Inclusive social development: The next generation of policies for overcoming poverty and reducing inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean

Inclusive social development: the next generation of policies for overcoming poverty...
E. Other dimensions of inequality
1. Inequalities by geographical area: rural sectors
Territorial considerations are another determining factor behind inequality in the region. First, rural populations are
at a clear disadvantage in most social well-being indicators. The demographic changes of the second half of the
20th century led to the restructuring of the discourse regarding the dimensions and importance of the rural population:
their numbers evolved from representing more than half the population in most of the countries to levels of between
10% and 30% of the total; the exceptions to this are Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Saint Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago,
which report relative parity between their rural and urban populations. Estimates for 2015 indicate that there are
approximately 121.8 million rural inhabitants in Latin America, accounting for 19.9% of the total population. That
fact is of great importance in understanding many of the processes that affect and explain the current levels of wellbeing
among rural populations and the preponderance of urban problems at the centre of Latin American discourse
in recent decades (ECLAC, 2011a).
The incidence and intensity of poverty remain considerably greater in rural areas. 13 In 2013, according to the most
recent data prepared by ECLAC, 23.2% of the urban population were members of households facing income poverty,
and the corresponding rate among the rural population was twice that figure (47.9%). Likewise, 7.7% of the urban
population were in conditions of extreme poverty, compared to 28.2% of the rural population (see ECLAC, 2015c).
An examination of how poverty and extreme poverty rates have evolved over recent years reveals that the reduction
in poverty levels in the region that began with the new century did not affect urban and rural areas in the same way.
Whereas the urban population reported sustained decreases in poverty rates beginning in 2002, the rural population
reported a drop between that year and 2007 (from 62.4% to 53%), a slight increase in 2008 and 2009 (54.9% in both
years) and a further fall in 2010 (Rossel, 2012). The result of that trend is a slight widening of the poverty differential
between urban and rural populations (ECLAC, 2012c), but a much sharper increase in the different levels of extreme
poverty found among urban and rural populations (Rossel, 2012).
The situation is quite uneven from one country to another. In some countries, rural poverty is almost double or
almost triple urban poverty. In others, poverty in rural areas is 20% or 30% higher than in the cities. Only in two
countries is the rural poverty rate lower than the urban figure.
Rural populations are also at a systematic disadvantage compared to urban dwellers in other dimensions of
well-being, such as access to education, health and social protection.
Different research projects have indicated that rural populations are more exposed to poverty and extreme
poverty than the inhabitants of cities (Rossel, 2012; ECLAC, 2012b, 2012c, 2010b and 2009). In one recent study,
Rossel (2012) identified a series of factors that make the population more vulnerable to poverty.
First, fertility rates are higher in rural areas than in cities, and higher numbers of children per woman correlate
strongly to lower levels of education and to membership in indigenous peoples. Because of those factors, rural
households tend to be more numerous than urban families and, at the same time, poor rural households tend to have
more members than those rural households that are not poor.
Second, teenage pregnancy is more frequent among rural populations. This phenomenon can possibly be explained
by a combination of shortcomings in access to education, job opportunities and the absence or limited presence of
sexual and reproductive health policies.
As the result of those trends, indicators for well-being and poverty among younger generations in rural areas
report notably negative results that fall far short of those recorded in urban areas.
Finally, rural poverty is also strongly associated with indigenous populations. There is a significant overlap
between the rural population and the indigenous population. Households headed by indigenous people are more
likely to be poor and, in some countries, the disparities between indigenous-headed and non-indigenous-headed
families reach extreme levels (Rossel, 2012).
13
The concepts of ‘urban’ and ‘rural’, since their definitions can vary from one country to the next, are not always standardized.
Chapter I
31