EU Statistics on the Incomes of Agricultural Households the State of Data Systems in Member

WYE CITY GROUP ON STATISTICS ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRICULTURE HOUSEHOLD INCOME Second Meeting Italy, Rome, 11-12 June 2009 FAO Head-Quarters

SESSION 1: SOME ISSUES IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME STATISTICS FOR COUNTRIES AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF DEVELOPMENT (IN VIEW OF UP-DATING THE HANDBOOK) CHANGING RURAL PARADIGM: EMERGING ISSUES AND DATA NEEDS

TOPIC 5 Discussion on the Handbook – Overview of the Handbook up-date Berkeley Hill and Jan Karlsson1

Abstract

1. Introduction

At the conclusion of the first Wye Group meeting (York, 2008) several issues related to the Handbook were identified that should be progressed at the second meeting to be held in 2009. These fell into two categories.

A. Revisions of the handbook that are designed to update it generally.

Specific items that were identified included the following:  A stronger focus on poverty (for countries at all levels of development). Other discussions linked poverty with rural income and well-being, and measures of unemployment were also mentioned. There was a need to make improvements in each of these related areas;  A more detailed treatment of the classification of rurality of geographical locations (with case studies). It was suggested that a useful addition to the handbook would be to include detailed case studies of how rural definitions are developed. The UK’s England and Wales definition was suggested as a possibility (an approach appropriate in relatively densely populated regions where rural land use takes place in proximity to urban centres);  Clarification of terminology used about statistics within the process of rural development (e.g. statistics relating to inputs, outputs, results, impacts and outcomes);  The need to recognise the complexity of the farm concept and forms of ownership. For example, further consideration should be given to households on farms that have their own legal status or have other forms of non-personal operators. Multiple-ownership was a factor relevant (in different ways) at various levels of economic development;  Expansion in the number of case-studies in those parts of the handbook that are structured to receive them (e.g. rural statistics in Poland, early results from the EU-SILC project, and data sources on agricultural household incomes in EU Member States);  Changes that would facilitate better links between users and providers of statistics.

The responsibility for proposing updates to the Handbook at the 2009 Rome meeting and organising the session in which these were discussed was given to the editors of the 2005/2007 Handbook.

1 Berkeley Hill is Emeritus Professor, University of London ([email protected]). Jan Karlsson was formerly the chief of economic statistics with the UNECE, Geneva ([email protected]). 1 B. Actions and revisions of the handbook to increase its utility to developing countries (arising from the work of the sub-group established under point 3.1 of the York meeting minutes).

It was agreed that the Handbook could be expanded to have a much deeper coverage of developing countries, though recognition had to be given to the very diverse nature of such countries and in their statistical capacities and needs. This expansion was to include the revision of the sections on indicators (following the World Bank report that formed an element of Session 1 of the York meeting), general principles of planning statistical systems for rural areas (core indicators etc.) and problems of measuring living standards in developing countries.

It was proposed that a sub-group comprising experts on developing countries along with some of those involved in writing the Handbook would be formed to take these issues further forward. The subgroup consists of members from FAO, World Bank, DFID, LEI Netherlands, Imperial College London, with responsibility for organising it being given to FAO.

B.1 Illustration of the scarcity of relevant data in developing countries

The availability of data is a universal constraint in the choice of indicators for operational information systems on rural areas and the income situation of farm families. In 2008, an independent evaluation of FAO’s role and work in statistics highlighted the difficulties of receiving reliable data from developing countries. The following quotations from the evaluation give a good illustration of the problems:

“Ensuring the quality of the data in FAO statistical products has been a major challenge because the availability of reliable data can vary greatly among countries and even within countries. In 1997, an ESS paper estimated that only 16 out of 54 countries in Africa had reliable basic statistics (for crops and livestock). Similarly, a review of FAOSTAT in 2001 indicated that 30 countries worldwide lacked relevant statistics for five or even ten years.2 In FAOSTAT, missing official or semi-official data must be estimated through various available techniques. The continuing problem of low data quality is a major concern for FAO, which needs to have comprehensive and reliable data coverage. Based on current data from ESS, the Evaluation Team found that submissions of official production data and official trade data from countries in Africa are at their lowest level since 1961, at 26% and 66% respectively (Figures 3.2 and 3.3). Submissions of production data from countries in Asia Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean have also been on the decline over the last 10 years. Figure 3.2: Crop Production Data for Africa Figure 3.3: Trade Data for Africa

Source of Crop Production Data for Africa Source of Trade Data for Africa

70 100

90 60 80

60 t t 40 n n e e c

c 50 r r e e P P 30 40

20 30 20 10 10

Year Year

ESTIMATES OFFICIAL Semi_Officia ESTIMATES OFFICIAL Semi_Officia

The Evaluation Team concluded that the current situation is a reflection of a few inter-related circumstances: 2 Evaluation of Programme 2.2.2 (Food and Agriculture Information) Activities related to agricultural statistics, May 2003, page13, para. 32. 2  The lack of country capacity to collect basic data on agriculture following a period of deterioration in overall national statistical capacity.  The low priority given in the past by FAO to work with countries in improving the quantity and quality of their data submissions.  A limited field presence (both at country and regional level) and poor networking with member countries and partners to keep FAO and the countries and partners themselves abreast of recent developments.”

Another illustration of the problems of constructing indicators in developing countries due to scarcity of available data sources is found in the World Bank and FAO study: Indicators fro Tracking Results in Less-than-ideal Conditions (2008). Besides methodological surveys, in-depth studies were carried out for the following five countries: Cambodia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Senegal and Tanzania. A menu of core indicators was set up containing a total of 145 indicators, see table 1. The availability of indicators in the five countries on a total basis amounted to 28% in Camboia, 39% in Nicaragua, 39% in Nigeria, 27% in Senegal and 19% in Tanzania. Out of 27 core agriculture and rural development indicators Cambodia and Nicaragua could provide 8, Nigeria 11, Senegal 10 and Tanzania only 4.

Table 1 Availablity of indicators in selected developing countries

No. of Class of indicator indicators Cambodja Nicaragua Nigeria Senegal Tanzania A Core Ag. And rural dev. indicators 27 8 8 11 10 4 B Agribusiness and market development 16 3 4 3 2 2 C Community-based rural development 9 2 4 2 D Fisheries 7 2 2 1 1 E Forestry 16 5 3 3 5 3 F Livestock 8 4 4 6 5 1 G Policies and institutions 19 6 11 11 7 6 H Reserach and extension 10 4 3 4 I Rural Finance 8 1 6 6 1 5 J Sustainable land and crop management 8 6 6 5 2 K Water resource managment 17 1 7 3 6 4 Grand total 145 40 56 57 39 27 Percentage share of grand total 27.6 38.6 39.3 26.9 18.6 Source: Wolrd Bank and FAO: Indicators for Tracking Results in less-than-ideal Conditions

The examples given above clearly speak in favour of being very careful in suggesting in setting up ideal lists of indicators and instead taking a pragmatic view of suggesting indicators that actually can be produced from available data sources.

For the 2005/2007 Handbook extensive questionnaire surveys were carried out in UNECE/OECD countries concerning availability of statistics on rural development and income of agriculture households and their components, see Annex I. For developing countries surveys were only carried out for a limited number of countries and, because of lack of time, these were rather rudimentary (see Chapter XIII.2.2 of the Handbook). As the update of the Handbook will have a focus on developing countries it might be a good idea to carry out a more thorough survey of these countries, based on the questionnaires used for the UNECE/OECD countries, with some necessary modifications

2 Procedure for making changes to the Handbook3

3 In addition to the Handbook but related to it, mention was made of a number of possible supplementary Reports to deal with specific issues. Also a Supplement to the Handbook was discussed, specifically to deal with the treatment of developing countries. 3 It was agreed at York in 2008 that for both improvements to the Handbook falling into A and B the 2009 Rome meeting would be required to ratify (a) the list of items that are to be addressed, (b) designate authors, (c) arrange for an editorial process to take place, and (d) make provision for the incorporation of new text in the electronic version of the handbook on the FAO website (which may be printed as hard copy at a later stage).

Proposals for changes in the content of the Handbook, item (a), are dealt with separately below. In terms of the other items the proposals are as follows:

 The appointment of an Editorial Panel, comprising a General Editor and two Specialist Editors, one to cover OECD countries and the second to cover developing country issues. The latter is expected to have experience in working in such countries or international institutions dealing with them.  The Editorial Panel would be responsible for arranging for authors to contribute and for editing their work to a form that is compatible with the Handbook. However, suggestions of people who could be potential authors can come from any member of the Wye City Group and need not be confined to it.  The Editorial Panel would be responsible for setting a specific timetable within a general framework agreed by the Wye City Group (see section 4 below).  FAO should be responsible for incorporating new text agreed by the Editorial Panel into the electronic version of the Handbook. This should contain information on the date of last revision.

3 Changes proposed for the Handbook

In terms of improvements falling into A, this paper contains in specific proposals for making changes to the Handbook in line with the intentions outlined in York. These are given in BOLD CAPITALS on the Table of Contents that forms the Annex II to this short paper. In a few cases the names of proposed authors of the basic material are attached (their contributions will, of course, be edited). Some of these additions are of general application, irrespective of the level of development of individual countries.

However, for those changes falling into B, relating specifically to developing countries, the situation is more complex. In reality, the sub-group that was given the responsibility at York for carrying issues forward for developing countries has not met or deliberated, so the Rome meeting has to give consideration as to how this situation can be resolved. Consequently, only indicative suggestions for changes have been shown in the Annex II, and are in ITALIC CAPITALS.

As for the text on World Bank, FAO, Eurostat and OECD activities, each organization would have to provide the necessary updates and additions.

It is understood that any changes and additions to the main text of the Handbook will need to be reflected in the Executive Summary, Introduction and Background, and other sections as is appropriate. This is the responsibility of the general editors.

4 Necessary steps to carry the Handbook forward

We have identified several steps that are necessary if the Handbook is to be taken forward in an efficient manner. We ask the Wye City Group to resolve the following:

4  To confirm the concept of an Editorial Panel, and to consider who might act as Specialist Editor for material relating to developing countries. The editors of the 2005/2007 Handbook (Hill and Karlsson) have indicated a willingness to continue their previous roles. There may be an issue of providing resources to enable the Editorial Panel to function.  To set a date for a meeting of the sub-group charged with clarifying the issues for developing countries (FAO, World Bank, DFID, LEI Netherlands, Imperial College London). This might be an electronic meeting.  To comment on the proposed improvements already listed (see Annex II).  To establish a mechanism that invites further suggestions for updating the Handbook, and the principle that these are to be channelled via the Editorial Panel.  To consider the proposal by the Editors for further electronic survey(s) of developing countries, as a means to update the Handbook and make it more comprehensive.  To consider who will author new sections and revise existing ones, and to confirm the role of the Editorial Panel to deal with unresolved issues concerning authorship where this is impractical to consult the full Wye City Group.  To set a timetable for updating the Handbook, and the amount of progress to be achieved by the next meeting of the Wye City Group.

5 Annex I

Rural Development Statistics Questionnaire

Rural development statistics

1) Which organisation(s) is/are responsible for statistics on rural areas?

2) What variable(s) is/are used to distinguish rural from non-rural areas?

3) Are there any subdivisions of rural areas relating to the degree of rurality?

4) What is the threshold value that classifies an area as rural?

5) What is the smallest territorial unit/area on which the definition of rural is based i.e. postcode areas, community districts, communities, districts or regions?

6) What is the percentage of the population that are classified to live in rural areas?

7) What is the percentage of the total land area that is classified as rural?

8) Is there a set of core indicators used to monitor rural development policy?

9) Can rural development statistics be found on the Internet and if so where?

Availability of statistics for small areas

10) What is the smallest area for which statistics are available and what is the average size of this area (e.g. average population size, average area, range of population sizes or range of area)?

11) What statistics are available for this smallest area?

12) Are statistics on urban settlements/urban land use available?

Rural Development Policy

13) Which organization(s) is/are responsible for rural development policy?

14) What are the aims/objectives of rural development policies?

15) What are the main themes of rural development?

6 Questionnaire concerning income of agriculture households

Please provide notes for your country concerning the issues below.

1. Definition of a household, agriculture household and rural household

2. Criteria for classification of households into socio - professional groups (“narrow” target definition), e.g. based on the main source of income of the household’s reference person.

3. Mechanism used to introduce short - term stability in numbers of agricultural households, e.g., the use of average incomes over several years.

4. Treatment of forestry and/or fishery households. Are they included in agriculture households?

5. “Broad”definition of an agricultural household, e.g. households that derive some income from independent activity in agriculture. If such a definition is used please indicate thresholds.

6. Treatment of non - personal form of institution in the household sector (religious houses, farming co - operatives and similar institutions)

7. Treatment of holdings operated as corporate institutions but de facto run as family businesses

8. The equivalence scale used to give consumer units. There are differences in the age at which the coefficient for children or elderly persons is replaced by that for additional adults. Please give details on the equivalence scale used to estimate numbers of consumer units.

9. The basis of estimating the value of own - consumption (of agricultural and non - agricultural goods and services), e.g. valued at the basic price of similar goods sold on the market.

10. The basis of calculating the imputed rental value of own dwellings, e.g. the estimated value of rental that a tenant would pay for the same accommodation.

11. Calculation of Net Disposable Income of Agriculture Households: Indication of items covered Please indicate in the table below with the following symbols. y = yes, explicit data * = implied data covered elsewhere (y) and (*) = covered in part @ = gross of capital consumption

Please indicate with symbols above No. households No. persons No. consumer units 1 FROM INDEPENDENT ACTIVITY 1a From independent agricultural activity Net Operating Surplus Income 1b From independent non-agricultural activity Net Operating Surplus Income 1c Net Operating Surplus from imputed rental value of owner- dwellings 2 DEPENDENT ACTIVITY of which 2a Wages and salaries 7 2b Employers’ actual social contributions 2c Imputed social contributions 3 PROPERTY INCOME RECEIVED of which 3a Interest 3b Dividends 3c Withdrawals from quasi-corporations 3d Property income attributed to insurance policy holders 3e Rents on land and subsoil assets 4 NON-LIFE INSURANCE CLAIMS 4a Claims on capital items 4b claims on personal accident 5 SOCIAL BENEFITS received (other than social transfers in kind) 6 MISCELLANEOUS INWARD CURRENT TRANSFERS 7 CURRENT RECEIPTS Sum of 1-6 8 PROPERTY INCOME PAID of which 8a Interest on loans for (i) farming purposes (ii) purchase of agr. Land and buildings (iii) other business purposes (iv) private and other credit 8b Rents on (i) agricultural land and buildings (ii) other business land and buildings 9 NET NON-LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS 10 CURRENT TAXES ON INCOMES AND WEALTH of which 10a on income 10b on capital gains 10c on capital or wealth 10d on private use of vehicles etc. 11 SOCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS of which 11a Actual (i) employers’ actual social contributions (ii) employees’ social contributions (iii) by self-employed and non-employed persons 11b Imputed 12 MISCELLANEOUS OUTGOING CURRENT TRANSFERS of which 12a to NPISHs 12b between households 12c other 13 NET DISPOSABLE INCOME (7 minus 8-12) OR ANOTHER DEFINED CONCEPT 14 SOCIAL TRANSFERS IN KIND 15 NET ADJUSTED DISPOSABLE INCOME

8 ANNEX II (FROM THE UNECE/OECD/Eurostat/FAO HANDBOOK 2005-2007)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND I.1 Background to the Handbook I.1.1 Why is the Handbook being produced? I.1.2 Who is the Handbook intended for? I.1.3 The role of statistics I.1.4 EVALUATING STATISTICS AND STATISTICAL SYSTEMS (authors - the Editorial Panel) I.2 What is rural development and why is it a policy area? I.3 Rural development – policy objectives I.4 Why a particular focus on agriculture household income and wealth? I.5 Agriculture households, their incomes and policy objectives

PART I RURAL DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

II NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES II.1 A few examples of national rural development policies II.2 Rural development - a sectoral based (agriculture) approach II.2.1 The agriculture perspective II.2.2 Trends in agriculture in the last 50 years – employment and productivity II.2.3 The current situation for agriculture II.2.4 Other characteristics of agriculture II.2.5 Perspectives on agricultural policy reform and the rural economy II.2.6 The farm policy dilemma II.3 Rural development - a territorial based approach II.3.1 Employment – the driving force of rural development II.3.2 Trends for rural regions II.3.3 Entrepreneurship and job creation in rural areas II.3.4 Are manufacturing and services now the pillars of rural development? II.3.5 Merging industry sectors II.3.6 Industrial structures and characteristics of rural and urban economies II.3.7 Sectoral mix and territorial dynamics II.3.8 Education and employment in rural regions: ISSUES IN MEASURING UNEMPLOYMENT (author ?) II.3.9 The role of tourism II.3.10 The importance of communications II.3.11 The role of information technology for rural development II.3.12 Rural services standards II.3.13 Objectives and instruments for rural policies II.3.14 New issues in rural policy-making II.4 Conclusions

III CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK III.1 Definitions of rural III.1.1 Introduction 9 III.1.2 OECD III.1.3 European Union III.1.4 FAO III.I.5 EXAMPLES OF NATIONAL DEFINITIONS BASED ON SMALL AREA STATISTICS – ENGLAND AND WALES (author - Defra, using existing Departmental material) III.2 Typologies III.2.1 OECD III.2.2 European Union III.3 Requirements of indicators and their assessment III.3.1 Introduction TO INCLUDE A REVIEW OF INDICATORS THAT RELATE TO THE CONTEXT OF POLICY, TO BASELINES, AND TO POLICY INPUTS, OUTPUTS, RESULTS AND IMPACTS (OUTCOMES) (author – Hill, using material from the European Commission on EU rural development) III.3.2 OECD III.3.3 European Union III.3.4 FAO III.4 Themes and set of indicators III.4.1 OECD III.4.2 European Union III.4.3 The World Bank III.4.4 FAO III.5 Indicators – use and misuse

IV INVENTORY OF NATIONAL APPROACHES TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS IV.1 Introduction IV.2 Inventory of national rural development statistics IV.3 The definition of rural IV.4 Current availability of rural development and related statistics IV.5 Rural development policy IV.6 Next steps IV.7 Case study: Canada IV.7.1 Introduction IV.7.2 Definitions and typologies IV.7.3 Results IV.7.4 Concluding remarks IV.8 CASE STUDY: ENGLAND RURAL STATISTICS (author – Defra, using material relating to the policy for ‘Sustainable Rural Communities’) IV.9 CASE STUDIES: A NUMBER OF DEVELOPING COUNTRY EXAMPLES. This section may draw on a proposed survey. (author ?)

V INVENTORY OF RURAL INDICATORS BY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS V.1 Introduction – INCLUDING THE BALANCE BETWEEN WHAT IS DESIRABLE AND WHAT IS FEASIBLE WITHING THE CONSTRAINTS OF DATA SOURCES V.2 OECD V.2.1 Introduction V.2.2 Population and migration V.2.3 Economic structure and performance V.2.4 Social well-being and equity V.2.5 Environment and sustainability V.3 European Union V.3.1 Indicators suggested in the PAIS report V.3.2 Indicators suggested in the Hay report V.3.3 Common indicators for monitoring rural development programming – mid-term review. REPLACE WITH BASELINE INDICATORS FOR THE 2007-13 PROGRAMMING PERIOD FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT (author – editors using material from the European Commission) 10 V.3.4 INDICATORS IN THE ANNUAL REPORT ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT (author – editors using material from the European Commission) V.4 The World Bank V.5 FAO

VI DATA SOURCES VI.1 Introduction VI.1.1 ESTIMATION WHERE PRIMARY DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLE VI.2 Population and housing censuses VI.3 Agricultural censuses and surveys VI.4 Household budget surveys VI.4.1 Living Standards Measurement Study surveys – an introduction VI.4.2 International Household Survey Network VI.4.3 Master sampling frames and master samples VI.4.4 Suggested integrated programme of household surveys VI.5 Labour force surveys VI.6 Other survey sources VI.7 Administrative registers VI.7.1 Vital Statistics Records VI.8 Non-official statistics, e.g. from trade associations VI.9 GIS and geo-coded statistics VI.10 COMBINING DATA SETS USING GIS AND SMALL AREA STATISTICS (E.G. UK NEIGHBOURHOOD STATISTICS)(authors – editors using material supplied by the UK Office for National Statistics) VI.11 Conclusions and recommendations

VII APPROACHES IN SELECTING A CORE SET OF INDICATORS VII.1 Introduction VII.2 Two approaches in selecting indicators VII.3 Rural indicators classified by themes VII.4 Measures of rurality VII.4.1 Defining the characteristics of an indicator that deals with rurality VII.4.2 Statistical requirements of a rural indicator VII.4.3 Three dimensions of any indicator VII.4.4 A graduated sequence of rural indicators VII.5 Suggested sets of rural indicators

PART II

AGRICULTURE HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WEALTH

VIII CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK - INTRODUCTION VIII.1 Matching indicators to policy needs in countries at different levels of economic development VIII.1.1 Types of income and wealth statistics needed VIII.2 Households as economic, social and cultural units and as agents for environmental change and conservation – controllers of resources and users of services VIII.3 Concepts of income and wealth and related indicators VIII.4 Households and other forms of institutional units within accounting and statistical systems VIII.4.1 Accounting frameworks VIII.4.2 Accounts for activities and for institutional units VIII.4.3 Activity accounts – agriculture as an activity VIII.4.4 Accounts for institutional units – accounts for farm household-firms VIII.4.5 Where we are in the provision of income indicators taken from institution-based accounts for household-firms

11 IX THE AGRICULTURAL HOUSEHOLD – CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS IX.1 Definition of the household appropriate to accounting and statistics IX.2 Households of different sizes and compositions IX.3 The rural and urban household enterprise IX.4 Definition of the agricultural household-firm (enterprise) and those belonging to other socio- professional groups IX.4.1 Selecting from the “broad” definition of an agricultural household IX.4.2 Some practicalities of classification IX.4.3 Choice of other socio-professional groups with which to compare agricultural households IX.5 Households containing hired labour working in agriculture IX.6 Relevance for Countries with large-scale agricultural enterprises with separate legal status SUBSISTENCE PRODUCERS IX.7 Households in less-developed countries IX.8 Typologies of farm-households IX.8.1 European Union: Eurostat’s IAHS statistics typology IX.8.2 Economic Research Service farm typology for the United States IX.8.3 Italy: the ISMEA survey

X DEFINITIONS OF INCOME X.1 Income as factor rewards and as source of consumption spending X.2 Relationship between household resources, income and expenditure X.2.1 Income from self-employment X.2.2 Income in kind X.2.3 Living costs X.3 Individual and Household Incomes X.4 Shadow wage and the non-observed economy X.5 Various income concepts and relationships between them X.5.1 Extended and full incomes X.5.2 The importance of time to income measurement X.5.3 Lifetime income and permanent income hypothesis X.6 Subsidies, preferential tax treatments and income measures X.7 Definitions in use

XI INCOME LEVELS, DISTRIBUTION AND POVERTY XI.1 The assessment of poverty XI.1.1 Social exclusion XI.2 Ways of measuring the incidence of poverty among households XI.2.1 Low-income rate (Cumulative proportions below percentiles of the median) XI.2.2 The low income gap XI.2.3 Relative income level by percentile XI.2.4 Cumulative decile shares – Lorenz curve XI.2.5 Gini coefficient XI.2.6 Sen index XI.2.7 Warning in the interpretation of coefficients XI.3 Poverty lines and inequality measures in practice in agriculture

XII MEASUREMENT AND COMPOSITION OF FARM HOUSEHOLD WEALTH XII.1 Introduction XII.1.1 Wealth of farm households in the U.S. XII.2 Selected uses of farm and household wealth measures XII.3 Differences in wealth measurement for farms and farm operator households XII.4 Connection between farms and households in wealth measurement XII.5 Data to support estimates of household net worth XII.6 Extending analyses of household economic status and well-being

12 XII.7 Measurements and composition of farm household wealth in developing countries XII.7.1 Household enterprises module XII.7.2 Agriculture module XII.7.3 Savings module XII.7.4 Credit modules XII.8 Conclusions

XIII INVENTORY OF METHODOLOGIES USED: AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND WEALTH STATISTICS XIII.1 Data sources for agricultural income statistics – generic sources XIII.1.1 Types of data sources XIII.1.2 EXAMPLES OF DATA SOURCES IN SELECTED COUNRIES XIII.1.2.1 EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER STATES (Hill) XIII.1.2.2 OTHER OECD COUNTRIES (Hill/OECD) XIII.1.2.3 SELECTED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES XIII.2 Survey of definitions and measurement issues in selected countries XIII.2.1 Predominately developed countries (UNECE and OECD countries) XIII.2.1.1 Background XIII.2.1.2 Definition of Household XIII.2.1.3 Definition of agricultural household XIII.2.1.4 Definition of rural household XIII.2.1.5 Treatment of special institutions XIII.2.1.6 Classification into socio-economic groups when using the “narrow” definition on an agricultural household XIII.2.1.7 Short-term stability mechanism XIII.2.1.8 Equivalence scales XIII.2.1.9 Own consumption XIII.2.1.10 Imputed rent XIII.2.1.11 Calculation of net disposable income of agriculture households XIII.2.1.12 Conclusions XIII.2.2 Selected developing countries XIII.2.2.1 Background XIII.2.2.2 Definition of Household XIII.2.2.3 Definition of agricultural household XIII.2.2.4 Classification into socio-economic groups XIII.2.2.5 Short-term stability mechanism XIII.2.2.6 Equivalence Scale XIII.2.2.7 Own consumption XIII.2.2.8 Imputed rent XIII.2.2.9 Calculation of net disposable income of agriculture households

XIV INCOME AND WEALTH STATISTICS FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES XIV.1 United States XIV.1.1 The Agricultural Resources Management Survey (ARMS) XIV.1.2 Agriculture household income and wealth statistics XIV.2 Italy XIV.2.1 The ISMEA survey XIV.2.2 The REA survey and the RICA-REA project XIV.2.3 Survey of Household Income and Wealth XIV.3 CANADA (author – Statistics Canada) XIV.4 DENMARK (author – Denmark Statistics) XIV.5 OTHER COUNTRIES

XV FINDINGS AND GOOD PRACTICES IN STATISTICS ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRICULTURAL HOUSEHOLD INCOMES XV.1 Introduction 13 XV.2 Statistics for rural development XV.2.1 Key issues in rural statistics XV.2.2 Rural measurement problems XV.3 Statistics on the incomes and wealth of agricultural households. XV.3.1 Methodological issues in measuring agricultural household income and wealth XV.3.2 Provision of data – the data system for agricultural household income measurement

ANNEX Annex 1: List of Task Force members [reference from preface] Annex 2: A summary of EU agriculture and rural development policies [reference from chapter II] Annex 3: Results of UNECE survey on methods used for measuring rural development statistics in UNECE/OECD member countries [reference from chapter IV] Annex 4: European Union rural indicators [reference from chapter V] Annex 5: World Bank rural indicators [reference from chapter V] Annex 6: The importance of natural amenities [reference from chapter V] Annex 7: A more formal approach to “full income” [reference from chapter X] Annex 8: Household balance sheet [reference from chapter XII] Annex 9: Results of UNECE survey on methodologies used for measuring agriculture household income statistics in UNECE/OECD member countries [reference from chapter XIII] Annex 10: From agricultural to rural standrad of living surveys [reference from chapter XIII]