world bank document - documents &...
TRANSCRIPT
FILE COPYReport No. 2945-ES
El Salvador: An Inquiry into Urban Poverty
November 5, 1980
Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Document of the World Bank
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipientsonly in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwisebe disclosed without World Bank authorization.
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
CURRNY EQUIVALENTS
US4 1.00 - 2.5 Colones (¢)01.O0 - US$0.40.
WEIGHTS AND M6&SUUS
1 manzana (mz) - 0.699 Hectares1 Quintal (q) - 100 Pounds1 Pound (lb) m 0.453 kilogram
GLOSSARY OF ABRREVIA_IONS
ABC - Farmer Welfare AdministrationAID - Agency for International DevelopmentANDA - National Administration for Water and SewerageANTEL - National Administration for Telecoo nicationsSFA - Agricultural Development BankCABEI - Central American Bank for Economic IntegrationCACM - Central American Co-mon MarketCEL - Lempa River Hydroelectric ConolssionCELADE - Latin American Demographic CenterCENA? - National Productivity CenterCENCA? - National System of Agricultural TrainingCENTA - National Center of Agricultural TechnologyCEPA - Fort ConilosionCOFINTA - Agricultural Land BankCONAPLIAN - National tlanning CouncilDGRD - General Directorate for Irrigation and DrainageDIGESTIC - Statistical OfficeEDURES - Urban and Iegioual Developmt StudyFES - Salvadorian RailvaysFENADESAL - National Railways of El SalvadorFBTSN - Son Miguel National Textile IndustryFIGAPE - Finance and Guarantee Fund for Small BusinessFNR - National Housing FundFSV - Social Rousing FundFSDVM - Salvadorian Foundation for Development of Low-cost
HousingICR - Rural Colonization InstituteIDS - Inter-American Development BankINCAP - Central America and Panama Nutrition InstituteINPEP - Government Employees Pension FundISIC - Salvadorian Coffee InstituteINSAFI - Salvadorian Institute for Industrial Pro-otionINSHDS - Public Hospitals SystemILO - InternAtional Labor OrganizationIRA - Regulatory Supply InstituteISCE - Salvadorian Foreign Trade Institute
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
ISSS - Salvadorian Social Security InstituteISTA - Institute for Agricultural TransformationISTU - Salvadorian Tourism InstituteIVW - Urban Housing InstituteLONAB - National LotteryMAG - Ministry of Agriculture and LivestockMOH - Ministry of Health and Social WelfareODEPOR - Planning Office, Ministry of EducationPAHO - Pan American Health OrganizationPREALC - Regional Employment Program for Latin America
and the CaribbeanPRIDECO - Programa Integral de Desarrollo ComunalREIFALDI - Regulation of the Central American Agreement
on Fiscal IncentivesSSMA - San Salvador Metropolitan Area
FISCAL YEAR
January 1 to December 31
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performanceof their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.
- iii -
This report is based on the findings of an economic mission toEl Salvador in July 1979, composed of:
Juan Giral ChiefJose Luis Genel EconomistSusan Ponce de Leon Research Assistant
Paul Meo provided valuable insights and helpful comments for thereport. Salvadorian Government agencies, in particular the PlanningMinistry, and AID offered substantial assistance to the mission.
AN INQUIRY INTO URBAN POVERTY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
COUNTRY DATA
MAP
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS i
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. THE ECONOMIC CAUSES OF URBAN POVERTY 3
A. The National Labor Market. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3B. The Urban Labor Market .4C. Earnings in Urban Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6D. Urban Unemployment and Underemployment . . . . . . . . . 7
Open Urban Unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Urban Underemployment and Earnings Adequacy . . . . . 9
E. Urban Wages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10F. Employment, Wage Differentials, and Urban Labor Force
Growth .11G. Urban Wages, Distribution, and Poverty . . . . . . . . . 11H. Labor Market and Poverty: Main Conclusions. . . . . . . 12
III. URBAN POVERTY: SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS 13
Introduction .. 13
A. Dependency Burden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13B. The Urban Poor .14C. Urban Housing and the Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15D. Access and Cost of Electricity, Water and Sewerage
For the Poor .16E. Transport Costs of the Poor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18F. The Poor's Access to Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18G. Health Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20H. Social Characteristics of Urban Poverty: Main Conclusions 21
Page No.
IV. URBAN POVERTY AND NUTRITION 23
A. Child Malnutrition and Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . 23B. Malnutrition in Rural- and Low-Income Urban Population 25
Household Income and Malnutrition . . . . . . . . . 25Income and Diets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
C. Nutrition Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30D. Malnutrition and Poverty: Main Conclusions. . . . . . 32
V. PUBLIC EXPENDITURES AND POVERTY 33
A. Tax Incidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33B. Government Expenditures for the Provision of Basic Needs 34C. Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
The Pattern of Public Education Expenditures. . . . 35Expenditures by Levels of Education .37Education Outlays and Household Income . . . . . . 38
D. Health Expenditures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Health Expenditures by Types of Services. . . . . . 42Expenditures by Household and Income Level .... . 42
E. Power, Water, and Sewerage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Power .43Water and Sewerage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
F. Public Expenditures and Subsidies: Main Conclusions 46
VI. URBAN POVERTY STRATEGIES IN EL SALVADOR 46
A. Urban Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Employment in the Modern Sector . . . . . . . . . . 47Employment for Low Income Target Groups . . . . . . 48
B. Basic Needs Approach to Urban Poverty. . . . . . . . . 50Nutrition .50Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55Water and Sewerage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Health. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Electricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59Street Lighting, Garbage Removal, and Other
Services .60Transport Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Urban Planning ........... . 62
APPENDIX I: El Salvador: Poverty Definitions. . . . . . . . 64APPv'1MTTv TT: P1 Salvador: Nutrition. Food Expenditure and Income 65
STATISTICAL APPENDIX .69
Page i of 2 pages
COUNTRY DATA - ET S
AREA 2 POPULATION DENSITY (1978)21 ,000 kM 4.3 million (mid-1970) 2r.5 per kim'
Rate of Growth: 3.0% (from 1970 to 1978) 321 per kim2 of arable land
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS (1Q78) HEALTH (1ir78)Crude Birth Rate (per 1,000) 40 Population per physician 3_(. .!Crude Death Rate (per 1,000) Population per hospital bed 721Infant Mortai.y (per 1,000 live births)
INCO'CE DISTRIBUTION (1077) DISTRIBUTION OF LAND OWNERSHIP (1971)% of national income, highest quintile 55.9 % owned by top 10% of owners 7T.C
lowest quintile 4.3 % owned by smallest 10% of owners o.4
ACCESS TO PIPED WATER j1U175) ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY (1975) 44% of population - urban 88.0 % of population - urban 47
- rural 26.4 - rural 14.4
NUTRITION (1975) EDUCATION (1975)Calorie intake as % of requirements 84 Adult literacy rate % 63.0Per capita protein intake 50 Primary school enrollment % 75.2
CNP PER CAPITA IN 1978:- US$ 600
GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT IN 1978 ANNUAL RATE OF GROWTH h.X constant prices)
uS $ Mln. % 1965-70 1970-78
GNP at Market Prices 3038.3 100.0 4.5 5.1 4.hGross Domestic investment 613.2 20.2 1.9 10.3 -8.2Gross National Saving 374.3 12.3 4.7 1.7 -46.oCurrent Account Balance -238.9 -7.9Exports of Goods, NFS 934.7 30.8 2.7 4.9 1.8
Imports of Goods, NFS 11 90.7 39.2 0.5 9.3 5.8
OUTPUT, LABOR FORCE ANDPRODUCTIVITY IN 1975
Value Added Labor Force7 V. A. Per WorkerUS $ Mln. % Thousands % US4$ %
Agriculture 411.3 23.0 607.5 47.2 677.0 48.7Industry 445.9 24.9 188.9 14.7 2360.5 169.7
Services 933.9 52.1 491.4 38.1 1900.5 135.oUnallocated
Total/Average 1791.1 100.0 1287.8 100.0 1390.8 100.0
GOVERNMENT FINANCEGeneral Government Central Government
(.~fln. Coones) % of GDP ( Kn. colones) % of GDP
1977 1977 1°974i77 1977 1977 L-7
Current Receipts 43.4 20.5 g 18 1. 14.LCurrent Expenditure 72.1 11.7 11.___ _ 2.' 3 12.1
Current Surplus 471.3 8.8 5.3 501.7 7.5 14Capital Expenditures 401.4 6.1 5.5 323.0 L.o 4.5External Assistance (net) 56.1 0.9 1.0 51.5 0.6 1.0
1/ Health services of the Ministry of Health. Excludes Social Security Instituie's services.21 World Bank Atlas Methodology.
3/ Total labor force; unemployed are allocated to sector of their normal occuratlon.
Page 2 of 2 pages
COUNTRY DATA - EL SZArLYLL
MONEY. CREDIT and PRICES 1970 1973 197L 1975 1976 1977(MVin. colones outstand!nr end peri-oa
Money and Quasi Money 594.3 909.2 1064.1 1250.6 1578.5 1892.5Bank Credit to Public Sector 78.7 26.7 7.9 56.8 49.4 l...5Bank Credit to Private Sector 616.9 1043.3 1371.0 146o.6 1705.1 2092.2
(Percentages or Index Numbers)
Money and Quasi Mbney as % of GDP 23.1 27.3 27.0 27.9 27.8 26.6General Price Index (1963 = 100) 105.4 114.5 133.8 159.3 170.6 190.7Annual percentage changes in:
General Pri'_a Index 2.8 6.4 16.9 19.0 7.1 11.8Bank credit to Public Sector -18.8 -61.5 -70.5 619.0 -13.0 7r.;Bank credit to Private Sector 6.2 25.3 31.4 6.5 16.7 22.
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS MERCHANDISE EXPORTS (AVERAGE 1S6-7 8 )
1975 1976 1977 1978 US $ Mln %(Millions US 5)
Exports of Goods, NFS 594.1 821.1 1050.2 934.7 Coffee 481.7 56.2Imports of Goods, NFS -685.3 -8L3.4 -1053.6 1190.7 Cotton 79.2 9.2Resource GaP (deficit -) -91.2 -22.3 -3.4 -256.0 Sugar 30.1 3.5
Interest Payments (net) -17.6 -2.6 -13.8 -21.2 All other commodities Ž65.9 31.1Total s6759 100 0
Other Factor Payments (net) -11.3 -11.6 -12.3 -13.7Net Transfers 27.3 29.9 39.0 52.0 EXTERNAL DEBT, DECEMBER 31, 1979Balance on Current Account -92.8 -6.6 9.5 U Ml
US $ MlnDirect Foreign Investment 13.1 12.9 22.2 16.3Net 'LT Borrowing Public Debt, incl. guaranteed 2/ 389.;..
Disbursement 67.L 88.5 57.5 109.5 Non-Guaranteed Private DebtAmortizatio _47.3 -21.7 -52.4 -15.8 Total outstanding & DisbursedSubtotal ,t 20.1 66.8 5.1 93.7
Capital Grantsz. 13.6 5.0 1.0 c.9 DEBT SERVICE RATIO forl977 -Other Capital (net) 29.3 28.7 10.6 12L.3 7Other items n.e.i 48.o -22.8 - 32.3Increase in Reserves (-) 31.3 84.o 40.9 28.6 Public Debt, incl. guaranteed 2.6
Non-Guaranteed Private DebtGross Reserves (end year) 142.2 229.6 244.3 Total outstanding & DisbursedNet Reserves (end year) 108.5 192.5 201.6 220.6
RATE OF EXCHANGE IBRD/IDA LENDING, December 31, 1979 Million US$):
ThrouRh - 1971 TBRD IDATS $ 1.00 2 .5 colones
1.00 = 2S c 1 n^sOutstanding and Disbursed 74.1 22.6JUndisbursed 73.6 4.7
Since - 1971 Outstanding incl. Undisbursed 147*7 27.3US $ .00= 2. colones
1.00 = Cs O 0.LC
_-n -i rrercy. Excludes I'"_ ' *' ~~~~E x-orts ' ~_ds an.d "or.-Factor Se-vices
not availlaIlenot aprlicatle December 1979
I a j F -t T. RO 7 r- t ItT IO S t o il Mt A
RRRAT .A M et n R ( EAMy Z
T. A _ til off U R A 5 , e \ |
G U< AUP=OlAUCAA T E> M A L ANA5 _ o
-14|3u ELA r . A7 X 1 - WA
EL SA ADORT /o L AP Florenpco UrSu L ,T A N )Son Jorge ,JSa
PROIEET: to~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W O .- C-P6 Cot L a~e
RURAL TRAININUIENTERD PARED ROADS He>grrodura EINl ero)<Lo Un.orr
* NATIONAL PROIAITTRiTV CENTER MAIN ROA9S SIIN n _,IuoC
* IOCATINAL TRAINING CENTERS I I-1- RAILROADS % / Kerlv=\ \pomed
Irlr'S 1 ECECAP IRGRIEULTURAL * INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT I3 PoRroxd= ov= I t aonj 71 S
EXISTING: I&iZTT St$ EOT___ C_ (\tLo RURAL TRAINING CENTERS - RIVERS _____ APO:RI
* POWiER PLAN7T ARRICULTURAL REGIONS A mopobo Gw/t of
1_RESEVOIR _ _ _- DEPARTMENTAL BOiUNDARIES Iosr
- --INTtERNATItNAL 8ANDARIES tIn PAi C/ F /C OCE*A N_
O 10 20 30 D0 50 wRA
_ ,3.00 KILOMETERS to 4 r
0 10 20 30 IRonrOS B-e'n.oU 0 .NOrOn P .-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~dMltES .,pd.,rdd.M./.t.n.rp...............t&>ff.,OIOTO.p_OddIe.rO IN@4$C
R 0 00 89-45 89 30 89- IS 890 638845 S8 30 R8i5EP t5)WO R7-45 9l >
m 0 A Z A N~~~~~~~~~I 0
SUMMARY ATD CONCLUSIONS
A. Background
i. El Salvador is a poor, densely populated country with limi.ted
natural resources. Its income distribution is markedly skewed. Nationwide,a large number of its citizens live in poverty; malnutrition is prevalent
among children, two-thirds of its households are without piped water, overhalf without electricity, and only one sixth are served by waterbornesewerage systems.
ii. Rapid population growth, at over 3 percent a year, is one of the
country's most fundamental problems, even though it has reached that stage
where both birth and death rates have begun to decline. Crude birth ratesdropped from 50 per thousand in the 1950s to 40 in 1978 but mortality rates
declined more rapidly. A family planning program has been relatively
successful; by 1978, an estimated 21 percent of the female fertile popula-tion was being reached. Plans are underway to raise coverage to 30 percent
by 1982.
iii. Substantial health progress has been made. Life expectancy, a
significant indicator of a nation's welfare, increased by over one-fourth(from 50 to 63 years) in the last 20 years. Mortality rates declined by over
50 percent from 19.7 per thousand in 1950 to about 9 per thousand in 1978through mass immunization, control of disease-carrying insects, the expansionof curative medicine services (including a doubling of physicians per 10,000people), and a better educated population. Infant mortality, however, is
still high and health service is uneven between regions and income groups.
iv. Educational advances have been also notable. Primary educationenrollment (grades 1-6) now covers close to 90 percent of the school-agepopulation compared to 60 percent in 1960. The adult literacy rate has
increased from 49 percent in 1960 to 63 percent in 1978. Access to basicprimary education is widespread in urban areas with 115 percent coverage in
ages 7-12 and 94 percent in ages 13-15.1/ In rural areas, correspondingbasic primary coverages are 70 percent and 8 percent.
v. In spite of these advances in health and education, pov*rty remainsa very serious problem in both rural and urban areas. Clearly, Fovernmentefforts to reduce poverty will depend on nationwide programs and,general
economic expansion. Because of El Salvador's limited land and agriculturalpotential, however, its future will be increasingly urban depending on the
development of labor-intensive manufactured exports outside the CACM and
related modern or informal urban activities. An urban development andpoverty alleviation strategy would have to seek specific ways of helping theurban poor by both expanding direct job opportunities and directly providing
for certain basic needs, such as nutrition, education, health, and housing.This study, thus, concentrates on determining how the urban poor earn theirliving, how they live, what is their nutritional status, and what publicservices they have access to in order to identify measures to improve theirwelfare.
1/ The ratio is over 100 percent because of overage students and attendanceat urban schools by a sizeable number of rural children.
B. Urban Labor Market
vi. The urban poor earn low wages because, as is typical of many labor-surplus economies, the country's labor supply is abundant in comparison to itscapital stock and natural resources. Average productivity per laborer andthus wages are low. At the prevailing low wage rates, there are no constraintsto the labor available for low productivity jobs.
vii. As a result, the urban labor market does not show the common extremedichotomy of a few, well paid workers in a "formal sector" and many, poorlypaid informal sector workers. Urban poverty conditions (households with 1979earnings below ¢ 280 a month or US$266 a year per family member) are evidentin both the usual formal and informal occupations, although they are moreprevalent in the informal sector. 1/ About two-thirds of informal sectorworkers have earnings below the poverty threshold in 1975, compared to 21percent in the formal sector, but both sectors show considerable incomedispersion and differentiation of their labor forces as well as some mobilityamong them. Surplus labor and weak unions apparently strengthen considerablythe position of employers. The urban labor market seems fairly efficientunder conditions of impertect competition in the product market.
viii. El Salvador's already abundant labor, rapid population (and workforce) growth, the absence of major labor-market distortions and the lowlevel of real wages make it unrealistic to expect that even lower real wageswould bring about increased employment. Under these circumstances, the mainapproach to El Salvador's urban employment problem is expanded economicactivities and employment generation based on growth of the capital stock.
ix. Not surprisingly, education, sex, and age play a significant rolein determining urban employment opportunities and in explaining wage distor-tions in both the formal and informal sectors. Informal urban workers have onthe average lower levels of education than formal workers; about 57 percentof the self-employed and 63 percent of domestics have less than four yearsof education. Workers outside the prime ages (10-24 years old and over 65)have lower earnings; they represent 33 percent of the labor force but earnonly 19 porcent of total labor income. The earnings distribution is alsounfavorable to females, partly because of their larger role among self-employed and domestics and partly because they earn usually less than malesin both formal and informal occupations.
1/ Poor urban households are defined in this study as those with 1976earnings below ¢ 200 a month (about US$190 a year per family member).Since these households average about 1.67 paid workers, this is roughlyequivalent to the minimum wage established in 1976 by the Ministry ofLabor to cover a minimum standard of living or basic needs of an urbanworker. The 1979 poverty level is obtained by inflating the 1976 levelwith the workers' cost of living index. However, actual householdearnings most likely lagged when real wages deteriorated. This, in fact,means that the number of households under the poverty line has increasedin recent years and that probably those below ¢ 200 in 1976 are nowworse-off.
- iii -
x. Although recently the situation has probably changed because of
political events, open urban unemployment (adjusted for discouraged workers)
was low at only 6.8 percent in 1975 and the unemployed heads of households -
or primary earners - were only 2.7 of the economically active population;
those openly unemployed were mostly secondary income earners. Open unemploy-
ment among the extremely poor heads of households, however, is well above
the average. In the poorest neighborhoods, it was as high as 15-20 percent
in 1975.
xi. Inadequate earnings is more serious for urban workers than open
unemployment. About one-sixth of the urban work force in 1975 were heads of
households with earnings that put their families below the poverty threshold.
Earnings inadequacy became more acute recently because of the deterioration
in real wages that took place in the last few years; it is expected to become
even worse with the slowdown in economic activities and higher prices fueled
by imported inflation. It will be difficult for every income group to catch
up with its previous real purchasing power when the country is experiencing a
deterioration of its terms of trade because of oil price rises. This impact
will affect differently the productive sectors with export activities which
possibly will fare better than domestic activities. Lower real wages will
increase social tensions.
C. Living Conditions of the Poor
xii. Low earnings and the proliferation of the population are closely
associated. While the Salvadorian population has become progressively
younger and hence more dependent, the average urban dependency burden is
lower than the rural. The urban poor, however, have larger family sizes than
the more affluent middle- and higher-income households. Crowding is evident.
Even here, however, averages are misleading; poor urban families are clearly
divided in two groups. About one-third are traditional families with six or
more family members, but over half have four or less members. Although they
are all poor, there are significant differences in their incomes,expenditure
patterns, employment, and housing conditions.
xiii. Small poor urban families live mostly in self-erected shacks, called
tugurios (4 percent of urban families), and rented rooms in old communal homes
in downtown areas called mesones (24 percent). Larger poor urban families
live in illegal subdivisions. The tugurios have very unsanitary conditions
with walls of discarded materials and dried mud, and dirt floors. Rented
rooms and illegal subdivisions have somewhat better sanitary conditions.
Indeed, there is strong evidence that the inhabitants of the illegal settle-
ments have desires, social patterns, and employment closer to the lower middle
class. However, their per capita income is lower than that of people living
in mesones because of the larger family size.
xiv. The poor's health shows the prevalence of gastrointestinal diseases
as the major cause of death. Poor housing, inadequate access to wastes and
sewerage services provide an unhealthy environment in marginal urban communi-
ties. In addition, low levels of education and hygiene are also strongly
correlated with poor health conditions. Not surprisingly, the poorest urban
households have also inadequate access to health care services. The Health
Ministry and the Social Security Institute in theory provide medical services,
- iv -
mostly in urban centers, to about 95 percent of the country's population,including the poorest groups. But these services have many general short-comings. Poor patients, in particular, suffer in overcrowded hospital wardsand out-patient facilities, receiving poor medical attention. Finally,population growth is outstripping Government health services.
xv. The urban poor has reasonable access in a substantial proportion toprimary basic education, much more limited access to secondary education, butvirtually no access to higher education. Basic and secondary educationoutlays have significant impact on the poor, but higher education benefitsmostly higher income groups. While the lowest quintile has over two studentsin school per household, the highest quintile has an average of 0.5 studentsper household. Smaller family sizes of higher income groups and enrollment inprivate schools contribute significantly to this result. For this reason,over two-thirds of the children attending public primary schools and over halfof those attending public secondary schools belong to the two poorest quintiles.Only 7 percent of the tertiary students, however, are from the lowest twoquintiles. TJrban heads of households have about five years of education inSan Salvador, 4.1 in Sonsonate, 3.6 in Santa Ana, and 3.1 in San Miguel.
D. Malnutrition and the Poor
xvi. In spite of some advances, perceived nutritional deficiencies remaincommon. Particularly acute is the situation of many families with 1979monthly incomes below ¢ 280, particularly those with incomes below e 140 amonth who suffer from severely inadequate diets with calorie deficiency at40 percent and protein deficiency at 20 percent of minimum daily requirements.For families with incomes over ¢ 280 a month, protein intake is satisfactor;.Malnutrition is also severe among young children. About 22 percent of thoseunder five years of age have second and third-degree malnutrition. The bulkof the undernourished children are in poor, rural and urban, households withincomes below 0 140 a month.
xvii. Nutrition programs have been insufficient to reach the populationin need of food assistance. Nutritional supplements have been limited andconcentrated in rural areas. The general food subsidies have benefittedmostly middle-income families, financially able to purchase unsubsidized food.The food budget of the Salvadorian poor seems relatively rational although itcan be improved. National per capita meat consumption is low. Given thepoor's greater calorie deficiency, they spend most of their food budget on thecheapest forms of calories. As income increases the proportion spent foranimal products rises and that of vegetables and cereals, particularly maize,declines. The poor's food budget, however, has been affected by inflationin recent years. As a result, per capita bean consumption has declined andnutritional deficiencies have increased.
E. Public Expenditures and the Urban Poor
xviii. An analysis of tax collections shows that the poorest 42 percent ofhouseholds, accounting for 14 percent of total household income, contributeabout 7 percent of Government taxes, excluding export taxes, and the upper-middle and upper-income households (15 percent of households), ac&ounting for
v
44 percent of total household income, over two-thirds. The tax system isfairly progressive. While no detailed analysis was made of all governmentoutlays, an analysis of government expenditures for social services shows theyhave different redistributive effects. Education and health expenditures atthe national and urban level favor low-income groups. Water and sewerageexpenditures seem to have negative redistributive effects, with limitedbenefits for low income households and practically none for the extreme poor.While education and health have widespread coverage and are provided mostlywithout charge from general Government revenues, water and sewerage arebasically for middle and higher income groups financed by user's charges. Since
these charges have been inadequate to recover the full cost of the services,Government subsidies have been provided with negative redistributive effects.
xix. Public education expenditures have different redistributive impactsdepending on the level of education supported. Basic and secondary publicexpenditures are quite progressive. Urban areas receive higher educationoutlays than rural areas. Most of the education expenditures allocated tothe poor are for basic primary education; about 35 percent of the childrenenrolled in basic education come from families with incomes below ¢ 100 amonth in 1976. Education outlays allocated to the extreme poor are about athird of their household income. Higher education expenditures are sharplybiased towards the higher income households (about ¢ 600 a month) which hadabout two-thirds of the higher education enrollment in 1976. Public educa-tion outlays represent about 7 percent of the income of these households.
xx. About 90 percent of health expenditures are allocated to urban areas,but an undetermined number of rural households receive medical attention in urbanhospitals. Health services for the extreme poor are provided by the Ministryof Health. Households with 1975 incomes of ¢ 100-300 are serviced by both theMinistry and the Social Security Institute (ISSS). The latter covers onlythe individual worker; his or her family has no coverage, except for maternitycases. About two-thirds of ISS beneficiaries reside in the San SalvadorMetropolitan Area reflecting the high concentration of industries and services.
F. A Development Strategy for the Future and the Poor
xxi. More rapid economic growth and employment is essential to improvethe living conditions of the poor. But the trickle down of employmenteffects is likely to be insufficient without special programs to help thepoor overcome the disabilities of poverty that severely limit both theiremployment opportunities and access to human development services. Whileincreasing their income is a fundamental solution to poverty, provision ofbasic needs for the poor would make them better educated, more healthy andmore productive.
xxii. The already overabundance of labor and the continuous rapid growthof population put pressure on the country's limited natural resources andcapital. A growth and employment strategy must emphasize the expansionof the country's productive capacity through capital accumulation in manu-facturing concerns for export (particularly labor intensive ones) and throughraising agricultural production and productivity by means of more efficient
- vi -
exploitation of the land. External capital, both official and private, canplay a major role in accelerating the process. The difficulty with thisapproach, so crucial to urban poverty alleviation, is that political eventsmake it very unlikely to occur at least in the near future.
Employment for the Urban Poor
xxiii. Employment creation policies in formal and informal activities inurban areas will be crucial to the reduction of poverty. The most promisingareas for action on employment generation and the general earnings inadequacyof the urban poor are clearly found outside low income neighborhoods; thereare very substantial limitations to programs for improving employment andincomes within these areas. Rehabilitation and improvement works are mostlybased on a self-help approach and provide little cash income to familiesalready in dire need of cash. The small business programs in low income areasincrease incomes but do not generate significant employment. Artisan andhandicraft activities in marginal areas also are not very promising.
xxiv. Urban employment in general will depend on the outlook of theSalvadorian economy, which is closely related to export growth. Traditionalagricultural exports, such as coffee and cotton, will have to be increasinglysupplemented with manufactured exports to maintain a satisfactory growthrate. Since manufactured exports to the CACM countries have now reached astage of diminishing opportunities for easy regional import substitution,the rapidly growing labor force and limited agricultural resource basemake it urgent to develop manufactured exports, particularly labor-intensivemanufactures, to non-CACTI countries to absorb the additions to the laborforce. So far, the Government efforts to stimulate labor-intensive exportsthrough fiscal incentives, free trade zones, and improved services to industryhave not yet been very successful, partly because of a general slowdown inprivate investment owing to the uncertain political climate, and partlybecause of the industrialists' orientation to the CACM owing to the biascreated by the incentives system, relaxed quality controls, easier accessand other marketing advantages of the CACM. 1/
xxv. Besides, creating employment with adequate earnings for the poorcannot be fully achieved in the short- and medium-run. Earnings inadequacyin El Salvador is the result of low vocational skills and education, lowcapital endowment and productivity per worker, and a rapidly increasing laborforce. These are problems with longer term solutions. Nevertheless, in theshort- and medium-run, there are some possibilities through upgrading skillsneeded in activities with high labor demand, such as construction and byshifting public expenditures toward public works and new housing. The emphasisshould be in low cost housing, such as the Social Housing Fund (FSV)'s houses,because it increases the demand for less skilled construction workers.
1/ Recent Government actions, such as the agrarian reform, andthe slowdown of economic activities, and the strengthened bargainingposition of some labor unions are affecting the magnitude and the natureof some employment and poverty problems discussed in this report. Never-theless, the main thrust of the analysis and policy prescriptions remainvalid.
- vii -
xxvi. Small-scale industry can also create employment for the poor,
particularly in labor intensive activities with greater emphasis on links
to the modern sector. Particular activities that can be efficient are wood
and leather products, construction materials, and miscellaneous household
goods.
xxvii. Increased employment opportunities for the poor in manufacturing,
services, and commerce would depend on upgrading their skills through training
programs, such as those of the Ministries of Labor and Education as well as
some private organizations. Given their rigid entrance requirements only one
Ministry of Education program and a program operated by a non-profit private
organization (Fe y Alegria), which enrolls only 600 underprivileged youths
in skills and training, may reach the poor. Clearly, there is a pressing need
for further expansion of Government training programs and for some support
(including external) of private training activities.
Basic Needs of the Poor
xxviii. The second part of a poverty ameliorating strategy would be to
satisfy more of the poor's basic needs. Nutrition, housing, education,
health and communal services are among the possible components of a basic
needs package in El Salvador.
Nutrition
xxix. As noted earlier, El Salvador's nutrition programs are limited and
have had equally limited results. These programs, however, could play a more
effective role. A new approach to benefit only the poor through subsidized
food sales in marginal areas--phasing out the present general, urban food
subsidies--and through food supplement programs for very specific target
groups, such as children and expectant mothers could provide greater impact
with equal cost. The most undernourished people, those with 1975 monthly
household incomes below ¢ 100, have a 40 percent calorie gap. At this level
of malnutrition, further expansion of direct urban food supplemental programs
with particular emphasis on children and expectant mothers to reduce death
from protein malnutrition and inadequate growth (immaturity) is needed. A
well-designed program of this nature would have a more manageable budget
impact than direct income transfers and may be appropriate for external support.
If accompanied with stepped-up family planning programs the resulting higher
population growth might be arrested.
xxx. The introduction of fortified foods compatible with existing habits,
such as the nixtamal (enriched tortilla flour) project, could also improve
nutritional levels if it leads to both more calories and protein at cheaper
cost and is compatible with the food preferences of El Salvador's poor. Only
a pilot market study could determine the latter. Nutritional education
programs merit a special effort to improve calorie and protein intake within
the same food budget for income groups with adequate earnings but inadequate
food intake.
- viii -
Housing
xxxi Existing housing programs for low income groups in El Salvadorhave gained acceptance and widened the scope of both Government and privatehousing efforts for the poor. The ABC program of IVU, the FSV housingactivities - both Government run - and the private FSDVM program are importantinitiatives to provide low-cost housing to low-income families. There isevidence, however, that these programs still cannot effectively reach theextreme poor because the latter cannot afford the minimum housing solutions.Tugurio families have a decreasing participation in recent FSDVM projectscompared to earlier ones because of higher prices for minimum housing solutions,due to higher prices for land and construction.
xxxii. Given the large and growing size of the low-income population, alarge subsidy component would quickly limit program beneficiaries to a smallprivileged minority among the low-income settlements. Housing programs workwell with families that can pay minimum monthly amounts, thus reducing theneed for major Government subsidies. For this reason, a basic needs approachin housing creates a dilemma. It would require special programs for theextreme poor, who are not able financially to qualify for serviced lots, butmust minimize the fiscal subsidy. This means mostly upgrading the tugurios,but to such a minimum standard that may well be below the aspirationsof Salvadorians.
xxxiii. In addition, a revision of housing and subdivision codes will beneeded to make possible more rapid housing solutions for the low-incomepopulation. This is particularly important in the case of the illegalsubdivisions. Action is needed to regularize their status; allow morerealistic and flexible standards for physical development; and improveinfrastructure, water and sewerage services. Residents in these settlementswould benefit from a service level determined in accordance to what they arewilling to pay.
xxxiv. Furthermore, the Government could obtain land through purchases oflarge tracts directly or through a land development bank for public housingprograms. Such purchases would be easier if a significant land tax encouragedspeculators to either develop the land or sell it, possibly to the Government.
Education
xxxv. Universal basic education is now feasible in urban areas. Thefuture focus should be on the needs of marginal communities as a target group,either through Ministry of Education projects or through urban developmentprojects. Providing access to basic education (grades 1-6) to all the chil-dren in low-income settlements will be a crucial step towards improving theability of poor children to move out of poverty. Furthermore, expanling thecoverage of the third cycle of basic primary school (grades 7-9) would beanother significant step, and it is financially feasible in urban areas.Finally, since rural migration is expected to accelerate, rural basic educationneeds to focus on the possible urban employment of would-be migrants.
- ix -
xxxvi. The highly regressive distribution of higher education expenditures
suggests the need for a more equitable distribution of the costs of-higher
education. Redistribution could be achieved by charging much higher tuition
fees to students with financial resources and, on the other hand, subsidizing
or making loans to low-income students, using resources obtained from the
more affluent ones. This means that a greater proportion of education costs
should be assumed by the beneficiaries and their families in relation to
their incomes. This may also contribute to make the higher learning centers
more self-sufficient and thus release Government resources for expanded
primary, secondary and non-formal education coverage for the poor.
xxxvii. More and better employment for the poor will partly depend on
present and new training programs; but the poor so far have had limited
access to these programs. Further Government support for both publicand private training programs is justified.
Health
xxxviii. Basic needs health standards are not clear cut; the nature ofmodern curative medicine, which can use the most sophisticated techniques
to save a few lives make it difficult to draw a dividing line, particularly
in a poor country. Even with the modest goal of providing universal urbanaccess at present service levels, it is obvious that basic health needs are
unlikely to be met in the near future; El Salvador has only 3.8 physiciansper 10,000 and 1.5 beds per 1000 people; moreover, administrative and opera-
tional shortcomings also make it unlikely that every person could have
access to primary care services, even in the urban centers. However, actual
utilization rates are low and offer an opportunity for improved health
services, particularly where accessibility is a continuing problem. Expanded
urban health care services for the poor will depend in the Ministry of Health,which has limited prospects for rapid growth because of budgetary, staffing,
and administrative problems. Extension of the ISSS's coverage to the familiesof its members programmed for 1982, however, affords an opportunity to improve
utilization of ISSS facilities and reduce pressures on the Ministry's facilities,
permitting the Ministry to offer wider coverage to low-income families. The
ISSS and the Ministry of Health have three hospitals under construction.
Expansion of health facilities serving poor neighborhoods will improve direct
services to the poor.
ixl. The health situation is more critical among people living in popular
housing, where a positive correlation has been established between housingcharacteristics, such as dirt floors and water and sanitary services withhealth problems. This emphasizes the importance of preventive health care and
the role of health education and dissemination of hygiene practices, particu-larly water utilization and sanitary practices, which is highly correlated
with diarrheal diseases, one of the leading causes of infant mortality anddisease in the population.
Water and Sewerage
xl. Present sanitary conditions in poor urban neighborhoods show clearlysignificant need for expanded water services. As a result, a basic needsapproach would only be feasible in the long term. Furthermore, the basicneeds program for the medium term of the water company, ANDA, even if fullyexecuted, relies mainly on expanding public standpipes. This is satisfactoryfor tugurios but unsatisfactory for illegal subdivisions, which have higheraspirations and some ability to pay for desired service levels. In addition,ANDA's programmed investments are below the level needed to achieve its goals;the greater gap is in urban areas outside San Salvador. Furthermore, ANDA'sexecuting capacity has many shortcomings that may slow down progress andresult in a lower coverage than programmed. For low-income groups, inadequatepublic water supplies mean low service levels and high charges; it also meansdelays in the control of gastrointestinal diseases and in the spread ofhygiene practices.
xli. Sewerage coverage is also hampered by ANDA's difficulties. Theseare reflected in low service levels, particularly outside the San Salvadorarea. The situation is particularly acute for marginal settlements. GivenANDA's financial, staffing, and administrative problems, expanded water andsewerage services to marginal communities may best be addressed in a moredirect way by the central Government and the communities themselves throughthe upgrading programs. TJpgrading of tugurios and illegal subdivisions couldinclude improved service levels; the tugurios may need modest subsidies, butthe illegal subdivisions should have the opportunity to choose the infrastruc-ture level they want to pay for.
xlii. ANDA would also have to be strengthened. Its water tariffs shouldbe revised to strengthen its financial capacity and provide for a moreequitable distribution of charges. Since ANDA's service levels are skewedtoward middle- and higher-income groups, as noted earlier, its presentsubsidy results in a negative redistribution of income. ANDA also needs toundertake comprehensive studies of water supply and demand to prepare for themajor new investment program needed for a rapidly growing urban population.
Other Services
xliii. A basic needs approach to electricity service should concentrateon those low-income people now without service. In the SSM1A, the universalcoverage appears feasible because of the already widespread coverage. Inother urban centers, the situation is more complex; electric service is lesswidespread and the distribution grid is not as extensive. UJnfortunately,poor households cannot afford the full cost of connecting to the existingnetwork; because of this, a more progressive tariff structure may generatethe revenues to subsidize installation costs to the poor.
xliv. Poor neighborhoods also need a minimum of street lighting, garbageand trash removal, access streets and public transportation. Municipalitiesare now responsible for most of these services but they do not have thefinancial capacity to undertake them. This is owed to a major gap in the
- xi -
country's tax system; the failure to tax effectively the ownership and use
of urban land and buildings by the Municipalities or the Government. This
ultimately explains the low level of financial resources and the very low
service possibilities. Population pressures and the already large needs in
the cities and towns will place severe pressures for expanded urban services.
xlv. New Central and local Government revenues will be needed for financ-
ing urban services and infrastructure. Resources to begin to satisfy these
needs might be obtained from a new tax on the market value of urban land and a
valorization tax (both indexed for inflation) to recover the costs of public
investments, tax capital gains, and penalize land speculation, and/or adjust-
ments of quasi-user-charges to reflect actual cost. The alternatives would be
higher Central Government transfers or the deterioration of service levels
with serious implications for urban sanitary conditions and the health of
poorer citizens. This, in turn, has implications for the more affluent
households.
xlvi. Finally, transport costs are important for poor urban households,
often determining housing location decisions, particularly in the San Salvador
area. With the poor already undernourished, they must keep transport costs at
a minimum. Any increase in transport costs has a very high incidence in their
budgets and creates a dilemma given present inflationary trends and petroleum
price increases. Since transport tariffs will inevitably increase, urban
development policies become increasingly important. Rationalizing urban
spatial development therefore has a high priority in view of the many short-
comings of present unregulated development in urban areas. Present laws and
regulations controlling land use, land subdivision and construction are
excessively rigid and ineffective. The situation is urgent because of the
large number of poor families living in substandard housing and the tremendous
pressures brought about by increased transport costs and lower real earnings.
There is need for more low income locations close to work, schools, markets,
etc. This reinforces the need for measures that ensure a more efficient use
of urban lands and better urban-spatial planning.
Thxii -
xlvii. The table below summarizes the main areas of concern and the measures that may be taken to improveamploymeent and the welfare of the poor.
FL SALVADOR: STRATEGY FOR IJRBAN POVERTY ALLEVIATION
Area for Action Iinoact on the Poor Recommendation
I. vmployment (Basic Strategy)
A. Outside Poor Neighborhood1. General
a. Increase labor demand through a. ife.-tnfrl threigh overall emnloyment al. Revision of manufacturing incentivesexpanded economic and investnent creation. Trickle do',n to the poor and exoansion of infrastructure,activity. Main thrust from .nsv be lim;.ted. Imnact more ce- tain such as free zones, container portinvestment in manufacturing if ssnlmlementepd "i t' measures to and other transport facilities, toactivities, particularly labor incrense skills of the poor. attract more loc:l ra. ital and foreign
concerns interested in using Salvadorianintensive for export to Non-CACs labor
a Political stability is a prerequisite.2, Failure of the employment creation
airsaiegy, means increased unemploymentand rising social tensims
b. Increase labor demand with b. Emnloyment and income impacts on the b, Housing programs with emphasis in low-infrastructure and the expansion ooor more certain, although construction cost housing thrcagh FESV to createof public and private housing skills of the poor may need significant remunerated employmentconLstruction. uograding. b2. Infrastructure also helpful to create
2 low-skill remunerated jobs for the poorlinpac moreimportnt inconstrctionbecause public works in El Sslvador arec. Raising skills and productivitv of cl. Impact more important in construction labor intensive and use low-skill labor.the poor through training progrnss and perhaps in services. Manufactur-
to make them employable in more ing impact likely to be limited in cl. Revised approach for training programsnroductive activities snd raise medium term. to make sure the poor: have access todemand for the poor's labor them. Present programs often have
eduication requirements the poor cannotmeet, such as having basic primaryeducation, grades 1-6.
c2. Support of private training programsthat effectively reach the poor.Convenient to consider mechanisms for
2. Soecific for the POOr Chis purpose, such as a public foundationd. Expansion or basic education coverage c3. Slo- in nrodcmcing rcesults for financing training.to most of the urban and ruralnopulation to make the urban noor d. CDntinuation of present efforts to
and the rural migrant more trainable exoand grimary education, oasticularlyand employable in marginal urban settlements and rural
B. Inside Poor Neighborhoods areas (for would-be migrants)1, Housing and InfrastructureConstruction in the Settlements e 1.Exuanded orograms '.- ITneurio eV.Limited remunerated employment creation.
uograding to increase labor demand, LMostly, housing imnroverientmostly from the noor e . Again limited impact. However, for e1. Renewqed efforts in this area following
e2 .Exnanded prograns for illegal 2 workers in water and sewerage, street ABC program. Mostly part of a basicsubdivisionF upgrading construction, etc., may have significant needs approach
impact. e 2 . Consider increasing reLurmrated laborcomponent, perhaps in somae food for workschemfe
- xiii -
Area for Action Impact on the Poor Recommsendation
2. Suppor t of Small Businessin tie Settlements
f.Expansion of present orograms to f. Very limited employment effect;,increase labor absorption by covering mostly income improvement of the accRenewed effort s area butmore poor settlements families bere fitting from the program absormtion and training for the
beneficiaries to imp)rove entrepreneurialabilities. Nevertheless, not verypromising for present employment needs
3. Sunport of Small Artisanand Handicraft Industries
g.Determination of potential demand g. Probahly not large; however, may createto assure marketability outside the more employment than the small businesses g. Support of products that can be peoducedsettlements in the settlements and have a market
II. Basic Needs Approach (PovertyAmelioration Strategy)
1. Nutritionh. Refocus general food subsidies; h. Make subsidized food more available to h. Expansion of IRA facilities in marginal
less to the general population the. user settlements. Special arrangements neededbut more to the poor. for bonds or other guarantees for the
stock supplied by IRA. Expansion of IRA'soperations in marginal areas to coverother basic food items.
i. Intro-lilction of fortified foods i. Significant in reducing malnutrition rt udy to introduce enrichedamong the soor tortilla flour.
12. Food studies to determine additional fooditems, where nutritional impact could bemaximized without significant cost imoacton the poor's budget
j. Expansion of maternal-child care ,. Significant in reducing malnutrition and J. Development of an effective foodprograms. deaths from protein malnutrition and supplement program for expectant and
imaaturitv anong the most vulnereble lactating mothers and for children.greoes Probably through Ministry of Health
facilities in urban centers. Incomeguidelines to favor the real poor.
k. Nutritional education to make k. Significant, particularly from imogroved k1. Expanded emphasis on disseminationthe poor more aware of needed hygiene oracti,ces in food handling and of nutrition and health practiceschanges in food intake, intra- preuaration to avoid gastrointestinal through basic primary educationfamily distribution, and better diseases that reduce the effective to benefit future households;food handling practices, nutrition of food intake similarly, in the Ministry of Health
and gE:2PA
k 2 . Apart from direct instruction, a better-financed campaign through mass mediacommunication systems.
- xlv -
Area for Action Impact on the Poor Recormendation
2. Housing 1. Upgrading of the tugurios, including 1. Improved living conditions for tugiLrio 11. Many poor in tugurios do not havewater, drainage, sew,erage and othpr neople, including sanitary oractices capacity to pay for even minimuminfrastructure, as well as services, pnd health housing solutions. For this reason,such as street lighting and trash uDgrading of the tugurio is the onlycollections feasible solution, ihich Justifies
c2)nvn.ruation and expansion of presentv.,c
0srps underway in IVU, FSDVM etc.
for people living in tugurios andcamparients (pcogreammed targets3,900 tugurio units, 4,30W caupamentunits and 7,000 serviced lots; ro'ta-]-y:u-d _- about half). This, however,
will not keep pace with growth ofthe urban low-income population
12' Water and sewerage, and electricservice to accompany tugurio upgrading
13' Strengthening of Municipal andhealth services to the tugurios.
m. Improved service levels m. Better living conditions. m. To encourage present owners to improvem. Improved mesonervices levels.is.Betterlivingconditions.1 services and comply with sanitaryin the mesooes. sadrs
n. Legalization and Improvement of n. Important because significant numbers n1. To introduce needed revisions of housingthe illegal subdivisions. living in illegal subdivisions. These and subdivision codes.
people are not as poor as those in n2. To revise urban land tenure laws.tugurios and mesones and have larger n3. io expana services, particularly waterfanilies and sewerage, in accordance with the
capacity to pay of each family. This needsalso strengthening ANDA, including revisionof water tariffs
n4. To expand municipal services (garbage andtrash collection, access streets, lighting,etc.). For this purpose, municipalitiesneed additional revenue sources.
n5 . Expand health services of Ministry to makefacilities more accessible
- xv -
Area of Action Impact on the Poor Recoammndation
3. Water and Sewerage o. Expanded service to poor neighborhoods o. Improved sanitary and health conditions 01. Provision of standpipes and drainage tonow with limited water service and of the poor. Presert services are tugurios directly at the upgrading stagepractically no sewerage service mostly for middle and higher income °2 Provisicnof water and sewerage services
groups with access to illegal subdivisions, according to theability to pay; service levels to bechosen by beneficiaries.
03* ANDA's financial and physical capacity toundertake expanded services is limited.Thus, ANDA strengthening is essential
to obtain satisfactory results. Raising
tariffs is essential. Otherwise, presentlow service levels will continue andeven deteriorate, further reducing thepoor's access
4. Education p. Basic education p. Better access to employment and training p..Expansion of basis education grades 1-9 inopportunities, improved health attitudes urban areas. All urban children to be covered
in grades 1-6 and much larger than presentcoverage in grades 7-9. This is feasible.
p 2 .Expansion of rural basic education for would-be migrants.
q. Higher education q. Widened access to higher education for q. Higher education expenditures are regressive.the poor There is need for higher tuition fees for
students with financial resources. Higherfees may be used to subsidize students
from low-income families directly or throughlow interes loans. More self-sufficientuniversities would also release Government
resources for expanded secondary and non-formal education for the poor.
5. Health r. Better access of the poor to health r. Reducing diseases and mortality among r 1 .Expansion of ISSS coverage to the dependentsservices the poor of the member worker to release Ministry of
Health resources for the poorr 2 .Dissemination of hygiene practices among low-
income families, particularly water utilization,food handling and sanitary practices
6. Electric Pa,wer and Lighting s. Expansion of electricity access to a. Enhanced living standards, security, s1.Coverage in San Salvador already hiigh; extrspoor neiRhborhoods in San Salvador and productivity. effort needed small. In other urban centers,
and other urban areas, more important effort required to raisecoverage. May require tariff revisions toincrease progresaivity and transfer fundsto subsidize installation costs for poorfamilies.
s 2 Street lighting needs better and soundlyfinanced municipal services.
- xvi -
Area for Action Impact on the Poor Recommendation
7. Wther Services (Garbage and t. Municipal services for low-income t. Improve living conditions, particularly t. Expansion of municipal services. Need
Trash Removal, Aceess Streets) neighborhoods. health for more resources through new urbanproperty taxes and other revenue measures.
8. Transportation u. Public transportation systems u. Keep down transport tariffs rates for u. Not easy to achieve. Increased coststhe poor related to external conditions (oil priced,
vehicles. etc). Subsidies, if any, forthe extreme poor have to be carefullyscrutinized to avoid subsidizing middleand higher income groups.
9. Urban Planning v. Rationalizing urban development to V,-Improved access to legal settlements Vl`Updating and simplification of laws,remove constraints to regulated regulations and requirements for land use and
physical development of illegal subdivision and construction.
settlements v2-More rational locations for the poor, given v2 .Completion of the cadaster, particularly inincreasing transport costs the San Salvador area.and formal adoption of
the cadastral zone in order to introduce atax on urban land and the valorization tax.
v3.An expropriation law regulating land acquititiorby and for public entities and reinforcingdifferent criteria for expropriation to reducedissatisfaction with present mechanisms.andprotect individual sights.
v4. Improvement of the real estate property andmortgage register to include illegal sub-divisions, speed up the registration process
and facilitate the identification of thelocations of registered urban properties.
v5, Establishment of a Metropolitan Commission forUrban Development in the SSHA and strengtheningof the mechanisms at the national level for thecoordination of urban, metropolitan and regionaldevelopment
10. Financial Capacity of w. Strengthening financial resources w. Improved municipal services reaching w. Major gap in the country's tax system is the
Municipalities of Municipalities. Municipalities' poor urban settlements. failure to tax effectively the ownership and
resources are constraint on improving use of urban land and buildings. Several
existing services. financial measures recommendedz an urban land
tax, a valorization tax, adjustment of quasi-user charges to reflect actual costs, use of
inflation escalators and administrativeimprovements to raise collections.
EL SALVADOR: AN INQUIRY INTO URBAN POVERTY
I. INTRODUCTION
1. El Salvador is one of the smallest, poorest and most densely popu-
lated countries in the Western hemisphere. Its main problems are a limited
resource base, a strong dependence on coffee and cotton exports, highly
unequal income distribution, and a rapidly growing population which exacerbates
the difficulties of unemployment and underemployment. Not surprisingly, urban
and rural poverty is widespread. Roughly two-thirds of the country's dwellings
are without piped water, well over half without electricity, and only one
sixth are served directly by water-borne sewerage systems. Many poor cannot
afford a diet that meets minimum daily calorie and protein requirements. The
situation is particularly acute among young children; infant and child mortal-
ity is high. Diarrheal diseases, nutritional deficiencies, pneumonia, and
perinatal diseases are the leading mortality causes. Furthermore, even under
the most favorable assumptions for fertility declines, the population is
expected to be at least 1.6 times its present size by the year 2000. This
enlarged population will place severe additional pressures on natural resources,
public services, and the demand for urban jobs.
2. Bleak short- and medium-term growth prospects, particularly in
the manufacturing sector, are already affecting employment creation. As
a result, manufacturing employment will likely increase at below historical
growth rates in the near future, and absorption of the growing labor force
would mean a significant retention of laborers in agriculture, substantial
employment pressures on the informal sector, increased social tensions, and
worsening poverty conditions.
3. This economic study focuses only on urban poverty because: (i) the
future of El Salvador is clearly urban; employment and export growth will
depend partly on the development of new manufactured exports, and the full
resolution of the employment problem will also depend on expanding their
related modern or informal urban services; (ii) rural-urban migration is
expected to accelerate as the rural population pressure on the limited arable
land increases and the urban centers, particularly the San Salvador Metropolitan
Area, here on referred to as the SSMA, become the country's growth centers,
(iii) constraints and requirements in urban housing and public services are
more severe than in rural areas because of the increasing scarcity of land,
construction regulations, lack of savings, and much higher requirements
(including administrative and fiscal) for water, sanitation, trash removal,
and other public services. Furthermore, rural poverty has been studied by
AID, IDB, and other development agencies, 1/ which are providing assistance to
improve rural conditions.
1/ For example, see AID studies by Daines, S. Analysis of Small Farmers and
Rural Poverty in El Salvador, and Statistical Analysis of the Rural Poor
Target Groups in El Salvador.
- 2 -
4. This study, therefore, concentrates on determining the extent ofurban poverty, who are the urban poor, how they earn their living, how theylive, and what public services and subsidies they have access to inorder to seek ways of helping them through specific public programs andincrease their job opportunities.
5. Poor urban households are defined in this study as those earningless than t 200 a month at 1976 prices (about US$190 a year per family member).This is roughly equivalent to the minimum wage established in 1976 by theMinistry of Labor to cover a minimum standard of living or basic needs (food,clothing, shelter) of an urban worker (see Appendix No. 1 for further detailsabout the poverty criterion).
6. This report puts greater emphasis on urban poverty rather thanon income distribution because urban poverty can be attacked with concrete,specific actions to meet basic human needs of deprived groups while incomedistribution analysis in itself does not tell much about the underlyingeconomic conditions and structures. Besides, income distribution analysistends to overlook the redistributive impact of in-kind transfers for housing,nutritional programs, and social services as well as how they can be used toimprove present and future income distribution.
- 3 -
II. THE ECONOMIC CAUSES OF POVERTY
A. The National Labor Market
7. Low per capita GDP and low capital endowment per laborer (K/L) together
with limited natural resources and a high population density determine a national
labor market in which average productivity per laborer and thus wages are low.
The Salvadorian labor market characteristics are typical of a country with an
"unlimited" supply of labor in relative terms to its capital stock and natural
resource base. Labor is abundant for low productivity jobs at the prevailing
low wages. Besides the obvious high ratios of population compared to arable
land (1.8 hectares of agricultural land per rural worker), other physical
resources, and stock of capital, the evidence in support of the "unlimited"
supply of labor is abundant. First, is the high level of family workers
employed, but without cash remuneration (about 21 percent of the working force
in rural areas, and about 6 percent in urban areas). In addition, small farms
(below 2 hectares) cannot employ their available man-days per cultivated
hectare. 1/ Secondly, are the large numbers of household heads employed
in most sectors of the economy at wages below a poverty threshold, 2/ which
are a potential supply for higher income employment. Next, is the rapid
growth of the work force, expected to continue for the next 12-15 years.
Moreover, many women now working as housewives will likely increase their
future economic activity rates, particularly in urban areas (i.e., hunt for
paid employment).
8. The Salvadorian work force (10 years and over) was estimated at
about 1.3 million in 1975, 31.5 percent of the total population. It is
growing rapidly, over 3 percent yearly, and has an increasing proportion of
younger workers, particularly females. The main forces operating behind the
labor supply growth are: Ci) the rapid increase of the male population ofworking age; (ii) small declines in the high male participation rates, which
are associated with the youths aged 10-19 as schooling is increased; and (iii)
rapid expansion of the female labor force and increasing participation of
women (the female activity rate 3/ at 21 percent is still well below the male
activity rate at 80 percent). About half of the economically active popula-
tion is in agriculture, about one-third in commerce and services, 15 percent
in industry, and 2 percent in transport and communications.
1/ Farms under 2 hectares are about 190,000 (70 percent of all farms). These
farms have about 400 to 600 man-days available per cultivated hectare.No feasible crop mix could utilize this labor.
2/ The concept of invisible underemployment used by ILO generally includes
all those with earnings below a certain level. The concept used in this
study includes only heads of households.
3/ Activity rate is defined as the ratio of the economically active popula-
tion to the total population in the same age groups.
- 4 -
9. For a labor surplus economy like El Salvador, increasing savingsand capital accumulation are necessary to raise average productivity andimprove general standards of living since the rate of labor absorption dependson the rate of capital accumulation and the capital-labor ratio. However,growth itself will not guarantee improved living conditions for the poor.Direct redistributive measures, such as supplying some basic needs to thepoor, may well be needed to share growth benefits more equitably. Yet growthitself is imperative; failure to revitalize the growth performance of theeconomy in the medium- and long-run will exacerbate the employment problemsand make poverty more widespread.
10. When compared to many other countries, the labor market does notexhibit major distortions. Although the demand and supply of labor are nothomogeneous, wage differentials are «ore a function of the skills needed, theregularity of employment, the responsibility assigned, and the pleasantness ofthe job. The distinct labor sub-markets are closely interconnected. Thereare no extreme labor market dichotomies or significant islands of modernemployment, either in manufacturing or mining. In this situation, Salvadorianemployers are in a favorable position even without collusion or other bargain-ing arrangement. Surplus labor and weak unions 1/ strengthen considerablytheir position in the labor market. For these reasons, the labor market seemsrelatively efficient under conditions of imperfect competition in the productmarket that are reflected in the existence of producers' rents.
11. The absence of major distortions and the low level of real wages inthe labor market make it unrealistic to expect increased employment by loweringreal wages. The main economic approach to ameliorating El Salvador's employ-ment problem and low level of earnings is economic expansion and employmentgeneration based mostly on capital widening; 2/ the basic problem is lack ofcapital for productively using the available excess labor. In these condi-tions, external capital can play a major role. 3/
B. The Urban Labor Market
12. The economically active urban population was 47 percent of thenation's active population in 1975. It was growing at over 5 percent a yearand the urban participation rate was 37 percent, well above the nationalaverage. Women represented 44 percent of the active urban population showinga much higher activity rate 4/ than the national average.
1/ In 1977 there were 124 labor unions with juridical status covering76,000 workers, mostly in manufacturing and construction, or about6 percent of the labor force. Recently, however, the bargaining positionof some labor unions has strengthened significantly.
2/ Capital widening means the constancy of the capital-labor ratio in eachsector of the economy until the surplus labor condition disappears.
3/ See Chenery, H., and Raduchel, W.J., Substitution and Structural Changein Structural Change and Development Policy, World Bank ResearchPublication (1979).
4/ Ratio of economically active population to total population in the sameage groups. The urban ratio for women was 40 percent and the nationalratio was only 25 percent in 1975.
- 5 -
13. The urban labor market is structured in accordance with the size
of the urban centers. The SSMA labor market is the largest because it is the
main economic, commercial, service, and Government center of the country with
40 percent of the urban population. In 1971, the SSMA had approximately
three-quarters of the national value-added in manufacturing (Departments of
San Salvador and La Libertad) and about two-thirds of total manufacturing
employment; it also had about four-fifths of the value of total commercial
sales and over half of the workers employed in commerce. In addition, the
SSMA has the highest employment levels in transport and communication services
and a large share of those in education, health and social services. The SSMA
is clearly the main pole of migrant attraction because it offers the opportunity
for higher wages, better access to utilities and public services, and an
improved social life compared to limited opportunities in rural areas and
other urban communities. 1/
14. An unexpected high proportion of the urban population, however, lives
in small towns (48.1 percent in towns of 20,000 or less in 1971) because of the
locational pull of employment in export crops. Secondary towns have grown to
service the needs of the labor force involved in these export crops. 2/ Wage
differentials and agricultural terms of trade have not worked to attract large
inflows to the largest cities. Furthermore, the main export producing areas,
particularly for coffee, are very close to the largest population centers,
reducing the urban pull of the concentration of services, especially health
services. About 11.6 percent of the urban labor force is employed in agri-
culture; many town and city residents are employed as day laborers on nearby
farms at earnings below the 0 100 level (see Table 2.1). This situation may
change as export growth slows down and rural labor and population pressure on
the land increases.
15. The urban labor market shows at least three kinds of employment:
(i) stable jobs, mostly in the formal sector, with contractual relationships,
fixed wages, social security, and other fringe benefits; (ii) unstable jobs,
covering mostly the self-employed and domestics, with limited or no job
security, unstable and low earnings, and variable hours of work; and
(iii) marginal jobs that provide occasional employment at even lower wages
and for less than 30 hours a week. These job categories are simplified, for
purposes of analysis, into the formal and informal sectors. For this study,
the informal sector covers the self-employed, domestics, and family workers
without remuneration. The formal sector covers white-collar workers, blue-
collar workers on fixed and by piece wages, 3/ and proprietors. The classifi-
cation provides many borderline cases but a different arrangement will not
alter significantly the main conclusions of the analysis.
1/ For a detailed analysis of population issues, see World Bank Country
Study, El Salvador, Demographic Issues and Prospects, October 1979.
2/ Ibid.
3/ An argument can be made for classifying blue-collar on piece work
remuneration in the informal sector. Their earnings, however, are
not much lower than blue-collar workers on fixed wages. This may
indicate differences in contractual relationships rather than in
access to jobs in the modern sectors.
- 6-
C. Earnings in Urban Employment
16. Tertiary activities usually absorb a large proportion of a developingcountry's urban poor. The Salvadorian employment profile indeed shows thatabout 42 percent of the urban workers have earnings below the poverty thres-hold, and, as expected, most are in commerce and services, activities closelyassociated with the informal sector and accounting for about 60 percent ofthe employed urban labor force. Low income workers, nevertheless, are alsoemployed in modern sector occupations, particularly in manufacturing whereunexpectedly about 36 percent of the workers had monthly earnings below t 100in 1975. Utilities, financial services, transport, and (surprisingly) construc-tion workers usually had monthly earnings over C 100. At the bottom wereurban workers in agricultural activities.
17. Earnings overlap between the informal and formal sectors. Whilethere is a much larger percentage of poor workers in the informal sector andemployment is more intermittent, many of those employed in the formal sector,particularly as blue-collar workers, are far from relative affluence. Over 70percent of the workers in the informal sector and one-fifth of those in theformal sector had monthly earnings below C 100 a month, while well over halfthose in the formal sector and over four-fifths of the blue-collar workershad monthly earnings below C 200. Self-employed and domestics, the two maingroups of the informal sector, were usually below the earnings' poverty line.
Table 1: URBAN EMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY, 1975
Proportion below Proportion belowTotal urban C 100 a month ¢ 200 a monthLabor Force Absolute Percentage Absolute Percentage
INFORMAL 243,992 174,095 71.4 210,313 86.2
Self-employed 150,789 83,115 55.1 117,350 77.8Domestics 61,231 59,008 96.4 60,991 99.6Family workers withoutremuneration 31,972 31,972 100.0 31,972 100.0
FORMAL 325,819 68,129 20.9 180,366 55.4
White-collar fixed wage 168,575 15,147 9.0 63,487 37.7White-collar piecework 14,140 3,321 23.5 7,915 56.0Blue-collar fixed wage 73,900 23,468 31.8 61,116 82.7Blue-collar piecework 56,188 24,756 44.1 45,299 80.6Owners 13,016 1,437 11.0 2,549 19.6
TOTAL 569,811 242,224 42.5 390,679 68.6
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demograficos,Table G-21, April-July 1975.
- 7 -
18. Education, sex and age of the worker play a large role in low
earnings in both the formal and informal sectors. In general, the urban labor
force has a high proportion of literates (83 percent), with literate workers
in the modern sectors significantly above the average (See Table 2.13). The
largest percentage of illiterates among urban workers are in agriculture,
commerce, construction, and services occupations. About 37 percent of the
self-employed and 63 percent of domestics have less than four years of
education.
19. Age also determines low wages in both the informal and formal
sectors. Workers outside the prime age groups have lower earnings; workers
in the 10-24, and the 65 and over age groups represent 33 percent of the labor
force, but their cumulative income is only 19 percent. Mean incomes for these
groups are significantly below those in the 25-64 age bracket (see Table 2.6).
20. Lower female earnings lowers living conditions in families headed by
females (about 20 percent of the working heads of households in 1975). Urban
female employment is highly concentrated in three categories: self-employed,
fixed-wage white-collar jobs and domestics. Only 9 percent of the female
urban labor force is employed in manufacturing; only half of those are on
fixed wages. Even in the formal sector, female workers tend to earn less than
males, 1/ although the extent to which this variation is owed to educational
differences is not clear. Women urban workers have less education than male
workers. Most illiterate women are employed as domestics or are self-employed
in marginal activities.
21. In some occupations, female productivity seems extremely low, and
those "employed" work long hours for low remunerations. Among the self-
employed and domestics, about 11 percent work 49 to 60 hours a week and
30 percent over 60 hours a week. Among domestics, 76 percent work over
60 hours a week. Most of the latter are domestics. As a result, urban
families, particularly in the informal sector, show a high participation rate
in the labor force with about two members, slightly below the average number
of adults per family. The pressure for household viability forces additional
members to enter the labor market, mostly in the informal sector to earn a
subsistence living.
D. Urban Unemployment and Underemployment
22. In a developing country like El Salvador with a large and 'rapidly
growing supply of unskilled labor, increased female participation in the
labor force, expected future growing rural-urban labor migration, and where
low income workers cannot afford to be unemployed for long, the application
of the traditional unemployment concepts yield less insights than analysis
of underemployment. The conclusions that follow about open unemployment,
therefore, have limitations; the analysis of underemployment is more revealing.
1/ Female blue-collar wages are 14 percent lower in manufacturing in
general; 32 percent in food products; and 37 percent in textiles and
apparel.
-8-
Open Urban Unemployment
23. Open urban unemployment has fluctuated sharply during the 1970s.In the early seventies, the loss of the Honduran market as a result of the1969 conflict brought about high urban unemployment as manufacturing lost itsearlier dynamism. Open urban unemployment reached 13.4 percent in 1971. 1/Afterwards, some recovery in manufactured exports and a high level of con-struction activities brought about a significant improvement and open urbanunemployment fell to 6.8 percent in 1975. More recently, however, politicaluncertainties and low private investment are indicators that open unemploymentis growing. The following paragraphs will examine some of the characteristicsof the unemployed.
24. Open unemployment is an entirely different problem for primaryincome earners (heads of household) than it is for secondary income earners.Unemployment of primary earners was only 2.7 percent while unemployment ofsecondary earners was 11.2 percent in 1975. 2/ Heads of households cannotafford to be unemployed while spouses, sons or daughters (about half of thesecondary unemployment) can wait for better employment opportunities. In thissense, their unemployment is "voluntary". The unemployed primary earners andtheir families, on the other hand, were living under poverty conditions. Asthe later section on housing notes, these were mostly heads of poor householdsliving in slums, where the open unemployment rate for heads of households was15-20 percent, much higher than average urban conditions. 3/
25. The urban unemployed are mostly young (in the 15-34 age groups) andare on the average somewhat better educated than the employed labor force.The literacy rate is 90 percent and about two-fifths have more than six yearsof education. About 70 percent have previous work experience and 88 percentof those with experience were employed in the formal sector as white- orblue-collar workers at fixed wages. Thus, open urban unemployment is mostly aformal sector problem. The majority of the unemployed were without a job forless than 12 weeks. The short duration of unemployment seems to be related totheir better education or previous work experience in the formal sector. Forthese workers, waiting increases the probability of obtaining a better job.
26. Open unemployment is not a large problem in the informal sector,which by its nature absorbs redundant labor. Only 8 percent of theunemployed declared a previous occupation in the informal sector. Themain problem in the informal sector is earnings adequacy to providestandards of living above poverty.
1/ Direccion General de Estadistica y Censos, Cuarto Censo Nacional dePoblacion, p. 14, Vol. II, 1971.
2/ In 1974, PREALC estimated 5.1 percent and 17.3 percent in the SSMA.(PREALC, Situacion y Perspectivas del Empleo en El Salvador, p. I-16,1974).
3/ This means, nevertheless, that 80-85 percent of household headsliving in slums are gainfully employed.
- 9 -
27. An analysis of unemployment in the urban labor market is not completewithout a look at peripheral labor market participants who are not looking fora job because they believe work is unavailable, have personal handicaps, orlacked skills and education. In El Salvador, only seven thousand among thoseconsidering joining the urban labor force were clearly discouraged workers.Their inclusion among the unemployed would raise the open urban unemploymentrate from 6.8 percent to 7.8 percent in 1975.
28. Among the inactive population about 88 percent had no work experi-ence, 4.6 percent less than one year experience, and 6.5 percent more than ayear. Inactive men were mostly students (77 percent), and retired or unableto work (12 percent) while inactive women were mostly housewives (59 percent),students (35 percent), and retired or unable to work (5 percent). When askedabout their job-seeking attitude, only 6.8 percent of the 1.5 million inactivepopulation considered joining the labor force and, of these, half were in the10-19 age group, probably students joining the labor market in the future.
Urban Underemployment and Earnings Adequacy
29. Visible underemployment (workers working less than the acceptednorm of 35 hours or more a week 1/) represented 8 percent of the occupiedlabor force in 1975. However, only about 5,600 or 0.9 percent of the occupiedlabor force were willing to work longer hours and could not find an adequatejob. Invisible underemployment covers workers with very low remunerationor performing a job below their skills as well as workers with very lowproductivity because they lack necessary tools and equipment to reach theirmaximum efficiency and production. 2/ Using the poverty earnings threshold,about 42 percent of employed urban workers do not have adequate incomesto raise them out of poverty. But many are youths and other secondary house-hold workers; a closer look using the more relevant criteria of householdheads earning less than ¢ 100 a month, shows that only one-sixth of theemployed labor force do not have adequate incomes. 3/
30. Among the urban fully employed in 1975 about 47,000 people, 8.2percent of the urban employed labor force, were working without renumeration.About 83 percent of them worked over 35 hours a week and 68 percent worked infamily concerns in agriculture, commerce, and services. Over half of themwere women. They represent a special category that may be considered amongthe unemployed or the underemployed from an earnings adequacy criterion.However, this has not been done.
31. In brief, although the adjusted open urban unemployment rateis only 7.8 percent, 4/ the subemployed and inadequately employed representanother 17.5 percent of the adjusted economically active urban population.Combining the two measures, over one quarter of the urban work force was un-employed or underemployed in 1975, clearly not a healthy situation. Table 5summarizes the employment results.
1/ ILO, Measurement of Unemployment and Underemployment. Concepts andMethods, 1966.
2/ Ibid.
3/ Secondary workers with earnings below ¢ 100 a month in households withsubsistence incomes may be counted as part of the subemployed. However,the information is not available.
4/ Adjusted to include discouraged workers.
- 10 -
Table 2: EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS ADEQUACY(in thousands)
DiscouragedWorkers Workers Adjusted
Economically Active Population 611.1 7.1 618.2
Employed 569.8 - 569.8Unemployed 41.3 7.1 48.4Unemployment rate (%) 6.8 7.8
Subemployed, Inadequate Employmentand Earnings 108.3
Household Heads earning less thanpoverty incomes 102.7
Urban Employed for less than 35 hoursa week who cannot find employment formore hours 5.6
Subemployment rate (%) 17.5
Source: Mission estimates.
E. 'Urban Wages
32. Minimum wages were decreed for the first time in 1967 1/ for industryand services workers and in 1973 for commerce workers. Periodic revisionstook place in response to increases in the cost of living. Minimum wages,however, lagged behind price increases during 1974-78 and the real minimumwage deteriorated. Actual average wages in industrial occupations followedthe minimum wage trend0 Real wages lost purchasing power C(about 10-15 percent)in the last few years (see Tables 2.21 and 2.22).
33. The deteriorating trend of real wages means that an increasingproportion of urban workers are below the poverty threshold and that theproblem of earnings inadequacy is becoming more acute in the last few years.Rapid price increases expected to take place in the near future as a resultof international price trends would further deteriorate real earnings if ade-quate steps are not taken. However, external price trends find the accompany-ing deterioration in the terms of trade means that El Salvador's level ofliving will decline as long as the purchasing power of its exports deteriorates.Furthermore, productive activities will be affected differently. Exportactivities may suffer less the brunt of the readjustment on incomes and wagesthan domestic activities. This would mean difficult policy trade-offs.
1/ Decree No. 22, October 9, 1967.
- 11 -
F. Employment, Wage Differentials, and Urban Labor Force Growth
34. As noted earlier, the urban labor market in the main cities has
not attracted as much surplus labor from rural areas and small towns as
expected. This section will explore wage differentials and agriculturalterms of trade of the poor as a partial explanation of this phenomenon.
35. Among the traditional motivators that attract rural workers to
cities are rural-urban wage differentials. But urban wages for industry,commerce, and services are not significantly above wages paid for harvestingcotton and sugar cane, and since 1976 they are below those for coffee harvest-
ing. This picture, however, is partly misleading; urban wages remain signif-icantly above general agricultural wages. Moreover, rural employment is less
constant (agriculture provided employment equivalent to about 55 percent of
the available man-days). Rural monthly earnings are well below urban monthly
earnings. Rural occupations provided earnings below ¢ 200 to 97 percent of
the rural labor force in agriculture and close to 90 percent for those in
commerce, services, construction, and manufacturing in 1975. Unfortunately,this dismal picture is almost matched by the urban informal sector, where86 percent of workers earn under 0 200 monthly. To the extent that theurban informal sector would be the entrance market for rural migrants, thisdifferential does not seem attractive (see Table 2.20).
36. Closely associated with earning differentials and purchasing power
parity for the poor living in rural and urban areas are the agricultural terms
of trade of domestic food staples. Domestic terms of trade for corn (the mainstaple food crop) have favored rural areas in the last few years. After thedeterioration that took place during 1971-1974, farmgate corn prices haveadvanced more rapidly than the SSMA consumer price index during 1975-78. Atthe same time, the Regulatory Supply Institute (IRA) farm prices and the SSMA
retail price for corn kept the same pace during 1969-77, with the exception of
1972-74 when farm prices deteriorated. For SSMA workers, these trends mean
that they have experienced a purchasing power loss as the consumer goods they
produce buy less corn in the market. This shift in purchasing power, however,has benefited the poorest rural farmers, who are involved in the production of
basic grains. Wage differentials, therefore, have probably not been a majorfactor in encouraging labor mobility from rural to urban areas and may con-
tribute to explain why rural-urban migration has been less than expected.
G. Urban Wages, Distribution and Poverty
37. Low wages for the poor play a significant role in determining the skewedincome distribution and the low wage share of GDP. 1/ The urban wage distribution
is significantly skewed. At the lower end of the wage distribution, about 42 per-
cent of the wage earners received 9 percent of the total wage bill in 1975 (see
Table 2.4). This is slightly below the share of total income received by the
1/ The wage distribution does not reflect inequalities associated with theownership of assets.
- 12 -
lowest 40 percent of urban income recipients in 1976-77 1/. Clearly, laborincomes play a significative role in the skewness of the urban income distri-bution (see Table 2.4).
H. Labor Market and Poverty: IMain Conclusions
38. El Salvador's labor market has a large and rapidly growing laborforce compared to its capital and natural resource endowment. Thus, averageand marginal productivity of labor are low and also wages. The country hasan "unlimited" supply of labor at prevailing low wages.
39. The urban labor market in El Salvador does not support the usualview of extreme dichotomies between the formal and informal sectors. Thedemand and supply of labor is not homogeneous. The labor market is stratifiedbut the different strata are not isolated. They show considerable incomedispersion and differentiation, and they are closely interconnected. Further-more, there is some mobility in and out of the formal sector depending on thecapability of the worker to wait for an opportunity in the formal sector.The labor market functions at a relatively high level of economic efficiency.
40. Although the association between marginal occupations and employ-ment in the informal sector is not as strong in El Salvador as suggested bythe formal-informal sector theory, there is, however, no doubt that theinformal urban sector has been a residual employer. Average productivityand earnings are low. Poverty conditions are widespread among workers inthis sector and employment is highly concentrated in many cases within thefamily. Working hours are long and participation rates in the labor forceare higher than for workers in the formal sector.
41. Open urban unemployment is low (at about 7 percent in 1975).Primary wage earners cannot afford to be unemployed. The unemployed aremostly secondary wage earners or new entrants to the labor force. Mosthave either work experience in the formal sector or are better educatedand are waiting for the job they want. The analysis of open unemploymentdoes not add much to the analysis of poverty, although unemployment is highin some marginal communities.
42. The main problem in the urban labor market is earnings adequacy.The subemployed and inadequately employed represent over one-sixth of theeconomically active population in 1975. Furthermore, real wages in urbanoccupations have deteriorated in the last few years, which means that anincreasing proportion of urban workers were in 1979 below the povertythreshold.
43. Wage and earnings differentials have not exerted a strong pull toattract as much surplus labor from rural areas and small towns to the mainpopulation centers as should be expected. Corn terms of trade have alsoworked against the urban pull.
44. The urban wage distribution is very skewed. About 70 percentof the workers in the informal sector and 21 percent of the workers in theformal sector have wages below the poverty threshold. On the other hand,only 1 percent of the workers in the informal sector and 3 percent ofthose in the formal sector have wages over e 1,000 a month.
1/ An exact comparison is not possible. The labor survey is from 1975and the income distribution survey fromn 1976-77. The evidence onlyindicates rough orders of magnitude.
- 13 -
III. URBAN POVERTY: SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Introduction
45. The employment analysis has shown how the poor earn their living and
some of the causes associated with their low earnings. Poverty, however, has
other dimensions. The following sections will analyze some of the social
characteristics of urban poverty, partly because poverty is often a vicious
circle of many of these characteristics.
A. Dependency Burden
46. Poverty and the proliferation of the population are closely asso-
ciated. High birth rates and increasingly lower death rates have led to a
progressively younger and more dependent population. The age dependency
ratio 1/ increased from .80 in 1950 to .97 in 1975. Although recently the
ratio has begun a declining trend, it is not expected to return to the 1950
level until the end of the century. Higher dependency ratios decreased the
proportion of working age population, from 55 percent in 1950 to 51 percent in
1975. El Salvador's participation rate is only 33 percent 2/.
47. Urban families, including the extreme poor, have less dependents
than rural families. The difference in age dependency ratios between rural
(1.12 in 1971) and urban areas (.84) is striking, even for low-income urban
families, which still have high family sizes and dependency burdens. Poor
families in low income housing in the SSMA and other main cities have about
five members, a minors/adult ratio of 1.1 to 1.3 and a dependents/working
members ratio of about 1.1 to 1.4. About one-third of these poor households
are headed by women. Over 50 percent of the low-income urban families have
less than four members and one-fifth to one-quarter two or less members.
About 30 percent have six or more family members. Clearly, a large proportion
of low-income families have few children and about one-third have the tradi-
tionally large urban family.
1/ Ratio of population under 15 and 65 and over to population of ages
15 through 64.
2/ Labor force as percentage of the total population.
- 14 -
Table 3: FAMILY SIZE IN POPULAR URBAN HOUSING
Persons per SSMA (Apopa) San Salvador San Miguel Santa Ana SonsonateFamily (1977) (1975) (1975) (1976) (1975)
1 - 2 9.0 24.2 19.1 19.6 28.7
3 - 4 ) 32.2 36.0 37.5 27.45 ) 62.0 14.3 13.5 13.0 15.3
6 ) 290 12.3 10.3 11.3 10.07 and over) 17.0 21.1 18.6 18.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: FSDVM, Popular Housing Surveys, 1975, 1976, and 1977.
B. The Urban Poor
48. Poor urban households were about a third of all urban households in1976-77. The urban poor reside mostly in rented rooms in old overcrowded ordeteriorated homes in downtown areas (mesones), self-erected shacks (tugurios)in empty lots, and illegal subdivisions (colo'nias ilegales). 1/ Largerfamilies live in illegal subdivisions; smaller families live in self-erectedshacks or rented rooms. Self-erected shacks are mostly a SSMA phenomenon (5percent of urban households in the SSMA but only 2.2 percent of total urbanhouseholds). Rental rooms are more common, reaching 24 percent of total urbanhouseholds and almost evenly divided between the SSMA and other urban areas.Illegal subdivisions are about a third of the low income housing in the maincities.
49. Housing characteristics in poor settlements reflect significantdifferences in incomes, expenditure patterns, employment, and education.While per capita incomes are quite similar in all poor's settlements, thereis a high association between family size, type of employment, and housingcharacteristics. The poor in rented rooms in center-city tenements (mesones)are usually those with small families and low wages; those in urban shacks(tugurios) have slightly larger families, less education, and even lowerwages. The tugurios clearly are entrance points to the urban economy. Thebest educated poor (averaging 4.7 years, sufficient for full literacy) arethose in illegal subdivisions located in the urban periphery. Their earningsare the highest and they have the best housing among the poor. Moreover, theyare frequently employed in the formal market, particularly in manufacturingand construction.
1/ Illegal subdivisions are generally located in the outer areas of theurbanized SSMA, mostly on uneven land. These developments are notofficially sanctioned. Households purchase lots from sub-dividerson long-term agreements.
- 15 -
Table 4: SELECTED INDICES OF IJRBAN POPULAR HOUSING RESIDENTS
IN SAN SALVADOR, SAN MIGUEL AND SONSONATE, 1975
Average
Average Average Schooling of Monthly Annual
Family People Head of Household Per Capita
Size Per Room Household Incomel/ Income
(number) (number) (years) (colones) (US$)
Mesones 3.86 3.1 4.5 228 283
Tugurios 4.70 4.3 3.7 213 218
Illegal subdivisions 5.84 2.6 4.7 309 254
1/ Incomes of the poor in the SSMA are higher than the national urban average.
In addition, significant percentages of the people living in popular housing
have incomes above the average.
Source: FSDVM, Popular Housing Surveys
C. Urban Housing and the Poor
50. The average size of all urban households - 5 members - did not change
between 1961 and 1971. In 1975, a household survey found an average urban
household size of 4.9 members, perhaps a result of the recent progress in
family planning.
51. Although urban housing has kept pace with population growth,
crowding and other physical characteristics, which are better indicators
of household conditions, show significant urban problems. About 25 percent
of the urban households have one room for five or more members. 1/ The highest
level of crowding is in self erected shacks followed by old downtown homes
and illegal subdivisions. 2/
52. The physical characteristics of urban housing confirms the prevalence
of sub-standard housing. About 60 percent of the urban homes in 1976 had
plated cane and dried mud (bahareque) and mud (adobe) walls, and 24 percent
dirt floors. Roofs are mostly constructed of roof tiles (tejas) and metal
or asbestos sheets. Asbestos is a health hazard. As expected, popular
housing shows worse average conditions. Self-erected shacks are the worst,
with walls of discarded materials and adobe and bahareque; roofs of cardboard
and metal sheet; and dirt floors. This type of housing is not substandard
because of its aesthetic deficiencies; it is simply unhealthy. Dirt floors
are among the leading environmental causes of poor health; they are virtually
impossible to clean and perfect for breeding many disease vectors. Mud (adobe
and bahareque) walls have similar drawbacks. Without better urban housing,
preventive and curative health programs will be flawed in results.
1/ In the SSMA, the proportion is 19 percent. Includes bedrooms, dining
rooms, dens, living rooms, etc. Indicator suggested in Ferber, R. and
Musgrove, P. Finding the Poor: On the Identification of Poverty Households
in Urban Latin America, ECIEL-Brookings.
2/ FSDVM, Caracteristicas Socio-Economicas del Sector de Menos Ingresos
en Ia Ciudad de Santa Ana, September, 1978.
- 16-
D. Access and Cost of Electricity, Water and Sewerage for the Poor
53. Poor urban households have inadequate access to all urban servicesperhaps with the exception of electricity. Access to electricity in urbanareas is high (about 86 percent of the population in 1975). The other14 percent uses kerosene. Water and sewerage are less widespread (see Tablebelow):
Table 5: WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE INDICES, 1975(in percentages)
OtherTotal Urban SSMA Urban Rural
Water Supply
Individual house connection 19.0 38.9 45.6 34.0 3.5Communal house connection 13.0 27.3 29.2 26.0 2.0Public standpipes 14.4 20.2 21.5 19.2 9.9Private wells 6.9 1.5 - 2.7 11.0Communal wells 14.9 2.2 0.3 3.5 24.8Tanks 1.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 2.6Others 30.2 9.6 3.0 14.4 46.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sewerage
Individual house connection 12.6 29.0 42.5 19.0 0.0Communal house connection 4.4 10.0 16.8 5.0 0.0Private septic tank 6.8 9.5 4.6 13.1 4.8Commercial septic tank 5.5 11.3 10.2 12.2 1.0Private latrines 14.6 17.4 7.1 25.1 12.5Communal latrines 6.0 10.3 12.8 8.4 2.7Without service 50.0 12.5 6.1 17.2 79.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, Resultados Sobre La Vivienda, Encuesta de Hogares.1975.
54. The marginal settlements of the SSMA and Santa Ana follow the urbanpattern. Electricity service coverage is wide, but water and sewerage servicesare usually poor. Self-erected shacks have access to electricity but potablewater is very limited and there is no piped sewerage system. Communal pitlatrines are used. Furthermore, trash is brought to a main street for collec-tion or dumped in a river or a nearby ravine. Illegal subdivisions located inthe periphery of the city have deficient services, particularly in the initialstages, but eventually are served by electricity and water; the latter through
- 17 -
public taps. Rooms in old downtown homes have a higher level of communal
services although limited to certain hours or daily allotments (e.g., 200
liters of water per family). 1/
55. The price charged for essential services for many low-income urban
households is high. Low-income households with access to ANDA's services are
in theory charged almost five times the amount that high-income families pay for
water and seven times more than middle-income households. (see table below.)
Water charges are even higher for those that have to buy from private sources. 2/
Surveys of marginal housing, however, show that the residents in fact spend
little for water and that a large proportion spends nothing on water (64 percent
in San Salvador, 72 percent in Santa Ana, 98 percent in San Miguel, and 94 per-
cent in Sonsonate) because they either get water from contaminated sources or
public streams or use little water with negative hygienic results.
Table 6: POTABLE WATER COSTS IN SAN SALVADOR
Price per m3
Households System (in colones)
Marginal families Community taps ¢ 0.53 - e 2.66Average ¢ 0.89
Middle-income families Individual taps ¢ 0.12
High-income families Individual taps ¢ 0.17
Source: EDURES, Informe de la Fase I: Estructura Institucional para la
Planificacion del Desarrollo Urbano en El Salvador, February, 1977,
56. Electricity rates are lower than in other Central American countries.
Minimum consumption for CEL customers is ¢ 1 per month and the first 20 Kwh
cost ¢ 2.60. Poor families, however, spend little on electricity; the average
monthly bill is 3 to 4 colones.
1/ EDURES, Final Report, Vol. II Appendices, 1978.
2/ Water sold in 10 gallon containers costs about ¢ 1.35 a cubic meter.
Some residents of illegal subdivisions pay as much as ¢ 4.50 per cubic
meter. EDURES, A Program for the Integrated Improvement of Critical
Metropolitan Areas in El Salvador, Vols. I and II, May 1978.
- 18 -
E. Transport Costs of the Poor
57. Minimizing transport cost is essential for many low-income households.Shacks are located along ravines, stream beds and public rights of way closeto jobs and markets, greatly reducing transport cost. Old deteriorating homesare centrally located in old downtown San Salvador and other municipalities.Residents in illegal settlements, however, seem less interested in lowertransport cost; they are looking for home ownership and larger housing.Surveys of low-income settlements show that a large percentage have no trans-port expenditures, particularly outside San Salvador. Average transportexpenditures in low-income settlements are three times higher in San Salvadorthan in San Miguel, Santa Ana, and Sonsonate, which reflects the greaterdistances and increasing transport needs in the capital city.
F. The Poor's Access to Education
58. The formal education system comprises nine years of basic education,three years of secondary education, and five to six years of higher education.Basic primary education is free and compulsory. Secondary education isdiversified and prepares the student for a high school diploma with certainspecialization. Higher education is offered by four universities and byvarious post-secondary institutions.
59. Education has increasingly become a Government responsibility; theshare of the Central Government in the nation's educational expendituresincreased from 80 percent in 1971 to 90 percent in 1978. About 22 percentof the Central Government total cash expenditures (including debt service) or3.6 percent of GDP were allocated to education. The Government efforts ineducation are concentrated in basic (grades 1-9) and higher education. In1977, enrollments in the first two cycles (grades 1-6) and the third cycle(grades 7-9) of basic primary were 88.4 percent and 40.5 percent of therelevant age groups, a significant improvement over ten years earlier. Abouttwo-thirds of public recurrent expenditures for education in 1977 were directedto basic education and over a quarter to higher education, while only 9 percentwas allocated to secondary education, grades 10-12. As a result, parentscovered more than half the recurrent costs of secondary education.
60. In urban areas, poor families' access to public educational oppor-tunities is widespread at the basic primary level and is expanding at thesecondary level. About 52 percent of the enrollment in urban areas in basicprimary in 1976 came from families with incomes below ¢ 200. These familiesalso provided 29 percent of the secondary education enrollment, because theschools are in urban centers. Students from higher income groups ($600 andabove) represented only 13 percent of the basic primary urban enrollmentand 21 percent of the secondary education enrollment in public schools.Higher education enrollment in public institutions, however, shows a muchdifferent pattern. Only 3 percent of the enrollment was from families withmonthly incomes below 0 200 and 65 percent came from families with monthly
- 19 -
incomes above ¢ 600 (see Table 6.4). 1/ By income quintiles, the analysis
shows similar results. About two-thirds of the children attending public
basic education in urban areas belong to the two poorest quintiles and only
8 percent to the upper quintile. In secondary education, 51 percent belong
to the two poorest quintiles and 10 percent to the upper quintile. Higher
education, however, shifts in favor of the higher income quintile with
57 percent of the enrollment against 7 percent for the two lowest incomequintiles (see Table 6.4, page 2).
61. One way to look at the situation is to compare the students in each
level of public education from "average" households of each income quintile.
For urban public primary schools, the lowest quintile has over two students
in school per household while the highest quintile has an average of 0.5
students per household. The private school share of total primary enrollmentis only 4 percent so that declining mean enrollments of higher income families
reflect the smaller family size as income grows. Average enrollment per
household at the secondary level follows a rather homogeneous pattern across
income groups, even though there are income constraints and a larger partici-pation of higher income families into the secondary private system. This
indicates that students from lower income urban groups may have reasonableopportunities to continue their secondary studies. With regard to higher
public education, the average family in the highest quintile has a likelihood
of having a child in public higher education schools 45 times greater than afamily in the lowest quintile.
Table 7: MEAN PUBLIC ENROLLMENT PER HOUSEHOLD BY LEVEL OFEDUCATION AND INCOME QTJINTILE, 1976
(students per average family)
Basic Total Higher Total
Quintile Urban.i/ Rural Basic Secondary Education Enrollment
1 2.16 2.04 2.11 0.04 0.002 2.15
2 1.59 1.48 1.54 0.05 0.01 1.60
3 1.02 0.08 0.51 0.04 0.02 0.574 0.68 0.04 0.33 0.03 0.04 0.405 0.45 0.02 0.20 0.02 0.09 0.31
Average 1.18 0.73 0.94 0.03 0.03 1.00
1/ Includes students from rural areas commuting daily to urban schools.
Source: Ministry of Education, Minplan, Household Survey, Bank estimates.
1/ Enrollments in urban areas include a significant number of ruralstudents commuting daily to urban schools. According to the ODEPOR/AIDsurveys, this could be as high as 19 percent of the enrollment. At
the same time, 6 percent of the rural enrollment came from urban areas.
- 20 -
G. Health Conditions
62. The health of the Salvadorian population improved significantly in thelast six decades, but it is still far from satisfactory. The death rate hasfallen drastically. In 1920, about 33 people per thousand died every year and nowit is about 10.5 percent. 1/ Preventive medicine in the form of mass immuniza-tions and control of disease-carrying insects have contributed significantlyto the reduction of mortality rates. However, much remains to be done. Infantmortality is very high, even in urban areas; studies of different communitiesshow an urban infant mortality rate of about 85. Approximately 30 percent ofall deaths each year are of children under the age of one, with diarrhealdiseases, nutritional deficiencies, pneumonia, and perinatal complications beingleading causes of death.
63. An analysis of mortality and morbidity statistics clearly indicatesthat lack of environmental sanitation is the most serious health problem facingthe country. This problem mainly reflects the inadequacy of water supplies,waste disposal, latrinization, health education, and health services. A majoreffort is required to provide these services in urban areas. As noted earlier,urban households in marginal areas have a low level of water, sewerage, andwaste disposal.
64. Responsibility for health care for low-income urban groups liesmainly with the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MHSS) although theSocial Security Institute (ISSS) covered about a third of low-income workers(earnings below e 186 a month) in 1976. Families of ISSS workers must useprivate or MHSS services. The Health Ministry provides medical and hospitalservices to about 85 percent of the population; the main units are locatedin urban centers, where 87 percent of the expenditures are allocated. TheSSMA with about 16 percent of the country's population has 36 percent of thehospitals, about 50 percent of the hospital beds, and 44 percent of the medicalpersonnel. The social security institute's 18 hospitals, 36 consultationoffices and 176 medical clinics are all located in urban centers.
65. Government and Social Security health expenditures have grown in thelast few years at about the same rate of nominal GDP, remaining at about 1.9percent of GDP. Although coverage of the ISSS has increased from 3.5 percentof the population to 5.1 percent, it - like the Ministry of Health - hasmaintained about the same ratio of expenditures to GDP. Real resources(physicians, hospital beds, etc.) allocated to health have increased. Popula-tion growth, however, has outstripped some services and the ratio of nursesand hospital beds to population declined, even in the SSMA. The physiciansratio however, increased nationwide, although declined in the SSMA. 2/(see Table 6.25.)
1/ Official estimates are 8 per thousand but with significant under-reporting of deaths. Assuming 30 percent underreporting the deathrate is about 10.5 per thousand.
2/ In 1978, there were 3.8 physicians per ten thousand people compared with1.85 per ten thousand in 1960 and 2.48 per ten thousand in 1970. Thesefigures compare with the guideline standards established in the USA ofone physician per 3,500 persons and 0.4 beds per 10,000 population.Chen K. Martin, A Quantitative Index of Access to Primary Medical Carein Health Planning, Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. Vol. 12, Oxford UniversityPress, 1978.
- 21 -
66. The quality of public, curative health care has many shortcomings.Present health facilities are inadequate. Accessibility is a continuingproblem. Patient loads are high. Hospital beds are 1.7 per thousand popula-tion. 1/ Physicians are handicapped by lack of resources and equipment;equipment malfunctions are not infrequent; diagnostic facilities are meager.Much of the care provided can be considered minimal. There are two levels ofin-patient care at all hospitals. Very poor patients are housed in large,often overcrowded, open wards. Paying patients have better services withprivate rooms and some facilities for accompanying relatives. Out-patientand emergency care is also provided. Equipment, particularly for emergencycases, is limited. Outpatient facilities are overcrowded with long linesof patients waiting.
67. Private health care is provided by different means. Private healthclinics have about 5 percent of the total number of beds in the country andprovide medical and hospital services to the higher income population.Pharmacies also provide health care, diagnosing and prescribing. Traditionalpractitioners, such as mid-wives, healers, etc, are common.
68. Significant progress has also been achieved in family planning inrecent years. By mid-1977, an estimated 20 percent of the fertile femalepopulation was being reached and programs under way were expected to raisecoverage to 30 percent by 1982. 2/
69. Poor incomes seem to be correlated with poor medical attentionfor low-income groups. For example, about 14 percent of the poor familiesin an FSDVM project in Santa Ana needed and did not receive medical attentionduring the period covered by an FSDVM survey, mainly because of lack of money.
H. Social Characteristics of Urban Poverty: Main Conclusions
70. The urban poor represented about a third of the total numberof urban households in 1976-77. The urban poor lives in old, overcrowdedor deteriorated homes in downtown areas, self-erected shacks in emptylots, and illegal settlements in the outer areas, mostly on uneven land,without official sanctioning and thus public services. There are signif-icant differences among the poor. Incomes, expenditure patterns,nutrition, and housing conditions vary with the type of settlement.
71. Housing characteristics show that crowding and sub-standardhousing are worst in the self-erected shacks, which are mostly built ofdicarded materials and cardboard, and have dirt floors. Old downtown homesand illegal subdivisions are in much better condition. Old homes have ahigher level of access to public services while illegal settlements havedeficient public services, particularly in the initial stages.
1/ About 630 people per hospital bed, which compares with 300 people perhospital bed in Chile, 530 in Colombia, 660 in Honduras, 860 in MIexico,1,290 in Gambia, 760 in Kenya, 1,200 in Nigeria, 1,560 in Indonesia, and1,430 in Korea.
2/ For a detailed analysis of progress in this area, see IBRD, El Salvador,Demographic Issues and Prospects, 1979.
- 22 -
72. Public social services vary in their coverage of the poor. Whilethe urban poor's access to primary basic education seems adequate, reasonablefor secondary education, but extremely low for higher education, and the urbanpoor have better access to primary basic education than the rural poor, publichealth services have less effective coverage. Nevertheless, health conditionsimproved significantly and mortality rates declined rapidly in the last fewdecades. The urban poor have access to Government health facilities, whichare mostly in urban areas, so that they have a definite advantage over therural poor. However, population growth is outstripping some Government healthservices. Present health facilities for the poor are inadequate and accessi-bility is a continuing problem. Furthermore, the quality of public, curativeservices has many shortcomings.
- 23 -
IV. URBAN POVERTY AND NUTRITION
73. In the preceding sections, we have seen how the poor earn a living
and how they live. Yet nutrition deserves its own chapter; poor familiesallocate most of their incomes for food. About 50 to 70 percent of the
budget of poor households in the main urban centers is allocated for food;still they suffer from malnutrition. Households below the poverty thresholdhave average per capita monthly food expenditures of only about 0 24-32 orabout 10-15 US cents per meal.l/ As a result, low-income urban families showsignificant levels of calorie and protein malnutrition.
A. Child Malnutrition and Mortality
74. National anthropometric and biochemical measurements by the Nutrition
Institute for Central American and Panama (INCAP) as well as average dailyintake data confirm these malnutrition problems. Anthropometric data from a
1976 INCAP study shows that three quarters of children aged 6-59 monthssuffered from malnutrition (see Table 5.5, Statistical Appendix). Over half,however, only suffered from first degree malnutrition and there is someslight improvement in their situation. The three most frequently usedmeasurements are height for age, weight for height, and weight for age;all are compared to accepted standards. 2/ The 1976 INCAP data comparedto the 1965 INCAP data shows that the prevalence of second and third degreemalnutrition (according to Gomez classification 3/) declined from 27.7percent in 1965 to 22.1 percent in 1976 with the most significant reductiontaking place in second degree malnutrition. The percentage of childrenin the normal range increased from 21.8 to 25.6. 4/ Height for age measure-ments show a clearer trend towards improvement. The percentage of childrenachieving 90 percent or more of the standard height for their age increased
1/ Food staple prices per pound in 1977 were: corn ¢ 0.25, bread ¢ 1.02,steak 0 4.06, butter 0 4.90, lard 0 1.61, beans 0 0.71, sugar ¢ 0.40,frozen chicken 0 1.63. A bottle of milk was priced at 0 0.50 anda pound of imported milk at 0 3.20 (Source: MINPLAN. IndicadoresEconomicos y Sociales).
2/ Height for age reflects a chronic condition because malnutrition mustpersist for some time before the child's growth is retarded. A lowweight for height reflects an acute condition, often caused by gastro-intestinal diseases or seasonal food shortages. A weight for agemeasurement can capture either one or both conditions.
3/ Gomez classification is based on weight deficits. A 10 percent deficitis considered normal; a 10-25 percent deficit is classified as firstdegree malnutrition; a 26-40 percent as second degree malnutrition, andover 40 percent as third degree malnutrition.
4/ The differences, however, are not statistically significant at the5 percent level.
- 24 -
from 56.2 percent in 1965 to 66.9 percent in 1976. 1/ The weight for heightinformation contradicts the result of the weight/age and height/age measure-ments showing a deterioration. 2/ INCAP offers plausible explanations.For a population whose nutritional status is beginning to improve, this changeshows initially more in height than in weight resulting in taller but thinnerchildren. Furthermore, the parameter varies with the season. When food andwork are abundant in December through March, malnutrition is low; when theydecrease in June, malnutrition increases and weight for height measurementsare affected.
75. Urban children are less severely affected by malnutrition. Accordingto weight for age data, children ages 1-5 in urban slums have a smallerpercentage suffering from second and third degree malnutrition and a largerpercentage falling in the normal range than in any other region. A similarpattern emerges from the height for age data with urban slums showing thelargest percentage of normal children and the smallest percentage of moderatelyand severely malnourished children. The data on weight for height, as in theearlier 1965-76 comparison, displays a different pattern. In this case, itshows a better situation in the coffee growing regions than in the urbanslums. 3/
76. Not surprisingly, nutritional deficiencies 4/ are important causesof mortality among children under 5 years of age in El Salvador, although theexperience is not very different from that reported for other more advancedLatin American countries. 5/ Among children under 5 years, mortality fromnutritional deficiencies represents 37 percent of total deaths in San Salvador
1/ The differences are statistically significant at the 0.1 percent level.
2/ The differences are statistically significant at the 0.001 percent level.
3/ The criteria of INCAP are as follows: urban region, any canton or centerwith 10,000 people or more; coffee region, at least one-third of theland is used for coffee or two-thirds of the land was used and thepercentage of the land used for coffee exceeds the percentage of theland used for other cash crops; intensive regions, either one-thirdof the land is used for cash crops (cane, cotton, etc) or more thantwo-thirds of the land is used and the percentage of land utilizedfor other cash crops exceed the percentage used for coffee; marginalregion, less than two-thirds of the land is used and less thanone-third is utilized for either coffee or other cash crops.
4/ Which includes what WHO calls "immaturity"; an underdevelopment ofthe fetus leading to death during the neonatal period and likelycaused by maternal malnutrition.
5/ See Rice Puffer, Ruth, and Serrano, Carlos V., Patterns of Mortalityin Childhood, PAHO, 1973 where similar or higher rates are reportedin project areas in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Colombia.
- 25 -
and 47 percent in rural areas. About 60 percent of the deaths from nutri-
tional deficiencies are due to protein malnutrition (40 percent) or kwashiorkor
and nutritional marasmus (20 percent). For children under 1 year, deaths
attributed to protein malnutrition and marasmus are only 26 percent of the
total. For children over two years, protein malnutrition was found in two-
thirds of the deaths due to malnutrition deficiency.
B. Malnutrition in Rural and Low-Income Urban Population
77. Nutritional studies in El Salvador show significant levels of
malnutrition among the low-income urban population even when the criteria
for daily requirements are set at the lowest of the different calories
requirements suggested by nutrition experts.
Household Income and Malnutrition
78. Recent national household budget surveys corroborate the mal-
nutrition and calorie-distribution problem. Using these surveys, 1/ the
mission estimates income and nutritional distribution as follows:
Table 8: PER CAPITA MONTHLY INCOME AND CONSUMPTIONOF CALORIE AND PROTEINS
Monthly Household Per Capita Protein
Income Family Size Income Calories Per Capita Per Capita
(¢) (People) (0) (Calories) (Grams)
0 - 100 6.8 9.9 1/ 1,442 41
100 - 199 6.5 22.6 2/ 1,956 50
200 - 299 5.7 42.9 2,032 51
300 - 599 5.0 81.3 2,249 57
600 - 999 4.0 186.6 2,786 77
Over 1,000 3.4 477.0 4,344 120
1/ Average expenditures are ¢ 14.9. For some computations this figure has been
used instead of income.2/ Average expenditures are ¢ 23.8. For some computations this figure has
been used instead of income.
Source: Mission estimates based on the 1976-77 Household Survey.
79. These figures, when compared to the Bank's accepted average minimum
daily requirements for El Salvador of 2,290 calories and 50 grams of protein 2/,
show that the malnutrition problem for the poor is more one of insufficient
1/ Detailed conversions to calories and proteins have been made of house-
hold food purchases item by item and taking into account quality and
price per unit (see appendix for methodological details).
2/ Equivalent to 37.2 grams of net protein retained by the body.
- 26 -
calories than proteins; only the extremely poor have insufficient proteins.Calorie and protein deficiencies, however, are subject to margins of error,which depend on the minimum standard selected. INCAP standards of 2,080calories and 55 grams of protein would show smaller calorie deficienciesand higher protein deficiencies. In addition, not all individuals within anincome group can be classified as malnourished. Some are above the standard.
Table 9: CALORIE AND PROTEIN DEFICIENCIES(Percentages)
% of % of adequacy % of adequacyIncome Group Population of Calorie of Protein
0 - 100 12.6 63.0 82.0100 - 199 28.6 85.4 100.0200 - 299 18.5 88.7 102.0300 - 599 24.4 98.2 114.0600 - 999 9.6 121.7 154.0Over 1,000 6.2 189.7 240.0
Source: Mission estimates based on the 1976-77 household survey.
80. Families with incomes below 0 100 are clearly suffering fromseverely inadequate diets, independently of the accuracy of the referencestandard. But their calorie deficiency is higher than the protein deficiency.Most of the families with monthly incomes in the 0 100 - 199 category aresuffering from deficient diets; while low protein intake remains a problemfor some families in this range, it is much less than the calorie deficit.l/When the calorie deficit is higher than the protein deficit, the usual con-0clusion is that an increase in the quantity, rather than the quality, of foodintake is required.
81. Families with monthly incomes of 0 200 - 300 are closer tothe requirements. The condition of this group is subject to a greaterdegree of uncertainty, since the determination of whether they are under-nourished is quite sensitive to the choice of the calorie standard. Adequacyof calorie intake according to the Bank standard ranges from 88 percent to94 percent. Using the INCAP standard, the range would be 91 to 97 percent.Nevertheless, a sizeable number of the families have significant caloriedeficits. Protein deficiency, however, does not seem to be a problem.Families with monthly incomes of 0 300 - 599 show little calorie inadequacy.
1/ The predicted adequacy is computed for the lower and upper income levelsof the interval and estimated family size at that point in the semi-logarithmic equation.
- 27 -
Table 10: PREDICTED ADEQUACY OF DIET 1/
Predicted Percentage Predicted PercentageHousehold Monthly Adequacy of Diet in Adequacy of Diet in
Income Level Calories Protein(¢)
100 72.5 88.7200 87.5 103.9300 93.7 113.4400 96.9 118.2450 100.0 122.9540 103.1 127.7500 106.2 132.4600 112.5 141.9
I/ The predicted adequacy is computed for the lower and upper income levelsof the interval and estimated family size at that point in the semi-logarithmic equation.
Source: Regression equation in Appendix.
82. In summary, most of the households with incomes below ¢ 200 amonth are suffering from significant diet inadequacies, particularly thosein the under e 100 a month. Families with e 200 - 299 incomes seem to be in avulnerable position. Families with monthly incomes in the ¢ 300 - 450 groupsare averaging less than their calorie requirement but their shortfall is lessthan 10 percent. Thus, about 74 percent of the households are experiencingsome calorie deficiency and about 50 percent have a calorie inadequacy of morethan 15 percent. The protein deficiency is much less serious. When intra-family distribution of food is considered, it is very likely that youngchildren experience a larger food deficit among low income families resultingin their frequently observed higher levels of protein and calorie malnutrition.
Income and Diets
83. When considering the possibility of specific food subsidies, othergeneral food and nutrition programs or other policies aimed at the poor,it is crucial to know the relative importance of different food items forSalvadorian households and consumption patterns at different income levels. 1/
1/ For this purpose, regressions on calories and proteins purchasedwere used.
- 28 -
84. Estimates for calorie consumption by Salvadorian households at diffe-rent income levels show that they are dependent on household incomes and size,prices and unit calorie costs, and dietary preferences. The lowest incomegroup (below t 100) will likely increase calorie consumption by 9.6 percentfor every 10 percent rise in income. The other poverty income group (incomes
t 100 - 199) will increase consumption less (7 percent for a 10 percent increasein income). Thereafter, the elasticity decreases rapidly (See Table 3, AppendixNo. 2, Nutrition).
85. Calorie and protein elasticities are low since Salvadorian nutri-tional habits show that they are probably spending more for higher priced,better quality foodstuff and not receiving that much more in calories orprotein. Constant elasticity of food expenditures (0.73) is higher than thecalorie (0.42 and 0.25) and the protein (0.25) elasticities (See Table 5.7).Similarly, arc elasticities of food expenditure by income levels are alsosignificantly higher (See Table 5.8).
86. Calories and proteins are purchased in the form of foodstuff, sothat the way food expenditures shifts as income increases reveals why calorieand protein consumption change. The Salvadorian population showed that, asincome increases, the proportion of household food expenditures for mostvegetable and cereal products decreases while animal products show the oppositetrend. 1/ Products of vegetable origin provide 97 percent of the calories and92 percent of the proteins for the lowest income groups; for the highestincome groups, the percentages are 78 and 53, respectively (see StatisticalAppendix, Table 5.1). Meat and dairy products provide only small amounts ofcalorie and protein for the poor.
87. Consumption of bread and cereals, particularly maize, largelyexplains these trends because they are about half of the food budget offamilies with monthly incomes below 4 100 but only one-fifth for familieswith earnings over t 1,000. Bread and cereals provide 86 percent of thecalories and 84 percent of the proteins of the poorest families (see StatisticalAppendix, Tables 5.2 and 5.3). For the highest income groups, the proportionsare 45 percent and 38 percent respectively. Maize is the largest component ofthe cereals group; decreasing maize consumption as income increases is themost important factor behind the results obtained above. Rice and breaddisplay an opposite trend.
88. Although the share of expenditures for vegetables (of whichbeans is the most important component) decreases as income increases,the calorie and protein intake from beans show a positive response toincome. Fruits and tubers expenditures show general gains as incomeincreases but do not become important in the provision of proteins andcalories.
89. Mleat and dairy products show a significant income response but theyprovide very small amounts of calories and proteins to low-income groups.While low-income families spend 7 percent of their food budget for meatand 15 percent for eggs and dairy products, families with the highest
1/ Excludes calorie and protein transfers in kind among income groups.
- 29 -
income spend 21 percent and 22 percent respectively. Meat provides0.5 percent of the calories and 0.5 percent of the proteins for the lowestincome groups, and eggs and dairy products 2.2 percent and 4.2 percentrespectively. For the highest income groups, meat provides 6 percent ofthe calories and 25 percent of the proteins and dairy products 14 percentand 16 percent respectively. Average national annual consumption of beefis low at about 12 pounds per person; pork consumption is about 2 pounds;and chicken 5 pounds. 1/
90. In brief, Salvadorian households show the expected pattern ofdiet changes as income increases. However, in order to gauge the impactof food distribution or income transfers on family nutrition, the costof an adequate diet is needed. Information on costs per calorie andper gram of protein by income groups show the expected results. Costper calorie and per gram of protein steadily increases with incomereflecting the significant shift occurring, which was discussed earlier,toward animal products as income increases.
Table 12: CALORIE AND PROTEIN COSTS BY INCOME LEVELS
(in colones)
Income LevelsBelow100 100-199 200-299 300-599 600-999 Over 1000
Cost per1000 calories .26 .33 .36 .45 .62 .81
Cost perGram of protein .010 .012 .014 .018 .022 .029
Source: Mission estimates
91. Based on the costs per calorie and gram of protein by income levels,the needed expenditure for an adequate diet in both calories and protein wasestimated. 2/ The comparison of the needed expenditures with actual expendi-tures underlines the conclusion reached earlier; families with monthlyearnings below ¢ 100 are seriously affected by their inability to purchasean adequate nutritional diet. There is also a nutritional problem in thee 200-299 group, particularly for calories, and to a much lesser degreein the ¢ 300-599 group. At these levels, however, nutritional educationmay help improve nutritional habits and somewhat lower food prices may signif-icantly reduce the problems (Table 5.9 shows the situation).
1/ Equivalent to a daily intake of 15 grams of beef, 2 grams of pork,and 6 grams of chicken.
2/ This assumes that people in an income level will not shift their nutri-tional habits to those of higher income levels and thus costs per calorieand gram of protein remain the same.
- 30 -
92. The calorie deficiency is more prevalent and thus dominant overthe protein deficiency. The elasticities for calories and proteins consumedare also very close, suggesting a close relationship to the same type of foodand making very likely that calories provide a more effective and precisestandard for a general nutrition program. Protein consumption standards aremore difficult to define and depend on the aminoacid composition of differentfoods and protein use by the body 1/. This makes an extremely difficult taskto compute a least cost combination of food based on protein intake andnutritional habits. For this reason, protein deficiencies should be thesubject of specific programs for particular target groups, such as youngchildren and expecting mothers.
93. The cost of an adequate diet is not complete if it does not includethe cost of fuel for cooking. Although we lack specific information on thefuel cost for an adequate diet, the information available on actual fuelcosts shows that families earning less than e 100 per month spend an average10 percent of their monthly expenditures and 19 percent of their food expendi-tures for fuel (kerosene, wood, and propane gas), used almost exclusively forcooking. Families earning ¢ 100-199 per month spend about 8.3 percent oftheir monthly expenditures and 15 percent of their food expenditures on fuelscommonly used for cooking. As income increases, the importance of the fuelbill decreases.
C. Nutrition Programs
94. Present Salvadorian food programs reached about 10 percent of thetotal population with food supplements but with only a limited impact inreducing malnutrition. The programs underway are directed toward increas-ing food consumption through direct food distribution to target groups,subsidizing general food consumption, and nutritional education; increasingdomestic production of basic grains and beans through IRA price support andstorage facilities; and improving marketing in the urban centers. Food aidis provided by the Government Agency for Communal Development (DIDECO) in awork for food program for rural areas with support from the World Food Program(FAO) with about 10,000 beneficiaries in 1979, 2/ and by CARITAS/CatholicRelief Services in a children and lactating women program with Food for Peacesupport. The CARITAS/CRS program covers about 700 communities distributing115,000 food rations. In addition, the Government agency for marginal communi-ties development (PRIDECO) also has limited food supplement programs formalnourished children. 3/
95. The Regulatory Supply Institute (IRA) is involved in supporting bothproduction in rural areas and consumption in urban areas of basic food products.It has a network of 258 authorized retail outlets for selling basic grains,
1/ See P.V. Sukhatme, Incidence of Protein Deficiency in Relation to DifferentDiets in India, British Journal of Nutrition 24 (1970).
2/ Of which, pre-school children are 7,500 and pregnant women and nursingmothers 2,500.
3/ Typical PRIDECO's monthly rations in urban areas are about 1 poundof "trigor," 1 pound of rice, 1 pound of powdered milk, 2 pounds offlour, and 1 pound of oil. The cost was ¢ 6.20 but the price for thefamily was only 0.75.
- 31 -
sugar, and imported powdered milk and also has arrangements with private stores
for selling some of these products. IRA activities and other Government poli-
cies in support of increasing production of basic grains have expanded produc-
tion of corn and beans. 1/ IRA has bought also corn, beans, rice, and powdered
milk abroad mainly to satisfy the urban demand and regulate prices. Apart
from assuring an adequate food supply, Government policies have sought to holddown price increases of basic food staples in urban centers and to providereasonable income to basic grain farmers through the price support system.
Farm Guaranteed Consumer Price
Product Price for 1977/78 (April 1978)
-----------(Colones per pound)--------
Corn .23 .215
Beans .69 .55
Rice .49 /1 .55 /1Sorghum .18 .15-.18
/1 Farm price with shell has been converted to consumer price decorticated.
The ratio is 0.65.
96. IRA marketing operations have required Central Government support
for about 4 13-¢ 14 million a year during 1977-78 to cover operating expenses.
In addition, the Government has supported IRA's program for expanded storage
capacity with capital transfers of 4 11 million in 1977 and 4 17 million in
1978.
97. IRA's food subsidies to the urban consumer seems to be tilted
toward middle income consumers in the £ 200-¢ 600 monthly income category,which have a higher per capita consumption of basic grains than lower andhigher income groups. The powdered milk subsidy, however, appears to beskewed towards the upper middle and highest income groups (see table 5.10).
IRA has provided limited services for where most poor people live, which means
that those groups suffering most from malnutrition have been neglected in the
marketing strategy to support popular consumption and that the benefits of the
Government subsidy are available mostly to other income groups.
98. The situation described is increasingly important for a new approach
to food subsidies. Higher production of basic grains to feed a rapidly
increasing more urbanized population will be increasingly difficult over the
longer term. Studies by the IDB/IBRD/AID mission show that a 50 percent
increase in corn yields would raise production to a level adequate to cover
domestic demand in the 1980s. Once yields are raised to this level, further
yield improvements will be much more difficult. Switching cotton land to
1/ See Table 8.1, Statistical Appendix, BIRF/BID/AID Informe General sobre
el Desarrollo Agropecuario y Rural de El Salvador (1976), and MINPLANIndicadores Economicos y Sociales.
- 32 -
basic grains is probably not feasible under existing market conditions, whichdetermined earlier the switch away from corn and beans. Therefore, in thelong run, imports may have to play a larger role in feeding the urban popula-tion and prices may be subject to external fluctuations, with general foodsubsidies through IRA becoming increasingly difficult. Thus, a more selectiveapproach to food subsidies than the present general marketing strategy becomesessential or food subsidies through IRA would become too burdensome for thelimited Government tax revenues. To hold down producers' prices to reduce thesubsidy will not work; it will most likely result in diminished domesticproduction and thus higher imports.
D. Malnutrition and Poverty: Main Conclusions
99. In spite of spending most of their low income for food consumption,the poor suffers from malnutrition. About two-fifths of the households,those with 1976 incomes below V 200 in 1976-77, showed significant levels ofcalorie and protein malnutrition. The situation was particularly acute forhouseholds with monthly incomes below ¢ 100. Malnutrition in El Salvador,however, is more a problem of insufficient calories than protein deficiency.Only the very poor purchase insufficient protein.
100. Malnutrition is especially significant among children. About 22percent of children aged 6-59 months suffered from second or third degreemalnutrition, according to a 1976 INCAP study. Death from nutritionaldeficiencies for children under five years represents about two-fifths oftotal deaths in San Salvador. Of this, protein malnutrition represents40 percent and nutritional marasmus 20 percent. However, there has beensome progress with respect to the 1965 situation, when the prevalence ofsecond- and third-degree malnutrition was 27.7 percent.
101. As expected, households' consumption patterns at different incomelevels show that as income increases, the proportion of household food expendi-ture for most vegetable and cereal products decrease while expenditure foranimal products shows the opposite trend. Bread and cereals, particularlymaize, largely explain those trends. Although meat and dairy products showa significant income reponse, national per capita meat consumption is low.
102. Nutritional programs should aim to solve the calorie deficit amonglow-income households. Protein deficiencies should be taken care through morespecific programs oriented towards young children and maternal care at leastduring the prenatal and neonatal periods.
103. Government nutrition programs have had a limited impact in reducingmalnutrition. Food aid has been provided in limited quantities mostly withforeign assistance from the World Food Program, the European Economic Community,and Food for Peace through CARITAS/CRS. Food subsidies provided through IRAmarketing operations favor middle-income groups rather than lower income groups,which also have more limited access to IRA's stores.
- 33 -
V. PUBLIC EXPENDITURES AND POVERTY
104. An analysis of how the public sector has provided for basic needsof the poor urban population and the income redistribution effect of majorGovernment expenditure programs is useful to guide future changes in policiesand programs designed to attack poverty. The impact of Government taxes andexpenditures can, in theory, play a redistributive role. There are manyproblems in computing this effect, since many assumptions must be made concern-ing the incidence of taxes and the distribution of expenditures. For thisreason, this study will concentrate only on some broad areas of tax andexpenditure incidence, with special emphasis on the effects of public expendi-tures used to meet basic needs.
A. Tax Incidence
105. Current revenues of the Central Government have usually been about11-12 percent of GDP. Recently, they increased significantly to a range of14-16.6 percent of GDP as a result of favorable coffee prices. About24 percent of the tax revenues came from direct taxes during 1976-78. Amongindirect taxes, foreign trade taxes brought 64 percent of the collections, ofwhich two-thirds came from export taxes basically on coffee. As a result,taxes on domestic transactions (excise, production, and other taxes) providedonly about 27 percent of total tax collections and only 4 percent of GDP.
106. Tax collections by income groups show that the poor (those with 1976monthly household incomes below ¢ 200) contribute about 7 percent of totaltax collections from individuals, 1/ and the upper middle and upper incomegroups over two-thirds. This result is explained by the low participation ofthe poor in aggregate demand for taxed domestic and imported products and bythe high proportion 2/ of income and export taxes, mostly on coffee exports,collected from the upper income groups (see Statistical Appendix, Table 7.1).
107. Tax collections by income groups also provide a rough indication oftax incidence. The poor's tax burden is low. The bulk of tax revenues fromlow income groups is obtained from taxes on consumption of cigarettes, sugar,soft drinks, matches, etc., and thus taxes on domestic transactions areregressive. Personal income, property, import, and export taxes, however,show little incidence in the incomes of the poor. Personal income tax payersare taxed at progressive rates and above certain minimum levels 3/ and
1/ These collections are mostly from urban centers.
2/ Similar results are reported in Meerman, J. Public Expenditures inMalaysia, Who Benefits and Why (1979).
3/ There was a minimum exemption for incomes up to ¢ 6,000 a year (¢ 500 amonth) in 1976 because of the minimum tax credit of ¢ 180. In addition,there were personal exemptions of ¢ 500 per dependent child. Assumingthree dependent children per family, this means that incomes up to e 625a month were usually exempted from personal income taxes.
- 34 -
thus the tax is progressive but does not affect the poor, although taxcollections are probably not equitable since there is considerable tax evasion.The incidence of import tax collections on the poor is light. Intermediateand capital goods are mostly exempt; durable consumer goods imports consistmainly of home appliances, cars, furniture and other home furnishings, whichare consumed by higher and middle income groups, and non-durable consumergoods imports include items consumed by the middle and higher income groups,such as liquor, tobacco, cosmetics and clothing (Table 7.2). Although notincluded in the computation of tax incidence by income groups, export taxes,mostly on coffee, have a progressive impact since they affect each coffeeproducer and exporter according to the number of bags produced. Larger coffeeproducers will pay more taxes.1/ These taxes do not affect the urban poor.
B. Government Expenditures for the Provision of Basic Needs
108. For a poor country like El Salvador, changes in the direction ofGovernment expenditures can have a significant effect on the welfare of thepoor. Government expenditures were about 16 percent of GDP in 1976-1978,with current expenditures at about 10-11 percent of GDP. On the other hand,the income received by the poorest 20 percent of the Salvadorian populationwas only about 5.8 percent of nominal personal disposable income. 2/ Thus,a net shift of one-quarter of total Central Government outlays to this groupmakes a large impact on their welfare because it would practically doubletheir income. A reallocation could adopt several forms, ranging from theprovision of critical levels of consumption (or basic needs) to the populationin general to those favoring low income groups or, in a more restrictedapproach, targetting specific groups, such as the urban poor in general orthe urban poor in the main population centers. The approaches, of course,tend to overlap.
109. To establish the possibilities for changes in policies and reallo-cation of Government expenditures, past allocations are evaluated in thefollowing sections using publicly provided services, such as education and
1/ This tax incidenced discussion excludes the possible effect taxes haveon the production function and thus their direct effect on incomedistribution. For example, some would argue that the lack of taxationon capital imports is a subsidy to machinery and hence displaces workers.Yet, in some cases, machinery leads to hiring more unskilled (i.e.,poorer) workers rather than skilled ones; the effects are thus notso simple and about impossible to measure.
2/ MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Central Bank, Muestra de Hogares. Personaldisposable income includes wages and salaries in cash or in kind,capital income, transfers, and pensions. It includes also an allowancefor auto-consumption in rural areas and small businesses, and imputedrent. Total personal disposable income, as estimated, is roughly64 percent of GDP. For the limitations of this type of data, seeChenery, Ahluwalia, Bell, Duloy, and Jolly, Redistribution with Growth,pp. 4-5, Wiorld Bank Study (1979 edition).
- 35 -
health, and investments in electricity, water, and sewerage. Governmentexpenditure incidence on household income distribution is measured through theimpact of Government expenditures. 1/ Most of the analysis concentrates onthe more labor intensive expenditures, such as education and health. 2/
C. Education
110. Education expenditures for current and capital costs amounted toabout ¢ 254 million in 1976 (4.5 percent of GDP). Of this, 91 percent wasfinanced by the public sector and the rest by the private sector. There hasbeen a trend to an increasing socialization of educational services; in 1971,the Government share of expenditures was 80 percent. Private schools haveconcentrated their efforts in the secondary area where over half of thestudents attend private institutions.
Table 13: PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ENROLLMENT, 1976
Public SectorLevel Enrollment Share
(thousands) (%)
Basic education (1-6) 668 96Basic education (7-9) 129 84Secondary (10-12) 59 44Higher non-university 2 100University 27 88
Source: Ministry of Education
The Pattern of Public Education Expenditure
111. Basic education expenditures represented 65 percent of total publiceducation expenditures in 1976; of this, 68 percent was allocated to the urbanregions with 57 percent of the total enrollment. 3/ The most important compo-nent of expenditures was teachers' wages, which represented about 98 percent
1/ The methodology used has been extensively described in World Bank publica-tions. See Selowsky, M. Who Benefits from Government Expenditures?A Case Study of Colombia and Meerman, J. Public Expenditures in Malaysia,Who Benefits and Why?
2/ Labor intensive expenditures per unit are a more accurate estimate of thelong-run cost of providing the service.
3/ The urban-rural distribution tends to over-estimate school attendance byurban children. Rural children often attend urban schools.
- 36 -
of the total. Secondary education expenditures, mostly urban, amounted toonly 5.8 percent of total education expenditures. Two-thirds of the secondarystudents are in academic programs and less than one percent in vocational.With the same enrollment as secondary education, but with a budget five timeslarger, higher education (comprising university and non-university technicaleducation) receives almost 30 percent of total education outlays.
112. Households often make direct expenditures to cover the costs ofeducation in private institutions as well as the associated private costs ofattending public schools, such as books and supplies. These out-of-pocketexpenditures for public and private education amounted to ¢ 28.8 million in1976, equivalent to 13 percent of Central Government total expenditures foreducation. Out-of-pocket expenditures for uniforms, tuition fees, suppliesand books represented 0.2 percent of the household expenditures for thelowest income group (less than ¢ 100), and 1.3 percent for the highest (morethan ¢ 600). Tuition fees are a more significant component of householdexpenses for higher income groups. The percentage of income allocated toeducation, however, is low for all income groups, reflecting the very highshare of public expenditures in total expenditures for education.
113. To estimate the incidence of public education benefits, Governmentdirect expenditures by levels of education have been used. 1/ Governmentexpenditure per student shows large differences by types of education, whichare very significant when compared with the access of each income group toeducation. The expenditure per student in higher education is about 13 timeshigher than in basic education; in secondary education is about 2.5 timeshigher than in basic education and almost one-fifth of the expenditure forhigher education students. Thus, the enrollment in public schools by typesof education becomes the most important determinant of the distributivecontent of the educational outlays.
PUBLIC COST PER STUDENT(Colones)
Basic Education Secondary Higher EducationUrban Rural Total Basic
163.1 102.1 136.9 347.4 1,737.2
1/ For primary and secondary education, the expenditures include mainly theoperating costs because capital expenditures were extremely low in 1976and no attempt was made to impute a flow of services to Governmentcapital in educational facilities. For higher education, the expenditurescomprise direct current transfers to universities and non-universityinstitutions for operational costs and capital transfers, and thusexcludes revenues from tuition fees. Thus, the Government transfer toprivate households is, in fact, net of private expenditures.
- 37 -
114. The average annual educational Government expenditure per household
in 1976 was t 196, or 4 36 per capita; average expenditures per urban householdwere larger at 4 344, or 4 70 per capita. Expenditures per urban household werelarger for the extreme poor (monthly incomes below 4 100) and the higher incomegroups (monthly income above 4 600); for middle class families in the 200-299income group they were two-thirds to three-fifths of those for the poorestand richest households. The rich, however, received the largest per capita
expenditure. Total household and per capita expenditures are lower for families
with incomes in the £ 200- ¢ 299 range (see Table 6.12). The situation issimilar by income quintiles. Per capita outlays for the three middle urbanquintiles are roughly equal but the outlays for the fifth quintile are about1.5 times those for the first quintile and about 2.5 times the average outlays.Outlays for rural households are concentrated in quintiles 1 to 3, particularlythe first, which receives about 2.2 times the rural average. The rural enroll-
ment is mostly for basic primary and the coverage is only about half of the
school population in the corresponding age groups.
Expenditures by Levels of Education
115. An analysis of outlays at the national and urban level by incomegroups and types of education shows that those to low-income families are usedmostly for basic primary education, and outlays for upper middle class and rich
families are used for higher education. Secondary education subsidies at allincome levels, with the exception of the extreme poor households, show a more
uniform pattern among income groups. Enrollment of children from the lowestincome groups is low in secondary and very low in higher education, since fewvery poor send their children to these levels of education. Urban families withmonthly incomes below 4 200 seem to be able to afford some secondary educationand obtain some benefits of Government expenditures, but not a significantshare of higher education and its benefits. While 29 percent of the enrollmentin secondary public schools is from the below 4 200 income level, only 2.6 per-cent of the higher education enrollment comes from this group. Most of thetransfers to the poor are for basic education, while the transfers to upperincome groups show a larger share for higher education. The highly progressiveincidence in basic education outlays and the roughly similar access to secondary
education are partly offset by highly regressive outlays for university andother higher education.
116. Government expenditures are higher for urban households than thenational average; urban primary outlays are about 1.5 times, and secon-dary and higher education about 2.2 times the national average. In urbanareas, however, the discrepancy among educational levels decreases. 1/ Primaryexpenditures are only about eight times the secondary education outlays and
1.5 times those for higher education 2/ compared to about 11 times and overtwo times nationwide.
1/ Secondary and higher education students are mostly urban.
2/ The estimated expenditure is practically net because basic education(grades 1-9) is free and higher education expenditures are net of privatecosts.
- 38 -
Education Outlays and Household Income
117. At the urban level, the benefit (assuming benefit equals costs)from education equals about 5.3 percent of the annual income of the averageurban household. The poor receives benefits about half of theii annualaverage income, but the benefit for the ¢ 100-199 income group quicklydeclines to 18 percent of their income. Thereafter, the benefit declinesmore gradually as a percentage of income (See Table 6.13).
118. In contrast with the highly regressive outlays for higher education,nationwide, the basic and secondary education outlays are quite progressive.Indeed, public primary education is presently the most powerful tool forincome distribution in El Salvador (see Graph 1). Education expenditures areprogressive up to 60 percent of the households and regressive for the other40 percent. Outlays for basic and secondary education are closer to the45 degree line than outlays for higher education (See Table 6.6).
119. How does El Salvador compare with other countries? A comparison ofthe main findings for El Salvador with earlier studies for Colombia andMalaysia shows that Malaysia is a more welfare oriented state with averageeducational outlays of 13 percent of household income, three times theaverage transfer in El Salvador. Colombia is only slightly higher than ElSalvador with an average expenditure of 5.0 percent of household income.l/(See table 6.24.)
120. As Graph No. 2 shows, the Salvadorian system provides a highlyprogressive expenditure pattern for the poorest households, a less progressiveone for the middle class and a regressive one for the richest; the Colombianand Malaysian systems show a less progressive impact for low income people.Colombia's outlays are almost neutral, and therefore close to the 45 degreeline of equality, and Malaysia is always progressive but also close to the 45degree line of equality. The main explanation for these results seem to besmaller size of families in the higher income groups in El Salvador whichdetermines a smaller enrollment in public schools. In Malaysia and Colombia,higher income families have more dependent children using the school system.
D. Health Expenditures
121. The public sector provides medical care to about 95 percent of thepopulation. The Ministry of Health covers 85 percent, the Social SecurityInstitute (ISSS) 6 percent, and the military and ANTEL hospitals about 3 percent.The remaining 5 percent is covered by private health services, of which littleis known, although there is evidence that they represent a significant part ofthe health care for higher income groups. While total public health expendi-tures amounted to ¢ 106.9 million in 1976, total expenditures of individualsamounted amounted to ¢ 87.9 million, reflecting the importance of theseprivate services. In total, the country spends about 3.4 percent of its GDPon health. In addition to doctors and clinics in private practice, pharmacyand informal health workers (curanderos, midwives, and practitioners) providehealth services for fees.
1/ This comparisnn only indicates orders of magnitude. Sample size, familysize, income distribution shares, participation rates in the labor force,and other elements affect the accuracy of the comparison.
GRAPH 1 -39-
ELSALVADOR PUBLIC EDU CATION OUTLAYSBY TYPES OF EDUCATION, 1976
(HOUSEHOLDS)
BASIC.. .... SECONDARY
---------- HIGHER-. * AVERAGE
- INCOME
C) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 C)7 _~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ 7 /
0 1/: I
6 -~~~~~~~~~~~I
_ + ~ ~~~ / / ." _
z~~ / ,. r°
° ;7,/ - I~~ ~~~~~~~~ IO
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
HOUSEHOLD QUINTILESSOURCE MISSION ESTIMATES
GRAPH 2 - 4o -
INTERCOUNTRY COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONSOF PUBLIC EDUCATION OUTLAYS. 1976
EL SALVADOR............... COLOMB IA------ MALAYSL1
C5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
coc
0- . ' 0°
CD ~~~~~~~~~~~~7 0
_ ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/
I~~~~L
o / La~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
l, /I. K..1 )~~~~~~~~C
!/,<~~~~~~~~~~~.
CI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
o0 o20.0 40.0 60 0 80. 0 100.0HOUSEHOLD QUINTILES
- 41 -
122. Individual expenditures for medical services in the household survey of
1976-77 were, as expected, higher for upper income groups. The following tableshows the percentage of income spent on health by the different income groups.
As income increases, the share of medical expenses increases because the demand
for private services becomes larger. The awareness of returns to investment in
their own health and higher levels of education also explain these results.
Table 14: OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENDITURES FOR HEALTH
Monthly Medical Expenditure as
Income Level Share of Total Expenses
(¢) (%)
Less than 100 1.3100-199 2.4200-299 1.6300-599 3.2600-999 2.8Over 1000 3.8
123. To analyze the public health benefits received by the urban popula-
tion, this study utilizes the health expenditures data of the Ministry of Health
and the Social Security Institute (ISSS). The Ministry of Health provides healthservices financed by taxes while the ISSS provides these services with contri-
butions from workers, employers, and the Government. 1/ The ISSS health
services, mostly urban, which covered only 18 percent of the employed laborforce, are largely financed by workers and employers so that there are large
income transfers from employers to workers and also transfers among workers in
different income levels.2/
124. In 1976, about 71 percent of total public expenditures for healthcame from the Ministry of Health and 29 percent from the ISSS. About 87
percent of the outlays was allocated to urban areas.3/ Fifty percent of the
Ministry of Health's outlays are allocated to hospital services, of which 43
percent was provided in the SSMA. ISSS financed mainly hospital services and
cash benefits for temporary disabilities due to sickness or maternity.
1/ The contributions are based on wages and are as follows: workers,
2.5 percent; employers, 6.25 percent; and Government, 1.25 percent.
2/ A rigorous definition of the transfer should include as the contribu-tion of all workers the difference between the wage that would have
prevailed in the absence of the system and the net wage under the system.
3/ This division is based on expenditures for urban facilities. It is
somewhat arbitrary and tends to overestimate the use of hospitals by
urban residents. Rural patients often bypass local health facilities
for urban hospitals.
- 42-
Health Expenditures by Type of Services
125. Expenditures by type of service are difficult to estimate; informa-tion is available for the ISSS, but only partially for the Ministry of Health.In the ISSS, hospital outlays by patients (including surgery and deliveries)are 42.6 times the cost for an outpatient consultation; the cost of onehospital day is equivalent to 7.5 times the cost for an outpatient consulta-tion. The mean outlay per member of the ISSS is ¢ 202.2. For the Ministry ofHealth, there is no complete information on unit costs but rough estimates showthat the cost of a hospital day (including surgery) is equivalent to almosttwo times the cost of an outpatient consultation. 1/ The hospitalizationcost is much higher in the ISSS; in fact, up to 2.5 times the cost for theMinistry of Health. This may at least partly be an indicator of the qualityof the respective services (See Table 6.30).
Expenditures by Household and Income Level
126. Nationwide, the average public health outlay per household was e 134in 1976, or about 3 percent of their average annual income. About 87 percentof the total outlays were allocated to urban areas with an average outlay oft 255 per urban household. Public expenditures per household decrease asincome increases because upper income households receive more health servicesfrom the private market and second, the number of family members decrease.
127. Health expenditures of the social security institute mostly for urbanworkers, were about e 190 per worker in the system in 1976. About 41 percentof the workers had earnings below 4 200 a month. 2/ The distribution of ISSSexpenditures per worker indicates that these expenditures tend to favor thesecond and third quintiles. Health expenditures of the Ministry of Health mayhave a more favorable income redistribution effect than the ISSS expendituresbecause health services for the poor, including an undetermined but significantnumber of rural households who seek health services in urban areas, areprovided by the Ministry. However, there is no information on the Ministry'sexpenditures by income levels, which precludes a definite conclusion on thedegree of progressivity of public expenditures for health.
1/ Average estimated costs from Santa Gertrudis, Benjamin Bloom and SantaTecla Hospitals.
2/ Most of them had earnings above 4 100 because social security workersget the minimum wage.
- 43-
Table 15: SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE BY WAGE LEVELS, 1976
Monthly wage Workers in ISSS system Share of covered workers
(4) (%)
0- 200 72,682 41
200-299 49,980 28
300-599 37,880 22
Over 600 15,692 9
Total 176,234 100
E. Power, Water, and Sewerage
128. For analyzing the distributive impacts of public expenditures for
public utilities, only the net subsidy (difference between the long-run
marginal cost of providing the service and the price charged to the consumers)
is relevant. While education and health services are financed by taxes and
provided at low cost or without charge to the consumer, public utilities have
to cover costs and generate adequate profit rates. Effective demand for
public utilities services is mostly explained by consumers' income and the
number (density) of consumers in a particular location. Low income house-
holds, thus, have low effective demand, consume little and have much lower
levels of services than higher- and middle-income households. Not surprisingly,
urban centers, particularly in the SSMA, have much better services than the
rural areas. Assuming uniform per unit of output subsidies, urban households
with higher and middle incomes, enjoy higher benefits per household from any
Government subsidy to public utilities because they have higher service and
consumption levels. On the other hand, higher density allows the poor in the
main urban centers, particularly the SSMA, to have better access to some of
these services, such as electricity, than the rural poor.
129. Limited information precludes direct estimation of the subsidies
involved in Government financing of public utilities and its distribution
among income groups in urban areas of El Salvador. Some idea, however, of
the distributive impact of these services can be obtained from the availability
of services, partial subsidy information, and, in some cases, private expendi-
tures by income levels.
Power
130. The Government-owned power company, Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelectrica
del Rio Lempa (CEL), is the dominant supplier of electricity (95 percent),
which is sold in bulk to eight distribution companies and about 20,000 rural
customers. Government subsidies to CEL are small and are allocated for rural
- 44-
electrification. The largest distributor is Compania de Alumbrado Electricode San Salvador (CAESS), mostly foreign owned. Residential consumption repre--sents about 25 percent of total consumption. Average daily consumption is0.184 KwH per capita and 1.198 KwH per household in the system.
131. Electricity consumption is closely related to household income anddensity. Overall access to electricity in urban centers is widespread butpoor urban households comprise the bulk of those households with limited or noservice, particularly those with incomes below e 100 a month. About 55 percentof them have no service in the urban non-SSMA and 13 percent in the SSMA(see Table 16). Furthermore, poor households that have electric serviceconsume much less electricity. In urban areas, the average consumption ofelectricity per household (including those without service) in the firstdecile is about ¢ 1.9 a month, while households in the two highest incomedeciles consume an average of ¢ 12 a month (see Table 3.6). Low- andmiddle-income households allocate a very low proportion of their incomefor electricity (0.2 to 0.5 percent); higher income households spendmuch more in absolute terms but as a proportion of their monthly expendi-tures only about three to four times more. This situation shows that thepower companies are doing a reasonable job of reaching the poor urbanconsumer. While it is necessary to continue to expand urban access, parti-cularly in smaller towns, clearly the major needs are in rural areas.
Table 16: ELECTRICITY ACCESS
(In percentages)
Household with ElectricityHousehold Monthly Urban
Income Non-SSMA SSMA Rural
0-99 44.8 86.7 5.5100-199 61.6 89.8 11.6200-299 77.3 93.3 19.7300-599 92.7 96.6 23.0600-999 96.9 97.3 45.6
1,000 and over 100.0 100.0 55.7
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC and Central Bank, Caracteristicas de los Hogaresy de las Viviendas, 1976-77, (1979).
- 45-
Water and Sewerage
132. While Government transfers for electricity are not relevant in urban
areas, transfers for water and sewerage are more significant and, given the
low service levels in rural areas, mostly benefit urban households. These
transfers constitute a subsidy, since tariffs of the public water and sewerage
company (ANDA) are inadequate to cover operating costs and depreciation.
ANDA has received Government subsidies to cover operation and capital expen-
ditures since its creation to compensate for low revenues, although it
is required by law to generate sufficient revenues to cover its expenditures,
including a reasonable contribution to its investment program. ANDA's
low water tariffs and subsequent need for Government transfers, given the
association of property values, consumption levels, and household incomes,
means that Government subsidies are tilted toward the middle and higher
income groups (see Table 4.7). The negative redistributive impact is rein-
forced by the structure of water tariffs with low-income households with
access to water services being charged five times the amount that high-income
families and seven times the amount that middle-income families pay for
water. 1/ Furthermore, the service level is very different; access of poor
urban households to safe water is mostly through public standpipes or communal
taps while middle- and upper-income households have mostly individual house
taps. The situation of the poor is somewhat better in certain urban areas
because of the housing role of old overcrowded or deteriorated homes (mesones)
with an adequate (although communal) service connection. Access of the poor
to sewerage is even lower and thus Government subsidies are more skewed
toward middle- and higher-income households with service. In urban areas
outside the SSMA, households with incomes below ¢ 200 have no individual
house connections for sewerage and very limited communal house connections.
In the SSMA, the situation improves with much wider access to communal house
connections and limited access to individual house connections. Government
subsidies for safewater and sewerage, therefore, favor middle- and higher-income
groups. In 1978, Government transfers to ANDA were ¢ 17.7 million, of which ¢
7.3 million were for operating expenses. A precise distribution of this
subsidy 2/ by household income levels needs a detailed study about consumption,
type of service and tariffs, which is beyond the scope of this study. Neverthe-
less, the general conclusion about the regressive nature of the water and
sewerage subsidy holds.
1/ See Chapter III and EDURES, Report Phase I: Preliminary Recommendations
for an Integrated System for the Planning of Urban and Regional Development
in El Salvador, November 1977, pp. 27-29.
2/ Which is only a portion of the total subsidy because it does not cover
appropriate depreciation allowances for revalued assets. With present
inflationary trends, this underestimation is very important.
- 46 -
F. Public Expenditures and Subsidies: Main Conclusions
133. Tax collections by household income groups show that the taxburden on the poor is low because they spend most of their income for food.Tax collections from the poor come from specific taxes on products, such asbeverages and tobacco, and from taxes on transactions. Income, property,export and most of the import taxes have little or no incidence on the poor.
134. Government expenditures in El Salvador show different redistributiveeffects. Government expenditures and subsidies are concentrated in urbanareas, especially the main population centers, since density is a factor inthe provision of services at lower costs.
135. While education and health expenditures at the national and urbanlevels are progressive and favor the lowest income groups, subsidies forwater and sewerage have negative redistributive effects. Public outlaysfor education and health have powerful effects on the urban poor's welfare;improved public programs in this area would have even greater effects. Educationand a large share of health services are financed out of general tax revenuesand provided at little or no charge. Public utilities, on the other hand, whichare expected to recover costs (including reasonable depreciation allowances),are not charging full cost per unit and thus the Government is subsidizing house-holds with service out of general tax revenues. Larger and more affluenthouseholds get larger subsidies than smaller and poorer ones.
VI. URBANI POVERTY STRATEGIES IN EL SALVADOR
136. Given El Salvador's small size, limited natural resources,population density, and rapid population growth, its future development mustemphasize industrial growth for export markets, particularly from labor-intensive manufactures and more efficient exploitation of the land to raiseagricultural production and productivity. This strategy should be supplementedby policies favoring the delivery of basic needs (nutrition, education, safewater, waste disposal, health, and transport) to the population. El Salvador'smost abundant and greatest resource is its people; only if they are bettereducated, in better health, and more productive will the economy and thepopulation increase in affluence. The successful provision of basic needs forthe poor cannot be achieved without both rapid urban economic growth, includingjob generation, and effective programs to provide public services. Therefore,the following sections will concentrate on programs for growth of urbaneconomic activities and improvement of living conditions of the urban poor.
A. Urban Employment
137. The future labor supply will be determined largely by earlier popu-lation trends because lower fertility rates will have little impact in de-creasing the labor supply in the 1980s. The impact of lower fertility onthe size of the labor supply shows more clearly by the year 2000, withdeclines of 9 to 12 percent if the fertility rate drops by one-third toone-half by that time. 1/
1/ See World Bank Report No. 2287-ES, Economic Memorandum on El Salvador,(1979) and World Bank Country Study, El Salvador: Demographic Issuesand Prospects (1979).
- 47 -
138. The rate of rural-urban migration is likely to increase, not
decrease. This will result in large shifts of working-age population to urban
centers, particularly the San Salvador Metropolitan area. Given the ample
rural labor supply and the limited availability of good land, more intensive
exploitation of the land is essential to increase agricultural employment.
Nevertheless, higher rural migration to the cities is likely and this will
lead to increased labor absorption by the low-income segments of the informal
sector and perhaps much higher open unemployment, unless urban jobs in the
modern sector grow significantly. Modern industrial labor absorption has
been quite good in the past; the employment value added elasticity was twice
as high for factories than for handicrafts and artisans. 1/ Among factories
(5 employees or more), the larger ones showed an even higher value-added
elasticity. Power, transport, and formal service sectors would follow the
trend of manufacturing. Construction, in particular, with its labor-intensive
nature could absorb significant numbers of new laborers if housing programs
were expanded at a rapid pace. Moreover, construction is also an important
source of indirect jobs in other sectors of the economy. Expansion of formal
sector employment would have important spill-overs into the informal sector,
increasing employment, particularly in the areas that are closely linked to
the modern sector. Even though economic growth in the urban areas will
provide the basis for expanded employment and reduced poverty, special
efforts will be needed for low-income groups, which are handicapped by lack
of education or other disabilities of poverty.
139. The problem with this scenario, so crucial to the success of any
urban poverty alleviation, is that political events make it extremely unlikely
to occur, at least in the near future. It is presented here, however,
because it is virtually the only way major urban poverty alleviation can
occur in El Salvador.
Employment in the Modern sector
140. The urban employment strategy outlined above means that industry
would have to play a leading role in labor absorption over and above historical
trends; maintaining only the historical employment trend would require a
significant retention of laborers in agriculture and substantial pressures on
employment in the urban informal sector. Since export growth to the CACM is
dropping, labor-intensive manufactures for export to third countries are essen-
tial. The Government has made efforts to stimulate these exports through
fiscal incentives, free trade zones, improved services to industry, and man-
power training. These efforts, however, have not been successful, because
of the drop in private investment due to a deteriorating political climate
and because the incentive system was insufficient to overcome the earlier
incentives bias towards the CACM, where, in addition, markets were well known
and quality controls are relaxed. Although new infrastructure support is pro-
posed for export industries (additional free zones and industrial parks, a
container port, and a freight terminal in San Salvador), the regional fiscal
incentives and the common external tariff need major revisions to provide a
policy framework so that manufacturing growth can accelerate once the political
situation is resolved.
1/ About .56 compared to .29; from the 1961 and 1971 Census, adjusted for
comparability.
- 48 -
141. One other major macrogenerator of employment must be construction.Public works, particularly housing construction, offer an opportunity forimproving living conditions of the poor, increasing the capital base andemploying large numbers of people, all at the same time. A significantexpansion of infrastructure construction in support of urban growth andespecially manufacturing for exports outside the CACM as well as stepped upinvestments for the social sectors-- including education, housing, safe water,and health--will be needed. In particular, housing programs for low and middle-income families are very significant and although partially based on self-helpschemes could generate a large number of urban jobs. Healthy urban employmentgrowth on a sustained basis, however, will depend also on significant growthin the productive sectors, particularly manufacturing.
Employment for Low Income Target Groups
142. Apart from employment creation in the modern sectors, further focuson job generation in low-income settlements could be a temporary solution toprovide employment, but the number of jobs created will not be large. Mostof the low-income population are and will continue to be employed outside thesettlements. There are very substantial limitations to programs for improvingemployment and incomes within the low-income settlements. One study byEDURES estimates a possible employment for a major expansion of infrastructureand community facilities at only 3,000 persons a year. Support to smallbusinesses in low-income settlements also provides only limited employmentcreation possibilities. Although small businesses may improve family incomes,they are not significant employment generators. About 47 percent of smallbusinesses (mostly clothing, food, and furniture) in low-income settlementsin 1976 had no employees; 29 percent had only one to two employees. Theaverage number of employees was only 1.4.
143. Job generation by small enterprises in the settlements also is notvery promising. In the past, domestic consumer demand has shifted away from theproducts of the small enterprises and industries to products of manufacturingenterprises in the formal sector and to imported goods. This shift took placepartly because until 1970 the incentive legislation neglected small industrialfirms; partly because the skewness of the income distribution resulted in aconcentration of purchasing power in fewer hands, which demanded more products(and better quality) from modern industrial firms and imports 1/; and partlybecause of the demonstration effect on lower income groups. This has weakenedthe ability of the small businesses to generate employment. In addition, theremaining clientele is mostly low income, which further reduces the market sizeand introduces wide fluctuations in sales.
1/ The concentration of purchasing power favors a demand for new or moresophisticated products, imitating consumers in higher income countries.These products are either imported or produced in modern local manufacturingplants.
- 49 -
144. Similarly, small businesses in the settlements do not generate many
jobs. The Bank's experience with small business loans in El Salvador thus
far confirms this conclusion. The impact of the loans mostly raises incomes
of the participants. One credit component of an urban project, assisted by
the World Bank, had lent ¢ 3 million as of June 30, 1979. About half the
loans were below ¢ 1,000; only 15 percent were over ¢ 3,000. Small loans
(below ¢ 1,000) are used mainly by businesses selling tortillas, fruits and
vegetables, foods and clothing. Although this has not been generally the
case, in some categories, support of too many similar operations within a
community may have a negative impact. (In one poor neighborhood too many loans
were made for tortilla operations with a somewhat restricted market.) About 96
percent of the loans were for working capital; only 2 percent for machinery and
equipment. More important, the first 212 loans analyzed generated only 27 new
jobs. The major employment lies clearly outside the settlements, although
employment in the settlements may contribute significantly to provide basic
needs, such as housing, drainage, water, etc.
145. It will be therefore necessary to consider complementary strategies
that would have a more direct impact on labor demand, and on real incomes and
welfare, for the poor. For this purpose, there are, first, policies to
increase labor absorption outside the settlements by raising skills and
productivity and, second, strategies to increase the real income and welfare
of the poor by providing for basic needs and redirecting public policy and
expenditures to assist the poor where they are. Strategies to increase labor
absorption will be discussed in the next few paragraphs while strategies to
provide basic needs will be discussed in coming sections. One approach to
increase employment for low-income people is to expand training programs, which
until recently have been inadequate to cope with the manpower needs of the
economy. Since training programs are a form of education--a basic need--they
are discussed in the subsequent section.
146. The problem of creating employment with adequate earnings for poor
families has no clear solution in the short and medium run. Earnings inade-
quacy is the result of low vocational skills and education, low capital endow-
ment and productivity per worker, and a rapidly increasing labor force.
These are long-term problems. Higher average schooling and a higher stage of
economic development will permit increasing incomes and more employment
opportunities for the poor. However, earnings inadequacy of some workers may
remain as a problem as the experience of developed countries shows. Even in
the long run, many workers will continue to be employed at relative wages and
opportunities for advancement inconsistent with the aspirations of the
society. For these workers, full time, year round employment will not be
enough to guarantee an income defined as "adequate" by the society.
147. Nevertheless, there are some possibilities in the short- and
medium-run for improving the lot of the worker from the marginal settle-
ments through shifting public expenditure toward activities with high labor
demand, such as construction. Given the existing earnings structure by
occupations, construction jobs may prove a better opportunity for low-income
workers than other blue-collar jobs in the rest of the economy. Employment
- 50 -
creation in new housing and public works could be significant. However,self-help improvement of tugurios, which satisfies a basic need, does notlead to much remunerated employment creation. Expansion of other low-cost housing programs, however, such as those of the Fondo Social de laVivienda (FSV), could contribute significantly to create employment forlow-income workers, especially if accompanied by training programs.
148. An emphasis on public low cost housing would increase the demandfor both skilled and less skilled construction workers. Higher cost housingcreates much more limited employment and uses a higher proportion of moreskilled strata of construction workers for certain tasks. The labor costcomponent is also a lower percentage of total costs. 1/ One way to increaseemployment opportunities would be to develop greater links between small-scaleindustry and the modern sector. Particular activities subject to these linksare in the processing of wood and leather products, construction materials,and miscellaneous household goods.
B. Basic Needs Approach to Urban Poverty
149. The second general approach to ameliorating poverty is the increasedsatisfaction of basic needs, for improved nutrition, housing, health, and othercommunal services.
Nutrition
150. In view of the problems discussed in Chapter IV, a new, moreselective approach to food subsidies for the poor is needed. Focusing onpoverty and malnutrition can be the core of this new approach implementingprograms in a way that benefits only the poor with a more aggressive directintervention through IRA sales in marginal urban areas for the benefit of theextreme poor and phasing out general urban food subsidies. This means alarger network of IRA's stores or other similar facilities located in orclose to popular housing areas to make subsidized food more readily availableto the poorest segments of the population. Special incentives and supportmeasures may be needed as, for example, special arrangements for bonds orother guarantees to IRA and added flexibility for IRA operations in new fooditems.
151. In addition, food supplement and nutritional education programs canplay a more effective role in reducing malnutrition of target groups.Calorie-income elasticities and nutritional habits make it most unlikely thatGovernment money transfers (modest because of limited fiscal resources) wouldbe enough to increase calorie consumption to an adequate nutritional status. 2/The most undernourished people (mostly households with incomes below ¢ 100)have a 40 percent calorie gap, as noted in earlier sections on nutrition. At
1/ See PREALC, Situacion y Perspectivas del Empleo en El Salvador, Volume II,Tables VII-1 to VII-14.
2/ The calorie-income household poverty line is in the ¢ 300-600 monthlyhousehold income group (see Nutrition Appendix).
- 51 -
this income level, calorie consumption clearly has to increase signiflcantlyto reach minimum daily requirements. Given the calorie-income response, alarge income transfer is needed for this purpose. This is not feasible.However, expansion of direct food-supplemental programs with particularemphasis on children and expecting mothers to reduce children deaths fromprotein malnutrition and immaturity, two groups clearly identified aspriority targets for any nutrition scheme, can play a meaningful role inreducing malnutrition. These programs would have a more manageable budgetimpact than direct income transfers. 1/
152. Nutritional education programs attempt to change attitudes on foodintake and health practices related to food handling and preparation. Theseprograms are impemented by the Ministries of Health, Education, and Agriculture.The Ministry of Education operates through formal basic education, which hasan impact mostly on future households; the Ministry of Health operates withadults through its health training courses; and the Ministry of Agriculturealso with adults through extension agents and CENTA. The programs have seriousweaknesses, including the shortage of materials and funds for mass mediacommunication.
153. Nutritional education, however, merits a special effort to improvecalorie and protein intake with the same food expenditures. This is particularlyuseful for those income groups with adequate incomes to purchase a nutrition-ally adequate diet but who are malnourished. Further results could beobtained from the introduction and development of fortified foods compatiblewith eating habits, such as the nixtamal project which will provide fortifiedtortilla flour to cover protein and vitamin needs, improving nutritidn withinwell established eating habits.
Housing
154. Housing conditions for the poor are inadequate. The situation mayworsen as rural-urban migration accelerates. As the urban problem grew andthe housing situation became more serious, the Government switched from thepromotion of conventional housing to a more aggressive policy with newhousing solutions. The Instituto de Vivienda Urbana (IVU) became increasinglyinvolved with housing for lower income groups through squatter upgrading projectsin the early 1970s. The Fondo Social de la Vivienda (FSV) was created in 1973to provide housing for industrial and commercial workers; it is funded througha 5.5 percent payroll tax on wages of workers covered by social security. Bythe end of 1978, FSV had purchased over 9,000 housing units; about 8,000 hadbeen allocated to workers. This housing program, however, has not reached FSV'slower income members. To meet their needs, FSV would have to operate withlower standards, such as self-help serviced site projects. FSV is expected tooperate at an annual level of over 2,000 units in the next few years.
1/ Similar conclusions are reached in S. Reutlinger and M. Selowsky,Malnutrition and Poverty, Magnitude and Policy Options, World Bank StaffOccasional Papers (1976).
- 52 -
155. Other public agencies operating in the housing sector are theNational Housing Fund (FNV), the regulatory agency for savings and loanInstitutions; the Government employees pension fund (INPEP); and the SocialSecurity Institute (ISSS). In addition, the Salvadorian Foundation forDevelopment of Low Cost Housing (FSDVM), a private non-profit organization,was created in 1970 to improve living conditions of the lowest incomegroups, especially squatter settlements. It operates through self helpprograms with significant results.
156. New, imaginative housing solutions for low income groups are gainingincreased acceptance, and have widened the scope of Government-sponsored orprivate programs for the poor. An evaluation of the San Salvador low-incomehousing market, using the Squire-van der Tak approach to project analysis,concluded progressive development and self-help projects such as the FSDVMprojects, showed, on both efficiency and social grounds, the highest rates ofreturn of all housing options. The tugurios and the illegal subdivisions alsohave high rates of return. This suggests that the positive aspects of theseinformal housing approaches could and should be stimulated while controllingtheir negative impacts.
157. Towards this end, IVU is upgrading squatter settlements with water,sanitation, drainage, and solid waste disposal, and improving campamentos. 1/Families will participate through self-help and will be encouraged to improvetheir houses through building materials loans. The new IVU program (calledthe ABC program) had initially a target of 25,000 housing units (about 5,000 ayear) distributed as follows: upgrading 3,885 tugurios units, improving 6,250illegal subdivisions, rehabilitating 3,565 mesones, upgrading 4,300 units incampamentos and 7,000 serviced lots. About 60 percent of the units would befor families with monthly incomes below ¢ 400. Initial targets have beenscaled down to about 12,000 units and actual implementation may be about 2,600yearly because of IVU's administrative and executing constraints. This increasein low-incost housing, however, will not keep pace with growth of the low-incomepopulation in the SSMA, which is expected to grow by about 30,000 families everyfive years. 2/
158. FSDVM has also become a major provider of low-cost housing andcommunity development in cooperation with the Government and the World Bank.By 1978, FSDVM had assisted the construction of about 6,000 serviced sites.The first serviced site project demonstrated the suitability (indeed, thesuperiority) of the approach for providing affordable low-cost units tofamilies earning ¢ 100-300 per month. The two major problems encounteredinvolved land acquisition and water supply in San Salvador. Topographicconstraints and the dominance of suitable land by a few individuals unwillingto sell have complicated land transactions in the SSMA. A severe shortageof water and low water pressures in the project vicinity have resulted in
1/ "Campamentos" are the temporary shelters built to house poor peopleaffected by the 1965 earthquake.
2/ See EDURES, Final Report, Vol. II Appendices, Table IA-5.
- 53 -
considerable delay in obtaining adequate water supply. A second serviced
site project for 8,000 units is now under implementation. To avoid delays,about 70 percent of the land required for the project has been purchased
and the remainder selected and about to be purchased.
159. In illegal subdivisions, households purchase lots from subdividerson long-term arrangements. Since these developments are not officially approved
and thus usually have no infrastructure to begin with, EDURES 1/ developed a
program that would provide for a legalization of these settlements and the
adoption of lower urban standards and thus regularize their status throughsecuring land tenure, adopting more realistic and flexible standards forphysical development, improving infrastructure, and providing water and
sewerage. Residents would be allowed to choose the service level accordingto what they are willing to pay. The program would be carried through by IVUwith the cooperation of ANDA and other Government agencies.
160. Old city tenements (mesones) are also expected to be improved in theIVU program. This solution to the housing problem entails special difficulties,such as the high prices of the land in downtown, which makes unlikely that
many mesones would be purchased and rehabilitated. This means that this com-
ponent of the program will not probably result in a significant addition tothe housing stock. In this case, it is important to encourage the presentowners to comply with the sanitation standards of the Ministry of Health.
161. Although undoubtedly these programs represent a large effort toprovide low-cost housing for low-income families, there is evidence that theseprograms cannot effectively reach the extreme poor because they do not have theneeded capacity to pay. Housing programs work well with families that can pay
minimum monthly amounts in order to avoid major subsidies by the Government.Because of the large and growing size of the low-income population, a large sub-
sidy component would quickly reduce the scale of the program and limit itsbeneficiaries to a small privileged minority within the low-income settlements.The significant proportion of the poorest families that cannot afford the minimumhousing units, varies depending on the type of unit (serviced lot, basic unit orapartment) and the coverage of the monthly payment. In Santa Ana, about 20percent of the poor families are too poor to pay for even the minimum housing
solutions. In San Salvador (Apopa), about 80 percent of the families can affordserviced lots, 32 percent basic units and 13 percent apartments. Among themarginal settlements, people living in tugurios usually have the lowest capacityto pay. 2/
1/ EDURES is the UNDP-financed Urban Development Study carried out by PADCO Inc.and the Ministry of Planning and executed by the World Bank. The EDURESprogram for the improvement of critical metropolitan areas in El Salvador
is the origin of the Government's ABC program.
2/ FSDVM, Caracteristicas del Acceso de los Pobres a Vivienda Popular.Estudio de Demanda Habitacional para Apopa, May 1978, and FSDVM,Caracteristicas Socio-economicas del Sector de Menos Ingresos en la
Ciudad de Santa Ana, September 1978.
- 54 -
162. A basic needs approach in housing presents a dilemma. Even thoughsome Salvadorian housing programs serve people with extremely low incomes(below US$1.00 a day), the poorest families increasingly have been priced outof even minimum housing because of rising prices for land and constructionmaterials. Tugurio residents have a decreasing participation in recent FSDVMprojects compared to earlier ones. For this reason, upgrading of the tuguriosrather than resettlement of the poorest families is the approach taken in theIVU program.
163. FSDVM has recently made studies of the monthly payments and thecapacity to pay of households in tugurios, mesones, and colonias ilegales.The most acute problem is in the tugurios. The extreme poor residing intugurios spend little if any money for housing. The most pressing need isfood for mere survival. In SSMA, over 75 percent could not pay ¢ 30 whichis the cost of a serviced site, including payments for materials and waterand electricity connections, and 21 percent could not pay ¢ 15, which is themonthly payment of the serviced site alone. In Santa Ana, about 75 percent ofthe families residing in poor tenements had monthly per capita expendituresbelow ¢ 50 (US$0.65 a day); 40 percent spent less than e 30 per capita(US$0.40 a day).
164. Faced with higher prices for urban land that are limiting the scopefor low cost housing, the Government will have to establish measures to obtainand pay for land for public housing. These could include Government purchasesof large land tracts close to urbanized areas, directly or through a landdevelopment bank, before proceeding with majot infrastructure developments (assuggested by a recent EDURES study); taxing of capital gains in urban landsand penalizing speculative holdings; a tax on urban property; and revision ofhousing codes and subdivision controls to make more feasible solutions for thelow-income population.
Table 17: CAPACITY TO PAY OF TUGURIO HOUSEHOLDS, SSMA
Maximum MonthlyPayment (¢) Percentage
Up to 10 811-15 1316-20 3221-25 926-30 1331-40 13Over 40 12
Source: FSDVM
- 55 -
Education
165. The development of the country's abundant human resources willrequire larger expenditures on human resource development to improve thequality and productivity of the labor force. Crucial will be basic educationto prepare new entrants into the urban labor force. Furthermore, sincerural migration is expected to accelerate, rural basic education needsto focus on the possible urban employment of would-be migrants. TheGovernment's plans are to expand basic education further by financing theconstruction in disadvantaged rural areas of about 4,000 additional classrooms.If these plans are successful, by 1985 basic education can be offered to 85percent and 37 percent of the corresponding rural age groups in the firsttwo cycles and the third cycle of basic primary. In 1977, 70 percent and7 percent respectively of the children were enrolled in rural areas. Thiswill help prepare future rural migrants so that they have a better opportunityfor gainful employment in the urban centers.
166. A basic needs approach to urban primary education must focus theeducational needs of the marginal communities as a target group. In SantaAna, for example, 55 percent of the children ages 7 to 14 in low-incomehousing are not in school, and 29 percent of the children from participantsin FSDVM projects are also not in school. Further efforts are clearly needed.To remedy specific problems in urban projects, some school construction,equipping, and furnishing have been undertaken through urban developmentprograms. Twelve schools would be constructed under a recent World BankUrban Development Project to serve over 9,600 students on a double-shiftbasis (7,440 in grades 1 to 6 and 2,160 in grades 7 to 9). Additional schoolconstruction in urban marginal areas is considered in a new Bank supportedUrban Development Project, but clearly the situation merits consideration ata more general level, such as the low-income settlements target group.
167. New employment for low-income groups in manufacturing, services,and commerce would depend significantly on general training programs underimplementation and new ones that could be created. Until recently, there hasbeen no central entity responsible for formulating a coherent non-formaltraining program. The existing programs are unsystematic. The Governmentin 1978 decided to establish a nationwide institutional structure fornon-formal agricultural and industrial training to meet the requirements fortechnical manpower. As a result, the Ministry of Labor is now responsiblefor all industrial training for skilled occupations in the modern sectors.The Ministry of Economy concentrates on management training. The Ministry ofAgriculture, through the National System of Agricultural Training (CENCAP)and the National Center of Agriculture and Livestock Technology (CENTA),coordinates and implements non-formal agricultural training. The Ministry ofEducation's role is to undertake non-formal basic education for the urban andrural poor.
168. Present Government programs which may have some impact on the poorare in the Ministries of Labor and Education. The number of annual traineesin the program of the Ministry of Labor is limited and it does not admitapplicants who have not completed primary education. (Even under thesecircumstances, the number of applicants are expected to exceed the availableplaces for training). The program, therefore, would not benefit the majority
- 56 -
of the people in low income housing. Lack of access to this program signifi-cantly limits opportunities for low-income people in marginal settlements.About 5,600 workers a year will be trained in 33 occupations in the construc-tion, mechancial, electrical and textile industries, and in industrial sewing.
169. The Ministry of Education is undertaking nonformal basic educationand training for the rural and urban poor with assistance from USAID. Over12,400 people or 0.8 percent of the labor force will receive semi-skilled leveltraining during the next four years. This program is extremely important forthe urban marginal communities. However, its scope is insufficient for theexisting training needs of the poor. Centro Nacional de Aprendizaje (CENAP)of the Ministry of Education also provides training at a vocational level,especially in the construction industry. This program had some limited impacton marginal urban communities in cooperation with PRIDECO. Training activitiesfor low income groups are also provided by PRIDECO and DIDECO but on a verylimited scale. A program operated by a non-profit private organization (Fe yAlegria) offers accelerated primary education mainly to marginal residents inurban and rural areas, and also enrolls about 600 underprivileged youths incarpentry, electricity, auto-mechanics, and sewing courses, of which about 100per year complete the courses. With 60 percent of its expenditures financedthrough Government subsidies and private donations, the program has operatedworkshops and has recently expanded.
170. In spite of these efforts, training for people living in popularhousing is now inadequate and further development of a comprehensive trainingprogram for marginal settlements is needed, including opportunities fortraining in modern sector occupations. Further Government support of privatetraining activities, such as Fe y Alegria, are justified by training needs ofthe poor and may need expanded external support, perhaps through a mechanismsimilar to the FSDVM.
171. The regressive nature of the higher education outlays suggests theneed for a more equitable distribution of the costs of higher education.Charging much higher tuition fees to students with financial resources andsubsidizing or making loans to low-income students with these resources couldachieve a redistribution of the benefits of higher education. Alternatively,higher university tuition fees may make the universities more self-sufficientand thus release Government resources to expand primary, secondary and non-formal education.
Water and Sewerage
172. Present conditions show clearly the need for expanded waterservices. Total coverage, however, will be feasible only in the longer term.The Government targets for 1990 imply that the whole population would beserved by piped water or alternative safe water sources (29 percent throughhouse connections and 71 percent with easy access). The Government waterand sewerage agency (ANDA) has an ambitious expansion plan for 1980-82. Itwould like to expand the coverage of water supply in urban areas to 100percent by increasing one-third the number of individual house connectionsand by expanding public standpipes. Investments for about IUS$90 million wouldbe needed to achieve these service goals. Programmed investments, however,are slightly below at US$83 million and actual outlays have proven in thepast to be far below those programmed, so that ANDA's goals are likely to
- 57 -
take more time to achieve. This shortfall will be greater in urban areasoutside the SSMA because several supply programs have been undertaken torelieve the water shortage in the SSMA. A major scheme under constructionby ANDA, the Zona Norte, could satisfy San Salvador's demand until 1988. Alimited executing capacity, however, may slow down this project.
173. For low-income groups, inadequate water supplies leads to lowservice levels and high charges, as analyzed in other sections. Furthermore,it slows down low-income housing projects, forcing housing agencies to usehigher cost contingency plans to provide water to new housing.
174. One way to improve the poor's water service would be to strengthenANDA. This agency is now considering the preparation of water supply andsewerage projects for secondary cities with poorest service. It is alsoprepared to undertake a study of water tariffs which would both result in anew redistributive tariff structure and improve its financially weak situa-tion. Its present weak finances limit its present level of operations andinvestment programs and lead to a need for Government subsidies. This situa-tion, however, cannot be maintained in the long run if service levels are tobe improved on a financially sound basis. ANDA's manpower situation is nowalso critical. Low salaries and lack of training have prevented the retentionof qualified personnel at all levels. ANDA's present salary structure istied to the low scale of the civil servants, not the salary scales of otherautonomous enterprises.
175. In the past, ANDA has had serious difficulties in raising watertariffs. In 1968 and 1973, tariff increases were approved but latercancelled because of strong opposition. The cancelled 1973 tariff revisiontook into account the financial viability of ANDA and the universality oftariffs within the urban areas. The alternative that was put into effect in1974 provided for a 14 tariff level system; municipalities were classifiedaccordingly. The 1974 tariff system did not ensure ANDA's financial viabilityand thus Government transfers had to cover the financial gap. Given thenegative redistributive effects of ANDA's tariffs and Government subsidiesanalyzed earlier and the crippling effect on ANDA's ability to expand itswater services, this situation needs corrective action.
176. ANDA is also the agency in charge of urban sewerage services. Italso plans to expand sewerage levels; however, at its expanded levels,only an additional 21 percent of the population would benefit from sewerageconnections. The more immediate 1982 target is to expand sewerage coveragein urban areas through house connections to 50 percent, mostly to mid- andupper income households. Planned investment, however, falls slightly shortof the investment required to achieve the 1982 objective. The projectsprogrammed add up to e 77 million (US$31 million) and include sewerage systemsfor 53 municipalities and the SSMA. The projects for the SSMA include:improvement of the self-purification characteristics of the sewerage carryingstreams, expansion of the sewerage collection system, and feasibility studiesfor a sewerage treatment plant. Sewerage coverage in urban areas would also behampered by ANDA's financial difficulties. This will also be reflected in thelow level of attention given to the problems of the marginal urban settlements.This is a serious health threat even in the more affluent illegal subdivisions.
- 58 -
177. Given ANDA's financial and administrative problems, water andsewerage service improvements in marginal urban communities will have to beaddressed in a more direct way by the communities and the Central Governmentin the short and medium term, until ANDA is strengthened. Upgrading oftugurios will attack these problems directly by providing water and sanitaryfacilities. Mesones have already a reasonable service level. Illegal sub-divisions have some capacity to afford improvements and are largely withoutadequate services; for this reason, EDURES has made studies of the neededmonthly payments from residents to upgrade service levels under a scheme thatgives them the opportunity to choose the level of infrastructure they want topay for. The EDURES package includes also street lighting, garbage collection,storm drainage, and access roads.
178. EDURES estimated the total costs in 1979 of the program for differentcolonias ilegales. Water service at two levels 1/ and storm drainage andaccess roads also at three levels 2/ would be about ¢ 3.70 per square meterfor service level one for water, storm drainage, and access roads; about¢ 4.90 to ¢ 9.00 for water service level two with different combinations ofservice for sewerage, storm drainage and access roads. Monthly payments byresidents are estimated in the range of ¢ 10-0 27. 3/
Health
179. Although improved access to potable water, better nutrition, andmore education will reduce the incidence of diseases, direct health facilitiescould also be expanded. Earlier, some shortcomings of existing services(preventive as well as curative), even in the SSMA, were explored. Accessto emergency and primary care services and to appropriate recuperative andrehabilitation services is limited in the main urban centers. Of particularconcern for the poor are long travel time to facilities and waiting time forconsultations. While from an organization point of view the levels of healthcare seem adequate for a health policy in a developing country, 4/ evidencetells us the interaction between the levels is deficient and, at the lowestlevel (health posts, units), community outreach activities are virtuallynon-existing.
1/ Level one covers one shared water faucet for every ten lots; level twocovers individual water service to each lot, including ANDA's connectioncharges and meters.
2/ Level one covers installation of curbs, pipes, canals, and storm wateroutlets as well as leveling and compacting of streets and footpaths;level two covers also stone paving of access roads, small concreteslabs and curbs, including footpath and stairs when necessary; levelthree covers also stone paving for all vehicle roadways.
3/ EDURES, A Program for the Integrated Improvement of Critical MetropolitanAreas, Final Report, Vol. 1, Chapter VI.
4/ Sharpston, M.J., A Health Policy for Developing Countries, Leading Issuesin Economic Development, Oxford University Press, 1976.
- 59 -
180. Urban basic health needs are obviously less urgent than those ofrural El Salvador. The San Salvador area is the best serviced. The qualityof services is also significantly different with lower units of healthdelivery located in less urbanized areas. Nevertheless, studies in marginalcommunities (San Jose del Pino in SSMA) show that the urban poor rank highbetter health services. The highest percentage of requests went for a healthclinic (25 percent) followed by phone services (20 percent) and streetlighting (16 percent). In Santa Ana, an FSDVM study detected that about 12percent of the persons needing medical attention in popular housing wereunable to obtain it for lack of money. To satisfy this demand, the HealthMinistry must expand urban services and improve the administration of itsexisting facilities. Expanded coverage in the ISSS, presently underutilized,could include the family of the insured workers in all medical services. ISSSis now expanding coverage to all Government employees and is expected toextend full medical services to relatives of member workers in 1982. Thisexpanded coverage of the ISSS will reduce the pressure on the Ministry ofHealth facilities and permit them to provide better coverage to low-incomefamilies. Thepe measures, however, are likely to be insufficient in the nearterm to provide basic health needs to the urban population.
181. The health situation is more critical in popular housing wherehousing characteristics and water and sanitary services have been associatedwith health problems. Housing conditions, such as dirt floors, have shownpositive correlation with child deaths, infant mortality at one year of age,and number of pregnancies. Water services have also shown positive correlationwith infant mortality. Sanitary services, however, have a less definiteassociation with health indicators although households with the worst sanitaryservices reported the higher incidence of infections and parasitic diseases.These results emphasize the importance of preventive health care, particularlywhen curative health care services are limited. Apart from the basic needsapproach to improve the housing, water, and sanitary services, great impor-tance is attached to health education and dissemination of hygiene practices.FSDVM rightly considers that, in addition to sanitary services, its programsshould cover hygiene education, particularly water utilization to teachpeople that clean water may be easily contaminated and that improved sanitarypractices mean better household health. A program of health education mayinvolve a mass media component to develop greater awareness in the populationin general and organized efforts to secure the cooperation of health personnel,such as rural health aids and nurses auxiliaries. The target group will bethe poor with very limited education. The cost of this program is low.
Other Services
Electricity
182. A basic needs approach to electricity service in urban areas has toconcentrate on low-income people without service. In the SSMA, the solutionis feasible with a target group approach because of the widespread coverageand the extension of the supply network. In the other urban centers, however,the situation is more complex because electric service is much less widespreadamong the low income population and because the supply network is not asextensive.
- 60 -
183. For the consumer, two factors may preclude access to electric serUicethe cost of connecting the household to the existing network, which depends onthe distance to the connecting point, and the cost of the monthly charges forthe service compared to alternative sources of light, such as kerosene.Undoubtedly, urban households without electricity have low incomes and thuscannot afford some of these charges. For this reason, a more progressivetariff structure may be used to generate revenues to subsidize installationcosts to the poor and facilitate access to electricity.
184. Electricity tariffs were revised in August 1979 to improvre thefinancial position of CEL. 1/ The revision made the tariff schedule moreprogressive. It is uncertain, however, how much will be allocated to subsi-dize service for expansions to the urban poor, given CEL's financial needs.
Table 18: CEL ELECTRICITY TARIFFS(In colones)
New Old PercentageConsumption Tariff Tariff Increase
Residential
First 20 KwH, each 0.13 0.12 8.3Next 90 KwH, each 0.1575 0.14 12.5Next 90 KwH, each 0.10 0.075 33.0Over 90 KwH, each 0.15 0.075 200.0Minimum 1.00 1.00
Source: CEL
Street Lighting, Garbage Removal, and Other Services
185. The urban poor need street lighting, garbage and trash removal,access streets, which are provided by the municipalities and public transpor-tation. They often have a very limited financial capacity to undertakethem. In view of this problem, it is necessary to strengthen the finances ofthe municipalities. The present revenue system of municipalities has threecomponents: (i) charges for use of services, such as markets and cemeteries;(ii) quasi-user charges, indirectly related to actual use, such as streetcleaning and lighting; and (iii) taxes on businesses and industry, which areprimitive, suitable for the small towns of the past but not the present urbancenters. Some suggestions for improvement of the financial basis are aretail sales tax (a 1 percent tax would yield about ¢ 10 million a year,double the present collection from existing taxes); real estate taxes;
1/ A tariff study was financed in the Ahuachapan Power Expansion Loan.This study was expected to be finished at the end of 1979.
- 61 -
adjustments of quasi-user charges to reflect actual costs on an improvedbase; extension of the charges to potentially urban land; use of inflationescalators; and administration improvement to raise collections. In theabsence of an improved financial situation for the municipalities, urbangrowth will place severe pressures for services which will need increas-ing transfers from the Central Government and most likely will mean acontinuation of poor service levels.
186. The major real gap in the country's tax system is the failureto tax effectively the ownership and use of urban land and buildings.The present tax on urban land (Vialidad Serie A) 1/ and buildings hasa very low effective rate and only indirectly taxes them, since it is atax on net worth. Municipalities can benefit from this tax by imposingadditions to the vialidad tax rate for collection by the Ministry of Financeon taxed property located in the specific municipality. This, however, isnot a significant revenue source because of the limited taxable base and thedifficulties of apportioning a nationwide tax on net worth to each municipality.
187. An annual tax on the market value of urban land will mobilize theurban land market and facilitate a more equitable distribution of land owner-ship; encourage more efficient use of the land; reduce the level of land specu-lation; recapture for the public sector a part of the increase in urban landvalues which is attributable to public expenditures; and increase publicrevenues for urgently-needed urban development projects. EDURES suggests arate of 2 percent on the market value of the land with a minimum exempt, suchas e 8,000, that would exclude low-income settlements. 2/ Revenue estimatesfor the SSMA at 2 percent are about ¢ 52 million a year. This compares withpresent revenues of the SSMA municipalities which were below e 15 million.
188. A valorization tax needs to be established to defray both thecapital cost of public works and administrative costs which benefit realestate properties and increase property values. The recovery period could beestablished depending on project size; for example, three to five years. Thevalorization tax will tend to equalize the situation between poor settlements,where improvements outside the housing unit are expected to be recovered in asignificant proportion and other areas where currently there is no recoverymechanism at all. The valorization tax would require institutional and admin-istrative arrangements for distributing charges among benefited propertyowners. 3/
1/ This is a tax on net worth. The minimization of tax liability is rela-tively simple given exemptions and the schedule. As a result, there isno effective tax on wealth in the form of urban land and buildings.
2/ EDURES, The Introduction of An Annual Tax on Urban Land (August, 1978).
3/ EDURES, The Introduction of Valorization for Improvement for the Financingof Basic Infrastructure (August 1978).
- 62 -
Transport Costs
189. Transport costs have been identified in El Salvador as one of the
reasons for the location of the tugurios. Poor families cannot afford to pay
much for transportation, which becomes a very important expenditure item forpoor household nh the larger population centers. While extremely poorpeople in Sonsonate allocate 2 percent of their income for transport, poor
families in the SSMA spend close to 7 percent. Since the extreme poor is
barely scraping a living, expenditures for housing, transport, and other
needs have to be kept at a minimum to permit subsistence food intake withintheir limited incomes. For this reason, any increase in transport rates has a
very high incidence for poor families even though it may seem small to other
income groups.
Urban Planning
190. Rationalizing urban development in El Salvador has a high priority
in view of the many shortcomings of present unregulated physical development.Present laws and regulations for controlling urban land use, land subdivision
and construction are excessively rigid and ineffective. These regulations
effectively exclude also low-income families from access to legal settlements.
191. The situation becomes urgent because of the large number of poor
families living in sub-standard housing and the tremendous pressures brought
about by increased transport costs on poor families and their lower real
earnings because of inflation. In this situation, the real cost of transportis quite considerable for the low-income working population. There is need
for more locations close to work, schools, markets, etc. This calls for
better spatial planning and for measures that ensure a more efficient use of
urban lands. Establishing an effective urban planning mechanism, however,
takes some time and needs studies. Meanwhile, certain problems require
actions in the short term.
192. In this respect, the Government would need to undertake the following
actions: (i) updating and simplification of laws, regulations, and require-ments for land use, the subdivision of land, and construction; completion ofthe cadaster--particularly in the San Salvador area--and formal adoption of
the cadastral zones, which is important for the introduction of a tax onurban land and the valorization tax; 1/ an expropriation law regulating land
acquisition by or for public entities and making uniform different existingcriteria for etpropriation to reduce dissatisfaction with present mechanisms
and protect inlividual rights; improvement of the real estate property and
mortgage register to include illegal subdivisions, speed up the registration
1/ The first cycle of work for the cadaster in well advanced and the methodo-
logy for its execution is well established. The cadaster for about 40 per-
cent of tae rural areas of the country is already completed with physical,legal, and fiscal data. Similar data exists for the urban areas in the
West up to and including San Vicente, but excluding the San Salvador
Metropolitan Area. Physical data is available for all the urban areas,
excluding the SSMA.
- 63 -
process in general, and facilitate the identification of the locations ofregistered properties within urban areas; 1/ and establishment of a Metro-politan Commission for Urban Development in the SSMA. 2/
193. For the longer term, the Government has to strengthen the mechanisms atthe national level for the coordination of urban, metropolitan, and regionaldevelopment. This includes formulating a strategy for regional and urbandevelopment, and particularly the rationalization of the development of the SSMA.Long term urban planning should include the formulation and adoption of guide-lines and annual operative plans for each strategic area; establishment ofrequirements for land development, land use, and construction, as well as forthe protection of natural resources. 3/
1/ For more details see EDURES, Modifications in the Legal Framework forthe Administration and Regulation of Regional and Urban Development(August 1978).
2/ For details see EDURES, Rationalization of the Development of theSan Salvador Metropolitan Area (August 1978).
3/ For detailed suggestions, see EDURES, Modifications in the Legal Frameworkfor the Administration and Regulation of Regional and Urban Development(August 1978).
- 64 -
APPENDIX I
EL SALVADOR: POVERTY DEFINITIONS
Methodology
1. Poor urban households are defined as those with earnings below
0 200 a month at 1976 prices (about US$ 190 a year per family member).
Since poor urban households average about 1.67 paid working members, at
that time, this was roughly equivalent to the minimum wage established
by the Ministry of Labor to cover a minimum standard of living or basic
needs (food, clothing, shelter) of an urban worker. Including cash fringe
benefits (half-Saturday and seventh day cash payments), the average
monthly minimum urban wage in industry, commerce, and se-vices was about
¢ 120 (US$ 48) in 1976. 1/ A similar criterion was used by the 1974 PREALC
study of unemployment in the SSMA to define extreme poverty. 2/ The
methodology is also suggested in World Bank studies. 3/
2. The minimum wage is determined basically by costing a nutritionally
adequate food basket, and some minimum expenditures for shelter, clothing,
etc. This minimum nutritional basket is not necessarily purchased by the
worker.
3. The calorie- and protein-poverty lines were not used because
minimum requirements were satisfied at relatively high income levels
owing to personal preferences and lack of dietary knowledge, which preclude
the poor from satisfying their nutritional requirements at cheapest costs.
The calorie poverty line was above a monthly income of ¢ 300 in 1976-77
and the protein poverty line at about ¢ 200 a month. For these reasons,
the poverty line was based on the minimum basket prepared by the Ministry
of Labor, which is reflected in the minimum wage for 1976.
4. In recent years, minimum wages and real household incomes followed
a different path because prices increased more rapidly than money wages
so that by mid-1979, minimum wages fell short by over 15 percent of the
1976 household poverty line at constant prices. This means that more
families are now below the poverty line than in 1976 because wages lagRed
behind inflation. Poor families could only avoid the decline in real
incomes by increasing their participation rate in the labor force. This
possibility is unlikely given recent production and employment trends.
1/ About 0 100 a month in 1975 prices.
2/ PREALC, Situacion y Perspectivas del Empleo en El Salvador, p I-1,
April 1975.
3/ Webb, R., The Statistical Mapping of Urban Poverty and Employment,
World Bank Staff Paper No. 227.
- 65 -
APPENDIX II
EL SALVADOR: NUTRITION, FOOD EXPENDITURE AND INCOME
Methodology
1. The study determines calorie and protein consumption by incomegroups using food expenditure data on individual items from the 1976-77
household surveys of MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and the Central Bank 1/ and
converting them to calorie and protein intake levels with the equivalentsprovided by the tables on the Composition of Foods Commonly used in Latin
American Countries. To reflect farm consumption of basic grains and
food transfers by high income families to their domestics, adjustmentswere made using studies on rural production and consumption of basicgrains as well as estimates of domestics. Calorie response regressionswere computed with and without the adjustments. 2/
2. Per capita income and family size by income groups are also fromthe above noted household surveys. Expenditures rather than income wereused for low-income families when their expenditures exceeded theirincome.
3. Calorie and protein intakes were compared with the minimum dailyrequirements used by the Bank for El Salvador. This procedure provided the
proportion of the population by income groups consuming below the norms.
As noted in the main text of the report, these results are closely relatedto the minimum daily norms selected.
Econometric Results
4. Using average daily per capita calorie and protein consumption,household per capita income, and per capita total expenditures and food
expenditureJregression equations were computed using least-squares. Theestimated lines pass through the point of means. Each group observationis the mean of the individual observations in the sample, and has been weighted
by the square-root of sample size to correct for heteroscedasticity. 3/
1/ MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Central Bank, Encuesta de Presupuestos Familiares,1976-77. The number of households in the sample was 3,227, of which1,818 were urban and 1,409 rural.
2/ This is a source of difficulties for nutritional studies based ontotal expenditures by household-income level. The richer spend onfood that is consumed by lower income households.
3/ The condition of a constant variance for all income classes is referredto as homoscedasticity. Heteroscedasticity is the opposite. Homoscedasticityis one of the assumptions of the linear normal regression model.
- 66 -
5. For all response variables, a linear, a semilogarithmic, and adouble logarithmic functions were computed (see Table 2). Thedouble logarithmic function has the advantage of presenting the elasticityas a single parameter but it does not accurately represent the situationof different income groups, since the elasticity declines as income rises.The semi-logarithmic function is useful for this purpose; it shows avariable elasticity with rising incomes. The semi-logarithmic function,however, works better with quantities than with money expenditures. Ourresults confirm this conclusion of earlier researchers. While calorie-and protein-income elasticities behave normally, food expenditure--incomeelasticities are abnormally high at low income levels. Given the constrainton individual income elasticities, these results are dismissed as implausible.
Table 1: RESPONSE ELASTICITIES TO INCOME OR EXPENDITURE 1/
Income GroupsPer capita 1000
Variable 0-99 100-199 200-299 300-599 600-999 and over
Calories consumedand income 0.51 0.38 0.36 0.33 0.26 0.17
Calories purchasedand income 0.96 0.69 0.47 0.42 0.32 0.19
Protein consumedand income 0.43 0.35 0.34 0.31 0.23 0.15
1/ From semi-logarithmic functions. See Table 2.
6. For calorie purchases, the calorie per capita poverty line wasestimated at ¢ 62 or over ¢ 300 for a family of five in 1975. The calorielevel represents a relatively high income so that only households in themiddle and higher income groups (above ¢ 600 month) are able to reachthis minimum. The most acute deficiency is for families with monthlyincomes below ¢ 200, particularly those below ¢ 100.
The calorie response to increases in income at the calorie povertythreshold is about .4, which means that individuals at this income levelwill increase consumption by 4 percent for a 10 percent increase in incomeThe elasticity is of a similar order of magnitude than those computed for
lable 2: EL SALVADOR: NUTRITION AND FOOD EXPENDITURE REGRESSION EQUATIONS 1/
R2 R2 S.E.(regression (error Durbin F of
based) 2/ based) 3/ Watson Statistic Estimate
1. Calories Consumed (C) Regressions on Per Capita Income (Y)
C = 1,735.22 + 5.58731 Y 0.59 0.91 1.57 27.0 73.7C = - 226.7 + 622.946 LNY- 1.06 0.72 1.63 15.3 131.6E.C = 6.70 + 0.2472 LNY 0.99 0.998 2.18 1,863.0 04
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2.8 1,6300.)2. Calories Purchased (CP) Regressions on Per Capita Income (Y)
CP = 1,364.9 + 8.0260 Y 0.70 0.85 1.00 18.2 135.2CP =-1,685.6 + 954.33 LNY 1.09 0.85 1.80 28.3 135.8
LNCP = 5.90 + 0.4198 LNY 0.969 0.998 1.86 1,556.0 .042
3. Protein Regression (P) on Per Capita Income (Y)
P = 44.05 + 0.1625 Y 0.79 o.96 2.22 82.7 1.2 aP = - 10.33 +17.4288 LNY 1.30 0.55 1.31 11.7 4.1
"IP = 3.04 + 0.2519 IlY 1.07 0.99 1.62 429.0 .042
4. Food Expenditures Regressions (F) on Per Capita Income (Y)
F = 9.07 + 0.2429 Y 0.97 0.99 1.00 308.9 1.2F = -73.18 +26.3020 Y 0.94 0.72 1.29 13.5 5.8
'YF = 0.23 + 0.7361 Y 0.91 0.98 1.89 240.4 .04
5. Food Expenditures Regressions (F) on Total Per Capita Expenditures (E)
F = 9.06 + 0.2762 E o.96 0.98 1.09 175.4 1.6F = -81.15 +28.9024 LNE 0.97 o.78 1.22 17.3 5.2
LNF = 0.063+ 0.7948 LNE o.88 0.99 1.46 374.0 0.34
1/ Regression equations have been weighted and the cross product term of the predicted values and the errors is 0. Thisexplains deviations from correlations such as R2 1. Logarithmic equations are in natural logariths.
2/ Using the predicted values.
3/ Using the errors on residuals.
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Banco Central, Composicion Detallada del Gasto Familiar Mensual a Nivel de Articulos,August-October, 1976.
- 68 -
Bangladesh and Indonesia.-/ Given that the calorie-poverty thresholdis at a relatively high income, direct food programs would be needed toreduce malnutrition.
8. For purchases of protein, the poverty line is more difficult todefine because minimum daily needs have been revised downwards in recentyears. The majority of the population has a daily intake, over 50 grams,except those with incomes below 0 200. After considering protein transfersfrom higher income groups owing to the provision of foods to domesticsand to agricultural workers, the main deficiency is for 1975 incomesbelow 0 100 a month.
1/ Knudsen, 0., and Scandizzo, P. L., Nutrition and Food Needs inDeveloping Countries, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 328.
- 69 -
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
Table Number I. POPULATION
1.1 Basic Census Data, 1950-711.2 Distribution and Density of Population, 1950-711.3 Demographic Indicators, 1950-20001.4 Labor Force Projections, 1980-20001.5 Labor Supply and Demand Projections, 1980-20001.6 Distribution of Working Age Urban Population, 19751.7 Lifetime Total Migration Matrix1.8 Internal Migration
II. EMPLOYMENT
2.1 Total Employment by Sectors and Income Levels, 19752.2 Urban Employment by Sectors and Income Levels, 19752.3 Rural Employment by Sectors and Income Levels, 19752.4 Urban Employment: Distribution of Earnings, 19752.5 Employment Earnings in the San Salvador Metropolitan Area, 1!2.6 Earnings Distribution by Age of Urban Workers, 19752.7 Earnings Distribution by Age of Female Urban Workers, 19752.8 Earnings Distribution of Urban Industrial Workers, 19752.9 Earnings Distribution of Urban Commerce Workers, 19752.10 Distribution of Urban Workers by Type of Activity: Formal
and Informal, 19752.11 Male-Female Urban Employment by Type of Activity: Formal
and Informal, 19752.12 Monthly Earnings in Formal and Informal Urban Activities
By Earnings and Sex, 19752.13 Urban Employment by Sectors and Education, 19752.14 Urban Labor Force and Education Levels, 19752.15 Urban Industrial Labor Force and Education Levels, 19752.16 Urban Labor Force in Construction by Education Levels, 19752.17 Urban Employment by Weekly Working Hours, 19752.18 Distribution of Urban Unemployed by Education According to
Type of Activity, 19752.19 Occupation by Sectors in Low Income Settlements2.20 Earnings in Urban and Rural Areas by Occupation2.21 Minimum Wages in Urban Occupations2.22 Average Wages in Industrial Occupations.
2.23 Real Wages in Urban Occupations2.24 Corn Terms of Trade, 1968-782.25 Earnings of Workers in the Social Security System, 19762.26 Earnings of Workers in the Social Security System, 19772.27 Earnings of Workers in the Social Security System by Regions, 1977
III. HOUSEHOLD EARNINGS AND EXPENDITURES
3.1 Salvadorian Households by Income, 1976-773.2 Cumulative Household Income Distribution, 1976-773.3 Cumulative Recipient Income Distribution, 1976-773.4 Cumulative Income Distribution of Heads of Households, 1976-773.5 Monthly Expenditures of Low Income Households in Popular Housing3.6 Average Monthly Expenditures of Salvadorian Households, 1976-77
- 70 -
Table Number
3.7 Average Monthly Expenditures of Urban Households, 1976-773.8 Income Distribution of Poor Families in the SSMA, 19773.9 Transport Expenditures by Income Level
IV. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
4.1 Housing Characteristics, 19754.2 Housing Characteristics by Income Levels, 1976-19774.3 Housing Characteristics by Income Levels in the SSMA, 1976-774.4 Urban Households by Number of Persons and Rooms, 19754.5 Access to Electricity by Household Income. 1976-774.6 Share of Electricity in Household Lighting, 1976-774.7 Urban Access to Water by Household Income, 1976-774.8 Urban Households with Public Water Service, 1976-774.9 Expenditures for Water by Income Levels, 1976-774.10 Urban Access to Sewerage by Household Income, 1976-774.11 Urban Households with Public Sewerage Service, 1976-774.12 Housing by Income Levels, 1976-774.13 Households by Number of Children, 1975
V. NUTRITION
5.1 Monthly Food Expenditure by Income Groups, 1976-775.2 Daily per Capita Purchases of Calories, 1976-775.3 Daily per Capita Purchase of Proteins, 1976-775.4 Monthly Fuel Consumption, 1976-775.5 Nutritional Status of Children, 1965 and 19765.6 Nutritional Status of Children, by Regions, 19765.7 Calorie Response Elasticities to Income5.8 Arc Elasticities of Food Expenditures5.9 Per Capita Expenditures for An Adequate Diet and Actual
Food Expenditures5.10 Monthly Expenditures by Income Groups on Food Products
Subsidized by IRA
VI. PUBLIC EXPENDITURES
6.1 Gross National Product, Central Government Cash Expendituresand Education Expenditures., 1967-78
6.2 Current Expenditures in Formal Public Education by Level, 1967-786.3 Enrollment by Educational Level and Controlling Authority,
1971-786.4 Enrollment in Public Schools by Income Groups and Quintiles, 19766.5 Basic Education Enrollment In Public Schools by Income Groups, 19766.6 Total Public Education Expenditures per National Household by
Income Groups, 19766.7 Public Education Outlays per National Household, 1976
6.8 Total Public Education Expenditures by Income Quintilesand Areas, 1976
- 71 -
Table Number
6.9 Total Public Education Expenditures per Household by Quintiles,1976
6.10 Total Public Education Expenditures per Household by Quintiles,1976
(As a Percentage of Household Annual Income)6.11 Distribution of Family Income and Public Education
Outlays, 1976.6.12 Total Public Education Expenditures per Urban Household by Income
Groups, 19766.13 Total Public Education Expenditures per Urban Household by Income
Groups (as a Percentage of Household Annual Income), 1976
6.14 Total Public Education Expenditures per Urban Householdby Income Quintiles, 1976
6.15 Total Public Education Expenditures per Urban Household byIncome Quintile (As a Percentage of Household AnnualIncome), 1976
6.16 Distribution of Household Income and Education Outlays inthe Urban Areas, 1976
6.17 Distribution of Household Income and Total PublicEducation Outlays in Rural Areas, 1976
6.18 Total Public Education Expenditures per Rural Household, 19766.19 Out of Pocket Expenses for Education6.20 Public Basic Education Enrollment and Expenditures by
Departments, 19766.21 Public Secondary Education Enrollment and Expenditures, 19766.22 Public Higher Education Enrollment and Expenditures, 19766.23 National University: Operating Budget by Faculty, 19766.24 Inter-Country Comparison of Education Outlays6.25 Public Education Expenditures Distributed by Household Income
Quintiles6.26 Health Ministry Hospital Services.6.27 ISSS and Health Ministry Funds in Relation to Central Govern-
ment Cash Expenditures6.28 Total ISSS Health Outlays Per Urban Household by Income Groups,
19766.29 Total ISSS Health Outlays by Income Quintiles, 19766.30 Ministry of Health and ISSS Unit Costs, 1977-78
VII. TAXATION
7.1 Tax Collections by Income Groups, 1976.7.2 Tax Incidence by Income Groups
VIII. FOOD PRODUCTION
8.1 Production and Consumption of Basic Grains
Table 1.1: BASIC CENSUS DATA, 1950-71
1950 1961 1971
Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male FemaleAge Groups Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop.
0 - 4 289,054 146,156 142,898 431,658 217,613 214,045 597,307 300,678 296,629
5 - 9 250,178 126,505 123,673 383,553 193,359 190,194 581,597 296,365 285,232
10 - 14 224,169 116,483 107,686 309,305 159,798 149,507 471,787 241,719 230,068
15 - 19 198,843 97,083 101,760 242,248 117,234 125,014 359,588 175,330 184,258
20 - 24 177,138 83,841 93,297 214,829 101,363 113,466 296,212 143,311 152,901
25 - 29 140,323 66,466 73,S51 112,5O3 Bo,b59 91,644 230,125 109,3b'4 120,741
30 - 34 112,429 55,035 57,394 150,730 73,035 77,695 199,711 99,o80 100,631
35 - 39 111,928 54,330 57,598 139,022 66,101 72,921 186,109 90,687 95,422
40 - 44 89,531 44.370 45,161 111,796 54,866 56,930 151,115 74,454 76,661
45 - 49 69,181 34,348 34,833 89,906 43,711 46,195 121,771 58,998 62,773
50 - 54 63,248 30,923 32,325 75,844 37,236 38,608 98,286 47,725 50,561
55 - 59 36,039 17,436 18,603 50,913 24,765 26,148 70,009 33,863 36,146
6o - 64 37,781 18,719 19,062 58,075 28,808 29,267 67,924 33,825 34,099
65+ 56,075 26,774 29,301 80,602 37,980 42,622 123,107 57,771 65,336
Total 1.855,917 918,469 937,448 2.510,984 1.236,728 1.274,256 3.554,648 1.763,190 1.791,458
Source: Censuses of 1950, 1961, and 1971.
Table 1.2: DISTRIBUTION AND DENSITY OF POPULATION, 1950-71
(in thousands)
1961 Giowth Rate_ilGe2) Population M=naitr1 Population jenaityl/ Population DensitryY 1950 - 1971
Ahuachapan 1239.6 94,646 78 130,710 105 178
,472 144 3.06
Santa An& 2023.2 202, 4 55 128 259,155 128 335,853 166 2.44
Sorisoate 1225.8 120,327 98 166,932 136 237,059 193 3.28
Chalatenango 2016.6 105,859 52 129,897 64 172,845 86 2.36
La Libertad 1652.9 144,004 87 203,480 123 285,575 173 3.31
San Salvador 886.1 296
,452
335 463,228 523 733,445 828 4.4o
Cuscatlan 756.2 90,099 119 113,042 149 152,825 202 2.54
La Paz 1223.6 96,843 79 130,659 107 181,929 149 3.o _1
Cabanas 1103.5 77,628 70 94 ,590 86 131,081 119 2.52
San Vicente 1184.0 87,577 74 112,920 95 153,398 130 2.70
Usulutan 2130.4 162,349 76 207,061 97 294,497 138 2.87
San Miguel 2077.1 171,234 82 231,821 112 320,602 154 3.03
Morazan 4147.4 96,729 67 119,381 82 156,052 108 2.30
La Union 2074.3 109,715 53 148,108 71 221,015 107 3.39
El Salvador (Total) 21040.8 1,855,917 88 2,510,984 119 3,554,648 169 3.14
I/ Population per square kilonuter
Source: Censuses of 1950, 1961,and 1971.
Page 1 of 4
Table 1.3: EL SALVADOR: DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS, 1950-2000
(Population in Units)
Medium Variant
All 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Ages
1930.641 2202.402 2542.148 2942.382 3397.642 3924.095 4539.517 5235.673 5997.034 6327.106 7730.402
0-4 327.668 393.570 474.683 549.659 620.935 708.532 816.167 915.936 1005.912 1099.581 1203.733
5 56.687 66.707 81.043 97.429 111.623 126.328 145.552 167.806 186.719 204.492 223.9466 54.228 63.669 77.223 93.492 107.937 122.226 140.554 162.672 182.093 199.900 218.9237 51.977 60.960 73.703 89.663 104.404 118.449 135.879 157.577 177.516 195.469 214.0928 49.934 58.54o 70.457 85.943 100.993 114.940 131.495 152.542 172.971 191.159 209.4299 48.og8 56.367 67.461 82.339 97.673 111.643 127.370 147.588 168.441 186.932 204.907
5-9 260.925 306.244 369.886 448.866 522.630 593.587 680.851 788.185 887.740 977.952 1071.297
10 46.421 54.464 64.699 78.852 94.476 108.552 123.475 142.708 163.969 182.792 200.52311 44.856 52.855 62.158 75.487 91.433 105.665 119.776 137.896 159.599 178.741 196.19912 43.635 51.175 59.764 72.249 88.200 102.659 116.244 133.312 155.010 174.537 191.93613 42.851 49.254 57.475 69.143 84.619 99.371 112.847 129.032 150.066 170.062 187.67814 42.363 47.244 55.294 66.173 80.848 95.904 109.555 124.995 144.930 165.400 183.415
10-14 220.125 254.991 299.391 361.904 439.575 512.152 581.898 667.944 773.574 871.532 959.731
15 41.918 45.422 53.293 63.322 77.206 92.556 106.365 121.032 139.900 160.798 179.18116 41.540 43.680 51.487 60.579 73.638 89.308 103.277 117.144 134.910 156.262 174.97617 41.095 42.314 49.655 58.027 70.242 85.915 100.111 113.457 130.182 151.538 170.64418 40.480 41.483 47.702 55.703 67.103 82.296 96.774 110.009 125.854 146.544 166.11219 39.728 41.007 45.733 53.561 64.174 78.561 93.328 106.728 121.825 141.411 161.439
15 -19 204.761 213.906 247.869 291.191 352.363 428.636 490.854 568.371 652.671 756.554 852.351
20 39.017 40.527 43.898 51.544 61.311 74.905 89.952 103.506 117.831 136.348 156.79621 38.361 40.090 42.116 49.692 58.527 71.295 86.652 100.361 113.889 131.307 152.20222 37.405 39.595 40.715 47.828 55.947 67.872 83.224 97.154 110.163 126.542 147.43923 36.005 38.948 39.857 45.868 53.614 64.729 79.600 93.804 106.698 122.201 142.43324 34.325 38.177 39.360 43.907 51.478 61.814 75.880 90.361 103.416 118.176 137.307
20-24 185.113 197.338 205.947 238.839 280.877 340.614 415.308 485.186 551.997 634.573 736.17825-29 148.436 177.242 188.881 196.906 228.591 269.342 327.534 400.697 468.775 533.943 614.31930 -34 120.422 141.144 168.865 179.883 187.237 217.755 257.159 313.899 385.129 451.500 514.61235-39 109.650 113.627 133.410 160.009 170.328 177.054 206.348 244.485 299.393 368.760 433.0284o-44 91.146 102.657 106.282 125.079 150.458 160.129 166.192 194.323 230.831 283.944 351.03745-49 72.224 84.264 95.080 98.374 116.117 140.299 149.328 154.856 181.526 216.473 267.43350-54 58.367 65.585 76.781 86.878 89.823 106.514 129.408 137.875 142.649 167.880 200.91355-59 42.589 51.679 58.312 68.672 78.028 80.718 96.282 117.841 125.549 129.723 153.2076o-64 32.510 36.510 44.617 50.610 59.984 68.552 71.024 85.390 105.237 112.264 115.74765-69 22.545 26.552 30.017 37.060 42.343 50.664 58.351 60.677 73.510 91.396 97.60070-74 16.354 17.144 20.416 23.332 29.186 33.716 40.831 47.517 49.612 60.680 76.08075-79 10.070 11.225 11.894 14.390 16.670 21.215 24.845 30.527 35.892 37.700 46.537
80+ 7.736 8.723 9.820 10.732 12.495 14.615 18.138 21.965 27.036 32.650 36.598
Source: CELADE and MINPLAN.
Table 1.3: EL SALVADOR: DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS, 1950-2000
Medium Variant
POPULATION (IN THOUSANDS) DEPENDENCY CHILD-WOMEN SEX MEDIANRATIO RATIO RATIO AGE
YEAR TOTAL AGED 15-64 WOMEN 15-49 (PER 1,000) (PER WOMAN) (PER 100 FEMALES) (YEARS)
1950 1930.641 1065.218 465.073 812.4 0.705 100.6 18.821955 2202.402 1183.953 514.549 860.2 0.765 100.6 18.421960 2542.148 1326.042 5T2.830 917.1 o.829 100.5 17.561965 2942.382 1496.440 644.551 966.3 0.853 100.3 16.901970 3397.642 1713.807 742.479 982.5 0.836 100.2 i6.641975 3924.095 1989.614 866.563 972.3 0.818 100.1 16.721980 4539.517 2318.437 1010.768 958.0 0.807 100.1 16.911985 5235.673 2702.922 1181.025 937.0 0.776 100.0 17.161990 5997.034 3143.757 1385.495 907.6 0.726 100.0 17.541995 6827.106 3655.615 1623.360 867.6 o.677 99.9 18.072000 7730.402 4238.824 1885.659 823.7 0.638 99.8 18.70
AVERAGE ANNUAL RATES IMPLIED VITAL RATES ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF NET MIGRATION RATEOF GROWTH (PERCENT) (PER 1,000) (IN THOUSANDS) (PER 1,000)
NATURAL CRUDE CRUDE BIRTHS DEATHSEXPONENTIAL COMPOUND INCREASE BIRTH DEATH
1950-55 2.634 2.669 29.40 49.12 19.72 507.560 203.799 3.101955-60 2.869 2.911 32.02 49.71 17.70 589.676 209.929 3.371960-65 2.924 2.967 32.84 48.01 15.17 658.293 208.059 3.651965-70 2.877 2.919 32.63 45.49 12.86 721.048 203.789 3.911970-75 2.881 2.923 32.86 43.73 10.88 800.522 199.069 4.101975-80 2.914 2.957 33.34 42.58 9.24 900.990 195.568 4.251980-85 2.853 2.895 32.78 40.62 7.83 992.556 191.400 4.301985-90 2.715 2.753 31.56 38.29 6.73 1075.239 188.878 4.451990-95 2.593 2.627 30.41 36.26 5.85 1162.625 187.552 4.521995-2000 2.485 2.516 29.49 34.70 5.21 1262.763 189.467 4.67
REPRODUCTION RATES TOTAL GENERAL EXPECTATION OF LIFE AT BIRTH
FERTILITY FERTILITY (YEARS)RATE RATE
GROSS NET (PER 1,000 WOMEN) MALES FEMALES TOTAL
1950-55 3.150 2.160 6457.5 207.2 45.60 47.80 46.671955-60 3.320 2.397 6806.o 216.9 48.40 50.90 49.621960-65 3.340 2.539 6847.0 216.3 51.50 54.30 52.871965-70 3.230 2.569 6621.5 207.9 54.50 57.50 55.961970-75 3.090 2.562 6334.5 199.0 57.50 60.65 59.041975-80 2.930 2.520 6006.5 192.0 60.35 63.65 61.961980-85 2.710 2.403 5555.5 181.1 62.90 66.35 64.581985-90 2.490 2.262 5104.5 167.6 65.00 68.65 66.781990-95 2.310 2.141 4735.5 154.6 66.80 70.70 68.701995-2000 2.170 2.044 4448.5 143.9 68.20 72.40 70.25
Source: CELADE and MINPLAN.
Page 3 of 4
Table 1.3: EL SALVADOR: DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS, 1950-2000
(Population in Units)
Low Variant
All 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Agese
1930.641 2202.402 2542.148 2942.a82 3397.642 391.5.593 45a4.555 5126.202 5144.399 6355.415 6954.i40
o-4 327.668 393.570 474.683 549.659 620.935 700.030 789.463 840.738 861.087 877.717 895.266
5 56.687 66.707 81.043 97.429 111.623 126.042 142.779 159.977 166.944 169.824 173.4846 54.228 63.669 77.223 93.492 107.937 122.158 138.426 156.419 165.018 168.397 171.9127 51.977 60.960 73.703 89.663 i04.404 118.517 134.310 152.615 162.965. 167.063 170.4238 49.934 58.540 70.457 85.943 100.993 115.076 130.403 148.622 160.757 165.768 168.9999 48.o98 56.367 67.461 82.339 97.673 111.792 126.678 144.493 158.366 164.456 167.621
5-9 260.925 306.244 369.886 448.866 522.630 593.587 672.596 762.126 814.049 835.509 852.440
10 46.421 54.464 54.699 78.852 94.476 108.661 123.116 140.226 155.867 163.115 166.24611 44.856 52.855 62.158 75.487 91.433 105.679 119.700 135.814 153.338 161.736 164.83312 43.635 51.175 59.764 72.249 88.200 102.605 116.351 131.617 150.232 160.038 163.47813 42.851 49.254 57.475 69.143 84.619 99.317 113.020 127.809 146.316 157.877 162.20914 42.363 47.244 55.294 66.173 80.848 95.890 109.710 124.265 141.871 155.333 160.938
10-14 220.125 254.991 299.391 361.904 439.575 512.152 581.898 659.730 747.625 798.099 817.704
15 41.91B 45.422 53.293 63.322 77.206 92.556 106.470 120.670 137.414 152.704 159.53916 41.54o 43.680 51.487 60.579 73.638 89.308 103.290 117.067 132.837 150.024 158.02717 41.095 42.314 49.655 58.027 70.242 85.915 100.058 113.566 128.504, 146.794 156.21518 40.480 41.483 47.702 55-703 67.103 82.296 96.722 110.184 124.644 142.285 153.99219 39.728 41.007 45.733 53.561 64.174 78.561 93.314 106.884 121.101 138.372 151.418
15-19 204.761 213.906 247.869 291.191 352.363 428.636 499.854 568.371 544.501 730.719 779.191
20 39.017 40.527 43.898 51.544 61.311 74-905 89.952 103.611 117.470 133.826 148.73921 38.361 40.090 42.116 49.692 58.527 71.295 86.652 100.374 113.812 129.247 145.99722 37.405 39.595 40.715 47.828 55.947 67.872 83.224 97.102 110.271 124.875 142.72323 36.005 38.948 39.857 45.868 53.614 64.729 79.600 93.751 106.872 121.000 138.73824 34.325 38.177 39.360 43-907 51.478 61.814 75.880 90.348 103.571 117.458 134.288
20-24 185.113 197.338 205.947 238.839 280.877 340.614 415.308 485.186 551.997 626.457 710.48525-29 148.436 177.242 188.881 196.906 228.591 269.342 327.534 400.697 468.775 533.943 606.26030-34 120.422 141.144 168.865 179.883 187.237 217.755 257.159 313.899 385.129 451.500 514.61235-39 109.650 113.627 133.410 160.009 170.328 177.054 206.348 244.485 299.393 368.760 433.02840-44 91.146 102.65 106.282 125.079 150.458 160.fi29 166.192 194.323 230.831 283.944 351.03745-49 72.224 84.264 95.080 98.374 116.117 140.299 149.328 154.856 181.526 216.473 267.43350-54 58.367 65.585 76.781 86.878 89.823 106.514 129.408 137.875 142.649 167.880 200.91355-59 42.589 51.679 58.312 68.672 78.028 80.718 96.282 117.841 125.549 129.723 153.20760-64 32.510 36.510 44.617 50.610 59.984 68.552 71.024 85.390 105.237 112.264 115.74765-69 22.545 26.552 30.017 37.060 42.343 50.664 58.351 60.677 73.510 91.396 97.60070-74 16.354 17.144 20.416 23.332 29.186 33.716 40.831 47.517 49.612 68.680 76.08075-79 10.070 11.225 11.894 14.390 16.670 21.215 24.845 30.527 35.892 37.700 46.53780+ 7.736 8.723 9.820 10.732 12.495 14.615 18.138 21.965 27.036 32.650 36.598
Source: CELADE and MINPLAN.
Page 4 of 4
Table 1.3: EL SALVADOR: DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS, 1950-2000
Low Variant
POPULATION (IN THOUSANDS) DEPENDENCY CHILD-WOMEN SEX MEDIANYEAR RATIO RATIO RATIO AGE
TOTAL AGED 15-64 WOMEN 15-49 (PER 1,000) (PER WOMAN) (PER 100 FEMALES) (YEARS)
1950 1930.641 1065.218 465.073 812.4 0.705 loo.6 18.821955 2202.402 1183.953 514.549 860.2 0.765 100.6 18.421960 2542.148 1326.042 572.830 917.1 0.829 100.5 17.561965 2942.382 1496.440 644.551 966.3 0.853 100.3 16.901970 3397.642 1713.807 742.479 982.5 0.836 100.2 16.641975 3915.593 1989.614 866.563 968.o M.808 100.1 16.771980 4504.558 2318.437 1010.768 942.9 0.781 100.1 17.081985 5126.202 2702.922 1181.025 896.5 0.712 100.0 17.641990 5744.399 3135.587 1381.451 832.0 0.623 99.8 18.491995 6355.415 3621.663 1606.556 754.8 0.546 99.7 19.562000 6954.140 4131.912 1832.749 683.0 0.488 99.4 20.93
AVERAGE ANNUAL RATES IMPLIED VITAL RATES ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF NET MIGRATION RATEOF GROWTH (%) (PER 1,000) (IN THOUSANDS) (PER 1,000)
NATURAL CRUDE CRUDEEXPONENTIAL COMPOUND INCREASE BIRTH DEATH BIRTHS DEATHS
1950-55 2.634 2.669 29.40 49.12 19.72 507.560 203.799 3.101955-60 2.869 2.911 32.02 49.71 17.70 589.676 209.929 3.371960-65 2.924 2.967 32.84 48.01 15.17 658.293 208.059 3.651965-70 2.877 2.919 32.63 45.49 12.86 721.048 203.789 3.911970-75 2.888 2.878 32.43 43.26 10.83 790.966 198.015 4.101975-80 2.802 2.842 32.25 41.41 9.15 871.668 192.704 4.281980-85 2.586 2.619 30.18 37.86 7.68 911.523 184.878 4.361985-90 2.277 2.303 27.35 33.90 6.56 921.370 178.174 4.601990-95 2.022 2.041 24.99 30.73 5.74 929.548 173.531 4.791995-2000 1.301 1.817 23.10 28.29 5.19 941.395 172.671 5.11
REPRODUCTION RATES TOTAL GENERAL EXPECTATION OF LIFE AT BIRTHFERTILITY FERTILITY (YEARS)
GROSS NET RATE RATE(PER 1,000 WOMEN) MALES FEMALES TOTAL
1950-55 3.150 2.160 6457.5 207.2 45.60 47.80 46.671955-60 3.320 2.397 6806.o 216.9 48.40 50.90 49.621960-65 3.340 2.539 6847.0 216.3 51.50 54.30 52.871965-70 3.230 2.569 6621.5 207.9 54.50 57.50 55.961970-75 3.050 2.529 6252.5 196.6 57.50 60.65 59.041975-80 2.820 2.427 5781.0 185.7 60.35 63.65 61.961980-85 2.460 2.183 5043.0 166.4 62.90 66.35 64.581985-90 2.100 1.910 4305.0 143.8 65.00 68.65 66.781990-95 1.830 1.698 3751.5 124.4 66.80 70.70 68.701995-2000 1.620 1.527 3321.0 109.5 68.20 72.40 70.25
Source: CELADE and MINPLAN.
Table 1.4: EL SALVADR t LABOR FCRCE PROJECTIONS, 1980-2000
(in thousands)
1980 19d5 1990 2000-High Medium LoW High Medium Low High Vedium Low
10 - 14 108.8 122.7 121.6 120.0 141.8 138.5 133.8 188.7 168.9 143.915 - 19 231.9 260.9 260.9 260.9 295.8 293.1 289.4 385.5 361.4 330.420 - 24 278.7 328.0 328.0 328.0 375.9 375.9 375.9 517.8 505.0 487.425 - 29 227.6 278.5 278.5 278.5 325.4 325.4 325.4 440.4 436.2 430.530 - 34 174.1 215.3 215.3 215.3 259.2 259.2 259.2 365.9 365.9 365.935 - 44 232.8 280.8 280.8 280.8 339.9 339.9 339.9 544.9 544.9 54L.945 - 54 165.0 175.7 175.7 175.7 197.7 197.7 197.7 302.1 302.1 302.155 - 64 90.8 111,0 111.0 111.0 126.7 126.7 126.7 152.5 152.5 152.565 - 74 42.4 46.4 46.4 46.4 53.6 53.6 53.6 76.8 76.8 76.8 1
Total 10 - 64 1509.7 1772.9 1771.8 1770.2 2062.4 2056.4 2048.0 2897.8 28)6.9 2757.6 oo
Total Population 5319.1 5235.7 5126.2 6193.6 5997.0 5744.4 8332.6 7730.4 6954.1
Economlc Participation Rate 33.3 33.8 34.5 33.3 34.3 35.7 34.8 36.7 39.7 -
Source: Table 1.10
Table 1.5: LABOR SUPPLY AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS, 1980-2000
(In Thousands)
1971 1980 1985 9ggo 2000
Medium Lov Medium Low Medium LovFertility Fertility Fertility Fertilit Fertility Fertility
Labor supply (10-6-) 1119 0 1772 1770 2056 2048 2837 27MIUnemployment (10-6-) 133 106 12]W 124 144 199 193Employed Labor Force 986 1404 1648 1646 1912 1905 2638 2565
I. Historical
Agriculture 569 742 860 860 997 997 1340 1340
Industry 140 184 214 214 249 249 337 337
Services 277 478 574 572 666 659 961 888
II. Increased induszrial labor absorption after 1980
Agriculture 569 742 860 860 997 997 1340 1340
Industry 140 184 226 226 278 278 419 419
Services 277 478 562 560 627 620 879 806
III. Increased industkial labor absorption after 1980; :over than historical agricultural li:zr absorption after 1985
Agriculture 569 742 860 860 973 973 1245 1245
Industry 140 184 226 226 278 276 419 419
Services 277 478 562 560 661 65L 974 901
IV. Increased indus:riel labor absorption after 1980; much lover than historical agricultural '--or absorption after 1980
Agriculture (25, 569 742 819 819 904 904 1102 1102
Industry 140 184 226 226 278 278 419 419
Services 277 478 603 601 730 72. 1114 1044
1/ Adjusted as in the 1975 Survey for housevive. classified as employed.See 1971 Census, page xx.
Source: Table 1.26.
- 80 -
Table 1.6: DISTRIBUTION OF WORKING AGE URBAN POPULATION, 1975
(in thousands)
Total Age Groups10-19 20-24 25 and over
Working Age Population 1,203.9 404.8 153.5 645.7
Economically Active Population 611.1 90.0 97.7 423.2
Employed 569.8 76.4 85.1 408.1
(of which: w/o cash remunerationremuneration) (47.0) (17.9) ( 5.8) ( 23.3)
Unemployed 41.3 13.6 12.6 15.1(Of which: looking for
first job) (12.4) (7.3) (3.3) (1.8)
Inactive Population 592.9 314.8 55.7 222.5
Housework 242.9 40.6 31.2 171.2Students 287.2 264.5 19.6 3.2Retired or pensioned 3.5 .1 - 3.4Unable to work 42.0 3.6 1.8 36.6Other 17.3 6.0 3.1 8.1
Source: MINPLAN and DIGESTIC, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y AspectosDemograficos, April-July 1975.
Table 1.7: EL SALVADOR: LIFETIME TOTAL
MIGRATION MATRIX
ToJ Ah%*chaWan Santa Ana Sonsonate Chalatenango 1& Libertad Son Salvador Cuscatlan la Pas CrabajA San Vicente Usulltan Sa niguel orasan La Union total
Anuachapan 0 6,571 7,103 145 1,836 7,485 152 267 53 84 287 182 39 73 24,277
5anta Ana 4,635 0 11,229 1,680 12,768 23,039 574 604 155 245 635 702 76 246 56,588
Son.onate 3,853 6,352 0 358 7,092 18,732 341 476 179 265 376 404 n 120 34,619
cn.laterango 1,758 3,240 3,756 0 7,006 19,571 2,125 732 565 325 457 299 65 191 40,090
La Libertad 1,180 14,087 7,0o4 605 0 25,714 1,052 1,132 239 331 487 391 79 175 42,b876
San 5a&iador 1,737 5,413 6,220 1,956 17,231 0 5,305 4,788 923 1,9487 2,778 2,499 359 878 51,834
Cuscatlan 199 625 761 635 3,528 18,598 0 1,548 761 738 276 281 40 127 28,119
La Paz So8 949 1,656 182 3,801 24,568 1,258 0 250 2,111 1,517 481 51 173 37,615
Cabanas 809 650 1,848 335 4,973 11,210 1,967 1,248 0 3,202 2,146 464 47 388 29,287
San Vlcente 468 814 1,531 143 3,557 17,482 1,689 4,859 997 0 3,016 1,031 56 445 36,o88
Usulati,r1 908 1,464 2,177 183 2,682 22,413 683 3,032 258 2,395 0 8,175 329 1,424 b6,4123
San Migsuel 546 1,406 1,279 172 2,114 18,826 495 1,212 285 1,059 13,650 0 1,725 8,117 50,886
Moracan 152 347 265 47 692 5,226 155 294 64 199 1,257 8,856 0 5,539 23,113
La Unicn 222 339 612 103 916 8,353 280 324 97 291 2,000 6,989 1,280 0 21,806
Total 17,055 32,257 45,463 6,544 68,196 217,217 15,876 20,516 4,826 13,222 28,882 31,054 1,217 17,896
As recorded in the 1971 Census
-82 - Page 1 of 2
Table 1.8: EL SALVADOR: INTERNAL MIGRATION
MALE MIGRATION 1950 - 1961
Male Urban Male Urban Survival Predicted Male Hypothesized Net MaleAge Groips Pop. 1950 Age Groups Pop. 1961 Ratio Urban Pop. 1961 Migration 1950-1961
0 - 4 47,'S1 10 - 14 56.899 1.09 51,623 5,276
S - 9 39,875 15 - 19 41,001 .93 37,084 6,917
10 - 14 37,323 20 - 24 38,632 .87 32,471 6,161
15 - 24 63,206 25 - 34 57,768 .85 53,725 4,043
25 - 34 43.373 35 - 44 45,298 1.00 43,373 1,925
35 - 44 35,907 45 - 54 30,864 .82 29,444 1,420
45- 54 23,741 55 - 64 19,751 .82 19,468 283
55- 64 13,044 65 - 74 9,288 .68 8,870 418
65+ 10,216 75+ 5.674 .50 5.108 566
Total 314,046 Total 308,175 .84 281,166 27,009
FEMALE MIGRATION 1950 - 1961
Female Urban Female Urban Survival Predicted Female Hypothesized Net FemarAge Groups Pop. 1950 Age Groups Pop. 1961 Ratio Urban Pop. 1961 Migration 1950-1961
0 - 4 46,551 10 - 14 56,859 1.05 48,879 7,980
5 - 9 40,218 15 - 19 52,741 1.01 40,620 12,121
10 - 14 38,037 20 - 24 48,094 1.05 39,939 8,155
15 - 24 77,941 25 - 34 72,090 .87 67,809 4,281
25 - 34 53,271 35 - 44 55,900 .99 52,738 3,162
35 - 44 43,557 45 - 54 38,819 .83 36,152 2,667
45- 54 29,702 55 - 64 26,066 .83 24,653 1,413
55 - 64 17,393 65 - 74 13,027 .69 12.001 1,026
65+ 14,903 75+ 8.853 .56 8.346 507
Total 361,573 Total 372,449 .88 331,137 41,312
The estimated numbers of migrants are arrived at by applying countrywide age specific survival rates to initial populations.There are problems with this method. If, as seems reasonable to assume, survival rates are higher in the urban areas (becauseof better medical facilities, smaller family sizes, higher incomes, etc.) then the number of migrants may be somewhat overestimated.The census data are, further of poor quality, as evidenced by survival rates greater than one which does not occur unless onehypothesizes large international immigrations. International migration has not been taken into account here as there are noreliable figures on this topic.
Source: Censuses of 1950 and 1961.
- 83 -
Page 2 of 2
Table 1.8: EL SALVADOR: INTERNAL MIGRATION
MALE MIGRATIoN 1961 - 1971
Male Urban Male Urban Survival Predicted Male Hypothesized Net Male
Age Groups PoP 1961 Age Groups Pop. 1971 Ratio Urban Pop. 1971 Migration 1961-1971
O - 4 76,055 10 - 14 90,410 1.11 84,421 5,989
5 - 9 67,610 15 - 19 73,899 .91 61,525 12,374
10 - 14 56,899 20 - 24 60.754 .90 51,209 9,545
15 - 24 82,633 25 - 34 82,664 .95 78,501 4,163
25 - 34 57,768 35 - 44 62.494 1.07 61,812 682
35 - 444 5,298 45 - 54 42,858 .88 39,862 2,996
4 5-4 30,864 55 - 64 27,134 .84 25,926 1,208
55 - 64 19,751 65 - 74 16,253 .73 14,418 1,835
65+ 14,962 75+ 7.889 .4o 7,331 558
Total 451,840 Total 464,355 .94 424,730 39,625
FEMALE MIGRATI0N 1961 - 1971
Female Urban Femle Urban Survival Predicted Female Hypothesized Net Ferms.
Age Groups Pop. 1961 Age Groups Pop. 1971 Ratio Urban Pop. 1971 Migration 1961-1971
0 T 4 75,058 10 - 14 90,603 1.07 80,312 10,311
5 - 9 6T,552 15 - 19 86,272 .97 65,525 20,745
10 - 14 56,859 20 - 24 71.218 1.02 57,996 13,219
15 - 24 100,835 25 - 34 95,410 .93 93,777 1,451
25 - 34 72,090 35 - 44 75,468 1.02 73,532 2,231
35 - 44 55,900 45 - 54 53,204 .87 48,633 4,012
45 - 54 38,819 55 - 64 34,767 .83 32,220 2,856
55 - 64 26,o66 65 - 74 22,332 77 20,071 2,387
65+ 21,880 75+ 12.784 .53 11,596 1,324
Total 515,059 Total 542.058 .95 483,662 48,234
The estimated numbers of migrants are arrived at by applying countrywide age specific survival rates to initial populations.
There are problems with this method. If, as seems reasonable to assume, survival rates are higher in the urban areas (because
of better medical facilities, smaller family sizes, higher incomes. etc.) then the number of mrigrants may be somewhat overestimated.
The census data are, further of poor quality, as evidenced by survival rates greater than one which does not occur unless onehypothesizes large international ismigrations. International migration has not been taken into account here as there are noreliable figures on this topic.
Source- Censuses of 1961 and 1971.
Table 2.1:: EL SALVADOR: TOTAL EMIPLOYMENT BY SECTORS AND INCOME LEVELS. 1975(in percentages)
Electrici- TransportIncome level dad, gas Construc- and Commu- Financial Services L'nspe-(in colones) Agriculture Mining Industry and water tion Commerce nications Services cirieq
w/o renunreration 47.4 23.1 9.4 1.9 4.2 8.4 1.2 0.0 3.2 50.1
1 - 39 3.7 0.0 12.8 0.0 3.0 14.0 1.9 0.0 16.6 3.2
4o - 99 29.7 23.1 21.5 8.7 18.8 27.3 14.4 2.8 26.9 27.4
100 - 100 15.2 23.1 36.6 28.3 48.6 24.5 34.3 17.8 19.0 11.0
200 - 299 1.5 15.4 10.7 23.1 18.6 10.4 18.5 18.3 12.5 4.1
300 - 399 0.7 15.3 3.8 11.1 4.0 7.0 17.2 18.4 10.5 0.0
400 - 599 o.6 0.0 2.7 15.8 1.2 3.8 8.3 17.2 6.2 4.1
600 - 999 0.3 0.0 1.1 8.3 0.9 2.4 1.7 11.9 2.9 0.0
1000 - 1999 o.6 0.0 0.9 2.8 0.5 1.4 2. 8.5 1.5 0.0
2C00 and over 0.3 .0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.h 5.1 0.5 0.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total frequency 58f,016 1,742 120,650 4,307 48,853 212,155 29,663 6,998 207,011 2,888('io. of workers)
co
Table 2.2: EL SALVADOR: URBAN EMPLOYMENT BY SECrORS AND INCOME LEVELS, 1975(in percentages)
Electrici- Transportncome level Total Manufac- ty, gas Construc- and Commu- Financialin colones) Urban Agriculture Mining turing and water tion Commerce nications Services Services Unspecifie4
Jo renume-ration 8.3 ?8.7 0.0 6.8 2.3 3.5 8.8 1.2 0.0 2.9 32.8
1 - 39 10.0 4.8 0.0 9.0 0.0 2.4 11.1 1.9 0.0 14.7 10.6
4o - 99 24.2 35.7 0.0 20.1 0.0 14.7 24.4 14.4 2.8 26.7 24.0
100 - 199 26.1 18.2 0.0 39.1 29.6 47.1 26.3 34.3 17.8 18.0 5.6
200 - 299 13.1 4.2 0.0 12.9 23.5 23.1 11.9 18.5 18.3 13.9 13.4
300 - 399 8.1 1.7 .0.0 4.7 13.0 5.3 7.8 17.2 18.6 11.2 0.0
400 - 599 4.9 1.3 0.0 3.8 18.6 1.6 4.0 8.3 17.2 6.7 .13.4
600 - 999 2.7 1.6 0.0 1.5 9.7 1.2 2.8 1.7 11.9 3.4 0.0
1000 - 1999 1.7 1.3 0.0 1.3 3.2 0.7 1.8 2.01 8.5 1.' 0.0
2000 and over 1.0 2.3 . 0.0 o.8 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.4 5.1 C. 0.0
Total 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1,0.0 10.0 100.0
Total Fre-quency (No.of workers) 569,811 66,061 0 86,498 3.664 34,637 171,303 22,174 6,9'-5S 177,590 8a
100.0 11.6 0.0 15.2 o.6 6.1 30.1 3.9 1.2 31.2 0.2
Source: !MITIHPAAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demograificos, April-July 1975. 1
U'
Table 2.3: EL SALVADOP: PURAL EMPLOYMENT BY SECTORS AND INCOME IEVELS, 1975
(In Percentages)
Electricity Transport and FinancialTotal Agriculture Mininw Industry Gas and Water Construction Commerce Communications Services Services Unspecified
Without Remuneration 41.6 L9.7 23.1 14.7 0.0 6.2 6.6 1.8 0.0 5.1 57.71-39 7.1 3.6 0.0 22.8 0.0 4.8 26.0 3.6 0.0 28.3 0.3140-99 29.4 28.9 23.1 25.3 58.3 28.6 39.6 26.3 0.0 28.2 28.9100-199 17.4 114.8 23.1 30.5 20.8 52.0 16.8 45.1 0.0 25.0 13.4200-299 1.9 1.1 15.4 5.1 20.8 7.4 3.8 6.4 0.0 3.9 0.0300-399 1.3 0.6 15.4 1.7 0.0 0.9 3.5 14.5 0.0 6.4 0.0403-599 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.3 0.0 3.0 0.0600-999 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01000-1999 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02000 and over 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0
Total 100.0 79.9 0.3 5.3 0.1 2.2 6.3 1.2 0.0 4.5 0.3
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demograficos, April-July, 1975
- 87 -
Table 2.41 EL SALVADOR: URBAN EMPLOYMENT; DISTRIBUTIONOF EARNINGS, 1975
Cumulative CumulativeMonthly Number of Income of Percentage PercentageEarnings Individuals Group Individuals Income
WithoutRemuneration 47,047 0 8.3 0
1 - 39 57,207 1,144,140 18.3 .9
40 - 99 137,969 9,657,830 42.5 8.6
100 - 199 148,455 22,268,250 68.6 26.3200 - 299 74,429 18,607,250 81.7 41.1300 - 399 46,115 16,140,250 89.8 53.9400 - 599 27,835 13,917,500 94.7 65.0600 - 999 15,289 12,231,200 97.3 74.81000 - 1999 9,795 4,689,500 99.1 86.5Over 2000 5,672 17,016,000 100.0 100.0
TOTAL 569,811 125,671,920
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Asuntos Demograficos, April-July 1975.
Table 2.5: EL SALVADOR: EMPLOYMENT EARNINGS IN THESAN SALVADOR METROPOLITAN AREA
Cumulative CumulativeMonthly Number of Income of Percentage PercentageIncome Households Group Households Income
(X) (e) M% Mx
WithoutRemuneration 3,808 0 2.7 0
1 - 39 5,236 104,720 6.4 .1
40 - 99 13,090 916,300 15.6 1.2
100 - 199 29,393 4,408,950 36.3 6.6200 - 299 21,539 5,384,750 51.5 13.2300 - 399 14,875 5,206,250 62.0 19.6400 - 599 17,850 8,925,000 74.6 30.6600 - 999 14,518 11,614,400 84.8 44.91000 - 1599 16,710 13,923,000 92.4 62.01600 - 2799 6,664 14,660,800 97.1 80.02800 and over 4,046 16,184,000 100.0 100.0
TOTAL 141,729 81,328,170
Source: MINPLAN-ILO, Encuesta Demografica y de Mano de Obra, Area Metropolitana,Sept. 1974.
- 88 -
Table 2.6: EL SALVADOR: EARNINGS DISTRIBUTION BYAGE OF URBAN WORKERS, 1975
Cumulative Cumulative1/ Number of Income of Percentage Percentage
Age Group - Mean Income Individuals Group Individuals Income
(O) (e) M% M%
10 - 14 25 14,574 367,700 2.6 .315 - 19 77 61,908 4,747,000 13.5 4.120 - 24 165 85,133 14,046,945 28.4 15.3
65 and over 187 26,907 5,025,160 33.1 19.3
25 - 34 244 146,889 35,888,700 58.9 47.845 - 54 267 79,246 21,158,682 72.8 64.755 - 64 270 46,972 12,663,340 81.0 74.735 - 44 293 108,182 31,741,190 100.0 100.0
TOTAL 238 569,811 125,638,717 -
1/ Age groups ranked by mean incomes, not by age.
2/ Slightly different from total in Table 2.4 because of method used. Income ofgroup is computed using mid-point of the income interval.
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demograficos, April-July 1975.
Table 2.7: EL SALVADOR: EARNINGS DISTRIBUTION BYAGE OF FEMALE URBAN WORKERS, 1975
Cumulative CumulativeNumber of Income of Percentage Percentage
Age Group Mean Income Individuals Group Individuals Income
I(¢) (0) (% M%
10 - 14 18 6,694 118,400 2.7 0.315 - 19 69 32,014 2,202,520 15.4 6.5
65 and over 95 8,796 838,870 18.9 8.8
20 - 24 133 42,428 5,623,210 35.7 24.545 - 54 146 33,956 4,959,210 49.1 38.355 - 64 154 17,361 2,670,540 56.0 45.725 - 34 164 64,223 10,530,750 81.4 75.035 - 44 190 47,082 8,938,930 100.0 100.0
TOTAL 142 252,554 35,862,430
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demograficos, April-July 1975.
- 89 -
Table 2.8: EL SALVADOR: EARNINGS DISTRIBUTION OF URBAN
INDUSTRIAL WORKERS, 1975
Cumulative Cumulative
Monthly Number of Income of Percentage Percentage
Earnings Individuals Group Individuals Income
(¢) (e) M% M%
WithoutIncome 5,574 0 7.0 0
1 - 39 7,091 141,820 15.6 9.0
44 - 99 16,016 1,121,120 35.1 7.6
100 - 199 32,315 4,847,250 74.4 36.8
200 - 299 10,622 2,655,500 87.3 52.8
300 - 399 4,104 1,436,400 92.3 61.4
400 - 599 3,288 1,644,000 96.3 71.3
600 - 999 1,209 967,200 97.8 77.2
1000 - 1999 1,150 1,725,000 99.2 87.6
2000 and over 689 2,067,000 100.0 100.0
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demograficos, April-
July 1979.
Table 2.9: EL SALVADOR: EARNINGS DISTRIBUTION OF URBAN
COMMERCE WORKERS, 1975
Cumulative Cumulative
Monthly Number of Income of Percentage Percentage
Earnings Individuals Group Individuals Income
_~~~~~~~~~~~~ M
WithoutIncome 15,030 0 9.1 0
1 - 39 18,035 360,700 20.0 1.0
40 - 99 40,219 2,815,330 44.2 8.8
100 - 199 43,715 6,557,250 70.6 27.1
200 - 299 19,515 4,878,750 82.4 40.6
300 - 399 13,258 4,640,300 90.4 53.5
400 - 599 6,647 3,323,300 94.4 62.8
600 - 999 4,751 3,800,800 97.3 73.3
1000 - 1999 3,039 4,558,500 99.1 86.0
2000 and over 1,677 5,031,000 100.0 100.0
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demograficos, April-
July, 1975.
Table 2.10: EL SALVADOR: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF URBAN WORKERS BY INCOME ANDTYPE OF ACTIVITY: FORMAL AND INFORMAL, 1975
Monthly Income (in Colones)Type of Without 2000Activity Remuneration 1-39 40-99 100-199 200-299 300-399 400-599 600-999 1000-1999 -nd over TOTAL
INFORMALSelf-Employed 7.91 15.43 31.78 22.70 9.09 5.96 3.36 2.04 1.11 .62 150,789Domestics 1.31 33.87 61.19 3.24 0 .19 .19 0 0 0 61,231Family Workers w/o Remuneration 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,972
ALL INFORMALFrequency 44,705 44,003 85,379 36,218 13,714 9,105 5,182 3,080 1,668 938 243,992
Percentage 18.32 18.04 35.00 14.84 5.62 3.73 2.12 1.26 0.68 0.38 100.00
FORMALWhite-collar
fixed wage .17 2.36 6.46 28.68 23.93 17.42 10.64 5.70 3.39 1.26 168,575White-collar
piecework .35 6.44 16.70 32.49 20.64 9.0 5.13 6.73 2.52 0 14,140Blue-collar
fixed wage .57 4.71 26.48 50.94 12.18 2.70 1.56 0.70 0.16 0 73,900Blue-collarpiecework 1.39 8.15 34.52 36.56 12.82 4.38 1.59 0.38 0.21 0 56,188
Proprietors 6.06 2.00 2.93 8.54 9.66 14.69 15.01 6.96 13.94 20.11 13,016
ALL INFORMALFrequency 44,705 44,003 85,379 36,21& 13,714 9,105 5,182 3,080 1,668 938 243,992Percentage 18.32 18.04 35.00 14.84 5.62 3.73 2.12 1.26 0.68 0.38 100.00
ALL FORMALFrequency 2,342 13.204 52,590 112,237 60,715 37,010 22,653 12,209 8,125 4,734 325,819Percentage .72 4.05 16.14 34.44 18.64 11.36 6.95 3.75 2.49 1.45 100.00
TOTAL 47,047 57,207 137,969 148.455 74,429 46,115 27,835 15,289 - 9,793 5,672 569,811Percentage 8.26 10.04 24.21 26.05 13.06 8.09 4.89 2.68 1.72 1.00 100.00
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demograficos, April-July 1975.
o ~ ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z CC'
* CD I0 CO o0 o 'o o0 oO CD ~
o .o 0 . -oC -* wC .O 0 .4C -4 * .C-D.
00( OO OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 00 00 O P0
CD r CC 00 00 CCP C.° 0° FI- 0 s 0 (-'0< n'(
'- o O~ -4 0C O uO 00 00 r0 -o4 wC 0-4 Ux o
CD rQ to 00 00 F0 °w' 00 .°C '0 .°C . v D O-' 0
P D N/1DO 31- 0 (SNsk ' CO 0' W H 0
I~~~ ~~ ~ '> *Co ,w r D 'C C§ - *D . D
00' ~ C oC o '0 'P '0 r oCr O 'r. 0CoD C.Or
° ro ° ° H w .H . v} owo o .° ro ° D
rvo o o o o rn r o ~o kn s s rrm ro o r - C
° 0: CC 0 C CC C C OD -o w° rH f g H x °,
w~~ ~ ~~ Ho H oi rP oRoW o, °e>~og g lW
000 0 o0 CC 0 O 0 C0 C I
0 0Z .- n 0r IC
- @e O> O r 8 o >- - .OC ° -o Nt~ Co (CC
H Ip00 H6 C j pr -r rDDD CCIw u
Table 2.12: EL SALVADOR: MONTHLY EARNINGS IN FORMAL AND INFORMAL URBAN ACTIVITIESBY EARNINGS AND SEX, 1975
w/1 renuue-39Monthly Earnings in colonesration 1-39 0-99 100-199 200-299 300-399 400-599 600-999 1000-1999 2000 + TOTAL
INFORMALMale 11472 5346 15191 15700 7794 5292 3823 2252 1232 844 68946
Self-employed 16.6 7.8 22.0 22.8 11.3 7.7 5.5 3.3 1.8 1.2 100.0Female 457 17916 32723 18535 5920 3694 1240 828 436 94 81843
.6 21.9 40.0 22.6 7.2 4.5 1.5 1.0 .5 .1 100.0
Male 100 0 324 198 0 0 0 0 0 0 622Domestics 16.1 0.0 52.1 31.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Female 704 20741 37141 1785 0 119 0 0 0 0 606091.2 34.2 61.3 2.9 0.0 .2 .2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Family workers Male 14521 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14521W/oily workers 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0w/o renum. Female 17451 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17451
100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
FORMALWhite collar Male 291 694 5049 31847 24789 15730 11392 6951 5239 1998 103980fixed collag 0.3 0.7 4.9 30.6 23.8 15.1 11.0 6.7 5.0 1.9 100.0fixed wage Female 0 3276 5832 16493 15549 13641 6537 2667 476 119 64595
0.0 5.1 9.0 25.5 24.1 21.1 10.1 4.1 0.7 0.2 100.0
White collar 50 338 1836 3257 2551 1221 607 714 357 0 10931by piece 5 3.1 1t).8 41.7 11.4 1.6 3.7 7.4 0.0 0.0 100.D
0 572 526 1337 367 50 119 238 0 0 32090.3 17.8 16.4 41.7 11.4 1.6 3.7 7.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
Blue collar Male 368 2369 16097 29870 8563 1910 1031 520 0 0 60728fixed wage o.6 3.9 26.5 49.2 14.1 3.1 1.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 100.0Female 50 1115 3469 7778 436 86 119 0 119 0 13172
0.4 8.5 26.3 59.1 3.3 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 100.0
Blue collar Male 695 2400 15570 17772 6633 2201 612 119 119 0 ' 46121by piece 1.5 5.2 33.8 38.5 14.4 4.8 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 100.0female 86 3181 3924 2771 570 259 282 9.9 0. 0 10067
0.9 21.7 38.0 27.5 5.7 2.6. 2.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 100.0
Proprietors Male 683 79 144 943 1092 1545 1584 906 1815 2617 114086.o 0.7 1.3 8.3 9.6 13.5 13.9 7.9 15.9 22.9 100.0Female 119 180 238 169 165 367 370 0 0 0 16087.4 11.2 14.8 10.5 10.3 22.8 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 190.0
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demograficos, April-July 1975.
Table 2.13: EL SALVADOR: URBAN EMPLOYMENT BY SECTORS AND EDUCATION, 1975(in percentages)
University andBssic Secondary Other
Total Total Self- (Years) (Years) (Years)
(Frequency) Illiterates Literates educated 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-16 17-over
Agriculture 66,061 37.5 62.5 4.8 26.8 21.2 4.2 3.8 1.3 0.4
Manufacturing 86,498 8.3 91.7 1.8 11.8 46.1 17.9 8.8 1.5 o.8
Electricity, gasand water 3.664 4.7 95.3 0.0 23.5 26.1 15.1 24.1 3.2 3.2
Construction 34,637 12.3 87.7 4.4 25.0 46.5 8.6 2.2 0.7 0.3
Commerce 171,303 19.5 80.5 2.2 20.6 30.3 12.2 13.2 1.8 0.3
Transport andCommunication 22,174 7.4 92.6 1.8 20.1 44.6 17.3 8.2 0.5 0.0
Financial services 6.998 0.0 100.0 0.0 2.4 14.3 18.1 50.2 13.2 1.7
Services 177,590 14.2 85.8 2.7 17.2 27.0 11.9 20.0 4.2 2.9
Unspecified 886 21.2 78.8 0.0 38.5 0.0 13.4 26.9 0.0 0.0
Total 569,811 17.0 83.0 2.7 19.4 31.9 12.1 13.2 2.5 1.2
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demograficos, April-July 1975.
l0
- 94 -
Table 2.14: EL SALVADOR: URBAN LABOR FORCE AND EDUCATION LEVELS, 1975
Monthly Cumulative CumulativeMean Income percent of percent of
Level of Income Number of of Group Individuals IncomeEducation (i) Individuals (W) (#) (#)
Self-educated 141 15,154 2,142,420 20 9
1 - 3 years 130 110,691 14,435,300 39 20
4 - 6 " 165. 181,699 29,890,940 72 44
7 - 9 226 69,077 15,634,990 84 56
10 - 12 " 445 75,405 33,555,890 97 83
13 - 16 " 817 14,018 11,450,600 99 92
17 or more 1,445 6,911 9,988,200 100 100
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demograficos, April-July 1975.
Table 2.15: EL SALVADOR: URBAN INDUSTRIAL LABOR FORCE AND EDUCATION LEVELS, 1975
Monthly Cumulative CumulativeLiteracy Mean Income of percentage percentageand level Income Number of Group Individuals Incomeof Education (0) Individuals (0) (%) (%)
Illiterates 97 7,220 696,740 8.3 4.1
Self-educated 222 1,593 353,540 10.2 6.1
1 - 3 years 148 12,700 1,874,840 24.9 17.0
4 - 6 " 142 39,884, 5,649,710 71.9 50.0
7 - 9 178 15,496 2,758,590 89.9 66.o
10 - 12 " 454 7,582 3,442,060 97.7 86.1
13 - 16 " 845 1,309 1,106,700 99.1 92.5
17 and more 1,792 714 1,279,250 100.0 100.0
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demograficos, April-July 1975.
- 95 -
Table 2.16: EL SALVADOR: URBAN LABOR FORCE IN CONSTRUCTION BYEDUCATION LEVELS, 1975
Monthly Cumulative CumulativeMean Income of percentage percentage
Level of Income Number of Group Individuals of IncomeEducation (i) Individuals (i) (%)
Illiterates 164 4,248 695,520 12.3 10.2
Self-educated 167 1,520 254,150 16,7 14.0
1 - 3 years 187 8,671 1,619,950 41.7 37.8
4 - 6 " 171 16,114 2,761,710 88.2 78.4
7 - 9 " 173 2,963 514,000 96.8 86.o
10 -12 " 652 764 498,350 99.0 93.3
13 -16 " 1.150 238 273,700 99.7 97.4
17 and over 1.500 119 178,500 100.0 100.0
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demograficos, April-July 1975.
- 96 -
Table 2.1T: EL SALVADOR: URBAN EMPLOYMENT BY WEEKLY WORKING HOURS, 1975
Monthly Income HOURS(#) Total -12 15-34 35-48 49-59 60 and over
MALE TOTAL 308,257
Without Remuneration 8.9 0.9 11.1 65.9 9.2 12.91-39 3.4 7.8 21.1 48.9 6.2 16.140-99 17.0 2.1 13.4 66.2 6.1 12.1100-199 31.2 1.4 4.6 70.8 8.3 14.9200-299 16.2 0.0 4.7 70.5 7.2 17.6300-399 8.4 0.0 6.0 67.1 12.0 14.9400-599 6.1 1.9 2.6 73.4 9.7 12.4600-999 3.6 0.8 2.8 72.8 10.1 13.51000-1999 2.8 0.9 0.0 74.5 6.2 18.42000 and over 1.7 0.0 2.3 42.9 12.9 41.9
TOTAL 100.0 1.3 7.0 68.3 8.3 15.1
FEMALE TOTAL 245,174
Without Remuneration 7.6 0.0 16.8 40.9 9.9 32.41-39 18.0 5.6 11.9 26.7 7.4 48.440-99 33.1 1.7 10.5 25.7 7.8 54.3100-199 19.3 o.6 5.9 59.9 11.2 22.5200-299 9.0 0.0 8.5 73.1 5.0 13.4300-399 7.4 0.7 17.2 62.3 6.4 13.5400-599 3.5 0.0 5.1 75.8 2.9 16.2600-999 1.5 0.0 0.0 65.6 8.0 26.41000-1999 0.4 0.0 11.5 89.8 0.0 7.72000 and over 0.1 0.0 55.9 0.0 0.0 44.1
TOTAL 100.0 1.7 10.4 43.2 8.o 36.8
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos DemograficosApril-July, 1975.
Table 2.18: EL SALVADOR: DISTRIBUTION OF URBAN UNEMPLOYED BYV.MMr.ATION ACCORDING TO TYPE OF ACTIVITY, 1975
Occupational Self-Category Illiterates Educated 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-16 17 and over Total
INFORMAL
Self-employed 0 0 213 443 0 0 0 0 656% o.o % o.o % 32.5 67.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8
Domestics 476 0 763 774 0 0 0 0 2,013%23.6 0.0 37.9 38.5 0.0 O.o 0.0 0;0 7.0
Family Workers 0 0 100 198 0 0 0 0 298w/o renumeration % 0.0 0.0 33.6 66.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
FORMAL
White Collar 144 0 972 3929 2948 2192 0 0 10,185Fixed wage % 1.4 0.0 9.5 38.6 28.9 21.5 0.0 0.0 35.3
White collar 0 0 0 198 50 169 0 0 417by piece % 0.0 0.0 O.O 47.5 12.0 4o.5 0.0 0.0 4.9
Blue collar 1307 299 1717 3819 1720 426 0 0 9,288Fixed wage %14.1 3.2 18.5 41.1 18.5 4.6 0.0 0.0 32.2
Blue collar 1920 94 1563 1451 846 119 0 0 5,997by piece %32.1 1.6 26.1 24.2 14.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 20.8
Proprietors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0over ¢ 600 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ALL INFORMAL
Frequency 476 0 1076 1613 50 169 0 0 3,384Percentage %14.1 0.0 31.8 47.7 1.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 11.7
ALL FORMAL
Frequency 3375 393 4252 9199 5514 2737 0 0 25,470Percentage %13.3 1.5 16.7 36.1 21.6 10.7 0.0 0.0 88.3
Without Experience 259 3584 3727 3917 119 0 12,499
TOTAL 4110 393 6102 10812 5564 2906 0 0 41,353%13.3 1.4 18.5 37.5 19.3 10.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demogr&ficos, April-July 1975.
- 98 -
Table 2.12: OCCUPATION BY SECTORS IN LOW-INCOME SELENTS,SBMA, SANTA ANA AND SAN MIWEL
SSMA Santa Ana
SSMA, SANTA ANA AND SAN MIGUEL, 1975 1977 1976Total Mesones Colonias Tugurios Mesones Popular
Ilegales Colonias RousingIlegales
(p e r c e n t a g e s )
Agriculture 2.2 1.3 i.4 6.4 1.0 7.6Manufacturing 21.0 24.2 17.6 13.9 31.0 18.1Construction 10.9 8.0 14.0 17.4 16.0 11.6Services 27.9 26.0 36.3 20.1 20.0 25.7Commerce 30.6 34.0 23.0 34.6 13.0 26.7Transport 3.5 3.0 3.2 5.7 7.0 8.2Electricity, gas and water 1.5 1.0 3.5 - - 1.4Financial services 1.7 2.5 - 1.8 - 1.0
Employed 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Unemployed 16.3 18.6 20.0 n.a 11.2Employed 83.7 81.4 80.0 n.a 89.8
Economically Active Population 100.0 100.0 100.0 n.a 100.0
Monthly Income (0)
Household Income (Average) 228 309 213 -- 293SSMA 232 325 227 349 -San Miguel 196 217 161 -
233 235 134 _
p e r c e n t a g e s)Working Place
Private Firms 41.2 n.a n.a n.a 64.o 28.8Government 24.9 n.a n.a n.a n.a 15.3Own business 25.8 n.a n.a n.a 4.0 37.4Street vender 7.8 n.a n.a n.a 6.o n.aOther O.S n.a n.a n.a 26.o 18.5
100.0 n.a n.a n.a 100.0 100.0
Source: FSDVM, La Vivienda Popular Urbana en El Salvador, 1975, Caracteristicas Socio-econ6micas del Sector deMenos Ingresos en la Ciudad de Santa Ana, 1976, and Caracterfaticas del Acceso de los Pobres a ViviendaPopular (Estudio de Demanda Habitacional para Apopa), 1977.
Page 1 of 2
Table 2.20: EL SALVADOR: EARNINGS IN URBANAND RURAL AREAS BY OCCUPATIONS
Workers Low Income FamiliesMonthly Income Urban Urban San Salvador San Salvador San Miguel San Miguel 1 Santa Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural
Informal Formal households heads of house- households heads of house- Sonsonate Usulutan SSMA Ana 1/ Agri- Com- Ser- Cons- Industry1975 holds 1975 1975 holds 1975 1976 1976 *77 1976 culture merce vices truction
Without Income 18.3 0.7 0.5 - - - - - 49.8 5.7 5.1 6.2 14.7
1-99 53.0 20.1 21.1 26.9 39.5 50.2 19.7 13.4 6.7 15.6 32.5 65.6 56.5 33.4 40.1100- 99 14.8 34.4 40.2 43.0 43.4 31.8 24.0 28.9 23.2 27.3 14.8 16.8 25.0 52.0 30.5
200-299 5.6 18.6 24.2 23.2 11.5 9.9 18.1 34.0 30.0 22.9 1.1 3.8 3.9 7.4 5.0
300-399 3.7 11.4 6.4 4.3 8.o 6.3 14.0 7.2 17.2 16.6 o.6 3.5 6.4 1.0 1.7
400-500 2.1 7.0 6.3 2.6 2.6 1.3 16.5 16.5 16.1 10.9 o.4 2.8 3.1 - -
600-999 1.3 3.8 1.4 2.6 2.5 1.3 6.8 16.5 6.4 6.7 0.2 0.8 - - -
1000 and over 1.0 2.5 - - - - 1.0 - - o.6 - - - -
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Average Income 129.1 215.9 201.9 162.5 176.2 130.4 203.0 245.6 299.9 248.5 61.0 93.0 112.0 116.7 88.3
1/ Working members as follows: Sonsonate 1.43, Santa Ana 1.78.
Source: MINPLAN, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demograficos, April-July 1975.FSDVM, La Vivienda Popular en El Salvador, 1975.FSDVM, Caracteristicas Socio-economicas del Sector de Menos Insresos en la Ciudad de Santa Ana, 1976.FSDVM, Caracteristicas del Acceso de los Pobres a la Vivienda Popular, Estudio de Demands Habitacional para Apopa, 1978.FSDVM, The Mutual Help Process in Sonsonate.
'0
- 100 - Page 2 of 2
Table 2.20: EL SALVADOR: EARNINGS IN URBANAND RURAL AREAS BY OCCUPATIONS
Non-Rural Rural Rural in AgricultureAverage Average Average
Workers Income Workers Income Workers Income(thousands) (¢) (thousands) (¢) (thousands) (¢)
Family workersw/o remuneration 31.9 0 135.4 0 125.4 n.a.
Self-employed 150.8 166 228.4 63 172.7 n.a.
Domestics 61.2 56 10.7 39 .4 n.a.
Workers onpiecework 56.2 141 96.3 91 78.0 n.a.
Workers onfixed wage 168.6 346 36.0 158 16.9 n.a.
Employees onpiecework 14.1 262 4.6 132 1.9 n.a.
Employees onfixed wages 168.6 346 36.0 158 16.9 n.a.
Employers 13.0 873 6.9 260 5.3 n.a.
TOTAL 569.8 238 650.5 70 520.0 61
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, Encuesta Nacional de Mano de Obra y Aspectos Demogra-ficos, April-July 1975.
Table 2.21: EL SALVADOR: MINIMUM WAGES IN URBAN OCCUPATIONS 1!(in colones per day)
MONEY WAGES PERCENTAGE CHANGE CPI
Industry and Industry and (June 1954 % change
Decree of: Services Commerce Services Commerce = 100) CPI
Other Muni- Other Muni- Other Muni- Other Muni-SSMA cipalities SSMA cipalities SSMA cipalities SSMA cipalities
Oct. 9,1967 3.20 2.80 - - - - - - 108.4 -
Jan. 8,1970 3.20 2.80 3.50 3.20 - - - - 114.0 5
Jul.16,1973 4.10 3.60 4.50 3.80 28 29 29 19 123.8 9 0
Jul.16,1974 5.15 4.50 5.50 4.60 26 25 22 21 144.7 17
Dec.11,1975 6.20 5.50 6.50 5.60 20 18 18 22 172.2 19
Dec.23,1977 7.00 6.10 7.20 6.20 13 11 11 11 206.1 20
Oct.27,197 8 7.00 6.10 7.20 6.20 - - - - 233.5 13
July ,1979 7.00 6.10 9.00 8.oo - - 25 29 289.5 24
Dec. 1979 9.00 8.00 9.00 8.00 29 31 - - 307.2 6
Inrease 1973-79 - - - - 120 122 100 111 - 134
1/ Excludes fringe benefits for seventh day, four-hours Saturday, ISSS, F.S.V., paid vacations, and Christmas bonus.
Source: Ministry of Labor.
- 102 -
Table 2.22: EL SALVADOR: AVERAGE WAGES IN INDUSTRIAL OCCUPATION8
Average WrneyIndustry Wage Per Hour Average Real Wage Per Hour
(colones) (June 1973-100)Men Women Men Women
June 1973 (SSMA)Manufacturing 1.03 .81 1.03 .81Food Products 1.10 .62 1.10 .62Beverages 1.21 .66 1.21 .66Textiles 1.o8 .98 1.o8 .98
Dec. 1973 (SSMA)Manufacturing 1.o8 .91 1.08 .91Food Products 1.19 .77 1.19 .77Beverages 1.20 .68 1.20 .68Textiles 1.12 1.02 1.12 1.02
June 1974 (SSMA)Manufacturing 1.10 .90 .94 .77Food Products 1.19 .73 1.02 .62Beverages 1.27 .71 1.09 .61Textiles 1.20 1.02 1.03 .87
Dec. 1974 (ssMA)Manufacturing 1.21 1.00 1.04 .86Food Products 1.24 .80 1.o6 .68Beverages 1.42 .85 1.21 .72Textiles 1.26 1.13 1.07 .97
June 1975 (Central Region)Manufacturing 1.13 .99 .81 .71Food Products, Beverages and Tobacco 1.43 1.12 1.03 .81Textiles, Apparel 1.23 1.01 .88 .73
Dec. 1975 (Central Region)Manufacturing 1.21 1.10 .87 .79Food Products, Beverages and Tobacco 1.64 1.40 1.18 1.00Textiles and Apparel 1.27 1.12 .91 .81
June 1976 (Central Region)Manufacturing e .42 1.26 .95 .85Food Products, Beverages and Tobacco 1.54 1.11 1.03 .75Textiles, Apparel and Leather goods - 1.37 1.19 .92 .80
Dec. 1976 (Central Region)Manufacturing 1.49 1.28 1.00 .86Food Products, Beverages and Tobacco 1.61 1.10 1.08 .74Textiles, Apparel and Leather goods 1.41 1.24 .95 .83
June 1977 (Cfntral Region)Manufacturing 1.58 1.25 .95 .75Food Products, Beverages and Tobacco 1.67 1.11 1.00 .60Textiles, Apparel and Leather goods 1.59 1.30 .96 .78
Dec. 1977 (Central Reglcm)Manufacturing 1.58 1.26 .83 .66Food Products, Beverages and Tobacco 1.64 1.12 .86 .59Textiles, Apparel and Leather goods 1.62 1.30 .85 .68
Source: Ministry of Labor, Estadisticasdel Trabajo.
- 103 -
Table 2.23: EL SALVADOR: REAL WAGES INURBAN OCCUPATIONS 1/
(in colones)
Minimum DailyReal Wage SSMA Average Wages
Manufacturing, Manufacturing (men)From Services Commerce Period (June 1973=100)
------ (1973=100)---
July 16, 1973 4.10 4.50 June 1973 1.03
July 16, 1974 4.41 4.71 June 1974 .94
July 11, 1975 4.46 4.67 June 1975 .81
Dec 23, 1977 4.20 4.32 Dec. 1977 .83
December 1978 3.71 3.82 Dec. 1978 n.a.
June 1979 3.26 2/ 3.34 June 1979 n.a.
July 1979 3.26 2/ 4.18 July 1979 n.a.
n.a. = not available
1/ Deflated by the San Salvador consumer price index.2/ No change has been reported in minimum wages for industry and
services since December 23, 1977. Wage adjustments, however, have takenplace in certain industries in response to workers' unrest and demands.
Source: MINPLAN.
Table 2.24: EL SALVADOR: CORNd TERMS OF TRADE, 1968-1978(1973 = 100)
IRA farm pricesindex IRA Ratio Farm Ratio Farm Ratio Retail
Guaranteed to Retail Consumers' Price Index to Price Ipdex to Corn Price IndexMaximum registered Prices Price Retail Price Consumer Price to Consumers'
Year producers Index SSMA Index Index Index Price Index
1968 100 100 81 91 123 110 89
1969 100 100 69 90 145 111 77
1970 100 100 69 92 145 109 75
1971 95 95 63 92 151 103 68
1972 79 84 63 94 125 84 67
1973 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1974 100 105-178 113 117 88 85 97
1975 174 179-200 119 141 146 123 84
1976 179 179-200 125 151 143 119 83
1977 237 200-221 163 164 145 145 99
1978 229 232 181 182 127 126 99
Source: MINPLAN, Indicadores Economicos y Sociales
Hl
Table 2.25: EL SALVADOR: EARNINGS OF WORKERS IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM,- 1976
Monthly Earnings in Colones
Up to 137 to 201-to 226 to 251 to 276 to 301 to 326 to 351 to 376 to 401 to 426 to 451 to 476 to 501 to 526 to 551 to 576 to 601 to 626 to 651 to 676 toDEPAhIMENT 186 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 075 hoo 325 h50n 475 Non S2S 550 57C 600 625 650 675 7WY TOTAT.
San Salvador 27,457 11,664 12,983 10,111 7,128 6,343 3,171 4,154 3,458 3,052 2,418 2,069 1,697 1,885 1,202 1,318 982 1,160 651 836 753 9,947 115,439La Libertad 5,814 860 875 709 518 552 274 287 191 194 103 120 73 91 50 93 125 51 15 50 34 326 11,405Chalatenango 223 14 18 16 4 7 10 9 4 2 1 1 0 3 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 9 335Cuscatlan 917 143 188 107 102 67 55 64 44 32 15 14 22 13 11 4 8 8 2 7 10 39 1,872Cabanas 341 25 75 107 92 116 109 116 95 149 62 67 59 46 60 112 48 43 39 57 76 376 2,270San Vicente 1,598 211 174 144 55 48 52 54 21 36 16 15 16 8 11 12 4 7 8 14 4 58 2,566La Paz 845 105 133 133 79 54 53 51 34 30 23 18 11 13 6 12 6 10 1 1 1 45 1,664San Miguel 3,524 401 717 546 333 308 181 148 89 107 56 49 51 59 33 28 16 33 16 12 17 208 6,932Usulutan 3,269 448 447 262 218 220 140 138 91 83 55 56 33 42 36 34 32 35 27 17 13 93 5,789Morazan 317 96 91 87 35 44 13 24 6 5 7 8 8 11 5 5 4 3 4 2 4 22 801La Union 603 93 237 184 166 87 98 47 73 30 29 21 21 18 21 24 16 16 12 15 17 37 1,866Santa Ana 7,811 891 1,029 747 567 533 320 294 232 249 166 178 196 133 87 81 42 66 34 40 89 388 14,173Sonsonato 2,912 412 552 435 433 359 305 347 266 207 146 169 153 133 130 135 155 203 172 155 458 367 8,604Ahuachapan 1,570 116 138 99 77 91 56 67 40 38 10 45 13 20 8 12 14 17 2 7 41 57 2,538
TOTAL 57,2D3 15,479 17,657 13,687 9,807 8,829 5,837 5,800 I6 3,124 3,107 2,830 2,353 2,475 1,662 1,871 1,453 1,653 986 1,215 1,519 11,972 176,234
V/ Based on the contributions for May, June, and July, 1976.
Source: Fondo Social de la Vivienda
1/ .
Table 2.26: EL SALVAktD: EARNINGS OF WORKERS IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, 1977 0
Monthly Earnings in colones
151 to 201 to 251 to 301 to 351 to 401 to 451 to 501 to 551 to 601 to 651 toDEPAlTMENT Up to 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 TOTAL
San Salvador 15,330 19,984 24,972 17,334 12,914 9,225 6,921 5,057 3,411 2,803 1,893 14,915 134,719La Libertad 2,509 5,154 2,801 1,383 872 578 374 304 167 157 124 780 15,203Chalatenango 250 155 74 72 31 31 8 9 5 8 6 30 689Cuscatlan 155 352 119 68 44 25 13 9 6 7 7 40 845La Paz 386 577 345 256 200 94 87 172 47 59 50 172 2,335Cabanas 155 127 99 125 81 65 66 56 29 32 22 166 1,023San Vicente 212 312 203 167 89 54 45 43 29 32 11 76 1,273San Miguel 1,536 2,299 1,088 813 483 258 168 145 71 70 72 329 7,332Usulutan 1,921 1,688 847 449 316 211 161 98 60 53 34 167 6,005Morazan 55 1l30 208 106 44 25 15 16 10 7 4 24 674La Union 826 452 341- 135 87 32 22 23 10 7 6 48 1,989Santa Ana 2,458 3,950 2,041 1,356 828 585 420 431 196 181 95 701 13,232Sonsonate 1,896 2,101 1,156 912 703 532 505 328 253 227 242 932 9,787Ahuachapan 1,081 1,405 440 267 162 104 88 77 54 37 25 116 3,856
TOTAL 28,730 38,716 34,734 23,443 16,854 11,819 8,893 S,768 4,348 3,680 2,551 18,496 199,082
1/ Based on contributions for July 1977
Source: Fondo Social de la Vivienda
Table 2.27: EL SALVADOR: EARNINGS OF WORKERS IN THESOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM BY REGIONS, 1977
Monthly Earnings in colones
151 to 201 to 251 to 301 to 351 to 401 to 451 to 501 to 551 to 601 to 651 toAREA Uo to 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 TOTAL
Central 19,007 26,661 28,613 19,405 14,231 10,072 7,514 5,650 3,694 3,098 2,073 16,179 156,197
Oriental 4,338 4,599 2,484 1,503 930 526 366 282 151 137 116 568 16,000
Occidental 5,435 7,456 3,637 2,535 1,693 1,221 1,015 836 503 445 362 1,749 26,885
TOTAL 28,700 38,716 34,734 23,443 16,854 11,819 8,893 6,768 4,348 3,680 2,551 18,496 199,082
1/ Based on Contributions for July 1977.
Source: Fondo Social de la Vivienda
0
Table 3.1: EL SALVADOR: SALVADORIAN HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME, 1976-77(number and percentages)
Households
r'ercentage IilstrioutionMonthly Income () Total Country Total Rural Total Urban Urban Non-SSMA SSMA Countr-y Rural Urban Total Urban Non-ESMA SSMA
Without Income 1,736 - 1,736 556 1,180 0.2 - 0.5 0.3 o.81-49 23,922 18,532 5,390 4,800 590 3.0 4.2 1.5 2.3 0.450-99 74,833 55,908 18,925 15,090 3,835 9.4 12.8 5.3 7.4 2.5100-199 228,361 163,521 64,840 50,385 14,455 28.7 37.5 18.0 24.6 9.4200-299 147,812 87,252 60,560 38,435 22,125 18.6 20.0 16.8 18.7 14.2300-599 194,942 85,740 109,202 56,692 52,510 24.5 19.7 30.4 27.6 33.9600-999 76,728 18,679 58,049 25,599 32,450 9.6 4.3 16.1 12.5 21.01000-1999 37,709 5,309 32,400 11,750 20,650 4.7 1.2 9.0 5.7 13.42000-3999 10,025 1,451 8,574 1,789 6,785 1.3 0.3 2.4 0.9 4.4
TOTAL 796,068 436,392 359,676 205,096 154,580 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: MINPIAN, DIGFSTIC, and Banco Central, Caracterfsticas de los Hogares y de las Viviendas, May 1979.
Table 3.2: EL SALVADOR: CUMULATIVE HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION, 1976-77 o
(percentages)
El Salvador Total UrbanDeciles Total Rural Urban Non-SSMA SSMA Agricultural Non-Agricultural
1 2.1 2.7 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.8 i.92 5.8 7.3 5.5 6.8 6.5 7.3 5.63 10.4 12.9 10.7 11.5 11.9 13.0 10.14 15.8 19.6 16.4 18.1 18.0 19.3 16.35 22.5 27.5 23.7 25.8 25.2 26.9 23.16 30.5 36.4 32.8 34.6 34.4 35.4 -1.17 39.6 46.7 43.4 46.4- 44.7 45.1 1.18 52.3 58.4 56.1 59.8 54.8 57.2 55.29 68.7 72.8 69.9 75.4 69.4 71.0 69.610 100.0 100.0 100.0 1C.0 100.0 100.0 lCC.0
Top 5% 21.4 17.5 19.9 14.9 20.6 19.8 2^.4Top 1S 7.4 71 7.T4 5.6 7.2 7.2 7.4
Cini Coefficient .413 .356 .385 .342 .372 .344 .391
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Central Bank, Distribucion del Ingreso por Deciles de Femilias, August 1976-Ju_y1977.
- 108 -
Table 3.3: EL BALVADOR: CUMULATIVE RECIPIENT INCOME DISTRIBUTION, ;976-77
(percentnges)
El SatlyAor Total UrbanDeciles Total Rural Urban Non-SSMA SSKA A&ricultural Non-Agricultural
1 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 C.82 2.8 3.2 2.9 2.9 3.5 3.1 2.93 6.1 7.0 6.3 6.3 7.3 6.8 6.14 10.6 12.2 11.0 11.1 12.1 12.0 10.75 16.4 19.0 . 16.9 17.3 17.9 18.7 16.66 23.6 27.1 24.1 24.9 25.1 26.6 24.07 .32.4 36.7 33.2 34.3 33.9 36.0 33.08 43.7 48.7 44.9 46.8 45.2 47.4 44.89 59.9 64.2 61.3 63.8 60.7 62.2 61.3
10 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Top 5% 27.9 '24.9 26.8 23.8 27.8 27.2 26.8Top 1% 12.6 10.3 10.7 8.5 11.6 11.9 11.0
Gini Coefficient .507 .462 .497 .483 .487 .473 .500
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, And Central Bank, Distribucidn del Ingreso por Deciles de Percentores, Nov. 1978
Table 3.4: EL SALVADOR: INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF HEADS OF HOLSEHOLDS, 1976-77
(percentages)
El Salvador Total UrbanDeciles Total Rural Urban Non-SSMA SSMA Agricultural Non-Agricultural
1 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.02 3.7 4.7 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.7 3.L3 7.5 9.2 7.3 7.8 7.9 9.2 6.94 12.3 15.0 12.1 13.0 12.7 14.9 11.85 18.1 21.9 17.9 19.4 18.8 21.5 17.76 25.0 30.0 25.1 26.8 26.0 29.1 2L.87 33.5 39.3 34.1 36.4 34.8 37.9 33.58 44.5 50.4 45.6 48.1 45.4 48.3 45.29 60.2 65.0 61.4 64.7 60.6 62.3 61.1
10 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 lC0.0
Top 5% 27.9 24.7 26.7 23.0 27.4 27.1 27.1Top 1% 11.4 10.4 10.6 8.1 10.7 11.3 ll.C
Gini Coefficient .488 .423 .484 .458 .477 .4L1 L8g
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Central Bank, Distribuci6n del Ingreso por Deciles de Ferceptcres, August 1976-july1977.
Table 3.5: EL SALVADOR: MONTHLY EXPENDITURES OF LOW INCOMEHOUSEHOLDS IN POPULAR HOUSING
(in colones)
San 1/ San I/ 1/ Santa2/ San San SantaSalvador- Miguel- Sonsonate- Ana - Salvador Miguel Sonsonate Ana
(mean values by categories) (percentage structure)
Food 135.91 122.78 151.36 106.33 62.3 66.7 50.7 57.4
Housing 23.88 18.37 21.84 20.45 10.9 10.0 7.3 11.0Transport 14.42 5.19 5.72 5.56 6.6 2.8 1.9 3.0
Water 2.44 0.05 .81 1.90 1.1 0.0 0.3 1.0Electricity 2.95 2.65 3.26 4.25 1.4 1.4 1.1 2.3
Fuel 14.14 12.88 10.44 9.49 6.5 7.0 3.5 5.1
Credit payments 11.11 9.72 14.25 10.45 5.1 5.3 4.8 5.6Clothing 14.75 9.75 4.9 5.3Medical care 1 15.64 8.69 . 5.2 4.7Education I 6.03 3.78 2.0 2.0
Entertainment 13.29 1 12.51 5.53 2.83 6.2 6.8 1.9 1.5Aid family r 9.90 1.83 3.3 1.1Savings 21.14 - 7.1 -
Personal 1 18.12 - 6.0 -
Total of means 218.14 184.15 298.79 185.31 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Family size (average) 4.8 5.2 4.7 4.5
Average monthlyfood expenditures 28.31 23.61 32.20 23.63
1/ 1975
2/ 1976
Source: FSDVM, Computer tapes from the household surveys for La Vivienda Popular Urbana en El Salvador and
Caracteristicas Socio-economicas del Sector de Menores Ingresos en la Ciudad de Santa Ana.
Table 3.6. EL SALVADOR: AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENDITURESOF SALVADORIAN HOUSEHOLDS, 1976-77
Monthly IncomeItem 0-99 100-199 200-299 300-599 600-999 10'0 and over
Total Expenditures 101.09 154.99 238.23 342.13 594.22 11c6. 4c
Of which: Food 53-77 89.29 128.10 152.43 221.21 118.29Beverages 0.49 1.41 3.67 6.89 13.L7 24.677obacco 1.16 1.23 2.69 3.97 4.95 8.73Clothing 4.52 8.36 16.16 20.25 35.80 93.35Rent Paid 2.03 3.93 6.20 18.35 37.31 73.93Rent 9.09 9.85 12.44 20.76 3L.22 6q.6^Water 0.42 0.49 1.22 2.29 3.73 7.95Electricity 0.18 0.61 1.09 3.51 9.73 15.61Gas 0.01 0.15 0.78 2.48 5.26 l1.6LKerosene 1.87 1.63 1.66 2.32 1 -59 3.41C-harcoal 8.49 11.18 12.31 12.79 'C.r5 13.20Furniture 0.21 0.71 1.38 4.78 17.83 L5.29Appliances and Repairs 0.05 o.6. 2.66 1.05 14.ii 25.47Radio, TV 1.89 0.13 3.48 2.90 2.65 IL.16Education 0.19 0.31 0.55 2.21 5.19 15.96Eealth 1.30 3.73 3.83 10.81 17.12 55.6i-Soaps and Detergents 0.76 1.89 2.60 3.22 5.82 11.85 0Domestic Help o.o6 0.22 0.47 2.71 9.84Other
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC and Banco Central, Composici6n Detallada de Gasto Familiar M'ensual aNivel de Articulos.
Table 3-7: EL SALVADOR: AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENDITURES OF UtBAN HOUSEHOLDS, 1976-77
Exoenditures(in colones) Percentage Structure
First Second to Eight to Firtc conduto Eigt toItem Total Decile Seventh Decile Tenth Decile Total Decile Seventh Decile Tenth Decile
Total Expenditures 547.92 213.03 447.78 858.76 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Of which: Food TFq.07 lTMI7ff IF9E MI R= -W.7 49.2 -7"E ~ zBeverages 10.01 3.78 9.29 13.53 1.9 1.8 2.1 1.6Tobacco 3.65 1.67 3.56 4.49 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.5Clothing 31.71 12.22 25.10 51.35 5.8 5.7 5.6 6.oShoes 11.15 4.98 9.94 15.63 2.0 2.3 2.2 1.8Rent 65.61 25.78 44.03 121.82 12.0 12.1 9.8 114.2
(Imputed Rent) (30.92) (10.26) (19.50) (60.53) (5.6) (4.8) (4.4) (7.0)Home Repairs 11.41 6.51 4.45 26.90 2.1 3.1 1.0 3.1Water 3.35 1.67 2.85 4.91 o.6 0.8 o.6 o.6Electricity 6.66 1.91 4.75 12.05 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.4
Gas 3.91 .70 2.99 6.80 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.8Kerosene 1.85 2.11 2.17 1.13 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.1Charcoal 6.90 10.11 8.23 3.20 1.3 -4.7 1.8 0.4Furniture 64.11 11.78 45.07 119.46 U1.7 5.5 10.1 13.9Home Furnishings 2.79 .51 1.62 5.87 0.5 0.2 o.4 0.7China and Other (Kitchen Utencils) 5.05 1.27 4.44 7.52 0.9 o.6 1.0 0.9Soaps and Detergents 4.77 2.76 4.18 6.53 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.7Appliances and Repairs 15.15 1.55 10.74 28.45 2.8 0.7 2.4 3.3Dosestic Helpt 7.54 1.13 2.66 19.40 1.4 0.5 o.6 2.3Health 13.67 4.12 8.69 26.77 2.5 1.9 1.9 3.1Transport and Comnunication 44.41 5.03 21.39 103.35 8.1 2.4 4.8 12.0Radio, TV 21.08 4.76 20.12 28.43 3.8 2.2 4.5 3.3Education 5.07 1.51 2.85 10.68 0.9 0.7 o.6 1.2Newspapers and Magazines 3.33 .76 2.37 6.11 0.6 o.4 0.5 0.7
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC and Banco Central, Composici;n Detallada del Gasto Familiar Mensual a Nivel de Artfculos
- 112 -
Table 3.8: EL SALVADOR: INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF POORFAMILIES IN THE SAN SALVADOR METROPOLITANAREA, 1977
Renters inSelf-erected Illega.l 1/
Income Rtnted Rooms Shacks Subdivisions- Total(mesones) (tugurios)
(petcentage distribution)
Below 100 5.0 15.4 2.0 6.7
101 - 150 6.0 17.3 6.0 8.0
151 - 200 13.0 24.7 17.0 15.2
201 - 300 32.0 22.7 32.0 30.4
301 - 400 19.0 9.3 19.0 17.2
401 - 500 13.0 4.7 11.0 11.5
501 - 600 5.0 2.3 6.0 4.6
601-- 700 3.0 2.3 2.0 2.9
Over 700 4.0 1.2 5.0 3.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total number of Families 67,837 15,112 2,767 85,716
1/ Excludes home-owners in illegal subdivisions.
- 113 -
Table 3.9: EL SALVADOR: TRANSPORT EXPENDITURES BY INCOME LEVELS
Average Buses, Personal Inter-cityTotal Taxis, Trans- Trans- Percentage
Expenditure etc. portation Subtotal portation Total of (1)(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Less than 100 101.087 .364 - .364 .697 1.0610 1.1100-199 154.992 .811 - .811 1.965 2.808 1.8200-299 238.230 1.933 - 1.933 3.380 5.313 2.2300-599 342.127 3.939 4.165 8.104 6.159 14.263 4.2600-999 594.219 10.010 16.557 26.567 7.297 33.864 5.21,000 and more 1,406.454 22.528 134.920 157.448 10.160 167.608 11.9
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Central Bank
- 114 -
O t< - N0 0.0 O0 '0-a\C), 0U. 00 '0 '0. .40
co o.K 00* 405 00 .- . -Co. X C \
0.0 Do\ ^r °. \.( .-4 .. 4.0 0. N0. O
.s~~~-- 0 04 r0. .00 o.0 <o04 o0 .0 No nOD rr
X~~~~~~~4 -4 0 4
tv~~~- - EOFN£NexOOOO
~~~~~~~.0. O4 . 0N 0. N 4 g,0.N
i 9 O r x of w ,! F 0x w -C 0.0 ' O0^ 4 o .4 ro£orO£O .4 r4.0F
_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 40 340 '00 0" 40; .
w~~ ~ ~ 0 0 o .4 OO O 0 0 0 - O4
d D^ s . .0..0 .-4 .0- 0. .- -.
C r D 00 00. 40 0.. 00 -4 '00ON
o ~ ~ ~ ; rJ r r; DC
a4- D 0 -4 00 400- 0r r ^ rr C 0 c NN oJ N
0 D o0 r r'.D FO H ! r H° rs
0[ >tDr
40000r- oN U O O0
0 .0A0N D0.00 0N 0
o0h
e e o0 -00 .40004000000o. 9fAJJoN 0.E mk FOOOFNf 0 .. 000r .-. r
ii . sgr
0 '0D0 0 4 00 . 0 0 4 0 D-. 00 4 DD N
0 0.I 1 I -I ' -j
w 4 X e W W W W c c-4 0
Table 4.2: EL SALPADER, HOUSING CHAP-ATERISTTCS 87 IECRE LEVELS IN THE aTRUE ARFAS (INCLUDING THE SSMAS, 1975-77
(eM-h of h-eahlda and pera... a.
Ptped DEA riahSanSa- /M. snt, I 7 in tOe Piped Stand- PrIat Canl Rivr Piat Ocsnl Spc Seti-riat anutlSaitr,Tl-i" I- c30
1
Iioc 38~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~El-ct. Kerosene. Other HoeOK- is Vis AU ak Rai TlleR Toilet Taok Tnn itrne In Se Fclit.vo RaTn .rac -sc 091- gerat- rers
- 5; 22,1.5 2,172 3 & 12,7W. 1l,8R3 688 3,820 6,297 1,265 1,212 i,oi6 196 6,513 963 2,067 1,809 2,251 6.3942 2,9322 2 7,76119,995513c,"03 262624,78'9312.21,J.
91.1 9.. 2.3 . 3.0 213 3~~ ~~~~~~~~~~.0 52.4. 41.8 2.8 15.7 25.9 217 .0 4.4. 58 37 85 73 . 97 1. 19.. 2. 15 9. c 9.
It -55 ,o,43~~~~5 Slo 1,897 295 50 3 0 14,026 19,234 1,589 U1,312 26,396 11, 324 296 R0 11 1656 330 1,16 u9 867 RS 757 1 79 ; 77 2,5 '15 990,12 J,. , 98.7
03 59.5 9.9 2.9 .5 3.5 5.5 5.0 67.9 29.7 2 .3. 17.1. 77.9 17.5 0.5 1. 0.2 25.5 5.5 16.2 S.c 1~9 .3. 29.5.11.7.RR.l.57. 2Qp3-4 c502.7 9W.7
23. 2- 29 4,2IsiS? 2,675 93; 5 217 on 50,370 8,516 1,671 12,942 23,759 10,423 2,995 11 033 582 1,1 ,5 ,1 852 7,2 590,755 2,55 178 777 5,49 5037
7,o216 17. u. . .0 si, 7.0 83. 141 29 2.. 39.2 17.2 4. 9 .2 7,0 17.0 3.6 19.3 i85 9s 00 1. . 4669 731 2.1 7.001 9.
so 5. 1Ss 1. 5. 1. 1.3 2 945 47 07 3. 399 1. 1, 1. 0. 108 2. 170 2.5 . 9.2 22 1.3 537. 22. .2.78 57.7 53 27.2 72.
921 - 359 11,337 i,,o85 13,781 5,233 3,21'~59 1,909 491 16.3709 %1,79 70 37,24 128276 12,1032 1,924 9105 180 11,879 28,902 ,1348
.41 999 188 558 4771 1,35 3,9 1. 785 3,5
so 31.1 21.7 19.5~~~~~ 1.7 9. 3. . 71 29 0,0 6.2 4 22. 3.6 . . . . 98 1. 05 15 1. . 27 1. 85 1 81 0.
1332 . 3,190 5,547 13,192 9,967 9581 4, Ost 0,753 42,149 0 0 17,51 2,817 766 326 4118051,120 33.292 2.130 2,972119682,966 99147137,77 6.722 37,828 4,521 35,7325 7,12
1/0 7. 5 13.? 721.0 23 21.1 1. lo1 BO 91 160.0 1,07 0, 87.24 6.B6 2107 0.9~ 1,0 00 20.6 759. 17,0 7.0 1.50 5 2 1. 1.78 11. 29.7 12.9 83.2 15.8
.1 25.7 18.1 0~~~~~~~~~abe6..E SIAI), 0553OARCUITO 4TIU 389 61 91THE SA9 2APAHEIE 6IRL1A AREA, 1976 165-77 4 1 3,9 1,S 2,,3011
',L.2 22.1 .6 .0 .3 (mbee 7 hnnetnd and parLne172eta2psITal.9 'J1 8
douseoold ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P-.fh- l.-
Hotl 1 2 3 3. 3 6 7 Sn the Pip.d Stasi- Priat C-1a RArer, Prvt Ca al Spi Sqr Priat Cu-a.Sniar Hel.i Toe" .tR Sorf
1 99 4,132 295 0 0 0 0 0 3,833 590 7 885 2,360 890 0 0 0 5R 9 50 0 99 ,8a110 59 6 2-di. 0.,.t- 462
oo 93.j 5.7 o. .0. 0.5 0.0 0.0 867 1. , 90 8. 183 10 00 00 13.3 62?9 3. 59 0 59 3, 26.7 159 22.7 16032, 65. 9. 170 00 10.
1 0 .-15 1,7 9 . 0 12,98 8819 10 914 .6 ,770 865 5,900 590 2,980 2,065 1,675 590 8,000 5.930 1,180 13,275 889 13,57004 59 3, 4. 2,39 s, 0.1 00 89.8 6.1' 6.91 82 69.7 14.3 0. 0,o 0.37 12.2 6.1 z,o,8 4.1 20.4 II..3 10.2 4.1 99.2 40.8 8.2 91.8 0.1 93,0
200 - 299 15,175 1,R8o 1,73 20 0 20,691 890 889 7,25 11,808 6,429 290 7 0 2,6 2,6 ,8 ,8 ,6 .4 ,9 .60 1,7 ,5 ,0 525 170 2,5
4 67 5,3 75. 1.7 90.0 0 0. 93.3 2.7 6.0 14. 93,3 20 1.3 0.0 0. 1.7 10720.093 1;30. 16.7 383 17. 11. 60.0 4,50 25.7 1 73. 8. 9.
370 -599 32,135 5,6~057 91403 3,37 9 8 0 9,6 ,8 50 1,7 183 .7 5,317 18,930 13.865 3.560 6,130 7.965 6,720 2,360 42.480 10,030 20,961 26,550 153,90 31,170
o/ 1.2 107 1. 7, 1.1 1.7 0.0 96.9 2.2 1.1 37.7 11.6 14,6 9.0 0,0 0.0 10.1 30.3 26.6 6.7 2.9 15.2 9.0 4.9 80.9 19.1 40,4 55 2,2 7.
o2J-999 10,330 7,965 5,05 L,125 2.695 1,479 296 31,365 885 0 19,369 7.670 1,770 290 590 0 2,360 8,o 8.1 170 110 326 167 85 2,95 ,05 3,0 8852. 13,93 15,521
/0 30.9 245 17,3 136 8.2 4.5 .9 97.3 2.7 7.7 60.9 23.60 9.9 .9 1.8 0,0 7.3 88.2 19.8 5.9 9.5 19.9 6. .78,7 1.3 7. 27.3n 459.1 90,92
1170 and- oe 2360 2,360 7,080 6.690 3,218 4,920 2,689 28,910 0 0 29,695 2,068 590 0 29M 9 8.6 ,7 0 290529 29 0. 821,7 3,269 26,86 2,760 291.8 4,2
/o 8.2 82 24.5 22.6 11.2 16.3 9.2 17, . . 88 7.15 2.0 8.8 1.8 H, . 8. ,1 2000 1.0 1 ,95 12 0.0556 8 3. n.Ž 96.9 7.16 86.78 15,35
Souce KINPIAN. daate(tRa oe Hn Hoee s1e8vede sot17 uy 97 a 1979 929 71 a7
- 116 - Page 1 of 6
Table 4.4: EL SALVADOR: URBAN HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF PERSONS AND ROOMS, 1975
a) Urban Totals
No. of Number of persons per househ ldRoomS Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9and
over-
Total Freqaency 333499 20915 35343 48049 54896 52197 44564 28994 22227 27814Percentage 100.0 6.2 10.6 14.3 16.4 15.6 13.3 8.7 6.6 8.3
1 Frequency 190825 18248 25871 31242 33064 26728 21562 13990 10054 10066Percentage 57.0 87.2 73.2 65.o 60.2 51.2 48.4 48.3 45.2 36.2
2 Frequency 55419 1433 4863 6753 8936 10368 9070 5331 3750 4915Percentage 16.5 9.9 13.8 14.1 16.3 19.9 20.4 18.4 16.9 17.7
3 Frequency 38287 465 2088 4922 6679 7716 5041 3301 2862 5213Percentage 11.4 2.2 5.9 10.2 12.2 14.8 11.3 11.4 12.9 19.7
4 Frequency 21359 301 958 2424 3336 2014 4361 2962 2218 2785Percentage 6.4 1.4 2.7 5.0 6.1 3.9 9.8 10.2 10.0 10.0
5. Frequency 10846 230 545 1555 1741 2289 1178 1149 992 1167Percentage 3.2 1.1 1.5 3.2 3.2 4.4 2.6 4.o 4.5 4.9
6 Frequency 7875 238 370 464 570 1518 1719 1071 775 1150Percentage 2.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 3.9 3.7 3,5 4.1
7 Frequency 10388 0 648 689 570 1564 1633 1190 1576 2510Percentage 3.1 0.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 3.0 3.7 4.1 7.1 9.1
Source: MINPLAN and DIGESTIC, Hesultados sobre la Vivienda, Encuesta de Hogares,April-July, 1975.
- 117 -Page 2 of 6
Table 4.4: EL SALVADOR: URBAN HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF PERSONS AND ROOMS, 1975
b) Occidental Region -/
Number of persons per householdNo. ofRooms Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and over
Total Frequency 67304 4794 9648 10716 12220 10434 7708 5452 3384 3998Percentage 100.0 7.1 12.9 15.9 18.2 15.5 11.5 8.1 5.0 5.9
1 Frequency 42958 4042 5170 8084 7050 6768 4324 3760 2162 1598Percentage 63.8 84.3 59.8 75.4 57.7 64.9 56.1 69.o 63.9 40.0
2 Frequency 13160 470 1974 1599 2632 2162 1974 658 564 1128Percentage 19.6 9.8 22.8 14.9 21.5 20.7 25.6 12.1 16.7 28.6
3. Frequency 5546 188 752 470 1598 846 658 287 188 564Percentage 8.2 3.9 8.7 4.4 13.1 8.1 8.5 5.2 5.6 14.3
4. Frequency 3102 0 376 282 564 94 658 470 188 470Percentage 4.6 0.0 4.3 2.6 4.6 0.9 8.5 8.6 5.0 11.9
5. Frequency 1034 94 188 94 188 282 94 94 0 0Percentage 1.5 2.0 2.2 0.9 1.5 2.7 1.2 1.7 0.0 0.0
6 Frequency 752 0 0 94 94 282 0 0 84 188Percentage 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.8 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.8 4.8
7 Frequency 752 0 188 94 94 0 0 188 183 0and Percentage 1.1 0.0 2.2 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.4 5.6 0.0More
1/ Departments of Ahuachapan, Santa Ana, and Sonsonate.
- 118 -Page 3 of 6
Table 4.4: EL SALVADOR: URBAN HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF PERSONS AND ROOMS, 1975
c) Central Region I 'J
Number of persons per household andNo. ofanRooms Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 over
Total Frequency 39500 2291 3397 5372 6399 6004 4819 3871 3713 3634Percentage 100.0 5.8 8.6 13.6 16.2 15.2 12.2 9.8 9.4 9.2
1 Frequency 23384 1975 2844 3555 4108 3160 2212 1975 2054 1501Percentage 59.2 86.2 83.7 66.2 64.2 52.6 45.9 51.0 55.3 41.3
2. Frequency 7900 79 237 869 948 1580 1343 1422 790 632Percentage 20.0 3.4 7.0 16.2 14.8 26.3 27.9 36.7 21.3 17.4
3. Frequency 5214 158 79 553 711 948 969 316 632 948Percentage 13.2 6.9 2.3 10.3 11.1 15.8 18.0 3.2 17.0 26.1
4. Frequency 1975 79 158 237 474 237 316 158 158 158Percentage 5.0 3.4 4.7 4.4 7.4 3.9 6.6 4.1 4.3 4.3
5 Frequency 395 0 0 79 158 0 79 0 0 79Percentage 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.5 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.2
6. Frequency 316 0 79 79 0 79 0 0 0 79Percentage 0.8q 0.0 2.3 1.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2
7 Frequency 316 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 237infl Percentage 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 6.5more
2/ Departments of Chalatenango, La Libertad, San Salvador and Cuscatlan. Excludes theMetropolitan area.
- 119 -Page 4 of 6
Table 4.4: EL SALVADOR: URBAN HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF 7ERSONS AND ROOMS, 1975
d) Central Region II 3
Number of persons per householdNo. ofRooms Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and over
Total Frequency 25400 2450 1900 3250 3850 3850 3200 1950 2050 3000Percentage 100.0 9.6 7.5 12.8 15.2 14.8 12.6 7.7 8.1 11.8
1 Frequency 15150 2200 1200 2100 2300 2200 1800 1100 1050 1200Percentage 59.6 89.8 63.2 64.6 59.7 58.7 56.3 56.4 51.2 40.0
2 Frequency 6750 150 450 900 1150 1250 800 500 650 900Percentage 26.6 6.1 23.7 27.7 29.9 33.3 25.0 25.6 31.7 30.0
3. Frequency 2250 0 100 150 350 150 400 250 250 600Percentage 8.9 0.0 5.3 4.6 9.1 4.0 12.5 12.8 12.2 20.0
4. Frequency 850 50 100 100 50 50 200 0 100 200Percengage 3.3 2.0 5.3 3.1 1.3 1.3 6.3 0.0 4.9 6.7
5. Frequency 200 50 0 0 0 50 0 50 0 50Percentage 0.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.6 0.0 1.7
6. Frequency 50 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 50Percentage 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7
7 Frequency 150 0 50 0 0 50 0 50 0 0and Percentage o.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0
more
3/ Departments of La Paz, Cabanas, and San Vicente.
- 120 - Page 5 of 6
Table 4.4: EL SALVADOR: URBAN HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF PERSONS AND ROOMS , 1975
e) Oriental Region -
Number of persons per hcusTholdNo. ofRooms Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and ovei
Total Frequency 60114 3526 6880 8600 94.60 7138 9202 4988 4988 5332Percentage 100.0 5.9 11.4 14.3 15.7 11.9 15.3 8.3 8.3 8.9
1 Frequency 38528 3010 5590 5246 6278 4128 5848 2752 2408 3268Percentage 64.1 85.4 81.3 61.0 66.4 57.8 63.6 55.2 48.3 61.3
2 Frequency 11782 258 774 1720 2064 1806 1978 1204 1032 996Percentage 19.6 7.3 11.3 20.0 21.8 25.3 21.5 24.1 20.7 17.7
3 Frequency 4214 0 86 774 688 774 258 430 607 602Percentage 7.0 0.0 1.3 9.0 7.3 10.8 2.8 8.6 12.1 11.3
4 Frequency 2580 172 86 258 344 86 688 430 344 172Percentage 4.3 4.9 1.3 3.0 3.6 1.2 7.5 8.6 12.1 11.3
5 Frequency 1720 86 0 430 86 172 172 172 516 86Percentage 2.9 2.4 0.0 5.0 0.9 2.4 1.9 3.4 10.3 1.6
6 Frequency 688 0 172 1T2 0 86 172 0 86 0Percentage 1.1 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.9 0.0 1.7 0.0
7 Frequency 602 0 172 0 0 86 86 0 0 258and Percentage 1.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 4.8more
4/ Departments of Usulutan, San Miguel, Morazan, and La Union.
- 121 - Page 6 of 6
Table 4.4: EL SALVADOR: URBAN HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF PERSONS AND ROOMS, 1975
f) San Salvador Metropolitan Area 5/
No. of Number of persons per household andRooms Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 over
Total Frequency 142681 7854 14518 20111 22967 24871 19635 12733 8092 11900Percentage 100.0 5.5 10.2 14.1 16.1 17.4 13.8 8.9 5.7 8.3
1 Frequency 70805 7021 11067 12857 13328 10472 7378 4403 2380 2499Percentage 49.6 89.4 76.2 60.9 58.0 42.1 37.6 34.6 29.4 21.0
2 Frequency 15827 476 1428 1666 2142 3570 2975 1547 714 1309Percentage 11.1 6.1 9.8 8.3 9.3 14.4 15.2 12.2 8.8 11.0
3. Frequency 21063 119 1071 2975 3332 4998 2856 2023 1190 2490Percentage 14.8 1.5 7.4 14.8 14.5 20.1 14.5 15.9 14.7 21.0
4. Frequency 12852 0 238 1547 1904 1547 2499 1904 1428 1785Percentage 9.0 0.0 1.6 7.7 8.3 6.2 12.7 15.0 17.6 15.0
5 Frequency 7497 0 357 952 1309 1785 833 833 476 952Percentage 5.3 0.0 2.5 4.7 5.7 7.2 4.2 6.5 5.9 8.0
6 Frequency 6069 238 119 119 476 1071 1547 1071 595 833Percentage 4.3 3.0 o.8 o.6 2.1 4.3 7.9 8.4 7.4 7.0
7 and Frequency 8568 0 238 595 476 1428 1547 952 1309 2023more Percentage 6.o 0.0 1.6 3.0 2.1 5.7 7.9 7.5 16.2 17.0
5/ Comprises the urban areas of the municipalities of San Salvador, San Marcos, Ayutuxtepegue,Cuscatancingo, Cuidad Delgado, Ilopango, Soyapango, Antiguo Cuscatlan, and Nueva SanSalvador (Santa Teda).
- 122 -
Table 4.5: EL SALVADOR: ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY BY HOUSEHOLDINCOME, 1976-77
Monthly Income(¢) Total Rural Total UrbanHouseholds with Households Urban Non-SSMA SSMAElectricity
Without Income 1736 - 1736 556 1180
1-49 3790 818 - 2382 59050-99 13064 3292 65 6527 3245100-199 62971 18945 - 31046 12980200-299 67567 17197 - 29720 20650300-599 123055 19761 - 52554 50740600-999 64883 8513 - 24805 31565
1000-1999 35117 2717 - 11750 206502000-3999 9332 758 1789 6785
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Central Bank, Caracterist•cas de los Hogares y de lasViviendas, May 1979.
Table 4.6: EL SALVADOR: SHARE OF ELECTRICITY IN HOUSEHOLDLIGHTING, 1976-77
(In percentages)
Monthly Income ( Total Rural Total Urban SSMACountry Urban Non-SSMA
Without Income 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0
1-49 15.8 4.4 55.1 149.6 100.0
50-99 17.5 5.9 51.6 43.3 84.6100-199 27.6 11.6 67.9 61.6 89.8
200-299 45.7 19.7 83.2 77.3 93.3
300-599 63.1 23.0 94.6 92.7 96.6
600-999 84.6 45.6 97.1 96.9 97.3
1000-1999 93.1 51.2 100.0 100.0 100.0
2000-3999 93.1 52.2 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Central Bank, Caracteristicas de los Hogares y de lasViviendas, May 1979.
9bl6e .7: EL 3ALVADOI- JHBAN ADCESS TO hATEk- BY HDU.EHOLD ICO1-, 197-/-
(Noosher of douseholvs )
77TL !PEBI 33MA UnEBAN NON-33FAMonthly Hoo.sehold Household Jithout Household Householc di4tout Household H-useh,ld ;ithout
oncone .1) Tatal PrivovT Ta Co-moon Tap SCandTp td )ther 3ervi- r Private . m CT non Tap Standriu-- Othe Servi- e Priyate Tap Common Tap Standpipe- Other _er-ie
No nc1me 171, 59' '5' - - 19. S9^ i97 - - - - - g19p-~1 139J 803 1139 1869 508 1461 295 -200- 538 1149 117o 5J36 1,61-9 15925 717 141 74 1195I95 11C92 5995 2-.J 295 - 997 24327 2734 3531 1914 4L4t2
- 9 o484D 11212 ?.979 112h 21 -°2 CDL 1197 o.2 2 35F - 177D 1D132 14888 9259 1392 l17342 7298 S356D 129Y2 2 3759 1925 J111 1 72' 1245 219)7 442g 2°5 23i0 9697 11939 6003 2816 79a3jj99 139272 hl3378 3877S 12312 3272 1179h 1'777 218 ) 797T - S313 25678 1591S 4382 3272 618h
ooJ-i9, 583h9 37248 12829 219' 2913 386? 19765 7677 1770 885 2360 17875 5156 333 1128 15D717D 2-1999 2hLD 2597_ 2817 7 8e7 112 17L)5 2799 50 295 209 955S 7i2 l4 492 8252JDD-v,95 857h 851h - - - - S78c - - 1789 - -
TDTA L 353o7, 14h829 109699 81835 12999 59317 67555 55755 17110 1875 12685 77271 539L4 21725 11928 37132
3-orce: MINPIAN, DIGESTIC, and Banco Central, Cracterfst1cat de lea HRgares y do las Vieisda, Hay 1979.
T.bl. -8- EL SALVADDF.: URBAN HOUSEHOLDS .IIH PUBLIC ,3ATEF 3SEkVICE 1975-77Table 4.9: EL SALVADOR: EXPENDITURES FOR WATER
(Percentage of Total Households) BY INCOME LEVELS, 1976-77
Averge Monthly
Total Urban Orban Expenditures by EouseholdM-ottly revenue It) Urban 53MA No-3SSt3 As Percenta.e
Number of of Tota1No Income ee- 93- 5h.7 -Income Groups Households Colones Espendit-re
63.5 177.7 09.7xu-99 573.2 h 87 57.7 1 - 49 4,699 0.43 0-4i17-196 72.4 87.8 99 .7
2Je-259 77.5 8.1 72.7 50 - 99 16.9723DJ-599 8S.2 89.Y 82.8 100 - 199 60,871 0.49 0.373D-99 89.9 90.9 89.7 200 - 299 67.778 1.22 0.5
13 0-1999 5h.1 97.1 88.8 300 -599 99,741 2.29 0.72J30-j993 177.7 13).7 1777 600 - 999 52.661 3.73 0.6
1000 - 1999 30.072 ( 7.95 5.32000 -3999 9,051
3ource: Table 4.7
So.r.e: MINPLAR, DICESTIC. CENTRAL RANK, Ctaalterit- da del Hgascv delas Viiea, 1976-77 and C ep..iei.. E'mt.liada del GanteFamiliar K .n... a Ni-1l de Artirols., 1976~-77.
Table 4.10: EL SALVADOR: URBAN ACCESS TO SEWERAOE BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 1976-77(Number of households)
TOTAL URBAN URBAN SSMA URBAN NON-SSMAMonthly Sewerage Sewerage Without Sewerage Sewerage 'Without Sewerage Sewerage WithoutIncome Total Private Common Other Service Private Common Other Service Private Common Other Service
No income 1,73S 590 183 475 491 590 - 295 295 - 180 180 196
1-49 5,39) - 593 3,010 1,787 - - 295 295 - 593 2,715 1,492
53-99 18,925 903 1,474 10,574 5,974 295 590 2,555 295 508 884 7,919 5,678
100-199 64,840 3,580 15,132 34,370 11,758 885 10,516 2,464 590 2,695 4,616 31,906 11,168
200-299 S0,563 5,832 11,712 37,211 5,805 2,360 6,785 10,620 2,360 3,472 4,927 26,591 3,445
300-599 109,202 28,234 18,591 55,508 5,869 15,930 13,865 20,355 2,360 12,304 4,725 36,253 3,409
600-999 58,049 28,904 6,910 20,577 1,658 18,880 5,015 7,670 885 10,024 1,895 12,907 773
1033-1999 32,453 23,861 2,130 S,409 - 17,70D 1,773 1,180 - 6,161 360 5,229 -
20D0-3999 8,575 8,378 - 195 - 6,785 - - - 1,593 - 196 -
Total 359,676 100,282 55,722 169,330 33,342 63,425 38,541 45,535 7,080 36,857 18,181 123,896 26,162
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Banco Central, Caracteristicas de los Hogares y de las Viviendas, May 1979.
- 125 -
Table 4.11: EL SALVADOR: URBAN HOUSEHOLDS WITH PUBLIC SEWERAGE SERVICE,1976-77
(Percentages of Total Households)
Total Urban Urban - SSMA Urban Non-SSMA
No Income lo.4 50.0 32.4
1-49 10.0 - 12.14
50-99 12.6 23.1 9.9
100-199 28.9 78.9 14.5
200-299 29.0 41.3 21.9
300-599 24.6 56.7 32.4
600-999 61.7 73.6 46.6
1000-1999 80.2 94.3 55.5
2000-3999 97.7 100.0 89.o
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Banco Central, Caracteristicas de los Hogaresy de las Viviendas, May 1979.
Table 4.12: EL SALVADOR: HOUSING BY INCOMELEVELS, 1976-77
(thousands)
0-99 100 - 120 200 - 299 300 - 599 600 - 999 Over l000 Total
Other Other Other Other Other Other OtherSSMA Cities Total SSMA Cities Total SSMA Cities Total SSMA Cities Total SSMA Cities Total SSMA Cities Total sSMA Cities Total
Private Homes 1.8 14.1 15.9 3.0 29.5 32.5 5.3 23.9 29.2 23.6 37.8 61.4 19.2 20.1 39 .3 23.3 12.8 36.1 76.1 138.1 214.2
Apartment in Buildings - .4 .4 .6 .7 1.0 1.6 4.4 1.2 5.6 3.5 .8 4.3 3.2 - 3.2 12.4 4.1 16.5
Apartment or Boom in Homes .9 1.1 2.0 1.2 3.1 4.3 2.5 3.8 6.2 5.0 4.4 9.4 4.4 1.6 6.o 1.2 .6 1.8 15.0 14.6 29.6
Room in Mesones 2.4 3.6 6.o 7.7
13.5 21.2 1o.9 9.1 90.o 16.5 12.8 29.3 5.0 3.0 8.0 .9 .2 1.1 43.4 42.2 85.6
Tugurios .6 - .6 3.5 . ].9 2.l .2 2.6 2.7 .2 2.9 - - - - - - '.1 .8 7.9
Ranchos - 1.2 1.2 .5 3.3 3.8 ..3 .4 .7 - .3 .3 - - - - - .9 5.2 6.1
Othe r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1.2 .2 ] .4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 3 . . .Other - - - - - - .- .3 .3 .2 .5 .3 - .3.3 -3 12.2 J
Total 5.7 20.4 26.1 14.5 50.5 65.0 22.2 38.4 60.6 52.5 56.9 109.4 32.4 25.5 57.9 28.9 13.5 42.5 156.1 205.2 361.3
Source: MICPLAN, Banco Central, and DIGESTIC, 13nidad de Investigaciones Muestrales, Caracteristicas de los Hogaresy de las Viviendas, August 1976-July 1977.
- 127 -
Table 4.13: EL SALVADOR: HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN, 1975
Number of Children1/ REGION - None 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and over
National 147,566 127,711 124,366 110,525 88,464 69,694 49,581 50,531% 19.2 16.6 16.2 14.4 11.5 9.1 6.5 6.6
Urban 77,743 64,275 61,782 49,637 37,958 18,523 13,299 11,782% 23.2 19.2 18.4 14.8 11.3 5.5 4.0 3.5
Rural 69,823 63,436 62,586 60,888 50,506 51,171 36,282 38,749% 16.1 14.6 14.4 14.o 11.7 11.8 8.4 8.9
OccidentalRegion 32,340 27,552 26,210 26,100 18,428 14,802 9,598 9,960
% 19.6 16.7 15.9 15.8 11.2 9.0 5.8 6.oUrban 15,322 13,348 12,408 11,092 7,708 3,948 1,692 1,786
% 22.8 19.8 18.4 16.5 11.5 5.9 2.5 2.7Rural 17,018 14,204 13,802 15,008 10,720 10,850 7,906 8,174
% 17.4 14.5 14.1 15.4 11.0 11.1 8.1 8.4Central IRegion 26,848 25,458 23,571 22,493 16,994 18,919 12,634 11,779
% 16.9 16.0 14.9 14.2 10.7 11.9 8.0 7.4Urban 7,584 7,742 6,715 5,293 4,266 2,923 3,002 1,975
% 19.2 19.6 17.0 13.4 10.8 7.4 7.6 5.0Rural 19,264 17,716 16,856 17,200 12,728 15,996 9,632 9,804
% 16.2 14.9 14.1 14.4 10.7 13.4 8.1 8.2Central IIRegion 17,011 15,001 13,939 12,539 10,585 9,578 8,217 8,523
% 17.8 15.7 14.6 13.1 11.1 10.0 8.6 8.9Urban 5,800 4,800 4,950 3,550 2,000 1,700 1,450 1,150
% 22.8 18.9 19.5 14.0 7.9 6.7 5.7 4.5Rural 11,211 10,201 8,989 8,989 8,585 7,878 6,767 7,373
7 16.0 14.6 12.8 12.8 12.3 11.3 9.7 10.5OrientalRegion 36,262 32,925 31,969 27,259 26,987 19,969 14,729 16,580
17.5 15.9 15.5 13.2 13.1 9.7 7.1 8.0Urban 13,932 11,610 9,030 7,568 8,514 3,576 2,752 3,187
So 23.2 19.3 15.0 12.6 14.2 5.9 4.6 5.3Rural 22,330 21,315 22,939 19,691 18,473 16,443 11,977 13,398
% 15.2 14.5 15.7 13.4 12.6 11.2 8.2 9.1Sn. SalvadorMetropolitan areaTotal 35,105 26,775 28,679 22,134 15,470 6,426 4,403 3,689
% 24.6 18.8 20.1 15.5 10.8 4.5 3.1 2.6
1/ Regions are defined in Table 4.4.
Source: MINPLAN and DIGESTIC, Resultades sobre la Vivienda, Encuesta de Hogares,April-July 1975.
- 128 -
Table 5.1: EL SALVADOR: MONTHLY FOOD EXPENDITURES BY
INCOME GROUPS , 1976-1977
(colones and percentages)
Monthly Tneome (d')Food items Below Over
100 100-199 ^00299 300-599 600-999 1000
Bread and cereals 27.4 36.5 1.0 50.4 67.0 88.4% 50.9 % 40.9 % 39r.8 % 33.1 % 30.3 % 21.1
Maize and maize 22.6 27.3 314.5 31.7 35.8 35.9
products % 42.0 % 30.6 % 26.9 % 20.8 % 16.2 % 8.6
3.8 9.1 14.1 24.4 46.3 90.1Meat ~~% 7.1 % 10.2 % 11.0 16.0 20.9 21.5
Fisheand seafod 7.8 1.7 2.6 2.7 24.8 7.8Fish and seafood % 1.5 % 1.9 % 2.0 % 1.8 % 2.2 % 1.9
Milk, cheese 7.9 16.5 26.0 34.1 48.8 92.9
and eggs % 14.7 % 18.5 % 20.3 % 22.4 % 22.1 % 22.2
.4 .9 1.8 4.3 6.4 24.8Fruit % 0.7 % 1.0 % 1.4 % 2.8 % 2.9 % 5.9
7.6 12.4 14.7 15.4 20.9 34.7Vegetables % 114.1 % 13.9 % 11.5 % 10.1 % 9.4 % 8.3
Beans 6.4 10.1 11.7 10.8 12.3 19.1%11.9 %11.3 % 9.1 % 7.1 % 5.6 % 4.6
Potatoes and .4 1.1 2.1 2.6 3.7 9.2
Tubers % 0.7 % 1.2 % 1.6 % 1.7 % 1.7 % 2.2
Sugar 1.5 3.2 4.1 5.0 3.9 8.4% 2.8 % 3.6 % 3.2 % 3.3 % 1.9 % 2.0
Oils and Fats 1.3 3.2 5.3 6.6 9.1 13.9% 2.4 % 3.6 % 4.1 % 4.3 % 4.1 % 3.3
Other products 2.7 4.7 6.3 6.9 10.3 48.1% 5.0 % 5.3 % 4.9 % 4.5 7 4.7 % 11.5
53.8 89.3 128.1 152.4 221.2 418.3Total %100.0 %100.0 %100.0 %100.0 %100.0 %100.0
Of animal 12.7 28.0 44.1 62.2 100.7 193.1% 23.6 % 31.4 % 34.3 % 4o.8 % 45.5 % 46.2
141.7 64.3 84.o 90.2 120.5 225.2of vegetable % 76.4 % 68.6 % 65.6 % 59.2 % 54.5 % 53.8
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Central Bank, Composici6n Detallada del Gasto
Familiar Mensual a Nivel de Articules, August-October 1976. (May 1979)
- 129 -
Table 5.2: EL SALVADOR: DAILY PER CAPITAPURCHASES OF CALORIES, 1976-1977
(Calories and percentages)
Monthly Intoie (.42
Food. Items 0-100 100-199 200-299 300-599 600-999 l1ooFood Items ~~~~~~~~~~~~and over
861 1074 1521 1500 1676 22231. Bread and Cereals % 86.2 % 77.3 % 714.9 % 66.7 % 57.3 % 44.6
a) maize and 820 988 1363 1302 1297 1468maize products % 82.1 % 71.1 % 67.1 % 57.9 % 44.3 % 29.5
2. Meat 5 17 20 39 166 313% 0.5 % 1.2 % 1.0 % 1.7 % 5.7 % 6.3
3. Fish and Seafood 2 5 8 9 20 4o% 0.2 % o.4 % o.4 % o.4 % 0.7 % 0.8
4. Milk, Cheese and 22 57 98 155 292 699Eggs % 2.2 % 4.1 % 4.8 % 6.9 % lo.o % 14.o
5. Fruits 3 5 10 32 57 222% 0.3 % o.4 % 0.5 % 1.4 % 1.9 % 4.5
6. Vegetables 36 63 81 91 138 272% 3.6 % 4.5 % 4.o % 4.o % 4.7 % 5.5
35 57 74 80 113 199a) Beans % 3.5 % 4.1 % 3.6 % 3.6 % 3.9 % 4.o
2 5 12 15 26 737. Potatoes andTubers % 0.2 % o.4 % 0.6 % 0.7 % 0.9 % 1.5
8. Sugar 145 100 147 204 -201 503% 4.5 % 7.2 % 7.2 % 9.1 % 6.9 % lo.1
9. Oils and Fats 22 58 107 157 281 478% 2.2 % 4.2 % 5.3 % 7.0 % 9.6 % 9.6
1 5 28 47 69 16o10. Other Products % O.1 % 0.4 % 1.4 % 2.1 % 2.4 % 3.2
TOTAL 999 1389 2032 2249 2926 4983%100.0 %100.0 %100.0 %100.0 %100.0 %100.0
Animal 31 86.4 142 216 491 1098% 3.1 % 6.2 % 7.0 % 9.6 % 16.8 % 22.0
968 1303 1890 2033 2435 3885Vegetables % 96.9 93.8 93.0 90.4 83.2 78.0
1/ Some of these colones are bought for domestics.
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Central Bank, composici6n Detallada del GastoFamiliar Mensual a Nivel d.e Articulos, August-October 1976 (May 1979).
- 130 -
Table 5.3: EL SALVADOR: DAILY PER CAPITA PURCHASES OF PROTEIN, 1976-1977
(Protein grams and percentages)
Monthly Income (0)Food Items 0-100 100-199 200-199 300-199 600-999 ana' 999r
l.Bread and Cereals 22.0 27.1 38.2 37.4 40.2 52.3%83.7 %74.5 %74.3 %65.7 %49.4 %37.8
a.Maize and Maize 21.1 25.3 34.8 32.7 31.8 35.5products %80.2 %69.5 %67.7 %57.5 %39.1 %25.7
2.Meat 0.5 1.6 2.4 5.2 15.9 34.7% 1.9 % 4.4 % 4.7 % 9.1 %19.6 %25.1
3.Fish and Seafood o.4 1.0 1.4 1.9 3.7 7.7% 1.5 %,2.7 % 2.7 % 3.0 % 4.6 % 5.6
14.Milk,Cheese and 1.1 2.6 3.8 6.2 11.2 22.7Eggs % 4.2 % 7.1 % 7.4 %10.9 %13.8 %16.4
5.Fruit 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.9(except 00% O % 0.0 % 0.2 % 0.4 % 0.5 % 1.4
6.Vegetables 2.3 3.9 5.1 5.6 8.9 16.7% 8.7 %10.7 % 9.9 % 9.8 %10.9 %12.1
2.3 3.7 4.9 5.2 7.4 13.0a.Beans % 8.7 %10.2 % 9.5 % 9.1 % 9.1 % 9.4
7.Potatos and Fibers 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.6% 0.0 % 0.3 % o.6 % 0.7 % 0.9 % 1.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0B.Sugar % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.29.0ils and Fats % 0.0 % o.O % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.1
0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 % 0.2 o.410.Other Products % O.0 % 0.3 % O.O % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.3
TOTAL 26.3 36.4 52.0 56.9 81.3 138.2%100.0 %100.O %100.O %100.O %100.O %1oo.O
Animal 2.0 5.2 7.7 13.2 30.9 65.3% 7.6 %14.3 %15.0 %23.2 %38.0 %47.3
Vegetable 24.3 31.2 43.7 43,7 50,4 72,9Vegtale%92.4 %85.7 %85.0 %76.8 %62.0 %52,7
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Central Bank, Composici6n Detallada del Gasto Familiar Mensuala Nivel de Articulos, August-October 1976, (May 1979).
- 131 -
Table 5.4: EL SALVADOR: MONTHLY FUEL CONSUMPTION -/, 1976-1977(in Colones)
Monthly Income (#)Fuel Below Above
100 100-199 200-299 300-599 600-999 1000
Total Fuel Expend. 10.550 13.572 15.832 21.099 27.324 46.860
Electricity .177 .611 1.o88 3.506 9.727 18.608Gas Propane .013 .152 .779 2.483 5.259 11.642Liquid Fuels Group 1.872 1.626 1.655 2.321 1.686 3.412
of which:Gasoline and Fuel Oil - - - .258 1.493Gas and Kerosene 1.872 1.626 1.655 1.848 1.686 1.918Other - - - .214 -Other Fuels 8.487 11.181 12.309 12.787 10.650 13.197Solid Fuels Group 8.487 11.181 12.309 12.787 10.650 13.197
of which:Wood 8.487 11.074 12.294 12.596 0.424 12.916Charcoal - 0.107 .015 .196 10.226 .280
1/ Includes lighting and other home needs, such as appliances.
- 132 -
Table 5.5: EL SALVADOR: NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF CHILDREN, 1965 and 1976
a) COMPARISON IN NATIONAL SAMPLES OF NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF CHILDLEN 6-59 MONTHS
USING GOMEZ CLASSIFICATION.
PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN
SURVEY NUMBER NORMALS FIRST SECOND THIRD TOTALYEAR OF CASES DECREE DECREE DECREE
1965 523 21.8 50.5 24.5 3.2 100.0
1976 787 25.6 52.3 19.8 2.3 100.0
b) COMPARISON IN NATIONAL SAMPLES OF NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF CHILDREN 6-59 MONTHS
USING HEIGHT FOR AGE
PERCENTAGE OF HEIGHT FOR AGE
SURVEY NUMBER 95 AND MORE 94-90 89-85 LESS 85 TOTAL
YEAR OF CASES
1965 505 19.0 37.2 28.3 15.4 99.9
1976 787 26.9 4o.o 24.0 9.0 99.9
c) COMPARISON IN NATIONAL SAMPLES OF NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF CHILDREN 6-59 MONTHS
USING WEIGHT FOR HEIGHT
PERCENTAGE OF WEIGHT FOR HEIGHT
SURVEY NUMBER 100 AND MORE 99-90 89-80 LESS THAN TOTAL
YEAR OF CASES 80
1965 605 40.4 42.8 13.7 3.2 100.1
1976 787 23.4 49.8 24.1 2.7 99.9
Source: INCAP
- 133 -
Table 5.6: Eb SALVADOR: NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF CHILDREN BY REGIONS, 1976
a) NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF CHILDREN 6-59 MONTHS BY REGIONS USING GOMEZ CLASSIFICATION
PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN
REGIONS NUMBER OF NORMALS FIRST SECOND THIRD TOTALCASES DEGREE DEGREE DEGREE
Northern Marginal 1447 23.5 53.8 21.0 1.7 100.0
Central Marginal 1047 24.2 50.8 22.5 2.4 100.0
Coffee . 1043 23.1 54.3 20.4 2.2 100.0
Intensive 1501 34.2 49.5 14.6 1.7 100.0
Urban Slums 1369 33.6 51.1 14.0 1.3 100.0
b) NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF CHILDREN BY REGIONS USING HEIGHT FOR AGE
PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN
REGIONS NUMBER OF 95% AND 94-90% 89-85% LESS 85% TOTALCASES MORE
Coffee 1043 16.5 31.6 31.8 20.0 99.9
Central Marginal 1047 16.9 36.8 30.8 15.4 99.9
Northern Marginal 1477 23.5 36.8 28.8 10.8 99.9
Intensive 1504 25.5 37.4 25.2 11.9 99.9
Urban Slums 1369 29.7 37.0 23.9 9.5 100.1
c) NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF CHILDREN BY REGION USING WEIGHT FOR HEIGHT
PERCENTAGE OF WEIGHT FOR HEIGHT
REGIONS NUMBER OF 100% AND 99-90% 89-80% LESS TOTALCASES MORE 80%
Northern Marginal 1447 28.7 45.8 22.9 2.6 100.0
Central Marginal 1047 34.6 44.3 18.8 2.3 100.0
Urban Slums 1369 37.0 46.3 15.3 1.3 99.9
Coffee 1043 41.9 43.2 12.8 2.1 100.0
Intensive 1503 45.6 39.7 12.6 2.1 99.9
Source: INCAP
- 134 -
Table 5.7: EL SALVADOR: CALORIE RESPONSE ELASTICITIESTO INCOME 1/
Family Average Income Calorie CalorieIncome Group Size per Capita Elasticity 2/ Elasticity 3/
(¢) (people) (¢)
0 - 99 6.8 14.9 .96 .51100 - 199 6.5 23.8 .69 .38200 - 299 5.7 42.9 .47 .36300 - 599 5.0 81.3 .42 .33600 - 699 4.0 186.6 .32 .26Over 1000 3.4 477.0 .19 .17
1/ Derived from semilog functiors fitted to household consumption dataof calories per capita and income adjusted per capita. Regressionswere weighted by the square root of the proportion of the sample in theith income class.
2/ Based on cash expenditures.
3/ Adjusted for self-production and food transfers among income groups.
Table 5.8: EL SALVADOR: ARC ELASTICITIES OFFOOD EXPENDITURES
Income Groups Arc Elasticity(¢)
From 0-99 to 100-199 1.16From 100-199 to 200-299 0.85From 200-299 to 300-599 0.49From 300-599 to 600-699 0.74From 600-699 to 100 and over 0.86
Source: Mission estimates.
- 135 -
Table 5.9: EL SALVADOR: PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES FOR AN ADEQUATEDIET 1/ 2/ AND ACTUAL FOOD EXPENDITURES
Expenditures Expendituresneeded for needed for Actual Actualadequate adequate Actual compared to compared to
Income Calorie Protein per capita needed calorie needed proteinGroups intake J intake Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures
(0) (¢) (¢) (% Mz
Below ¢ 100 18.1 15.3 7.9 43.6 51.6100 - 199 23.0 18.4 13.7 59.6 74.5200 - 299 25.1 21.4 22.5 89.6 105.1300 - 599 31.4 27.5 30.5 97.1 110.9600 - 999 43.2 33.7 55.3 128.0 164.1Over 1000 56.4 44.4 123.0 218.1 277.0
1/ 2290 calories and 50.3 grams of protein.
2/ This table does not take into account vitamin or mineral requirements.
3/ Based on costs of calorie and protein by income levels.
Source: Mission estimates
- 136 -
Table 5.10: EL SALVADOR: MONTHLY EXPENDITURES BY INCOMEGROUP IN FOOD PRODUCTS SUBSIDIZED BY IRA 1/
(In colones)
1,000 and0-99 100-199 200-299 300-599 600-999 Over
------------------(per household)----------------------
Maize 19.39 21.65 25.21 19.07 8.69 7.26
Powder milk 0.31 1.49 1.30 2.69 4.68 7.50
Red kidney beans 3.79 7.15 9.43 8.96 11.48 17.67Black beans 2.11 2.51 1.98 1.67 0.73 0.44Other beans 0.36 0.47 0.08 0.20 0.06 0.28
Average Family Size 6.8 6.5 5.7 5.0 4.0 3.4
--------------------(per capita)----------------------
Maize 2.85 3.33 4.42 3.81 2.17 2.14
Powder milk 0.05 0.23 0.23 0.54 1.17 2.21
Red kidney beans 0.56 1.10 1.65 1.79 2.87 5.20Black beans 0.31 0.39 0.35 0.37 0.18 0.13Other beans 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.08
1/ These expenditures may not all reflect purchases of subsidized commoditiesfrom IRA. Government pricing, however, may influence the price chargedin the rest of the market.
- 137 -
Table 6.1: EL SALVADOR: CURRENT GNP, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CASH EXPENDITURES
AND EDUCRTION EXPENDITURES='-, 1967-78
million of colones)
Year GNP Gov. Total Gov. Expend Education Educ. Expend. overExpenditures to GNP Expenditures Total Govt. Expend.
(percentage) (percentage)
1967 2,194.2 254.2 11.6 57.4 22.61968 2,273.7 247.3 10.9 62.7 25.31969 2,361.7 258.7 11.0 66.8 25.81970 2,549.4 305.4 12.0 74.1 24.31971 2,679.0 323.3 12.1 98.6 30.51972 2,855.3 380.1 13.3 107.2 28.21973 3,294.o 448.5 13.6 116.3 25.91974 3,891.0 548.7 14.1 138.6 25.31975 4,405.5 655.8 14.9 159.2 24.31976 5,640.6 878.2 15.6 201.1 22.91977 7,038.2 1,033.0 14.7 253.8 24.61978 7,595.7 1,217.5 16.0 273.8 22.5
1/ Includes all expenditures in education, direct and recurrent.
Source: Ministry of Education (ODEPOR), Ministry of Finance, and Mission estimates.
Table 6.2: EL SALVADOR: CURRENT EXPENDITURES IN FORMAL PUBLIC EDUCATION4!, BY LEVEL(000' Colones)
Higher EducationYear Basic Secondary Non-University University Total
1967 37,482 1,240 801 8,112 47,6351968 36,668 2,508 1,411 9,950 50,5371969 40,894 3,904 322 11,650 56,7701970 41,262 3,727 834 13,321 59,1441971 43,236 2,702 3,791 14,821 64,5501972 55,288 3,575 3,002 12,996 74,8611973 57,602 4,448 3,500 20,651 86,2011974 71,584 6,102 3,705 28,651 110,0421975 78,489 6,668 4,415 29,759 119,3311976 102,320 9,037 9,235 33,878 154,4701977 125,181 10,593 7,499 33,879 177,1521978 145,349 13,647 8,328 42,288 209,612
1/ Excludes pre-primary, Adult and Special Education, and General Administration Source:Ministry of Education (ODEPOR).
- 138 -
Table 6.3: EL SALVADOR: ENROLLMENT BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND CONTROLLINGAUTHORITY. 1971-1978
Level 1971 1973 1975 1976 1977 1978
Basic (grades 1-6) 535.1 588.3 640.8 667.6 690.1 718.0Basic (grades 7-9) 60.2 92.3 118.7 128.7 132.9 140.4Secondary (10-12) 28.4 35.0 51.7 59.1 64.8 72.9Higher Non-University 1.0 1.2 1.4 2.1 2.4 2.5University 9.6 18.7 23.5 27.6 28.1 28.8
PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION
(Percentage of Total Enrollment)
Basic (grades 1-6) 4.6 4.9 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.6Basic (grades 7-9) 35.0 24.5 17.9 16.2 15.5 15.0Secondary (10-12) 64.4 50.3 54.7 56.0 57.9 61.2Higher Non-University - - - - - -University 18.8 13.9 11.9 11.7 13.5 15.6
Source: Ministry of Education, Memoria de Labores.
- 139 - Page 1 of 2
Table 6.4: EL SALVADOR: ENROLLMENT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLSBY INCOME GROUPS, 1976
(thousands)
Monthly householdincome Basic Total 1/ Higher Total(colones) Urban Rural Basic - Secondary - Education Enrollment
0 - 99 109.6 149.3 258.9 59( 258.9100 - 149 58.1 60.2 118.3 124.2 4/150 - 199 55.7 38.0 93.7 1.7 ( 0.7 96.1 5/200 - 299 74.9 40.6 115.5 5.7 1.2 122.4300 - 399 52.0 17.3 69.3 2.9 1.7 73.9400 - 599 40.7 7.5 48.2 4.3 5.7 58.2600 and above 35.6 7.9 43.5 5.5 16.9 65.9
Total 426.6 320.8 747.4 26.0 26.2 3/ 799.6
1/ Estimates based on the ODEPOR-AID education sector analysis study (1975).
2/ Estimates based on the ODEPOR follow-up survey for high school graduates.
3/ Comprises non-university (2.1 thousand) and university (24.1 thousand). Estimatesbased on the following assumptions: (i) most of the secondary graduates from thelower income groups go to higher non-university education; (ii) for the ¢ 400 tol 599 income groups, the rate of transition from secondary to higher educationis around 40 percent (the rest comes from private schools); for the ¢ 600 to0 799 income group, the rate of transition is about 50 percent; and for the 0 800and above, around 90 percent; (iii) all students in the private catholicuniversity come from the highest income group (more than ¢ 800).
4/ Includes secondary students from the 0-99 income groups.
5/ Includes higher education students from the 0-99 and 100-149 income groups.
Source: Ministry of Education ODEPOR (Planning Office), AID Education SectorAnalysis, 1975, and ODEPOR follow-up survey of High School Graduates, andmission estimates.
Page 2 of 2
- 140 -
Table 6.4: EL SALVADOR: ENROLLMENT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BYINCOME QUINTILES, 1/ 1976
(Thousands)
Income Basic Total da / Higher TotalQuintile Urban Rural Basi- Seconda ry- Education- Enrollment
1 157.4 178.7 336.1 6.5 0.3 342.92 116.0 129.3 245.3 6.8 1.6 253.73 74.6 6.9 81.5 5.7 3.4 90.64 48.7 3.81 52.5 4.4 6.o 62.95 29.9 2.1 32.0 2.6 14.9 49.5
Total 426.6 320.8 .747.4 26.0 26.2 799.6
(percentage of enrollment)
1 49.2 69.3 57.8 25.0 1.1 54.92 19.5 20.5 20.0 26.2 6.1 19.73 14.2 6.6 10.9 21.9 13.0 11.44 8.7 2.2 5.9 16.9 22.9 6.85 8.4 1.4 5.4 10.0 56.9 7.2
1/ Quintiles equivalent for income groups for early 1976 are as follows:
Urban Rural TotalMonthly income Monthly Income Monthly Income
1 0 - 167 0 -108 0-1302 168 - 299 109 - 162 131-1953 300 - 499 163-230 196-2884 500 - 799 231-384 289-5005 Over 8oo Over 384 Over 500
2/ Comprises 1 - 93/ Grades 10-12 (bachillerato), all urban.IT! Includes university and non-university education, all urban.5/ Does not include kindergarten and adult education.
Source: Mission estimates.
Table 6.5: EL SALVADOR: BASIC EDUCATION IENROLLMENT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY INCOME GROUPS, 1976
(thousands )
Monthly household I Cycle (grades 1- 3 ) II ycle (grades 4-6) III Cycle (grades 7 - 9) Total %
income (colones) 1 2 3 5 7 9
URBAN
0 - 99 27.5 18.8 16.0 13.8 11.4 7.4 7.7 6.3 6.1 115.0 27.01oo - 149 14.7 9.9 7.5 6.4 4.9 4.1 4.4 3.3 2.9 58.1 13.6150 - 199 12.0 8.1 7.8 6.6 6.1 4.o 4.2 4.7 2.2 55.7 13.1200 - 299 12.9 8.5 7.9 6.6 5.0 6.6 7.0 4.5 4.3 63.3 14.8300 - 399 8.1 5.5 6.3 5.4 4.9 3.5 3.7 3.7 2.4 43.5 10.2400 - 599 6.3 4.2 3.4 3.0 4.1 3.6 3.8 2.7 3.1 34.2 8.0600 and above 9.0 6.o 6.3 5.4 4.8 6.8 7.3 6.2 5.0 56.8 13.3
Total 90.5 61.0 55.2 47.2 41.2 36.0 38.1 31.4 26.0 426.6 100.0
% 21.2 14.3 12.9 11.1 9.7 8.4 8.9 7.4 6.1 100.0
RURAL
0 - 99 61.5 36.3 18.9 13.2 8.9 6.7 1.9 1.3 o.6 149.3 46.5loo - 149 23.1 14.4 7.8 6.3 4.2 2.8 0.9 0.7 - 60.2 18.8
150- 199 11.8 6.9 7.1 4.6 3.1 1.8 1.3 0.9 0.5 38.0 11.8200 - 299 13.3 8.0 7.4 4.1 2.8 2.1 1.1 0.7 1.1 40.6 12.7300 - 399 6.3 3.7 3.2 1.2 0.8 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 17.3 5.4400 - 599 2.3 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.1 - 7.5 2.3600 and above 1.9 1.1 0.9 1.6 1.1 1.3 - - - 7.9 2.5
Total 120.2 71.8 46.5 32.1 21.6 16.6 5.7 3.9 2.7 320.8 100.0% 37.5 22.3 14.5 10.0 6.7 5.2 1.8 1.2 0.8 110.0
1/ Includes the metropolitan area
Source: Ministry of Education, ODEPOR (Planning Office), and mission estimates based on the ODEPOR-AID Education Sector Analysis
Study (1975).
- 142 -
Table 6.6: EL SALVADOR: TOTAL PUBLIC f!"TCTION EIV7ENrI¶UkESPER NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD BY INCOME GROUPS, 1976
MonthlyIncome Group Total Expendit. Family' Size Total Expendit. 4t nl--nor uc*hiA F
per Household per Capita Basic Sec n,dary Higher0 (0) (persons) (0) (0) (0) (W)
0-99 272.0 6.8 40.0 272.0 _100-199 262.9 6.7 39.2 246.4 11.3 5.2200-299 202.2 5.7 35.5 178.0 11.8 12.4300-599 220.7 5.0 44.1 136.0 ]3.8 70.9600 and above 337.9 3.5 96.5 6o.o 16.5 253.14
Average '.4 5.4 36.4 128.2 11.3 56.9
Source: Ministrv of Education and mission estimates
Table 6.7: EL SALVADOR: PUBLIC EDUCATION OUTLAYSPER NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD, 1976
Monthly Mean Annual-/ PUBLIC OUTLAYS AS PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD ANNUALINCOMEIncome Income Basic Secondary Higher Total
(0) (%) (%). %) (s:)
0-99 83.0.0 33.6 - - 33.6100-199 1,761.6 14.0 0.7 0.3 15.0200-299 2,937.6 6.1 0.4 0.4 6.9300-599 4,880.4 2.8 0.3 1.5 4.6600 and above 13,487.0 5.0 0.1 1.9 7.0
Average 4,296.01o 2.9 0.3 1.3 4.5
1/ Estimated from 1976-77 household budgets. Average slightly different fromaver-age-by quintilesin Table 6.10.
Source: Table 6.6 and (MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Central Bank, Al Os Resultadosde la Encuesta Nacional de PresupuestosFamiliares y C cu deCoeficientes de Elasticidad - Ingreso delGasto 1976-1977, (November1977).
- 143 -
Table 6.8 : EL SALVADOR: TOTAL PUBLIC EDUCATION EXPEIDITURESBY INCOME QUINTILES AND AREAS 1976
(thousand colones)
Household Basic Total TotalIncomeBQuintile Urban Rural Basic2I Secondary Higher Expenditures
1 31,856 15,9-0 46,711 2,259 520 49,4902 16,507 6,166 33,365 2,350 2,773 38,4883 9,412 4,429 11,122 1,988 5,893 19,0034 7,o96 4,429 6,673 1,536 10,400 18,6095 4,707 1,738 4,449 904 25,826 31,179
Total 69578 327142 102320 9037 45413 156770
1/ Basic education expenditures by quintiles are not equal to urban plus rural outlays by
household income quintiles. This is so because the quintiles cover different incomesfor rural and urban households.
Source: Ministry of Education, mission estimates
- 144 -
Table o.9: EL SALVADOR: TOTAL PUBLIC EDUCATION EXPENDITURES PERHOUSEHOLD BY INCOME QUINTILES, 1976
(In Colones)
Household, Total TotalIncome Outlays Family Outlay Education Outlays per HHQuintile per HH Size Per Capita Basic Secondary Higher
1 311 6.8 46 294 14 32 242 6.o 40 209 15 183 119 5.6 21 70 12 374 117 4.8 24 42 10 655 196 3.2 61 28 6 161
Average 196 5.4 36 128 11 57
Source: Ministry of Education (ODEPOR); MINPLAN, Central Bank and DIGESTIC,Distribucion del Ingreso por Deciles de Familias, August 1976-July 1977; andmission estimates.
Table 6.10: EL SALVADOR: TOTAL PUBLIC EDUCATION EXPENDIT-URES PER HOUSEHOLD
Housebold - Mean AnIffl Publi' Oiitlays as Perr'nntage nof HnT-T,thon1r3 Anniral ITne-meIncome Income_ Basic Secondary Higher Total
Quantile
1 1322 22.2 1.1 0.2 23.52 2295 9.1 o.6 0.8 10.53 3372 2.1 0.4 1.1 3.64 4991 0.8 0.2 1.3 2.35 10941 0.3 0.1 1.5 1.9
Average 4583.3 2.8 0.3 1.2 4.3
1/ Estimated from Distribucion del Ingreso por Deciles de Familias, August 1976-June 1977.Figures slightly different than those used in table 6.8. Includes adjustments forconsumption by the farm producer and imputed rent.
Source: Ministry of Education (ODEPOR), MINPLAN, DIGESTIC and Central Bank, Distribuci6ndel Ingreso por Deciles de Familias, August 1976-July 1977.
- 145 -
Table 6.11: EL SALVADOR: DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY I1NOMEAND PUBLIC EDUCATION OUTLAYS, 1976
(Percentages)
Household Edueation OutlaysIncome IncomeQuintile Households Individuals Basic Secondary Higher Average Income
1 20 25.1 45.7 25.0 1.2 31.6 5.82 20 22.3 32.6 26.1 6.1 24.6 10.03 20 20.6 10.9 21.9 13.0 12.1 14.74 20 17.7 6.5 16.9 22.9 11.9 21.85 20 14.3 4.3 10.1 56.8 19.8 47.7
Source: Table 6.6
Table 6.12: EL SALVADOR: TOTAL PUBLIC EDUCATION EXPENDITURES PERURBAN HOUSEHOLD BY INCOME GROUPS, 1976
Household Total Subsidy Family Total Subsidy Urban Household. SubsidyMonthly. Per Household Size Per Capita Basic Secondary HigherIncome (¢) (persons) (0) (0) (¢) (¢)
0-99 376 5.7 66 376- -100-199 325 5.3 61 261 43 20200-299 246 5.0 49 194 29 31300-599 301 4.5 67 147 25 129600 and above 421 3.4 124 81 21 318
Average 344 4.8 70 193 25 126
Source: Ministry of Education (ODEPOR);MINPLA1 DIGESTIC and Central Bank,Algnos Resultadosde la Encuesta Nacional de Presupuestos Familiares,1976-77; and mission estimates.
- 146 -
Table 6.13: EL SALVADOR: TOTAL PUBLIC EDUCATION EXPENDITURES PERURBAN HOUSEHOLD BY INCOME GROUPS, 1976
Household Mean Annual Expenditures as a Percentage ofMonthly Income 1/ Household Annual IncomeIncome (Colones) Basic Secondary Higher Total
(¢) (0) (%) (1%) Mg %0-99 775 48.4 - - 48.4100-199 1,780 14.7 2.4 1.1 18.2200-299 2,923 6.4 1.0 1.1 8.5300-599 5,107 2.9 0.5 2.5 5.9600 and above 13,334 o.6 0.2 2.4 3.2
Average 6,383 3.0 o.4 2.0 5.4
1/ Estimated from the 1976 national family survey.
Source: Ministry of Education (ODEPOR); MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Central BankAlgunos Resultadosde la Encuesta Nacional de Presupuestcs Familiares,1976-77; and mission estimates.
Table 6.14: EL SALVADOR: TOTAL PUBLIC EDUCATION EXPENDITURES PER URBANHOUSEHOLD BY INCOME QUINTILES, 1976
Households Total TotalIncome Outlays Family Outlays Education Outlays per HH
Quintile per HH Size Per Capita Basic 1/ Secondary 1/ Higher 2/(0) (persons) (0) (0) (0) (0)
1 477 5.7 89.8 440 31 62 297 5.3 48.9 228 33 363 196 5.0 49.1 130 28 384 264 4.5 55.7 98 21 1455 435 3.4 132.3 65 13 357
Average 343.5 418 72 192.7 25.0 125.8
Source: Ministry of Education (ODEFOR); MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Central Bank,Distribuci6n del Ingreso por Deciles de Familias, August 1976-July 1977; andmission estimates.
- 147 -
Table 6.15: EL SALVADOR: TOTAL PUBLIC EDUCATION EXPENDITURES PER URBANHOUSEHOLD BY INCOME QUINTILES, 1976
Household Mean Annual As a percentage of household annual income outlays
Income Income Basic Secondary Higher Total
Quintile (0) (%) (%) (%) (%)
1 1,760 26.9 1.8 0.4 29.12 3,492 5.4 0.9 1.1 7.43 5,123 2.7 0.5 1.6 4.94 7,463 1.1 0.3 1.8 3.35 13,801 o.6 0.1 2.6 3.3
Average 6,383 3.0 0.4 2.0 5.4
1/ Current expenditures only current direct investment and from previous budgetsrepresented around 1% of total expenditures and are excluded.
2/ Includes direct subsidies from Government and direct investment.
Source: Ministry of Education (ODEPOR); MINPLAN, Digestic, and Central Bank,Distribucion del Ingreso por Deciles de Familias, 1976-77, and mission estimates.
Table 6.16- F,TSALVADOR: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME ANDEDUCATION OUTLAYS IN THE URBAN AREAS, 19T6 -
(Percentages)
Number of Number of Ral.onain"Income Households Individuals Basic Secondary Higher Average IncomeQuintiles (%) (%) (%) (%) I%) (%) (%)
1 20 23.8 49.2 25.0 1.0 30.3 5.52 20 22.4 19.5 25.9 5.9 15.2 10.93 20 20.9 14.2 22.2 13.1 14.4 16.44 20 18.6 8.7 16.8 23.0 14.4 23.35 20 14.3 8.4 10.1 57.0 25.7 4..qTotal 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Mission estimates.
- 148 -
Table 6.17: EL SALVADOR: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME, ANDPUBLIC EDUCATION OUTLAYS IN RURAL AREAS, 1976
(Percentages)
Number of Number of Basic Education
Income Household Individuals Outlays IncomeQuintile (%) (%
1 20 23.6 69.3 7.32 20 22.1 20.5 12.33 20 20.7 6.6 16.84 20 18.7 2.2 22.05 20 14.9 1.4 41.6
Source: Mission estimates.
Table 6.18: EL SALVADOR: TOTAL PUBLIC EDUCATION - EXPENDITURES PERRURAL HOUSEHOLD BY INCOME QUINTILES, 1976
Income Total Subsidy Mean Annual Outlays as Family Subsidy
Quintile Per Household Income % of income Size per-capita- (4-) f¢? Wf (-persons) -(¢
1 259.8 1133.6 22.9 7.0 37.12 77.0 1899.9 4.1 6.5 11.83 24.7 2607.3 1.0 6.1 4.o4 8.3 3403.5 0.2 5.5 1.55 5.2 6427.7 0.1 4.4 1.2
Average 74.9 3096.2 2.4 5.9 12.7
1/ Only covers basic education because secondary and higher education are providedin urban centers.
Sources: Ministry of Education (ODEPOR) and MINPLAN, DIGESTIC and Central Bank,
Distribuci6n del Ingreso por Deciles de Familias, 1976-77; and mission
estimates.
- 149 -
Table 6.19: EL SALVADOR: OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSESFOR EDUCATION
Total Out-of-Pocket Expenditures Out-of-Pocket Expendituresfor Education as a Percentage for Tuition Fees as a Percentage
Income Groups of Household Income of Household Income
0-99 0.3 0.2100-199 0.3 0.2200-299 0.4 0.2300-599 0.9 0.5600 and above 1.3 1.0
Source: MINPLAN, DIGESTIC, and Central Bank, Composicion Detallada del GastoFamiliar Mensual a Nivel de Articulos and Algunos Resultados de laEncuesta Nacional de Presupuestos Familiares, 1976-77.
Table 6.20: EL SALVADOR: PUBLIC BASIC EDUCATION ENROLLMENT AND EXPENDITURES I'BY DEPARTMENTS, 1976
Total Subsidy Subsidy per Subsidy perEnrollment Total Subsidy per student Urban Student Rural Student
Departments ('OOO) (colones) (colones) (colones) (colones)
San Salvador 210.2 32807.2 156.1 173.8 117.3
Santa Ana 70.4 9761.5 138.6 169.4 102.1
San Miguel 61.4 8933.2 145.4 182.8 98.7
Usualtan 62.1 8737.1 14o.8 153.6 124.7
La Libertad 59.4 7688.7 129.5 151.8 103.1
Sonsonate 43.7 5260.4 120.4 140.9 94.9
La Paz 40.0 4574.3 114.3 132.8 132.8
La Union 41.0 410o.8 100.1 129.0 74.0
Ahuachapan 27.5 3955.2 143.8 173.3 109.4
Chalatenango 29.3 3776.0 128.9 142.5 113.1
San Vicente 30.8 3745.1 121.4 159.8 90.4
Cuscatlan 28.1 3581.9 127.6 156.2 93.3
Cabafias 22.3 2725.9 122.3 155. 4 91.4
Movazan 21.2 2671.7 126.7 161.7 90.9
TOTAL 747.4 102320.0 136.9 163.1 102.1
1/ Recurrent Expenditures on Basic Education only, direct investment expenditures were excluded because theyrepresented around 0.5 percent of the total expenditures.
Source: Mission estimates based on AID-ODEPOR Education Study. Ministry of Education.
- 151 -
Table 6.21: EL SALVADOR: PUBLIC SECONDARY EDUCATIONENRoLLMENT AND' EXPENDITURES, 1976
Subsidy per Subsidy perProgram of Study Enrollment Program Student
(thousand ) (0)
Academic 17,288 4,855.5 280.9
Industrial 1,777 979.8 551.4
Education 558 240.3 430.7
Business 4,176 1,088.7 260.7
Vocational 160 112.8 704.9
Agriculture 977 405.3 414.8
Health 329 108.2 328.8
Tourism 328 144.7 441.1
Navigation 188 184.5 981.2and Fishing
Art 229 1/ 1/
Total 26,010 9,037.0 347.4
l/ Subsidy per student is excluded because the enrollment data do notinclude scholarship holders and corresponding costs.
Source: Mission estimates based on the ODEPOR-AID Education Sector Analysis.
Table 6.22: EL SALVADOR: PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENTAND EXPENDITURES, 1976
Total Total SubsidyEnrollment Subsidy Per Student
(thousand colones) (colones)
Public education 26,141 45,413 / 1,737.2National University 24,061 39,544 a 1,643.5Non-University 2,o80 5,869 2,821.6Private education /Catholic University 3,202 500 - 156.2
TOTAL 29,343 45,913 1,564.7
a/ Includes current transfers and other capital transfers from Governmentb/ Current transfer from Government
Source: Ministry of Education (ODEPOR), AID-ODEPOREl Salvador Education Sector Analysis, 1977
- 152 -
Table 6.23: EL SALVADOR: NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, OPERATING BUDGET'BY FACULTY, 1976
Enrollment Operating Bdgt. Operating Cost(thousand colones) per student
(colones)
Medicine 4,283 5,002 1,167.9Law and Social Science 1,869 1,689 903.7Agriculture 1,346 2,942 2,185.7Arts and Sciences 3,060 7,604 2,485.0Engineering and Architecture 4,375 3,122 713.6Chemestry and Pharmacy 612 1,755 2,867.6Dentistry 636 1,885 2,963.8Economics 4,962 2,271 457.7
a/ Excludes centro universitarios
Source: Ministry of Education (ODEPOR), and AID-ODEPOR Sector Analysis, 1977
- 153 -
Table 6.24: INTERCOUNTRY COMPARISON OF EDUCATION OUTLAYS
Total Subsidy for Education per HH
Household El Salvador Colombia 1/ Malaysia 2/Quintile (colones) (pesos) (Malaysian Dollars)
1 311 1921 450
2 242 1961 396
3 119 1810 454
4 117 1950 384
5 196 2064 370
Mean 196 1947 411
Household Education Outlays as a Percentage of
Quintile Household IncomeEl Salvador Colombia Malaysia
1 23.5 18.4 38.0
2 10.5 11.0 20.0
3 3.6 7.2 15.0
4 2.3 5.3 9.0
5 1.9 1.9 4.o
Mean 4.3 5.0 13.0
Table 6.25: PUBLIC EDUCATION EXPENDITURES DISTRIBUTED BY HOUSEHOLDINCOME QUINTILES(Percentage of total)
Household El Salvador Colombia Malaysia
Quintile, HH Income HH Income HH per capita HH incomeincome
1 31.5 19.8 21.4 18.9
2 24.4 20.2 19.4 18.1
3 12.1 18.6 21.5 20.6
4 11.9 20.1 18.8 19.2
5 20.1 21.3 18.9 23.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.(n
1/ Selowsky, M., Who Benefits from Government Expenditures? A Case Study of Colombia,
Table 3.18.
2/ Meerman, J., Basic Needs in Malaysia, Table 4.15. The distribution of the population
by individual income is only roughly comparable to the distribution by household
income.
- 154 -
Table 6.26: EL SALVADOR: HEALTH MINISTRY HOSPITAL SERVICES
/11970 1978-
Total SSMA Total SSMA
Hospitals 14 6 14 5Health Centers 9 - 12 1Health Units 64 20 93 23Health Posts 95 1 142 3Vaccination Posts 1 1 1 1Community Posts - - 10 10
Total 183 28 272 53
Rural Health Aids - - 138 -Physicians per 10,000People 2.4 9.7 2.8 5.3
Nurses per 10,000People 2.4 7.6 2.4 4.0
Beds per thousand 1.7 5.4 1.4 3.6
/1 Excludes 18 hospitals and 36 clinics of the ISSS with 805 hospitalbeds (.2 beds per ten thousand), 439 physicians (1.0 per ten thousand),and 1,120 nurses, auxiliary nurses, and technicians (2.5 per ten thousand).
Source: Ministry of Health.
Table 6.27: EL SALVADOR: ISSS AND HEALTH MINISTRY FUNDS INRELATION TO GOVERNMENT CASH EXPENDITURES
Ministry of Health ExpendituresMinistry Total As % of Central As % of
ISSS Contributions ISSS Health 2/ of Health Health Government Total HealthYear Employees Firms Gov't. Totali 1 Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures
---------------- Million Colones ---------- - --------- - ------
1967 3.5 7.1 0.2 11.2 8.9 31.5 40.4 12.5 78.0
1968 3.9 7.7 0.9 12.3 9.8 35.8 45.6 14.8 78.5
1969 4.4 10.8 - 15.2 11.4 35.4 46.8 13.7. 75.6
1970 4.9 12.3 10.8 28.0 13.5 38.6 52.1 12.6 74.1
1971 5.8 14.5 1.4 21.7 16.6 41.9 58.5 13.0 71.6
1972 6.6 16.4 1.3 24.3 18.4 46.9 65.3 12.3 71.8
1973 7.7 19.3 2.2 29.2 20.3 48.6 68.9 10.8 70.5
1974 9.8 24.5 1.4 35.7 24.7 62.5 87.2 11.4 71.7
1975 11.9 29.6 0.2 41.7 30.1 79.8 109.9 12.2 72.6
1976 14.5 36.1 - 50.6 33.8 91.6 125.4 10.4 73.0
1977 17.5 43.8 - 61.3 38.9 120.8 159.7 11.6 75.6
197 8 (p) 20.7 50.9 4/ 71.6 4/ 50.1 110.7 160.8 9.1 68.8
(p) Preliminary
1/ Excludes investment income and miscellaneous revenues of the health system.
2/ Excludes administrative expenses, benefits for job accidents, and revisions.
3/ Ministry of Health total cash expenditures.
4/ The Central Government paid about 0 72.9 million in arrears for health and retirement systems of the ISSS.The share of the health system has not been included because of lack of information.
Source: ISSS Statistics, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Health
- 156 -
Table 6.28: EL SALVADOR: TOTAL ISSS HEALTH OUTLAYS PERURBAN HOUSEHOLD BY INCOME GROUPS, 1976
( Colones )
Total Total ISSS Total ISSSIncome Group Health Outlay Outlay Mean Outlays
Outlays per Family per Annua] as % ofISSS Household Size Capita Income Household
(0) (nersons) (¢) (0) Income
0-99 - 5.7 - 775.2 -
100-199 1.1 15 5.3 3 1,780.1 o.8
200-299 12.8 210 5.0 42 2,923.1 7.2
300-599 14.0 135 4.5 30 5,106.9 2.6
600 and above 5.9 82 3.4 24 13,334.3 o.6
Total 33.8 - - - - -
Average 94 4.8 20 6,383.0 1.5
Source: ISSS and mission estimates.
Table 6.29: EL SALVADOR: TOTAL ISSS HEALTH OUTLAYS BY-- - HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE
Outlay asISSS Mean Percentage
Outlay per ISSS Annual of MeanQuintile ISSS Outlays Urban Family Outlay Urban Annual
(million H) Household Size per capita Income Income(¢) (persons) (0) (0) (%)
1 - - 5.7 - 1,760 -
2 13.9 192 5.3 36 3,492 5.5
3 11.9 165 5.0 33 5,123 3.2
4 5.4 75 4.5 17 7,L463 1.0
5 2.6 36 3.4 11 13,801 0.3
Total 33.8 - - - - -
Average 94 4.8 20 6,383 1.5
Source: ISSS and mission estimates.
- 157 -
Table 6.30: EL SALVADOR: MINISTRY OF HEALTH ANDISSS UNIT COSTS, 1977-78
Ministry Cost ISSS Costper Unit 1/ per Unit----------(Colones)----------
Outpatient visits (per visit) 13.9 10.2
Surgery (per day) 26.2 75.0
Deliveries (per day) 52.9
Pediatry (per day) 25.7
Hospitalization 25.2Laboratory 2.45
Cost per prescription 3.68
X-Rays 7.48
1/ Average estimated costs from Santa Gertrudis, Benjamin Bloom and Santa
Tecla Hospitals.
Source: Ministry of Health
- 158 -
Table 7.1: EL SALVADOR: TAX COLLECTIONS BY INCOME GROUPS, 1976
(in million Colones)
CorporateMonthly Personal Income andHousehold Income Vialidad Property Export Import Domestic Total Distri-Income Tax Taxes 1/ Tax Taxes Taxes 2/ Taxes 3/ Taxes bution
(%)
0-99 - 2.0 - - 0.1 8.7 10.8 1.5
100-199 - 7.4 - - 0.7 31.3 39.4 5.3
200-299 - 8.1 - 13.0 6.3 34.5 61.9 8.3
300-599 - 12.6 1.0 26.4 20.6 53.3 113.9 15.3
600-999 o.6 8.0 2.0 16.6 39.4 33.7 100.3 13.5
Over 1000 66.8 38.5 18.5 184.1 48.2 62.7 418.8 56.2
Total
Collection 67.4 76.6 21.5 240.1 115.3 224.2 745.1 100.0
1/ Distributed assuming 50% is shifted towards lower income groups.
2/ Distributed using purchases of imported items by income groups.
3/ Distributed using expenditure levels by income groups.
Source: Ministry of Finance.
Table 7.2: TAX INCIDENCE BY INCOME GROUPS, 1976
(in million colones and percentages)
OtherCorporate Personal Personal Domestic
Income Income Taxes Income Tax Taxes TaxesBefore and Total as % of as % of as % of as % of
Income Income Income Property Vialidad Import Domestic Personal Personal Personal Personal PersonalGroups Taxes Taxes Taxes 2/ Taxes 3 Taxes Taxes Taxes Income Income Income Income
0-99 78.6 - - 2.0 0.1 8.7 10.8 13.78 - 13.78 11.07
100-199 402.9 - _ 7.4 0.7 31.3 39.4 9.78 - 9.78 7.77
200-299 482.6 - - 8.1 6.3 34.5 48.9 10.13 - 10.13 7.15
300-599 862.9 - 1.0 12.6 20.6 53.3 87.5 1o.14 - 10.14 6.18
600-999 575.8 0.6 2.0 8.0 39.4 33.7 83.7 14.54 0.10 14.43 5.85
1000 andover 1,014.8 66.8 18.5 38.5 48.2 62.7 234.7 23.13 6.58 16.55 6.18
Total 3,417.6 67.4 21.5 76.6 115.3 224.2 505.0 14.78 1.97 12.81 6.56
1/ Includes wages and salaries in cash or in kind, capital income, transfers, and pensions.
2/ Excludes vialidad taxes on corporations.
3/ Distributed by income levels assuming these taxes are shifted to individuals. The assumption is that about halfis paid by higher income people and the other half is distributed according to the share of other income groups indomestic transactions.
LSo
Source: Ministrv of Finance.
Table 8.1: EL SALVADOR: PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF BASIC GRAINS
(in thousand quintiles)
MAIZE BEANSStocks Production Imports Exports Consumption Stocks 1/ Production Imports Exports Consumption(Jan.1) (Jan.1)
1960 898 3,870 434 6 4,582 4 226 203 6 4231961 614 3,145 232 252 3,561 4 228 373 1 6041962 173 4,629 783 27 5,129 - 399 339 1 7111963 429 4,503 506 34 5,210 26 314 316 12 6341964 194 4,165 804 40 5,053 10 269 350 13 6121965 70 4,413 1,272 4 5,560 5 360 374 24 6951966 191 5,781 1,351 64 6,997 19 336 293 38 6031967 262 4,540 316 183 4,783 9 238 315 65 4851968 152 5,599 1,018 6 6,566 12 462 337 20 7471969 197 6,065 235 16 6,051 44 571 248 6 8251970 430 7,893 1 323 7,711 32 650 136 - 8121971 290 8,200 1 882 7,016 7 750 43 - 7261972 594 5,147 1 463 4,926 74 596 7 6 5991973 353 8,816 1,366 14 10,201 72 815 82 - 9421974 320 7,669 261 12 8,010 27 732 67 - 7891975 228 9,549 588 6 9,895 162 /2 862 161 1 8931976 464 7,444 16 80 7,377 291 870 118 - 9381977 467 8,255 499 12 8,534 341 734 8 _ 7881978 675 11,021 294 0331979
1/ IRA stocks up to 1974. Beginning in 1975 it includes stocks in bonded storage facilities.2/ Not comparable with previous one. See footnote 1.
Source: MINPLAN, Indicadores Econ6micos y Sociales.
a.'0C)
I