Population Ageing and the Well-Being of Older Persons in Thailand ...
Population Ageing and the Well-Being of Older Persons in Thailand ... Population Ageing and the Well-Being of Older Persons in Thailand ...
Section 3: Demographic, Social and Economic Profile To assess the material well-being of older persons we examine income, the value of major assets, indications of the quality of housing, and the presence of various household possessions. Each of these dimensions has limitations that require care when interpreting results. This is especially so in the case of older persons who often live in households shared with younger members who may be the main source of household support. Under such circumstances the direct income of the elderly members may be less important for their material well-being than the income of other members of the household. Also in cases where older persons coreside, specific possessions often belong to the other members or to the household overall rather than to the elderly themselves. Nevertheless, the possessions at least reflect the overall wealth status of the household and in many cases the older person typically benefit from them. Additional issues arise when interpreting gender differences in the personal income for married elderly since spouses are likely to share incomes with each other. Likewise with ownership of assets, both partners in a married couple may benefit from the asset regardless of which spouse owns it. These caveats need to be considered when interpreting the results concerning income, assets, household wealth and household possessions presented below. Income and assets. Table 3.6 presents measures of income and wealth of persons age 60 and above by area of residence and gender. The upper panel indicates the per cent distribution of the reported average annual income in Thai baht (approximately 33 Baht = US $1 at the time of the survey). Clearly older age urban residents have a more favorable income distribution than their rural counterparts with the urban distribution far more concentrated towards higher levels of income than rural distribution. While almost a fifth of rural residents reported under 10,000 baht as their annual income this was the case for only just over 10 per cent of urban residents. In contrast, almost half of urban residents reported incomes of 50,000 baht or more compared to less than a fourth of rural residents. The relative difference is even more striking for the share whose income is 100,000 baht or more, a group that accounts for only 10 per cent of rural residents but almost 3 times this share for urban residents. The lower panel shows the per cent distribution of older persons with respect to the total value of their property and savings. Property was defined broadly to include gold, expensive possessions such as a car, house, or land. This measure of wealth shows a more complicated relationship with area of residence. Urban elderly are both somewhat more likely than their rural counterparts to have no such assets but also more likely to report having property and savings in the highest category shown, i.e. those valued at one million or more. This likely reflects the greater availability of land in rural areas and thus more widespread land and home ownership among elderly rural than urban residents. 7 As noted above, interpreting gender differences in income among married persons is complicated since spouses likely share benefits from each other’s incomes. While access to income does not necessarily imply decision making and control over resources, in Thailand within the family wives have considerable power and typically control the household finances. 8 Among the unmarried, however, gender comparisons are far less ambiguous since there is no spouse who may be sharing income with the respondent. For this reason we show gender differences not only for all elderly men and women but also separately for those who are not currently married. Overall, older men have a more favorable distribution of income than do women, with more women than men concentrated in the lower income categories and more men than women concentrated in the higher income categories. When the income distribution of unmarried men and women are compared, however, there is far less difference and men are actually more likely to fall into the lowest income category than are women. Thus the overall gender difference holds primarily for currently married persons among whom most are likely to be sharing the benefits of their spouse’s 24
Section 3: Demographic, Social and Economic Profile income and may well not unambiguously signify a disadvantage for women. Somewhat similar patterns are evident with respect to the combined value of property and savings. Overall, men tend to show a more favorable distribution in this regard than do women. But again, this pattern of female disadvantage is not found among the unmarried among whom the distributions of the total value of property and savings for men and women are similar. The difference thus is limited solely to currently married older persons. Since among couples, spouses likely benefit from each other’s assets, these findings do not necessarily reflect a disadvantage with respect to material well-being among women compared to men. Housing quality and household possessions. The quality of one’s dwelling unit is another reflection of wealth and hence economic well-being. Several aspects of housing quality are shown in Table 3.7 based on the three rounds of the Survey of Older Persons in Thailand. A clear trend towards living in better constructed houses is evident over the 13 year period covered. The share who live in dwellings made of reused or nonpermanent material has decreased and the per cent who live in dwellings made mainly of cement or brick has increased. Even in 1994 only about six per cent of older persons lived in housing made of very inferior material and by 2007 this was reduced to just over one per cent At the same time the per cent of older persons who lived in dwellings made of cement or brick more than doubled from just 14 per cent to over one third. 9 25
- Page 3 and 4: Papers in Population Ageing No. 5 P
- Page 5 and 6: Foreword This report is the fifth i
- Page 7 and 8: Contents Acknowledgements .........
- Page 9 and 10: Executive Summary Introduction Popu
- Page 11 and 12: part a result of the far higher lev
- Page 13 and 14: Section 1: Introduction 1.1 Populat
- Page 15 and 16: Section 1: Introduction we make ext
- Page 17 and 18: Section 2: The Demography of Ageing
- Page 19 and 20: Section 2: The Demography of Ageing
- Page 21 and 22: Section 2: The Demography of Ageing
- Page 23 and 24: Section 2: The Demography of Ageing
- Page 25 and 26: Section 2: The Demography of Ageing
- Page 27 and 28: Section 3: Demographic, Social and
- Page 29 and 30: Section 3: Demographic, Social and
- Page 31 and 32: Section 3: Demographic, Social and
- Page 33 and 34: Section 3: Demographic, Social and
- Page 35: Section 3: Demographic, Social and
- Page 39 and 40: Section 3: Demographic, Social and
- Page 41 and 42: Section 3: Demographic, Social and
- Page 43 and 44: Section 3: Demographic, Social and
- Page 45 and 46: Section 4: Health Status Moreover,
- Page 47 and 48: Section 4: Health Status Problems w
- Page 49: Section 4: Health Status similar to
- Page 52 and 53: Section 5: Family support and inter
- Page 54 and 55: Section 5: Family support and inter
- Page 56 and 57: Section 5: Family support and inter
- Page 58 and 59: Section 5: Family support and inter
- Page 60 and 61: Section 5: Family support and inter
- Page 62 and 63: Section 5: Family support and inter
- Page 64 and 65: Section 5: Family support and inter
- Page 66 and 67: Section 5: Family support and inter
- Page 68 and 69: Section 5: Family support and inter
- Page 70 and 71: Section 6: Policy and Programme Res
- Page 72 and 73: Section 6: Policy and Programme Res
- Page 74 and 75: Section 6: Policy and Programme Res
- Page 76 and 77: Section 6: Policy and Programme Res
- Page 78 and 79: Section 7: Key findings and recomme
- Page 80 and 81: Section 7: Key findings and recomme
- Page 82 and 83: Endnotes 1 On gender and ageing see
- Page 84 and 85: Bibliography Bryant, J. 2005. Proje
Section 3: Demographic, Social <strong>and</strong> Economic Pr<strong>of</strong>ile<br />
<strong>in</strong>come <strong>and</strong> may well not unambiguously signify a<br />
disadvantage for women.<br />
Somewhat similar patterns are evident with respect to<br />
<strong>the</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ed value <strong>of</strong> property <strong>and</strong> sav<strong>in</strong>gs. Overall,<br />
men tend to show a more favorable distribution <strong>in</strong><br />
this regard than do women. But aga<strong>in</strong>, this pattern <strong>of</strong><br />
female disadvantage is not found among <strong>the</strong><br />
unmarried among whom <strong>the</strong> distributions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
total value <strong>of</strong> property <strong>and</strong> sav<strong>in</strong>gs for men <strong>and</strong> women<br />
are similar. The difference thus is limited solely to<br />
currently married older persons. S<strong>in</strong>ce among couples,<br />
spouses likely benefit from each o<strong>the</strong>r’s assets, <strong>the</strong>se<br />
f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs do not necessarily reflect a disadvantage with<br />
respect to material well-be<strong>in</strong>g among women<br />
compared to men.<br />
Hous<strong>in</strong>g quality <strong>and</strong> household possessions. The<br />
quality <strong>of</strong> one’s dwell<strong>in</strong>g unit is ano<strong>the</strong>r reflection <strong>of</strong><br />
wealth <strong>and</strong> hence economic well-be<strong>in</strong>g. Several<br />
aspects <strong>of</strong> hous<strong>in</strong>g quality are shown <strong>in</strong> Table 3.7 based<br />
on <strong>the</strong> three rounds <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Survey <strong>of</strong> <strong>Older</strong> <strong>Persons</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
Thail<strong>and</strong>. A clear trend towards liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> better<br />
constructed houses is evident over <strong>the</strong> 13 year period<br />
covered. The share who live <strong>in</strong> dwell<strong>in</strong>gs made <strong>of</strong><br />
reused or nonpermanent material has decreased <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> per cent who live <strong>in</strong> dwell<strong>in</strong>gs made ma<strong>in</strong>ly <strong>of</strong><br />
cement or brick has <strong>in</strong>creased. Even <strong>in</strong> 1994 only<br />
about six per cent <strong>of</strong> older persons lived <strong>in</strong> hous<strong>in</strong>g<br />
made <strong>of</strong> very <strong>in</strong>ferior material <strong>and</strong> by 2007 this was<br />
reduced to just over one per cent At <strong>the</strong> same time<br />
<strong>the</strong> per cent <strong>of</strong> older persons who lived <strong>in</strong> dwell<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
made <strong>of</strong> cement or brick more than doubled from<br />
just 14 per cent to over one third. 9<br />
25
Change language