ANNEX 1. SURINAME: POVERTY AND EQUITY DIAGNOSTIC SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT CONTENTS Key Findings 6 1. Introduction 7 2. Headline 2022 Poverty and Inequality Statistics for Suriname 11 2.1. Poverty, Inequality, and Prosperity 12 2.2. International Comparisons 13 2.3. Multidimensional Poverty 14 3. Poverty Profile 16 3.1. Where Do the Poor Live? 17 3.2. Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Poor 18 3.3. Consumption Expenditure of the Poor 22 3.4. Food Security 23 4. Income-generating Assets 25 4.1. Education 26 4.2. Employment 27 4.3. Own Production 29 4.4. Ownership of Physical Assets 29 4.5. Access to Services 30 5. Evolution of Poverty 32 5.1. Macroeconomic Background 33 5.2. Poverty Trends 34 APPENDICES 38 Appendix A1.1. The Suriname Survey of Living Conditions 39 Appendix A1.2. Consumption Aggregates 39 2 Appendix A1.3. Poverty Lines 40 Appendix A1.4. Multidimensional Poverty 42 Appendix A1.5. Comparison of Reported Income and Consumption 44 Appendix A1.6. Results Based on Panel Data 45 Appendix A1.7. Additional Poverty Profile Tables 47 References 53 BOX Box A1.1. A Note on Estimating Poverty in Suriname 8 FIGURES Figure A1.1. About 17.5 Percent of the Population Lives Below Suriname’s National Poverty Line 12 Figure A1.2. Comparison of Poverty with Other Countries: Suriname’s Poverty Rate Is Not Out of Line with Its Level of GDP Per Capita (Percent) 13 Figure A1.3. Inequality and Prosperity Indicators in Suriname Are Comparable to Those of Countries with Similar Levels of GDP Per Capita 14 Figure A1.4. About 46 percent Surinamese Are Multidimensionally Poor (Percent) 15 Figure A1.5. Suriname: Illness, Low Education, Limited ICT Skills, and Lack of Medical Insurance Are Important Determinants of Multidimensional Poverty 15 Figure A1.6. Suriname: Poverty Rates Are Higher in the Interior of the Country (Percent)   17 Figure A1.7. Suriname: The Interior Is Home to a Disproportionate Share of the Poor (Percent) 18 Figure A1.8. Poverty Is Highest among Surinamese of Maroon, Indigenous, and Hindu Ethnicity (Percent) 19 Figure A1.9. Suriname: A Clear Correlation between Poverty and the Level of Education of the Household Head (Percent) 19 Figure A1.10. Suriname: Poverty Rates Are Higher in Larger Households (Percent) 20 3 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT Figure A1.11. Suriname: Poverty Rates Are Higher in Households with Children (Percent) 21 Figure A1.12. Suriname: Poverty Rates of Women and Men Overlap in Most Age Ranges (Percent) 21 Figure A1.13. Suriname: Expenditure Type as Percent of Total Expenditure 22 Figure A1.14. Suriname: Expenditure Type as a Percent of Non-food Expenditure Based on the Classification of Individual Consumption According to Purpose (COICOP) Groups 23 Figure A1.15. Suriname: Food Insecurity Is More Common in the Interior (Percent) 24 Figure A1.16. Suriname: The Poor Have Less Education 26 Figure A1.17. Suriname: The Poor Are Less Likely to Be in the Labor Force and More Likely to Be Unemployed (Percent) 27 Figure A1.18. Suriname’s Informality Rate: Work in the Informal Sector Is Especially Common in the Poorest Households (Percent) 28 Figure A1.19. Suriname: Weekly Working Hours Are Somewhat Lower in the Bottom Decile (Weekly hours worked) 28 Figure A1.20. Suriname: Share of Consumption Derived from Own Production Is Higher in the Interior (Percent) 29 Figure A1.21. Suriname: Share of Population that Owns a Car or Their Dwelling, b y Consumption Decile (Percent) 30 Figure A1.22. Suriname: Share of Population with Private Health Insurance, Bank Account, or Internet Access, by Consumption Decile (Percent) 30 Figure A1.23. Suriname Has Continued to Experience a Macroeconomic Slump since 2016 33 Figure A1.24. Suriname: Inflation Has Recently Been High, Especially for Food and Non-alcoholic Beverages, Housing, and Transportation (Annual percentage) 34 Figure A1.25. Suriname: A Longer-term, Downward Trend in Multidimensional Poverty (Percent) 35 Figure A1.26. Suriname: A Mixed Picture of Changes in Poverty 2016 and 2022 (Percent) 36 Figure A1.27. Apparent Underreporting of Income Data in the 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions 45 Figure A1.28. Suriname: Trends in the Panel Data Mimic Those in the Overall Sample (Percent) 47 4 TABLES Table A1.1. Poverty Lines Expressed in Daily 2017 Purchasing Power Parity 2017 U.S. Dollars 41 Table A1.2. Multidimensional Poverty Index Indicators Available by Survey 42 Table A1.3. Description of Multidimensional Poverty Index Indicators 43 Table A1.4. Characteristics of Panel Households Differ from Those of the Average Household 46 Table A1.5. Poverty Profile: Sociodemographic Characteristics (Percent) 47 Table A1.6. Poverty Profile: Household Composition (Percent) 48 Table A1.7. Poverty Profile: Education (Percent) 49 Table A1.8. Poverty Profile: Labor Market Characteristics (Percent) 50 Table A1.9. Poverty Profile: Housing Characteristics and Physical Assets (Percent) 51 Table A1.10. Poverty Profile: Access to Markets (Percent) 52 5 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT KEY FINDINGS • About 17.5 percent of Suriname’s population could be classified as poor in 2022, meaning that their consumption was below the national poverty line and the World Bank’s upper-middle-income poverty line. • About 46 percent of Surinamese could be classified as multidimensionally poor. Significant contributors to multidimensional poverty include chronic illness, disability, lack of health insurance, low levels of education, and limited information and communications technology skills. • The poverty rate is higher in the interior of Suriname than in the rest of the country. Poverty rates differ by ethnicity and are higher in households headed by a single parent, households with a less- educated head, and large households. • A large share of the consumption of the poor goes to food and non-alcoholic beverages, housing, and transport. Accordingly, while food insecurity is common throughout the population, it is especially pressing in poorer households. • Poorer households are deprived in terms of a broad array of income-generating assets. Heads of poor households generally have less education. Adults in poor households are less likely to be employed and more likely to work in the informal sector. Poor households have less access to physical assets and essential services, such as bank accounts, insurance, and the Internet. • Tracking trends in poverty and wellbeing over time is challenging due to a paucity of comparable longitudinal data. However, there is evidence that Suriname experienced a spell of declining multidimensional poverty in the decades before the 2020 economic crisis. However, there is also evidence of a negative impact on wellbeing at the height of the crisis. Preparation of this annex was led by Jacobus de Hoop, Laura Clavijo Torres, Mateo Uribe Castro, and Rosita Woodly-Sobhie. Diether W. Beuermann Mendoza and Gisele Teixeira Braun contributed with extensive feedback and input. 6 1. INTRODUCTION 7 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT Accurate measurement of poverty is an urgent priority for Suriname. In the media and the public debate, much of the discussion about poverty centers on the impact of the macroeconomic crises that started in 2016 and worsened in 2020. Based on a phone survey administered in August 2020, Arteaga, Beuermann, and Khadan (2021) documented a deterioration in numerous outcomes at the peak of the recent crisis, including employment and business closures, which exacerbated prior inequalities. The National Annual Reports of 2022 and 2023 (Republic of Suriname 2022, 2024) documented a significant decline in purchasing power of 32 percent in 2022 compared to 2019. Accordingly, although not nationally representative, the World Food Programme’s Caribbean Food Security and Livelihoods Survey indicated a deterioration in food security over this period.1 However, a detailed description of poverty and its characteristics after the macroeconomic crisis was not available until recently. Building on a new household survey, this annex describes poverty and how it manifests in Suriname after the recent economic crisis. The IDB’s Survey of Living Conditions (SLC), was administered in 2022 (Appendix A1.1). Drawing on this survey, the objective of the poverty and equity diagnostic is not only to document poverty numbers for Suriname, but also to provide a deeper insight into poverty by describing who the poor are, where they live, what characterizes them, and how they generate their income (Box A1.1 provides detail on how poverty was estimated based on the SLC). Understanding these aspects of poverty beyond the headline statistics is critical for the formulation of anti-poverty policy. Indeed, the other more policy-oriented components of the poverty assessment, including the labor market and social assistance analysis presented in Annexes 2 and 3, respectively, depart from the poverty diagnostic. BOX A1.1. A NOTE ON ESTIMATING POVERTY IN SURINAME Estimating poverty can be complex, and it requires a variety of methodological decisions. A core aspect of the estimation of poverty is to examine the distribution of the value of consumption. That value is not reported in a survey as one single number. Rather, poverty researchers need to piece together the value of consumption by drawing on reported consumption of food, frequently purchased non-food items, less-frequently purchased durable goods, and housing. The process of piecing together this information requires many steps, which are described in more detail in Appendix A1.2 of this annex. When the calculated value of a person’s consumption falls below a certain threshold (what is called a poverty line), this person is classified as poor. The estimated poverty rate depends on the poverty line applied; if the poverty line is ambitious (high), a larger share of the population will be classified as poor. This report shows results for poverty lines established by Suriname’s Multidimensional Poverty Working Group, the World Bank’s international poverty lines, and poverty lines for Suriname calculated by the IDB. More information on these poverty lines can be found in Appendix A1.3 of this annex. 1 See the Caribbean Food Security and Livelihoods Survey dashboard at https://analytics.wfp.org/t/Public/views/ CaribbeanFoodSecurityLivelihoodsSurvey/Foodsecurity?%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&_ ga=2.134417140.486188591.1710731574-908087354.1710731574 (accessed on March 19, 2024). 8 The analysis complements a recent report on poverty in Suriname by Sobhie and Kisoensingh (2023) of Suriname’s Multidimensional Poverty Working Group, which develops the approved national monetary and multidimensional poverty definitions and measurements and examines poverty rates based on the 2013 household budget survey and UNICEF’s 2018 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey. The approach taken in this poverty diagnostic is in accordance with the Asset-based Framework, which forms the cornerstone of much of the poverty analysis carried out by the World Bank. The framework considers income-generating assets as an important aspect of poverty and prosperity. These can be physical assets, but also intangible assets such as education and access to services. Accordingly, this poverty diagnostic looks at the income-generating assets on which the poor rely and describes how these assets differ from those of the wealthier part of the population. Annex 2 complements this analysis by taking a detailed look at labor market outcomes. In addition, the Asset-based Framework considers three other aspects that matter for poverty and prosperity: the income transfers households receive, the prices of the goods and services households consume, and external shocks that generate variability in incomes. Annex 3 looks into income transfers by examining the functioning of Suriname’s social assistance system. Although not analyzed separately, prices are implicitly accounted for in the calculation of the poverty rates presented in this diagnostic (Appendix A1.2 of this Annex). And while it is challenging to analyze the impact of shocks due to limited availability of panel data, the poverty diagnostic reflects the situation in Suriname after it recently experienced a deep macroeconomic shock. The analysis finds that poverty is common, with a little over one in six Surinamese (about 17.5 percent of the population) living below the national poverty line and the World Bank’s upper-middle-income poverty line. Multidimensional poverty, measured in accordance with Suriname’s national approach, is even more common. About 46 percent of Surinamese could be classified as multidimensionally poor. Chronic illness, disability, lack of health insurance, low levels of education, and limited information and communications technology (ICT) skills are significant factors contributing to multidimensional poverty. The poverty rate is higher in the interior than in the rest of the country. Poverty rates differ by ethnicity and are higher in households headed by a single parent, households with a less-educated head, and large households. A high share of the consumption of the poor goes to food and non-alcoholic beverages, housing, and transport. Accordingly, while food insecurity is common throughout the population, it is especially pressing in poorer households. Poorer households are deprived in terms of a broad array of income-generating assets. Heads of poor households generally have less education. Adults in poor households are less likely to be employed and more likely to work in the informal sector. Poor households have less access to physical assets such as a car or their own dwelling. They also have less access to essential services such as bank accounts, insurance, and the Internet. 9 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT Documenting trends in poverty is challenging for Suriname because there is a paucity of comparable data over time. UNICEF’s Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) indicates that Suriname experienced a spell of declining multidimensional poverty in the decades before the 2020 economic crisis. Surveys collected during the COVID-19 pandemic point to a significant decline in wellbeing at the height of the economic crisis. And although somewhat tentative, analysis based on the 2022 SLC suggests that 2022 poverty rates were comparable to those in 2016 at the time of Suriname’s previous major macroeconomic crisis. Section 2 of this annex describes headline 2022 poverty, inequality, and prosperity statistics. Section 3 provides a profile of the poor. Section 4 describes the income-generating assets of the poor, and Section 5 discusses poverty trends. The annex ends with detailed appendices that provide methodological background to the study, including the design of the 2022 SLC (Appendix A1.1), the construction of the consumption aggregate based on the 2022 SLC (Appendix A1.2), the poverty lines applied (Appendix A1.3), the approach to measuring multidimensional poverty (Appendix A1.4), a comparison of reported income to reported consumption (Appendix A1.5), the robustness of the trends analysis to using panel data (Appendix A1.6 ), and additional poverty profile tables (Appendix A1.7). 10 2. HEADLINE 2022 POVERTY AND INEQUALITY STATISTICS FOR SURINAME 11 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT 2.1. POVERTY, INEQUALITY, AND PROSPERITY Based on the 2022 SLC data, about 17.5 percent of Surinamese can be classified as poor and about 1 to 2.5 percent can be classified as extreme poor. Figure A1.1 shows the three sets of poverty estimates mentioned above. The moderate poverty rate as measured by Suriname’s national poverty line and the World Bank’s upper-middle income line equal 17.6 and 17.5 percent. Applying the IDB’s moderate poverty line, which is a bit more ambitious, results in a poverty rate of 21.7 percent. One percent of the population lives below the World Bank’s lower-middle income poverty line and 2.6 percent of the population lives below the IDB’s extreme poverty line. FIGURE A1.1. ABOUT 17.5 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION LIVES BELOW SURINAME’S NATIONAL POVERTY LINE 25 21,7 20 17,5 17,6 15 10 5 4,2 2,6 1,1 0 UMIC US$6.85 LMIC US$3.65 Extreme National IDB moderate IDB extreme US$2.15 poverty line poverty line poverty line Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: National poverty line depends on household composition. World Bank international lines expressed in 2017 purchasing power parity U.S. dollars. The IDB poverty line is based on update of the IDB’s 2017 minimum needs assessment. Average consumption would need to increase by a factor of 2.5 to equal the average poverty line applied by high-income countries. In addition to the poverty headcount, there is a wide range of additional metrics to monitor poverty, prosperity, and inequality. The World Bank recently adopted a new welfare measure called the Prosperity Gap that measures how far a country is from achieving a per capita income of US$25 per day, the typical poverty line applied in high-income countries. In Suriname, the Prosperity Gap has a value of 2.5, meaning that the average factor by which individuals’ consumption must be multiplied to attain a prosperity standard of US$25 per day is 2.5. 12 Suriname’s Gini coefficient is about 39, while its Palma ratio is 1.7. The Gini coefficient is one of the most widely used indicators of inequality. A Gini coefficient of zero represents the scenario of complete equality, in which everyone’s consumption is identical. A Gini coefficient of 100 represents the scenario of complete inequality, in which one person consumes everything. Generally, a Gini coefficient above 40 is considered to represent high inequality. At 39.2, Suriname’s Gini coefficient lies a little below this threshold. On another frequently used measure of inequality, the Palma ratio, Suriname has a ratio of 1.7, meaning that the value of the consumption of the richest 10 percent of the population is 1.7 times that of the poorest 40 percent of the population. 2.2. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS Poverty in Suriname is not out of line with its level of economic development. Is a moderate poverty rate of 17.5 percent high? To answer this question, Figure A1.2 compares poverty in Suriname to poverty in other countries. To make sure that the figure does not compare apples to oranges, countries are sorted by level of economic development (GDP per capita) on the horizontal axis. The vertical axis shows the share of people living below the World Bank’s upper-middle-income line. A dotted regression line indicates the approximate level of poverty one would expect given a country’s GDP per capita. Suriname’s poverty level, displayed in orange to facilitate comparison, appears to compare somewhat favorably to that of other countries with similar levels of economic development. FIGURE A1.2. COMPARISON OF POVERTY WITH OTHER COUNTRIES: SURINAME’S POVERTY RATE IS NOT OUT OF LINE WITH ITS LEVEL OF GDP PER CAPITA (PERCENT) Poverty rate (percentage, US$6.85 line) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 GDP per capita (2017 PPP U.S. dollars) Sources: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022); and World Bank, Development Indicators. Note: Poverty measured against the World Bank poverty line of US$6.85 line expressed in 2017 purchasing power parity (PPP) U.S. dollars. The orange dot represents Suriname. 13 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT 70 Inequality and prosperity indicators for Suriname are also within the expected range. Figure 60 A1.3 again examines how Suriname’s Gini coefficient compares to that of other countries. The figure’s 50 setup is comparable to that of Figure A1.2, with GDP per capita on the horizontal axis and a dotted 40 regression line showing the expected relationship between GDP per capita and inequality. At 38.89, 30 Suriname’s Gini coefficient is approximately where one would expect. 20 10 0 0 10000 FIGURE A1.3. INEQUALITY AND PROSPERITY INDICATORS 20000 IN SURINAME 30000 40000 ARE COMPARABLE 50000 60000 TO THOSE OF COUNTRIES WITH SIMILAR LEVELS OF GDPGDP PERper capita (2017 PPP U.S. dollars) CAPITA A. Gini Coefficient B. Prosperity Gap 30 70 25 60 50 20 40 30 15 20 10 10 0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 5 GDP per capita (2017 PPP U.S. dollars) 0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 GDP per capita (2017 PPP U.S. dollars) 30 Sources: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022); and World Bank, Development Indicators. 25 Notes: Gini Coefficient (left) and Prosperity Gap (right). The orange dot represents Suriname. 20 15 2.3. MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY 10 Of course, poverty is not purely a monetary phenomenon. People can be deprived in many other outcome 5 areas even if they are not classified as poor by standard consumption metrics. Understanding these other deprivations is important to gain a holistic understanding of poverty and thus to guide 0 Multidimensional poverty indices are often used as a tool to gain insight into broader aspects of policy. 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 deprivation. Suriname’s Multidimensional Poverty Working Group recently proposed a Multidimensional GDP per capita (2017 PPP U.S. dollars) Poverty Index covering four domains: health, education, standard of living, and socioeconomic security. For this report, an effort was made to mimic the working group’s index as closely as possible (see Appendix A1.4 for more detail). A total of 19 indicators were identified across the four domains. In Suriname, roughly 46 percent of all people can be classified as multidimensionally poor and experiences substantial challenges in the four domains covered by the Multidimensional Poverty 14 Index (Figure A1.4).2 On average, those who are classified as multidimensionally poor are deprived in 35.2 percent of the indicators covered by the index (see the column entitled “Intensity” in Figure A1.4). Figure A1.5 shows the share of the population deprived according to each of the 19 indicators in the index. A few of these indicators stand out as particularly important drivers of multidimensional poverty. A high share of households has one or more members who are chronically ill (62 percent) or disabled (34 percent). It is common for household heads to have little education (52 percent) or to have limited ICT skills (39 percent). And a sizable share of households have insufficient health insurance (40 percent) and a high dependency ratio, i.e., a high number of members compared to the number of working household members (47.5 percent). FIGURE A1.4. ABOUT 46 PERCENT OF SURINAMESE ARE MULTIDIMENSIONALLY POOR (PERCENT) 50 46,5 40 35,2 30 20 10 0 Headcount Intensity Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Multidimensional poverty measured in accordance with the methodology proposed by Sobhie and Kisoensingh (2023). FIGURE A1.5. SURINAME: ILLNESS, LOW EDUCATION, LIMITED ICT SKILLS, AND LACK OF MEDICAL INSURANCE ARE IMPORTANT DETERMINANTS OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Chronic illness 61,8 Health Disabilty 33,8 Level of education 52,1 ICT skills 38,8 Education School attendance 12,9 Communication 0,7 Literacy 9,8 Learning delay 14,0 Cooking fuel 7,1 Standard of living Sanitary facilities 9,2 Drinking water supply 7,0 Housing 0,2 Overcrowding 8,6 Household appliances 22,0 Financial support 0,2 Socioeconomic Medical insurance 40,0 security Employment status 13,2 Safety 3,8 Dependency ratio 47,5 Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Each bar shows the share of the population considered deprived of each of the indicators. Elements of multidimensional poverty based on from Sobhie and Kisoensingh (2023) ICT: information and communications technology. 2 Note that the World Bank’s Poverty and Inequality Platform also publishes multidimensional poverty estimates for Surina- me. Those are based on a methodology developed for poorer countries and thus result in markedly lower poverty rates. 15 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT 3. POVERTY PROFILE 16 This section provides a description of who the poor are. It examines where the poor live, their sociodemographic profile, their consumption expenditures, and their food security. To simplify the presentation, most of the section focuses on two measures of poverty: the World Bank’s upper- middle income poverty line (US$6.85, expressed in 2017 purchasing power parity - PPP) and the Multidimensional Poverty Index. Results are mostly qualitatively similar when other poverty metrics are applied. Tables A1.5 and A1.6 in Appendix A1.7 provide additional detail on the sociodemographic characteristics of the poor and poverty by household composition. 3.1. WHERE DO THE POOR LIVE? As shown in Figure A1.6, poverty rates tend to be markedly higher in the interior of Suriname. This holds both for monetary poverty (panel A) and multidimensional poverty (panel B). In the interior of the country, an estimated 27 percent of the population lives below the World Bank’s upper-middle income poverty line of US$6.85 (2017 PPP), while nearly 59 percent lives in multidimensional poverty. In contrast, monetary and multidimensional poverty rates are lower (and fairly similar) in the Greater Paramaribo region and the other coastal areas of the country (at about 16.5 and 40 percent, respectively). Accordingly, a disproportionate share of the poor population lives in the interior of the country. This can be inferred from Figure A1.7, which shows that a little over 70 percent of the Surinamese population lives in the Greater Paramaribo region. Yet, only about 68 percent of the population living below the World Bank US$6.85 poverty line lives in this part of the country. In contrast, only about 9 percent of the population lives in the interior of the country, but about 14 percent of the population living below the World Bank US$6.85 poverty line lives in this part of the country. The share of the population living on less than US$2.15 a day, the World Bank’s poor country poverty line, is even higher at a little over 30 percent. 70 60 50 40 FIGURE A1.6. SURINAME: POVERTY RATES ARE HIGHER IN THE INTERIOR OF THE COUNTRY 26,9 30 (PERCENT)   16,8 17,5 20 15,6 10 A. Monetary poverty rate B. Multidimensional poverty rate (percent) 0 (percent, World Bank US$6.85 poverty line) Greater Coastal Interior National Paramaribo 70 60 80 72,4 50 70 60 40 46,5 50 44,1 43,2 30 26,9 40 16,8 15,6 17,5 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 Greater Coastal Interior National Greater Coastal Interior National Paramaribo Paramaribo 80 72,4 70 Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). 60 Note: Monetary poverty is measured against the World Bank poverty line of US$6.85 expressed in 2017 purchasing power 50 parity dollars. Multidimensional 46,5 (PPP) U.S. 43,2 44,1 poverty is measured in accordance with the methodology proposed by Sobhie and 40 Kisoensingh (2023). 30 20 10 17 0 Greater Coastal Interior National Paramaribo SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT FIGURE A1.7. SURINAME: THE INTERIOR IS HOME TO A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE POOR (PERCENT) 80 70,4 67,7 70 60 52,6 50 40 29,0 30 20,5 18,3 18,5 20 14,0 9,1 10 0 Greater Paramaribo Rest of the coastal Interior region Share of total population Poor US$6.85 Poor US$2.15 Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: The bars show the fraction of three population groups by region. For instance, 70.4% of total population lives in Greater Paramaribo. The other bars show the share of poor populaton living in each region, using the World Bank poverty lines of US$6.85 and US$2.15 lines in 2017 purchasing power parity U.S. dollars. 3.2. SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POOR There is substantial variation in poverty rates across ethnic groups in Suriname. Figure A1.8 shows how monetary and multidimensional poverty (panels A and B, respectively) differ by ethnic group. In both cases, the three ethnic groups with the highest poverty rates are Surinamese of Maroon, indigenous, and Hindu ethnicity. There is overlap in the poverty rates by ethnic group and geographic region, as most of the Maroon live in the interior of the country. There is a clear correlation between poverty and the education level of the household head. Among the population living in a household with a head who did not complete any education, nearly 30 percent lives below the World Bank’s upper-middle income poverty line (Figure A1.9, panel A). In households where the head completed primary education, the monetary poverty rate is about half as high at 16 percent. Among households with a head who completed higher education, the monetary poverty rate is close to zero. The multidimensional poverty rate also drops quickly with the level of education of the household head (Figure A1.9, panel B). In households with a head who did not complete education, the multidimensional poverty rate is about 62 percent. In households with a head who completed higher education, the multidimensional poverty rate is markedly lower (22 percent) but still not negligible. 18 Other 0,9 Javanese 9,4 Mixed 8,8 Creole 12,3 Hindustani 17,8 Indigenous 29,0 Maroon OF MAROON AND INDIGENOUS FIGURE A1.8. POVERTY IS HIGHEST AMONG SURINAMESE 32,9 ETHNICITY (PERCENT) A. Monetary poverty rate B. Multidimensional poverty rate (percent) (percent, World Bank $6.85 poverty line) 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Mixed 32,7 Other 0,9 Creole 34,9 Javanese 9,4 Javanese 37,8 Other 39,3 Mixed 8,8 Hindustani 52,6 Creole 12,3 Indigenous 55,3 Hindustani Maroon 63,4 17,8 Indigenous 29,0 Maroon 32,9 35 29,3 30 25 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Source: Note: Monetary poverty is measured against the World Bank US$6.85 poverty line expressed in 2017 purchasing power parity (PPP) 20 16,1 U.S. dollars. 0 20 30poverty Multidimensional 10 40 is measured 50 60 in accordance 70 with 15the methodology proposed by Sobhie and Kisoensingh (2023). 12,1 Mixed 32,7 9,0 10 Creole 34,9 5 0,5 Javanese 37,8 A CLEAR CORRELATION FIGURE A1.9. SURINAME: 0 BETWEEN POVERTY AND THE LEVEL OF Other HOUSEHOLD HEAD (PERCENT) EDUCATION OF THE 39,3 ion y l ol ne oo ar ho at im No ch Sc uc Hindustani eS 52,6 Pr Ed gh dl A. Monetary poverty rate B. Multidimensional poverty rate (percent) Hi er id Indigenous 55,3 M gh Hi (percent, World Bank $6.85 poverty line) Maroon 63,4 35 29,3 30 70 61,8 25 60 52,7 20 16,1 50 15 12,1 40 31,5 31,2 9,0 30 22,2 10 20 5 0,5 10 0 0 n y ol l n y l l ne oo ne oo ar oo tio ar tio ho im No h im No ch ch ca ca Sc Sc Pr eS Pr S du du le gh gh E dl rE d Hi Hi er id id e M gh M gh Hi Hi Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Monetary poverty is measured against the World Bank US$6.85 poverty line expressed in 2017 purchasing power parity (PPP) U.S. dollars. Multidimensional poverty is measured in accordance with the methodology proposed by Sobhie and 70 61,8 (2023). Primary education refers to the first six years of school, mandatory for all children between 6 and 12 years Kisoensingh 60 52,7(VOJ) can be a four-year academic period, vocational training, or three-year technical school. High school old. Middle school 50 (VOS) refers to secondary education and can last up to four years, depending on whether it is academic, vocational, or a 40 teacher 31,5 path. Higher education refers to a college education, university, HBO, Master’s, or PhD. 31,2 training 30 22,2 20 10 19 0 n y l l ne oo oo ar tio im No ch h ca Sc eS Pr du gh dl rE Hi id SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT In larger households, the poverty rate tends to be higher. The monetary poverty rate in households with only one or two members is relatively low, as can be inferred from Figure A1.10. In these households the monetary poverty rate ranges from approximately 20 to 30 percent. In large households with 10 or more members, the monetary poverty rate is nearly 50 percent. Multidimensional poverty rates reach about 73 percent in large households. 50 47,3 40 30 FIGURE A1.10. SURINAME: POVERTY RATES ARE 20 HIGHER IN LARGER HOUSEHOLDS (PERCENT) 10 2,1 0 A. Monetary poverty rate 3 poverty B. Multidimensional 1 2 4 rate 5 6 7 8 9 10 (percent, World Bank US$6.85 poverty line) (percent) Household size 100 47,3 50 73,5 80 40 60 30 34,5 40 20 10 20 2,1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Household size Household size 100 80 73,5 Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). 60 Note: Monetary poverty is measured against the World Bank US$6.85 poverty line expressed in 2017 purchasing power parity (PPP) U.S. dollars. Multidimensional poverty is measured in accordance with the methodology proposed by Sobhie and 34,5 40 Kisoensingh (2023). Households with more than 10 members are included in the group of households with 10 members. 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Households with children Household size are poorer than households without children, especially when one parent raises the children alone. Figure A1.11 shows that the difference in monetary poverty rates between households with and without children is substantial. The poverty rate is about 22 percent in households with children and only about 8 percent in households without children. The poverty rate is especially high in households with one adult parent raising children alone (over 35 percent for both mothers and fathers). In two-parent households, the poverty rate is only 14.9 percent. Poverty rates are not clearly different by gender, but there are some differences by age group. Figure A1.12 shows poverty by age group separately for women and men. In much of Latin America and the Caribbean, there is a high poverty rate among children and then progressively lower poverty rates for older age groups. There is also a divergence in poverty rates of women and men around reproductive ages, with the poverty rate of women above that of men. Finally, the poverty rate in much of the region trends up again at the highest ages (Buitrago-Hernandez et al. 2024). In Suriname, the pattern is not as clear cut. Poverty rates fluctuate up and down throughout the life cycle, and the poverty rates of women and men are comparable and cross each other at numerous points. Poverty rates appear to be higher among children (roughly 0 to 20 years old) and in the age ranges when adults raise children (roughly 30 to 50 years old). 20 FIGURE A1.11. SURINAME: POVERTY RATES ARE HIGHER IN HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN (PERCENT) Monetary poverty rate (percent, World Bank US $6.85 poverty line) 40 35,2 35,6 35 30 25,0 25 22,3 20 14,9 15 10 8,0 5 0 With children Without children Adult female with Adult male with Two parent household Other households with children children with children children Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Monetary poverty is measured against the World Bank US$6.85 poverty line expressed in 2017 purchasing power parity (PPP) U.S. dollars. Bars represent poverty rates for different groups of households according to their composition. The green bars are households with and without children <15 years old. Among households with children, there are four groups of households, represented by the red bars: with one adult, female or male, with two parents, and all other households with children. FIGURE A1.12. SURINAME: POVERTY RATES OF WOMEN AND MEN OVERLAP IN MOST AGE RANGES (PERCENT) Monetary poverty rate (percent, World Bank US $6.85 poverty line) 30 Women 25 Men 20 15 10 5 0 4 4 4 9 9 4 4 4 9 9 9 -14 0- -6 -4 -19 5- -5 -4 -2 -3 -5 -2 -3 d 60 40 on 50 20 30 45 55 25 35 10 15 ey db an 65 Age ranges Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Monetary poverty is measured against the World Bank US$6.85 poverty line expressed in 2017 purchasing power parity (PPP) U.S. dollars. 21 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT 3.3. CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE OF THE POOR Food and housing are a prominent part of the consumption expenditure of the poor. Figure A1.13 examines how consumption is distributed across three broad categories: food, non-food, and housing. To understand whether the consumption patterns of the poor are different, the population is split into 10 consumption deciles. Decile 1 represents the poorest 10 percent of the population (the 10 percent with the lowest consumption per capita), while decile 10 represents the richest 10 percent of the population. As shown in Figure A1.13, non-food represents about 37 percent of the expenditure of those in the poorest deciles. In higher deciles, this share is closer to 50 percent. While food represents around 40 percent of consumption in the bottom two consumption deciles, it represents only about 30 percent in the top half of the consumption distribution. FIGURE A1.13. SURINAME: EXPENDITURE TYPE AS PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE 1 10,0 10,3 10,9 10,6 7,4 12,2 12,6 8,5 12,4 13,9 0,8 37,1 46,9 45,8 49,1 40,5 47,8 48,1 46,0 49,3 47,0 0,6 0,4 42,3 38,0 35,2 0,2 34,8 33,7 33,8 33,2 32,6 32,9 31,2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consumption Deciles Food expenditure Non-food expenditure Housing Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Distribution of consumption across food, non-food, and rent by consumption decile (1 is the poorest decile and 10 the wealthiest). Transport, utilities, and housing equipment represent an important share of the non-food consumption of the poor. Figure A1.14 shows the components of non-food consumption based on the United Nations Statistics Division’s Classification of Individual Consumption According to Purpose (COICOP) groups. The figure focuses on the bottom quintile, which is the poorest 20 percent of the population (and which roughly corresponds to the population living below the World Bank’s upper-middle income line). Utilities and housing equipment represent 8 and 6 percent of non-food expenditure, respectively. Transport represents about 20 percent of non-food expenditure. What are called “temptation goods” (alcohol and tobacco) represent 15.5 percent of expenditure, while education and health represent a small share (8 percent combined). 22 FIGURE A1.14. SURINAME: EXPENDITURE TYPE AS A PERCENT OF NON-FOOD EXPENDITURE BASED ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION ACCORDING TO PURPOSE (COICOP) GROUPS 25 20,5 20 17,2 15,5 15 9,3 10 7,9 6,6 6,4 5,8 4,4 3,5 5 1,5 1,4 0 Transport ICT Alcohol and tobacco Personal care Housing, water, electricity, gas Clothing and footwear Health House equipment Insurance, financial services Recreation Education Restaurants, Accommodation Serv. Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Notes: Distribution of non-food expenditure within the lowest consumption quintile by COICOP group. Acc. Services: accommodation services. ICT: information and communications technology. In accordance with COICOP definitions, expenditure related to the principal, or secondary dwellings is classified in Division 04 (Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels). Expenditure related to accommodation services away from the principle or secondary dwelling (excluding vacation homes), such as resorts, hotels, motels and vacation homes, is classified to Group 11.2 (Accommodation services). 3.4. FOOD SECURITY Food security is a substantial concern for a large part of the population, particularly the poor. The 2022 SLC contains a separate survey module to measure food insecurity. This module is comprised of nine questions to measure whether households experience any form of food insecurity.3 For purposes of analysis, a household is classified as food insecure if it responds positively to any of these questions. It is common for households to be food insecure according to this measure. At the national level, 61 percent of the population is food insecure according to this definition. As can be inferred from Figure A1.15, food insecurity is even more common in the interior of the country. There, nearly 80 percent of the population can be classified as food insecure. As might be expected, food insecurity is even more pronounced in the poorest households. In the bottom consumption decile, nearly 90 percent of the population is classified as food insecure. Although food insecurity is markedly lower in the highest consumption deciles, even among this group, nearly a third answers positively to at least one of the food insecurity questions. 3 To give one example of a survey question: “In the last 12 months, was there a time when you or others in your household worried about not having enough food to eat because of a lack of money or other resources?” 23 SURINAME 100 POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT 79,2 80 61,1 59,7 57,9 60 40 20 FIGURE A1.15. SURINAME: FOOD INSECURITY IS MORE COMMON IN THE INTERIOR (PERCENT) 0 National Greater Coastal Interior Paramaribo A. Food insecurity by region (percent) B. Food insecurity by consumption decile (percent) 100 100 92,2 79,2 80 80 61,1 59,7 57,9 60 60 40 32,8 40 20 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 Consumption decile National Greater Coastal Interior Paramaribo 100 92,2 Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Food insecurity is determined on the basis of a separate module of the Survey of Living Conditions comprised of nine 80 questions about different indicators of food insecurity, such as skipping meals for lack of resources. If the response is positive to 60 any of the nine questions, a household is classified as food insecure. 40 32,8 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consumption decile 24 4. INCOME-GENERATING ASSETS 25 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT To better understand the poverty rates described above, this section examines the income- generating assets of the poor. This approach is in accordance with the Asset-based Framework as developed and described by Attanasio and Székely (1999), Bussolo and Lopez-Calva (2014), Carter and Barrett (2006), and Lopez-Calva and Rodríguez-Castelán (2016). The latter authors describe a household’s market income potential “as a function of four main components: (i) the capacity of households to generate income based on the assets they own; (ii) the transfers they receive that are independent of household income-earning assets; (iii) the set of prices of the basket of goods and services that the household consumes; and, (iv) the realization of external shocks that generates variability of incomes”(Lopez-Calva and Rodríguez-Castelán 2016, p. 2). Annexes 2 and 3 delve deeper and provide more insight into two components of the Asset- based Framework. Annex 2 focuses on the first component mentioned above and examines labor market outcomes in more detail. Annex 3 focuses on the second component and zeroes in on the transfers and social assistance benefits received by households. 4.1. EDUCATION The poor are more likely to live in a household with a less-educated head. This, of course, is a common phenomenon in many countries. In the poorest consumption decile, as shown in panel A of Figure A1.16, the average number of years of education of the household head in the poorest decile is approximately six. In the richest decile, the years of education of the household is roughly twice as high at 12. In the bottom half of the consumption distribution (Figure A1.16, panel B), virtually no household head has completed more than secondary education. Table A1.7 in Appendix A1.7 provides additional information on the association between education outcomes and poverty. FIGURE A1.16. SURINAME: THE POOR HAVE LESS EDUCATION A. Average years of education B. Completed more than high-school education (percent of adults) 11,4 14,5 15 12 10 10 5 8 6,5 0,0 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consumption decile Consumption decile Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Years of education of adults (panel A) and share of adults who completed more than high school education (panel B) by consumption decile. 26 4.2. EMPLOYMENT Labor market outcomes of the poorest households are markedly worse than those of richer households, starting with a lower labor force participation rate. As employment is a key source of income, it may be expected that employment outcomes and poverty are significantly related (Table A1.8 in Appendix A1.7). Indeed, core labor market indicators confirm this conjecture. Panel A of Figure A1.17 looks at the labor force participation rate by consumption decile.4 The labor force participation rate, which equals the share of adults who are either employed or looking for work, ranges from 49 percent in the bottom of the consumption distribution (the poorest 10 percent) to 71 percent in the top of the consumption distribution (the richest 10 percent). Among the poorest households, a low labor force participation rate is compounded by a high unemployment and informality rate. The unemployment rate reflects the share of adults who are in the labor force, but not employed. The informality rate is the share of workers who are informal according to the productive informality classification80of the World Bank’s Socio-Economic Database for Latin America and the Caribbean (SEDLAC). As can 5 70 be inferred from panel B of Figure A1.17, in the poorest households about 16 percent of adults in the60 labor force are not employed. In the richest half of the population, by contrast, the unemployment rate 50 is below 10 percent. Moreover, in the poorest 40 households it is common for those who do work to be employed in the informal sector. Figure A1.18 2 3 adults shows that in the bottom decile, more than 50 percent of employed 1 4 5 work6 in 8 informal 7 the 9 10 sector. This share drops rapidly as one moves up the consumption distribution. Consumption decile FIGURE A1.17. SURINAME: THE POOR ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE IN THE LABOR FORCE AND MORE LIKELY TO BE UNEMPLOYED (PERCENT) A. Labor force participation rate (percent) B. Unemployment rate (percent) 18 16 14 12 80 10 70 8 60 6 50 4 40 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consumption decile Consumption decile Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Labor force participation rate: employed plus unemployed population as a share of the working-age population (panel A). Unemployment rate: unemployed as a share of the labor force (panel B). Persons 15 years of age and older are unemployed if they did not work in the past seven days and were looking for a job. 4 The labor force participation rate is defined as the total employed and unemployed population as a share of the work- ing-age population. 18 According to SEDLAC (2014), individuals are considered informal workers if they correspond to any of the following catego- 5 16 ries: (i) unskilled self-employed, (ii) salaried worker in a small private firm, (iii) zero-income worker. 14 27 12 10 8 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT FIGURE A1.18. SURINAME’S INFORMALITY RATE: WORK IN THE INFORMAL SECTOR IS ESPE- CIALLY COMMON IN THE POOREST HOUSEHOLDS (PERCENT) Share of informal workers (percent) 57,1 60 50 40 30 18,1 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consumption decile Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Share of the employed working in the informal sector, with the informal sector defined by occupation. Specifically, informal workers are unskilled self-employed workers, salaried workers in a small private firm, and zero-income workers. Weekly working hours appear to be similar across the consumption distribution. According to Figure A1.19, workers in the bottom decile work nearly 35 hours a week. In the remainder of the consumption distribution, working hours are close to 40. FIGURE A1.19. SURINAME: WEEKLY WORKING HOURS ARE SOMEWHAT LOWER IN THE BOTTOM DECILE (WEEKLY HOURS WORKED) Average hours worked in a week 45 40 35 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consumption decile Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Weekly hours worked (conditional on being employed). 28 4.3. OWN PRODUCTION Own production is more important for those living in the interior of the country. Figure A1.20 examines the share of own production in total consumption. In the interior of the country, which is more reliant on agriculture, this share is 9 percent. Not surprisingly, in the mostly urban Greater Paramaribo area, the share of own production is consumption is low, at approximately 2 percent.6 FIGURE A1.20. SURINAME: SHARE OF CONSUMPTION DERIVED FROM OWN PRODUCTION IS HIGHER IN THE INTERIOR (PERCENT) Own production (percent of total consumption) 10 9,0 9 8 7 6 5 4,1 4 3,2 3 2,2 2 1 0 Greater Paramaribo Coastal Interior National Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). 4.4. OWNERSHIP OF PHYSICAL ASSETS There are substantial differences in ownership of physical assets and real estate between poorer and richer households. Figure A1.21 shows this for two important categories: cars (panel A) and dwellings (panel B). Ownership of a car can contribute to the ability to participate in society and the labor market, while ownership of a dwelling eliminates the need to pay rent and may offer opportunities to build up capital. Ownership of a car is relatively uncommon among poor households, though approximately a third of poor households own a car. In the top half of the consumption distribution, this share is above 60 percent. About 58 percent of the poorest households own their dwelling. Among the richest households, this share is approximately 70 percent. Table A1.19 in Appendix A1.7 examines additional housing characteristics and physical assets. 6 The SLC does not contain sufficient information to further document physical assets and landholding associated with own production. 29 100 SURINAME 80 POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FIGURE A1.21. SURINAME: SHARE OF POPULATION THAT OWNS A CAR OR THEIR DWELLING, BY CONSUMPTION DECILE (PERCENT) Consumption decile A. Owns a car B. Owns dwelling 100 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consumption decile Consumption decile Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). 80 4.5. 60 ACCESS TO SERVICES 40 Finally, access of the poor to key services is restricted. Figure A1.22 examines access to three important services: private health insurance, a bank account, and the Internet. It is clear that richer 20 households have better access to all three of these services than poorer households. In the bottom of 0 consumption distribution, only about one in five households has private health insurance. In the the 2 is 1 share top, this 4 to 3 close 5 80 7 8 The 6percent. 9 numbers 10 are broadly comparable for access to a bank account, Consumption decile with approximately three in ten of the poorest and seven in ten of the richest households having a bank account. Access to the Internet ranges from approximately 65 percent in the poorest households to about 85 percent in the richest households. Table A1.10 in Appendix A1.7 provides additional detail. FIGURE A1.22. SURINAME: SHARE OF POPULATION WITH PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE, BANK ACCOUNT, OR INTERNET ACCESS, BY CONSUMPTION DECILE (PERCENT) A. Has private health insurance 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consumption decile 30 100 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consumption decile B. Has bank account 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consumption decile C. Has internet access 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consumption decile Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). 31 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT 5. EVOLUTION OF POVERTY 32 5.1. MACROECONOMIC BACKGROUND On the back of a global commodity price boom, Suriname’s GDP per capita increased rapidly from the early 2000s to 2014, with 2004 as an exception due to an economic crisis. As described in the World Bank’s recent 2023 Systematic Country Diagnostic, “The economic performance of the country has been volatile over the past two decades. The fluctuation in economic activity and incomes is closely related to the natural-resource-based nature of the economy. The commodity price boom, which started around 2000 (with high dependency on bauxite and oil), led to a significant Bank 2023, p. 15). In 2014, reflecting Suriname’s increase in GDP per capita in U.S. dollar terms” (World10000 9199 engagement in oil and gold mining, GDP per capita peaked9000at over US$9,000 in current U.S. dollars, or nearly US$20,000 in 2017 PPP U.S. dollars (Figure A1.23). 8000 The subsequent period from 2016 to 2022 was 7000 one of significant economic upheaval. As commodity prices slumped and the government began to implement an austerity program, the economy 6000 5858 contracted quickly in 2016, with an unbalanced exchange rate, inflation, and debt ratio. Macroeconomic 5705 5000 mismanagement compounded by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a further contraction of 4000 in 2017 PPP U.S. dollars and the strong the economy in 2020. By 2022, GDP per capita was US$14,922 macroeconomic growth in the period since 2005 had effectively 3000 been undone. 2000 1000 FIGURE A1.23. SURINAME HAS CONTINUED TO EXPERIENCE 0 A MACROECONOMIC SLUMP SINCE 2016 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 A. GDP Per Capita (Current U.S. dollars) B. GDP Per Capita (Constant international 2017 PPP U.S. dollars) 10000 25000 9199 9000 19778 8000 20000 7000 17663 14922 6000 5858 15000 5000 5705 4000 10000 3000 2000 5000 1000 0 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Source: World Bank, Development Indicators. Note: Vertical red lines denote 2014, 2016, and 2022, respectively. 25000 19778 33 20000 17663 14922 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT In addition to the macroeconomic downturn, Suriname has experienced rapid inflation since the start of 2020. As part of broader macroeconomic reforms, Suriname transitioned to a floating exchange rate in mid- 2021. As discussed in the aforementioned 2023 Systematic Country Diagnostic , “Because Suriname is a small economy, with imports equaling about 50 percent of GDP, a significant pass-through from exchange rate depreciation to domestic prices led to a sharp rise in inflation. Annual inflation ran above 60 percent during both 2020 and 2021 and was well above 50 percent in 2022” (World Bank 2023, p. 18). Figure A1.24 shows the main components of inflation as documented in the Consumer Price Index. Inflation was pronounced in the most dominant categories of consumption for poor households (see Section 2.3): food and non-alcoholic beverages, housing, and transportation. FIGURE A1.24. SURINAME: INFLATION HAS RECENTLY BEEN HIGH, ESPECIALLY FOR FOOD AND NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, HOUSING, AND TRANSPORTATION (ANNUAL PERCENTAGE) 80 60 40 20 0 Feb-24 May-22 May-23 Feb-22 Feb-23 Nov-22 Nov-23 Aug-22 Aug-23 May-21 Nov-21 Aug-21 Other Housing and utilities Transportation Food and non-alcoholic beverages Source: World Bank Macro Poverty Outlook dashboard, available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/macro- poverty-outlook#sec1 (accessed on June 17, 2024), based on the Consumer Price Index published by Suriname’s General Bureau of Statistics. 5.2. POVERTY TRENDS There is evidence that the population of Suriname was strongly affected at the peak of the macroeconomic crisis of 2020. Based on a phone survey administered in August 2020, Arteaga, Beuermann, and Khadan (2021) documented a deterioration in numerous outcomes, including employment, business closures, and remittances. The study concluded that, due to these deteriorations, “preexisting inequalities across income and gender groups were exacerbated” (Arteaga, Beuermann, and Khadan 2021, p. 1). 34 However, tracking longer-term, fundamental trends in poverty and the distribution of income and consumption in Suriname is challenging. It requires data on household consumption, income, or other poverty-related wellbeing indicators that can be compared over time. And for Suriname such data are generally not collected on a regular basis. For instance, the latest household budget survey was last collected in 2013/2014. And that survey is considered the formal source of information for the calculation of monetary poverty in Suriname. There is evidence indicating that multidimensional poverty was declining in the period before the macroeconomic crisis. One source of information that provides insights into longer-run trends is UNICEF’s MICS. Analysis of MICS data collected in 2006, 2010, and 2018 points to a structural decline in multidimensional poverty. This can be seen in Figure A1.25.7 According to further analysis (not displayed), over this period there were improvements in all domains of the Multidimensional Poverty Index, including education, health, living standards, and socioeconomic security. FIGURE A1.25. SURINAME: A LONGER-TERM, DOWNWARD TREND IN MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY (PERCENT) Multidimensional poverty rate (percent) 25 20,6 19,1 20 14,1 15 10 5 0 2006 2010 2018 Source: UNICEF, 2006, 2010, and 2018 Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys. Note: Multidimensional poverty is measured in accordance with the methodology proposed by Sobhie and Kisoensingh (2023). The numbers in this figure are not identical to those reported for 2018 by Sobhie and Kisoensingh (2023) because some of the indicators in the 2018 data are not available in the older Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys. To facilitate comparisons over time, only those indicators available for all three years were used. Inferences on the trends in poverty during the recent times of economic crisis need to be interpreted with caution. A previous round of SLC data collected in 2016 provides some insight into poverty trends in the subsequent period up to 2022. However, it is important to interpret these findings with care. First, both the 2016 and 2022 surveys took place during economically challenging and volatile times, which may influence the comparison. Second, the 2022 survey was conducted at a time of high 7 This finding contrasts with that of Suriname’s Multidimensional Working Group (Sobhie and Kisoensingh 2023), which examined trends in multidimensional poverty based on the 2012 population census and the 2018 UNICEF MICS. Based on these two data sources, the group concluded that over this period there had been no noteworthy improvement in house- hold living conditions. 35 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT inflation and thus in a fundamentally different environment.8 Third, because the 2016 and 2022 SLC data cover only two points in time, they do not provide insight into poverty dynamics in the interim period and the height of the 2020 crisis, when households faced significant challenges. The SLC data paint a mixed picture of trends since 2016 and depend on the poverty threshold considered. This can be inferred from Figure A1.26. The figure shows the same poverty rates discussed in Section 1.1 and displayed in Figure A1.1. But it also includes estimates for poverty in 2016. For the higher poverty lines, such as Suriname’s national poverty line, the World Bank’s upper-middle-income poverty line, and the IDB’s moderate poverty line for Suriname, there appears to be a decline in poverty from 2016 to 2022. For the more extreme forms of poverty, in contrast, poverty appears to have increased. For instance, poverty measured against the World Bank’s upper-middle-income line was 18.2 percent in 2016 and 17.5 percent in 2022, while poverty measured against the World Bank’s most extreme poverty line was 0.7 percent in 2016 and 1 percent in 2022. However, none of these changes are statistically significant at conventional levels.9 In other words, one cannot conclude that poverty changed from 2016 to 2022 with a reasonable level of statistical certainty. FIGURE A1.26. SURINAME: A MIXED PICTURE OF CHANGES IN POVERTY 2016 AND 2022 (PERCENT) 30 26,2 25 21,7 20,3 20 17,5 18,2 17,6 15 10 4,2 3,8 5 2,6 1,7 1,1 0,7 0 UMIC US$6.85 LMIC US$3.65 Poor countries National poverty IDB moderate IDB extreme US$2.15 line poverty line poverty line 2022 2016 Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: The national poverty line depends on household composition. The World Bank’s international lines are expressed in 2017 purchasing power parity U.S. dollars. The IDB poverty line is based on update of IDB 2017 minimum needs assessment. LMIC: lower-middle-income country; UMIC: upper-middle-income country. 8 To illustrate, the Consumer Price Index reported by Suriname’s General Bureau of Statistics was 381.7 in January of 2022, 460.8 in July, and 572.5 in December. 9 The changes against the national and IDB poverty lines are statistically significant. 36 Why has there not been a clearer increase in poverty in recent years, considering the substantial macroeconomic challenges Suriname has had to confront? The research team looked into this issue in detail. While this question cannot be answered with certainty, a few factors are important to keep in mind. First, industry and mining represent about a third of Suriname’s value added but employ only about a tenth of the labor force. Hence, while changing commodity prices have a significant effect on GDP, they affect only a minority of the labor force. A second factor to consider is that a large share of workers in the bottom of the consumption distribution are employed in the informal sector (see Section 3.2 of this Appendix)). Movements in the informal sector may not track movements in GDP per capita and may be less volatile. A third factor is that a large share of the poorest population lives in the interior of the country, which is relatively insulated from broader conjunctural movements in the economy. Finally, the government of Suriname made efforts to scale up social assistance programs during the COVID-19 crisis. While these efforts are unlikely to have been sufficient in and of themselves, they may have helped offset the impact of the economic crisis on poverty. Annex 2 returns to this issue. 37 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT APPENDICES 38 APPENDIX A1.1. THE SURINAME SURVEY OF LIVING CONDITIONS The analysis presented in this annex draws heavily on the 2022 Survey of Living Conditions (SLC). This appendix summarizes some core elements to understand the methodological approach of the 2022 SLC, drawing on the Methodology Report accompanying the survey.10 The 2022 SLC is a multipurpose household survey initiated by the IDB. The survey was administered from January to December 2022, during which time approximately 2,500 households and 7,500 individuals were interviewed. The rationale for administering surveys over the period of 12 months was to ensure that cyclical changes (for instance, in expenditure) would not bias (poverty) measurement. The 2022 SLC is representative at the national level and for three geographical regions: the Greater Paramaribo region, the other coastal areas of Suriname, and the interior. For the Greater Paramaribo region and the other coastal areas of Suriname, the sampling frame was constructed based on administrative information on customer connections to the electrical grid provided by Suriname’s electricity company, the Energie Bedrijven Suriname (EBS). Efforts to construct a sampling frame in the interior of the country were more involved. As the EBS does not cover the interior of the country, a listing exercise had to be carried out in a selection of small villages. Survey weights were constructed to account for differences in the probability of inclusion by geographical domain and to correct for nonresponses. As the 2022 SLC is a multipurpose survey, it covers a large range of outcomes. The survey contains 21 sections, some of which are critical for understanding household consumption and poverty. They include sections on personal expenses, education expenses, and household consumption of (or expenditure on) food and beverages, clothing and footwear, and frequently and less-frequently purchased non-food items. Appendix A1.2 returns to these sections. But the survey also covers a wide range of other domains, including sections on education, health, employment, food security, and housing. The Poverty and Equity Assessment as well as this and the other two annexes draw extensively on all these sections. It is worth noting a few specific observations on the organization of the fieldwork and quality control procedures. Because of the length of the questionnaire, households were visited on multiple occasions. In principle, proxy responses were not allowed; each individual household member had to provide his or her relevant information. Extensive quality assurance protocols were in place to ensure the delivery of reliable results. These included checks built into the data processing software, daily review of completed surveys, randomized audio supervision, and audio supervision feedback to enumerators. APPENDIX A1.2. CONSUMPTION AGGREGATES The consumption aggregate was constructed based on the different survey modules providing information on individual and household expenditure. This appendix provides a summary description of how the construction of this aggregate was carried out. It is based on a forthcoming World Bank note entitled “Constructing Harmonized Consumption-based Welfare 10 Available at https://mydata.iadb.org/Social-Protection/2022-Suriname-Survey-of-Living-Conditions/prbn-x74x/about_ data (accessed June 16, 2024). 39 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT Aggregates for Poverty and Inequality Analysis in Caribbean Countries” by Saavedra and Sanchez (Forthcoming). That note compares efforts to harmonize household survey data in multiple countries in the Caribbean (including Grenada, Jamaica, and St. Lucia).11 The harmonization of the consumption aggregate was carried out in line with global best practices. To be precise, the harmonization of the consumption aggregate closely follows the guidelines of Mancini and Vecchi (2022). These guidelines, in turn, are an update to the seminal work of Deaton and Zaidi (2002) and are applied globally by the World Bank as the standard for constructing consumption aggregates. In accordance with these guidelines, the consumption aggregate measures the value of four types of consumption: food, non-food, durables, and housing. While this measurement at first may sound straightforward, the reality is complex. Many decisions need to be made along the way to construct a consumption aggregate. And some of these decisions can have significant implications for estimated consumption and poverty. Interestingly, for the case of Suriname, both the IDB and the World Bank independently generated a consumption aggregate.12 These two aggregates, although not identical, lead to very similar results and thus give a sense of confidence in the accuracy of the findings. There are a few respects in which the construction of the consumption aggregate in Suriname had to depart from that which is optimal. First, the food component of the consumption aggregate reflects expenditure on food rather than consumption of food. To the extent that the value of food consumed differs from the value of food purchased, this could lead to some distortions. Moreover, although the 2022 SLC does collect information about household ownership of durable goods, it does not collect the information needed to estimate what is called the “use value” of these goods, and hence this is not reflected in the consumption aggregate. Moreover, households that own their dwelling were not asked to estimate the rental value of their home. What are called “hedonic regressions” techniques were therefore applied to estimate the value of the housing component of the consumption aggregate for households that own their home. APPENDIX A1.3. POVERTY LINES This appendix shows results for three different poverty lines: Suriname’s national poverty lines, the poverty lines for Suriname calculated by the IDB, and the World Bank’s international poverty lines. The appendix summarizes how the three poverty lines were calculated and compares them. A Multidimensional Poverty Working Group recently established and then updated Suriname’s national poverty line (Sobhie and Kisoensingh 2023). The working group determined the national poverty line based on a basic needs approach. It relied on the 2013/2014 household budget survey and Consumer Price Index data. The national poverty line reflects the cost of acquiring a minimum food basket and basic non-food expenditure (at a 60/40 ratio). An equivalence scale was applied to determine the total national poverty line at the household level. 11 This effort note was prepared by a team led by Trinidad Saavedra. 12 For the IDB aggregate, see the Methodological Report on the Consumption Aggregate and Poverty Lines, available at https://mydata.iadb.org/Social-Protection/2022-Suriname-Survey-of-Living-Conditions/prbn-x74x/about_data (ac- cessed June 16, 2024). 40 The IDB followed a comparable procedure to establish its own poverty line for Suriname. To establish an extreme poverty line, the IDB (Sobrado 2018) calculated the cost of purchasing a minimum caloric intake for the average person in Suriname. The moderate poverty line also includes the cost of basic non-food consumption. This cost was approximated by calculating the share of non- food consumption in the consumption aggregate of the poorest households. The poverty lines were adjusted for prices in each region (Greater Paramaribo, other coastal areas, and the interior). The World Bank uses three poverty lines for international comparisons. The poverty lines approximate the average national poverty lines applied by poor countries, lower-middle-income countries, and upper-middle-income countries. For more discussion, see Jolliffe et al. (2022). Table A1.1 shows the different poverty lines. For comparability, they are all expressed in daily 2017 purchasing power parity (PPP) U.S. dollars. The national poverty line differs substantially by household composition. For a one-person household, it is US$13.38 2017 PPP daily. For a household comprised of four adults and four children, the poverty line is US$5.91 2017 PPP daily per capita. The average IDB extreme and moderate poverty lines are US$3.05 and US$7.76 2017 PPP daily per capita, respectively, with modest variation by region. The World Bank’s extreme poverty line (US$2.15 2017 PPP daily per capita) and upper-middle- income line (US$6.85) are each about US$0.90 2017 PPP daily per capita lower than the IDB extreme and moderate poverty lines. TABLE A1.1. POVERTY LINES EXPRESSED IN DAILY 2017 PURCHASING POWER PARITY 2017 U.S. DOLLARS A. World Bank Poverty Lines Extreme US$2.15         LMIC US$3.65         UMIC US$6.85         B. IDB Poverty lines   Region  Greater Paramar- Coastal Other Interior Average   ibo Extreme US$3.15 US$2.97 US$2.45 US$3.05   Moderate US$8.28 US$6.70 US$6.04 US$7.76   C. National Poverty Lines           Number of Children  Number of Adults 0 1 2 3 4+ 1 US$13.38 US$9.47 US$7.91 US$7.02 US$6.42 2 US$10.58 US$8.58 US$7.48 US$6.77 US$6.25 3 US$9.22 US$7.93 US$7.10 US$6.52 US$6.08 4 US$8.36 US$7.43 US$6.78 US$6.29 US$5.91 Sources: Jolliffe et al. (2022); Sobhie and Kisoensingh (2023); and Sobrado (2023). Note: LMIC: lower-middle-income country; UMIC: upper-middle-income country. 41 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT APPENDIX A1.4. MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY The measures of multidimensional poverty presented follow the approach of Suriname’s Multidisciplinary Poverty Working Group (Sobhie and Kisoensingh 2023). The working group established a Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) that can be applied to UNICEF’s Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS). The index covers four domains – health, education, standard of living, and socioeconomic security – each covering a series of indicators. Examples of these indicators include that the head of the household did not complete at least junior high school, the household does not have access to quality cooking fuel, and others. Each domain carries an equal weight of one-fourth, which is then divided equally among the indicators in the domain. For instance, if a domain has four indicators, each indicator in the domain carries a weight of one-sixteenth. A household is classified as poor if the positive scores combine to a total weight of one-fourth or more. The MPI had to be adjusted to the IDB’s Survey of Living Conditions (SLC). Not all of the indicators available in the UNICEF MICS are available in the SLC. Therefore, an effort was made to approximate the domains and indicators in the MICS survey. Table A1.2 shows the indicators available for each round of the MICS (2006, 2010, and 2018) and each round of the SLC (2016 and 2022). The table provides a description of the MPI indicators. There is some overlap in the indicators between each domain in the MICS and the SLC. But the indicators included in each domain in the MICS and the SLC are never identical. For this reason (and because there are other methodological differences in the way the MICS and the SLC data were collected), it is not possible to generate a combined time series including both the MICS and the SLC data. TABLE A1.2. MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY INDEX INDICATORS AVAILABLE BY SURVEY MICS MICS MICS Dimension Indicator SLC 2017 SLC 2022 2006 2010 2018 Mortality X - X - - Chronic illness - - - X X Health (1/4) Dysfunctionality - - X X X Nutrition X X X X - Level of education X X X X X ICT skills - - - - X School attendance X X X X X Education (1/4) Communication - - - X X Literacy - - - X X Learning delay X X X X X 42 Cooking fuel X X X X X Sanitary facilities X X X X X Residence or place of living - X X - - Drinking water supply X X X X X Standard of living (1/4) Electricity X X X X - Housing and living condi- X X X X X tions Overcrowding X X X X X Household appliances X X X X X Financial support - - X X X Medical insurance - - X X X Socioeconomic Employment status - - - X X security (1/4) Safety - - X X X Dependency ratio X X X X X Source: Prepared by the authors. Note: ICT: information and communications technology; MICS: Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey; SLC: Survey of Living Conditions; TABLE A1.3. DESCRIPTION OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY INDEX INDICATORS Cut-off point: The household lacks/does not have (qualitative/optimal) Dimension Indicator access or experiences a disadvantaged or undesirable situation in relation to (indicator), if… There is at least one death before the average age of life expectancy is Mortality reported. Chronic illness At least one member of the household has a chronic illness. Health (1/4) At least one member of the household has a disability, dysfunctionality, or Dysfunctionality has been declared unfit for the job market. He/she lives in a household where there is at least one child under the age Nutrition of 5 who is malnourished or severely overweight. The head of the household has not completed at least junior high school Level of education education. ICT skills There is no member in the household with a minimum level of ICT basic skills. There is at least one member in the household in the 6-16 age group who is School attendance no longer attending school. Education (1/4) The household does not have access to any of the following communication/ Communication information sources: newspaper, radio, television, Internet, mobile phone. At least one person in the household is illiterate, unable to read and write, Literacy or has never attended school. At least one person in the 6-16 year old age group has a learning delay of Learning delay two or more years compared to the required level. 43 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT Cooking fuel The household does not have access to quality cooking fuel sources. The household does not have access to quality sanitation facilities and/or Sanitary facilities shares these facilities with other households. Drinking water The household does not have access to quality drinking water facilities supply located within a range of 200 meters. Drinking water defined as in SGD. Electricity The household does not have access to quality electricity supply. Housing and living The material of the residential dwelling such as the roof, walls, and floor is Standard of conditions inferior, or the household does not have its own residential dwelling. living (1/4) Overcrowding The household has more than three people per sleeping area. The household has access to less than half of the following household appliances and possessions (or similar items): radio, television, telephone, Household computer, means of transportation, washing machine, microwave oven, appliances air conditioner/fan, water pump, gas stove with or without oven, and refrigerator. Residence The residence where the members of the family live is not their own. At least one household member receives financial support other than old Financial support age allowance (Algemene Ouderdomsvoorziening - AOV) from the govern- ment as the main income to cover living expenses. At least one member of the household does not have health insurance or is Socioeco- Medical insurance covered by basic healthcare insurance (Basiszorgverzekering - BAZO). nomic Employment status No member of the household has a job. security (1/4) At least one member of the household was a victim of a crime in the past Safety year. The dependency ratio (number of household members/number of work- Dependency ratio ers) is more than 2. Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: ICT: information and communications technology. APPENDIX A1.5. COMPARISON OF REPORTED INCOME AND CONSUMPTION This report primarily focuses on consumption-based measures of poverty. One reason is that there appears to be underreporting of income in the 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions data (a phenomenon that is not uncommon for household surveys).13 As can be seen in panel A of Figure A1.27, there is a fairly strong correlation between reported income and consumption. However, panel B shows that reported income is below reported consumption throughout the entire distribution. In the bottom decile, reported consumption (US$3.77) exceeds reported income (US$2.84) by a factor of 1.3. In higher deciles the discrepancy increases. In the top decile, reported consumption exceeds reported income by a factor of 2.2. 13 Another reason is that income data are missing for a share (approximately 5 percent) of households. 44 As a result, the estimated poverty rate for Suriname would be markedly higher when relying on reported income. Poverty as measured in accordance with the World Bank’s upper-middle- income line of US$6.85 (2017 purchasing power parity) would be 52.5 percent. Poverty as measured in accordance with the national poverty line would be 54.3 percent. FIGURE A1.27. APPARENT UNDERREPORTING OF INCOME DATA IN THE 2022 SURINAME SUR- VEY OF LIVING CONDITIONS A. Household Income and Consumption B. Reported Income and Consumption Average daily 2017 PPP U.S. dollars 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Consumption decile Income Consumption Source: 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: (A) Correlation between household reported income and consumption (in logs). (B) Average per capita daily reported income and consumption by consumption decile (in 2017 PPP US dollars). Daily income and consumption per capita in 2017 purchasing power parity U.S. dollars. APPENDIX A1.6. RESULTS BASED ON PANEL DATA As part of the 2022 Survey of Living Conditions (SLC), an attempt was made to re-interview households that had also participated in the 2016 SLC. In total, about 39.6 percent of the households included in the 2022 SLC had also been covered in the 2016 SLC. These households can be used to generate a panel dataset to examine changes over time. Analysis suggests that the households covered in both rounds of the SLC are not a random sample of the households in the 2022 data. This can be seen in Table A1.4. For instance, these households tend to be smaller, with an older head, and with fewer working-age adults. However, the differences tend to be small and there is value in looking at trends over time in panel households. 45 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT TABLE A1.4. CHARACTERISTICS OF PANEL HOUSEHOLDS DIFFER FROM THOSE OF THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD (1) (2) (3) (4) Only SLC SLC 2017 and t-Stat Means Test Characteristic All 2022 2022 ((3) – (2)) Total number of persons 3.78 3.95 3.64 -3.63 Head of household’s age 38.11 37.20 38.87 1.82 Number of children 0.99 1.08 0.92 -3.02 Number of elderly (65+) 0.28 0.26 0.30 1.94 Number of adults (15 to 64) 2.50 2.61 2.42 -3.12 Number of employed 1.55 1.66 1.46 -4.21 Number of self-employed 0.21 0.19 0.22 1.10 Number of members working in… Agriculture 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.32 Manufacturing 0.23 0.26 0.21 -2.46 Services 1.16 1.24 1.10 -3.43 Public administration 0.64 0.72 0.57 -4.34 Education and health 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.36 Source: 2016/2017 and 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: The table compares average characteristics of households on the 2022 Survey of Living Conditions (SLC) according to whether or not they were also interviewed for the 2016/2017 SLC. Column (1) shows average characteristics for all households in the 2022 SLC. Column (2) presents average characteristics for households interviewed only in the 2022 SLC. Column (3) is for households present in both survey waves. Column (4) shows t-statistics for hypothesis tests where the null hypothesis is that the average of column (3) minus the average on column (2) equals zero. The panel data poverty trends mimic those observed in the overall sample. Figure A1.28 replicates the results on changes in poverty from 2017 to 2022 discussed in Section 4.2 and displayed in Figure A1.26. However, this time the sample is restricted to households in the panel data (i.e., the subset of households observed both in 2016 and 2022). It is relevant to note that the overall 2022 poverty levels are quite comparable for the full sample and the panel sample. And the trends are also qualitatively similar in the full sample and the panel sample. In both cases, there appears to be a decline in poverty when the higher poverty lines are considered, while there may have been an increase in more extreme forms of poverty. 46 FIGURE A1.28. SURINAME: TRENDS IN THE PANEL DATA MIMIC THOSE IN THE OVERALL SAM- PLE (PERCENT) 25 22,7 20 17,6 18,2 15,7 15 10 4,0 5 2,3 1,1 0,1 0 UMIC US$6.85 LMIC US$3.65 Poor countries National poverty line US$2.15 2022 2016 Sources: 2016/2017 and 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: The national poverty line depends on household composition. The World Bank international poverty lines are expressed in 2017 purchasing power parity U.S. dollars. Sample restricted to panel households. LMIC: lower-middle-income country; UMIC: upper-middle-income country. APPENDIX A1.7. ADDITIONAL POVERTY PROFILE TABLES TABLE A1.5. POVERTY PROFILE: SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS (PERCENT) Poverty Rate Poor Vulnerable Middle Class and Total   (US$6.85 PPP daily) (US$14) Population   (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Region           Greater Paramaribo 16.8 67.7 68.5 73.2 70.4 Rest of the coastal region 15.6 18.3 20.2 21.5 20.5 Interior 26.9 14.0 11.3 5.2 9.1 Ethnicity            Creole/Afro-Surinamese 12.3 10.6 13.5 18.3 15.1 Hindustani 17.8 27.9 27.2 27.4 27.4 Maroon 32.9 40.2 22.2 13.1 21.3 Amerindian/Indigenous 29.0 4.2 2.5 1.9 2.5 Javanese 9.4 8.7 16.1 19.2 16.2 Mixed 8.8 8.4 17.9 18.7 16.6 Other 0.9 0.0 0.6 1.4 0.9 Gender           Female 18.3 52.5 50.2 49.3 50.2 Male 16.7 47.5 49.8 50.7 49.8 47 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT Age           0-5 28.3 15.6 9.1 7.7 9.6 6-11 25.4 16.0 12.5 7.7 11.0 12-14 24.0 7.8 6.2 4.4 5.7 15-17 22.0 7.1 6.2 4.5 5.6 18-24 17.6 11.7 12.9 10.4 11.6 25-60 13.5 34.3 42.9 49.5 44.3 60+ 10.7 7.4 10.2 15.7 12.1 Missing age 44.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 Source: Poverty assessment team based on the 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Column (1) shows the poverty group by category in the stub column. Columns (2) – (4) show the share of the population by each group listed in the column headings. Greater Paramaribo consists of the capital Paramaribo and some urban parts of the Wanica district. The rest of the coastal region consists of the districts of Wanica (remaining part), Para, Saramacca, Commewijne, Nickerie, and Coroni. The interior consists of the districts of Marowijne, Brokopondo, and Sipaliwini. TABLE A1.6. POVERTY PROFILE: HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION (PERCENT) Poverty Rate Vulnerable Middle Class Poor Total (US$6.85 PPP (US$6.85- and Up (US$14)   (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Children in household           No children 8.0 15.5 27.7 46.5 33.8 Any children 22.3 84.5 72.3 53.5 66.2 1-3 children 17.3 55.9 63.1 50.8 56.4 3+ children 51.3 28.6 9.2 2.7 9.7 Strict dependents (<6 and >80)           No 12.3 37.0 48.4 62.8 52.7 Yes 23.3 63.0 51.6 37.2 47.3 Number of household members           1 2.1 0.5 1.5 6.9 3.7 2 6.8 3.5 5.7 14.1 9.0 3 9.1 7.0 10.9 18.0 13.3 4 9.1 11.0 20.6 25.8 21.2 5 13.5 16.0 24.0 19.9 20.8 6 28.4 17.9 11.9 7.5 11.0 7 27.2 10.3 8.1 3.8 6.6 8 33.6 12.4 8.6 2.2 6.5 9 47.5 9.3 4.2 0.4 3.4 10+ 47.3 12.2 4.5 1.4 4.5 48 Household composition           Single 2.1 0.5 1.5 6.9 3.7 Couple without children 2.8 0.7 2.6 7.7 4.5 Couple with children 17.0 34.3 34.8 36.1 35.3 Single parent with children 20.0 11.3 9.0 10.2 9.9 Multigenerational household 21.8 38.5 34.5 24.8 30.9 Other 16.3 14.7 17.7 14.4 15.7 Source: Poverty assessment team based on the 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Column (1) shows the poverty group by category in the stub column. Columns (2) – (4) show the share of the population by each group listed in the column headings. PPP: purchasing power parity. TABLE A1.7. POVERTY PROFILE: EDUCATION (PERCENT) Poverty Rate Vulnerable Middle Class Poor Total (US$6.85 (US$6.85- and Up (US$14)   (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Household head’s education status           None 29.3 42.4 22.0 17.5 23.2 Primary 16.1 34.6 42.4 27.5 34.4 Middle school 9.0 14.0 24.6 29.0 24.9 High school 12.1 8.8 8.6 15.3 11.6 Higher education 0.5 0.2 2.5 10.8 5.8 Women’s education status (15+)                None 26.9 32.2 18.3 10.7 16.4 Primary 17.2 39.8 35.0 27.1 31.8 Middle school 9.2 15.3 23.9 24.0 22.8 High school 9.4 12.4 17.3 20.3 18.1 Higher education 0.4 0.3 5.5 17.9 10.9 Men’s education status (15+)                None 23.8 39.8 19.7 15.3 19.9 Primary 11.9 34.4 39.7 30.4 34.4 Middle school 7.6 17.3 26.5 29.7 27.0 High school 7.6 8.5 11.6 15.7 13.3 Higher education 0.0 0.0 2.5 8.9 5.4 School attendance by age                0-5 28.52 31.26 33.30 31.23 28.52 6-11 93.81 99.17 98.45 97.54 93.81 12-14 92.26 98.09 99.77 97.37 92.26 49 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT 15-17 91.89 91.06 92.77 91.90 91.89 18-24 33.45 48.21 55.90 48.81 33.45 Source: Poverty assessment team based on the 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Column (1) shows the poverty group by category in the stub column. Columns (2) – (4) show the share of the population by each group listed in the column headings. PPP: purchasing power parity. TABLE A1.8. POVERTY PROFILE: LABOR MARKET CHARACTERISTICS (PERCENT) Poverty Rate Vulnerable Middle Class Poor Total (US$6.85 (US$6.85- and Up (US$14)   (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) In the labor force           No 21.4 47.8 34.9 29.6 34.5 Yes 12.1 52.2 65.1 70.4 65.5 Unemployed No 17.2 84.4 90.7 95.9 92.5 Yes 25.4 15.6 9.3 4.1 7.5 Informal employment No 7.7 47.7 66.8 69.1 66.0 Yes 16.3 52.3 33.2 30.9 34.0 Sector (of employed) Agriculture 17.1 10.1 6.7 5.2 6.3 Mining 4.9 1.7 5.0 3.2 3.7 Manufacturing 12.9 8.5 7.7 6.2 7.0 Construction 18.5 14.1 9.8 5.7 8.1 Retail 7.0 4.0 6.7 6.1 6.1 Hospitality 13.9 7.0 4.6 5.6 5.4 Public administration 4.5 2.6 5.6 7.4 6.2 Education and heath 6.1 9.3 15.0 18.3 16.1 Household as employers 16.2 4.3 2.5 2.7 2.8 Administrative services 6.6 9.2 12.5 17.4 14.7 Transportation 6.9 4.3 5.8 7.7 6.6 Utilities 6.6 1.9 4.3 2.4 3.0 Other 17.4 23.0 13.9 12.3 14.0 Source: Poverty assessment team based on the 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Column (1) shows the poverty group by category in the stub column. Columns (2) – (4) show the share of the population by each group listed in the column headings. Labor force equals the employed and unemployed population. Informal worker status is defined by occupation. Specifically, informal workers are unskilled self-employed workers, salaried workers in a small private firm, and zero-income workers. PPP: purchasing power parity. 50 TABLE A1.9. POVERTY PROFILE: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS AND PHYSICAL ASSETS (PERCENT) Poverty Rate Poor Vulnerable Middle Class and Total   (US$6.85 PPP daily) (US$14) Population   (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Housing           Homeowner           No 14.7 42.1 38.2 31.9 35.3 Yes 11.0 57.9 61.8 68.1 64.7 Housing material Good quality 12.1 94.5 95.5 96.1 95.7 Low-quality 15.7 5.5 4.5 3.9 4.3 Access to water No 20.4 31.8 20.7 15.2 19.1 Yes 10.4 68.2 79.3 84.8 80.9 Access to bathroom No 36.2 18.7 4.7 4.6 6.3 Yes 10.7 81.3 95.3 95.4 93.7 Access to electricity No 50.0 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 Yes 12.2 98.9 99.9 99.8 99.7             Physical Assets           Owns more than half of list of appliances         No 8.1 49.9 25.9 16.5 23.8 Yes 25.8 50.1 74.1 83.5 76.2 Owns TV No 21.2 30.1 19.4 13.4 17.4 Yes 10.4 69.9 80.6 86.6 82.6 Has cable TV No 13.1 99.8 97.3 90.2 93.8 Yes 0.4 0.2 2.7 9.8 6.2 Has video device No 12.5 97.5 96.5 94.4 95.5 Yes 7.0 2.5 3.5 5.6 4.5 Has car No 21.8 65.0 40.5 27.9 36.7 Yes 6.8 35.0 59.5 72.1 63.3 Source: Poverty assessment team based on the 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Column (1) shows the poverty group by category in the stub column. Columns (2) – (4) show the share of the population by each group listed in the column headings. PPP: purchasing power parity. 51 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT TABLE A1.10. POVERTY PROFILE: ACCESS TO MARKETS (PERCENT) Poverty Rate Vulnerable Middle Class Poor Total Popula- (US$6.85 (US$6.85- and Up (US$14)   (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Phone           No 16.6 3.2 3.0 1.8 2.4 Yes 12.2 96.8 97.0 98.2 97.6 Landline No 17.6 90.8 68.8 53.6 63.3 Yes 3.1 9.2 31.2 46.4 36.7 Cellphone No 13.0 3.3 3.7 2.8 3.1 Yes 12.3 96.7 96.3 97.2 96.9 Bank account No 23.4 46.9 29.7 19.1 26.1 Yes 8.1 53.1 70.3 80.9 73.9 Internet No 19.5 42.2 30.7 20.5 26.6 Yes 9.7 57.8 69.3 79.5 73.4 Source: Poverty assessment team based on the 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions (IDB 2022). Note: Column (1) shows the poverty group by category in the stub column. Columns (2) – (4) show the share of the population by each group listed in the column headings. PPP: purchasing power parity. 52 REFERENCES 53 SURINAME POVERTY AND EQUITY ASSESSMENT Arteaga, Maricruz, Diether Beuermann, and Jeetendra Khadan. 2021. The Consequences of COVID-19 on Livelihoods in Suriname: Evidence from a Telephone Survey. IDB Technical Note No. 2157. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC. Available at https://publications.iadb.org/en/consequences- covid-19-livelihoods-suriname-evidence-telephone-survey Attanasio, Orazio P., and Miguel Székely. 1999. An Asset-Based Approach to the Analysis of Poverty in Latin America. IDB Working Paper No. R-376, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=223582 Bussolo, Maurizio, and Luis F. Lopez-Calva. 2014. Shared Prosperity: Paving the Way in Europe and Central Asia. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/ Feature%20Story/ECA/shared-prosperity-paving-the-way-in-europe-and-central-asia.pdf Buitrago-Hernandez, Paola, Jacobus De Hoop, Phoebe Ishak, Raquel Melgard Calderon, and Hugo Ñopo. 2024. Poverty Is Not Gender Neutral in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank Blog (March 1). Available at https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/latinamerica/poverty-not-gender-neutral-latin-america- and-caribbean Carter, Michael R., and Christopher B. Barrett. 2006. The Economics of Poverty Traps and Persistent Poverty: An Asset-Based Approach. Journal of Development Studies 42(2): 178–99. Deaton, Angus, and Salman Zaidi. 2022. Guidelines for Constructing Consumption Aggregates for Welfare Analysis. Living Standards Measurement Study Working Paper No. 135. Available at https:// documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/206561468781153320/pdf/Guidelines-for-constructing- consumption-aggregates-for-welfare-analysis.pdf Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). 2022. 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions. IDB, Washington, DC. Available at https://mydata.iadb.org/Social-Protection/2022-Suriname-Survey-of- Living-Conditions/prbn-x74x/about_data Jolliffe, Dean, Daniel Gerszon Mahler, Christoph Lakner, Aziz Atamanov, and Samuel Kofi Tetteh-Baah. 2022. Assessing the Impact of the 2017 PPPs on the International Poverty Line and Global Poverty. Policy Research Working Paper No. 9941. World Bank, Washington, DC. Available at https://documents1. worldbank.org/curated/en/353811645450974574/pdf/Assessing-the-Impact-of-the-2017-PPPs-on- the-International-Poverty-Line-and-Global-Poverty.pdf Lopez-Calva, Luis F., and Carlos Rodríguez-Castelán. 2016. Pro-Growth Equity A Policy Framework for the Twin Goals. Policy Research Working Paper No. 7897. World Bank, Washington, DC. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876953 Mancini, Giulia, and Giovanni Vecchi. 2022. On the Construction of a Consumption Aggregate for Inequality and Poverty Analysis. World Bank, Washington, DC. Available at https://documents1.worldbank.org/ curated/en/099225003092220001/pdf/P1694340e80f9a00a09b20042de5a9cd47e.pdf Republic of Suriname. 2022. Financieel Jaarplan 2023. Available at https://gov.sr/wp-content/ uploads/2022/10/Financieel-Jaarplan-2023_final.pdf 54 Republic of Suriname. 2024. Financieel Jaarplan 2024. Available at https://www.gov.sr/wp-content/ uploads/2023/10/Financieel-Jaarplan-2024.pdf Saavedra, Trinidad, and Diana Sanchez. Forthcoming. Constructing harmonized consumption- based welfare aggregates for poverty and inequality analysis in Caribbean countries. World Bank, Washington, DC. Sobhie, Rosita, and Anjali Kisoensingh. 2023. Methoden en technieken ter vaststelling en bestrijding van armoede in Suriname Multidisciplinaire Weregroep Armoedegendsbepaling 2020-2023. Ministerie van Arbeid Werkgelegenheid & Jeugdzaken. Available at https://gov.sr/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ STATISTIEK-ARMOEDE-FINAL-DRUK-230423.pdf Sobrado, Carlos. 2023. Methodological Report on the Consumption Aggregate and Poverty Lines based on the 2022 Suriname Survey of Living Conditions. IDB, Washington, DC. Available at https://mydata. iadb.org/Social-Protection/2022-Suriname-Survey-of-Living-Conditions/prbn-x74x/about_data World Bank. 2023. Suriname Systematic Country Diagnostic. June. World Bank, Washington, DC. Available at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/d022eb9f-03a2-4378-a171- 825991ce08ad 55