Population, territory and sustainable development

More documents

Info

61 The results of the analysis show some major differences among countries which have low poverty rates among rural households. For example, what small differences there are in the poverty rate between groups of households in Uruguay still show poverty being highest among agricultural households, whereas in Chile and Costa Rica transfer-dependent households have the highest poverty rates (19% and 39.3%, respectively). And in all three cases the lowest rates of poverty are seen in multi-activity households. The authors report that the group of countries with rural economies in transition is the most uneven: the highest poverty rates are found in agricultural households in Brazil (39.6%), Panama (55.1%) and Mexico (58.0%) and among transfer-dependent households in Ecuador (54.2%) and the Dominican Republic (85.4%), while the lowest poverty rates occur in multi-activity households in Brazil (22.9%), Ecuador (24.7%) and the Dominican Republic (30.3%) and among non-agricultural households in Panama (16.1%) and Mexico (25.2%). The four countries with traditional agrarian rural economies share a high proportion of agricultural households (over 40%) and high rates of poverty in this group of households (close to or over 70%); and in three of those countries (Guatemala, Honduras and Paraguay) the lowest poverty rates occur in non-agricultural households (with rates of around or above 40%). In countries with the highest rates of rural poverty, these tend to occur among households whose labour income comes wholly from agriculture, with poverty rates lower among non-agricultural households. Conversely, in countries with lower rural poverty rates, poverty tends to be greater among households which depend entirely on transfer income and lower in households which combine agricultural and non-agricultural labour income. A recent study on labour market policies and rural poverty (FAO/ECLAC/ILO, 2010) offers a number of innovative observations in this regard. These are summarized in box IV.6. Rodríguez and Meneses (2011) found that household survey data from four of the region’s countries confirm higher poverty rates in indigenous than in non-indigenous rural populations. Figure IV.9 shows that these differences are larger in Ecuador and Guatemala, and in both countries the gap widened in the reporting period. In Guatemala the wider gap between indigenous and non-indigenous rural populations (from 22.7 to 28.7 percentage points between 2000 and 2006) occurred because poverty fell among the non-indigenous rural population, but remained high (around 83%) among the indigenous population. In Ecuador poverty rates fell in both groups between 2004 and 2009 but the gap widened (from 16.9% to 22.5%), mainly because non-indigenous rural poverty eased more rapidly. In the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the poverty gap between the indigenous and non-indigenous populations narrowed considerably between 2001 and 2007 (from 17.4 to 4.3 percentage points), partly owing to falling poverty rates among the indigenous population (4.9 percentage points) and rising poverty among non-indigenous populations (8.2 percentage points). The lowest poverty rate among indigenous rural populations occurs in Chile, where the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous rural populations decreased between 2000 and 2009 (from 15% to 10.3%). Lastly, Chile is the only country in which indigenous poverty was below 20% towards 2010, whereas it was considerably higher in Ecuador (60%), the Plurinational State of Bolivia (70%) and Guatemala (80%). Box IV.6 LABOUR MARKET AND RURAL POVERTY A research work entitled Políticas de mercado de trabajo y pobreza rural en América Latina (FAO/ECLAC/ILO, 2010) draws upon five case studies conducted for Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Peru, and contributes significant findings on the linkages between rural employment and poverty in rural areas. In the background to the study is the premise that the idea that poverty can be eliminated only through economic growth has ceased to be valid, since generations have gone by and yet poverty persists. The agricultural boom of the past few years boosted agricultural production and prices but produced no great impact on rural poverty rates (Graciano, Gómez and Castañeda, 2009). Between 1990 and 2006, with the exceptions of Brazil and Chile, in all countries labour income for employed indigents stood still or fell. Where poverty among indigents fell in that period, it was not because their labour income increased, but because the number of employed persons in the household rose or because non-labour income —mainly transfers— increased (ECLAC, 2009).
62 Box IV.6 (concluded) These and other observations lay behind this project, whose aim was to discover what was happening in the rural labour market, on the hypothesis that the market’s workings were partly to blame for its poor performance in relation to poverty reduction, inasmuch as the rural labour market was clearly not distributing the benefits of growth, particularly among the rural poor. The five case studies showed that in some of the countries, over half of ruraldwellers are poor and, in all five countries except Chile, poverty is higher in rural than in urban areas. The authors note that there are multiple causes for this, but focus on determining those origins of poverty that lie in the labour market, specifically in wage work which is where the labour market operates. The study’s main findings are summarized below. Most of the rural employed work mainly in agriculture —except for in Costa Rica and El Salvador— but non-agricultural rural employment, especially in commerce and services, is nonetheless significant. This is important when it comes to analysing poverty, since non-agricultural rural activities generate higher income than agricultural activities. Occupational structure shows that most of the rural employed are wage workers in Costa Rica and Chile and, to a lesser extent, in El Salvador. In Peru few rural employed work for wages, but those that do are mainly on the coast. Brazil has a slightly higher proportion of rural wage workers than Peru, but they are concentrated in certain activities such as the growing of sugar cane and export fruit and a few other activities. In addition, the percentage of urban-dwelling wage workers employed in agriculture has risen: almost half of workers employed in agriculture in Chile and around a third in Brazil. Taken together with the tendency for rural employment to be increasingly seasonal, it becomes clear why poverty is more widespread among seasonal workers living in urban areas. Seasonal workers make up two thirds of those employed in agriculture in El Salvador and three fifths in Chile, and in all five countries seasonal workers, when employed, earn between 65% and 75% of the income of permanent workers. So any attempt to understand rural poverty must focus on primary activities. From analysis of the operation of the main labour market institutions, it is clear that their poor performance and coverage explain much of rural poverty. First of all, with the exception of Chile, avoidance of legal minimum wages is widespread, especially when it comes to poor workers: poor workers are poor because they do not earn what the law says they should and this is the responsibility of the firms which hire labour and the State which ought to ensure compliance with the law. Many wage workers earning below the legal minimum actually work longer hours than the normal working day; this occurs in Brazil. This is simply exploitation. Second, employment informality —i.e. where workers have no contract or social security provision— is also very common, especially among rural women. In all the countries studied, job informality rates are between 54% and 98% among the poor, and between 23% and 85% among the non-poor. In other words, there is a clear, direct link between employment informality —an avoidance issue for which employers and the State are responsible— and rural poverty. Trends in labour intermediation and subcontracting, which have been observed in some countries, are also influencing the increasingly precarious conditions of employment and the consequent increase in poverty rates. Naturally, comprehension of rural poverty dynamics also requires analysis of other labour-related processes occurring in the labour market, and the case of child labour is perhaps the clearest: it takes children out of education, their work contributes little to the family income and it passes poverty on from one generation to the next since the link between poverty and low level of schooling has been highlighted in many case studies. Also, in poor households few members work, and this is crucial because among the poor labour income forms the bulk of total household income. A related point is that poor households have a much larger number of people who are economically dependent on each employed household member than non-poor households, which explains their low per capita income. One of the reasons for this is women’s rate of participation in paid employment, which is generally lower than that of men; and rural women have a lower economic participation rate than urban women. Lastly, the authors note that, since the study examined the operation of the labour market, the reasons for the poverty of the rural poor not participating in that market must be sought in other variables, such as production resources, technology, spatial integration and other factors. Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean/International Labour Organization (FAO/ECLAC/ILO), Políticas de mercado de trabajo y pobreza rural en América Latina, Santiago, Chile, 2010.
Page 3 and 4:
Alicia Bárcena Executive Secretary
Page 5 and 6:
4 Chapter VII Regional inequalities
Page 7 and 8:
6 Table V.3 Latin America (9 countr
Page 9 and 10:
8 Figure IV.10 Latin America (selec
Page 11 and 12: 10 Map VII.5 Plurinational State of
Page 13 and 14: 12 This document is therefore divid
Page 16 and 17: 15 Chapter II CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS
Page 18 and 19: 17 which guarantee comparability. C
Page 20 and 21: 19 social inclusion, with improveme
Page 22: 21 The above description is clearly
Page 25 and 26: 24 Table III.1 LATIN AMERICA AND TH
Page 27 and 28: 26 Table III.3 LATIN AMERICA (19 CO
Page 29 and 30: 28 While the rural population of La
Page 31 and 32: 30 Box IV.1 (concluded) In addition
Page 33 and 34: 32 As a result of the absolute and
Page 35 and 36: 34 The sustained decline in the rur
Page 37 and 38: 36 Country Table IV.2 LATIN AMERICA
Page 39 and 40: 38 Country Table IV.5 LATIN AMERICA
Page 41 and 42: 40 Box IV.3 THE AGEING OF THE RURAL
Page 43 and 44: 42 Rodríguez and Meneses (2011) co
Page 45 and 46: 44 The classification outlined in t
Page 47 and 48: 46 An analysis of the results obtai
Page 49 and 50: 48 Although the inhabitants of some
Page 51 and 52: 50 Non-agricultural employment has
Page 53 and 54: 52 C. PRODUCTION PATTERNS AND THE R
Page 55 and 56: 54 Box IV.5 IMPACTS OF SOYBEAN PROD
Page 57 and 58: 56 A recent study entitled Inserci
Page 59 and 60: 58 Table IV.11 LATIN AMERICA: POOR
Page 61: 60 Figure IV.7 POVERTY IN RURAL HOU
Page 65 and 66: 64 combine a number of factors of w
Page 67 and 68: 66 Figure IV.10 LATIN AMERICA (SELE
Page 69 and 70: 68 The data in figure IV.11 also sh
Page 71 and 72: 70 Figure IV.12 LATIN AMERICA: AVER
Page 73 and 74: 72 Box IV.8 ADOLESCENT FERTILITY IN
Page 75 and 76: 74 Map V.1 SOUTH AMERICA: POPULATIO
Page 77 and 78: 76 Prime examples of this include t
Page 79 and 80: 78 Table V.2 LATIN AMERICA (9 COUNT
Page 81 and 82: 80 creation of tax-free zones, the
Page 83 and 84: 82 Box V.2 (concluded) State polici
Page 85 and 86: 84 In any case, only once the infor
Page 87 and 88: 86 It is not possible to draw direc
Page 89 and 90: 88 studies was conducted recently b
Page 91 and 92: 90 C. THE POLITICAL CONTEXT AND MOB
Page 94 and 95: 93 Chapter VII REGIONAL INEQUALITIE
Page 96 and 97: 95 Map VII.2 LATIN AMERICA AND THE
Page 98 and 99: 97 Some of these programmes were su
Page 100 and 101: 99 D. TERRITORIAL EQUITY, REGIONAL
Page 102 and 103: 101 Map VII.3 CHILE: CLASSIFICATION
Page 104 and 105: 103 In Mexico, most of the chronica
Page 106 and 107: 105 Figure VII.3 ECUADOR: POVERTY R
Page 108 and 109: 107 However, internal migration can
Page 110 and 111: 109 Table VII.5 LATIN AMERICA (SELE
Page 112 and 113:
111 Table VII.7 PERU (SIERRA DEPART
Page 114 and 115:
113 Lastly, in the case of Ecuador,
Page 116 and 117:
115 Chapter VIII SUSTAINED URBANIZA
Page 118 and 119:
117 This chapter presents the most
Page 120 and 121:
119 Busso, 2009; and ECLAC-UN-HABIT
Page 122 and 123:
121 estimate of the urban populatio
Page 124 and 125:
123 Figure VIII.2 LATIN AMERICA AND
Page 126 and 127:
125 First, the region’s economy i
Page 128 and 129:
127 urbanized; the rural population
Page 130 and 131:
129 rural areas. According to the s
Page 132 and 133:
131 the absence of a strategic visi
Page 134 and 135:
133 The need to design ad hoc inter
Page 136 and 137:
135 settlements with low-income pop
Page 138 and 139:
137 Figure VIII.4 LATIN AMERICA AND
Page 140:
139 At the same time, decentralizat
Page 143 and 144:
142 The rest of the system of citie
Page 145 and 146:
144 Table IX.1 LATIN AMERICA: NUMBE
Page 147 and 148:
146 First is the demographic scope
Page 149 and 150:
148 Basing the same series on towns
Page 151 and 152:
150 Table IX.2 LATIN AMERICA: PROSP
Page 153 and 154:
152 The data emerging from 2010 cen
Page 155 and 156:
154 City size Table IX.6 LATIN AMER
Page 157 and 158:
156 Figure IX.5 LATIN AMERICA (1,73
Page 159 and 160:
158 For unemployment, the picture i
Page 161 and 162:
160 rate differential among the dif
Page 163 and 164:
162 individuals valued cultural fac
Page 165 and 166:
164 that draw migrants, due precise
Page 167 and 168:
166 Table IX.10 LATIN AMERICA AND T
Page 170 and 171:
169 Chapter X TRENDS, MUTATIONS AND
Page 172 and 173:
171 Table X.2 LATIN AMERICA: EVOLUT
Page 174 and 175:
173 1. Demographic evolution of lar
Page 176 and 177:
175 As table X.4 shows, during the
Page 178 and 179:
177 comparison. But the most convin
Page 180 and 181:
179 in recent years, which are desc
Page 182 and 183:
181 Map X.2 MEXICO: INTERCENSAL GRO
Page 184 and 185:
183 irregular settlements known as
Page 186 and 187:
185 The third argument is based on
Page 188 and 189:
187 Map X.4 MEXICO CITY: EXTENDED M
Page 190 and 191:
189 more general social inequalitie
Page 192:
191 5. Concluding remarks: the grea
Page 195 and 196:
194 In view of lower internal migra
Page 197 and 198:
196 familiarity with surroundings a
Page 199 and 200:
198 connections; (ii) identify the
Page 201 and 202:
200 The report casts light on an is
Page 203 and 204:
202 Box XI.3 PROTECTING THE ECOSYST
Page 205 and 206:
204 In view of the above, the prima
Page 207 and 208:
206 overlap of functions and alloca
Page 209 and 210:
208 Many of the programmes develope
Page 211 and 212:
210 A breakdown of net migration by
Page 213 and 214:
212 Box XI.8 (concluded) Case studi
Page 216 and 217:
215 Bibliography Abba, Artemio Pedr
Page 218 and 219:
217 Cecchini, S. and A. Madariaga (
Page 220 and 221:
219 (2010a), Time for equality: clo
Page 222 and 223:
221 Hiebert, Daniel and David Ley (
Page 224 and 225:
223 Pendall, R., R. Puentes and J.
Page 226 and 227:
225 Rodríguez, J. and M. Villa (19
show all

Population, territory and sustainable development

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?