| Literature DB >> 27006867 |
Martin J Prince1, Peter Lloyd-Sherlock2, Mariella Guerra3, Yueqin Huang4, Ana Luisa Sosa5, Richard Uwakwe6, Isaac Acosta5, Zhaorui Liu4, Sara Gallardo7, Maelenn Guerchet1, Rosie Mayston1, Veronica Montes de Oca8, Hong Wang4, Peter Ezeah9.
Abstract
Few data are available from middle income countries regarding economic circumstances of households in which older people live. Many such settings have experienced rapid demographic, social and economic change, alongside increasing pension coverage. Population-based household surveys in rural and urban catchment areas in Peru, Mexico and China. Participating households were selected from all households with older residents. Descriptive analyses were weighted back for sampling fractions and non-response. Household income and consumption were estimated from a household key informant interview. 877 Household interviews (3177 residents). Response rate 68 %. Household income and consumption correlated plausibly with other economic wellbeing indicators. Household Incomes varied considerably within and between sites. While multigenerational households were the norm, older resident's incomes accounted for a high proportion of household income, and older people were particularly likely to pool income. Differences in the coverage and value of pensions were a major source of variation in household income among sites. There was a small, consistent inverse association between household pension income and labour force participation of younger adult co-residents. The effect of pension income on older adults' labour force participation was less clear-cut. Historical linkage of social protection to formal employment may have contributed to profound late-life socioeconomic inequalities. Strategies to formalise the informal economy, alongside increases in the coverage and value of non-contributory pensions and transfers would help to address this problem.Entities:
Keywords: Ageing; China; Developing countries; Economic status; Mexico; Pensions; Peru
Year: 2016 PMID: 27006867 PMCID: PMC4775717 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-1913-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Household and individual resident characteristics, by site (weighted analyses)
| Peru (urban) | Peru (rural) | Mexico (urban) | Mexico (rural) | China (urban) | China (rural) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Number of households (weighted number) | 140 (703) | 56 (371) | 190 (600) | 167 (597) | 177 (508) | 147 (611) |
| Number of residents—median (IQR) | 4 (2–6) | 3 (2–7) | 3 (2–5) | 3 (2–5) | 2 (2–3) | 4 (3–5) |
| Household composition (MV) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Older adults only (%) | 14.2 | 28.8 | 33.0 | 30.8 | 39.2 | 12.9 |
| Older adults with younger adults (%) | 85.8 | 70.7 | 64.4 | 66.4 | 58.6 | 79.5 |
| Younger adults only (%) | 0.0 | 0.5 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 7.6 |
| With children <16 years (%) | 22.9 | 24.3 | 24.7 | 39.7 | 3.8 | 21.4 |
| MV | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Assets index—median (IQR) | 9 (8–10) | 8 (6–9) | 8 (7–9) | 6 (5–7) | 8 (7–10) | 9 (7–10) |
| MV | 12 | 192 | ||||
| Home ownership (%) | 91.6 | 96.6 | 97.9 | 100.0 | 52.1 | 100.0 |
| MV | 10 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 14 | 202 |
| Agricultural land ownership (%) | 0.3 | 17.5 | 6.1 | 25.1 | 0.0 | 58.3 |
| MV | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 169 |
| Any savings (%) | 2.0 | 10.8 | 8.0 | 3.2 | 64.7 | 42.1 |
| MV | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 52 | 201 |
| Savings >100 % of annual HH income (%) | 0 | 0 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 41.0 | 9.4 |
| MV | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 52 | 201 |
| Any debts (%) | 10.0 | 6.1 | 7.1 | 9.3 | 1.8 | 1.9 |
| MV | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Catastrophic healthcare costs (>10 % of household income) (%) | 11.4 | 14.2 | 25.2 | 31.1 | 29.1 | 12.2 |
| MV | 2 | 32 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 0 |
| One or more indicators of economic strain (%) | 42.7 | 78.6 | 54.5 | 46.5 | 10.1 | 25.1 |
| MV | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 63 | 208 |
| Overall financial situation (% bad or very bad) | 4.6 | 15.4 | 18.1 | 15.6 | 2.7 | 8.4 |
| MV | 2 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 23 | 192 |
| Overall household life satisfaction (% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied) | 6.4 | 8.8 | 11.0 | 8.2 | 3.5 | 9.5 |
| MV | 2 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 23 | 192 |
|
| ||||||
| Number of individual residents (weighted) | 611 (3079) | 228 (1583) | 685 (1980) | 604 (2261) | 455 (1312) | 594 (2454) |
| Female gender (%) | 58.0 | 50.9 | 64.7 | 54.4 | 59.7 | 50.1 |
| MV | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 42 |
| Age distribution—MV |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| <5 years (%) | 5.7 | 3.5 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 0.5 | 2.8 |
| 5–16 years (%) | 5.5 | 14.6 | 8.7 | 15.2 | 1.0 | 3.3 |
| 16–64 (%) | 56.1 | 42.8 | 46.8 | 46.2 | 44.0 | 60.0 |
| 65+ (%) | 32.8 | 39.1 | 41.9 | 35.9 | 54.6 | 33.9 |
| Children and adults in FT education (%), by age | ||||||
| 5–15 years (%) | 76.9 (26.0) | 78.4 (14.3) | 94.2 | 84.2 | 100.0 | 91.2 |
| 16–64 years (%) | 8.1 | 0.0 | 12.7 | 7.4 | 7.0 | 4.0 |
| Children and adults in paid work (%), by age | ||||||
| 5–15 (%) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 1.2 |
| 16–64 | ||||||
| In work (%) | 72.1 | 56.6 | 62.1 | 69.6 | 42.6 | 85.8 |
| Other roles | ||||||
| Seeking work (%) | 2.7 | 0.3 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 8.0 | 0.0 |
| Student (%) | 11.5 | 11.9 | 12.5 | 6.6 | 5.2 | 3.6 |
| Homemaker/child care (%) | 6.1 | 15.6 | 11.7 | 13.8 | 1.5 | 4.1 |
| Caring for OA (%) | 3.7 | 3.9 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 3.2 |
| Retired (%) | 2.9 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 0.1 | 34.1 | 1.9 |
| Limiting long-term illness or disability (%) | 0.6 | 11.5 | 2.2 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 0.0 |
| 65+ | ||||||
| In work (%) | 4.6 | 15.3 | 11.7 | 22.8 | 0.0 | 7.3 |
| Seeking work (%) | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Adults receiving a pension (%), by age | ||||||
| 16–64 years (%) | 2.8 | 0.3 | 2.7 | 0.1 | 39.2 | 1.2 |
| 65+ years (%) | 70.0 | 59.8 | 65.7 | 90.5 | 94.6 | 14.8 |
| Monthly income from pensions (international $) for those aged 65 and over receiving a pension—mean (SD) | 391 (190) | 268 (75) | 278 (308) | 90 (122) | 752 (706) | 108 (125) |
MV missing values (weighted)
Monthly total equivalised household income, expenditure and food consumption (international $, 2011)—weighted analysis
| Site | Equivalised household income | Equivalised household expenditure | Equivalised food consumption | Income inequality (20:20 ratio)a | Consumption inequality (20:20 ratio)b | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peru, urban | Mean (95 % CI) | 838 (730–946) | 321 (293–349) | 163 (148–178) | 3.48 | 2.77 |
| Median (IQR) | 772 (557–1132) | 298 (241–406) | 151 (119–200) | |||
| Peru, rural | Mean (95 % CI) | 504 (358–651) | 238 (161–314) | 121 (93–149) | 5.21 | 4.87 |
| Median (IQR) | 392 (294–564) | 142 (131–272) | 106 (74–144) | |||
| Mexico, urban | Mean (95 % CI) | 427 (368–486) | 233 (209–256) | 138 (122–154) | 5.47 | 3.54 |
| Median (IQR) | 355 (246–487) | 199 (150–299) | 115 (78–172) | |||
| Mexico, rural | Mean (95 % CI) | 149 (125–173) | 165 (131–200) | 101 (84–117) | 8.91 | 4.79 |
| Median (IQR) | 123 (58–184) | 143 (93–203) | 92 (52–143) | |||
| China, urban | Mean (95 % CI) | 1456 (1135–1795) | 284 (263–304) | 182 (166–197) | 8.66 | 3.57 |
| Median (IQR) | 914 (694–1265) | 260 (193–343) | 162 (116–216) | |||
| China, rural | Mean (95 % CI) | 3128 (1828–4427) | 237 (189–285) | 122 (86–157) | 30.17 | 6.48 |
| Median (IQR) | 1540 (611–5127) | 218 (123–281) | 100 (46–157) |
aThe ratio of the aggregate equivalized incomes of the top and bottom 20 % of households by income
bThe ratio of the aggregate equivalized expenditure of the top and bottom 20 % of households by expenditure
Individual monthly incomes for adult residents by site, age group and gender (weighted analysis)
| Site | Gender | Younger adults (16–64 years) | Older adults (65 years and over) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proportion with an income (%) | Median income (25th, 75th centile) for those with incomes | Proportion (%) pooling all of their income | Proportion with an income (%) | Median income (25th, 75th centile) for those with incomes | Proportion (%) pooling all of their income | ||
| Peru urban | M | 87.1 | 706 (558–1058) | 4.8 | 96.0 | 353 (292–588) | 18.1 |
| F | 70.2 | 765 (529–941) | 8.8 | 89.3 | 588 (294–794) | 20.2 | |
| Peru rural | M | 83.9 | 529 (412–588) | 0.0 | 88.0 | 282 (247–492) | 1.8 |
| F | 36.7 | 441 (235–471) | 9.7 | 77.1 | 294 (229–353) | 5.5 | |
| Mexico urban | M | 52.8 | 410 (346–691) | 18.0 | 99.1 | 277 (127–400) | 14.8 |
| F | 47.2 | 461 (230–691) | 5.7 | 92.4 | 238 (115–388) | 13.0 | |
| Mexico rural | M | 44.0 | 114 (92–325) | 20.4 | 94.0 | 58 (58–61) | 30.6 |
| F | 45.8 | 138 (92–259) | 2.8 | 93.9 | 58 (58–128) | 30.0 | |
| China urban | M | 82.8 | 694 (412–926) | 10.2 | 98.2 | 770 (694–1065) | 42.8 |
| F | 74.6 | 648 (509–926) | 4.5 | 98.4 | 694 (527–856) | 42.7 | |
| China rural | M | 90.5 | 880 (463–7060) | 26.1 | 94.0 | 370 (69–4693) | 27.2 |
| F | 87.8 | 521 (347–810) | 25.8 | 97.0 | 191 (69–2419) | 21.7 | |
Sources of household income by site; median/mean % of total household income (weighted analysis)
| Site | Pension | Paid work | Assets | Gov’t transfers | Private transfers | % of total household income contributed by older adults | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All households | Households with younger adults | |||||||
| Peru, urban | Mean (95 % CI) | 24 (19–29) | 47 (39–56) | 4 (0–7) | 1 (0–2) | 16 (8–25) | 45 (36–54) | 36 (30–41) |
| Median (25th, 75th centile) | 22 (7–34) | 52 (26–69) | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 8 (0–21) | 37 (21–63) | 33 (19–48) | |
| Peru, rural | Mean (95 % CI) | 28 (20–36) | 43 (31–55) | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–1) | 5 (0–11) | 51 (38–63) | 43 (35–51) |
| Median (25th, 75th centile) | 20 (16–36) | 52 (19–69) | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 40 (30–70) | 40 (31–60) | |
| Mexico, urban | Mean (95 % CI) | 35 (29–40) | 28 (21–36) | 6 (3–10) | 25 (21–29) | 3 (1–5) | 66 (56–75) | 51 (43–59) |
| Median (25th, 75th centile) | 31 (12–61) | 6 (0–57) | 0 (0–0) | 24 (9–33) | 0 (0–0) | 70 (31–100) | 44 (26–77) | |
| Mexico, rural | Mean (95 % CI) | 52 (42–63) | 36 (27–45) | 1 (0–2) | 3 (1–5) | 2 (0–4) | 66 (63–74) | 53 (41–64) |
| Median (25th, 75th centile) | 33 (13–100) | 23 (0–76) | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0-0) | 100 (23–100) | 37 (18–100) | |
| China, urban | Mean (95 % CI) | 70 (65–75) | 13 (9–17) | 9 (6–12) | 4 (1-6) | 4 (2–6) | 68 (63–74) | 54 (49–60) |
| Median (25th, 75th centile) | 82 (48–96) | 0 (0–22) | 3 (0-7) | 0 (0–2) | 0 (0–2) | 76 (42–100) | 52 (36–73) | |
| China, rural | Mean (95 % CI) | 12 (7–18) | 41 (30–51) | 45 (34–56) | 1 (1–2) | 1 (0–2) | 34 (26–42) | 27 (19–35) |
| Median (25th, 75th centile) | 2 (1–11) | 11 (4–88) | 11 (4-88) | 0 (0–1) | 0 (0–0) | 17 (5–52) | 17 (7–50) | |
Correlations between equivalised household income and expenditure, and other economic indicators (non-weighted analysis)
| Peru, urban | Peru, rural | Mexico, urban | Mexico, rural | China, urban | China, rural | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Equivalised household expenditure | +0.50 (<0.001) | +0.40 (0.003) | +0.44 (<0.001) | +0.30 (<0.001) | +0.22 (0.004) | +0.25 (0.009) |
| Equivalised food consumption | +0.48 (<0.001) | +0.42 (0.002) | +0.44 (<0.001) | +0.26 (0.001) | +0.23 (0.003) | +0.15 (0.12) |
| Number of assets | +0.29 (<0.001) | +0.55 (<0.001) | +0.19 (0.008) | +0.22 (0.005) | +0.06 (0.41) | +0.35 (<0.001) |
| Occupational social class | +0.31 (<0.001) | +0.07 (0.63) | +0.09 (0.23) | +0.02 (0.84) | +0.22 (0.003) | +0.02 (0.85) |
| Economic wellbeing | +0.29 (0.001) | +0.37 (0.005) | +0.11 (0.14) | +0.18 (0.03) | +0.29 (<0.001) | +0.30 (0.001) |
| Number of economic strain indicators | −0.30 (<0.001 | −0.34 (0.01) | −0.02 (0.73) | +0.20 (0.01) | −0.02 (0.79) | −0.31 (0.001) |
|
| ||||||
| Equivalised food consumption | +0.81 (<0.001) | +0.84 (<0.001 | +0.83 (<0.001) | +0.79 (<0.001) | +0.82 (<0.001) | +0.81 (<0.001) |
| Number of assets | +0.18 (0.03) | +0.40 (0.002) | +0.23 (0.001) | +0.27 (0.001) | +0.09 (0.23) | +0.26 (0.006) |
| Occupational social class | +0.20 (0.20) | +0.06 (0.67) | +0.14 (0.06) | +0.02 (0.84) | +0.08 (0.29) | +0.03 (0.80) |
| Economic wellbeing | +0.22 (0.009) | +0.11 (0.44) | +0.08 (0.27) | +0.07 (0.41) | +0.26 (0.001) | +0.35 (<0.001) |
| Number of economic strain indicators | −0.12 (0.15) | −0.17 (0.22) | −0.01 (0.89) | −0.03 (0.67) | +0.24 (0.003) | −0.08 (0.43) |
Associations of relative income and consumption poverty with other indictors of economic utility
| Peru, urban n = 139 | Peru, rural n = 56 | Mexico, urban | Mexico, rural n = 167 | China, urban | China, rural | Pooled estimates, Higgins I2 (heterogeneity %) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| Car ownershipb | 3.7 (0.7–20.4) | 2.3 (0.7–8.4) | 1.4 (0.9–2.2) | 1.1 (0.3–4.5) | 0.3 (0.0–2.1) | 0.8 (0.5–1.4) | 1.19 (0.86–1.64), 29.3 % |
| Number of assetsc | 1.0 (0.9–1.1) | 0.8 (0.7–1.0) | 1.0 (0.9–1.1) | 1.1 (1.0–1.2) | 1.0 (0.9–1.1) | 0.9 (0.8–1.0) | 0.99 (0.95–1.03), 51.5 % |
| Number of bedroomsc | 0.9 (0.8–1.0) | 0.6 (0.5–0.8) | 0.9 (0.7–1.1) | 1.2 (0.9–1.5) | 0.9 (0.7–1.1) | 0.8 (0.6–1.2) | 0.89 (0.82–0.96), 56.0 % |
| Lower occupational class of index older persond | 3.4 (1.6–7.3) | 5.2 (1.0–26.6) | 1.0 (0.5–2.4) | 1.0 (0.4–2.7) | 2.1 (0.8–5.8) | 0.2 (0.0–1.6) | 1.74 (1.15–2.63), 58.3 % |
| Number of economic strain indicatorse | 2.2 (1.1–4.3) | 1.7 (0.9–3.3) | 1.3 (0.8–2.1) | 0.3 (0.2–0.6) | 15.7 (5.5–44.8) | 0.1 (0.0–0.3) | 1.20 (0.90–1.60), 92.0 % |
| Perception of household economic situationd (higher scores indicate more negative perception) | 7.4 (2.2–25.5) | 10.8 (0.8–146.4) | 3.4 (0.9–12.2) | 1.1 (0.3–3.7) | 4.7 (1.5–14.6) | 0.1 (0.0–0.5) | 2.30 (1.33–4.01), 79.4 % |
|
| |||||||
| Car ownershipb | Could not be estimated | Could not be estimated | 0.5 (0.2–1.5) | 0.1 (0.0–1.0) | 1.6 (0.3–7.8) | 0.4 (0.1–1.2) | 0.47 (0.24–0.92), 39.3 % |
| Number of assetsc | 0.9 (0.8–1.0) | 0.9 (0.7–1.2) | 0.9 (0.8–1.0) | 0.9 (0.8–1.1) | 1.0 (0.9–1.1) | 0.9 (0.8–1.0) | 0.93 (0.89–0.98), 0.0 % |
| Number of bedroomsc | 1.1 (0.9–1.2) | 0.9 (0.7–1.3) | 0.8 (0.6–1.1) | 0.9 (0.7–1.1) | 1.1 (0.9–1.3) | 0.9 (0.6–1.4) | 1.01 (0.92–1.10), 17.4 % |
| Lower occupational class of index older persond | 4.6 (0.6–37.7) | 0.2 (0.1–0.6) | 4.3 (1.4–13.1) | 0.7 (0.2–2.3) | 1.2 (0.3–4.3) | 0.2 (0.0–1.5) | Urban sites |
| Number of economic strain indicatorse | 2.3 (0.9–6.0) | 1.3 (0.7–2.3) | 0.7 (0.3–1.5) | 0.9 (0.5–1.8) | Could not be estimated | 2.2 (0.8–6.2) | 1.20 (0.85–1.69), 31.7 % |
| Perception of household economic situationd (higher scores indicate more negative perception) | 7.6 (1.5–36.9) | 7.4 (2.7–20.7) | 2.1 (0.5–9.1) | 0.4 (0.1–2.1) | 2.0 (0.7–5.7) | 17.9 (2.7–118.6) | 3.43 (1.98–5.95), 64.4 % |
aDefined as <60 % of median equivalised household income for that site
bPrevalence ratio (Poisson regression)
cCount ratio (Poisson regression)
dOdds ratio (ordinal regression)
eCount ratio (negative binomial regression)
fDefined as <60 % of median equivalised household income for that site