One in three Guyanese live in absolute poverty
By Gitanjali Singh
One in three persons in Guyana lives in absolute poverty. This means that they are unable to provide essential food and non-food items for their survival. One in five persons lives in critical poverty (unable to provide essential food). The recently submitted `Poverty and the 1999 Guyana Survey of Living Conditions' found that 36.3% of the population lived in absolute poverty and 19.1% in critical poverty. The absolute poverty line was drawn at a monthly per capita consumption of $7,639 and just over half of all income earners earn less than $7,500 per month. The status of absolute and critical poverty reflected a significant reduction from the results of the 1992/3 Household Income and Expenditure Survey and the Living Standard Measurement Survey where the rates were 43.2% and 27.7% respectively. But the figures compared poorly with sister CARICOM countries where poverty was reported in single digits. Human development in Guyana was also the lowest in the region. The geographic distribution of the population in absolute poverty in 1999 showed a 78% concentration in the rural interior and 40% in the rural coastal areas. These figures showed no improvement for the rural interior. (The ethnic population concentration in rural interior is Amerindian 55% and mixed ethnicity 37% whilst two thirds of the population in the rural coast are East Indians). In the city, absolute poverty was estimated at 16%, about half of the level it was in 1992/3 (30%). In the other urban areas, absolute poverty was less than half of the national average and substantially lower than the estimate of 23% in 1992/3, at 16.3%. (Black people account for 48% of the population in Georgetown and 55% in other urban centres. East Indians make up 25.9% of the population in Georgetown and 27.2% in the other urban centres. Persons of mixed ethnicity comprise 25% of the city population and 18% in other urban areas.) In the case of critical poverty, in urban Georgetown and other urban areas, the level was about one half and one quarter of what obtained in 1992/3. The rural interior showed no improvement but the rural coastal levels fell by about one third. In terms of households, one in every four was said to be living in absolute poverty and 13% in critical poverty. The poorest households were in the rural interior and rural coastal areas. Over two thirds of the rural interior households were listed as poor, compared to one tenth in the city and other urban areas. The incidence in rural coastal households is 31%. Only two percent of households in other urban areas were found to be living in critical poverty and five percent in the city. In the rural interior, 56% of the households were found to be critically poor and on the rural coast, 12%. The head count measure, a robust indicator of the prevalence of poverty, showed that 83% of the households had one or two earners. The absolutely poor households had six or more members compared to the national average of 4.15 and in the critically poor households, 72% of these had five or more members. Of the two categories of poor, 57% of the absolutely poor households and 55% of the critically poor depended on paid employment and 36% and 38% respectively were self employed. The 1999 population estimate was 721,831 persons compared with 717,449 in 92/3. The report said this was cause for concern as it had been anticipated that economic growth would have dampened the pressures to migrate. "This has clearly not happened and migration push factors therefore remain an urgent consideration," the report said. The female population was estimated at 367,361 or 51% of the total population. National estimates of females in the child-bearing age group-15 to 49 years-have declined in absolute and proportional terms falling by 28% from 199,960 in 1992/3. In terms of age group structure of the population, children up to nine years showed the largest increase, rising from 22.6% of the population in 1992/3 to 24.6% in 1999. This accounted for a significant share of the slight population increase. The population's dependency ratio (under 14) moved to 65%, up from 63% in 1992/3. In 1999, males exceeded females for age groups five to nine years; 25 to 29 years; 35 to 39 years and 50 to 59 years. The largest difference was in the five to nine years age group with 13.23% males and 11.03% females. The most dramatic change found in the population was its ethnic composition as the report said that such changes did not occur over a short span of time in the absence of natural disasters and conflict. The report surmised that if the problem did not lie in either or both of the surveys (1999 and 1992/3), then it might be in the way the population classified itself. East Indians made up 48.2% of the population, slightly down from the 49.5% in 1992/3. Negro/Black fell from 35.6% to 27.7% in 1999 an absolute decline of 22%. The mixed population showed a substantial increase, rising from 7.1% in 1992/3 to 17.6% in 1999. Amerindians moved from 6.8% to 6.3% in 1999 and others moved from 2% to 1%. Economist, Professor Clive Thomas who authored the analysis to the report, said the increase in the mixed population could not have occurred physically and the explanation had to do with either the surveys or the way the population defined themselves. "...They may have been more inclined to define themselves in 1992/3 as Negro/Black and that in 1999 this perception had shifted. If the latter is true, it offers a rare insight into the state of the racial perception in Guyana," Prof Thomas said in the report. In terms of gender distribution within the ethnic groups, East Indian males exceeded females against the national average which showed fe-males slightly exceeded males in both surveys. Females outnumbered males significantly in the Negro/Black and Mixed race groups. The population distribution shows that 30% of the population was in the urban areas of which Georgetown comprised 21% and the other urban areas only 9%. These percentages compare with 21% and 11% in 1992/3. Over two thirds of the population in the rural coast was East Indian, while 54% of population in other urban areas was Negro/Black. Amerindians were 55% in the rural interior and the mixed population 37% in the rural interior and 25% in Georgetown.
 Follow the goings-on in Guyana
|