08.01.2016 Views

Population, territory and sustainable development

The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of current trends, contexts and issues in the spheres of population, territory and sustainable development and examine their public policy implications. Three themes run through the report. The first two are laid out in the empirical chapters (III through X); the third is taken up in the closing chapter. Using the most recent data available (including censuses conducted in the 2010s), the first theme describes and tracks location and spatial mobility patterns for the population of Latin America, focusing on certain kinds of territory. The second explores the linkages between these patterns and sustainable development in different kinds of territory in Latin America and the Caribbean. The third offers considerations and policy proposals for fostering a consistent, synergistic relationship between population location and spatial mobility, on the one hand, and sustainable development, on the other, in the kinds of territory studied.

The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of current trends, contexts and issues in the spheres of population, territory and sustainable development and examine their public policy implications. Three themes run through the report. The first two are laid out in the empirical chapters (III through X); the third is taken up in the closing chapter. Using the most recent data available (including censuses conducted in the 2010s), the first theme describes and tracks location and spatial mobility patterns for the population of Latin America, focusing on certain kinds of territory. The second explores the linkages between these patterns and sustainable development in different kinds of territory in Latin America and the Caribbean. The third offers considerations and policy proposals for fostering a consistent, synergistic relationship between population location and spatial mobility, on the one hand, and sustainable development, on the other, in the kinds of territory studied.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

59<br />

Figure IV.6<br />

LATIN AMERICA: POOR AND INDIGENT RURAL POPULATION, AROUND 2000 AND 2010<br />

(Percentage of total population)<br />

A. Poverty B. Indigence<br />

100<br />

100<br />

90<br />

90<br />

80<br />

80<br />

70<br />

70<br />

60<br />

60<br />

50<br />

50<br />

40<br />

40<br />

30<br />

30<br />

20<br />

20<br />

10<br />

10<br />

0<br />

0<br />

Bolivia<br />

(Plur. State of)<br />

Brasil<br />

Chile<br />

Colombia<br />

Costa Rica<br />

Ecuador<br />

El Salvador<br />

Guatemala<br />

Honduras<br />

Mexico<br />

Nicaragua<br />

Panama<br />

Paraguay<br />

Peru<br />

Dominican Rep.<br />

Uruguay<br />

Latin America<br />

Bolivia<br />

(Plur. State of)<br />

Brazil<br />

Chile<br />

Colombia<br />

Costa Rica<br />

Ecuador<br />

El Salvador<br />

Guatemala<br />

Honduras<br />

Mexico<br />

Nicaragua<br />

Panama<br />

Paraguay<br />

Peru<br />

Dominican Rep.<br />

Uruguay<br />

Latin America<br />

Around 2000 Around 2010<br />

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America <strong>and</strong> the Caribbean (ECLAC), on the basis of special tabulations of data from<br />

household surveys conducted in the relevant countries.<br />

Rodríguez <strong>and</strong> Meneses group the countries studied in three major categories by percentage of<br />

poverty in all rural households (see figure IV.7). The first category corresponds to those countries in<br />

which less than 20% of households are poor: Uruguay (6.4%), Chile (9.9%) <strong>and</strong> Costa Rica (14.7%). In<br />

the second, between 20% <strong>and</strong> 50% are poor: Brazil (31.8%), Panama (35.5%), Mexico (37,0%), the<br />

Dominican Republic (45.1%) <strong>and</strong> Ecuador (45.3%). In the third, over 50% of households are poor:<br />

Paraguay (57.1%), Guatemala (59.7%), Plurinational State of Bolivia (68.3%) <strong>and</strong> Honduras (74.4%).<br />

Rodríguez <strong>and</strong> Meneses (2011) thus identify four subgroups of rural economies based on the<br />

percentage of rural employment in agriculture <strong>and</strong> poverty rates among all rural households (see<br />

figure IV.8). The first subgroup comprises countries in which over 50% of the rural population is<br />

employed in agriculture <strong>and</strong> over 50% of rural households are poor. The countries in this subgroup are<br />

characterized as having traditional agrarian rural economies: Honduras, Guatemala, Paraguay <strong>and</strong> the<br />

Plurinational State of Bolivia. The second subgroup is composed of countries in which over 50% of the<br />

rural workforce is employed in agriculture <strong>and</strong> less than 20% of rural households are poor. In these rural<br />

economies agriculture predominates <strong>and</strong> poverty is low, <strong>and</strong> they are characterized by non-traditional<br />

agriculture. This is the case of Chile <strong>and</strong> Uruguay. In the third subgroup less than 30% of rural<br />

employment is in agriculture <strong>and</strong> the poverty rate among rural households is around 20%. This category<br />

has only one country, Costa Rica, which has a diversified rural economy. Lastly, the fourth subgroup<br />

includes countries with intermediate levels of rural poverty, between 20% <strong>and</strong> 50%, <strong>and</strong> a highly varying<br />

percentage of rural employment in agriculture. These are countries whose rural economies are in<br />

transition: Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico <strong>and</strong> Panama.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!