Retirement and the Poverty of the Elderly in Portugal



TABLE 4-1: Cross sectional comparisons of low income incidence: retired
people, non-retired adults, and workers

Year -

Workers

Male__________________

Female_______________

All

Not retired

Retired

Not retired

Retired

Workers

Not retired

Retired

Workers

1994

13,1%

16,0%

34,1%

11,0%

18,8%

29,9%

12,2%

17,4%

31,7%

1995

13,5%

15,1%

36,2%

10,2%

17,7%

35,8%

12,1%

16,4%

35,9%

JZ
g

1996

12,7%

15,5%

32,9%

12,7%

18,4%

33,6%

12,7%

17,0%

33,3%

^co

1997

12,4%

14,9%

30,9%

12,2%

19,0%

33,0%

12,3%

17,0%

32,1%

φ
о
0

1998

12,8%

15,8%

27,8%

12,8%

19,2%

34,2%

12,8%

17,5%

31,4%

CL

1999

14,0%

16,9%

30,7%

10,9%

18,3%

33,4%

12,6%

17,6%

32,2%

2000

14,0%

17,0%

30,5%

10,2%

16,8%

32,6%

12,3%

16,9%

31,6%

2001

12,4%

16,1%

32,7%

9,9%

17,2%

35,4%

11,3%

16,6%

34,2%

1994

24,5%

27,8%

53,3%

20,3%

30,4%

48,3%

22,8%

29,2%

50,5%

1995

25,4%

27,8%

48,7%

20,5%

30,3%

51,0%

23,4%

29,1%

50,0%

^E

1996

24,2%

27,9%

47,0%

22,1%

31,2%

49,1%

23,3%

29,6%

48,2%

^co

1997

23,9%

27,6%

47,3%

21,9%

31,2%

49,5%

23,0%

29,5%

48,5%

Φ
о

1998

24,8%

28,3%

42,5%

22,5%

31,2%

50,8%

23,8%

29,8%

47,1%

о
CL

1999

25,6%

29,2%

45,8%

21,0%

30,8%

48,0%

23,6%

30,0%

47,0%

2000

24,6%

27,4%

45,9%

22,9%

30,2%

47,5%

23,8%

28,8%

46,8%

2001

23,6%

27,3%

47,5%

22,6%

32,1%

48,2%

23,1%

29,8%

47,9%

1994

14,8%

17,9%

38,8%

12,3%

20,7%

33,8%

13,8%

19,4%

36,0%

1995

14,9%

16,4%

36,8%

11,2%

18,9%

37,0%

13,3%

17,7%

36,9%


ф

1996

14,4%

17,4%

34,8%

14,0%

20,1%

35,3%

14,2%

18,8%

35,1%

ф

1997

13,1%

15,5%

31,2%

12,4%

19,6%

33,2%

12,8%

17,6%

32,4%

sp
Os

1998

13,7%

16,8%

29,3%

13,8%

20,3%

35,4%

13,7%

18,6%

32,7%

О
СО

1999

12,5%

15,5%

28,8%

9,9%

16,9%

31,1%

11,4%

16,2%

30,1%

2000

13,3%

16,1%

29,6%

9,3%

16,1%

31,1%

11,5%

16,1%

30,5%

2001

10,7%

14,3%

27,5%

8,7%

14,8%

31,1%

9,8%

14,5%

29,5%

1994

19,6%

23,3%

48,2%

16,1%

25,6%

42,0%

18,2%

24,5%

44,7%


ф

1995

15,8%

17,7%

38,2%

12,0%

19,9%

39,3%

14,2%

18,9%

38,8%

1996

13,6%

16,7%

33,4%

13,3%

19,1%

34,5%

13,5%

17,9%

34,0%

E

1997

11,6%

13,8%

29,9%

11,7%

17,9%

31,7%

11,6%

15,9%

30,9%

о
о
т-

1998

11,4%

14,1%

25,6%

11,6%

17,3%

32,8%

11,5%

15,7%

29,6%

sp
Os
СО

1999

9,8%

12,4%

23,2%

7,8%

13,8%

25,1%

9,0%

13,1%

24,2%

СО

2000

6,4%

8,6%

18,0%

4,5%

9,2%

18,1%

5,6%

8,9%

18,0%

2001

6,5%

9,3%

18,1%

5,1%

9,8%

17,2%

5,9%

9,6%

17,6%

Source: Authors computations based on ECHP.

28



More intriguing information

1. GENE EXPRESSION AND ITS DISCONTENTS Developmental disorders as dysfunctions of epigenetic cognition
2. Insecure Property Rights and Growth: The Roles of Appropriation Costs, Wealth Effects, and Heterogeneity
3. Public-private sector pay differentials in a devolved Scotland
4. American trade policy towards Sub Saharan Africa –- a meta analysis of AGOA
5. The name is absent
6. Are Japanese bureaucrats politically stronger than farmers?: The political economy of Japan's rice set-aside program
7. The name is absent
8. Types of Tax Concessions for Promoting Investment in Free Economic and Trade Areas
9. Staying on the Dole
10. TINKERING WITH VALUATION ESTIMATES: IS THERE A FUTURE FOR WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT MEASURES?