WYE CITY GROUP ON STATISTICS ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
AGRICULTURE HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Second Meeting
Italy, Rome, 11-12 June 2009
FAO Head-Quarters
SESSION 1: SOME ISSUES IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME
STATISTICS FOR COUNTRIES AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF DEVELOPMENT (IN
VIEW OF UP-DATING THE HANDBOOK) CHANGING RURAL PARADIGM:
EMERGING ISSUES AND DATA NEEDS
TOPIC 5
Discussion on the Handbook – Overview of the Handbook up-date
Berkeley Hill and Jan Karlsson1
Abstract
1. Introduction
At the conclusion of the first Wye Group meeting (York, 2008) several issues related to the
Handbook were identified that should be progressed at the second meeting to be held in 2009.
These fell into two categories.
A. Revisions of the handbook that are designed to update it generally.
Specific items that were identified included the following:

A stronger focus on poverty (for countries at all levels of development). Other discussions
linked poverty with rural income and well-being, and measures of unemployment were also
mentioned. There was a need to make improvements in each of these related areas;

A more detailed treatment of the classification of rurality of geographical locations (with
case studies). It was suggested that a useful addition to the handbook would be to include
detailed case studies of how rural definitions are developed. The UK’s England and Wales
definition was suggested as a possibility (an approach appropriate in relatively densely
populated regions where rural land use takes place in proximity to urban centres);

Clarification of terminology used about statistics within the process of rural development
(e.g. statistics relating to inputs, outputs, results, impacts and outcomes);

The need to recognise the complexity of the farm concept and forms of ownership. For
example, further consideration should be given to households on farms that have their own
legal status or have other forms of non-personal operators. Multiple-ownership was a factor
relevant (in different ways) at various levels of economic development;

Expansion in the number of case-studies in those parts of the handbook that are
structured to receive them (e.g. rural statistics in Poland, early results from the EU-SILC
project, and data sources on agricultural household incomes in EU Member States);

Changes that would facilitate better links between users and providers of statistics.
The responsibility for proposing updates to the Handbook at the 2009 Rome meeting and
organising the session in which these were discussed was given to the editors of the 2005/2007
Handbook.
1
Berkeley Hill is Emeritus Professor, University of London (b.hill@imperial.ac.uk). Jan Karlsson was formerly the chief of
economic statistics with the UNECE, Geneva (jan.karlsson@wanadoo.fr).
1
B. Actions and revisions of the handbook to increase its utility to developing countries
(arising from the work of the sub-group established under point 3.1 of the York
meeting minutes).
It was agreed that the Handbook could be expanded to have a much deeper coverage of
developing countries, though recognition had to be given to the very diverse nature of such
countries and in their statistical capacities and needs. This expansion was to include the revision of
the sections on indicators (following the World Bank report that formed an element of Session 1 of
the York meeting), general principles of planning statistical systems for rural areas (core indicators
etc.) and problems of measuring living standards in developing countries.
It was proposed that a sub-group comprising experts on developing countries along with some of
those involved in writing the Handbook would be formed to take these issues further forward. The
subgroup consists of members from FAO, World Bank, DFID, LEI Netherlands, Imperial College
London, with responsibility for organising it being given to FAO.
B.1 Illustration of the scarcity of relevant data in developing countries
The availability of data is a universal constraint in the choice of indicators for operational
information systems on rural areas and the income situation of farm families. In 2008, an
independent evaluation of FAO’s role and work in statistics highlighted the difficulties of receiving
reliable data from developing countries. The following quotations from the evaluation give a good
illustration of the problems:
“Ensuring the quality of the data in FAO statistical products has been a major challenge because the
availability of reliable data can vary greatly among countries and even within countries. In 1997, an ESS
paper estimated that only 16 out of 54 countries in Africa had reliable basic statistics (for crops and
livestock). Similarly, a review of FAOSTAT in 2001 indicated that 30 countries worldwide lacked relevant
statistics for five or even ten years.2 In FAOSTAT, missing official or semi-official data must be estimated
through various available techniques. The continuing problem of low data quality is a major concern for
FAO, which needs to have comprehensive and reliable data coverage.
Based on current data from ESS, the Evaluation Team found that submissions of official production data and
official trade data from countries in Africa are at their lowest level since 1961, at 26% and 66% respectively
(Figures 3.2 and 3.3). Submissions of production data from countries in Asia Pacific, Latin America and the
Caribbean have also been on the decline over the last 10 years.
Figure 3.2: Crop Production Data for Africa
Figure 3.3: Trade Data for Africa
Source of Trade Data for Africa
Source of Crop Production Data for Africa
100
70
90
60
80
70
40
Percent
Percent
50
30
60
50
40
30
20
20
10
10
19
61
19
63
19
65
19
67
19
69
19
71
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
19
61
19
63
19
65
19
67
19
69
19
71
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
0
0
Year
Year
ESTIMATES
OFFICIAL
Semi_Officia
ESTIMATES
OFFICIAL
Semi_Officia
2
Evaluation of Programme 2.2.2 (Food and Agriculture Information) Activities related to agricultural statistics, May
2003, page13, para. 32.
2
The Evaluation Team concluded that the current situation is a reflection of a few inter-related
circumstances:

The lack of country capacity to collect basic data on agriculture following a period of deterioration in
overall national statistical capacity.

The low priority given in the past by FAO to work with countries in improving the quantity and quality
of their data submissions.
 A limited field presence (both at country and regional level) and poor networking with member
countries and partners to keep FAO and the countries and partners themselves abreast of recent
developments.”
Another illustration of the problems of constructing indicators in developing countries due to
scarcity of available data sources is found in the World Bank and FAO study: Indicators fro
Tracking Results in Less-than-ideal Conditions (2008). Besides methodological surveys, in-depth
studies were carried out for the following five countries: Cambodia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Senegal
and Tanzania. A menu of core indicators was set up containing a total of 145 indicators, see table
1. The availability of indicators in the five countries on a total basis amounted to 28% in Camboia,
39% in Nicaragua, 39% in Nigeria, 27% in Senegal and 19% in Tanzania. Out of 27 core
agriculture and rural development indicators Cambodia and Nicaragua could provide 8, Nigeria 11,
Senegal 10 and Tanzania only 4.
Table 1 Availablity of indicators in selected developing countries
No. of
indicators Cambodja Nicaragua Nigeria
Class of indicator
Senegal
A Core Ag. And rural dev. indicators
27
8
8
11
10
B Agribusiness and market development
16
3
4
3
2
C Community-based rural development
9
2
4
D Fisheries
7
2
2
1
1
E Forestry
16
5
3
3
5
F Livestock
8
4
4
6
5
G Policies and institutions
19
6
11
11
7
H Reserach and extension
10
4
3
4
I Rural Finance
8
1
6
6
1
J Sustainable land and crop management
8
6
6
5
2
K Water resource managment
17
1
7
3
6
Grand total
145
40
56
57
39
Percentage share of grand total
27.6
38.6
39.3
26.9
Source: Wolrd Bank and FAO: Indicators for Tracking Results in less-than-ideal Conditions
Tanzania
4
2
2
3
1
6
5
4
27
18.6
The examples given above clearly speak in favour of being very careful in suggesting in setting up
ideal lists of indicators and instead taking a pragmatic view of suggesting indicators that actually
can be produced from available data sources.
For the 2005/2007 Handbook extensive questionnaire surveys were carried out in UNECE/OECD
countries concerning availability of statistics on rural development and income of agriculture
households and their components, see Annex I. For developing countries surveys were only
carried out for a limited number of countries and, because of lack of time, these were rather
rudimentary (see Chapter XIII.2.2 of the Handbook). As the update of the Handbook will have a
focus on developing countries it might be a good idea to carry out a more thorough survey of these
countries, based on the questionnaires used for the UNECE/OECD countries, with some
necessary modifications
3
2 Procedure for making changes to the Handbook3
It was agreed at York in 2008 that for both improvements to the Handbook falling into A and B the
2009 Rome meeting would be required to ratify (a) the list of items that are to be addressed, (b)
designate authors, (c) arrange for an editorial process to take place, and (d) make provision for the
incorporation of new text in the electronic version of the handbook on the FAO website (which may
be printed as hard copy at a later stage).
Proposals for changes in the content of the Handbook, item (a), are dealt with separately below. In
terms of the other items the proposals are as follows:
 The appointment of an Editorial Panel, comprising a General Editor and two
Specialist Editors, one to cover OECD countries and the second to cover
developing country issues. The latter is expected to have experience in working in
such countries or international institutions dealing with them.
 The Editorial Panel would be responsible for arranging for authors to contribute and
for editing their work to a form that is compatible with the Handbook. However,
suggestions of people who could be potential authors can come from any member
of the Wye City Group and need not be confined to it.
 The Editorial Panel would be responsible for setting a specific timetable within a
general framework agreed by the Wye City Group (see section 4 below).
 FAO should be responsible for incorporating new text agreed by the Editorial Panel
into the electronic version of the Handbook. This should contain information on the
date of last revision.
3 Changes proposed for the Handbook
In terms of improvements falling into A, this paper contains in specific proposals for making
changes to the Handbook in line with the intentions outlined in York. These are given in BOLD
CAPITALS on the Table of Contents that forms the Annex II to this short paper. In a few cases the
names of proposed authors of the basic material are attached (their contributions will, of course, be
edited). Some of these additions are of general application, irrespective of the level of
development of individual countries.
However, for those changes falling into B, relating specifically to developing countries, the situation
is more complex. In reality, the sub-group that was given the responsibility at York for carrying
issues forward for developing countries has not met or deliberated, so the Rome meeting has to
give consideration as to how this situation can be resolved. Consequently, only indicative
suggestions for changes have been shown in the Annex II, and are in ITALIC CAPITALS.
As for the text on World Bank, FAO, Eurostat and OECD activities, each organization would have
to provide the necessary updates and additions.
3
In addition to the Handbook but related to it, mention was made of a number of possible supplementary Reports to deal
with specific issues. Also a Supplement to the Handbook was discussed, specifically to deal with the treatment of
developing countries.
4
It is understood that any changes and additions to the main text of the Handbook will need to be
reflected in the Executive Summary, Introduction and Background, and other sections as is
appropriate. This is the responsibility of the general editors.
4 Necessary steps to carry the Handbook forward
We have identified several steps that are necessary if the Handbook is to be taken forward in an
efficient manner. We ask the Wye City Group to resolve the following:

To confirm the concept of an Editorial Panel, and to consider who might act as
Specialist Editor for material relating to developing countries. The editors of the
2005/2007 Handbook (Hill and Karlsson) have indicated a willingness to continue
their previous roles. There may be an issue of providing resources to enable the
Editorial Panel to function.

To set a date for a meeting of the sub-group charged with clarifying the issues for
developing countries (FAO, World Bank, DFID, LEI Netherlands, Imperial College
London). This might be an electronic meeting.

To comment on the proposed improvements already listed (see Annex II).

To establish a mechanism that invites further suggestions for updating the Handbook, and
the principle that these are to be channelled via the Editorial Panel.

To consider the proposal by the Editors for further electronic survey(s) of developing
countries, as a means to update the Handbook and make it more comprehensive.

To consider who will author new sections and revise existing ones, and to confirm the role
of the Editorial Panel to deal with unresolved issues concerning authorship where this is
impractical to consult the full Wye City Group.

To set a timetable for updating the Handbook, and the amount of progress to be
achieved by the next meeting of the Wye City Group.
5
Annex I
Rural Development Statistics Questionnaire
Rural development statistics
1) Which organisation(s) is/are responsible for statistics on rural areas?
2) What variable(s) is/are used to distinguish rural from non-rural areas?
3) Are there any subdivisions of rural areas relating to the degree of rurality?
4) What is the threshold value that classifies an area as rural?
5) What is the smallest territorial unit/area on which the definition of rural is based i.e. postcode areas,
community districts, communities, districts or regions?
6) What is the percentage of the population that are classified to live in rural areas?
7) What is the percentage of the total land area that is classified as rural?
8) Is there a set of core indicators used to monitor rural development policy?
9) Can rural development statistics be found on the Internet and if so where?
Availability of statistics for small areas
10) What is the smallest area for which statistics are available and what is the average size of this area
(e.g. average population size, average area, range of population sizes or range of area)?
11) What statistics are available for this smallest area?
12) Are statistics on urban settlements/urban land use available?
Rural Development Policy
13) Which organization(s) is/are responsible for rural development policy?
14) What are the aims/objectives of rural development policies?
15) What are the main themes of rural development?
6
Questionnaire concerning income of agriculture households
Please provide notes for your country concerning the issues below.
1.
Definition of a household, agriculture household and rural household
2.
Criteria for classification of households into socio-professional groups (“narrow” target definition),
e.g. based on the main source of income of the household’s reference person.
3.
Mechanism used to introduce short-term stability in numbers of agricultural households, e.g., the use
of average incomes over several years.
4.
Treatment of forestry and/or fishery households. Are they included in agriculture households?
5.
“Broad”definition of an agricultural household, e.g. households that derive some income from
independent activity in agriculture. If such a definition is used please indicate thresholds.
6.
Treatment of non-personal form of institution in the household sector (religious houses, farming
co-operatives and similar institutions)
7.
Treatment of holdings operated as corporate institutions but de facto run as family businesses
8.
The equivalence scale used to give consumer units. There are differences in the age at which the
coefficient for children or elderly persons is replaced by that for additional adults. Please give details on the
equivalence scale used to estimate numbers of consumer units.
9.
The basis of estimating the value of own-consumption (of agricultural and non-agricultural goods
and services), e.g. valued at the basic price of similar goods sold on the market.
10.
The basis of calculating the imputed rental value of own dwellings, e.g. the estimated value of rental
that a tenant would pay for the same accommodation.
11.
Calculation of Net Disposable Income of Agriculture Households: Indication of items covered
Please indicate in the table below with the following symbols.
y = yes, explicit data
* = implied data covered elsewhere
(y) and (*) = covered in part @ = gross of capital consumption
Please indicate with
symbols above
No. households
No. persons
No. consumer units
1
FROM INDEPENDENT ACTIVITY
1a
From independent agricultural activity
Net Operating Surplus
Income
1b
From independent non-agricultural activity
Net Operating Surplus
Income
1c
Net Operating Surplus from imputed rental value of ownerdwellings
2
DEPENDENT ACTIVITY of which
2a
Wages and salaries
7
2b
2c
3
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
4
4a
4b
5
kind)
6
7
8
8a
Employers’ actual social contributions
Imputed social contributions
PROPERTY INCOME RECEIVED of which
Interest
Dividends
Withdrawals from quasi-corporations
Property income attributed to insurance policy holders
Rents on land and subsoil assets
NON-LIFE INSURANCE CLAIMS
Claims on capital items
claims on personal accident
SOCIAL BENEFITS received (other than social transfers
in
MISCELLANEOUS INWARD CURRENT TRANSFERS
CURRENT RECEIPTS Sum of 1-6
PROPERTY INCOME PAID of which
Interest on loans for
(i) farming purposes
(ii) purchase of agr. Land and buildings
(iii) other business purposes
(iv) private and other credit
8b
Rents on
(i) agricultural land and buildings
(ii) other business land and buildings
9
NET NON-LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS
10
CURRENT TAXES ON INCOMES AND WEALTH of
which
10a
on income
10b
on capital gains
10c
on capital or wealth
10d
on private use of vehicles etc.
11
SOCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS of which
11a
Actual
(i) employers’ actual social contributions
(ii) employees’ social contributions
(iii) by self-employed and non-employed persons
11b
Imputed
12
MISCELLANEOUS OUTGOING CURRENT
TRANSFERS of which
12a
to NPISHs
12b
between households
12c
other
13
NET DISPOSABLE INCOME (7 minus 8-12) OR ANOTHER
DEFINED CONCEPT
14
SOCIAL TRANSFERS IN KIND
15
NET ADJUSTED DISPOSABLE INCOME
8
ANNEX II
(FROM THE UNECE/OECD/Eurostat/FAO HANDBOOK 2005-2007)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
I.1
Background to the Handbook
I.1.1 Why is the Handbook being produced?
I.1.2 Who is the Handbook intended for?
I.1.3 The role of statistics
I.1.4 EVALUATING STATISTICS AND STATISTICAL SYSTEMS (authors - the
Editorial Panel)
I.2
What is rural development and why is it a policy area?
I.3
Rural development – policy objectives
I.4
Why a particular focus on agriculture household income and wealth?
I.5
Agriculture households, their incomes and policy objectives
PART I
RURAL DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS
II
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
II.1
A few examples of national rural development policies
II.2
Rural development - a sectoral based (agriculture) approach
II.2.1 The agriculture perspective
II.2.2 Trends in agriculture in the last 50 years – employment and productivity
II.2.3 The current situation for agriculture
II.2.4 Other characteristics of agriculture
II.2.5 Perspectives on agricultural policy reform and the rural economy
II.2.6 The farm policy dilemma
II.3
Rural development - a territorial based approach
II.3.1 Employment – the driving force of rural development
II.3.2 Trends for rural regions
II.3.3 Entrepreneurship and job creation in rural areas
II.3.4 Are manufacturing and services now the pillars of rural development?
II.3.5 Merging industry sectors
II.3.6 Industrial structures and characteristics of rural and urban economies
II.3.7 Sectoral mix and territorial dynamics
II.3.8 Education and employment in rural regions: ISSUES IN MEASURING
UNEMPLOYMENT (author ?)
II.3.9 The role of tourism
II.3.10 The importance of communications
II.3.11 The role of information technology for rural development
II.3.12 Rural services standards
II.3.13 Objectives and instruments for rural policies
II.3.14 New issues in rural policy-making
II.4
Conclusions
III
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
III.1
Definitions of rural
III.1.1 Introduction
9
III.2
III.3
III.4
III.5
III.1.2 OECD
III.1.3 European Union
III.1.4 FAO
III.I.5 EXAMPLES OF NATIONAL DEFINITIONS BASED ON SMALL AREA
STATISTICS – ENGLAND AND WALES (author - Defra, using existing
Departmental material)
Typologies
III.2.1 OECD
III.2.2 European Union
Requirements of indicators and their assessment
III.3.1 Introduction TO INCLUDE A REVIEW OF INDICATORS THAT RELATE
TO THE CONTEXT OF POLICY, TO BASELINES, AND TO POLICY INPUTS,
OUTPUTS, RESULTS AND IMPACTS (OUTCOMES) (author – Hill, using material
from the European Commission on EU rural development)
III.3.2 OECD
III.3.3 European Union
III.3.4 FAO
Themes and set of indicators
III.4.1 OECD
III.4.2 European Union
III.4.3 The World Bank
III.4.4 FAO
Indicators – use and misuse
IV
INVENTORY OF NATIONAL APPROACHES TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS
IV.1 Introduction
IV.2 Inventory of national rural development statistics
IV.3 The definition of rural
IV.4 Current availability of rural development and related statistics
IV.5 Rural development policy
IV.6 Next steps
IV.7 Case study: Canada
IV.7.1 Introduction
IV.7.2 Definitions and typologies
IV.7.3 Results
IV.7.4 Concluding remarks
IV.8 CASE STUDY: ENGLAND RURAL STATISTICS (author – Defra, using material
relating to the policy for ‘Sustainable Rural Communities’)
IV.9 CASE STUDIES: A NUMBER OF DEVELOPING COUNTRY EXAMPLES. This
section may draw on a proposed survey. (author ?)
V
INVENTORY OF RURAL INDICATORS BY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
V.1
Introduction – INCLUDING THE BALANCE BETWEEN WHAT IS DESIRABLE AND
WHAT IS FEASIBLE WITHING THE CONSTRAINTS OF DATA SOURCES
V.2
OECD
V.2.1 Introduction
V.2.2 Population and migration
V.2.3 Economic structure and performance
V.2.4 Social well-being and equity
V.2.5 Environment and sustainability
V.3
European Union
V.3.1 Indicators suggested in the PAIS report
V.3.2 Indicators suggested in the Hay report
V.3.3 Common indicators for monitoring rural development programming – mid-term
review. REPLACE WITH BASELINE INDICATORS FOR THE 2007-13
PROGRAMMING PERIOD FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT (author – editors
using material from the European Commission)
10
V.3.4
V.4
V.5
INDICATORS IN THE ANNUAL REPORT ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT
(author – editors using material from the European Commission)
The World Bank
FAO
VI
DATA SOURCES
VI.1 Introduction
VI.1.1 ESTIMATION WHERE PRIMARY DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLE
VI.2 Population and housing censuses
VI.3 Agricultural censuses and surveys
VI.4 Household budget surveys
VI.4.1 Living Standards Measurement Study surveys – an introduction
VI.4.2 International Household Survey Network
VI.4.3 Master sampling frames and master samples
VI.4.4 Suggested integrated programme of household surveys
VI.5
Labour force surveys
VI.6 Other survey sources
VI.7 Administrative registers
VI.7.1 Vital Statistics Records
VI.8 Non-official statistics, e.g. from trade associations
VI.9 GIS and geo-coded statistics
VI.10 COMBINING DATA SETS USING GIS AND SMALL AREA STATISTICS (E.G. UK
NEIGHBOURHOOD STATISTICS)(authors – editors using material supplied by the
UK Office for National Statistics)
VI.11 Conclusions and recommendations
VII
APPROACHES IN SELECTING A CORE SET OF INDICATORS
VII.1 Introduction
VII.2 Two approaches in selecting indicators
VII.3 Rural indicators classified by themes
VII.4 Measures of rurality
VII.4.1 Defining the characteristics of an indicator that deals with rurality
VII.4.2 Statistical requirements of a rural indicator
VII.4.3 Three dimensions of any indicator
VII.4.4 A graduated sequence of rural indicators
VII.5 Suggested sets of rural indicators
PART II
AGRICULTURE HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WEALTH
VIII
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK - INTRODUCTION
VIII.1
Matching indicators to policy needs in countries at different levels of economic development
VIII.1.1
Types of income and wealth statistics needed
VIII.2
Households as economic, social and cultural units and as agents for environmental change
and conservation – controllers of resources and users of services
VIII.3
Concepts of income and wealth and related indicators
VIII.4
Households and other forms of institutional units within accounting and statistical systems
VIII.4.1
Accounting frameworks
VIII.4.2
Accounts for activities and for institutional units
VIII.4.3
Activity accounts – agriculture as an activity
VIII.4.4
Accounts for institutional units – accounts for farm
household-firms
VIII.4.5
Where we are in the provision of income indicators taken
from institution-based accounts for household-firms
11
IX
THE AGRICULTURAL HOUSEHOLD – CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
IX.1 Definition of the household appropriate to accounting and statistics
IX.2 Households of different sizes and compositions
IX.3 The rural and urban household enterprise
IX.4 Definition of the agricultural household-firm (enterprise) and those belonging to other socioprofessional groups
IX.4.1 Selecting from the “broad” definition of an agricultural household
IX.4.2 Some practicalities of classification
IX.4.3 Choice of other socio-professional groups with which to compare agricultural
households
IX.5 Households containing hired labour working in agriculture
IX.6 Relevance for Countries with large-scale agricultural enterprises with separate legal status
SUBSISTENCE PRODUCERS
IX.7 Households in less-developed countries
IX.8 Typologies of farm-households
IX.8.1 European Union: Eurostat’s IAHS statistics typology
IX.8.2 Economic Research Service farm typology for the United States
IX.8.3 Italy: the ISMEA survey
X
DEFINITIONS OF INCOME
X.1
Income as factor rewards and as source of consumption spending
X.2
Relationship between household resources, income and expenditure
X.2.1 Income from self-employment
X.2.2 Income in kind
X.2.3 Living costs
X.3
Individual and Household Incomes
X.4
Shadow wage and the non-observed economy
X.5
Various income concepts and relationships between them
X.5.1 Extended and full incomes
X.5.2 The importance of time to income measurement
X.5.3 Lifetime income and permanent income hypothesis
X.6
Subsidies, preferential tax treatments and income measures
X.7
Definitions in use
XI
INCOME LEVELS, DISTRIBUTION AND POVERTY
XI.1 The assessment of poverty
XI.1.1 Social exclusion
XI.2 Ways of measuring the incidence of poverty among households
XI.2.1 Low-income rate (Cumulative proportions below percentiles of the median)
XI.2.2 The low income gap
XI.2.3 Relative income level by percentile
XI.2.4 Cumulative decile shares – Lorenz curve
XI.2.5 Gini coefficient
XI.2.6 Sen index
XI.2.7 Warning in the interpretation of coefficients
XI.3 Poverty lines and inequality measures in practice in agriculture
XII
MEASUREMENT AND COMPOSITION OF FARM HOUSEHOLD WEALTH
XII.1 Introduction
XII.1.1 Wealth of farm households in the U.S.
XII.2 Selected uses of farm and household wealth measures
XII.3 Differences in wealth measurement for farms and farm operator households
XII.4 Connection between farms and households in wealth measurement
XII.5 Data to support estimates of household net worth
XII.6 Extending analyses of household economic status and well-being
12
XII.7
XII.8
Measurements and composition of farm household wealth in developing countries
XII.7.1 Household enterprises module
XII.7.2 Agriculture module
XII.7.3 Savings module
XII.7.4 Credit modules
Conclusions
XIII
INVENTORY OF METHODOLOGIES USED: AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND WEALTH
STATISTICS
XIII.1 Data sources for agricultural income statistics – generic sources
XIII.1.1
Types of data sources
XIII.1.2
EXAMPLES OF DATA SOURCES IN SELECTED COUNRIES
XIII.1.2.1 EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER STATES (Hill)
XIII.1.2.2 OTHER OECD COUNTRIES (Hill/OECD)
XIII.1.2.3 SELECTED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
XIII.2 Survey of definitions and measurement issues in selected countries
XIII.2.1
Predominately developed countries (UNECE and OECD countries)
XIII.2.1.1
Background
XIII.2.1.2
Definition of Household
XIII.2.1.3
Definition of agricultural household
XIII.2.1.4
Definition of rural household
XIII.2.1.5
Treatment of special institutions
XIII.2.1.6
Classification into socio-economic groups when using the
“narrow” definition on an agricultural household
XIII.2.1.7
Short-term stability mechanism
XIII.2.1.8
Equivalence scales
XIII.2.1.9
Own consumption
XIII.2.1.10 Imputed rent
XIII.2.1.11 Calculation of net disposable income of agriculture households
XIII.2.1.12 Conclusions
XIII.2.2
Selected developing countries
XIII.2.2.1
Background
XIII.2.2.2
Definition of Household
XIII.2.2.3
Definition of agricultural household
XIII.2.2.4
Classification into socio-economic groups
XIII.2.2.5
Short-term stability mechanism
XIII.2.2.6
Equivalence Scale
XIII.2.2.7
Own consumption
XIII.2.2.8
Imputed rent
XIII.2.2.9
Calculation of net disposable income of agriculture households
XIV
INCOME AND WEALTH STATISTICS FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES
XIV.1 United States
XIV.1.1
The Agricultural Resources Management Survey (ARMS)
XIV.1.2
Agriculture household income and wealth statistics
XIV.2 Italy
XIV.2.1
The ISMEA survey
XIV.2.2
The REA survey and the RICA-REA project
XIV.2.3
Survey of Household Income and Wealth
XIV.3 CANADA (author – Statistics Canada)
XIV.4 DENMARK (author – Denmark Statistics)
XIV.5 OTHER COUNTRIES
XV
FINDINGS AND GOOD PRACTICES IN STATISTICS ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
AGRICULTURAL HOUSEHOLD INCOMES
XV.1 Introduction
13
XV.2 Statistics for rural development
XV.2.1 Key issues in rural statistics
XV.2.2 Rural measurement problems
XV.3 Statistics on the incomes and wealth of agricultural households.
XV.3.1 Methodological issues in measuring agricultural household income and wealth
XV.3.2 Provision of data – the data system for agricultural household income measurement
ANNEX
Annex 1:
Annex 2:
Annex 3:
Annex 4:
Annex 5:
Annex 6:
Annex 7:
Annex 8:
Annex 9:
Annex 10:
List of Task Force members [reference from preface]
A summary of EU agriculture and rural development policies [reference from chapter II]
Results of UNECE survey on methods used for measuring rural development statistics in
UNECE/OECD member countries [reference from chapter IV]
European Union rural indicators [reference from chapter V]
World Bank rural indicators [reference from chapter V]
The importance of natural amenities [reference from chapter V]
A more formal approach to “full income” [reference from chapter X]
Household balance sheet [reference from chapter XII]
Results of UNECE survey on methodologies used for measuring agriculture household
income statistics in UNECE/OECD member countries [reference from chapter XIII]
From agricultural to rural standrad of living surveys [reference from chapter XIII]
14