) World Bank, 1999, p. 6.
91) Social Weather Station Bulletin 97-22, cited in World Bank, 2001c.
35
and poor is 13-to-1 (Tables PH13,19). When low-income communities are dispersed
throughout the city, as in Manila, public transport networks need to be dense and
widespread to serve them well.
2.63 In most cities of Asian developing countries, the majority of trips by lower-
income groups are on foot, which effectively limits their overall mobility. 92 The
vulnerable road users (pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists), among whom the
poor are disproportionately represented, account for a high proportion of road fatalities.93
Women’s mobility is particularly hampered by inadequate public transport that runs
infrequently and is plagued by crime. In Bangkok, evening buses for women-only
have been instituted in response to their demands for safer means of travel.94 Then too,
men often control most of the family’s transport resources. In some countries, women
are not permitted even to ride bicycles, although they must travel to school, health
care, and shopping for the family, even if not to work outside the home.95 Information
on household expenditure for transport was not available from the surveys reviewed
here. Such information would enable a fuller analysis of the poor households’ transport
problems.
Insecurity and 2.64 As noted earlier, poverty is characterized by a state of insecurity and vulnerability
Urban Poverty to risks—personal, communal and financial—that undermine the asset base of the poor
and their ability to cope.
Insecurity of Home 2.65 The major source of insecurity for urban households and their communities is
and Place lack of recognized tenure for residents in informal or illegal settlements, placing them
at risk of being forcibly evicted with little notice, losing their home and belongings,
and their connections to work and neighbors. In squatter areas of Metro Manila, official
evictions are a threat, but private developers and contractors are also known to set
fires (“hot demolition”) to clear out shanties and open rights of way.96 As noted above,
a detailed breakdown of de facto and de jure tenure status was not available to this
desk study. Such analysis would be critical to a more thorough examination of urban
poverty.
2.66 A second major source of insecurity is natural disasters, to which low-income
settlements built on flood-prone land or hillsides, or near factories, are particularly
vulnerable. The very dense and haphazard layout of such neighborhoods, without
storm drainage, access roads or cadastres, makes emergency evacuation and service
by emergency vehicles slow and difficult, raising the human toll of natural disasters
and industrial accidents. In a 1999 survey of communities and, specifically, of the
“Class D and E” (poor and poorest) residents in several urban areas of the Philippines,
they ranked problems of the water system, drainage and floods, and roads in their top
five concerns, above the national macrofinancial crisis.97
92) Barter, op cit.

93) Barter, op cit.
94) UNCHS (Habitat), 2001a. The service was instituted by the Bangkok Mass Transit Authority in 2000 on a pilot basis.
95) Racelis, op. cit., p. 22. Men surveyed in three communities in Metro Manila reported that they make 60-80 percent of the households' total expenditures on transportation,
about equal to their share for "vices" (alcohol, cigarettes and other).
96) Racelis, 2000.
97) Social Weather Report Survey (SWRS) June 2-16, 1999, covering the national capital area (Metro Manila), Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, cited in Racelis, 2000.
PART TWO
2.67 In the urban context, personal insecurity stems from such health and traffic risks Personal
as described earlier, and from crime. In surveys of poor urban communities, the vast Insecurity
majority of residents report feeling unsafe and subject to crime, violence, and
harassment, much of it drug- and gang-related. In the same Philippine survey mentioned
above, drug addiction ranked first or second (following only unemployment) as a
major concern, and robbery was among the top five problems cited in two of the
communities. Slum dwellers are victims not only of violent crimes, which tend to be
concentrated in the poorer neighborhoods of cities, but also of the related negative
stereotypes held about their neighborhoods and by association, about them. Crime
therefore intensifies the exclusion and marginalization of the urban poor.
2.68 Financial risks for urban populations arise from their dependence on cash income Financial
and expenditure, which are sensitive to vagaries of the economy at all levels. Developed Insecurity
countries have various degrees of formal safety nets, and microcredit programs can be
important in low- and middle-income countries. However, for urban as well as rural
households in East Asia, as elsewhere in the developing world, reliance on informal
private transfer mechanisms to supplement income is widespread, especially when
times are difficult. Mutual financial support among families and communities, including
informal credit groups, also may shrink in hard times, as reported from household
interviews in Jakarta.98
2.69 A study of private financial exchanges in Vietnam found that virtually all such
cash transfers were reported as sent to family members, and 70 percent are sent from
a city/large town to a small town/rural area.99 An urban survey in the Philippines found
that nearly 40 percent of urban respondents send money to their rural kin, but only 6
percent receive any financial transfers from other urban areas or abroad. The individuals
providing remittances reported that the unavoidable social obligation to support the
extended family, even when under economic pressure themselves, makes it difficult
to save.100 The Philippines Poverty Assessment found that the relatively low poverty
incidence for three categories of the population normally considered vulnerable—
female-headed households, the elderly and the unemployed—is due to significant
cash transfers supporting them, almost all of which are from private sources. Transfers
are large and increasing in the Philippines, accounting on average for 13 percent of
pre-transfer household incomes in 1997. Just over half (57 percent) of the transfers
originate from abroad, with the remainder mainly from domestic urban areas. The
transfers are found to be highly progressive—benefiting more the households with low
levels of pre-transfer income.
2.70 A multi-country study by the ADB also found that during the recent financial
crisis, private transfers were a much more important safety net than public programs.
In a sample of Indonesian communities surveyed, of the 44 percent of respondents
who reported receiving cash transfers, 20 percent were obtained from the government
and NGOs and 80 percent from family and friends. It was the better-off families who
received more of the public funds.101 It is evident that the flow of funds from (mainly)
urban to other urban and rural households through private transfers constitutes a valuable
and well-targeted mechanism that alleviates poverty and financial insecurity. Financial
risk-sharing through social and family networks, which is evidently important for the
urban poor, is also an urban-based strategy that reduces poverty throughout the country.
98) Craig et al., p. 34.

99) Tabulations from the Vietnam VLSS (1997-98). Cox et al. 2001.
100) Survey in PNR Bangkal by Schelzig (1999 - incomplete reference) cited in Racelis, 2000.
101) Reyes et al., 1999, cited in Craig et al., 2001.
37
Empowerment, 2.71 It is often argued that the urban population has better access than the rural
Social Capital population to channels for influencing government decisions and obtaining favors.
and Urban Behind this superficial generalization, the realities of political voice and relations with
Poverty government are much more complex, especially for the urban poor, who express as
much sense of exclusion and powerlessness as do the rural poor. The urban poor
therefore rely heavily on their own social organizations and networks, and on informal
mechanisms for services. That reliance has many worthy aspects, but it is also a sign of
the government’s failure to acknowledge the urban poor and treat them fairly in its
own backyard.
Relations with 2.72 Living in geographic proximity to seats of government, the urban poor may
Government have higher expectations than do the rural poor. In participatory poverty assessments,
the urban poor often note their exclusion from information about government, their
distrust or unawareness of its intentions, and their widespread experience of the most
negative official behavior, corruption. In a “Consultations with the Poor” study of both
rural and urban populations in Indonesia, respondents rated several institutions:
government, religious, private commercial, and NGO. Neither government services
nor programs, nor any NGOs (which often are rural-based) ranked among the top five
institutions that the urban poor selected on criteria of importance, effectiveness,
trustworthiness, and openness to community influence. Men and women, in both
rural and urban areas, agreed that they could not influence government programs at
all.102
2.73 Even in the Philippines, whose experience with democracy and decentralization
has been longer than Indonesia’s, the urban poor are disillusioned with government as
not helping and even harming their interests, despite its agents’ physical proximity.
The failures of government programs to deliver as promised, for example, land tenure
through the Urban Housing Act, gives rise to a sense of suspicion and betrayal.103 The
demands of the poor may in some respects seem unrealistic; on the other hand, it is
not clear that the government has seriously tried to educate the citizens about what
they should expect from it. One study of the urban poor in Naga City in 1998 found
that 74 percent were unaware of government programs intended to help them. Almost
all were unaware of the relevant legislation on urban development and housing.104
2.74 The broader SWRS survey of several urban populations, and including specifically
their poor households, that was cited earlier showed that they overwhelmingly expect
from government “economic services” (provision of jobs, credit, lower prices, higher
wages, projects for the poor), and to a lesser extent infrastructure, social services, and
public order.105 The relatively low ranking of the latter elements, which some may
consider government’s major role, may reflect past populist governments’ history of
job programs and price controls, and their lack of interest in revamping the agencies
that deliver core public services. That survey’s respondents assigned responsibility for
local problems to local, not national, government. About as many expressed the view
that the government was not doing anything about problems, as gave it credit for
“probably doing something.” The survey revealed fairly high regard for the then-
Administration’s “readiness to cooperate with the poor to fight poverty.”106 Respondents
rated the national government’s overall performance on housing programs as
102) Indonesia Poverty Assessment, Box A2.1.

103) Craig et al, 2001.
104) Ateneo Social Science Research Center (1998), "Socio-Economic Profile of the Urban Poor in Naga City", cited in Racelis, 2000.
105) SWRS June 2-16, 1999.
106) This survey was undertaken during the Administration of former President Enrique Estrada, who had campaigned to fight poverty and had strong political support among
the urban poor.
PART TWO
unsatisfactory, which is consistent with data on their regressive impact; however, the
Community Mortgage Program, which is well-targeted and efficient in helping the
poor acquire land and improve their housing, is held in much higher esteem. 107
2.75 Corruption is widely perceived as an impediment to obtaining government
services and benefits fairly and efficiently. In the above Philippine survey, only the
very poor respondents expressed overall confidence that the national administration
was trying to eradicate corruption (possibly reflecting faith in then President Estrada in
particular). In areas of Jakarta, local corruption had interfered with an emergency rice
subsidization program funded by the World Food Program at the height of the financial
crisis, but residents had mobilized a boycott and forced corrective action.108
2.76 The social interactions and relationships among urban households are more Social Networks
significant than their dealings with government or other institutions in helping them to among the Urban
manage urban life. A large literature on developing countries has established that, to Poor
pool risk, households devise various strategies of collaborating with others both within
and outside the family.109 This research on risk, insurance, and uncertainty has been
based largely on studies of rural households, and there are few such studies on urban
poverty. Yet, risk sharing is likely to be a central feature in poor urban households, as
Cox and Jimenez (1998), in a study of the Philippines, demonstrated. Several qualitative
studies already cited here have highlighted the importance of networks in cities around
the world, and particularly in East Asia, in helping urban households cope with risks. 110
2.77 As discussed in Part One, the risks faced by the urban poor tend to be very
different—based more on insecure property rights, environmental health, and
unemployment than on climate and natural resources—from the risks faced by the
rural poor. Like their rural brethren, the urban poor cope with such types of shocks by
drawing on their social networks in conjunction with their personal assets. As Jellenik
(1991) in her superb ethnography of a Jakarta slum points out, these social networks
are likely to consist of both relatives and friends. Urban slums are very dense, often
with many families living in the same house. The density tends to move social
relationships away from the traditional forms that characterize village networks.
Marriages are much less stable. Both women and men are more likely to engage in
serial monogamy and consequently have several circles of relatives. Relationships are
based more on the quality of reciprocal links between individuals and friends, rather
than on familial obligations. Such reciprocal connections are built on helping each
other to obtain housing and jobs, and to cope with illness or credit problems.
2.78 Networks in urban areas, besides being an asset for coping with shocks, are also
an important source of mobility. Typically, individuals who migrate to the city come
knowing a friend or relative with whom they can stay and who may help them find a
job or connections to other people who might help. These social networks are
indispensable for improving the living standards of the poor. In the extended peri-
urban areas outside East Asian cities, the torrent of new workers into a relative social
vacuum leaves community networks weaker and thinner than those in longer-established
core urban settlements, and so there are fewer channels for informal housing, credit
and other services.111
107) SWRS and other studies cited by Racelis 2000; the Bank's Philippines PA (Chapter 4) documents the regressive incidence of the public housing programs in general (not
distinguishing among them).
108) Craig et al., p. 40.
109) Such literature includes: Besley, 1995; Coate and Ravallion, 1993; Cox and Jimenez, 1998; Rosenzweig and Stark, 1989.
110) Moser, 1996; Lim, Arce and Racelis, 2000; Craig et. al., 2001; Jellinek, 1991.
111) Webster, 2001.
39
2.79 A poor migrant’s social networks, however, are not only in the city but also in
the village. S/he often supports parents, spouses and other relatives in the village.
When a migrant is successful in the city, that can improve his or her family’s living
standards in the village as well. On the other hand, during periods of adversity, the
rural-based family may help the migrant with gifts of food and money.112
2.80 The nature of community in urban areas is also very different from village life.
Newly arrived poor migrants may live in recently established squatter settlements, but
they participate in a strong sense of community. They often live in enclaves of people
from their home villages, or else with relatives who have developed strong ties within
a more diverse community. Slum communities usually have well-defined leaders who
mediate the relationship of the families in the slum to the State. As in rural areas, the
ability of urban communities to engage in collective action may be important for
determining how well they can obtain and access public services. This is particularly
true in capital cities such Jakarta or Manila, where the urban poor—because of their
numbers and the relative ease with which they can be organized—are an important
element in the political culture. In a survey of poor people in Naga City in the
Philippines, households reported a 91 percent participation rate in various organizations
(averaging 1.4 members per household); of those participating, 71 percent belonged
to organizations specifically of the poor.113 A slum community’s willingness to engage
in collective action can be mobilized by its leaders to obtain services. It also can be
manipulated for private gain or unofficial corruption. It has been reported that among
squatter communities in Manila, “toughminded syndicates often organized the
occupation of such land and distributed sites for a price and monthly fees”.114 One
resident’s mafia may be another’s service provider.
2.81 In other words, networks may not always be beneficent. The ability of a
community to engage in collective action can also make it an effective source of
political violence. The obligations towards one’s social network bring demands that
the poor, who are constrained for time, may not always want to meet. Moreover,
upward mobility can reduce the need to rely on old friends and relatives, so when a
lucky member of the community moves ahead, ties with his or her roots may loosen;
and thus webs of obligation can be lost. Then, too, networks can be means of exclusion
as well as inclusion. In Vietnamese cities the government’s harsh policy towards
unregistered migrants makes them outcasts even to the poor residents. That makes it
more difficult for the two groups to organize together and manage common problems
of poverty.115
2.82 In short, urban social networks may be as central to the survival for urban poor
as for the rural residents. The urban social fabric, though it may be more varied in
texture and color, more easily torn and rewoven to fit changing needs, may still be
indispensable as a basic shield and safety net for the urban poor.
112) Craig et al., 2001.

113) Racelis, 2000.
114) P. Strassman and Blunt, 1993.
115) Lim et al, 2000.
PART TWO
PART THREE:
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY,
INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
AND RESEARCH
3.1 This review of living standards survey data and other evidence points to certain Summary: Urban
observations and preliminary conclusions about the directions and magnitudes of urban Poverty in the
poverty trends and problems, at least in three major countries of the Region. The EAP Region
findings here suggest recommendations about relative priorities and potential focus
areas for policy and institutional follow-up, and also for research toward the Bank’s
more exact and comprehensive understanding of urban poverty, which will be useful
among its clients and partners as well.
3.2 The main points that have emerged can be summarized as follows:
• Over the last decade the countries of the Region have reduced urban poverty along
with overall poverty in income/expenditure terms, but over the medium term, the
urban poor are poised to increase both in numbers and as proportions of the total
urban populations. In urban areas income inequality is relatively high (higher than
in rural areas) and rising. Numerous sources have demonstrated great intra-urban
inequities as well, in access to basic services and in welfare status across housing,
land tenure, water and sanitation, and transport.
• Income, or expenditure-based, measurements of urban poverty are highly sensitive
to the assumptions used. Furthermore, much of the urban population is close to the
estimated poverty line. The recent macrofinancial crisis demonstrated this: it hit
urban populations particularly hard and sent many into poverty at least temporarily.
Possibly suggesting the limitations of income- and expenditure-based measurements,
the self-ratings of poverty status are high among urban populations.
• Further caveats about the living standards surveys concern the limitations of the
picture they can convey about urban poverty, for several methodological reasons:
they do not fully capture the mixed livelihood sources (rural plus urban) of many
households; the samples are typically too small to permit disaggregation among
and within urban areas; sampling frames are often outdated, given the rapid changes
in urban population; and the survey instrument is insufficiently tailored to the
peculiarities of urban life.
• The living standards survey data reveal that the poor and poorest among the urban
populations of Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam are not the usually expected
“vulnerable groups” (i.e., not female-headed households nor the elderly). They do
include large families, and private transfers of urban origin may be a main reason
that those vulnerable groups escape poverty.
41
• The migrants surveyed are not less well off than longtime residents. However, a
major shortcoming of the Vietnam survey is its failure to capture the non-registered
migrants, who suffer official exclusion from services and benefits.
• The urban poor also are not necessarily unemployed, although the survey instruments
are often unsuited to capturing the vagaries of urban earnings patterns, especially
in the informal economy. Due to the commoditization of urban life, meaning that
cash is required for essential goods and services, a stable source of cash income is
essential to avoid poverty.
• Although indicators improve generally with the increasing size of settlements, the
largest urban areas (Manila and Jakarta) are not necessarily the most favored, and in
some respects (e.g., water and sanitation in Jakarta), the poor residing there are
worse off than in other types of settlements. The theoretical economic advantages
of agglomeration can be lost in practice, as far as the poor are concerned, unless
good urban management is in place.
• The housing status of the urban poor is marked by a high degree of crowding,
tenure insecurity and risk of forced eviction. There is a large quality differential
across urban income groups, although in the Philippines housing conditions are
surprisingly poor even for the urban middle class.
• Although access to education, health facilities, water and sanitation is predictably
higher overall in urban than in rural areas, data must be broken down to examine
both effective access and quality of service, and outcomes—across income groups,
across zones of the city, and among urban localities, if the welfare status of different
groups, in absolute or relative terms, is to be determined. Such disaggregations are
not feasible from most of the survey databases.
• From the information available, large disparities in educational attainment are
evident among the urban population. Moreover, in the urban setting, intermediate
levels of education do not necessarily translate into higher incomes.
• Health status in urban areas is harmed not only by behaviors, multiple stresses and
environmental risks. In the Philippines, infant and child mortality are higher for the
urban poor than for the rural poor. Health outcomes have been found to vary even
more across zones of a city where this has been studied, although the living standards
surveys examined here do not permit such an analysis. Undernutrition and hunger
are evident in some urban areas of the Philippines and Vietnam. Risky behaviors
like smoking, disaster-prone living conditions, incidence of crime, violence, and
HIV-AIDS, and traffic accidents all affect health in urban areas, especially among
the poor.
• Sources of water supply and the quality of sanitation diverge greatly across income
groups in the urban areas. The poor are more likely than the rich to pay for water in
Jakarta and Manila. The large share of the urban poor without basic sanitation or
safe waste disposal in Vietnam and in Jakarta pose major health risks for them and
for the entire city populations.
• The high density of East Asian cities has facilitated use of nonmotorized transport
and walking for most transport, but this is changing with urban growth. The mobility
and ease of access for poor urban residents are most likely to suffer from deteriorating
public transport and increasing traffic congestion. Their welfare is also harmed by
their susceptibility to traffic accidents, ground-level pollution, and transport-related
crime.
• The urban poor face a covariance of threats to their personal, financial and communal
security, stemming from uncertain tenure, macroeconomic shocks that affect earnings
and prices, crime and other social pathologies (e.g., drugs). Private financial transfers
have more effect than public transfers in mitigating financial risks of the poor.
PART T HREE
Implications for Policy and 42
Research
• Despite their physical proximity to seats of political power, the urban poor have
little influence on policies or programs affecting them, unless they organize;
generally the urban poor perceive themselves to be excluded by government and,
at the same time, highly vulnerable to government corruption.
• The urban poor have many complex social networks, and they serve many functions:
social integration, mutual support, labor market facilitation, and collective action
to obtain services. This social capital, which is highly diversified, is more important
for the urban poor than are formal relations with government in helping them cope
with urban life. Nonetheless, maintaining networks can also be burdensome on
individuals, and in some cases networks can have malign effects
3.3 The preceding desk analysis is largely limited to describing the correlates of Policy and
urban poverty in the focus countries, rather than the causes, which would require Institutional
deeper investigation. The review is also limited mainly to identifying the urban poor Implications of
in per capita income or expenditure terms, since the data sources provide less detailed Urban Poverty
markers of non-income poverty.
3.4 An overall picture emerges of vulnerability as a key characteristic of urban
poverty. Further study seems warranted on certain important underlying contributory
or causal factors: tenure insecurity, problems of governance, dysfunction in labor and
land markets, or factors in the investment climate impeding the growth of employment
that could provide good livelihoods. Other areas to examine closely are key policy
and institutional dimensions: the incidence of public expenditure, the effectiveness
and efficiency of formal safety net programs, systems of political representation and
legal protections, public access to information, as well as sectoral policies governing
education, health, housing, and basic infrastructure services. Exploring those may help
to identify approaches that could alleviate and reduce poverty in its multiple dimensions.
But even the narrow focus of this desk study suggests some factors that may be driving
urban poverty and should be addressed.
3.5 As discussed in Part One (D), one element of urban poverty could be considered
a function of temporary mismatch between the supply and demand for jobs and for
services during periods of rapid in-migration. If institutions are both responsive and
efficient, they can reduce such gaps by providing more resources for services and by
removing specific bottlenecks such as undue regulatory barriers. But in the countries
viewed here, and arguably in many others, much of the poverty appears due to deep
seated political and institutional factors that shut certain groups out from the
opportunities and protections that others can expect from either markets or the
government. The empirical finding of deep and pervasive inequalities in the urban
areas indicates that fundamental roots of poverty lie in the structures of governance.
3.6 To relieve the former type of poverty—which may be characterized as waiting
in a queue that moves by fair, well-known and accepted rules—external assistance can
accelerate the queue by applying more public investment resources and helping to
identify and establish measures to accelerate supply, such as support for private sector
participation. Also useful would be providing information and removing other obstacles
to satisfying demands for goods and services that an be met, at least in part, by well-
functioning markets (e.g., housing). Such processes depend on donor assistance for
infrastructure policy reform and improved investment, and for private sector
development, which are very relevant to a strategy for relieving poverty. Those processes
43
remain a priority for the Region, particularly if they focus on constraints on services for
low-income users, such as tariff structures or regulations that are obstacles to reaching
such consumers. Another high priority is encouraging municipalities to change policies
that obstruct land development, and to undertake flexible urban planning that can
steer new development so as to forestall the creation of new slums as cities grow.
3.7 To get at the deeper problems that keep the urban poor disempowered and
vulnerable and that block their taking advantage of improved opportunities, underlying
governance issues need to be addressed directly. The insecurities of housing and land
tenure, livelihood insecurity, and physical insecurity to which low-income urban
residents are subjected, call for bold policies and programs to strengthen legal
protections and property rights, to reduce corruption and arbitrary administrative actions,
and to foster the communities’ own social capital. Community-driven slum upgrading
programs that are based on the active involvement of the residents to improve a wide
range of physical and communal services in neighborhoods would have broad benefits.
Many sources of vulnerability could be reduced by such grassroots programs, provided
the local and national governments are committed to them as part of a framework of
better governance that recognizes poor residents as full citizens with rights and
responsibilities, rather than simply tolerating them through isolated actions. Along
similar lines, it is important to plan interventions that raise the capacity of local
governments to carry out their basic functions in a responsive, transparent and
accountable manner. Local governments also should be encouraged to undertake
participatory strategic planning of their investments and other activities. Those changes
would transform the relations and rules of the game between the local government
and poor residents—as well as others.
3.8 As also noted in Part One (D), how well urban growth is managed in the Region
will matter greatly not only for levels of urban poverty, but even more for how well
the urban areas will contribute to the growth of the national economy and hence, also,
to the prospects for reducing rural poverty. The process of urban transition and the
potential economies of agglomeration can raise productivity for both rural and urban
residents, but only if the basic mechanisms—a well integrated internal market for
labor and goods, with ease of movement and good information flows, and lowered
production costs from shared infrastructure—are actually working. Donor support to
policies and programs that make the urban economies function efficiently and thus
raise the returns to private investment there would be good value to the nation as a
whole.
3.9 Such policies and programs would, for example, be positive towards internal
migration—and certainly remove residence restrictions; they would facilitate urban-
rural remittances however appropriately as a main source of private transfers; favor
internal marketing by improving transport and communications where needed; correct
distortions in the financial markets and make possible credit and savings for the poor.
Particular attention to housing sector reforms and to the Region’s urban transport needs
is crucial. The widespread inadequacies in housing and transport, which affect many
urban residents but are especially debilitating to the poor, should be among the most
urgent concerns of governments and donors because those failures undercut the basis
of the urban economy, which is a fluid labor market.
3.10 Finally, the findings on urban poverty and inequality suggest that any policy or
program interventions that are intended to be poverty reducing should be founded on
more detailed information about targeting and about impacts among the urban
population. Similarly, analysis of public expenditure should go beyond aggregate
attributions to “rural” or “urban” beneficiaries and more accurately identify the
distributional reach within the urban population and in different urban areas.
PART T HREE
Implications for Policy and 44
Research
3.11 The present analysis raises important issues about the common methods and Suggested
sources for empirical research on poverty, such as living standards surveys, which are Priorities for
often ill suited to the context of urban poverty. Alone, they are unlikely to reveal its Research into
nature accurately or to discover the relevant distinctions with respect to rural poverty. Urban Poverty in
Because the research methodology of living standards surveys has been developed the Region
and applied most extensively in rural settings, the sampling design and the construction
of survey instruments tend to be based upon rural notions of life.
3.12 The implications of both of those problems were discussed in Part II (A). Because
urban populations are constantly changing, homes often contain several families.
Because unregistered migrants are not counted as urban residents, decennial census-
based sampling frames quickly become non-representative and they are likely to miss
the poorest residents unless they are frequently updated. The survey instruments and
methods are designed from rural experience with the nature of households, work, and
living conditions, and are often not adapted adequately to capture the complexities of
urban livelihoods and society, or the multi-spatial nature of households rooted in both
places.
3.13 Techniques exist to ensure more accurate sampling and to design well-tailored
survey instruments, but best practices are not always applied. Some alternative
approaches to sampling and to survey design are outlined in Annex 1 to this report. In
particular, conducting special-purpose surveys to supplement national living standards
surveys, acquiring panel data, and combining quantitative and qualitative information
would delve more adequately into many of the issues and dimensions of urban poverty,
with sufficient detail across and within urban areas.
3.14 Using appropriate methods to obtain a more complete and accurate picture of
urban poverty, certain specific issues and questions should be explored. From the
preceding review, some research topics are suggested here:
• The role of interspatial mobility (migration and multi-spatial livelihoods) in affecting
poverty in both rural and urban areas. This would look at circular and temporary
rural-to-urban migration as well as at longer-term movement, and would examine
both the role of private transfers and the mechanisms by which rural migrants
become integrated into the urban society and economy.
• The dynamics of informal employment in urban areas—the quality of livelihoods
and the patterns of occupational mobility in the context of policy and institutional
conditions.
• How social networks among the urban poor function to help members cope with
poverty in its various aspects; the networks often have links with rural residents.
• A disaggregated analysis of health outcomes by zones within some major cities,
and comparisons among cities of different sizes, growth rates, and levels of service
provision, to map health-related poverty in greater geographic and socio-economic
detail than is currently available.
• Evaluation of the impact of specific interventions or packages of interventions,
such as neighborhood infrastructure improvements and tenure security, on the well-
being of low-income residents. The role of social capital and how it affects or is
affected by residents’ participation in such interventions would also be a question
for such research.
45
References
Ahuja, V., B. Bidani, F. Ferreira, and M. Walton. 1998. Everyone’s Miracle? Revisiting Poverty and Inequality in
East Asia. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Anh, Truong Si, Patrick Gubry, Vu Thi Hong, and Jerrold W. Huguet. 1996. “Migration and Employment in Ho Chi
Minh City.” Asia-Pacific Population Journal., Vol. 11, No. 2, 3-22.
Asian Development Bank. 2001. Cities Data Book: Urban Indicators for Managing Cities. Manila. April Draft.
Asian Development Bank. 2000. “Fighting Poverty in Asia and the Pacific: The Poverty Reduction Strategy.”
available at: http://www.adb.org/Documents/Brochures/Fighting_Poverty
Asian Development Bank. 1999. “Towards a Community Based Environmental Sanitation Program for Indonesia.”
Dillion Consulting and PT Dacrea Design and Engineering, for Asian Development Bank. (TA No. 2805-
IN)). Jakarta, Indonesia.
Barter, A. and Rahman Paul. 1998. “Transport and Urban Poverty in Asia: A Brief Introduction to the Key Issues,”
UNCHS (Habitat) Regional Symposium on Urban Poverty in Asia, Fukuoka, 27-29 October.
Besley, Timothy. 1995. “Savings, Credit and Insurance,” Chapter 36 in Handbook of Development Economics,
Vol. 3A, Jere Behrman and T.N.Srinivasan (editors), Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Betcherman, G., and R. Islam, 2000. East Asian Labor Markets: Impacts, Responses and Lessons. Washington
D.C.: The World Bank.
Brockerhoff, Martin and Ellen Brennan. 1998. “The Poverty of Cities in Developing Regions,” Population and
Development Review, 24(I):XX-XX (March), #p. 1-40.
Campbell, Tim. 2001. “A Tale of Two Cities in Vietnam: Towards a Strategy for Growth, Poverty Reduction, and
Environmental Quality in the Cities and Regions of Vietnam,” The World Bank.
China National Bureau of Statistics. 1999. “A Brief Introduction of Urban Household Survey.” Memorandum.
Coate, Stephen and Martin Ravallion. 1993. “Reciprocity Without Commitment: Characterization and Performance
of Informal Insurance Arrangements.” Journal of Development Economics, 40: 1-24.
Cox, Donald and Emmanuel Jimenez. 1998. “Risk Sharing and Private Transfers: What About Urban Households?”
Economic Development and Cultural Change, Volume 46, No. 3.
Cox, Donald, Emanuela Galasso, and Emmanuel Jimenez. 2001. “Private Transfers in a Cross Section of
Developing Countries”. The World Bank.
Cour, Jean-Marie. 2001. “Vietnam: Migrations, Urbanisation, and Changes in the Rural World,” Paper prepared
for the Franco-Vietnamese Economic and Financial Forum, May.
Craig, Mary, Alejandro de la Fuente Meraz, Simin Ho, Hanayo Kuroda, Fredric Gilles Serpoul, Stephen Sokol, and
Jocelyn Songco. 2001. “Krisis: How the Urban Poor Cope,” Columbia University School of International
and Public Affairs, Economic and Political Development Concentration, SIPA/World Bank Report, May.
Dang, Ahn, Sidney Goldstein, and James McNally. 197l. “Internal Migration and Development in Vietnam.” Center
for Migration Studies of New York.
Esguerra, J., A. Balisacan, and N. Confessor. 2000. “The Philippines: Labor Market Trends and Government
Interventions following the East Asian Financial crisis.” in East Asian Labor Markets and the Economic
Crisis: Impacts, Responses and Lessons, edited by G. Betcherman, and R. Islam.
Fan, Shenggen, Cheng Fang, and Xiaobo Zhang. 2001. “How Agricultural Research Affects Urban Poverty in
Developing Countries: The Case of China,” Paper presented at International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, D.C., June 18, 2001.
Fang, Cheng, Shenggen Fan, and Xiaobo Zhang. 2001. “Emergence of Urban Poverty and Inequality in China:
Evidence from Household Survey.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Urbanization in
China: Xiamen, Fujian Province, China, June 26-28, 2001.
47
Foley, S., A. Soedjarwo, and R. Pollard. 2001. “Case Study: Of the People, By the People, For the People:
Community-Based Sewer Systems in Malang, Indonesia.” United Nations Development Program and
World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program for East Asia and the Pacific, Jakarta.
de Haan, Arjan. 2000. “Livelihoods and Poverty: the Role of Migration,” Presentation at the World Bank, March 9,
2000.
Hamid, Naved and Mildred Villareal, editors. 2001. Asian Cities in the 21st Century: Contemporary Approaches to
Municipal Management. Volume V: Fighting Urban Poverty. Manila: Asian Development Bank Institute
and Asian Development Bank.
Hardoy, Jorge E., Diana Mitlin, and David Satterthwaite. 2001. Environmental Problems in the Developing World.
London: Earthscan Publications.
Henderson, Vernon. 1999. “The Effects of Urban Concentration on Economic Growth,” Brown University working
paper, December draft.
Hentschel, Jesko and Jesse Bump. 1999. “Urban Poverty Dimensions – Some Cross-Country Comparisons,”
World Bank, December draft.
Hugo, G. 2000. “The Crisis and International Population Movements in Indonesia.” Asian and Pacific Migration
Journal, Vol. 9 (1), 93-129.
R. Islam, G. Bhattacharya, S. Dhanani, M. Iacono, F. Mehran, S. Mukhopadhyay, and P. Thuy, 2000. “The Economic
Crisis: Labor Market Challenges and Policies in Indonesia.” in East Asian Labor Markets and the Economic
Crisis: Impacts, Responses and Lessons, edited by G. Betcherman and R. Islam.
Jellinek, Lea. 1991. The Wheel of Fortune: The History of a Poor Community in Jakarta: University of Hawaii
Press.
Jones, G.W. 1998. “Urbanization Trends in Southeast Asia: Some Issues for Policy,” Journal of Southeast Asian
Studies, March.
Joshi, Shareen. 2001. “Urban Poverty in East Asia A Literature Review,” Yale University. Background paper
prepared for East Asia Region Urban Development Division (EASUR) Poverty Study, World Bank. June
draft.
Joshi, Shareen. 2001. “Urbanization and Migration in East Asia : A Literature Review,” Yale University. Background
paper prepared for East Asia Region Urban Development Division (EASUR) Poverty Study, World Bank.
May 2 draft.
Lim, Liza, Wilfredo F. Arce, and Mary Racelis. 2000. “Urban Poverty from the Perspectives of the Urban Poor in
Vietnam.” Ateneo de Manila University. Draft background paper prepared for East Asia Region Urban
Development Division (EASUR), World Bank.
Lindfield, M. and A. Lanyon. 2000. “Community Upgrading and Poverty Alleviation.” Presentation to World Bank
Seminar on Upgrading Projects, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Luan, Trihn Duy, Nguyen Xuan Mai, and Vu Tuan Anh. 1999. “Poverty and Social Issues in Haiphong City: A
Report on Socio-Economic Survey,” Haiphong and Hanoi, March.
Lucas, Robert E.B. 1999. “Internal Migration and Urbanization: Recent Contributions and New Evidence,”
Background Paper for World Development Report 1999/2000.
Minot, Nicholas and Bob Baulch. 2001. “The Spatial Distribution of Poverty in Vietnam and the Potential for
Targeting.” DFID Poverty Trust Fund and World Bank Development Economics Research Group, Revised
April 18.
Moser, Caroline O.N. 1998. “The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies.”
World Development, 26(1): 1-19.
Moser, Caroline. 1996. Confronting Crisis: A Comparative Study of Household Responses to Poverty and
Vulnerability in Four Poor Urban Communities. Environmentally Sustainable Development Studies and
Monographs Series No. 8. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank
References 48
Moser, Caroline, Michael Gatehouse and Helen Garcia. 1996. “Urban Poverty Research Sourcebook Module II:
Indicators of Urban Poverty,” UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat)/World Bank, Urban Management Program Working
Paper No. 5, September.
Ogawa, N. 1985. “Urbanization and Migration in Selected ASEAN Countries: Trends and Prospects,” in Urbanization
and Migration in ASEAN Development, edited by M. Hauser, D. B. Suits and N. Ogawa. Tokyo: National
Institute for Research Advancement.
Pernia, Ernesto M. 1994. Urban Poverty in Asia: A Survey of Critical Issues. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Phan, Anbinh. 2001. “Peri-urbanization in Vietnam and Thailand,” Unpublished thesis, Pomona College, California.
Popkin, B.M. 1999. “Urbanization, Lifestyle Changes and the Nutrition Transition,” World Development, 27(11):
1905-1916.
Pradhan, Menno, Asep Suryahadi, Sumarto Sudarno and Lant Pritchett.2000. “Measurements of Poverty in
Indonesia : 1996, 1999 and Beyond.” Social Monitoring and Early Response Unit (SMERU) Working Paper,
Jakarta, Indonesia.
Pritchett, Lant, Asep Suryahadi, and Sudarno Sumarto. 2000. “Quantifying Vulnerability to Poverty: A Proposed
Measure, with Application to Indonesia.” SMERU Working Paper, Revised May.
Prud’homme, Remy. 1994. “On the Economic Role of Cities”. Joint OECD-Australian Government Conference:
Cities and the New Global Economy, Melbourne, November 20-23.
Racelis, Mary. 2000. “Urban Poverty from the Perspectives of the Urban Poor in the Philippines,” Draft background
paper prepared for East Asia Region Urban Development Division (EASUR), The World Bank.
Rao, Vijayendra. 2001. “Potters and Slums: Two Qualitative/Quantitative Projects in India,” in Qual-Quant:
Qualitative and Quantitative Poverty Appraisal—Complementarities, Tensions and The Way Forward –
Contributions to a Workshop Held at Cornell University, edited by Revi Kinbur. March. http://
www.people.cornell.edu/pages/sk145/papers/QQZ.pdf.
Ravallion, Martin. 2000. “On the Urbanization of Poverty,” World Bank Development Research Group Working
Paper.
Reyes, C.M., R.G. Manasan,A.C. Orbeta,. and G. de Guzman,1999. “The Social Impact of the Financial Crisis in
the Philippines—Working Paper No. 5.” Asian Development Bank.
Rosenzweig, Mark and Oded Stark. 1989. “Consumption Smoothing, Migration and Marriage: Evidence from
Rural India.” Journal of Political Economy , 97(4): 905-927
Ruel, Marie T., Lawrence Haddad and James L. Garrett. 1999. “Some Urban Facts of Life: Implications for Research
and Policy,” World Development, Vol 27. No. 11, 1917-1938.
Ruel, M.T., L. Haddad and J. L. Garrett. 1999. “Are Urban Poverty and Undernutrition Growing: Some Newly
Assembled Evidence,” World Development, Vol 27, No. 11, pp.1891-1905.
Save the Children (UK). 1999. Ho Chi Minh City: A Participatory Poverty Assessment. Hanoi: World Bank.
de Soto, Hernando. 2000. The Mystery of Capital : Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere
Else. New York: Basic Books.
Stephens, Carolyn, Marco Akerman, Sebastian Avle, Paulo Borlina Maia, Paulo Campanario, Ben Doe and Doris
Tetteh. 1997. “Urban Equity and Urban Health : Using Existing Data to Understand Inequalities in Health
and Environment in Accra, Ghana and Sao Paulo, Brazil”. Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 9, No. 1,
April.
Strassman, P. and A. Blunt. 1993. “Land, Income, Mobility and Housing, The Case of Metro Manila.” Journal of
Philippine Development, 36, XX, No. 1.
Surbakti, Panjung. 1995 “Indonesia’s National Socio-Economic Survey.” Jakarta, Indonesia: Central Bureau of
Statistics.
Suryahadi, Asep, Sudarno Sumarto, Yusuf Suharso, and Lant Pritchett. 2000. “The Evolution of Poverty during
the Crisis in Indonesia, 1996-1999 (Using Full Susenas Sample).” SMERU Working Paper, revised March.
49
Thomas, D. 2001. “Education in Crisis,” Presentation at the Economic Trade and Development Workshop, Yale
University.
UNCHS (Habitat). 2001a. Cities in a Globalizing World: Global Report on Human Settlements 2001. United
Nations Center for Human Settlements (Habitat). London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
UNCHS (Habitat). 2001b. The State of the World’s Cities 2001. Nairobi, Kenya.
UN Habitat. 2001c. The Global Urban Observatory Databases (CD-ROM). http://www.unhabitat.org/programmes/
guo/guo_databases.asp
United Nations. 2000. World Urbanization Prospects: The 1999 Revision. Part 1: Urban and Rural Areas (POP/
DB/WUP/Rev.1999/1). United Nations Secretariat, Population Division of the Department of Economic
and Social Affairs. Data set in digital form.
Government of Vietnam-Donor-NGO Poverty Working Group: 1999. Joint Report Vietnam: Attacking Poverty,
Vietnam Development Report 2000, December.
Webster, Douglas R. 2001. “On the Edge: Shaping the Future of Peri-Urban East Asia,” Discussion Paper prepared
for East Asia Region, Urban and Water Division, World Bank. June draft.
Wegelin, Emiel. 2001. “Urban Sector Profile for Indonesia.” Asian Development Bank. Draft.
The World Bank. 2002. World Development Report 2003: Sustainable Development in a Dynamic Economy. The
World Bank and Oxford University Press.
The World Bank. 2001 a. “Vietnam Living Standards Survey (VLSS) 1997-98.” Poverty and Human Resources
Division. April.
The World Bank. 2001b. World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty. New York: Oxford University
Press.
The World Bank. 2001c. “World Bank Project Appraisal Document for Metro Manila Urban Transport Integration
Project,” Report No. 20767-PH. Transport Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region, May 23.
The World Bank. 2000 a. Philippines Poverty Assessment. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit,
East Asia and Pacific Region, Report No. 20498-PH. The World Bank. June 14.
The World Bank. 2000 b. “Poverty Reduction in Indonesia: Constructing a New Strategy.” Poverty Assessment,
The World Bank, September draft.
The World Bank. 2000 c. World Development Indicators (WDI).
The World Bank. 1999 a. Gender Dimensions of the East Asia Crisis. Washington, D.C.
The World Bank. 1999 b. Report No. 18748-VN. Vietnam Moving Forward: Achievements and Challenges in the
Transport Sector, Transport Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Regional Office.
The World Bank. 1993. “Indonesia: Urban Public Infrastructure Services.” Report No. 12154-IND. Washington,
DC.
References 50
ANNEX ONE:
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IN
SAMPLING AND SURVEY DESIGN FOR
ASSESSMENT OF URBAN POVERTY
1. We know much less about the urban poor than we know about the rural poor.
The primary reason for this is that the analysis of risk and poverty has focused more on
rural areas because in most low-income developing countries, the preponderance of the
poor are in rural areas. As demonstrated in this review, however, that is rapidly changing;
poverty is increasingly acquiring an urban face. But the rural analytical bias has resulted
in a limited understanding of the urban experience of poverty. The bias results both
from sampling design problems and from the construction of survey instruments—both
tending to be based upon rural notions of life. This Annex first outlines the nature of the
problems and then sketches possible solutions to them.
2. Poverty estimates are usually calculated from surveys of large, nationally Sampling Design
representative samples. These samples are typically drawn from sampling frames based
upon decennial censuses (e.g., Surbakti, 1995; World Bank 2001). In rural areas that is The Problem
usually not a problem. Rural populations tend to be stable, with families that have lived
several generations in the same village on ancestral land with well defined addresses
and property rights. Family structures also are relatively stable, and mobility is low.
Consequently a ten-year update on the sampling frame is adequate to track important
changes in the size and composition of the rural population. Since the populations are
relatively stable, samples drawn in subsequent years from this sampling frame are generally
unbiased and representative.
3. The urban situation is quite different. Urban populations, particularly the urban
poor, are characterized by high levels of mobility, unstable and poorly defined property
rights, and fluid family and social structures. The poorest of the poor, in particular, often
are squatters in temporary settlements subject to a high risks of demolition. Thus, the
poorest are particularly mobile. Census-based sampling frames are consequently out of
date almost by the moment that they are tabulated. Squatters are the most likely to be
excluded from sampling frames, because of their poorly defined addresses and the high
probability of changes in residence. Individuals who are often homeless and live on the
streets are also unlikely to be captured within the sampling frame. Consequently a
sample constructed on the basis of a census-based sampling frame is very likely to miss
the poorest among the urban poor and to underestimate the extent of urban poverty.
4. Furthermore, urban homes often have multiple families resident in them, since
new migrants typically stay with friends and relatives while they find a place to live.
Thus, even if a household is picked up in the census, it is likely that there are now two
51
or more households resident in the same space, once again resulting in an undercount of
the poor in the sample.
5. The problem is compounded in those countries where governments require citizens
to register in order to be considered “legitimate” residents of a town or village. New
migrants are likely to be unregistered, which leads to their automatic exclusion from
censuses and from the samples based on them. This problem is widespread in East Asia,
with both the Vietnam LSMS (World Bank, 2001) and the China Household Survey (China
National Bureau of Statistics, 1999) reporting that their urban samples suffer from the
problem.
One Possible 6. Urban sampling frames thus need much more frequent updating than rural sampling
Solution frames do. While it would be expensive to conduct a complete household listing before
conducting a household survey, various statistically valid procedures can be employed to
reduce the extent of bias. One possibility is to conduct a stratified random sample where
sectors within a city are first selected—employing census-based information on population
and housing to construct a community-level sampling frame.
7. Then the sampled neighborhoods can be mapped to identify new squatter settlements,
and to incorporate changes in the size and structure of neighborhoods. Following that, a
PRA (participatory rapid appraisal) or PPA (participatory poverty assessment) exercise can
be conducted within those neighborhoods to obtain rough estimates of population size,
housing quality, ethnic composition and other such broad indicators that will help determine
the next stage of sampling and stratification. Once such information is obtained, the
samples can be collected by randomly choosing neighborhoods from the updated list
stratified by appropriate criteria. With the sample of neighborhoods chosen, households
within them can be systematically listed to obtain a complete sampling frame for the
subset of neighborhoods included in the multi-stage sample. Households can then be
randomly chosen from this sampling frame. A sample conducted on the basis of this
method is less likely to be biased against new migrants and the poor.
8. The method outlined above is just one way to improve the coverage of the urban
poor in sample surveys. Although there may also be other methods, any technique employed
will have to tackle the problem of updating the sampling frame to include transients and
new migrants, and multiple households. The problem of the homeless is more difficult to
deal with. To begin with, it may be important to conduct a case-study of homelessness in
major metropolitan areas, to understand the magnitude of the problem, and then to develop
ways of including the homeless in surveys of the urban poor.
Survey 9. The experience of poverty in urban areas is quite different from that in rural areas.
Instruments The risks suffered by the urban poor are somewhat unique. For instance, they are plagued
by insecure property rights in housing and must constantly cope with the possibility of
The Problem eviction or demolition. While climatic risks may dominate the lives of agricultural
households, the urban poor are more likely to face macro-economic shocks that directly
threaten urban jobs. This is particularly true of East Asian countries because of the recent
economic downturn.
10. While it is well-known that occupations of the urban poor often are in the informal
economy, it is less well-known that this sector can be highly organized. For instance, the
sale of cooked food is a disciplined occupation that depends crucially on social ties and in
inter-connections among grocers, cooks, and sellers (Jellinek, 1991). Occupational structures
Annexes 52
urban areas are therefore very different from those in rural areas, and the risks they face not
very well understood. For instance, garbage pickers dependent upon recycling plastic
bags found in the trash may lose a lot of income if new environmental regulations banning
plastic bags are instituted. The peculiar natures of urban occupations are typically not
captured by national surveys, whose questions on income and occupation are usually
based on traditional agricultural and salaried categories.
11. Urban social ties are also different from rural ones. Urban social groups sometimes
import pre-existing relationships from the village, but more often urban social relationships
are based upon unconventional connections peculiar to urban communities where
individuals from diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds may live together in the same
space. It is therefore not uncommon to observe marriage patterns in urban areas that are
very different from those in rural areas. Typically, the lack of an extended family also
makes young urban families much more dependent upon their own initiative, rather than
on the endowments of social and cultural capital they obtain from their parents. All such
differences affect how urban households cope with risk: their coping mechanisms depend
much more on friends, co-workers, and employers than on close relatives as is the case in
rural areas.
12. The life of urban migrants nonetheless remains closely linked to the families they
leave behind in their villages. The migrant is often the rural family’s most important
source of support, and the rural family in turn may help with food and grain during crisis,
and with marriage, pregnancy and other life events. The inter-connectedness between the
rural and urban branches of a family is important enough that it is difficult to argue for a
clear distinction between the rural and the urban poor. Rural and urban poverty are
closely connected, and the inter-connectedness should be better taken into account when
formulating policy, which tends to see rural and urban populations as distinct. Urban
migration offers rural households a ticket to social and occupational mobility, so many
urban migrants therefore spend as much effort on trying to “get ahead” as they do on
“survival.” Urban social networks are thus as geared to finding earning opportunities as
they are to social protection strategies for the poor. Urban households, to coin a phrase,
are the branch offices of their rural brethren.
13. National surveys typically do not take into account the complexities of urban life.
The substantial differences between rural and urban households in their occupational
composition, sources of risk, and the nature of their networks call for very different survey
instruments. On the other hand, the close links between rural and urban households
require a more integrated approach to survey design. Besides that, the rural experience of
poverty is usually well covered in questionnaires, with several questions on agricultural
occupations, investments and strategies for coping with climate-related shocks, but the
urban poor often do not have their experience of poverty well measured or understood.
14. While qualitative and case-study research has substantially expanded our knowledge Possible Solutions
of urban poverty, the nature of risks, social networks, and occupations may differ substantially
from country to country and even from region to region. To develop survey instruments
that can uncover some of the complex social and economic relationships outlined above,
we need a method that first uncovers the full range of phenomena experienced by the
urban poor, and then tries to formulate structured questions that can measure them in the
context of a survey instrument.
15. One method that can be employed is to combine qualitative and quantitative
techniques (Rao, 2001). Once the sampling frame has been constructed on the basis of the
multi-stage method outlined above, a sub-sample of communities selected for the
quantitative questionnaire can be the focus of an intensive qualitative investigation.
53
That would combine focus group discussions, Participatory Poverty Assessments at the
community level, and in-depth interviews at the level of households. Community-level
investigations should be conducted with sub-groups stratified into relevant categories:
men and women, working age, students and the elderly. Participants in these discussions
should, as far as possible, be randomly selected. Simultaneously, a small random sample
of households can be given open-ended, in-depth interviews. The subject matter of the
focus group discussions, PPAs and in-depth interviews should be kept as general as
possible in order to allow new findings to be encountered and digested by the research
team. Structured questionnaires often presuppose considerable knowledge on the part
of the researcher, but when the subject matter—like the experience of urban poverty—is
relatively less understood, it is best to allow the interviewee( in this case the poor) take
the lead in informing researchers about the problems that they confront, so that the
process becomes more consultative. This qualitative information should be recorded
and ideally, the team that is conducting the interviews should meet at the end of every
day to cross-check and dissect their findings.
16. For instance, the urban poor engage in occupations that are not always easy to
predict or classify, such as organized panhandling or street performance or recycling
discarded copper wire. Standard questionnaires would classify these either as “other” or
as “self-employed.” However, neither of those categories does justice to the complexity
of the occupation, which may be quite formally organized and more in the nature of
piece-work than self-employment. Consultative questionnaire development could obtain
a comprehensive list of the types of occupations in the slum. A focus group would be
very helpful in classifying these as wage-related or self-employed. The focus group’s
information could then be incorporated into the questionnaire, and it would better reflect
the reality of occupational patterns among the urban poor, rather than preconceptions
about what they might be.
17. Another example of the usefulness of this technique is to understand the role of
networks—who do people seek help from, and for what purpose? Do new migrants
access a different set of networks than older migrants do? How do urban households
interact with their rural families? How do they interact with the slum leadership and
with agents of the State? Qualitative work can generate insights into how those inquiries
are best incorporated into the questionnaire—whether they should have a separate module,
for instance, or be folded into modules on labor supply and housing.
18. Incorporating the qualitative information into the questionnaire is best done by
bringing in the views of all the field staff, soon after the end of the qualitative field work.
That may last from a week to several months, depending upon the size and experience
of the team, and the complexity of the field site. The team should then have a conference
to devise a structured quantitative questionnaire that emerges directly from the field
experience. One way of doing this efficiently is to begin with a prototype survey
instrument such as the LSMS or some other well-known household survey. Then each
module in the questionnaire can be analyzed by the field team to examine how closely
it fits what they learned in the field. The facilitator can direct the discussions towards
specific structured questions that can be used to modify the prototype module. This
process can develop an entirely new questionnaire informed by the field team’s
contributions. Once the new questionnaire is developed, it must be pre-tested and
refined before being administered.
19. This mixed method approach is one solution for developing survey instruments
that are attuned to the experience of urban poverty. It may mean that national surveys
would have three modules—one that is common to all communities in the sample, and
one each for rural and urban households, which would include questions on the inter-
connections between rural and urban life.
Annexes 54
ANNEX TWO:
SELECTED INDICATORS
Table A1. Selected economic and poverty indicators for cities in East Asia, South Asia and Latin America: 1998 57 List of Tables
Table A2. Gross educational enrollment (%) and literacy (%), male and female, in cities in East Asia, South Asia 58
and Latin America: 1998
Table A3. Comparative housing sector indicators for cities in East Asia, South Asia and Latin America: 1998 59
Table A4. Infrastructure service indicators for cities in East Asia, South Asia, and Latin America: 1998 60
Table A5. Average work-trip times and transport modes (%) for cities in East Asia, South Asia 61
and Latin America: 1998
Table IN1. INDONESIA – Food expenditure as a ratio of total household expenditure by per capita expenditure 62 Indonesia
deciles, for all rural population and for urban settlements: 1999
Table IN2. INDONESIA - Household demographics (%) for rural and for urban settlements, distributions across 62
per capita expenditure deciles: 1999
Table IN3. INDONESIA – Rural and urban educational levels (%), within and across per capita 63
expenditure deciles: 1999
Table IN4. INDONESIA - School participation (%) of children 6-14 years old, for all rural locality and for urban 64
localities by size, per capita expenditure deciles: 1999
Table IN5. INDONESIA - Literacy rates (%) for all respondents age 5 years and older, for rural locality and for 65
urban localities by size, by per capita expenditure deciles: 1999
Table IN6. INDONESIA - Working status by gender for non-poor and poor (%) in rural localities and in urban 66
localities by size: 1999
Table IN7. INDONESIA - Employment status for rural localities and for urban localities by size, by gender and 66
poverty status (%): 1999
Table IN8. INDONESIA - Housing characteristics by poverty status (%), for rural and for urban settlements: 1999 67
Table IN9. INDONESIA - Housing characteristics (%) for rural and for urban settlements, by per capita 68
Table IN10. INDONESIA - Sources of drinking water (%) for rural and for urban settlements, by per capita 69
expenditure decile: 1999
Table IN11. INDONESIA – Sources of drinking water for rural localities and for urban localities by size, 70
by poverty status: 1999
Table IN12. INDONESIA - Sanitation characteristics (%) for rural and for urban settlements, by per capita 71
Table IN13. INDONESIA - Sanitation characteristics (%) for rural settlements and for urban settlements by size, 72
by poverty status: 1999
Table PH1. PHILIPPINES – Distribution of household characteristics (%) within per capita expenditure deciles, 73 The Philippines
rural/urban: 1997
Table PH2. PHILIPPINES – Household characteristics (%) across per capita expenditure deciles, 74
rural/urban: 1997
Table PH3. PHILIPPINES – Distribution of employment status (%) within per capita expenditure deciles, 75
and across deciles, rural/urban: 1997
Table PH4. MANILA – Employment status (%), by per capita expenditure deciles: 1997 75
Table PH5. PHILIPPINES – Housing tenure status (%), within per capita expenditure deciles, rural/urban: 1997 76
Table PH6. PHILIPPINES – Type of housing (%), by per capita expenditure deciles, rural/urban: 1997 77
Table PH7. MANILA – Type of housing (%) by per capita expenditure deciles, rural/urban: 1997 78
55
Table PH8. PHILIPPINES – Type of roof (%) by per capita expenditure deciles, rural/urban: 1997 79
Table PH9. PHILIPPINES – Type of walls (%) by per capita expenditure deciles, rural/urban: 1997 80
Table PH10. MANILA – Type of roof (%) by per capita expenditure deciles, rural/urban: 1997 81
Table PH11. MANILA – Housing tenure status (%), by per capita expenditure decile: 1997 82
Table PH12. PHILIPPINES – Source of water and electricity, by per capita expenditure decile, rural/urban, 1997 83
Table PH13. PHILIPPINES – Consumer durables (%), by poverty status, rural/urban, 1997 83
Table PH14. MANILA – Source of water and electricity, by per capita expenditure decile, 1997 84
Table PH15. PHILIPPINES – Sources of water and electricity (%) for each poverty status, rural/urban: 1997 85
Table PH16. PHILIPPINES – Type of toilet (%), by per capita expenditure decile, rural/urban: 1997 86
Table PH17. PHILIPPINES – Type of toilet (%), by poverty status, rural/ urban: 1997 87
Table PH18. MANILA – Type of toilet (%), by per capita expenditure decile: 1997 87
Table PH19. MANILA – Households’ consumer durables, by per capita expenditure decile: 1997 87
Vietnam Table VN1. VIETNAM – Household characteristics (%) by per capita expenditure decile, rural/urban: 1998 88
Table VN2. VIETNAM – Rural and urban household characteristics (%), by per capita expenditure decile and 89
poverty status: 1998
Table VN3. VIETNAM – Rural and urban ethnicity (%), by per capita expenditure decile: 1998 90
Table VN4. VIETNAM – Individual characteristics (%), by poverty status, rural/urban: 1998 90
Table VN5. VIETNAM – Individual literacy levels and gender (%), by per capita expenditure decile, 91
rural/urban: 1998
Table VN6. VIETNAM – Health status by poverty status, rural/urban: 1998 92
Table VN7. VIETNAM – Female and male smoking behaviors (%), by Poverty Status, rural/urban: 1998 92
Table VN8: VIETNAM – Types of housing: percentages within each per capita expenditure decile, and mean 93
percentages for all deciles, rural/urban: 1998
Table VN9. VIETNAM – Types of housing: percentages by per capita expenditure decile, and mean percentage 93
for all types in each decile: 1998
Table VN10. VIETNAM – For rural and for urban localities, types of housing (%) for non-poor 94
and for poor households, and means for both localities: 1998
Table VN11. VIETNAM – Types of walls (%) for each per capita expenditure decile, and mean percentages for 95
total deciles, rural/urban: 1998
Table VN12. VIETNAM – Types of roofs (%) for each per capita expenditure decile, and mean percentages for total 95
deciles, rural/urban: 1998
Table VN13. VIETNAM – Household characteristics, by poverty status, rural/urban: 1998 96
Table VN14. VIETNAM – Types of lighting (%) by per capita expenditure decile, rural/urban: 1998 97
Table VN15. VIETNAM – Sources of drinking water (%) for each poverty status, rural/urban: 1998 97
Table VN16. VIETNAM – Sources of drinking water (%) within each per capita expenditure decile, rural/urban: 1998 98
Table VN17. VIETNAM – Types of toilets (%) within each per capita expenditure decile, rural/urban: 1998 98
Table VN18. VIETNAM – Type of toilet (%) by poverty status, rural/urban: 1998 99
Explanatory Note to These tables contain detailed data from the national household surveys for Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam
Tables IN1 through as described in the text. All data are percentages.
VN18
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 the 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 rural and
for urban household samples.
Annexes 56
Ta b le A1. Selected economic and po
povver ty indica
erty tor
indicator
torss
tin America: 1998
Latin
for cities in East Asia, South Asia and La
Population Average % of Total
metropolitan household % Households below employed pop. Victims
area income the locally-defined Unemployment in the of homicide
Region Country City (000) (in $)a poverty line (%) informal sector /000
East Asia Cambodia Phnom Penh 999.8 3,584 16.4 5.3 0.17
Indonesia Bandung 1,806.4 2.0 12.0 0.16
Jakarta 9,489.4 1,366 6.6 10.0 30.0 0.00
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 0.0 4.7 0.0
Lao PDR Vientiane 562.0 1,077 19.0 5.4 15.4
Malaysia Penang 3,193 6.1 3.2
Mongolia Ulaanbaatar 627.0 991 30.0 1.9 29.7 0.10
Myanmar Yangon 3,691.9 480 4.3 14.4
Philippines Cebu 2,188.9 490 11.0 0.24
Singapore Singapore 3,163.5 27,047 4.0 8.8 0.01
South Korea Hanam 124.0 19,933 1.5 8.0
Pusan 3,843.0 19,933 2.1 8.9 0.05
Seoul 10,392.0 23,500 1.1 7.8 0.04
Thailand Bangkok 5,647.0 8,521 15.9 4.7 17.0 0.80
Chiang Mai 499.0 3,384 9.73 4.4 7.6 0.15
Vietnam Hanoi 2.1 6.0
Ho Chi Minh 5,063.0 10.6 8.7 0.03
South Asia Bangladesh Dhaka 10,000.0 1,920 44.3 4.0 63.0
India Bangalore 4,472.0 b 18.6 50.3 34.2
57
Nepal Pokhara 20.0 23.0 0.11

Sri Lanka Colombo 4,600.0 18.0 69.0 20.40
Latin America Argentina Buenos Aires 2,996.0 13,026 4.4 10.3
Ecuador Guayaquil 2,317.4 5,391 48.0 11.3 53.0 0.23
Peru Lima 7,431.0 3,179 15.4
Uruguay Montevideo 1,669.5 14,748 15.4 10.2 31.3 0.08
Source: UNCHS Global Urban Indicators Database 2 (1998 data). a

data are preliminary. b1993 data
World Development Indicators Database, 2000 and 2001, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Ta ble A2. Gr oss educa
Gross tional enr
educational ollment (%) and liter
enrollment ac
literac
acyy (%),
emale
emale,, in cities in East Asia, South Asia and La
male and ffemale tin America: 1998
Latin
Gross Enrollment (%) Literacy Rate (%)
Secondary Secondary Female Male
Region Country City
Annexes
(female) (male)
East Asia Cambodia Phnom Penh 8.26 12.66 57.0 79.5
Indonesia Jakarta 95.7 97.3 99.2
58
Semarang 92.9 91.4 97.5
Japan Tokyo 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Lao PDR Vientiane 54.9 45.2 78.9 92.2
Malaysia Penang 82.0 91.0
Mongolia Ulaanbaatar 74.2 64.7 97.1 99.1
Myanmar Yangon 57.7 53.3 88.7 90.6
Singapore Singapore 100.0 100.0 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 90.0 93.0
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 42.0 66.2
Latin America Ecuador Guayaquil 75.3 68.6 97.8 98.2
Uruguay Montevideo 100.0 93.9 98.3 98.6
Source: UNCHS Global Urban Indicators Database 2 (1998 data).

Ta b le A3. Compar
Comparaati
tiv tor
indicator
ve housing sector indica tors or cities
s ffor
tin America: 1998
Latin
in East Asia, South Asia and La
Tenure Types
Formal House price- Rent-to-
Region Country City ownership Tenancy Squatters Other to-income income ratio
% % % % % %
East Asia Cambodia Phnom Penh 21.8 0.0 16.4 61.8 8.9
Indonesia Bandung 7.6
Jakarta 61.4 34.1 0.0 4.5 14.6
Semarang 64.0 16.2 0.0 19.8
Surabaya 66.6 31.0 2.0 0.4 3.4 19.0
Japan Tokyo 5.6 2.5
Lao PDR Vientiane 85.6 6.6 7.4 0.4 23.2 10.0
Malaysia Penang 7.2 4.9
Mongolia Ulaanbaatar 18.2 33.4 48.4 0.0 7.8
Myanmar Yangon 50.0 37.4 1.5 11.1 8.3 15.4
Philippines Cebu 86.0 9.0 5.0 0.0 13.3
Singapore Singapore 93.4 6.6 0.0 0.0 3.1 2.0
South Korea Hanam 3.7 13.9
Pusan 44.0 56.0 0.0 0.0 4.0
Seoul 39.7 58.9 0.0 1.4 5.7
Thailand Bangkok 35.8 41.4 17.9 8.8 22.2
Chiang Mai 77.0 19.5 3.0 0.5 6.8 25.0
South Asia Bangladesh Dhaka 16.7
India Bangalore 62.3 17.2 8.0 12.5 13.8
59
Nepal Pokhara 76.0 9.0 14.0 1.0 21.6 34.0

Sri Lanka Colombo 58.0 29.0 0.0 13.0
Latin America Argentina Buenos Aires 69.6 22.5 5.7 2.2 5.1
Ecuador Guayaquil 28.4 17.4 49.0 5.2 3.4 16.1
Peru Lima 57.2 23.4 18.8 0.6 8.7
Uruguay Montevideo 66.2 21.8 1.3 10.7 5.6 31.1

Ta b le A4. Infr astr
Infrastr uctur
astructur
ucturee ser vice indica tor
indicator
tors or cities
s ffor
in East Asia, South Asia, and La tin America: 1998
Latin
Households Connections (%) Solid Waste Disposal (%)

with access
to water sani-
within 200m sewer- electri- tele- tary inci- open re- burned
Region Country City % water age city phone landfill nerated dump cycled openly other
East Asia Cambodia Phnom Penh 85.4 44.7 74.9 75.5 40.0 0 0 74.0 15.0 5.0 6.0
Annexes
Indonesia Bandung 90.0 55.0 99.0 78.6 0 0 0 16.3 5.1
Jakarta 91.4 50.3 64.8 99.0 77.7 0 0 0 0 22.3
Semarang 89.7 34.0 85.2 74.3 0 0 0 0 25.7
60
Surabaya 94.3 40.9 55.8 89.2 70.8 70.0 0 0 30.0 0 0
Japan Tokyo 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.2 8.6 78.0 0.1 10.3 0 3.0
Lao PDR Vientiane 95.0 87.0 100.0 86.8
Malaysia Penang 99.9 99.1 100.0 98.0 0 10.0 80.0 10.0 0 0
Mongolia Ulaanbaatar 90.3 60.0 60.0 100.0 90.0 5.0 5.0 90.0 0 0 0
Myanmar Yangon 95.0 77.8 81.2 85.0 17.3 0 0 86.0 14 0 0
Philippines Cebu 98.2 41.4 92.3 80.0 25.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0
Singapore Singapore 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 33.7 66.3 0 0 0 0
South Korea Hanam 81.1 81.1 67.9 100.0 100.0 67.0 3.0 0 30.0 0 0
Pusan 99.9 97.9 69.4 100.0 100.0 41.2 14.5 0 44.3 0 0
Seoul 99.9 99.9 98.6 100.0 57.0 5.0 0 38.0 0 0
Thailand Bangkok 99.0 100.0 99.8 59.7 99.0 0 0 0 0 1.0
Chiang Mai 99.0 95.0 60.0 100.0 75.0 98.0 2.0 0 0 0 0
Vietnam Hanoi 100.0 70.0 50.0 100.0 60.0 65.0 0 0 15 0 20.0
Ho Chi Minh 90.0 59.0 30.0 99.7 21.2
South Asia Bangladesh Dhaka 99.1 60.0 22.0 90.0 7.0 0 0 50.0 35.0 0 15.0
India Bangalore 82.9 22.5 20.8 98.3 44.5 0 0 60.8 14.5 0 24.7
Nepal Pokhara 80.0 41.4 75.0 11.3 0 0 76.7 15.9 7.4 0
Sri Lanka Colombo 22.9 76.0 96.0 26.0 0 0 100.0 0 0 0
Latin America Argentina Buenos Aires 100.0 100.0 98.1 100.0 70.4 100.0 0 0 0 0 0
Ecuador Guayaquil 77.0 70.0 42.0 99.0 44.0 94.0 0 0.3 0.3 1.2 4.2
Peru Lima 81.1 75.2 71.5 99.0 57.0 0 34 7.0 2.0 0
Uruguay Montevideo 99.3 97.6 79.1 99.7 75.1 0 0.2 99.8 0 0 0

Ta b le A5. Aver a ge w
era or
wor k-trip times and tr
ork-trip anspor
transpor
ansportt modes (%)
f or cities in East Asia, South Asia and La tin America: 1998
Latin
Transport Modes
Average bicycle/
travel time private walking/
per work- motorized train/tram bus/minibus other
Region Country City trip (mn) (%) (%) (%) (%)
East Asia Cambodia Phnom Penh 45 87.3 0 0.2 12.5
Indonesia Bandung 30 82.0
Surabaya 35 80.0 0 17.8 2.2
Japan Tokyo 45
Lao PDR Vientiane 27 41.8 0 2.1 56.1
Malaysia Penang 40 42.0 0 55.0 3.0
Mongolia Ulaanbaatar 30 10.0 21.0 59.0 10.0
Myanmar Yangon 45 16.7 3.7 65.0 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 0 2 24.0
South Asia Bangladesh Dhaka 45 4.6 0 9.2 86.2
India Bangalore 30 39.6 0 35.7 24.7
61
Nepal Pokhara 20 11.0 0 14.0 75.0
Sri Lanka Colombo 25 23.7 8.1 65.0 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

Ta ble IN1. INDONESIA – F ood e
Food xpenditur
expenditur
xpenditure atio of total household e
e as a rra xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree
by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree deciles ur
or all rrur
deciles,, ffor al popula
ural population or urban settlements: 1999
tion and ffor
Per Capita Expenditure Deciles

Type of Settlement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Rural 0.775 0.772 0.77 0.764 0.757 0.753 0.748 0.737 0.723 0.662 0.747
Urban <250th 0.746 0.733 0.723 0.71 0.703 0.686 0.672 0.653 0.627 0.561 0.69
Urban 250-499K 0.729 0.712 0.701 0.686 0.676 0.662 0.642 0.614 0.578 0.52 0.66
Urban 500K –999K 0.712 0.699 0.685 0.679 0.663 0.651 0.615 0.612 0.563 0.502 0.639
Annexes
Urban 1M-2M 0.704 0.67 0.658 0.646 0.627 0.629 0.611 0.585 0.572 0.518 0.62
Urban >2M 0.634 0.619 0.608 0.592 0.59 0.567 0.569 0.554 0.543 0.45 0.56
62
* for total population sampled, all deciles
demog
Ta b le IN2. INDONESIA - Household demo g r a phics (%) ffor ur
or rrur
ural or urban settlements
al and ffor settlements,,
distrib utions acr
distributions oss per ca
across pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree deciles: 1999
Rural Urban
Per Capita Expenditure Deciles Per Capita Expenditure Deciles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Household headship
Female-headed household 8.3 7.3 7.5 8.5 8.6 9.3 10.6 11.6 13.2 15.0 100 8.1 7.5 7.5 8.4 8.6 9.4 10.7 11.6 13.0 15.2 100
Male-headed household 10.2 10.4 10.4 10.2 10.2 10.1 9.9 9.8 9.6 9.3 100 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.1 100
Age of the head
<15 years old 3.0 6.1 10.6 3.0 4.5 7.6 12.1 18.2 16.7 18.2 100 2.7 4.1 5.4 8.1 5.4 13.5 13.5 18.9 14.9 13.5 100
15-25 years old 6.5 7.3 8.7 8.5 9.5 9.6 10.2 11.4 12.8 15.4 100 3.5 4.5 5.3 5.5 6.9 8.1 10.0 11.4 18.3 26.6 100
26-35 years old 9.9 10.2 10.4 10.1 10.3 10.2 9.8 10.0 9.4 9.7 100 8.9 10.4 10.2 10.2 10.5 10.4 10.4 10.2 9.4 9.5 100
36-45 years old 12.1 11.5 10.7 10.7 10.1 9.8 9.5 8.8 8.5 8.4 100 12.2 11.4 11.3 10.7 10.6 10.2 9.3 9.3 8.1 7.0 100
46-55 years old 10.3 10.3 10.1 9.9 9.9 9.8 9.9 9.9 10.0 9.9 100 10.5 9.9 9.7 10.5 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.4 9.4 100
56-65 years old 8.4 8.6 9.0 9.8 9.6 10.1 10.5 11.1 11.7 11.3 100 9.9 9.9 10.3 9.5 9.9 10.3 9.7 10.3 10.5 9.7 100
65+ 7.6 8.0 8.9 9.1 10.1 10.6 11.1 11.4 12.1 11.0 100 9.6 9.2 9.3 10.4 10.3 10.0 11.5 10.2 9.8 9.7 100
Type of household
Nuclear family 4.2 6.2 8.1 9.1 10.0 11.2 12.6 14.0 13.0 11.4 100 3.8 7.3 9.6 11.4 12.3 12.6 12.6 12.2 10.4 7.7 100
Single parent 8.6 9.4 9.4 10.8 10.4 11.1 11.4 10.5 10.3 8.3 100 10.8 11.5 11.0 11.0 9.8 10.5 10.1 9.9 7.8 7.7 100
Elderly 2.9 3.4 5.3 6.3 7.8 8.8 12.2 14.4 18.3 20.7 100 4.4 5.1 5.8 7.9 8.3 10.7 11.7 13.4 14.9 17.7 100
Single adult 2.5 3.6 5.0 6.4 7.9 9.3 10.6 13.3 17.5 24.0 100 2.2 3.3 4.4 5.5 7.1 8.5 11.1 14.4 18.0 25.4 100
Family with 3+ children 22.0 16.6 13.6 11.5 9.7 8.3 6.7 5.1 3.9 2.7 100 24.6 17.0 13.4 10.7 9.3 7.9 6.0 4.9 3.9 2.4 100
Family of adults 4.3 6.4 7.9 9.4 9.9 10.3 12.1 12.8 12.8 14.2 100 4.0 6.1 7.9 8.9 10.4 10.6 12.5 12.8 13.6 13.1 100
Other types of families 10.0 11.5 11.5 11.3 11.2 10.9 10.1 9.2 8.0 6.4 100 10.7 12.0 12.0 11.8 11.1 10.7 9.8 8.7 7.7 5.4 100
* for total population sampled, all groups

Ta ble IN3. INDONESIA – R ur
Rur al and urban educa
ural tional le
educational levvels (%),
within and acr oss per ca
across pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
Within Each Decile, Percentage at Each Level
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Education
Not completed
52.6 49.1 45.8 43.9 42.2 41.0 38.8 37.1 34.0 28.0 42.1 38.0 32.0 28.7 25.6 23.9 21.5 19.4 17.2 14.6 11.3 24.4
primary school
Primary school 35.5 36.3 36.7 37.0 36.8 36.2 36.2 35.4 34.2 30.0 35.6 31.7 30.3 28.9 27.6 26.3 24.4 22.5 19.7 18.0 14.7 25.2
Junior high 8.4 9.7 11.2 11.9 12.2 12.9 13.7 14.2 15.3 16.0 12.3 16.3 18.8 19.2 20.3 20.0 20.3 20.5 19.8 18.5 16.8 19.0
Vocational JH 2.5 3.3 4.1 4.6 5.5 6.1 6.8 7.7 9.1 13.0 5.9 9.4 12.1 14.4 16.1 17.8 19.9 21.9 24.3 27.2 30.4 18.4
Senior high 0.8 1.3 1.8 2.0 2.5 2.9 3.2 3.9 4.8 7.2 2.8 3.7 5.2 6.1 7.0 7.5 7.9 8.3 8.9 8.5 7.4 6.9
Diploma I/II 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 0.8
Diploma III 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.4 3.2 4.0 5.4 1.9
Diploma IV 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.6 0.5 0.4 0.8 1.3 1.8 2.2 3.2 3.7 5.5 7.2 11.7 3.3
Master/Ph.D. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.1
For Each Level, Percentage in Each Decile

Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Education
Not completed
15.0 13.4 12.0 11.1 10.3 9.7 8.8 7.9 6.7 5.1 100 19.5 15.4 13.1 11.2 10.1 8.7 7.5 6.3 5.0 3.3 100
primary school
Primary school 12.0 11.7 11.4 11.1 10.6 10.2 9.7 9.0 8.0 6.5 100 15.7 14.1 12.7 11.6 10.7 9.6 8.4 6.9 6.0 4.2 100
63
Junior high 8.2 9.1 10.0 10.3 10.2 10.5 10.7 10.5 10.4 10.1 100 10.7 11.6 11.2 11.3 10.8 10.6 10.2 9.2 8.2 6.3 100
Vocational JH 5.1 6.3 7.6 8.4 9.6 10.3 11.0 11.7 12.9 17.0 100 6.4 7.7 8.7 9.3 10.0 10.7 11.2 11.7 12.4 11.8 100
Senior high 3.4 5.1 7.0 7.5 9.1 10.4 10.9 12.6 14.3 19.7 100 6.8 8.9 9.8 10.8 11.3 11.4 11.4 11.5 10.4 7.7 100
Diploma I/II 1.8 3.3 4.1 5.4 7.0 7.8 10.2 12.2 17.4 30.8 100 3.3 4.5 7.2 8.1 10.4 10.7 12.1 14.4 15.5 13.8 100
Diploma III 2.0 2.0 4.2 5.1 6.0 7.0 9.6 12.0 16.9 35.3 100 1.9 3.6 5.2 5.6 7.4 9.9 12.3 15.1 18.2 20.7 100
Diploma IV 1.3 2.3 3.5 4.4 6.4 7.1 9.7 12.9 16.0 36.5 100 1.6 2.8 4.3 5.7 7.0 9.6 10.6 14.7 18.4 25.4 100
Master/Ph.D. 1.9 1.9 3.8 1.9 9.6 1.9 9.6 9.6 3.8 55.8 100 0.6 0.6 2.6 2.6 3.2 6.5 8.1 14.2 20.1 41.4 100
* for total population sampled, all levels or deciles

Annexes
Ta ble IN4. INDONESIA - Sc hool par
School ticipa
participa tion (%) of c
ticipation hildr
childr en 6-14 y
hildren ear
year s old,
ears
ur
f or all rrur
ural or urban localities b
al locality and ffor byy siz
sizee , per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
Type of School Per Capita Expenditure Deciles
64
settlement participation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Rural Not in school 22.3 16.0 13.5 11.4 9.8 8.2 6.8 5.4 4.1 2.5 100
In school 15.4 13.6 12.2 11.3 10.4 9.7 8.7 7.6 6.2 4.9 100
No longer in school 23.9 16.4 13.7 11.5 9.0 8.0 6.5 5.1 4.0 1.9 100
Urban < 250th Not in school 26.6 15.6 14.2 12.8 9.5 6.9 5.0 4.5 3.4 1.5 100
In school 18.0 15.0 13.4 12.1 10.1 9.1 7.5 6.4 5.1 3.2 100
Urban 250K-499K Not in school 24.3 15.0 15.0 9.1 11.2 8.1 6.5 3.9 4.6 2.3 100
In school 17.2 14.4 12.5 11.3 10.1 9.5 7.6 7.1 6.4 3.9 100
Urban 500K-999K Not in school 23.3 19.4 12.1 11.6 10.3 8.6 4.7 3.0 4.7 2.2 100
In school 18.0 16.3 12.1 11.2 9.7 9.2 7.5 6.0 5.6 4.4 100
Urban 1M - 2M Not in school 33.1 15.0 11.6 9.3 9.0 6.8 5.1 3.7 4.5 2.0 100
In school 17.0 13.5 11.1 9.6 10.1 9.2 8.9 7.7 7.4 5.5 100
Urban > 2M Not in school 18.8 16.8 14.7 8.9 8.4 8.9 12.0 6.3 3.7 1.6 100U
In school 12.5 10.7 12.1 9.5 11.3 12.0 11.2 7.7 7.8 5.4 100
Ta ble IN5. INDONESIA - Liter ac
Literac
acyy rra
ates (%) ffor espondents a
or all rrespondents ge 5 y
ag ear
year
earss and older
older,,
ur
ural
f or rrur or urban localities b
al locality and ffor y siz
by sizee, by per ca
by pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur

Type of Can
settlement read/write 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Rural R/W Latin 76.1 78.6 79.7 80.5 81.0 82.3 82.8 83.6 84.4 88.0 81.2
R/W Other 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.4
Cannot R/W 22.3 19.9 18.9 18.2 17.5 16.2 15.9 14.9 14.3 10.9 17.4
Urban < 250th R/W Latin 87.7 91.2 91.9 93.1 93.8 94.4 94.6 95.1 96.3 97.3 92.9
R/W Other 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5
Cannot R/W 11.5 8.2 7.5 6.4 5.7 5.3 5.0 4.5 3.2 2.4 6.6
Urban 250-499K R/W Latin 85.6 88.9 89.3 90.6 91.5 92.1 93.1 94.9 95.7 96.9 91.3
R/W Other 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.9
Cannot R/W 13.2 10.1 9.7 8.4 7.4 7.1 6.2 4.3 3.5 2.8 7.8
Urban 500K-1M R/W Latin 89.9 92.4 92.3 93.2 92.8 94.2 96.0 96.5 97.1 98.0 93.9
R/W Other 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.5
Cannot R/W 9.5 6.9 7.1 6.2 6.8 5.5 3.6 3.2 2.5 1.9 5.7
Urban 1M-2M R/W Latin 88.9 92.2 92.9 93.4 94.6 94.7 96.0 96.7 96.8 98.1 94.2
R/W Other 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.5
Cannot R/W 10.7 7.2 6.6 6.1 4.7 4.7 3.6 3.0 2.9 1.8 5.3
Urban > 2M R/W Latin 93.8 93.7 94.6 94.9 96.1 96.3 96.2 96.6 97.6 97.9 95.9
R/W Other 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6
Cannot R/W 5.5 5.6 4.7 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.2 2.8 1.9 1.5 3.4
Ta ble IN5. INDONESIA - Liter ac
Literac
acy y rra
ates (%) ffor espondents a
or all rrespondents agge 5 y ear
year
ears s and older
older,,
ur
ural
f or rrur or urban localities b
al locality and ffor y siz
by e, b
size byy per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur

Type of Can
settlement read/write 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Rural R/W Latin 11.8 11.3 10.9 10.6 10.3 10.0 9.6 9.1 8.5 7.9 100
R/W Other 14.4 12.0 11.0 10.6 10.6 10.1 8.9 9.1 7.8 5.6 100
Cannot R/W 16.1 13.4 12.2 11.2 10.4 9.2 8.7 7.6 6.7 4.6 100
Urban < 250th R/W Latin 13.3 12.5 12.0 11.6 10.8 9.9 8.9 8.3 7.3 5.5 100
R/W Other 20.5 14.5 13.0 10.8 11.5 6.8 6.5 6.8 6.2 3.4 100
Cannot R/W 24.6 15.9 13.8 11.3 9.2 7.8 6.6 5.5 3.4 1.9 100
65
Urban 250-500K R/W Latin 12.3 11.7 10.9 10.5 10.1 10.0 9.5 9.5 8.6 6.8 100
R/W Other 17.7 12.4 12.4 11.6 12.2 9.6 7.1 7.9 6.5 2.4 100
Cannot R/W 22.2 15.7 13.8 11.4 9.5 9.0 7.4 5.0 3.7 2.3 100
Urban 500-1M R/W Latin 12.5 12.6 10.9 10.6 9.3 9.1 9.2 8.4 8.8 8.5 100
R/W Other 16.1 19.5 15.3 11.9 9.3 6.8 6.8 5.1 7.6 1.7 100
Cannot R/W 22.0 15.5 13.9 11.7 11.2 8.8 5.7 4.6 3.8 2.7 100
Urban 1M-2M R/W Latin 12.1 10.8 9.5 9.1 9.6 9.4 10.4 9.4 10.0 9.7 100
R/W Other 12.6 13.3 11.1 11.1 16.3 12.6 8.1 5.9 7.4 1.5 100
Cannot R/W 25.6 14.9 11.9 10.5 8.3 8.2 6.9 5.1 5.3 3.2 100
Urban > 2M R/W Latin 8.1 7.9 9.5 8.6 10.5 11.6 11.1 10.5 10.9 11.3 100
R/W Other 9.2 9.2 11.2 13.8 8.6 10.5 10.5 9.2 7.9 9.9 100
Cannot R/W 13.2 13.1 13.1 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.3 8.5 5.9 5.0 100
Ta b le IN6. INDONESIA - Wor king sta
orking tus
status Ta b le IN7. INDONESIA - Emplo yment sta
Employment tus
status
by g or non-poor and poor (%)
ender ffor
gender ur
for rrur
ural or urban localities
al localities and ffor
ur
in rrur al localities and
ural b y siz
sizee, b
byy g ender
gender
in urban localities b y siz
by e: 1999
size: and po ver
pov ty sta
erty tus (%): 1999
status
Type of Type of
Annexes
settlement Non-poor Poor Total settlement Non-poor Poor Total
Rural Female Not working 56.7 56.6 56.7 Rural Female Other 96.9 97.2 97.0
Working 43.3 43.4 43.3 Unemployed (Official) 3.1 2.8 3.0
66
Male Not working 25.8 27.0 26.4 Male Other 96.9 97.3 97.1
Urban < 250th Female Not working 64.4 71.1 66.1 Urban < 250th Female Other 94.4 93.3 94.1
Urban 250-499K Female Not working 62.8 64.8 63.3 Urban 250-499K Female Other 94.8 94.2 94.6
Urban 500-999K Female Not working 62.7 64.4 63.1 Urban 500K-999K Female Other 95.0 94.4 94.9
Urban 1M-2M Female Not working 67.5 71.8 68.3 Urban 1M-2M Female Other 94.2 92.7 93.9
Urban > 2M Female Not working 66.7 74.2 67.2 Urban > 2M Female Other 94.4 89.9 94.1
Ta b le IN8. INDONESIA - Housing c har
char acteristics b
haracteristics byy pover
pov ty sta
erty tus (%),
status
ur
ural
for rrur or urban settlements: 1999
al and ffor
Rural Urban
Non-poor Poor Mean* Non-poor Poor Mean*
Status of house
Private 88.8 94.5 90.7 66.6 76.5 68.1
Lease 1.2 0.3 0.9 11.3 7.7 10.8
Rent 2.0 0.5 1.5 10.6 6.2 9.9
Official 3.2 1.4 2.6 4.7 1.2 4.2
Free 3.4 2.2 3.0 5.4 6.4 5.5
Other 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.9 1.5
Type of roof
Concrete 1.2 0.7 1.0 2.8 1.6 2.6
Corrugated tile 45.7 47.4 46.2 52.4 57.4 53.1
Shingle roof 4.4 2.1 3.6 3.0 1.2 2.7
Iron sheeting 38.8 31.9 36.5 35.7 33.5 35.4
Asbestos 0.9 0.3 0.7 4.4 1.4 3.9
Sugar pulp fiber 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.2
Leaves 8.4 16.0 11.0 1.3 4.4 1.8
Other 0.4 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2
Type of walls
Brick 46.4 31.3 41.4 74.7 57.0 72.0
Wood 39.0 39.2 39.1 20.6 29.9 22.0
Bamboo 11.2 22.4 14.9 2.7 10.5 3.9
Other 3.4 7.1 4.6.0 2.0 2.6 2.1
Type of floor
Marble 7.8 2.2 6.0 23.0 7.1 20.6
Floor tile 11.6 6.6 10.0 23.1 16.8 22.1
Cement plaster 39.0 31.4 36.5 41.7 55.4 43.8
Wood 25.3 21.5 24.1 10.3 10.7 10.4
Bamboo 1.3 2.3 1.7 0.2 0.6 0.2
67
Earth 14.5 34.9 21.2 1.6 9.2 2.8

Other 0.4 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1
Floor area
0 15.0 11.7 13.9 21.5 10.3 19.8
< 10 m2 0.4 0.3 0.3 3.3 0.9 2.9
10-19 m2 3.0 3.7 3.2 7.4 6.4 7.3
20-39 m2 20.6 25.4 22.2 18.8 27.2 20.1
40-59 m2 30.9 32.7 31.5 23.0 29.6 24.0
60+ m2 30.0 26.2 28.8 26.0 25.5 25.9
* for total population sampled

Ta b le IN9. INDONESIA - Housing c har
char
haracteristics ur
or rrur
acteristics (%) ffor ural or urban settlements
by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Status of house
Private 94.5 93.9 93.7 93.2 92.1 91.5 91.2 90.2 88.5 82.1 90.7 73.0 72.7 71.2 71.9 70.1 70.0 68.4 66.7 62.8 56.5 68.1
Lease 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.3 2.4 0.9 8.8 8.9 10.0 9.3 9.7 10.1 10.9 11.3 13.0 14.8 10.8
Rent 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 2.0 4.1 1.5 8.5 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.6 8.5 9.1 10.2 12.6 15.5 9.9
Annexes
Official 0.9 1.2 1.7 1.6 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.3 6.1 2.6 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.5 4.0 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.8 7.2 4.2
Free 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.7 3.8 3.0 6.4 6.4 6.0 5.3 5.9 5.3 5.7 5.6 4.5 4.6 5.5
Other 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5
68
Type of roof
Concrete 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.8 2.6 2.9 3.7 4.3 2.6
Corrugated tile 47.9 47.2 46.5 46.5 46.3 45.5 45.2 45.9 45.7 46.2 46.2 50.7 51.1 51.6 51.0 52.9 51.8 53.3 54.3 55.4 57.9 53.1
Shingle roof 2.7 3.7 3.9 3.3 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.6 2.5 2.9 3.0 2.7 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.9 2.7 2.7
Iron sheeting 30.8 32.8 34.5 35.3 35.9 36.9 38.2 37.6 39.7 40.4 36.5 37.4 37.6 37.6 37.5 37.2 36.6 35.7 34.3 31.9 29.8 35.4
Asbestos 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.6 0.7 2.1 3.0 3.2 3.9 3.4 4.3 4.2 5.0 5.1 4.7 3.9
Sugar pulp fiber 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2
Leaves 16.4 14.2 12.9 12.4 11.7 11.8 10.4 9.6 7.8 5.7 11.0 5.1 3.3 2.3 2.3 1.5 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.4 1.8
Other 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
Type of walls
Brick 27.9 31.5 34.8 36.9 40.2 40.2 42.8 45.0 49.1 56.8 41.4 53.3 60.3 64.0 67.6 70.9 74.0 75.2 79.4 81.9 86.7 72.0
Wood 45.3 44.0 43.4 41.6 39.3 40.0 38.2 37.0 35.6 30.9 39.1 34.9 30.3 27.0 25.4 23.0 20.9 20.0 16.8 15.2 10.9 22.0
Bamboo 22.0 19.8 17.6 16.9 16.0 15.1 13.9 13.5 10.9 7.9 14.9 9.3 7.0 6.3 5.0 3.9 3.0 2.7 1.8 1.4 0.7 3.9
Other 4.8 4.7 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.8 5.2 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.6 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.2 1.9 1.5 1.7 2.1
Type of floor
Marble 1.8 2.5 3.0 3.6 4.4 5.0 5.8 6.7 8.8 14.1 6.0 7.1 10.4 12.1 13.7 16.7 19.7 21.8 26.0 32.1 40.5 20.6
Floor tile 5.7 6.9 7.1 8.7 9.0 9.5 10.2 10.9 12.7 15.9 10.0 16.2 17.6 20.4 21.1 21.3 22.8 23.6 25.0 25.5 25.9 22.1
Cement plaster 28.0 32.2 35.1 34.7 37.5 37.7 38.8 39.0 39.5 38.7 36.5 52.9 51.0 51.1 49.7 47.8 45.3 42.8 39.6 34.5 27.6 43.8
Wood 27.6 26.4 26.4 25.9 24.4 24.6 23.6 22.6 22.2 19.4 24.1 15.0 14.6 12.6 11.7 11.1 9.8 10.0 8.2 7.1 5.5 10.4
Bamboo 2.7 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.8 1.2 0.8 1.7 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
Earth 32.6 28.9 25.7 24.7 22.5 20.7 19.7 18.4 15.2 10.8 21.2 7.9 5.8 3.5 3.4 2.9 2.1 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.4 2.8
Other 1.7 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Floor area 9.9 10.9 11.3 12.0 12.7 13.2 13.1 14.6 16.5 21.6 13.9 8.7 11.1 12.5 13.4 16.2 18.8 20.6 24.6 29.6 37.2 19.8
<10 m2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.3 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.9 3.6 5.4 6.8 2.9
10-19 m2 4.7 4.0 3.2 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.8 3.9 3.2 8.1 6.9 6.2 5.9 6.4 6.3 6.5 6.9 8.2 11.1 7.3
20-39 m2 28.3 25.6 25.3 23.3 22.8 22.4 21.2 20.2 19.3 17.4 22.2 30.1 27.1 25.2 23.1 21.4 19.6 17.9 16.1 13.0 11.4 20.1
40-59 m2 32.0 32.6 32.8 33.9 32.2 33.3 32.8 31.2 30.5 25.3 31.5 28.0 29.1 28.1 28.3 27.3 25.5 24.6 20.5 18.6 12.3 24.0
>60 m2 24.7 26.6 27.2 27.7 29.1 28.3 29.6 31.1 30.4 31.0 28.8 23.4 24.6 26.5 27.8 27.0 27.8 27.5 28.2 25.2 21.1 25.9

Ta b le IN10. INDONESIA - Sour ces of drinking w
Sources wa ur
or rrur
ater (%) ffor ural or urban settlements
by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree decile: 1999
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Source of
drinking water
Others 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3
Bottled 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.8 5.2 2.1
Tap 5.5 7.3 7.6 8.6 10.1 10.6 11.6 12.2 13.8 19.2 11.1 35.7 38.4 40.4 42.0 43.5 46.3 48.1 50.4 55.4 60.9 46.6
Pump 3.9 5.1 6.1 6.4 7.5 8.2 8.7 8.7 9.8 12.0 7.9 13.4 14.7 15.2 17.2 17.6 18.6 18.1 18.5 18.2 16.9 16.9
Protected well 29.1 30.4 31.9 33.4 33.3 33.1 34.6 35.6 35.0 33.5 33.2 31.2 30.8 29.8 28.0 27.4 24.7 23.2 21.8 18.2 12.8 24.4
Unprotected well 21.3 21.2 20.3 19.8 17.9 18.6 16.6 16.2 14.6 12.6 17.6 10.3 8.0 7.3 6.3 5.4 4.7 4.4 4.1 2.7 2.0 5.3
Protected spring 15.2 14.6 13.9 12.4 12.7 12 11.5 11.5 11.7 9.8 12.4 3.3 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.5
Unprotected spring 10.7 8.9 8.0 7.9 7.2 6.8 6.5 6.1 5.6 4.5 7.0 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3
River 7.3 7.4 7.1 6.2 5.6 5.3 5.2 4.0 4.1 3.1 5.4 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.6
Rain water 6.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.9 4.7 4.4 4.7 4.5 3.9 4.7 2.9 2.5 2.2 1.9 2.1 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.8 1.8
How to
obtain water
Purchase 8.7 10.2 10.4 11.6 12.9 14.3 14.8 15.7 17.7 23.7 14.5 41.5 43.2 45.0 46.1 47.7 51.0 53.7 55.7 61.1 68.4 51.9
Do not purchase 91.3 89.8 89.6 88.4 87.1 85.7 85.2 84.3 82.3 76.3 85.5 58.5 56.8 55.0 53.9 52.3 49.0 46.3 44.3 38.9 31.6 48.1
Drinking water
facility
Private 37.3 40.3 42.6 44.9 46.9 47.9 49.6 52.4 53.1 59.5 48.1 54.8 60.1 62.0 65.8 65.6 68.4 68.2 70.3 69.8 67.7 65.6
69
Shared 27.9 28.3 28.1 27.2 26.4 26.4 25.5 24.5 24.4 21.9 25.9 25.6 23.7 23.4 20.8 20.7 18.9 19.2 18.2 19.4 21.7 21.0
Public 26.5 24.5 22.7 21.1 20.3 19.5 18.8 17.2 16.7 13.5 19.7 11.5 8.4 7.3 6.7 6.4 6.1 5.5 4.7 4.4 2.6 6.2
None 8.3 6.8 6.5 6.7 6.5 6.2 6.2 5.9 5.8 5.1 6.3 8.0 7.7 7.3 6.7 7.3 6.6 7.0 6.7 6.3 8.0 7.2

Ta ble IN11. INDONESIA – Sour ces of drinking w
Sources waa ter ffor ur
or rrur al localities
ural
or urban localities b
and ffor byy siz
sizee, b
byy po
povver ty sta
erty tus: 1999
status:
Annexes
Type of Settlement
Rural Urban <250th Urban 250K-499K Urban 500K-999K Urban 1M-2M Urban > 2M
Non Non- Non- Non- Non- Non-
70
-poor Poor Mean* poor Poor Mean* poor Poor Mean* poor Poor Mean* poor Poor Mean* poor Poor Mean*
Source of
drinking water
Others 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 . 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 . 0.5
Bottled 0.5 0.2 0.4 1.9 1.2 1.8 2.0 0.5 1.8 2.6 0.8 2.4 2.9 0.9 2.6 3.8 1.8 3.7
Tap 13.1 7.0 11.1 52.2 37.3 49.5 37.1 18.6 34.3 55.5 32.6 52.3 56.0 41.5 53.9 46.7 52.3 46.9
Pump 9.3 5.2 7.9 13.3 13.0 13.3 13.3 13.7 13.4 16.1 17.4 16.3 18.9 10.5 17.7 39.5 19.2 38.5
Protected well 34.2 31.1 33.2 22.4 32.5 24.2 33.9 48.5 36.2 21.1 40.4 23.8 16.8 29.1 18.5 7.7 19.8 8.3
Unprotected well 16.7 19.3 17.6 5.1 9.1 5.9 6.7 12.6 7.6 3.5 6.3 3.9 2.9 10.0 3.9 1.5 5.4 1.7
Protected spring 10.4 16.4 12.4 1.9 3.9 2.2 0.8 1.9 1.0 0.6 1.1 0.6 1.3 6.1 2.0 0.2 1.5 0.3
Unprotected spring 5.3 10.6 7.0 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0 . 0
River 5.1 5.9 5.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.2 . . .
Rain water 5.0 4.0 4.7 1.5 1.1 1.5 5.3 2.8 5.0 0.1 . 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 . . .
How to obtain
water
Purchase 16.7 10.0 14.5 56.5 41.8 53.9 42.4 22.2 39.3 61.2 36.4 57.8 62.7 50.0 60.9 53.5 63.1 54.0
Do not purchase 83.3 90.0 85.5 43.5 58.2 46.1 57.6 77.8 60.7 38.8 63.6 42.2 37.3 50.0 39.1 46.5 36.9 46.0
Drinking water
facility
Private 53.1 38.1 48.1 69.5 57.9 67.4 62.7 61.0 62.4 65.5 58.1 64.5 67.3 54.4 65.5 66.6 52.6 65.9
Shared 23.9 29.8 25.9 21.3 26.5 22.2 22.8 25.2 23.1 19.4 23.7 20.0 17.8 26.1 18.9 15.4 20.4 15.6
Public 16.4 26.2 19.7 4.6 11.3 5.8 5.0 8.6 5.5 5.7 12.2 6.6 4.4 10.9 5.3 9.2 20.7 9.8
None 6.6 5.9 6.3 4.6 4.3 4.6 9.6 5.1 8.9 9.4 6.0 9.0 10.5 8.5 10.3 8.8 6.3 8.7

Ta ble IN12. INDONESIA - Sanita tion c
Sanitation har
char
haracteristics ur
or rrur
acteristics (%) ffor ural or urban settlements
by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Toilet facility
Private 65.3 66.5 68.1 68.6 70.5 71.2 72.4 73.5 75.2 79.3 71.5 67.6 71.6 73.8 77.6 78.4 80.2 80.5 81.3 80.3 77.5 77.1
Shared 18.1 18.2 17.4 17.7 17.0 16.8 17.0 16.7 16.0 14.6 16.8 19.5 18.7 18.4 16.0 16.2 15.1 15.0 15.2 17.0 21.0 17.2
Public 16.6 15.4 14.5 13.7 12.5 12.0 10.5 9.8 8.7 6.2 11.7 12.9 9.7 7.8 6.5 5.4 4.7 4.5 3.4 2.7 1.5 5.7
Type of toilet
Squatter 19.6 25.1 29.0 31.4 34.9 38.0 41.3 44.3 49.6 60.7 38.7 60.4 67.0 71.6 75.2 77.3 80.7 82.4 86.0 88.2 91.4 78.7
Throne 9.4 10.0 10.0 10.6 10.7 10.3 10.9 11.4 11.2 10.8 10.6 17.9 16.3 14.7 13.3 12.6 11.6 10.3 9.0 8.0 6.4 11.8
Dry latrine 50.4 47.5 43.9 42.4 39.6 37.7 35.0 32.9 28.7 20.9 37.0 15.9 12.6 10.5 8.9 7.7 5.9 5.7 3.6 3.0 1.9 7.3
Others 20.7 17.4 17.1 15.6 14.8 14.1 12.8 11.4 10.4 7.7 13.8 5.8 4.1 3.1 2.6 2.4 1.7 1.7 1.3 0.8 0.3 2.3
Final disposal
Septic tank 15.2 19.8 23.9 25.8 29.2 31.7 35.0 37.4 41.5 52.1 32.3 57.5 61.5 65.9 69.1 71.5 74.1 74.9 79.2 81.9 85.0 72.6
Pond/rice field 7.6 7.7 6.9 6.6 5.8 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 3.6 5.6 3.4 2.6 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.4 1.5
River/lake/ocean 14.9 14.2 13.0 12.5 12.4 11.7 11.5 10.7 9.6 8.0 11.6 13.5 13.4 11.9 9.4 9.2 8.2 8.7 6.5 6.4 5.0 9.0
Hole 56.4 52.9 50.7 49.5 46.6 45.3 43.1 42.3 39.7 32.8 45.2 23.1 20.0 17.9 17.6 15.7 14.4 13.1 11.4 9.4 7.9 14.7
Shore/open field 3.0 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.2 1.6 2.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4
Others 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.6 1.9 2.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.7
71

Annexes
Ta ble IN13. INDONESIA - Sanita tion c
Sanitation har
char
haracteristics
acteristics (%) ffor ur
or rrur al settlements
ural
or urban settlements b
and ffor byy siz
sizee, b
byy pover
pov ty sta
erty tus: 1999
status:
Type of Settlement
72
Rural Urban <250th Urban 250K-499K Urban 500K-999K Urban 1M-2M Urban > 2M
Non Non- Non- Non- Non- Non-
-poor Poor Mean* poor Poor Mean* poor Poor Mean* poor Poor Mean* poor Poor Mean* poor Poor Mean*
Toilet facility
Private 72.6 69.4 71.5 80.2 72.5 78.8 77.9 68.0 76.4 74.7 63.4 73.2 78.8 68.4 77.4 76.0 64.6 75.4
Shared 16.5 17.6 16.8 15.4 17.4 15.7 18.8 21.4 19.2 17.2 17.8 17.3 16.7 20.8 17.3 18.1 24.0 18.4
Public 11.0 13.0 11.7 4.4 10.1 5.4 3.3 10.6 4.4 8.1 18.9 9.6 4.4 10.8 5.3 6.0 11.4 6.3
Type of toilet
Squatter 46.1 23.7 38.7 79.9 59.7 76.2 80.2 58.3 76.9 81.7 72.5 80.5 86.3 66.0 83.4 85.4 71.8 84.7
Throne 10.5 10.6 10.6 10.5 17.3 11.7 11.2 15.8 11.9 11.5 15.5 12.0 9.6 19.4 11.0 12.0 23.7 12.6
Dry latrine 31.3 48.3 37.0 7.6 16.9 9.2 6.8 18.3 8.6 4.7 8.2 5.2 3.1 12.4 4.4 1.9 3.9 2.0
Others 12.0 17.4 13.8 2.1 6.1 2.8 1.8 7.6 2.6 2.1 3.8 2.3 1.0 2.2 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.7
Final disposal
Septic tank 38.8 19.3 32.3 71.4 55.4 68.5 77.5 55.0 74.0 77.2 67.6 75.9 83.2 65.7 80.7 74.7 61.6 74.0
Pond/rice field 5.7 5.4 5.6 1.6 2.5 1.7 1.1 4.0 1.6 1.1 2.1 1.2 1.3 2.7 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0
River/lake/ocean 11.9 11.0 11.6 8.7 12.7 9.4 5.8 12.6 6.8 11.3 16.2 12.0 5.4 11.7 6.3 11.6 28.8 12.5
Hole 39.4 56.9 45.2 16.4 26.6 18.2 13.6 25.7 15.4 9.2 12.3 9.7 8.5 17.8 9.9 10.0 4.2 9.7
Shore/open field 2.1 3.5 2.5 0.5 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0 . 0
Others 2.1 3.9 2.7 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.8 2.2 1.9 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.4 2.7 3.9 2.7

Ta b le PH1. PHILIPPINES – Distrib ution of household c
Distribution har
char acteristics (%)
haracteristics
within per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree deciles ur al/urban: 1997
ural/urban:
deciles,, rrur
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Gender of the head
Female 8.8 8.2 9.2 10.5 9.7 12.6 12.7 14.6 17.0 19.3 12.2 11.3 12.4 13.6 16.4 16.7 18.2 19.6 21.5 23.8 26.7 18.1
Male 91.2 91.8 90.8 89.5 90.3 87.4 87.3 85.4 83.0 80.7 87.8 88.7 87.6 86.4 83.6 83.3 81.8 80.4 78.5 76.2 73.3 81.9
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Age of the head
<15 years old . . 0.1 . . . . 0.1 . . 0 . . . . 0 . . . 0 . 0
15-24 years old 1.8 3.7 4.1 3.7 2.7 2.9 3.7 2.6 2.3 2.3 3.0 2.5 2.9 4.3 2.2 3.3 3.4 2.7 3.1 3.4 2.9 3.1
25-34 years old 26.9 27.8 24.2 23.3 23.0 20.5 17.3 15.9 14.9 13.3 20.7 23.1 25.7 24.0 20.5 22.2 20.4 17.8 18.0 17.4 14.1 20.3
35-44 years old 36.7 33.2 32.2 25.6 25.3 24.8 25.2 19.8 21.8 23.8 26.9 34.2 30.8 29.1 29.0 25.9 26.8 26.2 26.6 25.9 26.4 28.1
45-54 years old 18.3 18.4 18.7 22.0 21.3 21.0 20.1 24.2 22.0 23.6 21.0 19.9 20.2 19.1 22.2 22.3 21.6 24.2 22.1 23.3 24.3 21.9
55-64 years old 9.4 8.7 10.7 14.5 16.0 17.9 19.6 21.6 22.4 21.4 16.2 11.7 12.6 14.5 14.2 15.3 15.6 16.0 18.0 17.4 18.6 15.4
65+ 6.9 8.2 10.1 10.9 11.7 12.8 14.1 15.8 16.6 15.7 12.3 8.6 7.8 9.1 11.8 10.9 12.1 13.2 12.1 12.5 13.7 11.2
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Type of household
Single family 82.4 85.3 82.3 80.9 81.3 80.1 80.5 78.0 77.9 78.4 80.7 74.3 74.2 73.8 73.4 72.1 71.7 73.1 72.4 74.4 75.9 73.5
Extended family 17.5 14.6 17.4 19.0 18.4 19.4 19.0 21.9 21.4 20.6 18.9 25.2 25.4 25.5 26.5 27.4 27.8 26.2 27.0 24.3 23.0 25.8
Two or more non-relatives 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.2 1.1 0.6
73
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
*for total population sampled, all deciles

Ta ble PH2. PHILIPPINES – Household c har
haracteristics
Annexes
acr oss per ca
across pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
ural/urban:
deciles,, rrur
Rural Urban
74
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Gender of the head
Female 7.1 6.8 7.6 8.7 7.9 10.4 10.5 11.9 13.9 15.2 100 6.1 6.9 7.5 9.1 9.2 10.1 10.8 12.0 13.3 14.9 100
Male 10.2 10.6 10.4 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.0 9.8 9.4 8.9 100 10.6 10.7 10.5 10.2 10.2 10.0 9.8 9.6 9.4 9.0 100
Mean* 9.9 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.0 9.6 100 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.1 100
Age of the head
<15 years old . . 52.7 . . . . 47.3 . . 100 . . . . 12.6 . . . 87.4 . 100
15-24 years old 5.9 12.6 13.7 12.5 9.0 10.0 12.5 8.8 7.8 7.3 100 8.0 9.4 13.9 7.3 10.7 11.1 8.9 10.1 11.1 9.5 100
25-34 years old 12.8 13.6 11.7 11.3 11.1 10.0 8.4 7.7 7.2 6.2 100 11.2 12.6 11.8 10.1 10.9 10.1 8.7 8.9 8.6 7.0 100
35-44 years old 13.5 12.5 12.1 9.6 9.5 9.3 9.5 7.4 8.1 8.5 100 11.9 11 10.4 10.4 9.2 9.6 9.3 9.5 9.3 9.5 100
45-54 years old 8.6 8.9 9.0 10.6 10.2 10.1 9.7 11.6 10.5 10.9 100 8.9 9.2 8.7 10.1 10.2 9.9 11.0 10.1 10.7 11.1 100
55-64 years old 5.7 5.4 6.7 9.0 9.9 11.1 12.2 13.4 13.8 12.7 100 7.4 8.1 9.4 9.3 9.9 10.2 10.4 11.7 11.4 12.1 100
65+ 5.6 6.8 8.3 9.0 9.6 10.6 11.6 12.9 13.5 12.3 100 7.5 7.0 8.1 10.6 9.8 10.9 11.7 10.8 11.3 12.3 100
Mean* 9.9 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.0 9.6 100 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.1 100
Type of household
Single family 10.1 10.7 10.3 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.0 9.7 9.6 9.4 100 9.9 10.1 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 10.2 10.4 100
Extended family 9.1 7.8 9.3 10.1 9.8 10.4 10.1 11.6 11.3 10.5 100 9.6 9.8 9.9 10.3 10.6 10.8 10.1 10.5 9.5 9.0 100
Two or more non-relatives 3.2 1.0 6.4 1.8 7.4 13.7 15.3 2.2 20.3 28.9 100 6.8 5.3 11.2 1.8 8.3 7.5 10.9 9.8 20.0 18.4 100
Mean* 9.9 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.0 9.6 100 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.1 100

ution of emplo
Distribution
Ta b le PH3. PHILIPPINES – Distrib yment sta
employment tus (%)
status
capita xpenditur
xpenditure
expenditur e deciles
deciles,, and acr oss deciles
across ur al/urban: 1997
ural/urban:
deciles,, rrur
Distribution Within Per Capita Expenditure Deciles
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Employment status
of household head
Has job 93.5 94.3 93.9 92.2 92.2 89.8 90.3 87.5 86.8 83.7 90.5 85.9 87.1 85.8 81.8 82.2 79.4 78.6 76.7 77.3 77.3 81.2
Does not have job 6.5 5.7 6.1 7.8 7.8 10.2 9.7 12.5 13.2 16.3 9.5 14.1 12.9 14.2 18.2 17.8 20.6 21.4 23.3 22.7 22.7 18.8
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Distribution Across Per Capita Expenditure Deciles

Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Employment status
of household head
Has job 10.2 10.6 10.5 10.3 10.2 10 10.1 9.7 9.6 8.9 100 10.4 10.7 10.6 10.1 10.1 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.6 9.6 100
Does not have job 6.7 6.1 6.5 8.2 8.2 10.8 10.2 13.1 13.8 16.4 100 7.4 6.9 7.5 9.7 9.5 11 11.4 12.4 12.2 12.1 100
Mean 9.9 10.1 10.1 10.1 10 10.1 10.1 10 10 9.6 100 9.8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10.1 10.1 100
yment sta
Employment
Ta ble PH4. MANILA – Emplo tus (%),
status
by per ca pita e
capita expenditur
xpenditure
xpenditur e deciles: 1997
Distribution Within Per Capita Expenditure Decile
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Employment status
of household head
Has job 81.2 86.9 84.1 80.3 81.3 76.1 75.8 72.2 75.3 75.4 78.8
75
Does not have job 18.8 13.1 15.9 19.7 18.7 23.9 24.2 27.8 24.7 24.6 21.2
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Distribution Across Per Capita Expenditure Decile

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Employment status
of household head
Has job 10.2 11.0 10.4 10.0 10.1 9.5 9.3 9.3 9.8 10.3 100
Does not have job 8.8 6.2 7.3 9.1 8.6 11.1 11.1 13.3 12.0 12.5 100
Mean 9.9 10 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.7 10.1 10.3 10.8 100
Annexes
76
Ta b le PH5. PHILIPPINES – Housing ten ur
tenur
uree sta tus (%),
status
capita xpenditur
expenditur
ural/urban:
deciles,, rrur
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Type of tenure
Own house and lot 65.9 66.5 66.2 68.6 68.1 64.8 66.6 71.6 72.4 77.3 68.7 52 49.9 53.1 55.4 55.6 57.3 62.1 66.5 71.0 76.4 60.0
Rent house and lot 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.6 0.9 7.3 10.8 11.9 13.1 13.3 14.1 14.4 13.6 13.1 11.8 12.4
Own house, rent lot 1.9 2.2 2.8 3.0 2.4 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.1 5.9 6.3 6.1 7.0 6.4 4.8 4.5 4.5 3.2 2.4 5.1
Own house rent-free,
26.3 24.4 24.1 22.6 23.9 23.9 23.2 19.2 17.4 13.1 21.9 19.1 18.1 15.7 14.2 13.5 12.2 9.4 8.1 6.0 3.4 11.9
with charge
Own house rent-free,
2.0 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.8 2.2 1.5 1.0 1.8 0.5 1.7 7.5 7.0 5.6 4.4 5.1 4.4 3.5 2.2 1.5 1.6 4.3
without charge
Rent: free house and lot,
3.4 4.1 4.1 3.1 3.2 4.0 3.8 3.2 3.6 3.7 3.6 7.4 7.6 7.2 5.5 5.8 6.5 5.9 5.0 5.0 4.2 6.0
with charge
Rent: free house and lot,
0.1 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 . . 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4
without charge
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Ta b le PH6. PHILIPPINES – Type of housing (%),
pita e
capita
by per ca xpenditur
expenditur
ural/urban:
deciles,, rrur
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Type of building
Single house 98.7 98.5 98.0 98.5 98.8 98.5 98.2 97.9 96.8 96.9 98.1 83.1 84.7 85.0 85.0 85.9 84.1 84.5 83.7 83.6 81.4 84.1
Duplex 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.5 0.9 3.2 3.5 3.7 4.6 3.7 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.9 4.0
Apartment 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.3 3.7 6.1 6.9 7.2 8.1 9.9 10.0 11.0 10.3 12.2 8.6
Improvised house 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 9.7 5.4 4.0 2.8 1.8 1.2 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 2.7
Commercial house 0 . 0.1 . . 0 0.2 0 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.6 1.4 0.7
Other: cave, boat . 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 . 0.2 . 0.1 0 0.2 . . 0.2 0 0 . 0 . 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Type of building
Single house 9.9 10.2 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.0 9.9 9.5 100 9.7 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.2 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.7 100
Duplex 7.3 4.8 9.9 8.5 5.8 8.1 9.2 13.0 17.6 15.8 100 7.9 8.7 9.4 11.5 9.3 10.5 9.7 10.1 10.6 12.3 100
Apartment 2.9 5.1 7.5 4.3 2.3 10.2 7.3 15.5 25.5 19.5 100 4.2 7.1 8.1 8.5 9.5 11.7 11.7 12.9 12.1 14.3 100
77
Improvised house 11.0 15.8 12.8 11.3 9.1 4.0 8.3 10.8 8.0 9.0 100 35.5 20.0 15.1 10.5 6.7 4.6 3.6 1.9 1.2 0.9 100
Commercial house 1.9 . 9.2 . . 3.3 12.9 1.3 28.3 43.2 100 3.9 3.0 5.1 6.7 5.0 8.4 9.7 12.9 24.2 21.2 100
Other: cave, boat . 7.8 12.3 6.3 12.6 25.1 18.8 . 17.1 . 100 10.4 35.0 . . 39.7 5.5 3.7 . 5.5 . 100
Mean* 9.9 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.0 9.6 100 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.1 100

Ta b le PH7. MANILA – Type of housing (%)
by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
ural/urban:
deciles,, rrur
Annexes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Type of building
78
Single house 62.3 65.3 65.6 66.4 67.4 63.1 62.9 64.1 64.3 64.4 64.6
Duplex 6.6 4.9 6.1 7.9 6.5 7.2 6.3 5.8 7.3 6.7 6.5
Apartment 9.4 16.2 17.6 19.1 20.8 25.8 26.6 28.2 24.5 27.6 21.7
Improvised house 21.2 13.4 10.2 5.7 4.3 3.6 2.5 0.8 1.0 0.6 6.3
Commercial house 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.4 1.7 1.1 2.9 0.8 0.9
Other: cave, boat . . . . 0.6 . . . . . 0.1
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Type of building
Single house 9.6 10.1 9.9 10.1 10.2 9.6 9.5 10.1 10.2 10.8 100
Duplex 10.0 7.6 9.1 11.9 9.7 10.8 9.4 8.9 11.5 11.0 100
Apartment 4.3 7.5 7.9 8.7 9.4 11.8 11.9 13.2 11.6 13.7 100
Improvised house 33.6 21.5 15.9 9.0 6.7 5.6 3.9 1.2 1.7 1.0 100
Commercial house 5.0 1.1 5.6 9.5 4.3 3.9 17.4 11.7 32.4 9.0 100
Other: cave, boat . . . . 100 . . . . . 100
Mean* 9.9 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.7 10.1 10.3 10.8 100

Ta ble PH8. PHILIPPINES – Type of rroof oof (%)
by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree deciles ur
ural/urban:
deciles,, rrur al/urban: 1997
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Type of Roof
Strong: concrete, iron 22.5 27.7 31.3 35.6 41.9 43.2 48.8 53.6 63.7 74.7 44.2 31.7 44.0 46.9 53.9 59.4 65.3 73.2 77.5 83.3 91.4 62.8
Light: cogon, nipa 64.6 58.5 54.2 47.5 43.0 39.0 35.8 29.6 21.8 13.3 40.8 30.7 23.5 21.0 18.0 16.3 13.2 10.1 7.1 4.7 2.1 14.6
Salvaged materials 0.7 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 5.5 3.2 2.6 1.7 1.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 1.6
Mixed:
4.4 6.3 6.6 9.4 8.0 10.2 8.6 11.0 9.4 8.7 8.3 15.2 16.5 18 16.4 15.5 14.7 11.6 11.3 9.0 5.2 13.3
predominantly strong
Mixed:
7.5 5.8 6.9 6.5 6.4 6.9 5.9 5.1 4.4 2.8 5.8 12 10.3 9.6 8.5 6.9 5.5 4.0 3.3 2.5 0.9 6.3
predominantly light
Mixed:
0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 . 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 . 0.2 5.0 2.5 1.8 1.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.3
predominantly salvaged
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Type of Roof
Strong: Concrete, iron 5.0 6.3 7.1 8.1 9.5 9.9 11.1 12.2 14.4 16.3 100 5.0 7.0 7.5 8.6 9.5 10.5 11.6 12.4 13.4 14.7 100
Light: cogon, nipa 15.6 14.5 13.4 11.7 10.6 9.6 8.8 7.3 5.3 3.1 100 20.6 16.0 14.4 12.4 11.1 9.1 6.9 4.9 3.3 1.4 100
Salvaged materials 9.3 17.5 11.0 10.6 9.7 7.1 11.2 9.8 5.9 7.9 100 32.5 19.3 15.8 10.1 8.6 3.7 2.8 3.2 2.6 1.4 100
Mixed:
5.3 7.7 8.1 11.5 9.7 12.4 10.5 13.3 11.4 10.1 100 11.2 12.4 13.6 12.3 11.6 11.1 8.7 8.5 6.8 3.9 100
79
Mixed:
12.7 10.0 12.0 11.2 10.9 12.0 10.2 8.7 7.6 4.6 100 18.6 16.2 15.1 13.5 10.8 8.7 6.3 5.2 4.0 1.5 100
predominantly light
Mixed:
17.9 28.6 11.8 10.5 . 10.3 4.2 3.5 13.2 . 100 37.8 19.3 14.3 11.2 4.2 5.3 4.2 1.9 0.7 1.0 100
Mean* 9.9 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.0 9.6 100 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.1 100

Ta b le PH9. PHILIPPINES – Type of w alls (%)
walls
by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
ural/urban:
deciles,, rrur
Rural Urban
Annexes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Type of Walls
80
Strong: concrete, iron 16.3 23.2 25.6 30.4 37.1 37.6 45.3 46.4 58.2 72.4 39.1 26.5 37.5 43.1 50.2 55.3 62.2 71.4 75.3 81.1 89.9 59.4
Light: cogon, nipa 67.0 58.8 55.9 47.0 43.4 39.1 35.1 29.9 21.4 11.5 41.0 31.9 24.6 21.8 17.6 15.5 12.7 8.8 6.1 4.0 2.1 14.5
Salvaged materials 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.9 6.2 3.3 2.7 2.1 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 1.8
Mixed:
5.9 8.2 9.2 12.2 10.0 14.4 11.2 15.5 14.8 11.3 11.3 16.6 19.0 19.5 18.2 19.0 16.9 13.9 14.0 11.5 6.4 15.5
Mixed:
9.1 7.9 7.8 8.8 8.4 8.2 7.6 6.9 4.8 3.8 7.3 13.9 12.6 10.9 10.2 8.0 6.3 4.7 3.8 2.9 1.3 7.4
predominantly light
Mixed:
0.6 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 4.8 2.9 2.0 1.7 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.4
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Type of Walls
Strong: concrete, iron 4.1 6.0 6.6 7.8 9.5 9.7 11.7 11.9 14.9 17.8 100 4.4 6.3 7.3 8.5 9.3 10.5 12.0 12.7 13.8 15.3 100
Light: cogon, nipa 16.1 14.5 13.7 11.6 10.6 9.6 8.6 7.3 5.2 2.7 100 21.6 17.0 15.1 12.2 10.7 8.8 6.0 4.2 2.8 1.4 100
Salvaged materials 13.5 13.9 14.8 9.7 10.2 4.9 8.8 10.6 6.0 7.5 100 33.1 18.1 14.8 11.4 8.4 5.4 3.3 2.3 2.0 1.3 100
Mixed:
5.2 7.4 8.2 10.9 8.9 12.9 10.0 13.7 13.1 9.7 100 10.5 12.2 12.6 11.8 12.2 11.0 9.0 9.1 7.5 4.2 100
Mixed:
12.2 10.8 10.7 12.1 11.5 11.3 10.4 9.5 6.5 5.0 100 18.4 16.9 14.6 13.7 10.7 8.6 6.3 5.1 4.0 1.7 100
predominantly light
Mixed:
16.5 21.7 7.2 18.4 5.5 7.3 2.2 7.9 6.5 6.7 100 34.1 21.1 14.7 12.0 5.1 6.3 3.7 2.0 0.7 0.4 100
Mean* 9.9 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.0 9.6 100 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.1 100

Ta ble PH10. MANILA – Type of rroof oof (%)
by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
ural/urban:
deciles,, rrur
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Type of roof
Strong: concrete, iron 36.2 46.9 46.9 59.9 63.6 71.1 76.9 80.8 84.7 93.6 66.4
Light: cogon, nipa 2.0 1.9 1.2 1.5 1.6 2.3 1.5 . 0.3 0.6 1.3
Salvaged materials 10.5 6.8 5.3 2.3 2.7 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 0.4 3.1
Mixed: predominantly strong 26.2 26.9 30.9 25.3 23.4 18.3 15.3 15.0 11.5 4.2 19.5
Mixed: predominantly light 13.8 10.5 10.7 7.3 7.1 4.7 3.9 3.4 2.4 1.0 6.4
Mixed: predominantly salvaged 11.3 7.0 5.0 3.8 1.6 2.0 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 3.3
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Type of roof
Strong: concrete, iron 5.4 7.1 6.9 8.9 9.4 10.6 11.2 12.3 13.1 15.2 100
Light: cogon, nipa 15.7 15.0 9.1 11.7 12.1 17.4 11.4 . 2.7 5.1 100
Salvaged materials 33.0 21.8 16.5 7.1 8.4 4.8 3.5 1.2 2.3 1.3 100
Mixed: predominantly strong 13.3 13.8 15.5 12.7 11.7 9.3 7.6 7.8 6.1 2.3 100
Mixed: predominantly light 21.3 16.4 16.3 11.1 10.8 7.3 5.9 5.4 3.8 1.7 100
81
Mixed: predominantly salvaged 34.4 21.5 14.9 11.4 4.9 6.2 4.0 1.2 1.0 0.5 100
Total 9.9 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.7 10.1 10.3 10.8 100

Ta b le PH11. MANILA – Housing ten ur
tenur
uree status (%),
status
by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
Annexes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Type of tenure
Own house and lot 40.4 36.8 41.1 45.5 46.5 48.4 51.2 56.6 60.7 70.6 50.0
82
Rent house and lot 17.7 25.2 28.1 28.4 29.5 28.5 29.7 27.7 26.0 18.8 25.9
Own house, rent lot 4.6 5.4 4.5 6.1 5.5 2.2 3.4 3.5 2.0 1.4 3.8
Own house rent-free, with charge 9.5 9.5 6.7 7.1 4.6 5.9 4.6 4.0 2.1 1.4 5.5
Own house rent-free, without charge 12.7 10.8 8.3 5.6 6.3 6.5 4.5 1.9 2.0 2.4 6.0
Rent: free house and lot with charge 13.1 11.0 10.5 6.5 7.0 6.8 6.3 6.1 6.8 5.1 7.9
Rent: free house and lot without charge 2.0 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.6 1.7 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.9
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Type of tenure
Own house and lot 8.0 7.4 8.0 8.9 9.1 9.5 9.9 11.5 12.5 15.2 100
Rent house and lot 6.8 9.8 10.6 10.8 11.1 10.9 11.1 10.8 10.3 7.8 100
Own house rent lot 11.9 14.1 11.5 15.6 14.1 5.7 8.7 9.1 5.3 4.0 100
Own house rent-free w/c 17.2 17.4 11.9 12.6 8.2 10.7 8.1 7.3 3.8 2.8 100
Own house rent-free wo/c 20.8 17.9 13.4 9.1 10.1 10.6 7.3 3.2 3.4 4.3 100
Rent: free house and lot w/c 16.4 14.0 13.0 8.1 8.6 8.5 7.8 7.8 8.9 6.9 100
Rent: free house and lot wo/c 23.1 14.2 9.9 10.4 6.7 19.2 3.0 3.0 6.1 4.3 100
Mean 9.9 10 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.7 10.1 10.3 10.8 100

Ta b le PH12. PHILIPPINES – Sour ce of w
Source waater and electricity
electricity,,
by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree decile ur
decile,, rrur al/urban, 1997
ural/urban,
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Source of water
Own faucet 1.8 2.0 2.8 4.7 4.0 5.3 7.1 10.0 13.2 22.0 7.2 11.5 18.1 24.4 27.4 32.4 37.7 45.4 52.0 57.2 66.0 37.3
Shared faucet 18.7 19.6 22.3 19.8 22.3 20.6 21.4 21.9 18.7 17.2 20.3 31.0 28.8 26.5 27.2 25.3 20.4 17.7 15.3 13.2 8.7 21.4
Own: piped well 8.6 10.4 12.2 14.0 15.6 17.2 18.3 20.4 24.6 27.8 16.9 8.2 10.6 11.6 11.6 12.4 13.8 15.5 15.6 15.7 16.9 13.2
Shared: piped well 25.6 26.4 25.9 23.0 24.2 23.8 24.6 20.4 19.3 14.3 22.8 23.9 23.7 20.6 18.8 16.8 15.1 11.1 8.5 7.0 4.2 15.0
Dug well 23.4 22.8 18.9 20.0 17.2 17.7 14.3 15.5 12.3 10.5 17.3 11.1 8.0 7.0 6.1 5.8 5.6 5.1 3.9 2.9 2.1 5.7
Spring, river 20.5 17.8 16.8 16.7 14.8 13.8 12.5 10.2 10.2 6.4 14.0 5.2 3.4 2.9 2.7 1.7 1.4 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.5 2.0
Rain water 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
Peddler 1.1 0.7 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.0 9.0 7.2 6.8 6.2 5.4 5.9 3.8 3.9 3.0 1.4 5.3
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Electricity
in the building
Yes 22.4 31.0 36.5 41.9 50.5 54.6 59.6 64.7 74.0 87.2 52.1 70.5 79.8 86.2 89.3 91.5 94.2 96.2 97.5 98.2 99.4 90.3
No 77.6 69.0 63.5 58.1 49.5 45.4 40.4 35.3 26.0 12.8 47.9 29.5 20.2 13.8 10.7 8.5 5.8 3.8 2.5 1.8 0.6 9.7
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Ta b le PH13. PHILIPPINES – Consumer dur duraa b les (%),

by pover
pov ty sta
erty tus
status ur
tus,, rrur al/urban, 1997
ural/urban,
83
Rural Urban
Non-poor Poor Mean Non-poor Poor Mean*
Family owns radio 0.77 0.64 0.73 0.79 0.67 0.78
Family owns television set 0.45 0.11 0.34 0.81 0.30 0.77
Family owns video tape recorder 0.11 0.01 0.08 0.30 0.02 0.27
Family owns stereo 0.19 0.03 0.14 0.38 0.06 0.35
Family owns refrigerator 0.24 0.02 0.17 0.55 0.07 0.51
Family owns air condition 0.01 0 0.01 0.06 0 0.06
Family owns car, jeep, motorcycle 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.01 0.12

Ta ble PH14. MANILA – Sour ce of w
Source ater and electricity
wa electricity,,
by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree decile
decile,, 1997
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Source of water
Annexes
Own faucet 19.8 26.6 37.6 37.7 45.4 54.2 58.2 63.8 68.1 77.1 49.2
Shared faucet 39.6 35.4 31.3 31.8 29.3 19.8 17.5 15.6 14.0 7.5 24.0
Own: piped well 2.2 3.3 5.4 5.0 4.0 3.9 8.3 7.5 6.7 9.8 5.6
84
Shared: piped well 15.1 15.3 10.1 9.8 8.9 10.6 7.0 5.8 5.2 3.0 9.0
Dug well 2.6 3.8 1.7 2.5 2.5 2.1 0.7 1.0 1.6 0.5 1.9
Peddler 20.6 15.6 13.9 13.2 9.9 9.4 8.4 6.3 4.4 2.2 10.3
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Electricity in the building
Yes 96.0 97.7 99.3 99.4 99.6 100 100 100 99.7 100 99.2
No 4.0 2.3 0.7 0.6 0.4 . . . 0.3 . 0.8
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Source of water
Own faucet 4.0 5.4 7.5 7.5 9.0 10.9 11.5 13.1 14.2 16.9 100
Shared faucet 16.4 14.8 12.7 13.0 11.9 8.1 7.1 6.6 6.0 3.4 100
Own: piped well 3.9 5.9 9.3 8.8 6.9 6.8 14.2 13.4 12.2 18.7 100
Shared: piped well 16.6 17.0 10.9 10.7 9.6 11.6 7.5 6.5 6.0 3.6 100
Dug well 13.5 20.2 8.9 12.8 13.0 11.1 3.5 5.3 8.5 3.0 100
Peddler 19.9 15.2 13.2 12.6 9.4 9.0 7.9 6.2 4.4 2.3 100
Mean 9.9 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.7 10.1 10.3 10.8 100
Yes 9.6 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.8 10.2 10.3 10.9 100
No 48.2 27.7 8.1 7.8 4.2 . . . 3.9 . 100
Mean 9.9 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.7 10.1 10.3 10.8 100

ces of w
Sources
Ta b le PH15. PHILIPPINES – Sour ater and electricity (%)
wa
f or eac
eachh pover
pov ty sta
erty tus
status ur
tus,, rrur al/urban: 1997
ural/urban:

Rural Urban
Own faucet 9.5 2.3 7.2 40.1 10.0 37.3
Shared faucet 19.9 21.0 20.3 20.5 30.1 21.4
Own: piped well 20.9 8.3 16.9 13.6 9.8 13.2
Shared: piped well 22.4 23.7 22.8 14.1 23.2 15.0
Dug well 14.3 23.6 17.3 4.8 15.3 5.7
Spring, river 11.4 19.5 14.0 1.6 6.4 2.0
Rain water 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1
Peddler 1.0 1.1 1.0 5.3 5.0 5.3
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Yes 63.9 26.8 52.1 93.7 56.9 90.3
No 36.1 73.2 47.9 6.3 43.1 9.7
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
85

Ta b le PH16. PHILIPPINES – Type of toilet (%),
Annexes
pita e
capita
by per ca xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree decile ur al/urban: 1997
ural/urban:
decile,, rrur
Rural Urban
86
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Type of toilet
Water-sealed 27.9 34.1 39.1 45.5 48.5 51.0 57.1 64.4 70.5 82.7 52.0 52.2 62.0 67.2 73.4 76.5 81.8 85.9 88.3 90.8 95.1 77.4
Closed pit 18.3 19.0 20.7 19.1 17.5 15.7 13.7 13.1 10.3 6.5 15.4 14.5 13.3 11.1 9.6 8.7 7.3 6.5 5.4 4.1 2.5 8.3
Open pit 23.5 20.7 17.1 16.8 16.5 13.9 13.6 9.1 7.5 4.1 14.3 10.2 8.5 7.0 5.4 4.6 3.1 2.4 1.8 1.3 0.6 4.5
Others: pile 3.7 4.3 4.0 2.8 3.7 4.0 3.8 2.5 3.1 1.7 3.4 7.1 5.6 5.7 4.7 4.6 3.9 2.6 2.5 2.9 1.2 4.1
None 26.6 21.8 19.1 15.7 13.9 15.5 11.7 10.8 8.6 5.0 14.9 16.1 10.6 8.9 7.0 5.7 3.8 2.6 1.9 0.9 0.6 5.8
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Type of toilet
Water-sealed 5.3 6.6 7.6 8.8 9.4 9.9 11.1 12.4 13.6 15.3 100 6.6 8.0 8.7 9.5 9.9 10.6 11.1 11.4 11.8 12.4 100
Closed pit 11.7 12.5 13.5 12.5 11.4 10.3 9.0 8.5 6.7 4.0 100 17.2 16.0 13.4 11.6 10.5 8.9 7.8 6.6 4.9 3.1 100
Open pit 16.2 14.6 12.1 11.8 11.6 9.8 9.6 6.4 5.2 2.8 100 22.3 19.0 15.8 12.1 10.2 7.0 5.3 4.1 2.9 1.3 100
Others: pile 10.9 13.0 11.8 8.5 10.9 11.9 11.2 7.5 9.3 4.9 100 17.1 13.7 14.0 11.6 11.2 9.5 6.3 6.2 7.3 3.0 100
None 17.6 14.8 12.9 10.6 9.3 10.5 7.9 7.3 5.8 3.3 100 27.2 18.3 15.5 12.1 9.8 6.7 4.5 3.3 1.6 1.0 100
Total 9.9 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.0 9.6 100 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.1 100

Ta b le PH17. PHILIPPINES –
Type of toilet (%),
Ta b le PH18. MANILA – Type of toilet (%),
ver
pov
by po ty sta
erty tus
status ur
tus,, rrur al / urban: 1997
ural by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
Distribution Within Poverty Status Distribution Within Per Capita Expenditure Decile
Rural Urban 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Non-poor Poor Mean Non-poor Poor Mean* Type of toilet
Type of toilet Water-sealed 70.5 73.9 80.2 83.9 83.8 86.4 89.1 91.6 90.7 95.1 84.6
Water-sealed 60.9 32.6 52.0 80.6 46.4 77.4 Closed pit 11.7 13.3 8.9 7.4 7.5 6.5 6.1 4.4 3.6 3.1 7.2
Closed pit 14.2 18.1 15.4 7.6 15.3 8.3 Open pit 3.5 2.1 2.3 1.5 1.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.3 1.4
Open pit 11.5 20.4 14.3 3.5 13.8 4.5 Others: pile 8.6 6.7 6.1 5.7 5.8 5.5 3.2 3.2 3.9 1.5 5.0
Others: pile 3.2 3.7 3.4 3.9 5.7 4.1 None 5.7 4.0 2.5 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.9 . 1.8
None 10.2 25.2 14.9 4.5 18.8 5.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Distribution Across Poverty Status
Rural Urban 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Non-poor Poor Mean Non-poor Poor Total Type of toilet
Type of toilet Water-sealed 8.3 8.7 9.2 9.7 9.7 10.1 10.2 10.9 11.0 12.1 100
Closed pit 16.1 18.5 12.0 10.1 10.2 8.9 8.2 6.2 5.2 4.6 100
Water-sealed 80.1 19.9 100 94.5 5.5 100
Closed pit 62.9 37.1 100 82.9 17.1 100 Open pit 24.8 15.2 16.2 10.3 12.2 4.1 4.0 5.3 5.7 2.3 100
Others: pile 17.1 13.4 12.0 11.3 11.3 10.8 6.2 6.5 8.1 3.3 100
Open pit 54.8 45.2 100 71.7 28.3 100
None 31.6 22.5 13.6 8.1 6.6 5.9 5.7 0.6 5.3 . 100
Others: pile 64.8 35.2 100 87.0 13.0 100
None 46.5 53.5 100 70.1 29.9 100 Total 9.9 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.7 10.1 10.3 10.8 100
Mean 68.3 31.7 100 90.8 9.2 100
*for total population sampled
87
Ta b le PH19. MANILA – Households’ consumer dur duraa b les

les,,
by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Family owns radio 0.69 0.78 0.78 0.81 0.82 0.85 0.84 0.89 0.89 0.87 0.82
Family owns television set 0.80 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.92
Family owns video tape recorder 0.05 0.09 0.22 0.29 0.28 0.39 0.48 0.58 0.64 0.73 0.38
Family owns stereo 0.13 0.20 0.33 0.35 0.40 0.50 0.51 0.58 0.59 0.76 0.44
Family owns refrigerator 0.28 0.34 0.50 0.61 0.67 0.72 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.93 0.66
Family owns air condition 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.22 0.47 0.10
Family owns car, jeep, or motorcycle 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.19 0.29 0.54 0.14

Ta b le VN1. VIETN
VIETNAMAM – Household c har
haracteristics
by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree decile ur al/urban: 1998
ural/urban:
decile,, rrur
Annexes
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
88
Household headship
Female-headed
15.5 15.5 15.4 17.2 16.9 17.2 16.3 16.8 17.5 22.5 16.9 32.9 46.8 36.8 36.0 42.4 34.3 43.0 27.5 36.4 42.5 37.8
household
Male-headed
84.5 84.5 84.6 82.8 83.1 82.8 83.7 83.2 82.5 77.5 83.1 67.1 53.2 63.2 64.0 57.6 65.7 57.0 72.5 63.6 57.5 62.2
household
Total 12.4 11.8 11.6 11.0 10.3 9.5 9.4 8.6 8.2 7.3 100 13.0 11.0 10.3 10.2 10.0 9.5 10.2 9.1 9.0 7.9 100
Age of the head
15-24 years old 1.2 2.8 0.7 1.2 2.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 1.3 1.1 . 1.7 0.9 . 0.8 . 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6
25-34 years old 28.1 26.3 20.9 21.2 24.9 19.6 16.3 12.7 15.9 12.3 20.6 22.5 11.5 14.2 9.3 15.5 11.3 8.4 11.9 13.3 10.7 13.2
35-44 years old 37.7 34.1 36.7 33.9 26.5 36.5 34.5 32.7 30.9 28.4 33.5 29.2 25.6 30.0 25.7 22.1 24.9 35.3 28.9 37.1 44.2 29.9
45-54 years old 15.9 17.3 18.8 17.8 21.1 19.1 19.8 23.8 21.7 28.6 19.9 21.0 31.5 26.9 26.6 19.8 34.5 19.2 29.8 21.4 19.9 25.0
55-64 years old 9.6 11.4 14.2 15.7 15.0 15.4 16.7 18.1 17.9 17.4 14.8 15.9 17.7 16.0 18.4 27.2 12.0 21.9 17.4 19.9 12.6 18.0
> 65 years old 7.5 8.2 8.7 10.2 10.5 8.2 11.7 11.7 12.4 12.5 9.9 10.3 13.6 11.2 19.1 15.4 16.5 15.2 11.8 7.7 12.1 13.3
Education of the head
Never 19.3 13.1 8.7 7.6 5.6 6.6 6.5 5.9 4.2 5.3 8.8 8.2 11.2 4.9 6.7 3.7 4.7 3.0 1.4 3.3 0.6 5.1
< Cap I 33.7 30.8 31.9 30.7 31.4 29.8 27.5 30.1 24.9 22.1 29.7 32.5 23.7 22.1 23.3 21.1 15.3 22.9 12.2 8.5 7.8 19.8
Cap I 24.4 24.6 22.3 25.0 24.5 23.1 23.2 22.8 25.7 21.1 23.7 24.7 24.7 17.3 19.7 23.7 24.9 19.9 16.2 20.8 14.6 21.0
Cap II 16.5 22.5 24.9 23.9 26.2 25.2 26.9 24.3 25.8 22.2 23.6 21.5 21.8 23.4 14.9 16.7 13.9 14.7 16.1 20.1 15.8 18.1
Cap III 2.3 3.6 4.0 3.4 4.1 6.7 3.4 2.5 5.0 7.9 4.1 1.7 5.4 7.5 11.2 6.6 11.3 11.5 10.7 11.3 14.1 8.7
Nghe SC 1.7 3.2 3.2 4.1 3.0 5.4 5.9 5.2 4.6 6.4 4.1 6.6 5.3 7.8 8.7 9.2 10.5 8.8 7.9 6.8 3.6 7.6
THCN 1.7 2.3 4.4 4.8 4.7 2.6 5.6 7.1 8.5 10.2 4.8 4.8 6.4 14.4 6.5 14.3 13.0 10.9 15.8 18.7 13.3 11.4
DHCD 0.4 . 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.1 2.1 1.3 4.9 1.0 . 1.6 2.5 9.1 4.6 6.3 8.3 19.7 10.6 30.2 8.4

Ta b le VN2. VIETN
VIETNAMAM – RRur
ural
ur al and urban household
char acteristics (%), b
haracteristics byy per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree decile
and po ver
pov ty sta
erty tus: 1998
status:
Rural Urban
Household headship
Female-headed
17.91 15.59 16.86 38.87 27.63 37.84
household
Male-headed
82.09 84.41 83.14 61.13 72.37 62.16
household
Age of the head
15-24 years old 1.24 1.43 1.33 0.51 1.60 0.61
25-34 years old 16.61 25.35 20.59 12.09 24.01 13.18
35-44 years old 32.51 34.68 33.49 29.80 30.74 29.89
45-54 years old 21.97 17.43 19.90 25.67 18.87 25.05
55-64 years old 16.66 12.5 14.77 17.93 18.26 17.96
65+ years old 11.01 8.61 9.92 13.99 6.52 13.30
Education of the head
Never 5.79 12.46 8.83 4.71 8.73 5.08
< Cap I 27.67 32.24 29.75 18.37 34.31 19.84
Cap I 23.66 23.82 23.73 20.27 27.75 20.96
Cap II 25.26 21.71 23.64 18.05 18.48 18.09
89
Cap III 4.84 3.24 4.11 9.49 1.14 8.73
Nghe SC 5.11 2.84 4.08 7.79 5.25 7.56

THCN 6.02 3.40 4.83 12.10 4.33 11.39
DHCD 1.66 0.28 1.03 9.21 . 8.37

VIETNAM
Ta ble VN3. VIETN ur
Rur
AM – R al and urban ethnicity (%),
ural
by per ca
capita
pita e xpenditur
expenditur
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Ethnic group
Annexes
Vietnamese (Kinh) 54.8 72.6 79.0 76.0 84.8 92.4 90.1 93.7 93.1 96.9 81.6 97.4 92.1 93.1 93.8 89.8 87.1 85.1 94.1 92.6 90.0 91.7
Tau 3.0 2.4 3.7 4.4 2.1 2.9 0.6 1.4 1.8 0.3 2.4 0.1 . 0.2 . . 0.5 . . . . 0.1
Thai 3.1 1.8 2.1 2.6 1.8 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 1.4 0.5 . . . . . . . . . 0.1
90
Chinese 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.3 0.5 0.4 . 0.7 0.8 0.5 1.0 5.1 5.0 5.3 9.5 12.0 14.5 5.9 7.4 10.0 7.3
Khmer 3.9 2.5 2.8 3.3 2.2 1.7 2.7 1.2 2.3 0.8 2.5 0.6 2.5 1.6 0.4 . . 0.4 . . . 0.6
Muong 8.7 5.0 3.4 4.1 2.4 0.1 2.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . .
Nung 1.9 3.1 4.4 4.5 2.6 1.5 2.3 1.1 0.7 . 2.4 . 0.3 . . . . . . . . 0
Meo 3.1 3.1 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 . . . 1.0 . . . . . 0.4 . . . . 0
Other 20.9 9.2 3.3 4.5 2.5 0.3 1.3 1.9 0.6 0.6 5.2 0.4 . . 0.5 0.7 . . . . . 0.2
Ta b le VN4. VIETN AM –
VIETNAM
Indi vidual c
Individual har
char
haracteristics
acteristics (%),
ver
pov
by po ty sta
erty tus
status ur
ural/urban:
Non-poor Poor Total Non-poor Poor Mean
Has job Health expenditure
Rural Female 82.2 88.5 85.1 (as % of total
Male 82.2 89.3 85.4 household expenditure)
Mean 82.2 88.9 85.3 Rural 0.70 0.71 0.7
Urban Female 65.8 79.4 67.1 Urban 1.62 1.43 1.6
Male 73.3 81.5 74.0
Mean 69.4 80.4 70.4 Non-poor Poor Mean
Born here
Non-poor Poor Total
Rural 83.1 89.3 86.0
Has secondary job Urban 62.6 73.9 63.7
Rural Female 1.3 2.6 1.9
Male 3.8 4.9 4.3
Total 2.5 3.7 3.1
Urban Female 0.9 1.5 1.0
Male 2.1 2.2 2.1
Total 1.5 1.8 1.5
AM – Indi
VIETNAM
Ta ble VN5. VIETN vidual liter
Individual ac
literac
acyy le
levvels and g ender (%),
gender
by per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpenditure e decile ur al/urban: 1998
ural/urban:
decile,, rrur
Literacy Levels by Per Capita Expenditure Deciles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Can read
Rural Yes 48.9 65.1 72.6 74.8 76.3 81.3 77.5 79.0 80.0 84.0 73.0
With difficulty 15.0 14.5 10.2 11.8 11.0 7.7 10.0 9.3 9.5 7.6 10.9
No 36.1 20.4 17.1 13.5 12.8 10.9 12.4 11.7 10.4 8.4 16.1
Different language 0.1 . 0.1 . . 0.1 . . . . 0
Urban Yes 75.0 77.1 81.2 80.2 81.4 84.6 78.3 84.8 87.1 83.2 80.5
With difficulty 12.1 11.4 8.7 9.1 10.3 5.7 11.0 6.7 2.9 6.0 9.0
No 12.8 11.4 9.8 10.7 7.7 8.1 9.9 7.4 9.3 9.8 10.0
Different language . 0.2 0.2 . 0.5 1.6 0.8 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.5
Distribution by Gender Within Per Capita Expenditure Deciles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Gender
Rural Female 52.9 51.9 51.1 50.6 51.5 50.5 50.3 50.8 50.3 48.9 51.0
Male 47.1 48.1 48.9 49.4 48.5 49.5 49.7 49.2 49.7 51.1 49.0
Urban Female 53.8 50.1 53.6 51.3 53.5 51.8 52.2 51.5 51.0 54.6 52.3
Male 46.2 49.9 46.4 48.7 46.5 48.2 47.8 48.5 49.0 45.4 47.7
Distribution by Gender Across Per Capita Expenditure Deciles
91
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Gender
Rural Female 12.7 11.3 10.9 10.3 10.2 9.5 9.0 9.1 8.7 8.3 100
Male 11.7 10.9 10.8 10.5 9.9 9.7 9.3 9.2 8.9 9.0 100
Urban Female 12.8 10.3 10.5 10.0 10.1 9.6 10.1 9.2 8.8 8.6 100
Male 12.1 11.3 10.0 10.4 9.6 9.8 10.1 9.5 9.3 7.8 100
Ta b le VN7. VIETN
VIETNAM AM – F emale and male
Female
smoking beha vior
viors
behavior s (%), b
byy P over
Po ty Sta
erty tus
Status
tus,,
r ur al/urban: 1998
ural/urban:
Distribution within Poverty Status
Non-poor Poor Mean
Annexes
Rural Female not smoking 32.9 28.3 31.1
smoking 67.1 71.7 68.9
92
Male not smoking 25.8 23.3 24.9
VIETNAM
Ta b le VN6. VIETN AM – Health sta tus
status smoking 74.2 76.7 75.1
by po ver
pov ty sta
erty tus
status ur al/urban: 1998
ural/urban:
tus,, rrur
Total not smoking 26.0 23.5 25.2
Distribution within Poverty Status smoking 74.0 76.5 74.8
Non-poor Poor Mean Urban Female not smoking 26.2 16.7 25.0
Rural Was not sick 56.9 57.7 57.3 smoking 73.8 83.3 75.0
Was sick 43.1 42.3 42.7 Male not smoking 20.8 16.0 20.5
smoking 79.2 84.0 79.5
Urban Was not sick 63.1 54.2 62.3
Was sick 36.9 45.8 37.7 Total not smoking 21.0 16.0 20.6
smoking 79.0 84.0 79.4
Distribution between Poverty Status
Non-poor Poor Total Distribution Across Poverty Status
Non-poor Poor Total
Rural Was not sick 56.1 43.9 100
Was sick 56.9 43.1 100 Rural Female not smoking 65.8 34.2 100
Urban Was not sick 92.3 7.7 100 smoking 60.7 39.3 100
Was sick 89.2 10.8 100 Male not smoking 67.3 32.7 100
smoking 64.3 35.7 100
Total not smoking 67.2 32.8 100
smoking 64.2 35.8 100
Urban Female not smoking 91.7 8.3 100
smoking 86.1 13.9 100
Male not smoking 94.8 5.2 100
smoking 92.9 7.1 100
Total not smoking 94.7 5.3 100
smoking 92.7 7.3 100
Ta ble VN8: VIETN
VIETNAM centa
percenta
AM – Types of housing: per centagges within eac
eachh per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpenditure e decile
decile,,
and mean per centa
percenta
centag or all deciles
ges ffor ur al/urban: 1998
ural/urban:
deciles,, rrur
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Type of house
City house+garden . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0 . . . . . . . 0.6 . 3.0 0.3
Multistoried house T1 0.2 0.5 . 0.4 . . . 0.5 0.5 3.4 0.5 1.4 3.7 5.6 4.9 12.7 16.7 26.3 28.5 32.5 43.9 16.2
Multistoried house T2 . 0.2 0.2 2.1 0.5 0.7 3.2 0.8 4.7 2.3 1.3 2.9 1.5 6.5 7.9 10.3 5.6 6.6 5.1 2.9 3.0 5.2
One-story house
0.2 . . . . . 0.8 . 0.7 1.6 0.3 0.7 2.9 7.7 5.0 6.5 9.1 6.6 10.0 13.7 9.7 6.8
with private toilet
One-story house
1.6 4.7 7.3 6.6 7.0 8.3 7.6 8.5 9.5 9.4 6.7 8.0 3.8 5.8 11.4 8.0 10.3 8.2 7.3 5.1 8.9 7.6
with separate toilet
Semi-permanent house 46.3 59.7 61.2 61.5 61.0 64.7 67.5 70.5 65.5 69.1 61.8 45.5 62.7 60.8 58.7 51.9 47.7 46.2 46.8 43.6 30.4 50.0
Temporary house 51.8 35.0 31.3 29.4 31.6 26.3 20.9 19.6 19.2 14.1 29.4 41.5 25.5 13.6 12.0 10.6 10.5 6.1 1.7 2.2 1.1 13.9
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Ta b le VN9. VIETN
VIETNAM centa
percenta
AM – Types of housing: per centagges b
byy per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpendituree decile
decile,,
and mean per centa
percenta
centag or all types in eac
ge ffor h decile: 1998
each
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Type of house
City house+garden . . . . . . . . . 100 100 . . . . . . . 18.0 . 82.0 100
Multistoried house T1 5.3 12.0 . 8.7 . . . 10.1 9.0 54.9 100 1.1 2.5 3.5 3.1 7.8 9.9 16.6 16.0 18.0 21.4 100
93
Multistoried house T2 . 1.4 1.7 17.6 3.6 5.2 23.1 5.4 29.3 12.7 100 7.2 3.2 12.8 15.5 19.7 10.3 12.9 8.9 4.9 4.5 100
One-story house
8.6 . . . . . 27.7 . 20.8 42.9 100 1.4 4.7 11.6 7.6 9.6 12.7 9.9 13.4 18 11.2 100
with private toilet
One-story house
2.9 8.2 12.5 10.8 10.7 11.7 10.7 10.9 11.5 10.2 100 13.6 5.4 7.8 15.3 10.5 12.9 10.9 8.6 5.9 9.1 100
with separate toilet
Semi-permanent house 9.2 11.4 11.4 11.0 10.1 9.9 10.2 9.8 8.7 8.2 100 11.8 13.7 12.5 12.0 10.4 9.1 9.4 8.5 7.8 4.8 100
Temporary house 21.8 14.1 12.3 11.0 11.1 8.5 6.7 5.7 5.3 3.5 100 38.6 20.1 10.0 8.8 7.6 7.2 4.4 1.1 1.4 0.6 100

Ta b le VN10. VIETN AM – F
VIETNAM For ur
or rrur
ural or urban localities
al and ffor localities,,
or non-poor and ffor
types of housing (%) ffor or poor households
households,,
Annexes
and means ffor or both localities: 1998
Rural Urban
94
Type of house
City house+garden 0 . 0 0.3 . 0.3
Multistoried house T1 0.6 0.3 0.5 17.7 1.3 16.2
Multistoried house T2 2.0 0.4 1.3 5.5 2.4 5.2
One-story house with private toilet 0.5 0.1 0.3 7.5 0.5 6.8
One-story house with separate toilet 8.4 4.7 6.7 7.8 6.3 7.6
Semi-permanent house 66.5 56.3 61.8 50.7 42.7 50.0
Temporary house 22.0 38.2 29.4 10.6 46.8 13.9
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Rural Urban
Non-poor Poor Total Non-poor Poor Total
Type of house
City house+garden 100 . 100 100 . 100
Multistoried house T1 74.1 25.9 100 99.3 0.7 100
Multistoried house T2 84.8 15.2 100 95.7 4.3 100
One-story house with private toilet 91.4 8.6 100 99.4 0.6 100
One-story house with separate toilet 68 32 100 92.4 7.6 100
Semi-permanent house 58.6 41.4 100 92.2 7.8 100
Temporary house 40.8 59.2 100 69.1 30.9 100
Total 54.5 45.5 100 90.8 9.2 100

Ta b le VN11. VIETN
VIETNAM walls
AM – Types of w or eac
alls (%) ffor eachh per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpenditure e decile
decile,,
and mean per centa
percenta
centag or total deciles
ges ffor ur
ural/urban:
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Type of walls
Other 3.3 1.7 1.2 3.2 0.7 1.6 0.6 0 0.7 0.4 1.5 3.9 0.4 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.1 0.7 . . . 1.4
Concrete 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 2.6 2.2 0.8 0.6 2.8 2.4 1.9 3.2 6.3 3.5 9.1 8.9 7.4 4.3
Brick, stone 27.8 39.4 47.7 46.2 47.8 51.7 60.1 57.7 61.5 66.2 49.0 52.7 60.6 72.7 77.1 76.2 78.4 85.1 86.0 85.2 87.9 74.9
Unfired brick 4.8 8.0 5.8 5.3 7.4 7.7 6.6 4.2 3.4 4.9 5.9 5.6 6.5 6.7 4.9 9.4 4.4 4.4 1.4 3.9 3.1 5.1
Earth 16.2 10.5 5.1 7.9 6.5 5.0 5.9 2.8 3.3 1.1 7.0 5.7 2.6 1.3 2.3 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.8 . . 1.6
Iron 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.1 1.7 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.7 2.4 1.9 1.3 0.5 . . 1.3 0.8 . 0.5 1.0
Wood 13.7 13.2 13.4 14.9 13.4 13.2 9.3 18.6 15.2 16.5 14.0 6.9 7.7 5.4 6.7 3.3 6.3 2.7 1.9 1.0 1.1 4.5
Bamboo 23.2 10.3 11.1 7.9 7.2 3.9 3.6 3.8 2.6 2.9 8.4 4.8 6.8 2.0 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.6 . 0.3 . 1.9
Leaves/branches 10.3 16.3 14.8 13.9 15.9 15.0 11.4 11.3 9.4 5.2 12.7 17.3 10.6 5.7 3.3 5.2 2.4 1.4 . 0.7 . 5.3
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Ta b le VN12. VIETN
VIETNAM or eac
oofs (%) ffor
AM – Types of rroofs eachh per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
xpenditure e decile
decile,,
and mean per centa
percenta
centag or total deciles
ges ffor ur
ural/urban:
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Type of roof
Cement 1.5 3.9 7.3 8.3 7.7 8.0 9.6 7.8 13.2 12.5 7.5 11.7 10.1 18.3 23.8 28.9 31.0 32.5 29.9 32.3 38.4 24.7
95
Tile 44.1 51.6 56.9 53.9 53.5 56.7 57.8 58.8 51.8 49.8 53.3 31.9 36.4 39.1 33.7 30.1 22.5 17.9 18.9 11.9 11.6 26.2
Iron 6.3 8.7 7.3 8.0 10.4 10.8 10.9 13.2 20.1 22.1 11.0 25.6 32.8 29.3 31.6 30.8 36.9 42.7 39.5 50.5 41.7 35.5
Panles 0.7 2.9 3.5 4.8 4.4 3.1 5.8 5.0 4.7 5.7 3.9 9.6 5.2 9.2 3.2 5.6 7.5 5.0 10.5 4.4 7.1 6.8
Canvas 0.2 0.1 0.2 . 0.1 0.1 . 0 0.4 . 0.1 0.8 . . 0.7 . . . . . 1.2 0.3
Wood, bamboo 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.8 . 0.3 0.2 0.1 . 0.3 0.4 . 0.3 . . . . . . 0.6 . 0.1
Straw, leaves 46.4 32.2 24.4 24.2 23.8 20.5 15.6 15.0 9.8 9.5 23.7 20.0 15.1 3.7 6.2 4.7 2.1 2.0 1.2 0.3 . 6.3
Other . . . . . 0.5 . . . . 0 0.5 . 0.4 0.7 . . . . . . 0.2
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Annexes
Ta b le VN13. VIETN AM – Household c
VIETNAM har
char acteristics
haracteristics
acteristics,,
by pover
pov ty sta
erty tus ur
tus,, rrur
status al/urban: 1998
ural/urban:
Non-poor Poor Mean*
96
Poverty Head Count (%) Rooms per person
Rural 0.455 Rural 2.32 3.06 2.68
Urban 0.092 Urban 1.92 3.27 2.07
Mean, total population 0.374

Number of children, total Living area, m2 pp
Rural 1.93 2.89 2.37 Rural 10.97 7.66 9.46
Urban 1.46 3.05 1.61 Urban 10.82 6.00 10.37
Total 1.78 2.90 2.20

Number of children among hhs with children Total area, m2 pp
Rural 2.32 3.06 2.68 Rural 16.84 11.38 14.36
Urban 1.92 3.27 2.07 Urban 15.70 8.85 15.07
Non-poor Poor Mean* *for total population sampled, all deciles
HH size
Rural 5.11 6.08 5.55
Urban 5.07 6.76 5.22
AM – Types of lighting (%)
VIETNAM
Ta b le VN14. VIETN
pita e
capita
by per ca xpenditur
expenditur
decile,, rrur al/urban: 1998
ural/urban:
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Type of lighting
Electricity 47 57.6 68.1 69.8 69.6 73.2 83.3 77.3 85.7 93.0 70.5 94.3 95.5 97.0 99.1 99.2 99.6 99.5 100 100 100 98.2
Battery lamp 1.5 0.1 1.0 2.2 2.4 2.1 0.8 2.8 3.1 2.0 1.7 . . 1.2 0.4 . . 0.5 . . . 0.2
Gas, oil, kerosene lamp 49.3 41.6 29.6 25.6 27.6 22.5 15.5 19.2 10 4.5 26.5 5.7 4.5 1.8 0.5 0.8 0.4 . . . . 1.6
Other 2.2 0.7 1.3 2.3 0.4 2.2 0.4 0.7 1.3 0.5 1.2 . . . . . . . . . . .
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Type of lighting
Electricity 8.2 9.7 11.2 10.9 10.2 9.8 11.1 9.4 9.9 9.6 100 12.4 10.7 10.1 10.3 10.1 9.7 10.3 9.3 9.1 8.0 100
Battery lamp 10.8 0.9 6.8 14.2 14.4 11.7 4.3 14.1 14.5 8.4 100 . . 56.3 18.8 . . 25.0 . . . 100
Gas, oil, kerosene lamp 23.0 18.6 12.9 10.7 10.7 8.0 5.5 6.2 3.1 1.3 100 46.8 30.9 11.7 3.1 5.0 2.5 . . . . 100
Other 21.9 6.2 12.0 20.3 3.5 17.0 2.9 4.6 8.6 3.1 100 . . . . . . . . . . .
AM – Sour
VIETNAM
Ta ble VN15. VIETN ces of drinking w
Sources waater (%)
for eac
eachh pover
pov ty sta
erty tus
status ur
ural/urban:
Rural Urban
Non-poor Poor Mean Non-poor Poor Mean
Source of drinking water
97
Inside private tap 1.3 0.8 1.1 46.5 8.2 43
Outside private tap 0.7 0.3 0.5 10.2 8.3 10

Public standpipe 0.3 0.3 0.3 4.7 5.7 4.8
Deep drilled well with pump 18.1 7.9 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.6
Hand-dug well 39.8 43.2 41.4 11.5 27.2 12.9
Filtered spring water 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 . 0.1
Other well 8.9 12 10.3 2.5 7.4 3
Rain water 14.6 10.2 12.6 4.2 14 5.1
River, lake, pond 13.1 16.6 14.7 2.9 4.9 3.1
Container water 0.2 0.2 0.2 . . .
Other 2.5 8 5 3.9 10.6 4.5
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
VIETNAM
Ta ble VN16. VIETN ces of drinking w
Sources
AM – Sour waater (%)
each
within eac h per ca pita e
capita xpenditur
expenditur
ural/urban:
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Source
of drinking water
Annexes
Inside private tap 0.7 1.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 1.1 1.0 1.5 2.3 2.4 1.1 10.2 20.5 26.0 30.0 42.3 51.6 59.2 62.1 76.3 77.0 43.0
Outside private tap 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 9.3 11.9 10.1 15.1 11.1 10.3 10.6 7.4 6.5 6.7 10.0
Public standpipe 0.4 . 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.2 . . 0.4 0.2 0.3 8.0 5.7 4.5 5.1 6.9 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.2 2.0 4.8
Deep drilled well
98
5.0 8.9 9.9 10.2 12.6 15.4 16.0 17.2 19.6 30.3 13.5 11.6 13.9 12.9 17.2 18.6 12.0 14.9 13.9 9.9 10.8 13.6
with pump
Hand-dug well 41.0 45.1 42.5 45.6 44.2 41.6 42.9 41.1 33.9 30.0 41.4 23.9 19.3 18.7 20.6 11.5 12.0 7.0 5.1 1.0 1.3 12.9
Filtered spring water 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.4 . 1.0 0.1 0.5 . . . . . 0.6 . . . . 0.1
Other well 13.6 13.7 9.1 9.6 8.9 9.7 7.7 8.8 8.6 11.7 10.3 7.1 2.7 4.6 3.1 1.2 3.1 1.4 3.2 1.2 . 3.0
Rain water 7.3 10.0 14.3 12.3 11.2 11.6 18.6 13.7 16.8 12.9 12.6 12.2 9.2 11.3 3.9 3.9 2.3 1.6 1.5 . . 5.1
River, lake, pond 18.1 13.7 16.9 15 16.5 15.4 10.8 15.3 13.6 8.9 14.7 6.4 9.5 5.2 1.5 2.6 1.8 0.8 . . . 3.1
Container water . 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 . . 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . .
Other 12.8 6.8 5.6 5.0 4.3 4.0 1.6 1.6 2.2 2.0 5.0 11.3 7.3 6.7 3.6 1.9 2.9 1.0 3.3 1.9 2.1 4.5
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
VIETNAM
Ta b le VN17. VIETN AM – Types of toilets (%)
within eac
each pita e
capita
h per ca xpenditur
expenditur
ural/urban:
Rural Urban
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean*
Type of toilet
Flush toilet
. 0.3 0.6 0.8 2.4 2.4 4.2 4.6 7.1 22.6 3.7 26.1 37.8 46.5 51.9 61.9 68.0 81.4 81.5 90.8 94.8 61.5
with septic tank
Double vault
3.2 5.0 6.7 8.3 9.5 11.8 14.9 17.2 17.1 15.9 10.2 2.8 10.6 8.0 9.0 14.1 7.8 4.8 6.0 3.4 2.1 6.9
compost latrine
Simple toilet 48.8 47.6 54.4 50.6 47.2 43.3 47.2 39.0 40.0 36.6 46.2 35.0 28.1 26.4 20.7 8.3 12.1 3.1 3.3 2.9 0.9 15.4
Toilet directly
6.8 11.5 12.0 14.1 13.3 13.0 10.8 17.7 15.5 11.9 12.4 4.7 3.3 2.8 1.4 4.5 3.1 1.2 1.1 0.3 1.1 2.5
over the water
Other type 6.2 6.0 4.8 4.8 4.0 4.6 5.7 5.2 4.6 5.4 5.2 . 0.6 1.2 2.0 1.3 1.5 1.3 0.8 0.4 1.1 1.0
No toilet 35.1 29.6 21.4 21.4 23.6 24.9 17.2 16.4 15.8 7.7 22.3 31.4 19.6 15.2 15.1 9.9 7.4 8.2 7.4 2.3 . 12.7
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

AM – Type of toilet (%)
VIETNAM
Ta ble VN18. VIETN
by pover
pov ty sta
erty tus
status ur al/urban: 1998
ural/urban:
tus,, rrur
Distribution within Poverty Status
Rural Urban
Non-poor Poor Mean Non-poor Poor Mean
Type of toilet
Flush toilet
6.2 0.6 3.7 65.4 23.6 61.5
with septic tank
Double vault
14.3 5.3 10.2 7.3 2.9 6.9
compost latrine
Simple toilet 43.3 49.7 46.2 13.7 32.2 15.4
Toilet directly
13.5 11.1 12.4 2.4 2.7 2.5
over the water
Other type 4.9 5.5 5.2 1.1 . 1.0
No toilet 17.8 27.7 22.3 10.1 38.6 12.7
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Distribution across Poverty Status

Rural Urban
Non-poor Poor Total Non-poor Poor Total
Type of toilet
Flush toilet
with septic tank 92.1 7.9 100 96.5 3.5 100
Double vault
compost latrine 76.1 23.9 100 96.1 3.9 100
99
Simple toilet 51 49 100 80.8 19.2 100

Toilet directly
over the water 59.3 40.7 100 90.1 9.9 100
Other type 51.5 48.5 100 100 . 100
No toilet 43.5 56.5 100 72.2 27.8 100

Urban Poverty in East Asia

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Urban Poverty in East Asia

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

East Asia Urban Working Paper Series

Urban Poverty in East Asia

PART ONE: THE CONTEXT OF URBAN POVERTY 1

C. The Urban Economic Context 7

D. Implications of Demographic and Economic Changes for Urban Poverty 11

PART TWO: AN ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE INFORMATION 19

C. Demographic Profile of the Urban Poor 23

D. Labor and Human Capital Assets 25

E. Physical Assets: Housing, Land and Infrastructure 29

F. Insecurity and Urban Poverty 36

PART THREE: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY, INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT,

Executive Summary viii

Ta ble I.2. Historic and Recent Tr ends in Urbaniza

Trend in Urban Population Shares Trend in Growth Rate of Urban Population

1.9 Characterizations of “urban” populations of course depend on the definitions

1.14 Research on a large 50 Asia

sample of cities of different 40 Eastern Asia

21) Webster, op cit., p. 1.

25) Suryahadi, Sumarto, Suharso and Pritchett (2000), Table 8.

28) Lucas, op. cit.; de Haan (2000).

31) J-M. Cour, 2001.

1.44 Urban poverty continues to be well below Ta b le I.5. Indonesia: Comparisons of R ur

Source: SUSENAS 1999 household survey.

43) Minot and Baulch, p. 9.

49) Philippines PA, Chapter 2.

10 poor than of the rural poor(Table VN2). Only in

57) Minot and Baulch, p. 9.

71) Vietnam PA, Table 3.6.

modestly better than that of the rural poor. 10

Almost half of the urban poor live in temporary 0

77) Lim et al., 2000.

79) Philippines PA, Chap. 1.

82) Hardoy, Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 2001

2.54 Shared facilities and Figur

Box II.1 T he costs of inadequa

dumpsite (Payatas) collapsed on squatters’ houses, killing dozens of people.86 Untreated

86) Washington Post, July 11, 2000.

92) Barter, op cit.

98) Craig et al., p. 34.

102) Indonesia Poverty Assessment, Box A2.1.

112) Craig et al., 2001.

The tables show:

Nepal Pokhara 20.0 23.0 0.11

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

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

Nepal Pokhara 76.0 9.0 14.0 1.0 21.6 34.0

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

Households Connections (%) Solid Waste Disposal (%)

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

Sri Lanka Colombo 25 23.7 8.1 65.0 3.2

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

Per Capita Expenditure Deciles

* for total population sampled, all groups

For Each Level, Percentage in Each Decile

* for total population sampled, all levels or deciles

Type of School Per Capita Expenditure Deciles

Per Capita Expenditure Deciles

Per Capita Expenditure Deciles

Earth 14.5 34.9 21.2 1.6 9.2 2.8

* for total population sampled

* for total population sampled, all deciles

* for total population sampled, all deciles

* for total population sampled

* for total population sampled, all deciles