80 PSPDiscussion Paper Series Public Disclosure Authorized 19702 November1995
Armenia: A Poverty Profile Public Disclosure Authorized
Jeanine Braithwaite
Public Disclosure Authorized November 1995
Public Disclosure Authorized Poverty and Social Policy Department Human Capital Development and Operations Policy The World Bank This Booklet of Abstracts contains short summaries of recent PSP Discussion Papers; copies of specific papers may be requested from Patricia G. Sanchez via All-in-One. The views expressed in the papers are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy of the Bank. Rather, the papers reflect work in progress. They are intended to make lessons emerging from the current work program available to operational staff quickly and easily, as well as to stimulate discussion and comment. They also serve as the building blocks for subsequent policy and best practice papers. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Armenian team consisted of Ludmila Haratunian, Sasoun Tsirounian, Eva Giulnazarian, and Areg Maksoudian. Special thanks to Ghislaine Delaine, Mark Foley, Christiaan Grootaert, Margaret Grosh, Alexandre Marc, Kalpana Mehra, and Jon Walters for comments and suggestions. I am grateful to Kari Labrie and Precy Lizarondo for document processing. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author, and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors, or to the countries they represent. Any errors are the responsibility of the author alone. Comments can be sent electronically to: [email protected]
iii Al ARMENIA: A POVERTY PROFILE
Contents
I. Introduction ...... 1
II. Poverty Profile ...... 2
Urban And Rural Poverty ...... 2 Family Size And Poverty ...... 4 Children ...... 6 The Elderly ...... 8 Refugees ...... 8 Unemployment ...... 9 Earthquake Zone Residents And Regional Dimensions ...... 11 Gender ...... 12 Consumer Durables And Housing Attributes ...... 13 Sensitivity Analysis And Income-Based Poverty ...... 14
M. Incidence Analysis ...... 15
Humanitarian Assistance...... 15 Cash Transfers ...... 16 Sources Of Wealth And Sustenance ...... 18 Coping Mechanisms ...... 19 Outmigration And Private Remittances ...... 20 Private Land And Village Life ...... 21 Urban Life And The Informal Sector ...... 23
IV. Conclusions ...... 25
V. Technical Appendix: Data And Methodological Issues ...... 25
Pilot Survey Urban Sample ...... 26 Pilot Survey Rural Sample ...... 27 Fieldwork And Data Processing ...... 28 Setting A Poverty Line In Armenia ...... 28 Measuring Income And Expenditures During Hyperinflation In Multiple Currencies ...... 29 Expenditures And Recall Period ...... 30 Income And Recall Period ...... 32 In-Kind Consumption ...... 32 EquivalenceScale ...... 33 Outliers ...... 34
V VI. Text Tables ...... 35
VII. Appendix Tables ...... 58
VIII. Bibliography.85
vi I. INTRODUCTION
1. All the former Soviet Union (FSU) countries inherited a methodologically flawed and biased survey of family income and expenditures (the family budget survey) when the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991. Armenia, alone of the FSU countries, decided to pay for more reliable data on family income and expenditures itself by introducing a pilot survey in 1993-94, through a partnership between Yerevan State University and the Armenian Department of Statistics, paid for by private financing (Save the Children) and out of the State Department of Statistic's limited resources.i Although there are some limitations to the survey (see Technical Appendix), in general, the Armenian pilot survey is a pioneering effort to grapple with questions of income distribution and poverty that many other countries are simply ignoring.
2. The Armenian pilot survey provided the database used to draw this poverty profile, although reference is also made to two accompanying studies: a participatory poverty assessment (Dudwick 1995) and a study of rural poverty and land issues (Holt 1995). Technical issues about the survey and sample are covered in the Technical Appendix. Statistical compilations mentioned in the text are presented in the section on text tables. Other tables generated from the data base are presented in the Statistical Appendix. The basic criteria used in this poverty profile are family expenditures, usually on a per capita (per family member) basis, although other quantitative data are also utilized. Qualitative data are drawn from Dudwick (1995) and Holt (1995).
3. Qualitative studies add an important dimension to standard expenditure and income analysis, although the findings of qualitative studies are not representative for the population as a whole. A poverty assessment draws a poverty line and poverty measurements for the population as a whole, and has to be based on a representative sample survey. However, there are many issues, such as coping strategies and land access, which are omitted or incompletely captured by an income and expenditure survey, but are highlighted in qualitative work. Unless cited to Dudwick (1995) or Holt (1995), all findings herein should be understood to be drawn from the Armenian pilot survey.
4. Due to technical problems with the dispersion of expenditures, a relative poverty line was based on the median, not the mean, of per capita expenditures, since in the urban data set, the mean greatly exceeds the median for per capita expenditures. This is less of a problem with the rural data and is discussed in the Technical Appendix. The relative poverty line used was 40 percent of per capita expenditures for poverty and 15 percent of per capita expenditures for acute poverty (usually referred to as "poor" and "very poor" in the text and tables). Different poverty lines were used in
The World Bankfinanced a longitudinalsurvey in Russiawith co-financingfrom GoskomstatRossii. and subsequentfinancing from US Agencyfor InternationalDevelopment. the urban and rural data sets to reflect the markedly different mean expenditures of the two data sets. Although poverty work often recommends the setting of two different poverty lines for rural and urban poverty (reflecting different prices and costs of living), in the Armenia case, the rural line is much higher than the urban line. since rural expenditures are much larger than urban expenditures during the study period.
5. Macroeconomic conditions were very severe in Armenia during the last two quarters of 1993 and through much of 1994, with one of the sharpest contractions in official GDP and hyperinflation during most of the period, until financial stabilization occurred in the last quarter of ]1994. Living standards have eroded in Armenia more dramatically than in most FSU countries and the period of decline started earlier, even before the break-up of the Soviet Union, due to the economic blockade and armed conflict with Azerbaijan. However, there was some improvement in 1995 thanks to continued macro stability and the successful cease-fire agreement concluded in May 1994. The pilot survey ended before this turn-around, so some improvement in poverty may have been registered in 1995 which is not captured in this poverty profile.
II. POVERTY PROFILE
6. In Armenia, the poor consist primarily of children (35 percent of the poor) and working-age adults. The elderly comprise only 11 percent of the poor. Children aged 18 and under comprised 33 percent of the urban sample and 37 percent of the rural sample populations while the elderly (aged 60 and above) were 11 percent of the urban sample and 10 percent of the rural sample populations. Families with children are the majority of both the urban and rural poor (70 and 63 percent respectively) and very poor (68 and 66 percent respect.ively). Taken as a weighted average of urban and rural families, approximately 27.9 percent of families were poor (26.7 percent of individuals). However, due to the differences in the urban and rural data sets, it is better to consider urban poverty separately from rural. Separate headcounts for the urban and rural data sets are presented below. It is clear, though, that during the study period, urban poverty was generally more severe than rural poverty.
Urban and Rural Poverty
7. The goal of any poverty assessment is to determine how many people are poor and how the poor differ from the non-poor. In Armenia, it is difficult to identify many major factors in the data as measured which differentiate the poor from the non-poor, other than location and whether a person is elderly and living alone. Determination of location as a risk factor for poverty is complicated by the methodological shortcomings of the data set described in the Technical Appendix--while it seems likely that urban poverty is more acute than rural poverty, the household data sets are in fact not strictly comparable, since the rural data includes the imputed value of own consumption of
2 produce and livestock products grown on private plots and private farms, while the urban data exclude this.
8. However, the imputed value of own consumption does not explain all the difference between rural and urban mean income and expenditure. On average. the imputed value of own consumption for rural households was 68 percent of median total expenditures. However, rural mean expenditures exceeded urban by more than 400 percent. A reasonable hypothesis is that urban households are significantly poorer on average than rural households, perhaps reflecting the large number of employed workers who are on short-time or administrative leave, receiving little or no wages.
9. In most income and expenditure surveys, reported expenditures exceed reported income as respondents tend to either not know precisely certain sources of income (such as property income or interest income) or to understate their value. Although this is true for both the urban and rural data sets, a feature of the data is that very poor households reported income about equal to expenditures, while non-poor expenditures were about 40-50 percent higher than income. However, urban non-poor househlold expenditures were 200 percent greater than reported urban income, while rural n1o01- poor expenditures were 90 percent of rural income. This suggests that under-reporting of income was greatest among urban non-poor households, followed by rural non-poor households. This also follows a standard pattern observed in such surveys--the non- poor are more likely to understate their income.
10. Overall, rural income and expenditures were much higher than urban income and expenditures, thus necessitating the setting of two different poverty lines. Onl average rural income was 4 timneshigher than urban income (Table 1). Rural expenditures of very poor and poor households were about 4 times the urban level. although non-poor rural expenditures were less than twice the level of urban non-poor expenditures.
11. Because of the difference in mean expenditures, poverty rates were calculated for urban residents separately from rural. Even so, urban poverty rates were higher than rural poverty rates. Based on different medians, the urban and rural poverty lines were set at 15 percent and 40 percent of per family member per capita expenditures. In urban areas, 19.7 percent of households were very poor (expenditures less than 15 percent of median) and 11 percent of households were poor (expenditures greater than 15 percent but less than 40 percent of median) for a poverty headcount of 30.7 percent. In rural areas, 12 percent of households were very poor and 13 percent were poor, for a poverty headcount of 25 percent. However, if urban families were held to the higher poverty line used for rural families, then 61.5 percent of urban families would have been deemed poor or very poor.
12. In terms of individuals, 30.4 percent (1561) of urban individuals (out of 5129 total) were poor or very poor (see Statistical Annex). In the rural data set, 1127 individuals out of 4941, or 22.8 percent of individuals were poor or very poor.
3 13. In spite of the lack of data on own-consumption for urban families, it is quite likely that urban poverty is worse than rural poverty because even though many urban families do maintain garden plots in suburban areas, overall access to private plots is much more restricted for urban dwellers than rural residents. Approximately 63 percent of urban families in the sample reported that they did not have a private plot of land. Those with land, though, had a higher overall poverty rate (32 percent) than those without land (29.9 percent), but this result is distorted by the lack of urban data on own-consumption. Additionally, it is the elderly and those with heavy child-care responsibilities and few available resources to spend on transportation which are least likely to have access to a suburban garden plot and most likely to be poor.
14. The experience of urban poverty is likely to be more acute than rural poverty, since people who live in urban areas are less likely to have the strong networks of village connections and the tradition of helping out which has been maintained in the countryside. The early experience of the Armenian Assembly and World Bank in setting up Social Investment Fund projects in Armenia attested to the strength of rural solidarity, and the difficulties of generating comparable enthusiasm in urban areas (World Bank 1995).
15. Physically, life in urban areas during the winter is more difficult in several ways than life in rural areas, with conditions in the earthquake zone particularly difficult due to the lack of insulation in temporary housing. Because of the breakdown of district heating, apartment dwellers in urban areas must obtain a stove and fuel in order to heat their flats. In many cases, fuel must be hauled up several flights of stairs (due to the lack of electricity and functioning elevators). Solid fuel supplies are more scarce in urban areas, forcing residents to rely more on liquid fuel for heating. When the electricity is off, water does not circulate, and waterpipes have frozen and burst in many urban areas. This means, in addition to coping with the leaks and a water supply which has become increasingly at risk for contamination from sewage systems. urban apartment residents must haul water in for drinking. Lack of water for personal hygiene was a distressing problem for many interviewed in the Bank's participatory poverty assessment (Dudwick 1995).
16. Urban residents were less well-prepared for winter, with stocks of food much lower than those of rural residents (19 to 21 days for urban, 121 to 136 days for rural, according to the Center for Disease Control cited in UNICEF 1994). Because of the availability of food in rural areas, there has been a tendency for urban to rural migration in the past two years (Mlolt1995, Dudwick 1995). In most cases, people have moved into villages where they had relatives, thus facilitating obtaining land.
Family Size and Poverty
17. In most countries, a direct relationship is observed between the poverty status of a household and its size, since larger households typically consist of more non-income earning dependents. In the former Soviet Union, this is clearly the case in Russia
4 (World Bank 1995) and Kyrgyzstan (World Bank 1995), where the results of analysis of large data sets demonstrated a strong correlation between poverty status and household size. However, in Armenia, this relationship seems to be inverted. That is, smaller households are poorer than larger households.
18. Overall, rural families are larger on average (4.52 members per family) than urban families (4.27 members per family), which is a conventional finding. However, family size varies inversely with poverty status for rural families in Armenia, and somewhat inversely for urban families, which is unexpected. Urban non-poor families are slightly smaller (4.29 members) than urban poor families (4.37 members) but slightly larger than very poor urban families (4.17 members). In rural areas, family size is inversely correlated to poverty. Very poor rural families average 3.73 members, while poor families have 4.49 member on average. In rural areas. non-poor families average 4.65 members, noticeably above average family size overall in rural areas of 4.52 members.
19. These findings are not limited to the pilot survey results. Other surveys, small and large, confirm that larger families were not at special risk for poverty. UNICEF conducted surveys of pensioners and children in 1992-93 and found that although pensioners living alone were at risk for poverty, children "seem to have fared better than pensioners" (UNICEF 1994, p. 36) and that there was no signs of under-nutrition, nor increased mortality or morbidity (sickness) in children under the age of 5 during the survey period in 1993. UNICEF specifically concluded that large families were not at any greater risk for poverty than smaller ones, and potentially could avail themselves to a greater extent of strategies of pooling fuel, food, and other resources (UNICEF 1994, p. 37). Dudwick (1995) found that larger families were better able to pool resources, received more help from friends and neighbors than single pensioners living alone, and had the ability for additional family members to devote themselves to informal sector activities which could raise total family income significantly. Holt (1995) found that larger rural families were more likely to not be poor than smaller ones (discussed below).
20. There is a straightforward explanation for the rural results: Armenia's rapid and successful land privatization of 1992. Using an additional relative poverty line of 60 percent of median per capita expenditure, Holt (1995) found that the rural poor had significantly smaller families and land-holdings than the rural non-poor, and less livestock. The strong correlation between family size and non-poor status is explained by the land privatization policy, which allocated land according to the number of family members. The larger families received more land, had more labor inputs, and thus had the ability to grow more food and agricultural products for sale than smaller families.
21. It is more challenging to explain the results for family size for urban families. Although the correlation is not as striking as with rural families, still urban non-poor families on average are larger than urban poor families. One explanation may be the flow of private remittances, which are more likely to be directed towards families with
5 children (given the importance placed on children in traditional Armenian culture). Also, larger families are more likely to have more relatives, increasing the chance that some relatives may have emigrated to work temporarily or permanently. This hypothesis is corroborated by data on the structure of reported income (see below). Very poor urban families reported that about 9.7 percent of their income was due to monetary assistance from relatives, and this increased slightly for poor urban families to 11.5 percent. However, the share of income from monetary assistance from relatives to non-poor families was a striking 32.9 percent. Since non-poor families also have average incomes markedly above those of poor or very poor families, it is clear that private remittances make the difference for a household's poverty status.
22. In both the urban and rural data sets, there is a noticeable concentration of extended families, including a large number of families with 3, 4, or even 5 adults of working age living together in the same household. Poverty rates drop sharply with the addition of an adult into the household. In the urban data set, the poverty rate of two-adult families was 44 percent, dropping to 33 percent for three-adult families and 30 percent for four-adult families (Table 2). In rural areas, the marginal effect of adding another adult was even rnore pronounced, resulting in dropping the poverty rate for two-adult families from 40 percent to 22 percent in three-adult families and 15 percent in four-adult families (Table 3). In the rural data set, the largest number of adults (those over 18 but under 60) in any one household was six; in the urban data set, there were three households that:reported 7 adults and only one household which reported six adults. Naturally, households comprised exclusively of adults or those in which adults predominate are likely to have higher incomes than households with relatively more non-income earning dependents (children and non-working elderly).
23. Additional factors may include the lack of access to asset income for poorer, smaller households, and the non-targeted distribution of humanitarian assistance. Although Armenia's privatization program did not (practically speaking) extend much beyond land until 1995, still poorer families with fewer members had less chance to accumulate any assets which were distributed. For non-poor urban families, 7 percent of income was due to assets, but close to zero percent of the income of the poor was due to asset earnings. Difficulties in the targeting of humanitarian aid may have resulted in its distribution on a per capita basis in some cases, again to the disadvantage of smaller, poorer families. Certainly, the average amount of humanitarian assistance received by non-poor households was much larger than that accorded to poor or very poor households, although in the latter, humanitarian assistance accounted for a greater share of expenditures (see below).
Children
24. Although poverty rates for children under 18 (percent of poor children out of total children) differ little from poverty rates for the elderly over 60 (except in the case of rural males and the difference is still small), in absolute terms, many more children are poor than are the elderly (Table 4) due to the demographic structure of the
6 population. Specifically, children comprise about 35 percent of the total poor (very -poor and poor) while the elderly comprise about 11 percent, which is also their approximate shares out of the combined sample population.
25. Families with children comprise the vast majority of both the urban and rural poor. Families without children are 32 percent of the very poor, 30 percent of the poor, and 31 percent of the non-poor in the urban data set, leaving families with children to comprise 68, 70, and 69 percent of the very poor, poor and non-poor respectively (Table 4). In rural areas, families with children comprise slightly less of the very poor, and poor (66 and 63 percent respectively), and slightly more of the non- poor (72 percent).
26. Although average urban family size is smaller for poor families than non-poor families, poverty rates for urban families do increase in general with the addition of a child. Overall, urban poverty is 30.7 percent of families, but 33.9 percent of urban families with one child are poor. Curiously, urban families with two children are less likely to be poor (26.7 percent) while 33.6 percent of urban families with three children are poor. Urban families with four or more children are noticeably poorer-- 44.4 percent.
27. However, the relationship is unusual in rural families. Here, poverty rates decline noticeably from childless families to families with children. The steepest drop is the addition of the first child, with 19.4 percent of such rural families being poor. The poverty rate increases 26 percent for two-child rural families, then declines to 24.3 percent for three-child rural families. Rural families with four or more children have the lowest poverty rate of all--only 12.2 percent. This is another demonstration of the relationship between family size and land access noted previously for rural families.
28. Even though poverty rates by family type tend to decline for rural households as the number of family members/children increases, many more rural families have children than do not. As a result, even though poverty rates are lower by type, still many more families with children fall into poverty than families without children. In both rural and urban areas, families with children comprise about 70 percent of the very poor or poor families, leaving families without children to account for about 30 percent of the very poor or poor families. Clearly, families with children are more at risk for poverty than families without, even though in rural areas, the share of families in poverty declines as the number of family members increases.
29. Although children (and their parents) are the vast majority of the poor, still it seems likely that cultural factors play a major role here (Dudwick 1995) mitigating the impact of poverty on children. Children are highly valued in the Armenian tradition, and typically accorded the best kinds of food which the family can obtain. UNICEF (1994) found that pensioners had experienced significant weight loss, but that there was no evidence of under-nutrition for children under the age of five.
7 30. Some categories of children are clearly at more risk than others, and UNICEF (1994) identified the following: children in institutions, disabled children, children who are working (child labor), children affected by armed conflict, children in conflict with the law, abused children, and children of single mothers. UNICEF estimated that approximately 50,000 refugee children under the age of 15 were in need of care. particularly mental therapy to help them deal with post-traumatic stress. Traditional attitudes towards disability are harsh and ill-educated (Dudwick 1995) and most disabled children are isolated from normal contact with others and lack possibilities for future employment.
The Elderly
31. In Armenia as in other FSU countries, the elderly comprise a numerically smaller portion of the poor than do working poor families with children.2 Although poverty rates by five-year age brackets are roughly similar for the elderly as for children (with the exception of rural males aged 60-64 with a very low poverty rate), still there are so many more poor children than elderly that the elderly constitute only about 11 percent of the very poor or poor (which is also the approximate share that the elderly comprised out of the samrplepopulation).
32. There are some clear (if small) gender differences among the elderly. Both urban and rural males over 60 have poverty rates lower than average for all males, while urban and rural females have poverty rates which are higher (Table 5). In particular, rural females are at the worst disadvantage, with extremely elderly rural females (over age 80) having the highest age-specific poverty rate of any age-bracket in the entire data set (51.5 percent). However, the number of women in this age-bracket is really too low for accurate comparisons. Additionally, Holt (1995) did not find that extremely elderly females were at any substantially greater risk for rural poverty.
33. Evidence from the qualitative study (Dudwick 1995) and UNICEF (1994) suggest that elderly living alone, particularly rural females, are likely to be worse-off, due to a lack of family support, reduced capacity to farm land and put up individual stocks of food, and increased log:isticaldifficulties (greater distances from medical care, less ability to gather solid fuel, etc.). Although Armenians have traditionally very strong family ties, as more able-bodied adults leave the country for temporary or permanent employment, there is an increasing risk of abandonment of the elderly (Dudwick 1995).
Refugees
34. UNICEF (1994) suggested that refugees were generally perceived to be worse- off than non-refugees, although I)udwick (1995) presented evidence that many non-
2 For example, in Russia, poverty was clearly associated inversely with age--the older a person. the less likely they were to be poor (World Bank 1995).
8 refugees felt that refugees had unfair access to humanitarian and other assistance. However, refugees themselves noted their distinct disadvantages (Dudwick 1995), particularly in rural areas where they lacked both knowledge of agricultural techniques (Holt 1995) and the strong extended family and community networks of long-standing residents. At the same time, UNHCR concluded that reintegration of refugees has been more successful in Armenia than in many other countries with similar-sized refugee populations, probably due to the unwillingness of most Armenian refugees to consider returning to Azerbaijan even if political relations improved.
35. In July 1994, the Armenian Conmmitteeon Refugees estimated that nearly 300,000 refugees came into Armenia, starting in March 1988. The 1995 UN Human Development Report for Armenia estimated that 350,000 refugees had entered the country (p. 33). Of these, it was estimated that 170,000 have subsequently left Armenia for Russia or other CIS countries, and another 30,000 have departed for the US or other Western countries. These estimates were based on official statistics; elsewhere the report suggested that 300,000 to 350,000 people (8-9 percent of the population) had probably emigrated (p. 47).
36. To some extent, the inflow of refugees was reflected in the rolls of the Pension and Employment Fund (particularly in the large increases registered at the end of 1992 and throughout 1993), as refugees who qualified for pensions or disability benefits were enrolled in the system. However, the government chose not to adopt any system of special cash transfers for refugees; instead refugees were to be given priority in the distribution of humanitarian aid.
37. The situation of refugees can not be quantified within the framework of the pilot survey, since specific questions about refugee status were not asked. There was a question about length of residency but it would be difficult to infer solely from that whether a given family were refugees are not. The best evidence on the increased risk of poverty faced by refugee families, particularly in rural areas, is provided in Dudwick (1995).
Unemployment
38. The official unemployment rate in Armenia is relatively high for former Soviet Union countries, most of which having postponed to date active adjustment in labor markets. Registered unemployment in Armenia has increased steadily since 1992 (Table 6), but levels still remain low in comparison to the decline in output as measured by official statistics. At the same time, Armenia's rate of registered unemployment was much higher than that in Russia or in other former Soviet Union countries.3 Registered unemployment comprised 111,500 individuals in May 1994, or
3Armenian statistics do not use the Western definition of labor-force, which includes only those of worlking age who are employed, or unemployed involuntarily (lack a job and have looked for a job during the previous week). The Armenian definition of labor resources is based on the so-called able-bodied ages of the population: men aged 16 through 59 and women aged 16 through 54. Thus, the labor resources concept includes those who are
9 6.8 percent of the 1993 labor force. Registered unemployment declined to 91.700 people in December 1994 or 5.8 percent of the labor force.4 This result was mainly due to the deprivation of unem ployment status to people who failed to re-register as unemployed after a year's spell of unemployment and not to any particular source of job creation in the economy. Failure to re-register was due to a lack of knowledge about this new requirement as well as the opportunity cost of the time required to go the service and fill out the forms (which require cumbersome verification of all previous employment), especially in relation to the low level of the benefit. Women comprised 65.5 percent of the unemployed in December 1994, and only 22.900 of the unemployed were eligible for receipt of the unemployment benefit (due primarily to its limited temporal duration).
39. Perhaps due to differenc:es in the definition of unemployment, the measured unemployment rate in the urban portion of the pilot survey, and its gender composition, were markedly different than the official statistics. Urban respondents who specified "not working" in response to a question about place of employment were further askled why they were not working: housewife, lost job/work, searching for work, studvino. or ill (disabled). Of able-bodied aged urban adults, 224 males and 140 females were classified as unemployed (answered "lost job" or "searching for work" to the second question), or nearly 14 percent of the adult-aged urban population.
40. According to official statistics, rural residents who have access to a plot ot private land are not counted as uanemployed,regardless of whether they work their land. In the pilot survey, the urban unemployment rate was 13.3 percent. However. if the rural able-bodied ages were included, the pilot survey unemployment rate would drop to about the official level. The gender composition in the pilot survey remains skewed opposite of official statistics, though, with men accounting for 62 percent of the pilot survey unemployed.
41. The presence of an unemployed family member increases the likelihood that the family will be very poor or poor. Of the 364 unemployed individuals in the ulban sample, 23.4 percent of them were very poor and 12.1 percent of them were poor. for a total poverty rate of 35.5 percent (which exceeded the individual poverty rate of considered to have withdrawn from the workforce in the labor force concept (e.g. those engaged full-time in childcare and household activities, the institutionalized population, etc.). For both official sources and the pilot survey, the Armenian concept of labor resources is used in this report.
4The source for the 5.8 percent unemployment rate and facts following is the State Department of Statistics of Armenia. Economy of the Republic of Armenia in January-December 1994. Yerevan, 1995. p. 5. In a different source, the estimated number of unemployed is given at 127.000 for 1994 (Social-Economic Development Program. Republic of Armenia 1995, Table 8). Unfortunately, the rural questionnaire!lacked the detailed unemployment question of the urhan sur vev. In the rural questionnaire, 47 percent of respondents were said to be 'not working." Allowing fol all childien to have been recorded as "not working" leaves 11 'percent of the rural population. but those at retirement age or above would reduce this residual to a negative nurmber(obviously, some of retirement age or older continue to work). So, it seems reasonable to conclude that respondents followed the official standard and did not report themselves as not working if they had access to a private plot.
10 about 31 percent for urban families). Holt (1995) found no close relationship between poverty and unemployment in rural areas, owing to the fact that land-owning rural residents are not defined to be unemployed (and 94 percent of those sampled in her study had received land during the privatization).
Earthquake Zone Residents and Regional Dimensions
42. Earthquake zone residents face extremely difficult living conditions, with most victims still living in temporary housing--mostly metal containers and railway cars which lack insulation. Reconstruction in the earthquake zone has been very slow. However, the sheer magnitude of the problem meant that the reconstruction would have been protracted even in the absence of the blockade and other difficulties--it is estimated that one-sixth of the country's housing stock and 40 percent of Armenia's manufacturing capacity was destroyed by the earthquake (World Bank 1994).
43. The earthquake resulted in homelessness for 500,000 people, or approximately one-sixth of the Armenian population in 1988. Following Yerevan, which accounts for 40 percent of the population, in absolute terms, the highest levels of official unemployment in the country are concentrated in and around the earthquake zone.
44. It is likely that the poor are worse-off in the earthquake zone at least in terms of their housing (and ability to keep warm during the winter) than in other areas. Numerically, there may also be more poor in the zone than outside, especially considering the high regional concentration of unemployment in the area. Data from both the urban and rural pilot surveys strongly corroborate the localization of extreme poverty in the earthquake zone. In the urban data set, in absolute terms, there are more very poor and poor individuals in Yerevan than in Vanadzor in the earthquake zone, but Yerevan accounts for 44.4 percent of the urban population surveyed, but only 30 percent of the very poor and 37 percent of the poor (Table 7). Vanadzor accounts for less than 15 percent of the urban population, but accounts for 26 percent of the very poor and 12 percent of the poor. Vanadzor has the second-highest poverty rate (43 percent) of the urban areas surveyed. Vaik is worse off at 52 percent very poor and poor, but it accounts for less than 10 percent of the urban population surveyed."
45. Regionalization is even stronger in the rural data set, and poverty rates by rural region vary much more sharply than by urban city, reflecting differences in climate, elevation, irrigation levels, and soil quality as reflected in the extreme dispersion of poverty rates by village (Table 8). The Gugark region in the earthquake zone accounts for 27 percent of very poor individuals in the rural data set, and for 8 percent of poor individuals (Table 9). The poverty rate in Gugark (71 percent) is exceeded only by that of Kapan (90 percent) in the war-crossed border region, although the poverty rate in Artik (69 percent) is close to that of Gugark. The extreme poverty in Gugark is striking--the area only accounts for 5 percent of the rural population surveyed. yet 27
6 A map of the administrative regions and regional capitals of Armenia is reproduced in Dudwick (1995).
11 percent of the rural very poor live in this earthquake zone region. Besides Gugark and Artik, the worst-off rural regions are all in border areas: Kapan, Ani, and Tumanian (bordering Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey respectively).
46. There are noticeable urban-rural differentials among the regions as well. Although Vaik city is one of the poorer in the urban data set, Vaik countryside is among the wealthiest of the rural regions. There are four currently unidentified regions in the rural data set with zero or extremely low poverty rates. Of the identified regions, the fertile Ararat valle;y region has the lowest rate of rural poverty (3.4 percent), followed by the rich farmland around Lake Sevan (4.7 percent), then the Vaik region.
47. Poverty in Artik city is slightly less than average for the urban data set as a whole, but poverty in Artik region is very high (69 percent), perhaps reflecting the high altitude and generally poor agricultural conditions in the Artik region. Poverty in Echmniadzincity is not much above the average poverty rate for urban individuals (33 5 percent vs. 30.4 percent), yet the poverty rate in Echmiadzin region is nearly 39 percent (while the average for rural individuals is under 25 percent). Kamo city and region are the only city-region pair where the urban and rural poverty rate-s are about the same.
Gender
48. In broad terms, women do not seem to be at any greater risk for poverty than men in Armenia. In gross terms, women account for 49.8 percent of very poor individuals, 50.8 percent of poor individuals, 50.6 percent of non-poor individuals, and 50.6 of total individuals (Table 10). So, women comprise slightly less of the very poor than they do of the surveyed population in general, and slightly more of the poor, but differences are too slight to be statistically significant.
49. There is little difference between men and women in terms of their age-specific poverty rates (Table 11-14) although there are significant differences between urban and rural residents. The only exception to this generalization is the case of rural females aged 80 and above, which have a poverty rate significantly above rural males of that age category. Rural females aged 80 and above account for 4.1 percent of the very poor in the rural sample, but less than 2 percent of the rural population surveyed.
50. There are very few single-parent families in either data set.' In the rural data set, individuals living in single-parent households comprise 1.9 percent of the rural population (Table 15). In the urban data set, only 1.1 percent reported living in a single-parent family (Table 16). There is essentially no difference in the poverty status
7Due to cultural factors (shame, embarrassment), the number of female-headed single-parent families may be understated in both data sets. Holt (1995, p. 80) included a study of a purposive sample of 57 temale-lheaded households, but none of them had young children.
12 of children living in single-parent female-headed households vs. male-headed ones. Additionally, the poverty rate for single-parent households is only very slightly above the average for either data set. In the rural data set, 24.2 percent of single-parent households (female or male) are very poor or poor while the individual poverty rate for the rural sample as whole is 22.8 percent. Urban poverty averages 30.4 percent of urban individuals; in urban single families, the poverty rate is 32.7 percent and in urban female-headed single parent families the poverty rate is essentially the same-- 32.6 percent.
ConsumerDurables and HousingAttributes
51. In Armenia as in other former Soviet Union countries, there is no strong correlation between a given family's stock of consumer goods and its probability of being poor. This is because under the Soviet regime, consumer durables and food were allocated by queuing, not by price. As a result, a family had an equally low chance of obtaining a given durable. Automobiles were an exception to this general rule: although still obtained by queuing (typically through waiting lists kept at the place of employment), poorer families were less likely to raise the necessary cash from friends and families to buy a car (consumer credit being essentially non-existent under the old system).
52. In both the urban and rural data sets, the average number of units of consumer durables are essentially indistinguishable among the very poor, poor, and non-poor, although a statistically insignificant rising trend is usually noted for most durables (see Statistical Annex tables). The only exception is the average number of cars per very poor, poor, and non-poor families and still, this difference is not that pronounced. In the rural data set, very poor families averaged 0.19 cars per household, while very poor urban families averaged 0.15 cars per household. Non-poor rural and urban families respectively averaged 0.33 and 0.30 cars respectively.
53. Housing attributes show a greater relationship to poverty status, although differences in the rate of housing attributes are probably not large enough to use in discriminating between poor and non-poor urban households. For example, very poor, poor and non-poor urban households were about equally likely to have access to a private plot (35.2, 46.2, and 36.8 percent respectively). In rural areas, some housing attributes seem to be a fair approximation of poverty or non-poor status. In particular, natural gas hookups, piped water, and sewage access, as well as whether the house was stone or brick, had noticeable differences across poverty status (see Appendix tables). The availability of a natural gas hookup had the strongest relationship to poverty status- -61 percent of very poor homes lacked a hookup, but only 27 percent of non-poor families did without a hookup. It should be noted that virtually all households reported that if a hookup existed, it was not functioning.
13 SensitivityAnalysis and Income-BasedPoverty
54. Besides the overall poverty headcount numbers, the distribution of the poor is also important for policy considlerations. If the poor are relatively closely bunched around the poverty line, then small increases (decreases) in the poverty line will result in large numbers of additional households being classified as poor (not poor). However, if households are fairly evenly distributed around the poverty line, then proportionate increases or decreases in the poverty line would lead to about the same change in the headcount.
55. Sensitivity analyses of both the urban and rural data sets were undertaken to determine how responsive the headcount was to changes in the poverty line. Rural households seem to be distributed fairly evenly around the poverty line--increasing or decreasing the poverty line 10 or 20 percent leads to about the same change in the headcount (Table 17). However, poverty seems to be more severe in the urban data set as the urban headcount is less sensitive to changes in the poverty line. Less than proportionate increases in the urban headcount suggest that the majority of the urban poor are well below the poverty line, and indeed the share of extreme poverty (the very poor) is higher in the urban data set than in the rural data set. As noted above, the distribution of expenditures is much more uneven in the urban data set than the rural data set. If poverty lines are set as 40 percent of the mean (as opposed to median) expenditures, the poverty headcount would increase noticeably in the rural data set, but would become extremely large i:nthe urban data set since the urban mean is so much above the urban median.
56. A major problem in the pilot survey is that the recall period for food expenditures is too short--only one day. Although expenditure data in general are regarded as a more reliable basis for studying real consumption of households, and certainly approximate household permanent income more closely than income, still the expenditure-based analysis here is subject to unquantifiable bias due to the extremely short recall period for food expenditures, and possibly leads to an overstatement of the severity of poverty. Unfortunately, income seems to be distributed even more unevenly than expenditures, in spite of the monthly recall period for income.
57. An income-based poverty profile for Armenia presents some stark contrasts with the expenditure-based profile that seem to be unlikely, given other evidence. For example, although rural income is much higher on average than urban income, both rural and urban incomes are distributed very unequally. Using different per capita income medians for the urban and rural data set leads to the result that rural income- based poverty rates exceed urbarnrates (32.3 percent vs. 20.4 percent). Since the income numbers are not affected by the lack of data on own-consumption of private plot output for urban families (sales from private plots are included in the urban income vector), the rationale for using different poverty standards is not particularly strong. If the same poverty standard for 40 percent of per capita (rural) income is accepted, then
14 urban income-based poverty rates are almost twice those of rural families. This is in accordance with the expenditure results.
58. In many household income and expenditure surveys, income data are found to be less reliable than expenditure data, due to under-reporting of income totals. In the Armenia pilot survey, an additional complication was encountered when deflating the income data (see Technical Appendix). As a result, the income-based data should be viewed with extreme caution, and are not used further for the poverty profile.
III. INCIDENCEANALYSIS 59. A primary goal of government transfer programs and the allocation of humanitarian assistance is to ensure that resources are distributed to those who need them most. A simple incidence analysis examines the shares of income accounted for by transfer programs and humanitarian assistance, as well as the amounts distributed, to the lower deciles of the population (see for example, World Bank 1994, Poverty in Polan). Although more elaborate analysis are possible (van de Walle, Ravallion and Guatam, 1994), the basic lessons can be drawn from a simple examination of data arranged by income deciles and concentration ratios.
Humanitarian Assistance
60. During the survey period (1994), Armenia relied on the distribution of humanitarian assistance according to priorities set either by the donor or by the government, drawing on its lists of needy people maintained in local social security offices (the SOBES system). Approximately 70 percent of the population self-selected itself to respond to the government's call for registration for humanitarian assistance, and filled out "social passport" forms as part of the government's Paros system to improve the targeting of humanitarian assistance. However, during the survey period, the Paros system was not used to allocate humanitarian assistance. Evidence from the qualitative study (Dudwick 1994) and anecdotal reports from the field indicated significant leakages in the distribution of humanitarian assistance to those who were not relatively needy but who had good connections. This is not an unexpected outcome-- control mechanisms are difficult in a country which lacks electricity and a functioning telephone system, as well as any prior experience with aid distribution. In practice, most humanitarian assistance programs experience leakage to some extent.
61. Respondents were questioned about humanitarian assistance in both the urban and rural phases of the pilot survey. However, the local Armenian team indicated that under-representation was a major problem for humanitarian assistance. Most Armenians were well aware of major programs for the distribution of humanitarian assistance, and these programs were more wide-spread during the winter (when most of the urban interviews were conducted). However, the Armenian public was not particularly acquainted with survey research. Although the local interviewers assured respondents that they were not part of the humanitarian assistance distribution effort
15 and that the information provided would not be used to allocate humanitarian assistance, the local team concluded that most respondents replied that they had not received humanitarian assistance in the hopes that this would induce the researchers to produce some for the respondenlt's family. This was true even in families where the interviewer could observe evidence of humanitarian assistance (empty, labeled cartons, empty food containers) in the apartment or home. Indeed, the local team concluded that only the non-poor were likely to truthfully answer that the family had received some humanitarian assistance.
62. As a result, data from the pilot survey unreliably suggest that humanitarian assistance was not widely distributed and leakages were unacceptably high in Armenia in 1995, and the rural population appears to have received less humanitarian assistance than the urban population, perhaps reflecting the assumption on the part of donors and the authorities that rural residents had access to food or food-producing opportunities which urban residents lacked or resulting from greater under-statement on the part of rural recipients of humanitarian assistance. Also, the extreme difficulties with liquid fuel supply to the country would have made any efforts to distribute humanitarian assistance to remote rural areas quite challenging.
63. Approximately 94 percent of rural families reported that they received no humanitarian assistance during ihe survey period, while 83 percent of urban families reported no humanitarian assistance. Furthermore, those families which reported receipt of humanitarian assistance were more likely to be non-poor. The concentration ratios for humanitarian assistance in urban and rural areas were 63.3 and 29.1 respectively (Table 18). 8 However, given the impetus to understatement, these numbers can not be taken as rel.iable indications of the true incidence of humanitarian assistance.
Cash Transfers
64. Although the lack of ability to use the pilot survey's data on humanitarian aid is disappointing, the Armenian team concluded that understatement was not likely to be a major problem for cash transfers (family/child allowances and pensions) since recipients knew that the survey team was not representing the local social services offices and the rules for eligibility are generally known. To analyze the targeting of cash transfers, both the urban and the rural samples were divided into per capita income deciles, where per capita is understood to mean per family member. That is, total family income was divided by the number of family members, and arranged into deciles, from lowest per capita income to highest (Tables 19-20).
sThe concentration ratio is a measure of how well targeted a transfer is, and can vary from -100 to + 100. A value of -100 means that the poorest family received all of the transfer, and thus is a form of "perfect targeting. A value of + 100 means that the richest family received all of the transfer, or a total absence of targeting. Generally speaking, negative values suggest that a transfer is progressive (pro-poor) in incidence. while high positive values demonstrate regressivity (pro-rich bias).
16 65. A simple incidence of cash transfers is provided by looking at the shares of total income accounted for by the various transfers, according to decile groups. If the share of income due to a given transfer declines as one goes up the decile groups. then the transfer can be argued to be relatively well-targeted. In the urban data set, all transfers except humanitarian assistance (unemployment benefits, grants to single mothers and many-child families, child allowances, pensions, student stipends, and other assistance) display this trend generally, with pensions demonstrating the pattern most clearly.
66. In the rural data set, pensions, student stipends, child allowances, and the virtually non-existent social services can be said to follow the trend of accounting for a decreasing share of income as one moves up the income deciles to the tenth (highest) decile. However, the rural category "other receipts from state organizations" seems to be very regressively distributed. The bottom half of the income distribution receives no such transfers, while their share generally increases from the sixth through tenth deciles. It is likely that this category is not a transfer at all, but represents bonus and other payments more closely related to labor input or connections. As such, it is not considered further in this section.
67. Another consideration is the percent of the very poor, poor, and non-poor population served by a given transfer, or by all transfers considering the system as a whole. Individual shares of the population receiving each sort of transfer are presented in Table 21. Overall, only 11 percent of the very poor, 13 percent of the poor. and 10 percent of the non-poor families in rural areas receive none of the four rural transfers (in other words, 89 percent of the rural very poor receive at least one kind of rural transfer per family). In urban areas, 17 percent of the very poor, 15 percent of the poor, and 16 percent of the non-poor receive none of the seven urban transfers.
68. A slightly more sophisticated incidence analysis for transfers would consider the share of the total transfer paid out to the lower two quartiles (lower 40 percent). A transfer could be argued to be progressive if the lower 40 percent accounted for at least 40 percent (or more) of the total transfer paid out. Using this criteria, several benefits do not appear to be as well-targeted as relying on simple share of income would suggest.
69. Rural pension payments are acceptably targeted in the sense that the lower four deciles receive approximately their share (44 percent) of total pension payments made, but urban pensions are poorly targeted, with only 26 percent of total pension payments accruing to the lowest 40 percent. The concentration ratios for pensions also demonstrate that rural pensions are distributed less regressively than urban pensions (4.6 and 11.5 respectively), but both concentration coefficients are positive, meaning that pensions are not particularly well-targeted to the poorest. Approximately 59 percent of rural households and 62 percent of urban households overall do not receive any pensions (Table 21). The share of non-recipient households is about the same for very poor, poor, and non-poor in rural areas, but decreases slightly from 63 to 62 percent from urban very poor to urban non-poor families.
17 70. In urban areas, the share of income accounted for by child allowances falls -sharply from the lowest to highest deciles. In the rural data set, child allowances are combined with other payments, and the average share of these allowances sharply decline as rural income rises. However, rural allowances are not particularly well- targeted if the forty percent criteria is used, with the lowest 40 percent receiving only 31 percent of allowances paid out. In urban areas, child allowances are acceptably targeted, with allowances to the lowest four deciles accounting for about 39 percent of the total paid. Urban grants to single mothers and many-child families, although quite low (actually non-existent for several deciles) are well-targeted, with the lowest 40 percent of the income distribution receiving 43 percent of the total paid out for these grants. These findings are corroborated by the concentration ratios. For urban payments to single-mothers and many-child families, the concentration ratio is -25, which represents the most pro-poor level of targeting of a transfer in both areas. Urban child allowances are very weakly progressive, with a concentration ratio of -0.2 (essentially zero). Child and other allowances in rural areas are not progressive as the concentration ratio is 16.6 (reflecting again the lack of connection between the number of children/family members and poverty in rural areas). Child allowances were the most broadly distributed transfer--only about 39 percent of urban families failed to receive a child allowance or single-mother/many-child family payment, while only 33 percent of rural families were not beneficiaries.
71. Urban unemployment benefits are the best-targeted transfer in terns of focusing payments to the lowest 40 percent, which received 49 percent of the total unemployment benefits paid out. The concentration ratio for urban unemployment benefits was also progressive at -20. However, very few urban households received unemployment benefits (only 2 percent of the urban sample). Urban student stipends are as poorly targeted as urban pensions, with the lower four deciles receiving only 25 of total urban student stipends paid. In rural areas, student stipends are better-targeted, with the lowest 40 percent receiving 50 percent of total rural student stipends paid out. Concentration ratios for stipends were about the same (5.2 vs. 5.6) in urban and rural areas, and were weakly regressive (titled towards the well-off). Few households receive stipends--only 7 percent of the urban families and 5 percent of the rural families reported receiving student stipernds.
Sources of Wealth and Sustenance
72. In general, the poor (the lowest four deciles) are more dependent on wages and cash transfers for their income than the non-poor. In the urban data set, after salary, child allowances and pensions provided the bulk of income for the lowest four deciles,
18 which also do not report any earnings from the sales of agricultural products and very low earnings from the sales of non-food goods (Table 18).9
73. The route to wealth in the urban data set appears to be private remittances and personal connections. The category "other receipts, including those from private persons and relatives" accounted for 36 percent of the income of the highest urban decile. Other categories which were significant for the top four deciles in general included salaries, sales of non-food goods, hard currency receipts, and income from property (interest, dividends, rent of land, apartments, or automobile).
74. The rural poor are also dependent on salaries, pensions and child allowances, with the remainder of income accounted for largely by private plot sales (Table 19). The rural poor (lowest four deciles) are notable for what sorts of income they do not receive at all: hard currency earnings, other remittances from cooperatives or public organizations, or social services. Additionally, the poorest rural (first) decile received no humanitarian assistance or receipts from relatives, nor were they self-employed.
75. The overwhelmingly obvious route to wealth in the rural data set, and therefore in Armenia over all, since rural incomes are so much higher than urban incomes, is the sale of agricultural produce. Sales of agricultural produce accounted for 83-86 percent of the income of the top three deciles in the rural data set, and the share of income attributable to sales of agricultural produce rises steadily from the lowest to the highest income deciles. Assistance from relatives plays a minor role in the income of the wealthy and of the poor, accounting for at most about 8 percent of income in the middle deciles.
VI. Coping Mechanisms
76. Living standards in Armenia have eroded more severely than in virtually any other FSU country (possible exceptions are Tajikistan and Georgia, both of which experienced civil war, and Azerbaijan). Although recent evidence points to successful financial stabilization (low inflation) and a return to positive growth, for much of the 1992-94 period, output collapse in Armenia exceeded declines in neighboring countries (an aggregate 60 percent decline in official GDP'0 over the period). The Armenian economy was already depressed following the December 1988 earthquake, which destroyed 40 percent of the country's industrial capacity. It seems likely that only the rapid privatization of land and the key role of humanitarian assistance and private remittances enabled the population to subsist during these very difficult years. Under such difficult conditions, it is not surprising that many Armenians followed traditional
9Although the urban data set does not have data on the quantity of agricultural products produced and consumed (self-consumption) by the urban plot-owning households (about 37.5 percent of all urban houselholds). it did contain a question about the value of sales of private plot produce. 10The official decline in GDP is likely to be overstated, due to the omission of unrecorded informal sector income and other methodological problems with national income accounts in FSU countries.
19 patterns of seasonal migration to find work in Russia, as well as emigrated permanently to Western countries if a relative or sponsor could be found.'
Outmigration and Private Remittances
77. The extent of outmigration from Armenia is controversial, and figures range from a low of 170,000 (UN Development Report) to a high of one million (Dudwick 1995), from a starting population of 3.7 million. During the winter of 1993-94. one half million people legally registered a temporary change in residence, but some 750,000 (20 percent of the end-year 1993 population) did not pick up their bread ration cards.
78. Official population statistics are based on the de jure population, which means only those who have emigrated permanently to another country are subtracted. Dual citizens and those with non-perrmanentresident status (a variety of visas from tourist to official) are counted in the dejure population. In 1992, an reciprocity agreement between the Armenian and Russian pension systems was enacted whereby citizens of either country could temporarily register and receive pensions wherever they were located. This reciprocity agreernent meant that Armenians could leave Armenia during the harsh winter months and stay with relatives in Russia but could also receive a Russian pension. Russian pensions were (and are) much higher in real terms than Armenian pensions.
79. Traditionally, Arnenia is a country with very strong extended family ties. These bonds are in conflict with the immigration policies of many countries, which often allow reunification only of immediate (nuclear) family members. This means that families may be split up, leaving behind elderly family members who previously lived with the nuclear family unit.
80. Besides permanent emigration, seasonal labor migration (particularly to Russia) has become extremely important (Dudwick 1995), following an old tradition of seasonal construction and other work. "In the north [primarily the earthquake zone], the majority of able-bodied men between 18 and 60 years of age are involved in labor migration." (Dudwick 1995, p. 21). The majority of seasonal workers follow the old tradition, and are qualified artisans or skilled construction workers, and workers typically travel in groups of four to 10 by invitation to Russian construction sites (Dudwick 1995, p. 21).
81. Dudwick detailed the interesting case of a parallel village, Azatan in Armenia which built a satellite community Azatan in Yakutia (Russia) for guest workers. who often bring their parents to collect the higher Russian pensions or other family members. Although some Azatan families have been able to remain intact, others have splintered under the stresses of seasonal migration, and in general, labor migration
This sectionis drawn primarilyfrom :Dudwick(1995).
20 leaves women in difficult economic situations. Seasonal workers are not able to send remittances right away, leaving women often with children, unsupported for long periods. Such women would identify themselves as married, not as single parents, even though Dudwick documented clear cases of family abandonment (as well as cases where a new Russian "family" was acquired by the guest worker and even brought back to Armenia to live with the first, Armenian family).
82. In general, respondents were clearly more forthcoming when talking with representatives of the participatory poverty survey group (Dudwick 1995) than when asked similar questions by the pilot survey group. In the pilot survey, about 5 percent of urban residents and 3 percent of rural residents were identified as "family members temporarily abroad." Given the solid data for 1993-94 on bread ration coupons, it seems likely that more than 5 percent of the population is temporarily abroad. although the actual rate for the population as a whole might be less than that observed in Dudwick's non-representative participatory poverty survey (which focused on specific communities at risk).
83. Private remittances seem more often (at least in the urban data set) to lead to relatively higher standards of living than mere subsistence, although not every seasonal worker is successful in finding well-paying work. All seasonal workers are faced with difficulties in sending remittances back home. Throughout much of 1994, it was not possible to wire money to Armenia for individuals or to cash traveler's checks in the country. This meant that remittances had to be sent back through the highly dangerous method of sending cash.
84. It is a rare frequent traveler to Armenia who has not carried in cash for friends, but many seasonal workers do not have such reliable personal contacts, and are forced to rely on private "firms" which take a 10 percent cut for their services. Additionally, Dudwick (1995) documented many cases of theft and extortion in the cash transactions business.
85. Although remittances from diaspora relatives and new emigrants to Western countries are certainly important to their relatives, the bulk of seasonal workers are found in Russia, which is therefore the main and "steadiest source of personal remittances" (along with other former Soviet republics; Dudwick 1995, p. 20).
Private Land and Village Life
86. The quantitative analysis of rural income and expenditures demonstrates the critical importance of Armenia's land privatization of 1992. Sales of agricultural output lead to the highest incomes in the combined rural and urban data sets, demonstrating the success of this important policy. In the Holt study, 94 percent of households reported that they had received some land during privatization (1995). In the rural data set of the pilot survey, less than 3 percent of families reported that they
21 had no land. Unfortunately, both Dudwick (1995) and Holt (1995) found that the distribution of cattle and other assets from collective farms was far less equitable.
87. Reversing a trend of several decades towards urbanization, official data indicated that in 1992 (probably due to the land privatization), rural areas experienced a net in-migration, as urban residents moved into areas to escape the difficult winters and to secure a reliable source of food. 12 Since then, unofficial evidence points to significant migration to rural areas: "uncontrolled urbanization of villages" (cited in UN Human Development Repo=, p. 32); Dudwick's documented a "slight trend" of urban to rural migration (1995, p. 16); and Holt (1995, p. 72) found that 5 and 10 percent of non-poor and poor families respectively reported that they had moved to their village after 1988.
88. The obvious attraction of rural life in Armenia is the ability to grow food on private land. However, this lure may have diminished as land sales are currently not allowed and all privatized land hlasalready been distributed. At the same time, some migration may continue as urban residents who have relatives in rural areas may agglomerate families to pool labor resources. Besides food production, winters riiht be easier in rural areas due to the availability of solid fuel (wood or dung).
89. However, many families face significant problems in rural areas. Besides isolation and distance from medical facilities, many families (particularly refugee families) lack knowledge of appropriate agricultural techniques. Holt (1995) documented an alarming trend of failure to maintain soil quality, and the burning of animal waste for heating during the winter reduces the supply of natural fertilizer for the fields. Financial constraints mean that poor farmers can not afford fuel to run agricultural equipment, and the cost of pesticides has increased beyond the reach of all but the most affluent.
90. Although subsistence is provided by farming private plots (and to a lesser extent, by fishing or hunting), nrral Armenia remains "cash-starved" (Dudwick 1995). Many rural exchanges are through barter and earning cash income to meet sudden expenses (such as medical bills or funerals) is difficult for many rural families.
91. The extent of the crisis has attenuated traditional exchanges of goods, services, and financial help between relatives in the extended family (Dudwick 1995). Rural families complain that relatives Iio longer are willing to lend cash, but urban-rural exchanges of goods and labor reimain common. For example, urban males will return to their parents' village during the harvest season, and rural relatives will send food packages to urban kin. Social life has been greatly curtailed, as families can no longer provide the lavish hospitality to visiting friends and relatives which was traditional.
12Demographic Yearbook 1993 (p. 86) suggested that there had been a net in-migration to rural areas of approximately 10,000 individuals in 1992.
22 UrbanLife and the InformalSector
92. -The informal sector was always quite pervasive in Armenia. Well before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Armenia was known for its informal activities and the intricate system of favors and connections called blat. Favors were not always reciprocal; intricate chains of interlinked favors involving the exchange of goods. services, and hard currency occurred. Vodka and imported cigarettes were common media of exchange, along with US dollars. Armenians were historically a nation of traders and they retained this distinction throughout the Soviet period.
93. Now, trading has become both a survival strategy for the urban poor, and in some limited cases, has lead to relative affluence for some (the few elite traders). Dudwick (1995) noted the increased role of women, particularly in petty and middle- level trade. Middle-level trade is conducted in a highly organized way, with large groups departing Armenia for Turkey, Syria, the Arab Emirates, Poland and Iran as well as other destinations. Petty trade, often amounting to little more than the resale of pre-purchased goods at a very low markup, has become a source of supplementing incomes for the poorest. Along with trading, money lending and foreign exchange services have also become important sources of income for the urban well-to-do. who can afford to lend or engage in foreign currency operations.
94. Certain professions (medicine, higher education) and occupations (construction, sales clerk, waiter), traditionally provided significant informal sector income opportunities. The practice of paying both surgical teams and duty nurses in hospitals additional side payments or monetary or in-kind tips was the accepted practice for obtaining adequate medical care before 1991, and Dudwick (1995) demonstrated that if anything, this practice has become even more entrenched. Private tutoring offered a scope for poorly paid teachers to earn informal income, and extensive coaching for university entrance exams, and even the buying and selling of grades and places in university were also common in both Soviet times and since Independence (Dudwick 1995). During the Soviet period, construction crews commonly moonlighted as so- called shabashniki and most apartment repairs were made informally. However. the economic downturn in Armenia has meant that most construction workers find work in Russia, not informally in Armenia.
95. For small-scale businesses which wish to be formal, Dudwick (1995) documents a formidable array of obstacles, including corruption on the part of urban officials, lack of credit for starting up businesses, and the role of organized crime.
96. The economic blockade and the resultant lack of energy has made urban life extremely difficult. Without electricity, apartment-dwelling urban residents must haul water and food up long flights of stairs. Cultural and social life has been drastically curtailed, and city residents do not venture out much at night (fears of crime, lack of lighting, and lack of gasoline for private transportation).
23 97. Urban residents have become extremely skilled at obtaining electricity illegally. Back alleys in Yerevan are now festooned with illegal private electrical connections, called "left lines." For those less mechanically inclined, it is possible to bribe electric company workers to install left lines. Even though the general supply of electricity is rationed, typically to 2 hours or less per day, urban denizens have tapped into installations with round-the-clock electricity (metro stations, a few hospitals, etc.).
98. Heating during the winter was a major problem for urban residents, and particularly those living in uninsulated box cars and metal containers--temporary housing in the earthquake zone. Typically, urban residents would close off all but one room in an apartment, and neighbors would sometimes rotate heating responsibilities, particularly around apartments which shared a landing or entrance.
99. Due to difficulties with food supply and lack of electricity for refrigeration, the urban diet has probably degraded more than the rural diet. Certainly respondents to Dudwick (1995) described dowrngradingtheir food consumption, eliminating or greatl reducing milk and meat consumption, and increasing consumption of bread and potatoes.
24 IV. CONCLUSIONS 100. Poverty in Armenia has become pervasive since 1992, and rural poverty is not as extreme as urban poverty. Rural incomes and expenditures were much higher than urban incomes and expenditures in 1994, and the path to rural wealth was through sales of agricultural output produced on privatized land. If standards equivalent to those used for the rural data set were applied to the urban data set, then approximately 60 percent of the urban population would be poor (versus rural poverty of 25 percent if 40 percent of rural per capita expenditures was used as the poverty line or 32 percent if 40 percent of rural per capita income was used).
101. Poverty in Armenia is primarily a problem of the working poor, and children comprise at least 35 percent of the very poor and poor. Although poverty is not well- correlated with family size in Armenia, this probably reflects two major influences: the tendency for extended families to live together to pool resources (families with three or more adults are much less likely to be poor) and in rural areas, the fact that privatized land was distributed according to family size so larger families have more inputs (land, labor) into the agricultural production process.
102. Poverty in Armenia is strongly concentrated in certain regions--the earthquake zone and border districts are most at risk for poverty, and this is true for both urban and rural areas within these regions. Refugee families face an increased risk of poverty as they lack kinship ties and agricultural knowledge. Private remittances are correlated with urban wealth.
103. Some government transfers, notably urban unemployment benefits, have been relatively well-targeted, but others (such as pensions and student stipends) have not. In general, the elderly are not at particular risk for being poor, and comprise about 11 percent of the very poor and poor.
104. The poverty headcounts in this report are based on relative standards. Actual consumption levels are extremely low. At the market exchange rate, average rural and urban expenditures would be roughly US $146 and US $37 per month per family. One international standard for absolute poverty is US $1 per person per day. Average family size in Armenia is above 4 members; under this standard, the entire urban population and a large proportion of the rural population are below this extreme poverty line.
V. TECHNICAL APPENDIX: DATA AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
105. In 1993-94, Yerevan State University, Department of Sociology, in collaboration with the State Committee for Statistics, Goskomstat Armenii, initiated a pilot household survey. This pilot survey is the first indigenous attempt in any former
25 Soviet Union (FSU) country to accurately measure household income and expenditures based on a representative sample for the country as a whole. 13
106. In Armenia as in other FSU countries, the central statistical office inherited the "farnily budget survey" (FBS) based on Soviet methodology. The FBS is a biased sample, excluding most of the poorer part of the population, and excluding most of the richest as well. Exclusion of the upper income brackets is a common problem in income & expenditure surveys, due to the frequent unwillingness of the very wealthy to participate, but exclusion of the lower income brackets is not typical, and results in a dangerous unreliability to the FIBSdata. In particular, FBS data have been shown to understate the level of poverty, due to the severe under-representation of the poorer part of the distribution in the saimple.14
107. The bias in the sample would have been enough to motivate a search for an alternative to the FBS, but Armenia (and several of the smaller FSU countries) have an additional problem with the FBS sample inherited from the Soviet Union. Since the FBS sample is permanent (families stay in the sample indefinitely and are replaced non- randomly), and since the FBS was designed for the USSR as a whole, the sample inherited by Armenia was both too small and not "representative" (in the FBS sense) for Armenia as an independent country.
108. Armenia is also unique for its independent academic tradition. Random sample longitudinal surveys were conducted in the USSR in only two places: Taganrog in Russia (by Natalya Rimashevskaya) and in Armenia (several different surveys conducted by A. Karapetyan). I)rawing on the academic work of Karapetyan. the Department of Sociology devised a stratified sample for urban areas in Armenia and for rural areas.
Pilot Survey Urban Sample
109. The urban sample covered approximately 2,100 families living in urban areas for the period of one year (last two quarters of 1993 and first two quarters of 1994).
13The distinction between "household" (a group of related or unrelated people sharing income and/or expenditures) and "family" (a group of people related by blood or marriage) is not typically made in the FSl. In the text, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably when reference is made to the Armenian pilot survey. hut the term "family" is always used in reference to the old Soviet survey, since it explicitly excluded non-related persons in a household.
4There are a myriad of other problems with the FBS data that are detailed in many sources: the most recent are two background papers for the Russia Poverty Assessment by Braithwaite and by Natalya RimashevskaVa. Director, Institute for Socio-Economic Population Studies, Moscow, but this problem has been discussed in both the Soviet and Western literature since the 1970s.
15Under the FSU definition of urban, approximately two-thirds of Armenia is classified as urban. Some FSU urban areas are so-called "villages of the urban type" and correspond more to the notion of "rural" in OECD countries.
26 The sample was stratified in several stages. Armenia was divided into five economic/geographic regions and the capitol city of Yerevan (Yerevan itself accounts for almost 40 percent of the population). For each of the five regions, a city was chosen to represent the urban population. The five additional cities were: Gyumri (in the earthquake zone); Razdan; Sisian; Dilizhan; and Artashat. The 2100 questionnaires were allocated among the 6 cities according to the share of each in the total number of urban families.
110. Within a given city, a "sampling frame" was devised based on alphabetical lists of streets. "Systemic sampling" was done for the streets and then for the houses on each of the streets selected in proportion to the number of families to be surveyed. Yerevan (due to its large size) and Gyumri (due to a lack of house numbers resulting from the earthquake) were handled slightly differently.
111. The sample thus drawn is not a true probability-proportionate-to-size (PPS) two- stage sample, but is a stratified approximation. It should be stressed that the Department of Sociology developed this attempt to draw a random sample completely unassisted by any technical assistance from the World Bank or other organizations. based on the original work of Karapetyan on the "method of momentary sampling . an Arrmenian sociologist (Karapetyan 1980). There were approximately 1200 families surveyed in the first two quarters of 1994, and their age-gender distribution is presented in the statistical appendix.
Pilot Survey Rural Sample
112. The rural sample was set at 1200 families, of which approximately 1100 survey forms were completed and processed. The rural sample was stratified in the following way. Approximately 32 percent of the overall population lives in rural areas, and 33 percent of the rural area lives in areas less than 1000 meters above sea level. 18 percent lives at an altitude of 1000-1500 meters, 31 percent at 1500-2000 meters. and 19 percent at more than 2000 meters elevation. Population density and settlement patterns vary according to terrain--villages on highland plateaus are scattered; villages in mountain valleys are grouped; and villages in narrow river valleys are aligned along the river. Considering these natural characteristics, and also the composition of agricultural activities (horticulture vs. livestock), the rural territory of Armenia was divided into nine regions. Families were selected from these nine regions proportionate to their weight in the total rural population. Specific villages were chosen according to size and elevation. A list of the 34 villages surveyed is presented in the statistical appendix, along with the age-gender distribution of the rural sample.
113. The rural survey was conducted in each quarter of 1994, during which several villages were selected. From each village, 30 families were drawn mechanically, based on village registrars of inhabitants. The sample thus drawn is a stratified one, based
27 primarily on elevation, but also some arbitrary judgment was required in the selection of specific villages.
Fieldwork and Data Processing
114. Urban fieldwork was undertaken during the last two quarters of 1993 and the first two quarters of 1994 by a team of eight trained interviewers. Rural fieldwork was undertaken during the four quarters of 1994. Data entry proceeded in Yerevan after the collection of hard copy questionnaires. Due to the erratic nature of power supply in Armenia, the team of data processors worked under extremely difficult conditions, including tapping into electricity of adjoining buildings and running equipment off gasoline-powered generators. In spite of these significant difficulties, data entry was completed and cross-checks for range and other data entry errors were initiated. The data processing team had physical access to the questionnaires, and cleaning proceeded by checking against the questioinaires if necessary. The data entry language was SPSS,and the data set currently exists in SPSS (for the PC or for Windows) format.
Setting a Poverty Line in Armenia
115. Setting a poverty line is at best an approximate "science" and absolute poverty lines tend to be more arbitrary or relative than suggested by name. Most current thinking on the subject (Ravallion 1993, 1994; Atkinson 1992) suggest that "absolute" poverty lines are actually fairly arbitrary and open to criticism even about the food portion of the absolute line. Standard Bank practice is to set at least 2 poverty lines, and to test for sensitivity to these lines.
116. Armenia does not have an official poverty line. In the USSR, during the Khrushchev era, work was done (interestingly enough, by an Armenian economist following the Armenian academic tradition of relatively independent scholarship) on establishing "norms" for the "socially desirable" consumption16of food, non-food goods, and a few services (Sarkisian and Kuznetsova, 1967). This was called misleadingly "the minimum consumption budget" (MCB). The MCB included very generous consumption allowances for meat, milk, and other products which do not normally consist in a "minimum survival" basket of food products, and also included such non-essentials as alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and even a "normed rate" of savings.
117. During the high inflation years of 1992 and 1993, the MCB lost whatever policy relevance it ever had, and many (although not all) FSU countries have since repudiated
'6 The characterization of "socially desirable" is originally found in Sipos and Cornia (1992).
28 the contents of the MCB basket (e.g. Russia and most recently, Ukraine, have adopted official poverty lines with less generous allowances than in the MCB). In Armenia, the hyperinflation during the last few months of 1993 caused by the change in monetary regime in Russia (and subsequent flooding of Armenia with 'old, Soviet" rubles instead of the "new, Russian" ruble) meant that the MCB was completely unattainable for virtually everyone in Armenia. In this environment, academics and civil servants experimented with a new, reduced food basket. 17 In a 1992 Fiscal Affairs Department technical report, the IMF characterized a new unofficial poverty line as "brutally realistic."
118. Unfortunately, conditions in Armenia since 1992 have become even more brutal than was envisioned. In preliminary results from the urban portion of the pilot household survey, less than 3 percent of the sample population had a nominal income which exceeded the nominal value of the "brutally realistic" food basket. For the purposes of informing policy, a poverty line which yields a poverty headcount of 97 percent is useless. One can not discriminate when 97 percent of the population is deemed poor.
119. In such cases (and also in the case of relatively well-off population), a relative poverty line is preferred. The generally prevailing relative poverty line in many OECD countries; 40 percent of mean or median household expenditures. (or lacking data on expenditures), of mean or median household income has been adopted in this profile. Given the problems with the dispersion of both expenditures and income, 40 percent of the median has been chosen as the relative poverty line. Following Bank and OECD practice, those under 15 percent of the median have been designated as ''extremely"or "very" poor.
Measuring Income and Expenditures During Hyperinflation in Multiple Currencies
120. One of the many challenges facing the Department of Sociology team was how to handle the various currency regimes in Armenia. During the summer of 1993, Russia abruptly informed members of the ruble zone that it would no longer accept "Soviet" rubles, but only "Russian" rubles as a medium of exchange. At the same time, Russia shipped at best only limited amounts of the new Russian currency. i As a result, Armenia and other ruble zone members were forced to use the old, Soviet currency. Since Armenia did not overmark or otherwise distinguish the currency in circulation on its territory, a flood of old, Soviet rubles entered the country during the last two quarters of 1993. At the end of November 1993, Armenia announced the introduction of its own national currency, the dram. At the same time, during the last
17Actually.there are at least four different versions of the unofficial food basket (slightly differenlt items. different quantities) in circulation (see Braithwaite, 1994). iSThe banknote was virtually unchanged except for the replacement of "State Bank of the USSR" with "Central Bank of Russia."
29 semester of 1994, various other foreign currencies were also accepted for transactions in Armenia, including predominately, US dollars.
121. The old, Soviet ruble-dollar exchange rate depreciated spectacularly in free fall, before its demise in November 1993, and the new, Russian ruble also depreciated. The dram was introduced at dram 200 to the dollar, depreciated rapidly to around dram 400 per dollar, and was relatively constant at that rate through the end of the urban pilot survey period. From January 1994 on, the dram had replaced the old, Soviet rubles, but Russian rubles, US dollars, and other foreign currencies continue to circulate in Armenia to this day.
122. The presence of so many currencies presented an additional complication for the recording of prices and money amounts for both income and expenditures. The questionnaires were not pre-coded for different currency types; instead interviewers wrote denominations by hand, and data entry staff picked up the information by designated currency codes. In ilts preliminary work, the Yerevan State University group decided to use US dollars as the numeraire, and amounts and prices expressed in other currencies were translated into dollars at market exchange rates. Due to the stupendous inflation of the old, Soviet ruble, there were pronounced exchange rate effects in this conversion process.
123. Additionally, there are no good measures of domestic inflation before January 1994, when Goskomstat Armenii introduced a new Consumer Price Index (CPI) with technical assistance from the Statistics Department of the IMF. The CPI is a good measure of inflation since Januaiy 1994, but before that, there are no reliable measures. For the proper measurement of income and expenditures, survey information should be presented in real domestic currency units.
124. Given the events of the last two quarters of 1993 and the absence of reliable domestic deflators, it was decided to work only with the last two quarters of the urban data (first and second quarter 1994) for the poverty assessment, while utilizing all four quarters of the rural data (1994). During this period, the dram was the only legal domestic tender, and the major foreign currencies in circulation were the Russian ruble (which was fairly stable versus the dollar during this period) and the dollar. Amounts or prices in rubles or dollars were converted to dram at the weighted average weekly market exchange rate. During the first six months of 1994, the dram was relatively stable against the dollar, and appreciated gradually (more or less) versus the ruble.
Expenditures and Recall Period
125. Respondents were asked about four different kinds of expenditures: food, prepared food, non-food goods, and other (various services). The recall period for food and prepared food expenditures was one day (the day before the interview), while
30 the recall period for non-food goods and other expenditures was one week (the seven days preceding the interview). As a result of this difference in recall periods. expenditure data are not truly representative for a week or for four weeks for a Given household, although they should represent average expenditure for the sample ol a sufficiently large subset of the sample.
126. To aggregate monthly expenditures, the only "solution" for such a case is to multiple daily expenditures by the average number of days in a month, and weekly expenditures for the average number of weeks in a month. Daily expenditures were multiplied by 30 days/month and weekly expenditures by 4.3 weeks/nonth. Even in the absence of high inflation, such differences in recall period would lead to an overstatement of dispersion (variance) in the distribution of expenditures. In general, the means for the sample or a large sub-set of the sample should approach their "best linear unbiased estimate" values, but this is not the case for the variance. As a result, any variance, standard error, or other measures which rely on variance (such as Gini coefficients or poverty measures) are likely to be overstated.
127. For Armenia, the potential overstatement is greatly magnified by the higll rates of inflation during the first six months of 1994. The procedure used was to first defltue daily or weekly expenditures to be expressed in real dram (prices as of June 1994). .tnd then to multiply by 30 or 4.3 accordingly. One difficulty experienced by researchers working on other high inflation economies (e.g. Glewwe and Hall 1992 on Peru) was to choose among daily, weekly, or monthly deflators. In Armenia, the CPI is produced on a monthly basis. There are no official daily or weekly deflators.
128. A daily CPI was constructed by linear interpolation from the monthly CPI. and used it to deflate daily expenditures. Weekly expenditures were deflated by the daily deflator corresponding to four days before the interview date. Linear interpolation does not capture the actual acceleration or deceleration of prices on a daily basis. but there are no reasonable alternatives given the absence of daily deflators.
129. There were 12 urban families (1 percent of total urban families) and 7 rural families (0.6 percent of total rural families) which reported expenditures of zero. Although one would normally consider such families to be coding errors or outliers, in the Armenian case this is not so, since households were asked to report only the previous day's food expenditures. Extremely poor households might have legitimately failed to purchase food the preceding day or non-food items in the preceding week. Indeed, of the "zero expenditure" families, only one urban family and one rural family reported zero income during the previous month. Although purists might argue for the exclusion of the zero income zero expenditure family in each data set, given the emphasis on expenditures as the poverty standard, these two families were retained
19No urban household reported expenditure on a major consumer durable, such as an automobile or apartment. For poverty analysis, expenditures should be constructed to exclude purchases of consumer dui ables (which are purchased very infrequently and require protracted periods of household savings for purchase).
31 (also, their effect is negligible). Therefore, expenditures in general include zero -expenditure families. Means would be higher if these families had been excluded. For calculating Gini coefficients, however, the zero expenditure families were excluded.
Income and Recall Period
130. Respondents were asked to report last month's income. Unfortunately, the exact date of payment was not recorded. Typically, workers at state enterprises receive a so-called salary "advance" sornewhere around the 20th of the month, and the rest of the monthly salary around the 2nd or 3rd of the following month. However, wage arrears and the prevalence of administrative leave and short-time working arrangements have attenuated these arrangements.
131. Additionally, it was not always clear to which month a respondent would refer, For example, if an interview occurred on the 22nd of the month, it was not clear whether the respondent answered for his or her last monthly salary (3 weeks ago) or last advance (2 days ago). The difference of three weeks is an important one for deflation when inflation is high. Again, lacking information, all incomes were deflated by the interpolated daily deflator corresponding to the 15th day of the month preceding the interview, regardless of where the interview fell in the interview month.
132. There were 24 rural families and 6 urban families which reported zero income during the previous month. These families were retained in the data set, since 23 and 5 respectively reported some sort of expenditures during the reporting period. It was the judgment of the Armenian team that "zero income" families were likely to have been understating their income. However, for calculating incomes-based Gini coefficient, zero income families were excluded.
In-kind Consumption
133. In the FSU, many urban households have access to a small private plot of land, on which a summer house (dacha) is often built. Typically, the private plots of urban households are located outside the city center, in the suburbs or area immediately outside of the city suburb limits. In Armenia, land was privatized very early in transition (largely in 1992) and the system of state and collective farms were abolished. In the rural questionnaire, detailed questions about production, own consumption, sales, gifts in kind to friends and family, and remainders are asked about private land output. However, such detail was not asked of urban households. Approximately thirty-seven percent of urban households reported access to a private plot, while more than 97 percent of rural households surveyed reported having land.
134. Instead, urban households were asked to quantify their income from the sales of goods and services (which would therefore include sales of agricultural produce). However, urban respondents were not asked to quantify their in-kind consumption of
32 private plot produce or-animal products. Such in-kind consumption would provide an important component of properly specified real household consumption, but it is unfortunately missing from the urban data set.
135. Detailed data on in-kind consumption was collected of rural households (in terms of kilograms produced, sold, consumed by the household, given away. or kept for seed) for the entire year preceding the interview. Quantities were divided by 12 months in the year, and multiplied by an average monthly price. The very high inflation of 1994 coupled with the strong seasonality in agricultural prices presented a challenge. If prices had not changed much over the year, seasonality could be reduced by averaging over the year. However, the high inflation of 1994 made averaging impractical. Instead, one month (June) was chosen as the reference month, and all agricultural outputs were multiplied by their average market price in June 1994. Deflation of all other nominal aggregates was to June 1994 as well. June was chosen arbitrarily. Typically, the CPI registers the lowest increases in July, and agricultural prices decline throughout the summer but rise very sharply in the winter months.
Equivalence Scale
136. One outstanding technical issue is the question of equivalence scale. In this study, per capita expenditures and income were used where per capita is understood to mean "per family member" not per individual in the population. The relative poverty lines are a percent of real (family member) per capita expenditures. In such a formulation, each family member has been assumed to consume equal values. In actuality, the needs of family members differ. In the OECD, an equivalence scale is u*sedwhereby a child is assumed to consume 50 percent of a working age adult, and an adult at or past retirement age is assumed to consume 70 percent of a working age adult. Sometimes equivalence scales are differentiated by gender.
137. In the US, an alternate approach is used. The US poverty line is said to take into account economies of scale in consumption,20 and there are actually 7 different US 21 poverty lines, based on different family compositions. In this study, the basic unit of analysis is the household, not the individual. In Armenia, it could be expected that the OECD equivalence scale would not reflect traditional consumption patterns. which favor the feeding of children over adults. This traditional pattern is corroborated by independent evidence from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) data on the absence of child malnutrition in Armenia, and data from CARE about weight loss in pensioners (not children). Since poverty headcounts are well-known to be highly sensitive to
20Economies of scale in consumption mean that the marginal cost of an additional family member declines. This results from the fact that some fixed costs are little affected by the addition of an additional family member (e.g. the heating bill) as well as 'savings" in variable cost familiar to anyone who has worn "hand-me-down" clothes or eaten a stew "stretched" to feed an unexpected guest. 21In actuality, the US poverty methodology has not been revised since the 1956 regressions run by Orshansky, and is open to criticism on this and other points.
33 equivalencescale assuihptions,some future experimentationwith equivalencescales is warranted.
Outliers
138. The Armenianteam retainedthe hard copy of all questionnairesand was able to resolve most questionsabout outliersby referencingthe hard copy. In two cases (one the purchase of $2000 worth of medicalcare; the other the sale of a family automobile for $2000), outlierswere excludedin the calculationof total expendituresand income as unique events. In all other cases, amountswere left as reported on the hard copy questionnaires.
139. Given the dispersionof the data on both expendituresand income, it seems likely that a mechanicalapproach to correctingfor outliersmight affect the headcounts significantly. One such standarcdapproach is the substitutionof the mean for any values greater than five standarddeviations from the mean (regardlessof what was reported by the respondent). Such an approachwill be used for Armenian and other data in a forthcomingresearch project, comparingpoverty and social assistancein Eastern Europe and the former S,ovietUnion, so some comparisonto this poverty profile will be possible.
34 VI. TEXT TABLES
Table 1. Armenia: Mean Urban And Rural Family Income And Expenditures, 1994 ...... 36 Table 2. Armenia: Urban Poverty By Number Of Adults And Children ...... 37 Table 3. Armenia: Rural Poverty By Number Of Adults And Children ...... 39 Table 4. Armenia: Poverty And Number Of Children ...... 41 Table 5. Armenia: Individual Poverty By Age And Gender ...... 42 Table 6. Armenia: Registered Unemployment, 1992-95 ...... 43 Table 7. Armenia: Regional Dispersion Of Urban Poverty ...... 44 Table 8. Armenia: Rural Poverty By Village...... 45 Table 9. Armenia: Rural Poverty By Region ...... 46 Table 10. Armenia: Individual Poverty By Gender ...... 47 Table 11. Armenia: Rural Females And Poverty ...... 48 Table 12. Armenia: Rural Males And Poverty ...... 49 Table 13. Armenia: Urban Females And Poverty ...... 50 Table 14. Armenia: Urban Males And Poverty ...... 51 Table 15. Armenia: Poverty In Rural Single Parent Families...... 52 Table 16. Armenia: Poverty In Urban Single Parent Families...... 53 Table 17. Armenia: Sensitivity Analysis For Urban And Rural Poverty ...... 54 Table 18. Armenia: Concentration Coefficients For Cash Transfers 1/ ...... 54 Table 19. Armenia: Composition Of Urban Per Capita Income By Deciles ...... 55 Table 20. Armenia: Composition Of Rural Per Capita Income By Deciles ...... 56 Table 21. Armenia: Average Transfers, Shares Of Income, And Percent Not Receiving By Poverty Status...... 57
35 TABLE 1. ARMENIA: MEAN URBAN AND RURAL FAMILY INCOME AND EXPENDITURES, 1994 In real (June 1994) dram per month Rural as Percent of Urban Rural Urban Income Expenditure Income Expenditure Income Expenditure
Very Poor 6,210 515 27,583 2,096 444.2 407.1 Poor 4,394 2,132 24,588 9,880 559.6 463.4 Non-Poor 17,961 36,289 69,427 61,274 386.5 168.8
All Families 14,167 25,497 58,597 47,517 413.6 186.4
Expenditures as Percent of Income
Very Poor 8.3 7.6 Poor 48.5 40.2 Non-Poor 202.0 88.3
All Families 180.0 81.1
Memorandum Items
Urban Rural
Expenditure-Based Measures
Headcount (percent of families) 30.5 22.8 Poverty gap index 19.7 12.0 Severity 15.1 8.4 Gini coefficent 73.0 52.2
Income-Based Measures
Headcount (percent of families) 20.4 32.4 Poverty gap index 8.3 20.7 Severity 4.9 15.9 Gini coefficient 82.8 75.1
36 TABLE 2. ARMENIA: URBAN POVERTY BY NUMBER OF ADULTS AND CHILDREN
Number of Children = 0 in Family
Number of Adults in Family O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Poor 15 28 29 69 64 31 0 0 Poor 6 10 22 34 34 11 0 0 Non-Poor 56 103 113 158 303 67 0 7
Number of Children = 1 in Family
Number of Adults in Family O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Poor 3 11 70 64 69 14 0 0 Poor 3 4 37 20 53 6 0 0 Non-Poor 0 36 175 223 156 79 0 8
Number of Children = 2 in Family
Number of Adults in Family O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Poor 0 16 187 91 18 36 0 0 Poor 0 0 131 25 19 0 0 0 Non-Poor 0 31 865. 293 143 43 0 9
Number of Children = 3 in Family
Number of Adults in Family O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Poor 0 8 120 13 0 0 0 0 Poor 0 0 109 13 14 0 0 0 Non-Poor 0 4 471 59 66 0 0 0
Number of Children = 4 in Family
37 Cont... Table 2 Number of Adults in Family O 1 2 3 4 5 6
Very Poor 0 0 18 0 10 0 0 Poor 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 Non-Poor 0 0 43 7 8 0 11
Number of Children = 5 in Family 1/
Number of Adults in Family 0 1 2 3 4 S 6
Very Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poor 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 Non-Poor 0 0 7 8 0 0 0
Memorandum Item Poverty rate of two-adult families 44.1 Poverty rate of three-adult families 33.2 Poverty rate of four-adult families 30.4
1/ Note: There are no families with 6 children in the urban sample. There is one family that comprised of seven children and 10 adults, and this family is a non-poor one.
38 TABLE 3. ARMENIA: RURAL POVERTY BY NUMBER OF ADULTS AND CHILDREN Number of Children = 0 in Family
Number of Adults in Family O 1 2 3 4 5 6
Very Poor 30 15 14 24 13 0 0 Poor 16 20 37 19 23 29 6 Non-Poor 73 64 125 188 163 67 33
Number of Children = 1 in Family
Number of Adults in Family O 1 2 3 4 5 6
Very Poor 3 12 26 20 15 0 0 Poor 0 0 14 32 22 0 0 Non-Poor 5 29 187 218 139 0 0
Number of Children = 2 in Family
Number of Adults in Family O 1 2 3 4 5 6
Very Poor 0 0 141 26 18 0 0 Poor 0 0 137 29 18 0 19 Non-Poor 0 35 642 207 237 36 8
Number of Children = 3 in Family
Number of Adults in Family O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Poor 0 4 122 6 0 0 0 0 Poor 0 5 122 6 9 0 9 0 Non-Poor 0 0 786 79 36 0 38 21
Number of Children = 4 in Family
39 Cont... Table 3 Number of Adults in Family O 1 2 3 4 5 6
Very Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poor 0 0 20 7 0 10 Non-Poor 0 0 199 0 28 0 0
Number of Children = 5 in Family l/
Number of Adults in Family O 1 2 3 4 5 6
Very Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non-Poor 0 0 23 0 31 0 22
Memorandum Item Poverty rate of two-adult families 40.4 Poverty rate of three-adult famil[ies 21.9 Poverty rate of four-adult families 15.4 1/ Note: There are no families with 6 children in the rural sample. There is one family comprised of seven children and 10 adults, and this family is a non-poor one.
40 TABLE 4. ARMENIA: POVERTY AND NUIMBER OF CHILDREN In Number of Families Urban Rural Very Poverty Very Poverty Poor Poor NonPoor Rate Poor Poor NonPoor Rate
0 75 39 259 30. 44 52 230 29.4 1 64 31 185 33. 21 15 150 19.4 2 67 36 283 26. 40 41 230 26.0 3 26 22 95 33. 26 28 168 24.3 4+ 4 4 10 44. 0 6 43 12.2 Total 236 132 832 30. 131 142 821 25.0
No children in 75 39 259 30. 44 52 230 29.4 family Children in Family 161 93 573 30. 87 90 591 23.0
Percent out of Very Poor, Poor,, NonPoor
No children in 31 29.5 31.1 33 36.6 28.0 family Children in Family 68 70.5 68.9 66 63.4 72.0
41 TABLE 5. ARMENIA: INDIVIDUAL POVERTY BY AGE AND GENDER Percent Very poor Poor Non-Poor Poor and Very Poor- Rural Women Totals 242 316 1894 22.8 18 & under 87 106 685 22.0 60 & over 36 40 220 25.7 55 & over 50 57 318 25.2
Rural Men Totals 247 322 1920 22.9 18 & under 104 120 703 24.2 Over 60 20 31 201 20.2
Urban Males Total 2495 493 276 1726 30.8 18 & under 868 172 99 597 31.2 60 & over 239 47 25 167 30.1 Able-bodied 1388
Urban Females Total 2634 491 301 1842 30.1 18 & under 820 145 104 571 30.4 60 & over 59 37 213 31.1 J5 & over 4';5 83 51 321 29.5 Able-bodied 1359 Povertm Rate Total Poor Portrait Very poor Poor Non-Poor Poor and Very Poor- All ages 1473 1215 7382 26.7 18 & under 508 429 2556 26.8 60 & over 162 133 801 26.9 Males 740 598 3646 26.8 Females 733 617 3736 26.5
Percent out of subtotal 18 &under 34.5 35.3 34.6 60 & over 11.0 10.9 10.9
Males 50.2 49.2 49.4 Females 49.8 50.8 50.6
42 TABLE 6. ARMENIA: REGISTERED UNEMPLOYMENT, 1992-95 (In thousands, end of month). Receiving Receiving Total Men Women Benefit Men Women Benefit 1992 (In percent of total) January .. February .. March .. April 6.1 ...... May 8.9 .. .. 2.5 ...... 28 June 14.5 4.5 10.0 10.6 31 69 73 July 20.8 .. .. 13.7 ...... 66 August 29.3 .. .. 21.4 ...... 73 September 35.6 12.6 22.9 27.5 36 64 77 October 41.8 .. .. 29.5 ...... 71 November 48.6 .. .. 33.8 ...... 70 December 56.3 20.5 35.8 35.3 36 64 63
1993 January 59.5 .. .. 37.2 ...... 63 February 68.0 .. .. 40.9 ...... 60 March 76.7 29.5 47.1 43.4 39 61 57 April 81.9 .. .. 45.5 ...... 56 May 86.0 .. .. 43.6 ...... 51 June 87.6 33.7 53.9 42.6 38 62 49 July 89.7 .. .. 38.4 ...... 43 August 93.9 .. .. 38.6 ...... 41 September 95.9 35.8 60.1 33.8 37 63 35 October 98.6 .. .. 33.9 ...... 34 November 100.7 .. .. 32.4 ...... 32 December 102.6 38.1 64.5 33.1 37 63 32
1994 January 104.8 51.8 53.0 30.7 49 51 29 February 107.0 39.6 67.5 32.8 37 63 31 March 108.6 39.9 68.7 24.1 37 63 22 April 110.4 40.8 69.6 25.6 37 63 23 May 111.5 ... .. 24.3 ...... 22 June 111.9 40.7 71.2 20.1 36 64 18 July 113.2 41.3 71.9 17.1 36 64 15 August 113.9 43.9 70.0 16.9 39 61 15 September 1/ 105.2 38.6 66.6 15.4 37 63 15 October 99.6 34.4 65.2 16.1 35 65 16 November 89.5 30.8 58.7 17.3 34 66 19 December 91.7 31.7 60.0 22.8 35 65 25 1995 January 79.0 27.0 52.0 24.7 34 66 31 February 84.8 29.1 55.7 33.1 34 66 39 March 88.4 28.9 59.5 41.3 33 67 47 April 90.8 29.2 61.6 39.2 32 68 43
Source: Armenian authorities. 1/ Starting in September 1994, if after one year, the unemployed person fails to (re) register. they are dropped from the rolls. 43 TABLE 7. ARMENIA: REGIONAL DISPERSION OF URBAN POVERTY Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total Poverty Rate (%)
Yerevan 295 211 1,770 2,276 22.2 Vanadzor 252 70 427 749 43.0 Kamo 118 35 370 523 29.3 Artik 43 120 428 591 27.6 Vaik 152 92 229 473 51.6 Echmiadzin 124 49 344 517 33.5
Total Individuals 984 577 3,568 5,129 30.4
Percent of Very Poor, Poor, Non-Poor, and Total
Yerevan 30.0 36.6 49.6 44.4 Vanadzor 25.6 12.1 12.0 14.6 Kamo 12.0 6.1 10.4 10.2 Artik 4.4 20.8 12.0 11.5 Vaik 15.4 15.9 6.4 9.2 Echmiadzin 12.6 8.5 9.6 10.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
44 TABLE 8. ARMENIA: RURAL POVERTY BY VILLAGE Slhares out of Subtotals Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total Poverny Families Families Families Families Rate % Vet- Poor Poor Non-Poor
Village Code 1 Apaga 21 8 1 30 96.7 16.0 5.6 0.1 2 Tsiatsan 1 5 24 30 20.0 0.8 3.5 2.9 3 Ganzak 15 7 8 30 73.3 11.5 4.9 1.0 4 Saruhan 2 27 29 6.9 0.0 1.4 3.3 5 Ehegnut 26 2 2 30 93.3 19.8 1.4 0.2 6 Gugark 8 9 13 30 56.7 6.1 6.3 1.6 7 Nor-Kiank 3 10 17 30 43.3 2.3 7.0 2.1 8 Garich 16 8 6 30 80.0 12.2 5.6 0.7 9 Azadek 3 1 26 30 13.3 2.3 0.7 3.2 10 Ger-ger 1 29 30 3.3 0.0 0.7 3.5 11 Gekahovit 9 21 30 30.0 0.0 (f.3 2.6 12 Kahsi 1 29 30 3.3 0.0 e} 7 3.5 13 Arevshat 3 27 30 10.0 0.0 2 1 3.3 14 Dalar 3 27 30 10.0 2.3 I U 3.3 15 Vostan 1 3 26 30 13.3 0.8 2 3.2 16 Mrgavan 1 7 22 30 26.7 0.8 4.9 2.7 17 Nor-Kiank 1 29 30 3.3 0.0 0.7 3.5 18 Goravan 1 29 30 3.3 0.8 (.0 3.5 19 Ararat 1 29 30 3.3 0.0 0.7 3.5 20 Aralez 2 28 30 6.7 1.5 (.0 3.4 21 Musaler 3 27 30 10.0 0.0 2.1 3.3 22 Margahovit 1 5 23 29 20.7 0.8 3.5 2.8 23 Getap 2 12 16 30 46.7 1.5 8.5 1.9 24 Hahitana 2 28 30 6.7 1.5 0.0 3.4 25 Odzun 1 10 11 22 50.0 0.8 7.0 1.3 26 Dzorakap 3 13 14 30 53.3 2.3 9.2 1.7 27 Lchashen 1 29 30 3.3 0.0 0.7 3.5 28 Geckamavan 1 29 30 3.3 0.( 0.7 3.5 30 Khaladj 15 9 4 28 85.7 11.5 6.3 0.5 31 Gehanush 30 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 32 29 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 3.5 33 1 29 30 3.3 0.0 0.7 3.5 34 6 9 15 30 50.0 4.6 6.3 1.8 35 30 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 36 25 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 37 25 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 38 37 37 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 Total 131 142 821 1,094
45 TABLE 9. ARMENIA: RURAL POVERTY BY REGION Percent Out Percent of of Total Subtotals Rural Individuals Individuals
Very Poverty Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Rates Poor Poor Noni-Poor
1 Etchmiadzin 96 71 265 38.7 19. 11.1 6.9 8.7 2 Kamo 61 77 275 33.4 12. 12.1 7.2 8.4 3 Gugark 132 51 75 70.9 27. 8.0 2.0 5.2 4 Artik 62 64 57 68.9 12. 10.0 1.5 3.7 5 Vaik 13 6 254 7.0 2. 0.9 6.7 5.5 6 Martuni 80 140 36.4 0. 12.5 3.7 4.5 7 Razdan 7 161 4.2 0. 1.1 4.2 3.4 8 Artashat 11 45 473 10.6 2. 7.1 12.4 10.7 9 Ararat 8 9 490 3.4 1. 1.4 12.8 10.3 10 Idjevan 16 43 196 23.1 3. 6.7 5.1 5.2 11 Tumanian 3 38 45 47.7 0. 6.0 1.2 1.7 12 Ani 11 60 56 55.9 2. 9.4 1.5 2.6 13 Sevan 12 244 4.7 0. 1.9 6.4 5.2 14 Kapan 51 32 9 90.2 10. 5.0 0.2 1.9 15 4 257 1.5 0. 0.6 6.7 5.3 16 25 39 69 48.1 5. 6.1 1.8 2.7 17 498 0.0 0. 0.0 13.1 10.1 18 131 0.0 0. 0.0 3.4 2.7 19 119 0.0 0. 0.0 3.1 2.4
Total 489 638 3814 494
46 TABLE10. ARMENIA: INDIVIDUALPOVERTY BY GENDER Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total Poverty Rate b) type Urban Females 491 301 1,842 2,634 30.1 Males 493 276 1,726 2,495 30.8
Rural Females 242 316 1,894 2,452 22.8 Males 247 322 1,920 2,489 22.9
Total Females 733 617 3,736 5,086 26.5 Males 740 598 3,646 4,984 26.8
Shares out of Very Poor, Poor, Non-Poor, and Total Urban Females 33.3 24.8 25.0 26.2 Males 33.5 22.7 23.4 24.8
Rural Females 16.4 26.0 25.7 24.3 Males 16.8 26.5 26.0 24.7
47 TABLE 11. ARMENIA: RURAL FEMALES AND POVERTY Percentage Age Very Poor Non Total Very Poor Non Total Poor Bracket Poor Poor Poor Poor / 0-4 26 29 151 206 8.2 9.2 8.0 26.7 5-9 21 37 223 281 8.7 11.7 11.8 20.6 10-14 21 25 193 239 8.7 7.9 10.2 19.2 15-19 24 19 146 189 9.9 6.0 7.7 22.8 20-24 15 31 145 191 6.2 9.8 7.7 24 1 25-29 23 25 148 196 9.5 7.9 7.8 24.5 30-34 19 32 196 247 7.9 10.1 10.3 20.6 35-39 20 22 148 190 8.3 7.0 7.8 22.1 40-44 10 15 105 130 4.1 4.7 5.5 19.2 45-49 9 14 65 88 3.7 4.4 3.4 26.1 50-54 4 10 56 70 1.7 3.2 3.0 20.0 55-59 14 17 98 129 5.8 5.4 5.2 24.0 60-64 11 8 92 111 4.5 2.5 4.9 17.1 65-69 6 14 64 84 2.5 4.4 3.4 23.8 70-74 7 6 35 48 2.9 1.9 1.8 27.1 75-79 2 5 13 20 0.8 1.6 0.7 35.0 80-89 10 7 16 33 4.1 2.2 0.8 51.5
Total 242 316 1,894 2.452 Very Poor plus Poor.
48 TABLE 12. ARMENIA: RURAL MALES AND POVERTY Percentage Age Very Poor Non Total Very Poor Non Total Poor" Bracket Poor Poor Poor Poor 04 27 29 152 208 10.9 9.0 7.9 26.9 5-9 32 37 207 276 13.0 11.5 10.8 25.0 10-14 26 28 230 284 10.5 8.7 12.0 19.0 15-19 22 30 148 200 8.9 9.3 7.7 26.0 20-24 19 25 162 206 7.7 7.8 8.4 21.4 25-29 22 26 125 173 8.9 8.1 6.5 27.7 30-34 19 36 204 259 7.7 11.2 10.6 21.2 35-39 24 27 159 210 9.7 8.4 8.3 24.3 40-44 15 11 127 153 6.1 3.4 6.6 17.0 45-49 6 14 65 85 2.4 4.3 3.4 23.5 50-54 7 11 53 71 2.8 3.4 2.8 25.4 55-59 8 17 87 112 3.2 5.3 4.5 22.3 60-64 5 4 75 84 2.0 1.2 3.9 10.7 65-69 7 17 81 105 2.8 5.3 4.2 22.9 70-74 5 5 29 39 2.0 1.6 1.5 25.6 75-79 1 2 6 9 0.4 0.6 0.3 33.3 80-89 2 3 10 15 0.8 0.9 0.5 33.3
Total 247 322 1,920 2,489 Very" Poor plusPoor.
49 TABLE 13. ARMENIA: URBAN FEMALES AND POVERTY Percentage Age Bracket Very Poor Non Total Ver) Poor Poor Non Poor Total Poor Poor Poor1' 0-4 30 20 107 157 6.1 6.6 5.8 31.8 5-9 37 40 162 239 7.5 13.3 8.8 32.2 10-14 49 22 161 232 10.0 7.3 8.7 30.6 15-19 35 26 170 231 7.1 8.6 9.2 26.4 20-24 31 16 126 173 6.3 5.3 6.8 27.2 25-29 39 25 132 196 7.9 8.3 7.2 32.7 30-34 43 26 148 217 8.8 8.6 8.0 31.8 35-39 47 32 184 263 9.6 10.6 10.0 30.0 40-44 51 27 155 233 10.4 9.0 8.4 33.5 45-49 26 6 102 134 5.3 2.0 5.5 23.9 50-54 20 10 74 104 4.1 3.3 4.0 28.8 55-59 24 14 108 146 4.9 4.7 5.9 26.0 60-64 12 18 62 92 2.4 6.0 3.4 32.6 65-69 18 8 64 90 3.7 2.7 3.5 28.9 70-74 19 8 48 75 3.9 2.7 2.6 36.0 75-79 7 2 24 33 1.4 0.7 1.3 27.3 80-91 3 1 15 19 0.6 0.3 0.8 21.1
Total 491 301 1,842 2,634
" Very Poor plus Poor.
50 TABLE 14. ARMENIA: URBAN MALES AND POVERTY Percentage Age Bracket Very Poor Non Total Very Poor Poor Non Poor Total Poor Poor Poor I/ 0-4 33 10 115 158 6.7 3.6 6.7 27.2 5-9 34 28 172 234 6.9 10.1 10.0 26.5 10-14 56 36 180 272 11.4 13.0 10.4 33.8 15-19 56 27 157 240 11.4 9.8 9.1 34.6 20-24 40 17 99 156 8.1 6.2 5.7 36.5 25-29 36 18 153 207 7.3 6.5 8.9 26.1 30-34 35 27 138 200 7.1 9.8 8.0 31.0 35-39 42 29 139 210 8.5 10.5 8.1 33.8 40-44 43 23 158 224 8.7 8.3 9.2 29.5 45-49 33 14 96 143 6.7 5.1 5.6 32.9 50-54 19 12 57 88 3.9 4.3 3.3 35.2 55-59 19 10 95 124 3.9 3.6 5.5 23.4 60-64 15 11 61 87 3.0 4.0 3.5 29.9 65-69 14 5 52 71 2.8 1.8 3.0 26.8 70-74 11 3 27 41 2.2 1.1 1.6 34.1 75-79 1 5 11 17 0.2 1.8 0.6 35.3 80-89 6 1 16 23 1.2 0.4 0.9 30.4
Total 493 276 1,726 2,495 " Very Poor plus Poor.
51 TABLE 15. ARMENIA: POVERTY IN RURAL SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES Numberof Children 1 2 3 Single Male Parent Families, Numberof Individuals Very Poor 4 0 1 Poor 0 0 3 Non-Poor 14 11 0
Poverty rate (percent) 22.2 0.0 100.0 Very poor rate (percent) 22.2 0.0 25.0
Single Female Adult Parent Families, Number of Individuals Very Poor 8 0 3 Poor 0 0 v Non-Poor 15 24 0
Poverty rate (percent) 34.8 0.0 Io 1) Very poor rate (percent) 34.8 0.0 0("o(
Single Female Elderly Parent Families, Number of Individuals Very Poor I 0 ( Poor 0 0 l Non-Poor 3 5
Poverty rate (percent) 25.0 0.0 lW(). Very poor rate (percent) 25.0 0.0 00
Total Single Parent Families, Number of Individuals Very Poor 13 0 4 Poor 0 0 6 Non-Poor 32 40 (
Totals 45 40 1C0
Memorandum Items All individuals living in single parent families 95 Total rural individuals 4941 Share of single parent families 1.9 Overall poverty rate of single female families 24.2 Overall poverty rate of single parent families 24.2
52 * TABLE 16. ARMENIA: POVERTY IN URBAN SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES Number of Children 1 2 3 Single Male Parent Families, Number of Individuals Very Poor 0 1 0 Poor 0 0 0 Non-Poor 0 0 0
Poverty rate (percent) 0.0 100.0 0.0 Very poor rate (percent) 0.0 100.0 0.0
Single Male Elderly Parent Families, Number of Individuals Very Poor 1 I 0 Poor 0 0 0 Non-Poor 4 2 0
Poverty rate (percent) 20.0 33.3 0 Very poor rate (percent) 20.0 33.3 0
Single Female Adult Parent Families, Number of Individuals Very Poor 5 3 2 Poor 2 0 0 Non-Poor 15 8 l
Poverty rate (percent) 31.8 27.3 66.7 Very poor rate (percent) 22.7 27.3 66.7
Single Female Elderly Parent Families, Number of Individuals Very Poor 0 3 0 Poor 0 0 0 Non-Poor 2 5 0
Poverty rate (percent) 0.0 37.5 0 Very poor rate (percent) 0.0 37.5 0
Total Single Parent Families, Number of Individuals Very Poor 6 8 2 Poor 2 0 0 Non-Poor 21 15 1
Totals 29 23 3
Memorandum Items All individuals living in single parent families 55 Total rural individuals 5129 Share of single parent families 1.1 Overall poverty rate of single female families 32.6 Overall poverty rate of all single parent families 32.7
53 TABLE 17. ARMENIA: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR URBAN AND RURAL POVERTY Urban Poverty Rates (Very Poor plus Poor) - Poverty Line Used (Percent of Total Families) (Percent Cliange)
40 percent of Median Per Capita Expenditure 30.7 10 percent Lower 29.1 5.2 20 percent Lower 27.6 10.1 10 percent Higher 32.3 5.2 20 percent Higher 33.8 -10.1 40 percent of Mean Per Capita Expenditure 59.7 -94.5
Rural Poverty Rates (Very Poor plus Poor) (Percent of Total Families) (Percent Change)
40 percent of Median Per Capita Expenditure 25.0 10 percent Lower 22.6 9.6 20 percent Lower 20.5 18.0 10 percent Higher 27.6 -10.4 20 percent Higher 29.7 -18.8 40 percent of Mean Per Capita Expenditure 30.0 -20.0
TABLE 18. ARMENIA: CONCENTRATION COEFFICIENTS FOR CASH TRANSFERS 1/ Urban Rural
Pensions 11.5 4.6 Stipends 5.2 5.6 Single mothers/many-child -25.0 ... 2/ Child allowances -0.2 16.6 Other allowances 50.6 ... Unemployment benefits -20.0 ... 3/ Social services 48.0 29.3 Humanitarian assistance 63.3 29.1
Notes: 1/ Concentration coefficients can vary from -100 (perfect targeting; all transfers received by the poorest individual) to + 100 (complete lack of targeting; all transfers received by the richest individual). 2/ Rural child allowances include any payments for single mother or many-child families. Other allowances not available in rural data set. 3/ Unemployment benefit is not paid to rural land-owing residents, under Armenian employment law.
54 TABLE 19. ARMENIA: COMPOSITION OF URBAN PER CAPITA INCOME BY DECILES
Grantsto Other Income Single Toral Receipts from Sales Income Assistance Uneniploy- Foreign Secondary Mothers, lJumanita- Other from Income Of from Sale from Pe, Capita menl Currency Job Ma,ty-Child Child non Other Money Private from Student Agricultural of Other Social Otherln-Kind Incotne Benefit Earnings Earnings Fantilies Allowvances Assistance Assistance Receipts Pensions Individuals Property Salary Stipends Produce Goods Serices Assistance
First 5977 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.35 13.03 0.97 0.87 0.18 13.19 1.55 0.00 27.76 0.28 0.00 boo o.o0 000 Second 136.07 1.01 0.00 0.97 0.00 17.51 5.14 0.00 0.47 25.31 4.09 0.00 79.13 2.17 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 Third 198.04 1.83 0.00 1.39 0.00 17.87 8.38 0.00 0.00 34.98 3.92 0.00 118.26 7.72 0.00 3.69 0.00 0.00 Fourth 261.15 0.48 0.00 7.70 0.82 22.97 3.95 0.33 000 42.87 11.90 0.00 165 17 1 78 0.00 3.19 0.00 0.00 Fifth 353.98 0.32 0.00 9.75 0.86 22.21 11.80 2.48 1.63 50.68 26.53 0.00 216.69 4.02 0.99 6.01 000 0.00 Sixth 541.68 2.11 0.00 46.24 068 1954 22.19 1.99 4.74 5292 39.39 4.97 278.85 14.34 15.85 33.80 4.07 0.00 Seventh 981.08 0.82 16.28 118.22 0.00 18.64 262.94 000 0.00 4076 105.20 13.13 290.80 6.68 0.00 102.23 5.37 0.00 Eight 1,720.78 0.84 65.95 179.11 0.00 19.27 322.07 19.87 0.14 66.59 302.90 40.09 388.22 5.55 18.51 271.78 11.92 7.95 Ninth 4,147.97 0,47 521.86 531.66 0.00 1721 424.52 31.08 0.00 75.05 860.33 187.33 61522 3.17 105.72 725.93 24.83 2359 Tenth 28,809.81 0.59 3,483.10 2,082.96 0.00 17,49 1,021.19 0.00 47.39 56.26 10,338.25 2,499.68 2.618.17 1.38 762.66 5,880.68 0.00 you Percent of Per Capita Income
First 100.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0 6 21.8 1.6 1.5 0.3 22.1 2 6 0.0 46.5 0.5 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Second 100.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 0 0 12.9 3.8 0.0 0.3 18.6 3.0 0.0 58.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Third 100.0 0.9 0.0 0.7 0.0 9.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 17.7 2.0 0.0 59.7 3.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 Fourth 100.0 0.2 0.0 2.9 0.3 8.8 1 5 0.1 0.0 16.4 4.6 0.0 63.2 0.7 0.0 1.2 0.0 00 Fifth 1000 0.1 0.0 2.8 0.2 63 3.3 0.7 0.5 14.3 7.5 0.0 61.2 1.1 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 Sixth 100.0 0.4 0.0 8.5 0.1 3.6 4.1 0.4 0.9 9 8 7 3 0.9 51.5 2.6 2.9 6.2 0.8 0.0 Sevenith 100.0 0.1 1.7 12.1 0.0 1.9 26.8 00 00 4.2 10.7 1.3 296 0.7 0.0 10.4 05 * 0.0 Eight 100.0 0.0 3 8 10.4 0.0 1.1 18.7 1.2 0.0 3.9 17 6 2.3 22.6 0.3 1.1 15.8 0.7 0.5 Ninth 100.0 0 0 12 6 12 8 00 0.4 10.2 0.7 0.0 1 8 20.7 4 5 14 8 0.1 2 5 17.5 0 6 0.6 Teilti 100.0 00 12 1 7.2 00 0 1 3.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 35.9 8.7 9.1 0.0 2.6 20.4 I.0 0.0
Grants to Stnlgle lIne,,p/vltc- Mothers, Inent Attain-child Child Student MAemo,asd,tmtteiMs Benefit Famlslies Alloaottces Pen,sions Stipends
'Iotal 1.194 0 323 3 22.016.0 54.294 1 5.596 1 lo,est 40 perceirt 5829 1397 8.493,5 13,8456 1.421.4 Sharre of k-tesl 40 percentt 48 8 43 2 38 6 25 5 25 4
Vote. Ixcltdes uatilicis r iti zcror lmkissigfaimtly incmi,Cs.
55 TABLE 20. ARMENIA: COMPOSITION OF RURAL PER CAPITA INCOME BY DECILES Means, in Real (July 1994) dram
Monetary Other Per Child Sale of Self- In-Kind Income Humani- Hard Receipts Receipts Capita Student and Agri- Employ- Self- from tarian Social Currency frhm from Income Salary Pensions Stipends Other cultural ment Employ- Property Assistance Services Earnings State Relatives Allowv- Produce Income ment Organi- ances Income zations
First 69.7 22.1 15.8 1.0 25.9 3.7 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Second 235.2 72.1 65.7 5.1 40.7 30.1 2.3 3.4 0.7 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 Third 489.1 173.8 138.0 10.1 43.2 78.6 7.0 7.8 0.0 16.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 Fourth 1,011.1 260.9 72.2 5.0 61.8 415.9 14.0 91.4 2.8 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.5 Fifth 1,971.0 259.5 72.2 1.0 49.6 1,253.3 29.7 83.4 0.0 72.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 149.1 Sixth 4,134.0 189.2 83.2 4.2 59.4 2,862.8 391.9 194.9 46.7 21.8 0.0 0.0 14.5 265.2
Seventh 7,979.2 205.2 61.6 3.8 66.8 6,195.5 274.2 249.8 97.2 195.8 2.3 ' 40.2 164.6 422.2 Eighth 14,675.2 173.2 42.9 3.4 72.8 12,108.2 889.5 240.8 62.3 58.5 0.0 253.3 145.4 625.0 Ninth 26,012.0 153.2 52.0 5.2 61.6 21,748.9 892.8 523.7 478.4 35.5 0.2 794.6 545.2 720.8 Tenth 77,297.2 165.6 58.8 3.8 76.6 66,796.9 1,405.0 1,954.4 2,805.4 42.0 0.0 350.1 2,052.3 1,586.4
Percent of Per Capila Incomne
First 100.0 31.7 22.6 1.4 37.1 5.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Second 100.0 30.7 27.9 2.1 17.3 12.8 1.0 1.4 0.3 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Third 100.0 35.5 28.2 2.1 8.8 16.1 1.4 1.6 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 Fourth 100.0 25.8 7.1 0.5 6.1 41.1 1.4 9.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 Fifth 100.0 13.2 3.7 0.0 2.5 63.6 1.5 4.2 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 Sixth 100.0 4.6 2.0 0.1 1.4 69.3 9.5 4.7 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 6.4 Seventh 100.0 2.6 0.8 0.0 0.8 77.6 3.4 3.1 1.2 2.5 0.0 0.5 2.1 5.3 Eighth 100.0 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.5 82.5 6.1 1.6 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.7 1.0 4.3 Nintli 100.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.2 83.6 3.4 2.0 1.8 0.1 0.0 3.1 2.1 2.8 Tenth 100.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.4 1.8 2.5 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.7 2.1
Clild anid Oilier Pensions Stuiletit Stipends Allowances Total 7(),876.5 4,561.3 59,741.9 Lowest 40 percent 31,207.8 2,268.0 18,355.6 Share of Lowest 40 percent 44.0 49.7 30.7
56 TABLE 21. ARMENIA: AVERAGE TRANSFERS, SHARES OF INCOME, AND PERCENT NOT RECEIVING BY POVERTY STATUS
Percent of Families Not Receiving the Average Amount 1/ Percent of FamnilyIncome Transfer Urban Transfers Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Very Poor Poor Non-Poor
Unemployment Benefit 4.29 2.19 4.74 1.1 0.2 0.4 97.5 97.7 98.1 Allowance to Single Mothers/Many-Child Families 1.91 0.00 1.35 0.8 0.0 0.1 98.7 100.0 99.4 Child Allowances 75.72 90.29 85.46 11.1 10.8 6.2 43.2 39.4 39.3 Other Allowances 1.58 0.00 22.87 0.6 0.0 0.4 99.2 100.0 99.0 Pensions 138.19 149.51 152.67 15.7 13.0 9.8 63.1 58.3 61.9 Student Stipends 17.30 23.77 20.07 1.1 2.1 1.2 93.2 92.4 92.9 Social Services 18.80 0.00 8.52 0.7 0.0 0.3 98.3 100.0 99.3
Rural Transfers
Child and Other Allowances 169.18 223.41 317.85 10.1 13.4 7.1 32.8 37.3 31.8 Pensionis 109.50 206.37 252.98 13.2 10.2 8.9 60.3 59.2 59.0 Student Stipends 8.26 11.04 25.28 0.5 0.2 0.7 97.7 96.5 94.5 Social Services 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 Notes: Excludes fatnilies with zero or missing family income. 1/&In real (June 1994) dram.
57 VII. APPENDIX TABLES
Table 1. Armenia: Structure of Urban Sample Population by Age and Gender ...... 60 Table 2. Armenia: Urban Poverty by Gender...... 60 Table 3. Armenia: Urban Poverty by Age ...... 60 Table 4. Armenia: Number of Urban Families with One or More Pensioners ...... 61 Table 5. Armenia: Urban Farrilies with Pension-age Members ...... 61 Table 6. Armenia: Education of Urban Adults by Gender ...... 61 Table 7. Armenia: Unemployed Urban People by Age and Gender ...... 62 Table 8. Armenia: Poverty Status of Urban Residents by Place of Employment...... 62 Table 9. Armenia: Urban Family Assessment of Food Expense Shares ...... 62 Table 10. Armenia: Urban Family Assessment of Food Quality ...... 63 Table 11. Armenia: Urban Family Assessment of Poverty...... 63 Table 12. Armenia: Urban Family Stocks of Food Production ...... 63 Table 13. Armenia: Urban Families and Savings by Poverty Status ...... 64 Table 14. Armenia: Urban Family Poverty ...... 644..... Table 15. Armenia: Urban Individuals and Poverty ...... 65 Table 16. Armenia: Poverty Status of Urban Children ...... 65 Table 17 Armenia: Poverty Status of Non-Working Urban Pensioners ...... 65 Table 18. Armenia: Poverty Status of Those Who Lost Their Job ...... 65 Table 19. Armenia: Poverty Status of The Elderly ...... 66 Table 20. Armenia: Urban Poverty of Families by Number of Children ...... 66 Table 21. Armenia: Urban Poverty and Children in Families ...... 66 Table 22. Armenia: Poverty Status of Urban Families with Unemployed Members ...66 Table 23. Armenia: Poverty Staius of Urban Families with a Non-working Pensioner ...... I ..... 67 Table 24. Armenia: Urban Family Inventory by Poverty Status ...... 67 Table 25. Armenia: Ownership of Urban Homes by Poverty Status ...... 68 Table 26. Arimenia: Type of Urban Dwelling by Poverty Status...... 68 Table 27. Armenia: Family Evaluation of Urban Housing Conditions ...... 68 Table 28. Armenia: Area of Urban Homes by Poverty Status...... 69 Table 29. Armenia: Existence of Private Plots for Urban Families by Poverty Status ...... 69 Table 30. Armnenia: Structure oi One-Day Food Expenditures for Urban Families by Poverty Status...... 70 Table 31. Armenia: Structure of Expenditures on Non-food Stuffs for Urban Families by Poverty Status...... 71 Table 32. Arnenia: Structure of Expenditures on Services for Urban Families by Poverty Status...... 72 Table 33. Armenia: Rural Population Structure by Age and Gender ...... 73 Table 34. Armenia: Rural Poverty by Gender ...... 73 Table 35. Armenia: Rural Poverty by Age ...... 73 Table 36. Arnenia: Rural Families with Non-working Pensioners ...... 74 Table 37. Armenia: Rural Families with Elderly Pensioners ...... 74
58 Table 38. Armenia: Education of Rural Sample by Gender ...... 74 Table 39 Armenia: Rural Household Poverty...... 74 Table 40. Armenia: Rural Poverty of Individuals ...... 75 Table 41. Armenia: Rural Poverty of Children ...... 75 Table 42. Armenia: Rural Poverty of Non-working Adults ...... 75 Table 43. Armenia: Rural Poverty of Elderly ...... 75 Table 44. Armenia: Rural Poverty by Number of Children ...... 76 Table 45. Armenia: Rural Poverty by Presence of Children in Family ...... 76 Table 46. Armenia: Rural Poverty and Size of Household ...... 76 Table 47. Armenia: Rural Poverty and Housing Conditions...... 77 Table 48. Armenia: Rural Self-Evaluation of Housing Conditions ...... 80 Table 49. Armenia: Rural Poverty by Adult's Job ...... 81 Table 50. Armenia: Rural Self-Evaluation of Family Status ...... 81 Table 51. Armenia: Rural Poverty in Families with a Non-working Pensioner ...... 82 Table 52. Armenia: Rural Poverty and Household Inventory...... 82 Table 53. Armenia: Rural by Size of Total Land Hectares ...... 83 Table 54. Armenia: Rural Poverty and Average Number of Livestock ...... 83 Table 55. Armenia: Rural Poverty and Crop Production ...... 83 Table 56. Armenia: Rural Poverty and Agricultural Technology...... 84 Table 57. Armenia: Rural Poverty and Average Production of Livestock Products .... 84
59 Table 1. Armenia: Structure of Urban Sample Population by Age and GenderTable 1. Armenia: Structure Of Urban Sample Population By Age And Gender Males Females Total Number % Number % Number % Age <7 239 4.7 243 4.7 482 9.4 7-16 538 10.5 498 9.7 1036 20.2 17-29 490 9.6 487 9.5 977 19.0 30-39 410 8.0 480 9.4 890 17.4 40-49 367 7.2 367 7.2 734 14.3 50-59 212 4.1 250 4.9 462 9.0 60-69 158 3.1 182 3.5 340 6.6 70+ 81 1.6 127 2.5 208 4.1
Total 2495 48.6 2634 51.4 5129 100.0
Table 2. Armenia: Urban Poverty By Gender Poverty Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total Rate' Number % Number % Number % Number % % Males 493 19.8 276 11.1 1726 69.2 2495 100.0 30.6 Females 491 18.6 301 11.4 1842 69.9 2634 100.0 30.1
Total 984 19.2 577 11.2 3568 69.6 5129 100.0 30.4 Percent of very poor and poor dividedby total numberof individuals.
Table 3. Armenia: Urban Poverty By Age Poverty Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total Rate' Age Number % Number % Number % Number % % < 7 89 18.5 57 11.8 336 69.7 482 100.0 30.3 7-16 194 18.7 125 12.1 717 69.2 1036 100.0 30.8 17-29 193 19.8 103 10.5 681 69.7 977 100.0 30.3 30-39 167 18.8 114 12.8 609 68.4 890 100.0 31.6 40-49 153 20.8 70 9.5 511 69.6 734 100.0 30.4 50-59 82 17.7 46 10.0 334 72.3 462 100.0 27.7 60-69 59 17.4 42 12.4 239 70.3 340 100.0 29.7 70+ 47 22.6 20 9.6 141 67.8 208 100.0 32.2
Total 984 19.2 577 11.2 3568 69.6 5129 100.0 30.4 Percent of very poor and poor dividedby total number of individuals.
60 Table 4. Armenia: Number of Urban Families with One or More Pensioners Pensioners Number % None 802 66.8 Have 398 33.2
Total 1200 100.0
Table 5. Armenia: Urban Families with Pension- age Members' | Number |_%_l Pensioners None 718 59.8 Have 482 40.2
Total 1200 100.0 Men aged 60 and over; Womenaged 55 and over.
Table 6. Armenia: Education of Urban Adults by Gender Male s Females Total Number % Number % Number % Higher Education (complete or incomplete) 647 39.2 657 36.3 1304 37.7 Secondary Education 817 49.5 951 52.5 1768 51.1 Less than Secondary Education 187 11.3 204 11.3 391 11.3
Total 1651 100. 1812 100. 3463 100.0 Adultsaged 16 and above.
61 Table 7. Armenia: Unemployed Urban People by Age and Gender' Males Females Total Age Number % Number % Number %
17-29 70 19.2 43 11.8 113 31.0 30-39 76 20.9 57 15.7 133 36.5 40-49 51 14.0 33 9.1 84 23.1 50-59 27 7.4 7 1.9 34 9.3
Total 224 61.5 140 38.5 364 100.0 Here unemployed means only those who reported that they lost their job (does not include job seekers).
Table 8. Armenia: Poverty Status of Urban Residents by Place of Employment Very Por Poor Non-Poor Total Number % Number % Number % Number %
State-owned enterprise 286 6.2 161 3.5 1054 22.7 1501 32.3 Mixed private-public (including 7 .2 7 .2 37 .8 51 1.1 joint-stock companies) Cooperative business 12 .3 5 .1 68 1.5 85 1.8 Private enterprise 14 .3 3 .1 44 .9 61 1.3 Self-employed' 7 .2 9 .2 62 1.3 78 1.7 Joint-venture :2 .0 0 .0 5 .1 7 .2 Others (not specified) :2 .0 2 .0 16 .3 20' .4 Not working 565 12.2 333 7.2 1946 41.9 2844 61.2
Total 89:, 19.3 520 11.2 3232 69.6 4647 100.0 'Individual labor activity is translated as self-employed. 2Includes individuals under and over the normal working ages as well as housewives and students.
Table 9. Armenia: Urban Family Assessment of Food Expense Shares Reported share of family Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total expenditures on food Number % Number % Number % Number %
Less than half 2 .8 0 .0 5 .6 7 .6 Approximately half 2 .8 3 2.3 35 4.2 40 3.3 More than half 14 5.9 7 5.3 103 12.4 124 10.3 Practically all 211 89.4 120 90.9 673 80.9 1004 83.7 Difficult to answer 7 3.0 2 1.5 14 1.7 23 1.9 Don't know 0 .0 0 .0 2 .2 2 .2 Total 236 100. 132 100. 832 100. 1200 100.0
62 Table 10. Armenia: Urban Family Assessment of Food Quality How has the qualityof your Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total food changed? Number % Number % Number _ Number %
Worsened 0 .0 1 .8 9 1.1 10 .8 Unchanged 15 6.4 5 3.8 112 13.5 132 11.0 Improved 217 91.9 126 95.5 676 81.3 1019 85.0 Difficult to answer 4 1.7 0 .0 34 4.1 38 3.2
Total 236 100. 132 100. 831 100. 1199 100.0
Table 11. Armenia: Urban Family Assessment of Poverty Assessmentof your family's Very Poor Poor Non-P or Total materialsituation Number % Number % Number % Number %
Poor 151 64.5 88 67.2 314 38.1 553 46.5 Extremely poor 79 33.8 42 32.1 438 53.1 559 47.0 We have enoughfor food and clothes 4 1.7 1 .8 48 5.8 53 4.5 We live normally 0 0 0 .0 14 1.7 14 1.2 We are fully satisfied 0 0 0 .0 11 1.3 11 .9
Total 234 100.0 131 100.0 825 100.0 1190 100.0
Table 12. Armenia: Urban Family Stocks of Food Production Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total Number % Number % Number S Number % Meat and meat products none 220 93.2 128 97.0 712 85.6 1060 88.3 have 16 6.8 4 3.0 120 14.4 140 11.7 Sausage none 231 97.9 131 99.2 796 95.7 1158 96.5 have 5 2.1 1 .8 36 4.3 42 3.5 Fish none 215 91.1 130 98.5 720 86.5 1065 88.8 have 21 8.9 2 1.5 112 13.5 135 11.3 Milk and milk products none 209 88.6 116 87.9 648 77.9 973 81.1 have 27 11.4 16 12.1 184 22.1 227 18.9 Cheese none 163 69.1 104 78.8 427 51.3 694 57.8 have 73 30.9 28 21.2 405 48.7 506 42.2 Butter none 70 29.7 50 37.9 161 19.4 281 23.4 have 166 70.3 82 62.1 671 80.6 919 76.6
63 Table 12 Cont.. Vegetable oil none 125 :53.0 72 54.5 318 38.2 515 42.9 have 111 47.0 60 45.5 514 61.8 685 57.1 Eggs none 193 81.8 116 87.9 533 64.1 842 70.2 have 43 I18.2 16 12.1 299 35.9 358 29.8 Sugar none 86 36.4 70 53.0 211 25.4 367 30.6 have 150 63.6 62 47.0 621 74.6 833 69.4 Groats, macaroni, flour none 39 16.5 33 25.0 116 13.9 188 15.7 have 197 83.5 99 75.0 716 86.1 1012 84.3 Potatoes none 50 21.2 37 28.0 113 13.6 200 16.7 have 186 78.8 95 72.0 719 86.4 1000 83.3 Vegetables none 204 86.4 114 86.4 603 72.5 921 76.8 have 32 13.6 18 13.6 229 27.5 279 23.3 Fruit none 218 92.4 126 95.5 701 84.3 1045 87.1 have 18 7.6 6 4.5 131 15.7 155 12.9
Table 13. Armenia: Urban Families and Savings by Poverty Status Family Savings Very Poor Poor - Non-Poor Total Number % Number % Number % Number %
Have 12 5.1 4 3.0 130 15.6 146 12.2 None 217 91.9 123 93.2 671 80.6 1011 84.3 Difficult to answer 4 1.7 5 3.8 26 3.1 35 2.9 Don't Know 3 1.3 0 .0 5 .6 8 .7
Total 236 100.0 132 100.0 832 100.0 1200 100.0
Table 14. Armenia: Urban Family Poverty
_____ Number %
Very Poor 236 19.7 Poor 132 11.0 Non-Poor 832 69.3
Total 1200 100.0
64 Table 15. Armenia: Urban Individuals and Poverty Number %
Very Poor 984 19.2 Poor 577 11.2 Non-Poor 3568 69.6
Total 5129 100.0
Table 16. Armenia: Poverty Status of Urban Children' Males Females | Total l Number col% row% Number col % row% Number col % row%
Very Poor 150 19.3 53.0 133 17.9 47.0 283 18.6 100.0 Poor 88 11.3 48.4 94 12.7 51.6 182 12.0 100.0 Non-Poor 539 69.4 51.2 514 69.4 48.8 1053 69.4 100.0
Total 777 100.0 51.2 741 100.0 48.8 1518 100.0 100.0 Children aged 16 or less.
Table 17: Armenia: Poverty Status of Non-Working Urban Pensioners Males | Females _ Total Number col % row % Number col% row% Number col % row %
Very Poor 36 17.1 34.6 68 19.0 65.4 104 18.3 100.0 Poor 23 10.9 37.1 39 10.9 62.9 62 10.9 100.0 Non-Poor 152 72.0 37.7 251 70.1 62.3 403 70.8 100.0
Total 211 100.0 37.1 358 100.0 62.9 569 100.0 100.0
Table 18. Armenia: Poverty Status of Those Who Lost Their Job Males Females Total Number col% row% Number col % row% Number col % row %
Very Poor 54 24.1 63.5 31 22.1 36.5 85 23.4 100.0 Poor 29 12.9 65.9 15 10.7 34.1 44 12.1 100.0 Non-Poor 141 62.9 60.0 94 67.1 40.0 235 64.6 100.0
Total 224 100.0 61.5 140 100.0 38.5 364 100.0 100.0
65 Table 19. Arnenia: Poverty Status of the Elderly' Males Females | Total Number col % row % Number col % row % Number col % row %
Very Poor 47 19.7 36.2 83 18.2 63.8 130 18.7 100.0 Poor 25 10.5 32.9 51 11.2 67.1 76 11.0 100.0 Non-Poor 167 69.9 34.2 321 70.5 65.8 488 70.3 100.0
Total 239 100.0 34.4 455 100.0 65.6 694 100.0 100.0 Men aged 60 and over, women aged 55 and over.
Table 20. Armenia:Urban Poverty of Families by Number of Children Number of Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total Children Number %5 Number % Number % Number %
0 75 20.1 39 10.5 259 69.4 373 100.0 1 64 22.9 31 11.1 185 66.1 280 100.0 2 67 17.4 36 9.3 283 73.3 386 100.0 3 26 18.2 22 15.4 95 66.4 143 [00.0 4+ 4 22.2 4 22.2 10 55.6 18 100.(
Total Families 236 19.7 132 11.0 832 69.3 1200 1100
Table 21. Armenia: Urban Poverty and Children in Families No Children With Children Total Number Col% Row% Number Col % Row% Number Col 5v Row%
Very Poor 75 20.1 31.8 161 19.5 68.2 236 19.7 100.0 Poor 39 10.5 29.5 93 11.2 70.5 132 11.0 100.0 Non-Poor 259 69.4 31.1 573 69.3 68.9 832 69.3 100.0
Total Families 373 100.0 31.1 827 100.0 68.9 1200 100.0 100.0
Table 22. Armenia: Poverty Status of Urban Families with Unemployed Members No unemployed With unemployed members Total members Number Col % Row% Number Col % Row% Number Col | Row%
Very Poor 175 18.5 | 74.2 61 23.8 25.8 236 19.7 100.0 Poor 103 10.9 '78.0 29 11.3 22.0 132 11.0 100.0 Non-Poor 666 70.6 80.0 166 64.8 20.0 832 69.3 100.0
Total Families 944 100.0 78.7 256 100.0 21.3 1200 | 100.0 100.0
66 Table 23. Armenia: Poverty Status of Urban Families with a Non-Working Pensioner No non-working With non-workingpensioner Total - pensioner Number Col% Row% Number Col% Row% Number Col% Row%
Very Poor 156 19.5 66.1 80 20.1 33.9 236 19.7 100.0 Poor 89 11.1 67.4 43 10.8 32.6 132 11.0 100.0 Non-Poor 557 69.5 66.9 275 69.1 33.1 832 69.3 100.0
Total Families 802 100.0 66.8 398 100.0 33.2 1200 100.0 100.0
Table 24. Armenia: Urban Family Inventory by Poverty Status (average number present in households) Very poor Poor Non-poor
Living room .71 .77 .80 Dining room .55 .59 .65 Kitchen .39 .46 .49 Living room .11 .05 .09 Closet .44 .56 .55 Book case .27 .38 .42 Buffet .17 .19 .23 Sofa .72 .84 .77 Bed 1.58 1.61 1.51 Rug 1.24 1.39 1.64 Refrigerator or freezer .97 .99 1.00 Washing machine .83 .81 .89 Sewing machine .56 .51 .59 Vacuum .32 .42 .51 Floor polisher .19 .29 .30 Radios .35 .42 .54 Television .96 1.04 1.09 Video technology .05 .08 .16 Video camera .00 .00 .02 Camera .03 .07 .08 Piano .24 .23 .33 Stereo .01 .02 .04 Motorcycle .00 .00 .00 Bicycle .03 .14 .07 Car .19 .17 .30 Garage .17 .10 .20
67 Table 25. Arrnenia: Ownership of Urban Homes by Poverty Status Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total Number % Number % Number % Number %
Public-State (Housing fund) 86 36.4 41 31.1 304 36.5 431 35.9 Public-owned (Zhek) 43 18.2 21 15.9 98 11.8 162 13.5 Privatized apartment 23 9.7 17 12.9 104 12.5 144 12.0 Private home 78 33.1 47 35.6 298 35.8 423 35.3 Rental 2 .8 2 1.5 11 1.3 15 1.3 Other 4 1.7 4 3.0 17 2.0 25 2.1
Total 236 100.0 132 100.0 832 100.0 1200 100.0
Table 26. Armenia: Type of Urban Dwelling by Poverty Status Very Ploor Poor Non-Poor Total Number % Number % Number % Number %
Individual apartment 222 94.1 126 95.5 803 96.5 1151 95.9 Shared apartment 6 2.5 4 3.0 17 2.0 27 2.3 Container or railroad car 4 1.7 2 1.5 7 .8 13 1.1 Rental 4 1.7 0 .0 5 .6 9 .8
Total 236 100.0 132 100.0 832 100.0 1200 100.0
Table 27. Armenia: Family Evaluation of Urban Housing Conditions Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Very Total Poor
Very Poor 0 17 124 65 30 236 % .0 7.2 52.5 27.5 12.7 100.0 % .0 10.3 18.8 26.1 27.0 19.7
Poor 2 12 78 30 10 132 % 1.5 9).1 59.1 22.7 7.6 100.0 % 11.8 7.3 11.9 12.0 9.0 11.0
Non-Poor 15 1l36 456 154 71 832 % 1.8 16'.3 54.8 18.5 8.5 100.0 % 88.2 82.4 69.3 61.8 64.0 69.3
Total 17 165 658 249 111 1200 % 1.4 13.8 54.8 20.8 9.3 100.0 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
68 Table 28. Armenia: Area of Urban Homes by Poverty Status Average Area (square meters)
Very Poor 53 Poor 67 Non-Poor 58
Table 29. Armenia: Existence of Private Plots for Urban Families by Poverty Status No plot Have plot Total Number Number _ Number j_%
Very Poor 153 64.8 83 35.2 236 100.0 Poor 71 53.8 61 46.2 132 100.0 Non-Poor 526 63.2 306 36.8 832 100.0
Total 750 62.5 450 37.5 1200 100.0
69 Table 30. Armenia: Structure of One-Day Food Expenditures for Urban Families by Poverty Status' Type of family Bread Vegetable Fruits & Canned Meat & Meat Canned Total Bread Products Potatoes s Berries Sugar Goods Products Poultry Sausages Meat & Melons
Very Poor % 99.18 0.00 .82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 average amount spent 7.75 7.69 0.00 .06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poor % 76.25 0.00 0.00 4.11 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 average amount spent 23.98 18.29 0,00 0.00 .99 0.00 0.00 .72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Poor % 3.51 4.71 7.39 5.94 3.91 9.02 3.57 9.40 .85 1.92 .16 average amount spent 768.76 27.00 36.19 56.81 45.70 30.09 69.35 27.41 72.29 6.53 14.73 1.22 Total % 4.14 4.67 7.33 5.92 3.88 8.95 3.55 9.33 .84 1.90 .16 average amount spent 537.17 22.24 25.09 39.40 31.80 20.87 48.08 19.08 50.12 4.53 10.21 .85
Type of family Milk Animal Vegetable Margarine & Fish Coffee Other Non- Total Products Cheese Fat Eggs Oil Other Fats Products & Tea Food alcoholic Tobacco |_l_l_l_l _| Products Beverages
Very Poor % ~~~~~~~0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 average amount spent 7.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poor % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.64 average amount spent 23.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.99 Non-Poor % 1.88 11.24 11.91 6.41 1.99 .19 3.69 4.54 .72 .11 6.53 average amount spent 768.76 14.46 86.39 91.58 49.27 15.34 1.44 28.39 34.87 5.55 .87 50.17 Total % 1.87 11.15 11.82 6.36 1.98 .19 3.66 4.50 .72 .11 6.56 average amount spent 537.17 10.03 59.89 63.50 34.16| 10.63 | 1.001 19.69 1 24.18 | 3.85 | .60 35.23 Number of families: very poor: 236. poor: 132. non-poor: 832, total: 1200. Number of family members: very poor: 984, poor: 577, non-poor; 3568, toiai: 5129.
70 Table 31. Armenia: Structure of Expenditures on Non-food Stuffs for Urban Families by Poverty Status Type of family Knitted Sewn Haber- Piece Furniture Other I Total Cloth Linen Goods Socks Shoes Clothing dashery Goods Soap Detergent & Rugs Electronics Goods
Very Poor % 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.42 0.00 1.77 7.96 9.29 0.00 0.00 43.61 ave. amount spent 9.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .42 0.00 .17 .76 .89 0.00 0.00 4.18 Poor % 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.37 21.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.12 6.98 0.00 0.00 28.26 ave. amount spent 57.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.36 12.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.17 4.02 0.00 0.00 16.25 Non-Poor % 100.00 1.23 .06 7.59 .74 13.01 17.01 .07 .07 3.02 2.30 .97 9.54 39.89 ave. amount spent 633.80 7.77 .36 48.08 4.66 82.47 107.81 .42 .42 19.15 14.57 6.13 60.46 252.82 Total % 100.00 1.20 .06 7.45 .76 13.08 16.72 .07 .07 3.40 2.39 .95 9.36 39.74 ave. amount spent 447.64 5.38 .25 33.33 3.38 58.53 74.83 .29 .33 15.21 10.72 4.25 41.92 177.90 Number of families: very poor: 236, poor: 132, non-poor: 832, total: 1200. Number of family members: very poor: 984, poor: 577, non-poor: 3568, total: 5129.
71 Table 32. Armenia: Structure of Expenditures on Services for Urban Families by Poverty Status' Type of family State Housing Old Age Newspapers, Children's Total Transport Expenses Services hlomes Magazines & Books Day Care
Very Poor % 100.00 40.48 8.02 4.86 2.57 8.84 .39 average amount spent 35.88 14.52 2.88 1.74 .92 3.17 .14 Poor % 100.00 30.32 3.04 3.40 0.00 6.77 1.58 average amount spent 218.45 66.23 6.64 7.43 0.00 14.79 3.45 Non-Poor % 100.00 7.92 .56 3.39 .08 1.50 .53 average amount spent 2126.17 168.30 11.87 72.13 1.61 31 11.22 Total % 100.00 8.43 .63 3.40 .09 1.62 .54 average amount spent 1505.23 126.83 9.52 51.17 1.30 24.32 8.19 cOIl t. Type of family Medical Services Assistance to Relatives Purchases of Purchases of Savings (savings Other & Drugs Education (inc. alimony Property Hlard bank, vouchers) Expenditures .______C urrency Very Poor % 8.20 6.83 1.57 0.00 0. 1.26 12.95 average amount spent 2.94 2.45 .56 0 0. .45 4.65 Poor % 21.32 14.66 2.71 1.25 0. .42 8.94 average amount spent 46.58 32.02 5.93 3 0. .91 19.53 Non-Poor % 13.75 18.19 10.56 .15 22.1 7.61 12.60 average amount spent 292.36 386.66 224.48 3 470 161.84 267.84 Total % 13.85 18.08 10.39 .17 21.6 7.47 12.54 average amouLitspent 208.41 272.09 156.40 3 325. 112.40 188.77 Number of families: very poor: 236, poor: 132, nion-poor: 832, total:1200. Numliberof familynmcmiibers: very poor: 984, poor: 577, noni-poor: 3568, total: 5129.
72 Table 33. Armenia: Rural Population Structure by Age and Gender Males Females Total Number % Number % Number % Age <7 320 6.5 327 6.6 647 13.1 7-16 538 10.9 496 10.0 1034 20.9 17-29 489 9.9 479 9.7 968 19.6 30-39 469 9.5 437 8.8 906 18.3 40-49 238 4.8 218 4.4 456 9.2 50-59 183 3.7 199 4.0 382 7.7 60-69 189 3.8 195 3.9 384 7.8 70+ 63 1.3 101 2.0 164 3.3
Total 2489 50.4 2452 49.6 4941 100.0
Table 34. Armenia: Rural Poverty by Gender
Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total
Number % Number % Number % Number _ _ Males 247 9.9 322 12.9 1920 77.1 2489 100.() Females 242 9.9 316 12.9 1894 77.2 2452 100.(
Total 489 9.9 638 12.9 3814 77.2 4941 100.0
Table 35. Armenia: Rural Poverty by Age
Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total Age Number % Number % Number % Number |% <7 78 12.1 91 14.1 478 73.9 647 100.0 7-16 101 9.8 117 11.3 816 78.9 1034 100.0 17-29 99 10.2 133 13.7 736 76.0 968 100.0 30-39 82 9.1 117 12.9 707 78.0 906 100.0 40-49 40 8.8 54 11.8 362 79.4 456 100.0 50-59 33 8.6 55 14.4 294 77.0 382 100.0 60-69 29 7.6 43 11.2 312 81.3 384 100.0 70+ 27 16.5 28 17.1 109 66.5 164 100.0
Total 489 9.9 638 12.9 3814 77.2 4941 100.0
73 Table 36. Armenia: Rural Families with Non-working Pensioners Pensioners Number % None 642 58.7 Have 452 41.3
Total 1094 100.0
Table 37. Armenia: Rural Families with Elderly Pensioners' Number % Pensioners None 641 58.6 Have 453 41.4
Total 1094 100.0 ' Men aged 60 and over; Women aged 55 and over.
Table 38. Armenia: Education of Rural Sample by Gender Males Females Total ______Number % Number % Number % Higher Educatioii (complete or incomplete) 257 16.2 190 11.9 447 14.1 Secondary Education 1036 65.3 1025 64.3 2061 64.8 Less than Secondary 215 13.5 241 15.1 456 14.3 Elementary (including 79 5.0 138 8.7 217 6.8 incomplete elementary)
Total 1587 100.0 1594 100.0 3181 100.0 Adults aged 16 and above.
Table 39. Armenia: Rural Household Poverty Number %
Very Poor 131 12.0 Poor 142 13.0 Non-Poor 821 75.0
Total 1094 100.0
74 Table 40. Armenia: Rural Poverty of Individuals Number %
Very Poor 489 9.9 Poor 638 12.9 Non-Poor 3814 77.2
Total 4941 100.0
Table 41. Arnenia: Rural Poverty of Children' Males Females Total Number col % row % Number col % row % Number col % row %
Very Poor 98 11.4 54.7 81 9.8 45.3 179 10.6 100.0 Poor 109 12.7 52.4 99 12.0 47.6 208 12.4 100.0 Non-Poor 651 75.9 50.3 643 78.1 49.7 1294 77.0 100.0
Total 858 100.0 51.0 823 100.0 49.0 1681 100.0 I(X00 XChildrenaged 16 or less.
Table 42. Armenia: Rural Poverty of Non-working Adults Males Females Total Number col % row% Number col% row % Number col % row %
Very Poor 21 8.3 32.3 44 11.6 67.7 65 10.3 100.0 Poor 29 11.5 37.2 49 12.9 62.8 78 12.4 100.0 Non-Poor 202 80.2 41.4 286 75.5 58.6 488 77.3 100.0
Total 252 100.0 39.9 379 100.0 60.1 631 100.0 100.0
Table 43. Armenia: Rural Poverty of Elderly Males Females Total Number col % row% Number col % row % Number col % row %
Very Poor 20 7.9 28.6 50 11.8 71.4 70 10.3 100.0 Poor 31 12.3 35.2 57 13.4 64.8 88 13.0 100.0 Non-Poor 201 79.8 38.7 318 74.8 61.3 519 76.7 100.0
Total 252 100.0 37.2 425 | 100.0 62.8 677 1 100.0 100.0 Men aged 60 and over, women aged 55 and over.
75 Table 44. Armeniia: Rural Poverty by Number of Children Numberof Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total Children Number Row Col. Number Row Col. Number Row Col. Number Row % Col. % ,% % % % % I%.
0 44 13.5 33.6 5:2 16.0 36.6 230 70.6 28.0 326 100.0 100.0 1 21 11.3 16.0 1:5 8.1 10.6 150 80.6 18.3 186 100.0 100.0 2 40 12.9 30.5 41 13.2 28.9 230 74.0 28.0 311 100.0 100.0 3 26 11.7 19.8 28 12.6 19.7 168 75.7 20.5 22 100.0 100.0 4+ 0 .0 .0 6 12.2 4.2 43 87.8 5.2 49 100.0 100.0 Total 131 12.0 100.0 14.2 13.0 100.0 821 75.0 100.0 1094 100.0 100.0
Table 45. Armenia: Rural Poverty by Presence of Children in Family No Children Have Children Total Number col % row% Number col % row % Number col% row%
Very Poor 44 13.5 33.6 87 11.3 66.4 131 12.0 100.0 Poor 52 16.0 36.6 90 11.7 63.4 142 13.0 100.0 Non-Poor 230 70.6 :28.0 591 77.0 72.0 821 75.0 100.0
Total 326 100.0 29.8 768 100.0 70.2 1094 100.0 100.0
Table 46. Armenia: Rural Poverty and Size of House (average sq. meters) l Very Poor Poor Non-poor Total Total space 99.6 114.7 121.7 118.1 "Living space"l 75.4 84.4 88.9 86.7 Number of 3.2 3.5 4.0 3.9 rooms _ 'Excludes entryways, halls, bathrooms and kitchens.
76 Table 47. Armenia: Rural Poverty and Housing Conditions (7 part table) Piped Water Absent Present and Present but not Total Functioning functioning Very Poor number 73 53 5 131 % 55.7 40.5 3.8 100.0 Poor number 70 62 10 142 % 49.3 43.7 7.0 100.0 Non-Poor number 183 510 128 821 % 22.3 62.1 15.6 100.0 Total number 326 625 143 1094 % 29.8 57.1 13.1 100.0
2 ______Sewage______Absent Present and Present but not Total Functioning functioning Very Poor number 103 22 6 131 % 78.6 16.8 4.6 100.0 Poor number 97 39 6 142 % 68.3 27.5 4.2 100.0 Non-Poor number 409 333 79 821 % 49.8 40.6 9.6 100.0 Total number 609 394 91 1094 % 55.7 36.0 8.3 100.0
77 3 ______Natural Gas Hookups Absent Present and Present but not Total Functioning functioning Very Poor number 80 3 48 131 % 61.1 2.3 36.6 100.0 Poor number 45 3 94 142 % 3E1.7 2.1 66.2 100.0 Non-Poor number 170 21 630 821 .% 20.7 2.6 76.7 100.0 Total number 295 27 772 1094 .______% 27.0 2.5 70.6 100.0
4 Electricity Absent Present and Present but not Total Functioning functioning Very Poor number 11.2 15 4 131 % 85.5 11.5 3.1 100.0 Poor number 1C19 25 8 142 % 76.8 17.6 5.6 100.0 Non-Poor number 548 201 72 821 % 66.7 24.5 8.8 100.0 Total number 769 241 84 1094 % 70.3 22.0 7.7 100.0
78 5 Stone or brick construction Absent Present and Present but not Total Functioning functioning Very Poor number 77 3 51 131 % 58.8 2.3 38.9 100.0 Poor number 70 2 70 142 % 49.3 1.4 49.3 100.0 Non-Poor number 332 30 459 821 % 40.4 3.7 55.9 100.0 Total number 479 35 580 1094 % 43.8 3.2 53.0 100.0
6 Bathrooms and Shower Absent Present and Present but not Total Functioning functioning Very Poor number 69 9 53 131 % 52.7 6.9 40.5 100.0 Poor number 64 6 72 142 % 45.1 4.2 50.7 100.0 Non-Poor number 294 101 426 821 % 35.8 12.3 51.9 100.0 Total number 427 116 551 1094 % 39.0 10.6 50.4 100.0
79 7 ______Telephone Absent Present and Present but not Total Functioning functioning Very Poor number 63 65 3 131 % 48.1 49.6 2.3 100.0 Poor number 59 70 13 142 % 41.5 49.3 9.2 100.0 Non-Poor number 269 360 192 821 % 32.8 43.8 23.4 100.0 Total number 391 495 208 1094 % 35.7 45.2 19.0 100.0
Table 48. Armenia: Rural Self-Evaluation of Housing Conditions Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Very Poor 'Iota] Very Poor number 2 3 81 32 13 131 % 1.5 2.3 61.8 24.4 9.9 100.0 Poor number 0 10 70 36 26 142 % .0 7.0 49.3 25.4 18.3 100.0 Non-Poor number 7 103 440 188 83 821 % 9 12.5 53.6 22.9 10.1 100.0 Total number 9 116 591 256 122 1094 % .8 10.6 54.0 23.4 11.2 100.0
80 Table 49. Armenia: Rural Poverty by Adult's Job
. ______.Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total
Adult's Job - Number % Number % Number % Number %
Management 1 .0 5 .2 28 .9 34 1.0 Qualified Agricultural Worker 3 .1 3 .1 107 3.3 113 3.5 (Animal Husbandry) Qualified Ag. Worker 0 .0 3 .1 23 .7 26 .8 (Horticulture) Unqualified Ag. Worker 73 2.2 79 2.4 604 18.5 756 23.2 Qualified (Industrial) Worker 14 .4 25 .8 198 6.1 237 7.3 Unqualified (Industrial) Worker 27 .8 26 .8 95 2.9 148 4.5 Transportation Worker 12 .4 14 .4 92 2.8 118 3.6 Engineer 7 .2 14 .4 56 1.7 77 2.4 Employee (general) 18 .6 40 1.2 161 4.9 219 6.7 Medical Worker 6 .2 7 .2 48 1.5 61 1.9 Teacher/Education Worker 20 .6 21 .6 122 3.7 163 5.0 Private Farmer 0 .0 0 .0 1 .0 I .0 Businessman 2 .1 3 .1 28 .9 33 1.0 Self-Employed (Individual 7 .2 4 .1 45 1.4 56 1.7 Labor Activities) Law Enforcement Worker 1 .0 2 .1 6 .2 9 .3 Armed Forces 3 .1 6 .2 41 1.3 50 1.5 Pensioner 65 2.0 78 2.4 488 15.0 631 19.4 Student 7 .2 13 .4 78 2.4 98 3.0 Dependent (under 16 yrs old) 0 .0 0 .0 2 .1 2 .1 Dependent, Working-aged 42 1.3 78 2.4 288 8.8 408 12.5 Other Specialization 2 .1 9 .3 9 .3 20 .6
Total 310 9.5 430 13.2 2520 77.3 3260 100.0
Table 50. Armenia: Rural Self-Evaluation of Family Status
Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total Number % Number % Number % Number %
Poor 62 47.3 76 53.5 346 42.1 484 44.2 Extremely poor 69 52.7 64 45.1 405 49.3 538 49.2 We have enough for 0 .0 2 1.4 68 8.3 70 6.4 food and clothes We live normally 0 .0 0 .0 1 .1 1 .1 We are fully 0 .0 0 .0 1 .1 1 .1 satisfied
Total 131 100.0 142 100.0 821 100.0 1094 100.0
81 Table 51. Armenia: Rural Poverty in Families with a Non-working Pensioner No pensioner Have pensioner Total Number rc Number % Number %
Very Poor 82 62.6 49 37.4 131 100.0 Poor 90 63.4 52 36.6 142 100.0 Non-Poor 494 60.2 327 39.8 821 100.0
Total 666 60.9 428 39.1 1094 100.0
Table 52. Armenia: Rural Poverty and Household Inventory Average Number of Units Very Poor Poor Non-Poor
Bedroom furniture .46 .54 .71 Diningroom furniture .28 .23 .36 Kitchen furniture .21 .20 .35 Other furniture .37 .38 .70 Wardrobe .86 .78 .94 Closet/shelves .28 .31 .42 Buffet .31 .39 .37 Sofa 1.08 .98 1.05 Bed 3.02 3.52 4.10 Rug 1.35 1.20 1.61 Refrigerator and/or freezer .80 .85 .90 Washing machine .70 .78 .84 Sewing machine .47 .62 .66 Vacuum cleaner .18 .26 .33 Floor polisher .18 .15 .19 Radios .26 .24 .33 Television .81 .91 .96 Video cassette recorder .03 .02 .04 Video camera .02 .01 .01 Camera and photographic .05 .03 .02 equipment Piano .09 .07 .11 Stereo .05 .04 .07 Motorcycle .02 .01 .02 Bicycle .07 .06 .12 Car .15 .22 .33
82 Table 53. Armenia: Rural Poverty by Size of Total Land Hectares Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total Average 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.3 Maximum 4.5 4.1 13.0 13.0
Table 54. Armenia: Rural Poverty and Average Number of Livestock Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total Cows 0.588 0.838 1.178 1.063 Sheep 0.435 1.894 3.153 2.665 Hens 1.962 4.028 7.542 6.418
Table 55. Armenia: Rural Poverty and Crop Production (kilograms) Very Poor Poor Non-Poor
Wheat 2.7 25.4 600.7 "Achar" .0 .0 11.9 Peas .0 .2 1.1 Garlic 2.5 .0 .6 Barley 153.1 127.1 105.6 Green beans .0 4.8 19.6 Sunflower seeds .0 .0 .1 Corn .0 .0 .3 Tobacco .0 .0 3.1 Grapes 1.1 73.1 583.9 Apples .0 .6 142.6 Pears .0 1.3 48.1 Apricots .0 2.0 15.4 Peaches .0 1.4 22.8 Plums .0 .3 12.0 Cherries .0 .2 3.0 Sour cherries .0 .0 3.3 Pomegranates .0 .0 .0 Figs .0 .0 .0 Quince .0 3.5 7.0 Nuts .0 .0 8.8 Potatoes 360.7 312.1 632.0 Tomatoes 8.0 18.2 273.8 Cucumbers .0 12.4 72.4 Peppers .0 1.2 43.2 Eggplants .0 8.4 88.4 Greens .0 .3 13.3
83 Table 55.. Cont.
Vegetable marrow .0 .4 9.8 Watermelons .0 .0 20.8 Melons .0 .0 8.8 Pumpkins .0 .0 4.1 Carrots .0 .4 141.4 Sugar beets 3.8 .3 24.3 Cabbage .7 3.4 93.8 Onions 1.9 1.9 41.4 Mushrooms .0 .0 .1 Berries .0 .0 .3 Edible herbs .0 .0 18.7 Medicinal herbs .0 .0 .0 Fodder 124.0 426.1 1236.3 Other .0 .0 20.7
Table 56. Armenia: Rural Poverty and Agricultural Technology Very Poor Poor Non-Poor Total Tractor .015 .014 .072 .058 Truck .015 .049 .067 .059 Combine .000 .000 .006 .005
Table 57. Armenia: Rural Poverty and Average Production of Livestock Products (kilograms) Very Poor Poor Non-Poor
Milk 8.40 157.37 911.65 Cheese .28 4.40 39.31 Rendered fat .10 2.10 14.50 Meat .00 .42 35.43 Poultry .05 .07 2.01 Eggs 4.27 33.17 502.14 Leather .00 .00 5.65 Wool .00 .00 2.59 Honey .00 .00 .50 Fish .00 73.10 583.88
84 VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Goskomstat CIS. 1994. CIS Statistical Committee Bulletin. No. 2.
1994.------Demographic Yearbook 1993.
Dudwick, Nora. 1995. An Ethnographic Report on the Living Standards of the Armenian Population: October 1994-March 1995.
Government of the Republic of Armnenia. 1995. Social-Economic Development Program.
Grosh, Margaret. 1994. Administering Targeted Social Programs in Latin America. World Bank.
Grosh, Margaret and Judy Baker. 1995. Proxy Means Tests: Simulations and Speculation for Social Programs. Forthcoming LSMS Paper 118. World Bank.
Hall, R. 1995. "Armenia: Enhancing Employment and Alleviating Poverty." Mimeo.
Holt, Sharon. 1995. "Using Land as a System of Social Protection: An Analysis of Rural Poverty in Armenian in the Aftermath of Land Privatization."
Republic of Armenia. 1995. Public Investment Programme: 1996-1998. Draft.
Sancho, Antonio. 1995. "System for Targeting Social Benefits in Armenia.*" Mimeo.
State Department of Statistics, Republic of Armenia. 1995. Economy of the Republic of Armenia in January-December 1994.
United Nations. 1995. Human Development Report: Armenia.
------. 1995. United Nations Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal for the Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan. and Georgia. March.
UNICEF. 1994. Government of Armenia in Cooperation with UNICEF A Situation Analysis of Children and Women in Armenia. June.
US Committee for Refugees. 1994. Faultlines of Nationality Conflict: Refugees and Displaced Persons from Armenia and Azerbaijan. March.
85 van de Walle, Dominique, Martin Ravallion, and Madhur Gautam. 1994. How Well Does the Social Safety Net Work? The Incidence of Cash Benefits in Hungary. 1987-89. LSMS Paper No. 102. World Bank.
World Bank. World DevelQpmentReport 1995: Workers in an Integrating World.
1994.-----. StaffAppraisal Report. Armenia: Earthquake Reconstruction Project. January 5.
------. 1995. Staff Appraisal Report. Armenia: Social Investment Fund Project. October 23.
86