The poor of Bogota : who they are, what they do, and where they live

FILE COPY SWP635 The Poor of Bogota Who They Are, What They Do, and Where They Live Rakesh Mohan Nancy Hartline WORLD BANK STAFF WORKING PAPERS Number 635   /r16 WORLD BANK STAFF WORKING PAPERS Number 635 7 nlo. 435 The Poor of Bogota Who They Are, What They Do, and Where They Live Rakesh Mohan Nancy Hartline INTERNATIONAL MONETAIRY FUND JOINT LIBRARY APR 1 6 1984 INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR IECONSTMUCTION AND DEVELOPtCENT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20431 The World Bank Washington, D.C., U.S.A.  Copyright i) 1984 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. First printing March 1984 All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America This is a working document published informally by the World Bank. To present the results of research with the least possible delay, the typescript has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibility for errors. The publication is supplied at a token charge to defray part of the cost of manufacture and distribution. The views and interpretations in this document are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to any individual acting on their behalf. Any maps used have been prepared solely for the convenience of the readers; the denominations used and the boundaries shown do not imply, on the part of the World Bank and its affiliates, any judgment on the legal status of any territory or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The full range of World Bank publications is described in the Catalog of World Bank Publications; the continuing research program of the Bank is outlined in World Bank Research Program: Abstracts of Current Studies. Both booklets are updated annually; the most recent edition of each is available without charge from the Publications Sales Unit of the Bank in Washington or from the European Office of the Bank, 66, avenue d'Iena, 75116 Paris, France. Rakesh Mohan is an economist in the Development Research Department of the World Bank; Nancy Hartline, a consultant to the World Bank, is with the U.S. National Bank of Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Mohan, Rakesh, 1948- The poor of Bogota. (World Bank staff working papers ; no. 635) Bibliography: p. 1. Poor--Colombia--Bogota. I. Hartline, Nancy, 1956- . II. Title. III. Series. HC198.B5M63 1984 305.59691098614 84-3505 ISBN 0-8213-0346-5  ABSTRACT This paper seeks to identify the correlates of poverty by examining in detail the composition and characteristics of the poor in Bogota. This is done by analyzing two household surveys for Bogota in detail. The poor are defined as those who fall on the botton 30% of household income per capita. This cut off point is based on other information which indicates that this is also the proportion of malnourished in Bogota. Although it is found that larger households are more likely to be poor, small households who are poor are likely to be poorer still. Clearly, people with lower education are more likely to be poor but there are significant proportions of those with secondary and higher education who are also poor. Some life cycle effects are reflected in the fact that poverty is over-represented among children and middle-aged (35-44). Poverty is not concentrated anywhere spatially. There is considerably higher unemployment among the bottom deciles with about half of all the unemployed being in the bottom 30%. Furthermore, participation rates are extremely low for the poor giving support to the discouraged worker hypothesis. Among workers the poor are predominantly blue collar workers and they tend to work long hours. They are not in that sense underemployed. Smaller firms do appear to pay less than large firms. Spatially the poor are about equally represented in every ring but highly concentrated in the South of the city. The poor have higher rates of unemployment at all levels of education. In addition, the poor who do have higher education appear to have low participation rates as well as high unemployment. It would thus appear that the poor who attempt to "make it" have difficulty getting jobs.  EXTRACTO Este documento presenta un estudio en el que se tratan de identificar los factores correlacionados de la pobreza examinando detalladamente la composi- ci6n y caracteristicas de los grupos de poblaci6n pobre en Bogota. Con tal fin se han analizado minuciosamente dos encuestas de unidades familiares llevadas a cabo en esa ciudad. Se definen como pobres a los grupos que en la escala de ingresos per capita de unidades familiares caen en la categoria del 30% mas bajo. Este limite de inclusi6n se basa en otra informaci6n que indica que tam- bi6n esa es la proporci6n de poblaci6n malnutrida en BogotA. Aunque se observa que las unidades familiares mas numerosas tienen mayores probabilidades de ser pobres, tambi6n las pequefias que son pobres pueden empobrecerse mas. Evidente- mente las personas con un menor grado de educaci6n tienen mas probabilidades de ser pobres, pero hay una proporci6n considerable que tiene educaci6n secundaria y superior y que tambi6n es pobre. Ciertos efectos de los ciclos de la vida se reflejan en el hecho de que hay una mayor concentraci6n de pobreza entre los nifios y las personas de edad mediana (de 35 a 44 afios). En ninguin caso la pobreza esta localizada en una sola zona. Hay un nivel considerablemente mas elevado de desempleo entre las decilas mAs bajas de la escala, y aproximadamente la mitad del total de desempleados corresponde al 30% inferior. Ademas, las tasas de participaci6n de los pobres son sumamente bajas, lo que sustenta la hip6tesis de que existe el fen6meno del trabajador desalentado. Entre los tra- bajadores, los pobres son predominantemente obreros y por lo general trabajan jornadas muy largas. En ese sentido no estan subempleados. Se observa asimismo que las empresas pequefias pagan salarios mas bajos que las grandes. En terminos de ubicaci6n espacial los pobres se encuentran representados en una proporci6n aproximadamente igual en todos los cinturones urbanos, pero hay una mayor con- centraci6n en la parte sur de la ciudad. La poblaci6n pobre registra tasas de desempleo mas elevadas cualquiera que sea su nivel de educaci6n. Ademas, los pobres que tienen educaci6n superior parecen registrar tasas de participaci6n bajas y tasas de desempleo elevadas. Por consiguiente, se tiene la impresi6n de que los pobres que tratan de superar esa condici6n tienen dificultad de obtener empleo.  Ce document cherche A tracer un tableau d'ensemble de la pauvrete a Bogota en etudiant dans le d6tail la composition et les caracteristiques de la population pauvre. Pour cela, les auteurs ont analys6 deux enquetes effectuees aupres des menages de la ville. Sont consider6s pauvres les 30 % des menages dont le revenu par habitant est le plus faible. Ce pour- centage a et6 retenu parce que, d'apres d'autres donn6es, il correspond egalement a la proportion d'habitants mal nourris. On a observe que la pauvret6 frappait davantage les familles nombreuses, mais aussi que les petites familles qui etaient pauvres l'etaient probablement plus que les autres. De toute 6vidence, les pauvres se trouvent surtout parmi ceux dont le niveau d'instruction est le plus faible mais aussi parmi ceux qui ont fait des 6tudes secondaires et superieures. Certains groupes d'age sont plus touch6s que d'autres : la pauvrete est beaucoup plus importante parmi les enfants et les personnes d'age moyen (35-44 ans). Si l'on con- sidere la repartition spatiale de la pauvrete, on s'aper9oit qutelle n'est concentree nulle part. Le ch6mage est beaucoup plus elev6 dans les d6ciles inferieurs, la moitie environ des ch6meurs se trouvant parmi les 30 % de menages au revenu le plus faible. En outre, les taux d'activite sont extremement faibles parmi les pauvres, ce qui incite A penser que beaucoup ont renonce A chercher un emploi. Les pauvres qui sont employes sont essentiellement des ouvriers dont la journee de travail est longue. On ne peut donc pas dire qu'ils soient sous-employes. Il semble que les petites entreprises payent moins que les grosses firmes. Sur le plan spa- tial, les pauvres sont A peu pres 6galement repartis entre les diff6rents secteurs, mais c'est dans le sud de la ville qu'ils sont le plus nombreux. Le taux de ch6mage est plus 6leve parmi les pauvres, A tous les niveaux d'6ducation. En outre, le taux d'activite est faible et le taux de ch6- mage eleve parmi les pauvres qui ont fait des etudes superieures. Il sem- blerait donc que les pauvres qui veulent "r6ussir" aient des difficultes A trouver un emploi.  PREFACE A rather large amount of data handling, documentation and preparation has gone into the work leading to this paper. We would like to thank Alan Carroll for the original cleaning and documentation of the 1975 and 1977 household survey; Bob Marshall for help in preparing some of the tables; Mattie McCarter for the laborious typing involved in the many tables and finally, Manfred Wilhelm Wagner-Luna for most of the tabulations from both the surveys that went into this paper. His has been work much beyond the call of normal duty. A special word of appreciation goes to the staff of DANE for having painstakingly conducted the surveys and for making them available in almost raw form so readily. This paper is part of a program of research currently being conducted by the World Bank on Bogota and Cali, Colombia. The goal of the program, entitled The City Study, is to increase our understanding of the working of five major urban sectors - housing, transport, employment location, labor markets and the public sector - in order that the impact of policies and projects can be assessed more accurately. This paper is part of the labor market and income distribution portion of the study which is coordinated by Rakesh Mohan. Other Project Papers in this series are: Gary Fields, "How Segmented in the Bogota Labour Market", World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 434, Washington D.C. October 1980. (City Study Project Paper No.9). Rakesh Mohan "The People of Bogota: Who They Are, What They Earn, Where They Live", World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 390, Washington, D.C. May 1980, (City Study Project Paper No.6). , M. Wilhelm Wagner and Jorge Garcia, "Measuring Urban Malnutrition and Poverty: A Case Study of Bogota and Cali, Colombia", World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 447, Washington D.C. April 1981. (City Study Project Paper No. 12). "The Determinants of Labour Earnings in Developing Metropolises: Estimates from Bogota and Cali, Colombia", World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 498, Washington, D.C. (City Study Project Paper No. 14). , "An Anatomy of the Distribution of Urban Incomes: A Tale of Two Cities in Colombia: City Study Project Paper No. 27, August 1982.  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. I. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Context of This Study 1 1.2 Objectives 1 1.3 The Data 3 II. WHO THEY ARE 6 2.1 Income and Family Size 7 2.2 Distribution of the Poor by Age and Education Groups 11 2.3 Migrant Status 14 2.4 Unemployment and Participation Rates Among the Poor 16 III. WHAT THEY DO 22 3.1 The Age and Education Levels of Poor Workers 22 3.2 The Occupation of Poor Workers and the Hours They Work 25 3.3 The Industry of Activity of Poor Workers 35 and the Hours They Work 3.4 Migrant Status 45 3.5 Size of Firm 47 IV. WHERE THEY LIVE 50 4.1 The Spatial Disaggregation of Bogota 50 4.2 The Spatial Distribution of the Poor 50 4.3 The Spatial Distribution of Poor Workers 54  TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Page No. V. THOSE WHO DO NOT WORK: UNENPLOYMENT AND PARTICIPATION 57 RATES OF THE POOR 5.1 Rates of Unemployment and Participation by 57 Age and Education Groups 5.2 Where Are the Unemployed 61 VI. APPENDIX 1. A Technical Note on the Calculation of 67 Incomes APPENDIX 2. List of Tables 72  List of Tables Number Title Page No. 2.1 Income and Family Size 8 2.2 Family Size and Dependency Ratio: The Poor and Rich 9 of Bogota 2.3 Sex Distribution of the Poor and Rich 10 2.4 Proportion of Bottom 30 Percent Among All Individuals 13 by Age and Education Groups 2.5 Distribution of the Poor by Length of Residence 15 2.6a Distribution of Unemployment Rates by Income Groups and Sex 17 2.6b Distribution of the Unemployed by Income Groups and Sex 17 2.7 Composition of the Unemployed 19 2.8 Distribution of Participation Rates by Income Groups 21 and Sex 3.1 The Incidence of Poverty Among Workers by Age and 23 Education Groups 3.2 The Incidence of Poverty Among Workers by Age and Education 23 Groups: The Proportion in Each Group in the Bottom 30 Percent 3.3 Distribution of Poor Workers by Occupation 26 3.4a Distribution of Hours Worked by the Poor by Occupation 28 (Males) 3.4b Distribution of Hours Worked by All Male Workers by 29 Occupation 3.5a Distribution of Hours Worked by the Poor by Occupation 31 (Females) 3.5b Distribution of Hours Worked by All Female Workers by 32 Occupation 3.6 Distribution of Workers Earning Less Than Minimum Wage 34 by Occupation 3.7 Distribution of the Poor by Industry of Activity 36  List of Tables (Con't.) Number Title Page No. 3.8a Distribution of Hours Worked by the Poor 38 3.8b Distribution of Hours Worked by Male Workers by Industry 39 of Activity 3.9a Distribution of Hours Worked by the Poor by Industry of 41 Activity (Females only) 3.9b Distribution of Hours Worked by Female Workers by Industry 42 of Activity 3.10 Distribution of Workers Earning Less Than Minimum Wage 43 by Industry of Activity 3.11 Distribution of Workers Earning Less Than Minimum Wage 46 by Length of Residence 3.12 Distribution of Poor Maids by Education 46 3.13 Mean Monthly Income of Workers by Size of Firm 48 3.14 Distribution of Poor Workers in Bogota by Size of Firm 49 4.1 Distribution of the Poor by Rings 53 4.2 Distribution of the Poor by Sectors 53 4.3a Spatial Distribution of Poor Workers by Rings 55 4.3b Mean Income of Poor Workers in Bogota by Rings 55 4.4a Spatial Distribution of Poor Workers by Radial Sector 56 4.4b Mean Incomes of Poor Workers in Bogota by Sector 56 5.1 Unemployment Rates of the Poor and Rich by Education Groups 58 5.2 Participation Rates of the Poor and Rich by 58 Education Groups 5.3 Unemployment Rates of the Poor and Rich by Age Groups 60 5.4 Participation Rates of the Poor and Rich by Age Groups 60 5.5 Spatial Distribution of Unemployment Rates by 62 Education Groups  List of Tables (Cont'd.) Number Title Page No. 5.6 Spatial Distribution of Unemployment Rates by Age Groups 63 5.7' Snatial Distribution of Participation Rates by Education 65 Groups 5.8 Spatial Distribution of Participation Rates by Age Groups 66   I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Context of This Study This paper forms part of a large program of research grouped under the rubric of the "City Study" of Bogota, Colombia, being conducted at the World Bank. The goal of the city study is to increase our under- standing of the workings and interactions of five major urban sectors - housing, transport, employment location, labor markets and the public sector - so that the impacts of policies and projects in urban areas can be assessed more accurately. The study emphasizes the conditions of low income households in terms of employment opportunities, housing consumption and the level of public services available to them. The program of research has three distinct phases: description, hypothesis testing and estimation of behavioral parameters and the development of policy impact models. This paper is the second in the series under the general head of labor markets and will be followed by studies somewhat more analytical in nature. 1.2 Objectives This paper seeks to identify the correlates of poverty by examining in detail the composition and characteristics of the poor in Bogota. One approach towards the identification of the poor would be the estimation of income equations (or earnings functions). Subsequently, the factors leading to low incomes can be identified and the causes of poverty delineated. Here, however, the aim is more to identify and describe and less to explain. Furthermore, the variety of experience that is found among the poor tends to get lost in a more analytical summary approach. We attempt, in this paper, to lay out some of the more  interesting of the myriad ways by which the poor can be described through the use of cross tabulations. The poor are identified largely by comparing their distribution with the overall distribution. A large amount of attention has been paid in many works 1/ to the "urban informal sector". Much energy has gone into the appropriate defini- tion of this elusive concept. It has been variously taken to include all those earning less than a minimum wage; or all those working in small (or unenumerated) establishments; or all those working in service occupa- tions, and so on. It seems to us that the correct objective of policy should be the identification of and removal of poverty regardless of whether people work in small or large establishments, whether they are enumerated in economic censuses or not or whether they work in manufac- turing or service occupations. Such criteria should only be important if it is found that poverty is related with the characteristics of certain employment conditions. The questions being addressed here are simply "Who are the poor? What do they do and where do they live?" Are they unemployed, underem- ployed or overworked? Are they young or old? Are they predominantly males or females? Are they concentrated in certain occupations or indus- tries of activity? Are they migrants or non-migrants? These are fairly standard traditional questions to ask in such an enquiry. The additional 1/ See Mazumdar (1977), Webb (1976), Sethuraman (1974) Schaefer (1976), Joshi and others (1976), Lubell (1974), Sethuraman (1976) among others for studies of the informal sector.  dimension investigated here is that of space. Are the poor concentrated in certain parts of the city? Is there some indication that people are poor because they are spatially disadvantaged? Such are the questions and concerns addressed in this paper. In addition, data sources are examined in some detail to comment on problems associated with (i) the use of sample surveys of households for the purpose of drawing strong conclusions, and (ii) the use of a series of surveys for examining time trends. To this end, all tabulations are reported br both the years 1975 and 1977 from which data are examined. This serves a dual purpose: on the one hand the differences between the result of the two surveys point to the hazards of using one to reach strong conclusions; and on the other hand, the similarities between the two surveys suggest robustness of the results giving confidence in our conclusions. 1.3 The Data The City Study has assembled a data bank of existing sources of data in Bogota and Cali, Colombia in the form of copies of the original computer tapes prepared by the respective originators of the data. All have been documented in Nelson Valverde (1978). This study utilizes two of these data sets; both originally collected by DANE. 1/ DANE has conducted a regular program of household surveys from 1970 with the main objective of collecting information on the labor force. Since 1975 these surveys have been quarterly and are conducted alternatingly in the four largest cities and the seven largest cities along with an 1/ DANE: Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadistica (National Statistical Agency of Colombia).  occasional national survey. This paper utilizes the Special Bogota House- hold Survey (EH8E) for 1975 and one from 1977 (EH15). The 1975 survey sampled 3,953 households and contains information on demographic and labor force characteristics. The 1977 survey was conducted in the four largest cities and sampled 6,082 households of whom 3,161 households were in Bogota. Both these surveys contain the location of residence of the respondents. The 1975 survey also has firm size information on the number of employees working in each respondents' work place. This question was not included in the 1977 sample. In carrying out these samples, DANE classifies neighborhoods into six socioeconomic strata: 1 low-low, 2 low, 3 medium low, 4 medium, 5 medium high and 6 high. At the conclusion of a survey weights are assigned to each of these strata which are then applied to the members of these strata for all expansions of the sample. These expansion factors are supposed to account for over and under sampling that might occur over the course of the survey. These expansion factors are used to expand the 1977 sample, but none were available for the 1975 sample so that has been expanded uniformly for all households. In comparing these samples with the 1973 census it appears that the poor areas of the city were somewhat undersampled and the rich oversampled (Mohan, 1978). It also appears that the very highest incomes were either underreported or undersampled. If the incomes reported in these samples are converted to 1973 pesos, there is little real growth in incomes, while those in the very highest categories  -5- actually decline. We have therefore not deflated incomes from either sample to make them directly comparable because such a comparison may not be consistent across all income groups in the samples. All incomes are reported in current pesos and all incomes are monthly incomes. The 1977 sample had the additional problem that about 20% of working respondents did not report their incomes - a proportion that is atypical for these surveys. Thus a method was derived to impute their incomes and this is described in Appendix 1.  II. WHO THEY ARE Throughout this paper we have chosen to use the concept of house- hold income per capita as the relevant income measure. 1/ A better measure would be that of household income per adult equivalent where individuals of different ages receive different weights in conformity with their shares in consumption. It is difficult, however, to arrive at a satis- factory set of weights and there is no general agreement in the literature on tL- appropriate weights to be used. Furthermore, weights would be different for different income groups since consumption in low income groups is dominated by food consumption while it is not for higher income groups. We have therefore chosen to weigh individuals equally and have used the bottom 30% to comprisethe poor. This cut-off is arbitrary but has some basis in relation to the cost of minimum nutritional require- ments in Bogota. For 1977 Garcia (1978) calculated 475 pesos per month as the minimum cost of subsistence for a person in Bogota and that low income households spend close to 80% of their expenditures on food. Hence, 594 pesos a month per person emerges as a logical cut-off for the poor: we have used 580 pesos per month household income per capita as the cut-off and this then includes 30% of the population, that is the bottom three deciles. 1/ See Sudhir Anand (1978) and Bourguignon (1978) for elaborate justi- fication of this.  -7- 2.1 Income and Family Size: Table 2.1 shows the mean household income per capita (HINCAP) by family size for the bottom 30% as well as for the top 70%. It is striking that larger households have lower HINCAP than smaller households for the top 70% but the situation is opposite for the poor. Among the poor HINCAP increases as family size increases. Columns 7 and 8 give the proportion of households in each size group who fall in the bottom 30%. For both the years it is the larger households, those with over seven people, who are more likely to fall among the poor. It is somewhat surprising that among the poor themselves the larger households are somewhat better off. We suspected that this result may be caused by the inclusion of zero incomes l/ among the poor. Thus smaller households would be more affected by this group where household income is more likely to decline to zero when one member is unemployed. We therefore repeated the Table 2.1 tabulation after excluding zero incomes from the counts. The mean incomes for the small households (1, 2, 3-4 members) increased substantially but incomes still increased with household size. Thus we must conclude that while larger households are more likely to be poor, the smaller households who are poor are likely to be poorer still. Table 2.2 is a rather revealing table showing higher dependency ratios characterizing the poor as compared with the rich. For the bottom 1/ People unemployed, for example, in the reference week, report zero incomes and these would be transitory.  THE POOR IN BOGOTA Table 2.1: INCOME AND FAMILY SIZE MEAN HOUSEROLD INCOME PER CAPITA (Current Pesos) Percent Percent All Households in Households Household Size Households Bottom 30% Top 70%O Bottom 307% in Category 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1 4299 3258 31 4 5981 4453 28 27 3.5 5.0 2 1770 2253 33 72 2358 2956 25 24 7.0 8.0 3- 4 1184 1841 170 286 1489 2391. 23 26 27.9 30.8 5 - 6 1008 1937 194 320 1403 2514 33 26 30.0 31.5 7 - 9 806 1263 193 326 1132 1811 35 37 23.8 20.2 10 + 639 1129 222 387 889 1438 37 29 7.7 4.5 All Households 1149 1827 177 283 1570 2438 30.2 28.4 100 100 Source: 1975 DANE Special Household Survey for Bogota (EH8E). 1977 DANE Household Survey (EH15).  -9- THE POOR IN BOGOTA Table 2.2: FAMILY SIZE AND DEPENDENCY RATIO: THE POOR AND. RICH OF BOGOTA (Number of People in Household/Number of Workers) Dependency Ratio Bottom 30% Top 70% All Household Size 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1 5.6 22.5 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 2 6.4 6.1 1.6 1.5 2.0 1.9 3 - 4 3.9 4.2 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.7 5 - 6 5.0 4.8 2.8 2.7 3.3 3.0 7,8,9 5.7 5.3 3.1 2.9 3.7 3.5 10 + 5.9 4.5 3.2 2.9 3.8 3.2 Total 5.2 4.9 2.7 2.5 3.2 3.0 Source: 1975 DANE Special Bogota Household Survey (EH8E) 1977 DANE Household Survey (EH15)  THE POOR IN BOGOTA Table 2.3: SEX DISTRIBUTION OF THE POOR AND RICH (ALL INDIVIDUALS > 12 YRS.) Bottom 30% Top 70% Total 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 Male 46.40 44.75 45.79 46.57 45.97 46.08 H Female 53.60 55.25 54.21 53.43 54.03 53.92 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 572,432 693,944 1,454,754 1,882,676 2,027,186 2,576,620 Source: 1975 DANE Special Bogota Household Survey (EH8E) 1977 DANE Household Survey (E15)  30% (the poor).l/ The average number of people per worker in a household is about five while that for the top 70% (the rich) 1/ it is only about 2.5. This pattern holds across all family sizes. However, the number of people per worker is almost constant beyond the family size of five. Combining these results with that of the last table we can conclude tha. large families are not poor because they have fewer workers: rather that the poor tend to have larger families. The fact that among the poor themselves larger families are somewhat better off tends to indicate the holding together of larger households for insurance purposes. Banding together in larger families ensures some income flowing in even when one or two members are unemployed. Table 2.3 shows the composition of poor and rich by sex: .- appears that there is no difference among the two distributions. Wome;. are as likely to be poor as the men. 2.2 Distribution of the Poor by Age and Education Groups Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2 give the distribution of the rich and poor by age groups and education. They also give the incidence of poverty for each group. 2/ As expected, the poor are more heavily represented among those with no uiducation and primary education. While 1/ We will often use the term "bottom 30%" and "the poor" and "top 70% and "the rich" interchangeably. 2/ This index is akin to "The Index of Occupational Specification" used by Hoover and Vernon (1962), p. 284. An index over 100 indicates "tover-representation" of the poor in that group.  - 12 - 60 to 65% of the poor are those with primary or less education only about 40 to 45% of the total population (over 12 years of age) falls in that category. Table 2.4 gives more summary measures of poverty in each age/ education group. The table gives the proportion in each group falling among the bottom 30%. Thus, if poverty was evenly distributed across all age and education groups we would expect'30% in each group to fall among the bottom 30. The poor are therefore over-represented in all those groups with numbers higher than 30. Several interesting results stand out from this table. People with no education are highly likely to be poor at all ages. Overall, people with primary education are also likely to be poor but with different likelihoods at different ages. The effect of different stages in the life cycle is very evident here. It appears that children under 14, people in their middle ages (35-44) and the old (65+) are more likely to be poor. We expect the old to be poor but it is surprising to see the poor over-represented among the prime earning ages of 35-44. While this effect is particularly evident for people with low education it is also evident for people with secondary education. Several factors are at work here. First, people complete their household formation in this age group so the household is at its peak size during this period, thus reducing HINCAP. This should be mitigated by higher incomes during this peak earning period. However, as shown in Mohan (1978), people with primary and no education have rather flat,earnings profiles: thus the same income has to feed more mouths as family size increases until the  THE POOR, IN BOGOTA Table 2,4: PROPORTION OF BOTTOM 30 PERCENT AMDNG ALI. INDIVIDUALS BY AGE AND EDUCATION GROUPS Males Age/Education None Primary Secondary HLither All Total 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 Z Z Z Z % %Z Z Z X Z (in thousands) 12 - 14 73 6 30 30 - - 116 132 15 - 24 54 53 33 34 24 23 18 14 26 24 301 406 25 - 34 66 46 14 15 5.6 11 22 22 182 241 35 - 44 77 72 20 15 3.5 5 (233 148 173 45 - 54 52 48 31 31 23 11 8.3 7 27 21 104 119 55 - 64 43 40 31 26 22 17 4.5 12 27 22 52 69 65 and over 14 27 28 23 29 46 All 23 20 10 11 29 26 Total (in thousands) 24 35 401 461 397 516 109 175 932 1187 Females Ase/Education None Primary Secondary Higher All Total 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 % % % % % % % (in thousands) 12 - 14 30 29 - - 128 150 15 - 24 32 39 26 27 24 22 13 11 24 23 384 493 25 - 34 43 54 16 16 8.4 9 27 25 221 283 35 - 44 54 47 22 17 6.5 12 169 190 45 - 54 40 44 25 33 18 16 13 - 24 37 100 140 55 - 64 31 32 26 32 16 26 17 29 24 31 55 78 65 and over 51 53 26 25 - 53 40 55 Allk t 1 5 22 21 11 11 28 28 Total (in thousands) 60 80 513 596 453 616 70 97 1095 1389 Source: 1975 DANE Special Bogota Household Survey (EH8E) 1977 DANE Household Survey (EH15)  - 14 - children grow up enough to work (usually when parents are in their 40s) and we see that older age groups are better off except the very old who are presumably largely retired. It is worth noting from Table 2.4 that while the poor are heavily over-represented among those with low education, as many as 20% of those with secondary education have incomes below what is probably necessary for minimum nutrition. Furthermore, 11% of even those with some higher educa- tion are afflicted with poverty. Some of these are those people who are transitorily unemployed but the majority basically do not earn enough. 2.3 Migrant Status: Convention wisdom has it that recent migrants are disproportionately poor, that they work in the "murky sector" while waiting for the prize jobs in the organized or formal sector: Table 2.5 presents tabulations of the poor according to their length of residence in Bogota. It shows that only 15% of the poor are those who have been in Bogota for less than five years. The group with largest representation of the poor seems to comprise those who have been in Bogota for 11 to 20 years. The problem of poverty is clearly therefore not of migrants. It is much more true to say that poverty is widespread among all groups. If anything, recent migrants appear to be somewhat better at supporting themselves and only 20-25% happen to fall in the bottom 30%. The two surveys are not in full agreement though the broad patterns are clear. The 1975 survey shows that 31.3% of all migrants with less than one year of resi- dence in Bogota were poor while the 1977 survey shows only 24.6%. The pattern is reversed for females. Similarly, the 1977 survey shows a higher  THE POOR IN BOGOTA Table 2.5: DISTRIBUTION OF THE POOR BY LENGTH OF RESIDENCE- Males Females 1975 1977 1975 9777 Percent of Percent Percent of Percent Percent of Percent Percent of Percent Category of Category of Category of Category of Years in Bogota in Bottom 30% Bottom 30% in Bottom 30% Bottom 307. in Bottom 30% Bottom 30% in Bottom 30% Bottom 30Z 0 31.3 4.9 24.6 4.3 21.8 4.5 25.1 5.5 1 - 2 21.9 3.9 28.2 4.3 20.2 4.5 21.6 4.7 3 - 5 23.0 6.5 28.3 6.5 24.5 7.8 26.5 7.0 6 - 10 26.4 10.6 26.7 12.1 27.4 11.0 28.9 12.9 11 - 20 32.0 47.4 28.4 45.6 33.2 48.3 29.5 40.6 20 + 26.5 26.8 22.5 27.2 24.8 24.0 26.7 29.2 Total 28.5 100 26.2 100 28.0 100 27.6 100 t No. of People 266 311 307 383 (in thousands) 1/ Only people over 12 years of age are included in these tabulations. Source: 1975 DANE Special Bogota Household Survey (EH8E) 1977 DANE Household Survey (EH15)  - 16 - proportion of the poor with 1 to 5 years of residence. Are these sampling artifacts or reflections of reality? We cannot be sure and these data indicate the unrealiability of drawing strong conclusions from sample surveys without corroboration from other sources. These results are in agreement with Helena Jaramilla's (1978) careful study of the characteristics of migrants drawn from a 1973 census sample for the whole country. She concluded that migrants earn more than non-migrants at all education and age levels; that migrants of long standing earn more than non-migrants; that migrants born in large cities earn more than natives. Mohan (1978) also showed that migrants are also spatially distributed around the city tairly uniformly, as are recent migrants. We can thus not attribute the existence of poverty in the city to the arrival of masses of unskilled migrants in the city who cannot find jobs or are underemployed while waiting for better paying jobs to appear. Overall, migrants, recent or of long standing, are not very different from natives and, if anything, are better off. This is worth emphasizing since poverty is often laid to the arrival of poor migrants much like cheap imports are often blamed for the existence of unemployment rather than low productivity. 2.4 Unemployment and Participation Rates Among the Poor Unemployment and participation rates will be examined in greater detail in a later section of the paper. Here we merely look at the broad picture of unemployment and participation rates by income groups. Unem- ployment is defined as open unemployment and includes only those who said that they were seeking work in the reference week of each survey.  THE POOR IN BOODTA Table 2.6a: DISTRIBUTION OF UN4PLOYMENT RATES BY INCOME GROUPS AND SEX Labor Force Sex t Decile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Overall (in thousands) 1975 30.8 11.4 7.3 8.7 8.0 5.2 3.8 2.5 2.6 0.4 6.9 624 Male 1977 30.2 12.2 6.2 6.5 6.6 5.5 3.9 4.4 2.7 0.5 6.2 782 1975 29.2 12.1 12.7 9.6 7.9 7.8 6.1 3.7 1.9 1.1 6.4 337 Female 1977 16.3 11.1 9.4 9.5 7.7 6.4 5.8 4.2 1.7 2.1 5.8 469 1975 30.4 11.6 8.6 9.0 8.0 6.1 4.6 3.0 2.3 0.8 6.7 960 Total 1977 24.8 11.9 7.2 7.4 7.0 5.8 4.6 4.3 2.3 1.2 6.1 1251 Source: 1975 DANE Special Bogota Household Survey (EH8E). 1977 DANZ Household Survey (EH15). THE POOR IN 80OTA Table 2.6b: DISTRIBUTION OF THE UNEMPILYED BY INCOME GROUP AND SEX Total Sex / Decile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Overall Unemployed 1975 23.8 15.5 11.2 14.2 12.4 8.1 6.6 3.7 4.0 0.6 100 42826 1977 23.2 15.0 9.0 10.7 10.3 10.2 7.1 8.1 5.0 1.5 100 49353 1975 13.0 11.8 13.0 12.4 11.2 12.4 10.6 8.1 4.3 3.1 100 21412 Female 1977 15.1 10.0 11.0 10.7 11.1 10.5 11.0 9.7 5.1 6.0 100 27585 1975 20.2 14.3 11.8 13.6 12.0 9.5 7.9 5.2 4.1 1.4 64371 Total 1977 20.2 13.2 9.7 10.7 10.6 10.3 8.5 8.7 5.0 3.1 100 76938 Source: 1975 DANE Special Bogota Household Survey (EHBE). 1977 DANE Household Survey (EH15).  - 18 - Table 2.6a gives the decile specific unemployment rates for both males and females in 1975 and 1977. The deciles are ranked according to HINCAP. Not surprisingly, there are more unemployed among the bottom five declines. As many as 30% of all people in the bottom decile are unemployed and 11-12% in the second decile. Unemployment rates decline as income increases quite regularly for both males and females. The two surveys are largely in agreement except for the bottom decile for women. Table 2.6b gives the distribution of the unemployed by deciles. Almost 50% of all males unemployed fall in the bottom 30%. The women unemployed are somewhat more evenly distributed and only about 35 to 40% fall among the poor. We are left with the question: "Are people unemployed because they are poor or are they poor because they are unemployed?" It will be addressed partially in a later section by looking at a spatial and age- education disaggregation of unemployment rates but here we disaggregate the unemployed into primary and secondary workers in Table 2.7. If the large proportion of the unemployed who fall in the bottom 30% are poor because they are unemployed we would expect the majority of them to be primary workers (heads of households). Table 2.7 shows, however, that more than half of them are secondary workers. Indeed, the large majority of primary workers who are unemployed do fall in the bottom 30%. Even if we regard all of them as being transitorily unemployed and not "normally" belonging to the bottom 30% we are still left with rates of unemployment among the bottom 30% which would be substantially higher than in higher deciles. We may therefore conclude that at least some of the unemploy- ment among the poor is because they are poor.  THE POOR IN BOGOTA Table 2.7: COMPOSITION OF THE UNEMPLOYED Male Female Bottom 30% Top 707% Total Bottom 30O Top 70% Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Primary 1975 10108 47 2926 14 13034 31 665 8 399 3 1064 5 Workers 1977 8264 36 2033 8 a 10297 21 1452 15 840 5 2292 8 Secondary 1975 11571 53 18221 86 29792 69 7448 92 12901. 97 20349 95 Workers 1977 15009 64 24047 92 39056 79 8487 85 16806 95 25293 92 Total 1975 21679 100 21147 100 42826 100 8113 100 13300 100 21413 100 1977 23273 100 26080 100 49353 100 9939 100 17,646 100 27585 100 F-  - 20 - If we now look at participation rates in Table 2.8 the picture becomes clearer. Not only do the poor have higher unemployment rates they also have substantially lower participation rates. Thus the bottom deciles have a substantial proportion of people who are not working in one way or another. The rates of participation rise for the men until the sixth decile and then flatten out. Female participation rates rise regularly until the last decile. Female participation is therefore directly related to income. The very low participation rates in the bottom decile indicate a certain number of discouraged workers and, per- haps, a certain number old, infirm or incapacitated who cannot work and are therefore poor. We thus emerge with a composite picture. In the bottom decile, that is among the very poorest, only about 40 to 50% of males over 12 years participate in the labor force and only 15% of the women as compared with the overall participation rate of about 70% of the men and about 30% of the women. Of those who do participate almost 30% are out of work in the bottom decile. Consequently, only about 35% of all men over 12 years in the bottom decile have jobs and only about 8 to 10% of the women. Of the remainder some must be discouraged workers and others incapacitated by age, sickness or injury. Employment generation is therefore only partly the answer. Many of the poor are probably unemployable and their poverty must be attacked directly.  THE POOR IN BOGOTA Table 2.8: DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPATION RATES/ BY INCoDX GROUPS AND SEX Sex / Decile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Overall 1975 49 59 66 66 66 70 73 68 72 77 67 Kale 1977 37 60 64 69 66 71 71 72 70 71 66 1975 11 19 20 24 27 31 33 41 43 54 31 Female 1977 17 21 25 24 29 34 37 42 50 50 34 1975 26 39 43 45 47 52 53 55 59 60 49 Total 1977 26 39 43 45 47 52 53 55 59 60 49 Source: 1975 DANK Speclal Bogota Hbusehold Survey (EHBE). 1977 DANE Household Survey (EH15). 1, These participation rates are in relation to all individuals over 12 years in age.  - 22 - III. WHAT THEY DO This section attempts to identify the labor force characteristics of the poor, that is, of those who work among the poor. Workers here are defined as all those who say their primary activity is work and all others (students, for example) who work more than 15 hours a week. Once again, the poor are those whose household income per capita (HINCAP) falls among the bottom 30% regardless of their own wages. 3.1 The Age and Education Levels of Poor Workers Appendix Table A.3 gives the distribution of poor workers by age and education groups, and Table A.4 gives a similar distribution for all workers. To find out which groups are atypically poor we need to compare the two distributions. This is done in Table 3.1. This table gives an index of concentration of poverty by age and education groups. If poverty was evenly distributed among all age groups within education levels all the indices would be 100. The index of concentration reported is: wi = Proportion of Education Groups i in Age Group i in bottom 30% ii Proportion of Education Group i in Age Group j among all workers Thus, for example, if among the bottom 30%, of those male workers who have primary education 16.7% fall in the age group 15-24 and the comparable proportion for all workers is 20.0%, the index of concentration is 84%. The index gives an idea of how likely it is to find the poor in an age group within a given education level.  THE POOR IN BOODTA Table 3.1: THE INCIDENCE OF POVERrY AMDNG UORXERS BY AGE AND EDUCATION GROUPS: THE INDEX OF CONCENTRATION Males Fas~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oale. None Primary Secondary HiUber All None Primary Secondary Higher All 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 12 -14 - @ 75 78 150 - - - 100 150 - 0 102 53 - - 120 70 15 -24 82 136 84 82 102 119 ( D 87 90 54 46 70 75 97 88 ( ; ) 80 79 25 -34 106 91 104 107 73 95 89 104 88 95 10 71 99 56 42 99 95 35-44 - 132 139 117 1 81 98 1150 140 150 145 133 110 134 1 45-54 96 94 82 85 125 83 145 72 99 93 80 122 55 115 - - 84 140 55 -64 55 61 78 49 113 38 113 73 89 58 153 53 100 121 80 88 - - 120 110 65 + t 2 71 45 85 54 - - 105 76 144 6'/ 56 0 ( - - 113 66 Source: Tables A.3 and A.4 Note: Index of concentration wij - Proportion of Educttion Group I in Age Group in Bottom 3 x 100 Proportion of Education Group i in Age Group j in a11 anrkara THE POOR IN BOGDTA Table 3.2: THE IRCIDENCE OF POVERTY AMONG WORKERS BY AGE AND EDUCATION GROUPS: THE PROPORTION IN EACH GROUP IN THE BOTTOM 30 PERCENT Hales Female None Priry Secndary Higher Total None Primr S ondsry HiRher Total 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 12- 14 23 23 23 - - - 23 29 - - 18 11 33 30 - - 17 11 15 -24 46 68 28 25 16 14 5.3 5.0 20 18 10 13 13 15 10 10 5.8 11 11 13 25 -34 60 46 11 11 4.0 3.7 21 19 7.6 11 1.9 3.0 14 15 35 -44 75 70 18 13 3.7 3.5 ( 3 27 41 L 2 14 12 4.4 8.5 ; ? 45 -54 54 47 27 26 19 10 6.6 2.6 23 18 14 35 10 23 19 16 - - 12 23 55 -64 31 31 26 15 17 5 5.1 1.9 21 11 27 15 18 24 8.3 10 - - 17 18 65 + 24 14 13 7 - - 24 5.5 ) 10 - 25 26 - - 15 11 15 12 4.5 3.6 23 20 18 20 11 11 3.3 7.2 14 16 Source: Tabulation from 1975 DANE Special Bogota Household Survey (EH8E) 1977 DANE Household Survey (EHlS)  - 24 - We have circled the atypically high indices of concentration in Table 3.1. Only those groups have been circled where the two surveys are in agreement. Among males it is interesting to note that the distribution of poor workers is not strikingly different from'that of all workers except that they are over-represented in the 35-44 age group. Note that workers over 65 are only over-represented among those with no education. There are very few among males 12 to 14 years old who are workers and the poor are not over-represented in this group - although owing to the small sample at this level of aggregation the two samples are not in agreement. It is surprising that the poor are not clearly over-represented in this group since one would have expected only the very poor to go out to work at much earlier ages. It indicates that those who work clearly contribute to household income and thus, perhaps, help in lifting the household out of poverty. Indeed, the age group 35-44 is atypically poor probably because their children are foregoing current income in order to go to school. It may be recalled from Section 2.2 that of all children aged 12 to 14 almost 40% were poor. These data point to the real economic hardship undergone by the poor in educating their children even if the education were free. Among females, the story is similar and the age group 35-44 is again atypically poor. In addition, the poor among those with primary or less education also predominate in the lower age group of 25-34; old women (over 65) with secondary education who have to work are also poor.  - 25 - Table 3.2 gives another way of looking at the same data. It reports the proportion within each age-education category who fall in the bottom 30%. The first point to note is that only about 20% of male workers and 15% of female workers fall among the bottom 30. Thus it is clear that any type of a job is likely to lift people out of poverty. It is surprising that only about 15% of the women who work are poor. It is again probably the case that, the majority of women being secondary workers, just bringing a second income into a household makes that household relatively better off. Half of all workers with no education and a third of those with primary education fall in the bottom 30. For women the proportions are much less. Overall, the picture is clear: of those who work, people are poor during their middle age of 35 to 44. If we are really inter- ested in the removal of poverty, one direct policy action would be to give schooling stipends to poor children. It would have the double effect of relieving current poverty for the most hard pressed as well as investing in human capital for the future so that future poverty is relieved. 3.2 The Occupation of Poor Workers and the Hours they Work This section examines the occupations that poor workers are predominantly in and the hours they work in these occupations. Table 3.3 gives distribution of the poor and of all workers by occupation. As expected, poor workers are largely in blue collar occupa- tions: around 70 to 75% of all poor male workers are blue collar workers  TRE POOR IN BOGDTA Table 3.3: DISTRIBUlTON OF POOR WORKERS BY OCCUPATION Bottom 30% Overall Poverty Index Occupation (ILO Code) Male Female Male Female Male Female 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1977 1977 White Collar 28.2 26.1 34.3 28.8 42.8 44.5 43,5 42.5 __9 68 Professional and Technical 3.3 1.7 5.1 2.1 11.5 11.8 11.8 9.0 14 23 (1-19) Administrative/Manager 1.9 0.6 0.3 - 3.6 4.2 0.6 0.7 14 71 (20-29) Clerks and Typists 5.7 6.8 7.5 9.0 11.3 11.9 18.1 18.6 57 48 (30-39) Sales Manager and Proprietor 11.8 7.3 14.2 7.8 9.3 7.6 6.6 5.2 96 150\ (40-41) l Other Sales (42-49) 5.5 9.7 7.2 9.9 7.1 9.0 6.4 9.0 98 Blue Collar 71.8 74.0 66.1 71.2 57.3 55.5 56.4 E7a1 124 Service Worker (not maid) 9.2 10.9 25.3 28.0 7.6 8.0 12.8 17.2 (50-53; 55-59) Maids (54) 0.7 - 17.5 22.8 0.5 0.1 27.6 24.4 - 93 Agricultural Workers 2.7 1.6 0.6 0.6 2.1 1.6 0.3 0.5 100 120 (60-69) Production Supervisors 0.6 0.6 0.9 - 0.6 0.9 0.2 0.3 67 - (70) Production Workers 27.5 34.8 20.0 19.2 27.0 28.4 15.3 15.1 (71-94, 96-97) Construction Workers 18.0 13.2 1.2 0.3 10.0 8.3 0.2 0.04 157 _ (95) Transport Workers 10.7 11.4 - - 8.0 7.6 - - 150 - (98)-l Other 2.4 1.5 0.6 0.3 1.4 0.6 - - 50 (99) Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total Number of Workers (thousands) 133 143 43 72 572 726 311 442 Proportion of all Workers in 23.2 19.7 13.8 16.3 Bottom 30% Source: 1975 DANE Special Bogota Household Survey (ER8E) 1977 DANE Household Survey (EH15) Note: Poverty Index Proportion of Workers in Bottom 30% in Occupation i wi = x 100 Proportion of all Workers in Occupation i  - 27 - and about 65 to 70% of all female workers. In the overall distribution only about 55 to 57% of both male and female workers fall in that category. Table 3.3 also gives a poverty index for occupations (as defined in the table and similar to other poverty indices in this paper). We have circled the occupations which have an over-represention of poor workers. These are service workers and production workers of both sexes (not including maids), male construction and transport workers and female sales workers. These categories cover about 65% of the poor male workers and 70% of the poor female workers. Note that maids who comprise about 20% of the poor female workers are not particularly poor. They are relatively better off than their counterparts who work in service and manufacturing jobs. The two surveys are in broad agreement in these distributions except that there seems to be a problem between the classi- fication of sales manager and other sales categories. Many more sales people seem to have been classified as sales managers or proprietors in 1975. Do poor workers work long hours or are they short of work? To answer this question we tabulate the distribution of hours worked in each occupation by the poor and by all workers and compare the two distri- butions. Table 3.4a reports the distribution of hours worked by occupa- tion for poor male workers while Table 3.4b gives the same distribution for all male workers. In Table 3.4a we have circled the cells where a larger proportion of the poor are found in the hours worked category as compared with the distribution for all workers. It is striking that  THg POOR IN BOGOT Table 3.4a: DISTRIBUrION OF HDURS WDRI=D BY THE POOR (BOTIOH 3OX) BY OCCIPATION (ZMALS ONLY) Percentage 0- 14 15 -29 30 -39 40 - 49 50- 59 60 69 70 -79 All in Category Occumation/Hours Worked 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 White Cell r Profeaiaonal and Techtncal 2.9 0 2.9 17.2 61.8 68.4 8.8 7.1 5.9 0 5.9 0 100 100 3.4 2.0 A&iaLstrative/Manager 0 0 0 0 5.7 0 < 5. 5.7 24.1 5.7 0 5.3 0 100 100 1.9 .6 Clerks and Typists 0 0 3.5 2.2 1.7 4.6 79.3 76.1 8.6 8.7 5.2 6.3 1.7 2.1 iCO 100 5.8 6.7 Sales Manager and Proprietor 0 2.0 4.4 0 4.4 7.8 41.6 30.6 11.5 9.7 14.2 17.7 C23.9 2.3 100 100 11.3 7.4 Other Sales 0 0 3.6 6.0 3.8 10.3 55.4 33.5 8.9 19.2 14. 3 100 100 5.6 9.7 Slue Collar Service Worker (rot mid) 0 0 1.1 2.9 2.2 0 47.3 45.1 14.3 17.5 11.0 2.7 ( l.8 100 100 9.1 10.8 Maids 0 0 0 0 57.1 0 28.6 0 0 0 0 0 14.3 0 100 100 .7 0 Agricultural Workers 0 0 0 0 12.0 25.3 60.0 58.0 12.0 0 8.0 16.8 8.0 0 100 100 2.5 1.7 1 Production Supervisors 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.0 75.0 0 0 16.7 0 100 100 .6 .6 O Production Workers .7 0 4.0 3.4 4.7 3.8 65.9 63.4 10.1 12.5 8.7 10.6 (. 100 100 27.7 34.5 1 Construction Workers 0 0 2.2 5.4 4.9 2.2 65.0 57.4 15.9 13.5 4. .100 100 18.4 13.1 Transport Workers 2.9 0 1.9 4.2 2.9 6.3 49.5 38.5 12.4 15.3 ( .2 0 15.2 21.8 100 100 10.5 11.3 other 0 0 4.2 0 8.3 0 66.7 89.9 8.3 10.2 12.5 0 0 0 100 1OO 2.4 1.5 Total .6 .2 3.2 3.5 4.6 5.0 59.4 53.9 11.5 13.3 2100 100 100 100 Nuber of Workers 798 213 4256 5103 6118 7166 78736 77709 15295 19226 13300 16621 14098 18239 132601 144277 Source: 1975 DANE Special Bogota Rousthold Survey (EHBE). 1977 DANE Household Survey (EH15).  THI PODOR IN BDO0TA Table 3.4b: DISTRIaUTION O b0URS WORM BY ALL MAZE WORERS BY 0CCUPATION Percentage 0- 14 15 -29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 -59 60 -69 70 -98 All In C4teorvr Occupotion/Hours of hork 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 Wbite Collar ftfe.ssoel snd Techoical 1.0 .2 7.1 6.4 6.3 7.8 64.3 65.9 9.9 9.6 8.1 5.5 3.4 4.6 100 100 11.5 12.0 hi1nltstretive/mager 0 0 0 2.8 1.3 .8 73.6 64.0 14.8 16.2 6.5 11.3 3.9 4.9 100 100 3.6 4.6 Clerks and Typists 0 0 3.5 1.8 2.0 2.8 80.0 81.9 8.3 8.0 4.9 3.2 1.4 2.3 100 100 11.5 11.8 Soles )boa8r nd Phoprletor .3 .4 3.6 2.3 5.4 6.0 47.7 39.1 15.5 18.5 10.6 17.7 16.8 16.0 100 100 9.0 7.7 Other Sales 1.3 0 3.3 4.7 4.3 6.5 61.1 53.9 11.1 16.7 10.1 12.4 8.8 5.9 100 100 7.1 8.8 Blue Collar Saricse Worker (not mid) .3 0 1.5 3.1 2.5 2.9 51.7 40.5 16.9 16.4 8.6 6.6 - 18.5 30.4 100 100 7.6 7.9 1Mids 0 0 5.0 0 20.0 25.7 30.0 74.3 20.0 0 15.0 0 10.0 0 100 100 .5 .1 Agricultural Workers 0 0 5.6 5.7 9.0 16.1 48.3 49.1 20.2 11.2 9.0 10.7 7.9 7.2 100 100 2.1 1.7 Production Supervisors 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 51.9 78.5 18.5 9.0 22.2 9.4 7.4 0 100 100 .6 1.0 Productian Workers .7 .2 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.9 71.0 69.1 10.5 10.3 7.0 8.5 4.7 5.1 100 100 27.1 28.1 Construction Workers 0 1.1 1.8 3.1 3.4 4.2 67.5 58.1 15.1 17.1 7.8 12.6 4.4 3.8 100 100 10.2 8.1 Tranport Workers .9 0 1.5 3.1 3.8 6.0 53.4 40.7 14.1 15.5 11.4 14.9 15.0 19.8 100 100 7.9 7.6 Other 0 0 1.7 0 8.5 0 72.9 84.3 11.9 5.4 5.1 10.4 0 0 100 100 1.4 .5 Total .5 .2 3.1 3.4 4.0 4.8 64.6 60.9 12.4 12.8 8.1 9.4 7.4 8.6 100 100 100 100 Ntsbers of Workers 2926 1473 17556 25077 22743 35095 369341 447033 70756 93988 46417 68990 42294 62849 572033 734505 Source: 1975 DANZ Special Bogota Household Survey (N81E) 1977 DAHE Household Survey (EH15)  - 30 - the poor are over-represented among workers who work long hours. About 20% of poor male workers work over 60 hours a week while only 15% of all male workers work such hours. Sales workers, construction workers and transport workers who are poor appear to work particularly long hours. Among the poor, it is only professional and technical workers who work relatively short hours. Only about 8% of the poor work less than 40 hours and about 55 to 60% work the "normal" 40 to 48-hour week. Note also that sales and transport workers work the longest hours in general. The story is somewhat different for female workers. They appear to be over-represented among those working shorter hours. Table 3.5a gives the distribution for the female poor and Table 3.5b for all females. Once again it is the sales workers who work very long hours along with the maids. It would seem therefore that, perhaps, there are many poor women working part-time who would like more work but cannot get any or cannot work longer hours because of responsibilities at home. The picture we emerge with is therefore a composite one. It appears that the poor men are largely not lacking for work: there is little overt or open underemployment. Indeed, if anything, the poor are overworked in low productivity occupations. The sales workers are perhaps actually underemployed, that is, idle for a substantial part of their working hours. But they comprise only about 25% of all poor workers. 1/ 1/ See Appendix Tables A.5 and A.6 for Distribution of Hours Worked by Occupation (where columns seem to be a hundred) for poor male and female workers.  THE POOR IN BOGOTA Table 3.5a: DISTRIBUriON OF h'0URS WORKED BY THE POOR (BOTT0M 30%) BY OCCUPATION (FENAIZS ONLY) Percentage 0 -14 15 -29 30 -39 40 - 49 50- 59 60 -69 70 - 98 All InCategory Occupation/Hours worked 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 19?5 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 White Collar Professional and Technical 0 0 5.9 29.8 17.7 42.1 76.5 28.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 5.2 2.1 Administrative/Manager 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 .3 - Clerks and Typists 0 3.3 4.0 0 4.0 0 80.0 89.8 0 6.9 0 0 12.0 0 100 100 7.7 9.0 Sales Manager and Proprietor 0 0 h D 11.4 7.0 27.3 33.1 11.4 11.1 18.2 3.7 7 3 100 100 13.5 7.8 Other Sales 0 0 0 8.9 G 50.0 29.7 20. 5 8.3 2.8 15 4 100 100 7.3 9.9 Blue Collar Service Worker (not maid) 1.2 3.1 6 6 7. 4 48.2 31.9 8.4 14.4 6.0 7.6 8.4 6.2 100 100 25.4 28.0 Maids 0 0 t 3 15.8 0 31.6 18.3 17.5 8.9 14.0 48.7 12.3 22.9 100 100 17.4 22.8 Agricultural Workers 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 50.7 0 49.3 100 100 .6 .6 1 Production Supervisors 0 0 0 0 0 0 66.7 0 33.3 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 .9 0 Production Wrkers 1.5 0 ( 3.4 9.2 9.4 55.4 63.4 9.2 4.7 3.1 7.6 6.2 1.4 100 100 19.9 19.2 Construction Workers 0 0 75.0 0 25.0 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 1.2 .3 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.0 100.0 50.0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 .6 .3 Total .61 1.2 11.6 10.7 11.0 10.1 48.0 40.1 10.7 10.8 7.7 15.53 10.4 11.6 100 100 100 100 Number of Workers 266 840 5054 7691 4788 7304 20881 28904 4655 7780 3325 11203 4522 8395 43491 72.117 Source: 1975 DANE Special Bogota household Survey (EHSE) 1977 DANE Bogota Household Survey (EHI5)  T8B PfOl IN BOGOTA Table 3.5b: DISTRIWIION OF HOIR WORKQD BY PENALU WOIRS BY OCOJPATION 0Octp.tlooIb..r. of Work 0- 14 15 -29 30 39 40 -49 50 59 60 -69 70 -98 All 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1l8te Collar Profe.ional nad Trhical 1.8 .5 17.6 18.8 20.5 17.8 54.0 56.4 3.2 3.0 2.5 2.4 .4 1.1 100 100 11.9 9.1 AiowstrativeI1bnexer - - - 7.9 15.4 7.9 61.5 71.0 23.1 6.6 . - - 6.6 100 100 .6 .7 Clerks sd Typists .5 .5 1.9 .8 4.5 1.8 84.7 87.6 4.9 5.9 2.1 2.6 1.4 .8 100 100 18.2 18.7 Sl". Ioger sod Proprietor 1.4 - 4.8 5.7 11.6 7.7 33.6 30.6 13.7 16.5 14.4 10.2 20.6 21.4 100 100 6.3 5.2 Otber sles - .5 5.3 9.9 4.6 7.8 60.9 50.8 14.6 15.0 6.6 6.0 8.0 10.0 100 100 6.5 9.0 St" Collar Ser-I.. worker (not -id) .7 1.1 11.3 11.2 8.3 9.7 47.3 45.6 13.7 13.2 8.3 9.8 10.3 9.4 100 100 12.8 17.2 ltIds .8 - 2.3 .4 4.1 2.4 25.9 18.4 22.9 15.5 20.9 34.4 23.2 29.0 100 100 27.5 24.3 t Agri-lt.ral Worker. - - 11.7 - - 71.4 19.8 28.6 38.3 - 20.4 - 9.9 100 100 .3 .5 Prodoutifo SWereior - - - - - - 75.0 80.5 25.0 19.5 - - - - 100 100 .2 .3 Productio Workers .8 - 12.2 8.5 10.5 9.0 61.5 68.8 8.3 7.1 2.8 4.1 3.9 2.5 100 100 15.5 15.1 Constrortico workers - - 60.0 - 20.0 - - 100.0 - - 20.0 - - - 100 100 .2 - Trtnsport Workers - _- - - - 100.0 _- - - 100 100to Other - - - - - - 50.0 100.0 50.0 - - - - 100 100 .1 - Total .8 .4 7.2 6.5 8.2 6.7 51.3 51.2 12.76 10.9 9.3 12.9 10.4 11.36 100 100 100 100 Total Umber of Worker. 2527 1668 22344 28719 25536 29800 159447 227151 39634 48508 28861 57312 32319 50409 310688 443567 So6re.: 1975 DANE Spianil Bogota bo-dbold Sorvey (dISS) 1977 DARE H-osdhold S.rvey (E15)  - 33 - Almost half of the poor overworked men are transport or construction workers. It is unlikely that they are idle during much of their working day. On the other hand, a substantial portion of the women are either genuinely underemployed (i.e., willing and able to work more hours) or unable to work longer hours. Poverty will therefore not be alleviated by more expansion of employment opportunities. For men what is needed are higher productivity employment opportunities, and this may imply the provision of training programs for the least skilled and overworked. For women, perhaps, more employment opportunities are needed along with day care programs so that they can participate in income producing activities. Note that the provision of day care is itself an employment generating activity. The last tabulation of poor workers according to their occu- pational distribution is Table 3.6 which gives the proportion of workers earning less than the minimum wage in each occupation. The proportion in the two surveys are somewhat different: in 1975 17.6% of male workers and 21.8% of female workers earned less than the minimum wage while in 1977 only 6.8% and 15.3% respectively earned less. The 1975 survey was conducted shortly before the next increase in minimum wage and the 1977 one was conducted soon after a minimum wage increase to adjust for inflation. The comparative position of the occupations is, however, not affected by these discrepancies. Recall that 20 to 23% of male workers fall among the bottom 30% and about 15% of female workers.  THE POOR IN BOGOTA Table 3.6: DISTRIBUTION OF WORKERS EARNING LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE BY OCCUPATION Males Famales 1975 1977 1975 1977 Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total < Percent in < Percent in < Percent in < Percent Activity Min. Wagei Catesory Min. WateV Category Min. WagL / Catetory Min. WaRg2 Category Professional and Technical 7.6 11.5 3.0 12.0 10.4 11.8 3.7 9.1 Administrative/Manager 17.1 3.6 0.6 4.6 e 0.6 6.4 0.7 Clerks and Typists 6.3 11.3 2.4 11.8 5.9 18.1 3.1 18.7 Sales Manager and Proprietor ( ) 9.3 7.8 0 6.6 3 5.2 Other Sales 18.5 7.1 l 8.9 26.3 6.4 9.0 Service Worker (not maid) 12.3 7.6 4.7 7.9 I 12.8 17.0 Maids 28.6 0.5 - 0.1 15.2 27.6 4.4 24.3 Agricultural Workers ; 2.1 ( 1.7 0.4 0.3 20.0 0.5 Production Supervisors 7.4 0.6 - 1.0 - 0.2 - 0.3 Production Workers 17.6 27.0 8.4 28.1 D 15.3 e 15.1 Construction Workers 9 10.0 E 8.1 1.0 0.2 - - Transport Workers 12.6 8.0 4.8 7.6 - - - - Other 22.0 1.4 4.7 0.6 5').0 0.1 - - Total Percent 17.6 100 6.8 100 21.8 100 15.3 100 Number of Workers in Category 102 580 50 736 69 314 67 444 (in thousands) 1/ Minimum Wage in 1975 was Col.$38.50 per day i.e., Col $886 per month. 2/ Minimum WaSe in 1977 was Col.$50 per day i.e., Col $1150 per month. Source: 1975 DANE Special Bogota Household Survey (EH8E) 1977 DANE Household Survey (EH15)  - 35 - If the bottom 30% indeed fall below the minimum adequate nutrition requirement this would indicate that the minimum wage should be raised somewhat to make it possible for workers to achieve at least the minimum nutritional standards for themselves and their families. Clearly, if the minimum wage is raised the demand for labor would decline resulting in higher unemployment. But workers can scarcely be expected to work at adequate productivity levels without the barest of minimum nutrition. Indeed, if productivity is raised by raising the minimum wage it can have an employment generating effect in the long run, through the normal multiplier of increased incomes. Among males it is large proportions of sales workers and construction workers who are paid less than the minimum wage. Recall that they were also over-represented among those who work long hours. Once again we can speculate that the sales workers fall among the disguised underemployed but the construction workers do not. Among women it is noteworthy that a very small percentage of maids are paid below minimum wages. It is mainly female sales service and production workers who are paid below the minimum wage rates. Note that on the whole for more women work for below minimum wage levels but recall that many of them also work part-time. 3.3 The Industry of Activity of Poor Workers and the Hours They Work This section examines the distribution of poor workers by industry of activity that they work in and the hours they work in these industries. The results corroborate those on occupations in the previous section.  THE POOR JR BDOTA Table 3.7: DISTR180TTON OF TUE POOR BY INWSTRY OF ACTIVITY Bottom 307 Overall Poverty ind a male Peale male FPale Male Female 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Activity (S.I.C. Code) 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 PRiMUY 3.0 1.6 1.2 0.9 2.7 1.9 .6 0.8 111 84 ___ /griculture (10-19) 2.3 1.6 0.6 0.6 1.9 1.6 0.3 0.6 121 100 200 100 mining (20-29) 0.7 - 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.2 88 _ SEWND&RY 42.8 44.8 23.5 21.4 37.9 34.8 20.1 22.5 117 95 food Products, Beverages and Tobacco (31) 2.8 5.6 2.1 1.7 3.0 3.8 1.7 2.2 93 147 124 77 Tatilce amd 'oottar (32) 4.2 5.7 14.2 11.5 5.5 5.3 10.8 10.3 76 108 1 er and Wood (33) 3.9 4.0 1.8 0.6 3.4 3.0 0.7 0.6 t 1257 1001 leper, Printing, Publishing (34) 1.9 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.1 1.2 95 79 Mineral Products (36) 2.1 2.0 0.3 0.3 1.5 1.9 0.4 1.3 75 23 ludutril Cb-icaels, Petrolem (35) 2.3 2.0 1.5 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.3 3.6 77 77 65 81 V*tal Industry (37, 38) 4.9 5.7 1.5 1.8 6.0 7.7 1.5 2.1 82 74 100 86 Cther Industry (30 - 39) 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.3 67 100 60 200 Utilities (40 - 49) 0.8 0.6 - - 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.2 100 86 - - Construction (50 - 59) 19.7 17.1 0.3 - 12.4 12.3 0.9 0.7 G 33 - TllrIARr5Y 546j 53.8 75.3 77.8 59.5 58.4 79.2 76.9 92 92 95 101 Wbolesle Trade (61) 2.2 0.6 0.6 0.9 2.9 1.1 1.7 0.7 76 55 35 129 Retail Trade (62) 16.8 18.5 21.2 19.8 15.3 16.4 15.4 15.6 ISO' 12 Other Co_rce (60. 63) 2.1 2.3 7.0 4.6 2.3 2.2 4.5 4.3 91 105 156 107 Treportation, Cmnication(70-79) 9.1 10.5 1.2 0.9 8.1 8.9 1.6 1.4 tll2 1183 75 65 Fhmid l EAtebli_ints (80 - 89) 4.7 4.3 4.5 2.8 7.3 8.9 4.9 6.5 64 48 92 43 PtubIlc Adniniatretion, Social Service (96 - 99) 6.8 6.6 2.7 2.9 8.3 8.3 4.8 5.1 82 SO 56 57 Pudblic Instruction (93) 3.1 1.7 9.1 6.2 6.8 5.5 14.4 11.4 46 31 63 54 Personal ud Dstic Services 9.8 9.3 29.0 39.7 8.5 7.1 31.9 31.9 C115 131 91 124 (95) Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 No. of Worker (in thouands) 114 143 37 72 492 726 267 442 Proportion of Workers in Bottom 30R 23.2 19.7 13.9 16.3 Note: The poverty Inda is semilar to that usd in Table 3.3 50rce: 1975 DM Special Bogota 'ou&ebold Survy (MID8) 1977 DMN Nonsold Survey (MI5)  - 37 - Table 3.7 gives the distribution of the poor and of all workers by industry of activity. Once again poverty indices have been calculated to show which activities have an over-representation of poor workers. In correspondence with the fact that blue collar workers are more likely to be poor, this table shows that secondary activities, that is manu- facturing and construction, are more likely to have poor male workers employed in them. Within manufacturing, lumber and wood products and mineral production appear to be the industries employing an atypical proportion of poor workers. The 1977 survey also points to food products, beverages and tobacco as employing poor workers but this is not borne out by the 1975 sample. Among tertiary activities, retail trade, trans- port and communication and personal and domestic services stand out as activities employing a large proportion of poor people. About 40% of the bottom 30% men are employed in these activities. For females the picture is similar but with some differences. Within secondary activites, poor women are disproportionately employed in textiles and shoes, lumber and wood industries and in printing and publishing. About 16 to 18% of poor women are employed in these indus- tries as opposed to about 12% in the overall distribution. Within tertiary activities the poor women are overly represented in retail trade and in other commerce. Once again, personal and domestic services do not employ a disproportionate number of poor women. Table 3.8a and 3.8b give the distribution of hours worked by industry. 1/ of activity for poor men and all men respectively. We ;j The column distributions for poor men and women is given in Tables A.7 and A.8 respectively.  THE POOR IN BOtOTA Table 3.8a: DISTRIBUTION OF HOURS WORKED BY THE POOR (BOTTOM 30 PERCENT) BY INDUSTRY OF ACTIVITY (MALES ONLY) Activitv/Hours Worked 0-14 15-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ Total Total Year 75 77 75 77 75 77 75 77 75 77 75 77 75 77 75 77 75 77 PR I'ARY Agriculture 0 0 0 0 61.9 68.2 9.52 0 9.5 25.1 4.8 0 100 100 2.1 1.8 Mining 14.3 0 0 0 143 0 14.3 0 57.1 0 0 0 0 0o 100 100 .7 0 SECONDARY Food Products, Beverages, and Tobacco 3.6 0 3.6 2.6 0 3.1 57.1 41.5 7.1 15.7 21.4 10.5 7.1 26.7 100 100 2.8 5.6 Textiles and Footwear 0 0 2.4 0 2.4 7.6 59.5 61.b 11.9 10.1 16.7 7.1 7.7 100 100 4.2 5.6 Lumber and Wood 0 0 > 7 2.6 0 61.5 58.3 15.4 14.5 12. 2.9 7.J 100 100 3.9 3.9 Paper, Printing, Publishing 0 0 5.6 0 5.6 0 61.1 70.6 16.7 9.8 5.6 9.8 fli .8 100 100 1.8 1.5 Mineral Products 0 0 4.8 0 4.8 0 81.0 85.5 9.5 14.5 C 0 0 0 100 100 2.1 2.0 Industrial Chemicals, Petroleum 0 0 0 0 0 0 73.9 71.2 13.0 14.6 8.7 7.1 4.4 7.1 100 100 2.3 2.0 Metal Industry 0 0 2.0 2.6 4.0 0 72.0 82.0 10.0 5.1 8.0 7.7 4.0 2.6 100 100 5.0 5.6 Other Industry 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.0 74.8 50.0 25.2 0 0 0 0 100 100 .2 .6 Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 .8 .6 Construction 0 0 3.0 5.9 6.5 6.0 63.0 55.3 15.0 14.7 7.0 13.9 5.5 4.3 100 100 20.1 17.0 TERTIARY IWholesale Trade 0 0 0 0 0 0 68.2 75.4 9.1 24.6 18.2 0 4.6 0 100 100 2.2 .6 Relail Trade .8 .8 3.7 2.4 4.3 7.7 45.1 37.5 10.5 15.4 2 .4 2 100 100 16.3 18.5 Other Commerce 0 0 5.3 13.9 0 0 52.6 59.5 10.5 7.5 15.8 19.1 100 100 1.9 2.3 Transportation, Communication 0 0 1.1 4.5 3.4 6.8 56.8 35.8 10.2 11.2 to. 5 13.6 25 100 100 8.9 10.4 Fi.aancial Establishments 2.1 0 0 3.4 4.2 7.0 70.8 50.3 4.2 13.4 6.3 0 12.5 25.9 100 100 4.8 4.4 Pu! lic Administration, Social Services 0 0 5.9 0 4.4 0 60.3 68.6 8.8 15.6 ' 9.0 100 100 6.8 6.5 Public Instruction 6.7 0 3.3 7.4 3.3 0 50.0 63.6 13.3 21.7 3.3 7.4 20.0 0 100 100 3.0 2.0 Personal and DomestI' rerv),es 1.0 0 6.1 4.7 6.1 6.6 58.2 56.2 10.2 14.0 8.2 9.2 3 100 100 9.9 9.3 Percent in Category .6 .2 3.2 3.5 4.5 5.0 59.4 53.9 11.6 13.3 10.1 11.5 10.7 12.6 100 100 100 100 Number of Workers 798 213 4256 5103 5985 7166 78470 77709 15295 19226 13300 16621 14098 18239 - - - - S.lwrce: 1975 DP.Pl speciCi Bogota Household Survey (EH8E) 1977 DANI llousel.-d Survey (EH15)  THE POOR IN BOO'rA Tai 8b: DISTRIBUTION OF HOURS WORKED B. KAIl WORKERS BY TNDUqTRY OF ACTIVITY Aeti,rity/l.r.of lWork 0 14 15 -29 30- 39 40 -49 50 -59 60 -69 70+ To.l Year 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 PRIMARY Agricetlure - - 4.9 4.1 8.5 9.1 48.8 53.2 19.5 11.6 11.0 14.7 7.3 7.4 100 100 1.9 1.6 MISinig 2.9 - - - 11.8 8.8 55.9 55.6 26.5 9.7 - 26.0 2.9 - 100 100 .8 .3 Food Prod.cc. B".eragea. and Tob.c.o .8 - 1.6 1.5 .8 1.7 70.1 60.2 12.6 12.1 10.2 9.3 3.9 15.1 100 100 3.0 3.8 Te.liles od Foot-ear .4 .5 4.2 1.6 2.5 3.2 70.0 63.7 9.8 13.5 8.9 11.0 7.2 6.5 100 100 5.5 5.4 L.b*r od -ood - - 2.7 4.9 3.4 4.2 64.6 65.6 16.3 11.5 5.4 11.1 7.5 2.9 100 100 3.4 3.0 Paper. P.-inog, PoblishLng 1.1 1.8 2.3 1.8 71.6 67.8 11.4 14.7 8.0 4.8 5.7 9.2 100 100 2.1 1.9 Mineral Prod4.ts - - 3.0 1.8 1.5 1.7 81.8 85.2 9.1 6.2 4.6 5.1 - - 100 100 1.5 1.9 Induatrial Chemicals. Petroleso Metal Iod.stry .8 - .8 1.9 3.1 1.2 75.8 75.8 12.9 10.5 4.7 7.3 2.0 3.3 100 100 6.0 7.7 Other Ind..try - - 4.6 - - 60.0 72.5 33.3 18.3 - - 6.7 4.6 100 100 .4 .6 Utilities - . - - - - 82.9 87.1 14.3 4.2 2.9 4.4 - 4.4 100 100 .8 .7 Coostro.tim - .7 2.4 3.4 3.9 4.7 64.2 61.2 14.7 14.6 9.8 11.6 5.0 3.8 100 100 12.6 12.1 TERIARY Whloleale Trade - - - 5.0 2.4 2.3 67.2 64.7 16.0 15.2 8.0 10.2 6.4 2.6 100 100 2.9 1.2 Retail Trade .8 - 3.3 2.5 4.7 7.2 55.0 49.3 12.7 16.1 10.3 14.3 13.4 10.4 100 100 15.0 16.3 Other Coeerce 1.1 - 7.5 8.4 3.2 4.0 51.1 39.6 14.9 17.5 8.5 5.5 13.8 25.1 100 100 2.2 2.2 Tranaportatian nd Coonieatlo .3 - .6 4.0 3.2 5.9 55.8 46.1 15.1 13.0 11.9 14.5 13.1 16.5 100 100 8.0 8.8 FlnoLisl Eetabliasents .3 - 3.1 4.4 2.8 4.5 71.4 66.9 7.6 9.5 7.2 4.1 7.6 10.7 100 100 7.4 8.9 Public Adeioistratio. Sonca! Seryie. - .4 3.7 1.1 4.2 2.2 72.4 71.3 9.0 11.4 4:5 4.5 6.2 9.2 100 100 8.3 8.3 Public Istr-cti-o 1.7 - 7.2 8.2 8.6 8.4 62.0 55.7 9.3 12.7 6.5 5.7 4.8 9.4 100 100 6.8 5.6 Persoocl *nd DDestic Ser.ices 1.1 - 4.9 5.8 4.6 8.4 64.0 58.1 10.8 12.2 8.1 9.0 6.5 6.6 100 100 8.6 7.0 Percentage In Category .5 .2 3.1 3.4 3.9 4.8 64.6 60.9 12.4 12.8 8.1 9.4 7.4 8.6 100 100 100 1(0 No. of Workers 2926 1473 17556 25077 22477 35095 368809 447033 70756 93988 46417 68990 42294 62849 _  - 40 - follow a similar procedure as for occupations and compare the distri- butions in Table 3.8a with those in Table 3.8b. More poor men work longer hours than shorter hours. Twentyfive to thirty percent of poor men who work in food products and in textiles and footwear work over 60 hours a week. Within tertiary activities, 35% of poor men work over 60 hours in retail trade and in transport and communication. Tables 3.9a and 3.9b report similar distributions for poor women and all women respectively. In corroboration of the results for occupations, poor women are over-represented in part-time work in trading activities and in personal and domestic activities where they are likely to be underemployed. About 40% of poor women who work in the manufacture of food products and beverages, however, work atypically long hours. These tables merely corroborate the information given for occupation and provide no surprises. They are included mainly for com- pleteness. The last tabulations of poor workers by activity of industry are the proportions of workers earning less than minimum wage and are reported in Table 3.10. Once again there are no surprises - mere corroboration. Among males employed in secondary activities a disproportionate number in lumber and wood and in construction earn less than the minimum wage. Others among the poor earning low wages are in trade and commerce and personal and domestic services. Between them these activities account  THE POM IN BOGOTA Table 3.9s: DISTRBUTION OF HOURS WORKED By THE POOR (BOTTOM 30 PERCENr) By INDUJSTRY OF ACTIVITY (FEMALES ONILY) Activity/Hours Worked 0-14 15-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ Total Total Year 75 77 75 77 75 77 75 77 75 77 75 77 75 77 75 77 75 77 PRrMARY .Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 50.7 0 49.3 100 100 .6 .6 Mining 0 0 50.0 0 0 0 50.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 .6 .3 SECtRIDAY Food Products, Beverages. and Tobacco 0 0 28.6 17L. 0 0 28.6 48.9 Aji.6 1.0.. 14.3 7J. 0 0 100 100 2.2 1.7 Textiles and Footwear 2.1 0 io 1.6 13.1 53.2 56.3 13 Y T.9 Z.1 7D 8.5 2.4 100 too 14.4 11.5 Lumber and Wood 0 0 0~ 33.3 0 16.7 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 1.8 .6 Paper. Printing. Publishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 85.3 0 14.7 0 0 0 0 100 100 1.5 2.0 Mineral Products 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 .3 .3 industrial Chemicals, Petroleumi 0 0 0 0 0 0 80.0 100.0 2q _& 0 0 0 0 100 t00 1.5 2.9 Metal Industry 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.0 81. 1 (2~0 8q 0 0 0 0 100 100 1.5 1.8 Other Industry 0 0 0 49.3 0 50.7 100.0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 100 100 .3 .6 Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 Construction 0 0 100.0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 .3 0 TERTIARY Wholesale Trade 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 .6 :9 Retail Trade 0 1.5 7-.5 915 43.3 35.3 10.5 16.1 11.9 6.0 9. ZO. 100 100 20.6 19.8 Other Comrce 0 0 6 6J 36.4 31.3 13.6 43.6 13.6 6.2 -22.Vf2.5 100 100 6.8 4.6 TransportadLon, Commmication 0 0 0 0 25.0 0 75.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 1.2 .9 Financial Establishmnts 0 0 0 10.4 13.3 0 73.3 79.1 c ~ . 0 0 0 0 100 100 4.6 - 2.8 public Administration, Social________ Services 0 0 0 0 0 10.1 88.9 60.6 0 0 0 19.5 100 100 2.8 2.9 Public Instruction 3.3 4.7 6.7 10.1 1 7 3 60.0 52.1 3.3 4.6 3.3 4.7 6.7 0 100 100 9.2 6.2 Personal and Domestic Services 0 1.5 ~1. 0 35.8 20.6 11.6 9.4 10.5 30.2 10.5 14.7 100 100 29.1 39.7 Percent in Category .6 1.2 11.7 10.7 11.0 10.1 47.9 40.1 10.7 10.8 7.7 15.5 10.4 11.6 100 100 100 100 Number of Workers 266 840 5054 7691 4788 7304 20748 28904 4655 7780 3325 11203 4522 8395 0 0 0 0  THE POOR IN BOGOTA Table 3.9b: DISTRIBUTION OF HOURS WORICED BY FEMALE WORKERS BY INDUSTRY OF ACTIVITY Ao,1y1tv/Hpura of Work O - 14 15 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70+ Total Year 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 PRINAIY Agr4ltu.r. - - - 9.6 - 75.0 54.0 25.0 31.5 - 16.8 - 8.1 100 100 .3 .6 HIcing - - 28.6 - - 57.1 100.0 14.3 - - - - - 100 100 .3 SECAIOARY Fnod Frodorto, Be-er-geS and Tobaeco - - 12.5 9.1 7.5 52.5 64.2 20.0 4.4 5.0 13.5 2.5 6.6 100 100 1.7 2.2 T-atiles and Footoeer 1.2 __ 13.8 10.1 10.7 59.7 65.8 6.7 6.3 2.4 3.8 5.5 3.2 100 100 10.9 10.3 l..b.r nd Wood - - 29.4 - 23.5 35.3 67.0 11.8 17.1 - 8.0 - 8.0 100 100 .7 .6 Paper. Printing and Publisblog - - 7.4 8.6 3.7 81.5 75.3 7.4 12.2 - - - - 100 100 1.2 1.2 mi.etal Prodorts - - - - 80.0 87.7 20.0 - - 4.6 - 3.8 100 100 .4 1.3 I.duatriol Ched1oas. Petroleu - - - - 3.6 85.5 87.2 9.1 7.2 1.8 1.4 - 1.4 100 100 2.4 3.5 Metal Indostry - - 2.7 5.7 74.3 85.1 17.1 12.2 2.9 - - - 100 100 1.5 2.1 Other Ind..try _ .3 13.9 16.7 50.0 43.0 16.7 14.3 - - 8.3 - 100 100 .5 .3 Utilittie _ - - - - 100.0 100.0 - - - - - - 100 100 .2 .2 Construction - - 4.6 _ 4.6 81.8 77.9 4.6 7.6 4.6 14.5 - - 100 100 .9 .7 TERTIARY Wholesale Trade - _ 8.0 7.5 77.5 92.0 10.0 - 5.0 - - - 100 100 1.7 .7 Retail Trade .6 .6 4.6 6.9 8.2 55.7 48.8 10.8 13.5 8.8 11.2 11.4 12.6 100 100 1I.1 15.6 Other Co r.e 1.0 - 1.9 2.1 2.9 44.2 37.1 16.4 22.8 9.6 15.4 24.0 19.2 100 100 4.5 4.3 TrmaOportetio. and Coamicacton - - 2.7 3.9 8.1 75.7 86.3 10.8 3.3 - - 2.7 3.2 100 100 1.6 1.5 Fi.snoial Eaublish.eots .9 .7 2.6 3.2 4.4 82.6 81.7 6.1 5.2 3.5 2.3 - 3.9 100 100 4.9 6.5 P.blic AdoIniotretion., ocial se-rice. 1.8 - 1.8 2.8 7.1 80.4 80.9 3.6 7.8 4.5 4.0 .9 1.8 100 100 4.8 5.2 Public Io.trotion 1 5 .8 15.3 15.7 18.6 54.9 58.6 4.7 5.6 3.0 2.1 2.1 1.3 100 100 14.5 31.4 Pereonal nd Doeoatic Serd.c.. .7 .4 5.5 4.9 4.9 27.4 22.9 21.6 14.6 19.3 28.0 20.7 23.2 100 100 31.8 31.8 Percentage in Category .8 .4 7.2 6.5 8.2 51.3 51.2 12.8 10.9 9.3 12.9 10.4 11.4 100 100 300 100 No. of W-orker 2527 1668 22344 28719 25536 158935 227151 39634 48508 28728 57312 32319 50409 - -  THE POOR IN BOODTA Table 3.10: DISTRIBUTION OF WORKERS EARNING LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE BY INDUSTRY OF ACrIVITY Males Females 1975 1977 1975 1977 Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total <C I/ Percent in < Percent in < Percent in < Percent in Activity Min. WaRe1 Category Min. Wase- Catetorv Min. Waie.- Category Min. WaleO/ CateRory PRIMARY Agriculture 1.9 1.6 0.3 16.5 0.6 Mining \ 0.8 - 0.3 1. / 0.3 - 0.2 SECONDARY ManufacturinR Food Products, beverages, and Tobacco 10.9 3.0 5.2 3.8 17.5 1.7 19.9 2.2 Textiles and Footwear 16.2 5.5 7.4 5.3 ) 10.8 0 10.3 Lumber and Wood 3.4 3.0 % j 0.7 0.6 Paper, Printing, Publishing 13.6 2.0 1.9 14.8 1.1 12.2 1.2 Mineral Products 13.6 1.5 4.3 1.9 20.0 0.4 18.3 1.3 Industrial Chemicals, Petroleum 4.7 3.0 1.1 2.7 5.5 2.3 2.7 3.6 Metal Industry 10.0 6.0 3.0 7.7 8.6 1.5 2.3 2.1 Other Industry 13.3 0.3 0.6 8.3 0.5 0.3 Utilities 8.6 0.8 - 0.7 - 0.2 - 0.2 Construction (E3 12.4 (D3 12.2 22.7 0.9 - 0.7 TERTIARY Wholesale Trade 17.6 2.9 2 3 1.2 2.5 1.7 0.7 Retail Trade / 2W 15.3 16.3 e 15.4 4T7-8 15.6 Other Commerce I4l W2 2.3 ( 2.2 40 J 4.5 ;J 4.3 Transportation, Coumication 15.3 8.1 5.1 8.9 8.1 1.6 6.5 1.5 Financial Establishments 11.6 7.3 3.0 8.9 6.1 4.9 6.7 6.5 Public Administration, Social Services 6.4 8.3 2.5 8.3 5.4 4.8 3.6 5.2 Public Instruction 7.1 6.8 4.6 5.6 12.1 14.4 5.9 11.4 Personal and Domestic Services ( 8.5 7.0 21.0 31.9 15.6 31.8 Total 17.5 100 6.8 100 21.75 100 15.3 100 Number of Workers in Category 102 579 50 736 68 314 68 444 j/ Minimum Wage in 1975 was Col$38.50 per day I.e., Col$886 per month. 2! Minimum Wage in 1977 v.s Col$50 per day i.e., Col$1150 per month.  - 44 - for over 40% of those earning less than the minimum wage. Among women, those with low wages are disproportionately employed in the textile industry and in trade commerce.  - 45 - 3.4. Migrarit Status: It is often alleged that recent migrants earn less than others and have to take up very low paying jobs while waiting for better paid opportunities to appear. The evidence to support this claim is mixed. Table 3.11 reports for 1975 the proportion of workers earning less than the minimum wage according to years of residence in Bogota. 22 percent of the most recent arrivals among men seem to earn less than the minimum wage as compared with 17.6 percent over all. However, among those who have been in Bogota for 11-20 years, as many as 20 percent earn less than the minimum wage. These data really indicate that those earning low wages are fairly evenly spread among workers of all vintages and any experience in the city does not appear to count for much. For women the evidence is strong that a smaller proportion of recent migrants earn less than the minimum wage as compared with others who have lived in Bogota longer. It is difficult to explain why this should be so and the answer perhaps lies in the large number of maids who are recent migrants. While maids are not particularly well off it has been shown consistently in this paper that a large proportion of them are not among the poorest. The income in kind that they receive probably accounts for this result. Table 3.12 shows that in 1975 only about 9 percent of the maids fell among the poor. What is remarkable, however, is that of the poor 5-7 percent had some secondary education. On the whole, it is clear that recent migrants have no monopoly on poverty: indeed, 60-70 percent of all earning below minimum wages have been in Bogota for over 10 years.  - 46 - THE POOR IN BOGOTA Table 3.11: DISTRIBUTION OF WORKERS EARNING LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE BY LENGTH OF RESIDENCE (1975) Males Females % Earning % Earning Less Than % in < Minimum % in Years in Bogota Minimum Wage 1/ Category Wage 1 I Category < 1 22.1 4.6 16.8 8.5 1 - 2 15.1 5.3 17.4 8.3 3 - 5 19.0 8.9 20.1 10.3 6 - 10 15.2 12.8 20.9 11.9 11 - 20 20.4 31.2 24.6 30.6 20 + 15.6 37.2 23.1 30.5 Total 17.6 100 22.0 100 Workers in Category 102 581 69 315 (in thousands) 1/ Minimum Wage in 1975 was Col.$38.50 per day, i.e., Col.$886 per month. THE POOR IN BOGOTA Table 3.12: DISTRIBUTION OF POOR MAIDS BY EDUCATION No. of Group Bottom 30% Total in Bottom 30% Education 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 None 13.8 12.6 11.6 12.7 10.5 16.0 Primary 81.0 77.6 83.0 76.5 8.7 14.0 Secondary 5.1 7.0 5.5 7.2 8.3 18.2 Higher - 2.2 - 3.6 - 31.4 Total 100 100 100 100 8.9 15.2 Total No. of Maids 7714 16434 86849 107967 Source: 1975 DANE Special Bogota Household Survey (EH8E) 1977 DANE Household Survey (EH15)  - 47 - 3.5. Size of Firm: It is widely believed that workers in small firms earn less than those in larger firms but there is often not adequate data to support this claim. Size of firm is also often used as one of the key criteria for defining the informal sector. Table 3.13 reports the mean income of male and female workers by size class of firm where the respondent was employed. This table supports the view that smaller firms employ poorer workers. The mean income of workers in firms employing over 25 people is just about double those with just one employee. The ascent for women is, however, not as great, with the highest income class being only one and a half times as much as the mean income for female employees in small firms. The question in size of firm was asked in the 1975 survey but not, unfor- tunately, in the 1977 survey. The quality of these data is somewhat questionable since about 40 percent of all workers did not respond to this question (Table 3.14). Furthermore, the non responses had a much lower mean income than the respondees. If a substantial proportion of these belonged to large firms, the results without them would be biased. The rate of non response was greater for the bottom 30 percent where only about half of the people gave information on their size of firm. Table 3.14 shows that the poor are well distributed over size classes of firms also, although as many as 30 percent of the bottom 30 percent who responded worked in single employee, presumably as 'lf-emplo"edLr establishments.  THE POOR IN BOGOTA Table 3.13: NEi MONTHLY INCOME OF WORKERS BY SIZE OF FIRM (1975) Number of Workers in Firm None 1 - 5 6 -10 11 -25 25 + Industry of Activity/Firm Size Male Female Male Female Male Female Hale Female Male Female PRI1K Agriculture 1369 - 29b4 1950 2196 - 2325 - 6904 1186 MHining - - 663 443 2165 3150 1060 - 7190 4142 FPod Products, leverages, and Tobacco - - 3351 2350 3258 1294 5520 2438 3751 2010 Textiles aDd Footwear 1762 - 2247 1391 2141 1981 2733 1280 3653 1685 Lumber and Wood - - 2135 1699 1403 2800 2094 1843 3020 1618 Paper, Printing, Publishing - - 2578 1843 3178 1387 3363 2333 3163 1814 Miueral Products - - 1575 - 1992 1855 1854 - 2484 2125 Industrial Chemicals, Petroleum - - 2279 - 15864 1300 4804 1571 5323 2351 Metal Industry - - 1549 - 2050 1408 3363 2719 3638 2085 Other Industry - - 1592 1300 - 1300 1791 3150 1325 1246 Utilities - - - - - - 1400 - 3606 2721 Construction - - 2191 1625 1442 1591 1550 1777 2793 3257 co TERTIARY Wholesale Trade 6250 - 1798 1250 7077 4084 5536 2616 7767 3121 Retail Trade 1500 1300 2187 2079 1929 1404 5167 2050 4165 2059 Other Commerce - - 2229 1582 2259 1617 4291 1115 2609 1729 Transportation and Commmmication 1568 - 2052 1185 4503 - 3762 3662 3468 2856 Financial Establishments - 3500 6581 1816 4532 3096 5129 2817 5594 3253 Public Administration, Social Services - 3423 2386 7465 4233 2795 3721 3744 3815 Public Instruction - 4500 2175 1727 1818 2816 4582 2331 5653 3023 Personal and Domestic Services 2033 626 1597 1509 2037 2613 1851 1250 3221 1615 Total 2114 2110 2305 1759 2690 2108 3442 2209 4230 2685 Source: DANE Special Bogota Household Survey (EH8E) -  - 49 - THE PO0: IN BOGOTA Table 3.14: DISTRIBUTION OF POOR WORKERS IN BOGOTA BY SIZE OF FIRM Percent in Size Group Percent Workers tin Bottom 30% -i Size Group Size of Firm Male Female None 31.6 - 0.6 0.4 1 - 5 23.0 11.9 17.2 18.4 6 - 10 18.2 14.9 10.9 12.0 11 - 25 22.3 13.2 12.3 13.6 Over 25 17.8 9.5 59.0 55.6 Total 19.4 11.1 100 100 Number of Workers 76 18 395 164 (in thousands) Mean Income 1212 954 3620 2377 (Col. Pesos) No Information Number of Workers 59 26 186 151 (in thousands) Mean Income 780 640 2669 1409  - 50 - IV. WHERE THEY LIVE 4.1. The Spatial Disaggregation of Bogota Maps 1 and 2 show a ring and radial sector representation of the map of Bogota. The basic socio-economic spatial unit in Bogota is a "barrio" or neighborhood of which there were about 500 in 1973 and about 700 now as a result of the rapid growth of the city. DANE geo-codes this unit in a 4-digit number of which the first 2 digits identify a comuna--a collection of barrios. The last 2 digits then identify barrios within a comuna. The basic unit that we have used for analysis is a comuna of which there were 1/ 38 in 1973. For convenience of exposition we have aggregated these comunas into "rings" and "sectors" as shown in the maps. The boundaries of the comunas shown in the maps are principal streets in Bogota. The city is bounded in the East by mountains and, therefore, has an approximately semi- circular shape, although it is longer going from North to South, as is evident from the maps. We have numbered the rings from 1 to 6 going outwards from the centre of the city and sectors 1 to 8 going clockwise also starting from the centre of the city. Ring 1 and Sector 1 are identical and comprise the Central Business District (C.B.D.) 4.2. The Spatial Distribution of the Poor: Mohan (1978) documented the distribution of people in Bogota by incomes and showed largely that the poor are concentrated in the South and rich in the North with various gradations in between. Here we take another look at the spatial distribution of the poor--first by rings and then by sectors. 1/ See Mohan (1978) for some comuna level distributions for the city.  -51- tn~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AM~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It~~~~~~  - 52 - Table 4.1 shows the distribution of the poor by rings. Unfortunately, the two samples are not in close agreement in the distribution of the poor. What is unmistakable, however, is that as we proceed outwards from the centre, first the incomes of people increase on the average and then decrease. The 1975 sample shows a relatively heavy concentration of the poor in the two centre rings. The trend is similar in the 1977 sample,but not as pronounced. Relatively fewer people seem to have been sampled from the C.B.D. in 1975. We have calculated the familiar indices of concentration: the 1977 sample indicates the two inner rings as poor and the 1975 sample the two outer rings. Rings 4 and 5 contain the majority of the population as well as of the poor. The C.B.D. is interesting since it has a high mean income in both samples as well as a high proportion of people (about 35 percent) in the bottom 30 percent. We may conclude that as far as rings are concerned, the poor are everywhere and each ring has around 30 percent of its population in the bottom 30 percent. The pattern is somewhat more pronounced when looked at over radial sectors, as shown in Table 4.2. Roughly, mean income increase as we go clockwise from sector 2 to sector 8 (except for sector 6 which has a low income as well). The sectoral distributions are also not in complete agreement between the two samples but sectors 2 and 3 are clearly the poorest. They both have low mean incomes as well as a relatively large proportion of the poor. Between them they account for 52 to 55 percent of the poor and about 40 to 45 percent of the total population. The greatest discrepancy between the two samples is in sector 8. In the 1975 sample, almost 30 percent of the people in this, the richest sector fell among the bottom 30 percent while in the 1977 sample the proportion is only 16.4 percent. The latter is nearer  THE FOO IN NDWIA Table 4.1: DISTR91UtIE OF 7, P00 ! RIMCS 1975 1977 Uott 30. overall Bott 301 0em11 People no Pople N of RIM plOue new People 1 om 2 of Rig In sld fik luebold 1m&m of In mottm in Housebold In Household inde1 of tn llotto m n e R im Coucentrti 301 R 1iome - Inc Coocytratiao 31 31g 1 1.3 799 1.3 8310 100 34.2 2.3 1498 2.0 832105.3 Ring 2 7.2 922 8.0 5597 90 29.2 9.1 1492 8.3 8621 .3 " 3 8.5 946 12.2 6665 70 22.5 10.6 1459 13.1 9852 el 24.3 " 4 26.6 1103 29.6 5282 90 29.0 30.0 1601# 30.8 7541 97 29.3 R 5 47.7 1230 42.2 4451 42.1 1928 40.2 6489 105 31.6 i 6 8.7 1304 6.8 5995 5.8 1749 5.8 9975 100 30.4 Totel I10 li40 100 52S9 32.3 100 1709 100 9994 30.1 Sce: 1975 MM Ipi1 Boca Sa eold Swy r I. 1977 M bold Seevey (=15). FOUR IN tomfA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t Table 4.2: DISTRElIM OF MM FM BY 1975 1977 BotC, 31 0 1u Datum 3 Oell Fugue ROM le f sector F le MOM Fple 1 of Sector In Emue1d In *o1d IM Of la wattim in 0 us_bold in bosb1d lndez of I o1to 6t Sector li_ Sector xme _.tra 301 sect"r 1com Sector I _m Co.etratiouu 302 Sector 1 1.3 7" 1.3 8N310 10 2.3 1498 2.0 8210 115 35.8 Sector 2 22.3 10S6 16.8 333e 943 27.3 1826 19.4 4410 148 44.7 Sector 3 30.8 1164 28.5 3718 26.1 1897 25.4 6026 103 31.0 Sector 4 6.6 1194 9.0 01 73 23.7 6.6 1872 8.0 8458 83 24.9 Sector 5 4.5 1006 6.4 G2 70 22.7 5.9 1430 6.5 7959 91 - Seetor 6 18.6 1272 19.7 5391 94 30.6 17.6 U137 tA.8 6678 94 ' Sector 7 8.3 1172 10.1 6861 82 26.6 10.0 1450 13.6 10630 74 Zz 2 Sector a 7.6 996 8.3 9881 91 29.7 4.0 s86 7.3 16012 55 16.4 Total 100 1140 1;10 5258 32.4 100 1709 100 7640 S,1 Source: 1975 DANE Speial D0ogo -usAold Sere (ME) 1977 IMN 3o.sbold Survey (ml5)  - 54 - the census proportion and therefore somewhat more accurate. However, this is yet another pointer to the problem of using sample surveys for drawing strong conclusions about spatial distributions and about time trends. 4.3. The Spatial Distribution of Poor Workers: Tables 4.3a and b give the distribution of poor workers by rings. There appears to be greater agreement between the two samples on the residence characteristics of poor workers, as distinct from poor people. The C.B.D. has an atypically high proportion of poor women living there and the outer two rings have an atypically high proportion of poor men. Not only does the C.B.D. have a higher proportion of poor women but the poor women there seem. to have the lowest average income by far among the poorest. Tables 5.4a and 5.4b give the distribution of workers by radial sector and the pattern corroborates that found for poor people. Sectors 2 and 3 account for 50-55 percent of all poor workers. Once again, sector 8 has a large discrepancy between the two samples. The index of concentration for the 1975 sample is 101 and for the 1977 sample 35. Clearly, the 1975 sample seems to have over- sampled poor workers within sector 8 and undersampled the rich workers since the 1977 sample was shown to be in broad agreement with the 1977 census in Mohan (1978).  THE POOR IN BOGOTA Table 4.3a: SPATIAIL DISTRIBUTION OF POOR WORKERS BY RINGS 1975 1977 Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of Bottom 30% All Index of Ring in Bottom 30% All Index of Ring in in Ring in Ring Concentration Bottom 307 in Ring in Ring Concentration Bottom 307 H F h F M F M F M F M F M F M F Ring 1 1.4 2.1 1.6 1.8 88 19.7 2.3 3.6 1.9 2.8 2 2 12 Ring 2 6.4 12.7 8.2 10.1 78 t 18.4 17.7 9.7 11.4 9.0 9.3 Ring 3 8.0 10.2 12.2 14.7 65 70 15.2 9.8 9.9 11.9 13.7 15.7 72 76 14.1 12.3 Ring 4 27.5 26.8 30.3 30.8 91 87 21.2 12.2 27.2 30.9 28.8 31.2 94 99 18.6 16.0 Ring 5 47.0 38.3 40.6 36.1 (i 2 .14 1 43.3 38.7 40.6 34.9 Ring 6 9.8 9.9 7.0 6.5 407.5 3,5 6.0 6.1 57 9 Total 100 100 100 100 23.4 14.1 100 iCO 100 100 19.6 16.2 Table 4.3b: NEAN INCOMO OF POOR WORKERS IN BOCOTA BY RINGS n (Current Pesos) 1975 1977 Bottom 3O0 All Bottom 30% All M F N F n F N F Ring 1 1062 243 5470 2914 1638 882 5873 3236 Ring 2 880 827 3634 2146 1598 1389 6893 2786 Ring 3 923 647 4086 2091 1792 1696 68018 3541 Ring 4 955 816 3278 1897 1886 1524 5140 2925 Ring 5 1109 759 2883 1759 1810 1452 4583 2358 Ring 6 948 821 3911 1807 1591 674 6598 3061 Total 1021 767 3326 1914 1788 1448 5402 2828 Source: 1975 DANE Special Household Survey (EH8E) 1977 DANE Household Survey (EH15)  THE POOR IN BOOJTA Table 4.4a: SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION (F POOR WORKERS BY RADIAL SECTOR 1975 1977 Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of Bottom 30% All in Index of Sector in Bottom 30% All in Index of Sector in in Sector Sector Concentration Bottom 30% in Sector Sector Concentration Bottom 30% M F 4 F M F M F M F M F M F M F Sector 1 1.4 2.1 1.6 1.8 88 Q 19.7 16.3 2.3 3.6 1.9 2.8 25.0 20.7 (CBD) ( Sector 2 23.3 23.8 16.8 13.6 139 175 32.5 2 29.5 23.4 18.7 14.2 158 165 31.0 26,7 Sector 3 29.9 19.6 28.3 23.6 106 83 11.7 26.2 23.1 24.8 22.2 I106 104 20 16.8 Sector 4 6.0 8.4 9.3 10.1 65 83 15.1- 11.7 7.1 6.6 9.0 7.5 80 89 15.5 14.4 Sector 5 13.7 7.2 6.5 7.5 57 96 13.5 13.6 6.3 5.4 6.7 6.6 94 82 18.5 13.3 Sector 6 19.1 16.3 18.9 19.1 101 85 23.7 12.0 16.2 18.4 18.5 16.3 88 113 17.2 18.3 Sector 7 8.4 11.1 10.3 11.7 82 95 19.1 13.4 9.8 13.0 13.4 18.0 73 72 14.4 11.7 Sector 8 8.3 11.5 8.2 12.6 101 91 23.5 12.8 2.5 6.6 7.1 13.0 35 51 7.0 8.4 Total 100 100 100 100 23.4 14.1 100 100 19.6 16.2 L-n Table 4.4b: MEAN INCOME OF POOR WORKERs IN BOOOTA BY SECTOR (Current Pesos) 1975 1977 Bottom 30% All Workers Bottom 307 All Workers M F F N F M F M F Sector 1 1062 243 5410 2914 1638 882 5873 3236 Sector 2 929 710 2079 1419 1779 1154 3001 2068 Sector 3 1130 795 2315 1773 1890 1424 4025 2581 Sector 4 1029 840 2811 1825 1741 1685 6031 2436 Sector 5 969 724 4639 2279 1660 1028 6206 2796 Sector 6 1102 778 3462 1883 1862 1531 4874 2484 Sector 7 948 884 4675 2122 1719 1931 7609 3494 Sector 8 778 776 6467 2272 1201 1808 12109 3769 Total 1021 767 .3326 1914 1788 1448 5402 2828 Source: 1975 DANE Special Bogota Household Survey (EH8E) 1977 DANE Household Survey (EH15)  - 57 - V. THOSE WHO DO NOT WORK: UNEMPLOYMENT AND PARTICIPATION RATES OF THE POOR In section 2 we showed that unemployment was particularly high among the poor and is therefore regarded as one of the key causes as well as results of poverty. In this section we attempt to disaggregate the unemployment and participation rates somewhat more by age and education groups and then spatially by sectors. 5.1 Rates of Unemployment and Participation by Age and Education Groups Table 5.1 and 5.2 report the unemployment and participation rates, respectively, of the bottom 30 and top 70 percent of the people, disaggregated by levels of education. The rates of unemployment are much higher for the poor at all educational levels. For males, while for the overall population or for the top 70 percent, people with higher education have the lowest un- employment rates, among the poor they have the highest. Indeed, in general, for both poor males and females, the higher the level of education the larger the difference between the unemployment rates of the poor and rich. It would seem that those among the poor who "make it" and receive more education have greater trouble finding jobs as compared with those with less education. This story is corroborated by pattern of the rates of participation. It is striking that among the poor the rates of participation are the lowest among those who have higher education followed by secondary and primary levels. In the overall distribution those with secondary education have lower participation rates than others but this is mainly caused by the low rates for the 15-24 age group (see Table A.10). The causation here is difficult ',to follow but it is probably a combination' of two kinds of phenomena. There is probably one set of people who are poor because they are going to school,  THE POOR IN BOGOTA Table 5.1: UNEMPLOYMENT RATES OF THE POOR BY EDUCATION GROUPS Males Females Bottom 307 Top 707. Total Bottom 307% Top 70% Total 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 1975 1977 None 15.9 3.8 6.3 3.5 12.0 3.7- 4.3 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.5 Primary 11.6 11.6 4.4 3.9 7.0 6.4 11.1 7.8 1.9 3.1 3.7 4.1 Secondary 18.5 19.9 5.4 5.3 7.7 7.4 25.0 21.5 8.8 5.6 10.9 7.7 Higher 18.8 25.6 2.5 2.4 3.4 3.5 33.3 17.4 4.5 7.8 5.9 8.6 Total 13.8 13.8 4.5 4.2 6.9 6.3 15.4 12.0 4.7 8.6 6.4 5.8 Table 5.2: PARTICIPATION RATES OF THE POOR AND RICH BY EDUCATION GROUPS 00 Males Females Bottom 30%. Top 70%. Total Bottom 30% Top 70