Inclusive and sustainable development in rural areas

Poverty rates, according to the first revised definition, are lower in rural areas than in urban ones. Poverty in Chile3, based on figures employing the official definition of urban and rural areas, has been reported to be higher in rural areas (15%) than in urban ones (10.8%). These figures, however, are driven by the definition itself, which associates rural areas to lagging and declining areas by construction (see discussion at the beginning of this chapter). Nevertheless, re-estimating rural poverty rates based on the revised definition (alternative 1) of urban and rural areas provides a very different picture. Poverty rates in urban areas (14%) are higher than the national average (13.3%), and that of rural areas (9.3%). These estimates apply different poverty threshold values for urban (USD 72 098) and rural (USD 48 613) regions. Given that under the revised definition there are more areas defined as rural, total poverty is lower due to the lower threshold value.

Figure 1.32. Contribution to national growth by TL2 regions in Chile, 1995-2011

Source: OECD (2013), OECD Regional Statistics (database), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/region-data-en, (accessed on 15 December 2013).

Poverty appears to be a concern in mixed regions (urban and rural) displaying the highest poverty rates according to the second revised definition. Estimating poverty rates according to the second alternative definition, which distinguishes between urban, mixed and rural regions (i.e. a simplified version of it), reveals a much higher poverty rate in mixed regions (16%) than in rural (9.2%) and urban regions (13.9%). This estimate applies the urban poverty threshold (USD 72 098) to urban areas and the rural poverty baseline (USD 48 613) to rural and mixed areas.

Table 1.13. Poverty rates among rural and urban municipalities based on revised definition 1,

2013

Rural

Urban

National

Official definition (INE)

15%

10.80%

14.40%

Revised definition (alternative 1)

9.30%

14.40%

13.30%

Change

-5.70%

3.60%

-1.10%

Note: The poverty baseline for rural areas (USD 48 613) is applied to rural households and the poverty baseline for urban areas (USD 72 098) is applied to urban households.

Source: Familia de la CASEN 2011 computations estimated by the Chilean Ministry of Economy.

Figure 1.33. Contribution to national growth by TL2 regions in Chile before and during the crisis, 1995-2011

Source: OECD (2013), OECD Regional Statistics (database), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/region-data-en. (accessed on 15 December 2013).

Table 1.14. Poverty rates among rural and urban municipalities based on revised definition 2,

2013

Rural

Mixed

Urban

National

Official definition (INE)

15%

10.80%

14.40%

Revised definition (alternative 2)

9.20%

16%

13.90%

13.62%

Note: The poverty baseline for rural areas (USD 48 613) is applied to rural households and households living in mixed areas. The poverty baseline for urban areas (USD 72 098) is applied to urban households. .. refers to not available.

Source: Familia de la CASEN 2011 computations estimated by the Chilean Ministry of Economy.

Labour market indicators among urban and rural municipalities based on the revised definition yield a higher rate of unemployment for females in rural areas than in urban ones and a lower rate of male unemployment in rural municipalities. Male participation rates according to the new definition are similar across urban and rural municipalities; however, when comparing female participation rates, rural municipalities still have important gaps when compared to males.

Table 1.15. Labour market indicators among rural and urban municipalities based on the

revised definition, 2013

Revised definition

INE

Rural

Urban

Rural

Urban

Unemployment rate male

5.1%

5.4%

4.8%

5.5%

Unemployment rate female

6.5%

6.2%

6.1%

6.3%

Gap (female-male)

1.4%

0.8%

1.4%

0.8%

Unemployment rates total

5.9%

5.7%

5.2%

5.8%

Participation rate male

71.5%

71.7%

73.2%

71.2%

Participation rate female

42.3%

48.7%

37.4%

48.5%

Gap (female-male)

-29.1%

-23.0%

-35.7%

-22.7%

Participation rate total

57.2%

59.9%

56.5%o

59.5%

Source: National Survey of Employment, JJA 2013, computations estimated by the Chilean Ministry of Economy.

Examining the labour market trends among TL2 Chilean regions provides a more positive outlook for low densely populated regions and for regions with a higher degree of rurality in 2012. Indeed, TL2 regions with lower population density have lower rates of unemployment and higher rates of employment. Similarly, regions with a higher degree of rurality also record better labour market outcomes.

Figure 1.34. Unemployment and employment rates among Chilean TL2 regions, 2012

Source: OECD (2013), OECD Regional Statistics (database), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/region-data-en. (accessed on 15 December 2013).

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >