Poverty levels have fallen
Editorial
The final report entitled "Poverty and l999 Guyana Survey of Living Conditions" submitted to the United Nations Development Programme in August 2000 contained a number of interesting findings. The report was prepared by Professor Clive Thomas of the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Guyana. The first finding was that the population had been virtually static from l992/3 when the previous survey was carried out (7l7,449) to l999 (72l,83l). The largest ethnic group, East Indian, was slightly down from 49.5 per cent to 48.2 per cent. The second largest ethnic group classified in the l999 survey as Negro/Black fell from 35.6 to 27.7 per cent. However, the estimate of the mixed population rose from 7.l per cent to l7.6 per cent. Dr Thomas notes that this can be explained either by the unreliability of the estimates in l992/3 or in l999 or that the respondents to the survey, who declared their own racial type "may have been more inclined to define themselves in l992/3 as Negro/Black and that in l999 this perception had shifted". The survey estimated l73,86l households with an average size just over four. 78 per cent had five or fewer. Over two thirds of the heads of households had not gone beyond primary education. In the survey the absolute poverty line was set at $7,639 per person per month (i.e. the line for both food and non-food expenditures). The more extreme critical poverty line (the line below which persons could not even afford food to survive) was set at $5,463 per person per month (that is about $l82 or US $l.00 a day which, the survey points out, compares to the standard international poverty line used by the World Bank). Based on the survey, 36.3 per cent of the population is in absolute poverty and l9.l per cent in critical poverty. Shocking as these figures are they are significantly better than l992/3 where the comparative figures were 43.2 per cent and 27.7 per cent respectively. There were substantially less absolutely poor and critically poor people in l999 than there had been seven years earlier. There is a high concentration of poverty in the rural interior areas (78 per cent) and rural coastal areas (40 per cent, down from 45 per cent in l992/3). There have been striking improvements in the urban areas. In urban Georgetown absolute poverty was estimated at l6 per cent in l999, down from 30 per cent in the previous survey. In other urban areas absolute poverty was down to l6.3 per cent from 23.l. The data for critical poverty showed a fall from 28 per cent for all Guyana to 9 per cent In urban Georgetown critical poverty was down to 8.2 per cent from l5.7 and in other urban areas down to 3 per cent from l2.2. The rural coastal areas improved from 27.9 to l8.l but there was no improvement in the rural interior. Half the income earners earned less than G$7,500 per month and 48 per cent of the income earning population depended on self employment. There are other interesting findings. The unemployment ratio is shown, with reservations, as nine per cent. 60 per cent of the population live in congested circumstances, 36 per cent had no electricity or no piped water to the yard or building where they live. The leading responses to the question "why are some Guyanese poor?" were "born poor" (l8%), "laziness" (l6%), "insufficient government support" (l6 %) and "lack of education" (l3 %). The picture overall is not bright. In the UNDP's Human Development Report 2000 Guyana was ranked 96 out of l74 countries, the lowest in the Caribbean except for Haiti. There is still a lot of poverty here, particularly in the Amerindian areas where the situation has apparently not improved. But the good news, such as it is, is that the situation is less desperate than it was seven years before.
 Follow the goings-on in Guyana
|