Retirement and the Poverty of the Elderly in Portugal



TABLE 4-2: Cross sectional comparisons of low income incidence for Retired
Individuals by Age Cohort

Year

Male

Female

Age cohort

Age cohort

<1920

1920-1930

1930-1940

>1940

<1920

1920-1930

1930-1940

>1940

1994

46,1%

32,8%

20,4%

31,1%

38,9%

31,1%

15,3%

20,8%

1995

52,5%

36,7%

24,3%

24,3%

45,9%

34,4%

28,9%

23,1%

JZ

1996

47,3%

37,8%

22,2%

13,8%

43,1%

34,9%

28,5%

13,5%

^co

1997

45,3%

38,0%

18,9%

14,1%

41,8%

38,3%

24,5%

8,7%

φ
о

1998

40,7%

32,4%

24,4%

8,8%

42,1%

37,9%

29,3%

16,1%

о
CL

1999

41,1%

41,9%

23,1%

11,1%

41,3%

38,7%

30,5%

8,2%

2000

51,6%

39,6%

24,7%

16,1%

34,1%

42,3%

28,7%

14,2%

2001

55,7%

41,2%

28,8%

14,5%

42,2%

42,1%

33,6%

15,1%

1994

62,3%

53,7%

44,6%

40,7%

54,9%

49,0%

38,1%

40,8%

1995

64,1%

49,3%

36,5%

39,6%

62,9%

50,6%

41,3%

33,8%

1996

59,3%

55,4%

35,9%

21,2%

56,9%

52,6%

43,5%

24,5%

jyj

1997

61,4%

55,0%

37,2%

22,8%

55,0%

55,6%

42,4%

25,7%

Ф
I—
О

1998

59,5%

50,7%

35,7%

17,7%

58,9%

56,6%

44,3%

27,8%

О
CL

1999

69,8%

55,9%

34,1%

27,2%

53,5%

55,7%

41,5%

27,6%

2000

63,9%

55,7%

40,5%

31,7%

56,7%

55,5%

44,3%

25,2%

2001

63,0%

57,7%

43,1%

31,2%

61,5%

54,3%

46,0%

24,5%

1994

47,6%

40,2%

24,1%

35,3%

40,6%

35,8%

21,2%

23,9%

1995

53,4%

37,7%

24,3%

24,5%

46,6%

35,8%

30,9%

23,1%


Ф

1996

48,5%

40,3%

24,4%

15,3%

44,9%

36,4%

30,6%

15,0%

Ф
Г"

1997

45,3%

38,6%

19,0%

14,1%

41,8%

38,8%

24,7%

8,7%

C

4o

1998

41,5%

33,9%

26,9%

8,8%

42,2%

39,3%

31,2%

16,8%

О
СО

1999

39,4%

38,4%

22,1%

10,8%

40,4%

35,3%

29,1%

6,1%

2000

48,4%

38,8%

24,4%

15,3%

34,0%

39,6%

28,1%

13,0%

2001

40,2%

37,8%

23,6%

11,5%

34,3%

39,2%

28,5%

12,5%

1994

57,6%

49,7%

36,7%

35,3%

46,7%

44,5%

31,7%

32,8%


ф

1995

54,0%

39,3%

25,7%

26,9%

48,9%

38,8%

32,7%

23,5%

1996

47,4%

39,1%

22,3%

13,8%

43,4%

36,0%

29,5%

15,0%

E

1997

44,2%

36,3%

18,9%

12,7%

41,2%

36,2%

24,0%

7,7%

о
о

1998

39,0%

28,5%

23,4%

7,5%

41,6%

35,5%

28,2%

16,0%

sp
Os

1999

33,6%

29,2%

19,0%

8,8%

36,2%

27,2%

22,7%

5,2%

СО
СО

2000

32,5%

22,8%

15,4%

7,6%

29,0%

22,8%

14,2%

4,9%

2001

33,2%

24,0%

14,6%

7,9%

24,6%

21,4%

14,3%

6,3%

Source: Authors computations based on ECHP.

29



More intriguing information

1. Voting by Committees under Constraints
2. Understanding the (relative) fall and rise of construction wages
3. Rural-Urban Economic Disparities among China’s Elderly
4. Evidence-Based Professional Development of Science Teachers in Two Countries
5. Learning-by-Exporting? Firm-Level Evidence for UK Manufacturing and Services Sectors
6. The name is absent
7. Word searches: on the use of verbal and non-verbal resources during classroom talk
8. An institutional analysis of sasi laut in Maluku, Indonesia
9. Party Groups and Policy Positions in the European Parliament
10. Business Cycle Dynamics of a New Keynesian Overlapping Generations Model with Progressive Income Taxation
11. The name is absent
12. The Effects of Attendance on Academic Performance: Panel Data Evidence for Introductory Microeconomics
13. The name is absent
14. Standards behaviours face to innovation of the entrepreneurships of Beira Interior
15. WP 92 - An overview of women's work and employment in Azerbaijan
16. The Context of Sense and Sensibility
17. Commuting in multinodal urban systems: An empirical comparison of three alternative models
18. The name is absent
19. Pricing American-style Derivatives under the Heston Model Dynamics: A Fast Fourier Transformation in the Geske–Johnson Scheme
20. Sex-gender-sexuality: how sex, gender, and sexuality constellations are constituted in secondary schools