UNIFEM I Project

1
UNIFEM I Project
Portrait of Gender, Race and Ethnicity
Guatemala Country Report Diana
Sawyer (Coordinator) Luana Goveia Ricardo Martini
2

UNIFEM I Project

• The Portrait of Gender, Race and Ethnicity in
  Selected Latin American Countries a comparative
  study for Brazil, Bolivia, Guatemala and Paraguay
  project is the result of a partnership between
  the United Nations Development Fund for Women
  (UNIFEM) and Cono Sur and the International
  Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG).

3
What are the Portraits about?

• It is a descriptive work depicting the life
  condition of specific population groups in four
  Latin American countries defined by ethnicity,
  sex and urban or rural place of residence.

4
objectives of the portraits

• To show the levels of inequality that some
  groups such as women, indigenous,
  afro-descendants, and rural population experience
  in the selected countries
• To emphasizes the socio economic differentials
  among those groups without seeking for an
  explanation of the disadvantages of one group in
  relation to the other but to picture the
  inequalities and to provide inputs for more
  in-depths studies in further researches focused
  on gender, race/ethnicity and inequality.

5
Structure of the portraits

• Introduction
• Historical and Population Background
• Socio-Economic Indicators
• - Composition and Socio-Economic
  Differentials of the Households
  (Household Arrangements and Socio Economic
  Conditions, the Quality of the Houses and the
  Sanitary Infrastructure, and the Household
  Durable Goods and Digital Exclusion)
• - Socio-Economic Differentials of
  Individuals (Health and Social Security,
  Education, Labor Market, Domestic Labor, and
  Poverty and Inequality of Income Distribution)
• - Appendix 01 Concepts and Definitions
• Appendix 02 Methodological Considerations
• Appendix 03 List of Tables.

6
Guatemala Country ReportSource of the
socio-economic indicators ENCOVI 2006. Authors
calculation.Source of the population background
Censo Nacional de Población y de Habitación.
1950, 1964, 1973, 1981, 1994, 2002, 2006.
Authors calculation.
Portraits Project
7
History

• The historical background contextualizes the
  roots of current inequality in the Guatemalan
  society as the current lack of economic
  opportunities and consequently the higher levels
  of poverty found in the indigenous population
  have a close link with historical patterns of
  exclusion in this country.

8
History

• The Peace Agreements were signed in December 1996
  and represented the end of 36 years of Civil
  War. More than the end of the war the agreements
  constituted a turning point in the path of the
  development in Guatemala as they aimed not only
  to officially end the armed conflict, but to
  reverse the countrys historically exclusionary
  pattern of development.
• However, all the acknowledgments and achievements
  about the vulnerable and marginal situation of
  some social groups as well the high incidence of
  poverty in the country are not being enough to
  effectively deal with the problems due to the
  lack of institutional capacities of the state to
  fulfill all the provisions of the agreements.

9
Population

• The urbanization rate has been increasing since
  1950. In the last Census year (2002), the rate
  was 46 and the estimate for 2006 is 48
• The urban population grew at an average rate of
  3.9 in the period 1950 to 2006 and the rural
  population average growth rate was 2
• The high dependency rate of the indigenous and
  rural areas residents, 96 and 103 respectively,
  indicates that there is a lack of indigenous
  young adults. Those facts point toward a high
  rate of indigenous adult mortality and
  outmigration.

10
Population
Sex Ratios (female population/male population) by
age group and place of residence
- The overall proportion of the female population
in 2006 was 52,1. This proportion was higher at
the age group of 15 to 64 years (54.5)

• - There is a shortage of the male population from
  age 15 to 60 years this shortage occurs both in
  urban and rural areas. In urban areas the male
  shortage is seen in all age groups from 15 to 80
  years

- The expected pattern is an increasing rate
along the age groups. In Guatemala the higher
rate in the productive age group is possibly a
consequence of the long period of civil war which
caused excess male deaths and/or outmigration in
the age group.
(The sex ratio is defined as the number of
females divided by number of males in case of a
balance between them, the ratio will be equal to
one) .
11
Population
Population estimates and dependency ratios by
sex, ethnic group, place of residence and age
groups
Age Group Sex Sex Ethnic Group Ethnic Group Place of Residence Place of Residence Total
Age Group Male Female Non-indigenous Indigenous Urban Rural Total
0-14 2,737,458 2,642,767 3,163,490 2,216,735 2,254,316 3,125,910 5,380,226
15-64 3,181,963 3,809,007 4,448,506 2,542,464 3,676,004 3,314,966 6,990,970
65 301,411 315,223 401,679 214,954 320,259 296,375 616,634
Total 6,220,832 6,766,997 8,014,691 4,973,138 6,250,578 6,737,251 12,987,829
Dependency Ratio 95.5 77.7 80.1 95.6 70.0 103.2 85.8
Child Dependency Ratio 86.0 69.4 71.1 87.2 61.3 94.3 77.0
Aged Dependency Ratio 9.5 8.3 9.0 8.5 8.7 8.9 8.8
Sex, ethnic and place of residence composition by
age group
Age Group Sex Sex Ethnic Group Ethnic Group Place of Residence Place of Residence Total Population
Age Group Male Female Non-indigenous Indigenous Urban Rural Total Population
0-14 50.9 49.1 58.8 41.2 41.9 58.1 100.0 5,380,225
15-59 45.5 54.5 63.6 36.4 52.6 47.4 100.0 6,990,970
65 48.9 51.1 65.1 34.9 51.9 48.1 100.0 616,633
Total 47.9 52.1 61.7 38.3 48.1 51.9 100.0 12,987,828

• - The population of Guatemala in 2002 was young,
  41 with ages between 0 and 14 years 54 between
  15 and 64 and 5 above 64 years. That age
  composition reflects directly in dependency
  rates
• - The figures for rural areas residents clearly
  indicate the reduced size of the population in
  economically productive ages vis a vis the high
  proportion of children predominantly in the rural
  places, possibly due to the higher mortality of
  the young adults combined with outmigration.

12
Population
Population composition by age and sex and place
of residence.
Total Population
Rural Residence
Urban Residence

• The population pyramids are typical of a
  population with high natality and high mortality
  in the past with no evidence of substantive
  decline of the fertility
• There is a clear shortage of men older than 15
  years, especially in the productive age group of
  15 to 64 years old
• - The pattern does not differ for urban and
  rural population, although the high natality and
  the shortage of adult males are more accentuated
  in the rural area.

13
Population
Sex Ratio by 5 year age groups and ethnic group

• The sex ration by age group confirms for both
  indigenous and non-indigenous population the
  shortage of male population
• - For the indigenous population the shortage is
  clearly at the economically productive age and
  for the non-indigenous population it extends to
  the older ages.

14
Population
Population by ethnic group and place of residence
Place of Residence Ethnic Group Ethnic Group Ethnic Group Ethnic Group Ethnic Group  
Place of Residence Non-Indigenous Column Percent Indigenous Column Percent Total Column Percent
Urban 4,619,186 58 1,631,392 33 6,250,578 48
Row percent 74   26   100  
Rural 3,394,490 42 3,342,761 67 6,737,251 52
Row percent 50   50   100  
Total 8,013,676 100 4,974,153 100 12,987,829 100
Row percent 62   38   100  

• 38.4 of the population self-identified as
  indigenous
• Historically, there is a considerable loss on
  representativeness of the indigenous population
  in Guatemala
• - Regarding the spatial distribution rural areas
  are considered as the indigenous populations
  place of residence 67 of the indigenous
  population lived in rural area, whereas 42 of
  the non-indigenous did so
• - The ethnic composition of urban and rural areas
  was 74 and 50 of non-indigenous respectively.

15
Population
Indigenous Population

• - The population pyramids for indigenous and
  non-indigenous people are quite similar
• - The pattern of sex and age distribution for the
  non-indigenous and indigenous population has a
  typical configuration of high past mortality and
  fertility rates
• - The indigenous population pattern indicates
  high mortality and fertility with no indication
  of a substantial decline in the latter
• - High adult mortality and possibly combined with
  outmigration are reasonable hypothesis.

Non-indigenous Population
16
Population
Total Fertility Rates and Child Mortality Rates
(probability of death from birth to the age five)
by ethnic group
Ethnic Group Total Fertility Rate Child Mortality Rate by 1000
Indigenous 4,6 71
Non-Indigenous 3,0 46
Total 3,4 57
Indigenous/Non-indigenous 1.53 1.55

• The total fertility rate for Guatemala was 3.4
  children per woman. The non-indigenous women
  fertility was estimated at 3.0 and at 4.6 for
  indigenous women, which means 53 higher
  fertility the indigenous
• - The probability of death from birth to the age
  of five years for indigenous children was
  estimated at 71 deaths per 1000 live births,
  which corresponded to a rate 55 higher than for
  the non-indigenous estimate of 46. The overall
  rate for both groups was 57.

(Total fertility rate can be interpreted as the
number of children a woman will have at the end
of the reproductive age, under the assumption of
no woman mortality in the period).
17
a) Composition of the households
socio-economic indicators households
Type of household by sex of the head, ethnic
group of the head and location of the household
Head of Household's Sex and Household Type Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence
Head of Household's Sex and Household Type Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Non-indigenous Non-indigenous Non-indigenous Total Total Total
Head of Household's Sex and Household Type Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total
Male                  
With wife and children 9.0 16.1 25.2 22.7 15.7 38.4 31.8 31.8 63.6
With wife and no children 0.6 1.4 2.0 3.8 2.0 5.8 4.5 3.3 7.8
Without wife with children 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.5 1.5 1.2 0.8 2.0
Without wife no children 0.6 0.5 1.1 1.9 1.0 2.9 2.5 1.5 4.0
Total 10.5 18.3 28.8 29.4 19.1 48.5 40.0 37.4 77.4
Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
With husband and children 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.9
With husband and no children 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
Without husband with children 2.3 3.2 5.5 7.9 3.9 11.8 10.2 7.1 17.3
Without husband no children 0.5 0.5 1.0 2.4 1.0 3.3 2.9 1.5 4.3
Total 2.9 3.8 6.6 10.9 5.2 16.0 13.7 8.9 22.6
TOTAL 13.4 22.1 35.5 40.3 24.2 64.5 53.7 46.3 100.0

• - The number of estimated households in 2006 was
  of 2,651,249 of them 77.4 was headed by a male,
  64.5 by non indigenous and 53.7 were located in
  urban areas.
• - 63.6 of the households were composed by a
  couple with children headed by a male (the most
  prevalent arrangement), followed by households
  headed by a female with children and without a
  husband (17,4)
• - The tendency was to have higher number of
  households headed by non indigenous and located
  in urban areas.

18
a) Composition of the households
socio-economic indicators households
Average year of schooling by household head's
sex, ethnic group, place of residence and
household type
Head of Household's Sex and Household Type Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence
Head of Household's Sex and Household Type Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Non-indigenous Non-indigenous Non-indigenous Total Total Total
Head of Household's Sex and Household Type Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total
Male                  
With wife and children 4.44 2.18 2.99 8.05 3.29 6.11 7.02 2.72 4.87
With wife and no children 3.16 1.19 2.14 7.07 2.53 5.53 6.50 1.98 4.57
Without wife with children 2.19 0.98 2.20 6.95 1.43 5.11 5.92 1.25 4.07
Without wife no children 4.72 1.90 3.10 7.36 1.59 5.43 6.75 1.69 4.88
Total 4.32 2.08 2.89 7.84 3.07 5.97 6.91 2.59 4.82
Female          
With husband and children 2.61 0.67 1.83 4.56 1.47 3.48 4.24 1.31 3.19
With husband and no children 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.56 0.91 4.37 6.56 0.84 3.91
Without husband with children 2.01 0.83 1.32 6.22 2.51 5.00 5.28 1.76 3.84
Without husband no children 3.34 0.60 1.96 5.23 1.35 4.12 4.91 1.09 3.63
Total 2.25 0.80 1.43 5.94 2.23 4.74 5.17 1.62 3.77
TOTAL 3.88 1.86 2.62 7.33 2.89 5.66 6.47 2.40 4.58

• The average years of schooling attained by the
  heads of the households were of 4.58 years
• The most educated was the male, non indigenous
  who lived in urban areas with the wife and
  children (8.05 years) whereas the least educated
  head was the single, indigenous female with
  children who lived in rural areas (0.0)
• The general tendency was a higher education for
  heads of households located in urban areas as
  compared to their counterparts of the rural areas
  The non indigenous heads were more educated than
  their correspondent indigenous and the same
  pattern for the males head of the households.

19
a) Composition of the households
socio-economic indicators households

• - To assess the overall pattern of the level of
  education, the probabilities of the years of
  schooling of the household heads were adjusted by
  means of an ordinal logit model with the family
  arrangements, heads sex, ethnic group and the
  place of the household as independent variables
• - The baseline group is composed by households
  headed by a non indigenous male with 17 years of
  more of schooling located in the urban area
• - Up to the level of 3 years of schooling those
  households headed by females, indigenous and
  located in rural areas were higher than the
  baseline curve e.g. the probability that a head
  had no year of schooling was about 80 higher
  than a household in the baseline. From that level
  on, the probability of those households are
  always below the baseline. As for the household
  arrangements there is no much difference in the
  probabilities of years of schooling among the
  arrangements.

Adjusted probabilities of years of schooling of
the head of the household by sex, ethnic group
and place of residence
Adjusted probabilities of years of schooling of
the head of the household by type of arrangements
20
a) Composition of the households
socio-economic indicators households
Average annual per capita income (in GTQ) by sex
and ethnic group of the head and location of the
household
Head of Household's Sex and Household Type Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence
Head of Household's Sex and Household Type Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Non-indigenous Non-indigenous Non-indigenous Total Total Total
Head of Household's Sex and Household Type Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total
Male                  
With wife and children 8676.94 4214.15 5816.18 20039.82 8525.95 15345.49 16811.22 6338.56 11574.47
With wife and no children 10291.47 4889.83 6637.07 30342.29 12596.38 24301.25 27416.03 9443.21 19736.72
Without wife with children 9419.08 5391.25 7214.76 40314.49 7928.03 29496.95 33602.99 6911.29 23037.43
Without wife no children 17097.34 8395.10 13071.95 32295.83 13512.07 26020.69 28766.83 11764.08 22491.14
Total 9261.08 4399.26 6174.28 22838.97 9181.73 17469.92 19262.39 6839.27 13258.70
Female          
With husband and children 8188.09 7704.68 7993.56 19853.29 5326.41 14789.96 17954.71 5793.90 13601.55
With husband and no children 9600.00 1067.63 6873.56 52029.96 15003.65 34256.34 46424.08 14002.04 31402.86
Without husband with children 7859.10 4726.57 6024.16 16440.85 7367.70 13453.64 14535.03 6175.78 11104.94
Without husband no children 10865.56 4949.02 7880.59 21920.34 14740.14 19869.40 20028.40 11366.08 17119.17
Total 8395.37 4801.01 6351.75 18037.58 8728.49 15036.68 16028.75 7072.51 12496.72
TOTAL 9076.34 4467.77 6207.42 21545.66 9085.16 16865.96 18436.49 6884.23 13086.18

• The higher the level of the income the higher is
  the inequality between female and male heads,
  between indigenous and non indigenous head and
  between rural and urban areas of location.

21
a) Composition of the households
socio-economic indicators households

• The average annual per capita income of the
  Guatemalan households was of 13,086 GTQ
• Male or non-indigenous headed household had
  higher income than female or indigenous
  household, so did the households located in urban
  areas
• The highest average income is for households
  located in urban areas headed by a female non
  indigenous who lived with husband and no children
  (GTQ 52,030.00) .The lowest was for those
  households from rural areas headed by a female
  indigenous who lived with husband and no children
  (GTQ 1,068.00).

22
a) Composition of the households
socio-economic indicators households

• - To identify how the household heads sex,
  ethnic group, place of residence and household
  arrangements affects different levels on income,
  a multiple quartile regression was performed to
  adjust the data
• - Households with female indigenous heads and
  rural always have a negative participation in all
  the quartiles of the conditional per capita
  income distribution
• - The higher the level of the income the higher
  is the inequality between female and male heads,
  between indigenous and non indigenous head and
  between rural and urban areas of location.

The influence of head of the household sex and
ethnic group, place of residence and household
arrangements on Quartiles of the annual per
capita income
23
a) Composition of the households
socio-economic indicators households
The difference between the 1st and 3rd quantile
regressions coefficient by head of the household
sex, ethnicity, location and arrangements of the
household
Variables Coef. Bootstrap Stand. Dev t Pgtt 95 Conf. Interval
   
With spouse and children -5940.2 631.9 -9.4 0.000 -7178.8 -4701.7
With spouse and no children -3389.0 961.9 -3.5 0.000 -5274.4 -1503.6
No spouse with children -4107.1 574.0 -7.2 0.000 -5232.1 -2982.0
Female -2123.8 377.7 -5.6 0.000 -2864.2 -1383.4
Indigenous -3406.3 191.7 -17.8 0.000 -3781.9 -3030.6
Rural -5174.8 267.8 -19.3 0.000 -5699.7 -4649.8
Const 17784.0 649.7 27.4 0.000 16510.4 19057.6

• The differences of the coefficients of 1st
  quartile to the 3rd quartile are all significant
  and negative in accordance to the hypothesis of
  increasing inequality by gender and ethnic group.

24
a) Composition of the households
socio-economic indicators households
Proportion of poor households (annual per capita
income less than GTQ 6,574.00) by household
arrangement and location by heads sex and ethnic
group

• The proportion of poor households was of 47 with
  a wide range among the groups under study.
• This proportion was higher for those located in
  rural areas (69), and for those headed by
  indigenous (70)
• - There was no clear pattern across the household
  arrangements nor there was by the sex of the head.

Head of the Household's Sex and Household Arrangement Ethnic Group and Place of Residence Ethnic Group and Place of Residence Ethnic Group and Place of Residence Ethnic Group and Place of Residence Ethnic Group and Place of Residence Ethnic Group and Place of Residence Ethnic Group and Place of Residence Ethnic Group and Place of Residence Ethnic Group and Place of Residence
Head of the Household's Sex and Household Arrangement Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Non-indigenous Non-indigenous Non-indigenous Total Total Total
Head of the Household's Sex and Household Arrangement Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total
Male                  
With wife with children 52 83 72 21 60 37 30 72 51
With wife and no children 53 82 72 15 45 25 21 60 38
No wife with children 54 67 61 13 49 25 22 57 36
No wife no children 39 63 50 17 36 24 22 45 31
Total 52 82 71 20 57 34 28 69 48
Female                
With partner with children 54 56 55 12 73 34 19 70 37
With partner no children 0 100 32 11 7 9 10 14 12
No partner with children 56 80 70 23 63 36 30 71 47
No partner no children 49 82 65 21 49 29 26 61 37
Total 54 80 69 22 61 34 28 69 44
TOTAL 52 82 70 20 58 34 28 69 47
- The poverty line adopted in this monograph was
of GTQ 6,574.00. This value corresponds to the
line estimated by the World Bank using the 2000
and 2006 ENCOVI with consumption data.
25
a) Composition of the households
socio-economic indicators households
Ratio of rates of poverty between explanatory
variables and baseline (household arrangement and
location heads sex and ethnic group).
Variables Ratio of Rates of Prop of Poor Households Linearized St. Error T Pgtt 95 Conf. Interval 95 Conf. Interval
With partner and children 1.31 0.11 3.1800 0.0020 1.11 1.55
With partner and no children 1.08 0.10 0.9200 0.3570 0.91 1.29
No partner with children 1.15 0.09 1.6800 0.0940 0.98 1.35
Rural 2.15 0.11 14.3500 0.0000 1.94 2.39
Female Head 1.17 0.07 2.4400 0.0150 1.03 1.32
Indigenous Head 1.69 0.07 13.6200 0.0000 1.57 1.82

• - To better understand the role of the sex of
  the head in the number of poor households, data
  were modeled by a Poisson Regression Model
• - After controlling for other variables in the
  model, it was possible to discern the effect of
  the sex of the head in the proportion of poor
  households. The proportion of poor households
  when headed by women was 17 higher than those
  headed by men, when headed by indigenous the
  correspondent effect was of 69
• - The higher effect was from the rural location
  of the household, in those, the proportion of
  poor households was 115 higher than those in
  urban areas.

26
B) The Quality of the Houses and the Sanitary
Infrastructure
socio-economic indicators households

• - The water supply of a residence is considered
  adequate if there is an inside or outside
  plumbing, a public water fountain or an artesian
  well.
• - As expected the proportion of adequate water is
  lower for poor families than for non-poor, the
  same pattern holds across categories of sex and
  ethnic group of the head, and for the location of
  the households.
• - The differential over the head of the
  households sex is less perceptible.

Proportion of households with adequate water
supply by state of poverty, head of the household
sex and ethnic group and location of residence
Sex and Poverty Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence
Sex and Poverty Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Non-indigenous Non-indigenous Non-indigenous Total Total Total
Sex and Poverty Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total
Male                  
Poor 94.0 74.3 79.6 91.9 83.0 86.1 92.9 78.0 82.5
Non-Poor 96.2 86.0 92.2 97.1 89.4 95.1 96.9 88.4 94.5
Total 95.1 76.4 83.2 96.1 85.7 92.0 95.8 81.2 88.7
Female          
Poor 93.1 83.2 86.6 91.4 84.7 87.6 92.1 84.0 87.1
Non-Poor 91.8 84.9 89.3 96.0 87.9 94.5 95.5 87.1 93.6
Total 92.5 83.6 87.4 95.0 86.0 92.1 94.5 85.0 90.7
TOTAL                  
Poor 93.8 75.8 80.8 91.8 83.4 86.5 92.7 79.1 83.5
Non-Poor 95.3 85.8 91.6 96.8 89.1 94.9 96.5 88.1 94.3
Total 94.5 77.7 84.0 95.8 85.8 92.0 95.5 81.9 89.2
27
B) The Quality of the Houses and the Sanitary
Infrastructure
socio-economic indicators households

• The proportion of households with adequate water
  supply is 89 with adequate sanitation is 47
  adequate garbage disposal is 35 and 15 with
  more than five people sleeping in the same
  bedroom
• After combining those five components with the
  index of adequacy of the house construction
  material (floor, wall and roof) in one housing
  quality index, 27 of the households are
  considered adequate and 15.5 are considered of
  bad quality and inadequate.

(In order to assess the quality of the houses, an
index was calculated using information on
adequacy of the sanitary (water source,
sanitation, garbage disposal) infrastructure, of
the house building material (roof, wall and
floor) and of crowdness (person/bedroom) ). The
index is in the Report.
28
B) The Quality of the Houses and the Sanitary
Infrastructure
socio-economic indicators households
Proportion of households with adequate sanitation
by state of poverty, head of the household sex
and ethnic group and location of residence
Sex and Poverty Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence
Sex and Poverty Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Non-indigenous Non-indigenous Non-indigenous Total Total Total
Sex and Poverty Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total
Male                  
Poor 45.5 6.2 16.7 58.5 10.9 27.4 52.2 8.2 21.5
Non-Poor 73.6 23.3 53.8 84.5 32.7 71.2 82.6 30.0 67.6
Total 59.1 9.3 27.5 79.4 20.2 56.1 74.0 14.9 45.4
Female            
Poor 51.2 7.2 22.2 68.4 15.1 37.9 61.5 11.2 30.8
Non-Poor 72.3 20.6 53.4 85.0 35.3 75.4 83.3 31.3 71.8
Total 60.8 9.9 31.8 81.4 23.1 62.6 77.1 17.5 53.6
TOTAL                  
Poor 46.8 6.4 17.7 61.3 11.8 30.0 54.6 8.8 23.5
Non-Poor 73.3 22.8 53.7 84.6 33.2 72.3 82.8 30.2 68.6
Total 59.5 9.4 28.3 79.9 20.8 57.7 74.8 15.4 47.3

• - A house is considered with adequate sanitation
  if it is non-odor and is connected to a drainage
  system or a patent concrete cesspit
• - There is a high differential in that proportion
  between urban and rural area, the pattern holds
  across head of the households ethnic and sex
  group and state of poverty
• - The rate of adequacy is higher for households
  headed by non-indigenous than for those headed by
  indigenous person. The household headed by women
  had a better rate of adequacy .

29
B) The Quality of the Houses and the Sanitary
Infrastructure
socio-economic indicators households
Proportion of households with adequate garbage
disposal by state of poverty, head of the
household sex and ethnic group and location of
residence
Sex and Poverty Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence Ethnicity and Place of Residence
Sex and Poverty Indigenous Indigenous Indigenous Non-indigenous Non-indigenous Non-indigenous Total Total Total
Sex and Poverty Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total
Male                  
Poor 20.1 0.9 6.0 34.2 2.5 13.5 27.4 1.6 9.4
Non-Poor 49.5 10.4 34.1 75.4 14.9 59.9 70.8 13.6 54.5
Total 34.4 2.6 14.2 67.3 7.8 43.9 58.6 5.3 32.8
Female            
Poor 26.6 1.6 10.1 46.4 3.2 21.7 38.5 2.4 16.4
Non-Poor 51.7 4.2 34.3 79.9 20.3 68.4 76.2 15.9 62.8
Total 38.1 2.2 17.6 72.7 9.9 52.4 65.4 6.6 42.3
TOTAL                  
Poor 21.6 1.0 6.8 37.7 2.6 15.5 30.3 1.7 10.9
Non-Poor 49.9 9.3 34.2 76.6 16.0 62.0 72.2 14.1 56.5
Total 35.2 2.6 14.9 68.7 8.2 46.0 60.4 5.5 35.0

• - Only 35 of Guatemalan households have access
  to public or private garbage disposal systems
• - The lowest rate of adequacy was for the poor
  household, located in rural area and headed by
  indigenous men and the highest was for the
  non-poor, urban, non-indigenous and female heads.

30
B) The Quality of the Houses and the Sanitary
Infrastructure
socio-economic indicators households

• In order to assess the quality of the houses, an
  index was calculated using information on
  adequacy of the sanitary infrastructure (water
  source, sanitation, garbage disposal), the house
  building material (roof, wall and floor) and of
  crowdness (person/bedroom). The adequacy of the
  house materials were set according to their
  potential of providing shelter and closure.
• The construction of the Index of Housing Quality
  (IHQ) followed 4 steps

• Classifying the variables according to adequacy
  and crowdness
• 2) Categorizing the households according to i.
  adequate ii. one inadequate, iii. two inadequate
  and iv. all inadequate, for sanitary
  infrastructure and house construction material
• 3) Classification of the households according to
  the combination of the infrastructure and
  material
• 4) Refining the classification by a combination
  of 3) with crowdness.

31
B) The Quality of the Houses and the Sanitary
Infrastructure
socio-economic indicators households
External wall material Adequate block,
adobe, wood, metallic foil, brick, concrete
Inadequate wattle and daub, stick, pole,
other Roof material Adequate tile,
asbestos, cement, Inadequate thatch or palm
leaves, other Floor material Adequate
cement, cement brick, ceramic brick, mud brick,
wood, parquet Inadequate earth, other.
Criteria for household classification according
to the level of adequacy of the sanitary
infrastructure and house construction material
Sanitary Infrastructure House construction material House construction material House construction material House construction material
Sanitary Infrastructure Adequate One Inadequate Two Inadequate All inadequate
Adequate Adequate Fair Regular Regular
One Inadequate Fair Fair Regular Regular
Two Inadequate Regular Regular Bad Bad
All inadequate Regular Regular Bad Inadequate
Criteria for household classification according
to the categories of the House Quality Index
Sanitary Infrastructure and House Construction Material lt 5 person/bedroom gt 5 person/bedroom
Adequate Adequate Fair
Fair Fair Regular
Regular Regular Bad
Bad Bad Inadequate
Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate
32
B) The Quality of the Houses and the Sanitary
Infrastructure
socio-economic indicators households
- Distribution of the Guatemalan houses by the
indicator of their quality

• - To better assess the differentials regarding
  the quality of the house among households, a
  multinomial logit regression was adjusted to a
  model with dependent variable as the house
  quality categories and independent variables as
  the type of household arrangements, head of the
  household by sex and ethnicity and location of
  the house.
• - The model considered the regular quality of the
  house as the base.

Distribution of the houses by the indicator of
their quality
Quality of the house Proportions
Adequate 27.8
Fair 21.0
Regular 35.7
Bad 13.0
Inadequate 2.5
Total 100.0
N. Households 2,653,000
33
B) The Quality of the Houses and the Sanitary
Infrastructure
socio-economic indicators households
Relative Risk Ratio (RRR), standard error, t and
p value and 95 confidence interval of the RRR,
adjusted by a multinomial logit regression.
House Quality Relative Risk Ratio Linearized St. Error t Pgtt 95 Conf. Interval 95 Conf. Interval
Adequate  
Indigenous head 0.189 0.033 -9.530 0.000 0.134 0.266
Rural residence 0.019 0.005 -15.350 0.000 0.012 0.032
Female Head 1.393 0.243 1.900 0.057 0.990 1.960
Head Partner Children 1.127 0.206 0.650 0.514 0.787 1.612
Head Partner 1.193 0.280 0.750 0.453 0.752 1.891
Head Children 0.894 0.162 -0.620 0.538 0.627 1.276
Fair  
Indigenous head 0.526 0.061 -5.500 0.000 0.418 0.662
Rural residence 0.149 0.019 -15.260 0.000 0.116 0.190
Female Head 1.444 0.193 2.750 0.006 1.111 1.876
Head Partner Children 1.303 0.198 1.750 0.081 0.968 1.754
Head Partner 1.429 0.256 1.990 0.046 1.006 2.032
Head Children 0.949 0.143 -0.350 0.726 0.706 1.275
Bad  
Indigenous head 1.427 0.124 4.070 0.000 1.202 1.693
Rural residence 2.094 0.229 6.750 0.000 1.690 2.596
Female Head 1.110 0.230 0.500 0.614 0.739 1.667
Head Partner Children 3.397 0.878 4.730 0.000 2.046 5.640
Head Partner 1.118 0.337 0.370 0.711 0.619 2.018
Head Children 1.766 0.420 2.390 0.017 1.108 2.815
Inadequate  
Indigenous head 2.217 0.605 2.920 0.004 1.298 3.786
Rural residence 6.058 2.187 4.990 0.000 2.983 12.300
Female Head 0.701 0.330 -0.750 0.451 0.278 1.768
Head Partner Children 7.487 3.986 3.780 0.000 2.634 21.281
Head Partner 0.337 0.341 -1.070 0.283 0.046 2.459
Head Children 4.269 2.360 2.630 0.009 1.443 12.629

• - The correspondent relative risk of having an
  adequate house instead of a regular house is
  higher for female heads, non-indigenous heads and
  houses located in urban areas
• - The differentials for the type of households
  did not show statistical significance
• - The relative risks of non-adequate houses as
  compared to the regular houses was higher for
  households headed by indigenous than
  non-indigenous higher for households located in
  the rural areas than those in the urban areas
• - The quality of the houses was not
  statistically different by sex of the head of the
  household
• - Those households composed by the head, partner
  and children and those composed by head and
  children (no partner) had higher risk of having
  houses of inadequate quality.

34
c) Household Durable Goods and Digital Exclusion
socio-economic indicators households

• - In decreasing order, durable goods more present
  in households are television (69), stove (57),
  fridge or freezer (39), telephone (19, with a
  higher prevalence of cell phones - 55), and
  washing machine (9).
• Beyond been the most common durable good in
  country households, television have the lowest
  differentials of ownership by ethnicity and area
  of placing of the home
• The ownership of stove and telephone present
  the highest differentials between rural and urban
  households
• The ownership of refrigerator presents the
  highest differentials between the ethnicity of
  the households head.

35
c) Household Durable Goods and Digital Exclusion
socio-economic indicators households
Proportion (by 100) of households with number of
durable goods owned by the location of the
household, sex and ethnic group of the head

• There are clearly three distinctive patterns
• 1) hyperbolic pattern - a concentration of
  households at the lower end of the curve and
  dropping very fast as the number of durable goods
  increase. This is the case for rural indigenous
  headed households, 50-60 have zero goods and no
  more than 10 hold two or more goods
• 2) parabolic pattern a low proportion of
  households at lower end of the curve, increasing
  rapidly to a maximum and then decreasing slowly
  towards the higher end. The urban
  non-indigenous-headed households, present this
  patterns, with maximum in three goods
• 3) Linear pattern. There is a high
  proportion of households in the lower end of the
  distribution and the curve decline monotonically
  as the number of goods increase. This is the case
  of urban indigenous and rural non-indigenous.

36
c) Household Durable Goods and Digital Exclusion
socio-economic indicators households
Proportion of households (by 100) who own
computer, internet and cell phone by location of
the household, sex and ethnic group of the head

• - Digital exclusion is very high Only 11 of the
  households possess computer and 2 have access to
  Internet
• - Computer and Internet access is more common in
  urban non-indigenous-headed households
• - Access to Internet in rural and
  indigenous-headed households is null. In
  countryside, it can be related to low
  telecommunications infra-structure
• - In the other hand, the ownership of cellular
  telephone is much more common between households
  of every social group, especially between urban
  non-indigenous headed homes. So, it can be
  concluded that in Guatemala most families receive
  their information via television and communicate
  mainly using cell phones.

37
D) Health and social security
socio-economic indicators individuals

• Only 50 of children receive all vaccines (BCG,
  Antipolio, DPT , Sarampiom and Measles),
  available before 2005. That exclusion was higher
  for rural and urban indigenous children,
  especially girls
• - 97 of the children were vaccinated with at
  least one of those vaccines
• - The coverage of the four vaccines was higher
  for those living in urban areas, non-indigenous
  and males.

38
D) Health and social security
socio-economic indicators individuals
Proportion of women (by 100) in the age of 15 to
49 years who had Papanicolau Test, by the period
of the test, ethnicity and place of residence

• Most Guatemalan women have never done the
  Papanicolaou Exam, and no more than 18 did it
  last year. Exclusion is higher between indigenous
  women, even higher than for rural inhabitants
  (where health services supply is lower)
• In life just 36 of women aged 15 to 49 did the
  Papanicolaou. The women residing in urban areas
  and the non-indigenous had higher prevalence.

39
D) Health and social security
socio-economic indicators individuals
Total Population with Health Insurance
- Most of Guatemalan population (85) do not have
any access to any kind of health insurance
40
D) Health and social security
socio-economic indicators individuals
Disaggregated Population with Health Insurance
- Exclusion is higher for rural areas than for
urban ones as well as for women and indigenous
than for men and non-indigenous - Private health
insurance coverage between rural people and over
all indigenous is basically null. In the case of
indigenous people living in urban places they are
more covered with health insurance than the rural
ones.
41
D) Health and social security
socio-economic indicators individuals
Health Expenditure Annually

• - Annual medical and health expenditures are
  higher for urban population, women and
  non-indigenous, with the highest rate for women
  non-indigenous urban
• The health expenditures of women non-indigenous
  urban were higher (10) than those for any other
  group, especially indigenous female headed
  household in urban areas (5)
• The total health expenditure of the households
  had an average of 8 of the total household
  income

42
D) Health and social security
socio-economic indicators individuals

• The population aged 60 years or more who receive
  retirement pension was 13
• The highest figure was for men non-indigenous
  living urban areas (30) and the lowest for women
  indigenous living in the rural areas (1)
• - There is a clear picture of very low coverage
  of social security in the country.

43
D) education
socio-economic indicators individuals
Average Years of Schooling Attended by Age Group,
Sex, Ethnicity and Place of Residence

• - The gaps in the access to education is higher
  in terms of rural/urban (with lower access to
  rural areas) than in terms of ethnicity
  (non-indigenous with the better figures). Gender
  presents the lower inequality and normally men
  present the better figures
• - For lower age groups the difference diminishes
  and years of schooling increase, especially below
  the age of 15 years, which shows a recent raise
  in the access to basic education for all in this
  country.

44
D) education
socio-economic indicators individuals
Enrollment Rates of Population Sub Groups-
Differentiated by Sex, Ethnicity, and Place of
Residence, from Pre-School to Higher Education
- The majority of population is currently
attending Primary Education, Irrespective of
gender, ethnicity, or place of residence, which
shows the tendency to the universalization of
basic education

• Just the minority of population is currently
  attending Higher Education. This is the level of
  education that presents the higher inequality in
  the access besides being the one in which there
  is more inequality among the groups of
  population
• Secondary Education is the level
• that presents the higher inequality in the access
  among the categories of the population.

45
D) education
socio-economic indicators individuals
Illiteracy Rates in Population Aged 10 or Older,
Differentiated by Age Group, Sex, Ethnicity and
Place of Residence

• The greatest inequalities in the illiteracy rates
  are in terms of ethnicity and place of residence
  with the indigenous and rural population
  experiencing the highest rates

• The highest illiteracy rate is found among women
  indigenous living in rural areas with 60 years or
  over (95.3 of illiteracy).
• Among the younger generation illiteracy is
  lower
• The variation in the illiteracy rate is directly
  proportional to the age younger one is, more
  access to education she or he has with less
  difference in relation to sex, ethnicity and
  place of residence.

46
D) education
socio-economic indicators individuals
Enrollment Ratio in Primary and Secondary
Education by Sex, Ethnicity and Place of Residence
Age-grade Distortion in Primary and Secondary
Education by Sex, Ethnicity and Place of
Residence
- Enrollment Ratio in primary and secondary
education corresponds to all persons enrolled in
these levels of schooling to the total population
of the age group that national regulation in
Guatemala dictates should be enrolled at those
levels
- Age-grade distortion means children over-aged
(two years or more) for attending respective
schooling grade (as defined by the national
education system) to the total enrolled children
in the respective grade

• The high levels of age grade distortions and the
  low levels of enrollment ratios for primary and
  secondary education, the latter in particular,
  can show a great instability in the path through
  these levels of education and a progressive
  school evasion.

47
E) Labor market
socio-economic indicators individuals
Economic Active Population Age 16 Years or Older
by Sex, Ethnicity and Place of Residence

• - The EAP corresponds to half of the population.
  The major inequality is in relation to gender and
  there is a prevalence of men
• - Place of residence and gender are more
  determinants than ethnicity in the EAP rate with
  the prevalence of urban and male population.

48
E) Labor market
socio-economic indicators individuals
Unemployed Population Age 16 or Older by Sex,
Ethnicity and Place of Residence

• - The overall unemployment rate is low. This is
  due to the high incidence of informal jobs
• - The incidence of unemployment is higher in
  urban areas and for non-indigenous than in rural
  areas and for indigenous.

49
E) Labor market
socio-economic indicators individuals
Distribution of Population by Employment Position
and Place of Residence

• - The majority of the population is employee and
  self-employed. This figure has a close link with
  the high informality of the occupations found in
  the economy of the country
• - Women, especially those from rural areas,
  present the highest participation in the others
  activities, which shows women in a central role
  within uncategorized job positions.

50
E) Labor market
socio-economic indicators individuals
Distribution of Population by Employment Sector
and Place of Residence

• - The majority of population is concentrated in
  the commercial and agricultural sectors
• - The other sector of the economy concentrates
  a great amount of the working population. This
  sector reinforces the informal pace of the
  economy
• Women, especially those from urban areas, present
  the highest participation in the other sector,
  which shows women in a central role within
  uncategorized sector of jobs.

51
E) Labor market
socio-economic indicators individuals
Average Years of Schooling Attended by the
Economic Active Population by Age Group, Sex and
Ethnicity

• The overall average years of schooling of the
  EAP is low
• For EAP among younger population there is less
  inequality between sexes and more qualified women
  entering into the labor market
• The worst educational situation is for women
  indigenous.

52
E) Labor market
socio-economic indicators individuals
Working Condition of Occupied Population by Sex
and Ethnicity

• The great majority of population is in the
  informal condition of employment
• For the informality ethnicity accounts much more
  than gender as the greatest concentration is
  among indigenous population.

53
F) Domestic labor
socio-economic indicators individuals

• The majority of domestic workers of total
  occupied population are women (8.6),
  non-indigenous (4), and live in urban areas
  (4.3)
• Among the women that work in more than 1
  domicile (5) the majority is located in urban
  areas
• The majority of female domestic workers fall
  into the age group 26-44 (32.8), in which there
  is a prevalence of the indigenous living in urban
  places (42.5)
• The average years of schooling of a domestic
  worker is 3.27 years. The figure is higher for
  non-indigenous (3.62 years), compared to
  indigenous (2.29 years). There is no significant
  difference between urban and rural areas.

54
F) Domestic labor
socio-economic indicators individuals
Average Monthly Income of Female Domestic Workers

• The average monthly income of the domestic worker
  is 1,080.51 GTQ. It means the monthly wage plus
  non-wage benefits such as housing, transport,
  food, and others. These benefits correspond to
  half of the average total income of these workers
  as the wage is 544.16 GTQ per month and the
  benefits are 536.35 GTQ, as specified in the
  table.

Salary 544.16
Extra Hours 0.00
Comissions 0.00
Bono 14 13.52
Aguinaldo 13.65
Deferred 0.00
Vacancy Bonus 0.00
Other Benefits 0.49
Clothes 1.32
Vacancy Work 1.22
Alimentation 362.39
Housing 66.07
Transport 4.21
Other Gains 73.23
Agriculture Gains 0.24
TOTAL 1080.51

• The average monthly income of the total occupied
  population was 644.33 GTQ. And the minimum wage
  was 1,559.00 GTQ per month.

55
F) Domestic labor
socio-economic indicators individuals
Average Monthly Income of Female Domestic Workers
by Ethnicity and Place of Residence
Average Monthly Wage of Female Domestic Workers
by Ethnicity and Place of Residence

• Domestic workers have monthly earnings that are
  close to the minimum wage and twice as much
  compared to the overall monthly income of the
  population
• The indigenous living in rural areas have the
  lowest monthly averages.

56
F) Domestic labor
socio-economic indicators individuals
Distribution of Female Domestic Workers by
Working Hours, Place of Residence and Ethnicity
Distribution of Female Domestic Workers by
Working Hours

- Around 60 of the domestic labors work more
than 40 hours per week, the majority is
non-indigenous living in urban places.
- In urban areas, a higher percentage of
non-indigenous work more than 40 hours a week
compared to indigenous domestic workers. In rural
areas, this difference is a slightly lower.
57
G) Poverty and inequality of income distribution
socio-economic indicators individuals
Average Individual Income from Main Income Source
per Year by Sex, Ethnicity and Place of Residence

• - Non-indigenous men from urban areas are in
  better income conditions with average individual
  earnings of 21,157.99 GTQ
• - The lowest income figure is for indigenous
  female from rural areas with an average of
  1,118.74 GTQ per year

• There is a great inequality of income
  distribution among the different groups of
  people
• Place of residence and ethnicity are
  respectively determinants on average individual
  income
• The lower income clearly shows the
  disadvantageous situation for women, indigenous
  population and people living in rural areas.

58
G) Poverty and inequality of income distribution
socio-economic indicators individuals

• Average Income from Main Income Source per Year
  by Employment Position, Place of Residence, Sex
  and Ethnicity

• Employer is the job position with the highest
  earnings for all groups of people, with a much
  better figure for men non-indigenous from urban
  places, and except for female indigenous rural
• Public servants are workers with a good average
  income and there is less inequality among those
  that pertain to different categories of
  population
• Domestic workers, rural self-employed and rural
  employees are the employment types with lower
  earnings for all groups.

59
G) Poverty and inequality of income distribution
socio-economic indicators individuals

• Average Income from Main Income Source per Year
  by Sector of Employment, Place of Residence, Sex
  and Ethnicity

• Agriculture is the sector of employment that pays
  worse while public administration is the sector
  with higher earnings for all groups
• Women non-indigenous living in urban areas
  present the highest earnings than other groups
  for public administration and construction
• Commerce, industry and other are sectors of
  employment with greater inequality of earnings
  for all groups \place of residence, ethnicity
  and sex are respectively the determinants of
  earnings
• Women indigenous and non-indigenous receive much
  lower earnings than men in rural commerce,
  industry and other.

60
G) Poverty and inequality of income distribution
socio-economic indicators individuals

• Proportion of Population by Per Capita Income
  Deciles by Sex, Ethnicity and Place of Residence

• Indigenous and rural populations are concentrated
  in lower deciles which shows they are
  proportionately poorer than non-indigenous and
  urban populations.

61
G) Poverty and inequality of income distribution
socio-economic indicators individuals
Proportion of Married Women without Own Income by
Ethnicity and Place of Residence
Proportion of Population Age 16 or Older Without
Own Income
- Half of the married women do not have own
income. The higher incidence of the absence of
own income is for indigenous rural and the lowest
is for non-indigenous urban. Place of residence
is a stronger determinant than ethnicity for some
woman being dependent of income of her husband.

• - The absence of income source is mainly
  determined by sex as much more women age 16 or
  older do not have own income compared to men.

62
G) Poverty and inequality of income distribution
socio-economic indicators individuals
Gini Coefficient by Sex, Ethnicity and Place of
Residence
Theil Coefficient by Sex, Ethnicity and Place of
Residence
- The highest inequality is seen for ethnicity
as non-indigenous presents a higher Gini index of
0.548 than indigenous with a figure of 0.498.
- The highest inequality is also seen between
non-indigenous and indigenous populations. The
former presents an index of 0.640 and the latter
presents 0.471.
- The Gini and Theil show that income
distribution is more uniform within groups
(urban, rural, non-indigenous and indigenous)
than total. Indigenous group face the less
unequal income distribution, although they are
the poorer group, alongside with rural population.
63
G) Poverty and inequality of income distribution
socio-economic indicators individuals
Proportion of Poor and Extremely Poor Population
by Household Average per Capita Income by Sex,
Ethnicity and Place of Residence

• Prevalence of poor population (54.5) compared
  to the extremely poor (28.7)
• The group that presents the highest poverty
  incidence is indigenous from rural areas (84.5
  poor and 57.0 extremely poor), and the lowest is
  seen inside the non-indigenous living in urban
  areas (24 poor and 6 extremely poor).

64
International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth
(IPC-IG)(UNDP affiliate)Website Address
www.ipc-undp.orgDiana Sawyer (Coordinator)
diana.sawyer_at_ipc-undp.orgLuana Goveia (Associate
Researcher) luana.goveia_at_ipc-undp.orgRicardo
Martini (Associate Researcher)
ricardo.martini_at_ipc-undp.org
UNIFEM I Project

• Muchas Gracias!